Rack Final Report 3 10 12-Compressed

Structural Engineering Testing Hall (SETH)
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department

The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
University of California, Irvine
SETH- Evaluation Report Insteel-ICC-ES05-11
Large-Scale Structural Evaluation of

Insteel 3DTM Expanded Polystyrene
Sandwich Wall Panels Subjected to
Cyclic Shear Tests
Prepared by:
A.S. Mosallam, Ph.D., P.E.
I. M.El-Demirdash
A. Nasr, Ph.D.
A. Elsadek
R. Miraj, Ph.D.
November 2011
Report No. SETH-preliminary report 3D-ICC-ES01-11June 2011
Large-Scale Structural Evaluation of Insteel 3DTM EPS Wall Panels Subjected to Cyclic Shear Tests
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. REPORT IDENTIFICATION 4
2. ABSTRACT & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
3. OBJECT STATEMENT 9
4. IDENTIFICATION OF EPS PANEL SYSTEMS 9
4.1 Test Matrix 9
5. DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIMENS AND APPARATUS 11
5.1 Materials 11
5.2 Walls Test Setup 15
6. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION TEST PROGRAM 21
6.1Test Protocol 21
6.2Equipment 23
7. EVALUATION TEST RESULTS 23
7.1 Hand Applied 8’x8’ (H8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 23
7.2 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 28
Page 2 of 125
7.3 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 31
7.4 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 35
7.5 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 36
7.6 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6NG-2) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 39
7.7 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (P6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 43
7.8 Low Strength Hand Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (H6L-3) Wall Specimen 46
8. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 51
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52
10. APPENDIX (A) 58
11. APPENDIX (B) 64
12. APPENDIX (C) 71
13. APPENDIX (D) 73
14. APPENDIX (E) 75
15. APPENDIX (F) 82
16. APPENDIX (G) 92
17. APPENDIX (H) 106
Page 3 of 125
1. REPORT IDENTIFICATION
This report was prepared by University of California, Irvine (UCI) Structural Engineering
Testing Hall (SETH) and is a true and accurate record of the structural evaluation of Insteel
Panelmex (Insteel) 3DTM Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) sandwich panels with mortar shells
used as shear walls. All the materials were sampled in accordance to the ICC-ES AC85 and
all Insteel 3D EPS Panel specimens were fabricated at UCI by qualified construction
contractors under the supervision of the Principal Investigator and the SETH staff. Testing
procedures of all specimens followed the specifications set forth by the International Code
Council’s Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Floor, Roof, and
Wall Systems and Concrete Masonry Wall Systems AC (15). The reversed cyclic tests were
performed in accordance with ACI ITG 5.1. It should be noted that Insteel was motivated to
undertake this test program in order to provide evidence that the building system conformed
to and met with the requirements of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC 2009). Data
supporting this goal may be found in the body of the following test report.
Page 4 of 125
PERSONNEL WORKED ON THE PROJECT:
 Staff
Dr. Rashid Miraj, SETH Manager
 Research Staff
Dr. Selim Pul
Mr. Ibrahim El Demirdash
Mr. Ahmed ElSadek
Mr. Ahmed Nasr
Mr. Naif Ghabban
 Contractors
Mr. Rod Hadrian (Sr.)
Mr. Rod Hadrian (Jr.)
Mr. Rod Murphy
 Principal Investigator
Prof. Ayman S. Mosallam, Ph.D., P.E.
Phone: 714-767-4564
Fax: 949-824-2117
e-mail: mosallam@uci.edu
Page 5 of 125
2. ABSTRACT& EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides results of structural evaluation of the Insteel 3D EPS panels used as
shear walls. The objective of this evaluation phase is to gather the necessary verification
information for the formulation of an Insteel Limited ICC-ES Evaluation report to satisfy the
current International Building Code seismic Code requirements (IBC 2009) and to determine
an average value of the Seismic Modification Factor (R) as well as the Safety Factor (SF) of
these wall panels. While the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC 2009) does not
currently reference cementitious skin building systems, the data described in the UCI SETH
Test Report No. 3D-ICC-ES01-11 will serve as a foundation for its inclusion in the revised
Insteel Evaluation Report.
All materials used in fabricating these wall specimens were samples in accordance to the
requirements of ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Test Reports AC (85). Fabrication and
mortar applications were performed by certified construction contractors and all the
fabrication steps were witnessed by qualified UCI-SETH laboratory staff. Testing
procedures of all specimens followed the specifications set forth by the International Code
Council’s Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Floor, Roof, and
Wall Systems and Concrete Masonry Wall Systems AC (15). The reversed cyclic tests were
performed in accordance with ACI ITG 5.1.
In this evaluation program, two methods for applying the mortar shell were assessed; namely:
(1) Hand-applied; and (2) Pneumatically-applied. The purpose of using two methods of
mortar applications was to evaluate the difference, if any, in the overall seismic behavior of
Page 6 of 125
the Insteel 3D EPS panel wall specimens. In addition, large-scale wall specimens with two
aspect (AR) ratios were used, namely; 1 and 0.75. Four of the wall specimens had an aspect
ratio of 1, while the other four wall specimens were fabricated with dimensions portraying an
aspect ratio of 0.75. The purpose of this variation was to evaluate the effect of changing the
geometry of the panels and assess its impact on seismic behavior, ductility and the ultimate
failure modes. Seven of the eight wall specimens tested in this evaluation program were
subjected to both lateral cyclic along and sustained simulated gravity load. One wall
specimen was tested only under lateral cyclic loading, without the presence of a sustained
simulated gravity load. This latter test was carried out in accordance with the
recommendation of ICC-ES Engineers in order to evaluate the effect of applying such loads
on the overall structural performance of Insteel 3D EPS panel walls. Comparisons are made
between different wall specimens and the differences are clearly highlighted.
The results of the evaluation tests showed that all the Insteel 3D EPS panel walls with shear-
dominated aspect ratio of 0.75 behaved in a ductile manner with a Seismic Response
Modification Factor (R-Value) up to 5. Therefore, the use of R=5 as commonly used and
specified in ACI 318 and ASCE-07 is acceptable. The reason is that, as the number of
specimens increases, the R-value approaches the target value. For wall specimens with
higher aspect ratio (e.g. 1.0), a mixed flexure/shear behavior appears resulting in a lower
shear ductility of the walls. This observation is beneficial for the designer, where a reduced
R-value should be used for cases where the walls’ aspect ratios are higher than unity. For
this case, and based on the results of obtained from this evaluation program, a recommended
range of R valuesis3.0 to 3.5.These values were also confirmed by similar test results
conducted at other facilities. In order to upgrade the R-value in such cases (Aspect Ratio
Page 7 of 125
>0.75), special reinforcement detailing may be required including boundary elements to
enhance the wall ductility. It should be noted that the “direct” method, which is used in
determining the seismic design capacity of walls from experimental data, is believed to be a
better fit for cast-in-place sandwich panels as compared to the indirect method, which is
currently adopted through the use of ITG5 and was specifically developed for precast and
prestressed solid walls that behaves in a very different manner. The loading protocol
described in ITG5 was acceptable for both methods.
With regards to the method of application of the mortar shells, results obtained from the full-
scale fully-reversal loading tests indicated that there was no significant difference between
the overall seismic performances of wall specimens fabricated using hand application and
those using a pneumatic application. On very close examination, the hand applied specimens
fared slightly better than those pneumatically-applied. As such, it may be concluded that a
choice between the two methods may ultimately be driven by project economics and time
constraints.
The evaluation results also indicated that variations in mortar compressive strength had an
apparent effect on the strength of the Insteel 3D EPS panel wall. More significantly,
increases in mortar strength (e.g. 5,000 to 6,000 psi) may have had a greater impact on the
ultimate mode of failure as well as the ductility of the walls. As a result of the study, the
recommended mortar strength is between 2,500 to 3,000 psi.
Page 8 of 125
Finally, it was observed that the removal of the simulated gravity from the combined loading
protocol resulted in both strength and stiffness degradation of the wall specimens when
compared to those tested under combined lateral-cyclic and gravity loading conditions. It
should be noted that the combined loading state is more realistic force model for building
applications, while the cyclic-only loading condition may be suitable to fences, retaining
walls, sea walls and similar applications, where gravity loads are negligible as compared to
cyclic shear forces.
3. OBJECT STATEMENT
Insteel was motivated to undertake this test program in order to provide evidence that the
presented building system conformed to and met with the requirements of the 2009
International Building Code (IBC 2009). In addition, it was hoped that information gathered
would provide the foundation for an Insteel 3D EPS ICC-ES Evaluation report that would
satisfy the current IBC seismic requirements and determine an average value of the Seismic
Modification Factor (R) as well as the Safety Factor (SF) applicable to the panel walls. To
fulfill this objective, tests were performed in accordance to section 4.2.2.6: “Wall Cyclic
Shear Tests ICC-ES AC15” with a loading protocol in accordance to ACI ITG 5.1. ITG 5.1.
4. IDENTIFICATION OF INSTEEL 3D EPS PANEL SYSTEMS
In this evaluation program:
Two methods for applying the mortar shells were used in fabricating the wall
specimens, namely; (i) Hand-applied; (i) Pneumatically-applied;
Two wall panels aspect ratios,1.0 and 0.75 were evaluated;
Page 9 of 125
Different mortar compressive strength were evaluated; and
Two loading cases were also evaluated, namely; (i) Combined cyclic/gravity, and (ii)
Cyclic only (with no gravity load applied).
4.1 Test Matrix
A total of eight (8) wall specimens, fabricated from sampled Insteel 3D EPS panels were
tested. Seven wall specimens were subjected to a combined lateral cyclic/gravity loading
condition, while one wall specimen was tested only under lateral cyclic loading only (i.e.
without the presence of sustained gravity loads). Table (1) presents a summary of the test
matrix used in this evaluation program.
Table (1): Insteel 3D EPS Panel Wall Test Matrix
DIMENSIONS
TEST CODE DESCRIPTION TEST DATE
(L X H X T*)
H8-1 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 5/26/2010
H8-2 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 7/1/2010
P8-1 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 8/8/2010
P8-2 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 11/10/2010
H6-1 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X6’X6.5” 1/24/2011
P6-1 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X6’X6.5” 2/23/2011
H6NG-2 Hand Applied Mortar (No Axial Load) 8’X6’X6.5” 1/25/2011
H6L-3 Hand-Applied Low-Strength Mortar 8’X6’X6.25” 2/19/2011
*T: is the total wall thickness including the EPS foam and the two mortar shell thicknesses (see Figure 1)
Page 10 of 125
1. EPS foam core for insulation.

2. Wire mesh on outer sides of
the EPS
3. Welded wire truss diagonals
4. Mortar or Concrete Shell.
Figure (1): Typical Details of Insteel 3D EPS Panel™
5. DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIMENS AND APPARATUS
5.1 Materials
5.1.1 Reinforcement
Reinforcement within the Insteel 3D EPS panel wall specimens was composed of cold rolled
steel wire, which was used to create the three dimensional (3-D) welded-wire space truss that
consisted of opposing wire mesh face sheets and connecting diagonal wires(refer to Figure
1). Wires used in the wire mesh face sheets are positioned at two inch intervals, so that the
mesh opening on every specimen is 2” x 2”. For all specimens, galvanized 11 gauge wire
(conforming to ASTM A-185 and ASTM A-82) was used to create the meshed face sheets and
galvanized 9 gauge wire was used as the diagonal reinforcement that connected the opposing
face sheets into a rigid three dimensional structure.
Page 11 of 125
According to ACI 318 section 21.9.2.1, the minimum reinforcement ratio, which, in the
current application, corresponds to the ratio of wire area to cementitious skin area, is 0.0025.
Wall systems that exceed this value satisfy reinforcement requirements for seismic design
specified in Section 21.9 of ACI 318 and Section 1908.1 of IBC 2009. Wall specimens used
in the current experimental program were designed with two different mortar shell
thicknesses. One set consisted of cementitious skins that were 1.25 inches thick and the
second consisted of cementitious skills that were 1.50 inches thick. Calculation of the
minimum reinforcement ratio for the tested walls yielded a value of 0.0036, for walls with
1.25 inch thick shells, and a value of 0.0044, for walls with 1.50 inch thick shells. In both
cases, the calculated value exceeded the minimum reinforcement requirement stated above
and, therefore, validated the use of the Insteel™ 3D EPS panel wall system in seismic
applications.
Similarly, Section 7.12 of ACI 318-08 specifies the minimum reinforcement ratio for floors
and slabs to be 0.0018. Design provisions within section 21.11.7 of ACI 318–08 state that
the reinforcement ratio for floors and roofs must not fall below this value. A more detailed
perspective of this issue is discussed within the ICC/ES draft legacy report ER-5618 and
within the Insteel 3D EPS Panel Product Technical Manual, which supports typical design
details related to floors and slabs. It should be noted that the above referenced provisions are
outside of the scope of this test report, i.e. UCI SETH Test Report No. 3D-ICC-ES01-11.
However, as identified in the previous discussion, typical design scenarios for the Insteel 3D
EPS panel yield reinforcement ratios that easily surpass the minimum requirement. In
Page 12 of 125
summary, while the ICC/ES draft legacy report ER-5618 and the Insteel 3D EPS Panel
Product Technical Manual provide guidance with regard to a typical construction, all
building design requirements should be ultimately checked and approved by a licensed
professional engineer.
5.1.2 EPS Foam Core
The modified Expanded Poly Styrene (EPS) core had a density of 0.9 lb/ft3, which complied
with ASTM Specification C578-07a. All wall specimens tested in the evaluation program
utilized a foam core with a thickness of 4” (four inches). The width and length of a given
core corresponded to the size of the tested panel. A clear spacing or gap of 0.75 inch was
maintained between the wire mesh surface and the exterior surface of the EPS foam core on
both side of the panel. The purpose of the gap was to ensure that the wire mesh was
properly embedded in the mortar shell during the construction of the finished Insteel 3D
EPS panels.
5.1.3 Mortar
All Insteel 3D EPS panel wall specimens employed cementitious skins (i.e. mortar shells) for
their external covering. Compressive strength properties of the cementitious skin were
established in accordance with the protocols of ASTM C109/C109M–11, Standard Test
Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars, and were specified for each
test specimen. Initially, a total of six different mixes were designed and compressive strength
for each mix was tested to determine its corresponding compressive strength after 7 days, 14
Page 13 of 125
days and 28 days. Two mortar mixes with 28-day compressive strengths of 2,500 psi and
5,500 psi were ultimately selected.
5.1.4 Mortar Application
As mentioned earlier, two methods for applying the mortar to the faces of the Insteel 3D EPS
panels were used and evaluated. These two methods were: (i) manual or hand-applied, and
(ii) pneumatically-applied using compressed air and hopper system as shown in Figures (2)
and (3), respectively. Mortar thickness variedbetween1.5”and1.25” on both sides of the
foam core for most of the specimens. A mortar thickness of 1.125 inch was used on the last
specimen. The consistency of the thickness was accomplished by placing a spacer (two
horizontal bars) between the wire mesh and the dowels as shown in Figure (2). In order to
ensure the consistency of the mortar mix for all specimens, standard cylinders and cubes
were prepared for each mortar batch used in fabricating the individual wall specimens.
Compressive strength test results for each mortar mix applied to a specific specimen are
presented in this report.
5.1.5 Wall/Footing Shear Connectors
To avoid any possible wall specimen lift-up or translation (rigid-body movement) during
testing, Grade 60 rebar dowels were used to connect the shear walls to the footing, as shown
in Figure (4). A high-strength grout was used to fix the dowels into the reinforced concrete
strip footing, as shown in Figure (5). Results and observations from the evaluation tests
confirmed that the dowels performed very satisfactory in marinating the wall specimens in
its horizontal and vertical original position.
Page 14 of 125
Figure (2): Hand-applied Mortar Method
Figure (3): Pneumatically-Applied Mortar (using a Hopper Spray) Method
Page 15 of 125
Figure (4): Dowels Connecting Footing to Insteel 3D EPS Shear Walls
Figure (5): Rebar Firmly Connected to the Foundation via High-Strength Grout
Page 16 of 125
5.2 Wall Test Setup
5.2.1 Insteel 3D EPS Panel Wall Specimens
As mentioned earlier, the overall test configuration consisted of two wall dimensions with
two different aspect ratios (AR); namely, (i) 8’x8’ walls specimens with AR=1, and (ii) 8’x6’
walls specimens with AR=0.75. These wall specimens consisted of cementitious skins that
encased the opposing wire mesh sheets and bonded to the EPS foam cores. Here, the welded
diagonal wires provided an efficient means of shear transfer between the two sides of the
sandwich panel. After the placement of cementitious mortar, the total thickness of the
various wall specimens ranged between 6.25”and 7.5”. It should be noted that, in all wall
specimens and tests hot-rolled reinforcements were not used; however, standard U-mesh
strips were applied to the specimens to confine the wall boundaries, as noted in Figure (6).
Here, the U-mesh provided uniform confinement to the wall boundaries and aided overall
ductility of the specimens.
5.2.2 Wall RC Strip Footing
Several reinforced concrete (RC) strip foundations, 9’-07” in length by 1’-06” in width by 1’-
06” in thickness, were designed and fabricated for the test program. Once fully cured, RC
foundations were positioned in front of the strong wall and secured to the strong floor with
the assistance of high strength Dywidag steel rods (1 ½” diam.), nuts and washers. Detailed
attention was applied to the installation process to ensure that the center axis of the footing
coincided with the central axis of the servo-hydraulic actuator, which was mounted on the
strong wall. This process was repeated when the wall specimen was centered and secured to
the footing.
Page 17 of 125
Figure (6): Wall Confinement using U-mesh
5.2.3 Wall/Footing Connection
Dowels were used to secure the walls to the footing. Ten Grade 60 hot rolled #3 rebar, all of
the same length, were used with the first wall specimen (H8-1), while sixteen twenty-four
inch long Grade 60 hot-rolled #4 steel rebars were used with the remaining specimens. The
rebars were positioned twenty-four inches apart on both sides of the wall and were embedded
to a depth of six inches within the footing. The dowels were placed between the EPS
exterior faces and inner faces of the wire meshes as shown in Figure (7) and Figure (8).
High-strength epoxy grout was used to bond the dowels into the footing. The rebars were
secured to the welded wire mesh with tie wires to ensure that they remained vertical during
and after the application of mortar.
Page 18 of 125
In order to ensure proper composite action between the dowels and the wall, foam behind
each exposed portion of the dowels was removed to a minimum depth of 1” to allow greater
bonding interaction between the mortar and the rebars. In addition to resisting uplift and
securing a wall to the foundation, this simple procedure ensured the proper tranfer of shear
forces between the wall and the foundationAll descriptions of the dowels, panel to panel
connections and wall end details are listed in Appendix (H).
Figure (7): Six #4 Hot-Rolled Steel Dowels (in each face of the wall)
Connecting the Insteel 3D EPS Panel Wall to the Foundation
Page 19 of 125
Figure (8): Wall/Footing Details
5.2.4 Reinforced Concrete Floor Slab Portion (at top of wall)
A reinforced concrete bearing slab was fabricated onsite (at the UCI-SETH IAS Accredited
Facility), on top of the wall, with dimensions consistent with the design of an actual floor
slab and a length equivalent to the wall specimen. The purpose of the reinforced area was to
facilitate the uniform transfer of the lateral cyclic loads to the wall as well as provide
adequate bearing to transfer the gravity-simulating sustained vertical load. The bearing slab
Page 20 of 125
was fabricated by integrating a "horizontally positioned" 24-inch Insteel 3D EPS panel
section with the unfinished wall specimen. Specifically, the foam core was completely
removed from the 24” wide panel, as well as top 4” of the unfinished wall specimen. Next,
the two components were tied together and filled with mortar. The total thickness of the slab
was 7”. In this manner, the floor-wall junction, shown in Figure (9), served to transfer shear
and flexural stresses through the specimen. The final dimensions of the solid portions of the
wall and slabs were dependent on the wall height, floor spans, loads, and other factors. The
length of the floor slab was identical to the length of the wall, 8 feet, and, as stated above,
had a width of 24”. The reinforcement of the slab was in the form of the wire mesh, the same
used for the wall specimens. Figure (10) shows the typical wall setup that was used in all
evaluation tests.
24”
4”7”
Figure (9): Wall-Floor Junction Details
Page 21 of 125
Sustained Vertical Load (Simulating Gravity Loads)

Cyclic Loading
Figure (10): Typical Full-reversal Wall Test Setup
6 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION TEST PROGRAM
6.1 Test Protocol
Eight specimens were evaluated in the current test program. As mentioned earlier, ACI ITG 5.1
displacement control loading protocol was used in all tests (refer to Figure 11). The primary
purpose of the tests was to provide evidence that the building system conformed to and met with
the requirements of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC 2009). At the same time, the test
Page 22 of 125
program sought to evaluate the ultimate strength, ductility and modes of failure of the wall
specimens. Further, the program sought to assess the efficacy of the two methods of mortar
application. In all tests, wall specimens were exposed to full-reversal lateral cyclic loading.
Similarly, all, but one specimen, were also subjected to a gravity simulated sustained vertical
load (refer to Figure 10).
Figure (11): Cyclic Displacement Loading Protocol used in all tests (Based on ACI ITG 5.1.)
6.2 Equipment
The equipment used to undertake the test program consisted of hydraulic pumps to generate
force, servo-hydraulic actuators and jacks to impart loads, test frames to transfer loads, tie-rods
Page 23 of 125
to constrain motion, sensors and transducer to capture behavior, and data acquisition systems to
record behavior. Additional supplemental equipment was also present and used as needed.
6.2.1 Hydraulic Actuators:
The full reverse cyclic racking shear load was applied, via a steel transfer beam, by a Quincy-
Ortman servo hydraulic actuator with a maximum stroke of ±17” and a maximum load of
105 kips. The Quincy-Ortman actuator, shown in Figure (10), incorporated a 100-kip load
cell and 40 inch displacement transducer. Both devices were calibrated and supported
traceable certificates. Vertical sustained load was achieved with the aid of four Enerpac R-
605 hydraulic jacks, hoses, a hydraulic pump, a custom designed steel load frame and a
calibrated pressure transducer, with a NIST traceable calibration certificate..
6.2.2 Load Cell
The load cell used in all tests was a Northrop 100-kip calibrated load cell with a NIST
traceable certificate from United Calibrations of Huntington Beach, California.
6.2.3 String Potentiometers
Lateral displacements of wall specimens were measured using the hydraulic actuator’s ’built-
in displacement transducer and several external, individually calibrated, String
Potentiometers (String Pot). All deflection and strain data were collected using a
computerized National Instruments, data acquisition system. Stress/Strain (and
Load/Deflection (P/ curves were developed for each specimen. Crack initiation, crack
progression, and ultimate failure were identified, recorded and then analyzed.
Page 24 of 125
6.2.4 Electronic Strain Gages
All wall specimens were instrumented with electronic foil resistance strain gages bonded at
critical locations on each face of the wall specimen and on the internal reinforcements.
6.2.5 Data Acquisition
Data acquisition was accomplished with the aid of an MTS Flex Test Controller and a
National Instruments PXI-1042Q data acquisition chassis. In addition to software control of
the servo-hydraulic actuator, the MTS Flex Test Controller recorded actuator motion and
load based on feedback from the calibrated sensors that were integrated into the servo-
hydraulic test system. The NI system captured data from load cells, displacement
transducers, strain gages and environmental monitors to provide the full perspective of the
behavior of the test specimens under the defined loading protocol.
6.2.6 Environmental Monitors
During the tests, both temperature and relative humidity were monitored and recorded by
devices with NIST traceable calibration certificates. The average temperature and relative
humidity during the test were 72oF and 60%.
7 EVALUATION TEST RESULTS
Evaluation of the wall specimens was undertaken in the Structural Engineering Test Hall of the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of California, Irvine. Tests were administered
by SETH personnel and supervised by the lab Director, Dr. Ayman Mosallam. Eight specimens
were tested. The results of those tests are described in the following paragraphs.
Page 25 of 125
7.1 Hand Applied 8’x8’ (H8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0)
The first specimen to be tested was given the designation H8-1, which corresponded with the
method of manual hand-applied mortar application and the height of the member. The
dimensions of this wall test specimen were 8’ x 8’ x 7” (Length by Width by Thickness) and the
associated aspect ratio had a value of 1. The thickness of the expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam
ore used with this specimen was 4” and 1.5 inches of mortar were applied to both sides of the
original panel. As described earlier, full-reversal cyclic loading was applied to the upper edge of
the wall specimen with the assistance of a servo-hydraulic as demonstrated in Figure (10). In
addition, a gravity-simulating vertical load was applied to the capitol of the specimen with the
assistance of a rigid steel fixture. Prior to, and during the course of the test, a sustained 24 kips
axial load simulated the gravity load was applied via calibrated hydraulic jacks and the
aforementioned steel fixture. The average 28-day compressive strength of the hand applied
mortar at the day of the test was 2,500 psi. Table (2) shows the compressive strength of the
mortar shell for wall specimens H8-1 and H8-2. For specimen H8-1, hot-rolled 18”, # 3 steel
dowels were placed on opposite sides of the wall panel at 24” on-center (oc). The first six inches
of each dowel was embedded in the footing while the remaining twelve inches was integrated
with the wire mesh reinforcement of the wall panel. As it will be described in the following
section, this wall/footing reinforcement detail was found to be deficient and was deemed
responsible for a premature localized failure at the wall footing interface or junction, which
resulted in early termination of the test before the ultimate capacity of the wall could be
achieved. This deficiency was corrected in all subsequent tests described in this report. It should
be noted that no special detailing was used at the wall boundaries except for the use of standard
Insteel 3D EPS panel 11 gauge cold-rolled U-wire mesh.
Page 26 of 125
With regard to testing, it was observed that a number of horizontal cracks began to appear at the
lower edges of the wall, as the lateral cyclic load increased, which indicated the development of
flexural stress. Gradually, inclined shear cracks started to appear on the two faces of the wall
(refer to Figure 12). The bulk of cracks were due to the presence of both flexure (horizontal)
and shear (inclined) stress. As mentioned earlier, the failure of the specimen was initiated at the
wall-foundation interface due to yielding of the steel dowels, which suggested that insufficient
reinforcement was afforded to the junction in comparison to the shear capacity of the wall
specimen (refer to Figures 13 and 14). The local premature failure of the wall/footing joint
prevented the wall specimen from supporting its ultimate load capacity. However, the result
highlighted the need to upgrade the shear transfer reinforcement and proper detailing at wall–
footing interface, in order to complete the desired test program.
The maximum load at the moment of local failure, occurred at 39 kips during the pull cycle of
the loading protocol. This value was 56% of the expected capacity of the wall specimen and
confirmed the premature nature of the overall failure. Information gathered from the test
indicated that the behavior of the wall specimen was flexure-dominated, even though some shear
cracks were observed at relatively higher load levels. All data related to the test was confirmed,
analyzed, stored and properly backed-up. Data resulting from the process was used to generate
the load-lateral displacement hysteresis, depicted in Figure (15), and the unique failure envelope
for this wall specimen, presented in Figure (16).
Page 27 of 125
Table (2): Compressive Strength Values of Mortar for Specimens H8-1& H8-2
Compression Specimens Force (lbs.) Strength (psi) Average (psi)
14,855 2,102
12,235 1,731
3” X 6” Cylinders 1,930.75
15,060 2,130
12,444 1,760
10,240 2,560
9,040 2,260
2” X 2” Cubes 2,421.25
10,320 2,580
9,140 2,285
Figure (12): Crack Initiation and Monitoring of Wall SpecimenH8-1
Page 28 of 125
Figure (13): Failure of Wall-Foundation Connection due to Insufficient

Shear Transfer Reinforcements of Wall Specimen H8-1
Figure (14): A Close-Up Photograph Showing the Localized Bond Failure

of Embedded Dowels of Wall Specimen H8-1
Page 29 of 125
Figure (15): Cyclic Load-Displacement of H8-1
Figure (16): P-Envelope of Wall Specimen H8-1
Page 30 of 125
7.2 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0)
The second specimen to be tested was H8-2. It was eight feet wide, eight feet tall, and seven
inches wide. It had an aspect ratio of 1.0 and was fabricated with a hand applied mortar, which
resulted in a 1.5 inch thick cementitious skin on both sides of the finished wall specimen. The
specimen was identical in shape and form to H8-1. However, based on the premature failure of
the first specimen, the wall/footing junction was redesigned to preclude premature failure. In this
case, the size of the hot-rolled steel dowels was increased from # 3 to # 4, while the position of
the dowels in relation to the wall and the footing remained the same. Specifically, the dowels
were placed symmetrically on both sides of the panel, once again at 24 inches on center,. The
total dowel length was increased from 18” to 24” with same embedment depth of 6” as for the
first wall specimen (H8-1), shown earlier. As with the first wall, high-strength epoxy grout was
used to secure the positions of the dowels. In addition, the same 28-day, 2,500 psi compressive
strength mortar mix, which was used with specimen H8-1, was applied by hand to specimen H8-
2. The actual test setup for specimen H8-2 is presented in Figure (17.
As loading commenced in accordance with the previously defined load protocol, flexural cracks
appeared. As the load increased, mixed flexure/shear cracks were observed, which indicated that
the wall was behaving in a mixed mode manner, with ultimate failure likely to be triggered by
high flexural stresses. As compared to the first specimen with deficient wall/footing details,
specimen H8-2 proved to be more ductile. The ultimate shear load was 68 kips and failure
occurred during the final push cycle. Once again, all data related to the test was confirmed,
analyzed, stored and properly backed-up. Although the behavior of the specimen was captured
and plotted in real-time, additional analysis and data evaluation was undertaken after testing. The
confirmed data set was used to generate the load-lateral displacement hysteresis, depicted in
Page 31 of 125
Figure (18). At the conclusion of testing, the specimen was riddled with cracks. Significant
horizontal flexure separation is presented in Figure (19). Similarly, the complete load-
displacement envelope is depicted in Figure (20).
Figure (17): Setup of Wall Specimen H8-2
Page 32 of 125
Figure (18):Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen H8-2
Figure (19): Location of Flexural Horizontal Crack Where the Ultimate failure was
Initiated for Wall Specimen H8-2
Page 33 of 125
Figure (20): Load-Displacement Envelope for Wall Specimen H8-2
7.3 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0)
The third specimen to be tested was given the designation P8-1. As the name indicated, this
specimen’s cementitious skin was applied with pneumatic hardware. In all other areas, the third
specimen was identical to H8-2, the second specimen, in terms of aspect ratio test setup, joint
detailing, and loading protocol. It should be noted that the pneumatically applied mortar had an
average compressive strength of 3,074 psi at the time of testing, as listed in Table (3). In addition
to evaluating the efficacy of the panel system, the test program also sought to identify and
Page 34 of 125
possibly quantify differences in performance of the panel walls when fabricated with either
manually applied or pneumatically applied cementitious skins. .
Table (3):Compressive Strength Results of Mortar for P8-1
Specimen Size Test Date (Days) Force (lbs) Strength (psi)

2” X 2” 14 12,040 3,010
2” X 2” 14 12,535 3,133
2” X 2” 14 12,315 3,079
Average 12,230 3,074
The results of testing suggested that specimen P8-1 behaved similarly to specimen H8-2.
However, it should be noted that P8-1 sustained more shear cracks than were observed in H8-2.
This difference was attributed to the slight variation in the mortar compressive strength between
the two specimens. The number and size of cracks increased and propagated along the length of
the wall, as the cyclic loads and displacements increased, as noted in Figure (21). Just prior to
experiencing the ultimate load, mid-height horizontal cracks from both edges of the wall met
creating a surface crack across the thickness of the wall as shown in Figure (22). This through-
the-thickness crack was observed at the wall sides and was the cause of the ultimate failure of the
specimen, as shown in Figure (23). Further, it was concluded that the mode failure was a result
of a combined shear/flexure action. Accordingly, the data collected was confirmed, stored and
properly duplicated and was used to create the load-displacement hysteresis and envelope of this
wall specimen, respectively. An envelope of the load-displacement curve is presented in Figure
(26). As shown in these figures, the ultimate load of this wall specimen was 59 kips and failure
occurred during the final push loading cycle.
Page 35 of 125
Figure (21): Initiation and Progression of Cracks
Figure (22): Development of Through-the-Thickness Crack Just Before Ultimate Load
Page 36 of 125
Figure (23): Ultimate Failure of Wall Specimen P8-2
Figure (24): Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen P8-1
Page 37 of 125
Figure (25): P- Envelope of Wall Specimen P8-1
7.4 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0)
P2-2 was the fourth specimen to be tested. It was eight feet tall, eight feet wide and, logically,
had an aspect ratio equal to one, which was identical to all previous test articles. The wall
specimen was fabricated with a panel that had a four inch thick foam core. The cementitious
skin was applied pneumatically on both sides of the panel to a thickness of about 1.5 inches. As
such the total wall thickness, i.e. the total specimen thickness, was 7 inches, which again was
consistent with the other specimens. However, unlike previous tests, the average 28-day
compressive strength of the pneumatically applied mortar mix was determined from testing to be
to be 5,500 psi, as shown in Table (4). This value is almost double the compressive strength of
other wall specimens described earlier. The test setup and loading protocol were identical to all
Page 38 of 125
previous tests. The junction detailing and reinforcement at the wall-footing interface was
consistent with efforts associated with the last three tests.
Table (4): Compressive Strength Results of Mortar for P8-2
Specimen Size Force Strength (psi)

(lbs)
2” X 2” 22760 5,690
2” X 2” 21940 5,485
2” X 2” 21440 5,360
Average 22,047 5,512
The behavior of the specimen during testing was similar, initially, to wall specimen P8-1.
However, more shear cracks appeared at an early stage of loading when compared with other
tests. This was an expected consequence of the higher mortar compressive strength. The
ultimate failure load of this wall was about 40% higher than the corresponding ultimate failure
load of the previous specimen, P8-1 (83 kips vs. 59 kips). The ultimate load was reached during
the final pull cycle of loading and is captured in Figures (26) and (27), which present the load-
displacement hysteresis and failure envelop for this wall specimen. It should be noted that
specimen P8-2 exhibited a slight improvement in ductility as compared to wall specimen P8-1.
7.5 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75)
The fifth specimen to be tested was given the designation H6-1. The prior tests had provided a
sense of the behavior of the specimens with an aspect ratio of 1.0. Based on those results and
observations, ,a second set of tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of changing the aspect
Page 39 of 125
ratio on the overall structural behavior of shear wall made of Insteel 3D EPS panel sandwich
system. Specimen H6-1, the first test of a short, squat, wall, had a length of 8’, a height of 6’
and a thickness of 6.5”. The cementitious skin was applied by hand during fabrication and the
28-day average compressive strength of the mortar was determined to be 3,000 psi, as indicated
in Table (5), which presents a summary of the experimental values of the 28-day compressive
strength of the mortar mix used in fabricating this wall specimen.
Figure (26):Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen P8-2
Page 40 of 125
Figure (27):Load-Displacement Envelope for Wall Specimen P8-2
The majority of the cracks developed in specimen H6-1 were diagonal shear cracks and the
ultimate failure was shear-dominated. The ultimate failure shear capacity of this wall was 75
kips. Specimen H8-2 had an aspect ratio equal to one, hand applied cementitious skin and a
mortar compressive strength of around 3,000 psi. When compared to specimenH8-2, the ultimate
load for specimen H6-1 was approximately 27% higher, i.e. 75 kips vs. 59 kips. Data collected
for this test was confirmed, secured, duplicated, analyzed and presented in Figures (28) and (29)
as the load-displacement hysteresis and the failure envelope for this wall, respectively.
Table (5):Compressive Strength Results of Mortar for H6-1

2” X 2” 17 12,455 3,114
2” X 2” 17 12,970 3,243
2” X 2” 17 12,220 3,055
Average 12,548 3,137
Page 41 of 125
Figure (28): Cyclic Load-Displacement of H6-1
Figure (29): P- Envelope of Wall Specimen for H6-1
Page 42 of 125
7.6 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6NG-2) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75)
In this test, a wall specimen identical to wall specimen (H6-1) was constructed. The only
difference between this specimen and wall specimen (H6-1) was the removal of the gravity-
simulated axial vertical wall that was used for all other tests evaluated in this program. This was
done upon the recommendation of ICC-ES engineer to assess the effect of this load on the
overall behavior, including strength and ductility of these types of walls. This application
mimicked a state of stress for applications where gravity loads were minimal. The aspect ratio
of this wall specimen remained 0.75 and the mortar was applied by hand in a manner consistent
with specimen H6-1. The desired targeted compressive strength for the specimen was 3,000 psi.
However, the average 28-day compressive strength of the actual mortar mix used in fabricating
H6NG-2 failed to achieve the desired mark and, instead, obtained a compressive strength of just
over 2300 psi, which is summarized in Table (6).
As expected, specimen H6NG-1 experienced greater lateral displacements (higher drift ratio),
compared to specimen H6-1, due to the absence of gravity load, which provided stability akin to
a prestressing force on the wall. Further, the behavior of H6NG-1 was apparently more ductile
than H6-1, for the same reason. Throughout the loading process, diagonal shear cracks appeared
and propagated in a typical X-pattern, as shown in Figure (30). The ultimate failure mode was
dominated by shear stresses (refer to Figure 31). The ultimate shear strength, failure load, of
H6NG-1 was 67 kips. This value was about 90% of the ultimate strength of the wall specimen
H6-1, which was tested in the presence of a sustained axial vertical load. It was believed that
the absence of the vertical load in addition to the slightly lower compressive strength were the
Page 43 of 125
reason behind this degradation of the wall specimen. Data collected for specimen H6NG-1 was
confirmed, secured, duplicated, analyzed and presented in Figures (32) and (33) as the load-
displacement hysteresis and the failure envelope for this wall, respectively.
Table (6):Compressive Strength Results of Mortar for Wall Specimen H6NG-2
2” X 2” 12 9,470 2,368
2” X 2” 12 9,415 2,354
2” X 2” 12 8,565 2,141
2” X 2” 12 9,110 2,278
2” X 2” 12 9,340 2,335
2” X 2” 12 9,835 2,459
Average 9,289 2,322
Page 44 of 125
Figure (30): Crack Propagation for Wall SpecimenH6NG-2
Page 45 of 125
Figure (31): Final Failure of Wall SpecimenH6NG-2
Figure (32): Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen H6NG-2
Page 46 of 125
Figure (33): P- Envelope of Wall SpecimenH6NG-2
7.7 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (P6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75)
The seventh specimen to be tested, P6-1, was identical in design, shape and geometry to
specimen H6-1, except that the cementitious skin was applied pneumatically The 28-day
compressive strength of the mortar mixed used with P6-1 had an average compressive strength of
2,254 psi as shown in Table (7). During testing, P6-1 exhibited the same behavior patterns as
the two previous walls that were tested with an aspect ratio equal to 0.75. Accordingly, shear
cracks formed, in typical X-patterns on both sides of the wall up to the point of failure. A
typical dispersion of the shear cracks is presented in Figure (34). Just prior to ultimate load, a
large horizontal crack opened and propagated along the length of the wall just below the capitol,
as shown Figure (35). As with H6-1 and H6NG-1, the ultimate mode of failure for P6-1 was
due to shear. The ultimate load was 67.7 kips, which was slightly lower than the corresponding
Page 47 of 125
strength of specimen H6-1, which, again, was fabricated with hand-applied mortar. It was
assumed that the variation of the strength between H6-1 and P6-1 was attributable to the
difference in compressive strength of the mortar used to fabricate each specimen. The load-
displacement hysteresis and failure envelope were plotted for this wall specimen and are
presented in Figures (36) and (37), respectively.
Table (7):Mortar Compressive Strength Results

for Wall Specimen P6-1

2” X 2” 7 9,920 2,480
2” X 2” 7 9,200 2,300
2” X 2” 7 8,635 2,159
2” X 2” 7 9,310 2,328
2” X 2” 7 8,970 2,243
2” X 2” 7 8,050 2,013
Average 9,014 2,254
Page 48 of 125
Figure (34): Crack Propagation for Wall Specimen P6-1
Figure (35): Final Failure Mode of Wall Specimen P6-1
Page 49 of 125
Figure (36): Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen P6-1
Figure (37): P- Envelope of Wall SpecimenP6-1
Page 50 of 125
7.8 Low-Strength Hand-Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (H6L-3) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75)
The eighth specimen to be tested was H6L-3. As identified by its designation, mortar was placed
on this specimen by hand to the required depth. The specimen was eight feet long and six feet
wide. It had an aspect ratio of 0.75, which was consistent with the three previous specimens.
However, unlike those members, both the thickness of the mortar shell, the 28-day compressive
strength of the mortar mix and reinforcement detailing were altered for this specimen.
Specifically, H6L-3 employed a mortar mix with a 28-day compressive strength of
approximately 1,500 psi. A summary of the 28-day compressive strength for the mortar used
with this specimen is presented in Table (8). Further, the cementitious skin on either side of the
H6L-3 was manually applied to a depth of 1.125” on the original panel. This process resulted in
a total wall thickness of 6.25”, which was 10% less than the average thickness of other
specimens evaluated in this program. Finally, unlike previous specimens, the fabrication of H6L-
3 included the introduction of lightly-reinforced boundary elements at the ends, i.e. edges, of the
walls. This was accomplished in three steps. First, a, 4” deep and 24” tall, section of EPS foam
was removed from both sides of the unfinished panel, from the wall-footing interface to a height
24” above the interface, to expose the #4 wall end dowels. Second, the exposed #4 wall end
dowels are encased in the U-mesh end reinforcements to create a bounded cavity. Third, both
cavities are filled with mortar to produce solid boundary elements at the foot of wall. The
justification for this modification was (i) to demonstrate the utilization of boundary elements as a
simple means to enhance the ductility of the wall, and (ii) to demonstrate a simple process to
avoid localized failure of the thin, low-strength mortar-shell due to high-compressive stress
concentration at the wall toes. It was hoped that the combined design modification replicated
Page 51 of 125
the worst case construction scenario that involved the application of low-quality mortar with too
thin, i.e. below design specification, cementitious skin. Specimen H6L-3 with the two boundary
elements is shown in Figure (38). Once again, the identical test setup and cyclic/axial loading
protocol used in previous experiments was adopted for this specimen (refer to Figure 39).
During testing, specimen H6L-3 exhibited a shear dominated behavior up failure, in which
diagonal shear cracks initiated and propagated along the two faces of the Insteel 3D EPS panel
wall, as shown in Figure (40). Ultimate failure for H6L-3, captured in Figure (41) occurred at
79.7 kips and was slightly higher than the strength exhibited by wall specimen H6-1, even
though the applied mortar mix had a lower compressive strength. This result confirmed the
efficiency of the boundary elements in providing the additional system strength and enhanced
ductility required to overcome deficiencies associated with poor mortar compressive strength and
inadequate mortar cover. The results of H6L-3 were comparable to results for specimens with
higher compressive strength mortar and adequate mortar shell thickness. Data collected for
specimen H6L-3 was confirmed, secured, duplicated, analyzed and presented in Figures (42) and
(43) as the load-displacement hysteresis and the failure envelope for this wall, respectively.
Table (8): Mortar Compressive Strength Results for Wall Specimen H6L-3
2” X 2” 4 6,120 1,530
2” X 2” 4 5,320 1,330
2” X 2” 4 7,330 1,833
2” X 2” 4 5,760 1,440
2” X 2” 4 5,955 1,489
Average 6,097 1,525
Page 52 of 125
Solid Boundary
Elements (no foam)
Figure (38): Boundary Elements of Wall Specimen H6L-3
Page 53 of 125
Figure (39): Setup of Wall SpecimenH6L-3 prior to Testing
Figure (40): Crack Propagation for Specimen H6L-3
Page 54 of 125
Figure (41): Failure of Specimen H6L-3
Figure (42): Load-Displacement Hysteresis of Wall Specimen H6L-3
Page 55 of 125
Figure (43): P- Envelope of Wall SpecimenH6L-3
8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The following section describes the analytical procedure used to predict the strength and ductility
characteristics of the Insteel 3D EPS panel walls evaluated in this program. The results of this
analysis identified several important design parameters and influencing factors. According to
ICC-ES AC15 (2010), two major values are required for the evaluation and estimation of a wall
system. These values are the safety factor, SF, and the seismic response modification factor or R-
value. The process to determine these values is described in the following paragraphs.
With regard to the SF and R-value, all procedures followed ACI 318 outlines for designing
reinforced concrete structures. Hand calculations were used to calculate the shear strength of
Page 56 of 125
each wall specimen. Flexural results were obtained with the assistance of the computer software,
Response 2000, which is known to accurately calculate the strength and ductility of wall
specimens in response to shear, moment, and axial loads. Response 2000 was particularly
helpful because of its ability to address the complex reinforcement requirements of the wall
specimens associated with this study. Details of the analytical results are listed in Appendix
(A) through (G) at the end of this report.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results obtained from the evaluation tests described in this report, the
following conclusions are drawn:
The results of the evaluation tests showed that all the walls with shear-dominated
aspect ratios behaved in a ductile manner with Seismic Response Modification Factor
(R-Values) up to 4.8. The use of R=5 as commonly used and specified in ACI 318 and
ASCE-07 is acceptable. It is believed the limited sample pool size skewed the results to
a lower value. It is the belief of the authors that a larger sample pool size, i.e. an
increase in the number of specimens, would have resulted in higher values for R that
would have approached the targeted goal. It should be noted that the “direct” method,
which is used in determining the seismic design capacity of walls from experimental
data, is more applicable to cast-in-place sandwich panels than the indirect method,
which is currently adopted through the use of ITG5 documents that were developed
specifically for precast and prestressed solid walls that behave in different manner. It
should be added that proposed loading protocol described in ITG5 was acceptable for
the duration of the test program,
Page 57 of 125
It was observed that as the aspect ratio increases, a mixed flexure/shear behavior
appears, which results in a lower shear ductility for the walls. This conclusion should
be beneficial for the designer, where a reduced R-value would be used for cases where
the walls’ aspect ratios are higher than unity. Thus in the case of increased aspect
ratio, the recommended R value is 3 to 3.5.,
By reducing the height of the wall specimen while maintaining the specimen’s length, it
was possible to shift the failure dominance from flexure to shear, as well as, increase
the R factor. The increase in R factor suggests a corresponding increase in wall energy
dissipation capability, which would allow for allow for higher seismic capacity,
With regards to the method of application of the mortar shells, results obtained from
the full-scale fully-reversal loading tests indicated that there was not any significant
difference between the overall seismic performance of wall specimens fabricated using
hand application and those fabricated using a pneumatic approach (see Figures 43
through 45). In fact, the limited results indicated that the manually fabricated
specimens yielded a slightly better performance than those that were fabricated with
pneumatic equipment. So the choice between the two methods will mainly be a factor
of the project costs and time constraints.
The overall test results indicated that mortar compressive strength was not the primary
factor controlling the strength of the Insteel 3D EPS panel walls. However, an
increase in the mortar compressive strength (e.g. 5,000 to 6,000 psi) may have an effect
on controlling the ultimate behavior and the mode of failure of the walls.
The test results confirmed that ensuring the proper slab-to-wall (capitol-to-wall)
connection as well as wall-to-foundation connection was critical to both achieving and
Page 58 of 125
determining the wall’s ultimate strength capacity. This was also a deciding factor in
location of the ultimate failure of the walls,
When wall-to-foundation connections were properly designed and installed, the 8’ X 8’
wall specimens failed due to a combination of flexure and shear, whereas the 8’ X 6’
wall specimens failed predominantly due to shear. So reducing the wall height by 2
feet, i.e. reducing the aspect ratio while maintaining the length, was greatly beneficial
in achieving the desired mode of failure.
When comparing the overall behavior of the 8’ X 6’ walls, with and without the
application of gravity-simulated load (wall specimen H6NG-2), one may conclude that
the absence of gravity load (as for the case of fences) resulted in a larger drift.
However, the wall’s shear strength capacity was lower than that of an identical wall
tested under combined gravity and lateral loading.
The higher height-to-length aspect ratio of the 8’ X 8’walls specimens, resulted in a
higher drift ratio when compared to the 0.75 aspect ratio of the 8’ X 6’ walls (Squat
walls).
Page 59 of 125
Figure (43): Effect of Method of Application on Ultimate Load Capacity

(Wall HB2 vs. P8-1)
Figure (44): Effect of Method of Application on Maximum Drift Ratio

(Wall HB2 vs. P8-1)
Page 60 of 125
Figure (45): Effect of Method of Application on R-value

(Wall HB2 vs. P8-1)
Figure (46): Effect of Compressive Strength fc' on Ultimate Load Capacity

(Walls P8-1 of 3,000 psi vs. P8-2 of 5,500 psi)
Page 61 of 125
Figure (47):Effect of Compressive Strength fc' on Maximum Drift Ratio

(Walls P8-1 of 3,000 psi vs. P8-2 of 5,500 psi)
Figure (48): Compressive Strength fc'' Effect on R-value (Walls P8-1 and P8-2)
Page 62 of 125
APPENDIX (A)
Analytical Prediction of Shear and Flexural
Strength of Different Wall Specimens
Page 63 of 125
As mentioned earlier, the prediction of the shear strength of each wall was performed using hand
calculations as detailed in this Appendix. Only final analytical results for flexural strength are
presented since the flexural analysis was performed using RESPONSE 2000 computer software.
A.1 SHEAR WALLS CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
√ Eq. (1)
Eq. (2)
( )Eq. (3)
A.1.1 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-1), (H8-2) Wall Specimens
( )
( )
Each wire area = 0.012 in2 spaced at 2” (each wythe)
Thus,
A.1.2 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-1) Wall Specimen
( )
Page 64 of 125
( )
Each wire area = 0.012 in2 spaced at 2”
Thus,
A.1.3 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-2) Wall Specimen
( )
( )
Thus,
A.1.4 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6-1) Wall Specimen
( )
Page 65 of 125
( )
Thus, .
A.1.5 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6NG-2) Wall Specimen
( )
( )
Thus,
A.1.6 Pneumatically-Applied 8’ X 6’ (P6-1) Wall Specimen
( )
Page 66 of 125
( )
Thus,
A.1.7 Hand Applied 8’ X 6’ (H6L-3) Wall Specimen
( )
( )
Thus,
Table (A-1) demonstrates the difference between the analysis values obtained and the results
obtained from the actual test for flexure dominated wall specimens. The length to height aspect
ratio is the primary difference that separates what type of failure dominated the wall specimens.
Page 67 of 125
The smaller the height to length ratio the more the shift of failure dominance is towards shear.
The reason for the variation between the analysis values and the test results for the First wall or
H8-1 is that the anchorage was realized to have been weak. Therefore, the test results gave a
much lower values than expected. Table (A-2) demonstrates the difference between the analysis
values obtained and the results obtained from the actual test for shear dominated wall specimens.
Table (A-1): Comparison between Analysis Values and Test

Results for Flexure Dominated Walls
H8-1 H8-2 P8-1 P8-2
Load(kips) Load (kips) Load (kips) Load (kips)
Analysis Values
78.5 78.5 80.7 89.7
(Shear)
Analysis Values
48 48 49 55
(Flexure)
Test Results 39 68 59 83
Table (A-2): Comparison between Analysis Values and Test

Results for Shear Dominated Walls
H6-1 H6NG-2 P6-1 H6L-3
Shear (kips) Shear (kips) Shear (kips) Shear (kips)
Analysis Values 58 55.7 55.6 53.1
Test Results 75 67 67.7 79.7
Page 68 of 125
APPENDIX(B)
CALCULATIONS OF SEISMIC RESPONSE
MODIFICATION FACTOR
(R-FACTOR)(R)
CALCULATIONS
Page 69 of 125
B.1 DETERMINATION OF APPROXIMATE SEISMIC RESPONSE
MODIFICATION FACTOR (R)
Seismic codes consider a reduction in design loads, taking advantage of the fact that the
structures possess significant reserve strength (over-strength) and capacity to dissipate energy
(ductility). The over-strength and the ductility are incorporated in structural design through a
force reduction or a response modification factor. This factor represents ratio of maximum
seismic force on a structure during specified ground motion if it was to remain elastic to the
design seismic force. Thus, actual seismic forces are reduced by the factor ``R'' to obtain
design forces.
The response modification factors were first proposed in ATC3-06, in ATC-19 and ATC-34
was calculated as the product of three factors: Over-Strength factor ( ), Ductility factor
( ), and Redundancy factor (RR).
The following approximate method was used in order to calculate the Seismic Response
Modification Factor (for simplicity RR was assumed to be 1 since the determination of that
factor requires very complex procedures to evaluate it that were not carried out in the
evaluation). The parameters used to calculate the Over-Strength factor ( ) and Ductility
factor ( ) are defined in Figure (B-1).
Page 70 of 125
Figure (B-1): Parameters to calculate the Over-Strength Factor (𝑅𝑠 ) and Ductility factor (𝑅𝜇 )
B.1.1 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-1) Wall Specimen
Page 71 of 125
B.1.2 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-2) Wall Specimen
B.1.3 Pneumatically -Applied 8’x8’ (P8-1) Wall Specimen
B.1.4 Pneumatically Applied 8’x8’ (P8-2) Wall Specimen
Page 72 of 125
B.1.5 Hand Applied 8’x6’ (H6-1) Wall Specimen
B.1.6 Hand Applied 8’x6’ (H6NG-1) Wall Specimen
B.1.7 Pneumatically Applied 8’ X 6’ (P6-1) Wall Specimen
Page 73 of 125
B.1.8 Hand Applied 8’ X 6’ (H6L-3) Wall Specimen
Table (B-1) presents a summary of the R-values calculated for the four Insteel 3D EPS panel
walls with AR=1.0 (flexural-dominated behavior). The average value of the response
modification factor from the flexure-dominated walls as seen in Table (B-1), with a
maximum value of 3.5. For this reason, and based on the results of the limited number of walls
in this evaluation, it is recommended that for AR=1, an R-value can be taken as 3.0. However,
the R-value may be increased provided that boundary elements with ductile details are
introduced.
Table (B-1): Seismic Response Modification Factor (R) for Flexure-Dominated Walls
H8-1 H8-2 P8-1 P8-2
R Value 2.73 2.5 2.67 3.5
Table (B-2) presents a summary of the R-values calculated for the four Insteel 3D EPS panel
walls with AR=0.75 (shear-dominated behavior). The average response modification factor
based on the results for these four walls tests is with a maximum value of 5.0. Since
Page 74 of 125
accurate prediction of the R-values requires a very large range of tests that is not practical for the
evaluation purposes, the use of R=5 that is commonly used in practice for special concrete is
acceptable for Insteel 3D EPS panel walls based on this evaluation.
Table (B-2): Seismic Response Modification Factor (R) for Shear Dominated Walls
H6-1 H6NG-2 P6-1 H6L-3
R Value 4.3 4.8 3.34 5.0
Page 75 of 125
APPENDIX(C)
Coefficient of Variation of
Average Maximum Strength for
Shear Dominated Walls
Page 76 of 125
The Coefficient of Variation of Average Maximum Strength was calculated using AC15
(2010)Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Floor, Roof, And Wall Systems and Concrete Masonry
Wall Systems. It was calculated for the shear dominated wall tests that had an aspect ratio of
0.75. The test values and analysis values can be seen in Table (C-1).
Table (C-1): Comparison between Analysis Values and Test Results for Shear Dominated Walls
H6-1 H6NG-2 P6-1 H6L-3 AVERAGE
Shear Load Shear Load Shear Load Shear Load Shear (kips)
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Analysis 58 55.7 55.6 53.1 55.6
(RD)
Experiment 75 67 67.7 79.7 72.4
(R)
The value of ( ) ( )
where:
R: Average Maximum Strength RD: Design Value of Strength
(C-8)
(C-9c)
Using Table (A.1) of Appendix (A) of the ICC-ES AC15 (2010) the corresponding Safety Factor
(SF) of 2.1 is obtained.
Page 77 of 125
APPENDIX(D)
CALCULATIONS OF INTERFACE
SHEAR TRANSFER AND WIRE
SHEAR WEB DESIGN
Page 78 of 125
Interface Shear ( )
( ) Where = Zero as there is no prestressing involved
Modulus of Rupture = √ = 367 psi
= 289
( )( )( )
Design of Shear Connector
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Since , Therefore the Connectors can withstand the Shear Stresses Imposed.
Page 79 of 125
APPENDIX(E)
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER

PUBLISHED 3D PANEL WALLS
TEST RESULTS
Page 80 of 125
For traceability purpose and in order to compare the results obtained from this evaluation
program with other independent tests that were conducted in other facilities on similar 3D
panel wall systems. As expected, some variations exist, however, the assessment focused
on the general behavior. The published work utilized an aspect ratio of unity (AR=1.0)
with some other variation described in the following sections.
E.1 COMPARISONS BETWEEN UCI &PERU WALL TEST RESULTS
The first set of tests that was used in the comparison was performed on three 3D sandwich
panels in Peru. The dimensions and test setup of these wall panels were similar to those
evaluated at UCI with an aspect ratio of close to unity (AR1.0). The dimensions of the wall
panels were 8’ X 8’[2,470 mm (Length) X 2,600 mm (Height)]with a total thickness of 5.2”
(130 mm). The walls were subjected to both cyclic lateral shear and gravity loading.
However, the loading protocol was different than the one reported herein that follows the
ITG5 procedures. No information was given on the concrete mix nor the exact details of the
wall/footing joint. Two major differences existed between the UCI Insteel 3D EPS panel
walls and the Peru walls: (i) The panel wire gage for Peru was 14-gage while 11-gage wire
was used for Insteel 3D EPS panels, and (ii) The total thickness of the Peru walls was 5.2”
while the UCI Insteel 3D EPS panel walls had an average thickness of 7”. As one can
predict, these two variations are very critical in determining strength capacity of such walls.
A sample of load-displacement envelopes for Peru walls program is shown in Figure (E-1).
Strength results for both Peru and UCI wall tests are summarized in Tables (E-1) and (E-2).
As expected, the average capacity of the Peru walls were about 40% lower than those
reported herein due to the variables described earlier.
Page 81 of 125
Figure (E-1): A Sample of Load-Displacement Envelopes for Peru Walls Program
Table (E-1): Ultimate Load Capacity of Walls Tested at UCI (AR=1.0)

H8-1* H8-2 P8-1 P8-2 Average
UCI Tests 39 kips* 68 kips 59 kips 83 kips 70.0
*Excluded due to premature failure
Table (E-2): Ultimate Load Capacity of Walls Tested in Peru (AR=1.0)

Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Average
Peru Tests 39.7 kips 44.2 kips 40 kips 41.3
E.1.1 Comparison of Seismic Response Modification Factor (R) for Peru Wall Tests
The Seismic Response Modification Factor (R-value) for the walls tested in Peru were calculated
using the same procedures used for UCI walls.
Page 82 of 125
E .1.1.1First Wall Specimen:
E.1.1.2Second Wall Specimen:
E.1.1.3Third Wall Specimen:
Page 83 of 125
As expected and due to the smaller wire gage and wall thickness, the average response
modification factor from the three wall specimens tested in Peru (aspect ratio of 1.0) is 3.2 as
shown in Table (E-3). This value is very similar to those obtained from UCI wall tests with
AR=1.0.
Table (E-3): Seismic Response Modification Factor for Peru Wall Tests
Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Average
R Value 4 3 2.5 3.2
The maximum drifts obtained for the tests performed at UCI are shown in Tables (E-4) and (E-5)
presents the maximum drift values obtained for Peru tests form tests conducted at UCI,
respectively. As shown in these tables, the average maximum drift angel obtained from UCI
tests was 0.0072 whereas the average maximum drift of the tests performed in Peru was 0.0071
which very similar.
Table (E-4): Maximum Drift of Walls Tested at UCI (SETH)
H8-1 H8-2 P8-1 P8-2

UCI Tests 0.00729 0.00469 0.00885 0.0083
Table (E-5): Maximum Drift of Walls Tested in Peru

Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3
Peru Tests 0.0071 0.0079 0.0063
Page 84 of 125
Table (E-6): Maximum Drift of Walls Tested at UCI (SETH)
H8-1 H8-2 P8-1 P8-2
UCI Tests 0.00729 0.00469 0.0083 0.00885
Table (E-7): Maximum Drift of Walls Tested in Peru
Peru Tests 0.0071 0.0079 0.0063
E.2 COMPARISONS BETWEEN UCI and MEXICO WALL TESTS
The second similar wall tests were conducted on EPS sandwich panel walls at the University of
Guadalajara in Mexico. In this program, two walls with aspect ratio of 1.0 were tested under
cyclic lateral loading and gravity sustained load. The dimensions of the walls were 8 ft X 8ft
with a thickness of 7 inches. However, lower compressive strength was used. The average
ultimate capacity of the walls tested in Mexico was 50. 2 kips which is about 30% lower than the
ultimate capacity of the Insteel 3D EPS panel walls tested at UCI (see Tables E-7 and E-8).
Page 85 of 125
Table (E-12): Maximum Shear Load Capacity of Walls Tested in Mexico
Wall 1 Wall 2
Mexico Tests 47 kips 53.8 kips
Table (E-13): Maximum Shear Load Capacity of Insteel 3D EPS Panel Walls Tested at UCI
H8-1* H8-2 P8-1 P8-2
UCI Tests 39 kips* 68 kips 59 kips 83 kips
*Excluded from the calculations due to premature failure
E.2.1 Comparison of Seismic Response Modification Factor (R) for EPS Sandwich Panels
Tested at the University of Guadalajara and Insteel 3D EPS Panel Walls Tested at UCI
The average response modification factor from the wall specimens conducted in Mexico with
flexure dominated aspect ratio of 1.0 is which again very similar to both UCI and
Peru walls with AR=1.0
Page 86 of 125
APPENDIX (F)
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER
WALL SYSTEMS (different materials)
Page 87 of 125
F.1 COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTEEL 3D EPS SANDWICH PANELS
USED AS SHEAR WALLS and MASONRY WALL TESTS
The Insteel 3D EPS sandwich panel walls tested at UCI SETH were compared to two
previously tested masonry wall specimens that were tested under similar loading conditions
(see Figure F-1).The aspect ratio of these masonry walls was 1.0.
The load-displacement hysteresis for the two wall specimens (specimens WU1 and WU2)are
presented in Figures (F-2) and (F-3), respectively.
Figure (F-1): Concrete Masonry Walls Test Earlier at UCI
Page 88 of 125
Figure (F-2): Cyclic Load-Displacement of Specimen WU1
Figure (F-3): Cyclic Load-Displacement of Specimen WU2
Page 89 of 125
F.1.1 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SEISMIC RESPONSE MODIFICATION
FACTOR (R) FOR LIGHTLY REINFORCED MASONRYWALL AND INSTEEL 3D
EPS SANDWICH PANEL WALLS
For comparison reason, R-values obtained from this evaluation program for the Insteel 3D EPS
panels were compared to lightly reinforced masonry walls with aspect ratio of 1 that was
evaluated earlier at UCI facility under different evaluation program. The following are the
calculations for determining the R-values for the masonry walls which are identical to those used
for calculation the R-values for Insteel 3D EPS panel walls.
F.1.1.1 WU1 Wall Specimen:
F.1.1.2 WU2 Wall Specimen:
Page 90 of 125
Table (F-1): Seismic Response Modification Factor for Masonry Wall Tests
WU1 WU2
R Value 2.28 2
The average response modification factor from the 2 wall tests performed on masonry wall
specimens conducted with flexure dominated aspect ratio of (1) is shown in Table (20)
The flexure dominated average R-Value with the same aspect ratio tested in the SETH lab at UCI
was 2.85. This indicates that the R-values calculated in UCI SETH gave a higher average
Response Modification Factor R-Value. The higher R-Value indicates that the Insteel 3D EPS
sandwich panels tested with the same aspect ratio as the masonry walls have an ability to
withstand higher seismic loads.
Page 91 of 125
F.2 COMPARISONS BETWEEN UCI INSTEEL 3D EPS PANEL WALLS
and CUREe WOOD FRAME PROJECT WALLS
In the CUREe program, several cyclic wall tests performed on different wood frame wall
details with different sheathing materials. The typical wall detail is shown in Figure (E-5). 3
of these wall tests were selected as valid tests to be compared with those performed at UCI
SETH. All 3 walls had the same dimensions (8ft X 8ft) with an aspect ratio of 1.0. The
wall tests were classified according to the loading protocol used while performing the cyclic
lateral loading tests. The three loading protocols used were CUREe-Caltech Standard, as
well as the ISO and SPD loading protocols. The hysteresis of the Standard Protocol used in
shown in Figure (E-6), while those for Protocols ISO and SPD are shown in Figures (E-7)
and (E-8) respectively.
Page 92 of 125
Figure (F-5): Typical Wooden Project Frame Details
Page 93 of 125
Figure (F-6): Cyclic Load-Displacement of Specimen loaded using Caltech Standard Protocol
Figure (F-7): Cyclic Load-Displacement of Specimen loaded using ISO Protocol
Page 94 of 125
Figure (F-8): Cyclic Load-Displacement of Specimen loaded using SPD Protocol
F.2.1 Comparison of Seismic Response Modification Factor (R) for Insteel 3D EPS
Sandwich Panel Walls tested at UCI and Wood frame Project Wall Tests
The following are similar procedures for calculating the Seismic Response Modification Factor
(R-Value) for the Wood frame Project walls.
F.2.1.1 CUREe-Caltech Standard Wall Specimen:
Page 95 of 125
F.2.1.2 ISO Protocol Wall Specimen:
F.2.1.3 SPD Protocol Wall Specimen:
Table (F-2) presents a summary of the calculated R-values for the three wooden frame walls. As
shown in this table, The average R-value for the wood frame walls with the same aspect ratio
was 3.84 which about 30% higher than the Insteel 3D EPS panel walls with AR-1.0 where
Rave=2.8.
Table (F-2): Seismic Response Modification Factor for Wooden Frame Wall Tests
R Value 4 3.55 3.96
Page 96 of 125
APPENDIX(G)
Drift Angle Comparisons
Page 97 of 125
G.1 Drift Ratio for Insteel 3D EPS Panel Walls &ASCE7-05 Drift Ratio
Limits
In this section, the drift angels corresponds to the design load for each wall (using SF=2.1) were
compared with the ASCE7 limitations.
G.1.1 Wall Specimen H8-1
The load-drift angle hysteresis for specimen H8-1 curve is shown in Figure (G-1).The maximum
drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall H8-1 was 0.0064 and can be
seen in Figure (G-2). The drift ratio is lower than the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in
Table 12.12 1 in ASCE7-05. The table demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for
the case of a residential building (Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (Other
Structures) is 0.02 which is higher than the drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear
capacity and hence also higher than the drift ratio corresponding to the allowable design load.
Therefore the wall is below the ASCE7-05 drift ratio limits.
Page 98 of 125
Figure (G-1): The load-drift angle hysteresis for Specimen H8-1
Figure (G-2): Load-Drift Envelope for Specimen H8-1
Page 99 of 125
The load-drift angle hysteresis for specimen H8-2 curve is shown in Figure (G-3). The maximum
seen in Figure (G-4). The figure also demonstrates the allowable design load for the wall in
accordance with AC-15 and the corresponding drift ratio of 0.0016. The drift ratio is lower than
the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in Table 12.12 1 in ASCE7-05. The table
demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for the case of a residential building
(Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (other Structures) is 0.02 which is higher than
the drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity and hence also higher than the drift
ratio corresponding to the allowable design load. Therefore the wall is below the ASCE7-05 drift
ratio limits.
Figure (G-3): The load-drift angle hysteresis for Specimen H8-2
Page 100 of 125

Figure (G-4): Load-Drift Curve for Specimen H8-2
G.1.3 Wall Specimen P8-1
The load-drift angle hysteresis for specimen P8-1 curve is shown in Figure (G-5). The maximum
drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall P8-1 was 0.008 and can be seen
in Figure (G-6). The figure also demonstrates the allowable design load for the wall in
(Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (Other Structures) is 0.02 which is higher than
ratio limits.
Page 101 of 125

Figure (G-5): The load-drift angle hysteresis for Specimen P8-1
Figure (G-6): Load-Drift Curve for Specimen P8-1
Page 102 of 125

The load- drift angle hysteresis for specimen P8-2 curve is shown in Figure (G-7). The maximum
drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall P8-2 was 0.008 and can be seen
in Figure (G-8). The figure also demonstrates the allowable design load for the wall in
(Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (Other Structures) is 0.02 which is higher than
ratio limits.
Figure (G-7): The load-drift angle hysteresis for Specimen P8-2
Page 103 of 125


The load- drift angle hysteresis for specimen H6-1curve is shown in Figure (G-9). The maximum
accordance with AC-15 which was (35.7 kips) and the corresponding drift ratio of 0.0021. The
drift ratio is lower than the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in Table 12.12 1 in ASCE7-
05. The table demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for the case of a residential
building (Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (Other Structures) is 0.02 which is
higher than the drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity and hence also higher
than the drift ratio corresponding to the allowable design load. Therefore the wall is below the
ASCE7-05 drift ratio limits.
Page 104 of 125

Figure (G-9): The load- drift angle hysteresis for Specimen H6-1
Page 105 of 125

Figure (G-10): Load-Drift Curve for Specimen H6-1
G.1.6 Wall Specimen H6NG-2
The load- drift angle hysteresis for specimen H6NG-2 curve is shown in Figure (G-11). The
maximum drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall H6NG-2 was 0.0098
and can be seen in Figure (G-12). The figure also demonstrates the allowable design load for the
wall in accordance with AC-15 which was (31.9 kips) and the corresponding drift ratio of
0.0023. The drift ratio is lower than the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in Table 12.12
1 in ASCE7-05. The table demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for the case of a
residential building (Occupancy category Ι or ΙΙ) and categorized as (Other Structures) is 0.02
which is higher than the drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity and hence also
higher than the drift ratio corresponding to the allowable design load. Therefore the wall is below
the ASCE7-05 drift ratio limits.
Figure (G-11): The load- drift angle hysteresis for Specimen H6NG-2
Page 106 of 125
Figure (G-12): Load-Drift Curve for Specimen H6NG-2
The load- drift angle hysteresis for specimen P6-1 is shown in Figure (G-13). The maximum drift
ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall P6-1 was 0.0061 and can be seen in
Figure (G-14). The figure also demonstrates the allowable design load for the wall in accordance
with AC-15 (2010) which was 32.2 kips and the corresponding drift ratio of 0.0021. The drift
ratio is lower than the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in Table (12.12) 1 in ASCE7-05.
The table demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for the case of a residential
Page 107 of 125

Figure (G-13): The load- drift angle hysteresis for Specimen P6-1
Page 108 of 125

G.1.8 Wall Specimen H6L-3
The load- drift angle hysteresis for specimen H6L-3 is shown in Figure (G-15). The maximum
drift ratio corresponding to the maximum shear capacity of wall H6L-3 was 0.0052 and can be
accordance with AC-15 which was (38 kips) and the corresponding drift ratio of 0.0018. The
drift ratio is lower than the maximum allowable drift ratio as shown in Table 12.12 1 in ASCE7-
05. The table demonstrates that the maximum allowable drift ratio for the case of a residential
Page 109 of 125

Figure (G-15): The load- drift angle hysteresis for Specimen H6L-3
Figure (G-16): Load-Drift Curve for Specimen H6L-3
Page 110 of 125

Table (G-1): ASCE7-05 Table for Maximum Allowable Drift Ratios
The for the 8ft high walls are shown in Figure (G-17). The 6ft high wall specimen Load-Drift
angle envelopes are shown in Figure (G-18). Figure (G-19) show the Load-Drift angle envelopes
for all wall specimens.
Figure (G-17): Envelopes for 8ft High Walls Aspect Ratio 1
Page 111 of 125

Figure (G-18): Envelopes for 6ft High Walls Aspect Ratio 0.75
Figure (G-19): Envelopes of Load-Displacement for all Wall Specimens
Page 112 of 125

APPENDIX(H)
Insteel 3D Panel Wall Details
Page 113 of 125

Figure (H-1): Wall Elevation
Page 114 of 125

Figure (H-2): Wall Cross Sections Details
Page 115 of 125

Detail A
Mortar shell
Wire mesh
#4 Dowels embedded 6 " into

the footing and 18 " in the
morter shell (Foam Core is
burned around the dowels to
insure that dowels are fully
18"
embedded) HILTI Concrete footing
Anchoring
Epoxy
6"
18"
36"
Figure (H-3): Typical Wall Anchors Details
Page 116 of 125

Detail B
2" of the foam core

removed at each
each wall end and
filled with mortar
18"
16" 3"
2"
Figure (H-4): Typical Wall End Anchors Details
Page 117 of 125

Detail C
12" wide wire mesh strip at

the connection of two panels
12"
Foam core
Wire mesh Mortar shell
Figure (H-5): Panel to Panel Connection Detail
Detail D
Mortar shell
6"
Foam core
Wire mesh
6" x 6" 90 degree angle
wire mesh
Figure (H-6): Typical Wall End Details
Page 118 of 125

APPENDIX(I)
Samples of Steel Wires & Rebars
Stress-Strain Curves
Page 119 of 125

Page 120 of 125

Page 121 of 125

Page 122 of 125

Page 123 of 125

Page 124 of 125

Page 125 of 125

Rack Final Report 3 10 12-Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rack Final Report 3 10 12-Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineering Testing Hall (SETH)

Civil & Environmental Engineering Department

Large-Scale Structural Evaluation of

2. ABSTRACT & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

4. IDENTIFICATION OF EPS PANEL SYSTEMS 9

4.1 Test Matrix 9

5. DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIMENS AND APPARATUS 11

5.2 Walls Test Setup 15

6. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION TEST PROGRAM 21

7. EVALUATION TEST RESULTS 23

7.1 Hand Applied 8’x8’ (H8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 23

7.2 Hand-Applied 8’x8’ (H8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 28

7.3 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-1) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 31

7.4 Pneumatically-Applied 8’x8’ (P8-2) Wall Specimen (AR=1.0) 35

7.5 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 36

7.6 Hand-Applied 8’x6’ (H6NG-2) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 39

7.7 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (P6-1) Wall Specimen (AR=0.75) 43

7.8 Low Strength Hand Applied Mortar 8’ X 6’ (H6L-3) Wall Specimen 46

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52

10. APPENDIX (A) 58

11. APPENDIX (B) 64

12. APPENDIX (C) 71

13. APPENDIX (D) 73

14. APPENDIX (E) 75

15. APPENDIX (F) 82

16. APPENDIX (G) 92

17. APPENDIX (H) 106

PERSONNEL WORKED ON THE PROJECT:

Mr. Ibrahim El Demirdash

Mr. Ahmed ElSadek

Mr. Ahmed Nasr

Mr. Naif Ghabban

Mr. Rod Hadrian (Sr.)

Mr. Rod Hadrian (Jr.)

Mr. Rod Murphy

2. ABSTRACT& EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Insteel Evaluation Report.

fabrication steps were witnessed by qualified UCI-SETH laboratory staff. Testing

performed in accordance with ACI ITG 5.1.

>0.75), special reinforcement detailing may be required including boundary elements to

described in ITG5 was acceptable for both methods.

recommended mortar strength is between 2,500 to 3,000 psi.

cyclic shear forces.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF INSTEEL 3D EPS PANEL SYSTEMS

In this evaluation program:

specimens, namely; (i) Hand-applied; (i) Pneumatically-applied;

Two wall panels aspect ratios,1.0 and 0.75 were evaluated;

Different mortar compressive strength were evaluated; and

Cyclic only (with no gravity load applied).

4.1 Test Matrix

matrix used in this evaluation program.

Table (1): Insteel 3D EPS Panel Wall Test Matrix

H8-1 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 5/26/2010

H8-2 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 7/1/2010

P8-1 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 8/8/2010

P8-2 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X8’X 7” 11/10/2010

H6-1 Hand-Applied Mortar 8’X6’X6.5” 1/24/2011

P6-1 Pneumatically-Applied Mortar 8’X6’X6.5” 2/23/2011

H6NG-2 Hand Applied Mortar (No Axial Load) 8’X6’X6.5” 1/25/2011

H6L-3 Hand-Applied Low-Strength Mortar 8’X6’X6.25” 2/19/2011

1. EPS foam core for insulation.

Figure (1): Typical Details of Insteel 3D EPS Panel™

5. DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIMENS AND APPARATUS

face sheets into a rigid three dimensional structure.