buttyg Registered User
#1

Hi all,
I've been granted planning to construct the house I’ve always wanted to live in. It's a two story curved roof barn with a full height living area at one end. With the front being faced in the limestone from the little old cottage it's replacing.
Not being an architect or anything close I simply did all my sketches and passed them through to the engineer responsible for getting it through the planning stages.
Now it has come to the construction phase and this engineer has spec'd a complete Steel Sub structure to support the roof with traditional Cavity walls in between the Steel uprights, and to be completely honest I feel it's overkill and unnecessary

The building is 17.8 Wide x 10.4m deep with the Highest point of the curved roof being 7.4m and the height of the point where the roof meets the external walls is 6.1m.
The steel sub structure proposed Breaks the building into 4 bays making for two uprights and a curved beam at 5 different points and 2 additional up rights at each gable. Each of these 14 up rights has it’s own pad foundation. Once these pads are poured it is then proposed to pour the shallower strip foundations between the upright locations.

Am I mad or does this seem ridicules to anyone else. Surely the curved beams could sit on capped traditional cavity walls. The roofing material will probably end up as crimped zinc or a soft torched-on finish(not decided yet, I need to get out and research). None the less a roof of this nature I would imagine would not have the same weight or load bearing of a traditional pitched, slated or tiled roof; which we sit on walls all over the place

Some neutral advice would be much appreciated, be it to prove my insanity or not...

Thanks

cork1 Registered User
#2

no offence bt this guy spent years getting a degree in engineering he is also more than likely experienced at it so it was me id ask him why this is needed (ask nicely) and as long as he had his reasons id go with it. at the end of the day he has to sign off on it and overkill is better than the buliding not being strong enough.

#3

PM sent .

Borzoi Registered User
#4

buttyg said:
Hi all,

Am I mad or does this seem ridicules to anyone else. Surely the curved beams could sit on capped traditional cavity walls. The roofing material will probably end up as crimped zinc or a soft torched-on finish(not decided yet, I need to get out and research). None the less a roof of this nature I would imagine would not have the same weight or load bearing of a traditional pitched, slated or tiled roof; which we sit on walls all over the place

Thanks


Indeed they could - we're about to start on our barrel roofed project. Sounds vaguely similar, though we have 4 different sections (great!). At this stage it's been quoted timber frame, traditional block, and tomorrow I'm meeting the ICF builder for his price. So IMO there's no need, for the extra steel frame, but talk to the engineer, it could probably be redesigned.

dolanbaker Moderator
#5

As the engineer has specced a full steel "skeleton" maybe he has envisiged that the remaining external walls be of lightweight non-loadbearing construction.

The frame he has designed is (by the sounds of it) for the entire building, not just for the roof.

Poor Uncle Tom Registered User
#6

buttyg said:
Hi all,
I've been granted planning to construct the house I’ve always wanted to live in. It's a two story curved roof barn with a full height living area at one end. With the front being faced in the limestone from the little old cottage it's replacing.
Not being an architect or anything close I simply did all my sketches and passed them through to the engineer responsible for getting it through the planning stages.
Now it has come to the construction phase and this engineer has spec'd a complete Steel Sub structure to support the roof with traditional Cavity walls in between the Steel uprights, and to be completely honest I feel it's overkill and unnecessary

The building is 17.8 Wide x 10.4m deep with the Highest point of the curved roof being 7.4m and the height of the point where the roof meets the external walls is 6.1m.
The steel sub structure proposed Breaks the building into 4 bays making for two uprights and a curved beam at 5 different points and 2 additional up rights at each gable. Each of these 14 up rights has it’s own pad foundation. Once these pads are poured it is then proposed to pour the shallower strip foundations between the upright locations.

Am I mad or does this seem ridicules to anyone else. Surely the curved beams could sit on capped traditional cavity walls. The roofing material will probably end up as crimped zinc or a soft torched-on finish(not decided yet, I need to get out and research). None the less a roof of this nature I would imagine would not have the same weight or load bearing of a traditional pitched, slated or tiled roof; which we sit on walls all over the place

Some neutral advice would be much appreciated, be it to prove my insanity or not...

Thanks


from my reading of this the barrel roof is broken into 4 bays each about 4.5m. This means a point loading on a wall for half that distance either side, or in other words the entire roof weight distributed over 5 point loads. A traditional roof has rafters, or point loads, at 400mm crs giving 46 point loads for the roof over the same distance. So to answer your question, the steel stantion supports are necessary and no the barrell roof cannot sit on the walls instead, imho.

Graaaaa Registered User
#7

Guys your missing the point if I get this right from the description.
In 100mph winds it doesn't matter a bit how well your 6m high walls can hold the weight of the roof, the whole thing will fall sideways like a house of cards when somebody opens the door.
The engineer has designed a portal-frame type structure to allow you open plan inside. The walls then act as shear walls in the lateral direction to keep the frames from toppling over in their weak direction. Just look at the structure of any factory unit to see what I mean.
As your walls are 6m high and 4m long they are probable ok as wind panels but don't be surprised if there's a line of u-blocks filled with concrete there too to restrain against lateral wind loads, probably about 3m up the walls.
In traditional houses there are many internal butressing walls to break up and strengthen the external shell but with modern open plan you are forsaking this luxury i.e. using traditional materials but not in a traditional way.
Your engineer is dead right imho, if he didn't do this you would be looking at major cracks in your walls within the year, even windows popping out of their frames.

parka Registered User
#8

and you paid the Engineer to do what?

My advice Talk with him

sandyba Registered User
#9

Hi Buttyg,
I came across your post about building a barrel shaped barn house, when I did a google search on the subject. As the post is dated 2009, you have probably finished construction by now.
We are planning to build a similar type of house on our farm in South Africa. However there is very little reference material available to help us with our design.
If you have finished we'd really appreciate it if you could send us some photos of the completed building, and perhaps give us some advice on the problems you encountered during construction.
regards
Sandy.
P.S. We are regular visitors to Ireland - stayed in a great cottage near Mulranny in County Mayo for a number of summer holidays.

CAtocork Registered User
#10

I also found this thread in a google search.
I would love to see the finished project, and slso the plans you used.
The engineer was dead right with his decision and now you have the option of knocking walls inside the house as your heart desires.
Hate to bring up an old thread but I love the idea of a barn roof.

muffler Moderator
#11

The OP hasn't been logged in for over 3 years so I cant see a reply forthcoming.

Thread closed.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!