Monitor Roof Framing Nightmare

[Boxon1]

Hi Guys,

I am struggling with this problem whole day, and just can’t move forward.

This is the problem:

-I have monitor roof above cathedral ceiling room. File is attached.

I solved general layout by adding 2^nd floor, with roof cuts exterior walls at bottom. So, it looks good, but when it comes to framing, stuff hits the fan.

I need framing to be perfectly accurate, or materials list, wall framing elevations, and everything else will go to town.

Also, I can’t allow any risks with framing,  because this will be built in high wind and heavy snow area.

Solution is to place really strong beam, like 5.5” by 12” or 18” below 2^nd floor interior walls, and rest those on posts placed in Ist. floor  exterior wall frame (Attached file shows some insane y axis spans, never mind those, this is not a  actual project, but small mockup ).

First floor roof will rest also on those beams using typ. Strongtie hangers, as should look (roughly) on section1.jpg. Problem is in manual framing – I need to position beam below 2^nd floor wall.

Since this is cathedral ceiling, I have to uncheck  “ceiling over this room ”, so I have hard time placing ceiling beam (or unidentified framing member) exactly on elevation that I need, because it is not pushing up monitor exterior wall.

But what I get is section2.jpg - clearly, beam is too low, and this stuff cannot be connected. Roof cuts wall at the bottom, but bottom is too low.

I can move this “framing member”,  as high as I want, but monitor wall will show incorrect framing – bottom plate will just overlap with beam, and, also, beam will show through the roof laterally left and right from monitor part of roof…

What  I need is to move entire structure that “grows” above beam up, so wall frame rests on beam and roof rafters can be attached to that same beam, as in section1.jpg.

If you pay attention to Persp. Framing overview with Vector view, you can see that bottom plate of the upper walls is like 9” below top of beam.

At this moment I am wondering that maybe only solution is to place "framing member" totally below roof rafter, without cutting rafter lower edge, but another problem is how to set wall to extend down enough to rest on beam... This is actually the same problem, just reversed - setting elevation of bottom plate...

Any ideas?

monitor 1.zip

[DavidJPotter]

Here is my You Tube take on what is "wrong" which in this case, I think you are using the wrong camera tool for the job:

 

https://youtu.be/J3r2n1PuHcE

 

DJP

[Boxon1]

Thank you, Dave, I just have to continue to dig through this a little more. Some things are not looking as I would like them to look. On this project I will just plot the plan set and send it 300 miles away, and like 1800 feet up. So, some guys that I don't know will frame blindly by my drawings. So, I am slightly restless...

Whenever I try to do something elegantly and by the rules, and not to cheat, it turns to nightmare...

Look like I am not made for rules

[DavidJPotter]

The main thing is to not rely completely on the auto 3D framing. Such things work fine for plan views but for cross sections, the back clip camera and View to CAD give you complete control as to what shows and what does not. Between plan and cross section and elevation views and layering-annotation sets you can organize your displays of data to clearly deliver the communication of the structural layout. You just control and annotate.

 

DJP

[dshall]

I think   Boxon The Serb did a good job too.  I think you should make the PSOLID BEAM higher so it does not stick down in the room.  

 

There is some "z" fighting  with the fascia and drywall on inside,  easy to fix by turning off the framing,  but you should not need to do that.  I do not know why that fascia planes out to the drywall.  Why is the fascia/ridge beam,  set back the thickness of the drywall?  I don't know.  Maybe this is something we should send in to the boys at headquarters and see if they can fix this.

 

In regards to the framing not being perfect,  I am with  DJP on this,  tough to get it perfect,  the technical connections are probably better left to the CAD DETAILS at this time.  I assume the boys at headquarters will eventually improve the framing as time goes on.

[Boxon1]

Thank you guys, it's easy when I can call  you to help...

During 3rd year of studies, I took a special course in Traditional Wooden Constructions and Carpentry, and it is really hard to switch from 6x18 to 1.5x5.5. Everything looks like toothpicks.

DJP, thank You for advice.

