×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Gable End and Interior Shearwalls
3

Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I've been mucking around with the Woodworks software and reading through some of its documentation. I noticed that the uplift forces being calculated for the holdowns was different than I was calculating manually for gable end shearwalls. Looking through the help files I noticed that the height being used to calculate the holdown force was not the wall height but actually the average height to the roof diaphragm for that segment (see diagram below):



When a roof like the one shown above is composed of closely spaced trusses (max. 24" o/c) my thinking was they would act like mini shearwalls of their own and bring the diaphragm load down to the ceiling level where it would be transferred to the walls. I suppose the same argument can be made for interior shearwalls as shown above as well. However, I am now having to rethink this assumption.

The exterior shearwalls parallel to the ridge obviously are same height as the wall height but how is everyone else handling the gable end and interior shearwall heights?

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

What your sketch shows IMHO is a non drag truss (gable truss without diagonal webs, which will require shear sheathing applied) being placed over the shear walls. The interior condition assumes a truss (drag?) to the wall and a non drag truss over the wall. This is a worst case assumption, so it will always work.
If you are requiring drag trusses to be connected to the shear walls, than where the force is applied depends on your details.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Let's assume the gable truss is a drag truss and has diagonal webs as well as the vertical webs for sheathing, I've seen lots of these on various construction sites. Now back to my original question, when I go to calculate the uplift (tension) force on the holdown at these shear panels on the gable end what is the appropriate height to use?

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

well if your gable truss is a drag truss with a bottom chord elevation at the same height as the side walls, then I would use the same wall height.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

When a sloped diaphragm transfers its reaction to a shear wall, the force is along the top of the drag strut truss. In other words, the force is not at the top plate of the wall, as you assumed, nor at midheight of the wall, as Woodworks assumed, but rather on the diagonal, up and down along the top of the truss.

So, the truss will experience overturning, which must be resisted by the holddown at each end of the truss.

The truss, in turn, transfers the diaphragm force into the shear wall along the top plate of the shear wall.

DaveAtkins

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

DaveAtkinS
Woodworks appears to assume a balloon wall (not a drag truss). As such the shear force will be applied at the mean height of the sheathing as shown in the above sketch. It will also require straps from the gable to the wall.
When a drag truss is used, where the uplift is taken out depends on the connections details.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Explain more about the straps and where they would go assuming a balloon framed wall.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

The straps would be needed at the vertical red lines in the sketch. So the force flow per the assume shear walls can be transferred per the sketch.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

For a balloon framed walls - If studs are continuous from the foundation to the outriggers then there would be no need for straps at the gable wall.

On a separate note, for walls with full height gable studs, the shear force for OTM should be applied at the average height of the roof for "gable" sections (similar to the area between windows in your sketch) and at the highest point along the wall for "sloped" sections (similar to the end gable wall segments in your sketch) in order to maintain equilibrium. This is assuming the shear force is delivered uniformly to the shear wall along the (sloping) sheathing.

See attached link.

http://www.shearwalls.com/resources/appendix-b.pdf

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Thank-you for posting the paper. I will read through this and then come back to this discussion.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I never see balloon framing. Always platform framing and drag strut and gable end trusses.

DaveAtkins

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Note that up until now I have been treating the gable truss as a drag truss in my analysis which means the holdown force I've been using is given in the first box above:

T = F(cosθ)wh/b

This holdown force is less than the holdown force given by Matteson's paper (second box) and also less than holdown force given by the average wall height method (third box).

The other thing thats stands out to me from Matteson's paper is the suggestion to apply a strap at the low end of the sloping shear wall that passes over the top plate of the shear wall and connects to the chord. I've never seen this done, which doesn't mean it hasn't been done or shouldn't be, but I'm oblivious to it. Does anyone have any examples of this being done in practice, picture or diagrams would be educational. The downward force that must be provided by the strap is: Fy = F(sinθ)

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
My findings based on this discussion are presented below:





Which brings me to one additional question which was already partially addressed by Dave Atkins above. Every truss in the roof that is subject to a lateral load along its top chords will experience an overturning moment with an uplift force given as:

V/2(tanθ)

The lateral force on each truss cannot be resisted by the walls beneath it since they are perpendicular to the load so the lateral load will be collected up by the diaphragm and resisted at the shearwalls. However, the vertical uplift force I would argue can be resisted by each truss connection to the wall beneath it hence the only loads that need to be dealt with at the shearwalls are the total horizontal component tributary to each shearwall. Once you have the total shear for the shearwall then if the truss above cannot act as drag truss you then have to analyze it according to the method proposed by Matteson or the avg. height method. In this reqard the Matteson method appears to be a more accurate and rational method of the two.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

All the design values for lumber are considered as converative. Until the lumber values are increased to more accurate values. A simple analysis, as in average height, is quite good enough to design by. IMHO

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I have not combed through your calculations with any detail but things look OK to me; although I do not know that is necessary to divide the sloped wall into sections as the paper shows. The force can be applied along the roof slope with a moment arm (perpendicular to that force) to the point of overturning. It has been a while since I have worked through the geometry, but I think it comes out to Ta = Vc*Hmax/B, and Tb = Vc*He/B for the sloping wall.

As long as there is no break in the sheathing at the eave height, I do not see any reason for any intermediate ties within, or at the top of the wall.

