Patent Grant
8613171
This invention relates generally to flood barriers and, more particularly, to an improvement in window construction that inhibits flood waters from entering a structure by mechanically sealing a properly constructed and engineered window frame to a retaining wall.
Floods are common in areas that do not have adequate drainage to handle a high influx of water. Unfortunately, whether an area is susceptible to flooding may change from year to year due to drainage changes as a result of construction, forest growth, river silting, and the like. Further, climate change has made the possibility of a “100 year” flood an event that can now happen in any given year. Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict how much water a flooding event will produce, for the flooding may be caused by upriver snowmelt or rain, locally heavy rainfall, high winds, and similar events that cause water stacking, a drainage malfunction, or the like any of which may cause flood waters to breech a building structure.
Flooding may not damage a building structure but it can be devastating on the contents within the building should water be allowed to enter the structure. The severity of the damage depends not only on the amount of water that accumulates within a building structure in a period of time, but also on the ability of the property owner to quickly remove the water within. Standing water of only an inch deep is sufficient to destroy the contents within the building structure should mold be allowed to take hold.
Most buildings are designed to keep out rain, but they are not necessarily designed to keep out flood water. The news channels are filled with pictures of a community banding together to save the building structures, if not the entire town, by the use of sandbags to redirect flood waters. If the pressure is substantially high or the water level is high enough then loads of water will seep past the sandbags and flood the area. The pressure exerted by the flowing flood water is the difference in water volume. The bigger the difference between the water volume across an area, the greater the force of the movement.
The potential for seepage within a building enclosure is so prevalent and difficult to prevent that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Chapter 7, Section 701.1.1 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ‘Flood Proofing Regulations’ has specified standards of performance and workmanship in Type 2 Closures in which they allowed “slight seepage” during hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure flood conditions in a Special Flood Hazard Zone.
The potential risks from a flood may be mitigated by taking the necessary steps such as causing the structure to resist the flooding. Flood proofing is a combination of adjustments and/or additions of features to individual buildings that are designed to eliminate or reduce the potential for flood damage. Flood proofing techniques can be classified on the basis of type of protection that is provided as follows: Type 1: permanent measures (always in-place, requires no action if flooding occurs); Type 2: contingent measures (requiring installation at the site when flooding occurs); and Type 3: emergency measures (improvised at the site when flooding occurs).
Emergency flood proofing measures include techniques that can be initiated on relatively short notice. Emergency methods to prevent flooding include sandbag dikes, stop log barriers, and earth-fill crib retaining walls. The primary advantage of an emergency method is the relatively low implementation cost. The principle disadvantage of emergency measures is that sufficient advance warning is required to mobilize personnel and install emergency barriers. Most emergency flood proofing methods require extensive labor force, depend on the availability of heavy machinery and trained operators on short notice, and necessitate a large amount of storage space. Furthermore, if the magnitude or the rate of the rise of a flood is misjudged the emergency flood proofing techniques fail. Not to mention aesthetically any emergency flood proofing measure is difficult to bear if left for long periods of time. Another disadvantage is that emergency measures do not satisfy the minimum requirements for watertight flood proofing as set forth by the National Flood Insurance Program for the protection of an existing construction.
Contingent measures such as flood shields and flood walls are watertight barriers designed to prevent the passage of water through doors, windows, or any other opening in a building structure exposed to flooding. Flood shields are usually installed only when flooding is imminent. Normally some type of gasket or seal is required to ensure that the shield is water tight. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,943,832, “Flood or Storm Resistant Barriers for Doorways or Window Opening” discloses a frame having two parts, one of the frame parts having portions in telescopic engagement with the other frame part, and a manually operable jack mounted between the two frame parts and operable to move the two frame parts relative to one another to vary an external dimension of the frame and thereby enable the frame to be secured in a doorway or window opening by expansion of the frame into engagement with opposed surfaces of the doorway or window opening. However, the operable jack is exposed to the elements and susceptible to corrosion; this device requires proper maintenance to insure integrity.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,796,010 entitled “Pneumatically Sealable Flood Panel Assembly” discloses a flood panel assembly for installation in doorways to improve water-tight integrity under moderate flood conditions comprising of a conversion frame structure permanently installed into the access opening, and a removable panel arranged to be inserted in the conversion frame and arranged to establish a water-tight association with the conversion frame. The removable flood panel is provided about its edges with an inflatable sealing element, which is normally in a deflated condition. When the flood panel is installed in the conversion frame, it is initially locked in position and the sealing element is thereafter inflated, causing it to expand and provide a water-tight seal. Unfortunately, these flood shield devices are expensive, proper storage is required, and tools are needed for proper installation.
