] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Pat Clark" <bcinc(--nospam--at)nanosecond.com>]

I responded to your original e-mail, but I am not sure if it was received.
Here is the text body from my early response...

Pat Clark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Clark" <bcinc(--nospam--at)nanosecond.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Bracing for Nail-Plate Wood Trusses


> I am also attempting to decide how to handle this problem. I have a few
> thoughts as well.
>
> Since TPI represents essentially the manufacturers, it is not surprising
> that they have specified that the EOR does this portion of the design.
Why
> irritate your own members?
>
> Where in the UBC or relevant code, does it specify that TPI's guidelines
for
> the division of responsibilities are the ones to be used? If it is not
> referenced by the code, can't the EOR specifiy that the truss company
> provide this portion of the design?  Although this may mean that no one
will
> be doing it...
>
> Since the trusses are typically designed after the structure, it would
seem
> that the permananet bracing would have to be designed as an internal
system
> ( no external forces on the structure ) or else some re-design would have
to
> be called for.
>
> Also, the most efficent permanent lateral bracing system would require
some
> effort in the truss design to align webs and such in the design.  How can
> the EOR get the truss company to revise their design, which would require
> perhaps less cost-effective trusses, when they are not intimately involved
> in the truss mfgrs work?  Anyone that does custom housing using trusses
can
> tell you that the nice pretty layouts shown in TPI's guidelines for
> designing permanent lateral bracing are never to be found.  Also, what
> incentive is their for the truss company to provide webbing that does not
> need to be braced (ie using 2x4 insted of 2x3, better material, etc.) when
> they get to write off the difficult bracing analysis to the EOR?
>
> I have seen a few truss companys that have been specifying 't' bracing to
> eliminate the lateral bracing requirements.
>
>
> Anyone else care to comment?
>
> Pat Clark, P.E.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kris Hamilton" <kph(--nospam--at)geigerengineers.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:18 PM
> Subject: Bracing for Nail-Plate Wood Trusses
>
>
> >
> > I know this is an issue that was discussed several years ago, but I do
not
> > know if a consensus (or an accord) has ever been reached.
> >
> > The Plated Truss Institute still insists that the EOR should be the one
to
> > design the bracing for the web members, along with the connection of the
> > bracing to the web members and the connection of the bracing to the
> > structure.  What a shift of liability!
> >
> > I, of course, continue to believe that this ought to be dealt with by
the
> > truss manufacturer or designer, since it something that cannot even
> remotely
> > be known by the EOR until after shop drawings are received.  Their
> handbook
> > even acknowledges that the "building designer" might be the home-owner
or
> > contractor - then goes on to say that they should perform this
engineering
> > design function.
> >
> > The local building department just realized that this is not being done
on
> > most of the buildings they see, so they want to see an engineer design
the
> > web bracing for each truss roof that is specified by an engineer (I
don't
> > know what they are doing for "house-designer" projects).
> >
> > Is anyone aware if there has been any further action on this issue?  Or
is
> > everyone but me just buckling under and doing the design?  How many were
> not
> > even aware that there was an issue here?
> > --
> > Kris P. Hamilton, P.E.
> > Geiger Engineers
> > 114 West Magnolia Street
> > Suite 505
> > Bellingham, WA  98225
> > Ph: 360 734 7194
> > Fx: 360 734 7399
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********