Roof structure. No bracing. Any issue?

[James H. Bushart]

For a prelisting inspection, I would advise:

"While future inspectors may wish to compare the engineering design of the attic to modern day standards and call it 'deficient' in that regard, I found the attic to be in good repair with a 70-year track record of withstanding area winds and snow loads. Should future inspection reports insist upon making an issue of this attic's failure to comply with modern building standards in the face of its obvious successful record, I would recommend that the seller NOT choose an expensive remodeling option but, instead, obtain a certification of the structural integrity of the attic from a licensed structural engineer."

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by jbushart

For a prelisting inspection, I would advise:

"While future inspectors may wish to compare the engineering design of the attic to modern day standards and call it 'deficient' in that regard, I found the attic to be in good repair with a 70-year track record of withstanding area winds and snow loads. Should future inspection reports insist upon making an issue of this attic's failure to comply with modern building standards in the face of its obvious successful record, I would recommend that the seller NOT choose an expensive remodeling option but, instead, obtain a certification of the structural integrity of the attic from a licensed structural engineer."

Nice comment, and good recommendation.

[David P. Valley]

If I inspect an older roof system and it doesn't meet today's building code but it's holding up good with no obvious sags or depressions in the roof field, and no pulling of structural members, my report will not recommend upgrades.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

I agree with David, why note something as defective, improper, far from meeting today's standard, and does not meet code?
Hell, of course it don't meet codes, they weren't invented when this house was built.

We have to understand, that we are not Code Enforcement #1, and that these existing buildings, some have been there for 100 years.
Unless you find problems as such as WDI, rot, moisture intrusions, sagging, structural failures, components pulling apart, one should only report that what he observes is not quite up to today's standard, but has proven the test of time.
Upgrades are only necessary when involving safety for the occupants.

If someone wants to live in a 100 year old structure that is sound, why not?

We seem to forget the fact that not all buildings were built to today's standards, the standard changes every single day, so which standard should we use?
One has to establish it's condition for when it was built and how it fared the test of time. If it looks like near failure, I guess you could comfortably say it is time for an upgrade or repair.
Don't forget that in some of these old houses, the framing lumber was rough sawn and usually bigger structurally than required, so 1/2" of dry rot on the sides of the beam does not indicate that it is near failure. I means there is a moisture problem and monitoring, correction or upgrading might be prudent in the future.
The floor is sagging, so therefore I have to note that there is a structural
failure on the support piers below and recommend a structural engineer to evaluate.
Come on, give me a break, the darn thing is been there for 50 to 100 years, what do you think will happen to my house in 100 years?
Well, I won't be here for one thing.

And I am sure the foundation will start to deteriorate, settle, crack, and start giving way to some of the elements of time.

So what do we say?

Well, my observations have shown that the structure had no doubt proven the test of time to this date.
How much longer will it resist failures from that impact is unknown.
Future upgrades in the structural capacities for snow load, dead weight of the structure might be reasonable, given the age of the structure.
What did not fail for 50- years or more might fail tomorrow.
Today's more recent standard in the industry has improved the structural capacities required to sustain the elements, thermal characteristics, and assemblies to provide a safe sheltered and safe home.

JM

[Mark Thorman]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

I would have simply stated that the framing does not follow basic building principles, which it does not as one can see by looking at how several of the rafters were spliced. Jeff

I agree, the splicing of most of the rafters mid span was never an accepted building practice and should be called out as a defect. I also don't differentiate between a prelisting or buyers inspection. A defect is a defect no matter what side of the fence you are on.

www.MauiHomeInspections.com

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Many older homes, especially in the south, were built by individuals who had limited building knowledge. As a GC I still come across a few subcontractors who will tell you that their "grandpappy did it that way, their pappy did it that way and they too are going to continue to do it that way"............which is nothing but pure ignorance.

And while some of these structures are still standing, that does not make it correct; yet we must becareful in telling a buyer or seller that it needs to be "upgraded"........again, I never use that word.

Building something correctly in the first place has nothing to do with upgrading or code......it has to do with following basic principles of the trade in question
regards.





Jeff

[Bruce A. King]

We do get snow loads around here, I think you were talking about the published snow regions where code is different. The snow does not stop based on a map or a code. Parts of Rock Hill SC got 18 inches a few years back and it did not melt the same day.

Take the case where the spliced rafters have rusted nails due to a past or slow roof leak and the next snow buckles part of the roof. The insurance adjuster or the contractor is going to write up "improper or damaged building components prior to the failure event".

This is a good example of why most inspectors practice defensive report writing, or in better terms "educational report writing". This thread is a very good example of why the NC realtors want changes made to the way inspectors report things. There are several things to think about including the fact that structural failures can be sudden therefore the past performance is a useless excuse when dealing with variable loading and building stresses.