Also, you might want to consider distributing forces to walls in a line based on panel relative stiffness rather than simply wall length. There has been some discussion concerning this on here recently. (Also see 2008 AF&PA SDPWS 4.3.3.4) This will have the added benefit of drawing load away from the tall slender wall where uplift forces are highest.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Woodman,
All this being said, I agree that many engineers simply use the average wall height for the segment in question for balloon framed walls. Similarly, I think most use the eave height for interior shear walls with a drag truss and count on additional uplift being transferred through the truss and resisted by the truss ties at the bearing ends.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Rww0002, that is my next area of further study, how to deal with shearwall load assignment based on a more rational approach. Take for instance the interior shearwall in the image at the top of the discussion. Based on standard approach this shearwall will see double the load that either exterior gable shearwall will see. Being that this wall is only a small segment of the entire wall length this is not realistic, the ext. shearwalls will take a larger fraction of the load. The question is how to determine what is appropriate.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

medeek.
I would recomend you read up on some basic laterial design of buildings. The Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook: Clay and Concrete Masonry, Fifth Edition Hardcover – March 5, 1998 by James E. Amrhein (Author) should be a good one.
Please note that such designing of shear walls is not typically done for wood buildings.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I agree with woodman88. Even if you assume a drag truss there will be additional overturning force simply because the lateral load is not imparted at the eves to the system as a whole. Personally, I used the midheight of the roof structure, I do not use dead load to offset the tension (I specify the nailing of stud groups so typically I have much greater capacity than I need for compression; my stud group thickness are governed by the minimum for the holdown) and I clearly spell out what the in-plane shear needs to be for drag truss. I can almost guarantee the truss manufacturer will not size the truss members for right load if you do not explicitly define the demand.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

This has been an important and enlightening discussion for me. Thanks for getting it started Medeek.

I tepidly disagree with woodman and Robert on this one. Unless a moment couple is developed between the top of a shear wall and the drag truss above it, the shear wall will feel the applied shear as though it were delivered at an elevation matching the top of the wall. That's just statics.

Moreover, if the couple mentioned above were possible, it would put the shear wall in double curvature and reduce the overturning on the shear wall. For the truss over shear wall condition, I just don't see any way for the overturning moment to be any more than it would be with the shear applied at the top of the wall.

The real question here is how to address that left over moment that reflects the elevation at which the shear is actually applied. And I believe that DaveAtkins has the right of that. I'll confess I'm a little worried because I have not been tying down my drag trusses or specifying that they have studs directly beneath them.

Two additional thoughts:

1) How darn complicated does this situation get if your shear is coming down to the wall out of a hip roof rather than a gable? Ick.

2) At some point, our profession is going to have to consider producing a lateral load design guide for the prefabricated truss folks. Those poor bastards don't stand a chance.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I'm glad I worked through this a bit last night. I feel a little more educated on the topic now. However, with so many differing opinions I'm not exactly sure how to design these shearwalls anymore. ponder

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Here is the way I have always done it:

Assume platform framing with trusses above.

Specify on the drawings the location of the drag strut trusses, and that they must be positioned above the shear walls. Specify the lateral force you want the truss supplier to design for.

I don't ask the truss supplier to do anything special at the gable ends--those trusses will be covered with sheathing.

Detail the connection of the drag strut truss bottom chord to the top of the shear wall (toenails or Simpson angles).

Detail the connection at each end of the drag strut truss for uplift due to overturning, if required (otherwise, a normal hurricane tie will be sufficient).

Detail the connection of the bottom of the gable end truss to the top of the end wall (there will be a horizontal joint in the sheathing at the top of the wall).

Detail the shear wall holddowns.

You also need to note the nailing pattern for the roof sheathing and the wall sheathing. Assume unblocked sheathing at the roof--they almost never put in blocking. Blocking is typically required in the walls, because the design tables assume walls are blocked.

DaveAtkins

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

KootK

My answers were regarding the OP drawings.

If you or the OP want to know how to design wood buildings, per the current standards, see the attached link for some good basic information.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I think there are a few things going on here and maybe some talking past eachother, but lots of good information/ideas.

Quote (Medeek)

Take for instance the interior shearwall in the image at the top of the discussion. Based on standard approach this shearwall will see double the load that either exterior gable shearwall will see. Being that this wall is only a small segment of the entire wall length this is not realistic, the ext. shearwalls will take a larger fraction of the load. The question is how to determine what is appropriate.

Typically a flexible diaphragm is assumed so, yes, the middle wall has twice the tributary load. However if you had a rigid diaphragm (typically defined as your shearwall deflection being twice the average diaphragm deflection) then you could/would assign load based on stiffness of the walls.
Best to use semi-rigid diaphragm and account for wall and diaphragm stiffness, like a beam on elastic foundation. I jest bigsmile.

As for the overturning forces - Because the resultant horizontal roof wind load is applied above the top of the top plate you will have a higher overturning moment (therefore higher chord forces). Same goes for hip roof. I think many times this gets ignored and the force gets applied to the top of the wall, but it does violate statics.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

@Woodman: thanks for the PDF. Here's one for you in case you want to know how to design wood buildings Canadian style: Link. You guys doing six story yet in AZ?

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

RFreund
"I think many times this gets ignored and the force gets applied to the top of the wall, but it does violate statics."
The assumption, in typical wood construction, is the the trusses/joists that have sheathing applied to the top and bottom is that it creates a system for the transfer of forces. As a system the lateral force at each truss/joist get transferred to the shear walls but the uplift force is resisted by each truss/joist connections to the bearing walls and does not get transferred to the shear walls.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

KootK

Thank you, I will review it if I do another five/six story wood building.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Thanks woodman, I knew there had to be an answer of why we were ignoring it.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I thought it time for a summary sketch to ensure that I've really got the gist of this now. I went with a flat roof as the sloping diaphragm business detracts from the principle of most interest to me. Any objections?

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Your statics looks solid to me:





My question is what is the best number to give the truss manufacturer? V, v, or R1/R2

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
or the collector force?

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Nice. Exactly the calcs that I would have provided were I more industrious. I say give the truss guys everything. It's just ink and, the more information we provide, the better the odds.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Most truss companies delegate the connections for lateral forces to the EOR. The only number of interest to them is the total shear applied at the top chord. In my neck of the woods it is my job to decide how to connect their truss to the shear resisting element. They will eventually provide you a simple 2D shop drawing denoting the applied forces and their assumptions. This will be a standard output from a company like MiTec or another truss plate manuf. Truss engineers do not get paid a lot. Years ago it was something like $50 per truss. They are not interested in excess information. It is a cut throat industry and low price gets the job always.

If you are going to work towards breaking even at this in the future, you should read the recommendation by woodman. There are a lot of standard practices for wood framing.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Since we are on the topic of interior shearwalls I've sketched a rough schematic of a typical residential interior shearwall situation that I commonly encounter in some form or another. I apologize that the drawing and dimensions are completely not to scale:



I'm pretty confident with the SW2 and the drag truss inline with it. The truss completes the load path and provides the collector to SWL C.

With SWB since it runs perpendicular to the trusses needs some shear panels above it to the roof diaphragm or some mini-shearwall trusses made up by the truss manufacturer. According to everything I've read a collector should connect SWB to the exterior wall SWL 3, however this is entirely open space. I think I am a little more unclear as to best handle the need for a collector at this location.

The trusses are standard trusses in this case, nothing fancy here, no vaulted ceilings etc...

Note that the exterior shearwalls are not shown. Due to the number and size of the windows there typically is not much room for exterior shearwalls hence the need to utilize interior shearwalls. FTO shearwalls, portal frames and moment frames are always options but avoided if possible due to the added complexity and cost.

Most of the residences I work on are in Exp. C or D and the basic wind speed is 155 mph (ult.) so lateral forces are usually quite significant.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
As I mentioned, my putting Woodworks through its paces, is what got me started on this conversation. How exactly it was arriving at its numbers for shearwalls had me digging pretty deep through the documentation. Not to prove the software wrong but to understand what I had been doing different or possibly missing in my own manual analysis.

I think my next big purchase will definitely be a copy of Woodworks. The ability to input complex wall and roof geometry and get instant wind and seismic loads would be a huge plus. I can calculate them manually but for large residences with crazy roof lines it can be time consuming. Beyond Woodworks is there any other software that is comparable in function?

The only concern I have with a product like Woodworks is the "blackbox" element of it all. I'm not doubting its accuracy since a lot of engineers swear by it but I like to really understand how I am arriving at my numbers.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Quote (Medeek)

According to everything I've read a collector should connect SWB to the exterior wall SWL 3, however this is entirely open space. I think I am a little more unclear as to best handle the need for a collector at this location.

Yup. I see it the same way except that I think the collector needs to be at the level of the plywood rather than the drywall. You can play some games with partial diaphragms and ride along roof sections but it gets pretty sketchy pretty fast. And then there's all the considerations that go into achieving rotational equilibrium for each of the three little panels.

Unfortunately, for all but four sided, flat roofed boxes, most diaphragm designs are full of load path holes and questionable assumptions. It's a tough road for the conscientious.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

@Brad805: you and woodman certainly are right in that documents like the WFCM are productivity gold mines. What would you consider to be the analog document in Canada?

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Koot, the CMHC had a framing book years ago, but I don't know if it has been updated.

Medeek, Risa 3D includes wood framing and you would have an option to model a roof diaphragm using FEM if you wanted to make some assumptions on the roof truss configuration. It would be time consuming, but at least you could satisfy your curiosity a few times so you could be more comfortable with simplifications. Cost wise, this would not be a good option. You can download a copy to try. I know about complex roofs. One of my guys has a package on his desk that has 158 different trusses.

You seem to have a knack for detail, and I think you would do really well at detailing if you can find forward thinking clients that understand the cost of re-works. They are hard to find, but they are out there. Something like Javelin, Boise Cascade's 3D solution or the Struc Soft add-in for Revit might be something to think about in the future. Some of these include steel stud framing as well, and that is growing in popularity in some areas. You need to find a niche. I can tell you care, but typical residential clients will wear you down quicker than others. The money is too personal and most of the time their wants out weigh their means.

I am not in a hurricane zone by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I recall from news stories the typical roof failure during a storm is the complete roof fails, segments fail or parts of the roof are dislodged. I do not recall a lot of cases where I have seen roof framing roll over due to insufficient bracing except during construction. I think that has a lot to do with all of the things we must neglect. Now that does prove anything, but if you keep that in the back of your mind you can detect when to look at certain things closely and when it only needs some basic checks. An architect that wants you to build with toothpicks is something to watch for. I realize this is about testing woodworks, and that is great, but you need to always keep practicality in mind. Truth be told, many of the residential clients do not appreciate what you do very much. A house is a house is a house in their mind.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I have used STAAD quite extensively in my other career as a mechanical/structural engineer so I am no stranger to using FEA to get answers. I think I need to give Risa 3D another hard look. If I could accurately model the framing members with the sheathing that would be huge for me since then I could at least see how well my manual calcs and assumptions are approximating the "real" solution. Of course one cannot afford to do this for every residential design (most of my jobs are usually not more than $300) as you suggest.

