It is currently 29 Mar 2024, 16:47
Malc2098 wrote:I have to say that I didn't go into much further than outer dimensions for mine.
The first time the triage office sent it back for: -
01. The floor plan and elevations submitted are not to a recognisable metric scale. Please re-submit at either 1:50, 1:100 or 1:200 scale.
02. Please submit separate drawings for each of the four elevations as we are unable to accept '3D' plans. Please also ensure that any doors and windows are shown.
03. The shape of the workshop on the Site Location and Block Plans does not match the floor plan. They should include the roofed decking area.
I had sent the Front, End Elevations and Plan on one sheet. I had a bit of a problem getting a recognisable scale interpreted from a 2D Sketchup drawing, but I got there in the end.
And after a phone call to explain that this was a garden workshop, not anything residential, it was accepted, as was.
TrimTheKing wrote:Mark
My recent experience of similar for my workshop is that I specified the window opening sizes on the plans that were passed then decided I was going to replace all the windows and doors in my house and that I could recycle some of the better condition windows for use in the workshop.
These are a slightly different size than the plans, and at the same time I decided I wanted to add a velux into the roof which wasn't on the plans. I called up the planning officer and explained the situation, she had a look at the plans and agreed that the window size change was negligible and positioning the same, and the velux overlooked the highway but no neighbours, and because it's in a vaulted ceiling I couldn't see out of it anyway, so she just asked me to fill in a 'non material change' request which was a formality to ensure that the changes were added into my PP file for completeness, but to go ahead with the changes.
HTH
Cheers
Mark
spearos wrote:Unless I'm mistaken to have enough clearance above a Land Rover (for raising the vehicle), with a vaulted roof I am looking at an eaves height of 2.3m. Which, with a 24° pitch gives an overall height of ~3.3m and I would have an internal height of around 2.55m on the 'low side' of where the vehicle would sit.
This is calculated with 150mm rafters - would that suffice?
Time for another cutting edge drawing:
Mike G wrote:Yep, my last workshop had an Onduline roof. Don't bother with any colour other than black, because they all turn black anyway. With enough support they make a durable reliable and pretty cheap roof. Do make sure you have at least the minimum support the manufacturers recommend.
I'll have a look for the drawing I did, Mark. Are you going for asymmetrical side hung doors now?
Mike G wrote:22.5 degrees is a useful pitch to remember. It is the lowest pitch suitable for slate. I don't think there is much to be gained from going above that unless you are wanting to use tiles, and so need to be in the 30 degree plus range, depending on type. At 22.5 degrees, your ridge is going to be approx. 3.4m (to structure). A 2400 door opening looks just a little tight to me. I'd suggest 2700 to be comfortable. Your headroom (2550) is available over the entire width of the car. In fact, even at 22.3 degrees, your theoretical headroom is about 2700 over the width of the LR roof, so you could raise it some 750mm off the floor.
spearos wrote:..... I understand a vaulted roof requires a substantial ridge board/beam to take 50% of the roof weight (25% onto each wall plate), and this component needs adequate support to transfer the load to the foundations (concrete slab in my instance).
What concerns me is that for my workshop layout it means that directly below the ends of the beam/board is a large opening (the vehicle door). Does this simply mean the 'lintel' above the door will need to be substantial as well? Or perhaps even some sort of 'A frame' with each leg spreading the load onto beefy door jambs?
Mike G wrote:Yep, that lintel over the door needs to be beefy anyway just to span that opening, but as the gables are a complete truss the vertical post can be designed away. To reduce the size of the ridge beam we could put a "principal truss" in the middle of the building if that suited, which would have a tie, or a raised tie. My workshop has a hybrid roof, where some is trussed with raised ties, and some of it vaulted with a structural ridge beam (AKA a ridge purlin). There is always a solution to suit individual varying requirements.
Dan0741 wrote:Mark - Progress seems excellent - It took me a while to plan the roof bits as I wanted as little in the way as I could. Just for clarity my roof is about 6.3m long i think, and i used 9x2's. I bought them in 7.2m lengths and cut the ends off. I know you can use shorter lengths and scarf or bolt together but i felt that was a skill i had yet to master and it was too important to make a mess of...
spearos wrote:......Would I be right in saying that the raised ties on your build are primarily there to give you overhead storage? - It appears to me that what you explained in your last post is pretty much how you built the gables on your workshop, and therefore the ties aren't necessarily needed?......
Mike G wrote:spearos wrote:......Would I be right in saying that the raised ties on your build are primarily there to give you overhead storage? - It appears to me that what you explained in your last post is pretty much how you built the gables on your workshop, and therefore the ties aren't necessarily needed?......
No. I didn't have a continuous ridge beam. It wasn't the gables taking the load of the structural ridge, it was some of the intermediate trusses, which therefore needed a tie.
spearos wrote:Arghhhhh! When I asked this question I was thinking of just the larger roof on your workshop (and I didn't make this at all clear - apologies)
The gable on your bigger roof is effectively a truss using the wall plate as the bottom chord, the other truss on this roof (at the join to the smaller part of the building) has a meaty bottom chord (principle tie?) that as well as spanning the 'opening' into the smaller part of the building it also provides a 'base' for the more traditional 'king post' that supports the ridge on the smaller roof.
So, the ridge beam on the big roof is supported at either end by two trusses hence my questioning of the ties?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests