Hi, have another question today.
The house was built in 2006 and shows no signs of roof decking sags, etc. All original construction.
On an end gable wall, a ledger was attached and another roof was supported at a perpendicular angle. The ledger is not as deep as the cut of cut rafters, and no straps were used.
Should the ledger be cosidered as a ridge board and cover the end of the rafters ?
Thanks,
Hi. Linda, made a few observations from you picture.
To make things right, this should have been follow:
R802.3 Framing details.
Rafters shall be framed to ridge
board or to each other with a gusset plate as a tie. Ridge board
shall be at least 1-inch (25 mm) nominal thickness and not less
in depth than the cut end of the rafter. At all valleys and hips
there shall be a valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch (51 mm)
nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the
rafter. Hip and valley rafters shall be supported at the ridge by a
brace to a bearing partition or be designed to carry and distribute
the specific load at that point. Where the roof pitch is less
than three units vertical in 12 units horizontal (25-percent
slope), structural members that support rafters and ceiling
joists, such as ridge beams, hips and valleys, shall be designed
as beams.
The other thing that should have been adhered to is having the rafters line up with the studs in the gable end or off-set no more than 3".
Also the ledger is too short and should have been continuous from rafter to rafter.
I am assumming that these are trusses.
The gable end is not designed to accept lateral loading from imposed loads as such.
Lateral bracing from the main roof truss chords should have been installed and attached to the gable end framing to help distribute the loading.
The whole system acts as a whole with no concentrated loads.
It most likely won’t go anywhere, but that is the way it should have been framed.
I am curious as to what type of sheathing they used, it looks like the Zip System, but can read a word that says Solar or something.
Hope this helps. :)
Hi. Linda, made a few observations from you picture.
To make things right, this should have been follow:
R802.3 Framing details.
Rafters shall be framed to ridge
board or to each other with a gusset plate as a tie. Ridge board
shall be at least 1-inch (25 mm) nominal thickness and not less
in depth than the cut end of the rafter. At all valleys and hips
there shall be a valley or hip rafter not less than 2-inch (51 mm)
nominal thickness and not less in depth than the cut end of the
rafter. Hip and valley rafters shall be supported at the ridge by a
brace to a bearing partition or be designed to carry and distribute
the specific load at that point. Where the roof pitch is less
than three units vertical in 12 units horizontal (25-percent
slope), structural members that support rafters and ceiling
joists, such as ridge beams, hips and valleys, shall be designed
as beams.
The other thing that should have been adhered to is having the rafters line up with the studs in the gable end or off-set no more than 3". [FONT=Comic Sans MS]offset 5 to 6 inches
Also the ledger is too short and should have been continuous from rafter to rafter. yep
I am assumming that these are trusses. conventional framing.
The gable end is not designed to accept lateral loading from imposed loads as such.
Lateral bracing from the main roof truss chords should have been installed and attatched to the gable end framing to help distrubute the loading.
Ideally, the gable end framing should have been framed with 2" x 6" studs.
I am curious as to what type of sheathing they used, it looks like the ZipSystem, but can read a word that says Solar or something. Solar Board by Norbord, OSB with foil facing
Attached is pic of the other end of the sloped roof where it meets the high eave and one looking toward the far gable.
The framing seems lacking. They also framed the purlins with the flat edge up, but attached a 2-by to the edge to give more stiffness.
The next questions is - should I call for more bracing, structural engineer advice, or give areas of shortness and recommend to monitor?
Thanks for your help, 
Wonderful to find someone home on Saturday night !
[/FONT]
Linda, in viewing these addittional pics, I would recommend an Architect/Engineer to review. Just to many things wrong here. Incredible. Thank god that is not snow country down there. 
Some Architects might be more readily available and also have the engineering background to evaluate framing such as this in Texas.
A qualified Framing Contractor would work also, but are there any left?:mrgreen:
Hi Linda,
It’s not high-quality framing, but (as a long-time framer) in looking at this type of framing I always try to envision how it will fail. OK, it’s not framed well, but unless it’s undernailed, it’s not going anywhere.
I would write it up as “not high quality framing, but with no evidence of work which would cause premature failure.”
Linda,
Nice catch.
If this were my inspection, my report would recommend reinforcing this structure at the transition area. Looks weak to me.
It sure seemed to me that the support was lacking, but then I am not an engineer, by any stretch.
I would like to have seen the prints for the house, wonder if the guys framed as the drawings indicated.
Thanks, all.
In regards to the 2x6, its not a ledger board per but simply used as a nailing plate to attach the rafters. The framer could has attached the rafter to the studs if he did his rafter layout correctly. The fact that the heel of the rafter is not overhanging the nailing plate does not effect the structural integrity of the roofing system. You are missing collar ties which goes toward preventing uplift.
You are also missing gable bracing and I suspect various other types of bracing; I would simply have stated that a licensed general contractor needs to evaluate framing details to ensure roof system is properly supported and braced.
