Outstanding DYI shed build

No relation etc, just passing on a very funny thread :)

http://www.bcsportbikes.com/forum/showthread.php/146566-Build-to-Fail-Fail-to-Build.-What-is-this-I-don-t-even.....

etc...

ROTFLMFAO!!!!! ow my sides...

Well you gotta admire the guy's drive. He wants a shed and he immediately gathers up some wood and nails and hits that job like a motherberkeleyer the best way he knows how. I'd probably spend ages meticulously researching everything and then have trouble getting motivated to do it.

Jenga!

DYI = Do Yourself In?

ransom wrote: DYI = Do Yourself In?

yes...

Dangerous Yard Installation

You know what, this also reminds me of the hilarious painting of Monkey Jesus, in that every day this guy goes out there, adds to this thing, steps back and takes a look at it and says "Yes, this is going well, I do not need help with this."

A proper shed framing:

Almost made me quit working on cars to get into wood working.

Holy E36 M3 this is funny.

Apparently you haven't been to Korea. I've got a few years there and my wife of 31+ years is Korean. They have a tendency to cheap out on everything. Yeah, this guy doesn't have a clue and is worse than most. I've had to stop my wife from doing similar things in our yard. I'd let her do it but I'm the one that has to clean up and maintain the yard around it so I have put my foot down and run her back into the house. She does get mad at me when I refuse to touch her garden because I don't do it the way she wants it. I've seen them water down and use extra sand in concrete because you can use less, $$ you know. And a lot of the small buildings don't last long. They just simply rebuild. The big buildings have to meet a code so those are built better using the standards we know. They are getting better at building now though.

That looks like my brothers fire wood/coal shed... He built it out of pallets and 2x2 sample pieces of tin. It's actually plumb and much much nicer than that building however. I really can't make fun of the way it looks or the quality of construction, he is a good woodworker. His materials just happened to be garbage from a local warehouse.

However we used to buy hogs from a family that built their house out of pallets... I would rather sleep in my camper shell up on blocks, it would be less drafty and fully waterproof.

Hate to be that guy but the building you've linked to anti stance isn't quite right.. rafters with way to deep of notches without having neither ceiling joists or collar ties imply that the ridge board takes all of the verticle load. This shed has no support member beneath the ridge board at the walls transfering the load to the foundation and the beam at 2x4 is undersized assuming it is properly supported. Bonus points for doubled will plates. I recognize the construction may be incomplete so some of these issues could be rectified. Also corner gussets in the walls are a nice touch.

Anyone remember the experiment where the spider that was given drugs built a web? I wonder what drugs the guy in the link was on?

In reply to nocones:

Oh, I see what you are talking about with the ridge board, I think. Would it need to have a vertical board from the ridge to the the top of the side walls? Would it need to be directly underneath the ridge or do any of the 3 vertical supports make a difference on the outer(side joists) in transferring load to the foundation. I get what you are saying about the notches being a bit too much in the rafters.

No need to hate to be that guy, I can take constructive criticism(really no pun intended) in framing. This was my first shot at it.

This is hilarious. Check out the time lapse he posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6T_XXh1WaG0

Yes with rafters like that the verticle load tries to spread the walls that is the triangle formed by the roof tries to open up. You need to have something to resist that. It can be accomplished directly by restricting the ability of the opposite walls to spread by putting a board at the bottom of the triangle. If the rafters are stiff enough (which estimating your spans at a little under 4 feet they probably are) you can attach a colar tie at some point along the rafters connecting them above the top plate. The way you have it the rafters rely on the ridge board to function as a beam resisting the verticle deflection of the top of the triangle. This requires that the ridgeboard be of sufficient size to not deflect in bowing and be supported at the ends well enough to not deflect over its whole length. Your ridge beam fails at both of these. There is however good news I think you could come in and add a glued and screwed 1x6 or 1x4 collar tie horizontally at the top of your higher wall. This should basically convert what you've got into truss style constriction which doesn't really even require a ridgeboard. You probably can do this with every other rafter pair since the ridge board will tie the non reinforced rafters to the reinforced ones. This would be easier than reinforcing the ridge and supporting it properly.

Otherwise for a first effort the photos you've shown look nice. Looks like solid construction that appears square and level. You did a lot right with doubled top plates and what looks to be a good subfloor.

All of this is opinion only and any risk you take enacting it is your own. I am a mechanical engineer but not a PE or a structural engineer and have not evaluated building codes for your area. I also did not stay at a holiday inn last night

That picture just about sums up my carpentry skills. :( Fortunately I've learned what I can/can't do, and avoid the latter.

The shed was torn down by my home owners association when I moved anyways. I built it inside my fenced area of my backyard but they said it was built into the common areas. I was just wanting to know for the next time I do any build a shed or do some framing.

That's the good thing about this website, you can learn about a lot of different stuff here.

Anti-stance wrote: That's the good thing about this website, you can learn about a lot of different stuff here.

And nobody tries to make you feel/look like a tool because you didn't know something.

That thread is really awesome!

I wish I had time to read 16 pages.

the worst part is that presumably, someone actually got up on top of it to attach the sheathing to the roof.

nocones wrote: All of this is opinion only and any risk you take enacting it is your own. I am a mechanical engineer but not a PE or a structural engineer and have not evaluated building codes for your area. I also did not stay at a holiday inn last night

As an architect-y guy (degree, no license) I'll second most of what nocones said, and as long as we're piling on it's lacking a proper header over the door opening, the second top plates should be lapped over the ones below (not certain but it looks in the photos like they are just stacked), and the metal tabs you're using at the rafter to plate connection are used improperly and will not adequately resist uplift (the nails will pull out). You need something like this:

That said, I agree it's a good amateur first effort, and probably safer than my neighbor's boat canopy, the treehouse my dad built me when I was a kid, or most of the pre-hacked crap sitting in front of the Home Depot. In fact, I should take pics of some of the hilarious lopsided contraptions a local "professional" shed builder often has under construction in front of their shop.

nocones wrote: Yes with rafters like that the verticle load tries to spread the walls that is the triangle formed by the roof tries to open up. You need to have something to resist that. It can be accomplished directly by restricting the ability of the opposite walls to spread by putting a board at the bottom of the triangle. If the rafters are stiff enough (which estimating your spans at a little under 4 feet they probably are) you can attach a colar tie at some point along the rafters connecting them above the top plate. The way you have it the rafters rely on the ridge board to function as a beam resisting the verticle deflection of the top of the triangle. This requires that the ridgeboard be of sufficient size to not deflect in bowing and be supported at the ends well enough to not deflect over its whole length. Your ridge beam fails at both of these. There is however good news I think you could come in and add a glued and screwed 1x6 or 1x4 collar tie horizontally at the top of your higher wall. This should basically convert what you've got into truss style constriction which doesn't really even require a ridgeboard. You probably can do this with every other rafter pair since the ridge board will tie the non reinforced rafters to the reinforced ones. This would be easier than reinforcing the ridge and supporting it properly. Otherwise for a first effort the photos you've shown look nice. Looks like solid construction that appears square and level. You did a lot right with doubled top plates and what looks to be a good subfloor. All of this is opinion only and any risk you take enacting it is your own. I am a mechanical engineer but not a PE or a structural engineer and have not evaluated building codes for your area. I also did not stay at a holiday inn last night

Said like only an engineer can say it!

Couple of notes on this part:

nocones wrote: This should basically convert what you've got into truss style constriction which doesn't really even require a ridgeboard.

1- Adding collar ties does not convert it to truss style construction. It remains stick built, with no mid-span triangulation or transfer (also no calculated connections, or pre-stressed design). It becomes a stick built roof with collar ties, therefore resisting the spread.

2- Ridgeboards are never required. Think about it... if there were ceiling joists or collar ties triangulating and therefore resisting spread, the load of each rafter is countered by the opposing rafter. Ridgeboards are a convenience, and a much easier way to build, but they are not required. The code allows for 1x ridgeboards, or none at all.

3- Your post suggestions are not necessary for a ridgeboard. They are for a structural ridge beam. They are different.

4- Ridgeboards are not optional with trusses- they generally can't be used at all.

5- Converting this to a truss style constriction might not be a very good idea, leading to great discomfort. (forgiven- engineers don't have to spell!)

But your basic point, that triangulation (collar ties or other) is necessary is spot on.

Josh wrote: ...the second top plates should be lapped over the ones below (not certain but it looks in the photos like they are just stacked),...

2nd top plates are not required by code. In fact, for resource conservation purposes, the code actually permits a single layer 1X top plate. (assuming everything is properly stacked above load bearing studs below). I would never build this way, but it is permitted.

I take that back... I've built like that for exhibition purposes in green construction.

Top plate is a tension member, not a span or compression member.

The double top plate is the conventional method, and enables more inaccuracy in loading above (it is not necessary to stack loads above studs). For example, wall studs can be installed 16' o.c., while trusses are installed on 24" o.c.. This means every other truss will not sit directly over a stud (which is acceptable with a double top plate).

But it IS possible to build a quality structure with only a single 1X top plate.