Tests of Adhesives to Augment Nails in Wind Uplift

Resistance of Roofs
Matthew A. Turner1; Raymond H. Plaut, M.ASCE2; David A. Dillard3; Joseph R. Loferski4; and
Rick Caudill5

Abstract: The addition of adhesives to resist uplift wind forces at the roof framing-to-sheathing connection was tested. Two specimen
configurations were used to compare the tensile resistance of typical nail connections to that of connections that also included acrylic foam
tape or construction adhesive. A set of small specimens had a single nail connecting the sheathing to the framing, and a set of larger
specimens had three nails. Connections were tested using monotonic deflection rates and a cyclic loading protocol that was a modified
version of the CUREE protocol. Specimens were tested at several monotonic deflection rates. In general, the faster deflection rates
increased the connection capacity. The results demonstrated that the specimens constructed with the addition of adhesives provided an
improvement over the ones with only a nail. The addition of construction adhesive resulted in the highest resistances for monotonic tests,
whereas the addition of adhesive tape provided the most strength in the cyclic tests.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2009兲135:1共88兲
CE Database subject headings: Wind forces; Roofs; Adhesives; Nails; Uplift.

Introduction
High-wind events such as hurricanes can cause severe damage to
residential homes. In many cases, the initial damage is caused by
uplift pressures on roofs, which create a failure in the connection
between the roof sheathing and the framing members 共Rosowsky
and Cheng 1999a,b; Ellingwood et al. 2004; Lee and Rosowsky
2005兲. Nail spacing is based on local building codes, and the use
of nails too closely spaced can lead to splitting of the framing
members and a reduction in strength 共APA 1997兲. Additional
means of resisting separation of the connection can be useful.
Two possible techniques are investigated in this study.
The first involves the addition of double-sided acrylic foam
tape between the framing member and sheathing during installa-
tion. A related use of acrylic foam tape was investigated by Ja-
cobs 共2003兲. He tested the shear resistance of similar wood
connections and also light-frame shear walls. Standard stud and
plate shear walls were fabricated in 2.4 m ⫻ 2.4 m 共8 ft⫻ 8 ft兲
1
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061.
2
D. H. Pletta Professor of Engineering, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: rplaut@
vt.edu.
3
Adhesive and Sealant Science Professor, Dept. of Engineering
Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
Blacksburg, VA 24061.
4
Professor, Dept. of Wood Science and Forest Products, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061.
5
Research Specialist, Dept. of Wood Science and Forest Products,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Note. Associate Editor: Rakesh Gupta. Discussion open until June 1,
2009. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publica-
tion on December 20, 2006; approved on June 4, 2008. This paper is part
of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 1, January 1,
2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2009/1-88–93/$25.00.
sections and subjected to either static or cyclic loading, the latter
involving the CUREE procedure that is relevant for evaluating the
resistance to earthquakes. He demonstrated that acrylic foam
tapes could improve the resistance of light-frame wood shear
walls to static and cyclic shear loading without limiting the peak
deflections that have restricted the use of stiffer structural adhe-
sives in some building applications. Of particular relevance to this
work is his evaluation of the best application time and pressure to
produce a strong bond between the tape and wood surfaces.
The second technique to enhance roof uplift resistance consists
of application of a construction adhesive along the two edges of
the framing member at the sheathing after construction. Jones
共1998兲 studied the benefits of polyurethane adhesive at the
sheathing-to-framing connection. Since it may be difficult to
reach the underside of a roof and apply the adhesive, he carried
out tests in which the adhesive was only applied to part of the
length of the joint. Tests were conducted on 1.2 m ⫻ 2.4 m 共4 ft
⫻ 8 ft兲 sheathing panels of oriented strand board 共OSB兲 or CDX
plywood. Five 3.8 cm⫻ 8.9 cm 共1.5 in.⫻ 3.5 in.兲 framing mem-
bers were attached 0.6 m 共2 ft兲 apart. Nail spacing was 15.2 cm
共6 in.兲 along the outside rafters and 30.5 cm 共12 in.兲 along the
interior ones.
The adhesive was placed either along the rafter length on one
or both sides, or on both sides in four equal parts with equal
spacing. A vacuum pump was utilized to apply uplift pressure to
the sheathing. The addition of full adhesive caused an increase
of uplift capacity of about 100% for the OSB 共and much more
with a double pass of adhesive兲, and about 200% for the plywood.
However, one disadvantage was that the mode of failure tended
to be more brittle when construction adhesive was added to the
connection.
An instructional video produced by the South Carolina Sea
Grant Extension Program at Clemson University 共SCSGEP 2001兲
presents a tutorial on this technique. A tool is demonstrated
that can reach into far corners of the roof. The video includes a
demonstration of uplift tests on panels of sheathing subjected to

88 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 1. Schematic of small specimen
pressure. The failure pressure for a connection made with com-
mon nails was only 2.2 kPa 共45 psf兲, whereas it was 11.1 kPa
共232 psf兲 for a connection with nails plus construction adhesive.
Sutt and Reinhold 共2001兲 and APA 共2000兲 also describe how to
apply construction adhesives to sheathing-to-framing joints.
The study reported here involved tests on two sizes of speci-
mens, containing one or three nails. Both monotonic and cyclic
tests were conducted. The pullout forces and deflections were
recorded, and comparisons were made among the connections
with only nails, with nails and acrylic foam tape, and with nails
and construction adhesive, to determine quantitatively how tape
and construction adhesive can resist uplift forces on roofs.
Monotonic Tests with Small Specimens
A schematic of the small specimen configuration is shown in
Fig. 1. The sheathing was OSB, 15.2 cm⫻ 15.2 cm⫻ 1.1 cm
共6 in.⫻ 6 in.⫻ 7 / 16 in.兲. The framing was Austrian Spruce, grade
No. 2, 3.8 cm⫻ 8.9 cm⫻ 25.4 cm 共1.5 in.⫻ 3.5 in.⫻ 10 in.兲. The
nails were 8 d common nails 关full-headed nails, length 64 mm
共2.5 in.兲, diameter 2.9 mm 共0.113 in.兲, head diameter 7.4 mm
共0.290 in.兲兴. For each comparison of nail only, nail plus tape, and
nail plus adhesive, the boards were taken from the same parent
board and the OSB was cut from the same sheet, to try to main-
tain consistent material properties.
The boards and OSB were placed in a controlled environment
before testing. When the monotonic tests with small specimens
were conducted, the OSB moisture content 共MC兲 had an average
value of 6.77% and a coefficient of variation 共COV兲 of 0.33%,
while the corresponding values for the board were 13.3 and
0.014%, respectively. The average and COV values for the spe-
cific gravity 共SG兲 were, respectively, 0.64 and 0.083 for the OSB,
and 0.47 and 0.048 for the board.
The adhesive tape was an acrylic foam tape 共VHB Tape 4941兲
manufactured by the 3M company. It had a thickness of 1.1 mm
共0.045 in.兲 and a width of 3.8 cm 共1.5 in.兲. To make the speci-
mens with nail and tape, first the tape was placed on the narrow
surface of the framing member and the OSB was placed on the
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 89
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 2. Photo of small specimen in testing machine
tape. Then a pressure of 410 kPa 共60 psi兲 was applied for 1 min
with an MTS GL/10 testing machine, following the recommenda-
tion of Jacobs 共2003兲. 共In the field, a smaller pressure would
probably be used, and the strength of the nail/tape connection
might be lower than determined in the tests reported here.兲 Finally
the nail was hand driven into the connection. The specimens were
tested after 72 h to allow time for the tape to reach its ultimate
bond strength according to the product specifications.
For the specimens with nail and construction adhesive, Liquid
Nails brand Project and Construction Adhesive LN-701 was
used. 共For simplicity, the construction adhesive will henceforth
usually be referred to as “glue.”兲 A 0.64 cm 共0.25 in.兲 bead was
placed along the joint on each side of the board. The specimens
were tested after 24 h, as were the nail-only connections. 关The
additional 48 h of conditioning time for the specimens with ad-
hesive tape will lead to additional fiber relaxation with the nails
共McClain 1997兲, but since the tape provides much of the with-
drawal resistance, the effect of this additional relaxation should be
small.兴
For monotonic testing of the small specimens, the two edges
of the OSB parallel to the board were supported by a base piece.
A load was applied downward by the testing machine on an
intermediate piece that acted on the ends of the board beyond
the OSB 共Turner 2006兲, as shown in Fig. 2. The span in the plane
of Fig. 2 is 15 cm 共6 in.兲, and the span perpendicular to that is
3.8 cm 共1.5 in.兲. Two deflection rates were applied to the small
specimens, 0.25 mm/ min 共0.01 in./ min兲 and 1.27 mm/ min
共0.05 in./ min兲.
Ten specimens were tested for each combination of specimen
type, specimen size, and deflection rate in this study. A plot of
load versus crosshead displacement was obtained for each test.
The peak loads from a series of tests were averaged, and those
results are presented as mean peak loads with error bars denoting
1 SD. The same is done with the corresponding displacements at
the peak loads.
Typical relationships between load and displacement are
shown in Fig. 3 for the small specimens at the higher deflection
rate. In these results, the connection with tape and the one with
glue have similar peak loads, which are much higher than that for
the connection with only a nail. The displacement at the peak load
is lowest for the nail plus tape and highest for the nail alone in
Fig. 3.
The peak loads for the series of tests are presented in Fig. 4.
 600 4
2.5 0.14
Nail Nail/Tape Nail/Glue 3.5 0.25 mm/min 1.27 mm/min

