• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Rafter thrust and I give up

Jobsaver said:
The roof-ceiling construction chapter of the code is woefully deficient as concerns rafter thrust, or the lack thereof. Some provision should be made in the code for supporting the ridge as a means to negate rafter thrust.Until that happens, I do not blame anyone for ignoring the letter of this law provided they are addressing its intent. Today's customers want feature laden ceilings made possible with the advances in engineered wood products. Maybe it is time for the code queens to pony up a better, less antiquidated code section.
The prescriptive code is for simple, every-day, routine construction without the use of engineered products. This issue is covered because they could have put in a ridge beam but they chose not to because of their ignorance and now they have a problem. The problem here is not the code but the lack of knowledge of the framer. I still cannot get over the fact that with all of the information provided, some still don't see the problem. WTF?
 
Jar, serious question, seriously.

If the high side of the rafters are sitting on an exterior wall, doesn't that emulate a ridge beam? Is this like a half span roof where one wall is higher than the other ?

If that's the case you would not have rafter spread, correct?

Something I'm not seeing?
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Jar, serious question, seriously. If the high side of the rafters are sitting on an exterior wall, doesn't that emulate a ridge beam? Is this like a half span roof where one wall is higher than the other ?

If that's the case you would not have rafter spread, correct?

Something I'm not seeing?
RIDGE BOARD not on a wall. Open attic space with no ridge beam on this gable roof where they are trying to make a vaulted ceiling out of one half of the 2nd floor for the master bedroom.

Seriously
 
so they need a ridge beam for the main ridge. this eliminates rafter thrust on the rafter to the right. The one on the left coming down to the interior wall is merely a shed roof holding drywall board and needs nothing more (other than considering load on interior wall, or am I missing something?
 
It seems to me the woefully silent section on roof framing does address this....though not much else. It prescribes rafter ties or ridge support ( in the form of a beam or wall). I do see a problem with this framing from a prescriptive point of view and would be a little shocked if even a rubber stamper would let it ride. BTW I don't think purlins are designed to reduce rafter thrust though I have seen some RDP's give them some credit for it. As far as the empirical design thing, I agree to a point with that sometimes. But not for this, the code gives us a minimum standard, in the case of roof framing, very little information leading to a very minimal minimum standard. I would let the RDP handle it all day long.
 
jar546 said:
RIDGE BOARD not on a wall. Open attic space with no ridge beam on this gable roof where they are trying to make a vaulted ceiling out of one half of the 2nd floor for the master bedroom.Seriously
Seriously?

That's no bueno.

Brent
 
The photo is not showing any ridge board at all but I would suspect there is one up the roof to the left. Depending on how the rest of the roof is constructed a ridge for the vaulted ceiling alone may not be needed for structural integrity. The vaulted ceiling should have less slope than the roof so as to provide space for insulation and ventilation---in which case the vaulted ceiling would need a ridge board.
 
and I have a bunch of them built back in the early 1700's still standing. Should have seen the fights we had when we went to the 110 mph Basic Wind Speed a few years ago, especially with all the older building that had gone through every major hurricane and were still standing. However, codes are codes.
 
Yeah sounds great to just have a RDP do his/her thing but not everyone has one across the street-----or even within 100 miles.
 
so true, but you can prescriptively design a ridge beam by using the Wood Frame Construction Manual. of course if you have more than 70 psf snow load you're out of luck.
 
For something like this the engineering from the lvl supplier has generally been acceptable.

"I've been doing it this way for X years"... also known as a class action
 
DRP said:
For something like this the engineering from the lvl supplier has generally been acceptable. "I've been doing it this way for X years"... also known as a class action
Yes, a cut sheet from the LVL manufacturer would have been fine for a ridge. Key phrase, "would have" but there is no ridge beam, no LVL and no compliance with the code. The area is a 40# GSL but we could convert that to a LL in the lower 30's
 
I have had this battle a hundred times. Usually end up dropping a ridge beam supported to bearing walls below wherever possible. Nobody ends up happy.
 
I have never seen any walls blow out that didn't have rafter ties. It just doesn't happen.
 
Rider Rick said:
I have never seen any walls blow out that didn't have rafter ties. It just doesn't happen.
I have multiple times. Even right after framing when they put the shingles on the roof. The exterior walls moved almost 1" and the ridge sagged.

We do have a snow load up this way too ya know.
 
If there is no ridge beam the faux "rafters" extending to the left are inconsequential. As the title of the post indicates, the issue is rafter thrust. There are no ceiling joists to counter the outward push of the rafter in the right.

The easy solution would be to create a ridge beam.

Tim
 
jar546 said:
I have multiple times. Even right after framing when they put the shingles on the roof. The exterior walls moved almost 1" and the ridge sagged. We do have a snow load up this way too ya know.
Jeff,

I'm just going by what I see, the house I live in has clay tile on a 12 and 12 pitch vaulted roof with no rafter ties or ridge beam.
 
Rider Rick said:
Jeff,I'm just going by what I see, the house I live in has clay tile on a 12 and 12 pitch vaulted roof with no rafter ties or ridge beam.
The steeper the pitch the less the thrust.
 
Several times,

My own house, built when I was in my 20's, has no ties in the 2 story 14' wide section, and no ridgebeam. It has a 4/12 pitch, so for every pound of vertical load it produces 3 pounds of horizontal thrust... the flatter the pitch on a simple gable roof the higher the thrust. In its' 36' length it is divided by a stacked crosswall at 14' and then there is a wall about 1' off the peak that runs for about 12', unstacked, that is a non load bearing wall over the kitchen below. The center ~10' is open. We have had a slightly above design load snow load on it ~30psf. The roof held but did sag a bit and the wall bowed out a bit. I learned something in all that as well. The ridgeboard is a 2x12 and by chance it is spliced over bearings. The building wasn't fooled in the least, my non load bearing wall is indeed a load bearing wall and the floor sagged a bit. There is a designed load path and then there is the real load path. Many, many buildings have this scenario. While you are driving around, look at houses with swayback ridges, then sight down the eave walls, bet you'll start noticing it. They might not be collapsing but they also aren't relying on any designed load path.

A couple of weeks ago while we were talking about rafter thrust in another thread I was talking with a gentleman on another forum who put up pictures of his framing and I saw he had a problem. I brought it to his attention, the roof was not yet sheathed and the weight of the 12/12 rafters alone, with collar ties tight up under the ridge, had pushed the walls out of plumb by over an inch in several days. With a jack and ratchet straps they got it back and installed ties. The weight of sheathing it may well have collapsed it, but who's to say, he would also have been building a flexible diaphragm. The prescriptive code doesn't give much credit for that, but it is also an unblocked diaphragm. The top plates act somewhat as a beam between crosswalls, but it is undesigned, same for the soffits. I'm not opposed to beams at the top plates rather than at the ridge to resist that thrust... if you can take care of the reactions. Relying on these elements without consideration and saying "it doesn't happen" is also riding very deep into your safety belt and not knowing where you are.

I'm presently working on an old log barn that was built by someone who knew what they were doing. At some later point someone who didn't understand came in and removed the tie logs in the center to make one large mow that is easy to work in. It is now 4" wider in the middle up top and shoving out hard. We need to remove and replace the side sheds but, the shed diaphragms are restraining it although they are failing. We have some cable and ratchets and formulated a plan to pull the main structure back together and hold it temporarily this afternoon. I've seen several cases of the plate log rolling or sliding out under that thrust.
 
Top