AD-A155 171 FIELD TESTiNG OF A LIGHTWIEIGHIT RELOCATABLE STRUCTURE INA TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENT(U) CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

RESEARCH LAB (ARMY) CHAMPAIGN IL A M KAB ET AL. APR 85

UNCLASSIFIED CERL-TR-M-85/iO F.'G 03/0i3

IENEE-,EIE

.c :~ 1111 1i2.2312

=4 111112.211.8

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNAN~ONAL RU~fAU Of St,!NL!,S: l-A

0

02

AD-A155 171

US Army Corpsof Engineers TECHNICAL REPORT M-85 10 -

Construction Engineering Ai 8Research Laboratory April 1985

Rapidly Erectable and Relocatable Lightweight Structures

Field Testing of a Lightweight RelocatableStructure in a Temperate Environment

byAnthony M. KaoJohn S. CarrDennis K. McBride

This report describes field tests of a commerciallyavailable, off-the-shelf, lightweight relocatable struc-ture (LRS) system selected for possible military usein a theater of operations. A panelized systemmanufactured by Kelly Klosure, Inc. was selected to ,determine the constructibility, durability, and habita-bility of the building system. The first stage testswere conducted in a desert environment (Fort Irwin,CA) and stage 11 tests were conducted in atemperate environment (Fort Leonard Wood, MO).[he results of stage I tests are documented in U.S.IOArm, Construction Engineering Research Labora-tory (USA-CERL) Technical Report M-361, FieldTesting of a Lightweight Relocatable Structure in aDesert Environment, A. M. Kao, et al. (USA-CERL, 1984). This report documents the results of

* the stage II tests.

C)DTIC S JUN 11 1985

C-,:

* 0Apprici d tor public releasc: distribution unlimited. 41

85j

* 0- . . - :: ,, , : . .- , , ,

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or* promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an

official indorsement or approval of the use Of Such commercial products.The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official D~epartmentof the Ar-my position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

A

DLSTROY TIS REPORT WHEN IT /S s I ''oJfR %tfDL*V

Do NOT RETURN IT To Tfit t)RlP,l 4 IOR

. . .. . . .9

UNCI.ASS I FIED'LCjEITr' -L A"IFIC7AIc N OF THIS PA' F '+h. n,. Doletered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ ENSTR(!cTOnvs-0_________________ FORM

1 H POIH NIIMHIFR GOVT A(-(I ',%ION 14) 1. 0 1 PIFNT , ATA. ,.NUJMBER

4 TITL t -l5. rYFIE (,F flFr.',PT A PERIOfl I-_FR F0

FI ELI) T[EST INC OF A LIG;HTWE IGHIT RELOCATABLE FINALSTRUCTURE IN A TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENT

6 PERFORMING ORG. REPORT N.MABER

7AU THOR(.) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBFR(

A. Kao

J.S. CarrD.K. McBride _______ ______________

9PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME kNO ADDRESS 10- PROGFAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

* U.S. Army' Construction Engr Research Laboratory

* P.O. Box 4005 4A162731AT4 l-E-049

Champaign, IL 61820-1305I1 CON

TROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

April /i"f13 NUMBER Gr PAGE.

4 M)NiTRING AGENCY NAME 5 AI)DRESS(iI different fro., Controling Office) 15 SECURITY CLASS. 14I ti~ eprr)

UNCLASS IFIlED

0 15a. DECLASSI -CATICr4 DOWNGRADING

6 IIS0ITRI6HJT(ON -TATEMUN T (,)I !hi Report)

Apprl)vcd ttir 1111) ic re It~ase ; distribution unlimited.

17 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of (he. abotrac( enteered in Block 20, If different from Report)4

B8 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

G(pit- aire iLvai lahl e from the National Technical Information Service

Springf ield, VA 22161

* ~1) FV*)D ,,Ir, -t-- -reers side rifte ssy ani denrtv by block nuimber)

- rI Ifl I oci. tt II> h s_ t_ r__ u c_ tI

?a RA -7YW,,,an-m_.eres side ffnceaesv mWIdentitv by hi' k riunbof

-I hiN iepil dcscrihcs field tests of it commercially as'ailabic. of f-t he-shelf.lIght seighl relocatable structure fi RS) sxstcrn selected for possible militarN use in aheater oft operations. A panielized sxstcm manufactured hy Kelly Klosure. Inc. sasce~ccted I,) determine the consTuctibility. durability, and habitability of the building

~sse.I he first stage tests w~ere conducted in a desert environment (Fort Irwin, ('A)'Ind( staIge 11 tests were conducted in a temperate enstronment (F1ort ILeoinard WNood,%1()) 1 he results of stage I tests are documented in U.S. Army ('onstruction

* I OPICllerIg Research I ahoraiori, (I'SA-Cl-RI ) lechnical Report M-361. Field

DD) IAf 14731 toIrho96F 'NOV 651.nE%-E 085 I I N(IASS I 11-11)

,,# I y I A-%IF I, A, IN) r.* '., IA I P~, a.

c-9'

UNCLASS I " I EDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION C THIS PAGE(Whan Data Enteed) AR

BLOCK 20. (Cont inued )11L

. iting o a LIghtiteight Relocatable Structure in a Desert Environment, A. M.Kao, et al. (ISA-CERI., 1984). 1his report documents the results of the stage 11 tests.

Constructibilit of the buildings varies, depending on size. The tests confirm thatthe 20-ft-side X 8-It-high buildings can be erected manually by unskilled troop laborusing onl, hand tools. Howvecr, for 12-ft-high structures assembled using 4- X 8-ftpanel,, and for 12-ft-high structures on elevated foundation, baseplates, a crane isneeded to help lift assembled components for the erection. Elevated foundation,,baseplates greatly increase construction difficulty, and construction times- ,-. ,

It took an average of 109 man-hours to assemble and erect a 20- X 8- X 40-ft 2building on an elevated baseplate, whereas it took only 38 man-hours to assemble,nd erect an identical building on a standard baseplate in the Fort Irwin tests. Thedrastic construction time increase was due not only to the elevated baseplates, butalso because personnel erecting the structures considered it a training process andthus took a lot of time demonstrating, explaining, and correcting.

Some durabilit, problems %%ere identified which did not occur in the Fort Irwintests. [ibcrboard panels used in the structure had severe weather resistance problemsbecause theN wicked in water around the edges and rivets. The galvanized steelpanels had no durability problems.

I ibcihlbi d structures are fa,orcd for habitability. The environmental testsIndicated that liberboard structures generally stay 3.5 to 5.5°C cooler than identicalsteel structures on warm daNs. Adding insulation to a galvanized steel structure 0dccreases the maximum temperatures 4.0 to 7.5°C, and adding insulation to aliberboard structure decreases the maximum temperatures 2.0 to 3.50C. Based onenvironmental performance alone, a fiberboard structure would be a good choiceand an insulated fiberboard structure would give even better results.

lloAc~er. durability problems currently make fiberboard a poor choice for all butctrctncl arid climates. [ he moisture wicking delaminates the panels, decreasingtheir strength and making them susceptible to damage in handling. New andimprocd methods for wcather-proofing fiberboard panels are currently beingexploed. I hcrelore, unless the fiberboard moisture problem is corrected, insulatedgahani/cd steel structures would be a better choice in terms of durability andcniromental performance. All

,ddtionally, at study has been funded for Fiscal Year 1985 on ways to improvethe Kcll. Klosurc system by eliminating the guy wires. It is recommended that thegu less design modifications be completed, tested. and incorporated into the systemdesign.

UNCIASS I F I T I) F 11: 1)%ECURITY CL ASSIFIC ATION 0F TH15 PAGF1IT, I r .

I isreeach~a prfrmdFOREWORD

I hs rseach kasperormd fr the Office of the Assistant Chief of Engineers(OACE) by the Enigineering and Materials D~ivision (EM), U.S. Army ConstructionEngineering Research Laboratory (IJSA-CFRI.J. The work was done under Project4A 162731I41. "M ilitarN F~acilities En1ginering lFechinology": I ask Area F."Militarv E-ngineering" 'Work U nit 0)49. F pd rcctable and RelocatableIightweight StrUet tres.I hie ( )A( I I echnica I M onit ors %kcrc IDr. ( lment Meyer.I)AEN-Z('M and Mr. Mieh~.'I Sharna. l)A['N-.('M.

1)r. A. Kao was the LJSA-CERI. Principal Investigator. Dr. R. Qualtrone is C'hiefof- ISA-CERL-EM. ('01. Paul i. rheuer is Commander and Director of* USA-(E R I., and Dr. L.. R. Shaffer is Ilechnical Director.

AL.

3

CONTENTS

DD FORM 1473...............................................1 0FOREWORD ................................................. 3LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES................................ 5

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 7BackgroundObjectiveApproachM1ode of Technology Transfer

2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION .......................... 7 -

AFCS Design Criteria4Kelly Klosure DescriptionConstruction and Erection Procedures

3 FIELD TEST PROGRAM ....................................... 8Test MethodSupport Systems TestedDescription of Test Program and Test Building ConstructionBaseplate/ Foundation ConstructionInstrumentation

4 FIELD TEST RESULTS ....................................... 15Constructibility Test ResultsDurability Test ResultsHabitability Test Results

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... 27

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS ............................. 27A

DISTRIBUTION.............................................. 281

4

4 4

TABLES

Number Page _O

I Material Costs for Galvanized Steel and Fiberboard Panel Structures 9

2 Fort leonard Wood lest Cycles 10

FIGURES " --

Number Page

I Kelly Klosure Key 8

2 Panel Storage Rack 9

3 Ground Anchors II

4 lest Structure and Control Structure on Elevated Wood Baseplates 12 .

5 Elevated Wood Foundation 12

6 Foundation Support Blocks 13

7 ('ontrolStructure(2OX8X 4Oft) 13 .

8 Test Structure (28 X 8 X 32 ft) 13

9 lest Structure (20 X 12 X 40 ft) Using 4- X 8-ftSteel Panels With Equipment Door 13

10 (ialhanized Steel Test Structure (20 X 12 X 32 ft) 13

II Fiberboard lest Structure (20 )< 8 X 40 ft) 14

12 Steel lest Structure (20 X 8 X 40 ft) With 12 Window Panels 14

13 CR7 Instrumentation 14

14 -xterior Weather Station 15

15 -irst Step of Modified Erection Process 16

16 Interior of the Control Building 16

17 Old Style Round Flat Head Bolt 17

IX New Style Oblong Flat Head Bolt 17

It) I rcection of Bay Section of 28- X 8- X 32-ft lest Structure 18

5 0,

7~

FIGURES (cont'd)

Number Page

20) [-rction ot 28- K- 32-ft lest Structure 18

21 D~amaged Panel Ends 19

22 Wood Kneebrace Systemi 19

23 Wood Krteehracc Attachment to Chords and Side.kalls 20

24 Lateral Bracing Schemes 21

25 Gable and Endwkall MoiSture lDamage 22

26 Giable Moisture D~amage: Buckling of* Fiberboardand 1)elamination of Surf'ace Material 22

27 Sidc%\all Moisture D~amage at Panel Base 23

28 leniperatures at the 6-ft Level for the[-iberboard and Control Structures (Warm D~ay) 24

29 leniperatures at the 6-ft Level for theF-iberboard and Control Structures (Cool D~ay) 24

30 lemipctaturecs at the 6-ft Level for the

I ihci hoard and (Control Structures (Averrage IDav) 24

I( lk tipeiLAttiics .1 the 6-ti I c~el tor thre Control Structure

,rind Ite siructure \A of, I xtra \k~ ndo%%s (Warmi la)a 25

3;2 lertipeitures 'a1 the 6-HIt le~i lt the (Control Structure

and S teel Stiuc:tte \% ih I \Ita Windowss (Cool 1)a\) 25

33 lernpcituiiute the- 0-1t I e: el foi the C ontiol Structure i ]and the lnN"Lated I bt ihoald S"it uctic Wkarml I)a,) 25

34 lI enpciatilic" '11 the 0-ti 1 eel o the ( onti ol Structure

and the ln,,ulatedk I herbid -uituce (mol la)a 26

35 1 entperatures at the 6i-tt I es el for the ( ontrol StructureanTd thre InsulateMd S)teel Sri u1Cr (\\at1 inI a\ 26

.36 leruperaturces at the (i-It I csel (or the C ontroi Structureand the Instilated Steel St iicture (Cool D~ay) 26

FIELD TESTING OF A LIGHTWEIGHT second stage of' the field tests, in a temperate .RELOCATABLE STRUCTURE IN A env ironment.TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENT _

Fort leonard Wood. MO , as chosen tor stageII testing because it exhibits temporaic climate

1 INTRODUCTION characteristics ith respect to diurnal temperaturechange, relative humidit). and precipitation.

Background ObjectiveI he Arm\, I acilitIes Component System (AFCS) Obetv

Ihe objective of field testing the selected I RS inpro,,ides facilities Ior tso different construction at temperate environment -as to: (I) monitor andstandards: initial (0 to 6 months) and temporary (6 evaluate the erection procedures of the selectedto 24 months). Most AFCS systems are designed to building system to determine its constructibilitN.meet the temporarN requirements and thus are durability, and habitability. (2)stud the effect ofassumed to meet or surpass initial construction building modifications and various building config-standards. Since AFCS does not include many urations on the system's habitabilit. and (3) con-

facilities that meet only initial construction stan- fr a nd e n the it sta ge testsfirm and expand on results from the first-stage tests

dards, there is a need for building types which fulfill in a desert environment.these requirements.

I he ['.S. Army Construction Engineering Re- Approach

search laborator\ (SA-CERL) was asked to LRS were evaluated according to established O

identify and evaluate lightweight relocatable struc- military construction criteria, and the system \hich

tures (I-RS) for use in AFCS. USA-CERL has best met the requirements was chosen for fieldcompleted a study to identify and evaluate LRS testing. A site for testing the system in a temperate

being used bx the militarx and private industry that environment was selected and the system asmeet ,\[('S requirements for initial temporary evaluated in terms of its constructibility, durability.

construction standards.' lhc study concluded that, and habitability. The test results were evaluated andith some exetins he sprtudy coluDefed s modifications were suggested to improve s~stem

%t oeexceptions, the D~epartment of Defense's promnecurrent insentor\ of I.RS does not meet current performance.theater of operations (I 0) needs.

