quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to
> store some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4"
> plyboard over the ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't
> crash thru the drywall ceiling). However movement/activity up there
> is hampered by the fact that the roof is supported by factory
> produced 2x4 trusses, as these are composed of many cross members
> that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between the upper and
> lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly make my
> attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could
> somehow be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not
> compromise the structural integrity of my roof, of course).
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'
> (i.e. reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by
> removal of some of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not
> being a carpenter or structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking
> informed comments/advice from others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken

quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
> some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
> ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
> the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are
> composed of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique
> angles between the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It
> would certainly make my attic storage efforts easier if some of these
> cross-members could somehow be removed out of the way (that is... in such
> a way as to not compromise the structural integrity of my roof, of
> course).
>
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'
> (i.e. reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal
> of some of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a
> carpenter or structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed
> comments/advice from others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>

quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
> some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
> ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
> the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are

quote:

---

> of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
> the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly

quote:

---

> my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could

quote:

---

> be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise

quote:

---

> structural integrity of my roof, of course).
>
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'

quote:

---

> reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
> of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
> structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
> others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken

quote:

---

> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering' (i.e.
> reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
> of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
> structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
> others before going further with this.
>
>

quote:

---

> David,
> If I gave a truss manufacturer a careful drawing of an existing truss,
> a manufacturer could tell me what loads it could support?
> TB
>

quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
> some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
> ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
> the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are

quote:

---

> of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
> the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly

quote:

---

> my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could

quote:

---

> be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise

quote:

---

> structural integrity of my roof, of course).
>
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'

quote:

---

> reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
> of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
> structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
> others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>

quote:

---

>
> If you're a half decent carpenter and you throw enough 2x4's at it,
> you'll probably end up with something stronger than you started with.
>
> If you use 1/4 bolts with fender washers and (or) #12 or #14 wood
> screws and pre-drill the holes (and not nail anything together) you'll
> have something stronger than the existing framework.
>
> I bet your existing wood is full of splits because of the hack job
> that is usually done when cutting rafters and pounding over-sized
> nails in.

quote:

---

> "Ken Moiarty" <kmoiarty35@shaw.ca> wrote in message

quote:

---

>
> If you're a half decent carpenter and you throw enough 2x4's at it,
> you'll probably end up with something stronger than you started with.

quote:

---

> If you use 1/4 bolts with fender washers and (or) #12 or #14 wood
> screws and pre-drill the holes (and not nail anything together) you'll
> have something stronger than the existing framework.

quote:

---

> I bet your existing wood is full of splits because of the hack job
> that is usually done when cutting rafters and pounding over-sized
> nails in.

quote:

---

> Colbyt wrote:
>
>
> I guess that explains how I can load my roof with 120 bundles of
> shingles and 5 guys (and that's in addition to the weight of the
> existing shingles).

quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
> some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
> ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
> the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are

quote:

---

> of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
> the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly

quote:

---

> my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could

quote:

---

> be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise

quote:

---

> structural integrity of my roof, of course).
>
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'

quote:

---

> reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
> of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
> structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
> others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>

quote:

---

>
>Most residential trusses are designed to hold up the roof and the drywall.
>
>Attic junk not included. Floor load not included.

quote:

---

>
>The thought of modifying trusses is not a scary thought to me,
>because I have done a lot of work that involved modification
>and I have worked with a lot of engineers on what to do, and I
>have 30 years of experience in construction. The thought of
>advising someone else on doing it sends chills up and down my
>spine.

quote:

---

>Conventionally framed roofs with ceiling joists of adequate width meant for
>storage is probably the only type one can safely store your stuff in the
>attic. A few truss designers will design these if the ceiling load specs
>are provided by the builder, but its not seen very often.

quote:

---

>
>The trusses have some extra load capabilities. Afterall, they must
>support workers up there moving around.

quote:

---

> Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
> some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
> ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
> the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are

quote:

---

> of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
> the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly

quote:

---

> my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could

quote:

---

> be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise

quote:

---

> structural integrity of my roof, of course).
>
> Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'

quote:

---

> reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
> of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
> structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
> others before going further with this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>

quote:

---

>Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
>some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
>ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
>ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
>the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are composed
>of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
>the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly make
>my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could somehow
>be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise the
>structural integrity of my roof, of course).
>
>Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering' (i.e.
>reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
>of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
>structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
>others before going further with this.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ken
>

quote:

---

> This is the main reason I would NEVER build a house with trusses.
>

quote:

---

>
> This is the main reason I would NEVER build a house with trusses. The
> older homes I have lived in all my life had stick framed roofs.
> Normally 2x8's across the floor (above your ceiling) and they go from
> the outer walls to the center support wall.

quote:

---

>Then the roof is 2X6's
> from the outer walls, and come together at the peak. Built that way,
> you can make a real attic, build rooms up there and whatever.

quote:

---

>Trusses
> save the expense of the larger dimension lumber, but are all wasted
> space. They are fine for a barn or something where you would not need
> an attic, but for a house they are just a big waste of space.

quote:

---

> Considering the high cost of trusses, I tend to wonder if they are
> really worth the savings, because I tend to think the savings is
> minimal.

quote:

---

> As for your situation, I can only say this. You cant just sister

quote:

---

> roof joists, because the floor could drop (along with your ceiling
> below) However, if you were to sister 2x8s across the floor, AND
> 2x6's on the roof, being sure both the 2x8's and 2x6s are resting on
> the outer walls, and on the center support wall of the home, you could
> probably get away with it.

quote:

---

>Look at the way an older home roof was
> built, and duplicate that. But, if your trusses are 2x4s, you may not
> be able to get your new wood onto the outer walls, unless you can cut
> the angle and still have enough wood on the walls. I am not
> suggesting you do this without having a professional engineer or
> builder look at it, but it could possibly work. Your other option
> would be to remove the entire roof and rebuild it using stick
> construction, but I dont think you want to go that extreme.

quote:

---

> As someone else said, trusses are not made to hold heavy loads, as a
> floor. Those 2x4's are likely spliced right in the middle of your
> rooms below, so even if you leave the trusses intact, I would still
> add some at least 2x6's from outer walls to center walls and floor on
> top of them.

quote:

---

> Of course you could move too....
> Remember, many of the older stick built houses have lasted a hundred
> years or more. These new houses built out of crap have a life
> expectancy of about 30 years. So you might save a few bucks today,
> but you will pay and pay and pay later.

quote:

---

>
>Rant: For a home that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd think
>the builder could've been a little more liberal budgetwise and built the
>house to higher spec.
>
>Ken

quote:

---

>
> Look what the original poster (OP) said:
>
> "Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the ceiling
> rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
> ceiling)."
>
> So we can assume that the rafters are strong enough to support someone
> wiggling around putting plywood down?
>
> 3/4 plywood to tie the rafters together will certainly give some
> additional strength to the load-bearing capacity.

quote:

---

>
> What for? You bought it anyway...

quote:

---

>maradcliff@UNLISTED..com wrote:
>
>Most of the older homes that I've seen don't have such beefy floors.
>Most of them have 2x6 ceiling joists or even 2x4s.
>

quote:

---

>
>Sure, if the home is built the way you say.
>
>
>Trusses can be, and are, designed for all sorts of conditions and
>loads. I frequently have to beef up or replace existing stick frame
>structures when remodeling. If it wasn't designed for it, it has to be
>modified. The only difference is that trusses are more complicated to
>analyze and therefore modify.
>
>
>Every tract home builder in the country disagrees with you. There are
>many advantages - much longer spans possible eliminating the need for
>interior support and concomitant foundation costs, faster roof framing,
>weight savings, etc.
>
>the
>
>If he's just looking to add storage capabilities (floor load), why does
>he have to touch the roof? He could ignore the trusses and install
>floor joists next to them, but if he doesn't have a center support
>wall, he probably can't do that.

quote:

---

>
>Probably not.
>
>
>You are advising that substantial loads be placed on walls that may not
>be bearing walls...?

quote:

---

>
>Not sure where you got your life expectancy number from, but it's
>_extremely_ pessimistic.

quote:

---

>R

quote:

---

>In a previous post says...
>
>There is such a thing as an "attic truss". But, it must be specified at
>the time of design and manufacture. Typically, the truss is designed
>with an aisle way down the middle and the bottom chord is designed to
>carny the weight of stuff stored in a typical attic.
>
>The engineer or architect can specify a heavier than normal load on the
>bottom chord. Obviously, the truss manufacturer will do what's typical
>unless told to do otherwise. the spec building could specify an attic
>truss, but that costs more. Most spec builders on not going to spend
>the a few hundred extra dollars if they don't have to.

quote:

---

>
>[...]
>
> What for? You bought it anyway...
>

quote:

---

> "Goedjn" <prose@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:i45bc1h43n1m44h2f1nlr5mrjlhspauknc@4ax.com...
>
> And, "what the customer doesn't know won't hurt him..."? Uh huh. I used to
> work in floor covering and dealt with many a commission salesman... Talk
> about tunnel-vision! You can recite any of the litany of self-serving
> excuses all you like. I've heard them all before.

quote:

---

> I realize trusses go up
> faster, but normally a crane is needed to lift them to the roof, and
> renting or owning and running that crane adds to the cost of the
> labor. Stick construction just requires some men to lift the boards.

quote:

---

> They MUST be load bearing walls. In most homes the wall down the
> center of the house IS the load bearing wall. The way to find out is
> to see if that wall is on top of the support beam in the basement.

quote:

---

> work [...]
>
> I [the OP] didn't take him to be commenting in any way on "morality" in
> any way. My comment was simply to convey my personal distaste for
> builders and/or other vendors, even other consumers, etc, who are just
> plain "cheap". IOW, what's wrong with a little "class"? I will accept
> however, that most people don't care to possess much in the way of this
> quality. So I am well out-voted by the majority here.

quote:

---

>From your personal distaste comment above about cheapness, you couldn't

quote:

---

> kmoiarty35@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> How does "class" enter into it? I'm not sure what you could mean by
> that. Do you mean that a builder should just throw in all sorts of
> extras and upgrades for free to show he has class?
>
> You wrote:
> "Rant: For a home that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd
> think
> the builder could've been a little more liberal budgetwise and built
> the
> house to higher spec."
>
> The builder didn't set prices for the materials he bought, the
> subcontractors he used, the land in your area, etc., etc. He set the
> sale price for the house based on what he thought the market would
> bear. If he, or a subsequent owner that you purchased it from, had
> priced it higher you might not have bought it, or it might not have
> sold at all. It's a balancing act. If the builder was a fly by night,
> or cut every imaginable corner, this should have shown up when you were
> doing your research.
>
> Since you bought the house, you must have felt it was a good value at
> the time, based on your research into the housing market in your area.
> have been afraid to spend the necessary money. So how did the building
> all of a sudden become cheaply made?
>
> Obviously it didn't change from when you had it inspected and made your
> offer. You did have it professionally inspected, right? If the house
> is as shoddily built as you say, I'm surprised that the inspector
> didn't steer you away from the house you're in.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the first home you've bought, but it sounds
> like you've come to realize that you now have higher expectations for
> your house, and have learned more about how houses are built.
>
> Looking on the bright side, with the market the way it is, your house
> is probably increasing in equity value fairly rapidly - regardless of
> the way it was built.
>
> R
>

quote:

---

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:37:11 GMT, "Ken Moiarty" <kmoiarty35@shaw.ca>
> scribbled this interesting note:
>
>
> Sorry if what I said seemed to imply what you inferred. It was not my
> intention. The point being exactly as you made it. The lack of quality
> is caused by a short term focus on one portion of the equation, that
> being the bottom line at the end of the day, instead of the end of the
> decade. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that the "Wal-Mart"
> syndrome is everywhere...
>
>
> --
> John Willis
> (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

quote:

---

> I didn't know they make "attic trusses". But if they are as costly as
> you are saying, then I'd think using dimensional lumber would be about
> the same price, both in materials and labor. I realize trusses go up
> faster, but normally a crane is needed to lift them to the roof, and
> renting or owning and running that crane adds to the cost of the
> labor.
>

quote:

---

> Maybe a terminology difference. Here, I believe there isn't
> a "structural engineer" designation per-se, it's a specialty
> in civil. My dad was a civil, and he did structures, tho,
> his main work was in other stuff.
>

quote:

---

> maradcliff@UNLISTED..com wrote:
>
> Well, you can get trusses designed to provide attic space.
>
> Matt

quote:

---

>I just built a house and used trusses because I have a floor plan with the
>kitchen/dining/living room all open.
>There is a 32' open span that couldn't be done with ceiling joist/rafters.

quote:

---

>
> My garage has a 32' clear span and I did it with I-joists. Plus, I
> put them up singlehandedly.

quote:

---

>Wes Stewart wrote:
>
>Amputee? ;)