Gambrel roof framing

Old 10-10-19, 02:47 PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,506
Received 351 Upvotes on 294 Posts
Gambrel roof framing

My fire damaged house has a gambrel roof a part of which was damaged in the fire. Today a contractor was at the house. He looked at the roof framing and said it was not built per code (built 1983) and the entire roof would have to be replaced.

Here's what he questioned. The two rafters that form the gambrel slopes are tied together with large 1/2" plywood gussets. He said that rafters should never be supported by another rafter and that by code there should be a plate tying the rafters together as shown in the photo.

I have found photos of gambrel trusses with metal tie plates at the rafter joint that are code compliant. My roof has plywood gussets instead of metal tie plates but why wouldn't they also be compliant?

Just trying to get smarter before I question the contractor.
Attached Images  
Old 10-10-19, 03:16 PM
Norm201's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 10,970
Received 729 Upvotes on 644 Posts
Just some thoughts.

I suspect plywood gussets may have been code compliant but most likely never used since metal is available. OR because they are not metal, they may not be considered compliant because when they burn the total structural integrity is lost. But it's also my understanding that a metal structure will not hold it's stability or integrity as long as a properly built wood structure.

BTW...on your comment about scaling down on the garage foundation is probably a good thought. As we get older we should cut back and do just enough to keep us busy and active but so mach that it becomes an obligation.
Old 10-10-19, 04:15 PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,506
Received 351 Upvotes on 294 Posts
I agree about cutting back. I had already sold some of my stationary shop tools in a yard sale a couple of years ago. I just wasn't using them much anymore.

After the fire I felt relieved that they had been sold and not destroyed. A few days later I realized that had they not been sold and been lost in the fire I could have claimed full replacement value. Most were in the 20+ y/o range.

Replacement value????? A lot more than I sold them for.
Old 10-10-19, 08:17 PM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 27,251
Received 1,960 Upvotes on 1,757 Posts
In my opinion, that contractor is blowing smoke. He may be right about how it would be done nowadays, but what's done is done. You don't tear a house apart looking for things that aren't done by today's code. Many places had no codes, but now they do.

Course, we can't see your roof framing. And it likely could be reinforced to make it better than it is now without completely tearing it down.
Norm201 voted this post useful.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Your question will be posted in: