A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PUBLICATION

Ifatlonal Bureau of StandarSs

Library, E-01 Admin. Bldg. RetGrBtlCO !

• . u ^Nov 2 5 1969 BUILDING taken froiT

SCIENCE /^rSERIES ^3

Structural Performance Evaluation

Of a 'Building System

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards
Announcing—The Building Science Series

The "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 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 Structure Reports (1938-59), are directed toward the manufacturing, design, and construction segments of the building industry standards organizations, officials responsible for building codes, and scientists and engineers concerned with the properties of building materials. The material for this series originates principally in the Building Research Division of the NBS Institute for Applied Technology. Published or in preparation are: RSSl. Building Research at the National Bureau of Standards. (In preparation).

BSS2. Interrelations Between Cement and and Concrete Properties: Part 1, Materials and

Techniques, Water Requirements and Trace Elements. 35 cents BSS3. Doors as Barriers to Fire and Smoke. 15 cents BSS4. Weather Resistance of Porcelain Enamels: Effect of Exposure Site and other Variables After Seven Years. 20 cents BSS5. Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 2, Sulfate Expansion, Heat of Hydration, and Autoclave Expansion. 35 cents BSS6. Some Properties of the Calcium Aluminoferrite Hydrates. 20 cents BSS7. Organic Coatings. Properties, Selection, and Use. $2.50

BSS8. Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 3, Compressive

Strengths of Portland Cement Test Mortars and Steam-Cured Mortars. 55 cents BSS9. Thermal-Shock Resistance for Built-Up Membranes. 20 cents BSSIO. Field Burnout Tests of Apartment Dwelling Units. 25 cents BSSll. Fire Resistance of Steel Deck Floor Assemblies. 25 cents BSS12. Performance of Square-Edged Orifices and Orifice-Target Combinations as Air

Mixers. 15 cents BSS13. Shrinkage and Creep in Prestressed Concrete. 15 cents BSS14. Experimental Determination of Eccentricity of Floor Loads Applied to a Bearing

Wall. 15 cents BSS15. Interrelations Between Cement and Concrete Properties: Part 4, Shrinkage of Hardened Portland Cement Pastes. 75 cents BSS16. Techniques for the Survey and Evaluation of Live Floor Loads and Fire Loads in Modern Office Buildings. 40 cents BSS17. Cau.ses of Variation in Chemical Analyses and Physical Tests of Portland Cements. 40

cents BSS18. Smoke and Gases Produced by Burning Aircraft Interior Materials. 35 cents BSS19. Study of the Variables in the Saturating of Roofing Felts. 30 cents. BSS20. Performance of Buildings—Concept and Measurement. (In press.)

BSS21. Algorithms for Psychometric Calculations. (In press.)

BSS22. Investigation of Performance Characteristics for Sanitary Plumbing Fixtures. (In

press.)

BSS23. Hail Resistance of Roofing Products. 25 cents. BSS24. Natural Weathering of Mineral Stabilized Asphalt Coatings on Organic Felt. (In

press.)

Send oi-ders 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.]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE COMMERCE • Maurice H. Stans, Secctm-y

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lewis M. Branscomb

Structural Performance Evaluation

Of a Building System

Edward O. Pf rang and Felix Y. Yokel

Building Research Division

Institute for Applied TechnoIog\

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Building Science Series 25 /

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sci. Ser. 25, 127 pages (November, 1969) CODEN: BSSNB

Issued November. 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OflSce Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.29/2: 25), Price S1.25
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

JAN 1 2 1970

Certain proprietary and patented building systems, structural components, and building materials are identified in this report in order to adequately specify the test specimen and the experimental procedures. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement

by the National Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the proprietary

products identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

This report does not account for possible variation in the performance

of these proprietary products.

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising or promotional purposes.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 73-602417

II
Contents

Page

List of tables iii List of figures iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Objective and scope 1

3. Notation and conversion units 2

3.1. Service loads 2

3.2. Simulated loads on test structure 2

3.3. Deflections 2

3.4. Lengths 2

3.5. SI conversion units 2

4. Performance criteria 2

4.1. Introduction 2

4.2. Definitions 3

4.2.1. Length of members 3

4.2.2. Deflections 3

4.2.3. Superimposed loads 3

4.2.4. Failure 3

4.3. Test criteria 3

4.3.1. Model selection 3

-4.3.2. Loading 3

4.4. Performance criteria 3

4.4.1. Horizontal deflection under

dead and wind load 3

4.4.2. Horizontal deflection under

dead, live, and wind load 4

4.4.3. Vertical deflections under service live load 4

4.4.4. Sustained load deflection 4

4.4.5. Ultimate sti'ength 5

4.5. Summary of test and performance

criteria _- 5

5. Test structure 6

5.1. Proposed structure 6

5.1.1. Precast components 6

5.1.2. Cast-in-place topping slabs 7

• 5.1.3. Gypsum walls 7

5.1.4. Foundations, grade beams, and

slabs on grade 8

5.2. The test structure 8

5.2.1. Structural simulation 8

5.2.2. Description of the test struc- ture 8

5.3. Fidelity of simulation of field conditions by the test structure 9

5.3.1. Interaction between the test structure and the complete

structure 9

5.3.2. Simulation of foundation conditions 10

5.3.3. Simulation of live loads 11

6. Load program 11

6.1. Introduction 11

6.2. Applied loads 11

6.3. Loading schedule 11

PaKP

6.3.1. Tests conducted on the struc- ture with walls installed 11

6.3.2. Tests conducted on the struc- ture after the removal of walls 12

7. Instrumentation 12

8. Results 13

9. Interpretation of results 14

9.1. Introduction 14

9.2. Vertical forces 14

9.2.1. Structural response to vertical loads 14

9.2.2. Compliance with performance

criteria, vertical loads 14

9.3. Horizontal forces 16

9.3.1. Horizontal loads in the North

direction 16

9.3.2. Horizontal loads in the East

direction 17

9.3.3. Compliance with performance

criteria, horizontal loads 18

9.4. Summary 18

10. Components tests 19

10.1. Introduction 19

10.2. Column tests 19

10.2.1. Short-term destructive tests ^ 19

10.2.2. Sustained loading (creep)

tests 20

10.2.3. Interpretation of column

tests results 20

10.3. Channel .slab test 22

10.4. Beam tests—repeated loading 22

10.4.1. Test specimens 22

10.4.2. Beam loading 22

10.4.3. Test results 23

10.4.4. Interpretation of results 23

11. Material tests 24

11.1. Introduction 24

11.2. Concrete tests 24

11.2.1. Precast component concrete _ 24

11.2.2. Floor and topping slab concrete 24

11.2.3. Concrete test results 24

11.3. Reinforcing steel 25

12. Summary and conclusions 25

12.1. Summary 25

12.2. Conclusions 25

13. Acknowledgments 25

14. References 26

15. Tables 26

16. Figures 32 Appendix A. Plotted Test Results 70 Appendix B. Discussion of column simulation 111 Appendix C. Load computations and load schedules 113

List of Tables

Tablf Pape

6.1. Simulated loads (symbols and magnitude) 26

6.2. Simulated loads in load schedule 26

10.1. Column tests (actual dimensions and rein- forcement cover of the columns) 27

10.2. Column tests (ultimate loads and failure modes) 28

10.3. Beam tests (insert spacing and concrete strength of specimens) 28

10.4. Beam tests (repeated load test results) 29

Table Pajre 10.5. Beam tests (modes of insert failures) 29

11.1. Concrete tests (concrete compressive and

splitting strength) 30

11.2. Concrete tests (unit weights and air contents of concrete) 30

11.3 Concrete tests (modulus of elasticity of precast component concrete) 31

11.4. Reinforcing steel test results 31

III
List of Figures

Figure Page

5.1. Typical complete structure 82

5.2. Structural system model 32

5.3. Typical bay of two-bay frame test 32

5.4. Assembling structural frame 32

5.5. Beam and column reinforcement 32

5.6. Elevation of column reinforcement 33

5.7. Long column details 33

5.8. Main beam reinforcement 34

5.9. Main beam sections 34

5.10. Tie-beam plan and elevation 35

5.11. Beam and column connection 35

5.12. Tie-beam end details 36

5.13. Plan sections of column connections 37

5.14. Elevation sections of column connections 38

5.15. Connection detail 39

5.16. Floor channels 40

5.17. Plan .section through walls 40

5.18. Fire wall 41

5.19. Fire wall (partially dismantled) 42

5.20. Exterior wall details 43

5.21. Structicore wall sections 44

5.22. Interior "Structicore" walls (partially dis- mantled) 44

5.23. Foundation detail 44

5.24. Test structure before the installation of walls 44

5.25. Test structure after the installation of walls 44

5.26. Test structure with testing equipment in- stalled (top view) 55

5.27. Test structure with testing equipment in- stalled (front view) 55

5.28. Column load equipment connection 46

5.29. Racking load equipment connection 46

6.1. Loading of test structure 46

7.1. Instrumentation location. Northeast sche- matic 47

7.2. Instrumentation location. Southwest sche- matic 47

7.3. Vertical deflection gages 48

7.4. Column strain gage location 48

9.1. Test No. 5, sustained vertical load versus midspan deflection of center main beam _^ 48

9.2. Test No. 16, Major floor load {w) versus midspan deflection of center main beam __ 49

9.3. Diagonal tension cracking at w -= 270 psf

(Test No. 16) 49

9.4. Interior floor load (w) and total floor load (w + W) versus midspan and column

support deflection of center main beam 50

9.5. Midspan deflection of west main beam with

and without walls 50

9.6. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation 51

9.7. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus

east translation 51

9.8. Test No. 2, south wind load versus translation 52

9.9. Test No. 10, south wind load versus translation 52

9.10. North-south horizontal translation of struc- ture with and without walls 53

9.11. Test No. 11, south wind load versus wall compression 53

Figuie PaK<?

9.12. Test No. 7, south wind load versus translation 54

9.13. Efi^ect of vertical loads on north-south hori- zontal translation 54

9.14. Test No. 14, south wind load versus translation 55

9.15. Test No. 18, south wind load versus translation 55

9.16. Test No. 3, west wind load versus translation 56

9.17. Test No. 11, west wind load versus translation 56

9.18. East-west horizontal translation of struc- ture with and without walls 57

9.19. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 57

9.20. Drywall crack near ceiling on interior side of east wall 58

9.21. Test No. 8, west wind load versus translation 58

9.22. Effect of vertical loads on east-west hori- zontal translation 59

9.23. Test No. 15, west wind load versus translation 59

10.1. Test method for column tests (minor axis) _ 60

10.2. Test method for column tests (major axis) _ 60

10.3. Column under test 60

10.4. Short-term test on column No. 1 60

10.5. Short-term test on column No. 5 61

10.6. Short-term test on column No. 8 61

10.7. Short-term test on column No. 2 61

10.8. Short-term test on column No. 6 61

10.9. Short-term test on column No. 7 62

10.10. Short-term test on column No. 9 62

10.11. Columns after testing 62

10.12. Column ends after testing 62

10.13. Creep loading frame for columns No. 3 minor axis bending 63

10.14. Creep loading frame for column No. 4 major axis bending 63

10.15. Detail of base for column No. 4 creep frame 63

10.16. Sustained load test, column No. 4 64

10.17. Sustained load test, column No. 3 64

10.18. Columns with major axis eccentricity 64

10.19. Columns with minor axis eccentricity 64

10.20. Column creep with major axis eccentricity _ 65

10.21. Column creep with minor axis eccentricity _ 65

10.22. Channel roof slab test 65

10.23. Beam to slab shear connectors 66

10.24. Fatigue test on main beam 66

10.25. Fatigue loading, beam No. 5 67

10.26. Fatigue loading, beam No. 9 67

10.27. Fatigue loading, beam No. 8 68

10.28. Fatigue loading, beam No. 6 68

11.1. Sample report form 69

A. 1-A. 76. Plotted test results 70-110

B. 1. Column simulation effect on connection mo- ments 111

B. 2. Moment distribution 112

C. 1. Wind loads 116 IV
Structural Performance Evaluation of a Building System*

Edward O. Pfrang and Felix Y. Yokel**

A full-scale, first-story portion of a building system was tested in the laboratory

in such a manner as to simulate the structural behavior of a three-story building

under both service and potential ultimate loading conditions. Additional tests were

performed on the system components to provide behavioral data needed for the evaluation of the system.

Performance criteria for the evaluation of the structural safety and adequacy of certain building systems were developed. This report presents the results of the physical tests performed in the evaluation of the safety and structural adequacy of one such system, and discusses their significance. The report also presents data con- cerning the complex interaction between components which takes place in the building

system.

The primary conclusions reached were

(1) The system, as erected in the laboratory, satisfied the performance criteria which were set for its evaluation with a substantial margin. As a system, it exhibited strength and stiffness in excess of service and ultimate load requirements.

(2) The walls of the system behaved as an integral part of the structure. They

provided most of the stiffness of the system with respect to lateral loads, and provided

a significant portion of the stiffness against vertical loads. Key words: Building systems; low-income housing; performance criteria; performance

testing.

1. Introduction

It is now recognized that the United States

has a severe housing shortage, particularly in the area of low-income housing. This shortage

is of such magnitude and urgency as to make

questionable its solution through conventional means. It appears that only systems-type solutions taking full advantage of the innovative

capabilities of our advanced technology will be

capable of coping with this problem economically and within an acceptable time framework.

Traditionally, structural innovations in building construction have been evolutionary rather

than revolutionary and have taken place in

small, carefully considered increments. Many

of these incremental steps have been based

upon extensive laboratory and analytical in- vestigation. Progress has usually been based

upon component testing and upon simplified

and conservative analyses which do not fully

account for system interaction. Because of

these simplifications, the strengthening effects of so-called nonstructural portions of a building system are, in general, neglected and the

complex interaction of components is frequently overlooked. As a result, in those few

cases where tests on complete building systems

have been performed, results have been obtained which in most cases indicate strength

and rigidity far in excess of that predicted

either by component testing or by conventional

* Work sponsored by the Department of Housinp; and Urban

Development, Washington, D.C. 20410. ''Associate Professor of Enyineering. on leave from School of Advanced Technologry, State University of New Yoric at Binprhamton. New York 13001.

simplified analysis [1] .' Strict reliance on these

conventional concepts tends to inhibit innovative solutions to the building problem.

One solution to this dilemma would be full- scale system tests coupled with mathematical

analysis. However, full-scale tests of large building systems are prohibitively expensive and

time-consuming and are also difficult to in- terpret unless they are performed under ideal

laboratory control. In addition, the development

of mathematical theories generally depends

upon a trial-and-error feedback process involving numerous cycles of physical testing. A

more reasonable approach appears to be the

execution in the laboratory of large-scale subsystem tests which simulate total system behavior. If such subsystems are carefully

chosen and are tested in a manner designed to simulate the performance of the total system,

and if they are supplemented by critical component tests, then they can be used as a basis

for determining the structural adequacy of

proposed innovative solutions. This report

summarizes the results of such an evaluative

study.

2, Objective and Scope

This report presents the results and evaluation of a structural performance test on an

innovative building system. Criteria for

structural performance and for performance

testing are developed and are subsequently

applied to system evaluation.

' Fiuures in brackets indicate the literature references on p. 25.

1
The report summarizes the results obtained

from a comprehensive series of load tests on

a full-scale portion of the building system. The

test portion of the structure was constructed

in the laboratory under provisions of plans and

specifications prepared for field erection of the

system. The test structure was one story in

height and was part of a three-story-high

building, chosen and loaded in a manner that

simulated the structural response of the complete building subjected to dead, live, and wind

loads. The report also presents results obtained

from tests on components and materials used

in the test structure. In addition to the evaluation of structural

performance, significant information on struc- tural interaction was derived from the data.

3. Notation and Conversion Units

The following notation is adopted for use throughout this report:

3.1. Service Loads

D = service dead load

L — service live load

H = service wind load

3.2. Simulated Loads on Test Structure

(see fig. 6.1)

P = 2d story column loads

Hw — West wind load

Hs = South wind load at fire walls

H's ~ South wind load between fire walls

w = floor load between columns

7t'' = floor load—cantilever section

3.3. Deflections

Dv = vertical gross deflection

Dvr = residual vertical gross deflection

dv = vertical net deflection

dvr = residual vertical net deflection

dvc = vertical net deflection at column support

dvcr = residual vertical net deflection at col- umn support

Dh = horizontal gross deflection

Dh?' = residual horizontal gross deflection

dh = horizontal net deflection

3.4. Lengths

h = height above grade (ground level outside

the building)

I = length of member

t = depth of member

3.5. SI Conversion Units

In view of present accepted practice in this

country in this technological area, 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 Gen-,

eral Conference on Weights and Measures,!

which gave official status to the metric SI sys-l

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

of SI units by giving conversion factors appli- ] cable to U.S. units used in this paper.

I Length t 1 in = 0.0254* meter f 1 ft = 0.0348* meter

j Area s 1 in^ = 6.4516* X 10-* meter^ j 1 ft- = 0.09290 meter=

Force i lib (Ibf) = 4.448 newton

'

1 kip = 4448 newton

Pressure, Stress

1 psi = 6895. newton/meter^

1 ksi = 6.895x10'' newton/meter1 psf = 47.88 newton/meterMass Volume

1 Ib/ft^ (Ibm/ftO = 16.02 kilogram/

meter^

Moment

1 kip-in = 113.0 newton • meter

4. Performance Criteria

4.1. Introduction

Some criteria for performance testing have ' been developed such as ACI 318 [2] and N. Y.

State Building Code [3] ; however, these criteria '> are not sufficient for the evaluation of compre- ; hensive building systems. The criteria devel- » oped for the purpose of this evaluation use ! some of the existing criteria, supplemented by | new criteria where necessary.

The performance criteria used in this report are presented and discussed in this section.

First certain necessary deflnitions are devel- , oped; these are followed by Test Criteria and

then Performance Criteria. Each Test and

Performance Criterion is followed by a commentary. For convenience of reference, these

Criteria are summarized in section 4.5. i

* Exactly

2
4.2. Definitions

4.2.1. Length of Members

The length of horizontal members is taken

as the distance between the center lines of

their supports or the clear distance between

supports plus the member depth, whichever is smaller. In the case of a cantilever beam, the

"length" is taken as twice its actual length.

4.2.2. Deflections

Deflection is the displacement of a point in a structure caused by the application of superimposed loads.

The magnitude of the deflection at a point is

1 the component of the displacement of the point

!| in the specified direction, measured from its position before the application of the superimposed loads which caused the deflection.

I Horizontal deflections are measured in a

j direction parallel to the direction of the apI plied horizontal forces.

I Gross deflection is the total deflection of a

I point.

j Net deflection is the part of the gross de-

' flection at a point which is attributable solely

j to the deformation of a structural member

: or assembly between its supports.

'

, Residual deflection is the deflection at a

' point after removal of superimposed loads,

I measured relative to the position of the point

I before application of the loads.

j 4.2.3. Superimposed Loads

!] Superimposed loads are all loads applied

I to the test structure to simulate the dead, live,

! and wind loads acting on the real structure.

; 4.2.4. Failure

Failure of the structure or any structural

component is defined as one of the following:

(a) An increase in deformation of an order

I of magnitude as defined in sections 4.4.1 and

4.4.3, occurring within 10 minutes - without

j increase in applied load.

I (b) The inability of the structure to resist

' further load.

j (c) Sudden major cracking, major spalling, or structural collapse.

II 4.3. Test Criteria

1 In order to satisfy the requirements for a

, - This time limit was introduced in order to dis-

'i tinguish between long-term creep and a deformation

I occurring over a relatively short period of time.

performance test, the following Test Criteria

must be satisfied.

4.3.1. Model Selection

A portion of the structure which is capable

of simulating the response of the entire structure, and which will represent conditions providing the least margin of safety, shall be

selected for testing. Foundation conditions

shall be simulated in a manner representing

the most adverse anticipated conditions that

may exist in a complete structure in the fiield. Commentary on Criterion U.3.1. A similar

criterion is developed in ACI 318 [2] ; however,

the emphasis in this paper is on the requirement of having a section of the structure

which (1) will represent the performance of

the entire structure, and (2) will represent

this performance in a conservative manner.

4.3.2. Loading

"Superimposed loads" shall be applied in a manner which will result in conditions equal

to or more adverse or more adverse than the

conditions in the full-scale structure and which

provide the least margin of safety.

Comentarij on Criterion U.3.2. Criterion

4.3.2 requires a simulation which is conservative. It is recognized that exact duplication

of field conditions cannot be achieved and

should not be attempted. Instead it is required

that the test simulate superimposed loads in a manner which will provide the least margin

of safety that may exist under any circumstances.

4.4. Performance Criteria

4.4.1 Horizontal Deflection Under Dead and

and Wind Load

At a load level of 0.9 dead + 1.1 wind (0.97)

+ 1.1//) the Horizontal deflection due to the

superimposed load of 1.1 wind (1.1//) shall

not exceed the following

Dh < 0.002/?

where

Dh = horizontal gross deflection

h = height above grade.

Commentary on Criterion U.U-1. Generally

a structure will experience its most severe

lateral deflection under a condition of minimum

vertical load and maximum lateral load. This

criterion is designed to prevent excessive deflection under this condition of loading, and

3
provides a margin of 10 percent over the max- imum lateral loads likely to occur under service conditions.

There has been limited experience with

high-rise apartment structures which indicated

that when such a structure is designed to permit horizontal deflection in excess of /i/400

to h/500 under maximum service wind loads,

discomfort and anxiety are experienced by some of the occupants under severe wind conditions. Although it is extremely conservative

for low-rise structures, this deflection limitation is adopted here since a more comprehensive

criterion has not been developed.

4.4.2. Horizontal Deflection Under Dead,

Live, and Wind Load

At a load level of 1.3 Dead + 1.7 Live +

0.8 Wind (l.SD + 1.7L + O.SH), the horizontal deflection due to the superimposed load

of O.SD + 1.7L + O.SH shall not exceed the

following:

Dh < 0.002/;.

Commentary on Criterion U.U.2. Even though

the most critical loading with respect to horizontal deflections of a structure is in many

cases a combination of minimum vertical and

maximum lateral loads, maximum vertical loads

combined with lateral loads may be more critical. This criterion imposes conditions which

represent the highest loads which should cause no permanent structural damage. It would be

unrealistically conservative to impose maximum lateral loads. A lesser lateral load is therefore adopted for this criterion, accounting for the low probability of simultaneous

action of maximum vertical loads, combined

with maximum wind forces.

4.4.3. Vertical Deflections Under Service

Live Load

At a load of 1 dead and 1 live (ID + IL),

the vertical deflection due to the superimposed

load of 1 live (IL) shall not exceed the following:

dv <

I

where

:

dv = vertical net deflection.

I = length of member.

Commeniary on Criterion It4.3. Criterion

4.4.3 is based on the proposition that —- rep480

resents a reasonable maximum allowable in- } stantaneous deflection under service loads.

Prevailing codes usually set as a deflec- 360

tion limitation; however, studies [4] have in- dicated that this deflection is excessive in

terms of user comfort and causes minor dis- tress to finishes and partitions. The proposed

-— deflection limitation reasonably represents

480

present-day consensus based on limited knowledge in this area.

4.4.4. Sustained Load Deflection

At a load level of 1.3 dead + 1.7 live (1.3D

+ 1.7L) sustained for 24 hours, deflections

due to the superimposed load of 0.3 dead -I- 1.7 live (0.3Z) + 1.7L) shall not exceed the

following:

I (O.SD + 1.7L)

(a) dv < X — - 360 L

(b) Dh < 0.002/;.

Residual deflection due to the superimposed

load of O.oD + 1.7L, measured not later than

24 hours after removal of the superimposed

load, shall not exceed the following:

(c) Udv >

I'

If dv <

20,000^

_J_

20,000f

dvr < 0.25 dv.

dvr < . - 80,000^

(d) Drr < dvr + 0.25 (Dv - dv)

where:

Dv = vertical gross deflection

Dvr = residual vertical gross deflection

dv = vertical net deflection

dvr = residual vertical net deflection

/ = length of member

t — depth of member.

Commentarij on Criterion U.h.h. Structures

should not suflfer large irreversible deformations under loads which are lower than their

ultimate design loads. It is therefore reasonable to require structures to resist superimposed loads up to 90 percent of their ulti- mate design loads without suflfering significant

irreversible deformations.

Under most codes, 1.3D + 1.7L is about 90

percent of the ultimate design load. This is therefore the highest load which should be

reasonably expected to cause no permanent

structural damage. The deflection limitation in

4
4.4.4(a) represents an

service load deflection

extrapolation of the

limit of with an

480

additional allowance for creep deflection.

Criterion 4.4.4(b) is similar to criteria 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, which have been discussed earlier.

Criterion 4.4.4(c) requires 75 percent re- covery of vertical deflections. This guards

against structural systems which experience

significant permanent sets in each cycle of

loading that may lead to progressive incremental collapse. By permitting residual deflec- tions of up to 2.5 percent of initial deflections,

reasonable tolerances are provided for creep

and system slack. The 75 percent recovery re- quirement is relaxed for very stiff' structural

systems (dv < ), since there are in- ~ 2X),000f

variably some small irrecoverable deformations

in all structures. Criterion 4.4.4(d) requires 75 percent re- covery of deflections in excess of "net" deflections. These deflections are primarily due to deformations of columns and/or walls and this

criterion provides reasonable tolerances for

creep and system slack. Lower limits for re- coverable deformations cannot be set in this case until further studies are conducted.

4.4.5. Ultimate Strength

The structure or any portion thereof shall

not fail at a load smaller than the following:

(a) 1.25 (1.5D + 1.8L)

(b) 0.9D + 1.4//.

Commentary on Criterion U-h.5. Criterion

4.4.5(a) is for ultimate vertical loads. It is assumed that a structure may in extreme

cases fail under loads which are as much as 20 percent below the average failure loads for

similar structures (or of computed "ultimate"

loads). In absence of a statistical sample of

any size it is necessary to assume that if the

laboratory sample has a strength of 1.0, the

structure simulated by the sample may have a strength as low as 1 ^ 0.2 = 0.8. It is therefore required that the laboratory sample be

capable of withstanding a load of or 1.25

times the design ultimate load, which was taken

as 1.5D + 1.8L.

Criterion 4.4.5(b) is tentatively adopted for

ultimate lateral load, following the same

philosophy with an ultimate load of 1.1//.

4.5. Summary of Test and Performance

Criteria

The preceding Test and Performance Criteria are summarized in this section for ease

of reference. The criteria numbers remain un- changed.

43.1. Model Selection

A portion of the structure which is capable

of simulating the response of the entire structure, and which will represent conditions providing the least margin of safety, shall be

selected for testing. Foundation conditions

shall be simulated in a manner representing

the most adverse anticipated conditions that

may exist in a complete structure in the field.

4.S.2. Loading

Superimposed loads shall be applied in a manner which will result in conditions equal

to or more adverse than the conditions in the

full-scale structure which provide the least

margin of safety.

4.4.1. Horizontal Deflection Under Dead and

Wind Load

At a load level of 0.9/) + 1.1//, the horizontal defiection due to the superimposed load

of 1.1// shall not exceed the following:

Dh < 0.002/(.

4.4.2. Horizontal Deflection Under Dead.

Live, and Wind Load

At a load level of 1.3/) + 1.7L + 0.8//. the

horizontal deflection due to the superimposed

load of 0.3/) + 1.7L + 0.8//, shall not exceed

the following

Dh < 0.002/?.

4.4.3. Vertical Deflections Under Service

Live Load

At a load level of ID + IL, the vertical deflec- tion due to the superimposed load of IL shall

not exceed the following:

dv <

480

4.4.4. Sustained Load Deflection

At a load level of 1.3/) + 1.7L sustained for

24 hours, deflections due to the superimposed

5
load of O.SD + 1.7L shall not exceed the fol- lowing:

/ (0.3D + 1.7L)

(a) dv < X- - 360 L

(b) Dh < 0.002/?.

Residual deflection due to the superimposed

load of O.oD + 1.1 L, measured not later than

24 hours after removal of the superimposed

load, shall not exceed the following:

(c) Ifdv >

I' 20,000f

I' dvr < 0.25 dv

Udv< — dvr < —-—

.

- 20,000f ~ 80,000/

(d) Dvr < dvr + 0.25 (Dv - dr)

4.4.5. Ultimate Strength

The structure or any portion thereof shall not fail at a load smaller than the following:

(a) 1.25 (1..5D I 1.8L)

(b) O.dD + l.AH.

5. Test Structure

The structure as erected and tested in the

laboratory was a full-scale subsection of a modular building system. It was designed and constructed by Neal Mitchell Associates Inc. under

the provisions of section 4.3.1 of the performance criteria. The plans and specifications were

prepared by Neal Mitchell Associates Inc., and

are dated 9-13-67. These should be referred to for detailed information. Some typical drawings from these plans were reproduced in this

report and modified for illustrative purposes

with the permission of Neal Mitchell Associates,

Inc.^^ This section of the report contains a description of the proposed structure, a description

of the test structure as erected in the laboratory, and a discussion of the fidelity with which

actual field conditions are simulated in this test.

5.1. Proposed Structure

A typical complete structure is illustrated in

figure 5.1.* The proposed structural system

consists of

:

1. Precast components;

2. Cast-in-place topping slabs;

3. Gypsum walls; and

4. Foundations, grade-beams, and slabs on

grade.

5.1.1. Precast Components

The precast components of the proposed

structure are: (1) columns, (2) main beams,

(3) tie beams, and (4) floor channels. Figure

5.2 illustrates an assembled structural frame

which contains all the precast components. The

frame is illustrated in more detail in figure

5.3. Figure 5.4 shows the erection of a frame.

Figures 5.5 through 5.16 show detailed drawings of the precast components. Figure 5.5 is an

isometric view of the main beam, tie beam, and

column reinforcement at a connection. Figures

5.6 and 5.7 show typical column details. Main

beam details and sections are shown in figures

5.8 and 5.9. Tie beam details are illustrated by

figure 5.10. In accordance with the plans and specifications, main beams, tie beams, and columns are precast of cellular concrete with lightweight

aggregate. The nominal wet density of the concrete is 95 lb/ft' and specified nominal 28-day

strength is 4,500 psi for lower-story columns

and 3,500 psi for all other precast components.

The wet density of this concrete is controlled

by the addition of preformed foam at the time

of mixing. Reinforcing bars are ASTM-A61[5]

(60 ksi) ' steel for primary reinforcement and

ASTM-A15[6] (40 ksi) steel for stirrups, ties and other reinforcement.

Column-beam connections and end details are

illustrated in figures 5.11 through 5.15. Figure

5.11 is an isometric view of a disassembled connection. Tie beam end details are shown in fig- ure 5.12; figures 5.13 and 5.14 show the column

end detail, and figure 5.15 shows the details

of an assembled connection.

Written permission has been granted by Neal Mitchell Associates

to include figures 5.3, 5.5, through 5.21 and 5.23. All figures referred to in the text appear in the section be- ginning on p. 31

.

6
Joints are connected by bolts, then grouted.

The grout mix is not specified. The following

grout mix was used in the test structure:

1 part Type I cement

2 parts of masonry sand

3 oz per 1 lb of cement of a polyvinyl acetate emulsion.

The floor channel details are shown in figure

5.16. These elements are standard, commercially

available precast concrete roof tile. Concrete used in channel units consists of

%-in maximum size lightweight aggregate

("block-mix"). Air-dry unit weight of concrete is 103 lb/ft" and 28-day strength ranges

from 4000 psi to 5,500 psi (7V2 sack mix).

Reinforcement consists of a No. 4 deformed

intermediate grade (ASTM-A15) steel bar

in each leg of the channel and a 34-1412 wire

mesh (ASTM-A185) [7] in the back of the

channel with the 14-gage wire in the longitudinal direction.

The top of the channel is very rough to develop resistance to horizontal shear between

the supporting channel and the topping slab.

5.1.2. Gast-in-Place Topping Slabs

The topping slabs have a specified nominal

thickness of 2 in. Concrete is made of %-in

maximum size lightweight aggregate, with a weight of 110 lb/ft' and a nominal 28-day

I strength of 3,000 psi. Reinforcement is 66-1010

1 wire mesh (ASTM-A185) set one inch from

i the top of the slab. Additional reinforcei ment is provided at the main beams by the

I shear connectors and by two No. 4 bars on the

I first floor and two No. 3 bars on all other floors,

1 as shown in figure 5.8. This reinforcement is ASTM-A61 steel.

5.1.3. Gypsum Walls

There are three kinds of gypsum walls:

(1) Fire walls,

(2) Exterior walls, and

(3) Interior walls.

The location of these walls in the structural

i system is illustrated in figure 5.17.

* Plans and specifications fov the Neal Mitchell Housinji System

permit the option of using .'lO ksi or (iO ksi steel. The steel used in the test structure had a nominal yield of 60 ksi. See section 11 for the actual properties.

5.1..^.1. Fire Walls Figure 5.18 shows a typical cross section of

the fire walls. The walls are installed in every

second bay in the "short" direction of the

building (N-S in the test structure). These

walls are continuous in all spaces between col- umns and have no openings in these spaces. The

full width of a building will therefore contain

two such uninterrupted firewalls in every sec- ond bay. (See figure 5.17.)

The fire walls are standard dry-wall construction. Metal channels are attached to the concrete members with power-actuated fasteners

at a 6- to 8-in spacing. Metal studs 21/2 in X

25 gage) are spaced 16-in on center. Wallboards on either side of the metal studs consist

of one Yi-in gypsum backing board (ASTMC442) [8] and one %-in gypsum wallboard

(ASTM-C36 [9].

The wallboards are fastened to the studs by

screws spaced 8 to 12 in o.c, which is a closer

spacing than that used in standard practice.

The details of the actual fire wall installation

in the test structure are illustrated in figure

5.19.

5.1.3.2. Exterior Walls Figure 5.20 shows a typical section of the

exterior walls. "Exterior walls" as defined here

are the outer walls in the long direction of the

proposed building (E-W direction in the test structure). Each building will thus have two

exterior walls. (See fig. 5.17.) Exterior walls are located in the outer rows of columns and

fill the 10 ft space between columns. The walls are not continuous and each panel may contain

a door or a window.

Exterior walls are standard dry-wall construction. Channels and studs are as in the fire walls. Facing consists of ^-in gypsum wallboards (ASTM-C36 on either side of the

stud; screw spacing is as in the fire walls. The

wall surface exposed to the atmosphere will be

protected by optional siding.

5.1.3.3. Interior Walls

"Interior walls" as defined here extend along

the two interior rows of columns in the long

direction of the building (E-W direction in the

test structure) . Each building thus has two

interior walls in the long directions. These walls

fill the 10-ft panels between columns (see fig.

5.17). A 3-ft door may be expected in every

second panel.
Several types of interior walls are used in

the Mitchell System; of these the standard 21/2- in "structicore" partition wall construction was

deemed to have the least resistance to lateral

load and was thus chosen for the laboratory

structure. Figure 5.21 shows typical sections of an interior wall, and figure 5.22 shows a typical

interior wall partially dismantled.

5.1.4. Foundations, Grade Beams, and Slabs on Grade

Foundation plans are shown in figure 5.23. All foundations are specified as ready mix concrete with a 28-day strength of 3,000 psi. Slabs on grade are readv mix concrete with a specified 28-day strength of 2,000 psi.

Reinforcement is ASTM-A15 intermediate

grade steel and ASTM-A185 welded wire

mesh.

Lower-story columns are encased in the foundations. (See fig. 5.7.)

5.2. The Test Structure

5.2.1. Structural Simulation

The test structure before and after installation of the walls is illustrated in figures 5.24

and 5.25, respectively. It comprises a part of

the complete structure, made up of full-scale

components and erected in the laboratory. The

test structure as part of the complete structure

is illustrated in figure 5.2. The performance of the complete structure

is simulated in the test structure by:

(1) applying to the test structure all live loads which under field conditions would act

directly on the test structure;

(2) simulating all forces caused by dead,

live, and wind loads which would be exerted on the test structure by the rest of the structure

under field conditions.

The test structure is thus treated in the laboratory as a "free body." The test structure was so chosen that all aspects of structural

performance in the field could be simulated

under laboratory test conditions. The test structure corresponds to a part of the total

structure which is cut off^ below the slab on

grade.

5.2.2. Description of the Test Structure

The test structure was constructed under the

provisions of the plans and specifications of the

8

Neal Mitchell System; however, properties of

materials and structural details did not always

agree with these plans. Detailed information

about materials used in the test structure is presented in section 11. Deviations from plans

in structural details are noted in this section.

The test structure consised of

:

(a) Precast components,

(b) A cast-in-place topping slab,

(c) Walls,

(d) A cast-in-place floor slab.

5.2.2.1. Precast Components

The precast components consisted of: (a) Six precast columns, which were

similar in dimensions to the lower-story col- umns in the proposed structure (see figs. 5.6

and 5.7) except that they were shortened to a length of 8 ft-5 in, since no embedding in foundations was included.

(b) Three main beams (see figs. 5.8 and

5.9).

(c) Four tie beams (see fig. 5.10).

(d) Eight 2-ft-wide and two 1-ft-wide

floor channels. (See fig. 5.16.) The narrow

channels were placed along the north and south

edge of the structure. Reinforcement in the

channel legs consisted of No. 5 deformed intermediate grade (ASTM-A15) bars, instead

of the No. 4 bars specified in the plans.

5.2.2.2. Cast-in-Place Topping Slab The specified thickness of the cast-in-place

topping slab is 2 in. The average slab thick- ness as built in the test structure was 21/2 in

±: measured from the top of the main

beam. The top of the floor channels was ir- regular and tended to be somewhat higher than

the top of the main beam, producing a some- what lesser average thickness than the measured 21/0 in. But even after allowing for a thickness reduction due to floor channel ir- regularity, the as-built thickness was still in excess of the specified 2-in thickness.

5.2.2.3. Walls The test structure had the following walls:

(a) East and west walls were "fire walls"

as described in section 5.1.3.a, except that %-

in gypsum backing boards and y^-in. wallboards were used instead of the thicker sizes

called for in the plans.

(b) The south wall was an exterior wall

as described in section 5.1.3.b except that the

exterior siding was omitted and y2-m thick

wallboards were used instead of the Vn-in

thickness shown in the plans.
(c) The north wall was an "interior wall"

as described in section 5.1.3(3).

All channels for the wall system were at- tached by power-actuated fasteners to the floor slab and the structural frame. Vapor seals and

insulation between walls were omitted since

these materials do not add to the strength of

the structure. The omission of exterior siding on the south wall may have slightly decreased

the stiffness of that wall, which would cause

the test results to be lower than they might

otherwise have been.

Each panel in the south wall contained a

5 ft X 7 ft aluminum doorframe on its west

side. This represents the least stiff condition

that may be encountered in the field. The western panel -pf the north wall contained a 3 ft X 7 ft wooden doorframe on its east side. This simulates field conditions.

5.2.2.4. Floor Slab The cast-in-place floor slab was poured on

top of a vinyl sheet which was spread on the

laboratory floor. The floor slab was subsequently post-tensioned against the laboratory

floor by four li/2-in-diameter bolts in order

to prevent sliding due to lateral test forces

applied to the structure. Tests indicated that

the floor-slab concrete had a 17-day compressive strength of 5,600 psi. Slab reinforcement

consisted of a 66-1010 mesh (ASTM-A185).

The slab was poured around the columns

which were lined by Vs-in asphalt-impregnated

fiberboard, thus forming full-depth pockets at the column seats to permit column rotation at the base. A Vs-iri-fhick neoprene sheet was

inserted between the column base and the laboratory floor.

5.2.2.5. Materials Standard compression tests (ASTM C33-66) were carried out on cylinders of concrete from

the "cast-in-place" slabs and the precast members with the exception of the floor channels.

In all cases concrete strength exceeded the

strength specified in the plans.

Reinforcing bars were ASTM-A61 (60 ksi)

steel wherever the plans permit the option of

using 50 or 60 ksi steel.

5.3. Fidelity of Simulation of

Field Conditions by the Test Structure

Complete full-scale structures can be and

have been tested in the field. While such field tests provide a means for the observation of

the performance of a complete structure, it

should also be noted that when compared with

laboratory tests, field tests have many disadvantages. Some of the more obvious disadvantages are: cost; the time required to erect and test a full-scale structure in the field; changing conditions of temperature and wind;

and the difficulty of precise application of loads

and measurement of deformations. The major

advantages of field testing are the ability to test an entire structure and a better simulation

of foundation conditions.

For the case reported here, the entire test was performed inside the laboratory facilities

of the National Bureau of Standards. Since it was impractical to erect a complete structure

in the laboratory, it was decided to construct

a portion of the structure and to test it in a manner that simulated the performance of the

complete structural system. A lower-story sec- tion was selected, since lower-story components

are subjected to the most critical loadingconditions.

The load program to which the test struc- ture was subjected is discussed in section 6. The fidelity of the simulation is discussed in

the following sections.

5.3.1. Interaction Between the Test Structure

and the Complete Structure

Figure 5.2 illustrates the test structure as part of a complete structure. The test struc- ture with the testing equipment installed is shown in figures 5.26 and 5.27. In an actual

building, the test structure would be connected

to the remainder by:

(a) Columns,

(b) Abutting tie beams and main beams,

(c) A continuous topping slab, and

(d) Walls.

At all of these connections forces are ex- erted on the test structure, either by direct

transmission of loads carried by the connected

members or by restraining eflfects on motion

of connected members. It is neither feasible nor necessary to simulate all these effects. Simulation of the most adverse conditions will

generally lead to simplified approximations

which are on the conservative side. Simulation

of structural interaction at these four points of

continuity is discussed in the following:

5.3.1.1. Columns

Upper-story columns will transmit to the

beam-column connection most of the dead loads

generated by the stories above and the live loads acting on these stories.

For the laboratory model it was assumed

that the upper-story columns would transmit

the following loads to the joint at their base:

( 1 ) Dead loads of the upper stories.

9
(2) Vertical live loads on the upper

stories.

In reality the columns between the fire walls

will also transmit a certain amount of horizontal wind-induced shear load. However, as

will be noted later, in the presence of the partition walls, only a negligible amount of the

total wind shear was carried by the columns.

The wind shear from the upper stories was

assumed to be carried by the walls to the top

slab, which in turn will transmit the shear to the partition walls below.

It will also be noted later that some of the

vertical loads are carried by the wall system

directly into the foundations. The assumption

that the entire vertical load is carried by the

columns is a conservative assumption with re- spect to columns. The fact that the walls could

potentially be more highly stressed in the complete structure than in laboratory simulation

does not appear to be of significance, since a

wall failure by vertical loads would not occur without a simultaneous column failure. Column

loads were applied vertically by rams at the

center line of the lower-story columns as il- lustrated in figure 5.28. Rollers were inserted

to roll in the direction of racking and to minimize frictional forces which might resist racking while vertical loads were applied.

It is recognized that upper-story columns

would transmit moments as well as vertical

loads, while the rams applied only axial vertical

loads. It is demonstrated in Appendix B that

this application of column axial loads is conservative.

5.3.1.2. Abutting Tie Beams and Main Beams Main beams are discontinuous at both of

their ends in the real structure, and this was

correctly reflected in the test structure. Tie

beams may be either continuous or discontinuous depending on their position in the

structure. If tie beams were continuous on

either or both sides of the test structure, this

would result in increased load-carrying

capacity and decreased deflections. Thus, it may be stated that with respect to structural

continuity the test structure represents a con- servative approximation.

5.3.1.3. Continuity of Topping Slab In the complete structure, topping slabs may

be continuous on three sides of the test section —west, north, and east— or on two adjacent

sides of the test section. The severing of this

continuity in the test structure represents a conservative approximation with respect to both load-carrying capacity and deflection.

