A 11 IDS b5SMS3

NATL INST OF STANDARDSi 4 TECHI RI.C NBS

PUBLICATIONS A1 11 02655453

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 729

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Bureau of Standards

National Earthquake Engineering

Experimental Facility Study

Phase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

QC

100

U57

#729

1987

c2
m he National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The

|f Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and

government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety.

The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National

Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Institute for Materials

Science and Engineering

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and

furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in- dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other

Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops,

produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

• Basic Standards2

• Radiation Research

• Chemical Physics

• Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement

capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops

and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves

mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The

Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics

Electronics and Electrical

Engineering2 Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research

Chemical Engineering2

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid

Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government

operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant

Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing

the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal

ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP

voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical

foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and

Technology

Computer Systems

Engineering

The Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information fundamental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials;

addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical

programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Institute consists of the following Divisions:

Ceramics

Fracture and Deformation 3 Polymers

Metallurgy

Reactor Radiation

Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303. Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.
National Earthquake Engineering

NBS

RESEARCH

INFORMATION

CENTER

_ daoo

Experimental Facility Study .u&

Phase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Sponsored by:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

National Science Foundation

National Bureau of Standards

April 1987

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 87-619811

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 729

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 729, 70 pages (Apr. 1987)

CODEN:XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1987

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
ABSTRACT

This report summarizes information obtained during the first

year of a four-year feasibility study for a national earthquake

engineering experimental facility. A five-year research program

is presented for a national facility in which full-scale or

large-scale structures or structural components would be

subjected to static or dynamic lateral loads. The facility would

have applicability to tests in the following areas: low-rise

buildings, medium-rise buildings, high-rise buildings , industrial

processing facilities, and power facilities. Representatives

from a broad spectrum of professional, industrial, and trade

organizations and Federal agencies participated in developing the

research program. A comparison of existing testing facilities in

the U.S. and other countries engaged in seismic testing and a

discussion of international cooperation in large-scale testing

are included.

Keywords: Buildings, Earthquakes, Laboratories, Research,

Structural engineering, Tests

iii
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 3

Background 3

Objectives 4

Summary of Phase One Activities 5

EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS FOR LARGE-SCALE SEISMIC TESTS 6

EXISTING FACILITIES FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING 12

CONCLUSIONS 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 15

REFERENCES 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Summary Of Previous Workshops 18

Appendix B - Survey of Facilities Worldwide 2 3

Appendix C - International Activities and

Cooperative Research 37

Appendix D - Workshop 4 6

Appendix E - Recommendations for Large-scale

Testing 51

Appendix F - National Academy of Science

Advisory Panel 64

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents results obtained during the first year

(Phase I) of a four-year study to obtain the data needed to

compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods of

obtaining needed full- or large-scale experimental data on

seismic response of structures. During Phase I of the study the

objective was to determine existing experimental needs for largescale testing. This study was initiated in 1985 by the National

Bureau of Standards following a recommendation in 1984 by the

National Research Council that the Federal government undertake

planning aimed at establishing the feasibility of a major

national earthquake engineering experimental/test facility.

During Phase I of the study, needs for full-scale seismic

testing were determined by a broad spectrum of practicing

professionals, researchers, industry representatives, building

officials, and Federal agency representatives. Consulting

engineers developed initial recommendations (5,6,7,8,9,10).

These initial recommendations were refined at a workshop held by

the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland in

November 1986. Five areas in which testing needs were identified

included: low-rise, medium-rise, and high-rise buildings,

industrial processing facilities, and power facilities. Specific

tests were recommended which made up a three- to five-year

testing program.

The testing needs highlight several general problem areas

requiring full-scale testing for each category. For low-rise

buildings (5) , for example, the interaction between roofs and

walls, connection behavior, and the behavior of nonstructural

elements are important. In medium-rise buildings (6) , tests of

buildings of the type built in low seismic risk areas, ground

motion isolation devices, and the contribution of nonstructural

elements to lateral stiffness and strength need to be studied.

The key issues for high-rise buildings (7) are the redistribution

of forces in the structure following localized yielding, the

significance of second-order P-delta effects, and the force

distribution in dual systems. Tests of tank structures, pressure

vessels and piping, and the effectiveness of retrofit measures

are important for industrial process facilities (8) . Qualification tests and tests of unique components for which

small-scale test data is difficult to extrapolate to full scale

are needed for power facilities (9)

.

In addition, the workshop participants concluded that:

* There are significant needs for information about

structural behavior during earthquakes that can be best

satisfied by full- or large-scale testing.

1
* Detailed estimates are needed to determine the

configuration and cost of a large facility capable of

performing the required tests.

* Comparisons of the relative costs and benefits of

alternative methods for conducting the tests are

needed.

One critical issue is the lack of large-scale testing

facilities in the United States. A comparison of testing

facilities in the U.S. and other countries engaged in seismic

testing indicates that the facilities of the U.S. generally are

smaller and less adequate than those of Japan, which has the most

complete facilities of any nation in the world for seismic

experimentation. Although there have been several cooperative

experimental research programs in which the U.S. and Japan have

shared results, the consensus in the U.S. is that the facilities

of the Japanese should not be viewed as a permanent substitute

for adequate facilities in this country.

Direct and indirect benefits will be derived from

construction and use of a national facility to conduct largescale seismic testing. Direct benefits applicable to U.S.

construction include methods for identifying existing buildings

that need strengthening to improve their earthquake resistance,

identification of economical methods for strengthening buildings,

an ability to improve design procedures for future construction,

and an ability to perform proof-testing of critical components of

power and industrial facilities. It was estimated that data from

full-scale tests of high-rise buildings could save as much as 2-

3% of the cost of the structural system. This information will

also have direct benefits in terms of making the U.S. competitive

in international markets. It will insure that the U.S. is among

the world's leaders in marketing engineering services and

seismic-resistant structures and equipment.

2
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

In 1984 the National Research Council (NRC) published the

results of its 6-month study on "Earthquake Engineering Facilities and Instrumentation" (1) requested by the Office of Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP) . The report contained a number of

conclusions, including the following:

* "There is near unanimity within the earthquake

engineering community that a need exists for data on

the behavior of earthquake-excited full-scale

multistory structures from the initiation of structural

damage to collapse.

* "The irreducible need for full-scale data on the

behavior of earthquake- impacted multistory structures

requires that the nation have experimental facilities

able to test such structures across a range from damage

initiation to collapse. At present, no adequate

facilities for testing full-scale structures exist in

the United States. A variety of alternative

experimental/test facilities have been proposed. These

include shaking tables, reaction walls, instrumented

buildings in earthquake-prone areas, explosive tests,

and tests on prototype structures.

* The federal government should immediately initiate a

conceptual engineering design study of a national

earthquake engineering experimental/test facility

capable of both dynamically and statically testing

full- or nearly full-scale multistory buildings to

destruction in a simulated earthquake environment. The

engineering design study should focus on a large

shaking table of a size substantially larger than is

now available in Japan. The engineering design study

for the large shaking table should be used as a source

of data for making a careful comparison with

alternative full- or nearly full-scale methods of

obtaining the needed experimental data."

One of the major recommendations of the report with regard

to the latter conclusion was that "The federal government should

undertake, on an accelerated basis, planning aimed at developing

a major national earthquake engineering experimental/test

facility. The goals of that facility should be to provide the

data and understanding necessary for rapid improvement in the

design and construction of seismic-resistant structures."

3
The Science Advisor to the President urged the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to initiate the planning study

called for in the NRC report and to obtain information which

could be used as the basis for a decision on the need for and the

requirements of a national earthquake engineering experimental

facility. To respond to this request, this study was included in

the five-year plan for the earthquake hazard reduction program

for fiscal years 1985-89 (2) as Objective 5 of the program on

Seismic Design and Engineering Research.

At the request of FEMA, the Policy Coordination Group (PCG)

of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

considered the scope of a planning study and the alternatives for

funding the study. On the basis of these deliberations, the PCG

recommended that the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) proceed

with the planning study.

The National Bureau of Standards and FEMA negotiated an

interagency agreement in 1985 (3) in which FEMA agreed to provide

principal funding and overall guidance and direction to the

management of the study. NBS assumed responsibility for

management and technical content of the study and agreed to

coordinate with FEMA, NSF, and USGS throughout the study. NBS

initiated the study in 1985 and developed a plan for a four-year

study (4) covering all aspects of planning for a national

experimental facility, including research needs, facility

characteristics, siting, and management.

The information in this report is part of the four-year

study; it contains recommendations for testing developed during

the first year (Phase I) of the study. Objectives of the first

phase of the study were to determine critical data needs on fullscale structural behavior and development of the requirements for

a facility to conduct the program of testing required to satisfy

those needs. Subsequent phases of the study are intended to

produce a preliminary design and cost estimate for a large

shaking table and reaction wall (Phase II) , information on costeffectiveness of alternative types of facilities which could

satisfy the testing needs (Phase III) , and recommendations for

the siting, operational, and management requirements for a

proposed facility (Phase IV)

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the first year of the study were to

determine the needs of users for a national earthquake engineering experimental facility, to develop an experimental laboratorybased program of three to five years duration for the facility,

and to identify the benefits to be gained by the nation, the

engineering profession and the building community from such a

facility.

4
It should be noted that not all tests required to study

behavior of all types of buildings under seismic loading can be

conducted in a laboratory environment. For obvious reasons,

tests of full-scale, high-rise buildings or of other very large

structures cannot be conducted in a laboratory. A national

laboratory facility would not be intended to eliminate in-situ

testing of existing structures by eccentric or reciprocating mass

vibrators, pull-back and release methods, high-explosive

excitation methods, or instrumentation of buildings in areas of

high earthquake risk. One objective of Phase III of the study

will be to evaluate the relative advantages of alternative test

methods and different types of facilities in providing the most

effective and economical contributions to seismic-resistant

design and construction.

SUMMARY OF PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES

The first task involved collecting background data to

provide a perspective for research needs and to establish the

state of experimental capabilities in the U.S. and worldwide.

Previous workshops held in the United States to consider the

needs for and benefits of large testing facilities were reviewed.

A summary of these workshops is included in Appendix A. A

summary of the state of existing experimental/test facilities in

the U.S. and worldwide is given in Appendix B. Current

activities of other nations engaged in testing of structures

under simulated seismic loading are summarized in Appendix C.

The second task involved determining specific experimental

research needs requiring facilities larger than those currently

available in the U.S. These were determined through a workshop

involving participation by representatives of professional,

industrial, and trade organizations and Federal agency

representatives. Organization of the workshop is discussed in

Appendix D. The workshop recommendations are presented in

Appendix E.

At the request of NBS and FEMA, the National Research

Council established a panel to evaluate the procedures being used

by NBS throughout this phase of the study. This panel was

responsible for providing review and advice to the study. They

also commented on all work plans and drafts of publications

produced by NBS. In addition, the panel members attended the

user needs workshop held in Gaithersburg in November 1986,

commented on results of the study, and provided an independent

statement of user needs on the basis of their experience and

judgement

.

5
EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS FOR LARGE-SCALE SEISMIC TESTS

The broad spectrum of needs for a national earthquake

engineering experimental facility were aggregated into six areas

of interest: low-rise buildings, medium-rise buildings, highrise buildings, industrial processing facilities, power

facilities, and lifelines.

No specific recommendations, for the type of testing

considered in this study, were developed for lifelines at the

workshop as noted in Appendix E. However, the working group

which considered lifelines during the workshop did determine a

need for in situ and laboratory testing to satisfy certain

testing requirements for bridges and other lifeline facilities.

Among these testing needs were:

* Tests of linear structural elements to examine the

effects of skewed spans, joints, and impacting between

elements

* Tests of various retrofit techniques on long linear

elements , determination of energy absorption

characteristics, and experimental verification of

simplified analytical procedures for retrofit

components

* Tests to determine effects of yield sequence on long

linear systems

* Tests to study effects of spatially varying ground

motions on response of long, multi-supported structures

* Tests to determine the effects of soil-structure

interaction on response of lifeline facilities to

severe ground shaking

The workshop working group considering lifelines also

discussed the possibility of using several modular shaking tables

to either simulate independent support motions or to act in a

"ganged" format as a single large table. This concept of linking

several independent tables to form one large table is an idea

which could be considered as an alternative to a single large

table in future phases of this study.

A summary of the testing needs in the five categories is

given in Table 1. Specific recommendations for testing in the

five areas are given in Appendix E.. These testing needs reflect

priorities determined by researchers, designers, manufacturers,

builders, owners, regulators, and code writers represented at the

workshop

.

6
The testing needs listed in Table 1 indicate two key points

in regard to the anticipated use of the facility. First, the

facility is expected to serve the needs of the building community

to provide data on performance of existing structures and to

improve future construction. Second, it is anticipated that a

significant amount of testing will be dedicated to evaluating

non-structural items such as the equipment used in industrial or

power facilities.

Several benefits would result from use of a large-scale

testing facility. Experimental data are needed on the seismic

resistance of existing buildings because changes in construction

practices over time and degradation of material properties from

as-built values make it difficult to calculate this resistance.

This information would help to identify those types of structures

which most need strengthening and would identify the most

economical means of strengthening. Second, tests would provide

data to identify improved design details for new structures. It

was estimated this information could save as much as 2-3% of the

cost of the structural system for high-rise buildings. Similar

cost savings would probably result in other types of structures.

These cost savings would offset the modest increase in building

costs associated with the adoption of seismic design requirements

in areas of the country which currently do not have such

requirements

.

The testing needs summarized in Appendix E highlight several

general problem areas requiring full-scale testing for each

category. For low-rise buildings, for example, the interaction

between roofs and walls, connection behavior, and the behavior of

nonstructural elements are important. In medium-rise buildings,

tests of buildings of the type built in low seismic risk areas,

ground motion isolation devices, and the contribution of

nonstructural elements to lateral stiffness and strength need to

be studied. The key issues for high-rise buildings are the

redistribution of forces in the structure following localized

yielding, the significance of second-order P-delta effects, and

the force distribution in dual systems. Tests of tank

structures, pressure vessels and piping, and the effectiveness of

retrofit measures are important for industrial process

facilities. Qualification tests and tests of unique components

for which small-scale test data is difficult to extrapolate to

full scale are needed for power facilities.

For the purposes of this study, only those tests which could

best be performed in a central facility using reaction walls and

shaking tables were considered. As noted previously, it was the

objective of this phase of the study to identify the specific

needs for these types of facilities. A determination of the

desirability of the use of these types of facilities relative to

that of alternative types of testing is intended to be made in

Phase III of this study.

7
In order to determine the desired characteristics of a

national earthquake engineering experimental facility, it was

essential first to identify the types of tests needed and then to

determine the capabilities of the facility needed to perform the

required tests. The characteristics of reaction walls and

shaking tables needed in a central facility were based on the

testing needs identified in each area considered. The

characteristics are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 . It is

important to note that current U.S. facilities are inadequate for

almost all the tests recommended.

A primary objective of the first phase of the study was to

develop a three- to five-year program of testing for a national

experimental research facility. It is impossible at this time to

specify an exact order in which tests should be conducted.

Priorities established at this time would almost certainly change

prior to completion of construction of a large facility. It is

therefore appropriate to set forth a general series of tests.

The most important test in each of the five areas of interest

(those listed first in each category) should be considered to

have equal priority. These tests make up the initial program of

testing. The total effort required to conduct these tests, based

on the estimates of time required shown in Appendix D, will be 25

project-years. This represents a realistic schedule of testing

for the first five years of operation of a large facility.

8
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS

STRUCTURE | PRIMARY EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS

CATEGORY | Low-rise | Tilt-up Construction

Structures j Wood-frame Residential Structures

Cavity-wall Masonry Structures

Light Metal Frame Office Buildings

Mobile Home Anchorage Systems

Medium-rise | Concrete Moment- frame Structures

Structures | Steel Moment- frame Structures

Structures with Base Isolation

Structure with Soft Story

Non-structural Components

Precast Bearing Wall Structures

Steel Stud and Gypsum Board Walls

High-rise | Frame Tube Structures

Structures j Energy-dissipating Devices

Components of Dual Structural Systems

Industrial | Unanchored Liquid-filled Tanks

Processing | Methods of Retrofit for Existing

Facilities | Industrial Facilities

Chemical Plant and Refinery Equipment

Power | Components of Power Plants

Facilities j Certification Tests of Components of Electrical

Distribution Facilities

Soil-Structure Interaction

Electrical Transmission Towers

9
ei

>H 1

EH EH Z H - WU J S *C J O ft r=C S < 5 o

EnO

>Hu

W <

ffi ft W < O

3: < m < zoMW OH w EH s U H <; Q w

pi

QWQZ

X

W

&

O

Q

cj

W

w

m

EH

cow

Eh

m

ft >H D

EH PSo

PS

Eh EH<

CO

U

QWH

ftH

CJw

ftmmQwwz

1-1 <SO

PS

CJowH

PSlO 1 1 VD 11 co 1j 1 *£> j • 1 * i m 1 IT) 1 o 1 rH 1 CO 1 (N 1 [[iii[ ;iij j11111 Q i i 1 W l H i 1 CTi

fi * I rsi I ft

I: • i oo 1 00 • 1 H 1 U l ft j j 1 ft i I 1 c/) ii Il 11 CO i I I Q i i I ft i I I ft i I Z I i i oo i 1 rH i <: i 1 1 o i 1 X 1 H i 1 h-1 1 EH 1 00 1 LD 1 ij CN 1 H 1 rH 1 rH 1 r< rH 1 PS 1 i £ 1 u I X 1 X i CD i Q Z I o i 1 ^ 1 W h i z 1 (N 1 (N ! 3 s [ 1 00 u 1 1 < ! 1j I J w 1[ 1; i1 00 I in 1i oo ii 1 rH 1 rH 1 rH . x i X ! X i i co 1 LD 1 00 i 1 rH 11 1 rH 1 rH 11 11l CD 111 i 1 01 1 * 1 rH &l m i m 1 -H 1 <D i fti c a 1 Q) i m 1 -H -H -H 1 "H 1 -H i u in -M 1 -P l PS 1 -P W -H 1 -H 1 W QJ rH 1 JJ rH 1 & 1 3 0 -H 1 Q> -H 1 1 d i -d o u 1 5 O 1 <D 1 -H i C M (d 1 0 <TJ s i tc i H ft h 1 ft ft

10
«

1-1 9

EH

oI CMO

V£> inoo

o

roi oooo

00o

P

Z 1

II

ZO i no hi X*

II

H HI

II

H < 1 >< >*H

II

U fn

H i 0

II BOH 1 x" x*

II PSO 1 (N

II

H XI

iiq ui >l

<3I o

XNo o o in o H >1- X N o o o o

romH

(0

g s! 5 H » 1 o

oo 1 oO 1 a as >h i o o o 1 o O 1 HUH 1 V£> a\ CT\ 1 o m i X H H 1 rtj W U I ro CM 00 t vo ro i rH 1 H H 1 1 < 1 U 1 W 1 Z i O i 00 1 o in i W h E i 1—

l rsi H 1 ij c/] 1 X X X X § § Jh" I h a i 00 ON <Ti 1 o in i H - 1 rH 1 CM rH 1 Q X 1

<uw i H Bin </) 1 w •H <D 1 m c <D 0) PS X i PS W 1 -rH -H -H •H 1 5 Pd l w 1 •rH 1 M (/I -P V 1 •rH PS 1 4J W -H H 1 u 8 i PS 1 1 (/) <U rH" U rH 1 p W 1 1 •rH rG 1 3 O H <D -H 1 PS H 1 a Cn 1 TJ O CJ 5 u I H < 1 0 •H 1 C M OS 0 n) i to U 1 J a EC 1 Hhfa CL, fa 1 o

roI Oomo l X

N

X

N 1 00 CTl

o in 1 H

O

HO

o

roI o

X

N

oo

in

o

(N

H

X

N

o

o

VO 00

r- ro > *

11
EXISTING FACILITIES FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING

In order to evaluate the need for a new earthquake

engineering facility capable of conducting large-scale tests, it

is important to consider the capabilities of existing facilities

in the U.S. and to compare these capabilities to those of

facilities in other countries. A summary of existing large-scale

testing facilities worldwide is contained in Appendix B. The

following major points may be noted in this summary:

1. Only approximately twenty percent of the large shaking

tables in the world are located in the United States.

Almost half the tables in the world, including some of

the largest, are located in Japan.

2 . Most of the large shaking tables in the world have been

built in the last ten years. During this time, twice

as many tables of all sizes have been built in Japan as

in the U.S.

3. There are no shaking tables in the U.S. having an area

greater than 100 m2 .

4. More than half of all the reaction walls in the world

are located in Japan, and ten of those walls have been

classified as large in Appendix B. Fewer than a third

of all reaction walls in the world are located in the

U.S., and only four of them are large.

It is clear that U.S. facilities are significantly smaller and

less sophisticated than those in Japan. It is also clear, as

noted in the previous section, that existing U.S. facilities are

not large enough to perform the majority of the large-scale tests

identified in this report.

Two possibilities for action exist: The United States can

upgrade its own facilities to a level comparable to the

facilities in Japan, or it can enter into cooperative agreements

with groups in Japan to perform needed testing. In this light,

it is appropriate to consider the scope of previous and possible

future cooperation with research establishments in Japan and in

other countries having experimental needs similar to those of the

U.S. A discussion of the scope of previous and possible future

cooperative research efforts with groups in Japan, Taiwan, and

Germany is given in Appendix C.

Because facilities already exist in Japan for static and

dynamic testing of large structures and other components, the use

of Japanese facilities is an alternative to a large capital

investment in a national facility by the U.S. The National

12
Research Council ad hoc committee on facilities and

instrumentation recognized this fact in their report in 1984 (1) , and addressed the issue as follows:

"The Japanese presently have earthquake engineering

experimental/test facilities that are substantially larger

in scale and more complex in nature than those existing in

the United States. Cooperative use of the Japanese

facilities by U.S. and Japanese researchers has the

potential to offer full-scale data without the need for a

large capital investment in the United States."

The committee, however, was also quick to point out that the

use of Japanese facilities should not be considered a permanent

substitute for a facility housed in the U.S. and capable of

responding to specific requests for testing by researchers and

industry.

13
CONCLUSIONS

During the first phase of a study for a national earthquake

engineering experimental facility, conclusions were reached

regarding research needs. Twenty-three high-priority tests of

large-scale structures and components were identified in five

areas. The tests comprise a three- to five-year program of

testing.

A comparison of U.S. facilities with those worldwide

demonstrated that facilities in the U.S. are less sophisticated

and smaller than those in some other countries, particularly

Japan. In addition, the facilities available in the U.S. are not

large enough to carry out any of the high-priority tests

identified.

It was further concluded by workshop participants that the

benefits to be gained from the ability to perform such testing

warrant continuation of the present four-year study in order to

determine how best to perform this testing. Continuation of the

study should include detailed determination of the

characteristics of a centralized national experimental facility

or distributed national facilities and a comparison of relative

costs and benefits from testing in a laboratory facility and

similar testing conducted by alternative means. Siting

requirements and a management plan for a national facility should

be developed.

14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NBS received assistance from several sources during the

planning and conduct of this study. An interagency steering

group met frequently throughout the project to evaluate progress

and provide direction. This group was chaired by Dr. Arthur J.

Zeizel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and included

in its membership Dr. Walter Hays of the United States Geological

Survey and Dr. A. J. Eggenberger of the National Science

Foundation.

The National Academy of Sciences established an advisory

panel for the study under the auspices of the NAS Committee on

Earthquake Engineering. The panel was chaired by Dr. James E.

Beavers and included in its membership Dr. Mirhan S. Agbabian,

Dr. Robert D. Hanson, Dr. George W. Housner, Dr. James 0. Jirsa,

Dr. William F. Marcuson, and Dr. Joseph Penzien. Dr. Riley M.

Chung of the National Research Council staff provided

administrative support for the panel and also provided valuable

input to the interagency steering group.

The following six professional engineering firms were

engaged to provide independent evaluations of research needs in

the six areas of interest: Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, lowrise buildings (5) ; Henry J. Degenkolb and Associates, mediumrise buildings (6); Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, high-rise

buildings (7) ; URS Corporation, industrial process facilities

(8) ; John A. Stevenson and Associates, power facilities (9) ; and

Imbsen and Associates, lifelines (10) . These firms identified

research needs that served as the basis for the final

recommendations developed at the workshop. The success of the

workshop itself was due to the enthusiastic participation of all

attendees

.

Dr. Joseph Reynen from the Commission of European

Communities was extremely helpful in providing information on the

Commission's study of European needs for a large-scale testing

facility. Dr. Toshio Iwasaki, Director of the Earthquake

Disaster Prevention Department of the Public Works Research

Institute in Tsukuba, Japan, conducted the background study of

current utilization of Japanese large-scale testing facilities.

Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

15
REFERENCES

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Earthquake Engineering Facilities and

Instrumentation, Commission on Engineering and Technical

Systems, National Research Council, Earthquake Engineering

Facilities and Instrumentation , National Academy Press,

Washington, D. C. , 1984.

2 . National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Five-Year

Plan, Fiscal Years 1985-89 , Federal Emergency Management

Agency, United States Geological Survey, National Science

Foundation, National Bureau of Standards, December, 1984.

3. "Interagency Agreement Between the National Bureau of

Standards and the Federal Emergency Management AgencyNational Earthquake Engineering Facility Planning Study,"

Interagency Agreement No. EMW-85-E-2134 , FEMA, Washington,

D. C. , September 6, 1985.

4. Scribner, C. F. , and Leyendecker, E. V., "Plan for a Design

Study for a National Earthquake Engineering Experimental

Facility," NBSIR 86-3453, U. S. Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards, October, 198 6.

5. Freeman, Sigmund A. , "Study of Needs for National Earthquake

Engineering Experimental Facility for Low-rise Buildings,"

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., February 17, 1987

(unpublished report) , 14 pp.

6. "Determination of Research Needs and Priorities for National

Earthquake Engineering Experimental Facility - Large-scale

Testing - Moderate Height Buildings," H. J. Degenkolb

Associates, Engineers, September 30, 1986 (unpublished

report) , 290 pp.

7. Elnimeiri, M. , "A Report Identifying the Current and Future

Structural Systems for High-Rise Buildings and Specifying

the Seismic Research Needs Utilizing Large-scale Testing

Facility," Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, October' 30, 1986

(unpublished report) , 63 pp.

8. Larder, R. A., "Experimental Research Needs for Improving

Seismic Resistant Design of Industrial Process Facilities,"

URS Corporation, November 1986 (unpublished report) , 46 pp.

9. Stevenson, J. A., "A Report Identifying and Describing the

Needs for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full Scale

Testing of Power Facility Structures and Equipment,"

Stevenson and Associates, Inc., September 30, 1986

(unpublished report) , 66 pp.

16
Imbsen, R. A. , "A Report Identifying and Describing the

Needs for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full Scale

Testing of Lifeline Facility Structures and Equipment,"

Imbsen and Associates Inc., January 14, 1987 (unpublished

report) , 42 pp.

17
APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS

The benefits to researchers, designers, contractors, and

manufacturers from the availability of a facility capable of

subjecting large structural models or structural or mechanical

components to simulated seismic loading have long been

recognized. A number of workshops have been held to consider

various types of facilities and the ways they could be of

benefit. The following discussion summarizes relevant details

of the recent workshops.

1 . Potential Utilization of the NASA/Georcre C. Marshall Space

Flight Center in Earthquake Engineering Research , Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Report, December

1979.

A site visit and workshop were held at the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facilities at The

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) , Alabama, on

February 22-24, 1979. The workshop was sponsored by NSF and

NASA and chaired by members of the Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute (EERI) . Twenty-six earthquake specialists

from academia, industry, and government attended the workshop.

The thrust of the workshop was to examine the feasibility

of using the unique MSFC facilities for large-scale seismic

testing of both structures and soils. Suggested potential uses

were cyclic static and dynamic testing of multistory structures,

medium- and large-scale soil model tests to study dynamic

behavior of soil masses under earthquake excitation, dynamic

soil-structure interaction tests, and utilization of the NASA

spacelab under near-zero-gravity environment to evaluate

constitutive properties of soils under near-zero confining

stress conditions. Cost data were not available to conduct cost

analyses relative to any specific test requirements.

An assessment was made of the needs for and availability

of large- and full-scale testing facilities in the following

areas

Cyclic Static Tests Test towers are needed to apply static

cyclic horizontal loads in two directions with forces

sufficiently large to test 30-m high (10 stories) , 1000-ton

specimens to destruction. Available facilities (the University

of California at Berkeley, the PCA laboratory and the University

of Texas at Austin) do not meet simultaneously these size and

force requirements. A number of MSFC facilities that seem to

meet these specifications should be considered. These include

static and vibration test equipment in the Structures and

18
Mechanics Laboratory, the structural test tower, the vertical

ground vibration facility, the hazardous structures test

facility, and the model special test equipment.

Shaking Table A large (15 m x 15 m) shaking table with a

payload capacity of 2000 tons and two-directional horizontal

motion is needed to perform destructive testing of full-scale

(10-story, 1-bay) structural or soil-structure models. The

table would be required to have a 500 mm stroke, a frequency

range of 0 to 40 Hz, and a maximum velocity of 65 cm/sec for

each direction of horizontal motion. None of the available

shaking tables meet these specifications. Shaking tables at the

University of California at Berkeley, the PCA laboratory and

NASA/MSFC are being used for testing small- or medium-scale

models or 1 to 2-story, 1-bay large- or full-scale models.

Vibration Generator Sinusoidal vibration generators have been

used to measure elastic, dynamic characteristics of large

structures. The DOE generator at the Nevada test site and the

NASA/MSFC facility (40 shakers, a 4 5-ton maximum payload and a

maximum stroke of 225-mm) can be used to evaluate the dynamic

properties of models or systems in the elastic range. A larger

facility will be required to study the changing behavior of

large-scale specimens in the inelastic range.

Dynamic Soil Tests The properties of soils sought are the

dynamic moduli, Poisson's ratio, and liquefaction parameters.

Methods used in the laboratory are the ultrasonic pulse test (to

measure compression and shear waves), cyclic triaxial, direct

i_near and torsional shear tests to evaluate settlement and

liquefaction potential, and centrifugal tests to simulate

dynamic excitation. Field tests used for in-situ measurements

of soil properties include seismic crosshole survey, seismic

downhole survey, seismic reflection survey, electrical sensing

probe, standard penetration test and horizontal polarized shear

wave technique. The NASA/MSFC facilities that can be considered

for soil testing include the equipment in the geotechnical

laboratory for conducting static, steady-state and threedimensional dynamic testing, and the 3.6 m-diameter centrifuge

for simulating dynamic excitation. As noted before, the NASA

spacelab was considered for use in soil experiments because it

offered the possibility of evaluating key soil parameters

without the confinement of a gravitational field.

It was concluded at the workshop that NASA/MSFC did have

certain unique testing capabilities for seismic experiments.

It was recommended that structural and geotechnical task

committees be formed to develop large-scale test programs,

taking into account priorities dictated by cost analyses of

required modifications and by the unique aspects of the

NASA/MSFC facilities.

19
2 . Experimental Research Needs for Improving EarthquakeResistant Design of Buildings . EERI Report No. 84-01,

January, 1984.

This workshop was held on July 21-22, 1983 and was hosted by

the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) . The

purpose was to identify experimental research needs. It was

sponsored by NSF and was attended by participants from academia,

the private sector and the U.S. Government. The workshop focused

on the following subjects:

Identification of Experimental Research Needs There was general

consensus on the inadequacy of existing information on the

inelastic performance of buildings in severe earthquakes.

Research to determine experimentally the ultimate capacity of

building systems as well as their capacity to sustain damage

without failure or collapse were underscored. Important types of

buildings for which full-scale tests are needed were identified.

Low- to high-rise residential buildings as well as medium- to

low-height commercial and industrial structures were considered.

An economic analysis indicated that $2 0 million would be required

to determine the performance of just one major type of structure.

Recommendations on specific details of needed experiments were

not included.

Evaluation of Experimental Methods Specific shaking table needs

were cited: a 25 ft x 50 ft table having one horizontal degree

of freedom; a table similar to the one located at the University

of California at Berkeley but having two horizontal components of

motion (instead of one vertical and one horizontal as at

Berkeley) ; and a table large enough to test at least small

structures at full scale.

It was recommended that two to three reaction wall systems

be constructed, all with the capacity to apply force in three

directions, and one with capacity to test structures with heights

of at least 40 ft.

Requirements were identified and specifications given for a

shaking table capable of applying motion in three orthogonal

directions for testing small (one-quarter-scale or less) models.

Some guidance was provided on the cost of construction and

maintenance of such a facility.

Harmonic excitation, ambient testing and impulse loading

were explored for testing of prototype structures. However, it

was concluded that such tests could not take the central role in

experimental research because of costs in time and money.

Two excitation methods using buried and contained high

explosives for testing large soil-structure systems were

discussed. These methods were considered as basic tools for

20
earthquake experimental research because of their potential for

use in evaluating the inelastic response of large structures and

soil-structure systems. Cost was estimated at $900 K for testing

using contained explosives. The cost of testing large structures

to damaging levels was estimated to be $5 million.

Feedback from the response of instrumented buildings was

considered to be key information for mathematical modelling.

Therefore, it was recommended that instrumentation of existing

buildings be part of a national plan for earthquake hazard

mitigation. However, it was recognized that the randomness and

infrequency of occurrences of strong-motion earthquakes remain a

major limitation of this form of experimental research.

The workshop advanced the concept of a research consortium

to coordinate all the experimental research in the U.S., and

proposed a specific management plan involving sponsors, industry,

universities, research institutions, the laboratory manager, and

other directors, operators, and users of the laboratory.

Existing U.S. facilities were identified relative to

research needs. Plans to provide new and/or expanded facilities

were proposed, including modernization of existing facilities and

establishment of a major national facility which would house a

large (20 m x 2 0 m) shaking table.

3 . A National Bridge Engineering Laboratory - A Proposed Plan f Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER)

,

College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,

December, 1984.

This report documents the proceedings of a workshop to

identify earthquake research and experimental facilities needs

for bridges. The workshop was sponsored by NSF and held in Reno,

Nevada, on April 4-6, 1984. The participating engineering

professionals were drawn from private practice, academia, and

state and federal organizations. The principal topics discussed

were the highway bridge problem, the solution of this problem

through establishment of a National Bridge Engineering

Laboratory, research needs, and laboratory management.

National Bridge Engineering Laboratory On the basis of perceived

needs for research, participants in the workshop recommended the

following:

* A national center for bridge engineering to promote

excellence in bridge engineering, and particularly to

promote excellence in design for seismic loading.

21
* The center should be equipped with experimental

facilities for testing large- and full-scale bridges,

both in the laboratory and in the field. It should

also provide education, training and information

services to the bridge engineering community.

The needed equipment and facilities were illustrated in ten

conceptual drawings. The capital costs for the center were

estimated to be approximately $100-150 million, including land

acquisitions, buildings and equipment. The expenditures for

operations and research activities were estimated at $2 0 million

per year.

Research Needs A broad spectrum of experimental research was

identified. Areas in which tests were recommended included

large-scale experiments on multiple shaking tables, large-scale

experiments using the pseudo-dynamic method, field experiments on

full-size bridges, and repair and retrofit methods for existing

bridges

.

Laboratory Management Three aspects of management of the

facility were considered during the workshop. The

recommendations developed were that the laboratory should:

* be managed by a board of directors made up of

representatives from all elements of the bridge

engineering community

* have a managing director

* have a permanent, high-level, professional and

technical staff

The management structure proposed was similar to that

suggested for the earthquake engineering laboratory proposed

during the EERI workshop of July, 1983.

22
APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF FACILITIES WORLDWIDE

The two most common types of laboratory facilities used in

seismic testing today are 1) shaking tables, and 2) reaction

walls. This section discusses the capabilities of existing

facilities of these two types in the United States and other

countries.

SHAKING TABLES

The graphs shown in figures 1 through 6 illustrate

information obtained from References 1-5 and present different

components of a shaking table's performance.

As illustrated in figure 1, more than half (fifty-two

percent) of the seventy-nine shaking tables existing worldwide

have an area less than or equal to 10 square meters. Twentynine of these, or thirty-seven percent of all such tables

worldwide, are located in the United States.

Of those shaking tables with an area greater than 10 square

meters, only seven are located in the United States. Three of

these have an area between eleven and fifteen square meters. The

largest electro-hydraulic shaking table in the United States is

located at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center at the

University of California at Berkeley and has a table area of 37.2

square meters. Shaking tables with areas greater than 100 square

meters include tables at the Institute for Building Research in

Romania, at the Nuclear Power Engineering Test Center in Japan,

and at the National Research Center for Disaster Prevention in

Japan. The world's largest table has an area of 900 square

meters and is located in the USSR.

Figure 2 summarizes information about the location of large

(defined here as having a table larger than 3 meters by 3 meters)

shaking tables. Of the forty-seven large shaking tables

worldwide, twenty-four (approximately one-half of the total) are

located in Japan, nine (less than one quarter of the total) are

in the United States, four are in Germany and the rest are

located in those countries with two tables or less. Also worth

noting in figure 2 is the category "OTHER, " in which are included

those countries with fewer than three large tables each. The

countries with two large tables are China, USSR, Romania and

Italy. Those with only one large table include France,

Yugoslavia and Greece.

The time of installation of all large shaking tables is

illustrated in figure 3. The majority (twenty-five) of all large

shaking tables worldwide have been installed during the last 10

23
years (1976-1986) , and most of those are located in Japan. Only

four tables were installed in the United States during this

period, while eleven were installed in Japan. The largest table

installed in the United States during this period (at Wyle

Laboratory) has an area of 3 3.6 square meters.

A comparison of displacement capacities of existing shaking

tables is shown in figure 4. This figure illustrates the fact

that the total maximum displacement of the table in any direction

of motion for slightly more than half (fifty-three percent) of

all existing shaking tables is less than 100 mm. Seventy-four

percent of the shaking tables in Japan (a total of twenty-four)

are in this category. Thirty-eight percent of the shaking tables

in the United States (a total of twenty-nine) have a similar

displacement capacity. Seventy-two percent of all existing

tables have a capacity for maximum displacement in any direction

of motion of less than 150 mm (approximately 6 inches) . Of the

twenty-one shaking tables with capacities for maximum

displacement greater than 150 mm, eleven would be considered

large by the definition given previously. Eight of these large

tables are located in the United States, two are located in

Japan, and one is in the USSR.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of horizontal

acceleration capacities (assuming the table to be loaded with

maximum weight) of existing shaking tables. Almost all of the

tables having the capacity to apply accelerations greater than

10 g are located in the United States. Eighteen of the twenty

tables capable of applying accelerations greater than 5 g are

located in the United States. However, these shaking tables are

too small (having table areas less than 3 meters by 3 meters) to

use for seismic testing of full-scale structures. Shaking tables

capable of applying accelerations less than 2 g comprise sixtyone percent of all existing tables. Seventy-three percent

(nineteen out of twenty-six) of all Japanese shaking tables can

apply a maximum of 1.0 g horizontal acceleration. Six tables

located in Japan and four tables located in the U.S. are capable

of applying maximum accelerations between 1.1 g and 2.0 g. These

ten tables all could be used to conduct large-scale seismic

tests

.

The distribution of weight capacities of existing tables is

shown in figure 6. Twenty-four shaking tables, or approximately

thirty percent of those existing, are capable of carrying the

weight of a full-scale structure (2 00 kN or greater) . Three

tables having a capacity greater than 2 00 kN are located in the

Unites States (at the University of California at Berkeley, Union

Carbide, and Wyle Laboratories) . Thirteen, or approximately onehalf of all shaking tables with weight capacities greater than

200 kN are in operation in Japan, two are in the USSR, and two

are in Romania.
Shaking table testing of full-scale structures requires a

table which has sufficient size, acceleration capacity, and

weight and displacement capacity. As noted above, only twentyfour existing tables have a weight capacity of at least 2 00 kN.

All of these tables can apply lateral accelerations of at least

1.0 g when loaded to their capacities. If it is also required

that the minimum area of the table be 2 5 square meters, only

approximately twenty-four percent of all existing tables meet

weight capacity, acceleration capacity, and area criteria. Some

other tables meet one or more, but not all, of these criteria.

Of the seventy-nine shaking tables existing worldwide, more than

half are limited to testing of small-scale models.

LARGE REACTION WALLS

The use of reaction walls to apply static lateral loads is

perhaps the most common method of seismic testing used throughout

the world. Reaction walls are defined here as large if they are

greater than 10 meters high. In this section, large reaction

walls will be discussed and information about these walls will be

illustrated in figures 7-9.

Figure 7 illustrates the fact that more than twice as many

large reaction walls are located in Japan as in the United

States. There are a total of forty-seven reaction walls

worldwide. Twenty-five of these walls, including ten walls more

than ten meters tall, are located in Japan. Fifteen reaction

walls are located in the U.S., but only four of these are taller

than 10 meters.

Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of lateral shear

capacities of all existing reaction walls. Sixty-three percent

of existing walls have a lateral shear capacity less than or

equal to 10 MN. Of these, eleven walls are located in the United

States, thirteen are in Japan, three are in Australia and one is

in South Africa. Twenty-nine reaction walls, or sixty-one

percent of all reaction walls, have a shear capacity greater than

6 MN. Of these, six are in the United States and twenty-two are

in Japan.

Seven of the twenty-two large reaction walls (greater than

10 meters high) located in Japan have a shear capacity greater

than 6 MN. Two of the six large walls in the United States have

lateral shear capacities greater than 6 MN. There are no walls

outside of Japan that are both higher than 10 meters and have a

lateral shear capacity greater than 11 MN.

The Portland Cement Association (U.S.) has two of the

largest and strongest reaction walls in the world, although both

walls are less than 10 meters high. The Building Research

Institute (Japan) has one of the strongest and highest reaction

walls in the world.

25
Figure 9 summarizes information about the bending capacity

of reaction walls worldwide. Thirty-four percent of all existing

reaction walls have bending capacities less than or egual to 10

MN-m. Nine of the fifteen walls in the United States have

capacities in this range. Of all walls higher than 10 meters and

having bending capacities greater than 50 MN-m, two are located

in the United States and five are located in Japan.

Of the ten walls in Japan higher than 10 meters, all have a

bending capacity of at least 11 MN-m. The reaction walls which

have bending capacities greater than 50 MN-m and which are

located in the United States include the walls at PCA (2) , the

National Bureau of Standards, and the Budd Corporation. The

reaction walls located in Japan having capacities greater than 50

MN-m are the walls at the Sumitomo Corporation, the Ohbayashi

Corporation, the Fujita Corporation, the Okumura Corporation, the

Toda Institute, and at the Building Research Institute (2) . There are no large reaction walls outside of Japan or the United

States

.

26
Figure 1. Sizes of shaking tables worldwide.

27
I

I

» TABLES > 3m x 3m

Figure 2. Location of large shaking tables.

28
Figure 3. Year of installation of large shaking tables.

29
DISPLACEMENT CAPABILITIES OF SHAKING TABLES

WORLDWIDE

NO. OF

SHAKING

TABLES

0-50 51-100 101- 151- 201- 301- 501- 2000-

150 200 300 500 1000 2500

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure A. Displacement capacities of shaking tables.

30
NO. OF 15

SHAKING

TABLES 10

0-.5 .6-1.0 1.1- 2.1- 5.1- 10-50 51-

2.0 5.0 10.0

MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (gs)

101-

100 500

Figure 5. Acceleration capacities of shaking table

31
SHAKSN6 TABLES WORLDWIDE

NO. OF

TABLES

O-IOO 101-200 201-500 501- 1.001- 5.001-

1.000 5.000 20.000

MAXIMUM SHAKING TABLE WEIGHT CAPACITY (KN)

Figure 6. Height capacities of shaking tables.

32
* Reaction Walls Higher Than 10m

Figure 7. Distribution of large reaction walls.

33
REACTION WALL SHEAR CAPACITY WORLDWIDE

39X

NO. OF

WALLS

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

SHEAR CAPACITY (MN)

Figure 8. Shear capacities of reaction walls

34
REACTION WALL BENDIN6

Figure 9. Bending capacities of reaction walls.

35
REFERENCES - APPENDIX B

1. "Experimental Research Needs for Improving EarthquakeResistant Design of Buildings", EERI Report No. 84-01,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,

California, January, 1984.

2. Kamimura, K. , Aoki, Y. , and Masayoshi, N. , "Kenchiku Kenkyu

Shiryo" , Register of World Large-scale Test Facilities for

Building Research, Report for C. I. B. , No. 49, Building

Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Tsukuba,

Japan, March, 1984.

3. "Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction", a

public information report published by the Japanese Ministry

of Construction, Tsukuba Science City, Japan, 1981.

4. Stevenson, J. A., "A Report Identifying and Describing the

Needs for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full Scale

Testing of Power Facility Structures and Equipment", Draft

Report for NBS, Stevenson and Associates, Cleveland, Ohio,

September, 1986.

5. "Facilities of the National Bureau of Standards", U. S.

Department of Commerce, NBS SP 682, Gaithersburg, Maryland,

September, 1984.

6. "Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory", Seismic Proving Tests for

Large Components of Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Power

Engineering Center, MITI, Japan, 1982.

36
APPENDIX C

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

FACILITIES IN JAPAN

In the process of considering the needs of the United States

engineering community for a large-scale experimental facility, it

was important to review programs undertaken by other countries to

address their own testing needs. Also of interest was the

availability of overseas test facilities for use by U.S.

investigators should this approach be deemed appropriate. The

information included in this appendix was obtained from a survey

of the Japanese seismic testing program and from a review of a

recent study conducted to determine the needs for a large testing

facility in Europe.

In order to determine the availability of Japanese

facilities for use by engineers in the U. S. and in countries

outside of Japan, the Public Works Research Institute of Japan

was contacted. Dr. Toshio Iwasaki, Director of the Institute's

Earthquake Disaster Prevention Department and a member of the

U.S. -Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources, Panel on

Wind and Seismic Effects, provided information about the seismic

testing resources of the Japanese government and of Japanese

companies that maintain large testing facilities.

The status of large-scale seismic testing facilities in

Japan is well documented. A register published in 1984 (Ref. 2,

Appendix B) listed the majority of facilities currently existing

in Japan and elsewhere. Since that time, three institutions

listed in the register have installed either new shaking tables,

reaction walls, or testing machines. In addition, some

combination of shaking tables, reaction walls, and testing

machines have been installed in five institutions that had not

been previously listed. The institutions that have upgraded old

facilities or installed new facilities are summarized in Table

CI. Characteristics of all new facilities are listed in Tables

C2 and C3

.

The facilities available in Japan have attracted the

interest of U. S. Government agencies and private firms having a

need for specialized testing. Dr. Iwasaki contacted eighteen

public institutions and private firms in Japan to determine the

availability of their facilities to U.S. researchers and to

determine if U.S. firms have discussed use of the facilities.

The results of this inquiry are summarized in Table C4

.

All of the organizations contacted indicated that their

facilities could be made available to U.S. Government agencies.

Ten of these organizations stated that they would be willing to

lease their facilities to American private firms, and all of the

37
organizations indicated that they would agree to participate in

cooperative research with either private firms or government

agencies from the U.S. The majority of Japanese firms are

willing to negotiate the fee for use of their facilities, but the

majority are also unwilling to allow outside firms more than

three months to complete tests for which they lease testing

facilities

.

STUDY BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

The number and capacity of facilities available in Japan are

unequalled elsewhere in the world. The demonstrated benefits

provided by these facilities have inspired engineers in countries

other than Japan to investigate their own needs for similar

facilities. The Commission of European Communities recently

considered needs of European engineers for a large central

seismic testing facility. Although the results of their study

have not been reported publicly and no decisions have been made

to design or construct a large regional testing facility in

Europe, the study did contain the following general findings:

* Experimental verification of computer models is

necessary to insure accurate idealization of structural

properties and accurate prediction of structural

behavior, particularly inelastic cyclic behavior.

* Small-scale experimental test facilities have

significant limitations. Construction of test

specimens is difficult and expensive. Because

extensive extrapolation is required to relate behavior

of prototype structures to that of model structures,

inaccurate representation of nonlinear behavior of

prototype structures is possible.

* A majority of engineers of the European community have

agreed that their testing needs could be satisfied by a

facility containing a large reaction wall and a shaking

table with a weight capacity of 2 00 metric tons.

The study also noted that a factor more important than the

construction of specific facilities is coordination of research

activities in earthquake engineering and safety of structures

through centrally designed and managed research programs.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

One option to undertaking the construction of a national

engineering facility is to use facilities in other countries

under cooperative testing agreements. Because several facilities

appropriate to the needs of some experimentalists in the U.S.

38
exist in other countries, the use of these facilities whenever

possible could delay the need and expense of construction of a

central facility in the U.S.

The National Science Foundation, through the U.S. -Japan

Cooperative Program in Natural Resources and the U.S. -Japan

Cooperative Earthquake Engineering Research Program, has been a

major sponsor of cooperative research between the U.S. and Japan.

Through these programs, U.S. researchers have participated in

tests of full-scale concrete and steel structures at the Japanese

Building Research Institute laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan.

Cooperative research is continuing with the construction and

testing of a full-scale masonry structure.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the

Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) have also undertaken

cooperative research and testing projects with groups in other

countries. A brief description of these agreements follows.

One of the most attractive facilities for large-scale

testing and seismic research is the Japanese Nuclear Power

Engineering Test Center's Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory. The

shaking table housed in that facility is designed to subject very

large components of nuclear powerplants to simulated seismic

loading. In 1986 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)

signed an agreement to conduct cooperative tests of powerplant

components. Tests of a pressurized water reactor primary coolant

loop are scheduled to begin in 1988. Indications are that MITI

and NRC will continue to conduct cooperative testing at the

Tadotsu site for the next decade. In addition, it is possible

that this initial agreement will be expanded to include

structures other than powerplants after the current program of

testing is completed in 1990.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also begun

cooperative field testing of a full-scale nuclear powerplant in

the Federal Republic of Germany. In a cooperative agreement with

the German ministry of power and a private German testing firm,

NRC is using a decommissioned nuclear reactor in Karlsruhe as a

testbed for vibration testing. To data a large eccentric shaker

has been mounted in the plant in order to determine natural

frequencies of vibration of the plant and its components.

Higher-level shaking tests of piping and other components are

scheduled to begin in the coming year, and additional tests are

planned through 1990.

In a third program of cooperative testing, NRC, the

Electrical Power Research Institute and the Taiwan Power Company

have begun to study soil-structure interaction. In these tests,

a large simulated powerplant foundation and structure have been

constructed in a seismically active region in Taiwan. Various

39
forced vibration tests have been conducted on this testbed.

Instruments have been placed to measure free-field vibrations

from natural earthquakes and to measure the response of the

foundation and structure during these earthquakes. This is

perhaps the most comprehensive program of testing ever conducted

to study soil-structure interaction in connection with a

structure of this type on natural soil. To date the site has

been shaken by four large earthquakes and valuable data have been

gathered. This program promises to be very valuable and

relatively inexpensive for all involved. Because the use of the

site is dependent in some aspects on naturally occurring

earthquakes to provide seismic input, it is impossible to

schedule all tests precisely or to know in advance of any shaking

how severe the shaking will be. This program of research is

expected to continue for several years.

40
TABLE CI

RECENT ADDITIONS TO AND UPDATES OF JAPANESE FACILITIES

INSTITUTION !

FACILITY INSTALLED

TEST BED AND J UNIVERSAL j REACTION WALL | TEST MACHINE ]

SHAKING

TABLE

Public Works Research Institute j Ministry of Construction !

( PWRI ) : x ; x ; X

Shimizu Construction Co. Ltd. ; Research Laboratory ] (SHIMIZU) j

X

Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd.

Technical Research Institute

(OHBAYASHI) |

j j X

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone J Corporation, Tsukuba Engineering]

Development Center ! (NTT-TEDC) :

x ; x !

Okumura Corporation

Tsukuba Research Institute

(OKUMURA)

X | X J

| !

X

Toda Institute of

Construction Technology | (TODA) ]

x ; x ;

Japanese National Railroad

Technical Research Institute

(JNR) !

X

Central Research Institute of

Electric Power Industry, Civil j Engineering Lab. (CRIEPI) \

X

Institute of Industrial Science j University of Tokyo (IIS) \ x ; x i X

41
CNUwpm<

EH

0!Qwp

Eh

co

Eh

55WUW

COP

15OH

EHu<«

EnO

COUM

EH

COH«

Eh

ECU

O

E5H >H P Eh

S

!5

M CN

WU

X | • o

o • CQ < 1 CTi 1 rH rH o

ru

g 1 rH rH rH rH

p < s P u <W Eh

EC

H rH

CO

U

g vo CM

m • r-l CN rH CTi

J CM

i-l < < O ll i-l l P »—

-—

mO I < £ 1 CM CM 00 • • • *—

'—

CO rH

o

o I rH rH rH l • X O X i Eh rH (N X X X

CO i c_) CN i <: ec X X rH

o i>

O i w rH H 1 Ph in

CO ii <£>

m i p o LO CT\ t • H i w ^ CN rH O o Q l CQ rH rH 1 X X X X 1 EH X in l CO P ID in • I W rH rH rH m o I EH rH rH PWP « P O o m CN on

<C < 00 00 CO co 00

iy Eh CT> CTi CT\ CTi CTi >h CO rH rH rH rH rH

INZOH

EH

u < p P w P EH E3 < M l £ <

EH ct; EH

D

P CO CO EH o H

IN ft 55

O EH

H

42
II rH

II CJ

ooooooo

II z u rO LD in r- CN in in

m

II

WO

II t2 z 1 1 ' i i 1 l i i

il Og

x

IIU

K

oo

ooO rHoo

II « •

II (u

II

II

o

II

II

H

i! §

II

s

s

II tDW 1—

>i >H

II

S

U

II

M < '—

—

X

X to

II

X

— '—

*—

—

II 5 Cm in

o

II

S 1-0 ld • m

o

o in in

o

oo

o

o 3

II

H r~ rO rH tN ro

o

m vo

o

<! II

Q ro CN rH rH rH ro

CM II < II z

II

!! ^ £ ' ' ' '—

>H " * •—* *— X N

H II

S

p * ' * '—' ^-^

II t>

H ^-

o

X

N

Q II£ CJ V]

o -— ^ ' *—

oO

o

oO

W IIH

O

\

oo >x>oo in in

o

oo

o

o

oo in ro

m

II <j

w

oooo < o in o in

Eh rH rH

(/} Z II ' -—

.—. •— M II s • X X X N

II iJ

— 0i Ol Cn

——

(H II 2 U rjn cn Di

II HO LO CO

o

o

Eh II

X CJ

m in . • • • • O rH 00

Z II f£ i<C • CN <N

o ro

o rH • • •

1!

s (N • CN rH

o

CJ2

rH

c/i

II

II z , ,• w II o

II [u

H

u

II

OH

II < > 0 H II • Eh IS] Q

II Oh

H II - ><

N

O II

H

U

XX rH * * Z !! Q ^ N rH X X X X

X

H II

w

II

—

<

sh;

II

II '

u<

!!

II ^H

£H

X

o II

X

H

o

—

ooooo

II CJ) CJ z o

o

o

o

o r~

o

<a II

M < *x

oo CNoo ino

cj II

W Cm iH

m vo CN rH

M II

£ < CN

II CJ inM

il

—

w

EH

CJ II C/l 'J* ID

II z X

II wo l£)

— 00 KD

m ro

II iJ

H

II PQ CO

E

X ro

XXXXX

X

cj II ^ z

II EhW COX CN in ro CO

II

£ rH •

II

H ro

n

II

Q

II

II

II

II

Z

IIO

II

H

II Eh

H

II < X

II i-J in

II iJ tSl

g < M

II < M CM

II

H

H

£

£ < W

II

W « Hm

m

H

II

Z

XX z X

M «

II

H Cm in

O

o

M

43
w

co3

II fn CO co z

II

O

QO tj

II

W z z

II

w t-i Eh

MM

IIwU CO

q

K

II

a

w •a

a 3 H

II

& ce

MM CQ CO

II Eh 3 3 Z

II COm CO

W

M

II

II

II

II

II

IIw

II co

II 3

II

!!£

II

H

II

II

M

II

O

II <

II u.

II

II

II

II

u

co CO z w o w M z H O co Eh > o 3 M Eh >. 1 Q CO z CO c u u a 3 3 Kh ; g H z O 6 o

RI S3M

X !>

w z Eh ft,

W 1 w

w

a z a 3 U

o

m i z z Eh

O

HM

U 1 o

o CO > CO z • 1 z z z Cn" > O I co o co M &C

CJ z a.

Z 3 1 CO 3 z

ii a,

ii

il

II co

ii

II 3

II

II cc

II

O

IIn

ii

II

w

CO3 QZO o« fc, >

COzo

II

II CO

it: <0

II

Q

W

II 3 Z CO rH

II

o 3

II

II OR

u

a

w

II Cv>

o r-1

II Cv,

II

u

II

II IL EN

HM

II < a.

II > > >

II < < zo

HH

Eh3

EhM

Eh

COZ

of of 1 of of <*> of 1 of of 1 of o o 1 O O o o 1 o o 1 O

rH 1 »£> CI in 1 i£> CN I in

of c*> 1 of of of of 1 of of 1 of O O 1 O O o o 1 O O 1 o o in 1 •* CO 1 IT) rH

CQ

u3a

EhCOH- wwH

CO

<0 io 10 <0 ifl

^H 1 <0

m

n 1 03 rH

m i m in in in 1 rH in 13o u

Eh

Qw

ou Ph3 z z

EhU

CO CO 3 w OS CO

DIN LIN

-ST

DGE

H

w

H1 t i—i M H PS 3 M O 5

CO a. CO

10 1 XI (0 i xT

m I tH 1 -tf oz

a,w

a;u

ozoXgI—I £3

CO

Eh Eh U U W W O O « OS

a, a.

CO CO

CCX 3 3

Ed

MH ft]H

S >3 ><

gu

rH cn

nm

U

O

«; z o QZu w w

CO

Q 3a 3 o eg 3QU

COQ

tO XI

44
w

co3

Q5o

COu

Q

H

CU

H 3 H Z -1 H H

Eh CJ Z < O &H

cj

6- « z

CO

O z cj

u 3 J) «c 3 CO

o

Q Eh CO Oh CO Oh w o o Eh CO Eh z Se z z CO w U CO W M o M s 3 i a W 8

Oh

J « H Eh a 9 M

Eh OS

H

M CJ

H CJ

oo

CO

o 05 3 3 3 cj CO

CQZ toZ

CO3

><

Eh

cj< ai zoz

COzo

au MOW Eh 3 S u o M CO Z Z 3 M 9 05 O 13 U

05 z a O

COzou

COzoH

EhHQZoU 05

o

CL4 CO M1 H >> CO 8 oo

05 CJ o X• U M S < o > atzoH

Eh3

EhM

Eh

COZ

<#> 1 o»> 0*> <*> i .*>

<*> i <*>

ooo 1 o 1 oooo 1 o

n (N in I m i n CO r- 1 (N

<*> <*> <#> i <*> I <*> <*> <*> 1 (X> o O o I o 1 o O o o 1 o

CO in i r- i r- (Nn 1 CO

wu

05

Ed

05

an

a,

05z3

COw

COa:z3 WZoz

in

w

Eh>

l-H 05a.

X? ID 1 ID 1 Io

w t-H 1 "tf i "io IT) 10 3" 1 I1 CO3 VP in 1 vD 1 CN in n 1 IB

H 1 MH 1 M 1 HH

M 1 H

Ch 1 < < < 1 < -a: < < 1 > > > il 1 > > > > 1 < 1 < < < < il

(0 1 U 3 1 O N 1 H 1 w M 1 W 1 Eh £ 1 CO 1 1 M 1 M 1 Eh X 1 < 1 Eh

CO 1 Eh 1 Z

w

w

w z z z z O o o o z z z z

ia

in335o

10

inQO

Eh

05Z

co

a

C3

M

asM Q 3 Z m m

COw

CO

05z3

Eh Eh

h in

n -j in > CO < a 3 M

in

u

JQ CO

HU

w < w

Cn

lO 10 XI

45
APPENDIX D

N.E.E.E.F. WORKSHOP

GAITHERSBURG , MARYLAND

NOVEMBER 18-19, 1986

An important objective of the first phase of the study was

to obtain input from as wide a segment of professional and trade

organizations and government agencies as possible. In order to

accomplish this objective, a workshop was held in Gaithersburg,

Maryland on November 18-19, 1986 to allow all interested groups

to hear the recommendations of the six consultants and to offer

additional suggestions for needed research.

The six consultants who had been hired to study experimental

needs in the six specific areas of interest (low-rise, mediumrise, and high-rise structures, industrial process facilities,

power facilities, and lifelines) prepared technical reports (Ref.

5-10) discussing experimental needs and presented their

recommendations on the morning of the first day of the workshop.

Participants in the workshop were then divided into six working

groups to discuss, modify, and add to these recommendations. At

the conclusion of the workshop, each of the six working groups

reported the results of their discussions.

In arriving at the testing needs identified in Table 1 in

the body of this report, a large number of tests were considered

in each category. In general, each consultant attempted to

identify all tests which might be desirable in the assigned

category. As an example, the consultant responsible for

determining the testing needs for medium-rise buildings developed

a total of twenty-four specific tests needed which ranged from

consideration of torsional response of irregular buildings to

quantifying the benefits of redundancy in a structure during

seismic action. The seven tests recommended finally for mediumrise buildings in Appendix E were those determined by the

consultant and the working group at the workshop to be those most

important among all tests considered. A similar procedure was

used to identify the most important testing needs for the other

categories of structures.

The following individuals participated in the workshop and

represented the organizations shown:

Dr. Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar

Dynamics Committee of the Engineering Mechanics Division

American Society of Civil Engineers

Dr. Daniel P. Abrams

The Masonry Society

46
Dr. Satish Abrol

Headquarters, USAF

Dr. James Beavers

National Research Council

Dr. John J. Burns

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dr. Manmohan S. Chawla

General Services Administration

Dr. Riley M. Chung

National Research Council

Mr. John Coil

Structural Engineers Association of California

Mr. James Cooper

Defense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Charles G. Culver

National Bureau of Standards

Mr. Henry J. Degenkolb

H. J. Degenkolb & Associates

Dr. A. J. Eggenberger

National Science Foundation

Dr. Mahjoub Elnimeiri

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Mr. William Y. Epling

American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

Mr. Sigmund A. Freeman

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

Mr. G. Robert Fuller

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mr. James Gates

California Department of Transportation

Mr. Peter E. Gurvin

Department of State/FBO

Dr. Robert D. Hanson

National Research Council

47
Dr. Walter W. Hays

United States Geological SurveyMr. James R. Hill

Department of EnergyMr. Peter Hoffman

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Dr. George Housner

National Research Council

Dr. Roy A. Imbsen

Imbsen & Associates, Inc.

Dr. Richard A. Larder

URS Corp./ J. A. Blume & Associates

Mr. Lon Lister

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Dr. Stephen A. Mahin

Committee on Seismic Effects

American Society of Civil Engineers

Dr. William F. Marcuson III

National Research Council

Mr. Harry W. Martin

American Iron and Steel Institute

Dr. Francis G. McLean

Bureau of Reclamation

Mr. R. E. Mills, Sr.

