Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: SIP spec[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: SIP spec
- From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:11:35 -0400
|Ah, SIPs! Nothing like discussing the dysfunctional world of SIPs.|
The first thing you are going to have to do is narrow down what you wan to consider as SIPs for your projects. I would first assume that we are talking about wood based SIPs (i.e. wood skin - insulation - wood skin). There are concrete based SIPs as well as metal based SIPs (either might also be called a sandwich panel as Harold mentioned). Some SIPs will also have drywall skins, but they are usually not truly considered SIPs as they are basically typically non-structural.
Assuming we are talking about wood based SIPs, you next need to decide if you are only interest in EPS based SIPs or if you will also consider XPS and/or foam in place (aka polyurethane) SIPs. You will find that the "big boys" in the SIP industry will generally be EPS based SIPs with OSB skins.
As far as a sample contract specifications, you can usually find the "big boys" will have a sample specification that you can start with. Of course, they will be tailored to THEIR product. Since most of the "big boys" use EPS, such sample specs will only typically be written to permit EPS. So, if you want XPS or polyurethane, then you will need to add those in.
Here are some samples:
SIP Specification (R-Control in Word format)
There are likely others that might have something.
As to "code reports", the "big boys" (Insulspan, R-Control, & Premier) will all have ICC-ES reports. Not too many beyond them will. SIPA has gone about getting a "generic" "code report" that members of SIPA can get listed on, but it is not a ICC-ES report, but rather an NTA report. You can find information about it here: http://www.sips.org/content/index.cfm?pageId=272
All of the "big boys" should now have shearwall values that exceed 335 plf in their ICC-ES reports I believe. I will note, however, that technically any current ICC-ES report that has been done under the current Acceptance Criteria for SIPs (AC04) will only permit those shearwalls to be used for wind and for Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C. If you have a Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, then current ICC-ES reports will not apply. Some of the manufacturer's might have "legacy reports" that supposedly would permit use in high seismic zones, but those older ICC-ES, ICBO, NER, etc reports are not technically valid for the most recent editions of the IBC codes. So, if your jurisdiction is using more recent IBC code (i.e. 2006 or 2009...and maybe even 2003...you would have to check what the specific reports are valid for), then you might be SOL for high seismic as far as code report goes. Most of the "big boys" will have a technical bulletin, however, that reports on some testing that you could potentially use to try to convince a code official to allow for high seismic use., but that will force you to try to convince the code official.
As Gary noted, there is also the prescriptive SIP provisions in the IRC. It should be noted that they are only for walls made of either 4" or 6" SIPs and of a certain height. So from a design point of view for engineers, those provisions are kind of useless. He is correct in that it might help provide some guidance for creating a specification.
The link that Harold linked to is the APA effort to create a SIP standards. I am a member of that committee, but that committee is kind of "in a coma" at the moment. The efforts of that committee are basically turning out to be fleshing out the prescriptive provisions from the IRC. As such, it is debatable how useful that standard would be to engineers if it ever comes to be. Once again, however, it might be a good source of some "guidance" for a specification.
If you have further questions, feel free to ask...either here on the list or privately. Since I have been "living" in the messy world of SIPs for the last five years or so, I should be able to help.
On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Harold Sprague wrote:
- Re: SIP spec
- From: Gerard Madden, SE
- Re: SIP spec
- Prev by Subject: Re: SIP spec
- Next by Subject: RE: SIP spec
- Previous by thread: RE: SIP spec
- Next by thread: Re: SIP spec