ᐅ Roof renovation and adding an additional floor using masonry, compliant with energy saving regulations
Created on: 7 Aug 2014 10:55
E
elToritoGood morning,
My wife and I bought an old building last year (built in 1960), a detached single-family house in a rural area. Since then, we have been busy renovating it—essentially a full refurbishment.
The building consists more or less of two parts: a main house (about 100sqm (1076 sq ft)) with an extension. Both have pitched roofs, the extension slightly lower with a pitched roof at a 20° slope. The roofs were not insulated, and the surface consists of asbestos cement sheets (Eternit).
The issue concerns the roof of the main house, which slopes to the south and north. On the north side, the roof extends very low down to the eaves, so that on the upper floor, from about the middle of the room, someone who is 1.65m (5 ft 5 in) tall can no longer stand upright. At the eaves side, there is only about 20cm (8 inches) from the floor to the roof, so we decided to raise the north side to create an isosceles pitched roof (if that is the correct term), so the ceiling height on the entire upper floor is uniform and the rooms can be better used.
The main house consists of a lower floor, above that a concrete slab, and above that the roof without any intermediate ceiling.
The main problem is the raising of the roof. I am currently discussing this with the structural engineer, and I’m quite uncertain how to proceed. The upper floor has two masonry and brick-veneered gable walls (east and west). The north and south sides are timber frame walls, internally covered with what seems to be Teraklit boards, and the exterior façade is wooden (underneath, probably also Teraklit?).
Both timber frame walls are to be removed and rebuilt. The existing roof structure is unlikely to support a tiled roof with the planned insulation package (200mm (8 inches) exterior rafter insulation plus tiles). The north side will be raised. Now the question is whether to rebuild these walls as timber frame or masonry.
I prefer masonry. About 10 to 12 houses my parents built and renovated were all made of masonry; I don’t know anything else. In the past, there was never the need to comply with any energy-saving regulations. Since we are demolishing the upper walls and renewing the roof, we apparently have to follow the energy-saving regulations (energy efficiency standards).
My original plan was: demolish the old walls, build up with sand-lime bricks, add the roof structure and roof, plaster the exterior façade, and internally install a 5cm (2 inches) aerated concrete block wall plus an additional 3cm (1.2 inches) of polystyrene insulation and 1cm (0.4 inches) gypsum board. Later, after building the garage or completing the interior work, we would take care of adding a brick veneer façade.
Now, the structural engineer (who also needs to issue the energy performance certificate) says we can’t do it this way. We must meet the energy efficiency requirements immediately, and a 24cm (9.5 inches) masonry wall won’t meet them (I have not yet told him about the internal insulation plan, probably because I am afraid that won’t be compliant either). With a timber frame wall of that thickness, the energy efficiency requirements can be met.
I really struggle to come to terms with timber frame construction, and I can tell the structural engineer prefers this method (which makes sense since the carpenter recommended it).
The engineer is already calculating the roof structure. To calculate the building’s load-bearing capacity, we need to decide as soon as possible whether we want masonry or timber frame construction—if we want any chance of finishing the roof this year.
As I understand it, if we go with timber frame walls, we will first have to cast a ring beam on the upper floor (if one does not already exist; I don’t know because the old plans and statics are quite difficult to read). I’m also not sure if the concrete slab (which I believe is around 12cm (5 inches) thick) can serve as the ring beam.
If masonry is used, a ring beam will probably have to be placed on the masonry wall, as was the case with the extension.
Time is very important. We already live on the lower floor in three rooms, and after demolition, there will not be much time before the next rain arrives. The plan was to demolish, waterproof the concrete slab, prop up the old roof structure on stilts and cover it with a tarpaulin (as we did on the extension), to make it somewhat weatherproof. We would have to somehow seal the stairwell opening.
But this sequence can only happen after planning, and planning is currently underway. I would still prefer masonry. I have an appointment with the builder this week. However, I don’t really understand the energy efficiency requirements. New walls upstairs must comply with these requirements, okay, understood. The external façade should be brick veneer, but energy efficiency standards do not apply to the lower floor. So, we are practically forced to add brick veneer on the lower floor as well, because we need a base for the brick veneer of the upper floor.
If it can’t be helped, then it will be timber frame. But the thought of hollow walls bothers me... And every time you want to hang something, you have to know where the timber studs are located inside and outside. I imagine any later changes would be more complicated. For example, if I want to install an outdoor socket for Christmas lights, or something similar—this cannot all be fully planned in advance; you always forget something or want it differently later. I also don’t know how the sound insulation will be. In the basement, I’m already bothered that you can hear the highway five kilometers away when lying in bed (depending on wind direction).
The ground floor foundations are probably pumice stone. The gable sides are fully covered with brick veneer from the ground up, and the north/south sides on the lower floor are plastered on the outside.
To carry out my planned approach (masonry and plaster on the outside), and later, when time/money allows, to add brick veneer or other cladding, what options do we have to comply with energy efficiency regulations if we want to use masonry?
Sorry for the long post.
Thank you.
My wife and I bought an old building last year (built in 1960), a detached single-family house in a rural area. Since then, we have been busy renovating it—essentially a full refurbishment.
The building consists more or less of two parts: a main house (about 100sqm (1076 sq ft)) with an extension. Both have pitched roofs, the extension slightly lower with a pitched roof at a 20° slope. The roofs were not insulated, and the surface consists of asbestos cement sheets (Eternit).
The issue concerns the roof of the main house, which slopes to the south and north. On the north side, the roof extends very low down to the eaves, so that on the upper floor, from about the middle of the room, someone who is 1.65m (5 ft 5 in) tall can no longer stand upright. At the eaves side, there is only about 20cm (8 inches) from the floor to the roof, so we decided to raise the north side to create an isosceles pitched roof (if that is the correct term), so the ceiling height on the entire upper floor is uniform and the rooms can be better used.
The main house consists of a lower floor, above that a concrete slab, and above that the roof without any intermediate ceiling.
The main problem is the raising of the roof. I am currently discussing this with the structural engineer, and I’m quite uncertain how to proceed. The upper floor has two masonry and brick-veneered gable walls (east and west). The north and south sides are timber frame walls, internally covered with what seems to be Teraklit boards, and the exterior façade is wooden (underneath, probably also Teraklit?).
Both timber frame walls are to be removed and rebuilt. The existing roof structure is unlikely to support a tiled roof with the planned insulation package (200mm (8 inches) exterior rafter insulation plus tiles). The north side will be raised. Now the question is whether to rebuild these walls as timber frame or masonry.
I prefer masonry. About 10 to 12 houses my parents built and renovated were all made of masonry; I don’t know anything else. In the past, there was never the need to comply with any energy-saving regulations. Since we are demolishing the upper walls and renewing the roof, we apparently have to follow the energy-saving regulations (energy efficiency standards).
My original plan was: demolish the old walls, build up with sand-lime bricks, add the roof structure and roof, plaster the exterior façade, and internally install a 5cm (2 inches) aerated concrete block wall plus an additional 3cm (1.2 inches) of polystyrene insulation and 1cm (0.4 inches) gypsum board. Later, after building the garage or completing the interior work, we would take care of adding a brick veneer façade.
Now, the structural engineer (who also needs to issue the energy performance certificate) says we can’t do it this way. We must meet the energy efficiency requirements immediately, and a 24cm (9.5 inches) masonry wall won’t meet them (I have not yet told him about the internal insulation plan, probably because I am afraid that won’t be compliant either). With a timber frame wall of that thickness, the energy efficiency requirements can be met.
I really struggle to come to terms with timber frame construction, and I can tell the structural engineer prefers this method (which makes sense since the carpenter recommended it).
The engineer is already calculating the roof structure. To calculate the building’s load-bearing capacity, we need to decide as soon as possible whether we want masonry or timber frame construction—if we want any chance of finishing the roof this year.
As I understand it, if we go with timber frame walls, we will first have to cast a ring beam on the upper floor (if one does not already exist; I don’t know because the old plans and statics are quite difficult to read). I’m also not sure if the concrete slab (which I believe is around 12cm (5 inches) thick) can serve as the ring beam.
If masonry is used, a ring beam will probably have to be placed on the masonry wall, as was the case with the extension.
Time is very important. We already live on the lower floor in three rooms, and after demolition, there will not be much time before the next rain arrives. The plan was to demolish, waterproof the concrete slab, prop up the old roof structure on stilts and cover it with a tarpaulin (as we did on the extension), to make it somewhat weatherproof. We would have to somehow seal the stairwell opening.
But this sequence can only happen after planning, and planning is currently underway. I would still prefer masonry. I have an appointment with the builder this week. However, I don’t really understand the energy efficiency requirements. New walls upstairs must comply with these requirements, okay, understood. The external façade should be brick veneer, but energy efficiency standards do not apply to the lower floor. So, we are practically forced to add brick veneer on the lower floor as well, because we need a base for the brick veneer of the upper floor.
If it can’t be helped, then it will be timber frame. But the thought of hollow walls bothers me... And every time you want to hang something, you have to know where the timber studs are located inside and outside. I imagine any later changes would be more complicated. For example, if I want to install an outdoor socket for Christmas lights, or something similar—this cannot all be fully planned in advance; you always forget something or want it differently later. I also don’t know how the sound insulation will be. In the basement, I’m already bothered that you can hear the highway five kilometers away when lying in bed (depending on wind direction).
The ground floor foundations are probably pumice stone. The gable sides are fully covered with brick veneer from the ground up, and the north/south sides on the lower floor are plastered on the outside.
To carry out my planned approach (masonry and plaster on the outside), and later, when time/money allows, to add brick veneer or other cladding, what options do we have to comply with energy efficiency regulations if we want to use masonry?
Sorry for the long post.
Thank you.
Hello,
hmm. I don’t see a button to edit the thread?
I think I may have already found an answer to my question... It’s always like this: you write extensively first, then start making plans... The answer is probably a lightweight concrete block with a mineral insulation core?
So, do we have the following options to comply with the energy-saving regulations?
1. Sand-lime brick with external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) / external wall insulation
2. Lightweight block with mineral insulation core
hmm. I don’t see a button to edit the thread?
I think I may have already found an answer to my question... It’s always like this: you write extensively first, then start making plans... The answer is probably a lightweight concrete block with a mineral insulation core?
So, do we have the following options to comply with the energy-saving regulations?
1. Sand-lime brick with external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) / external wall insulation
2. Lightweight block with mineral insulation core
Similar topics