• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

Are the double rafters sandwiching the original unchanged rafters? Was anything wrong with to the original framing? Was the new framing about more depth for insulation? I can't tell from photos if all the original framing that has been gone for 100 years or do is still there.
 
bill1952 said:
Are the double rafters sandwiching the original unchanged rafters? Was anything wrong with to the original framing? Was the new framing about more depth for insulation? I can't tell from photos if all the original framing that has been gone for 100 years or do is still there.
Click to expand...
The rafters they were sistering to were original, but they had originally been supported or tied together at multiple locations along their span, which has all been removed, so all of the loading is now completely different.

Yes, they are expanding the roof cavity for spray foam, and they are sandwiching existing 2x4 rafters.

I walked around studying it, but I couldn't figure out how to make everything work prescriptively without messing up their design, so I told them to get a structural engineer do a full evaluation of the roof.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm just a dumb architect .. but I don't understand if you're throwing THAT much new framing in and the labor it takes/took to accomplish, why wouldn't you bite the bullet and just tear it all off and rebuild the roof? I guess it's easy for me to say since I'm not paying for it ...
 
MtnArch said:
I guess I'm just a dumb architect .. but I don't understand if you're throwing THAT much new framing in and the labor it takes/took to accomplish, why wouldn't you bite the bullet and just tear it all off and rebuild the roof? I guess it's easy for me to say since I'm not paying for it ...
Click to expand...
Hindsight is always 20/20, right? By the time they realized that they're already too invested.
 
Joe.B said:
Hindsight is always 20/20, right? By the time they realized that they're already too invested.
Click to expand...
This happens a lot in renovations. I distinctly remember doing site visits during permit review to get my head wrapped around the project and asking the contractor if they really thought their approach is cheaper than starting over again. Every single one of them said the same thing; "yes, we're confident that it is more cost effective to do a renovation". After a little prodding, each indicated it is only cheaper if they don't run into issues. It's a renovation. There are always issues and on every single project, the contractor would admit to me that I had been right, it would have been cheaper to tear the building down and start over.
 
Last edited:
MtnArch said:
I guess I'm just a dumb architect .. but I don't understand if you're throwing THAT much new framing in and the labor it takes/took to accomplish, why wouldn't you bite the bullet and just tear it all off and rebuild the roof? I guess it's easy for me to say since I'm not paying for it ...
Click to expand...
I can see lots of reasons why not to tear off all of roof and roofing framing, not the least of which is leaving a probably inhabited living space exposed to elements. But having to replace roofing and sheathing and some siding and trim and probably at that time gutters - is a whole lot more money.

Sure get an RDP to say it's OK. With all that additional framing and spray foam to boot, I suspect it will be stronger than original.
 
Joe.B said:
It will be a lot heavier too though. I wouldn't approve without proof that an RDP did the math.
Click to expand...
Well, having always lived in areas with 50 or 60 PSF snow loads, an additional 3 to 5 PSF doesn't seem like "a lot". But get an RDP to say it's ok.
 
BN4537 said:
The rafters they were sistering to were original, but they had originally been supported or tied together at multiple locations along their span, which has all been removed, so all of the loading is now completely different.

Yes, they are expanding the roof cavity for spray foam, and they are sandwiching existing 2x4 rafters.

I walked around studying it, but I couldn't figure out how to make everything work prescriptively without messing up their design, so I told them to get a structural engineer do a full evaluation of the roof.
Click to expand...
Wonder about the return on investment after the cost of the the lumber, the engineer, the repair, the spray-foam, the unvented rafter assembly, the repairs for the poorly detailed unvented rafter assembly.....
 
tmurray said:
This happens a lot in renovations. I distinctly remember doing site visits during permit review to get my head wrapped around the project and asking the contractor if they really thought their approach is cheaper than starting over again. Every single one of them said the same thing; "yes, we're confident that it is more cost effective to do a renovation". After a little prodding, each indicated it is only cheaper if they don't run into issues. It's a renovation. There are always issues and on every single project, the contractor would admit to me that I had been right, it would have been cheaper to tear the building down and start over.
Click to expand...

That's the "no 2" rule of renos.

A renovation will always be twice as lengthy, cost twice as much, and expand to twice the intended size.
 
How about those renovation projects that retain construction that is beyond the expiration date?
An example is raised floor framing and subfloor sheathing. I refused to allow that on a dwelling where everything was gone but the raised floor. When they tore it apart they found all of the anchor bolt washers and nuts in a sack and none on the bolts. The house was sixty+ years old and had experienced earthquakes that rocked Whittier, Ca.
 
If the attic wasn't originally insulated and they are adding insulation they need to check it for the snow load. I remember looking at a some old church roofs that were failing shortly after the 1970s energy crises, because they insulated the ceiling and the snow stayed on the roof instead of melting. In most cases the framing members were adequate but the connections between truss members weren't.
 
Paul Sweet said:
If the attic wasn't originally insulated and they are adding insulation they need to check it for the snow load. I remember looking at a some old church roofs that were failing shortly after the 1970s energy crises, because they insulated the ceiling and the snow stayed on the roof instead of melting. In most cases the framing members were adequate but the connections between truss members weren't.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of when municipalities started swapping out incandescent traffic lights with LED. The super-efficient LEDs did not emit much waste heat. This was great here in snow-free southern California, but in colder climates the snow piled up and obscured the lights.

https://www.denver7.com/traffic/dri...th-led-traffic-lights-getting-covered-by-snow
 
Yikes said:
Reminds me of when municipalities started swapping out incandescent traffic lights with LED. The super-efficient LEDs did not emit much waste heat. This was great here in snow-free southern California, but in colder climates the snow piled up and obscured the lights.

https://www.denver7.com/traffic/dri...th-led-traffic-lights-getting-covered-by-snow
Click to expand...
Ran one the other day for this very reason. When I came out the other side I saw the red light in my mirror. Took a picture in case I ended up with a redlight photo ticket.
 
Paul Sweet said:
If the attic wasn't originally insulated and they are adding insulation they need to check it for the snow load. I remember looking at a some old church roofs that were failing shortly after the 1970s energy crises, because they insulated the ceiling and the snow stayed on the roof instead of melting. In most cases the framing members were adequate but the connections between truss members weren't.
Click to expand...
Yep, saw this firsthand a few years ago. Roof was T&G for a nice finish on the inside with exposed rafters. They wanted to finish and insulated it. I required an engineer who returned a report that said no bueno.
 
door.jpg

I'm sure that I posted this previously. I was looking at a picture folder and this popped up.

It's a solar company. I wish I knew what it was that I said that caused them to do this. The housewife was so wound up I bet they had to tie her up while they were installing it. I waited until I was in my truck and then called her on the phone. When she heard that a smoke detector isn't required on the front door I could see the windows bulging out.

This was failure to communicate. The company is run by a pair of Ukrainian immigrants. All of the workers are Hispanic. They have a crazy guy installing the detectors. And then they ran into me and somehow there is a smoke detector on the front door. Oh was that lady angry. I don't care who you are, I wouldn't eat anything in that house for a month....dogs included.
 
ICE said:
View attachment 15442

I'm sure that I posted this previously. I was looking at a picture folder and this popped up.

It's a solar company. I wish I knew what it was that I said that caused them to do this. The housewife was so wound up I bet they had to tie her up while they were installing it. I waited until I was in my truck and then called her on the phone. When she heard that a smoke detector isn't required on the front door I could see the windows bulging out.

This was failure to communicate. The company is run by a pair of Ukrainian immigrants. All of the workers are Hispanic. They have a crazy guy installing the detectors. And then they ran into me and somehow there is a smoke detector on the front door. Oh was that lady angry. I don't care who you are, I wouldn't eat anything in that house for a month....dogs included.
Click to expand...
Do you mean you wouldn't eat the dogs for a month, or the dogs shouldn't eat anything for a month?:oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top