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (in.)
500
3 0.12
2
400 2.5 0.1
Load (kN)

Load (lb)
1.5 2 0.08
300
1.5 0.06
1 0.04
200 1
0.5 0.02
0.5 100
0 0
0 0 Nail Nail + Tape Nail + Glue
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Connection
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Displacements at peak load for small specimens, monotonic

Fig. 3. Typical load-displacement plots for small specimens, mono- loading
tonic loading, higher rate

Monotonic Tests with Large Specimens

Shaded bars are associated with the lower deflection rate. The
figure indicates that the addition of either tape or glue improves
the strength of the connection, with the glue providing the stron-
gest case for each deflection rate. The nail pulled through the
OSB in five of the 60 specimens tested, but the strength values
were similar to those that failed due to nail withdrawal. Also, it is
seen that for a given type of connection, the strength is higher for
the higher deflection rate. Statistical tests 关analysis of variance
共ANOVA兲 and t-tests兴 were performed to verify that the conclu-
sions from the graphical results are statistically significant 共Turner
2006兲.
Rosowsky and Reinhold 共1999兲 considered the effect of rate of
loading on withdrawal tests of an 8 d common nail from a fram-
ing board. The nail protruded about 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 from the
board, and it was gripped directly by the testing machine and
pulled out 共in contrast to the present tests in which sheathing was
included in the setup兲. For deflection rates of 2.5, 12.5, 25.4, 127,
and 254 mm/ min 共0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, and 10.0 in./ min兲, respec-
tively, the average withdrawal loads were 681, 569, 649, 689, and
734 N 共153, 128, 146, 155, and 165 lb兲. The authors concluded
that the rate of deflection did not have an obvious effect on the
peak load in their tests. Also, the values of their loads were much
smaller than those in Fig. 4 for the present nail-only tests that
involve slower rates and in which the nail is not gripped directly
by the testing machine.
Fig. 5 considers the displacement at the peak load, correspond-
ing to the results in Fig. 4. In the few tests in which the nail pulled
through the OSB, the displacements were very high, and the re-
sults of those tests are not included in the data set for this figure.
It is seen that the glued connection provides the highest displace-
ment for the smaller deflection rate, whereas the connection with
only the nail has the highest displacement for the higher deflec-
tion rate.
The tests described in this section involve specimens that will be
called “large.” The purpose of these tests was to better simulate
actual sheathing connections. In addition to the larger size, the
boundary conditions were believed to be more representative of
those in actual wood frame construction.
When these tests were conducted, the MC of the board had an
average value of 15.4% and a COV of 0.058%, and the SG of the
board had an average value of 0.43 and a COV of 0.097.
The dimensions of the OSB were 51 cm⫻ 51 cm⫻ 1.1 cm
共20 in.⫻ 20 in.⫻ 7 / 16 in.兲, and the length of the framing board
was 46 cm 共18 in.兲. One nail was placed at the center of the board
and the other two nails were 15 cm 共8 in.兲 from the center on
either side. The two edges of the OSB that were parallel to the
framing board were clamped to a table, leaving 46 cm 共18 in.兲
between the clamps. The board was situated above the OSB. Two
holes were drilled horizontally through the board. Bolts were
placed through the holes and tightened to a metal fixture that fit
over the board. The fixture was displaced upward by an MTS 810
testing machine 共Turner 2006兲, as shown in Fig. 6. The crosshead
was allowed to swivel 共i.e., there was a universal joint between
the specimen and the load cell兲. Two deflection rates were ap-
plied, 1.27 mm/ min 共0.05 in./ min兲, which was equal to the
higher rate used with the small specimens, and a faster rate of
6.35 mm/ min 共0.25 in./ min兲.
Fig. 7 depicts the load-displacement relationship from three
typical tests at the higher deflection rate. The large specimens
yield over a much longer period of time than the small specimens,

3.50
0.25 mm/min 1.27 mm/min 700
3.00
600
2.50
Peak Load (kN)

Peak Load (lb)

500
2.00
400
1.50
300
1.00 200
0.50 100
0.00 0
Nail Nail + Tape Nail + Glue
Connection

Fig. 4. Peak loads for small specimens, monotonic loading Fig. 6. Photo of large specimen in testing machine

90 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 7. Typical load-displacement plots for large specimens, mono-
tonic loading, higher rate
since the load is distributed over three nails rather than one. The
peak load is highest for the nail plus tape, and lowest for the nail
alone.
The mean peak loads and standard deviations for the series of
tests are shown in Fig. 8. As for the small tests, the addition of
tape or glue increases the resistance to uplift. However, there is
no conclusive evidence that an increase in rate will result in an
increased capacity. The nail-only connections actually have a
lower withdrawal resistance when a higher rate of deflection is
applied, and the effect of rate on the nail-plus-glue connection is
minimal. Also, the nail-plus-glue connection does not always per-
form better than the nail-plus-tape connection.
If the peak loads are compared for the small and large
specimens at the same rate of 1.27 mm/ min 共i.e., unshaded bars
in Fig. 4 and shaded bars in Fig. 8兲, they are seen to be similar.
It is interesting to note that the peak loads for the large tests are
not much greater than those obtained with the small specimens.
This may be partly due to the failure of large specimens some-
times occurring at one end first, which may cause the load to shift
to the remaining nails and to result in failure of one nail at a time.
Also, it may be partly due to the difference in test setup. In the
tests with the large specimens, the OSB experienced some bend-
ing between its clamped edges and the central framing board, so
that the measured stiffness is not only that of the attachment be-
tween the OSB and the board. Stored energy within the deformed
OSB could be available to withdraw a nail without a correspond-
ing increase of load.
Cyclic Tests with Small Specimens
It is of interest to test the connections under cyclic 共i.e., fluctuat-
ing兲 loading conditions because of the relevance to wind or earth-
quake loading. One of the first cyclic loading protocols was called
the sequential phased displacement 共SPD兲 procedure 共Porter
3.50
3.00 1.27 mm/min 6.35 mm/min
Peak Load (kN)
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Nail Nail + Tape Nail + Glue
Connection
Fig. 8. Peak loads for large specimens, monotonic loading
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
6
Displacement (mm)
0.2
Displacement (in.)
5
4 0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Fig. 9. Example of cyclic protocol
1987兲. It consists of cycles that increase until yielding 关i.e., the
first major event 共FME兲兴. Then three degradation cycles are ap-
plied, followed by three stabilization cycles, and an increase to
the next primary cycle. This pattern is repeated until the specimen
fails. This variation was introduced to more closely simulate an
earthquake or high wind than simple increasing cycles.
Dolan 共1994兲 modified the SPD procedure slightly to allow for
comparison between different materials. Krawinkler et al. 共2001兲
developed a new protocol as part of the CUREE-Caltech Wood-
frame Project. A set of initiation cycles is followed by a primary
cycle and then trailing cycles. It was designed to simulate seismic
loading on woodframe buildings. Kent et al. 共2005兲 used sinu-
soidal loading functions instead of triangular functions for lateral
loading of sheathing-to-framing connections. A displacement-
controlled input with triangular functions is utilized here, and is
restricted to “tension” actions by the testing machine.
The protocol used is illustrated in Fig. 9. The deflection rate
for each half cycle is 23 mm/ min. 共9 in./ min兲. The displacement
peaks are based on a reference deformation ⌬, which is an as-
sumed capacity for the specimens under cyclic loading. The value
of ⌬ is determined from the failure of similar specimens in
monotonic tests. Following Krawinkler et al. 共2001兲, ⌬ is chosen
as 0.6 times the displacement at 80% of the peak load. The factor
0.6 accounts for the reduced strength that should be expected
under repeated cyclic loading.
The peak loads in the protocol depend on ⌬. After some pre-
liminary cycles, each primary cycle is followed by two trailing
cycles with 75% of the peak displacement of the primary cycle.
In Fig. 9, ⌬ = 1.7 mm 共0.066 in.兲, and after a time of 5 s the pri-
mary cycles shown have peak displacements of ⌬, 1.5⌬, 2⌬,
2.5⌬, and 3⌬.
For each type of connection 共nail, nail plus tape, and nail plus
glue兲, two sets of tests were conducted. For the first set, the value
of ⌬ that was used was determined from monotonic tests run with
a deflection rate of 0.25 mm/ min 共0.01 in./ min兲, and for the sec-
ond set the rate was 1.27 mm/ min 共0.05 in./ min兲. The values of
⌬ obtained for the three connection types, respectively, were
1.7 mm 共0.066 in.兲, 2.3 mm 共0.092 in.兲, and 2.1 mm 共0.084 in.兲
for Set 1, and 2.8 mm 共0.11 in.兲, 2.2 mm 共0.086 in.兲, and 1.6 mm
700
共0.065 in.兲 for Set 2. Hence Fig. 9 is associated with the smallest
600
Peak Load (lb)
500 value of ⌬ that was used 共nail only, at lower deflection rate兲, and
400 other tests had applied displacements with lower peaks and
300
shorter cycle times than in Fig. 9.
200
The cyclic tests were conducted on the small specimens. The
100
0 MC of the board had an average value of 13.0% and a COV of
0.030%, and the SG of the board had an average value of 0.39
and a COV of 0.037. The OSB edges were clamped to a table, and
the framing board above the OSB was gripped by an MTS 826
testing machine, as shown in Fig. 10. For each cycle, the board
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 91

Fig. 10. Photo of small specimen for cyclic loading
was pulled upward and then displaced downward to its original
position 共Turner 2006兲.
The mean peak loads and standard deviations from the cyclic
tests are shown in Fig. 11. As with the monotonic tests, the tape
and glue improve performance of the small 共single-nail兲 connec-
tion. However, the tape is more effective than the glue in this
case. The reason is probably because the tape can be reattached
after each cycle, whereas the glue is too brittle to resist repeated
and increasing loads. If the results from the two sets of cyclic
tests are compared, it is apparent that the effect of ⌬ 共and hence
of peak displacement兲 is small. This is even true for the nail-only
connection, which had the greatest difference in ⌬ values 共i.e., the
peak applied displacements for Set 2 were 40% smaller than those
for Set 1兲.
Concluding Remarks
Tests were conducted on framing-to-sheathing connections to de-
termine if the addition of acrylic foam tape in the connection or
construction adhesive 共glue兲 along the joint would significantly
improve the withdrawal strength. The objective of interest was
prevention of roof uplift during high winds such as hurricanes.
Some earlier tests with glue had been carried out at Clemson
University.
Two specimen sizes were utilized, denoted “small” 共with one
nail兲 and “large” 共with three nails兲. The tests were displacement
controlled and continued until failure occurred. Monotonic ten-
sion tests were conducted at two deflection rates for both speci-
men sizes, and the small specimens were also subjected to cyclic
3.50
3.00 Set 1 Set 2
Peak Load (kN)
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Nail Nail + Tape Nail + Glue
Connection
Fig. 11. Peak loads for small specimens, cyclic loading
92 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009
Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
loading in tension 共with varying amplitudes of the cycles during
the loading process兲.
The addition of tape or glue tended to improve the uplift re-
sistance. For monotonic loading, the glue increased the strength
more than the tape, but the reverse was true for cyclic loading.
A faster deflection rate usually increased the capacity of the
connection. For the small specimens, the faster deflection rates
led to higher capacities for all conditions. However, for the
large specimens, the faster rate reduced the capacity for the
nail-only connection and had little effect on the nail-plus-glue
connection.
The glue can be applied as a retrofit procedure, as described in
APA 共2000兲 and SCSGEP 共2001兲. However, the tape must be
applied during construction. The increased cost of time and labor
would have to be justified by a sufficient increase in strength. The
procedure would need to be approved in building codes. In a
high-wind region, the nail-plus-tape connection is a potential
means to significantly reduce the number of roof failures due to
uplift.
Acknowledgments
The second writer is grateful to Professor Peter R. Sparks of
Clemson University for a helpful discussion on the topic of this
study. This research was sponsored by National Science Founda-
tion Grant No. 0122124 through the Partnership for Advancing
Technologies in Housing 共PATH兲 program.
References
APA. 共1997兲. Roof sheathing fastening schedules for wind uplift, APA
Data File Form No. T325, APA—The Engineered Wood Association,
Tacoma, Wash.
APA. 共2000兲. Retrofitting a roof for high wind uplift, APA Data File Form
No. A410, APA—The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Wash.
Dolan, J. D. 共1994兲. “Proposed test method for dynamic properties of
connections assembled with mechanical fasteners.” J. Test. Eval.,
22共6兲, 542–547.
Ellingwood, B. R., Rosowsky, D. V., Li, Y., and Kim, J. H. 共2004兲.
“Fragility assessment of light-frame wood construction subjected to
wind and earthquake hazards.” J. Struct. Eng., 130共12兲, 1921–1930.
Jacobs, W. P. 共2003兲. “Performance of pressure sensitive adhesive tapes
in wood light-frame shear walls.” MS thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va., 具http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
theses/available/etd-05152003-171138/典 共Aug. 1, 2007兲.
Jones, D. T. 共1998兲. “Retrofit techniques using adhesives to resist wind
uplift in wood roof systems.” MS thesis, Clemson Univ., Clemson,
S.C.
Kent, S. M., Leichti, R. J., Rosowsky, D. V., and Morrell, J. J. 共2005兲.
“Effects of decay on the cyclic properties of nailed connections.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 17共5兲, 579–585.
Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A., and Medina, R. 共2001兲.
“Development of a testing protocol for wood frame structures.”
700
CUREE Publication No. W-02, Consortium of Universities for Re-
600
Peak Load (lb)
search in Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, Calif.
500
400 Lee, K. H., and Rosowsky, D. V. 共2005兲. “Fragility assessment for roof
300 sheathing failure in high wind regions.” Eng. Struct., 27共6兲, 857–868.
200 McClain, T. E. 共1997兲. “Design axial withdrawal strength from wood. II:
100
0
Plain-shank common wire nails.” For. Prod. J., 47共6兲, 103–109.
Porter, M. L. 共1987兲. “Sequential phased displacement 共SPD兲 procedure
for TCCMAR testing.” Proc., 3rd Meeting of the Joint Technical Co-
ordinating Committee on Masonry Research, U.S.-Japan Coordinated
Earthquake Research Program, Tomamu, Japan.
Rosowsky, D. V., and Cheng., N. 共1999a兲. “Reliability of light-frame
roofs in high-wind regions. I: Wind loads.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共7兲,
725–733.
Rosowsky, D. V., and Cheng., N. 共1999b兲. “Reliability of light-frame
roofs in high-wind regions. II: Reliability analysis.” J. Struct. Eng.,
125共7兲, 734–739.
Rosowsky, D. V., and Reinhold, T. A. 共1999兲. “Rate-of-load and duration-
of-load effects for wood fasteners.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共7兲, 719–724.
South Carolina Sea Grant Extension Program 共SCSGEP兲. 共2001兲. “Hold-
ing on to your roof. Part 1: A guide to retrofitting your roof sheathing
using adhesives.” Videotape 7743, Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C.
Sutt, E., and Reinhold, T. 共2001兲. “Holding on to your roof: A guide to
retrofitting your roof sheathing using adhesives.” South Carolina Sea
Grant Extension Program, Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C., 具http://
www.haznet.org/haznet_pdf/hotyr. pdf典 共Aug. 1, 2007兲.
Turner, M. A. 共2006兲. “Tests of acrylic foam tape and construction adhe-
sive to augment mechanical fasteners in roofs subjected to high
winds.” MS Rep., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
Blacksburg, Va.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 / 93

Downloaded 20 Jul 2009 to 203.131.222.1. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright