AlllDD TTBb3T

NATL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

A1 11 00992639

Yokel, Felix Y/Full scale test on a two- TA43S .use V44;1973 C.I NBS-PUB-C 1973 PUBLICATION

BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 44

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF

COMMERCE

National

Bureau

of

Standards

Full Scale Test

on a Two-Story House

Subjected to Lateral Load
The Building Science Series

The Building Science Series disseminates technical information developed at the National Bureau of Standards on

building materials, components, systems and whole structures. The Series present research results, test methods and

performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics

of building elements and systems. These publications, similar in style and content to the NBS Building Materials and Structures Reports, (1938-59), are directed toward the manufacturing, design, construction and research segments of the building industry, standards

organizations and officials responsible for building codes. The material for this Series originate principally in the Building Research Division of the NBS Institute for Applied

Technology. The publications are divided into three general groups: Building Systems and Processes; Health, Safety, and Comfort; and Structures and Materials. Listed below are other publications in the category of—

Structures and Materials

• Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 1, Materials and Techniques and Trace Elements

(Cl3.29/2:2) 35 cents

• Weather Resistance of Porcelain Enamels: Effect of Exposure Site and Other Variables After Seven Years (C13.29/2:4) 20 cents

• Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 2, Sulfate Expansion, Heat of Hydration, and Autoclave Expansion (Cl3.29/2:5) 35 cents

• Some Properties of the Calcium Aluminoferrite Hydrates (C13.29/2:6) 20 cents

• Organic Coatings, Properties, Selection, and Use (Cl3.29/2:7) 82.50

• Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 3, Compressive Strengths of Portland Cement Test Mortars and Steam-Cured Mortars (C13.29/2:8) 35 cents

• Thermal Shock Resistance for Buih-Up Membranes (Cl3.29/2:9) 20 cents

• Shrinkage and Creep in Prestressed Concrete (C13.29/2:13) 15 cents

• Experimental Determination of Eccentricity of Floor Loads Applied to a Bearing Wall {C13.29/2:14) 15 cents

• Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 4, Shrinkage of Hardened Portland Cement Pastes

(C13.29/2:15) 75 cents

• Causes of Variation in Chemical Analyses and Physical Tests of Portland Cement (C13.29/2:17) 40 cents

• A Study of the Variables Involved in the Saturating of Roofing Felts {C13.29/2:19) 30 cents

• Proceedings of a Seminar on the Durability of Insulating Glass (C13.29/2:20) 75 cents

• Hail Resistance of Roofing Products (C13.29/2:23) 25 cents

• Natural Weathering of Mineral Stabilized Asphalt Coatings on Organic Felt (Cl3.29/2:24) 30 cents

• Structural Performance Test of a BuUding System (Cl3.29/2:25) $L25

• 1%4 Exposure Test of Porcelain Enamels on Aluminum — Three Year Inspection (Cl3.29/2:29) 25 cents

• Flexural Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Composite Tee-Beams (C13.29/2:31) 25 cents

• Compressive Strength of Slender Concrete Masonry Walls (C13.29/2:33) 40 cents

• Strength of Masonry Walls under Compressive and Transverse Loads (Cl3.29/2:34) 70 cents

• Interrelation Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 5, Freezing and Thawing Durability, Saturation, Water

Loss and Absorption, Dynamic Modulus (C13.29/2:35) $1.25

• Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 6, Compilation of Data from Laboratory Studies

(Cl3.29/2:36) $1.25

• 1939 Exposure Test of Porcelain Enamels on Steel, 30-Year Inspection (C13.29/2:38) 25 cents

• Engineering Aspects of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (C13.29/2:40) $3.00

• Paper Honeycomb Sandwich Panels as Lightweight Structural Components (Cl3.29/2:43) 25 cents

Send order (use Superintendent of Documents Catalog Nos.) with remittance to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Remittances from foreign countries should include an additional one-fourth of the purchase price for postage.

[See mailing list announcement on last page.]
APR 2 3 1973

U

Full Scale Test on a Two-Story House

Subjected to Lateral Load

Felix Y. Yokel, George Hsi, and

Norman F. Somes

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts, Director

Issued March 1973
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-600301

National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 44

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sci. Ser. 44, 26 pages (Nov. 1972)

CODEN: BSSNBV

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2M02

(Order by SD Catalog No. C13.29/2:44). Price 50 cents domestic postpaid or 35 cents GPO Bookstore Stock Number 0303-01071
SI Conversion Units

In view of present accepted practice in this country in building technology,

common U.S. units of measurement have been used throughout this paper. In recognition of the position of the United States as a signatory to the General Conference on Weights and Measurements which gave official status to the metric SI

system of units in 1960, we assist readers interested in making use of the coherent

system of SI units by giving conversion factors apphcable to U.S. units used in this paper.

Length

1 in = 0.0254 meter

1ft = 0.3048 meter

Force

1 kip = 4448 newton

Stress

1 psf =47.88 newton/meter^

Temperature

Temperature in °F = 9/5 (temperature in °C) + 32 °F

III
Contents

Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Scope of investigation 2

2.1. Selection of House 2

2.2. Choice of loading 2

2.3. Measurements 2

3. Description of test structure 2

3.1. Building tested 2

3.2. Special structural features affecting response to lateral load 4

4. Test arrangement 4

4.1. Loading system 4

4.2. Displacement-measurement system 7

4.3. Data acquisition 8

4.4. Visual inspection 8

5. Test program 8

6. Discussion of results 9

6.1. Overall building response in tests 1 through 4 9

6.1.1. Residual drift displacements 9

6.1.2. Reproducibility of Data 10

6.2. Drift under wind load 11

6.3. Resistance to lateral load 11

6.3.1. Lateral displacements 11

6.3.2. Vertical displacements 14

6.3.3. Wall distortion 14

& 6.3.4. Lateral displacement normal to the applied load 14

^ 6.3.5. Possible effects of slippage in joints 15

6.4. Dynamic response 15

6.5. Comparison of building response with present U.S. design practice 17

7. Conclusions 17

8. Acknowledgment 18

9. References 18

Appendix 19

1. Static tests 19

2. Dynamic tests 22

3. Visual inspection 23

IV
FULL SCALE TEST ON A TWO-STORY HOUSE SUBJECTED TO

LATERAL LOAD *

Felix Y. Yokel, George C. Hsi, and Norman F. Somes

Tests were carried out on a single-family, detached house to determine its deflection characteristics under lateral loads. The house was a two-story building of conventional wood-frame construction. Two series of tests were conducted. The first of these was to determine the stiffness of the house when subjected to a simulation of wind loading. The second was to determine the dynamic response of the house to a single impulse load. The report presents the results of these tests from which the following primary conclusions were

derived:

(1) The measured second-story drift of the building was considerably less than that derived using

present design criteria for medium- and high-rise buildings as applied to most areas of the United

States.

(2) Only a smedl portion of the distortion of the exterior walls was transmitted to the interior gyp- sum board finish material.

(3) The upper-ceiling diaphragm experienced significant in-plane deformation. On the other hand,

the floor/ceiling diaphragm at the lower ceiling level tended to act as a rigid diaphragm and to translate as a rigid body when the building was subjected to lateral load.

(4) The natural frequency of the structure was approximately 9 Hz and damping averaged approximately 6 percent of critical damping varying from 4 to 9 percent.

Key words: Building damping; drift; dynamics; earthquake; frequency; housing; lateral resistance; racking; stiffness; structural deflections; vibration; wind load; wood-frame construction.

1. Introduction

There is currently in the United States a strong trend

toward the production of housing by industrialized

methods. These methods frequently involve the innovative use of materials, structural concepts, or manufacturing procedures. It is reasonable that the occupant of housing, produced by these methods, should anticipate

at least that level of structural performance which

society has come to expect from conventional housing.

Conventional housing in the United States has

evolved over several hundred years and, although this evolution has been based upon achieving a satisfactory

level of performance, the final result has frequently

gone unquantified. Thus, for example, the occupant of

a conventional house would probably consider it to be

adequately stiff but not know how stiff it is or how stiff he implicitly requires it to be. Surprisingly, there is very little published information on the response of conventional housing to static and dynamic loads and

the information available [1,2]' does not necessarily

*Research sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20410. 'Numbers in brackets refer to literature references.

apply to housing built in the United States. How then

are the criteria to be established by which to evaluate

innovative products?

In the case of structural response to lateral load,

there are design criteria for medium- and high-rise

buildings limiting their drift (lateral displacement at any story level) under certain wind and seismic loads. These design criteria are not normally used to design

low-rise buildings. Provisions presently used to assure minimum stiffness of low-rise buildings against lateral load [3] stipulate minimum stiffness of shear walls. Because of the complex interaction between structural elements and the contribution of partitions and

cladding to lateral stiffness, these provisions do not provide a basis for predicting the response of conventional low-rise buildings to lateral load. The purpose of the investigation reported herein was

to measure the lateral drift of a conventional woodframe building under simulated wind load to determine

whether the drift limitations required in the design of

medium- and high-rise structures are applicable to lowrise housing units.

It was realized that the drift displacement of buildings under static lateral load is not necessarily the

1
only independent variable affecting the adequacy of

their real-life performance in a high wind. However, in absence of a fuU understanding of all the variables in

this problem, information on the properties of conventional housing known to be acceptable to occupants

provides the only available guidance for the evaluation

of innovative, untried systems.

A secondary objective of the investigation was to determine the dynamic response characteristics of the

structure in order to permit a more accurate calculation

of the effects of dynamic lateral loads such as earthquake loads.

2. Scope of Investigation

2.1. Selection of House

Discussions were held with one of the largest producers of conventional housing in the United States. This

builder agreed to make available a recently completed

house located in the Washington, D.C. suburban subdivision of Bowie, Md. In terms of construction details,

the house was considered to be typical of much of the

conventional two-story housing in this country. The site provided adequate space in which to set up equipment

for the application of horizontal loads to the exterior of the house. Figure 2.1 shows a general view of the subdivision.

