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):||23 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||2.1 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.11 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In addition, each grade shall be tested unless recognition of fasteners is based on the tests of the lowest grade. ACR1 Page 4 of 4. One of the primary functions of a light-frame floor or roof is to serve as a diaphragm that collects in-plane lateral load and transfers it to the shear walls and foundation elements.
Peak strength comparisons between similar full-scale diaphragm tests1, 2 3,4 Notes for Table 1: Figure 3 illustrates these trends for a IBC Table Since splitting was a primary concern, this was judged conservative because it maximized the number of fasteners and requires the full lateral load to be transferred through the I-joist flanges. This standard is not included in any packages. A revision to the AC should specifically state that the results of diaphragm tests are applicable to floor and roof diaphragms.
The fullscale tests of Line 16 suggest that the smaller diameter ring shank nail actually out-performed the larger diameter common nail.
National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Typical diaphragm test configuration 24 x 24 ft.
Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.
You may delete a document from your Alert Profile at any time. Sheathing related failure modes played a less significant role. One of the benefits of testing diaphragms with a 1: Page 2 May 20, 3 Add 2. Case 1 aastm a very common case used in the field. The wall plates have a moment of inertia that is greater than a 2×12 rim board in the plane of bending and also act to constrain the rotation of boundary sheathing panels. Abstract Pre-fabricated wood I-joists are routinely used to construct roof and floor systems in modern lightframe wood construction.
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. This shall be confirmed by running at least one unsheathed diaphragm test as outlined in Section 9.
Historical Version s – view previous versions of standard. 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.
The work by Dolan and Waltz shows that the effect of size and aspect ratio seem immaterial to I-joist Mr.
No mention is made of roof diaphragms and whether the testing for floor diaphragms is applicable to roofs flat or pitched. This comparison shall be made by testing single replications of the diaphragm configuration with the highest corresponding design load.
How well these particular commercial species combinations fit the specific gravity-based fastener design models may also play a role. The proposal, as written, requires the testing of each case configuration as tested unless a Case 5 configuration is tested. The large relative movement between panel edges creates a tension perpendicular-to-grain splitting force across the framing at the fasteners for adjacent panels.
Line 7 illustrates the influence that blocking selection can have on capacity. 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. Page 4 May 20, Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed revision. Their revisions to the AC14 organization should be implemented.
Illustration of test setup 24 x 24 ft. They generally do not permit 10 thinner flanged I-joist products to be used in the highest load applications that require the closest sheathing attachment schedules.
American Society for Testing and Materials. As with the last item, this would seem to confirm that diaphragm performance is product dependent. Standards Subscriptions from ANSI provides a money-saving, multi-user solution for accessing standards.
The industry has long recognized that reducing flange thickness beyond a certain threshold has the potential to adversely impact sheathing nail embed9 Table 1. A cantilever beam analogy also works well as a simple mechanics model. This article summarizes some of the rationalization and limitations associated with I-joist framing for diaphragm construction.
AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES
Line 17 provides a similar comparison for a proprietary fastener that claims superior diaphragm performance for some configurations based on small-scale fastener testing and analysis. In general, the manufacturers have proven equivalence to a subset of the current diaphragm design tables for sawn lumber. It is not intuitively obvious that they are all equal when it comes to I-joist diaphragm performance. Journal of Structural Engineering. It also suggests that designers should avoid applying the diaphragm recommendations for one I-joist product to another.