jwilly3879
Sawhorse
8 years later and it is still standing. If everything else in the home looks good move on to the next one.
Just because it is still standing does not mean it meets codejwilly3879 said:8 years later and it is still standing. If everything else in the home looks good move on to the next one.
Some of us were wondering about the legal liability. Others about what the potential for problems could be.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.
Uh oh, I'm changing my answer to "Put a wall under it"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...
This is a tough crowd. Why would there be a need for a beam under a non-bearing wall?GBrackins said:with a beam under the wall?
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.jwilly3879 said:8 years later and it is still standing. If everything else in the home looks good move on to the next one.
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 yaICE said:This is a tough crowd. Why would there be a need for a beam under a non-bearing wall?
One nail is all it takes toDarren 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.
If you do not provide the ties, you cannot use the prescriptive requirements, you need to use engineering.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.
Check the tables as simple beams.The prescriptive sizes of rafters are based on ties and ceiling joists being used.
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.DRP said:Check the tables as simple beams.
without understanding the basic concepts of engineering, anythig you do is a guessfatboy said:or too much............................
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.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