Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The walls were built to represent those which exist in typical home con- <br />struction (Figure 6). Walls were 8 ft high by 26 ft long. <br />In the prototype situation, floodwaters would be on all sides of the <br />house. If the house is sealed from water penetration, the forces against <br />opposite walls are the same (forces caused by debris and the flow of water are <br />neglected) and cause no lateral deflection of roof rafters at the intersection <br />of the gable. In a like manner, there would be small deflections of the ends <br />of the walls with movements due only to structural deformations. To simulate <br />the real situation, stub walls (Figure 3) were constructed at 90 deg to the <br />wall which was to be loaded. To represent the effect of the perpendicular <br />wall framing, the end studs were braced so they would be restrained perpen- <br />dicularly to the wall being tested. <br />The stud framing, wallboard, and wall clips as constructed for Wall 1 are <br />shown in Figure 6. The wall clips were spaced 32 in. on centers in the hori- <br />zontal direction (on every other stud) and between every fifth layer of brick <br />in the vertical direction for all three walls. <br />The walls were tested by a horizontal water load which was contained by a <br />trough and plastic liner (Figure 7). The water depth in front of the wall was <br />increased at about 1 to 2 ft/hr. As the water depth increased, deflections of <br />the walls were monitored. Gages were arranged in horizontal and vertical <br />lines to give the variations of wall deflection in cross sections. <br />Experimental results. Wall 1 <br />The water depth was increased at the front of the wall at a rate of about <br />to 2 ft/hr; thereby, loading the brick-veneer wall with horizontal pressure. <br />As the horizontal load increased, the gages were monitored and the deflected <br />shape of the wall was measured. <br />The deflection at any specific point on the wall, as indicated by indi- <br />vidual gages, followed a smooth variation (Figure 8). After the water reached <br />a 2-ft level, the wall deflection increased drastically for small increases in <br />water depth. The wall began to react plastically and deflect large amounts <br />for small increases in water load. Wall failure occurred for sustained load- <br />ing when the water depth was approximately 2.4 ft. Without the roof rafter <br />and ceiling joist restraints, the stud wall provided insignificant restraint <br />and the wall could continue to deflect and fail. <br />In general, much of the upper part of the wall deflected forward or <br />toward the load for water depths no greater than 1 ft, an unexpected and <br /> <br />8 <br />