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.
Note the very slight camber of the roof-top plane. Flashing is shown at the edges of the roof. These drawings presumably contain as-found information as well as the work done by the restoration architect -- differentiated only by the notes. Are the drawings dated ?
The set contains roof framing plans, building sections, a few building details, and some site work drawings. No overall elevations or overall dimensioned plan drawings.
There are two framing plans of each condition: existing and restored.
The plan we've posted so far is the existing carport plan. All framing plans are drawn at 3/8" scale.
The building sections are only drawn in the restored condition, there are no existing building sections in the set. They are drawn at 3/4" scale.
It might make sense to post the restored framing plan of the carport next. Yet this raises the question of what to post? We'll take requests.
( You would never know by looking but they essentially put a hipped roof on this building of 1/8" per foot slope.)
The new roof on Rosenbaum is a single ply membrane. We'll get to that with the drawings.
I'm interested in the scale of the steel employed in Rosenbaum's carports. It's doing a lot of work to cantilever that far with only 8" depth, and way less than the 2/3 back span that we're always told we need. But, I can comprehend the possibility of that cantilever working.
Another cantilever that has left me amazed/confused is the amazing carport at Goetsch/Winckler, which appears to have no fulcrum support opportunity at the outermost face of the carport cantilever. I can see how one beam would be supported extending out from the work space area, however, the outer edge of the cantilever remains mysterious to me.
There is a current day configuration that does a similar thing -- the carport at the new Usonian House at Florida Southern. It, too, has an opportunity for back span on one side, but the other side extends way back before it hits the house.
Since they've documented their building process, here are some photos of one of the big beams they used. It appears to be very deep coming off the truck -- looks over 2 ft. deep. I don't think this is the carport beam, because there's a photo of it installed elsewhere. So, the carport beam remains a mystery to me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/140080283 ... 6037953992
See the photo of the carport roof framed. The steel visible from underneath appears to be intersected with cross members, (a detail I've used but it requires field welding rather than bolting). Even though I see the photograph of the carport roof working, it's still hard to fathom that the steel on the long side can be that thin and extend that far. I wonder what the allowable deflection was in the engineering calculations.
Here's a better look at that original framing plan:
As I see it, there was an opportunity to pass a W8 the full width of the roof, from the carport, over the kitchen and through the chimney masonry, into the living-room alcove roof. This wasn't done, however. Even the earliest photos of the house show a slight deflection of the carport roof; see this view through the kitchen windows: