Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. In general, the wall deflected forward for low water loads, then back- <br />ward, as the water depth became greater than 0.8 to 1.6 ft. <br /> <br />. The wall deflections were very small (thousandth of an inch in magni- <br />tude) until 2 to 2.4 ft of water loading at which time the wall began <br />to deflect drastically backward for small increases in water depth. <br /> <br />. Wall 2 (with door opening) deflected more forward but approximately the <br />same backward as Wall 1. The result was that the backward deflection <br />caused failure of the wall at about the same load as for Wall 1. The <br />lintel strengthened the wall at the door opening, thereby causing the <br />opening to have little effect on the final response of the wall. <br /> <br />The wall deflected forward for low water loads because cord lengthening <br />in the vicinity of the loading caused the upper part of the wall to cup for- <br />ward. In an actual home, the finishing materials on the inside of the studs <br />will give support to the wall and allow it to experience a deeper water load- <br />ing than indicated by these tests. Computer solutions could be used to deter- <br />mine the effect of such restraints. The significant point is that the deflec- <br />tions recorded for Wall 2 at a given water depth should be an upper bound of <br />deflections experienced in an actual brick-veneer house under the same load- <br />ing. The failure of Wall 2 is shown in Figures 13 and 14. <br />Experimental Results, Wall 3 <br />Wall deflections were comparatively less in Walls 2 and 3 than in Wall 1 <br />under compressive loading because of the omission of wallboard in Walls 2 and <br />3. The wallboard is normally attached to the outside face of the stud fram- <br />ing, and the ties are attached to the outside face of the wallboard. This <br />wallboard is more compressive than its supporting studs and its omission <br />should result in less deflection. The purpose of omitting the wallboard from <br />Wall 3 was to observe wall response and crack development along the backside <br />of the brick-veneer wall. <br />Tie restraints should also vary between walls for the same loading be- <br />cause the amount of mortar at each tie location is randomly varied due to <br />varying amounts catching on ties during construction. The data generated by <br />this investigation are insufficient for determining the exact effects of such <br />variables in relation to wall response. Such determinations can be best <br />resolved through the use of computer code programs. Computer program solu- <br />tions can also be used to delineate the significance of other variables such <br />as wall length, boundary restraints, and material properties. <br />Wall 3 with its ceiling joist and roof rafter restraints represents <br />the side or similarly braced wall in a brick-veneer dwelling. Typical plots <br /> <br />11 <br />