# Forum Home Renovation Roofing  Hip Roof Design using external post in one corner

## fiox1

Hi All, 
I am building a home. I have the walls worked out and am just finalising the roof design.  
The issue is in the front corner, there is a small patio / porch and an external post supports the main roof corner. This is where I am stuck with the roof design.  
I have attached a snip of the roof corner in question. The purple lines are rafters, the black lines are the walls and the black square in teh bottom corner is the external post. The issue is related to the rafter supports. This is usually the top plate of the frame. However in this case, the overhang will be way too long. 
Does anyone have any pointers as how to design the roof frame there?  
Regards
John

----------


## sol381

Im sure your truss manufacturer will have that all sorted. i dont see a problem looking at the pic.. there should be a verandah plate from the frame to the external post anyway so that will carry the rafters. if you have detailed plans all this shouldn't be a drama. the engineered drawings will tell you what size beam to use. That top left section of wall looks a bit weird.. why doesn't it just run parallel instead of jutting in.

----------


## fiox1

Hi and thanks for your reply. 
The history of this build is that I had a builder doing it, however he has just become unavailable due to a health matter.  
Considering the time of the year we are in, to get someone else was going to be difficult. So I am now building this myself.  
This is not being pre-manufactured. Had I known that this issue would arise, I would have had the frame pre-manufactured from the beginning. 
The weird section is a small bay window section. 
Thanks.

----------


## fiox1

Hi and thanks for your reply.  
The roof is a hip-valley roof construction and is constructed on-site. In relation to plans, I did these myself and did not pay much attention to the internal structure detail due to having a builder who was doing the work. He is now not doing it due to a health matter and to try find someone now to do it is difficult due to time of year. 
So now it is up to me to construct. My design is in line with all AS 1684 requirements with all materials determined using the supplement table.  
I have everything else designed except this corner. I have seen it done many times, but have never actually seen the framing part. I was thinking of using an under-purlin style support where the wall frames are and a structural fascia. This with the hip rafter going to the post directly may be sufficient.  
I am thinking also maybe a beam extended from the post to the frame vertically and horizontally on the above image. 
However, as I said, I have never actually seen it. 
If anyone has any pointers, I would really appreciate it.   
Thanks.

----------


## sol381

so i take it you are a drafty or architect.. as for detail , the builder will work off the plans not make things up as he goes along. also when you say the roof is being built on site do you mean it is a pitched roof. pretty much all roofs these days are trussed.. maybe look into that.

----------


## intertd6

> Hi and thanks for your reply.  
> The roof is a hip-valley roof construction and is constructed on-site. In relation to plans, I did these myself and did not pay much attention to the internal structure detail due to having a builder who was doing the work. He is now not doing it due to a health matter and to try find someone now to do it is difficult due to time of year. 
> So now it is up to me to construct. My design is in line with all AS 1684 requirements with all materials determined using the supplement table.  
> I have everything else designed except this corner. I have seen it done many times, but have never actually seen the framing part. I was thinking of using an under-purlin style support where the wall frames are and a structural fascia. This with the hip rafter going to the post directly may be sufficient.  
> I am thinking also maybe a beam extended from the post to the frame vertically and horizontally on the above image. 
> However, as I said, I have never actually seen it. 
> If anyone has any pointers, I would really appreciate it.   
> Thanks.

  what you are proposing is outside the scope of the 1684 standard, so it will have to be designed by an engineer 
inter

----------


## fiox1

Hi sol381, I am capable of reading standards and doing drawings. Put it that way. The roof is a strutted hip/valley style and is built on-site. This is only a granny flat with a 15° roof pitch, so not big at all. 
In response to intertd6, I approached about 6 builders and no one ever asked me for a frame drawing. Again, maybe because it is a small 60m² granny flat. In fact my builder was due to build the frame and then unfortunately had to expedite his health care. 
Thanks,

----------


## intertd6

> Hi sol381, I am capable of reading standards and doing drawings. Put it that way. The roof is a strutted hip/valley style and is built on-site. This is only a granny flat with a 15° roof pitch, so not big at all. 
> In response to intertd6, I approached about 6 builders and no one ever asked me for a frame drawing. Again, maybe because it is a small 60m² granny flat. In fact my builder was due to build the frame and then unfortunately had to expedite his health care. 
> Thanks,

   That's because they would have assumed a truss roof which is engineer designed, but the method you have described does not come under the scope of the standard so you can't use it for the design. This is exactly what happens when the details of the design aren't documented & when it actually comes to doing the construction then the stress & possible extra costs start to mount up.
inter

----------


## sol381

60m2 is still a decent size.. trusses will be much easier.. 18m2 carports have trusses. anyone can read standards and draw plans but your plans will have to be very detailed to get through council. Engineers are normally engaged and they dictate what size timbers are used throughout the house including pine framing, lintels, roof beams, etc.

----------


## fiox1

Hi Sol381, 
It looks like between what you and intertd6 are saying, I may have to change to Trusses.  
Believe it or not, you do not need such detailed plans to get it through council here in Sydney. The project has been approved and slab is already down. 
As said, I have read the standard and already designed the wall framing and was trying to finalise the roof. Obviously lack of experience got the better of me and now may need to use an structural engineer for the design. 
But in saying that, if anyone else is able to provide some insight, I would appreciate it. 
Thanks

----------


## jimfish

Why can't you put in porch beams and pitch the roof of that?  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

Thanks Jimfish. 
I was thinking of that. 
But I could not figure out how do I attach it to the wall frame? When looking at image above,. there will be 2 beams. 1 up to the bay frame and 1 right to the front of the house. 
Will it set the eave lower in that location? 
Thanks

----------


## jimfish

We normally take a checkout out of the beam to suit the top plate then place a stud beside and one under the beam. Shouldn't affect eave height but depends on what size beam you need. I can post a pic from the frame we're doing on Monday if you like  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

Hi Jimfish. 
A picture speaks a thousand words. I would appreciate any pictures/sketches you can provide.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi Jimfish, 
After your reply yesterday, I jumped on the solidworks and drew up what I think you were describing. Please see image attached.   
Just note that not all studs are drawn and the beams themselves will most likely be doubled up in construction. 
Thanks

----------


## jimfish

Yep that's what I'd do   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

Great and thanks. I would still like to see a photo if possible. 
Thanks again.

----------


## METRIX

> when you say the roof is being built on site do you mean it is a pitched roof. pretty much all roofs these days are trussed.. maybe look into that.

  Not down here, most builds are cut roof, except for the project rubbish which is all trussed.
I know some on here will disagree, just take a drive around the Northern suburbs of Sydney and you will see 9 out of 10 are a cut roof except for the project cookie cutter boxes..

----------


## jimfish

> Not down here, most builds are cut roof, except for the project rubbish which is all trussed.
> I know some on here will disagree, just take a drive around the Northern suburbs of Sydney and you will see 9 out of 10 are a cut roof except for the project cookie cutter boxes..

  Why is that ? Cost , time , truss quality. Pitched plenty of roofs in my time and am pretty happy not to be pitching them anymore.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## sol381

[QUOTE=jimfish;1035368]Why is that ? Cost , time , truss quality. Pitched plenty of roofs in my time and am pretty happy not to be pitching them anymore.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE 
indeed.. sounds ridiculous to me.. trussed roofs are much quicker and easier to put up..time is everything on a build..also not many guys these days can pitch a roof.  pretty much any new build up here is trussed. sydney builders must be living in the 70`s

----------


## fiox1

Sol381, it could just be that we are better at building in Sydney. God's Country. 
Metrix, by cut roof do you mean site built and usually strut type? Do you have any angles on the solution to my dilemma? 
Thanks

----------


## METRIX

> it could just be that we are better at building in Sydney. God's Country.

  Could be  :Smilie:   
As I said, all the cookie cutter houses are trussed because their all about cheap and speed, and they don't care about the occupants being able to use the roof space for anything other than holding a shoe box, any decent builder cut's their own roof to suit the situation.    

> Metrix, by cut roof do you mean site built and usually strut type?

  Yes this is referred to as a cut or pitched roof, and always strutted to support it.   

> Do you have any angles on the solution to my dilemma?
>  Thanks

  Your diagram shows you are on the right path, what do you actually need to know ? 
Are you doing this as owner builder or are you employing a builder ? 
Have you engaged a drafty at least to draw up a set of plans to submit to council ?

----------


## fiox1

Thanks for the reply Metrix.  
As you can see, the house frame is of an odd shape. Jimfish's earlier suggestion was to use porch beams to create the load bearing member/s for the bottom corner rafters.  After reading his reply, I drew up the house frame using Solidworks. I believe it is a feasible solution.  
I did the plans myself and have already got Council approval via CDC. I had a builder doing the project, but after he put the slab down, he had to stop due to a health issue. I am now doing this as owner-builder and after doing a bit of research and planning, will be building the frame myself. I only had an issue with the corner shown. The rest of the wall framing and roof framing is sorted and is relatively straight forward. 
Now I am not a builder or carpenter. Just handy, so is there anything else I should consider or add to ensure a solid frame. 
Thanks

----------


## METRIX

Get a copy of Alan Stains Roof Building Manual, this is invaluable for getting everything cut right. 
Use T2 timber don't bother with untreated stuff 
I would prefer 90x45 for the external frames, but you could go with  70x45 if you want the extra few mm, 70x45 internally is fine don't  bother with the 35mm stuff it blows apart with the nail gun. 
Studs at every 450 not 600  
Bracing either ply or strap and use structural nails not clouts 
Pitching a roof cannot be done on your own, you will need assistance to put it up 
Remember to put all rounds of timber in the same direction when doing the roof 
Buy a long level at least 1800mm preferably 2m 
Buy a decent circular saw, and 185mm will do but get a decent one 
Buy a decent tape, Fatmax with the wide blades are easy to use, and don't flop around like some others, it's about the only decent thing Stanley still make 
Buy a Framing Nail Gun, Paslode Gas is the easiest, you can sell it when your finished 
Buy a good sliding bevel, Bunnings have a nice empire one at a decent price, you will need this when building the roof. 
Buy a new Handsaw, you will use it 
Buy a string line and learn how to use it  :Smilie:  
Buy a chalk line, and learn how to use it  :Smilie:  
Buy a Rafter Square, again Bunnings have a USA made Aluminum empire for under $20  
Buy a Combination square, same same Bunnings empire 300mm $27 
Boxes of nails are cheap, so use plenty of them, this is what's holding everything together 
If unsure ask someone, building a structure is not about guessing

----------


## SlowMick

nice post Metrix - always helpful  :2thumbsup:

----------


## fiox1

Whoa. More than I expected. Thanks.  
I agree with the 90x45 mm framing. For some reason the thin looking 70x45 mm does not do it for me. With the studs, why 450mm spacings and not 600mm? 
What about joists and rafters? I am using 90 x 45 mm for all.  
I'll look for the suggested book. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure if you have seen it, but there is a youtuber under the username of buildsum who is not bad with explanations and how to videos. He is an Australian video maker so he references the Australian standards and how to use them. 
But what I found invaluable is videos by an American called Larry Haun. This guy is awesome in how he explains the process. Of course he is building to the US standards and codes, but the general process, and probably most of the specifications, are very similar if not the same. 
I just bough a heap of 4mm F27 bracing ply from masters and a heap of 30 x 0.8 mm strapping as well + many nails. at 75% off fixing hardware, you cannot go wrong. 
The only thing I am missing is the rafter square (framing square??). 
I do have a question about the post though in relation to sizing. The standard supplement 4 (for MGP10 timber) only mentions up to 90x90 mm. I can get a bargain 135x135 post. Is this ok to use? How are the porch beams fixed to it 
I appreciate your help. 
Thanks.

----------


## METRIX

Don't bother with youtube videos get the book, you need to read it to understand what's going on, if you follow it you should be able to get a decent result.
No I haven't seen buildsum videos, I don't need to watch them for this subject.  The Australian House Building Manual + Roof Building Manual Allan Staines 
Stud spacing at 450 because that's what you do, cookie cutters do them at 600mm, you said you wanted it to be strong, for what your making it's only a few extra studs, not worth questioning IMO. 
The empire square from Bunnings is a rafter square 
Yes you can use 135 posts, you just cant use smaller than specified 
I am surprised you haven had to provide a detailed set of plans with engineers details to council even for a CDC, who is specifying the beam sizes, bracing / tie down requirements etc surely this cant be left up to you to guess or figure them out ? 
CDC does not mean you just build however you want, it means you follow the same rules as everyone else but you have approval for a certain size / type of structure without having to go full DA. 
These are things specified by the engineer, the builder builds to that specification, if something requires changing the builder will discus this with the engineer. 
Joists and rafters at 90x45 are fine if they meet span / strutting requirements, it's the hanging and strutting beams you need to ensure are correctly sized, these would be specified by the engineer. 
Below are pics from a few jobs, you can see 90x45 was used, but much larger beams are also used to support / strut off as required, last pic is the engineers details.
The first pic shows how a cut roof can get very complicated inside depending on the design. 
Don't underestimate how complicated it is to build from scratch, the devil is in the detail, you can easily miss something that will have a knock on effect which it may be too late to undo to correct your mistake. 
I would suggest you at least hire a decent chippy for part or most of the build to help you, his experience will save you money and time.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks again. The pictures are great. 
For whatever reason, there were no requirements for engineers plans for the framing. They were more interested in ensuring the building complies with CD requirements. In fact, they took 5 months for an approval that should only take 3 weeks, but that is another story. They did ask I make reference to the standard on the plans. As far as they are concerned, its covered (slack you say, I know). 
Apologies if I gave you the impression that I think this is a walk in the park. I am doing all the homework now so I do not make a mistake, and while I am not a structural engineer or architect, I am an engineer of another discipline. Reading, understanding and complying to the standards is not an issue. But I still am not a builder. Therefore I am seeking your insight into parts of the actual construction phases.  
If I really get stuck, I'll get the help of a chippy then. 
Thanks for your help again.

----------


## intertd6

I wouldn't suggest cutting your own roof or intricate wall frames like you have there, unless you are a hard core DIYer with a few similar projects under your belt. Pre made frames & trusses are supplied with all the documentation to satisfy council or certifiers requirements for engineering certification, not that it's hard to do for site built frames & roof, just a little time consuming if you haven't done it before. For a small hip roof in trusses, it would only take a few hours for 2 to erect.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Thanks intertd6.  
Its one of those situations where you are between a rock and a hard place. Its near end of year and not many, if any, tradies want to take on new projects. I have been at this since May last year. With delays due to 'great' council service and having to change builders a couple of times, I cannot wait any longer and be a vehicle that is driven by different drivers. I am doing the driving now.  
I have tools, the ability to use my God given hands, some thinking ability and support from people like those in this forum. As for time, I have that too. 
By the way, out of curiosity I have sent some inquiries for a truss frame. I am sure however that it will not be done until next year, but at least I will have a genuine reason not to go down that path. 
I do recognise your point though but am fed up with all the delays that is affecting me and my family. Not everyone will understand my Logic. I hope you do though. 
Metrix, One more question. Do you birds mouth the rafters? 
Thanks again.

----------


## Snipper

Hi Fiox.  A  handy man will struggle to pitch a roof.  90% of carpenters under 30-40 down south here would struggle. You may have the maths knowledge to work out the length of the roofs members etc but with out the experience and onsite know how of erecting it, I wouldn't go there. Trusses are your safest bet.  They could probably be designed with a cantilever to do away with all posts out there...... (sometimes 1 may be called up for hold down purposes though?)   
I've often given just a hand drawn floor plan to the frame manufacturer that includes all the necessary measurements, pitch, window size and location and thats all they really need on a basic domestic build as yours.  They don't care if you're a chippie or a lawyer, whether council approves, even if you have a permit or not.  They'll design the lot for free, provide the quote and you go from there.   
Saying all that, I don't know anything about the building regs and the preferred roof method used up in NSW, so i'm sorry if wrong info.

----------


## fiox1

Hi Snipper, 
I get your point, believe me. My issue is timing. I have been left high and dry with just the slab down.  
Trying to get a truss manufacturer to build this side of the year is impossible. Sol381 already suggested that so just to ensure I covered all tracks I sent about 8 different truss manufacturers an inquiry last night. Most have replied saying that they are booked out until February or March. 
So that is now out of the question.  
To help, I just thought of building a scale model just for the roof. That along with the recommended book and other info and advice here will greatly improve my chances of pitching a roof. If it takes me 3 weeks just for the roof, it will still be a lot quicker than waiting for a truss roof. 
Thanks for your input in any case.

----------


## METRIX

> Metrix, One more question. Do you birds mouth the rafters? 
> Thanks again.

  Always birdsmouth these are imperative to getting things accurate, you will make what is called a pattern rafter, and work everything off this. 
Your centering rafters are what go up first with the ridge, if you can get this part right your on the way, you will need two people to put the ridge and centering rafters up. 
I do agree with Inter, I would get a quote for premade frames and trusses, these are quite cheap and made to suit your application with all necessary engineering documentation provided. 
If you do want to go down the DIY path, then that's ok, just bear in mind, what looks like a heap of timber nailed together, is actually a precise jigsaw puzzle where every piece relies on the other to perform the job as a complete system. 
You need to keep your tolerances to a minimum, ie anything out by 3-4mm or more is unacceptable, as this WILL affect something else, and you will usually find this when it's too late. 
See below some other pics, showing collar ties, and one roof we did that was such a steep pitch we had to use LVL as the 6m pine was not long enough  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Hi Snipper, 
> I get your point, believe me. My issue is timing. I have been left high and dry with just the slab down.  
> Trying to get a truss manufacturer to build this side of the year is impossible. Sol381 already suggested that so just to ensure I covered all tracks I sent about 8 different truss manufacturers an inquiry last night. Most have replied saying that they are booked out until February or March. 
> So that is now out of the question.  
> To help, I just thought of building a scale model just for the roof. That along with the recommended book and other info and advice here will greatly improve my chances of pitching a roof. If it takes me 3 weeks just for the roof, it will still be a lot quicker than waiting for a truss roof. 
> Thanks for your input in any case.

  in that case you need to go on the hunt for an experienced roof & frame carpenter. Also you will have to provide the council or certifier tie down, racking force, bracing design, timber sizes, grades, area calculations, roof timber sizes & grades for spans, uplift calculations & connection resistance to uplift before construction begins, an engineer can do this but it will be expensive, a well trained builder or building consultant will also be able to do this at a greatly reduced price.
inter

----------


## ringtail

Ahhhh, gotta love a hand pitched roof. I wish I did more of them but sadly (or not) they have gone the way of the dodo up here. About as close as we get is making good the existing while tying in a new trussed section. Which is not without its challenges. I'm constantly amazed at the general accuracy of the very old house roofs. Hand cut green ironbark. Hand nailed with 4 inch jolts. Must have been bloody hard times. See some absolute abortions too but mainly in the 70's "transition  period".

----------


## r3nov8or

This is one case where I truly believe in "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I consider myself a skilled DIYer but would not consider DIYing a traditional roof construction. I would look further afield for trusses (and prefabbed frames if you haven't built any) (try large regional cities) and pay for them to come and measure and then for transportation

----------


## fiox1

Guys, I have built a cubby house or 2 when I was a kid. Where is the faith??Metrix, thanks for the extensive detail. Thanks again.

----------


## METRIX

Problem with trussed roof, if the client wants something like below, truss wont do it, so they guys that can't do this are up the creek without a paddle.

----------


## fiox1

Awesome work.  
Just a question regarding the ridgeboard, valley rafters and hip rafters. I have chosen 140mm x 45mm in MGP10. Do you see any issues there?  
To put this roof into perspective, the ridgeboard is less than 1m higher than the top plate due to the 15° pitch and that it is only 6.2m wide excluding eaves.  
Thanks in advance.

----------


## Micky013

How can you not have an engineered roof plan that details the size of roof members, beams, tie downs etc? In SA (and id assume most of aust) this is a requirement for council - i know you mentioned you didnt have to but id still be getting an engineer to design it. At least the burden is off you should something happen.  
No offence but the questions your asking are exactly the reason why some aspects of carpentry should be licensed

----------


## r3nov8or

> Awesome work.  
> Just a question regarding the ridgeboard, valley rafters and hip rafters. I have chosen 140mm x 45mm in MGP10. Do you see any issues there?  
> To put this roof into perspective, the ridgeboard is less than 1m higher than the top plate due to the 15° pitch and that it is only 6.2m wide excluding eaves.  
> Thanks in advance.

  All your answers are in AS1684 and its supplements/span tables

----------


## r3nov8or

> How can you not have an engineered roof plan that details the size of roof members, beams, tie downs etc? In SA (and id assume most of aust) this is a requirement for council - i know you mentioned you didnt have to but id still be getting an engineer to design it. At least the burden is off you should something happen.  
> No offence but the questions your asking are exactly the reason why some aspects of carpentry should be licensed

  In my experience, if you state all building practices will comply with AS "this and that" council will pass the plans. Yes, plans need to conform to mandatory items such as shadowing, siting, neighbourhood amenity etc, and have enough detail to describe what is actually being constructed, but as for framing plans I've not known that to be detailed further then "complies with AS1684" and/or ASiforgotthetrussASnumber etc

----------


## fiox1

Guys, before you read, understand that no offence or insult is meant by this post. 
I understand your point and no offence taken. I have seen many plans for extensions or even new builds where there is no particular engineering drawings for the framing. In fact I used these plans to create my plans (just to ensure I had enough detail for an approval) and the approval was granted. The only requirement for the council is that it is constructed in accordance with AS1684. That is it (slab is different of course as once that goes down, it cannot be easily fixed). 
I know that for steel framed homes it is different and in fact an Owner-Builder cannot put them up (correct me if I am wrong Metrix, or anyone else). 
If you read my earlier posts you would have read that I in fact did have a builder who was doing this build, but stopped due to health issues. I did not want to do this, but it is way late in the year to find someone else. I have tried before I decided to do it myself. 
Just for the peace of mind (and that of others) I am an engineer of another discipline. Everything I do is in accordance with the required standards and in fact, I have the standard and span table supplements for various timber grades. Yes someone who does this for a living will have more experience and knowledge and will design such structures in no time at all. The matter of the fact is I read, analyse and decipher 'code' from standards and then transpose these to situational solutions s in my field of expertise and without sounding arrogant, this is something I can do very easily. I simply translated that to a new discipline which is something else I also do well. I do not just wake up one day and say I am going to to something without any idea at all. 
My issue was related to something not directly referred to in the standard and I needed expertise from those who work in the field to advise me on this. The solution was simple and something I had thought of as well. My difficulty was how to tie it to the house frame.  
Now I am not always asking questions because of lack of knowledge. In fact I am just making sure I am not going over board in some instances such as the previous question. 
So again do not take this the wrong way, but for anyone who is thinking of writing to tell me to get a professional to design it or to build it, don't. I have enough professionalism and skills to build my own home and only require some assistance where I get stuck a little. Again, do not take this the wrong way. 
Thanks.

----------


## fiox1

> In my experience, if you state all building practices will comply with AS "this and that" council will pass the plans. Yes, plans need to conform to mandatory items such as shadowing, siting, neighbourhood amenity etc, and have enough detail to describe what is actually being constructed, but as for framing plans I've not known that to be detailed further then "complies with AS1684" and/or ASiforgotthetrussASnumber etc

  Thanks R3nov8or.Exactly my point.

----------


## Micky013

👍 all good.

----------


## fiox1

I just received the Allan Staines book. I also bought the House Building Manual.  
Both look like a very good read, so Ill get stuck into them now. 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

> I just received the Allan Staines book. I also bought the House Building Manual.  
> Both look like a very good read, so Ill get stuck into them now. 
> Regards,

  You mentioned making a scale model, it's a good idea as it will let you see how it all works, see below one I made many years ago for a project, its 600 x 300 and even birds mouthed the rafters.

----------


## ringtail

I have one under the house too Metrix.  :Wink:

----------


## r3nov8or

No hanging beams, struts or underpurlins? :P

----------


## ringtail

Nah. Look at the size of the collar ties  :Biggrin:

----------


## METRIX

This is held together with small dobs of hot melt glue, I have stood on top of it easily supporting me without collapsing. 
It had some hanging beams, but had to remove them for another project  :Smilie:

----------


## ringtail

Bwahahaha  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks R3nov8or.Exactly my point.

  there is normally a condition of the CC stating that details of timber sizes, tiedown, bracing etc has to be supplied before construction commences, they don't enforce the before bit, but they are needed for frame inspections & they won't release the occupation certificate with out those details.
inter

----------


## fiox1

My project is via a CDC. I provided everything council asked for and they granted me the approval. A CDC includes the construction cert and development approval in one. 
This particular council asked for a hydraulic plan (specifically for the water tank). I argued that it was not on the checklist of documents to provide and I did not end up providing it. 
In fact, I am aware of many other DA projects that had no engineering plans at all, except for the slab of course. 
Thanks.

----------


## intertd6

> My project is via a CDC. I provided everything council asked for and they granted me the approval. A CDC includes the construction cert and development approval in one. 
> This particular council asked for a hydraulic plan (specifically for the water tank). I argued that it was not on the checklist of documents to provide and I did not end up providing it. 
> In fact, I am aware of many other DA projects that had no engineering plans at all, except for the slab of course. 
> Thanks.

   This seems strange to me that the CC wouldn't set out at least the critical inspections & or certification for plumbing, hot water tempering valves, glazing, engineering, timber framing, balustrades etc. or you just have a CC that says go & build it anyway you like.
inter

----------


## fiox1

The CDC sets out what inspections are required. But they do not ask for any other documentation. Everything is compared to the approval plans. 
Like you, I too thought more was required. But after going through the process, it is much easier to get a CDC than a DA with CC. For example, I did not need a survey report/plan. My finished levels are relative to the surrounding ground. All they care about is you build to your plan. 
In saying that, the plan does note things like "Frame construction to AS 1684" or "Plumbing to AS 3500". In general, the inspectors are sufficiently experienced / knowledgeable to know when something is not correct and they will tell you.  
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> The CDC sets out what inspections are required. But they do not ask for any other documentation. Everything is compared to the approval plans. 
> Like you, I too thought more was required. But after going through the process, it is much easier to get a CDC than a DA with CC. For example, I did not need a survey report/plan. My finished levels are relative to the surrounding ground. All they care about is you build to your plan. 
> In saying that, the plan does note things like "Frame construction to AS 1684" or "Plumbing to AS 3500". In general, the inspectors are sufficiently experienced / knowledgeable to know when something is not correct and they will tell you.  
> Regards,

   I'm not questioning the planning process, or what are standard notations on building plans,  however the PCA will require details of what I quoted & maybe a few more, If they don't, then lucky you.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Actually I do recall when I made inquiries with a PCA, they did ask for additional documentation. But I chose to use council as the certifier for a couple of reasons; 
          1. They are cheaper by far, 
          2. They asked for less documentation.  
Who would have thought the process was easier through council.

----------


## intertd6

> Actually I do recall when I made inquiries with a PCA, they did ask for additional documentation. But I chose to use council as the certifier for a couple of reasons; 
>           1. They are cheaper by far, 
>           2. They asked for less documentation.  
> Who would have thought the process was easier through council.

  are you an owner builder? If the council is the PCA then I think you're in for a shock.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Ill tread carefully. I'll call and ask them tomorrow what they require. Better safe than sorry. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> Ill tread carefully. I'll call and ask them tomorrow what they require. Better safe than sorry. 
> Regards,

  Here are the typical conditions of a certificate, this one had 30.
And then some of the details they require.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Thanks intertd6. Is that for a Construction certificate? 
Regards

----------


## intertd6

Yes, the CDC just means the CC is included in the DA, it doesn't lessen the amount of detailed information or inspections they require. It's meant to streamline the planning process .
inter

----------


## paddyjoy

If you don't have one already I would suggest buying a decent mitre saw, you want to be able to cut all the angles perfectly.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks intertd6.  
I am familiar with the different approval types but I was just confirming as my CDC does not have anywhere near as many conditions as yours does.  
In fact there is only 2 notes in relation to the construction. 1 says that it needs to be built in accordance with the building code and the other note says that it needs to be constructed according to the approved plans.  
Was yours for a DA approval or CDC? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Out of curiosity, what area are you from intertd6? 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

> If you don't have one already I would suggest buying a decent mitre saw, you want to be able to cut all the angles perfectly.

  You can cut all the angles with a decent circular saw, but having a decent SCMS saw will be a benefit for the entire job

----------


## intertd6

> Out of curiosity, what area are you from intertd6? 
> Regards,

  NSW north coast, this was a combined DA & CC.
inter

----------


## phild01

I gave the bare minimum to my PCA for complying development, without issue.

----------


## fiox1

> I gave the bare minimum to my PCA for complying development, without issue.

  Thanks for that Phild01. 
Did you have to provide anything in relation to construction plans for the frame certified from an engineer or were your plans basic and only referencing relevant codes/standards?  
When you did an inspection for the frame, was anything required such as construction specifications, or did they just check to ensure it was build to size and observed to be correctly built? 
Thanks

----------


## phild01

> Thanks for that Phild01. 
> Did you have to provide anything in relation to construction plans for the frame certified from an engineer or were your plans basic and only referencing relevant codes/standards?  
> When you did an inspection for the frame, was anything required such as construction specifications, or did they just check to ensure it was build to size and observed to be correctly built? 
> Thanks

  I just drew the plans myself without any member details.  Their inspections for the concrete pour, frame, termite and waterproofing should be to ensure it complies.  But detail will assist compliance to minimise possible failure and re-work.  Note also that I am owner building and my PCA was easy to deal with.  You should discuss things with some PCA's before choosing one, work out your questions as some can be a little difficult to deal with.

----------


## fiox1

> I just drew the plans myself without any member details.  Their inspections for the concrete pour, frame, termite and waterproofing should be to ensure it complies.  But detail will assist compliance to minimise possible failure and re-work.  Note also that I am owner building and my PCA was easy to deal with.  You should discuss things with some PCA's before choosing one, work out your questions as some can be a little difficult to deal with.

  Thanks. I am in the same situation as you were. I did the plans myself and am Owner Builder. I used council as PCA. They have so far not been an issue. They tried a trick or two at the pre-pour inspection, but they were shut down quick smart using codes and facts. 
Its good to know there are others out there like us. 
Did you frame it yourself? 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

Just noticed you are building a home.  Long ago when I drew my house plans I did include a spec sheet, but it was fairly irrelevant at the time being my own home and again being an owner builder. I had peculiar roof structure I thought up and had concerns about it's compliance, so before submitting I had an engineer do the calcs and all was fine.  Council wasn't interested.  My frames were all cut with a radial arm saw and hammered together on site.
Learn and reference relevant tables, whether steel, laminated, lvl orMGP and know what you are doing is right.  Buy a decent SCMS as mentioned, doesn't need to be a big one, just good quality.
Don't build your own trusses, buy certified ones.

----------


## phild01

> Thanks. I am in the same situation as you were. I did the plans myself and am Owner Builder. I used council as PCA. They have so far not been an issue. They tried a trick or two at the pre-pour inspection, but they were shut down quick smart using codes and facts. 
> Its good to know there are others out there like us. 
> Did you frame it yourself? 
> Regards,

  Just re-read from the start and I might have had some misconceptions about what was going on here, so was generally commenting about my experience with plan specs.  
I would not like to be doing a pitched roof like some of the pics in this thread, and it would be a bit of a learning curve for me.  A 60m2 granny flat would be easier but you have some challenges it seems. 
I did every bit of the framing for my house and you would laugh at some of my antics of me lifting 10"x2" 5.4m oregon rafters in place single handed. Also a 12"x4" 4.4m Oregon beam.The frame inspection went without a hitch and the inspector (Nick Cornalie) most impressed, the tile roofer also commented how flat my rafters were too. Going back a long time for what was my first ever OB.

----------


## fiox1

Hi again,  I have another question.  When setting out the walls, if possible you would have the longest parallel walls run full length and other perpendicular walls running in between (hence the size of these walls will be the width - 2 x wall frame thickness for ends).  
What is the best approach when you have many intersecting walls and only 1 long side (due to shape)? I was thinking all walls parallel to the long wall are full length and all other perpendicular walls run in between.   Any clues here?  Regards

----------


## r3nov8or

In my limited experience, a framing company would (for the perimeter) make them "the required inside length plus 1 x frame thickness" (except maybe for the first and last), then you simply put them together in the direction of their plans, A, B, C etc making sure the outside is outside.  Doing them yourself (which I've also done for a few frames here and there), well, whatever suits you, but if working alone limiting size to 3m long or so I find manageable. Again, my limited experience.

----------


## jimfish

When we build them onsite we set up the plates according to the order we want to make them up taking into account door openings and being able to make as many walls as possible in 1 batch without having to carry them too far. Generally the longest outside wall we make full length then butt shorter walls into it. Each frame is different though and thought must be put into the most efficient set out.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

Thanks to the both of you for your advice. 
I suppose the reason I asked is to try determine whether or not there was a sequence or method that would provide the strongest frame. Or does it not matter because of the way they are nailed and braced etc? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Thanks to the both of you for your advice. 
> I suppose the reason I asked is to try determine whether or not there was a sequence or method that would provide the strongest frame. Or does it not matter because of the way they are nailed and braced etc? 
> Regards,

   The bracing design and roof framing takes care of most of that

----------


## jimfish

> Thanks to the both of you for your advice. 
> I suppose the reason I asked is to try determine whether or not there was a sequence or method that would provide the strongest frame. Or does it not matter because of the way they are nailed and braced etc? 
> Regards,

  Doesn't really matter as junctions are strengthened with a gang nail.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks for your help. 
My profession is an engineer and unfortunately I tend to over think some things. Please don't hold it against me. 
Thanks again.

----------


## fiox1

Hi again.  
I have another question. I have been thinking about this for a little while. It is not so much a construction issue but more of a how do we get around this. 
With the roofing I am using MGP10 timber and Rafters are 90x45mm. My ridgeboard, valley rafters and hip rafters are all 140x45mm. Here is where the problem lies. 
When all rafters are birdsmouthed, the plumb heights are significantly different. Look at image below.  
How is the difference in heights (and angle) accounted for later when tiling? Is this accounted for with the tiles and battens. 
Thanks again.

----------


## Micky013

You would have to birdsmouth the 140 so the plumb height suits the 90. 
Thats how we do it when using 120 rafters when its main truss/conventional end roof

----------


## fiox1

Thanks Micky013.  
But does the standard not say the maximum birdsmouth depth is a maximum of 1/3 of the rafter depth?  
Regards

----------


## Micky013

It probably does in which case you either dont birds mouth the 90 and block next to it for strength or up your rafters to 120.  
If you could i would up the size to 120 - someone else might have a better solution but in my limited experience all the adjusting is done in the rafters

----------


## r3nov8or

I don't know the answer, but it also raises in my mind that you must get this right otherwise your 140s will be at a slightly lesser angle than your 90s and the roof will look 'sunken' from the get go

----------


## Micky013

They all pitch from the same point at the top and hence need to be seated the same at the bottom. How long are the 90 rafters and are they supported by under purlins? Maybe the 120 would be better suited??

----------


## METRIX

> Hi again.  
> I have another question. I have been thinking about this for a little while. It is not so much a construction issue but more of a how do we get around this. 
> With the roofing I am using MGP10 timber and Rafters are 90x45mm. My ridgeboard, valley rafters and hip rafters are all 140x45mm. Here is where the problem lies. 
> When all rafters are birdsmouthed, the plumb heights are significantly different. Look at image below.  
> How is the difference in heights (and angle) accounted for later when tiling? Is this accounted for with the tiles and battens. 
> Thanks again.

  For starters, your pictures are wrong, the ridge-board doesn't sit at that angle, 
There is nothing wrong with using 90x45 for your rafters, and 140x45 for ridge, you don't need to up the sizes, and YES you MUST birds mouth any rafter you use, irrespective of size 
Go back and look at the pictures I posted, you will see majority of these are built with 90x45, some of these are very tall, all are birds mouthed and supported as required. 
Building a roof is an art-form that is learned over time, the book I suggested will explain how its done, but if you don't have semi advanced carpentry skills it will go pear shaped very easily, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail, the detail is learned over time. 
Height differences should not exist when you have finished, if they do you have done something wrong and your roofers will have all sorts of issues, the battens support the tiles they don't make up for mistakes, the structure must all be basically perfect all the way around the entire roof. 
I would suggest you hire a competent chippy who has roof experience if you really want to do your own, you were prepared to pay a builder to do this originally, I would suggest you think about this option again.

----------


## r3nov8or

I'd suggest you use the same rafter sizes all-round. That may be all 90s, or say, all 120s.   
METRIX, I don't think the ridgeboard is shown, it's just measurements for the rafters

----------


## Blocklayer

> Building a roof is an art-form that is learned over time, the book I suggested will explain how its done, but if you don't have semi advanced carpentry skills it will go pear shaped very easily, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail, the detail is learned over time. 
> Height differences should not exist when you have finished, if they do you have done something wrong and your roofers will have all sorts of issues, the battens support the tiles they don't make up for mistakes, the structure must all be basically perfect all the way around the entire roof. 
> I would suggest you hire a competent chippy who has roof experience if you really want to do your own, you were prepared to pay a builder to do this originally, I would suggest you think about this option again.

  I suggest you do what METRIX said. 
To find the birdsmouth dimensions and hip birdsmouth adjustment to match commons, enter your dimensions and roof angle into my calculator *Hip Roof Framing Calculator - Metric*
It will produce diagrams with birdsmouth dimensions, and also printable templates to mark them out.

----------


## intertd6

> Hi again.  
> I have another question. I have been thinking about this for a little while. It is not so much a construction issue but more of a how do we get around this. 
> With the roofing I am using MGP10 timber and Rafters are 90x45mm. My ridgeboard, valley rafters and hip rafters are all 140x45mm. Here is where the problem lies. 
> When all rafters are birdsmouthed, the plumb heights are significantly different. Look at image below.  
> How is the difference in heights (and angle) accounted for later when tiling? Is this accounted for with the tiles and battens. 
> Thanks again.

  normally on a cut roof, the ridge, hips & valleys protrude above the common & other rafter line top edge by 25mm.
inter

----------


## Micky013

> For starters, your pictures are wrong, the ridge-board doesn't sit at that angle, 
> There is nothing wrong with using 90x45 for your rafters, and 140x45 for ridge, you don't need to up the sizes, and YES you MUST birds mouth any rafter you use, irrespective of size 
> Go back and look at the pictures I posted, you will see majority of these are built with 90x45, some of these are very tall, all are birds mouthed and supported as required. 
> Building a roof is an art-form that is learned over time, the book I suggested will explain how its done, but if you don't have semi advanced carpentry skills it will go pear shaped very easily, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail, the detail is learned over time. 
> Height differences should not exist when you have finished, if they do you have done something wrong and your roofers will have all sorts of issues, the battens support the tiles they don't make up for mistakes, the structure must all be basically perfect all the way around the entire roof. 
> I would suggest you hire a competent chippy who has roof experience if you really want to do your own, you were prepared to pay a builder to do this originally, I would suggest you think about this option again.

  As1684 says you may choose to birdsmouth up to 1/3 - its not required (while i agree its beneficial). You can and ive done jobs designed with no birdsmouth.

----------


## fiox1

> For starters, your pictures are wrong, the ridge-board doesn't sit at that angle, 
> There is nothing wrong with using 90x45 for your rafters, and 140x45 for ridge, you don't need to up the sizes, and YES you MUST birds mouth any rafter you use, irrespective of size 
> Go back and look at the pictures I posted, you will see majority of these are built with 90x45, some of these are very tall, all are birds mouthed and supported as required. 
> Building a roof is an art-form that is learned over time, the book I suggested will explain how its done, but if you don't have semi advanced carpentry skills it will go pear shaped very easily, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail, the detail is learned over time. 
> Height differences should not exist when you have finished, if they do you have done something wrong and your roofers will have all sorts of issues, the battens support the tiles they don't make up for mistakes, the structure must all be basically perfect all the way around the entire roof. 
> I would suggest you hire a competent chippy who has roof experience if you really want to do your own, you were prepared to pay a builder to do this originally, I would suggest you think about this option again.

  Hi Metrix, 
The pictures shows the common rafter and the hip rafter. Pitch is 15° so I am pretty sure the picture is correct. The seat cut is 90mm for the common rafter to get maximum seating on the top plate, while the hip rafter has a seating of 127mm (the diagonal length of the the two walls intersecting). I am pretty sure they are right as well.  
While I understand your point about the competency aspect, I am not newcomer to building things; whether it be metal, wood or even cars. 
I am working on all the details now so I do not make the mistakes you keep warning about.  
Whilke I am considering a chippy for the roof, my question is valid though. How does one account for the difference in height (and slight angle) between the hip rafter and other rafters? The tops all start at the same height. Its the bottom side where it changes. 
Regards

----------


## fiox1

> I suggest you do what METRIX said. 
> To find the birdsmouth dimensions and hip birdsmouth adjustment to match commons, enter your dimensions and roof angle into my calculator *Hip Roof Framing Calculator - Metric*
> It will produce diagrams with birdsmouth dimensions, and also printable templates to mark them out.

  Hi Blocklayer, 
I wish you had shown me your tool 4 weeks ago. I have already worked out all the dimensions using CAD and excel (for the plan to actual dimensions). Both together make a powerful tool if you know what you are looking at. 
Thanks again.

----------


## fiox1

> I'd suggest you use the same rafter sizes all-round. That may be all 90s, or say, all 120s.  
> METRIX, I don't think the ridgeboard is shown, it's just measurements for the rafters

  Thanks Micky013. 
However, the standard requires the hip rafters to be 50mm greater in depth than the rafters (table 7.6). How do you get away with using all the same sized rafters? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> I'd suggest you use the same rafter sizes all-round. That may be all 90s, or say, all 120s.   
> METRIX, I don't think the ridgeboard is shown, it's just measurements for the rafters

  Thanks r3nov8or. 
But standard says hip rafters are to be 50mm greater in depth than rafters. 
Maybe I am missing something here. 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

> As1684 says you may choose to birdsmouth up to 1/3 - its not required (while i agree its beneficial). You can and ive done jobs designed with no birdsmouth.

  Yes I have done jobs with no birds mouth as well, they go by the common name of Pergolas  :Smilie:  
Birds mouth is standard practice IMO, it not only gives you a reference point for the rafters, it gives you more contact point to nail off into.

----------


## METRIX

*While I understand your point about the competency aspect, I am not newcomer to building things; whether it be metal, wood or even cars.* 
Yes you explained this earlier, you built a few cubby houses as a kid.   *I am working on all the details now so I do not make the mistakes you keep warning about.*  
Mistakes will be made no matter how much information you read and feel you're confident about. 
It's unavoidable to not make any mistakes,, and naive to think you won't make any, even if it all goes together as you think it should, I guarantee you I could come around and find mistakes after you feel it's all finished.

----------


## Micky013

> Thanks Micky013. 
> However, the standard requires the hip rafters to be 50mm greater in depth than the rafters (table 7.6). How do you get away with using all the same sized rafters? 
> Regards,

  When we have done full conventional or hip ends cut in on a truss roof the minimum rafter size has been 120. Hips valleys an ridges 190. The 190 is birdsmouthed to suit the 120 - thats how you make it work at the top plate.  
While 90 x 45 may be appropriate, clearly its not gonna work the way you currently have it set up. Maybe you need to look at what inter said and pitch your commons from further down the ridge, allowing hips and valleys to protrude a bit - as long as they're not above batten height it wont have a negative impact

----------


## METRIX

It actually might help if a set of plans are put up here, that way we can see what you are asking, this thread is at 99 posts and there has not been a set of plans uploaded for people to comment on, or remotely understand what your trying to achieve. 
There are a lot of very helpful people on here with a lot of experience, I understand you are an Engineer of another discipline and I respect that, but what you are attempting to do is a specialized job which a lot of chippies would not be able to do easily.
You can't expect to jump on a forum and get the definitive answer to your situation because nobody here knows your situation, all I know is this structure is about 60sqm but that's about it.

----------


## sol381

plans would be nice.. as metrix said just get a chippie or builder in for 2-3 days and all will be fine. Roofs are at  least a 2 man job so you have to get another person in anyway. roof would probably be up by now.

----------


## METRIX

> plans would be nice.. as metrix said just get a chippie or builder in for 2-3 days and all will be fine. Roofs are at  least a 2 man job so you have to get another person in anyway. roof would probably be up by now.

  Agree, we have 3 for a roof job, one cuts up the timbers, and two install them, it only takes a few days to get most of it up.

----------


## Optimus

Some of the chippies on here are starting to sound like some of the sparkies on here.

----------


## OBBob

> Some of the chippies on here are starting to sound like some of the sparkies on here.

  Lol

----------


## METRIX

> Some of the chippies on here are starting to sound like some of the sparkies on here.

  Now now petal, perhaps if OP supply more information if requested it can make answering their queries much easier, example below  :2thumbsup:   http://www.renovateforum.com/f196/14...1/#post1036895

----------


## OBBob

Ha ha, there was a whole thread about providing pictures.

----------


## METRIX

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand word's,

----------


## fiox1

> Some of the chippies on here are starting to sound like some of the sparkies on here.

  I am also a sparky.............

----------


## fiox1

> I am also a sparky.............

  'That explains everything' they say.

----------


## r3nov8or

> 'That explains everything' they say.

  ...aaaand pictures and plans  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> I am also a sparky.............

  Well there you go, we now expect you to be answering the electrical questions on here  :Rolleyes:

----------


## fiox1

> Well there you go, we now expect you to be answering the electrical questions on here

  Happy to do so.

----------


## fiox1

> ...aaaand pictures and plans

  Hi all,  
The issue I am requesting assistance with has nothing to do with plans, pictures, elevations, drawings or anything like that. No matter what the shape of the dwelling is, if it has a hip-valley roof, this is the same matter regardless. 
Let me ask the same question in another way.  
To all you professional and standard abiding builders out there, if the rafters are 90 x 45mm (H2 T2) mgp10, what size hip and valley rafters do you use? 
Now if you are following the standard, they should be at least 50mm greater than other rafters. If this is what you do (and it should be according to the standard) how do you make the tops of the hip rafter and common/jack rafters level on the top side, or do you not worry about this? 
I do not know if I can simplify this any further. 
Regards

----------


## sol381

I am just wondering why you dont employ an engineer or at least a draftsman to do plans for you then you will know you are right.. I have been building for over 30 years and have never drawn plans myself. I could probably get some software to work it out but i have no interest or desire to do that. some things are best left to someone trained in that area.. you will need to be spot on with all your member sizes or your plans will never get approved.. for a small outlay all these problems will be resolved and one more thing you will not have to worry about. 
Having said that its totally up to you if you want to save money and do it yourself but i would never attempt to do it.
To answer your question above , i have no idea as i build to engineered plan specs.
Just me 2c.

----------


## fiox1

> I am just wondering why you dont employ an engineer or at least a draftsman to do plans for you then you will know you are right.. I have been building for over 30 years and have never drawn plans myself. I could probably get some software to work it out but i have no interest or desire to do that. some things are best left to someone trained in that area.. you will need to be spot on with all your member sizes or your plans will never get approved.. for a small outlay all these problems will be resolved and one more thing you will not have to worry about. 
> Having said that its totally up to you if you want to save money and do it yourself but i would never attempt to do it.
> To answer your question above , i have no idea as i build to engineered plan specs.
> Just me 2c.

  Hi sol381, 
In my area, we do not need engineering plans to get an approval. I already have it.  
I have sized all members so no issues there either. The standard covers all this.  
All I am asking about is what happens at the top plate side of things seeing as the hip rafter has a greater depth than the other rafters when all are birdsmouthed. 
It is a simple enough question. Now, since you are an accomplished builder, revert back to your experience and many building projects. What do you do to make sure that the top of the hip rafter is level with the jack/common rafters remembering that a birdsmouth can only be 1/3 the depth of the rafter. Or is it simply a matter of it does not matter because the tile battens and tile will account for all the difference. 
Regards,

----------


## sol381

well you say you are using 90x45 .how did you come to that conclusion.. We cant really help if we dont know the dimensions or spans of your roof. be aware tho that if your roof is 20 deg then your hips and valleys will be just under 15 deg so the birdsmouth wont be as deep. If you want to have a 50mm deeper hip rafter then you may be able to keep it 38mm to 40mm above the rafters and have the battens butt into the hip and valley battens which you would anyway, but these will now be level with the top of the hip. wont affect the roof sheeting or ridge capping. still hard to work out without at least a layout with dimensions.

----------


## fiox1

> well you say you are using 90x45 .how did you come to that conclusion.. We cant really help if we dont know the dimensions or spans of your roof. be aware tho that if your roof is 20 deg then your hips and valleys will be just under 15 deg so the birdsmouth wont be as deep. If you want to have a 50mm deeper hip rafter then you may be able to keep it 38mm to 40mm above the rafters and have the battens butt into the hip and valley battens which you would anyway, but these will now be level with the top of the hip. wont affect the roof sheeting or ridge capping. still hard to work out without at least a layout with dimensions.

  Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for. I thought as much but just needed confirmation. I have seen and heard of instances where the hip rafter is birdsmouthed more to account for the difference (see image below). But this is clearly contrary to the standard as they will almost always end up being more than a 1/3 in depth.   
My pitch is 15° so the same will concept as above will apply. 
I will try upload a layout later. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

Pretty sure thats what was said 100 posts ago

----------


## fiox1

That would be 35 posts to be precise. 
So the common practice is to birdsmouth the hip rafter more than 1/3 its depth? How is this compliant with the standard? 
Regards

----------


## Micky013

> That would be 35 posts to be precise. 
> So the common practice is to birdsmouth the hip rafter more than 1/3 its depth? How is this compliant with the standard? 
> Regards

  Pretty sure inter mentioned pitching with ridge and hips above main rafter height. This would solve your issue.  
I cant answer your 1/3 question. All i can say is that through 2 different carpenters i have seen it done the same way. Either they are wrong which may be possible or there is some kind of variation which allows it - honestly dont know but on monday ill ask my trade school case manager and see what explanatikn he has

----------


## METRIX

> 

  Not sure which Sydney you live in, it must be different to the one I  live in, definitely no Snow here, and ain't been for quite a few years,  to be exact it was 7am on June 28, 1836. 
Good luck with your build. 
 BTW Nice scale model, but I can see at least four errors in it, two quite major ones,

----------


## fiox1

Hi Metrix, 
Its not my model. Something I found to illustrate the over sized birdsmouth on the hip. 
Thanks,

----------


## Micky013

> I just received the Allan Staines book. I also bought the House Building Manual.  
> Both look like a very good read, so Ill get stuck into them now. 
> Regards,

  Ok my last contribution.  
I suggest you read the book you purchased. Your answer is in there plain and simple to understand (even for an engineer) i found it in less than 5 minutes.  
Also by googling i found some Australian tafe literature which stated hips and valleys can have up to 2/3rd taken out of the birdsmouth to resolve the issue you have.  
Seriously, do some of your own homework!

----------


## intertd6

> Not sure which Sydney you live in, it must be different to the one I  live in, definitely no Snow here, and ain't been for quite a few years,  to be exact it was 7am on June 28, 1836. 
> Good luck with your build. 
>  BTW Nice scale model, but I can see at least four errors in it, two quite major ones,

   I can't see anything wrong with the rafters, hips or ridge in the way they are cut or fitted together, below that there are some missing parts of the structure.
inter

----------


## phild01

Is there any reason for not having the hip rafters higher, other than the need to have the battens land on a trim.  Inter indicated this extra height and ridge tiles would accommodate that.

----------


## intertd6

> Is there any reason for not having the hip rafters higher, other than the need to have the battens land on a trim.  Inter indicated this extra height and ridge tiles would accommodate that.

   There is a little more work & materials for the battens to land on blocking fixed to the side of the hips, the standard I have only mentions the 1/3 birdsmouth rule for the rafters , not the hip or valley rafters. It'd be 30 or more years since I did a cut hip roof but I was taught to always lift the ridge, hips & valleys 25mm above the line of the rafter line to give more depth to stop sagging at the corners with tile roofs, you can't go anymore than that otherwise the valley will be above the face of the valley boards
inter

----------


## fiox1

> Ok my last contribution.  
> I suggest you read the book you purchased. Your answer is in there plain and simple to understand (even for an engineer) i found it in less than 5 minutes.  
> Also by googling i found some Australian tafe literature which stated hips and valleys can have up to 2/3rd taken out of the birdsmouth to resolve the issue you have.  
> Seriously, do some of your own homework!

  Firstly, thanks for your *last* contribution. 
Secondly, I hope you do not teach classes related to this subject, in case a student asks such questions.
Thirdly, while Allan Staines book does show that the backing line on the hip rafter is to be the same distance from the top of the rafter as for a common rafter, and while this may be the common practice, where is this shown in the standard? This is why I am asking these seemingly stupid questions; because the standard is deficient and does not clearly define what happens with the hip/valley rafters. 
By the way, I am doing my homework. I accept responses/solutions that are in line with the standard, not common practice as they do not always equate to the same thing.  
I would like to make something clear. I have never claimed to be an expert in this field, nor do I believe that I can build this frame better than the majority of you experts here. But I can and will build it to a standard that is deemed acceptable, even if I make mistakes along the way. After all, if no mistakes are not made, what am I actually learning?  
So those of you who think that this looney does not know what he is doing, is going to make a fool of himself and waste money and time; know that this looney does not quit, does his homework (of which this forum is part of) and will build it to a standard even you will accept. Sorry, but the looney is strong in me. 
Thanks for your help again. It seems this matter is resolved, even though the standard is deficient in clearly explaining. 
Regards

----------


## fiox1

> There is a little more work & materials for the battens to land on blocking fixed to the side of the hips, the standard I have only mentions the 1/3 birdsmouth rule for the rafters , not the hip or valley rafters. It'd be 30 or more years since I did a cut hip roof but I was taught to always lift the ridge, hips & valleys 25mm above the line of the rafter line to give more depth to stop sagging at the corners with tile roofs, you can't go anymore than that otherwise the valley will be above the face of the valley boards
> inter

  Thanks Inter. Turns out that I was applying the 1/3 rule to all rafters when it only really applies to all rafters except the hip and valley rafters. 
Regards

----------


## METRIX

> Firstly, thanks for your *last* contribution. 
> Secondly, I hope you do not teach classes related to this subject, in case a student asks such questions.

  YOU have received a lot of good information on here from people willing to give YOU information and their time for FREE, yes FREE. 
Understand YOU have contributed nothing to the forum in helping others in YOUR area of specialty, yet YOU feel everyone needs to jump up and down and provide YOU the information YOU want in a split second and YOU seem to feel it's acceptable to come back with smart comments to the very people who are trying to help YOU. 
Micky is only a young fella, who has proved on here many times to be very knowledgeable and extremely helpful, he even offered to ask his trade school case manager YOUR question to provide YOU an answer to help YOU out.
That shows YOU the type of person he is, which is  
YOU should take the information YOU have been given, go build YOUR granny flat and live happily in YOUR self contained world that YOU did it and YOU didn't need the help of any so called experts to do it.
It annoys me to see people like YOU come on here expecting everything is given to them at the drop of a hat, yet provide nothing in return, I believe they call this the age of entitlement ?. 
YOU will notice there is a lot of YOU in the above, unlike the above not everything in this world is about YOU, good luck with YOUR build YOUR going to need it, the below says it all.  https://youtu.be/ICVXf8Vznec?t=80

----------


## sol381

You had to finish with the brady bunch didnt you.  Im sure that post could have been used a lot in the past and im sure will be used a lot in the future as well. Not just on this forum either.

----------


## Optimus

Dear METRIX  
YOU should learn when to use "YOUR" &"YOU'RE"

----------


## fiox1

> YOU have received a lot of good information on here from people willing to give YOU information and their time for FREE, yes FREE. 
> Understand YOU have contributed nothing to the forum in helping others in YOUR area of specialty, yet YOU feel everyone needs to jump up and down and provide YOU the information YOU want in a split second and YOU seem to feel it's acceptable to come back with smart comments to the very people who are trying to help YOU. 
> Micky is only a young fella, who has proved on here many times to be very knowledgeable and extremely helpful, he even offered to ask his trade school case manager YOUR question to provide YOU an answer to help YOU out.
> That shows YOU the type of person he is, which is  
> YOU should take the information YOU have been given, go build YOUR granny flat and live happily in YOUR self contained world that YOU did it and YOU didn't need the help of any so called experts to do it.
> It annoys me to see people like YOU come on here expecting everything is given to them at the drop of a hat, yet provide nothing in return, I believe they call this the age of entitlement ?. 
> YOU will notice there is a lot of YOU in the above, unlike the above not everything in this world is about YOU, good luck with YOUR build YOUR going to need it, the below says it all.  https://youtu.be/ICVXf8Vznec?t=80

  Thanks for the long winded reply.  
I am a student here. All I am getting for free is your advice and years of expertise. Surely as the professional that you are, you do not expect anything in return other than the satisfaction that you have provided a service that ensures a construction project out there will be built the correct way. 
Whether or not you responded to the post has no influence on whether or not the project would go ahead, as it will regardless. I have thanked all those who have provided assistance and advice, have I not.  
Unfortunately, young fella Mick decided to respond in a manner forgetting I am the student and he is the teacher. A teacher provides all the help and assistance they can without ever expecting anything in return; other than that they provided some positive insight from their personal expertise and experiences. So excuse me if you think I was a little harsh. You may want to excuse him too though. 
I get asked all sorts of questions about things I have done/worked in the past or currently, regardless of what it relates to. People know I have 'some' experience and knowledge. I have never claimed to be a know it all, otherwise why would I be on this forum.  
I do not arc up because someone asked a question while they think the solution may have already been provided. I have managed teams of engineers and even taught at universities in my field. Again I get asked all sorts of questions, that may seem stupid or ignorant on the surface, but regardless it is my personal job to ensure I provide the right response. No question is stupid. Only answers and responses are.  
All questions should be embraced as an opportunity to enlighten someone. I might add, no one has yet resolved my issue from a standard perspective. It seems to be up to the the fabricator to decide what to do with the hip rafter. Anything goes. 
So thanks again for your insightful response. Just to confirm, I have been on the electrical forum. But there has been nothing so far that I can add value to. 
I not much of a fan of the Brady Bunch either.

----------


## phild01

Gee, when I was the 'student', the 'teacher' usually said "RTFM" :Biggrin:

----------


## sol381

I have been given some wise counsel from one of the members here about this thread but here goes anyway.. From the start we have asked for plans , even simple roof plans but you havent presented them yet so it does make it difficult. As for "I might add, no one has yet resolved my issue from a standard perspective:". We have. Quite a few of us have said that you would be better off employing a chippie or builder, as doing a roof by yourself may not be impossible, it will be extremely difficult and time consuming. You wont get all the answers here because you dont need them.. Your offsiders will tell you and show you how to do it.. Bite the bullet, pay the trades and get the job done. Quite simple really.

----------


## fiox1

Wow, you call post #100 the beginning. 
I did not need help with the design or plans. I needed help with concepts of construction. 
While I have not mentioned it, I am looking for a someone to build the roof. The few I have had come and quote are too busy for the next 2 months. So I will keep looking, but in the mean time, I need to understand how to construct it myself. That is how I am. If you cannot provide a resolution, then you do not need to respond. That is quite simple too. 
The 'I might add.......' line actually still stands as no one here can tell how the standard deals with this issue. Actually, I can tell you. The standard does not deal with this issue. 
Thanks for your reply anyway.

----------


## Jon

> Actually, I can tell you. The standard does not deal with this issue. 
> Thanks for your reply anyway.

  And this is why you need to have a competant and experienced person working with you.  Not everything can be answered in a forum post.  
The other alternative is to supply detailed plans and then have a competant and experienced person then provide a detailed cutting list for you, at a cost. 
I am not a builder, i work in a totally different trade but I also deal with the complexities of applying a set of mandated standards in a real world situation.  
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

> I am not a builder, i work in a totally different trade but I also deal with the complexities of applying a set of mandated standards in a real world situation.

  Thanks Jon. This is the same situation as myself.  As said before, I have no issues with the design. That is all done. I only had some issues with some actual construction concepts. 
These have now been resolved from a practical point of view. However my last query about the hip rafter shows that it cannot be resolved using the standard as there is no detail about it. It has purely practical resolve that has no standard guidelines.  
Regards

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks Inter. Turns out that I was applying the 1/3 rule to all rafters when it only really applies to all rafters except the hip and valley rafters. 
> Regards

  it is impossible for the hip & valley rafters to adhere to the 1/3 birds mouth rule if the other rafters are birdsmouthed 1/3, with a bit of manipulation of the heights of the hips valleys & ridge it can be reduced some.
some people think it's rocket science to build a roof, build a scale model first to test your competency then assess your possibilitys after that.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> it is impossible for the hip & valley rafters to adhere to the 1/3 birds mouth rule if the other rafters are birdsmouthed 1/3, with a bit of manipulation of the heights of the hips valleys & ridge it can be reduced some.
> some people think it's rocket science to build a roof, build a scale model first to test your competency then assess your possibilitys after that.
> inter

  Thanks Inter, 
Appreciate the positive advice. 
Regards

----------


## METRIX

> Dear METRIX  
> YOU should learn when to use "YOUR" &"YOU'RE"

----------


## fiox1

To double top plate or not. That is the question. 
Any opinions here?

----------


## paddyjoy

> To double top plate or not. That is the question. 
> Any opinions here?

  I would definitely double top plate, lots of benefits for not a lot of extra cost in the grand scheme of things.

----------


## r3nov8or

Do that except in the corners and you solve your birdsmouth 'compliance issue'  :Smilie:

----------


## jimfish

Generally with a cut roof you set out so that studs are under rafters with no double top plate as all internal walls are also supporting ceiling joists. If you double top plate, all internal walls will need doubling up as well.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks Jimfish. 
I have a question regarding the grade of timber.  
I have been quoted by many suppliers F5 instead of MGP10. I looked up the tables and generally F5 is ok except with the spans being lower than MGP10. Also the sizes in the span tables are not the same. e.g. 90x45 MGP10 or 100x50 F5. I have also found that F5 in the larger stock (140 and above)  seems to have to be much larger than MGP10 to achieve similar spans. 
So I am considering using F5 for rafters, studs and plates, and MGP10 for lintels and beams. 
Does anyone have an opinion as to the use of F5 or MGP10 and about my mixed usage? 
Also, just on rafters. While it is standard practice to have rafters over the studs on top plates, I do not believe the standard calls for this to be the case. If I have wall studs at 450mm spacings, and a double top plate, is there any issue in having 600mm rafter spacings? 
Regards

----------


## OBBob

> Thanks Jimfish. 
> I have a question regarding the grade of timber.  
> I have been quoted by many suppliers F5 instead of F7. I looked up the tables and generally F5 is ok except with the spans being lower than MGP10. Also the sizes in the span tables are not the same. e.g. 90x45 MGP10 or 100x50 F5. I have also found that F5 in the larger stock (140 and above)  seems to have to be much larger than MGP10 to achieve similar spans. 
> So I am considering using F5 for rafters, studs and plates, and MGP10 for lintels and beams. 
> Does anyone have an opinion as to the use of F5 or MGP10 and about my mixed usage? 
> Also, just on rafters. While it is standard practice to have rafters over the studs on top plates, I do not believe the standard calls for this to be the case. If I have wall studs at 450mm spacings, and a double top plate, is there any issue in having 600mm rafter spacings? 
> Regards

  Is f5 rough saw at those dimensions?  
You can be off the studs with the rafters but the Surveyor may ask you to block below (even with a double top plate). Speaking from Victorian experience, don't recall your location.

----------


## fiox1

> Is f5 rough saw at those dimensions?  
> You can be off the studs with the rafters but the Surveyor may ask you to block below (even with a double top plate). Speaking from Victorian experience, don't recall your location.

  Hi OBBob, 
The dimensions are from the standard, so I presume they are finished sizes. 
Regarding the blocking requirement, the standard only calls for it for roof loads of up to 10m² (correct me if I am wrong here guys) and has no mention of rafters having this requirement.  
By the way, I am from Sydney. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Hi OBBob, 
> The dimensions are from the standard, so I presume they are finished sizes. 
> Regarding the blocking requirement, the standard only calls for it for roof loads of up to 10m² (correct me if I am wrong here guys) and has no mention of rafters having this requirement.  
> By the way, I am from Sydney. 
> Regards,

  Is it a big price difference to mgp10? I'd err towards over sizing. Presumably the timber is going to be in generally nicer condition anyway.  I don't know where you'd get anything less than mgp10 down here.  
As for blocks, you'll have a heap of offcuts, just block where the rafter lands a long way from the stud. Peace of mind.

----------


## METRIX

> Also the sizes in the span tables are not the same. e.g. 90x45 MGP10 or 100x50 F5.

  Not sure what tables your referring to  but my 1684 show the same sizes.   

> Does anyone have an opinion as to the use of F5 or MGP10 and about my mixed usage?

  F5 is rubbish, used for rubbish builds such as cubby houses

----------


## sol381

Another reason to get an engineer to do the drawings but seeing as you aren`t then just put down what you think. Then give them to your certifier who will send them to council. Hopefully some bright spark there will see the error if there is one, put down the right timber sizes and everyones happy.

----------


## fiox1

> Not sure what tables your referring to  but my 1684 show the same sizes.   
> F5 is rubbish, used for rubbish builds such as cubby houses

  Hi Metrix, 
Supplement 4 for MGP10 and Supplement 10 for F5. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Another reason to get an engineer to do the drawings but seeing as you aren`t then just put down what you think. Then give them to your certifier who will send them to council. Hopefully some bright spark there will see the error if there is one, put down the right timber sizes and everyones happy.

  Thanks Sol381, 
I am not sure you get it. I have no issues with the drawings, or the right timber sizes. These are all covered.  
Also, we do not need drawing showing member sizes to get an approval. I have this already as well. 
I was asking for an opinion related to the different grades.  
I probably did not clearly explain myself. I have requested a quote for 90x45mm MGP10 and have been quoted 90x45mm F5. Yet looking in the F5 supplement table, there is no 90x45mm. There is 100 x 38 or 100 x 50. How can they then be directly supplemented? Or is it standard protocol for a timber yard to supply 100x50mm instead of 90x45mm? 
Regards

----------


## sol381

as metrix said f5 is crap grade and an older grading system.. go mgp10 or mpg12. im baffled how you can submit plans with no member sizes on them. theres no way i would do a job that didnt have them stamped on the plan, nor have i ever seen a set of plans that didnt have them on. also  what is an engineer or certifier going to check against. must have different regulations down there. 
Im actually just doing a carport at the front of my place now and the trusses are all mgp10 but the ceiling binders they sent are all f5.. certainly see the difference. Knot city.

----------


## fiox1

> as metrix said f5 is crap grade and an older grading system.. go mgp10 or mpg12.

  Thanks Sol381.  
I thought I would throw the question out there as the savings on about $2k of timber was going to be about $400. 
But seeing as you pro's here do not recommend it (and deep down I did not want to go with it really mainly due to ) I will stick with MGP10. 
Thanks again.

----------


## r3nov8or

I stick with the Simplified version of AS1684, as the span tables are based on grades and sizes most likely available (not everything ever produced)

----------


## METRIX

> Hi Metrix, 
> Supplement 4 for MGP10 and Supplement 10 for F5. 
> Regards,

  Supplement 1 is Seasoned F5 and it has the standard sizes, and IF and only IF you really want to consider building something fit for a cubby you MIGHT use this.
Supplement 10, is Unseasoned F5 which contains the sizes your referring to, and should be renamed to Supplement rubbish. 
If that's the one your referring to, good luck with that IF you can actually find unseasoned F5 best to ask for it to be pre cut into 600mm lengths then split into 4 pieces because it would only be good for kindling in the fireplace.
Sorry to say but if you would consider building something from Unseasoned F5 pine you need to go back to the drawing board, if your not sure of the difference between seasoned and unseasoned timber, you had better google it. *
AS 1684.2 N1/N2 Supp 1-2010 
Residential timber-framed construction - Non-cyclonic areas - N1/N2 Supplement 1: 
Timber framing span tables - Wind classification N1/N2 - Seasoned softwood - Stress Grade F5 (Supplement to AS 1684.2-2010)*  *AS 1684.2 N1/N2 Supp 10-2010 
Residential timber-framed construction - Non-cyclonic areas - N1/N2 Supplement 10: 
Timber framing span tables - Wind classification N1/N2 - Unseasoned softwood - Stress Grade F5 (Supplement to AS 1684.2-2010)*

----------


## sol381

skimping to save a few dollars on the right material is a deathwish. having the chance of a roof falling on your head is not worth $400.

----------


## OBBob

As with many of these things, it's not worth the saving IMHO.

----------


## OBBob

> skimping to save a few dollars on the right material is a deathwish. having the chance of a roof falling on your head is not worth $400.

  Well on the less dramatic side   :Biggrin:  the better grade of timber is likely to arrive and stay straighter. It's also likely to be nicer to dirk with than something with lots of knots.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks Metrix. 
My mistake. I actually thought I bought the seasoned version rather than unseasoned. My error at the checkout on SAIGlobal. 
Spans are the same whether it is seasoned or not. 
Now it all makes sense. 
Thanks.

----------


## fiox1

> skimping to save a few dollars on the right material is a deathwish. having the chance of a roof falling on your head is not worth $400.

  A bit melodramatic aren't we? If the timber was not suitable, it would not be specified in the standard.  
A builder may have a personal opinion on the timber used. But the standards are created with a lot of input from industry and professionals. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Well on the less dramatic side   the better grade of timber is likely to arrive and stay straighter. It's also likely to be nicer to dirk with than something with lots of knots.

  Based on the feedback received from you today, I am sticking with my gut instinct and using MGP10. I was only looking at it as an option. 
Regards

----------


## METRIX

> A bit melodramatic aren't we? If the timber was not suitable, it would not be specified in the standard.  
> A builder may have a personal opinion on the timber used. But the standards are created with a lot of input from industry and professionals. 
> Regards,

  No not really, when you have seen the difference in the grades of timbers, you wouldn't consider the saving of $400 to compromise MGP10 vs F5 weak as matchstick stuff. 
Think about timber, it's graded from MGP15 then to MGP12 then to MGP10, and F7 to F5 to non structural each one progressively gets worse in strength and quality, saying that, MGP10 is a quality timber when it's produced from a quality mill. 
MGP10 is the standard for building anything nowadays, it used to be F7 but as with anything it's quicker for a machine to grade and stack the timber than a person, so MGP has become the new standard to work with, F7 is still available is some places, F5 haven't seen this anywhere I shop. 
It's not about preference it's about what's available everywhere, and what works, MGP10 is everywhere and it works available in non treated, or treated H2 H3 (T2, T3), and don't say your considering non treated for your build.

----------


## webtubbs

A bit off topic, but I was reading about Timberlink MGP10 and they say that where F7 is specified you normally can't use MGP10 instead. Except theirs of course. Is that true, or is it just marketting?  http://www.timberlinkaustralia.com.a...tural-framing/

----------


## METRIX

You need to refer to the span tables for each grade, MGP10 will outperform F7 in certain instances, the opposite it true for F7 in certain situations, but NO you cannot directly substitute MGP graded timber for F7, they are graded different and you should refer to the span tables for the particular grade timber your intending to use. 
Timberlink is different as shown below it's interchangeable, as they produce both F7 and MGP10, they have a system which grades them differently so they exceed both standards.. 
All Timberlink branded structural framing is produced under a system  compliant with AS1748.1:2011 so the structural properties of Timberlink  MGP10 all exceed the requirements for both MGP10 and F7 grades as  specified in AS1720.1:2010.
If a design compliant with AS1720.1:2010  specifies the use of F7 graded timber, Timberlink MGP10 can be  substituted unlike other brands of MGP10.

----------


## fiox1

> It's not about preference it's about what's available everywhere, and what works, MGP10 is everywhere and it works available in non treated, or treated H2 H3 (T2, T3), and don't say your considering non treated for your build.

  I may be crazy enough to take on such a monumental task. But I am not that crazy that I won't use treated timber. Have some faith. H2 (T2) to be precise.  
Regards

----------


## intertd6

Don't worry about the F5 or mgp10 thing too much, it's all pine & 1/2 the strength of the lowest grade north coast green HWD,
as long as it's kept out of the weather & sun it'll do the job if complying with the span tables , I doubt if anybody here could tell the difference between the two grades if they were unmarked, I know I couldn't.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Thanks Intertd6. 
Please clarify what you mean by   

> as long as it's kept out of the weather & sun it'll do the job if complying with the span tables

  . Are you referring to before /after construction or in the long term? 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

The timber will be unaffected by any reasonable build time.

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks Intertd6. 
> Please clarify what you mean by . Are you referring to before /after construction or in the long term? 
> Regards,

  i was referring to build time open to the elements, the sun & moisture will effect lower quality timber & a certain percentage of pine no matter what the grade will warp, bow, twist & get black stain if left exposed to the elements for too long.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Merry Christmas to all.  
Hope you have a joyous celebration with your families and friends. 
Regards

----------


## OBBob

+1

----------


## fiox1

Happy New Year to all. 
I have a question regarding the fascia board. If birds mouthing, a structural fascia board must be used (correct me if I am wrong). This is specified as a timber board. Is there a colorbond fascia that also meets this requirement or typically are colorbond covers placed over the timber boards? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Can anyone here recommend a roofer for tiling the roof in the next few weeks? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Happy New Year to all. 
> I have a question regarding the fascia board. If birds mouthing, a structural fascia board must be used (correct me if I am wrong). This is specified as a timber board. Is there a colorbond fascia that also meets this requirement or typically are colorbond covers placed over the timber boards? 
> Regards,

  It's sorry it's hard without the design... but wouldn't you do end rafters and then have a fascia over the rafter? The fascia ends up being sacrificial (over many years). The tilers also will usually want it in a particular position to be able to point the ends. There might also be colorbond options.  
I reckon getting a tiler at short notice at this time if year sounds tough but hopefully your area is different.

----------


## r3nov8or

There are both colorbond fascia and fascia cover systems. See the Brochures section here...  NOVALINE® Fascia System | Lysaght

----------


## fiox1

Sorry I think I have not made my self clear.  
The standard requires a structural fascia be used at the end of the rafters if the rafters are birdsmouthed (see below).  
"Rafter overhang limits contained in the Span Tables in Appendix A are applicable for usewith a birdsmouth notch not exceeding one-third of the rafter depth in combination with a
structural fascia that is rigidly connected to the ends of the rafters (see Figure 7.19(a)). A
minimum timber (softwood) structural fascia of 190 × 19 mm shall be used." 
I was hoping to use a fascia system such as the Novaline to save double the work.  
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

How big are your eaves? The standard allows for the largest eave, around 750mm. Eaves these days are rarely that large, or non-existent.  Your first (or is it last) roof batten will also provide a level of bracing for the rafter ends. If you want to apply the letter of the AS you will need to install a structural fascia

----------


## fiox1

My eaves are 450mm. 
Does anyone install structural fascia's anymore? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I did. My extension was in keeping with the original house at about 700mm eaves and I added a treated timber fascia with the slot to take the eave lining sheets 
Edit: the extension has a truss roof

----------


## jimfish

I have never installed a structural fascia because rafters are birdsmouthed. I must have been doing it wrong all these years.

----------


## OBBob

> I have never installed a structural fascia because rafters are birdsmouthed. I must have been doing it wrong all these years.

  I was unaware of that requirement, which is good because my last extension wouldn't have been in keeping with the old house of I had to do that.

----------


## fiox1

> I have never installed a structural fascia because rafters are birdsmouthed. I must have been doing it wrong all these years.

  I cannot determine if you are being sarcastic or serious. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> I did. My extension was in keeping with the original house at about 700mm eaves and I added a treated timber fascia with the slot to take the eave lining sheets 
> Edit: the extension has a truss roof

  Correct me if I am wrong, but did not all homes that are at least 20 or so years old have a timber fascia only?  
I my opinion, I do not see the benefit of having it over not having it, other than having somewhere to insert the eave. But I also am not a builder/carpenter. 
Regards,

----------


## ringtail

> Does anyone install structural fascia's anymore? 
> ,

  
It's all I ever install except I just call it fascia. I won't have a bar of metal fascia, I just dont like it.

----------


## jimfish

> I cannot determine if you are being sarcastic or serious. 
> Regards,

  Serious

----------


## r3nov8or

> I have never installed a structural fascia because rafters are birdsmouthed. I must have been doing it wrong all these years.

  So you install a fascia because... you want a fascia!  :Smilie:  birdsmouths or not!

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry I think I have not made my self clear.  
> The standard requires a structural fascia be used at the end of the rafters if the rafters are birdsmouthed (see below).  
> "Rafter overhang limits contained in the Span Tables in Appendix A are applicable for usewith a birdsmouth notch not exceeding one-third of the rafter depth in combination with a
> structural fascia that is rigidly connected to the ends of the rafters (see Figure 7.19(a)). A
> minimum timber (softwood) structural fascia of 190 × 19 mm shall be used." 
> I was hoping to use a fascia system such as the Novaline to save double the work.  
> Regards,

  if your read a little further if the overhang is reduced to 2/3 of the maximum in the span tables there is no need for a structural fascia, or if the birdsmouth is less than 1/3 the o/h can be interpolated from the tables to extend the 2/3 rule.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> if your read a little further if the overhang is reduced to 2/3 of the maximum in the span tables there is no need for a structural fascia, or if the birdsmouth is less than 1/3 the o/h can be interpolated from the tables to extend the 2/3 rule.
> inter

  Thanks. You are right. Funny thing is I was looking at Part 4 of the standard and not part 2. Part 4 does not have this exclusion in it. Crazy. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

Any pics of the build so far?

----------


## fiox1

> Any pics of the build so far?

  Thanks for the interest but none yet as I was told by the boss to put off until after New Years. Too much family stuff going on. I originally planned to have it done in December. 
Timber will be delivered this week though so I will start once received. 
There will definitely be pictures once it starts. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Has anyone here installed an external cavity sliding door? 
Regards,

----------


## jimfish

A door open to outside or a pocket on an external wall for internal door?  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## fiox1

> A door open to outside or a pocket on an external wall for internal door?  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  A door to outside. 
Regards,

----------


## jimfish

I've never seen one, I wouldn't be using a standard pocket on an external door.

----------


## fiox1

> I've never seen one, I wouldn't be using a standard pocket on an external door.

  Definitely will not use a standard pocket. 
I was thinking of 2 different options.
Option 1: Use a similar concept as a regular pocket, except instead of some treads from front to back for gyprock, I will replace with full sheets of ply wood on both sides.
Option 2: Manufacture a metal frame similar to a regular pocket with sheet steel to cover the inner sides (closest to door) and then ply wood on the outside to allow gyprock to be fixed. 
Any thoughts to these options? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

All steel sounds like the best option, depending on the aspect and weather exposure. I guess we'll painted exterior timber would also be ok.

----------


## jimfish

How are you going to weather seal the door to sill and door to pocket?

----------


## jimfish

I personally think it's a bad idea, obviously it's a space saving idea not to have a swinging door. Would a door opening outwards be an option ?

----------


## fiox1

> I personally think it's a bad idea, obviously it's a space saving idea not to have a swinging door. Would a door opening outwards be an option ?

  An outward opening door would be good. But is there something in the BCA that says external entry doors must open inwards? At least I though I read that quite a while ago. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> How are you going to weather seal the door to sill and door to pocket?

  Sealing any door to sill is is always an issue. There still will be a sill board underneath. But sealing door to pocket will be done using a rubber seal (like a fridge P seal). Plus there is the eave and I may build a little porch over it to be sure. 
Regards,

----------


## jimfish

Not sure of the exact rule but I've installed plenty of outward opening French doors.

----------


## fiox1

> Not sure of the exact rule but I've installed plenty of outward opening French doors.

  Just one question about the outward opening door. Are not the hinge pins then on the outside, accessible by anyone. Or do you know of a hinge that does not expose them? 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

> An outward opening door would be good. But is there something in the BCA that says external entry doors must open inwards? At least I though I read that quite a while ago. 
> Regards,

  I put an outward opening door on my place and love it.  Why would BCA have any problem with that, or did they run out of things to worry about :Rolleyes:

----------


## jimfish

> Just one question about the outward opening door. Are not the hinge pins then on the outside, accessible by anyone. Or do you know of a hinge that does not expose them? 
> Regards,

  You can get hinges with fixed pins, have you had a look at locks for a slider. The ones I have fitted have been less than ideal and would be pretty easy to break into.

----------


## fiox1

> I put an outward opening door on my place and love it.  Why would BCA have any problem with that, or did they run out of things to worry about

  I think it is related to security. Like I said, I read it a long time ago and may even be incorrect about it. 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

As mentioned already, plenty of french doors open outwards.

----------


## r3nov8or

I have a kitchen door which opens outwards and was passed no problem. Used fixed pin hinges.  
If your door is very exposed (once again, we don't have your plans...) the top of the door needs a method of directing water away from the gap

----------


## OBBob

The other option is to have an inward opening door with parliament hinges so that it can fold flat against the wall. It depends on your layout as to if that helps but I've done it successfully in the past.

----------


## SlowMick

How does that follow with Bifold doors?  They almost all open outwards.  French doors too.

----------


## ringtail

Nothing in the BCA re outward opening doors that I can recall. Unless of course, the door opens out over a landing then landing size becomes the issue. If one uses fixed pin hinges and good locks an outward opening door is way more secure than inwards opening doors. Try kicking a door in against the stop.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Nothing in the BCA re outward opening doors that I can recall. Unless of course, the door opens out over a landing then landing size becomes the issue. ...

  Yes, that brings back memories  :Smilie:  
The landing needs to be as least as wide and deep as the door opens, or there must be no landing at all (e.g steps directly down from the threshold)

----------


## fiox1

> Yes, that brings back memories  
> The landing needs to be as least as wide and deep as the door opens, or there must be no landing at all (e.g steps directly down from the threshold)

  Thanks guys. Outward swing door it is. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Thanks guys. Outward swing door it is. 
> Regards,

  Just consider your flyscreen requirements.

----------


## fiox1

> Just consider your flyscreen requirements.

  Cavity sliding flyscreen????????

----------


## fiox1

> Cavity sliding flyscreen????????

  Now of course that was not serious. Maybe a curtain flyscreen will do the trick. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Now of course that was not serious. Maybe a curtain flyscreen will do the trick. 
> Regards,

  Or perhaps you don't need them? If was just a reminder because you're normal swing those out, not in.  
You can get built-in cassette flyscreens.

----------


## fiox1

> Or perhaps you don't need them? If was just a reminder because you're normal swing those out, not in.  
> You can get built-in cassette flyscreens.

   I Just had a look at them. They will do the trick and are definitely better than the curtain. Thanks for the info. 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

> . If one uses fixed pin hinges and good locks an outward opening door is way more secure than inwards opening doors. Try kicking a door in against the stop.

  
Curiously in Vic, the door jams are two piece so the stop is put on after the door is hung, in NSW the jamb is one piece, so doors hung in NSW would be more secure than ones in Vic against attack. 
Depending on how the stop was put on, if only nails it could give way with a few decent kicks !

----------


## r3nov8or

My external door jambs are one piece, here in VIC and all  :Smilie:

----------


## OBBob

> Curiously in Vic, the door jams are two piece so the stop is put on after the door is hung, in NSW the jamb is one piece, so doors hung in NSW would be more secure than ones in Vic against attack. 
> Depending on how the stop was put on, if only nails it could give way with a few decent kicks !

  Even with just nails they are very firm, especially once there's a few layers of paint as well. I reckon it'd be quite difficult to kick a door in with the force spread across three metres of jamb beading.  
Finding something glass is probably your best bet.   :Biggrin:

----------


## OBBob

> My external door jambs are one piece, here in VIC and all

  Yes, you can get the profile and I've also used it.

----------


## fiox1

Woo hoo. My Timber has arrived. Unfortunately the weather is a total wash out. 
Just a question on fixing to the slab. The standard says nominal fixing is all that is required with the exception of any bracing fixings. 
Is the 75mm nail enough and what most builders use or is the preference for an anchor of some sort? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

I know, I sound like a kid who just got a remote control car.  
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Woo hoo. My Timber has arrived. Unfortunately the weather is a total wash out. 
> Just a question on fixing to the slab. The standard says nominal fixing is all that is required with the exception of any bracing fixings. 
> Is the 75mm nail enough and what most builders use or is the preference for an anchor of some sort? 
> Regards,

  I haven't built on a slab, so I don't know the exact answer. However, AnkorScrews are fantastic for fixing to concrete / brick.

----------


## jimfish

It needs to be bolted down at every bracing point and every tie down point. We use dynabolts for the whole frame. Depending on size you will probably need  100 to 150

----------


## Micky013

> It needs to be bolted down at every bracing point and every tie down point. We use dynabolts for the whole frame. Depending on size you will probably need  100 to 150

  What he said.  
We also bolt either side of doors/openings but use screw bolts. Used to use dynabolts - screw bolts are just easier to work with IMO.

----------


## jimfish

> What he said.  
> We also bolt either side of doors/openings but use screw bolts. Used to use dynabolts - screw bolts are just easier to work with IMO.

  Agree screw bolts are easier but the builder supplies dynabolts so that's what we use.  Haven't put a concrete nail in for years.

----------


## fiox1

> Agree screw bolts are easier but the builder supplies dynabolts so that's what we use.  Haven't put a concrete nail in for years.

  Good Morning to all.
I should start to cut timber timber tomorrow and start framing the following day.  
I have a couple of questions. I have 1 wall that is about 9.5m long with 2 intersecting internal walls. Should I
           a) Build the wall in 2 pieces and join where one intersecting wall will meet 
                                 OR
           b) Make a wall full length with joined plates. 
Also regarding the anchors, I have a heap of the Bremick Through-bolt anchors in zinc plate.   
Considering it is used in a slab and they are technically not exposed to water, will they suffice? 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

I would break the wall at an intersecting point rather than join plates.

----------


## OBBob

I'm not a 'real builder' but I'd make the wall in a couple of sections and bolt it together. As well as bolting you can stagger your second top plate so it goes over the top of the joined sections.

----------


## sol381

no need to bolt the frame. just build the external wall and butt the internals to it.. make sure you use stud packer stud where the perpendicular wall meets so you can attach the internal sheeting to it. better off having a solid wall where an intersecting wall meets. the ribbon plate will tie it together.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks for the advice regarding the top plate.  
Any insight into the bolts? 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

They look like dyna bolts so they'll be fine. Sometimes specific size fixings are specified - normally 10x100 or 12 x 100. With the exception of longer bolts in packed up wet areas

----------


## sol381

just use what the other guys recommend.. I usually go 100 mm dynabolt but the excalibur screwbolts are good too.. Just use a 50mm square washer as well and dont drill too close to the edge of slab or you might get a blowout. bolt either side of openings and within 100mm of each side of ply brace. these are normally on the plans.

----------


## fiox1

> They look like dyna bolts so they'll be fine. Sometimes specific size fixings are specified - normally 10x100 or 12 x 100. With the exception of longer bolts in packed up wet areas

  The bolts I have are 140mm long, so length is not an issue. Do you normally use HDG or Zinc plated bolts (I know they are both zinc, just the coating process thickness is different).

----------


## Micky013

Hdg only within 2klm of beach or when specified. Otherwise normally zinc

----------


## ringtail

HDG all day. Zinc plated are rubbish.

----------


## phild01

> HDG all day. Zinc plated are rubbish.

  True, but whatever is fit for purpose.

----------


## r3nov8or

> HDG all day. Zinc plated are rubbish.

  Yeah, well, no

----------


## fiox1

Thanks all.  
What size do you use? M10 (12mm hole) or M8 (10mm hole)? 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

M10. Either side of openings, bracing points and I normally put them about every 900mm.

----------


## ringtail

M12 is the most commonly specced tie down size for everything. Rods, bolts, dynas, chemset etc...

----------


## r3nov8or

> Thanks all.  
> What size do you use? M10 (12mm hole) or M8 (10mm hole)? 
> Regards,

  Don't know about others, but I rotary drill the hole with the same size drill bit as the bolt (e.g. 10mm hole for M10 dynabolt). Properly brushed and blown out, the bolt always fits with a bit of encouragement, and you are never in doubt that it is going to grab properly.

----------


## ringtail

Dynas use the same size hole as the fixing. Chemset is 2 mm bigger. 14 mm hole for 12 mm rod

----------


## r3nov8or

> Dynas use the same size hole as the fixing. Chemset is 2 mm bigger. 14 mm hole for 12 mm rod

  Yes, to be clear I was talking dynabolts.  
And yes chemset needs the bigger holes for the product to have room to work. Good stuff, only used it for one project, but will again, when I run out of dynabolts  :Smilie:

----------


## OBBob

> Yes, to be clear I was talking dynabolts.  
> And yes chemset needs the bigger holes for the product to have room to work. Good stuff, only used it for one project, but will again, when I run out of dynabolts

  I just used chemset recently for some starter bars into rock... cool stuff. You can now get it in an easy silicone style tube with a special mixing nozzle that mixes it as you squeeze it out.

----------


## fiox1

> Dynas use the same size hole as the fixing. Chemset is 2 mm bigger. 14 mm hole for 12 mm rod

  I am not sure you got it right. The table below is straight out of the Ramset website.   
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Sometimes experiences (good and especially bad) mean more than 'documentation'. Maybe you could test a couple and satisfy yourself... The less of the bolt that pulls out of the hole while tightening, the better.

----------


## ringtail

> I am not sure you got it right. The table below is straight out of the Ramset website.   
> Regards,

  Nope. Chart is wrong or not for dynas or for some other application.

----------


## Micky013

Dyna bolts or screw bolts i always make same size hole as the fixing. If you clean the hole out they go in nice and tight otherwise whats the point

----------


## fiox1

You guys make it sound like I have never used a Dyna bolt before. 
While I agree you may have experimented with the same size hole as the fastener, the table above is straight from the Ramset website. See for yourself. Even the bolts themselves are stamped with the hole size, not the thread size.  Ramset Australia 
Regards,

----------


## sol381

mate.. there are a lot of guys on here with the combined experience of eternity.. i suggest not posting a comment criticizing when you are the one asking a billion questions.. As for drilling a 16mm hole for a 12 mm dynabolt try it and let me know how that goes.

----------


## webtubbs

He's right. An M12 dynabolt wont fit in a 12mm hole. M12 dynabolts do have a 12mm diameter bolt, but you need to take the sleeve into consideration as well.

----------


## phild01

> He's right. An M12 dynabolt wont fit in a 12mm hole. M12 dynabolts do have a 12mm diameter bolt, but you need to take the sleeve into consideration as well.

  What is stamped on the sleave?

----------


## sol381

when drilling concrete its never exactly 12mm.. the bit wobbles,, more concrete gets broken away.. myself and im sure many others here have done a million times.. always use the same size bit as the bolt. use even a 14mm bit and then try and tighten the dyna.

----------


## webtubbs

Hole diameter so it's easy to pick the correct size drill bit.

----------


## sol381

mate,, it says 16mm hole for 12mm dyna.. no chance in hell. try it. if you are not hammering your dynabolt in , its too loose.

----------


## webtubbs

Have you been thinking your "12" stamped dynabolts are M12? They're not - they are M10.

----------


## phild01

> Have you been thinking your "12" stamped dynabolts are M12? They're not - they are M10.

  I wouldn't assume a 12mm dynabolt is M12.  I look at the sleave and know that is the dynabolt size.

----------


## sol381

youre kidding right. ive been doing this long enough to not even have to look at the packaging. its easy to tell just by looking at them

----------


## phild01

...just to be sure.

----------


## Micky013

Now im not quite sure whats going on here but according to this chart hole size is the same as overall bolt size. Im surprised its gone this far...

----------


## r3nov8or

The fuss is over the fact that not all dynabolts are "Dynabolts" 
The first has a 12mm sleeve with a smaller thread size and 12mm hole  
The second has 12mm thread, 12mm sleeve, and 12mm hole.      .

----------


## fiox1

> The fuss is over the fact that not all dynabolts are "Dynabolts" 
> The first has a 12mm sleeve with a smaller thread size and 12mm hole  
> The second has 12mm thread, 12mm sleeve, and 12mm hole.      .

  I am talking about the actual Dynabolt. The first picture above with a full size sleeve.

----------


## r3nov8or

> I am talking about the actual Dynabolt. The first picture above with a full size sleeve.

  Yes. I'm glad to have helped clear that up  :Smilie:

----------


## fiox1

> mate.. there are a lot of guys on here with the combined experience of eternity.. i suggest not posting a comment criticizing when you are the one asking a billion questions.. As for drilling a 16mm hole for a 12 mm dynabolt try it and let me know how that goes.

  If you don't like what I am asking, you need not answer. Its all the same to me. Why don't you read what the question was about, I did not ask about what size to drill a hole for the bolt.  
Regarding the 16mm hole for the 12mm Dynabolt. Maybe the sleeve is thicker or requires more space when compressing to actually work as it should. I don't make up the tables. But I am sure these things are not generated on a whim.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Now im not quite sure whats going on here but according to this chart hole size is the same as overall bolt size. Im surprised its gone this far...

  Micky, I am not sure what you are reading. But even the chart you posted clearly shows the hole size is larger than the thread size. e.g. for an M8 thread, its a 10mm hole. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

> Micky, I am not sure what you are reading. But even the chart you posted clearly shows the hole size is larger than the thread size. e.g. for an M8 thread, its a 10mm hole. 
> Regards,

  Actually i dont think you can read. The thread might be 8mm but the complete bolt size is 10mm.  
Have a look a few posts up when you quoted that pic of the 12mm dyna bolt box. Bolt size is 12mm and "drill hole" is also 12mm. Fixture hole may well be referring to a clearance hole in the material to be fixed  
I fear the outcome of your build - seriously. I hope noone innocent gets hurt

----------


## r3nov8or

> ... 
> Also regarding the anchors, I have a heap of the Bremick Through-bolt anchors in zinc plate.   
> ...

   You are now talking Ramset but these aren't Ramset; they are more like my second pic, and the hole size matches the thread size in this case

----------


## fiox1

> Actually i dont think you can read. The thread might be 8mm but the complete bolt size is 10mm.  
> Have a look a few posts up when you quoted that pic of the 12mm dyna bolt box. Bolt size is 12mm and "drill hole" is also 12mm. Fixture hole may well be referring to a clearance hole in the material to be fixed  
> I fear the outcome of your build - seriously. I hope noone innocent gets hurt

  Mickey, Dynabolts are always designated by there hole size, not their thread size. But I can assure you that the thread size of a 12mm Dynabolt is actually M10. Why don't you read the image you posted where it actually says 12mm hole diameter/ thread size M10? It is set out clearly so the installer drills the correct size for the anchor to work.  
Who is talking about fixture hole size anyway. That is something different altogether. 
Again, I did not ask about hole sizes. i asked if the common size is M10 or M12. 
I don't think I am the one with reading difficulties.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> You are now talking Ramset but these aren't Ramset; they are more like my second pic, and the hole size matches the thread size in this case

  Hi R3nov8or, 
You are correct. These are the bolts that I have. Its just that other posters were posting about the use of Dynabolts and their recommended hole size.  
Now the one in the above picture uses the same hole size as the thread, but these are not Dynabolts. I believe they are called through anchors.  
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

> Mickey, Dynabolts are always designated by there hole size, not their thread size. But I can assure you that the thread size of a 12mm Dynabolt is actually M10. Why don't you read the image you posted where it actually says 12mm hole diameter/ thread size M10? It is set out clearly so the installer drills the correct size for the anchor to work.  
> Who is talking about fixture hole size anyway. That is something different altogether. 
> Again, I did not ask about hole sizes. i asked if the common size is M10 or M12. 
> I don't think I am the one with reading difficulties.  
> Regards,

  Never said anything about thread size all i said was the hole you drill is the same and the diameter of the fixing. Thread may be m10 but overall its12mm in size 👍

----------


## r3nov8or

> Hi R3nov8or, 
> You are correct. These are the bolts that I have. Its just that other posters were posting about the use of Dynabolts and their recommended hole size.  
> Now the one in the above picture uses the same hole size as the thread, but these are not Dynabolts. I believe they are called through anchors.  
> Regards,

  So what size are your bolts and what size hole are you going to drill for them?

----------


## fiox1

> So what size are your bolts and what size hole are you going to drill for them?

  Mine are M12's. But according to the website, minimum edge distance is 130mm. My frame is right on edge due to having blueboard on the outside. So it looks like I cannot use these. 
Now need another method. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Mine are M12's. But according to the website, minimum edge distance is 130mm. My frame is right on edge due to having blueboard on the outside. So it looks like I cannot use these. 
> Now need another method. 
> Regards,

  Yes I am quoting myself. 
I may have been wrong about the above. It seems that of you require the full tension, then the minimum edge distance must be adhered to. But if you de-rate the pull out force, then you can get closer to the edge, within reason of course.  
For example; Power Fasteners have a table showing edge distance vs tension force. For an M12 bolt, an edge distance of 144mm (12d) will yield a maximum tension. But when reduced to 60mm (5d), then the tension is reduced to 80%. 
Looks like I may still be able to use the bolts I have. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Does anyone here know of a structural engineer to design the frame; I am located in North West Sydney. As I am doing this under owner-builder licence, I need the extra assurance. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I know you've bought the timber, but if there is any chance of getting a refund I would strongly suggest the simplicity of a prefab company, if just for the wall frames. And you can still have the pleasure of building the roof framing  :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> Hi All, 
> Does anyone here know of a structural engineer to design the frame; I am located in North West Sydney. As I am doing this under owner-builder licence, I need the extra assurance. 
> Regards,

   Just get a good consultant builder or carpenter & assist in the fabrication & erection, an engineer is just overkill for a frame & their cost would be a good part of the labour to do the frame anyhow.
all this talk about dynabolts reminds me of the fact that a lot of engineers don't specify them & actually specify safety anchors which have double the ratings in shear & pullout resistance.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> Just get a good consultant builder or carpenter & assist in the fabrication & erection, an engineer is just overkill for a frame & their cost would be a good part of the labour to do the frame anyhow.
> all this talk about dynabolts reminds me of the fact that a lot of engineers don't specify them & actually specify safety anchors which have double the ratings in shear & pullout resistance.
> inter

  Thanks, what is a safety anchor? 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

> Thanks, what is a safety anchor? 
> Regards,

   Ramset Australia

----------


## fiox1

> Ramset Australia

  Thanks. The table shows that the maximum fixture thickness is 25mm for M12. This is not suitable for framing unless there is another such safety anchor. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Fingers crossed I will be starting this week. A lot has been happening around here, just not with the build and now I must get a move on with the frame build. 
I have a question regarding lintels. What is your preference:
        1. A lintel directly below the top plate OR
        2. A lintel at the top of the opening. 
I prefer it being directly below the top plate and have seen examples of both. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Whatever you are comfortable with

----------


## fiox1

> Whatever you are comfortable with

  Sorry I think I asked the question incorrectly. Is one way better than the other? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Sorry I think I asked the question incorrectly. Is one way better than the other?
> Regards,

  Lintel directly under the top plate means your jack(?) studs below don't need to support the top plate. I do it that way.

----------


## fiox1

> Lintel directly under the top plate means your jack(?) studs below don't need to support the top plate. I do it that way.

  Great thanks. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Just a question on window sill trimmers.  
Clause 6.3.6.6 states that for a height of 2100mm to the lintel or lintel trimmer, then the size of the window sill trimmer is determined by table 6.3. What do you do if the height is greater than 2100mm? 
The above is from AS1684.2. AS1684.4 (simplified version) does not have this criteria (not sure why. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

That's never been something I've had to look into. It certainly reads as you say, but I can't for the life of me see how the height of the lintel (or lintel trimmer) impacts windowsill trimmer size. Surely more important is the overall size of the opening, rather than how high the lintel is... 
How much more are we talking? if you are concerned I suggest you simply upsize the windowsill trimmer (...x45) or double it up (2/...x...)

----------


## fiox1

> That's never been something I've had to look into. It certainly reads as you say, but I can't for the life of me see how the height of the lintel (or lintel trimmer) impacts windowsill trimmer size. Surely more important is the overall size of the opening, rather than how high the lintel is... 
> How much more are we talking? if you are concerned I suggest you simply upsize the windowsill trimmer (...x45) or double it up (2/...x...)

  I am in total agreement with you. I am already using 90x45mm trimmers so should be ok. 
I have 2000mm high windows that will be centered in a 2700mm wall, so my plate to trimmer height will be about 2330mm. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi all, 
In relation to the plate holes for fasteners, the standard says the holes can only be within the middle half of the plate. See image below. Is what I have drawn about right?   
Regards

----------


## r3nov8or

Yes.  
Get on with it!

----------


## fiox1

> Yes.  
> Get on with it!

  Thanks. Sorry will be starting tomorrow (bosses orders).

----------


## NZC

> Hi all, 
> In relation to the plate holes for fasteners, the standard says the holes can only be within the middle half of the plate. See image below. Is what I have drawn about right?   
> Regards

  
Looks about right, never seen anyone actually mark them out like that though. Sometimes they just go where they fit.

----------


## fiox1

> Looks about right, never seen anyone actually mark them out like that though. Sometimes they just go where they fit.

  Thanks.  
I was just making sure my interpretation of the standard was correct. Plus I tend to overthink some things (like the whole frame building process). 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Thanks. Sorry will be starting tomorrow (bosses orders).

  Haha. Good luck with it

----------


## fiox1

I have finally started. Took me 2 days (1/2 a days work taken 2 days due to 40°C + temperatures) to clear all the materials that was stored on the slab.   
I have a question regarding the common studs. In the picture below, the right 3 studs are for a window and the left 3 studs are for a door. The studs pointed to in blue are jack studs as they ended up in an opening. The black arrow points to a jamb stud while the stud next to it is for the window. For these 2 openings, I am using 90 x 45 lintels. Is there any issues with how it has been done seeing as the 2 openings are so close together? 
Regarding jack studs, do they remain at the same spacing's as common studs or do you adjust them to suit the opening (please note I am using blue board direct to the outside).   
Thanks again.

----------


## r3nov8or

Looks OK.  
As you are planning on blueboard, the spacing of ALL your studs is imperative to ensure the board joins land on the centre of the stud. With 12+mm fixing from the board edge you need to guarantee good fixing to the stud or the joint will fail later. If you are using 35mm studs I'd suggest you double them up on board joins and ensure the faces are perfectly in plane. If 45mm just get it right and make sure they are straight. This will save a lot of trimming, cutting and rebating of the blueboard, or retrofitting studs later.

----------


## fiox1

Got busy with cutting of studs and so forth. Then it rained...... 
Just a question regarding nails, which ones are commonly used for a nail gun?  
I have both 90mm x 3.05mm bright and 90mm x 3.33 gal with glue. 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

If you've got both, use the galv.

----------


## r3nov8or

IMHO save your gal for permanently exposed or seaside areas. Always use gal for tie-down and bracing fixing

----------


## fiox1

I have started the walls today. I have come to a couple of intersections. For one wall, the intersection occurs between 2 external walls forming an L shape. 
The standard shows the following for intersections.   
To me this looks like there is half a stud on either side of the intersecting wall stud. 
I have done something similar as follows with a stud full width and height in the longer wall that is used to attach the intersecting wall to.   
Is this still ok? 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

It'll be fine. Nail another block on to the side, stops the other 2 studs twisting.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Just an update. 
This picture is the my saw setup with the stud stop at the end. Saved a lot of time.   
The next pic shows three walls so far built. The longest one on the right is 6m.    
It has been a great learning curve so far. I just wish the heat can calm down a bit so I can actually accomplish more. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I've never use a ladder as part of an end stop, but to 'catch' a long cut, yes  :Smilie:

----------


## fiox1

> I've never use a ladder as part of an end stop, but to 'catch' a long cut, yes

  Its just a prop, the end stop is screwed into the pine timber running from the saw. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Its just a prop, the end stop is screwed into the pine timber running from the saw. 
> Regards,

  Yes, got it

----------


## NZC

Measure every 4/5th stud if your cutting heaps. Easier to re cut a handful if it moves.  
If the sun gets really unbearable go and get a $60 pop up gazebo from BCF and put it over the saw, your not in the sun all the time then.

----------


## fiox1

> Measure every 4/5th stud if your cutting heaps. Easier to re cut a handful if it moves.

  Thanks. I have been doing that and found the jig was out by about 4-5mm at one stage. so I had to re-cut a hand full of studs. I then fixed the jig to the saw so it does not move., 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Yes, got it

  Sorry I should have better explained this. I thought I needed to clarify this point as initially I was using the ladder as the stop until it started moving. Therefore it evolved into a prop only. 
Regards

----------


## fiox1

Just a question on the masonry nails. I cannot seem to find any (75mm). I have tried H&G and no luck. At Bunnings I can only find the following.   
Are these the ones or is there sonething else? Any ideas where to get these from. 
I need these for any temporary blocks to brace from and for temporary fixing of the frame to the slab. 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

Use Ankascrews, if you*'re* bracing off them they'll hold better. Why do you need to temp fix the plates?

----------


## fiox1

> Use Ankascrews, if you're bracing off them they'll hold better. Why do you need to temp fix the plates?

  I will be using bolts for the final fixings. But just initially, to hold the frames up while we lift them in place, and to provide temporary bracing while the roof goes on. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I guess you are thinking you'll need to add blocks to the centre of the slab to nail off bracing timbers. I've seen it, but never had to do it. I reckon those nails should be fine, but as ankascrews are reusable, why not use them to brace and reuse them when it's time to fix off?

----------


## intertd6

> Just a question on the masonry nails. I cannot seem to find any (75mm). I have tried H&G and no luck. At Bunnings I can only find the following.   
> Are these the ones or is there sonething else? Any ideas where to get these from. 
> I need these for any temporary blocks to brace from and for temporary fixing of the frame to the slab. 
> Regards,

   You can use those, hand drive them through the plates until they hit the concrete then use a sledge hammer to hammer them home, it's more economical than any other method & in situations where only nominal fixings are adequate, they will do.
inter

----------


## Micky013

You will need to permanently pin the frames every 1200 (where no bolts are) so you will need them for that too...

----------


## fiox1

> I guess you are thinking you'll need to add blocks to the centre of the slab to nail off bracing timbers. I've seen it, but never had to do it.

   Are you saying the frame itself is enough with the correct anchors (and maybe ceiling joists) to support itself?   

> I reckon those nails should be fine, but as ankascrews are reusable, why not use them to brace and reuse them when it's time to fix off?

   Good point. The sun has been hitting me hard so not much thinking has been happening. Thanks again. Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Are you saying the frame itself is enough with the correct anchors (and maybe ceiling joists) to support itself?

  Nope. I said I've seen it. (just because I haven't had to do it just means I haven't had enough experiences.) If you believe you need temp bracing, eg to the centre of the slab, do it.

----------


## fiox1

> Nope. I said I've seen it. (just because I haven't had to do it just means I haven't had enough experiences.) If you believe you need temp bracing, eg to the centre of the slab, do it.

   Thanks. I'll see how I go. I will have some bracing from the ground around, plus with the ceiling joists for lateral support plus some internal walls. If I need any extra, I'll put them in.
Regards,

----------


## cas

if you want to brace the frame, knock some pegs into the ground and brace it from the outside. Easier than knocking masonry nails in and you won't have braces in the way of nailing and standing frames inside the slab.

----------


## r3nov8or

When I've seen bracing to the slab it's been on sides close to the boundary

----------


## fiox1

Good Morning All, 
Woke up today and it was raining. Should I cover the frames in builders film to protect from the rain? I believe it will be raining all day today. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

No, well, it depends. I think general practice (possibly a standard) is frames may be exposed for up to 3 months. Wrapping won't do much until the roof is on. 
If you have them built but stacked on the ground, raise them off the ground well supported, and yes in this case a tarp can assist

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, the build is going well considering the weather.  
I have a question regarding bracing using brace ply (F27, 4.5mm). Is it better to nail these on when the frame are lying down or lifted into place to account for any movement/flex due to any slab imperfections? 
Regards,

----------


## jimfish

I always temp brace walls plumb and straight once bolted down then nail off all bracing.

----------


## r3nov8or

I've always stood up the frames before installing ply bracing.

----------


## fiox1

Thanks guys.  
I'll do it that way. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
After the recent rains and heat, I have found 1 or 2 top plates have split at the ends. The ones that I have any concerns about are those with only 1 ends stud (joining wall) I have been careful to ensure nails are not to close to either edge, but I suppose you cannot prevent everything. 
Whats the best way to fix this? 
                  1. Add additional blocking on the inside,
                  2. Add an additional stud immediately adjacent to the affected stud or even blocked out like a corner.
                  3. Add a stud tie over the top.
                  4. A combination of the above.
5. Nothing as there will also be another top plate. 
Regards,

----------


## jimfish

If it's bad pre drill and put in a screw, but a bit of splitting is not really a problem.

----------


## NZC

5

----------


## r3nov8or

Never really saw the need for double top plate. But yeah, if that's your thing, just don't join the second one in the same spot

----------


## phild01

> Never really saw the need for double top plate. But yeah, if that's your thing, just don't join the second one in the same spot

  More to do with availability/cost of 35mm timber, as opposed to 70mm, isn't it!

----------


## r3nov8or

> More to do with availability/cost of 35mm timber, as opposed to 70mm, isn't it!

  Could be. I always do 45mm plates and 35mm studs (except for jamb studs). That's the way my earliest reno was prefabbed and I just copied it. Occasionally need to block under a load point mid span, but not often

----------


## phild01

I am pretty sure my old tables specified 75mm softwood, for tiled roof where rafters are 600 and studs are 450.  Just ran the numbers for tie-down situations and somehow it seems that less top-plate thickness is required for closer spacing of the tie-down.  I guess it is just cheaper to discard the calc and just use double overall!

----------


## r3nov8or

And i've only ever had to consider tin roof design. Bros will be stunned  :Smilie:

----------


## fiox1

> Never really saw the need for double top plate. But yeah, if that's your thing, just don't join the second one in the same spot

  My logic may be illogical, but as I am doing this as an owner builder and the rafters will not land on top of studs, I just wanted the extra protection of having a second top plate. 
I am using 90 x 45mm studs and plates. I may opt for a 90 x 35mm second top plate. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

All good. The cat has been skinned many ways, many times

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Just a question regarding the beam that originally started this thread. Is it common practice to use a high grade timber (F27) to reduce its size or stick with the standard timber grade used for the rest of the frame? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I would say it's common to use a higher grade to reduce it's size. Many would appreciate the extra headroom entering/exiting a porch, verandah or similar areas

----------


## fiox1

Thanks r3nov8or. 
I have another question regarding damp course under the frame. The  standard  shows it simply as being applied just under the frame and and  bent over the slab edge under the cladding.   
Is this enough or is there some other suggestions you may have? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I haven't done it differently, but I haven't only worked on a couple of slabs with timber frames

----------


## fiox1

Thanks again.  
Regarding bracing, can the strap brace go across joined walls or must it be only in 1 section of wall?  
For example, I have a wall that is 9.7m long which is 2 sections. Can I use strap bracing (section D of table 8.3) across the section where they join?  
Regards,

----------


## Optimus

> Thanks again.  
> Regarding bracing, can the strap brace go across joined walls or must it be only in 1 section of wall?  
> For example, I have a wall that is 9.7m long which is 2 sections. Can I use strap bracing (section D of table 8.3) across the section where they join?  
> Regards,

  Common sense says it would be better to do so than not do so

----------


## fiox1

> Common sense says it would be better to do so than not do so

  Thanks.  
With double strap bracing as above, can they be on the same side of the wall (external) or does one strap go on the inside and one one the outside? Or does it not actually matter? 
Regards

----------


## r3nov8or

> Common sense says it would be better to do so than not do so

  Hmmm. When pre-fabbed frames are delivered to site pre-braced, obviously the bracing doesn't cross the frame joint, and I don't recall any guidance from a pre-fab company or in the standard that suggests such bracing should be added. I would think as long as tie-down to the slab or subfloor is done right, bracing the two frames together won't substantially add to the bracing capacity. My experience in this is obviously a lot less than the builders and chippies on the forum... happy to be corrected

----------


## Micky013

If the requirement is for a cross brace at 2.7 sometimes you need to go across a frame joint to achieve this - otherwise it makes no difference. Once both walls are propery fixed and strapped together at the join they are one.

----------


## fiox1

> Hmmm. When pre-fabbed frames are delivered to site pre-braced, obviously the bracing doesn't cross the frame joint, and I don't recall any guidance from a pre-fab company or in the standard that suggests such bracing should be added. I would think as long as tie-down to the slab or subfloor is done right, bracing the two frames together won't substantially add to the bracing capacity. My experience in this is obviously a lot less than the builders and chippies on the forum... happy to be corrected

  You got me thinking on this one. Does that mean with pre-fab frames where there is a second top plate, the bracing is only over the first top plate, then the second top plate goes over all that? 
I suppose my question is does the bracing also have to go over the second top plate? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Dunno. I've never added a second top plate

----------


## Micky013

> You got me thinking on this one. Does that mean with pre-fab frames where there is a second top plate, the bracing is only over the first top plate, then the second top plate goes over all that? 
> I suppose my question is does the bracing also have to go over the second top plate? 
> Regards,

  
Yes and all your straps - otherwise its not really tied to the rest of the frame

----------


## r3nov8or

Stands to reason!

----------


## intertd6

> You got me thinking on this one. Does that mean with pre-fab frames where there is a second top plate, the bracing is only over the first top plate, then the second top plate goes over all that? 
> I suppose my question is does the bracing also have to go over the second top plate? 
> Regards,

  no it doesn't have to. As far as having a frame join in the bracing panel, off memory the standard doesn't say it can't, but the diagrams don't show any joins, which means you shouldn't have any wall joins in the bracing panels.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> Thanks.  
> With double strap bracing as above, can they be on the same side of the wall (external) or does one strap go on the inside and one one the outside? Or does it not actually matter? 
> Regards

  Sorry guys, I have not had an answer to this one. Though I have seen them on one side only, is it better to have one on each side of the wall? 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry guys, I have not had an answer to this one. Though I have seen them on one side only, is it better to have one on each side of the wall? 
> Regards,

   I would find it hard to imagine someone only putting one half of a pair of crossed strap braces on a wall, then adding more time &  effort by turning the wall over to put the other half of the bracing panel on the the other face when there is no need to.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> I would find it hard to imagine someone only putting one half of a pair of crossed strap braces on a wall, then adding more time &  effort by turning the wall over to put the other half of the bracing panel on the the other face when there is no need to.
> inter

  Makes sense. Just want to be sure of everything before I have an inspection. Thanks. 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

> You got me thinking on this one. Does that mean with pre-fab frames where there is a second top plate, the bracing is only over the first top plate, then the second top plate goes over all that? 
> I suppose my question is does the bracing also have to go over the second top plate? 
> Regards,

  I dont put the bracing straps on until the 2nd top plate is on.

----------


## r3nov8or

As long as tie down straps go over the second top plate all should be well

----------


## intertd6

To explain it better, the second plate wouldn't be on when you used the tensioners to plumb the corners, that's after the wall intersections were fixed with nail plates. if you were to wait until the second plate was on to nail off the strap bracing then you're adding another step in the process by having to use timber to braces the frame & having to remove it after as well, which just isn't as efficient as it could be, more work for no gain.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> To explain it better, the second plate wouldn't be on when you used the tensioners to plumb the corners, that's after the wall intersections were fixed with nail plates. if you were to wait until the second plate was on to nail off the strap bracing then you're adding another step in the process by having to use timber to braces the frame & having to remove it after as well, which just isn't as efficient as it could be, more work for no gain.
> inter

  I am working slightly in reverse here. My frames are pretty much square before putting up and was leaving the permanent bracing for afterwards. I know they will change a little without any bracing being used so I may use some temporary bracing. However a though just came about. Does the strap have to be nailed on the bottom of the bottom plate  or will nailing on the sides suffice; or can I loop it over and nail it on the top side of the bottom plate instead. 
Sorry for the long after thought. The reason I ask is I like to keep the underside free of any protrusions. 
My understanding is it does not matter, so long as you loop it and can nail 4 nails on the plate (2 either side of the loop) 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Tensioned bracing must be wrapped around and nailed to the top side of the top plate and bottom side of the bottom plate. (and at every stud crossing after tensioning) 
Angle brace, checked in, is fixed to the face of the plates (and at studs)

----------


## fiox1

> Tensioned bracing must be wrapped around and nailed to the top side of the top plate and bottom side of the bottom plate. (and at every stud crossing after tensioning) 
> Angle brace, checked in, is fixed to the face of the plates (and at studs)

  Thanks. I will fit the bottom side first then. 
Regarding the verandah beam I am installing as per below pic.  
The blue and red arrows are pointing to the beam sections required for the roof. Of course the right beam is significant due to its length. 
Is it better to have 1 beam that spans the full length of 5425mm and rest it on top of the wall section in between or are two separate beams as shown the preferred way to build it? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I'd prefer to run one beam (less mucking about), but wouldn't worry if I already had what I needed in shorter lengths.

----------


## fiox1

> I'd prefer to run one beam (less mucking about),  but wouldn't worry if I already had what I needed in shorter  lengths.

  What is the best way to terminate/join the 2 beams above the post and to the post? i.e. the Orange and Red beam in the above picture. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> What is the best way to terminate/join the 2 beams above the post and to the post? i.e. the Orange and Red beam in the above picture. 
> Regards,

  What way are you thinking?  :Smilie:

----------


## OBBob

> ... before I have an inspection. Thanks. 
> Regards,

  I've been away... but I thought half the reason for this thread was that you didn't require inspections in your area?

----------


## fiox1

> I've been away... but I thought half the reason for this thread was that you didn't require inspections in your area?

  No idea where you got that from. I think there is no city in Australia (maybe except in Tasmania) where there are no inspections. 
What I did say is there is no requirement for a structural drawing. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> What way are you thinking?

  With image as reference, cut beams as shown, and use a joiner plate or angle on the inside with M12 cup-head bolts .   
What do you think? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> No idea where you got that from. I think there is no city in Australia (maybe except in Tasmania) where there are no inspections. 
> What I did say is there is no requirement for a structural drawing. 
> Regards,

  Fair enough, all the best with the inspection then.  
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

----------


## r3nov8or

> With image as reference, cut beams as shown, and use a joiner plate or angle on the inside with M12 cup-head bolts .   
> What do you think? 
> Regards,

  That will do fine. Personally I just do a simple right angle butt join and bolt both members to the post.

----------


## fiox1

> That will do fine. Personally I just do a simple right angle butt join and bolt both members to the post.

  I could do that too. That may be easier seeing as I need 2 beams for each side to comply with spans.  
Thanks again.

----------


## fiox1

> Fair enough, all the best with the inspection then.  
> Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  Thanks. I'll put up some pictures soon anyway.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Just some progress pics. Sorry they are all uploaded in one hit.   
The crane counter balance, thanks to some 4WD wheels.  
Lifting of the front wall.  
Front wall in position.  
Rear wall in position. 
I continued this until the external main walls were all up and propped.  
Now for some internal walls.   
More internal walls.   
And more again.   
A front view. Notice the large windows.   
The bay wall. Done today. I was not going to let a little rain stop me from doing that. The beam discussed previously will span on top of the front of the bay. That wall has been chopped accordingly to accept the beam height. 
It is now looking like a home (without the linings of course).  
(Just a note. Jack studs above window sills have not been put in yet.) 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

I have a question about the Ridgeboard. What is commonly used? 19mm, 35mm or 45mm?  
What about the hip & valley rafters? 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

I notice you took the easy way out and butt join all the intersecting walls instead of half lap them, interesting way of doing it.

----------


## fiox1

> I notice you took the easy way out and butt join all the intersecting walls instead of half lap them, interesting way of doing it.

  Is that an issue?  
I will be using a second top plate as well. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Many of us take that easy way out, including prefab companies  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

Everything looks ok to you in this picture ?

----------


## fiox1

> Everything looks ok to you in this picture ?

  What exactly are you referring to? 
I am happy for constructive criticism, especially as I am no expert in this field. But I am not telepathic. Just ask what you want to ask and I am sure I'll have an answer for you. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

It's little messy at the top of the closest section, and there are some jack studs missing, but as mentioned it's not all done yet

----------


## intertd6

> Is that an issue?  
> I will be using a second top plate as well. 
> Regards,

  its not an issue at all, I haven't seen anybody do a frame with half lap joints in around 38 years & that somebody was me doing my apprenticeship , metal joiner plates are fine.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> What exactly are you referring to? 
> I am happy for constructive criticism, especially as I am no expert in this field. But I am not telepathic. Just ask what you want to ask and I am sure I'll have an answer for you. 
> Regards,

  you have no set down in the slab from the inside floor to the external area.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> It's little messy at the top of the closest section, and there are some jack studs missing, but as mentioned it's not all done yet

    You are right. It looks messy. I did not finish all nailing in that whole bay section just in case I need to pull apart to adjust.   But I have started nailing the lower sections and unfortunately I have no helper at the moment. Just did not want to get up on the ladder with all the rain coming down.   Once I put the beam up, I will finish off all nailing as that will be the last stage in the wall frame.  Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> you have no set down in the slab from the inside floor to the external area. inter

  The roof including gutter will be about 600mm from the bay outer most wall. Will this not be sufficient to cover the other walls as well?    
Unfortunately The slab was done by the same builder who did a runner on me.   
I was thinking of adding some additional flashing to the outside and possible PU (or use some other adhesive) to the concrete slab.   
What do you suggest as additional protection against water ingress?   
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> The roof including gutter will be about 600mm from the bay outer most wall. Will this not be sufficient to cover the other walls as well?    
> Unfortunately The slab was done by the same builder who did a runner on me.   
> I was thinking of adding some additional flashing to the outside and possible PU (or use some other adhesive) to the concrete slab.   
> What do you suggest as additional protection against water ingress?   
> Regards,

  i wouldn't have put a frame on the slab first without it being rectified beforehand, it will fail any inspection , it's hard to say what you could do to make it good, that's a matter between you & the certifying body.
inter

----------


## r3nov8or

A couple of option from one who has never had to do it.  :Smilie:  
- Get one of those big floor grinders they had on the block to cut down and also create a fall.
- clad the areas with cement sheet and Waterproof as you would a bathroom and tile over.
- maybe both, as the front door will be an issue 
Per inter's remarks, best to the certifier to have a look and a chat asap

----------


## phild01

From what I can see, isn't this a clad frame, not brick veneer?

----------


## fiox1

> From what I can see, isn't this a clad frame, not brick veneer?

  Yes it is. Blueboard on the outside. 
Regards

----------


## fiox1

> i wouldn't have put a frame on the slab first without it being rectified beforehand, it will fail any inspection , it's hard to say what you could do to make it good, that's a matter between you & the certifying body.
> inter

  I had no idea it was going to be like that (without the step). Even the slab engineer checked the shape before hand and did not say anything. 
PLUS I do not know enough about slabs and what needs to be done. 
Regards

----------


## fiox1

> A couple of option from one who has never had to do it.  
> - Get one of those big floor grinders they had on the block to cut down and also create a fall.
> - clad the areas with cement sheet and Waterproof as you would a bathroom and tile over.
> - maybe both, as the front door will be an issue 
> Per inter's remarks, best to the certifier to have a look and a chat asap

  Front door wont be an issue as it is right on the edge of the slab. 
But tiling and waterproofing will do the trick. It works for bathrooms after all. This is possible the easiest solution too.   
Regards,

----------


## phild01

http://www.jameshardie.com.au/upload...tember2015.pdf 
page 3

----------


## fiox1

> http://www.jameshardie.com.au/upload...tember2015.pdf 
> page 3

  Thanks. Now that is a good document. I have never come across it before. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> I had no idea it was going to be like that (without the step). Even the slab engineer checked the shape before hand and did not say anything. 
> PLUS I do not know enough about slabs and what needs to be done. 
> Regards

  hopefully he can come up with a remedy to solve the problem then, because there should have been a step down following the outside face of the frame.
inter

----------


## METRIX

> I had no idea it was going to be like that (without the step). Even the slab engineer checked the shape before hand and did not say anything. 
> PLUS I do not know enough about slabs and what needs to be done. 
> Regards

  Slab Engineer wouldn't give a hoot if there was a shaped step or not, he is concerned about placement of steel etc, He would leave the finer details of constructing the slab up to the person responsible for doing that. 
The slab should have been set down at that point, proposing the use of PU is a short term band aid, you need to fix this for long term ie 50+ year solution otherwise it will be a problem every-time we get decent rain with a small amount of wind, you will have a river running through the house. 
I would be interested if the certifier agrees to a waterproof solution, I would be surprised if he does, as I said earlier on in this build, the devil is in the detail, detail is learned over time, you really should have employed an experienced person to oversee the build and flag problems like this. 
If waterproof solution is not agreed upon you could be in a bit of a pickle, I can think of two other solutions.
Can't wait to see the roof being built, what contraption will you use to do this with ?

----------


## fiox1

> Slab Engineer wouldn't give a hoot if there was a shaped step or not, he is concerned about placement of steel etc, He would leave the finer details of constructing the slab up to the person responsible for doing that.

  Why didn't the PCA say anything at the inspection as well? She queried the shape and only asked for the slab certificate. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Can't wait to see the roof being built, what contraption will you use to do this with ?

  What ever will help get the job done.  
In saying that, I only have a 15° roof pitch, making the ridgeboard height less than 1m higher than the wall plate. So should not really be a big issue. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> ...

  If it becomes a huge problem (one you can't resolve with the certifier), just delete the bay and follow the slab. Less interesting, but easier.

----------


## phild01

> If it becomes a huge problem (one your can't resolve with the certifier), just delete the bay and follow the slab. Less interesting, but easier.

  Oh, now I see what is being meant, that bay window....bad!

----------


## intertd6

> What ever will help get the job done.  
> In saying that, I only have a 15° roof pitch, making the ridge height less than 1m higher than the wall plate. So should not really be a big issue. 
> Regards,

   If your making these simple mistakes at this early stage you really need to get someone more qualified in to consult for you.
inter

----------


## fiox1

> If your making these simple mistakes at this early stage you really need to get someone more qualified in to consult for you.
> inter

  What mistakes are you talking about?  
If you recall, I had a builder. He put the slab down and was meant to do the frame. Then he did not show. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> What mistakes are you talking about?  
> If you recall, I had a builder. He put the slab down and was meant to do the frame. Then he did not show. 
> Regards,

  you're holding the bundle now, you have put a frame on a slab with no set down, that's a really simple mistake which could be costly to fix, don't take it the wrong way, you need help.
inter

----------


## METRIX

> What mistakes are you talking about?

  What mistakes, are you serious, the way you have put those frames down at that point is not a small oversight, this is a major problem now and in the future.
This should have been addressed during the forming of the slab, any slightly competent form-worker would know that, something that comes out of a container or caulking gun won't fix this long term. 
Quoting you below from an earlier post,   

> anyone who is thinking of writing to tell me to get a professional to design it or to build it, don't. I have enough professionalism and skills to build my own home and only require some assistance where I get stuck a little.

   
Sometimes it helps to pay for advice, especially when your talking anything involving decent amounts of money, issues like this can be flagged and dealt with before they become a problem.   Everything looks ok to you in this picture ?

----------


## sol381

Ive  never seen a frame lifted that way..is that an engine lifter?  im amazed you got the things up and in position by yourself.. 2 other humans would have been much quicker and easier. At least you have the homeguard protection down but dont you need antcapping as well down there.

----------


## fiox1

> Ive  never seen a frame lifted that way..is that an engine lifter?  im amazed you got the things up and in position by yourself.. 2 other humans would have been much quicker and easier. At least you have the homeguard protection down but dont you need antcapping as well down there.

  I am not sure whether or not you are being sarcastic, but heh. That is an engine hoist I modified to be able to put some 'counter balance' weights (4WD wheels). It worked really well actually. since I took that picture I upgraded the pick-up end to make it easier to lift frames. 
I agree it is easier with additional hand on. I was meant to have a helper, but they had something come up, so it has been me only unfortunately. 
No ant capping required as far as I am aware. Only a requirement with piers or strip footings I believe. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

I like the little crane. I had to use two duct lifters (alone) to put a 7.5m Ridge beam 5.5m up. The arranged helpers arrived late and I'd already done it. Gotta keep the show in the road.   :Biggrin:

----------


## fiox1

> What mistakes, are you serious, the way you have put those frames down at that point is not a small oversight, this is a major problem now and in the future.
> This should have been addressed during the forming of the slab, any slightly competent form-worker would know that,

  Ummmmm Helloooooooooooooo. I did not put the slab down. I paid a builder, like yourself, to do the bulk project work. He monitored the excavation, formwork and was even present on the day of the pour. I mean is he the professional or am I meant to be. This is his doing NOT MINE.  
Just to make this better, he was going to put the frame up 2 weeks later. I bet you he would not have even flinched.   

> something that comes out of a container or caulking gun won't fix this long term.

  Better let everyone know that the waterproofing system they have in their shower and laundry IS NOT GOING TO LAST LONG TERM. Because it came out of a container.   

> Quoting you below from an earlier post,
> Sometimes it helps to pay for advice, especially when your talking anything involving decent amounts of money, issues like this can be flagged and dealt with before they become a problem

   
That is why I contracted a builder.     

> Everything looks ok to you in this picture ?

   
What are you talking about. Remember I am not telepathic...... 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Hey fiox1, ya gotta admit a long time has passed since you first lost your builder, and one could reasonably think you could engage one at least on an advice basis 
I'm happy to help where I can but sometimes you get less than you pay for (eg your original builder), and the forum is free  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

Hey fiox can you put up the engineering detail for that external patio area, just to see what was detailed in the way of the step down.
inter

----------


## OBBob

I think fiox did the plans?  
Pitty OldSaltz isn't around at the moment, he might have a cunning waterproofing plan.

----------


## fiox1

> Hey fiox1, ya gotta admit a long time has passed  since you first lost your builder, and one could reasonably think you  could engage one at least on an advice basis 
> I'm happy to help where I can but sometimes you get less than you pay for (eg your original builder), and the forum is free

  I  understand your point. But look at it from my perspective. My dodgy  builder put the slab down as is as was going to frame up from it. Why  would I suspect there is an issue if he is the so called expert? 
In any case, I booked the PCA for tomorrow morning. I guess only time will tell. 
In case I have not said  anything in the past, I appreciate all help/advice from anyone here.  What I do not appreciate is all the negativity that comes up. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Hey fiox can you put up the engineering detail for that external patio area, just to see what was detailed in the way of the step down.
> inter

  Sorry there was no engineering plans for the patio area. The only engineering plan required was for the slab. 
The slab plan showed a shape that followed the bay, but the builder excavated straight instead. When the slab engineer checked it that afternoon, he said it was ok as is. Nothing else was mentioned. 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

Sounds like your builder also neglected a bit of extra form-work.  Can't you track him down!

----------


## fiox1

> Sounds like your builder also neglected a bit of extra form-work.  Can't you track him down!

  This guy came recommended. He did a friends extension a few years ago and did a great job too. 
I don't know what the issue is. Some builders (and I use that term very carefully) just do not care. I consulted another builder before him and he was meant to do the job. But communication was so crap I could not rely on him. He too came recommended. 
I don't know what else to say. It has been a crappy experience let me tell you. 
Regards

----------


## phild01

As I was asking, can't you track him down.  You say he was a no show, does that mean his whereabouts is unknown?  Did you have further contact with him when he didn't show for the frames?

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry there was no engineering plans for the patio area. The only engineering plan required was for the slab. 
> The slab plan showed a shape that followed the bay, but the builder excavated straight instead. When the slab engineer checked it that afternoon, he said it was ok as is. Nothing else was mentioned. 
> Regards,

  the patio area is a part of the slab, if the plan doesn't show the step down & a detail of the steel required in that area it is deficient, otherwise how does the formworker/concretor know where to put in the steps required by the standard?
inter

----------


## fiox1

> As I was asking, can't you track him down.  You say he was a no show, does that mean his whereabouts is unknown?  Did you have further contact with him when he didn't show for the frames?

  I am sure I can contact him, if he answers his phone that is.  
It took him 4 weeks to answer my call after the slab was poured. I sent hime emails, sms' and left phone messages for 4 weeks. And his answer was in the form of a photo from his hospital bed. 
My understanding is he did a knee op that put him out of commission for 4 to 6 months..  
Why do you ask?, 
Regards,

----------


## phild01

Only asking as you may have recourse against him if he did not follow the detail of the spec. Going forward might be acceptance of his work.

----------


## METRIX

> Ummmmm Helloooooooooooooo. I did not put the slab down. I paid a builder, like yourself, to do the bulk project work. He monitored the excavation, formwork and was even present on the day of the pour. I mean is he the professional or am I meant to be. This is his doing NOT MINE.

  No need to yell, you should call back that builder and explain the mistake he made, and how is he going to rectify it !!!    

> Just to make this better, he was going to put the frame up 2 weeks later. I bet you he would not have even flinched.

  If he knows anything about building he should have picked the mistake up straight away,     

> Better let everyone know that the waterproofing system they have in their shower and laundry IS NOT GOING TO LAST LONG TERM. Because it came out of a container.

  
Still yelling, there is a slight difference in your situation and the internal waterproofing of a bathroom, if you can't see that, well what more can I say.  *Oh BTW, Your welcome for me picking this problem up for you as nobody else noticed it until I pointed it out, the reason I didn't give you the answer straight away is it's best you study that one photo I put up and see if you could work out what was wrong, that way you learn something rather than simply being fed the answer.* 
But as you seem to always come back with some smart arrse comment to anyone qualified who has tried to help you out along the way. 
It needs to be said again, the information you get on here is free, you are not entitled to anything you get what you get good and bad, people like you really pee me off because when you don't get what you want when you want it you get agro. 
You have received some valuable advice from qualified and not qualified people on there, even then past has shown you throw it back in their face.
It's no wonder your builder mysteriously disappeared, and your helpers had something else on for the day that you needed them, I can completely understand why, narcissism is well and truly alive. 
BTW I know two ways of fixing your problem permanently, both involve a days work, and neither involves anything from a caulking gun, guess you will never know now  :Wink: 
Don't bother replying to this because I have no intention of looking at this thread again, good luck with the rest of the build you will need it .

----------


## fiox1

> Only asking as you may have recourse against him if he did not follow the detail of the spec. Going forward might be acceptance of his work.

  We will definitely know tomorrow when the PCA has a look. 
Ill let you know how it goes. 
Regards,

----------


## NZC

You can't waterproof that, if an inspector say that you can he needs his licence taken off him.
 To me you only option is to delete the bay window, and follow the slab. You can't grind/scabble the slab enough, without exposing the steel which brings in even more problems.
In the builders defence. I would have excavated that in a straight line as well. Why bother digging out the same of something that small. Dig it a little wider, form the shape later. They can only build whats on the plans.

----------


## fiox1

Good afternoon all.  
The PCA came out. Still no decision. The will get back to me. 
In the mean time, I was looking at alternative and commercial waterproofing solutions.  
I found a couple that involve membranes that are sheets rather than paint on.  
One type is called a torch on membrane and I believe is bitumen based and is essentially torched on (heated to melt the bitumen) to make it stick to the substrate. 
Another type is a fibre reinforced sheet that is adhesive backed and stuck on the substrate. One such product is an Ardex product. ARDEX WPM 117 
Ardex also have a paint on trafficable membrane that can be exposed to the elements. ARDEX WPM 908. 
So hopefully one of these solutions will be accepted by the PCA. 
Has any one used similar solutions? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

The torch on bitumen is often on Grand Designs and seems to be a popular flat roof solution in Europe. Also often under their rooftop grass / gardens. Not something you could do yourself. I guess the issue is the transition between the frame and slap, potential for movement and how well that can be managed.

----------


## fiox1

> I have a question about the Ridgeboard. What is commonly used? 19mm, 35mm or 45mm?  
> What about the hip & valley rafters? 
> Regards,

  Sorry to bring this up again. I am looking at using 140 x 35mm (or 140 x 45mm if 35mm is not available). I found 19mm to not be commonly available. 
Any input into the ridgeboard size? 
The hip and valley rafters are sorted. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

Page 112 of 1684 has your answer  
-------------------------------------------

----------


## fiox1

> Page 112 of 1684 has your answer  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Thanks Micky, 
I think I worded my question wrong.  
You are correct about the page for the standard, and that is where I got my sizes from.  
I suppose what I was meant to ask is does anyone still use 19mm or is 35mm or 45mm the typically used sizes now. The height is all good. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

Normally ours are all specified but i would have thought not being a structural ridge 35 would be better seeing as you will be nailing through the ridge to fix the rafters - more nail penetration   
========================

----------


## fiox1

> Normally ours are all specified but i would have thought not being a structural ridge 35 would be better seeing as you will be nailing through the ridge to fix the rafters - more nail penetration   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Thanks again.  
Regards

----------


## fiox1

> Thanks again.  
> Regards

  Hi All, 
The slab engineer came up with the following remedy; 
Build a 100mm high footing under the frame on slab (with mesh for strength) all around the affected bay area. Curve the outside where it meets the slab (or even add a slope towards the slab edge for water drainage). Cut the frame shorter by 100mm and put on top. Apply an external waterproofing membrane on the added footing and slab region where affected. 
Just waiting for the decision by the PCA now. 
(p.s. I would appreciate it if Metrix can also provide some feedback about the above solution). 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

With the use of a double top plate, is there still a need for the metal connector plates? I am thinking the second top plate essentially replaces the metal connector plate. But I could be wrong. 
If so, would they be used on the first or second top plate? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

Re the slab, it comes down to whether the bay is actually worth the effort. (most bays extend beyond the main perimeter walls.) what will the bay be used for? A coat and key stand or a lovely seat to gaze at the view or read a book?

----------


## fiox1

> Re the slab, it comes down to whether the bay is actually worth the effort. (most bays extend beyond the main perimeter walls.) what will the bay be used for? A coat and key stand or a lovely seat to gaze at the view or read a book?

  The bay forms part of the lounge room.  
Its about about being aesthetically different. Most granny flats are box designs with very little appeal. We tried to be different with this layout in trying to create a homeous (new word, look out websters) feeling. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

If the second plate overlaps the first at the frame junctions then you dont need metal connectors - thats how we have done it   
++++++++++++++++++++++++

----------


## fiox1

> If the second plate overlaps the first at the frame junctions then you dont need metal connectors - thats how we have done it   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Great Thanks. As I suspected but wanted to confirm. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> The bay forms part of the lounge room.  
> Its about about being aesthetically different. Most granny flats are box designs with very little appeal. We tried to be different with this layout in trying to create a homeous (new word, look out websters) feeling. 
> Regards,

  Fair enough. It's close to the door, that's all. But I guess granny flats are like that.  
Re the proposed solution, if the PCA is prepared to sign it off (don't lose that paperwork!) then you should be OK. Of course the purists will have concerns.  
Another option is to redesign the bay to go beyond the slab and support it on piers/stumps, but remain under the eaves so the roof line doesn't need amendment. Again, depends on how much trouble you're prepared to go to.

----------


## OBBob

> Fair enough. It's close to the door, that's all. But I guess granny flats are like that.  
> Re the proposed solution, if the PCA is prepared to sign it off (don't lose that paperwork!) then you should be OK. Of course the purists will have concerns.  
> Another option is to redesign the bay to go beyond the slab and support it on piers/stumps, but remain under the eaves so the roof line doesn't need amendment. Again, depends on how much trouble you're prepared to go to.

  Or a cantilever Bay! Ha ha. Actually, now that I've said that, you could do a straight wall with a box window?

----------


## fiox1

> Or a cantilever Bay! Ha ha. Actually, now that I've said that, you could do a straight wall with a box window?

  Hi All, 
I got the correction detail from the slab engineer and passed it onto the PCA (they actually asked for it). It looks like they will accept this remedy (phew) so hopefully on Monday I will start with the rework. 
I started putting in the second top plates today and found this on an existing frame.    
Any comments? I am thinking no issue as the second top plate will go straight over it, but just wondering what the experienced think. 
This seems to be the worst one. Note that this is MGP12. That is what I was sent by the hardware store even though I order MGP10 (my plus). 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

What are we looking at, the cracking?

----------


## fiox1

> What are we looking at, the cracking?

  Sorry, yes the cracking. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Sorry, yes the cracking. 
> Regards,

  Hi again, 
An eleventh hr change to the window in that wall meant some of the studs had to be changed around. I also decided to change the top plate. So all is good now.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Hi All, 
> I got the correction detail from the slab engineer and passed it onto the PCA (they actually asked for it). It looks like they will accept this remedy (phew) so hopefully on Monday I will start with the rework. 
> Regards,

  The PCA responded today. The remedy has been approved.  
I'll contact the builder tomorrow to come and fix his stuff up. 
The good thing is the centre part of the bay that is on slab edge does not require the kerb. The beams sitting on top don't need to come down and so the roof will start as soon as the second top plates are on.  
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> ... 
> I'll contact the builder tomorrow to come and fix his stuff up. 
> ... 
> Regards,

  I thought that wasn't possible. It may be a harder argument if he hasn't had the chance to come up with the solution. Anyway, hopefully he comes to the party (assuming you want him back).

----------


## fiox1

> I thought that wasn't possible. It may be a harder argument if he hasn't had the chance to come up with the solution. Anyway, hopefully he comes to the party (assuming you want him back).

  I can contact him. I actually called him on Thursday. His solution was that because we are tiling, then all is good. According to him, the floor level would be at least 30 to 40mm higher than the slab because of bedding and tiles. So I asked him what about the frame being directly on slab. He answered that the damp course would fix that.  
I now know who to never use again.  
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> I can contact him. I actually called him on Thursday. His solution was that because we are tiling, then all is good. According to him, the floor level would be at least 30 to 40mm higher than the slab because of bedding and tiles. So I asked him what about the frame being directly on slab. He answered that the damp course would fix that.  
> I now know who to never use again.  
> Regards,

  Obviously has has no formal training in building. But he's got the piece of paper that allows him to be let loose without it!
inter

----------


## fiox1

> Obviously has has no formal training in building. But he's got the piece of paper that allows him to be let loose without it!
> inter

  It's disgusting if you ask me.  
The worst part is when discussing builders with my wife at the beginning of the project, I vouched for him saying that I believe he does a good job.  
Anyway, it is raining like it has not rained in a long time today. So no working today.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> It's disgusting if you ask me.  
> The worst part is when discussing builders with my wife at the beginning of the project, I vouched for him saying that I believe he does a good job.  
> Anyway, it is raining like it has not rained in a long time today. So no working today.  
> Regards,

  I called the builder today (sigh).  
I explained that his previous solution (tiling) was not accepted and that a kerb/footing will need to be constructed under the frame in the affected area.  
He rambled on that the tiling will be ok and waterproofing of the external blue board will definitely stop any water ingress.  
I wasted a half hour explaining that there is only one accepted solution. So he came up with a new one. KEEP BUILDING. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY JUST ALLOW IT TO PROGRES 
So all I got from him was 3 loads of rubbish, a lost half hour from my life I will never get back, and still no agreement from him that he will fix it. 
Anyway, I will fix it myself and charge him for materials and the waterproofing that must be done professionally and certified. The PCA wants to inspect every stage of the kerb construction. 
On a positive note, the centre part of the bay does not require the kerb as it is on slab edge. Th big plus here is the beam that is supported on top of it does not have to come down and the roof can now be cut as the rafters sit on the beam.  
In between the stop rains that have happened over the last few days, I have managed to get all second top plates on.  
Woo hooooooo. Progress (if you can call it that). I am looking forward to building the roof. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
This weather is great isn't it. 
I have a question about the ceiling joists.  
The standard allows for both lapping and end butt joining. 
I believe lapping is better and is what I have commonly seen done, but what is the norm. 
If lapping, how do you account for the difference at the rafter end? Do you move the rafter over 1 thickness or do you block the gap at the rafter end? 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

I really don't think it matters at the rafter ends. I don't think the standard requires the rafters and ceiling joists to the tied together? (haven't looked closely though; my renos/extensions have been with trusses and steel ceiling battens)

----------


## fiox1

> I really don't think it matters at the rafter ends. I don't think the standard requires the rafters and ceiling joists to the tied together? (haven't looked closely though; my renos/extensions have been with trusses and steel ceiling battens)

  Hi, 
Unfortunately the standard requires it. 
"Ceiling joists shall be at spacings to support ceiling linings. 
For coupled roofs, ceiling joists shall be in single lengths or spliced in accordance with Clause 7.2.4.2, and at the same spacing and in the same direction as the main rafters so that they may be fixed to, and act as ties between, the feet of pairs of opposing rafters. Intermediate ceiling joists may be required to support ceiling linings. End bearings of joists shall be the full width of the supporting wall plate except as provided for in Clause 7.2.4.2.  
"Regards

----------


## r3nov8or

> Hi, 
> Unfortunately the standard requires it. 
> "Ceiling joists shall be at spacings to support ceiling linings. 
> For coupled roofs, ceiling joists shall be in single lengths or spliced in accordance with Clause 7.2.4.2, and at the same spacing and in the same direction as the main rafters so that they may be fixed to, and act as ties between, the feet of pairs of opposing rafters. Intermediate ceiling joists may be required to support ceiling linings. End bearings of joists shall be the full width of the supporting wall plate except as provided for in Clause 7.2.4.2.  
> "Regards

  Well, there you go.  
Maybe someone in the trade will be along soon...

----------


## Micky013

If you dont have a central hallway that can be used as the lapping joists then you will need to join your in line on top plate. Either way is the norm so do what works. Doesnt hurt to cleat them if its not going to interfere with anything  
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------


## fiox1

> If you dont have a central hallway that can be used as the lapping joists then you will need to join your in line on top plate. Either way is the norm so do what works. Doesnt hurt to cleat them if its not going to interfere with anything  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Thanks. In most instances I have a wall to lap over. So if lapping the joint, will this not shift one side of the joist by it's thickness (45mm in my case) away from the rafter foot leaving a gap of 45mm? How is this gap accounted for? Are the rafters off-set or is a block used at the rafter foot to join to the joist, or is something else done? 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

> Thanks. In most instances I have a wall to lap over. So if lapping the joint, will this not shift one side of the joist by it's thickness (45mm in my case) away from the rafter foot leaving a gap of 45mm? How is this gap accounted for? Are the rafters off-set or is a block used at the rafter foot to join to the joist, or is something else done? 
> Regards,

  I believe there is something in the standard allowing you to offset rafters but im not sure. What im saying is if you have two rooms split by a hall you can offset the joist in the hallway. Otherwise just join them half on and cleat them for extra support  
+++++++++++++++++++++

----------


## fiox1

> I believe there is something in the standard allowing you to offset rafters but im not sure. What im saying is if you have two rooms split by a hall you can offset the joist in the hallway. Otherwise just join them half on and cleat them for extra support  
> --------------------

  All good. Thanks.

----------


## sol381

how wide is your house.. why not just use a single span.. if you have to offset the ceiling joists just offset rafters at the ridge..they dont have to line up and its  not like its going to be seen.

----------


## fiox1

> how wide is your house.. why not just use a single span.. if you have to offset the ceiling joists just offset rafters at the ridge..they dont have to line up and its  not like its going to be seen.

  Thanks.  
That is exactly what I was thinking but was not sure if anyone actually did it that way.  
I believe the standard does allow the rafters to be offset by 1 thickness at most, in which case it will solve this issue.  
The width where it counts is 6.3m. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

So I got interested...  :Smilie: 
7.2.12   Ridgeboards 
7.2.12.1   General 
Ridgeboards shall be provided to locate and stabilize rafter ends. Opposing pairs of rafters shall not be staggered by more than their own thickness at either side of their ridge junction.

----------


## sol381

should be ok then or just get ceiling joists that are over 6m long.

----------


## fiox1

> So I got interested... 
> 7.2.12   Ridgeboards 
> 7.2.12.1   General 
> Ridgeboards shall be provided to locate and stabilize rafter ends. Opposing pairs of rafters shall not be staggered by more than their own thickness at either side of their ridge junction.

  I knew I read it somewhere.  
So it will be all good then. Staggered rafters it is.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> should be ok then or just get ceiling joists that are over 6m long.

  Call me naive, but I did not realise you could get longer than 6m. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> call me naive, but i did not realise you could get longer than 6m. 
> Regards,

  Can in LVL

----------


## Micky013

> Call me naive, but I did not realise you could get longer than 6m. 
> Regards,

  You get gang nailed lengths to full span. Seriously, why would you stagger rafters when you can just cleat the joists over a wall to go full span??? I dont see the point.  
How are you gonna go where the common rafters meet the crown rafter and hip? How you gonna fill the gap between the hip and common that it should be next to?  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

----------


## sol381

Indeed.. seems this is getting more complicated than it needs to.. I am assuming you are getting a chippie to help with the roof so just follow his advice.

----------


## fiox1

> You get gang nailed lengths to full span. Seriously, why would you stagger rafters when you can just cleat the joists over a wall to go full span??? I dont see the point.  
> How are you gonna go where the common rafters meet the crown rafter and hip? How you gonna fill the gap between the hip and common that it should be next to?  
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

  Just looking at options is all. 
I should have mentioned there are some sections that span 6.3m with no internal walls to go over.  
I think cleating will result in an easier install of rafters anyway. But as i said, just looking at options. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

For those long ceiling joists I guess you've designed for hanging beams? I believe you can fish-plate the ceiling joists under the hanging beam too

----------


## fiox1

> For those long ceiling joists I guess you've  designed for hanging beams? I believe you can fish-plate the ceiling  joists under the hanging beam too

  There are hanging beams everywhere.  
I  believe you are correct as the the standard says that they must be done  at points of support. Correct me if we are both wrong, but a hanging  beam is a point of support. 
I found something interesting  regarding attachment of joists to hanging beams. The standard requires  that either a 35 x 32mm cleat , a 25 x 1.6mm steel strap or a joist  hanger be used. But the pryda joist straps are on 0.6mm thick, a huge  difference from the steel strap. How are they still as effective being  0.6mm thick? 
Does anyone still use the ceiling dogs (that may be  an American term) that is a 5 or 6mm metal rod, bent on both ends and  inserted into a drilled hole in both the joist and beam. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> There are hanging beams everywhere.  
> I  believe you are correct as the the standard says that they must be done  at points of support. Correct me if we are both wrong, but a hanging  beam is a point of support. 
> I found something interesting  regarding attachment of joists to hanging beams. The standard requires  that either a 35 x 32mm cleat , a 25 x 1.6mm steel strap or a joist  hanger be used. But the pryda joist straps are on 0.6mm thick, a huge  difference from the steel strap. How are they still as effective being  0.6mm thick? 
> Does anyone still use the ceiling dogs (that may be  an American term) that is a 5 or 6mm metal rod, bent on both ends and  inserted into a drilled hole in both the joist and beam. 
> Regards,

  Yeah, I thought shortly after writing that my approx 3.5 metre rooms have hanging beams so no doubt you will have many too. My home's original coupled roof ('50s) has a steel strap

----------


## NZC

The joist hanger is effective at 0.6 because the Pryda engineer said it was. Therefore the standard says that it is. 
If you r doing it yourself why didn't you just use trusses?

----------


## fiox1

> The joist hanger is effective at 0.6 because the Pryda engineer said it was. Therefore the standard says that it is.

  I am not talking about the joist hanger. These are more robust. I am talking about the joist strap.  
Why would the standard specify a 1.6mm regular strap if only 0.6mm is required. Even bracing straps need to be 0.8mm minimum. I would be interested to see how they tested it and showed it was better. 
Anyway, it was just a thought. I may test it one day at the old shop.   

> If you r doing it yourself why didn't you just use trusses?

  Several reasons actually.
1. A few builders/chippy's here think the cut roof is a better roof.
2. The pitch is only 15°, so already not much roof space. A truss frame would make it that much worse.
3. A truss roof is not something I could put up on my own. I have to factor that in as I may have needed to do the work solo. So far I have worked solo so it is highly probable. 
Hope that makes more sense now. 
Regards,

----------


## r3nov8or

> 2. The pitch is only 15°, so already not much roof space. ...

  I imagine you have calculated the size of your hanging beams, and any underpurlins etc that may be required, and are confident you can squeeze it all into a 15° pitch?

----------


## intertd6

> I am not talking about the joist hanger. These are more robust. I am talking about the joist strap.  
> Why would the standard specify a 1.6mm regular strap if only 0.6mm is required. Even bracing straps need to be 0.8mm minimum. I would be interested to see how they tested it and showed it was better. 
> Anyway, it was just a thought. I may test it one day at the old shop.   
> Several reasons actually.
> 1. A few builders/chippy's here think the cut roof is a better roof.
> 2. The pitch is only 15°, so already not much roof space. A truss frame would make it that much worse.
> 3. A truss roof is not something I could put up on my own. I have to factor that in as I may have needed to do the work solo. So far I have worked solo so it is highly probable. 
> Hope that makes more sense now. 
> Regards,

   Pitching a roof on your own isn't easy, even if you have experience. Trusses are fairly easy, even solo if experienced .
inter

----------


## OBBob

> Pitching a roof on your own isn't easy, even if you have experience. Trusses are fairly easy, even solo if experienced .
> inter

  I just did a hip roof on a small side extension... just calculating the angles can send someone who doesn't do it everyday batty.   :Biggrin:  I guess that's why there were chippies that just did roofs and nothing else in the old days.

----------


## sol381

Indeed it can..Thats why i mainly do trusses these days.. Dont want to end up in an asylum.  :Shock:

----------


## OBBob

> Indeed it can..Thats why i mainly do trusses these days.. Dont want to end up in an asylum.

  Ha ha, not ideal.   :Biggrin:

----------


## sol381

Youre right tho.. even getting the starting height for the ridge and calculating heights at angles for birdsmouths is not easy...Need to know how to use  your sin cos tans.

----------


## OBBob

> Youre right tho.. even getting the starting height for the ridge and calculating heights at angles for birdsmouths is not easy...Need to know how to use  your sin cos tans.

  Mine was ultimately quite simple compared to a whole roof but I still felt pretty special when the hip rafter slotted in snuggly at the top connection... and at the correct height in relation to the other rafters to boot!   :Biggrin:

----------


## sol381

It is quite the feeling when it goes in perfect.. all comes down to getting your measurements spot on.. Those first common rafters have to be precise and plumb.

----------


## fiox1

> I imagine you have calculated the size of your hanging beams, and any underpurlins etc that may be required, and are confident you can squeeze it all into a 15° pitch?

  Hi, yes calcs were done.  
It is a tight squeeze. I guess We will see what happens once rafters are up. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Youre right tho.. even getting the starting height for the ridge and calculating heights at angles for birdsmouths is not easy...Need to know how to use  your sin cos tans.

  I use CAD software to assist with all that. Of course it may need a tweak on the job, but I can get all angles, lengths etc from CAD. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> I use CAD software to assist with all that. Of course it may need a tweak on the job, but I can get all angles, lengths etc from CAD. 
> Regards,

  As did I... but in 2D. Blocklayer on here has some useful calculators on his site.

----------


## fiox1

> As did I... but in 2D. Blocklayer on here has some useful calculators on his site.

  Sorry, I meant 2D. I only use 3D for a better picture of what is being designed. It is great though when you have an issue as you can see the problem more clearly. 
I have seen Blocklayers calcs. Unfortunately I found them once all was done and dusted. They are good for those who are new to this whole business of frame building. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

I was just talking about actually manually erecting the roof with one person.
inter

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
I need to use chemical anchors for the kerb that is under the frame. Engineers requirements. 
Anyway, I have never used them before. 
I have to use M12 bolts, so must drill a 14mm hole (according to ramset site, but correct if that is wrong). 
Any advice before I hit the youtube? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> I was just talking about actually manually erecting the roof with one person.
> inter

  That bit is easy ... just need a bigger boom and some out riggers on the franken-hoist he already has.  :Smilie:      

> Hi All, 
> I need to use chemical anchors for the kerb that is under the frame. Engineers requirements. 
> Anyway, I have never used them before. 
> I have to use M12 bolts, so must drill a 14mm hole (according to ramset site, but correct if that is wrong). 
> Any advice before I hit the youtube? 
> Regards,

  Ramset have some pretty easy products these days. You can get it in a self mixing caulking gun cartridge. The hole sounds about right as it needs a good gap for the adhesive to work. Buy yourself a nice fresh masonry bit if you don't have one and make life easier for yourself.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Hi All, 
> I need to use chemical anchors for the kerb that is under the frame. Engineers requirements. 
> Anyway, I have never used them before. 
> I have to use M12 bolts, so must drill a 14mm hole (according to ramset site, but correct if that is wrong). 
> Any advice before I hit the youtube? 
> Regards,

  Get the self mixing cartridge, make sure you blow out/clean the holes well. In short, follow the instructions to the letter, and as a first timer don't work with this stuff on a hot day 
I'm wondering how you are keying the new kerb to the existing concrete, to ensure a strong bond? A strong bond is especially important if you can't drill deeply into the original slab and/or can't find long enough threaded bolts* for the chemset, and it's important to assit with waterproofing the connection between the slab and the kerb 
* you may need to use threaded rod cut to length, rather than the high tensile Ramset branded rods

----------


## fiox1

> I'm wondering how you are keying the new kerb to the existing concrete, to ensure a strong bond? A strong bond is especially important if you can't drill deeply into the original slab and/or can't find long enough threaded bolts* for the chemset, and it's important to assit with waterproofing the connection between the slab and the kerb 
> * you may need to use threaded rod cut to length, rather than the high tensile Ramset branded rods

  Thanks.  
The concrete is to be scrabbled and then a bonding agent applied. 
I was thinking of using threaded rod so I can also bolt down the frame using the same bolts.  
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> That bit is easy ... just need a bigger boom and some out riggers on the franken-hoist he already has.

  Actually my longest ridge is only 2.5m. Ill put up a couple of supports from the ground and fix the rafters a pair at a time. 
The alternate way is to put up the ridge end rafter pairs first, and then wedge the ridge beam in. That may also work. 
Had the ridge been much longer, something else would have to be done. 
Regards,

----------


## sol381

Should set up a time lapse camera for the job.. would be cool to see it at the end.

----------


## fiox1

> Should set up a time lapse camera for the job.. would be cool to see it at the end.

  Damn. Why didn't i think of that from the beginning. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Had the ridge been much longer, something else would have to be done. 
> Regards,

  Hire duct lifters... that's what I did for my 7m long glulam.  :eek:

----------


## fiox1

> Get the self mixing cartridge, make sure you  blow out/clean the holes well. In short, follow the instructions to the  letter, and as a first timer don't work with this stuff on a hot day 
> I'm wondering how you are keying the new kerb to the existing concrete,  to ensure a strong bond? A strong bond is especially important if you  can't drill deeply into the original slab and/or can't find long enough  threaded bolts* for the chemset, and it's important to assit with  waterproofing the connection between the slab and the kerb 
> * you may need to use threaded rod cut to length, rather than the high tensile Ramset branded rods

  Back again.  
Today  was the day to install the threaded rods for the kerb. I had to put a  total of 12 rods in, and as you suggested, I actually used threaded rod  cut down to suit. Not all will go through the bottom plate. 
Anyway, as was suggested by OBBob, I bought a new drill bit. So much easier when everything is fresh. 
I  drilled the holes then realised I got the the tube that requires their  special dispensing gun. So changed it over and all is good. 
Anyway  came back with their alternate tube and worked a charm. I have been  convinced of using chemical anchors. Never used them before and will  definitely be using them again. 
Thanks to all who gave advice.  
I thank the Lord though that the rains (typhoon) held off until I was done and it had cured. 
I have scrabbled the slab and now just need the PCA's go ahead before I can pour the crete. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Good day to all.  
The PCA came out and all is good. I built the formwork for the kerb in between periods of rain.  
Good thing is I applied the sealer to the section early in the morning so it is was pretty much dry by the time the rain started.  
Hopefully tomorrow I can pour the concrete. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi All. 
I had some other work to do in the morning so I did not get out until the afternoon.  
However, I did manage to put the bonding agent down and pour the concrete. It took about 6 bags.  
Formwork ready for concrete pour.  
Concrete poured.  
Now that the kerb is done, I can refit the bay sections (shortened by 125mm). Hopefully that's tomorrow's job. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Good morning to all. 
I talked to my PCA yesterday about the next inspection. 
He advised me to have the roof tiled so they can see the frame when loaded. 
I even asked if I could start lining the exterior. His response was so long as they can see the frame from the inside, then no problem. 
When is the frame typically inspected? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Good morning to all. 
> I talked to my PCA yesterday about the next inspection. 
> He advised me to have the roof tiled so they can see the frame when loaded. 
> I even asked if I could start lining the exterior. His response was so long as they can see the frame from the inside, then no problem. 
> When is the frame typically inspected? 
> Regards,

  My inspections have always been prior to tiles or tin. Possibly more difficult to make any changes at that later stage (not that I've needed to... but your situation is a little different).

----------


## fiox1

> My inspections have always been prior to tiles or tin. Possibly more difficult to make any changes at that later stage (not that I've needed to... but your situation is a little different).

  Thanks OBBob. 
I thought as much but was not sure what the industry standard was. 
I might have another chat to him. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

Once apon a time they would only inspect after the roof was on & the brick veneer completed, as they wanted to make sure the brick ties were all nailed off & not pointing down.
inter

----------


## OBBob

How much is the rate for an extra inspection? It might be worth it given this your first time and anything will be easier to fix at that stage.

----------


## sol381

> Once apon a time they would only inspect after the roof was on & the brick veneer completed, as they wanted to make sure the brick ties were all nailed off & not pointing down.
> inter

  That was back when council actually came out and did the job properly, not like the knucklehead certifiers today. Just ask your certifier when he needs to inspect.. Normally its when you put the last nail in he frame or roof. You can put the tin on but as bob said may be hard to change if you stuff up your tie downs or something.

----------


## r3nov8or

My certifier wanted to inspect bare complete framing so he could see roof batten fixings etc

----------


## fiox1

> That was back when council actually came out and did the job properly, not like the knucklehead certifiers today. Just ask your certifier when he needs to inspect.. Normally its when you put the last nail in he frame or roof. You can put the tin on but as bob said may be hard to change if you stuff up your tie downs or something.

  Hi All, 
The reason I actually contacted the PCA was to see exactly when he wanted to inspect and whether or not he can do a partial inspection for the walls only so I could start lining to protect from the pouring rain that was expected. 
That is when he advised me I can put up the exterior linings and even the roof tiles as they like to inspect when the frame is loaded. The odd thing is the CDC documentation defines when inspections are meant to be carried out and they actually say that the frame is to be inspected prior to lining. 
I quizzed him about that. Maybe they have had a change in process. Maybe they are finding more issues when further inspections are conducted after the frame has been given the tick of approval. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi all, 
Does anyone here use flashing tape on window sill trimmers? If so, which one have you used? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Hi Again, 
I will hopefully start the roof tomorrow if the weather holds up. 
I have a question regarding the ceiling joists. Is it a good idea to use triple grips to fix the joists to the top plates or is skew nailing just as good? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

Do you have a roof?    :Biggrin:

----------


## fiox1

> Do you have a roof?

  Hi OBBob,  
It's on the way. I will have some pics later as I only started today. 
Thanks for the interest. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> That bit is easy ... just need a bigger boom and some out riggers on the franken-hoist he already has.  .

  There is the franken-hoist. Worked well. I had to extend the top part to get more height, but that was easy.   
More photos tomorrow. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> There is the franken-hoist. Worked well. I had to extend the top part to get more height, but that was easy.   
> More photos tomorrow. 
> Regards,

  It's mutating!

----------


## fiox1

Good Morning all, 
I have been checking my calcs for the hips as today I will be cutting them.  
I know that the hip on the plate needs to be cut to ensure it is in plane with the other rafters. To do this, the plumb height from the top of the common rafter is transferred onto the hip rafter. However, this would leave with a seat cut that is very long (388mm long on a roof that spans 6285 mm at a 15° pitch). The diagonal on the corner is about 138mm long.   
Is there anything wrong with that picture? 
Regards,

----------


## CraigandKate

Is the birdsmouth cut depth less than 1/3 of the timber height?

----------


## fiox1

> Is the birdsmouth cut depth less than 1/3 of the timber height?

  For the hip rafter it is. Not the rest though .

----------


## NZC

Looks wrong, punch all your measurement into blocklayer and see what it spits out.

----------


## OBBob

I recall having trouble particularly with the hip rafters. I wouldn't cut it until you've done all the normal rafters, then you can check it in reality prior to cutting.

----------


## Micky013

Its probably correct. Are you birdsmouthing rafters as well (I recall your using 90) in which case it would drop the hip quite a bit  
TCR

----------


## fiox1

> Its probably correct. Are you birdsmouthing rafters as well (I recall your using 90) in which case it would drop the hip quite a bit  
> TCR

  Yes all rafters are being birdsmouthed.  
It's the only way that the hip will drop enough.  
I should mention that the hips and valley's are 140x45mm. 
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

> Yes all rafters are being birdsmouthed.  
> It's the only way that the hip will drop enough.  
> Regards,

  So then it would be right - if you have all the angles correct

----------


## OBBob

Keep in mind the top plate is longer on the 45 degree angle at the corner so it won't look quite as strange... if that makes sense.

----------


## sol381

Also the hip rafter doesn't need to be the same height as the hip jack rafters.. It  can line up with the battens so the birdsmouth isnt as deep.

----------


## METRIX

> There is the franken-hoist. Worked well. I had to extend the top part to get more height, but that was easy.   
> More photos tomorrow. 
> Regards,

  
Quite a few things wrong in this photo.

----------


## OBBob

> Quite a few things wrong in this photo.

  I can see a tripping hazard... Lol.

----------


## METRIX

> I can see a tripping hazard... Lol.

  
I can see more than a tripping hazard, look out two bunnies.

----------


## sol381

eyes to the ground bob.   wondering why the window on the other side is only 600mm high, is that the see through kitchen splash back.

----------


## sol381

> I can see more than a tripping hazard, look out two bunnies.

  Must laugh at that one.

----------


## METRIX

> eyes to the ground bob.   wondering why the window on the other side is only 600mm high, is that the see through kitchen splash back.

  
I wouldn't think so, not much to look at, just an old CB fence and a cruddy blond brick extension.

----------


## fiox1

> eyes to the ground bob.   wondering why the window on the other side is only 600mm high, is that the see through kitchen splash back.

  Yes it is a splash back window. The fence and extension will not be the only thing to look at when it is finished. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Quite a few things wrong in this photo.

  I am happy to hear any comments you may have. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Looks wrong, punch all your measurement into blocklayer and see what it spits out.

  I did what you suggested. The following was spat out. 
"Birds-mouth depth in Hip will be greater than 1/3 hip depth. 
This can significantly weaken hip. 
Continue? " 
I asked about this many moons ago and was informed and found other info to indicate the hip rafter birdsmouth is almost always more than 1/3 the depth of the rafter to allow it to line up with  common and jack rafters at the plate level. 
Regards

----------


## intertd6

> Quite a few things wrong in this photo.

   The missing lintel in the nearest opening & no stud ties straps are definitely not looking right.
inter

----------


## phild01

I suspect numerous bits of timber still to go in!

----------


## fiox1

> The missing lintel in the nearest opening & no stud ties straps are definitely not looking right.
> inter

   There is no lintel in this opening. The external beam runs across the top.  
Some strapping is still to be added to it. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> I suspect numerous bits of timber still to go in!

  Only a few jack studs on the front windows. 
Regards,

----------


## intertd6

> There is no lintel in this opening. The external beam runs across the top.  
> Some strapping is still to be added to it. 
> Regards,

  you might want to do the ceiling joists, strutting / hanging beams etc first before the rafters push the walls apart too !

----------


## fiox1

> you might want to do the ceiling joists, strutting / hanging beams etc first before the rafters push the walls apart too !

  I wish you told me that yesterday.  
I started adding more rafters today and found they were not fitting properly. Same size as yesterday, yet they did not fit. So I took some measurements and did some wall plumb checks. The bay side moved a little. About 40mm little. 
Anyway, wasted about an hour pulling it back in and adding a temporary support across the top. 
So all is good now and I learnt a valuable lesson. 
Anyway, thanks for the heads up. 
Regards,

----------


## METRIX

> I am happy to hear any comments you may have. 
> Regards,

  Might want to put up the ceiling joists first, and sort out strutting / hanging beams before putting any rafters up.
There are a few other problems but sort that out first.

----------


## intertd6

If all else fails, read the instructions.
Inter

----------


## fiox1

> Might want to put up the ceiling joists first, and sort out strutting / hanging beams before putting any rafters up.
> There are a few other problems but sort that out first.

  Thanks. I will be doing that tomorrow.  
Glad you are back. 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

> Might want to put up the ceiling joists first, and sort out strutting / hanging beams before putting any rafters up.
> There are a few other problems but sort that out first.

  Just on ceiling joists, I recall in one of the photos you uploaded that you lapped the joist with a block in between the two parts. Am I correct in seeing that? 
Regards,

----------


## fiox1

Good Afternoon all. 
We have a Houston situation mainly due to the pitch of the roof. I am sure Metrix saw this one coming too.   
Does anyone see the issue? 
The standard does have a way out for similar situations where you need to taper off more than the maximum allowed.   
Is this the way to go considering that almost none of the hanging beam  will rest on the jack joist in the region supported by the top plate? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Good Afternoon all. 
> We have a Houston situation mainly due to the pitch of the roof. I am sure Metrix saw this one coming too.   
> Does anyone see the issue? 
> The standard does have a way out for similar situations where you need to taper off more than the maximum allowed.   
> Is this the way to go considering that almost none of the hanging beam  will rest on the jack joist in the region supported by the top plate? 
> Regards,

  R3nov8tor pointed this out at post #467.

----------


## fiox1

> R3nov8tor pointed this out at post #467.

  I was thinking he meant squeezing inside rather than at the plate. 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> I was thinking he meant squeezing inside rather than at the plate. 
> Regards,

  Why can't you do what the standard suggests above... even if it means some extra joists?

----------


## fiox1

> Why can't you do what the standard suggests above... even if it means some extra joists?

  Like This. I can do that no problem for the hanging beams. But I also have a Hanging Strutting Beam.   
Regards,

----------


## Micky013

Wow. Id like to know the work around where none of the hanger will actually sit on the plate. Even if its on the trimmer that wouldn't pass surely? As for the hanging and strutting beam - that will be interesting.  
Seeing as your hangers need to be at 1800c cant you just sit the hanger hard on the top plate and but the joist is (bracketed if need be)?  
TCR

----------


## OBBob

> Seeing as your hangers need to be at 1800c cant you just sit the hanger hard on the top plate and but the joist is (bracketed if need be)?  
> TCR

  That's what I was thinking... might want to hire an apprentice for all those brackets!

----------


## ringtail

Heaps of (nearly all) old houses have combo hanging/strutting beams. Usually well undersized and overspanned hence why nearly all old houses have ceiling deflection. Carving up the hanging beam and gang nailplating a trimmer as per the AS works fine. One could also sit the hanger on the top plate (above a stud or stiffened plate) and use joist hangers for the ceiling joists. Strutting beam will need to be in a different orientation to pick up internal wall plates or other load bearing capable areas

----------


## fiox1

> Carving up the hanging beam and gang nailplating a trimmer as per the AS works fine.

  Thanks. That made me think a bit about that. The trimmer attached to the hanging beam acts as an extension of the the hanging beam while the gang nail plates making it 'whole' again. 
I will do that for the regular hanging beams. I need to think about the hanging/strutting beam.  
Regards,

----------


## ringtail

Yep. Follow the diagrams in the AS.

----------


## fiox1

> Yep. Follow the diagrams in the AS.

  Thanks.  
Regarding the diagrams, the only one I have seen is the one I have already shown above.   
Are there others that I may have missed? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Thanks.  
> Regarding the diagrams, the only one I have seen is the one I have already shown above.   
> Are there others that I may have missed? 
> Regards,

  The concern with that is what you said above, the jack joist is actually sitting on the top plate and (whilst cut off on an angle) the hanging beam sits above it. In your situation you'd be relying entirely on some sort of joiner plate.

----------


## fiox1

> The concern with that is what you said above, the jack joist is actually sitting on the top plate and (whilst cut off on an angle) the hanging beam sits above it. In your situation you'd be relying entirely on some sort of joiner plate.

  Actually the hanging beam is also bolted to the rafter in that case. So technically it is supported by the rafter and jack joist. The question is, is that sufficient? 
Regards,

----------


## OBBob

> Actually the hanging beam is also bolted to the rafter in that case. So technically it is supported by the rafter and jack joist. The question is, is that sufficient? 
> Regards,

  But yours would be bolted to the rafter 300mm or so off the top plate. Anyway, I'm interested because I'm not sure what would be considered a normal solution.

----------


## fiox1

> But yours would be bolted to the rafter 300mm or so off the top plate. Anyway, I'm interested because I'm not sure what would be considered a normal solution.

  I am thinking............

----------


## Micky013

> But yours would be bolted to the rafter 300mm or so off the top plate. Anyway, I'm interested because I'm not sure what would be considered a normal solution.

  Yeah im with you on this one. Normally, although resting on the trimmer, the first 90mm of the hanger is bearing directly over the plate. In your case it wont be - it will be on the inside of the frame. Just seems a bit dodge but maybe its perfectly acceptable when plated together. Surely its better to butt the joists in and have the hanger on the plate.....

----------


## fiox1

> Yeah im with you on this one. Normally, although resting on the trimmer, the first 90mm of the hanger is bearing directly over the plate. In your case it wont be - it will be on the inside of the frame. Just seems a bit dodge but maybe its perfectly acceptable when plated together. Surely its better to butt the joists in and have the hanger on the plate.....

  "Get out of dodge" they say.  
I have an idea I am working on now. Give me 10 mins.

----------


## METRIX

Put the hanging beams in first resting them on the top plate, then butt the ceiling joists into either side of the hanging beams, nail them off then joist hang em for backup.
Make sure to put an extra stud or two directly under the hanging beams in the walls. 
See below, how we did this one, it's quite common to have to do this on large roof, or low pitch like yours.

----------


## ringtail

I dunno Metrix, is that one with the arrow a combo hanging / counter beam  :Biggrin:

----------


## fiox1

I have rechecked my requirements. I only have 1 hanging beam and 1 hanging/strutting beam that have the issue. 
For the hanging beam, maybe the following can be done?   
The rise is only 20mm above the rafter. Battens are 35mm high (correct me if I am wrong). This way it will bear 90mm on the jack joist.

----------


## fiox1

> Put the hanging beams in first resting them on the top plate, then butt the ceiling joists into either side of the hanging beams, nail them off then joist hang em for backup.
> Make sure to put an extra stud or two directly under the hanging beams in the walls. 
> See below, how we did this one, it's quite common to have to do this on large roof, or low pitch like yours.

  Sorry just saw your response. 
This was suggested earlier but it did not solve the issue for a hanging/strutting beam. 
Can this be done with a hanging/strutting beam too considering it needs to be 25mm above the ceiling to allow for deflection?

----------


## METRIX

> I dunno Metrix, is that one with the arrow a combo hanging / counter beam

  
Your right, giving out wrong information again  :Tongue: , try this one then, the only problem with the below one, it was upside down as can be seen by the writing on the beam, should never do that  :Rolleyes:

----------


## METRIX

> Sorry just saw your response. 
> This was suggested earlier but it did not solve the issue for a hanging/strutting beam. 
> Can this be done with a hanging/strutting beam too considering it needs to be 25mm above the ceiling to allow for deflection?

  Who has told you it's going to deflect 25mm and why, if the right sized beam is specified there should be minimal or no deflection.
Yes your right in allowing the beam to be above ceiling top side to allow for deflection, but that is a different scenario to what you want to do. 
If your putting in a beam which your expecting to deflect 25mm your putting the wrong beam in, you want the right sized beam that won't deflect. 
I thought you were going for a Tin roof anyway, if so there's bugger all weight up there, to get 25mm deflection from that load your beam would have to be made from 70x35.
The above photos show the beams in line with the ceiling joist, then large tiled roof was strutted off these with no deflection, it all comes down to correct sizing.

----------


## fiox1

> Who has told you it's going to deflect 25mm and why, if the right sized beam is specified there should be minimal or no deflection.
> Yes your right in allowing the beam to be above ceiling top side to allow for deflection, but that is a different scenario to what you want to do. 
> If your putting in a beam which your expecting to deflect 25mm your putting the wrong beam in, you want the right sized beam that won't deflect. 
> I thought you were going for a Tin roof anyway, if so there's bugger all weight up there, to get 25mm deflection from that load your beam would have to be made from 70x35.
> The above photos show the beams in line with the ceiling joist, then large tiled roof was strutted off these with no deflection, it all comes down to correct sizing.

  The standard says the following for strutting beams in clause 7.2.9 
"Blocking shall be provided between strutting beams and wall plates to provide an initial clearance of 25 mm at midspan between the underside of the beams and the tops of ceiling joists, ceiling lining or ceiling battens, as appropriate (see Figure 7.5)." 
I agree that there should be no deflection if sized correctly. I am just following the standard.

----------


## METRIX

Clause 7.2.9 is correct, and that is what's called Minimum Standards and needs to be applied to situations where deflection will be a problem. 
One step above minimum standards are what's called Engineered Solutions, beam deflection under certain loads is easy to work out, an Engineered Solution is one that is requested to have no or minimal deflection under full load plus some extra as a safety margin. 
You should have a set of Engineering diagrams outlining the required beam sizes and the approximate location, I think you mentioned earlier this was not required. 
If that's so then that's bollox, I have been involved in a lot of builds and not one of them has not required a set of Engineering specifications for the beams required.
Yes I can easily work out the beams required and work out the deflection of the beam under certain loads, but that's not my area of expertise, that is why an engineer is involved to ensure it's all done right. 
If you don't have this, I would suggest you arrange to get this before continuing, as you will only be guessing at the correct solution, these things are not about guessing but about facts.
If you do have this, then call the Engineer and ask him / her what parameters were the beams specified for. 
The beams above are combination Counter / Strutting beams, your problem is quite easy to resolve, the book may help you, it may not, if unsure speak to the Engineer, after all this is their domain.

----------


## intertd6

> Clause 7.2.9 is correct, and that is what's called Minimum Standards and needs to be applied to situations where deflection will be a problem. 
> One step above minimum standards are what's called Engineered Solutions, beam deflection under certain loads is easy to work out, an Engineered Solution is one that is requested to have no or minimal deflection under full load plus some extra as a safety margin. 
> You should have a set of Engineering diagrams outlining the required beam sizes and the approximate location, I think you mentioned earlier this was not required. 
> If that's so then that's bollox, I have been involved in a lot of builds and not one of them has not required a set of Engineering specifications for the beams required.
> Yes I can easily work out the beams required and work out the deflection of the beam under certain loads, but that's not my area of expertise, that is why an engineer is involved to ensure it's all done right. 
> If you don't have this, I would suggest you arrange to get this before continuing, as you will only be guessing at the correct solution, these things are not about guessing but about facts.
> If you do have this, then call the Engineer and ask him / her what parameters were the beams specified for. 
> The beams above are combination Counter / Strutting beams, your problem is quite easy to resolve, the book may help you, it may not, if unsure speak to the Engineer, after all this is their domain.

  the clause 7.2.9 applies no matter what design system is used , unless it is specifically overridden & deleted by the design, on the surface though it would seem that this clause would only apply to strutting beams & not a combination beam, it allows for the roof loads & deflections to never affect the ceiling line , for a combo beam this isn't the case & never can be, so those beams are designed with very minimal deflection.
inter

----------


## Micky013

Read 7.2.7 as thats what actually applies in your case for the combined beam. Read the note specifically - clearance not required for a combined beam 
TCR

----------


## ringtail

> Your right, giving out wrong information again , try this one then, the only problem with the below one, it was upside down as can be seen by the writing on the beam, should never do that

  
Ooooo, never put the writing upside down. Freaks the clients out.  :Eek:

----------


## fiox1

> Read 7.2.7 as thats what actually applies in your case for the combined beam. Read the note specifically - clearance not required for a combined beam 
> TCR

  Good morning.  
I see what you mean now. My mistake.

----------


## fiox1

Hi Metrix, 
Do you commonly lap ceiling joists with a block in between to account for offset? I believe that is what I saw in one of your photo's. 
Also, were these particular joists used to tie the opposing rafters together?

----------


## METRIX

> Hi Metrix, 
> Do you commonly lap ceiling joists with a block in between to account for offset? I believe that is what I saw in one of your photo's. 
> Also, were these particular joists used to tie the opposing rafters together?

  
No just butt the ceiling joist next to each other, they generally overlap over a wall, or if in the middle of a room they overlap at a hanger at the join. 
A block is needed when two ceiling joists will go from one side wall to the other as they sit next to the rafter, if you bring the joist together they will either have a rafter space between them or they crash into each other, only happens when you have two ceiling joists over the span, one is fine, three is fine,  you will see some photos earlier on that show this, you may have this happen as your place is not that wide. 
The rafters are tied together with collar ties (with bolts), but yes the ceiling joists will also help tie the walls and rafters all together, remember a stick house it's like a jenga block, each piece helps the other piece.
This is why Chippy's get the dirt's when Plumbers come in and start cutting out timber willy nilly, because they start to break the jenga.

----------


## fiox1

> No just butt the ceiling joist next to each other, they generally overlap over a wall, or if in the middle of a room they overlap at a hanger at the join. 
> A block is needed when two ceiling joists will go from one side wall to the other as they sit next to the rafter, if you bring the joist together they will either have a rafter space between them or they crash into each other, only happens when you have two ceiling joists over the span, one is fine, three is fine,  you will see some photos earlier on that show this, you may have this happen as your place is not that wide. 
> The rafters are tied together with collar ties (with bolts), but yes the ceiling joists will also help tie the walls and rafters all together, remember a stick house it's like a jenga block, each piece helps the other piece.
> This is why Chippy's get the dirt's when Plumbers come in and start cutting out timber willy nilly, because they start to break the jenga.

  Great thanks.

----------


## OBBob

> ... because they start to break the jenga.

  Lol   :Biggrin:

----------


## fiox1

Happy Easter to All. 
Have a great festive day, and remember, its not about the chocolate eggs.

----------


## OBBob

> Happy Easter to All. 
> Have a great festive day, and remember, its not about the chocolate eggs.

  Thanks. Is it tomorrow that's about the chocolate?   :Tongue:

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
I got most of my ceiling joists in today and the two hanging beams. The only reason I stopped is because I ran out of timber; plus one of the hanging beam halves (2 beams per hanging beam) was so twisted I had to swap it out.  
The distance between the hanging beams and the under-purlins (when they are in) is a tight approx 130mm. Tiny short struts.     
The hangers and joist straps will go in tomorrow along with the rest of the joists.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
What does one do, if due to the pitch, the ceiling joist closest to the wall is in the way of the hip rafter? 
Can the joist be moved so that it is no longer in the way and extend the jack joists? 
What other options are available? 
Regards,

----------


## sol381

Of course.. ceiling joists are just there for the plaster ceiling.. work around it..I am sure if you are going to do this again you will go trusses..you'd be living in the place by now if you did it here.

----------


## OBBob

You can see it in METRIX's picture above... looks like the joist is as close as possible to the end wall then little jack joists (or whatever you call them) are added perpendicular to support the plaster (if required) or to the wall.

----------


## fiox1

> I am sure if you are going to do this again you will go trusses..you'd be living in the place by now if you did it here.

  Either that or have a bigger pitch.  
I prefer the space afforded by a cut roof over the trusses.

----------


## Micky013

Normally the first joist is set back 565mm from outside of frame and you run 565 trimmers every 600 - starting as close to the hip as possible  
Pretty sure its all in the roofing book you bought  
TR

----------


## fiox1

> Might want to put up the ceiling joists first, and sort out strutting / hanging beams before putting any rafters up.
> There are a few other problems but sort that out first.

  Hi all, 
I have sorted out the joists, strutting and hanging beams and in fact finished the front (largest part) of the roof (hips and jacks all in). 
Metrix, You mentioned some other issues; what may they be?  
I will be starting on the remaining part of the roof on Monday. 
Ill post some pics soon.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Just finishing the last part of the roof.   
Is it better to run the minor ridge (pink arrow) to the valley (blue arrow) or have it attached to the broken hip (green arrow)? 
The book shows it going to the broken hip. But I have seen it done the other way too.

----------


## fiox1

As promised, I have a couple of pics.  
This picture shows the front part of the roof mostly complete. Only some final nailing to and the front jack joists.  
In this picture you can see a piece of off-cut ( the birdsmouth cutout piece actually) that I used to know exactly where the rafter sits on the top plate. This was used for situations where the birdsmouth also goes over the brace board and blueboard that is still to be put in place. Usually you have a second or even third pair of hands to help. In my case, this is my second pair of hands.

----------


## fiox1

> Hi All, 
> Just finishing the last part of the roof. 
> Is it better to run the minor ridge (pink arrow) to the valley (blue arrow) or have it attached to the broken hip (green arrow)? 
> The book shows it going to the broken hip. But I have seen it done the other way too.

  All good. I just followed the book. 
I will finish the last part of the roof on Monday. Then under purlins and struts go in. 
Roof tiling to be done the following Monday. 
Ill take a few pics once done.

----------


## OBBob

Bracing as well I guess?  
Are gutters being done before roof tiling?

----------


## fiox1

> Bracing as well I guess?  
> Are gutters being done before roof tiling?

  Wall bracing, of course. Mostly already done anyway. Just need a few sections of brace board. 
Regarding the roof bracing, as it is a hip roof, no additional bracing is technically required. However is there additional bracing commonly placed as added strength? 
The roofer will do the gutters and fascia. One less thing for me. Plus there is not that much savings if I did it.

----------


## OBBob

I meant roof bracing. My tiler wouldn't do the gutters... easier if they can I guess.

----------


## fiox1

> I meant roof bracing. My tiler wouldn't do the gutters... easier if they can I guess.

  Sorry, all good. 
This tiler came recommended by a friend, so hopefully he works out good. I have seen some of his jobs and seems to do a good job. 
Anyway, guttering on your own is probably harder than framing on your own.

----------


## OBBob

> Sorry, all good. 
> This tiler came recommended by a friend, so hopefully he works out good. I have seen some of his jobs and seems to do a good job. 
> Anyway, guttering on your won is probably harder than framing on your own.

  Ha ha, yes... I wasn't actually suggesting you do it yourself... just checking it was being done before the tiles. Anyway, you have it in hand.

----------


## fiox1

> Ha ha, yes... I wasn't actually suggesting you do it yourself... just checking it was being done before the tiles. Anyway, you have it in hand.

  I will say though that it has been a great learning curve and experience to build the frame. The roof was much more interesting though and it is cool how once all members were in, the increase in strength was significant.

----------


## OBBob

> I will say though that it has been a great learning curve and experience to build the frame. The roof was much more interesting though and it is cool how once all members were in, the increase in strength was significant.

  Yes, noticed the same the first time... the wall frames feel wobbly laterally but the you add the roof and it all becomes rock solid.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
I had the frame inspection today. 
No major discrepancies were noted (e.g. a couple frame anchors were missing due running out of bolts) and I can go ahead with the roof tiling. Other discrepancies were mainly stuff I had left off till now.  
He did admit that for a cut roof, inspection is meant to be done before tiling and he made an error when he told me that it should be inspected afterwards. Only truss roofs are to be loaded before inspection. 
Mostly he was happy with the construction. He did comment at how little the space was in the roof due to the low pitch. My response was I am never doing a 15° roof pitch again. 
I will pop up some pics tomorrow.  
Underpurlins were tough though as on one side I can only fit a wedge between the underpurlin and the strutting beam. He was happy with my resolve for this as he also agreed there was not enough space to do anything else. 
Roof tiling will begin on Wednesday so tomorrow I will just tidy up some loose ends and start the wall sarking and cladding.

----------


## OBBob

At least the tiler should appreciate walking on a low pitch! Congratulations on passing inspection.

----------


## r3nov8or

Good to hear!

----------


## fiox1

> At least the tiler should appreciate walking on a low pitch! Congratulations on passing inspection.

  Thanks. I was not sure what exactly they would be looking for and in fact was so much easier than I expected. 
It's a good thing I had the support of all of you here so I was able to get over some hurdles. 
Fascia's and gutters got done today and tiling will be on Wednesday.  
The one thing I was a little disappointed in is the gutter guys just cut off the ends of the hip and valley rafters straight and well back from the fascia. I was string lining and cutting at the correct angles, but clearly a waste of time doing it that way. They just ripped out the baby chainsaw and cut them off like they were nothing. All my hard work and effort just cut off so easily.

----------


## fiox1

> Good to hear!

  It was great actually. It has been a long road getting to this stage.

----------


## r3nov8or

> It was great actually. It has been a long road getting to this stage.

  Lots of stress and second guessing yourself, lots learnt and very rewarding. DIY'ing a home is a great thing, not to mention the ever increasing tool collection!

----------


## OBBob

+1

----------


## OBBob

> Thanks. I was not sure what exactly they would be looking for and in fact was so much easier than I expected.

  I think that's one reason you find a bit of frustration here from those who strive to porridge a quality product... as you can see, for the less diligent out there, it may not be too hard to get away with substandard work.

----------


## DavoSyd

long time reader, first time poster, 
congrats  :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> I think that's one reason you find a bit of frustration here from those who strive to porridge a quality product... as you can see, for the less diligent out there, it may not be too hard to get away with substandard work.

  *provide?

----------


## phild01

> *provide?

   You will become accustomed to OBB's writing style :Wink:  :Biggrin:

----------


## OBBob

> You will become accustomed to OBB's writing style

  Ha ha, my auto correct seems to get confused when I try to provide something relevant and on topic.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Jon

Oh. I read porridge to mean a gluggy mess with the analogy to poor quality hodge podge building methods. 
xx

----------


## OBBob

Should have been 'produce'.

----------


## fiox1

> I think that's one reason you find a bit of  frustration here from those who strive to porridge a quality product...  as you can see, for the less diligent out there, it may not be too hard  to get away with substandard work.

  I can appreciate that. I lost count of how many times I re-cut a piece  because I thought the 2mm difference was going to be significant. In the  end that 2mm was not as important as getting everything done  right. 
It also explains why it took as long as it did. I was trying to be  perfect in every aspect (according to the standard). Now I have nothing to compare to, so I don't  know how close I was.

----------


## fiox1

> long time reader, first time poster, 
> congrats

  Thanks Davo.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Just some roof pics. I had to get creative with the 'struts' due to there being almost no space between the underpurlins and the strutting beams. the PCA was happy with the solutions shown.   
Some roof frame work pics. Did not have time to take them before the valleys were installed.  
The 2 140 x 45's are the underpurlin required for the span. The end shown is is supported by a cutout in the hanging/strutting beam. Don't worry though as that end is supported over about 4 studs.  
A wedge supporting the hip to the strutting beam. I was able to support all hips and valleys in a similar manner.  
A wedge strutting the underpurlin to the strutting beam. This was cut flush on the side shown and a block placed on that outside with a million nails holding it in place. This is one example, though this was used for almost all struts.   
The tiled roof.

----------


## r3nov8or

Well, look at that! The roof! Nice  :Smilie:

----------


## Optimus

Well done buddy, proved the doubters wrong.

----------


## OBBob

Look at that roof frame... even 3D CAD would've had trouble making sense if that! Bet you'll chase a bit more space next time. Will there be a next time?   :Biggrin:

----------


## fiox1

> Well, look at that! The roof! Nice

  Thanks.  
It turned out real nice, even if I do say so myself.  
My better half picked the colour scheme. So clearly she has a better eye than me for that.

----------


## fiox1

> Well done buddy, proved the doubters wrong.

  Thanks. 
Of course there are doubters, and I do not blame them at all. There is a lot of dodgy work out there, especially from DIY'ers.  
I am sure everyone here had their doubts at some point and I totally understand why, so no ill feelings to anyone here. The aim was to finish what I started and that is what I have done. 
Thanks again.

----------


## fiox1

> Look at that roof frame... even 3D CAD would've had trouble making sense if that! Bet you'll chase a bit more space next time. Will there be a next time?

  Space, what space. Imagine it was a truss roof. At least I still can 'squeeze' around if I need to (trust me Ill be making sure I won't need to). 
Next time, there definitely may be a next time. At least now I have some idea of what to do and what not to do (low pitch for starters).

----------


## fiox1

Just saying thanks to all those that provided advice and assistance.   
To name a few, Micky013, intertd6, METRIX, r3nov8or and OBBob.  
Of course without your advice, I would not have made it to this stage and so I appreciate all of your help.* *

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Has anyone used any additional flashing materials around window frames, such as flashing tape or similar, to totally seal the timber frame from any weather exposure?

----------


## OBBob

> Hi All, 
> Has anyone used any additional flashing materials around window frames, such as flashing tape or similar, to totally seal the timber frame from any weather exposure?

  I don't think I'm following. Would achitraves not perform this role. I've used this behind to ensure there are no air gaps.

----------


## sol381

Think he means externally...Should always use window flashing above the window but timber surrounds around the other 3 sides should be ok.  It does depend on what windows you are installing and what cladding as well.  https://qldsheetmetal.com.au/product...dow-flashings/

----------


## fiox1

> Think he means externally...Should always use window flashing above the window but timber surrounds around the other 3 sides should be ok.  It does depend on what windows you are installing and what cladding as well.  https://qldsheetmetal.com.au/product...dow-flashings/

  Sorry for the confusion.  
The old school way was to have lead flashing on the frame sill wrapped around on all sides (outside, flat and inside sections) and going up the studs a little. These days I only see the flashing that comes on the window itself, mainly on the lower section. 
Just as a comparison, in the US, the have a wrap that forms around the frame opening (see picture below), and sticks to everything. Now I do not think that is used here but is it wise to do something similar, or is the standard flashing and surrounds sufficient.

----------


## OBBob

You can get the flashtac asphalt aluminum stuff. I think many of the builders here get flashing folded up out of sheet metal.  
ChocDog had a good discussion about how best to flash timber windows in  his thread if you want to look that up.

----------


## fiox1

> You can get the flashtac asphalt aluminum stuff. I think many of the builders here get flashing folded up out of sheet metal.  
> ChocDog had a good discussion about how best to flash timber windows in  his thread if you want to look that up.

  Thanks. I am reading it now.

----------


## ChocDog

Used the tape (Bulldog?) from this mob Thermakraft   

> Thanks. I am reading it now.

----------


## fiox1

> Used the tape (Bulldog?) from this mob Thermakraft

  Thanks. 
Did you use the tape all up an down the studs or as they have recommended (200mm up and down the jambs from corners)?

----------


## ChocDog

Yes

----------


## fiox1

> Yes

  Hi, please clarify what you are saying yes to as there were two options mentioned.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
I had a followup inspection to cover the few minor discrepancies and all was good. Full steam ahead now. 
I have a couple of pictures showing the preparation of the frame in walls where brace ply was used. 
The reason for the addition of the strips on studs and plates without brace ply, is to make up for the thickness of the brace ply so the bluebaord all comes out one level and to prevent cracking.   
Tomorrow I start sarking and cladding.

----------


## intertd6

I've never seen flashing done like that before , what stops the water continuing to the inside face of the wall?
in this country the flashing for windows is normally integrated in their construction , the window is installed, then the sarking & then the cladding .
inter

----------


## ChocDog

> Hi, please clarify what you are saying yes to as there were two options mentioned.

  
IIRC, As per their recommendation.

----------


## fiox1

> IIRC, As per their recommendation.

  Thanks ChocDog.

----------


## fiox1

Does anyone know of a good supplier of gyprock? I need some 6m lengths and most of the suppliers I have approached have not got any.

----------


## phild01

Do have help handling that length!

----------


## fiox1

> Do have help handling that length!

  Yes, My help has now arrived.  
How else do you think I am getting the blue board up?  
But worst case scenario is I use my panel lifter and make it a franken panel lifter to handle 6m lengths? Anything can be achieved with metal. 
I also dislike the butt joints.

----------


## phild01

> I also dislike the butt joints.

  Done properly, you don't see them. 
Don't know where you are but a place in Pymble might be able to help but probably a special order! *Plasterboard* Trade Centre *Pymble*. Unit 1/14-16 Suakin St *PYMBLE*, NSW 2073. Phone: 02 9440 8811

----------


## fiox1

> Done properly, you don't see them. 
> Don't know where you are but a place in Pymble might be able to help but probably a special order! *Plasterboard* Trade Centre *Pymble*. Unit 1/14-16 Suakin St *PYMBLE*, NSW 2073. Phone: 02 9440 8811

  Thanks. I'll give them a call tomorrow.

----------


## cas

Order your plasterboard from one of the manufacturers if you want 6m lengths. You will need help with 6m sheets, you'll most likely snap a few before you work out how to carry one on your own.

----------


## fiox1

> Order your plasterboard from one of the manufacturers if you want 6m lengths. You will need help with 6m sheets, you'll most likely snap a few before you work out how to carry one on your own.

  Hi Cas, 
Thanks for the recommendation. The last time I did some gyprocking, we had some 6m sheets and because there were some other hands on deck, it was not a huge task.  
Actually I use the 13mm thick sheets. I prefer these of course for additional strength and extra sound proofing (even though it is not a huge percentage). The extra cost in my opinion is worth it.

----------


## fiox1

Hi All, 
Does anyone here have any suggestions for blueboard nails? Or arew screws better. I am currently using a few connector nails just to hold the sheets up prior to placing all fasteners.  
On a previous project, I used screws. But I had a very good and sound base to screw to (weatherboard) and so there were no issues or problems in landing the screws on a solid section.  
Generally, I do not like using nails because eventually they do pull out on their own, or am I over thinking this part?

----------


## r3nov8or

I used nails on a blueboard extension 14 years ago with not one issue to date of nails pulling through. You need to respect the correct nail spacing. I think they were 50mm gal flathead nails; whatever is in the HardieTex System instructions . I also built double 35mm studs where the edges would land to ensure I always hit the centre of a stud for every nail. This is also recommended in the HardieTex System instructions.

----------

