Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation of softening behaviour of timber light-frame walls subjected

to in-plane forces using simple FE models
Johan Vessby a, Bo Källsner a,⇑, Anders Olsson a, Ulf Arne Girhammar b
a
Faculty of Technology, Linnaeus University, Lückligs Plats 1, SE-351 95 Växjö, Sweden
b
Division of Structural Engineering – Timber Structures, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present investigation focuses on evaluating the entire load–displacement relationship, especially the
Received 16 December 2013 softening part, of light-frame wall segments subjected to in-plane monotonic forces when the load-slip
Revised 8 August 2014 curves of the individual sheathing-to-framing fasteners are considered. Different sheathing-to-framing
Accepted 18 September 2014
joint characteristics, including unloading behaviour, and stud-to-rail joint characteristics are incorpo-
rated in the analyses. Two loading cases are investigated: Horizontal loading resulting in uplift of the
leading stud and diagonal loading representing a fully anchored wall.
Keywords:
Two common types of finite element (FE) models for the sheathing-to-framing joints are used for the
Light-frame wall
Stabilisation
analyses: A single spring model and a spring pair model, where the joint characteristics valid for the
FEM timber properties perpendicular and parallel to the grain are used. The maximum capacity of the wall
Timber segments is somewhat overestimated when using the spring pair model compared to that of the single
Sheathing-to-framing joints spring model. The softening parts of the load–displacement curves are significantly affected, regardless
Stud-to-rail joints of whether the perpendicular or parallel characteristics of the joints are used.
The results from FE simulations using models with perpendicular and parallel characteristics are
compared with full scale test results for walls with a single segment loaded horizontally and diagonally.
The behaviour of the wall segments subjected to horizontal loading is dominated by fastener displace-
ments perpendicular to the bottom rail. Hence, FE models including perpendicular characteristics should
be used. For diagonal loading the behaviour of the wall segments is dominated by displacements parallel
to the framing members, and FE models including parallel characteristics should therefore be used.
The analyses were extended to multiple segment walls resulting in the same type of behaviour as single
segment walls.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction regulations were changed during the mid-1990s in favour of per-

1.1. Background
Timber has long been the common choice of framework
material for one and two storey domestic buildings in many
countries. In Sweden, for example, about 90% of all domestic
houses up to two storeys are constructed with stabilising walls
consisting of sheets mechanically fastened to a timber frame. How-
ever, because fires devastated several cities before and during the
nineteenth century, timber structures higher than two stories were
not allowed for much of the twentieth century. Consequently, very
few or no high buildings with timber frames were built until these
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: johan.vessby@lnu.se (J. Vessby), bo.kallsner@lnu.se (B. Källsner),
anders.olsson@lnu.se (A. Olsson), ulf.arne.girhammar@ltu.se (U.A. Girhammar).
formance-based codes in which requirements were no longer tied
to the material itself. Today, there are no restrictions regarding the
number of storeys as long as the performance-based requirements
are fulfilled.
Even though development in architecture over the past century
is obvious, as well as other technical and economical prerequisites,
there has been a lack of development and experience concerning
the design of stabilising systems for timber buildings. Methods
and models to analyse the structural behaviour need to be
developed further and knowledge of acceptable simplifications in
the calculation models for practical design is required.
When designing these stabilising systems it is essential to do it
in such a way that a ductile and robust type of behaviour of the
buildings is ensured.
Light-frame walls composed of sheets mechanically fastened to
a timber frame are likely to continue as a competitive alternative

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.032
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479
for stabilising multi-storey buildings in the future, even though
certain alternative systems have been developed and used in
practice in recent years; see Vessby and Olsson [1].
The sheathing material in timber light-frame walls is usually
relatively stiff with regards to in-plane deformations and the shear
stiffness of the walls depends mainly on the stiffness of the sheath-
ing-to-framing joints. When used in low buildings the horizontal
load-carrying capacity is normally high compared to the actual load-
ing. Therefore, a moderate number of fasteners are sufficient and
simplified hand calculations based on linear elastic joint character-
istics may be used to analyse the system; see e.g. McCutcheon [2].
However, for higher buildings or buildings with many large
openings, attaining the sufficient horizontal load-carrying capacity
is much harder. In Sweden, a design philosophy is used where the
capacity of a wall segment, including an opening, is disregarded
and the wall must be anchored with respect to the full shear force
on each side of the opening. As a consequence of this philosophy, a
building from a static point of view will consist of numerous con-
tinuous vertical strips of wall segments, resulting in unrealistically
high concentrated tension and compression forces on the lower
intermediate floor structures and, finally, the foundation. In reality,
the wall segments including openings will contribute to the overall
stiffness of the building, for which the possibilities of their utiliza-
tion are important for high buildings. Another design philosophy in
Sweden has been to treat each wall in a building as a separate
2-dimensional structure, without considering the possibility for
3-dimensional force transfer. By considering the latter effect more
favourable load paths can be evaluated, thus resulting in structures
that are better optimised with respect to cost. To perform such
sophisticated analyses, the finite element method (FEM) may be
employed.
Several authors have conducted finite element analysis of tim-
ber light-frame walls (e.g. Dolan and Foschi [3] and Filiatrault [4])
and entire buildings [5–7]. Pang and Shirazi [8] have worked with
detailed finite element simulations of timber light-frame walls by,
e.g. using 2D elements in the framing members rather than the kind
of beam elements normally used. With respect to the focus of this
paper concerning the softening behaviour of the stabilising wall
system and the detailed behaviour of the sheathing-to-framing
joints during an entire monotonic loading process, the literature
is very scarce. However, for bibliographies and state-of-the-art
reports; see van de Lindt [19] and Kirkham et al. [20].
The usage of accurate models, combined with laboratory tests
on different components and joints, makes it possible to under-
stand the overall behaviour of the system. These analyses are also
useful when formulating strength and stiffness requirements of
critical details, such as anchorage devices with regards to vertical
uplift and reinforcements around door and window openings.
Although sometimes very demanding, today’s development
within computational mechanics and computer hardware and soft-
ware makes it possible to simulate the behaviour of almost any
structure in detail. For practical design situations, however, it is
important to use models that capture the structural behaviour
and material properties in sufficient detail without spending more
computational effort than necessary. Therefore, the abilities and
limitations of different model alternatives, advanced and simpli-
fied, should be thoroughly evaluated. For example, the adequate
assumptions with respect to the nonlinear and anisotropic behav-
iour of the timber, the sheathing-to-framing and the stud-to-rail
joints should be examined for light-frame wall segments subjected
to different load configurations and with different structural
designs.
In this paper, the intention is to investigate the significance of
the different material characteristics and analysis models on the
behaviour of stabilising walls in order to design ductile and robust
type of buildings.
465
1.2. Aim and scope
The aim of this study is to evaluate the detailed structural
behaviour with respect to the complete load–displacement curve,
especially the softening behaviour, of light-frame wall segments
with sheathing-to-framing joints subjected to in-plane forces.
The character of the load–displacement relationship of the stabilis-
ing wall after the maximum load is reached is of significance with
respect to a possible ductile and robust behaviour of the building.
Only monotonic loading conditions are considered. For the analy-
ses both horizontal and diagonal loading conditions are included.
The horizontal loading condition corresponds to a partially
anchored wall where the leading stud experiences uplift from the
bottom rail. On the other hand, the diagonal loading condition cor-
responds to a fully anchored wall with no separation between the
leading stud and the bottom rail.
The focus of the paper is to investigate the significance, on a
system level, of choosing among some alternative FE models
available in the literature and the significance of using the parallel
and/or perpendicular load–displacement characteristics of the
sheathing-to-framing joints in these models.
The aim is also to evaluate the detailed behaviour of the
sheathing-to-framing joints during the entire loading process, i.e.
including the unloading part of the load–displacement curve. For
example, it is of interest for the understanding of the behaviour
to know whether or not the fasteners will experience unloading
during some stage of the entire monotonic loading process.
Simple finite element models are used to evaluate the structural
behaviour. Two types of models, the single spring (SS) and spring
pair (SP) models, using one or two nonlinear spring elements for
the representation of the sheathing-to-framing joints are applied
and compared. With respect to the unloading path, two models
are used, one with nonlinear elastic and one with plastic character-
istics. For validation of the finite element models, comparison is
made with full-scale tests on single wall segments. Concerning
the stud-to-rail joints both realistic characteristics with respect
to shear, tension and compression, and for comparison reasons,
some extreme characteristics are also used in the modelling.
Also, the applicability of the single segment models to multiple
segment walls is evaluated for different loading conditions and
geometrical configurations. Based on this evaluation, the appropri-
ate FE model to use for different applications is recommended.
2. Modelling of light-frame walls
2.1. Structural parts and loading conditions
A typical section of an anchored timber light-frame wall is
shown in Fig. 1a. This fundamental unit, consisting of a sheet fas-
tened to a timber frame, will be called a wall unit or wall segment.
The width of the segment is b and the height is h. The spacing of
the fasteners along the top and bottom rails is denoted sr, along
the perimeter studs sps, and along the intermediate stud sis. In this
study, the light-frame wall was designed as follows:
 Frame members: Pine (Pinus Silvestris), C30 (European Standard
EN 338), 45  120 mm. Rails are 1245 mm and studs are
2310 mm long. Stud spacing is 600 mm.
 Sheathing: Hardboard, 8 mm wet process fibre board, HB.HLA2
(European Standard EN 622-2), Masonite AB, 1200  2400 mm.
 Sheathing-to-framing joints: Annular ring shank nails,
50  2.1 mm (Duofast, Nordisk Kartro AB). The joints were
nailed by hand and the holes were pre-drilled, 1.7 mm, in the
sheathing material. Nail spacing was sps = sr = 100 mm along
the perimeter and sis = 200 mm along the vertical centre lines
466 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

D VD

u u

H HD

sps sis

sr

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. (a) A light-frame wall unit built up of a timber frame and a sheet. (b) and (c) Horizontal (H) and diagonal (D) load cases. The horizontal component (HD) of the diagonal
load is presented in the load–displacement curves below. The horizontal displacement at the right end of the top rail is denoted u.

of the sheets. Edge distance was 11.25 mm along the vertical timber properties parallel and perpendicular to the grain at the
studs (the edge of the sheet was located in the centre of the stud-to-rail joints. The sheathing is modelled with shell elements.
stud) and 22.5 mm along the bottom and top rails (the edge The one-sided sheathed wall was analysed as a two-
of the sheet was located at the outer edge of the rails). dimensional structure. The in-plane behaviour of the wall was
 Stud-to-rail joints: Two annular ring shank nails, dimension considered, but the eccentricity of the sheathing with respect to
90  3.1 mm, were applied in the grain direction of the vertical the centre of gravity of the timber members was not.
studs. The assumed linear elastic material properties of the timber
members (based on EN 338) and the sheathing material are shown
The sheathing was fastened to one side of the timber frame and in Table 1.
the bottom rail was anchored to the foundation. No tie-downs
were used.
2.3. Modelling of sheathing-to-framing joints
The load is applied either horizontally or diagonally at the
upper left corner of the top rail, acting in the plane of the frame
2.3.1. Load-slip behaviour of sheathing-to-framing joints
of the wall as illustrated in Fig. 1b. The diagonal load case corre-
The load–displacement curves presented in Fig. 2 are based on
sponds to a horizontal load at the level of the top rail and a vertical
tests of sheathing-to-framing joints, with single fasteners loaded
load on the leading stud; see Fig. 1c. The vertical component of the
perpendicular and parallel to the grain of the timber members
diagonal load will hold down the leading stud completely, thus
[9]. It is noted that in the case of loading perpendicular to the grain
making the wall behave as a fully anchored wall segment. The
(Fig. 2a), there is a more rapid drop of the load after the maximum
horizontal load case corresponds to a partially anchored wall,
load has been reached than is evident in the corresponding curve
where there are no tie-downs at the tension studs. During the
for loading parallel to the grain (Fig 2b). This effect is likely due
experiments, the diagonal load was always directed towards the
to crack development when the bottom rail is loaded in the
lower right corner of the walls. In the computer analyses, the direc-
perpendicular direction. In case of parallel loading, the fastener
tion of the diagonal load was kept constant at the initial angle
tends to crush the wood in a more ductile manner during the
during the simulations.
loading process.
The exact location of the applied load is at the intersection
Fig. 2 also shows the adapted average curves for the different
between the centre lines of the two framing members. For both
series used in the analyses (bold curves). The average curves are
the beam and solid models (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4), this point
based on the average load for a given displacement, and to achieve
of application coincides with a nodal point. In the analytical and
experimental results presented below, only the horizontal compo-
nent of the diagonal load is presented. The horizontal displacement Table 1
of the upper right corner of the wall segment is calculated or Properties of timber members and sheathing material.a
measured; see Fig. 1b. Framing members Parallel Perpendicular
The commercial software ABAQUS was used for the finite
Modulus of elasticity EL = 12,000 ER = ET = 400 MPa
element simulations. Shear modulus GLR = GLT = 750 GRT = 100 MPa
Poisson’s ratio mLR = mLT = 0 mRT = 0.4
Sheathing Isotropic
2.2. Modelling of timber frame and sheathing material
Modulus of elasticity E = 6000 MPa
Shear modulus G = 2300 MPa
The timber members were modelled with the use of beam
Poisson’s ratio m = 0.3
elements (quadratic beam element), but in some cases, 3-D solid
a
elements (quadratic brick element) were also used to model local EL value valid for C30 rather than C24.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 467

1300 experimentally and numerically, aiming at hysteresis; see e.g.

P
1200 Dolan and Madsen [12] and Xu and Dolan [13]. Such models are
1100 not in the scope of the current study.
150
1000
900
Load P [N]

800 100 + 150 +100

2.3.3. Single spring (SS) model
700
P/2 P/2 In the SS model, the sheathing-to-framing joint is represented
600
500 by only one nonlinear elastic spring; see Fig. 3a. The direction of
400 the spring at each instant is determined by the relative displace-
300 ment of the two nodal points to which it is connected. The spring
200 stiffness, kr, (which may represent either a tangential or a secant
100 stiffness) and the spring force, Pr, depend only on the magnitude
0
of the displacement and act in the direction of the spring. Hence,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
the orthotropic properties of timber are not considered. An
Displacement r [mm]
example of the relationship between the spring force and the dis-
(a) placement, the Pr–r curve, is illustrated in Fig. 3b. When employed
in simulations presented below either the load–displacement
1300 curve according to Fig. 2a or the curve according to Fig. 2b is
1200 P
employed to represent spring stiffness in the entire wall model,
1100
1000
150 independent of the actual load direction of each individual nail
900 200 represented in the model.
Load P [N]

800 150 To implement the SS model in finite element software, the

700
600
P
500
400
300
200
100
0 stiffness relationship can be expressed either in terms of the total
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement r [mm]
(b)
Fig. 2. Experimental load–displacement curves (P–r) together with average curves
(bold lines) for sheathing-to-framing joints loaded (a) perpendicular to grain and
(b) parallel to grain of the timber members.
a smooth curve, each value from the average curve is obtained by
weighting the value in question (one value per mm) with respect
to the closest two data points with higher and lower displace-
ments. The linear elastic limit is assumed to be attained at the
displacement 1 mm and the fastener load 500 N. In the input data
to Abaqus the non-linear part of the load–displacement curves are
represented by a dense sequence of data points (pairs of displace-
ments and load levels).
2.3.2. Different FE models for sheathing-to-framing joints
Two different models for the joint between the sheathing and
the timber frame are evaluated in this paper; see Judd and Fonseca
[10]. The isotropic single spring (SS) model is capable of modelling
nonlinear stiffness of the sheathing-to-framing joint, though it has
some numerical disadvantages. The spring pair (SP) model is able
to represent the stiffness in two orthogonal directions by using
two uncoupled springs (this model is numerically stable and
simple to implement). Unfortunately, the SP model normally over-
estimates the stiffness in the case of a nonlinear stiffness relation-
ship and when the direction of the displacement does not coincide
with one of these two orthogonal directions. For a linear elastic
stiffness relationship, the SS and SP models give the same stiffness.
These models were chosen to evaluate because they are the two
simplest ways of modelling the connection. As later discussed,
these models may under certain circumstances provide satisfac-
tory results. For discussions of other more sophisticated monotonic
loading models, see e.g. Judd and Fonseca [10] and Vessby et al.
[11], where e.g. models for mixed-mode loading are discussed.
Several other authors have worked with connector elements
stiffness properties of the connection need to be expressed in terms
of an element stiffness matrix. The degrees of freedom of the
spring element and the corresponding nodal forces and displace-
ments are defined in Fig. 4a with respect to local coordinates
ð
xÞ in the direction of the spring and in Fig. 4b to global
coordinates (x, y) in the two perpendicular directions. The
50   T 
forces P ¼ P1 ; P2 or P ¼ ½P 1 ; P 2 ; P 3 ; P 4 T and displacements

 ¼ ½u
u  2 T or u ¼ ½u1 ; u2 ; u3 ; u4 T Þ or the incremental forces
1 ; u
 
DP or DP and displacements ðDu  or DuÞ in each step. In
local and global coordinates, the relationships can then be
expressed as P ¼ Ksec u  (Fig. 4a) and P = Ksecu (Fig. 4b), and
DP ¼ Ktan Du  (Fig. 4a) and DP ¼ Ktan Du (Fig. 4b), respectively, where
the secant (sec) and tangent (tan) stiffness matrices are determined
at each step. The stiffness matrices in global coordinates are easily
obtained by transforming the local stiffness matrices using the
angle h defined in Fig. 4a.
Because the element stiffness matrix of rank one in the SS
model only supplies stiffness in the direction of the spring, i.e. in
the direction in which it is elongated, displacements perpendicular
to this direction will occur with zero stiffness. This may lead to
numerical instability.
For the unloaded structure, i.e. before any displacements have
developed, a direction in which the single spring acts must be
well-defined in some other way and the direction of the timber
member to which the nail is attached may be set to the direction
in which the spring representing the nail has an initial stiffness.
Other choices in this respect would, however, give the same
Pr Pr
r
kr
Pr r
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) The single spring model comprising a single spring element where one
end is connected to the frame and the other to the sheathing and (b) illustration of
the load–displacement curve for the sheathing-to-framing joint.
468 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

determined by the initial stiffness of the load–displacement curve

(cf. Fig. 6). In the plastic model, a von Mises plasticity model with
isotropic hardening behaviour is used, i.e. the yield surface
increases from the initial yield load until maximum load is attained
and then decreases as the load decreases.
The unloading behaviour of a single sheathing-to-framing joint
is illustrated in Fig. 6, where the load–displacement curves with
respect to loading, unloading and reloading are shown for three
cases: an elastic SS model (SSel), a plastic SS model (SSpl) and a
plastic SP model (SPpl). In the SP model, it is assumed that the two
springs are oriented with their length directions at an angle of 45°
relative to the displacement direction of the joint. For the nonlinear
Fig. 4. Degrees of freedom for the spring element of the SS model expressed in (a)
elastic model, the loading and unloading curves are identical. For
local and (b) global coordinate systems. the plastic model, the unloading path is parallel to the initial
straight part of the load–displacement curve. The difference
simulation result since an equilibrium check gives an adjusted between the SS and SP models is evident from Fig. 6. In the linear
displacement pattern of the entire structure before another load elastic range, the two curves coincide, but in the nonlinear range,
step is applied. the SP model exhibits a higher capacity than the SS model due to
the contribution from two orthogonal springs. If the SP model is ori-
2.3.4. Spring pair (SP) model ented with one of the springs in the direction of the displacement, it
The SP model represents the connection between two uncou- will give the same load–displacement curve as the SS model.
pled orthogonal springs, one in the longitudinal (l) and one in the
perpendicular (p) direction; see Fig. 5. The total and incremental 2.4. Modelling of stud-to-rail joints
force–displacement formulations in the l–p system are expressed
similar to the SS model, where the respective stiffness matrix is 2.4.1. Load–displacement behaviour of stud-to-rail joints
given by The stud-to-rail joints consist of two nails nailed in the grain
2 3 direction of the vertical studs. The experimental load–displacement
kl;sec 0 kl;sec 0
6 0 curves with respect to tension, compression and shear are shown in
6 kp;sec 0 kp;sec 7
7
Ksec ¼6 7 ð1Þ Fig. 7 [14]. Fitted, piece-wise linear relationships shown as bold
4 kl;sec 0 kl;sec 0 5 lines in the figure are used in the analyses discussed in chapter 3
0 kp;sec 0 kp;sec (note that the usage of continuously differentiable relationships
would have been more expedient).
2 3
kl;tan 0 kl;tan 0
6 0 kp;tan 0 kp;tan 7 2.4.2. Different FE models for stud-to-rail joints
6 7
Ktan ¼ 6 7 Five different models for stud-to-rail joints will be discussed
4 kl;tan 0 kl;tan 0 5
and evaluated. The first two models, characterised as separating
0 kp;tan 0 kp;tan joint models, allow for separation between the studs and rails in
Transformations from the local coordinate system (l, p) to the the joints, i.e. the studs may be subjected to vertical and horizontal
global system (x, y) are performed conventionally. A major displacements relative to the rails. The last three models,
disadvantage of the SP model is that the uncoupled springs do representing hinged and rigid connections, do not enable separa-
not accurately represent the stiffness in displacement directions tion between the timber members. Some of the models are not
other than the two orthogonal directions. This leads to an overes- fully realistic, but have been included to elucidate the influence
timation in the stiffness of the joint because the stiffness in one of extreme assumptions for the boundary conditions of the joints.
direction actually decreases when the joint is displaced in the The mechanical properties of the five models are summarized in
other perpendicular direction, i.e. the behaviour of the two springs Table 2 and will be discussed in detail below.
should not be regarded as uncoupled.
2.4.3. Separating joint models
2.3.5. Unloading behaviour of sheathing-to-framing joints In model 1, denoted the separating-beam model, the frame is
The sheathing-to-framing joints can essentially be modelled in modelled by beam elements and the framing members are coupled
two ways, with a nonlinear elastic or a plastic model. The at the stud-to-rail joints by two independent spring elements
unloading curve in the elastic model follows the reverse load– (Table 2). Of the two spring elements, one is for displacements in
displacement curve, whereas the curve in the plastic model is the vertical stud direction with properties that account for the
withdrawal of nails (tension) (Fig. 7a) and the compression
between the studs and rails (Fig. 7b), while the other element is
for displacements in the horizontal rail direction with properties
that account for the shearing of the nails between the rail and stud
(Fig. 7c). The influence of friction as a function of the level of
compression in the stud is neglected because it will not greatly
affect the final result for the load case studied and including such
effects increases the complexity of the connection considerably.
No bending moments can be transferred in the stud-to-rail joints.
In model 2, denoted the separating-solid model, the frame is
modelled generally by beam elements, though they are combined
with solid elements of 200 mm lengths at the joints (Table 2).
Fig. 5. Spring pair model represented by two orthogonal springs in the longitudinal The solid elements consider the difference in properties in the
(l) and the perpendicular (p) direction of the timber member. parallel and perpendicular directions of the wood material.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479
SSel
Load P
Load P
Displacement r
(a)
Fig. 6. Load–displacement curves (P–r) for the sheathing-to-framing joints. (a) SS model with elastic unloading path (SSel); (b) SS model with plastic unloading path (SSpl);
and SP model with plastic unloading path (SPpl).
In model 2, the compression between the timber members at the
joints is modelled by solid elements with so-called hard contact
conditions (allowing no penetration of the two surfaces in contact)
using Lagrangian multipliers, whereas in model 1 an experimen-
tally determined load–displacement curve is used. The spring
elements have the same properties as in model 1, but with one
exception. The major stiffness of the joint in compression is
represented by the contact between solid elements, but stiffness
corresponding to compressing the stud-to-rail joint nails into the
wood (the same stiffness as the nails in withdrawal according to
Fig. 7a) is added to the stiffness of the joint. Due to the contact
conditions, some bending moments can be transferred by model
2, which is not the case for model 1.
Since these two models allow for an uplift of the studs, they will
work quite differently as compared to the other models. In such
walls, the bottom rails need to be anchored to the floor or
foundation.
2.4.4. Non-separating joint models
In model 3 (the hinged-beam model), the frame is modelled by
beam elements and the stud-to-rail joints are assumed hinged
(Table 2), as in the elastic and plastic models for light-frame walls
presented by Källsner and Girhammar [15,16]. Hence, no relative
displacements between the studs and rails can take place at the
stud-to-rail joints.
In model 4 (the rigid-beam model), the frame is modelled by
beam elements and the stud-to-rail joints are assumed rigid
(Table 2). Hence, no relative displacements and rotations between
the studs and rails can take place at the stud-to-rail joints. Thus,
stud-to-rail joint moments can develop. This model will represent
an extreme case of interaction in the frame.
In model 5 (the rigid-solid model), the frame is modelled by
beam elements in general, but they are combined with solid
elements at the joints as in model 2. The studs and rails at the
stud-to-rail joints, modelled by these solid elements, are assumed
to be rigidly connected. Hence, no relative displacements and rota-
tions between the studs and rails can take place at the stud-to-rail
joints, other than those due to the flexibility of the solid elements
themselves. Thus, stud-to-rail joint moments can develop.
Since these three models do not allow for any uplift of the studs,
their usage is only reasonable in case of fully anchored walls.
3. Evaluation of the behaviour of single wall segments using
different models
3.1. Analyses using different models and wall characteristics
The single wall segment according to Fig. 1 will be analysed and
its behaviour examined. The following analyses will focus on:
469
SSpl
SPpl
Displacement r
(b)
 Behaviour of a single wall element using a reference FE model.
 Influence of different models for the sheathing-to-framing joint
characteristics.
 Influence of different models for the unloading behaviour of the
sheathing-to-framing joints.
 Influence of different FE models for the stud-to-rail joint
characteristics.
In the FE analyses conducted in the following sections, artificial
damping is introduced when necessary to obtain numerical
stability. However, the dissipated energy is always verified as only
a small fraction of the total internal energy of the structure.
3.2. Reference model for wall segments
A reference model for the analysis of light-frame wall segments
is chosen as a default model and specified with the following
parameters, properties, and conditions:
(a) For the sheathing-to-framing joints
– using the SS model (Fig. 3 in Section 2.3.3)
– using the plastic unloading path (Fig. 6b in Section 2.3.5)
– using the perpendicular to grain load–displacement
curve (Fig. 2 in Section 2.3.1).
(b) For the frame and the stud-to-rail joints
– using the separating-beam model (model 1 in Table 2)
– using the fitted piecewise linear load–displacement
curves (Fig. 7 in Section 2.4.1).
3.3. Behaviour of the wall segment using the reference model
Using the reference model according to Section 3.2 (denoted
SS\,ref), the behaviour of the wall segment and its fasteners is
evaluated for horizontal and diagonal loading.
For horizontal loading the load–displacement curve of the wall
is shown in Fig. 8a and the corresponding force–displacement
curve of fastener that is the most displaced is shown in Fig. 8b. Five
different load–displacement stages along the curves are marked
out:
(1) when the most displaced fastener reaches the non-linear
range,
(2) when the most displaced fastener reaches its ultimate
capacity (Pmax),
(3) when the ultimate capacity (Hmax) of the wall is reached,
(4) at the inflexion point along the softening curve of the wall,
(5) at the end of the horizontal displacement range studied.
To resist the overturning moment introduced by the applied
external horizontal load H, the wall is subjected to uplift on the
470 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

1000 displacement paths of these fasteners, except for a few, are not
shown in Fig. 9a–e.
800 The first fastener to reach the linear elastic limit (force 500 N at
a displacement of 1 mm according to Fig. 8b), i.e. stage (1), is the
fastener furthest to the left along the bottom rail. Note that the dis-
600
Load [N]

placements of the fasteners along the leading stud are very small,
meaning that the vertical displacement of the leading stud is close
400 to 1 mm at stage (1) and that the tensile force in the stud-to-rail
joint is close to the peak value 600 N, according to Fig. 7a.
200 The fasteners along the leading stud are the first to start unload-
ing. This occurs soon after passing stage (1) and the descending
0 part of the load–displacement curve of the stud-to-rail joint in
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Fig. 7a is reached. Unloading of the fasteners along the leading stud
Displacement [mm] occurs within the linear elastic range of the curve in Fig. 8b.
(a) At stage (2), the most displaced fastener along the bottom rail
has reached its maximum capacity, though the capacity of the wall
100 is still increasing. After stage (2), some of the fasteners along the
bottom rail will reach the softening part of the load–displacement
curve in Fig. 8b.
80
At stage (3), the maximum capacity of the wall, 3.2 kN, is
reached for a horizontal displacement of 19 mm of the upper right
Load [kN]

60
corner. The load capacity of the wall then starts to decrease and the
fasteners along the top rail and the right stud are unloaded.
40 Because these fasteners have only been loaded within the linear
elastic range of the force–displacement curve the unloading of
20 these fasteners will follow the same linear elastic part of the curve.
At stage (4), the steepest part of the softening curve of the wall
0 is reached.
0 5 10 15 20 25 The position of each fastener on the force–displacement curve is
Displacement [mm] shown in Fig. 10 for stage (5). Here, one single fastener has been
subjected to unloading on the nonlinear part of the force–displace-
(b) ment curve, located furthest to the right along the bottom rail,
demonstrating this special behaviour.
2500 Five stages along the load–displacement curves are identified
similarly for diagonal loading. In Fig. 11a and b these stages are
2000 marked on the load–displacement curve of the wall and on the
force–displacement curve of the most displaced fastener. As
1500 mentioned before, the vertical component of the diagonal load
Load [N]

counteracts the uplifting forces of the overturning moment from

1000
500
0 In Fig. 12a–c the load–displacement curves and displacement
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]
(c)
Fig. 7. Experimental load–displacement curves for stud-to-rail joints loaded in (a)
tension, (b) compression and (c) shear. Fitted, piece-wise linear relationships used
for analysis purposes are shown as bold lines.
windward side. Due to the low capacity of the stud-to-rail joints in
tension (0.6 kN at a displacement of 1 mm according to Fig. 7a),
only a small uplift force is transferred from the bottom rail to the
leading stud. As a consequence, the sheathing-to-framing joints
along the bottom rail are subjected to considerable uplift. This is
indicated in Fig. 9a–e, where displacement paths for the fasteners
close to the bottom rail are shown for stages (1)–(5). The most
displaced fasteners on the wall are obviously those connecting
the sheathing to the bottom rail and the directions of these
displacements are close to perpendicular to the bottom rail, i.e.
perpendicular to the grain. Since the displacements of the fasteners
along the vertical studs and the top rail are fairly small, the
the horizontal component of the diagonal load. This condition for
a fully anchored leading stud represents the wall design that
renders the maximum load-bearing capacity. Here, the horizontal
component of the ultimate load reached 13 kN at a horizontal
displacement of 35 mm of the upper right corner of the wall.
70 paths are shown for all fasteners at stages (3)–(5).
The displacement paths show that the fasteners close to the
corners of the sheathing are subjected to larger displacements than
those along the centres of the sides. As well, many of the fasteners
along the two outer vertical studs are mainly subjected to vertical
displacements, due to the studs being slightly bent in an S-shape
and the stud-to-rail joints are displaced in shear. The displacement
paths also demonstrate that the collapse of the wall starts in the
sheathing-to-framing joints at the left part of the wall while the
corresponding joints to the right of the wall are partly unloaded.
In the load–displacement curves in Fig. 12a–c, none of the
fasteners have been subjected to unloading in the nonlinear range
of the curves at stage (3); see Fig. 12a. At stages (4) and (5) several
fasteners have been subjected to unloading; see Fig 12b and c.
Between stages (3) and (4) from Fig. 11a, the capacity of the wall
suddenly decreases rapidly for increasing displacement. This rapid
decrease in capacity, i.e. brittle behaviour, is because many critical
fasteners lose capacity simultaneously at this displacement level.
(Also note that the softening behaviour of the sheathing-to-
framing joint characteristics perpendicular to the grain is used in
the model; see Fig. 11b).
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 471

Table 2
Different FE models for stud-to-rail joints.

Type of joint model Modelling of frame Modelling of stud-to-rail joints

1 Separating-beam model Beam elements Spring element for tension
Spring element for compression
Spring element for shear

2 Separating-solid model Beam and solid elements Spring element for tension
Spring element for compression (only influence of nails)
Spring element for shear
Contact condition between solid elements

3 Hinged-beam model Beam elements No vertical displacement

No horizontal displacement
Free rotation

4 Rigid-beam model Beam elements No vertical displacement

No horizontal displacement
No rotation

5 Rigid-solid model Beam and solid elements No vertical displacement

No horizontal displacement
No rotation

4
Section 2.3, Fig. 6, the SP model for a single joint may result in
higher stiffness and capacity than the SS model. However, its
3
2 3 4 significance on the wall segment depends on the actual displace-
Load H [kN]

ment path of the fasteners and on the degree of nonlinearity of

2 the load–displacement curve. To evaluate the significance of using
5 the two different spring models, and identify the actual reasons for
1 the differences, different models for the sheathing-to-framing
1 joints were also used:

 the basic reference model (SS\,ref);

0  a corresponding model, but with parallel joint characteristics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
(SS//);
Displacement u [mm]
 a spring pair model corresponding to the reference model (SP\);
(a)  the same model but with parallel joint characteristics (SP//);
1000  and a model with one spring having perpendicular joint charac-
teristics and the other having parallel characteristics (SP\//).
900 2 3
800
An overview of the five different alternatives is given in Table 3.
700
The load–displacement curves for the different spring models,
Load P [N]

600 4 with different sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics, are

500 1 presented in Fig. 13a for the horizontal load case and Fig. 13b for
400 the diagonal load case (where the horizontal component of the
300 diagonal load is shown).
5
200 There are no differences for small displacements between the
100 load–displacement curves obtained by the SS and SP models,
0 regardless of whether perpendicular or parallel joint characteris-
0 10 20 30 40 50 tics are used. This is expected since the load–displacements curves
Displacement r [mm] of the sheathing-to-framing joints are identical within the linear
elastic range, cf. Fig. 2.
(b)
For larger displacements, when some of the sheathing-to-
Fig. 8. (a) Load–displacement curve for the horizontally loaded wall segment with framing joints have reached the nonlinear range, the SP\ model
five selected stages marked on the curve. (b) Corresponding load–displacement should normally result in higher load levels than the SS\,ref model.
curve of the most displaced fastener with the five previously selected stages Similarly, the SP// model should usually lead to higher load levels
marked on the curve.
than the SS// model. The background to this fact was illustrated
in Fig. 6b.
3.4. Influence of different models for the sheathing-to-framing joint Further, the SS\,ref model should usually result in load levels
characteristics that are too low for the wall studied, since the characteristics of
the perpendicular direction underestimate the stiffness properties
The influence of using the SS and SP models on the behaviour of of the sheathing-to-framing joints in all directions except the
the wall segment is evaluated in this section. As mentioned in perpendicular. Likewise, the SS// model should usually result in
472 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Fig. 9. (a)–(e) Displacement paths for the fasteners along the bottom rail for stages (1)–(5).

1000 14
900 12
3
800 2
10
Load HD [kN]

4
700
8 5
Load P [N]

600
6
500
4
400 1
2
300
0
200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

100
Displacement u [mm]
(a)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1000
Displacement r [mm]
900 2
Fig. 10. Load–displacement curves for all fasteners at stage (5). The fastener 800
furthest to the right along the bottom rail has been subjected to unloading in the 3
700
Load P [N]

nonlinear range of the curve.

600
500 1 4
5
400
load levels that are too high for the wall studied, since the 300
characteristics of the parallel direction overestimate the stiffness
200
properties of the sheathing-to-framing joints in all directions
100
except the parallel. As well, the SP\// model should normally result
0
in load levels that are too high for the wall studied, since the SP 0 10 20 30 40 50
model generally overestimates the stiffness properties of the
Displacement r [mm]
sheathing-to-framing joints.
For horizontal loading, the horizontal displacement of the wall (b)
results greatly from the displacements of the fasteners in the
direction perpendicular to the bottom rail, since the uplifting force Fig. 11. (a) Load–displacement curve for the diagonally loaded wall segment with
five selected stages marked on the curve. (b) Corresponding load–displacement
is carried by these joints; see Fig. 9. Due to the uplift of the leading curve of the most displaced fastener with the five previously selected stages
stud and the dominating displacements of the fasteners in the marked on the curve.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 473

1000
900
800
700

Load P [N]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement r [mm]
(a)

1000
900
800
700
Load P [N]

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement r [mm]
(b)

1000
900
800
700
Load P [N]

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement r [mm]
(c)
Fig. 12. (a)–(c) Load–displacement curves and displacement paths for all fasteners at stages (3)–(5). Several fasteners have been subjected to unloading at stages (4) and (5).

Table 3
Different finite element models with different sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics.

Model Properties
SS\,ref Single spring (SS) reference model for the sheathing-to-framing joints with characteristics valid in the perpendicular (\) direction and for plastic unloading
behaviour
SS// The same as for the SS\,ref model, but with characteristics valid in the parallel (//) direction
SP\ The same as for the SS\,ref model, but with the finite element spring pair model
SP// The same as for the SP\ model, but with parallel sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics
SP\// The same as for the SP\ model, but with perpendicular sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics for one spring and parallel for the other
474 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

3.5 model probably describes the wall behaviour best, but has the dis-
advantage that the capacity is somewhat overestimated due to the
3
inherent properties of the SP models. The SS\,ref and SP\ models,
2.5 incorporating only perpendicular joint characteristics, show a less
Load H [kN]

ductile behaviour than the other models. From a practical point of

2 view it may be reasonable to recommend using the SS// model for
1.5 diagonal loading. This model seems to give a good estimate of the
SP ┴ ultimate load and a reasonable shape of the load–displacement
SP ┴
1 curve for large displacements compared to the SP\// model.
SP

0.5
SS┴ ,ref In summary, for small displacements within the linear elastic
SS
range, the usage of SS or SP models with perpendicular or parallel
0 joint characteristics does not matter. Within the nonlinear range
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
up to the maximum capacity of the wall, an SS model will provide
Displacement u [mm] a good description of the load–displacement curve. Within the
(a) softening part of the load–displacement curve, the SP\// model will
probably describe the shape of the curve reasonably well, though
16 starting from a load level that is somewhat high. The shape of
14 the curve in the softening range depends strongly on whether
the sheathing-to-framing joints have large displacement compo-
12
nents in the perpendicular or parallel directions.
Load HD [kN]

10

8
6
SP ┴
SP ┴
4 SP
SS┴ ,ref
2 SS
0 behaviour between the two models is evidently large in the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement u [mm]
(b)
Fig. 13. Load–displacement curves in the case of (a) horizontal loading and (b)
diagonal loading for five different sheathing-to-framing joint models.
perpendicular to grain direction along the bottom rail, no signifi-
cant effect of over-stiff behaviour from the SP model is evident.
Fig. 13a clearly illustrates a significant difference between the
‘‘perpendicular’’ SS\,ref and SP\ models on one hand and the ‘‘par-
allel’’ SS// and SP// on the other. In the ‘‘mixed’’ SP\// model, the
behaviour of the fasteners in the bottom rail is highly governed
by the springs with characteristics perpendicular to the grain;
hence, the load–displacement curve coincides with the results of
the SS\,ref and SP\ models. Obviously, the different softening
behaviour of the perpendicular and parallel joint characteristics
has a fairly large influence on the load–displacement relationships
of the wall for large displacements. However, the influence of this
difference on the ultimate load of the wall is moderate (6%). An
interesting observation is the good agreement between the load–
displacement curves obtained by the SS\,ref and the SP\// models,
which are expected to form the lower and upper bounds for the
real load–displacement curve.
For diagonal loading, the displacements in the sheathing-to-
framing joints have considerable components in both the perpen-
dicular and parallel directions, cf. Fig. 12. A comparison between
the two load–displacement curves obtained by the SS\,ref and
SP\ models shows similar shapes of the curves but different capac-
ities. The tendency is similar between the curves obtained by the
SS// and SP// models. The capacity between using the SS and the
corresponding SP model differs less than 10%. The simulation also
shows that after the maximum load has been attained the main
difference in response is more due to the difference in joint charac-
teristics than the difference between the SS and SP models. When
comparing the calculated load–displacement curve using the SP\//
model with those using the SP\ and the SP// models, the wall
response for this load case is greatly determined by the parallel
to grain properties of the sheathing-to-framing joints. The SP\//
3.5. Influence of different models for the unloading behaviour of the
sheathing-to-framing joints
Fig. 6 illustrates the difference between the plastic and the
nonlinear elastic models for the unloading behaviour of the single
sheathing-to-framing joints. The difference in the unloading
70
nonlinear range.
No unloading of the individual fasteners in the nonlinear range
obviously means no difference between the response of the nonlin-
ear elastic and the plastic model.
The load–displacement curves for horizontal and diagonal
loading, using the SS\ model with both the elastic (SS\,el) and
plastic (SS\,ref) unloading models, are shown in Fig. 14.
For horizontal loading, Fig. 14a shows no difference between
the elastic or plastic response indicating that no significant
unloading takes place in the individual fasteners. This is expected
considering the rather straight vertical displacement paths of the
fasteners along the bottom rail according to Fig. 9a–e. In fact, only
the fastener furthest to the right along the bottom rail was
subjected to a slight unloading in the nonlinear range, cf. Fig. 10.
For diagonal loading, some unloading of the fasteners obviously
occurs, since the load–displacement curves of the wall differ
between the elastic and plastic models (Fig. 14b). This is a result
of the change of direction of the displacements, including unload-
ing, in the fasteners along the right part of the bottom rail and the
right stud according to Fig. 12b and c. This difference between the
load–displacement curves of the wall is clear after the ultimate
load has been passed and occurs between stages (3) and (4)
according to Fig. 11, with the plastic model giving a more ductile
behaviour than the elastic model.
According to Fig. 14, the rapid unloading behaviour of the wall
segment is much more pronounced for diagonal loading than
horizontal loading. This is due to many of the fasteners being sub-
jected to high loads, while using perpendicular joint characteristics
in the calculations. However, if the response up to the ultimate
load is only of interest, then no difference in response between
the elastic and plastic model is seen.
3.6. Influence of different FE models for the stud-to-rail joint
characteristics
In Section 2.4, five different finite element models for the
stud-to-rail joints were introduced (Table 2). For horizontal and
diagonal loading, the load–displacement curves for the different
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 475

3.5 16

3 14

12
2.5

Load H [kN]
Load H [kN]

10
2
8
Hinged-beam model
1.5 Rigid-beam model
6
Separating-beam model, SS┴ ,ref
1 SS┴ ,el Separating-solid model
4
SS┴ ,ref Rigid-solid model
0.5 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement u [mm] Displacement u [mm]
(a) (a)

14 16

14
12
12
10

Load HD [kN]
Load H D [kN]

10
8
8
6
6 Hinged-beam model
Rigid-beam model
4 4
SS┴ ,el Separating-beam model, SS
Separating-solid model
2 SS┴ ,ref 2 Rigid-solid model

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Displacement u [mm] Displacement u [mm]

(b) (b)

Fig. 14. Load–displacement curves in the case of (a) horizontal loading and (b) Fig. 15. Load–displacement curves in the case of (a) horizontal loading and (b)
diagonal loading for elastic (SS\,el) and plastic (SS\,ref) unloading behaviour of the diagonal loading for five different stud-to-rail joint models.
sheathing-to-framing joints.

intersection, leads to a higher load–displacement curve than the

stud-to-rail joint models are shown in Fig. 15. The SS\,ref model is
employed for horizontal loading, whereas the SS// model is used for
diagonal loading. This is because in horizontal loading the most
loaded sheathing-to-framing joints are those loaded perpendicular
to the grain of the bottom rail (see Fig. 9), whereas for diagonal
loading the most loaded sheathing-to-framing joints are those
loaded parallel or close to parallel with the directions of the
framing members (see Fig. 12).
As mentioned in Section 2.4, the separating-beam model and
the separating-solid model allow the timber members to separate
from each other, whereas the hinged-beam model, the rigid-beam
and the rigid-solid model do not allow separation (the last three
are only included in the analyses for reasons of comparison).
Hence, the non-separating stud-to-rail joint models are obviously
not applicable for horizontal loading, because they do not simulate
the uplift of the leading stud that takes place in partially anchored
wall segments. Thus, the three non-separating stud-to-rail joint
models should only be used for diagonal loading, representing fully
anchored wall segments.
As noticed in Fig. 15a, the separating-solid model gives a load–
displacement curve with a slightly higher stiffness and capacity
than the separating-beam model. The three non-separating models
are, as mentioned, not realistic for the present load case.
From Fig. 15b, the load–displacement curves based on non-
separating stud-to-rail joint models have a somewhat higher
stiffness and capacity than those based on separating models. This
is because no shear displacements take place in the non-separating
stud-to-rail joint models. As expected, the rigid-beam model,
which allows no rotation between the framing members at their
hinged model with free rotation. Because the rigid-solid model
includes possible bending moments in the stud-to-rail joints, it is
somewhat surprising to find that the resulting load–displacement
curve is lower than the curve obtained by the hinged model, where
no bending moments can arise. This is likely a consequence of the
low stiffness in the wood material perpendicular to grain in the
rigid-solid model.
When comparing the load–displacement curves for diagonal
loading based on the separating-beam and separating-solid joint
models (Fig. 15b), it is noted that the separating-beam model
results in a curve with a somewhat lower stiffness and capacity
than the separating-solid model. This is due to the modelling of
the compression stiffness. In the separating-beam model, the com-
pression stiffness is based on stiffness data determined through the
testing of real stud-to-rail joints including the influence of actual
imperfections, such as initial gaps between the timber members,
and not plane wood surfaces. In the separating-solid model, the
wooden members are modelled by linear elastic solid elements,
assuming perfect contact between the members and without any
penetration of the contact surfaces. Using this assumption, the
compression stiffness of the stud-to-rail joints in the separating-
solid model will be higher than using the separating-beam model.
Another reason for the lower stiffness and capacity, by using the
separating-beam model instead of the separating-solid model, is
that the stud-to-rail joints in the separating-beam model are
assumed to be hinged with respect to rotation, whereas some
bending moments can be introduced into the studs with the sepa-
rating-solid model. These bending moments originate from uneven
distributions of the compression stresses between the timber
476 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479

4. Comparison between laboratory tests and finite element

simulations

In this section, the results of the finite element analyses above

will be compared with experimental test results. Girhammar and
Källsner [17] provide details of the testing program and test
set-up. Note that for diagonal loading, the test load was applied
from the upper left corner of the wall segment towards the lower
right corner of the bottom rail, i.e. the angle of the external force to
the horizontal plane changes during the deformation of the wall
segment. The diagonal load used in the finite element calculations
maintained its original inclination throughout the deformation
process. Three different finite element models, viz. SS\,ref, SS//
and SP\// models (see Table 3), were used.
The load–displacement curves for horizontal and diagonal
loading obtained from the tests and the different finite element
calculations are presented in Fig. 17. Both load cases had consider-
Fig. 16. Calculated vertical stresses in the top left corner of the frame using the able variations in the initial stiffness and in the ultimate load
separating-solid stud-to-rail joint model. High stress levels are represented by dark
capacity between the different tests.
fields.
The experimental and theoretical results for horizontal loading
agree on the whole fairly well. For the initial stiffness and load–
displacement response up to a loading of about 3 kN, the
5
4.5
4
H H H
3.5
Load H [kN]

3
2.5
Test 1
2 Test 2
Test 3 H1 H2 H3
1.5 Test 4
1 Separating-beam model, SS┴ ,ref
Separating-beam model, SS
0.5 Separating-beam model, SP┴ D D D
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement u [mm]
(a)
D1 D2 D3
20
18
16
H D
14
Load HD [kN]

12
10
Test 1
8 Test 2
Test 3 H4 D4
6 Test 4
4 Separating-beam model, SS┴ ,ref
Separating-beam model, SS V V
2 Separating-beam model, SP┴
H H
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement u [mm]
(b)
H2V H4V
Fig. 17. Experimentally and computationally obtained load–displacement curves in
the case of (a) horizontal loading and (b) diagonal loading using different sheathing-
to-framing joint models.
V V V V V V V V V
members, as shown in Fig. 16 at the upper left corner of the top rail
for diagonal loading and maximum load. The dark fields indicate H
high compression stresses in the vertical direction. Note that the
stresses have been calculated by assuming linear elastic material
properties for the wood, resulting in bending moments that are
somewhat too large introduced in the studs. The stresses are H4VV
plotted on the un-deformed geometry in the finite element
simulations. Fig. 18. Notations for wall structures studied.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 477

simulation results agree quite well with the test results. At this
point, the theoretical ultimate load capacity is almost reached
and for a displacement of about 20 mm the capacity starts to
decrease. The calculated softening behaviour of the wall segment
depends on the sheathing-to-framing joint model employed.
Fig. 17a clearly illustrates that spring models using perpendicular
characteristics of the joints (the SS\,ref and SP\// models) best
capture the character of the real response. It is also evident that
all models underestimate the ultimate load capacity of the wall seg-
ment as well as the displacement at which the ultimate load is
reached. The slopes of the calculated softening curves, using the
SS\,ref and SP\// models, are in good agreement with the test results.
The discrepancy in calculated and measured load capacity is
likely associated to differences in the manufacturing of the sheath-
ing-to-framing joints. During the manufacturing of the test speci-
mens for single joints, only the hardboard was predrilled. During
the manufacturing of the walls, the hardboard was placed on the
timber frame when the predrilling took place, resulting in that
both the hardboard and the timber members were predrilled. To
study this effect some additional sheathing-to-framing joint tests
were carried out using predrilled and non-predrilled timber
members. A preliminary evaluation indicates that the moisture
content has a significant influence on the capacity. For example,
for a moisture content of 10%, the test results indicate that
predrilling of the timber members may increase the capacity of
the joints by up to about 20%. For high moisture contents, the
corresponding increase in capacity is only a few per cent.
For diagonal loading, Fig. 17b clearly shows that spring models
using the parallel characteristics of the joints (the SS// and SP\//
models) best capture the character of the real response. Again, all
models underestimate the ultimate load capacity of the wall
segment and the displacement at which the ultimate load is
reached. The slopes of the calculated softening curves using the
SS// and SP\// models are in good agreement with the test results.
5. Extension to multiple wall segments
So far, this paper has only dealt with one-segment walls sub-
jected to pure horizontal or diagonal load. An important issue to
address is whether the sensitivities found in the analyses of single
wall segments are also found in the analyses of multiple wall
segments. Hence, some walls of different sizes subjected to various
load configurations were studied using the notations given in
Fig. 18. These walls have been analysed in a previous study; see
Källsner et al. [18]. The main load was applied as a diagonal load
D or as a horizontal load H. The horizontally loaded walls were
often simultaneously subjected to a vertical point load V acting
on the leading stud or as point loads V distributed on all studs.
Note that at diagonal loading, the vertical load on the leading stud
represents a certain proportion of the horizontal load H. It is
assumed that no contact between adjacent sheets occured in the
analyses. The separating-beam model was used for the stud-to-rail
joints. Three different models, viz. the single spring models SS\,ref
and SS// and the spring pair model SP\//, were used for the sheath-
ing-to-framing joints.
Provided that the sheathing-to-framing joints are weaker in the
perpendicular than the parallel direction of the timber members,
the SS\,ref model should always give a lower bound value of the true
capacity of the structure studied. As well, both the SS// and the SP\//
models should result in upper bound values of the true capacity, i.e.
the lowest one of them gives the best upper bound value.
The results of the performed FE calculations are presented in
Table 4. The first column indicates the notations of the wall struc-
tures studied. To distinguish between walls loaded and different
vertical load levels, an index is added to the last character. The
three central columns of the table show the calculated horizontal
capacity H of the walls using the three spring models. The last
two columns of the table specify the relative capacity of the walls,
where the single spring model with perpendicular properties for
the joints is used as a reference model with an assigned relative
capacity equal to unity. The relative capacity values for the SS//
model range between 1.03 and 1.14, for the SP\// model between
1.00 and 1.13. The underlined values in the table represent the
minimum values of the relative capacities obtained from the two
upper bound models SS// and SP\//. The SS// model is preferable
for wall structures subjected to high vertical loads (because the
forces in the sheathing-to-framing joints are fairly parallel with
the framing members), whereas the SP\// model is preferable for

Table 4
Applied vertical loads V, calculated capacities H and relative capacities of different wall structures using the three FE models for the sheathing-to-framing joints. The underlined
values represent minimum values of relative capacity.

Wall structure Load V Calculated capacity H Relative capacity

FE model
(1) SS\,ref (2) SS// (3) SP\// (2)/(1) (3)/(1)
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
D1 2H 12.4 12.9 13.9 1.04 1.12
D2 H 25.1 26.1 28.4 1.04 1.13
D3 2/3H 37.9 39.4 43.0 1.04 1.13
D4 1/2H 50.7 52.8 57.5 1.04 1.13

H1 – 3.10 3.20 3.11 1.03 1.00

H2 – 10.9 11.8 11.2 1.08 1.03
H3 – 20.6 22.9 21.5 1.11 1.04
H4 – 31.2 35.5 32.9 1.14 1.05
H2V1 3.23 13.5 14.5 14.1 1.07 1.04
H2V2 6.46 16.0 17.1 16.9 1.07 1.06
H2V3 12.9 20.6 21.8 22.3 1.06 1.08

H4V1 3.23 35.8 39.6 38.1 1.11 1.06

H4V2 6.46 39.8 43.2 43.0 1.09 1.08
H4V3 12.9 46.1 48.5 51.1 1.05 1.11

H4VV1 1.29 36.2 40.0 38.7 1.10 1.07

H4VV2 3.23 41.3 44.0 45.1 1.07 1.09
H4VV3 6.46 44.9 46.7 49.8 1.04 1.11
478 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479
walls subjected to low vertical loads (because of high uplifting
forces perpendicular to the bottom rail). If the upper bound model
with the lowest capacity is chosen, the relative capacities range
between 1.00 and 1.08 for the wall structures studied, i.e. the
calculated lower and upper bounds of the capacity values are fairly
close to each other.
Thus, according to Table 4, the analyses of long walls clearly
show that the same types of structural failure modes found for
one-segment walls also are applicable for the multiple segment
wall structures defined in Fig 18. Thus, the two modes, i.e. when
the forces in the failing sheathing-to-framing joints essentially
are parallel or perpendicular to the grain of the framing member,
are the same in both types of walls.
For entire buildings it is reasonable to assume that the SS\,ref
model leads to safe structures. For buildings subjected to low ver-
tical loads, the SP\// model may be used for determination of an
upper bound value of the capacity. For buildings subjected to high
vertical loads the SS// model is usually preferable. For buildings
where it is difficult to judge whether the SS// or the SP\// model will
give the lowest upper bound value of the capacity, it may be rea-
sonable to compare the load–displacement curves of both models.
The SP\// model usually provides a fairly realistic description of the
load–displacement curve shape for the structure studied, but the
calculated capacity may be somewhat overestimated, especially
when the force components of the sheathing-to-framing joints
are of equal magnitude in the parallel and perpendicular directions
of the timber members.
6. Conclusions
The present investigation focuses on evaluating the load–
displacement relationship of light-frame wall segments subjected
to in-plane monotonic forces, when considering the load-slip
curves of the individual sheathing-to-framing fasteners. The entire
load–displacement curve, including the softening part, is consid-
ered. Different sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics, includ-
ing unloading behaviour, and stud-to-rail joint characteristics are
incorporated in the analyses. Two loading cases are investigated,
horizontal loading resulting in an uplift of the leading stud and
diagonal loading representing a fully anchored wall.
A key issue is the modelling of the joints between the sheathing
and the framing members of the wall segment. Two types of finite
element models for the sheathing-to-framing joints are used in the
numerical simulations, a single spring (SS) model and a spring pair
(SP) model. Selection of the appropriate model is determined by
the wall configuration, load case and orthotropic character of the
sheathing-to-framing joints.
Using a basic reference finite element model, the entire load–
displacement behaviour of the wall segment and the corresponding
behaviour of the individual sheathing-to-framing joints, including
their displacement paths, are examined. The evaluation includes
different stages along the curve, such as when the ultimate capacity
of the different fasteners is reached, when the ultimate load of the
wall segment is reached, and when the softening behaviour of the
wall segment changes markedly. Also, it is shown that the fasteners,
at a certain stage during the loading process, are unloaded.
The influence of different finite element spring models for
different sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics is investigated.
The softening part of the load–displacement curves is significantly
affected, regardless if the perpendicular or parallel characteristics
of the joints are used.
The influence of the unloading behaviour of the sheathing-to-
framing joints is also studied. A nonlinear elastic model and a
plastic model with the unloading path parallel to the initial
stiffness of the joint are used. For diagonal loading, the softening
part of the load–displacement curve of the wall is somewhat
affected, but not in case of horizontal loading.
The influence of five different FE models for different stud-to-
rail joint characteristics is evaluated. The main alternative for the
modelling is to use beam elements for the framing members
coupled with two independent nonlinear spring elements for each
joint, one in the direction of the rail and the other in the direction
of the stud.
The results from the FE simulations using three different mod-
els are compared with full scale test results for walls with a single
segment loaded horizontally and diagonally. For horizontal loading
or partially anchored walls, where the behaviour is dominated by
displacements of the fasteners perpendicular to the bottom rail,
the SS and SP models including perpendicular joint characteristics,
capture the shape of the load–displacement curve. For diagonal
loading or fully anchored walls, where the behaviour is dominated
by fastener displacements parallel to the framing members around
the sheet, the most reasonable model to use is the SS model, based
on parallel joint characteristics.
For entire buildings, it should be on the safe side to use the SS
model with perpendicular joint characteristics. For buildings with
low vertical loads, the SP model with both perpendicular and
parallel joint characteristics can usually be used, though for
buildings with high vertical loads, the SS model with parallel joint
characteristics is usually preferable. For buildings where it is diffi-
cult to judge whether either of these last FE models will give the
lowest upper bound value of the capacity, it may be reasonable
to compare the load–displacement curves of both models.
The failure modes found for one segment walls are also applica-
ble to walls with multiple segments.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation for
the financial support from the Wood Design and Technology
Programme (WDAT), the County Administrative Board in Norrbot-
ten, the Regional Council of Västerbotten and the European Union’s
Structural Funds – The Regional Fund.
References
[1] Vessby J, Olsson A. Stability strategies for multi-story timber frame structures.
In: World conference on timber engineering, Portland, USA; 2006.
[2] McCutcheon WJ. Racking deformations in wood shear walls. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1985;111(2):257–69.
[3] Dolan JD, Foschi RO. Structural analysis model for static loads on timber shear
walls. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;117(3):851–61.
[4] Filiatrault A. Static and dynamic analysis of timber shear walls. Can J Civ Eng
1990;17(4):643–51.
[5] Gupta AK, Kuo GP. Modeling of a wood-framed house. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1987;113(2):260–78.
[6] He M, Lam F, Foschi RO. Modeling three-dimensional timber light-frame
buildings. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2001;127(8):901–13.
[7] Kasal B, Leichti RJ. Nonlinear finite-element model for light-frame stud walls. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118(11):3122–35.
[8] Pang W, Shirazi MH. Next generation numerical model for non-linear in-plane
analysis of wood-frame shear walls. In: World conference on timber
engineering, Trento, Italy; 2010.
[9] Girhammar UA, Bovim NI, Källsner B. Characteristics of sheathing-to-timber
joints in wood shear walls. In: World conference on timber engineering, Lahti,
Finland; 2004.
[10] Judd JP, Fonseca FS. Analytical model for sheating-to-framing connections in
wood shear walls and diaphragms. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2005;131(2):345–52.
[11] Vessby J, Serrano E, Olsson A. Coupled and uncoupled nonlinear elastic finite
element models for monotonically loaded sheathing-to-framing joints in
timber based shear walls. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):3433–42.
[12] Dolan JD, Madsen B. Monotonic and cyclic nail connection test. Can J Civ Eng
1992;19:97–104.
[13] Xu J, Dolan D. Development of nailed wood joint element in Abaqus. J Struct
Eng 2009;135(8):968–76.
[14] Palm S. Tests on framing joints in wood frame shear walls. Umeå University,
Faculty of Science and Technology, Dept. of TFE – Building Engineering, Report
2002:3, Umeå (Sweden); 2002.
 J. Vessby et al. / Engineering Structures 81 (2014) 464–479 479

[15] Källsner B, Girhammar UA. Analysis of fully anchored light-frame timber shear
walls – elastic model. Mater Struct 2009;42(3):301–20.
[16] Källsner B, Girhammar UA. Plastic models for analysis of fully anchored light-
frame timber shear walls. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):2171–81.
[17] Girhammar UA, Källsner B. Tests on partially anchored wood-framed
shear walls. In: World conference on timber engineering, Lahti, Finland;
2004.
[18] Källsner B, Girhammar UA, Vessby J. Evaluation of two analytical plastic design
models for light-frame shear walls. In: World conference on timber
engineering, Auckland, New Zeeland; 2012.
[19] van de Lindt JW. Evolution of wood shear wall testing modeling and reliability
analysis: bibliography. Pract Period Struct Des Constr (ASCE) 2004;9(1):44–53.
[20] Kirkham WJ, Gupta R, Miller TH. State of the art – seismic behavior of wood
buildings. J Struct Eng 2014;140(4). p. 04013097-1–19.