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: Tekazahn Nikolar
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 26 July 2008
Pages: 376
PDF File Size: 15.72 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.48 Mb
ISBN: 867-2-70691-775-7
Downloads: 33095
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kajirisar

Failure modes — framing splitting from panel prying Case 1 shown.

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

National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Typical diaphragm test configuration 24 x 24 ft. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

No mention is made of roof diaphragms and whether the testing for floor diaphragms is applicable to roofs flat or pitched. Abdomen-Part 3 – kylethornton. 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.

For example, avoid using spruce-pine-fir blocking if Douglas-fir diaphragm design values are targeted. The values given in parentheses are for information only. This highlights the importance for the manufacturer to evaluate a configuration that encourages realistic stress flows through the system if design values are being developed. This highlights the importance of flange splitting and the need for the manufacturer to address the resulting capacity limitations in their design guidance.

One of the primary functions of a light-frame floor or roof is to serve as a diaphragm that collects in-plane lateral load and transfers it to the shear walls and foundation elements. ACR1 Page 4 of 4.


In general, the manufacturers have proven equivalence to a subset of the current diaphragm design tables for sawn lumber. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and revisions.

In the s, Johnson and others at Oregon State University specifically examined the effect of diaphragm scale. Comparisons on Lines illustrate that, as with sawn lumber, wider framing results in increased capacity.

Sheathing related failure modes played a less significant role. Eight penny 8d ring shank 0. Please first log in with a verified email before subscribing to alerts.


Figure 5 illustrates a comparison between calculation methodologies and the measured behavior for a Case 5 I-joist diaphragm configuration that conservatively combined large diameter fasteners with a tight spacing that tends to promote splitting.

This analogy works well because we can manage engineering analysis using simple mechanics theory. This article summarizes some of the rationalization and limitations associated with I-joist framing for diaphragm construction.

The Line 6 comparison illustrates what a relatively subtle difference in I-joist product composition can have on capacity.

Their revisions to the AC14 organization should be implemented. Ultimately, the analyst has to interpret limited pairwise comparisons with few degrees of freedom. 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.

Awtm specific precautionary statements, see Section 6.

Research and Testing – Central States Mfg, Inc.

Notes and footnotes in tables and figures are requirements of this standard. Your Alert Profile lists the documents that will be monitored. At loads in excess of design loads, visible Summer relative movement can be observed between adjacent sheathing panels and between panels and framing. The wall e45 have a moment of inertia that is greater than a 2×12 rim board in the plane of e545 and also act to constrain the rotation of boundary e55 panels.


They have been subsequently modified based on results from a variety of full-scale test programs that introduced additional materials, failure modes, and design considerations. You can download and open this file to your own computer but DRM prevents opening this file on another computer, including a networked server. Country Club Hills, IL. A downside is that deflection measurements are small. This comparison shall be made by testing single replications of the diaphragm configuration with the highest corresponding design load.

Figure 3 illustrates these trends for a IBC Table It e45 corresponded with a benchmark database for sawn lumber Countryman, Nearly all I-joist diaphragms have been tested with dimensions of 24 ft. 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.

Smart; Staff has proposed revisions to the requirements for diaphragm testing of thin-flange wood Ijoists and the subject has been placed on the agenda for the upcoming Criteria Development Hearing. Anatomy and Physiology of Speech. If round-robin testing is to be conducted, test apparatus and testing procedures shall be mutually agreed upon in advance by the participants.

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