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):||14 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||2.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Respiratory System completed sstm. Add to Alert PDF. Initially, diaphragms deform elastically as a deep beam without perceptible relative movement between framing and sheathing. In addition, each grade shall be tested unless recognition of fasteners is based on the tests of the lowest grade.
AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES
Science Review Packet for Spring Exam. Any IBC Table How well these particular commercial species combinations fit the specific gravity-based fastener design models may also play a role. At loads in excess of design loads, visible Summer relative movement can be observed between adjacent sheathing panels and between panels and framing. Issues related to test specimen size and boundary conditions The paper by Waltz and Dolan is the most recent publication on wood-frame diaphragms and is unique in that it reports information on wood I-joist diaphragms.
In fact, a lot of the early diaphragm testing was done on much larger dimensions 60 ft lengths in some cases and nearly all were in aspect ratios other than 1: Joists provide out-ofplane stiffening and load transfer between discrete panel sheathing elements. 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.
ACR1 #4 – ICC-ES
For this example, observed performance reasonably approximated modeled deformation predictions based on the tested Case 5 configuration. Historical Version s – view previous versions of standard.
The industry has long recognized that reducing flange thickness beyond a certain threshold has the potential to adversely impact sheathing nail embed9 Table 1. We have no amendments or corrections for this standard.
Ultimately, the analyst has to interpret limited pairwise comparisons with few degrees of freedom. The objective of this article is to provide some insight into how shear capacities are rationalized for I-joist diaphragms and to summarize potentially useful trends observed with full-scale testing.
The designer wstm 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.
The proposal, as written, requires the testing of each case configuration as tested unless a Case 5 configuration is tested. Even in the NDS seismic tests of the six-story Mr.
The designer should also specify products that have been rationalized accordingly. Given that many of the potential diaphragm failure modes that limit capacity 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.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and revisions. American Society for Testing and Materials. All of the tests summarized in this table used I-joist framing with laminated veneer lumber LVL flanges.
Already Subscribed to this document. wstm
However, as with the benchmark sawn asstm tests, the dominant failure modes observed with I-joist diaphragms were tension perpendicular-to-grain fracture of the framing and sheathing nail withdrawal. One of the benefits of testing diaphragms with a 1: This shall be confirmed by running at least one unsheathed diaphragm test as outlined in Section 9. The governing joist material shall be selected for the test program.
Within these documents the e45 to be considered for qualification and ongoing quality control testing is clearly defined. 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.
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. For specific precautionary statements, see Section 6. The work by Dolan and Waltz shows that the effect of asym and aspect ratio seem immaterial to I-joist Mr. Failure modes — framing splitting from panel prying Case 1 shown.
Original I-joist framing products used laminated veneer lumber LVL or sawn lumber flanges with astn of 1.
Issues related to numbers of required tests ASTM E acknowledges that diaphragm tests are large and expensive and exhibit low variability. Need more than one copy?