task 1.1.1 shake table tests of a two-story house andre filiatrault david fischer bryan folz...

TASK 1.1.1SHAKE TABLE TESTS

OF A TWO-STORY HOUSE

Andre Filiatrault

David Fischer

Bryan Folz

Chia-Ming Uang

Frieder Seible

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

OVERVIEW

• TESTING OBJECTIVES

• REVIEW OF TESTING PHASES

• REVIEW OF TEST PROTOCOL

• COMPARATIVE EXERIMENTAL RESULTS


TESTING OBJECTIVES• Measure and quantify residential woodframe

building overall seismic response for various construction configurations

• Provide experimental data to establish relationship between ground motion intensity, structural system response, and repair cost

• Provide experimental data for other Woodframe Project activities (e.g. Task 1.5.1)


Phases 1-4Quasi-Static Tests

Phase 5 Phases 6-8Phase 6: EngineeredPhase 7: Perforated

Phase 8: Conventional

Phases 9-10Phase 9: No Wall Finish

Phase 10: With Wall Finish

Seismic Tests

REVIEW OF TESTING PHASES


• Low amplitude frequency and damping evaluation tests between shaking levels

Level Probability ofExceedencein 50 years

ReturnPeriod(years)

EarthquakeRecord

AmplitudeScalingFactor

PGA(g)

1 99.9999997 2.5 0.12 0.052 50 72 0.53 0.223 20 225 0.86 0.364 10 475

CanogaPark

1.20 0.505 2 2475 Rinaldi 1.00 0.89

Note: One repetition of test level causing peak transient drift between 0.5% to 1.0%

REVIEW OF TEST PROTOCOL


Canoga Park, Large Component

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 5 10 15 20 25Time (s)

PGA = 0.42g

Rinaldi, Normal to Fault

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 5 10 15 20 25Time (s)

PGA = 0.89g


• Quasi-static tests of only the first story of the test structure for different nailing and blocking configurations of the second floor: – Phase 1: 50% nailing (12/20 in), no adhesive, no blocking

– Phase 2: 100% nailing (6/10 in), no adhesive, no blocking

– Phase 3a: 100% nailing, no adhesive, 2x10 blocking

– Phase 3b: 100% nailing, no adhesive, 3x4 blocking

– Phase 4a: 50% nailing, PL400 adhesive, no blocking

– Phase 4b: 100% nailing, PL400 adhesive, 3x4 blocking

– Phase 4c: 100% nailing, PL400 adhesive, 2x10 blocking

– Phase 4d: 100% nailing, PL400 adhesive, no blocking

QUASI-STATIC TESTS


Blocking Configurations

2x10 Blocking 3x4 Blocking


Phases 1-4: General View


• Test protocol:– Quasi-static loading causing maximum drift level of 0.1% at

east or west shear wall lines

• Instrumentation:– In-plane shear and flexural deformations of floor diaphragm


√↵

γ−Δ

=Δ

=

γ−Δ=Δ−Δ=Δ

γ=

γ=

Δ=

=Δ

+Δ==γ

γ=Δ

2

L48

FL

48

FLEI

2

L

2

F

2

L2

L

2

F

2

L

2

F

GA

ndeformatiodiagonalAveragebd

dbstrainShear

2

L

t

3

f

3

tstf

ss

L

22L

s

• Diaphragm analysis

L/2

F/2F/2

γ

sΔ

d

b


Test Phase

Structure Configuration

Global Diaphragm Stiffness,

k global (k/in)

Diaphragm Shear

Stiffness, GA s (kips)

Diaphragm Flexural Stiffness,

EI (k-in2)

Diaphragm Equivalent

Viscous Damping

1One story, 50% nailing, no blocking, no adhesive 73.5 6,657 56 x 106 22.5%

2One story, 100% nailing, no blocking, no adhesive 86.0 7,143 70 x 106 19.1%

3AOne story, 100% nailing, 2 x 10 blocking, no adhesive 109.3 19,708 45 x 106 13.5%