I have been digging through the WFCM as of late, and yes it does have alot of helpful prescriptive rules that I've also been incorporating in my own work. However, I've noticed that most of the residential designs that I'm looking at don't fit as nicely into the rectangular box model. I'm just trying to make sure that my engineering of these more elaborate structures is not woefully inadequate.

Brad805, do you or any of your colleagues have some sample Risa files of wall assemblies, diaphragms, portal frames or shearwalls that you would be willing to share. I would like to understand how such a FE model is created for a wood structure and what assumptions and details are made to make this an accurate mode.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

As far as a business model based on residential work goes, think rich folks. I know a few structural engineers, including my spouse, that do quite nicely working on custom homes for the well to do. The trick is to develop a reputation for creativity and innovation. Things like:

1) Using steel beams to make wacky cantilevers work.
2) Features stairs in steel and glass.
3) Sexy heavy timber detailing.
4) Cross laminated timber floor slabs.

These kind of things get you out of the prescriptive domain and into operating in a space where your services are more highly valued (Brad's point). Your obvious attention to detail might serve you especially well in such an environment.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Chapter 9.8 of Terry Malone's book has a section on interior shearwalls perp. to trusses. After I finish digesting this chapter I will present my solution to the interior SWB above. In the meantime I found this interesting detail online which has relevance to SW2 and drag trusses that run parallel to interior shearwalls:



Is this amount of blocking common practice for a typical drag truss? I suppose it will all depend on the loads involved.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

The top blocking seems ineffective to me as the truss top chord is well braced.

I can see an argument for bottom chord blocking but, done like this, I have two concerns:

1) 24" o/c seems excessive.
2) The blocking is only as effective as the drywall diaphragm that restrains it.

I'd rather see diagonal bracing at some interval to laterally brace both the bottom chord and the joint between the truss and the wall.

An issue with this detail, and most of itss cousins, is the truss uplift that tends to occur with seasonal moisture change. It tends to put parts of these details into cross grain tension.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Quote (undefined)

The assumption, in typical wood construction, is the the trusses/joists that have sheathing applied to the top and bottom is that it creates a system for the transfer of forces. As a system the lateral force at each truss/joist get transferred to the shear walls but the uplift force is resisted by each truss/joist connections to the bearing walls and does not get transferred to the shear walls.

I don't agree. For the overturning to be taken out at each truss, the lateral force must transferred to the bottom of each truss. The ceiling diaphragm (usually GWB) is not typically considered a diaphragm.

DaveAtkins

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Dave,

I don't think I understand your point, but I"m probably missing something. Even if you didn't have a ceiling diaphragm, you could still take out the uplift at each truss / stud, right? It's like the roof is a folded plate and each stud on the uplift side is a string. They have no ability to resist horizontal forces but they can resist uplift due to rotation of the folded plate. The shearwalls then resist the tension from the lateral force applied at the top plate level.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

The way I look at it, the lateral force is transferred to the resisting drag strut trusses and gable end trusses via the sloped diaphragms. It is then at these specific trusses that the overturning occurs.

Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. The entire roof (roof sheathing, trusses, and ceiling sheathing) may act as a unit. If so, many of the wall studs will assist with overturning.

DaveAtkins

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

DaveAtkins

The only way to match the design of conventional light-frame construction (per the IBC) with an engineered design is to look at the whole building. Such as, conventional light-frame construction requires an attic which has a ceiling creating a system that is not usually considered in an engineered design of wood structures. IMHO
The important thing is to design to your requirements/standards to meet the building code.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I have never done a FEM for a wood truss roof. The crux of the problem you are concerned with seems to be the impact of roof slope on the roof diaphragm and the flow of the forces. I believe the worst case will be a typical gable roof. Once you start adding hips into the mix the stiffness of the assembly will increase. You could make this roof as complex and accurate as you like, but I would start with something simple to calibrate the idea and keep the meshing simple. I would model a single truss as a 2D element assuming some chord dimensions and material strengths. From that it would be easy to create a 3D roof and then add a roof diaphragm element. Then I would likely add in some typical construction bracing and apply some interior restraints to get a better idea of the force distribution. To determine the shear wall load distribution you could assign spring constants, but I would likely start with pinned connections to check that the deflection appears reasonable. Spring constants will take some time to calibrate to get a reasonable load distribution. I suspect you would find the roof stiffness is greater than many of the simplifications suggest, and the roof will behave more like an assembly rather than individual components.

As we can clearly see from the respondents posting, the simplifying assumptions can vary. Most of the literature usually only covers the simple cases. From those we all develop rules of thumb we follow for our practice. There are some interesting practitioners in the residential engineering field.

The last detail you posted makes sense, but keep in mind the labor to implement that. A typical roof truss for a common house is approx $100 (can be less). The labor to cut all the blocking and nail them into place and can be more than adding an extra truss if the shear forces suggest you need more than one truss.

The interior shear panel you posted earlier can be a time consuming detail to implement. All of us engineers like plywood in these cases because it can be cut neatly cut to fit (in our minds anyway). From the contractors point of view on site he has to cut each 2x4, nail it into place and then attach the plywood. This is more time consuming than adding additional bracing between the trusses while they are installing the construction bracing. You can add a top/bottom chord member laminated to the vertical webs to create a truss of sorts. You will have eccentricities with that detail, but practical solutions will lead to more work long run. We do not typically get direct feedback on our designs, but you can be certain the framing contractor will make comments to the owners, or the GC about time consuming details.

