Ever see rafters that are staggered where they are nailed to the ridge board instead of inline with each other?

What would some of the problems be as a result of this?

Attached Images

	staggeredrafter1.JPG (70.3 KB, 110 views)
	staggeredrafter2.JPG (67.4 KB, 87 views)
	staggeredrafter3.JPG (71.8 KB, 82 views)

__________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - A. S.

Absolute Home Inspections, LLC

If it is a structural ridge, I believe that is acceptable.

If that is a regular ridge board, the rafters are required to be opposite and aligned with each other. This is to transfer loads from rafter-to-ridge-to-rafter.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Its the ridge board running down the center in the peak of the attic.
The one where all of the rafters at the top peak attach to the ridge board.

Just to clarify, when you say structural, which one are you talking about?

Thanks.

__________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - A. S.

Absolute Home Inspections, LLC

The alignment is not far off center. I would not take issue with it.

__________________
Eric Barker
Moraine Woods Consulting, Inc.
Barrington, IL

Wes,

A ridge board is supported by the rafters against it.

A structural ridge is supported by posts, walls, etc. below it. With a structural ridge, the rafters *are being supported by* the ridge, not *supporting the ridge*.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Gotcha.

So, this would be a regular ridge.

What would you recommend in the report?

__________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - A. S.

Absolute Home Inspections, LLC

I don't see enough conventional framing to really know, not having checked into it before.

I've always seen trusses (since I started building and then inspecting).

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Do you see any nail heads in those rafters? NO. Thats because they were staggered to allow face nailing through the ridge the same as you would do with fire stop or bridgeing. While there appears toi be no structural issue no experienced framer would put his name on that one.
Call it as it is. Framing appears unprofessionally installed. REcommend obtaining paperwork on framing inspections performed by local code enforement to insure all was passed. And in fine printLOOKS LIKE ****

That's a good point.

Face nailing through the ridge means end nailing into the rafters.

Everyone knows that end nailing is of limited (very limited) value.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

In todays world with manufactured roof rafters you soon become lulled into this world of trusses. In the old days when a ridge beam was set and the roof raters were nailed to the ridge beem ti set the nails through the ridge beam then some time there woud be a slight off set. The off set is ok how else could you nail through the ridge beam. Yes in a perfet work they would be aligned but the purpose of the rige bean is to transfer the pressures between the two rafters. So some off set would be acceptable.

section 2320.12.3 framing. rafters SHALL be framed directly opposite each other at the ridge....etc. i would call it a defect! this quote from the 2001 calif bldg code(1997 u.b.c.)

I have seen many many houses framed this way. Are you guys suggesting that toe nailed rafters have more strength than face nailed? (brackets aside) The 2003 IRC says the rafters should be framed to the ridge, but there is no language that I could see on quick glance that said, exactly opposite each other. You would have a busy writing hand if you choose to write it up here in the south. Just my two cents.

martin,
section 2308.10.4 of the 2003 ibc has the exact same wording!free up your hands for some serious writing

They're only offset the thickness of the ceiling joists, making it easier for nailing at both the top and bottom of the rafter. Not as clean as directly opposing, but no problem. (I'm 30 yrs. a carpenter, CA and CO).

kenton,
i'm 30 years carpenter and 15 years inspector! i enforce written code!problem!

Brian SC is using the 2003 IRC One and Two Family Dwellings, and...R802.3 Framing details says.."Rafters shall be framed to a ridge board, or each other with the use of gusset plates?" etc... But honestly, this type of construction is rarely seen today, as most home are trussed. I still don't see how you consider toe nailed construction stronger than face nailed. (Hanging plates aside) I also believe that rafters on opposing sides of the same line, are not in any danger of causing a failure of the 2x ridge board. As a matter of fact I've seen 150 year old homes framed to a 1x6 ridge with staggered rafter nailing that are still there today. Moreover, they look better than the 2x4 trusses on 24" center, with sagging sheathing between, that I see all the time. Remember there is no snow load here.
Martin

I treat 2" nominal offset the same as in-line, more than that I call it as poor workmanship. Seems like this is the tolerance with lining up rafters to studs without a doubled top plate. This allows face nailing, but keeps the ridge from being pushed back and forth. If it is a planned layout and tight workmanship with no apparent movement, I am happy. So much framing is done by low/no skilled laborers, it is just a pleasure to see something where thought and pride is put into a job. JMO

__________________
Jim Luttrall
Mr. Inspector.net, Inc.
Allen, Texas 75002

Ah Brian, Brian, mixing code inspection and home inspection, I believe your good judgement has gone South as you enter your golden years. I'm only a sprightly 55.
Seriously though, I'm curious, I can understand your pointing it out as not complying with code, which is generally designed to keep people safe, but what's the problem with this condition, do you really see it failing or causing problems at some point, and what would your recommendation be?

CODE is such a four letter word. If we were code cops, i would quote code. But alas we are not. The staggered ridge is a highly accepted practice in the midwest. The ability to face nail the ridge to the rafter is a much stronger connection than toenailing or angle nailing when the rafters are perfectly aligned. The fact that the rafters are not directly across from each other has no bearing on the pressure transfer as long as it is no more than the thickness of the ridge (each side of the center line). Just because code says one thing does not mean there are not any other accepted best or better practices out there. Code is a license to steal and it is not GOD.

It is also standard practice in most areas to drive well over the legal speed limit ... but that does NOT make it "right".

Quite to the contrary. Nailing into the end grain gives about the weakest connection possible.

No, CODE is only "the crappiest one is legally allowed to construct something".

CODE is not something 'to strive for', CODE is 'where you start' - you HAVE TO at least meet CODE minimum.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Quite to the contrary. Nailing into the end grain gives about the weakest connection possible.

Jerry,
I have to disagree with this statement. The end grain you speak of is the same end grain through which the toe nail is driven. Furthermore, in nomal directly opposed installation, one of the two rafters is face nailed and one is toe nailed. Coated nails (and collar ties) make face nailed rafters very strong and having had to pull more than a few loose, I can tell you they hold better than toe nailed. How can a nail that is partially through the end grain hold better than one that is fully in the end grain anyway?
Martin