Fragility assessment of wood sheathing panels and roof-to-wall connections subjected to wind loading
Amira GILL1, Aikaterini S. GENIKOMSOU1(), Georgios P. BALOMENOS2
1. Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston K7L 3N9, Canada 2. Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton L8S 4L7, Canada
The performance of the wood-frame buildings after tornadoes has shown that the majority of the wind damage resulted from building envelope failure most typically due to the loss of the roof. To assess the performance and the reliability of low-rise wood-frame residential buildings with a focus on the roofs, fragility analysis can be used to estimate the probability of failure of a roof when constructed with specified nails and sheathing sizes. Thus, this paper examines the fragility of specific types of nails, roof-to-wall (RW) connection details, and sheathing sizes based on the damaged roofs that were previously assessed in the Dunrobin area in Ottawa (Ontario) that was hit with an Enhanced Fujita (EF3) tornado on September 21, 2018. The presented fragility analysis considers four scenarios, including different sheathing and nail sizes. Dead loads, wind loads, and resistance on the sheathing panels were compiled and analyzed to determine the failure of the examined roofs. The eight fragility models suggest that the safest roof sheathing (RS) is the 1.22 m × 1.22 m sheathing panel with 8 d nails, and the safest RW connections is achieved by using H2.5 hurricane clips.
G A Kopp, E Gavanski. Effects of pressure equalization on the performance of residential wall systems under extreme wind loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138( 4): 526– 538 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000476
3
A Gill, A S Genikomsou. Reconnaissance of buildings impacted by the 2018 tornadoes in Ottawa, Canada. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2020, 34( 4): 04020074– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001487
4
K C Mehta, J E Minor, J R McDonald. Wind speed analysis of April 3−4 tornadoes. Journal of the Structural Division, 1976, 102( 9): 1709– 1724 https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0004425
5
B R Ellingwood, D V Rosowsky, Y Li, J H Kim. Fragility assessment of light-frame wood construction subjected to wind and earthquake hazards. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130( 12): 1921– 1930 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:12(1921)
6
M O Amini, J W van de Lindt. Quantitative insight into rational tornado design wind speeds for residential wood-frame structures using fragility approach. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, 140( 7): 04014033– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000914
7
E Gavanski, G A Kopp. Fragility assessment of roof-to-wall connection failures for wood-frame houses in high winds, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Systems, Part A. Civil Engineering, 2017, 3( 4): 04017013– https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000916
8
G A Kopp, E Hong, E Gavanski, D Stedman, D M Sills. Assessment of wind speeds based on damage observations from the Angus (Ontario) tornado of June 17 2014. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2017, 44( 1): 37– 47 https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2016-0232
NAHB. Reliability of Conventional Residential Construction: An Assessment of Roof Component Performance in Hurricane Andrew and Typical Wind Regions of the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Office of Policy Development and Research, 1999
11
O. Reg. 332/12: Building Code, Ontario’s Building Code. Ontario: Government of Ontario, 2020
Ellingwood B. Development of A Probability-Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58: Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1980
14
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. National Building Code of Canada. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, 2015
A H M Billah, M Shahria Alam. Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: A state-of-the-art review. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015, 11( 6): 804– 832 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912243
17
G P Balomenos, S Kameshwar, J E Padgett. Parameterized fragility models for multi-bridge classes subjected to hurricane loads. Engineering Structures, 2020, 208 : 110213– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110213
18
G P Balomenos, J E Padgett. Fragility analysis of pile-supported wharves and piers exposed to storm surges and waves. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2018, 144( 2): 04017046– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000436
19
C Bernier, J E Padgett. Fragility and risk assessment of aboveground storage tanks subjected to concurrent surge, wave, and wind loads. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, 191 : 106571– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106571
20
Y Li, B R Ellingwood. Hurricane damage to residential construction in the US: Importance of uncertainty modeling in risk assessment. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28( 7): 1009– 1018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.11.005
21
F Bayat, N Daneshjoo, N Nistico, J Pejovic. Seismic evaluation of isolated skewed bridges using fragility function methodology. Computers and Concrete, 2017, 20( 4): 419– 427
22
S Y Kwon, M Yoo, S Hong. Earthquake risk assessment of underground railway station by fragility analysis based on numerical simulation. Geomechanics and Engineering, 2020, 21( 2): 143– 152
23
D Beilic, C Casotto, R Nascimbene, D Cicola, D Rodrigues. Seismic fragility curves of single storey RC precast structures by comparing different Italian codes. Earthquakes and Structure, 2017, 12( 3): 359– 374 https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.3.359
24
C Ramseyer, L Holliday, R Floyd. Enhanced residential building code for tornado safety. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2016, 30( 4): 04015084– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000832
