I was told that these 6" screws installed from underneath the top plate into the truss are considered the equivalent of a clip. I saw regular clips installed about every fourth truss with these in the other three.
Does anyone have confirmation that this is acceptable?
If so, how do we confirm their presence in a finished house? Can we just see clips every 4th or 5th truss and call it good?
I am a new inspector, so please pardon my ignorance if this is not new! lol Thanks!
I believe they are but not sure about high wind area. Look here:
2 Likes
Thank you, Larry. That’s the critter!
I’m in the Panhandle, so the HVHZ requirements don’t apply here. Still, I don’t want to downgrade someone’s house to just “toe nails” on the wind mit form if it really is built well.
Maybe this is an issue that hasn’t been defined yet.
1 Like
Yes those can replace hurricane clips. , check out the Simpson Strong-tie catalog
1 Like
3 Likes
Thanks, Lukasz! I appreciate that link in addition to the one Larry provided. It is great to have support from experienced inspectors!
So, now that I know that this connection method is accepted in the industry, here is how I solve my reporting dilemma:
The 1802 form requires that all **visible ** metal connectors meet certain requirements. These screws are typically not visible once construction is complete. Therefore, as long as the visible connectors (the clips) meet the conditions, I can check box B “Clips”. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, such as visible toe-nailing or missing bracing at a gable end wall, I can reasonably conclude that accepted standard practices have been followed. The fact that metal connectors are not visible at every truss is inherent to the construction method.
Does this sound right?
1 Like
Peter,
The SDWC truss fasteners are extremely common in North East Florida. I installed these on my current home per the engineer’s specifications.
You hit the nail on the head, how do you properly give credit for this roof to wall attachment. I’ve been asking this question to all of my insurance agents that refer my business, and have received no clear answer.
Let’s keep this thread alive and hope for clarity on how to properly assign this building method on future wind mitigations.
I guess I’d make a note on the RTW connection section.
The only thing that matters is the DFS would have to agree for review
and then revise their form if approved. Good luck with that.
Well, imo if you are building a home and are using these, you should have the engineer that designed this roof to wall attachment inspect the house and sign off on the installation. Then keep that engineering letter to transfer along with the house as it is resold later since there is no way to know whether it is installed or even installed properly after the house is complete. Now, you’d still have to run that by the insurance company but I can’t really think of any other way you can get around it.
1 Like
The uniform mitigation inspection form that covers the RTW doesn’t have much room for interpretation. You either have one the of the specified building methods or you don’t. It’s not a huge deal on new construction because they are eligible for the max credits due being built to the most recent FBC.
The long term effects are more concerning. How will we classify these in 10-15 years. A letter from an engineer is great, but like the clip RTW attachment you must provided photo evidence to satisfy the form.
That will never be possible with the SDWC screw.
My WAG is the form will be amended to excluded all forms of hidden/not viewable connectors.
1 Like
Likely, the RTW attachment is one of the largest credits on the form and poof, it’s gone. Thanks Simpson.
You do realize you can have the engineer take pictures of the connections and put it in his letter? I’m pretty sure the screws don’t disappear after you take the pictures and no one is going to remove them. Once it is confirmed they are installed, I don’t see why you would ever need to verify again down the road. I would be surprised that the insurance company won’t accept this as evidence when engineers carry big insurance for their mistakes, which is a good target for the insurance company.
Hey don’t blame simpson, it is a great product.
Don’t blame the insurance companies either, blame that you live in florida and get beat up by hurricanes all the time. You can’t expect insurance companies to be willing to insure your house when it gets damaged more frequently than the rest of the country and they have to pay more frequently to fix it up. Pretty sure insurance companies are trying to turn a profit. Last I heard, you don’t have much choice in terms of insurance companies anyway because a lot of them jumped ship out of florida.
Well, heres some of your choices:
- Pay $ for the engineering letter with pictures now and hopefully the insurance companies accept it down the road.
- Install additional clips/straps w/e before the drywall goes up $$ (what’s the point in installing the sdwc screws in the first place? ask for alternative attachment)
- Install additional clips/straps w/e 10-15 years later when drywall, insulation, paint, siding, etc are all up $$$$ (again what’s the point in installing the sdwc screws in the first place? ask for alternative attachment)
I’m pretty sure you can figure out which one is the cheapest and/or most reliable choice
It’s the promulgated state Dept of Financial Services form.
The state is the entity that has to revise the form.
1 Like
So we have confirmed that they meet new FBC and replace clips, but no one has addressed what section they fall under on wind mit form 1802. Are we just selecting the “other” box under the roor to wall section? I have already run into two homes with these screws but don’t know what to label them under.
I can’t find the answer to this anywhere. Not even in the 14 hour continuing ED I just did.
yes, it would have to be other until the bureaucracy catches up with the technology.
1 Like