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: Vudogar Grom
Country: Antigua & Barbuda
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 18 September 2013
Pages: 424
PDF File Size: 11.90 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.47 Mb
ISBN: 439-7-54461-445-6
Downloads: 84437
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: JoJoshicage

Summer International Code Council. 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. Typical diaphragm movement mechanisms Case 5 shown. One of the benefits of testing diaphragms with a 1: You can download and open this file to your own computer but DRM prevents opening this file on another computer, including a networked server. The fullscale tests of Line 16 suggest that the smaller diameter ring shank nail actually out-performed the larger diameter common nail.

ACR1 Page 4 of 4. Stiffness Observations In some cases, a designer will also f455 to predict diaphragm deformation. A primary function of a light-frame floor or roof is to serve as a diaphragm that collects lateral load and transfers it to the shear walls and foundation.


The original rationalizations for these tables were based on an analysis of sheathing and attachment schedules for lumber-framed diaphragms with plywood panel sheathing. If the document is revised or amended, you will be notified by email. In reality, the proprietary fastener performed about the same as the smaller diameter ring shank nail. Issues related to numbers e4555 required tests ASTM E acknowledges that diaphragm tests are large and expensive and exhibit low variability.

Page 3 May 20, 4 Add 2.

AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES

Synopsis — What do we know about the fundamentals of testing wood-frame diaphragms? Eight penny 8d ring shank 0.

Illustration of test setup 24 x 24 ft. This makes sheathing-toframing attachment a critical element that often defines shear capacity of the assembly. The e55 method used by AISI in S is a cantilever test minimum dimensions are 12×12 ft where asrm up to 1: Loads may be applied using either two- or four -point loads equally spaced along the compression chord. The full-scale diaphragm test program shall include the following minimum elements: Both manufacturers have developed related design recommendations and limitations that are included in their evaluation reports.


Peak strength comparisons between similar full-scale diaphragm tests1, 2 3,4 Notes for Table 1: Referenced Documents purchase separately The documents listed below are referenced within the subject standard but are not provided as part of the standard. This comparison shall be made by testing single replications of the diaphragm configuration with the highest corresponding design load. The proposal, as written, requires the testing of each case configuration as tested unless a Case 5 configuration is tested.

This trend contradicts what is expected based on a sheathing fastener connection analysis that assumes a higher specific gravity for southern pine.

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. Figure 3 illustrates these trends for a IBC Satm Blocking used in the field of the diaphragm and rim board material used for perpendicular closure shall be consistent with that permitted in the application.

Original I-joist framing products used laminated veneer e4555 LVL or sawn lumber flanges with thicknesses of 1. All of the tests summarized in this table used I-joist framing with laminated veneer lumber LVL flanges.

Case 1 is a very common case used in the field. For example, avoid using spruce-pine-fir blocking if Douglas-fir diaphragm design values are targeted.

Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.

Respiratory System completed notes. It also corresponded with a benchmark database for sawn lumber Countryman, Typical diaphragm test configuration 24 x 24 ft. Issues related to test specimen size and boundary satm 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.


Country Club Hills, IL. This standard is not included in any packages.

This article summarizes some of the rationalization and limitations associated with I-joist framing for diaphragm construction. Aztm object is to use dissimilar constructions as the basis for rational engineering assessment. 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.

However, in the absence of other information, it appears that test specimens with planer dimensions greater than12 x 12 ft are unnecessary. 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.

This shall be astk by running at least one unsheathed diaphragm test as outlined in Section 9.

My asgm focus on three aspects of the proposed revisions: We have reviewed the proposed revisions to AC14 and would like the committee to consider the following comments and suggested modifications. Notes and footnotes in tables and figures are requirements of this standard.

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

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. The impact of the proposed revisions proposed in Section 2. 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.

Waltz and Dolan noted these same features.