iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Truss design for carport

Started by bbaley, December 13, 2017, 07:19:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bbaley

Hi all,
I am researching truss designs for a timber framed carport
the span is 20-22 feet

I am interested in this design but not sure what the engineering aspects and requirements are;

Note from Admin:  Pics must be in Forestry Forum Gallery.  Offsite pics not allowed.


I don't know the name for this design - to me it appears to be a hybrid if a scissor truss with a collar tie ?

Any information you can provide on it's use (and especially limitations) would be greatly appreciated !

One of the reasons for my interest in this design is the limitation of members/lumber for a span of 20'-22' (finished width 24' with an overhang between 12" and 24")




Roger Nair

Bbaley, the picture is evidently from a particular companies website and as such it would be, in my view,  copyright protected work and to reverse engineer a design, be a violation of their work.  So refer your question to Hardwick.  I would not call this assemblage a  truss, due to bending of the rafter chords and spread at the feet and weak tension joinery.
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

MbfVA

www.ordinary.com (really)

bbaley

ok - well I am not trying to infringe on any rights - just trying to identify the design. it sounds like it is uncommon and possibly specific to a particular builder and not a common or known practice.

bbaley

Quote from: bbaley on December 13, 2017, 08:04:07 PM
ok - well I am not trying to infringe on any rights - just trying to identify the design. it sounds like it is uncommon and possibly specific to a particular builder and not a common or known practice.

Btw - I think the question is still valid, whether the design is copyrighted, registered or trademarked - with regard to does anyone have experience with it - especially related to if it is relevant to my needs.
Someone can copyright/trademark crap - but that doesn't make it viable :)

Roger Nair

If pressed for a term, I would call it an augmented collar strut because the collar is the principal member and is a likely compression member, however that is not entirely clear to me. 
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

Roger Nair

One additional thought, the members are arranged in the form of lumber truss with metal gussets in conventional construction for a cathedral roof effect.  The major critical difference is that the pinned joints in the TF version are weak in comparison.
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

Don P

Bingo, that's what I was seeing, a copy of a lightweight metal connected truss. Not a good idea with this joinery. Going from memory now with the pic gone, I think its all tension perp to grain but we also couldn't see everything.

Did he "reverse mis-engineer" someones copyrighted work? If so we got the lesson on why not to do that real quick, cool.  This design may already be on the slippery slope, probably shouldn't do another generation of that without help.
   
Any creative work is automatically under copyright protection, yup, the fridge art too  :)

MbfVA

 The image is copyrighted, but wouldn't the design have to be patented, with the usual requirements for proving that you were the first one to think of it, etc. in order to stop someone from asking an engineer to do something "similar" but probably not identical, after viewing the image legally from that web site?
www.ordinary.com (really)

Roger Nair

MbVA, a patent is protection for unique invention that expands technology requiring lawyering and the federal government blessing.  Copy right protects artistic expression and is regarded as intellectual property of the author or creator   It is regarded as unethical behavior in the design and engineering community to copy others work.  Unapproved use of .others intellectual property can leave one open to a law suit.
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

MbfVA

Not a lawyer, and not going to try to play one, Roger, but I disagree with you on the level of concern you expressed just above, especially given the situation laid out by the original poster, and most especially, the ethics comment.  That seems way over the top here, but opinions will of course vary, as will legal results in the event of lawsuits.  Been there.

Yeah, try to get the same opinion on the same facts from any 2 (or more) lawyers, and you'll think you were talking to "2 (or more) handed" economists.  "On the one hand...".

We CPAs say it "depends on all the facts and circumstances" when it comes to tax law consequences (and we are often reminded by the ABA that we cannot practice law, even though we do all the time) .

It's a copout for "we're not sure".

Perhaps of more importance, I share Don and others' concern as to the viability of that joint (doesn't pass the layman look test-- too much overly skinny wood).  I have worn my eyes out looking at timber frame stuff online, images out the yazoo, and I've rarely seen anything that looked less strong than that joint.
www.ordinary.com (really)

Roger Nair

MbfVA, I wonder what would happen if you wrote a letter to a TF company that said,  "I am writing to thank your company for publishing photos of your work.  I have taken the photos of ______ and scaled them and copied all the details and the floor plan.  I think I will get a very nice spec. house from your promotional material.  Thanks again."

In my opinion, you will likely receive a blistering reply.   Companies publish photos to drum up business not to provide free plans.  Whenever I have provided plans for a job not yet under contract, I will leave out joinery details, dimension strings and illustrate with perspective sketches that defy scaling but give a visual impression, all in an effort to keep my design work as non-transferable to other bidders.  There can be a temptation on a clients part to take details from one bidder to get another bidder to beat my price on my uncompensated design work.  Clients will try to skin the bidders in underhanded ways.  It is up to builders and designers to have an ethical approach.
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

ChugiakTinkerer

The origins of copyrights and patents, at least in the U.S., are in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution.  Their purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Anything posted on the internet, whether a photograph, design plans, or even forum comments, will be interpreted and used by whomever sees it in ways completely unintended by the original creator.  That's what feeds the marketplace of ideas and hopefully leads to the afore-mentioned progress of science and useful arts.

A designer or creator has a few ways to prevent or mitigate the unintended uses, but the simplest is to not publish on the internet.  One can manage the unauthorized dissemination of valuable trade secrets through contractual arrangements such as non-disclosure agreements.  These only work if the originator does in fact keep the information secret.  Publishing on the internet means the information is no longer secret, and anyone not party to a contractual agreement is not bound to those terms.

Such creative or valuable work may still be protected by copyright or patent.  Copyrights, as Don P mentioned above, are established whenever a creative work is fixed in a tangible medium.  The photograph of the trusses was protected by copyright the moment it was imprinted on film or captured in digital form.  Any copying, distribution, etc. of that picture is subject to the license terms of the creator.  In the U.S., unlicensed use for specific purposes is allowed under the doctrine of Fair Use.

The protection of an idea, such as a specific design for a timber frame truss, is only provided by patents, and then for a specific implementation of the idea.  Patents do not vest at time of creation, rather they must be applied for with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  If a patent exists for a specific design, then any use of that design is subject to licensing terms of the patent holder.  Patents are a monopoly granted by the government, with a limited duration and requiring timely application after initial publication of the idea.

All of my blather is because, in my opinion, the term intellectual property is a vague phrase meant to encompass all of the specific protections described above.  But too often it is also used to imply some magical umbrella that covers everything in between.  Sadly, some underhanded businesses capitalize on public confusion and attempt to extract an unearned payment.  They would gladly make free use of the work of others, and in turn pay society back by extracting a toll for the sidewalk you walk on and a rent for the air you breathe.  You may have guessed I'm not too keen on that notion.


Woodland Mills HM130

MbfVA

oh, rent, yeah, you're talking about Microsoft Apple Google and those guys.   and, without net neutrality in place, I have a feeling our rent is about to go up.
www.ordinary.com (really)

Roger Nair

Chugiak, your concluding paragraph on the concept of intellectual property is plainly wrong in regards to building design.  Design is a service that is bought and sold in different manners in untold quantity.  Besides being a commercial property, a building design is something that begins with a few ideas and intentions and grows in an iterative process, that can be proven by saving the full succession of working plans in development that demonstrates the development of the plan, hence the ownership and origin of the design.  Speaking as one who has produced a full set of construction plans with supporting schedules of materials and standards along with budgets and draw schedules, it is clear to me that intellectual property is a genuine article that is deemed in commerce as crucial.  To argue otherwise is to depart from an important consensus on which business and industry depend.  The existence of scammers does not invalidate the very concept. although it certainly present wrinkles for con men to inhabit.

Building is largely a practical art that relies on a full catalog of design elements that have been created over the ages, much like language that depends on a stock of words, authorship creates the meaning and expression of a literary work, so a designer creates by using the vocabulary of construction.
   
An optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears that the optimist is correct.--James Branch Cabell

AlaskaLes

I'm going to go ahead and wade into this mess...just to say that I tend to agree with Chugiak's assessment.
The one point that has not been made here is the clear distinction between using someone else's design idea to:

a- build a structure for yourself with no intent to market or profit from the design.

b- use said design idea to produce; market; generate profit, from this  other persons creations/designs.

From everything I have encountered in my research, including working on patent processes with two different associates/designs, "a" is clearly not the same as "b".
This is the critical difference.
I can use any design I like the look of, to make a piece of furniture, build a truss, or copy a neat tool idea, without any intent to profit from this idea.
The key to the patent/copyright infringement comes from using their ideas/designs to generate profit for yourself or your company.

This is my take on it, I'm not a lawyer and don't wish to be one.  As stated previously, you could ask 4 of them this question and get 4 different answers.

I'll finish with a comment from a very well established wood turner regarding people using other people's designs.
It went something like, "Yes, I understand the anger that people experience when someone takes their design and uses it without credit or compensation.  I'm still mad at the Ming's for copying my vase design and not paying me for it!"
My point is simply that we all borrow and build on the vision of others.
You can see Mt McKinley from our backyard...Up Close!!

Mighty Mite MK 4B, full-hyd, diesel bandmill
Kubota 4wd 3650GST w/FEL; Forks;
3pt Log Arm& Log trailer
Husky 394XP
Husky 371XP
Husky 353
Echo 330T
Nyle 200M
Robar RC-50 50BMG-just in case the trees get out of line

Thank You Sponsors!