In some cases it would be easier for us and best for the clients if we just answered some basic questions on issues such as this:

Is the roof structure damaged? no
Is the roof built to modern standards? no
Is the roof built to less than typical practices during the initial construction? yes
Is the roof structure more likely to fail under future weather events than the average house? yes

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Snow in most of the Carolina's are not sustained loads, which when calculating rafter spans one does not use the loads that are defined for such............hence nor does one use it when inspecting. Last year we got 8 inches of snow in a 24 hour period..........less than 24 hours it was all but melted.

But I do agree with you about why realtors get upset about some of the things reported. I had a lady call me last week who was trying to sell her house......had a contract and a closing date.

The sell fell through after the inspector wrote about mold. I went and looked at it for both the seller and her agent for which I do business with. There was no mold issue..................... I wrote her a letter stating that fact. Needless to say both were not happy about how the inspector wrote it.

As to weather the (roof in question) roof is likely to fail under future events............that is speculating and subjective...... considering that its 70 years old without any signs of stress......I would say no..........yet that in itself does not dictate that no actions should be taken.

regards

Jeff

[Bruce A. King]

I hope your letter stated "no visible mold" instead of just "no mold". Sounds like a lot of liability you took on there either way.

Maybe the other inspector forgot to remove that from his report template by accident or the seller could have already done some "cleanup" before you got there. I vote for the "cleanup" being already done.

[Bruce A. King]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

As to weather the (roof in question) roof is likely to fail under future events............that is speculating and subjective...... considering that its 70 years old without any signs of stress......I would say no..........yet that in itself does not dictate that no actions should be taken.

Actually I posted this:
Is the roof structure more likely to fail under future weather events than the average house? yes


key words: more likely than the average house

What I posted is way different than your interpretation above.
no problem, just pointing it out for other readers

[Marcel R. Cyr]

I think we need to understand that the framing basics of now and what the standard of the industry is providing, is far from being any type of equivalency to the standard in the industry 40 to 80 years ago.
You observe a framing style that is not common or understandable to today's standard and you want to call it a defect?

Recommend a structural engineer or Architect if you do not know the capacities or the long term affects of this type of framing.

You can not judge or comment that a roof structure due its age, is more apt to fail then todays standard build. \
It don't compare.
Some of todays builds that were done without permits have failed way before the 50 year old.

A spliced member is not the end of the roof, it just depends where it is located in the train of load transfers.
If one is not sure what he is looking at, differ to a Architect/engineer.
Home Inspection reports should not be of speculations, and opinions.
It should be of facts, accurate statements, and/or referrals to experts in the relevant item.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by mcyr

I think we need to understand that the framing basics of now and what the standard of the industry is providing, is far from being any type of equivalency to the standard in the industry 40 to 80 years ago.
You observe a framing style that is not common or understandable to today's standard and you want to call it a defect?

Recommend a structural engineer or Architect if you do not know the capacities or the long term affects of this type of framing.

You can not judge or comment that a roof structure due its age, is more apt to fail then todays standard build. \
It don't compare.
Some of todays builds that were done without permits have failed way before the 50 year old.

A spliced member is not the end of the roof, it just depends where it is located in the train of load transfers.
If one is not sure what he is looking at, differ to a Architect/engineer.
Home Inspection reports should not be of speculations, and opinions.
It should be of facts, accurate statements, and/or referrals to experts in the relevant item.

Very good points Marcel.

In addition I would stay away from comments like Jim suggest. To make a comment based on what another inspector may report on during a future inspection is speculative and sounds defencive.

[Brian E. Kelly]

This was a good thread for me to read, I enjoyed reading all the different opinions. I do not often see anything built here, over 50 years old.

That being said, one of the reasons we write the report is so the client fully understands what it is they are buying. And though it may seem logical that a Home Buyer would understand that an old home would have older, unconventional framing, it never ceases to amaze what exactly the Client/Home Buyer does really know.

I would not call the framing a defect, but would note that it is older and unconventional. (It is probaly over engineered/stronger by todays standards)

It has become clear to me that many home buyers/clients are not my friends, so covering ones *** is always prudent.

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

It's poor quality framing no matter what it's age. If there is no visible failure, I wouldn't recommend additional work, but I'd suggest that additional framing (purlin bracing) be considered.

[George E. Russell]

I'm agreeing with Kenton here. Those spliced rafters would have me concerned. I come from a framing backround and to sister two rafters together with only a lap of around 24 inches is poor form. To not add bracing under those splices is even more poor form and just lazy framing.