Load Testing of a Two Classroom Avalon Block at Carterton South End School. David Carradine Structural Engineer

Transcription

1 ST961 Load Testing of a Two Classroom Avalon Block at Carterton South End School Author: David Carradine Structural Engineer Reviewer: Graeme Beattie Principal Structural Engineer/Team Leader Contact: BRANZ Limited Moonshine Road Judgeford Private Bag 598 Porirua City New Zealand Tel: Fax: Project Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 1 of 42 Pages

2 Load Testing of a Two Classroom Avalon Block at Carterton South End School 1. CLIENT Ministry of Education Pipitea Street Thorndon Wellington 611 New Zealand 2. OBJECTIVE The objective of this testing was to understand the lateral load resisting performance of a typical single storey timber framed school building under fully reversed cyclic loading in the longitudinal direction. A further objective was to determine the strength and stiffness of an inter-classroom wall running orthogonal to the longitudinal direction. The results of this testing sequence will assist the Ministry of Education with its seismic assessments of an extensive stock of timber framed school buildings throughout the country. 3. BUILDING DETAILS The building is known as an Avalon Type block and was built in the early 196s at many schools around the country. Standard construction drawings were developed by the Wellington Education Board and it appears that there were options to construct blocks of either two, three or four (possibly more) classrooms, complete with cloakrooms and toilets attached. A plan and a cross section of the block, provided by the client, are given in Figure 1 and Figure 2. A view of the four classroom block selected for testing is presented in Figure 3. The longitudinal wall at the lower end of the main mono-sloping roof has a large proportion of its area taken up with wooden framed opening windows (Figure 3). Each classroom also has a single door opening through this wall and an approximately 1m long asbestos cement clad panel with 4.5mm thick plywood interior lining that provides some bracing for the wall. The wall between the classroom and the cloakrooms has fixed glass panels over its middle half height (Figure 4). There is softboard lining above the glass and the bottom quarter is lined with 4.5mm plywood on the cloakroom side. There is some diagonal bracing provided in locations where there is no glass, and in this area the cloakroom side is lined with hardboard. On the classroom side there are no linings where cabinetry has been removed. The exterior wall to the cloakrooms has a mix of fixed glazing panes and opening windows above timber weatherboard cladding (Figure 5). Each cloakroom has a rear porch projecting from the main structure. There is a timber door from the cloakroom into the porch. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 2 of 42 Pages

3 Figure 1. Plan view of a two classroom block (provided by client) Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 3 of 42 Pages

4 Figure 2. Transverse cross section through a classroom (provided by client) Figure 3. Four classroom block selected for testing Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 4 of 42 Pages

5 Figure 4. Diagonal bracing in the wall between the classroom and the cloakroom Figure 5. Views of the cloakroom exterior wall Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 5 of 42 Pages

6 4. TESTING PROPOSAL BRANZ was requested by the Engineering Strategy Group (ESG) to the Ministry of Education to prepare a proposal for lateral load testing of the classroom block. Ideally, testing would subject the entire block to reversed cyclic lateral loading, to simulate an earthquake attack, but space and expected building strength prevented the complete building from being tested. A proposal was therefore prepared for testing a two room portion of the four classroom block. 5. BUILDING PREPARATION Based on site and loading equipment limitations, it was necessary to demolish portions of the building in order to effectively apply testing loads to the school building. The original school building block consisted of four classrooms, each approximately 12 m (front to back) by 7.4 m (between separating walls). Calculations by engineers from Aurecon (Issued 3 April 213, Project: Destructive Testing Capacity Estimates, Avalon Block Calculations, Project: 23263) suggested that the full block of four classrooms would require more load than was feasible using the loading equipment proposed for the project, and therefore it was necessary to remove one classroom from each end of the block so that only two classrooms would be tested. This removal from each end would also provide additional space for the loading equipment described in the following sections. Removal of the end classroom from each end was performed by Alpha Specialised Builders Ltd. with oversight provided by Ian Rattray Build and was completed during the week prior to the testing. The end classrooms were disconnected from the inner classrooms by cutting roof and wall components just outside the inner classroom walls and then removing these components down to the floor level, as shown in Figure 6. It can also be seen in Figure 6 that the subfloor was not removed for any of the classrooms and remained intact throughout the testing. Figure 6. West End of Inner Classroom After Removal of End Classroom Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 6 of 42 Pages

7 Following testing of the two inner classrooms, an additional test was conducted on the wall at the western end of the remaining classrooms, shown in Figure 7. Testing was performed as a racking test with load applied to the wall top plate, parallel to the wall and perpendicular to the roof ridge of the four classroom block. The single wall was isolated from the remaining building by cutting roof and wall components just inside the wall with the subfloor remaining intact, as shown in Figure 7. The roof of the remaining building was supported by a temporarily constructed timber frame, which also allowed for the connection of pinned lateral support members for the wall being tested, also shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. West Wall of Inner Classroom After Disconnection from Remaining Building (Image Courtesy of John Finnegan of Aurecon) 6. TESTING EQUIPMENT In order to effectively control the application of load to the building it was necessary to have a system capable of applying loads to multiple places on the building from a single point while also being able to fully release the load at either end so that loading could be applied on the opposite end of the building. Loading the isolated wall was simpler in that there was only a single point of connection with the wall and space limitations around the building meant that loads could only be applied in one direction. Therefore the same equipment was used with a different configuration, as described in the following sections. It was also necessary to be able to apply loads in small increments so that the damage to the building was minimal during the early stages of testing. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 7 of 42 Pages

8 6.1 Load Application and Distribution Equipment Loads were applied to both ends of the two classrooms and the isolated wall using hydraulic actuators integral to house moving trucks and were distributed to three attachment points on each end of the building using 12.5mm diameter prestressing tendons and loading yokes. For the testing of the classrooms, a truck with an integral hydraulic actuator was placed at each end of the building (East and West ends) with the 5 th wheel attachment located approximately 14 m from each end wall of the block under test (see sketch in Appendix A). The 5 th wheel attachments were connected directly to hydraulic actuators having 1 tonnes of pulling capacity and a stroke length of approximately 1.4 m. These actuators were controlled using a pump driven by the truck engine and could be manually operated to move at very slow speeds for adequate control and could also be held at displacements corresponding to target load increments to allow for displacement recording using surveying station equipment. At the 5 th wheel on both trucks a fitting was attached using a steel pin specific to the 5 th wheel attachment which was welded to a steel plate with a lug so that a shackle could be attached. This was in turn connected by a chain to one end of a load cell that was pinned to a yoke. Figure 8 shows the 5 th wheel attachment and Figure 9 shows the single, in-line load cell and the yoke, which split the single load into three loads with individual load cells so that the building could be connected to the loading apparatus at three points along the roof line. Figure 8. Connection of Loading Apparatus to the 5 th Wheel of the Truck (East Side) Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 8 of 42 Pages

9 Individual Load Cells (3) Single In-Line Load Cell Figure 9. Loading Yoke at East Side with Load Cells The loads applied to the building could potentially cause slipping or uplifting of the loading trucks. Slipping was minimised by connecting the front of each truck to a 2 tonne digger with a chain. The digger on the West Side had a blade that was dug into the ground to further restrain the truck, while on the east side the digger bucket was wedged beneath an existing concrete slab as additional restraint. Potential truck uplift because of the angled load being applied to the building, was minimised on the west side by securing the rear of the truck to concrete blocks that were placed in a pit directly behind the rear wheels of the truck. On the East Side the rear wheels of the truck were on a concrete slab and the rear of the truck was chained down to a steel channel which was bolted to the slab at several locations. While some movements of the trucks were observed during testing, it did not affect the loading of the building. Loading of the isolated wall was undertaken using the same 5 th wheel attachment and loading yoke, but without the in-line load cell and only using the central yoke attachment point to the building as only a single connection point was made with the wall. In this scenario only a single load cell was used between the yoke and the loading cable. Because the loads applied to the wall were much less than those applied to the classrooms, it was not necessary to provide uplift and slippage restraint to the loading truck. 6.2 Connection to Building In order to load the roof in a manner that would be consistent with seismic loading it was necessary to apply the loads at 3 discrete points along the edge of the roof. Diagonal timber sarking was used to sheathe the roof in the construction of the upper roof of the block. BRANZ considered that this sarking would act as an efficient load spreading medium to the front (north) wall and the clerestory wall and so the loads were introduced via two purlins. Tongue and groove sarking to the lower roof over the cloakrooms was also expected to transfer loads applied at the southern eave to the walls supporting the roof. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 9 of 42 Pages

10 Attachments were made to roof purlins running parallel to the roof ridge near the apex of the monoslope roof and near the north wall, while the trimming rafter at the eave was used as the loading point connection for the south wall, as shown in Figure 1. With the exception of the load application point at the northwest corner of the building, these points were the same for both ends of the building and were made using steel brackets that were bolted to the timber purlin members and loaded using 12.5 diameter, seven wire prestressing tendons attached to the loading yoke. At the northwest corner, the lack of solid blocking between the purlins at the wall plate meant that the purlin next to the north wall was damaged during the setup of the loading equipment. The loading bracket was therefore moved to the adjacent purlin before the test and solid blocking was added between the first five purlins at both ends of the building to ensure that the loaded purlin would not fail prematurely in minor axis bending. The tendons were attached to the brackets and yoke using collets and wedges typically used for prestressing concrete. A diagram showing the pull angles at the two ends is presented in Appendix A. Attachment of the loading tendon to the isolated wall was accomplished using a steel channel attached with coach screws to the top plate of the wall and which had a steel plate welded to the end with a hole in it to accommodate the loading tendon, which was secured with collets and wedges. During the early stages of the wall testing the top plate began to separate at a join in the top plate which was hidden by lining materials and beyond the end of the loading channel. It was therefore necessary to attach a section of steel angle to the loading channel and the top plate beyond the join in order to ensure that the sections of top plate would be loaded simultaneously. 6.3 Data Acquisition Throughout the testing of the classrooms, loads were recorded using load cells and the displacement was recorded near the roof apex on the West Side (see timber stand in Figure 1) using a rotary potentiometer, all at one second intervals using a computer controlled data acquisition system. Four load cells were used on each end of the building, with one load cell monitoring each of the individual loading tendons attached to the building and the fourth load cell monitoring the combined load directly between the loading yoke and the 5 th wheel of each truck (Figure 9). A single load cell was used to record loads during the isolated wall testing. A rotary potentiometer was used to record in-plane displacements of the wall and this was attached to the inside of the wall near the top of the northern end of the wall. It was observed that as loads increased and caused deformation of the wall, the anchorage point for the potentiometer was dislodged. In addition to the load cells and potentiometer, additional measurements of displacement were recorded for both end walls during the classroom testing and the in-plane movement of the wall during wall testing using survey station equipment provided by Aurecon. Throughout testing, displacement measurements were recorded at several locations on the walls using prisms and included ruler measurements near the north and south walls where they intersected with the roof. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 1 of 42 Pages

11 Load Attachment Points Figure 1. West Side Points of Attachment of Building with Loading Cables (Similar for East Side) 6.4 Calibrations All load cells were set up in the Structures Laboratory at BRANZ prior to testing using the same loading configuration and signal amplification as during the on-site testing. Each load cell was loaded using a stationary test frame so that calibration factors could be determined for each load cell. Loads for calibrations were obtained from an externally calibrated load cell consistent with International Standard EN ISO Grade 1 accuracy and monitored using a computer controlled data acquisition system. Following testing the load cells were spot checked using the same equipment to ensure that the calibration factors were unchanged. The calibration factor for the rotary potentiometer was determined on-site prior to testing knowing the circumference of the potentiometer wheel and was verified after testing in the BRANZ Structures Laboratory using an identical configuration as was used during the testing. 7. TESTING UNDERTAKEN Testing was performed to understand the lateral load resisting performance of a typical single storey timber framed school building under fully reversed cyclic loading in the longitudinal direction and to determine the strength and stiffness of an inter-classroom wall running orthogonal to the longitudinal direction. 7.1 Loading in the longitudinal direction Loads were applied to the central two classrooms of an originally four classroom block by attaching prestressing tendons at three locations along the roof line at each end and pulling these tendons using the loading equipment previously described. The tendons Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 11 of 42 Pages

