| . 1 . 2 . >> |
| Author |
Message |
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 11:08
Reply
Hi all. New to the forum, but have been trolling a bit.
I'm looking into the possibility of building a cabin in sections that I can build at our current home (with my workshop) and transport in my pickup to the site for assembly. Access to the property is limited by the terrain and is 4 hours away. I'll be limited to my wife and I for the assembly.
I'm looking at something perhaps 12 x 12 with a sleeping loft. 12' is about the limit I can haul in the bed with a hitch load exension. Probably based on precast piers atop shallow gravel footings.
Searching and reading, it seems a couple people have had similar approaches. Hoping to get some advice regarding what works and what doesn't.
Thinking it through, I've come to the conclusion that using a pole/beam framework might be a real advantage. This would allow the roof to be put on right away, protecting much of the structure from inclement weather, and would allow the wall sections to be non-structural and thus lighter. I think if I did that, my wife and I could handle 4' wide wall panels without too much difficulty.
I found a couple of sets of free plans online, and I've merged them in my brain into a pretty complete idea, but I don't have anything down on paper yet. Was hoping to get some ideas from those who have travelled down this road.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 11:35
Reply
chrisser
i think this is a grand idea.
we sort of did this.i think Gary O put the roof trusses together at home and we put them on our trailer and off we went.
i do not know all he actually did at home.But i sure love this idea.good luck.
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 12:49
Reply
Hi Cabingal3
One of the things I was curious about is whether it was practical to build the sections on their own - they'd have to be darned near perfect, or whether it would be better to build them on the structure, then take the whole thing down and hope they fit. I think I answered my own question with the question, but I'm not sure how the neighbors will feel about me building a cabin in my driveway, even if it is only temporary.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 13:18
Reply
chrisser.how close are the neighbors?
i love u tube on showing videos on this very thing.
when gary and i worked on our cabin which is smaller than wht u have planned...he build some at home with the very idea u are talking of...making it easier to handle for hubby and wife.
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 13:51
Reply
If this file attaches OK, the closest neighbors are on top of the hill in the pic, but getting to them requires going towards the left quite a ways, going up a ridge, and then back towards the right. Probably close to 3/4 of a mile trip.
FWIW, the cabin would likely go somewhere about where this picture was taken from, or on that little bump of a hill you can see between the barn and the old camper.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 14:00
Reply
thats a nice spot for a cabin.i personally dont see why the neighbors would care unless your drive is their drive too.
thats some beautiful land.
how many acres do u have chrisser?
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 14:08
Reply
Sorry Cabingal,
That's a pic of the place we're going to put the cabin.
The place where I want to build it, we are in a typical postage stamp city lot. The space between the houses is just wide enough for a driveway and the lot is about 3x as deep as the house. Not a lot of space to build a cabin inconspicuously. It's a typical 1920s city neighborhood - two story houses lined up in rows for miles.
I definitely can do it, but I'm worried about one of the nieghbors complaining to the local code enforcement police and them wanting a permit for me to build something that I'm going to take down again. Just not sure I want to deal with the hassle, although I guess I could take it apart every night and stash it in the garage - would give me lots of practice assembling it.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 14:17
Reply
yes. i thought u meant this chrisser..that is where u are going to put the cabin .it is a nice spot.well what are the laws there?do u know?? here in oregon u can legally build a 200 square foot building but are not suppose to live in it...but our cabin is way out in mt.rural and not one person seems to care cause they are all doing the same for the most part and they are to live in.i would check the laws on building this...and if anything.u can just say its a shed or a vacation cabin and not to be there full time.
or u could ask the neighbors if they care.i would just ease my mind by checking laws so u can have ease of mind when building.
|
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 14:31
Reply
Well, technically I believe WV has adopted a statewide building code.
The reality is that there is no code enforcement in our county, at least not outside the county seat.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 14:35
Reply
WOW.are u lucky.
so u can build.i would go forth.u have great ideas as far as i can see.i love wood and building anything.
i think u have a solid plan.the men on here would give u better info i am sure...but to me you sound like u are good to go minus any worry about anything.good luck chrisser.
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Jun 2011 23:33
Reply
I'm a builder by trade so I always think that it's easier to just take the materials out there and just do it.. why not? What are you saving?
