Seismic Equivalence Parameters for
Engineered Woodframe Wood Structural
Panel Shear Walls
Philip Line, P.E., Ned Waltz, P.E., and Tom Skaggs, P.E.
Abstract
Seismic equivalency parameters for drift capacity, component overstrength, and ductility for woodframe wood
structural panel shear walls have previously been defined
using a collection of 48 different walls tested with the
CUREE cyclic load protocol (Waltz et al. 2008). When establishing minimum seismic performance parameters for new
lateral force resisting systems to prove equivalence to
woodframe wood structural panel shear walls, this initial
reference database was viewed as being representative and
sufficient. In the work summarized by this paper, 32 additional shear walls were tested to compare with and supplement the reference database. The new wall tests cover the
practical extremes in nail diameter, panel thickness, and
nail spacing for woodframe wood structural panel shear
wall construction as defined by 2005 Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (2005 Wind and Seismic) AF&PA
2005) and the 2006 International Building Code (2006 IBC)
(ICC 2006). The seismic equivalency parameters developed
using the new 32 wall test set aligned very well with the distributions observed in the original 48 wall database. When
data from the current study and the reference database are
combined, the new database consists of 80 cyclic wall tests
from four different laboratories that encompass a broad
range of woodframe shear wall configurations. The average
drift capacity, component overstrength, and ductility performance parameters for the combined data set were within
3 percent of the original estimates. The seismic equivalency
criteria that would be derived using the combined database
were also within 3 percent of those originally developed.
Introduction
Woodframe shear wall drift capacity, component overstrength, and ductility have previously been summarized
for 48 walls tested using the CUREE cyclic load protocol
(Waltz et al. 2008). The purpose of the original analysis was
to provide criteria that could be used to establish seismic
equivalency parameters that define performance of wood
structural panel shear walls framed with wood studs. The
original 48 wall tests were collected by an independent Task
Summer 2008
Group working to provide a means for the International
Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) to evaluate seismic performance of new products. When coupled with a
specific allowable load derivation procedure and qualitative assessment of degradation in the wall’s ability to carry
gravity load, non-listed products and systems (e.g., those
not defined in Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE 7) capable of meeting the target parameter performance levels established by the Task Group
would be judged to be seismically equivalent. As seismically
“equivalent” products, they would be assigned the same
seismic design coefficients as woodframe wall systems
sheathed with wood structural panels.
The original database of 48 walls covered a variety of
shear wall aspect ratios, design capacities, sheathing panel
thicknesses, nail sizes, and nail spacings. The database was
a collection of wall tests conducted at three different labs
for a variety of purposes using the CUREE cyclic test protocol (ASTM 2007) with realistic anchorage and boundary
conditions. But, it did not cover the extremes of nail size,
sheathing thickness, and nail spacings in shear wall design
tables provided in references such as the 2005 Wind and
Seismic standard and the 2006 IBC. In the work summarized
by this paper, cyclic in-plane shear testing of two replicates
of 16 different engineered shear wall configurations were
completed to bracket the practical extremes of the shear
wall design tables based on nail size, spacing, and sheathing
thickness. The broader range of configurations in this study
is compared to the 48 wall database used to develop the
original equivalency targets.
The shear wall testing summarized in this paper was undertaken as part of a collaborative effort between American
Forest & Paper Association, Weyerhaeuser, and APA–The
Engineered Wood Association in the Spring of 2008.
Test Method
The 16 wood-frame wood structural panel shear wall
configurations detailed in Table 1 were tested to determine
their in-plane shear performance in general accordance
13
with provisions of ASTM E 2126-07 Standard Test Methods
for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls
for Buildings (ASTM 2007). Loading was undertaken using
the Method C (CUREE) protocol as defined by the standard.
A minimum of two tests were conducted for each shear wall
configuration.
This test program was developed to cover the range of
nail size, nail spacing, and sheathing thickness for shear
wall configurations defined by the 2005 Wind and Seismic
standard and 2006 IBC. Given that 5/16-in.-thick sheathing
is not commonly available, Test Groups A–D were selected
to represent the highest unit shear capacity configurations
that could be constructed with a small nail (6d common)
and thinnest practical square edge sheathing (3/8 in.). Test
Groups I–L were chosen to represent the highest unit shear
capacity configurations that could be constructed using a
large nail (10d common) and thick sheathing (19/32 in.).
Test Groups E–H and M–P were selected to provide some
data with an intermediate unit shear capacity using relatively common choices for nail size (8d common) and
sheathing thickness (3/8 in. and 7/16 in.). For each nail and
sheathing thickness combination, both a 2 in. and 6 in. on
center (o.c.) edge boundary nail spacing were tested. For
each nail and sheathing thickness combination, two aspect
ratios were tested: 1:1 and 2:1. A 1:1 aspect ratio was tested
to include a vertical butted joint between adjacent sheathing panels and to correspond with standard specimen size
used in wood structural panel product evaluation tests. The
2:1 aspect ratio walls represent the maximum aspect ratio
for seismic design applications permitted without taking a
design strength reduction.
Specimens
Shear wall size, sheathing, framing, fastening, anchorage, and connections were in accordance with Table 1 and
Figure 1.
All framing was “standard” grade 2 by 4 nominal Douglas-fir material spaced at 24 in. o.c. Multiple plies of this
same stud material were used at the end posts and adjoining panel edge framing where an increased thickness was
required. Multiple plies were joined using self-drilling 1/4
in. diameter by 3 in. screws for (2) 2x framing and self-drilling 1/4 in. diameter by 4-1/2 in. screws for (3) 2x framing.
A single commercial “low deformation” hold down type was
used for all testing. The number of screws in the hold down
varied such that the ASD design capacity of the hold
down-to-post connection was only slightly greater than the
calculated ASD shear wall overturning forces.
All of the wall sheathing was oriented strandboard
(OSB) sheathing produced in accordance with Performance
Standard for Wood-Based Structural Use Panels (DOC-NIST,
PS2-2004). Panel edge distance for the sheathing nails was
a 3/8 in. minimum for all configurations. Sheathing nailing
was staggered at panel edges for 2 in. o.c. edge nail spacing
in accordance with 2005 Wind and Seismic. Per 2006 IBC requirements for high seismic areas, 3 in. square by 0.229 in.
thick plate washers were used at anchor bolts for walls having 2 in. o.c. sheathing nail spacing at panel edges. Standard round washers, 1-3/4 in. diameter by 1/8 in. thick,
were used at anchor bolts for walls having 6 in. o.c. spacing
at panel edges.
The test specimens were detailed to provide wall designs
that were in accordance with 2005 Wind and Seismic and
the 2007 Supplements to the 2006 IBC. The framing, fram-
Table 1.—Shear wall test specimen configurations.
Hold downa
Sheathing nails
a
Test
group
H by L
(ft.)
OSB thickness
and grade
Common nail
size
Spacing
(edge/field)
A307 anchor
bolts
No. of screws
ASD capacity
(lbf)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
3/8 in. Struc I
6d
6 in./6 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
8
2,286
2 in./6 in.
(4) 5/8 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
18
20
8
5,143
5,715
2,286
(4) 5/8 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
14
18
12
4,000
5,143
3,429
(4) 3/4 in.
(2) 3/4 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
20
9,230
8
2,286
(4) 5/8 in.
(2) 5/8 in.
20
5,715
7/16 in.
Sheathing
8d
6 in./6 in.
2 in./6 in.
19/32 in.
Sheathing
10d
6 in./12 in.
2 in./12 in.
3/8 in. Struct I
8d
6 in./6 in.
2 in./6 in.
All end posts were built-up (2) 2x members except for Test Groups K and L where (3) 2x members were used to meet minimum wood thickness
recommendations for the hold down device.
14
WOOD DESIGN FOCUS
Figure 1.—Shear wall specimens.
ing connection, and anchorage details were matched as
closely as could practically be accomplished to allowable
in-plane design capacity and minimum code requirements
for a given wall configuration in a high seismic application.
Care was taken in detailing so that framing, connections,
and anchorage were not over-designed.
