type of wood to repair roof trusses during a reroofing

[kevin kelly]

having condo roofs replaced, some trusses are causing a 2.0+ deflection. what is the best stud to use in replacement or sistering

Similar Threads:

• Wood trusses 3 feet of center
• OSB Roof Trusses
• Anyone know what type of wood this is?
• Unknown type of repair to foundation wall
• UL To Study Engineered Wood Trusses & Fire

[Jerry Peck]

having condo roofs replaced, some trusses are causing a 2.0+ deflection. what is the best stud to use in replacement or sistering

Trusses = engineering.

You need the truss company's engineer (best case) or at least a structural engineer (worst case).

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I concur with Jerry. Structural Engineer is highly recommended.

[Chris Roth]

Anytime I see something goofy with a truss that is engineered from a factory or a company that does it for a living I write "Recommend further evaluation by a licensed structural engineer." I am not a code inspector nor want to be one, it's not my job. I just report functionality and safety. But I am getting there

[Mark Reinmiller]

If you have that much deflection you should have a structural engineer investigate the cause and design a repair. I inspect and design repairs for trusses. I never see proper repairs performed without good input from an engineer. In fact, it hard to get repairs performed properly even when an engineer specifies repairs.

[Jerry Peck]

In fact, it hard to get repairs performed properly even when an engineer specifies repairs.

That is why I always end with saying that seeing a signed and sealed engineer's letter for a truss repair is not much different than not having an engineering letter ... what is needed is a signed and sealed engineer's letter stating that the repairs were made in accordance with the engineering design.

That at least indicates that the engineer inspected the repairs after the repairs were completed, and found the repairs to be 'good enough' for the engineer to sign off on the repair ... and I used "indicates" because one would hope that the engineer would not sign off on it without inspecting it (although I have seen engineers sign off on on things they did not look at, they took someone's word that it was done that way).

[Jack Feldmann]

Totally agree with Jerry on this. I have seen many engineering letters with repair process called out stapled to offending pieces.
While it would be preferred to have the engineer stamp his approval of the repairs, I would think that a competent inspector should be able to look at drawing, and confirm the repairs were done properly. At least the repairs I have looked at appeared pretty straight forward to me. I do have an architectural background, so I may be wrong in assuming most inspectors could read the plans and understand them.

Bottom line, it is preferred to have someones stamp on the paperwork.

[Jerry Peck]

Totally agree with Jerry on this. I have seen many engineering letters with repair process called out stapled to offending pieces.
While it would be preferred to have the engineer stamp his approval of the repairs, I would think that a competent inspector should be able to look at drawing, and confirm the repairs were done properly. At least the repairs I have looked at appeared pretty straight forward to me. I do have an architectural background, so I may be wrong in assuming most inspectors could read the plans and understand them.

Bottom line, it is preferred to have someones stamp on the paperwork.

Jack,

I look ... but I find the same thing Mark described: "In fact, it hard to get repairs performed properly even when an engineer specifies repairs."

While I look, I see many things which are not right, such as: excessive spacing of nails; lack of staggering nails; under size nails (usually 16d common is specified, gun nails are used, and gun nails are not 16d common; or simply damaged caused by the repair was left unrepaired.

Thus I follow the 'show me the letter which shows the engineer accepted the repair' route - *I* am not there to "approve" a repair, only to document that a repair was done and that the engineer gave their thumbs up to the repair ... it is the engineer is the one who "approves" the repair.

Maybe I'm just too much of a stickler for something like that, but anyone who looks at the repair and gives it an 'okay, it looks like it was done properly' is the one who approved the repair.

Extra cost? Sure. But I am not involved in that extra cost, nor am I involved in approving the repair.

[Jack Feldmann]

Jack,

I look ... but I find the same thing Mark described: "In fact, it hard to get repairs performed properly even when an engineer specifies repairs."

While I look, I see many things which are not right, such as: excessive spacing of nails; lack of staggering nails; under size nails (usually 16d common is specified, gun nails are used, and gun nails are not 16d common; or simply damaged caused by the repair was left unrepaired.

Thus I follow the 'show me the letter which shows the engineer accepted the repair' route - *I* am not there to "approve" a repair, only to document that a repair was done and that the engineer gave their thumbs up to the repair ... it is the engineer is the one who "approves" the repair.

Maybe I'm just too much of a stickler for something like that, but anyone who looks at the repair and gives it an 'okay, it looks like it was done properly' is the one who approved the repair.

Extra cost? Sure. But I am not involved in that extra cost, nor am I involved in approving the repair.

Like I said in my post. I agree the engineer's stamp and approval is best.

A recent repair (with engineer's letter and drawing of repairs) called for 3/4" plywood on both side of damaged truss, attached with a specific number and spacing of screws. In that case, the engineer had come back and signed off, but it was a very simple repair, and was easy to determine it was done correctly.
To me there is a difference between saying a truss needs repair, or appears the repair did not follow the engineers letter, or making a comment about the repair and letting them know they should have the engineer come back and "bless it".

[Mark Reinmiller]

Assuming an inspector has a copy of the repair drawing and understands it, they should be able to inspect most truss repairs. Whether someone is willing to accept their opinion may be another thing. I sometimes get called back to inspect repairs and sometimes do not. I would rather not because it is usually a hassle.