FLOOD04190 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

deflections increased drastically for small increases in water depth. The wall had failed for sustained loading when the water depth was about 2.4 ft. The deflection of the wall is very small (on an order of magnitude of a thou- sandth of an inch) until the wall begins to fail. At this point, the deflec- tion increases rapidly with water depth. The analytical results for Wall 1 compare favorably with the experimental results. opening in the center. mental results of Wall The significant factors 2 are: except with a 3-ft door as indicated by the experi- Wall 2 was constructed identical to Wall 1 . In general, the wall deflected forward toward the water loading for low water loads then backward as the water depth became greater than 0.8 to 1.6 ft. . The wall deflections were very small (thousandths of an inch) for depths up to 2 to 2.4 ft of water at which time the wall began to deflect drastically backward for small increases in water depth. . Wall 2 (with door opening) deflected more forward but approximately the same backward as Wall 1. The backward deflection causing failure of the wall was about the same as for Wall 1. The lintel strengthened the wall at the door opening; thereby, causing the opening to have little effect on the final response of the wall. Wall 3 was constructed identical to Wall 1 except it included roof rafter and ceiling joist restraints. The significant findings from the experimental results of Wall 3 are: o In general, the roof rafter and ceiling joist restraints decrease the movement of the wall toward the water loading. . The roof rafter and ceiling joist restraints are sufficient to cause a change in the failure mechanism from that which was experienced in Walls 1 and 2. The failure mechanism for Walls 1 and 2 was deflection and failure of the brick wall. The failure mechanism for Wall 3 was beam failure of the studs and a resulting collapse of the brick wall. . The deflection of the brick wall begins to increase rapidly with water depth after about 1-1/2 ft but the increase is not as great as was experienced for Walls 1 and 2. This is indicated by the fact that the wall did not collapse until approximately 57 in. of water loading had been attained. . Even though the wall can withstand greater water depths than Walls and 2, it fails suddenly and totally when the stud wall failed. The structural integrity of the brick-veneer Walls 1 and 2 was completely lost at about 2-1/2 ft of water loading. The type restraint did cause a change in the total capacity of the wall to resist hydrostatic loading because 17