j1 systems - defense technical information center · 2011-05-13 · although the waffle-slab center...
TRANSCRIPT
____ TECHNICAL REPORT SL-83-7
TESTS AND EVALUATION OF UPGRADEDJ1 IFLAT-PLATE AND WAFFLE-SLAB
FLOOR SYSTEMS
b y
Stanley C. Woodson, Mark K. McVayU') Structures Laboratory
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station4= P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
.1December 1983Final Report
Aý,-. ed F. Co P-t,, t.tiin Unlimited
CD~
-,f L"IPrepared fc,- Federal Emergency Management AgencyLABORATORY, . Washington, 0. C. 20472
!94 03 13 093
REPRODUCTION QUALITY NOTICE
This document is the best quality available. The copy furnishedto DTiC contained pages that may have the following qualityproblems:
9 Pages smaller or larger than normal.
* Pages with background color or light colored printing.
* Pages with small type or poor printing; and or
* Pages with continuous tone material or color
photographs.
Due to various output media available these conditions may ormay not cause poor legibility in the microfiche or hardcopy outputyou receive.
D- If this block is checked, the copy furnished to DTICcontained pages with color printing, that when reproduced inBlack and White, may change detail of the original copy.
his document contains\blank pages that were )not filmed
C•estroy this report when no longer needed Do notreturn it to the originator
The findings in this report are not to be construed as anofficial Department of the Army position unless so
designated by other authorized documents.
The contents of this report are not to be used foradvertising, publication, or promotional purposes.Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial endorsement or approval of the use of such
commercial products.
TECHNICAL REPORT SL-83-7
TESTS AND EVALUATION OF UPGRADEDFLAT-PLATE AND WAFFLE-SLAB
FLOOR SYSTEMSby
Stanley C. Woodson, Mark K. McVay
Structures LaboratoryU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
3:'
Appovd orDecember 1983
Final Report
ApprvedforPublic Release: Distribution Unlimited
This report has been reviewed in the Federal Emergency Management Agencyand approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contentsnecessarily reflect the views and policies of the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency.
Prepared for Federal Emergency Management AgencyWashington, D. C, 20472
TESTS AND EVAULATION OF UPGRADEDFLAT-PLATE AND WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR SYSTEMS
This report describes the research program consisting of several
tests performed at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEUA). The tests were conceived and recommended
by Scientific Services Incorporated (SSI) to provide information for use in
the Shelter bpgrading Manuals being prepared for FEMA.
The program consisted of tests on individual 19- and 30-in.-square
panels taken from waffle slabs, 19-in. panels taken from one-way ribbed joist
slabs, two center portions of a waffle slab, and the center portion of a flat
plate. Also included were tests to determine the punching strength of
4-in.-thick basement slabs on grade.
The individual 19- and 30-in. waffle panels and the 19-in. one-way slab
panels were 3 in. thick, which is the minimum thickness used in standard
construction. Each panel was cast as the center portion of a 46-in.-diameter
by ll-in.-thick concrete disk and statically loaded to failure with water
pressure in the Small Blast Load Generator (SBLG).
Iwo 4-in.-thick basement slabs on grade were cast inside 46-3/4-in.-
diameter steel rings and on top of a polyurethane sheet covering 6 in. of
compacted gravel on top of 18 in. of soil compacted to 95 percent optimum
density. The slabs were tested by pushing a 7- by 7-in. wooden post, composed
of four 4- by 4-in. posts nailed together, into the center of the slab with
the 200-kip loader. One test was performed statically and one dynamically.
The two center portions of a waffle slab and the one center portion of a
flat plate were designed with the maximum diameters that would allow placement
inside the 22-ft lO-in.-diameter Large Blast Load Generator (LBLG). The flat-
plate test specimen was constructed to include the positive moment area from
a 22-ft-square slab designed according to the Third Edition of the CRSI
Handbook. The waffle-slab specimens were constructed to include positive
moment areas from 24-ft-square slabs. An 8-in.-thick wall, 8 ft tall, sup-
ported the slabs along their perimeters, and wooden posts were wedged in place
under each specimen where SSI predicted upgrading supports would be needed in
an actual slab. It should be noted that these test specimens were not under
boundary conditions similar to those in actual structures. However, SSI was
interested in testing the response of the slabs' center portions where up-
grading supports were applied.
The static overpressure load-bearing capacity of the 19-in.-square by
3-in.-thick waffle-slab panel was in the range of 900 to 1000 psi. The
structural behavior was characteristic of deep slabs, with failure occurring
due to shearing action.
The static overpressure capacities of the 19- by 19- by 3-in. one-way
slab panel and the 30- by 30- by 3-in. waffle-slab panel were approximately
445 and 347 psi, respectively. The load-bearing capacities of the panels are
of magnitude great enough to insure that the panels will not be vulnerable
components of upgraded floor systems.
The wooden posts punched through the 4-in.-thick slabs on grade under a
peak static load of approximately 79.0 kips and a peak dynamic load of approx-
imately 135.0 kips. Utilizing results of the statically tested slab on
grade, the ultimate dynamic punching load for the slab was computed to be
approximately 106.4 kips. The dynamic punching load of 106.4 kips was approx-
imately 48 percent of the maximum dynamic load of 220 kips sustained by the
upgrading columns during the dynamic tests on the waffle-slab floor center
portion. Therefore, in the case of Crisis Relocation Planning implementation
involving the upgrading of floor systems, allowances must be made to avoid the
punching of upgrading columns into the basement (shelter) floor.
Although the waffle-slab center portion specimens did not properly model
the center portion of a waffle-slab floor as it would exist in a building, the
lack of punching shear failure at the waffle joists indicated that the up-
grading of waffle slabs may be feasible. Due to upgrading column buckling,
allowing collapse of the slab primarily through shear failure, the maximum
static and dynamic load-carrying capacities of the waffle-slab system were
near 44 and 34 psi, respectively.
The flat-plate specimen did not properly model the center portion of a
flat-plate floor as it would exist in a building, due to differences in
boundary conditions. However, the absence of punching shear initiation at the
upgrading columns in the test does indicate that punching shear would not
occur at upgrading columns in a complete flat-plate floor, having similar
upgrading column spacing, before column buckling or other failure occurred.
Due to column buckling, the maximum static average ovevpressure load-carrying'
capacity of the upgraded flat-plate specimen was 38 psi.
2
TECHNICAL REPORT SL-83-7
TESTS AND EVALUATION OF UPGRADEDFLAT-PLATE AND WAFFLE-SLAB
FLOOR SYSTEMSby
Stanley C. Woodson, Mark K. McVay
Structures LaboratoryU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
December 1983Final Report
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
This report has been reviewed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contentsnecessarily reflect the views and policies of the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency.
Prepared for Federal Emergency Management AgencyWashington, D. C. 20472
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE r'Wen Do-t Etred)
READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE RE COMPLETIORMBEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. R/ýCIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBERTechnical Report SL-83-7 i [ý ) .4 ") '/' ( i ) 5
4. TITLE (and S-,otiI.) 5 TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
TESTS AND EVALUATION OF UPGRADED FLAT-PLATE Final report
AND WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR SYSTEMS 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(.) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)
Stanley C. WoodsonMark K. McVay
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station interagency AgreementStructures Laboratory No. EMW-E-00337P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 2Z. REPORT DATE
Federal Emergency Management Agency December 19831725 I. St. N. W. (M. Bldg) 13. NUMBER OF PAGES
Washington, D. C. 20472 15814. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(II different too, Controlling OffIce) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (o.f1 r. .eport)
Unclassified
I5. OC-CL ASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (oa Lhis Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the *b.itact ,e- ,.d In Black 20, If ditf.-rIn 1o- Rport)
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Fort Royal Road,Springfield, Va. 22161
19. K EY WORDS (Contin.e on - -. aid. If -lc.... ry .d Identlliy by block nu-ber)
Buildings Reinforced conrreteConcrete SlabsDeep slabs Slabs on gradeDynamic loads UpgradingFlat plate Waffle slabs
20. ADThRACT rCo•.OJ. . . . . . idI n-ow-7 mad Id.n•ufiy by block number)
- Several tests were performed at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) forthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The tests were conceived andrecommended by Scientific Services Incorporated (SSI) to provide informationfLr use in the Shelter Upgrading Manuals being prepared for FEMA by SSI.
The program consisted of tests on individual 19- and 30-inch-square panelstaken from waffle slabs, 19-inch panels taken from one-way ribbed joist slabs,
(Continued)
DO tjAT" 1473 EDITION OF I NOV61SS OSSOLETE UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA"iE (W,,n Data Ent.ered)
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGF(WIaI Data Z.forod)
20. ABSTRACT (Continued).
- two center portions of a waffle slab, and the center portion of a flat plate.Also included were tests to determine the punching strength of 4-inch-thickbasement slabs on grade.
The individual 19- and 30-inch waffle panels and the 19-inch one-way slabpanels were 3 inches thick, which in the minimum thickness used in standardconstruction. Each panel was cast as the center portion of a 46-inch-diameterby 11-inch-thick concrete disk and statically loaded to failurL with waterpressure in the Small Blast Load Generator (SBLG).
Two 4-inch-thick basement slabs on grade were cast inside 46-3/4-inch-diameter steel rings and on top of a polyurethane sheet covering 6 inches ofcompacted gravel on top of 18 inches of soil compacted to 95 percent optimumdensity. The slabs were tested by pushing a 7- by 7-inch wooden post, composedof four 4- by 4-inch posts nailed together, into the center of the slab withthe 200-kip loader. One test was performed statically and one dynamically.
The two center portions of a waffle slab and the one center portion of aflat plate were designed with the maximum diameters that would allow placementinside the 22-foot 10-inch-diameter Large Blast Load Generator (LBLG). Theflat-plate test specimen was constructed to include the positive moment areafrom a 22-foot-square slab designed according to the Third Edition of the CRSIHandbook. The waffle-slab specimens were constructed to include positive mo-ment areas from 24-foot-square slabs. An 8-inch-thick wall, 8 feet tall, sup-ported the slabs along their perimeters, and wooden posts were wedged in placeunder each specimen where SSI predicted upgrading supports would be needed inan actual slab. It should be noted that these test rpeci-nens were not underboundary conditions similar to those in actual structures. However, SSI wasinterested in testing the response of the slabs' center portions where up-grading supports were applied.
The 19-inch-square by 3-inch-thick waffle-slab panel faile] in shear undera peak pressure of 900 psi and at a peak displacement of 0.15 inch. The19-inch-long by 3-inch-thick one-way ribbed joist panel failed in shear at anaverage peak pressure of 400 psi and a displacement of 0.054 inch. The30-inch-square by 3-inch-chick waffle panels failed at an average peak pressureof 320 psi and a deflection of 0.087 inch. The wooden posts punched throughthe 4-inch-thick slabs on grade under a peak static load of 79.0 kips and apeak dynamic load of 135.0 kips. After punching through the slabs, the woodenposts were still capable of supporting load. The stacic load capacity of thecenter portion of an upgraded waffle slab under the given boundary conditionswas 44.0 psi. Failure seemed to be caused by collapse of the wooden columnsand then shearing of the slab around the rigid boundary. The dynamic loadcapacity of an identical slab was near an average pressure of 34 psi. Moviesof the underside of the slab indicated that the wooden columns failed and theslab collapsed at nearly the same time. The static load capacity of the centerportion of an upgraded flat plate was 38.0 psi. The wooden columns collapsedalloiing the slab to deflect.
These test results will be incorpor.ated into the manuals SSI is preparingon upgrading of shelters.
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEfWn Data Fnt*.ed)
IPREFACE
Personnel of the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
Structures Laboratory (SL) conducted tests from May 1980 through February 1982
on specimens designed by Scientific Services, Incorporated, for the Blast Up-
grading Shelter--Experimental Study Area project. The Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency sponsored the work under Interagency Agreement EMW-E-0337.
SL personnel performed the work under the gener4l supervision of
Mr. Bryant Mather, Chief, SL, and Mr. J. R. Ballard, Chief, Structural Mechan-
ics Division. Mr. W. L. Huff managed the project. Mr. M. K. McVay planned
and supervised the experiments and Mr. S. C. Woodson analyzed the test results
and prepared this report. Mr. C. D. Norman assisted in the analyses.
COL Tilford C. Creel, CE, was Commander and Director of WES during the
course of the investigation; Mr. F. R. Brown was Technical Director.
J
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE........................... . ....... . . .. . . .... .. .. .. ......
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .. ..................... ............................4
CONVERSION FACTORS, INCH-POUJND TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT .6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .. ............................................... 7
1.1 BACKGROUND .. .....................................................71.2 OBJECTIVE . ......................... ..............................81.3 APPROACH .. ....................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENTS ...................... ........................... 10
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS ........ ........................... 102.1.1 19- by 19- by 3-Inch Waffle-Slab Panel .. ..................... 102.1.2 19- by 19- by 3-Inch One-Way Slab .. ......................... 102.1.3 30- by 30- by 3-Inch Waffle-Slab Panel .. ..................... 112.1.4 Punching Strength of 4-Inch-Thick Slab an Grade. ............. 112.1.5 Center Portion of 24-Foot-Square Waffle-Slab Floor .. ......... 122.1.6 Center Portion of 22-Foot-Square Flat Plate. ................. 13
2.2 LOADING DEVICES .................... ............................. 132.2.1 Small Blast Load Generator (SBLG). ........................... 142.2.2 200-Kip Loader. ................ ............................. 142.2.3 Large Blast Load Generator (LBLG). ........................... 14
2.3 PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.. ........... .......................... 152.3.1 Individual Panel Specimens. ...... ........................... 152.3.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade ...... ........................... 152.3.3 Slab Center Portions. ............ ........................... 15
2.4 INSTRUMENTATION .................. ............................... 162.4.1 Individual Panel Specimens. ...... ........................... 162.4.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade. ..............................* 172.4.3 Center Portion of a 24-Foot-Square Waffle-Slab Floor . . .. 172.4.4 Center Portion of a 22-Foot-Square Flat Plate. ............... 18
2.5 TEST PROCEDURES .................... ............................. 192.5.1 Individual Panel Specimens. ...... ........................... 192.5.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade...................19:2.5.3 Center Portions of a 24-Foot-Square Waffle-Slab Floor
and a 22-Foot-Square Flat Plate .. ........................... 20
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. ............ ......................... ... 57
3.1 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANEL. .. ....................... 573.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLAB .... ........................... 573.3 30-- BY 30- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANEL...............573.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-THICK SLAB ON GRADE. ............... 58
3.4.1 Static Test ...................... ........................... 583.4.2 Dynamic Test. .................. ............................. 58
3.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUARE WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR .. ........... 583.5.1 Static Test ...................... ........................... 583.5.2 First Dynamic Test. .............. ........................... 593.5.3 Second Dynamic Test .............. ........................... 59
3.6 CENTER PORTION OF A 22-FOOT-SQUARE FLAT PLATE ........... ......... 60
2
page
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF IEST RESULTS .................. "...... . . 72
4.1 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANEL .... ............. ... 724.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLAB ...... ............... ... 744.3 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE SLAB .... . ............... 774.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-THICK SLAB ON GRADE .. ....... .. 77
4.4.1 Static Test ................ ........................ .. 774.4.2 Dynamic Test ............... ........................ ... 79
4.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUARE WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR ...... .. 804.5.1 Static Test ................ ........................ .. 804.5.2 First Dynamic Test ........... ..................... ... 824.5.3 Second Dynamic Test ............ .................... .. 85
4.6 CENTER PORTION OF A 22-FOOT-SQUARE FLAT PLATE .. ......... .. 88
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIIENDATIONS ...... .............. .. 92
5.1 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANEL .... ............. ... 925.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLAB ...... ............... ... 925.3 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANEL .. ............. 925.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-THICK SLAB ON GRADE .. ....... .. 935.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUARE WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR ...... .. 935.6 CENTER PORTION OF 22-FOOT-SQUARE FLAT PLATE ... .......... .. 955.7 RECOMMENDATIONS ... .......... ..... ............... .. 96
REFERENCES ...................... .............................. ... 98
APPENDIX A TEST DATA, 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANELS,19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLABS, AND 30- BY 30-BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANELS ...... ............... ... 99
APPENDIX B TEST DATA, STATIC AND DYNAMIC PUNCHING STRENGTH TESTSON 4-INCH-THICK SLABS ON GPADE ...... .............. ... 105
APPENDIX C STATIC AND IDYNAMIC TESTS CN WAFFLE-SLAB CENTER PORTIONS . Ill
APPENDIA D TEST DATA, FLAT PLATE CENTER PORTION .... ........... ... 147
3
A
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure g!
2.1 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel ... ............ ... 222.2 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel formwork and
reinforcing steel ............. ....................... ... 232.3 Completed 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel .. ....... .. 242.4 19- by 3-inch one-way slab .......... .................. .. 252.5 Completed 19- by 3-inch one-way slab .... ............. ... 262.6 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel ... ............ ... 272.7 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel formwork and
reinforcing steel ............. ....................... ... 282.8 Bottom of 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel .. ....... .. 282.9 Punching strength of a 4-inch-thick slab on grade ....... ... 292.10 Gradation curve of soil used in test specimens .. ........ .. 302.11 Compaction test results for soil in test specimens ...... .. 312.12 Uniaxial strain test results for soil in test specimens . . .. 322.13 Punching strength test specimen prior to casting of
concrete .................................... 332.14 Completed punching strength test specimen ... ........... ... 332.15 Center portion of a waffle-slab floor .... ............. ... 342.16 Center portion of waffle slab ....... ................. ... 352.17 Waffle-slab bottom reinforcing steel .... ............. ... 362.18 Waffle-slab top reinforcing steel ............... 372.19 Reinforcing steel and formwork for waffle-slab center
portion ................................. 382.20 Casting concrete for waffle-slab center portion. .......... ... 382.21 Top of 24-foot-square waffle-slab center portion .. ....... .. 392.22 Bottom of 24-foot-square waffle-slab center portion ...... .. 392.23 Center portion of a 22-foot-square flat plate ........... ... 402.24 Flat-plate bottom reinforcing steel ..... .............. ... 412.25 Flat-plate top reinforcing steel ...... ............... ... 422.26 Reinforcing steel and formwork for flat-plate center
portion ................................... 432.27 Small blast load generator (SBLG). ..... ............... .... 432.28 200-kip loading device ............ ................. .. 442.29 Large blast-load generator (LBLG) .... ............... 452.30 Concrete support ring inside the SBLG .... ............. ... 462.31 Test in SBLG of 19-inch-square waffle-slab panel .. ....... .. 472.32 Test in SBLG of 19-inch-square one-way slab panel ....... ... 482.33 Test in SBLG of 30-inch-square waffle-slab panel .. ....... .. 492.34 Test in the 200-kip loader of the punching strength of a
typical 4-inch-thick slab on grade ...... ............... 502.35 Concrete support ring inside the LBLG .... ............. ... 512.36 Upgrading columns in place under waffle slab .. ......... .. 522.37 Upgrading columns in place under flat plate ... .......... .. 522.38 Instrumentation of slabs on grade ..... ............... ... 532.39 Instrumentation of center portion of a waffle slab ...... .. 542.40 Deflection gage mount ........... ..................... ... 552.41 Instrumentation of center portion of a flat plate ....... ... 563.1 Posttest bottomside view of 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab
panel ................... ............................. ... 61
4
1,
p
Figure Page
"3.2 Posttest topside view uf 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab"panel .............................. 61
3.3 Posttest view of 19- by 19- by 3-inch one-way slab ...... .. 623.4 Posttest bottomside view of 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab
panel ............... ... ............................. .... 62"3.5 Wooden column punched into 4-inch-thick slab on grade due to
static loading .... ........... ........................ ... 633.6 Posttest topside view of dynamically punched 4-inch-thick
slab on grade ....... ....... ......................... .... 633.7 Pcsttest bottomside view of dynamically punched 4-inch-thick
slb on grade ....... ....... ......................... .... 643.8 Statically tested waffle slab in test chamber ... ......... ... 643.9 Sheared waffle boundary of statically tested waffle-slab
center portion ............... ........................ ... 653.10 Sheared slab supported by steel reinforcement ... ......... ... 653.11 Buckled upgrading column from static waffle-slab test ... ..... 663.12 Posttest bottomside view of statically tested waffle slab 66
3.13 Displaced upgrading columns in first dynamic waffle-slabtest .............................. 67
"3.14 Hairline cracks of first dynamic waffle-slab test.. ....... .... 673.15 Cracked southwest panel of first dynamic waffle-slab test 68"3.16 Second dynamic test on waffle slab after removal of water
sealing membrane .... ......... ....................... ... 683.17 Second dynamic test on waffle slab after removal of slab sand
overburden ............................. 693.18 Sheared waffle slab after second dynamic test. .......... 693.19 Topside posttest view of statically tested upgraded flat
Splate .................................. 703.20 Collapsed upgrading columns beneath flat plate specimen . . . 703.21 Bottomside posttest view of statically tested flat-plate
center portion .... ........... ........................ ... 714.1 One-way slab comparison ..... .................... 904.2 Pinned end column subjected to a harmonic axial load of
frequency Q. .............. ......................... ... 91
I541
%S
CONVERSION FACTORS, INCH-POUND TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF N!EASUREIENT
Inch-pound units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric
(SI) units as follows:
Multiply By To Obtain
feet 0.3048 metres
inches 2.54 centimetres
kips (force) 4.4482 kilonewtons
pounds (force) 4.4482 newtons
pounds (force) per square foot 47.88026 pascals
pounds (force) per square inch 6.8947 kilopascals
pounds (mass) 0.4535924 kilograms
pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.01846 kilograms per cubic metre
square inches 6.4516 square centimetres
6
TESTS AND EVALUATION OF UPGRADED FLAT-PLATE
AND WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has the responsibility of
maintaining an appropriate civil defense program for the United States. The
current civil defense program is Crisis Relocation Planning (CRP). CRP would
call for the following actions by FEMA during a time of developing interna-
tional crisis when a nuclear war is imminent:
1. Move the majority of the population away from potential targetareas into surrounding host areas within 2 to 3 days beforethe expected attack.
2. Initially move people into public and private buildings inthe host areas; then, if necessary, move them into shelters(mostly expedient-type shelters).
3. Direct keyworkers and officials to stay in the target areasto operate important industries and perform government func-tions until just before an attack, then to take cover in ahardened shelter that is within quick access of the targetarea.
The study reported herein is related to Part 3 of the CRP. Researchers
have estimated that a hardened shelter within quick access of a target area
would be in an overpressure range of 50 psi* or less. Several concepts for
developing hardened shelters for keyworkers have been proposed. One is
"Upgrading," in which basements in existing buildings are upgraded with addi-
tional structural members in order to withstand a peak overpressure of 50 psi.
Another concept is "Slanting," in which the government provides funds for the
additional design and construction costs incurred in strengthening a new
building to withstand a peak overpressure of 50 psi. The newest concept re-
quires the development of a dedicated shelter system. Under this concept,
specially designed blast shelters would be constructed near keyworkers. Very
* A table of factors for converting inch-pound units of measurement to metric(SI) units is presented on page 6.
7
few existing civil defense shelters are strong enough to withstand 50 psi
overpressure. Over the past few years the development of upgrading methods
that could be used immediately to implement CRP in the event of a nuclear war
has been emphasized.
Some early studies with simple slabs showed that upgrading was possible
if proper methods were used. Results of tests conducted on small, one-way re-
inforced concrete (R/C) floor slabs at the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper-
inent Station (WES) indicated that the load capacities of one-way slabs could
be increased by factors of 4 to 7 by providing expedient supports of various
types at the midspan of slabs (Reference 1). After these encouraging results,
WES continued to study the design of upgrading systems for actual one-way
slabs. WES developed two upgrading methods that (a) used readily available
materials, (b) were easy to construct, and (c) increased the load-carrying
capacities of shelters to 50 psi or greater (Reference 2). One method was
designated the wooden-post method and the other, the steel-beam method. The
increased load capacities resulting from these upgrading methods were verified
by conducting dynamic tests on three identical full-scale sections of a typi-
cal one-way R/C slab floor system. The load capacity of the typical section
was increased by about 5.0 times with the steel-beam method and 7.0 times with
the wooden-post method. The load capacities of approximately 80 to 90 psi and
113 psi achieved by the steel-beam and wooden-post upgrading methods, respec-
tively, were much greater than the desired minimum of 50 psi.
Currently, WES is developing upgrading methods for two-way R/C slab-floor
systems. The first half of the development program, which was the testing of
several structural components from potential upgraded shelters, is the subject
of this report. Scientific Services, Incorporated (SSI), designed the tests
and requested FEMA to have them conducted at WES. SSI has an ongoing contract
with FEMA to prepare Shelter Upgrading Manuals for use by the general public
in the quick upgrading of the blast resistance of buildings. SSI has incor-
porated the results of most of the previous studies into the manuals; however,
the manuals lack information verifying the increased load capacities of up-
graded two-way slabs. Therefore, SSI requested these tests to provide infor-
mation for use in the manuals.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
This study was conducted to verify the load capacities of several
8
°1
structural elements from potential upgraded shelters.
1.3 APPROACH
SSI provided the design of the test specimens and the test plans. WES
constructed the test specimens and tested them according to SSI's specifica-
tions with a few modifications. The test specimens consisted of: 19- by 19-
by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19- by 3-inch one-way panels from ribbed joist
construction, 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, a composite column of
four 4- by 4-inch wooden posts driven into a slab on grade, two center por-
tions of a 24-foot-square waffle slab, and the center portion of a 22-foot-
square flat plate.
The individual waffle panels and the one-way panels were statically
loaded to failure in the WES Small Blast Load Generator (SBLG). The 200-kip
loader was used to drive the wooden columns into the slabs on grade. One test
was performed statically and one was performed dynamically. The center por-
tions of the two 24-foot-square waffle slabs and the 22-foot-square flat plate
were loaded to failure in the WES Large Bl3st Load Generator (LBLG). One cen-
ter portion of the waffle slab was tested statically and the other, dynami-
cally. The flat plate was loaded statically.
Appropriate measurements were made during each test with electronic
gages and were recorded on magnetic tape. The data records on tape were then
digitized, and plots were drawn by a computer. Detailed photographs of each
test were also taken. Copies of the data and photographs were sent to SSI for
their use and are included in this report also.
9
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTS
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS
WES built and tested the test specimens according to plans provided by
SSI. All of the test specimens were structural elements of various types of
floor systems that could potentially be upgraded. As stated previously, the
test specimens consisted of 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19- by
3-inch one-way panels, 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, wooden up-
grading posts driven into slabs on grade, center portions of 24-foot-square
waffle slabs, and the center portion of a 22-foot-square flat plate. Each
specimen is described below.
2.1.1 19- by 19- by 3-Inch
Waffle-Slab Panel
These test specimens represented single 19- by 19- by 3-inch panels taken
from a waffle-slab fl.or system and cast in the middle of 46-inch-diameter by
11-inch-thick circular slabs so they could be tested in the SBLG; see Fig-
ure 2.1. Since 3-inch-thick waffle-slab panels are the thinnest commonly
made, these tests were conducted to determine the load capacity of the weakest
common 19-inch-square waffle-slab panel. From these results one could tell if
the panels are the weak points in a waffle-slab floor system with 19-inch-
square panels. The actual compressive strength of the concrete was 5,270 psi
on test day. The welded wire mesh was 70 grade steel, and the No. 4 rein-
forcing bars were 60 grade steel. Figure 2.2 shows the formwork and rein-
forcing steel. Figure 2.3 shows the top and bottom of one of the completed
test specimens.
2.1.2 19- by 19- by 3-Inch
One-Way Slab
These test specimens were single strips taken from panels in one-way
ribbed joist floor systems and cast in the middle of 46-inch-diameter by
11-inch-thick circular slabs so they could be tested in the SBLG; see Fig-
ure 2.4. Since 3-inch-thick panels are about the thinnest panels commonly
made, the implication is that they would be the weaLest component of a shelter
with one-way ribbed joist construction. Therefore, these tests were conducted
to determine the load capacities of the one-way panels. The test specimens
10
I /
were constructed identical to the 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels and
were then cut along two sides of the panei to impose one-way action. The
average compressive strength of the concrete was 5,090 psi. The welded wire
mesh was 70 grade steel, and the No. 4 reinforcing bars were 60 grade steel.
Figure 2.5 shows one of the test specimens./
2.1.3 30- by 30- by 3-InchWaffle-Slab Panel
The 30-inch-square waffle panel is another comrnon sized waffle panel used
in modern construction. The design of the test specimens is shown in Fig-
ure 2.6. Since 3-inch-thick panels are about the thinnest waffle panels com-
monly built, they are the weakest that would likely be in a shelter. These
tests were conducted to determine if the individual panels would be the weak-
est part of a waffle-slab-floor system with 30-inch-square panels. The aver-
age compressive strength of the concrete was 4,300 psi. The welded wire mesh
was 70 grade steel, and the No. 4 reinforcing bars were 60 grade steel. Fig-
ure 2.7 shows the formwork and reinforcing steel for ont of the test speci-
mens. Figure 2.8 shows a finished test specimen.
2.1.4 Punching Strength of 4-Inch-
Thick Slab on Grade
SSI expressed some concern that large overpressures might punch upgrading
columns downward through the basement floor, which would be a slab on grade,
and ordercd tests to examine the punching shear capacity of a 4-inch-thick
concrete slab on top of a polyurethane sheet covering 6 inches of compacted
gravel on top of 18 inches of soil compacted to 95 percent optimum density.
The slab was loaded with a 7-inch-square wooden column; see Figure 2.9. Two
test specimens were constructed inside 46-3/4-inch inside diameter steel con-
fining rings. One specimen was tested statically and the other dynamically.
A gradation curve and a compaction curve for the gravelly sand soil are
shown in Figures 2.10 and 2.11, respectively. The soil was placed in
5-1/2-inch loose lifts and compacted to 4-1/2-inch lifts with four passes of
a pneumatic tamper at 100 psi to achieve 95 percent maximum density. One dry
density reading and one moisture content measurement were taken at the 9-inch
compacted depth in both of the test specimens. The soil in both test speci-
mens had identical dry densities and water contents of 129 lb/ft3 and 6.8 per-
cent, respectively. Uniaxial strain tests were conducted on the soil and the
results ire shown in Figure 2.12. The gravel was washed river gravel,
11
1/4 inch to 2 inches in size. In each test specimen, the gravel was placed
in one 6-inch lift and hand-tamped two passes. A sheet of polyurethane was
placed over the gravel, a standard construction practice. The reinforcing
wire was 4- by 4-inch W 2.9 by W 2.9 welded wire fabric, made of Grade 70
steel. One of the test specimens before concrete was placed is shown in Fig-
ure 2.13. The average compressive strengths of the concrete in the static and
dynamic test specimens were 3,590 and 4,090 psi, respectively. One of the
finished test specimens is shown in Figure 2.14.
The wooden upgrading columns were composed of four 4- by 4-inch-wooden
timbers nailed together. The timbers were No. 2 quality fir, readily avail-
able in most lumber stores. The wooden columns in the static and dynamic
tests were 4 feet 10 inches and 4 feet 6-3/4 inches long, respectively. The
wooden upgrading column used in the dynamic test weighed 61-1/2 pounds.
2.1.5 Center Portion of 24-Foot-SquareWaffle-Slab Floor
These test specimens were designed by SSI to have the maximum diameters
that would allow placement inside the 22-foot 10-inch diameter LBLG, and to
include the center portion of a 24-foot-square waffle-slab floor upgraded with
wooden columns; see Figure 2.15. The wooden columns were wedged in place
under the center portions where SSI predicted upgrading supports would be
needed under an actual slab. The purpose of these tests was to determine the
increased load capacity of the center portion of a waffle slab upgraded with
wooden columns. WES personnel built two test specimens, one for a static test
and one for a dynamic test. In these tests, the center portion of a 24-foot-
square waffle-slab floor contained the area where two perpendicular middle
strips, described in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code (Ref-
erence 3), overlapped each other plus ý.ne row of waffle panels on each side;
see Figure 2.16. Therefore, the specimens mostly contained the positive
steel, although the negative steel extended into its edges a few inches. The
center portions were designed in accordance with the design of a waffle-slab
floor given in the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) Handbook (Ref-
erence 4), with 24-foot spans, 19- by 19- by 8-inch indentions, 3-inch-thick
slabs, 11-inch-deep joists, 4,000-psi designed concrete strength, 60 grade2steel, and a factored live load of 200 lb/ft2. The four solid areas on each
side of the center portion were left 11 inches thick and were heavily rein-
forced in the top and bottom. The bottom and top reinforcing steel layouts
12
I I I I I I I I I
are shown in Figures 2.17 and 2.18, respectively, and the entire layout before
casting the concrete is shown in Figure 2.19. The yield strengths of the rein-
forcing steel used in both models were 65,083, 62,500, and 68,064 psi for the
No. 3, 4, and 5 bars, respectively. The concrete was obtained from a local
ready-mix company. Figure 2.20 shows the concrete being placed. The average
compressive strengths of the concrete in the static and dynamic test specimens
were 4,410 and 5,580 psi, respectively. The top and bottom of one of the fin-
ished test specimens are shown in Figures 2.21 and 2.22, respectively.
The wooden columns were made of four 4- by 4-inch posts strapped together.
The "4 by 4's" were used because they are the largest size wooden timbers
readily available in large quantities at most lumber companies. The wood was
a No. 2 quality fir.
2.1.6 Center -:rtion of 22-Foot-
Square Flat Plate
This test specimen, a large circular slab 22 feet 9 inches in diameter
and 8 inches thick, was designed by SSI to include as much as possible of a
22-foot-square-flat plate floor upgraded with wooden columns that would fit
into the 22-foot 10-inch-diameter LBLG; see Figure 2.23. In this case, the
center portion of a flat plate included all of the positive moment area and
some of the negative moment areas but did not contain the areas near the col-
umns. The design for the test specimen was taken from a flat-plate design in
the CRSI Handbook (Reference 4) using 22-foot spans, 8 inches thick, 4,000-psi2concrete, 60 grade steel, and a factored live load of 200 lb/ft2. The bottom
and top reinforcing steel layouts are shown in Figures 2.24 and 2.25, respec-
tively. The yield strengths of the No. 4, 5, and 7 steel reinforcing bars
were 62,500, 68,064, and 65,083 psi, respectively. The reinforcing steel and
formwork before the concrete was cast are showzn in Figure 2.26. The concrete
was obtained from a local ready-mix company and had an average compressive
strength of 5,783 psi.
Wooden upgrading columns were wedged under the test specimen, where SSI
predicted upgrading supports would be needed under an actual slab. The wooden
columns were composite columns of four 4 by 4's strapped together. The wood 6
was No. 2 quality fir.
2.2 LOADING DEVICES
The loading devices used in this study are described below. A more
13
"-4
detailed discussion of the test devices is contained in Reference 5.
2.2.1 Small Blast Load Generator (SBLG)
Each of the 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19- by 3-inch one-
way panels, and 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab par~.is was tested in the SBLG.
The SBLG can produce static pressures up to 1,000 psi. The generator has
a steel cylindrical shell and an elliptical dome top called the bonnet. The
shell is composed of a serie- of stacked rings (46-3/4-inch ID) of various
depths that are bolted together to zllow the depth of a soil sample or test
specimen to be varied. Figure 2.27 shows the SBLG with instrumentation cables
attached prior to a test.
2.2.2 200-Kip Loader
The two 4-inch-thick slabs on grade were tested in the 200-kip loader.
The 200-kip loader (Figure 2.28) is capable of applying a concentrated load
over a maximum stroke of 6 inch#-s and of testing structural shapes with
loading rates varying from slow static loads to those at which the maximum
load is reached in a very few milliseconds. The 200-kip loader is designed
to apply forces varying from 10,000 to 200,000 lb in either tension or
compression.
2.2.3 Large Blast Load Generator (LBLG)
The two center portions of the 24-foot-square waffle slabs and the center
portion of the 22-foot-square flat plate were tested in the LBLG.
The LBLG (Figure 2.J9) is a large, three-dimensional device designed pri-
marily to test underground protective structures subjected to pressures simu-
lating those generated by both kiloton and megaton nuclear devices. Pressures
up to about 500 psi, having rise times and durations similar to megaton-size
nuclear weapoas, can be reproduced in the generator. Static loads up to
1,000 psi can be sustained. The LBLG has two basic components: the central
firing station and the test chambers. The central firing station is a massive,
posttensioned, prestressed concrete reaction structure designed to r-esist the
dynamic or static loads generated in the test chamber. The two test chambers
are cylindrical steel bins having a 23-foot OD and a 22-foot 10-inch ID that
contain the test media and test structures. A test chamber consists of three
C rings that stack to a height of 10 feet, one B ring that is capable of
14
containing 15 firing tubes during dynamic loadings, and one A ring that is a
telescoping-type lid.
2.3 PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES
2.3.1 Individual Panel Specimens
The 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19- by 3-inch one-way slabs,
and 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-sl3b panels were all tested in the SBLG. A
6-inch-thick concrete ring was cast inside the SBLG rings to support the test
specimens; see Figure 2.30. The first step in the installation of each test
specimen was to place a thin layer of high-strength grout on top of the sup-
port rings. Then the test specimen was placed on the grout before it hardened
to allow uniform contact at the support. Finally, high-strength grout was
poured between the sides of the test specimen and the SBLG ring. This place-
ment and the geometry of the test specimens made the boundary conditions of
the various panels fixed-fixed, which is close to the conditions in an actual
slab without the axial forces. The various test specimens placed inside the
SBLG are shown in Figures 2.31 through 2.33.
2.3.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade
The punching strengths of 4-inch basement slabs on grade, subjected to
the loadings from 7- by 7-inch wooden upgrading columns, were tested in the
200-kip loader. The test specimens were cast inside the 46-3/4-inch ID steel
rings of the SBLG facility, as described in paragraph 2.1.4. A 1/2-inch-thick
steel plate was bolted across the bottom of the rings so one could lift the
test specimens. The test specimens were moved by aai overhead crane into the
pit below the 200-kip loader and then pulled into position with come-alongs.
The wooden columns were placed exactly in the middle of the test speci-
mens, and the ram of the 200-kip loader was lowered onto the top of the col-
umn. A very small load was initially applied to the column to hold it
securely in place, as would occur with an upgraded column wedged into place.
The test setup is shown in Figure 2.34. The test specimens were made large
enough to prohibit influence of edge effects upon the punching action.
2.3.3 Slab Center Portions
The two center portions of the 24-foot-square waffle-slab floors and the
15
center portion of the 22-foot-square flat plate were all tested in the LBLG.
An 8-inch-thick concrete ring was cast along the inside of the LBLG rings to
sudport the test specimens; see Figure 2.35. Several 1/4-inch-thick spacers
were placed on top of the concrete support ring, preceding a test specimen
being lowered upon it. Then the 1/4-inch crack between the specimen and the
support ring was filled by allowing high-strength grout to flow downward be-
tween the side of the specimen and the LBLG ring, and laterally into the
1/4-inch space. The placement of grout was continued until the grout began to
fill the space between the specimen and the LBLG ring. When the grout's sur-
face was approximately 1 inch above the bottom edge of the li-inch-thick slab,
the grouting procedure was discontinued.
Composite wooden columns were made by strapping together four No. 2 qual-
ity fir 4 by 4's per column. Five 3/4-inch steel straps were used per column.
Figures 2.15 and 2.23 show the locations where the wooden columns were wedged
into place underneath the waffle slabs and the flat plate, respectively.
Photographs of the wooden upgrading columns in place for the waffle slabs and
the flat plate are shown in Figures 2.36 and 2.37, respectively. Each upgrad-
ing column was approximately 7 feet 10-1/2 inches in length while the wedges
filled a gap of about 1-1/2 inches.
The final step in the placement of the waffle slabs and the flat plate
involved the placing of sand cover on the specimens. After the proper in-
strumentation had been placed, as described in paragraph 2.4, the lid of the
entranceway was closed, and a fairly uniform sand was spread on top of the
specimen to a depth of 18 inches. The soil surface was then sealed, as re-
quired for the type of test to follow, which is discussed in paragraph 2.5.
2.4 INSTPUMENTATION
2.4.1 Individual Panel Specimens
Each of the 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19- by 3-inch one-
way panels, and 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels was instrumented sim-
ilarly. One Trans-Tek linear variable displacement transducer was placed under
the center of the specimen to measure deflections. Figure 2.3C shows the de-
flection gage mount inside the SBLG. The deflection gage was connected to the
mount at the correct height to insure contact with the underside of the speci-
men. The magnitude of the applied load during the static test was measured
16
n n n n
with two pressure gages mounted on the inside surface of the SBLG's pressure
bonnet. Two interface pressure gage mounts were also installed in the speci-
men to house interface pressure gages. However, after the first test revealed Rithat the interface pressure gages and the pressure gages in the bonnet mea-
sured almost identical pressures, the use of interface pressure gages was "-idiscontinued.
2.4.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade
Although one 4-inch-thick slab on grade was tested statically and one was
tested dynamically, the two slabs were similarly instrumented. Figure 2.38
shows the instrumentation layout for the slabs on grade. Seven Trans-Tek lin-
ear variable displacement transducers were mounted on a bar which spanned the
diameter of the top SBLG ring to measure deflection of the slab on grade. One
load cell was mounted above the loading head to determine the magnitude of the 4load applied to the composite wooden post. By correlating the deflections of
the slab with the applied load at any point in time, SL personnel could deter-
mine the punching strength of the 4-inch-thick slab on grade.
2.4.3 Center Portion of a 24-Foot-
Square Waffle-Slab Floor
Figure 2.39 shows the instrumentation layout for the waffle-slab speci-
mens. As noted in Figure 2.39, the instrumentation of the dynamically tested
slab differed from that of the statically tested slab by requiring five air-
blast gages to measure airblast pressures applied to the structure; otherwise,
the two slabs were instrumented identically with various types of transducers
strategically located on and within the specimen. Excluding the airblast
gages, a total of 42 transducers were used per specimen.
2.4.3.1 Deflection Measurements. Fourteen Trans-Tek linear variable
displacement transducers were mounted on a structure specifically built for
that purpose as shown in Figure 2.40. The displacement transducers measured
the vertical deflection of the specimen at the locations shown in Figure 2.39.
2.4.3.2 Pressure Measurements. Two pressure gages we-e mounted Jn the
B ring of the LBLG to measure the applied pressure in the cavity above the
specimen.
2.4.3.3 Soil-Stress Measurements. Eight soil-stress gages were placed
on a 1-inch soil layer on top of the specimen before placement of the 18-inch
soil cover. The soil-stress gages measured the magnitude of overpressures
17
applied at the eight locations in order to allow investigation of load trans-
fer through the soil cover.
2.4.3.4 Strain Measurements. Sixteen strain gages were placed on the
reinforcement steel of the specimen at the locations shown in Figure 2.39.
The strain gages were placed in pairs with one gage on a top reinforcement bar
and one on a nearby bottom reinforcement bar in parallel Alignment. The
strain gages were bonded to the bar with a heat-curing epoxy after the bar had
been cleaned and lightly sanded. Lead wires were then attached to the strain
gages, and the locations were waterproofed with synthetic rubber compounds.
2.4.3.5 Load Measurements. Two 200,000-lb-capacity load cells were used
to measure the vertical load applied to two of the wooden upgrading columns as
furthe;. confirmation of the load applied to the specimen.
2.4.4 Center Portion of a 22-Foot-
Square Flat Plate
Figure 2.41 shows the instrumentation layout for the flat-plate specimen.
A total of 36 transducers were use' to investigate the specimen's behavior
during static loading.
2.4.4.1 Deflection Measurements. Eight Trans-Tek linear variable dis-
placement transducers were mounted on a structure similar to the one used in
the waffle-slab tests, shown in Figure 2.40. The displacement transducers
measured the vertical deflection of the specimen at the locations shown in
Figure 2.41.
2.4.4.2 Pressure Measurements. Two pressure gages were mounted in the
B ring of the LBLG to measure the static pressure above the soil cover.
2.4.4.3 Soil-Stress Measurements. Eight soil-stress gages were placed
on a 1-inch soil layer on top of the specimen before placement of the 18-inch
soil cover. The soil-stress gages mneasured the magnitude of the overpressures
applied at the eight locations shown in Figure 2.41 to allow investigation of
load transfer through the soil cover.
2.4.4.4 Strain Measurements. Eighteen strain gages were placed on the
reinforcement steel of the specim.n at the locations shown in Figure 2.41.
The strain gages were placed in pairs, with one gage on a top reinforcement
bar and one on a nearby bottom reinforcement bar in parallel alignment. The
strain gages were bonded to the bar with a heat-curing epoxy after the bar had
been cleaned 3nd lightly sandea. Lead wires were then attached to the strain
gages, and the locations were waterproofed with synthetic rubber compounds.
18
2.4.4.5 Load Measurements. Two 2CO,O00-pound-capacity load cells were
used to measure the vertical load applied to two of the wooden upgrading
columns.
2.5 TEST PROCEDURES
After the specimens had been pl•c.Žd in their respective loading devices,
as described in paragraph 2.3, the tests were performed in accordance with the
following procedures.
2.5.1 Individual Panel Specimens
The 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, the 19- by 3-inch oneway
slabs, and the 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels were all statically
"tested in the SBLG. For the static tests, water pressure was used tc apply
a uniform load. Water pressure loading was chosen instead of air pressure
"loading, since it allows a better determination of the deflection-resistance
curve. Air pressure loading often causes a sudden failure due to air expan-
sion when the resistance of the specimen begins to decrease.
"Final steps in preparation for testing included placement of a 3/32-inch-
"thick neoprene rubber diaphragm over the specimen's surface to prevent loss of
a pressure when the slab deflected and cracked. The diaphragm extended across
the specimen and across the flange of the top ring of the SBLG. Between the
neoprene and specimen, an unsecured 6-mil-thick sheet of polyethylene was
placed and covered with powder to provide a low-friction surface for the neo-
prene diaphragm to slide on. The pressure bonnet was bolted to the flange of
the top ring, thereby sealing the SBLG and securing the diaphragm's edge be-
tween the flanges of the bonnet and the top ring. The air void above the
model was then filled with water. Immediately before the water pressure was
applied, calibration steps for the instrumentation transducers were recorded.
"Water pressure for loading was obtained from an air-driven pump. The load
was applied at a pressure increase of approximately 80 psi/min. Water flow was
continued until total loss of pressure or diaphragm rupture occurred. Posttest
photographs were taken of each test slab with a still camera. The specimen was
removed from the support ring which was then prepared for the next specimen.
2.5.2 4-Inch-Thick Slabs on Grade
The 4-inch-thick slabs on grade were tested in the 200-kip loader.
19
Although one slab was loaded statically and one was loaded dynamically, the
two tests were conducted similarly with the exception of rate of load appli-
cation. Immediately preceding load initiation, calibration steps for the in-
strumentation transducers were recorded.
At the start of the test, equal pressures were maintained on both sides
of the loader's main loading piston. To load the specimen in compression, an
unbalanced pressure was caused by releasing oil from below the piston and al-
lowing it to flow through a variable orifice which controlled the rise-time
characteristics of the applied load.
2.5.3 Center Portions of a 24-Foot-Square Waffle-Slab Floor and a22-Foot-Square Flat Plate
The one flat plate and the two waffle-slab center portions were tested in
the LBLG. The flat-plate specimen and one waffle-slab specimen were tested
statically, and the remaining waffle-slab specimen was tested dynamically.
2.5.3.1 Static Tests. Water pressure was used to apply a uniform load
for the static tests. As mentioned in paragraph 2.3, it was necessary to seal
the specimen and soil cover from the water. A 6-mil-thick layer of polyeth-
ylene was placed over the soil surface and taped to the sides of the chamber.
A 0.035-inch-thick polyurethane diaphragm was placed atop the polyethylene and
glued to the chamber's side to form a water seal.
After the water seal had been completed, the top ring and lid of the test
chamber were installed and the chamber was moved into the Central Firing Sta-
tion (CFS). The air void above the model was then filled with water.
Water pressure for loading was obtained by passing tap water through a
pressure regulator. The water pressure in the water mains at the time of
testing was approximately 80 psi. Before the pressure was applied, calibra-
tion steps were recorded for the instrumentation transducers. Water pressure
was then applied to the specimen at a rate of approximately 6 psi/min until
the water-sealing membrane ruptured. One water-pressure transducer, one slab-
deflection transducer, and one Bourdon-type mechanical pressure gage connected
to the water chamber above the model were monitored throughout the test.
The test chamber was then rolled out of the CFS so that the top ring,
lid, and sealing membranes could be removed. After removal of the soil cover,
the specimen was examined and photographed. The slab was then removed from
the reaction wall and chamber.
20
2.5.3.2 Dynamic Test. Primacord explosive was used to apply a dynamic
load to the waffle slab. A 6-mil-thick layer of polyethylene was placed over
the soil surface and taped to the sides of the chamber to serve as a barrier
to prevent the airblast pressure from entering the sand layer. Approximately
1 inch of sand was placed over the polyethylene to protect it from heat.
Before the top ring and lid were placed on the test chamber, the amount
of Primacord explosive necessary to produce the desired pressure, based on
calibration curves and past use of the LBLG, was strung in the firing tubes
atop the specimen. With the top ring's exhaust ports open, the chamber was
then closed and placed in the CFS.
Overpressure was generated by detonation of the Primacord after the cali-
bration of the transducers had been completed.
The chamber was then rolled out of the CFS so that the top rings and lid
could be removed. Examination of the specimen revealed that only slight dam-
age had occurred. Therefore, after detailed photographs had been taken, the
specimen and chamber were prepared for another testing in the same manner as
before.
An overpressure greater in magnitude than that of the first testing was
generated by detonation of Primacord. The chamber was then rolled out of the
CFS and opened so that the final examination and detailed photography on the
specimen could be performed.
Zli
I2
191
I
" I
4 #-
• ~6"x6"- W2.9 x W2.9 WW.F.
•6x6 W2.9 x W2.9 WWF.f@ MID-HEIGHT OF 3" SLAB
#4 BARS * I II139/8" 1 13-3/'
73-3/8"±45-3/4"
SECT. A-A
Figure 2.1 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel.
22
Figure 2.2 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panelformwork and reinforcing steel.
23
Top.
Bottom.
Figure 2.3 Completed 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel.
24
X --
CUT 4
'DEEP
6x6 - W12.9 x kv2.9 WW.F.K~@ MID-HEIGHT OF 3" SLAB
#4 BARS A 4L
13-/' 19" 7-/8,
45.3/4"
SECT. A-A
Figure 2.4 19- by 3-inch one-way slab.
25
Figure 2.5 Completed 19- by 3-inch one-way slab.
26
=4 48ARS
#4 BARS__
-- L lj" -
1 66"x6" W2.9 x W2.9 W. WF.
30"
6x6. W2.9x W2.9W.W.F.( @MID-HEIGHT OF 3" SLAB
-b 7
44 BARS h*
7- 718 '-'+30" 778'
45-3/4"
SECT. A-A
Figure 2.6 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel.
27
Figure 2.7 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panelformwork and reinforcing steel.
r%
°.,
Figure 2.8 Bottom of 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel.
28
LOAD APPLIED
4-4" x 4" WOODENV POSTSNA/LED TOGETHER
4x4 - 2.9 xSBLG RINGS
_____ CONCRETE ...* !.,!:::::~ FLOOR SLAB)
GRAVE
46-314"
Figure 2.9 Punching strength of a 4-inch-thick slab on grade.
29
i)4*h1M AG M3SWVM LN33*3d 2 _
I I 2 ~ .I _ _
-1-- I.>4A14
- - -4IJ
I BI
00
0 0
_ _ F
u W
'4 4
F t.1
- -II
±h4"3 AS U3NU IMMU~ -
30
C400
U,
0
I-4-1
'-'C.,
0
I- 4J
0 0 0
z u
F- 0.
0
zU z m2w L Z 4
0.
00
4- W <w~ - .U.
to~
J~~~d 'AIS3 -J
31U
r ~1 , -;; I~NNN N 4 N N N m
000000000(/ () U/2 V/2 (/2 U/2 ( V)(2
z0
-i Si ---
i -i -
(A3
(flUU,(f~fl(2U)Cl~fl/2.
z mI I ! : tvI cc I I
L CL.
0"4
SUVS'SSU S IVIIo
32.
.W
°4
• "-"Figure 2.13 Punching strength test specimenprior to casting of concrete.
St¼t;>
% t'%.,
I,
Figure 2.14 Completed punching strength test specimen.
:: :• .3 3
ii
2' DFF1E I
2'
2' 1:
2'
________22'-9-
MAXIMUM DIAMETER
81 2' 2' _2 2
LEGEND
* WOOOEN UPGRADINGCOLUMN
Figure 2.15 Center portion of a waffle-slab floor.
34
HULJLJLJHLiLLJ
0 0
FDDDDDDDDDD
I0JDD000 EIEEUUOIDDIID El u 00000OOOOJZ F DE
ID0 FjOOOO0 DLw DE1 7F
j DgLjRLIJJŽL COLUMN
Dl DJ Dý Dl Dr DROP PANEL .
NOTE: TEST SPECIMEN REPRESENTED BY SHADED AREA.
REMAINING AREA INSIDE CIRCLE TRANSFORMEDTO RIGID SUPPORT.
Figure 2.16 Center portion of waffle slab.
35
i r -- -- il r~ r-- r -- r--- r--- - -
I: Iii ---J
r__I r-- 2 ---- - -l Ir/l r- ~ 7 0M
Li I L .'ý L'-i ,IL_ýL _, L--
BAR L LR L L --~ -.-NOTE:- BAR A -.
BAR B-- r-H-U
Figure 2.1 Wafl-sa botto renocngsel
L _ _ - - .I "I 360
2.9W2 9
J C C
B A a
ýF F
IE
r- -,Itj h r J Ji -- 1ýj --I r- -
32"--
Fig +re 2.1 Wafl-sato reifrcn steel.r---
I 37
Figure 2.19 Reinforcing steel and formwork forwaffle-slab center portion.
•-•ar•. ......... ...
Figure 2.20 Casting concrete for waffle-slabcenter portion.
38
_77777
Figure 2.21 Top Of 2 4 -Eoot-square waffle-.slab center Portion.
slab ~ ~ r cete prton
39& nMMa
2 " 24--
22"-9"
LEGEND
* WOODEN UPGRADING COLUMN
Figure 2.23 Center portion of a 22-foot-square flat plate.
40
883
831 1
22-82
2/it 43Cil EAAC 8RO L1 3'"CLAANE72
641
TO Ti TO T T~ I T3 TS T i T
T 7
T3 ~T13
To TIO
T oTo T7 To TB T3 TI T3 TB To T7 TO T
-H4 T To
T
T13 11 TT,9 10 T1 T1 T1
NOTE: TI TTR TT#BAS
T3 TT3 TT3 T37BAS
Fiur 2.2 FlTSlt tTsenocigsel
T TO To42
T7 T T
f'igure 2.26 Reinforcing steel and formwork forflat-plate center portion.
Figure 2.27 Small blast load generator (SBLG).
43
PRESSURE TANMP S
TENSION RAM HEAD--,
CHARACTERISTICS
1. PEAK DYNAMIC LOAD: 200.000 LB IN LESS THAN 2 MSEC.
2. RISE TIME: 1 TO 200 MSEC.
3. HOLD TIME: 0 TO 200 MSEC.4. DELAY TIME: 18 TO P00 MSEC.
APPLICATIONS
1. DETERMINATION OF DYNAMIC STRESS.STRAIN PROPERTIES
OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.
2. DYNAMIC TEST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS:
a. BEAMS UP TO 18 FEET IN LENGTH.
b. COLUMNS UP TO 8 FEET IN LENGTH.
a. TENSILE SPECIMENS UP TO 3 FEET IN LENGTH.
d. STRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS AND FRAMES.
Figure 2.28 200-kip loading device.
44
2b2
TEST CKAMBER IETONN
C-FITINL TIRINO
\ ~ ~ , > - O~A8LE PLATEN L
a~ir'~!IRUN*AY
b. Cutaway view of the LBLG.
Figure 2.29 Large blast load generator (LBLG).
45
Jrr
Figure 2.30 Concrete support ring inside the SBLG.
46
I ~4&314"
19".
-'*-CONCRETE SUPPORT RING..
I-A
Figure 2.31 Test in SBLG of 19-inch-squarewaffle-slab panel.
47
I91~'"
dA TrEST SLAB PANEL v
"FAST SETTINGI
* * CEMENT GROUT?
CONCRETE SUPPORT RING.
, "6*
,. -V.
10.
ia.. .. . I
-: HFigure 2.32 Test in SBLG of 19-inch-squareI one-way slab panel.
I-'S 48
•-'S i . "
6" 30" 6".
I.' ~TEST SLAB PANEL b
FAST SE TTING
*& CEMENT GROUT
'-,-CONCRETE SUPPORT RING
bp
S.. Figure 2.33 Test in SRLG of 30-inch-square.1 waffle-slab panel.
49
"Ii,
"44-x 4" WOODEN POSTSI I NAILED TOGETHER
%"
TYPICAL CONCRETEZ-FLOOR SLAB
%Y"
zoCOM'!ACTED GRAVEL
S8LG RINGS
COMPACTED SOIL
Figure 2.34 Test in the 200-kip loader of the punching strengthof a typical 4-inch-thick slab on grade.
o50
I
QS
8" THICK MINIMUM
* 78" SPACINGV.
12
'.4
U
iL L'Z�� -
-'-I#4 BAR
'a -- j
NOTE 48-#4 BAR-94-1/2" LONG
Figure 2.35 Concrete support ring inside the LBLG.
51
I
i.
U
U
Figure 2.36 Upgrading columns in place under waffle slab.
m
.4
*4
4.
.4
Figure 2 37 Upgrading columns in place under flat plate.
44�
4,
52
Il
LOAD APPLIED
LOADING RAM.lOAD CELL
LOADING HEAD
4 - 4" x 4" WOODENPOSTS NAILEDTOGETHER
5/8-- /. 11-I4" 7" 41/2"A
DEFLECTION GAGES D-7 DEFLECTION GAGE,, , , i iDELECIONu,,,u=• \MOUNT
D-1 D-2 0-5 D-6, D-3 DJ-4 0
"CONCRETE-." . 00.
"4 " .1 (4"FLOOR SLAB)".'.• .4x4" w2.9gx W,2.9 WWF. .,
GRAVEL
SOIL(COMPACTED TO 95%)
'-SBLG RINGS
46.3/4"
Figure 2.38 Instrumentation of slabs on grade.
53
012
0~ F1 AIIS DYNAMI TETONY
F -* SOI STES GAGE 1
I SRABN GAGE PAIRC-E UPRAIN POST6
Figure 2.3 Instrumenatino ene otono afl lb
54.,
C.
Figure 2.40 Deflection gage mount.
55
DO 07 04
EUf E6 02C E2bP 1 LI 6- E4 ~ 41L
see 01. SE2
0 0
SE7 SE5
50"24' LEGEND
* DEFLECTION GAGEn LOAD CELL
* SOIL STRESS GAGE
SSTRAIN GAGE PAIR
O UPGRADING POST
Figure 2.41 Instrumentation of center portion of a flat plate.
56
''~**~*~%* I. I I.. I~- . .. ' -'. .
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The resulhs of the experiments are presented in this chapter and in the
appendices. A general description of the data produced and of the performance
of each specimen and accompanying instrumentation is presented herein. Fur-
ther discussion and analyses of the results are presented in Chapter 4.
3.1 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCHWAFFLE-SLAB PANEL
One 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panel was statically tested in the
SBLG. Recorded data from t., panel test are presented in Figures A.1-A.3 of
Appendix A.
The pressure on the panel was continually increased until the pressure
supported by the specimen reached approximately 970 psi. The pressure then
suddenly decreased, and the test was terminated as the waffle panel and the
water-sealing membrane ruptured allowing water to enter the lower portion of
the test chamber.
A posttest view of the waffle-slab panel bottomside is shown in Fig-
ure 3.1. The panel sheared at an angle of approximately 45 degrees near the
panel's perimeter forming a near-circular shaped rupture area with a diameter
of approximately 15 inches, as shown in tie posttest topside view in Figure 3.2.
3.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLAB
Five 19- by 19- by 3-inch one-way slabs were statically tested in the
SBLG. The five specimens responded similarly to the applied load. Recorded
data from a typical slab test are presented in Figures A.4-A.6 of Appendix A.
The pressure on the specimen was continually increased until it reached
an approximate value of 445 psi. The pressure suddenly decreased when a flex-
ural three-hinged mechanism formed causing the slab to collapse and the water-
sealing membrane to rupture. Figure 3.3 is a posttest view of the one-way
slab.
3.3 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCHWAFFLE-SLAB PANEL
Two 30- by 30-inch waffle-slab panels were statically tested in the SBLG.
57
Figures A.7-A.9 in Appendix A present data typical of the tests.
The applied pressure supported by the specimen was continually increased
until it approached an approximate value of 347 psi. A sudden decrease in the
applied pressure then occurred. Figure 3.4 is a posttest view of the panel
showing the ruptured area with initiation of a 45-degree shear plane angle
along the panel's inside perimeter.
3.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-THICK SLAB ON GRADE
One specimen was tested statically, and one was tested dynamically.
3.4.1 Static Test
Recorded data from the static test are presented in Figures B.1-B.8 in
Appendix B. The load forcing the composite wooden column against the slab was
continually increased until it reached a value of 79.4 kips. The magnitude of
the load then suddenly decreased, indicating that the column had punched into
the slab as shown in Figure 3.5.
3.4.2 Dynamic Test
Recorded data from the dynamic test are presented in Figures B.9-B.14 in
Appendix B. The peak dynamic !oad of 135 kips transferred to the slab by the
composite wooden post was reached in a period of 200 msec. Figures 3.6 and
3.7, respectively, show thae posttest topside and bottomside views of the slab.
3.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUARE WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR
One waffle-slab specimen was tested statically and one was tested dynam-
ically in the LBLG. The dynamically tested slab was dynamically loaded twice
before structural collapse occurred. The two dynamic loadings are referred to
as the "First Dynamic Test" and the "Second Dynamic Test."
3.5.1 Static Test
Recorded data from the static test are presented in Figures C.1-C.37 in
Appendix C. The static pressure applied to the specimen was continually in-
creased until it reached an approximate value of 44.0 psi. Large deflections
Qf the slab, resulting in a sudden decrease in pressure as the water-sealing
58
membrane ruptured, caused tenrination of the test.
The slab model as it appeared after removal of the sealing membrane and
sand cover is shown in Figure 3.8. The shearing of the slab along the waffled
boundary was responsible for most of the model slab's displacement as shown in
Figure 3.9. The sheared slab did not collapse to the test chamber's floor due
to the immediate relief from loading pressure when the sealing membrane rup-
tured. Therefore, the model slab remained supporzed only by reinforcement
steel along the waffle boundary as shown in Figure 3.10. Figure 3.11 shows
the model's buckled composite wooden upgrading posts on the test chamber's
floor, unable to help support the posttest slab.
Apparent flexural deflection and flexural cracks of the waffle slab are
visible in Figure 3.12.
3.5.2 First Dynamic Test
Recorded data from the first dynamic test are presented in Figures C.38-
C.84 in Appendix C. A peak dynamic pressure loading of approximately 34.0 psi
was applied to the waffle slab.
The dynamic loading produced minor structural damage to the upgraded slab
system. Upgrading post U9 fell to the floor of the test chamber (refer'to
Figure 2.39). The applied load caused the upgrading post to compress the
wooden wedges beneath the post, resulting in the loss of surface contact be-
tween the upgrading post and the waffle slab. Upgrading post U5 experienced
some surface contact loss with the waffle slab, resulting in a tilt of the
post before contact wa3 regained. Figure 3.13 shows upgrading post U9 on the
test chamber's floor with post U5 in the background.
Noticeable hairline cracks in the slab were located in one region of the
specimen. The cracks formed along one row of the waffle-slab's panels during
the test as shown in Figure 3.14. The waffle-slab edge parallel to the row of
cracked panels, as shown in Figure 3.14, is located next to the specimen's
entryway hatch. In reference to Figure 2.37, the waffle-slab's southwest cor-
ner panel also experienced cracking as shown in Figure 3.15. The described
cracks were darkened with a black marker to make them more visiblL in their
respective photographs.
3.5.3 Second Dynamic Test
Recorded data from the second dynamic test are presented in
59
Figures C.85-C.131 in Appendix C. A peak dynamic pressure loading of approxi-
mately 61.1 psi was applied to the slab system.
Extensive structural damage occurred to the upgraded waffle-slab system.
Figure 3.16 is a posttest view of the test chamber with collapsed specimen
after removal of the water sealing membrane. Figure 3.17 allows a more vis-
ible view of the specimen's debris after removal of most of the sand cover.
The waffle slab sheared along its perimeter at an approximate angle of
45 degrees as shown in the slab corner view in Figure 3.18. Some of the
wooden upgrading columns located along the qlab's waffle perimeter remained in
position after the test, although spalling occurrLd on surrounding concrete.
3.6 CENTER PORTION OF A 22-FOOT-SQUARE FLAT PLATE
The center portion of the 22-foot-square upgraded flat plate was stat-
ically tested in the LBLG. Recorded data from tne static test are presented
in Figures D.1-D.37 in Appendix D. The static pressure applied to the speci-
men was continually increased until it reached an approximate value of
38.0 psi. Collapse of the wooden columns allowed the slab to deflect
3.0 inches. Figure 3.19 shows the topside of the damaged flat plate. Some
of the collapsed upgrading columns are shown on the test chamber floor in
Figure 3.20.
Numerous cracks, ranging in size from hairline cracks to highly visible
cracks, developed on the bottomside of the specimen as it deflected. Fig-
ure 3.21 shows the bottomside cracks of the tested flat plate suspended from
a crane.
60
-% %
'0;e
4'4
Figure 3.1 Posttest bottomside view of 19- by 19- by 3-inchwaffle-slab panel.
:1 61
-. V4
Fiue34 otet otmid iwo
30 y3-b 3ic afe
slb anl
.462
42~
Figure 3.5 Wooden column punched into 4-inch-thick slabon grade due to static loading.
• . ... ,,::•i!,,!i .... . •
Oki7
* Figure 3.6 Posttest topside view of dynamically punched4-inch-thick slab on grade.
63
,-V.
; ... ,
-- "- Figure 3.7 Posttest bottomsideview of dynamically" ! "-'" - . ...'• .[•--,'.•'•punched
4-inch-thick
slab on grade.
,..J ." 4,,, ,,,. .. i. ,
Figure 3.8 Statically tested waffle slab in test chamber.
64
% 70
---- -Y -----
/ /
* r
Figure 3.9 Sheared waffle boundary of statically testedwaffle-slab center portion.
Figure 3.10 Sheared slab supported by . zsteel reinforcement.
65
i
Figure 3.11 Buckled upgrading column fromstatic waffle-slab test.
Figure 3.12 Posttest bottomside view of staticallytested waffle slab.
'I
:,. ., • ..,,: • •• 66
- Figure 3.13 Displaced upgrading"• ~columns in first -
dynamic waffle-slabtest.
-7.
Figure 3.14 Hairline cracks of first dynamic waffle-slab test.
.%6
.%'-,67
'..-r
1•:1
Figure 3.15 Cracked southwest panel of firstdynamic waffle-slab test.
%.1
Figure 3.16 Second dynamic test on waffle slab afterremoval of water sealing membrane.
-68
i " 68
• H
Figure 3.17 Second dynamic test on waffle slab afterremoval of slab sand overburden.
Figure 3.18 Sheared waffle slab aftersecond dynamic test.
"69
oI
a.%
Figure 3.19 Topside posttest view of statically.4 tested upgraded flat plate.
Sil
o4 .,
C' Figure 3.20 Collapsed upgrading columns beneathflat plate specimen.
.- 7i'1
. ... . . . . .
'42
jo
*la-plat cete potin
J $71
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
4.1. 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCHWAFFLE-SLAB PANEL
The original test program called for several tests to be performed on 19-
by 19- by 3-inch waffle panels. Since the waffle panels were expected to be a
weak component of a waffle-slab system, the test would include techniques for
upgrading the panels. However, the first waffle test resulted in a sustained
overpressure considerably greater than expected. SL personnel then concluded
that the 19-inch waffle panels would not be a probable weak component of a
waffle-slab system. Therefore, the remaining 19- by 19-inch waffle panels
were properly sawed to transform them into 19- by 19-inch one-way slabs which
are discussed in paragraph 4.2.
The primary mode of structural response for the waffle-slab panels was
shear. The panel specimens had a span/thickness ratio of 6.3, indicating that
the panels are susceptible to behaving as deep slabs.
The average shear stress of a typical waffle-slab panel can be computed
on the basis of the ordinary equation for average shear stress in a reinforced
rincrete member:
V - (4.1)
where
v = unit shear stressuV = total shear force transferred through the section
b = perimeter of the section located d/2 away from the reaction area
d = effective depth of the section
Using Equation 4.1 with d equal to the total panel thickness of
3 inches, an analysis of the shear stresses for the maximum attained experi-
mental load of 970 psi gives a unit shear stress of 854 psi. The waffle-slab
panel was reinforced at midheight with 6 X 6 - W2.9 X W2.9 welded wire fabric,
giving a steel ratio of 0.00305 for a d value of 1.5 inches. The use of an
effective depth value equal to 1.5 inches in Equation 4.1 would yield a unit
shear stress value of 1,708 psi as compared to the previously mentioned value
of 854 psi for a d value of 3 inches.
72
The formulation of Equation 4.1 considers the effective depth d Lo be
the depth of the tension steel in a reinforced concrete member, and a minimum
amount of concrete cover beneath the steel is expected to exist in standard
practice. Since midheight of a concrete member is not deep into the zone of
tension and a relatively large amount of concrete cover exists beneath the
steel, the use of an effective depth value of 1.5 inches in Equation 4.1 for
the waffle panel is unwarranted. An effective depth equal to the total panel
thickness is a more logical value for use in Equation 4.1, especially since
the equation concerns shear. An effective depth of 3 inches yields a steel
ratio of 0.00153 as compared to the previously mentioned value of 0.00305 for
an effective depth of 1.5 inches.
Gamble et al. (Reference 6) discusses several slabs tested by Brotchie
et al. (Reference 7) in which the span/thickness ratio was as low as 5.0,
while the span/thickness ratio is 6.3 in the present study. The slabs were
square or rectangular, and the lower edges were restrained against lateral
movement during most of the tests to simulate friction between the slab and
the support. The primary mode of failure in ten square slabs with a span/
thickness ratio of 5.0 was shear failure. The average ultimate shear stresses
at the face of the support ranged from 830 psi in an unreinforced slab to
1,900 psi in a slab with a tension steel ratio of 0.02. A slab with a tension
steel ratio of 0.03 was resisting an average shear stress of 2,350 psi when
the loading membrane broke. An edge detail failure occurred in a similar slab
when the average shear stress reached 1,670 psi. The concrete strengths were
in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 psi.
The testing of the 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels in this study
is comparable to the testing by Brotchie et al., since the span/thickness ra-
tios were similar and the edges were restrained against lateral movement. The
concrete strengths of the panels were in the range of 5,000 psi. The 0.00153
steel ratio of a panel is relatively closer to that of Brotchie's unreinforced
slab than his slab having an 0.02 tension steel ratio. The physical similari-
ties in the waffle panel and the unreinforced slab resulted in similar struc-
tural response to applied load. The specimens experienced shear failure with
average ultimate shear stresses of 854 psi and 830 psi for the waffle panel
and Brotchie's unreinfor-ed slab, respectively.
Gamble and others (Reference 6) developed the first empirical equation
applicable to deep slabs. T' ý:;an/thickness ratios of Brotchie's slab and
73
the waffle panels of the present study approach that which is associated with
the term "deep slab." Gamble's equation was developed from test data on
1/14-scale deep circular slabs having a span/thickness ratio of 3.5. The
circular slabs were supported flat over a circular opening and subjected to
static overpressure. The primary mode of failure in Gamble's slabs was shear.
It was shown that a high frictional force developed between the slab and its
support structure causing compressive in-plane forces, preventing flexural
.ailure.
Gamble found that for deep circular slabs, the ultimate shear stress is a
function of f' and is represented byc
v = k V (4.2)u "c
where
V = ultimate shear stressuk = an empirical constantV = compressive strengtn of concretec
The ultimate shear stress wau found to occur on a section equal to the full
slab thickness t and located a distance t from the face of the support.
The empirical constant k was determined to have values ranging from 9.0 to
13.5 with an average value of 11.2 for the circular deep slabs.
Application of Equation 4.2 to the waffle-sl3b panel experimental data
yields an empirical constant k value of 11.8, which is comparable to the
11.2 average value for Gamble's circulaL slabs.
4.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH ONE-WAY SLAB
The primary mode of structural response for the one-way slab was flexural
bending. The slab was supported at the ends under fixed-fixed conditions with
characteristics of an indeterminate member.
Crawford and others (Reference 8) present expressions for flexural capac-
ity of indeterminate members, assuming the formation of plastic hinges at the
supports and midspan. The one-way indeterminate slab in the present study
collapsed after the formation of plastic hinges, as assumed by Crawfocd. The
expression presented by Crawford for the flexural capacity of a one-way member
with fixed supports resisting a uniforv load is
74
d
P f a 7.2(P + P e )f b ( (4.3)
where
Pf = uniform load resistance of member based on flexural capacity
a = width of contributary load area
"P = tensile steel ratio at midspan
P = tensile steel ratio at the ende
f = steel yield stressyb = beam width
"d = depth to center of steel
L = span length
The location of the reinforcing steel in the one-way slab presents a
problem of uncertainty in comparative analysis with standard one-way members.
Since the steel is located at midheight throughout the slab, it does not lie
deep enough into the tension zone to be completely effective in flexural re-
*. sistance at either midspan or at the supports.
An adequate amount of test data exists verifying the validity of Equa-
tion 4.3. The equation includes the tension steel ratios at midspan and at
the supports as a factor in determining the flexural capacity of a one-way
member. Reference 3 includes the effective depth d in the computation of
tension teinforcement by the eruation
A• = (4.4)
"." where
p = ratio of tension reinforcement
A = area of tension reinforcements
b = width of member
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tensionreinforcement
2The effective depth also appears in Equation 4.3 as part of the term (d/L)"The remaining factors (a,b,L,f ) in Equation 4.3 are as applicable to the one-
yway slab of this study as to any typical one-way reinforced concrete member.
Therefore, the effective depth is the only factor of Equation 4.3 which has an
unusual value in the one-way slab in this study, since it is equivalent to the
75
'midheight of the slab. Hence, Equation 4.3 may be useful to this study in
determining the effectiveness of locating reinforcement steel at midheight
in the slab for the purpose of flexural resistance.
The use of Equation 4.3 in determining the effectiveness of the rein-
forcement steel requires that the equation be solved for the effective depth
d . Since the slab in this study has reinforcement steel at the ends that is
identical to that at midspan and is also 'ocated at the slab's midheight, the
term (Pc + P ) should be substituted by 2As/bd . The substitution is based
on the assumption that the slab may be modeled by a typical one-way slab which
has positive bending steel at midspan and negative bending steel at the ends,
as shown in Figure 4.1. The substitution and algebraic manipulation results
in the following equation:
P aL 2
14.4A fs y
where
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to center of steel"(effective depth)
P f =uniform load resistance of member
a = width of contributary load area
L = span length
A = area of tension reinforcement steels
f = steel-yield stress
Equation 4.5 yields an effective depth of 2.14 inches when the value of
the factor Pf is assumed to be 445 psi, as was determined from test data
to be the uniform load resistance of the slab in this study. Reference 3 re-
quires a minimum concrete cover of 3/4 inch for reinforcement steel in slabs
7-V of the type under discussion. Considering the radius of the reinforcement
steel welded wire, the value of effective depth recommended by Reference 3 is
2.15 inches. The closeness of the two effective depth values implies that the
computed effective depth of 2.14 inches may be used in Equation 4.4 to deter-
mine the effective tension steel ratios for the one-way slab. Under these
circumstances, Equation 4.4 yields a tension steel ratio of 0.002140. This
ratio applies to the midspan as well as the ends of the slab.
Since the effective depth computed on the basis of a uniform load resis-
tance of 445 psi conforms with standards of a common slab, the experimentally
76
!. !
obtained load of 445 psi appears to be valid. However, it should not be as-
sumed that a one-way slab with steel reinforcement located at midheight must
behave as a slab with reinforcement located as recommended by the ACI code in
Reference 3. It is common engineering practice to assume the contrary.
4.3 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE SLAB
"The primary mode of structural respcnse for the waffle-slab panel was
shear. The span/thickness ratio of the waffle-slab panel was 10.0. Unlike
the 19- by 19- by 3-inch panels discussed in paragraph 4.1, the 30- by 30- by
3-inch panels would not be expected to behave as deep slabs. However, as dis-
cussed by Brotchie (Reference 7), the ultimate load capacity of a slab is im-
proved by external restraint. Even laterally restrained, unreinforced slabs
are stronger than unrestrained, conventionally reinforced slabs. Brotchie in-
dicates that, essentially, the full capacity of the concrete in compression is
utilized when the slab is restrained. Before cracking, the effect of external
restraint is to increase stiffness by less than 100 percent. After cracking,
"but before the crushing of concrete, the effect of external restraint is to
cause an increase in stiffness of the order of one to several hundred percent.
"Using Equation 4.1 with an effective depth of 3 inches, as discussed in
paragraph 4.1, the maximum attained experimental load of 347 psi gives a unit
shear stress of 617 psi. Application of this unit shear stress value to Equa-
tion 4.2 yields an empirical constant k value of 9.4, which is comparable to
the 9.0 minimum value for Gamble's deep circular slabs. Since a deep slab is
usually characterized by span/thickness ratios between 1 and 6, the slab underdiscussion exhibited greater shear resistance than normally expected for a
slab having a span/thickness ratio of 10.
4.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-THICK SLAB ON GRADE
4.4.1 Static Test
The maximum static load applied to the slab by the 7- by 7-inch wooden
post was 79.4 kips. The compacted soil beneath the slab had a load-bearing
capacity of approximately 190 psi. In terms of a resultant force, the soil's
load-bearing capacity was approximately 327 kips for the bearing area equiva-
lent to the entire underside surface area of the slab. The resultant force
of the soil's load-bearing capacity for the bearing area equivalent to the
77
underside surface area of the punched conical section of the slab was approxi-
mately 43 kips. Therefore, the applied force of 79.4 kips is the actual force
at which punching shear occurred in the slab, since it is greater than the
load-bearing capacity of the soil under the punched conical section.
Use of Equation 4.1 produces a unit shear stress value of 451.1 psi.
This shear stress value is considerably greater than the shear value of
239.7 psi computed from the expression vu c given in paragraph 11.11.2
of the ACI code (Reference'3) for shear stress at a critical section located
d/2 away from the column. An empirical expression of the same form as the
ACI code expression that is compatible with the unit shear stress value of
451.1 psi is v = 7.5 , which is an increase of the ACI expression by
88 percent.
. Criswell (Reference 9) reported that the expression vu = 4 under-
estimates shear failure resistance by 25 percent for a slab-column connection
"having an r/d ratio less than 2 where r equals side dimension of a square
column and d equals effective depth of the slab. The r/d ratio in the
current study is 1.75. Therefore, an underestimate of 25 percent may be ex-
pected by the expression v = 4 . However, an underestimate of 47 per-
cent actually occurred. The difference in the percentage of underestimation
"by v = 4•f between the slab in the current study and those studied by
Criswell is partially due to support conditions. Criswell's slabs were simply
supported along the edges, whereas the slab on grade was.uniformly supported
by the soil.
Criswell reported that punching shear failure occurred at a center de-
.- flection of from 0.7 to 2.0 percent of the span of the specimen. However, the
slab on grade in the current study experienced punching shear at a center de-
flection of approximately 0.02 percent of the span of the specimen. The uni-
form support beneath the slab on grade was responsible for maintaining the
small flexural deflection. The deflections at which punching shear failure
occurred in Criswell's specimens with a reinforcement steel ratio of 0.0075
were slightly over twice those of the specimens with a reinforcement steel
"ratio of 0.0150. Also, the specimens with a reinforcement steel ratio of
0.0075 sustained a maximum connection resistance force that was approximately
t- 60 percent of the force carried by the specimens with a steel ratio of 0.0150.
Therefore, Criswell's simply supported slabs showed that deflections decrease
and resistance increases as the steel ratio increases. Such behavior related
78I. -.
•4
to reinforcement steel ratio is expected in a simply supported member.
The reinforcement steel ratio of the slab on grade in the current study
was 0.001551, which is considerably less than the lowest steel ratio in
Criswell's study. The uniform resistance of the compacted soil beneath the
slab on grade hindered deflection of the slab, causing a shear stress value of
which the expression v = 4 underestimates by 22 percent more than it
underestimates a slab simply supported along the edges. Since the reinforce-
ment steel ratio of the slab on grade was considerably low compared to
Criswell's specimens, and slab deflections remained extremely small, it is im-
plied that the reinforcement steel ratio of a slab on grade contributes little
C to punching shear resistance. However, the current study does not contain
multiple experiments to support the insignificance of the reinforcement steel.
Also, it should be noted that there must be an upper limit at which the steel
ratio becomes great enough that the quantity of steel is proportional to the
quantity of concrete to such a degree that the shearing load is basically re-. sisted by the steel, leaving little purpose for the concrete. Such steel
ratios are impractical.
4.4.2 Dynamic Test
A peak dynamic load of approximately 135 kips was transferred to the slab
on grade by the 7- by 7-inch wooden post. This load caused the wooden post tc
"punch into the slab and induce shearing of a conical section beneath the post
in a manner similar to the punching of the statically tested slab on grade.
However, the vast difference in loading rates for the two slabs creates a need
for further discussion.
The compressive strength of the concrete composing the dynamically tested
slab was 4,090 psi as compared to 3,590 psi for the statically tested slab.
Use of the empirical expression, V = 7.51F4 , of which the constant was de-u • c
veloped from the statically tested slab, yields a unit shear stress value of
480 psi for the dynamically tested slab. Based upon rerilts of the statically
"tested slab, a static load of 84.4 kips would be required to produce the
480-psi stress.
Criswell (Reference 9) reported that the shear strength of the slab-
column connections in his simply supported specimens increased slightly more
than the flexural strength with rapid loading. The increase in strength with
rapid loading averaged 26 percent for Criswell's slabs failing in shear. A
79P.94
26 percent increase in the assumed static shear strength of the dynamically
tested slab on grade results in a dynamic load of 106.4 kips applied by the 7-
by 7-inch wooden post.
4.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUARE WAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR
Comparison of the waffle-slab floor center portion with a typical waffle-
slab floor that may exist in a bay of a building reveals some physical differ-
"ences that could alter structural behavior. The differences are the boundary
conditions related to the support of the slab. The center portion tested in
the LBLG had an 11-inch-thick reinforced concrete boundary which reached to
the supportive concrete wall along the inside surface of the test chamber.
The reinforced concrete boundary supported the waffle area in a more
rigid manner than that which typically occurs in waffle-slab building con-
struction. A typical waffle-slab floor is supported by columns at the four
corners of a bay. Between the columns, the waffle slab monolithically joins
the waffle slabs of the surrounding bays. Under uniform loading conditions of
a nonupgraded waffle-slab floor, the load is transferred to the columns as the
waffle slab deflects flexurally. The waffle slabs of the surrounding bays de-
flect similarly and do not behave as rigid supports to each other.
The waffle slab tested in the LBLG was upgraded with twelve 8-ft-long
wooden columns to increase its load-carrying capacity. SSI determined the
spacing between the upgrading columns. In the determination of the upgrading
column spacing, it was desirable to determine a spacing that would utilize
both flexural strength and shear strength of the slab to obtain the maximum
load-carrying capacity. Eight of the twelve upgrading columns (boundary col-
umns) were located along the boundary of the waffle slab, while the remaining
four columns (inner columns) were located near the center of the slab. Load
cells were placed under one of the boundary columns and under one of the inner
columns for the purpose of measuring applied load.
I 4.5.1 Static Test
"Both load celli indicated that the columns had sustained a load of ap-
proximately 120 kips when failure of the upgraded slab system occurred. Fig-
"ures C.2 and C.3 in Appendix C show the loading patterns of the two columns,
as the uniform pressure applied to the slab increased. Figure C.2 indicates
80
ILI !III
that the load-carrying capacity of the inner column decreased to zero after
the loading on the slab reached 44 psi. However, Figure C.3 shows that the
load carried by the column on the waffle-slab boundary continued to increase
until the large deflections of the slab caused a loss of loading pressure.
The initial deflections of the slab at the columns were allowed by the
compression of the wedges beneath the columns. The compression of the wedges
absorbed some of the loading energy and may have induced a redistribution of
the stresses in the slab by allowing some flexural response at the slab-column
"connection. However, as the overpressure increased and the compression of the
*-,. wedges neared a maximum, the columns were loaded until buckling occurred.
Posttest observation revealed that all four inner columns buckled, al-
though all eight of the boundary columns remained in place. The existence of
the boundary columns increased the rigidity of the 11-inch-thick reinforced
concrete boundary as the waffle slab sheared along the boundary.
The soil-stress gage data presented in Figures C.18-C.25 reveal that the
phenomenon of soil arching did occur during the test. Soil arching often oc-
curs in shallow-buried structures when relatively small deflections develop.
Soil arching should act to decrease the load over the flexible portion of the
roof, provided a high shear strength backfill material is used. The decrease
in load over the flexible area should result in an increase in load at the
stiffer or hardened areas of the slab. The upgrading column locations of the
"statically tested slab system served as hardened areas which received a4-.
greater maximum load than flexible portions of the slab, thereby helping to
minimize slab deflections and enhancing the concept of slab upgrading. It is
debatable as to which action occurred first: buckling of the four inner col-
umns or shearing of the waffle slab. It is evident that one action immedi-
ately followed the other, since the recorded data reveal a sudden change in
slab deflections and column loading at the 44-psi overpressure level.
Assuming that the slab sheared and caused the inner columns to buckle, a
sudden increase in load applied to the inner column would be expected. How-
ever, Figure C.2 reveals only a decrease in applied load at the 44-psi over-
*• pressure level. Based on the absence of increased column loading immediately
preceding test termination, it appears that the inner columns buckled, leaving
the center portion of the waffle slab nonupgraded and susceptible to immediateshearing action.
After the shearing of the waffle slab, the load cell beneath the boundary
"81
column indicated an increase in load applied to the boundary column, as showl.
in Figure C.3. This increase was due to the absence of support to the slab
Ssystem by the buckled inner columns, The boundary column susiained a load of
-.•[ approximately 173 kips, although the current discussion implies that the simi-
larly constructed inner column buckled at approximately 120 kips. A series of
static axial load tests were performed on similar wooden columns in the WES
200-kip loader, resulting in a critical buckling load of 153 kips. A possible
explanation for premature buckling of the inner column is the probable exis-
tence of eccentric loading conditions in the column. The likelihood of eccen-
" tric forces in the column is considerably great since the load cell was be-
* neath the column in perhaps a slightly off-center position. Also, greater
.. deflections of the slab above the inner columns, as compared to slab deflec-
tions at the boundary columns, could be responsible for inducing eccentric
* forces in all four inner columns. However, there is no explanation for the
ability of the boundary column to surpass the experimentally attained buckling
"* load of 153 kips except for possible material and loading variances.
"4.5.2 First Dynamic Test
"The dynamic loading producing a peak dynamic pressure of 34 psi causedSonly minor structural damage as presented in paragraph 3.5.2. The peak pres-
sure of 34 psi was approximately 77 percent of the static pressure of 44 psi
that "failed" the statically tested slab systems.
The cracks which formed on the underside of the slab were of a flexural
nature. No evidence of shear initiation was observed during the posttest ex-
. amination. Most of the cracks were on the waffle joists at midspan of the
distance between upgrading columns where maximum positive bending would be ex-
- pected. The upgrading columns between which the cracks developed were 6 feet
apart as compared to the 4-foot distance between inner columns. However,
cracks did not form in other regions of the slab that were similar to t.he re-
-" gion with cracks. The existence of cracks in one region, along with the ab-
' sence of cracks in similar regions, indicates that the applied pressure was
near the level that would impend cracking in many regions of the slab.
The soil-stress data in Figures C.47-C.54 in Appendix C indicate that
soil arching occurred within the slab's overburden during the dynamic test.
'% The degree to which soil arching occurred may have varied slightly from one
. region of the slab to anothcr, although the regions were physically identical.
"82
i/
The probable existence of variation in the effect of soil arching may have
been associated with the nonuniformity of crack formation in similar regions
of the slab.
The crack which occurred in the panel shown in Figure 3.15 may have been
• due to the boundary conditions. The corner of the panel was positioned on top
"of the supportive concrete wall. A poor surface contact betwcen the panel's
corner joists and concrete wall could have been responsible for increased
stresses at the corner.
Figures C.40 and C.41 in Appendix C show the recorded data from the load
"cells located beneath the two upgrading columns. The loading pattern applied
to the inner column is shown in Figure C.40. A peak dynamic load of approxi-
mately 220 kips was applied to the inner column without the occurrence of
buckling. The peak load was an increase over the maximum load applied to the
*"" inner column during the static test discussed in paragraph 4.5.1 of approxi-
mately 83 percent. Malfunctions in the instrumentation system prohibited the
collection of data from the load cell beneath the boundary column, as indi-
cated in Figure C.41.
"Peak deflections occurring during the dynamic test ranged from 41 to
"- 120 percent of the maximum deflections attained at similar locations during
.* the static test when rupture of the statically tested slab was impending.
-. This range includes data from the deflection gage D3, which was located at the
center of a panel. The deflection indicated by the D3 gage in the static test
"was approximately 50 percent of the deflections measured by deflection gages
D1, D2, D4, and D5, which were located on joists surrounding the panel. It is
"apparent that the data obtained from the D3 gage are incorrect. However, even
if the data from the D3 gage were not included in the percentage range, the
"range's upper bound would only decrease from 120 percent to 112 percent.
The range of 41 to 112 percent may be divided into an upper region and a
lower region. Deflections measured near the boundary of the waffle slab were
responsible for the upper region of the range and were from about 80 to
112 percent of the static deflections. Deflections measured near the center
of the waffle slab composed the lower region of 41 to 71 percent of the static
deflections. Therefore, peak dynamic deflections near the boundary were simi-
lar to the maximum prerupture boundary deflections measured in the, static
test. However, deflection magnitudes near the slab's center were considerably
less than those near the statically tested slab's center.
83
"A more appropriate comparison uf reflections is the comparison of the dy-
namic deflections at the peak dynamic pressure of 34-psi pressure level with
"the deflections of the statically tested slab at the 34-psi pressure level.
The dynamically Lested slab deflections ranged from 62 percent to 192 percent
"of the statically tested slab deflections. However, except for two gages, D7
-,nd Dll, which were, respectively, responsible for the lower and upper limits
"-" of the percentage range, the range was from 82 percent to 124 percent.
I The response of the dynamically tested slab may be considered more uni-
form than that of the statically tested slab. This is evident from calcula-
- tions producing the sample standard deviation of the deflection data. The
- sample standard deviation of the deflection data of the statically tested slab
U at the 34-psi pressure leve.l was 0.224. The sample standard deviation of the
deflection data of the dynamically tested slab at the 34-psi pressure level
was 0.138. The value for the dynamic test was only 62 percent of the value
"for the statically tested slab, indicating a lesser degree of variation among
nM measured deflections.
The permanent deflections of the dynamically tested slab ranged from
"* 18 percent to 83 percent of the peak dynamic deflections, with an average of
43 percent. The sample standard deviation for the residual deflections was
I 0.0938, which was 42 percent of that for the peak dynamic deflections. The
. compression of the wedges beneath the columns accounted for deflections of the
slab at the columns, causing loss of surface contact between some of the up-
"* grading columns and the rebounded slab as reported in paragraph 3.5.2.
Increased buckling resistance in the upgrading columns of the dynamic
test (as compared to that of the static test) was due to rapid application of
- the load. This phenomenon is often quantitized by the concept known as the
dynamic load factor (DLF) discussed in Reference 10. High speed movies taken
during the test revealed that considerable vibration of the upgrading columns
occurred, although the degree of instability was not great enough to inducebuckling. Since large column loads were allowed while slab deflections were
considerably uniform, and perhaps the wedges were not fully compressed, buck-
ling of the inner columns was avoided. If a greater peak dynamic overpressure
had been applied and uniformity in the slab deflections existed, the columnsmay have buckled due.to the reaching of the dynamic value of the critical
buckling load without the existence of eccentrical loads. Buckling would also8
S~84
be expected to occur in the boundary columns if uniformity in the slab deflec-
tions existed at the greater pressure.
4.5.3 Second Dynamic Test
ExtensivP structural damage occurred during the second dynamic test on
the waffle slab due to the peak dynamic pressure of 61.1 psi, as presented in
paragraph 3.5.3. The peak pressure of 61.1 psi was an increase of approxi-
mately 80 percent over the peak pressure of the first dynamic test and was an
increase of approximately 39 percent over the maximum slab overpressure sus-
tained during the static test.
Figure C.87 in Appendix C reveals that the maximum load measured by the
load cell beneath the inner column was approximately 220 kips. Figure C.88
indicates that a malfunction in the instrumentation system prohibited the col-
lection of data from the load cell beneath the boundar"i column.
High-speed movies which monitored the underside of the slab indicated
that the entire slab fell to the test chamber's floor as a unit which was
demolished at floor contact. Only the portion of the slab that fell on the
deflection-gage mount structure remained as a large piece; see Figure 3.17.
Contrary to the behavior observed during the static test and the first dynamic
test, many precollapse deflections near the boundary were slightly larger than
those near the inner region of the slab for locations other than those at up-
grading columns. The deflection measured at a boundary column by deflection
gage D9 was 75 percent of the deflection measured at an inner column by de-
flection gage D4. In the first dynamic test, the deflection at D9 was only
49 percent of that at D4.
Since little damage was observed in the first dynamic test and failure
occurred in the second dynamic test, it is not obvious where the critical
overpressure lies. An analysis must be performed to determine whether the
critical overpressure was slightly grea.er than 34 psi, slightly less than
61 psi, or any other value within the domain. It is reasonable to assume that
the load-carrying capacity of the wooden upgrading columns strongly influences
the load-carrying capacity of the overall structure.
To determine the dynamic buckling load, a pinned-end column subjected to
"a harmonic axial load of frequency 0 was investigated (Figure 4.2a).
Timoshenko (Reference 11) discusses the stability of bars under varying axial
forces. Experience has shown that a slender bar can withstand a maximum
85
S".pulsating force which is larger than the Euler load. Timoshenko states that
at certain values of the frequency of the pulsating force, violent lateral
"* vibrations of the bar are produced so that the bar is unstable. In studying
the lateral vibrations, Timoshenko used the following differential equation of
motion:
%E + (S cos Qt) 2 m 2= 0
EIx2 2 t 2 (4.6)a x 3x 3t2
where
E = modulus of elasticity
* I = moment of inertia
"S = amplitude of pulsating force
Q = radian frequency of pulsating force
t = time
9 m = ratio of mass per length of bar
The solution which satisfies Equation 4.6 for the conditions of a bar
"" with pinned ends is in the form
y = Af(t) sin R- (4.7)
"* where
A = amplitude of the sine function
2 = length of bar
Substituting Equation 4.7 into Equation 4.6, Timoshenko obtained the following
equation:
2da2f() + (a + b cos T)f(T) =0 (4.8)
"where
T =t
2/2a = w
0
w = fundamental radian frequency of lateral vibration of a pinned-end0 column with no axial load
S22EI
864
"Timosbenko presents a graphical interpretation of Equation 4.8 based upon
the determination of the parameters a and b , as shown in Figure 4.2b. In
Figure 4.2b, the shaded areas indicate regions of stability. The unshaded
areas represent regions of instability, indicating the occurrence of buckling.
Application of Figure 4.2b to the inner column in the first dynamic
waffle-slab test requires the computation of I , the column's moment of in-
ertia. As discussed in paragraph 4.5.1, the critical buckling load of
P = 153 kips was determined from tests using the WES 200-kip loader. Assum-Cr
ing a first mode Euler buckling load for a pinned-end column,
2P = 2E (4.9)
where
E = modulus of elasticity
I = moment of inertia
£ = unqupported length of column
64Using an E value of 1.7 x 10 psi, an effective I value of 73.9 inches 4
can be determined for the wooden column with a mass per unit length of2 2
0.0025 lb-sec /in
When structural damping is considered, the dashed lines in Figure 4.2b
are used as the boundary of stable solutions. If the frequency Q i. taken
as the frequency observed in the load cell (Figure C.40), the value of a is
determined as
2w
a -o 1.27•2
For this value of a , use of the dashed curve in Figure 4.2b yields a value
of b = 1.8 Therefore, the dynamic harmonic load at which buckling would
occur can be determined as
s bp 1.8S= =- bP3 kips
a cr 1.27
S = 217 kips
The value of 217 kips is very near the approximate valua of 220 kips mea-
sured by the column load cells in both dynamic tests.
87
-~~ ~ ~~ ..... * . -. . .P a .*as-~ .9 . .. .* .r . .v . .- rrr... . A. A* ... .P
* 4.6 CENTER PORTION OF A 22-FOOT-SQUARE FLAT PLATE
As in the case of the waffle-slab floor specimens discussed in para-
graph 4.5, the boundary conditions of the flat-plate specimen varied from
those which would exist in a typical building. The boundary conditions may
have caused structural response different from that of a flat plate in a
building floor system.
When the average cverpressure loading reached approximately 38 psi, a
sudden increase in magnitude of measured deflections occurred, and overplLs-
sure loading decreased due to the sudden volume increase accompanying the de-
flections. The load cells located beneath one inner column and one boundary
columnn indicated an abrupt change in column loading at .he 38-psi pressure
level (see Figures D.3 and D.4 in Appendix D). The maximum load carried by
the inner column was approximately 120 kips, while the boundary column sus-
tained a load of approximately 85 kips at the 38-Fsi overnressure level.
The inner columns buckled under the load of 120 kips as did the inner
columns in the waffle-slab static test discussed in paragraph 4.5.1. Buckling
of the columns allowed the sudden increase in slab deflections. When the col-
umn loading of 120 kips occurred in the flat plate inner column, the overpres-
sure was approximately 86 percent of the waffle-slab static test overpressure
that produced an inner column loading of 120 kips.
Apparent malfunctions occurred in deflection gages D2 and D6, as respec-
tively shown in Figures D.31 and D.35 in Appendix D. Other portions of the
deflection data indicated that deflections along the boundary were similar to
maximum prerupture boundary deflections of the statically tested waffle slab.
Deflections at the inner region of the flat plate and a. regions near the
boundary, but not on the boundary, measured approximately 71 percent and
122 percent, respectively, of waffle slab prerupture deflections at similar
locations.
The thickness of the flat plate was uniform and equal to the thickness of
the rigid supportive boundary, producing a greater resistance to shear along
the boundary than that of the waffle slab. However, negative bending yield
lines did develop along the boundary and along the span between two inner col-
umns (Figure 3.19).
Load cell data indicated that the boundary column load was approximately
71 percent of the inner column load at the 38-psi average overpressure level.
88
............Xe *~ * . . ~ .*. .~. .. .. *. ... *. '... .. ..* Vq 9 t t. a d . *.* . .' . . .
"Figures D.5 through D.12 reveal that soil arching did occur in the sand over-
burden. Figure D.5 shows the soil-stress data for gage SE-I which was located
above a boundary upgrading column. Figure D.5 indicates that soil arching
acted to increase the slab loading at the column. The SE-3 gage plot, shown
in Figure D.7, did not produce reasonable data, resulting in the absence of
soil arching data for the inner column location. Soil stress gages at all
other locations on the flat-plate slab produced data characteristic of the
soil-stress data of the waffle-slab static test. Therefore, the soil-stress
measurement at the inner column would be exp-ected to be characteristic of the
waffle-slab inner column location soil-stress measurement, indicating simi-
larity in loading behavior of the two slabs. By the same reasoning, the slab
loading at the boundary column having a maximum column load of 85 kips would
be expected to be similar to the slab loading at the boundary column where
soil-stress gage SE-I was located. However, the low column load of 85 kips at
the 38-psi average ove -pressure level implies that symmetry in the soil arch-
ing action may not have existed.
Figure D.4 may be approximated by a straight-line function which changes
slope at the 20-psi overpressure value. The slope of the line from the 20-psivalue to 35-psi value is approximately 2.7 times that of the line below the
" 20-psi value. The steeper slope of the line reveals that the change in over-
pressure was considerably greater than the change in column load when compared
to the relationship of change in overpressure to change in column load below
the 20-psi level. A straight-line approximation of Figure D.3 reveals a
"slight decrease in slope of about 17 percent at the 22-psi overpressure value
for the load cell data at the inner column. A straight-line appioximation of
the waffle-slab static test boundary column load data presented in Figure C.3
reveals that the slope above the 30-psi overpressure value is approximately
2.4 times that of the line below the 30-psi value. The magnitudes of the
slope changes were similar for the boundary column data of the two tests.
However, the slope change in the waffle-slab test occurred at a considerably
higher overpressure and column load than that of the flat-plate test. The in-
dication is that each upgrading column of the upgraded slab systems was loaded
in a unique manner, influenced by variances in parameters such as column mate-
rial property, slab type, and soil arching.
89
I.
REINFORCEMENTSTEEL (A$ 0.087 IN.2)
ONE-WAY SLAB WITH MIDHEIGHT REINFORCEMENT
REINFORCEMENT
REINFORCEMENTSTEEL (As -0.087 IN.2)
EQUIVALENT TYPICAL ONE-WAY SLAB
Figure 4. 1 One-way slab comparison.
90
I -S Cos
-~4\-
i/'4
(b)
~~91
-a.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5 5.1 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCHWAFFLE-SLAB PANEL
The structural behavior of the waffle panels was similar to that of
Brotchie's specimens and Gamble's specimens. The structural behavior was
U characteristic of deep slabs, with failure occurring due to shearing action.
The static overpressure load-bearing capacity of the panels was in the
range of 900 to 1,000 psi, which is from 20 to 23 times greater than the
static overpressure load-bearing capacity of the statically tested upgraded
U waffle-slab floor center portion. In the case of Crisis Relocation Planning
(CRP), implementation involving the upgrading of waffle-slab floors for re-
sisting overpressure, 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle panels will not be a vul-
nerable component of the upgraded floor system.
5.2 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCHONE-WAY SLAB
"Although the reinforcement szeel is located at midheight, the over-
pressure load-bearing capacity of the slabs may be accurately predicted by
Crawford's equation, assuming an effective depth value which complies with
"the 1977 ACI code.
"The static overpressure load-bearing capacity of the slabs was approxi-
P mately 445 psi. Therefore, for purposes of CRP, 19- by 3-inch one-way slab
panels will not be a vulnerable component of floor systems upgraded for over-
"pressure resistance.
N 5.3 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCHWAFFLE-SLAB PANEL
The panels' overpressure load-bearing capacity of approximately 347 psi
is similar to that of Gamble's minimum deep slabs. This is due to the exter-
nal restraint imposed on the panels during the tests as would be expected to
occur in a waffle slab composed of similar panels.
"The load-bearing capacity of the panels is of magnitude great enough to
•* insure that 30- by 30- by 3-inch panels will not be a vulnerable component of
92
"- a waffle-slab floor system upgraded for overpressure resistance in CPP
"*' implementation.
5.4 PUNCHING STRENGTH OF A 4-INCH-4. THICK SLAB ON GRADE
N., The 1977 ACI code ultimate unit shear stress expression, v 4
underestimated the ultimate unit shear stress that occurred during the static
test by 47 percent. The expression, V = 7.54f, more accurately repre
sented the ultimate unit shear stress developed at d/2 away from the face of
the column exerting punching action.
* The peak dynamic load of 135 kips transferred to the slab on grade by the
S* wooden column during the dynamic test was greater than the ultimate punching
strength of the slab. Utilizing results of the statically tested slab on
, .grade and Criswell's comparison of shear strengths in specimens loaded slowly
:' and rapidly, the ultimate dynamic punching load for the slab was computed to
be approximately 106.4 kips.
"The ultimate static punching load of 79.4 kips was approximately 66 per-
cent of the maximum static load of 120 kips sustained by the upgrading columns
during the tests on the waffle-slab floor and flat-plate floor center portions
discussed in this report. The computed ultimate dynamic punching load of
106.4 kips was approximately 48 percent of the maximum dynamic load of
220 kips sustained by the upgrading columns during the dynamic tests on the
waffle-slab floor center portion. Therefore, in the case of CRP implementa-
tion involving the upgrading of floor systems for expected overpressures, al-
lowances must be made to avoid the punching of upgrading columns into the
* basement (shelter) floor. The solution may include the use of a baseplate be-
neath the upgrading column to decrease shear stress in the shelter floor, or
an increase in number of upgrading columns for the purpose of reducing maximum
"column loads transfered to the shelter floor. The latter solution may alter
the failure mode and capacity of the slab (shelter roof) being upgraded,
whereas the former solution would not.
5.5 CENTER PORTION OF A 24-FOOT-SQUAREWAFFLE-SLAB FLOOR
Due to the boundary conditions, the waffle-slab specimens did not prop-
Serly model the center portion of a waffle-slab floor as it would exist in a
'--.4.93
building. However, punching shear failure of the waffle joists did not occur
-... at the upgrading columns, indicating that the upgrading of waffle slabs may b2
S.-., feasible. It is apparent that the optimum spacing of upgrading columns for a
waffle-slab floor cannot be determined from the three waffle-slab tests.
Also, the effectiveness the column spacing scheme used in this test series
when applied to a complete waffle-slab floor cannot be determined from these
tests.
Soil arching did occur in the overburden during the three waffle-slab
"" tests. The arching of the soil acted to reduce the load applied to flexible
. portions of the slabs by transferring part of the load to the boundary or to
upgrading columns.
The wedges beneath the columns compressed under loading, allowing initial
flexural slab response to occur at the upgrading column locations. This ac-
"'•. ~ tion would occur in the case of a complete waffle-slab floor in a building.
"In the case of a waffle-slab floor in a building, shearing action may occur at
the concrete columns before it occurs at the upgrading columns, even though
the concrete columns would provide a greater shear resistance area.
Each composite wooden upgrading column had overall cross-sectional dimen-
"sions of 7 by 7 inches. From the experimen.ally attained static Euler buck-
ling load of 153 kips and the Euler buckling equation, WES personnel deter-
"mined the effective cross-sectional dimensions of a column to be approximately
5.5 by 5.5 inkhes. Considering the static buckling .oad of 120 kips incurred
during the static waffle-slab test, WES determined the effective cross-
sectional dimensions of a column to be approximately 5.1 by 5.1 inches.
