Replies

1. 
   Piffin | Sep 21, 2002 11:56pm | #1

   I don't know about cheaper without comparing figures. This guy may have already done comparisons on similar plans.

   I would look at using TJIs for one like this. Keeping the attic level free of trusses gives you tons of space for______.

   Excellence is its own reward!
2. 
   BossHog | Sep 22, 2002 02:48am | #2

   As the unofficial resident truss guy, you couldn't expect me to leave this one alone..................(-:

   Believe it or not, I'm not a fanatic about trusses, and I don't believe they're the answer to all framing problems. (Just don't tell my boss)

   But buying stock that long to try to frame a 43' hip seems ridiculous to me. For starters, you'd need to special order some awfully long and expensive lumber. And you'd need a serious bearing wall or two in the house. And some muscle to get them in place. Can you imagine hoisting 30' 2X12s into place? And what the heck would you use for a ridge board?

   Stick framing a roof is cheaper if you only consider material costs. Add in the labor, and I don't believe there's a plugged nickel's worth of difference between stick framing and truss framing.

   I have some rafter span charts in the office, and they're available on the internet if you want to check them out. But most of them quit before they got to those spans.

   If you want to take advantage of the attic space, get attic trusses. But I'd stay away from stick framing this one.

   A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

1. 
   rjw | Sep 23, 2002 03:32am | #6

   BH:

   Is there a visual way to identify trusses which have been designed to carry loads (ie storage) beyond the ceiling dead loads?

1. 
   BossHog | Sep 23, 2002 02:35pm | #7

   Bob -

   I can spot trusses pretty easily that are designed for added loads, but it's not easy to describe them without pictures to point at. Let me try some examples.

   Take a truss over a garage - maybe 24 to 28'. (Where most "storage trusses" are installed around here) Maybe a 6/12 pitch or so. Where the plates join the webs to the bottom chord, they would typically be about 3" X 4" or soon a "non-storage" truss. Storage trusses should have a slightly larger plate at the point - Maybe 4X4 or 5X5.

   Sometimes they'll spread out those web points so there's a 10' panel in the center, and change it to a 2X6 bottom chord. The webs will look funny, and it will also have bigger plates on the bottom chord.

   Occasionally you'll see bigger trusses (Like up to 40') with added loads for storage. Sometimes they'll make just the center panel a 2X6, and the rest of the bottom chord a 2X4. But that's pretty rare.

   Does that answer your question?

   Back off. I'm a postal worker.

1. 
   rjw | Sep 23, 2002 05:12pm | #8

   Thanks; it'll help, but I think I'll keep telling folks they aren't intended for storage unless the engineering plans otherwise indicate!

3. 
   coonass | Sep 22, 2002 05:39pm | #3

   Paul,

   Unless this is a free span structure it's no big deal to stick frame. All the rafters and hips are braced down to interior walls either by purlins, knee walls, or beams depending on layout. Don't need to use full length stock either. Unless the rooms are very large I would use 2x6 rafters and site built 2x8 hips. Not enough info to tell about cost comparison. Probably about the same.

   KK

1. 
   BossHog | Sep 23, 2002 01:41am | #4

   Hadn't thought about using interior bearing walls and kneewalls. But it seems like that would also add a lot of labor and expense to add more of those things.

   The roof could easily be clear spanned with trusses, and you could eliminate all the interior stuff.

   Neutrons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic

1. 
   coonass | Sep 23, 2002 02:04am | #5

   Ron,

   Bracing the rafters is just part of stick framing, lets you use smaller lumber. I like trusses, was just trying to answer original question. Some subs may prefer to stick frame so they can produce the added value..

   KK