• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Make a believer out'a me

ICE

ICE

Oh Well
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
12,922
Location
California
The overhang is 42" and the tail is 3" deep at the seat cut. I pointed it out and the contractor assured me that it's plenty strong. I asked him to show me by standing on the edge. He declined.

DSCN0565.jpg
 
only need to subject the edge to the code required loading... get an engineer to prove it's "plenty strong".
 
peach said:
only need to subject the edge to the code required loading... get an engineer to prove it's "plenty strong".
Click to expand...
In this case the code said one chubby contractor...... And as far as getting an engineer......most engineers would be too smart to climb out there.
 
If we could only require that the contractor personally load test the overhang by hanging fron the edge we would have fewer contrators complaining about engineers overdesigning. We would also end up with more Darwin awards for contractors and fewer overweight contractors.
 
Mark K said:
If we could only require that the contractor personally load test the overhang by hanging fron the edge we would have fewer contrators complaining about engineers overdesigning. We would also end up with more Darwin awards for contractors and fewer overweight contractors.
Click to expand...
Course we could also end up creating a whole class of skinny contractors masquerading as eave loading compliance specialists.

Bill
 
Unless I miss my guess that's a palm tree behind the house on the left. Mother Nature more than likely won't load this roof too much gravity wise.(wind/uplift could be an issue). Might be the reason they spanned so far with the rafters. Actually you got to figure that someone got on it to lay the boards. And someone is going to have to get on it to Shingle or cover it with whatever the finished roof will be. It would be interesting to see what loads an engineer would accept for this application.
 
an engineer is going to calculate it to be ok.. winds are probably a bigger threat than snow in this case.

Oh hey.. that's $200
 
Here's the rest of the story. One of the contractors workers walked out to the edge and it sagged. He weighed 138# and could have snapped the tail with ease.

I told them to cut it back to two ft. and try it again.
 
again.. gravity loads are not as much of an issue as uplift or seismic, I think, in this situation..
 
Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?
 
4thorns said:
Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?
Click to expand...
I would have no clue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is just too good!!! This is the kind of thread that makes this website so good.

"Course we could also end up creating a whole class of skinny contractors masquerading as eave loading compliance specialists." Now thats funny! Sad but true funny!

"

an engineer is going to calculate it to be ok.. winds are probably a bigger threat than snow in this case.

Oh hey.. that's $200"

Sad but true.
 
ICE said:
Here's the rest of the story. One of the contractors workers walked out to the edge and it sagged. He weighed 138# and could have snapped the tail with ease.I told them to cut it back to two ft. and try it again.
Click to expand...
It's not that I disagree with your concern but I doubt that you have authority to stipulate the overhang, in quite that manner.

Bill
 
had the same situation here on a house and it was fine for 25 years in a 40# snow load area. year 26 didn't go so well! overhang was flush with the wall when the noise stopped.
 
4thorns said:
Ice, just curious. How does this workers load compare to the minimum required load for roofs in this area?
Click to expand...
I am no engineer but my guess is if he was standing on his 2 feet then the load was about 69 pounds per foot :D
 
Now this I can live with. It has occurred to me that I didn't include a salient point. The tail was created by ripping a 2"x6" rafter to a 2"x4" rafter tail. That is common and I have seen them snap due to knots at the stress point. This one has changed from a 45" lever to an 18" lever. Two guys stood on it today and it didn't move.

I wouldn't send this to an engineer because it wouldn't fly at 45". When the skinny kid stood on it, the deflection was better than an inch. Even if the math justified 45", I doubt if the engineer would go along with the rip. I could be wrong about the rip, so if any engineers out there could weigh in, I would appreciate hearing from you. Tell me where your bar tab is and I'll send you a beer or two.

DSCN0612.jpg
 
Don't need no Stinking Enjineers!

Ripping a graded piece of lumber invalidates the grade stamp.

Been there, Done that and suffered the consequences.

Bill
 
that was my point.. if snow isn't an issue, the gravity load at the eave isn't as much of an issue as wind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top