1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

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

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

8. Blocking Configurations 2x10 Blocking3x4 Blocking CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

10. 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

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

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

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

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

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

17. EFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Phase 5 - Fully Sheathed Phase 6 - Symmetrical Openings f = 5.62 Hzf = 4.25 Hz 43% decrease in initial lateral stiffness Significant increase in drift Large increase in overturning with narrow shearwall piers CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

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

20. EFFECT OF WASTE WALL SHEATHING Phase 6 – With Waste Wall SheathingPhase 6A - Without Waste Wall Sheathing f = 3.71 Hzf = 3.27 Hz 22% decrease in initial lateral stiffness Significant increase in drift CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

22. PERFORMANCE OF PERFORATED SHEARWALL CONSTRUCTION Phase 6: Engineered ConstructionPhase 7: Perforated Shearwall Construction f = 4.25 Hz f = 3.91 Hz 15% decrease in lateral stiffness Significant increase in drift Large increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud uplift CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

24. 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

25. PERFORMANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION Phase 6: Engineered ConstructionPhase 8: Conventional Construction f = 4.25 Hzf = 4.15 Hz Reduction in stiffness due to increased overturning Significant increase in drift Large increase in first story sill plate & holdown stud uplift CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

26. 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

27. 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

28. EFFECT OF NON-SYMMETRICAL OPENINGS Phase 6: Symmetrical Openings Phase 9: Non- Symmetrical Openings f = 4.25 Hzf = 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 CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

30. 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

31. 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

32. EFFECT OF WALL FINISH MATERIALS No Wall Finish MaterialsWall Finish Materials f = 3.96 Hzf = 6.49 Hz 170% increase in lateral stiffness with wall finish materials Significant decrease in displacement response Test structure behaved as a shell with wall finish materials CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

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

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

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

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

38. 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

39. DAMAGE – PHASE 10 Cracking and spalling of gypsum wall board at face of 4x4 post of bearing wall CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Element 1 - Research Meeting, January 12, 2001

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

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

42. 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

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