How do you word - -

[kurt]

Why would you recommend anything different?

Because I have been on jobs where there was some simpleton little repair on a single truss that could be made very easily and inexpensively, benefiting both the buyer and the homeowner, and an engineer invariably comes in and recommends not only a repair, but a steel I beam reinforcement for something that hasn't shown a millimeter of problem for a decade.

I and one of my working parters have figured out repairs to rotten floor truss' in leaking solid masonry buildings that were smart, cheap, and approximately 1/5 the cost of the engineers solution. The engineers only complaint? We made the threaded steel rods too thick (3/4"); he insisted we only needed to use 1/2". This stuff isn't rocket surgery.

Homeowners don't necessarily have to ante up a couple grand for an engineering analysis, or another couple grand for a repair to a simple wood frame structure because the code says they have to. Folks are allowed to save money and act responsibly in their own homes.

If we're going to now rely only on what the code says, when do we get to change all the stuff in there that we all know is wrong?

Yes, I know the code has to say what is has to say. To do otherwise would be to open a floodgate of goofiness and disaster as everyone and their dog would be hacking away at the structure.

[mgbinspect]

Why would you recommend anything different?

Because I have been on jobs where there was some simpleton little repair on a single truss that could be made very easily and inexpensively, benefiting both the buyer and the homeowner, and an engineer invariably comes in and recommends not only a repair, but a steel I beam reinforcement for something that hasn't shown a millimeter of problem for a decade.

I and one of my working parters have figured out repairs to rotten floor truss' in leaking solid masonry buildings that were smart, cheap, and approximately 1/5 the cost of the engineers solution. The engineers only complaint? We made the threaded steel rods too thick (3/4"); he insisted we only needed to use 1/2". This stuff isn't rocket surgery.

Homeowners don't necessarily have to ante up a couple grand for an engineering analysis, or another couple grand for a repair to a simple wood frame structure because the code says they have to. Folks are allowed to save money and act responsibly in their own homes.

If we're going to now rely only on what the code says, when do we get to change all the stuff in there that we all know is wrong?

Yes, I know the code has to say what is has to say. To do otherwise would be to open a floodgate of goofiness and disaster as everyone and their dog would be hacking away at the structure.

And frankly, playing off of what Kurt has said, but on the other side of the fence, Code is a useful rule, but it is not an absolute. Engineers around here can actually supersede the code - that is, they can with a letter and stamp save one real justified money and aggravation by stating, based upon their calculations, that something less than code is truly adequate. And, miraculously, the building department will yield. Sometimes, folks get a little too obsessed with code, as if anything less is impending catastrophe. Code is a compilation of useful and reliable general rules, and nothing more. Buildings that are 100 to 200 years old across the country stand as testimonies to that fact.

[Jim Morrison]

IRC R802.10.4 Alterations to trusses.

Truss members shall not be cut, notched, drilled, spliced or otherwise altered in any way without the approval of a registered design professional.

Why would you recommend anything different?

I'm with Garet on this issue, and most others. We home inspectors know a lot, and good home inspectors are in a position to know a lot more about residential construction than almost anyone else in the world, I'd reckon. But we don't know it all. We see the effects of the past, but that doesn't mean we can predict the future.

It's easy for us to develop the kind of conceit that makes us think we know more than the eggheads who design these things, but I've been schooled enough times to understand my professional role, and the limits of my knowledge. It's OK to market yourself as the smartest, greatest HI in your area, but it's dangerous to start believing your own press.

I don't see a lot of 'em, but I recommend a professionally engineered repair to every modified truss, every time. I don't even think about doing any differently. Sorry lads, but this isn't a judgement call, it's the right call.

[kurt]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that in any HI report, but I say so when folks need to get something fixed and they don't have several grand to spend.

When we're placed in the HI box, we should stay in the HI box.

What I was alluding to was more reality based; folks got some problems, folks can have their problems fixed without having to spend thousands on an engineers that, in my experience, are always really lousy carpenters.

Which basically is making me feel really old. I recall working with engineers a long time ago that thought a good carpenter was a really smart person. Nowadays, I guess there aren't any really good carpenters, and if there are (yes, I know there really are, 'cuz I work with them), they are thought to be morons incapable of cognition, and the guy with the slide rule is the one that knows how to repair wood frame structures.

Of course, a lot of the problems we have with structures wouldn't exist without all those engineered materials and processes the smart folks created for us.

So, I guess I'm a little jaded on the engineers stamp for simple carpentry repairs on simple wood structures.

[Jim Morrison]

Sir Kurt,

I still (and I'd wager you do, too) -literally- laugh out loud when I go into an attic with 16+' long 2x6 roof rafters at 30" O.C. and think "Any self-respecting engineer would tell my client this roof couldn't withstand a 50 year snowstorm" and on paper, he'd be unassailably correct. Yet, here it is, proudly standing on a sunny day, 80 years later, having nobly withstood the micro-and-macro conditions including storms that no one could have predicted.

