Snowload- new construction roof not to code.

Page 2 of 3  
RicodJour wrote:

I agree. It looks like a really nice house that is getting messed up by some folks who are uncaring at best and incompetent at worst.
Yes, I'm not saying that the OP is lying, I'm just saying that every story has two sides and we've only heard one side. The part that got me wondering, quite frankly, was the comment about the husband being unusually detached about this whole thing. Makes me wonder what he knows that she doesn't. :-)
Hopefully, the architect will step up to the plate and make this right.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kats via HomeKB.com wrote:

That picture, besides giving me a crick in my neck ;) , doesn't show the view I was asking about. This last picture shows painted blocks between the shear panels on different floors. That's probably the same material as the beams. Cutoff pieces of the LVL - still not sure why they'd paint that. The first picture showed what looked to be stacked horizontal blocks of wood. If that's the case there is going to be a substantial amount of shrinkage in those blocks. Would you post a clearer picture of the area between the stacked shear panels?

Ask the question. It's a rather odd thing to do and I'd like to know why it was done. Thanks.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Would you post a

Sorry about the crick in your neck! I do understand what you're speaking of, but I don't have a picture of that on my computer. I do believe they are one solid piece of wood. I am leaving right now and will run by and try to get a picture for you of the area. Since the house is being boarded up now, if no one is there I might not be able to get in. Plus, if anyone is around I'll ask about the painted beams. Is there any other pictures I can take that might help you guys understand what has been done here?
--
Message posted via http://www.homekb.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kats via HomeKB.com wrote:

That's the only thing I can think of at the moment. Since the other picture seemed to show painted, single pieces between stacked shear panels, I'd assume that they did the same thing everywhere. Just want to make sure as the picture looked a bit different and those pieces weren't painted. Thanks.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, hopefully I got what you were asking for. They look compressed to me. Here's the picture
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hyrkat/PB060009.jpg
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hyrkat/PB060011.jpg
Also, I'm sorry but no one was there to ask about why the beams are painted. Some are brown, some light gray, some a darker gray and some white. The beam that divides our garage (4car from RV) the 1st half of the beam is white, and the 2nd half of the beam is brown.
--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/construction/200611/1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kats via HomeKB.com wrote:

Looks like the ends of a glulam beam to me, or blocks cut from a glulam. What is on the other side that we can't see? Is this an outside corner of the house, or is one of these a glulam beam that runs somewhere else?
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Matt,
It's an exterior wall (corner) in the great room. The wall will actually be part of our back porch. If you look at the picture here...it is the wall directly above the words Great Room and just to the left of the two door that open at the end of the great room
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hyrkat/P6170005-1.jpg
And, here is the link to the 2nd story loft plans,
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hyrkat/09493a64.jpg
--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/construction/200611/1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kats via HomeKB.com wrote:

In one of the pictures it almost looks like it is a glulam (laminated pieces of wood glued together) but in the other picture, the one where you can see the knot hole) it certainly looks to me like it is made of stacked pieces. I believe I mentioned before how wood shrinkage can lead to differential settlement. If that section is comprised of short sections of the typical framing lumber, and it is about 20" tall (couldn't quite tell - next time, higher resolution pictures please) then shrinkage in that short section of wall could be close to 3/8". Here's a handy online tool to calculate shrinkage: http://www.cwc.ca/design/tools/calcs/dimension_calc /
That is a large amount of shrinkage in a small area. It would almost assuredly lead to cracking of some of the interior finishes. Bob Morrison might have some comments on the attachment of the shear panels in such a situation.

Generally, there's enough work on a job site such as yours that there isn't a need to go around doing busy work. Why paint something that doesn't need it? Why paint something haphazardly if it does require it? See my point?
If your husband is content to wait to see how things shake out, well, it's your house. If you say he isn't normally like that, I'll take your word for it. Regardless of whether you two have a relaxed attitude or not, the design team should be keeping you apprised of what's going on with your house. Lack of communication in construction can only lead to less than desirable results and increased cost. It can be no other way.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rico, On top of everything else, are you saying I might need to be concerned about the reason for painting these beams? Is it possible that they are substandard or something like that?
GC submitted his plan today for consideration by the County. We should know by Wednesday if County believes it to be worth pursuing. If it is, I found out today that the original engineering firm (the one LA hired) will be in charge of the retrofit plans- of making it work. I don't know how comfortable I am with that, but it seems that they should be the ones to correct their mistake. And I'm getting really tired of people not doing what they've been paid good money to do. I have not had a chance to ask GC about drifting snow or the extra snow weight that might be dumped on the roof from the 2nd story. That is a concern.
Just to let you guys know, even though I do not understand much of the terminology of construction I do appreciate your help. Going through this is like trying to converse with a surgeon who doesn't speak the same language as his patient.
--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/construction/200611/1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kats via HomeKB.com wrote:

It could be almost anything. Maybe they were covered in graffiti and they just covered it, maybe there were markings they didn't want displayed. If the markings indicated "Tobias Project" and you're not a Tobias, they might have covered them up. That's not a bad thing if the beams were indeed the correct ones for your house.
It's a strange thing to do, it stands out, and it's not out of line to ask why it was done.

I don't understand at all how this is situation is being approached. How can a GC submit a plan to the County? That is architect and engineer of record territory. Unless the GC is a licensed architect or engineer as well, his voice carries little weight, even if his solution is the correct one.
It's time for you to stop messing around. Pick up the phone and call the architect. You need to be much more involved in this situation to protect your interests. You need to hear from all of the parties involved about what is happening. There may be different stories.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a previous post Kats via HomeKB.com wrote...

As I previously posted, I believe it is only fair to allow the engineer- of-record (EOR) a chance to correct his/her mistakes. At no charge to you of course. I've been in a similar situation (hey, nobody's perfect) and I appreciated the owner giving me a chance to fix my mistake. I even paid for a portion of the necessary repairs.

This is something a competent designer should have addressed from the start either by increasing the design load or by doing specific drift/sliding now calculations. Also, the heavier snow load MAY have an effect on the lateral force resisting system. This needs to be addressed by the EOR. Don't let them just gloss over this. Ask for a brief explanation of how this issue was addressed.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Paint is good at hiding some things though...
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At first glace I would think that I'd be more concerned with heat loss and insulation than structural concerns! These look like simple 2X4 trusses @ 16" OC normally designed for warmer climates. Is this roof only going to be insulated with R12 fiberglass? Or is it going to be an inverted roof with rigid insulation built up on top the structure? If the latter, forget about snowloads the deadload alone will be a problem.
That said there are simple "jury rigged" physical solutions that can help.One simple solution might be to add lightweight diagonal cross bracing members across the bottom of the truss structure (even 1X3 furring strips) @ +/- 4'-0" OC to help distribute the loads to make the entire roof structure somewhat more redundent without adding too much dead load to the entire structure. In doing so, snowdrifts that accumulate could be better distibuted across a wider area rather than staright down the individual trusses. It is something I have personally experimented on with smaller structures with canvas roofs in the past and I found that it is a good way to lessen the dead load of accumulated snow.

solid construction so even if a huge storm of wet heavy snow were to fall and really test the roof it would likely begin to express itself by the cracking of individual trusses before and accumulated failure not by making the entire wall structure collapse.
Not that you should take this lightly or anything...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a previous post connarch wrote...

What makes you think that? R38 batts can be placed between the trusses or blown in insulation can be used. One only needs to have an insulation dam at the outer edges to keep the insulation away from the bird blocking.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
connarch wrote:

You are wrong both about the insulation and the redistribution of roof loads using furring strips. The first one isn't really dangerous misinformation, but the latter potentially is dangerous. What you suggest will increase the lateral strength of the trusses, but will do virtually nothing to increase the roof's ability to carry snow.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a previous post Matt Whiting wrote...

Absolutely right on track! From the information given by the OP it appears that the trusses are underdesigned and perhaps so is all of the supporting structure, including foundations.
This is going to be a mess to fix -- assuming a fix is going to be required. The trusses appear to be 24" o/c so perhaps one could add another truss halfway between. Makes for difficult insulation unless using blown in type. However, this does not deal with the the window and door headers, foundations and lateral force resisting system.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Around here, the standard footing used is 8" x 16". This will easily support two stories on our typical soils. Nobody downsizes just because they are building a one story house. Same with walls and headers. 2x4s on 16" centers have supported two story homes for decades as have 2x6s on 24" centers. Yet, everybody around here builds one story homes using the same size members with the same spacing.
Maybe it is different where you live, but around here I've never seen the framing of the residence differ based on whether it is one or two stories.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Maybe I wasn't clear, Matt, so I'll cut and paste what I wrote before so you can read it again and answer my question. "What's your guess on the porte cochere beams, posts, footings, etc.?"
We have very limited information, but there's enough information for concern. There's enough information to point out concerns that haven't yet been addressed. Ignoring potential problems, even if remote (and they're not), would be irresponsible.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

I don't guess on things like that.

Yes, we have limited information and that is why I suggested getting the LA and engineer to sort this out and not rely solely on the GC to find a fix. It isn't his problem.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not a guess. The porte cochere is a one-off structure. All of the calculations were performed based on an erroneous snow load. Whether the porte cochere has trusses or rafters, the beams were designed based on that erroneous roof load, as were the columns and footings. You already know the answer without guessing.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.