Auto Framing has Problem with Floor Openings

[Doug_N]

I posted this in suggestions as well because there is a flaw in the framing generator that results in a quite serious and dangerous joist design.  

 

This is something that can be fixed manually, but when working on a big project it is a great feature to be able to make wall and room adjustments and have the framing keep track.  If structural errors keep creeping in, it is hard to keep track of them and fix them later.  If you forget, and the framer is not really paying attention....  well hopefully it will be an obvious problem in the real world, but then you are relying on the good sense of the framer to fix a really bad desine error.

This has happened before around floor openings, so on this one I thought I would post it in case i am doing something wrong.

 

 

The joists that join onto the inside leg of the stairwell are cut with a short joist running at 90 deg to the other joists taking away all strength of the floor assy.

It would be nice to have the framing model avoid this.

 

Maybe this is a mistake in the way I have set up the framing options?   If so if someone can tell me what I did wrong, that would be great too.

 

Scarborough Second Floor Addition.zip

[Kbird1]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:41 AM, Doug_N said:

I

 

 

 

Might be something that needs reporting to Tech Support so the Developers can look at it , rather than posting about it on the Suggestions Forum, where it maybe never seen.

 

Did not open the plan as the pic seems like it is definitely incorrect....

 

M.

[Doug_N]

I have created a tech support request.  I should have thought of that.

Thanks Mick.

[Kbird1]

28 minutes ago, Doug_N said:

I have created a tech support request.  I should have thought of that.

Thanks Mick.

 

Perfect ....please let us all know what they say....

 

M.

[Doug_N]

For sure Mick.

[glennw]

You have some problems with your Bearing Beams and Joist Direction lines.

I rotated the joist direction line on the right a little.

Notice how it is controlling the joist direction for a bigger area than you intended.

[Doug_N]

Hi Glenn, 

 

The joist lines are just there for the framer.  What is the problem with the bearing lines?  Does this contribute to the problem that I am describing.

 

Doug.  

 

 

[glennw]

Doug,

The Joist Direction Lines are there for more than the framer, they tell Chief how to build the joists - direction and size.

I was demonstrating that there is something wrong with your joist direction/bearing  lines witnessed by the fact that the joist direction line to the left of the stairs is not doing anything and maybe causing problems.

Sorry, I don't have the time to troubleshoot the exact problem.

You need to go through the plan and try to find conflicts with the various floor platforms.

Maybe use Bearing Walls instead of Bearing Lines.

Check all your Bearing Walls, Joist Direction lines, Bearing Lines and framing defaults.

[Alaskan_Son]

4 hours ago, Doug_N said:

Does this contribute to the problem that I am describing.

 

No.  I don't believe it does.  The issue you're showing is very easy to reproduce in about 30 seconds starting with a blank plan.  Report it to tech support. 

[robdyck]

4 hours ago, Doug_N said:

 

It's also odd that you don't have double joists around the perimeter of your stairwell.

[glennw]

Delete the Joist Direction line to the left of the stars and see what happens:

 

[Alaskan_Son]

4 hours ago, glennw said:

Delete the Joist Direction line to the left of the stars and see what happens:

 

 

That just shifts the problem elsewhere if you ask me, and for whatever its worth, you can get the same results by adjusting the bearing line over on the left.  In fact, delete that Joist Direction Line and the bearing line on the left and you're right back at square one.  Bottom line is that Chief definitely treat this scenario in unexpected ways.  Again, it's very easy to reproduce with a blank plan using no joist direction lines at all. 

[glennw]

I wasn't suggesting that deleting the Joist Direction line is the solution, I was rather pointing out how screwy the framing is. 

[Alaskan_Son]

3 minutes ago, glennw said:

I wasn't suggesting that deleting the Joist Direction line is the solution, I was rather pointing out how screwy the framing is. 

 

Ah, I see.

[Chopsaw]

10 hours ago, Doug_N said:

The joist lines are just there for the framer.

 

If it helps I have some joist direction lines that are just cad blocks to help the drawing look complete that don't interfere with the framing.  I can't remember how bad the screw up was that made me create them but I am pretty sure tech support did not have a better answer at the time.

[Alaskan_Son]

26 minutes ago, Chopsaw said:

 

If it helps I have some joist direction lines that are just cad blocks to help the drawing look complete that don't interfere with the framing.  I can't remember how bad the screw up was that made me create them but I am pretty sure tech support did not have a better answer at the time.

 

I use manual joist direction lines for a different reason entirely...I run my joist labels perpendicular to the joist direction and always have.  In fact, I don't think I personally know any designers or architects who label them parallel and I don't recall having ever built off a set of plans where they were labeled that way either.  Actually, I don't like Chief's automated label text either. 

[Chopsaw]

5 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I use manual joist direction lines for a different reason entirely...I run my joist labels perpendicular to the joist direction and always have.  In fact, I don't think I personally know any designers or architects who label them parallel and I don't recall having ever built off a set of plans where they were labeled that way either.  Actually, I don't like Chief automated label text either. 

 

I am not sure that was the original reason but I totally agree and have use them that way as well.

[Ridge_Runner]

12 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I run my joist labels perpendicular to the joist direction and always have

I did this for years until I started trying to use CA's joist labels a few years ago. I believe perpendicular (or at least at an angle across the area, which I have seen before) is the "old school" way of doing it; at least in my area.

[DRAWZILLA]

12 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

I use manual joist direction lines for a different reason entirely...I run my joist labels perpendicular to the joist direction and always have.  In fact, I don't think I personally know any designers or architects who label them parallel and I don't recall having ever built off a set of plans where they were labeled that way either.  Actually, I don't like Chief's automated label text either. 

I've done parallel for over 45 years. Now you know one, I know very few who does it perpendicular.

[GeneDavis]

There needs to be an option for doing it either way.

[Alaskan_Son]

13 minutes ago, Ridge_Runner said:

did this for years until I started trying to use CA's joist labels a few years ago.

 

2 minutes ago, DRAWZILLA said:

I've done parallel for over 45 years. Now you know one

 

I guess I should have further qualified my statement.  I've met folks here on ChiefTalk who do it that way. Don't believe I've met anyone in person who does though or outside of Chief for that matter.  Even so, here are my quick thoughts on why I prefer perpendicular...

 

If you're showing the joists in your plan, the direction arrow becomes entirely redundant if it's running parallel.  With the label running perpendicular, it can much more effectively communicate the extent of the specified joists (i.e. which sizes should be used at what spacing and where). Running parallel can really only give a size, redundant direction, and has no way of effectively communicating which joists it is referring to.  In addition, parallel labels blend into the joists a whole lot easier making them harder to pick out.   

[Doug_N]

3 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

 

I guess I should have further qualified my statement.  I've met folks here on ChiefTalk who do it that way. Don't believe I've met anyone in person who does though or outside of Chief for that matter.  Even so, here are my quick thoughts on why I prefer perpendicular...

 

If you're showing the joists in your plan, the direction arrow becomes entirely redundant if it's running parallel.  With the label running perpendicular, it can much more effectively communicate the extent of the specified joists (i.e. which sizes should be used at what spacing and where). Running parallel can really only give a size, redundant direction, and has no way of effectively communicating which joists it is referring to.  In addition, parallel labels blend into the joists a whole lot easier making them harder to pick out.   

Hi Michael,  

 

In a lot of cases the framing is not actually shown so the only way the direction of the joists is known is by the joist direction symbol so in my jurisdiction.  The framing for the second floor is show on the FIRST floor framing plan if joists are actually show in a framing view.

 

Doug.  

[Alaskan_Son]

4 minutes ago, Doug_N said:

In a lot of cases the framing is not actually shown so the only way the direction of the joists is known is by the joist direction symbol

 

That's certainly a good reason for showing parallel. I do wonder though, how you do you communicate where the joists sizes or spacing are supposed to change using that system?

[DRAWZILLA]

11 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

 

I guess I should have further qualified my statement.  I've met folks here on ChiefTalk who do it that way. Don't believe I've met anyone in person who does though or outside of Chief for that matter.  Even so, here are my quick thoughts on why I prefer perpendicular...

 

If you're showing the joists in your plan, the direction arrow becomes entirely redundant if it's running parallel.  With the label running perpendicular, it can much more effectively communicate the extent of the specified joists (i.e. which sizes should be used at what spacing and where). Running parallel can really only give a size, redundant direction, and has no way of effectively communicating which joists it is referring to.  In addition, parallel labels blend into the joists a whole lot easier making them harder to pick out.   

I have been using my own joist direction markers because Chiefs are just too limited and always have been. I really don't like showing the actual joists in the plan, they are wrong a lot of the times and I don't want to spend a lot of time fixing then

[Doug_N]

1 minute ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

That's certainly a good reason for showing parallel. I do wonder though, how you do you communicate where the joists sizes or spacing are supposed to change using that system?

Generally the cross section and spacing is indicated on the symbol, then a dashed line with label indicates a boundary or beam depending on context in the label.