TRUSS INDUSTRY TROUBLES... THE MANY PLAYERS... THE MANY LIABILITIES!!!
Building Inspectors
Building Inspectors (non-engineers) who are told that they have the discretion in matters of structural integrity, should be EXTREMELY careful of recommending ANY "proposed fix" in such issues if they are NOT ENGINEERS.
A DANGEROUS AND COSTLY PROVISION!!!
ENGINEERS
Provide Input and Weigh In!
Titanic II...
The Iceberg Is Surfacing...
When Laws Collide... The Constitution Overrides!!!
“Section 15.11 (7) Prohibition.
No person shall represent, directly or indirectly, that he, she or it has the qualifications or meets the requirements established under this section if the person does not have those qualifications or does not meet those requirements. 2002, c.9, s. 27,; 2006, c.19, SChed.O., s.1(7)."
Source: Ontario Building Code, Qualifications, Section 15.11(7), Prohibition, Building Code Act, 2006, p. 20.
The calculation of VON MISES STRESS (CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FORMULA) on the bottom chord of a gable end truss was NOT on exams for Building Inspectors and as such, to allow Building Inspectors to recommend "alternative solutions" would be ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL!
To Building Inspectors who THINK they can determine truss suitability and/or any matter of structural integrity that falls within the practice of engineering... THINK AGAIN. You had better be able to calculate the formula below and show you have the qualifications to speak on matters of structural integrity!
A VERY UGLY CASE STUDY...
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!!!
When an industry-wide problem happens, as in our case, there is NO WAY that a Building Inspector would have enough insurance to fix all the homes that could be impacted by inappropriate representation of qualification by building inspectors!
"Practicing Engineering"... Defined!
SUPREME COURT - KAMLOOPS V. NIELSEN