all good. thanks for the input all. I rejected the install … 4th attempt. just wanted to document a consensus in case anyone wanted to challenge my authority.
1 Like
Are RTW additions required to be permitted?
Permit really doesn’t mean much, it’s just a document that gives permission to proceed with the work. The construction documents are what is most important as they contain everything to be performed.
107.1 General.
Construction documents, special inspection and structural observation programs, and other data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by Chapter 471, *Florida Statutes *or Chapter 481, *Florida Statutes. *Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. **
Exception: **The *building official *is authorized to waive the submission of *construction documents *and other data not required to be prepared by a *registered design professional *if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of *construction documents * is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.
It should be. It is for sure on reroof on high value home, but seems most strap installers are not pulling permits.
I am puzzled by this. As Marvin stated, shouldn’t permits be pulled? If they are the straps should be engineered.
No disrespect here, but is anyone an engineer commenting on this. Io would never pass or fail something without documentation, and in this case that would be an engineers letter. Even if you know the step is approved how do you know they used the right length screws. Advise your client to get an engineers letter and then check the appropriate box and send in the supporting document.
If a permit is not required…and the form does not mention that the clip is code approved…the form (so to speak) may accept this clip.
The clip is not too far away from the truss…the screw is. The form only refers to the clip.
The original strap has two nails on the backside and we cannot see the other side to know if is attached properly.
If a permit is required and there is none on file…then there would be no acceptance regardless ??
Just thoughts and opinions here, not statements.
If you could, send me the information as I will be speaking with the City Council soon and would like input from other inspectors. Deerfield just let go of all the plans review/inspectors/building official and hired an outside engineering firm to handle it all…what could possibly go wrong?
I will be challenging them on their interpretation of the statute that allowed the building official to be outsourced…not sure it will go very far, guess we’ll see.
The angle bracket is no different than bending the strap over to the truss. The embedment starts at the closest screw in the bond beam.
You are looking at the face side of the original wrapped strap, which is also bent over to the truss. Both connectors are non-compliant.
Brad;
One is a strap (wrap) the other is an actual clip/bracket . The strap would be subject to the attachment into the bond beam…but I do not believe the clip would.
The existing strap (wrap) does have two nails on the backside. I cannot see the attachments on the other side.
Main question though…is a permit required?
It’s certainly not a clip, and doesn’t even come close to meeting the requirements of a Toe-nail. It is the weakest form of attachment, structural attachment failure and eminent catastrophic failure during high wind conditions is possible.
This is not a traditional clip that would be connected to the vertical face of the wall…it is connected to the top of the wall, i.e. - same as embeded.
I will say again, the photo is showing the face of the truss, not the backside. The backside of the strap has one nail that I can see coming through.
And, yes that retrofit requires a permit, at least in my area.
Case closed , was rejected.@robert are u attending city council meeting? When ?
Why would you not fail something that doesnt meet the requirements? I work with an engineer and would never waste his time on this.
What meant was whoever installed should have provided the engineering letter. You should not have to prove what it is.
If you ask the building department if a permit is needed - The answer will be yes
The building department will want to see some engineering drawings/calc’s or letter signed by a P.E. that states what particular hardware is to be used, and how it is to be connected/fastened. This would be considered REAL ENGINEERING, and is the most desirable way to approach retrofitting.
Now add the real world ----
If an existing strap on a 1980 home only has 2 nails in it, and the client wants to have a third nail added in order to qualify for the “Roof to Wall Attachment” credit, do we really need an engineer? I don’t think we do. We are not redesigning or re-engineering the home. We are not claiming that it has any particular uplift resistance. We are just improving it to some unknown degree - which in turn qualifies it for the credit. The OIR 1802 form does not tell you what uplift capacity you need to have to qualify for a clip or single wrap credit. You just need 3 nails in the proper place. If every existing home required an engineer in order to retrofit, then it would be cost prohibitive for the majority.
Having said all that — the clip shown by the OP sucks. It does not follow sound engineering design. I have done Structural Engineering design work for 20 years, and this is just some bone heads idea of how to fix the problem. Whoever came up with this has just enough knowledge to get themselves in trouble. In this case, they should have consulted an engineer – or – as a minimum picked up a Simpson Strong Tie book and installed a fastener as per specs…
There are generally accepted practices in the field for correcting improper strap locations. These practices do not require an engineer every time they are used (some here will disagree). For instance… When a new home is being constructed, and the framer missed his truss strap layout on a few trusses, we simply fasten flat strapping to the SIDE of the tie beam with a minimum of (3) 1/4" x 3 1/4" tapcons. If there were 10 in a row, we might need a letter from the Engineer showing that this meets the required uplift.
1 Like
Fyi. 1 person out of 20 said it was acceptable. Those asked include cgc, hi, building inspector, roofer, and an engineer. Permit issue was never part of my question as we have all seen unacceptable work that was permitted and passed final inspection.
Brad;
The picture of the original strap shows two nails into the truss and no attachment into the bond beam leaving me to believe that we are looking at the backside of the original strap (wrap).
If that is true and if the original strap is attached properly to the bond beam and nailed into the truss properly on the other side …would that not make it compliant?
Also, if there is a permit signed-off as completed would that make the new clip compliant?
If there were no permit issued would that make it non-compliant no matter what was there?
I give up…I hate to beat a dead horse, but look at the photo one more time and then read post #31 again.
Look again. That is the front side of the truss. Someone got the measurements wrong when they placed the strap in the bond beam. They were off by a few inches. If you look closely, you can see the bend at the end of the strap as it goes into the bond beam.
There are three nails in the strap, 2 on the front side and one coming through from the backside.
When the home was built, a permit was issued and yet, this strap is still present. It may or may not be compliant with the building code/manufacturer, but for the 1802, it is non compliant as it is too far away from the connection point to the bond beam.
The secondary bracket, as I said earlier, was a waste of time and money.
This is from the Broward County Rules and Appeals document for retrofits:
I sincerely doubt that the bracket meets any of the above, especially in the manner in which it was installed.
Oops, I did look again and you are right. It looked to me that it was the tail of the strap. I did not see that it actually went into the bond beam.
If a permit is required and one was not issued…then no matter what…isn’t the application non-compliant on that basis alone?
If a permit is required and not issued and the application looks fine…is it still non-compliant? Doesn’t the potential liability shift to the approving authority?