×
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

Roof Framing Layout
5

Roof Framing Layout

Roof Framing Layout

(OP)
I was sent a preliminary house roof framing plan by the drafter/designer who is playing architect and it gave me some pause. Can you guys help me wrap my head around this framing plan and the concerns that I have. It seems as if he drew everything as it was convenient to the exterior perimeter layout but didn't really think about the areas that need interior supports. You can see the outline of the interior walls (dashed) and they don't line up with the locations that need posts.

1. I circled some areas in green that are unsupported. Can you confirm that these areas will either need to be supported with a post to the floor below? Any other areas I'm missing?
2. Can you frame a girder truss into a hip/valley truss? Is there any reason why this would not be allowed?
3. Any other suggestions or problems you see with what is shown right now would be greatly appreciated.
4. The very little guidance I was ever given in regards to designing homes was to callout a minimum 2x6 pre-engineered roof truss at 24" o.c. Not sure if this is even correct and seems more like a bare minimum requirement if anything. What's the standard approach to calling out pre-engineered roof trusses on structural roof framing plans? This particular house is using concrete monier roof tiles. Would that change anything other than how I account for the loads to all the supporting elements? This is in a hurricane prone region.

This is still very preliminary and can be changed as needed but I was hoping for some input from you guys who do this a lot. I do not design houses very often, and my experience with rooflines that are anything other than a rectangular box or stick framed with ridgebeams and rafters is nonexistent. I don't really have anyone that I work with that I can turn to for help.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

STrctPono,

Is this roof a truss package roof or a stick built rafter & ridge beam/ridge board?

Jim

RE: Roof Framing Layout

I haven't seen houses done with hip/valley trusses before. I'm sure it is done, but they will probably prefer to over-frame smaller trusses onto the main gable trusses, and will probably want to do this at hips:

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Agreed with TheDayWalker. That is how I've seen hip roofs done on all pre-fab truss jobs. The original way is how they framed wood hip roofs back in the rafter and ceiling joist days.

Edit: Just to add to dik's comment below, 6ft or 8ft girder truss offset from the exterior wall are the common ones. It depends on the truss supplier. Take a look at what happens at each offset to see if all of a sudden it ends up over a lintel that wasn't designed for the girder truss loads.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Girder trusses are, in these locales, located 8' back from the end wall... Hip areas over main roof trusses are stick framed over the truss system to achieve the slopes.

Dik

RE: Roof Framing Layout

1) I spent a couple of years prior to engineering school and all of my summers during engineering school as a pre-fab truss builder / designer for what that's worth.

2) I agree with the 8' girder set back when there's a choice to be made in that regard. It's usually 7-11 1/4" for sheathing layout but, as the EOR, all you really want is to specify something reasonable enough that the girders will land about where you expected them to.

3) It appears to me that you could indeed support the entire truss system from the perimeter walls alone and that is often preferred when possible.

4) My preferred layout is shown below. Shaded areas are anticipated valley sets. The upper part of the plan is admittedly non-obvious and there are a number of ways that could be handled. This stuff varies a bit regionally and from contractor to contractor as well.

5) I see no reason to specify minimum 2x6 chords unless you're paranoid about long overhangs under heavy drift loads or something. Let the truss designer handle that. All other things being equal, I'd prefer to have smaller chords and more web panel points. It's easier to build them straight that way.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

This isn't particularly important as an EOR but it's interesting nonetheless. Look closely at how corner sets are typically framed. In plan, we usually show the top chords alonge but the bottom chords don't match in terms of their plan extent. Most truss neophytes don't pick up on that. Graphically, it should probably be shown as below. I sawed and and assembled about a zillion of these one summer before I ever saw one put together in real life. And I was terribly confused. This was back before the internet and, apparently, any serious attempt at isometric drawing.



RE: Roof Framing Layout

Another trick that I always thought was clever was to drop the top chords of hip trusses a bit so that flat over framing could be set in for sheathing fastening. We used to asseble the flat strapping things in the shop with plates too but, for the life of me, i can't remember what they were called. "Batman Hips" for the trusses. You know, on account of the "ears".





RE: Roof Framing Layout

KootK... I see you ran the trusses down rather than across... there was a bearing line running them down...

Dik

RE: Roof Framing Layout

(OP)
KootK, your responses are extremely helpful. Your revised layout using trusses that span only to the exterior walls with valley sets makes perfect sense. This would be the preferred option. I have reached out to a local pre-engineered roof manufacturer to bounce that idea off of him. I guess what I am worried about is showing something that is not in keeping with local regional practice and creating issues after the contractor has come on board. Is using valley sets the only way to maintain the desired hip and valley lines while bearing the trusses on the exterior walls?

jimstructures, currently it is all pre-engineered roof trusses but I get the impression that a portion of it over the living room and kitchen will change to ridgebeam and rafters. That portion I'm not worried about, but may have questions for how to mate the 2 systems together.

Daywalker/jayrod/dik, the plans that I have seen my old coworker prepare always had hip trusses called out. I'm not sure if he was doing it correctly which is why I'm hoping to get some input from my local truss manufacturer. I appreciate the note about the setback limit for the girder truss. I was missing this.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Quote (dik)

KootK... I see you ran the trusses down rather than across... there was a bearing line running them down...

I don't see it. If anything, I think my layout provides the best option for interior support if that is desired. Regardless:

1) To each his own.

2) There are some good reasons to abstain from interior bearing even when it is a natural fit:

a) renovation flexibility for the owner.

b) one less foundation element.

3) Spans and profiles here are such that I don't expect any of the girders, or hangers, will present any difficulty.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Quote (STrctPono)

KootK, your responses are extremely helpful.

I'm glad. You contribute a lot here so I'm happy for the chance to chip in on something of yours in a meaningful way. Were billable hours of no consequence, I would have also drawn quick and dirty truss profiles for you to accompany the framing plan. If you feel there would be value in that exercise, let me know and I'll put that together. And please don't be insulted by the offer. It's the anticipation of the profiles that really informs the layout choices and it's not something that most heavy construction engineers are likely to nail right out of the gate. I do realize that you're probably familiar with triangles.

Quote (STrctPono)

I guess what I am worried about is showing something that is not in keeping with local regional practice and creating issues after the contractor has come on board.

To some degree you have to accept that this is inevitable in this space. I'd say that there's at least a 50% chance that the truss supplier, left to their own devices, would tweak some aspect of the layout for reasons that are particular to your market or their setup. Sometimes it's a function of nothing more than their current shop situation: some extra of something or other lying around or a particular piece of equipment being out of commission. For your purposes, I think that you want the following:

1) The reasonable expectation that girders will be where be where you plan for them to be to minimize rework on your end.

2) The confidence that, if you choose to force the truss supplier to do it your way (which you can), your way will be reasonably doable.

Without question, the layout that I suggested accomplishes those things.

Quote (STrctPono)

Is using valley sets the only way to maintain the desired hip and valley lines while bearing the trusses on the exterior walls?

3) No, it's not the only way. It's probably just the only practical way.

4) Modern truss manufactures can fabricate pretty much any shape imaginable and absolutely could get this thing done without valley sets. The consequences of that, however, would be:

a) A bunch of one off trusses that are difficult to jig instead of simple shape that are repeated and create a rhythm to the fabrication effort.

b) A bunch of odd shaped units that are so location specific that they can only go in one, very exact location. This complicates shipping, erection, and sheathing installation.

These were some of the things that informed the layout that I proposed.

After college I spent a year working for the Wood Truss Council of America and got a much better sense for the practices used across the country. While I wasn't involved in a single thing in Hawaii, I can tell you with some certainty that valley sets are commonly used in every one of the 48 contiguous mainland states. If it's different out in the Pacific, I'd be astonished.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Cool, good info Kootk. I was told when I was first starting that it is preferable to use the setback girder vs the hip/valley girders because it allows for more consistent truss sizes to design/manufacture, simplifying it on the truss guys end...less lines of trusses that are all 1'-0" longer than the last...so thats why I've always gone with it. I'm sure its regional

@StrctPono, we usually get feedback from the truss manufacturer long after we submit our permit drawings, and they're starting their designs. Then, they'll let us know if they want to do something different (or more often, just change it on their own). We just have to make sure to have language on the drawings about the footing locations etc being contingent on a review of their final layouts

RE: Roof Framing Layout

The subtle genius of the valley set approach is that:

1) It keeps the regular trusses regular more often.

2) While each valley piece may be different, when done right they'll all fit in a common, simple jig.

3) Often, when there is more than one valley set required, you will get some repetition of valley pierce to the tune of two to four of each perhaps.

4) The valley set pieces can usually slide up and down the roof structure below in a way that allows contractors to iron out tolerance issues in the framing. In this respect, the use of valley sets can actually be considered to be a boon to the contractor even if the need for more components overall seems like it might be a shortcoming.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Quote (Daywalker)

I was told when I was first starting that it is preferable to use the setback girder vs the hip/valley girders...

Terminology's always a problem with this stuff. Do you mean the difference between these two framing schemes?

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Sorta...moreso the difference between these two. 2nd one is from a set we got from truss guys recently, and is what we usually see. I just looked closer at your corner set post, and your 2nd above isn't as different from mine as I thought. Tomato, tomato...


RE: Roof Framing Layout

Ah... I see. With regard to piece repeatability, you're trading off:

1) one-off stepped hip trusses with the setback girder versus:

2) one-off (or four off) extending mono jacks with the full ridge girder.

So kind of a wash. The things that make the stepped hip system generally more favorable:

3) Less load on the girder if it's a big roof end.

4) No big ridge girder loads needing to go into spendy, 45 degree skew hangers.

5) Because the top chord of a ridge girder truss will be at a lower pitch than the surrounding trusses, the heel detailing becomes challenging.

6) Because the top chord of a ridge girder truss runs cross slope rather than down slope, it get's more awkward the wider it gets because the top chord has to be lowered. As a result, any need to make the ridge girder trusses multiple ply, which happens, will start to muck up the install. When the truss guys fabricate the single ply ridge beams / boards, they'll usually actually miter the tops of the boards. You don't do that with the trusses although I suppose that you could if it were done with great care.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

(OP)

Quote (KootK)

Were billable hours of no consequence, I would have also drawn quick and dirty truss profiles for you to accompany the framing plan. If you feel there would be value in that exercise, let me know and I'll put that together. And please don't be insulted by the offer. It's the anticipation of the profiles that really informs the layout choices and it's not something that most heavy construction engineers are likely to nail right out of the gate. I do realize that you're probably familiar with triangles.

I'm not offended at all and my understanding for the proper layout of roof trusses would benefit greatly from the exercise. I did provide some rough profiles for roof trusses on a dutch hip roof job I previously did (which I have attached for reference). If these profiles are what you are talking about then yes, I am somewhat familiar with them but get lost if they get anymore complicated. Please feel free to provide any profiles that you think would be pertinent to show on the contract drawings.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

(OP)

Quote (TheDaywalker)

we usually get feedback from the truss manufacturer long after we submit our permit drawings, and they're starting their designs. Then, they'll let us know if they want to do something different (or more often, just change it on their own). We just have to make sure to have language on the drawings about the footing locations etc being contingent on a review of their final layouts

I will include that language. It sounds like the location of the girder trusses are the big one.

Quote (KootK)

While I wasn't involved in a single thing in Hawaii, I can tell you with some certainty that valley sets are commonly used in every one of the 48 contiguous mainland states. If it's different out in the Pacific, I'd be astonished.

I hope you're right. Hawaii does things very differently than the mainland. It wasn't that long ago that houses were built without stud walls. Walls were nothing more than 3/4" vertical tongue and groove jointed wood panels. Kid you not.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

3

Quote (STrctPono)

Walls were nothing more than 3/4" vertical tongue and groove jointed wood panels. Kid you not.

What? With posts mixed in for support of roof framing though, right? Pic.

This is really for your benefit and I would consider it overkill for your contract documents.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

(OP)
KootK, as usual... your expertise and commitment to providing thorough and detailed advice is spot on! The sketch you provided makes perfect sense.

Quote (KootK)

What? With posts mixed in for support of roof framing though, right? Pic.

I'm afraid not. Not a post to be found. The type of construction is called single wall construction and the majority of these houses are built out of redwood. The technique fell out of favor sometime in the late 70's early 80's when it became mandatory to build stud walls. They are still super prevalent in the state though. Heck, my house is one. They're total pieces of crap but are easy to remodel due to their simplicity.



Here's what a typical one would look like....

RE: Roof Framing Layout

3/4" T&G... wow... just another humbling moment of "I don't understand why that works"...

KootK-- thanks for the sketches. Top notch -- learning a lot here.

----
just call me Lo.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Talk about depending on a roof diaphragm to prevent wall spread (ceiling - where occurs). Wow. I guess the wall girt and it's connections are critical. Sort of acts like a tension ring to prevent wall buckling? I'm pretty ignorant of the weather in Hawaii. Are cyclones pretty rare? If so, I could see these working. I imagine they'd flop all over the place in an earthquake and spring back up when it's done.

KootK - thanks for posting all this invaluable prefab truss info.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

(OP)

Quote (phamENG)

Talk about depending on a roof diaphragm to prevent wall spread (ceiling - where occurs).

Most of these homes were built before plywood was readily available so most roofs like mine are just also tongue and groove boards. The majority of these homes use either site built roof trusses or rafters and ridgebeam. I can't recall ever seeing one with a ridgeboard.

Quote (phamENG)

Are cyclones pretty rare?

We're in a hurricane prone region and get a few close pass byes each summer but it's been awhile since any full on landfall. Obviously nothing compared to Florida.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

I think KootK is using what is called California Roof Framing.

RE: Roof Framing Layout

Technically it's a Midwest hip set although the terminology seems to be in a state of perpetual drift. Gotta give the flat-landers their due: They came up with the version that seems to have become dominant.



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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

eBook - Integrating the Engineering Ecosystem
Aras Innovator provides multiple options for integrating data between systems, depending on the scenario. Utilizing the right approach to meet specific business requirements is vital. These needs range from authoring tools, federating data from various and dissimilar databases, and triggering processes and workflows. Download Now
Research Report - Simulation-Driven Design for SOLIDWORKS Users
In this engineering.com research report, we discuss the rising role of simulation and the paradigm shift commonly called the democratization of simulation. In particular, we focus on how SOLIDWORKS users can take advantage of simulation-driven design through two analysis tools: SOLIDWORKS Simulation and 3DEXPERIENCE WORKS. Download Now
White Paper - Industry 4.0 and the Future of Engineering Education
With industries becoming more automated, more tech-driven and more complex, engineers need to keep their skills and knowledge up to date in order to stay on top of this wave—and to be prepared for the Industry 4.0 future. The University of Cincinnati offers two online Master of Engineering degree programs designed specifically for practicing engineers. Download Now
eBook - The Design Gridlock Manifesto
In this eBook, you’ll learn 6 ways old CAD technology slows your company down and hear how design teams have put those problems to rest. “The Design Gridlock Manifesto” shares first-hand modern CAD experiences from 15 companies around the world. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close