# I had to match what was there!



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

First time tryin this, hope it works!
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 849


View attachment 1506


View attachment 1506


/monthly_2011_02/572953e12e7a2_Picture070.jpg.43d60909b0c97ca005de81cfc206283e.jpg


----------



## jim baird (Feb 28, 2011)

So, if those rafter things can bear OK at just a 2X4 depth or whatever there is left there....

If so, why not cut off some more to just make a sloped ceiling?


----------



## mjesse (Feb 28, 2011)

That Romex will hold them up !!


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

They are pretty far from ok...as far as I am concerned. Beyond structure....which may or may not be able to be remedied, we need R-30 minimum....apparently the contractor should stick to kitchen remodels that do not involve structural work.


----------



## bgingras (Feb 28, 2011)

The rafter issue was just to distract you from the missing header over the door.


----------



## rktect 1 (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm ok with it if you can span the roof with 2x4's.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 28, 2011)

The Tapered members might be ok.

The overall depth of the member is based on what occurs in the middle of the span. At the bearing the big concerns are crushing and shear and the section may well be adequate to handle those.

Of course, rational analysis should be used to determine that.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 28, 2011)

I agree that if the roof rafter only needs to be a 2x4 they may be ok, the additional rafter width would not alarm me which would allow for R-30 insulation. But I have a concern with the triple Anderson window framing, should have a double cripple at the ends below the header I would think. Is the header already sagging?

pc1


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

Good spot PC! Called them on that also....they are picking up the rafters back about 6' w/ an LVL, therein reducing the loading on the header, jacks, and rafters....several issues there that are yet unresolved...even more on the rest of the framing...


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

BG....they are going to get to that,,,funny little remodel...difficult to work around......but no excuse for...." what do you mean both ends of the rafters have to have bearing"  I can just sister and extend them...right....Jeez. Hopefully I will get more pics soon.


----------



## Yankee (Feb 28, 2011)

Way on the left upper in the picture, is that a beam that the rafters are setting on?


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Way on the left upper in the picture, is that a beam that the rafters are setting on?


It wasn't intended to be....but I believe it is going to become one soon!


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 28, 2011)

I will take my usual stance. What is shown appears to be allowed.

The rafters seem to be proper for the span.

The insulation seems to be proper given that windows do not need R-30.

The header above the door is not yet finished.

---

If you don't know the code, don't get a job inspecting.


----------



## bgingras (Feb 28, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> The insulation seems to be proper given that windows do not need R-30.
> 
> ---
> 
> If you don't know the code, don't get a job inspecting.


The Window may not require R30, but I'm certain the roof/ceiling aseembly may need/require R30, and unless it's High density, closed cell Polyurethane foam I don't think they will get an R30 up there.


----------



## Mule (Feb 28, 2011)

I wouldn't allow what is there. The code only allows 1/4 of the depth of the rafter to be notched. The code does not say that if a joist or rafter is larger than required that you can notch the member to within the specidfications of the minimum required member. Sorry.. I don't buy it!

So you install a 14 foot 2X12 joist but all that the code requires is a 2X6.....you can go in and notch the middle of the joist out to 5 1/2 inches deep and 8' wide???? Do you think that would be within the code?


----------



## Mac (Feb 28, 2011)

Rafters that are whacked in that fasion tend to develop a split in the grain at the base of the bearing. Depending on the grain, it can split upwards or down. Either way it's poor practice and as Mule mentions, way overcut.


----------



## Mule (Feb 28, 2011)

That's why I gave the scenario of.....

So you install a 14 foot 2X12 joist but all that the code requires is a 2X6.....you can go in and notch the middle of the joist out to 5 1/2 inches deep and 8' wide???? Do you think that would be within the code?

As others stated it would be the same as.....Nope!!! The scenario I gave would do exactly as Mac stated. The weight would cause the 2X's to split...then where would the split go? Who knows???


----------



## Yankee (Feb 28, 2011)

Mac said:
			
		

> Rafters that are whacked in that fasion tend to develop a split in the grain at the base of the bearing. Depending on the grain, it can split upwards or down. Either way it's poor practice and as Mule mentions, way overcut.


If the split you mention is shaped like an eyebrow, it would be a textbook failure in "shear", which would indicate that the stresses were NOT accounted for in the rafter at the location.


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 28, 2011)

It appears the NDS for Wood Construction has formulas for tapered beams. (at least I expect it or similar references do.)

But if you are going to object to the taper, I would suggest you also need to object to to the bearing seats on most any rafter with an overhang.


----------



## Mule (Feb 28, 2011)

The bearing seats on rafters are within the code. Unless you over notch them! Rafters fall within the 1/4 rule. A 2X8 rafter can be notched 2 inches and meet code. Anything over that and you're not in compliance with the notching regulations.


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2011)

These were 2x10's cut down to about 4"....there were also some "extended" rafters that were half lapped to the old rafters nailed together and extended to new ridge....hopefully I will get some pics of those also...


----------



## brudgers (Feb 28, 2011)

Mule said:
			
		

> then where would the split go? Who knows???


Rational analysis can determine if a portion of the member is inadequate for the applied loads.

It's not mysterious.


----------



## Mule (Feb 28, 2011)

What is mysterious is when the wood splits as to where the split will travel. It all depends on the grain of the wood and where the split begins. I don't think anyone could determine that!


----------



## NH09 (Feb 28, 2011)

It is difficult to tell from the photo, but it appears this is a bumpout in between two sections of the building (rafters in the foreground and distance seem to be perpendicular to rafters in question). With such a shallow pitch are there any concerns about unbalanced snow loads? We have that problem up here when snow collects in valleys and between dormers.


----------



## Yankee (Feb 28, 2011)

Mule said:
			
		

> What is mysterious is when the wood splits as to where the split will travel. It all depends on the grain of the wood and where the split begins. I don't think anyone could determine that!


I think it all depends on the stresses that are creating the split as to when it is and where it goes from there


----------



## north star (Feb 28, 2011)

** * * **

Anybody have any pictures / hand drawings / sketches that they

can paste on here, with a recommended "compliant" fix?....How

would "you" fix it?

steveray,

Would you accept a letter from a structural engineer saying that

it is o.k. as installed?  Ya know, ...kinda like "have seal, ...will sell

for cookies?"  :lol:

** * * **


----------



## steveray (Mar 1, 2011)

NS...We kinda have to accept it from an engineer.....on structural anyway (not blindly, but that is another discussion)....  As I said previously, they are going to pick up the new rafters at an LVL put in the old exterior wall used to carry the existing ceiling joists, cutting that span to about 6' from like 20' Therein also reducing the load on the sketchy header and jacks on the right as well...Still no ideas on insulation, and many other structural issues...I have tried to arrange a meeting on site with their designer....and have been unsuccessful as of yet....


----------



## Yankee (Mar 1, 2011)

I would go with the engineers stamped assessment unless they can come up with some other framing documents from a referenced standard. Personally if the rafters were bearing on what looks like a beam, I would be pretty comfortable with it structurally (as far as I can see in the one picture).


----------



## NH09 (Mar 1, 2011)

I understand everyones point on the notching, by I alway thought that meant the notching of the minimum required rafter size, which in this case appears to be 2 x 6. It just looks worse because he's notching and over sized rafter. I think the tough part is getting in the required insulation without decreasing the headroom too much.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 1, 2011)

At the point where the biggest concern is insulation over a few square feet, any violation is trifling when it comes to this sort of renovation.


----------



## NH09 (Mar 1, 2011)

True brudgers, but if this renovation is in a northern climate then inadequate insulation/ventialtion is going to result in one heck of an ice dam, and many complaints to the building department down the road.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 1, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> I understand everyones point on the notching, by I alway thought that meant the notching of the minimum required rafter size, which in this case appears to be 2 x 6. It just looks worse because he's notching and over sized rafter. I think the tough part is getting in the required insulation without decreasing the headroom too much.