Just my .02
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Jun 2011 08:43
Reply
Quoting: Borrego I'm a builder by trade so I always think that it's easier to just take the materials out there and just do it.. why not? What are you saving
Well, I have a pretty complete workshop at home. If I build on site, I have to tote my tools down there, along with a generator and gasoline. If I forget something, it's either an 8 hour round trip home, or a 2 hour round trip to the nearest store (about an hour to the nearest gas station).
I can only be there on weekends, and I'd have to haul the materials down in the same fashion as I would haul the finished sections. Then the materials would have to sit onsite for far longer, which means better protection from the elements would be required. I expect it would take about as long to haul materials to the site as it would for me to haul the finished sections to the site (keeping in mind that a portion of what I'm hauling is going to end up as scrap/cutoffs with raw material) - my pickup only holds so much and overloading it is just going to get me stuck - but then complete construction onsite vs. assembly of finished panels onsite would take much longer.
Keep in mind that it costs around $200 just in gas to go down and back for a two-day weekend, where time spent at home in my workshop with the home depot 5 minutes away costs me virtually nothing in gas no matter how long it takes.
No way my wife is going to operate power tools, so the complete construction on site would essentially be me working alone.
Additionally, I am at the mercy of the weather constructing on site.
Lastly, every weekend I'm down there without a cabin in place either costs me a hotel stay 45 minutes away, a campground stay 90 minutes away, or putting my wife in a tent for the weekend.
That said, on-site construction would have some advantages. It would be a more efficient use of materials. I could use off-the-shelf plans instead of having to come up with my own.
I would have the advantage of purchasing the materials locally, so instead of hauling all the finished parts 4 hours from home to the site, I would be hauling raw material 1 hour from the closest lumber yard to the site. Of course, I have to drive 3 hours to get to the lumber yard for the first trip, so that's only an advantage on the 2nd, 3rd 4th material run for a given weekend.
I've tried to think the whole thing through, but if I've left anything out, please let me know.
I guess once I have some plans drawn up, I can come up with a BOM for doing it either way. Then I can likely estimate how much I can haul in my truck and compare material and hardware prices for both places. With that info, I can estimate how many trips I'm talking about and can work up the time and costs for both approaches.
|
|
Gary O
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Jun 2011 09:10
Reply
Quoting: chrisser I guess once I have some plans drawn up, I can come up with a BOM for doing it either way
You've put a lotta thought to it all, chrisser, and I can appreciate everything you are going thru....done it...both ways.
Keep a journal.....it'd be a great read.
Happy trails (and trials)
Gary O'
|
|
fpw
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Jun 2011 10:40
Reply
Remote access made my life interesting (www.peelinglogs.blogspot.com). I live 3 hours from my property and, then, to access our 40 acres I have to hike or ATV 3 miles back into the woods. So when I travel and work for the weekend my time is limited and I've learned plenty about pulling, skidding, and rigging getting materials back to the cabin.
I opted to build the cabin walls close to home, that way I could peel and cut after work and avoid the travel time. Then, I hauled the logs north via a grapple truck and hauled them back one at a time and reassembled them on site.
Timber framing and dovetail are two construction techniques that allow you to build the structure at home and then haul to a remote location. If you use scarfed ridge and plates on a timber frame, you can limit the timber length so they are easy to haul
Link to a 10' x 12' Timber Frame Plan (gives you an idea of what a structure looks like).
http://peelinglogs.blogspot.com/2011/03/timber-frame-plan10-x-12-shed.html
The Stump Ranch
| 
Log Walls Before Hauling North
| 
Dovetail Sauna (w/roof)
| 
Timber Framed Beams
|
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Jun 2011 13:56
Reply
fpw
the stump ranch cabin is so wonderfully grand.love it.good job.
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Jun 2011 20:07
Reply
Building the full structure in one location and then moving the parts to another location for reassembly is tried and true (you used to be able to order kits for Craftsman houses from Sears!).
