Sitting and sketching a porch.
The idea right now is that it will be 4x2 meters.
So, it's 2m between the front and back posts according to the picture.
I was thinking of a 14-degree pitch on the roof as in my sketch.
With only 2 posts in depth, there would be only 2 trusses with CC 2000, which feels too flimsy? I'd like to add another truss since we will have roof tiles and a low-pitched roof. Or are 2 trusses enough?
Can one truss be attached to the facade maybe?
I would prefer not to have a support beam between the posts for the middle truss to rest on, as this would be less aesthetically pleasing since the roof would then be raised.
I like how low the bargeboards are, as in my pictures.
Can a truss be squeezed in the middle without an extra post in depth (and without a support beam for the truss to stand on)?
Maybe it would be an idea to have a support beam between the posts. At 2m, it probably doesn't need to be very thick. Then I would probably have chosen a standing seam metal roof. I think it looks a bit clunky with tiles on such a small roof. 14 degrees is also a bit on the edge for tiles.
Skip the trusses and reverse the load-bearing. A beam at the front edge where you have more posts and a beam on the facade. Between these, you then place joists. The beams can also be designed as trusses, so you don't have to attach the roof to the facade in terms of vertical load.
It might be a good idea to have a support beam between the posts. At 2m it probably doesn’t need to be very thick. Then I would have chosen a standing seam metal roof. Tiles seem a bit clunky on such a small roof. 14 degrees is also a bit borderline for tiles.
How are you handling roof drainage?
I've rethought a bit and agree, as you say, that a support beam is needed, sketched it out according to the picture. I'll have to compromise a bit on my design regarding aesthetics
Hmm, yes I’m also wondering if 14 degrees is too shallow for tiles. I’d prefer tiles so it matches the house, might need to opt for a steeper roof because I don’t think metal will go down well with the government at home even if standing seam can be nice. However, I want the roof to end at the facade (but we have an elevated wall section so there’s a bit left).
Roof drainage will be a standard gutter on both sides, didn't bother to draw it in the sketch
Skip the trusses and reverse the support direction. A beam at the front with more posts and a beam at the facade. Between these, you then place joists. The beams can also be designed as trusses so you don't have to attach the roof to the facade in terms of vertical load
How did you mean by reversing the support direction? That the roof should go from the facade to the front edge?
I think we want to keep the V-shaped roof towards the sides because of the appearance in that case, but thanks for the tip (if I didn't misunderstand you)
I was mostly thinking about how downpipes, etc. affect the aesthetic impression, and then it might be good to include them in the drawing.
160x160mm posts and 195mm beam are quite hefty.
Someone previously suggested that placing the beam on the inside of the post gives a neater impression as the post seems to go all the way up. It might be worth trying to draw it up.
I was mostly thinking about how downspouts, etc., affect the aesthetic impression, and it could be good to include them in the drawing.
160x160mm posts and 195mm beams are quite stout.
Someone suggested earlier that placing the beam on the inside of the post gives a neater impression as the post seems to go all the way up. It might be worth trying to draw that up.
Indeed, it will be robust. The 160 post is just because it looks nice, and the 195 beam feels like it best fits the design as it will replace the small arches on the posts made of 195 lumber. I actually also thought about having the beam on the inside instead; I'll sketch that too. I also considered having a beam at the center of the post like the arches and just notch out half of the post, but then it suddenly becomes a lot more measuring and finesse to cut out holes. An advantage of having the beam on the inside is that it becomes easier to hide the attachment in the post.
Apparently, clay roof tiles can be laid at 14 degrees, but I can't find any good pictures online showing 14 degrees. I'd love to see how it looks.
I mostly thought about how downpipes, etc., affect the aesthetic impression, so it might be good to include them in the drawing.
Yes, I've been considering if there's a stylish solution for downpipes. It's difficult, they do ruin quite a bit! I was somewhat thinking of using a chain instead, but I don't know. I'll have to think more about this part. I'd appreciate tips if anyone has good suggestions on how to solve this in an elegant way.
How did you think about reversing the bearing? That the roof should go from the facade to the front edge?
I think we want to keep the V-shaped roof towards the sides because of the appearance in that case, but thanks for the tip (if I didn't misunderstand you)
Keep the shape, but reverse the "inner construction". In other words, a solid truss at each end, and then a solid support beam perpendicular to the facade on top of it.
The force then goes down into the posts and into the facade, while the roof rests on a number of rafters between the trusses. To make space for them you need to make the trusses a bit lower, but that can be fixed.
We have 14 degrees on our veranda with tiles and it feels good. However, with a sloping roof straight out from the wall.
However, the beams 195×45 should be embedded into the posts and not attached on the outside of the posts
You don't possibly have a picture so one can get a visual comparison of your roof?
What do you mean by the beams? In my sketch, they are embedded and not on the outside. It is most clearly visible at the far post.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but having them on the outside of the post has never been the plan.
There was probably a misunderstanding. Keep your outer trusses and skip the middle one. Between the trusses, you then place recessed beams on which you then lay the råspont.
Do you possibly have a picture so one can get a visual comparison of your roof?
What do you mean by the beams? In my sketch, they are recessed and not on the outside. It's most clearly visible at the far post.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but having them on the outside of the post was never the plan
This is how our result turned out (very poor camera)
Ok, I thought it looked like they were on the outside of the post, but now I get it.
Are you going to have a ceiling in the porch? If so, you can always attach the bearer on the inside of the posts and use a different type of rafter in the middle. This way, you can raise the bearer slightly in height and achieve the aesthetic you're aiming for
That is,
Have the rafters you planned for the front/back edge. In the middle, attach bearers on the inside post (notch in) between these two. If you then also place a bearer above the posts at the "opening," you can reduce the dimension of the bearers and it will be enough to lay 2 beams on it. It doesn't necessarily have to be a rafter in itself. Then, that construction is still preferable as it facilitates the installation of the ceiling
Vi vill skicka notiser för ämnen du bevakar och händelser som berör dig.
johel572 said:
LinusW said:
How did you think about reversing the bearing? That the roof should go from the facade to the front edge?
