Fibreglass Grave Covers

[ajk1]

The following is a continuation of an earlier post of mine, but I don't know how to put it in that part of the forum.

Is there anything in the Ontario Building Code (or any other generally recognized Code, preferably Canadian or Northeastern U.S. Code) that says that if a product based on a design that has been used for a given number of years (say 20 or 30 years) it can be considered an acceptable design?

I ask the question in reference to "fiberglass grave covers" that someone has come up with and is promoting their use, but has no professional engineering seal or review behind it. It is claimed though that it has been successfully used for more than 20± years.

At least one person I trust, who has no vested interest in the product, has told me that he has seen such a grave cover in place and believes it has been in place many years.

One of my concerns with it is, how it is held down against wind uplift. I am told by the product developer that the cover has a one inch ± vertical downturn around its 6 foot by 4 foot± perimeter, which is pushed down into the soil when it is installed.

Sounds a little dicey to me, as it would depend, on the type of soil, but maybe I am overly negative?

 

[Greenalleycat]

I cannot give insight into Canadian codes but have a few thoughts as below.

Our Building Code does have a pathway for 'in situ performance' but this has to be done by specific application to the government compliance department for a determination
These determinations are specific to the case presented and are legally binding...but they do not set precedents for other cases, they only apply to the specific instance being considered
I am also not aware of these being used for structural in situ performance - normally it's only for moisture or durability issues

I agree that it sounds dicey and I doubt it's hard to prove that
Firstly, consider that our structural design load cases are often based off long return period events - here, 1/500 yr wind and earthquake (for a house or similar), or 1/100 wind/EQ for less important structures (like a shed)
So even in-situ performance for 20 years would give a low probability of being relevant against the critical design case
I doubt that these specifically apply to grave covers though!

Also, you should be able to do some quick numbers to estimate wind suction uplift vs the weight of th4 cover + the estimated soil weight that 1" embedment can pickup - does it have any prayer of working?

In NZ the onus is on the proprietary supplier to provide proof of Code Compliance, and in situ testing does not qualify to that
It needs to be testing to the relevant standards from an accredited tester - A quick Google shows the existence of NZS4242:2018 'Headstones and Cemetery Monuments':
"A new standard that specifies the minimum structure design criteria, performance, and renovation requirements for cemetery monuments and crematoria memorial gardens. The standard covers all new, additional, renovation, and restoration work, including installation requirements."

I imagine you will have some similar standard that outlines the performance expectations of a grave cover

 

[IRstuff]

I get the issue, but almost all PE code is based on the notion of public safety; so how much of an issue is it? In a case where uplift is a problem are there actual public in danger?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JStephen]

I wouldn't think a building code would apply to it in the first place. Is somebody out there checking headstones for seismic performance?