5.3.1.4. Walls The wind load is imparted to the wall by

(1) shear along its upper connection to the

beam above it, and (2) bearing of the windward column against the wall.

Since the floor system is very rigid in relation to beam column joints and walls, the horizontal forces acting above any floor are trans- mitted into this floor by the walls and in turn

essentially equally distributed among the walls

below this floor by a uniform displacement of

the entire floor. In the test structure, simulated wind loads

equal to one-half the wind loads generated by

the entire contributory portion of the threestory building were imparted at the end of each

main or tie beam by a ram load, as illustrated

by figure 5.26. In the case of the north direction, a wind load was also applied at the main

beam on top of the column between the two

fire walls. Due to the stiff'ness of the floor sys- tem, these wind loads have a net effect equal

to the efl'ect that may be expected on a struc- ture in the field. The reason for applying only

one-half of the wind force to each wall is the

above-discussed assumption of great floor

stiffness, which would distribute the wind

load to two wall panels in the north direction

and to more than two wall panels in the east

direction.

Test results also indicate that the walls

participate in the support of vertical loads.

This was demonstrated by the fact that deflec- tion of main beams connected to fire walls in- creased almost fivefold when these walls were

removed. As will be noted later, the loadingapplied in Test No. 9 more than compensated

for any adverse effect of vertical loads on the

walls under service load conditions. Column

loads were computed without regard to possible wall participation in load support. It is therefore concluded that the simulation of wall

action adequately represented the most ad- verse conditions that may be expected in a complete structure.

5.3.2. Simulation of Foundation Conditions

Column foundations in the proposed building extend to a 6-ft depth below grade for

exterior columns, and 3-ft depth below the top

of the floor slab for interior columns (see

fig. 5.23). Exterior column footings are also

tied into the perimeter wall for added fixity.

This configuration provides some degree of

fixity at the column base, the degree depending

on prevailing soil conditions. In the test structure, the columns were

"cut off" at the bottom of the floor slab. The

lower ends of the columns were provided on

all sides with a i/j-in-thick asphalt-impregnated

fiberboard expansion joint against which the

floor slab was cast, thus providing a detail

similar to that of the real structure where a %-in premolded filler is placed around the

10
column. The base of the column was set on a

i/8-in-thick neoprene bearing pad which rested on the laboratory test floor. The resulting

column connection permitted the column base

to rotate, and therefore was a conservative

simulation of the real structure, where the

foundations provided partial column base

fixity.

5.3.3. Simulation of Live Loads

Vertical live loads on the top slab of the

specimen were simulated by air-bags which

were held down by a suitable reaction system

(see fig. 5.26). This created a uniformly distributed load which was able to follow the

deflections of the slab. Air bags were made

of 20-mil polyethylene and were designed to withstand 300 psf (7 times live load). The

live loads applied represented a valid simulation of live load conditions as used in structural design.

Horizontal live loads were applied by horizontal 10-ton rams as illustrated in figures

5.26 and 5.29. The validity of wind load simulation has

been discussed in section 5.3.1.d.

6. Load Program

6.1. Introduction

The load program in this test had three

objectives:

(1) Evaluation of the structural adequacy

of the proposed system and determination of

its ability to satisfy the performance criteria

established in section 4. (2) The acquisition of additional information about the behavior of complex structural systems and the interaction of their

components.

(3) The development of suitable methods

of performance testing for complex structural

systems.

Section 6.2 explains the assumptions which

were made with regard to the magnitude of

applied live and wind loads and section 6.3 explains the load schedule. Load computations

and the detailed sequence of loading used in

each test, are presented in Appendix C.

6.2. Applied Loads

All applied loads were determined in ac- cordance with "Minimum Design Loads in

Buildings and Other Structures," USASI

A58-1955 [11].' The following unit service

loads were used:

Windloads for average Midwestern conditions were selected.

* All tables mentioned in the text appear in the section besinninff on p. 26.

Occupancy loads (floor) —40 psf

Snow loads (roof) —30 psf

Wind loads (walls)—20 psf

6.3. Loading Schedule

Figure 6.1 shows schematically how the test loads were applied to the structure. Table 6.1*

explains the symbols used to represent the

test loads and the magnitude of these loads.

Table 6.2 summarizes the magnitude of test loads which represent the performance cri- teria.

Tests were conducted on the test structure

with walls installed, and subsequently on the same structure after the walls were removed.

All load tests were conducted between May

10, 1968, and May 22, 1968, and are listed

hereafter.

6.3.1. Tests Conducted on the Structure With

Walls Installed

Test 1: Column loads to 0.9D

Test 2: Column loads of 0.9Z)

South wind load to 25 psf

(0.9Z) + L25//)

Test 3 : Column loads of 0.9Z)

West wind load to 25 psf

(0.9Z) + 1.25 i/)

Test U: Column loads to 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3Z) +

1.7L

(1.3Z) + 1.7L)

Test 5: Column loads of 1.375 1 1.7L

Major floor load of 1.3D +

1.7L

Loads sustained for 24 hours

(1.3D + 1.7L)

Test 6: Column loads of 1.3Z) + 1.7L

Major floor load of 1.3D +

1.7L

(LSD + L7L)

Test 7: Column loads of \.W + I.IL

Major floor load of 1.3D +

1.7L

South wind load to 15 psf

(1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8//)

Test 8: Column loads of 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor load of l.SD +

1.7L

West wind load to 15 psf

1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8//)

11
Test 9: Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 160 psf

(IZ) + 3.5L)

Test 9-A : Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 160 psf

Minor floor load to 160 psf

(ID + 3.5L)

Test 10: Column loads of 0.9D

South wind load to 60 psf

(0.9Z) + 3i/)

Test 1 1 : Column load of 0.9D

West wind load to 74 psf

(0.9Z) + 3.7//)

6.3.2. Tests Conducted on the Structure After

the Removal of Walls

Test 12: Column load of 1.3Z) + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3D +

1.7L

Rollers under column loads

oriented to permit sway in

the east-west direction

(1.3D + 1.7L)

Test 12-A: Column load of 1.3Z) + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3Z) +

1.7L

Rollers under column loads

oriented to permit northsouth sway {l.ZD + 1.7L)

Test IS: Column load of 1.3Z) + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3Z) +

1.7L

Minor floor load of 1.3Z) +

1.7L

Rollers under column loads

oriented to permit east-west

sway (1.3D + 1.7L)

Test 13-A: Column load of 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3D +

1.7L

Minor floor load of 1.3Z) +

1.7L

Rollers under column loads

oriented to permit northsouth sway (1.3D -F 1.7L)

Test Ih : Column loads of 0.9Z)

South wind load of 10 psf

(0.9Z) 4 0.5//)

Test 15: Column loads of 0.9D

West wind load of 16.5 psf

(0.9D + 0.8//)

Testis: Column loads of ID

Major floor load of 280 psf

(ID + 8.4L)

Test 16-A: Column loads of ID

Major floor load of 370 psf

Minor floor load of 280 psf

(ID + 6.3L)

Test 17: Column load of 60 kips on

four outer columns

(ID + 7L)

Test 18: Column load of 0.9D

South wind load of 10.5 psf

(0.9D + 0.5//)

7. Instrumentation

A total of 98 electrical resistance instruments were used to monitor and record struc- tural deformational behavior of the test model.

These instruments are schematically located on figures 7.1 through 7.4. Figure 7.1, an isometric view taken from the

southwest of the model, shows the location of

load measurement and wall deformation

instruments. The instrument numbers cor- respond to channel designation of automatic

data-acquisition equipment. Instrument No. 90, a semiconductor strain-gage pressure transducer, recorded the pressure of the hydraulic

system used in simulating column axial loads.

Instrument No. 91 recorded the magnitude of

horizontal loads. Initially this instrument was

a load cell, but was subsequently replaced

(after Test No. 5) by a pressure transducer.

Instrument No. 91 was interchangeable in

location, depending on the direction of horizontal forces. Instrument No. 92 was one of

several secondary pressure transducers monitored during the tests to check horizontal force

accuracy. Instrument No. 93, a pressure transducer, recorded the magnitude of uniformly

distributed floor loads applied by air pressure.

Instruments No. Ml through M7 represent

measurement devices employed to check load

applications. These instruments were not con- nected to the automatic scanner, but were

manually monitored. Ml and M7 represent

pressure transducers located in the associated

hydraulic system, while M2 through M6 were

load cells attached to the jacking rams. For

each test, the pertinent load instrument and

deformation linear variable differential trans- ducers (LVDTs) were also recorded by an

automatic X-Y plotter.

The LVDTs in figure 7.1 recorded diagonal

deformations of dry wall panels over the gage

lengths shown. Gages No. 52, 54, 55, 56, and

57 designate LVDT's having readout intervals

12
of 0,0001 in, while tlie remaining LVDT, gage

No. 53, had an interval of 0.00001 in. Figure 7.2 illustrates the northwest view of

model instrumentation. Diagonal deformations were recorded by LVDT's No. 50, 51, 58, 59,

60, and 61, all with a 0.0001-in. readout interval. Horizontal deflections of the test structure were measured by LVDT's No. 43, 44, 45, 46,

and 47 with a readout interval of 0.0001 in. Figure 7.3 is a plan view section showingvertical deflection transducers located under

the second floor of the test structure. In addition, two transducers (No. 48 and 49) were

positioned horizontally on the center main

beam to record any differential movement relative to the ceiling slab. In general, the vertical

transducer readout interval was 0.0001 in,

excepting transducers located adjacent to columns read to the nearest 0.00001 in. Transducer readings were also checked by a dial

gage deflectometer capable of reading 0.0001

in, which was read visually.

Figure 7.4 shows the location of 40 type

A3 electrical resistance strain gages used to measure column concrete strains. The readout

increment of these strain gages was 1 /xin/in

(i.e., 0.000001 in/in).

Calibration of load cells, pressure transducers, and deflection transducers was performed prior to testing of the structure. Data-acquisition equipment included a 100-

channel and a 50-channel automatic electronic scanner and digital recorder. Instrument readings were taken at predetermined load increments. The output data was subsequently keypunched and reduced by electronic computer.

Dial gages were also used to check against

possible slip of the test structure floor slab

relative to the laboratory floor slab. No such

slip was observed.

8. Results

A total of 18 load tests were carried out on the laboratory structure. Of these, 17 in- volved extensive measurement and recording

of loads and structural deformation. The re- maining test was run simply as a proof test on column capacity.

Tests No. 1 through No. 11 were performed

on the model of the total building system. Tests

No. 12 through No. 18 (see section 6.3) were

carried out on the system with wall panels

removed.

Instrument locations are shown in figures

7.1 through 7.4. The instruments recorded

loads and deformations for seventeen tests. Generally each instrument was read immediately after the attainment of the respective

increment of applied load. Reading and recording of data was in general accomplished

through the use of an automatic data-acquisition system which recorded results in digital

form on printed paper tape. Total acquisition

time for each set of readings consisting of all data for one load increment was somewhat

less than two minutes. The data was then

manually key-punched onto cards, and was

automatically reduced, analyzed, and plotted

by electronic computer. Approximately 40,000

measurements were thus recorded.

Computer output consisted of a complete

tabulation of results, and curves of measured

deformations plotted against applied load. In

all, more than 2000 curves were plotted. In addition to the data acquired by the automatic

digital system, a continuous plot of critical

deflection parameter versus applied load was

maintained for all tests by an automatic X-Y

plotter. This was used along with mechanical

dial gages to provide a secondary and independent check on proper functioning of the

automatic equipment.

After checking computer output for keypunching errors and malfunction of instrumentation, the results were reviewed to select

the more significant information. The most

pertinent results are presented and discussed

in section 9; additional results are contained

in Appendix A as figures. A.l through A. 77. Each figure of Appendix A is a plot of applied load versus the model deformation as measured by the relevant instrument. The

output channel number noted in the figure

caption corresponds to the instrument number

shown on figures 7.1 through 7.4. The. ordinate of each curve indicates the

variable load. Load symbols are defined in sec- tion 3. The abscissa indicates deformation,

where zero deformation is chosen prior to any

load application. Thus in tests where an initial constant load is introduced, the abscissa indi- cates the deformation due to both the constant

load and variable load.

All vertical deformations were measured

relative to the structural test floor, thus beam

deflection measurements include column shortening, and slab deflection measurements in- clude support movement.

Column concrete strain data have been ex- cluded due to the erratic behavior of these

strain gages. Column gages were located 6 in

from column ends. Their erratic behavior is attributed to the proximity of joint connections and to the relatively large quantity of

steel used in connecting column end hardware

to longitudinal reinforcement.
9. Interpretation of Results

9.1. Introduction

The purpose of this section is to discuss the

compliance of the structural system with the

performance criteria in section 4, the structural behavior under loads, and the intei-action

of structural components.

It should be noted that all conclusions pertaining to structural pei-formance are based on the structure as built in the laboratory and

on erection methods and materials used therein. Variation in materials or erection methods

may significantly affect structural behavior.

Data pertinent to the discussion in this sec- tion are presented in figures 9.1 thru 9.23.

9.2. Vertical Forces

Vertical forces were applied to the structure

in the form of column loads (P), distributed

floor loads between the columns (ir), and distributed floor loads on the cantilever section

of the second floor along the north side of the

structure (/r'). (For location and magnitude

of applied vertical loads, I'efer to fig. 6.1 and

tables 6.1 and 6.2.)

Vertical loads were applied in all tests. In some of the tests they were applied along with

horizontal loads in order to evaluate structural

response to horizontal loads combined with

vertical loads. Other tests were performed for

the sole purpose of evaluating structural re- sponse to vertical loads. Details of all loading

sequences have been discussed in section 6.

9.2.1. Structural Response to Vertical Loads

9.2.1.1. (General Figure 9.1'' shows the load deflection history

of the midspan of the center main beam under

the application of a load of l.oD + 1.7L to the columns and main floor section. This figure

also shows the effect of sustaining this load

for 24 hr and the subsequent recovery of deflections 24 hr after removal of all loads. Deflection? at one of the supports of this beam

due to the same loailing are also shown to permit evaluation of the order of magnitude

of the "net deflections" as well as the column

deflection. Examination of all test data indi- cates that from the point of view of magnitude

of vertical deflections, this curve illustrates the

most critical point in the structure.

In this figure and several of the others used in this chapter,

for the sal<e of clarity, individual data points and the data obtained durinp the seveial intermediate cycles of unloadinR and leloadins;- have not lieen shown. However, these results are included on

fipcures Al throuprh A. 77 of Appendix A.

The following observations can be made j concerning midspan deflection of the center

^ main beam under the application of a load of ; 1.3Z) + 1.1 L and its subsequent maintenance

for 24 hr (fig. 9.1) : ; (1) The increasing load-deformation curve < for the load application portion of the cycle ^ was rea.sonably linear, indicating elastic behavior;

(2) The 24 hr creep amounted to less than I 0.02 in, which is only 7 percent of the permissible deflection set forth as a performance [ criterion and about 13 percent of the total

observed deflection;

(3) Observed recovery was 96 percent

(note that most of the creep deflection was

recovered)

.

Figure 9.2 shows the plot of midspan deflection of the center main beam during the

application of a 370 psf load (ID + 8.4L) to the main floor span after removal of the walls

from the test structure (Test 16). This load was applied after the application of ID + IL

to the columns. This test was designed to be

a destructive test t)f the floor system of the

structure ; however, the capacity of the loading

system (designed for 300 psf) was reached

before failure of the test sti'ucture. The deflec- tion at one of the beam supports is again

plotted on this figure to illustrate the order of

magnitude of the "net" deflections. Also shown

is the curve for the center beam midspan deflection obtained in Test 9 before the removaL

of walls. In Test 9 the maximum applied floor load was 160 psf (ID + 3.5L). It is interesting to note the substantial reduction in stiff- ness against gross vertical deflection resulting

from the removal of the walls from the system.

Two definite slope changes are evident in

the curve for the midspan deflection of the

structure without walls, one at 120 psf and one

at 270 psf. A change in slope similar to that

taking place at 120 psf is not evident in the curve for the structure with walls. It is felt that this change was probably due to some

slippage at the beam column connection and was apparently of minor consequence in terms

of structural performance.

The break which is evidenced at 270 psf is more marked. At this load, diagonal tension

cracks were observed close to the • beam supports (fig. 9.3). Since there are stirrups in

the beam (figs. 5.8 and 5.9) and since the curve shows that the structure was capable

of carrying substantial additional load, this

point may represent a transfer of shear

stresses to the stirrups. The structure was

subsequently loaded to 370 psf (ID + 8.4L)

without additional signs of distress.

Both figs. 9.1 and 9.2 illustrate the case of

interior span loading (load "ir" acting alone),

since this appeared to be the more critical

14
loading configuration. The relative influence

of these two loading patterns is illustrated by

figure 9.4, which shows center main-beam midspan deflection for Test 9 with interior loading

(ir) alone, and Test 9A with interior and

cantilever loading (?(; + ?('')• As would be

expected, the "?r" loading is more critical in terms of deflection; however, only slightly so.

9.2.1.2. Influence of Walls The influence of the walls on structural re- sponse to vertical loads is illustrated in figures

9.2 and 9.5. Figure 9.2 compares deflections

at midspan of the center main beam in Test 9

with walls, and Test 16 with walls removed.

These tests had identical loading and the

comparison is probably valid, although the

structure may have been weakened somewhat

before Test 16 by earlier tests. The location

at which deflections are compared in this figure

reflects the behavior of the entire structure,

since most members will make some contribution to the midspan deflection. These figures

indicate that the structure with the walls re- moved had about twice the deflection of the

complete structure. Figure 9.5 compares deflections with and

without walls at the position which is likely

to be most sensitive to walls; namely, the center

of the west main beam which rests on a fire wall. As expected, the influence of the walls

is even more marked in this case. The deflection at maximum load without walls is approximately 5 times the deflection with walls.

It is thus evident that the walls contribute

significantly to the support of vertical loads.

9.2.1.3. Slip Between Main Beams and Topping

Devices which were capable of measuring

the slip between the center main beam and the

channel slabs were monitored during all tests. These were installed as a means of measuring

any diflferential shear movement between the

topping slab (which forms the compression

flange of the main beams) and the precast

element which forms the tension flange. In none of the tests was there any indication of

relative slip between these two components.

Neither was there any visual sign of relative

slip, even in Test 16 (fig. 9.2) with a load of

ID + SAL.

9.2.1.4. Translation Due to Vertical Loads (Walls Removed)

This aspect of the structural response of

the frame was investigated in Tests 12, 12A,

13, and 13A, in which the floor was alternately

loaded over its main span alone (?r) and its main span plus the cantilever span {ii: + w'),

with rollers oriented first to roll in the northsouth direction and then in the east-west direction. The results of these tests are shown in

figures 9.6 and 9.7. In each ca.se the order of

magnitude of lateral displacement under a load of l.?)D I 1.7L on the columns and floor was between 0.06 in and 0.08 in and residual

displacements wei'e of the order of 0.01 in.

9.2.2. Compliance With Performance Criteria,

Vertical Loads

9.2.2.1. Performance Criterion 4.4.3, Vertical Deflections Under Ser\ ice I^ive Load

At a load level of ID I- IL the vertical deflections due to the superimposed load of IL shall not exceed the following:

/ 144 in dv < = = 0.30 in. 480 480

where: dv ^ vertical net deflection. Under vertical loading of ID +1L, the most

critical vertical deflection in the test structure

occurred at the midspan of the center main

beam. Figure 9.4 illustrates test No. 9 plotting

total vertical deflection at midspan of the

center main beam together with total vertical

deflection at one of the column supports of

the same beam. The vertical net deflection will

be the difference between the midspan deflec- tion and the deflection of the beam support.

Figure 9.4 illustrates that at the level of ID +

IL the critical vertical net deflection was

0.04 in, which is considerably less than the

permitted 0.30 in net deflection.

Ciifcrhm h.h--'> >i'((f< fho'cfore satisfied.

9.2.2.2. Performance Criterion 4.4.4, Sustained Load

Deflections At a load level of 1.3D + 1.7L, sustained for 24

hours, deflections due to the superimposed load of O.ZD + 1.7L shall not exceed the following:

(a) dv < X " 360 L

144 in ^ 100 lb' „ . X = 0.93 in 360 43 lb

(b) Dh < 0.002/; = 0.002 X 94 in 0.19 in

Residual deflections, measured within 24 hours after removal of loads, shall not exceed the following:

(c) Ifdi'> , dvr < 0.25 fit;; 20,000<

if dv < , d vr <

~ 20,000t 80,000<

80,000 X 9.5

(d) Vvr < dvr + 0.25 (Dv - dv)

' 100 lb/43 lb represents the ratio of the simulated floor load used

in this test to the simulated floor load coi respondinfr to 1 L.

15
whei'e

:

9.3.1. Horizontal Loads in the North Direction

Dv = vertical gross deflection Dvr — residual vertical gross deflection dv — vertical net deflection dvr ~ residual vertical net deflection

/ = length of member

t = depth of member

(a) Under the vertical loading- of l.oZ) +

1.7L sustained for 24 hr the midspan of the

center main beam exhibited the largest net

vertical deflection {dv). This deflection was

less than 0.10 in (see fig. 9.1). The net deflec- tion (f/r) should be taken as the total deflec- tion {Dv) less the support deflection. Unfortunately, during the sustained-load portion

of this test, the instruments measuring the

support deflection malfunctioned and there is thus no complete record of the beam support

deflection. Thus, only the short-term portion

of this deflection has been subtracted to obtain

(Iv. The maximum measured Z)r, which was

0.14 in, is considerably less than the 0.93 in allowed by Criterion 4.4.4(a).

(b) The horizontal deflections, which were

measured under vertical loads acting alone

both with and without walls, were extremely

small. In all cases they were less than 0.08 in under 1.3Z) + 1.7L on the floor and columns.

(See figs. 9.6 and 9.7.) This is considerably

less than the 0.19 in permitted by Criterion

4.4.4(b).

(c) Figure 9.1 shows the residual deflection

Dvr to be approximately 0.005 in, which is considerably less than the residual deflection

permitted by Criteria 4.4.4. (c) and 4.4.4(d),

which is 0.03 in. Criterion U.h-U ivas therefore satisfied.

