Special Considerations for the Comparison

of Blast- and Climatologically- Induced

Crack Response
Charles H Dowding,

Structural Dynamics Effects are Significant

10 Hz corner
2 critical cases
lowest f
interpretation

10 - 30 Hz bound
constant
displacement
0.01 in

No data at A & C
10-30 Hz bound
extended to 4 ips

Probability of Cosmetic Cracking vs PPV

Becomes
Vertical at
12 mm/s

Is this statistical
Aberration or
Is there a reason?
At Lower
Intensity
Natural,
Often
Occurring
Events
Produce
Greater
Crack Response

Weather
Induced
Cracks
Similar
to those
Induced by
Blasting

System: small proximity measurement device

Measures changes in distance as small as
a micro inch

Change in crack width is

not dependent upon original width

Wood Wedge Analogy Demonstrates Why

Change in Crack Width Is an
Index of the Potential for Extension

Crack Opening ~ Extension

463

211

Longitudinal Study Quantifies

Response of Cracks to Vibration and Weather

Popular Conception of Blasting Effects

How can silent weather produce more crack response than

noisy and disturbing blasting

Experimental Data that Address

Three Major Concerns
Cracked
Un-cracked

1) Measuring crack response

overlooks response of stiffer,
un-cracked locations which could
attract more stress

2) Cases not included where

excitation = natural frequency
~ 5 to 10 Hz to produce
greatest response

3) A structure could be distorted to the brink of

cracking when even a small blast induced strain
could induce cracking

Blanford, Indiana
Wood frame, basement

Surface Coal Mine

2000 ft distant
54, 100 ft holes
4 decs per hole
170 lbs/dec
.14 to .93 ips
No cracking

Near Naples, Florida

CMU-wood slab on grade
E1,2(corner)

Limerock Quarry
30 to 50 holes
50 to 60 lbs/delay/hole
0.05 to 0.18 ips

First Concern: Response of Un-Cracked Locations

Un-cracked weakness: tape joints C9,10

Un-cracked drywall C2,6 & Crack over doorway C7

IN

FL

Enlarged view
Showing
Transducer cluster
Plaster over
paper taped
joints

crack tip

Details of Crack Sensors

Across Joints,
Across a Crack

Long Term Response vs Temp and Humidity

Crack >> Un-cracked Joints> Sheets

Blast Response of Cracks, Joints & Sheets

463

211

Experimental Data that Address

Three Major Concerns
Cracked
Un-cracked

1) Measuring crack response

overlooks response of stiffer,
un-cracked locations which could
attract more stress

2) Cases not included where

excitation = natural frequency
~ 5 to 10 Hz to produce
greatest response

Blanford, Indiana
Surface Coal Mine
1000-2000 ft distant
54, 100 ft holes
4 decks per hole
170 lbs/deck
0.14 to 0.93 ips

2nd Concern: Lack of

Low Excitation Frequency, High PPV Excitation
Amplification

No.

Date

Time

Frequency
L [Hz]
T
V

Peak Velocity [in/s]

T
V
H1 H2

H3

Traditional
Comparative Velocity/Freq [in/s \
Dynamics Response [-in]
H1 H2 H3 H4 H3 H4 C7 C9
C10
L4*
T 2*
T 3*

Hz]
H4 L
1*

11/18/86 1:44 PM

23

31

42 0.550 0.380 0.398 0.909 0.449 0.361 0.387 0.549\18 0.549\18 0.308\19 0.308\19 1.66 1.46 1.17 0.70

129

11/26/86 2:12 PM

18

13

11 0.130 0.180 0.086 0.438 0.194 0.271 0.187 0.129\19 0.107\13 0.132\15 0.176\12 3.40 1.47 1.54 1.75

39

12/22/86 9:38 AM

31 0.350 0.300 0.233 0.745 0.777 1.041 0.738 0.352\10 0.352\10 0.251\17 0.298\8 2.12 3.09 3.49 2.10

159

12/27/86 2:58 PM

43

12/30/86 5:03 PM

0.110 0.070 0.079 0.332 0.120 0.242 0.387 0.085\20 0.110\8 0.052\18 0.068\7 3.93 2.32 3.56 3.52

21

16 0.187 0.110 0.058 0.487 0.293 0.390 0.326 0.187\19 0.187\19 0.105\17 0.092\20 2.60 2.79 4.24 1.74

39

1/1/87

9:03 AM 21

21

25 0.760 0.410 0.432 2.847 0.717 0.629 0.703 0.759\20 0.759\20 0.410\19 0.410\19 3.75 1.75 1.53 0.93

118

1/5/87 10:48 AM 11

15

25 0.490 0.250 0.206 0.722 0.558 0.374 0.432 0.491\10 0.491\10 0.313\23 0.243\14 1.47 1.78 1.54 0.88

74

1/5/87

2:13 PM

11

12

23 0.180 0.240 0.082 0.339 0.328 0.626 0.284 0.172\11 0.181\10 0.244\12 0.244\12 1.97 1.34 2.57 1.57

68

2/17/87 2:56 PM

25

16

92

10

37

10

2/23/87 2:47 PM

28

36 0.410 0.260 0.319 0.996 0.608 0.406 0.326 0.413\26 0.413\26 0.225\18 0.261\13 2.41 2.70 1.56 0.79 4.23

72

26

71

11

3/23/87 1:57 PM

0.130 0.070 0.048 0.168 0.106 0.409 0.332 0.118\10 0.120\5

0.058\7

0.074\6 1.42 1.84 5.53 2.77

71

12

4/2/87

2:40 PM

0.400 0.200 0.274 0.929 0.456 0.954 0.980 0.400\6

0.200\7

0.200\7 2.32 2.28 4.77 2.46 3.56

13

4/4/87

2:55 PM

28 0.360 0.260 0.326 0.848 0.791 0.783 0.858 0.230\12 0.358\8 0.261\13 0.261\13 3.69 3.03 3.00 2.40

14

4/20/87 10:32 AM 21

17

15

4/20/87 10:34 AM 19

16

5/1/87

9:12 AM

0.210 0.120 0.069 0.542 0.261 0.251 0.455 0.207\9

0.121\5 0.122\15 0.122\15 2.62 2.14 2.06 3.77

2.78

21

2.84 254 15

134

169 13

79

31 0.850 0.570 0.408 3.176 0.858 1.051 0.722 0.852\23 0.852\23 0.329\10 0.572\14 3.73 2.61 1.84 0.85 2.86

4.02 463 35

171

21

12 0.930 0.250 0.274 2.966 0.406 0.771 0.800 0.930\19 0.930\19 0.254\20 0.254\20 3.19 1.60 3.04 0.86 3.57

3.25 438 50

211

31 0.500 0.420 0.309 0.883 1.204 1.831 1.183 0.497\6

3.34 325 18

132

0.400\6

0.497\6

0.423\8

0.423\8 1.78 2.85 4.33 2.38 3.33

Time Histories Slide after next and in Article.

All 5 with Dynamics amplification in www article

Peak Velocity [in/s] Dynamics Comparative

Velocity
Traditional
Response [-in]
e Velocity/Freq Frequency
[in/s \
Time
L 3*[Hz]
T
V H1
L H2
T
V
H3 H4
H4 Hz]
L1*C7 C9L4* C10T2*
H3 H1H4H2 H3
* Date T2*
T

11/18/86 0.308\19
1:44 PM 230.308\19
31 42 1.66
0.550 0.380
0.449 0.361 0.387 0.549\18
0.549\18 0.308
549\18
1.46 0.398
1.170.909
0.70
129

11/26/86 0.132\15
2:12 PM 180.176\12
13 11 3.40
0.130 0.180
0.194 0.271 0.187 0.129\19
0.107\13 0.132
107\13
1.47 0.086
1.540.438
1.75
39

12/22/86 0.251\17
9:38 AM 5 0.298\8
8
31 2.12
0.350 0.300
0.777 1.041 0.738 0.352\10
0.352\10 0.251
352\10
3.09 0.233
3.490.745
2.10
159

12/27/86 0.052\18
2:58 PM 5 0.068\7
7
6 3.93
0.110 0.070
0.120 0.242 0.387 0.085\20
0.110\8 0.052
.110\8
2.32 0.079
3.560.332
3.52
43

12/30/86 0.105\17
5:03 PM 210.092\20
7
16 2.60
0.187 0.110
0.293 0.390 0.326 0.187\19
0.187\19 0.105
187\19
2.79 0.058
4.240.487
1.74
39

1/1/87 0.410\19
9:03 AM 210.410\19
21 25 3.75
0.760 0.410
0.717 0.629 0.703 0.759\20
0.759\20 0.410
759\20
1.75 0.432
1.532.847
0.93
118

1/5/87 0.313\23
10:48 AM 110.243\14
15 25 1.47
0.490 0.250
0.558 0.374 0.432 0.491\10
0.491\10 0.313
491\10
1.78 0.206
1.540.722
0.88
74

1/5/87 0.244\12
2:13 PM 110.244\12
12 23 1.97
0.180 0.240
0.328 0.626 0.284 0.172\11
0.181\10 0.244
181\10
1.34 0.082
2.570.339
1.57
68

2/17/87 0.122\15
2:56 PM 250.122\15
16
5 2.62
0.210 0.120
0.261 0.251 0.455 0.207\9
.121\5
2.14 0.069
2.060.542
3.77
92 100.121\537 0.122

2/23/87 0.225\18
2:47 PM 280.261\13
9
36 2.41
0.410 0.260
0.6084.23
0.406 0.326
0.413\26
413\26
2.70 0.319
1.560.996
0.79
2.78 0.413\26
72 26
71 0.225

3/23/87 0.058\7
1:57 PM 5 0.074\6
7
7 1.42
0.130 0.070
0.106 0.409 0.332 0.118\10
.120\5
1.84 0.048
5.530.168
2.77
71
70.120\521 0.05

4/2/87 0.200\7
2:40 PM 6 0.200\7
9
5 2.32
0.400 0.200
0.4563.56
0.954 0.980
.400\6
2.28 0.274
4.770.929
2.46
2.84 0.400\6
254 150.400\6
134 0.20

4/4/87 0.261\13
2:55 PM 70.261\13
7
28 3.69
0.360 0.260
0.791 0.783 0.858 0.230\12
.358\8
3.03 0.326
3.000.848
2.40
169 130.358\879 0.261

4/20/87 0.329\10
10:32 AM 210.572\14
17 31 3.73
0.850 0.570
0.8582.86
1.051 0.722
0.852\23
852\23
2.61 0.408
1.843.176
0.85
4.02 0.852\23
463 35
1710.329

4/20/87 0.254\20
10:34 AM 190.254\20
21 12 3.19
0.930 0.250
0.4063.57
0.771 0.800
0.930\19
930\19
1.60 0.274
3.042.966
0.86
3.25 0.930\19
438 50
2110.254

5/1/87 0.423\8
9:12 AM 6 0.423\8
9
31 1.78
0.500 0.420
1.2043.33
1.831 1.183
.497\6
2.85 0.309
4.330.883
2.38
3.34 0.497\6
325 180.497\6
132 0.42

2/23 (20+ Hz excitation)

4/02 (5+ Hz excitation)

4/02 (5+ Hz excitation)

10 mm/s PPV

2/23 (20+ Hz excitation)

10 mm/s PPV

5/01 (5+ Hz excitation)

15 mm/s PPV
5/01

4/02 (5+ Hz excitation)

10 mm/s PPV

Cracked and Un-Cracked Wall response

C7

Joint (C9 &10 & D1)

Sensitivity to Excitation

C7 (4-8 Hz)
C7 (9-28 Hz)

C10

C9
D1
C6

C2

C7 (4-8 Hz)
C7 (9-28 Hz)

C10

C9
D2
C6

C2

Figure 7 - Comparison of uncracked joint (C10,C9) on the right with crack (C7) sponse
re
on the left to
increasing peak particle velocity in the direction of the wall containing the joint/crack. Crack C7 is the

Conclusions
Additional field measurements continue to support the observation that
climatological response of cracks is greater than vibratory
effects at and above regulatory levels
Two specific concerns were addressed with field study:
Sensitivity of weak, un-cracked locations
Response of cracks and un-cracked locations to
low frequency, high PPV events
Drywall joints spanned only with paper and thin plaster responded less
than cracked joints
less to both climatological effects and vibratory effects
Cracks do not respond less than even weak un-cracked locations
Cracks continue to respond more than un-cracked locations even with
high PPV (10-23 mm/s), low excitation frequencies (5-7Hz)

3rd Concern:
Highly Distorted Structures
Might Be More Susceptible to Cracking

600 m

Vibratory responses are

small compared to
initial crack widths

1 m = 40 in or
900 m = 36,000 in

Table 1 Comparison of crack width and maximum weather induced crack response

IN
IN
PA
NM
IL
MN
WI
IL
IL
FL

Crack

width
-in

Plaster/lath
CMU found
Drywall
Sticco
plaster/lath
Stucco
drywll
Drywall
Drywall
Drywal/CMU

int
ext
int
ext
int
ext
int
int/ceiling
int/shear
int/corner

48000
20000
28000
32000
20000
40000
20000
30000
17000
20000

max wthr MW (0- p) Width/MW days obs MW/Width

-in
( m)

( m)
1200
500
700
800
500
1000
500
750
425
500

2080
480
1000
1000
4000
8680
6000
6000
7600
8000

52
12
25
25
100
217
150
150
190
200

23.1
41.7
28.0
32.0
5.0
4.6
3.3
5.0
2.2
2.5

3
4
5
35
92
126
365
390
390
450

0.043
0.024
0.036
0.031
0.200
0.217
0.300
0.200
0.447
0.400

Maximum Weather/ Initial Width ( in/ in)

Loc

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Days of Observation

Even Seasonal Variation Does Not Close Cracks

=>Result of Extreme Events

Brink of Extension Results from Confluence of

1) Decade Extreme Event, 2) Seasonal Extreme,
3) Weather Front Extreme, and 4) Daily Temp Induced Extreme

n (t/T)
One Possible Approach to
Calculating (Estimating)
Probability of Cracking

Discussion will focus on corner sensors

in the x direction

Corner Crack
Similar to
In Plane Wall
Sensor w/out
Target Bracket

Example Comparison from Limestone Small Quarry

Crack Response
[-in.]
E1
E2

Date

PPV [in/s]

Oct 23

0.080 [L]

Dec 8 (1)

0.073 [L]

56

Dec 8 (2)

0.115 [T]

62

Mar 18 (1)
Mar 18 (2)

0.110 [L]
0.100 [L]

Mar 23 (1)

0.053 [L]

47

Mar 23 (2)

0.090 [V]

59

Mar 26

0.095 [L]

Apr 1 (1)

0.058 [L]

75

Apr 1 (2)

0.135 [V]

59

Jul 8 (1)

0.053 [L]

289

97

Jul 8 (2)

0.098 [T]

293

123

Jul 14 (1)

0.070 [V]

488

164

Jul 14 (2)

0.050 [L]

284

75

Jul 22 (1)

0.088 [T]

324

120

Jul 22 (2)

0.175 [T]

442

172

200

392
341

244

61

114
86

E 1 (N-S)

87

Crack Response v PPV

March 18
Temperature/Humidity
Induced Extreme

400 in dynamic contribution

Determination of t
Commensurate with in of
Crack Response

Door Opening & Closing

Frequency of Event Responses

100
90
80
70

Crack A (N-S) Response to Door Opening and

Closing

60
50
40

30
20
10
0

Range of Event Responses (in micrometers)

Large Number of Occupant-Induced,

Moderate to High Crack Responses in
Three Months, by One Person

Occupant events (July-September)

Crack
Events
response
Exp time
m
minute
n
t
1
5
4
10
23
20
36
45
85
88
317

11.43
7.62
6.65
6.02
5.38
4.70
4.24
3.48
2.84
2.29

n(t/T)

90
0.0003424
75
0.0014269
64
0.0009741
52
0.0019787
40
0.0035008
40
0.0030441
35
0.0047946
30
0.0051370
25
0.0080860
20
0.0066970
(n(t/T)) = 0.0359820

Blasting events (October-July)

Crack
PPV
Events response Exp time
mm/s
m
minute
n
t
2.0
1.9
2.9
2.8
2.5
1.3
2.3
2.4
1.5
3.4
1.3
2.5
1.8
1.3
2.2
4.4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16

5.08
4.06
4.57
9.96
8.66
3.81
4.57
6.20
5.59
4.57
7.34
7.44
12.40
7.21
8.23
11.23

n(t/T)

40
0.0001522
32
0.0001218
36
0.0001370
80
0.0003044
68
0.0002600
30
0.0001141
36
0.0001370
49
0.0001857
44
0.0001674
36
0.0001370
58
0.0002200
59
0.0002230
98
0.0003713
57
0.0002161
65
0.0002466
88
0.0003363
(n(t/T)) = 0.003330

Calculations Show That for This Example

3 months of single person occupancy
CMU exterior single family home
16 blasts (Max PPV ~ 0.175 ips or 4.4 mm/s)
distributed over a 6 month period

Probabilities of Dynamic Event Occurring During the

Single Period of Vulnerability (or Exposure time, t)
(Including a Once in a Decade Extreme Event)

Are

1) Low: 0.00016 (blast) ; 0.0016 (occupant)

2) Greater for Occupant Induced Dynamic Events
3) Influenced by both
Amplitude and
Number of Occurrences

Phenomenon not Isolated:

Crack Response to Walking Through Bathroom Door (D)
Equivalent to Ground Motion Induced Response at
PPV ~ 0.15 ips

Conclusions
Additional field measurements continue to support the observation that
climatological response of cracks is greater than vibratory
effects at and above regulatory levels
Three specific concerns were addressed:
Sensitivity of weak, un-cracked locations
Response of cracks and un-cracked locations to
low frequency, high PPV events
Probability of vibratory distortion occurring during period of
vulnerability or which straw, if any, will break the camels back
Drywall joints spanned only with paper and thin plaster responded less than
cracked joints
less to both climatological effects and vibratory effects
Cracks do not respond less than even weak un-cracked locations
Cracks continue to respond more than un-cracked locations even with
high PPV (10-23 mm/s), low excitation frequencies (5-7Hz)
Occupant induced distortion more likely than blast induced distortion to occur
during the period of vulnerability for this example

Ft Lauderdale Florida

Wales, GB

Blast Induced
Micro-meter Response of Cracks in
Concrete Block Structures
Puerto Rico

Germany

Blast Induced
Micro-meter
Response of Cracks in
Concrete Block
Structures

Figure 3: Micro-meter

Climatologically
Cracks respond to
Both
Temperature &
Humidity

Crack Response to 0.45 ips

~ 90 % of Compliance Limit

Comparison of Crack Responses to Envionmental and Vibration Effects

Vibration Source

Obs
time
wk

crack
Sensor Crack
location type
Width
m

Wall int

Wall ext

Stories

Found

Frame

House/structure location

Max crack displacement

weather
vib
m

season max daily

Max Max
PPV air pr
m

Ratio

Com dyn/Max

vib

Coal Mining
Evansville, IN
Universal, IN
Kittanning, PA
Farmington, NM
Francisco, IN 1
Francisco, IN 2

w
w
t
?
w
w

wo

1 w/bk dw

b
b
?
b
b

2
1
1
1
1

al/bk dw
al
?
ad dw
al
pl
al
pl

0.2

0.7
5.0
0.4
0.3

i-dw-jt
i-dw
i-dw
e-s
e-bk-f
i-pl

lvdt
lvdt
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec

22
58

e-s
i-dw
i-dw
i-dwc
i-dwc
i-dw
e-br
i-dw
i-bk
e-br
e-br-f
i-dw

ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec

i-dw jt
i-wd-b jt
i-dw
i-fp
e-s2
i-dw3
e-s5
i-pl
i-w
e-s
e-s
e-s
es

lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec
ec

975
335
109
394
141
287
220
100
100
394

272
32
254
28
33
160
75
38
263

i-pl
i-pl
i-pl
i-p?
e-sb

lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt
lvdt

25
10
250
217
107

100
57

75
700
800
500
1200

75
24
9
12
52

16
25
9
25

p-p
60
13
0.9
4.2
0.3
13.6

75.0
20.0
8.1
3.3
5.8
7.6

46.0
4.0
9.0
7.0
2.9
1.8
13.4
2.6
17.1
11.1
6.7
29.2

17.7
2.3
2.3
2.3
9.0
9.0
7.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
1.5
2.4

75.0
83.0
83.0
125.0
11.4
1.8
2.5
7.1
1.4
4.0
2.8
6.1
124.0

25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
11.4
11.4
11.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
1.1
11.4
9.3

73
119
117
117
126

144
20
174
14

p-p
0-p
0-p
0-p
0-p

0.173
0.038
0.467
0.025
0.262

0-p
p-p

0.613
0.093
0.068
0.052
0.014
0.033
0.141
0.008
0.090
0.018
0.036
0.076

Aggregate Quarry Blasting

Miami, FL
Franklin, WI

bk
bk

s
wo

1 s
1 st

dw
dw

8.0
>52.0

Southbury, CT

wo

2 w

dw

6.0

Albuquerque, NM
Franklin, KY

w s
w/br wo

1 br
1 br

dw
dw

5.0
16.0

Glen Allen 1, VA
Glen Allen 2, VA

w
w

2 w
1 br

dw
dw

28.0

cs
cs

75
500

300
300
300

43
132
134
211
55
95

146
29
38

185
382

625
63
80

308
189

132
122

29
25
34
44
453
145
21
509
48
242

0-p
p-p
p-p

p-p

Construction Equipment & Blasting

McAllen, TX

>12.0

w
w

1 s
1 br

dw
dw

Las Vegas, NV

1 s

dw

28.0

Wash DC

1/2b 4 s

pl

6.4

Henderson 1, NV
Henderson 2, NV
Albuquerque, NM

w
w
w

s
s
s

1 s
2 s
1+ s

dw
dw
dw

4.6
11.0

Evanston, IL

3 w

pl

12.0

Minneapolis, MN

bk

3 s

p?

