Acceptable truss?

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Those are tails used to extend the roof overhang. There could be a variety of reasons it wasn't done with the truss tail, but most likely has to do with overhang length.

-Kent

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Dylan, if those aren't nailed to the side of the truss, what's holding them in place?

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by kshepard

Dylan, if those aren't nailed to the side of the truss, what's holding them in place?

Dylan mentioned that they are overlapped to the truss approximately 1 foot, so it is nailed for that foot... but there is not truss top chord to sister to beyond that foot down to the other end. The trusses are clearly cut flush with the load bearing wall and don't extend over the porch area.

Dyaln
Is it OK? Absolutley not. The one foot of rafter overlap with each truss does not provide sufficient nailing surface. I doubt the engineered plans allowed this.
I could see use of a Simpson strong tie connectors secured to the flush end of the truss, and supporting the rafter, since this connection lands on a load bearing wall, ...but it all depends on if these trusses are designed for that application.
You would be right to document the concern, and recommend further evaluation.

[jwilliams7]

Originally Posted by ccoombs

There are way too many reasons this could have been added. I would make a not in your report, but I wouldn't recommend further evaluation unless the original paper work isn't in place.

I agree, is this a typical truss design? No. Could this be a properly designed connection to transfer the loads? Yes. Can you tell just by looking? No.

Make a note of it, I would recommend the SE stamped paperwork be verified.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Looked at this again and seem to come back to my original response.

Could it be that:

The trusses were manufactured for this type of vertical face at the exterior wall? The vertical cord member at that location seems to indicate that.

Is it possible that the owner or whomever, decided to add a continued roof for a covered porch? The extended rafters seem to indicate that.

Was the spacing have been 16" or 20" as was commented? Two foot spacing is standard, except the California spacing of 19 3/16" o.c. spacing. That what those little marks are on you tape rules.

Was the add on 2"x8" rafter splice done properly? NO

Does it void the truss manufactures warranty? NO The truss was not modified.

Was the truss cut off. NO If it had been, you would not be looking at a vertical member at the bearing wall location.

Does this need a Structural Engineers review or recommendation? Only if you want to spend unneccessary monies.

Do you want to recommend further evaluation? Yes A competent local Residential Framing Contractor.

Would more pictures of the outside help? Yes

Hope this helps.

Marcel

[cceccarelli]

If the trusses were cut, then I think the case is closed.

Note the trusses were cut and modified in the report and cetification by an engineer is required. Refer further inspection or review (such as possible papers filed with the local building authority).

Any modification or repair to an engineered truss requires an engineers stamp. I rarely see it though.

I'm wondering if the 2x4's framing the overhang of the suspected porch area are the bottom cords of the orginial trusses?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

No way Hose'y

Marcel