This strap (see photo) has only two nails and is embedded in the tie beam well over 1/2" from the truss. A homeowner is considering adding a nail and Tapcon to the appropriate location along the strap in an effort to improve his connection from “Toe Nails” to “Clips” (strap does not wrap over the truss). Assuming he is successful, is there any reason why, after the alterations, it should not be considered “Clips”? Also, are there any inspectors that know of a homeowner that has made such alterations (or similar)? If so, what was the outcome with the insurance company?
Would not be acceptable, the strap is not designed to be used like that. The strap would tear around the tapcon under a wind load. Because all of the load would be placed on that area, not uniformly across the strap as designed. The strap is too far from the truss. You would need to get an engineer to approve a solution, or install new straps to code.
Every day. Remeber, the whole idea behind the wind mitigation program is to encourage the homeowner to harden their homes.
We guide them and perform a re-inspection and new wind mitigation when the alterations are complete. They need to document the process as they make the alterations.
Are all the attachments like this or is it the only one?
I had one in Naples, 2000’ ranch, the Owner added nails and saved 1800.oo…
With the deflection, the owner should add a Simpson hurricane tie to give it a clip rating. Cutting the drywall at the attachment and tapcon the attachment to the header. If it is more that one, they may want to go thru the soffit.
found this a few weeks ago.Was not doing wind so did not see attic
The problem with folks trying stuff is there is no guarantee that the insurance companies will not send out their own guys for their own interpretation and then there is no guarantee they will not fight your findings tooth and nail for years to come.
I have not yet come across a succesful roof to wall improvement, " personally"
There are those who claim to do it but I would have a hard time selling it to a customer when I know the resistance a insurance company “MAY” put up.
I have considered offering the services but can’t imagine homeowners paying what I think it is worth and then hoping the insurance guys do not fight it regardless of how correct it is.
I Would imagine it would take more than a few years for the homeowner to get back in the black on something like that. All the insurance guy has to do is find ONE that does not meet the requirements and game over.
sharding, Jay, Greg, John and Mike…thank you. Very helpful replies.
Not everywhere. Only a handful (20’ length of wall) were similar to what’s in the photo.
This is the most extreme I have seen. Clever approach to sneak it through. Where was the AHJ inspector?
I know, dumb question.
I would be hesitant to re-certify any of this type of connection - Given that where there is one - there are most likely more - If they fix one or two visible, what do you suppose is attaching all the other trusses that are not within view?
I agree.
The only fix is like Jay listed above. Adding a new strap in the proper location.
That is why the OIR form says blocked no more than 1.5 inches and less than 1/2" of gap.
The tie beamers missed the layout on that one. There are probably more (on the opposite end of that truss likely)
The reinspectors will keep crawling until they find something.
Yeah for $80 ish bucks I’m sure they will crawl over every inch. Ha ha aha ha they do not give s h i t and most are completely useless and unedcuated. They would not even come up with the fact that the other end was messed up.
If there is ANYTHING in the way they do do go or look. WAKE UP MAN :roll:. No offense intended.
Have you ever seen one in action, or seen one of their reports?
No offense taken:)
I have met up with a couple of the re- inspectors that reinspected a 2007 form/inspection (they were using the newer standard, to re inspect with for 3 nails in the clips and they told the homeowner that he had a wood framed house when it was concrete with wood gables etc.) I had a detail sheet that showed sf of wood vs concrete 75% 25%
the re-inspector didn’t even have a sheet to prove mine wrong (he said that they just look at the house and estimate it). I told him that I measure the house for sf to get my figures. After that, the inspector changed his form to match my original one.:roll:
I figured that I would go to the house in question and learn something.