Roof Deck Attachment

I measured shiner length of 2" on 7/16" decking, with a fine spacing of approx 6". All looks good. However I found this many misses in more than one location. No credit?

You tell me! :mrgreen:

Unless they missed every truss like that, I mark C and use the pictures of the nails. Let the insurance guys figure it out…

Thanks. That was the worst-case picture and I did not want to not give them C, but it seems like ‘the weakest link’ philosophy could come into play. However, even tapping with a hammer on the underside would still not tell with certainty whether or not it had been re-nailed.

And there could be another nail next to the shiner that hit the intended target. Maybe they just didn’t pull the shiners.

Surely you jest…they missed about 20 nails in a 2 foot section the first go round…and somehow, had the wherewithal to re-nail the decking…they didn’t know they missed…:roll: :roll:

Can someone please explain to me, what type of “skilled laborer” can’t follow a pattern already laid down by the previously installed, code compliant nails?:shock:

Have you seen the guys that do the nailing for roofers?:frowning:

Are you suggesting that there is skilled labor on construction sites anymore? All the “nailer” knows how to do is nail. And apparently not very well. The days of skilled craftsmen is over.

Are you saying C is a bad thing?

No, he was saying he didn’t want to remove the C credit just for a few missed nails, and I agree. You can see why those nails missed (nailing was installed on the sistered member and the member stopped short of the seam), and they may have been doubled up correctly. If you do find a roof with several (> 4’ missed nail sections), then I would downgrade the selection on the 1802…no QA on the part of the roofer.

Looks like I have misunderstood someone yet again…I guess I really am human. Damn…

Fill out the form as written; no where does it state that missed sheathing nails (shiners) are disallowed.
Nowhere does it require us to deduct if there exposed nails.

I know the AHJ may require those shiners to be removed in some areas (they don’t require that detail here, shiners are not a problem to the local AHJ’s), but their presence doesn’t mean anything on the form, as it’s written.

And yes, without destructive testing, they may have re-nailed right next to the missed nails. Can anyone know for sure?

Of course not.

YMMV.

Dom.

The “intent” of the 1802 is to document the typical nailing schedule of the roof deck. It is never a perfect world in construction and nails WILL miss their intended target sometimes. However, when a re-nailing is so sloppy that a significant number of decking nails are observed as “air nails”, a judgement call is needed. I do those judgement calls on a regular basis.

Yes, it does.

C. Plywood/OSB roof sheathing with a minimum thickness of 7/16”inch attached to the roof truss/rafter (spaced a maximum of
24”inches o.c.) by 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6” inches in the field
. -OR- Dimensional lumber/Tongue & Groove
decking with a minimum of 2 nails per board (or 1 nail per board if each board is equal to or less than 6 inches in width). -ORAny
system of screws, nails, adhesives, other deck fastening system or truss/rafter spacing that is shown to have an equivalent
or greater resistance than 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6 inches in the field or has a mean uplift resistance of at least
182 psf.

From InterNACHI Inspection Forum - Reply to Topic http://www.nachi.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1201965#ixzz36A2DCkr2

If the nails missed, then you have no way of proving that it was renailed, therefore, it does not comply with the above. It doesn’t say the following:

Plywood/OSB roof sheathing with a minimum thickness of 7/16”inch with nails spread out anywhere the installer chose, even if they are nowhere near the truss, (spaced a maximum of
24”inches o.c.) by 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6” inches in the field
.

If there are one or two sections like that, I don’t get concerned. If they missed everywhere, then it reverts to the next weakest rating until I can get visible proof…

That’s exactly my point. You have no way to prove or disprove either conclusion.

However,
If the deck was re-nailed, then exposed nails would be a huge clue. Not too hard to figure out. Exposed 8D nails are just that: 8D nails.

Around here, missed nailed mean nothing. Doesn’t matter if there are 177 shiners in a row. Re-nailed is all about what they used.

Dom.

No, they are improperly installed nails.

I am still waiting for Andrew 2.0. Then we will see who has to pay for improperly installed roofs.

Oh, and the missed nails mattered to this guy…to the tune of $40,000.00.

And there are several others…and those are just the ones I inspected.

And one other thing, let’s assume that the installer knew he missed and installed more nails. In the OPs picture, there are about 17 nails in a very small space. Who knows what the original pattern was and then you can add in the renailed nails. So, let’s say there are roughly 60 nails in a 20 x 2 inch area of decking. How strong is that?

I had discussed this with one code official and his opinion was that at some point, there will not be enough decking left with all the holes in it, to be worth anything as far as holding power in a “wind event”. There was some talk that after a certain number of reroofs, the decking may need to be replaced because there would be no “new” material to nail.

I asked John this question about 2 years ago, and his answer, as I recall, was in extreme cases where the roofer missed wildly, that A or B would be marked with an explanation with regards to the missed nails. I also had a similar discussion with the head of Citizens and his reply was, “it isn’t a code inspection”. When I asked him if they would cover a roof installed in this manner should it go bye by during a storm, he said “It would be a case by case situation”. :wink:

Me too :smiley:

Eric,

I agree with you, for the most part, however you’re blending your skills as an HI into the 1802.

If they don’t ask on the form, then it isn’t answered.

Dom.

Dom - you are signing a form that states that the roof meets the Florida building code. So, in essence it does ask that question.

No, I am not.
For the third time:
C. Plywood/OSB roof sheathing with a minimum thickness of 7/16”inch attached to the roof truss/rafter (spaced a maximum of
24”inches o.c.) by 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6” inches in the field. -OR- Dimensional lumber/Tongue & Groove
decking with a minimum of 2 nails per board (or 1 nail per board if each board is equal to or less than 6 inches in width). -ORAny
system of screws, nails, adhesives, other deck fastening system or truss/rafter spacing that is shown to have an equivalent
or greater resistance than 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6 inches in the field or has a mean uplift resistance of at least
182 psf.

From Roof Deck Attachment - InterNACHI Inspection Forum http://www.nachi.org/forum/f73/roof-deck-attachment-92391/#ixzz36DSuXoPI

If the nails are not in the “truss/rafter”, then it does not comply with the requirement of the 1802. If you can see the nails as in the picture from the OP, then, technically, it does not comply. This has nothing to do with home inspections or anything else. It is visual verification…in this case, of something that does not comply.

All I am saying is that everyone needs to make sure they are protected. I hear through a somewhat reliable source, that there are a few home inspectors being sued for not putting things on the 4-point inspection report that were on the home inspection report.

On a home inspection, the issue being discussed is mentioned on the home inspection report, at least by me. I find it hard to justify writing it up on a home inspection report and then, saying it is Ok on a wind mitigation report.

Another note to mention on this…I have seen several re-roof jobs where only the replaced damaged plywood was nailed with proper 8d ring shanks. The rest of the roof deck was untouched and secured with staples. It is pretty easy to tell. I am unsure if the roofer is just ignorant of the rule or trying to get away with something. All that is needed for AHJ is a compliance affidavit so the deck nailing is never seen be the code official. Summary: Beware of this condition and use the weakest fastening method for the roof deck.