# Reasonable distance from window to top of LVL.



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

Don't want the ridge cap to sit immediately below the window sill. Need opinions for setting the distance of the LVL from the bottom of the sill. FYI: The LVL is temporarily tacked in place. In the pictures it's about 8" from the bottom of the window sill.
Thank you all.


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

I think that's just about right :thumbup:


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

I'd rather go a little lower and not worry about looking like everything was squeezed together.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

That one falls into the category of breaking eggs to make an omelet. No way you're going to do graceful and elegant.

How much "give" does your roof pitch allow?


----------



## loneframer (Feb 13, 2009)

You have plenty of room for an oversized step flashing and plenty of clearance for ridge cap and a window lineal in the future. I'd say you're good.


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

The pitch, with the LVL at the current height


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

southernyankee said:


> The pitch, with the LVL at the current height


The pitch, with the LVL at the current height is a 5/12 pitch. Going to set it at the current height and be done with it.

Thanks again y'all.


----------



## CanningCustom (Nov 4, 2007)

8" is plenty of roof but why not drop the pitch of new roof to leave additional height between the 2. I had when i roof is really close to a window. Especially if it is a low pitch where snow can just drift up on the window. But that's just my thoughts


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

I don't think they get much snow in his area, and you seldom get drifts of any size right at the ridge.

The thing with the pitch is that it should be pretty close to whatever the other roof sections are, or it will look odd.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

May I ask why you decided to penetrate the sheathing and not just hang the ridge off a ledger? I think you will be playing hell trying to get a good seal around that ridge now.
You will still have to install a ledger for the roof deck and flash that too.

Andy.


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

The LVL needs to be set on 2's and boxed in. Getting buttoned up tight just requires a little more work.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

southernyankee said:


> The LVL needs to be set on 2's and boxed in. Getting buttoned up tight just requires a little more work.


Why?



Andy.


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

If I offset the LVL 1 3/4" from centerline will that cause me any headaches or be noticeable. The width of the deck is 17'. Offsetting it to avoid an electrical cable.

Thanks.


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

If you offset it that far, one side will be 3 1/2" different from the other. Definitely noticeable in 17'


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

southernyankee said:


> If I offset the LVL 1 3/4" from centerline will that cause me any headaches or be noticeable.


Yes, and yes. You don't want to go there unless there is literally no other choice. The need to relocate wiring and/or other things like plumbing, ductwork etc isn't unusual at all when tying new work into an existing structure.

In a perfect world, we predict that work and build it into the bid. I'm gonna go live there someday...


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks for the advice. Going to center the LVL, regardless of how much longer it takes.


----------



## singlespeed (Oct 8, 2008)

Snow build up? Not here! I live in the same area as the OP, I barely wear long pants here in the wintertime. I think we had a two minute snowfall here all winter and once it hit the ground it basically disappeared.

Clay.


----------



## Dave in Pa (Oct 10, 2009)

I hope that I am correct here? BUT, Andy, if what you are stating, with the ledger to hold up the ridge question, why cut the sheathing?? 

FYI the ledger would be approx. one and three quarter inches wide, the width of a micro-lam, what the F*#@ is that going to do????? And what is one going to secure that to?? Flashing issue? Any qualified roofer, NOT a issue! Call your engineer?? Get a designer? John Doe down the street? 

How about someone that has done this it the past, with no problems! COMMON SENSE! Sometimes is the BEST cure! Some have it, some don't! 

Sorry, that I needed to vent! BEST advice that I can give, do it in a heads up, forward manner, a with-in a/your correct, way, issue! SAFTEY, and BUILDING codes are for a reason! Do what is CORRECT, in your own opinion, SAFE, to your standards, and with-in your local BUILDING CODES, etc. etc. is the best advise that I can give! 

Looks Good!


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

As far as hanging the header according to building codes, Wake County wants to see the ridge beam seated in a pocket within the house envelope. LVL hanger would be much easier but got to do it the way I did to please the BI.


----------



## Tom Struble (Mar 2, 2007)

take a deep breath Dave


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

I assume that the LVL is acting as a ridge beam. No ceiling joist connected to the roof rafters. 
Even as such I don't see the need to penetrate the sheathing, thereby possibly causing a water infiltration path into the wall itself. 
The ridge will only be carrying half the roof load which being so short is not a lot so it seems to me a direct load path to thethe foundation is notthe needed. A Simpson hanger could do the job just fine hung on the ledgers that will be there anyway.

Andy.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

southernyankee said:


> As far as hanging the header according to building codes, Wake County wants to see the ridge beam seated in a pocket within the house envelope. LVL hanger would be much easier but got to do it the way I did to please the BI.


Interesting. Didn't know that before.
I would wager they could have been talked out of that but too late now.

Andy.


----------



## Hand Drive (Sep 6, 2011)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> I assume that the LVL is acting as a ridge beam. No ceiling joist connected to the roof rafters.
> Even as such I don't see the need to penetrate the sheathing, thereby possibly causing a water infiltration path into the wall itself.
> The ridge will only be carrying half the roof load which being so short is not a lot so it seems to me a direct load path to thethe foundation is notthe needed. A Simpson hanger could do the job just fine hung on the ledgers that will be there anyway.
> 
> Andy.


cutting sheathing out of the way is standard practice.. framing to framing is a general rule I follow. you are not relying on sheathing to stop leaks in a wall but flashing.

plus- putting an lvl hanger (or anything structural) against sheathing is hit and miss, imo. what if there is no stud work or band blocking behind sheathing where the lvl lands on the sheathing?


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

Hand Drive said:


> cutting sheathing out of the way is standard practice.. framing to framing is a general rule I follow. you are not relying on sheathing to stop leaks in a wall but flashing.
> 
> plus- putting an lvl hanger (or anything structural) against sheathing is hit and miss, imo. what if there is no stud work or band blocking behind sheathing where the lvl lands on the sheathing?


I think what Andy is referring to is two rafters meeting in a point fastened to the wall with proper nailing or ledgerlocks. Then the ridge beam could hang from this ledger. It took a few minutes for me to figure out what his beef was, but I think I got it.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

Warren said:


> I think what Andy is referring to is two rafters meeting in a point fastened to the wall with proper nailing or ledgerlocks. Then the ridge beam could hang from this ledger. It took a few minutes for me to figure out what his beef was, but I think I got it.


That is correct. Sorry if I was confusing the issue.
They would be end rafters that are also ledgers. They will be there in any event correct?

Andy.


----------



## Hand Drive (Sep 6, 2011)

^ maybe the first issue with wall rafters as a ridge, ledger/hanger is the ridge size itself. the roof ridge is going to be wider than the rafters in most cases...


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> They would be end rafters that are also ledgers. They will be there in any event correct?


True, but also in my area, with the ridge beam being "structural", i.e., no ceiling joists at the bottom of the triangle, inspectors want to see a solid support path straight down to the foundation. It's just not worth the argument in most cases.

And I have to agree with Dave, water infiltration is not going to be an issue with proper flashing, any more than it would if you didn't penetrate the sheathing.


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

I would remove the siding.


----------



## Dirtywhiteboy (Oct 15, 2010)

As far as I see the only real way to waterproof is to cut the siding and flash. Then the wall rafters will nail to the studs. the LVL to the rafters and with the pocket in the wall it's never going anywhere!


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

LOL Beam pocket under a window....Always wiring, never fails.

8" below the sill is a good rule of thumb. Typical flashing/tin shinles 'will' work fine, in my expereince. Extra measures never hurt though.

Be happy there are no window openings below the roof line...gotta get the rubber out.


----------



## tham (Mar 12, 2012)

You could never attach a beam here with just a hanger. Unless some engineer said it was ok. Especially outside sheathing. Maybe a built one out of Iron and lagged.

Tham


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

tham said:


> You could never attach a beam here with just a hanger. Unless some engineer said it was ok. Especially outside sheathing. Maybe a built one out of Iron and lagged.
> 
> Tham


You can't use a Simpson beam hanger? I don't know if they'd pass it on the outside of sheathing here, I have never tried. I don't know if they'd pass it for a ridge beam either, never tried it. Better to box it in

But I have hung a lot of beams with hangers, been speced that way by engineers several times.


----------



## XJCraver (Dec 21, 2010)

jawtrs said:


> *You can't use a Simpson beam hanger?* I don't know if they'd pass it on the outside of sheathing here, I have never tried. I don't know if they'd pass it for a ridge beam either, never tried it. Better to box it in
> 
> But I have hung a lot of beams with hangers, been speced that way by engineers several times.


 Not here we can't. We'd have had to do it just as the OP did. I don't know that I'd trust a beam hanger in that situation anyway.


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

XJCraver said:


> Not here we can't. We'd have had to do it just as the OP did. I don't know that I'd trust a beam hanger in that situation anyway.


There are beam hangers that can carry thousands of pounds. Why can't you do it where you are?


----------



## elementbldrs (Sep 26, 2010)

I know there are several hanger applications that can meet your needs. Use them all the time outside of building envelope, decks come to mind, lvls carrying cantilevered roof systems, whatever you need, they make em.


----------



## slowsol (Aug 27, 2005)

Agree with the above that you could get a beam hanger to support it...however, I don't understand the benefit of doing it that way. What difference does it make if the beam penetrates the sheathing? You have to flash and waterproof it either way. I'd rather see it his way any day of the week.


----------



## elementbldrs (Sep 26, 2010)

Agreed.


----------



## XJCraver (Dec 21, 2010)

I understand that there are hangers that are more than up to that task. I guess I shouldn't have used the word "trust", as I do know they would/could/do do the job. I just know that our inspectors wouldn't pass a ridge beam that wasn't directly attached to framing (why, I don't know), and I'd personally "feel better" about the installation if it were built as the OP did it, as opposed to hanging it.


----------



## elementbldrs (Sep 26, 2010)

Also agreed.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

The point of my inquiries is just that it seems to me that by penetrating the sheeting you are introducing a unneeded complication that may (if not flashed correctly) lead to water infiltration into the walls.


----------



## tham (Mar 12, 2012)

done.

tham


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> I will have to disagree with that.
> 
> The width of the roof is only about 8' max. and 34' in length. So maybe 800 lbs. of dead weight from the sheeting, lumber and roof materials.


I'm not disputing the load weight of this particular roof. I've seen much larger ones held up only with nailed ledgers, code be damned.

My point is that the flashing detail is going to be the same whether you penetrate the sheathing or not. Left unflashed, that sheathing is eventually going to rot out, and there goes your hypothetical "waterproof" wall. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tom Struble (Mar 2, 2007)

Andy never said not to flash,just that flashing what would probably be a vented ridge could pose a problem


----------



## XJCraver (Dec 21, 2010)

I'm having a hard time figuring out how the flashing would be any different, whether you built it the way the OP did or by hanging the beam? Even with a vented ridge, you're going to (or at least, _I'm_ going to) stop the vent a foot or so away from the vertical wall, and step-flash it just as you would any other ridge. And if it leaks, it's going to get in the structure either way.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

Lets say the the OP does a stellar job of flashing everything that he is doing, wall penetration and all.
But, someone did not do such a great job flashing the window above or the roof allows rain water behind the siding above the penetration but not behind the WB or the paper. Theoretically water may find it's way to the ridge beam that is now penetrating the sheathing. Allowing it to follow the ridge into the wall where it may not be seen for some time, wetting the insulation, causing a mold problem. 
As the designer of the architectural details for weather proofing he will be the one to take the blame for the problem. As I do this kind of detail for a living I am acutely aware of possible problems like this and try do avoid this kind of thing as much as I can. I would rather try to steer clear of any trouble like this (possible water infiltration) rather than worry about the structural integrity (IMO nil) of a very light ridge beam transferring it's rather negligable load directly to the foundation via a new member in the wall.
This way one avoids cutting into a possibly engineered shear panel (sheathing) too.


Andy.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Andy, you do have a point with that explanation. How much would you charge me for an engineer's stamp so my podunk inspector will let me do it your way next time?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm not a licensed engineer but I play one on TV.

In Calif. we as designers (or the home owner or the GC for that matter) are allowed to design the structures to prescriptive measures as long as we can back up our design via the CRC which is based on the IRC. 

So I don't have a stamp but I do have enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Andy.


----------



## fourcornerhome (Feb 19, 2008)

Anything can leak if it's not done right or has worn out. If you get a leak, fix it. It's only water.


----------



## Tom Struble (Mar 2, 2007)

famous last words
envelope considerations are only going to become more strict,the consequences of error here can be devastating,and a mold claim can put you right out of business


----------



## southernyankee (Feb 21, 2011)

Finally making some progress. Should have the framing inspection early next week.


----------

