Laserfiche WebLink
<br />even a slight deflection (Figure 9). This means that the wall itself was <br />seriously damaged at relatively small deflections. To be conservative, the <br />wall deflection should be kept below approximately 0.01 in. in the direction <br />of the water loading. The deflection of the wall is mentioned because it is <br />probably a more reliable guide for general wall configurations than the water <br />depth. For example, the same water depth might produce less deflection or <br />damage on a short wall than on a longer wall. Similar damage would more than <br />likely occur around the same wall deflection than the same water depth. If <br />the wall deflects more than 0.01 in., there is damage and a chance that it <br />will not support service loads or vibrations during normal operation. The <br />deflection criteria will be practicable only after further study and failure <br />charts are developed by computer solutions. <br />A severe loss of integrity began at 2 ft of water with complete loss <br />occurring at 2.4 ft (Figure 8). The failure at 2.4 ft of water is presented <br />in Figures 10 and 11. <br />Prototype tests performed on complete residential structures have now <br />shown that 2 ft of water depth is conservative and a brick-veneer house can <br />withstand approximately 3 ft of water loading. Wall damage will occur if <br />loaded in excess of 3 ft, and this will be discussed in more detail in <br />Part VI. <br />Experimental Results. Wall 2 <br />As the water depth increased, the gages were monitored and the deflected <br />shape of the wall was measured. A typical plot of water depth versus wall <br />deflection is shown in Figure 12. <br />In general, the vertical sections of gage measurements showed progres- <br />sively more deflection with an increase in wall height as the water loading <br />increased. This was true for both forward (toward water loading) and backward <br />(away from water loading) wall deflections. <br />The bottom and side restraints had less effect on the forward deflection <br />of Wall 2 than for Wall 1 because of the door in the center of Wall 2. <br />The wall failed during the initial loading, but much of the initial <br />deflection was recovered after the water load was removed. Some of the gages <br />were replaced against the wall and it was reloaded. The forward deflection <br />during reloading was less than during the initial loading, but the failure of <br />the wall was at a lower water depth (approximately 2 ft). The results of <br />testing indicated the following: <br /> <br />10 <br />