A 11 IDS b5SMS3

NATL INST OF STANDARDSi 4 TECHI

RI.C

NBS

PUBLICATIONS A1 11 02655453

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION729

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Bureau of Standards

National Earthquake Engineering

Experimental Facility StudyPhase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

QC

100

U57

#729

1987

c2

m he National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The

|f Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate

their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry andgovernment, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety.

The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National

Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Institute for Materials

Science and Engineering

.

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations andfurnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical andchemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in-

dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other

Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops,

produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

• Basic Standards2

• Radiation Research• Chemical Physics• Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to

address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in

engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and main-

tains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this

research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurementcapabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops

and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves

mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. TheLaboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied MathematicsElectronics and Electrical

Engineering2

Manufacturing Engineering

Building TechnologyFire Research

Chemical Engineering2

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid

Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of com-puter technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Governmentoperations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant

Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managingthe Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal

ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADPvoluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological ad-

visory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical

foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The In-

stitute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science andTechnologyComputer Systems

Engineering

The Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information funda-

mental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials;

addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical

programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evalua-

tion; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Institute consists of the following Divisions:

CeramicsFracture and Deformation 3

PolymersMetallurgy

Reactor Radiation

Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.

Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.

National Earthquake Engineering

NBS

RESEARCH

INFORMATION

CENTER

_ da oo

Experimental Facility Study .u&

Phase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of CommerceGaithersburg, MD 20899

Sponsored by:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

National Science Foundation

National Bureau of Standards

April 1987

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 87-619811

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 729

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 729, 70 pages (Apr. 1987)

CODEN:XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1987

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes information obtained during the firstyear of a four-year feasibility study for a national earthquakeengineering experimental facility. A five-year research programis presented for a national facility in which full-scale orlarge-scale structures or structural components would besubjected to static or dynamic lateral loads. The facility wouldhave applicability to tests in the following areas: low-risebuildings, medium-rise buildings, high-rise buildings , industrialprocessing facilities, and power facilities. Representativesfrom a broad spectrum of professional, industrial, and tradeorganizations and Federal agencies participated in developing theresearch program. A comparison of existing testing facilities inthe U.S. and other countries engaged in seismic testing and adiscussion of international cooperation in large-scale testingare included.

Keywords: Buildings, Earthquakes, Laboratories, Research,Structural engineering, Tests

iii

CONTENTSABSTRACT iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 3

Background 3

Objectives 4

Summary of Phase One Activities 5

EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS FOR LARGE-SCALE SEISMIC TESTS 6

EXISTING FACILITIES FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING 12

CONCLUSIONS 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 15

REFERENCES 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Summary Of Previous Workshops 18Appendix B - Survey of Facilities Worldwide 2 3

Appendix C - International Activities andCooperative Research 37

Appendix D - Workshop 4 6

Appendix E - Recommendations for Large-scaleTesting 51

Appendix F - National Academy of ScienceAdvisory Panel 64

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents results obtained during the first year(Phase I) of a four-year study to obtain the data needed tocompare the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods ofobtaining needed full- or large-scale experimental data onseismic response of structures. During Phase I of the study theobjective was to determine existing experimental needs for large-scale testing. This study was initiated in 1985 by the NationalBureau of Standards following a recommendation in 1984 by theNational Research Council that the Federal government undertakeplanning aimed at establishing the feasibility of a majornational earthquake engineering experimental/test facility.

During Phase I of the study, needs for full-scale seismictesting were determined by a broad spectrum of practicingprofessionals, researchers, industry representatives, buildingofficials, and Federal agency representatives. Consultingengineers developed initial recommendations (5,6,7,8,9,10).These initial recommendations were refined at a workshop held bythe National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland inNovember 1986. Five areas in which testing needs were identifiedincluded: low-rise, medium-rise, and high-rise buildings,industrial processing facilities, and power facilities. Specifictests were recommended which made up a three- to five-yeartesting program.

The testing needs highlight several general problem areasrequiring full-scale testing for each category. For low-risebuildings (5) , for example, the interaction between roofs andwalls, connection behavior, and the behavior of nonstructuralelements are important. In medium-rise buildings (6) , tests ofbuildings of the type built in low seismic risk areas, groundmotion isolation devices, and the contribution of nonstructuralelements to lateral stiffness and strength need to be studied.The key issues for high-rise buildings (7) are the redistributionof forces in the structure following localized yielding, thesignificance of second-order P-delta effects, and the forcedistribution in dual systems. Tests of tank structures, pressurevessels and piping, and the effectiveness of retrofit measuresare important for industrial process facilities (8) .

Qualification tests and tests of unique components for whichsmall-scale test data is difficult to extrapolate to full scaleare needed for power facilities (9)

.

In addition, the workshop participants concluded that:

* There are significant needs for information aboutstructural behavior during earthquakes that can be bestsatisfied by full- or large-scale testing.

1

* Detailed estimates are needed to determine theconfiguration and cost of a large facility capable ofperforming the required tests.

* Comparisons of the relative costs and benefits ofalternative methods for conducting the tests areneeded.

One critical issue is the lack of large-scale testingfacilities in the United States. A comparison of testingfacilities in the U.S. and other countries engaged in seismictesting indicates that the facilities of the U.S. generally aresmaller and less adequate than those of Japan, which has the mostcomplete facilities of any nation in the world for seismicexperimentation. Although there have been several cooperativeexperimental research programs in which the U.S. and Japan haveshared results, the consensus in the U.S. is that the facilitiesof the Japanese should not be viewed as a permanent substitutefor adequate facilities in this country.

Direct and indirect benefits will be derived fromconstruction and use of a national facility to conduct large-scale seismic testing. Direct benefits applicable to U.S.construction include methods for identifying existing buildingsthat need strengthening to improve their earthquake resistance,identification of economical methods for strengthening buildings,an ability to improve design procedures for future construction,and an ability to perform proof-testing of critical components ofpower and industrial facilities. It was estimated that data fromfull-scale tests of high-rise buildings could save as much as 2-3% of the cost of the structural system. This information willalso have direct benefits in terms of making the U.S. competitivein international markets. It will insure that the U.S. is amongthe world's leaders in marketing engineering services andseismic-resistant structures and equipment.

2

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

In 1984 the National Research Council (NRC) published theresults of its 6-month study on "Earthquake Engineering Facili-ties and Instrumentation" (1) requested by the Office of Scienceand Technology Policy (OSTP) . The report contained a number ofconclusions, including the following:

* "There is near unanimity within the earthquakeengineering community that a need exists for data onthe behavior of earthquake-excited full-scalemultistory structures from the initiation of structuraldamage to collapse.

* "The irreducible need for full-scale data on thebehavior of earthquake-impacted multistory structuresrequires that the nation have experimental facilitiesable to test such structures across a range from damageinitiation to collapse. At present, no adequatefacilities for testing full-scale structures exist inthe United States. A variety of alternativeexperimental/test facilities have been proposed. Theseinclude shaking tables, reaction walls, instrumentedbuildings in earthquake-prone areas, explosive tests,and tests on prototype structures.

* The federal government should immediately initiate aconceptual engineering design study of a nationalearthquake engineering experimental/test facilitycapable of both dynamically and statically testingfull- or nearly full-scale multistory buildings todestruction in a simulated earthquake environment. Theengineering design study should focus on a largeshaking table of a size substantially larger than isnow available in Japan. The engineering design studyfor the large shaking table should be used as a sourceof data for making a careful comparison withalternative full- or nearly full-scale methods ofobtaining the needed experimental data."

One of the major recommendations of the report with regardto the latter conclusion was that "The federal government shouldundertake, on an accelerated basis, planning aimed at developinga major national earthquake engineering experimental/testfacility. The goals of that facility should be to provide thedata and understanding necessary for rapid improvement in thedesign and construction of seismic-resistant structures."

3

The Science Advisor to the President urged the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) to initiate the planning studycalled for in the NRC report and to obtain information whichcould be used as the basis for a decision on the need for and therequirements of a national earthquake engineering experimentalfacility. To respond to this request, this study was included inthe five-year plan for the earthquake hazard reduction programfor fiscal years 1985-89 (2) as Objective 5 of the program onSeismic Design and Engineering Research.

At the request of FEMA, the Policy Coordination Group (PCG)of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)considered the scope of a planning study and the alternatives forfunding the study. On the basis of these deliberations, the PCGrecommended that the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) proceedwith the planning study.

The National Bureau of Standards and FEMA negotiated aninteragency agreement in 1985 (3) in which FEMA agreed to provideprincipal funding and overall guidance and direction to themanagement of the study. NBS assumed responsibility formanagement and technical content of the study and agreed tocoordinate with FEMA, NSF, and USGS throughout the study. NBSinitiated the study in 1985 and developed a plan for a four-yearstudy (4) covering all aspects of planning for a nationalexperimental facility, including research needs, facilitycharacteristics, siting, and management.

The information in this report is part of the four-yearstudy; it contains recommendations for testing developed duringthe first year (Phase I) of the study. Objectives of the firstphase of the study were to determine critical data needs on full-scale structural behavior and development of the requirements fora facility to conduct the program of testing required to satisfythose needs. Subsequent phases of the study are intended toproduce a preliminary design and cost estimate for a largeshaking table and reaction wall (Phase II) , information on cost-effectiveness of alternative types of facilities which couldsatisfy the testing needs (Phase III) , and recommendations forthe siting, operational, and management requirements for aproposed facility (Phase IV)

.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the first year of the study were todetermine the needs of users for a national earthquake engineer-ing experimental facility, to develop an experimental laboratory-based program of three to five years duration for the facility,and to identify the benefits to be gained by the nation, theengineering profession and the building community from such afacility.

4

It should be noted that not all tests required to studybehavior of all types of buildings under seismic loading can beconducted in a laboratory environment. For obvious reasons,tests of full-scale, high-rise buildings or of other very largestructures cannot be conducted in a laboratory. A nationallaboratory facility would not be intended to eliminate in-situtesting of existing structures by eccentric or reciprocating massvibrators, pull-back and release methods, high-explosiveexcitation methods, or instrumentation of buildings in areas ofhigh earthquake risk. One objective of Phase III of the studywill be to evaluate the relative advantages of alternative testmethods and different types of facilities in providing the mosteffective and economical contributions to seismic-resistantdesign and construction.

SUMMARY OF PHASE ONE ACTIVITIES

The first task involved collecting background data toprovide a perspective for research needs and to establish thestate of experimental capabilities in the U.S. and worldwide.Previous workshops held in the United States to consider theneeds for and benefits of large testing facilities were reviewed.A summary of these workshops is included in Appendix A. Asummary of the state of existing experimental/test facilities inthe U.S. and worldwide is given in Appendix B. Currentactivities of other nations engaged in testing of structuresunder simulated seismic loading are summarized in Appendix C.

The second task involved determining specific experimentalresearch needs requiring facilities larger than those currentlyavailable in the U.S. These were determined through a workshopinvolving participation by representatives of professional,industrial, and trade organizations and Federal agencyrepresentatives. Organization of the workshop is discussed inAppendix D. The workshop recommendations are presented inAppendix E.