9.2.2.3. Performance Criterion 4.4.5, Ultimate Strenj^th

The structure or any portion thei'eof shall not fail at a load smaller than the following:

(a) 1.25 (l.bD 1 1.8L)=w; = 14-5 psf.

The structure was capable of carrying a load of 370 psf without experiencing failure

(fig. 9.2).

Criterion h.hf'> (") ivas tlierefore s((tistied.

9.3. Horizontal Forces

Horizontal forces were applied to the struc- ture in the foi-m of the horizontal loads Hir,

Hs and Hs' (see fig. 6.1 and tables 6.1 and

6.2). Racking tests were conducted in the north

and the east direction with and without walls.

The results of these tests are described and

evaluated in the following sections.

In the north direction racking of the struc- ture is I'esisted by the firewalls.

9.3.1.1. Racking Tests Witii Minimum Vertical Loads

These racking tests were conducted with a superimposed column load of 0.9D acting alone.

The results of the racking test in the north

direction are illustrated in figure 9.8. This

figure shows lateral deflection measured at the

level of the second floor of the test structure. Loads were applied to simulate a wind pres- sure of 25 psf acting from the south. It may

be noted from this figure that while overall

deflection was small (0.091 in), recovery was

also small. Figure 9.9 shows the results of a

later racking test which was carried to an

equivalent of 60 psf wind load. These two tests are simultaneously plotted in figure 9.10'~ and

show good agreement.

Figure 9.11 shows a plot of south wind load versus diagonal compressive deformation measured on one of the fire walls. The diagonal

shown in this figure was measured over a gage

length of 147 in. The resultant unit strain at a wind load of 25 psf is 0.000073 in/in and at

a wind load of 60 psf it is 0.000250 in/in, which

is extremely small. It is interesting to note

from this figure that the recovery of the walls was good for all levels of load. No signs of dis- tress were observed in the walls or other parts

of the structure during Test 2 in which a wind

load equivalent to 25 psf was applied. However,

at the upper limit of Test 10 at a wind load

equivalent to 60 psf, some distress appeared in

the form of bowing out (buckling) in compression areas near the corners of the wall panels.

These signs of distress disappeared upon re- moval of the lateral load. After removal of the

walls all connections between the walls and the

frame were found to be in good condition,

showing no dislocation of screws or anchorage

devices. During Test 10 there was some opening up of the joints between the columns and

the wall panels in regions which would nor- mally be subjected to tension by the development of diaphragm action in the walls. These

openings were all less than ^8 ii^ch in width

and tended to close partially upon removal of

the load.

9.3.1.2. Kackinfi Tests at High Vertical Loads

In Test 7 the columns and floor were loaded

to 1.3Z) + 1.7L and a 15 psf {O.SH) south wind

load was applied to the structure. The results

^ Only :\ poi tion of the test to GO psf is shown here, since it exceeds the scale of this fi,u.ure.

16
! of this test are illustrated in figure 9.12. This

, test is also plotted in figure 9.13 along with

Test 2 which had 0.9 D and 25 psf wind load.

The agreement between these two tests is good.

The structure experienced a considerably larger

I lateral drift under the application of the larger

I vertical load acting alone than it did under the

smaller vertical load (0.024 in versus 0.007 in).

Under the subsequent wind-load application the

structure with the larger vertical load exhibited

greater stiffness than it did when more lightly

loaded. At the point where the 15 psf wind load was reached, the two deflections' were approximately equal (0.050 in)

9.3.1.3. Frame Action Versus Wall Action The frame was racked after removal of the

walls in Test No. 14. Results are illustrated in

figure 9.14. This test is compared with an identical racking test performed before removal of

the walls in figure 9.10. This comparison clearly

indicates that a major portion of the lateral

stiffness is provided by the walls rather than by

the frame.

Figure 9.15 shows the results obtained in a

later racking test (Test 18) on the structure

with walls removed. This test was carried to the point where the frame no longer developed

increasing resistance to load. In this test the

structure had a vertical load on the columns of

0.9D. In interpreting these results it must be

remembered that the wind load reported here

is in pounds per square foot of total vertical

surface area of the structure. If none of the

walls are present, then the surface area upon

\Vhich the wind forces act is also not present.

However, it is also conceivable that a situation

could develop in which walls in one direction are present while walls in the opposite direction are absent. In such a case these results would

have relevance. Figure 9.15 indicates that the

frame acting alone in the north direction can- not be expected to withstand a wind force in excess of 10 psf on the gross area of the structure. By the time this test was performed the

structure had been carried through a number

of earlier tests which might have somewhat

weakened the frame. However, the structure

at this point exhibited no obvious signs of dis- tress attributable to earlier testing. It is rec- ognized that the simulation of the column foundation which was used in the test structure was

extremely conservative compared to that used

in the real structure, particularly with respect

to tests without walls. Thus the results of this

test possibly fall well below the results which

would be obtained from the test of a real structure.

9.3.2. Horizontal Loads in the East Direction

West wind forces in the test structure were

resisted by one interior "structicore" wall and

one exterior wall. These walls would not nor- mally be expected to be as strong as the fire walls; however, their rigidity in the lateral

load tests appeared to be comparable to that of

the fire walls. Both of the walls in this direction

had openings; however, these walls also had a greater overall length resisting load.

9.3.2.1. Racking Tests With Minimum Vertical Loads

These racking tests were conducted in the same manner as in the south direction (sec.

9.3.1.1). Figure 9.16 illustrates Test 3, which

subjected the structure to 0.9Z) plus 25 psf

wind load from the west. In this test, measured

deformations were extremely small (0.012 in).

Recovery characteristics were similar to those

observed for the fire walls. There appear to be

two breaks in the load-deflection curve (fig.

9.16), one at 10 psf and the other at 24 psf.

Neither of these was accompanied by any visual

signs of distress in either the concrete frame

or in the gypsum walls. Figure 9.17 shows the

results obtained from a racking test (Test 11)

carried to a wind load in excess of 70 psf. A

portion of this test, along with the results of

Test 3, is shown in figure 9.18. It is interesting

to note that a definite break developed in the

load-deflection curve of Test 11 at 6 psf; again,

this break was not associated with any visual

signs of distress. These breaks in the load deflection curve are not considered to be particularly significant since, for example in Test 11, even at a wind load of 25 psf the lateral drift

of the structure is still less than 0.04 in. Figure

9.19 '' shows a plot of load versus wall diagonal

compressive deformation for a wall resisting

west wind load during Test 11, which was car- ried to 74 psf. As was the case for the walls

resisting south wind load (fig. 9.10) deformations and correspondingly average strains were

extremely small and recovery was good. In this

test, distress in the wall was not noted until

the very upper range of the loading sequence was reached. At these loads distress was observed in the interior (north) wall in the form

of shear cracks (fig. 9.20). However, no noticeable distress was observed in the wall-frame

connections. Some progressive opening of the

joint between the wall planels and the columns was observed at loads in excess of 35 psf but

the separation was not particularly pronounced

and was similar to that discussed in section

9.3.1.1.

The erratic behavior noted in the first unload-reload cycle \vas due to a stuck instrument which was subsequently freed.

17
9.3.2.2. Racking Test at High Vertical Loads

A racking test was performed in the east

direction in Test 8 with 1.3Z) + 1.7L and 15

psf wind load. The results of this test are illus- trated in figure 9.21. It should be noted that the

application of the vertical loads caused a horizontal deflection in the opposite direction to that in which the wind loads were subsequently

applied. This deflection, resulting from the vertical loads, was only partially reversed by the

application of the 15 psf wind load. Test 8

(1.3Z) + 1.7L) is plotted along with Test 3

(0.9D) in figure 9.22. It can be seen that in

either case the deformations due to lateral loads are so small as to make questionable any conclusions concerning the effect of the magnitude

of vertical load on lateral stiff'ness.

9.3.2.3. Frame Action Versus Wall Action Figure 9.16 (Test 3) shows the response of

the structure with walls to racking in the east

direction, while figure 9.23 (Test 15) shows the

response of the structure after removal of the

walls. Both of these curves are plotted together

in figure 9.18 As was the case in the north

direction, it is evident that in the east direction

the walls provide most of the stiff'ness against

lateral loads.

In designing the test sequences to which the

structure was subjected, it was felt that only one meaningful racking test could be carried

through to the point at which the structure was

approaching collapse. The north direction,

which is the narrow direction for this system, was chosen for this test and its results were

reported earlier (Test 18) in section 9.3.1.3. In

the east direction the maximum load to which

the frame without walls was subjected was

applied in Test 15, which is shown in figure

9.23. In this test the frame resisted a wind load

in excess of 15 psf without collapse, although some minor flexural cracks were observed in

the columns at maximum load. This load level was substantially higher than that sustained in the racking test without walls in the north

direction. The conservative nature of the foundation simulation in the test structure, which

provided a hinge at the lower column connection, undoubtedly affected the results obtained

in this test in an adverse manner.

9.3.3. Compliance With Performance Criteria,

Horizontal Loads

9.3.3.1. Performance Criterion 4.4.1, Horizontal Deflection Under Dead and Wind Loads

At a load level of 0.9D + I.IH the horizontal deflec- tion due to the superimposed load of 1.1/-/ shall not

'"Only a portion of Test 15 is shown on this figure because of the scale.

exceed the following:

DIi < 0.002h - 0.002 X 94 in = 0.19 in where

:

Dh ~ horizontal gross deflection

// = height above grade.

In Test 2 (fig. 9.8) under 0.9Z) and a wind

load of 22 psf (l.lH) from the south, the maximum lateral drift was approximately 0.073 in,

and in Test 3 (fig. 9.16) with a west wind load

the maximum lateral drift was approximately

0.007 in, while the allowable drift under this

criterion is 0.19 in. Criterion It. 1 is therefore satisfied.

9.3.3.2. Performance Criterion 4.4.3, Horizontal Deflection Under Dead, Li\ e, and Wind Load

At a load level of 1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8// the horizontal

deflection due to the superimposed load of 0.3I> +

1.7L + 0.8// shall not exceed the following:

Dh < 0.002/) = 0.19 in

In Test 7 (fig. 9.24) under 1.3Z) + 1.7L and

a wind load of 15 psf (0.8//) from the south,

the maximum lateral drift was 0.045 in and in

Test 8 (fig. 9.20) with a west wind load the

maximum lateral drift was 0.032 in'', while the

allowable drift under this criterion is 0.19 in. Crite) ion is therefore satisfied.

9.3.3.3. Performance Criterion 4.4.5(b), Ultimate Strength

The structure or any portion thereof shall not fail at a load smaller than the following:

(b) 0.9£> + 1.4//, (28 psf wind load).

The structure was tested under these loading

conditions in the north direction and in the east direction in Tests 10 and 11 respectively (see

figs. 9.9 and 9.17). No distress was experienced in either test at that load level. Criterion Jf..U.U.(h ) is therefore satisfied.

9.4. Summary

(1) All conclusions pertaining to the struc- tural performance of the system in question are based on the structure as built in the laboratory

and on the erection methods and materials used

therein. Variations in materials and erection

methods may influence performance.

(2) The building system satisfied the performance criteria which were set for its evaluation with substantial margin. As a system, it exhibited strength and stiffness in excess of

service and ultimate load requirements.

" In Test 8 the maximum drift was measured upon the application of the vertical load and took place in the opposite direction

to the wind-induced deflection. If these two had been in the same

direction I'ather than opposite, the maximum deflection would have

been approximately 0.04 in.

18
(3) The walls of the system behaved as an

integral part of the structure. They provided

most of the stiffness of the system with respect

to lateral loads, and provided a significant portion of the stiffness against vertical loads.

(4) The building system with its walls re- moved had considerable reserve strength above

the required vertical load bearing capacity

however, without the aid of its walls it was not

capable of resisting the required service wind

loads.

10. Component Tests

10.1. Introduction

Load tests were conducted on the three principal precast load-bearing components of the

structure. The components tested were columns,

main beams with an appropriate portion of the

topping slab connected to them, and a floor- channel slab. These tests were performed to determine the behavior and ultimate strength

of the components. Included were tests to determine the effects of creep on the columns and

repeated loading on the beams.

10.2. Column Tests

The column specimens tested were typical

"short"^- columns as shown in figure 5.6. Reinforcement was 60 ksi steel. Actual outside

dimensions and concrete cover of individual

test specimens are shown in table 10.1. Values

of concrete strength of the various specimens

are reported in section 10.2.1.1. The tests consisted of the following

(1) Short-term destructive loads wei-e applied parallel to the column axis. Four columns were tested with an eccentric load on the major

axis and three with an eccentric load on the

minor axis.

(2) Two sustained-load tests were carried

out: one with an eccentric load on the major

axis, the other with an eccentric load on the

minor axis.

The method of applying the eccentric loads to the columns is shown schematically in figures

10.1 and 10.2. The same method was used for

both the short-term and the sustained-load

tests.

The term "short" column is applied in the plans to a column

with end fixtures at both ends. This column in the structure has

the same slenderness ratio as all other columns.

10.2.1. Short-Term Destructive Tests

10.2.1.1. Specimens

Seven columns were tested to destruction,

three with a load eccentricity of 0.5 in on the

minor axis (e/t = 0.1 for columns 1, 5, and 8),

three with a load eccentricity of 2.0 in on the

major axis {e./t 0.33 for columns 2, 6, and

7), and one with a load eccentricity of 1.5 in on the major axis {e/t = 0.25 for column 9)

Columns 1 and 2 were cast at the same time

as the test structure components (April 16 and

17, 1968) and from the same concrete, with

concrete compressive strength {f'c) ranging

from 4900 psi to 7200 psi (see table 11.1).

These specimens were approximately 20 days

old when tested. Columns 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were

cast from similar concrete at a later date (May

15) . Columns 5, 6, 7, and 8 were approximately

30 days old when tested and the concrete had a compressive strength of approximately 5400

psi. Column 9 was 60 days old when tested and

the concrete compressive strength was 7000 psi.

The longitudinal reinforcing bars (No. 6

deformed bars) were approximately 3 in

shorter than their full required length in Columns 1 and 2, leaving a distance of about II/2 in

between reinforcing bars and end fixtures, but

in columns 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 these bars were only

14 in shorter.

10.2.1.2. Loading

The loads were applied continuously until

failure, through a knife-edge loading plate

(figs. 10.1 and 10.2) by a 600,000-lb hydraulic

testing machine at a rate of 8,000 lb per

minute. Deflections were measured with longthrow mechanical dial gages at mid-height.

Figure 10.3 illustrates a typical test setup.

10.2.1.3. Results Test results are shown in figures 10.4

through 10.10 as load-deflection curves. Ultimate loads are tabulated in table 10.2. The

average maximum load for columns 1, 5, and 8

(minor axis bending, e — 0.5 in) was 78.9 kips.

Figure 10.11 shows these columns after testing.

Column 1 failed near its end connection, and its mode of failure appeared to be partially due

to the short reinforcement used. Columns 5 and

8 (which had longer reinforcement) experienced compression failures in the concrete at mid-height at about 12 percent higher loads

than did column 1. The average maximum load for columns 2,

6, and 7 (major axis bending, e = 2.0 in) was

51.2 kip. All three specimens failed in a

similar manner, as illustrated in figure 10.12,

with excessive bending of the channel-shaped.

19
top-fixture and some spalling of the concrete near this fixture.

The maximum load for column 9 (major axis

bending, e = 1.5 in) was 89.5 kips. This column

failed by concrete compression at mid-height.

10.2.2. Sustained Loading (Creep) Tests

10.2.2.1. Specimens

Two columns (columns 3 and 4) were tested

under a 25 kip sustained load. Both columns were cast with the test-structure components

and were about 20 days old when placed under

load. Concrete compressive strength ranged

from 4900 psi to 7200 psi (see table 11.1).

10.2.1.2. Loading

The loading frames used in these tests are shown in figures 10.13 and 10.14. Column 3

had a load eccentricity of 0.5 in on the minor

axis {e/t = 0.1), and column had a load

eccentricity of 2.0 in (e/t = 0.33) on the major

axis. A detail of the bottom of the column 4

loading frame is shown as figure 10.15. This

figure also shows the heavy spring used to sus- tain the load on the specimen.

The 25 kip load (ID + IL) was applied by means of a 30-ton hydraulic ram and a load cell inserted between the top two plates of the test frame. The ram load was applied through the

column to the spring, causing the spring to compress. Once the required load was applied,

nuts on the ^-in tie-bars were tightened

against the top knife-edge plate. The deflection

of the springs was about II/2 in at the 25 kip

load. The loads were checked and adjusted

periodically.

Mid-height deflections were measured by means of a taut wire and a mirrored scale. The

progression of the deflections with time was

measured periodically.

10.2.2.3. Results Results of a 17(J-day observation period are presented in figures 10.16 and 10.17 as timedeflection curves. The initial deflections are in- cluded in the total deflection for information

and comparison purposes.

10.2.3. Interpretation of Column Test Results

10.2.,S.l. Short-Term Destructive Tests Figure 10.18 shows a plot of test results for

columns with major axis load eccentricity, to- gether with computed interaction curves for

both the column cross section and the overall

column slenderness efi'ects. This figure also

shows interaction curves derived from performance criteria for lower-story columns.

Curve C is the locus of extreme values of

combined axial loads and end moments which

the columns must be able to resist in the direction of their major axis. Critical loading conditions for columns were found to be 1.5D 4

1.8L and 1.25 (D + L + //). The actual points

plotted for these component requirements cor- respond to 1/0.8 times the critical loading,

where 0.8 represents an understrength factor.

The requirement here is similar to that ex- plained in the commentary to section 4.4.5 of

this report; namely, that in the absence of a

laboratory sample of large size, individual

columns are required to exhibit a strength in excess of their ultimate loading requirement.

The ultimate moment imposed on the column

by wind load was assumed to be 1/7 of the

computed ultimate moment imposed on the

frame in the absence of walls. This assumption

is based on the test results illustrated in figure

9.10, which compares horizontal wind deflec- tions of the total system to these of the system

with walls removed. Curve A of figure 10.18 is a theoretical interaction diagram for cross- sectional capacity, computed for the combinations of vertical load and moment which would

cause failure in columns with a concrete compressive strength of 7,000 psi, which was the

concrete compressive strength of column 9. Curve B is a similar interaction curve for the

specified concrete compressive strength of

4, .500 psi.

The total maximum moment acting on a col- umn is the end moment plus an additional mo- ment which equals the product of the applied

vertical load times the maximum deflection of

the column. To determine the combination of

maximum axial load and maximum end mo- ment that can be imposed on a column at its supports, the maximum column moment in in- teraction curves A and B, which represent the

total cross-sectional capacity of the columns,

must be reduced by the value of P X dh, which

is the product of axial load and maximum col- umn net deflection at column failure. Curve B'

has been plotted to account for this moment

reduction at the specified concrete compressive

strength of 4,500 psi.''^ Curve B' is therefore

the interaction curve of ultimate loads and ulti- mate end moments which a column, constructed

in accordance with the plans and specifications

for this system, should be theoretically expected

to resist. It may be noted by comparing Curves

B' and C that the theoretical column capacity

exceeds the required critical loading by a considerable margin.

Values of P X (Ih were computed in accordance with "Proposals for Revision to Sections 915 and 'llfi of ACI 318-63" by

MacGreKOi', Breen, and Pfranj; ( unpuhlished ) . These computations

accounted for concrete ciackinpr. 20
The actual column tests for loads with major

! axis eccentricity are also plotted in figure 10.18.

It will be noted that each specimen test is

j plotted twice. The triangular points represent

a plot of the axial load at failure against the

I end moment caused by the axial load times its eccentricity.

The square points represent a plot of the

axial load at failure against the maximum moment that actually existed in the specimen at

I failure. This actual maximum moment is the

product of the axial load times the sum of its end eccentricity and the maximum center line

deflection at failure. It should be noted that in

a slender column such as the specimens tested

the maximum center line deflection is relatively

large (Refer to figures 10.4 through 10.10).

Only column 9 failed by compression at midheight. Column 9 had a concrete strength of

7,000 psi, and it can be seen that this column

developed strength slightly in excess of the

strength predicted by interaction curve A. Columns 2, 6, and 7 failed at their top fixture and

therefore did not develop their theoretical ulti- mate strength. In column 2 the reinforcement was 3 in short. This was corrected in columns

6, 7, and 9, without appreciable eflPect on col- umns 6 and 7. To evaluate column strength in

terms of component requirements the triangular plots of the test results should be compared

with curve C. It may be noted that all the

tested columns had considerable excess strength

over the component requirements.

Results for columns tested with minor axis

eccentricity are plotted in figure 10.19. Inter- action curves A, B, and B' are plotted as in

figure 10.18, except that in this figure they rep- resent relationships for loads with minor axis

eccentricity, and curve A was computed for a concrete compressive strength of 5,400 psi.

Columns 5 and 8 experienced a compression

failure at mid-height, and show strengths close

to the theoretical strength predicted by interaction curve A, which was computed for 5,400

psi concrete (the actual strength of the concrete

in these columns). Column 1 failed near its top

fixture, and this mode of failure may have been

caused by the fact that the reinforcement was

3 in short. In the case of minor axis eccentricity, no sizable end moments are expected to act on the columns, since the tie beams do not participate in the support of vertical loads to an

appreciable extent. All columns tested at a minor axis eccentricity of 0.5 in were able to sustain vertical loads in excess of the 51 kip

needed to satisfy the component requirements.

In summary, all the tested columns were able

to withstand axial loads and moments in excess

of required performance. Some of the columns

did not develop their full theoretical ultimate

strength because of weakness at the end fixture.

10.2.3.2. Sustained Leading (Creep) Tests Figures 10.16 and 10.17 show the results of

creep tests conducted on columns 3 and 4. Column 4 was loaded with an axial load of

25 kip at an eccentricity of 2 in on its major

axis. The test results are illustrated in figure

10.16. This figure also shows a computed value

of instantaneous deflection. It should be noted

that the vertical load is applied outside the kern

of the section. The instantaneous deflection was

therefore computed on the basis of a cracked

section neglecting concrete tension. This will

tend to overestimate the computed deflection,

since not every section along the length of the

column is cracked. In this case the computed instantaneous deflection is 0.32 in while the measured instantaneous deflection was only 0.22 in. However this measured value is low compared

with values measured in tests on columns 2,

6, and 7 which were subjected to similar loading conditions. For the latter three tests the

instantaneous deflection at a 25 kip load aver- aged 0.29 in (see figures 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9).

Figure 10.16 also shows an upper deflection

limit for the given conditions, obtained by con- sidering only the steel reinforcement and ne- glecting the concrete. This limit was computed

by assuming that all the load is carried by the

reinforcement. The deflection limit thus computed under the conditions of this test is 0.54

in and the steel stress at this deflection limit

would be 38.2 ksi, which is well below the

specified 60 ksi yield stress of the column re- inforcement. Creep buckling under the conditions of this test therefore cannot occur. All

computed deflections referred to in this section

accounted for an added moment equal to the

axial load multiplied by the deflection at each

point along the column.

Column 3 was loaded with an axial load of

25 kip at an eccentricity of 0.5 in on the minor

axis. This test is illustrated in figure 10.17, to- gether with the computed instantaneous deflec- tion of 0.106 in and the computed deflection

limit assuming that no stress is carried by the

concrete, which is 0.565 in. In this case the

computed instantaneous deflection is based on an uncracked section and is in good agreement

with the measured instantaneous deflection of

0.12 in as well as with instantaneous deflections

measured in the tests of columns 1, 5, and 8

(figures 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6). The deflection

limit under these loading conditions is 0.565 in

and the computed steel stress at the deflection

limit is 21 ksi, which precludes the possibility

of creep buckling under the conditions of this

test. The creep tests on columns 4 and 3 respectively are also plotted in figures 10.20 and 10.21.

Curves D in these figures are the interaction curves for maximum axial load and maximum

21
total moment at which the steel carries the

entire load without concrete participation.

Curves D' show the same interaction curves for

the reduced moments when deflections are taken

into account. Thus the curves marked D' represent the combination of axial loads and applied

end moments which can be supported by the

column reinforcement without concrete participation as a limit condition. It is significant to note that curve D' in figure 10.20 when compared with curve C indicates that creep buckling can not occur in this structure even under

the assumed ultimate loading conditions. The

creep tests of columns 3 and 5 simulate sus- tained loading of 1 live + 1 dead load in the

structure. It can be seen from the plot of these

tests in figures 10.20 and 10.21 that there is a

considerable margin of safety against creep

buckling in the direction of both the major and

the minor column axes.

10.3. Channel Slab Test

One of the channel slabs was picked at ran- dom and tested to destruction under centerpoint

loading.

The slab was supported at each end and

loaded through a 4-in-wide loading beam at midspan. Deflection of the slab was measured

at midspan by two 2-in-throw mechanical dial

gages.

The test results are shown in figure 10.22.

The load at the yield point (2.5 kip) was higher

than the predicted load at the yield point of

the reinforcement (2.25 kip) using the nominal

specified reinforcement yield strength, (40 ksi)

and a 4.500 psi concrete strength. The tests on

the laboratory structure also indicated satisfactory performance of these components. No

material specimens were tested to determine

the actual steel and concrete strengths of the

floor channels.

10.4. Beam Tests—Repeated Loading

10.4.1. Test Specimens

The test specimens were typical main beam

components with a 22-in-wide and 2-in-thick

topping slab cast on each beam. Results are presented for seven beams. Preliminary tests on three other beams are not reported because

the test conditions (quarter-point loading) were found to be far too severe in relationship

to service conditions.

Beams Nos. 6 through 11 were prepared with

column stubs passing through the topping slab

and with column connection fixtures in place

simulating conditions in the structure except

that tie beams were not attached and grouted

to these connections (a block of wood was used

as a spacer to fill the void caused by omission

of the tie beams). The connections were not

grouted. Beam No. 5 did not have the column

stub or column fixtures. In all of the beams tested, the top surface

had not been roughened as required by the

plans and specifications of the Neal Mitchell

Housing System. All specimen preparation, in- cluding the placing of the topping slab, was

performed by Neal Mitchell Associates. The top

surfaces of these beams had been cast against

steel forms and were very smooth.

Two types of shear connectors were used in

the seven beams. These shear connectors are

illustrated in figure 10.23. Beams Nos. 5, 7, and 9 used Star^' inserts spaced 19 in. on centers similar to the shear connectors used in the

test structure. Beams Nos. 8 and 10 used Richmond (Kohler)" inserts spaced 19 in. on centers. Beams Nos. 6 and 11 used the Richmond'^

inserts spaced 91/2 in. on centers. All data on

shear connector type and spacing in individual

specimens are summarized in table 10.3.

10.4.2. Beam Loading

Figure 10.24 is a general view of the test setup. Two 10 kip servo-controlled hydraulic rams applied the load by reacting against a frame bolted to the laboratory tie-down floor. Loading beams under the two rams distributed

the test loads. All beams were tested by applying the loads in accordance with the sketch

shown in Figure 10.25 and where simply supported by rollers on a clear span of 12.5 ft. The beams were subjected to 1000 cycles of

stress, alternating between intensities corre- sponding to \D and ID + IL, (for each ram

ID = 2.5 kip, and IL =2.5 kip; see Appendix

C). Subsequently, the beams were tested to failure by 1000-cycle increments with the upper load level being increased at each increment

by0.5L (1.25 kip).

The rate of cyclic loading was 1 cycle per

second except for a few cycles at the beginning

and end of each increment. During these periods when the rate was 0.01 cycle per second,

mechanical dial gage readings were made.

During these few cycles, center-span deflection

measurements were made using a 5-in-throw

mechanical dial gage. In addition, continuous

center-span deflection measurements were re- corded on a strip chart recorder by using a 3-in

linear variable differential transducer (LVDT)

.

Both measuring systems can be seen in figure

Proprietary commercial product.

22
( 10.24. In an effort to measure the relative

horizontal slip between the beam and its topping

slab, 0.001-in dial gages were mounted on the

beam ends. One of these gages can also be seen

in figure 10.24.

10.4.3. Test Results

J Graphs reproduced from strip-chart recordings of the midspan deflections are presented

as figures 10.25 through 10.28. Table 10.4 shows

I the midspan deflections measured at the beginning of each increment of loading for each of

the beams. This table also indicates the point

at which noticeable slippage between the topping slab and the beam occurred, as measured

bj^ the slip dial gages installed at the ends of

the beam. After testing, the topping slab was

removed from each beam, and spacing and condition of anchorage inserts were determined.

j! The data relative to these tests are presented

in table 10.5.

I 10.4.4. Interpretation of Results

j A study of table 10.5 and figures 10.25

through 10.28 indicates that all specimens

tested showed a similar pattern of failure First

I a slip occurred between the precast beam and

the topping slab. After this initial slip the

I beams no longer acted monolithically with the

I slab, and as a consequence the deflections caused

by applied load increased. Deflections also in- creased moderately with the number of load

I cycles applied during the application of ID +

XL, ID + 1.5L and ID + 2L. During the re- peated application of the load of ID + 2.5L

deflections of all specimens tested increased

rapidly and some of the specimens failed. All

the remaining specimens failed during the first few cycles of application of the load of ID +

3L.

The initial slip that occurs between the precast beam and the topping slab is caused by

horizontal shear. In the structure this shear

, is resisted by the shear connectors (inserts),

j the column-beam connection (the column base

plate and part of the upper story column bear

against the topping slab), and friction between

the precast beam, the topping slab, and the

^ floor channels. In the separate components that were tested not all these elements were present.

Shear resisting devices were varied in the tests

to determine their effectiveness in preventing

I\

slippage.

Beam 5, which had no column stub or columnj beam connection fixtures and had Star inserts

' at 19 inches on center, experienced slip between the beam and the topping slab during

the first cycle of application of the ID -I- IL

load (figure 10.25). In terms of ultimate

strength it performed considerably better, re- sisting 1000 cycles of ID + 2.5L without

failure.

The results of the test on Beam 9 are shown

in figure 10.26. This beam, which was similar

to Beam 5 except that it did have a partial

column-beam connection, performed approximately equal with Beam 5. Beam 9 exhibited

signs of first slip during the first cycle of loading to ID -I- IL and failed at the 820th cycle

of ID + 2.5L, while Beam 5 failed during the

first cycle of ID + 3L.

In comparison. Beam 7, the companion specimen to Beam 9, performed considerably

better than either Beam 5 or Beam 9. Beam 7 was able to sustain 1000 cycles of ID + IL

without any signs of slip. First indications of

slip for this beam were observed after the first few cycles of ID + 1.5L. Failure occurred at approximately the same point as that of Beam

5. The results of the test on Beam 8 are shown

in figure 10.27. Note that this beam, which had

partial column-beam connections and Richmond

inserts at 19 inches on center, had about the same initial slip behavior as did Beam 7, which was similar except for type of insert. Beam 8

experienced ultimate failure somewhat earlier

in the loading sequence than did Beam 7. Beam

10 (the companion to Beam 8) slipped at about

the same point in the loading sequence as did

Beam 8, but its ultimate failure took place

during the first cycle of ID + 3L.

The results of the test of Beam 6 are shown

in figure 10.28. Beam 6 had a partial columnbeam connection and Richmond inserts spaced

at 91/2 in on center. This beam was able to sustain the full 1000 cycles of loading from ID

to ID + IL without slippage and went on to sustain about 500 cycles of loading from ID

to ID + 1.5L before slip developed. Beam 6 was able to sustain 1000 cycles of ID to ID -I- 2.5L without failure and finally failed during

the seventeenth cycle of ID + 3L. Its companion. Beam 11, showed first signs of slip at 300 cycles of ID to 2L and ultimately failed at 1230 cycles of ID + 3L.

When the repeated load tests were conceived,

it was felt that from the standpoint of slip

behavior, the beams should be capable of sus- taining 1000 cycles of loading from ID to ID

+ IL, and should be capable of sustaining a loading of at least ID to ID + 2L before ulti- mate failure. This component requirement was

set for this particular test, even though it was

realized that the performance of the main beam

as a separate component does not necessarily

simulate the behavior of the complete system.

All of the beams tested which had partial col- umn connections, except for Beam 9, satisfied

this requirement. The reason that the presence

23
of the partial connections had no effect on Beam 9 is not clear. Beam strength was substantially improved

at an insert spacing of 91/2 in, as in Beams 6

and 11. The beams tested as isolated components ex- perienced considerably larger deflections at ID

+ IL than did the center main beam of the

test structure (figure 9.2), indicating that the

component test was conservative in comparison

with the system test.

11. Material Tests

11.1. Introduction

Tests were conducted on the concretes used

in the various parts of the structure as well

as on the reinforcing steel used in the precast

components. The objective of these tests was

to determine the relationship between minimum

specified properties of materials and the properties of the materials used in the test structure,

and to determine material properties which

might be useful in analyzing the tests on the

main structure and structural components.

11.2. Concrete Tests

The concretes tested were: (1) concrete used

in the precast components, except the channel

slabs, (2) concrete used in the on-grade floor

slab, and (3) concrete used for the topping

slab. Concrete specimens were tested for the

following: (1) compressive strength, (2) tensile splitting strength, (3) unit weight, (4) air

content, and (5) modulus of elasticity.

11.2.1. Precast Component Concrete

The precast components were cast in two

days (April 16 and 17, 1968) from five batches

of lightweight aggregate concrete. This concrete was made from a %-in maximum size

expanded shale aggregate, with preformed foam

added at the time of mixing. A rather high

cement content (about 9 U.S. bags per cubic

yard) was used, and water was added to produce a workable mix. The amount of the preformed foam used was adjusted to provide a concrete with a fresh weight of about 96 lb/ft' at the mixer. The slump was judged to be about

2 in although it was not measured. The workability of the concrete was excellent with no

indication of either segregation or bleeding.

Test specimens (6 X 12 in cylinders) were

cast in cardboard molds from four of the five batches. These specimens were shipped in the

molds to the test site with the structural components and were removed from the molds

when about 8 days old. They were then stored

in the laboratory air until tested.

The components were cast under commercial

conditions and no records were available which

would permit the association of individual components with particular batches of concrete.

11.2.2. Floor and Topping Slab Concrete

The on-grade floor slab was cast from a 1-in

maximum size crushed-stone concrete delivered

by a ready-mix truck. The mix proportions and

slump are not known. The compressive test specimens were molded in 6 X 12 in cast iron

molds which were removed when the concrete was 3 days old. The specimens were then airdried until tested.

The topping slab was cast from a standard

6-bag, 3000 psi lightweight mix delivered by a ready-mix truck in two batches. The first batch was placed in the west section of the topping

slab. The coarse aggregate was a %-in maximum size expanded shale and the fine aggregate was a natural sand. The compressive test specimens were molded in 6 X 12 in cast iron molds

which were removed at 2 days of age. The speci- mens were then air-dried until tested.

11.2.3. Concrete Test Results

The results from the strength tests are shown

in table 11.1. The unit weight and air-content

determinations are presented in table 11.2. Aircontent determinations were made by ASTM

Method C-457[12]. The values of the modulus

of elasticity are shown in table 11.3. By way

of comparison, values for an average lightweight aggregate concrete are included in

these tables. These values are averages from a

total of 46 batches of concrete made from 21

diff'erent expanded shale, lightweight aggregates [13]. The average cement content for

these concretes was 6.5 bags/yd and the aver- age wet density was 100.3 lb/ft\

The results indicate that: (1) the compressive strength of the lightweight concrete used

in the precast components was well above the

design strength of 3500 psi; (2) there was

considerable variation in the strengths from

batch to batch of the lightweight concrete; (3)

there was considerable variation in the unit

weights from batch to batch of the lightweight

concrete; and (4) there was an apparent in- crease in the unit weight of the concrete as placed in the precast components when compared to the fresh unit weight at the mixer

(about 96 lb/ft').

These indications justify three conclusions:

( 1 ) The concrete strengths in the test struc- ture were significantly higher than the

24
I strengths called for in the plans and specifica-

; tions of the Neal Mitchell System,

i (2) Handling and placing techniques of the

I fresh concrete can affect the unit weight (and

therefore the strength) of the concrete. This

is especially true in the case of the high-aircontent concrete used in the precast components. The unit weight of the concrete at the

mixer may not necessarily be equal to the unit

weight of the concrete in the form.

(3) When working with lightweight conI cretes, quality control tests on the fresh concrete should be made at the point of placing

in such a manner that handling and placing

effects can be evaluated.

I 11.3. Reinforcing Steel

Specimens of the reinforcing steel used in the

precast components were tested to determine

their yield and ultimate strengths. The results

i are presented in table 11.4.

; 12. Summary and Conclusions

I 12.1. Summary

; A full-scale, first-story portion of a building

system was tested in the laboratory in a manj ner that simulated the structural behavior of

" a three-story building under both service and

I potential ultimate loading conditions. Additional tests were carried out on components of

I this building system to determine their behavior

] and capacity and to provide data needed for

the evaluation of the system. Performance crii teria for the evaluation of the structural safety

I and adequacy of certain building systems were

' developed.

12.2. Conclusions

This series of tests demonstrated that it is

{ feasible and practical to use structural perj formance tests as a basis for the evaluation

^ of innovative building systems.

All conclusions pertaining to the structural

j performance of the system in question are based on the test structure as built in the

j laboratory and on the erection methods and

I materials used therein. Variation in materials

I and erection methods may influence performance. The following significant deviations of the

test structure from the plans and specifications

I of the Neal Mitchell System have been de-

'I termined:

(1) The test structure had higher than

specified concrete strength.

(2) Topping slab thickness exceeded that

shown in the plans.

(3) Floor channel reinforcement size was

increased.

(4) Gypsum wallboard thickness was less than that shown in the plans.

(5) Greater than ordinary variations in

concrete strength and in the dimensions of precast members were observed.

The following conclusions relative to the performance of the building system have been

reached:

(1) The building system satisfied the performance criteria which were set for its evaluation with substantial margins. As a system it exhibited strength and stiffness in excess of

service- and ultimate load requirements.

(2) The walls of the system behaved as an integral part of the structure. They provided

most of the stiffness of the system with respect

to lateral loads, and provided a significant portion of the stiffness against vertical loads.

(3) The building system with its walls

removed had considerable reserve strength

above the required ultimate vertical load bearing capacity; however, without the aid of its walls it was not capable of resisting the re- quired service wind loads.

(4) All columns tested as separate components satisfied component requirements.

Column creep tests indicate that the application of service loads over a long period of time

is not likely to result in creep-buckling of

columns.

(5) Five of six subassemblages consisting

of a precast main beam, a section of the topping slab and a partial column-beam connection were able to resist 1000 cycles of repeated loading from dead to dead-plus-live load without

exhibiting signs of deterioration. Two such

subassemblages with reduced shear connector

spacing satisfied this performance requirement

by a considerable margin. The column-beam

connections appeared to play a major role in

shear transfer between the precast beam and

the cast-in-place topping slab.

13. Acknowledgment

The contribution of the following persons is acknowledged:

Frank A. Rankin and James W. Raines,

Engineering Technicians, were respectively in

charge of erection and electronic instrumentation of the test structure.

25
Earle F. Carpenter was the Research Engineer in charge of electronic data processing

and participated in the preparation of this

report.

Thomas W. Reichard, Research Physicist, was in charge of specimen and material testing

and participated in the preparation of Chapters

10 and 11 of the report.

Robert G. Mathey, Assistant Chief of the

Structures Section, supervised and coordinated

the testing effort. John E. Breen, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas critically

reviewed the report and made many helpful

suggestions.

The team effort of these persons made the

successful completion of this project possible.

14. References

[1] Ackleston, A. Y., "Load Tests on a 3 Story Reinforced Concrete Building in Johannisburg,

South Africa," Structural Engr. 33, 304-322

[2] American Concrete Institute, Committee 318,

Proposed Revision to (ACI 318-63) Building

Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete

(Unpublished, Oct. 1955).

[3] State of New York, Building Codes Bureau, State Building Construction Code (Dec. 1964).

[4] Federal Housing Administration Research Paper

No. 30 (1954).

[5] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation:

A61-66 "Deformed Rail Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement with 60,000 psi Minimum Field Strength" (1966).

[6] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation: A15-66

"Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement"

(1966) . [7] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation:

A185-64 "Welded Steel Fabric for Concrete Reinforcement" (1964).

[8] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation:

C442-67 "Specifications for Gypsum Wallboard"

(1967) . [9] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation:

(36-67) "Specifications for Gypsum Wallboard"

(1967).

[10] American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation:

C39-66 "Test for Compressive Strength of Molded Concrete Cylinders" (1966).

[11] American Standards Association Minimum Design

Loads in Buildings and Other Structures (Sept.

1955).

[12] American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM Designation

C457-67T, "Recommended Practice for Microscopic Determination of Void Content, Specific

Surface, and Spacing Factor of the Air-Void

System in Hardened Concrete "Tentative)

(1967).

[13] Reichard, T. W., Creep and Drying Shrinkage of- Lightweight and Normal Weight Concrete. NBS

Monograph 74, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. (March 1964).

15. Tables

Table 6.1. Simulated Loads

{symbols and magnitude)

(For computations, refer to Appendix C)

Symbols for Loading:

D = Service dead load L = Service live load H = Service wind load

Simulated load Symbol

Magnitude

ID IL m

Second story column

W-E wind

P (kip)

Hw (kip)

Hs (kip)

Hs' (kip) w (psf)

W (psf)

10 7 2.05 S-N wind (point opposite

firewall) S-N wind (point between

firewalls) Major floor load-' (equivalent distributed load between columns

(center strip))

Minor floor load ' (Equivalent distributed load between north end

of structure and northern row of columns

(cantilever strip))

4.05

0.9

''46^9.3

'-46-^9.3

43

43

" w and W were increased to allow for incomplete area cov- erage by the air bags (see fig. 6.1). 46 psf is the dead load weight of the floor of the test structure.

9.3 psf is the additional dead load which would be act- ing on the real structure but which is not present on the test structure.

Table 6.2. Simulated loads in load schedule

(For computations, refer to Appendix C)

Loading P Hw Hs Hs' w w'

(kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) (psf) (psf) ID + IL 17 52 52 0.9D + I.IH 9 2.3 4.5 1.0 1.3D -t- 1.7L 25 100 100 1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8H 25 1.6 3 0.7 100 100

1.25 (1.5D + 1.8L) 35 144 144 0.9D + 1.4H 9 2.9 5.7 1.3

26
Table 10.1. Column tests (actual dimensions and reinforcement cover of the columns)

Outside dimensions

Column No. in inches Cover Measurements in nches

"X" "Y" A B C D E F G H

1 4.76 6.05 H 'M'e 2 4 77 6.07 1 Vs 1 1 '/ii \ 1 Vi 1 1 y%

3 4176 6!05

4 4.76 6.15

5 4.79 6.16 1 H 1 H 1 ^/fe 1 H 1 1 y% 6 4.81 6.06 1 Vs 1 ^6 1 ^ 1 Me % 1 ^ 1 7 4.78 6.05 1 M 1 '46 Vs 1 1 We 1 % 1 1 5^6 8 4.74 6.15 1 H 1 Vs 1 1 ^ 1 'A

9 4.75 6.20 1 Vs 1 3^ % 1 1 H 1 ^ 1 H

Average 4.77 6.10 1.12 1.07 0.96 0.98 0.92 1.08 1.03 1.01

specified (fig. 5.13) 4.75 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

G E

H F

X

Table 10.1. Illustrative figures

27
Table 10.2. Column tests {ultimate loads and failure modes)

Column

No.

Major

axis eccentricity

Minor

axis eccentricity

Ultimate

load

i ype of failure

(in)

. (in)

... , {Ktp)

1 0.0 0.5 73.0 Bottom

fixture

5 0.0 0 .