17.0

900
500
500

Without Vibration

1000

300
151
151
195
335
690
1797
16
97
226
39
187
30

0-p

0-p

0-p

p-p

0.083
0.166
0.166
0.128
0.034
0.017
0.006
0.050
0.005
0.018
0.028
0.061
0.315

Ft Lauderdale, Florida
Timber roof trusses
Concrete lintels

Slab on grade foundation

Concrete Masonry
Units (CMU) (blocks)

Concrete corner columns

Instrumentation

Crack
Location

Structural Response
Displacement (integrated velocity)
Upper 3 graphs
Crack Response
Bottom graph
PPV = 5 mm/s ~ 0.21 ips

Climatological Crack Response

System not ACM
Obtained only for
2 days
Too short for
frontal
weather change
3 degree C change in
Exterior temp

18 m response for
exterior stucco
crack
11 m response for
taped interior
drywall joint
44 & 72 w/ 11 C
change by
extrapolation

Miami Florida

Construction similar to Ft Lauderdale

Slab on grade foundation
CMU walls
Wood roof truss

N
HOUSE

ROOF

Structural Response
Displacement (integrated velocity)
Upper 3 graphs (4,2 Difference)
Crack Response
Fourth from top
PPV = 18 mm/s ~ 0.7 ips
Bottom time history

Climatological Crack Response

Max daily climatological crack response (p to p) ~ 150 m

Max vibration response (for PPV ~ 18 mm/s) ~ 46 m

Gilfach Iago Wales

Mined to destruction

Floor Plan for orientation and

Location of LVDT sensors

B-3
external

B-2
B-6
B-1

Double skin concrete block

External rendering and internal plaster

Internal View of Crack B-1

(extended to outside)

LVDT across crack

No heating --TOP: 2 cycles/day heating--BOTTOM

Wall Response
Ground Velocity
top 3 time histories
Air pressure 4th
Wall velocity responses
bottom 3 time hist.
B-3 likely that of
super-structure:
B-2&6 wall components?

Franklin, Wisconsin

Test house for ACM

system

Full basement
CMU walls
external stone facing
internal, wood and dry wall

Crack and Kaman Sensors

Crack # 3

Crack # 1

Climatological Crack Response

temperature in Celsius

40

30

temperature

20

10

Displacement (micrometers)

30
1 to 4 hours readings of crack sensor 3

Average displacement reflecting weather fronts

-30
-60

Crack # 3

-90
-120
-150

105

Humidity in %

85

Max daily climatological crack response (p to p) ~ 40 m

Max vibration response (for PPV ~ 3.3 mm/s) ~ 10 m
65

45

humidity

25

16-Sep

21-Sep

26-Sep

1-Oct

6-Oct

11-Oct

16-Oct
Date

21-Oct

26-Oct

31-Oct

5-Nov

10-Nov

15-Nov

Typical
Crack Response
Crack Responses
top 4 time histories

LVDT and Kaman on C4

Ground Motion & Air
bottom 4
air over pressure
bottom

Sensitivity: Crack Response to Ground Motion

Comparison of
Response Environments
Crack Temp
Sensitivity

Max Crack Response

Case Study

Building

Natural
Damping Excitation Particle Crack Type
Frequency
Frequency Velocity

Blasting Daily
p to p
p to p

6 to 39

1o3

SOG = Slab On Grade, Block = Concrete Block, BMT = Basement, R = Resultant

1
Unheated
2
Heated
3
Louis, 2000

Milwaukee, WI (#3)3 1+ Story BMT ~9

. 0

. 0

. 4

9.0

Wall Board
Interior

Temp

. 0

12.0
40.0

12.31
11.32

2.91
10.62

Conclusions
Cracks in concrete block structures do respond to
climatological (temp) effects
Daily temperature induced crack responses are large,
some 3 to 15 times greater than response to ground
motions with PPVs of 3mm/s
Thermal response sensitivity of cracks in external
block walls similar for both Welch and Floridian
houses
Read all of ACM research papers on ITI web site

Experimental Data that Address

Three Major Concerns
Cracked
Un-cracked

1) Measuring crack response

overlooks response of stiffer,
un-cracked locations which could
attract more stress

2) Cases not included where

excitation = natural frequency
~ 5 to 10 Hz to produce
greatest response