WesternDesign

Are there any video tutorials on this process? I guess I have always just used the "line defaults".

Here are some other hazardous locations. Hope this helps.

Maybe this will help. One of my standard details here in Oregon. The detail in the lower right is for "Wet" locations (inside or out). At dry locations the height may be 36" or a rail is installed 34 to 38 inches above the walking surface. You could also use a 3m film on the inside surface that provides a safety rating. EXAMPLE: 3M™ Scotchshield™ Ultra Safety & Security Window Film. It looks like this would apply to the lower sash, not the entire window.

Reaching out for Simpson Strong Tie. Thanks!

I agree with this, but there is room for interpretation on the landings. As a plans examiner, I am looking for "minimums" since that is what the code is, (the minimum you can get away with under the law). As a designer I can, and do, ask for more. :-) With this in mind, I look at what minimum landing requirements are (usually 36" in the direction of travel and no less than the with of the stair provided, but it may be more in some cases) This makes sense if you have a 6' deep landing with a sloped ceiling. Do I have to maintain 6'-8" clear to the back of the 6'? What if there was a desk, bench or furniture placed there and I still have a legal landing even with furniture of built-ins there? The way I interpret the code is that you must maintain the 6'-8" clearance in the "walkable" area of the stair and out from the nosing of the stair (in the direction of travel) to the required landing depth. If my headroom area issue is in the stair itself, then I may (if possible) narrow the width of the stair so that all of the walkable area meets the required width and height. This may create a "shelf" along the stair to keep you out of the low headroom portion of the stair. The last issue is the headroom as you leave the landing and enter a room or hall. The minimum headroom may be increased and you have to look for beams, ducts etc that may encroach into that space. I like to add a dashed "clear floor" line to my plans just to make sure I have reviewed those problem areas. In my opinion, the design would not meet code, would feel uncomfortable, and more importantly, may be unsafe. In the end, the building official is the final authority in each jurisdiction. Attached is on of my standard "draft" details.

Well, it is a macro, but I m not sure where I got it. I have purchased from Alaskan Son (great stuff) so maybe I got it from him. I have not had the time to learn how to create my own, but it is on my "to-do" list. If inches is okay then use the basic %width%x%height% Also, if the full name takes up too much space then use %type_code% instead of %type_name% for an abbreviated version. I don't know if this is also a purchased macro or if it comes with Chief.

This is our setup (right or wrong). Same label but different options picked will show up differently.

AND because this is still the same flight of stairs, the guard and handrails need to continue to the bottom. The biggest issue is indeed the inconsistency in the rise and run within a single flight of stairs.

Will do. Thanks.

Would you feel comfortable sharing the submital drawings? I am getting hundreds of hours wrapped up in our CDs. Thanks.

We have also used a ceiling plane. Chief really needs to address this.

We can hope.

+1 We certainly need more control on ALL of the roof functions. At this point I would settle for a completely manual option such as creating a truss or rafter profile that Chief would use for a selected roof plane or partial plane. I love Chief's auto functions but we also need the option to modify or manually build items since we don't ONLY design boxes.

That would be helpful.

BIG +1 Similar items have been requested before.

We use a similar method as Nick Pocket Deck Details

+1

We use the Leica DISTO S910 and have never looked back example: https://youtu.be/n9wPoxXUdJE?t=17

+1 YES. We need more control over headers and an option for plates above and or below the header.

Wish we had more control over the schedules.

Thanks Joe. I will give it a try.

+1 If we had a tool (similar to the corner board tool), it would be great. We need control over the batten sizes and spacing as we do many variations. We also do a great deal of board on board which could be faked by adjusting the batten size and spacing again. (And like the framing, if we adjust the start location or want to move a single item, it would stick) If I were to ask for the moon, then both the boards and battens could be added instead of placing two layers of sheeting then battens. This would also be very helpful for material take-offs.

Good reference It is important to note that this is for the minimum required by code stud size & spacing, not what you are actually using. If the code allows you to use 24" o.c. then you use that column for the # of trimmers, even if you are using 16" o.c.

This may help https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/public/chapter/content/10133/ scroll down to pg 12 for the start of the details. It is not a cad file, but maybe it will get you on your way.

+1 We need this.