Opinion requested on patio roof

At what point would you make an issue/comment on a patio or carport roof supported by the rafter tails of the house roof? We rarely get a little snow here, so that is not much of an issue.

Here is my latest one. The attachment itself is good (2 x 6 ledger/facia with hangers). I just worry about the stress (e.g. upward lift on the interior portion) on the rafter tails/trusses.


"Opinion requested on patio roof"

O.K. We’ll get some deck chairs and some lemonade and go up on the roof–and I’ll give you an opinion on just about everything.

BTW, I used to live in Eureka.

The rafters are probably connected to the exterior wall with hurricane clips. I wouldn’t consider it a problem if that were the case.

Ralph …the only problem i would have with that here is that it is way too flat for snow load…jim

You think it looks weak? I think it looks weak. It is typical for an add-on carport, though. I’d recommend a check for a builder’s permit or plans, maybe monitoring for signs of stress at the rafter/wall junction and the attachment of the fascia board, and don’t let Jae up there until the owner signs a waiver. :stuck_out_tongue:

John Kogel


Do you have a closer view photo of this attachment?


No I don’t, but the 2 x 6 facia/ledger was attached to each rafter tail with a steel hanger and the patio roof (2 x 4 ) rafters (?) were attached at the the opposite side of the 2 x 6 at each rafter tail with a hanger. One of the better attachments I’ve seen.


Based upon the information provided…

My curiosity/concern is not so much with the stress at the rafter/wall junction, as I am with the method of connection of the ledger/facia board to the house rafter ends. I have no concern of the 2x4 rafter connection to the ledger. Even though you state that your area has little snow accumulation, it would not take much, with the wrong hangar/connector over time, for downward pressure to cause the entire carport roof to collapse. I see alot of ‘crap’ work in my area on patios, decks, carports, etc… that has caused me to take a triple look at connections. I am in no way an expert on available connectors and their use, but I cannot think of a single hangar out there that would be appropriate for this connection when considering the transfer of download forces upon it. I browsed through the Simpson/StrongTie products, and find no connectors listed for this connection/load. Maybe I just missed it, dunno. http://www.strongtie.com/products/category_list.html
Also, as obvious as this sounds, whatever hangar method was used, was there a proper fastener *in every hole? *I find that 90% of the time there is not. Every hangar manufacturer states every hole must have a proper fastener in it.

Hope this was some help to you.


Unless I saw evidence of failure I wouldn’t call anything about it. Actually seems better than many.

I am curious how they used a hanger to connect the ledger to the rafter tails. The load on the hanger is in the wrong direction. There would be load transfered through the fasteners, but not through the hanger seat. I suppose one could make a saw cut in the rafter tail and install the hanger with the seat oriented up.

I’ve done that…think cantilevered joists/doubled rim joists connection with bearing wall above.

I can see your point. I can’t recall how it was done. It seemed OK at the time.
That’s why you can’t take too many pictures. I have seen many issues in the pictures that I did not see when I was there.


How did it feel when you walked it?

This is CA bro :cool: We ain’t got no hurricanes here :wink:

Seriously though, you should always make the client aware of this type of installation. The CBC requires patio covers to be attached to the vertical wall and not the eaves.

When you see this type of installation, you can be sure it was built without the appropriate building-permits.

It felt fine, I was suspicious of the thickness of the plywood though due to some flex. It was covered with flashed down modified bitumen, so I figured the roofers walked it.

Thanks for the input. I didn’t think it was technically correct.