×
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

Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Existing Lumber Safety Factor

(OP)
A contractor has had several samples of existing wood floor joists tested by a wood testing company. I just received the test results which include ultimate averages for the following:

Shear parallel to the Grain (Fv) - 1,342 psi
Modulus of Rupture (Fb) - 10,629 psi
Modulus of Elasticity - 1,649,255 psi
Moisture Content - 7%
Specific Gravity - 0.46

Does anybody know what factor of safety I should apply to the Fv & Fb ultimate values to get allowable values comparable to what NDS publishes? My gut is telling me that dividing the values above by 4 sounds about right? Also, I don't believe that I need to apply a safety factor to the E, MC or SG.

Thanks!

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

If it is possible in your area I would suggest using LFRD instead of ASD being that you have accurate design data.

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Take a look at ASTM D245.

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

You should be able to pick values from the NDS based on E and SG since these are actual values and shouldn't have a safety factor. I'm sure there is some statistical work to be done. I think the NDS uses the 5th percentile (not sure).

I don't think you want to develop values for this specific lumber since the sample size is limited. I would just say - ok this looks like (SPF, HF, DF....).

I have seen actual vs. allowable stresses before. The factor is somewhere around 4 or 5.

The shear values kill me. The books have 175 psi on the high end. The samples failed at 10x that.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

-R. Buckminster Fuller

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Gramy13 - In addition to the testing lab's results, you also need to know the wood species and its size. The values from the lab are consistent with southern yellow pine. ASSUMING this is correct, take a look at the allowable for Fv and Fb for new lumber:
http://www.southernpine.com/app/uploads/TABLE01_L1...

For evaluating the existing joists, I suggest going with Fv and Fb values not to exceed those shown in the attached table. If the grade is not marked on the lumber, be conservative in estimating its grade.

If, instead, you are considering reusing the lumber on a different project, all allowable values will be TOTALLY based on your engineering judgment. Marked grades not longer apply since the lumber may have been damaged during removal.

I agree with your opinion on the values of E, MC, and SG.

The safety factors for Fv and Fb are so large (in the range of 8 to 10, or so) because of the failure mode for wood. It does not break until long after the test loads have deformed it so much that it is structurally worthless.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Quote (gramy13)

Also, I don't believe that I need to apply a safety factor to the E, MC or SG.

Don't forget about CL factor as it is a function of Emin unless you are providing bracing to set CL = 1.0

I think it is likely you are going to have to make engineering judgement. I am wondering why they couldn't have determined the species during their testing, and they should have also visually-graded the pieces in addition to the testing you did get - it is very easy to do and is very important for validating your engineering judgement. Maybe they did?

Quote (Signious )

If it is possible in your area I would suggest using LFRD instead of ASD being that you have accurate design data.

Careful, careful, careful. Structural reliability depends on the amount of certainty in your entire system. If the OP has 4 joists tested out of 100 to be used, you no longer have "accurate design data". Also, you have to be certain that the sample tested is from the same lot as the rest.

Regardless of your procedures, you should consider:
1. The size of the sample tested verses the lot, and whether you know this wood came from the same source, etc.
2. Setting upper bounds for yourself based on well-known typical structural lumber in use today.
3. What do you REALLY need, loading-wise? There is no point in chasing a precise number if your loads only require, say, SYP #1.

"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

7% moisture?

Be sure to allow drying (shrink) margins if clamping/bolting together.

RE: Existing Lumber Safety Factor

Mamstrom,

You have to remember that shear values for timber are based on the timber being split at the support. Also,it depends on the test set up, though I assume there are methods in testing standards to compensate for that.

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