Wood, NDS 1991 table 8.2A bolted connection values - 4 modes listed

[fne]

I know this is an old reference, but assume newer are similar. In table 8.2A on bolted wood to wood connections, there are four modes listed. I understand the parallel to grain, perpendicular to grain in the side member (parallel in main), and perpendicular to grain in main member (parallel in side. The fourth is labled perpendicular. I assume this is perpendicular to grain in both members, but could not think of an application. Is this correct?

 

[KootK]

I don't have the document handy to check your assumptions. However, I can think of an application: a ledger board fastened to the side of a girder.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Archie264]

I have the 1997 NDS and in that Table 8.2A is as you describe (Bolt Design Values (Z) for Single Shear (two member) Connections). And yes, it refers to loading perpendicular to grain in both members. Specifically, as per the definition listed in Section 1, "Z_{perpendicular} = nominal lateral design value for a single bolt or lag screw wood-to-metal connec tion [sic] with wood member(s) loaded perpendicular to grain, lbs"

In the 2012 edition the table is labeled "11A" but it's the same table with the same values. However, the definition has been updated/corrected to read, "Z_{perpendicular} = nominal lateral design value for a single dowel-type fastener, wood-to-wood, wood-to-metal, or wood-to-concrete connection with wood members(s) loaded perpendicular to grain, lbs"

It's interesting to me that the double-shear table includes no such value. I guess that's because I can envision such an occurrence in single shear (a bolted ledger-board-to-ledger-board-connection, for example, inadvisable though that may be) but I can't envision a practical version of that in double shear.

So, in sum, I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, I believe you are correct."

 

[KootK]

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Archie264]

Yeah...I'll go along with that. Good point.

 

[fne]

Thank you for the responses.

 

[KootK]

You also run into perp/perp stuff when trying to moment splice flexural members. Now that I think of it, a perp/perp dowel situation may well be the harbinger of a generally crappy connection.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.