Thread: Valley rafter bearing

Is there a code someone can give me that would pertain to this valley rafter being inadequately supported?

Similar Threads:

• Rafter splicing
• rafter "repair"
• Mesa jump-starts pool safety - East Valley Tribune
• Rafter/ridge board
• Rafter nailing

Another angle.

You could go with 801.2 where it talks about transmitting loads to the supporting structural elements.

R802.3 Framing details.

Rafters shall be framed to ridge
board or to each other with a gusset plate as a tie. Ridge board
shall be at least 1-inch (25 mm) nominal thickness and not less
in depth than the cut end of the rafter. At all valleys and hips
there shall be a valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch (51 mm)
nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the
rafter. Hip and valley rafters shall be supported at the ridge by a
brace to a bearing partition or be designed to carry and distribute
the specific load at that point. Where the roof pitch is less
than three units vertical in 12 units horizontal (25-percent
slope), structural members that support rafters and ceiling
joists, such as ridge beams, hips and valleys, shall be designed

as beams.

Thanks Jerry. I'm no engineer, but I don't think that end of the wall was designed for that load. It was sagging and just did not look right.

Originally Posted by Frank Bombardiere

I'm no engineer, but I don't think that end of the wall was designed for that load.

Frank,

I'm no engineer either, but the end of THAT wall is not like any load bearing designs I've ever seen, and the end of the valley rafter needs to be on bearing at both ends.

I'm no engineer either, but that end is not the ridge.

Originally Posted by John Goad

I'm no engineer either, but that end is not the ridge.

That's why you have to read the entire section given, it is taking into assumption that the valley rafter is just that, a valley rafter extending from one bearing point at the bottom (typically the exterior wall) to the ridge. Being as the bottom of the valley rafter is bearing on the bearing exterior wall, there is nothing which needs to be done.

Except in this case the valley rafter is not really a valley rafter, it is a "partial" valley rafter (does not go from bearing to bearing) and therefore requires support (bearing) at that lower end.

The code does not specifically spell out and address all the idiot things which goes on in construction, it can't, if it did you would need a large moving van to carry the code around with you, and even then you would find someone doing something stupid that the code writers did not think any one in their right mind would do.

Which brings us back to the code being a minimum requirement document, it does not address using common sense nor does it address stupidity.

Review R802.3, R802.3.1, R802.4, R802.5, then R802.6 to understand.

I'll keep it simple, read 801.2 to understand.

Originally Posted by John Goad

I'll keep it simple, read 801.2 to understand.

That too.

Frank

From my perspective as a structural engineer the support does not look adequate and the sagging you talked about backs up your opinion. I think stating the valley rafter does not appear to be adequately supported is warranted.

I've seen this type of framing quite a few times. What should have happened was they should have installed a beam and cantilevered it so it would support the valley!

An engineers letter would not work in my opinion on this. A letter recommending the fix yes!

This is so wrong.

This is so wrong.

WC: Agreed.