Spliced Roof Rafter - Revisited

Hello, I read a thread sometime back on this forum regarding spliced roof rafters and that they do not meet building code. Below are pictures of a spliced 2"x10" valley rafter that is starting to come apart at bottom, ie. nails backing out at bottom of splice. Per previous thread, most of you recommended plywood gussets on each side of the rafter with 2"x2" running the length of the gusset on the bottom side. Then installing bracing to loadbearing wall at bottom of splice.
My QUESTION: Looking at the picture you see connecting support rafters. Do I cut and support those support rafters where they connect to the spliced rafter in order to install full width/length gussets, OR do I leave those support rafters in place and gusset around them??
Thanks for replies in advance...
Walter Abbott

Wow. I have to wonder how that passed inspection in the first place. Though I have to give they guy credit it looks like it was tight. It also looks like the sheathing missed the rafter too. I missed if you were inspecting this or if this was your roof. I'd call in a licensed journeyman carpenter or a PE to look at it. Does that PVC pipe extend through the roof? Right in the valley?
I know how I would fix it but, I think you should have some one come in to evaluate it.
If you are inspecting this, I'd point it out but would not propose remedies. Thats not what we do.
Rick

Walter,

What Rick is referring to is that we are home inspectors. We look for conditions like that, but designing repairs is what an engineer does. Many of us could probably repair that effectively, but to recommend a specific repair from two photos is a potential liability.

Things like this are tough because we, as home inspectors, never know if something was engineered or just hacked in by a framer and missed by the city.

I've found it's best to not jump to conclusions (no matter how tempting that may be at times) and just report what you see and recommended they verify all is okay.

What about the obvious long term leak ( stain and pan under the stain )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Abbott

Hello, I read a thread sometime back on this forum regarding spliced roof rafters and that they do not meet building code. Below are pictures of a spliced 2"x10" valley rafter that is starting to come apart at bottom, ie. nails backing out at bottom of splice. Per previous thread, most of you recommended plywood gussets on each side of the rafter with 2"x2" running the length of the gusset on the bottom side. Then installing bracing to loadbearing wall at bottom of splice.
My QUESTION: Looking at the picture you see connecting support rafters. Do I cut and support those support rafters where they connect to the spliced rafter in order to install full width/length gussets, OR do I leave those support rafters in place and gusset around them??
Thanks for replies in advance...
Walter Abbott

---

Walter:

If you can support the spliced valley rafter from a load-bearing wall, then do so. If not, then you will need to, at a minimum, span several of the ceiling joists below the spliced vally rafter with a 2"X6" or larger and then support from that.

You can then use 3/4" plywood on both sides of the spliced valley rafter between the jack rafters. Do not cut the jack rafters. Splicing between them will suffice. Attach the plywood using 1/2" carriage bolts near the splic and near both ends of the pieces of plywood. Randomly offset framing nails in between the ends.

I am not an engineer and no engineer is required to properly frame a roof. This I have done hundreds of times, and though 12 years or so have passed since the last one, I can still do it in my sleep. The "bird's mouth" splice being used here, by the way, is one of the preferred splicing methods for carpenters. Carpenteros? Who knows, anything goes.

You might also fix the valley leak that the presence of the plastic tub indicates.

Aaron:D

Yes, this is MY HOUSE... I'm the second owner and it's approximately 8 years old. As you can see it's leaking at the valley because of the flexing of the spliced rafter. I bought the house three years back and MY Home Inspector missed this! By the way, this is not the only spliced valley rafter I found. I contacted the City Building Inspector, and he admitted that it's not code compliant and THEY missed it. Calling the builder, he said they use these splices all the time and IT IS code compliant. I then called the State of Virginia Chief Building Code Enforcement officer in Richmond, VA who said these type splices are NOT code compliant. Basically the rafter splice is not mentioned anywhere in any of the written code, ie. IRC, etc. If it is NOT mentioned in the written code, it is NOT allowed, unless it is specified in plans by a competent engineer.
Structural engineers are pricey for a project like this. I'm a competent carpenter so, I'll be handling the repair myself. Please don't worry about posting your "fixes," as I'm using a cross-section of ideas that have been posted elsewhere on the Internet as well as from that Chief Building Code Enforcement officer in Richmond. The previous post mentioned in this thead is basically the way I'm going to fix the issue. My primary question was about whether to cut/disconnect the existing jack rafters in order to put full length gussets.
Thanks for your input. This has been a learning experience for me. Please spread the word to your Home Inspector counterparts to watch for this poor construction techniques like spliced rafters!
Walter Abbott
Chesapeake, VA

Did you notice the splice during the inspection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Abbott

My primary question was about whether to cut/disconnect the existing jack rafters in order to put full length gussets.