DSH, Fascia planes just came out of nowhere. They don't show in Perspective framing overview. I guess that they are automatically placed for upper rafters blocking. So far I decided to solve this main issue, and fascia - well, I can just reduce it to 0" thickness, if nothing else works. Anyway I have exposed rafters in real plan, so I don't need them.

My basic problem is that I am constantly trying to do strange plans by the book, and that usually doesn't work...

I will have to go around by your approach.

By the way, monitor roof should be placed above this smaller (living room) roof.

[glennw]

Boxon 1,

 

The beam isn't a problem, you can place that at any height as needed.

The walls are a problem because the bottom of the walls are at the incorrect height.

This is rectified by dragging the wall bottom edges up in an elevation/section view.

BUT...you have a very thick wall and the inside framing layer sits on the raised up beam.

So...instead of making the wall 1 thick wall, make it out of 2 wall definitions, the inside framing layer that sits on the beam and then a second wall definition that sits on the roof. Butt them up against each other and adjust their bottom heights independently as required. 

The additional framing member generated in the roof frame is a sub-fascia, so if you don't need them elsewhere, turn them off, or hide them with the beam.

[CJSpud]

Boxon:

 

I am curious as to what design snow and wind loads you are having to contend with for this project?  Also, for the beams that are supporting the clerestory side walls, what is the open span between the beams' inner most supports?  Since you mention 12" or 18" depth beams, it doesn't sound like they have been reviewed for load sizing at this time.

 

I am not sure why you have 2x10's showing overlapping the beam but it doesn't look to me like they belong there unless they are Chief's ridge beams for the rafters.  I see that you also have a 2x6 sill plate as well as 2x6 studs (cripples) hidden within your beam.

 

             

 

If your test model has the accurate spans that you will be dealing with (66'), I suspect that your beams [multiple beams may be required on each side] will need to have considerable depth, possibly even more than 18" depending on roof loads and additional inboard support columns as well.  I don't have a clue what your regulatory requirements are in Serbia for projects such as this but it seems like there should be engineering involvement early on if you want to get the structural stuff right the first time and not have go back and redo stuff because of improper member sizing etc.  If you have seismic loads in the project area, then engineering is even more important.

 

At this point, I think your beam can be used for rafter attachment and the 2x10 can go away, at least in the clerestory area depending on the design.  I think you can also do away with the bottom plate hidden in the beam or raise it up to sit on the beam .... you'll need to do something to get the top edge of the beam down under your roof rafters and sheathing if it will extend out as shown on the test model.  Perhaps all those short cripple studs (buried in the beams) can go away or some other framing solution used to get the window elevations right.  If there will be snow build-up at the bottoms of the clerestory windows, then I think they should be raised up several inches to give you room for some good vertical flashing to minimize moisture intrusion problems.  Lots of stuff to consider.  Maybe something like this:

 

 

To really be able to assist you, I think it would be helpful to be able to look at your actual plan, rather than a test plan.  Nevertheless, it may be possible to provide some guidance based upon your test plan, if you are under severe time constraints and haven't attempted to build the clerestory on your project's model at this time.  I really like the other images you've posted.  That's a great looking project and from what I see, it looks like you've done a nice job with the design, landscaping, etc.

 

I agree that sometimes it is very hard to get the model perfect.  That's where the CAD details are the icing on the cake for the builders.

[Boxon1]

Guys, you nailed it.

 

Glenn,  wall is thick, and that is really a problem for me for quite some time now. Clients all go for fashionable green design and responsibly ask for energy efficiency, but when they have to pay for 11-12" thick r-45 wall with total of something like 14.000 sq.ft of 2" polyiso, they go ballistic. I can't help it. Double wall is great idea, this could solve lot of problems with "roof cuts wall at the bottom".

-I am aware that (still) we can't expect really accurate details, and all of this is even worse headache when you take a look at roof detail with all layers that I can't possibly add to Chief's roof, like in detail.jpg. I don't know why is this such a big problem for Cheif, I expected that to be solved in x7.  Importance of roof layers is equal or greater than wall layers.

So, making details in AutoCAD is still a necessity.

 

CJSpud, house should be build on Kopaonik ski resort, and that is the problem - it is pretty south, but high, and snow constantly melts and half-melts and turns into ice and falls again, so estimated snow load is close to 90 psf.