At the request of NBS and FEMA, the National ResearchCouncil established a panel to evaluate the procedures being usedby NBS throughout this phase of the study. This panel wasresponsible for providing review and advice to the study. Theyalso commented on all work plans and drafts of publicationsproduced by NBS. In addition, the panel members attended theuser needs workshop held in Gaithersburg in November 1986,commented on results of the study, and provided an independentstatement of user needs on the basis of their experience andjudgement

.

5

EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS FOR LARGE-SCALE SEISMIC TESTS

The broad spectrum of needs for a national earthquakeengineering experimental facility were aggregated into six areasof interest: low-rise buildings, medium-rise buildings, high-rise buildings, industrial processing facilities, powerfacilities, and lifelines.

No specific recommendations, for the type of testingconsidered in this study, were developed for lifelines at theworkshop as noted in Appendix E. However, the working groupwhich considered lifelines during the workshop did determine aneed for in situ and laboratory testing to satisfy certaintesting requirements for bridges and other lifeline facilities.Among these testing needs were:

* Tests of linear structural elements to examine theeffects of skewed spans, joints, and impacting betweenelements

* Tests of various retrofit techniques on long linearelements , determination of energy absorptioncharacteristics, and experimental verification ofsimplified analytical procedures for retrofitcomponents

* Tests to determine effects of yield sequence on longlinear systems

* Tests to study effects of spatially varying groundmotions on response of long, multi-supported structures

* Tests to determine the effects of soil-structureinteraction on response of lifeline facilities tosevere ground shaking

The workshop working group considering lifelines alsodiscussed the possibility of using several modular shaking tablesto either simulate independent support motions or to act in a"ganged" format as a single large table. This concept of linkingseveral independent tables to form one large table is an ideawhich could be considered as an alternative to a single largetable in future phases of this study.

A summary of the testing needs in the five categories isgiven in Table 1. Specific recommendations for testing in thefive areas are given in Appendix E.. These testing needs reflectpriorities determined by researchers, designers, manufacturers,builders, owners, regulators, and code writers represented at theworkshop

.

6

The testing needs listed in Table 1 indicate two key pointsin regard to the anticipated use of the facility. First, thefacility is expected to serve the needs of the building communityto provide data on performance of existing structures and toimprove future construction. Second, it is anticipated that asignificant amount of testing will be dedicated to evaluatingnon-structural items such as the equipment used in industrial orpower facilities.

Several benefits would result from use of a large-scaletesting facility. Experimental data are needed on the seismicresistance of existing buildings because changes in constructionpractices over time and degradation of material properties fromas-built values make it difficult to calculate this resistance.This information would help to identify those types of structureswhich most need strengthening and would identify the mosteconomical means of strengthening. Second, tests would providedata to identify improved design details for new structures. Itwas estimated this information could save as much as 2-3% of thecost of the structural system for high-rise buildings. Similarcost savings would probably result in other types of structures.These cost savings would offset the modest increase in buildingcosts associated with the adoption of seismic design requirementsin areas of the country which currently do not have suchrequirements

.

The testing needs summarized in Appendix E highlight severalgeneral problem areas requiring full-scale testing for eachcategory. For low-rise buildings, for example, the interactionbetween roofs and walls, connection behavior, and the behavior ofnonstructural elements are important. In medium-rise buildings,tests of buildings of the type built in low seismic risk areas,ground motion isolation devices, and the contribution ofnonstructural elements to lateral stiffness and strength need tobe studied. The key issues for high-rise buildings are theredistribution of forces in the structure following localizedyielding, the significance of second-order P-delta effects, andthe force distribution in dual systems. Tests of tankstructures, pressure vessels and piping, and the effectiveness ofretrofit measures are important for industrial processfacilities. Qualification tests and tests of unique componentsfor which small-scale test data is difficult to extrapolate tofull scale are needed for power facilities.

For the purposes of this study, only those tests which couldbest be performed in a central facility using reaction walls andshaking tables were considered. As noted previously, it was theobjective of this phase of the study to identify the specificneeds for these types of facilities. A determination of thedesirability of the use of these types of facilities relative tothat of alternative types of testing is intended to be made inPhase III of this study.

7

In order to determine the desired characteristics of anational earthquake engineering experimental facility, it wasessential first to identify the types of tests needed and then todetermine the capabilities of the facility needed to perform therequired tests. The characteristics of reaction walls andshaking tables needed in a central facility were based on thetesting needs identified in each area considered. Thecharacteristics are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 . It isimportant to note that current U.S. facilities are inadequate foralmost all the tests recommended.

A primary objective of the first phase of the study was todevelop a three- to five-year program of testing for a nationalexperimental research facility. It is impossible at this time tospecify an exact order in which tests should be conducted.Priorities established at this time would almost certainly changeprior to completion of construction of a large facility. It istherefore appropriate to set forth a general series of tests.The most important test in each of the five areas of interest(those listed first in each category) should be considered tohave equal priority. These tests make up the initial program oftesting. The total effort required to conduct these tests, basedon the estimates of time required shown in Appendix D, will be 25project-years. This represents a realistic schedule of testingfor the first five years of operation of a large facility.

8

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL NEEDS

STRUCTURE|

PRIMARY EXPERIMENTAL NEEDSCATEGORY

|

Low-rise|

Tilt-up ConstructionStructures

j

Wood-frame Residential StructuresCavity-wall Masonry StructuresLight Metal Frame Office BuildingsMobile Home Anchorage Systems

Medium-rise|

Concrete Moment-frame StructuresStructures

|

Steel Moment-frame StructuresStructures with Base IsolationStructure with Soft StoryNon-structural ComponentsPrecast Bearing Wall StructuresSteel Stud and Gypsum Board Walls

High-rise|

Frame Tube StructuresStructures

j

Energy-dissipating DevicesComponents of Dual Structural Systems

Industrial|

Unanchored Liquid-filled TanksProcessing

|

Methods of Retrofit for ExistingFacilities

|

Industrial FacilitiesChemical Plant and Refinery Equipment

Power|

Components of Power PlantsFacilities

j

Certification Tests of Components of ElectricalDistribution Facilities

Soil-Structure InteractionElectrical Transmission Towers

9

ei

>H 1EH EH

Z H -

WU JS *C JO ft r=C

S < 5o

EnO

>H

uW <ffi ftW <

O

3:

<

m <zoMW O

Hw EHs UH <;Q w

piQWQZ XW &

O Qcj Ww m

EHcowEh

mft >H

DEH

PSo

PSEh

EH<

CO U

QWHftHCJwftmmQwwz1-1

<SO

PSCJ

o

wHPS

l

O

1

1 VD

1

1 co

1

j

1 *£> j •1 *

i m 1 IT) 1 o1 rH 1 CO 1 (N

1

[

[

i

i

i

[

;

i

i

j

j

1

1

1

1

1 Qi i

1 Wl H

i 1 CTi

fi*

I rsi I ftI: •

i oo 1 00•

1 H1 Ul ft

j j 1 fti I 1 c/)

i

i

I

l

1

1 COi I I Qi i I fti I I ft

i I

ZI

i i ooi 1 rH i <:i 1 1 oi 1 X 1 Hi 1 h-1 1 EH1 00 1 LD 1 ij CN 1 H1 rH 1 rH 1 r< rH 1 PS1 i £ 1 uI X 1 X i CD

i Q Z I oi 1 ^ 1 W h i z1 (N 1 (N

! 3s

[ 1 00 u1 1 < !

1

j

I J w1

[

1

;

i

1 00 I in

1

i oo

i

i

1 rH 1 rH 1 rH

. x i X ! X i

i co 1 LD 1 00 i

1 rH1

1

1 rH 1 rH1

1

1

1

l CD

1

1

1

i

1 01 1 * 1 rH &l m i m1 -H 1 <D i fti c a 1 Q)

i m 1 -H -H -H 1 "H1 -H i u in -M 1 -Pl PS 1 -P W -H 1 -H

1 W QJ rH 1 JJ rH1 & 1 3 0 -H 1 Q> -H

1 1 d i -d o u 1 5 O1 <D 1 -H i C M (d 1 0 <TJ

s i tc i H ft h 1 ft ft

10

«1-1

9EH

oI

CM

OV£>

in

o

o

oro

i

o

ooo

00

o

P Z 1

II Z O i

no hi X*II H HIII H < 1 >< >*H

II U fn H i 0II BOH 1 x" x*II PS O 1 (NII H XIiiq ui >l

<3

I

o

XNo oo ino H

>1-X N

o oo oro m

H(0

g s!5 H » 1 o o o 1 o O 1

a as >h i o o o 1 o O 1HUH 1 V£> a\ CT\ 1 o m i

X H H 1

rtj W U I ro CM 00 t vo ro i

rH 1 H H 1

1

< 1

U 1

W 1

Z i

O i 00 1 o in i

W h E i 1—

1

l rsi H 1

ij c/] 1

X X X X§ § Jh" I

h a i 00 ON <Ti 1 o in i

H - 1 rH 1 CM rH 1

Q X 1

<u

w i H Bin </) 1

w •H <D 1 m c <D 0)

PS X i PS W 1 -rH -H -H •H 1

5 Pd l w 1 •rH 1 M (/I -P V 1

•rH PS 1 4J W -H H 1

u 8 i PS 1 1 (/) <U rH" U rH 1

p W 1 1 •rH rG 1 3 O H <D -H 1

PS H 1 a Cn 1 TJ O CJ 5 u I

H < 1 0 •H 1 C M OS 0 n) i

to U 1 J a EC 1 Hhfa CL, fa 1

oro

I

O

om

o

l X NX N

1 00 CTl

o in1 H O

H O

oro

I

o

X N

o oin o(N H

X N

o oVO 00r- ro

> *

11

EXISTING FACILITIES FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING

In order to evaluate the need for a new earthquakeengineering facility capable of conducting large-scale tests, itis important to consider the capabilities of existing facilitiesin the U.S. and to compare these capabilities to those offacilities in other countries. A summary of existing large-scaletesting facilities worldwide is contained in Appendix B. Thefollowing major points may be noted in this summary:

1. Only approximately twenty percent of the large shakingtables in the world are located in the United States.Almost half the tables in the world, including some ofthe largest, are located in Japan.

2 . Most of the large shaking tables in the world have beenbuilt in the last ten years. During this time, twiceas many tables of all sizes have been built in Japan asin the U.S.

3. There are no shaking tables in the U.S. having an areagreater than 100 m2

.

4. More than half of all the reaction walls in the worldare located in Japan, and ten of those walls have beenclassified as large in Appendix B. Fewer than a thirdof all reaction walls in the world are located in theU.S., and only four of them are large.

It is clear that U.S. facilities are significantly smaller andless sophisticated than those in Japan. It is also clear, asnoted in the previous section, that existing U.S. facilities arenot large enough to perform the majority of the large-scale testsidentified in this report.

