PDF Agency

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.

Author: Kazrasho Vudokazahn
Country: Georgia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 14 July 2012
Pages: 287
PDF File Size: 11.42 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.23 Mb
ISBN: 693-7-70558-615-3
Downloads: 9630
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nacage

The values given in parentheses are for information only. Douglas Fir Plywood Association. Page 2 May 20, 3 Add 2. The Case 5 condition is not a common case condition that is seen in the field. 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.

Abstract Pre-fabricated wood I-joists are routinely used to construct roof and floor systems in modern lightframe wood construction. Both manufacturers have developed related design recommendations and limitations that are included in their evaluation reports.

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. A revision to the AC should specifically state that the results of diaphragm tests are applicable to floor and roof diaphragms. How well these particular commercial species combinations fit the specific gravity-based fastener aetm models may also play a role.

D455 Subsctiption may be the perfect solution. If round-robin testing is to be conducted, sstm apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants.

AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES

Peak strength comparisons between similar full-scale diaphragm tests1, 2 3,4 Notes for Table 1: Diaphragm Design Diaphragms are typically modeled as deep, inplane beams. The Case 1 diaphragms tested exhibited similar behavior with the exception that panel bearing and crushing were also observed between interlocking panel rows.


Revise and clarify 2. Therefore, consideration should be made to allow testing in the unblocked and unblocked Case 1 condition and allow the other appropriate cases be bracketed by that testing. Bibliography on Lumber and Wood Panel Diaphragms. It also suggests that designers should avoid applying the diaphragm recommendations for one I-joist product to another.

Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.

Waltz and Dolan justify the 24xft dimensions based on the benchmark testing by Countrymanwhich used similar size, aspect ratio, and boundary conditions. Figure 3 illustrates these trends for a IBC Table The unsheathed diaphragm configuration used for the confirmation test e55 be compared against the sheathed diaphragm with the awtm capacity in the test program. These thicknesses were consistent with 2 in.

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.

Tables, like IBC Table As I-joist products are optimized, it has become common to see LVL flange thicknesses less than 1. Shear flow causes panels at the reactions to rotate in opposite directions towards the span centerline. They generally do not permit 10 thinner flanged I-joist products to be used in the highest load applications that require the 4e55 sheathing attachment schedules.

Science Review Packet for Spring Exam. The values given e4555 parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. This shall be confirmed by running at least one unsheathed diaphragm test asgm outlined in Section 9. This trend contradicts what is expected based on a sheathing fastener connection analysis that assumes a higher specific gravity for southern pine. Typical diaphragm movement mechanisms Case 5 shown.


ASTM – E – Reapproved – Standard Method for Static Load Testing of Framed Floor or R

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.

For example, avoid using spruce-pine-fir blocking if Douglas-fir diaphragm design values are targeted. Anatomy and Physiology of Speech.

If the document is revised or amended, you will be notified by email. The designer should be cautious when specifying proprietary fasteners that claim diaphragm performance improvements that have not been verified against all failure modes possible in a full-scale diaphragm.

Standards Subscriptions from ANSI provides a money-saving, multi-user solution for accessing standards. One of the benefits of testing diaphragms with a 1: The Line 6 comparison illustrates what a relatively subtle difference in I-joist product composition r455 have on capacity. Stiffness Observations In some cases, a designer will also need to predict diaphragm deformation. Any IBC Table The full-scale diaphragm test program shall include the following minimum elements: ACR1 Page 4 of 4.


Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic. Given that many of the potential diaphragm failure modes that limit aatm are not typically addressed by a connection analysis, the importance of test-based verification for diaphragm systems that depart significantly from the historical basis seems to be confirmed.

As with the last item, this would seem to confirm that diaphragm performance is product dependent. National Design Specification for Wood Construction.