mark handler
SAWHORSE
Who said they are not?yankee said:assuming metal connectors are not required from rafter to plate, why would they be required from rafter to ridge beam?
Who said they are not?yankee said:assuming metal connectors are not required from rafter to plate, why would they be required from rafter to ridge beam?
The project is not such a big deal that you couldn't approve it with confidence in your own ability to build it strong.Rick18071 said:Have a old permit that a previous inspector had approved the plans back in 2005 using 2003 IRC. Plans don't specify framing details. Already built with no inspection. It's a enclosed breezeway. Beam is 12'long resting on existing house and garage walls. Breezeway is 12' x 20'
If you remove the prescriptive ties you need engineering to resist the forces resisted by the code required ties.DRP said:3 pages in, I forget the question.
That sounds like you can't find the section that requires it. and you can't : ). there are no prescriptive ties in a normal wind zone.See table 602.3(1) , items 4, 5 and 6mark handler said:Who said they are not?
This sounds like the argument I get into a lot with contractors. Prescriptive codes generally tell you how you need to do things and then provide exceptions. It typically won't give you a list of things you can't do.mark handler said:You are missing the point.there is a section of the code that requires ties.the table of fasteners does not address that.
Nor does it address what is or is not required when the required ties are not provided.
You mean like what happens when you omit a required object and then use a table or section to justify what you don't have to do?tmurray said:... a list of things you can't do.
Sorry, didn't read your post clearly; the table I provided nailing requirements from rafters to ridgemark handler said:You are missing the point.there is a section of the code that requires ties.the table of fasteners does not address that.
Nor does it address what is or is not required when the required ties are not provided.
.
Now you know why I get so frustratedYankee said:..... didn't read your post clearly......
And that was after I calmed down.....GBrackins said:mark, your nostril's are flaring ....
How do you work with others, I wonder.mark handler said:Now you know why I get so frustrated
Sweet as sugar....then you drink.....Yankee said:How do you work with others, I wonder.
have to watch my blood sugar....GBrackins said:tisk, tisk, tisk, you know you have to watch your blood pressure ....
4x12 should do it.Rick18071 said:I don't want to ask for engendering.
Tables 3-29A-D of the 2001 Wood Frame Construction Manual provides ridge beam spans.Rick18071 said:I don't want to ask for engendering. It seems to me that by using the beam tables for a roof with ceiling attached for a ridge beam would be more than adequate. Someone told me there use to be a table for ridge beams in the code.
Oh I'm cool with whatever you come up with.DRP said:At the risk of engendering the heat of ICE... I've seen palm trees in his pics, I haven't seen design loads or species and grade. Not saying he's wrong but I believe you just accepted structural sizing off the internet without all the variables known.