Two possibilities for action exist: The United States canupgrade its own facilities to a level comparable to thefacilities in Japan, or it can enter into cooperative agreementswith groups in Japan to perform needed testing. In this light,it is appropriate to consider the scope of previous and possiblefuture cooperation with research establishments in Japan and inother countries having experimental needs similar to those of theU.S. A discussion of the scope of previous and possible futurecooperative research efforts with groups in Japan, Taiwan, andGermany is given in Appendix C.

Because facilities already exist in Japan for static anddynamic testing of large structures and other components, the useof Japanese facilities is an alternative to a large capitalinvestment in a national facility by the U.S. The National

12

Research Council ad hoc committee on facilities andinstrumentation recognized this fact in their report in 1984 (1) ,

and addressed the issue as follows:

"The Japanese presently have earthquake engineeringexperimental/test facilities that are substantially largerin scale and more complex in nature than those existing inthe United States. Cooperative use of the Japanesefacilities by U.S. and Japanese researchers has thepotential to offer full-scale data without the need for alarge capital investment in the United States."

The committee, however, was also quick to point out that theuse of Japanese facilities should not be considered a permanentsubstitute for a facility housed in the U.S. and capable ofresponding to specific requests for testing by researchers andindustry.

13

CONCLUSIONS

During the first phase of a study for a national earthquakeengineering experimental facility, conclusions were reachedregarding research needs. Twenty-three high-priority tests oflarge-scale structures and components were identified in fiveareas. The tests comprise a three- to five-year program oftesting.

A comparison of U.S. facilities with those worldwidedemonstrated that facilities in the U.S. are less sophisticatedand smaller than those in some other countries, particularlyJapan. In addition, the facilities available in the U.S. are notlarge enough to carry out any of the high-priority testsidentified.

It was further concluded by workshop participants that thebenefits to be gained from the ability to perform such testingwarrant continuation of the present four-year study in order todetermine how best to perform this testing. Continuation of thestudy should include detailed determination of thecharacteristics of a centralized national experimental facilityor distributed national facilities and a comparison of relativecosts and benefits from testing in a laboratory facility andsimilar testing conducted by alternative means. Sitingrequirements and a management plan for a national facility shouldbe developed.

14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NBS received assistance from several sources during theplanning and conduct of this study. An interagency steeringgroup met frequently throughout the project to evaluate progressand provide direction. This group was chaired by Dr. Arthur J.Zeizel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and includedin its membership Dr. Walter Hays of the United States GeologicalSurvey and Dr. A. J. Eggenberger of the National ScienceFoundation.

The National Academy of Sciences established an advisorypanel for the study under the auspices of the NAS Committee onEarthquake Engineering. The panel was chaired by Dr. James E.Beavers and included in its membership Dr. Mirhan S. Agbabian,Dr. Robert D. Hanson, Dr. George W. Housner, Dr. James 0. Jirsa,Dr. William F. Marcuson, and Dr. Joseph Penzien. Dr. Riley M.Chung of the National Research Council staff providedadministrative support for the panel and also provided valuableinput to the interagency steering group.

The following six professional engineering firms wereengaged to provide independent evaluations of research needs inthe six areas of interest: Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, low-rise buildings (5) ; Henry J. Degenkolb and Associates, medium-rise buildings (6); Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, high-risebuildings (7) ; URS Corporation, industrial process facilities(8) ; John A. Stevenson and Associates, power facilities (9) ; andImbsen and Associates, lifelines (10) . These firms identifiedresearch needs that served as the basis for the finalrecommendations developed at the workshop. The success of theworkshop itself was due to the enthusiastic participation of allattendees

.

Dr. Joseph Reynen from the Commission of EuropeanCommunities was extremely helpful in providing information on theCommission's study of European needs for a large-scale testingfacility. Dr. Toshio Iwasaki, Director of the EarthquakeDisaster Prevention Department of the Public Works ResearchInstitute in Tsukuba, Japan, conducted the background study ofcurrent utilization of Japanese large-scale testing facilities.Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

15

REFERENCES

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Earthquake Engineering Facilities andInstrumentation, Commission on Engineering and TechnicalSystems, National Research Council, Earthquake EngineeringFacilities and Instrumentation , National Academy Press,Washington, D. C. , 1984.

2 . National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Five-YearPlan, Fiscal Years 1985-89 , Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, United States Geological Survey, National ScienceFoundation, National Bureau of Standards, December, 1984.

3. "Interagency Agreement Between the National Bureau ofStandards and the Federal Emergency Management Agency-National Earthquake Engineering Facility Planning Study,"Interagency Agreement No. EMW-85-E-2134 , FEMA, Washington,D. C. , September 6, 1985.

4. Scribner, C. F. , and Leyendecker, E. V., "Plan for a DesignStudy for a National Earthquake Engineering ExperimentalFacility," NBSIR 86-3453, U. S. Department of Commerce,National Bureau of Standards, October, 198 6.

5. Freeman, Sigmund A. , "Study of Needs for National EarthquakeEngineering Experimental Facility for Low-rise Buildings,"Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., February 17, 1987(unpublished report) , 14 pp.

6. "Determination of Research Needs and Priorities for NationalEarthquake Engineering Experimental Facility - Large-scaleTesting - Moderate Height Buildings," H. J. DegenkolbAssociates, Engineers, September 30, 1986 (unpublishedreport) , 290 pp.

7. Elnimeiri, M. , "A Report Identifying the Current and FutureStructural Systems for High-Rise Buildings and Specifyingthe Seismic Research Needs Utilizing Large-scale TestingFacility," Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, October' 30, 1986(unpublished report) , 63 pp.

8. Larder, R. A., "Experimental Research Needs for ImprovingSeismic Resistant Design of Industrial Process Facilities,"URS Corporation, November 1986 (unpublished report) , 46 pp.

9. Stevenson, J. A., "A Report Identifying and Describing theNeeds for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full ScaleTesting of Power Facility Structures and Equipment,"Stevenson and Associates, Inc., September 30, 1986(unpublished report) , 66 pp.

16

Imbsen, R. A. , "A Report Identifying and Describing theNeeds for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full ScaleTesting of Lifeline Facility Structures and Equipment,"Imbsen and Associates Inc., January 14, 1987 (unpublishedreport) , 42 pp.

17

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS

The benefits to researchers, designers, contractors, andmanufacturers from the availability of a facility capable ofsubjecting large structural models or structural or mechanicalcomponents to simulated seismic loading have long beenrecognized. A number of workshops have been held to considervarious types of facilities and the ways they could be ofbenefit. The following discussion summarizes relevant detailsof the recent workshops.

1 . Potential Utilization of the NASA/Georcre C. Marshall SpaceFlight Center in Earthquake Engineering Research

,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Report, December1979.

A site visit and workshop were held at the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facilities at TheGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) , Alabama, onFebruary 22-24, 1979. The workshop was sponsored by NSF andNASA and chaired by members of the Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute (EERI) . Twenty-six earthquake specialistsfrom academia, industry, and government attended the workshop.

The thrust of the workshop was to examine the feasibilityof using the unique MSFC facilities for large-scale seismictesting of both structures and soils. Suggested potential useswere cyclic static and dynamic testing of multistory structures,medium- and large-scale soil model tests to study dynamicbehavior of soil masses under earthquake excitation, dynamicsoil-structure interaction tests, and utilization of the NASAspacelab under near-zero-gravity environment to evaluateconstitutive properties of soils under near-zero confiningstress conditions. Cost data were not available to conduct costanalyses relative to any specific test requirements.

An assessment was made of the needs for and availabilityof large- and full-scale testing facilities in the followingareas

:

Cyclic Static Tests Test towers are needed to apply staticcyclic horizontal loads in two directions with forcessufficiently large to test 30-m high (10 stories) , 1000-tonspecimens to destruction. Available facilities (the Universityof California at Berkeley, the PCA laboratory and the Universityof Texas at Austin) do not meet simultaneously these size andforce requirements. A number of MSFC facilities that seem tomeet these specifications should be considered. These includestatic and vibration test equipment in the Structures and

18

Mechanics Laboratory, the structural test tower, the verticalground vibration facility, the hazardous structures testfacility, and the model special test equipment.

Shaking Table A large (15 m x 15 m) shaking table with apayload capacity of 2000 tons and two-directional horizontalmotion is needed to perform destructive testing of full-scale(10-story, 1-bay) structural or soil-structure models. Thetable would be required to have a 500 mm stroke, a frequencyrange of 0 to 40 Hz, and a maximum velocity of 65 cm/sec foreach direction of horizontal motion. None of the availableshaking tables meet these specifications. Shaking tables at theUniversity of California at Berkeley, the PCA laboratory andNASA/MSFC are being used for testing small- or medium-scalemodels or 1 to 2-story, 1-bay large- or full-scale models.

Vibration Generator Sinusoidal vibration generators have beenused to measure elastic, dynamic characteristics of largestructures. The DOE generator at the Nevada test site and theNASA/MSFC facility (40 shakers, a 4 5-ton maximum payload and amaximum stroke of 225-mm) can be used to evaluate the dynamicproperties of models or systems in the elastic range. A largerfacility will be required to study the changing behavior oflarge-scale specimens in the inelastic range.

Dynamic Soil Tests The properties of soils sought are thedynamic moduli, Poisson's ratio, and liquefaction parameters.Methods used in the laboratory are the ultrasonic pulse test (tomeasure compression and shear waves), cyclic triaxial, directi_near and torsional shear tests to evaluate settlement andliquefaction potential, and centrifugal tests to simulatedynamic excitation. Field tests used for in-situ measurementsof soil properties include seismic crosshole survey, seismicdownhole survey, seismic reflection survey, electrical sensingprobe, standard penetration test and horizontal polarized shearwave technique. The NASA/MSFC facilities that can be consideredfor soil testing include the equipment in the geotechnicallaboratory for conducting static, steady-state and three-dimensional dynamic testing, and the 3.6 m-diameter centrifugefor simulating dynamic excitation. As noted before, the NASAspacelab was considered for use in soil experiments because itoffered the possibility of evaluating key soil parameterswithout the confinement of a gravitational field.

It was concluded at the workshop that NASA/MSFC did havecertain unique testing capabilities for seismic experiments.It was recommended that structural and geotechnical taskcommittees be formed to develop large-scale test programs,taking into account priorities dictated by cost analyses ofrequired modifications and by the unique aspects of theNASA/MSFC facilities.

19

2 . Experimental Research Needs for Improving Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings . EERI Report No. 84-01,January, 1984.

This workshop was held on July 21-22, 1983 and was hosted bythe Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) . Thepurpose was to identify experimental research needs. It wassponsored by NSF and was attended by participants from academia,the private sector and the U.S. Government. The workshop focusedon the following subjects:

Identification of Experimental Research Needs There was generalconsensus on the inadequacy of existing information on theinelastic performance of buildings in severe earthquakes.Research to determine experimentally the ultimate capacity ofbuilding systems as well as their capacity to sustain damagewithout failure or collapse were underscored. Important types ofbuildings for which full-scale tests are needed were identified.Low- to high-rise residential buildings as well as medium- tolow-height commercial and industrial structures were considered.An economic analysis indicated that $2 0 million would be requiredto determine the performance of just one major type of structure.Recommendations on specific details of needed experiments werenot included.

Evaluation of Experimental Methods Specific shaking table needswere cited: a 25 ft x 50 ft table having one horizontal degreeof freedom; a table similar to the one located at the Universityof California at Berkeley but having two horizontal components ofmotion (instead of one vertical and one horizontal as atBerkeley) ; and a table large enough to test at least smallstructures at full scale.

It was recommended that two to three reaction wall systemsbe constructed, all with the capacity to apply force in threedirections, and one with capacity to test structures with heightsof at least 40 ft.

Requirements were identified and specifications given for ashaking table capable of applying motion in three orthogonaldirections for testing small (one-quarter-scale or less) models.Some guidance was provided on the cost of construction andmaintenance of such a facility.

Harmonic excitation, ambient testing and impulse loadingwere explored for testing of prototype structures. However, itwas concluded that such tests could not take the central role inexperimental research because of costs in time and money.

Two excitation methods using buried and contained highexplosives for testing large soil-structure systems werediscussed. These methods were considered as basic tools for

20

earthquake experimental research because of their potential foruse in evaluating the inelastic response of large structures andsoil-structure systems. Cost was estimated at $900 K for testingusing contained explosives. The cost of testing large structuresto damaging levels was estimated to be $5 million.

Feedback from the response of instrumented buildings wasconsidered to be key information for mathematical modelling.Therefore, it was recommended that instrumentation of existingbuildings be part of a national plan for earthquake hazardmitigation. However, it was recognized that the randomness andinfrequency of occurrences of strong-motion earthquakes remain amajor limitation of this form of experimental research.

The workshop advanced the concept of a research consortiumto coordinate all the experimental research in the U.S., andproposed a specific management plan involving sponsors, industry,universities, research institutions, the laboratory manager, andother directors, operators, and users of the laboratory.

Existing U.S. facilities were identified relative toresearch needs. Plans to provide new and/or expanded facilitieswere proposed, including modernization of existing facilities andestablishment of a major national facility which would house alarge (20 m x 2 0 m) shaking table.

3 . A National Bridge Engineering Laboratory - A Proposed Planf

Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER)

,

College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,December, 1984.

This report documents the proceedings of a workshop toidentify earthquake research and experimental facilities needsfor bridges. The workshop was sponsored by NSF and held in Reno,Nevada, on April 4-6, 1984. The participating engineeringprofessionals were drawn from private practice, academia, andstate and federal organizations. The principal topics discussedwere the highway bridge problem, the solution of this problemthrough establishment of a National Bridge EngineeringLaboratory, research needs, and laboratory management.

National Bridge Engineering Laboratory On the basis of perceivedneeds for research, participants in the workshop recommended thefollowing:

* A national center for bridge engineering to promoteexcellence in bridge engineering, and particularly topromote excellence in design for seismic loading.

21

* The center should be equipped with experimentalfacilities for testing large- and full-scale bridges,both in the laboratory and in the field. It shouldalso provide education, training and informationservices to the bridge engineering community.

The needed equipment and facilities were illustrated in tenconceptual drawings. The capital costs for the center wereestimated to be approximately $100-150 million, including landacquisitions, buildings and equipment. The expenditures foroperations and research activities were estimated at $2 0 millionper year.

Research Needs A broad spectrum of experimental research wasidentified. Areas in which tests were recommended includedlarge-scale experiments on multiple shaking tables, large-scaleexperiments using the pseudo-dynamic method, field experiments onfull-size bridges, and repair and retrofit methods for existingbridges

.

Laboratory Management Three aspects of management of thefacility were considered during the workshop. Therecommendations developed were that the laboratory should:

* be managed by a board of directors made up ofrepresentatives from all elements of the bridgeengineering community

* have a managing director

* have a permanent, high-level, professional andtechnical staff

The management structure proposed was similar to thatsuggested for the earthquake engineering laboratory proposedduring the EERI workshop of July, 1983.

22

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF FACILITIES WORLDWIDE

The two most common types of laboratory facilities used inseismic testing today are 1) shaking tables, and 2) reactionwalls. This section discusses the capabilities of existingfacilities of these two types in the United States and othercountries.

SHAKING TABLES

The graphs shown in figures 1 through 6 illustrateinformation obtained from References 1-5 and present differentcomponents of a shaking table's performance.

As illustrated in figure 1, more than half (fifty-twopercent) of the seventy-nine shaking tables existing worldwidehave an area less than or equal to 10 square meters. Twenty-nine of these, or thirty-seven percent of all such tablesworldwide, are located in the United States.

Of those shaking tables with an area greater than 10 squaremeters, only seven are located in the United States. Three ofthese have an area between eleven and fifteen square meters. Thelargest electro-hydraulic shaking table in the United States islocated at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center at theUniversity of California at Berkeley and has a table area of 37.2square meters. Shaking tables with areas greater than 100 squaremeters include tables at the Institute for Building Research inRomania, at the Nuclear Power Engineering Test Center in Japan,and at the National Research Center for Disaster Prevention inJapan. The world's largest table has an area of 900 squaremeters and is located in the USSR.

Figure 2 summarizes information about the location of large(defined here as having a table larger than 3 meters by 3 meters)shaking tables. Of the forty-seven large shaking tablesworldwide, twenty-four (approximately one-half of the total) arelocated in Japan, nine (less than one quarter of the total) arein the United States, four are in Germany and the rest arelocated in those countries with two tables or less. Also worthnoting in figure 2 is the category "OTHER, " in which are includedthose countries with fewer than three large tables each. Thecountries with two large tables are China, USSR, Romania andItaly. Those with only one large table include France,Yugoslavia and Greece.

The time of installation of all large shaking tables isillustrated in figure 3. The majority (twenty-five) of all largeshaking tables worldwide have been installed during the last 10

23

years (1976-1986) , and most of those are located in Japan. Onlyfour tables were installed in the United States during thisperiod, while eleven were installed in Japan. The largest tableinstalled in the United States during this period (at WyleLaboratory) has an area of 3 3.6 square meters.

A comparison of displacement capacities of existing shakingtables is shown in figure 4. This figure illustrates the factthat the total maximum displacement of the table in any directionof motion for slightly more than half (fifty-three percent) ofall existing shaking tables is less than 100 mm. Seventy-fourpercent of the shaking tables in Japan (a total of twenty-four)are in this category. Thirty-eight percent of the shaking tablesin the United States (a total of twenty-nine) have a similardisplacement capacity. Seventy-two percent of all existingtables have a capacity for maximum displacement in any directionof motion of less than 150 mm (approximately 6 inches) . Of thetwenty-one shaking tables with capacities for maximumdisplacement greater than 150 mm, eleven would be consideredlarge by the definition given previously. Eight of these largetables are located in the United States, two are located inJapan, and one is in the USSR.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of horizontalacceleration capacities (assuming the table to be loaded withmaximum weight) of existing shaking tables. Almost all of thetables having the capacity to apply accelerations greater than10 g are located in the United States. Eighteen of the twentytables capable of applying accelerations greater than 5 g arelocated in the United States. However, these shaking tables aretoo small (having table areas less than 3 meters by 3 meters) touse for seismic testing of full-scale structures. Shaking tablescapable of applying accelerations less than 2 g comprise sixty-one percent of all existing tables. Seventy-three percent(nineteen out of twenty-six) of all Japanese shaking tables canapply a maximum of 1.0 g horizontal acceleration. Six tableslocated in Japan and four tables located in the U.S. are capableof applying maximum accelerations between 1.1 g and 2.0 g. Theseten tables all could be used to conduct large-scale seismictests

.

The distribution of weight capacities of existing tables isshown in figure 6. Twenty-four shaking tables, or approximatelythirty percent of those existing, are capable of carrying theweight of a full-scale structure (2 00 kN or greater) . Threetables having a capacity greater than 2 00 kN are located in theUnites States (at the University of California at Berkeley, UnionCarbide, and Wyle Laboratories) . Thirteen, or approximately one-half of all shaking tables with weight capacities greater than200 kN are in operation in Japan, two are in the USSR, and twoare in Romania.

Shaking table testing of full-scale structures requires atable which has sufficient size, acceleration capacity, andweight and displacement capacity. As noted above, only twenty-four existing tables have a weight capacity of at least 2 00 kN.All of these tables can apply lateral accelerations of at least1.0 g when loaded to their capacities. If it is also requiredthat the minimum area of the table be 2 5 square meters, onlyapproximately twenty-four percent of all existing tables meetweight capacity, acceleration capacity, and area criteria. Someother tables meet one or more, but not all, of these criteria.Of the seventy-nine shaking tables existing worldwide, more thanhalf are limited to testing of small-scale models.

LARGE REACTION WALLS

The use of reaction walls to apply static lateral loads isperhaps the most common method of seismic testing used throughoutthe world. Reaction walls are defined here as large if they aregreater than 10 meters high. In this section, large reactionwalls will be discussed and information about these walls will beillustrated in figures 7-9.

Figure 7 illustrates the fact that more than twice as manylarge reaction walls are located in Japan as in the UnitedStates. There are a total of forty-seven reaction wallsworldwide. Twenty-five of these walls, including ten walls morethan ten meters tall, are located in Japan. Fifteen reactionwalls are located in the U.S., but only four of these are tallerthan 10 meters.

Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of lateral shearcapacities of all existing reaction walls. Sixty-three percentof existing walls have a lateral shear capacity less than orequal to 10 MN. Of these, eleven walls are located in the UnitedStates, thirteen are in Japan, three are in Australia and one isin South Africa. Twenty-nine reaction walls, or sixty-onepercent of all reaction walls, have a shear capacity greater than6 MN. Of these, six are in the United States and twenty-two arein Japan.

Seven of the twenty-two large reaction walls (greater than10 meters high) located in Japan have a shear capacity greaterthan 6 MN. Two of the six large walls in the United States havelateral shear capacities greater than 6 MN. There are no wallsoutside of Japan that are both higher than 10 meters and have alateral shear capacity greater than 11 MN.

The Portland Cement Association (U.S.) has two of thelargest and strongest reaction walls in the world, although bothwalls are less than 10 meters high. The Building ResearchInstitute (Japan) has one of the strongest and highest reactionwalls in the world.

25

Figure 9 summarizes information about the bending capacityof reaction walls worldwide. Thirty-four percent of all existingreaction walls have bending capacities less than or egual to 10MN-m. Nine of the fifteen walls in the United States havecapacities in this range. Of all walls higher than 10 meters andhaving bending capacities greater than 50 MN-m, two are locatedin the United States and five are located in Japan.

Of the ten walls in Japan higher than 10 meters, all have abending capacity of at least 11 MN-m. The reaction walls whichhave bending capacities greater than 50 MN-m and which arelocated in the United States include the walls at PCA (2) , theNational Bureau of Standards, and the Budd Corporation. Thereaction walls located in Japan having capacities greater than 50MN-m are the walls at the Sumitomo Corporation, the OhbayashiCorporation, the Fujita Corporation, the Okumura Corporation, theToda Institute, and at the Building Research Institute (2) .

There are no large reaction walls outside of Japan or the UnitedStates

.

26

Figure 1. Sizes of shaking tables worldwide.

27

I

I

» TABLES > 3m x 3m

Figure 2. Location of large shaking tables.

28

Figure 3. Year of installation of large shaking tables.

29

DISPLACEMENT CAPABILITIES OF SHAKING TABLESWORLDWIDE

NO . OF

SHAKING

TABLES

0-50 51-100 101- 151- 201- 301- 501- 2000-

150 200 300 500 1000 2500

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure A. Displacement capacities of shaking tables.

30

NO. OF 15

SHAKING

TABLES 10

0-.5 .6-1.0 1.1- 2.1- 5.1- 10-50 51-

2.0 5.0 10.0

MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (gs)

101-

100 500

Figure 5. Acceleration capacities of shaking table

31

SHAKSN6 TABLES WORLDWIDE

NO. OF

TABLES

O-IOO 101-200 201-500 501- 1.001- 5.001-

1.000 5.000 20.000

MAXIMUM SHAKING TABLE WEIGHT CAPACITY (KN)

Figure 6. Height capacities of shaking tables.

32

* Reaction Walls Higher Than 10m

Figure 7. Distribution of large reaction walls.

33

REACTION WALL SHEAR CAPACITY WORLDWIDE

39X

NO. OF

WALLS

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

SHEAR CAPACITY (MN)

Figure 8. Shear capacities of reaction walls

34

REACTION WALL BENDIN6

Figure 9. Bending capacities of reaction walls.

35

REFERENCES - APPENDIX B

1. "Experimental Research Needs for Improving Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings", EERI Report No. 84-01,Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,California, January, 1984.

2. Kamimura, K. ,Aoki, Y. , and Masayoshi, N. , "Kenchiku Kenkyu

Shiryo",Register of World Large-scale Test Facilities for

Building Research, Report for C. I. B. , No. 49, BuildingResearch Institute, Ministry of Construction, Tsukuba,Japan, March, 1984.

3. "Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction", apublic information report published by the Japanese Ministryof Construction, Tsukuba Science City, Japan, 1981.

4. Stevenson, J. A., "A Report Identifying and Describing theNeeds for Seismic Research Utilizing Large or Full ScaleTesting of Power Facility Structures and Equipment", DraftReport for NBS, Stevenson and Associates, Cleveland, Ohio,September, 1986.

5. "Facilities of the National Bureau of Standards", U. S.Department of Commerce, NBS SP 682, Gaithersburg, Maryland,September, 1984.

6. "Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory", Seismic Proving Tests forLarge Components of Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear PowerEngineering Center, MITI, Japan, 1982.

36

APPENDIX C

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

FACILITIES IN JAPAN

In the process of considering the needs of the United Statesengineering community for a large-scale experimental facility, itwas important to review programs undertaken by other countries toaddress their own testing needs. Also of interest was theavailability of overseas test facilities for use by U.S.investigators should this approach be deemed appropriate. Theinformation included in this appendix was obtained from a surveyof the Japanese seismic testing program and from a review of arecent study conducted to determine the needs for a large testingfacility in Europe.

In order to determine the availability of Japanesefacilities for use by engineers in the U. S. and in countriesoutside of Japan, the Public Works Research Institute of Japanwas contacted. Dr. Toshio Iwasaki, Director of the Institute'sEarthquake Disaster Prevention Department and a member of theU.S. -Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources, Panel onWind and Seismic Effects, provided information about the seismictesting resources of the Japanese government and of Japanesecompanies that maintain large testing facilities.

The status of large-scale seismic testing facilities inJapan is well documented. A register published in 1984 (Ref. 2,Appendix B) listed the majority of facilities currently existingin Japan and elsewhere. Since that time, three institutionslisted in the register have installed either new shaking tables,reaction walls, or testing machines. In addition, somecombination of shaking tables, reaction walls, and testingmachines have been installed in five institutions that had notbeen previously listed. The institutions that have upgraded oldfacilities or installed new facilities are summarized in TableCI. Characteristics of all new facilities are listed in TablesC2 and C3

.

The facilities available in Japan have attracted theinterest of U. S. Government agencies and private firms having aneed for specialized testing. Dr. Iwasaki contacted eighteenpublic institutions and private firms in Japan to determine theavailability of their facilities to U.S. researchers and todetermine if U.S. firms have discussed use of the facilities.The results of this inquiry are summarized in Table C4

.

All of the organizations contacted indicated that theirfacilities could be made available to U.S. Government agencies.Ten of these organizations stated that they would be willing tolease their facilities to American private firms, and all of the

37

organizations indicated that they would agree to participate incooperative research with either private firms or governmentagencies from the U.S. The majority of Japanese firms arewilling to negotiate the fee for use of their facilities, but themajority are also unwilling to allow outside firms more thanthree months to complete tests for which they lease testingfacilities

.

STUDY BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

The number and capacity of facilities available in Japan areunequalled elsewhere in the world. The demonstrated benefitsprovided by these facilities have inspired engineers in countriesother than Japan to investigate their own needs for similarfacilities. The Commission of European Communities recentlyconsidered needs of European engineers for a large centralseismic testing facility. Although the results of their studyhave not been reported publicly and no decisions have been madeto design or construct a large regional testing facility inEurope, the study did contain the following general findings:

* Experimental verification of computer models isnecessary to insure accurate idealization of structuralproperties and accurate prediction of structuralbehavior, particularly inelastic cyclic behavior.

* Small-scale experimental test facilities havesignificant limitations. Construction of testspecimens is difficult and expensive. Becauseextensive extrapolation is required to relate behaviorof prototype structures to that of model structures,inaccurate representation of nonlinear behavior ofprototype structures is possible.

* A majority of engineers of the European community haveagreed that their testing needs could be satisfied by afacility containing a large reaction wall and a shakingtable with a weight capacity of 2 00 metric tons.

The study also noted that a factor more important than theconstruction of specific facilities is coordination of researchactivities in earthquake engineering and safety of structuresthrough centrally designed and managed research programs.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

One option to undertaking the construction of a nationalengineering facility is to use facilities in other countriesunder cooperative testing agreements. Because several facilitiesappropriate to the needs of some experimentalists in the U.S.

38

exist in other countries, the use of these facilities wheneverpossible could delay the need and expense of construction of acentral facility in the U.S.

The National Science Foundation, through the U.S. -JapanCooperative Program in Natural Resources and the U.S. -JapanCooperative Earthquake Engineering Research Program, has been amajor sponsor of cooperative research between the U.S. and Japan.Through these programs, U.S. researchers have participated intests of full-scale concrete and steel structures at the JapaneseBuilding Research Institute laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan.Cooperative research is continuing with the construction andtesting of a full-scale masonry structure.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and theElectrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) have also undertakencooperative research and testing projects with groups in othercountries. A brief description of these agreements follows.

One of the most attractive facilities for large-scaletesting and seismic research is the Japanese Nuclear PowerEngineering Test Center's Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory. Theshaking table housed in that facility is designed to subject verylarge components of nuclear powerplants to simulated seismicloading. In 1986 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and theJapanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)signed an agreement to conduct cooperative tests of powerplantcomponents. Tests of a pressurized water reactor primary coolantloop are scheduled to begin in 1988. Indications are that MITIand NRC will continue to conduct cooperative testing at theTadotsu site for the next decade. In addition, it is possiblethat this initial agreement will be expanded to includestructures other than powerplants after the current program oftesting is completed in 1990.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also beguncooperative field testing of a full-scale nuclear powerplant inthe Federal Republic of Germany. In a cooperative agreement withthe German ministry of power and a private German testing firm,NRC is using a decommissioned nuclear reactor in Karlsruhe as atestbed for vibration testing. To data a large eccentric shakerhas been mounted in the plant in order to determine naturalfrequencies of vibration of the plant and its components.Higher-level shaking tests of piping and other components arescheduled to begin in the coming year, and additional tests areplanned through 1990.

In a third program of cooperative testing, NRC, theElectrical Power Research Institute and the Taiwan Power Companyhave begun to study soil-structure interaction. In these tests,a large simulated powerplant foundation and structure have beenconstructed in a seismically active region in Taiwan. Various

39

forced vibration tests have been conducted on this testbed.Instruments have been placed to measure free-field vibrationsfrom natural earthquakes and to measure the response of thefoundation and structure during these earthquakes. This isperhaps the most comprehensive program of testing ever conductedto study soil-structure interaction in connection with astructure of this type on natural soil. To date the site hasbeen shaken by four large earthquakes and valuable data have beengathered. This program promises to be very valuable andrelatively inexpensive for all involved. Because the use of thesite is dependent in some aspects on naturally occurringearthquakes to provide seismic input, it is impossible toschedule all tests precisely or to know in advance of any shakinghow severe the shaking will be. This program of research isexpected to continue for several years.

40

TABLE CI

RECENT ADDITIONS TO AND UPDATES OF JAPANESE FACILITIES

INSTITUTION!

FACILITY INSTALLED

TEST BED ANDJ

UNIVERSALj

REACTION WALL | TEST MACHINE]

SHAKINGTABLE

Public Works Research Institutej

Ministry of Construction !

( PWRI ) :

x ; x;

X

Shimizu Construction Co. Ltd.;

Research Laboratory]

(SHIMIZU)j

X

Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd.

Technical Research Institute(OHBAYASHI)

|

j j

X

Nippon Telegraph and TelephoneJ

Corporation, Tsukuba Engineering]Development Center !

(NTT-TEDC) :

x ; x !

Okumura CorporationTsukuba Research Institute(OKUMURA)

X | XJ

| !

X

Toda Institute ofConstruction Technology

|

(TODA)]

x ; x;

Japanese National RailroadTechnical Research Institute(JNR)

!

X

Central Research Institute of

Electric Power Industry, Civilj

Engineering Lab. (CRIEPI)\

X

Institute of Industrial Sciencej

University of Tokyo (IIS)\

x; x

i

X

41

CNUwpm<EH

0!

Qwp

Ehco

Eh55WUW

COP

15OHEHu<«EnOCOUMEHCOH«Eh

ECU

OE5H >H

P Eh S!5 M CNW U X |

• o o •

CQ < 1 CTi 1 rH rH oru g 1 rH rH rH rH

p < sP u<

W EhEC H rHCO U g vo CM m •

r-l CN rH CTi

J CMi-l << O

l

l i-l

l P »—

*

-—

-

m OI < £ 1 CM CM 00 • • •

*—

'

'—

'

CO rH o oI rH rH rHl • X O Xi Eh rH (N X X X

CO i c_) CNi <: ec X X rH o i>

O i w rHH 1 Ph inCO

i

i <£> mi p o LO CT\ t •

H i w ^ CN rH O oQ l CQ rH rH

1 X X X X1 EH X inl CO P ID in •

I W rH rH rH m oI EH rH rH

PWP

« P O o m CN on<C < 00 00 CO co 00iy Eh CT> CTi CT\ CTi CTi

>h CO rH rH rH rH rH

IN

ZOHEH u< pP wP EH E3< M l £ <EH ct; EH D P COCO EH o HIN

ft 55 O EH H

42

II rHII CJ o o o o o o oII z u rO LD in r- CN in in mII W OII t2 z 1 1

'

i i 1 l i i

il Og xII U K o o o o O rH o oII « •

II (uII

II

o

II

II Hi! §II s sII tD W

1—

*

>i >H

II S UII M < '— — X X to

II X — '—

'

*— —II 5 Cm in oII S 1-0 ld • m o o in in o o o o o

3 II H r~ r- O rH tN r- o o m vo o<! II Q ro CN rH rH rH ro

CM II

< II

zII

!! ^ £ ' ' '

'—

'

>H" * •—

**—

X NH II S p * ' * '—

' ^-^

II t> H ^- o X NQ II £ CJ V] o -— ^ ' *—

'

o O o o OW II H O \ o o >x> o o in in o

o o o o o o in ro mII <j w o o o o

< o in o inEh rH rH(/}

Z II ' -—

-

.—. •—M II s • X X X N

II iJ — 0i Ol Cn — —(H II 2 U rjn cn Di

II HO LO CO o oEh II X CJ m in . • • • • O rH 00Z II f£ i<C • CN <N o ro o rH • • •

1!

s (N • CN rH oCJ

2rH

c/i

II

II z, ,

•

w II oII [u H uII O HII < > 0H II • Eh IS] QII Oh H II - >< N

O II H U X X rH * *

Z!!Q ^ N rH X X X X X

H II wII

—

'

<

sh;II

II'

!! ^ £u< II H H Xo II X H o — o o o o o

II CJ) CJ z o o o o o r~ o<a II M < *x o o CN o o in ocj II W Cm iH m vo CN rHM II £ < CN

II CJinM

il—

-

wEHCJ II C/l 'J* ID

II z XII wo l£) — 00 KD m ro

II iJ HII PQ CO E X ro X X X X X X

cj II ^ zII Eh W CO X CN in ro COII £ rH •

II H ro nII QII

II

II

II ZII OII HII Eh HII < XII i-J in

II iJ tSl g < MII < M CMII H H £ £ < WII W « H m m HII Z X X z X M «II H Cm in O o M

43

wco3

II fn CO co zII O Q O tjII W z zII w t-i Eh M MII w U CO q KII a w •a a 3 HII & ce M M CQ COII Eh 3 3 ZII CO m CO W MII

II

II

II

II

II wII coII 3II

!! £II HII

II MII OII <II u.

II

II

II

II u

co COz wo w M zH O co Eh > o 3M Eh >. 1

Q CO z CO cu u a 3 3 Kh

;

gH z O 6 oRI S3M X !>

w z Eh ft, W 1 w wa z a 3 U o m i z z EhO H M U 1 o o CO> CO z • 1 z zz Cn" > O I

co o co M &CCJ z a. Z 3 1 CO

3 z

ii a,ii

il

II coii

II 3II

II ccII OII

n

ii

II

wCO3

QZOo

« fc,

>

COzo

II

II COit:

<0

II Q WII 3 Z CO rHII o 3II

IIORu a w

II Cv> o r-1

II Cv,

II uII

IIIL EN H M

II < a.II > > >II < <

zoHHEh3EhMEhCOZ

of of 1 of of <*> of 1 of of 1 of

o o 1 O O o o 1 o o 1 OrH 1 »£> CI in 1 i£> CN I in

of c*> 1 of of of of 1 of of 1 of

O O 1 O O o o 1 O O 1 oo in 1 •* CO 1 IT)

rH

CQ

u3aEhCO

H-

wwHCO

<0 io 10 <0 ifl

^H 1 <0 m n 1 03 rH

m i m in in in 1 rH in

1

3o uEh Q wo u Ph

3z z

EhU

CO CO 3w OS CO

DIN LIN-ST

DGE

H w H1 t i—

i

M H PS3 M O 5CO a. CO

10 1 XI (0 i xT

m I tH 1 -tf

oz

a,wa;u

oz

oXgI—

I

£3CO

Eh EhU UW WO O« OSa, a.

CO COCC X

3 3

Ed M H ft] HS >3 >< g u

rH cn n m

U O«; z

oQZu

w wCO Q3a 3o eg

3Q

UCO

Q

tO XI

44

wco3

Q5o

COu

Q HCU H3 HZ -1H HEh CJZ <O &Hcj

6-

« zCO O z cj u

3 J) «c 3 COo Q Eh CO Oh CO Oh

w o o EhCO Eh z Se z z COw U CO W M o M

s3 i a

W 8Oh J

« H Eh a 9 MEh OS H M CJ H CJ o o

CO o 05 3 3 3 cj COCQ Z to Z

CO

3><Eh

cj<

ai

zoz

COzo a uMOWEh 3S u oM CO ZZ 3 M9 05O 13 Uz a05

OCOzou

COzoHEhHQZoU 05

oCL4 CO

M1 H

>

> CO

8 o

o05 CJoX

• UM S< o> at

zoHEh3EhMEhCOZ

<#> 1 o»> 0*> <*> i .*>

<*> i <*>

o o o 1 o 1 o o o o 1 on (N in I m i n CO r- 1 (N

<*> <*> <#> i <*> I <*> <*> <*> 1 (X>

o O o I o 1 o O o o 1 oCO in i r- i r- (N n 1 CO

wu05Ed

05ana,

05z3COw

COa:

z3

WZoz

in

wEh

>l-H

05a.

X? ID 1 ID 1 Io

w t-H 1 "tf i "io IT) 103"

1 I1

CO3 VP in 1 vD 1 CN in n 1 IB

H 1 M H 1 M 1 H H M 1 HCh 1 < < < 1 < -a: < <

1 > > > il 1 > > > > il1 < 1 < < < <

(0

1 U3 1 ON 1 H 1 wM 1 W 1 Eh£ 1 CO 1 1M 1 M 1 EhX 1 < 1 EhCO 1 Eh 1 Z

w w wz z z zO o o oz z z z

ia

in

335o

10

in

QOEh

05Z

co aC3 M

asM Q3 Zm m

COw

CO05

z3

Eh Eh

h in n -j in

> CO<

a3

M inuJ Q CO

HU w< w

Cn

lO 10 XI

45

APPENDIX D

N.E.E.E.F. WORKSHOPGAITHERSBURG , MARYLANDNOVEMBER 18-19, 1986

An important objective of the first phase of the study wasto obtain input from as wide a segment of professional and tradeorganizations and government agencies as possible. In order toaccomplish this objective, a workshop was held in Gaithersburg,Maryland on November 18-19, 1986 to allow all interested groupsto hear the recommendations of the six consultants and to offeradditional suggestions for needed research.

The six consultants who had been hired to study experimentalneeds in the six specific areas of interest (low-rise, medium-rise, and high-rise structures, industrial process facilities,power facilities, and lifelines) prepared technical reports (Ref.5-10) discussing experimental needs and presented theirrecommendations on the morning of the first day of the workshop.Participants in the workshop were then divided into six workinggroups to discuss, modify, and add to these recommendations. Atthe conclusion of the workshop, each of the six working groupsreported the results of their discussions.

In arriving at the testing needs identified in Table 1 inthe body of this report, a large number of tests were consideredin each category. In general, each consultant attempted toidentify all tests which might be desirable in the assignedcategory. As an example, the consultant responsible fordetermining the testing needs for medium-rise buildings developeda total of twenty-four specific tests needed which ranged fromconsideration of torsional response of irregular buildings toquantifying the benefits of redundancy in a structure duringseismic action. The seven tests recommended finally for medium-rise buildings in Appendix E were those determined by theconsultant and the working group at the workshop to be those mostimportant among all tests considered. A similar procedure wasused to identify the most important testing needs for the othercategories of structures.

The following individuals participated in the workshop andrepresented the organizations shown:

Dr. Ahmed M. Abdel-GhaffarDynamics Committee of the Engineering Mechanics DivisionAmerican Society of Civil Engineers

Dr. Daniel P. AbramsThe Masonry Society

46

Dr. Satish AbrolHeadquarters, USAF

Dr. James BeaversNational Research Council

Dr. John J. BurnsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dr. Manmohan S. ChawlaGeneral Services Administration

Dr. Riley M. ChungNational Research Council

Mr. John CoilStructural Engineers Association of California

Mr. James CooperDefense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Charles G. CulverNational Bureau of Standards

Mr. Henry J. DegenkolbH. J. Degenkolb & Associates

Dr. A. J. EggenbergerNational Science Foundation

Dr. Mahjoub ElnimeiriSkidmore, Owings & Merrill

Mr. William Y. EplingAmerican Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

Mr. Sigmund A. FreemanWiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

Mr. G. Robert FullerDepartment of Housing and Urban Development

Mr. James GatesCalifornia Department of Transportation

Mr. Peter E. GurvinDepartment of State/FBO

Dr. Robert D. HansonNational Research Council

47

Dr. Walter W. HaysUnited States Geological Survey-

Mr. James R. HillDepartment of Energy-

Mr. Peter HoffmanMcGraw-Hill, Inc.

Dr. George HousnerNational Research Council

Dr. Roy A. ImbsenImbsen & Associates, Inc.

Dr. Richard A. LarderURS Corp./ J. A. Blume & Associates

Mr. Lon ListerFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Dr. Stephen A. MahinCommittee on Seismic EffectsAmerican Society of Civil Engineers

Dr. William F. Marcuson IIINational Research Council

Mr. Harry W. MartinAmerican Iron and Steel Institute

Dr. Francis G. McLeanBureau of Reclamation

Mr. R. E. Mills, Sr.Steel Plate Fabricators Association

Ms. Janina V. MirskiVeterans Administration

Dr. Joseph ReynenCommission of the European Communities

Dr. Henry G. RussellPortland Cement Association

Dr. Michael SbagliaAmerican Insurance Services, Inc.

