Acceptable truss?

Saw this in an attic. Definetely didn’t think it was engineered this way. Question is, won’t a structural engineer want to slap me for calling him out on this and what would be the remedy? The realtor was not happy but I said it looks a little to unprofessional for me. Wierd thing is, both sides of the house had this supporting the porch and in the garage. By the way, I’m trying to attach something for the first time.

nachi post photos.jpg

Dylan,

It appears this rafter bears on the exterior eave wall of the truss. Did it have load bearing at the eave end of the rafter?

If so, and the rafter span is sufficient, I see nothing wrong with it.

I suspect that the trusses were meant for, say, 16" spacing and someone put them on, say, 20" spacing to save some money on some trusses. Then, when they put the roof on, they got a little excessive (little excessive?) flexing and added the sisters to try to improve the situation.

By the way, we always comment on cut/damaged/altered trusses. Does anyone have any sort of a disclaimer about whether or not the trusses were installed at the proper distance from each other to begin with? Skipping one truss (or more) and spacing all the others out a few inches or so can have a detrimental effect on the engineering design of the roof.

I originally thought the rafter was attached to the side of the unmodified truss and spanned out past the eave wall to form a roof outside.

After I lightened up the pic some I agree with Russel. It appears the truss was cut/modified. I would recommend obtaining verification, in writing, that the repair was/is signed off on by a qualified engineer.

Oh, here’s the lightened pic:

nachi%20post%20photos (Small).jpg

Is the area not covered by insulation an outside porch area? If the trusses are sitting on load bearing walls it could be that the roof line was extended with the 2x6 rafters to cover the a porch area and the 2x6’s rest on a beam at the edge of the porch.

Yes, that’s possible. It really is hard to say for sure from a picture.

That’s why I said:

[FONT=Verdana]

[/FONT]

It appears the rafters are 2x8 and the top cord of the truss is 2x6. :stuck_out_tongue:

For whatever reason, it appears the truss was manufactured for this ternination at the exterior bearing wall and meant for future design alterations and add ons.

Since the add on on the rafters are obvious and attached to the rafter of the designed truss at the panel point which is supported on the exterior bearing wall, I see no alarming concerns.
I would note in the report that the design of the trusses for future add ons, is unclear and recommend further evaluation by a reputable framing Contractor at this point.

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

I do not like it.
If there is not an LSE stamp someware on those additions and no verifiable permit I would call it out.

Good job Dylan.

JMO

Are the trusses not just “sistered” for extra support?

Think Blaine may be on the right track here. Also noticed the lack of H clips with the raw edge of the OSB panel in between the two trusses. That omission will allow a lot of flexing in a large span of roofing material.

That’s what I was trying to say. You did a better job of saying it than did I. I’ve seen sistering becase the trusses were spaced further apart than what they were engineered for and the roofers noticed the flexing when they put the shingles on.

There are way too many reasons this could have been added. I would make a not in your report, but I wouldn’t recommend further evaluation unless the original paper work isn’t in place.

I don’t think I would have called out the trusses as in need of further evaluation assuming there are bearing walls where they should be. However, I don’t like the fact that the 2x6 rafters do not bear on anything. They are relying on the strength of the nails in shear. If I were building this, I would have put a 2x4 running vertically under each 2x6 to cary the load down to the bearing wall.

They are not sistered. I should’ve taken a picture from a different angle, but i will say the trusses were definetly cut. The 2x6’s lap about a foot onto the trusses. I might mention, they have already had 3000 dollars in roof repair and the house is 10 years old.

Those are tails used to extend the roof overhang. There could be a variety of reasons it wasn’t done with the truss tail, but most likely has to do with overhang length.

-Kent

Dylan, if those aren’t nailed to the side of the truss, what’s holding them in place?

Dylan mentioned that they are overlapped to the truss approximately 1 foot, so it is nailed for that foot… but there is not truss top chord to sister to beyond that foot down to the other end. The trusses are clearly cut flush with the load bearing wall and don’t extend over the porch area.

Dyaln
Is it OK? Absolutley not. The one foot of rafter overlap with each truss does not provide sufficient nailing surface. I doubt the engineered plans allowed this.
I could see use of a Simpson strong tie connectors secured to the flush end of the truss, and supporting the rafter, since this connection lands on a load bearing wall, …but it all depends on if these trusses are designed for that application.
You would be right to document the concern, and recommend further evaluation.

I agree, is this a typical truss design? No. Could this be a properly designed connection to transfer the loads? Yes. Can you tell just by looking? No.

Make a note of it, I would recommend the SE stamped paperwork be verified.

Looked at this again and seem to come back to my original response.

Could it be that:

The trusses were manufactured for this type of vertical face at the exterior wall? The vertical cord member at that location seems to indicate that.

Is it possible that the owner or whomever, decided to add a continued roof for a covered porch? The extended rafters seem to indicate that.

Was the spacing have been 16" or 20" as was commented? Two foot spacing is standard, except the California spacing of 19 3/16" o.c. spacing. That what those little marks are on you tape rules.

Was the add on 2"x8" rafter splice done properly? NO

Does it void the truss manufactures warranty? NO The truss was not modified.

Was the truss cut off. NO If it had been, you would not be looking at a vertical member at the bearing wall location.

Does this need a Structural Engineers review or recommendation? Only if you want to spend unneccessary monies.

Do you want to recommend further evaluation? Yes A competent local Residential Framing Contractor.

Would more pictures of the outside help? Yes

Hope this helps.

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :smiley: