VIDEO / NEW!! - WRIGHT'S JOHN D. HAYNES HOUSE

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

BEAM "C" 20# WF 8"x 5 1/4" x 20' LONG

Beam C in my drawings has the above specifications drawn. What does this mean? What is 20# WF?

I assume 8" x 5 1/4" x 20' is simple dimension.

Is there different terminology in steel? Such as the 20# WF?

I also noticed some beams are I beams and others are [ beams.

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Wide Flange. 20# is the weight per foot, is it not ?

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

http://bencosteel.thomasnet.com/category/beams

I think you are right. Seem like a serious piece of steel for such a small house.

JimM
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

RJH wrote:http://bencosteel.thomasnet.com/category/beams

I think you are right. Seem like a serious piece of steel for such a small house.
Correct about the notations. That's not a really heavy beam, and is normally called out something like W8 X 20, w/o the width of the flange (5.25"). Actually, any steel in a house is serious. A beam line may have multiple flange widths depending on the spans. A common height is usually desired to hide the structure, so the per foot weight (and width of flange) will increase on a longer span at the same height. In commercial work, it is easier to standardize spans, so when steel is used in a house it is always a unique and interesting situation whether 1907, 1951, or 2007.

I find this amusing because I work part time doing structural analysis for the local engineer. We're working on a famous rock star's house and every ridge, hip/valley, floor beam, etc is steel! This particular beam is used on a porch 16' deep spanning 21' between 16" square, carved, DF posts. That's not one porch, that's one of about 18 modules.

Quite a structure for a residence, but then the main room spans 44' and is 60' long. That uses (2) 14" deep flitch beams with 4 PSL's each 20' o.c., to keep a narrow profile. Ridiculous amount of space.

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

There were a total of 7 beams used. Looks like the longest around 20'. I suppose Wright finally caved in and used steel. back in his 1930's works he was firmly against it. Perhaps he didn't want to drive up the cost for his client.

Isn't using any type of steel expensive in residential contruction? On my website, under "Driving Tour" I posted a Tony Puttnam house being built. I toured the house with the owner and it had these massive steel I beams in the basment. The owner looked at me and saud, "yup, and they wern't cheap either!"

Also, does the weight (like 20W) mean the beam weighs 20lbs per foot? If so, that one beam weights a heafty 400lbs.

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

Steel in residential wood frame construction was not expensive when Haynes was built. Some steel framing members in a house like Haynes just makes for a more robust building that is less prone to sagging and deflection. Given FLW's life long enthusiasm for cantilevers that is a very good thing. In the mid-fifties architects and developers were doing steel framed houses in LA and Palm Springs that did not use any wood.

In my opinion the biggest technical problem with wood is not that it fails outright. The biggest problem is that, if overloaded , it just sags and/or crushes. If you walk through an historic house, including works by FLW, you can occasionally feel or see these deflections. On Davenport, which had a young Frank Lloyd Wright as the architect and the rookie carpentry crew, we spent a lot of time and money on structural repairs while we had the house opened up. We definitely plumbed the outer limits of what was possible and what was not. For me that was one of the fun things about the project. I was able to hire superb, but expensive, structural engineers and also experiment in addressing very tough structural issues that one of our clients would not typically pay for. We developed a lot of valuable knowledge.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Was it necessary to introduce steel into Davenport to correct any serious structural flaws, Paul ? Did you find bent or broken wood ?

Richard has discovered that there is at least one tension member in the Haynes house, buried in the brick, at the opposite end of a WF beam from the cantilever at the rear (bedroom) corner of the house, a 3/4" rod welded to the web of the beam (through a hole in the lower flange) and bent in a soft arc at the bottom, welded to a 6"x6" plate of 3/8" steel which is (presumably) attached to or buried beneath the slab. This is shown at 3"=1'0" on the drawings.

SDR

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I'm able to enlarge this enough to read the writing when it's in the form of a PDF. The steel is shown as hatched. . .

I'm also intrigued by the pattern of the roof hips and valleys. I can't seem to resolve the isolated triangle at center. What's drawn there, and above to the right, seems an impossibility. Or are those trusses ? Anyone ?

SDR

MattCline
Moderator
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Contact:

Post by MattCline »

Followers of this thread:

A few messages have been deleted from this thread discussion do to content deemed inappropriate in tone. Discussion, debate and arguments in the forums are permitted and welcome only when they are relevant to the topic, objective, courteous and civil.

Forum entries are monitored daily. We understand that discussions can be heated and topics can be emotionally charged. But this is not a forum for venting, demeaning attitudes or condescending attitudes.

Please keep it informative, relevant, cordial and above all, a positive experience for all who participate.
Matt Cline
Web Site / Chat Moderator

MHOLUBAR
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Post by MHOLUBAR »

Steel additions to residential housing are becoming more common, and Paul Harding is of course correct that steel was not that expensive in the 50's. In Troy, Ohio complete cape cod steel buildings were being built and distributed via truck to your site. Sheet metal siding and slate looking shingles for near the price of a regular house. The US war machine was turning their army of small factories into producing consumer goods.
mholubar

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

Let's see...from personal experience...

