Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.

When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.

We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.

I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.

TIA

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.

When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.

We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.

I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.

TIA

--
Grunff


Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
collapse.

If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.

Good luck with.

PS. And just another point. Ask your insurance company what they think.
(this came from the little woman sitting behind me, who seems to be up on
that sort of thing)

BigWallop wrote:

Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
collapse.

Well, yes, that's the obvious answer, but I'm looking for more
info at this stage.

TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because
[a] It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this
long, and is supported by a great big stone porch on the
outside, and [b] Even if it did, it really wouldn't be the end
of the world, and would give us a good reason to rebuild the house.


If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.

It's been on the move since at least the 60s, because we found
some 1960s newspapers stuffed into one of the bigger cracks.


Good luck with.

Thanks. No google link? ;-)

--
Grunff

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:08:07 +0100, Grunff wrote:

TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because
[a] It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this
long, and is supported by a great big stone porch on the
outside, and [b] Even if it did, it really wouldn't be the end
of the world, and would give us a good reason to rebuild the house.

[a] But you say it is still moving... What gives you confidence that the
movement will stop before it eventually collapses ? I don't think "it's
stood this long" is a particularly sound reason, engineering-wise !

[b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
won't come down with it.

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

I had a bulging back wall re-tied as part of the mortgage conditions on my
house - the outer leaf had come adrift from the inner (structural) wall.

--
Mail john rather than nospam...

John Laird wrote:

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.


Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.

Its really not expensive to put a tie rod through and tighten up the bolts.

Just make sure its as specified by certified engineers with liability insurance.

Then you are covered against mistakes.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.

What qualifications should one look for in a structural
engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
pages equal?

--
Grunff

John Laird wrote:

[b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
won't come down with it.

No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
of the world. That's what I'm saying.


I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
fully aware of the problem).

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
of the world. That's what I'm saying.

It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
down.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:20:32 +0100, Grunff wrote:

John Laird wrote:

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
fully aware of the problem).

Did you buy this house without a mortgage, out of interest ? I can't
imagine any lender approving a loan without further investigation (nor the
valuer missing a large bulge). Fwiw, the bulge in the outer wall of my
house was of the order of an inch, over about 10' in height. I was informed
that renewing the wall ties was a practical solution up to an inch or so.
Beyond that, it was rebuilding time. Not in itself a huge job as the outer
leaf is non-structural, but as it was above a large conservatory, not
trivial either.

--
Mail john rather than nospam...

Grunff wrote:

supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it

Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with it?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with
it?

I don't think so. First off, the wall isn't sinking - there's no
movement at ground level. It's bulging out, greatest bulge at
the centre of the wall. Second, I don't believe the porch walls
are tied in to the bulging wall - it appears to have just been
built there, in contact with but not attached to the wall.

--
Grunff

In message , Grunff
writes
TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because [a]
It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this long, and is
supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it
did, it really wouldn't be the end of the world, and would give us a
good reason to rebuild the house.

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)
When was the porch built?
Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very
slightly?

What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also. The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows' as
you have described.
If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall built on
spoil excavated from the back.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice; Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.


If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.

It's been on the move since at least the 60s, because we found some
1960s newspapers stuffed into one of the bigger cracks.

May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

--
mark

mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about
1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of
them has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which
had a big crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at
one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also. The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows' as
you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly
unlevel (slopes away from the house). But having said that, the
porch walls aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall built on
spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice; Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what
solution would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Grunff

In message , Grunff
writes
mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about 1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of them
has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which had a big
crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an
exaggerated movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down
vertically along the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out
also. The porch would tend to sink less where it is attached to the
main wall because of friction between it's (the porch) wall and the
main house wall; this shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows'
as you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly unlevel
(slopes away from the house). But having said that, the porch walls
aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.

Unless the floor is sinking independently of the walls. It's sitting on
the same stuff. Any indications? Gaps under skirtings etc?


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side
then this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element
of 'cut and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall
built on spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice;
Insurance company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits
of paper to write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what solution
would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?

Don't you be calling it a 'diagnosis' in public!
Underpinning could get pricey; cheaper than a rebuild though, depends
on how much digging it needs to get down to some decent stuff. Worth
trying bolted rods first just to see if it works. A mil a year isn't
exactly scary.


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old
chartered struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Yeah; be interesting

Thanks for your thoughts.

NP


--
mark

mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about
1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up
very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of
them has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which
had a big crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at
one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's
weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and
heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in
the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an
exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down
vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also.
The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall
because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house
wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so
it 'bows' as
you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly
unlevel (slopes away from the house). But having said that, the
porch walls aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill
side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an
element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall
built on
spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice;
Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits
of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what
solution would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any
old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Grunff

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:44:27 +0100, Grunff wrote:

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

As others have said, and perhaps to lend weight as if we were voting
on the next step, I'd consult someone who knows what they are talking
about. And your insurance company should be part of the deal.

It is possible that your insurance company has a get-out clause buried
in the fine print, in so far that at the time you purchased the
property there was a problem. That should have been noted by the
surveyor who inspected prior to purchase. Depending on his description
may be whether the insurance company feel they are liable (and like
all insurance companies their starting gambit will tend to be "not us,
guv!").