Figure 2. 1 General view ofthe Bowie, Md. subdivision.

2.2. Choice of Loading

It was decided to carry out two basic experiments.

The first of these was to determine the stiffness of the

house when subjected to a simulated wind load. The

second was to determine the dynamic response of the

house when subjected to an impulsive load. Because of

the difficulty in applying a simulated wind load in a dis- tributed manner over the building elevation, a series of concentrated forces were applied horizontally at two

levels against the rear elevation of the building. These

levels corresponded approximately to the levels of the

centerlines of the upper-story floor joists and the underside of the lower chords of the roof trusses, respectively. Forces were applied first at one level and then at the

other. The separate effects of these forces were combined to compute a total effect using the principle of su- perposition. Justification for applying this principle is provided by the approximately linear response of the

house to the loading. Four rams were used to apply the

forces at each level and these were spaced so as to achieve a reasonably uniform distribution of load along

the rear wall.

2.3. Measurements

In the first experiment, the measurements included

loads, vertical deflection, horizontal drift of floors and

walls, and racking distortions of walls. In the second

experiment, the basic measurement was that of the

deflection amplitude/time relationship for the vibration

of the building.

3. Description of Test Structure

3.1. Building Tested

A front view of the building is shown in figure 3.1. It

is a two- story wood-frame structure with a partial brick veneer front at the lower story. The front entrance is from a portico having a 4-in-thick concrete floor slab resting on compacted fiU. The fiU is retained by an 8-in- thick hollow concrete block masonry wall. The portico

slab abuts the front wall of the house with its top sur- face 2 ft 10 in above the first-floor level. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show floor plans and elevations,

respectively. The lower story contains a family room,

bedroom, bathroom, and a garage. The upper story has an L-shaped living and dining room, a kitchen, three

bedrooms, and two bathrooms.

The lower^ floor consists of a 4-in-thick concrete slab

Tor brevity, the term "lower" will be used to describe items within the lower story and the term "upper" will be correspondingly used for items within the upper story.

2
lit iisi

Figure 3. 1 Front view of the building.

on grade. Walls are of wood-stud construction covered on all interior surfaces of the building with 3/8-ir.-thick

gypsum board (conforming to ASTM C36) [4] and on

all exterior surfaces with a 1/2-in-thick gypsum

sheathing (conforming to ASTM C79) [5]. Stud sizes^ and spacings are shown in figure 3.2. The brick veneer

is a single wythe of 4 in nominal thickness. The veneer

^All size8 of wood members in the figure as well as in the text hereafter are given as nominal sizes in inches, in accordance with SPR 16-53 [6].

2x4 ot 16 0.0.

BATH 3 2>3 at l6"o 0.

J- 18" ±iJi- W 12 X 27 2-2x6 HEADERS

IM UPPER LEVEL FLOOR S~

3 1/2 « STEEL COLUMN

(untlll«d> FAMILY ROOM 7t

BRICK VENEER

4—2x12^

2-2x8

FLUSH

BEDROOM 4

tc4—2x4

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

DINING ROOM

KITCHEN

BATH I

BATH 2

2x3 at 1^' o.c.

BEDROOM I

LIVING ROOM

BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

Figure 3.2 Floor plans ofthe building.

ASPHALT SHINGLES

Figure 3.3 Elevations ofthe building.

3
is tied to the stud wall by galvanized corrugated metal

ties, provided in every 7th course and spaced 32 in on

center. Exterior-wall studs are braced at cdl building corners with 1x4 let-in bracing installed at a 45° angle

to the horizontal in accordance with the provisions in the FHA Minimum Property Standards [7]. Exterior

siding is asbestos shingle or 3/8-in-thick beveled wood

siding with a 6-in exposure, as shown by the elevations

in figure 3.3. The structural framing of the upper floor consists of 2x8 wood joists spaced 12 in on center, supported by

bearing walls and intermediate supports as shown in figure 3.2. The lower- and upper-story ceilings are 1/2- in-thick gypsum board (conforming to ASTM C36). The

upper-floor subflooring is 5/8-in-thick plywood covered

in all areas by resilient vinyl floor tile. The upper ceiling and the roof are supported by

trussed roof rafters made of 2 X 4 wood members and

spaced at 24 in on center. Roofing consists of 1/2-inthick plywood covered by asphalt shingles.

3.2. Special Structural Features Affecting Response to Lateral Load

Lateral resistance to movement of the building in the

direction in which load was applied is increased by the

backfilled portico abutting the front wall. However, the

four portico columns shown in figure 3.1 are dowelled

to the 4-in-thick portico slab by single 1/2-in-diameter

bolts, and probably do not contribute materially to the

rigidity of the building. The 7-ft floor-to-ceiling height,

which is relatively low for this type of building, also tends to increase lateral resistance to movement. The

brick veneer front, which could influence resistance to movement in the long direction of the building, does not

substantially affect rigidity in the direction in which

load was applied, namely, normal to the plane of the veneer.

4. Test Arrangement

4.1. Loading System

The loading arrangement is shown in figure 4.1. Two

10-ton forklifts were used to hold the loading assembly

in its desired position and to resist the reaction forces. Each forklift carried a 5-kip concrete block to counter- balance the overturning moment caused by the applied

horizontal load and to increase frictional resistance to sliding on the ground. A loading assembly was bolted to each concrete block. The assembly consisted of two

vertical 5-ft-long W8 X 31 beams^ and one horizontal 14- ft-long W8 X 31 beam which supported two rams

spaced 12 ft on center. Figure 4.2 shows the concrete

blocks during the attachment of the vertical beams. In

figure 4.3, a horizontal beam is positioned in its correct

location by the forklift. The horizontal beams were at- tached to the vertical beams by clips which permitted

leveling and vertical adjustment of their position.

Slotted bolt holes permitted some horizontal adjustment of the positions of these beams; however, in general, the correct horizontal positioning of the rams was achieved by correct positioning of the forklifts.

'Nominal size of wideflange steel beams in accordance with AISC [8].

Figure 4.1 Loading arrangement.

Figure 4.2 Mounting ofloading assembly.

Figure 4.4 shows one of the rams carried by a horizontal

beam.

The loading system and the horizontal position of the

loads are shown schematically in figure 4.5. Each of the

four single-acting hydraulic rams had a load capacity of 4
Figure 4.4 Loading ram.

10 tons, a 2-in-diameter piston and a 6-in stroke. Oil

pressure was applied by a single hand pump to all four rams through a manifold and hoses arranged in parallel.

Load was monitored by two separate and redundant

systems: a pressure transducer connected to the

hydraulic system; and two load cells, each with an

operating range of 5 kip, monitoring two of the ram

loads as shown in the figure. Compressive loads were

applied to the rear wall of the building. Loads were

monitored electronically. Data in this report are referenced to readings of one of the load cells as described in the appendix.

The manner of load transfer to the building as well as the vertical positioning of the loads are illustrated in figure 4.6. Load was applied at the underside of the

horizontal roof-truss members and at the level of the

2«e«ie

SIDING 7 -10 3/4" ABOVE TOP

OF LOWER FLOOR SLAB

Figure 4.6 Load transfer to the building.

centerline of the second-story floor joists. At the upper

level, load was applied through an 8 X 4 X 1-in steel plate to a 2 X 8 wood member which in turn transferred

the load to 2 X 4 members nailed between two successive roof trusses. This method of load transfer was

chosen to prevent local load concentrations and ac- companying permanent damage and also to minimize

the removal of siding. At the lower level, load was

applied through an 8 X 4 X 1-in steel plate to a 2 X 8

wood member which in turn transferred the load

through the rim joist to the floor joists. In the experiment to determine the dynamic

response of the building, a 12-in-long piece of 3/4-indiameter steel pipe was inserted between the ram and

488-563 O - 73 - 2
Figure 4.8 Reaction block infront offorklift.

the loading plate in one of the loading points at the

lower level. After a predetermined load was applied,

the pipe was removed by a sharp hammer blow.

Some difficulties developed during the testing

because of muddy ground conditions which reduced

the friction force on the forklift wheels. Wooden

blocking had to be used in the front and the rear of the

forklifts to increase lateral load resistance (see figs. 4.7 and 4.8). This arrangement did not affect the accuracy

of load positioning.

All LVDT's near the side walls, except twe LVDT's at mE cbjter vertical plaime, were set

5,5" BELOW THE CEILING AND 9" AWAY FROM THE WALL.

Figure 4.9 Location oftransducers and loading points.

6
4.2. Displacement-Measurement System

Displacement transducers were used to monitor

movement of the building and racking distortion of

walls. Of the total of 32 displacement transducers used,

the readings from 30 had a resolution of approximately

1 X 10~^ in. The two transducers used to monitor dynamic response were more sensitive. The resolution of the graphical records of the dynamic response is ap- proximately 5 X 10"^ in. AU transducers were mounted

in the interior of the building where the temperature

could be maintained at approximately 70 °F using the

conventional heating control system provided in the

house.

The location of the transducers is shown in figure 4.9 wherein the circled numbers identify each displacement transducer. The arrows show the displacement

vectors measured. Points of load application are

identified by letters. The letters and numbers shown in figure 4.9 are used throughout this report to designate

the locations of loads and displacements. Instruments were installed near the corners of the building and in the plane, shown cross-hatched, which is parallel to the

side walls and located 16 ft from the exterior face of the

left side foundation wall. The location of the measure- ment points relative to the interior wall and ceiling sur- faces is noted in the figure. It also can be seen that the

rear part of the right side waU in the lower story was in- strumented to measure racking distortion. Similar measurements were made on the rear part of the right and

left side walls in the upper story by instrumenting a sin- gle diagonal.

