×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Hip Roof

Hip Roof

Hip Roof

(OP)
Hello Guys;

I am currently working on a patio cover, please see the attached sketch. The architect wants me to remove two interior beams where the king posts are landing. I have seen several hip roofs without interior supports, but I just don't get how they are working. It seems that the diaphragm is somehow holding the roof together, but how do I calc this out.




Any ideas, I will appreciate them.

Thank you.



RE: Hip Roof

Trusses? That is how most hipped roofs are framed these days.

RE: Hip Roof

So I assume you want this vaulted? If so, The way I usually do it is designing a "bent" I-beam or Flitch beam (in thew 20 ft. direction) to support the roof. It is expensive and a pain in the ass for the contractor but has so far worked well.

RE: Hip Roof

Or the four perimeter beams serve as a sort of tension tie for the four diagonal ridge beams. However, in your case you have a short ridge at the top which introduces some complexity.
I think it can possibly still work but you'd have to think it through.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Hip Roof

We had a quite comprehensive thread on this a few months back where we established that this could be done without the heLp of the diaphragm for systems where all of the ridge beams meet at a point. I'd push your architect to adjust the slopes such that the rafters do meet at a point. Without either relying on the diaphragm In a complex manner or creating a rafter to rafter moment connection, I believe that the length of flat ridge line at the top renders the system unstable.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

I agree with Koot. All four hips must meet at a point for this to be stable without the two beams to be eliminated.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

Quote (OP)

What about the connection at this point where the 4 hip beams meet and also at the walls?.

You need a ring beam capable of transmitting axial tension and compression across the corner joint and up into the rafters. That ring beam could potentially be just your top plates if detailed correctly. I guess it's less a ring beam than a ring tension tie.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

The hip to plate detail can be tricky to design and construct to resist the thrust. That is why I typically go with the bent beam approach.
It will also let you keep you ridge. Although, I doubt a short ridge like that would make Kootk's idea unstable.

RE: Hip Roof

With the short ridge beam, you will need moment connections to the ridge at the hip connections. You will not without it. The connections at the walls will direct the lateral kick to the ring beam, or to the corner shear walls if you want to drop the ring beam, which I do not advise.

Without the ridge beam, it is just a two way arch with a pin at the ridge.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

I disagree. The hips are in compression and just push against each other with equal force into the ring beam corners. The short ridge will simply act as a compression member between them. Sure, if you model it in a 3D program with pinned joints, it will be unstable. In reality, the depth of the ridge and the fact that it is nailed well to the hips will keep it stable. A longer ridge may be another story.

RE: Hip Roof

As well as the structural issues, you should consider the geometry. This thing looks square in plan, an if so, there will be two different slopes meeting at the hips. Ever try framing that? 45 degree hips work best.

RE: Hip Roof

I would have to think about that, particularly with any unbalanced loading causing torsion. The roof diaphragm would have to come into play here too.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

The stability issue revolves around the potential for one of the peaks to shift upwards while the other shifts downwards. And, without doubt, that is what would happen with truly pinned connections in the absence of sheathing and secondary framing. Even with symmetrical loading, that would only produce a condition of neutral stability. And, in our sphere, neutrally stable = unstable.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

4 hinged arch might be another analogy... one too many. all the framing cuts are trickier too with the two different slopes introduced by the 2' ridge beam and the 95 degree plan view angle shown as hokie66 points out.

if ridge eliminated, i'd design as others said above and for constructability i'd look at a peak connection made with something like 1/4" or 3/8" custom fabricated steel bucket and bolt system connecting two diagonally opposite hips together as a stable standalone system first and then 'hanging' from that the other two hips also supported by buckets shop welded to the others, ie all one fabricated piece. i'd probably specify tight fit everywhere to take the compression but design the bolts to take all the compression too. you could add a square non structural fill plate from the underside where the 4 buckets converge to get a nice symmetrical look from below.

if i'm see it right, the tension ring at the bottom seems complicated by the design with the rafter over the tension ring beams...the lateral component of your hip thrust is above the centroid of the tension ring members introducing a vertical plane moment at this condition. perhaps a deeper hip beam combined with a shallower rafter can get the eccentricity to a palatable point, or perhaps you introduce a shallow steel member, so not too obvious, affixed on top of the perimeter beams and aligned with the centroid of your hips to act as the true tension tie.

RE: Hip Roof

Interesting question would be:

If with unbalanced snow loading the tension in the tension ring would be the same all around or not?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

It would have to be. It is essentially a cable.

RE: Hip Roof

You would think so, but then how would you reason the different thrust reactions from each of the hips due to the differential loading? It's almost like the tension link would have to equal out all the compression loads on the hips, but each hip still seeing it's own bending stress.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

I'll surely regret committing to this In print but, on an asymmetrically loaded symmetric system, I think that the axial forces end up being the same in all rafters. The would be thrust differeential flows into the ring beam, back up the opposing rafters, and balances out the thrust in the originating rafters. I believe that is what crests the very important demand for axial load transfer between rafters at the peak.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

I'm supposing that the tension in the ring would be constant all around, such that the horizontal component of each hip reaction is the same but the vertical component of each hip reaction varies based upon it's own loading condition...such that an asymmetric load on the pyramid, an unbalanced snow load or construction load, a load on one face of the pyramid can induce a bending moment in the opposing unloaded face of the pyramid.

RE: Hip Roof

Based on statics and geometry, how can the vertical components vary and the horizontal remain the same? The resultant force in each hip must follow the slope of the hip member.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

My proposition is that the axial loads in the rafters would be the same and the transvers loads would vary based on loading.

Considering how short the ridge is and the need to make a moment connection of it, perhaps that entire 2' chunk should just be steel.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

I have done that in the past Koot.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Hip Roof

How would you make a steel to wood moment connection? The only decent wood moment connections I've ever seen used steel straps at the top and bottom.

Also, has anyone had much success with wood moment connections period? Most studies I've read and connections I've seen in person have a problem with excessive rotation before any moment is transferred.

RE: Hip Roof

could be visualizing incorrectly, wouldn't be the first time, or the second, or well nevermind .... but as a 3 member planar truss with a point load at the apex has equal horizontal reactions and equal vertical reactions with resultants aligning with the slopes indicating pure axial loads in the members, wouldn't an asymmetrically placed point load result in equal horizontal reactions with unequal vertical reactions and resultants unaligned with slopes, the unaligned resultant being resolved in design by the moment capacity of the member?

RE: Hip Roof

Quote (Jerehmy)

How would you make a steel to wood moment connection?

I was thinking of something like the detail below. As XR250 alluded at the top, the demand here would be nominal. Additionally, as you pointed out, the issue with wood moment connections tends to be deformation. And this particular connection wouldn't be too sensitive to that. I wouldn't do this for a serious moment connection.

Quote (Jerehmy)

Also, has anyone had much success with wood moment connections period? Most studies I've read and connections I've seen in person have a problem with excessive rotation before any moment is transferred.

In general, I agree with these sentiments. My wife's firm actually runs a brisk trade doing side work as timber connection specialists in delegated design situations. They've had a good deal of success with wood to wood moment connections using things like timber rivets and the sexy hardware -- and associated design methods -- coming out of Europe.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

What do they do to combat the shrinkage issue of connecting the rigid steel plate to the wood, unless there's only 2 bolts or the bolts are spaced less than 5" vertically. I'm just curious. Also, do they test these assemblies? Thinking of checking analyzing a multi-bolt wood moment connection seems like a headache.

RE: Hip Roof

If the ridge is short, the rafters/diaphragm will keep it stable. For it to rock up and down, one pair of rafters would have to move up and the other nearby rafters would have to move down. Which means their heel ends would have to move in and out. The diaphragm will prevent this.

RE: Hip Roof

@Jerehmy: I don't know how the address shrinkage. I just spectate and admire. I can tell you that it's a rather lucrative endeavour. I design whole buildings for less than they charge to euro-connect a few dozen shiny glulam portal frames.

@XR250: I see it and I agree. My faith in it would be, in part, a function of roof pitch. What I'd agree with at 12:12, I might object to at 3:12. For stability stuff, I just prefer a load path that's a little more... discrete. I'll stamp yours if you'll stamp mine.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Hip Roof

curious and getting some time, I ran some numbers for a roof as above, except all hips meeting at a point, under snow load conditions. I treated diagonally opposed hips, together, as a 3 hinged arch. For snow on all 4 quadrants, or 3 or 2 or 1 quadrant, I found tension constant on 4 sides although hip vertical reactions vary. pleasantly ...pleased.

RE: Hip Roof

20 ft and almost square doesn't seem like too much weight/thrust resistance needed.
The short ridge does make it unstable in IMO. Something like a steel flitch there that runs down the opposing hips might be viable to give reliable stability. Then, good connection at the 4 corners and tension in the top plate of the wall should do it.

I have used the "bent" steel frame many times and like that idea too. Might be able to use two of them here, one at each end of the ridgeline (or the peaks of the hips).

RE: Hip Roof

yea I like that too. In the (OP) ridged scheme, I'm concerned mainly about the horizontal moment between the opposing hips....haven't fully worked that out as yet.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources