|
Posted by AustinScoobee on July 10, 2006, 4:46 pm
Indeed, the double top plate has interlocked endplates, and in
addition, since the framing members are all 2X6, this also means the
top is 2X6 double plate..pretty strong I would think.. Anyhow, so long
as the building inspector sees nothing wrong with the arrangement, I
feel pretty comfortable with it now, I even called a local truss
company, who confirmed (in thier opinion) that this is done very often,
and in fact there were indeed certain instances where even fewer lined
up with the studs..(trusses over curved/angled walls)
Once again, thanks very much to the group and you're input!
G
Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Wayne Whitney wrote...
> > My understanding is that you are off by one here: if the studs/trusses
> > are perfectly aligned everywhere, I believe the building code allows a
> > single top plate (with the proper splice detail). Using a double top
> > plate is standard practice precisely because it allows the
> > studs/trusses to be offset.
> >
>
> Wayne is correct. Not to mention that once you add solid sheathing on the
> wall the double top plate is not going to go anywhere without destroying
> the sheathing.
>
> BTW, there is another reason to use a double top plate: chord forces in
> the roof or floor diaphragm. It is possible to use a single top plate,
> but the diaphragm cannot be very large and you must strap across any
> splices to provide load continuity. The use of a double top plate
> provides two benefits: studs and roof members don't have to be aligned and
> chord splices are done by offsetting the ends of the plates.
>
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap