Simpson brackets are a great example of a shadow tax imposed by height restrictions.
You can avoid a tremendous amount of structural fasteners by stacking the load paths /on top/ of each other rather than terminating them into each other. Joists and beams being the prime example. But then you are either having lowered boxed-in beams inside the living space OR you add the height of joists above the beam into each floor. On a project like your's, where you are already counting inches to remain inside allowable height... you gotta use all the brackets.
If you look at older buildings, there are no brackets or metal straps. But they stack load paths and have more closed in rooms (load bearing wall being cheaper than a beam).
In some cases, like rafter to plate connections, brackets are near impossible to avoid. (and for good reason, high winds used to lift roofs off all the time!). But in many other cases, if you have the height, it's worth asking your architects to consider simpler and cheaper alternatives to brackets.
And man... if someone had the capital to create a Simpson competitor, there's plenty of margin to be compressed there!
Totally agree. And the hangers aren't even the biggest offender! The Simpson HDUs (connecting walls to floors) and UFRPs (connecting floors to foundation) cost a pretty penny.
Fair points though. If it wasn't for our height constraint, I likely would've pushed harder for avoiding flush mount (in retrospect, of course).
Simpson brackets are a great example of a shadow tax imposed by height restrictions.
You can avoid a tremendous amount of structural fasteners by stacking the load paths /on top/ of each other rather than terminating them into each other. Joists and beams being the prime example. But then you are either having lowered boxed-in beams inside the living space OR you add the height of joists above the beam into each floor. On a project like your's, where you are already counting inches to remain inside allowable height... you gotta use all the brackets.
If you look at older buildings, there are no brackets or metal straps. But they stack load paths and have more closed in rooms (load bearing wall being cheaper than a beam).
In some cases, like rafter to plate connections, brackets are near impossible to avoid. (and for good reason, high winds used to lift roofs off all the time!). But in many other cases, if you have the height, it's worth asking your architects to consider simpler and cheaper alternatives to brackets.
And man... if someone had the capital to create a Simpson competitor, there's plenty of margin to be compressed there!
Totally agree. And the hangers aren't even the biggest offender! The Simpson HDUs (connecting walls to floors) and UFRPs (connecting floors to foundation) cost a pretty penny.
Fair points though. If it wasn't for our height constraint, I likely would've pushed harder for avoiding flush mount (in retrospect, of course).
Simpson did over $1B in sales last year... wow.