Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: sandwich panels in seismic design category D?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oh, believe me, I am VERY explicit in tossing up warning flags that
something designed as a SIP shearwall may end up having to be changed to
either stick-framed or propietary shearwalls.  And having an ICC-ES report
with the seismic testing may not completely change that in some
jurisdiction in CA.  Some places in CA require COLA reports in addition to
ICC-ES reports.  Of course, since I am just a lowly engineer, people tend
to ignore my warnings...at least until the sh*t hits the fan when the
building official won't accept it.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

> A building official can ok them, but don't write a contract that tells a
> contractor to use SIPs that have an ICC evaluation report in Seismic Design
> Category D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:33 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: sandwich panels in seismic design category D?
>
> Scott,
>
> (OT - I have to admit that starting out a message like above feels
> weird...feels like I am sending a message to myself <grin>)
>
> To my knowledge, you are kind of correct and kind of not.  I do believe
> that Premier is done with testing, but I have yet to see an updated ICC ES
> report that includes the evaluation from that testing from them.  I could
> be wrong about them being done, but I certainly know that they are further
> along than the company that I do some work for.
>
> I can say that the company that I do some work for (Insulspan) is doing
> testing.  That testing is just about done.  We definitely don't have an
> updated evaluation report yet.
>
> Regardless, I will point out that the code does NOT ban the use of SIPs as
> shearwalls in any area including high seismic area is you don't have an
> ICC ES report.  That just happens to be the easiest way to satisfy the
> alternative material provision in the code.  There is nothing that
> prevents a code official from approving the use of SIPs as shearwalls,
> including in SDCs D, E, and F, if the code official can be provided with
> something that satisfies them.
>
> And to that end, for projects where someone wants to use Insulspan panels
> as shearwalls in SDCs D, E, and F, I have some information that I am able
> to share on a case by case basis that could help in that regard.
>
> If you want to discuss it more, then feel free to contact me privately and
> then we could maybe chat by phone.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
>
> > Scott.
> >
> > I have heard that only one manufacturer has done testing for the new
> > requirements for seismic design category D and they do not have an ICC
> > evaluation report yet.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Scott.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: RE: sandwich panels in seismic design category D?
> >
> > Scott:
> >
> > As Tom kind of pointed out, AC04 does now allow evaulation and
> > "acceptance" of SIP shearwalls with or without the sealant (which has some
> > sealant like behaviour) _IF_ tested per the Appendix A (and B) criteria.
> > Make sure that you are looking at the latest and greatest AC04.  The
> > pre-March 2003 AC04 would have limited the use of SIP shearwalls to SDCs
> > A, B, and C with no methd to evaluated SIP shearwalls for the other SDCs.
> > The addition of Appendix A (which is in large part Tom's "baby") changed
> > that.
> >
> > FWIW, Appendix A "re-introduces" ductility into a SIP shearwall by
> > requiring there to be a intermediate panel joint within the length of the
> > shearwall.  In other words, the SIP shearwall must be comprised of two SIP
> > panels rather than just one SIP panel when resisting seismic loads.  This
> > creates a "slip plane" where the two SIP panels can move/rock relative to
> > each other (i.e. a shear plane).  If I had permission from the "powers
> > that be" in my company, I could show you a video that shows this slipping
> > of the two panels.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Tom Skaggs wrote:
> >
> > > The code provision that disallows adhesives was first included in the
> 2000
> > NEHRP Provisions.  I was part of the wood subcomittee (TS7) where this item
> > was discussed.  Based on shear wall testing by Professor Dan Dolan and I
> > believe APA (this was before my tenure).  The testing was of wood frame
> shear
> > walls sheathed with wood structural panels.  The panels were attached with
> > nails as well as a rigid adhesive.  The adhesives resulted in increased
> > strength and stiffenss of the walls, however, the normal ductile nature of
> > the failure was lost.  The concern from TS7 is that the adhesives would
> > result in walls being subjected to higher demands, thus shifting failures
> to
> > either end posts or holddowns (or collectors).  Hence the "ban" on
> adhesvies.
> > >
> > > The IBC used the NEHRP Provisions as a resource document.  This provision
> > was implemented in the 2000 IBC.  ICC ES has interpreted this provision as
> > applying to SIPs panels, since SIPs panels use sealants during the
> > construction.  In my opinion, ICC ES is showing due dilagence in asking if
> > the sealants shift the normally ductile failure mode to a non-ductile
> failure
> > mode.  Current Appendix A and B of AC04 is intended to show, via cyclic
> > testing, that the sealants do not result in brittle failures.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.
> > > Senior Engineer
> > > APA - The Engineered Wood Association
> > > 7011 S. 19th Street
> > > Tacoma, WA 98466
> > > ph: 253/565-6600
> > > fx: 253/620-7235
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:38
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: sandwich panels in seismic design category D?
> > >
> > > Scott:
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > It was pointed out to one of my coworkers by an ICC engineer that 2006
> IBC
> > > 2305.3.10 Adhesives says you can't use adhesives alone or in combination
> > with
> > > mechanical fasteners to resist seismic forces in seismic design category
> D,
> > > E, or F.  We were told it is discussed in the IBC commentary.
> > >
> > > My coworker was also told that ICC acceptance criteria AC04 says that
> > > sandwich panels can't be used to resist seismic forces in seismic design
> > > category D because of this code requirement that adhesives can't be used.
> > >
> > > Scott.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:10 PM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: Re: sandwich panels in seismic design category D?
> > >
> > > Scott:
> > >
> > > Actually, the most current version of AC04 (since March of Feb 2004, but
> > > has since been "tweaked") has a criteria for evaluating the use of SIP
> > > shearwalls in _ALL_ IBC Seismic Design Catergories.  There is now an
> > > Appendix A that does matched testing between a SIP shearwall and a
> > > stick-framed shearwall and if the SIP wall meets bascially 85% or so of
> > > certain cirteria of the stick-framed wall (i.e. energy dissipation,
> > > allowalbe story drift, stiffness criterion, and peak strength).
> > >
> > > Now, to my knowledge there are no SIP manufactures that have completed
> > > such testing AND gotten an updateed ICC-ES report with such evaluation
> > > included.  I know that the SIP company (Insulsapn) that I work for
> > > part-time is in the process of completing the testing but does not yet
> > > have an updated report.  Last time I checked Premier does not have an
> > > updated report as of yet, but I am fairly sure that they have completed
> > > testing.
> > >
> > > Regardless, there are projects with SIP shearwalls going up in high
> > > seismic areas.  We are currently finishing up a home in the Tahoe area
> > > (UBC Zone 3, but HUGE seismic mass due to HUGE ground snow
> > > loads...something like 300 psf).  We have some preliminary test
> > > information from some of our earlier Appendix A testing that I can supply
> > > on a case by case basis that engineers and code officials can use as a
> > > basis to determine if they approve the use of SIP shearwalls.
> > >
> > > If you want to discuss this further, then feel free to contact me
> > > privately and I can get you my mobile phone number if you want to call me
> > > (I am currently at the Timber Framers' Guild Conference).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > Adrian, MI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are wood panel / foam core sandwich panels being used anywhere in
> Seismic
> > > > Design Category D?  ICC AC04 now says that they are allowed only in
> > Seismic
> > > > Design Categories A, B and C.   It is my understanding that the 2000
> ICC
> > > > evaluation reports were silent on this but that ICC evaluation reports
> > > based
> > > > on the 2003 IBC say specifically they are only allowed in seismic
> design
> > > > category A, B and C.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They used to use these panels in Anchorage Alaska to brace residential
> > > > buildings frequently.  I remember one manufacturer had an engineer down
> > in
> > > > Oregon do their calculations for them and I think it was Premier Panels
> > or
> > > > something like this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Where are the bodies?  I would like to know why they are not allowed
> > > anymore
> > > > - were their failures in Northridge or something? Are these things
> being
> > > used
> > > > in California or else where in seismic design category D?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did some Cheechako [no offense intended to any Cheechakos reading this]
> > > > committee decide they wanted to legislate that you can't use sandwich
> > > panels
> > > > like loghomes in Alaska where there is a history of them performing?
> > There
> > > > were no reports from the November 3, 2002 Mw7.9 Mentasta earthquake
> that
> > > > sandwich panel braced houses in the Fairbanks area had to be condemned.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > > *
> > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > > *
> > > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > > *
> > > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > > *
> > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > > *
> > > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > > *
> > > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > > *
> > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > > *
> > > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > > *
> > > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********