It’s a USP BL4 bracket. Not really approved for RTW, but does qualify on the 1802 as it is written. Your call…
Yup, USP BL
Page 73…
http://www.uspconnectors.com/pdf/catalog/USP-Structural-Connectors-Catalog-Canada.pdf
… but judge for yourself, I’m just a student around here.
This is the only angle bracket that I know of for RTW connections on top of the wall plate.
http://www.uspconnectors.com/connectors/concrete-masonry/truss-tiedowns/us/rt16m.pdf
Well they look darn strong and the adhere to the form’s wording so I don’t see how I’m not doing right by everyone effected.
Remember you mark the weakest point. I doubt the pics you showed are on EVERY truss.
Place the onus on the underwriters for a change. You’re not a forensic inspector and have no obligation to dissect every bit of detail from the form or that attic. No one here crawls an entire attic to find that sole wrap that has 2 nails in it, yet all the others are correct. And if they say they do, then they’re lying to you. I say as Brad has stated, it’s your call…If you sleep well with your decision after having performed to the best of your abilities, then you’re done.
Bert
Cant disagree with that! Call it as you see it.
I’m still confused here. Is it our job to fill out the OIR to its literal wording? If so then these are clips. Or are we responsible to check NOA compliance on all fasteners we come across?
NO…we are not code inspectors, remember? If you think the connection is blatantly wrong, then select “Other” with explanation.