This barn style home had a clip on one side of the truss with only two nails. The other side of the truss had a connector that I don’t believe was a roof to wall connection, but also had 2 nails. Can someone please let me know what the other connector was and if it should be counted? Thanks.
Not enough nails for anything. old mount with whatever was around stuff the one side is an old clip. The other side ??? NO DISCOUNT STEP LEFT…
Toenail (ii). The other side is a clip nailed down to the top plate…not sure I have ever seen that, but no uplift value for that one.
The reason you have two connectors is the one in the first pic, commonly referred to as a “hurricane clip”, doesn’t quantify all forces placed on the truss at the connection. Trusses will experience lateral movement at the roof-to-wall connection (sheer). This type of movement, perpendicular to and along the wall, cannot be satisfied with simply installing a clip at this location.
Newer connections can, but older one will not. That’s why you have the connector located at the base of the truss and connected to the opposite side. You can see the fastener in the first pic underneath the truss. This may or may not be an engineered connection, you’ll need to visit the AHJ to find out.
Now I can teach you how to make more money and properly complete the form.
Format a letter to send out to your clients before you perform wind mitigation inspections. Detail every part of the inspection but include a section for “additional research may be required”. Under this section, briefly explain that it behooves the home owner if the form is completed with the most detailed information as possible. This means you may have to visit the AHJ for “an additional fee”.
Also, provide the opportunity for the client to attain the information themselves…. save you some work and running around. Detail what and all the information you will need and that it should be on-hand during the inspection. Many take this option, but they must know what information to get.
Do this for every section. If you do it correctly, you’ll make more money and have detailed reports that befit your client in all ways possible. Limits call backs and inaccurate information.
I would also recommend attending mitigation technique training, which is VERY different than the training you get from Home Inspectors. Contact the BOAF, they can guide you.
The intent of the form was/is for existing homes to be hardened against wind damage via approved mitigation techniques. To entice home owners to retrofit their homes, incentives in the way of possible insurance premium reductions are offered. But, and this is very important, approved mitigation techniques (retrofits) only apply to “site-built, single-family residential” structures (reference: Florida statute 553.844(2)b).
Hence, the OIR-B1 1802 is not designed or intended for use with commercial structures that are over 3 stories (see your previous post on a 5 story building).
Thanks for the input. It was for sure not going to get that credit. It was just a very odd piece to find on the other side of the truss and had a feeling it was going to be disputed by the homeowner and agency.
In an instance such as this it may be best to advise the home owner to seek input form a licensed Engineer to properly complete the form. If you truly suspect there is an “issue” (deficient) with this connection, then you must advise immediately for additional evaluation. Simply completing the form by de-rating the connection to a toe-nail is not professional or ethical and you may be putting the occupants of the structure in danger by doing so.
You are there to perform a service, to advise the client on the condition of their home and when/where strengthening would benefit the structure in regards to wind mitigation. I know this is not what you are taught. If you dig a little further into the intent of the wind mitigation program, you’ll find most of what you have been taught is completely inaccurate or base on nothing but voodoo science and antiquated methods.
You need to either review the construction documents or revert to additional evaluation by an Engineer.
You must review the construction documents to properly complete this section of the form, there are not alternatives and you should charge for this. As an example, I had a home built in the early 50’s with conventional frame rafters and “plumber’s strap” used at the roof to wall connections. Turns out that’s what was originally “engineered” for the connection. Signed, dated, and sealed. The connectors rated for 300fp of uplift resistance, which is a “clip” connection.
If you are unwilling, or unable, to quantify the attachment DO NOT penalize the home owner for this simply because you are not sure. The roof-to-wall connections listed under section 4 (A through D) are subject to the mitigation requirements of the Florida Building Code. Specifically, those that are fastened with 3 or fewer fasteners OR fail to provide minimum uplift in accordance with TABLE 708.8.1 of the FBC: Existing Building.
Do the right thing. The OIR-B1 1802 has the potential to save lives when properly completed. As such, when it is not properly completed, it has the potential to put Florida families in danger.
There will be an information avenue coming to the state that will help guide you in this process. The process is being completed now and should be accessible by the beginning of the year. Through this avenue, you’ll have access to Engineers, Building Inspectors, Contractors, and true industry experts.
Stay tuned and good luck.
Just an example of the confusion that can be created by making statements like this.
The type and nail used in a toe-nail connection influences the uplift capacity, you don’t simply de-rate the connection if it’s deficient. Also, the species of wood at the top of the wall plate can have an effect on the uplift potential when a toe-nail connection is used.
As an example, three 16d toe-nails into a southern pine top plate will provide 216fp of nominal uplift resistance. That’s a “clip” rating…and there are three nails showing in this attachment, no?
Point being, unless you know if it is or isn’t an Engineered connection, don’t simply de-rate the connection and punish the home owner. If you think for one minute that this connection isn’t an Engineered design, you DO NOT de-rate the connection and move on.
**The connection should then be listed under F. Other: _______ with a description and recommendation for repair or additional evaluation in a more technically exhaustive fashion by a Registered Design Professional. **