×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*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.

# Truss design misconceptions21

## Truss design misconceptions

3
(OP)
I mentioned in another thread that I've been designing trusses most of my adult life. I started working in a truss plant in 1984, and it went from there.

Over the years I've run into a lot of misconceptions about how trusses are designed, who designs them, etc. I thought I'd take a crack at explaining the typical process.

The vast majority of truss plants do not have engineers on staff at the plant. Trusses are designed by guys like me. I only have a HS diploma. But I do have a lot of training and experience.

We buy our truss plates from a company called Alpine. They provide the truss design software that we use. They also have engineers on staff. The cost of the software and engineering support is built into the price of the plates.

Since we're in a rural area we don't get an engineers seal on probably 95% of what we do. There's no reason to.

If we do need sealed drawings, it's usually because someone is building in an area where there's a building department that requires them. Or on commercial work we sometimes have to send them to the project architect/engineer for review.

Once we have the trusses designed in our system we can send a job down electronically to Alpine. One of their engineers is assigned to our account, and that person typically reviews our stuff.

The engineer does not alter the truss designs - They're either approved or not approved. If they want something changed we get an email or phone call explaining what they want to see. We revise them and send them back down.

The engineers at Alpine never see the plans. They typically do not know where the job is going or any details about it. They only review what we send down.

So that's the basic process. If you have any questions let me know.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

I worked on a project with a truss guy, known to the owner, to lay out a big residential project. Then the owner got another truss place to fabricate the trusses. I really thought the first guy was getting the job, so I felt bad about the time he spent with me on it.

Other times an architect will show something with trusses that feels wrong, but they're in love with the idea and I need to prove that it doesn't work:
1) a bearing wall that's supported on a truss floor system
2) architect wants a mechanical chase in a dumb place, near a bearing point
3) like the other thread, should I use an interior bearing wall for this cathedral ceiling truss?

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

2

#### Quote (ron the redneck)

The engineers at Alpine never see the plans. They typically do not know where the job is going or any details about it. They only review what we send down.

So that does not feel good to me. It has to be breaking some regulation.

What exactly is the Engineer signing off on? "Uh, our computer software produces the proper output assuming it had the proper input"

What if there are drag trusses or other situations that you miss that are called out on the plans? Who is responsible?

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

XR250, I was wondering about the issue of practising without licence, which is mentioned frequently by US engineers on this forum.

Given the description of the relationship, I'd guess the Alpine engineer checks that the truss plate is being used correctly, subject to the inputs provided by the builder - pretty much what you said.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Even a piece of furniture has to be sealed by structural engineer by law let alone a trusses. Since the trusses is only a part of an entire structure, you might get away from law with a seal from an vocational institute.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

XR250 - I am in agreement with you however understand that the standard process is as RontheRedneck says. Lately I have been rejecting more and more truss shop drawings due to missed added loading, drags, some architectural feature sitting on the truss, mechanical loading, etc.. the most recent one I reviewed was marked as revise and resubmit or rejected 8 times before I finally got a call from the sealing truss engineer asking why they kept being rejected and arranging for him to get a copy of the structural drawings.

The normal shop drawing stamps I have seen puts the ultimate responsibility on the contractor to make sure they conform to the drawings, but then again, they don't understand these special conditions either and just rubber stamp many times as approved.

Another recent project the contractor went ahead and installed, including building finishes before submitting shop drawings, the shop drawings were missing the brace loads and the end wall gable truss was marked as not designed for out of plane loading, because of this it went through multiple rounds of shop drawings, phone calls, being yelled at for not just letting it go without change, etc.. now they are in the process of tearing out finishes to get in there and retrofit. Because of this, I have been spending more and more time reviewing shop drawings, especially the special case trusses for many projects, sometimes this can take a whole day depending on the size of project, and since most architects won't go for hourly CA, the CA budget almost never covers this kind of reviews. I am willing to bet far too many projects get built with this kind of stuff being missed as many junior engineers reviewing shop drawings don't understand this stuff at that point in their career either. I was taught the EOR's review was a quick review of basic loading and special loading, nothing more; this isn't always sufficient.

We tried to get a copy of the software, even offered to pay for it to start offering truss designs as part of our package a while back, however the truss plate companies all refused to sell us their software unless we started building the trusses. We were trying to offer this service as in my area for a while truss engineering was backed up for 6+ months and projects were being delayed.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

(OP)

I wish more of them would.

We often get plans with things that don't work. Then we have to deliver the bad news to the owners. If we were asked about things in the planning stages it would save everyone time and money.

XR250 said: "So that does not feel good to me. It has to be breaking some regulation.

What exactly is the Engineer signing off on? "Uh, our computer software produces the proper output assuming it had the proper input"

What if there are drag trusses or other situations that you miss that are called out on the plans? Who is responsible?"

I don't know why it doesn't "feel good"to you. But it's standard practice in the industry.

Roughly as you said, the engineer is signing off on that particular truss given the criteria spelled out on the drawing.

If something is missed on a plan, the responsibilities don't change. Whomever missed it is responsible.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (RontheRedneck)

The cost of the software and engineering support is built into the price of the plates

Interesting. Is this a common business model for plate fabricators?

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

(OP)
eng-erik - To the best of my knowledge that's how they all work in the USA. I don't know about other countries.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (RontheRedneck)

If something is missed on a plan, the responsibilities don't change. Whomever missed it is responsible.

I would 100% say the engineer that stamped it would be responsible. Thats the whole idea behind stamping somthing, they are verifying they have designed it and its correct, or am I missing something?

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

So if someone else designed something, sends to me and I stamp, is that legal??

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

JStructsteel - that's been debated on the ethics forum ad nauseam. Comes down to jurisdiction and state laws. In several states, simply familiarizing yourself with the work to the level needed to perform the work is sufficient to assume responsibility for the design and seal it. In other states (Virginia being one of them), the letter of the law states that I can't seal any work product that was not generated directly by me or my employee/contractor working for me and under my direction. (Or employee/contractor employed by the same firm where I work if I'm not the boss.) The spirit, of course, is to prevent rubber stamping, but the letter of the law is quite specific in that case.

A lot of this comes down to the relationship between the "Engineer of Record" and specialty structural engineers involved as the result of delegated design. Ultimately, the engineer of record is responsible for everything (structural) in the building. By using licensed SSEs for delegated component design, there is some shared responsibility but the buck stops with the EOR. That's why we still review shop drawings. Even if another engineer designs the connections for a building, I'm going to at least a) make sure they used the right loads, b) make sure their results make sense, and 3) make sure they got all of them. Same with trusses. If I spec drag trusses or special conditions, I'm going to review the shop drawings and make sure they are there. I'll also review the calcs to make sure the right loads are used, the right wind parameters, etc.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

"Responsible charge" is a slippery term. I guess you'd have to look it up State by State to see how your State court has adjudicated it.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (JStructSteel)

So if someone else designed something, sends to me and I stamp, is that legal??

Perfectly legal.... You're just saying that you are taking "responsible charge" of the design. Now, it could be illegal by the engineering practice codes. Meaning that if you did not sufficiently review the design before stamping, then you could lose your license. But, this is a grey area that isn't all that well defined.

As others have said, this is something that has been discussed before in ethics forums. But, my belief is that the EOR does not have to do any calculations or such in his/her review. If you've got 20 years of experience with trusses and you just know based on that experience that the design is okay, then that should be sufficient.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

This is a delegated design issue, is it not?

If it's a commercial project, then the EOR would retain responsibility for the design of everything in the structural system. The code allows the engineer to delegate the design of components away to appropriate third parties...but the EOR is still responsible for the performance of it. If I'm the EOR, I wouldn't want to simply trust the design of a system -- I'd want to see certified calculations first before I allowed it as part of my systems.

If it's a residential project, then it's a tad bit trickier. I am assuming there is still a licensed design professional involved (most likely the architect)...and they would assume the role of the EOR and be responsible for the performance of it. If there is absolutely no licensed design professional involved...then I would assume responsibility would fall to the Building Official to be responsible for the dwelling constructed within their jurisdiction.

