• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Accepting Architectural Drawings

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,980
Location
Not where I really want to be
If this were submitted to you for a new home (roof framing only), would you accept them or reject them? IRC SFRThis is the roof framing page and all specifications.

View attachment 1855

If you can't read the specs on the bottom left, they read this.. All hip and valley rafters to be 1-3/4" x 14" LVL. All rafters to be 2x12Ridges are shows as "Ridge"Hips are shown as "Ridge"Valleys are shown as "Valley"View attachment 1855

/monthly_2013_07/IMG_20130709_163759.jpg.21979892929835eb706e43de568eef48.jpg
 
I was reminded just a few days ago to watch out for the increased depth of the end of a rafter cut on a slope. 14" LVL's for hip and valley rafters (or used as ridgeboard) will not be wide enough to accomodate the rafter cuts and still meet the minimum 2" difference required by R802.3.
 
looks like a plan from a lumber yard that came out of their manufactured lumber system. What is the snow load and what are the building dimensions?

Are the plans to scale? I hate having to use my scale ruler to find basic information. or worse have a scale called out on the plans on find out they have reduce the plan xx% so the scale does not work.

So now for the good news better than most, so i expect the rest of the pager are good, which would give me confendence in the plan.

"The quality of your submittal is directly proportional to my confidence in your building a code compliant project."
 
No information concerning any design criteria whatsoever.

Plans are full size to scale but I guess he did not want to waste inc printing the dimensions.

We asked for cut sheets for all LVL's and to give us dimensions
 
Jobsaver said:
14" LVL's for hip and valley rafters (or used as ridgeboard) will not be wide enough to accomodate the rafter cuts and still meet the minimum 2" difference required by R802.3.
Click to expand...
Only the ridge. Valleys and hips OK. Their slope matches the jack cuts. Ridge has to go to 16"

Brent.
 
Jobsaver said:
I was reminded just a few days ago to watch out for the increased depth of the end of a rafter cut on a slope. 14" LVL's for hip and valley rafters (or used as ridgeboard) will not be wide enough to accomodate the rafter cuts and still meet the minimum 2" difference required by R802.3.
Click to expand...
Greetings

I think you may be interpreting that section wrong. As long as the cut end of the rafters is no less than the depth of the ridge/valley/hip they are ok. The mention of 2" in 802.3 is a requirement for the nominal thickness for valleys and hips as is 1" for ridges.

BSSTG
 
Where are they posting all of those hip or valley rafters?.....

R802.3 Framing details.

Rafters shall be framed to ridge board or to each other with a gusset plate as a tie. Ridge board shall be at least 1-inch (25.4 mm) nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the rafter. At all valleys and hips there shall be a valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch (51 mm) nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the rafter. Hip and valley rafters shall be supported at the ridge by a brace to a bearing partition or be designed to carry and distribute the specific load at that point.
 
I would return as grossly inadequate as a plan reviewer.

I would fire the employee who dared submit to me for review as an architect.

The missing pieces are far to numerous to mention.

The wall plate designations and height variations are only the start

The begin and end points of the Ridge, Hip, or Valley (almost beams) locations

The supports and loading points must be done with helium.................

We build it like this all the time..........................
 
And the beatings will now begin.....One of the guys at the state used to have a NFG stamp.....I don't think they let him use it anymore....

Architect1281 said:
I would return as grossly inadequate as a plan reviewer.I would fire the employee who dared submit to me for review as an architect.

The missing pieces are far to numerous to mention.

The wall plate designations and height variations are only the start

The begin and end points of the Ridge, Hip, or Valley (almost beams) locations

The supports and loading points must be done with helium.................

We build it like this all the time..........................
Click to expand...
 
Yes and thanks. In my zeal to respond I got it a little mixed up.

BSSTG said:
GreetingsI think you may be interpreting that section wrong. As long as the cut end of the rafters is no less than the depth of the ridge/valley/hip they are ok. The mention of 2" in 802.3 is a requirement for the nominal thickness for valleys and hips as is 1" for ridges.

BSSTG
Click to expand...
 
As far as roof members, is there a difference between a hip an valley member when it comes to loading conditions?
 
Ok, I'll take a stab at this one.......

It is common sense that a Valley rafter carries more weight than a Hip rafter. The valley member is carrying all of the jack rafters from ridge to valley member 9non-structural ridge), and is subject to extreme snow loads (drifting snow). We all agree??

But wait a minute, section R802.3 allows me to size the valley rafter just as it would a hip rafter, and there the same from a 20psf Live load to a 70psf ground snow load. Even rafter spans are reduced from a 20psf LL to a 70 pg load. Think there's a problem with the code.....

My post above was not to be ignorant, just open to the fact that there is a real problem with section R802.3 and the more research that we do on these particular members, the more it becomes apparent that a change is warranted. The WFCM has an interesting position on this subject.
 
STB said:
Ok, I'll take a stab at this one.......It is common sense that a Valley rafter carries more weight than a Hip rafter. The valley member is carrying all of the jack rafters from ridge to valley member 9non-structural ridge), and is subject to extreme snow loads (drifting snow). We all agree??

But wait a minute, section R802.3 allows me to size the valley rafter just as it would a hip rafter, and there the same from a 20psf Live load to a 70psf ground snow load. Even rafter spans are reduced from a 20psf LL to a 70 pg load. Think there's a problem with the code.....

My post above was not to be ignorant, just open to the fact that there is a real problem with section R802.3 and the more research that we do on these particular members, the more it becomes apparent that a change is warranted. The WFCM has an interesting position on this subject.
Click to expand...
Agreed..

-mj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top