willbish Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 I have a steel ridge specified with two sizes. 203x102x23 joined to 356x171x57 The pitch of the roof to the front is 45°, and to the rear 16.2°, although there is a section to the rear that is 45° highlighted above The rafters are 195mm x 45mm @ 600c. I'm having difficulty finding a suitable position for the steel that allows an acceptable birds mouth on all rafters. I've found that if I offset the steel by ~100mm to the rear I get a good seat for both rafters on both sizes of steel. Like this: Having an offset doesn't work for the section where the rear rafters are also 45°. So I'm now thinking the steel has to be on center line. But to get a decent bearing for the rear rafters I would need extra timber, a lot of extra timber which is not acceptable, is it? Any thoughts greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 It is a very odd configuration. I assume there is some compelling aesthetic reason not to have all the rear rafters at 16.2 deg? As is, there are some horrible junctions and we are only looking at 4 rafters. Bear in mind that the timber may shrink by 15%, so if you have 50mm one side and 150 the other, the shallow pitch may end up 15mm lower. Can you modify the steel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted June 26, 2019 Author Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr Punter said: It is a very odd configuration. I assume there is some compelling aesthetic reason not to have all the rear rafters at 16.2 deg? As is, there are some horrible junctions and we are only looking at 4 rafters. Bear in mind that the timber may shrink by 15%, so if you have 50mm one side and 150 the other, the shallow pitch may end up 15mm lower. Can you modify the steel? It certainly is an odd configuration. The rear rafters at 45 is to achieve symmetrical gable end which mimics the characteristics of the previous property that stood on this footprint. Modifying the steel is an option. I've considered adding some Rectangular Hollow Section on top of the flange (to the rear half only) so the depth of timber plate used is the same throughout. I could also increase the smaller section of the steel to match rest of the ridge which would simplify the RHS modification. Getting the feeling architect and SE have happily created something that's frustratingly fiddly to build.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Wouldn't a wider steel help eliminate the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) . Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan52 Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Could you put in a ridge board at the top then 2 separate steel beams approx 500mm further down so each will suit that particular side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 51 minutes ago, willbish said: It certainly is an odd configuration. The rear rafters at 45 is to achieve symmetrical gable end which mimics the characteristics of the previous property that stood on this footprint. Can you post an elevation or even better a Sketch Up showing the gable, just for my own interest? Also, how are the 100 x 100 posts supported? With one it looks like the stairs are in the way. Lots of stairs btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Can you not raise the steel up so the timbers are plumb cut to the face of the steel, so hiding the steel in the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted June 26, 2019 Author Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Oz07 said: Wouldn't a wider steel help eliminate the problem? Not that I can see 7 hours ago, the_r_sole said: what does the engineers detail of the birdsmouth for the roof timbers look like? Are you having a full ceiling and boxing in the steel? No such level of detail here. Having an attic space/bat loft 7 hours ago, Declan52 said: Could you put in a ridge board at the top then 2 separate steel beams approx 500mm further down so each will suit that particular side. I think 2 steels could work, but £££ ? 7 hours ago, Mr Punter said: Can you post an elevation or even better a Sketch Up showing the gable, just for my own interest? Also, how are the 100 x 100 posts supported? With one it looks like the stairs are in the way. Lots of stairs btw. Sure, previously Under construction: 6 hours ago, Russell griffiths said: Can you not raise the steel up so the timbers are plumb cut to the face of the steel, so hiding the steel in the roof. Now that seems a good idea. Excuse my crappy hangers, but something like this? Edited June 26, 2019 by willbish 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Two steels is the answer - sorry ..! Engineer who designed that wants a slap, and has completely ignored the lateral forces of the two different pitches. Also, the 356 has been chosen for the deflection over the span, as the intermediate is the same size. What is the total span of the open space as there looks to be intermediate walls in that design..?? Ridge board, steels around 7-800mm down from the ridge apex and stick decent ceiling binders in as that is one very odd roof design ..! Have you got the engineers sections to show what they think it will look like on the posts too..?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 if You do my version, you use a specific hanger that is multi angle adjustable, it does not have a birds mouth, it fits plumb to a timber you have fitted into the web of the steel, you then plumb cut your timber and offer it up fixing it with the appropriate nails. Loads less cutting, but I think the hangers where £3 each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted June 27, 2019 Author Share Posted June 27, 2019 8 hours ago, PeterW said: Two steels is the answer - sorry ..! Engineer who designed that wants a slap, and has completely ignored the lateral forces of the two different pitches. Also, the 356 has been chosen for the deflection over the span, as the intermediate is the same size. What is the total span of the open space as there looks to be intermediate walls in that design..?? Ridge board, steels around 7-800mm down from the ridge apex and stick decent ceiling binders in as that is one very odd roof design ..! Have you got the engineers sections to show what they think it will look like on the posts too..?? Yes the SE has seeming ignored the different pitches. Looking at the reams of calcs he sent me, he has assumed the roof pitch to be 30° on both sides... coincidence that 30° is the average between 16.2° & 45° Total ridge length is just under 12.00m. The 358 is 8.0m then 203 is 4.0m with the SHS supporting on blockwork wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted June 27, 2019 Author Share Posted June 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, Russell griffiths said: if You do my version, you use a specific hanger that is multi angle adjustable, it does not have a birds mouth, it fits plumb to a timber you have fitted into the web of the steel, you then plumb cut your timber and offer it up fixing it with the appropriate nails. Loads less cutting, but I think the hangers where £3 each. Yep still liking this idea after sleeping on it. Using these hangers, may need to add an extra timber on top of the steel for adequate face fixing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 So that 357 weighs nearly half a tonne... and the post detail is odd as the whole of the 203 is hanging on 4 bolts. The other odd bit is the post also only has 2 bolts..?? Should be 4, 2 each flange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted June 27, 2019 Author Share Posted June 27, 2019 11 minutes ago, PeterW said: The other odd bit is the post also only has 2 bolts..?? Should be 4, 2 each flange. One each side is what i had assumed, but cant see any reason why it shouldn't be 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 never liked those hangers prefer a saw slit and sit normal ones in, don't have to do the whole birds mouth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 Just a thought I wonder if this would work with engineered timber like LVL or Glulam instead of steel. You could leave it exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted August 31, 2019 Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 On 27/06/2019 at 08:31, Oz07 said: never liked those hangers prefer a saw slit and sit normal ones in, don't have to do the whole birds mouth Thanks for that suggestion. Slope adjustable hangers are £13 a pop so will use regular. Only (slight) concern is missing out vertical nail fixing up from bottom of the hanger. But out of sight out of mind?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Side fixing in normal hangers doing same job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 We used these nothing like the price you mention. Made by CULLEN bend to match angle and fit any width timber, I think they where about a couple of quid each. I fitted over 70 and didn’t find any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 With a structural ridge don't you normally need strapping to connect one side to the other over the top of the beam? Eg rafters "hang" from the beam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbish Posted August 31, 2019 Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Russell griffiths said: We used these nothing like the price you mention. Made by CULLEN bend to match angle and fit any width timber, I think they where about a couple of quid each. What supplier did you get from? Best price online before picking up the phone seems to be £7.38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 22 minutes ago, willbish said: What supplier did you get from? Best price online before picking up the phone seems to be £7.38 They came as a package from the i joist company webbs timber in Gloucester it May have been they where cheaper as I had £7000 of timber from them. Never priced them separately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Isn't it crazy that those angles hangers can take all the thrust out of the rafters. I don't believe what I'm seeing ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 10 minutes ago, Oz07 said: Isn't it crazy that those angles hangers can take all the thrust out of the rafters. I don't believe what I'm seeing ha They don’t really carry a lot of load, if the plumb cut is correct the load pushing down tightens the plumb cut against the ridge, they just keep it all in place, if you think back 10 years all that was used would have been a couple of 4inch nails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now