Dr. Charles F. ScheffeyFederal Highway Administration

48

Dr. Charles F. ScribnerNational Bureau of Standards

Mr. Robert SpanglerCouncil of American Building Officials

Dr. John A. StevensonStevenson & Associates

Mr. Joseph TyrrellNaval Facilities Engineer Command

Mr. Charles W. C. YanceyNational Bureau of Standards

Dr. Arthur J. ZeizelFederal Emergency Management Agency

49

The following organizations were also given the opportunityto review the recommendations developed at the workshop and tooffer further needs for experimentation:

American Assoc. of State Highway and Trans. OfficialsAmerican Concrete InstituteAmerican Consulting Engineers CouncilAmerican Institute of Timber ConstructionAmerican Plywood AssociationAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc.American Society of Mechanical EngineersAmerican Society for Testing and MaterialsApplied Technology CouncilAssociated General Contractors of AmericaAssociation of Major City Building OfficialsBrick Institute of AmericaBuilding Officials and Code Administrators, InternationalBuilding Seismic Safety CouncilConcrete Masonry Association of California and NevadaConcrete Reinforcing Steel InstituteCouncil on Tall BuildingsEarthguake Engineering Research InstituteElectric Power Research InstituteInternational Conference of Building OfficialsMetal Building Manufacturers AssociationNational Association of Home BuildersNational Concrete Masonry AssociationNational Conference of States on Building Codes and

StandardsNational Electrical Manufacturers AssociationNational Forest Products AssociationNational Ready-Mixed Concrete AssociationNuclear Regulatory CommissionPost-Tensioning InstitutePrestressed Concrete InstituteRack Manufacturers InstituteSouthern Building Code Congress InternationalSteel Deck Institute, Inc.Structural Engineers Association of ArizonaStructural Engineers Association of UtahUnited States Forest Products LaboratoryUniversity Council on Earthguake Engineering ResearchWestern States Council Structural Engineers AssociationWestern States Clay Products Association

50

APPENDIX ERECOMMENDATIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE TESTING

For the purposes of this report, needs for large-scaleseismic testing were considered for low-rise, medium-rise, andhigh-rise buildings, industrial processing facilities, powerfacilities, and lifelines. Recommendations were developed forall areas except lifelines. The recommendations for research inthe area of lifelines were concerned primarily with bridges.These research needs and recommendations for the facilitiesreguired to conduct this research have not been presented herefor two reasons. First, these recommendations were similar innature to those presented previously in a report on researchneeds for bridges (see Appendix A, Workshop 3) . Second, many ofthe tests recommended can be done more appropriately as in-situtests on actual structures rather than in a central laboratory.These tests, although important to a total program of seismictesting, are not of interest to this study of a nationalfacility.

The following sections summarize the needs for research andrecommendations for testing identified as being appropriate to anational experimental facility. The recommended tests in eachsection are listed in priority order.

A. LOW-RISE STRUCTURES

For the purposes of this report, low-rise buildings weredefined as those structures less than four stories high. Suchbuildings can be tested under static lateral loads using a largereaction wall. In addition, many low-rise structures, such aswood-frame residential buildings, are small enough to fit on alarge shaking table. Low-rise structures often consist of anassemblage of several similar or identical modules, one of whichalso might be small enough to fit on a large shaking table.

RECOMMENDATION Al: TILT-UP CONSTRUCTION

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF TILT-UPCONSTRUCTION HAVING PANALIZED PLYWOOD ROOF DIAPHRAGMS

A full scale test of a single-story tilt-up industrialbuilding is needed to study the behavior and response of thistype of structure, particularly of a panalized plywood roofdiaphragm, the interaction of walls and roofs, and the responseof connections between the roof and walls.

51

Facility requirements for this test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 18 mWeight Capacity: 13 3 0 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g., X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 20 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

Note: Additional review of this type of structure has indicatedthat there may be some difficulties in developing a testmodel that will accurately simulate actual conditions. Inlieu of a shaking table test, individual actuators may haveto be used. Additional study will be required to developmore accurately the test facility requirements.

RECOMMENDATION A2 : WOOD-FRAME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF A TWO-STORY WOOD-FRAME RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Tests of a two-story wood-frame residential structure wouldbe designed to determine overall response of this class ofstructure, deformation patterns of walls and roofs, interactionbetween components of the structure, and behavior of connections,non-structural partitions, and foundation anchorages.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 8 m x 12 mWeight Capacity: 180 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A3: SPLIT-LEVEL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF SPLIT-LEVEL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

The test of a two-story split-level residential structurehaving a large garage door opening would provide informationabout the interaction between sections of the structure and theeffects of the garage door opening on the performance of thestructure. This configuration of test specimen would also beused to investigate the methods of tying together sections ofresidential structures.

52

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 12 m x 12 mWeight Capacity: 27 0 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A4 : CAVITY-WALL MASONRY STRUCTURE

DYNAMIC TESTS OF MASONRY STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO MODERATEEARTHQUAKES ARE NEEDED

A large number of commercial structures in the eastern U.S.and in other regions of the country in which seismic risk is loware of cavity wall masonry construction, in which two wythes ofmasonry units are separated by an air space and held togetherwith metal ties. The test of such a structure under moderateseismic forces (maximum lateral accelerations of 0.2 g.) wouldhelp to determine its resistance to lateral loads and would serveas a proof test of this common type of construction.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 8 m x 12 mWeight Capacity: 800 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A5 : LIGHT-WEIGHT STEEL STRUCTURES

DYNAMIC TESTS OF A THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF LIGHT-WEIGHT METALMOMENT FRAMES

A common form of construction for small office buildingsconsists of lightweight steel moment frames formed by tubularcolumns and open web joists. Tests of a three-bay by three-baystructure of this type are needed to determine the performance ofthis popular type of construction during earthquakes. Although atypical prototype structure would be approximately 30m square inplan, it is believed that a 2/3 scale model would accuratelydemonstrate the performance of the structure.

53

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 18 m x 18 mWeight Capacity: 3 600 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 5 man-years

RECOMMENDATION A6 : MOBILE HOME ANCHORAGE

DYNAMIC TESTS ARE NEEDED TO CERTIFY SYSTEMS FOR ANCHORINGMOBILE HOMES

Mobile homes are manufactured in sizes as large as 4.3 m by22 m for single-width homes and 8.6 by 15 m for double-widthhomes. One of the critical aspects of the performance of thesemanufactured homes is the system used to anchor the structure toeither the soil or to a prepared foundation. A shaking tablecould be used to test and certify the various systems designed toanchor these homes against both wind and earthquake loads.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 18 mWeight Capacity: 18 0 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0.2 - 2 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

B. MEDIUM-RISE STRUCTURES

For purposes of this report, medium-rise structures wereconsidered to be those between four and fifteen stories inheight. Medium-rise structures make up a majority of commercialconstruction. Full-scale medium-rise concrete and steel framestructures have been tested using a very large reaction wall inTsukuba, Japan, and a full-scale medium-rise masonry structure iscurrently being prepared for testing. The following researchneeds and tests necessary to satisfy those needs have beenidentified

:

RECOMMENDATION Bl: CONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURES

TESTS OF FULL-SCALE MOMENT FRAME AND DUCTILE MOMENT FRAMESTRUCTURES ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF THESESTRUCTURAL SYSTEMS UNDER LATERAL LOADING

Full-scale static lateral load tests of a medium-riseconcrete frame structure have been conducted in Japan. However,the details of reinforcement used in that structure were not thesame as those used in similar structures in the U.S. Tests ofconcrete frame structures containing reinforcement detailed in

54

accordance with U.S. practice are needed. A test of a ductilemoment frame structure would address the needs of designers ofstructures built in zones of severe seismic risk. The test of anordinary moment frame structure would examine the behavior ofconcrete frame structures built in regions of low seismic risk.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 12,900 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:Test Bed Dimensions: 18 m x 18 mReaction Wall Height: 2 3 mWall Shear Capacity: 5.60 MNWall Moment Capacity: 82 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B2 : STEEL MOMENT FRAME STRUCTURE

TESTS OF A STEEL MOMENT FRAME STRUCTURE CARRYING FULL DEADLOAD AND LATERAL LOADS APPLIED IN ORTHOGONAL DIRECTIONS ARENEEDED

A full-scale steel braced frame structure has been tested inJapan. This test did not address the behavior of steel momentframe structures, which make up a large percentage of steel framestructures in seismic regions of the U.S. A test of a 7-storysteel moment frame structure carrying full dead load and lateralload applied in orthogonal directions is needed to define thebehavior of this important type of structure.

55

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 10,000 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:Test Bed Size: 18 m x 18 mReaction Wall Height: 27 mWall Shear Capacity: 5.60 MNWall Moment Capacity: 82 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B3 : MEDIUM-RISE STRUCTURES WITH BASE ISOLATION

TESTS OF A MEDIUM RISE STRUCTURE INCORPORATING A SYSTEM OFBASE ISOLATION DEVICES IS NEEDED

The use of base isolation devices to reduce earthquakedamage is receiving considerable attention. Controlled tests offull-scale structures incorporating such devices are needed toprovide performance data on their functioning and effect onstructural response.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation Bl.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B4 : DYNAMIC TEST OF BUILDING WITH SOFT STORY

TESTS OF A STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE HAVING A SOFT STORY ARENEEDED

As a result of commercial use, the first story of manymedium-rise structures is quite flexible (soft story) . Test dataare needed for such structures. This test can be conducted inconjunction with the test of the steel moment frame structurerecommended above.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Same as for Recommendation B2

.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 3 man-years(to be done in conjunction with other projects)

56

RECOMMENDATION B5 : FULL-SCALE TESTS OF NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS COMMON IN STEEL MOMENT FRAMESTRUCTURES

Non-structural components of structures subjected toearthquakes present a serious problem for designers and representone of the greatest expenses associated with damage fromearthquakes, even if the structure remains relatively intact.Tests are needed to determine the contribution of various typesof curtain walls and other non-structural components to thestiffness and strength of frame structures and to determine thebehavior of anchorage systems used to connect non-structural andstructural elements. These tests could be most efficiently donein connection with the test of the steel frame structurerecommended above.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Same as for Recommendation B2

.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

RECOMMENDATION B6 : PRECAST COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURESCONSTRUCTED FROM PRECAST COMPONENTS

It is recommended that a seven-story reinforced masonrybearing wall structure having precast components be tested. Thisstructure should contain precast floors, both with and withouttopping, in addition to other selected precast components.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 7,100 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.8 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:Test Bed Size: 18 m x 18 mReaction Wall Height: 2 3 mWall Shear Capacity: 8.9 MNWall Moment Capacity: 13 6 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

57

RECOMMENDATION B7 : STEEL STUDS AND GYPSUM BOARD SHEATHING

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE BEHAVIOR OF WALLSCONSTRUCTED OF LIGHT-GAGE STEEL STUDS AND GYPSUM BOARDSHEATHING

A five- or six-story structure would be used as a vehicle toexamine the behavior of walls constructed of light-gage steelstuds and gypsum boards. Walls of this type are common in lightoffice construction, but their contribution to the stiffness andstrength of the structure is unknown.

Facility Requirements for This Test:

Same as for Recommendation B2

.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

C. HIGH-RISE STRUCTURES

High-rise structures, defined here as those structurestaller than fifteen stories, present a unique set of problems,not only for designers, but for those contemplating full-scale orlarge-scale tests of representative structures. Even the largestfeasible shaking tables or reaction walls are not large enough totest a complete high-rise structure at a large scale. Inaddition, a test of a large-scale three-dimensional model of- ahigh-rise structure could be prohibitively expensive.

It will probably never be possible to test a complete, full-scale, high-rise structure in any laboratory. The types of testsrecommended for determining behavior of high-rise structures maybe divided into either quarter-scale tests of complete structuresor full-scale tests of structural components. The specificresearch recommendations which have been identified include thefollowing:

RECOMMENDATION CI: FRAMED TUBE SUBASSEMBLY

FULL-SCALE TESTS OF COMPONENTS OF A FRAMED TUBE ARE NEEDEDTO DEFINE BEHAVIOR OF THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE

A full-scale test of a subassembly of a framed tubestructure is needed to study behavior of such a system havingstrong beams and relatively weaker columns. This test woulddetermine the effects of localized yielding on redistribution offorces within the system, the ability of the system to maintainits load-carrying capacity, and P-delta effects. Quarter-scaletests are proposed.

58

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 4,450 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0 - 15 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

RECOMMENDATION C2 : ENERGY-DISSIPATING DEVICES

TESTING OF ENERGY DISSIPATING DEVICES ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF THOSE DEVICES ON STRUCTURALRESPONSE

Energy dissipating devices can be installed throughout ahigh-rise structure, but their effect on performance has neverbeen experimentally verified. The ability to conduct full-scaletests would stimulate development of the components andconfidence in their performance.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Same as for Recommendation CI.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

RECOMMENDATION C3 : DUAL SYSTEMS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO VERIFY THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS BETWEENCOMPONENTS OF DUAL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Full- or large-scale tests of subassemblies of structureshaving dual systems designed to carry lateral loads. Tests areneeded to determine the manner in which lateral loads are carriedby the components of the system up to failure.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 4,450 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.6 g. , X,Y directionsFrequency Range: 0 - 15 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

59

D. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING FACILITIES

Industrial processing facilities include a wide variety ofstructures, equipment, and mechanical components such as largetanks, pressure vessels, piping, furnaces, and stacks. Manyexisting facilities were designed without consideration ofearthquake loading and at a time when little was known about thecharacteristics of earthquake loads or the appropriate means ofresisting these loads. The following summarize therecommendations for tests requiring a large national facility:

RECOMMENDATION Dl: UNANCHORED TANKS

DYNAMIC TESTS OF UNANCHORED LIQUID-FILLED TANKS ARE NEEDED

Shaking table tests of unanchored tanks are needed todetermine behavior of liquid filled tanks having floating roofs,open roofs, or closed roofs. These tests would be designed tostudy the effects of motions of the liquid within the tanks onbuckling and failure of the tank walls and to study the behaviorof piping connections to the tank.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 15 m x 15 mWeight Capacity: 14,2 00 kNMaximum Acceleration: 1.0 g. X, 1.0 g. Y, 0.5 g. Z

Maximum Displacements: 250 mm horizontal, 2 5 mm verticalMaximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/sec.Frequency Range: 0 - 10 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION D2 : RETROFIT MEASURES

TESTS OF RETROFIT METHODS FOR EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ARENEEDED TO DETERMINE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE METHODS OFSTRENGTHENING

The vast majority of existing industrial plants wereconstructed either without consideration of or with crudeconsideration of seismic response of the plants. Full-scaletests would be designed not only to determine the behavior ofexisting plants, but also the effectiveness of proposed methodsof retrofit.

60

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 20 m x 20 mWeight Capacity: 16,000 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directionsMaximum Displacement: 2 50 mmMaximum Velocity: 760 mm/secFrequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Reaction Wall:18 m x 3 m test bedL-shaped Reaction Wall Height: 12 mWall Shear Capacity: 2.2 MNWall Moment Capacity: 2 0.3 MN-m

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION D3 : CHEMICAL AND REFINERY EQUIPMENT

TESTS OF REFINERY AND CHEMICAL PLANT COMPONENTS ARE NEEDEDTO DETERMINE BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED COMPONENTS

Tests of several types of large components of chemicalplants and refineries are needed. These components include thefollowing:

Spherical and cylindrical pressure vesselsPiping systemsCracking towers with pipingStacks and chimneys

Facility requirements for these tests would be the same as thosefor unanchored tanks discussed above. An added condition of thetest facility would be that 100 ft overhead clearance would berequired for the shaking table to accommodate the stacks andcracking towers at an acceptable scale.Estimated level of effort for this project: 7 man-years

E. POWER FACILITIES

Because of the many critical large electrical and mechanicalcomponents present in a typical power-generating or powertransmission facility, the tests which are most needed by thisindustry are those which could determine the behavior of thesemajor structural and mechanical components. The recommendationsfor testing are the following:

61

RECOMMENDATION El: PLANT COMPONENTS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSE OF CRITICALCOMPONENTS OF POWER-GENERATING FACILITIES TO SEISMIC LOADING

A large number of the mechanical components of power-generating facilities are unique to those facilities. Tests ofeither full-scale components or of models are needed for tworeasons. First, scale model tests of some components on ashaking table could increase understanding of the behavior ofthese components and help their designers to make them moreefficient and safer from a structural standpoint. Second, full-scale tests of some critical components are needed as prooftests. The components to be tested, either at full scale or atreduced scale could include diesel generators, gas turbines,suspended boilers, coal handling systems, large-diameter hightemperature ducts, and large suspended ceilings typical of thoseused in control rooms.

Facility Requirements for These Tests:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 4,4 50 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. ,

X,Y,Z directionsMaximum Displacement: 250 mmMaximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/secFrequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 5 man-years

RECOMMENDATION E2 : DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

FULL-SCALE TESTS OF COMPONENTS OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEMS ARE NEEDED AS QUALIFICATION TESTS

Several failures of equipment at electrical distributionsubstations have highlighted the need for qualification tests offull-scale production components. The components should includelarge transformers, large switchgear, and other critical elementsof power distribution systems.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 4,450 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directionsMaximum Displacement: 2 50 mmMaximum Velocity: 760 mm/secFrequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 4 man-years

RECOMMENDATION E3 : SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

LARGE-SCALE TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE EFFECTS OF SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES

The inability to successfully scale soil particle sizesleads to a need to perform large-scale tests of effects of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of powerplantstructures. A large shaking table would be required to conductcoupled soil-structure tests with controlled input motions andrealistic dimensions and boundary conditions. Such tests couldinclude consideration of rigid concrete structures on raft orpile foundations, flexible steel structures on spread footings orpiles, and the response of buried tanks, tunnels, shafts, andpiping.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 15 m x 15 mWeight Capacity: 13,300 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. ,

X,Y,Z directionsMaximum Displacement: 2 50 mmMaximum Velocity: 760 mm/secFrequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 6 man-years

RECOMMENDATION E4 : TRANSMISSION TOWERS

TESTS ARE NEEDED TO DEFINE THE RESPONSE OF TRANSMISSIONTOWERS TO SEISMIC LOADING

Because the overturning stability of some configurations oftransmission towers is related to the absolute displacement ofthe ground during seismic loading, a large-scale test of suchtowers is needed to properly represent their potential tooverturn. Tests for both truss-type and pole-type towers arerecommended.

Facility Requirements for This Test:Shaking Table:Size: 9 m x 9 mWeight Capacity: 2,2 00 kNMaximum Acceleration: 0.5 g. , X,Y,Z directionsMaximum Displacement: 2 50 mmMaximum Velocity: 7 60 mm/secFrequency Range: 0.1 - 3 0 Hz.

Estimated level of effort for this project: 2 man-years

63

APPENDIX F

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCEADVISORY PANEL

CHAIRMAN

Dr. James E. BeaversMartin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.Bldg. 9733-4, MS-2P. O. Box YOak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

Dr. Mirhan S. AgbabianDepartment of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles, California 90089-0242

Dr. Robert D. HansonDepartment of Civil Engineering2 34 0 G. G. Brown LaboratoryUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109-2125

Dr. George W. HousnerMail Code 104-44California Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California 91125

Dr. James O. JirsaFinch Professor of Civil EngineeringFerguson Structural Engineering LaboratoryUniversity of Texas10100 Burnet RoadAustin, Texas 78758

Dr. William F. Marcuson IIIUSAE Waterways Experiment StationWES-GV-ZP. 0. Box 631Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

Dr. Joseph PenzienRoom 731, Davis HallUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720

64

LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES

Dr. William A. AndersonProgram Director, Earthquake Systems IntegrationDivision of Emerging and Critical Engineering SystemsNational Science FoundationWashington, D. C. 20550

Mr. James CooperStrategic Structures BranchDefense Nuclear AgencyWashington, D. C. 20305

Dr. James CostelloMechanical/Structural Engineering BranchDivision of Engineering TechnologyOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D. C. 20555

Mr. Richard F. DavidsonCivil Engineering, Geotechnical Branch OfficeChief of Engineers, U. S. ArmyHQDA (DAEN-CWE-SS)Washington, D. C. 2 0314

Dr. Walter W. HaysDeputy for Research ApplicationsOffice of Earthquakes, Volcanoes & EngineeringU. S. Geological SurveyNational Center, MS 905Reston, Virginia 22092

Mr. Joseph TyrrellCode 045Naval Facilities Engineering Command2 00 Stovall StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22332

Dr. Arthur J. ZeizelOffice of Natural and Technological Hazards ProgramState and Local Programs and SupportFederal Emergency Management AgencyWashington, D. C. 20472

65

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Dr. Riley M. ChungMr. O. A. IsraelsonMrs. Lallyanne AndersonMs. Denise A. Grady

Committee on Earthquake EngineeringNational Research Council414 Joseph Henry Building2101 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D. C. 20418

NBS-114A (rev. 2-eo

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATASHEET (See instructions)

PUBLICATION ORREPORT NO. „NBS/SP-729

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publication Date

April 1987

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

National Earthquake Engineering ExperimentalFacility StudyPhase One - Large Scale Testing Needs

5. AUTHOR(S)

Charles F. Scribner and Charles G. Culver

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDSDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State. ZIP)

Federal Emergency Management AgencyNational Science FoundationNational Bureau of Standards

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 87-619811

[~J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significantbibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

This report summarizes information obtained during the firstyear of a four-year feasibility study for a national earthquakeengineering experimental facility. A five-year research programis presented for a national facility in which full-scale orlarge-scale structures or structural components would besubjected to static or dynamic lateral loads. The facility wouldhave applicability to tests in the following areas: low-risebuildings, medium-rise buildings, high-rise buildings , industrialprocessing facilities, and power facilities. Representativesfrom a broad spectrum of professional, industrial, and tradeorganizations and Federal agencies participated in developing theresearch program. A comparison of existing testing facilities in

the U.S. and other countries engaged in seismic testing and a

discussion of international cooperation in large-scale testingare included.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

buildings; earthquakes; laboratories; research; structuralengineering; tests

13. AVAILABILITY

Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

KX] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Q Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OFPRINTED PAGES

70

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

J

Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active.

These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scien-

tific and technical activities.

Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in

cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists,

engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific andtechnical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties

of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide pro-

gram coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS bythe American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints,

and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor-

mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other

government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in

Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re-

quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas

of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful backgroundknowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from the National Technical Information Ser-

vice, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively

constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBSfor outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the

sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper

copy or microfiche form.

(JiU.S. Department of CommerceNational Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300