Tag Archives: code conforming building

Code Requirements for Residential Roof Trusses

Code Requirements for Residential Roof Trusses

Reprinted from a March 2019 article in Structure Magazine authored by Brent Maxfield, P.E.

Part 3 of 3:

Implementation

1. Building Officials, Contractors, Owners, and Building Designers should be cognizant of and enforce the requirement that the Contractor and the Building Designer review the Truss Submittal Package prior to the installation of the Trusses. Building Officials should establish procedures to ensure that this code requirement is followed.

2. Many engineering drawings have general notes that require the Trusses to be designed and stamped by a registered engineer. It is important to understand that the stamp is for individual Trusses and not for the Trusses acting together as a system. Many engineers falsely assume that this stamp is for the individual Trusses as well as for the roof system.

3. Truss web bracing locations are provided on the Truss Design Drawings in the Truss Submittal Package. The BCSI document usually provides the bracing details. Many Truss webs do not align with adjacent Trusses, making continuous Lateral Restraint

bracing impossible to install. In these cases, T or L bracing will be required. Construction Documents should provide details and instructions for when T or L bracing is required.

4. Truss web bracing is critical to the stability of the roof system, yet very few residential projects have engineering observation of completed roof systems. Unless the Truss spans 60 feet or more, special inspection of the Truss web bracing installation is not required. This is an area where the code requirements could be improved.

5. Many projects have general notes that state that snow drift and unbalanced snow loading are required to be considered in the Truss design, but the Construction Documents do not provide the actual values of the snow drift loads and the unbalanced loads for each Truss. This is contrary to ANSI/TPI 1, Section 2.3.2.4(d). It is important to understand that the responsibility for calculating and providing the loads applied to each Truss rests with the Building Designer.

6. A functioning roof system is the responsibility of the Building Designer and consists of Trusses, bracing, blocking, connections to structure, diaphragms, and an understanding of the load path of all forces. The Truss Submittal Package is only one piece of the system.

7. If a portion of the roof system falls outside of the scope of the IRC, then that portion, including the associated load paths, will require engineering analysis. If the Building Designer is not an engineer, then an engineer who is not filling the role of the Building Designer could be engaged for a limited scope to design and stamp the elements that fall outside of the scope of the IRC.

This article intends to educate engineers about the roles and division of responsibilities for residential wood Trusses. It is critical to understand the specific scope of the Truss Designer as defined in ANSI/TPI 1. The Truss Designer is responsible for individual Truss Design Drawings using loading information obtained from the Truss Manufacturer, who gets information from the Contractor in the form of selected information from the Construction Documents. The Building Designer is responsible for ensuring that the Truss loads given to the Truss Designer are accurate. The Building Designer is also responsible for ensuring that all Trusses act together as a roof system. All players need to understand and fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in ANSI/TPI 1 in order to achieve a safe and code-conforming building.

Sutherlands® – Calling them Out

I have a serious case of “like” for The Home Depot®. When my children were little, every time we got near one, they would start to chant (in unison), “Home Depot…..Home Depot”.

Yesterday morning I was in The Home Depot® at Grand Junction, Colorado. It was a special moment, when a gentleman came up to me (having perhaps recognized the red Hansen Pole Buildings shirt I was wearing) and told me he had purchased one of our buildings, and was constructing it now!

It isn’t very often I get to meet one of our clients, and even rarer when they are still building – so this was great fun for me.

He related to me how he was originally intending to order his new pole building kit package from Sutherlands® Lumber in Grand Junction. They had even provided him with plans, which he had submitted to the local Building Permit issuing authorities to acquire his Building Permit.

The Sutherlands® plans (which were approved by the Building Official) had a foundation composed of throwing a 90 pound bag of Quikrete® in the bottom of the hole. The pressure preservative treated column would then be placed, and another bag of Quikrete® dumped in around the post.

Pole Barn FootingIt turns out the customer decided the Sutherlands® building was going to be inadequate. His only complaint at all with a Hansen Pole Building was the size of the holes and amount of concrete it took. Even then he admitted Hansen was a better buy, even with the extra concrete costs.

The loyal readers of this column certainly will recall my railing against concrete cookies, in earlier posts: https://www.hansenpolebuildings.com/blog/2012/08/hurl-yourconcrete-cookies/ and https://www.hansenpolebuildings.com/blog/2014/03/concrete-cookies/

In my humble opinion, what is being purported to be adequate by Sutherlands® (whether the Building Official approved it or not) is close to criminal.

Our client’s building has 40’ span prefabricated wood roof trusses, with a double truss every 10 feet. In his 30 psf (pounds per square foot) roof load, it results in each truss bearing column having to support 6860 pounds of load. Added to the fun is a soil bearing capacity of only 1500 psf.

The International Building Codes (IBC) require footings to be a minimum of a nominal six inch thickness. So let’s explore the design solution promulgated by Sutherlands®.

At 90 pounds per bag of Quikrete® it would take about 1.65 bags to make a cubic foot. If this was all poured to a nominal six inch thickness as a footing pad beneath a column, it would roughly form a two foot diameter footing. Now granted, this is not how Sutherlands® would like to see it done, however we are going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

A two foot diameter footing has an area of 3.14 sft (square feet). Multiplying by the 1500 psf allowable foundation pressure, a pad such as this would support 4710 pounds….when it needs to support 6860 pounds – it is overstressed by nearly 50%!!!

Talking with a building kit supplier (such as a Sutherlands®) who is recommending bags of Quikrete® to backfill the bottom of a column hole? Might want to really think about the design being bought into.

Bagging it? Prepare for the possibility of a roof line with some humps and bumps in it, at a future date.

When people such as Sutherlands® provide under designed buildings, it gives our entire industry a bad name. I’m calling Sutherlands® out here – and challenging them to actually provide Code conforming pole building kit packages