Roof to wall connection for wind mitigation

I came across an unusual roof to wall connections when I was doing a wind mitigation on a home yesterday. I did not notice any exposed nails for the discount feature on the Wind mitigation form. Is this acceptable, as of now, I don’t think so.

Sanibel connector - counts as a double wrap with explanation. They were designed without the truss nailing holes.

you might want to read this thread before making up your mind.

I believe these two documents may get your client the credit…

Thank you for the information

I’ll contact Jim and make sure he understand that this is not a complete attachment.

Read page E-1 under B. Test

See each one of the anchors tests, the only one rated for lateral was the HDPT2. And it was only rated for lateral along the wall…not perpendicular to the wall. This means it doesn’t meet the requirements for attachment and perpendicular lateral to the wall, it is a “supplemental” connector that requires another anchor to complete the minimum requirements for attachment going back to the 1950’s.

Don’t take my word for it, ask the manufacturer:

"We don’t quantify their ability to resist lateral movement, and when these products are used, the engineer developing the plans would be relying on some other design aspect to take out lateral forces"

Also, that NOA does not confirm compliance with the Florida Building Code, so you can’t use it singularly to rate the attachment.

Just wrap my mind around why this is sooooooo difficult to understand.

So now it’s “with explanation”…interesting.

How could you qualify for the CBC license without fundamentally understanding the relationship between the need for a “load path” and attachment to the exterior wall? When you are standing on a top-plate waiting for the truss to be swung in and you set at the long wall, what keeps the wall beneath you from moving? The force?

Do you think an engineer approved this when the home was built as part of the design/permit process? :wink:

A temporary brace…moron.

Do not lecture me on building practices. You’re opinions mean nothing to me.

Bracing? Why would you need bracing Bradley, is there something the wall might do that bracing would prevent…like…maybe…move? What would we call this movement?..maybe…possibly…could be…lateral movement? Wouldn’t installing a “Sanibel strap” during the installation prevent this movement? No? Why not?

LMFAO!

You know what I picture? You and Marc on the other end of the screen all smug and self-accomplished posting that NOA saying “what a dumb azz” and “you owe john an apology”…then me taking you apart at the seams with that exact same document.

Call me a “moron”? It appears as though a moron knows a hell of a lot more than you so about construction.

What if the Architect designs it, an Engineer approves it, then the Building Official approves it, and the licensed contractor installs it?

Nope.

Had this exact situation go down on a new 2016 home. I sent the repair protocol to the connector manufacturer, something that took all of 90 seconds, and they came back and said “nope, won’t work”. I handed it to the Engineer and said “sorry Charlie, no dice”.

All kidding and name calling aside, I am deeply concerned about the information being provided to Florida families with the form. As you can see, it’s relatively easy for me to impeach the methods and practices you are using to complete the form…and this is a very big issue.

It’s not about you, it’s not about me, and it’s most certainly not about instructors who don’t seem to know anything about wind mitigation or construction. In the end, it’s about the families who live in these homes who may be lulled into a sense of false security by being provided a legal affidavit by a licensed professional that states their home has a reinforced roof structure with “double-wraps” when it is actually structurally deficient.

Families have children…that’s what I care about. And if it costs me money out of my own pocket to protect them, that’s what I’ll do. I’ll do everything in my power to expose the misinformation being spread by the people who complete these forms with no other regard than their own pocketbook. This board helps me do that on pretty much a daily basis.

What connector did they use???

Well Robert, and you and I have spoken about this at great length, the 1802 is an abortion…or it should be aborted.

It contradicts the building code in several areas while at the same time, asks the inspector to state that items are code compliant.

It should either be redesigned to be in concert with the building code, or stated on the form that it is for visual verification only.

It should also only have items that the homeowner will get credit for on it.

As well as eliminate any references to code compliance.
If the insurance companies want to make the leap that a building meet code because of the permit application date, fine. You and I both know that isn’t always the case.
Conversely, some homes do have certain features found in the 94 code that were permitted prior to it taking effect.

As much as you strive for accuracy, the form itself prevents this from being accomplished in many instances.

The only issue I see with the form is people who want to assert their “expertise” in an area to which they are not fully educated. You have individuals who have the ear of insurers and agents feeding them false information that is not based on fact or verifiable research. I can complete the form accurately, but I have very in depth code knowledge. I was actually contacted recently by an insurer who wants me to help them get setup in south Florida for new policies.

Can you imagine that, inspectors fumbling around for scraps from agents and I get sourced directly for the entire company. They wanted the “building code specific information on compliance for structures I inspect”. It seems some insurers are catching on…slowly but surely. Should be an interesting year…

They were using the MSH218 with a supplemental LUGT2, the second connector was there to satisfy lateral restraint.

Awwwww crud I agree with Eric :frowning:

Absolutely correct Sir :slight_smile:

Most surprising out of all is that the Inachi education department didn’t catch this…huh.

Might want to update that wind mitigation course…:cool:

It does this because the form was meant to be used with both existing homes and homes built to the qualifying building codes.

People keep saying “we need standards for the form”. The form already has rules on how to complete it, they are the building codes located within the form that reference both new and existing homes for retrofit mitigations. The form also has “standards”, it’s a paradigm of “complaint” and “non-complaint”.

…could just be that I’m old school, I believe less regulation and more personal accountability is what we need…

I came across another Sanibel Strap home today. Just curious if any more investigating has happened and whether or not the client gets a discount for these straps.