Dutch hip

Here is a decent one, I was the third inspector to look at this. They had hip credit, then lost it. What should my answer be and how do you calculate it?

Malabar draw - Copy.jpg

Good question. I have two of the those on the front of my own home. From a structure standpoint, those are probably more structurally sound than a standard hip just from the amount of bracing and design, but that isn’t always the way an insurance underwriter looks at things. They have a matrix in front of them to follow, may not personally know a hip roof from a mailbox post, but will get to make the decision on what and what is acceptable. At least on my home, everything inside that small “gable” is doubled and tripled two by fours with straps with a ton of wood bracing in each.

This one had no bracing at all

Non-Hip.

I would measure the perimeter and then measure the bottom of each gable. 216 foot perimeter and 30 ft gable.

I would agree with you Greg. But again it’s subjective. I had one 3-4 weeks ago that had a Dutch hip on all 4 sides and I called it a non-hip. Got a call the next day from the Allstate agent that told me they don’t consider those in the equation. What say you John.

I calculated the same way Greg did, non-hip.

Agree with Greg. Measure the perimeter and then the bottom chord lengths. However those gables do not appear to be 15’ ft from the photos.

As measured from the roof, all the way across the gable(including the gable fascia). If it was close I could have argued and measured the interior bottom cord, 12 feet at best. Twelve feet would still be too large.

Hey John,

Look at page 124 of your manual. You might change your mind about that.

Gregs calc’s are the way I would do it

John,
The Dutch Hip shaped roof is difficult to classify correctly because it’s not a simple hip or gable. The inspector should report gable geometry if the bottom chord of the gable is greater than 50% of the width of the wall below the gable end. If the bottom chord of the gable section is 50% or less of the width of the wall below the gable end, the roof geometry would be reported as hip.

Aubrey,
Thats old school, 50% is no longer used.

"On Dutch hip roofs, count the lineal feet at the base of the “gable” portion of the roof shape as “Non-hip.”

Many insurance companies will look at these very differently. As stated earlier, some do not consider these at all. After reading that page I am not sure that is how I would take that.

If I make a drawing that is only a couple of feet of difference, the owner and agent will call me and ask if we could remeasure it to be sure. My office would spend thirty minutes explaining to them, then I would go out and remeasure in front of them and we would come to the same conclusion.

The way I drew it was technically correct(I did not state where the measurements were from in my report)and not as close. I have done enough of these to realize that everyone looks at them differently.

I would suspect that most inspectors would have went the other way, got mad and made the agent and the customer upset by the end.

Not to mention, how do the re-inspection guys look at it? Not all of the inspectors, agents and underwriters have gone thought Yorks training

In either case the final check would have been in the same place.

Is the consensus that we include the fascia along with the bottom chord of the gable into the equation on these Dutch hips?

No you do not include the top cord of the gable truss. You only measure the base of the gable.

This is a perfect example of a home that would be classified as a hip under the old form. Under the new form it is a non-hip. There are going to be many that loose this discount and it is really going to hurt as it was one of the biggest discounts given.

I would say that many will lose their strap discount also. I think that you could find at least one strap that is embedded in the tie beam more than a 1/4 inch from the truss.

For gables, you do not measure the rake along the fascia, you measure the horizontal distance across the gable at the bottom of the gable, or the so called bottom chord of the gable.

The calcualtion tells me non-hip

I don’t think the intent is to take away the strap discount if one strap is found that doesn’t conform. The form and Yorks class are not conclusive on this issue IMHO. I believe that the overall, craftsmanship and conformity to this issue is the intent. My threshold for feeling obligated to report “F’” under thr truss to wall fastening would lie somewhere beyond a couple of non conforming straps. Where exactly I would draw the line would be dependent on the number of non conforming straps, and the strap distance away from the truss. Wind pressure differential exist across a roof truss structure and one strap placed 1" away from the truss doesn’t necessarily make it the weekest roof to wall connection. If it was a king truss or hip girder I might be more inclined to report it even if it was the only one, since these locations experience higher uplift pressures. We are not structural engineers, but I do believe we are asked to use our best judgement in some areas. If this was not the case then the form would be more exact as to how and what to report. I think the inspector should give a general description of his findings in the notes section, whereby reporting how many straps were non conforming, and by how much. Let the underwriters determine where to draw the line on credits.

Building has gabel ends not true hip resulting in lift. Amplified wind loading by acceleration across the hip.