Cathedral roof and a cantilevered deck.

[TheCommish]

hire an engineer, point loads of cathedral ceiling being transferred through carriage bolts to the rim joist of a cantilevered, span not good

 

[classicT]

The configuration shown in the image above is not compliant with the IRC nor the AWC-NDS.

Loads cannot transfer through carriage bolts, continuous load paths not provided, what appears to be over-spanned members (cantilevered rafters), insufficient lateral support, etc.

Is there a header over the attic vents to carry the ridge beam, how does that transfer to header (if there even is one) over the doors? Must be a continuous load path to footing with all elements properly sized.

While the design may by sufficient, it does not comply with the prescriptive code and therefore requires design by a licensed engineer. Your inspector is right to question your design.

Also, does your State have requirements for work performed by a licensed contractor when selling a property? Locally, you must retain ownership for a minimum of (3) years if you self-perform as a non-licensed contractor.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Also the code would not allow a cantilever to support a starway

 

[JBI]

Hire an engineer.

 

[JCraver]

(I could be way off but) even in NJ this shouldn't cost more than $5 or 600 bucks to have an engineer/architect come out, draw it up as built or suggest a fix or two, and give it to you so you can give it to the inspector. ~$600 vs. not selling the house sounds like an easy choice to me, even if you don't really have it.

 

[JCraver]

I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code. I appreciate it that no one individual can be an expert on all of the issues in the building code but this situation where the building official has no training in architecture or engineering appears to be all to common.

In California we have recognized that in the building department the individual responsible for enforcing most issues must be a licensed architect or engineer. While this is a first step we still have many individuals who were appointed to their positions before the law went into effect.

<Deleted>

Never mind. I don't have the energy..

 

[Mark K]

Carriage bolts can transfer loads. The problem is that given the likely loads and what is implied by the picture it is very unlikely that they would be sufficient in this situation.

JCraver say what you really think. I will agree that there are no easy solutions but we need to confront the problem.

 

[steveray]

What the inspector might have been trying to state was that it would not meet the prescriptive IRC (which I would agree with)....and may require engineering to reconcile. I have no tolerance for a building department that approves plans and then fails a structure built to those plans, but it seems we are not going to get that information....I agree with the issue of point loading the rim, it is not a beam no matter how many plies it has, with no bearing...

 

[JCraver]

I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code. I appreciate it that no one individual can be an expert on all of the issues in the building code but this situation where the building official has no training in architecture or engineering appears to be all to common.

In California we have recognized that in the building department the individual responsible for enforcing most issues must be a licensed architect or engineer. While this is a first step we still have many individuals who were appointed to their positions before the law went into effect.

JCraver say what you really think. I will agree that there are no easy solutions but we need to confront the problem.

Nope, I'm gonna' sit this one out. If someone wants to explain why that first quote is such nonsense, it ought to be in its own thread.