Need Wood truss engineer for Nevada 23

[jepps3]

Hello. I’m looking for engineered flat roof wood truss design for a single family home in Nevada.

I know truss manufacturers can provide this, but I don’t want them to design. I would like to get the design drawings independently and then send out to manufacture.

 

[jepps3]

@1503-44 well yes, wind loads are here, but no hurricanes or tornadoes. Shear walls and hold downs are a bigger deal out here though.

 

[Brad805]

I would have thought be main problem with providing an engineered design to the truss supplier is your files would not include the machine control most use these days. At the prices they charge in my area I know they are automating parts of the process. If they have to redo your design this seems odd. I have not had much problems with our truss suppliers if you get involved and tell them what you want. If you ask for the cheapest prices, then all bets are off. The main problem I see is the EOR's do not know their role well, or choose not to do it. On a current project where we are providing the wall panels I had to finally send excerpts from the TPIC manual to prove the truss company was not doing what he thought they were. After weeks of debate they sent out a site instruction to add bracing so we were more comfortable with our panels being braced.

If I were spending a few more sheckles on my build I would dump the wood. Unless you still have cheap labor it does not save much $$.

 

[dik]

With those long tension web members, any wind uplift could be problematic.



This could be an indication of higher lateral (wind) loads?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SWComposites]

but no hurricanes or tornadoes er, you might want to look at the current weather forecast!

 

[1503-44]

Maybe you should double check the building code minimum load requirements in the Las Vegas area.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[jepps3]

@swcomposites - haha yes, right now we get those summer storms. But trust me, it sound worse than it is. No biggie.

@brad - nah, don’t worry about machine control. Ol school operations in this place. We don’t need a million dollar machine to wipe our asses.

 

[1503-44]

Yeah. And climate change is worse then it sounds.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[BridgeSmith]

right now we get those summer storms. But trust me, it sound worse than it is. No biggie.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to collapsed roofs and dead occupants.

 

[RontheRedneck]

1503-44 - Sorry if misinterpreted your post.

For that design I used 30-10-10 loading, and assumed the truss was 2' O.C.

I don't know what wind load was on it. That usually makes very little difference in a truss design, so I didn't worry about it.


I wanted to once again reinforce what I said about there being no point in taking an engineered design for a truss to a truss plant. The truss might be designed with SPf lumber, and the plant might only carry SYP or DF. It might have Mitek plates on it, and the plant uses Alpine.


At our plant the truss would have to be input into our software regardless. The software prices the trusses. It also sends cutting to the saws. And the profile goes to the semi-automated assembly tables. So there's more to it than just an engineered design.

 

[jepps3]

Hey guys, Everything is going to be alright. Let’s just keep on designing proper trusses to fit the needs and requirements per code and in the honor of providing a protective, life preserving structure that gives refuge to mankind as you, THE Engineer, have been exalted to bestow distinguished pieces of modern engineering to construct such devout structures.

May the power of math, physics and all things considered to be with you!!!!

 

[BridgeSmith]

Thanks, jepps3, I think. I never knew I had been "exalted". I've always just felt that I was responsible, as in responsible for the lives of the people who rely on the structures I design. That's what putting an engineer's seal on set of drawings means. Not a responsibility I or any engineer I know takes lightly.

 

[1503-44]

Ron, do you check deflections? The chord loads can be made to work. It was always centerline deflection that gave me trouble.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[BAretired]

Both truss designs shown above are on the shallow side, imo. Span is 41' less 4' = 37', so span/depth = 37*12/22 = 20.2 which is not enough for my liking, so I would have made them deeper.

Perhaps a compromise about panel point spacing would make sense. The first design has panels that are too short. The second has panels that are too long as well as lacking symmetry.

For a 30-10-10 loading (TCL-TCD-BCD), wind could have a significant effect on the spacing of the continuous lateral bracing, particularly if the BCD load was not in place (which is often the case).

Reducing cost is an important goal, but is not the only consideration. I do not like the shallow angle of the web members in the second design. Six panels instead of five in the second design would be more symmetrical and, with an increase of a couple of inches in depth, is a better design imho.

 

[1503-44]

I'm with you there BA. shallow angles make for lots of tension and shear at the joints. If that can be avoided, so much the better.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[RontheRedneck]

1503-44 asked: "do you check deflections?"

I can't believe you would even ask that. Why would you think I wouldn't?



BAretired said: "Both truss designs shown above are on the shallow side"

Yes they are. I'm not at all thrilled with them either. But I'm also not building the job.

But - The one posted by the OP wasn't my design. And the one I posted matched the depth.

As I said before - I was only posting it for discussion, to show that more pieces costs more money.

Adding webs and making a truss look pretty doesn't make it work any better.

 

[1503-44]

Sorry. I don't know you yet.
You didn't post any deflections, so how do I know.
If I have a question, I ask. Are you offended?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[jepps3]

@RonTheRedneck - your work was well done and thought out. Don’t let any fellow peer disavow that!

And as for your integrity of work, you have walked before many engineers, as your mentors have walked, with the integrity of your knowledge and uprightness, doing according to all that you have commanded upon yourself, and keeping your statutes and your rules.

Ron, you have managed to keep your conduct among your fellow peers honorable, so that when they speak against you as mindless critics, they may see your good work and glorify them on the day you publish them.

The secret to your success is your good conscience. When you are slandered, those who revile your good ethics in design may be put to shame.

 

[jepps3]

Despite the existence of multiple critiques made by engineers against @RonTheRedneck from around this forum, most scholarly attention has been primarily given to those generated by @1503-44. This focus on a single user has limited the scope of research pertaining to reasons behind the criticism. We should offer a systematic comparison of different criticisms, examining the issues they engaged with, and their deployment strategies.

Using a computational analysis of threads posted on this forum as a whole, we show differences across user motives. Some criticisms were massive in scale while others were modest. Some focused on design quality, while others emphasized more generalized issues.

While some of @1503-44 moves have showed high levels of sophistication in terms of persona crafting and righteousness, other times he did not participate in pre-propaganda. Let us conclude by discussing the practical and theoretical implications of these findings. May @RonTheRedneck be indemnified with his good work and honorable nature!!!

 

[LittleInch]

Jesus, everyone got very spiky very fast...

The deflection quotation could have been phrased a bit better, but was meant just as a question more like "Ron, what defection do you get in the centre with your assumed roof loads?

Anyway it sounds like jepps3 has found his tame engineer, so assume he will now get this trusses from his out of state cheaper supplier and get the engineer to stamp them?

Would be good if you can post the final design from either the engineer or the truss manufacturer to close this out.

It's been one of the more long running posts but think we're in danger of going off into the weeds if we keep it going for no benefit. As always, IMHO.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[BAretired]

Truss #1 details the overhangs fully whereas Truss #2 relies on using the top chord cantilever, leaving the rest of the framing to the general contractor. Truss #1 is a working truss without the addition of Continuous Lateral Bracing (CLB). Truss #2 requires four rows of CLB (not sure why it's not five) to be supplied and installed by the general contractor. It should not be a surprise to learn that the cost of Truss #2 is only 80% of Truss #1.

So which is the better design? And who gets the benefit of the reduced cost? Not the Contractor! He has extra material to purchase and install in several awkward locations. Not the EOR! He has to inspect each CLB connection in many hard to access locations. And not the Owner! He is severely limited in the services he can run in the joist space because of restricted clearance. If any CLB is omitted (which is very common) he has an unsafe structure.

You decide! I know which design I prefer.