Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
timberframe redundancy #7920 04/08/01 01:54 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
With SIPS able to bear floor and roof loads I would like to begin a discussion regarding the use of timberframe as a non redundant structural system.

Re: timberframe redundancy #7921 04/09/01 10:43 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Could you be more specific about your point? There are applications in which a SIP system can stand alone, others in which the timber frame does just fine by itself (without a load-bearing enclosure system), and still others in which a combination of the two is essential to achieving adequate performance. Also, most often redundancy is a good thing and need not be unnecessarily expensive to achieve.

Re: timberframe redundancy #7922 04/09/01 10:57 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Take for example a typical timberframe endwall - lets it has 1000 bf or more of lumber in it and costs $10,000. Clad that with sips and you have an expensive wall. The cost to traditionally frame the endwall with 2x6' @ 16;' o.c is much less and this conventionally framed 2x6 wall can bear the timberframe floor joists and purlins easy enough.

The question would simply be - what upcharge is being paid for timberframe and sips?.. and is it worth it?

To a similar degree this woul;d apply to conventional perimeter walls.


Moderated by  mdfinc 

Newest Members
Bradyhas1, cpgoody, James_Fargeaux, HFT, Wrongthinker
5137 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.038s Queries: 15 (0.014s) Memory: 3.1132 MB (Peak: 3.5814 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-04-24 03:44:20 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS