×
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!

*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

SDPWS Anchor Bolts for Combined Shear and Wind Uplift

SDPWS Anchor Bolts for Combined Shear and Wind Uplift

SDPWS Anchor Bolts for Combined Shear and Wind Uplift

(OP)
I am trying to design wood shear walls based on the 2015 SDPWS Section 4.4, and have a question about Table 4.4.1.6, which specifies the maximum anchor bolt spacing for walls resisting both shear and uplift. Why do the Nominal Uplift Capacity values listed for G=0.42 not match those listed above in Table 4.4.1, which is also for G=0.42? Instead, the values in Table 4.4.1.6 for G=0.5 seem to match those in Table 4.4.1 for G=0.42.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

RE: SDPWS Anchor Bolts for Combined Shear and Wind Uplift

I looked at this and it does seem confusing.

The nominal uplift capacities in Table 4.4.1.6 vary by a factor of 1.08 for G=0.50 vs G=0.42, which corresponds with footnote 2 in Table 4.4.1.

Case 1
Values in Table 4.4.1 are correct for G=0.42. They could then be further increased by 1.08 for G=0.50 and all values shown in Table 4.4.1 would be conservatively incorrect.

Case 2
Values in Table 4.4.1.6 are correct. Values shown in Table 4.4.1 are already increased by 1.08 and correspond to G=0.50. Values shown in Table 4.4.1 should be reduced by 1.08 for G=0.42.

Curiously, this is not in the 2015 errata and the same issue persists in 2021 SDPWS. I'd venture that so few design wood panels for shear + uplift that of the very few who have might have come across this, a) they didn't notice, b) it wasn't a critical design value (or designed for worst case), or c) didn't have the inclination to write AWC about it.

I will send AWC this thread.

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! Already a Member? Login



News


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