Any thoughts on this construction?
Could this qualify for “E. Structural: Anchor bolts structurally connected” ?
Phil Wise
They bent it to work.
I believe the T brace has been modified from its original design.
There isn’t any anchor bolts there.
That’s an intermediate connection (a bad one too). This location does not qualify for RTW connection on the 1802. Even if that was on the exterior wall, that connector is not approved for this purpose…it’s a post to beam connector.
No discount for them 
= Toenail
Thanks guys - just thought I’d check.
Always a good idea 
No matter what. …you need at least 3 nails in the truss or rafter. You have 2. It is a toenail.
No, Sanibel do not require any in the truss or rafter.
Then what do they use?..Super Glue!
Sanibel is designed to be fastened to top plate on each side of truss with the strap running over the top of truss. By design no nails are needed into truss/joist with a sanibel. Yea I know, the OIR 1802 doesn’t know about this strap
Most underwriters know about it.
We mark Sanibels as double wraps.
You owe me a new computer screen, I just spit coffee all over mine…
There is absolutely no way you actually believe that statement to be true, please tell me you are kidding?
Thanks. …learn something new everyday
I had decided to stay away from these forums a while back, I usually reference the comments made here about wind mitigation to show how inaccurately they are being performed. But, at a recent wind mitigation workshop, a fellow colleague convinced me that if I wasn’t part of the solution, I was part of the problem. So here it goes….
The connection you show isn’t a toe-nail, clip, or even a strap. It’s an anchor. It’s an anchor attached with lag bolts. What’s more, it’s a rated and approved anchor attachment. It has a specific name and was most likely engineered for that connection by the original Architect. You’ll need to make a visit to the authority having jurisdiction to confirm what it is rated for and apply that to the specific qualifying connection in the form.
As an example, on an inspection of a home located in Fort Lauderdale, the original construction documents listed “plumbers strap” as the actual engineered connection. I’m not kidding, I still have signed/sealed construction docs if you would like to see them. Each connection was 16” o.c. and contained 3 nails. It rated for 203fp of uplift resistance and qualified for a single-wrap.
But, there is something you may not want to hear. If you can’t verify or calculate the qualifying attachment, you need to pass the inspection off to another qualified inspector…such as an engineer or architect. This isn’t meant to be an insult, it’s just a matter of public safety. If it was not a qualifying attachment as some have suggested, then it would be a structural defect. This means the structure was unsafe and you should notify the home owner immediately so they can have it repaired.
Forget state laws, that’s just a matter of being decent and ethical. Just do that right thing.
Also, the suggestion that John made where “sanibel straps” do not require a nail into the truss? That is false. And it has been false since the early 1950s when the very first uniform building codes were developed. Roof to wall attachments are not to be connected by friction, they must actually be secured to the framing member. Sanibel straps is a slang term, they were called Palm Beach hangers on the east coast and had another name in the Orlando area. They are essentially inverted joist hangers and are still used today ( USP MSH218 and 418 ). I have some details for the approved use if you would need.
Good luck……
It is in the wind mit class
No john, it’s in the building code. If you need evidence, check the FABI Facebook page. I posted the building code requirements going back to 1954.
When you make statements like that, you make the industry look ridiculous. There are people at the state level reading these forums.
Mr. Shepard,
With all due respect, several of your statements are incorrect.
*
The connection you show isn’t a toe-nail, clip, or even a strap. It’s an anchor. It’s an anchor attached with lag bolts. What’s more, it’s a rated and approved anchor attachment. It has a specific name and was most likely engineered for that connection by the original Architect. You’ll need to make a visit to the authority having jurisdiction to confirm what it is rated for and apply that to the specific qualifying connection in the form.*
The connector shown is not an anchor. It’s a post to beam connector that’s been bent. Since it’s been modified, no one can assign a value to it as it hasn’t been tested in the modified state. Mark it other on the form and move on.
If it was not a qualifying attachment as some have suggested, then it would be a structural defect. This means the structure was unsafe and you should notify the home owner immediately so they can have it repaired.
Really? Hundreds of thousands of homes are built prior to the 2000 FBC according to plans and the code that have similarly poor connections. Are all of these considered unsafe? Perhaps by today’s standards, but they are compliant with the building code, which is not retroactive.
What good would it do to recommend improving the roof to wall connection if the wall to foundation connection or the wall itself is not properly connected? None. We can’t rebuild every old house. To suggest that these older connections are a structural defect is disingenuous and reflects a lack of knowledge of the concept of a continuous load path.
The form is not designed to evaluate the entire structure. You are attaching requirements to it that do not exist. For example, the form asks about RTW connections. It doesn’t consider how the wall is constructed in terms of resisting wind forces, nor does is consider how the wall is attached to the foundation to resist wind forces. All three elements are important, but the form only considers one.
Also, the suggestion that John made where “sanibel straps” do not require a nail into the truss? That is false.
Anyone with experience in construction know that this is *not *false. I refer you to USP HDPT Truss Tie Down Straps. No nails in the truss or rafter. The connectors you reference above are joist hangers, not roof to wall strap connectors.
Clean your keyboard. John doesn’t owe you a new one. He’s right, and you owe him an apology, which we’ll all see when hell freezes over.
Thanks Mark…well said. John Shishilla is part of the solution and Robert Sheppard is part of the problem.
Here is another spec sheet on the “Sanibel” It’s not just a slang nickname, and it does qualify as a double wrap.
Hello , Can any one tell me where to get the best software for wind mitigation and 4 point mitigation reports for my android phone and to send out to emails ? thank you