5

OO f\ oZ.U Concrete

mid-ht.

oo 81.8 Conpretp ' / (jiivi cue mid-ht. Avg. = 78.9

2 2.0 0.0 56.6 Top fixture D 51.0 Ton fiYturp

7 2.0 0.0 45!9 Top fixture Avg. = 51.2

9 1.5 0.0 89.5 Concrete

mid-ht.

Table 10.3. Beam tests {insert spacing and concrete strength of specimens)

Beam

Date cast Date beam

Concrete strength, psi"

No. Inserts Beam Topping

tested Beam Topping

5 Star'^ at 19 in 4/17 5/10 5/20 7000 3400

7 Star at 19 in 5/15 "6/7 6/13 6740 4100

9 Star at 19 in 5/15 "6/7 6/15 6740 4100

8 Richmond at 19 in 6/5 ^6/7 6/14 6400 4100

10 Richmond at 19 in 6/5 '"6/7 6/17 6400 4100

6 Richmond'' at 9 14 in 6/5 "6/7 6/12 6400 4100

11 Richmond at 9J'2 in 6/5 ''6/7 6/18 6400 4100

" Approximate strength when beam was tested. All concretes were made from expanded shale and were similar to concretes used in the test structure. Column stubs cast 6/5 from concrete used in beams cast on that date.

< All beams with 19 in insert spacing between supports had one insert outside each support at 18 in from the centerline of the support.

All beams with 9' 2 in insert spacing between supports had three inserts outside each support at 6, 18 and 30 in from the

centerline of the support.

Notes on inserts:

1. Star inserts were s in zinc base, die-casting alloy.

2. Richmond inserts were in grey cast-iron "Kohler".

3. Jam nuts were used with Star inserts.

4. Cross-bars on shear-studs were 8 in long when inserts were spaced at 9' 9 in between columns.

28
Table 10.4. Beam tests {repeated load test results)

Inserts used

Beam mid-span deflections, inch" Results

Increment 1 Increment 2 Increment 3 Increment 4 Increment 5 Slippage observed

Collapse occurred D D+L D D+1.5 L D D+2 L D i5+2.5 L D D+3 L

5 Star

at 19 in 0.32 0.72 0.68 1.31 0.82 l.SO 0.92 2.45 1.01 1 cycle

of 1 L

1 cycle

of 3 L

7 Star*- at 19 in 0.20 0.68 0.56 0.97 0.78 1.48 0.99 1.89 Few cycles

of 1.5 L

3 cycles

of 3 L

9 Start

at 19 in 0.17 0.76 0.61 1.07 0.81 1.43 0.96 2.06 1 cycleof 1 L

820 cycles

of 2.5 L

8 Richmond''

at 19 in 0.18 0.48 0.30 0.65 0.80 1 .36 1.00 2.23 Few cyclesof 1.5 L

4 cycles

of 2.5 L

10 Richmond''

at 19 in 0.15 0.50 0.38 0.74 0.46 1.07 0.72 1.45 0.86 100 cyclesof 1.5 L

1 cycle

of 3 L

6 Richmond''

at 914 in 0.17 0.54 0.42 0.82 0.70 1.28 0.82 1.63 1.28 3.05 500 cyclesof 1.5 L

17 cycles

of 3 L

11 Richmond''

at 9H in 0.21 0.55 0.40 0.79 0.50 1.02 0.59 1.21 0.70 1.52 300 cyclesof 2 L

1230 cycles

of 3 L

» Deflections reported were measured at beginning of each increment and are based on initial zero-load condition.

'' These beams had partial column connections.

Table 10.5. Beam tests {modes of insert failures)

Beam

No. Inserts Mode of Insert Failure

0

7

9

8

10

6

11

Star at j Inserts broken 1 in below interface 19 in and pulled out

Star at i Inserts broken 1 in below interface 19 in and pulled out

Star at I Bolts broken just above jam nuts

19 in Richmond | Bolts sheared off at slab-beam inter- at 19 in face Richmond ' Bolts sheared off at slab-beam inter- at 19 in face Richmond Bolts sheared off at slab-beam inter- at 9 H in face Richmond Bolts sheared off at slab-beam inter- at 9 14 in face

29
Table 11.1. Concrete tests''

Concrete Batch Date tested Age at

test

Compressive strength

Splitting

strength

Specified - Actual

Precast component''

Precast component''

Precast component''

Precast component''

Floor slab Topping slab Topping slab

4/16—

B

4/16—

C

4/17—

A

4/17—

B

May 10 May 10 May 10 May 10 May 10 May 21 May 21

Days

24

24

23

23

1726

26

psi

3500

3500

oOUU

3500

2000

3000 3000

psi

5100 4930

'71 cn 7090

5600 3840

2560

psi

<^346

<^287

<^369

A

B

Avg. value for typical

lightweight aggregate

concrete'^ 28 5800

" The tests on the laboratory structure were carried out during the period of May 10-22. See Appendix C for actual dates

of each test.

' Concrete for the long columns (first story) was specified to be 4500 psi strength. Tested May 22 at an age of 36 days after 25 days air drying.

Derived from NBS Monograph 74, March, 1964.

Table 11.2. Concrete tests {unit iveights and air contents of concrete)

Concrete Batch Date tested Age

Air drying

period

Unit

weight Air content

Precast component

Precast component

Precast component

Precast component

Floor slab Topping slab Topping slab

4/16—

B

4/16—

C

4/17—

A

4/17—

B

May 16 May 16 May 16 May 16 May 14 May 16 May 16

Days

30

30

29

29

21

21

21

Days

21

2121

2120

20

20

Ib/ft^

98.5

96.4

103.7

103.4 147.7

117.7

108.3

/o 11.3

8.2 A

B

Average values for typical lightweight aggre- gate concrete" 28 27 97.0 4.7

Derived from NBS Monograph 74, March, 1964.

30
Table 11.3. Concrete tests {modulus of

elasticity of precast component concrete

Batch

Age

at

test Date

tested Compressive

strength (f'c) Secant modulus"

days Tpsi 10^ Tpsi 4/16—

41 May 27 6400 2.1 4/16—

C

41 May 27 6030 2.2 4/17—

40 May 27 7380 2.4

Avg. value

for lightweight ag- gregate

concrete''

28 5850 2.2

"Secant Modulus at 0.4 f'c after prior loading to 0.5 f'c several times.

''Derived from NBS Monograph 74, March 1964.

Table 11.4. Reinforcing steel test results

Yield strength

Specimen Where used

Specified Actual Ultimate strength

psi psi psi

No. 5 deformed bar No. 4 deformed bar No. 2 plain bar

Beams

Cantilever beams

Tie bars in columns

60,000

60,000

40,000

65,000

73,000

47,000

96,000

117,000

77,000

31
16. Figures
ELEVATION STEEL CAGE LONG COLUMN

(GROUND FLOOR)

Figure 5.6. Elevation of column reinforcement.

\/ / / / A

I

I

I I crrj

1

i:.

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

~1 161

TOP VIEW EE

SECTION FF

Figure 5.7. Long column details.
|7T 1 Top of

J '-Concrete

it-J

^5 Bar

Weld

5/8 Dia.Bolt

SHEAR STUD DETAIL

ft

2-*4 Bars zSee Shear Stud

Detail SLAB REINFORCEMENT

ABOVE MAIN BEAM

Stud Inserts

PLAN

1-6" I —sii\ aLL '-6"

|6y]6" | I--7"

I l'-7" | l'-7" | o'-9""

ELEV.

l" Cover STEEL |Y I 11 1 I wyfw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n I I I I i; i(

stirrups ^2 Stirrups *

^

I l'-6" ] r-0" I l'-0"[ 3'- r- 9" jO'-2^

i 5#4Bors

Figure 5.8. Main beam reinforcement.

-SHEAR WHERE

CONNECT

SPECIF

OR INSERTS EO

-2~^

ST

-4-*» BARS

^1

TACK WELD

BARS

IRRUP

*fz TIE 3-*4 STIRRUPS - AT JOINT ONLY

-EXTEND CROSS STIRRUPS AT 3 FT INTERVALS TO CENTER REINFORCING

BARS. CAP EXTENDED STIRRUPS

WITH PLASTIC CAPS.

BARS

4lA'

SECTION "AA"

(SEE FIG. 6.8) SECTION B-B

(SEE FIG. 5.8)

Figure 5.9. Main beam sections.
PLAN - TIE BEAM

ELEVATION - TIE BEAM

- I COVERAGE

TIES- 5" OX. ^2 TIES - 10 0, C. *2 TIES- 5"0.C.

STEEL CAGE TIE BEAM

Figure 5.10. Tie-beam plan and elevation.

Figure 5.11. Beam and column connection.

35
Figure 5.12. Tie-beam end detail?:.
in ?

ro

to

e5/6

5/4|S!! HOLE

3/16V

POSITION OF —pi

CONC. COL. ON I t I

7 JZe"

5/8

ro

5/8"

BASE CONNECTION ife. PLAN

-COL BELOW

3/i6"fe

^

HOLE

0

7 "g/e"

G

HEAD CONNECTION t PLAN

4 V4"

3/4 TYR

-3/8" RAD. 2 EDGks"'^2 REINF. BARS (CONT)

PLAN SECTION @ COL. BASE

Figure 5.13. Plan sections of column connections.

37
-BASE CONN, t

SEE SECT. F-F THIS SH'T.

NOTE : FOR DETAILS OF

TIE BEAM FASTENIH0

TO CONN, t SEE

SH'T. C D S 14

% STilf FE ^ ER RODS I WE fcD TO

iNsipf F^< e; Of CQNN

t\ StjlA P

4 3/4^'

V4"x3/4"st'L.

STRAP BEYOND

WELD LEGS TO

CONN. 1

l/B TH'K. NEOPRENE PAD

SECTION EE BASE CONNECTOR

IL SHOWING STEEL STRAPS

SECTION G-G HEAD CONNECTOR

ft SHOWING STEEL STRAPS

Figure 5.14. Elevation sections of column connections.

38
3/16 "plate

1/8* BEARING PAD

THINWALL METAL TUBING

3/4" LD. 3/4" HIGH STRENGTH BOLT

l/e" PLATE

4. OF a" nelson stud

m o

VI . r

1^.

O) O ((^

l/e" CLEARANCE EDGE OF

•L TO FACE OF TIE BEAM

3/16" PLATE

l/e" BEARING PAD EDGE OF LEDGE ON

CANTILEVER BEAM

KEY FOR GROUT

l/l6" CLEARANCE

GROUT FROM TOP FLUSH

WITH BOTTOM

OF BEAM

Figure 5.15. Connection detail.

39
9-113/4"

PLAN

-DEPTH AT Center -WELDED WIRE MESH

ELEVATION

2'-0"

SECTION

2 Vd'

-1*4 BAR

5/8" COVER

Figure 5.16. Floor channeh.

vr

ii 1 1—4

<

111

'A

EXTERIOR

10' -0"

WALL 7^

10' -0"

o

I CM

1

-4

Figure 5.17. Plan section through walls.
25 GAUGE GALV CHANNEL

RUNNER (2 1/2") NOTE:

DO NOT FASTEN VERTICAL

STUDS TO THE RUNNER

THEY RIDE UP a DOWN

COLUMN FACE

INTERIOR FACE OF COLUMN

1/4" X 3/8" URETHANE

ADHESIVE BOTH SIDES

1/2" X I l/e" ANGLE

CEMENT TO SHEETROCK

2"X 1/4" URETHANE

5/8" SHEETROCK

1/2" SHEETROCK

SECTION

DETAIL AT HEAD

2 HOUR RATING

25 GAUGE 2 l/2" GALV —

STEEL STUD

5/8" SHEETROCK

1/2" SHEETROCK

COLUMN

1/4" URETHANE

CAULK

1/4" X 3/8" URETHANE

ADHESIVE BOTH SIDES

X I 1/8" ANGLE

CEMENT TO SHEETROCK

PLAN

DETAIL AT COLUMN

2 HOUR RATING

II 5/8" GYP SHEETROCK

-1/2" GYP SHEETROCK

L

2" TOPPING (CONC)

RESILIENT FLOORING

- A

2S - <

SECTION

DETAIL @ SILL

2 HOUR RATING

Figure 5.18. Fire wall.

COMPRESSIBLE FILLE CAULKING

EDGES SEALED

FACE STAINED

2"X 1/4" URETHANE DRAWN 1/4"

(NOT COMPRESSED)

TEXTURE l-ll SELECT GRADE

CEDAR GROOVES 4"o.C.

25 GAUGE 6ALV. CHANNEL

RUNNER SECTION OR PLAN

DETAIL AT HEAD

1/4" X 3/8" URETHANE

ADHESIVE BOTH SIDES

1/2 X I 1/8 ANGLE

CEMENT TO SHEETROCK

5/8" SHEETROCK FASTEN TO

STUD W/ I 1/4" SELF TAPPING

SCREW-TAPE AND COMPOUND

JOINTS

TOP OF VERT. STUD

TEXTURE l-ll SELECT GRADE—-

CEDAR-USE TRIM HEAD SCREWSELF COUNTERSINKING SEE

ELEVATION FOR SCREW

A LOCATION THIS SHEET

STAGGER JOINTS

: \l

2 1/2" 25 GAUGE STEEL

STUD 16" O.C.

5/8" GYPSUM SHEETROCK

OUTSIDE FOILFACE

PLAN

TEXTURE l-ll SELECT

GRADE CEDAR USE TRIM

HEAD SCREW SELF

COUNTERSINKING SEE

ELEVATION

SECTION

DETAIL AT SILL

I 5/8"- v' COMPRESSIBLE FILLER

CAULKING

25 GAUGE STEEL STUD 6ALV 16 O.C. 5/8" SHEETROCK FASTEN TO STUD

W/ I 1/4" SELF TAPPING SCREW TAPE

AND COMPOUND JOINTS

FOIL FACE OUTSIDE

25 GAUGE GALV. CHANNEL RUNNER

FACE OF COLUMN

CUT I 5/8"X 2 5/8" CONTINUOUS

(PRESSURE TREATED) WOOD

MEMBER-SET IN MASTIC AT SILL

RESILIENT FLOOR

Figure 5.20. Exterior wall details.

43
I 1/4" X 2 1/2"- 25 Go. Steel Stud

/ , 1 5/8" X 1 3/4 Wood i 31 X 1 5/8" ' p5 BARS y

- DWR 212 Metal Runner

ACCESS PANEL

2 1/2 STRUCTICORE

I S/8" X I 3/4" Wood

- ELECTRICAL

-3/4" X I 5/8" Wood Fostened 24" C/C

-2 1/2" Vinyl 132 Concrete Slob on Precost

Floor Plank ELEVATION

Figure 5.21. hiterior wall aectiov^^

COLUMNGROUT-

-3/8 PREMOLDEO FILLER

INTERIOR COLUMN

EXTERIOR COLUMN

Figure 5.23. Foundation detail.

Figure 5.22. Interior wall (partially

dismantled)

Figure 5.24. Teat structure before the installation of walls.

2 S'j" TOPPING SLAB

TIE SEAM^ MAIN BEAM

6 CAST IN PLACE

FLOOR SLAB POST TENSIONING'

80LT EXTERIOR WALL

Figure 5.25. Test structure after the installation

of walls.
Figure 5.26. Test structure with testing equipment

installed (top view).
30 TON JACK

3-1 ROLLERS

E POXY

5"x 5"« l" It.

5"x 5"x 1/2" R..

j-s-^

Figure 5.28. Column load equipment connection.

2 1/2" SLAB

5"«5"x 1/2" B.. (GLUED WITH EPOXY)

^BOTTOM OF SLAB

^^-2" J^CK IN (J. OF CANTILEVER BEAM

10 TON JACK LOAD CELL

N-*S RACKING LOAD

SLAB ^ - TIE BEAM *•»

COLUMN

I l/2"x 6" SLAB OVERHANG

(JOINT ASSEMBLY)

BOTTOM OF SLAB — 10 TON JACK

* ({.OF TIE BEAM

LOAD CELL

4"x 3"x r t. \ PI

4"x I2"k 1/2" R../ W

PLATES GLUED

ITH EPOXY

W— E RACKING LOAD

Figure 5.29. Racking load equipment connection.

Figure 6.1. Loading of test structure.

46
e Lineor voriable differential tronsducer

Applied loads

Figure 7.1. Instrumentation location. Northeast

schematic.
PLAN SECTION 6" BELOW CEILING BEAMS

PLAN SECTION 6" ABOVE FLOOR

© Type A-3 strain goge located 1/2" from corner of column

Figure 7.4. Column strain gage location.

CHANNELS 72 AND 73, SEE FIGURES A-ll AND A-16

0 0.02 O.CM 0.06 0.08 0.10 QI2 0.14 VERTICAL DEFLECTION, (in.)

Figure 9.1. Test No. 5, sustained vertical load versus midspan deflection of center main beam.
CHANNEL 72, SEE FIGURES A-28 AND A-65

TEST NO. 16 COLUMN SUPPORT ^ ^ I0 + 8L

(CHANNEL 73) TEST NO. 16 WALLS REMOVED ^ ^ ^

ID + 6L

TEST NO. 9 WALLS

N PLACE y

o

0.4 0.6 0.8 ID VERTICAL DEFLECTION, (in.)

1.2

ID + 4L

ID + 2L

1.4

Figure 9.2. Test No. 16, major floor load (w) versus midspan deflection of center main beam.
- OUTPUT CHANNEL 72, SEE FIGURES A-28 AND A-34 — ID + 4L

VERTICAL DEFLECTION,(in)

Figure 9.4. Interior floor load (w) and total floor load (w + w') versus midspan and column support deflec- tion of center main beam.

CHANNEL 40, SEE FIGURES A-27 AND A-64

ID + 4L

0 0.05 0,10 0.15 0.20 025 0.30 VERTICAL DEFLECTION, (in)

Figure 9.5. Midspan deflection of west main beam with

and without walls.
0,02 0.0"? 0.06 008 OJO NORTH TRANSLATION, (in.)

Figure 9.6. Tests No. 12A and ISA, vertical load versus north translation.

FiGUGE 9.7. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus

east translation.

51
CHANNEL 43

0.04 0.06 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in.)

0.08

Figure 9.8. Test No. 2, south wind load versus

translation.

CHANNEL 43

0.1 02 0.3 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in.)

0.4

Figure 9.9. Test No. 10, south wind load versus

translation.
CHANNEL 43

WIND WITH 0.9D

/

(TESTNO.IO)^ ^ / /

/

WIND WITH 0.9D WITHOUT WALLS

(TEST NO.M)

004 0.06 0.08 HORIZONTAL TRAN SLAT ION, tin.)

012 014

Figure 9.10. North-south horizontal t7-anslation of structure with and without walls.

100 CHANNEL 57

80

60

40

20

0.01 0.02 0.03 DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESS ION , (in.

)

0.04 0,05

Figure 9.11. Test No. 11. south wind load versus wall compression.

53
25 CHANNEL 43

20

15

10

0.08 0.12 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in.)

0.16 0.20

Figure 9.12. Test No. 7, south wind load versus

translation.

40

CHANNEL 43

30 —

P=9 K = 0.9D

P = 25K = I.3D + I.7L w = 100 psf = I.3D + I.7L

20

10

WIND WITH 0.90- (TEST NO. 2)

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION ,(ia)

0.10 0.12 0.14

Figure 9.13. Effect of vertical loads on north-south

horizontal translation. 54
CHANNEL 44

0 02 04 06 08 ID HORIZONTflL TRflt\ISLflTIONS,( in )

Figure 9.14. Test No. H, south wind load versus

translation.

CHANNEL 44

0 0 4 0 8 12 16 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION,(in.)

Figure 9.15. Test No. 18, south wind load versus

translation.

20
.5 CHANNEL 46

0.02 0.04 0,06

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION , (in )

J L

0.08 0.10

Figure 9.16. Test No. 3, west wind load versus

translation.

CHANNEL 46

0.2 0 3 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION^ in )

0.4

Figure 9.17. Test No. 11, west wind load versus

translation. 56
40 CHANNEL 46

P = 9K =0.9D

30

WIND WITH 0.9D (TEST N0.3) 20

10

WIND WITH 0.9D. (TEST NO.II )

0 -004

WIKJO WITH 0.9D WITHOUT WALLS

(TEST NO. 15)

-0.02 0 002 0.04 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in)

0.06 0.08 0.10

Figure 9.18. East-west horizontal translation of structure with and without walls.

100 CHANNEL 61

0.01 0.02 0.03 DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESS ION , (in.

)

0.04 0.05

Figure 9.19. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall

compression.

57
I^'IGURE 9. 21). Drywall crack near ceiling on interior side of each wall.

25

20

^ 15

<O

Q

2

(-

UJ

O

o

IT) CM

-0.08

CHANNEL46

6"

ji a.

0.04 0 0.04

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in)

0.08

Figure 9.21. Test No. 8, west wind load versus

translation. 58
40 r- CHANNEL 46

P = 9K = 0-9D

P = 25K= I.3D + I.7L w = 100 psf = 1.30 + I.7L 30

WIND WITH 0.9D (TEST WO. 3)

0.02 0.04 HORIZONTAL TRANSL AT ION , ( in.)

0.06 008 O.lO

Figure 9.22. Effect of vertical loads on east-west

horizontal translation.

25 CHANNEL 46

20

15

10

0.2 0,4 0.6 HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (In.)

0.8 0.10

Figure 9.23. Test No. 15, west wind load versus

tra^islation.
(minor axis).

Figure 10.3. Column under test.

Figure 10.2. Test method for column tests

(major axis

)

. 60
Figure 10.5. Short-term test on column No. 5. Figure 10.6. Shirt-term test on column No.

Figure 10.7. Short-term test on column No. 2. Figure 10.8. Sliort-term test on column No. 6.
Figure 10.10. Short-term test on column No. 9. Figure 10.12. Column ends after testing.

