Whats your call?

Originally Posted By: psmothers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



From the outside view ]


In the attic there were three 2x4's that had been added that were acting as jacks under the dip.

[ Image: Attic view ]

I am trying to decide how to work it in a report. I was thinking something like "Repairs appeared to have been make. The effectiveness of the repairs was not determined."

Any other ideas?


--
Foxe Smothers

"Its not a matter of will we rebuilt it is matter of how soon..."

"A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five minutes longer."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Originally Posted By: gbell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Area of roof appears to need additional support. Prior repairs have been made in an amateur manner. Recommend that you consult with a truss manufacturer for any needed repairs.



Greg Bell


Bell Inspection Service

Originally Posted By: aslimack
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Greg,


Are you sure those are trusses? Its got that 50’s ranch look to it with the tongue and groove plank roof deck. If they are not trusses, be sure to change “truss manufacturer” to whatever other wording you would typically use.


Adam, A Plus


Originally Posted By: phinsperger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
The roof framing has been altered causing "dishing" in the roof surface. The subsequent bracing is not sufficently installed. Have the roof framing reviewed by a structural engineer to determine remedial solutions.



--
.


Paul Hinsperger
Hinsperger Inspection Services
Chairman - NACHI Awards Committee
Place your Award Nominations
here !

Originally Posted By: psmothers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It was a 50’s rancher without truss! Good guess Adam.


The roof framing was not altered, it was in its original form. The jacks were added as a after thought. My guess is that when they bought the house 4 years ago their inspector noticed the sag also and suggested additional support. That must have been someone’s idea of additional support. I wrote it up as “Roof appeared to be in need of additional support. Repairs appeared to have been make. The effectiveness of the repairs was not determined.” And differed it off to a SE.



Foxe Smothers


"Its not a matter of will we rebuilt it is matter of how soon..."

"A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five minutes longer."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



BECAUSE it is not trusses, but hand framing, and from the 50’s (before engineering was applied to these roof structures) I’m guessing that the builder THOUGHT those rafters would do the job, but in fact they needed supporting of some type, purlins, diagonals, etc.


With those newly added vertical braces, all they did was transfer the sagging roof load to the ceiling joists, so it can sag over time.

The advantage of the diagonals is that they carry the load back to the center load bearing wall. Purlins could be installed to accomplish the same thing.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Larry L Leesch
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



My call would be that the purlins are missing for the overspanned rafters. It also appears that the struts that are in the picture exceed 45 degree angle which means they are worthless.


Originally Posted By: mkober
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Interesting scenario. Reiterates the point of “what constitutes an acceptable repair?” Deferring to a S.E. or P.E. is an easy escape clause, but is no guarantee of an acceptable repair (i.e., the engineer’s retrofit plan is “fudged” by the contractor chosen by the owner to perform the work). And then there’s also the issue of whether or not an engineer is qualified–I’ve worked alongside more than one “licensed professional engineer” who couldn’t engineer their way out of a paper bag. (Please, don’t ask for names). The common saying was “someone else took the test for them,” and in some cases I think it applied. State engineering registration board newsletters are filled with cases of “practicing engineering in an area not in his (her) discipline.” So I guess what I’m saying to all H.I.'s is if something doesn’t look right, don’t be afraid to question it or at least make note of it on your report. Don’t be intimidated by any engineer.


MJK


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Micheal,


While the HI should not be intimidates by the engineer, having the engineer design the repair "AND" (this IS the CRITICAL part) after the repair is done, inspect it and issue a letter stating that the repair was done in accordance with the design, removes the HI from the liability food chain.

The engineer designed it, signed and sealed it.

The builder screwed it up by cutting corners.

The engineer came back and accepted it as being in accordance with their design, or changed their design to match the 'as built' work.

The engineer "bought it", and the contractor is responsible also.

The HI is responsible only if they provided the engineer's or contractor's names as a recommendation.

I've questioned many an "engineered repair", and my report stands. The engineer responds with a second letter confirming it meets the requirements for that use and their design. THEY "bought it", I am free of it. My client knows I don't agree with the engineer. It is now up to the client to decide to accept it or go further up the food chain and call in their own engineer so they can either confirm or dispute the first engineer's position.

Don't be afraid to make a stand, but be prepared to let the engineer "win", unless you are also an engineer and are doing engineering on that structure.

Protest too much and you will become responsible for the entire structure. NOT something anyone should want to do.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: ccoombs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I agree with standing up to engineers. Unfortunately engineers tend to have a very high opinion of themselves. Some of the best engineers I know can’t pass the test…and some of the worst I know did pass. The test is more about time management than skill and knowledge.


This is an area that I'm looking into. Providing inspections of remodels and repair work to confirm it is done per plan. I am talking with a contractor to have us walk all of his work as a way to reduce his liability. I'm sure most here can read plans and review a completed job for conformance to the plans. If the finished product doesn't match the plans, it is on the contractor. If the engineer reviews/signs off on the as-built, then it is on him. I should never fall on the HI...unless he missed something, but California law is trying to change to help with this subject.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



ccoombs wrote:
This is an area that I'm looking into.

Providing inspections of remodels and repair work to confirm it is done per plan.

read plans and review a completed job for conformance to the plans.

If the finished product doesn't match the plans, it is on the contractor.

If the engineer reviews/signs off on the as-built, then it is on him. I should never fall on the HI...

unless he missed something,


I believe you should re-word your intent and what you are doing, otherwise, it could all fall onto your shoulders.

I broke your post up above to let what you said soak in.

"to confirm it is done per plan." Don't forget that the plans also include the attached specifications. There is no way I will "confirm" it is done "per plan".

"for conformance to the plans." Same as I stated above.

"per plan" means you reviewed EVERYTHING and EVERYTHING meets plans and specifications. That means you will have reviewed the window installations and product approvals and the windows are installed as required. That means you will have reviewed the installation instructions for each appliance and confirmed that each appliance is installed and used in accordance with its installation instructions. That means you have reviewed every item for compliance with every applicable code requirements, as most plans will have on them someplace "per code", and even if not on the plans, the plans are drawn per code, so you would need to include that.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: ccoombs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry


Very good points! I am still looking into the wording on the scope of work, what exactly I will be looking at, and California's new law. I have stated in the past that if I am walking a third party project I am not responsible for the plans. The scope of work is noted as "structural observation" which has some major limitation on my liability. Additionally, new laws in California limit my liability as a third party. In the past, if a window was detailed wrong or installed wrong I could be liable for missing it. However, the new law does not make me liable for someone else's work. There needs to be some case law before I put too much stock in the new laws.

Thanks for the heads up.


Originally Posted By: ssmith3
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Pete,


Did this place have a second layer of shingles on it??



We have a lot of these up here and they are fine until you put on a second roof without a tearoff. The structure cannot handle the extra load.



Scott Smith


Marinspection


Vice President NorCal NACHI Chapter


I graduated from collage. Now my life is all mixed up.

Originally Posted By: ccoombs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Scott


Most codes require the design values to assume three layers on the roof.

Curtis


Originally Posted By: ssmith3
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I think the layers were a lot lighter 50+ years ago. icon_question.gif



Might be wrong there.



Scott Smith


Marinspection


Vice President NorCal NACHI Chapter


I graduated from collage. Now my life is all mixed up.

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



ccoombs wrote:
However, the new law does not make me liable for someone else's work.


I doubt the new law takes liability from YOUR work ... and YOUR work was to determine "compliance with" ...

But I know you will not be calling it that anymore. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: mkober
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Curtis,


Wouldn't you be better off to represent a client's interests (someone paying a contractor to build them a home, and who would of course pay you for your "quality assurance" services)? I know I would proceed with extreme caution before "partnering" with a residential contractor. Maybe I'm biased by my very first confrontation with a successful highway contractor more than 35 years ago--when I politely reminded him that he had bid to perform all work on the project in compliance with the standard specifications, he promptly grabbed the spec book and threw it out of the nearby window (cursing as the broken glass flew everywhere) before stomping out of the project office. Numerous negative experiences in the ensuing years just reinforced that first less-than-professional image I've carried with me onto the jobsite. The point being that many contractors have developed "tip-toeing" around specifications into an art form, but when caught in violation tend to become hostile and defensive, looking for someone else (Curtis?) to blame for their misdeeds. Remember, too, that you won't have the luxury of being on-site 100% of the time--meaning a lot of activities can/will be performed that would be done differently if you had been there. . . . Food for thought.

MJK

P.S. Remember the wise saying: "It never rains on an honest contractor!"


Originally Posted By: psmothers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Scott -


The roof was relatively new. One layer, they must have done a tear of to put this one on.

BTW - I always wondered what that was in you picture with you. I just realized its a ladder! It looked like the side of a drafting table or some weird tool.

Silly me


--
Foxe Smothers

"Its not a matter of will we rebuilt it is matter of how soon..."

"A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five minutes longer."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson