Seismic Performance Testing of Partially and Fully Anchored Wood-Frame Shear Walls
Keywords:
Seismic performance, wood-frame, shear wall, FEMA 356Abstract
Earthquake performance of wood-frame shear walls was evaluated by comparing fully and partially anchored walls under monotonic, cyclic, and earthquake loads and comparing with code measures. Suitability of monotonic and cyclic testing to predict seismic performance was examined. Earthquake tests were conducted on 2440-mm-square walls with Douglas-fir studs. Two oriented strandboard panels were fastened to the frame with two gypsum wallboard panels on the opposite side. Partially anchored walls had two anchor bolts on the sill plate. Fully anchored walls had hold-downs at the ends. Four time histories were tested: three subduction zone ground motions and a strike-slip fault, all scaled to the Seattle design level. For fully anchored walls, subduction zone tests had capacities, energy dissipation, and failure modes most similar to cyclic tests. Wall displacement at maximum load was under-estimated by cyclic and overestimated by monotonic tests. For partially anchored walls, subduction zone and strike-slip earthquake tests had capacity, displacement at maximum load, initial stiffness, and ductility most similar to cyclic tests. Energy dissipation was most similar to monotonic tests, and failure modes were consistent with monotonic and cyclic tests. Partially anchored walls had lower capacity, displacement at maximum load, energy dissipation, and stiffness as compared with fully anchored walls.References
ASTM (2001) Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for shear resistance of framed walls for buildings. E 2126-02a. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.nCity of Los Angeles/UC Irvine (2001) Light frame test committee 2001, report of a testing program of light framed walls with wood-sheathed shear panels, final report to the City of Los Angeles. Dept. of Building Safety, Los Angeles, CA. 93 pp.nCobeen K, Russell J, Dolan DJ (2004) Recommendations for earthquake resistance in the design and construction of woodframe buildings. CUREE Publication No. W-30b. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.nDinehart DW, Shenton HW III (1998) Comparison of static and dynamic response of timber shear walls. J Struct Eng 124(6):686 - 695.nDolan JD, Madsen B (1992) Monotonic and cyclic tests of timber shear walls. Can J Civil Eng 19(3):415 - 422.nFEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Rep. No. 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 518 pp.nFiliatrault A, Foschi R (1991) Static and dynamic tests of timber shear walls fastened with nails and wood adhesive. Can J Civil Eng 18(5):749 - 755.nGatto K, Uang CM (2003) Effects of loading protocol on the cyclic response of woodframe shearwalls. J Struct Eng 129(10):1384 - 1393.nHe M, Lam F, Prion HGL (1998) Influence of cyclic test protocols on performance of wood-based shear walls. Can J Civil Eng 25(6):539 - 550.nICC (2000) International Residential Code. International Code Council, Whittier, CA.nISO (1998) Timber structures—Joints made with mechanical fasteners—Quasi-static reversed-cyclic test method, WG7 draft, ISO TC 165. International Organization for Standardization, Secretariat Standards Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.nKaracabeyli E, Ceccotti A (1998) Nailed wood-frame shear walls for seismic Loads: test results and design considerations. Paper T207-6 in Structural Engineering World Wide. Elsevier Science, New York, NY.nKrawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R (2001) Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures, CUREE pub W-02. Richmond, CA.nMalik AM (1995) Estimating building stocks for earthquake mitigation and recovery planning. Cornell Inst for Soc and Econ Res, Cornell Univ, Ithaca, NY.nMcMullin KM, Merrick DS (2000) Seismic testing of light frame shear walls. Paper No 5-4-1 in Proc 6th World Conf on Timber Eng, 31 July to 3 Aug, 2000, Whistler, BC.nNi C, Karacabeyli E (2002) Capacity of shear wall segments without hold-downs. Wood Design Focus 12(2):10 - 17.nPardoen GC, Kazanjy RP, Freund E, Hamilton CH, Larsen D, Shah N, Smith A (2000) Results from the City of Los Angeles-UC Irvine shear wall test program. Paper 1.1.1 on CD in Proc 6th World Conf on Timber Eng, 31 July to 3 Aug 2000, Whistler, BC.nPCA (1997) Home builder report of 1997. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.nSalenikovich AJ, Dolan JD (2003a) The racking performance of shear walls with various aspect ratios, part 1, monotonic tests of fully anchored walls. Forest Prod J 53(10):65 - 73.nSalenikovich AJ, Dolan JD (2003b) The racking performance of shear walls with various aspect ratios, part 2, cyclic tests of fully anchored walls. Forest Prod J 53(11 - 12):37 - 45.nSeaders P, Gupta R, Miller TH (2009a) Monotonic and cyclic load testing of partially and fully anchored wood-frame shear walls. Wood Fiber Sci 41(2):145 - 156.nSeaders P, Miller TH, Gupta R (2009b) Performance of partially and fully anchored wood-frame shear walls under earthquake loads. Forest Prod J (in press).nSomerville P, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J (1997) Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project, Report No. SAC/ BD-97/04. SAC joint venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.nUang CM (2001) Loading protocol and rate of loading effects—Draft report. CUREE Caltech wood frame project, Richmond, CA.nUSGS (2004a) US Geological Society. http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/usa/1994_01_17.html'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/usa/1994_01_17.htmlnUSGS (2004b) US Geological Society. http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/top_states.html'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/top_states.htmlnYamaguchi N, Karacabeyli E, Minowa C, Kawai N, Watanabe K, Nakamura I (2000) Seismic performance of nailed wood-frame walls. Paper No 8-1-1 in Proc World Conf. on Timber Eng, 31 July to 3 Aug 2000, Whistler, BC.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
