Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: please take me out of the list serve!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Gosh, Basak, I hope it was nothing I said?

Dennis

PS. Go to http://www.seaint.org and unsubscribe yourself from their
Listservice web pages. You can find instructions here (as well as on the
bottom of this form.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Basak BERKER [mailto:bb_basak(--nospam--at)hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:30 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: please take me out of the list serve!
>
>
> Please take me out of the list serve.
> Basak
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> >Reply-To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> >To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> >Subject: RE: Use of Collar Ties in Light Frame Wo
> >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:20:38 -0700
> >
> >Roger,
> >I guess I am recommending that they continue the "bandaid"
> approach in the
> >this case. I have no other choice. The buyer is not negotiating
> the price
> >on
> >the fix - in fact the owner has agreed to repair the roof prior to the
> >close
> >of escrow in the next 10 days which is really not possible. The buyer is
> >only interested in moving into the home, the seller getting out and the
> >agent (a resale office in the development) the commission for the sale.
> >However, to suggest tearing off the roof and starting over to build
> >something better than what was there - which, as you suggest is a
> >non-structural problem since there really is nothing wrong with
> the roof -
> >would kill the sale and probably place me in a rather delicate
> situation of
> >having to defend myself to all parties.
> >This is one of those damned if I do and damned if I don't
> situations so, in
> >my opinion, the best thing I can do is offer a reasonable explanation for
> >why what was perceived to be a structural failure is not structural.
> >Something has caused the ridgeboard to crack - even if it is
> >"non-structural".
> >The truth is that by adding the collar ties, I am not harming
> the existing
> >roof further and adding a lot of psychological support for the
> new owners.
> >I
> >am also saving the existing structure which I really don't
> believe needs to
> >be torn down and replaced.
> >
> >Finally, it is not uncommon here to use the garage for a
> workspace. There
> >is
> >a number of work benches, a Washer and Dryer as well as a Freezer in the
> >garage. The insulation and gypsum was added to allow the room to
> be used in
> >the warmer parts of the year (probably not the hotest times). My
> own garage
> >is finished to allow the possiblity of adding a swamp cooler and
> using it
> >as
> >a workshop in the near future (I have an old Shopsmith waiting
> for my kind
> >restoration).
> >
> >I understand you arguments and they make a lot of sense. Sometimes it is
> >easier and more diplomatic to fix the problem and tell the
> client what they
> >want to hear even if the fix is more psychological. Truthfully, I might
> >have
> >suggested doing nothing until I saw the conditions of the
> ceiling joists as
> >I believe this needs to be addressed. I still feel the collar
> ties can, in
> >this case be useful as a redundant system to overcompensate the rafter
> >ties.
> >
> >Thanks Roger, but sometimes we got to go with our gut feelings.
> >
> >Dennis
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:27 AM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: Use of Collar Ties in Light Frame Wo
> > >
> > >
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > Bear in mind that I am writing this quickly before I am fully awake.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I think that you are grasping at straws for an
> > > explanation as to why
> > > the garage roof sagged "a couple of inches" and that the reason
> > > for this is
> > > non-failure related.
> > >
> > > It seems that everything that has been done prior to your involvement
> >has
> > > been a "band-aid" approach.  Is what you are recommending a
> > > continuation of
> > > this approach?
> > >
> > > As several people have pointed out, the ridge plate is
> > > non-structural and the
> > > crack in it is not relevant.  The plate could have been a 1 X as
> > > well as a
> > > 2 X.  A lot of carpenters splice ridge plates where a rafter
> connects so
> > > that there is not a long unsupported tail and a lot of these
> splices are
> > > hard to see.  Slope of grain in lumber can be as much as 1:6, so
> > > the crack
> > > parallel to the grain is not an "undetected defect" if the grain
> > > meets the
> > > slope requirements.
> > >
> > > As for your explanation of the deflecting ceiling joists "pushing" the
> > > rafters up, don't forget that the thrust from the rafters is
> > > putting tension
> > > in the ceiling joists and trying to keep the ceiling joists from
> > > deflecting,
> > > like an archery bow keeps the bowstring straight and returns it
> > > to straight
> > > after being deflected.
> > >
> > > A quick calculation shows that a 2" drop in the ridge would
> > > result in a 1/2"
> > > outward push on each of the exterior walls.
> > >
> > > Why is there insulation in the attic of the garage?  Around here,
> >getting
> > > insulation in the garage attic is like pulling hen's teeth.
> > >
> > > Even without insulation in the attic, it would be very difficult
> > > to inspect
> > > the condition of the rafter/ceiling joist/wall connection.
> > >
> > > I think that the truth of the matter is that at this time, none
> > > of us has any
> > > idea of what might have happened.
> > >
> > > The house is in escrow --- it is not yet sold and I am sure that
> > > the buyers
> > > (your clients?) are awaiting your report to negotiate an
> > > appropriate purchase
> > > price.  And, they would be relying on your report and solution to take
> > > complete care of the problem.  With what is not known, I don't
> > > know if you
> > > could provide that kind of assurance.
> > >
> > > I would be tempted to report that it cannot be determined what
> > > caused the sag
> > > in the roof and I would probably recommend that in order to provide a
> > > structurally adequate roof, that the existing roof be removed and
> >replace
> > > with a new structure.  Engineering wise, it is a lot easier
> than futzing
> > > around trying to jack up and patch a sagging roof system.
> > > Construction cost
> > > wise, it is probably less expensive than the uncertain repairs and
> > > engineering fee would be.
> > >
> > > A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> > > Tucson, Arizona
> > >
> > > Dennis Wish wrote:
> > >
> > > . > Nels,
> > >
> > > . > I thought I pretty well got to the root of that one. One
> > > assumption that
> > > . > was made was that the roof ridge dropped where the ridge
> > > board cracked.
> > > . > Since you and most of the others would agree that it is
> > > unlikely that a
> > > . > cracked ridgeboard would have caused this type of damage if
> > > the existing
> > > . > rafter ties were properly connected then the problem
> would have to
> >be
> > > . > elsewhere.
> > >
> > > . > So let's look at the basic construction of the "carpenter truss":
> > >
> > > . > 2x8 RR @ 24" o.c. slope 3:12
> > > . > 2x12 Ridge Board
> > > . > 2x6 Rafter Ties @ 24" o.c. - 25-feet long (continuous)
> > >
> > > . > The first obvious fact is that a 25'-0" long 2x6 based upon
> > > current stress
> > > . > values (assuming DF #1 grade) will deflect approximately
> > > 2-inches from
> > > . > just the addition of a 1/2" gypsum ceiling and R-11 batt
> > > insulation using
> > > . > a less than conservative 6.0-psf. This assumes no live load
> > > application
> > > . > (who knows what the last owner stored in that attic space).
> > >
> > > . > The two inch deflection is enough to substantiate the crack
> > > in the ceiling
> > > . > at mid-span. Although the builder tried to brace the
> ceiling with a
> > > . > built-up 2-2x8 beam 22'-6" long, the chances are that it was
> > > very little
> > > . > help since it was so deficient in depth to help control
> bending much
> > > . > better than the 2x6's acting alone.
> > >
> > > . > So now we have the rafter ties deflecting causing the rafter
> > > tails to pull
> > > . > inward. Am I wrong to conclude that it is possible, by the
> > > squeezing the
> > > . > ends of the rafters together, one might cause the ridge to
> > > rise? While the
> > > . > initial problem assumed that the ridge dropped because of a broken
> > > . > ridgeboard, the ridge actually rose, except where the broken board
> > > . > occurred, because of the weight of a ceiling and insulation
> > > installed on
> > > . > Rafter Ties which deterred from their actual purpose?
> > >
> > > . > The double 2x8 beam was not stiff enough to compensate for
> > > the defection
> > > . > of the ties. Had it been, the ridge may never have changed.
> > >
> > > . > I have decided to write this up as my professional opinion
> > > and to suggest
> > > . > that in the process of installation of the new beam to check the
> > > . > connection of the rafter ties to the roof rafters to insure
> > > that the 3-16d
> > > . > nails are in place and there is sufficient connection to the
> > > double top
> > > . > plate to eliminate the possibility that the rafter tails cut lose
> >and
> > > . > trust out under the weight of the roof.
> > >
> > > . > I did inspect the exterior of the building and could see no
> > > cracking at
> > > . > the corner where the stucco covering the eave meets the wall.
> > > In fact the
> > > . > exterior finish had not been upgraded (painted or repaired)
> > > for at least a
> > > . > few years and there are not cracks. The photos that I took
> > > show the ridge
> > > . > and the eave. It takes a lot to see the deflection in the
> > > roof ridge and
> > > . > it is highly likely that the deflection is more likely caused by
> > > . > workmanship and not any rise or fall that is noticeable. I think
> >what
> > > . > draws more attention is the crack in the ceiling at mid-span
> > > of the rafter
> > > . > ties and the noticeable ceiling deflection than at the roof.
> > > I've replaced
> > > . > many a compo roof with flat tiles and have never seen a
> > > perfectly flat
> > > . > roof - there is always some imperfection caused by crowning of the
> > > . > rafters and I would think that even though this is the
> > > original roof, the
> > > . > same high's and low's might be related to rafter crowning.
> > >
> > > . > Does anyone think I'm on the right track here???>)
> > >
> > > . > Thanks for all the help from everyone.
> > >
> > > . > Dennis
> > >
> > > *
> > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > > *
> > > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > > *
> > > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> >
> >
> >*
> >*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> >*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> >*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> >*
> >*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> >*
> >*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> >*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> >*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> >*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org