My former home in Roanoke VA, built in 1922 had steel colums in the basement supporting a steel beam which in turn supported the joists for the first floor.

My former home in Birmingham AL, circa 1991 had an almost identical arrangement in the basement/garage.

My current home in Louisville, circa 1966 also has the same thing, except in this case the beam runs the entire length of the house, about 50 feet.

It was and remains the cheap, easy way to construct an open basement/garage area, or any other open area without load-bearing walls. Now if they had only done that on the other floors of my current house, I wouldn't have to have engineers involved in removing walls.

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

I had emailed this Haynes Sheet #4 Roof Framing drawing to a few folks on this board that I knew had a real interest. Their response and analysis has been overwhelming. Therefore, I decided to repost the image here and let everyone comment in once place for educational purposes. Pharding, it would be interesting to hear your comment in relation to beams used in DVP.

HAYNES - SHEET #4 [img]

Beams:

A- Is cut off in the photo. It is on bottom of page. Rests on top of the brick Tool House for carport roof support. Secured on both corners by anchor rods.

B- Over the walkway. Beam travels through brick and extends into the mudroom. Supports the inside brick wall of the mudroom. No anchor rods.

C- Over the MBA. One anchor rod at corner.

D- Unknown? Could be over kitchen door and mudroom door entry.

E- Over the Dining Table

F- This beam intersects w/Beam E in a T shape.

G- Carport beam (shown). One anchor rod on right corner.

South - Top of page
North - Bottom of page
East - BR Wing
West - Great Room

VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFQiIu_xjM
Last edited by RJH on Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

JimM writes:

Beams may be mis-identified, since the lettering as a little difficult to read.

Fascinating stuff. First off, Beam "B" is interesting. It is a 50/50 cantilever-very strange since most cantilevers basically demand a 2/3 support span for every 1/3 cantilevered, and even then the connection is the most important factor. I suspect this beam is actually buried in the wall as a counter balancing force on it. Also, the point load and uplift at the intersection of the beam and that hip rafter is considerable. It is actually a trapezoidal shaped load consisting of half the loading of any associated span. It could only be worse placed at the extreme corner!

The 8" c-channel beam (over dining area?) is not unusual, it has a fairly evenly distributed load.

It's interesting that the hold down detail on Beam "C" isn't also used on Beam "B". If I read correctly, Wright/Wes knew they could not rely on the brick structure to resist the anticipated loads on that 20' cantilever. It's balanced at the pier, but subject to tremendous loads and uplift. This was addressed by the 3/4" rod welded to the beam, which transmits the forces direct to the foundation via the plate welded at the bottom and secured to the footing as noted. When the cantilever is stressed the rod/foundation connection resists and absorbs the forces; correctly engineered and definitely needed!

IMO, that beam appears "inadequate" in depth. I'll run the calculation and see what comes up, but can't really make out the dimensions (that dang unit system!). JimM, Please run the calculation. I checked my drawing and 3' cantilevers, 8' rests on brick wall and 9' cantilvers. Total 20'. Again, BEAM "C" 20# WF 8"x 5 1/4" x 20' LONG. It is also and I beam (not a [ beam) RJH


These are simple framing designs, except for the eccentric/oddly located supports for the hip/valley slopes, they're shear genius and make a huge difference. That's how Frank prevented essentially rectangular footprints from appearing too tract house-like, with equal span gabled ridges. These must have been a nightmare to unenlightened framers of the time.

The other thing I find fascinating is the morphing of the roof framing to actual on site truss-work where needed for the important floating quality of the ceiling. The use of trusses is common today-still not as Wright applied them. The truss shown in Detail "D-D" acts is a beam, using the mullion as a support; no steel needed. It's interesting (and very "Frank") to use the most dramatic cantilever in the bedroom wing, not the living room!

The command of simple engineering Wright used from early on and applied so successfully in these later small homes is really unbelievable when you think about it.

JimM

JimM
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

SDR wrote:I'm also intrigued by the pattern of the roof hips and valleys. I can't seem to resolve the isolated triangle at center. What's drawn there, and above to the right, seems an impossibility. Or are those trusses ? Anyone ?SDR
It looks like the hip of the larger living room connects to the hip coming from the lower bedroom wing ridge. It's possible there are rafters framed into that triangular area parallel to and at the same slope as the others over the bedrooms.

What is most fascinating, though, is there appears to be a missing hip from the top of that triangle to the intersection of the fascia boards at the living room. The shorter fascia section would have to be sloped in line with rafters from the living room ridge to the hip, if it is drawn accurately. That would also eliminate the need for the hip shown! I imagine that is not the case, and rafters are probably running conventionally at 45 degrees each direction from the hip. Therefore, there should be a hip from the triangle to the 90 degree fascia intersection. If so, Frank missed this or it just may never have been resolved prior to construction. That was probably not explained very well, but does anyone agree?

ferrorolvans
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:12 am

Post by ferrorolvans »

The most beautiful thing i found in haynes house is the selection of material used.Like you used red coloured bricks and brown coloured woods.Thats seems pretty natural and ecofriendly.

Post Reply