NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH OF COLD-FORMED STEEL SHEAR WALLS USING OSB SHEATHING. Chao Li. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

Transcription

1 NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH OF COLD-FORMED STEEL SHEAR WALLS USING OSB SHEATHING Chao Li Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 212 APPROVED: Cheng Yu, Major Professor Diane Desimone, Committee Member Haifeng Zhang, Committee Member Leticia Anaya, Committee Member Enrique Barbieri, Chair of the Department of Engineering Technology Costas Tsatsoulis, Dean of the College of Engineering James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

2 Li, Chao. Nominal Shear Strength of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Walls Using OSB Sheathing. Master of Science (Engineering Systems), May 212, 77 pp., 14 tables, 16 figures, references, 9 titles. In the cold-formed steel construction, the oriented strand board is a common material for shear wall sheathing. An OSB is made by using wood chips as raw materials that undergo high temperature pressing to create a multi-larger structure material. Due to the OSB having a high strength in shear, it is an important material used in the construction field. The thesis is trying to verify published nominal shear strength in AISI in the first part. This objective has two parts: the first part is to verify nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for shear wall. The second part is to verify nominal shear strength (Rn) for seismic and other in-plane loads for shear wall. Secondly, the thesis verifies the design deflection equation for nominal shear strength of CFS shear walls with OSB sheathing. The test specimens were divided into eight groups which trying to verify the design deflection equation that was published in AISI standard.

3 Copyright 212 by Chao Li ii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis paper could not be completed without Dr. Cheng Yu. I express my highest gratefulness to Dr. Cheng Yu for teaching me valuable acknowledge and skills and guiding me during the research. I am also truly express my thanks to my committee members-dr. Diane Desimone, Dr. Haifeng Zhang, and Dr. Leticia Anaya for their guidance in completing this thesis. I want to thank the sponsorship of American Iron and Steel Institute and the donation of materials by Steel Stud Manufacturers Association and Nuconsteel Commercial Corp. The assistance of the UNT lab technician Bobby Grimes in setting up the testing apparatus has been invaluable. I would like to thank UNT undergraduate students, Marcus Sanchez, Roger Rovira, and graduate student, Noritsugu Yanagi, who helped prepare the test specimens. This project could not be completed without their contributions. I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and support while I am studying in the United States of America. iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... iii LIST OF TABLES...v LIST OF FIGURES... vi Page 1. INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES TEST PROGRAM Test Setup Test Procedure Test Specimens Material Properties TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Summarizing Shear Walls Test Results Verifying Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Shear Walls Tested and Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Shear Walls Published in AISI-S Expanding Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Sheathing Shear Walls Published in AISI-S VerifyingDesign Deflection Equation in AISI-S CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH...38 APPENDIX: DATA SHEETS OF OSB SHEAR WALL TESTS...4 REFERENCES...77 iv

6 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. United States and Mexico nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for shear walls (27) United States and Mexico nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for shear walls (27) OSB shear wall CUREE basic loading history OSB shear wall test matrix for nominal shear resistance verification task Coupon test results OSB shear wall test results OSB shear wall failure modes Recommended nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls Recommended nominal shear strength for seismic loads for OSB shear walls Comparison of nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls Comparison of nominal shear strength for seismic loads for OSB shear walls Expanded Nominal Shear Strength for Wind and Other In-Plane Loads for Shear Walls Expanded Nominal Shear Strength for Seismic and Other In-Plane Loads for Shear Walls Comparison of displacement of tested and displacement by deflection equation v

7 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Front view of cold-formed steel shear wall using OSB sheathing Front view of the test setup Close up of the top of the OSB shear wall specimen (8x4) OSB shear wall CUREE basic loading history (.2 Hz) OSB shear wall Dimensions of 8-ft. 4-ft. wall assembly OSB shear wall Dimensions of 8-ft. 2-ft. wall assembly OSB shear wall test result Ratio of deflection data by different screw spacing x2x33xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve x2x33xOSBx4 tested curves and estimated curve x2x43xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve x2x43xOSBx6 tested curves and estimated curve x2x54xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve x4x43xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve x4x43xOSBx4 tested curves and estimated curve x4x43xOSBx6 tested curves and estimated curve vi

8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Cold-formed steel shear walls using oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing is an important member of the cold-formed steel shear walls family. Since 194, cold-formed steel has been widely used in building construction and more widely used in this development global. An OSB is made by using wood chips as raw materials that undergo high temperature pressing to create a multi-larger structure material. Due to the OSB having a high strength in shear, it is an important material used in the construction field. Generally speaking, the cold-formed steel shear walls provide the following advantages in building construction: 1. Compared with hot-rolled shapes, cold-formed steel members can be more easily manufactured for relatively light loadings. Thus, it will cost less energy to produce there shapes during the manufacturing process. 2. Compared to wood, the cold formed steel members can provide larger resistance value, higher stiffness and larger ductility value. Also the cold formed steel is non-combustible. 3. Cold-formed steel shear walls are easily to be manufactured in mass quantities and can easily stack and be transported. 4. As the metal coating on the surface, the cold formed steel is harder to be corroded. Also, cold-formed steel shear walls are 1% recyclable. The cold formed steel structural members can be classified into two major types: 1. Individual structural framing members 1

9 2. Panels and decks Cold-formed steel shear walls using OSB sheathing is a structural assemble used to resist the lateral loads caused from the winds and earthquakes. The frame of the shear wall is built by the stud and track, which are screwed at each end. The OSB sheathing is also attached to the frame by the screws as showed in Figure 1. Figure 1Front view of cold-formed steel shear wall using OSB sheathing Since the early 199s, cold-formed steel shear wall design has evolved in step with the increased understanding of their performance. Significant advances and additions in the provisions for these systems have occurred since their first inclusion in the 1997 Universal Building Code (UBC). Typical lateral loads on shear walls result from either wind or seismic demand. Design wind loads are the actual expected forces, whereas design seismic loads are reduced based on the type of lateral system used, how many lateral elements are 2

10 employed in the structure, and the level of seismic detailing performed. Designing for a reduced seismic load can significantly lower the cost of construction, but the tradeoff is heavy damage to the structure during a major earthquake. In previous research, the researchers mainly investigated on the cold formed steel framed shear walls with plywood, gypsum board sheathing and steel. This research focused on CFS shear wall with OSB sheathing. Two objectives are targeted: (1) verify the published nominal shear strength for 7/16 OSB sheathing in AISI-213-7; (2) verify and develop the design deflection equation for nominal shear strength of CFS share walls with OSB sheathing. In Chapter2, the cold formed steel shear wall with different sheathing and configuration are summarized. Chapter 3 explains the objectives and back ground. Chapter 4statesthe tests procedure, materials and configuration of specimens. Results are discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 shows the conclusion and further study. 3

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Included in this thesis is a brief summary of previous research on shear walls using oriented strand board(osb) sheathing reviewed by Serrette(1996, 1997, and 22), Chen (24)and Dinehart and Shenton III(1998). For an extensive literature review of previous shear wall studies, an interested reader is invited to consult their theses. The previous experiments and research on the performance of cold formed framing shear wall are reviewed herein to establish the test methods and configuration of specimens for this research. Serrette (1996) investigated the behavior of the cold formed steel shear wall sheathed with gypsum, OSB, and plywood with three phases. The materials include: 2 gauge stud with 3.5-in. width, in. flange and.375-in. lip; 2 gauge track with 3.5 width and 1.25-in. flange; No. 8.5-in. self-drill screw on framing and No. 1 1-in. Hex head self-drill screw for the plywood and OSB; the same materials used on strap as studs and tracks. In the Phase 1, the goal was to find out the static behavior between plywood and OSB. The Phase 2, he made analysis to determine the weaker of the OSA and plywood. In the third phase, comprehensive investigations were performed on the panels with OSB and plywood, covering all fastener schedules. For the 8-ft. 8-ft. shear wall, the plywood sheathing has 17% greater nominal capacity than the OSB wall (7/16 in. thick). OSB walls installed parallel to the frame has lower load and deformation capacity compared to the perpendicular installation. For the 4-ft. 8-ft. OSB walls, the maximum load value increased followed by the denser of the fastener space on the perimeter. The 4-ft. 8-ft. 4

12 dimension wall sheathed with OSB on one side and GWB on the other side has a capacity increase with 6-in. /12-in. fastener schedule; however, there was no significant capacity increase in the other fastener schedule. During the cyclic tests, for given fastener spaces, the plywood walls performed higher load capacities then the OSB wall. Serrette (1997) completed experimental tests on a wider scope of the steel framed wall, which included steel sheathing, high aspect ratio walls, X-braced walls and 16gauge and 18 gauge studs. Both static and cyclic loading tests performed. This research was done in five phases: During first phase, the tests initiated on the 4-ft. 8-ft. dimension shear wall (2 gauge stud and 18 gauge chord) which covered by 7/16 in. OSB and 15/32 in. plywood with fastener schedule 3-in. / 12-in. and 2-in. / 12-in. During the second phase, the author tried to figure out the thickness limit to occur the shear wall system change. Phase 3 was focused on the performance of the shear wall assembled with 2 and 18 gauge studs and 2 gauge X-brace. In Phase 4, the study focused on performance of 22 and 25 gauge steel sheath shear wall. In fifth stage, was initiated on 4:1 aspect shear wall. Similar to the tests involved in Serrette (1996), displacement control was applied in these tests. The result of this research was that plywood walls can provide more ductility and load capacity. Compared with No. 8 screw, larger diameter screws were needed for the thicker studs (16gauge). Two significant effects should be concerned: The actual yield strength of the strap and the eccentricity from the straps, as excessive specified yield strength may cause the stud or connection failure. The failure of the steel sheathing walls was the bearing of the sheet edges and the pullout of the screws from the stud. Serrette (22) developed performance data for cold-formed steel shear wall. The 5

13 scope of that research includes four aspects: 1. Reversing the cyclic result of the 33-mil and 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16-in. OSB on one side; 2. Reversing the cyclic result of the 54-mil and 68-mil framed shear wall with 7/16-in.OSB on one sides; 3. Reversing the cyclic result of steel shear wall with 7/16-in.OSB sheathing on one side and simple lap at the edges of the panels; investigate the monotonic performance of shear wall sheathed by ½-in. gypsum board with different fastener spaces and blocking configuration. In the final result, was that the OSB wall with No. 8 screw in 54-mil framing and No. 1 screws in 68-mil framing demonstrated a ductile mode of failure at the connection. For the second purpose, the 54 mil stud buckled because the load exceeded the studs capacities. The 68-mil studs recital the buckling effect. Then the peak load was decided by the screw attaching the chords. In the OSB sheathing shear wall tests, because of the screw would cause unzip along the joint, the steel sheet could not make effect sufficiently. In the monotonic test of GWB, the failure depended on the fasteners along the board edge pulling through the board. Chen (24) investigated the performance characteristics of various configurations of steel frame / wood panel shear walls under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading. Chen tested and analyzed a total of 46 steel frame / wood panel shear wall specimens using the EEEP method as recommended by Branston (24). The configuration of the specimens varied in terms of wall length (61, 122 and 244 mm (2, 4 and 8 )), sheathing type(csp, OSB) and fastener schedule (76/35, 12/35, and 152/35 mm (3 /12, 4 /12 and6 /12 )). A comparative study of relative shear wall performance based on the test results obtained by Branston, Chen and the author was presented. Chen also provided 6

14 information on existing analytical design approaches for shear. Finally, an analytical method of mechanics approach to estimate wall displacement and strength was recommended. Dinehart and Shenton III(1998) investigated the relative performance of timber shear walls tested statically and dynamically. Monotonic tests followed the ASTM E 564 protocol; whereas reversed cyclic tests were carried out using the SPD protocol with.24. More precisely, the purpose of this research was to evaluate and to compare the stiffness, ductility, ultimate load and failure mechanism of the walls for the two test methods. The testing program involved twelve identically constructed8-ft. 8-ft. walls, four of which were tested monotonically and eight dynamically. Half of the specimens were sheathed with 15/32 plywood and the other half with 1/2 oriented strand board (OSB).Previous research concluded that the failure modes observed during static tests were significantly different than those of dynamic tests. Dinehart and Shenton III found the same results and noted that during the monotonic tests, the sheathing tended to pull away from the frame, pulling the nails along with it. Pull-through of the nails was only observed in a few instances along the edges of the sheathing. The bottom sill plate split parallel to the grain at the uplift corner, i.e. the corner in tension. Both the OSB and plywood sheathing failed in the same manner during the monotonic tests. As for the dynamic tests, most of the damage was concentrated in the sheathing-to framing connectors. After being repetitively bent during the reversed cycles, nails fatigued and/or sheared at the connection between the stud and the sheathing, or were pulled out from the stud. Nail fracture was more common than pull out. The OSB sheathed shear walls exhibited degradation near the corners in the later 7

15 stages of the test, which was not observed in the tested plywood sheathed walls. Apart from that damage type, both OSB and plywood sheathed shear walls failed in a similar manner. When comparing the load-deformation curves of the plywood and OSB sheathed specimens, Dinehart and Shenton III noted no major differences in either the monotonic or cyclic regime. When looking at the static and dynamic responses of similarly sheathed shear walls, it was observed that both ultimate loads are comparable, but occurred at very different displacements, the dynamic tests having the lower displacements (66% less for plywood and 58% less for OSB). The dynamic ductility, defined as the ratio of the failure displacement to the yield displacement experienced under a dynamic test, was therefore less than the static ductility (34% reduction for plywood and 42% reduction for OSB).Dinehart and Shenton III were not able to conclude if these results were due to the rate of loading or the load history (cyclic protocol).because of the severe differences in the measured ductility between dynamic and static tests, Dinehart and Shenton III were in favor of the 25% reduction of the allowable shear loads listed in the UBC (Uniform Building Code, 1994) until more thorough research is carried out. This suggestion was made in the report where the task force investigating the Northridge earthquake recommended that a cyclic test program be carried out to determine reasonable load levels for light framed shear walls subjected to seismic events. 8

16 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing Lateral Design 27 Edition (AISI S213, 27) provides shear strengths for a limited range of options of the sheathing thickness and the wall aspect ratio for cold-formed steel framed walls with OSB sheathing. Therefore, this research proposed in this thesis proposal is to verify published nominal strength in AISI-213 in the first part. This objective has two parts: the first part is to verify Nominal Shear Strength (Rn) for Wind and other In-Plane Loads for Share Wall. The second part is to verify nominal shear strength (Rn) for seismic and other in-plane loads for share wall. Secondly, the thesis verifies the design deflection equation. Thirdly, this research aims to develop design equation for nominal strength of CFS share wall with OSB. The objectives of this thesis include: 1) To verify published nominal strength in Table 1and Table 2. This objective has two parts: the first part is to verify nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for share wall. The second part is to verify nominal shear strength (Rn) for seismic and other in-plane loads for share wall. In Table 1, the thesis and test will focus on the 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), and the fastener spacing panel edges are considered by 2 inches, 4inches, and 6 inches. The aspect ratio (h/w) is 2:1.InTable C2.1-3, the thesis and test will focus on the 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB). Also, the designation thickness of stud, track and blocking are considered by 33 mil, 43 mil, and 54 mil. 9

17 Table 1United States and Mexico nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for shear walls (27) (Pounds Per Foot) Maximum Fastener Spacing Panel Edges Aspect (inches) Ratio (h/w) /32 structural 1 sheathing (4-ply), 2:1 165 one side 7/16 rated sheathing(osb), 2: one side 7/16 ratedsheathing(osb) One side oriented 2:1 12 perpendicular to framing 7/16 rated sheathing(osb), 4: one side.18 Steel sheet, one side 2:1 485 Assembly Description.27 Steel sheet, one side 4:

18 Table 2United States and Mexico nominal shear strength (Rn) for wind and other in-plane loads for shear walls (27) (Pounds Per Foot) Fastener Spacing Panel Maximum Designation Assembly Edges Required Aspect Thickness of (inches) Shearing Ratio Stud, Track and Screw Size (h/w) Blocking (mils) Description 15/32 structural 1 sheathing (4-ply), one side 7/16 OSB, one side.18 Steel sheet, one side.27 Steel sheet, one side 2: or or : : : or : : : (min) 8 4: (min) 8 2) To verify design deflection equation for nominal strength of CFS share wall with OSB. Using the following design deflection equation analysis and compare with test data. δ = 8vh3 E s A c b + ω 1ω 2 vh ρgt sheating + ω 1 5/4 ω 2 ω 3 ω 4 v/β 2 + h b δ v (Eq.C2.1-1) from AISI-S213-7 Where, Ac = gross cross-sectional area of chord member, in square inches b = Width of the shear wall, in feet 11

19 Es= Modulus of elasticity of steel 295 psi G = Shear modulus of sheathing material, 775 psi h = wall height, in feet s = maximum fastener spacing at panel edges, in inches t sheat hing = nominal panel thickness, in inches t stud = framing designation thickness, in inches υ = shear demand (V/b), plf V = total lateral load applied to the shear wall, in pounds β = 66 for OSB δ = calculated deflection, in inches δv= vertical deformation of hold-downs, in inches ρ = 1.5 for OSB ω1 = s/6 for s in inches ω2 =.33/t stud in inches ω3 = ( h )/2 b ω4 = 1 for wood structural panels 12

20 CHAPTER 4 TEST PROGRAM The test program was carried out from November 21 to January 212 in the NUCONSTEEL Materials Testing Laboratory at the University of North Texas, Denton Texas. The research verifies the published nominal shear strength of 7/16-in OSB sheathing shear walls (nominal shear resistance verification task). In this test, the shear walls including 8-ft.x2-ft, and 8-ft.x 4-ft. 4.1 Test Setup The monotonic tests and the cyclic tests were performed on a 16-ft. span, 12-ft. high adaptable structural steel testing frame. Figure 2 shows the front view of the testing frame with an 8-ft.x 4-ft. OSB shear wall installed. All the shear wall specimens were assembled in a horizontal position and then installed vertically in the testing frame. The wall is bolted to the base beam and loaded horizontally at the top. For shear walls using 3.5-in. framing members, a 5-in.x5-in.x ½-in. structural steel tubing was used for the base beam. For shear walls using 6-in. framing members, 1-in.x5-in.x ½-in. structural steel tubing was used for the base beam. The base beam was attached to a W16 x 67 structural steel beam that was attached to the concrete floor slab with 3/4-in. anchor bolts at 24-in. in the center. The web of the structural steel tubing base beam was cut-out in several locations on one side to provide access to anchor bolts in the shear walls. The lateral force was applied to the shear wall top via a load beam made of structural steel T shape. The T shape was attached to the top track of the shear wall by 2 - No. 12 x1-1/2-in. hex washer head (HWH) self-drilling tapping screws placed every 3-in. on center. 13

21 The out-of-plane displacement of the wall was prevented by a series of steel rollers on each side of the T shape. Figure 3show that space was provided between the rollers and the T shape to avoid significant friction in the test. The anchoring system for monotonic tests consisted of ASTM A49 5/8-in. diameter shear anchor bolts with standard cut washers and one Simpson Strong-Tie S/HD1 hold-down with one ASTM A49 5/8- in. diameter anchor bolt. For the cyclic tests, the anchoring system included ASTM A49 5/8-in. diameter shear anchor bolts and one Simpson Strong-Tie S/HD1 hold-down with a 5/8-in. diameter ASTM A49 anchor bolt at each end of the shear wall. Figure 2Front view of the test setup 14

22 Figure 3Close up of the top of the OSB shear wall specimen (8x4) The testing frame was equipped with one MTS35-kip hydraulic actuator with 5-in.stroke.AMTS47 controller and a 2-GPM MTS hydraulic power unit were employed to support the loading system. A 2-kip TRANSDUCER TECHNIQUES-SWO universal compression/tension load cell was placed to pin-connect the actuator rod to the T shape. Five NOVOTECHNIC position transducers were employed to measure the horizontal displacement at the top of the wall, and the vertical and horizontal displacements of the bottoms of the two boundary studs. The data acquisition system consisted of a National Instruments unit (including a PCI6225 DAQ card a SCXI11 chassis with SCXI152 load cell sensor module and SCXI154 LVDT input module) and an IBM desktop. The applied force and the five displacements were measured and recorded instantaneously during the test. 4.2 Test Procedure Both the monotonic and the cyclic tests were conducted in a displacement control mode. The procedure of the monotonic tests was in accordance with ASTM A37 (26). A preload of approximately 1% of the estimated ultimate load was applied first to the 15

23 specimen and held for 5 minutes to seat all connections. After the preload was removed, the incremental loading procedure followed until structural failure was achieved using a load increment of 1/3 of the estimated ultimate load. One protocol was used for the cyclic tests as specified in Tables 3.The CUREE protocol was used in accordance with the method C in ASTM A37 (26)Table 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the CUREE protocol was chosen for the majority of cyclic tests in this research. The CUREE basic loading history shown in Figure 4 includes 4 cycles with specific displacement amplitudes, which are listed in Table 3. The specified displacement amplitudes are based on a percentage of the ultimate displacement capacity determined from the monotonic tests. If the panel has not failed at the end of the 4 cycles of Table 3, then additional cycles were to be added. Each progressive primary cycle added was to include an increase of 5% over the previous primary cycle. Two trailing cycles followed each primary cycle with an added magnitude of 75% of the primary cycle. For the CUREE protocol, a constant cycling frequency of.2 Hz was used for the loading. 16

24 Table 3OSB shear wall CUREE basic loading history Figure 4OSB shear wall CUREE basic loading history (.2 Hz) 4.3 Test Specimens The test specimen configurations for the nominal shear resistance verification task are listed in Table 4. This task was to verify the published nominal shear strength for 7/16 OSB sheathing in AISI and propose to make direct comparison with the test results of Serrette (22) in AISI

25 Table 4OSB shear wall test matrix for nominal shear resistance verification task Test label Wall dimension Stud Track Screw spacing Test protocol 8x2x33xOSBx4-M1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " M 8x2x33xOSBx4-M2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " M 8x2x33xOSBx4-M3 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " M 8x2x33xOSBx4-C1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " C-4 Cycles 8x2x33xOSBx4-C2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " C-4 Cycles 8x2x33xOSBx2-M1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " M 8x2x33xOSBx2-M2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " M 8x2x33xOSBx2-C1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " C-4 Cycles 8x2x33xOSBx2-C2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 35T " C-4 Cycles 8x2x54xOSBx2-M1 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi35T " M 8x2x54xOSBx2-M2 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi 35T " M 8x2x54xOSBx2-M3 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi 35T " M 8x2x54xOSBx2-M4 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi 35T " M 8x2x54xOSBx2-C1 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi 35T " C-4 Cycles 8x2x54xOSBx2-M5 8x2 5ksi 35S ksi 35T " M 8x4x43xOSBx2-M1 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x4x43xOSBx2-M2 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x4x43xOSBx2-M3 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x4x43xOSBx6-M1 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x4x43xOSBx6-M2 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x4x43xOSBx2-C1 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x4x43xOSBx2-C2 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-46Cycles 8x4x43xOSBx6-C1 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x4x43xOSBx6-C2 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x4x43xOSBx4-C1 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x4x43xOSBx4-C2 8x4 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x2x43xOSBx2-C1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x2x43xOSBx2-C2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x2x43xOSBx2-M1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x2x43xOSBx2-M2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x2x43xOSBx2-M3 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x2x43xOSBx6-C1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x2x43xOSBx6-C2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " C-43Cycles 8x2x43xOSBx6-M1 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x2x43xOSBx6-M2 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 8x2x43xOSBx6-M3 8x2 33ksi 362S ksi 362T " M 18

26 The dimensions of the tested shear walls are shown in Figure 5 and 6. The studs were placed 24-in. from the edge, in the center. Double back-to-back studs were used for the boundary, and a single stud was used for the interior. The OSB sheet sheathing was installed on one side of the wall by 7/16-in. modified truss head self-drilling screws. The details of the components of the proposed OSB sheet walls are given as follows: Studs: 33ksi 362S162-33structural stud, 5ksi 35S structural stud, 33ksi 362S structural stud Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 structural track, 5ksi 35T15-54 structural track 33ksi 362T structural track Sheathing: APA rated sheathing 24/16, 7/16 inches sized for spacing, Exposure 1 Oriented Strand Board Framing and Sheathing Screws: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field (8 x4) #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field (8 x4) #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter,12 in.o.c in the field (8 x4) #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter,(8 x2) #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter,(8 x2) 19

27 #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter,(8 x 2) Hold-Downs: Simpson Strong-Tie S/HD1 hold-downs with No in. HWH self-drilling tapping screws, and with 5/8-in. diameter ASTM A49 anchor bolts. Shear Anchor Bolts: 5/8-in. diameter ASTM A49 anchor bolts with standard cut washers and nuts. Four bolts were used for each wall assembly. Figure 5OSB shear wall dimensions of 8-ft. 4-ft. wall assembly 2

28 Figure 6OSB shear wall dimensions of 8-ft. 2-ft. wall assembly 4.4 Material Properties Coupon tests were conducted according to the ASTM A37 (26) Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products to obtain the actual properties of the test materials in this project. The coupon test results are summarized in Table 5. The coating on the steel was removed by hydrochloric acid prior to the coupon tests. The coupons tests were conducted on the INSTRON 4482 universal testing machine. An INSTRON extensometer was employed to measure the tensile strain. The tests were conducted in displacement control at a constant rate of.5 in./min. A total of four coupons were tested for each member, and the average results are provided in Table 5. 21

29 Member 33ksi 33mil stud 33ksi 33mil track 33ksi 43mil stud 33ksi 43mil track 5ksi 54mil stud 5ksi 54mil track Uncoated Thickness (in.) Table 5Coupon test results Yield Stress Fy, (ksi) Tensile Strength Fu (ksi) Fu/Fy Elongation for 2 in. Gage Length (%) % % % % % % All the coupons meet the minimum ductility requirement by North American Specification for Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members 27 Edition (AISI-S1,27), which requires the tensile strength to yield strength ratio greater than 1.1, and the elongation on a 2-in. gage length higher than 1%. 22

30 CHAPTER 5 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Summarizing Shear Walls Test Results The test results for this task are summarized in Table 6. The displacements in Table 6 represent the lateral displacement of the wall top at the peak load in pounds per foot. The definition for test label is: high of wall x width of wall x framing thickness x OSB sheathing x screw spacing and test number, for example (8x2x33xOSBx4-M1). The safety factor is Ω, (Ω=2. for wind load design, Ω=2.5 for seismic load design). Shear demand (υ) is defined as the peak load divided by the safety factor. The failure modes for nominal shear resistance verification task are listed in Table 7. Figure 7shows an example of an OSB shear wall test result. 8x2x33xOSBx4-M1 2 Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) (a) Hysteresis of test result (b) Specimen after test Figure 7OSB shear wall test result 23

31 Table 6OSB shear wall test results Test label Peak load+ Peak load - Disp+ Disp- Average peak load Plf Fn/Ω 8x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-C x2x33xOSBx4-C x2x33xOSBx2-M x2x33xOSBx2-M x2x33xOSBx2-C x2x33xOSBx2-C x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-C x2x54xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx6-M x4x43xOSBx6-M x4x43xOSBx2-C x4x43xOSBx2-C x4x43xOSBx6-C x4x43xOSBx6-C x4x43xOSBx4-C x4x43xOSBx4-C x2x43xOSBx2-C x2x43xOSBx2-C x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx6-C x2x43xOSBx6-C x2x43xOSBx6-M x2x43xOSBx6-M x2x43xOSBx6-M

32 Table 7OSB shear wall failure modes Test label Failure mode 8x2x33xOSBx4-M1 buckling of chord studs in compression 8x2x33xOSBx4-M2 buckling of chord studs in compression 8x2x33xOSBx4-M3 8x2x33xOSBx4-C1 8x2x33xOSBx4-C2 8x2x33xOSBx2-M1 buckling of chord studs in compression Buckling of chord studs. Screw pulled out from the frame along the bottom portion of the chord studs Buckling of chord studs, screws pulled out from studs in the area of hold-downs Buckling of chord studs 8x2x33xOSBx2-M2 Buckling of the chord studs in compression 8x2x33xOSBx2-C1 Buckling of chord studs 8x2x33xOSBx2-C2 Buckling of chord studs 8x2x54xOSBx2-M1 Hold-down failure, screw shear failure on hold-down 8x2x54xOSBx2-M2 Hold-down failure, screw shear off on hold-down 8x2x54xOSBx2-M3 8x2x54xOSBx2-M4 8x2x54xOSBx2-C1 OSB cracking along the vertical screw line on the chord studs OSB cracking along the vertical line of screws on chord studs and along the bottom line of screws on track Buckling of chord studs 8x2x54xOSBx2-M5 8x4x43xOSBx2-M1 OSB cracking along the vertical screw line on chord studs horizontal screw line on bottom track Shear of screw and screw pull out and along 8x4x43xOSBx2-M2 OSB cracking 8x4x43xOSBx2-M3 OSB shear cracking in the field of the panel 8x4x43xOSBx6-M1 Screw pull out from chord studs 8x4x43xOSBx6-M2 Screw tilting, bearing, and pull out from chord studs 25

33 Table 7 (continued) 8x4x43xOSBx2-C1 Screw pull out from chord studs 8x4x43xOSBx2-C2 OSB shear cracking in the field of panel 8x4x43xOSBx6-C1 Screw pull out from the chord studs and bottom track 8x4x43xOSBx6-C2 Screw pull out from chord studs and bottom track 8x4x43xOSBx4-C1 Screw pull out from chord studs 8x4x43xOSBx4-C2 Screw pull out from chord studs and bottom track 8x2x43xOSBx2-C1 Buckling of chord studs 8x2x43xOSBx2-C2 8x2x43xOSBx2-M1 8x2x43xOSBx2-M2 Buckling of chord studs The actuator reached its extension capacity, and the thicker part of the t-shape touched the roller Hold-down failed 8x2x43xOSBx2-M3 Buckling of chord studs 8x2x43xOSBx6-C1 Screw pullout from chord studs 8x2x43xOSBx6-C2 Pull Screw pull through and pull out from chord studs 8x2x43xOSBx6-M1 8x2x43xOSBx6-M2 8x2x43xOSBx6-M3 The screw pull through OSB Pull through of screws in sheathing on the lower south end and the screws were tilted Screws pulled through the OSB Based on the monotonic test results, the nominal shear strength for wind load design for7/16 OSB sheathing shear walls is established and listed in Tables8.The values for 6-in. 4-in. and 2-in. fastener spacing configurations in Tables 8are determined by the exact test results. The details of the test results of nominal shear resistance verification task are provided in the appendix. 26

34 Table 8Recommended nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description Maximum Aspect Ratio (h/w) Fastener Spacing Panel Edges (inches) Designation Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Required Shearing Screw Size 4: /16 OSB, one side (this research) 4: : : Based on the cyclic test results, the nominal shear strength for seismic load design for 7/16 OSB sheathing shear walls is established and listed in Tables 9. The details of the test results of nominal shear resistance verification task are provided in the appendix. Table 9Recommended nominal shear strength for seismic loads for OSB shear walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description 7/16 OSB, one side (this research) Maximum Aspect Ratio (h/w) Fastener Spacing Panel Edges (inches) Designatio n Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Required Shearing Screw Size 4: : : :

35 5.2Verifying Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Shear Walls Tested and Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Shear Walls Published in AISI-S213-7 Due to the summary of the test results which recommended in Table 8 and Table 9, the comparison would be made by Table 1 and Table 11. Those tables provide the comparison between the test results and the AISI S213 values for the nominal shear strength. Table 1Comparison of nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description AISI S213-7/16 rated sheathing(osb), one side 7/16 rated sheathing(osb), one side ( this research ) Maximum Aspect Ratio (h/w) Designation Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Required Shearing Screw Size Fastener Spacing Panel Edges (inches) 4 2 4: : In the Table 1 comparison of nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls, it was found that the published nominal shear strength for a 33-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is unconservative. The monotonic tests on 7/16 OSB sheets by screw spacing 2 inches yielded reasonably lower strength (1267 plf) compared to the published value (1825 plf ) of 7/16 OSB sheets for wind loads. The published value (1825 plf ) should be recommended for a 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets. Further investigation is required to verify the published value, which is 1825plf in AISI. 28

36 Table 11Comparison of nominal shear strength for seismic loads for OSB shear walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description AISI S213-7/16 rated sheathing(osb), 7/16 rated sheathing(osb), ( this research ) AISI S213-7/16 rated sheathing(osb), 7/16 rated sheathing(osb), ( this research ) Maximum Aspect Ratio (h/w) Designation Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Required Shearing Screw Size Fastener Spacing Panel Edges (inches) : : : : In the Table 11,it was found that the published nominal shear strength for a 33-mil and 43-milframed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is conservative. The cyclic tests on 7/16 OSB sheets by screw spacing 2 inches, 4 inches, and 6 inches gave significantly higher strength (268plf, 173 plf, and 1115plf) than the published value for 7/16 OSB sheets for seismic loads. 5.3 Expanding Nominal Strength of 7/16 OSB Sheathing Shear Walls Published in AISI-S Due to the summary of the test results which recommended in Table 8 and Table 9, the expanding nominal strength would be made by Table 12 and Table 13. Those tables provide the additional nominal strength for the published tables in AISI-S The highlighted values in Table 12 and Table 13 are obtained by this research work. 29

37 Table 12 Expanded Nominal Shear Strength for Wind and Other In-Plane Loads for Shear Walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description Maximum Aspect Ratio (h/w) Fastener Spacing at Panel Edges (inches) Designation Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Minimum Sheathing Screw Size 15/32 structural 1 sheathing (4-ply), one side 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side oriented perpendicular to framing 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side (tested) 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side(tested) 7/16 rated sheathing (OSB), one side(tested).18 steel sheet, one side.27 steel sheet, one side.3 steel sheet, one side.33 steel sheet, one side 2: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8 4:1-1, (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 4: (min.) 8 3

38 Table 13Expanded Nominal Shear Strength for Seismic and Other In-Plane Loads for Shear Walls (Pounds Per Foot) Assembly Description Max. Aspect Ratio (h/w) Fastener Spacing at Panel Edges(inches) Designation Thickness of Stud, Track and Blocking (mils) Minimum Sheathing Screw Size 15/32 Structural 1 sheathing (4-ply), one side 2: or or : : : or /16 OSB, one side 2: : : steel sheet, one side 2: (min.) 8.27 steel sheet, one side 2: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8 2: (min.) 8.33 steel sheet, one side 2: (min.) 1 2: (min.) 8 5.4VerifyingDesign Deflection Equation in AISI-S213-7 δ = 8vh3 E s A c b + ω 1ω 2 vh ρgt sheating + ω 1 5/4 ω 2 ω 3 ω 4 v/β 2 + h b δ v (Eq.C2.1-1) from AISI-S213-7 The calculated deflection (δ) can be found out from the design deflection equation. The deflection of tested (δ tested ) would be got from test figures in the appendix. Then, Table 14 will show the comparison of two deflections. This comparison was identifying to 31

39 a ratio which ratio =δ Tested /δ AISI. Table 14Comparison of displacement of tested and displacement by deflection equation Configuration Peak Peak δ AISI Ratio(δ Test / Load Load/Ω δ Test (in.) (in.) δ AISI ) (plf.) (plf.) 8x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-M x2x33xOSBx4-C x2x33xOSBx4-C x2x33xOSBx2-M x2x33xOSBx2-M x2x33xOSBx2-C x2x33xOSBx2-C x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-M x2x54xOSBx2-C x2x54xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx2-M x4x43xOSBx6-M x4x43xOSBx6-M x4x43xOSBx2-C x4x43xOSBx2-C x4x43xOSBx6-C x4x43xOSBx6-C x4x43xOSBx4-C x4x43xOSBx4-C x2x43xOSBx2-C x2x43xOSBx2-C x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx2-M x2x43xOSBx6-C x2x43xOSBx6-C x2x43xOSBx6-M x2x43xOSBx6-M x2x43xOSBx6-M

40 According to the calculation of Table 14, there is a summary shows that the average of ratio=.974,the Standard Deviationδ=.412, and Coefficient of Variance COV=42.27%. Those numbers could give the information is the test results are very close to the AISI deflection data. In another way, the Figure 8 will show the points that for a ratio which ratio =δ Tested /δ AISI by different screw spacing in inches x2 8x4 1.5 Ratio Screw Spacing Figure 8Ratio of deflection data by different screw spacing To verify and develop design deflection equation for nominal strength of CFS share wall with OSB, not only using the deflection data point method, but also using the estimated drift deflections to describe analysis and compare test data. In the following figures, the estimated curves should be compared with test curves. The test specimens were identifying by eight groups. Those figures provide a comparison between the tests and the AISI-S213-7 values for the nominal shear strength using linear method. From the figures, the estimated curves are very close to the test curves. 33

41 3 8x2x33xOSBx2 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 98x2x33xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve 3 8x2x33xOSBx4 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M2 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 18x2x33xOSBx4 tested curves and estimated curve 34

42 3 8x2x43xOSBx2 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M2 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 118x2x43xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve 3 8x2x43xOSBx6 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M2 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 128x2x43xOSBx6 tested curves and estimated curve 35

43 3 8x2x54xOSBx2 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 138x2x54xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve 3 8x4x43xOSBx2 2.5 Displacement (in.) Applied Load (plf.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M2 M3 Figure 148x4x43xOSBx2 tested curves and estimated curve 36

44 3 8x4x43xOSBx4 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C Applied Load (plf.) Figure 158x4x43xOSBx4 tested curves and estimated curve 3 8x4x43xOSBx6 2.5 Displacement (in.) Estimated C1 C2 M1 M Applied Load (plf.) Figure 168x4x43xOSBx6 tested curves and estimated curve 37

45 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH CFS sheet shear walls with various configurations in framing and OSB sheathing were experimentally studied for two main goals: (1) to verify published nominal strength in Table 1and Table 2, and (2) to verify and develop design deflection equation for nominal strength of CFS share wall with OSB. The conclusions from this project can be drawn as follows. By the comparison of nominal shear strength for wind loads for OSB shear walls, it was found that the published nominal shear strength for a 33-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is unconservative. Because in this test program, the revised nominal shear strength for 7/16 OSB sheet are established and listed in Tables 7 and 8. The monotonic tests on 7/16 OSB sheets by screw spacing 2 inches yielded reasonably lower strength (1267 plf) compared to the published value (1825 plf ) of 7/16 OSB sheets for wind loads. The published value (1825 plf ) should be recommended for a 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets. Further investigation is required to verify the published value, which is 1825plf in AISI. However, in the comparison of nominal shear strength for seismic loads for OSB shear walls, it was found that the published nominal shear strength for a 33-mil and 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is conservative. The cyclic tests on 7/16 OSB sheets by screw spacing 2 inches, 4 inches, and 6 inches gave significantly higher strength (268plf, 173 plf, and 1115 plf) than the published value for 7/16 OSB sheets for seismic loads in AISI-S

46 The deflection data calculated by the design deflection equation which is published in AISI-S213-7 are very close to the tested data. In other words, the design deflection equation is an important and successfully equation for the future deign task. Due to the Figure 8 indicate the average of ratio between calculated deflection and tested deflection is almost equal 1, so calculated deflection is very close to the tested deflection. Then, from the Figure 9 to Figure 16, those points out the estimated curves are very close to the test curves. Consequently, the design deflection equation which is published in AISI-S213-7 is a successful and reasonable equation. Based on the experimental study, the following detailing are recommended for assembling CFS stud framed shear walls using7/16 OSB or thicker OSB sheet sheathing: Published nominal shear strength in AISI-C2.1-1for a 33-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is unconservative. The published value (1825 plf ) should be recommended for a 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets. Published nominal shear strength in Table 2 for a 33-mil and 43-mil framed shear wall with 7/16 OSB sheets on one side is conservative. The design deflection equation which is published in AISI-S213-7 is a successful and reasonable equation. Future research is recommended to verify all published nominal strength numbers in Table 1and Table 2 and using additional nominal strength which obtained by this research work for the published tables in AISI-S

47 APPENDIX DATA SHEETS OF OSB SHEAR WALL TESTS 4

48 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx4-M1 Test Date: 11/12/21 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x33xOSBx4-M1 Maximum load: 184 plf Maximum load: 2167 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: buckling of chord studs in compression. 41

49 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx4-M2 Test Date: 11/18/21 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x33xOSBx4-M2 Maximum load: 1121 plf Maximum load: 2242 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: buckling of chord studs in compression. 42

50 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx4-M3 Test Date: 11/19/21 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x33xOSBx4-M3 Maximum load: 1228 plf Maximum load: 2455 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: buckling of chord studs in compression. 43

51 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx4-C1 Test Date: 11/24/21 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.3 in. 4 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 198 plf Maximum +load: 2196 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 191 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x2x33xOSBx4-C Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: portion of the chord studs. Buckling of chord studs. Screw pulled out from the frame along the bottom 44

52 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx4-C2 Test Date: 12/1/21 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.3 in. 4 cycles Test results Maximum +load: plf Maximum +load: 3213 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x2x33xOSBx4-C2 Average maximum load: 1138 plf Average net displacement: in Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs, screws pulled out from studs in the area of hold-downs. 45

53 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx2-M1 Test Date: 1/2/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x33xOSBx2-M1 Maximum load: 1233 plf Maximum load: 2465 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 46

54 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx2-M2 Test Date: 1/2/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x33xOSBx2-M2 Maximum load: 132 plf Maximum load: 264 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of the chord studs in compression. 47

55 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx2-C1 Test Date: 1/21/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.1 in. 4 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 1312 plf Maximum +load: 2624 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x2x33xOSBx2-C1 Average maximum load: 1299 plf Average net displacement: in Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 48

56 Test Label 8x2x33xOSBx2-C2 Test Date: 1/26/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 35T15-33 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.1 in. 4 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 1299 plf Maximum +load: 2598 lbs wall at Maximum +load: 3.4 in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 1272 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x2x33xOSBx2-C Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 49

57 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-M1 Test Date: 2/15/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1S on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-M1 Maximum load: 2168 plf Maximum load: 4335 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Hold-down failure, screw shear failure on hold-down. 5

58 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-M2 Test Date: 2/16/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-M2 Maximum load: 2162 plf Maximum load: 4323 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Hold-down failure, screw shear off on hold-down.. 51

59 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-M3 Test Date: 3/4/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-M3 Maximum load: 2557 plf Maximum load: 5113 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: OSB cracking along the vertical screw line on the chord studs. 52

60 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-M4 Test Date: 3/4/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-M4 Maximum load: 2627 plf Maximum load: 5253 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: bottom line of screws on track. OSB cracking along the vertical line of screws on chord studs and along the 53

61 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-M5 Test Date: 3/21/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-M5 Maximum load: 399 plf Maximum load: 6198 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: screw line on bottom track. OSB cracking along the vertical screw line on chord studs and along horizontal 54

62 Test Label 8x2x54xOSBx2-C1 Test Date: 3/9/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 5ksi 35S Tracks: 5ksi 35T15-54 Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter. Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.2 in. 4 cycles Test results 8x2x54xOSBx2-C1 Maximum +load: 271 plf Maximum +load: 542 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 2751 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 55

63 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx2-M1 Test Date: 5/24/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 2754 plf Maximum load: 1116 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x4x43xOSBx2-M Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Shear of screw and screw pull out. 56

64 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx2-M2 Test Date: 5/25/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x4x43xOSBx2-M2 Maximum load: 2398 plf Maximum load: 9592 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: OSB cracking. 57

65 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx2-M3 Test Date: 5/26/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x4x43xOSBx2-M3 Maximum load: 2262 plf Maximum load: 947 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: OSB shear cracking in the field of the panel. 58

66 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx6-M1 Test Date: 5/26/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results 8x4x43xOSBx6-M1 Maximum load: 1312 plf Maximum load: 5249 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from chord studs. 59

67 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx6-M2 Test Date: 5/26/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 116 plf Maximum load: 4639 lbs wall: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x4x43xOSBx6-M Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw tilting, bearing, and pull out from chord studs. 6

68 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx2-C1 Test Date: 5/31/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 2.3 in. 43 cycles Test results x 1 4 8x4x43xOSBx2-C1 Maximum +load: 2848 plf Maximum +load: lbs wall at Maximum +load: 2.81 in. Maximum -load: -27 plf Maximum -load: -18 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 2774 plf Average net displacement: 2.75 in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from chord studs. 61

69 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx2-C2 Test Date: 6/1/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 2.3 in. 46 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 2452 plf Maximum +load: 989 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 2438 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x x4x43xOSBx2-C Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: OSB shear cracking in the field of panel. 62

70 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx6-C1 Test Date: 5/27/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 43 cycles Test results 8x4x43xOSBx6-C1 Maximum +load: 1236 plf Maximum +load: 4944 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: -142 plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 1139 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from the chord studs and bottom track. 63

71 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx6-C2 Test Date: 5/31/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 43 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 1178 plf Maximum +load: 4711 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: -177 plf Maximum -load: -438 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 1127 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) x4x43xOSBx6-C Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from chord studs and bottom track. 64

72 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx4-C1 Test Date: 1/2/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results 8x4x43xOSBx4-C1 Maximum +load: 1697 plf Maximum +load: 6789 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: -13 plf Maximum -load: -52 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Average maximum load: 1499 plf Average net displacement: in Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from chord studs. 65

73 Test Label 8x4x43xOSBx4-C2 Test Date: 1/2/211 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 4 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 4 in. o.c. on the perimeter, 12 in.o.c in the field Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results 8x4x43xOSBx4-C2 Maximum +load: 167 plf Maximum +load: 6429 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: -578 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 1517 plf Average net displacement: in. Applied horizontal force (lbs) Horizontal displacement of top track (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pull out from chord studs and bottom track. 66

74 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx2-C1 Test Date: 1/3/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 2811 plf Maximum +load: 5622 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx2-C1 Average maximum load: 2575 plf Average net displacement: in Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 67

75 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx2-C2 Test Date: 1/3/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 2836 plf Maximum +load: 5671 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: plf Maximum -load: lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx2-C2 Average maximum load: 2786 plf Average net displacement: in Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 68

76 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx2-M1 Test Date: 1/2/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 2169 plf Maximum load: 4337 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx2-M Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: touched the roller. The actuator reached its extension capacity, and the thicker part of the t-shape 69

77 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx2-M2 Test Date: 1/2/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 2278 plf Maximum load: 4555 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx2-M Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Hold-down failed 7

78 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx2-M3 Test Date: 1/2/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 2 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 274 plf Maximum load: 548 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx2-M Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Buckling of chord studs. 71

79 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx6-C1 Test Date: 1/3/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 1129 plf Maximum +load: 2257 lbs wall at Maximum +load: 2.141in. Maximum -load: -144 plf Maximum -load: -287 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Average maximum load: 186 plf Average net displacement: 2.69 in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx6-C Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screw pullout from chord studs. 72

80 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx6-C2 Test Date: 1/3/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Cyclic-CRUEE, reference displacement: 3.4 in. 41 cycles Test results Maximum +load: 168 plf Maximum +load: 2136 lbs wall at Maximum +load: in. Maximum -load: -154 plf Maximum -load: -218 lbs wall at Maximum -load: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx6-C2 Average maximum load: 161 plf Average net displacement: in Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Pull Screw pull through and pull out from chord studs. 73

81 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx6-M1 Test Date: 1/23/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 118 plf Maximum load: 2359 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx6-M1 Observed Failure Mode: The screw pull through OSB Displacement (in.) 74

82 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx6-M2 Test Date: 1/25/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 127 plf Maximum load: 254 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx6-M Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: tilted. Pull through of screws in sheathing on the lower south end and the screws were 75

83 Test Label 8x2x43xOSBx6-M3 Test Date: 1/25/212 Specimen Configuration Wall dimensions: 8 ft. 2 ft. Studs: 33ksi 362S Tracks: 33ksi 362T Sheathing: 7/16 OSB Fastener: #8x1/2 screw, 6 in. o.c. on the perimeter, Hold-down: S/HD1 on both side, touch down Test protocol: Monotonic Test results Maximum load: 1115 plf Maximum load: 2229 lbs wall: in. Applied Load (lbs.) x2x43xOSBx6-M Displacement (in.) Observed Failure Mode: Screws pulled through the OSB. 76