# Another Genius Framer and more rafter thrust problems



## jar546 (Oct 7, 2013)

This is a reverse gable addition and this is what I found on the exterior bearing walls.  Thoughts?

View attachment 1966


View attachment 1966


/monthly_2013_10/IMG_3523.jpg.464d5613ec5776a24d1b7dd1c75b2597.jpg


----------



## ICE (Oct 7, 2013)

Ask for rafter ties....and an engineer for that rafter bearing condition.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Oct 7, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> This is a reverse gable addition and this is what I found on the exterior bearing walls.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's a reverse gable?, and , WHY? It's like they _tried_ to make it hard for themselves.

Brent.

P.s. ALL framers are geniuses and beyond contempt from normal people. This looks to have been done by an electrician, or possibly a building inspector.


----------



## steveray (Oct 7, 2013)

Looks like that will push the rim right off in the first good snow.....some kind of tie (for thrust) and support for rim if less than 1.5" of rafter seat on CJ (bearing).......


----------



## DRP (Oct 8, 2013)

Is there a ridgebeam?

I'm curious, how would you all react if there were a subfloor on the CJ's and a 2x plate on that with the rafters nailed to that plate?


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 8, 2013)

It looks like a truss without the nail plate. I would think it will work if it had positive connection. It looks like a school teacher built it.


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2013)

Me too, what's a reverse gable?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

1) In NEPA a reverse gable is a gable roof perpendicular and tied into an existing gable roof.

2) No there is no ridge beam, otherwise what would be the point of this post?

3) If there was a sub-floor on the CJ's and a 2x plate that the rafters were nailed to then I would not have failed the installation unless they were only toenailed to the plate.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Oct 8, 2013)

No h1's or 2.5's?

Brent


----------



## DRP (Oct 8, 2013)

2) you never know

3) What connection would you approve to the plate. How is the plate connected?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

Simpson A35


----------



## steveray (Oct 8, 2013)

DRP said:
			
		

> Is there a ridgebeam?I'm curious, how would you all react if there were a subfloor on the CJ's and a 2x plate on that with the rafters nailed to that plate?


Almost the same.....still need a tie from rafter to joist...


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

In the case of my OP above, when I returned, they has sandwiched the rafter/joist connection on both sides with 1/2" plywood about 12" wide and vertical to match the angle.  This was basically a truss plate fix so I approved it for the rafter to joist connection problem they created.  I would have loved to see a Simpson A35 on every joist to top plate connection but they had adequate toe nailing that exceeded the normal requirement and since these are not "engineered trusses" it was not an issue in our wind zone.  Another option would have been to send them to an engineer but common sense prevailed.


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Another option would have been to send them to an engineer but common sense prevailed.


It sounds like the carpenter did the engineering.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 8, 2013)

Questions

1. How much bearing surface is there with the birds mouth cut?

The picture is unclear if the bearing surface is on the rim only or does it extend back over the ceiling rafter?

2. Does the rim bear on the top plates?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

There is approximately 1.5" of bearing on the CJ


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 8, 2013)

Seems the code has the answer

R802.3.1

Where ceiling joists are not connected to the rafters at the top wall plate, joists connected higher in the attic shall be installed as rafter ties, or rafter ties shall be installed to provide a continuous tie. Where ceiling joists are not parallel to rafters, rafter ties shall be installed. Rafter ties shall be a minimum of 2 inches by 4 inches (51 mm by 102 mm) (nominal), installed in accordance with the connection requirements in Table R802.5.1(9), or connections of equivalent capacities shall be provided. Where ceiling joists or rafter ties are not provided, the ridge formed by these rafters shall be supported by a wall or girder designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Seems the code has the answerR802.3.1
> 
> Where ceiling joists are not connected to the rafters at the top wall plate, joists connected higher in the attic shall be installed as rafter ties, or rafter ties shall be installed to provide a continuous tie. Where ceiling joists are not parallel to rafters, rafter ties shall be installed. Rafter ties shall be a minimum of 2 inches by 4 inches (51 mm by 102 mm) (nominal), installed in accordance with the connection requirements in Table R802.5.1(9), or connections of equivalent capacities shall be provided. Where ceiling joists or rafter ties are not provided, the ridge formed by these rafters shall be supported by a wall or girder designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.


The joists are connected to the top plate and the rafters are connected to them.  The article you quoted is for cathedral/raised/tray type ceilings for thrust protection.


----------



## DRP (Oct 8, 2013)

There's where I was going, still need to provide a tie or thrust restraint of equivalent capacity to the heeljoint table. The ply solution can likely be verified with the awc connections calc... although there is some eccentricity in the connection now.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 8, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> This looks to have been done by an electrician


:shock:..........


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> :shock:..........


You are not alone.  He did include building inspector in that sentence but you cut it short.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 8, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> You are not alone.  He did include building inspector in that sentence but you cut it short.


Selective editing.


----------