Remember that the Titanic didn't sink instantly after coming into
contact with a block of frozen water.

PoP

Subject: Bowing house wall - tie rods?
From: Grunff
Date: 05/10/03 19:44 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of.

Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.

Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.

It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.

When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.

We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.

I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.

I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.

I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.


Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
I'm not at all sure why women like men. We're argumentative, childish,
unsociable and extremely unappealing naked. I'm quite grateful they do though.

Dave Baker wrote:

Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.

Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.

Ok, it has some very shallow stone foundations. No deeper than a
foot.


I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.

Sounds reasonable.


I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.

I know - it's puzzled me too. I concluded that the bowing wall
must be pushing the porch out with it. I think if the porch was
going to sink it would just detatch from the house. I could be
wrong.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

I know - it's puzzled me too. I concluded that the bowing wall must be
pushing the porch out with it. I think if the porch was going to sink it
would just detatch from the house. I could be wrong.

I suppose that might prove a cheap solution. Take down the porch and
build a decent foundation under it. Then rebuild it, and it can act as a
buttress to prevent further movement of the wall!




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Grunff
writes
We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

Get a structural engineer in fast. It will cost around £175 to £400 or
so, for a visual inspection, initial prognosis and advice for further
inspection and/or cure.

The longer you leave it, the more chance of having to rebuild the wall
than using simple metal strapping.

I would get the engineer 1st - before involving your insurance co.. You
may not need, or want, to bother with insurance.

This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.


--
Richard Faulkner

Richard Faulkner wrote:

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

None of the above. I'm ... laid back.


This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.

What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.

--
Grunff

In article , Grunff
writes
Richard Faulkner wrote:

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

None of the above. I'm ... laid back.



I was being a bit tongue in cheek g, but you wont know when it moves
the millimetre from needing strapping to needing rebuilding.

This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.

What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.


A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.

A builders invoice for completion of said requirements

A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
work.



--
Richard Faulkner

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message


What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.


A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.

A builders invoice for completion of said requirements

A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
work.

Boy am I glad this is not my problem. The above advice is all sound.
Don't make a move until you have had good professional advice and don't
do anything until it all agrees.

A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.

If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.

Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael Mcneil wrote:

A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.

It's 70 years old (1930s), no concrete pad, no cavity.


If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.

Not sure about the roof theory. The wall is bulging most at 1st
floor floor level, not 1st floor ceiling level.


Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.

As I said, rebuilding wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as
it's justified.

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message


Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.

It doesn't take much for me to make a tit of myself. In this case it was
a combination of your writing and my reading.

Where are you living? Germany? (......152899.news.uni-berlin.de) I think
it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.

When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.

It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
skin. 8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding? Or is it a town house you
are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
separated, please.

We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.

Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.

If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
go before they come out the wall at the worst part.

I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.

So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.

Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.

What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael Mcneil wrote:

Where are you living? Germany?

Devon.


it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.

Not much of a rock bed, but a shallow loose stone foundation.


It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
skin.

And indeed it doesn't - just solid stone.


8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding?

Yes - sort of.


Or is it a town house you
are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
separated, please.

Ok, the house has a square footprint. The only structural walls
are the 4 outer walls. But intenally, it's divided up using
block partition walls. The movement of the outer wall is
evidenced by cracks where the interior partition wall (p) meets
the outer walls.

In this diagram, the top wall (which represents the house's
south facing external wall) is no longer very flat - it's
slightly convex.

________________
| p |
| p |
| p |
|ppppppppppppppp|
| p |
| p |
________p_______|


This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?

Yup.


This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.

You'd think that - but the greatest deflection of the outer wall
is not at roof level - it's at first floor floor level.


If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
go before they come out the wall at the worst part.

No supporting walls have been removed. The joists have a good
few inches yet.


So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.

I have no intention of selling up, and every intention of
implementing a fix. I just wanted the group's experiences.



I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.

Exactly.



What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.

Eh??

--
Grunff

Michael Mcneil wrote:

Where are you living? Germany?

Devon.


it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.

Not much of a rock bed, but a shallow loose stone foundation.


It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
skin.

And indeed it doesn't - just solid stone.


8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding?

Yes - sort of.


Or is it a town house you
are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
separated, please.

Ok, the house has a square footprint. The only structural walls
are the 4 outer walls. But intenally, it's divided up using
block partition walls. The movement of the outer wall is
evidenced by cracks where the interior partition wall (p) meets
the outer walls.

In this diagram, the top wall (which represents the house's
south facing external wall) is no longer very flat - it's
slightly convex.

________________
| p |
| p |
| p |
|ppppppppppppppp|
| p |
| p |
________p_______|


This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?

Yup.


This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.

You'd think that - but the greatest deflection of the outer wall
is not at roof level - it's at first floor floor level.


If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
go before they come out the wall at the worst part.

No supporting walls have been removed. The joists have a good
few inches yet.


So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.

I have no intention of selling up, and every intention of
implementing a fix. I just wanted the group's experiences.



I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.

Exactly.



What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.

Eh??