I wouldn't sweat the R factor at all. that's just me talkin'.


----------



## Darren Emery (Mar 1, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I will take my usual stance. What is shown appears to be allowed.If you don't know the code, don't get a job inspecting.


I'm curious - why is that your _usual stance?_  Seems to me accepting framing that may indeed be incorrect, inadequate, and in violation of the code is an unusual stance to take.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 1, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> True brudgers, but if this renovation is in a northern climate then inadequate insulation/ventialtion is going to result in one heck of an ice dam, and many complaints to the building department down the road.


Put on your big boy undies.


----------



## steveray (Mar 1, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Put on your big boy undies.


   My big boy undies went with me on about 80 roof calls in 2 days a couple weeks ago when the 60" of snow we had in January started melting.....if I can do anything to mitigate those before they become a problem, I will do it.....even if it means holding the contractors to the lowest standard allowed by law!

If the insulation was not coupled with at least 10 other violations...it would not be such a big deal, if they had know proper framing techniques or proper insulation vaues, all of the issues may have solved themselves. In the northern climates here, the insulation values usually drive the rafter sizing...we need a minimum of R-30 over the top plate, or R-38 to the edge of the wall...


----------



## pwood (Mar 1, 2011)

use rigid to get your r values in the suspect areas and compact batts in the other areas! next?


----------



## ajweaver (Mar 1, 2011)

Mule said:
			
		

> I wouldn't allow what is there. The code only allows 1/4 of the depth of the rafter to be notched. The code does not say that if a joist or rafter is larger than required that you can notch the member to within the specidfications of the minimum required member. Sorry.. I don't buy it!So you install a 14 foot 2X12 joist but all that the code requires is a 2X6.....you can go in and notch the middle of the joist out to 5 1/2 inches deep and 8' wide???? Do you think that would be within the code?


I have a question -bear with me I am a person still learning the codes and intent:

If the span chart says a 2x6 is required, and someone installs a 2x12 Why could they not notch or even rip the 2x12 to a 2x6 depth?

I would prefer on a uniformly loaded member like the one in the picture for the cut to be in compression vs tension- but still

My confusion lies in why would a 2x12 be loaded up any more than a 2x6 in the same scenario ?

 I understand the code says not more than one-fourth the depth and not in the middle third, but reading and thinking (dangerous for me)  makes me start to wonder if the intent was for lumber not oversized...

1-Does cutting/notching/ripping the wood cut on tension side add stress because it is no longer milled and grains/fibers are exposed?

2-Would you have a problem if the notch was on the compression side (top) of a uniformly loaded member notched from a 2x12 to a 2x6 with a 2x6 being an acceptable span.

Future lessons..thanks.


----------



## SBerg (Mar 1, 2011)

This illustrates resawn lumber.

And the use or resawn lumber is not allowed. The ANSI/AF & PA NDS-2005 section 4.1.7 (which is a referenced standard in the IBC and IRC) prohibits the use of tapered or ripped lumber after grading. NDS Section 4.4.3 limits the end notch to not exceed 1/4 the depth of the graded material.

Essentially the lumber needs to regraded and then a engineer can determine loading of those members.

Fail.


----------



## NH09 (Mar 1, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Put on your big boy undies.


Nice reply brudgers - way to keep this forum professional. I realize that in the south ice and snow are not an issue, but in the northeast ice damming is a common problem that can cause significant damage to a structure. If I can prevent a problem down the road by taking action now, and it is within the scope of the code I will do it. Like steveray I've been on a lot of roofs this winter and in a lot of cases a little extra work by the contractor could have prevented the problem.


----------



## ajweaver (Mar 1, 2011)

SBerg said:
			
		

> This illustrates resawn lumber.And the use or resawn lumber is not allowed. The ANSI/AF & PA NDS-2005 section 4.1.7 (which is a referenced standard in the IBC and IRC) prohibits the use of tapered or ripped lumber after grading. NDS Section 4.4.3 limits the end notch to not exceed 1/4 the depth of the graded material.
> 
> Essentially the lumber needs to regraded and then a engineer can determine loading of those members.
> 
> Fail.


I can understand the resawn..but tapered?

Rafters and ceiling joists are tapered with the roof pitch decking in a lot of houses.

I looked at the section you referenced.

It says resawn or remanufactured...I could not find the word tapered.

Resawn..making a 2x4 a 1x4..Remanufactured...making a 2x4 a 2x2. not allowed.

I learned something new..thanks.

I have allowed ripped (remanufactured) lumber in the past..anyone else?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 1, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> Nice reply brudgers - way to keep this forum professional. I realize that in the south ice and snow are not an issue, but in the northeast ice damming is a common problem that can cause significant damage to a structure. If I can prevent a problem down the road by taking action now, and it is within the scope of the code I will do it. Like steveray I've been on a lot of roofs this winter and in a lot of cases a little extra work by the contractor could have prevented the problem.


Don't worry, we got plenty of bureaucrats down here who are just as skilled as you in denying permits to keep their workload down. They are able to do so with similar rationalizations and the same smug self-satisfaction, too.

A code official playing "Gotcha" with permits and counting down the days until retirement is hardly unique.


----------



## JBI (Mar 2, 2011)

Two (basic) ways to adhere to Milton's Rule... 1) Plans (and work) comply with the prescriptive provisions of the Code or

                                                                2) Engineered design based on sound engineering principles.

I do agree with George on at least one point in this thread, the header over the interior door is simply incomplete. The jack studs are there, the header is yet to be installed.

What I do find troublesome however, is the cavalier attitude regarding what is obviously poor workmanship (and bad planning). Since the as-built roof does not comply with the prescriptive provisions of the Code (remember #1 above?), a Design Professional will be required to provide justification using sound engineering principles (#2 above)...

instead of playing "Gotcha" with the Code Official or counting down the days until retirement...  :-(


----------



## Yankee (Mar 2, 2011)

JBI said:
			
		

> Two (basic) ways to adhere to Milton's Rule... 1) Plans (and work) comply with the prescriptive provisions of the Code or2) Engineered design based on sound engineering principles.
> 
> I do agree with George on at least one point in this thread, the header over the interior door is simply incomplete. The jack studs are there, the header is yet to be installed.
> 
> ...


Your #2 above does NOT SPECIFY that a design profession be used, simply that sound engineering principles be used.


----------



## SBerg (Mar 2, 2011)

Yes, tapered rafters are resawn lumber. They must be regraded to comply with the loading characteristics of the material.

You can cut to achieve the correct length, and notch to no more than 1/4 the depth at bearing points.

The issue is if a member ripped (or tapered) a knot or check could reduce the effective strength of that member. Hence, needs regrading.


----------



## Mule (Mar 2, 2011)

With the tapered on the top say the way you cut off joists so it won't get in the way of the decking, there isn't enough loading on that type of cut that will cause failure.

On a cut off (tapered) the bottom there is load from the top which could cause the taper to fail...split at a wood grain.







I know not a taper but......


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 2, 2011)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I'm curious - why is that your _usual stance?_  Seems to me accepting framing that may indeed be incorrect, inadequate, and in violation of the code is an unusual stance to take.


It is my usual stance here: due to the fact that those who post pictures here tend to lack engineering judgment.

I don't expect AHJs or inspectors to have engineering judgment. It is not a job requirement. They should simply follow the prescriptions or submitted engineering.

Lacking enough details to be definitive I can accept that the construction is prescriptive code compliant.

---

Real quick engineering analysis: If I recall: comments were made that from the left support to the right support is 20' and that the rafter is sufficient for that span. And the right most span is 6'. The 14' span is certainly ok. That gives me an approval for a 7' (1/2 of the 14') unsupported cantilever. And that makes the remaining 6' ok. I am done.

Snow and ice dams may be a problem but there is not enough information to make any rational decision.


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 2, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Your #2 above does NOT SPECIFY that a design profession be used, simply that sound engineering principles be used.


The code only requires engineering. There is no obligation for a builder to employ an engineer. He can simply do the engineering himself. (He cannot do engineering for a third party unless he is licensed, but he can do it for himself.)


----------



## brudgers (Mar 2, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Snow and ice dams may be a problem but there is not enough information to make any rational decision.


 But ironically it is enough for people to deny a permit.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 2, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> The code only requires engineering. There is no obligation for a builder to employ an engineer. He can simply do the engineering himself. (He cannot do engineering for a third party unless he is licensed, but he can do it for himself.)


Well no, actually in my State he can't (do engineering for himself outside of the prescriptive).


----------



## NH09 (Mar 2, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Don't worry, we got plenty of bureaucrats down here who are just as skilled as you in denying permits to keep their workload down. They are able to do so with similar rationalizations and the same smug self-satisfaction, too.A code official playing "Gotcha" with permits and counting down the days until retirement is hardly unique.


On a project such as this I doubt the inspector had a complete set of plans, in most cases the contractor comes in with a rough sketch and frames the project as they go along - so a permit would not be denied. If we required the contractor to submit a complete set of plans for every small project they'd go under. In most cases we issue the permit and inspect along the way, if we happen to catch the contractor before they have done something wrong everybody wins, but if they have to make a correction (which may be the case with these rafters) then so be it, it's their responsibility to know the code. You should also notice on my previous reply that I stated "taking action..within the scope of the code", which means I do not require a contractor to exceed the code requirements, I only recommend changes based on problems I have seen; most contractors appreciate this, no one wants to go back to fix a leaky roof.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 2, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> On a project such as this I doubt the inspector had a complete set of plans, in most cases the contractor comes in with a rough sketch and frames the project as they go along - so a permit would not be denied. If we required the contractor to submit a complete set of plans for every small project they'd go under. In most cases we issue the permit and inspect along the way, if we happen to catch the contractor before they have done something wrong everybody wins, but if they have to make a correction (which may be the case with these rafters) then so be it, it's their responsibility to know the code. You should also notice on my previous reply that I stated "taking action..within the scope of the code", which means I do not require a contractor to exceed the code requirements, I only recommend changes based on problems I have seen; most contractors appreciate this, no one wants to go back to fix a leaky roof.


  I take back what I said.

What with your issuing permits without documents and then forcing changes to in place construction, you are a true champion of "gotcha."

But please, stop pretending that your method winds up saving people money.


----------



## NH09 (Mar 2, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I take back what I said.What with your issuing permits without documents and then forcing changes to in place construction, you are a true champion of "gotcha."
> 
> But please, stop pretending that your method winds up saving people money.


Fair enough, and I hate having to force an expensive fix on a contractor who's on a tight enough budget as it is, but with renovations it's difficult to know what's going to be behind the wall before starting the project. If I start requiring detailed plan sets from contractors prior to starting work it will mean they have to do some demolition prior to getting the permit. I don't mind, but most homeowners would probably object. Sometimes it's easier to demo everything at once and plan from there. Maybe a possible solution is to hold a "post demolition meeting" in those situations so a plan can be developed prior to framing and prevent costly changes.


----------



## JBI (Mar 2, 2011)

"Engineered design', one must be a design professional in NYS to provide an engineered design...


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 2, 2011)

Very interesting discussions......do go on


----------



## Rio (Mar 3, 2011)

Regarding the possibility of the rafters splitting we had a project where the engineer notched the end of a series of joists to achieve a slope for a deck; when the plan checker saw it (another engineer) he said while it was legal to do so it was also asking for the joists to split there and suggested we laminate plywood to the sides of the joists, in effect tying the joist back together above and below the notch. I think something similar could be done in this situation and it would likely reduce or eliminate the splitting concern.


----------

