How Bolt Table Was Derived
How Bolt Table Was Derived
(OP)
I read the article: http://www.deckfailure.com/JLCDeckLedgers.html
I wonder if someone might kindly help me see how this was derived.
I wonder if you might illustrate the calculations for the table DETAIL 1 fastener schedule?
Also a typical 1/2 dia bolt load for SPF is 180 lbs. Can someone show how this is obtained.
Any references on line to *sample problems* that illustrate these specific topics?
I wonder if someone might kindly help me see how this was derived.
I wonder if you might illustrate the calculations for the table DETAIL 1 fastener schedule?
Also a typical 1/2 dia bolt load for SPF is 180 lbs. Can someone show how this is obtained.
Any references on line to *sample problems* that illustrate these specific topics?






RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
I wonder if you might illustrate the calculations for the table DETAIL 1 fastener schedule?
Also a typical 1/2 dia bolt load for SPF is 180 lbs. Can someone show how this is obtained.
Thank you for the reference ........ Can someone answer the specific question........ Thankyou for the help
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Thanks
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
If a bolt can resist 180# in shear and is spaced at 'S' feet, then it can resist 180/S pounds per foot.
The floor reaction per lineal foot is w*L/2 where w is the load per square foot on the floor.
Equating the two, 180/S = wL/2
Or S = 180*2/(wL)
Example:
For L = 12' and w = 40+10 = 50 psf,
S = 360/(50*12) = 0.6' = 7.2" which is the value in the table.
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Also: Is this allowable the MAX SAFE LOAD that can be placed on this bolt? Please explain in detail.
Please illustrate the development of the allowable bolt equation.
Thanks
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
I am not familiar with the NDS standard but here is a link to an article which discusses lag screws.
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Can you illustrate how they obtained 180 lbs for the allowable bolt load.
Also what SF would be considered acceptable for Ledger bolt connections?
I look forward to an illustration of how the 180 lbs per bolt was developed. Give a sample calc.
Also what would be considered a MAX for a 1/2 in lag screw/bolt (typical for a ledger connection).
Thanks
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
You could go to a 3/8” lag screw and get a 4D penetration. Your value would become 110 * (1.5/3) = 55#. However, the different specific gravity issue is not solved.
I do not do this calc very often so anyone may provide any corrections needed. You could also go into yield limit equations Table 11.3.1A and calculate values. I believe Table 11J provides the least value of the yield limit equations.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Using the 2005 NDS, Table 11J, 1.5” side member thickness, and ½” diameter lag screw, condition Zperpendicular (side & main loaded perpendicular to the grain), G=.42 (SPF) you get a value of 170 pounds.
Can you show me this table. Thanks
Also, I would like to know how to determine this value without the table. How is it calculated? Thanks for your help.
This value is based on a penetration of 8D (4”) which the example does not have. The penetration is 1.5”. The minimum penetration required is 4D (or 2”). If you used the reduction factor anyway you would get 170 * (p/8D or 1.5/4) = 63#. This assumes a Cd of 1.0 (10 years) and a Cm of 1.0 (Moisture content modifier). There are no provisions for main member penetration less than 4D and the number is based on main and side member having the same specific gravity. The example uses a southern pine side member which has a higher specific gravity, but I have not seen anything that discusses main and side members of different specific gravities.
I have noticed other tables (ie:ledger to band joist) shows spacing at 16" OC and greater (ie: - in other words greater than what this example shows from deck failure example) for 1/2 " lag bolts for SPF. This gives a value GREATER than the 180 lbs per bolt (which is suppose to be the MAX). Why is this? (assuming of course the restrictions given)??
You could go to a 3/8” lag screw and get a 4D penetration. Your value would become 110 * (1.5/3) = 55#. However, the different specific gravity issue is not solved.
Yes, I see. I would be greatful to calculate this 110 lbs by hand. Is there a formula for this?
I do not do this calc very often so anyone may provide any corrections needed. You could also go into yield limit equations Table 11.3.1A and calculate values. I believe Table 11J provides the least value of the yield limit equations.
Yes, your help is appreciated. I'm sure others will see this and correct it if wrong.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Note that the article you are reading http://www.deckfailure.com/JLCDeckLedgers.html
"...was published in August of 2003..."
Suggest that you look for your answers in NDS 2001, not NDS 2005.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
In CSA O86, there is a factor Jpl (factor for reduced penetration) which varies from 0.625 to 1 for penetration of 5d to 8d respectively and linearly in between). If you extrapolated to 3d or 1.5" penetration, you might rationalize a Jpl value of .375, but it would not meet the code and in my opinion, should not be used.
Detail 1 is simply not acceptable by CSA O86-01 and, from the above posts it is not acceptable by NDS either.
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
I think that Woodman88's attachment shows an example of the calculations that are used to develop the values in tables 11A to R. They use the Yield Limit Equations that are found in section 11.3 of the NDS.
For more detailed examples of the calculations see the book "Design of Wood Structures ASD/LRFD" by Donald E. Breyer, et at, sixth edition. The book has about 20 pages of calculations about lag bolt capacities, pages 13.55 to 13.73.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
I think that Woodman88's attachment shows an example of the calculations that are used to develop the values in tables 11A to R. They use the Yield Limit Equations that are found in section 11.3 of the NDS.
YES, you are correct, but calculations for MODE II are not there. I believe this will give the LOWEST value of Z. Is this correct?
For more detailed examples of the calculations see the book "Design of Wood Structures ASD/LRFD" by Donald E. Breyer, et at, sixth edition. The book has about 20 pages of calculations about lag bolt capacities, pages 13.55 to 13.73.
I don't have that text......Is it possible to scan a typical calc for MODE II (or provide here?). I'm wanting to verify how the 180 lbs was developed. Also, would this be a MAX load (if the result for Z was based on the adequate penetration depth)?
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
If this was permitted, what equation would be used to verify the Bolt load? Can you help with a sample calc.?
In CSA O86, there is a factor Jpl (factor for reduced penetration) which varies from 0.625 to 1 for penetration of 5d to 8d respectively and linearly in between). If you extrapolated to 3d or 1.5" penetration, you might rationalize a Jpl value of .375, but it would not meet the code and in my opinion, should not be used.
Thanks. Can you post this particular clause referenced above.
Detail 1 is simply not acceptable by CSA O86-01 and, from the above posts it is not acceptable by NDS either.
Yes, understood. For decks, what would be the MAX acceptable bolt load? (if using a) Lag screws, or b) Lag bolts)
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Note that the article you are reading http://www.deckfailure.com/JLCDeckLedgers.html
"...was published in August of 2003..."
Suggest that you look for your answers in NDS 2001, not NDS 2005.
Yes, understood. The point I'm trying to find out is HOW the MAX Bolt load is calculated? So, if this is different from NDS 2001, then that is the one I would like. Are they different? If so, how do these equations differ. Thanks for the input. I look forward to the help given. You guys are great. Thanks...
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
For what it is worth, I am providing this link to one page of the Selection Tables from the Canadian Design Manual 2001.
Please note that these are factored loads, consistent with the Canadian standard. For a 1/2" lag screw the Q'r3 value is 1.15 kN. That would be for full penetration of 8d = 4". This would correspond to a working load of 1.15/1.45 = 0.793 kN or about 178#.
For 2.5" penetration, the allowable load would be 112#. A penetration below 2.5" is outside of the range of applicability of the table.
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
For what it is worth, I am providing this link to one page of the Selection Tables from the Canadian Design Manual 2001.
Please note that these are factored loads, consistent with the Canadian standard. For a 1/2" lag screw the Q'r3 value is 1.15 kN. That would be for full penetration of 8d = 4". This would correspond to a working load of 1.15/1.45 = 0.793 kN or about 178#.
YES this is helpful. Thankyou.... Would this be a MAX for this 1/2 in dia lag screw?? (ie: Code MINIMUM)
For 2.5" penetration, the allowable load would be 112#. A penetration below 2.5" is outside of the range of applicability of the table.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
So for 1/2" in dia lag bolts (Using SPF for ledger), what are ALL components and STANDARDS we must consider? Can you specify.
Is this MAX bolt load, when usin NDS considered a Code minimum? Thank you.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
YES....Understood. The equation for MODE II is not listed. Can you specify this equation.
Also: Can one attempt the same calc assuming a simpler method ..... as an example that would match that of MODE II (using a SF instead)?
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Sorry, just check table: What is formula? What is the 1.45?
Bolt load = Q'r^3 / 1.45 correct? Thanks
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Per the attached pds, Table 1 on page 6 gives the equation for mode II. Along with the equations for A, B and C for the equations. Then you have the other tables values and equations to do.
There are difference methods of calculating the end values. The NDS ones puts most of the table equations together. But this does not make the equations easier.
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
My error. The value of 1.15kN is for a penetration of 64mm (2.5"). For 102mm (4") penetration, the table shows two values, 2.31 and 1.94kN.
The factored values shown in the table are dependent on the direction of grain. The maximum factored load for a 1/2" lag screw parallel to the grain with 4" pen. would be 2.96kN or about 666#. In your case, however, the load is perpendicular to the grain so 1.94kN (436#)is the maximum factored load for 4" penetration. It is 1.15kN (260#) for 2.5" penetration. No value is given for 1.5" pen.
My error. The factored load for 64mm (2.5") pen. is 1.15kN = 259# which corresponds to a working stress load of 178# using a load factor of 1.45.
Assuming LL + DL = 40 + 10, Factored load = 1.5(40) + 1.25(10) = 72.5 = 1.45(40 + 10).
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
To tackle the problem using equations, you are faced with a complicated study of the code. To do that, you will need to acquire a copy of the code which governs in your area. But for your enlightenment, here are a couple of pages from the Canadian Wood Design Manual 2001. See link below.
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
BA
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
In your opinion, based on the above a) would you use 1/2 in dia lag screws for decks? Please explain. b) What would you say the the MAX bolt load would be at 5d penetration for a SPF ledger? c) I noticed you are assuming dia of 1/2 in bolt is 0.5. Is it not 0.371 inches (root dia)? Explain..
Given that deck failures are generally due to improper ledger connection and that in most cases these are built by the home owner, or poorly informed contractor without a permit, what would you suggest for bolting the ledger + pattern of bolting? Please explain....
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
RE: How Bolt Table Was Derived
Yes....Thanks. Can you illustrate the source of this equation? Attach?
Also does this result give the same one as the equation in Technical Report 12 - illustrated above?
However, as mentioned previously, the 4d minimum penetration is not met if you use the nominal diameter. An argument can be made that the code doesn't specifically state to use the nominal diameter (NDS 11.1.3.6) and since the root diameter (.371") is used to calculate capacity (NDS 11.3.6), can it be used to calculate the minimum penetration requirement?? (.371x4 < 1.5")
What do you think? Can it be used tominimum penetration requirement??
Additionally, the 2001 NDS deleted the used of the p/4D penetration reduction factor for lag screws since all six yield limit equations are now used (instead of only 3 equations in the 1997 edition).
When used for deck ledger attachments, I assume Mode II will always govern. Correct?? If not, what other Mode might govern, in your opinion?
The p/4D reduction is still used if you design per the tables because the tables are based on an 8D minimum main member thickness.
Since the tables are based on 8D, would it not be better to use the calcs for Mode II @ 4D min penetration. If the peneterataion is < 4d, can one use p/4D to adjust value? Would this be a representation of a RESONABLE Max bolt load? Would this be considered as a Code minimum?
This may result in conservative results because not all controlling modes are based on the side member, but all table values still get reduced.