2 things that I would like to add if I may. One thing is that it would not pass code in Florida because it is not engineered to cantilever at that point according to what I can see in the photo. The bottom cord at the point of bearing should have an upright directly over the bearing point and attached to the top cord. The upright should then be connected to the top and bottom cord with truss plates on both sides. Thus, the strap is useless no matter how it is connected.
It says “strap that wraps over the top of the truss/rafter” not top chord. If you wanted to take that literally it would mean the top ridge of the truss. I do not believe that was the intention. Further more I have submitted thousands of wind mits where they only were over the bottom chord without an issue. If you don’t believe that securing the bottom cord will hold the truss, then you must believe that the gusset plates are incapable of holding the truss together, then we have a much larger issue. Finally what about a large truss that has multiple pieces for the top chord with only a gusset plate joining them? I think some of you are over thinking this. If it wraps over the truss(including just the bottom cord) I mark it as a wrap. I believe that the intention of “top” was the top of the member on the bearing point.
Unless it was the bottom section of the top chord:p
And you always can disagree, but you get my point. We can always take things literally or you can go by the intent. I do believe if “they” meant top cord they, would have wrote “top cord”. The top can also mean the top section of the truss assembly(not all trusses are triangles either).
Let’s face some facts: We can not describe all types of construction on a simple sheet of paper with a couple of check boxes. Everyone interpreters the written word differently, in different situations. These all should have met “code” when they were built.
If you do not understand where it came from how can you understand what it means.
Finally, we should really just listen to the people that are not members, and don’t do these inspections, just because they can copy and paste codes. :p:twisted:
I understand but as far as the OIR states on the form, they don’t say top cord.
Too bad we can’t call the OIR, Lucky for me all of my Wind mits the strap has gone over the top cord. When they made this form, they didn’t word things correctly. IMHO
For the truss portion, it says over the top of the truss. The truss has a top chord and a bottom chord. It doesn’t say wraps over the top of the bottom chord, it also doesn’t say wraps over the top chord.
Yet another in the long line of examples, where the form asks a question that is open to interpretation.
According to USP connectors, the concrete to truss strap “can” be installed where it doesn’t wrap over the top chord, however, the local jurisdiction may say otherwise. As others have said, I have never seen a strap that didn’t go over the top of the truss while doing these inspections. I suspect the answer lies with the AHJ as to why that is.
As a side note to the OIR, I beg of you, let me design your next form. My previous offers have been for free, but since I am semi-retired, I’ll have to charge you!
I’m with John on this. I don’t think the intent is there to limit all compliant wraps over the top chord. The 1802 was written to be fairly simple and not include ALL outlier situations. Most straps will not be installed over the bottom chord due to required webbing or filler wedge at the bearing point preventing this.
However, I did have this just the other day. I took the photos about 12’ away and then noticed the straps not wrapped on the truss behind it when I got back to the office.
Many homes that I have built you would
not be able to wrap the strap over the bottom or top cord.
However, we did have to fill all holes in the strap. So would that
pass the test?
