Choras Den said:
You mentioned testing to validate moment-rotation characteristics. Are you able to share a resource that discusses this? I'd be interested in reading more about it.
I'm afraid not Choras Den. I didn't say that I had such testing for the kind of fastener groups that would apply to spliced studs, only that I'd be happy to let such testing inform my work if it existed. I've seen stuff for fancier wood moment frames but have no apetite for tracking it down.
ChorasDen said:
What I don't like is the eccentric load induced from the trusses overtop the wall (probably eliminated if we have 4 top plates)
I don't feel that the four top plates would help with that at all. What would help, in my opinion, is blocking at the top and bottom of the splice. I think that's why you saw several of us mention that.
ChorasDen said:
Wood trusses are a different beast. A nail plated connection is very stiff, allowing adequate load transfer. That differs considerably from dowel type fasteners yielding in shear or local crushing.
A nail plated connection
is a dowel type fastener. So is a toothed plate in many respects. I actually got my start as a designer of metal plate connected wood trusses.
In my mind, a truss and a spaced out stud splice have the following in common:
1) Only axial load and shear load on the fastener groups;
2) A meaningful degree of fastener slip which is typically ignored in routine design.
3) No individual fastener groups required to resist moment which is where, in my opinion, the fastener slip really starts to become a problem. Fastener slip in axial/shear connections tends not to amplify displacements quite the way that it does in localized, dowel fastener moment connections.