Split rafters over garage

Hip style roof added onto the side of the home for garage addition. Rafters split down the middle.
For some odd reason they also took the corner beams and cut them in half lenght ways as well about half way up.
No obvious problems were noted but why split the rafters?

Bueller, Bueller??

Wow, you guys are on the ball tonight.

Just in from working all day myself…

I’m not sure I see what you’re referring to. What is the actual dimension of the rafter?

I’m not sure either. The spacing between the rafters seems excessive.

Do you know if it was a permitted addition?

I tend to think not. What was the approx. length of the rafters?

I do not see any advantage to framing like that, unless they thought they were stiffening the middle of the span. But that would have been better done with blocking.

Did the rest of the work look like the 3 Stooges did it with short-cuts?

Ohhhhhhh. The rafters don’t run the full length down to the plate. Is that what you are referring to?

Jeff answered it. Barry did also. It has to do with length from top to bottom. They were split half way down and supported. The roof was stable but still want to CYA.

Glad to see the little light bulb come on John. :smiley:

It looks like they hacked out part of the hip rafter to install the upright support and then continued with a hip rafter that is too small. Also, there are not adequate connections made at the rafter and beam joints. And the beam appears too small. It is a bastard hip for sure. I’d not want a heavy snow load or large inspector up there.

My jurisdiction would require hangers, but I don’t think those are available in TN :wink:

I noted it and suggested them have it further investigated if they choose to. I said it seemed to be functioning but not a common building practice.

How do they continually come up with ways to do this stuff is beyond me.

“Unorthodox attic framing methods.” Refer to a PE.

http://www.knoxnews.com/data/East-Tennessee-meth/ :stuck_out_tongue:

Some good illustrations here: http://www.nachi.org/gallery/framing/framing.

Absolutely unnecessary. Conventional framing does not require engineering.

Dimensional lumber has already been “engineered” to carry specific loads based on size, spacing and span. Any qualified framing contractor can make necessary modifications and/or corrections.

Only engineered systems (such as trusses) require evaluation, design and approval from a PE.

Key word…

The keyword is “conventional”. How do you determine the proper length or strength of an unconventional rafter assembly when its joined by nails and extended in the middle like that? What table do I get that out of? The unorthodox connection and lack of bearing is clearly wrong and should be professionally evaluated in my opinion. Some complicated *Math *needs to be performed.

2009 IRC R802.6 Bearing. The ends of each rafter or ceiling joist shall have
not less than 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) of bearing on wood or metal and
not less than 3 inches (76 mm) on masonry or concrete.

Good purlin pic.

As I mentioned previously, this framing should have included framing hardware, which would take the place of “bearing” requirements.

I’m certainly not saying this set up is acceptable, just that it does not require the services of an engineer.

Then you are using the board used to join the 2 rafters as an unconventional *ledger *with 2x4 supports every 4 feet or so. Is the ledger adequate to support the roof and snow loads? Only an engineer knows for sure.

Depends on the load and span, which are predefined (pre-engineered) for dimensional lumber.

I would call it a “beam” in this case, and not a “ledger.” The joists should be secured with hangers, and the maximum “beam” load can be determined through standard framing tables.

Again, that is not to say that this is an adequate framing method.