12986249 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Warren Jackson B1215 Screen Gnd Test 003.jpg - - e1 Pa 9 Test Results Wall Panel 4 was tested 32 days after casting.Figure 36 shows a photograph of the test setup. The test procedure described earlier was followed for this panel.Figure 37 shows the lateral load vs.lateral displacement(at the top of the specimen)response curve.Displacement readings of the transducer installed at the bottom of the wall in the windward side were plotted against the applied lateral load and are shown in Fig.38. The wall panel was loaded gradually to up to about 5,000 lb.At this level the loading was kept constant and the wall panel was inspected for visible signs of damage or distress.No damage was observed.Also,the lateral load—laical displacement curve up to this level followed a linear path, indicating lack ofdamage.The fast crack was visible at the wall panel to footing interface in the windward side at an applied load of about 9,000 lb.When reviewing Figs.37 and 38,it is clear that the first crack happened at about 8,600 Ib,where the slope of the curves in both figures '.. shows a drastic change.This indicates that this wall panel resisted about twice as much lateral load as the maximum load attained in wood-and steel-frame panels without any sign of damage or distress.At an applied load of about 11,000 Ib,a horizonial crack developed starting from the windward side of the wall about 12 in.from the footing.This crack inclined toward the base of the wall after passing the position of the first dowel bar along the interface of the wall and footing.The formation of this crack suggests that the dowel action of the bar between the footing and the wall resulted in separation of a large chunk of concrete from the wall,and can be considered as failure of the wall to footing joint.Formation of this crack dropped the load slightly,however,the load increased with increasing the lateral displacement.Shortly after this stage,at a lateral load of about 12,000 lb,an inclined crack developed starting from the windward side at about 1/3 of the wall height from the bottom,This shear crack reduced the lateral load considerably,to about 7,500 lb.With increasing lateral displacement,the load gradually increased almost linearly.As the load increased,significant opening and extension '.. were observed in the existing cracks.The inclined shear crack developed earlier extended toward the leeward toe of the wall.At the maximum lateral resistance of27889 Ib,the shear crack extended all along the wall,resulting in complete shear failure and an abrupt drop in lateral load. Lateral displacement at the maximum load was about 1.7 in.The test was terminated after shear failure.The failure mode of this panel is shown in Figs.39 and 40.These figures clearly demonstrate the shear-dominated failure pattern for this wall panel. From the data collected,the global shear stiffness of the panel was calculated using Eq.2.Global shear stiffness(G')was calculated to be 526,000 lb/in.for a 5,000 lb lateral load level and 320,000 lbt .for an 8,600 lb lateral load level. WALL PANEL 5,ICF WAFFLE-GRID WALL PANEL Wall Panel 5 was an ICF waffle-grid panel.The forms for this specimen were provided by American Polysteel Forms.Figure 41 shows the forms used for casting.This wall panel was designed for wind speed of up to 70 miles per hour according to the Prescriptive Method for Insulating Concrete Forms in Residential Construction. 9