Steel Plate Fabricators Association

Ms. Janina V. Mirski

Veterans Administration

Dr. Joseph Reynen

Commission of the European Communities

Dr. Henry G. Russell

Portland Cement Association

Dr. Michael Sbaglia

American Insurance Services, Inc.

Dr. Charles F. Scheffey

Federal Highway Administration

48
Dr. Charles F. Scribner

National Bureau of Standards

Mr. Robert Spangler

Council of American Building Officials

Dr. John A. Stevenson

Stevenson & Associates

Mr. Joseph Tyrrell

Naval Facilities Engineer Command

Mr. Charles W. C. Yancey

National Bureau of Standards

Dr. Arthur J. Zeizel

Federal Emergency Management Agency

49
The following organizations were also given the opportunity

to review the recommendations developed at the workshop and to

offer further needs for experimentation:

American Assoc. of State Highway and Trans. Officials

American Concrete Institute

American Consulting Engineers Council

American Institute of Timber Construction

American Plywood Association

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society for Testing and Materials

Applied Technology Council

Associated General Contractors of America

Association of Major City Building Officials

Brick Institute of America

Building Officials and Code Administrators, International

Building Seismic Safety Council

Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute

Council on Tall Buildings

Earthguake Engineering Research Institute

Electric Power Research Institute

International Conference of Building Officials

Metal Building Manufacturers Association

National Association of Home Builders

National Concrete Masonry Association

National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Forest Products Association

National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Post-Tensioning Institute

Prestressed Concrete Institute

Rack Manufacturers Institute

Southern Building Code Congress International

Steel Deck Institute, Inc.

Structural Engineers Association of Arizona

Structural Engineers Association of Utah

United States Forest Products Laboratory

University Council on Earthguake Engineering Research

Western States Council Structural Engineers Association

Western States Clay Products Association

50
APPENDIX E

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING

For the purposes of this report, needs for large-scale

seismic testing were considered for low-rise, medium-rise, and

high-rise buildings, industrial processing facilities, power

facilities, and lifelines. Recommendations were developed for

all areas except lifelines. The recommendations for research in

the area of lifelines were concerned primarily with bridges.

These research needs and recommendations for the facilities

reguired to conduct this research have not been presented here

for two reasons. First, these recommendations were similar in

nature to those presented previously in a report on research

needs for bridges (see Appendix A, Workshop 3) . Second, many of

the tests recommended can be done more appropriately as in-situ

tests on actual structures rather than in a central laboratory.

These tests, although important to a total program of seismic

testing, are not of interest to this study of a national

facility.

The following sections summarize the needs for research and

recommendations for testing identified as being appropriate to a

national experimental facility. The recommended tests in each

section are listed in priority order.

A. LOW-RISE STRUCTURES

For the purposes of this report, low-rise buildings were

defined as those structures less than four stories high. Such

buildings can be tested under static lateral loads using a large

reaction wall. In addition, many low-rise structures, such as

wood-frame residential buildings, are small enough to fit on a

large shaking table. Low-rise structures often consist of an

assemblage of several similar or identical modules, one of which

also might be small enough to fit on a large shaking table.

RECOMMENDATION Al: TILT-UP CONSTRUCTION

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF TILT-UP

CONSTRUCTION HAVING PANALIZED PLYWOOD ROOF DIAPHRAGMS

A full scale test of a single-story tilt-up industrial

building is needed to study the behavior and response of this

type of structure, particularly of a panalized plywood roof

diaphragm, the interaction of walls and roofs, and the response

of connections between the roof and walls.

51
Facility requirements for this test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 18 m

Weight Capacity: 13 3 0 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g., X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 20 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

Note: Additional review of this type of structure has indicated

that there may be some difficulties in developing a test

model that will accurately simulate actual conditions. In

lieu of a shaking table test, individual actuators may have

to be used. Additional study will be required to develop

more accurately the test facility requirements.

RECOMMENDATION A2 : WOOD-FRAME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF A TWOSTORY WOOD-FRAME RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Tests of a two-story wood-frame residential structure would

be designed to determine overall response of this class of

structure, deformation patterns of walls and roofs, interaction

between components of the structure, and behavior of connections,

non-structural partitions, and foundation anchorages.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 8 m x 12 m

Weight Capacity: 180 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A3: SPLIT-LEVEL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF SPLITLEVEL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

The test of a two-story split-level residential structure

having a large garage door opening would provide information

about the interaction between sections of the structure and the

effects of the garage door opening on the performance of the

structure. This configuration of test specimen would also be

used to investigate the methods of tying together sections of

residential structures.

52
Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 12 m x 12 m

Weight Capacity: 27 0 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A4 : CAVITY-WALL MASONRY STRUCTURE

DYNAMIC TESTS OF MASONRY STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO MODERATE

EARTHQUAKES ARE NEEDED

A large number of commercial structures in the eastern U.S.

and in other regions of the country in which seismic risk is low

are of cavity wall masonry construction, in which two wythes of

masonry units are separated by an air space and held together

with metal ties. The test of such a structure under moderate

seismic forces (maximum lateral accelerations of 0.2 g.) would

help to determine its resistance to lateral loads and would serve

as a proof test of this common type of construction.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 8 m x 12 m

Weight Capacity: 800 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A5 : LIGHT-WEIGHT STEEL STRUCTURES

DYNAMIC TESTS OF A THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ARE NEEDED TO

DETERMINE THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF LIGHT-WEIGHT METAL

MOMENT FRAMES

A common form of construction for small office buildings

consists of lightweight steel moment frames formed by tubular

columns and open web joists. Tests of a three-bay by three-bay

structure of this type are needed to determine the performance of

this popular type of construction during earthquakes. Although a

typical prototype structure would be approximately 30m square in

plan, it is believed that a 2/3 scale model would accurately

demonstrate the performance of the structure.

53
Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 18 m x 18 m

Weight Capacity: 3 600 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 5 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A6 : MOBILE HOME ANCHORAGE

DYNAMIC TESTS ARE NEEDED TO CERTIFY SYSTEMS FOR ANCHORING

MOBILE HOMES

Mobile homes are manufactured in sizes as large as 4.3 m by

22 m for single-width homes and 8.6 by 15 m for double-width

homes. One of the critical aspects of the performance of these

manufactured homes is the system used to anchor the structure to

either the soil or to a prepared foundation. A shaking table

could be used to test and certify the various systems designed to

anchor these homes against both wind and earthquake loads.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 18 m

Weight Capacity: 18 0 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

B. MEDIUM-RISE STRUCTURES

For purposes of this report, medium-rise structures were

considered to be those between four and fifteen stories in

height. Medium-rise structures make up a majority of commercial

construction. Full-scale medium-rise concrete and steel frame

structures have been tested using a very large reaction wall in

Tsukuba, Japan, and a full-scale medium-rise masonry structure is

currently being prepared for testing. The following research

needs and tests necessary to satisfy those needs have been

identified

RECOMMENDATION Bl: CONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURES

TESTS OF FULL-SCALE MOMENT FRAME AND DUCTILE MOMENT FRAME

STRUCTURES ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF THESE

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS UNDER LATERAL LOADING

Full-scale static lateral load tests of a medium-rise

concrete frame structure have been conducted in Japan. However,

the details of reinforcement used in that structure were not the

same as those used in similar structures in the U.S. Tests of

concrete frame structures containing reinforcement detailed in

54
accordance with U.S. practice are needed. A test of a ductile

moment frame structure would address the needs of designers of

structures built in zones of severe seismic risk. The test of an

ordinary moment frame structure would examine the behavior of

concrete frame structures built in regions of low seismic risk.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 12,900 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:

Test Bed Dimensions: 18 m x 18 m

Reaction Wall Height: 2 3 m

Wall Shear Capacity: 5.60 MN

Wall Moment Capacity: 82 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B2 : STEEL MOMENT FRAME STRUCTURE

TESTS OF A STEEL MOMENT FRAME STRUCTURE CARRYING FULL DEAD

LOAD AND LATERAL LOADS APPLIED IN ORTHOGONAL DIRECTIONS ARE

NEEDED

A full-scale steel braced frame structure has been tested in

Japan. This test did not address the behavior of steel moment

frame structures, which make up a large percentage of steel frame

structures in seismic regions of the U.S. A test of a 7-story

steel moment frame structure carrying full dead load and lateral

load applied in orthogonal directions is needed to define the

behavior of this important type of structure.

55
Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 10,000 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:

Test Bed Size: 18 m x 18 m

Reaction Wall Height: 27 m

Wall Shear Capacity: 5.60 MN

Wall Moment Capacity: 82 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B3 : MEDIUM-RISE STRUCTURES WITH BASE ISOLATION

TESTS OF A MEDIUM RISE STRUCTURE INCORPORATING A SYSTEM OF

BASE ISOLATION DEVICES IS NEEDED

The use of base isolation devices to reduce earthquake

damage is receiving considerable attention. Controlled tests of

full-scale structures incorporating such devices are needed to

provide performance data on their functioning and effect on

structural response.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation Bl.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B4 : DYNAMIC TEST OF BUILDING WITH SOFT STORY

TESTS OF A STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE HAVING A SOFT STORY ARE

NEEDED

As a result of commercial use, the first story of many

medium-rise structures is quite flexible (soft story) . Test data

are needed for such structures. This test can be conducted in

conjunction with the test of the steel moment frame structure

recommended above.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation B2

.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

(to be done in conjunction with other projects)

56
RECOMMENDATION B5 : FULL-SCALE TESTS OF NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS COMMON IN STEEL MOMENT FRAME

STRUCTURES

Non-structural components of structures subjected to

earthquakes present a serious problem for designers and represent

one of the greatest expenses associated with damage from

earthquakes, even if the structure remains relatively intact.

Tests are needed to determine the contribution of various types

of curtain walls and other non-structural components to the

stiffness and strength of frame structures and to determine the

behavior of anchorage systems used to connect non-structural and

structural elements. These tests could be most efficiently done

in connection with the test of the steel frame structure

recommended above.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation B2

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B6 : PRECAST COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES

CONSTRUCTED FROM PRECAST COMPONENTS

It is recommended that a seven-story reinforced masonry

bearing wall structure having precast components be tested. This

structure should contain precast floors, both with and without

topping, in addition to other selected precast components.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 7,100 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:

Test Bed Size: 18 m x 18 m

Reaction Wall Height: 2 3 m

Wall Shear Capacity: 8.9 MN

Wall Moment Capacity: 13 6 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

57
RECOMMENDATION B7 : STEEL STUDS AND GYPSUM BOARD SHEATHING

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF WALLS

CONSTRUCTED OF LIGHT-GAGE STEEL STUDS AND GYPSUM BOARD

SHEATHING

A five- or six-story structure would be used as a vehicle to

examine the behavior of walls constructed of light-gage steel

studs and gypsum boards. Walls of this type are common in light

office construction, but their contribution to the stiffness and

strength of the structure is unknown.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation B2

.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

C. HIGH-RISE STRUCTURES

High-rise structures, defined here as those structures

taller than fifteen stories, present a unique set of problems,

not only for designers, but for those contemplating full-scale or

large-scale tests of representative structures. Even the largest

feasible shaking tables or reaction walls are not large enough to

test a complete high-rise structure at a large scale. In

addition, a test of a large-scale three-dimensional model of- a

high-rise structure could be prohibitively expensive.

