Book Description

The behavior of wood shear walls has been the focus of researchers and engineers for many years due to their availability in the North American construction landscape. A review of the established literature showed that most of the research have focused on the shear wall behavior as a whole with no investigation specifically targeting the individual components of its deflection. Also, little to no attention has been given to the investigation of the cumulative effects especially when the out-of-plane diaphragm stiffness is considered. The current study aims at investigating the effects of construction details variation on the behavior of the shear walls and evaluating whether the current deflection equation, as per wood design standard (CSA 2014) can adequately predict the overall wall stiffness. A total of 27 full-scale single-storey walls, with different construction details and aspect ratios, were tested under either static or monotonic (as both are the same) loading. The parameters that were varied in the testing were the stud size and spacing, nail diameter and spacing, sheathing panel type and thickness and hold-down anchoring system/type. For the two-storey walls, two different loading cases were considered, namely where the load was applied at the top or bottom storey only. The results showed that the strength and stiffness correlated almost directly to the inverse of the wall aspect ratio. There was no clear trend when considering the effect of the walls' aspect ratios on ductility. Unexpectedly, walls with aspect ratios not permitted according to the wood design standard (4:1 and 6:1) followed similar strength and stiffness trends and had sufficient ductility ratios as those with smaller aspect ratios. This observation explains in part some of the discrepancies found between engineering calculations and behavior of actual building with light frame wood shear walls. Significant discrepancies were found when comparing the various deflection constituent with those estimated using the design expression. Adding more end studs and changing the size of the studs had no significant effect on the overall wall capacity and little effect on its stiffness. Reducing the stud spacing had, as expected, no effect on the wall capacity; however, the results showed that the bending stiffness was affected by the overall number of studs in the wall and not solely by the end studs. Shear walls sheathed with plywood panels exhibits slightly higher peak load and initial stiffness than those with OSB, which was mainly attributed to the greater panel thickness, and possibly density, of the plywood. Both sheathing types provided similar levels of ductility, as expected. Thicker sheathing increased the capacity and stiffness of the wall with no significant change observed in ductility ratio. The wall strength was significantly affected by the nail diameter and nail spacing, but no difference was observed when the nail edge/end distance was increased. The results also showed that discrete hold-down system behaved in a non-linear manner with a significantly greater initial stiffness than that assumed in design. The study also showed that having continuous hold-down connections has a positive effect on the capacity, stiffness and ductility of the wall when compared with discrete hold-downs. Having no hold-down adversely affects the wall capacity and stiffness, but did not affect the ductility of the wall. For the two-storey walls, the deflection estimated based on the cumulative effect assumption showed slight differences when compared with that observed in the experimental study. It was observed that the majority of the cumulative effect stems from the rigid body rotation due to deformation in the hold-down devices. A Computer shear wall model (through SAP2000) was developed using linear "frame" and "membrane" elements for the framing and sheathing members, respectively, whereas the sheathing to framing nails and hold-down were modeled using nonlinear springs. It was found that the model was capable of predicting the peak load, ultimate deflection and yield loads with reasonable accuracy, but overestimated the initial stiffness and ductility of the walls. In general, when the force-displacement curves were compared it was evident that the model was capable of predicting the wall behaviour with reasonable accuracy. When investigating the cumulative effects using the model, the results clearly showed that the assumption of cumulative effects due to rigid body rotation is valid for stacked shearwalls with no consideration for the floor diaphragm. The effect of the diaphragm on the behavior of the shear walls, in particular its out-of-plane rigidity was simulated by modeling the floors as beam. The out of plane stiffness of the shear walls was investigated for idealized (infinitely stiff or flexible) as well as "realistic". The results showed reductions in the shearwall deflection in the magnitude of approximately 80% considering the out of plane rigidity of the diaphragm. It was also concluded that considering conservative estimates of out of plane stiffness might lead to a very significant reduction in deflection and that assuming the floor diaphragm to be infinitely rigid out of plan seems reasonable. For diaphragms supported on multiple panels further reduction in the deflection was observed. More work, particularly at the experimental level, is needed to verify the finding obtained in the numerical investigation related to the effect of out of plane diaphragm stiffness.