Structural Technical Advisory Committee
Minutes
Monday,
October 13, 2008
8:00 A.M. –
Meeting Objective:
1. Called to Order-reviewed/approved agenda and minutes.
There was a quorum. Do Kim, Chairman, Paul Kidwell, Craig Parrino, Charles Everly, C.W. Macomber, George Wiggins, Rusty Carroll, Jack Glenn, Dan Lavrich, Jaime Gascon were present.
2. Reviewed and discussed proposed code changes to the 2007 Florida Building Code and provided recommendation for consideration.
3. Review and provide recommendations to the Commission on the request for declaratory statements:
DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, Plans Examiner, St. Johns County Building Department
Action: Tabled/Deferred to the December
Meeting
DCA08-DEC-205 by Neil Melick, CBO, Department Director, City of
West Palm Beach
Action:
Question 1: Is it the
intent of Section 301.13 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical that
appliances be designed to resist wind pressures even if the permit applicant is
unable to find an appliance manufacturer who will provide supporting wind
resistance documentation?
Answer: Yes.
Question 2: Does the phrase “appliances…shall be designed” in Section 301.13 mean that it is the responsibility of the appliance manufacturer to design their outdoor appliances to resist wind pressures since the manufacturer is the designer of the appliance?
Answer: Yes.
This is not just a
Question 3: Is it the intent of Section 301.13 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical that ALL mechanical appliances and equipment, including package units, condensing units and fans that are exposed to wind be designed and installed to resist wind pressures in accordance with section 1609 of the Florida Building Code, Building?
Answer: Yes
Question 4: If the answers to the above are in the affirmative, is there a different standard to be applied to mechanical appliances, equipment and their supports due to the use of the word “resist” in Section 301.13 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical rather than the use of the word “withstand” as stated in Section 1609.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building?
Answer: No, the intent of the language “resist” and “withstand” is the same.
Question 5: If the answers to questions 1 through 3
are in the affirmative and the answer to question 4 is in the negative, would
then the proposed installation be in violation of Section 301.13 of the
Answer: Yes, the installation would be in violation of Section 301.13 of the 2004 FBC-Mechanical.
Question 6: If the answer to question 5 above is in the affirmative, then what recourse/options do I have as a Code Official? Do I have the authority to withhold the Certificate of Occupancy?
Answer: Section 110 of the Florida Building Code
gives the building official the authority to withhold or revoke the Certificate
of Occupancy for violation of the provisions of the code.
DCA08-DEC-236 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Action:
Question 1: Are there any impact requirements outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone when no ductwork is attached to the louver?
Answer: No.
Since the louver is not protecting an intake or exhaust ventilation ducts, the
impact requirement of Section 1609.1.2.1 does not apply.
Question
2: Are impact resistant louvers
required above 30 ft?
Answer: Louvers
are not required to be impact resistant when installed above 30 feet of grade.
Question 3: Are louvers subject to
cyclic loading after impact test as well as the static test mentioned in
1609.1.2.2.1?
Answer: Louvers are not subject to cyclic
loading test after impact. However, they are subject to the static test of
Section 1609.1.2.2.1
DCA08-DEC-237 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Action:
Question
1: Do all louvers installed
in buildings that are not in the wind borne debris region or the high velocity
hurricane zones, where impact resistance is mandated require
Answer: All louvers are subject to review and approval by the local authority having jurisdiction. However, the State Approval may be obtained as an alternative to local approval. In order for a standard louver to demonstrate compliance with the Code, it must be tested to the applicable standards specified by the Code (Rational analysis cannot be used in lieu of testing).
Question
2: If the answer to the above
is that they must have a
Answer: See Answer to Question 1
Question
3: If DCA04-DEC-219 is valid,
must local building officials accept the louver installation if the
calculations are stamped by a
Answer: DCA04-DEC-219 is specific to “custom one-of-a-kind” louvers. Custom one-of-a-kind louvers are outside the scope of Rule 9B-72, and therefore, subject to review and approval by the authority having jurisdiction.
