Is it OK to frame a roof like this?

[coz]

Hello all. I've done some poking around here and think you guys might be able to help me out. I'm interested in buying a house in central Georgia. I found a builder who makes very nice looking and well amenitied houses. Of course my wife likes it, but I'm more concerned about how well made it is. The builder gave me the access codes to get into 4 houses he has built that are from 90% to 100% complete. So I took the opportunity to get up in the attic and see how things are put together. I have never seen a roof put up the way this house was done and wanted to know if it is OK to build a roof the way they did. Everything is toenailed and no joist hangers or hurricane anchors are used.

Pics are here (http://picasaweb.google.com/craigosbo/QuestionableConstructionPractices)

[Richard A Hetzel]

It isn't easy to get a clear picture of how everything works together from the photos. The rafters do not necessarily have to align on both sides of the hip rafter. When rafters bear on the tops of the ceiling joists as was pictured, it is recommended that there be a continuous rim joist. I don't know if one can be retrofitted at this late date, but it can be done on your house. I don't understand the flimsy little purlin running across all the rafters; it's not going to support anything. I also don't know why there are hangers from the rafter to the beam...no way to know whether it's right, or whether it's doing anything. Perhaps you can discuss the framing with the local building inspector. They probably can't give you an on-the-record opinion, but you sure can see if his eyes roll.

[Don_P]

It is hard to get the full picture without being there. The rafter foot on the plate is no good. It looks like he tried to get some height but there is now no tie and as Richard noticed no lateral restraint on the ceiling joists. If the pitches are the same then the rafters should normally "shake hands" across the hip. If they are dissimilar pitches then they can't. Do the braces land on bearing walls? A home inspector would be another option.

[coz]

The braces land on bearing walls or a beam that spans across exterior walls.
The brace in the picture is nailed into a butt joint in the ridge board.

[Joe Carola]

Hello all. I've done some poking around here and think you guys might be able to help me out. I'm interested in buying a house in central Georgia. I found a builder who makes very nice looking and well amenitied houses. Of course my wife likes it, but I'm more concerned about how well made it is. The builder gave me the access codes to get into 4 houses he has built that are from 90% to 100% complete. So I took the opportunity to get up in the attic and see how things are put together. I have never seen a roof put up the way this house was done and wanted to know if it is OK to build a roof the way they did. Everything is toenailed and no joist hangers or hurricane anchors are used.

Pics are here (http://picasaweb.google.com/craigosbo/QuestionableConstructionPractices)

They raised the rafters so that the Glulam was under the top of the rafters. It's marked wity the X.

The ceiling joists should have a continuous box around the perimeter.

There should be either angled braces going from the rafters back to the ceiling joists or, hurricane ties.

The last ceiling joist running perpendicular to the rafters should be doubled and the small ceiling joist (outriggers)running parallel to the rafters should have hangers on them.

[coz]

Wow! Joe thanks for the comments. I appreciate the time you put into answering this question.
Couldn't they have just cut a 45% angle into the beam. Its a solid wood beam, not a glulam, if that makes a difference.

[Richard A Hetzel]

It isn't correct to cut a beam so that its height is reduced outboard of the bearing point. In other words, at the point where the beam rests on a wall top plate, the beam should be full depth.

[Joe Carola]

It isn't correct to cut a beam so that its height is reduced outboard of the bearing point. In other words, at the point where the beam rests on a wall top plate, the beam should be full depth.

Richard,

I've cut many beams (Glulams, LVL's)where the cut goes in beyond the inside of the wall with the height reduced. They were all spec'd on the plans by the Architect. There have been times where the Architect missed where the top of a beam has to be cut and I will call them up and they will either come out to the field, or I suggest that we add blocks in between the ceiling joists to raise the rafter up so that we don't have to cut to much out of the beam.

Also, the Architect will tell me the exact amount that I can cut out of the beam and I will raise the plates, or sometimes I've have to sit the rafters on top of the ceiling joists because to much of the beam would have to be cut.

Point is that, in some situation the cut can go beyond the bearing point and not be full depth.

[Richard A Hetzel]

Agreed. it can, if the member is engineered, and especially shear strength with the reduced height checked. My point was that an owner or a builder should not simply lop off a chunk of the beam to fit under a roof, without proper guidance. Good for you for knowing to put the designer "on the spot" before just cutting and forgetting.

[Don_P]

Those were good observations on the roof Joe. I've been trying to remember the exact quote on clipping something like the beam. It was under R502.8.1 You can notch the ends of a joist, rafter or beam up to 1/4 depth. If it goes inboard it is limited to 1/6 the depth for a length of no more than 1/3 the depth. Engineered products as per manufacturer specs.