Mode of Technology TransferMost of the systems identified were expensive It is recommended that the results of this field

and exceeded military activity requirements. Fur- test be incorporated into Army Technical Manuals .

thermore, the\ did not adapt effectively to various 5-301, 5-302, and 5-303.1

climates wAithout the use of mechanical systems.Nc,crthcless, a commercial off-the-shelf systemsuitable for military use was found which met the STRUCTURALSYSTEMneeds of Al-CS structures under 60 ft. wide.* 2 DESCRIPTION

lo ekaluate the fci:sibility of the identifiedsystem. two-stage field tests were conducted. The %first stage of the studN, completed in October 1983, AFCS Design Criteriatield tested the I RS in a desert environment at Fort i he major concern in I.RS sxsterns dc\elopment

IrwAin. (A.' I his report documents the results of the has been their capability to be field-erected in theTO. 1 he system must be casil\ shipped and erectable S

ka,..\ %X f ct al ftaluattn f,/ lbghietight Relocatahle in the field as well as capable of being modified to

%srt, turv% /,,r I so, in Ihearers t,/ O1peraons. Icchnical Report meet climatic or other I 0 demands A s stcm to beM 114 ) ll1 T 1XI I s Anrim (omstruction t: nginecring Re-

s,'zt [I ].shs (I s, V-( RI . 19X2)I4 Arm l-asitiit ( 'mo merif 't S Istitii - lanning., lcthiss.l

o S .. t r nssions factors arc hound on p 27 Manual 5-3011 I Ileadquarlcr,. I)cpai mcnt oli ht Arms I i). K,, ,\ v. , , II wi testing tola lIhtweight Re/csatahle I)AI, March 19X2). Artni la tdites ( ,,mp,,nepn At m Ieen

% rutin o I n w If ' ' sert n'irsmnm e'n t, I'chnical Report M -361 I M 5- 12 (I O. I)1M . M arch I1 X2). rmi I a, h nc i/,t , ' , 11' !

I 1).1 41 I Arnmi ( snstruction Engineering Research .Svisltr-l ogistss 11ata and Bills if t fatc'ral I % 10 t 1i)I .ah..imhr'. 1I SA I HI 1. D4 I)A. March 1)"2)

7

included] in AI CS luist Natists the tollos ing criteria I hie panel framec. eclse angles, corner angles,tor coirsil tictloll thIrourtgh staloinddatiOrrs ridge angles. and chord hiackcts are all made of

%110(20) mierchants bar steel. Of ht.r building corm-

I,%irnirrr/c the (title needed to elect huilding poncrnts include 2- X 6-in. woo0d chords, a 2- / 6-in.kcoltp onire t . ss ood baseplate. lag bolts. guy "ire systeni. and

2. N irlule scigir nd ouru loistcalre- Kells Klosurc kes s made of ilne-platcd steel. I hequit~~s smns ,,temi is -kcved' together, eliminating most nutsq or rem enand bolts: this gises quick erection and takedossn

3. fie container-compatib-le, times, (Figure 1). Since all the components inter-

4. N urnmic costrutio c~nts.connect readilv, a %ariet\ of configurations muay beas~se mbled using different sic panels. i-hus. at large

5. Miniii /c const ructiorn skill s anrd requtired] va riet of building sies Could be pros ided in at'1equipment and mnaxi mi/e simnplicity oif erection ens itrontirnt. in at short period ot tunei. I lie ss'Istetn iscornip onelit s. shipped iii a storage rack of 24 to 30 panels, withi

lecriialobjct se ofa ptetia ssstm iclue: additional components strapped oin the top (FigureI cnclo-ct e f aptnilssciicue 2). [able I gives material costs for both gasaiied

teland fiberboard for typical 20- X 8- X 40-ft and1. otuipatibilify \kith existing AFCS interior 20- X 12- X 40-ft buildings.

design.

2.lslrcoctabe Construction and Erection ProceduresI be Kells Klosure system can be erected directls

3.1 Il aidapfa ble to different climatic coridi- on unf inished ground. on a concrete slab, or on alao'. suitable raised ss od I oundation. D efails oif the

4 -Ncquac ,hll lfe.construction and erectioin procedures arc in Ap-4 . Aec~iate self ife.penidix A of liSA-Cl RI. technical Report M-361.

Based on It,, abIits to ad apt to these AFUSreqUilerirerits. s~t ae by Kelly Kiosure,

I-renmoit. \[I.. ssas choseni as the best commercial 3 FIELD TEST PROGRAMofft-the-shell s~ stem. [his system offlers a rapilylCIrectabIl st ructuarc, a long with options for man\building configurations. Field tests were done to Test Methodes aluate the habitabilitsy. constructibility and At Fort Leonard Wood. the I..RS system wasdurabilit\ (f this system as they related to military tested primarily for consfruetibility and durabilits

although ensironmental data %%ere gathered also.

Kelly Kiosure DescriptionI he' I R S I's A triduafar panch/edl system,. based

I- -In. steel frame panel. I liehai l ot panels, arc 4 -4 fti. 4 < 8 ft. and 4 X

I., ft arid rlo-s rue11 In galsani/ed steel, structural

h-i h aid. trid Ii herglas ( orrugated galsarli/edle-'Incl. ids d ~kiral t iber boartf paniels \kce used for

CPiL,,ili/Ct p Miesae riade I110111 28-gagC,rIiL!,eTed sitc I he fuhcrhurarf panrel. nianttlaC-

tired h,, wiiipke\. has four 0.f)43-in. plies of ksatcr- II, iioIet e paper board. Bloth outiode lasers,,It, Oil, pl\ if 401h-l hmiir-sri/c kiaff hoard coatedf

wh I Inil (f pol ' fhylcric. I hec 4- , 8-ft

0aI,0\ri i ,d sNICe Aciegh,,0 hI lb.?,hile rhe fiberboard

sseuighi SX lb Figure 1. Kelly Kiosure key.

Figure 2. Panel storage rack.

Table Icritical path method for the ,Nstem. A checklist wasMaterial Costs for Calvanized Steel completed to esaluiate each building's performance.

and Fiberboard Panel StructuresBuilding ( onfiguration Panel Insert Base Cost* Interior and exterior temperatures and other

"seather data were also collected with a portable2o 41) it (,1,inficd Ste S5.6-16.18 data logger and weather station. I he data were

*S4$) it Siruiiurdi [ iherhoard S4.672.35 compiled and plotted on graphs to es aluate the2 40$) (,,l'at/ed Steel $6.341.13 ssstem's habitability.

It) 12 40) I$ Is uc ri iberboard S5.081,90

*I hic i i lanc 1"4) MInCICe 1he 2$0 percent (,SA discount Support Systems Tested~ ( It cI rflnt, %I . hut c~cliidc the oist 01 the 2- 6-rn. N so components devised by USA-CERL I%\ere

umhcr .'eI tm the hord,. and haseplate tested in) addition to the basic components suppliedby the Kell\ Klosure systemn: an insulating ssstem *and a ground anchor.

Itie budlding v. as constructed during each cs dc.()ic control huilditig rtniained in the as-hilt U sing anl existing 20- X 8- X 4t)-ft experimentalcondition throughout te testling " bile the other strUCtureC. 2 in. o)f rigid loil-faced. glass-reinforced.brii di ngs %%crc isscnlhlcd. dIiisssttthied ar,d modi- pol~ ,isocesaturate l'oam insulation was tested on thelied tol isidate durability\ and en' ironmiettal \ari- \\all,, and ceiling. With a h4-in. airspace. thleaI blcs. insulation has anl R-\alue of 17.2. USA-CERI.

dcx eloped and bilt at reusable %kall panel bracketI he buildlfi-' ies it crc ssmbld and disasm bled M~itch Incorporated thle Kell\ K losure ke forrN a%% trioops xho are at -Frt Itcnard Wkood for Cotnnectitng Insulation to thle panels,. 1-or the top of

engineer training school and are rotated outl alter thle panels. 4- .- 10-in. steel plate wkas hent atideach test cycle. I hus, all cottstiictiori times are irorn slo~tted to match the panel kc\ openings,. I \%otic"x t roo$ps w~ith no expetirice in constructitig Kelly hrac kets % crc required to bold thle top of each 4-Kiosure buildings and also ttclude tunec spent hy\ X-It iiulatiori panel ito the side\%alls. Wood strips oftroop instructors to explain erection pruicedure I -2 in, sersed as, the molding atid secureCd tiledetails s,%bile the students assetuhie the structluresN. Isiulationi at thle hase (Ciling brackets we rc de-

sierteol ito lit oxe[ the 2- -in,1) chords. I hese X~ere\tunec-talk rg ccl cl AaN set uip to record ittade (it bett 2(1-gage galxanu/cd steel metal 4 in.

tiari-hours requLIted 1Wt ech~ task spelledl Out inl the \k ide,

9)

'iii111 Kc K 10,1-11C hCI1c I CrcO aic t LI CuIit II cowiar I \ I j oI ttic k I' k PI 'C-c-.

I- mc. I ock\ "oll. \ 'iiaict i ic tIlilillIL 'Atci\ lllc aiic Itcfal hilicIlIi! ',- hi ir'.

d 't. I it I o It I I\\iil. P C cIt: Iattcd Iu(i iI \ i ll, hoth [I S A\- ( I kI anIId i I I i In

p oI.I h Ic toi uptilIin/C L 011i1i t1cti) 1111' L" ic>

I 1 [i t ta 1t I C i i I ( Iai \\ 0 0(1l. I iC K C1 I \ K I 'iDescription of Test Program and ~III ICLii cI %CrC ILiit ,iluu hci t\ PC Ot hUldil1- 10i t cATest Building Construction to iu''criihic. khi Ic at 1-o mlI in. thc K cikI Ku ''1: C

I tl !L'N ,,I, (Id ctC(1 III ' l cii \ dC'. I 11C It muCtU C %rC' \ Cc a ililylic htitLdiiui *\iciii M Inch!1. !-Il h'c \C<c arc i lahlc 2 ailla\\cd ilic tmluuP' itu -Ict ,ix a\ tmuuii Ohcim Cc\\

ta'k'. I1u\lc\Cl. tic c COHtnItiC1in tiiic' ill I ,hic 2

I. Ii wIt I I ccdcd(L I tar ilc CLIuIt I trir 1101u ku Ic ~ 't c tc't' P I uIrc .C hil 1 CCil111

-'h I I ic 1Hiitlld:0II1 01tC KCd1k\ uIididcitc ai11l iiidca'iiiuL taiiiiialit\ luit i tll( KcII\atI mIi ci"llI~kl \\oo upupl a Kluu'Iuic NV.tcii h-\ tlic tioq ma.Pp i ft ictldI

h\d '.tanldad Baseplate/Foundlation Construction* 1.1.11 1c ic'! niti'il!\ 1 -1 "). \t I %ku 20-)- 401-t ha'.cplatc'. \\cic b it ail '.CIjrate

I:~ ~ ~ ~~~h (d ii..; . .N icdt'iciii ciiii-pci-n-tailcft clc~ittcd \ko(iad tuuiin1dillolit'at tllc

K. K,, h- .. 1.11''~piic \ 'tart of) tic tc't 0I-iaurc 4t I tic foiundation cuin'i'tcd

6\, Vii :1LPC 'olltilLI oIi tilca\- I ' pctmictci hcaiifi. 0-111.i

Itic11 hAuck-kild 11~ Ihuaminic mipurt.ad I- -12-in1. ho.tid tlnam'.I iLLIrC S)t I tic 101au 1ilti loll k lcm-ccicd u)in d 'liti

Ilable 2F rt L e onard \N ood lest ( ces B id n

I uuta It( on~t ruct ion-0el Building I Building 2 Mlan-hours

................ icI iI crhxpaikl

!I jr :1, icc ) I

* ,., -4.-

0-0 Control Bldg

4--a Outdoor Temp

0-C 8-ft Fberboord Bldg, -4 Windows

Outdoor Temp

4 /vndon=s

25

2C

1 15

2 4 6 8 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 46 C b ! 2 14 6 18 2C 22 24

TIME TIME -

1 igure 28. I LnlpciatUrcs at the 0-It Ictel for the Figure 29. Iclnpcraturc, at the 6-1t lc.cl lr the

hhcth,,ard ld conitrol ,,ut rc, tiberhoard and control ltrllCtLirc,

wtrrn da\). (cool da\).

35

0-C Control Bldg

30 6-6 Outdoor Temp

0-0 8-ft Fierboord Bldg,4 Windows

25

<~ 20

15

5

2 - I

02 426 24 618 20 22 24TIME

lFigure 30. I cilpcIatll"-, at the (6-it lc~cl ltr the

lIhetht)Iattl and c()IltIol ,ttlltIt'III'

24

,- S.;-. ,- . . -. -: - - . - - - . -

Figure 27. .idc'all moisture damage at panel base. 6

t/-, , 'aP'il Iaivrial steel structure with 12 AindoN panels to the 20- XI lh cilict of thc panel material Aas e\aluated by 8- X 40-ft gahani/ed steel control structure with

k,,1pari ng the 208- - 40-lt fiberboard structure tour \Nindo\, panels during test cycle 6. The avcraget h the 20- - S- 40-It ,teel control structure in temperature difference between the test stucture with

tct ,Ic 4 I he comparison shos the good en- extra windows and the control structure was betweenirotn iental performance ol the fiberboard structUe. 0.5 to I.0°C. which can be considered negligible

()ri hot mli\ da\.%, the ibherhoard structUrc's 6-It (Figures 3 1 and 32).t!rnpcra rc ciir ,ck mirrored the outdoor tempera-!ire. 0,)ntICr st at ing 3 5 to 5.5 C cooler than e of'ln. ulation"h .oritirl -tturC during the diimne (08t0 to the effect ol insulation \,as evaluated by corn-I stil I1,11) I F gutVc 2S) \t night. the fiberboard paring the temperature difference betwten test c cles,rul.uic , h It Ic cl tclnpCrAl ture ,iaCd 2.0 to 2.5' C 4 and 5 and the temperature difference in test c\cec

. irix hthi the outsidc and control building 7. I he insulation appears io lowker the temperatureiii>.'aluc about 2.0 to 3.5 C in tile fiberboard structure and

4.) to 7.5 C in the galaniied steel structure during; ..... Ia,. ihe tibe hoard ,structurc. cortrol the daytime (0N) to I80 hours) of moderatelk

t! : ti,; I tt i1( 1 clpc:alures, remained lairh sAarm to hot days ([igurcs 33 through 36). I)uring0.. r eLii e 21)) s ith tie libcrboard structurc the eerning hours ol the hottest da,. the insulated

i .i t, I o 1 ( , .r hart the :ontrol sirut- steel st:ucturc sla\ed 2.5 to 4.0 C " -arnier than theI ,, i; ,t, cit,: t t, !hiih icrilpcraitrc 210.1) ( I. control structure and the insulated liberboard strue-h,, h,,ti , tr i iiem c ta tl onsistctit\ 1.1 to ture staxed 1.5 to 2.0 C cooler than the control

I Oi ,tnO te ,,it t ructurc Figure 30). structure. On the hottest da\ ol test scce 7. thectntrtl structure temperature at the 6-11 le\cl peaked

/ , ,' I f .,t, I1 pr.,., t1'u t.t at 33 (. s"hiile the telmlperaturc al the 6-it leel in

I, lit..' L :ni or uti', pe nn. %a, s s ,Il- the url4uatcd seel structure peaked at 20 0 Figure S

.-q

S

.. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . - _ . . . . . . .- . . ... . . . .. " ' ::2._ U ..

Figure 25. Gable and endwall moisture damage

4S

N

1Figure 26. (Gable moisture damage: buckling of fiberboard and delamnination of surf ace material

tr'rri1 Ke'. Kiure is a ncA s~stcm and the Habitability Test Resultsht I huard panels Used at I-ort Leonard W~ood A~crc I his section inter prets the %%eather dati collecd

al- 1 rC~ IIhe IFort Ir~kin ficid tests and hase. at F ort leconard Wood. During the test L-ccs.

thhtcri c-,piiscd to \s.caiher for oscr I \car. temnperat ure,, s"crc recorded in hothI the test andlmro\ d lhhr huard panicis. suth caulking around control structures, Mnd outdoors. I hie extremec tern-

ii iiISesand exterior steel frame edgcs. orc pcratureCs \ACre rcorded from1 data,. Mid gfilphs, \kCIC

ri~hcmvi rested at IFort leconard Wkood. V) miade for the extremie dais. I lie temiperatures at thent i,,-thie tieterioiatiori has, beeni obhsers d oin those 6-ft lesel skcic chosen lt comparison since most

poiV I ssserit is apparent that further des el- Occupants "~Ill feel the itne around Tte 4- to 6-ft-prmneilt s%-'ik is required lesel.

IT~/

WOODEN KNEE BRACING WOODEN COLUMN WITHAT PANEL CENTER #GUSSET PLATE CONNECTION

AT PANEL CENTER

KNEE BRACING USING STEEL COLUMN AND BEAMANGLES BOLTED TO WITH STEEL GUSSET ATINSIDE EDGE OF PANEL PANEL CENTER

Figure 24. 'atcral bracing schcmc2.

21

KNEEBRAING SIN STEL CLUMNANDBEA

63

* Figure 23. Wood kneebrace attachment to chords and sidewalls.

(iii vh'.vs IDe.gn exhibited extreme weathering problems. Figures 25W~ork has been progressing on a guylcss design and 26 show peeling and delamination of thc surface

for a 20 -"ide At -ft-high structure. [-he experi- coating (polyethylene) from the fiberboard basemental kkoodcn kneebrace syrstem, used in the 20- X material. This problem was most prevalent on the end-

40-ft fiberhoard test structure at Fort [Leonard wall gable sections, but also occurred in other areas.W\ood, is one %%av resistance to lateral forces couldhe accomplished. [ he foundation also needs to be Another problem first noticed at Fort Leonard

*inocstigated further. A ballast-type foundation needs Wood was the wicking of moisture by the fiberboard-to he incorporated into the guvless design to resist around the panel's perimeter and the interior0the Uplitt on the building. Se~eral other types of crossbrace rivet points. The fiberboard panels were

lateral bracing s~stems (F-igure 24) were considered not caulked on the outside around the edge of' theh\ ( S \-CI RI . After consulting \kith Kelly Klosure steel frame. This allowed moisture to seep downMrid conducting some preliminar\ independent re- betwseen the frame and fiberboard panel base and

search, it has been deter mined that there are twso or then up through the layers of fiberboard, causingIthree: po~ssihle method,, for eliminating guy \Nires. swselling and delaminating at the panel base (FigureI on hert research %kill be done in 1- Y85 to resols e 27). [his type of moisture problem was also obvioust0Ulluridat n hasepilate detajils for \a rioujs soil condi- a round the points where rivets attach the fiberboardtions and] to determine the optimum lateral bracing to the interior cross brace. A perfect circle (if-

sClcme, swollen, wet. defaminated fi berboard formed around

man\- of the interior erossbrace rivets. In the early,IOurahilhi it'st RecslrA \set spring weather, moisture damage was visually

Ilie gal\ ani/ed steel panel buildings shoAed noticeable in 50 percent or more (if the fiberboardalmost no dora hilit\ problems. niore than meeting panels in the 20- X 8- X 40-It structure.current Al S requirements for terliporar\ structures

ia I0 Although the damaged fiberboard does riot, initself. illo\% moisture intruision. it does greatly

I hie I iberboard s',stemi e\hi bited scveral problems redue panel strength and consequently the amount* not pte~iouslk noticed in the desert field tests. I hie of handling atl(J relocation that can occurF sithout

tibcrbiiard panels tested at Iort I eonard Wood damage. Admiittedl\. the fiberboard panel s\stemi

2ff

. . .. . . . .

Figure 21. Damaged panel ends.

Figure 22. %%od kricchraicc sIcni

AIM

Figure 19. V-rection ot ha\ section1 of 2S- - 32-4t test str ucture.

F-igure 20. 1 rcct on of 28- - 32-it test structure

If Ca(tr aIuj .ttci NtratC Ff1 fil caulking, hoth (tic siliconec and .1 tll , % ( d I p ll' 1 1-111t \%COIthCT Si'4iiii claslonlic: ciipoI nict. adhere~d \%ciI but dfid [lit

it ti, d a t l1 ntid ~ d Kcll\ ilo\% out of Owi tube ca~lk I M tc prchcating tile

kijl 't~IA1da i rl l IIPL. 11 'Ilikdid oli-til- "tikirtg tuhes b\ holdingi themi ahii\c ani oipen trc* ~ ~ ~ Ii~1,t 'i11 ri.l k . iri'i ani 1 Lkttiii lPi11111w til L Idlking applied calik it) till -.old steel framet

IliH 11,1MC llllHi' \1 Ln h Ic IICL h %COOI Citicr ll- f~o\%C\Cr. til ploccdlrc "a, dic link under Ililci-

frl' T11,11I h.11 "Lt r htplll Ml tcLptI jLitlHC i l tl irzilg iPcLAW LOIiiitiil 11)Il ix 110lt ICCOIIIII)Vtl (I( ( miilking

.1ppT'lrmii~I 10 ( ",-' ( III OIL. Lnflicxi Nhiijl hc stowrd at lo tcimpelatlc mnild it Is

*ht 10~ a c ll i 1 I'd ii % l ( fc IICC '

the ease angle connection bolt regardless of recoin- place. D~uring the erection of the first has s. %k~hich Lmended erection procedures. a ness oblong-shaped included the endsall section. several rool panelscountersunk bolt %ill be used by Kell, in the future. were damaged by the brackets used to attach theIt matches the shape of the slot in the roof panel lilting cable. I hie cnd~kall's, extra sxeight caused thletramc and. thus. has more bolt head surtlice area to brackets to bend up the steel angle on the 4-It panelbear on the panel's steel frame ( Figure 18). edge ( Figure 21). I his problem occurred onls in the

ha, sections Ahich included an cndwall section. InIn the third test cycle, a 20- X 12- X 32-It the future, when erecting end baN sections. troops

gal, ani/ed steel structure was constructed out of 4- should include only the gable panels of the endsall.X 12-ft panels. Ihe 32-ft structure length %%as used [his will alles iate the problem b, lightening the end -.

because ol a lack of 4- X 12-ft galvani/ed steel section significantl,.panels. ( Man of the 4- X 12-ft panels skere damaged%shen used as roof panels on the 28-ft-wide struc- Fiherhoard Panel Building."ture.) t he use of 4- X 12-ft panels for the sideswalls Onlh one si/c fiberboard panel structure %kasalloAs a 12-t-high building to be erected using a used: 20 X 8 X 40 It. In the fourth test ccle, a4-ft-,,ide ba, section. this type of 12-It-high struc- fiberboard structure identical in siic and configura-ture can be manualls erected as &ellI as crane erected. tion to the control building ,,as erected in 150hosteser, manual erection is not recommended oil man-hours.gan elcsated foundation. Lsing a crane, the 20- X 12-

-32-It structure ,,as erected in 216 man-hours. Kelly Klosure structures are dilficult to erect on

I he reason for the cxtremel\, large number of elevated loundation baseplates because ol the inter-

man-hours is that the structure %,as completed b\ ior bas section's lateral instabiit. When erecting an

t\,,o separate troop cre, s os er a 7-da, period. I hus. interior has section. the lack of space for troops to

ia duplication of explanation and training greatl. step on outside the baseplate perimeter makes it

sloed the ercction process. difficult to counteract an quick lateral shift of thebay section. Fiberboard panel ba, sections. being

28- - 8- -i 32-ft Building. I he 28-It-\kide struc- esen more flexible than steel panel ba, sections.,lure ,aa, erected to lurther test the llexibilits of the need some type ol bracing to facilitate quick erec-paneli/ed building s,,stem and t( examine the Kell\ tion. I hus. the troops erecting the fiberboard panelKlosure erection process \,hich uses a bolted steel structures desised a semi-permanent wood kneebracestructural frameswork. I he 28-ft-wide building ,,as type support (Figure 22). [he w\ooden kneebraceerected on an existing concrete pad loundation onto sas made of standard 2- X 6-in. lumber nailLd tosAhich at 2- / 8-in. \Aood baseplate had been at- the 2- X 6-in. chord member and to each 4- X 8-fttached. I he structure \,as erected on a snow. cold wAall section frame (Figure 23). 1 he kneebrace kept)ecember das (Figures 19 and 20), in 128 man- the ha\ secton rigid and presented all lateral swahour,. A ctane ssas used to lilt each bas section into during erection.

iigure 17. (Wi ,Ic rmiund flat head holt. Figure 18. \e., ,\lIc oblong lat head bolt.

17 S,

-4 r

Figure 15. First step of modified erection process.

Fiur A6 neiro h oto ulig* 16

Tv -7

speed. , nd direction, and solar radiation. I hermo- eleated endwall is shov n in Figure 15. Erecting thecouples and or thermistors %%ere mounted at the I- panels b, manually rolling up the 4-ft-%,idc ba.it. 4-It. 6-ft. H-It, and 12-It lexels %ithin each sections was difficult and ha/ardous on the elexatedbuilding. Relatixc humiditt probes were mounted at foundation. ( Using a crane is. thus. highly rccom-the 6-It le\el. \Wind speed, wind direction, and solar mended when installing the structures on an ele%,atedradiation probes xerc mounted on a steel pipe loundation.) the interior of the completed controlattached to the control building (Figure 14). building is showsn, with instrumentation in place. in

Figure 16.

20- X 12- X 40-ft Building. Sexeral cycles ol 2(1-4 FIELD TEST RESULTS X 12- X 40-ft structures were assembled to testspecific types of panel configurations (Figures 9 and10). In the second test cycle, a 20- X 12- X 40-It

Constructibility Test Results galvaniied steel structure was erected in a total of119 man-hours, %kith 4- X 8-ft stiflback panels used

Galvanized Steel Panel Buildings to construct the 12-ft sidew&alls. In addition, a 12- xSeeral si/es and configurations of galani/ed 12-ft vehicle door was included in one endxxall. A

steel panel structures were used. Follo%,ing are brief crane was required to erect the 8-ft-\%ide bay sec-descriptions and explanations of the test results for tions.each ,,reel panel ,,tructure configuration. .

During the second test cycle. sexeral round coun-

20- -. 8- , 40-ft Building. Since the 20- X H- X tersunk flat head bolts pulled through the slots40-It galani/ed steel control building was the first (Figure 17) which connect the cave angles to thedemonstration ot erection procedures and xxas roof panels. It "as finally determined that the troopserected in the rain, detailed construction times were were o,,er-tightening the bolts with a socket wrenchnot recorded. I.SA-C(RI. personnel assisted in the (Kelly Klosure's erection guide specifies finger-tight)erection process. [he cleated loundation made it and consequently, pulling the bolts partially throughdifficult to erect the structure because there %%as no the roof panel slots. Thus. \&hen the bay sectionsplace to stand while erecting the end sections (im- \,erc erected and the connections stressed, the pre-possible by standard Kelly Klosure procedures for %,ouslh deformed bolt heads pulled through the roofthe highest cleated end\,all). I lhe first step of the panel slots and the connections failed. Since per-modified procedure required to erect the highest sonnel would probably use some type ol wrench on

rS

I *-

-77

Figure 14. t \tcrior %%eather station.

I5. - -

sheets o1 I herniax loam insulation I mantaCturccd insulation %kas added to thle steel structure Used inh\ (clotex) %crc installed& It look seS en people 101 test Ccc NI\V1101u1' 1o ins1tall thle installation post,,.

