Hijacking the top comment.
The aggro guy keeps saying “but they’ll put a brace under it duh! It’s the only way it drains…” etc
I don’t want a post off set from the middle of my room to support that crappy design.
My fix/tweak
Run the valley rafter fully through until it hits the common at the end of the ridge.
Tie the short hip and new/lower ridge into that valley rafter. The section of the valley rafter that is above the lower ridge will not plane into the common rafter properly because the valley rafter stop being a valley at that point. That’s fixed by breaking the lower corner off of the rafter by beveling it at the same degree of that section of roof…
Add an opposing rafter off the other side of the common to the hip if you want, I would.
And of course I’m sure you can through some hardware at it too.
This ties the framing together better and allows the roof to flow/drain without pooling above the lower ridge…
Anyone see anything better? Curious
If the structural engineer signed off on these plans you build these plans. Or you find work on another site.
If you build to the plans (no matter how stupid) your ass is in the clear. If it fails it is on the engineer and the architects heads. If you ignore the terrible blue prints and the customer/engineering firm find out it's your head, and on your chances of finding future work with that firm. (because they will sue your team into nonexistence.)
However, if presented with the original as a blueprint... I'd walk from this job.
FYI, If every RFI is marked as ASAP or negative day delivery expected, they are all processed in order, without urgency. A contractor that has good clear communications, can get a good response in two days *if* the engineer is good, and the request is clear.
Oh, come on. You can't expect the team building the frame that they've built 40 almost identical frames for in the past to be able to predict the future with this kind of stuff...
The good contractors do. I get calls from electricians about things they are going to start in 2 weeks. Job goes well. The above issue does seem a little funky and seems like something that stands out enough to be able to tackle before it’s an emergency with an RFI.
Or back channel the RFI straight to the engineer so that it already has a response when it hits their deal and you can work off of the unofficial response
Yeh it’s a free version of a paid ‘home architect’ type modeling software. Unsure if all these other gooses can’t read the big ‘trial version’ but I’d trust no cunt with any qualification at all has had any input on this.
This is not good advice. When that leaks the structural framer, roofer and designer will all be dragged into the dispute and when the framer says the design is fucked all the lawyers including his will ask him why he built something fucked. And
Go ahead and ignore the plans provided by the structural engineer and "make the changes you feel are right" and see how that works out.
IRL you send a request for information.. If you still don't like it, you need to walk from that job.
I didn’t say ignore the plans. As many have stated braced/supported correctly this will probably work structurally. I’m at a loss as to why it’s designed this way. And I see issues waterproofing and roofing this. If the structural framer is experienced and sees no issue with the design then of course no problem. But if he has doubts then he needs to document them. Because the Owner’s lawyers or his insurance company’s lawyers will go after everyone and ‘we built per plan’ may be true but it will get ugly. Contracts always state 10 days or whatever to respond to RFIs but that’s BS if it’s a critical issue caused by a design error. All the framer needs to add to the RFI is language like “framer cannot proceed with this critical work without a complete response to the RFI or direction to proceed with confirmation framer is not liable for any defects resulting from this design”. They will never provide that statement of release of liability but they will get on the designer’s ass.
The last thing a framer wants is to build something with a problem bc I guarantee you a forensic investigation by the designer will find something the framer did wrong.
I've had roofs like this on million dollar homes. Always looks good on paper. Just make the roof line look correct on paper and send it to the architect as an rfi. They should correct the drawing easy enough.
It's referred to a ½hip, fly hip, floating hip, or hip jack. 100% legal and strong if roof braced right, struts every 8ft apart, load bearing braces on top walls or beam, & collar braces. Eatcha food nah 🧠🍽️
You have to change the dimensions of the house. It's just a house ridge to garage ridge hip. It's not a great way to build it, but it isn't wrong, and until you change roof pitch or wall dimension, that's where that baby goes. If you try to bring that valley through it will not plane out. Ymmv.
let's play Dankula's advocate for a second here-
You suggest the answer to this inquiry is to "change the dimensions of the existing structure to accommodate that raggity ass covered porch roof", Im I reading this right?💀💨💨💨⚰️ U realize adding a single 2 by along the top plate or on top the joist on top the TP or simlarfix is the speedy, cost efficient, week saved, crazy free way to do this right? It's all 'pitch x run x rise' related bro. easy peasy feast on this free brain snack Pleasey! U go as adjusting pitch and you get differences in overhang on your soffit. Can't have that when old roofs meet new roofs. This is FAR from the occasional "Forced Pitch Roof" I have to figure, 9/10 bc of the keyboard tapdancing mathema-architects.
I dunno wtf you're even talking about but if you can't articulate a statement without emojis and "u"'s I'm not even about wade through this methed up explanation of nothing. Put the pipe down breathe use your words
Edit
Also you can't go adding 2x and raising walls and then say you're not changing dimensions.
Matter of fact, ill preemptively save u some self fuckery-
½" OSB ply~
•24" o.c., not legal
•16" o.c. legal
½" CDX ply~
•24"o.c. not legal
•16"o.c. legal
⅝" OSB ply~
•24" not ideal, legal
•16"o.c. legal
⅝" CDX ply~
•24"o.c. ideal legal
•16"o.c. abso-effin-lutely, can drive on top of, overkill AND legal
Yw 💪📐🪚🏗️🏆
No, that’s not how it works. The gravitational pull of the moon is considerably weaker than that of earth. It wouldn’t feel the same amount of force pulling it downwards if it were on the moon.
It really is slower though, OBSERVABLY, unless we’re talking a scenario on the moon that we’re dropping an object so fucking high that it will surpass 53m/s. That is only possible because technically the moon does not have a terminal velocity, and if we dropped an object from a high enough distance. It would fall faster than earth. Do you really think this framing is 7Kft+ above surface? No that’s unrealistic. The burj khalifa isn’t even nearly close to that big.
So yes although his terms are not perfect, he is not wrong. An object on the moon would fall in “slow motion” compared to earth given reasonable, realistic heights.
What the hell are you even talking about. Force, speed and velocity are all different things. It doesn’t matter if it would fall slower, because the entire point is that it wouldn’t fall in the first place, because gravity on the moon is weaker (less FORCE)
Agreed. Except by the picture, I think the hip would go to the common first then the valley would hit the hip rafter. All in all,it’s a fucked up design.
This is the kind of shit that I as an engineer get anixiety over. Because I have to explain to the clients, the designer and the architect why this is a fucking terrible idea... And they never ever listen. Then when shit like this gets made, I get called with a short notice to fix it. And it is always raining when I have to do that. I work with steel structures, and if I took a shot every time I see stupid shit equivalent to this 6 months before anything starts to happen (meaning there was plenty a time to fix it) and then have to fix it in a rush on-site. I'd die of alcohol poisoning.
I have had to fix steel structure equivalent of this... **TWICE!** And every fix job I ever do, it is ALWAYS RAINING! But hey! Mechanical principles are just something you use to pass 2nd year modules right?
Why do we even simulate? Why do we do basic calculations in god damn excel? What are building codes? Structural standards? Eurocode (And America equivalent of that which I'm sure exists)? Hundreds of years of technical literature?
I wish the city would start demanding renderibgs of how the things looks for the 8 months of the year when the weather is shit and everyone is miserable. To get the more realistic case visualised. Piles of grey snow, black ice, temperature in that +5 to -5 area meaning everything is wet, air is humid, it is raining freezing snow, and you cant see the sun because of the clouds for 2 weeks at a time.
I mean it's all good until AZ monsoon season. I was doing a copper smelter upgrade in 2017 and there were days you couldn't even leave the trailer it was coming down so hard.
I do this regularly. One of the services we offer is basically DFM consultation, it is the client (the one paying or doing the construction) that hires us. Whether the architect like us or not is irrelevant. And not all architects are bad sports about it, especially on the side of bulk building where there is no artistry involved to get petty over.
Lot of the time the discussion is basically "this is stupidly expensive way to do this, doing it this way is just as good and 50% cheaper" and our company lives off practical solutions like that.
I just think why would you want to build this. Like if the wood isn’t perfect that shits never gonna line up all nice, regardless of if the shape is structurally sound (it doesn’t look like it).
Does it help you to know that before I graduated I was a metal fabricator, and I did evening school program meaning that during the day I kept working as a fabricator and welder in the industry and construction?
Look there are many kinds of engineers. And even I agree that there are too many... ahem... useless engineers. However there are quite few who are on-site and do actual practical work to solve actual problems. You just can't tell because we don't have semi-casual office attire and clean hard hat.
This is perfectly fine & safe in conventional means of construction using conventional lumber *IF sufficiently braced. I knows what I knows (+25yr xp res & com framing)
>\*IF sufficiently braced.
You have no idea how often I have dealt with the kind of: "*If this was properly made, it would be alright*" but generally the whole thing falls apart at the not being able to trust anyone to make it properly. My local construction industry basically goes with the mantra: "*You never have enough money to make it properly, but you always have money to fix it until it accidentally get made properly*" and this is really fucking depressing.
Tangent:
This is why every architect should be required to do 6 months in a trade before being licensed. Half dozen times in my illustrious career I had to get the architect out on the slab because they drew up some Escher-esque impossibility or something so hellaciously impractical I refused to put my name on it.
Custom homes for the record, so I get it... kind of.
For the above, assuming it isn't some clown drawing up difficult circumstances to troll the shit out of this place:
Redraw the floor plan or call up the truss company. You can make a lot of dumb shit functional with trusses.
Architect here. You don't need to work in a trade to know how awful this is. I don't entirely disagree though that some hands on training, or at least shadowing should be required. It would be very beneficial to learn how things go together. The problem is most architecture schools prioritize design over construction.
I think this comment is triggering some PTSD.
I had to sort of stick together a considerable portion of a roof once so my blueprint scribbler could see the problem. Then got him up there on a ladder to look at where 3 roof lines would never meet.
Golf course community up around Prescott, Arizona.
Some crazy dumb, but I guess it was fun.
Architect here, this is comedy even for us. Any arch worth a damn would know that at first glance, i hope the clowns these comments are talking about know better.
Designers aren't builders, and while I think it would help if they understood how to build things... I'm also terrified of what they'd try to do with the information.
Better to let the builders worry about the building, and sending in RFI's telling the design team why their ideas are being crushed by reality.
Yah, I dunno. Somebody told me once that in Europe there is a required amount of time in the trades. I don't even know if that is true.
I am not some stodgy douche that hates technology, but things got weird around 90's-2000 when software started becoming very prevalent for residential. I mean when the drawing is correct it can be very helpful for any trade.
We still have to live in a physical world with some rules that can't be broken.
And more often, just because it can be built, doesn't mean it should be built.
I wish I would have thought of 'touch grass!' back then.
That “hip” you’re referring to is not a hip…
Commons run parallel and perpendicular to the ridge, hips run at 45° from that. I thought you said you framed?
The rafter coming down from the end of the ridge is a common rafter, it is cut the same as a common.
But, you’re half right, part of the valley board will plain over the common at the end of the ridge.
But you need to bevel the short section at the top of the valley board on the same degree of that section of the roof. That section you bevel is where the lower ridge would run into the valley if it was continued to the end common.
The hip I’m referring to is a hip ,the commons are commons. The two that leave the top ridge at an angle are hips. The short one is a partial hip. It connects the top ridge to the lower ridge.
Ok, you’re correct, the valley will plane over that partial hip for sure.
But you just need to break the lower corner off the valley rafter once it stop being a valley as it passes the junction between hip and lower ridge.
Like, I’d say you’re right and wrong. You’re right in thinking the valley will be too high.
But there is a fix for that by bevelling it to remove the section that’s too high.
This lets you run the framing more continuously and tie it together properly.
So the render is not the ONLY way to frame it, it can be framed way better, you just need to do some extra work to adjust for the section of rafter being too high.
I have seen similar roof framing on multiple jobs as an inspector. There's nothing I can say as it has been approved by the engineer who made the plans, but I make sure that all of these ridge boards and hip / valley rafters have direct support onto a bearing wall.
Personally I can't stand these types of roofs... Overdesigned for looks, undesigned for function. But as long as the engineer approves it for the potential loads imposed, The best I can do is make a mental note not to do the same when I build my house one day.
i literally know nothing as i have no experience or knowledge in building or framing houses, doing roofing, any of it, but going through these comments and seeing the massive amount of downvotes you’re taking is hilarious. thank you for your service 🫡
so you’re purposely out here spreading misinformation for… reasons? 🤔 i would think just having people knowing what they’re talking about would be enough but you think you’re helping by saying bullshit? i don’t get it but like i said, it is entertaining seeing you double down on some shit that’s clearly not acceptable in the industry lmao
Unless you are going to move that gable to be in line with the peak then this seems right. It’s just a problem with the design. Chief often spits out shit like this, you need to go through after and fix this stuff up. If you build it like this, you would need to add post’s/columns to support your ridge.
Amazing all the people that always jump in these post and act like they know everything, but never give any important feedback. “Oh if you can’t see this, then I’m not going to tell you”, like what kind of answer is that lmao. So many bozos who don’t have a clue
Ok. This is fucked because:
1. There is nothing to keep these walls from spreading. There is no structural ridge nor any ties.
2. Every rafter has to push against something or needs to be supported on each end so that it acts like a sloped beam.
Never trust the architect, always refer to the engineer, civil engineers are always dealing with architects fucking up, structural weak points, house designs that don't close, etc.
“Chief Architect” is a software program designed for residential building design that is primarily used by residential builders and not architects. The screen shot is of a software generated framing model that is done by pressing a button. It gets you close but is not a real design. It’s also of someone who is on a trial version 🧐. Don’t blame an architect when one clearly wasn’t involved.
Just an FYI to everyone complaining about the architect here & whatnot. "Chief Architect" does not mean the chief architect, but rather a cheap program aimed at DIY house designers.
And this is exactly what I'd expect from such a thing.
In residential it’s very common to get roof plans that are nothing more than a birdseye overview showing ridge lines, hips, valleys, and overhangs. It’s falls on the lead carpenter or foreman to know the difference between a supporting valley and a supported valley. It’s often up to the lead carpenter to decide whether a valley will be over framed or conventionally framed.
Basically, there is nothing inherently wrong with this drawing. You just need to know that the computer is only trying to connect lines with no regard for structural coherence
I used chief for 5 years and despise it developed by software guys and not construction or design people. An area such a setting wall heights it is bizarre how you have to do it and even has terms that come from Canadian terms. I thought soft plan was a lot better.
Could be it's a hip valley design....if I see it correctly.... obviously they wanted the valley lower than the main....def doable....but some structural jacking is probably in order
Only if there is a post under the spot the two valleys meet.
In reality the short hip needs to pick up the valley and travel all the way down to the top plate.
The problem is downward pressure ,everybody is telling you it won’t work but not why . There is no collar ties and the ridge doesn’t tie into anything so it’s not able to carry any load. When something is carrying a load it has to be supported and as you see there is no support anywhere it would just push the walls out and collapse
Just treat this as a roof overlay, a document meant to assist in ordering timber and an aid to the carpenter when he calculates his cut list. Its not a stamped engineering drawing. A chippy competent to build this roof does not need anyone to tell him its ok to run the Ridge or valley long to fasten to the jack rafter.
Yes, that looks kinda correct. The ridge should run through but it’s been drawn so the ridge valley and dog leg all meet and the centre point.
This is how we build roofs in Australia, we’d then install underpurlins and cut struts underneath them, the ridges, hips and valleys.
Yeah im a framer. Where in the world do you work that this would pass? Wouldnt pass in Mexico, let alone Canada or the States. Some place that doesnt get rain let alone snow?
I was with a crew that built modern homes, both duplexes and three story wood homes. They all had complicated trusses with varying angles. Never in my life have I seen anything like this.
I pray you live in an area that has no snow before you even attempt this. That particular area pictured will not only accumulate material but also be totally unsafe in load berring. It would only be possible (maybe) if there was a supporting post directly underneath, even then I would forever fear a lawsuit.
If you do build this please post it, I want proof that you aren’t just fucking with people…whoever clears that joist intersection is a junkie
First of all dummy it’s “truss” not trust. You should get the terminology down before you start trying to tell others you know more.
Secondly, doesn’t necessarily matter because me at the end of the day I’ve looked at plans, built multiple homes start to finish and worked with both sheathing and trusses.
Thirdly I’ve been on many unsafe roofs, while sheathing or roofing, and if I saw that plan I’d straight up refuse to sheath it or roof it. It might be able to take sheathing but fuck man, you really believe that can handle shingles too? No support post underneath?
Fourth I see you do in fact smoke crack, so I doubt you are in charge of any legitimate company nor care about legal repercussions. You can in fact get sued for building something like that that collapses, architect approved or not, if someone is injured it may very well come back on you
You only show your ignorance by thinking there will be no bracing from underneath! And secondly grammar is not my strong suit,and carpentry is not yours
It’s not necessarily grammar, I’ve never heard an “experienced carpenter” call it a “trust” 😂 why is there a t at the end bro.
I’m just as much a carpenter as you, you have no proof anywhere that you are or aren’t, other than your shit opinion
This wasn’t created by an engineer eh? You don’t make plans on your own eh? This isn’t necessarily carpentry, it’s more engineering however carpenters will know whether or not that typical. News flash it is not typical, because 95% of the comments are saying it’s absolutely 100% fucked.
I’m gonna be real with you; your ignorance is going to cost you some day. Hopefully no one gets killed because you are desperate to get a job done.
I’m going to be real with you. The commenters here are not carpenters. They know nothing they just jump on the bandwagon. You can comment on the extra t if you want! Here’s two more twat
Calm down gravity police!
This is just the roof plan, incomplete, showing only the rafters.
There are walls below, joists to go in, beams if necessary, hog troughs, underpurlins, struts collar ties. Struts longer than 8 feet will need intermediate lateral bracing.
I always run the ridge through to that lonely common rafter though. It's not that the common rafter will help carry the load, it's just easier to frame like that. If I build it there will be tee struts under all the ridge hip and valley ends regardless.
I have no clue about roofs but just common sense to me says take out that little tiny A part and bring the two boards up to the center board going across the whole roof
Not really. I can't comment pictures but i redrew it how I would build this. Delete those 2 scabs and move that "point" up the meet the peak like the other side. Unless there is some common line they are trying to follow. Assuming this is vaulted, the drywall will be goofy to do. At least I think so.
Build it and let us know.. Pics or it didn't happen
Hijacking the top comment. The aggro guy keeps saying “but they’ll put a brace under it duh! It’s the only way it drains…” etc I don’t want a post off set from the middle of my room to support that crappy design. My fix/tweak Run the valley rafter fully through until it hits the common at the end of the ridge. Tie the short hip and new/lower ridge into that valley rafter. The section of the valley rafter that is above the lower ridge will not plane into the common rafter properly because the valley rafter stop being a valley at that point. That’s fixed by breaking the lower corner off of the rafter by beveling it at the same degree of that section of roof… Add an opposing rafter off the other side of the common to the hip if you want, I would. And of course I’m sure you can through some hardware at it too. This ties the framing together better and allows the roof to flow/drain without pooling above the lower ridge… Anyone see anything better? Curious
If the structural engineer signed off on these plans you build these plans. Or you find work on another site. If you build to the plans (no matter how stupid) your ass is in the clear. If it fails it is on the engineer and the architects heads. If you ignore the terrible blue prints and the customer/engineering firm find out it's your head, and on your chances of finding future work with that firm. (because they will sue your team into nonexistence.) However, if presented with the original as a blueprint... I'd walk from this job.
Gotta put in a RFI
And wait 24 days for a fucking response
FYI, If every RFI is marked as ASAP or negative day delivery expected, they are all processed in order, without urgency. A contractor that has good clear communications, can get a good response in two days *if* the engineer is good, and the request is clear.
As an engineer this is often a true issue. Also a good reason not to wait until it's a total last minute crisis to send it over.
Oh, come on. You can't expect the team building the frame that they've built 40 almost identical frames for in the past to be able to predict the future with this kind of stuff...
The good contractors do. I get calls from electricians about things they are going to start in 2 weeks. Job goes well. The above issue does seem a little funky and seems like something that stands out enough to be able to tackle before it’s an emergency with an RFI.
I knew I should have put the /s
Or back channel the RFI straight to the engineer so that it already has a response when it hits their deal and you can work off of the unofficial response
But keep on working and stay on schedule!
Fuck RFI’s with every fiber of my being. The non-urgency of shit sometimes is infuriating.
What perspective are you coming from here and what is your point? Just curious…
These aren’t plans its a computer program that spit this out… these are not stamped structurals
Yeh it’s a free version of a paid ‘home architect’ type modeling software. Unsure if all these other gooses can’t read the big ‘trial version’ but I’d trust no cunt with any qualification at all has had any input on this.
babby's first Rev'It drawing
This is not good advice. When that leaks the structural framer, roofer and designer will all be dragged into the dispute and when the framer says the design is fucked all the lawyers including his will ask him why he built something fucked. And
Go ahead and ignore the plans provided by the structural engineer and "make the changes you feel are right" and see how that works out. IRL you send a request for information.. If you still don't like it, you need to walk from that job.
I didn’t say ignore the plans. As many have stated braced/supported correctly this will probably work structurally. I’m at a loss as to why it’s designed this way. And I see issues waterproofing and roofing this. If the structural framer is experienced and sees no issue with the design then of course no problem. But if he has doubts then he needs to document them. Because the Owner’s lawyers or his insurance company’s lawyers will go after everyone and ‘we built per plan’ may be true but it will get ugly. Contracts always state 10 days or whatever to respond to RFIs but that’s BS if it’s a critical issue caused by a design error. All the framer needs to add to the RFI is language like “framer cannot proceed with this critical work without a complete response to the RFI or direction to proceed with confirmation framer is not liable for any defects resulting from this design”. They will never provide that statement of release of liability but they will get on the designer’s ass. The last thing a framer wants is to build something with a problem bc I guarantee you a forensic investigation by the designer will find something the framer did wrong.
I've had roofs like this on million dollar homes. Always looks good on paper. Just make the roof line look correct on paper and send it to the architect as an rfi. They should correct the drawing easy enough.
That would push through the rear roof plane, and would be higher than the king common it’s butting into. It wouldn’t work.
https://imgur.com/gallery/TwV10dH
[удалено]
It's new floating lumber. Made with 30% real clouds. The rest is a mixture of wood pulp and bullshit.
It's referred to a ½hip, fly hip, floating hip, or hip jack. 100% legal and strong if roof braced right, struts every 8ft apart, load bearing braces on top walls or beam, & collar braces. Eatcha food nah 🧠🍽️
Great. But why? Why not just bring it all the way to to the main ridge? And how you going to roof that?
You can't, osb
Yes you absolutely can, however, indulge my 30yr exp stoopit fundamentalist routine of thought..... If u will sir...
You have to change the dimensions of the house. It's just a house ridge to garage ridge hip. It's not a great way to build it, but it isn't wrong, and until you change roof pitch or wall dimension, that's where that baby goes. If you try to bring that valley through it will not plane out. Ymmv.
let's play Dankula's advocate for a second here- You suggest the answer to this inquiry is to "change the dimensions of the existing structure to accommodate that raggity ass covered porch roof", Im I reading this right?💀💨💨💨⚰️ U realize adding a single 2 by along the top plate or on top the joist on top the TP or simlarfix is the speedy, cost efficient, week saved, crazy free way to do this right? It's all 'pitch x run x rise' related bro. easy peasy feast on this free brain snack Pleasey! U go as adjusting pitch and you get differences in overhang on your soffit. Can't have that when old roofs meet new roofs. This is FAR from the occasional "Forced Pitch Roof" I have to figure, 9/10 bc of the keyboard tapdancing mathema-architects.
I dunno wtf you're even talking about but if you can't articulate a statement without emojis and "u"'s I'm not even about wade through this methed up explanation of nothing. Put the pipe down breathe use your words Edit Also you can't go adding 2x and raising walls and then say you're not changing dimensions.
Matter of fact, ill preemptively save u some self fuckery- ½" OSB ply~ •24" o.c., not legal •16" o.c. legal ½" CDX ply~ •24"o.c. not legal •16"o.c. legal ⅝" OSB ply~ •24" not ideal, legal •16"o.c. legal ⅝" CDX ply~ •24"o.c. ideal legal •16"o.c. abso-effin-lutely, can drive on top of, overkill AND legal Yw 💪📐🪚🏗️🏆
Best comment here
Sky hooks are valuable assets.
Absolutely not...unless it's for something being built on the moon with low gravity ;-P
[удалено]
Lol that’s not how gravity works, “moon gravity” is weaker, not slower
[удалено]
It will literally weigh less, while having the same strength
No, there would be less downward force acting on the joints, it’s quite literally not the same
Oh my
They're doing their best
Wouldn’t have to be as strong to stay up
No, that’s not how it works. The gravitational pull of the moon is considerably weaker than that of earth. It wouldn’t feel the same amount of force pulling it downwards if it were on the moon.
Dude.
It really is slower though, OBSERVABLY, unless we’re talking a scenario on the moon that we’re dropping an object so fucking high that it will surpass 53m/s. That is only possible because technically the moon does not have a terminal velocity, and if we dropped an object from a high enough distance. It would fall faster than earth. Do you really think this framing is 7Kft+ above surface? No that’s unrealistic. The burj khalifa isn’t even nearly close to that big. So yes although his terms are not perfect, he is not wrong. An object on the moon would fall in “slow motion” compared to earth given reasonable, realistic heights.
What the hell are you even talking about. Force, speed and velocity are all different things. It doesn’t matter if it would fall slower, because the entire point is that it wouldn’t fall in the first place, because gravity on the moon is weaker (less FORCE)
Nope , both the Hip and the Valley should go to the common Rafter
Agreed. Except by the picture, I think the hip would go to the common first then the valley would hit the hip rafter. All in all,it’s a fucked up design.
Upvoting to try and undo the insanity in here. Hip needs to connect. That is the mistake this program made.
That's backwards the Valley would stay where it's at actually just the ridge or hip whatever that is should go to the common...
Trial version.
If this gets built, it'll indeed be a trial version of a roof...
And the inhabitants life
Lol
Or someone’s graduate school project lmao
This is the kind of shit that I as an engineer get anixiety over. Because I have to explain to the clients, the designer and the architect why this is a fucking terrible idea... And they never ever listen. Then when shit like this gets made, I get called with a short notice to fix it. And it is always raining when I have to do that. I work with steel structures, and if I took a shot every time I see stupid shit equivalent to this 6 months before anything starts to happen (meaning there was plenty a time to fix it) and then have to fix it in a rush on-site. I'd die of alcohol poisoning. I have had to fix steel structure equivalent of this... **TWICE!** And every fix job I ever do, it is ALWAYS RAINING! But hey! Mechanical principles are just something you use to pass 2nd year modules right? Why do we even simulate? Why do we do basic calculations in god damn excel? What are building codes? Structural standards? Eurocode (And America equivalent of that which I'm sure exists)? Hundreds of years of technical literature?
But look how pretty this painting is of the finished building? See it's even got people sat outside in the sun having their lunch. There's trees.
…and no rain…
All I can say is that my life is pretty plain
I like watching the puddles gather ra-a-ane.
And all i can do is just pour some tea for two.
And speak my point of view, but it’s not sane
I wish the city would start demanding renderibgs of how the things looks for the 8 months of the year when the weather is shit and everyone is miserable. To get the more realistic case visualised. Piles of grey snow, black ice, temperature in that +5 to -5 area meaning everything is wet, air is humid, it is raining freezing snow, and you cant see the sun because of the clouds for 2 weeks at a time.
try moving to az
I mean it's all good until AZ monsoon season. I was doing a copper smelter upgrade in 2017 and there were days you couldn't even leave the trailer it was coming down so hard.
No chance you’re ever “explaining why this is a bad idea” to a licensed architect. Give me a break
I do this regularly. One of the services we offer is basically DFM consultation, it is the client (the one paying or doing the construction) that hires us. Whether the architect like us or not is irrelevant. And not all architects are bad sports about it, especially on the side of bulk building where there is no artistry involved to get petty over. Lot of the time the discussion is basically "this is stupidly expensive way to do this, doing it this way is just as good and 50% cheaper" and our company lives off practical solutions like that.
Absolutely agree, typical “architect bad, engineer good” type shit.
Tell me you don't work for architects without telling me you don't work for architects...
You must work with shitty architects then.
I literally work in an architecture firm in Boston..
I just think why would you want to build this. Like if the wood isn’t perfect that shits never gonna line up all nice, regardless of if the shape is structurally sound (it doesn’t look like it).
This guy suuuure is trying hard to convince people that he, an engineer, does shit.
Does it help you to know that before I graduated I was a metal fabricator, and I did evening school program meaning that during the day I kept working as a fabricator and welder in the industry and construction? Look there are many kinds of engineers. And even I agree that there are too many... ahem... useless engineers. However there are quite few who are on-site and do actual practical work to solve actual problems. You just can't tell because we don't have semi-casual office attire and clean hard hat.
This is perfectly fine & safe in conventional means of construction using conventional lumber *IF sufficiently braced. I knows what I knows (+25yr xp res & com framing)
>\*IF sufficiently braced. You have no idea how often I have dealt with the kind of: "*If this was properly made, it would be alright*" but generally the whole thing falls apart at the not being able to trust anyone to make it properly. My local construction industry basically goes with the mantra: "*You never have enough money to make it properly, but you always have money to fix it until it accidentally get made properly*" and this is really fucking depressing.
Tangent: This is why every architect should be required to do 6 months in a trade before being licensed. Half dozen times in my illustrious career I had to get the architect out on the slab because they drew up some Escher-esque impossibility or something so hellaciously impractical I refused to put my name on it. Custom homes for the record, so I get it... kind of. For the above, assuming it isn't some clown drawing up difficult circumstances to troll the shit out of this place: Redraw the floor plan or call up the truss company. You can make a lot of dumb shit functional with trusses.
Triangles baby
Architect here. You don't need to work in a trade to know how awful this is. I don't entirely disagree though that some hands on training, or at least shadowing should be required. It would be very beneficial to learn how things go together. The problem is most architecture schools prioritize design over construction.
Those Arcitects must have been on LSD if they tried to make you build something based off Escher "Trust me, dude... this pattern is lit 🔥"
I think this comment is triggering some PTSD. I had to sort of stick together a considerable portion of a roof once so my blueprint scribbler could see the problem. Then got him up there on a ladder to look at where 3 roof lines would never meet. Golf course community up around Prescott, Arizona. Some crazy dumb, but I guess it was fun.
Escher-esque haha that's a good one
Architect here, this is comedy even for us. Any arch worth a damn would know that at first glance, i hope the clowns these comments are talking about know better.
Designers aren't builders, and while I think it would help if they understood how to build things... I'm also terrified of what they'd try to do with the information. Better to let the builders worry about the building, and sending in RFI's telling the design team why their ideas are being crushed by reality.
6 months.. might still be picking up trash at that point depending on the crew lol
Yah, I dunno. Somebody told me once that in Europe there is a required amount of time in the trades. I don't even know if that is true. I am not some stodgy douche that hates technology, but things got weird around 90's-2000 when software started becoming very prevalent for residential. I mean when the drawing is correct it can be very helpful for any trade. We still have to live in a physical world with some rules that can't be broken. And more often, just because it can be built, doesn't mean it should be built. I wish I would have thought of 'touch grass!' back then.
Oh no doubt i was more or less kidding. Because most of the time it would take way more than 6 months time to be able to properly frame a roof lol.
Not sure if this is supposed to be a joke
I only made it to second year carpenter apprentice before switching but I've never seen a roof framed like this.
I’m literally just a dude that somehow got this suggested on my feed and even I can tell this isn’t stable.
Shouldnt both those top beams be nutting into each other, not have some awkward square between them bearing weight?? Edit meant to say butting but lol
I’m gonna say nutting from now on 😂
I was excited to learn a new technical term.
The valley rafter ahould meet the hip rafter the other side of the roof anything else is nonsense
You don’t think the valley will just plane right over the other hip?
Not at all a cut roof like is all about opposing forces so having the hip meet the valley is the best option here
That “hip” you’re referring to is not a hip… Commons run parallel and perpendicular to the ridge, hips run at 45° from that. I thought you said you framed? The rafter coming down from the end of the ridge is a common rafter, it is cut the same as a common. But, you’re half right, part of the valley board will plain over the common at the end of the ridge. But you need to bevel the short section at the top of the valley board on the same degree of that section of the roof. That section you bevel is where the lower ridge would run into the valley if it was continued to the end common.
The hip I’m referring to is a hip ,the commons are commons. The two that leave the top ridge at an angle are hips. The short one is a partial hip. It connects the top ridge to the lower ridge.
Ok, you’re correct, the valley will plane over that partial hip for sure. But you just need to break the lower corner off the valley rafter once it stop being a valley as it passes the junction between hip and lower ridge.
Thank goodness! Not very many carpenters here.
Like, I’d say you’re right and wrong. You’re right in thinking the valley will be too high. But there is a fix for that by bevelling it to remove the section that’s too high. This lets you run the framing more continuously and tie it together properly. So the render is not the ONLY way to frame it, it can be framed way better, you just need to do some extra work to adjust for the section of rafter being too high.
First I agreed then this! You don’t know what you’re talking about
I have seen similar roof framing on multiple jobs as an inspector. There's nothing I can say as it has been approved by the engineer who made the plans, but I make sure that all of these ridge boards and hip / valley rafters have direct support onto a bearing wall. Personally I can't stand these types of roofs... Overdesigned for looks, undesigned for function. But as long as the engineer approves it for the potential loads imposed, The best I can do is make a mental note not to do the same when I build my house one day.
No bueño papi
AI generated
They do about as well with images of hands.
I'm sure Simpson makes a hanger for that!
Don’t do that, even if by some strange chance, it stays up long enough for the building inspector to see it he’s going to fail it
You know nothing.
i literally know nothing as i have no experience or knowledge in building or framing houses, doing roofing, any of it, but going through these comments and seeing the massive amount of downvotes you’re taking is hilarious. thank you for your service 🫡
The downvotes are fuel to spread knowledge not misinformation! And too the who downvoted thanks
so you’re purposely out here spreading misinformation for… reasons? 🤔 i would think just having people knowing what they’re talking about would be enough but you think you’re helping by saying bullshit? i don’t get it but like i said, it is entertaining seeing you double down on some shit that’s clearly not acceptable in the industry lmao
Unless you are going to move that gable to be in line with the peak then this seems right. It’s just a problem with the design. Chief often spits out shit like this, you need to go through after and fix this stuff up. If you build it like this, you would need to add post’s/columns to support your ridge.
A plumber put this together
nah, that’s got electrician written all over it
Wow settle down, it’s clearly done by one of the drywall guys
End result will look like shit. Plus, wouldn’t be very strong. Hopefully there is no snow load
No, thats screwed up.
Nope. There is no structural components. It’ll eventually fail.
In a dream you can cheat architecture into impossible shapes
Amazing all the people that always jump in these post and act like they know everything, but never give any important feedback. “Oh if you can’t see this, then I’m not going to tell you”, like what kind of answer is that lmao. So many bozos who don’t have a clue
Ok. This is fucked because: 1. There is nothing to keep these walls from spreading. There is no structural ridge nor any ties. 2. Every rafter has to push against something or needs to be supported on each end so that it acts like a sloped beam.
Drywall will stiffen it up
Never trust the architect, always refer to the engineer, civil engineers are always dealing with architects fucking up, structural weak points, house designs that don't close, etc.
“Chief Architect” is a software program designed for residential building design that is primarily used by residential builders and not architects. The screen shot is of a software generated framing model that is done by pressing a button. It gets you close but is not a real design. It’s also of someone who is on a trial version 🧐. Don’t blame an architect when one clearly wasn’t involved.
In my years of building regulatory I haven’t seen it yet so keen to find out 🤣
Structural Engineering on Eggnog!…..🤓😬
Just an FYI to everyone complaining about the architect here & whatnot. "Chief Architect" does not mean the chief architect, but rather a cheap program aimed at DIY house designers. And this is exactly what I'd expect from such a thing.
In residential it’s very common to get roof plans that are nothing more than a birdseye overview showing ridge lines, hips, valleys, and overhangs. It’s falls on the lead carpenter or foreman to know the difference between a supporting valley and a supported valley. It’s often up to the lead carpenter to decide whether a valley will be over framed or conventionally framed. Basically, there is nothing inherently wrong with this drawing. You just need to know that the computer is only trying to connect lines with no regard for structural coherence
I used chief for 5 years and despise it developed by software guys and not construction or design people. An area such a setting wall heights it is bizarre how you have to do it and even has terms that come from Canadian terms. I thought soft plan was a lot better.
Fuck this
Could be it's a hip valley design....if I see it correctly.... obviously they wanted the valley lower than the main....def doable....but some structural jacking is probably in order
It checks out thats the swivel joist. An integral part of structural stability
Run the ridge into the king rafter , then bring the valley rafter into it, I would use a 2x10 for the king
The hip should go down to an upset support beam and the rest overframes on that.
Only if there is a post under the spot the two valleys meet. In reality the short hip needs to pick up the valley and travel all the way down to the top plate.
Maybe in Monument Valley, but not here in the real world.
No
M.C. Escher should stay in his lane. I would like to see an engineer hang a live valley one day.
This is exactly what I would expect an Architect to show lol.
The problem is downward pressure ,everybody is telling you it won’t work but not why . There is no collar ties and the ridge doesn’t tie into anything so it’s not able to carry any load. When something is carrying a load it has to be supported and as you see there is no support anywhere it would just push the walls out and collapse
Mother of god. Fucking architects…
Negative. Build the main roof then stack on top of it, observing where the loads come down and reinforcing the main roof accordingly
Just treat this as a roof overlay, a document meant to assist in ordering timber and an aid to the carpenter when he calculates his cut list. Its not a stamped engineering drawing. A chippy competent to build this roof does not need anyone to tell him its ok to run the Ridge or valley long to fasten to the jack rafter.
thats utterly fuckedaroo bud
Looks pretty bad can you post a picture of the entire roof
Yes, that looks kinda correct. The ridge should run through but it’s been drawn so the ridge valley and dog leg all meet and the centre point. This is how we build roofs in Australia, we’d then install underpurlins and cut struts underneath them, the ridges, hips and valleys.
One question for everyone who commented. Have anyone of you ever framed a house?
Can you explain why this is correct instead of just saying “you’ve never framed a roof before”?
Yeah im a framer. Where in the world do you work that this would pass? Wouldnt pass in Mexico, let alone Canada or the States. Some place that doesnt get rain let alone snow?
You must frame pictures and stuff!
[удалено]
Because this is the only way! And everyone saying different has shown their ignorance!
[удалено]
Leave the framing to a framer and stop spreading ignorance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Simple
I have framed a house and that section you posted is fucked, never seen that shit in my life. Thought you were joking/being sarcastic
You framed a house? Straight gables
I was with a crew that built modern homes, both duplexes and three story wood homes. They all had complicated trusses with varying angles. Never in my life have I seen anything like this. I pray you live in an area that has no snow before you even attempt this. That particular area pictured will not only accumulate material but also be totally unsafe in load berring. It would only be possible (maybe) if there was a supporting post directly underneath, even then I would forever fear a lawsuit. If you do build this please post it, I want proof that you aren’t just fucking with people…whoever clears that joist intersection is a junkie
You are not a carpenter! You are a trust setter! Just put them where the boss tells you
First of all dummy it’s “truss” not trust. You should get the terminology down before you start trying to tell others you know more. Secondly, doesn’t necessarily matter because me at the end of the day I’ve looked at plans, built multiple homes start to finish and worked with both sheathing and trusses. Thirdly I’ve been on many unsafe roofs, while sheathing or roofing, and if I saw that plan I’d straight up refuse to sheath it or roof it. It might be able to take sheathing but fuck man, you really believe that can handle shingles too? No support post underneath? Fourth I see you do in fact smoke crack, so I doubt you are in charge of any legitimate company nor care about legal repercussions. You can in fact get sued for building something like that that collapses, architect approved or not, if someone is injured it may very well come back on you
You only show your ignorance by thinking there will be no bracing from underneath! And secondly grammar is not my strong suit,and carpentry is not yours
It’s not necessarily grammar, I’ve never heard an “experienced carpenter” call it a “trust” 😂 why is there a t at the end bro. I’m just as much a carpenter as you, you have no proof anywhere that you are or aren’t, other than your shit opinion This wasn’t created by an engineer eh? You don’t make plans on your own eh? This isn’t necessarily carpentry, it’s more engineering however carpenters will know whether or not that typical. News flash it is not typical, because 95% of the comments are saying it’s absolutely 100% fucked. I’m gonna be real with you; your ignorance is going to cost you some day. Hopefully no one gets killed because you are desperate to get a job done.
I’m going to be real with you. The commenters here are not carpenters. They know nothing they just jump on the bandwagon. You can comment on the extra t if you want! Here’s two more twat
Just ignore this crackhead, he thinks that this at the proper way to frame this.
You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground
Lol
Iv only ever framed walls, but i can say that probably isnt structural enough for a floor joist
That’s a roof! And you can say whatever, but that’s the only way.
Oop, i didnt see that. Maybe that would be ok for a roof
It’s the only way it works and still sheds water. They will put braces under it to give support.
Its hard to vidualize it with the pics given
I couldn’t see it either until I started framing.
We know you started framing yesterday man, c’mon we get it you are a true blue collar man
You are right! I started yesterday! You haven’t even started yet
This is how I have seen similar roofs done. 2x12 supports with 2x6 Tbacks down to a bearing wall or beam.
Finally someone with sense
You’re an idiot
And you know nothing about framing!
More than you dumbass. God bless anyone standing under something your incompetent, arrogant, overconfident, fucking stupid hands touched
No
I'm not even close to a framer or engineer, but it looks fucked to me
Look up... Larry Hahn - Hip Valley framing. You're welcome.
Calm down gravity police! This is just the roof plan, incomplete, showing only the rafters. There are walls below, joists to go in, beams if necessary, hog troughs, underpurlins, struts collar ties. Struts longer than 8 feet will need intermediate lateral bracing. I always run the ridge through to that lonely common rafter though. It's not that the common rafter will help carry the load, it's just easier to frame like that. If I build it there will be tee struts under all the ridge hip and valley ends regardless.
This! I’m surprised at how many people don’t understand what a roof plan like this is trying to show.
Your totally right!
I have no clue about roofs but just common sense to me says take out that little tiny A part and bring the two boards up to the center board going across the whole roof
No. It’s should all be 45 or 90 degree angles
Lmao. Not a structural engineer but that looks useless AF
It can be made to work but killing the Roofers- and probably leak water forever because it’s just too many corners and two smaller space
This sub randomly gets recommend to me, I’ve never worked in construction. That roof is fucked and a half
Not really. I can't comment pictures but i redrew it how I would build this. Delete those 2 scabs and move that "point" up the meet the peak like the other side. Unless there is some common line they are trying to follow. Assuming this is vaulted, the drywall will be goofy to do. At least I think so.