# Make a believer out'a me



## ICE (Jul 19, 2011)

The overhang is 42" and the tail is 3" deep at the seat cut.  I pointed it out and the contractor assured me that it's plenty strong.  I asked him to show me by standing on the edge.  He declined.


----------



## Moscow (Jul 19, 2011)

Come on at least they have the strapping on the post and beam what more can you ask for?


----------



## peach (Jul 19, 2011)

only need to subject the edge to the code required loading... get an engineer to prove it's "plenty strong".


----------



## ICE (Jul 19, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> only need to subject the edge to the code required loading... get an engineer to prove it's "plenty strong".


In this case the code said one chubby contractor...... And as far as getting an engineer......most engineers would be too smart to climb out there.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 20, 2011)

If we could only require that the contractor personally load test the overhang by hanging fron the edge we would have fewer contrators complaining about engineers overdesigning.  We would also end up with more Darwin awards for contractors and fewer overweight contractors.


----------



## KZQuixote (Jul 21, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> If we could only require that the contractor personally load test the overhang by hanging fron the edge we would have fewer contrators complaining about engineers overdesigning.  We would also end up with more Darwin awards for contractors and fewer overweight contractors.


Course we could also end up creating a whole class of skinny contractors masquerading as eave loading compliance specialists.

Bill


----------



## FredK (Jul 21, 2011)

You guys are too funny.  I would have accept a load placed on the roof.


----------



## 4thorns (Jul 21, 2011)

Unless I miss my guess that's a palm tree behind the house on the left. Mother Nature more than likely won't load this roof too much gravity wise.(wind/uplift could be an issue). Might be the reason they spanned so far with the rafters. Actually you got to figure that someone got on it to lay the boards. And someone is going to have to get on it to Shingle or cover it with whatever the finished roof will be. It would be interesting to see what loads an engineer would accept for this application.


----------



## peach (Jul 21, 2011)

an engineer is going to calculate it to be ok.. winds are probably a bigger threat than snow in this case.

Oh hey.. that's $200


----------



## 4thorns (Jul 21, 2011)

That 200 bucks had better been include in the original contract.


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's the rest of the story.  One of the contractors workers walked out to the edge and it sagged.  He weighed 138# and could have snapped the tail with ease.

I told them to cut it back to two ft. and try it again.


----------



## peach (Jul 21, 2011)

again.. gravity loads are not as much of an issue as uplift or seismic, I think, in this situation..


----------



## 4thorns (Jul 21, 2011)

Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2011)

4thorns said:
			
		

> Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?


I would have no clue.


----------



## jpranch (Jul 21, 2011)

This is just too good!!! This is the kind of thread that makes this website so good.

"Course we could also end up creating a whole class of skinny contractors masquerading as eave loading compliance specialists." Now thats funny! Sad but true funny!

"

an engineer is going to calculate it to be ok.. winds are probably a bigger threat than snow in this case.

Oh hey.. that's $200"

Sad but true.


----------



## KZQuixote (Jul 21, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> Here's the rest of the story.  One of the contractors workers walked out to the edge and it sagged.  He weighed 138# and could have snapped the tail with ease.I told them to cut it back to two ft. and try it again.


It's not that I disagree with your concern but I doubt that you have authority to stipulate the overhang, in quite that manner.

Bill


----------



## incognito (Jul 22, 2011)

Probably would be better to give them a choice, a). cut back to whatever? or b) get an engineers stamp.


----------



## pwood (Jul 22, 2011)

had the same situation here on a house and it was fine for 25 years in a 40#  snow load area. year 26 didn't go so well! overhang was flush with the wall when the noise stopped.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 22, 2011)

4thorns said:
			
		

> Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?


I am no engineer but my guess is if he was standing on his 2 feet then the load was about 69 pounds per foot


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2011)

Now this I can live with.  It has occurred to me that I didn't include a salient point.  The tail was created by ripping a 2"x6" rafter to a 2"x4" rafter tail.  That is common and I have seen them snap due to knots at the stress point.  This one has changed from a 45" lever to an 18" lever.  Two guys stood on it today and it didn't move.

I wouldn't send this to an engineer because it wouldn't fly at 45".  When the skinny kid stood on it, the deflection was better than an inch.  Even if the math justified 45", I doubt if the engineer would go along with the rip.  I could be wrong about the rip, so if any engineers out there could weigh in, I would appreciate hearing from you.  Tell me where your bar tab is and I'll send you a beer or two.


----------



## KZQuixote (Jul 23, 2011)

Don't need no Stinking Enjineers!

Ripping a graded piece of lumber invalidates the grade stamp.

Been there, Done that and suffered the consequences.

Bill


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2011)

that was my point.. if snow isn't an issue, the gravity load at the eave isn't as much of an issue as wind.


----------