During the static test and the second dynamic test, the inner columns
"buckled, allowing the slab to shear dlong the boundary. The approximate buck-
ling load of 220 kips in the second dynamic test was an increase of 83 percent
over the buckling load of 120 kips in the static test. This increase was due
to the rapid application of the load in the dynamic test. Eccentric loading
conditions caused the inner columns in the static test to buckle prematurely
at a load of 120 kips rather than the experimentally attained static buckling
load of 153 kips.
An analytical method developed by Timoshenko reveals that the dynamic
buckling load is near the value of 220 kips, as measured in the second dynamic
test. Since the first dynamic test's maximum applied column load of 220 kips
i did not buckle the columns but did induce considerable column vibrations, it
94
is apparent that accompanying dynamic slab overpressure was near that which
would cause buckling of the columns and probable collapse of the waffle slab.
Due to column buckling, allowing collapse of the slab primarily through
shear failure, the maximum static and dynamic load-carrying capacities of the
waffle-slab system were near 44 psi and 34 psi, respectively.
5.6 CENTER PORTION OF 22-FOOT-SQUARE
FLAT PLATE
Pi The flat-plate specimen did not properly model the center portion of a
"fl-it-plate floor as it would exist in a building, due to differences in bound-
ary conditions. However, the absence of punching shear initiation at the up-
grading columns in the test does indicate that punching shear would not occur
at upgrading columns in a complete flat-plate floor, having similar upgrading
column spacing, before column buckling or other failure occurred. Compression
"of the wooden wedges beneath the upgrading columns allowed flexural slab be-
havior at the column locations, decreasing the slab's susceptibility to punch-
ing shear. Punching shear action may occur at the concrete columns in the
case of a complete building flat-plate floor system, since the concrete col-
umns would not be supported by wedges and characteristically would be without
capitals and drop panels.
Soil arching occurred in the overburden of the flat plate, causing a re-
"distribution ot the load applied to the slab. The inner upgrading columns
buckled at a column load of 120 kips. However, the boundary column load was
"71 percent of the inner column load at the 38-psi average overpressure level.
"Due to column buckling, the maximum static average overpressure load-carrying
capacity of the upgraded flat-plate specimen was 38 psi.
Comparison of the column loadings of the flat-plate slab with the column
loadings of the statically tested waffle slab reveals that loading of upgrad-
"ing columns may vary considerably, even among columns located symmetrically
within the same slab system. Accurate methods of predicting probable vari-
-• ances, particularly for the case of a complete floor system of a building,
cannot be developed from this test series. However, it is apparent that the
column load variances were due to variations in upgrading column material
properties, slab tyle, and soil arching.
p9
4*" 95
"4tN
"5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Research is needed to develop techniques for increasing the buckling re-
"sistance of a composite wooden upgrading column. The tests in this series re-
. vealed that the columns responded as 5.1- by 5.1-inch columns rather than 7-
by 7-inch columns, in re:.pect to buckling resistance of static loads. Various
construction techniques, such as gluing together the individual members of a
composite column and the use of other binding methods, should be investigated
for effectiveness in increasing composite action.
The development of an upgrading column baseplate is needed for the pur-
pose of preventing punching shear failure in the floor of an upgraded base-
ment. In order to utilize maximum column load-carrying capacity, the base-
I. plate must be capable of distributing the column buckling load over an area
"large enough to avoid punching action.
One upgrading column lost contact with the rebounding waffle slab during
the first dynamic tLst and fell to the test chamber's floor. Another column
experienced movement but did not fall. It is recommended that future tests
involving the use of upgrading columns also include efforts to determine the
4., minimum bracing required to avoid excessive column movement when surface con-
tact with the upgraded slab is lost.
The waffle-slab floor and flat-plate floor center portion models con-
"sisted mainly of positive moment areas and did not include concrete columns.
Additional research is required for proper simulation of an upgraded floorsystem as it would exist in a building. Proper boundary conditions and areas
having negative moment steel as well as the areas of positive moment steel
could be simulated by models having nine bays with concrete columns. A nine-
"bay model would consist of a floor system center bay, four corner bays, and
"four center-side bays, allowing investigation of bay interaction and concrete
column response. During the time required to publish this report, work was
initiated for the testing of 1/4-scale nine-bay models.
The test series discussed in this report concerned the upgraded slab only
and not the walls of the basement shelter. In the development of upgraded
basements in existing buildings for use as keyworker shelters, research is
needed to evaluate the bahavior of basement walls when loaded and the effect
of the wall behavior on the upgraded slab. Similarly, interaction of the up-
graded slab with the aboveground structure should be investigated. During
the time required to publish this report, plans were being made by FEMA to
96.4
NI
investigate the interaction of the basement walls and aboveground structure
V. with the upgraded slab.
I
n-
97
Jed '
"REFERENCES
"1. W. L. Huff; "Static and Dynamic Tests of Small Upgraded One-WaySlabs." (In Preparation); U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
2. Mark K. McVay; "Test and Analysis of Upgraded One-Way ReinforcedConcrete Floor Slabs," Technical Report SL-81-4, April 1981; U. S. Army Engi-neer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
3. American Concrete Institute; Building Code Requirements for Rein-forced Concrete; ACI 318-77, 1977, Detroit, Mich.
4. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute; CRSI Handbook Based Upon the1977 ACI Building Code; 3rd Edition, 1978; Chicago, Ill.
5. W. L. Huff; "Test Devices Blast Load Generator Facility," Miscella-neous Paper N-69-1, April 1969, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta-tion, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
6. W. L. Gamble and others; "A Study of Launch Facility Closures";SAMSO-TR-67-15, November 1967, Space and Missile Systems Organization, AirForce Systems Command, Norton Air Force Base, Calif.; prepared by Departmentof Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.; Unclassified.
7. John F. Brotchie, Amnon Jacobson, and Sadaji Okubo; "Effect of Mem-brane Action on Siab Behavior," Report R 65-25, August 1965, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering.
8. R. E. Crawford, C. J. Higgins, E. H. Bultman; "The Air Force Manualfor Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures," Report AIWL-TR-74-102, Octo-ber 1974, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N. Mex.
9. M. E. Criswell; "Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Static and Dynamic Loadings," Technical ReportN-70-1, December 1970, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,Vicksburg, Miss.
10. J. M. Biggs; Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1964.
11. S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere; Theory of Elastic Stability, SecondEdition, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1961, pp 158-161.
.9N°
%'
e. 98
o-
APPENDIX A
TEST DATA, 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH WAF-FLE-SLIAB PANELS, 19- BY 19- BY 3-INCH
ONE-WAY SLALS, AND 30- BY 30- BY 3-INCH WAFFLE-SLAB PANELS
9.
ii
99(
Data from the tests on the 19- by 19- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels, 19-
by 19- by 3-inch one-way slabs, and 30- by 30- by 3-inch waffle-slab panels
are presented in this appendix. Labels on the plots indicate the following:
Line 1: Test name
Line 2: Gage symbol
Line 3: Maximum value and calibration data
Line 4: Filter (if any)
Lines 5 and 6: Bookkeeping data.
100
S14. W 3 N. WgFfKE
FIGURE A.1 FIGURE A.2
i?-,- - - --. , ....
II j I
PR'° ' ,R P"I PR "R PS1. I IN. WAFFLE IS IN, ýNC-6AT J!1 T
0 ip
F IGURE A. 3 FIGUR A.
•,,,C - .44 FIUR Ao/., z,*,',, :' , 3. ;•
,- IN-
0 01
_••SLCP[• - ~ IN 4*, .P.."FIGUE A.FIGRE, 4 74
___ __ I__ __
_%_ I%.__
,-', -- - -0-
-'.- - - - I
* * * * ,** :* .* . ". - . ... X, -.. . .. . .... . . -.. -.. ..- -. . .. .-
R,
-04
.21.. it, t -1
LIFIGURE A.5 FIGUJRE A.6
4. ----- -- -- -
I- . . 4 .3 <, %Z . I~c 1 01. *SC. S:..- . Q ..- a -1 1.l *,-IPK! p i FOIPLACE.4T - IN
30 IN. •AFFLE SLAB-' 30 IN. NAMFFE SLRB-Z
FIGURE A.7 c"N"NE'. 4,o til I,., F16URE A.8 C,,ANNCL NO. : 971 t
,4 oI
,.,.4,/- /
Sr. 100 SG .00.:oSG . ,1,. 5. 400. 40. $00. -Sr. a - 0. ,0 .:so. .00.: 0- ,00. )SO 400. 4,,.PRESSURE rSI PRESSURE - PSI
'10
-:., 102
'a
30 IN. b8AFFLE 5L3S-,
FIGURE A.9 F217
O0al 0.0- 0.1 . - t -.. 0:-0.7 Oq 00
OI PL CE E IN
: 10b-0 0.1 03 0
-.. p •- - -- - . -. : .•. o-•.•• .:• -v .-."4- .I .?. .:--'-J -"-- , , -- • • • .
mQ.,
yip
•md
"! ~104
7.
-p.
4,q
APPENDIX B
-l~i,:. TEST DATA, STATIC AND DYNAMIC PUNCHING STRENGTH TESTS
ON 4-INCH-THICK SLABS ON GRADE
b-0,
4.
.'°
'I
4 O
Data from the static and dynamic punching strength tests on 4-inch-thick
slabs on grade are presented in this appendix. Labels on the static test
plots (Figures B.l-B.8) indicate the following:
Line 1: Test name
Line 2: Gage symbol
Line 3: Maximum value and calibration data
"Line 4: Filter (if any)
Lines 5 and 6: Bcokkeeping data.
"Labels on the dynamic test plots (Figures B.9-B.14) indicate the
foilowing:
Line 1: Test name
Line 2: Gage symbol
Line 3: Digitizing rate and calibration curve
Line 4: Filter (if any)
Line 5: Bookkeeping data.
N 106
SI
FIGURE B,. FIGURE B.2 ..... ,.
Ro 172R3-11
a - 1 11 Ix c-Aa.I ' l
IN
- 1 3 o- - m
9, * CIN .I
,10 --! I lI __ I
5,,
OI ,' "--CL? :NT I ,, N
" ~107
PUNCH 344 ON GRAOD PUNCH 5LAB ON GRADE
FIUR 3.5 FIGURE 8.6 - -
* ~ --- 4 .1 - . a 0 . -2 C...- - - - -
0 0a
1, l
o . C .. a,:o4 -. .3:4 7 1 0 .0 ......
IN2
FIGURE 81.7 Cýw..t No FIGUR I. Cm-m4( I4.¶ 64P1,1 40 11 11/17? If IC 40472
""4 " -- •-
'%
o .0%1
':. C-P , I,
o 0.2 01 0
% 108 ( - --°--.01I -4.04 -7J.04 -4.00 0 0.02 0.04 0.04I 0.04 0,•0 0.,I 0.3 . 4 0.4 q 0.$ .0 1.0 , .4 .4 .6 2.0
0"ISPLACEPC[NT - IN. OJSFeLR•C[(N? - IN
4'
•, 108
DYN PUNCH SLRB ON OR DYN PUNCH SLRB ON GRL- i 0-2
"10000. HZ CRL= 170.3 100CC. HZ CqL= 0.240LP4 707. CUTOFF= 45C.0 MI
FIGURE B.9 FIGURE B.10
S; -- - - -- ~~
W. to A . 2 0. 30. JOG .]so. 0m. 'o Q. 3 %. i. %. .3 5 33. a 400, 4Sý. $S:
T IME INMSC T IME: SEC
DYN PUNCH SLRB ON DR DYN PUNCH SLRB ON GR0-3 0-5
'5'10000. HZ CAL= 0.280 10000. HZ CqiL= 0.340
5'FIGURE B,11 FIGURE B.1.2
1 2741- 3 01/14'19 00005 12741- 4 0111419 4I n"", --- /
"jA fi L L
"". z 0 02. 100. IS. . . 300.00. 300. Soo. 400. 450 . Soo.. TIME IN f 11 TT l- 4 0TIE NMS IC
S
109
-.
'.,'N
OYN PUNCH SLAB ON GR DYN PUNCH SLRB ON OR0-6 0-7
10000. HZ CAL= 0.360 10000. HZ CRL= 1.690
FIGURE B.13 FIGURE B.14
12741- 5 01/14/i1 l0OS 1.7.I- I 4 ý l4,, a0005
Iw
a $ 0. 10. Zoo. .0 6 .4. M00. A54. 400. 460. SOD. 0 00. I II. 100. 2.50. 0. 100. 400. 402. so0.
TIME IN ISEC rine IN msrc
110
"°.•
APPENDIX C
STATIC AND DYNAMIC TESTS ON WAFFLE-SLAB CENTER PORTIONS
4."1
t.4
-4.'
'" 111
Data from the static and dynamic tests on the waffle-slab center portions
are presented in this appendix. Labels on the static test plots (Figures C.I-
C.37) indicate the following:
Line 1: Test name
Line 2: Gage symbol
"Line 3: Maximum value and calibration data
Line 4: Filter (if any)
.a Lines 5 and 6: Bookkeeping data.
Labels on the dynamic test plots (Figures C.38-C.131) indicate the
following:
"Line 1: Test name
, Line 2: Gage symbol
Line 3: Digitizing rate and calibration curve
Line 4: Filter (if any)
"Line 5: Bookkeeping data.
i-4.
3.1
112
4.-
A I -I ARGE WAFFE SLAS
FIGURE C.1 ,. : ,. . . ; FIGURE C.2 ,
J.-,
SJ1 i -,
"I [ p.
C --.- - '
Go,- -a -. - - - - - --- -~ a -. 0. 0. . 0 1 2 14 1.
/ -C
•Ae•E ICAFFLF" •LIA LARGE wAFFLE SLAB "*
FIGURE C.3 s. FIGURE C.14 I o 5
I 0R - I~t 1IIBPLACEMlENT IN
113"
S. . .. . . . . . • . • o'
LARGE WAFFLE SLAB LARGE WAFFLE SLAB0-2' 0-3
161 FIGURE C.5 ,FIURE C.5 'o .
€+"l"(lt .0 1 MIJ2 FIGUREI C.6 5++=Qt m3+O/21t qt
00'3'I *C140./011/91 RO1A
O.. .. C". IN\SLCE T Ia.lll c a. O l''"
•.0.3 0 0, 0.4 05 O 0 02 1.4 1.1 I -0 0 R.0 17 0 C.4 0.1 0. 07 374 . ,'ISPLACErI'NT - IN 0|5PLACEP-ENT - IN
t114
%*LR•GC WRFFLE SLAB LAqGO" I4FFLE 5LAB
Jdii•- CII 54-• 1VVL1
SFIGURE C.7?m +'J z+ FIGURE C,8 cn4.0C ,10 S•.2s
I0'00'.•11 00174 0•/0?'¶1 11017
I, L..\
O r2
|% lIFI¶ [N J ISPLRACI"ENT - IN
* 114
-p7
4 3>
FIGURE C.9l~ ',0 -Af~' a. IP3 ~FIGUR C.9FIGURE C.10
01- 3-..- 1 - 07 -:311 IOU
115
FIGURE C.13 ... o . 32 IFIGURE C.14 .. ,~~
I- a 0 7
a Ml 'A - - - - n
% 4
-1 0 0. 0.1 a 0 .4 at 4 . 0 3 9 0. -1 33 2 0 t 31 34 30 C 31 33ý a
FIGUR C.15FIGUR1161
V 1~~, 7 - ý61
'u-t AFL 'Ak r :nF F, '-I A 'S
- FIGURE C.17 ~ ~FIGURE C.18 *E A .
qo--l1 -
I ~ I *El
-3., - - U). - -
Ol I'P t-[4 IN -ff,,R PSI
:AAG W- F~ S. LA WAFI-A
SA.'~~~~~.FIUR C.20 C.C A3~ ~ ..
FIIGURE C.19FIGUE C.9 :.-A'.u *~:a ~ C l Th
13. cC13 :0 1: 0 1^1 33 C :0CM. Q.
'A S-;R - -~ -R!S;R S
* *C - -* - -' - -r 11-7
U?.
.-ARGE IAFFLF ý1.115 LA ~ WAFL 0'ýF1
FIGURE C.21 FIGURE C.22
-4,: : --R03' .3..1 N ll
A '0
2140 $a S:3--/ j
" • '* ~LAR =GF WAFFLE LLAS l LAR SF•I WAFFL " 51 AS
.3 t-- . ~ - A -St -7
p1s 411. Nl4 `414tc
FIGURE C.23 FIGUcRE C.24FIGURE No2( .e .:z "
4. ! I
,- 11" -
',% •118-,1
LA5 WPL 5A Alw W~ tA
FIGURE C.26FIGURE C.25 ~~3. ':, ~ V
4'- I
7]N
rqESIL; j I~ TANM!R N
V-1:1 R 7 3:3:1 'C0. 74
,TRAN-M:RO I/IN T~rTN-MICRO IN/IN
.3 :~ 13113
L.,: I I I
4..'
.'..''. . I ...
-:%':STRAIN-MICRO WNIN ',RrIlN-MICR3 IN/14
S• ~~LRRA I.RrFE WAR l~q[NFFLE" SLAS
E 3:a WAFFLE SLAB A F WA LE 3
- '.'.j FIGURE C.31 Cowl FI6E C.32
32'32'¶; 40174 •:'3:4¶1 *33'4
4.
:%::
- Ii
o\
;..- ~ t i', - .
--a. - - -Sa - -: -2^.
,.4.
L* . I STRRIN -R ICR 0 WNI IN S1TR AIN -ICR 3J 1IM14
1.20
4.
.'".1.
- "4 ,4
FIGURE C.33 FIGURE C.34 -
5TRIIN-MTCR3 IN/IN SRAIN-MICR3 IN/ IN
LARSE AFL SLAB L WzF WNfFLF ULAS
FIGURE C.35 ~~FGR .6 ~ ~ ~ ¶
<4.
- o Is .1. -s C- -M -13. t .3^ K^
* -~ 121
WAFFLE SLAB. DYN I
P-1L::C4WAFFL SLAB10000. HZ CAL= 91 80
FIGURE C.37 r :, CI% FIUE .3
00 -17 02/?Vhs 400
3-----------------------------------------------2-!I
% a
WAFFL SLB INIWFFESAB Y
-10 005-0. HZ5 CAL= 88 0 5. .0 1. 0 10 00010. H00 CA0 = 216.70 0 50 0
'4'FIUR C.39 L FIGURE CY.40FL SR. Y
P-2 -1 02";O Is 02 13ttt
0 ]d, 40 03 4- SOO 6004 6 7000 100 -I0 1000~6 a01TIME IN- - - - -TI -E-IN- -S-
- . -- - - - - -1- 2
.4..-
WAFFLE SLRB. QYN I WRFFLE SLRB, DYN IL-2( KIP) RB-I
10000. HZ CAl.= 201.1 10000. HZ CAL= 93.iO
FIGURE C.41 FI6URE C.42
"-.'% *Olt%
".4I*" *"
-ao n-o sea -0!c c
IS . 1
WFL SLAB DYN IIAFESLB Y
102
, ... . ii
-O cl I- oc
T 2?c T I M1 E IN -:cC T I M E IN 0 -cC
WRFFLE SLRB, QYN I WRFFLE SLRB, DYN1
•, ,.RB-2 RB-3
10000. HZ C•L . 1O0000, HZ CAL: 75.50
, -- o, 123_ ;I 1~ i . 0-- _
•' 'ii• ••M • -lI "J-r-IiiiijiiiRIS• .
, -- :,-.--
-. - - . -
* .N
WAFFLE SLAB. QYN I WAFFLE SLRB, OYN 1RB-4 PB-5
1O000. HZ CAL= 76,80 :O00O. HZ CAL= 8:.30
* FI6URE C.45 FIGURE C.46
V..
o7LLC oc c 30 40 ao ae 0 So0o '7_0 TOC "3c I CC - cc " cc A c 7 a7c I ct occ
TIME IN MSiC TIME :I MSEC
WREFLE SLAB. DYN I WARFFLE SLRB. OYN 1
1j 14.0" "SE'-i- SE-" 2
a 0 0 7-11/ HZ CR 1 . F 1. HZ CRal 0
a.'SS
.. dg..... ...
S.... -- I
IJ -,-L --li,•'C :O0 700 1 00 4OCl 7C 5CCll 700 l' I OC 5 00 ...0C •:0 "'C TO SC SOC SOC• 7i00 3C• '¢ . -00 ;CC
TIME !N ISEC TI ME !N MSEC
124
"7 RFESRONI iFL LB Y
Iu_,p',
WARFLE SLRB. DYN I WFRFLE SLRB, DYN ISE-3 SE-4
10000. HZ CA!.- -125.3 10000. HZ CAL= 122.9
FIGURE C.49 FIGURE C.50
• C, °3 i i i c°
," ~TI t -" TIME lN MSEC
". !NWAFFLE SLAIB, OYN 1 WA~FFLE SLAB8, OYN 1' I I•'"SE -5 SE -6
10000OO . HZ CqL= 117.6 iCOGO. HZ CAL= i14.9
''FIGURE C.51 FIGURE C.52
I- AVIS
a , % ~.-
* ___ - -- H ---o 61 le. C~ 90c !0 C ]. 0C SoC Ace In CC ~ C C
TIME IN MU' TIME IN MOSEC
%',.,125
P!N6oI !.0 .9C6 b V'.
WAFFLE SLRB. QYN 1 WAFFLE SLRB, QYNSE-7 SE-8
10000. HZ CAL= 100.7 10000. HZ CAL= 110.1
FIGURE C.53 FIGURE C.54
.4...
WAFL SLB A. AFL LB Y
8 -6 -
WFLE407 UOF SL 50.0I 1.14N 10 W FLE z SL 50.0 HYN
S FIGURE C.56FIGURE C.55
402 12 5 10 94 goaII l001 402 - Vi ll.00/O N00W
1.1Z.
''A.
110
70 0 00 300 400 S00 000 700 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 10000N
TIME IN TISEC TI Me IN MISEC
.. PEAK VmOLU IS x4 0 u001 CALIBRATION PEN VALUE 13 Of i Z o cUNDER CuLIBoRATION
126
4WAFFLE SLAB, QYN 1 WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 1BT-2 6B-2
10000. HZ CAL= 2178. 10000. HZ CRL= 2178.I.P4/O 0707. CUTOFFz 450.0 HZ LP4/0 00% CUTOFF: 450.0 HIZ
FIGURE C.57 FIGURE C.58
400 - 64 1/0918- 60007 .0 66 k 0912 0S7
400t
0
60IOS
PEKVLU.3q I U.0 C'apra
WAFFLE SLAB, QYN I WAFFLE SLRB, QYN 1
*10000. HZ CRL= 2178. 10000. HZ CRL: 2178.LP4/0 700 CUTOFFz 450.0 Mi 04/0 707 CUTOFFz 450.0 440
FIGURE C.59 FIGURE C.60
a4 00 So 66 /00/ 70006 So4t oc 0 00 IO 460 11060 600707 0 00 lc
2127
-a
NRFFLE SLAB. OYN 1 WAFFLE SLAB. OYN 1BT-4 BB-4
1000). HZ CRL: 2178. 10000. HZ CAL= 2178.0e4/0 70Z CUTOFF- 450.0 MZ LP4e0 70Z CUTOFF= 450.0 "Z
FIGURE C,61 FIGURE C.62
402 go61 It/Ot/02i ROSSI' .02 67 11/09;12 NlOWS
& a
1' 2 @ O0 l0 300 400 SOO 100 700 800 100 1000 ' In 200 "O00 son SOO 700 SOO So 1000TIME IN MSEC TIme IN M SEC
"i8
1 P(PA t 0a0 13 IS I•08I CR.l98Mr4O!1 PEN VL UE S 12 40 CUER tALIBISATION
*8
I ItWAFFLE SLAB. OYN 1 WRFFLE SLAB, DYN 1C4 CT-I CB- I
* 10000. HZ CRL= 2178. 10000. HZ CRL= 2178."L04/0 70Z CUTOFFz 4SO.O HZ LP4/0 70Z CUTOFF= 450.0 HZ
FIGURE C.63 FIGURE C.64
402 70 1I/011/02 00067 40Z 9- 5 /OS/SO 40057
"LL I-, . I-
* I
' 0 1900 200 300 -00 500 00 700 80 too 100 00 0 too 20 300 400 SO0 600 700 000 SO0 9000TIME IN MSEC TIME IN MSEC
PERK VAll1LUE• IS to I UNGER C19l.lMITIN MEUIN f IlLUE 13 1 UNGERll ¢gL/ 12
1281
WAFFLE SLPB, QYN I WRFFLE SLAB. OYN ICT-2 CB-2
10000. HZ CRL: 2178. 10000. HZ CPL- 2178.LP4/0 100 CUTOFF= 450.0 NJ L4,'0 10'4 CUTOFF= 450.0 N77
FIGURE C.65 FIGURE C.66
402 - 'I '1,0112• 6W0 7 02 - 1 /01'1 I00057
4::: - -, I
1 !4
•,q;TI!( IN N$!C T I7! IN flS!C
loo0 *40f 5 600 10 4000 In 01
WAFFLE SLAB, DYN I WAFFLE SLAB, DYN ICT-3(CRL ESTI CB-3
10000. HZ CRL= 2178. 10000. HZ CAL= 2178.LP4/O 7O0 CUTOFF= 4S0.0 77l LP4/0 70Y. CUTOFF- 450.0 H?
%FIGURE C.67 FIGURE C.68
400 - 74 11,01,91 SI007 40: - 73 1 100/602 I0os
,%,
a0 100 20 300 000 So 0 g0o l0 o " 00 no 1000 0 00 200 100 400 So0 t10 700 l0 o g0 0 000
TIM! IN MSEC 7077 IN 7S7C
129V s'
.P[l lK• I I I • l¢l.lm:Il,
WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 1 WAFFLE SLRB, DYN ICT-4(CRL ESTI CB-4(CRL EST)
10000. HZ CRL: 2178. 10000. HZ CPL: 2178.LP4/0 7OZ CUTOFF2 450.0 H1 L14/0 70Z CUTOFF= 450.0 MZ
FIGURE C.69 FIGURE C.70
"" .4 401 I uaiS 110 S 10017 402 is I 11040II 2 10017
*••0 1C) t~ 00 2 00 2 00 400 000 100 70 0 100 90 00 0 400 270 7I00 4O 00 I00 "000 70 040 000 1000
tiliC II 0SCC tI• II 0l5•C
WAFFLE SLAB, QYN 1 WRFFLE SLR::B, OYN I0-1 0-2
10.''.t000. HZ CRL: 6.300 10000. H.Z CRL= 6.300,• •LP4 "70! CaTTOFF. 45C'.C 4Z LP4 70!Z CU,2IOFF= 450.C HZ
•",FI6URE C.71 FISUR C:.7
402+ - 41 C211/13/I *0!b 402 - :'7 O7':1/'9" 0~7..
cii
S- .'.... _
'% TIME IN PIS(C TIMEINF MSlIEC
*1 PiPIA 90IL.. It 9 1+ WW cfl u~al € l. owl+01
-- - 0-2
1 0 O 00 00. H 0 4AL= 700300 10000.C 7! ?~ H. 1 C AL 6.3 c~00 0LFI 7O CUTFF !I SC .S Tif '4 7 0% !EIF AS-C
/ .
130
FIUEC.1FGUEC7
4..s C21/!-01 0 : 03
U.,
L 9-L ' Pr, rYN WAFFLE SLAB. QYN I-r 0 0-4
CCC% -, l' H7 4.300 10000. HZ CRL: 3.500P' •7. CJf0•T 0-. " LP4 707. CUTOFF: 45C.C I'!
FIGURE C.73 FIGURE C.74
--a: e. : 3' *C%, , P0,7•o - 13 7!C13'Ul PI0'3
4 II
-c .c 99 cc.•
,o io - - - t^- [ -?Imý :NTIME IN MSEC
f, WAFFLE SLAB. DYN I WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 10-5 0-6
10000. HZ CAL: 4.300 i0000. HZ CRL= 1.300LP4 707. CUTOFFz 45C.0 HZ LP4 707. CUTOFF= 45C.0 Hl
FIGURE C.75 FIGURE C.76
LI -- -. -
%00 20 30 4 - .-- -O S- -o at o c '-- "i a l )'
C "
TIME IN MSEC TIME :N MSEC
PC" POk.JZ 15 49 7 JU703 CALIBRATION
131
WAFFLE SLAB. OYN 1 WAFFLE SLRB, OYN I0-7 0-8
10000. HZ CAL= 6.300 10000. HZ CAL= 6.300LP4 70% CjtOFF- 4 5C .0 MZ LP4 70% CJTrFF= 4SC.C MZ
FIGURE C.77 FIGURE C.78
402 :2 C'/13110 0OAIS 402 1 0I0 *1
". J-., J
-c. - - - - - - - - - - - -co .-
,%= -
TIME I I
WAFL SLB a0
AFL LB Y
0. 0-1024 3 0 0
•",.."TIME IN MSEC TIME+ IN M .SEL
.4.-
S .0 0C10 C 'C 50 67 'C000. HZ C0L: 3. 0 0 0C 7 00. 5:0 .AL= 2.0 (37 4~
FIGUR "Lit FIUR 10C.80L~flo ltlI s Wf A-IR-
S13
4...;. -
-."? 4 I0..f
P0 S ¶0 4 C pt! 4 I .',N.L I 4 U NI 0 0 0
WRFESR.QN1kJFL LB Y
WRFFLE SLRB. JYN 1 WRFFLE SLRB. DYN 10- 1 1 0-12
10000O. HZ CAL= 4 300 10000. HZ CALz 6.3100LP4 700 CUTOFF- 450.0 1HZ I.F4 70% CVTOFF- 45C.0 MI
FIGURE C.81 FIGURE C.82
O. 27 eli65 03
4*2 02,~1 *O10 7 C'3' O1
%, TIM INME IM NM
'fqK *L.,t IS It I Vctq Ca.I.,VOP 5 * PERK l&.Jt 1S 91 X UNCE COtIINNIOW .
WREFLE SLRB. DYN I I\F;L F SI.ý RE , ý'YN0-13 C
%10000. HZ CAL= 6.200 ýoooo. H7 rPL= C.3CCLF4 700. CJTOFFm 450.0 HZ 1,14 7CO CJTOFF- 45C0 . ?
FIGURE C.83FIUEC8
__~~c It I,,-- - - -..
KC I -C It -- CC-TIM IN 15 I I !r
133
• -........+.. ...... ..... .... . . .... ... ... . + .. ... ... .... . . ..
WAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2 WRFFLE SLAB. DYN 2P-1 P-2
"10000. HZ CAL= 91.80 10000. HZ CRL= 88.10
FIGURE C.8S FIGURE C.86
doz 30 0.1l3/91 Roil% 402 1; 0U/1141 0 191.i
"W3011 - ftm -o man -
:00.% n 40,? So wO 0 T ooll "a m oo " tol00 40 0 So Goo 070| 0 Slo o a 00
I IMi IN - TIMEIN MECC
so "F 00L~ :00 V VR A1-I~
WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2L-" (KIP -2(KIIP
10000. HZ CAL= 216.7 10000. HZ CAL= 201.1
FIGURE C.87 FIGURE C.88
-o V.,
,.
s00 400 Is II200 304700o02 00 I002 4 Roads
•I I'tn( IN MSEC'
TIME IN4 MSEC------- ----- ---- LE IsL----It-OV------.-- -OYN 2
B- -- - - --- - -- -- -- -- -- - -L-- 2 -P
.-- t 0.:L .1 0 - - F = 0 .
do 134I
V's,
1 •-* ~4*-+ l+-
i, -- - - - - - -
//
WAFFLE SLRB, OYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2RB-i RB-2
10000. HZ CAL= 93.10 10000. HZ CRL= 95.10
FIGURE C.89 FIGURE C.9(
• °402 - )3 02')It~I 1011 403 -3 ??136 0012$l !t
!o -J- -4
% T - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N.' C
ioi 00 Z OO 0 400 500 400 120 l00 600 i000 O . 0 4• •o I• ?o ¢; I• Ip,%•, ~ ~Tife IN ISECTlg ME
WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 2RB-3 AB-4
10000. HZ CRL= 75.50 10000. HZ CAL= 76.80
, FIGURE C. 91 FIGURE C.92
40i - 34 o2/3/ Ri 03 02 3% 031 II w0lls°- 4,- -- -- - -o•i$I -li- IQ *--1 ---•#ll -1- S
0 10 0 00 400 10 0 400 WO 00 7 00 900 000 loa 0 too :00 300 400 S00 Goo I00 t0 $00 lo00lTIME! IN PISC TI'ME IN M SEC
"GO VIOLA IS III I 00(0 CA3.IRN'4$ .9(404 v1 .o3! 13 $4 T 00(0 Cftle001?30
135
WRFFLE SLRB. DYN 2 WRFFLE SLRB. DYN 2RB-S SE-i
10000. HZ CAL= 81.30 10000. HZ CAL= 111.4
FIGURE C.93 FIGJRE C.94
- .16 0 , 91,t g 40. 17 02/13,11 1012$
iI •
S - 0 I O 2 0 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 S O $ O0 S o 0 0 t o o t o o 1 0 0 0 7 0 ; O a 2 O 0 0 l o o0 C 0 ? O • O O - G
',"'%TIME IN MSEC TIME IN MISEC
i NRFFLE SLI::B, OYN 2 NAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2
SE-2 SE-310000. HZ CAL= 104.2 10000. HZ CAL= 125.3
SFIGURE C.95 FISK• C.96
-, . 0 •llI~ -lt 4- - -• -tl$l - -1-
40 .' 021,1Ri 009 0132 OS
00
, J -- , "
.,I l H
70 00l :09 N00 400 s00 t0o 700 00 g00 0w0 0 100 zoo 100 400 So0 go0 700 So0 S00 000o
"TIME IN I .SEC TIM IN MSEC
.fLE S LRDN 2 FI S. IYN 2E .41.1140,0
10000.II HZ 104.21000.H
40 -It 0/'"0 010-0--15 021/t bt
-* 0
a -- - - '
F ,,"",- - - -
'* "013
WRFFLE SLAB. DYN 2 ARFFLE SLAB, OYN 2
"SE-4 SE-510000. HZ CRL= 122.9 10000. HZ CALz 117.6
FIGURE C.97 FIGURE C.98
. j,, . U,,•
402 - 40 W'111' 111 5 402 - 41 .0,'/l 20090
I a
7\
100~~~ ZO 0 0 0 0 00 10 90 10 G 03 00 500 600 700 Ig 00 10020
Pfau 401.. '! IS .. 04ER CLSIRN'TON Pa .. is 13. O'ER CIUI 10'
WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. OYN 2SE-S SE-7
1G0000. HZ CAL= 114.9 10000. HZ CAL= 100.7
FIGURE C. 99 FIGURE C.100
40 12 02,131*1 Rolls 402 -41 02/I13,1 q00105
* o. . .... -
a, IO )0 0Q @C o 4o0 500 $00 700 400 NO 100o 7 a 100 200 300 0@0 SOO $00 700 Ic @ I9a0 1000
TIME IN 'Esc TIEI IN IeC
p . a%-.
I00 0.700QL 1 400 00 O0 0030-0 Z C L 0 .
0FIGURE10 00 50 400 FIUR Cl00 0 0 O 0 0 0HO/ 4 IIfCTI/f NiSE
* 00l 4tL -0IZ 1 00( 1 CII.tIl"'00* P( 4 l.02 -04 1 1013 C0t 1100710
, "IS°..I t
137 '
'-.4
"WRFFLE SLRB. OYN 2 WAFFLE SLRB, QYN 2SE-8 BB-1I
"10000. HZ CAL= 110.1 10000. HZ CRL= 2178.
- FIGURE C.101 FIGUR C.1M2
402 - 44 Q0/1l3i1 0o0t0 401 0- 0 32,3/ 01 0 40115
.o, c -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
T IN - - If I -N - 40
14AFL SLRE OY AFE LB Y
10000 HZ CA=27.00.H CL 18
S 0 o 0 200 l00 400 o0 000 t70 N0 I0 1000 z 100 zoo 300 400 00 00oo 700 0oo 400 1000
TIME IN ,ISEC rTIM IN MSEC
PC" 0 V*-..[ I0 S 5 0So Otto COL•"Orli .o PfOO 0140t 1$ 45 3 0000 CO. II0,!J0
NRFFLE SLRB, OYN 2 WRFFLE SLRB, 1YN 2.. BT-I1 BB-2
",-1t0000. HZ CFIL= 2178. 1000U. HZ CAL= 2178.
,,0_FIGURE C.103 FW• C.104
402 II 601 " 'I0'0fll 00200 402 - 03 02/1311l 00O300
2 2I
*4 - - - - - 0
4.1:. 0.
io 000o 300 400 500 000 700; 000 000 000@ TO 00o 200 700 400 5D• 000 700 $500 500 000o
T12I0[ 250 PISOC tJ2i IN I05iKC
S•!P000 v@,..0 21 50 04 0 6t1 6001 Cl.lln 00 .. - P0100 00tJ( 15 37 74( CO USER C Olq'[ 20
" ' 138*0*aI
WAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB, IJYN 2BT-2 88-3
10000. HZ CAL= 2178. 10000. HZ CAL= 2178.
FIUE ,0 FIGURE C,106
. 00 8 02,1310; 20195 400 es 80 /13/01 R0195
00 100 2100 300 400 Soo 604 000 Soo Soo 00co 0 100 200 300 400 S00 600 700 500 go0 000oTIME~ IN MSEC T~IME IN MOSEC
PEAK O6¶t(E 15SZ I~ '0ER Ck IBOITIOO PEA Vo .80 (1/ 15 IS0 V0ER CALIBRA0
300
WAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2BT-3 88-4
10000. HZ CRLz 2178. 10000. HZ CAL= 2178.
FIGA.RE C.107 FIGURE C.108
-OZ $4 02/3is *0019 400 8 7 02/13,1: 00195
-- - - -- - - -
00 ~ ~ ~ lo 003040008000000000 7 0000 300 400 S00 S00 S00 90 00 l(00
TIME IN IISEC TIME IN MSEC
PEAKf0 4 1/ 5 1$0 1 OVER CA118080108 PER. . VW8 4 E IS./ 5. 52 OVERCR -R1. 1 ON8~
139
WAFFLE SLAB, OYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. OYN 2"" ""BT-4 CB- 1
1. 10000. HZ CAL: 2178. 10000. HZ CAL: 2178.
FIGURE C.109 FIGURE C.10O*o - ili **wq
60? ,o - , 00/ 19,,1 60o1,5 600 ,, ... 013,0......
' ,
TM INi ME TlI M I N M ,"FEA VOW 13l IS II li l OE A IN IOPEKV u 1 90 1 'RCI BRI t
� .C T- - -I - C6 2z,'• =I I HI I~l II
100 H• CAL= 2178 100.H 18
"�6.A%
Z -1 , 100 20 300 0 400 0oo 000 700 goo SOO 1000 0 lea 2o0 30 600 Soo 6G oo 700 0oo 00 loco
TIME IN MSEC TIME IN iS$C
P(96 VAL..E1 IS 41 X OVER C[ LIIIATIO5 1 PE(AK VAL.VE IS 75 X O0VN CALIBRATION
1RFFLE SLRB, OYN 2 1RFFLE SLRB, OYN 2"-,CTf-I1 CB-2"1', 0000. HZ CAqL: 2178. 1O0000. HZ CAL: 21"78.
"-'FIGURE C.1..1, FIGURE C.11..2 .600 - 1.0 0/13/61 1,911 600~S O " 91 r0/19/1i 60199•
SJ -
4 I•
• %-. --
* 0 100 200 300 600l 500 600 700I 600 00 000 0 100 200 300s 600 500 600 700 600 900 1000
*6Ni TIME IN 115ECfl[I :E
P066 666.00LU IS 61 0 00(6 C6l6t6l661r06 ii ** 0060 66100 II 76 00006i C:Al li666f1f06 li
,• 140
WRAFFLE SLAB. QYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB, OYN 2CT-2 CB-3
10000. HZ CAL= 2178. i0000. HZ CAL= 2178.
FIGURE C.113 FIGURE C.114
40 9 32 023/ijl2 40130 402 - 91 02I13361 3 0195
TIME INME IM NMWAFL ZS, 2L
*~C- C8* - - -4- -
"" Z L 7 100 0 HZ 78.0 0 O
00 2oo 300 400 $ Go Goo 700 T0 l0e zoo 300 4.00 Soo 00 700 n0 go 00 00
"* TIME IN MSEC TIM3E IN M$SC
t't .. PEAR VAL-A• It 64 1 OVER CAL•IBROITlOI FEA I m VALUE IS; 137 1 Qd(I CR1.18RATON i
., WAFFLE SLAB, QYN 2 WRFFLE SLAB, 1YN 2.. CT-3 CB-4
10l000. HZ CAL= 2178. 10000. HZ CRL= 2178.
SFIGURE C,115 FIGURE C,116
"a".
S- -, **--2 2Z
--- 4-- -~~~
STI7• IN IPSEC 'IM4 IN PISOC
a a. P03 64,3 30! • 661 0( 0V0 C34I166t300 P0i Oi t ~l fU 31 33? 6 0303 C3l303371034 I
S~141
"W ARFFLE SLAB, OYN 2 WAFFLE SLRB. OYN 2"CT-4 0-1
10000. HZ CRL= 2178. 10000- HZ CRL= 6.300LP4 70% CUTOFF- 4S0.O MZ
FIGURE C.117 FIGURE C.118
402 - If 00/13/01 40195 409 4$ C22/13101 R0095
% 40. . . . . . . -1----i
0 0to 200 Ica 400 500 to0 710 000 a 000 a 100 200 I00 400 500 g00 790 S00 g00 00onTIME? INl PSEC TIllE lIN PSEC
•%.
410 P0444 VLJE 1 IS I t. 0 0(1 CRI.II#0Tl0
WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2-. D-2 0-3
10000. HZ CAL= 6.300 10000. HZ CAL= 4.300* LP4 70% CUTOfFF- 450.0 HEZ LP4 70? CUTOFF= 460.0 MI?
FIGURE C.119 FIGURE C.120
TIM%'. IN SEC TIME IN SEC
q.,
Till?~i i ilS 117 11140 l Cd I OS?
.'41
%,
C• ''".1 :O0.:4HZ CAL *6.300 O000.* -, CAL. 4. --00-
1' WFFLE SLAB. DYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. fJYN 20-4 0-S
10000.- HZ CAL: 3.- 00 10000. HZ CRL= 4.300LP4 ?OZ C.JTOr~z 450.0 Ml LI-0 7OX CUTOFF. 450.0 Ml
FICURE C.121 FIGURE C.122
44.0 6C %~I~6I 'lY.402 46 02113,91 ItolY
10 2" 00 .00 "C 7W0 #0 100nIo g 300 -00 Sa0 60w 7w6 6cc o00 low
WAFFLE SLAB, DYN 2 WARFFLE SLAB. QYN 20-6 0-7
10000.- HZ CAL= 1.-30C 10000.- HZ CRL= 6.300LF4 70% CUTOFF- 4S0.0 HZ LPA 70X CUTOFF. 450.0 Ml
AFIGURE C.123 FIGURE C.124
a0 10 no " 00 02l2m Go 0 o(, 0 201 40 0 So Soo "afonISoo0to"
-- I- --E INME-- MEI M
efft ".UfI 01WTCLW T0
14
,- ./.
WRFFLE SLRB. OYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB. DYN 20-8 0-9
"10000. HZ CRL= 6.300 10000. ,Z P1RL= 3.600.LP4 70% CUTOFFV 450.0 HZ LP4 70% CUTOFF= 4SO.O HZ
FIGURE C.125 FIGURE C.126
4o0 S2 01/13/1t Rain 402 * $l 02,13'l3 4I01
.. ,.* -" - - - - - - --
", =
a 100 noQ 300 40G 0 10 Sao $0*Q 70 goo0 too IWO 300 'tO0 Soo 11 0 6JO 1.00 O"TIME IN CS[C TIME IN msEc
6.. Pfow VOlA IS 9 1 OVER ENLtIRII4WAFFLE SLAB, OYN 2 WAFFLE SLAB, OYN 2
0-10 0-1110000. HZ CRL= 2.800 10000. HZ CRL= 4.300
LP4 70% CUTOFF= 450.0 Hi[ LP4 707 CUTOFF= 450.0 31Z
FIGURE C.127 FIWRE C.128
400 0 4 02/131/6 40300 402. 55 02/13/st t0lls
""w"1 11 1 - -----
- - .-- - , - -.
I F
0a 300 t oo 300 400 500 g00 70 0 000 0 000 t o o0 200 300 400 St0 0O 700 Ica goo 1000
TiME IM E 1SCC TilI[ IN 15CC
S. Pfft "tu3.g1 II 6 2 0VE ClLI30TION FE AR 4100I V6l6320 4 64 01VER C4.ll642l00N
144
WRFFLE SLRB, QYN 2 WRFFLE SLRB. CrN 20-12 0-13
10000. HZ CRL= 6.300 10000. HZ CAL= 6.200LPF4 70 CUTOFF= 450.0 MI LF4 70. CUTOFF- 450.0 Ml
"FIGURE C.1M FIGURE C.130
S40 2 . / 0 to;,i $%g I*4 4 - S" 02,13,11 £0lit
'I *
:040 0 100 400 %o0 £00 700 sc. Il00 loc a ;00 200 100 400 "00 10 0 0 00 00
TtIME IN MSEC TIME IN4 rStC
WREFLE SLRB. QYN 20- 14
10000. HZ CRL= 6.300LP4 70X CUTOFF= 450.0 1!
FIGURE C.131
9.0 110 200 100 '0N Soo £00 700 s00 "a lo00
145
"..4
tI; 146
J,%li14
•..TEST DATA, IATPPENDT CENTER PORTION
F
k14
Data from the tests on the flat plate center portion are presented in
this appendix. Labels on the plots indicate the following:
Line 1: Test name
Line 2: Gage symbol
Line 3: Maximum value and calibration curve
Line 4: Filter (if any)
Lines 5 and 6: Bookkeeping data.
148
FLAT PLA~TE C14TER FLAT PLATE CINTER
FIGUJRE D,1 FIGURE D.2 rn.so a,C I.~ NO. 6647 1 IC 0 4
U.I A
-%N
5. IQ 2 1. a5 4. is C ~ 0 . 'o. 25. Is 1. 40. 45. So.
PRESSuRE PSI PRESSURE PSFI
FLAT PLATE CE4TER rLAt PLATE CI4TER
I.- IL-2
F16URE D1.3 FFIGURE DA' ~NoTI 60 $0647 1 CIF4470 10 10
01/ts'l 671 03/25/I7 60711
LOAD L91 LOND - SF
149
I.
FLAT PLAUt CENTER FLAT PLATE CLNTEAIf- 51-1
srI I- r-1135L 1
FIGURE D.5 Ff FIGURE 0.6.i 0ml me. ;1 5047 1 ac50lt .4 6047 1
*2/t5'01 00771 031,21,61 407"1
• -- -- -----
30. 40.90. 10. ' lo 21. 0. 40. SO 0. 70. so. t.toPRESSURE psi PRESSURE _PI
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTERMc-69S "6 SE-4
FIGURE 0.7 FIGURE D.8
C1FA9 5. $ 0047 1 CN00KL no. .6 60471as/fl/sI 6077t 03/10/Il RO7M
K. . /
a-$ 600 -0.1 0.5 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.5 3. 0. a to. 60. 30. 40. SO. 50. 70. 50. go. 1.•.PRESSURE - PSI PRESSURE -PSI
150
FLAT PLAT1 CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTER
Sr-s St -6
FIGURE D.9 r FIGURE D.iO F2"C.0U.0L 00. .7 6147 1 CW(1L o.6 , I17
4 Q44
PRESSURE -PSI PRESSURE PSI
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTER
"WW2 M C F O FtJED1 1'V R
FGR D.11-? ft-
C•UM•L no. II "47 I C00NTL NO. .0 604703'12/fI ROM7 03/2S0I to" a
0 S . i0. i. Z0.. Ml. 30. 40. .0. $0. S . 10. IS. M 0 - 31 0. IS. 40. 00. $0.PRESSURE PSI PRESSURE PSI
151
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CINTER(IT ElII
€ 1( 60. ) 1647 2 C,6..(L 10 4 114?
-1•"|S."40. -120. -|00). *.00. 4a•. .40. -t'o. a . .0. 14."122. .100. "19O- "l0- 04. "20. a 'o. 'o- 60.
,•"$T'RAIN-MICRO WINN STRAIN-MlICRO WIN/I
*,--
SFLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CINTUR
(2 [T E2l
lo 4J? 4?
FIGURE D.15 ,:F6R .1 -''qC.1-L --. S - 4"7 . C'Aft-L NO. - i- ? 2
oliso R0771III AO? 0312s1|| A07715
S\ n
S -
-tO. -1. -160. -140-- O. 0 -too. 0- .140. -go. 020 ..20. :40. 30. 610.STRAIN-fICRO INIIN STRAIN-IIICRO IN/IN
",5
.4
I - - - I I- I -
m-
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTERE3T E38
• •. FIGURE D,17 FFIGURE D.18 67Cl¢,,t 42. 0 541€/ CMSSS(L NO. • 6 94" 2""0 1 #1071t 03/2 010 l R0711
*0\4
"- -- -,- - - -
%',,
% i
%8..-• -50 -4 -30 "- - -10.
-,o. - 4 10. 'o. Ia. 40. -to. . S-0. -6C. -40. 0 . a 0. 40. 60. *0. I00.STRAIN-MICRO IN/IN STRAIN-MICRO IN/IN
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTERE4T E46
FIGURE D.19 10 FIGURE D.20 0040,lt.M .cJ |4 CMANNEL M . O, 0947 2
031.51111 :0071
ii----. 153111
0,N0 0, 00'4 ,. - -
S-° 4 0 . - l 00 . - 10 0 . - S 2, - 0. . 2-• 0 - 0 . 0 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . .5 2 I S . - 0 0 . 0 50 . • 0 2 . .S 2. • 0 0 . . ' S 0 . 7 20 .
STRAIN-AICRO IN/IN STRAIN-MI•CRO IN/IN
N.• 5
FLAT PLATE CENiTER FLAT PLATE CENTEREST E5IS
FIGURE D.21 F 2 FIGUME D.22 FC000t *. NO ;1 347 2 C,7**3t 30. ;2 9947 203/25,1I *0711 03/25,,1 30771
*-6.-70. -4 .5..0.-30. 2.-a. 0 a 0. I0. -to. 0 .40-20Z. 0 20- 40. fla. 90. t00.
STRAIN-MICRO WIN34 STRAIN-MICRO WIN11
FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTEREST EBB
.:,.:: lig7S4 fOL JA
FIGURE D.23 I. FIGUN6 D.22 CW* CýLl g0.o 6147 2 N*6EL NO. 14 1347 ?
0171/25/ *07171 03/0loI A0771
*//1
VI VI
.--. 0.
No* 0 n 700 - 400 -SO-D- 0- --40 - 400 -220 - -a • 40 . 60. 40. 450.
"STRAIN-MICRO IN/IN STRRIN-MICRO IN/IN
:154
-4R LT •TR LTPRECNE
a' T B
F-UE .3 q
**14•i R?? )/Sl IO?
* ,..,
"FLAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTERE77T E'
"FIGURE D.25 FIGURE D.26 -.• ¢k*;L NO. i5 6647 2 C~q"fft No. .8 $147 z
m'-
4,,% ";
6, .. , - - )/ -
•.,,-.---
*-000 -600 -700 -400 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 t00 -500 a 500 0o c 0o 0 260 .0 500 )000 "500 4000 4500* STRRIN-MICRO IN/IN STRAIN-MICRO IN/IN
"" %N 7LAT PLATE CENTER FLAT PLATE CENTEREF ATPLTE ATE
6",% • E81' Sj lAEBB
69.7I'~qit 53744 61.9675 .54.V"" FIGURE D.27 F2 FIGURE D.28 FNC"A6WKL NA. :7 °047 2 CKNNN(L NO. U7 6047 2031ts5sN o 07 305A 07
*° 6. N .%
'.N%
%'",:.. - - -,
N."
,,,* •-oo •.-o s.-0 . -o.-. o -o - -o--.
-6. . . . . 1. 0 0 0 2. 0 0.40. 60. 60. 00•. L.A. 40. NiO. 160.
SSTRAIN-NICRO IN/IN STRAIN-NICRO IN/IN
6 %
//
FLAf PI.RTf cINrFR FLA' PLA't CO4TTR
E9T 0- -
FIGURE D.29 C14,0,,bL is ; 664 FIGURE D.30 C"", 1 N2 6,147
01,5I/0771 q 6: R0771
o -. - 0 -. a - a a C. a . 6, - •
6., .a
*STRAIN-MCRO WIN OISPLACt•E•E - IN
VLAT PLA'E CENT•_R FLA! PLRAO CENTER
0-21 0-3
0 ~~~~ ~1; FIUE1S. ~ ~ l~~ ~* FIGURE D.32 1'I 4.)0'CRAWL *0 94 61 1 C 4 go 647 1 COOSOOI. 60 6*47
.% .707400411 *0774 01/25471 071'o?
• - • ... ' ./
-O.C, 0 0.0 0.10 ^.iS 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.1S 0.40 0.41 -0. 0 0.2 0.4 0 A C.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 I.6 1.$
S 0!SPLACrfENT - 0 OISPLACE'ENT - IN
__156
kV ./' ,.•• ' ' <.' "-*. "•.* , -*, . -.-, ."., ,".•. _-. •"- _ , - - ,"," J *" ." "."" .4-".5 ' ',;. ' .,.,., " . " " . " -
FLAT PLATE CE[T(• FLAT PLATt C iNTERo0.4 a-s
FIGURE D.33 FI FIGURE D,34. .z
- .- - ."- -. - .
- -i- -- ;
L% -
0I . . -a.. 0 . . - -. . -.
S -PLACEENT- IN
I I I OFLAT PLATE C•D•ttE FLAT FLA
-a * - - - a - . - - - a - •- -- -. °
FI XLAT PLATE CENTER
0-0
FIGURE D.57 C * NO 2 $0,7
altsI1 , 771
-o.5 a .A , .O 1- Z. G 2- . 3.0 .-S 4.0 4,5
DISPLACEM(ENT I EN
158
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Assistant Secretary of the Army (R&D)
ATTN: Library ATTN: Assistant for Research
P. 0. Box X Washington, D. C. 20306
Oak Ridge, Tenn. 37830Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Civil
Associate Director, Natural Resources and Engineering Laboratory,
Commercial Services Naval Construction Battalion Center
Office of Science and Technology Policy ATTN: Technical LibraryATTN: Mr. Phillip M. Smith Port Hueneme, Calif. 93041
Executive Office Bldg.Washington, D. C. 20500 Commanding Officer, Office of Naval Research
Department of the Navy
LITRI Washington, D. C. 20390,%. 2 cy ATTN: Mr. Thomas Watersann
10 West 35th St. Commander, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, AFSC
Chicago, Ill. 60616 ATTN: SUL, Technical LibraryKirtland Air Force Base, N. Mex. 87117
DirectorLovelace Foundation SRI International
5200 Gibson Boulevard, S.E. ATTN: Mr. Raymond Alger
Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87108 Menlo Park, Calif. 94025
Civil Engineering Center/AF/PRECET Center for Planning and Research
"ATTN: Technical Library ATTN: Mr. John Rempel"Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 2483 E. Bayshore"Dayton, Ohio 45433 Palo Alto, Calif. 94303Mr. Lewis V. Spencer Science Applications, Inc.Room C313, Building 245 ATTN: Dr. John Cockayne,
Washington, D. C. 20234 Senior Scientistk"• 1710 Goodridge Dr.
"Mr. Samuel Kramer, Chief P. 0. Box 303Office of Federal Building Technology McLean, Va. 22101"Center for Building TechnologyNational Bureau of Standards Institute for Defense AnalysesWashington, D. C. 20234 Program Analysis Division
ATTN: Mr. Leo A. Schmidt
Commander and Director, U. S. Army Engineer 400 Arly-Navy Dr.Waterways Experiment Station Arlington, Va. 22202
ATTN: Mr. W. L. HuffMr. Stan Woodson Applied Research and Associates
"Mr. William J. Flathau ATTN: Cornelius J. Higgins3 cy "echnical Library 2601 Wyoming Blvd., Suite H-i
P. 0. Box 531 Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87112VicLsburg, Miss. 39180
AFdL/Civil Engineering Division
Director, Ballistic Research Laboratory Kirtland Air Force BaseATTN: Document Library Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87117
% 2 cy William TaylorAberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 BDM Corporation
ATTN: Mr. Jud LeechCDR USACE 1801 Randolph Rd, C.E.
ATTNI: (DAEN-RDZ-A) Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87106
(DAEN-RDL)2 cy (DAEN-ASI-L) Mr. Donald A. BettgeWashington, D. C. 20314 Office of Civil Preparedness
National Preparedness Programs
Defense Technical Information Center Federal Emergency Management Agency
12 cy ATTN: TC/Hr. Myer B. Kahn Washington, D. C. 20472
Cameron StationAlexandria, Va. 22314 Defense Intelligence Agency
ATTN: Mr. Carl Wiehle
Come:ander, U. S. Army Materials and CKW DB4C2
Mechanics Research Center Washington, D. C. 20301ATTN: Technical Library
Watertown, Mass. 02172
Director, Defense Nuclear Agency Los Alamos Scientific LaboratoryATTN: STTL/Technical Library ATTN: Document Library
SPTD/Tom Kennedy Los Alamos, N. Hex. 87544Washington, D. C. 20305
Physics International CompanyDirector, Federal Emergency Management ATTN: Mr. Fred Sauer
Agency 2700 Merced St.60 cy ATTN: Assistant Associate Director, San Leandro, Calif. 94577
National PreparednessPrograms Dikewood Corporation
Washington, D. C. 20472 1613 University Boulevard, N.E.
"Albuquerque, N. Hex. 87102National Bureau of Standards
ATTN: Dr. Lewis V. Spencer TRWWashington, D. C. 20234 ATTN: Dr. Ben Sussholz (RI/2094)
One Space ParkAssociate Director, Natural Resources and Redondo Beach, Calif. 90278
Commercial ServicesOffice of Science and Technology GARD, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Philip M. Smith 7449 N. Natchez AvenueExecutive Office Buildins Miles, Ill. 60648Washington, D. C. 20500
1IT Research InstituteFederal Emergency Management Agency ATTN: Mr. A. LonginowOffice of Research National Preparedness i0 West 35th Street
Program Directorate Chicago, 111. 60616ATTN: Mr. David W. Benson
1725 1 Street H. L. Murphy AssociatesWashington, 0. C. 20472 Box 1727
San Mateo, Calif. 94401
Federal E.mergency Management Agency
Mitigation and Research Research Triangle Institute"ATTN: Mr. Robert C. Crawford ATTN: Mr. Edward Hill
"1725 1 Street P. 0. Box 12194Washington, D. C. 20472 Research Triangle, N. C. 27709
Texas Technological College Human Science ResearchATTN: Mr. Joseph E. Minor ATTN: Dr. William Chenault
Lubbock, Tex. 79408 Westgate Industrial ParkP. 0. Box 370
University of Santa Clara McLean, Va. 22010ATTN: Prof. R. K. Pefley
Santa Clara, Calif. 95053 James E. Beck & Associates4216 Los Palos Avenue
Lawrence Liverwore National Laboratory Palo Alto, Calif. 94306ATTN: R. G. Hickman
University of California RAND Corporation"P. 0. Box 808 ATTN: Document LibraryLivermore, Calif. 94550 1700 Main St.
Santa Monica, Calif. 90401Sandia National Laboratories
ATTN: Dr. Clarence R. Mehl Scientific Services, Inc.Box 5800, Sandia Base 2 cy ATTN: Mr. C. WiltonAlbuquerque, N. fex. 87115 517 E. Bayshore Drive
Redwood City, Calif. 94060
41.
?,
U•
W02 W )~31 ~.0 04 3tisA oul 4. ~ ~ . . .~ J O 0
tM *q .J U 02 L. ,d 6 ~as~ lu.- - . - C3 0. a. 3
4r 41 44 0 v ~ 8 ( o v .Jd 4 14~ d L 0 q
~0 C6a 4 U 0 4u.4. V 0 4. u O4A U 34 -,j 14-1 4, r O W d4. 4., r aa.f 0a u u 004
a. 0Q obJ0 01 oC 0 0.44. A 0 000. ~ 't a~ 1 'A NJ r. ~.0 . (A ~ a d
~~~~~~~i V*4 .U 4 0 L C d J OoeJd d Q 4J. 0 u.0 i0.Jdd 4) .J 4)
w . = a. - -.. 0
"CIC U-% -0 0. 4 dr 4d a .4( 41 0 z4 Ca.
0044 C.~ -1 00. ac o >.- .0 -.4 .- 0 a4)4~ 0 A U a = . 0 4.. ca 4P-4 cn 'A 0 colC 00 *.40 aV U .J 9: 1 Q 4 0 m2 .0 0 j V c w
4J ~c: C- V~~ 4.4 CL ~ 4 U-d d- .. . V 0
cne 4r cU IA.d . UN Ad 0 - 4) E--0 1.U0 00 (n (n . a 0. w *
0 kn V l 0.l4 u. do.a
4 l0 V' U 0 .d. .J4 040. -. 4 4) 44 4 0 G > U
c, 0 > 0 0 . .0 l. . J 4 V 4 - 4 (
1* 4 0uU CU 66. .- * :A- u. v r 0 o . 440-* C12 U4 .00U C6 c: 0 V
- .> .2 41 C,cn 402 aU . 4 to 4 -2 L as 2 d Um4> go-4 a)4W U c~ 0U .J44 OU W- U, U .0 3 JU49 C .- d
Z .to r. .. O Sa- -4V 4. Wfl ra. = U0, 0 a C~.
-444 a 0.. -4 c~4 ..C M W j W0 aMO4 44. 0 02 0 . O. . 4
40W ' C cn. 0~ 0 44UOa -4 U .0U-I V.4 .a do4 as 0 61 U W O '44 W W -W~-4.4 2 ~ .a 4~ aa~4
0j 0 ~ 0.0 04 a.0 .1U Un U 6'440 . 4 1 U 4) 0 a-4 4)-a a
0 0 Ad s$ 0I0 .0 -Z'.4-44 W a 000cJ
V 4.4 tm41 0~c: 4 1 .0 w.. 1 V ~ 4 W 0 4.) .. 4 ..I4vido
cn 0. UO aa.0a ~ . ~ 4
4) 904 dds AdU a0I C 44
-1 Uj wdU 0. . 4 Us Aj0U0. 4 31 0 .a
.. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .... ..... .. .. .. .. ... .. . .. . ..... .. .. .. .. ..
En a~ ..44 0 31 A d0 .0 02(z U--4 .4d 002 >U Ia).4 meU,4 U1 6) 31 U t .d0.Jd .0U*
- 4. - 1 .4d -4 A4 'W' 0'A Ua44 4(I Z4
~~.4 U -v4 0. .Oa v4 d ,u~U. ~ . ~ 4 d0 -0U. 4J a. U0-.* O.. a m .
'ý d ' -.4 - 004 - d O 02 U-.0 o Q44 d2. - 0 . a s 0 2 U-I
I- O w U 02 440~ U ad4 **.. 1 o6 02cI~ dU= U, V0 W 4 0 d1- 044 u0 u 4 Is o44 u 41a 0 44
2~ i 4 j C3 0 (3 -4 ~ 4.JL 44 U 44 -, =4 W' - 1* .4 0 c 44 U '-)
* ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0 0 006.I 0 U U4I V04 - .Ia 4l O U U4
P Ua * 4VV go ~ 4j.40 4 0 4 U d %.4V 4 14 U -,-4 0 4* I-d3 oUd .~ d a - C4 i-d UU4dU. to
-4 4U1j00 "a v o0t
U~~4 0d4 4 0404.-
UUO .U44 V o 000 1U 4. -U14.g.O~akm '40.0. 02)0 0U.M.~ a '44V.0
.4) lu 4 1 4 .J O . ) 00.4 c:444 m o)411444.U 0. 0. doa Id4 .J dI 41 61 c =44 J~.4