Goetsch-Winckler Usonian house

[Tom]

Yes

[g.dorn]

I started a construction model of this residence in 2006, using the only bit of info I had - photos and drawings from the book - ADA Edita Selected houses No 6 pg 56-65

looks like with this additional info on the roof framing, I can now adjust it and get it reasonably correct!

screen shot of model in existing state


Further to the Roof framing drawings posted in this thread, I have now also got a " Old House Journal article May/ Jun 1990" describing the restoration work, which included additional steel added to the bedroom wing roof

see https://books.google.com.au/books?id=my ... 90&f=false pages 42-47

[Tom]

I had forgotten about this article on the GW roof renovation.
The photograph in top right hand corner on page 43 confounds me.
It shows a 10" steel beam that is not in the original contstruction drawings, and added by original contractor.
Fine, we know that steel was added on the sly to many Wright houses.

But how does what is seen in this photograph work?
It defies the typical Usonian wall section and window wall support scheme.
Do the supports - the mullions- of the window wall below support this beam?
If so is the three tiered soffit over the famous window wall entry actually held up
by what in that photograph seem to be flimsy wood straps crossing over the top of the beam ...?
It just seems like a real mess.

From what I've seen of the drawings in Affordable Dreams, looks like they should have kept to the original plans.
... much more straight forward.

[g.dorn]

here - Ive combined the 2 Old house journal pages of the Roof framing plan, it shows additional or larger steel added.

I think the original plan says 6 x 3.75" 'I' beams? ( 150UB18) -

This new plan says 10 WF and 10 x 10 x .5" WF - which weighs 10 x 77 - 770 lbs = 250 UC79 = 3 x 79 = 338 kgs

I gather WF = wide flange- if so then we call them Universal columns UC, which is a much heavier steel section compared to a Universal beam UB ( I beam) of the same depth ie 250UB26 is 1/3 the weight of a 250UC79

The drawings also says the trellis was deleted due to it being too expensive to resconstruct properly! Atleast the drawing show the additional steel for these trellises.

[g.dorn]

I had forgotten about this article on the GW roof renovation.
The photograph in top right hand corner on page 43 confounds me.
It shows a 10" steel beam that is not in the original contstruction drawings, and added by original contractor.
Fine, we know that steel was added on the sly to many Wright houses.
<snip>

Agreed its a bit wierd and I guess the builder didn't quite trust Taliesin drawings.

Im trying to work out where vertically the 6 " beam are located - top of the 12" rafters, middle or bottom, in the plan, they appear to be sort of inline with the bottom step of the eave fascia.
But the photo is suggesting nearly level with the top of the Rafter

My guess is that this extra steel beam is only 150mm deep (6"), like the others therefore the bottom 2 x 4 is the one that cantilevers , supporting the upper 2 stepped rafters.
It does look like this steel beam is in the same grid line as the door framing under.



The text suggests that every 2nd rafter had a flinch plate - wow lots of steel then - no wonder it drooped!

What do you think?

[g.dorn]

Whats more the photos on page 45, suggest that the carport rafters and eaves rafters are running perpendicular to the kitchen/entry rafters.

Bugger me - how does that work?

[SDR]

I'd be happy if one of you could work this out, and then produce an axometric view from above with the steel highlighted clearly in red.

First, a detail of the Taliesin structural drawing previously cited.



I have the Old House Journal issue, but I wasn't able to work out from what is given there how the roof structure works. I can only show that the roof was already deflecting visibly, early on, with this photo and its detail.





And, more recent evidence of the gentle drape of the carport roof as evident in the line of the eave:



It was my supposition that the carport roof would be supported by one or more cantilever beams crossing the chimney mass and woven into the roof structure on the opposite side of the house from the carport. I was wrong. As a result I have lost any remaining sense I might have possessed of a logical approach to these structural machinations in Wright.

By the way, digits following the designation WF represent the weight of that shape per foot.

S

[g.dorn]

I'd be happy if one of you could work this out, and then produce an axometric view from above with the steel highlighted clearly in red.

First, a detail of the Taliesin structural drawing previously cited.



snip

Any idea what that top note says?

the others say:

Carport roof
joists 3- 2 x 4 @ 2' oc 6'7.75" form Mat

6 x 3.8" .....beams weld to ends of other beam

joists 2 x 4 cut over 6 x 3" beam

Brick carried on beam

6 x 6 " steel plate under beams

Brick carried across opening on steel angle

screen shots of My model update so far
note - brown is rafters light brown is fascia, blue is steel
also I havn' t installed any Rafter/joist blocking yet

bed room area roof framing - based on photos and section AA




studio roof - based on the section AA



Living upper roof framing - based on photos and Section AA



carport roof - based on framing drawings - original and new plus the photos in OLD HOUSE article. I figure that the 6" beam noted on the Taliesin Drawing, is lower down, and the Extra Beam Mr Turner inserted is higher up ,so that these members lap - I think that photos in Old House reveal at bit this observation



Entry Roof - based on OLD HOUSE photos

[g.dorn]

I Gotta Say, Mr Wright expects steel to do quite a lot of work!

also I noted that there is a few points , in plan view, which take quite a lot of the roof loads.

such as

brick corners in the kitchen - they must be supporting the cantilevers - some how

The corner of the living room roof at the bedroom - that taking 2 beam and 1/4 of the roof load - really.

I am also wondering if I may have the living rafters the wrong way around - as the 300 x 50 is spanning 8.4m - my books say no more then 5.7 If I change them to span the other way then the span is only about 5.4m - hmmm
It just means the West side trellis cantilevers with very little backspan - why does that not surprise me - and are those cantilever double joists - sort looks like it on a photo -so I did that in the bedroom trellis..

Living Room Roof framing option B

[Tom]

Ladies and gentleman, Introducing:
Mr. ... GARY DORN - take it away Gary!

SDR ... are you happy? Ha.

btw, top note says: "double header" ... translation for the Aussie: " two pieces of lumber side by side."

I'd go with 'option B' for the living room - it's what the original framing plan indicates by the direction arrow with heads on either end.
That's - standard conventional drafting practice in the States don't know about down under.

Where the lower roof and the upper roof overlap above the living room with clerestory in between is supported
by a steel flitch plate in between a "double header".
It spans from chimney to bedroom wall.

[g.dorn]

a couple of drawings sheets derived from the model - I've added some notes (in metric)

Lower Roof Framing plan

Sections

[Tom]

I think you've captured what's going on.
(btw - can't read your notes on these B&W drawings - but that's OK)

Wondering now about your question concerning the corners of the kitchen.
I assume you are talking about the corners of the exterior kitchen wall
that stop short of the roof and carry the clerestory?
That big steel beam sits on top of that ans has to be tied down into that brick wall.
No way it can just sit there with no counter balance on top.
Is that your question?
Seems on target to me.

[g.dorn]

<Snip>

btw, top note says: "double header" ... translation for the Aussie: " two pieces of lumber side by side."

<snip>

if double header, then I'll take my piece of steel out - with the way the joists are laid out in that area = steel would be a waste.

Also looking at that 250UB I put in- I m wondering why did they not just make it a 300 UB - same depth as the rafters!

Unless its a 200UB and they fixed the lower 100 x 50 to the UB Bottom Flange and cantilevered if off from the kitchen wall.

and if the arrow is indicating direction of the joists, then I reckon Mr Turner has built it differently = thereby resulting in the drooping?
- I'dd try on option as per the Original Framing drawing

and I noticed on sh 4 SECTION BB - that the kitchen originally had a full height wall ( to u/s high roof) - not like the low wall and glazing that was built - I wonder if that made a difference?

[g.dorn]

I think you've captured what's going on.
(btw - can't read your notes on these B&W drawings - but that's OK)

Wondering now about your question concerning the corners of the kitchen.
I assume you are talking about the corners of the exterior kitchen wall
that stop short of the roof and carry the clerestory?
That big steel beam sits on top of that ans has to be tied down into that brick wall.
No way it can just sit there with no counter balance on top.
Is that your question?
Seems on target to me.

sorry about the resolution - something happening between creating the pdf, converting to PNG, which is loosing all zoomable detail

yes Beam needs some support - something like this

[g.dorn]

I think this photo show the double joists for the trellis cantilevers - - does that seem right?