In addition to everything mentioned above, if the hips line up with the wall corners like most do, then the walls act as little shear walls in each direction to resist the thrust. For the hip to move, the walls would have to overturn.
A little late to this but the IRC provisions have been tested multiple times. The SBCA did a test and concluded the first couple wall panels take most, if not all, of the load. Haven't read it in a while so you should give it a read to confirm link.
With this you can use the shear values...
A couple easy things I do to keep learning that don't take up much time (also do mostly residential)
Look at other consultants' drawings to see how they do things - government projects are public or you can FOIA any address
Subscribe to the Journal of Light Construction - lots of good articles...
I personally use hangers for rafters on ridge beams but I'm not aware of any code that prohibits toe nails for rafters specifically. Most non-engineered houses use toe nails even when it's not a tied system.
NDS has a technical paper on toe nails, although it's for stud connection to...
Weyerhaeuser has a nice tech article affirming that you should not load below NA. Link
Something to consider going forward.
Given that most Simpson hangers are not full depth and have a lot of the fasters low on the hanger I have never given this much thought. The IRC also still allows ledger...
I'm not convinced this really matters. Simpson hangers are often not the full beam depth.
Even so, you could notch a good chunk out of a (2) 14 LVL and still get it to work in shear for 2.5K. Potentially pushing the load application above the NA (or at least close).
I run into these skews...
You could notch the LVL, bevel cut it, and screw a ledger into the supporting beam. LVL will work in shear. It will be difficult getting 2.5K to work for the ledger connection.
I'll leave this here just in case ---> https://app.strongtie.com/hs
It appears so. It's definitely a PITA IMO. Have to submit statement of SI, schedule of SI, approved agencies, daily reports, interim reports, final reports - all coord. with the design team, GC, and AHJ. Georgia's SI guide is 35 pages.
Or just conduct your own site visit and call it a day...
Huge difference between just saying it's a special trip to inspect it and actually following the IBC SI pomp and circumstance.
"..... OR as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official." To me this leaves it up to the EOR and the latter is acceptable...
You are correct that the IRC says if something falls outside its scope, it needs to be designed in accordance with engineering practice or per the IBC. However, designed per the IBC doesn't equal inspected per the IBC in my very literal interpretation of the code (does it say otherwise...
For me it's:
1. Insane roof designs with bearing points floating in mid air that would require steel rigid bents to make work.
2. Massive L shaped floor plans requiring either a deep LVL beam (greater than floor thickness) or steel beam - always a shock for them to see.
3. Absolutely nothing...
Whenever I look at anything in the field, I have that general compliance note on my report but also include that not everything was looked at (worded more sophisticatedly). I also call everything structural observations - not inspections.
Annoying how much CYA we are forced to do but thus is...
I had this battle a year or so ago with a client wanting to use the 2.5" panel for the walls. The shear values weren't even close to working. I contacted Huber and they acknowledged this common issue and didn't have much to say except they recommended sheathing the walls with 1/2" OSB/Ply first...
I vote bearing. What does the floor plan look like? If that interior wall is continuous through the length of the building without jogs, I'd say it was an intentional bearing point.
For the floor below I often see LBW supported by perpendicular joists. What does that floor plan look like? Is it...
