Thread: Air handler installation - the easy way

In the attic during my last inspection I found this. HVAC installers couldn't quite get the air handler to fit so they made a little adjustment with the truss, and left it this way! Yikes. My report states to contact a structural engineer ASAP for instructions to return truss to load bearing.

This job gets more fun every day!

Similar Threads:

• Checking for asbestos floor tiles not easy - Mortage 101
• Air handler plenum
• Single Wall Window Installation
• Exterior Installation of Gas Flex Line
• Fireplace Had It's Own Air Handler Unit

That homeowner ought to be sending that repair bill to the HVAC company on that hack job.

But the people who do those kind of things don't seem to be in business long enough to find them.

Trees, wood, lumber, what the heck it was all meant to be cut. 'Besides there's more of them that should be intact'. (As long as a plumber doesn't show up.

Originally Posted by Randy Moore

My report states to contact a structural engineer ASAP for instructions to return truss to load bearing.

Randy,

A better way to state that may be (it's what I always used anyway):

Have structural engineer provide an engineer's letter stating the proper repair for the truss, with a follow-up engineer's letter stating that the truss was repaired in accordance with the engineer's design repair.

That states: 1) That a structural engineer must design, stamp, and seal a design repair, and, 2) That the repair was actually done in accordance with that design.

Many years ago I used to recommend getting the engineer's letter for the design of the repair, then it occurred to me that what my client really needed was the letter stating that it *was* repaired in accordance with that engineering design.

Whether or not your client has the engineer's letter with the design, your client really needs the engineer's letter stating it was repair in accordance with that design.

I also like the idea someone posted here a few weeks ago about stapling or otherwise attaching *a copy* of that to the repair. I never did that, did not even think of doing that, and that would make it easier for your client when they go to sell. I always told my client to keep the letters in a safe and handy location so the letters were available when they go to sell - yeah, right, the letters probably went into the back of report binder, never to be seen again, 'Dang, Honey, do you remember where we put those engineering letters?' 'Yes Dear, they are with the report.' 'Good, do you remember where the report is?' ' .... ummmm ... no.'

It was nice of them to leave the piece so you could tape it back in.

What would you guys have recommended if the truss had already been repaired in a "professional manner"? Would it be a problem or would you let it slide in your report?

"Professional manner" would be your opinion in this case with no SE report to back up your opinion.

'Professional manner' - that's a deep hole to fall into. I think we all have seen what some consider professional work to be substandard.
Doing the HI it wouldn't be up to me to decide whether or not it is correct within manuf. standards and spec.'s, unless of course the client wanted to hire me separately to investigate and determine.
However, back to what you are probably asking ... if a long 2x4 bridge had been drilled and bolted to span the gap; if there seemed to be sufficient rigidity/compression I would probably write it up as repaired and recommend attempting to determine manuf. of truss and what their recommendations are.
2x4 with 2-3" overlap and drywall screws would not be acceptable to me but I'm sure Joe DIY would think it was done in a 'professional manner'.

If I saw a truss repair like the attached drawing, or close to it, I would tell my client that 'it looks like it may have been an engineered repair', adding 'however, without an engineer's letter designing the repair to look at, the only way to know for sure is to have a structural engineer verify it is actually repaired in accordance with good engineering practice', wording to that effect.

I've done it a few times, however, and much more often, I would state 'the broken/cracked/damaged truss *DOES NOT LOOK TO HAVE BEEN REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TYPICAL ENGINEERING DESIGNS* I've seen in the past, however, the only way to verify that it has, or has not been, repaired properly is to have a structural engineer design appropriate repairs', wording to that effect.

I rarely found one which 'looked right', but there have been a few.

I know, the number of nails, the spacing of the nails, and the not-to-scale drawing do not match - the drawing shows nail spacing accounting for about 18" and then shows that length as 4' ... because it is NTS.

Hey thanks for all the replies guys - it always gives me the creeps to see an "altered" structural unit like a truss even when it does look like it could have been an engineered repair. I give 'em a hard look, but wow the ridiculous chop job in that attic actually had me totally disgusted, hotter than the 110 deg I was standing in. I did take the time to laugh out loud at the tape job. Now if they just made a few more wraps around that thing...

Thanks for the wording Jerry, for the next time...

Here in Seminole county, the HVAC company must pull a permit to replace an Air handler which is then inspected by a county inspector. Wonder if he would have found that one? Is that true in your county?