Posted By: toluca
question about floor to floor height - 03/28/10 06:23 PM
(very long, sorry.....)
The biggest argument against ceiling heights other than 8ft in stick built houses is that 8ft is standard and anything different causes problems (from material ordering to framing 'standard practices.')
In the timber frame world, almost nothing is considered 'standard' so any arguments against other ceiling heights would need to be based on actual problems, not just because its different.
For a conventional timber frame home (if there is such a thing), is there any 'break-point' where increased floor to floor heights begin to cause problems? Obviously, 8'6" should not call for a drastically different frame design compared to an 8ft ceiling. But is there some point where the typical frame design, bracing details, etc. become invalid and a whole different approach needs to be taken?
Preliminary plans are based around a one and one-half story structure. (is that the correct term when there is a second story over half of the building footprint, but the other half is only a single floor?)
I've read a few opinion pieces against the common 'great room' concept with its double height ceiling. I agreed with the author's premise that I'm building a home, not a church and that the benefits of increased ceiling height can be achieved with just a couple of extra feet, not an entire (missing) 2nd floor. Taken to its extreme, you could not alter the basic 8ft floor to floor structure at all; if the great room has no floor above it. Just remove the drywall ceiling over the great room and open up the room to the underside of the pitched roofline.
My idea is in between the two extremes. If the first floor ceiling height (at perimeter walls) was 9'6 or 10', and the great room area was open to the underside of the roofline, that would provide the impact of wide open space without building an 'empty second floor' over half of the house.
Visually, that works for me; but what about structurally? If the entire first floor is now 9'6" or 10' tall, how much of an impact does that have on frame design (and construction) compared to an 8' ceiling? Is it just a matter of ordering longer columns, (and maybe beefier bracing) or does the whole frame design become significantly more complex (and expensive)?
There are some additional side benefits to the raised floor to floor heights, particularly if normal ceiling heights are used in the 2 story section of the house. If the kitchen / guest bath / laundry room / mechanical room section of the first floor has an 8ft ceiling, there would be a very useful space between the first floor ceiling and 2nd floor that could be used for forced air ductwork, and all sorts of other utility routing. The value of this space would offset some of the costs of a taller structure.
This brings me back around to the original question - is an extra two feet of floor to floor framing just a minor incremental change; or does it require a significantly new approach?
Thanks
The biggest argument against ceiling heights other than 8ft in stick built houses is that 8ft is standard and anything different causes problems (from material ordering to framing 'standard practices.')
In the timber frame world, almost nothing is considered 'standard' so any arguments against other ceiling heights would need to be based on actual problems, not just because its different.
For a conventional timber frame home (if there is such a thing), is there any 'break-point' where increased floor to floor heights begin to cause problems? Obviously, 8'6" should not call for a drastically different frame design compared to an 8ft ceiling. But is there some point where the typical frame design, bracing details, etc. become invalid and a whole different approach needs to be taken?
Preliminary plans are based around a one and one-half story structure. (is that the correct term when there is a second story over half of the building footprint, but the other half is only a single floor?)
I've read a few opinion pieces against the common 'great room' concept with its double height ceiling. I agreed with the author's premise that I'm building a home, not a church and that the benefits of increased ceiling height can be achieved with just a couple of extra feet, not an entire (missing) 2nd floor. Taken to its extreme, you could not alter the basic 8ft floor to floor structure at all; if the great room has no floor above it. Just remove the drywall ceiling over the great room and open up the room to the underside of the pitched roofline.
My idea is in between the two extremes. If the first floor ceiling height (at perimeter walls) was 9'6 or 10', and the great room area was open to the underside of the roofline, that would provide the impact of wide open space without building an 'empty second floor' over half of the house.
Visually, that works for me; but what about structurally? If the entire first floor is now 9'6" or 10' tall, how much of an impact does that have on frame design (and construction) compared to an 8' ceiling? Is it just a matter of ordering longer columns, (and maybe beefier bracing) or does the whole frame design become significantly more complex (and expensive)?
There are some additional side benefits to the raised floor to floor heights, particularly if normal ceiling heights are used in the 2 story section of the house. If the kitchen / guest bath / laundry room / mechanical room section of the first floor has an 8ft ceiling, there would be a very useful space between the first floor ceiling and 2nd floor that could be used for forced air ductwork, and all sorts of other utility routing. The value of this space would offset some of the costs of a taller structure.
This brings me back around to the original question - is an extra two feet of floor to floor framing just a minor incremental change; or does it require a significantly new approach?
Thanks