Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: SIPs panels in shear

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Premier does have an evaluation report for SDC D, E, F (not an ICC Report, NER I believe, but still acceptable in California....a certain member of this list did the work on the testing) and they have 1:1 aspect ratio values for seismic at about half the wind values IIRC.

Richard, the dual sheathing benefits are lost since you need to cut a hole on one side to install the hold-down. One side is sacrificial from a shear wall perspective.


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)> wrote:
This is fine...if you do not have a code official that demands an actual evaluation report.  At the moment, it appears that Premier's official evaluation report limits shearwalls to 600 plf, which while more than what R-Control has in their report, it is less than what Insulspan has in their current report.
It should also be noted that _ANY_ current ICC-ES shearwall values only apply for IBC/ASCE 7 Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C.  This is certainly an issue for you to be aware of (do not know if the Premier sales rep addressed this) since you are in the heart of seismic country.  While this does not necessarily preclude the use of SIP shearwalls for seismic in SDCs D, E, and F, it does mean that you would have to do it WITHOUT the support of an evaluation report.  I know that both Premier ( and Insulspan (not availabe on the website, but you could request it...or I can give it to you) have technical bulletins that will help with this issue, but it is NOT the same as an evaluation report.  I know that there are code official in some California jurisdictions that will require a evaluation report from ICC-ES, and maybe even from COLA (I am pretty sure San Fran is one such jurisdiction).  I do not currently know what R-Control has in this area, but I could likely find out if you wanted to know.
My main point is that technical bulletins and such are fine, but in some places only an evaluation report will cut it.  And, always be wary of what sales reps claim.  <grin>
Adrian, MI

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:36 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: SIPs panels in shear


Our office had a sales rep for Premier Building Systems come out and he tauted how they have high shear resistance, etc.  Check the link.

Good luck.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Richard Calvert <RichardC(--nospam--at)> wrote:

I have a new project with SIPs panels involved, however, this one has some potential issues with wind loading along the front of the structure.  My current information regarding this claims that the allowable shear values are for aspect ratios of 1:1 or better, and gives no further information.  However, I found an IRC/IBC report on SIPS.ORG from NTA (?) stating that the allowable was 2:! – which makes more sense – but provides no values for this case…


Considering that these panels are covered on both sides with 7/16” OSB it makes sense to me that these panels would fall under some “similar” method in the IRC, or maybe have capacities similar to 2x unblocked roof diaphragms – but I am not finding anything which validates this.  Any leads would be greatly appreciated here. 


Richard Calvert, EIT 

Project Engineer


Lindemann Bentzon Bojack

Architects & Engineers

290 Citrus Tower Blvd, Suite 200, Clermont, Fl. 34711

tel: 352.242.0100 ext.141 fax: 352.242.0302

Proudly Serving America's Top Builders

Internet Email Confidentiality
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.

If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible

for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver

this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message

and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if

you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of

this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message

that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood

as neither given nor endorsed by it.


David Topete, SE