Movable floodwalls consist of a flood barrier which is hinged along the bottom so that it can be lowered to a horizontal position to fit flush with existing ground or pavement. For instance, U.S. Pat. No. 5,077,945 “Doorway Flood Barrier” discloses a doorway mounted flood barrier including a barrier wall having two opposite vertical side edges and a horizontal bottom edge, and retainer means disposed between the barrier wall and lower portion of the doorway for holding the barrier wall sealingly in the lower portion of the doorway. Again, movable floodwall devices are expensive and require proper maintenance.
Permanent flood proofing measures include closures and sealants, and floodwalls and levees. Permanent floodwalls and levees measures are alternatives for protecting a large area or a number of structures, they can be a practical and economical flood proofing technique for protecting single or small groups of structures.
Permanent closure and sealant measures basically involve filling an existing window or opening with some form of water-resistant material such as concrete or sealant. A sealant is a water proof coating that can be applied to the outside of an existing wall to eliminate the wall's permeability. This coating is generally an asphalt-based or polymeric compound that can be painted or sprayed onto the wall. For example, the amount of pressure exerted on a window pane during a flood may be a load the window pane cannot handle. The breached window pane provides a point of entry for wind or water whereby the water enters the building structure and causes severe damage to the infrastructure of the home, upholstery, and furniture and eventually causing sever molding. Therefore, it takes the entire window system to make a seal proof opening within the window cavity. The impact resistant window pane may provide protection from wind, missiles, debris, and water against the window pane but if the frame is not properly installed a load could hit the window pane and cause the entire frame to come off the retaining wall defining a window cavity. Aside from the window pane and frame being susceptible to being struck or blown in by flood water, the gap between the window frame and the retaining wall is especially vulnerable.
Water seeping into the building structure through the area between the frame and retaining wall in which it was installed presents a glaring problem. Caulking is typically performed with a material such as silicone, polyurethane, or polysulfide and is used in filling the gap between the retaining wall and the window frame to eliminate permeability. Caulk has a limited life which is further shortened upon exposure to the elements such as UV light. Caulk that has degraded may become a brittle and lack any ability to prevent water from entering the space between the frame and the structure. Caulk that has minimal shrinkage may appear capable of preventing water passage, however, the shrinkage may create a latent condition wherein the failure occurs when a seal is most important.
Caulk is particularly susceptible to environmental temperature as it expands and contracts leaving potential openings within the gap. During a flood, water pressure builds up on the window frame and if the caulking is brittle the water pressure may be such that it surges pass the caulking and enters the building structure.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,497,515, 2,504,204, 3,500,603, 3,694,984, 6,895,718 and U.S. Published Application Nos. 2002/0139060, and 2006/0087114 disclose different methods and compounds for sealing windows and other building structures from the intrusion of water and other undesired elements. U.S. Pat. No. 5,722,207 discloses a metal nail fin or flashing for mounting a window in an opening. U.S. Pat. No. 6,253,796 discloses a gutter retainer.
While these prior art techniques may be suitable for the particular purpose to which they address, they do not present a method of inhibiting flood water entry into a structure about a window frame.
The disclosed invention is a flood barrier system for window openings. The flood barrier comprises an improved window structure having an extruded frame, a high strength laminated glass panel, a mechanical seal and an expansion member. The extruded frame includes a top wall, a bottom wall, and a set of parallel sidewalls, the inner surfaces of which define a viewing aperture on a horizontal plane. On the sidewalls on the extruded frame is attached the mechanical seal. The glass panel is attached to the front surface of the extruded frame by a gasket and sealant. And should the flood barrier system require further structural support a reinforcement member may be positioned within the extruded frame member. The reinforcement member may extend from the top wall to the bottom wall and intersect the viewing aperture or may extend from one reveal member to the other and intersect the viewing aperture.
The mechanical seal is installed for inhibition of flood seepage. The mechanical seal has at least two surfaces forming an open end and a tapered end. The tapered end of the mechanical seal has two surfaces joined together forming some angle thereinbetween. A mechanical seal is anchored to each of the frame's sidewalls at least 12 inches above the base flood elevation level and abuts the window opening. And another mechanical seal is anchored to the frame's bottom wall and abuts a floor on the window opening.
Expansion of the mechanical seal may occur upon a force being received within the open end of the mechanical seal and exerted on the tapered end of the mechanical seal. When the mechanical seal expands the mechanical seal wedges further between the window opening and the frame for inhibition of flood seepage. In addition, the use of an expansion member will force the mechanical seal into position. It is recognized that many years may pass before a flood condition occurs, and the mechanical seal may have taken on an aged set. The use of an expansion member will assure that the mechanical seal is tightly sealed to the structure to prevent water passage.
Accordingly, it is an objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system for first floor windows where the property owner need not have to perform regular maintenance or perform manual labor in preparation for a disaster to protect the building contents. Alternatively, the flood barrier system may be installed from the ground floor for building structures in coastal areas erected on stilts.
It is a further objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system for windows that is hydrostatic pressure resistant. The flood barrier conforms to the criteria for resisting lateral forces due to hydrostatic pressure from freestanding water as set forth by FEMA.
It is an objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system that is capable of resisting a 1000 lb. object at minimum velocity of 8 ft/sec as set forth by FEMA.
It is an objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system satisfying the flood certificate requirements set forth by the National Flood Insurance Program developed by FEMA for use in certification of non-residential flood proofing designs.
It is an objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system whereby the mechanical seal is memory shaped to expand when a force is introduced therethrough and return a substantially original position, and the use of an expansion member will create a seal when the expansion member is wetted.
It is an objective of the present invention to provide a flood barrier system where the viewing aperture may contain a vertical or horizontal mullion structures or any combination thereof within the viewing aperture. The mullion structures form a grid-like pattern producing a plurality of viewing openings within the viewing aperture.
It is an objective of the present invention to provide a glass flood barrier system that can be adapted to any building opening comprising of existing slabs and walls openings capable of supporting a flood before the flood barrier system is installed.
Other objectives and advantages of this invention will become apparent from the following description taken in conjunction with any accompanying drawings wherein are set forth, by way of illustration and example, certain embodiments of this invention. Any drawings contained herein constitute a part of this specification and include exemplary embodiments of the present invention and illustrate various objects and features thereof.
Detailed embodiments of the instant invention are disclosed herein, however, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the invention, which may be embodied in various forms. Therefore, specific functional and structural details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely as a basis for the claims and as a representation basis for teaching one skilled in the art to variously employ the present invention in virtually any appropriately detailed structure.
Referring now to
Should the flood barrier require further structural support, a reinforcement member 60 may be positioned within the extruded frame 10. As shown in
As shown in
Furthermore, as shown in
Because of building tolerances and imperfections there are typically gaps 8 left thereinbetween the frame 10 and the window opening 11. To inhibit a breach within the gaps 8 a mechanical seal 30 is positioned at the bottom wall 14 of the frame 10 and the floor 9 of the window opening 11, and about the frame's reveal members 16 and 18, up to 12 inches above the base flood elevation level as set forth by FEMA and the window opening 11, as shown in
Each vertically oriented mechanical seal 30 extends to a height of up to 12 inches above the base flood elevation level as set forth by FEMA. The base flood elevation level is defined as the elevation (normally measured in feet above sea level) that the base flood is expected to reach as determined by FEMA. The vertically oriented mechanical seal 30 is secured to the outer surface 20 of the reveal members 16 and 18. The horizontally oriented mechanical seal 30 extends along the floor of the window opening 11 from one retaining wall 7 on the window opening 11 to the opposite retaining wall 7 on the window opening 11. The horizontally oriented mechanical seal is secured to the bottom wall 16 of the frame 14 (not shown).
To secure the mechanical seal 30 to the frame 10 various methods may be employed, as shown in
Upon the occurrence of a disaster, a force is exerted upon the mechanical seal 30. This force is usually hydraulic pressure from flood waters. The force is received within the open end 34 of the mechanical seal 30 until it reaches the tapered end 32. If the force is substantial the joint 30 will expand nominally. Thus the first surface 36 and the third surface 38 will no longer be substantially parallel. However, there will not be a breach because the first surface 36 and the third surface 38 remain abutting the outer surface 20 of the reveal members 16 and 18 or the outer surface of the bottom wall of the frame 10 and the window opening 11, respectively. Thus, both the vertically oriented and horizontally oriented mechanical seals provide a watertight seal between the window and the structural walls of the building. This watertight seal prevents water from entering the building. The mechanical seal is memory shaped and is thus constructed of spring steel, aluminum, plastic, or the like. The mechanical seal 30 is memory shaped so that when a force is no longer acting the mechanical seal 30 it may substantially return to an original position whereby the first surface 36 and third surface 38 are substantially parallel, although this is not necessary and will not affect the mechanical seals performance.
As shown in
It is recognized that a flood may not take place for years, if ever, after the installation of the expansion element and mechanical seal. For this reason it is important that the expansion element is maintained in position despite both heat and cold temperature changes. The hydrophilic polyurethane can be made of a porous material that has poor water seal ability, the need for the expansion element is to expand the shape of the mechanical seal when needed. Over time the mechanical seal may have tempered its ability to maintain a particular shape especially when the mechanical seal is subjected to both temperature and age.
The use of a rigid mechanical seal requires the seal to create the joint with the mechanical seal operating as a holder to the expansion element. A flexible seal is preferred, especially a seal capable of maintaining a memory shape. The mechanical seal may also employ a substantially U-shape housing 61, as illustrated in
Referring now to
The system in this embodiment is protected from normal environmental elements by the use of a construction sealant 108. The construction sealant works in its normal manner and will inhibit sunlight from degrading the expansion element, as well as normal moisture from causing a wetting of the expansion element. However, a construction sealant is not capable of withstanding the pressure of flood water wherein leakage of water past the sealant will engage the expansion element and create the flood barrier at the necessary time. It should be noted that simply filling in the space between the frame and the structural wall with an expansion element will not provide the structural reinforcement necessary in holding the expansion element in place when a water pressure is introduced. Further, the use of a mechanical seal in combination with an expansion element allows for a directional outflow of the expanded material in a predetermined direction to provide an intended result, even if the expansion element has been left dormant for many years. The use of impact glass 101 is required so as to withstand the water pressure of a flood and expected floating debris. The use of an adhesive 103 between the window glass 101 and the frame 92 is a standard practice, the use of an adhesive causing a bonding to the frame and wind, creating a water proof entry.
The expansion element has a swelling capacity, wherein a wetted expansion element swells in size at least 100% over a non-wetted expansion element. Such materials can swell over 500% in size, the objective of the expansion joint is to size the frame properly so that the expansion seal operates within its range of expansion. As previously mentioned, the preferred material is polyurethane.
Referring now to
Upon the wetting of the expansion element 43, the mechanical seal is opened and forced against the structural wall creating a watertight seal between the frame and the structural wall. The shape of the element holder further operates as a dam wherein an increase in water pressure due to flood waters further forces the element holder against the structural wall.
