Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Valley Rafters[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Valley Rafters
- From: "Gustavo Franco" <gfranco(--nospam--at)WILLDAN.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:29:22 -0700
...also part of the assembly is that the ceiling joists act as tension members, and the ceiling joists tie into the bearing partitions and thusly the bracing struts. ...and the gyp board ceiling adds signicantly to the stiffness of the assembly.
From: Barry H. Welliver [mailto:barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: RE: Valley Rafters
This is getting better.
Continuing on with similar language in the 2003 IRC (Section 802.3) it says”
“Where roof pitch is less than 3:12, structural members that support rafters and ceiling joists, such as ridge beams, hips, and valleys, shall be designed as beams”. Otherwise, this section claims they only need be supported at the ridge with a brace to a bearing partition.
This is refreshing…discussing codes and engineering…
Barry H. Welliver
I dont know of any other way to get the smallest member possible than to design the member, also I believe this kind of framing IS called stick framing.
Did somebody maybe mean to ask for you to use prescriptive design (conventional light frame construction) ?
The calif building code conventional construction section 2320.12.3 states "... at all valleys and hips there shall be a single valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the rafter". There are limitations for allowing this.
What would you consider "iffy"? BTW I'm not just asking dumb questions here. I'm putting together an engineer's retort to, "... Do we need such a large valley beam? Can't we just stick frame it? ..."
- Prev by Subject: RE: Valley Rafters
- Next by Subject: Re: Valley Rafters
- Previous by thread: RE: Valley Rafters
- Next by thread: Re: Valley Rafters