I did a wind mit today, for a client I did a home inspection for a couple of weeks ago. He bought the home and had a new roof installed, it was done and he wanted the credits from his insurance company.
I spent 1.5 hours trying to find some evidence of re-nailing the roof deck. He had 6d nails(original) and I could not find one shiner, side-splitter or any evidence of re-nailing. The spacing(using MT6) was mostly 6 inches but ranged from 3-12 inches. Most spacing was about 8 inches.
The roofer swears he re-nailed(he did not take pictures) and it was inspected twice by the city(final and in progress). The homeowner wants his discount.
I told the homeowner, if the roofer decides to pull shingles and SWR to prove it I would like to be there when he does(LOL).
We will see where this goes. :twisted:
Looks like the roofer did not get this memo: The specifics of the nailing requirements are contained in Section 201.1. If the existing roof decking is fastened with either staples or 6D nails, the entire roof deck will need to be re-nailed with 8D round head ring shank nails spaced no greater than 6 inches on center. If the existing roof decking is fastened with 8D round head ring shank nails spaced no greater than 6 inches on center, no additional nailing will be required. If the existing roof decking is fastened with 8D clipped head or round head nails, supplemental 8D round head ring shank nails will have to be added…
most new roofs I only see shinners around the new replacment plywood and none on the old plywood. add the roofers affidavit and let the under writers figure it out.
At least one photo documenting the existence of each visible and accessible construction or mitigation attribute marked in Sections 3 through 9 must accompany this form.
Many insurance companies do not accept the roofer’s affidavit for this reason. I know the deck was not re-nailed, so why would I mark the form as it was.
What happens when it gets re-inspected? Who will be the bad guy then. If he(or anyone else) takes it to court after the re-inspection then I would want to say I did my do diligence and could not find what I needed to give the credit.
This is the first that I have came across that was blatantly not re-nailed.
So, John. If you do not know for fact this particular insurance company does not accept the roofers affidavit, then why not let the roofer deal with the burden of proof?
I am letting the roof deal with the burden, but I need a picture for my wind mit or no credit. My inspection is about what I see and can prove, not about what he will sign-off to get his permit closed.
The homeowner knows I am correct, why would I lie. I would have much rather snapped a few pics and been on my way.
I see this often with permitted 2004-2005 re roofs done after our last couple of Hurricanes.
Many home owners have complained to the building dept. One roofer told me the county is now requiring a nailing inspection b/n tear off and dry in. Oh well
I see this frequently as well. Just means the county/city code inspectors weren’t doing their job that day. If he did re-nail it, its possibly he only hit areas with large gaps to make it appear 6" O.C. for the building dept official.
I recently watched my next-door neighbor’s house, get re-roofed. I watched the whole process, the tear off, the replacement of the rotted sub-facia and plywood sheathing, but never once did I see any of the workmen re-nail the sheathing on that roof. Yet, in the building Department records was the affidavit signed by the roofing contractor that the roof was re-nailed and it was approved at final inspection.
When the state implemented the roof deck re-nailing requirements in October 2007 it certainly reinforced the bond potential between the roof deck and trusses, but it didn’t do wind mitigation inspectors any favors. It has muddied the waters concerning nail pattern and nail size. Because of my concerns, whenever I perform an inspection on a re-roof installed after Oct. 2007 and I find a nail spacing that is further apart than I would expect to find, I perform a second nail pattern check in another part of the attic. If those two nail pattern checks agree then I stop there. If they don’t agree I’ll do a third check in another part of the attic and try to make a reasonable conclusion how well it works. . Unfortunately, the Zircon MT-6 is pretty good at determining the nail pattern, it isn’t able to provide nail length information. If one only can confirm the presence of the shorter nails, then it is difficult to give credit for the existence of longer nails. Having said that, I have been hearing about another Zircon product that may be able to provide that information. I have heard from others that the Zircon Multiscanner i520 can provide length information on nails in a truss. I have never seen it demonstrated, but I’ve been thinking about purchasing one and driving nails of various lengths into a 2x4 at various spacings to see how weel it works. Has anyone else heard about the use of this product to determine nail lengrhs within a truss?
I don’t think the Zircon can pick up the differences between an 8d and 6d nail.
If you hold the Zircon to close to the decking, you will pickup all the roofing nails. I guess, it could be argued that it can be used to differentiate between 1" and 2 1/2" nails.
Only a photo of an 8d nail is going to be exceptable.
To clearify, as I said in the previous post, I am not talking about using the MT-6 that we use for determining rebar and nail pattern. I am talking about using a different Zircon product to determine nail lengths, the Zircon i520. As I said in my post, i’ve never used it or witnessed it, I was asking if anyone has expierenced using this product to determine nail lengths.
Jay, I disagree that only a photo of an 8d nail is going to be acceptable. You don’t have a picture of actual rebar to prove existence of re-inforced masonry. You have a picture of the MT-6 showing it hit on metel at specific locations around the exterior wall of the home. The picture documenting the nail pattern is not usually of actual nails but rather of marks made by the inspector as indicated when scanned with the Zircon MT-6. Why coildn’t the same(s) type of photo be used showing the i520 to depict nail lenghth and be acceptable.
What I am saying, is that if the Zircon i520 can be used to accurately determine the lengths of nails within a truss it may be a usful tool in certain situations. In a situation where no shiners could be found or such as John outlined above where re-nailing was supposed to have occured but no examples of 8d nails as shiners or side splitters could found after an extensive search, a scanner like this if it actually works would almost be a god send.
I sincerely wish you a great deal of success with this. Believe me, I would love a tool that I could use to instantly determine hidden nail sizes.
However, if you want to be successful as a Wind Mitigation provider. I strongly suggest that you recognize 3 things:
That you are a service provider within a LARGER industry that has set expectation. Failure to meet those set expectations will invalidate your service.
You must read, reread, and completely understand the 1802. You cannot, as so many like to do, interpret the 1802 to your own alternate understanding. Believe it or not, the document is very specific many ways.
You must provide results that you can document and defend if questioned.
Having said all this. Only photographic documentation of an actual nail will be acceptable. If you use any scanner to document nail size, the wind mit will likely be rejected.
Even IF the scanner, and I said IF, could measure nail length, this would only work for a new roof, because there is no way you would be able to seperate staples or 6d’s from 8d’s. Who ever started this myth was smokin somthing.
Maybe we should call Jamie and Adam
Bruce,
Like I sais I have never used it, but the whole point from what I’ve heard, it is sensetive enough to accurately determine the length of the nail in truss.
