Roof to wall attachment?

Well, my second question, what is an 1802?

Yeah, I understand what you are mistakenly interpreting as spacer blocks for a strap. Meeker, you are no Wind Mitigation Specialist. You don’t even know what the blocking statement on the 1802 means, not in the least bit…:roll:

Short for Wind mitigation form OIR-B1-1802.


No I do and where it normally would be but I do not know how or what that is by just your pictures. I really see no reason why blocking could not go horizontal as well.

Go back to making up your own rules instead of busting my balls. I have never encountered that scenario and would need more info before making a rash decision or PRETENDING to know the answer.

As I said I would consult with those I respect and you for sure are not on the list. I am sure the feeling is mutial but at least I just do not make up stuff and call it facts. When I do not know I say so. Try it some day.


That is why I said it because what it is or is not in reality in this case does not matter. In this case all that matters is what would be written on a wind mitigation form. No offense intended.

I had a witty comment for brad but it was there twice and I deleted one now it is gone. Hope you saw it turd.

You’re a joke…How’s that for witty?

You are an insurance company shill. Hows that?

Brad, so as I said earlier in the thread, Toenail correct?


Actually Bert, I selected “Other” with explanation. I know it does not qualify and can be selected as toenail (ii). But for the client, I’ll let the underwriter decide. He did pay the builder to do this and now it’s covered up with a new roof and soffits…oh well.

Brad…per your question, I would choose:

Toe Nails…second box:

“Metal connectors that do not meet the minimal requirements of B,C or D.”

Below is what I would have marked as well.

I would be curious as to what the “explanation” would be. “Added straps installed incorrectly which serve no purpose”?

As to the “builder” doing this, was this a brand new home?
If not, I am fairly certain that in the 20007 code it states that an engineer must approve the scope of work and all work has to be inspected.
Was any of that done?

The job was a substantial renovation and room addition to a 1950’s home. I did ask the builder if this particular area was inspected…he said framing inspection passed and did not elaborate further.

The reason I did not select toenail (ii) is because the strap actually meets the definition of a single wrap if taken literally (as some of you do without question). The blocking between the rafters, which the straps are attached to, are over the bearing wall but not actually part of the wall. I don’t bless any flat strap nailed to the top face of the wall plate, but the form does not clarify this. There is only one connector that is approved for tie down from the top face of the wall plate that I am aware of, and this ain’t it.

Brad, which connector would that be. I just had a roofer who’s going to retro fit the rtw connections on a reroof and was asking. Thanks.


I am also curious. I was under the impression they had to be “shear” connections.
Also, they would only be attached to the face of the top, top plate …as opposed to the stud and one of the two top plates.

This is what I have seen before as a retrofit. Not sure if AHJ approved for securing to a wood top plate. They only show this for top attachment to concrete. I would tend to select clip for wood top plate attachment, if secured with 1/4" lags…I’ve seen worse that qualify for a clip rating.:cool:

Here is an article from JLC that mentions this connector for retrofits.

The H-1 connector is a connector used up here in Maine and designed for a double plate wood frame wall.
Down in your area, the H-4 or H-3 connector would most likely be used seeing that most walls are CMU with a bolted single top wall plate.

I would suspect that any retrofit would be done by removing the soffit component to keep the cost down.

The A-34 is only rated for an 315-450# uplift.

The best choice would be the 2-H-4 at 720# uplift.



Yes Marcel, this is what we normally see for a RTW attachment, or embedded straps out of the concrete bond beam. Even retrofits are normally done with common connectors to the side of the wall, but in my case it wasn’t. My inspection revealed an outlier situation (grey area) that should be properly addressed and evaluated by all wind mit inspectors, which is why I brought it up.