Test Results
Table 2 summarizes the test results. The cyclic test data
was analyzed consistent with methods used to analyze the
reference database (Waltz et al. 2008). The positive and
negative backbone curves for each dataset were obtained as
described in ASTM E2126. The positive and negative curves
were then combined to produce an average backbone curve
that was used to determine the test results summarized in
Table 2. An example load displacement hysterisis curve is
shown in Figure 2. An example averaged backbone curve is
shown in Figure 3. Each line of Table 2 represents the average of two test replicates.
The reported drift capacity, component overstrength,
and ductility contained within Table 2 are defined as
follows:
• Drift Capacity: The “ultimate” displacement defined by
Section 3.2.12 of ASTM E2126. This parameter is expressed as a percentage of the wall height.
Table 2.—Shear wall test results – Averages of two replicates.
ASD
Test
group
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
n
2
EEEP yield
Peak
Ultimate
Load
(lbf)
Disp.
(in.)
Load
(lbf)
Disp.
(in.)
Load
(lbf)
Disp.
(in.)
Load
(lbf)
Disp.
(in.)
1,780
890
4,530
2,265
1,920
960
4,680
2,340
2,720
1,360
6,960
3,480
1,840
920
4,880
2,440
0.107
0.114
0.202
0.252
0.088
0.138
0.180
0.306
0.142
0.213
0.257
0.410
0.086
0.106
0.198
0.248
3,897
2,240
11,237
5,591
5,364
2,674
14,049
6,329
5,916
2,936
14,890
6,627
4,994
2,469
13,506
6,350
0.241
0.300
0.537
0.657
0.242
0.435
0.661
0.842
0.316
0.450
0.533
0.735
0.233
0.309
0.614
0.690
4,427
2,485
12,779
6,317
6,012
3,097
16,202
7,087
6,714
3,320
16,909
7,433
5,630
2,803
15,250
7,027
1.670
2.359
2.379
2.945
1.655
2.358
2.361
2.786
2.018
2.325
2.301
2.342
1.648
1.642
2.337
2.379
3,542
1,988
10,223
5,054
4,809
2,370
12,962
5,670
5,371
2,656
13,528
5,947
4,504
2,243
12,199
5,622
2.683
3.552
3.117
3.896
2.660
3.714
2.653
3.051
2.970
3.612
3.317
3.537
2.543
2.787
2.980
3.388
ComDrift
ponent
Gravity Primary
capacity overload
failure
(%h) strength Ductility intact modea
2.8
3.7
3.2
4.1
2.8
3.9
2.8
3.2
3.1
3.8
3.5
3.7
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.5
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.9
25.0
31.2
17.0
16.3
30.4
27.8
15.1
10.0
21.2
17.0
12.9
8.7
29.9
26.1
15.2
13.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
W
W, P
W
W, P
W, P, T
W
W, Ob
W, P, Oc
P
W, P
W, P
W, Od
P, T
W, P
W, P
P
a
Failure codes: W – sheathing nail withdrawal; P – sheathing nail head pull-through at panel; T – sheathing nail edge tearout of panel; and O –
other.
b One replicate failed when the screws used to stitch the center stud failed in fatigue.
c One out of two plies in one chord of one replicate failed in tension during the later stages of the test.
d One chord of one replicate failed in tension during the later stages of the test.
Summer 2008
15
Figure 3.—Example averaged backbone curve (Specimen E1).
Figure 2.—Example hysterisis curve (Specimen E1).
Table 3.—Comparison of reported data and reference data.
Data from this experiment
Test
groups
All
walls
a
Ratio of current data to
reference data
Reference data
Statistica
Drift
capacity
(%h)
Component
overstrength
Ductility
Drift
capacity
(%h)
n
Maximum
Minimum
Average
COV
Avg + 1 STD
Avg – 1 STD
4.2
2.5
3.3
0.151
3.8
2.8
32
3.5
2.1
2.8
0.130
3.2
2.5
33.3
7.9
19.8
0.402
27.8
11.9
5.5
2.3
3.6
0.213
4.3
2.8
Component
overstrength
Ductility
48
5.4
2.3
3.1
0.261
3.9
2.3
43.4
6.4
20.3
0.449
29.4
11.2
Drift
capacity
(%h)
Component
overstrength
Ductility
0.76
1.06
0.92
0.71
0.88
1.00
32/48
0.65
0.92
0.92
0.50
0.82
1.08
0.77
1.23
0.98
0.90
0.95
1.06
COV = coefficient of variation; Avg + 1 STD = average plus 1 standard deviation; Avg – 1 STD = average minus 1 standard deviation.