The biggest difficulty, besides your neighbors thinking that you're building a permanent structure in town and getting you in trouble with the Permit Police, is designing the structure to be taken apart and put back together (aka "knockdown") and then labeling all the parts correctly so that you aren't sitting there at the build site with a pile of pieces you can't get back together like a confused parent with a "some assembly required" Christmas toy and bad instructions :)
If you can manage it with the design and the transportation, building the structure to be assembled/transported in sections, as well as being fully knockdown in themselves, can also help a lot. If you can transport an entirely assembled wall section or roof truss without much difficulty (i.e. you don't need a crane or heavy equipment), that will definitely speed up final assembly... but being able to knock that piece down even farther will still help you if you get there and realize that it's too big/heavy/cumbersome to actually get back to the build site under current conditions (like the trail is too muddy for your truck, etc).
|
|
Scott_T
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Jun 2011 08:26
Reply
Chrisser,
My plans are to try and build as much as I can at my permanent residence. However your concern about the neighbors and homeowners association rules are valid if you live in a suburban neighborhood like I do. I just received a "Violation Letter" this week for my recently finished outhouse sitting in the driveway supposedly "bringing down home values". I have 30 days to get it moved down to the land -- before the next letter comes! I diplomatically wrote back to our HOA manager that I was deeply pained that my fellow neighbors did not appreciate the way in which I had so thoughtfully melded modern architectural outhouse design with the classical rural privy styles of the day!
I also plan to build my cabin in the driveway in a modular fashion then transport it in sections on a trailer to the land. I think it's probably easier this way so long as the cabin design is not too big and complex. Your cabin site looks great and I look forward to watching your progress. Enjoy the summer!
|
|
neb
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Jun 2011 13:24 - Edited by: neb
Reply
chrisser
That is what I did. I built the wall sections and hauled out to site. Then I had to carry all wall section in to building site. This really saved me time. It worked for me and would do the same thing again. I don't have power on the site so for me it was the best option. Reading your plans and post is like me doing my shack all over again. As for weather you need to plan to get certain things done when you are there. I used plastic to cover things to keep the weather off floor and material. The roof material I didn't have right away so I tar papered doubled and used lathe to hold it down. It went through a lot of weather and it came out ok. Like I said our building site and the situations you are in is almost the same as mine.
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Jun 2011 13:44
Reply
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
I've been giving some thought to the roof.
The more I think about it, the more I like a gambrel (barn) roof due to the extra headroom it would give me in the loft for very little extra material cost. I also like the way it acts like an arch and transmits all the loads to vertical acting on the walls below it.
Been thinking about making gusseted gambrel trusses, but I wonder if I could instead make "shell"s of maybe 16" wide (depends how heavy they end up being) joined at the peak.
So I'd basically build half trusses. Take two and put them 16" apart, then put the exterior sheathing on with header and footer boards joining each half. The loft floor would already be in place, so I'd just have to haul these half shells up, place one half on the outer edge and fasten it loosely (chain or rope or something that would allow it to "hinge". Tilt it up and hold it up with a 2x4, then position the opposite shell against it, fasten the footer boards and fasten the header boards together, and I'd have a roof up in no time at all.
If I understand how the physics of the gambrel work, other than wind loading, there should be very little in the way of forces acting on the joint at the peak as long as the side trusses are sturdy enough.
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Jun 2011 16:15
Reply
We have a braced truss gambrel roof on our cabin and it provides lots of loft space. We built ours onsite but you could easily build all the parts (rafters and gussets) off-site and transport for final assembly. I warn you that this works MUCH better with 3 people... two to tilt the truss up and hold it there (hopefully plumb) while the third runs around with the nail gun anchoring the rafter seats and temporary braces.
Info and pics of how we did it are on our blog: http://www.jenninewardle.com/2010/11/cabin-building-day-78-82-pictures.html
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Jun 2011 16:52 - Edited by: PlicketyCat
Reply
Oh yeah, physics of a braced-truss gambrel :)
Down force from snow load is mostly kept in check by the gussets on the pitch break. That gusset keeps the weight on the upper rafters from forcing the lower rafters out at the top. The ridge isn't affected by snow load since the rafters just wedge together tighter at the peak with down force as long as their feet are anchored at the pitch break so they can't push out.
Lateral force from an eave-side wind is kept equally in check by the gussets at the pitch break, which keep the lower rafters from racking and opening up, and the gussets at the peak, keeps the ridge from opening up or sliding down even if the pitch breaks move a little.
Lateral force from a rake-side wind is kept in check by the sheathing, which is why we don't need blocking between the rafters or a ridge beam to keep the trusses from racking or collapsing like an accordion... although you could add both of these easily if you live in a really high wind area.
Uplift force is kept in check by the gusset at the peak which keeps the upper rafters from opening outward, and notching and anchoring the rafter seats so the whole roof assembly can't be lifted or shifted.
And then finally, just for extra piece of mind, you can add strapping on the outside of the pitch break and peak, just to make absolutely sure none of the elbows can open up.
For temporary roofing, we found that even a double layer of tar paper didn't hold up to the sun and wind well. We purchased a heavy duty tarp, cut out a hole for the chimney, and then affixed it with a few staples and sandwiched the edges with 1x3's which we screwed to the decking (very important against the wind!). We put the chimney flashing on top of the tarp and sealed it with some scrap self-adhesive ice shield. Because the tarp is UV-rated for 2-3 years (tar paper is only 3-6 months), it gives us lots more time to get the final roofing on LOL
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Jun 2011 12:52
Reply
Chrisser, I think "pre fabb'n" is a great idea. I contemplated the same thing. In the end, I just had a concrete guy do my foundation, then I hired a semi retired builder and him and I went over there and knocked out a dried in shell in 9 days. We tented right on site. I had a portable shower etc. We did it in July to avoid bad weather. and we had 4 rain/lightning storms the week I was there, one was so bad, and so windy, I thought I was going to lose my tent. I sent my plans to a local building supply place, they figured in lumber package and it was all setting there when I arrived. Windows, vapor barrier, tyvek wrap, felt for the roof, joist hangers etc. But I know i made no less than 6 trips into town tot he Home Depot which is 1.5 hours round trip for me. I still needed much more lumber than they delivered. I made some changes, upgrade along the way etc. Your pre fab deal should be just fine. No way would a code enforcement officer say anything after he hears what it is.
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Jun 2011 12:00
Reply
Took my wife up to Home Depot. They have a bunch of sheds out front. Gave us an idea of sizes of what I had in mind.
I'm going to build 8' wide and 12' deep.
I looked at the construction methods. There was an 8 x 12 gambrel roof shed - pretty much what I'd want to build. The floor was 2x6s on 12" centers and the walls were 2x4 on 24" centers. Gambrel rafters were 2x4. Now granted, they didn't plan on the gambrel as a loft so the walls were only holding up the roof, but I was a little surprised at the 2x4 on 24" walls.
Curious how you guys go about determining what sort of timber you can get by with? My sense is that 2x4s on 12" centers on the walls and 2x6s on 12" center for the loft floor would probably be adequate for an 8' span, but it sure would be nice to "know" what will work vs just guessing.
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Jun 2011 16:16 - Edited by: PlicketyCat
Reply
We did a bunch of load calculations to determine our lumber sizes, but a lot of ours was dictated by how much insulation we needed in the wall/ceiling/floor... so a few things are over-engineered just for proper depth.
I'd definitely replace the 2x4 rafters with 2x6 (or 2x8 for insulation if you live somewhere cold or get heavy snow load). The walls could be either 2x4 @ 16"oc or 2x6 @ 24"oc. Both floors can be 2x6 @ 16" oc to safely make the span, but either 2x6 @ 12" oc or 2x8 @ 16" oc would be a little less bouncy.
Keep in mind that 2x6 are "common" and usually only cost a little more than a 2x4; while 2x8+ are normally a "custom" mill and cost quite a bit more. Sometimes bigger lumber with a greater spacing can actually save you money (while still being perfectly safe) because there are less members in the assembly... other times having twice as many smaller lumbers with a narrower spacing saves money. Don't forget that every member in an assembly costs in connectors (joist hangers, etc) and factor in the costs of those at various sizes as well.
The American Wood Council has an online calculator for joists and rafters that you can plug in the species & grade of wood, your expected weights, and dimensions to determine if the lumber size and spacing is adequate for the span.
Given the size of the building, the default dead load of 10 is probably right unless you're going to use a lot of stucco, tile, or stone. If you plan to have a woodstove or a water tank in the cabin, you might want to bump the live load up from the avg of 40 to 50 (or 60) just to be on the safe side. Not only do smaller buildings weigh less (dead load), but you can't normally stuff them with a lot of heavy stuff either (live load).
Edited to add: a typical 2x4 @ 16" oc stud wall construction is, in actuality, massively over-engineered for normal vertical loads in your average building since wood is strongest in this dimension. The reason that the stud spacing is so close isn't to carry the load from roof to ground safely, but to make sure that any horizontal members (joists, plates, headers, etc) don't fail in the span between the studs :) You can get away with an 8' clear span (no studs) of wall between 4x4 or 6x6 posts as long as you have a big enough header beam across them.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Jun 2011 21:51 - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
To add to plickety cat, I found if you are using a rafter roof system (instead of engineered trusses) with a birdsmouth/seat cut resting on top of the walls, on a 2X6 wall/top plate, its best to use the next sized board for the rafters, ie 2X6 wall, use 2X8 rafter. Then you have enough room for the seat cut to be deep enough to rest across the 2X6 top plate of the wall. If you use a 2X6 rafter on a 2X6 wall/top plate the seat cut would be too small, if you did make it deep enough to seat across the top of the top plate, you would be too thin on the rafter and the rafter tail used for overhang would be weak and can easily break off. Also the conventional diamond shaped hurricane hanger wont work.
I found this out building mine. Plan called for 2X4 walls, they delivered all 2X6, cost was minimal, I said I will go 2X6. But found out as I went along, the seat cut was smaller so I had to use a special or different type of hurricane hanger.
I dont know if this makes sense the way I explained it. And also, if you did use the next sized up lumber, you can probably easily go to 24" centers, I maintained 16" OC even for my rafters. Probably overbuilt it, but when I'm in doubt, I go overboard. Hey, I'm not en engineer. :D
Pitch of roof can cary this too, real steep, deeper seat cut, shollow pitch, more room.
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2011 08:14
Reply
I checked lumber prices last night.
At Home Depot, a 2x4 is $2.50. A 2x6 is almost $5 and a 2x8 is $6.25. These are for 8 foot lengths.
At 12' lengths,the 2x4 and 2x6 are within pennies of each other (about $6)
I'm going to check some other places - hoping to find a sawmill locally that has better pricing or better lumber for the same price.
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2011 16:01
Reply
Sometimes you can get much better pricing at the lumber yards than you can at home centers. Some lumber yards even sell shed kits that are a little beefier than one you get from the home centers... a serious shed not just a flimsy thing to store a few yard tools. Sometimes the kits are more cost effective, most everything is premeasured & precut, and the design has already passed architectural review so you don't have to worry as much about safety.
Common things like framing studs (2x4x92) are usually pretty cheap at the home stores, but they are usually crappy quality as well... bowed, warped and twisted beyond belief and you have to spend hours hand selecting them so your framing isn't all wiggy.
I cannot begin to tell you how frustrating it is to attach sheathing and subfloor panels to warped studs and joists. There were a few times when one of use had to get inside the assemble and force the member straight just so the other one could screw down a panel. That works ok for the initial sheathing, but doesn't work so well when it's finish panels and you're closing in the walls!
|
|
chrisser
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2011 16:07 - Edited by: chrisser
Reply
I'm biased towards Home Depot because they're less than a mile away from my house.
When I need better quality, Lowes is 20 minutes away, but they either have better materials, or they take better care of them.
HD has some of the worst wood I've ever seen. Even the large 2xs are warped and twisted. Half the time they're still wet from being kept outside uncovered.
But for small projects, it usually takes less time for me to run to HD and pick through and find decent boards, than it takes to run all the way to Lowes ad back.
There's a great lumberyard around the corner from my office, but they only sell wholesale. I'll have to do some more searching.
|
|
PlicketyCat
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2011 16:34 - Edited by: PlicketyCat
Reply
You may also consider Modified Post & Beam construction over conventional stud wall framing. MPB typically uses less materials than stud wall, and doesn't require the perfect joinery and heavy members as true timber framing. With MPB the individual pieces of lumber may be more expensive (using 2x6 & 2x12 instead of 2x4) but you need significantly less of them, so the costs may work out in your favor.
The slickest part of MPB (in my opinion at least) is that you don't need heavy expensive beams to get the strength. By sandwiching the post top between two 2x12's (and a little bit of blocking) you essentially create a "beam" that is hollow, lighter, more easy to transport to the site and lift into place... and that "beam" is just as strong as a solid beam and stronger than a 2x4 double top plate!
With MPB, you could easily make your entire 8' wall without any studs if you wanted to... say for a large sliding glass door or double french doors... without worrying about building up headers or the glass breaking. Just put jack and king studs around the unit for the jamb and, voila you have doors and windows in one go! Never underestimate the importance of big windows in a small cabin... claustrophobia, big time.
|
|
fpw
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2011 17:20
Reply
I am partial to timber frame, but I do agree with Plickety that modified post and beam is cheaper, quicker, faster, and stronger.
|
|
| . 1 . 2 . >> |
