MINUTES
Structural Technical Advisory Committee
May 5, 2008
9:00 A.M. – 10:30 A.M.
Crowne Plaza
Melbourne-Oceanfront Hotel
800-908-6429
Meeting
Objective:
1. Call to Order-review/approve
agenda and minutes.
Structural TAC:……………………………………………… Do Kim, Chairman
Craig Parrino, C.W.
Macomber, Dave Olmstead, Rusty Carroll, Jack Glenn, Jaime Gascon
a. Agenda and minutes
were approved as submitted.
2. Committee
reviewed and provided recommendations to the Commission on the requests for
Declaratory Statement as follows:
1. DCA07-DEC-085 by Jaime Gascon, P.E. of
Committee
Action: The Committee affirmed their October 2007 previous
action as follows:
Question
One:
Are the fasteners used to install a product which has been evaluated for
Product Approval using Rule 9B-72 method 1-B (testing method) required to meet
the factor of safety of the testing standard ?
Answer:
Yes,
and this is consistent with the Commission action of DCA06-DEC-200.
Question
Two:
In addition to question one, are the fasteners used to install a product which
has been evaluated for Product Approval using Rule 9B-72 method 1-B (testing
method) required to demonstrate compliance with the factor of safety as
required by the material standard ?
Answer:
Yes,
product assemblies evaluated for product approval using Rule 9B-72.070, Method
1-B (Test report method) must be anchored in accordance with the fastener
manufacturer’s instructions which have been evaluated to the materials
standards referenced in the Florida Building Code and/or in accordance with
acceptable engineering practices.
2. DCA08-DEC-002 by Scott Hampton, P.E.
Question # 1: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to require
adequate separation of storm shutters (impact protective systems porous and/or
non-porous) from the underlying glazing to prevent glass breakage due to
missile impacts on the storm shutter, regardless of the separation requirements
within the referenced ASTM E1996 standard?
Answer: No. Based on current standards, breakage is permissible,
and it is the intent of the Code to prevent internal pressurization.
Question # 2: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to require
adequate separation of storm shutters (impact protective systems porous and/or
non-porous) from the underlying glazing to prevent glass breakage due to
missile impacts on the storm shutter caused
by cyclic wind pressures, regardless of the separation requirements within
the referenced ASTM E1996 standard?
Answer: Refer to answer in Question# 1.
Question # 3: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007) that storm shutter contact with
glazing be considered synonymous with glass breakage? That is, in order to prevent glass breakage,
glass contact must be prevented. Note: This considers both porous and/or non-porous
protective systems, and contact as established through testing of a storm
shutter with the fenestration assembly or contact as determined analytically by
comparing independent storm shutter test deflections with prescribed offsets.
Answer:
Refer to answer in Question #1.
Question # 4: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to allow glass
breakage due to shutter contact with the glass if the shutter seals the
protected opening from wind pressure?
4a. If
the answer to question #4 is yes, then please describe the defining
requirement(s) of “seals the protected opening”, and indicate if this is equally
applicable for both positive and negative wind pressure?
i.
With
reference to question #4a, if the opening covering requirements for storm
shutters of HVHZ Section 2413.7 of the 2004 FBC (ie.,
¼” side clearance and overlap of 1.5 times side clearance) are satisfied, does
this constitute sealing the protected opening from wind pressure?
ii.
With
reference to question #4a, are there any special provisions for fabric storm
shutters that allow them to be installed closed enough to the protected glass
that glass breakage can occur from missile impact with the fabric? The caveat being that under positive pressure
the fabric presses against the broken glass to prevent internal over
pressurization (note that under negative pressure the fabric shutter would pull
away from the broken glass and potentially cause a depressurization depending
on how the fabric is attached around the perimeter---fabric attached only at
opposite ends will have large separation on the un-attached side that can
easily exceed the 10% opening limitation that defines the shutter as porous).
Answer:
Refer to answer to Question
#1.
Question # 5: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007) in non-HVHZ areas, that storm shutter
separation from protected glazing be based on the maximum storm shutter
deflection from either positive or negative wind pressure, or missile
impact.
a. Note that in ASTM E1996 (2002, 2005b, and
2006), the deflection as described in Section3, Section 5.5, and Section 8.3,
is the maximum deflection in the direction of the glazing. Obviously missile impact deflection will be
in the direction of the glazing, but wind pressure deflection could be (and
usually is) greater in the direction away from the glazing 9i.e. negative
pressure) -- this is normally due to the support constraints of the panel.
b.
Depending
on the answer to question #5 above, a unique situation can occur with closed
weaved (low or no porosity) fabric storm shutters attached on only two opposite
edge. This type of shutter, under
positive wind pressure (and with an appropriate edge lap over the fenestration
opening), can behave as a non-porous shutter….needing only to be offset from
the glazing enough to prevent glass breakage (BOAF Informal Interpretation
#5503, and ASTM E 1996-06). Under
negative wind pressure, the fabric panel will balloon out (away from the
glazing) in a parabolic shape, potentially separating a significant distance
from the protected glazing. The large open area on the sides of the fabric
panel can easily exceed 10% of panel’s projected surface area requiring the
shutter to be classified as a porous shutter.