As with the previously described embodiments, the expansion element 43 has a swelling capacity, wherein a wetted expansion element swells in size at least 100% over a non-wetted expansion element. Such materials can swell over 500% in size, the objective of the expansion joint is to size the frame properly so that the expansion seal operates within its range of expansion.
Referring now to
To secure the dynamic mechanical seal 120 to the frame 10 various methods may be employed. The following methods are exemplary and should not be held as limiting. One method of securement includes water resistant sealant, such as caulking, on the exterior surface 146 of the dynamic mechanical seal 120 between the first surface 126 of the dynamic mechanical seal 120 and frame members 16 and 18. Another method for securement of the dynamic mechanical seal 120 to the frame 10 includes fasteners such as rivets, stainless steel metal screws, or the like. Also contemplated are securement means such as an extruded raceway, a snap lock fastener, or a wedge ramp lock.
Further seals and systems to prevent the intrusion of water into a building are illustrated in
A further feature of the embodiment illustrated in
The following are test results of the present invention demonstrating its ability to meet and exceed the strict Miami-Dade County Building Codes for hydrostatic strength, system leakage and dynamic impact load placed on a window.
1.0 Manufacturer's Identification
1.1 Name of Applicant:
2.0 Laboratory Identification
2.1 HTL Test Notification: HTL09063
2.2 HTL Lab Certifications: Miami-Dade County (05-1014.01); Florida Building Code (TST1527); IAS (TL-244); AAMA; WDMA; Keystone Certificate; Texas Department of Insurance
3.0 Scope of Work
3.1 Introduction
Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC (HTL) was retained to conduct testing on a Flood Resistant Glazing System currently being distributed by Savannah Trims as a flood abatement system. As part of HTL's scope of work a thorough review was conducted of all applicable test standards for this Flood Resistant Glazing System for both Hurricane Mitigation and for Flood Mitigation.
HTL researched all standards for Flood Mitigation and determined that there are currently no standards that cover Flood Resistant Glazing System. Due to the lack of applicable standards, HTL and Savannah Trims developed a custom test method to test Flood Resistant Glazing System which includes applicable sections of the Florida Building Code HVHZ test protocols TAS 201 & TAS 203 (Hurricane Mitigation) as well as FM Approvals® Class Number 2510 (Flood Mitigation). The following outlines the test method HTL used to determine the performance of the Flood Resistant Grazing System when undergoing quasi-static riverine flooding conditions (i.e. slow rising and receding flood waters with minimal wave exposure) of depths not greater than 3 ft (0.9 m) and then subsequently undergoing conditions representative of windborne debris and the cyclic pressures encountered in a windstorm environment.
3.2 Summary of Test Method
This test method consists of loading the exterior (wet-side) of the Flood Resistant Glazing System with the medium used during flood conditions to varying test pressures for varying lengths of time. Deflection, deformations, leakage, and failures of any nature are observed.
The Flood Resistant Glazing System then undergoes a series of dynamic impact tests followed by hydrostatic loading to evaluate the structural response of the system to simulated debris impact and riverine flooding conditions.
Finally, the Flood Resistant Glazing System is impacted with a missile and subjected to cyclic pressures differences in accordance with a specified loading program to simulate the conditions encountered in a windstorm event, such as a hurricane.
3.3 Procedure
3.3.1 Hydrostatic Test Strength (FM Approvals® 2510)
The Flood Resistant Glazing System shall be subjected to a test pressure of 150 percent of the maximum system operating pressure for five minutes. The test medium shall be the medium used during operation. No rupture, cracking, or permanent distortion of the specimen is allowed.
3.3.2 System Leakage Test (FM Approvals® 2510)
The upstream side of the Flood Resistant Glazing System shall be subjected to a test pressure of 120 percent of the maximum system operating pressure to prove sealing ability. The test medium shall be the medium used during operation. The test pressure shall be held for five minutes with no leakage allowed.
3.3.3 Hydrostatic Load Test (FM Approvals® 2510)
The Hydrostatic Load Test evaluates the structural and hydraulic response of the Flood Resistant Glazing System to quasi-static, hydraulic loading. The exterior (wet-side) of the Flood Resistant Glazing System shall be flooded to 100 percent×h±0.25 in, where h is the vendor specified design water depth for the structure or 3.0 ft, whichever is lower. The water level shall be held at constant height for a minimum of 22 hours. The recorded rate of leakage shall not exceed 0.08 gallons per hour per linear foot of opening over any 15-minute period. Rate of leakage refers to both leakage through the Flood Resistant Glazing System and seepage around the Flood Resistant Glazing System (perimeter leakage). Exceeding the maximum rate of leakage shall result in a failure.
3.3.4 Dynamic Impact Load Test (FM Approvals® 2510)
The dynamic impact load test evaluates the structural response of a Flood Resistant Glazing System to a simulated debris impact. Immediately following each impact, a hydrostatic load test shall be conducted with a water level equal to 100 percent×h±0.25 in. Leakage rate measurements shall adhere to the hydrostatic load test above.
4.0 Product Identification
4.1 Product Type: Curtain Wall
4.2 Model Designation: Flood Resistant Glazing System
4.3 Performance Class: +/−80 psf Design Pressure and 38⅙″ Design Water Depth
4.4 Overall Size: 61″ (w)×85″ (h)
4.5 Configuration: Fixed
4.6 Drawings: This test report is incomplete if not accompanied by Savannah Trims, Inc. drawing labeled “Flood Resistant Glazing System” (Sheets 1 through 4) bearing the ink stamp of Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC.
4.7 Sample Source: Savannah Trims, Inc.
5.0 Product Description & Installation
5.1 Frame Construction
Please reference the attached drawings and Miami-Dade NOA #07-0625.12 for a full description of the system tested with the exceptions described below:
5.1.1 Typical Frame Corner Construction
At each corner, the vertical member ran through while the horizontal member was square cut and butted to the vertical member. The vertical member was then mechanically attached to the horizontal member using two (2), #12×1¼″ slotted hex washer head SMS.
5.1.2 Sealants Used
Table 5.2 provides summary of the sealants used in each test specimen.
6.0 Test Sequence
Table 6.1 provides a summary of the test sequence for each test specimen tested.
7.0 Conclusion
7.1.3 Conclusion—Hydrostatic Test Strength
HTL observed no rupture, cracking, or permanent distortion of the test specimen; as such, this test specimen satisfies the requirements of FM 2510: Component & Materials Testing.
7.2 System Leakage Test
7.2.1 Results—System Leakage Test
Table 7.2 provides the results for the System Leakage test conducted per the requirements of FM 2510: Component & Materials Testing.
7.2.2 Conclusion—Water Infiltration Test
HTL observed zero (0) water leakage through the test specimen; as such, this test specimen satisfies the requirements of FM 2510: Component & Materials Testing.
7.3 Hydrostatic Load Test
7.3.1 Results—Hydrostatic Load
Table 73 provides the Hydrostatic Load test results.
7.3.1.1 Conclusion—Hydrostatic Load Test
HTL observed no signs of failure in any area of this test specimen during the hydrostatic load test. In addition, each specimen met the leakage rate requirements; as such, this test specimen satisfies the Hydrostatic Load test requirements of FM 2510: Opening Barriers.
1Measured from the left side of test specimen.
2Measured from the bottom of test specimen.
7.4.3 Results—Hydrostatic Load
Table 7.5 provides the Hydrostatic Load test results.
7.4.4 Conclusion—Dynamic Impact Load
During the second post-impact hydrostatic load test, leakage exceeded 0.08 gallons per hour per linear foot of opening over a 15-minute period and therefore was considered a failure. Upon investigation of the first specimen, after the 2nd post-impact hydrostatic load test, Savannah Trims determined that the failure of the unit was due to the perimeter impact being adjacent to the 1¼″ mullion. Savannah Trims decided that in all applications of their Flood Resistant Glazing System, Savannah Trims would only use a 2½″ mullion.
HTL decided to move forward with hurricane mitigation impact and cyclic testing per TAS 201 and TAS 203 to determine whether post-dynamic impact the Flood Resistant Gluing System could withstand the forces encountered in a windstorm event, such as a hurricane.
7.5 Large Missile Impact Test
7.5.1 Large Missile Impact Locations
7.6.3 Deflection Results—Cyclic Load Test
Table 7.9 shows the cyclic test results for each test specimen.
7.6.4 Conclusion—Cyclic Load Test
Upon completion of the cyclic load test, HTL carefully inspected the test specimens for failures. HTL observed no signs of failure; as such, this test specimen satisfies the cyclic load test requirements of TAS 203 and ASTM E1886/1996.
7.7 Dynamic Impact Load Test
7.7.1 Dynamic Impact Load Locations
Please Note: Since the first Savannah Trims specimen passed the hydrostatic test strength, system leakage test, 22-hour hydrostatic load test and hurricane mitigation tests (TAS 201 & TAS 203) without any failures, HTL determined that it was only necessary to perform the two dynamic impact load and post-impact hydrostatic load tests on Specimen #2.
1Measured from the left side of test specimen.
2Measured from the bottom of test specimen.
7.7.3 Results—Hydrostatic Load
Table 7.11 provides the Hydrostatic Load test results.
7.7.4 Conclusion—Dynamic Impact Load
HTL observed no signs of failure in any area of this test specimen during the impact load tests and hydrostatic load tests. In addition, each specimen met the leakage rate requirements; as such, this test specimen satisfies the Dynamic Impact Load test requirements of FM 2510: Opening Barriers.
8.0 Summary
8.1.1 Summary of Test Results
Table 8.1 provides a summary of the test results for Savannah Trims Inc.'s Flood Resistant Glazing System.
The following is a letter of acceptance by the Building Code Compliance Division of Miami-Dade County of the present invention for use in buildings. This letter indicates that the present invention meets and exceeds the strict Miami-Dade County hurricane standards for prevention of water into buildings through windows during extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes.
Notice of Acceptance (NOA)
SCOPE: This NOA is being issued under the applicable rules and regulations governing the use of construction materials. The documentation submitted has been reviewed by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division and accepted by the Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) to be used in Miami Dade County and other areas where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
This NOA shall not be valid after the expiration date stated below. The Miami-Dade County Product Control Division (In Miami Dade County) and/or the AHJ (in areas other than Miami Dade County) reserve the right to have this product or material tested for quality assurance purposes. If this product or material fails to perform in the accepted manner, the manufacturer will incur the expense of such testing and the AHJ may immediately revoke, modify, or suspend the use of such product or material within their jurisdiction. BORA reserves the right to revoke this acceptance, if it is determined by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division that this product or material fails to meet the requirements of the applicable building code.
This product is approved as described herein, and has been designed to comply with the Florida Building Code, including High Velocity Hurricane Zone of the Florida Building Code.
DESCRIPTION: Aluminum Structural Glazed Curtain Wall System—LMI
APPROVAL DOCUMENT: Drawing No. 05-ALU-0059 titled “Alumiwall Impact System (LMI)”, sheets 1 through 8 of 8, prepared by Engineering Express, signed and sealed by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., bearing the Miami-Dade County Product Control Renewal stamp with the Notice of Acceptance number and expiration date by the Miami-Dade County Product Control Division.
MISSILE IMPACT RATING: Large and Small Missile Impact Resistant
LABELING: Each unit shall bear a permanent label with the manufacturer's name or logo, city, state and following statement: “Miami-Dade County Product Control Approved”, unless otherwise noted herein.
RENEWAL of this NOA shall be considered after a renewal application has been filed and there has been no change in the applicable building code negatively affecting the performance of this product.
TERMINATION of this NOA will occur after the expiration date or if there has been a revision or change in the materials, use, and/or manufacture of the product or process. Misuse of this NOA as an endorsement of any product, for sales, advertising or any other purposes shall automatically terminate this NOA. Failure to comply with any section of this NOA shall be cause for termination and removal of NOA.