But the question remains: Will a field-altered truss perform as admirably?

I surely don't know, so I'm happy to pass the question on up to someone who ought to -and gets paid to- know better; a licensed, professional, strucutural engineer. I say: Let those college-boys earn the money they charge to pay back their student loans! I'm not going to do that for them.

[Wayne Gardner]

What a great thread this turned into! It's a micro and macro view into just how hard this job can be. On one hand, we have to look at hundreds of components, in a relatively short time frame, and apply our knowledge to them individually.

On the other hand, we have to convey to the home buyer what, if any deficiencies we noted, what the significance is, and what should be done about it.

On the other hand we don't have, we have to be able to step back and see the forest through the trees and evaluate the system as a whole, wrap the whole thing up in a pretty package, with pictures, and say enough to our clients to give them the information they need, without saying so much that we get in trouble. Then we hop in the truck and head out to do it all over again.

In the mean time we have to keep up with voice mails, emails, phone calls and try to keep the pipeline full so we have jobs to do next week. We've got to pay our bills, our local/state/federal taxes. Keep our licenses up to date which means we have to keep up with our insurance and Continuing Education. Every once in a while it's nice to see the kids and if I remember right, I've got a wife around here somewhere....man! I'm tired.[:-crazy]

But I digress. Regarding the trusses, I fall into Jim's camp. Do it the way the manufacturer says to do it. Any questions, let's ask the manufacturer. I completely respect the other approaches and fully realize that many of you are way more knowledgeable than I am in many subjects and your approach most likely stems from this knowledge and experience. The differences simply point out an entire other layer of the job and how we do it...we all got here through different paths and experiences. I really enjoy reading and learning here. Keep up the good work.

Brandon - Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking here for years. Finally got my youngest into high school, my coaching duties are ended and I feel like I've reclaimed a little bit of my personal life back. Thought I would jump in and join the fray.

Wayne G

[Darren]

The other concern is once you have a pull down stair installed, the attic becomes a more easily place to store stuff. How do we know the trusses were manufactured to store items.

Last year my buddy had a debate with a homeowner about this topic. He e-mailed the SCBA and here's their response.

Download Attachment: structual.pdf

72.27 KB

[kurt]

Sir Kurt,

I still (and I'd wager you do, too) -literally- laugh out loud when I go into an attic with 16+' long 2x6 roof rafters at 30" O.C. and think "Any self-respecting engineer would tell my client this roof couldn't withstand a 50 year snowstorm" and on paper, he'd be unassailably correct. Yet, here it is, proudly standing on a sunny day, 80 years later, having nobly withstood the micro-and-macro conditions including storms that no one could have predicted.

But the question remains: Will a field-altered truss perform as admirably?

I surely don't know, so I'm happy to pass the question on up to someone who ought to -and gets paid to- know better; a licensed, professional, strucutural engineer. I say: Let those college-boys earn the money they charge to pay back their student loans! I'm not going to do that for them.

I agree. I'm not sticking my neck out in any report; I'm just thinking of the very simple easy things I've done over the years on single truss that were just fine.

I still like the idea that folks can understand and repair their own homes without an engineers approval, IF the individual understands basic structural principles, materials, and methods for repair.

Something that just about no one knows anymore.........

[Charlie R]

Hello All;

And thank each of you for your replies to my question. As Wayne stated, this certainly became an interesting read.

I never stated what I do in these cases so in all fairness here goes - I put it in my report that the trusses were cut, that it's usually against what truss manufacturers say you can do, and it is against the rules of the current IRC. If the installation appears to be a good one with proper support then I say I don't see anything wrong BUT I recommend that the client contact a local truss manufacturer and have them either inspect or recommend a local structural engineer or contractor familiar with truss repairs to inspect and repair if need. Obviously, if I see something wrong, I make the same recommendation but stating that it looks like a questionable installation. The reason I do it this way is most truss firms know someone who can do a quick inspect and design that the client, if they are handy, can follow and do for themselves if they choose. The ones I have followed up on charged 200.00 for the inspect and design and the clients did it themselves.

Wayne kind of got to the reason I posted this - as home inspectors, each inspection we do we go through a home, doing mental checklists and memory scans and we see things and we think "OK", we see things that we think "Odd, but OK" and we see things that we think "Nope, that ain't right." But we also see things we have been told are wrong, such as the cut truss chords, but that we also know usually result in no damage. There are may things that fall into this category but what does each inspector do when you see these things? Verbally mention them versus writing it in the report as a notation versus writing it up with a recommendation? Just interesting to see how each inspector crafts their report and why.

Again, thanks for all your input. Stay safe. Charlie