Home was all hip except the roof above the screened porch. The porch roof sits on top of the main roof but there was no access to determine how it was attached. Under these conditions, would you call the home a hip or count the porch roof and call it non hip.
I am leaning toward non hip but wanted other opinions to see if I am looking at it correctly.
Thanks in advance
Yes it is attached and it would count as: C other
The easiest way to look at if it is attached or not is:
A. Is there a step down from the main roof?
B. If you tore off the roof in question, would the habitable part of the house still be watertight? In this case it would leave a gaping hole, and water would pore in.
Unless you can answer yes to both questions it is structurally attached
A flat roof .
Non-hip
The flat roof IS structurally attached. The rafters go over the exterior wall and therefore are not attached to the face of the wall or fascia.
Yeah we all agree 
I would refer to this as a shed roof extension (porch) typically attached as rafter extensions in some manner. Transition at the shingled area to semi flat roof warrants close attention, as in “waterproofing details”. Problems are generally where the flat roof materials run up onto the pitched roof area and flashing details are critical at the facia (top).
Well whatever you want to call it it = NO DISCOUNT FOR YOU…move right
Discount Nazi
Class…we are on page 32. We’re talking about wind mitigation roof geometry here.
Thanks guys. That was what I felt when I looked at it. I have seen a couple of posts on here that said you had to see how it was attached in the attic. Since that wasn’t possible, I just wanted to see if anyone disagreed. Seems like everyone agrees with me.
Is it more than 10% of the total roof perimeter?
Between the flat roof, and the fact it’s attached to what is obviously a gable roof. I think you can safely say the non-hip features are more than 10%.
By being structurally attached, the roof covering for the flat roof is also included on the 1802 and a 4 point if doing one.
Don’t you count the structurally “unattached” roofs as “in use” on the 1802 regardless of its impact or lack of?
Bert
Roofs not structurally attached and not enclosed, are not included on the 1802 or the 4 point. Those kind of roofs are usually screen aluminum porches that are not insured anyway.
What is a structurally “unattached” roof? If it is a detached building, I don’t include those either.
I hear what you’re saying and for the most part agree. If unattached it doesn’t count as far as consideration for possible discounts or mitigation credits. But question 2 on the form says : Select all roof covering types in use.
The way I was showed to do it has been to mention all roof types and if not structurally attached, as a flat roof covering an open patio which has been attached to the houses wall and not the roof system, then in a notation mention it is not structurally attached. But the way I was explained you still needed to make mention of the roof type. At least that’s what I recall from the last class I took . Is that incorrect then?
Thanks
Bert
I don’t think the intent of the form is to list something and then turn right around and not include it in the final selection process. I believe you were misinformed. The best way to handle something that may be questioned is the captions for the photos, or some other comment addendum. Such as in a caption for the rear elevation photo that says “Rear porch roof not structurally attached or enclosed”.
Added: And include a closeup of the attachment you are trying to point out.
I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately “intent” as it pertains to the 1802 becomes murkey at times. I took the York class with Bill York a couple years back and just reviewed the material he handed out, according to his class material, he states: "Roof coverings on ignored (structurally unattached) porches and carports should be reported in the product approval column as NR for Not Required to meet the FBC or MDC standards.
I think the difference here is, where you ignore the unattached roof coverings Brad, is when calculating roof perimeter to determine whether its hip or not.
I’m sure there are others here who took that class and remember this.
Again not being argumentative rather just discussing this to learn from others and contribute to a learning dialogue.
Thanks again,
Bert
Interesting, but I have never seen it done that way. Bill York has his own interpretations.
Could be. Shame you and I are the only ones here today it seems. I’d really like to hear what everyone else is doing. You, John, Eric and a handful of others here, I consider experts on this and I really enjoy reading your guys posts.
Thanks,
Bert
