Testing Full-Scale Buildings and Building Components

Mike Bartlett

f.m.bartlett@uwo.ca

The next half hour:

• Objective-based National Building Code of Canada 2005

• Testing the DuraKit Shelter

• Full-scale Testing at the IRLBH

NBCC 2005

• Model for provincial codes referenced in municipal bylaws

• Focus: safety and health

NBCC 2005 is Objective-based

Division A (new!)

• 4 objective categories

• 46 functional statements

Division B (familiar)

• “Acceptable solutions”

• transition mechanism

Why this change?

“Codes freeze technology”

- Prof. Paul Gavreau, U of T

Opportunity to innovate

Solutions must achieve the minimum level of performance defined in Division B.

Safety Objectives in NBCC 05

OS 1: Fire Safety

OS 2: Structural Safety

OS 3: Safety in Use

OS 4: Resistance to Unwanted Entry

OS 5: Safety at Construction and Demolition Sites

Health Objectives in NBCC 05

OH 1: Indoor Conditions (air quality, thermal comfort, moisture)

OH 2: Sanitation

OH 3: Noise Protection

OS 4: Vibration and Deflection Limitation

OH 5: Hazardous Substances Containment

Opportunity to validate new technologies

• Benchmark existing construction

• Reproduce realistic demands, environments, accurately

• Demonstrate new construction (or construction product) is equal or better

Questions?

Case Study (pre-IRLBH):Full Scale Testing the DuraKit Shelter

DuraKit DuraKit Facility, Bond HeadFacility, Bond Head OntarioOntario

A Corrugated Fibreboard House

Component Testing at UWO Structures Lab

Shear

• Replaces TAPPI test

• Simulates shear deformation

• Note vertical tear, horizontal wrinkle

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Z

0

2

4

X

0

1

2

3

4

5

y

Finite Element Analysis of Shelter

Key: Blue = good, Green = fair, Red = trouble

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Z

0

2

4

X0

1

2

y

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

2

4

X0

1

2

y

Effect of Window Openings

No Openings End Window and DoorOpenings

Loading Criteria

hurricane-force winds,approximate wind speed 36m/s (130km/h)

Roof Loading System

Envelope Failure

Before After

Preliminary Results

Need for Full-Scale Testing

• Components:

–Walls: 2.8 kPa (60 psf)

–Roof: 3.9 kPa uplift (81 psf)

• Full Scale Shelter:

–Walls: 2.3 kPa (47 psf)

–Roof: 2.5/2.2 kPa uplift (53/45 psf)

• Qualified by Building Materials Evaluation Commission of Ontario Ministry of Housing

Lessons Learned

• Specimen failed before design load reached

• Component tests and computer modeling did not captureconstruction flaws, system response

Failure

The Insurance Research Lab for Better Homes – a $6.8 M Facility

Full-scale tests of:• structural response• building envelope performance

TestSpecimen

Strongfloor

ReactionFrame

Shell

21 m

Better homes & home owners

1. Move prescriptive building codes (now based on past practice) to become founded on scientific evidence and sound engineering principles

2. Improve design and installation of homes and building materials in partnership with builders and manufacturers

3. Educate the public on safety issues

Validate Computer Load Path Analyses

(Fig.: J. Nocent)

Capture load paths using in-place instrumentation

Jeff Nocentcompleting load cell installation in 2x4 truss chord

Here is what we are benchmarking!

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

-5

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

Pre

ss

ure

(k

Pa

)

Time (sec)

ObservedTarget

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

-5

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

ObtainedTarget

Engineer reproducibleturbulent wind

And…

1. Optimize/reverse engineer housing design.

2. Demonstrate new materials and forms of construction are as good as a traditional wood-frame house.

3. Change to standard test procedures (e.g., ASTM) to better reflect real behaviour.

Full-scale buildings and components

too

First test wall in panel test rig

Questions?