~ ThA (il'Instrumentation1 hesi.t I tet e dcheizn i mi-Ma an ~ lo determnine the s'.stcin\s hahitahilit\. data tromi

finished 2 ".ceks later. %%ith the cotnstruetion ot a 20- the control building s"ere comrpaiedl to data obtained-4)-it galani/ed steel building ha ing X-ft side- hrn the test struictures. Using thle outd1coor condi-

kk~ails (1 cu!Lre 12). I his test struet iireC "~as identical to lions as a baseline.hie control st rUCt Lre except that it had 12 %%i ndlot

pa nels instead ot the corntrol st ruet Lre's tour. I hie inst rumentation used in thle tests " as aCamrpbell Scientific CR7 measurement and control

'Seltal'nI'C Ci( i A's tctI-Fire 13). Ili e R 7 tmonitored bothI hie se~cent h test C\ dc began in late Nla\ and xas temperature and relati~ e humi~ldit\ inside and outside

fi nished in eark li ne, In t his c~clc. 2-in,. loamn the buildin Is. It also recorded the exterior v. md

Figure 11. 1 iberboard test structture Figure 12. Steel test structure (20 .8 X 40 ft)(2(0 8 40 it). \Ah 12 ,4ndo~ panels.

AS

Figure 13. R7 intrumntaion

El

NS

Figure 6. Foundation support blocks.

*Figure 7. Control structure (20 X 8 X 40 ft). Figure 8. Test structure (28 X 8 X 32 ft).

Figure 9. lcest structure (20) X 12 /40 ft) using Figure 10. (;alvaniied steel test struIcture4- X-It steel panels with equipnrt door. (20 X 12 X 32 It).

13

*T

I.-.

Figure 4. lest st ructure ad! control st ructure oIn rleA aid stood baseplates.

* -U

Figure 5. Elesated wood foundation.

- -grade. s ilch reqluired the use of concrete block and had one personnel door and one vehicle door and

1w+

Fitimbe shimsr to lex c the baseplate (Figure 6). was completed in 17 hours - a sesen-person crew.

'So

I irw lI, ( *i ( Third Ihm CceI he I I rst test c%~ cc bega n in ea rls N oxcm her %A it h I he third test cycle "as begun in mid-F-ebruars

lie colistURet14)11 Of thle control building, made of and finished in early April. I his esele tested a 20- Xvals ano'ed steel. 20- -40)-t! Vtith S-li sidewalls 32-ft steel structure st ith 12-ft sidessalls. built usingIi goreC - IIsI, building remained uip thbroughout 4- X I12-ft steel panels, ( Figure 10). t his building,

_t test cx dis. InI mid-I cemher. a 2x- '32-ft Ahich had two personnel doors. -"as built in 24building stit S-It s( Iigure 5) Eeas con- hours br nine people anid as disassembled in 8

.- strIted On an emistiig concrete pld near the hours b\ 10 people.*control building. I ills struLcture used both steel and

I brboad panels atid tapintrcg coted in 1 hoor Fourih aVa( ,Cc/ch an eight-person crces. I he fotirth test c\cle ran froearl to mid-April.

* Itti this lded c. tests n crc conducted onl a 20- 4-ftA+t lW/ '' ( uilifiber board building t ith 8-ft sidcwalk I Iigure I.

I the-c ti, d tst e.ele began in iarlsI china I Is.. strmeture \t,,a er s onnel doorsi pers til doorsn ktat t ,m pletd III ng c-Fretre In1 thi t let in 15 hours, b\ I0 people.

-()-- 4i-It steel huildig st as ,ccetd tith 12-Itiulestil-s Iales aI Is wer cotstructed using 4- l ithi'. (I' /

* N-tw anesitl 2- - 2-in. ooden- etIrnitck It thie fifth test ccle. the anm trluctur stas used.Oln i /' (mtO S-It has' I I iizio 9). I Fis btldig Iii the buil i test eile. bit 2-iti. thick. 4- S-It

[ r. 't,,,+lt[tcl C\ l b gill il ill'+ t br af IlsSI'iC~f \,il e coe \,i~ll,,,o p~ s~leIdo r

* S

-- i L

KELL GROND ACHO USACERLDEVEOPE

GRUN NCO

tv ht

II717*A

iI ... ..

Fiur 3.(iudacos

0----0 Control Bldg

.35 35 4a Outdoor Temp0--C_ 8-f1 Steel Bldg,

12 Windows

30 30 -

25 25

wa 20 UJ 20

a:c

w ~150---0 Control Bldg& Outdoor Temp

0 0 8-ft. Steel Bldg., 0-12 Windows

5 5

S I I I I I I I I I I I O 0 I I

0 L 4 L L 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4024 6 8 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

TIME TIME

Figure 31. 1 cmperatures at the 6-It level for the Figure 32. 'emperatures at the 6-ft level for the

control structure and steel structure with control structure and steel structure with

extra windows (wkarm day). extra windows (cool day).

35

; - 25 -

w20-

15

0--,0 Control Bldg6 Outdoor Temp

0-C 8-ft Fiberboard (Insulated) Bldg,4 Windows

5

I I

00 2 4 6 8 t0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

TIMEI

Figure 33. I emperatures at the 6-tt c\ el lor the

control structure and the insulatedliherboard structure (warl Iday).

254q

* 0 - . - • .

0-0 Control Bldg.

35 n Outdoor Temp 35o-a 8-fl Fiberboard (Insulated) Bldg,

4 Windows

30 30-

25 25

"20 Uj 20

15 0-a control Bldg.

C-'o BidO

J 15 Outdoor Tamp

D-0 8-ftl Steel (insuloted) Bldg.,4 Wirdows

10 10

Ii51 5

00 L I, 2I 6 81 12 4I18 02 2 Q 0 I I I I I I J IO0 I0 2 4 16 I8 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

* TIME TIME

*Figure 34. 1 cnmperat ores at the 6-11t lc~el (o11 the Figure 35. I emnpcrattIres at the 6-ft level for the:onitrol structure and the insulated control structure and the insulated steel

fiberboard structure (cool day). structure (warm day).35 -

0-0 Control Bldg.SOutdoor Temp.30 0- 8-ft. Steel (Insulated) Bldg.,4 Windows

x 20

W..

-

TIME

* O Figure 36. lcrnperatures at the 6-It level for the Scontrol structute and the insulated steel

structure (cool day).

26

.. ".. 10

CONCLUSIONS AND it Ilol I conald \ood oil palicls that 1Le ,.,iulkcd5 RECOMMENDATIONS around all cxtrior ri,.ets and cxtCli o edg,' I h5L R O E A Oman ulacturer is also conducting tcsits on l s, toimpros c the fiberboard panels.

I he- ,tagc II testsi t l-ort I ,conad Wood not N'tlr the Kell\ Klosuie ground ancht not I1hL".I!\ Cotlirme.d Icjults tron stage I tests at [ort I SA-(I RI manutictured pipc anchor s"oik-d vscitl"ss in. but al',o CX.poScd some deliciencies in the in the loose, rock\ soil at t-ort I conard Wood. I lifiberboard sitcin v, hich did not occur in a desert Kell\ Klosure auger anchor A~as almost impossihlectl\ ionrl ent, to get down into the soil and the I SA-('I-RI

anchor casily pulled up through the soil. I-urthcrI hc corrugated steel panel s,stems satisty Af-CS research has been funded for I-Y85 to determine

requirements for both initial and temporary (0 to 24 whether a guvless, lateral bracing system can bemonths) construction, but unless some change is used. A technical report will be published aboutmade. the l iberboard panels cannot meet A1(CS that project.durabihits criteria.

Itabitabilitv tests sho\,,ed that the fiberboardlii teitlis o coiilltictibilit\. lit. 12-Ii-high build- structures are cooler than steel structures. On hot

iigs iiidc ol 4- - N-It pancls sscrc more difficult to days, thle fiberboard structure measured 3.5 to 5.5 Cerect than 8-lt-high buildings,. I he 12-tt buildings cooler than the steel control structure.required a crane to erect the section, which becameunstable on the loundation baseplate. The stiffbacks Two building modifications were made in andid not help much. so troops devised a temporary attempt to affect the structural habitability. Moreknec-brace. windows were added to a steel building. but thc,r

cooling effect was negligible. Modifying the build-In the area of durability, the galsani/ed steel ings with insulation ga\e the greatest habitabilit,

building had no problems under the test conditions. benefit. Adding insulation to a galhani/ed steelIt can be expected to perform as well as any gal- structure decreased the maximum temperatures 4.0 •,,ani/ed steel skin building currently available, to 7.5°C, and adding insulation to a fiberboard

structure decreased the maximum temperatures 2.0I hc liherboard system showed sesere durability to 3.5°C. Fiberboard structures are almost as cool

problems in molist Aseather. Damage \kas noticeable as insulated steel structures, but insulated fiberboardint more than 50 percent of the panels in the 20- X 8- buildings are only slightly cooler than insulated steel

41)-It fiberboard test structure. [he panel's wAicked structures.in nioisturc around their edges and the interiorcroshrace ris et points, causing them to peel and Unless the fiberboard moisture problem is cor-dclaminatc. I his grcatl, reduces panel strength and rected. insulated galvaniied steel structures wouldthe armoutt o1 handling and relocatability that can be the better choice, based on durability andoccur ,aithout damage. turthcr tests are being done habitability.

Metric (onverion Factors

Ii 2'S4 ni

I it 1i4s m

I m il 02S4 11inIII 4 kg

1 i it o ll lh i 11"

* i t ~ ~ 'i

* -0

L'SA-Ci'EK. L) I S'- kI B1 i (N

• .~~ ~TTN, 1, 1,.I r NIJ ~ , I, t l * rn I. *, (I.1 4 r.A. .1 ATTNI F:clia (nive (

S [T . ^ :i i MAW, ,\TTN: )Ll ) )

AI N4 At N

At AI Iy: M TM L -;A '0 15A ' , . .' A TTN. Faci l tt . Eng inee r 3)

ATTN )AF.7N -

A TN A.N'.-

NAKADICON, ATTN: DRDNA-r 01760

A - 11 "4 j A K. % -K.T AFNt K TARCcNI, Fac. Div. hAU90

Ar.. AeN RD', TM.AIOCAT74N 'ANADM HQ, TRADUC, ATTN: ATEN-DEH"

A-TN: JAL. - IL- ATTN: DE (19) SA rT - . IAFN- L).

A TTN I .)AeN L TSARCOM, A TN STSAS-F 63120

AT.TN ')AtN-.7C14 USACC, ATTNi Facilities Engr (2)

A T TN .ALN-Z,WESTCON

Th,A. ATTN: :,br. ry 2.',6O ATTN: DEN, Ft, Shatter 96858ArTN. JET 11l 79906 ATTN: APEN-tN

Ar, 1

'. ,- er DiaLr-Et SHA PE 09055ATTN. L.Orly (41) ATTN: Surv. Section, CCB-OpS

Infrastructure Branch, LANDA

ATTN: 1.-. HQ USEUCON 09128

ATTN: ECJ 4/7-LO0

AVAtN-U. i Z , n )40 3 Fort Belvoir, VA 22070 (7)[. Af 'I ATTN Canadian Liaison Office S

*/-Ps~, ATTN. Water Resources Support CtrATTN: DiLH ) Ii ATTN: Engr Studies Center

VII C.:rps ATTN: Engr Topographic Lab.ArTN: :,EH (1 5) ATTN: ATZA-DTE-SU

list ;,Vpyort Command ATTN: ATZA-DTE-EN

ATTN; DEN 12) ATN. 11D Command

SA !Sria r,ATTN: :ElH 11) CRIMEL, ATTN: Library 03755

A rTN: )ER 10) WES, ATTN Library 39180

Allied Comand E.rope (ACE)

ATTN: DEE 3) NQ, XVIII Airborn Corps

and Fort Bragg4lth :;A, X rea 19) ATTN. AFZA-FE-EE 28307

l -1, i n .ad Forces Coinand 96301 Area Engineer, AEDC-Arse Office

ATTN: EISA-HC-CFC/Engr Arnold Air Force Station, TN 37389

JSA Japan USARJ) Chanute AI , IL 61868ATTN. AJEN-DEH 96341 3345 CES/DE, Stop 27

ATTNI DEH-Honahu 9634)

ATTN; DEl-jkninau 96331 Norton AFB, CA 92409

ATTN$ AFRCE-NXiDEE.. lvth EnglneAr Coammand 60623

ATTN Facilitils Engineer NAVFAC

ATTN: iEginertLng Comnmand (7)113 ilitary Academy 10966 ATTN: Oviaon Offi ce (6)

ATTN: 1 ...l4i1o n ATTN. Navl PUblIC Works tCantqr (9)

ATTN: ;,pt t eog.arphy 4 ATTN: Naval School, Morel) Library;.,)mpuoter Sci.nce ATTN: Naval Civil Engr Lab. (3)

ATTN. OSCPER/ MEN-A

NCEL ArTN Library, Code L08A 93041AAMNRC, ATTN DRXMR-WE 02172

Defense Technical Info. Center 22314USA ARRC)M 61299 ATTN. DDA (12)

ATTN: UIg13- RI- I •ATTN: DIRSAR-L3 Engr Societies Library, NY 10017

AMC - Dir., Ilst., & Servc Natl Guard Bureau IlotI. Dlv 20310

ATTN: DEH (21)

US Govt Printing Offic 2231U

DI.A ATTN: DLA-J1 22314 Receiving Sect/Deposltory Copies (2)

D UNA ATT"N: NADS 20105 US Army Env. Hygiene g.gncyATTN; HSHB-E 21010

F')RS(.j Engjr, ATTN: AFEN-DEH National Surnau o Standards 20760AT TN. DE.N 121)

91ATTN.: F. 7,214 331

ATN. F-e.),: t 1- Fgineer 0312215"

.. I n. . A. , .- 21-11 4 ,

La

• FILMED

7-85

* DTIC !I"