• Component Overstrength: The peak load capacity of the
wall divided by the allowable stress design load. This parameter is unitless.
• Ductility: The “ultimate” displacement divided by the
displacement at the allowable stress design load. This
parameter is unitless.
The primary failure modes observed in these wall tests
were nail withdrawal from the framing, the nail head pulling through the thickness of the sheathing (commonly referred to as “nail head pull through”), and sheathing edge
tear-out. Observed failures often involved a combination of
modes that led to loss of shear capacity in the test specimens. In some cases, splitting of framing or partial tension
rupture of the end post framing was observed as noted in
Table 2. For one specimen only, wall G1, the failure was at
least partially attributed to fatigue of the “stitch” screws
that laminated together the two-ply stud at the adjoining
panel edge. In 30 out of 32 tests, all of the stud framing
members were judged to be intact at the conclusion of the
test. In 2 out of 32 tests, one or two plies of one end post
within the wall experienced a tension failure. Overall, the
wall studs that carry gravity loads in this test program were
judged to be intact at the conclusion of these lateral load
tests.
16
Comparison to Reference Data
Summary statistics for the three quantitative equivalency parameters for all of the walls in the current study are
shown in Table 3. (The assessment of the fourth parameter,
the ability to support gravity loads, is qualitative when
based upon a standard shear wall test without an applied
vertical load). Table 3 also includes a comparison to the
previous 48 wall database developed by the Task Group and
used to set equivalency parameters in the ICC-ES arena
(Waltz et al. 2008). This previous data is identified in the table as “reference data.”
Overall, Table 3 suggests a high degree of overlap for
each of the three parameter distributions between the reported and reference databases. On average, Table 3 shows
that average values from the current study result in slightly
different estimates of drift capacity (–8%), component
overstrength (–8%), and ductility (–2%) when compared
with the reference data. At the average minus 1 standard
deviation level, shown as “Avg – 1 STD,” used by the Task
group to select equivalency targets, Table 3 suggests differences that are similar in magnitude.
Where all three of the quantitative equivalency parameters are relatively variable properties with high coefficients
of variation, it seems reasonable to question whether the
observed differences between the new and reference dataWOOD DESIGN FOCUS
Table 4.—Comparison of combined data and reference data.
Combined data (reported and reference)
a
Test groups
Statistica
All walls
n
Maximum
Minimum
Average
COV
Avg + 1 STD
Avg – 1 STD
Drift capacity
(% h)
Component
over-strength
5.5
2.3
3.4
0.196
4.1
2.8
80
5.4
2.1
3.0
0.226
3.7
2.3
Ductility
43.4
6.4
20.1
0.429
28.8
11.5
Ratio of combined data to reference data
Drift capacity
(% h)
Component
over-strength
Ductility
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.92
0.96
0.99
80/48
1.00
0.92
0.97
0.87
0.94
1.01
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.96
0.98
1.03
COV = coefficient of variation; Avg + 1 STD = average plus 1 standard deviation; Avg – 1 STD = average minus 1 standard deviation.
base are statistically significant. Since a single parametric
distribution could not be used to define all of the matched
distributions to be paired, a non-parametric Mann-Whitney
test was consistently used to check for statistical differences
between databases for each of the three parameters. With
resulting p-values in excess of 0.15 in all three cases, the statistical analysis did not suggest a meaningful difference between the matched new and reference populations. Overall, this suggests that the best estimate for all three of these
parameters can likely be achieved by combining databases.
Combined Data
Summary statistics from the combined data, representing 80 wood structural panel/stud shear walls tested using
the CUREE cyclic load protocol, are shown in Table 4. An
itemized listing of the 80 wall tests forming the combined
data is provided in Appendix Table A.1.