As a porous shutter, the panel must meet the more stringent blazing
offset requirements of ASTM E1996-02 or 05b (i.e., maximum deflection +
25%). Therefore the direction of the
wind pressure can have not only an effect on the glazing offset, but also on
the shutter classification.
Answer:
See answer to Question # 1.
Question # 6: Do the answers to any of the
preceding questions change if reference is made to the 2004 Florida Residential
Building Code (including supplements through 2007)(re:
Sections R301.2.1.2 and R4410.4.7).
Answer: With regard to section R301.2.1.2, the answer
is the same as
the answer to question #1 because the same standards apply; however, with
regards to section R4410.4.7, the section is specific to the HVHZ where specific
criteria exist for glass breakage.
3. DCA08-DEC-71
by G. David Rogers, Executive Vice President, FPGA –
WITHDRAWN
4. DCA08-DEC-083
by Steven M. Sincere, PE. –
WITHDRAWN
5. DCA08-DEC-085
by Robert A. Walz, PE, Walz Engineering, LLC –
WITHDRAWN
6. DCA08-DEC-086
by Ruben Fabian Arroyo, Arroyo Enterprises, Inc.
Question
One:
Can the above Sunroom be built as partially enclosed?
Answer:
Yes,
However, the exception of the general requirement for Wind-borne Debris
Protection would NOT be applicable because the above referenced project is NOT
constructed under a existing roof.
Question
Two:
Can the described structure, with its own new roof, be built as partially
enclosed?
Answer:
Yes,
But it would NOT be exempt from the requirement for Wind-borne Debris
protection because that exemption requires that the sunroom be constructed
under an existing roof.
Question
Three: Does a partially enclosed sunroom have to be shuttered
even though it is separated from the existing structure by either impact glass
or shutters?
Answer:
Yes.
Question
Four:
For a sunroom being added to an existing single family home less than 3
stories, which code applies, the Building code or the Residential code?
Answer: The Florida Building
Code, Residential volume.
7. DCA08-DEC-087 by Joseph Hermann, Arroyo
Enterprises, Inc.
Question
One:
Can a non-habitable structure be built as partially enclosed?
Answer:
Yes,
However, the code does not differentiate between habitable or non-habitable
structures with regard to the requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection, with the exception of Storage sheds that are not
designed for human habitation and that have a floor area of 720 square feet.
The exception of the general requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection would
NOT be applicable because the above referenced project is NOT
constructed under a existing roof.
Question
Two:
Can this non-habitable sunroom structure be built as partially enclosed?
Answer:
Yes,
However, with the exception of Storage sheds that are not designed for human
habitation and that have a floor area of 720 square feet, the code does not
differentiate between habitable or non-habitable structures with regard to the
requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection.
Question
Three: What categories of sunroom per the 2007 FBC are required
to be shuttered?
Answer: All categories containing
glazing, unless they are constructed under existing roofs or decks, and are
separated from the building interior by a wall with all openings in the
separating wall area protected in accordance with section R301.2.1.2. (emphasis added)
Question
Four:
Is this sunroom required to be shuttered?
Answer:
Yes,
because it is not being constructed under an existing roof.
8. DCA08-DEC-108 by Ruben Fabian Arroyo,
Arroyo Enterprises, Inc.
Question
One:
Is this sunroom its own entity (structure) as defined in the FBC
?
Answer:
This
sunroom is a structure, because it is built or constructed. However, the
definition of “Structure” does not use the term “it’s
own entity”.
Question
Two:
Must a sunroom be constructed under an existing roof or deck
?
Answer:
No,
to be a sunroom, the structure must meet the definition of “Sunroom” in the
code. The code requirement for sunrooms to be constructed under an existing
roof, only pertains to whether it is exempted from the Wind-borne Debris
protection requirement.
Question
Three: Can this structure be built as partially enclosed as per
the Florida Building Code ?
Answer:
Yes,
However, the code would still require Wind-borne Debris protection for the
above referenced sunroom because it is not being constructed under an existing
roof.
Question
Four:
If the existing openings of this single family home are shuttered or have
impact glass does the sunroom have to be shuttered as well since the sunroom is
non-habitable?
Answer:
Yes,
because it is not being constructed under an existing roof. With the exception of Storage sheds that are
not designed for human habitation and that have a floor area of 720 square feet, the code does not differentiate between habitable or
non-habitable structures with regard to the requirement for Wind-borne Debris
Protection.
Note: This document is available to any person
requiring materials in alternate formatupon request. Contact the Department of Community Affairs,