It will probably never be possible to test a complete, fullscale, high-rise structure in any laboratory. The types of tests

recommended for determining behavior of high-rise structures may

be divided into either quarter-scale tests of complete structures

or full-scale tests of structural components. The specific

research recommendations which have been identified include the

following:

RECOMMENDATION CI: FRAMED TUBE SUBASSEMBLY

FULL-SCALE TESTS OF COMPONENTS OF A FRAMED TUBE ARE NEEDED

TO DEFINE BEHAVIOR OF THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE

A full-scale test of a subassembly of a framed tube

structure is needed to study behavior of such a system having

strong beams and relatively weaker columns. This test would

determine the effects of localized yielding on redistribution of

forces within the system, the ability of the system to maintain

its load-carrying capacity, and P-delta effects. Quarter-scale

tests are proposed.

58
Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 4,450 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0 - 15 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

RECOMMENDATION C2 : ENERGY-DISSIPATING DEVICES

TESTING OF ENERGY DISSIPATING DEVICES ARE NEEDED TO

DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF THOSE DEVICES ON STRUCTURAL

RESPONSE

Energy dissipating devices can be installed throughout a

high-rise structure, but their effect on performance has never

been experimentally verified. The ability to conduct full-scale

tests would stimulate development of the components and

confidence in their performance.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation CI.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

RECOMMENDATION C3 : DUAL SYSTEMS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO VERIFY THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS BETWEEN

COMPONENTS OF DUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Full- or large-scale tests of subassemblies of structures

having dual systems designed to carry lateral loads. Tests are

needed to determine the manner in which lateral loads are carried

by the components of the system up to failure.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 4,450 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directions

Frequency Range: 0 - 15 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

59
D. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING FACILITIES

Industrial processing facilities include a wide variety of

structures, equipment, and mechanical components such as large

tanks, pressure vessels, piping, furnaces, and stacks. Many

existing facilities were designed without consideration of

earthquake loading and at a time when little was known about the

characteristics of earthquake loads or the appropriate means of

resisting these loads. The following summarize the

recommendations for tests requiring a large national facility:

RECOMMENDATION Dl: UNANCHORED TANKS

DYNAMIC TESTS OF UNANCHORED LIQUID-FILLED TANKS ARE NEEDED

Shaking table tests of unanchored tanks are needed to

determine behavior of liquid filled tanks having floating roofs,

open roofs, or closed roofs. These tests would be designed to

study the effects of motions of the liquid within the tanks on

buckling and failure of the tank walls and to study the behavior

of piping connections to the tank.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 15 m x 15 m

Weight Capacity: 14,2 00 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 1.0 g. X, 1.0 g. Y, 0.5 g. Z

Maximum Displacements: 250 mm horizontal, 2 5 mm vertical

Maximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/sec.

Frequency Range: 0 - 10 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION D2 : RETROFIT MEASURES

TESTS OF RETROFIT METHODS FOR EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ARE

NEEDED TO DETERMINE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE METHODS OF

STRENGTHENING

The vast majority of existing industrial plants were

constructed either without consideration of or with crude

consideration of seismic response of the plants. Full-scale

tests would be designed not only to determine the behavior of

existing plants, but also the effectiveness of proposed methods

of retrofit.

60
Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 20 m x 20 m

Weight Capacity: 16,000 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directions

Maximum Displacement: 2 50 mm

Maximum Velocity: 760 mm/sec

Frequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:

18 m x 3 m test bed

L-shaped Reaction Wall Height: 12 m

Wall Shear Capacity: 2.2 MN

Wall Moment Capacity: 2 0.3 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION D3 : CHEMICAL AND REFINERY EQUIPMENT

TESTS OF REFINERY AND CHEMICAL PLANT COMPONENTS ARE NEEDED

TO DETERMINE BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED COMPONENTS

Tests of several types of large components of chemical

plants and refineries are needed. These components include the

following:

Spherical and cylindrical pressure vessels

Piping systems

Cracking towers with piping

Stacks and chimneys

Facility requirements for these tests would be the same as those

for unanchored tanks discussed above. An added condition of the

test facility would be that 100 ft overhead clearance would be

required for the shaking table to accommodate the stacks and

cracking towers at an acceptable scale.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 7 man-years

E. POWER FACILITIES

Because of the many critical large electrical and mechanical

components present in a typical power-generating or power

transmission facility, the tests which are most needed by this

industry are those which could determine the behavior of these

major structural and mechanical components. The recommendations

for testing are the following:

61
RECOMMENDATION El: PLANT COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSE OF CRITICAL

COMPONENTS OF POWER-GENERATING FACILITIES TO SEISMIC LOADING

A large number of the mechanical components of powergenerating facilities are unique to those facilities. Tests of

either full-scale components or of models are needed for two

reasons. First, scale model tests of some components on a

shaking table could increase understanding of the behavior of

these components and help their designers to make them more

efficient and safer from a structural standpoint. Second, fullscale tests of some critical components are needed as proof

tests. The components to be tested, either at full scale or at

reduced scale could include diesel generators, gas turbines,

suspended boilers, coal handling systems, large-diameter high

temperature ducts, and large suspended ceilings typical of those

used in control rooms.

Facility Requirements for These Tests:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 4,4 50 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directions

Maximum Displacement: 250 mm

Maximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/sec

Frequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 5 man-years

RECOMMENDATION E2 : DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

FULL-SCALE TESTS OF COMPONENTS OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED AS QUALIFICATION TESTS

Several failures of equipment at electrical distribution

substations have highlighted the need for qualification tests of

full-scale production components. The components should include

large transformers, large switchgear, and other critical elements

of power distribution systems.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 4,450 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directions

Maximum Displacement: 2 50 mm

Maximum Velocity: 760 mm/sec

Frequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years
RECOMMENDATION E3 : SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

LARGE-SCALE TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE EFFECTS OF SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES

The inability to successfully scale soil particle sizes

leads to a need to perform large-scale tests of effects of soilstructure interaction on seismic response of powerplant

structures. A large shaking table would be required to conduct

coupled soil-structure tests with controlled input motions and

realistic dimensions and boundary conditions. Such tests could

include consideration of rigid concrete structures on raft or

pile foundations, flexible steel structures on spread footings or

piles, and the response of buried tanks, tunnels, shafts, and

piping.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 15 m x 15 m

Weight Capacity: 13,300 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directions

Maximum Displacement: 2 50 mm

Maximum Velocity: 760 mm/sec

Frequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION E4 : TRANSMISSION TOWERS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DEFINE THE RESPONSE OF TRANSMISSION

TOWERS TO SEISMIC LOADING

Because the overturning stability of some configurations of

transmission towers is related to the absolute displacement of

the ground during seismic loading, a large-scale test of such

towers is needed to properly represent their potential to

overturn. Tests for both truss-type and pole-type towers are

recommended.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Shaking Table:

Size: 9 m x 9 m

Weight Capacity: 2,2 00 kN

Maximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directions

Maximum Displacement: 2 50 mm

Maximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/sec

Frequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

63
APPENDIX F

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

ADVISORY PANEL

CHAIRMAN

Dr. James E. Beavers

Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Bldg. 9733-4, MS-2

P. O. Box Y

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

Dr. Mirhan S. Agbabian

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, California 90089-0242

Dr. Robert D. Hanson

Department of Civil Engineering

2 34 0 G. G. Brown Laboratory

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2125

Dr. George W. Housner

Mail Code 104-44

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California 91125

Dr. James O. Jirsa

Finch Professor of Civil Engineering

Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory

University of Texas

10100 Burnet Road

Austin, Texas 78758

Dr. William F. Marcuson III

USAE Waterways Experiment Station

WES-GV-Z

P. 0. Box 631

Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

Dr. Joseph Penzien

Room 731, Davis Hall

University of California

Berkeley, California 94720

64
LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES

Dr. William A. Anderson

Program Director, Earthquake Systems Integration

Division of Emerging and Critical Engineering Systems

National Science Foundation

Washington, D. C. 20550

Mr. James Cooper

Strategic Structures Branch

Defense Nuclear Agency

Washington, D. C. 20305

Dr. James Costello

Mechanical/Structural Engineering Branch

Division of Engineering Technology

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D. C. 20555

Mr. Richard F. Davidson

Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Branch Office

Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army

HQDA (DAEN-CWE-SS)

Washington, D. C. 2 0314

Dr. Walter W. Hays

Deputy for Research Applications

Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes & Engineering

U. S. Geological Survey

National Center, MS 905

Reston, Virginia 22092

Mr. Joseph Tyrrell

Code 045

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

2 00 Stovall Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22332

Dr. Arthur J. Zeizel

Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Program

State and Local Programs and Support

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, D. C. 20472

65
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Dr. Riley M. Chung

Mr. O. A. Israelson

Mrs. Lallyanne Anderson

Ms. Denise A. Grady

Committee on Earthquake Engineering

National Research Council

414 Joseph Henry Building

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D. C. 20418
NBS-114A (rev. 2-eo

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. „ NBS/SP-729

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publication Date

April 1987

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

National Earthquake Engineering Experimental

Facility Study

Phase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

5. AUTHOR(S)

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State. ZIP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

National Science Foundation

National Bureau of Standards

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 87-619811

[~J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

This report summarizes information obtained during the first

year of a four-year feasibility study for a national earthquake

engineering experimental facility. A five-year research program

is presented for a national facility in which full-scale or

large-scale structures or structural components would be

subjected to static or dynamic lateral loads. The facility would

have applicability to tests in the following areas: low-rise

buildings, medium-rise buildings, high-rise buildings , industrial

processing facilities, and power facilities. Representatives

from a broad spectrum of professional, industrial, and trade

organizations and Federal agencies participated in developing the

research program. A comparison of existing testing facilities in

the U.S. and other countries engaged in seismic testing and a

discussion of international cooperation in large-scale testing

are included.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

buildings; earthquakes; laboratories; research; structural

engineering; tests

13. AVAILABILITY

Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

KX] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Q Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

70

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

J

Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists,

engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and

technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties

of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS by

the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints,

and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor- mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other

government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re- quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively

constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS

for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the

sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper

copy or microfiche form.
(JiU.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300