^COMPUTED MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DEFLECTION

-COMPUTED INSTANTANEOUS DEFLECTION

e = 2" ON MAJOR AXIS SUSTAINED LOAD = 25 kip

J L

60 80 100 120 TIME UNDER LOAD, DAYS

140 160 180

-COMPUTED MflSIMUM POSSIBLE DEFLECTION

TEST

APPARATUS

DISTURBED

COMPUTED INSTANTANEOUS

DEFLECTION

-MEASURED

e = 0 5" ON MINOR AXIS SUSTAINED LOAD =25 kip

20 40 ) 80 100 120 TIME UNDER LOAD, DAYS140 160 180

Figure 10.16. Sustained load test, column No. i. Figure 10.17. Sustained load test, column No. 3.

300iA = P vs Umax (fi = 7000)

B = P V) Mmox (fc= 4500 psi)

B'= P V5 Mma«'(fc ' 4500 psI )

C = Component Requiremsnts A= Column End Moment (P-el

tAox Column Moment (p (e+dl^))

NmOKc Cross Section Copocity

Mmox = Column Capacity

100 150 200 MOMENT- (kip-in)

300

250

.e-200

o 150 -

SEE FIG. 10,18 FOR SYMBOLS

(fc = 5400)

12 5 (I 50-I-I.8L) 50<>=

5 0 7 5 100 MOMENT (kip-irO

^COL *5

150

Figure 10.18. Columns with major axis eccentricity. Figure 10.19. Columns with minor axis eccentricity.

64
Figure 10.22. Channel roof slab test.

65
Inches

Shear Stud and Cross-/ jji—— Jam Nut

Bar Connector |l»_siar Insert

-Typical Star Insert Failure

Typical Richmond Insert Failure

Figure 10.23. Beam to slab sJiear connectors.

Figure 10.24. Fatig^ic test on main beam.
BEAM NO. 5 STAR INSERTS AT 19" NO COLUMN CONNECTIONS

Figure 10.25. Fatigue loading, beam No. 5.

BEAM NO. 9 STAR INSERTS AT 19" PARTIAL BEAM -COLUMN CONNECTION

FAILED AT 850 CYCLES OF 10+ 2.5L

NO. OF CYCLES

Figure 10.26. Fatigue loading, beam No. 9.

I

Ij

67
BEAM NO 8 RICHMOND INSERTS AT 19" PARTIAL BEAM COLUMN CONNECTION

FAILED AT 4**' CYCLE OF I0 + 2.SL O2 0

in ID+I.5L

ID + 2_0^

^ in

hOOO CYCLES I I 1000 CYCLES I NO OF CYCLES

Figure 10.27. Fatigue loading, beam No.

BEAM NO 6 RICHMOND INSERTS AT 9V

FAILED AT 17 CYCLES OF 1D+30L

NO OF CYCLES

Figure 10.28. Fatigue loading, beam No. G.

68
PAGE OF FORM PR-221 (7-67) REPORT ON SAMPLE OF. CONCRETE CYLINDER (6 x 12 inchV'°'"

°'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Public Roads

LABORATORY NUMBER NAME DATE REPORTED Mr Tom Re i chard 5/29/68

IDENTIFICATION MARKS NBS bU-16 No, h

SUBMITTED BY National Bureau of Standards

DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED SAMPLED FROM 5/2U/68

5 p.m.

QUANTITY REPRESENTED SOURCE OF MATERIAL National Bureau of Standards

LOCATION USED OR TO BE USED EXAMINED FOR Air (void) content

by Linear Traverse (Rosiwal Method)

TEST RESULTS

The concrete specimen, a 6 x 12- inch cylinder, NBS Bk-l6 No. U, was received ^/2h/6Q.

An inch thick slice was diamond sawed through the vertical axis of the cylinder. One

side was ground and lapped for 30 minutes (on a Lapmaster "2k" with No. 1950 Lapmaster Lapping Compound). The prepared surface was examined under 112X magnification

and tested by the Linear Traverse (Rosiwal) Method (ASTM Designation C 1+57-66 t).

The data recorded were:

Niimber of voids smaller than . 02 inches = 21lU

Number of voids larger than . 02 inches = 151

Total number of voids (n) = 2265

Total length of traverse (t) = 12U. 76 inches

Traverse in inches over voids smaller than . 02 inches = 7» 83 inches

" larger than .02 " = 6.22

" " " " all voids =lir05

Calculated values

Air void content (voids smaller thein . 02 inches ) = 6. 3 percent

larger than .02 inches ) = 5.0

Total air void content = 11. 3

"

Voids in porous aggregate were not counted.

Note information phoned to Mr. Reichard h p.m. 5/29/68

M. C. Gleason

PER Chief, Materials Division

EDITION OF C-09 OF THIS FORM MAY BE USED

Figure 11.1. Sample report for»i.

69
Appendix A. Plotted Test Results

List of Figures

Page A. 1. Test No. 1, column versus beam deflection 72 A. 2. Test No. 2, south wind load versus translation 72 A. 3. Test No. 2, south wind load versus translation 73 A. 4. Test No. 2, south wind load versus translation 73

A. 5. Test No. 2, south wind load versus beam deflection 74 A. 6. Test No. 3, west wind load versus translation 74 A. 7. Test No. 3, west wind load versus translation 75

A. 8. Test No. 3, west wind load versus beam deflection 75

A. 9. Test No. 4, floor load versus beam deflection 76

A. 10. Test No. 4, floor load versus beam deflection 76 A. 11. Test No. 4, floor load versus column shortening 77 A. 12. Test No. 4, floor load versus beam deflection 77 A. 13. Test No. 4, floor load versus slab deflection 78 A. 14. Test No. 4, floor load versus beam deflection 78 A. 15. Test No. 4, sustained floor load versus beam deflection 79 A. 16. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection 79 A. 17. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection 80 A. 18. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus slab deflection 80

A. 19. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection 81 A. 20. Test No. 7, south wind load versus translation 81 A. 21. Test No. 7, south wind load versus translation 82

A. 22. Test No. 7, south wind load versus translation 82 A. 23. Test No. 7, south wind load versus beam deflection 83 A. 24. Test No. 8, west wind load versus translation 83

A. 25. Test No. 8, west wind load versus translation 84

A. 26. Test No. 8, west wind load versus beam deflection 84 A. 27. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam deflection 85

A. 28. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam deflection 85

A. 29. Test No. 9, major floor versus column shortening 86

A. 30. Test No. 9, major floor load versus slab deflection . 86 A. 31. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam deflection 87 A. 32. Test No. 9A, floor load versus beam deflection 87

A. 33. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus beam deflection 88 A. 34. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus beam deflection 88 A. 35. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus column shortening 89 A. 36. Test No. 9A, floor load versus slab deflection 89

A. 37. Test No. 9A, floor load versus beam deflection 90

A. 38. Test No. 10, south wind load versus translation 90

A. 39. Test No. 10, south wind load versus translation 91 A. 40. Test No. 10, south wind load versus wall compression 91 A. 41. Test No. 10, south wind load versus wall compression 92

A. 42. Test No. 10, south wind load versus beam deflection 92 A. 43. Test No. 11, west wind load versus translation 93 A. 44. Test No. 11, west wind load versus translation 93 A. 45. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 94 A. 46. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 94

A. 47. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 95

A. 48. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 95 A. 49. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 96

A. 50. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 96 A. 51. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 97 A. 52. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression 97 A. 53. Test No. 11, west wind load versus beam deflection 98

A. 54. Test No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus east translation 98 A. 55. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus east translation 99 A. 56. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation 99 A. 57. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation 100

A. 58. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation 100

A. 59. Test No. 14, south wind load versus translation 101 A. 60. Test No. 14, south wind load versus translation 101 A. 61. Test No. 14, south wind load versus translation 102

A. 62. Test No. 15, west wind load versus translation 102 A. 63. Test No. 15, west wind load versus translation 103 70
Page A. 64. Test No. 16, major floor load versus beam deflection 103

A. 65. Test No. 16, major floor load versus beam deflection 104

A. 66. Test No. 16, major floor load versus column shortening 104 A. 67. Test No. 16, major floor load versus slab deflection 105

A. 68. Test No. 16, major floor load versus slab deflection 105

A. 69. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam deflection 106

A. 70. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam deflection 106

A. 71. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam deflection 107

A. 72. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus column shortening 107 A. 73. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus slab deflection 108

A. 74. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam deflection 108

A. 75. Test No. 18, south wind load versus translation 109

A. 76. Test No. 18, south wind load versus translation 109

A. 77. Test No. 18, south wind load versus translation 110
25 I 1 1

1 1

1 I r

20

J L J I L

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 10

VERTICAL DEFLECTION. |ln.|

Figure A. 1. Test No. 1, column load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

0.01 0.02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0.08 0.09 O.K

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in)

Figure A. 2. Test No. 2, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel U3)

72
0 0 01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 1 0

HORIZONTAL TRUNSIMION, |in|

Figure A. 3. Test No. 2, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 44)

0 0 Ot 0 02 0.03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0.08 0.09 0 1 0

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in|

Figure A. 4. Test No. 2, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Cliannel 45)
0.01 0 02 0 03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0 09 0.1 0

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, [in.|

Figure A. 5. Test No. 2, south wind load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)
0 0 01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 06 0.0 7 0 08

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in.|

Figure A. 7. Test No. 3, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel U7)

— 10 -

0 0.01 0 02 0 03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in.|

Figure A. 8. Test No. 3, west wind load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

75
VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in|

Figure A. 9. Test No. i, floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel iO)

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in|

Figure A. 10. Test No. U, floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

76
100 I r 1 r

60

2 40

20 -

J I L

0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 016 0 16 0 20

COLUMN SHORTENING, |in.|

Figure A. 11. Test No. 4, floor load versus column

shortening. (Output Channel 73)

ino

I

1

1 r

80

60 -

S 40

20

J L

1 1 1

1 rJ L

0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |i!i|

Figure A. 12. Test No. 4, floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 7A)

11
0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION. |in|

Figure A. 13. Test No. i, floor load versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 76)

0 02 0 04 0.06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 0.1 6 0 1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, lin)

Figure A. 14. Test No. floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 77)

78
100

60 —

40 -

20

0 <—

0 0 02 0 04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 12 0 14 0.1 6 0 18 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, iin.|

Figure A. 15. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection. (Output Channel UO)

VERTICAL DEFLECTION,

Figure A. 16. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

79
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.1 6 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICIL DEFLECTION, |in|

Figure A. 17. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection. (Output Channel 7^)

80
0 0.02 0 04 0 06 0 08 010 0 12 014 016 0 18 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |ln)

Figure A. 19. Test No. 5, sustained floor load versus beam deflection. (Output Channel 77)

0 02 0.04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 1 2 0.1 4 0 IS 0 1 8 0 20

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in| Figure A. 20. Test No. 7, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel ^3)

81
0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 016 0

HORIZQNTm TRANSLATION, |in|

1 8 0 20

Figure A. 21. Test No. 7, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 44)

25 I

1 r1 1 1 1 1 r

20

i- 1 I I I I L

0.02 0.04 0 06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0 14 0.16 D.1> 0.20

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (inj

Figure A. 22. Test No. 7, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 45)

82
C3 40 -

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0.1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, |in.|

Figure A. 23. Test No. 7, south wind load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

25

20 -

15 -

•- 10

-| 1 1 1 r

1 r

J L A \ I \ L

0.01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 7 0 08 0 09 0 10

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in.)

Figure A. 24. Test No. 8, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 46)

83
25 "1 r

1 1 r

20

15

_ 10

5 -

i«

I I I

I

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 08 0.09 0.10

HORIZONTAL TRANSUTION, lin.l

Figure A. 25. Test No. 8, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel i7)

— 10

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 iO 0 12 0 14 0.16 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL OEFLECTION , |in.| Figure A. 26. Test No. 8, west wind load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

84
500

I

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 r

400 -

S 300 -

S 200 -

_J I I I

0 1 4 0.1 6 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in|

Figure A. 27. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 4.0)

]

VERTICAL DEFLECTION,

Figure A. 28. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

85
500

400

300

2 200

100

"T r

"1 r

I I I J L

0 0.02 0 04 0.06 0 08 0 tO 0 1 2 0 14 0 16 0.18 0 20

COLUMN SHORTENING, |in.{

Figure A. 29. Test No. 9, major jloor load versus columns shortening. (Output Channel 73)

500

400

300

200

100

1 r T 1 I r

J L

0 0.02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 1 0 0.12 0.14 0.1 6 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in.|

Figure A. 30. Test No. 9, major floor load versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 76)

86
0 0.02 0.04 0 06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0 14 0 16 0 1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |ln.|

Figure A. 31. Test No. 9, major floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 77)

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0.14 0.1 6 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, (in.)

Figure A. 32. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 40)

87
0 0.08 0.06 0.04 0 02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, (in.)

Figure A. 33. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 70)

0 0 02 0.04 0 06 0.08 0.10 0 12 0 1 4 0.16 0.1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, |ln.|

88

Figure A. 34. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)
0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 1 0 0.12 OM 0.1 6 0 1 6 0 20

COLUMN SHORTENING, |in.|

Figure A. 35. Test No. 9A, floor loads versus column

shortening. (Output Channel 73)

0.02 0 04 0.06 0 08 0 1 0 0 12 0 14 0.1 6 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, iin.{

Figure A. 36. Test No. 9A, floor load versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 76)

89
0 02 0 04 0.06 0 08 010 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, (jn.|

Figure A. 37. Test No. 9A, floor load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 77)

T

1 1 1 \ 1

I

1 r
0 0.01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0.05

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, (in.)

Figure A. 39. Test No. 10, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel Uk-)

0.0) 0.02 0.03

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION, [in.

0.04 0.05

Figure A. 40. Test No. 10, south wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 56)

91
0 0 01 0.02 0.03 0 04 0 05

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION. |in.|

Figure A. 41. Test No. 10, south wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 57)

0 01 0 02 0.03

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS. Iin.|

0.04

Figure A. 42. Test No. 10, south wind load versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

0 05

92
0 0 05 0 1 0 0.1 5 0.2 0 0 25 0 30 0 35 0 40 0 4 5 0 5 0

HORIZONTKl TRANSLATION, |in|

Figure A. 43. Test No. 11, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel J^B)

HORIZONTU TRANSLATION. |in|

Figure A. 44. Test No. 11, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 47)

93
100 1 1 r T- 1 r

10

20

I I I I I I I I I

0 05 0 to 0 15 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 35 0 40 0 45 0.50

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRE$SION.|jn|.

Figure A. 45. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 52)

100

I , \ r

60

S 40

20

J 1 i I J I L

- 0 02 -0.01 0 0 01

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION,

Figure A. 46. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall

compression. (Output Channel 53)

0 02

94
100 1 r

1 r

20

J I I I I I I I

I

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2 0 0.25 0 30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.5 0

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRE$$IOII,|in|.

Figure A. 47. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression. (Output Chayinel 54)

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2 0 0.25 0.30 0.35

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION.IiH).

0.40 0.45 0.50

Figure A. 48. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 55)

95
0 -0.020 -0.010 0 0.010

DIlGONAl WALL COMPRESSION.lin).

0 020

Figure A. 49. Test No. 11, u'cst wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 58

)

too

10

"1 1 1 r-1 \ 1 r

to -

— 40

20

0

' L \ 1 I -0 02 -0 01 0 0 .01

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSiON.lin].

Figure A. 50. Test No. ll, west wind load versus wall

compression. (Output Channel 59)

0 02

96
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION,|in|.

0 02

Figure A. 51. Test Nu. 11, went wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 60)

100

•e

so

_ 40

20

I 0.05 0.10 0.1 5 0.2 0 0 25 0.30 0 35

DIAGONAL WALL COMPRESSION,|in|.

0.40 0.45 0 5 0

Figure A. 52. Test No. 11, west wind load versus wall compression. (Output Channel 61)

97
100 -1 1 1 r n 1 r

10

so

20

J I I L -J I I L

0 0 05 0 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 35 0 40 0 45 0 50 VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, (in.|

Figure A. 53. Test Nu. 11, west wind loud versus beam

deflectioii. (Output Channel 72)

100

0 0 0 1 0 02 0.03 0 04 0.05 0 06 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 09

EAST TRANSLATION, |in.| Figure A. 54. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus

east translation. (Output Channel 46)

0 10

98
0 0.0 1 0.02 0.03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0.0 1 0 0 8 0 09 0 10

EAST TRANSUTION, (in.|

Figure A. 55. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load vermis

east translation. (Output Channel i.7)

0 01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

NORTH TRANSUTION,|jn|

0 07 0 08 0.09 0.1 0

Figure A. 56. Tests No. 12A and ISA, vertical load versus north translation. (Output Channel 43)

99
100

80

80

S 40

20

1 r

I I I I L_ 1 L

0 01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0.06 0 07 0 08 0 09 O.tO

NORTH TR«NSLATION,|in|

Figure A. 57. Tests No. 12A and ISA, vertical load versus north translation. (Output Channel U^-)

100

I n

80

60

40

20

T

1 1 1 1

1 r

_L _L I I I L

0 01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 10

NORTH TRANSL*TION,|in|

Figure A. 58. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation. (Output CJiannel Jf5) 100
0 01 0 02 0 03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 07 0.08 0 09 0 10

HORIZONTAL TRlNSLItTION,

Figure A. 59. Test No. li, suuth wind load vcrnan

translation. (Output Channel J,3)

25 I

1 \ 1 1

1 r

20

n r

15

0 01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 10

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in|

Figure A. 60. Test No. H, south wind load veisus

translation. (Output Channel kh)

101
0 0 01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 OtO

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |ln|

Figure A. 61. Test No. H, south wind load verauK

translation. (Output Channel i.5)

102
0 0.01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0.0 5 0.06 « 0 7 0.08 0 09 0.10

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION, |in.|

Figure A. 63. Test No. 15, west wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 47)

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.1 8 0.20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |in.|

Figure A. 64. Test No. 16, major floor load versus beam deflection. (Output Channel iO)

103
0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 014 0 16 0 18 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |ln|

Figure A. 65. Test No. in, major floor load versus beam deflection.. (Output Channel 72)

T

1 1 !

1

I I

I r

0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 20

COLUMN SHORTENING, |in.|

Figure A. 66. Test No. 16, major floor load versus column shortening. (Output Channel 73)
0 0 02 0 04 O.OB 0 Oe 0 10 0.12 0 14 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0

VERTICAL DEFLECTION, |iii|

F'IGURE A. 67. Test No. 16, major flood load versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 76)

Figure A. 68. Test No. 16, major floor load versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 77)

105
0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0.1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, |in.|

Figure A. 69. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel iO)

.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 6 0 8 C 10 0 12 0 14

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, |in.|

106

Figure A. 70. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 70)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, (in.)

Figure A. 71. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 72)

500 I

1 1 r

400

300

200

100

1 r

J I I I I L J L

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.1 8 0.20

COLUMN SHORTENING, |ln.|

Figure A. 72. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus column

shortening. (Output Channel 73)

107
0 0.D2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 1 0 0.12 0.14

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS, |ln.|

0.16 0.18 0.20

Figure A. 73. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus slab

deflection. (Output Channel 76)

500 I

1 r

400

300

200 -

100

T r

J I I L J L

0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 1 0 0.12 0 14 0.1 6 0 1 8 0 20

VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS. |in.|

Figure A. 74. Test No. 16A, floor loads versus beam

deflection. (Output Channel 77)

108
0 0 02 0.04 0 06 0 08 0.10 0 12 0 14 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 20

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION,

Figure A. 75. Test No. 18, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel U-^)

25 1— 1 1 1 1 r

20

15

"1 r

J I I I I I L

.02 0 04 0 06 0.08 0.1 0 0.12 0 1 4 0 16 0 1 8 0 20

HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION. |iii|

Figure A. 76. Test No. 18, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel UU)

109
J I I \

0 0 02 0 04 0 06 0 08 0 tO 0 12 O M 0.16 0.1 6 0.20

HORIZONTAL TRANSLMION, |in.|

Figure A. 77. Test No. 18, south wind load versus

translation. (Output Channel 45)
Appendix B. Discussion of Column Load Simulation

Figure B.l illustrates a comparison between

column-beam connection moments due to simulated loads, and the moments anticipated in an

actual structure. Figure B.l (a) shows the connection rotation direction due to actual loading of

the middle span (12-ft span). Figure B.l(b), a

detail of connection "A," shows the connection

moments and axial forces caused by the actual

loads. Figure B.l(c) illustrates the manner in which moments and forces actually applied by an

upper story column may be exactly simulated,

while figure B.l(d) shows the moments and forces

applied in the test structure. The equations in figures B.l(c) and B.l(d) demonstrate qualitatively that the presence of moment Pa would:

(1) increase the negative moment in the

main beam;

(2) decrease the lower story column moment.

This statement is generally valid for the case where column fixity in the test structure and in the real structure are equal. In this test it was

decided to simulate foundation conditions by a "hinge" at the base of the column, since this was

conservative in terms of column performance.

The introduction of this hinge decreases the

column stiffness and therefore causes a decrease

of the column connection moment (Ms in fig. B.l).

To summarize, the upper story column load

simulation, as applied, tends to increase the

column moment, while the foundation .simulation

tends to decrease it. The net effect in the case of

this test structure is illustrated in figure B.2.

Figure B.2(a) shows the moment distribution in a

three-story structure (comprising half of the real structure) caused by one (1) live load applied to the column strip. Figure B.2(b) shows the moment

distribution due to the same loading in the test structure. By comparing joint "A" in figui-e B.2(a) and

figure B.2(b), it may be seen that at joint "A"

in the test structure the column moment is in- creased. Also, the negative main beam moment is decreased, while the positive main beam moment

at the center of the span is increased. Thus, the

simulation of column loads in this test:

(1) Produced the most severe condition in the lower story column;

(2) Produced maximum dead and live load

deflections and maximum positive beam moments,

since midspan deflection and moment increases

with decreasing negative moment at beam ends;

(3) Did not produce maximum negative moments at beam ends. However, negative moment

capacities were adequately tested in Test 16

where the floor loads were increased to 370 psf.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

I'

'1

M3 -y

1

M3'

Ml = M2 + M3 P X a = M2 Ml = M2 + M3

Ml' = M3'

Ml' < Ml

M3' > M3

Figure B. 1. Column simulation effect on connection moments. Ill
15

15 30

5.5

30 psf

47

40 psf

51

40 psf

54

30 15

27

5.5 rm

40 psf

69

(b) Moment Distribution (kip-in„ ) due to one live load on test structure.