---

Walter,

I think that I would look for a different repair than disconnecting the existing jack rafters to insert gussets. That would be really difficult to do well and has the potential for creating more problems. From just the pics that you provided, my preference would be to go with Aaron's suggestion of direct support. That would end up being the easiest and should enable you to lift the hip so that it is back in line. I am not a fan of Aaron's suggestion of using carriage bolts (no offense Aaron). I prefer nails because they work well in shear. Carriage bolts are strong, but large holes are necessary and they concentrate stress at small areas with a greater potential for cracks. A cluster of nails (not a bazillion) will spread the stress around a larger area.

Being as you will have the valley open for repairs, I would drill vertically through the joint at 3 locations, at the center of the splice, then at the 1/4 points from each end of the splice, drill through with a long 3/16" or 3/8" drill bit, insert long carriage bolts down through from the top, install washers and nuts on the bottom side and run the nuts up tight, pulling the splice back together and straight, then put some jam nuts on and run them up tight to the first nuts to lock them in place.

Then install the gussets Aaron showed.

The through bolts with washers and nuts will likely hold it for all it needs, but to make sure, the gussets will prevent it from moving for sure, using the through bolts to straighten it back out and as secondary strength.

With the through bolts (vertically through the splice) you probably would not even need the gussets, just slip a long strap over the top under the roof sheathing, bend down one side and nail it into all three pieces, then pull it tight and bend down the other side, nailing that to all three pieces, repeat with 3 straps (at the 1/4 points next to each through bolt - or center a strap over the hole for each through bolt and run each bolt down through each strap, nailing each strap tail after pulling everything up tight with the nuts and bolts). Be sure to use the Simpson 1-1/2" long truss nails to avoid driving the nails all the way through and out the other side of the wood.

I would be leery of supporting the valley off ceiling joists as that could cause the ceiling joists to deflect long term, creating a new problem visible from inside the home.

You could add even more strength (depending on your comfort level) to the through bolts by adding a 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 3/16" channel to the bottom of the splice and extending it to each side of the splice 1/4 of the splice length with another through bolt there, bolting that channel up to the bottom of the valley rafter with the nuts and through bolts.

I'd probably do it that way instead of installing the gussets.

You could probably then use that as an attachment point for you hoist to pull the engine from your car (if over your garage). Okay, maybe you would need to use 1/4" channel instead of 3/16" for that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wayne soper

Did you notice the splice during the inspection?

---

No, I did not notice the splices until I noticed a leak in the room below the spliced rafter, which by the way, started leaking a month ago during a very severe wind and rain storm. I acutally hear a loud "pop" noise during the wind in the area of the ceiling where the splice is located. I'm wondering if that pop were the nails that gave way in the bottom of the splice?
I maybe a carpenter, but I'm not a homebuilder, or expert in the field. I relied on the "professionals" .... Building Inspectors and Home Inspector... to spot this code violation.... so much for the professionals!
Walter Abbott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Abbott

I maybe a carpenter, but I'm not a homebuilder, or expert in the field. I relied on the "professionals" .... Building Inspectors and Home Inspector... to spot this code violation.... so much for the professionals!

---

Walter,

First, while Home Inspectors should be familiar with code to know how a house is supposed to be constructed, and while Home Inspectors are inspecting for things which are 'not right' at the time of the inspection, Home Inspectors are not "Code Inspectors" and should not be expected to look for, or catch, every code violation.

In fact, in Kentucky (I think it is Kentucky) Home Inspectors are forbidden from commenting on "code" per se.

The above said, however, you also stated "I acutally hear a loud "pop" noise during the wind in the area of the ceiling where the splice is located. I'm wondering if that pop were the nails that gave way in the bottom of the splice?", probably so. Another way of stating what you said may be: "The inspector did not report on it as it did not appear to be a problem *at that time* (the day of the inspection), and, in fact, it did not become a problem for another 3 years after the home inspection, and 8 years after the construction of the house.".

Not saying that the home inspector 'should not have' mentioned it, but, 'at the time of the inspection' it 'was not a problem'.

That is something which gets discussed here frequently, to what extent should the home inspector report something which 'is not a problem' but which they may suspect 'may become a problem' in the future, not knowing how long in the future than may be.

Some home inspectors report more 'potential problems' than other home inspectors do, some home inspectors stay away from 'potential problems' altogether. What is 'the correct' way for a Home Inspector to address these problems?

We debate that frequently.

On the other hand, the local code inspectors are supposed to be looking for 'non-code compliant' work, however, being human, no person can find everything, and, as you discovered, even the code inspectors differ on what is code and what is not code.

I find spliced rafters frequently. If they are not sheathed on both sides and especially if the butted joint is not braced to load bearing, I call them.
You're right, the code does not address spliced rafters. It only says "Rafters shall not be cut". Therefore, as was also said, it becomes an engineered design - although in reality, its probably a framers design. Is it right? I dunno and it isn't my job to decide. I recommend any required reparations be designed and/or approved by a structural engineer. The SE may or may not approve the existing configuration, but that is up to the SE. I also advise client that whatever happens, maintain the paper work involved for future reference. I haven't had this happen since last Friday. The builder, present at the inspection, said it was approved by an engineer. I said " good - it should be rather simple to get a letter stating that". Since then he has sent me an e-mail taking exception to the report and telling me how many inspections were performed just for the framing and that he demanded that I revise my report. In that instance, there was sheathing on one side and no brace at the bottom of the butt joint.
You mentioned something about the SE being to expensive. I suspect that it will be cheaper than a diy fix - maybe not.

Walter,

To continue with JP's thread, home inspectors miss stuff. We all do. I think it would be good to notify the home inspector about what is going on with your roof. Personally, I want to know if I miss something significant even if the homeowner is not looking for monetary compensation. Any good home inspector is going to be interested in increasing his/her knowledge and quality of inspection. The inspection process involves constant learning, much of which happens on this board. Feedback is an important part of the inspection process. You might end up doing other homebuyers a service by increasing the knowledge of this inspector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Stanley

You're right, the code does not address spliced rafters. It only says "Rafters shall not be cut".

---

It only says "Rafters shall not be cut".

Richard,

I'm trying to find that in the 2006 IRC, but so far have not been able to. I found this:

From the 2006 IRC.

- 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.

And this:

- R802.7 Cutting and notching.

Structural roof members shall not be cut, bored or notched in excess of the limitations specified in this section.

- - R802.7.1 Sawn lumber.

Notches in solid lumber joists, rafters and beams shall not exceed one-sixth of the depth of the member, shall not be longer than one-third of the depth of the member and shall not be located in the middle one-third of the span. Notches at the ends of the member shall not exceed one-fourth the depth of the member. The tension side of members 4 inches (102 mm) or greater in nominal thickness shall not be notched except at the ends of the members. The diameter of the holes bored or cut into members shall not exceed one-third the depth of the member. Holes shall not be closer than 2 inches (51 mm) to the top or bottom of the member, or to any other hole located in the member. Where the member is also notched, the hole shall not be closer than 2 inches (51 mm) to the notch.
- - Exception:Notches on cantilevered portions of rafters are permitted provided the dimension of the remaining portion of the rafter is not less than 4-inch nominal (102 mm) and the length of the cantilever does not exceed 24 inches (610 mm).

The "cutting" is referring to the above limitations for "cutting and notching", think of a single "cut" as a narrow "notch" - a notch one saw kerf wide.

Probably the strongest wording against the splicing shown in the photo is "The tension side of members 4 inches (102 mm) or greater in nominal thickness shall not be notched except at the ends of the members." in that a splice (as shown in the photo) has a "cut"/"notch" on the bottom (tension) side. However, that "cut" was also nailed together, making it possibly no longer a "cut". "Splices" are not specifically addressed.

How many times do you not see the brace in the following and not call it out for what follows? (underlining is mine) "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." How do we (HIs) determine that the "or be designed to carry and distribute the specific load at that point" is done when the specified brace is not present?

Jerry, per my earlier post, I talked with both the local City of Chesapeake Building Inspector and the State of Virginia Building Inspector and both stated that spliced rafters are violation of building code. I also, went to the local library looked up the same code info regarding framing rafters that you stated in your post. I mentioned the same to the State inspector regarding the only reference to rafters was the "notching and attachment" of roof support rafter.
He stated that since "splicing" rafters to obtain length is not mentioned in the code, then it is "not allowed" and is therefore a violation of code. His quote, not mine.
As for my previous post regarding "professionals," my main beef is with the building inspector. Their job is to safeguard consumers against poor quality building and to enforce of code. When I asked the local building inspector how they could have missed the splicing of rafters (remember there was more than one), his excuse was the inspectors view the framing from the ground and don't get on ladders or second floor to look at roof framing, so it was missed. Do you think that's a valid "excuse?"
I want to thank all for their input. Home Inspectors are a valuable asset in the real estate field. I'd never buy a house without an inspection, and I've learned alot by following them around during inspections of homes I've bought. I hope you guys use the above as an example of what to look for when inspecting the attic.
Best regards,
Walter Abbott
Chesapeake, VA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Abbott

When I asked the local building inspector how they could have missed the splicing of rafters (remember there was more than one), his excuse was the inspectors view the framing from the ground and don't get on ladders or second floor to look at roof framing, so it was missed. Do you think that's a valid "excuse?"

---

Walter,

"his excuse was the inspectors view the framing from the ground and don't get on ladders or second floor to look at roof framing, so it was missed. Do you think that's a valid "excuse?" "

No.

Roof framing is inspected from the floor, and, if a second floor is present, there should be at least a "temporary" stair to provide workers and inspector access to it, or at least a OSHA "temporary" "cleated" ladder made of 2x4, and, without either of those present, the inspection should have been rejected and a re-inspection called for, with suitable and adequate provisions for access provided at the re-inspection;

If no second floor is present (and no second floor is planned), that should still be visible from below in a two story house if the inspector was looking for it.

That said, code inspectors are human (most anyway, others are animals :) it seems) and are open to making errors. Of course, though, missing *all* of them ... :rolleyes:

ECJ:

This is slightly off the subject, but maybe not too far. I often encounter jack rafters at hips and valleys that are not opposing one another at the hip or valley rafter. I write these up using 802.3. Is there a better citation for this instance?

When I was framing you either cut the roof so that rafters meet precisely opposite one another at the ridges, hips and valleys, or you kept on cutting them until they did.

As far as splices are concerned, we only made them when longer lumber was not available. When I was still doing it we either made very long angled cuts in both members, say over about 60", or we used the "bird's mouth" method in the picture contained in this thread. I personally preferred the long cut because it was easier to sister properly. The older carpenters I worked with liked the bird's mouth.

Today there is no reason other than frugality to splice these members. With the advent of engineered lumber, any member can be installed in one piece.

Aaron

Aaron,

"I often encounter jack rafters at hips and valleys that are not opposing one another at the hip or valley rafter. I write these up using 802.3."

I don't see where even that applies are you are applying it.

The way you did it would be 'good construction practice', but I don't see a code section addressing it.

Even this section is of little use in that regard because of the "or" (which I've underlined and made bold):

R802.2 Design and construction.

The framing details required in Section R802 apply to roofs having a minimum slope of three units vertical in 12 units horizontal (25-percent slope) or greater. Roof-ceilings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Figures R606.11(1), R606.11(2) and R606.11(3) or in accordance with AFPA/NDS. Components of roof-ceilings shall be fastened in accordance with Table R602.3(1).

Even if that standard does specify such a practice, they are allowed to use that "or" the above section and those drawings, none of which addresses that practice.

Jerry,
Your code quote is, of course, the correct verbage. I was kind of paraphrasing. If the cut is all the way through (same as 2 pieces butted to each other), the cut is 'in excess of the limitations"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Stanley

If the cut is all the way through (same as 2 pieces butted to each other), the cut is 'in excess of the limitations"...

---

I understood that, but what I was trying to find was code which supported it, and the closest I got was that section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Probably the strongest wording against the splicing shown in the photo is "The tension side of members 4 inches (102 mm) or greater in nominal thickness shall not be notched except at the ends of the members." in that a splice (as shown in the photo) has a "cut"/"notch" on the bottom (tension) side. However, that "cut" was also nailed together, making it possibly no longer a "cut". "Splices" are not specifically addressed.

---

In trying to find code to support your statement I failed to point out (with bold or underlining) what that statement was referring to: ""The tension side of members 4 inches (102 mm) or greater in nominal thickness shall not be notched except at the ends of the members." ", I was trying to apply it to that photo.

Which makes that section not applicable to the piece in the photo, which has a nominal thickness of only 2 inches.

ECJ:

Sorry I left out the ".1"

R802.3.1 Ceiling joist and rafter connections.
Ceiling joists and rafters shall be nailed to each other in accordance with Tables R602.3(1) and R802.5.1(9), and the assembly shall be nailed to the top wall plate in accordance with Table R602.3(1). Ceiling joists shall be continuous or securely joined where they meet over interior partitions and nailed to adjacent rafters to provide a continuous tie across the building when such joists are parallel to the rafters.

Still no applicability? Not even elastically speaking?

Aaron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

R802.3.1 Ceiling joist and rafter connections.
Ceiling joists and rafters shall be nailed to each other in accordance with Tables R602.3(1) and R802.5.1(9), and the assembly shall be nailed to the top wall plate ...

Still no applicability?

---

Nope. That is referring to the connection between the rafter and the ceiling joist, at the top plate.

Quote:

---

Not even elastically speaking?

---

You mean as in "stretching it"? :)

That would really have to have quite a bit of elasticity in it for that. ;)

Quote:

---

That would really have to have quite a bit of elasticity in it for that.

---

ECJ:

Can't blame a man for trying . . .

Aaron:(

I was looking for threads on rafter cuts and found this thread...may already be a moot point since this is a year old, ......but I had to give my two cents:

As a structural engineer designing and getting permits for over 10 years on residential and commercial properties:

Do not ever splice a piece of wood, it shrinks and creeps over time and the connections will always lose strength/stiffness over time. Contractors always say they've been doing it that way...but there is nothing in the building codes (IBC, IRC or the NDS) that says this is OK.

You cannot achieve a fixed or rigid or moment connection in a piece of wood meant for bending, not for structural applications.

The fix would be to either replace the spliced member, or add support at the splice point through a beam/wall/post/rafter below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Taquino

As a structural engineer designing and getting permits for over 10 years on residential and commercial properties:

---

David,

Welcome to THE home inspector board, where we see all the crazy stuff done after the AHJ has left :eek: (and much before they have left ;) ).

Good to have another structural engineer on board (no, I am not a structural engineer, but there are a couple on board here), we can use all the input we can get from all available sources.

Hope to see you here often.

Shoot

Whip up some flour and water, slap it on the back of the plywood, slap the pieced of plywood to each side of the rafter and there yeah go, all fixed. Just saved the home owner a bunch of money. Now that is engineering at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Taquino

I was looking for threads on rafter cuts and found this thread...may already be a moot point since this is a year old, ......but I had to give my two cents:

As a structural engineer designing and getting permits for over 10 years on residential and commercial properties:

Do not ever splice a piece of wood, it shrinks and creeps over time and the connections will always lose strength/stiffness over time. Contractors always say they've been doing it that way...but there is nothing in the building codes (IBC, IRC or the NDS) that says this is OK.

You cannot achieve a fixed or rigid or moment connection in a piece of wood meant for bending, not for structural applications.

The fix would be to either replace the spliced member, or add support at the splice point through a beam/wall/post/rafter below.

---

Hi David... welcome. Your words that I bolded above are one of my favorite expressions. Usually, uttered by some old fart with rips in the elbows of his sweater and alcohol on his breath at 9AM.

My other favorite is.... "It's been that way for 10 years... I'm sure it's fine"

Walter Abbott and others talk about installing bracing to loadbearing wall at bottom of splice. I don't have a clear picture of what kind of brace plus how and where it would attach to the wall.

I'm a civil engineer working on a residential project. Thanks for any photos or descriptions you can give me!

Alice,
If there is a load bearing wall in a convenient location, a purlin or purlin strut would do the job.

Great job, But I don't like it!! get proper fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolland Pruner

Great job, But I don't like it!! get proper fix.

---

Thanks, Rolland! Can you describe the proper fix you're talking about?

I just ran into this today. Every rafter on the south side is cut. None on the north side are.