interior truss heel sheathing 1

[struct_eeyore]

I have a series of wood trusses terminating on the interior of the building which have some very tall heels (13'+)
There is no shear transfer by design here - although some might occur in reality.
I'm leaning towards sheathing this section full height, but am wondering if that might be overkill - in lieu of X-bracing.
(truss profile is hatched in figure below)

 

[RWW0002]

OP started this thread by proposing sheathing the truss verticals over the interior bearing, specifically not for VLFRS. And several of our friends here have expressed support for that. Is sheathing that surface not functionally identical to installing full height blocking? I feel that it is.

I agree with you here, and was trying to make that exact point. The sheathing in OP is similar to blocking at interior bearing, yet I would imagine that few of those who expressed support for the sheathing would also be in favor of blocking at interior supports (but could be wrong).
Personally, I do not feel like the sheathing is needed, nor blocking at interior bearings (provided adequate chord/web bracing are provided) unless part of LFRS.

 

[KootK]

Are there any other meaningful examples of deep wood framed members that either do require some sort of "rollover" or torsional bracing @ bearing, or do not that come to mind?

The most common one that I know of is so close to OP's case as to, probably, be uninteresting. Light frame unit/corridor setups. Here, full depth blocking is usually considered impractical. So you're relying on lateral restraint of the bottom chord coming from the corridor wall top plates. Those, in turn, are themselves laterally restrained by the corridor walls -- intentionally or incidentally -- behaving as shear walls.

Another example is floor trusses at interior supports (multi-span, not continuous). There you will typically just have the ribbon which, in my opinion, is only there for vertical load distribution, not rollover resistance (no doubt it provides some).

I've looked at a number of wood beam over girder industrial building where the beams were set up Gerber style with no rollover bracing. This is kind of ambiguous though because the beams are usually so stocky that they probably benefit from pretty decent "bracing" just by virtue of their own geometry.

 

[KootK]

Major significant question. Why does KootK's logo only show Kot?

Kot?? Damn it. It is supposed to be as shown below. My quick and dirty, lame attempt at a phone readable avatar the day that the forum upgrade launched. 'Twas the same day that I watched the gloriously gratuitous Motley Crue documentary on Netflix (The Dirt).

V1.0 was [Koot]. But you can't see that at phone size.

V2.0 was [KK]. Unfortunately that felt a little too close to clansman territory.

V3.0 was [Special K]. My daughter felt that some might find that offensive.

So here we are... I suck at branding.

 

[XR250]

V3.0 was {Special K]. My daughter felt that some might find that offensive.

Because Ketamine?

 

[KootK]

Because Ketamine?

Ha! Because "special" might suggest being on the spectrum in some fashion (I may well be).

This may be before your time but I once got into a fair bit of a dust up here for referring to myself as a "spaz". It seems that, in some parts of the world that are not north America, being spastic is a rather serious developmental condition not to be made light of. People have family members who are spazzes and it's not funny.

So... yeah. I'm in no hurry to relive the kind of beating that I took over spaz-gate.

At worst, I'm mocking Germans and arena rock. And, really, who's going to come running to their defence?

 

[XR250]

I mean, what is not offensive nowadays?
My kids, who I consider to be the "PC Police" will still use the "R" and "G" words though.