3BOne story, 100% nailing, 3 x 4 blocking, no adhesive 114.6 32,322 41 x 106 13.7%

4AOne story, 50% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive 105.3 24,354 40 x 106 13.6%

4BOne story, 100% nailing, 3 x 4 blocking, PL400 adhesive 110.1 46,071 36 x 106 12.6%

4COne story, 100% nailing, 2 x 10 blocking, PL400 adhesive 134.7 51,408 45 x 106 12.5%

4DOne story, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive 101.7 31,580 36 x 106 13.6%

5Two stories, fully sheathed, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

296.6 36,450 157 x 106 5.6%

6Two stories, small openings, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

277.6 30,225 158 x 106 6.0%

7Two stories, perforated shearwall design, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

238.3 87,992 81 x 106 8.1%

8Two stories, conventional construction, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

217.1 31,283 103 x 106 6.6%

9Two stories, large opening, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

216.6 40,928 89 x 106 8.3%

10Two stories, finish materials, 100% nailing, no blocking, PL400 adhesive

425.7 -- -- 10.1%

VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES


VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH LATERAL STIFNESS


VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH FIRST MODAL DAMPING RATIOS


CAPACITY SPECTRA

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5

Peak Roof Relative Displacement (in)

Maximum Base Shear (kips)

Phase 10 Phase 9

Phase 8 Conventional Construction

Phase 7 Perforated Shearwalls

Phase 5

Phase 6 Engineered Constructio

Level 5, Rinaldi, PGA = 0.89g ( s )

Level 4, Canoga Park, PGA = 0.50g ( l )

Level 3, Canoga Park, PGA = 0.36g ( n)

Level 2, Canoga Park, PGA = 0.22g ( u )

Level 1, Canoga Park, PGA = 0.05g (-)


EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS

Phase 5 - Fully Sheathed Phase 6 - Symmetrical Openings

f = 5.62 Hz f = 4.25 Hz

43% decrease in initial lateral stiffnessSignificant increase in driftLarge increase in overturning with narrow

shearwall piers


EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSTest Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Base Shear (kips)


Relative Roof Displacement (in) Relative Roof Displacement (in)

20.0 kips

-14.8 kips

0.90 in

-0.51 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

22.6 kips

-18.8 kips

1.74 in

-1.35 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40


EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSTest Level 4 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces



EFFECT OF WASTE WALL SHEATHING

Phase 6 – With Waste Wall Sheathing Phase 6A - Without Waste Wall Sheathing

f = 3.71 Hz f = 3.27 Hz

22% decrease in initial lateral stiffnessSignificant increase in drift


EFFECT OF WASTE WALL SHEATHINGTest Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Base Shear (kips)

Phase 6 - With Waste Wall Sheathing Phase 6A - Without Waste Wall Sheathing


18.3 kips

-11.4 kips

1.94 in

-1.17 in

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

15.3 kips

-11.4 kips

0.93 in

-0.60 in

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

20

40

60

80

0 10 20 30 40

0

20

40

60

80

0 10 20 30 40


PERFORMANCE OF PERFORATED SHEARWALL CONSTRUCTION

Phase 6: Engineered Construction Phase 7: Perforated Shearwall Construction

f = 4.25 Hz f = 3.91 Hz

15% decrease in lateral stiffness Significant increase in driftLarge increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud

uplift



Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Base Shear (kips)

Phase 6 - Engineered Construction Phase 7 - Perforated Shearwall Construction


22.6 kips

-18.8 kips

1.74 in

-1.35 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 10 20 30 40

25.7 kips

-18.0 kips

2.50 in

-1.43 in

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 10 20 30 40

Phase 6:

Holdowns & Inter-story Straps at all Openings

Phase 7:

Holdowns & Inter-story Straps Only at Ends of Walls



Test Level 4 First Story Sill Plate & Holdown Stud Uplift

Phase 6: Engineered Construction

Phase 7: Perforated Shearwall Construction


PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

Phase 6: Engineered Construction Phase 8: Conventional Construction

f = 4.25 Hz f = 4.15 Hz

Reduction in stiffness due to increased overturningSignificant increase in driftLarge increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud

uplift


PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTIONTest Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Phase 6: Holdowns & Inter-story Straps at All Openings

Phase 8: Holdowns & Inter-story Straps Removed

Base Shear (kips)

Phase 6 - Engineered Construction Phase 8 - Conventional Construction


22.6 kips

-18.8 kips

1.74 in

-1.35 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 10 20 30 40

22.7 kips

-16.8 kips

2.56 in

-1.54 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 10 20 30 40


PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTIONTest Level 4 First Story Sill Plate & Holdown Stud Uplift

Phase 6: Engineered Construction

Phase 8: Conventional Construction


EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSPhase 6: Symmetrical

OpeningsPhase 9: Non-

Symmetrical Openings

f = 4.25 Hz f = 3.96 Hz

Slight reduction in lateral stiffness with large garage door opening in east wall

Torsional behavior seen in acceleration & displacement responses

High overturning in shearwall piers adjacent to garage door opening


EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSTest Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Base Shear (kips)

Phase 6 - Symmetrical Openings Phase 9 - Non-Symmetrical Openings


22.6 kips

-18.8 kips

1.74 in

-1.35 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

40

80

120

160

0 10 20 30 40

24.0 kips

-18.7 kips

2.67 in

-1.86 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

40

80

120

160

0 10 20 30 40


EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSTest Level 4 First Story Relative Displacement Time-Histories

Relative Displacement (in)

Phase 9 - West Wall Phase 9 - East Wall

Time (s) Time (s)

1.56 in

-1.00 in

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

0 10 20 30 40

1.37 in

-0.87 in

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

0 10 20 30 40

22.6 kips

-18.8 kips

1.74 in

-1.35 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

24.0 kips

-18.7 kips

2.67 in

-1.86 in

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0


EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGSTest Level 4 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces

Phase 6: Symmetrical Openings

Phase 9: Non-Symmetrical Openings


EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS

No Wall Finish Materials Wall Finish Materials

f = 3.96 Hz f = 6.49 Hz

170% increase in lateral stiffness with wall finish materials

Significant decrease in displacement responseTest structure behaved as a shell with wall finish

materials


DAMAGE – PHASE 9

Nail pull-out from shear wall


Permanent deformation of shear wall

DAMAGE – PHASE 9CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

DAMAGE – PHASE 9

Diagonal cracking of OSB at top corners of door openings


DAMAGE – PHASE 10

Diagonal cracking of stucco at top corners of door openings


DAMAGE – PHASE 10

Hairline cracking of stucco at corners of window openings


DAMAGE – PHASE 10

Diagonal cracking of gypsum wall board at top corners of partition openings


DAMAGE – PHASE 10

Cracking and spalling of gypsum wall board at face of 4x4 post of bearing wall


EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALSTest Level 5 Global Hysteretic Behavior

Base Shear (kips)

Phase 9 - Without Wall Finish Materials Phase 10 - With Wall Finish Materials


28.6 kips

-31.3 kips

0.77 in

-0.90 in

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0

23.5 kips

-28.9 kips

2.67 in

-4.22 in

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0

0

50

100

150

200

0 10 20 30 40

0

50

100

150

200

0 10 20 30 40


EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALSTest Level 5 Roof Relative Displacement Time-Histories


EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALSTest Level 5 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces

Phase 9: Without Wall Finish Materials

Phase 10: With Wall Finish Materials


CONCLUSIONS ON WALL FINISHES FROM SHAKE TABLE TESTS

– Wall finishes improved the seismic performance of the test structure dramatically

– Further research is needed to quantify structural contributions of stucco and gypsum wall boards

– Long-term performance of stucco needs to be addressed

– Other Element 1 Tasks modified based on these results


task 1.1.1 shake table tests of a two-story house andre filiatrault david fischer bryan folz...

Documents

research meeting

blocking phase

woodframe project activities

perforated phase

engineered phase

residential woodframe

sheathed phase

wall finish phase