For a $300 fee I hope you are working towards solutions that are in the realm of 2 - 5hr. You need a salary and must use a multiplier on that rate to account for the fact you are the IT, PR, HR, and accounting guy (assuming sole practitioner).

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
The best way to deal with shearwalls running parallel to trusses is to put the truss inline with the shearwall as shown above. I would have the sheathing continue all the way up the truss to the roof diaphragm sheathing. There will probably be a sheathing splice at the truss/wall junction so some A35 clips spaced accordingly would be advisable. The roof sheathing needs to be nailed so that the shear from the diaphragms on each side of the truss is accounted for, probably no less than 8d nails @ 4" o/c. Any closer spacing than this or larger nails will probably result in splitting of the truss top chord. In that case a 2x4 could be sistered onto the truss top chord for more nailing purposes.

The 2x4 blocking at the ceiling level seems pointless to me. The blocking at the roof diaphragm level would only seem appropriate if the shear was extreme, otherwise I would probably omit it or space it at 48" o/c.

After reading through Malone's book the thing that stood out to me was the necessity of making sure the deflection of the truss under gravity (live loads: ie. snow) loads does not compromise the lateral bracing.

A good case in point is the three configurations given below when the trusses do not line up with the shearwall. Both congfig A and config B will have problems from vertical loads and the blocking will probably be loaded beyond allowables both in bending and in shear or as in config B the blocking will be in cross grain bending or prying. Config C would be the best method to handle this situation, which allows for the vertical deflection of the trusses under gravity loads.



A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Based on chapter 9 from Malone's book the correct treatment of an interior shearwall that runs perpendicular to the trusses would be given as below:



What I find most interesting about this detail is the continuous 2x collector that runs the full length of the diaphragm with blocking. This seems like a lot more effort for the framers but without this collector the diaphragm boundary is not compliant with the IBC.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

A couple comments:

1) I wouldn't sheath interior trusses unless you really don't trust the designer. It's costly and the truss itself should be easily capable if transferring the shear from the roof deck to the shear wall. Additionally, sheathing the trusses means interference with MEP runs.

2) I doubt the robustness of Malone configuration C to deal with upward and downward truss movement. Unless the shear wall is auspiciously centred between trusses, I suspect that there's still potential to snap that piece of plywood. I wonder if one could do something more flexible and ductile with sheet steel instead.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I agree the truss should easily be able to handle the lateral loads if the designer inputs them into his software. However, I don't like to trust any truss designers. I've worked with some that really know there stuff but then there are some that either don't care or are under such a time/money crunch they won't take the added effort to address the loads imposed by an interior shear wall. Sheathing the truss is essentially an insurance policy in my opinion.

I actually just finished helping my brother wire his house this summer. The structure is 52' x 36' with one interior shearwall parallel to the attic trusses. The sheathing extends from the interior stemwall all the way up to the ridge (12/12 attic trussed roof). I ended up boring about three 2" diameter holes through the shearwall sheathing up in the attic for the electrical work as well a number of smaller holes down lower. There was also holes for HVAC and plumbing interspersed throughout. None of this seemed too problematic, a cordless drill or sawzall makes quick work of 7/16 OSB.

With regards to truss deflection I suspect that the plywood could deflect a full inch before ultimate failure becomes a possibility. I wonder if OSB would behave better in this regard than plywood. Since you actually want the sheathing to bend easily in this situation I think it would be best to orient it along its weak axis. I might have to get into my garage and cut a 12" strip and support it at 24" o/c and load it in the center until it snaps, measuring the max. deflection just before failure. This would be an interesting imperial test of this configuration.

Assuming the sheathing bends in a arc like fashion a deflection of 1" vertically will result in a horizontal displacement of less than 1/16" for both bottom chords of the trusses, this should be acceptable.

The problem with Config A and B is the non-compliance of the framing and nails.

Sheet steel would probably work better than these two configurations however I wonder how well it would perform with the lateral loads. Would it tend to buckle or dish. Even worse would it make noise under high wind load that was cyclic in nature. If the shearwall was off center and quite close to one of the trusses I could see a much better argument for the sheet steel.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Buckling is definitely an issue with the sheet but it could be made to work. Maybe 1.5" corrugated metal deck would be the way to go. Pin fastened Metal decks don't seem to create noise problems in commercial buildings but, certainly, that would be a lousy outcome.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Interior Shearwall Detail cleaned up a bit:

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Here is the final detail page for the interior shearwalls if anyone is interested. I ended up having both types of interior shearwalls (parallel and perp.) on this project so it was a good study.

Interior Shearwalls

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Nice details

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

X2. Consider them pilfered.

I worry about the stability of the truss to wall connection in detail three. Does the ceiling drywall provide sufficient lateral restraint? Maybe one of our resident wood-o-philes can comment on standard practice.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
In the previous detail that I found online I initially did not think the blocking at the ceiling level was of major importance, now I'm beginning to have second thoughts.

CBSE I like the mfg. truss block method in your attached file however if the roof is sloping that would complicate it slightly with different sizes of truss blocks, but the truss plant should have no problem in making them up correctly.

I also noticed you have toeinails as well as A35 clips into the top plate of the shearwall, normally I would do one or the other but I could see the redundancy in this connection.

