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):||13 March 2005|
|PDF File Size:||13.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Add to Alert PDF.
Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.
This analogy works well because we can manage engineering analysis using simple mechanics theory. In the s, Johnson and others at Oregon State University specifically examined the effect of diaphragm scale. Abdomen-Part 3 – kylethornton. Initially, diaphragms deform elastically as a deep beam without perceptible relative movement between framing and sheathing. This highlights the importance of flange splitting and the need for the manufacturer to address the resulting capacity limitations in their design guidance.
Waltz and Dolan noted these same features. Ultimately, the analyst has to interpret limited pairwise comparisons with few degrees of freedom. Please first verify your email before subscribing to alerts. Failure modes — framing splitting from panel prying Case 1 shown.
Respiratory System completed notes. Due to panel geometry, the observed e4555 between adjacent sheathing panels is typically several times greater along long edge joints than at short 11 Figure 2. The designer should also specify products that have been rationalized accordingly. If round-robin testing is to be conducted, test apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants. Line 7 illustrates the influence that blocking selection can have on capacity.
At loads in excess of design loads, visible Summer relative movement can be observed between adjacent sheathing panels and between panels and framing. However, as with the benchmark sawn lumber tests, the dominant failure astn observed with I-joist diaphragms were tension perpendicular-to-grain fracture of the framing and sheathing nail withdrawal.
Subscription pricing is determined by: In reality, the proprietary fastener performed about the same as the smaller diameter ring shank nail. Notes and footnotes in tables and figures are requirements of this standard. Manufacturers may be compelled to evaluate a proprietary joist, fastener, or sheathing material in the Case 1 configuration in order to evaluate the failure mechanism of their product in its primary end-use condition.
Historical Version s – view previous versions of standard. Douglas Fir Plywood Association. The Line 6 comparison illustrates what a relatively subtle difference in I-joist product composition can have on capacity. In summary, the AC14 proposed revisions to required specimen dimensions and numbers of tests need further study and open asrm before the ES Committee can make a rational assessment.
Peak strength comparisons between similar full-scale diaphragm tests1, 2 3,4 Notes for Table 1: The fullscale tests of Line 16 suggest that the smaller diameter ring shank nail actually out-performed the larger diameter common nail. While extrapolations beyond tested conditions should be approached with caution, comparisons in Table 1 suggest trends that could be useful to the designer: Their revisions to the AC14 organization should be implemented.
The wall plates have a moment of inertia that is greater than a 2×12 rim board in d455 plane of bending and also act to constrain the rotation of boundary sheathing panels. This trend contradicts what is expected based on d455 sheathing fastener connection analysis that assumes a higher specific gravity for southern pine.
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 suggested revisions below recognize the critical variables that are specific to a full-scale diaphragm test and complement existing evaluation procedures.
AC14-0611-R1 #4 – ICC-ES
The original rationalizations for these tables were based on an analysis of sheathing and attachment schedules for lumber-framed diaphragms with plywood panel sheathing. 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.
Page 3 May 20, 4 Add 2.
ACR1 Page 4 of 4. A revision to the AC should specifically state that the results of diaphragm tests are applicable to floor and roof 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: Thank you for your consideration of these comments and revisions.
This trend may be due to the difference in tension perpendicular-to-grain strengths or typical veneer thicknesses of the LVL fabricated with each species.
We have no amendments or corrections for this standard.