Non-Residential Codes (IBC)

We are currently developing a project which specifies “Seismic Design Category C.” We are an East Coast truss manufacturer and have not encountered seismic requirements before.

As an engineer, I have noticed truss designers in some high wind states routinely using “Main Wind-Force Resisting Systems” wind pressure coefficients as opposed to “Components and Cladding” coefficients to design for wind uplift. A roof truss is not a main wind-force resisting system and would have to have a tributary area of more than 1000 sq. ft. before qualifying for the lower Primary Frame coefficients. In my experience this practice is routine.

The Corps' guide spec for wood construction requires the drawings to indicate the design forces on each truss member for the worst loading condition. Loading conditions, of course, can include wind, snow build up, and unbalanced loading, to name a few. Many A/E firms submit drawings lacking these member forces, but instead show typical loading conditions. What does the wood truss fabricator want to see – truss diagrams with maximum loads on each member? Or would he prefer to design the truss from many required loading diagrams?

I am conducting an investigation on the costs associated with building a 15,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing school building. I need to determine if wood trusses, steel bar joists or light gauge steel trusses would be the most economical material for the building system. The truss spans range from 42 ft. to 56 ft.