Page images
PDF
EPUB

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

[blocks in formation]

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

CODEN: BSSNB

Issued November, 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.29/2: 25), Price $1.25

Architectural

Library

TH

? , u58 no 25

Certain proprietary and patented building systems, structural components, and building materials are identified in this report in order to adequately specify the test specimen and the experimental procedures. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the proprietary products identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

This report does not account for possible variation in the performance of these proprietary products.

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

[ocr errors][merged small]

Contents

Page

11

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

List of Figures

[blocks in formation]

1

34

[ocr errors]

38

40

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Figure

Page 5.1. Typical complete structure

32 5.2. Structural system model

32 5.3. Typical bay of two-bay frame test

32 5.4. Assembling structural frame

32 5.5. Beam and column reinforcement

32 5.6. Elevation of column reinforcement

33 5.7. Long column details

33 5.8. Main beam reinforcement 5.9. Main beam sections

34 5.10. Tie-beam plan and elevation

35 5.11. Beam and column connection

35 5.12. Tie-beam end details

36 5.13. Plan sections of column connections

37 5.14. Elevation sections of column connections 5.15. Connection detail

39 5.16. Floor channels 5.17. Plan section through walls

40 5.18. Fire wall

41 5.19. Fire wall (partially dismantled)

42 5.20. Exterior wall details

43 5.21. Structicore wall sections

44 5.22. Interior “Structicore” walls (partially dismantled)

44 5.23. Foundation detail

44 5.24. Test structure before the installation of walls

44 5.25. Test structure after the installation of walls -

44 5.26. Test structure with testing equipment installed (top view)

55 5.27. Test structure with testing equipment installed (front view)

55 5.28. Column load equipment connection

46 5.29. Racking load equipment connection

46 6.1. Loading of test structure

46 7.1. Instrumentation location. Northeast schematic

47 7.2. Instrumentation location. Southwest schematic

47 7.3. Vertical deflection gages

48 7.4. Column strain gage location

48 9.1. Test No. 5, sustained vertical load versus

midspan deflection of center main beam 48 9.2. Test No. 16, Major floor load (w) versus

midspan deflection of center main beam 49 9.3. Diagonal tension cracking at w = 270 psf (Test No. 16)

49 9.4.

Interior floor load (w) and total floor load

(w + w') versus midspan and column

support deflection of center main beam --- 50 9.5. Midspan deflection of west main beam with and without walls

50 9.6. Tests No. 12A and 13A, vertical load versus north translation

51 9.7. Tests No. 12 and 13, vertical load versus east translation

51 9.8. Test No. 2, south wind load versus translation

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

52 9.10. North-south horizontal translation of structure with and without walls

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

53

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

54 9.13. Effect of vertical loads on north-south horizontal translation

54 9.14. Test No. 14, south wind load versus translation

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

55 9.16. Test No. 3, west wind load versus translation

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

56 9.18. East-west horizontal translation of structure with and without walls

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

57 9.20. Drywall crack near ceiling on interior side of east wall

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

58 9.22. Effect of vertical loads on east-west horizontal translation

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

59 10.1. Test method for column tests (minor axis) 60 10.2. Test method for column tests (major axis) - 60 10.3. Column under test

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

60 10.5. Short-term test on column No. 5

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

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

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

61 10.9. Short-term test on column No. 7

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

62 10.11. Columns after testing

62 10.12. Column ends after testing

62 10.13. Creep loading frame for columns No. 3 minor axis bending

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

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

63 10.16. Sustained load test, column No. 4

64 10.17. Sustained load test, column No. 3

64 10.18. Columns with major axis eccentricity 64 10.19. Columns with minor axis eccentricity

64 10.20. Column creep with major axis eccentricity - 65 10.21. Column creep with minor axis eccentricity 65 10.22. Channel roof slab test

65 10.23. Beam to slab shear connectors

66 10.24. Fatigue test on main beam

66 10.25. Fatigue loading, beam No. 5

67 10.26. Fatigue loading, beam No. 9

67 10.27. Fatigue loading, beam No. 8

68 10.28. Fatigue loading, beam No. 6

68 11.1. Sample report form

69

A. 1-A. 76. Plotted test results

70-110 B. 1. Column simulation effect on connection moments

111 B. 2. Moment distribution

112 C. 1. Wind loads

116

IV

Structural Performance Evaluation of a Building System*

Edward O. Pfrang and Felix Y. Yokel**

A full-scale, first-story portion of a building system was tested in the laboratory in such a manner as to simulate the structural behavior of a three-story building under both service and potential ultimate loading conditions. Additional tests were performed on the system components to provide behavioral data needed for the evaluation of the system.

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

The primary conclusions reached were:

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

(2) The walls of the system behaved as an integral part of the structure. They
provided most of the stiffness of the system with respect to lateral loads, and provided
a significant portion of the stiffness against vertical loads.
Key words: Building systems; low-income housing; performance criteria; performance

testing.

1. Introduction

simplified analysis [1]. Strict reliance on these conventional concepts tends to inhibit innovative solutions to the building problem.

It is now recognized that the United States has a severe housing shortage, particularly in the area of low-income housing. This shortage is of such magnitude and urgency as to make questionable its solution through conventional means. It appears that only systems-type solutions taking full advantage of the innovative capabilities of our advanced technology will be capable of coping with this problem economically and within an acceptable time framework.

Traditionally, structural innovations in building construction have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary and have taken place in small, carefully considered increments. Many of these incremental steps have been based upon extensive laboratory and analytical investigation. Progress has usually been based upon component testing and upon simplified and conservative analyses which do not fully account for system interaction. Because of these simplifications, the strengthening effects of so-called nonstructural portions of a building system are, in general, neglected and the complex interaction of components is frequently overlooked. As a result, in those few cases where tests on complete building systems have been performed, results have been obtained which in most cases indicate strength and rigidity far in excess of that predicted either by component testing or by conventional

One solution to this dilemma would be fullscale system tests coupled with mathematical analysis. However, full-scale tests of large building systems are prohibitively expensive and time-consuming and are also difficult to interpret unless they are performed under ideal laboratory control. In addition, the development of mathematical theories generally depends upon a trial-and-error feedback process involving numerous cycles of physical testing. A more reasonable approach appears to be the execution in the laboratory of large-scale subsystem tests which simulate total system behavior. If such subsystems are carefully chosen and are tested in a manner designed to simulate the performance of the total system, and if they are supplemented by critical component tests, then they can be used as a basis for determining the structural adequacy of proposed innovative solutions. This report summarizes the results of such an evaluative study.

2. Objective and Scope

This report presents the results and evaluation of a structural performance test on an innovative building system. Criteria for structural performance and for performance testing are developed and are subsequently applied to system evaluation.

Work sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20410.

Associate Professor of Engineering. on leave from School of Advanced Technology, State University of New York at Binghamton, New York 13901.

| Figures in brackets indicate the literature references on p. 23.

« PreviousContinue »