CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 1 — Research Meeting

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

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

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 REVIEW OF TESTING PHASES Phase 5 Phases 1 -4 Quasi-Static Tests Phases 6 -8 Phases 9 -10 Phase 6: Engineered Phase 9: No Wall Finish Phase 7: Perforated Phase 10: With Wall Finish Phase 8: Conventional Seismic Tests

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 REVIEW OF TEST PROTOCOL • Low amplitude frequency and damping evaluation tests between shaking levels

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

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 QUASI-STATIC TESTS • 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 3 a: 100% nailing, no adhesive, 2 x 10 blocking Phase 3 b: 100% nailing, no adhesive, 3 x 4 blocking Phase 4 a: 50% nailing, PL 400 adhesive, no blocking Phase 4 b: 100% nailing, PL 400 adhesive, 3 x 4 blocking Phase 4 c: 100% nailing, PL 400 adhesive, 2 x 10 blocking Phase 4 d: 100% nailing, PL 400 adhesive, no blocking

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 Blocking Configurations 2 x 10 Blocking 3 x 4 Blocking

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 Phases 1 -4: General View

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

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 • Diaphragm analysis b F/2 L/2 d

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH LATERAL STIFNESS

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 VARIATIONS OF NORTH-SOUTH FIRST MODAL DAMPING RATIOS

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

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Phase 5 - Fully Sheathed Phase 6 - Symmetrical Openings f = 5. 62 Hz f = 4. 25 Hz q 43% decrease in initial lateral stiffness q Significant increase in drift q Large increase in overturning with narrow shearwall piers

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Test Level 4 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces Phase 5 - Fully Sheathed Phase 6 - Symmetrical Openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WASTE WALL SHEATHING Phase 6 – With Waste Wall Sheathing Phase 6 A - Without Waste Wall Sheathing f = 3. 71 Hz f = 3. 27 Hz q 22% decrease in initial lateral stiffness q Significant increase in drift

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WASTE WALL SHEATHING Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF PERFORATED SHEARWALL CONSTRUCTION Phase 6: Engineered Construction f = 4. 25 Hz Phase 7: Perforated Shearwall Construction f = 3. 91 Hz q 15% decrease in lateral stiffness q Significant increase in drift q Large increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud uplift

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF PERFORATED SHEARWALL CONSTRUCTION Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior Phase 6: Phase 7: Holdowns & Inter-story Straps at all Openings Holdowns & Inter-story Straps Only at Ends of Walls

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF PERFORATED SHEARWALL CONSTRUCTION Test Level 4 First Story Sill Plate & Holdown Stud Uplift Phase 6: Engineered Construction Phase 7: Perforated Shearwall Construction

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION Phase 6: Engineered Construction f = 4. 25 Hz Phase 8: Conventional Construction f = 4. 15 Hz q Reduction in stiffness due to increased overturning q Significant increase in drift q Large increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud uplift

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior Phase 6: Holdowns & Inter-story Straps at All Openings Phase 8: Holdowns & Inter-story Straps Removed

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION Test Level 4 First Story Sill Plate & Holdown Stud Uplift Phase 6: Engineered Construction Phase 8: Conventional Construction

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Phase 6: Symmetrical Openings Phase 9: Non. Symmetrical Openings f = 4. 25 Hz f = 3. 96 Hz q Slight reduction in lateral stiffness with large garage door opening in east wall q Torsional behavior seen in acceleration & displacement responses q High overturning in shearwall piers adjacent to garage door opening

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Test Level 4 Global Hysteretic Behavior

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Test Level 4 First Story Relative Displacement Time-Histories

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Test Level 4 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces Phase 6: Symmetrical Openings Phase 9: Non-Symmetrical Openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS No Wall Finish Materials f = 3. 96 Hz f = 6. 49 Hz q 170% increase in lateral stiffness with wall finish materials q Significant decrease in displacement response q Test structure behaved as a shell with wall finish materials

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 9 Nail pull-out from shear wall

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 9 Permanent deformation of shear wall

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 9 Diagonal cracking of OSB at top corners of door openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 10 Diagonal cracking of stucco at top corners of door openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 10 Hairline cracking of stucco at corners of window openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 10 Diagonal cracking of gypsum wall board at top corners of partition openings

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 DAMAGE – PHASE 10 Cracking and spalling of gypsum wall board at face of 4 x 4 post of bearing wall

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS Test Level 5 Global Hysteretic Behavior

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS Test Level 5 Roof Relative Displacement Time-Histories

CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001 EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS Test Level 5 Peak Anchor Bolt Forces Phase 9: Without Wall Finish Materials Phase 10: With Wall Finish Materials

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