(a) Moment Distribution

(kip-in . ) due to one

live load on three story structure.

Figure B. 2. Moment distribution.

112
Appendix G. Load Computations and Load Schedules

G. 1. Load Computations (refer to figure

6.1 and table 6.1)

I. Notations (see section 3)

D = Service dead load

L = service live load

H = service wind load

P = simulated 2d story column load

w,w' = simulated distributed dead & live loads exerted by air bags

Hs = simulated S-N wind load, at wall

Hs' = simulated S-N wind load, between walls

Hw = simulated W-E wind load

II. Summary

(a) Simulated loads on test structures.

D L .9D H .8H i.m 1.6H D+L 1.3D +1.7L 1.25(1. 5D+1.8L)

P-kip

Hs—kip

Hs'—kip

Hw—kip

!/' or w'—Ib/ft^

10

« 9.3

7

43

9 4.05

0.9 2.05

3

0.7

1.5

4.5

1 2.3

5.7

1.3 2.9

17

52

25

100

35

» Allowance for dead weight of partitions and fixtures.

*> Includes dead weight of test structure (i.e., 43 X 1.07) multiplied by appropriate factor.

(b) Simulated loads on lower column for component tests of columns.

D+L .9D+L 1.3D+1.7L 1.25(1.5D+1.8L) D L

F—kip 25 24 37 51 14.4 11

(c) Simulated load on main beam for fatigue test in kip per ram, {see fig. 10.23).

ID + IL = 2.5

ID + 1.5L = 3.125

ID + 2L = 3.75

ID + 2.5L = 4.375

ID + 3L = 5.00

III. Vertical Load Computations

(1) Conversion factor accounting for incomplete air hag coverage area of bags = 2 (9.915x15) = 297 ft-^ area of roof = 21.21 x 15.5 = 320 ft^ 320 —— = 1.07; convert all loads applied by bags.

113
(2) Floor load elements (D) converted to "per square foot" on total floor area. 18 X 20

(a) 4 in floor channels: 16.3 psf X — ^ 7rr^\ = 14.5 psf

19 X 21.21

1 ft (b) Topping slab: 2.25* in. X ~ X 110 lb/ft'' = 21 psf

1^ in

(c) Flooring and utilities (Mitchell) = 1.75 psf

(d) Partitions (Mitchell) = 7.00 psf

(e) Columns (prorated, see below) = 1.55 psf

(f) Beams (prorated, see below) = 5.78 psf

3d floor unit load = a thru / 51.58 psf

roof unit load = a + b + f 41.28 psf

added dead load on test structure. not transmitted by columns = c -\- d 8.75 psf

(3) Columns and beams prorated per unit area, say, 100 lb //!'' concrete (includes reinforcim/

iveighf).

T-beams: - x 19 ft X 100 Ib/ft^ X = 2.86 psfl ... 200 ft-'

ff^ I

\ 5.78 psf

42 in- 1 Ties: X 20 ft X 100 lb/ft' X = 2.92 psf

, . , m- 200 ff- 144 ^ff^

Columns: x 2 X 7.83 ft X 100 lb/ft ^' X , = 1.55 psf

, . . m- 200 ft-

(4) Converted floor loads for air bags.

(a) Live load = 40 psf X 1.07 = 43 psf

(b) Added dead load ID = 8.75 X 1.07 = 9.35 psf

(c) Combinations: 1.3 D = 1.3 X 9.35 = 12.1

-fO.3 X 1.07 X 42.8*=^= 13.7 = 25.8

1.7 L = 1.7 X 43 =73

1.3 D + 1.1 L = 98.8, ~ 100 psf

1.5 D = 1.5 X 9.35 = 14.1

+0.5 X 46***= 23 = 37.1

1.8 L = 1.8 X 43 = 77.5

114.6

1.25 (1.5 D + 1.8 L) = 1.25 X 114.6 = 143.5, lU psf

*2.25 in is used as average slab thickness, assuming that slab elevation over the top of the main beam is kept as 2.5 in. **51.58 - 8.75 ~ 42.8.

***42.8 X 1.07 = 46.

114
(5) Simulated second-story column load.

(a) Dead Load: Tributary floor area = 10.39 X 9.5 = 99 ff^ Column + partition: 99 X 8.55 = 850 lb 3d floor: 99 X 51.58 = 5,150 lb roof: 99 X 41.28 = 4,050 lb

1 D =10,050 lb, say 10 kip

(b) Live Load: [40 psf (floor) + 30 psf (roof)] X 99 = 6,900 lb, say 7 kip

(c) Combinations: 0.9D = 9 kip; ID = 10 kip

ID + IL = 17 kip

1.8D + 1.7L = 25 kip

1.25(1.5D + 1.8L) = 35 kip

(6) Full lower story column load. (For component tests.)

(a) Dead Load: 2d story 5,150 lb (See 5a

j

3d story 5,150 1b roof 4,050 lb ID = 14^ lb, ^ 14 kip

(b) Live Load: 2d story = 99 sf X 40 lb/ft- = 3,960 lb 3d story = 99 sf X 40 lb/ft-= = 3,960 lb roof = 99 sf X 30 lb/ft-' = 2,970 lb IL = 10,890 lb, 11 kip

(c) Combinations: ID + IL = 25 kip

1.3D + 1.7L = 37 kip

1.25(1.51) + 1.8L) = 51 kip

(7) Main beam loads for fatigue test. }4 point loading: 3^ the load resting on the beam, to be applied by each ram)

Area: = 65 ft^ 1 D: Slab: 6.25 ft X 7.5 ft (added slab width) X 21 psf = 945 lb (See (2))

Floor channel slab: 16.3 psf X 6.25 ft X 9 ft = 920 lb (See (2))

Walls, etc: 8.75 psf X 65 ft^ = 570 lb (See (2)) 1 dead load 2,435, lb ^ 2.5 kip

1 L = 40 psf X 65 ft^ = 2.6 kip, ~ 2.5 kip

34 point loading—Kip: ID + IL 5.00

ID + 1.5L 6.25

ID + 2L 7.5 ID + 2.5L 8.75

ID + 3L 10.00

IV. Wind Loads

(1) South wall {Hs, Hs') (refer to fig. C.l (1)) a = Story height X panel width = 8.62 X 10.39 X 90 ff" at point A-Hs. at point B — Hs'. Hs is at firewall. Hs' is midway between two firewalls. Assume stiff floor distributes shear between two walls over width of structure,

then test assembly carried 3^ the wind load.

.-. at = 20 psf: //s = 3^ X (4.5 X 90) ft^ x 20 \h/fV- = 4,050 lb = 4.05 kip

Hs' = YiX 90 ft^ X 20 Ib/ft^ = 900 lb = 0.9 kip.

115
Therefore, 0.8 Hs = 3.24 kip*

1.25 Hs = 5.1 kip.

(2) West Wall (Hw) (refer to fig. C.l (2))

a' = story height X 9.5 ft = 8.62 X 9.5 = 82 ft- Assume 3^ the wind load carried by wall panel (conservative)

.-. at H = 20 psf : Hw = X (2.5 X 82) ft^ X 20 Ib/ft^ = 2,050 lb = 2.05 kip

Therefore, 0.8 Hw = 1.64 kip**

1.25 Hv) = 2.56 kip.

ASSUMPTIONS (Q) WIND FORCES RESISTED BY WALLS

(b) WIND FORCES BETWEEN WALLS

TRANSMITTED TO WALL BY STIFF FLOORS.

(Q) SIDE VIEW (SOUTH WALL)

AREA TRIBUTARY TO HS = 4.5a AREA TRIBUTARY TO Hs'^a

(b) END VIEW (WEST WALL)

AREA TRIBUTARY TO Hw=2.5a'

Figure C. 1. Wind loads.

G. 2. Load Schedules

For an explanation of symbols, refer to fig. 6.1, tables 6.1 and 6.2, appendix C(i;

I. Tests conducted on complete test structure with walls installed,

(a) Test 1: Column Loads to 0.9D (0.9Z))

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/10/68 9:09 A.M.

5/10/68 9:41 A.M.

P = 0.9D = 9 kip

9 in 1 kip increments

e1t^iLTcorse^l"at?v\''fo^Tbum "^^'^ -"-Bering the fact that a service wind load of 20 psf

**1.6 kip was used in test, based on H =15 psf.
(b) Test 2: Column loads of 0.9D

South wind load to 25 psf

(0.9Z) + .25 H)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/10/68 11:50 A.M.

5/10/68 1.02 P.M.

P = 0.9D ~ 9 kip

Hs = 1.25// - 5.1 kip

Hs' = 1.25// - 1.2 kip

Hs in 10 increments

Hs' in 10 increments

Notes: (1) Six cycles of loading and unloading were applied,

after removal of all loads.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(3) Hs and Hs' were applied simultaneously.

Residual deflections were read .5 min

(c) Test 3: Column loads of 0.9/)

West wind load to 25 psf

(0.9 + 1.25 H)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/10/68 9:46 A.M.

5/10/68 11:06 A.M.

p = 0.9/) = 9 kip

Hw = 1.25// = 2.6 kip

Hw in 10 increments

Notes: (1) Six cycles of loading and unloading were applied at progressively larger loads. Residual

deflections were read 5 min after removal of all loads.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(d) Test 4: Column loads to 1.3/) + 1.7L

Major floor load to 1.3D + 1.7L

(1.3D + 1.7L)

Start of test: 5/10/68 3:22 P.M.

Completion: 5/10/68 5:00 P.M.

Loading: P = 1.3/) + 1.7L = 25 kip w = 1.3/) + 1.7L = 100 psf

Increments: P: 1st increment 9 kip

then 2 kip increments

/(' in 10 psf increments

Notes: (1) Unloaded at completion of test.

(2) w was applied in five cycles of loading and unloading at progressively larger loads. Residual

deflections were read 5 min after removal of all loads.

(3) P was applied initially and held constant.

(e) Test 5: Column loads of 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor loads of 1.3/) + 1.7L

Loads sustained for 24 hr

(1.3/) + 1.7L)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

5/10/68 5:25 P.M.

5/11/68 5:50 P.M.

P = 1.3/) + 1.7L = 25 kip

sustained for 24 hrs

117
Increments:

w = 1.3D + 1.7L = 100 psf

sustained for 24 hrs w in 20 psf increments

Notes: (1) After unloading, an additional cycle of loading and unloading was applied. Additional

reading of recovery was taken 24 hr after final unloading.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(f) Test 6: Column loads of 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor load of 1.3Z) + 1.7L

(1.3Z) + 1.7L)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

Note: P was applied initially and held constant.

5/14/68 4:30 P.M.

5/14/68 5:00 P.M.

P = 1.3D + 1.7L = 25 kip w = 1.3D + 1.7L - 100 psf

IV in 5 increments

(g) Test 7: Column loads of l.SD + 1.7L

Major floor load of 1.3D + 1.7L

South wind load to 15 psf

(1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8H)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/14/68 5:02 P.M.

5/14/68 6:13 P.M.

P + 1.3Z> + 1.7L = 25 kip w = l.SD + 1.7L - 100 psf

Hs = 0.8H = 3 kip

Hs' = 0.8H = 0.7 kip

Hs + Hs' in 10 increments

Notes: (1) P and w were maintained from previous test and held constant throughout the test.

(2) Six cycles of loading and unloading at progressively larger loads were applied for Hs and Hs'

(h) Test 8: Column loads of 1.3D + 1.7L

Major floor loads of l.SD + 1.7L

West wind load to 15 psf

(1.3D + 1.7L + 0.8L)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/14/68 3:10 P.M.

5/14/68 4:15 P.M.

P = l.SD + 1.7L = 25 kip

w = l.SD + 1.7L = 100 psf

Hw = 0.8H = 1.5 kip

P and w applied in 1 increment

Hw applied in 10 increments

Notes: (1) P and w were applied initially and held constant.

(2) Six cycles of loading and unloading were applied for Hw at progressively larger loads. Reading of residual deflection was taken 5 min after removal of all loads. 118
(i) Test 9: Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 160 psf

Test 9-A: Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 160 psf

Minor floor load to 160 psf

(ID + 3.5L)

5/15/68 12:10 P.M.

5/15/68 2:00 P.M.

P = ID + IL = 17 kip

w' = w = ID -\- 3.5L = 160 psf w and ?// = one increment of 80

psf, followed by 10

psf increments

Notes: (1) Four cycles of loading and unloading were applied for w and w' at progressively higher loads.

(2) w and w' + w were applied alternatively. For the purpose of data presentation then alternate load applications have been designated as Tests 9 and 9A. Test 9 is taken as though load w was applied

alone, while Test 9-A is taken as though w and w' were applied simultaneously.

(3) P was applied initially and held constant throughout the test.

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

(j) Test 10: Column loads of 0.9D

South wind load to 60 psf

(0.9D + 3H)

Start of test: 5/16/68 9:30 A.M.

Completion: 5/16/68 10:40 A.M.

Loading: P = 0.9D = 9 kip

Hs = 12 kip

Increments: Hs in 1 kip increments

Notes: (1) Three cycles of loading and unloading with progressively increased loads were applied.

Loading of residual deflection was taken 5 min after removal of all loads.

(2) Walls were racked until 0.35 in drift was reached. Further racking was discontinued to preserve the integrity of the beam-column joints.

(3) P was applied initially and held constant.

(k) Test 11: Column loads of 0.9D

West wind load to 67 psf

(0.9D + 3.35i?)

Start of test: 5/16/68 11:15 A.M.

Completion: 5/16/68 12:00 P.M.

Loading: P = 0.9D = 9 kip

Hw = 1 kip

Increments: Hw in 0.5 kip increments

Notes: (1) Four cycles of loading and unloading were applied at progressively increased loads. Reading of residual deflection was taken 5 min after removal of all loads.

(2) Walls were racked until 0.3 in drift was reached. Further racking was discontinued to preserve the integrity of the column-beam joint.

(3) P was applied initially and held constant. After this test, all the walls were removed.
II. Tests conducted on the test structure after removal of the walls.

(a) Test 12: Column load of l.SD + 1.7L

Major flood load to l.SD + 1.7L

Rollers under column loads oriented to permit east-west sway

(l.SD + 1.7L)

Start of test: 5/21/68 9:12 A.M.

Completion: 5/21/68 9:30 A.M.

Loading: P = l.SD + 1.7L = 25 kip

w = l.SD + 1.7L = 100 psf

Increments: w in 20 psf increments

Notes: (1) Rollers under P were oriented to permit E-W sway.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(3) Reading of residual deflections was taken 5 minutes after removal of all loads.

(b) Test 12-A: Column loads of l.SD + 1.7L

Major floor load to l.SD + 1.7L

Rollers under columns oriented to permit north-south sway.

(l.SD + 1.7L)

Start of test: 5/21/68 11:12 A.M.

Completion: 5/21/68 11:45 A.M.

Loading: P = l.SD + 1.7L = 25 kip

//' - l.SD + 1.7L = 100 psf

Increments //; in 20 psf increments

Notes: (1) Rollers under P oriented to permit N-S sway. P was applied initially and held constant.

(3) Reading of residual deflections was taken 5 minutes after all loads were removed.

(c) Test IS: Column loads of l.SD + 1.7L

Major floor load of l.SD + 1.7L

Minor floor load of l.SD + 1.7L

Rollers under column loads oriented to permit east-west sway.

(l.SD + 1.7L)

Start of test: 5/21/68 9:32 A.M.

Completion: 5/21/68 11:09 A.M.

Loading: P = l.SD + 1.7L = 25 kip w' = w l.SD + 1.7L = 100 psf

Increments: w' -\- w in 20 psf increments

Notes: (1) P was maintained from preceding test and held constant.

(2) Rollers oriented to permit E-W sway.

(3) Reading of residual deflections was taken 5 min after all loads were removed.

(d) Test lS-A:Column loads of l.SD + 1.7L

Major floor load of l.SD + 1.7L

Minor floor load of l.SD + 1.7L

Rollers under column loads oriented to permit north-south sway

(l.SD + 1.7L)

120
Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/21/68 11:00 A.M.

5/21/68 12:28 P.M.

P = l.W + 1.7L = 25 kip

y^' ^ ^ = 1.3£) + 1.7L = 100 psf w' + w m 20 psf increments

Notes: (1) Rollers under P oriented to permit N-S sway.

(2) P was maintained from preceding test and held constant.

(3) Reading of residual deflections was taken 5 min after all loads were removed.

(e) Test 14: Column loads of 0.9Z)

South wind load of 10 psf

(0.9D + 0.5H)

Start of test: 5/21/68 2:23 P.M.

Completion: 5/21/68 2:58 P.M.

Loading: P = 0.9Z) = 9 kip

Hs = 2 kip

Increments: Hs in 0.5 kip increments

Notes: (1) Racking load was carried to 2 kip and discontinued to prevent damage to beam column

connections.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(f) Test 15: Column load of 0.9D

West wind load of 16.5 psf

(0.9D + 0.8H)

Start of test: 5/21/68 3:05 P.M.

Completion: 5/21/68 3:55 P.M.

Loading: P = 0.9D = 9 kip

Hw = 2.5 kip

Increments: Hw in 0.5 kip increments

Notes: (1) Racking load was carried to 2.5 kips and discontinued to prevent damage to the columnbeam connection.

(2) P was applied initially and held constant.

(g) Test 16: Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 370 psf

(ID + SAL)

Test 16-A: Column loads of ID

Major floor load to 280 psf

Minor floor load to 280 psf

(ID + 6.3L)

5/21/68 4:05 P.M.

5/21/68 7:15 P.M.

P = ID + IL = 17 kip

10 = 370 psf w' = 280 psf

121

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:
Increments: w and w' : 40 psf increments to 160 psf

20 psf increments

thereafter

Notes: (1) Loads w and w + w' were alternately applied, w' was discontinued at 280 psf, recognizing that w alone was more critical. Loading was discontinued at w = 370 psf due to failure of the loading

system.

(2) In Test 16-A, three cycles of loading and unloading were applied at progressively larger

loads; in Test 16, four cycles were applied.

(3) Tests 16 and 16-A were performed simultaneously; w and w' + w were applied alternately. For the purpose of data presentation, then alternate load applications have been designated as Tests

16 and 16-A. Test 16 is taken as though load w was applied alone, while Test 16-A is taken as though w and w' were applied simultaneously.

(4) P was applied at the beginning and held constant throughout the test.

(h) Test 17: Column loads to 60 kip on four outer columns

(ID + IL)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increment:

5/22/68 10:30 A.M.

5/22/68 10:42 A.M.

P = 60 kip ID + 7L

Continuous increase of load.

Notes: (1) Only the four outside columns were loaded because of test frame capacity.

(2) No deflection readings were taken in this test.

(i) Test 18: Column loads of 0.9Z)

South wind load to 10.5 psf

(0.9Z) + 0.5H)

Start of test: Completion:

Loading:

Increments:

5/22/68 10:50 A.M.

5/22/68 11:20 A.M.

P = 0.9Z) = 9 kip

Hs = 2 kip

Hs in 0.5 kip increments

Notes: (1) Racking load could not be further increased.

(2) Loud crack was heard in S-E column at maximum deflection.
Announcement of New Publications in

Building Science Series

Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., 20402

Dear Sir:

Please add my name to the announcement list of new publications to be issued in the series: National Bureau of Standards Building Science

Series.

Name

Company

Address

City State Zip Code

(Notification key N-339)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards ' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 190! . Today,

in addition to serving as the Nation's central measurement laboratory, the Bureau is a principal

focal point in the Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical and

engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. To this end

the Bureau conducts research and provides central national services in four broad program

areas. These are: (1) basic measurements and standards, (2) materials measurements and

standards, (3) technological measurements and standards, and (4) transfer of technology.

The Bureau comprises the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the

Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Radiation Research, the Center for Computer

Sciences and Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United

States of a complete and consistent system of physical hieasurement; coordinates that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and

uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of an Office of Measurement Services and the following technical

divisions:Applied Mathematics—Electricity-—Metrology—Mechanics—Heat—Atomic and Molecular Physics—Radio Physics - —Radio Engineering - —Time and Frequency '- —Astrophysics —Cryogenics.

THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to im- proved methods of measurement standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized

materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; develops,

produces, and distributes standard reference materials; relates the physical and chemical properties of materials to their behavior and their interaction with their environments; and provides

advisory and research services to other Government agencies. The Institute consists of an Office of Standard Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy—Inorganic Materials—Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations in the development of technological

standards, and test methodologies; and provides advisory and research services for Federal, state, and local government agencies. The Institute consists of the following technical divisions and

offices: Engineering Standards—Weights and Measures — Invention and Innovation — Vehicle Systems Research—Product Evaluation —Building Research—Instrument Shops—Measurement Engineering—Electronic Technology—Technical Analysis.

THE CENTER FOR RADIATION RESEARCH engages in research, measurement, and application of radiation tp the solution of Bureau mission problems and the problems of other agencies and institutions. The Center consists of the following divisions: Reactor Radiation—Linac Radiation—Nuclear Radiation—Applied Radiation. THE CENTER FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and

provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in the selection, acquisition, and effective use of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus

for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Center consists of the following offices and divisions: Information Processing Standards—Computer Information — Computer Services — Sys- tems Development—Information Processing Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and

accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of the Federal government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measure- ment System, and provides appropriate services to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the following

organizational units:

Office of Standard Reference Data—Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information ' —Office of Technical Information and Publications—Library—Office of

-- Public Information—Office of International Relations.

' Headquarters and Laboi-atories at GaithersburK. Maryland, unless otherwise noted: mailing address WashinKton, D.C. 20234.

= Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302. Located at 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield, Virginia 22151.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Washington, D.C. 20230

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE