What is largest span of 8/12 roof truss?
Ted L.
rectangle roughly 50'X70' one story gable roof. The goal: VERY SIMPLE.
Is it possible to have wooden roof trusses delivered that can span 50'
with 8/12 roof pitch? Too large to fit on a truck? Unresonably
expensive?
Maybe I would be better off roofing conventionally for that kind of
span?
Should I consider metal roof trusses because I can screw them together
on site?
Any advice?
Thanks,
Ted
Dan G
would probably come in two parts. The tops would be either hinged or added
on.
--
Keep the whole world singing. . .
Dan G
(remove the 7)
"Ted L." <tlandry*NOSPAM*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0ugs7vosjis400mh7...@4ax.com...
Matthew S. Whiting
Metal structure might be a good solution. The other question to ask
yourself is do you really need to have the entire area open and thus
have no load bearing walls? If you can stand a load bearing wall or
two, you could greatly reduce the required span and save a lot of money.
Matt
JsWalker LazenbyJr
shape of a
> rectangle roughly 50'X70' one story gable roof. The goal:
VERY SIMPLE.
>
> Is it possible to have wooden roof trusses delivered that
can span 50'
> with 8/12 roof pitch?
> Too large to fit on a truck?
> Unresonably expensive?
No, not unreasonably expensive, but likely not the most
reasonable expense choice.
>
> Maybe I would be better off roofing conventionally for
that kind of
> span?
wood trusses actually increases under many
less-than-obvious-conditions.
>
> Should I consider metal roof trusses because I can screw
them together
> on site?
talking about light metal and not welded "red iron"
fabricated trusses), as you should consider any reasonably
viable building medium. You have much to gain and very
little (other than time and postage) to loose by
consideration. Yours is to be a learning experience and not
a profit-making venture. You have the luxury of
consideration along with many others. Enjoy and learn.
>
> Any advice?
Yes.
First, consider building to a 48" square module. If your
50' x 70' dimension is a general planning figure, shooting
for about 3,500 SF, consider starting with 48' x 72' instead
for potential of maximum use of modular sizes of building
materials and systems. When you must break down a module,
break it down into 24", 16", 12" and/or 4" increments
throughout for framing dimensions, etc.
Second. Working within a reasonable module, arrange your
room and/or area spaces for correct orientation,
communication, outside light, storage, utilities, etc.,
within your building perimeter "foot print." You may find
it more efficient to start with a smaller foot print,
increasing it only as required to accomodate your
roughed-out spaces. It is much easier to increase a
dimension to accomodate a "must-have" feature than to shrink
the over-all size of a foot print once you have exceeded
your reasonable budget limits.
Third. Working with those planned spaces, keep in mind some
off the spaces are very much more expensive than others.
Conversely, some are considerably cheaper . . . sometimes
almost "free." Keep those expensive spaces tight and well
planned (kitchen cabinetry, for instance, is on a 3" module,
not 4" as is framing, and cheaper to shrink a kitchen a
smidge to fit rather than expand).
Fourth. A square is a more space-efficient shape than is a
narrow rectangle when measured in materials, particularly in
exterior wall materials. As an example: a 60' x 60'
building encloses 3,600 SF; whereas, a 36' x 100' also
encloses 3,600 SF.; however, the 60' x 60' has 240 LF of
exterior wall, foundation, footing, bond beam, etc.. While
a more narrow 36' x 100' building encloses the same 3,600
SF; however, the 36' x 100' has 272 LF of exterior wall,
foundation, footing, bond beam, etc., or at least 13% more
of the more expensive exterior construction than the 60' x
60'. Thus the square is the most efficient of rectangular
shapes. BUT, in this case, cost efficiency is not the best
measure of either a most efficient or a most effective or a
most enjoyable home.
Those room/area spaces you roughed out within your budget
parameter (& perimeter) must fit in similarly efficient
manner. And, you want the proper spaces to abut exterior
walls for access/ingress, lighting, ventilation, etc.
Fifth. Start with a modular system in mind, but do not be
adicted to it. You are building one home, not one hundred.
A $100 added expense for a compromise costs you but $100 (if
anything) and NOT 100 x $100 or $10,000. And, just because
you want one $100 extravagance does not mean you will have
99 others obligated to paying for the same thing. (And,
$100 seldom enters into a resale transaction.)
Sixth. Call one or two local truss manufacturers. Meet
with them, a sales rep and one of their designers, on a
preliminary basis (they will expect to be invited to bid on
the actual job) and get some design parameters with
attendant cost comparisons for various truss spans, pitches,
spacings, etc. Find out what provisions must be made for
code as pertains to bearing and shear walls, etc. (Don't
worry about those code requirements for now. They will be
addressed when your earlier preliminary plans are reviewed.
Just wanted you to have a heads' up.)
Seventh. After you've messed with this quite a while, with
lots of schemes and considerations and magazine photos,
write out a family profile and be prepared to take it and
your schemes and photos to a competent architect or house
designer or design-builder. Call a few for a meeting. If
they want to see what you have, take it. If not, do not
expect to pay for the first visit. If so, maybe you will be
expected to pay a nominal fee for the initial visit. Maybe
not. You'll be told in advance. Act accordingly.
Good luck,
Jim
> Thanks,
>
> Ted
Alan Combellack
about to embark on the design and build of a small building and your posting
makes some points I had not yet considered. Thanks.
Alan C
"JsWalker LazenbyJr" <aajwl...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:k_WdnS0eXuu...@gbronline.com...
>
> > Any advice?
> Yes.
> First, consider building to a 48" square module. If your
> 50' x 70' dimension is a general planning figure, shooting
> for about 3,500 SF, consider starting with 48' x 72' instead
> for potential of maximum use of modular sizes of building
> materials and systems. When you must break down a module,
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003
Ian Denham
keeping it for my next project. Lots of good ideas.
Ian Denham
"Alan Combellack" <acomb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Y3Efa.2619$Yz2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...