Hey John................. Thanks for the great info. Appreciate the time that you spent. I think you nailed it perfectly. I have come to the conclusion from what was said in most of the replies is that there is "considerable doubt" as to whether this is safe or not. I will error on the safe side and pass on this idea. As a final note................ Thanks to All for your super replies, concern and time spent. I will now start on my new Rube Goldberg idea.... :~)
-buck
I missed the 2X4 part when I made my first reply. I was thinking you meant a 2X6 or 2X8 or larger joist. Anyway, since you are talking about a truss made of 2X4s, I'd say it's not a good idea. Trusses are usually engineered to support a roof and little else, they have a definite limit on safe loading of the lower horizontal and will not take additional loading to the same extent that stick-built framing joists will.
With your idea of laying a 2X6 across 3 trusses and spreading out the load, you might be OK depending... If you know who manufactured the trusses you could checki with them for allowable loading, or look at similarly sized and constructed trusses if the manufacturer is unknown. If this will just be a "dead" load, not swinging or subject to shock or impulse loads, you could just do a test; Lay the 2X6 up there, then s l o w l y do a pull up on it. If your comfortable with the degree of flexing (or lack thereof) let your conscience be your guide.
Larry...... Thanks for the come back. Me thinks I will not take a chance on a questionable idea. Probably will save me some grief down the road. Appreciate your advice.
-buck
"jcatora"
Finally, an accurate, well thought out response.
Thanks
Dave
Why not cut a hole in the ceiling just enough to get Johns strongback idea up on top of the truss chords (ceiling joist). Patch and paint it back to the way it was. The way I'm reading it, you was just going to put your 2 by
6 across 3 joists on the outside-underside of the sheetrock ceiling?
There's always this...
Tim.... Just when I think I am not going to do it...... You and John come up with these good ideas...... :~)
-thanks but I no longer have a good feeling about this idea.
LOL!!! Follow your gut feeling brother!!! It usually turns out to be right. I know I sure wish I'd have listened to mine more than a thousand times!!! In other words, DAMN I wish I hadn't done that!!!
-thanks pardner! Roger That!
"Tim Taylor" wrote in news:7bCdne6V3La_65XYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@insightbb.com:
Then, after I've learned my lesson, it changes to "If I did that this way... perhaps it would work." (Curse of the engineer?)
Puckdropper
LOL ....... sounds like an ME talking.
Buck,
I wouldn't let the comments (mine or anybody else's) give you that 'bad' feeling. I feel pretty confident that a solution is there - but I would add this one caveat...
If you were thinking of attaching this 2x6 from the *underside* (i.e. on the ceiling - visible from below), I would caution against doing that. If you lay your 2x6 ON TOP of the bottom chords of the trusses (i.e. from the attic space), then those members are transferring their loads to the bottom chords through simple 'bearing' -- any anchorage you use (nails, lag bolts, etc) are simply holding the 2x6 in place so that it wouldn't shift depending on the loading from the eye-bolts.
If, on the other hand, you *were* thinking of anchoring this from below, then you are relying on the lag bolts to carry ALL the load into the truss bottom chords. This might actually could be workable -- the AITC (Amer. Inst. of Timber Construction) "Timber Construction Handbook" has loading values for lag bolts in exactly this kind of loading case -- so there are *real numbers* that can be determined as to how much load they would carry. BUT, if you're talking about hanging some bicycles or other 'hardware' from these eye-bolts, that's one thing. Placing a 'human load' on them (in this arrangement) is something else - and I wouldn't do that if I had to rely on lag bolts only to do it. There's just better ways when you are putting someone's health and safety on the line.
If I were detailing such an arrangement for a client, I would -- as noted -- place the 'structure' ABOVE the bottom chords (i.e. in the attic) to get that 'bearing' type of load transfer. That will, obviously, complicate the situation for 'already built' conditions -- tearing a hole in the ceiling and patching back.
But, the bottom line is that this *could* be done - and I wouldn't let any comments dissuade you if you really want to pull this off. Just do it the right way and you won't have any problems. Invariably, folks tend to 'rewrite the laws of physics' (without thinking things through) and that's when they get burned.
-- john.
buck wrote:
ARGGGGG! ...... Darn it John! Now you got me thinking again. What you say makes sense too, putting the 2x6 above the bottom chords. I guess it is very similar to John and Tim's ideas......... As far as 'rewriting the laws of physics' ...... I have a tendancy to always think there is a better way - And I'm usually right about 15 percent of the time.... LOL! Thanks John for your good info and I will certainly accept your expertise as well ................ As far as other opinions go, I know that they all are wanting to error on the side of safety and I appreciate that for sure. See Puckdropper, I am like a rudder-less ship!!!!
-buck
ps........... Please stop adding to this thread, cause it is making me crazy..... :~)
Don't spoil his fun! :D
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.