berm sheds

Kyle Bob wrote:I can see that now.  Roofing logs perpendicular to the flow of water off the roof could create little pools between the logs.  That's not good.

It might work to build a smooth surface with some fill... gravelly soil... over the first tarp and under a second?


Or, lower the crossbeams by one log width, on each side of the corner( v1.8).

Then run the corner roof logs in from the angled corner wall to wherever they hit the crossbeams. Lop em off just past. Place normal roof logs above.

So the angled corner ceiling, is stepped down one log width. But, it seems easy/quick. Make sure those crossbeams are beefy ones.

You do need to build the corner before the adjacent wall sections, with this plan..

Some pics of the end being finished

Updates this revision:
A) changed 2 of the 3 pillars in the outside corner to diagonal braces along the back wall
B) removed one pillar from the inside corner and extended the seam joist onto the two that were left
C) extended middle joist from each side to meet the seam joist
D) added horizontal and diagonal braces to each cell divider
E) showed the underground portion of each pillar

Kyle Bob wrote:Updates this revision:
A) changed 2 of the 3 pillars in the outside corner to diagonal braces along the back wall

Clever!  I like it!   Of course, the real question is what does the joinery look like at the top of that corner.   The joinery needs at that point are why we ended up with three posts.

B) removed one pillar from the inside corner and extended the seam joist onto the two that were left

same.

C) extended middle joist from each side to meet the seam joist
D) added horizontal and diagonal braces to each cell divider
E) showed the underground portion of each pillar

Excellent!

Here's a closeup view of of the corner.  Not sure if these connections are going to be too complex to achieve in real life.

I think they are all quite do-able.

Another thing that would be an improvement would be to have the eave be the proper five foot eave.  

That one's easy

You are showing two cells to the left of the corner cell.   In a way that will be true - but the left most cell will be a sort of "attic style" cell - sloping steeply to the left.

is this accurate?  how many cells are there on the long side, not including the corner and the attic?

I'm thinking there are 14 different ways to do that diagonal corner cell.  One that came to mind might be dramatically simpler.  But it requires one more post.  I'll try to explain...

Add the third post back in (the one that's closer to the camera).  Take the long diagonal roof beam and lower it down one beam diameter (10"?).  Rest it on the new post at the close end and on the single post in the back corner.  Remove the new diagonal back braces entirely (or leave them in, maybe it doesn't matter).  Now the two upper back beams are going to meet in the corner above the diagonal beam.  Have them meet on top in a miter joint or something that locks together.  So they sit on the diagonal beam and it sits on the single post.  By lowering it down, the extended beams that come in from the nearby cells will sit on that diagonal beam instead of butting into the sides of it.

In the attached photo, the diagonal beam ends are the blue circles.  The upper back beams have green ends and they're a bit longer.

I hope this makes sense...

That's a viable solution.  I'm not sure if I want to do that because after the support beam there would be an abrupt drop in the roof because all of the roof slats (highlighted in yellow) would rest on the diagonal beam and not the extended ones above it.

Maybe go with that and add some fill?

Kyle Bob wrote:is this accurate?  how many cells are there on the long side, not including the corner and the attic?

I am not certain at this time, but I think there are 12 cells total - not including attics.

Ahh, good point Kyle!  A short chunk of log could be used on top of the diagonal to hold up those yellow logs.  It's definitely a trade-off.  I'm thinking that upper back corner needs to be simple and sturdy.

Kyle Bob wrote:That one's easy

5ft is a lot!

What sort of snow load are y'all guestimating the overhang is good for, relative to the front beam?

Either way one could add a front-er beam, and support it with bracing going back to the existing post to avoid a post in the splash zone...

It looks advisable to my eye, but I haven't done any math to guesstimate better. Has anyone?

It would be snow load plus dirt load.  

But most importantly:   that's a lot of sticks that are about 4 to 6 inches in diameter sticking out there.  And roundwood is 2.5 times stronger than dimensional lumber.  

I wish to point out that these two approaches are good:






And this approach is failure:

The part with the berm continuing and the water runs away from the facade ....   that is a very tricky 3-D thing to show.

new video showing the shoulder joinery.  Ron refers to this as s simple "lincoln log" joint.

A little bit about some of the joinery.

Of course, log on log like this is a universal fail.

A deep cut has two possible failures

Here are two techniques that work far better.  The cut is not too deep in either.   The first has full support to prevent lengthwise splitting.  The second has an even shallower cut.

Best of all worlds?

The final attic under construction

If I could have do-overs, the one thing I would change would be to put the diagonal back log at a steeper angle.   Like this.

I would not put the back diagonal log at that steep of an angle. If I understand this right, it would make a much smaller attic. The main problem I see is that it would create a roof like the gable of the Abbey.  The angle is so steep, it is hard to get the water to move away from the eave instead of along it.

Ron did a very good job here. I enjoyed listening to his experiences with WWOOFers in the newest podcast too. Does he have his own thread somewhere on Permies? I like following the adventures of 'boots' and other people there at Wheaton Labs (or the Ant Village).

round wood purlins going up ....

In looking at other round wood builds, and especially at shed builds, I do think that we have some powerful advantages with this build:

- some of the joinery on other builds is far more complicated, thus taking a lot more time to do.  And possibly a lot more skill to do well.

- some of the engineering seems questionable to me

- some of the designs have a LOT more metal fasteners and far more EXPENSIVE fasteners

- the roof for a lot of those is either very expensive or time consuming

- other builds use gas chainsaws

- a saddle is a great joint, but not if it is cut too deep

- I see a lot of round wood projects that have a lot of dimensional lumber mixed in

- I see some joinery where the amount of wood holding a log seems a bit like a rock climber holding themselves onto a rock face with a single fingernail

- I see a lot of sheds using cement

I really like a lot of the design suggestions in this thread.   I hope we can optimize the joints and other things as time passes.  

In the future, I hope we can reduce the use of the tractor - maybe even eliminate it.   I would like to see more manual gin pole action.  

I wonder if we can reduce the use of metal without sacrificing quality or time.

Fred Tyler wrote:I would not put the back diagonal log at that steep of an angle. If I understand this right, it would make a much smaller attic. The main problem I see is that it would create a roof like the gable of the Abbey.  The angle is so steep, it is hard to get the water to move away from the eave instead of along it.

So you might make the angle a little bit steeper than it is, but not that much steeper?   And maybe compensate by making the longer piece a bit longer?  

If so, then maybe the longer piece simply needs to be sitting on something to raise it off the ground a bit more because we are a little short on space to the left.   But the front to back angle needs to be a bit steeper.

The logs we have on the back right now are pretty beefy.

And the structural logs we have super beefy.

I wonder if we kept the veritcal logs quite beefy, and then shifted the design to be a pretty beefy log on the back and top to get a simpler overall design.   The build might be faster and we end up with more storage space.

This probably would not be a good solution for the berm shed where it is now, but other berm sheds might do really well with having more space in the back.

??

Here is my primary concern with a saddle joint.   I see way too many of the first kind.   The second kind has 98% of the notch strength, plus 800% of the beam strength.

Fred,

I am attempting to show your concern in the first image.   Do I have it right?

In the second image is what I think is the best solution - add more dirt to improve the angle of repose.

Your drawing addresses some of the problem with the dirt slumping off the back side, but my main concern is the eave edge. I don't quite see how your idea would work with the facade. The problem happening with this method at the Abbey is that the facade is a uniform height, but the dirt behind it isn't.  At the lower edge the dirt ends up higher than the eave edge and the water wants to move towards it.

Which is why I wanted that back log to be shorter and have a steeper angle.

paul wheaton wrote:The logs we have on the back right now are pretty beefy.

And the structural logs we have super beefy.

I wonder if we kept the veritcal logs quite beefy, and then shifted the design to be a pretty beefy log on the back and top to get a simpler overall design.   The build might be faster and we end up with more storage space.

This probably would not be a good solution for the berm shed where it is now, but other berm sheds might do really well with having more space in the back.

??

I see a hybrid of these two ideas. Where the angled back wall log is buried below grade like the posts, and has a deadman to resist the racking force of the the soil pushing towards the open/eave side of the berm shed.
If the joinery at the top end of the angled back log was good in tension, like a dovetail lap joint (maybe the rebar pin is good enough?), then this log might replace the need for a brace between the vertical posts (combined with the buried deadman at the other end).

Fred Tyler wrote:Your drawing addresses some of the problem with the dirt slumping off the back side, but my main concern is the eave edge. I don't quite see how your idea would work with the facade. The problem happening with this method at the Abbey is that the facade is a uniform height, but the dirt behind it isn't.  At the lower edge the dirt ends up higher than the eave edge and the water wants to move towards it.

Could there be a swale following/behind the eave as it approaches the ground? Just maintain the same slope back from the eave that exists at the top for 2-3 feet wide regardless of the increasing depth of fill as you go lower down the structure.
Or multiple swales slightly off contour sloped away from the eaves? it wouldn't need to be much, maybe just "texture" 3-4" deep.

can you modify the drawings?

Yes, but not until tonight or over the weekend... The timber-framing idea should be easy to do. The roof swale idea is going to need to be a perspective drawing, I think, or a mashed potato sculpture with gravy.

Fred Tyler wrote:Your drawing addresses some of the problem with the dirt slumping off the back side, but my main concern is the eave edge. I don't quite see how your idea would work with the facade. The problem happening with this method at the Abbey is that the facade is a uniform height, but the dirt behind it isn't.  At the lower edge the dirt ends up higher than the eave edge and the water wants to move towards it.

So, in the cross-section drawings, the angle of repose is shown as a line at an angle. In 3-D or real life, the angle of repose is a cone.
As the dirt piles are deeper moving back away from the eaves, the piles are also wider sideways.
The downhill path (water or a ball will follow) is angling towards the eaves.

If you added swales, or logs, or texture (like backwards shingled sod) that was off-contour, you could divert the runoff away.

Here's the hybrid framing I was thinking of, with a deadman on the buried end of the angled beam.
The thin red lines are the shape the deadman should prevent from happening.

I kept the idea of "decking" using smaller poles, it seems like it could be efficient use of available materials?
Maybe bigger timber (like Sepp's shelters) has a longer expected lifespan? tolerance for decay by being overbuilt?