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):||15 December 2018|
|PDF File Size:||6.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
ASTM – E – Reapproved – Standard Method for Static Load Testing of Framed Floor or R
Any IBC Table The full-scale diaphragm test program shall include w455 following minimum elements: Diaphragm design provisions for light-frame wood construction have been successfully employed for decades and were originally developed for lumber framing. Revise, expand, and clarify 2. Revise and clarify 2. Add to Alert PDF.
AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES
For that reason ASTM E permits testing a single replication when multiple configurations are being evaluated. Additionally, the panel configuration as it relates to the framing may cause a failure mode that is not as prominent as the other cases.
The Case 1 diaphragms tested exhibited similar behavior with the exception that panel bearing and crushing were also observed between interlocking panel rows. For specific precautionary statements, see Section.
This absolute differential arguably falls below the reasonable precision of the full scale test method and aatm that the absolute magnitudes of deformation should be considered when interpreting the accuracy of a predictive model. The ast of the proposed revisions proposed in Section 2. The industry has long recognized that reducing flange thickness beyond a certain threshold has the potential to s455 impact sheathing nail embed9 Table 1.
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. The Case 5 condition is not a common case condition that is seen in the field.
As I-joist products are optimized, it has become common to see LVL flange thicknesses less than 1. Astmm comparison shall be made by testing single replications of the diaphragm configuration with the highest corresponding design load. Anatomy and Physiology of Speech. This standard is not included in any packages.
Regardless, it highlights that an I-joist manufacturer needs to evaluate the diaphragm performance of each primary species used for flange material. This makes sheathing-toframing attachment a critical element that often defines shear capacity of sstm assembly.
The work by Dolan and Waltz shows that the effect of size and aspect ratio seem immaterial to I-joist Mr.
Typical diaphragm test configuration asstm x 24 ft. Some clarifications are needed for test standards and analysis requirements in AC14, Section 2. Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic. Lateral Tests on Plywood Sheathed Diaphragms. Historical Version s – view previous versions of standard.
Both manufacturers have developed related design recommendations and limitations that are included in their evaluation reports.
This shows that selection of a astj material is likely as important as selection of a joist and should be consistent with the design assumption. If the document is revised or amended, you will be notified by email.
If round-robin testing is to be conducted, test apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants.
In the s, Johnson and others at Oregon State University specifically examined the effect of diaphragm scale. A downside is that deflection measurements are small.
Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.
In summary, the AC14 proposed revisions to required specimen dimensions and numbers of tests need w455 study and open discussion before the ES Committee can make a rational assessment. However, the performance of an I-joist diaphragm assembly will be dependent on the specific I-joist product used and its relevant attributes i. Waltz and Dolan justify the 24xft dimensions based on the benchmark testing by Countrymanwhich used similar size, aspect ratio, and boundary conditions.
American Society for Testing and Materials. International Code Council Evaluation Service. It also suggests that designers should avoid applying the diaphragm recommendations for one F455 product to another. My comments focus on three aspects of the proposed revisions: While extrapolations beyond tested conditions should be approached with caution, comparisons in Table e4555 suggest trends that could be useful to the designer: Need more than one copy?