SHEAR WALL TEST

Mohammed Ishaque Noory Ian Smith Andi Asiz

BScCE, PhD Candidate in
Structural Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, Canada.
DSc, PhD, C. Eng, P. Eng,
FIABSE, FIStructE, FIWSc,
Professor of Structural and
Timber Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, Canada.
P. Eng, PhD,
Research Associate,
University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, Canada.

Summary
Wood light-frame walls are common primary load resisting subsystems of buildings and
therefore have been extensively tested and theoretically modelled. However past investigations
have focussed on structural performance of walls with all components other than framing
elements and structural wood sheathing layers removed. In this paper attention is given to how
normally neglected construction elements like plasterboard, rigid insulation and wood clapboard
siding influence the rigidity, strength and failure mechanisms of light-frame shear walls. Twelve
wall segments were tested with the main variables being presence or absence of various
construction layers, and presence or absence of gravity loads other than self-weight of the wall. It
was found that all variables investigated influenced the structural performance of walls segments
and that most are significant enough that they should be accounted for in design of buildings.
The findings will assist with modification of design practices, understanding the load-paths that
exist in typical North American low-rise buildings subjected to wind loads, and verification of
numerical shear wall models.

1. Introduction
Wood light-frame shear walls are structural elements frequently used to resist seismic and wind
loads on low-rise buildings in North America and elsewhere. Laboratory tests on isolated shear
walls and complete buildings, plus post-mortem investigation of buildings after natural disasters
suggest that such walls fail in a highly ductile manner [1,2]. In Canada, for example, low-rise
light-frame buildings are designed to meet either prescriptive non-engineered requirements of
Part 9 of the National Building Code (NRC/IRC 2005), or the engineering requirements of Part 4
of the same code. The non-engineered (Part 9) requirements apply only to situations where
buildings are small and low and where construction practices do not change with time. The
engineered (Part 4) requirements apply in all other circumstances, including situations such as
when walls have more frequent or larger window and door openings than is traditional. Part 4
walls are designed using resistances specified in the Canadian national timber design code CSA
Standard 086-01 [3]. The timber design code specifies resistances applicable per unit length of
shear wall and provides guidance on hold-down methods and design of walls that include door
and window openings (that are called perforations). However, the information only applies to
traditional combinations of wall framing, sheathing and connections. For the purposes of design
wood light-frame walls are regarded as those that have small dimension lumber perimeter
framing members and studs, and sheathed with one or more layers of wood-based material like
Oriented Strand-Board (OSB) fastened to framing members by nails, screws or other small
mechanical fasteners, Figures 1 and 2. Vertical framing members like studs must not be placed
more than 610mm apart. Canadian construction and design practices are very similar to those in
other countries where light-frame buildings are common.
Fig. 1 Standard wall panel Fig. 2 Wall panel with perforation

Increasingly light-frame walls employ construction products that deviate from conventional
practices and to which timber design codes apply. Also, codes typically ignore the presence of
what are considered to be non-structural components of shear walls like, plasterboard, rigid
insulation and exterior siding, and do not fully account for composite action between
construction layers when several exist. One exception to this is the Canadian timber design code
[3] that provides design data for walls with plasterboard on one or two faces that resists effects of
short-term loads caused by earthquakes or wind. In practice many non-structural and
architectural components add to the stiffness and strength of completed buildings, as full scale
tests have demonstrated [2, 4]. Very little literature exists on the individual contributions of the
nominally non-structural parts to behaviour of shear wall segments in isolation or how those
influence load paths in building. Hold-down anchors (hold-downs) are commonly incorporated
within modern light-frame buildings that are at risk from overturning or uplift during strong
seismic or wind actions. Such anchors strongly modify wall boundary conditions and load paths
in buildings. This is also poorly understood. The current ASTM standard method of shear wall
testing [5], and current timber design code provisions [3] fail to properly address affects of
altering boundary conditions on responses of wall segments and load-paths.
The study reported here involved full-scale laboratory shear wall tests conducted with different
wall sheathing layers and different loadings and boundary conditions. This provides information
for making recommendations to the Canadian national timber design code committee, and
verification of a new numerical shear wall model created by the first author using finite element
methods.

2. Method
2.1 Wall configurations, materials and fabrication
Twelve light-frame wall panels 3.66m long by 2.44m high (12ft by 8ft) were tested, to determine
the structural properties and failure mechanisms for various wall constructions and
configurations under in-plane external loads like those that exist in segments of exterior shear
walls. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the basic geometry of walls without and with a perforation, and
Table 1 summarizes the other construction variables and hold-down conditions. The vertical top
load of 11.1 kN corresponds to the dead-load from the roof of a typical single storey bungalow in
Atlantic Canada, and the 0.0 kN top load provides a reference point matching the loading
condition in many past shear wall tests. Figures 3 and 4 respectively show how various possible
construction layers in a wall are arranged, and a shear wall panel ready for testing. The air and
vapour barriers have negligible structural properties themselves but were included to realistically
simulate site practice. Table 2 defines the meaning of each construction variable. Selection of the
geometric variables and material types was based on Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation recommendations [6] and observation of current industry practice in North America.
All the walls tested were fixed at the base using six 19mm shear bolts (also called anchor bolts)
that fixed the bottom plate to the foundation at 310mm intervals, as is common practice in
Canada. In the case of Wall Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 a hold-down was installed in the lower
corner where uplift was possible (below the racking load in Figure 5).

Table 1 Schedule of shear walls tested

Wall Rigid Clapboard Window
Straps Plasterboard Hold-down
No. Insulation Siding Perforation
A. Vertical top load = 11.1 kN
1 -- -- -- -- -- --
2 -- -- -- -- Y --
3 Y Y -- -- -- --
4 Y Y -- -- Y --
5 Y Y Y -- -- --
6 Y Y Y -- Y --
7 Y Y Y Y -- --
8 Y Y Y Y Y --
9 Y Y Y Y Y Y
B. Vertical top load = 0.0 kN
10 Y Y -- -- -- --
11 Y Y -- Y -- --
12 Y Y Y Y -- --
Note: (Y) denotes that such components were incorporated.
(--) denotes that such components were not incorporated.

INTERIOR EXTERIOR

Plasterboard
Lumber straps
Lumber stud (creating air gap)

Rigid
insulation Clapboard
siding

Vapour barrier Air barrier

Fig. 3 Arrangement of construction layers in an Fig. 4 Wall panel ready for racking test
exterior test wall

Weatherproofing exterior walls requires the proper application of an approved air barrier under
the siding as required by the National Building Code of Canada [3]. The purpose of the barrier is
to provide a continuous barrier to prevent drafts and the entry of wind-driven rain into the wall
cavity. Joints in the siding are not designed to prevent passage of wind and rain. Passage of wind
and moisture into the wall may occur, with sustained exposure to strong winds. Moisture may be
driven through nail penetrations and overlap joints of the barrier. In such exposures, improved
resistance against moisture penetration may be obtained by a modified construction technique
known as the Rain Screen Method in which siding is fastened to vertical wood strapping pieces
(straps) placed over the air barrier and attached to the wall OSB sheathing. This construction
technique provides an air space in which wind-driven moisture flows by gravity down the back
face of the siding to vent at the bottom of the wall.
Table 2 Description of each construction variable
Name Description & Trade name
Variables specified in Table 1:
Straps Description: 85mm x 17mm x 2.4m long
vertical wood strips spaced at 406mm
centres. Nailed to OSB sheathing through
the rigid insulation using 76mm (16d) steel
nails, to create an air gap between the
insulation and clapboard siding (Figure 3).
Rigid Description: Type 2, pink-tinted,
Insulation extruded/expanded polystyrene, rigid-
board thermal insulation. In 0.61m x
2.44m x 38mm thick pieces oriented
vertically with overlapping staggered
joints.
Trade name: CELFORT®200
Clapboard Description: Nominal dimension of
Siding 25.4mm x 203.2mm (1"x8") pieces.
Nailed at 406mm
(16") centres into
the studs using
63.5mm stainless steel hand driven nails.
Kiln dried to 12-15% moisture content.
Trade name: Cape Cod Siding®
Plaster- Description: 1.22m x 2.44m x 12.7mm
board (1/2") gypsum boards, fastened to lumber
framing using 40mm screws spaced at 150
mm around the perimeters of panels and at
300 mm along interior joints.
Trade name: SHEETROCK®
Hold- Description: A Heavy-duty steel hold
down down installed on the uplift side of the
wall fastening the bottom steel beam to
end studs.
Trade name: HHDQ Heavy Duty
Window Description: Framing around the
Perforation perforation was modified to provide beam
action over the opening, stiffen studs
adjacent to the opening, and strengthen the
wall below the opening (Figure 2).
Construction materials and details held constant
Lumber Description: 38 x 89 mm sawn ‘Spruce-
framing Pine-Fir’ lumber of no. 2 stud grade, with
studs spaced at 610mm on centre.
OSB Description: 1.22m x 2.44m panels
sheathing 11.1mm thick: construction grade. Panels
oriented vertically.
Framing- Description: Vertical members were end-
Specification / Reference Information
Locally made by laboratory
technician.
Manufacturer: Owens Corning
Supplier: KENT
Compressive strength: 140kPa
Flexural strength: 300kPa
(http://irc.nrc-
cnrc.gc.ca/ccmc/registry/07/214/1/11
246_e.pdf)
(http://www.owenscorning.com)
Manufactured by Marwood Ltd.,
Fredericton, NB, Canada
(http://www.marwoodltd.com/prod3.
htm)
Manufacturer: US Gypsum
Manufacturer: Simpson Strong-tie
Type: HHDQ Heavy Duty
Specs:
(http://www.strongtie.com/products/c
onnectors/HHDQ.asp)
“Canadian Wood-Frame House
Construction”, Canadian Housing and
Mortgage Corporation, Ottawa, ON,
Canada (1991).
“Standard grading rules for Canadian
lumber”, National Lumber Grades
Authority, New Westminster, BC,
Canada (2007).
“Construction sheathing”, Standard
O325-07, Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, ON, Canada
(2007).
“Wire nails, spikes, and staples”,
to- framing nailed to top and bottom plates using two Standard B111-1974, Canadian
joints 76mm (16d) common spiral nails. Double Standards Association, Toronto, ON,
member top plates and end studs were Canada (reconfirmed 2003).
interconnected using 12d power driven
nails spaced 305mm from both sides.
Shear Description: Six anchor 19mm (3/4") bolts Manufacturer: Simpson Strong-tie
(anchor) located between studs, fastening the shear Type: ATS Anchor Bolt
bolts wall to the foundation (includes washers). Specs:(http://www.strongtie.com/pro
Trade name: ATS Anchor bolt ducts/ats/connectors/anchor-
bolts.html)
OSB-to- Description: OSB fastener to framing with Typical Standard Nails
framing 60mm power driven steel nails, spaced at
joints 150mm around the perimeters of panels
and at 300mm along interior joints. Nails
driven normal to face of OSB
Trade name: Standard Sheathing Nails

All walls were fabricated in heated and dry laboratory conditions that resulted in lumber framing
materials having equilibrium moisture content of about 12 percent. There was at least several
days delay between fabrication and testing allowing relaxation of internal fabrication stresses not
normal in practice.

2.2 Test protocol and apparatus

The protocol for testing wall panels was based on
standard ASTM practice [5] wherein in-plane
horizontal shear force is applied until failure of the
wall, with or without the presence of an in-plane
vertical compressive force simulating gravity forces
that occur within buildings. The horizontal force,
commonly referred to as a racking load, is applied to
one upper corner of a wall causing it to distort in
shear, and attempt to slide and overturn.
Characterisation of the response is normally primarily
based on the relationship between the racking force
and the horizontal in-plane movement of the unloaded
top corner of the panel known as the racking
Fig. 5 3D load cell in the base support deformation. Propensity of tested walls to slide or
overturn depends on the magnitude of applied vertical
compressive force and how they are anchored at the base. Racking deformation is usually
corrected to eliminate the influences of sliding and overturning (uplift below the point where the
horizontal force is applied). A special feature of the tests performed is that the test wall panel
was attached at the base to a quite rigid steel box section underneath which were four 3D load
cells anchored to a large steel girder which in turn was fixed to the ground, rather than being
anchored directly to the ground, Figure 5. The main reason was that this yields important extra
information for reliable verification of numerical wall models. In cases where there was an
applied compressive force, that load was created by two hydraulic pistons that loaded a rigid
steel spreader beam bolted to the top of a wall panel, Figures 4 & 6. The tops of wall panels were
prevented from moving out-of-plane at the top but could otherwise distort transversely via
wrinkling or warping, as would be the case in practice. In the tests any vertical load was applied
prior to the racking load and kept equal and constant in the two pistons throughout the test via a
feedback loop. Racking load was applied by monotonically advancing a hydraulic piston at the
rate of about 15mm per minute until after the peak load was reached and resistive capabilities of
a wall
had subsequent decreased. The peak racking resistance was attained in about one to two minutes
from commencement of the racking loading. Frictionless rollers were placed between all pistons
and test specimens to ensure that as wall panels distorted load actions remained as intended.
Deformations were recorded continuously at the locations shown in Figure 7.

Fig. 6 Loading frame Fig. 7 Arrangement of applied forces, reaction

load cells and LVDTs

3. Results and analysis

It was observed during the tests and from post-mortem study of specimens that for all the tests
with the hold-down and vertical loading, framing-to-framing connections did not separate.
However framing-to-framing separation was observed in walls tested with no hold-down and
vertical loading. During the testing, the sheathing panels were disoriented to a small degree as
the peak load was reached and plasterboard cracked at several locations at the base and at the
leading bottom corner (near LVDT2) about which the walls tried to rotate. Two modes of
deformation were observed during the testing: racking and rigid body rotation. Local failures as
nail head pull-through, nail withdrawal, stud splitting and bottom plate splitting were common,
the extend of which each mode occurred varied, but in general rotation dominated in the absence
of vertical load or hold-down. Always, nail pull through and/or nail withdrawal occurred around
edges of OSB panels.
Racking load versus racking deformation curves are given in Figure 8, based on displacement at
LVDT 1 corrected to eliminate any effects of base sliding and uplift. Based on ASTM [5] and
ISO [7] practices and the scope of design information contained in modern timber codes, the data
has been analysed to determine:
Fyield: Yield load resistance of the wall, estimated using the tangent offset method (kN)
Fmax: Maximum (peak) load resistance of the wall (kN)
Dyield: Racking deformation at Fyield (mm)
Dmax: Racking deformation at Fmax (mm)
K: Initial stiffness = secant stiffness in the ascending portion of the load-deformation
curve between 10% and 40% Fmax (kN/mm).
These values together with the Ductility Ratio (= Dmax / Dyield ) are listed in Table 3.
 30 40
35 8
25 7
Racking Load (kN)

Racking Load (kN)

30
20 3 4 6 9
5 25
15 20 2
10 15
1 10
5 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Racking Deformation (mm) Racking Deformation (mm)
Fig. 8(a) No perforations and no hold- Fig. 8(b) Perforations (wall 9) and hold-
downs downs
Table 3 Quantitative results from shear wall tests
Fyield Fmax Dyield Dmax K Ductility
Wall No. (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN/mm) Ratio
A. Vertical top load = 11.1 kN
1 10.2 20 7.5 26 1.5 3.5
2 11 23 4.2 14 3.1 3.3
3 10.3 21 5.8 31 1.9 5.3
4 12.5 25 5.7 12 4.1 2.1
5 11.1 23 6.1 19 2.2 3.1
6 14.3 27.5 6.5 16 2.5 2.4
7 13.2 23.5 3.3 13 4.3 3.9
8 17.6 34.5 6.5 29 3.3 4.5
9 12 31 3.9 32 2.9 8.2
B. Vertical top load = 0.0 kN
10 5.3 11 5.2 13 1.5 2.5
11 6.4 14 7.37 11 3.2 1.5
12 11.9 22 10.1 16 3.4 1.6

4. Discussion
Test results indicate that an increase in initial stiffness and ultimate capacity is achieved on using
hold-down or applying downward top load, but commonly that is associated with reduced
ductility. The window opening reduced strength and stiffness while addition of various
construction layers added to the stiffness of the individual walls. For example, with no vertical
loading (Walls 10 and 12) when compared with matched walls with vertical loading (Walls 3 and
7), a reduction in the stiffness and peak loading capacity of the shear wall were observed. There
was significant increase in the stiffness for walls without hold-down as non-structural
components were added, but this was not the case for those with hold-down. This could be due to
constrained abilities of walls to develop ductility when hold-down was added.
5. Final Comments
The experimental results will be used by the first author to verify a numerical finite element
model of the shear walls tested, using SAP 2000. That model will assist in understanding the
behaviour of shear walls and to refine design methods. Aim is to develop as much as possible an
exact mathematical model of the shear wall specimens tested taking into account realistic
mechanical properties of all constituent elements. The model will help to understand the load
path flow within the sub-assembly thorough the member and connections. This experimental
testing and modelling of shear walls is part of an overall study to understand the load path flow
within a structural system, in this case a test house located in Fredericton, NB, Canada.
6. Conclusion
Based on the experiments reported here, it is concluded that there are complex interactions
between various construction layers typically found in light frame walls, irrespective of whether
the layers are materials traditionally regarded as structural or non-structural. Also it can be
concluded that such effects cannot simply be regarded as additive to effect achievable by other
means like addition of top loading or supplementation of normal base anchoring methods for
light frame walls. Implications of the results have yet to be studied in the context of completed
buildings that contain light frame shear walls.

7. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FPInnovations-Forintek Division, the
Canadian Wood Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
and the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation. Dr. Mohammad A. H. Mohammad from
FPInnovations and Dr. Ghasan Doudak from the Canadian Wood Council are thanked for in-kind
contributions and wise advice. Technical assistance from Mr. Dean McCarthy, Chief Technician
at the University of New Brunswick’s Tweeddale Centre is much appreciated.

8. References
[1] Foliente G. 1998. Design of Timber Structures Subjected To Extreme Loads. Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 1, No 3, pp. 236-244.

[2] Paevere, P. 2002. “Full-scale Testing, Modeling and Analysis of Light-Frame Structures
Under Lateral Loading”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia.

[3] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2005. “Engineering Design in Wood”, CSA
Standard 086-01 (Consolidated Version), CSA, Toronto, ON.

[4] Doudak, G., 2005. “Field Determination and Modeling of Load Paths in Wood Light-
Frame Structures”, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University,
Montreal, QC.

[5] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2002. “Standard Practice for Static
Load Test for Shear Resistance of Framed Walls for Buildings”, Standard ASTM E 564 –
95, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.11, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.

[6] Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 1991. “Canadian Wood-Frame
House Construction”, Second metric edition, ISBN: 0-660-12647-8, Ottawa, ON.

[7] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2003. “Timber structures -- Joints
made with mechanical fasteners -- Quasi-static reversed-cyclic test method”, Standard
16670, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.