Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
lag screws in withdrawal from end-grain[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: lag screws in withdrawal from end-grain
- From: "Buddy Showalter"<buddy_showalter(--nospam--at)afandpa.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 13:25:45 -0500
Wow! take a couple of days off and missed all the fun with this one. I tried to follow the thread through the digests and think most all the questions were addressed. just a couple of clarifications though. the end-grain factor C_eg for withdrawal is 0.75 and for lateral loads is 0.67. Bruce Pooley's explanation on the background for it was correct. Roger Turk's reference to the FPL Tech. Bulletin #597 was also correct. the NDS Commentary states that this situation should be avoided due to possibility of splitting due to lateral loads. the reason the "should not" statement was taken out of the NDS is that the code bodies are requiring standards developers to use "mandatory" language in writing the standards. for them, it's an enforceability issue. commentary language like may and should is being replaced with terms like "shall be permitted" or moved out of the standard to the commentary. probably 100 of the 130 changes to the '97 NDS dealt with this very issue. ********************* From: "Bill Cain, S.E." <bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com> To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Subject: RE: Lag screws in withdrawal from end grain Nels- The "should not" statement does appear in the 1991 NDS Commentary. Bill Cain, S.E. Oakland, CA -----Original Message----- From: NRoselund(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:NRoselund(--nospam--at)aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 07, 1998 9:18 AM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Lag screws in withdrawal from end grain The 1994 Edition of the UBC says "lag screws should not be loaded in withdrawal from end grain. When this condition cannot be avoided, the tabulated nominal withdrawal value, W shall be multiplied by the end grain factor, Ceg=0.75." The 1991 edition has a similar statement. I don't find the 'should not' statement in the 1991 NDS.
- Prev by Subject: Re:Lag Screws in withdrawal from end grain.
- Next by Subject: Lateral analysis and conventional framing provisions
- Previous by thread: RE: Sheilding
- Next by thread: LRFD vs. ASD