Table 4 also provides a comparison between the newly
combined database and the original “reference” database
used by the Task Group. The combined data results in drift
capacity, component overstrength, and ductility estimates
that are similar to the values defined by the reference data
used to develop performance targets for woodframe wood
structural panel shear walls in the ICC-ES product evaluation process. At the average minus 1 standard deviation
level, used in the ICC-ES process to define minimum performance targets for equivalency, the combined data results in
a maximum 3 percent change compared to the reference
data. In other words, combining the new 32 wall database
that encompassed a broad range of shear wall configurations with the original 48 wall reference database resulted
in no significant change to the target performance levels developed by the Task Group.
Summary
Performance parameters for woodframe shear walls tested using the CUREE Protocol have previously been defined.
While the original data included 48 wall tests, additional
Summer 2008
test data were added to the existing data to better represent
the extremes in nail diameter, panel thickness, and nail
spacing addressed in the 2005 Wind and Seismic standard
and the 2006 IBC. The combined data consists of 80 walls
total and addresses a broader range of wood frame shear
wall configurations. While representing approximately 40
percent of all walls in the combined data, the new data had
only a minor effect on drift capacity, shear strength ratio,
and ductility. Average values of these parameters decreased
a maximum of 3 percent. Values of these parameters at the
average minus 1 standard deviation level, used for establishing minimum performance targets for seismic equivalency in some evaluation criteria, changed by 3 percent
maximum.
References
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 2005. ANSI/AF&PA
Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic with Commentary.
AF&PA, Washington, DC.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International.
2007. Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for
Shear Resistance of Walls for Buildings. ASTM E 2126-07. ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA.
International Code Council (ICC). 2006. International Building Code.
ICC, Country Club Hills, IL.
United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (DOC-NIST). 2004. Performance Standard
for Wood-Based Structural Use Panels. DOC PS2-04. DOC-NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Waltz, Ned, Tom Skaggs, Philip Line, and David Gromala. 2008. Establishing seismic equivalency to code-listed light-frame wood wall
systems. In: Proceeding of World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE). WCTE, Miyazaki, Japan.
Philip Line, P.E., Senior Manager, Engineering Research, American Forest & Paper Association/American Wood Council,
Washington, DC; Ned Waltz, P.E., Engineering Laboratory
Manager, Weyerhaeuser, Boise, Idaho; and Tom Skaggs, P.E.,
Manager, Product Evaluation, Technical Services Division,
APA – The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
17
18
WOOD DESIGN FOCUS
Wall size
(Ref.)/Ref. H by L
OSB
Item
ID
(ft)
sheathing Fasteners
1
(A)/24-1
8.5 by 15/32 in. 10d com
4.5
Str.1
2
(A)/24-2
3
(B)/1-8dc
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
4 (B)/2-8dgb
8d galv box
5
(B)/3-8db
8d box
6
(C)/2
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
7
(C)/3
8
(C)/4
9
(C)/5
8 by 8
19/32
10d com
10
(C)/6
11
(C)/7
12
(C)/8
13
(D)/1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
14
(D)/3
15
(D)/5
16
(D)/6
17
(D)/7
18
(D)/8
19
(E)/A-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
20
(E)/A-2
21
(E)/A-3
22
(E)/B-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
23
(E)/B-2
24
(E)/B-3
25
(E)/C-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
26
(E)/C-2
27
(E)/C-3
28
(E)/D-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
29
(E)/D-2
30
(E)/D-3
31
(E)/E-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
32
(E)/E-2
33
(E)/E-3
34
(E)/F-1
8 by 8
7/16
8d com
35
(E)/F-2
36
(E)/F-3
37
(F)/4A
8 by 16
3/8
8d box
38
(F)/4B
39
(F)/6A
8 by 16
3/8
8d box
40
(F)/6B
41
(F)/8A
8 by 16
3/8
8d box
42
(F)/8B
43
(F)/10A
8 by 16
3/8
8d com
44
(F)/10B
45
(F)/11A
8 by 16
3/8
1-3/8, 16
ga staple
46
(F)/11B
47
(F)/26A
8 by 16
3/8
8d box
48
(F)/26B
49
(G)/A1
8 by 8 3/8 Str. 1
6d com
50
(G)/A2
Table A.1.—Combined data set summary.
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
pedestrian
door
garage
door
garage
door
none
2/12
4/6
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
6/12
6/6
6/12
6/12
3/12
pedestrian
door
none
none
4/6
3/12
none
4/6
Fastener
spacing
(edge/
field)
(in./in.) Openings
2/12
none
1,780
2,600
2240
2,393
1,904
2,600
3,200
3,920
3,920
3,920
3,920
3,920
3,920
2,800
6,960
2,800
2,800
Load
(lbf)
3,915
Disp.
(in.)
0.507
0.516
0.124
0.164
0.106
0.132
0.152
0.149
0.245
0.282
0.281
0.279
0.387
0.429
0.237
0.240
0.094
0.096
0.303
0.180
0.220
0.205
0.165
0.163
0.321
0.233
0.257
0.191
0.183
0.282
0.205
0.204
0.193
0.211
0.195
0.203
0.126
0.087
0.101
0.113
0.131
0.134
0.144
0.145
0.071
0.058
0.156
0.179
0.106
0.108
ASD
Load
(lbf)
9,047
9,125
6,646
6,856
7,315
6,209
6,303
6,099
14,185
14,035
15,793
15,393
6,229
6,618
6,071
6,217
6,867
6,760
9,273
9,174
9,754
9,618
10,209
9,976
9,240
9,387
9,756
9,583
9,481
9,179
9,555
9,744
9,556
8,828
9,635
9,973
10,523
10,778
10,156
8,897
8,675
9,010
9,166
9,116
9,639
10,213
7,721
7,168
4,037
3,757
Disp.
(in.)
1.191
1.213
0.308
0.444
0.397
0.293
0.341
0.313
0.458
0.525
0.652
0.618
0.889
1.029
0.505
0.540
0.242
0.238
0.729
0.442
0.610
0.516
0.459
0.456
0.815
0.590
0.668
0.467
0.442
0.686
0.500
0.508
0.471
0.474
0.479
0.516
0.496
0.366
0.398
0.406
0.670
0.598
0.571
0.559
0.385
0.369
0.556
0.559
0.252
0.229
EEEP yield
Load
(lbf)
10,239
10,461
7,480
7,794
8,205
7,019
6,965
6,701
15,947
15,953
17,856
17,421
7,148
7,454
6,906
7,136
7,631
7,478
10,208
10,613
11,151
10,877
11,554
11,396
10,952
10,574
11,156
10,863
10,771
10,265
10,794
10,923
10,920
10,113
10,831
11,079
11,663
11,929
11,363
10,081
9,692
10,205
10,399
10,145
11,123
11,627
9,208
8,303
4,573
4,280
Disp.
(in.)
3.314
3.224
2.316
2.259
2.245
1.614
2.322
2.316
3.203
2.305
3.326
3.398
2.573
2.533
2.557
2.548
1.700
1.160
3.373
3.006
2.980
2.913
2.987
2.833
2.743
2.784
2.835
2.840
2.827
2.833
2.221
2.256
2.278
2.246
2.318
2.302
1.944
2.018
1.895
2.020
3.740
3.739
3.736
3.775
1.402
2.027
2.007
2.034
1.667
1.672
Peak
Load
(lbf)
9,748
8,369
5,984
6,235
6,564
5,615
5,572
5,361
12,757
12,762
15,107
14,537
5,747
5,963
5,525
5,709
6,105
6,309
10,208
8,588
9,268
8,702
9,243
9,691
10,952
8,775
8,925
9,815
9,844
9,441
10,386
10,068
9,290
8,083
9,838
10,460
10,183
10,042
9,090
8,065
9,222
9,010
8,813
9,323
8,898
9,302
7,367
6,643
3,659
3,424
Disp.
(in.)
4.147
3.422
3.223
3.319
3.646
2.372
3.585
3.697
3.380
3.431
4.380
4.380
2.751
2.758
2.977
2.874
2.251
2.270
3.373
3.763
3.690
3.308
3.747
3.790
2.743
3.763
3.032
3.831
3.964
4.044
3.240
3.278
3.089
2.916
3.203
3.343
2.776
3.073
2.505
2.890
5.311
4.968
4.907
5.169
2.383
2.519
3.356
3.278
2.848
2.518
Ultimate
CompoDrift
nent
capacity over(%h) strength
4.1
2.6
3.4
2.7
3.4
2.7
3.5
2.8
3.8
3.4
2.5
2.5
3.7
2.5
3.9
2.4
3.5
2.3
3.6
2.3
4.6
2.6
4.6
2.5
2.9
2.6
2.9
2.7
3.1
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.7
3.5
2.6
3.9
2.7
3.8
2.8
3.4
2.8
3.9
2.9
3.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.9
2.7
3.2
2.8
4.0
2.8
4.1
2.7
4.2
2.6
3.4
2.8
3.4
2.8
3.2
2.8
3.0
2.6
3.3
2.8
3.5
2.8
2.9
3.6
3.2
3.7
2.6
4.4
3.0
3.9
5.5
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.1
4.3
5.4
4.2
2.5
5.0
2.6
5.2
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.4
Ductility
8.2
6.6
26.1
20.3
34.3
18.0
23.6
24.8
13.8
12.2
15.6
15.7
7.1
6.4
12.6
12.0
23.9
23.8
11.1
20.9
16.8
16.1
22.7
23.3
8.5
16.2
11.8
20.1
21.6
14.3
15.8
16.1
16.0
13.8
16.4
16.5
22.0
35.3
24.8
25.6
40.5
37.1
34.1
35.6
33.6
43.4
21.5
18.3
26.8
23.3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Sill split
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Sill split
Fastener
Fastener
NR
End post
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Gravity Primary
load failure
intact modea
Yes
NR
Summer 2008
19
(G)/L2
(G)/M1
(G)/M2
(G)/N1
(G)/N2
(G)/O1
(G)/O2
(G)/P1
(G)/P2
3/8 Str. 1
3/8 Str. 1
3/8 Str. 1
3/8 Str. 1
8 by 8
8 by 4
8 by 8
8 by 4
6/6
6/6
2/6
2/6
6/12
6/12
2/12
2/12
8d com
8d com
8d com
8d com
10d com
10d com
10d com
10d com
8d com
8d com
8d com
2/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
2/6
6d com
8d com
2/6
6d com
Fasteners
6d com
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
2,440
4,880
920
1,840
3,480
6,960
1,360
2,720
2,340
4,680
960
1,920
2,265
4,530
Load
(lbf)
890
0.399
0.082
0.089
0.104
0.109
0.208
0.187
0.263
0.232
Disp.
(in.)
0.110
0.117
0.147
0.256
0.305
0.199
0.090
0.085
0.158
0.117
0.156
0.204
0.313
0.300
0.153
0.131
0.210
0.216
0.255
0.258
0.420
ASD
6,629
5,037
4,951
2,439
2,498
13,837
13,174
6,263
6,438
Load
(lbf)
2,244
2,236
11,220
11,254
5,887
5,295
5,130
5,561
2,605
2,743
13,860
14,237
6,834
5,823
5,766
6,066
2,978
2,894
14,679
15,101
6,625
0.702
0.226
0.240
0.288
0.330
0.663
0.565
0.703
0.677
Disp.
(in.)
0.283
0.316
0.401
0.673
0.832
0.482
0.239
0.245
0.469
0.401
0.590
0.731
0.918
0.766
0.312
0.321
0.453
0.447
0.519
0.547
0.768
EEEP yield
7,363
5,614
5,646
2,757
2,849
15,695
14,804
6,838
7,216
Load
(lbf)
2,502
2,467
12,753
12,805
6,746
5,888
5,750
6,273
2,889
3,305
16,058
16,345
7,584
6,590
6,577
6,851
3,345
3,296
16,826
16,992
7,504
Load
(lbf)
2,002
1,974
10,202
10,244
5,397
4,710
4,600
5,018
2,311
2,428
12,847
13,076
6,067
5,272
5,261
5,481
2,676
2,636
13,460
13,596
6,003
Disp.
(in.)
3.204
3.900
3.311
2.922
3.777
4.014
2.682
2.637
3.568
3.859
2.760
2.546
3.254
2.848
2.589
3.351
3.614
3.611
3.208
3.425
3.327
Ultimate
5,890
3.747
4,491
2.704
4,517
2.382
2,206
2.411
2,279
3.163
12,556
2.624
11,843
3.337
5,470
3.349
5,773
3.427
Average
Average minus 1 STD
2.344
1.663
1.632
1.642
1.642
2.307
2.367
2.377
2.381
Disp.
(in.)
2.336
2.381
2.385
2.373
3.508
2.382
1.643
1.667
2.346
2.369
2.400
2.322
3.193
2.378
1.664
2.372
2.317
2.334
2.289
2.313
2.341
Peak
3.9
2.8
2.5
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.4
2.8
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.96
3.0
2.3
CompoDrift
nent
capacity over(%h) strength
3.3
2.8
4.1
2.8
3.4
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.9
3.0
4.2
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.3
3.7
3.0
4.0
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.7
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.4
3.5
2.5
3.8
2.5
3.8
2.4
3.3
2.4
3.6
2.4
3.5
2.2
9.4
33.0
26.8
23.2
29.0
12.6
17.8
12.7
14.8
20.1
11.5
Ductility
29.1
33.3
22.5
11.4
12.4
20.2
29.8
31.0
22.6
33.0
17.7
12.5
10.4
9.5
17.0
25.5
17.2
16.7
12.6
13.3
7.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener/
post
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
End post
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Fastener
Gravity Primary
load failure
intact modea
Yes Fastener
[A] Martin, Z., T. Skaggs, and E. Keith E. 2005. Using Narrow Pieces of Wood Structural Panel Sheathing in Wood Shear Walls. APA Report No. T2005-08, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma,
WA. 18 pp.
[B] Martin Z. 2004. Wood Structural Panel and Shear Wall Connections with Common, Galvanized Box, and Box Nails. APA Report No. T2004-14, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA. 14
pp.
[C] Martin, Z. and T. Skaggs. 2003. Shear Wall Lumber Framing: Double 2x’s vs. Single 3x’s at Adjoining Panel Edges. APA Report No. T2003-22, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA. 20 pp.
[D] Martin, Z. 2002. Effect of Green Lumber on Wood Structural Panel Shear Wall Performance. APA Report No. T2002-53, APA–The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA. 19 pp.
[E] Rosowsky, D., L. Elkins, and C. Carrol. 2004. Cyclic Tests of Engineered Shear Walls Considering Different Plate Washers. Oregon State Univ. Report for the American Forest & Paper Association, Corvallis,
OR. 27 pp.
[F] Pardoen, G.C., R.P. Waltman, E. Kazanjy, E. Freund, and C.H. Hamilton. 2003. Testing and Analysis of One-Story and Two-Story Shear Walls Under Cyclic Loading. Report W-25, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, CA. 271 pp.
[G] Data collected as part of the main body of this article.
Appendix Table References:
a NR = not reported.
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Wall size
(Ref.)/Ref. H by L
OSB
Item
ID
(ft)
sheathing
51
(G)/B1
8 by 4 3/8 Str. 1
52
(G)/B2
53
(G)/C1
8 by 8 3/8 Str. 1
54
(G)/C2
55
(G)/D1
8 by 4 3/8 Str. 1
56
(G)/D2
57
(G)/E1
8 by 8
7/16
58
(G)/E2
59
(G)/F1
8 by 4
7/16
60
(G)/F2
61
(G)/G1
8 by 8
7/16
62
(G)/G2
63
(G)/H1
8 by 4
7/16
64
(G)/H2
65
(G)/I3
8 by 8
19/32
66
(G)/I5
67
(G)/J2
8 by 4
19/32
68
(G)/J3
69
(G)/K1
8 by 8
19/32
70
(G)/K2
71
(G)/L1
8 by 4
19/32
Fastener
spacing
(edge/
field)
(in./in.) Openings
6/6
none
Table A.1 (continued).—Combined data set summary.