DCA08-DEC-238 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Hospitals and nursing homes-
Question 1: Does this mean that the only large missile impact test to be used is from a 9 pound 2x4 traveling at 50 feet per second plus the cyclic wind pressure testing?
Answer: Yes, however the cyclic wind pressure test is not required for louvers.
Question
2: If the space behind the structure
is designed as an open structure, is impact protection required?
Answer: Yes, because the space is always required to be designed as enclosed.
Question 3: Is there ever a requirement for the 2x4 to impact at 80 feet per second?
Answer: This question is too
broad.
Question 4: Does the large missile test only apply to louvers below 30 feet?
Answer: Yes, however the test applies to louvers including those
at 30 feet.
Schools-
The questions below are related to schools that are Enhanced Hurricane Protection Areas (EHPA):
Schools that are
designated as Enhanced Hurricane Protection Areas (2007
Question 1: Does
this mean that the only large missile impact test to be used is from a 9 pound
2 X 4 traveling at 50 feet per second plus the cyclic wind pressure testing?
Answer: Missile impact test specification must be performed in accordance to SSTD 12; however the cyclic wind pressure test is not required for louvers.
Question 2. If the
space behind the structure is designed as an open structure is impact
protection required?
Answer: Yes, because the space is always required to be designed as enclosed.
Question 3: Is there ever a requirement for the 2 X 4 to impact at 80
feet per second?
Answer: This question is too broad.
Question
4: Does
the standard apply only to louvers below 30 feet?
Answer:
No, the standards
applies to louvers at any height.
DCA08-DEC-239 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Action:
Question 1: Must all louvers installed in high
velocity hurricane zone (Miami-Dade and Broward Counties) have a Dade County
NOA or is a Florida Approval number sufficient?
Answer: All products used in HVHZ must be in compliance with the Code requirements that are specific to the HVHZ. Demonstration of compliance with the Code can be either by obtaining local approval or state approval.
Question 2: Section 1626.1.g exempts all louvers in a high velocity hurricane zone from impact testing as long as they properly consider ASCE 7 in the design of the building. Does this mean that if the room or duct is designed as an open structure (internal pressure coefficients are zero) that there are no impact requirements for the louver?
Answer: Yes, there are no impact requirements provided the structure properly considers ASCE 7 in the design.
Question 3: If louvers are installed in high velocity hurricane zone are subject to large missile impact, is the only impact to be from a 9 pound 2 x 4 traveling at 50 feet per second no matter what the building occupancy?
Answer: This question is too broad.
DCA08-DEC-255 by Joseph R. Hetzel of Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association International (DASMA)
Action:
Question:
Is “garage door product code” considered equivalent to “garage door model/series number”?
Answer: No, The Florida Building Code is very specific in language and only a garage door “model/series” can be used on the label.
4.
Discussion on height of roll-up shutters.
The committee discussed a request from the Product Approval POC on whether there is height limitation to overall size of roll-up shutters subject to approval under the state product approval system. The POC reviewed the request and provided the following clarification: “One cannot assume that larger height of roll-up shutters other than tested will perform as the tested size. Engineering is required to substantiate the increase in height beyond the tested size. Note: Under the High Velocity Hurricane Zone because of the deflection limit required by the code, roll-up shutters approved by Miami-Dade Code Compliance Office are not allowed to exceed three times the tested height.
5. Discussion of standard
equivalency:
ANSI/DASMA 108-2002 to ANSI/DASMA 108-2005
(Joe Hetzel)
Withdrawn by Joe Hetzel
ASTM
E 1300-02 to ASTM E 1300-04C (Dick Wilhelm)
The committee reviewed the analysis provided by the petitioner and provided the following recommendation: “The Committee recommends recognizing equivalency of ASTM E 1300-02 to ASTM E 1300-04C with limitations as applied to laminated glass as identified in the engineering report.”
6. Adjourn.
Note: This document is available to any person requiring
materials in alternate format upon request. Contact the Department of Community
Affairs,