If there was a failure (say a truss wasn't braced per the Alpine design and failed)..then I think the blame game would begin...but much of it it wouldn't really land on the technician running the program at the manufacturer, would it?

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

4

#### Quote (rontheredneck)

I don't know why it doesn't "feel good"to you. But it's standard practice in the industry.

It shouldn't feel good to anybody. That, because the system implies that:

1) The stamping engineer is reviewing the individual trusses designs spit out by the software which we all know is meaningless and;

2) All of the things that one would one would consider to constitute "engineering" in this situation are being done, unsupervised, by technicians. This includes:

a) Determination of environmental loads where required.

c) General identification of special project concerns that can only be identified by actually reviewing the project.

...

When I was doing trusses in the 90's, I worked with three engineers predominantly, in order:

1) A fellow that invited me out to hang out with him in the big city for a couple of days. I thought that he was going to help me learn to engineer trusses. Instead, he showed up at 9:30 AM both days and took me out for 2HR lunches at interesting places. During a couple of "work" sessions in the morning and afternoon, he probably stamped 300 truss designs.

2) A fellow who clearly did review the project layout to scan for errors. He still didn't stamp the layouts but, at the least, he looked at them. This, I assume, because he understood that was where any, meaningful engineering review actually resided within his scope of work. I learned a lot from this guy. I would hope that this is the situation much of the time.

3) Another engineer who appeared to be rubber stamping and wound up getting sued for various things over the ensuing years that led to him eventually shuttering his practice.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Glad to see that the truss industry allows everyone to take advantage of them also Shitty drawings given to them, rework, etc). Engineers, etc are our own worst enemy when it comes to scope and rework, etc.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

I am a registered PE and SE, and I agree with most of the frustrations being stated in this thread by other engineers about the sketchy nature of the delegated design process for metal plate connected wood trusses, but I think many of the posters here are barking up the wrong tree with RontheRedneck. Ron and his cohorts are not subverting or otherwise corrupting the delegated design process; he is simply working on projects that have no engineering or other professional design requirements. He states in the OP that 95% of his truss designs do not require an engineer's stamp. I interpret that to mean that 95% of the truss designs are for single-family residential buildings under the International Residential Code or maybe agricultural buildings in rural areas. Guys and gals... news flash... houses in the U.S. are not designed by either architects or engineers, they are simply built by tradesmen who are working for a "contractor" with a pick-up truck and a cell phone.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

gte447f is spot on...which is why I'm always terrified one of those "contractors" with a pick-up truck and a cell phone will bid on the custom houses I work on...

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

gte, the intent of the discussion seems to be to dispel misconceptions about the truss industry as a whole. I doubt anyone in the thread is unaware that endless projects are designed/constructed without the assistance of engineers. I have no problem if they design the trusses for those projects using prescriptive code clauses. If we are talking solely about his practice, frankly, I am not overly interested. I do get interested in the process when those same designers submit designs on our projects.

Ron, while the cardboard drawing is unique, a common joke among engineers is napkin sketches. We all deal with that when clients start the project.

I am curious to see what Simpson Strong Tie does to the industry as more and more of their truss plates are used. We all talk to SST reps, and I hope they listen to some of the concerns raised. I asked a SST rep recently and it seemed they may be working on some software to help the EOR with preliminary calcs for trusses. I would gladly spec exactly which plates to use if they will provide more confidence.

Ron, I applaud your effort here. I think it has been an enlightening peak behind the curtains into the truss design process. You clearly care, and take your job seriously. I suspect many of us with concerns are encountering suppliers that care more about pushing product out the door. That happens in all construction industries, but in my experience, the wood world has a terrible residential stink that impacts a lot of decision making.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Ron,
Thank you for the informative post and continued discussion. Great to have you here.

I'm making a thing: www.thestructuraltoolbox.com
(It's no Kootware and it will probably break but it's alive!)

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Back in the dark ages when I was in college I worked as a draftsman (pencil and ink on vellum) for a structural engineer.
The original formulas for the holding strength of steel nail plates and pressed plates were from his PhD thesis.
Needless to say we did a lot of trusses.
We had 18 - 3" ring binders with truss drawings, each one a different pitch, though the common ones had to vols.
And then specials.
Each page was actually a family of trusses, common pitch and load with different spans/OHs.
And with 40,000 truss layouts on hand we were still designing half a dozen different ones a week.
We tried to avoid working directly with residential builders, usually working with the truss fabs or other engineers/architects.
There were about 6 major mid-west truss fab shops that didn't design their own but only built to our drawings.
We had a very rigorous checklist that you had to sign off before you put any time into a drawing.
Beyond the basic load/moment/shear we did a bunch of other calcs for every case.
All done either with graphical methods or hand calculators.
I always laughed as we would have customers complain that we were too expensive and they didn't need 'that other stuff'.
But we were fast, very precise, and reliable, and they kept coming back.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

(OP)
EdStainless - Who was it that you worked with? I think I know who you mean, but can't recall his name.

I started in the truss business early enough that I used some of the pre-engineered drawings you mentioned. There were books that gave you the length of the webs for each truss design. Like at a 24' span the web might be 4' 11 5/8". For every inch you added to the span the web got 7/32 of an inch longer.

gte447f - I don't appreciate you referring to the truss design process as "sketchy". Nothing could be further from the truth.

What you said about me only designing residential work is not correct. It's a big part of our business. But that's not all that I do. We do a lot of hotels, apartment buildings, retirement homes, etc. So I do deal with architects and engineers.

Jumping back to the wonderful plans we often get - Here's another example:

This customer is building \$300,000+ houses from sketches like this.

This afternoon I was thinking about a job we once did. One of the salesmen turned in an order for an addition to a commercial building. He didn't give me the plan, but wrote up what was needed. There was only one truss type.

He asked for a sealed drawing of the truss, and I provided it. The contractor, architect, and EOR all approved the drawing with no exceptions noted.

After the trusses were built the GC called in one day and told me the trusses were wrong. I told him he had approved the drawing, so they were his. He went ballistic.

I asked for and got a set of plans. The salesman who wrote the order screwed up badly. The span, overhang, pitch, and heel height were not correct. I have no clue how he came up with what he did.

The architect and EOR said they had no liability, as they only review for general conformance with the design documents.

The GC went over my head and went to the owner. After much discussion we ended up eating the job and replaced the trusses at our expense.

As a result of that - And of other similar stories - I have little faith in the review process. Doesn't seem to me like anyone really puts much effort into it. (Although there are exceptions)

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

I think "sketchy" referred to the lack of a uniform process for this. It's like general contractors can be sketchy. Not all are, but there are enough that abscond with the funds after doing a half-demolition on a kitchen or the wall of a house, leaving it worse off than if they had simply stolen the money up front.

It's good to be out there showing the reasonable and responsible and under-appreciated side of the business. It seems frustrating to be lumped in with "those guys," even if "those guys" are rare. Few come back from a venomous snake bit with the attitude that most snakes are not venomous (Australia aside, where even some shoe laces pack a punch.)

I do feel your pain on dealing with the drawings and such and can only recommend, though not necessarily support by rigorous budget analysis, getting someone to take those drawings and cardboard sheets and creating a CAD model of the building and showing how your trusses will look sitting on it. I find that answering questions like "are those room dimensions the finished interior or are the walls subtracted from them" can help with fitting up to mating parts.

At least they used grid paper.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

I'm sure there are many conducted tests/researches on these types of wooden structure [not lift to speculation]
but No one here, has point it clearly [the governing design manual/ or code of practice/ or manufacturing co guidelines]
I found these resources :

the ones below is for "KOOTK", i read once he was concern about timber cladding on seafronts environment

NOTE: Respect is free. Disrespect is Wrong.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

RontheRedneck, my comments were not intended to be demeaning toward you, but I stand by my characterization of the delegated design process for wood trusses as sketchy. It sounds like you perform your role within the process quite competently, but you yourself have provided us with several examples of a sketchy process including such practices as plans sketched on cardboard boxes and trusses ordered based on verbal descriptions when plans prepared by an engineer were available.

And again, I was not trying to insult or belittle you by saying that I interpreted your comments to mean that your work is primarily for residential or agricultural buildings that do not require any engineering. You told us in your OP that 95% of your truss designs do not require an engineer's stamp.

Trusses ordered by owners or contractors for projects that have not been designed by an engineer of record are not part of the delegated engineering design process with which many of the posters in this thread are familiar.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

None of this surprises me, but the general public might be surprised when they see how the sausage is made.

As far as the "EOR is always found to be responsible" comments go, I doubt that this is the case. The EOR will be held to the standard of care.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (Rontheredneck)

This afternoon I was thinking about a job we once did. One of the salesmen turned in an order for an addition to a commercial building. He didn't give me the plan, but wrote up what was needed. There was only one truss type.

He asked for a sealed drawing of the truss, and I provided it. The contractor, architect, and EOR all approved the drawing with no exceptions noted.

After the trusses were built the GC called in one day and told me the trusses were wrong. I told him he had approved the drawing, so they were his. He went ballistic.

I asked for and got a set of plans. The salesman who wrote the order screwed up badly. The span, overhang, pitch, and heel height were not correct. I have no clue how he came up with what he did.

The architect and EOR said they had no liability, as they only review for general conformance with the design documents.

The GC went over my head and went to the owner. After much discussion we ended up eating the job and replaced the trusses at our expense.

As a result of that - And of other similar stories - I have little faith in the review process. Doesn't seem to me like anyone really puts much effort into it. (Although there are exceptions)

Always gotta ask for a plan. Seems this case the sales guy made the mistake. How would the engineer know its wrong if he or she never sees the plans and just stamps the output? Architect approve a truss drawing-LOL! Contractor should have done a better job too, but he or she could be relying on the professionals to get it right.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (JStructsteel)

Architect approve a truss drawing-LOL!

What's funny about this? It's a team effort - I depend on the architects I work with to do a review of the truss drawings. Unfortunately, due to the constant changeability of drawings and whims of those who build the sort of houses I tend to work on, I usually don't dimension anything above the foundation in residential construction. I don't like it, but it's the only way to 'protect' myself...if I dimension the roof and the client requests a change after permit review, I won't know about it and I'll be stuck holding the bag when the trusses don't fit. It sucks, but it's reality. So my review is for the structural data - did they use the right loads? Is the spacing correct? Right adjustment factors? Does it all make sense? Yes? Good. Big note that says "Approved; reviewed for general conformance to the structural design requirements only. Architect to review and approve dimensions, elevations, pitch, overhangs, and other parameters relating to the architectural design of the building."

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote (phamENG)

Unfortunately, due to the constant changeability of drawings and whims of those who build the sort of houses I tend to work on, I usually don't dimension anything above the foundation in residential construction

Same here!

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

I'm definitely thankful for Ron giving us this 'peek behind the curtain.

When I build my garage, I'm going to engineer and design the trusses myself, and take my stamped structural drawings to my local truss manufacturer.

A little 'peek behind the curtain of the process for highway bridges at the DOT, just for comparison:

Each component, down to the bearing pads, gets engineered (calculating loads and capacities), checked by another engineer, corrections by the checking engineer are back checked by the design engineer. If the design engineer is a PE, he or she stamps the design. If not, the final design gets reviewed by the PE that stamps it. The stamp on the design is the mark of responsibility that the component is adequate for the design loads.

When the details are complete, our Principal Engineer reviews them, marks any corrections, and stamps the details, certifying that those details are in conformance with the stamped designs.

The details are then reviewed by the Assistant State Bridge Engineer, and the State Bridge Engineer, corrections made, and then they sign each sheet, signifying their approval.

Shop Plans for specified components are submitted, reviewed, and approved for construction (eventually, usually after being returned to the fabricator for corrections once or twice).

After the bridge is built, the DOT construction engineer, who oversaw the construction of the bridge, puts his or her stamp on the "as-built" plans, certifying that the bridge was built in conformance with plans (with any changes made in field marked on the plans).

If there's ever a failure, there's a chain of responsibility that can easily be traced all the way back.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

phamENG - Every Architect I work with forward the truss submittal to be to approve. I usually do the same, look at the loading, check reactions to what I think they should be. Will glance at the spans, usually not that hard to check.

Perhaps they do review for dimensions, and I am not privy to that.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

"...peek behind the curtain of the process for highway bridges at the DOT, just for comparison..."
I think the key difference in bridge work is the fees for engineering are roughly 5%-10% construction cost. Residential work attracts a whole different group of characters with varying ideas of what/when they need help from people like us. Residential fees are crap.

Rod, as for engineering your own trusses, the Mitek or Alpine software designs a perfectly fine truss in 2D. You will not find tables for any of the press plates to check this yourself since that is heavily guarded by those that paid for the testing. All you need to do for your garage is read what you are provided carefully and it will be fine. Not in a million years would I build an old school truss using plywood plates.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

You will not find tables for any of the press plates to check this yourself since that is heavily guarded by those that paid for the testing.

I disagree here, Brad. TPI-1 (the standard on which those programs are based) is available for free download and is a must read for anyone doing many buildings with MPC wood trusses, and the plates themselves - MiTek and Simpson, anyway - have been tested by the ICC Evaluation Service and have freely available ICC-ES reports with capacity tables for use in the TPI-1 equations.

That said...you'd be nuts to do it by hand unless you're doing it for fun (not sure that changes the 'nuts' thing, though...). The software, even the hands of the most novice tech, can produce a fine truss for a garage...just review it before you buy it.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

pham, I stand corrected. I have asked before, but I guess I am guilty of not searching. Thank you.

2

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote:

Rod, as for engineering your own trusses, the Mitek or Alpine software designs a perfectly fine truss in 2D. You will not find tables for any of the press plates to check this yourself since that is heavily guarded by those that paid for the testing. All you need to do for your garage is read what you are provided carefully and it will be fine. Not in a million years would I build an old school truss using plywood plates.

If I have them fabricated, I'll probably let them use the press plates, and just review that part. If I build them myself, I'll likely use plywood or OSB. I've actually already done the design, including member sizes, OSB plate sizes, and the number of fasteners at each connection.

#### Quote:

That said...you'd be nuts to do it by hand unless you're doing it for fun (not sure that changes the 'nuts' thing, though...). The software, even the hands of the most novice tech, can produce a fine truss for a garage...just review it before you buy it.

Apparently, I'm nuts. I found designing the trusses by hand to be an interesting exercise, and fairly easy one. Much simpler than designing the 3-bed+drawers combination piece I built for my kids.

Building them wouldn't be difficult, either. I only need 5, since they'll be king trusses.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Rod, if you enjoy that work I get it. I agree it is not difficult. If you look at the cost of plywood now, and the waste, I am not sure it makes economical sense. The common garage package you find at most hardware stores can be a good deal, but some cheap out with their gable end trusses. I still prefer traditional ladder framing, but I have seen many do not want different truss types for the little packages.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Brad, my design requires no sheathing, so I'll be saving quite a bit there.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

Rod - if you're doing OSB/plywood plates, that's a whole different animal and I get it. That's not all that difficult and would be pretty fun. (I haven't done a meaningful wood working project since I built a standing cradle for my nephew. He starts middle school next year...) It's the press plates that make the design a headache without the proprietary software.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

(OP)
3DDave - You said "I think "sketchy" referred to the lack of a uniform process for this."

Nothing sketchy about it. I explained the process clearly, and it's pretty universal.

If you don't like the process, feel free to try to change it. But I suspect it would be like trying to turn the Queen Mary with an oar.

JStructsteel - You said "How would the engineer know its wrong if he or she never sees the plans and just stamps the output?"

I'm not talking about the engineer at Alpine - I'm talking about the EOR. If the contractor, architect, and EOR aren't even going to look at shop drawings, what's the point in sending them?

That's why I said I have little faith in the review system.

### RE: Truss design misconceptions

#### Quote:

Nothing sketchy about it. I explained the process clearly, and it's pretty universal.

Yes, you explained it in good detail, and we understand it's fairly universally done that way in your industry. The reservations about the lack of (legally) qualified review of the trusses as a critical component of the overall structural system, remains. That's what makes the process sketchy.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

#### 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.

#### Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a partâ€™s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. 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:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!