• 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

catheral cielings ridge beam

jwilly3879 said:
8 years later and it is still standing. If everything else in the home looks good move on to the next one.
Click to expand...
Just because it is still standing does not mean it meets code

That can be the defense of the building owner in Bangladesh

But your honor, the building stood fine for three years before cracks begun to show

Why can't a few hundred die now and again

It stood fine for all this time just means that the loads have not yet been inposed on the structure

Give it time

If you don't understand the basic concepts you will never understand the application of them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
Oh I'm cool with whatever you come up with. I suppose I leave out a lot of technical stuff because I don't know a lot of technical stuff.

I know that you do.

So let me narrow it down some for the guy that was asking.

#2 or better of the brown wood at Home Depot. Brown is probably all that they have in 4x12.

If you're colorblind, go with a #1.

Oh wait a minute, yours is already built. Ask for a receipt.

I don't know why the OP can't get a simple surprise like the correct beam size and connections from the guys that know.

For myself...well i figured that he asked enough times that he might be serious.
Click to expand...
Some of us were wondering about the legal liability. Others about what the potential for problems could be.

But I guess if someone asking for rope to hang himself, sometimes you just give him the rope...
 
tmurray said:
Some of us were wondering about the legal liability. Others about what the potential for problems could be.But I guess if someone asking for rope to hang himself, sometimes you just give him the rope...
Click to expand...
Uh oh, I'm changing my answer to "Put a wall under it"
 
jwilly3879 said:
8 years later and it is still standing. If everything else in the home looks good move on to the next one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we're getting close here - but Mark makes a number of valid points. I happen to be responsible for tracking, and attempting to close our expired permits. We drew a line in the sand in 2008, and created a system to flag expired permits on our database. I now have 262 files that need inspected, re-inspected, or closed. It is a constant, and apparently never ending battle.

For the case in question, way back from the original post - there are structural concerns. No way would I issue a CO and move on. Perhaps close the file, with notes indicating that inspections were not called for, but not a full CO. A CO indicates my office is confident that the structure meets code. I cannot say that.

On the other side of this coin - am I going to go back to this home, and tell the owner (who may not be the original owner at this point) "pull all the rock down, rip out the insulation, and call for inspections?" Not going to do that either.

Somewhere in the middle there is a balance of responsibility, accountability, and liability. It is often very tough to find that balance.
 
ICE said:
This is a tough crowd. Why would there be a need for a beam under a non-bearing wall?
Click to expand...
if you put a wall under the ridge I take it that is to support the ridge? so wouldn't it be load bearing then and require support at the floor level ..... just messin' with ya
 
Have to agree with Darren. There are a quite a few buildings in my area (very rural)that were either built without a permit or a permit was pulled and no inspections were ever called for. I will not issue a CO for these Buildings unless the owner can produce a letter from a Structural Engineer that the building meets the code in effect at the time of construction. File copy of letter to owner including wording that they should check with their insurance carrier because they probably don't have coverage, move the file to expired permit drawer and wait for the phone call. I have also had several cases where the property went up for sale, contracts were signed and the day before the closing the lawyer for the buyer requests a copy of the CO and the deal falls through. Then I'm the bad guy and the engineer is brought in, partial demo and repair ensue. It is so much simpler if it is done right the first time and real estate agents did their homework.
 
Darren Emery said:
On the other side of this coin - am I going to go back to this home, and tell the owner (who may not be the original owner at this point) "pull all the rock down, rip out the insulation, and call for inspections?" Not going to do that either.
Click to expand...
One nail is all it takes to

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for link to the WFCM changes GB. Based on the report it doesn't look like there is any new stuff on rafter ties but we'll see.
 
I remember that ties used to be required every 4'. I'm curious as to the reasons behind the change, the plates, 2@2x6 now, can certainly carry the thrust to the next tied rafter, double the heeljoint nailing... I don't recall any prescription on the heeljoint connection.
 
DRP said:
I remember that ties used to be required every 4'. I'm curious as to the reasons behind the change, the plates, 2@2x6 now, can certainly carry the thrust to the next tied rafter, double the heeljoint nailing... I don't recall any prescription on the heeljoint connection.
Click to expand...
If you do not provide the ties, you cannot use the prescriptive requirements, you need to use engineering.

As long as you justify the "doubling of nailing", with engineering, your good, but not a by-gosh by-golly guess, it should work
 
If it is carrying the load at the beam, there is no need for ties for the thrust. I might be wrong, but isn't there a couple million roof/rafter/ceilings out there without them? I know I've framed a few that are still standing. But, I'm just a dumb ol' carpenter. I know there has to be proper connections.
 
Yes Fatboy, if the rafters are hanging from the ridge and assuming the ridge does not sag, there is no outward thrust.

Having checked thrust against the heeljoint table and connection capacity, I am also curious where that engineering came from.
 
I agree with fatboy. And I do not need or desire an engineer for every detail that may fall outside of the codes' prescriptive content.
 
Have you read the rafter tables?

The prescriptive sizes of rafters are based on ties and ceiling joists being used.

What do you do then ties and ceiling joists are not used?
 
DRP said:
Check the tables as simple beams.
Click to expand...
You can "Check the tables as simple beams" or any other way The tabulated rafter spans tables assume that ceiling joists are located at the bottom of the attic space or that some other method of resisting the outward push of the rafters on the bearing walls, such as rafter ties, is provided at that location.

you are disregarding sections that require ties or ceiling jst. you cannot use prescriptive and non prescriptive on the same assembly.

You need engineering to verify, or you may NOT be code compliant, by the way, there is nothing in the code or table about using the span tables as "simple beams" therefore, it is alternate construction

on the contrary rafters are sized based on repetitive use, just like a stud

Sometimes people have just enough education to be dangerous......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Happily, we're not designing spaceships here. What we are talking about here is pretty basic stuff. I would prefer we broaden understanding so that those around us aren't just looking over their upturned thumb or pulling ridge sizes out of air without knowing the design load. Mark's approach leads to lower quality and a general erosion of the skills in the workforce, look around, real closely around. IMO bring everyone into the game as fully as possible. This thread demonstrates that those in charge of quality control need the free and honest exchange of this information, as do those involved in the actual work.

by the way, there is nothing in the code or table about using the span tables as "simple beams" therefore, it is alternate constructionon the contrary rafters are sized based on repetitive use, just like a stud
Click to expand...
When one is checking a beam, (ceiling joists and rafters in the codebook are types of beams known as "uniformly loaded simply supported beams"), adjustment factors are used to account for repetitive members 24 or fewer inches apart, other adjustment factors account for duration of load, member size, etc.

If one were to omit or forget to use one or more of these adjustment factors the result would usually be a shorter allowable span, a more conservative design. The span tables use all of the allowable adjustments to the base design values. There are indeed situations where one could come up with an unconservative design, wet service docks the base design values.

With this in mind, post 85 and 88 are still points of discussion I would like to cover. Mark, I'd prefer for this to be covered by someone who can actually answer those questions if you'd leave that individual working room. I think we all understand and appreciate your position and I do not disagree with you entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top