sheathing) fastened between four flatwise SPF stud grade 2x4s.

Transcription

1 Continuously Insulated Portal Frame with Hold-Down Evaluation () TER No SIS Ox Engineered Products, LLC 228 Broadway, Suite 2 Hanover, PA Eyster Rd. Halltown, WV N. 5th St. Charleston, IL Issue Date: January 27, 2011 Updated September 11, /06/2018 DIVISION: WOOD, PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES Section: Design Information Section: Wood Framing Section: Structural Panels Section: Shear Wall Panels DIVISION: THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION Section: Thermal Insulation Section: Water-Resistive Barriers/Weather Barriers Section: Air Barriers This research report is reviewed and sealed by Ryan Dexter, P.E. of DrJ Engineering, LLC, as a specialty engineer. 1. Products Evaluated: Given that DrJ is both ISO/IEC accredited and " CI PFH: A STYROFOAM SIS and STYROFOAM SIS Plus Portal Frame a professional with engineering Hold-Down company, DrJ s (PFH) certification containing a pier width of 12" constructed with 7 / 16 " OSB Wood Structural Panel is comprehensive Sheathing and fully (WSP compliant with IBC Section sheathing) fastened between four flatwise SPF stud grade 2x4s A seal by a professional engineer is typically sufficient for approval, as regulated by the state Board " CI PFH: A STYROFOAM SIS and STYROFOAM SIS Plus (hereinafter of Professional called Engineers. SIS) As Portal stated in Frame the building with Hold-Down (PFH) containing a pier width of 24" constructed with 7 / code, where this report is not approved, the building 16 " OSB WSP sheathing fastened official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons between four flatwise SPF stud grade 2x4s. the alternative was not approved. This allows DrJ to understand the code section in question and provide a 2. Applicable Codes and Standards: 1 timely code compliance cure , 2009 and 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2006, 2009 and 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) For more information, contact DrJ at or drjengineering.org/our-team. 1 Unless otherwise noted, code references are to the 2012 versions of the code. The IBC defines: APPROVED SOURCE An independent person, firm or corporation, approved by the building official, who is competent and experienced in the application of engineering principles to materials, methods or systems analyses. DrJ's building construction professionals meet the competency requirements as defined in the IBC and can seal their work. DrJ is regularly engaged in conducting and providing engineering evaluations of single-element and full-scale building systems tests. This TER is developed from test reports complying with IBC Section Research reports, which states, Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources Enterprise Lane Madison WI drjengineering.org

2 3. Performance Evaluation: Technical Evaluation Report (TER) 3.1. The SIS 12" CI PFH and 24" CI PFH were tested and evaluated for pier widths between 12" and 24" for equivalency to the following IBC requirement: IBC Section Alternate bracing wall panel adjacent to a door or window opening. Any bracing 2 required by Section is permitted to be replaced by the following (see Figure 1) when used adjacent to a door or window opening with a full-length header. Figure : Alternative Braced Wall Panel Adjacent to a Door or Window Opening 3.2. In addition to the IBC (Section ), the IRC defines the PFH detail in Figure R and identifies it as an equivalent replacement to the capacity of a 4x8 sheet of 3 / 8 " WSP sheathing in Table R through the use of the following language: R Method PFH: Portal frame with hold-downs. Method PFH braced wall panels shall be constructed in accordance with Figure R e.g., Wood structural panel sheathing with a thickness not less than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) for 16-inch (406 mm) or 24-inch (610 mm) stud spacing in accordance with Tables (2) and (3). TER No SIS Page 2 of 13

3 Figure R : Method PFH- Portal Frame with Hold Down Table R : Minimum Length of Braced Wall Panels 3.3. Testing conducted by the SBC Research Institute (SBCRI) compares the performance of the SIS 12" to 24" CI PFH to the IBC/IRC PFH braced wall method for use as an alternative method of construction 3,4. The engineered design capacity of these portal frames are defined in APA T and TT-100 as published by APA-The Engineered Wood Association. 3 IBC Section (Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment) and IRC Section R (Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment) An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code 4 The SIS 12" CI PFH and 24" CI PFH assemblies have been found to be an alternative material, design or method of construction that is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety, and can be approved as such. TER No SIS Page 3 of 13

4 4. Product Description and Materials: Technical Evaluation Report (TER) 4.1. The SIS PFH assemblies are built in accordance with Figure 1 and include the following materials and method of construction: Piers The piers are made up of 7 / 16 " OSB sandwiched between nominal 2x4 studs installed flatwise. This pier is then attached to the adjoining full-height stud and the opening header Header The header is made up of a minimum of two (2) 2x12s with a 7 / 16 " OSB spacer or an equivalent engineered wood beam The header extends over the top of the pier(s) and is fastened to the pier(s) using straps, plates and fasteners, as shown in Figure Where needed, a pony wall may be built above the header to extend the framing to the top of the wall elevation Sheathing: Minimum ½" STYROFOAM SIS or STYROFOAM SIS Plus. 5. Applications: 5.1. Use as an equivalent replacement of the IRC/IBC 16" portal frame A SIS 12" and 24" CI PFH were built and tested to determine if equivalency could be achieved (see Figure 1). Figure 1a: Construction Details of SIS (continued on next page) TER No SIS Page 4 of 13

5 Figure 1b: Construction Details of SIS (continued on next page) Figure 1c: Construction Details of SIS (continued from previous page) 5.2. IBC/IRC 16" PFH: This portal frame was constructed as shown in Figure and tested 5 in accordance with ASTM E564 testing procedures. Testing determined its lateral resistance within an identical braced wall line so that a direct performance comparison could be made with respect to the tests performed on the SIS assemblies The IRC/IBC portal frame is the result of testing completed by APA-The Engineered Wood Association as reported in APA-TT-100 and T Two 30' braced wall lines were framed using standard code-complying framing techniques with SPF top plate, sill plate and studs from stud grade lumber. The braced wall lines were then tested simultaneously. 5 Test Report # SBCRI TER No SIS Page 5 of 13

6 The assembly was constructed with 3 / 8 "-thick OSB WSP sheathing as detailed in IBC Section and APA T (IRC Section R is similar) and fastened with diameter nails 6 penetrating 1 1 / 2 ", 3" o.c. spacing at the edges and to all framing members per Figure Interior GWB was not applied. Lateral load applied to the ttomof the truss Deflection Measurement Figure : Test Assembly s 30' Braced Wall Line Illustrating Locations of Lateral Load Application & Deflection Measurements 5.3. SIS : These portal frames were constructed as shown in Figure 2 and tested 7 in accordance with ASTM E564 testing procedures. Testing determined their lateral resistance within an identical braced wall line so that a direct performance comparison could be made with respect to the tests performed on the IBC/IRC 16" PFH assemblies Two (2) 30' braced wall lines were framed using standard code-complying framing techniques with SPF top plate, sill plate and studs from stud grade lumber. The braced wall lines were then tested simultaneously The assembly was constructed with 7 / 16 "-thick OSB WSP sheathing (10 1 / 2 "-wide for the SIS 12" CI PFH to 22 1 / 2 "-wide for the SIS 24" CI PFH) fastened between four (4) flatwise SPF 2x4s attached to a SPF king stud as shown in Figure and Figure Interior GWB was not applied. 6 Per IBC Table and SDPWS Table 4.3A 7 Test Report # SBCRI (12" CI PFH) and Test Report # SBCRI (24" CI PFH) TER No SIS Page 6 of 13

7 Providing for thermal insulation and the code-required water-resistive barrier, 1 / 2 "-thick SIS or Dow XPS was attached to the exterior of the PFH piers with staples (1" crown x 1 1 / 4 "-long 16 gage staples, 3 / 4 " embedment into stud), 12" o.c. spacing at the edges and 12" o.c. spacing in the field (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Test Assembly s 30' Braced Wall Line Illustrating Locations of Lateral Load Application & Deflection Measurements 5.4. Test Results: Test Name IBC/IRC 16" PFH 5 /APA TT-100 SIS 12" CI PFH 6 SIS 24" CI PFH A comparison of the, the IBC/IRC 16" PFH (APA TT-100), the SIS 12" CI PFH and the 24" CI PFH is shown in Table The test data provides confirmation that the performance of the SIS 12" CI PFH and 24" CI PFH provide comparable equivalence to the 3 / 8 " BWP and the IBC/IRC 16" PFH. Sheathing Material 3 /8" OSB Fastener Size & Spacing 0.113ø nails penetrating 1 1 /2"; 3:3 Total Bracing Width (in) Equivalent Capacity Based on APA TT /2" SIS or Dow XPS Sheathing Equivalent see Figure 1 12" 2,820 1 /2" SIS or Dow XPS Sheathing Equivalent see Figure 1 24" 5,115 Maximum Wall Height 4 ASD Allowable Design Value per Pier (lbs) 3 16" 2,780 10' 1,045 8' 1,390 8' 1,410 10' 1,060 8' 2,560 10' 1, Capacity derived from multiple full-scale tests at SBCRI, as well as testing from other labs, showing the capacity of OSB sheathing in buildings constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the IRC. 2. APA TT-100 establishes testing that was used to justify the PFH bracing type in the IRC/IBC. Equivalent capacity is based on comparison of SBCRI testing in full-scale 12' x 30' building as compared to the published APA tests. 3. Interpolation between the wall heights and pier widths for the 12" CI PFH & 24" CI PFH is permitted. 4. In APA Technical Topics Form No. TT-100, the 10'-high portals have 77-78% of the 8'-high portal capacity. Since SBCRI testing provides conservative equivalency to the APA TT-100 test data, 10'-high wall design values are provided that use a 75% factor to reduce the 8'-high wall design values generated by the SBCRI test data " PFH Center Test " CI PFH Center Test 7. 24" CI PFH Center Test Table 1: Test Results Based on SPF Framing TER No SIS Page 7 of 13

8 5.5. Based on the SBCRI test results using the equivalency principle as defined in IBC Section and IRC Section R104.11, the SIS is assigned the recommended design values for designs controlled by wind or gravity loading conditions as provided in Table The design values for the SIS are based on SBCRI testing and the evaluation of the test data compared to the IBC/IRC 16" PFH/APA TT-100 test data. The evaluation considered the following two design conditions found in the IBC/IRC, and the ASD Allowable Design Value per Pier listed in Table 1 is based on the lower of these two limits: The allowable seismic design story drift for typical residential and conventional light-frame construction as found in ASCE The tested or nominal unit shear capacity divided by a safety factor of As detailed in Figure 1, the maximum allowable compressive strength of the Ox is 11,156 lbs per pier. Additional compressive capacity may be engineered into each pier. Structurally attaching full-height framing members within the pier cavity is one possible engineered option The SBCRI test results in Table 1 provide assurance that both the SIS 12" CI PFH and 24" CI PFH provide equivalent or better shear resistance and comparable stiffness performance to the codecompliant benchmark (IBC/IRC 16" PFH) At this time, the testing performed on the SIS limits its use to replacing any bracing required by IBC Section and IRC Table R in Seismic Design Categories A, B, and detached dwellings in Category C. 6. Findings: 6.1. IBC Section and IRC Section R specifically state that: The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code The testing and generally accepted engineering analysis performed provides the basis for the use of the SIS as a substitution for a IBC/IRC 16" PFH as defined in IBC Section and IRC Section R , and have the relative performance as defined in Table The testing and engineering analysis performed provides the basis for the use of the SIS 12" to 24" CI PFH in all locations that require the use of a 4' BWP within the IBC 10 or the IRC Conditions of Use: 7.1. The SIS described in this TER comply with, or are suitable alternatives to, the applicable sections of the IBC and the IRC listed in Section 2 of this Technical Evaluation Report (TER) and are subject to the following conditions: This TER and the installation instructions, when required by a code official, shall be submitted at the time of permit application Where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction where the building is to be constructed, the design drawings shall be prepared by a Registered Design Professional licensed in the jurisdiction. 8 Although the ASCE 7 criterion is specifically for seismic design and does not apply to wind design, it does provide a reasonable deformation point of reference. The ASD allowable unit shear capacity is determined per SDPWS Section SDPWS also references the allowable story drift limits according to ASCE 7 Section and Table SDPWS Section Unit Shear Capacities states, The ASD allowable unit shear capacity shall be determined by dividing the tabulated nominal unit shear capacity, modified by applicable footnotes, by the ASD reduction factor of IBC Section Alternate bracing wall panel adjacent to a door or window opening. Any bracing required by Section [i.e., 3. Wood structural panel sheathing with a thickness not less than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) for 16-inch (406 mm) or 24-inch (610 mm) stud spacing in accordance with Tables (2) and (3).] is permitted to be replaced by the following when used adjacent to a door or window opening with a full-length header: IRC Section R Method PFH: Portal frame with hold-downs. Method PFH braced wall panels constructed in accordance with one of the following provisions are also permitted to replace each 4 feet (1219 mm) of braced wall panel as required by Section R for use adjacent to a window or door opening with a full-length header: TER No SIS Page 8 of 13

9 Sheathing material located on the exterior side of the portal frame shall be one of the following: ½" minimum STYROFOAM SIS or STYROFOAM SIS Plus Each portal frame may replace 4' of braced wall panel or as an alternate method of construction to replace a PFH as described above. All other braced wall provisions shall be followed per the applicable code Design Building Designer The Construction Documents shall be prepared by a Building Designer (BD) for the Building and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed, and show in detail conformance to the building code The Construction Documents shall provide information sufficiently accurate and reliable to be used for facilitating the supply of STYROFOAM SIS and STYROFOAM SIS Plus and shall provide the following: The location, direction and magnitude of all dead, live and lateral loads applicable to STYROFOAM SIS and STYROFOAM SIS Plus, and any other loads that are going to be applied to STYROFOAM SIS and STYROFOAM SIS Plus All foundation anchorage designs required to resist uplift, gravity, and lateral loads Design loads shall not exceed the allowable loads as defined in Section 5 of this TER Construction Documents Construction documents shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to construction Construction documents shall contain the plans, specifications and details needed for the building official to approve such documents. 8. Test and Engineering Substantiating Data: 8.1. A Portal Frame with Hold Downs for Wall Bracing or Engineered Applications, APA Technical Topics, Form No. TT-100, APA The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, APA Report T , Cyclic Evaluation of APA Sturd-I-Frame for Engineered Design, ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-2008: Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic standard with Commentary, AF&PA American Wood Council, 1111 Nineteenth St., NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036: ASCE/SEI 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASTM E564-00e1: Standard Practice for Static Load Test for Shear Resistance of Framed Walls for Buildings, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA : IBC/IRC 16" PFH and APA TT-100 replicate Braced Wall Panel Testing in a 12'x30' Full Scale Building with Method PFH Double Portal Frame Performance Under Laterally Applied Monotonic Loading conducted by SBCRI, based on ASTM E564, January SIS 12" CI PFH and 24" CI PFH Braced Wall Panel Testing in a 12'x30' Full Scale Building Double Portal Frame Performance Under Laterally Applied Monotonic Loading, conducted by SBCRI, based on ASTM E564, January International Residential Code , and International Building Code , International Code Council Some information contained herein is the result of testing and/or data analysis by other sources, which DrJ relies on to be accurate as it undertakes its engineering analysis DrJ does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of data provided by testing facilities, but relies on each testing agency s accuracy and accepted engineering procedures, experience, and good technical judgment. TER No SIS Page 9 of 13

10 8.10. Where appropriate, DrJ relies on the derivation of design values, which have been codified into law through the codes and standards listed in Section 2, to undertake the review of test data that is comparative or shows equivalency to an intended end use application. DrJ undertakes its engineering evaluation based on code-adopted design values, code-adopted installation details and all code-based and new product test data and analysis provided DrJ does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of any code-adopted design values but relies upon their accuracy for engineering evaluation DrJ relies upon the fact that the manufacturers of code-adopted products stand behind these legally established design values that have been created by the manufacturer of those products or the members of the associations that publish a given set of code-based design values for a given commodity DrJ evaluates all equivalency testing and related analysis using this engineering foundation. 9. Review Schedule: 9.1. This TER is subject to periodic review and revision For information on the current status of this report, contact DrJ. Responsibility Statement The information contained herein is a product, engineering or building code compliance research report performed in accordance with the referenced building codes, testing and/or analysis through the use of accepted engineering procedures, experience and good technical judgment. Product, design and code compliance quality control is the responsibility of the referenced company. Consult the referenced company for the proper detailing and application for the intended purpose. Consult your local jurisdiction or design professional to assure compliance with the local building code. DrJ (drjengineering.org) research reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed, nor are they to be construed as an endorsement of the subject of the report or a recommendation for its use. There is no warranty by DrJ, express or implied, as to any finding or other matter in this report or as to any product covered by this report. TER No SIS Page 10 of 13

11 Appendix A: TERs Are Comparable to, Compatible with, and Equivalent to the Purpose of an ICC-ES ESR 1. Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs), drafted and maintained by DrJ (professional engineering firm and ISO Guide 65 applicant through ANSI/ACLASS), assess how specific products comply with the provisions of the building code. DrJ is a code-defined approved source, and DrJ employs professional engineers and follows state professional engineering rules and regulations. 2. TERs are comparable to, compatible with, and equivalent to the purpose of an ICC Evaluation Service (ICC- ES) Evaluation Service Reports (ESRs) ICC Evaluation Service does not provide an engineer s seal on any of it ESRs Furthermore, the ICC-ES Evaluation Report Purpose is defined as follows: 2.3. ICC ESR Disclaimer: 3. DrJ Sealed Engineering 3.1. DrJ engineers have undertaken the rigorous engineering and analysis work to determine the subject of this report s compliance with the codes and standards referenced in Section DrJ work: Complies with accepted engineering procedures, experience and good technical judgment Is the work of an independent person, firm or corporation who is competent and experienced in the application of engineering principles to materials, methods or systems analyses. TER No SIS Page 11 of 13

12 3.3. A Technical Evaluation Report generated by DrJ is in all code-compliance-evaluation-processing respects equivalent to an ICC-ES ESR, as ICC-ES defines its approach, with one material difference DrJ will seal all TERs, as needed, so that responsibility for the work is well-defined The DrJ responsibility statement is identical to that provided in ICC-ES ESRs. DrJ (drjengineering.org) research reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed, nor are they to be construed as an endorsement of the subject of the report or a recommendation for its use. There is no warranty by DrJ express or implied as to any finding or other matter in this report or as to any product covered by this report. TER No SIS Page 12 of 13

13 Appendix B: Legal Aspects of Product Approval 1. Product Approval 1.1. In general, the model and local codes provide for the use of alternative materials, designs and methods of construction by having a legal provision that states something similar to: The provisions of this code/law are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code/law, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the compliance official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code/law, and that the material, design, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code/law In concert with preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade, should this alternative material, design or method of construction not be approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the specific reasons for non-code-compliance and/or for non-professional engineering regulation compliance. Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up. The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice Legal Validity of this TER 2.1. This TER is a code-defined (e.g., 2009 IBC and IRC Section and 2009 IBC Section ) research report that provides supporting data to assist in the approval of materials, designs or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code Therefore, this TER is a valid research report from a professional engineering company that complies with the code definition of approved source. If required by the authority having jurisdiction, this TER can also be sealed to comply with professional engineering laws and regulations TER No SIS Page 13 of 13