12 only allowed for pulling of the building on each end, therefore pulling was done in one direction at one end and then in the other direction at the other end, with slackening of the tendons on the end not being pulled. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the strength and stiffness of the classrooms it was decided that each pull would be done to an approximate level of load and held there while deflection measurements were taken. After each pull the load was removed from the building and deflection measurements were taken in the unloaded state before the next pull in the opposite direction. While ideally each pair of opposite loads, applied in the east and west directions would have been equal, this was difficult to achieve accurately and therefore the pairs of loads were only approximately equal. The load levels were increased in approximately 2 kn increments. The majority of the testing was undertaken with the windows closed but at different times during testing loading was conducted with all of the windows open for a comparison of stiffness. Table 1 provides the schedule of actual loading based on the full load (combination of three load points) applied by the hydraulic actuators at each end. These loads have been corrected such that the loads provided in Table 1 are the horizontal components of the loads applied at various angles to the structure. Load levels were incrementally increased up to approximately 2 kn at each end and then a continuous load was applied with the intention of achieving approximately 25 kn at each end. On the west side the maximum load achieved was 242. kn and loading was halted due to the limits of the equipment used to load the building. On the east side the maximum load achieved was 22 kn due to a failure of the chain between the 5 th wheel and the yoke during the loading. Table 1. Applied Loading (Horizontal Component) Schedule for Longitudinal Classroom Testing Applied Load (kn) Direction Window status Applied Load (kn) Direction Window status 15 West Closed 115 East Closed 16 East Closed 128 West Closed 37 West Closed 138 East Closed 29 East Closed 118 West Open 43 West Open 137 East Open 34 East Open 14 West Closed 72 West Closed 158 East Closed 56 East Closed 162 West Closed 68 West Closed 178 East Closed 77 East Closed 16 West Open 89 West Closed 178 East Open 96 East Closed 185 West Closed 84 West Open 199 East Closed 1 East Open 242 West Closed 19 West Closed 22 East Closed 7.2 Loading of the transverse wall Loads were applied to the isolated transverse wall by attaching a prestressing tendon to a steel channel attached to the top plate and pulling this tendon using the loading Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 12 of 42 Pages

13 equipment previously described. Pulling was done in one direction up to a series of load levels and held at each while deflection measurements were taken. After each pull the load was removed from the wall and deflection measurements were taken before the next pull commenced. Load levels were increased by approximately 1 kn increments up to the point of wall failure, when a decrease in applied load was observed. As previously described in Section 6.2, there was also a separation of the top plate after reaching around 11 kn and heading towards 2 kn that required repairs before the higher load level could be reached. Following this repair the 2 kn and 3 kn load levels were reached, but failure of the studs in the upper half of the wall limited the maximum load achieved to 36 kn. Applied loads have been corrected such that the reported loads are the horizontal components of the loads recorded during testing. 8. TEST RESULTS Data acquired during classroom and wall testing using load cells, a rotary potentiometer and survey stations allowed for development of load versus displacement plots for various locations on both end walls of the classroom and the isolated wall. 8.1 Loading in the longitudinal direction Longitudinal loading of the two classrooms was conducted as previously described and data recorded provided information about the load and deflection behaviour of the building. Figure 11 shows a plot of the applied load versus corresponding displacement of the rotary potentiometer attached near the ridge of the monoslope roof of the west end wall and includes data for loading with the windows open and closed. 25 Cracked and broken clerestory windows First cracked window West Closed Windows Many cracked windows West Open Windows East Closed Windows East Opened Windows -25 Displacement Figure 11. Load versus West End Wall Displacement Using Rotary Potentiometer Near the Roof Ridge (See Figure 43 in Appendix B for Complete Hysteresis Plot, West and East relate to the pull direction) Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 13 of 42 Pages

14 The plot (Figure 11) shows the stiffness contribution of the windows and window frames. It also worth noting that the deflections at similar load levels are greater for pulls to the east than for pulls to the west because the west pulls were always done first and caused damage to the building, resulting in greater deflections for the corresponding east pulls. Deflection data from rulers installed at the tops of end walls at the front and rear of the building indicated that at higher load levels there was some degree of stretching of the building (Table 2 and Table 3), particularly for the rear (south) wall. There was no visible evidence of this stretching on the building and it is suspected that one of the rear rulers may have been influenced by the nearby loading point rather than it being a real building stretch in the latter stages of the test. Also included in Table 2 and Table 3 are data on the differences between ruler readings from the front and rear of the East and West ends of the building, which show that there was differential movement between the front and rear walls, most likely due to differences in stiffness of the walls. The data in Table 2 and Table 3 are also presented as a single table giving the sequence order of all loading increments in Table 5 in Appendix B. Table 2. Comparison of Deflections from Rulers at Top Corners of Building End Walls During Testing with Windows Closed Applied Load (kn) Direction West Front East Front Front Difference* West Rear East Rear Rear Difference* East End Difference West End Difference 15 West East West East West East West East West East West East West East West East West East West East West *The difference always indicates an increase in dimension between the two ends of the building Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 14 of 42 Pages

15 Table 3. Comparison of Deflections from Rulers at Top Corners of Building End Walls During Testing with Windows Opened Applied Load (kn) Direction West Front East Front Front Difference* West Rear East Rear Rear Difference* East End Difference West End Difference 43 West East West East West East West East *The difference always indicates an increase in dimension between the two ends of the building A complete set of load versus deflection plots for the surveying prisms and rulers is presented in Appendix B (Figure 25 to Figure 42) for the classroom testing. Figure 44 to Figure 47 also provide comparisons of displacements of the prisms at the building ends for loading in the two directions with the windows both open and closed. 8.2 Loading of the transverse wall Loading of the isolated transverse wall was conducted as previously described and recorded data provided information about the load and displacement behaviour of the wall. Figure 12 shows a plot of the applied load versus corresponding displacement of the rotary potentiometer attached near the top of the north end of the wall. As seen in Figure 12, as the load initially reached 15 kn, there was separation that occurred at a splice in the top plate. While the wall was able to resist 2 kn with the separated top plate, following that loading cycle additional steel was added to the loading channel in order to span across the splice and allow for improved distribution of applied load along the top plate. Following this alteration loading was continued as can be seen in the cycle that goes from zero up to approximately 3 kn. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 15 of 42 Pages

16 4 Applied Load versus Wall Displacement Horizontal Displacement at North Eave Figure 12. Load versus Displacement for Isolated Wall Testing A complete set of load versus deflection plots for the rotary potentiometer, surveying prisms and ruler is presented in Appendix C (Figure 49 and Figure 5) for the isolated wall testing. 9. TEST OBSERVATIONS 9.1 Loading in the longitudinal direction At the commencement of loading of the two classroom block there was little to observe in the building. It was not until the cycles to around 3 kn that a few creaking noises were heard but the only observable damage was the windows contacting on opposite corners of the frames because the frames were distorting. Greater distortions of the window frames occurred during cycles when the windows were open and this shows in the load versus displacement backbone curves (Figure 11). During the pull to the east at 9 kn with the windows open, one of the two solid panels in the north wall was seen to begin rotating a little on its bottom plate (Figure 13). During the cycle to about 13 kn to the east with the windows open there was significant weak axis bending of the clerestory window mullions (Figure 14). They were also rotating as a rigid element pinned at their tops and bottoms. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 16 of 42 Pages

17 Note uplift of panel Figure 13. Solid panel on the north wall showing signs of rotation Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 17 of 42 Pages

18 Figure 14. Clerestory window mullion rotation A window in the north façade cracked during the cycle to around 158 kn to the east (Figure 15). Note that the window had been closed during this cycle and was opened ready for the next cycle when the photograph was taken. A similar crack also occurred in one of the clerestory windows about this time. However, in the cycle to around 185 kn to the west one of the clerestory windows shattered (Figure 16). Note that by now it was difficult to close the windows after a window-open cycle without pulling the building a small amount in the other direction. That is, there was a significant residual deflection at the completion of each half cycle. As the building was pulled in the other direction to around 198 kn many more of the clerestory windows shattered (Figure 17). Several more north side window panes developed cracks. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 18 of 42 Pages

19 Figure 15. First window pane failure in the north wall (window was closed when the crack occurred) Figure 16. Shattered clerestory window Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 19 of 42 Pages

20 Figure 17. Majority of clerestory windows shattered During the final pull to the west, where a peak load of 242 kn was achieved the distorted shape of the block was clearly visible and several of the windows in the north wall had also broken (Figure 18). Figure 18. Distorted shape of the north wall during the pull to 242 kn to the west (last cycle in this direction) Over the complete cyclic testing series the windows in the south wall remained intact. Some of these were Georgian wired glass fitted in two pieces with a ventilation gap between using quarter round beads. The panes were clearly seen to be moving within Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 2 of 42 Pages

21 the space tolerance allowed around the edges of the pane (Figure 19). The other windows were opening types, the same as in the north wall. Figure 19. Evidence of movement of the south side panes against the quarter round beads The rear wall of the classrooms (between the classrooms and the cloakrooms) exhibited no damage during the testing. Inspections of the ceilings throughout the testing showed that there was a very small amount of ceiling distortion around a natural light inlet box in the main ceiling in each room (Figure 2). At the completion of the test, there was also evidence of slight shearing movement between the vertical shiplap weatherboards cladding the porches on the south wall. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 21 of 42 Pages

22 Figure 2. Slight ceiling distortion around the natural light inlet box 9.2 Loading of the transverse wall As previously described, the west end transverse wall of the two classrooms, which was originally an inter-classroom wall, was pulled monotonically to failure in a northerly direction. A view of the wall in the early stages of this test is given in Figure 21. Once the issue of the separating top plate was addressed the wall was able to be loaded to failure. The black material that can be seen in Figure 21 at the top of the wall is softboard and the softboard lined both sides of the upper part of the wall. No bracing had been included in the upper part of the wall. The white material in the bottom half of the wall is 4.5mm thick plywood fixed with panel pins to the framing. Quite substantial skirting boards and dado rails along the line of the door head, which can be seen in Figure 21, appeared to sandwich the plywood in place, creating a reasonably effective bracing element. As the loading progressed the 5 x 2 timber studs began to bend about their weak axis along a line coincident with the dado rail. As they bent over the softboard lining detached Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 22 of 42 Pages

23 from the studs and fell away, providing a clear view of the deforming studs (Figure 22). Clearly, the studs have fractured in the photograph and progressively the load dropped away as the bending resistance to the loading was lost. Figure 21. View of the single inter-classroom wall in the early stages of the test There was no indication of any uplift of the bottom plate of the wall and at the completion of the test there was negligible damage evident below the dado rail. Some of the plywood lining was removed at the test completion to expose the framing (Figure 23). It can be seen that there are no diagonal braces present behind the lining. In the view, there are several rows of nogs, some of which were related to the support of a framed blackboard on the back face of the wall. Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 23 of 42 Pages

24 Direction of pull Figure 22. Studs deforming and breaking under the applied load Figure 23. Plywood removed to expose the framing at the test completion Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 24 of 42 Pages

25 1. SUMMARY This report describes the cyclic testing of a two classroom school block at Carterton South End school in the longitudinal direction of the block and the monotonic loading of an isolated interior transverse wall. The cyclic testing was taken to the capacity of the testing apparatus rig, which resulted in loads that were several times greater than the calculated probable strength of the two classroom block and resulted in significant damage to the building at these high loads, including permanent deformation and extensive breaking of windows. At no point during the cyclic testing was the building in danger of collapse or complete failure, but it was clear that serviceability limitations on deformation were exceeded. It should also be noted that the load resistance was still increasing at the termination of the test. In the transverse direction, the monotonic loading reached a point where the minor axis bending capacity of the stud members was reached. Again, this load was greater than the theoretical capacity of the wall element. In this case, the peak load had been reached and the resistance was beginning to reduce when the test was terminated. Table 4 provides a comparison of the calculated probable strength of the building with the actual strength achieved during testing. The calculated strength values were provided in a report provided by Aurecon (Issued 3 April 213, Project: Destructive Testing Capacity Estimates, Avalon Block Calculations, Project: 23263). Table 4. Comparison of Calculated Strength Values with Strength Achieved During Testing Cyclic Classroom Testing On Two-Classroom Block Calculated Probable Strength (kn) 27 Strength Achieved During Testing (kn) 242 (West)22 (East) Transverse Wall Testing Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 25 of 42 Pages

26 APPENDIX A DIAGRAM SHOWING THE PULL ANGLES AT EACH END Pull load 14.8m Pull line Soffit edge Truck fifth wheel with 1.4 m stroke ram Clear storey wall below Ridge Room 2 Room 3 Wall 2.61m Loadcell to record total truck pull to the east 12.7mm diameter 7-wire tendon Wall Pull line 12.7mm diameter 7-wire tendon Pull line Pull line Wall 4.2m 13.5m Soffit edge 13.5m 4.2m Three loadcells to record load in each tendon Truck fifth wheel with 1.4 m stroke ram Pull load 5.53m 9.6m 5.8m 6.28m Loadcell to record total truck pull to the west Plan View Ridge Top pull line 1.1 Front of building pull line Rear of building pull line Room 2 Room Floor of demolished room Floor of building Floor of demolished room Ground level Fifth wheel Elevation 9 9 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 26 of 42 Pages

27 APPENDIX B: DATA AND RESULTS FROM CLASSROOM TESTING Provided in this appendix are the load versus displacement plots for the classroom testing previously described (Figure 25 to Figure 42). Figure 24 shows the location of the prisms on the east side, which is the same for the prisms on the west side of the building. Also included is a fully hysteresis plot (Figure 43) from applied loads and the rotary potentiometer attached to the West Wall. Comparisons of applied load versus prism displacement measurements are provided in Figure 44 for the East Side with the windows closed, Figure 45 for the East Side with the windows opened, Figure 46 for the West Side with the windows closed, and Figure 47 for the West Side with the windows opened, respectively. Table 4 provides a comprehensive set of load and ruler displacement testing along with comparisons of the East and West Side ruler displacements and rear to front ruler displacements for each end wall. Figure 24. Diagram of Prism Locations for Classroom Testing Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 27 of 42 Pages

28 Displacement West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Figure 25. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-1 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement -25 Figure 26. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-2 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 28 of 42 Pages

29 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 27. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-3 3 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 28. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-4 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 29 of 42 Pages

30 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 29. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-5 3 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 3. Load versus Deflection for Prism East-6 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 3 of 42 Pages

31 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 31. Load versus Deflection for Prism East West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 32. Load versus Deflection for Prism West-1 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 31 of 42 Pages

32 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened 1 East Pull Windows Closed 5 East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 33. Load versus Deflection for Prism West West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened 1 East Pull Windows Closed 5 East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 34. Load versus Deflection for Prism West-3 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 32 of 42 Pages

33 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 35. Load versus Deflection for Prism West West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 36. Load versus Deflection for Prism West-5 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 33 of 42 Pages

34 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 37. Load versus Deflection for Prism West West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 38. Load versus Deflection for Prism West-7 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 34 of 42 Pages

35 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 39. Load versus Deflection for Ruler East-Front 3 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 4. Load versus Deflection for Ruler East-Rear Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 35 of 42 Pages

36 West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened East Pull Windows Closed East Pull Windows Opened Displacement Figure 41. Load versus Deflection for Ruler West-Front West Pull Windows Closed West Pull Windows Opened -15 East Pull Windows Closed -2 East Pull Windows Opened -25 Displacement Figure 42. Load versus Deflection for Ruler West-Rear Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 36 of 42 Pages

37 Load vs. Displacement for Avalon Block Testing in Carterton West Pull Data East Pull Data Displacement of Rotary Potentiometer on West Wall Figure 43. Hysteresis for Applied Loads versus Rotary Potentiometer on West Wall Figure 44. Load versus Deflection for Prisms 3-East, 4-East and 5-East with Closed Windows (Note West Pull 3East is the record for prism 3 at the east end when pulling the building to the west) Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 37 of 42 Pages

38 Figure 45. Load versus Deflection for Prisms 3-East, 4-East and 5-East with Open Windows Figure 46. Load versus Deflection for Prisms 3-West, 4-West and 5-West with Closed Windows Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 38 of 42 Pages

39 Figure 47. Load versus Deflection for Prisms 3-West, 4-West and 5-West with Open Windows Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 39 of 42 Pages

40 Applied Load (kn) Table 5. Comparison of Deflections from Rulers at Top Corners of Building End Walls Direction Window Status West Front East Front Front Difference* West Rear East Rear Rear Difference* East End Difference West End Difference 15 West Closed East Closed West Closed East Closed West Open East Open West Closed East Closed West Closed East Closed West Closed East Closed West Open East Open West Closed East Closed West Closed East Closed West Open East Open West Closed East Closed West Closed East Closed West Open East Open West Closed East Closed West Closed *The difference always indicates an increase in dimension between the two ends of the building Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 4 of 42 Pages

41 APPENDIX C Provided in this appendix are the load versus displacement plots for the isolated transverse wall testing previously described. Figure 48 shows the location of the prisms on the wall. The ruler was located very close to Prism 2, as shown in the photograph in Figure 21. Figure 48. Diagram of Prism Locations for Isolated Wall Testing Prism 1 1 Prism Horizontal Displacement in North Direction Figure 49. Load versus Deflection for Prism 1 and Prism 4 Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 41 of 42 Pages

42 Prism 2 Prism 3 Ruler Horizontal Displacement in North Direction Figure 5. Load versus Deflection for Prism 2, Prism 3 and Ruler Report Number: ST961 Date of Issue: 18 July 213 Page 42 of 42 Pages