I have never been a big fan of diagonal kickers but I suppose they are actually a better way to brace the bottom chord than even the horizontal blocking prescribed in this detail:



A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
So which is better?

PDF and AutoCAD

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Mechanically, I like four. I'd expect contractor pushback though and would probably compromise to three. Like woodman88 suggested above, sooner or late, you end up using drywall for stability. Maybe CBSE can comment on how well the pre-fabbed bracing has been received on his sloping roof projects.
 

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

If the resistance is the same in all four, #2 is the one they will pick in the field. That is very easy to implement. Your personal preference is meaningless unless it is your house. If the resistance is different I don't follow the point of the question.

Many truss companies will sheet a gable end truss in the shop, but you would have to accept a joint at the top of the wall.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Has anybody used two and had the opportunity to verify its condition after a few winters? The concept is clever but fatally flawed in my opinion. The wall won't be centred between the trusses, it'll be six inches or some other random value from one of the trusses. When the trusses deflect, if the plywood doesn't snap in flexure, it might just shear clean off.

I should mention that all this stuff is hypothetical for me. Unfortunately, I work in a region where diaphragm design garners little respect so it just doesn't get done for the most part.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I don't think 1 or 3 are that unreasonable, weather it comes sheathed or not. Really any of these I could see working. I've never seen #2 implemented but in order to brace a partition between trusses (and parallel) you normally would have wood blocking between trusses to brace the top of the partition. I don't recall seeing this blocking in bad shape but I can't say that I have looked either. I was thinking 4 was being used for the perpendicular case but I see that it helps eliminate buckling stability concerns. I suppose though the gypsum board ceiling will do fine in bracing the bottom chord (given the lack of failures??).

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I agree with the premise Koot if the roof is considered to be a combination of 2D trusses that all deflect independently as the truss calcs suggest, but once the roof is complete it functions like a unit. If this were a problem I would expect this problem to exist at all interior walls where they are parallel to a truss. It is very common to screw the edge of the ceiling drywall to an interior wall that has a larger plate attached to the top of the wall. After the ceiling board is in place, the wall board is installed tight enough for taping. This in effect will create a similar situation since the walls are much stiffer than any one single truss. I have also seen many renovation projects where walls parallel to the roof trusses have been framed tight to the U/S of existing drywall and they have performed acceptably. That is not a good practice, but if you have installed any sheetrock you will get why some might choose to do so.

He could add a 2x4 on edge to stiffen the shear element and avoid excessive drwyall cracks if he is concerned. That detail still can be completed with a framing nailer, and some leftover material that was ordered to create all the tee bracing truss guys come up with these days to deal with the long unsupported truss chord lengths. Nails and 2x4 scrap are both cheap. Think of implementing the other details if you had a 12/12 roof where the truss span were say 35'. The total truss height would be 17'-6". With a 10' or 12' ceiling that puts you almost 30'-0" in the air. That is yet another piece you get to fly in with the picker, whereas detail #2 is ladder/scaffold work whenever you have a grunt to do it.

The plywood will not shear off, nor snap, but it might deform. I have watched truckers use 3/4" plywood scrap to offload their loaded trailers (high boy trailer). The plywood is not happy, but it is does not shear or snap.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I'm with you on all of that Brad. However:

1) I consider connection to a shear wall to be much more critical than acceptable performance of nearby drywall. For shear wall connections, I'm much less willing to place my trust in anecdotal experience that doesn't calc out.

2) A long truss could easily deflect 2" vertically next to a wall 4" away. That would induce a good deal more curvature into the plywood than your scrap offloading example. Snap, snap, snap I say.

Everything in your post confirms a suspicion that's been building in my mind: the Malone detail is bass ackwards. Designing the plywood to be flexible enough not to draw gravity load is silly. Instead, we should design the element that spans from the wall out to the trusses to be able to hold the trusses up. 2x6 @ 24" o/c with clips or something along those lines.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Yes, I agree the shearwall is more critical from a structural point of view, but drywall cracks are more critical to the homeowner. Homeowners get annoyed by a such a problem and they call to complain or ask you to spend your time investigating the problem.

I doubt the plywood would fail before the nails would start to deform in the example, but it will boil down to a battle of stiffness. I have a vacuum press for veneering and have edge loaded plywood many times by accident when the backer hangs over the edge of the piece being veneered. I have also built curved forms for veneering. The trailer was not a great example since it is sitting on clay, but the trailer was loaded to approx 25,000lb.

The importance of this question boils down to ones belief in the 2D truss deflection analysis. I agree with the 2D approach, but I do not believe it is very accurate at predicting the deflection of a 3d roof assembly. Have I tried to prove that with a detailed analysis, no, but I have looked at enough snow loaded roofs to be comfortable. I was going to share some of my examples, but I found a couple of technical papers that might be of interest to your inquisitive mind.
- ASCE: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291...
- Wind Engineering Conference: http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~wzhang/Pdf/C201306ACWE1...

The ASCE paper does not appear to have compared deflections, but they did find up to a 58% reduction in connector forces. The ASCE study did not include a plate element for the roof sheathing.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Thanks for indulging me Brad. I worked with the Wood Truss Council of America for a spell. At that time, they were very interested in finding a way to account for 3D system behaviour. Unfortunately, it's a very difficult thing to quantify.

