Peter L. Datin, Ph.D.            Risk Management Solutions    David O. Prevatt, Ph.D., P.E. (MA)              University o...
Hurricane (and Tornado) Wind Damage to Wood Structures    Hurricane                                     Main Finding/Recom...
Motivation and Background• The majority of U.S. homes are light-framed wood structural systems    • Structures are typical...
• Most residential LFWS are not engineered    • Prescriptive design methods based on anecdotal data       (Crandell et al....
Derive/predict                            (analytical) influence                                  functions               ...
00o                      Wind Direction                                                                                   ...
±1300 N Capacity
30 Pressure sensors12 roof-to-wall   load cells                                                                           ...
Wind generator: 2,800 hp engines driving eight 1.5 m diameter axial fansTest wind speed: 22 m/sThree wind directions: 000o...
R2                                        R2     R1                                        R1          S3               S2...
• Roof-to-wall connections     R2R1          S3               S2                                                 0.2      ...
• Roof-to-wall connections                                                                 0                              ...
• Wall-to-foundation connections     R2                                                              R2R1                 ...
• Gable end connections                                        0     R2                                                   ...
• Gable end connection differences               With                                                                 With...
Time     Influence Coefficients   Roof Pressures                              (Wind Tunnel)17
• Wind tunnel time histories18                          (Simiu and Stathopoulos 1997; Main and Fritz 2006)
•   3m x 2m cross-section    • Suburban terrain     •   1:50 scale                 • (z0 = 0.22m, TI = 0.27)     •   387 r...
o       o          o       o         o                                                                               0    ...
• ASCE 7-05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings       and Other Structures)       • Main wind force resisting system (MWFR...
2500                                                                                                   MWFRS Low-Rise     ...
• Wall-to-foundation connections           Peak Reaction Load (lbs)   2000                                      1500      ...
• Gable end wall carries up to 70% of load applied       to gable end truss (if intermediate connections)        • In most...
• ASCE 7-05       • DAD showed that MWFRS underestimates peak loads         at gable end truss when intermediate connectio...
• Previous load stands ~1982 based on pseudo pressure       coefficients(GCp) developed by Stathopoulos (1979)     • Influ...
• ASCE 7-05        • MWFRS loads underestimate DAD-derived peak loads        • C&C better estimate of peak forces     • WF...
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support provided      by the National Science Foundation, under Grant #...
David O. Prevatt     dprev@ce.ufl.edu     University of Florida29
Session 12 ic2011 prevatt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Session 12 ic2011 prevatt

162

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
162
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Session 12 ic2011 prevatt"

  1. 1. Peter L. Datin, Ph.D. Risk Management Solutions David O. Prevatt, Ph.D., P.E. (MA) University of Florida Forest Products Services Convention, Portland, OR June 20111
  2. 2. Hurricane (and Tornado) Wind Damage to Wood Structures Hurricane Main Finding/Recommendation Reference (Year) Alicia Most structural damage due to loss of roof sheathing (Kareem 1985) (1983) “Total collapse of timber-framed houses was a common scene.” Gilbert Most of the damage due to anchorage deficiencies (Adams 1989; (1988) Continuous load path is needed Allen 1989) Hugo Roof loss with subsequent collapse of walls (Sparks 1990) (1989) Most damage was roof and wall cladding failures - extensive rain damage Andrew Excessive negative pressure and/or induced internal pressure (FEMA 1992) (1992) Correct methods for load transfer are needed Iniki Overload on roof systems due to uplift forces (FEMA 1993) (1992) Load path must be continuous from the roof to the foundation Charley High internal pressure from window failure was major cause of roof loss (FEMA 2005a; (2004) Load path needs to be continuous FEMA 2005c) Ivan Structural damage was due to sheathing loss (FEMA 2005b; (2004) Ensure a complete load path for uplift loads FEMA 2005c) Katrina Structural failures roof sheathing loss and roof-to-wall connection failure (FEMA 2006) (2005) A continuous load path must be present3
  3. 3. Motivation and Background• The majority of U.S. homes are light-framed wood structural systems • Structures are typically not engineered and lack rational framing • Problems of brittle failure of connections is well known for decades• Hurricane winds cause extensive damage to wood residences • 2004/2005: $73 billion damage in the US hurricane season • Roof structures (sheathing and roof-to-wall connections) are vulnerable• Current design and analysis methods do not predict failure mechanisms • Is the simplified wind design load methodology appropriate? • Does our limited knowledge of wind load paths hinder better design? Wind Fl
  4. 4. • Most residential LFWS are not engineered • Prescriptive design methods based on anecdotal data (Crandell et al. 2006) • Limited testing of components and assemblies of components • Few studies on field installation on real homes • Few engineering studies/results available to predict load transfer through a complex 3D LFWS (Li et al. 1998; Gupta et al. 2004; Gupta and Limkatanyoo 2008) • van de Lindt and Dao (2008) introduced performance- based wind engineering design • Requires fundamental understanding of wind uplift behavior of LFWS5
  5. 5. Derive/predict (analytical) influence functions Estimate reactions 1/50 wind tunnel Compare model Determine windCreate wind pressure distributions Predicted reactions 1/3-Scale Evaluate influence Wood Compare functions House Validation Measure structural Measured reactions reactions
  6. 6. 00o Wind Direction 45o 90o -0.5 -0.5 -2 -1 .2 -2 -0.8 -3 -1 -3 .5 -3 -2 .5.5 -212 -2 .5 3 -- -0.6 -2 -0 .8 -0.6 -2 -1 -1.5 -2 .52 - -2 -2 Clemson University Wind Tunnel -1 -2 -1.0 - -1 -1 .5 -1 .2 -1 -1 .5 -1.5 -1 .5 5 -1 . -1 -1 -1 .2 -0.8 -1 -1.5 .4 -1 .5 -0 -1.5 -1 -0 5 -1 . -1 -1 -0 .5 -1 -2 -1 .2 -1 .8 -1-1.5 -0.6 -2.0 1 -0.6 -2 -1 .4 .5 -0 -1 .2 -0- -2.5 -2.5 -1 -0 .8 -1 .2 .5 -1 -1 -1 -0.5 -1 .5 -1.4 2 -1. -3.0 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -0 .6 -0.5 -0 .8 -0 .6 5 -1 .4 -0 . -0 .5 -1 -3.5 -3.5 -0 .5 .2 -1 -1 .6 -1 -1 -0.8 --11 -1 .2 -4.0 -4 -1 -0 .5 -1 --11 .2 -1 -0 .5 -1..4 05 -1.6 -0.5 -1 .4 -0.6 - -1 -1.2 -0 .6 -0 . 5 -1 -1.4 -1 -1 -0 .8 -4.5 -4.5 Peak Pressure CoefficientsMensah, A.F., Datin, P.L., Prevatt, D.O., Gupta, R., van deLindt, J.W., (2010) “Database-assisted design methodologyto predict wind-induced structural behavior of a light-framed wood building”, Engineering Structures,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.028 7
  7. 7. ±1300 N Capacity
  8. 8. 30 Pressure sensors12 roof-to-wall load cells 9 foundation load cells Floor plan: 3 m wide by 4.1 m long (full-scale 9 m X 12.2 m)
  9. 9. Wind generator: 2,800 hp engines driving eight 1.5 m diameter axial fansTest wind speed: 22 m/sThree wind directions: 000o, 045o, 090o3 repeats, each at 10 minute periodsPressure data collected at 200 HzWind speed measured using Cobra Probe (5000 Hz); (5% TI) 10
  10. 10. R2 R2 R1 R1 S3 S2 S1 L3 L4 L5 L3 L4 L5 L2 L6 L2 L6 L1 L1 SF4 SF4 SF3 LF5 SF3 LF5 SF2 LF4 SF2 LF4 LF2LF3 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 SF1 LF1 With intermediate gable end connections Without intermediate gable end connections11
  11. 11. • Roof-to-wall connections R2R1 S3 S2 0.2 S1 L3 L4 L5 L6 0.4 0 0.2 L2 L1 SF4 SF3 LF5 0 LF4 0.4 SF2 LF2LF3 0 SF1 LF1 0.6 0 0. 4 0.6 0 0.2 0 0. 812
  12. 12. • Roof-to-wall connections 0 0 R2R1 S3 0 S2 L3 L4 L5 0.2 S1 L2 L6 SF4 L1 0.4 SF3 LF5 LF4 0 SF2 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 0. 6 0.2 0.8 0.4 013
  13. 13. • Wall-to-foundation connections R2 R2R1 R1 S3 S3 S2 S2 S1 L3 L4 L5 S1 L3 L4 L5 L2 L6 L2 L6 L1 0.1 L1 SF4 SF4 SF3 LF5 SF3 LF5 SF2 LF4 SF2 LF4 LF2LF3 0.2 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 SF1 LF1 0.1 LF2 SF114
  14. 14. • Gable end connections 0 R2 R2R1 R1 S3 0.3 S3 S2 S2 S1 L3 L4 L5 S1 L3 L4 L5 L2 L6 0.1 L2 L6 L1 0.1 L1 SF4 SF4 SF3 LF4 LF5 0.3 SF3 LF4 LF5 SF2 SF2 LF2LF3 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 SF1 LF115
  15. 15. • Gable end connection differences With Without intermediate intermediate gable gable end end connections connections R2 R2R1 R1 S3 S2 S1 L3 L4 L5 L3 L4 L5 L2 L6 L2 L6 L1 L1 SF4 SF4 SF3 LF5 SF3 LF5 SF2 LF4 SF2 LF4 LF2LF3 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 SF1 LF116 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
  16. 16. Time Influence Coefficients Roof Pressures (Wind Tunnel)17
  17. 17. • Wind tunnel time histories18 (Simiu and Stathopoulos 1997; Main and Fritz 2006)
  18. 18. • 3m x 2m cross-section • Suburban terrain • 1:50 scale • (z0 = 0.22m, TI = 0.27) • 387 roof pressure taps • Open terrain • 300 Hz sampling rate • (z0 = 0.047m, TI = 0.20)19
  19. 19. o o o o o 0 45 90 135 180 2000 2000 2 Peak Reactions (lbs) 1750 1750 1 Peak Reactions(lbs) 1500 1500 1 R2 R1 1250 1250 1 S3 S2 1000 1000 1 S1 L3 L4 L5 750 750 L2 L6 SF4 L1 500 500 SF3 LF5 250 250 SF2 LF4 LF2LF3 SF1 LF1 0 Mean (lbs) Mean (lbs) 500 500 250 250 0 0 LF5 LF4 LF3 LF2 LF1 SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 LF1 SF1 L6 L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 S1 S2 S3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 LF5 LF4 LF3 LF2 SF2 SF3 SF4 L6 L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 S1 S2 S3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Roof-to-Wall Connection Wall-to-Foundation Connec Roof-to-Wall Connection Wall-to-Foundation Connectio Gable end wall carries significant load and reduces corner reaction loads20
  20. 20. • ASCE 7-05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures) • Main wind force resisting system (MWFRS) • Low-rise method (≤ 60 ft or 18m) • All heights method • Components and cladding (C&C) • Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM) • One- and two-family dwellings • Optional high wind area guide21
  21. 21. 2500 MWFRS Low-Rise Design Load (lbs) 2000 MWFRS Low-Rise All Heights C&C: EWA > 100 1500 WFCM Low-Rise MWFRS All Heights MWFRS = 10 C&C: EWA > 100 MWFRS Low-Rise C&C: EWA WFCM0o All Heights DAD - o MWFRS 1000 MWFRS o = 10 DAD 0o All C&C:-EWA Heights WFCM0 DAD - 45o DAD - 45o 500 C&C:-EWA > 100 DAD 45 C&C: EWA = 10 0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Connection R2 MWFRS loads underestimate DAD-derived peak loads R2 R1 R1 S3 S2 L3 L4 L5 L6 C&C loads capture gable endL3 L4 L5L6 S1 peak load L2 L2 L1 L1 SF4 SF3 WFCM more conservative thanSF3 LF5 SF4ASCE 7-05 MWFRS loads LF5 SF2 LF4 SF2 LF4 LF2LF3 LF2LF322 SF1 LF1 SF1 LF1
  22. 22. • Wall-to-foundation connections Peak Reaction Load (lbs) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 LF5 LF4 LF3 LF2 LF1 SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 Connection DAD - 0o DAD - 45o R2 R1 S3 WFCM - Table 2.2A S2 S1 L3 L4 L5 WFCM - High Wind Guide L2 L6 L1 ASCE 7 - All-heights SF4 SF3 LF523 ASCE 7 - Low-rise SF2 LF2LF3 LF4 SF1 LF1
  23. 23. • Gable end wall carries up to 70% of load applied to gable end truss (if intermediate connections) • In most residential construction, gable end wall sheathing continuous with gable end truss • No design guides exist to design these connections • End wall carries higher percentage of roof uplift forces than side wall regardless of roof-to-wall connection arrangement • Not anticipated by current design guidelines24
  24. 24. • ASCE 7-05 • DAD showed that MWFRS underestimates peak loads at gable end truss when intermediate connections are not present by 10-33% (non-conservative) • Component & cladding approach is better at capturing DAD-estimated peak loads better (still some underestimation at interior trusses by as much as 19%) • Results strongly suggest the components and cladding wind design uplift load is the appropriate predictor of wind load on wood-framed buildings25
  25. 25. • Previous load stands ~1982 based on pseudo pressure coefficients(GCp) developed by Stathopoulos (1979) • Influence lines developed for simple, steel portal-framed building • New validation shows these not appropriate for light- framed wood construction 24.4m • Structural systems respond differently 7.3m 24’ 9.1m 4.3 14’ 7 .6 m26
  26. 26. • ASCE 7-05 • MWFRS loads underestimate DAD-derived peak loads • C&C better estimate of peak forces • WFCM • Underestimate DAD-derived peak loads at roof-to-wall connections • Conservative values for wall-to-foundation connections • Inconsistencies derive from improper influence coefficients used in ASCE 7-05 for external pressure coefficients leading to vulnerable buildings in high winds27
  27. 27. The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support provided by the National Science Foundation, under Grant #0800023 Dr. Peter L. Datin (Dissertation Work) Co-Principal Investigators: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Oregon State University Dr. John W. van deLindt, University of Alabama
  28. 28. David O. Prevatt dprev@ce.ufl.edu University of Florida29
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×