• 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.

Rafter thrust and I give up

OK, so I've been framing 26 years.

Have to ask; What else is in there? is that just a matching fill for the room? Do those rafters on the right keep going up to a beam or whatever? If that's just fill it should be OK with some adjustments. In other words, do the "purlin rafters" push on the wall on the left?

Brent.
 
There is no ridge beam, otherwise what was the point of posting this. What you see is someone trying to create a vaulted ceiling on one side of a house. The ceiling joists on the left simply terminate on a wall. Those would have been the rafter ties but now they are not. There is nothing prescriptive about this installation. In addition to this being flagged at plan review, so were the 12" return walls in the garage with 10' ceilings but since we allowed them to put in the foundation to be nice as to not hold them up, they decided they would just frame while they were at it.
 
What do the approved plans indicate?

I agree with Brent and RJ, I don't necessarily see a violation in the photo provided.

Not every house is going to be framed with straight gables and flat ceilings, which is all the Code seems to really address in detail.

There is merit in the empirical methods used by carpenters, whether the inspector likes it or not. It's very likely that this same design has been specified by an architect or engineer at some point, and "works" just fine.

It's important that we don't get hung up in the belief that, just because it's not specifically in the Code, "these guys must be hacks"

There seems to be a common inspector mentality that all contractors are ignorant cheating crooks. Likewise, contractors think inspectors are incompetent wanna-be tradesmen.

That being said, there most certainly are ignorant, incompetent, cheating, wanna-bes on both sides. :devil

mj
 
jar546 said:
...but since we allowed them to put in the foundation to be nice as to not hold them up...
Click to expand...
And there is the problem. You were nice. I tell people I'm not nice, I'm reasonable. If you can explain why there should be an exception to the rules for you and it makes logical sense I will allow it. Otherwise you will be treated like everyone else. Being reasonable I can be consistent, that's a lot harder when you are being nice. We have a plan review submission requirements that are more rigid than any other jurisdiction around and the first time through it always leaves a sour taste in the contractor's mouth, but during the project there are usually no problems because we caught them all on paper. second time through the submission process the contractor is all to happy to comply because he has seen all the money he has saved after we caught mistakes the first time around.

I think every once in a while we hope that being nice to someone will be reciprocated to us. We expect that they will work with us instead of fighting us on every little thing. All too often the reverse happens and being nice makes them feel like the rules mean nothing and all they have to do is complain a little to get their way. In my experience a stop work order fixes that.
 
Didn't see that on quick glance....never did understand that or the seat cut that extends a foot into the room I am starting to see....

Mac said:
Hate to see the birds mouths cuts so deep - indicates a lack of layout skills.
Click to expand...
 
mjesse said:
What do the approved plans indicate?mj
Click to expand...
That's the problem, there weren't any. In my post above yours I stated that they only had a foundation only permit and decided to move forward with framing even though I had flagged this during the plan review which was still not complete at the time of this photo. I gave an inch to be nice and let them get started before the weather changed and they took a mile.

This is not prescriptive and needs to be addressed by an RDP.
 
jar546 said:
There is no ridge beam, otherwise what was the point of posting this.
Click to expand...
Well I don't know, Too-early-in-the-morning-haven't-had-my-coffee-yet-Mr. Smarty Pants.

So basically they just decided to not have a flat ceiling anymore and vaulted it up without the approval of the government. With no ridge beam to carry the rafters. Got it.

Damn Tea-partiers, bunch of renegades.

Brent.
 
mjesse said:
Agreed. But IF the RDP signs off as-is, are they no longer "framing queens"?
Click to expand...
No, they are still framing queens and they won't find an RDP to sign off on it because we will ask for their calculations for our records. That usually puts and end to rubber stamping.
 
Some of that lumber doesn't look like #2 or better. I see that radiant barrier isn't used in your area. Will the vaulted portion accommodate R30 or whatever is the norm for damned cold?
 
Without seeing more I do not believe there is a framing problem(jmo). I would like to know how they will maintain the minimum required R-value and ventilation in ceiling/roof assembly.
 
What MIGHT work: rafter tie all the way, replace those horizontal ceiling blocks. Purlin strait up off that wall. Shear off the next interior wall for rack control which would keep that short vault from spreading.

Some combo of all that would work. But I'm not an official wet stamper, just conjecture.

Where's my friggin coffee?

Brent
 
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.
 
Damn, This is a good code topic...but I could do without all the BS.
Click to expand...
I agree. Ice and Jar screw up threads with too much tangent b.s.

I on the other hand try to keep posts dry, humorless and as uninteresting as possible.

Professional all the way I say.

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