Typically, transducers were mounted on stands consisting of 2-in-diameter steel pipes welded to a base of a steel plate as shown in figure 4.10 for a typical trans- ducer installation in the upper story. Figure 4.11 shows

a closeup view of two transducers. Contact with the

measurement point was maintained by the spring pressure. A typical setup for measuring racking distortion of Wcdls is shown in figure 4.12. Each displacement trans- ducer was attached to one end of a 3/4-in-diameter

brass or aluminum tube. The plunger of the transducer

impinged on an aluminum plate which was glued to the

wall surface and its movement recorded the change of length of wall over which the tube and transducer was

extended.

In order to maintain stable temperature and protect

the equipment against inclement weather, it was necessary to measure deformations inside the building. This

precluded the use of transducer supports which would

reference upper-story measurements to the ground

floor. Since upper-story instruments were supported on

the second-story floor, total displacements had to be

Figure 4.10 Transducer stand.

Figure 4.11 Displacement transducers.

7
small to be measurable with the available instrumentation.

4.3. Data Acquisition

Data from 32 displacement transducers, two load

cells and one pressure transducer were electronically

scanned, converted into digital form, and transmitted

to a teletype unit. The teletype unit produced a printout

which could be examined in the field and, in addition,

punched the data on paper tape. The data were later transferred from the paper tape to magnetic tape for electronic computer processing.

The data acquisition system had a 100-channel

capacity and was capable of logging approximately one

reading per second. Data were scanned after each in- crement of loading and after unloading. The test schedules did not permit readings of deflection

recovery to be made several hours after unloading.

Data on dynamic response from either of the two

more-sensitive displacement transducers were

recorded by a strip-chart recorder. The deflection-time

history was recorded on a horizontcd scale of 50

mm/second and a vertical scale of 20 mm per 0.01-in displacement. The data logging system shown in figure

4.13, from left to right, consisted of a digital scanning

system, teletype, and a strip-chart recorder.

4.4. Visual Inspection

Visual observations of the interior and exterior sur- faces of the building were made before and after each

test.

derived by allowing for the displacement of the upper- 5. Test Program

story floor. It was not feasible to measure, and correct

for, transducer-support rotation which was judged too The static tests are summarized in table 5.1. Four

Table 5.1. Summary of static tests

(See figure 4.9 for location of loads)

Test No. Date Loading

points

Loading sequence

kip

Conditions Comments

1 2/5/71 pmA, B, CD 0- 5.63-0.14 0.14- 8.00-0 0- 7.93-0Cloudy

35 T

Loading was limited by frictional resist- ance of forklifts.

, 2 2/6/71 am

A, B, C, D 0-10.00 Sunny

40 T

Horizontal resistance was increased by

blocking of forklifts.

3 2/7/71 amE, F, G, H 0- 2.00-0 0- 4.00-0 0- 6.00-0 0- 7.23-0

Rainy

36 T

Do.

4 2/7/71 pm

A, B,C,D 0-10.00-0 Rainy

36 T

Do.

8
Table 5.2. Summary of dynamic tests

(See figure 4.9 for location of loads and transducers)

All tests performed on 2/8/72

Test No. Load

kip Locationof load Location of transducer Notes

5.1 2.0 C 53

5.2 2.0 C 53

5.3 2.0 C 53 Not a clean hit. 5.4 2.0 C 53

5.5 1.5 C 53

5.6 1.0 C 53

5.7 1.0 C 53

5.8 2.0 B 53

5.9 2.0 B 53

tests were performed. Test 1 consisted of three cycles

of load applied at the lower level. In this test, the load was limited due to sliding of the forklifts. In Test 2, a

single cycle of load was applied at the lower level after increasing the horizontal resistance of the forklifts by

reaction blocks. In this cycle, the load exceeded the

maximum applied in Test 1. In Test 3, four cycles of load were applied at the upper level. In Test 4, a single

cycle of load was applied at the lower level to determine

residual drift after slackness in the building had been

taken up by previous testing.

The dynamic tests are summarized in table 5.2. The

response in each test was recorded by a single trans- ducer. In order to determine the response for various

relative locations of loads and transducers, the test had

to be repeated many times. Upper story transducers

could not be used to measure vibrations because of ex

citation of the transducer support.

6. Discussion of Results

6.1. Overall Building Response in Tests 1 through 4

6.1.1. Residual Drift Displacements

Figure 6.1 shows a plot of total horizontal load against

drift, measured at transducer 53, which was located at the lower-ceiling level near the point of largest dis- placement. The plot is for Test 1, in which three cycles

of load were applied. In the unloaded position after the

first loading cycle, the residual drift displacement was

0.002 in. This was approximately 12 percent of the drift due to the maximum load applied in this cycle. Subsequent increments of residual deflection were smaller,

indicating that residual deflection was reduced by

reduction of slackness in the system and possibly by

response characteristics similar to strain hardening.

0 OjOI 0.02 0.03 DRIFT, in

Figure 6.1 Response to lateral load in Test 1. The total residual displacement in this test was 0.004

in, which is approximately 15 percent of the maximum

displacement observed in this test (0.027 in). Figure 6.2 shows a similar plot for Test 4, where the

total ram load was increased to 10 kip. In this case, the

residual displacement was 0.003 in, or approximately

8 percent of the 0.039-in total displacement in the test. Figure 6.3 is a plot of Test 3 for transducer 16, which was located at the upper ceiling level near the point of the largest displacement. In this test, four cycles of load were applied at the upper-ceiling level. The load

applied in this test was rather high (a 2.82 kip total ram

load would be equivalent to the portion of a total wind

load of 15 psf tributary to these points of load application. The total ram load actually applied was 7.23 kip.).

The total residual displacement from all four cycles was 0.018 in, which is about 27 percent of the total max- imum 0.068-in displacement measured. However, if the

last loading cycle is considered separately, it caused an

additional residual displacement of 0.007 in, which is approximately 13 percent of the 0.057-in maximum additional displacement in this loading cycle. The first loading cycle in this test, where the 0.004-in residual

displacement was almost 40 percent of the total 0.011-

in displacement, indicates that additional residual dis488-563 0 - 73 -3 9
placements will decrease after preloading of the structure. In the first load cycle in Test 1 and the second load

cycle in Test 3, the deflection at maximum load ex- ceeded the deflection at the same load level in the sub10.0

8.0

2j0

0

1 1 'ft' ' _

//

V

r/ f / /

/ /O—QUESTIONABLE READING

' //

/ — / TEST 4

'/ LOAD A.B.C.D TRANSDUCER 93 / / / / / / / / / / 0 f f / / / / /

1 1 1 0 0.01 a02 0.03 0.04 0X>9 0.06 DRIFT, In

Figure 6.2 Response to lateral load in Test 4.

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 DRIFT, In

Figure 6.3 Response to lateral load in Test 3.

sequent load cycle. This response was probably caused

by differences in the rate of loading. Miscellaneous adjustments in these initicd load cycles substantially in- creased the time required for load application and data

readout.

The test sequence did not allow time to measure dis- placement recovery several hours after unloading,

which probably would have resulted in recovery of some of the residual displacements previously

discussed. It is also reasonable to assume that at the

smaller loads actually acting in service conditions,

residual displacements would represent an even

smaller percentage of total displacements. Thus, in general, it can be concluded from the previous discussion that after preloading, up to the level of the pre- load, the structural response to lateral load was

substantially elastic.

6.1.2. Reproducibility of Data Reproducibihty of data is illustrated in figures 6.4 and 6.5. Figure 6.4 shows a plot of displacement at point 53 against lower-level loading for cycles 2 and 3 in Tests 1, 2, and 4. Data from cdl these four tests are reasonably consistent. Similarly, figure 6.5 shows dis- placements at transducer 16 for cycles 2 and 3 of Test

3, which are in good agreement. Similar trends were observed for other transducers measuring displacement

DRIFT. In

Figure 6.4 Reproducibility ofstructural response to lower-level loading.

in the direction of the applied load. Thus, it can be concluded that after the application

10
of one or two load cycles, structural response to lateral load was predictable and reproducible.

8.0

A-TEST 3 CYCLE 3 -TEST 3 CYCLE 4

TEST 3 LOAD E,F,G.H TRANSDUCER 16

0.02 0.04

DRIFT, in

0.06

Figure 6.5 Reproducibility ofstructural response to upper-level

loading.

6.2. Drift Under Wind Load

Since, after pre-loading, structural response to lateral load was approximately linear and measured load-dis- placement characteristics in various tests were

reasonably consistent, results of upper- and lower-level loading can be combined by superposition to approximately predict the effect of simultaneously applying

lower- and upper-level load. In this way, the effect of a load similar to that resulting from wind pressure, but

statically applied, can be approximately predicted.

The wind load simulated by superimposing lowerand upper-level ram loads was computed in accordance

with ANSI Standard A58.1-1955 [9]. Accordingly, no

resultant load was assumed to act on the roof (see table A5 in A58. 1-1955) and an evenly distributed load was

assumed to act on the projected wall area in the

direction of the ram load. Thus, it was assumed that the

lower ram loads would simulate the wind load on a wall area equal to 376 ft^, extending from midheight of the

lower story to midheight of the upper story, 8 ft high

and 47 ft long. The upper ram loads were assumed to simulate the wind load acting on the wall area equal to 188 ft^, extending from midheight of the upper story to the roof. It was further assumed that the area between

the midheight of the lower story and grade level would

be resisted at the foundation level and thus would not contribute to drift. Using this approach, a design wind

load of 15 psf is simulated by the total ram loads of 2.82

kip at the upper level and 5.64 kip at the lower level,

acting simultaneously.

Figures 6.6 through 6.9 show drift versus wind load

for all the points where drift in the direction of the applied load was measured. The figures were derived by

superimposing displacements caused by lower-level loading measured in Test 2 and displacement caused

by upper-level loading equal to the average of the measurements in the second and third cycles in Test 3.

6.3. Resistance to Lateral Load

6.3.1. Lateral Displacements

Figure 6.10 shows the displacement at the upper-ceiling level relative to the surface of the upper floor. This

drift was measured in the last loading cycle of Test 3, for which lateral load was applied at the upper-ceiling

level. Drift was derived for a total ram load of 2.82 kip

which simulates approximately the contribution of the

wind load to the upper-ceiling level when a total wind

load of 15 psf acts normal to the long walls of the building.

SYMBOL CHANNEL

9993

51

FRONT WALL

LOWER LEVEL REAR WALL- Ch59 Oh 93 1

Ch9l 1—f—r—

r

LOAOINO POINTS

DRIFT, in.

Figure 6.6 Drift at upper-floor level.

11
25 -

UPPER LEVEL SYMBOL CHANNEL

18

16

14

FRONT WALL i

UPPER LEVEL REAR WALL- Chl8 Chl6 /CM4

1 T r—

r

LOADING POINTS

0.008

EXTERIOR WALLS

PARTITIONS • MEASURED

POINTS

REAR WALL

Figure 6. 10 Displacement of upper ceiling relative to upperfloor under upper-level loading, simulating 15 psfwind load.

_L

.05

DRIFT, in

Figure 6.8 Drift at upper-ceiling level.

.10

The figure shows significant in-plane deformation of the upper-ceiling diaphragm. At the upper rear corners, the exterior side walls moved in the direction of the applied load; however, no translation was observed at the

two front corners. The framing of these walls provides

let-in bracing from each rear upper corner, at a 45°

angle to the vertical, down to the upper-floor level.

12
Since there is incomplete rigidity at the connections,

this brace could conceivably resist the horizontal thrust without participation of the 2X4 member at the top of the wedl studs. This mechanism could account for the

mode of deformation of these wcdls. Figure 6.11 shows the total drift of the upper- and

lower-story ceilings due to a lateral load applied at the

upper-ceiling level (Test 3, last loading cycle). The total translation of the upper ceiling was derived by adding

the measured lower- ceiling translation to the measured

upper-ceiling translation. This is the best approximation that can be obtained from the data since measure- ments at the upper-ceiling level were not directly

referenced to the ground level. No correction was made

for possible rotation of the frames supporting the trans- ducers, which was too small to be measured with the

available instrumentation. It can be seen from figure

6.11 that while substantial in-plane deformation of the

upper-ceiling diaphragm can be observed, drift at the

lower-ceiHng level approximates a rigid body translation. This leads to the conclusion that at the upper

level, interior partitions experienced a much greater

racking deformation than the side walls. This

mechanism probably caused the interior partitions to transfer a substantial part of the horizontal load, ex- erted at the upper-ceiling level, to the upper- floor level. Figure 6.12 shows drift at the upper- and lower-ceil- ing levels under a simulated wind load of 15 psf normal

to the long walls. The translations shown in the figure were computed by superposition, adding translations

caused by applying ram loads at the upper-ceiling level

(last loading cycle. Test 3) to those caused by ram loads

applied at the lower-ceiling level (Test 2). Wind pres- sures corresponding to the ram load were computed as

in section 6.2. The building as a whole translated and

rotated slightly. The rotation is probably attributable to the unsymmetrical distribution of interior partitions

and is an order of magnitude smaUer than the overall

drift deformations. Even though the drift near the center of the building at the lower-ceiling level was

greater than that at the side walls on the same level, it cannot be concluded that this difference is attributable

to overall in-plane deformation of the floor-ceiling as- sembly, since the translation near the front wall on the same level corresponds approximately to a rigid body

displacement.

UPPER LEVEL

UPPER LEVEL

0.01

1"

IFRONT WALL

1 1

' I

i

I

I '--^-=i

0.018

0.004

REAR WALL

LOWER LEVEL

0X)04" OjOOS

IFRONT WALL

:

e:-3

I

0.005"

•EXTERIOR WALL

-PARTITIONS • MEASURED

POINTS

REAR WALL

0.010"

0.011

0.014"

REAR WALL

LOWER LEVEL POI2"

1 FRONT WALL

r::::2

0.025"

REAR WALL

0.015"

0.017"

EXTERIOR WALLS

PARTITIONS • MEASURED POMTS

Figure 6.11 Total drift under upper-level loading simulating 15 psf

wind load.

Figure 6.12 Drift under combined upper- and lower-level loading

simulating 15 psf wind load.

13
t .002 in •—^-.014 In

FRONT

1.002 In ^.012 in

6.3.2. Vertical Displacements

Figure 6.13 shows lateral and vertical displacements

near the center of the building (refer to fig. 4.9 for the

position of displacement measurements), caused by a simulated 15 psf wind load. In general, the vertical dis- placements were one order of magnitude smaller than

the horizontal displacements. As a result, no significant

conclusions can be drawn from the vertical measurements.

6.3.3. Wall Distortion Figure 6.14 shows a plot of displacements at the

lower-ceiUng level (points 55 and 57) corresponding to the extreme right of the building, both front and rear. The figure also shows a plot of the change in length of two diagonals across part of the right side wall instru- mented at 45° angles to the horizonted (points 34 and

35). The gage points for the diagonal transducers were

attached to the interior gypsum board and, therefore,

the changes in length of these diagonals are a measure

of the racking distortion of the interior gypsum board.

It can be seen that the change in length of the diagonals was approximately 10 percent of the drift measured at corresponding load levels. If the gypsum board had

participated fully in the racking distortion of the wall,

the length change of the instrumented diagonals would

correspond to approximately 60 percent of the drift measured at the upper wall corner. Thus, subject to the

qualifications stated below (sec. 6.3.5), the important

conclusion can be drawn that only a small portion of the

racking force was transmitted to the gypsum board. It

is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the let-in bracing provided the major portion of the resistance to the

lateral force.

6.3.4. Lateral Displacement Normat to the Applied Load Lateral displacements normed to the apphed load were measured by transducers 56, 52, 13, and 58 at the

lower level and by transducers 19, 15, 26, and 22 at the

upper level. In general, these displacements were one

2.82 kip TOTAL RAM LOAD

5.64 kip TOTAL RAM LOAD

Figure 6. 13 Lateral and vertical displacements near the center of

the building ( refer to fig. 4.9 for location of measurements).

DISPLACEMENT OR LENGTH CHANGE, In

Figure 6.14 Wall distortion.

order of magnitude smaller than the drift displacements in the direction of loading and no significant conclusion can be drawn from these measurements. The

foUowing table shows the displacements corresponding

to a simulated 15 psf wind load computed by superposition using Test 2 and the third cycle of Test 3. Drift dis- placement in the direction of the applied loads at the same locations are given for comparison.

14
Story 1 ransciucer Displacement normal to load

in Unit Gispidccmcnt

in

56 0.002 inward 0.009 Lower

0 001 inwnrH 0.016

16 U.UUU 58 0.001 inward O.OIl

19 0.002 inward 0.015 Upper

15 0.002 inward 0.020 26 0.003 inward 0.017 22 0.007 0.010

6.3.5. Possible Effects of Slippage in Joints The interpretation of structural response to lateral load presented in section 6.3 is based on the premise

that joints were capable of transmitting displacements

to structural elements without significant slippage.

Thus, it was assumed in 6.3.1 and 6.3.3 that the dis- placements measured at the inside face of the rear wall of the building were imparted to the side walls. While

this assumption seems reasonable, there is no evidence

by actual measurements that the displacements of the

rear walls were fully transmitted to the floor or ceiling

diaphragms, and that the translation of these

diaphragms near the side walls was actually trans- mitted to the side walls without slippage at the joints.

The conclusions with respect to side wall distortion presented in 6.3.1 and 6.3.3 must therefore be quahfied,

since they are based on a premise that cannot be

proven.

6.4. Dynamic Response

The plots on the left side of figure 6.15 show the

results of various tests. Figure 6.15(a) shows the superimposed results of four tests, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, in which a 2,000-lb force was removed at point C and

response was measured by gage No. 53 (see fig. 4.9)

which is close to pointC. The width of the curve is partly due to higher-frequency electrical noise of the

recording equipment, but also indicates the range of

variation between the results of the four tests. The range of variation between individual tests is relatively small, indicating that dynamic response was

reproducible in successive tests. The response curves

indicate that the method of removing the lateral force

in the building apparently did not permit the structure

to freely vibrate from the initial deflected position. The

apparent deflection position at load release is shown in the figure as approximately 1/4 that of static displacement. The irregular response in the first cycle, subsequent to the load release, was reproducible in all the

tests and is probably attributable to rebound of the

spring-loaded gage. Similar plots are shown in figure

6.15(b) for tests 5.8 and 5.9, wherein a 2,000-lb force was removed at point B and response was measured at gage 53 which is located at a distance of 12 ft from point

B, and in figure 6.15(c) for tests 5.6 and 5.7, wherein a

1,000-lb force was removed at point C and response was measured at gage 53 in the vicinity of point C. Even though it is demonstrated that data are reproducible, the following must be taken into account

in assessing the validity of conclusions drawn from the

tests: resolution of displacement time-history records

taken at the lower-ceiling level is marginal due to the

low magnitude of displacement resulting from the

method of excitation used (maximum peak-to-peak dis- placement of the free vibration was approximately

0.003 in). In view of this small displacement amplitude,

it is possible that vibrations in the region of deflection

measurement may not accurately reflect the vibration

of the overall structure. In addition, transmission of

structural motion to the transducers and seating in the

structure may have adversely affected the resolution of these low magnitude vibration measurements.

Analysis of the superimposed records shown in the

plots in figure 6.15(a), (b), and (c) shows a high frequency caused by electrical noise and a lower dominating

frequency of approximately 9 Hz. Frequencies derived

from these plots are reasonably consistent with each

other. The frequency of 9 Hz appears reasonable for a

structure of this type. The plots on the right side of

figures 6.15(a), (b), and (c) show average deflection

response and estimated envelopes of deflection decay

from which the percentage of critical damping was computed by the following equations:

percent critical damping = v X 100

27n' = ln Xi/;c2

where:

v= critical damping ratio

Xilx^ = two successive displacement peaks

In = natural logarithm

Damping computed from the plots in figures 6.15(d),

(e), and (f) averages 6 percent of critical damping with an approximate range from 4 to 9 percent. Damping

ratios would probably increase for vibrations with

larger displacement amplitude.

In summary, it can be concluded on the basis of the

15
0.012

0.008

0.004

0

(a) jT'

DEFLECTED STATIC POSITION

^APPARENT LOAD RELEASE

CURVE WIDTH INDICATES RANGE OF

/VARIATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TESTS

fif}i!r>/^^i^"M<m> ZERO = POSITIONOFNO LOAD

I I

r(d) APPROXIMATED AVERAGE

DECAY

APPROXIMATED AVERAGE

RESPONSE

I I I I

6 0.008 ^ 0.004

-(b) r(e)

=

I I I I I I

0.012 -

0.008 -

0.004-

0 —

(C)

h(f)

I I I I I 0 0.2 0.4 06 08

TIME, sec FREQUENCY DETERMINATION

I I I I I 0 02 0.4 0.6 08

TIME, sec DAMPING DETERMINATION

Figure 6. 15 Dynamic response characteristics.

measurements and subject to the stated qualifications

that the natural frequency is approximately 9 Hz and

that damping averages 6 percent of critical damping,

ranging from 4 to 9 percent.

6.5. Comparison of Building Response With Present

U.S. Design Practice

Figure 6.16 shows a plot of drift at the lower-ceiling

level against simulated wind pressure normal to the

long wall. The solid line connecting the points

designated by circles shows the drift measured in the

fourth loading cycle and was derived by superposition

of the results of Test 2 and the last loading cycle of Test

3. Drift is shown for the location of the largest displacement observed at this level (gage 53). Superposition was

used, as discussed in section 6.2, assuming that a wind

force of the magnitude shown on the vertical scale of

the plot acted normal to the entire long-wedl area, and

that no resultant wind pressure acted on the projected

roof area.

The dash-dotted vertical line represents the drift Hmit of h/500, where h is the height above grade level,

which is normally used in the United States in the

design of medium- and high-rise buildings for a wind of a 50-year mean recurrence interval. To the right of the plot, wind loads computed for vari- ous areas in the United States and for different exposure conditions are shown. Columns A, B, and C were computed using the ANSI-A.58.1 Standard now

proposed for adoption. Columns D were computed

using ANSI Standard A.58. 1-1955 which is presently in force and which does not distinguish between various

exposure conditions. Note that, except for the Miami,

Fla. region, the measured drift of this building, after slackness in the system was removed in three preloading cycles, is considerably less than that derived using

present design criteria for medium- and high-rise

buildings. No conclusion can be drawn for Miami, since

the design wind loads required for this region exceed

the loads actually applied in the test.

16
While the previously discussed plot provides infor- mation on drift that is anticipated when the building is subjected to repeated cycles of windload in one

direction, consideration should also be given to the

magnitude of drift in the first load cycle and to the total magnitude of lateral displacement, including residual

displacement, when several load cycles are applied in one direction. At least part of the residual displacement would

be recovered if the direction of the lateral load is reversed. The first reverse cycle of lateral load could cause a total displacement which would include the cu- mulative effect of recovery of part of the residual dis- placement in the initial direction of loading, and the initial load cycle in the reverse direction. Some indication of the magnitude of this total dis- placement can be derived from figure 6.16. The points

designated by squares show the magnitude of drift that the building is estimated to experience in the first load

cycle. The points designated by triangles show the total displacement relative to the initial position of the build- ing estimated for the third load cycle. The points were

derived using the results of Tests 1 and 3.

It can be concluded from the plot of these data that even the maximum drift that could reasonably be ex- pected in the first cycle of load reversal under windloads up to 20 psf would be considerably less than

h/500.

7. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn on the basis

of an analysis of the test results:

(1) The measured second-story drift of the building was considerably less than that derived using present

design criteria for medium- and high-rise buildings as applied to most areas of the United States.

(2) Only a small portion of the distortion of the exterior walls was transmitted to the interior gypsum

board finish material. Thus, the let-in bracing probably

made the major contribution to the resistance to racking loads. This conclusion is subject to the qualification stated in section 6.3.5.

(3) The upper-ceiling diaphragm experienced signifi- cant in-plane deformation. Correspondingly, the

racking distortion of the upper-story interior partitions

exceeded that of the exterior side walls.

(4) The floor-ceihng diaphragm at the lower-ceiling

level tended to act as a rigid diaphragm and to translate

as a rigid body when the buUding was subjected to lateral load.

(5) The measured structural response indicates that the natural frequency of the structure is approximately

9 Hz and the damping averages approximately 6 per- cent of critical damping varying from 4 to 9 percent.

The validity of these conclusions is somewhat in

40r

20-

O Drift (net) in fourth load cyde

Drift in first lood cycle

A Ditplocefnent In third load cycle

relative to initial position

DA

h/500

_L

OA .08 .12

DRIFT, in (TRANSDUCER 53)

.16 MIAMI

Proooted ANSI ASe.l A City Center B City Outskirts C Flat Open Area ANSI A58.l-i955

D For all areas

t40

B A B A

CHICAGO LOS

ANGELES

D C i20i

a

NEW

YORK

Figure 6.16 Comparison of measured building response with design

criteria for medium- and high-rise buildings.

17
question because of the marginal resolution of the dis- placement time history records.

(6) Slackness in the structure caused relatively large

residual displacements in the initial cycles of lateral loading. Response characteristics in subsequent cycles

of loading were substantially elastic and reasonably

consistent and reproducible, as were the measure- ments of dynamic response.

8. Acknowledgment

The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation ex- tended by Mr. Calvin B. Morstein, Vice President, and

other members of the staff of Levitt Technology Corporation in furnishing the house for test. The authors

also acknowledge the cooperation of Mr. WiUiam J. Werner, Project Manager, Operation Breakthrough

staff. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

and the assistance of Mr. Thomas H. Boone, Technical

Representative, NBS, in providing liaison with Levitt

Technology Corporation. Much credit is due to the fol- lowing NBS staff and laboratory personnel who carried out their work in frequently unpleasant winter conditions and in accordance with difficult time schedules:

Mr. Lloyd Davis, Mr. Frank Rankin, Mr. Randolph Williams, Mr. James Raines, Mr. Charles Bulik, Mr.

Lymus Payton, Mr. James Warfield, Mr. Edward

Tuma, and Mr. WiUiam Appleton.

9. References

[1] Short, A. and Simms, L. G., Survey of Loading Tests on Some

Post-War House Prototypes, The Journal of the Institute of Structural Engineers (London, England, Feb. 1949).

[2] ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 210, Symposium on FuU Scale Tests on House Structures, American Society for Testing Materials (Baltimore, Md., July 1957).

[3] FHA Technical Circular 12, A Standard for Testing Sheathing

Materials for Resistance to Racidng, Federal Housing Administration, Underwriting Division (Washington, D.C., Oct.

1949).

[4] ASTM C36-68, Standard Specifications for Gypsum Wallboard,

1970 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Cement, Lime, Gyp- sum, Part 9, American Society for Testing Materials (Philadel- phia, Pa., Nov. 1970).

[5] ASTM C79-67, Standard Specifications for Gypsum Sheathing

Board, 1970 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Cement, Lime,

Gypsum, Part 9, American Society for Testing Materials

(Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 1970). [6] Simplified Practice Recommendation 16-53, Lumber, American

Standards for Softwood Lumber, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., Jan. 1953). [7] Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property Standards

for one and two hving units, FHA No. 300, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration (Washington, D.C. 20410, June 1969). [8] American Institute of Steel Construction, Manned of Steel Construction, Seventh Edition (New York, N.Y., 1970). [9] A58. 1-1955, American National Standards Institute, Building

Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures, National Bureau of Standards

(Washington, D.C, Sept. 1955).

18
APPENDIX

1. Static Tests

The results of the four static tests are presented in tables A.l, A.2, A.3, and A.4, respectively. Channel

numbers on top of each column correspond to the numbers on the transducers shown in figure 4.9. The follow- ing numbers represent measurements of loads:

Load cell opposite load B 91 Load cell opposite load C 41 Pressure transducer measuring oil pressure 43

indicate displacements in the direction of the arrows in figure 4.9; positive numbers indicate displacements opposite to the arrow directions. In tables A.l, A.2, and A.3, "loads" are based on

readings of the load cell opposite B(91). In table A.4,

readings of the load cell opposite C(41) are used to compute loads. The averages of the various readings of load

cells B and C and the pressure transducer for the vari- ous tests are compared below using load cell B (channel

91) as reference:

Each table lists all three load readings. Load cell readings are multiplied by 4 to give toted ram load (A +

B + C + D) or (E + F + G + H). The displacement

readings are given in inches X lO"*. Negative numbers

Cell B Cell C Transducer

Test 1 1 0.95 0.88 Test 2 1 .97 0.83 Test 3 1 .99 0.81 Test 4 1 1.09 0.81

Table A.l Results of Test 1

Total Ram 112/ Load, kip

12 13 1 H |5 16 17 18 19 21 22 73

.00 .00 y .00 .00 .00 .00 .pO .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.02 • s.oo -M.ijC -6. JU 'B.O'J -1 .on -7.U0 • 1 .00 1 .00 •1.00 ^.00 i.uo •3.00

1 .90 -1 7.00 -i.OO -1 3. on -8.00 -9.00 -2.00 1 .00 -1.00 3.00 6.00 -3.UU

2,03 -10. CO -21 .to -M.OO -12.00 .00 -I1.00 -3. on 5.00 .00 1.U0 12.00 -9.0(1 3.63 -is.oo -»7.U0 -t.UO -18.00 -22. on -20.00 -11.00 b.OO .00 5.00 1 7.U0 -6.00

S.63 -lO.oO 127.00 -H.on •36.00 -57.00 -<tl .00 -26.00 1.00 .00 7.00 22.00 1 7.00

. M -3.00 -28. nc -3.00 -6.00 -15.00 6. on 5.00 8.00 7.00 r.oo 10. UO -29.1)0 2.03 -1 1 .00 -<4*.0C -t .OC -22.00 -31 .00 .8.00 -6.00 1 1 .00 5.00 1.00 16. UO • 21. on

•1.03 -li.OO -82.00 -5.0c. -3'«.00 -16,00 -25.00 •16.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 21 .00 5.00

s.»s -1».30 i3<<.on -5.00 -13.00 -7'*. 00 -17.00 .37.00 5.00 6.00 S.UD 78.00 9.r,o (.00 -2't.03 2ns. 00 -2.00 -80.00 -108.00 -32.00 •13.00 6.00 5.00 5'00 26.00 36.00

.00 -9.03 -S9.D0 -5.00 -15.00 -20.00 22.00 .7.00 9.00 10.00 3.00 12.00 -7. on S.V3 -22.00 1&9.,1P -7.00 -57.00 -88.00 -35.00 -30.00 • 1.00 5.00 9.00 21. on .no 7.»3 -26.1!) 2ns. 03 -A.UO -80.00 -111 .00 -13.00 .10.00 .11.00 8.00 13.00 30.00 I5.no

.00 -10.00 -sa.oo -*.0C -22.00 -22.00 22.00 .1 .00 2.00 16.00 3.00 15.00 .20. OU

2<4 2S 2t 27 28 29 31 32 3^ 31 35 51

.00 .00 .00 .JO .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .no 1.02 .1.00 .- 1 .00 1.00 -1 .00 .00 .00 1 .oar .00 .00 .00 • 1 .00 7 .00

1.90 -S.oO - 1 . yp 7.00 -1 .00 .00 .00 2.00 .00 •1 .00 1 .00 -2.00 1 7. on

2.03 .8.00 -2.00 8. on -5.00 .00 -1.00 2.00 •1 .00 •7.00 -3.00 -7.00 2u.on

3.83 -I.OO -i.uo 1 1 .00 -6.00 .00 -1 .00 2^00 • 1 .00 •7.00 •1 .00 -8.00 57. nn 5.63 • s.nO • 8. 00 1 9.00 -7.00 .00 -I.00 2^00 -1 .00 •7.00 •1 .00 -9.00 1 25.00

.11 .6.00 •2.00 8. on -1.00 • 00 -3.00 • 00 -3.00 •7.00 -7.00 -7.00 16.011 2.03 •1 o.oo • 1.00 1 1 .on •12.00 -1 .00 • l^OO I^OO -1.00 •7.00 •5.00 -9.00 11 .nn 1.03 • 9.00 •l.uO 1 7.00 •1 1 .on -1.00 •3.U0 1^00 • 1.00 •8.00 -1.00 -9.00 75.no

5.95 •10. DO •7.00 21 .00 •12.00 •1 .00 -l^OO 1^00 -1.00 -9.00 -1.00 • 9.00 1 3i.no

8.00 -in.,)0 •1 i.un 2i.on •1 6.00 .00 -3.U0 5^00 • 3.00 •9.00 -2.00 •1 O.UO 201. nn

.03 •12.00 -2.110 1 1.UU •10. on .00 •1.00 .00 • J. 00 •9.00 -6.00 •10.00 36.no

5.93 -5.00 -10. on 2 1 .CiP - 1 1 .00 .on -1.00 7^00 -3.00 •9.00 1.00 •20.00 1 i5.nu

7. 93 • 1.00 -m.tin 2a. on - 1 6. no •1 .00 -5.00 6.00 •3.00 -10.00 5.00 •21.00 192.00

.00 -1 1 .10 -u.ilO 1 1 .0? -13.00 -1 .on -5.00 -1 .00 -3.00 -10.00 -6.00 •1 1.00 35. nn

52 53 5<4 55 56 57 58 59

• 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .ook/ .ooi/

1.02 3.00 2. OP -18.00 •1 .00 3.00 -3.00 -1 .00 -6.00 .98 1.01

1 .90 3.00 A. on -1 .00 -1 .00 6.00 •1 1 .00 -2.00 •19.00 1 .79 1 .68 2.03 1 .00 is.un -1 1 .on • i.on 10. on -1 1 .00 • 00 •28.00 1 .95 1.72

3.83 .CO I09.0C 1.00 -1.00 17.00 •21.00 • 2.00 -88. OC 3.61 3.03

5.63 •1 1.00 1S7.0P 1 1.00 23.00 28.00 -31.00 •9.00 -1 10.00 5.50 1 .82

.11 -7. jO 22.00 -1| .00 3.00 1 1 .00 2.00 •1 .00 -27.00 .01 .20 2.03 • 2.00 63.03 -15,00 -1 .00 15.00 -11.00 •2.00 •50.00 2.12 1 .85 1.03 -3. on 1 35. 30 9.00 -1.00 23.00 -25.00 •1.00 •89.00 1.15 3.15

5.95 •16.00 191 .00 26.00 -2.00 36.no -28,00 -7.00 •125.00 5.60 5.26

8.00 -31.00 232.00 20.00 27.00 53.00 -38,00 -13.00 •1 7 1 .00 3.97 8.7 9 .00 -1 3. on 36.00 -11.00 26.00 1 8.00 -3.00 • 1 .00 •19.00 .00 -.02

5.93 -10. oo 2nA.OO 1 1 .00 11.00 31 .00 -87.00 .00 •111.00 5.11 1.96

7.93 -7. CO 2 7 2.00 1 5.00 89,00 38.00 -1 1 7.00 • 3.00 •185. CO 6.23 7.26

• 00 -6.00 11.00 -51.00 23.00 25.00 -12.00 3.00 •56.00 .01 -.01

a/ Transducer nuifcer (refer to figure 4.9 for transducer location)

b/ Displacement x 10 , in. c/ Total ram load, kip, confuted from corresponding transducer reading.

19
It can be seen that, except for Test 4, there was

reasonably good agreement between the two load cell readings. In Test 4, the average of load cell C readings was higher and the correlation between individual

readings was erratic. In this test, the readings of load

cell C were judged to be more reliable. The pressure

transducer readings were significantly lower, particularly in Tests 3 and 4. No explanation could be found for

this discrepancy, particularly in view of the fact that any oil leakage would cause the transducer readings to be higher. The effect of temperature on load cell and

transducer accuracy was investigated and found to be

negligible. Since the load cells were calibrated before

and after the test and found to be accurate, their readings, rather than pressure transducer readings, were used in interpreting the measurements.

Table A. 2 Results of Test 2

Total Ram

load. Mi/ 1 2 13 It 15 u 17 la 19 2| 22 23

kip .00 .00 b/ .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2.00 • H.OO •1 t.oo 5.00 -••.00 3i.U0 -19.00 1 3.00 16.00 1 7.00 2.00 a. 00 15 .ou t.oo .9.00 -S5.00 H.OO -9.00 30.00 -31 .00 -2.00 27.00 17.00 s.oo 13.00 42 .on

6. on -IS. 00 -10]. 00 i.on .20.00 27.00 -tS.OO -a. 00 27.00 20.00 7.00 la.uo 60 .00 8.00 -?t,oO -184.00 .00 -'•7.00 -27.00 •92.00 •12.00 26.00 25.00 1 1 .00 25.00 82 .00 10.00 -?s.oo -303.00 -1 .30 -72.00 -'•7.00 •109.00 •ika.oo 9.00 2'^.00 M.OO 32.00 1 1 7 .00

2t 2S 2* 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 51

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 • 00 .on .00 2.00 s.oo 2.00 s.oo .00 -1 .00 .00 1 .00 1 .00 .00 2.00 -2.00 36 .00 H.oa s.uo 1 .00 A.OU • 1 .00 -2.00 .00 1 .00 .00 .00 H.OO • 6.U0 75 .00 &.00 b.OO .on 1 3. on -2 .on -2.00 .00 2.00 .00 1 .00 a. 00 >i3.on 124 .00

, a.oo 1 1 .00 -5.00 21 .00 -5.00 •LOO .00 s.oo .00 .00 1 5.00 -20. UO 211 .UO 10.00 7.00 -n.OO 30.00 -.00 -'•.00 -1 .00 s.oo .00 .00 20.00 -27.00 328 .011 S2 i3 SH 55 5* 57 5* 59 It 43 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 £/ .o(£/ 2.00 1 1 .00 70.00 29.00 .00 15.00 -1 6.00 2.00 .15.00 1 .91 1 .58 I.OO lA.OO 129.00 Ht,on 1 .00 20.00 -tA.OO 2.00 -'•9.00 3.81 3.06 A.OO IA.30 216.00 S7.00 it. 00 22.00 -•2.00 1 .00 -95.00 S.85 4.79

a. 00 27.00 1 .00 45.00 1 1 1 .00 30.00 -132.00 • 3.00 -176.00 8.62 6.71 10.00 2i.00 tS9.00 1 M.OO 1 AS. 00 M3.00 •177.00 •9. DO -286. DO 9.84 a. 92

a/ Transducer I*ii4jer (refer to figure 4.9 for transducer location). F/ Displacement x l(r, in. £/ Total ran load, kip, computed froa correspcnding transducer reading.

20
Table A. 3 Results of Test 3

11^Kan I II V 12 IJ It |5 16 17 IB I* 2| 22 7i

kip'

.0 ) .u.)b/ ~, 0 .OM .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 • liU

1 tO'l 1 .no -13. .J 1 2. jT 2a. 00 -J. 00 12.30 1 .00 11.30 -

1

.00 .00 IS. 00 -12 .00 2.0 J -19. J J J.JO 5B.00 -7.00 1 1 1 .00 - 1 1 .00 28.00 .00 -1.00 12.00 -16 .on

.0) i.m -1 . •J 1 1 .UO 15.00 1 1.00 11.00 -7 .00 ID. 00 1 .00 -1.00 1 00 -2 . or)

1 .0 ) 2 . ..lO -in. J 1 < .00 12. JO IV, on 61.00 -7.0c 16.00 3 .00 -2.00 1 6.00 - 1 « .00 2.00 . JU -19. J ' 'j .UP AS. 03 1 H .on 1 29.00 -7 1 .00 2J.00 - 1 .00 -1.00 11 .00 -52 .00

J.S'I -1 ..>o -Al . J.I 7.00 VI .09 1 7.00 201.00 -36.00 12.00 -I .00 -2.00 11.00 -8| .00 H.OJ -•>. jO -9,3. 0 1 D.JO 18,00 2.00 290.00 -55.00 16.00 -1 .00 •2.00 61.00 -129 • on .CO - 1 -9 « T) S . 0 0 32.00 J 1 .00 76.00 -J. 00 26,00 9 .00 1 .00 10.00 - 1 S . UO 2.0] -J. JO -lb. jO 5.00 70.00 v.oo 1 6J.00 -17.00 Jl.SO 1 .00 1 .00 17 .00 -7 1 .00 t.oo .s.t.n -93. I!) 7.U0 1 tS.iJO -1 1 .00 266.00 -J5.U0 18,00 -2 .00 •1 .00 61.00 -131 .oil *.ao -6.-T .lAO. >)' lO.UO 19J.00 -Ju.oo 150.00 -aV.OO 99,30 -« .00 -1.00 107.00 -221 .00

.00 .,jO -lA. JO s.ua bS.nn JJ.OO 1 10.00 .8.00 11.00 1 1 .00 2.00 15.00 -11 .00 .00 • A.,J 'J •A . '. 2.C0 15.00 16.00 106.00 .00 31.00 5 .00 9.00 1.00 -56 .on 2.00 -In. 00 1 1 .00 ai .00 Jo. 00 1 88.00 -11.00 50.00 -2 .00 9.00 15.00 -101 • nn 1.00 -10.00 -Rn

.

atl 1 J. 00 1 ja.oo 16.00 JlV.liO -J2.00 65.00 -6 .00 7.00 68.00 -171 .00

6.0ti -1 1 .nO -151 . jO 1 7.00 198.00 -5.00 172.00 -56.00 106.00 -12 .00 2.00 107. on -252 .iin 7.23 -1 J.dC -2:»i. ,it' ?j.on 287.00 -15.00 680.00 -101.00 159.00 -17 .00 1 .00 ISO. 00 -362 .00 .on -J. or, -IV. iir 11. UC 75. CO b7.00 185.00 •I8.0C 71.00 8 .00 7.00 19.00 -101 .on

21 zs 26 27 28 29 11 12 J1 3« 35 5

.00 .'.0 .oc .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .no

1 .00 -s.oo ,r,li d.OO 1.0c 2.00 -2.00 1 .00 .00 .00 1 .00 1 .00 13.00 2.09 .3.00 -1 .jP 2 1 .CO 8. CO 6.0C -1 .CO 2.00 .00 .00 3.00 .00 31 .00

.00 -i.!;0 -1 .ijC .00 2.00 s.oo .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .00 .00 3.00

1 .03 -3.^0 .c.f. ;.uo • 1 .on 1.00 -1 .oC 1 .00 .00 -1 .00 1 .00 .2.00 22.00

2.00 -1 .00 - 1 .oo 1 1.00 -1 .00 1.00 -1 .00 .1 .00 -1 .00 -1 .00 1 .00 .6.00 31 .00 3.00 -i.ro .uC 22.00 -I .00 1.00 -2. CO -2.00 -1 .00 -1 .00 1 .00 .8. on 50.00

1.00 -3.;r .'.'ir 38. CG 3.00 5.00 -2.00 -2.00 .00 -2.00 2.00 •10. on 75.00

.00 -2.00 .00 3.tC .1 1 .CO 1 .00 -2. CO -1.00 .00 -2.00 -1 .00 •8.00 7. on 2.00 -1.0C .ilO 2 1 .Ou -1 .on 1.00 -2.00 -2.00 .00 -1.00 1 .00 .7.00 39.00

i.on .CO .oc 1 1 .CO 8.00 12.00 -2.00 1 .00 .00 -2.00 3.00 .8.00 73. OU 6.00 -l.rjO .cr 7 1 .CC 19.00 21.00 -1 .CO 2.00 .00 -2.00 6.00 •1 1 .00 1 22. on .CO -7.r,t; .3r b.OO -8, CO 7.00 -2.00 -2.00 -1 .CO -2.00 .00 .5.00 10.00

.00 -10.(0 -1 .CO -26. oc -19. CC -3.0c -1.00 -5.00 .00 -7.00 -1 .00 -10.00 6.00

2. CO -3.0C • cr -b.LiC -12.00 -2.00 -1.00 -J. 00 .00 -s.oo 1 .00 -1 1 .00 28. on 1.C0 -5.01! .00 1 A. CO .00 1.00 -S.CO -2.00 .00 -6.00 2*00 -1 3.00 71.00

6.00 2.00 .n(t 1 1 .C'J 1 3. 00 16.09 -6.00 -1 .00 .00 -6.00 A. 00 -1 7.00 1 28.00

7.23 2.oC .pp 7 7.Cfj 26.00 28.00 -s.oo 1 .00 1.00 -6.00 8.00 -20.00 182.00

.or -3.t P .oc -v.oo -8.00 1.0c -1.00 -5.00 .00 -6.00 -2.00 •10. on 13. no

52 S3 Si 5b 56 57 58 bV

• ro .00 .to .OC .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00-' .00-

1 .00 -^i.OO ?r, .0" .00 .CO 1 .00 -10. CO .00 -6.00 • 90 .29

2. CO -5. CO 3c • C 1 .OC 2A.U0 .00 -30.00 1 .OC -I8.0C 2.07 .57

.00 -1 .pC A . C -2.00 1.C0 1 .00 -3.00 -1 .00 -3.00 -.01 -.00

1 .CO . A . r 0 1 6 .CC -1 .00 3.00 3.00 -13.00 .00 -1 1 .00 .98 .31

2.CC' -2.nC' 12 .00 -6 .or IC.tn 2.00 -29.00 1 .00 -21.00 2.11 .57 3.00 .1.,-)0 S6 .3C -1 .CC 3V,00 2.0c -15.00 2.00 -31.00 2.81 .81 1.0b -1.0C no .OC -h .00 bl .00 2. or -A9.00 1.0C -58.00 3.81 1 .09

.CC -A. CP -

1

.CP -11 .c? 2.00 1.00 -6.00 -1 .00 -v,oo • 01 .01 2.00 -I.CC iij .no -9 .00 1 V.OO 1.00 -33.00 .00 .30,00 2.06 .58 i.cr -|i.r,r »A - 1 "4 .00 5 1.00 3.0C -70.00 1.00 -59,00 3.61 1.09 6.0c 1 31 . K - 1 3 • oc 1O7.OO -1 .oc -123.00 5.00 -106.00 5.82 1 .65

.cr -7.,-,tl 1 1 • IjC -15 . oc b.CC 6.CC -9, CO .00 -lb. 00 .00 .00

.oc -8.1,0 1 2 .UC -33 .co -11.00 18.00 1.00 1 .00 -33.00 .01 .01 2.0G -9,i:( '*6 . OC -33 .CO .OC iv.oo -70. CO 1.00 -53.00 1 .83 .57 1.CC -10. CO b2 .CC -36 . (. 0 51. CO 15.00 -63.00 8.00 -92.00 1.85 1 . 1 1 6.10 - 1 U.CiO 1 12 .CO -lb .on VS. 00 11.00 -1 11.00 10.00 -131.00 5.77 1.67 7.23 - 1 " .

> c 1 ES .CO -37 • CO • 12,00 7.00 -lr.3.00 v.oo -183.00 7.11 2.U7

.00 -y.uc 1 5 .CP -3 / .oc 3.00 11.00 -1.00 1.00 -50.00 • 01 .00

a/ Transducer Nunber, Crefer to figure 4.9 for transducer location).

F/ Displacement x 10 , in. c/ Total ram load, kip, computed fron corresponding transducer reading.

21
Table A.4 Results of Test 4

rotal Raa

Load, 1 1 2/ 1 3 1

ll 1 ^ 1 6 1 y 1 f 1 9 2 1 22 2 3 kip

• Ou nn .00 00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 00 .00 00

2.*I2 qO •33.00 . ot -1 1 .00 -15.00 -7.00 • 1 .00 1 .00 •2.00 2.00 6.00 IS.OO

<I«S2 • 9. oo -73.00 -2.01! -22.00 -3*. on •38.00 • 9.00 .00 •4.00 4.00 10.00 34.0U

• •21 -lb. uo - 1 6 3.0C -3 • on -51 .00 -77.00 -93. UO -40.00 -14.00 •4.00 8.00 17. UO 7H.00

t* )7 •70 • 00 1 8 7 • (.' 0 -9 .00 -49,00 -75.00 -97.00 •4 1 .00 -38.00 • 1 1 . 00 10.00 1 6.U0 *3 •01) 7.27 -72. no 1 V9.cn -12 .00 -36.00 -39.00 -99. UO -42.00 -40.00 •1 1 .00 1 1 .00 1 6.00 4S*on

t 7 -7 1. 00 2Mn.uo -6.00 -65.00 - 75 . on - 1 30 * 00 -50.00 -2 7.00 -3.00 13.00 2 1 .UO 90 •on

0-' 7 • GO -3 . 00 .00 - I 1 .00 20.00 -22.00 3.00 . UO 3 • UO • 4. on 1 .00 1 u cno

24 2 7 29 y 2 34

00 iO CO .00 .00 on .00 .00 .00 a 00 .00 .00 no 2.H2 2. 00 .uo 7 .00 -1 .00 .00 1 .00 3.00 1 .00 .00 2.00 • 1 .00 37.0U

I.52 5. jO .00 1 1 .00 .00 -1 .00 .00 6.00 1 .00 -1 .00 5.00 • 4,00 • 3.UU

2

1

3. on .on 19 .00 2.00 .00 1.00 1 1 .00 1.00 -2.00 12. 00 •12. 00 1 7 7 •OU 8*37 12. CO 00 21 .00 2.00 .00 1 . uo 14.00 a 00 -4 a 00 26.00 •77,00 20 1 • on

7 • 27 9, 00 .on 2 1 .00 -3.00 -2 . 00 .00 12.00 1 . 00 -6 . 00 24 . 00 •28 a On 702 • nn 9.97 10. ClO .00 29.00 -1.00 -3.00 -1.00 1 2 . On 1 . 00 -8.00 2 7 a 00 -35 a 00 • nu

• 03 00 . GO -3 .0" 5.00 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 -5 .00 1 .00 • 1 .00 1 b #00

S2 3 3 Si 55 91 , 00 .on • oc .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00— .00— nnC/

2 • *(2 -3.0C I 7 .00

<t.5Z . UO 1 36.GC 39 .00 57.00 3.00 -64.00 1 .00 -73.00 3.40 4.00

8.21 2. no 2«3 . 00 93 .00 1 25.00 5.00 -126.00 -1 .00 -159.00 6.12 6.10

8.37 5.00 3C&.CC 9S .00 196.00 4.00 -199,00 4.00 -1 77.00 6.26 11.13 7.27 S. 00 308.00 flE> . 00 199. OP 5.00 -197.00 6.00 -186.00 5.83 7.47 ».»7 |3. OO 3R8.0C 1 1 B .00 225.00 5.00 -21 3.00 4.00 -239.00 7.11 10.77

.03 -S. 00 32.00 -8 .00 18.00 6.00 • 6.00 8.00 -25.00 •.01 .00

a/ Transducer Nunber. (refer to figure 4.9 for transducer location). S/ Displaceaent x 10 , in. c/ Total ran load. Up, computed from corresponding transducer reading.

2. Dynamic Tests

Oscillograms for Tests 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 are shown in figure A.l. Figure A.2 shows Tests 5.5, 5.6,

and 5.7. Tests 5.8 and 5.9 are shown in figure A.3.

.012

.008 .0040

- .004 -

TEST 5.1

LOAD: 2 kip AT C TRANSDUCER S3

T 1 1 r-

.012 008-

.004-

5 0- 5 -.004-

TEST 5 2

LOAD: 2 kip AT C TRANSDUCER S3

n I I r

Figure A.l Oscillograms ofTests 5.1-5.4.

012

.008 .004-

0-

-.004-

TEST S.3

LOAD: 2 kips AT C TRANSDUCER 53

T—I—I—

r

.012 -

.008 .0040-

.004-

-I 1 1 r-

.2 4 .6 .6

TEST 5.4

LOAD: 2 kip AT C

TRANSDUCER 63

TIME, sec

22
.012 -

.008 -

.004 -

.004-

TEST 5.5

LOAD: 1.5 kip AT C TRANSDUCER 53

.008 -

.004 -

-.004 -

TEST 5 6

LOAD: 1 kip AT C

TRANSDUCER 53

.008-

.004-

-.004-

TEST 5 7

LOAD: 1 kip AT C

TRANSDUCER 53

TIME, sec

Figure A.2 Oscillograms of Tests 5.5-5.7,

+ .004-0- - .004 -

TEST 5 t

LOAD: 2 ki» AT B TRANSDUCER 53

* .004-

0 - %/\/Si«l>»iH4 - .004-

TEST 5 9 LOAD 2 kip AT e TRANSDUCER 53

TIME, tec

Figure A.3 Oscillograms of Tests 5.8 and 5.9.

3. Visual Inspection

No sign of distress or minor damage by cracking,

spalling or separation of surfaces was observed.

23
FORM NBS-114A (1-71) U.S. Q^PT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

-BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA NBS BSS -44 SH E E T

2. Gov't Accession No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Full Scale Test on a Two-Story House Subjected to Lateral

Load

5. Publication Date March 1973

6. Performing Or^nization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Felix Yokel, George Hsi, and Norman Somes

8. Performing Organization

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Taslc/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12, Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) Tests were carried out on a house to determine its deflection characteristics under

lateral loads. The house is a two-story building of conventional wood-frame construction. Two series of tests were conducted. The first of these was to determine the

stiffness of the house when subjected to a simulation of wind loading. The second was

to determine the dynamic response of the house to a single impulse load.

The report presents the results of these tests from which the following primary

conclusions were derived:

1. The measured second-story drift of the building under the test, load was considerably less than the drift permitted for medium and high-rise buildings by

present design criteria for most areas of the United States.

2. Only a small portion of the distortion of the exterior walls was transmitted

to the interior gypsum board.

3. The upper ceiling diaphragm experienced significant in-plane deformation. On

the other hand, the floor/ceiling diaphragm at the lower ceiling level tended to act

as a rigid diaphragm and to translate as a rigid body when the building was subjected

to lateral load.

4. The natural frequency of the structure was approximately 9 Hz and damping

averaged approximately 6 percent of critical damping varying from 4 to 9 percent.

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) T^ i -i • j • j j • ^.i i Building damping; drift; dynamics; earthquake;

frequency; housing; lateral resistance; racking; stiffness; structural deflections;

vihrati nn ; wind load; wood frame construction.

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

[x] UNLIMITED.

I I FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

26

22. Price 50 cents

postpaid

USCOMM-DC 66244-P71

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 O - 488-563
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National

Bureau of Standards research and development in physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Comprehensive

scientific papers give complete details of the work,

including laboratoiy data, experimental procedures,

and theoretical and mathematical analyses. Illustrated with photographs, drawings, and charts. Includes

listings of other NBS papers as issued.

Published ui two sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry (Section A)

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on standards of physical measurement, fundamental

constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: Domestic, $17.00; Foreign, $21.25.

• Mathematical Sciences (Section B)

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design,

numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry,

logical design and programming of computers and

computer systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.00; Foreign,

$11.25.

TECHNICAL NEWS BULLETIN

The best single source of information concerning the Bureau's measurement, research, developmental, cooperative, and publication activities, this monthly

publication is designed for the industry-oriented

individual whose daily work involves intimate contact with science and technology

for engineers, chemists,

physicists, research managers, product-development

managers, and company executives. Includes listing of

all NBS papers as issued. Annual subscription: Domestic, $6.50; Foreign, $8.25.

NONPERIODICALS Applied Mathematics Series. Mathematical tables,

manuals, and studies. Building Science Series, Research results, test methods, and performance criteria of building materials, components, systems, and structures. Handbooks. Recommended codes of engineering

and industrial practice (including safety codes) de- veloped in cooperation with interested industries,

professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. Special Publications. Proceedings of NBS conferences, bibliographies, annual reports, wall charts,

pamphlets, etc. Monographs. Major contributions to the technical

literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's

scientific and technical activities. National Standard Reference Data Series.

NSRDS provides quantitative data on the physical

and chemical properties of materials, compiled from

the world's literature and critically evaluated. Product Standards. Provide requirements for sizes, types, quality, and methods for testing various industrial products. , These standards are developed co- operatively with interested Government and industry

groups and provide the basis for common understanding of product characteristics for both buyers and

sellers. Their use is voluntary.

Technical Notes. This series consists of communications and reports (covering both other-agency and

NBS-sponsored work) of limited or transitor)' interest. Federal Information Processing Standards

Publications. This series is the official publication

within the Federal Government for information on

standards adopted and promulgated under the Public

Law 89-306, and Bureau of the Budget Circular .A.—86

entitled. Standardization of Data Elements and Codes

in Data Systems.

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 tech- nological marketplace.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibliographies are issued periodically by the Bureau

:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service (Publications and Reports of Interest in Cryogenics).

A. literature survey issued weekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $20.00; foreign, $25.00.

Taquelied Natural Gas. A literature sur\^ey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription : $20.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic services to the U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151.

Electromagnetic Metrology Current Awareness Service (Abstracts of Selected Articles on Measurement

Techniques and Standards of Electromagnetic Quantities from D-C to Millimeter-\Vave Frequencies). Issued monthly. Annual subscription: $100.00 (Special rates for multi-subscriptions). Send subscription order and

remittance to the Electromagnetic Metrology Information Center, Electromagnetics Division, National Bureau

of Standards, Boulder, Colo. 80302. Order NBS publications (except Bibliographic Subscription Services)

from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402.
U.S. OEPARTMEIMT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

215 U.S.MAIL