Making a slight detour back to the wood gusset plate question and nail spacing:


What I would like to compare is the following:





Same amount of nails in each test specimen. The tighter nail spacing allows for 66.6% the gusset length versus the 2 row configuration.


Any one want to venture a guess which one is stronger and by how much?


I just need to figure out a test rig and then load these two up and see what happens.


For a DF main member and OSB (7/16) I get 173.7 lbs per fastener (double shear) or a total of 1,389.6 lbs for eight 10d fasteners.


I'm wondering how much the connection will stretch at this design load (loaded in pure tension, parallel to grain of main member) and at what load will it fail, then compare the results from both configurations.

Version 1.1.5 - 07.18.2017
- Fixed bug with slab reinforcement for Slab-on-Grade foundations (Polygon, Face).

Version 1.9.5 - 07.11.2017
- Added energy/raised heels for quad fink truss (3 variant: wedge, slider and vertical w/ strut).
- Metal plate connectors now enabled for quad fink trusses.



This concludes the updates needed for common trusses.  I still have a number of updates for all the other truss types to bring them up to speed.

Version 1.9.4 - 07.08.2017
- Added energy/raised heels for triple howe truss (3 variant: wedge, slider and vertical w/ strut).
- Metal plate connectors now enabled for triple howe trusses.



Below would be a typical example of a 60' span using a triple howe truss. 



However, in most cases where the design calls for taller walls one would probably go with a steel building or CMU block walls.  This was the case on a building I designed about 10 years ago (Wasatch Building Supply, Utah) that had 20 ft. walls.  Its too bad I don't have an interior photo showing the trusses inside the warehouse roof, its quite a sight to behold.

If I ever do build my office I was thinking of doing some sort of cedar siding and then putting my logo or some of my other designs on the exterior:



View model here:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/1bc480bd-0bc9-4f5a-b6fe-441d73c84183/Medeek-Office-with-Logo

Some of my other designs are here:

http://www.wilkersonart.com

On my Kickstarter campaign there was a recent comment regarding the pricing of my plugins.  I have been giving this some thought recently and I thought I might also share my remarks on the board as well:

I agree that there is certainly an argument that I charge too little for these plugins and I have wrestled some with this problem. Others have also privately messaged me or emailed me with similar remarks and recommended that I bump my prices, sometimes tenfold.

The current reasoning behind my low pricing structure can be summarized with the following points:

1.) All of these plugins are currently in a developmental phase. Unfortunately, I have not been able to exert my full time efforts at this development so progress has been slow. I find it hard to charge a "fair amount" for a product that in my mind is still flawed and imperfect. My "todo" list is currently about 60 items and written out covers about 2 pages. To charge a "professional" price requires that one provide a "professional" service or product, I don't feel like I'm there yet.

2.) I have looked at some of the competition such as Pluspec and others who charge considerably more than I do. Again the sophistication of the their product exceeds my own so the price differential is warranted. But more importantly I'm not a huge fan of pricey design software, that is what has led me to SketchUp in the first place. The SketchUp community in general has adopted this mindset (in my opinion) and I don't feel that they would get behind an expensive solution.

3.) I am also trying to keep the plugin within the reach of the casual user (DIY'er), someone who simply wants to model up a single house or garage for their own personal use. In some cases the trial version of the plugin(s) will work for that but I have recently limited it quite strictly so any serious design work will require a registered license.

4.) I have also considered a subscription model, but my own distaste of that licensing mode has kept me from going down that road. Once your purchase a software you should be able to use it indefinitely as it stands. Additional payment should only be required if you are requesting an update or added functionality.

5.) What better way to discourage copy cats and the competition to price it too low as to make it worth their while. No one in their right mind will try to recreate what I have done with trusses when the payback is so little and the effort is so large.

With all of that being said I do think that the sweet spot, which still meets the requirements of the above points, may still be a bit higher than what I am currently charging. I need to find the correct amount to charge so that the above points are carefully balanced with the fact that I need to be able to justify the amount of time and effort I spend in developing these products.

Tutorial 5: Hip Truss Sets (24:32 min.)

I've been looking at some floor truss layouts and it appears that within a given truss set or assembly the chase will line up across multiple spans as I have shown here:



View model here:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/25d2af3a-a5e6-498f-b2eb-8f4b773927ca/Floor-Truss-Study-3

Generating a new truss component for each separate span is not too difficult, similar to generating a new step down hip truss component every 24".  One thing to note is that a polygon outline will only work for floor trusses if the angles are all orthogonal, at least the bearing walls where the trusses terminate.

I'm a little unclear how to deal with the ladder trusses at the transition between different spans, perhaps someone has a 3D model or pictures giving me some clarity in these areas.

It took me about 15 minutes to create this complex floor truss set using the rectangular floor truss tool (3 separate truss sets) and the trim tool, not terrible but it would be so much better if I could achieve the same result in a matter of seconds with no manual editing.

Cutting holes in the floor and having the hole cutting tool able to regen the proper trusses is also a hot item related to this discussion.  That would make the floor truss feature actually functional as a real world design tool.

Another issue is multiple chases within a truss set.  One central chase seems the most typical but two chases positioned within the central third of the truss span also appears to be quite common.  So far I have not seen more than two chases in a given floor truss span, probably for good reason.  The ability to create two chases rather than just one is now on the "todo" list.

Here we go again:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/128644708/medeek-construction-plugin-library

After a dismal turnout for the original truss plugin campaign I never thought I would consider another kickstarter campaign. However, I have recently been contacted by various companies/organizations seeing if I could further develop the plugins so they could use them on a almost daily basis. Based on these conversations I can see there is a real need for this type of modeling and the momentum appears to be picking up.

Another critical piece is my own level of knowledge and skill set with the SketchUp API. After spending the last two years working through the truss plugin I feel that I've finally reached a point on the learning curve where I am able to bring a lot to bear and ultimately push the development to a critical mass.

My limiting factor now is only my time and in order to devote more time to the project I need some backing.

I think my love of trusses sometimes blinds me to the fact that most people don't really care to model the details of their roof.  With that being said I don't think my time was wasted since I have learned an immense amount about programming a SketchUp Plugin and manipulating the API.  However, I think it is now time to give the Truss Plugin a rest and focus my efforts on projects that will give me a better return for my investment.  I'm not sure what exactly those projects are yet but I'm working on it.

Here is a model of the L-shaped hip roof I am in question about:



View model here:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/0d42dfb9-8059-40a9-afb9-e0f5a8c346df/Hip-Study-2

Version 1.9.3 - 06.25.2017
- Added Terminal hip set trusses.
- Enabled advanced options for terminal hip sets.
- Added energy/raised heels for terminal hip set (3 variants: wedge, slider and vertical w/ strut).
- Added the option for open vs. closed end jack and single and double ply girders



View model here:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/40ac6469-0d4b-4462-914e-7f6f7ae0602f/Standard-Terminal-Hipset

This style of hip set is typically used for spans less than 20 ft.

For those not familiar with truss hip sets, here is a primer:



6" raised heel with open end jacks and a drop-in purlin frame.

I am wondering if any one has some shop drawings for a truss roof like the one below:



I am trying to understand how the trusses are configured where the two roof lines meet at the interior corner.

I'm also looking for a full set of shop drawings for a California Hip Set, I'm seeing a few variations with this hip set I'm trying to determine the most typical way they are put together.

Added energy/raised heels for stepdown hip set (3 variants: wedge, slider and vertical w/ strut).



View model here:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/5e38b8eb-5c4d-4e05-a48e-63ceee60652b/Commercial-Building-with-Hip-Roof

Now the possibilities are limitless since you can match the heel height of any other roof (ie. rafter, TJI etc...)

Adding in this feature was not as bad I thought it would be but each truss type in the set must be considered and dealt with separately:

- Common Trusses
- Hip Trusses
- End Jacks
- Hip Jacks
- Corner Jacks