This was on a saltbox style house…not sure on the age. 2x4’s on the short side then on the long side the top half was 2x4s then switched over to 2x6s on bottom half. It seems to me that the rafters are mostly supported at the ridge by the 2x8 header beam. Overall span about 24’ with one support in the middle. The 2x8 header doubled up in the middle but it’s only 1-2x8 on each half.
It seems all a little jimmy-rigged to me but I’d appreciate any advice on what exactly is defective…considering its an old house. Thanks.
Besides the load design at the Gable I wouldn’t make an issue of it, especially if there is no sign of failure.
Just because something is not built “Conventionally” does not mean it will not suffice.
This certainly does not look like something that was done last year.
If there is no sag in the Ridge, no doors, window, screwed up, sticking, I doubt I’d mention anything except possibly beef the Gable end, but I have no idea what is below without more photos information.
When I walked the roof, it felt a little spongy. I’d didn’t see any unusual sag in the ridge or rafters. Actually from the exterior, because of the middle support on the long side rafters, there was a slight rise or bump up in the middle of the long slope.
In reference to the windows, which were the old double-hung with mostly broken ropes, they all opened and closed just fine…I couldn’t believe it. Here’s a few more shots.
From a technical standpoint I would not be worried by the rafters, however the connection at the ridge is a concern. When they widened the house they rotated the original rafter creating that large gap. Now the rafter needs a ledger board for support. I think the connection of the rafter at the top is inadequate. The mid span support could be suspect if the support does not terminate on a support wall. (I can not see the connection between the 2x4 & 2x6 so that area may need more work) Best I advice I can give based on you photos.
That kind of work will bring issues around here and one of them might be a court suit for not reporting it and recommending a contractor write it off.
Those retired people in your neck of the woods will never make it to the attic so your OK there,but here we are full of Lawyers.
The gap at the top of those rafters is enough of an issue to take notice and have it looked at.
I do not know about you guys but I am not a structural Engineer so CYA.I think that wood is old enough it was cut with a 2 man saw and carved with a draw knife myself.
For the age and size of that little house, I would not be too concerned, with that rough sawn lumber and spans.
Seen worse, and were there for years. Can’t change the early years of framing other than note it does not meet today’s standard and load capacities of today.
I would have to agree. There is alot going on in this attic, although I could point out many concerns, I believe the best way to handle this is to state that it is not built by todays standards and shows possible signs of modifications over the years, including the addition of roof sheathing. It appears that this structure may have had a metal roof originally, without any roof sheathing underneath. There is no way that an inspector can make a judgement call on the structural integrity of something like this without the benifit of an in depth structural analysis from a qualified Structural Engineer. Cover your butt as best you can.
I see this was posted last year but I also agree with Bob I see alterations and many questionable building code violations here.I see a safety problem and also agree it warrants further evaluation by a framing contractor.
The thread was actually started 7/29/2010. Don’t confuse the thread date (which is the date shown in the upper left corner of each post) with the member join date which is shown in the upper right hand corner of each thread. Ive made the mistake a few times as well. The member join date is when the actual mamber joined InterNACHI, not the thread.
