Ok Im calling this mansard a hip. Correct?
got to measure that one.
The flat that is not the pan roof is less than 10%. Im not including the pan. That sound right?
How big was the flat roof?
I would guess, at least 30 feet total, so you would need 301 feet total perimeter to be under 10%.
I am just asking out of curiosity.
The main roof is a hip and the metal coated roof doesn’t count in the geometry.
The flat roof with mod-bit roofing doesn’t appear to be structurally attached. Is it enclosed, and I bet it is over 30 ft.
I would say it is attached by the way the shingles go over it from the main roof.
I just used 10 x 10 as a guess, it is probably 10 x 15 or more.
Going across the front, the garage is 25 feet and is nearly half the front of the house. Make it 35, x 2 is 70, front and back would be 140, so now you will need 161 feet 81.5 on each side,to get under 10%.
The flat is 18 ft on length. As far as it being structrally attached hadnt considered that. No reason to think it would not be. In that it abuts the facia and it has only perimeter post.
Ok got it. Ill recheck the numbers but the question was more does a mansard qualify as a hip. I thought it did but just wanted a second opinion.
Thanks guys.
That is not a mansard. For it to be a mansard the steep part needs to be at the bottom.
I don’t believe that I would call that roof a mansard at all. It is basically a hip roof with two different pitches. A mansard would be flat on top.
I also don’t consider a roof being structurally attached just because the roofing tie-in is connected. The rafters of the flat would have to be framed over the adjoining wall for the roof to be structurally connected to the main roof system. Roofing is not structrural, but I do understand the risk to the carrier if the roofing is continious.
Hip with two different pitches…The flat appears to connected to the facia, just as the pan/ screen enclosure roof.
The only real question is if the flat is enclosed. If it is enclosed the flat will likely be greater than the 10%= Other.
That flat appears to be structurally attached.
How do you see that John? It it was structurally attached, the flat roof would be several inches higher than the sloped roof. It looks like it is attached to the fascia to me.
It is “most likely” attached through the fascia to the wall. There is usually a drip edge between non-structurally attached roofs.
A picture from the ground would be helpful.
That is probably true, but does that make it structurally attached since it is still attached to the wall and not over it and into the main roof system?
More information is what’s needed. In many cases, the flat roof trusses line up with the facia and are attached to the top of the tie beam. The trusses sit side by side each other. Thus, you get a flat roof that does not cut in to the roof, but is still structurally attached to it.
That is why a drip edge is so important. If there is a drip edge between the two roofs, they are not attached.
The difference is attached through the existing truss system or outside on the fascia.
More information is what’s needed. In many cases, the flat roof trusses line up with the facia and are attached to the top of the tie beam. The trusses sit side by side each other. Thus, you get a flat roof that does not cut in to the roof, but is still structurally attached to it.
Jay, I do believe this is the type of framing here. The roof is covered with worn out rolled roofing which is lapped above the first course of shingles. No it is not enclosed. Below is an open pool patio.
Also, whoever said its not a mansard is correct. Upon looking at the definition of mansard closer, its the opposite of a mansard. Just an odd hip I guess. Thanks for clearing that up.