Wind is 90(130 gusts), from every possible direction, but this is lesser problem, because house will be sheltered in small valley.

Problem with snow is that house will be energy-efficient, and roof thermal envelope criteria is r-75, so it will not melt.

Building set is finished and delivered long ago, but this is my clients newest inspiration.

Anyway, by manufacturers tables roof rafters should be 14"x1-3/4", LSL, floor joists are 14" I-joist below 7/8" plywood. On top of that are all radiant heating concrete slab and other layers. Just wonderful.

Span between posts is rougly 16', and, between two beams 12' - check SECOND-FLOOR-PLAN.JPG

-Roof ridge is constructional ridge beam, rested on LVL posts placed in walls. Frankly, I still havent solved the problem that Monitor roof would have to cut this ridge beam, I am making some sketches, but I don't like that whole story. I will probably have to leave continuous ridge beam visible, or to place short lateral beams between doubled rafters, to support 2 new end posts or to advise client to forget it.

-Unfortunately, since I am an Licensed Engineer of Architecture, this is not my first calculation. This is also my biggest problem - I will not supervise this construction (it's just too far away, and we couldn't agree about the price), but, legally, I am responsible anyway, even if some unidentified guy on site doesn't follow my plans and specs, I have to prove that in Society of Engineers, or end up toasted.

16" LSL beam will do more than enough, so, I will put 18". Anyway, people say that after a first inch, all other doesn't matter.

Posts are only 5-1/2"x5-1/2", but laterally supported by both wall frames and perpendicular beam on half-height, to avoid deflection. On second floor plan you can't see the right post, because this is not a constructional drawing - post is hidden in corner of fireplace framing and covered by stone screen.

I just didn't wont to bother you with stuff outside this monitor problem.

-2x10 appeared out of nowhere, Glennw found out what to heck is that, sub fascia, and that will be gone.

I tried to upload plan file, but, since this is my first contact with Chief Architect (friend from Buffalo N.Y. left his oversized IMac at my place, and went to cruise Europe), my first file is modest 447 MB, zipped 355MB (never ever import stuff from Sketchup), so, this tortured IMac stammers so much that I can hardly work, living room rendering took 9 hours for 12 passes. Next time I should reduce playing with furniture, coffee cups and stuff, but,  after 20 years with AutoCAD and 3DSMax, I just had to try playing with it.  And I must say that, in spite of all the problems, I like it a lot. But I will never start new project on unknown software again.

 

Anyway, thank You Guy for showing interest. I couldn't find too much stuff on net about Chief and Monitor roofs.

[CJSpud]

Boxon:

 

Sounds like you have a handle on things on the structural stuff... other than the project location problems and not being able to check on the construction.  Nice details!  I recently completed a project with 115 lb. snow load and 90 mph wind gust.  Not near the structural design issues that you have with this project.

 

By the way, if you wanted to post the plan, I would recommend saving a copy under a new name and then gutting out everything but the basic structure (no furniture, lighting, fixtures, landscape, etc.  That would likely get the file size down considerably.  I don't think I have ever had a project over 50 MB's .... and I thought that was too big.

[Boxon1]

CJ, since I kept right over design and project ownership (still client unwilling to pay as he should), I can do with it whatever I wont.

So, I am preparing plan set for internet sale. I have a feeling that it would go as same in Georgia as in Virginia or North Carolina, or any other "nice" state (by nice I mean not to many big unfriendly cities and people who live normal healthy life in decent communities).

This house is anyway inspired by traditional Georgian tobacco barn, and Building code is respected pretty stiff, materials and dimensioning is already Imperial...

If you are interesting in giving me opinion, I will send you pdf plan set tomorrow - that will go, it's only 3.5MB file

[CJSpud]

Boxon:

 

I would love to look over your plans and give you my opinion.  If you prefer, you can email them to me directly.

[DRAWZILLA]

On the other hand, I always keep my sections live and never use the view to cad tool, for sections. It's just a matter of adjusting your beams exactly where they should go and getting your model correct. Can be done if you spend a little extra time doing it. Of course, cad details can handle the particulars . You can also mask or overdraw those live sections if need be.