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Michael Mcneil wrote:

Where are you living? Germany?

Devon.


it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.

Not much of a rock bed, but a shallow loose stone foundation.


It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
skin.

And indeed it doesn't - just solid stone.


8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding?

Yes - sort of.


Or is it a town house you
are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
separated, please.

Ok, the house has a square footprint. The only structural walls
are the 4 outer walls. But intenally, it's divided up using
block partition walls. The movement of the outer wall is
evidenced by cracks where the interior partition wall (p) meets
the outer walls.

In this diagram, the top wall (which represents the house's
south facing external wall) is no longer very flat - it's
slightly convex.

________________
| p |
| p |
| p |
|ppppppppppppppp|
| p |
| p |
________p_______|


This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?

Yup.


This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.

You'd think that - but the greatest deflection of the outer wall
is not at roof level - it's at first floor floor level.


If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
go before they come out the wall at the worst part.

No supporting walls have been removed. The joists have a good
few inches yet.


So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.

I have no intention of selling up, and every intention of
implementing a fix. I just wanted the group's experiences.



I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.

Exactly.



What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.

Eh??

--
Grunff


ROFLMAO !!!!! Well, there you have it. Mr M,M, must be a structural
engineer by the way he's told you off. Or an arsehole who thinks he knows
everything. I know which I'm choosing. :-))

ROFLMAO !!!!!


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/03

Gnube wrote:
not a lot

Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.

The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
bowing centrally. This worries me enough to be glad you have an engineer
on the case already.

If you are not familiar with dear old Euler, just get a playing card or
similar, and place it on edge and press down on the top. Then bend it
vertically and do the same. Euler did the math to show why in the first
case it buckles, and in the second case it doesn't.

One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


Odd that Tamer Shafik and Grunff posted the same thing from the same
server in Berlin:

"Tamer Shafik" wrote in message


"Grunff" wrote in message


Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.

The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
bowing centrally.

One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.

Now we have settled that the roof is pushing the wall out and that it is
not a cavity wall. And apparently he has got an engineer on the job, can
we know why he hasn't been able to supply us with technical information?

Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
qualifications of the advisor.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael Mcneil wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


Odd that Tamer Shafik and Grunff posted the same thing from the same
server in Berlin:

"Tamer Shafik" wrote in message


"Grunff" wrote in message



Looks like a mistake on the server side.



Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.

The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
bowing centrally.


One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.


Now we have settled that the roof is pushing the wall out and that it is
not a cavity wall. And apparently he has got an engineer on the job, can
we know why he hasn't been able to supply us with technical information?

Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
qualifications of the advisor.




what is your problem? apaqrt from uisng hotmail that is...

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:28:16 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
wrote:



Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
qualifications of the advisor.

Is it necessary to be quite so rude??



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Michael Mcneil wrote:

Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
qualifications of the advisor.

I've said it before, and will probably say it again - Eh??

--
Grunff

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:28:16 UTC, "Michael Mcneil"
wrote:

Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters.

Hmmmm.our house is due to fall down then. Half of the house has joists
going one way, and in the rest of the house they're at right angles.
Obviously a design fault 100 years ago when it was built...


--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.

The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
bowing centrally. This worries me enough to be glad you have an engineer
on the case already.

And I would be worried too - if it wasn't for the big stone
porch stuck to the side of it! The porch is about 2m wide, and
central to the wall.

I'll let you know what the structural engineer says (next week).

If you are not familiar with dear old Euler, just get a playing card or
similar, and place it on edge and press down on the top. Then bend it
vertically and do the same. Euler did the math to show why in the first
case it buckles, and in the second case it doesn't.

Vague memories...

--
Grunff

In article lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil wrote:
What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.

I'd love to show you the 'professional help' my architect got from a
structural engineer when my roof conversion was under way - it added
*thousands* to the cost. And a back of a fag packet calculation showed
much of it to be unnecessary. And proved so subsequently at law.

It would be an ideal world where simply employing a pro - even with
letters after his name - would guarantee a satisfactory result. Life isn't
like that, though, so getting advice here - and knowing how to act on it -
is not the act of a retard.

Seems to me you are typical of many - you love spending other's money.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article , Dave Plowman
writes
In article lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil wrote:
What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.

I'd love to show you the 'professional help' my architect got from a
structural engineer when my roof conversion was under way - it added
*thousands* to the cost. And a back of a fag packet calculation showed
much of it to be unnecessary. And proved so subsequently at law.

It would be an ideal world where simply employing a pro - even with
letters after his name - would guarantee a satisfactory result. Life isn't
like that, though, so getting advice here - and knowing how to act on it -
is not the act of a retard.

Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
very, er, average . . . . .

Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .

But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
--
fred

fred wrote:

Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
very, er, average . . . . .

Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .

But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).

Asbolutely. I don't have any problem at all with paying people
for their time - after all, people pay me for mine. But that
doesn't mean I don't want to understand what's going on.

I have several friends who just can't understand why it is that
I service/repair my own cars/washing machines/whatever. Doesn't
seem to matter how many times I say *it's my hobby, I enjoy it*.

--
Grunff

In article ,
fred wrote:
Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
very, er, average . . . . .

Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .

But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).

Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn