[Ferro List] House Plans

[Doug Lacy]

Sorry for not writing to the list so much, my messages have been bounced back and it takes a day or so for me to find out.  Below is a post about the house plan presubmission issue to the engineer. 

> The Plans -
> 
> I think a good barrel vault design that balances head space clearance and economy or conservation of form is a five-foot tall wall from finished floor height for a span between 12 and 17 feet.
> 
> Many of the books by Peter Vetsch contain nice curvilinear floor plan layouts for curvilinear design. It is pretty straight forward. It is probably a good idea to present your sketches to your engineer in a way that shows the simplicity of drawing curved layouts. The only vertical cross-sections of the roof and walls need to be where there is a structural change of significant, like going from one span to another. If there is a range of shapes going through a roof span because it is shaped like a whale body or something, then just draw the most representative profile and then pencil in with dotted lines, the lowest least structural profile and then also the deepest arch profile and make a 4 word sentance that denotes the reduction in load capacity or deformation resistance for the weakest arch. Don't even worry about trying to figure out structural issues related to window holes in youe barrel vault because the engineer will be able understand the absence of challenge there especially if it is a closed edge ferro opening less than 4 feet wide and especially if you have ferro plate awning-like covers shaped into the window profile. The window and door shaped holes are often strong spots not weak spots if ferrocement shaping is used instead of tear-outs of the system for window and door bucks made of wood. Ferro better and less complicated to evaluate.
> 
> If it is a nice small span using a sturdy system it can be easy to demonstrate that you are far exceeding safety standards using easy math structural analysis for point load, wind load, snow load, moment load and other possible live/dead loading conditions expected during the life of the structure. 
> I would not complicate the drawing with formality, headings, complex descriptions and such. All the engineer wants is things reduced to their simplest easy to understand form so he can evaluate, make some design recommendations, and then make the right drawings for you. He has the proper templates for the state requirements and may be competent enough to understand the limitations of the system.  Often engineers employ certain drafting professionals for the nitty gritty drawings themselves but they have to be employed by them because the state usually requires that the engineer actually 'do' the drawings, which also means, have the drawings done through his or her standard methods.
> 
> It is an interesting point that you feel compelled to create the plans in a 'professional manner' as a strategy to gain legitimacy for the system for an audience that is an engineer. Not a bad idea but here is a chance to distinguish quality building in terms of science and information itself.  How often is an engineer employed to evaluate an individual home owner build project? Not too often.  It is a positive thing when science can represent the reality of something instead of authoritative interpretation from the industry, and the state's Construction Industry Division, that wants to perpetuate or sustain existing systems that have an established infrastructure status quo based in the continuation and expansion of profit for individual companies. 

 The status quo authoritative appeal may influence the engineer's evaluation process but she has an ethical obligation to be scientific and objective, more so than an architect or anyone.  So here lies a good reason for making a point to stick to the simple presentation that honestly shows what you know about the system without any 'flowering up' of the presentation. By appealing to the geniune scientific ethic of the engineer by avoiding pretetious authoritative gestures yourself, you may better encourage a prudent skeptical evaluation of your proposed system that is not overtly disatvantaged just because it is different.

 This is an important thing in order to blaze a trail for others and to help shift the foundation of building science from big-business authoratative influence and control back into the science of structural evaluation. 
> 
> For a subtle pursuasion approach that may help the engineer be more open than she otherwise may not without insulting her stature in objectiveness , maybe you can have a photographic collage on the cover of your notebook, for when you visit your engineer, that depicts the decimation of recent hurricanes upon american building industry approved standards - Maybe one with the ferrocement home still standing amongst the deluge.  This might help overcome prejudice towards something new, understandle prejudice by the engineer that is related to responsible prudance and the integrity of his license. 
> Doug
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008