AT 2′ 0″ & 3′ 0″ PANEL SPANS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E AND AISI S TESTED FOR: Central States Manufacturing, Inc. Find the most up-to-date version of ASTM E at Engineering Designation: E – 04Standard Test Method for Static Load Testing of Framed Floor or Roof Diaphragm Constructions for Buil.
|Published (Last):||18 August 2017|
|PDF File Size:||11.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ultimately, the analyst has to interpret limited pairwise comparisons with few degrees of freedom. For example, avoid using spruce-pine-fir blocking if Douglas-fir diaphragm design values are targeted. A test of one configuration needs some replication, but with multiple configurations used in comparison to code values, the different and non-replicated tests form a body of evidence that that when used in a pairwise comparison to the Code values is as effective from a statistical perspective as using means of two tests to make the same pairwise comparison.
The suggested revisions below recognize the critical variables that are specific to a full-scale diaphragm test and complement existing evaluation procedures. Subscription pricing is determined by: No mention is made of roof diaphragms and whether the testing for floor diaphragms is applicable to roofs flat or pitched.
Tables, like IBC Table Standards Subsctiption may be the perfect solution. This trend contradicts what is expected based on a sheathing fastener connection analysis that assumes a higher specific gravity for southern pine.
Lines 16 and 17 provide some insight into the relative influence of fastener selection. Smart; Staff has proposed revisions to the requirements for diaphragm testing of thin-flange wood Ijoists and the subject has been placed on the agenda for the upcoming Criteria Development Hearing.
If round-robin testing is to be conducted, test apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants.
Douglas-fir LVL flanged I-joists outperformed their southern pine counterparts in 4 out of the wstm similar diaphragm configurations tested Lines A cantilever beam analogy also works well as a simple mechanics model. Since the existing diaphragm design provisions contained within the model building codes are based on a combination of testing and analysis conducted with sawn lumber framing, designers often question whether they can be reasonably applied to diaphragms framed with I-joists.
This absolute differential arguably falls below the reasonable precision of the full scale test method and highlights that the absolute magnitudes of deformation should be considered when interpreting the accuracy of a predictive model. It seems asym diaphragm testing requirements have become an issue in several ACs. Due to panel geometry, the observed movement between adjacent sheathing panels is typically several times greater along long edge joints than at short 11 Figure 2.
Calculation procedures developed for sawn lumber diaphragms also provide a reasonable means of predicting I-joist diaphragm deformation in the design range. Few I-joists can serve as a direct substitute for sawn-lumber framing in the full range of applications addressed by building code diaphragm design provisions.
ACR1 #4 – ICC-ES
As I-joist products are wstm, it has become common to see LVL flange thicknesses aastm than 1. In summary, the AC14 proposed revisions to required specimen dimensions and numbers of tests need further study and open discussion before the ES Committee can make a rational assessment.
Anatomy and Physiology of Speech. Notes and footnotes in tables and figures are requirements of this standard. The Case 5 condition is not a common case condition that is seen in the field. You can download and open this file to your own computer asrm DRM prevents opening this file on another computer, including a networked server. As with the last item, this would seem to confirm that diaphragm performance is product dependent.
This shows that selection of a blocking material is likely as important as selection of a joist and should be consistent with the design assumption. Case 1 is a very common case used in the field. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and revisions.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
This shall be confirmed by running at least one unsheathed diaphragm test as outlined in Section 9. This is consistent axtm the code design provisions and can be attributed to the fact that 4e55 framing tends to reduce splitting and can provide for increased edge distance and staggered nail patterns that provide better load transfer.
International Code Council Evaluation Service. Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic.
Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.
Manufacturers may be compelled to evaluate a proprietary joist, fastener, or sheathing material in the Case 1 configuration in order to evaluate the failure mechanism of their product in its primary end-use condition. The industry has long recognized that reducing flange thickness beyond a certain threshold has the potential to adversely impact sheathing nail embed9 Table 1. Journal of Structural Engineering. Diaphragm design provisions for light-frame wood construction have been successfully employed for decades and were originally developed for lumber framing.
Respiratory System completed sstm. However, as with the benchmark sawn lumber tests, the dominant failure modes observed with I-joist diaphragms were tension perpendicular-to-grain fracture of the framing and sheathing nail withdrawal.
This analogy works well because we can manage engineering analysis using simple mechanics theory. At panel end joints, atm induces perpendicular-to-grain forces into the framing as panel end joints rotate and the nails induce perpendicularto-grain prying forces into the framing. American Society for Testing and Materials.
In reality, the proprietary fastener performed about the same as the smaller diameter ring shank nail. As the voice of the U. Documents Flashcards Grammar checker. Stiffness Observations In some cases, a designer will also need to predict diaphragm deformation. While this difference is within the margin of error for diaphragm testing the suggested revisions below recognize that Case 5 may be the conservative configuration for blocked diaphragms.
Add to Alert PDF.
AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES
Even with I-joist materials taken as being a constant between tests, use of low specific gravity blocking material 0. If the ee455 is revised or amended, you will be notified by email. We have reviewed the proposed revisions to AC14 and would like the committee to consider the following comments and suggested modifications. Smart, We have reviewed the proposed revisions to AC If round-robin testing is to be conducted, test apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants.