tilting roofline

A few months ago I posted questions about building such a roof. The picture made it to the drop box but I guess I screwed up with the text. this was an interesting project so say the least. The first frame took me a week to figure out. Until the engineer consulted the original design engineer we were scratching our heads. The roof is built in five foot square grid in plan view. Since ther are only two beams lines that are level each corner of the grids is at a different elevation. The lines of the grid differ by 1.4 degrees in two directions. In order to prove that the lengths and positions are correct I had to calculate the diagonal across and down inside an imaginary cube. When my cross diagonals were correct I could tack the cross member in then move to the next. Some grids were five feet one way and only 2.5 the other to make life interesting. All the beams had to be twisted before fabrication. Some were twisted CW and the other CCW. That was fun determining just what you were looking at.

formatting link
Randy

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

Reply to
RoyJ

Some architects are just sick and twisted people. Nice job though.

Reply to
Ernie Leimkuhler

Nice!

Try:

formatting link
Best Regards, Keith Marshall snipped-for-privacy@progressivelogic.com

"I'm not grown up enough to be so old!"

Reply to
Keith Marshall

That is one incredible build! The view is a beautiful as the iron. Where and what is this if I may ask? Blown away... One giant trig project- bet you are glad you have a knack for math as well as the craftsmanship!!

**This is what I'm showing my friend's kid who wants to build ships (From my prior post- this photo says is all!)**

Rob

Reply to
RDF

Way cool! Is this a residential job? Can you give the general location?

What is "CW" and "CCW"?

Thanks, David Todtman

Reply to
David Todtman

Reply to
Al Patrick

Thanks for posting the address Keith. I finally got a text file that really was text and not fancy stuff as the drop box instructions say. The plans were interesting in that they were highly detailed and done with CAD. The dimensions were given to hundreths of a mm. That indicated to me that the draftsman didn't have a clue about initially calling for his dimensions to be rounded off. The drawing were complete but confusing in what they left out. CCW and CW : the beams were twisted along their length by a custom bending shop down the street. 1.4 degrees twist every five feet is not much but necessary to get things so line up square and the beams meet each other. The beams joints are slightly off square. Because it is so slight you cannot set a protractor or bevel gauge on the joint. The only way was to confirm the diagonals across each bay. The diagonals differed about twenty mm or so. There were no bolt center dimensions on any part of the print. That mean't we had to trial bolt each adjacent framework as we fabricated it up. Taper pins were used often because the frames were quite flexible. We proped the frames in the skewed postion for the welders so that they didn't weld it up sitting flat. I still say today that I would not have liked to listen to those poor ironworkers putting this thing together. I am sure they even invented some new cuss words over this one. For the privacy of the owner I will only say that the structure is being built in the Vancouver area. The welding was pretty straightforward however the fitting.... that is why us fabricators make the extra couple of bucks :'))). One thing that really helped was three of us springing for quality digital two foot levels. The Stabila is over two hundred Canadian but now that I have one it is deadly! I can't say enough good things aobut it. I have even dropped it a couple of times and expected I would have to recalibrate as the instructions mentioned. It held it settings when I checked it. With the digital level we could set up our horses at multiple of 1.4 degrees very quickly and move over the frame confirming the increase in tilt as we worked our way further along. Using belvel in 250 mm and then holding a regular spirit level on the two foot square would have been tedious. Randy

"Keith Marshall" wrote in message news:a_KOd.59268$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

All water and snow off one corner ? Wow.

Martin

Reply to
Martin H. Eastburn

Randy,

Good to see we Americans don't have all of the over-educated engineers. :) I have always said that all engineers and most architects should have to work at least one year in the field for each craft (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc.) they are going to draw for. Maybe having to deal with some of the stuff that they come up with would give them a better sense of what can and cannot be done.

Anywho, in the text file it says that 2 of the panels were level. Where are they? From the pic I can't see where any of it is level. That is a good looking job Randy, definitely one for the brag book.

Regards, Jim

Reply to
Jim C Roberts

I meant to say there are two lines on the roof that are level. That means there is one beam line level running across the roof and at ninety degrees there is another. Those two lines are not in the center of the roof. What was a real pain was a 12 inch square half inch wall tube that ran diagonally across part of the roof. We had to cope both ends to fit the twelve inch beams and at the same time cut to allow the tube to drop in elevation. The perimeter framing was twelve inch beams with the flanges cut off until they were only two inches wide. It was like trying to work with spagetti. Randy

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

I don't suppose you have the CAD file posted somewhere? I am taking a CAD course at the local community College, and would be interested to see it.

Reply to
Paul Calman

Nice job!

JLD

Reply to
Jeff Dantzler

We were simply supplied with the detail drawings. We had no drawing of the roof finished. Al we had was a line representation of each framework and a detail drawing of every individual beam showing the holes and copes. It was a geat way to create confusion :'))) Don't start me on draftsman that are computer operators rather than draftsman. These drawings clearly indicated that problem. I have seen 30 metre long assemblies with no running dimensions. That time one had to sit with a calculator doing RDs for half an hour before starting the assembly. Randy

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

Setting up dimensions in CAD is so easy, it's inexcusable to not have them clearly designated. I understand the desire to make a drawing uncluttered, but if the draftsman takes the need for calculations away from the builder or machinist, he is doing a better job. If anything, he should have too many dimensions. Then there is the clasic "unbuildable" design, I've been handed a few of those..

Did this project have large skylights in the middle panels when completed? It's a funky house, but an interesting project.

Reply to
Paul Calman

We only did the strucutural so I have no idea what the building will look like finished. There quite possibly be skylights. I am not sure even where the perimeter walls will be located. The the roof is supported by some very heavy columns. Re CAD: I have been given drawings where the dimension line closest to the body of the drawing was the overall length All the extensions lines crossed over that dimension line. Talk about confusing! I get the feeling that designers now can draw the lines, conect things and never consider how the item will be built since the computer does the rest. Dimensions are oten left out. They end up hidden in the database. While we are talking about welding..... People should really learn their symbols. Randy

Reply to
Randy Zimmerman

PolyTech Forum website 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.