×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

*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.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

(OP)
I understand that the Size Factor modifies the Fb bending stress for 2,3,and 4 inch thick sawn dimension lumber (5" and thicker, the Size Factor = 1.00), and the size factor is based on edgewise use (load applied to narrow face).

Now, for flatwise use, the Fb is modified by the Flat-use factor.

This may sound contradictory, but do I modify Fb by BOTH the size Factor AND the Flat-use factor for flatwise use? Or, do I use ONLY the Flat-use factor?

The reason I ask is I have an old Code book which reads thusly:

"Flat-use Factor....When dimension lumber is used flatwise...the bending design value Fb, shall also be multiplied by the following flat-use factors:"

(Table follows, with factors ranging from 1.0 to 1.2)

RE: Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

I use both

RE: Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

Both. See Breyer et all.

RE: Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

(OP)
Thanks Mike & frv

RE: Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

Just remember, you can only use the Flat factor when the lumber is actually used in the flat orientation.  Seems some people - fellow idiot engineers don't understand that!!!

RE: Size Factor and Flat-use Factor

(OP)
"Just remember, you can only use the Flat factor when the lumber is actually used in the flat orientation.  Seems some people - fellow idiot engineers don't understand that!!! "

LOL, I remember a custom house where a very long span glulam beam  (it was deep mainly for deflection control) was hanger-supported to a short glulam header (the Bottom of Beam elevations were same).

The header glulam was designed much shallower than the supported beam, considering shear and bending were OK, but just the amount of nails thru the hanger appeared to put the header in danger from splitting the wood.

The jobsite workers had even started a betting pool where they guessed what date the header would collapse!

So in other words, the designer of that header should have realized it was stupid to try to save few dollars in a 4 foot long header, he should have spec'd a much deeper header.
 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources