Originally Posted By: Dallas McNab This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I am in the process of selling my house and had an inspection done for my peace of mind. The inspection revealed a couple of things I knew about and had planned to fix, plus a couple of others I didn’t know about, and disagree about.
In the attic, there are a couple of cross ties about mid way up the rafters. The inspector referred to these as collar ties. I disagreed with him and told him they were only there to support the HVAC ductwork and not to prevent roof spreading. He put it in his report anyway. The rafters are 2x8's, 12/12 pitch running parallel with the 2x10 ceiling joists. I tried to convince him that the ceiling joists were acting as "rafter ties" but he disagreed.
Also, in the crawls space he found one of the support columns was too far to one side and the beam it supported was only on it 1". He said that was less than the minimum required. I tried to explain than the 2x12 floor joists above that beam supported only the floor above and the 18' span was less than the span table for 2x12's, ergo, the beam and the support column were not even needed. He didn't buy it. He said I needed to build an additional column out of masonry and fill it with concrete. The contractor I had come in and build the column refused to fill it with concrete saying that the concrete added nothing but addition weight on the footer. He said I could do it, but he didn't recommend it.
Originally Posted By: mkober This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Collar ties, typically located in the (vertical) upper two-thirds of the attic (we always put them at the third-point back in my nail-whacking days), are not intended to prevent exterior walls from spreading, but rather serve to prevent uplift of the roof under heavy wind-load conditions. While you didn’t mention what “he put in his report anyway,” you are correct in your assumption that continuous ceiling joists are what keep exterior walls from spreading under heavy roof loads. You might want to print out some recent information from this board–do a search under “collar ties”–and include it as your addendum to the HI’s report, along with providing a copy to the inspector. You could also point out that no mention of bowed exterior walls was made in the report, if that is the case.
As for the support column situation in the crawl space, you could have considered hiring an engineer to run the numbers on the load-carrying capacity of the main beam under maximum load conditions (house full of people) before bringing in a contractor. Depending on the spacing of adjacent columns and strength of the beam, it's very likely that the misaligned column may not be required at all. Physical properties of the beam would have to be determined or conservatively assumed. Chances are the beam was installed to minimize live load deflection--no one likes "bouncy" floors--with the strength of the floor joists not being a controlling factor.
While collar ties alone are usually totally inadequate to prevent rafter spread, is does help to some degree. However, they are primarily there to prevent uplift/spreading where the rafters are framed to the ridge as Mike noted. It seems like missing collar/ridge ties may be a concern in any case on the surface, but you can always ask for a report clarification as to why the inspector flagged that if it's not clear in the report.
Concerning the bearing at the pier, construction guidelines would require at least 3" of bearing for a wood joist/beam sitting on concrete or masonry. Bearing too close to an edge is a concern due to the possibility of an edge crack and loss of support.
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Dallas McNab This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
Concerning the bearing at the pier, construction guidelines would require at least 3" of bearing for a wood joist/beam sitting on concrete or masonry. Bearing too close to an edge is a concern due to the possibility of an edge crack and loss of support.
Thanks for the quick replies.
Yes, the 3" is the number he used. It was just as easy to have it fixed as to try to get an engineer out for such a small job and then having to fix it anyway.
Any ideas on the filling the support columns with concrete or not. The original columns were not and he wrote that is his report as well.
Michael,
Specifically he wrote:
[/quote]The roof framing appeared to be in satisfactory and serviceable condition at the time of the report. Collar ties would be installed on every third rafter to prevent the possibility of the roof spreading as the house ages. Although some cross collar ties were installed on the rafters, the required number was not installed on the right side of the attic.[/quote]
I tried to get a 2x6-16 up into the attic and could not. So if I could have easily made it the way he wanted it, I would have. But unless I splice the boards, there is no easy fix. Even so, given what I have learned, 16' would not get the cross ties into the bottom third of the rafters anyway where they need to be.
Originally Posted By: mkober This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Your inspector was possibly trying to “stay on the safe side” by pointing out what he considered a defect, unless local codes require masonry piers to be filled solid. The 2003 International Residential Code (Section R 606.5) does not require block to be filled solid, with certain dimensional constraints–i.e., unsupported height less than four times the block’s least dimension. So if your piers are 8 x 8 x 16 block and not more than four courses high, you meet current IRC requirements. A lot of us could be making a lot more money if we would be paid to point out every single inconsistency with current code in the houses we inspect, but we are not in the code enforcement business. I limit my references to code exceptions only when trying to emphasize serious safety issues (such as gas lines placed on the ground surface instead of being buried–don’t laugh, had one last month).
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If the inspector flagged the inadequate bearing to be fixed get that repaired, and if he also flagged the ungrouted masonry piers as a support issue or concern get that done or have it looked at more closely by an engineer per your inspector’s recommendations. Either that or get a second opinion from another inspector. We are all looking at a distance here, without being up-close-and-personal as your inspector was.
Probably easier to just have both addressed at the same time by a good licensed/qualified contractor, and on the surface it doesn't appear your inspector is really totally off base from what you are posting. And it's probably not a huge expense/issue compared to the sale price of the house if that is consistant with your inspector's recommendations.
Just my opinion and 2-nickles ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: mkober This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Sorry for the delay (had creepy-crud the last few days). I do not possess an earlier IRC than the 2003, but I’m sure some members do. Twelve courses of 8" block, and you call it a crawl space? Around here we call them basements, but yes, that is a lot of mud to mix/lift/pour. I know I’d explore all of the options before going that route.