Commercial Sectional Wind load Evaluation. Title: OHD-08002R4. Report #:

Transcription

1 EVALUATION REPORT Title: Report #: Commercial Sectional Wind load Evaluation OHD-08002R4 Manufacturer: Overhead Door Corporation 2501 S. State Hwy. 121 lewisville, Texas Technical Contact Mark Sawicki Product Engineer Prepared by: Gordon Thomas, P.E Blossom Ct Mason, OH Florida # Date: February 12, 2010 I. Introductionl Scope -... Based on wind load tests on the Thermacore series commercial sectional steel doors, the following report will review the wind load requirements for a variety of door sizes and design pressures. The following doors have already been FBC approved per Fl #11521 for the 2007 Florida Building Code. This revision of the report has added model number 596 to the report. All testing from CCl was conducted per ASTM E All testing from A TI and Overhead Door were conducted per ANSIIDASMA The testing laboratory at the Overhead Door TREQ facility is accrediated by las, Tl-368. Per DASMA Technical Research document #1039, it has been determined that DASMA & 05 are equivalent and DASMA 108 is equivalent to ASTM E II. Reference Documents The following documents were referenced in the evaluation review: 1. Test Report # CCLI , Construction Consulting laboratory, Sept 26,2003 Models 416,424,420 & 430,7.73 psf - 50 psf, 10 ft - 22 ft wide 2. Test Report # CCLI , Construction Consulting laboratory, October 10,2003 Models 591, 592, 594 & 598, ft wide, 9.30 psf - 20 psf. 3. Test Report # ATI , Architectural Testing Inc, May 16, 2008 Model 591, +/ , 10 ft wide 4. Test Report # ATI , Architectural Testing Inc., May 16,2008 Model 591, +/-29.3, 16 ft wide 5. OHD Test Report, ETR 1504, Model 595, 22' wide, +26.1/-31.0, Aug 26,2008

2 III. Product Evaluation a. OHD Product Series Overview Thermacore The Thermacore series of products are insulated sandwich sectional doors with a steelurethane-steel construction. The primary commercial applications are for thermal efficiency and air infiltration. The following models are available: Model " " Exterior 1-5/8" 1-3/8" 2" Panel 1" Skin Thickness -:.... '" IV. Evaluation Since every door size can not be tested, engineering analysis using a comparative review of those tested were used in this report. The following paragraphs summarize the analysis methods used. Based on comparative analysis from maximum bending moments (m = wl2/8) on the critical design members, the design pressure can be compared to changes in door width. = The primary limitation of the above comparative analysis is to ensure the jamb loading for the doors under evaluation do not exceed the jamb loading of the qualifying door. Jamb loading = LQ/2*wQ >/ LE/2*WE Other assumptions or limitations were used in the analysis of the door configurations listed below. 1) Individual sections react like a simply supported beam. a. Each beam has a maximum allowable moment that can not be exceeded b. Each beam has a maximum allowable end load that can not be exceeded 2) Each section has allowable stress, front and back, as a function of maximum moment a. For Thermacore Doors: i. Use full section metal for the I and A due to the foam adhering the section as one member ii. The struts are taken into account as a part of that section, due to the continuous (alternating every 12") attachment to the section. 2

3 I 3) Section End Limits: determined limits from test data for the end hinges (single and double), as well as the three rollers available. a. Single end stile- 670 Ibfs /roller b. Double end stile Ibfs/roller c. 2" TR3 (7/16 steel formed 10 ball) roller (with double end)- 600lbf d. 3" TR7 (7/16" steel formed 10 ball) roller (with double end)- 600lbf e. 2"TR5 (7/16 solid steel 10 ball) roller (with double end)- 720lbf f. 5/8" stem solid steel 10ball roller (with double end) lbf 4) The number of fasteners/jamb brackets is determined by the most restrictive fastener between steel (weld or 5/16" thru bolt), masonry (5/16"x1-3/4" powers Power bolt) and wood lag screws (5/16"x1 3/4"). The most restrictive then determines whether 24" or 12" spacing will be used for the fasteners 5) The thickness of track was determined through track deflection testing and has the following limits: a "-480Ibf b "-1050Ibf c "-1170Ibf 6) The glazing designs described on the door drawings have been tested and approved for use outside the HVHZ of the 2007 Florida Building Code a. The Thermacore 25" x 12" window system is configured with a double thickness High Impact Polystyrene material, 0.115" thick exterior and 0.075" thick interior. 7) Per Dade County, maximum height allowed is up to 3X the height tested..'. 3

4 I IV. Evaluation Summary Using the comparative analysis defined above, the following tables summarize the door configurations that have been evaluated. Item592/596/59930'-2" 592/596/59924'-2" 592/596/59920'-2" 592/596/59910'-2" 592/596/59914'-2" 592/596/59918'-2" Door 59130'-2" 5918'-2" 5914'-2" 5910'-2" 59120'-2" 59126'-2" 59318'-2" 59314'-2" '-2" 16'-2" 12'-2" TypeMax Engineering D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D x +/-50 30'-1" +/-18 +/-31 16'-1" Notes Door Design x 30'-1" 16'-1" Rev psf Size Dwg DC

5 V. Limitations of Use The drawings referenced above provide the primary details for the limitations of use. The sectional door hardware details are contained in OHD drawing This includes hinges, top/bottom fixture, roller stem assemblies, struts and brackets. I have concluded that the configurations shown above comply with the structural requirements of the 2007 Florida Building Code. Maximum Door Width Maximum Door Height Maximum Wind load Door Section Type Mounting Hardware Details 30'-0" (+/- 18 pst) 30'-0" +/- 50 psf (10 ft wide) Ref to model summary above a. Angle in - steel jamb b. Angle in & bracket mount - masonry jamb c. Angle out - wood jamb d. Jamb bracket mount - wood jamb Reference drawing Certification of Independence of Evaluation Entity I hereby certify that (1) I have no financial interest in Overhead Door Corporation; (2) I am an independent licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Florida and; (3) I comply with the criteria of independence as stated in (3), FAC. and (4}, FAC. 5