Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Structural Layout Vignette and Multiple Choice

Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby matte » Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 pm

custom - upper.jpg

custom - lower.jpg


Please take a look at my attempt of the custom alternate.

A couple notes:
1. There are about 4 more columns than I think are actually needed [in the cafeteria / reception area]. This is because the program stipulates a maximum 35' beam length. If this wasn't the case, I would've eliminated 8 columns from my solution.

2. On the lower level, I only provided beams on the West wall [of the West cafeteria] and the East wall [of the East cafeteria]. These are the only locations which were stated to have a clerestory. I know that there are several walls marked 'window wall', but I was pretty sure they were traps.

3. A question - was it ok to draw the decking and joists as one big rectangle at the center lower area? I figured as long as they were continuously supported by beams it woulnd't really make a difference; however, I don't know if it's good housekeeping to have them break at the intermediate columns [in the corners of the preparation rooms].

4. This might be getting too anal, but in the case of this vignette, the columns could not line up exactly at the corners of the rooms [delivery rooms & porch area]. If this comes up on the test, is it better to keep the room column free, and overestimate slightly? Or to stay within the boundaries of the floor plan?

As always, appreciate your feedback!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
matte
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby matte » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:47 pm

matte wrote:3. A question - was it ok to draw the decking and joists as one big rectangle at the center lower area? I figured as long as they were continuously supported by beams it wouldn't really make a difference; however, I don't know if it's good housekeeping to have them break at the intermediate columns [in the corners of the preparation rooms].

Totally forgot that the sample problem has you drawing the decking and joists as single rectangles, so please ignore this question.
matte
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby Mike-SE » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:43 pm

looks like a passing solution. I recommend NOT deleting columns. Deleting columns INCREASES the cost of the structural frame.
Mike-SE
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby matte » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:22 pm

Great; thank you for the check, Mike!
matte
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby Coach » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:29 pm

Mike-SE wrote:looks like a passing solution. I recommend NOT deleting columns. Deleting columns INCREASES the cost of the structural frame.

Eh, that's a broad statement.
For this problem, I would eliminate 4 columns, using one at each midspan of the four walls of the northern half of the building.
I would also consider moving the middle columns in the southern central bay to midspan.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby patjohns » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:26 pm

I see you have beams on the lower level where the high roof and low roof meet. I have seen this in other solutions, as well, but I don't understand the logic. Would you please explain?
patjohns
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:29 am

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby Coach » Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:19 am

patjohns wrote:I see you have beams on the lower level where the high roof and low roof meet. I have seen this in other solutions, as well, but I don't understand the logic. Would you please explain?

To carry upper wall. ncarb doesn't know balloon framing exists.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby ssarch25 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:27 pm

Is the reason you have beams on the two story portion shown on the first floor, to carry the clerestory?

I should draw this out but basically the section would be, starting from the bottom:
1. slab/foundation
2. wall/columns
3. beam (supports clerestory window)
4. clerestory
5. beam (carry joists)
6. joists
7. decking
8. roofing

Is that right? That is my logic for those exterior beams east and west on the north portion of the two story area on the first floor plan. If there were no clerestory windows you would not need these beams shown on the first floor. Right?

Thanks!
ssarch25
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby matte » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:05 am

ssarch25 wrote:Is the reason you have beams on the two story portion shown on the first floor, to carry the clerestory? If there were no clerestory windows you would not need these beams shown on the first floor. Right?


Right. If there weren't a clerestory in those walls, I wouldn't have shown the beams the the west [of W cafeteria] and east [of E cafeteria] on the low roof framing. I would've still shown the beams where the low roof meets the high roof.

Hopefully the way you were describing the section isn't the way you're actually drawing this vignette, in terms of draw order.
matte
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby ssarch25 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:52 am

matte wrote:
ssarch25 wrote:Is the reason you have beams on the two story portion shown on the first floor, to carry the clerestory? If there were no clerestory windows you would not need these beams shown on the first floor. Right?


Right. If there weren't a clerestory in those walls, I wouldn't have shown the beams the the west [of W cafeteria] and east [of E cafeteria] on the low roof framing. I would've still shown the beams where the low roof meets the high roof.

Hopefully the way you were describing the section isn't the way you're actually drawing this vignette, in terms of draw order.


No I definitely start at the top, seems to be the easiest. It was just my thought process as to why there needs to be those beams on the first floor plan. Thanks for the reply, good luck!
ssarch25
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Custom alt // please review // testing Tuesday

Postby matte » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:04 am

ssarch25 wrote:
matte wrote:
ssarch25 wrote:Is the reason you have beams on the two story portion shown on the first floor, to carry the clerestory? If there were no clerestory windows you would not need these beams shown on the first floor. Right?


Right. If there weren't a clerestory in those walls, I wouldn't have shown the beams the the west [of W cafeteria] and east [of E cafeteria] on the low roof framing. I would've still shown the beams where the low roof meets the high roof.

Hopefully the way you were describing the section isn't the way you're actually drawing this vignette, in terms of draw order.


No I definitely start at the top, seems to be the easiest. It was just my thought process as to why there needs to be those beams on the first floor plan. Thanks for the reply, good luck!

Thanks, you too! Just tested yesterday, hoping to see some good news shortly.
matte
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:39 pm


Return to SS - STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests

cron