So I've got to ask since we're geographical cousins: do you actually incorporate any of these fancy details into your work? I've yet to see an inter truss drag strut in real life. Of course, I don't do a ton of wood.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

@ KootK

I haven't had any contractors complain about the detail...yet. The purpose of the blocking or the diagonal kickers is to create out-of-plane stability for the shear wall. Your detail with flat blocking with drywall attached in theory would work, however, would you use Sheetrock for shear wall sheathing? Some do, not me though. I will say I have used Sheetrock as a last resort in the past, only twice.

Truss manufacturers don't mind the blocking, they get paid to build it. Just make sure it is noted on both the roof plan and details. I will typically put a note on my roof plan for the truss mfr so they don't miss things..."Truss Mfr to refer to details...for additional requirements." Pretty hard to miss.

The Toenails are redundant. Have you inspected most contractors toe-nail patterns? It can be all over the place in regards to adequacy. I like the clips because I know the connection is easy to make.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Away for a christmas party and I miss all the fun. Here are the other typical methods that Terry Malone's book considers as flawed:



Detail 5 is problematic in that the nails connecting the flat blocking to the trusses will probably fail in shear.

Detail 6 is problematic in that the 2X cont. plate will be in cross grain bending and/or prying.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I've mostly seen Detail 5 both for interior shearwalls and other interior partition walls.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I've seen detail 5 more times than I can count. And I would reject 6 in a heartbeat if I ever saw it.

2 would bother me as well. since the sheathing would only be a single span if the board didn't snap in 2 I would expect the fasteners to rip out of the edges and the whole piece get popped into the attic.

1 and 3 are my preferred details but getting the contractor to line up the truss over the wall is a pain.

4 is a pipe dream, as nice as it is no one has ever done it that I have seen.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

jayrid12:

If you are using Detail 1, how are you bracing the top chief of your shear wall from buckling out of plane? Relying on Sheetrock?

Detail 3, 5, and 6 in theory could work. It doesn't tske much force to brace for out-if-plane. 1 and 3 aren't really much different than 5 and 6. They are all braced by Sheetrock.

The contractors that have built my projects have always put the blocking in...on the buildings I have inspected. If it wasn't there, it was noted to be installed.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Yes, I consider the gyproc enough. If the wood design manual gives me diaphragm values for gyproc then it must be worth something.

However, 3 is my most preferred detail, 1 is for lightly loaded shear walls where out of plane buckling is unlikely. The gyproc provides some nominal support even if you don't like using it for actual lateral resistance.

Have you ever read your truss shops? More often then not they have some note about the building designer to provide a rigid ceiling, how do you provide that? I use gyproc, I'm not going to specify that the ceiling is sheeted in OSB prior to drywall, I would never get another wood framed job in my life (and I actually like wood framing).

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I have a few questions about this issue of blocking. What does the instance of blocking do in detail 3? It seems to me that you would just get buckling of all three bottom chords in the same direction. I can see this justified by either accounting on the ceiling panel or on the blocking/bracing placed for chord and erection stability but the detail doesn't really mention anything about that. Does anyone specify chord bracing in accordance with the BSCI sheets and count on that to provide stability to the top of the shear wall? I use detail 1 solely, but I have never specifically looked at the stability of the top of the wall.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I figure the blocking spreads the load out to multiple trusses better than relying on the gyproc solely to restraint 1 truss, If I block two bays each direction on the bottom chord I consider the lateral buckling restraint to be provided by the 3 trusses (1 over the wall and the next two) and the gyproc, it just lowers the loading on the gyproc fasteners.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I think of it the same as blocking floor joist spaces at the top of foundation walls.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Regarding detail three, the top chord blocking is unnecessary in my opinion. The bottom chord / wall bracing would have to rely on the ceiling drywall to behave as a diaphragm which is fine. BCSI standard bottom chord bracing could be roped into the mix but it is spaced pretty far apart and you rarely know its location with any accuracy. The more that we discuss this, the more I like detail one too.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Koot, I found it interesting that the ASCE report was sponsored by a truss plate manuf. I have tested Javelin before, and I can see it being practical for the truss plate companies to take their software to the next level in the upcoming years. I think it will take some time considering the reality would be selling smaller truss plates in many cases. It will be interesting to see what StrucSoft does with their roof framing modules in the future. This could greatly speed up the workflow in a typical engineering office. The paper by Pan and Zhang used ANSYS, and that will never be practical, but it is very interesting to see how close they can predict with some of the methods they use. I have been looking at ANSYS and ABAQUS for concrete lately.

We do use some of these details, but we have to pay attention to when we do so. I have two survey engineers, a pole building engineer and an ex-mech eng (does not care like MeDeek) that seem to virtually seal whatever their techs draw. I need to be able to defend my designs in many cases with more than, "because I said so." While the engineering is the most important aspect, the fact is we are running a business. In my area snow is our enemy, so lateral loads are not usually significant. I have seen all of these details in various forms when we do field reviews for out of town engineers (Vancouver mostly). Some of this is a pet peeve because most of them recycle their details in this region {Sa(0.2)=0.9 Vancouver; Here Sa(0.2) = 0.12 ---> no seismic req'd many cases). One job the roof required two lifts of 2x4 in the form of bracing. Now some of that was tee bracing, which I fully accept when the contractor does not compare bids carefully, but about 1/2 of it was bracing. That's fine for a high seismic zone or hurricane region, but what has changed in our area to require so much more than the old structures that were built in the 70's/80's?

I am curious to hear others intend with detail #4 and the blocking in some others? If we have specified the lateral load to the truss, and the truss manuf designs the bracing to achieve that, are we trying to shed the load to more trusses or stiffen the diaphragm locally? If it is shedding the load to another truss, I still think adding a truss is more cost effective and is more likely to get implemented correctly. If the goal is to locally stiffen the roof diaphragm, it would seem that the load has exceeded the allowable load for an unblocked diaphragm in that region and all that is needed is edge blocking that can be installed as they work up the roof.

While I am definitely not a fan of the pole building nor the poor details it is hard not to think about their performance when designing a roof diaphragm. They put virtually zero thought into the roof diaphragm design and there are countless cases performing acceptably.

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Based on all of the comments thus far I'm heavily leaning towards Detail 3 for interior shearwalls parallel to trusses. Details 2,5 and 6 all seem problematic to me and given the amount of deflection in a typical 40' truss I wouldn't be surprised if something popped somewhere in the life of the structure. I think we need to take the gravity loads out of the equation by providing a direct load path to the ground, then we can properly deal with the lateral loads.

Hence, in all cases simply call out a drag truss that is inline with the shearwall. If this requires an additional truss I don't think the expense will be too great and it is the safe bet.

I'm liking the blocking at the ceiling level more and more. If the drag truss is load in compression it will tend to buckle at the bottom chord, gypsum will provide some bracing but is it enough? I agree with Jayrod12 that for a lightly loaded shearwall Detail 1 is probably adequate however the safe bet once again is Detail 3.

I think Malone's solution to the configuration in Detail 5 and 6 is good in theory but the lack of a really solid connection there just doesn't sit well with me. I don't think the plywood or OSB would snap provided the wall was centered between the trusses however if there was significant deflection, let's say an 1.0-1.5 inches, then the fasteners connecting the plywood to the truss would be pried loose both laterally and in withdrawal. Over the life of the structure they could potentially we worked loose enough that there capacity to resist the lateral loads could then become questionable.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

@medeek,
What's the Malone book you are referring to? Is it the one on irregular buildings? Is it a good reference, have been considering purchasing it. Would appreciate some feedback.

Also you may want to consider changing (Mechanical) in your handle.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Listing on Amazon

Yes, The Analysis of Irregular Shaped Structures by Terry Malone and Robert Rice. It is quite technical though and not as well written and as easy to follow as Breyer's book. However, it does fill in some gaps that are otherwise missed in more basic texts. I've had a bit of a hard time justifying the price tag, but so far it has helped me with interior shearwalls and portal frames.

I wish there were more texts like this that really delve into the nitty gritty of "real" wood design. Most residential designs are not your run of the mill rectangular floor plan anymore.

How do I change the (Mechanical) in my handle?

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Someone tell Simpson to develop an adjustable connector that fits between trusses, allows for vertical deflection and transfers shear. Actually tell Simpson that i have a patent on this connector and that they should buy it from me.

I would second the Malone book and yeah it is a bit pricey. Also the title should be Wood diaphragms and shear walls... It is good but almost too good where you are left wondering, does anyone actually do this? and How are they getting paid enough to have the time to do so? But at least it sheds light on some gray areas.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
Is this what you have in mind?

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Love it!!

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

That is a good idea.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Throw some bushings in there to make it convincing. And screws into the shear wall.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I don't think the bolts would work as I've shown, the moment on them would tend to bend them over and bend the 12 - 7 GA metal they are attached to. I still think Detail 3 is the way to go even if I had something like these brackets at my disposal.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I think that bracket would work wonderfully provided it was manufactured correctly. With the right gauge of sheet metal and the correct ribbing it would end up being stronger than you imagine.

Call up the simpson guys and tell them you'll sell them the concept for a nominal fee.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I think the standard wood framing details that exist, works on 99% of the wood frame construction. IMHO. For the issues of drywall ceiling cracking adding beams to support the wood trusses is a better choice in my opinion.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Can you elaborate on the beam arrangement that you mentioned woodman? I'm not sure that I understand how it works.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Wow, Medeek, you sure can draw!

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

I think that bracket of MeDeek has great promise. I wouldn't use screws to achieve the vertical movement. I suggest slotted nail holes. This will allow the bracket to be much shorter and the framers would not need any other tools in their belt. Plus Simpson already has connections that use slotted holes, so they have a basis to start from. The next step is to make the bracket in two pieces to deal with unique truss spacing. That would be easy for Simpson.

I searched around as I was certain I have seen something along these lines, but I did not find anything. I too think you should float the idea to Simpson.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
I think the key with this bracket is how to deal with the slotted holes for the vertical movement once that is figured out the rest is probably simple. I think it would be better to make specific sizes (ie. 12", 16", 19.2" and 24" rather than a two piece system. Two pieces would be inherently weaker and more expensive but I could be wrong.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

Where the span of a wood truss (from exterior wall to exterior wall) has a large deflection. For a "straight" non-cracking ceiling the best choices is to make all the interior walls non-bearing or make most of them bearing with beams between to keep all the truss spans similar in length.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Gable End and Interior Shearwalls

(OP)
This thread is a bit dated but to bring it back on topic and close it out properly I've spent some time tonight putting together a very simple spreadsheet for a sloped shearwall based on the paper presented by Thor Matteson:



http://design.medeek.com/resources/shearwall/SLOPE...

http://design.medeek.com/resources/shearwall/SLOPE...

I just recently ran into another shearwall on a balloon framed gable end, as they say necessity is the mother of invention.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources