• 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.

Roof framing 101 for residential houses

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,987
Location
Not where I really want to be
Another quality job.Another quality contractor.Another argument about why it's wrong.Another contractor doing this work for 30 years.Just another idiot in my book.

View attachment 1826

And now for the rest of the storyView attachment 1827

View attachment 1826

View attachment 1827

/monthly_2013_06/IMG_4539.JPG.c1528f8d3f57656edd15d34581a0e1dc.JPG

/monthly_2013_06/IMG_4526.JPG.d0118db605a69b268b43749ba8fd1c7c.JPG
 
Did the plan reviewer miss the CJ going the wrong direction lossing the roof tie?

Purlins and purlin braces?

CJ spans?

pc1
 
Jar,

"Another contractor doing this work for 30 years"!.

You threw me off coarse with this statement!

Needs engineering now I suspect?

pc1
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Did the plan reviewer miss the CJ going the wrong direction lossing the roof tie? Purlins and purlin braces?

CJ spans?

pc1
Click to expand...
Yeah...like people provide that much information on plans for prescriptive construction. Too basic to be on plans, too basic for plans examiner to be expected to note on his/her own motivation.
 
GLENN,

I feel your pain, no longer accept plans drawn on a McDonalds napkin even if stamped by a "Man who draws"!

pc1
 
Yes it can be.....but in looking at the requirement in R802.3.1, there is not a spacing requirement. I must be flashing back to the 97 UBC requirement of minimum 48" OC for a supplamental rafter tie.

So are we to assume that it must occur at every rafter? Seldom see any stick roof/ceiling assemblies, much less ones that did not have ceiling joists parallel to the rafters.

EDIT: The 48" requirement for rafter ties was in the 2003, there was a rewrite of the Section in 2006 and it was lost there. Sounds like a good code change for me for the 2018 cycle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
~ ~ ~

RJJ,

In a lot of jurisdictions, the desire to have a sealed & signed

set of plans; even on a Residential project, is not realistic,

nor politically favorable [ I have the scars to prove that !

D`OH !! ]

I believe that rafter ties [ i.e. - joists ] could be installed

higher up on the roof rafters; in a compliant manner, in

accordance with Section R802.3.1, `06 IRC, to have this

particular Framing become compliant.

~ ~ ~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well North Star: I could agree it the contractor had a permit and approved plan. In regards to being politically favorable I don't give a hairy rats crack about the political fallout. Guess that's why I am looking for work!
 
fatboy,

Senior engineer from ICC confirmed this by stating "I guess they have to be on every rafter like the ceiling joists". The 2006 code had a mistake (yes it's true, a mistake in the code book)although the language was taken out of the verbage, the note under figure R802.5.1 still stated the 4 foot on center allowance. The 2009 language corrected this by stating

"Note: Where ceiling joints run perpendicular to the rafters, rafter ties shall be nailed to each rafter near the top of the ceiling joist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top