Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

IsaacStructural (Structural) (OP)
1 Dec 10 11:45
Looking through table 9.3A of 1991 NDS, I am finding lag shear values that are significantly higher than the equivalent table, 11J from 2005 NDS.  The 1991 values seem to range somewhere between 20% and 100% higher than the 2005 values.  A similar issue occurs with tables 9.3B and 11k, respectively, and perhaps others as well.

I imagine there is a fairly simple explanation for this discrepancy, but I am not sure what it is.  Can someone help me out?

Thank you,

IsaacStructural (Structural) (OP)
1 Dec 10 12:10
Just to clarify, the change might have occurred sometime between 1991 and 2005, these just happen to be the two codes I have access to at this time.
smb4050 (Structural)
1 Dec 10 14:50
Sometimes NOMINAL values are listed versus allowable, so you need to apply applicable factor of safety values.
IsaacStructural (Structural) (OP)
1 Dec 10 15:01

In this case both tables seem to have the same title and are allowable values.  So I'm not sure if your suggestion is the case.
dhengr (Structural)
1 Dec 10 15:42
I don't have either of those NDS eds. on hand, but take a look at how many times over those years the lumber grades have changed, mostly lowered.  Allowable stressed in every direction have gone down, grading rules have changed, our design methods for bolts, etc. have changed, as have all of the multiplying factors for load duration, stresses, materials, etc.  It's getting tougher and tougher to pinpoint what causes some of these changes.  You would probably have to go directly to NDS code committee member, and I suspect some of them couldn't tell you exactly.   It's all an enigma wrapped in a riddle shrouded in a mystery.  Let us know when you find out.
MiketheEngineer (Structural)
1 Dec 10 16:25
Maybe someone did some real testing for once??
chicopee (Mechanical)
1 Dec 10 17:32
IsaacStructural, I do not use NDS tables when calculating lag screws or bolts when calculating the tensile and lateral forces of lag bolts; I use Kent's ME handbook table which I am attaching as a JPEG.  I am now wandering how much of a difference do you see between the two references.  Obviously, as dhengr indicated, wood quality has changed.  Also there are parameters influencing the differences in values which you'll note in the attached JPEG.
frv (Structural)
2 Dec 10 9:01
dhengr is correct..  They tweak these things all the time and it brings up a very important point: the specification and supplement must be used together. In other words, you cannot use the the specification form 2005 with the supplement from a previous year.

I suspect if one were to go through the numbers and all the adjustment factors for two separate specifications, the results would be relatively similar in most cases.
Ron (Structural)
2 Dec 10 9:05
If you lower the allowable stresses in the lumber, it will also lower the allowable loads on fasteners as these are related.  The allowable stresses in fasteners in wood are not generally controlled by the fastener strength but by the wood interaction.
chicopee (Mechanical)
2 Dec 10 12:40
Oops somehow I forgot to include the attachment.  
Helpful Member!  mmillerpe (Structural)
2 Dec 10 14:47
I believe that the change occurred in the 2001 edition of the NDS.  The change stemmed from the increased use of reduced body and fully threaded lag screws.  Using the fully threaded lags, the shear plane would obviously be within the threaded portion of the fastener.  Prior to 2001 the tabulated values were based on the full diameter of the Lag.

I have (hopefully) attached a link to information from AWC regarding the changes in the 2001 NDS.
Redeemd (Structural)
2 Dec 10 18:04
Mmillerpe is absolutely correct.  This is how fasteners like Timberlok can claim greater capacity than equivalent diameter lags.
PMR06 (Structural)
3 Dec 10 18:32
Watch out if you try to create a spreadsheet to calculate the values and compare them to the NDS tables.  For Zperp, the tables use dowel bearing strengths shown in Table 11.3.2.  Those bearing values are tabulated for full diameter, not reduced.  The lag screw tables use the full diameter dowel bearing strength, but then use the reduced diameter when checking failure modes.
IsaacStructural (Structural) (OP)
3 Dec 10 18:52
I think these last few posts really got to the issue I was noticing.

Thanks for all the help.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close