Rafters not meeting ridge board....

[Jason A. Sieg, CMI]

Boss "Try cutting from the other end. Do I have to tell you how to do every thing?"

[Jay Moge]

"whooob whooob whoooob whooooob".........."gnaaaa gnaaaaa gnaaaaa"

sure wish i had the 3 stoogies clip to go with it.

[rroeske]

The framer forgot his board stretcher that day.

Agreed the depth of the ridge board should match the cut end of the rafter for full bearing and nailing. The question is how well the sistered piece is secured to the rafter end. If straight nailed it provides little strength to the joint. The strength of the roof is more the rafters bearing against each other. The ridge board only provides a nailing surface and prevents lateral movement while providing a straight horizontal line for the rafter ends.
Some house are built without ridge boards.

I would write it up as "nonconventional framing" and look for how well the nailing secures everything together. If it appears weak - recommend evaluation by a structural engineer.

A better way might have been to sister a board to the ridge board and then secure the rafter ends to this "doubled ridge", where they are short.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

The ridgeboard in conventional framing of a roof provides very little lateral stability in the struture, it provides ease in the framing of the strurture.
The sheathing will provide the lateral moment creating a diaphram.

Trusses will not have ridge boards but require some sort of lateral bracing as required by the Truss Manufacturer.
The rafters in conventional framing are in compression and the collar ties are in tension. If a knee wall is provided, then lateral bracing could be added to provide counteraction to movement.

Hope this helps.

Marcel

[Joe Farsetta]

Marcel is correct. Depencding on the pitch of the roof, the ridge may serve as little more than a spacer or nailer, and some homes are constructed without a ridge beam.

In lower sloping roof structures, a ridge may serve as an actual supporting member.

There is nothing wrong with the framing in the photo.

[Larry Ewens]

Cheremie
I just got back to this thread so please excuse the tardiness of my reply.
I decided that if I could only influence the homes I was working on and had to see all the crap that was going on around me I could far better serve the buying public by performing a service that would allow me to educate them as to the framing practices of the current lot of "framers" on job sites. I am currently doing a phase inspection on a home being built in Bowmanville here in Ontario. I have completed the foundation report and was on site taking a look at the initial framing in progress when I was unceremoniously told to get off the job site and not come back. Makes you wonder what the builder is trying to hide. So far the construction appears to be "within common building practices" that is to say, the bare minimum to pass code. I pulled out a tape measure and put it up against a standing wall. Low and behold the framers had made a minor error in theie calculations and had framed the walls to a height of 9' 1 1/2". Code here says maximum wall height without blocking between studs is not to exceed 9' so,,,,,, I think, seeing as the site super was so nice about allowing me to do my job, I will call him on it and force them to put in blocking. This, I am sure, will endear me to the builder, but will only prove the point that phase inspections are an intregal part of the process for buyers nervious about their builder.
Larry