ADVERTISEMENT: The NOA number preceded by the words Miami-Dade County, Florida, and followed by the expiration date may be displayed in advertising literature. If any portion of the NOA is displayed, then it shall be done in its entirety.
INSPECTION: A copy of this entire NOA shall be provided to the user by the manufacturer or its distributors and shall be available for inspection at the job site at the request of the Building Official.
This NOA revises & renews #02-0308.03 and consists of this page land evidence sheet E1, as well as approval document mentioned above.
Notice of Acceptance: Evidence Submitted
A. Drawings (Transferred from File #02-0308.03)
B. Tests (Test Reports Transferred from File #'02-0308.03) Original Test Report Conducted Per SFBC, PA 201, 202 & 203-94, Now Termed as FBC, TAS 201, 202 & 203-94.
Test report on
C. Calculations
Quality Assurance
E. Material Certifications
Statements
F. Other
All patents and publications mentioned in this specification are indicative of the levels of those skilled in the art to which the invention pertains. All patents and publications are herein incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each individual publication was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.
It is to be understood that while a certain form of the invention is illustrated, it is not to be limited to the specific form or arrangement herein described and shown. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various changes may be made without departing from the scope of the invention and the invention is not to be considered limited to what is shown and described in the specification and any drawings/figures included herein.
One skilled in the art will readily appreciate that the present invention is well adapted to carry out the objectives and obtain the ends and advantages mentioned, as well as those inherent therein. The embodiments, methods, procedures and techniques described herein are presently representative of the preferred embodiments, are intended to be exemplary and are not intended as limitations on the scope. Changes therein and other uses will occur to those skilled in the art which are encompassed within the spirit of the invention and are defined by the scope of the appended claims. Although the invention has been described in connection with specific preferred embodiments, it should be understood that the invention as claimed should not be unduly limited to such specific embodiments. Indeed, various modifications of the described modes for carrying out the invention which are obvious to those skilled in the art are intended to be within the scope of the following claims.
This application is a continuation-in-part, and claims the priority date, of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/577,577, entitled “Window Structure for Inhibiting Flood Waters”, filed Oct. 12, 2009 now abandoned. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/577,577 is a continuation-in-part, and claims the priority date, of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/256,899, entitled “Window Structure for Inhibiting Flood Waters”, filed Oct. 23, 2008 now abandoned, the contents of both applications are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2497515 | Pearse | Feb 1950 | A |
| 2504204 | Kiefer | Apr 1950 | A |
| 2763038 | Hagerty et al. | Sep 1956 | A |
| 3377226 | Renwick | Apr 1968 | A |
| 3500603 | Strack | Mar 1970 | A |
| 3694984 | Schwartz | Oct 1972 | A |
| 3796010 | Carlson | Mar 1974 | A |
| 4178717 | Sakauye | Dec 1979 | A |
| 4261584 | Browne et al. | Apr 1981 | A |
| 4473981 | Simpson | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4611429 | Kanies | Sep 1986 | A |
| 4660323 | Kanies | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4699540 | Gibbon et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4843763 | Mesnel | Jul 1989 | A |
| 5077945 | Koeniger | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5615896 | Morvant | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5722207 | Anderson et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5943832 | Russell | Aug 1999 | A |
| 6017038 | Wato et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6253496 | Gilchrist | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6267383 | Morvant | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6318736 | Halling | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6405498 | Riegelman | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6425707 | Baxter | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6460299 | Burrow | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6551025 | Dery | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6681533 | Doyle | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6776423 | Guht | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6895718 | Moffatt | May 2005 | B2 |
| 7128323 | Iguchi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 20020139060 | Contreras et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030122325 | Aksit et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20060087114 | Yeager et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20070107355 | Campbell | May 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120137603 A1 | Jun 2012 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 12577577 | Oct 2009 | US |
| Child | 13354007 | US | |
| Parent | 12256899 | Oct 2008 | US |
| Child | 12577577 | US |
