CIB-W18/46-15-1

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

IN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

WORKING COMMISSION W18 - TIMBER STRUCTURES

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ON SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

OF CONVENTIONAL TIMBER FRAME WALL WITH OSB SHEATHING
PROPOSAL OF BEHAVIOUR FACTOR

C Faye
L Le Magorou
P Garcia
J-C Duccini

Technological Institute for Forestry, Cellulose, Timber Construction and Furniture

(FCBA)

FRANCE

MEETING FORTY SIX

VANCOUVER
CANADA
AUGUST 2013
 Experimental investigations on seismic behaviour
of conventional Timber Frame Wall
with OSB sheathing
Proposal of behaviour factor
Carole Faye
Laurent Le Magorou
Patrice Garcia
Jean-Charles Duccini

Technological Institute for Forestry, Cellulose, Timber Construction and Furniture

(FCBA), France

1 Context and objectives

According to Eurocode 8 [1], timber buildings shall be designed using one of the following
concepts:
(1) low dissipative structural behaviour. In this case, behaviour factor q may be taken as 1.5;
(2) dissipative structural behaviour. In this case, structures shall belong to medium or high
capacity classes to dissipate seismic energy.
Concerning shear walls, following requirements for plywood, particleboard and fibreboard
sheathing for density and minimum thickness must be fulfilled to satisfy concept (2) without
the need of further studies:
a) particle board panels have a density of at least 650 kg/m3;
b) plywood sheathing is a least 9 mm thick;
c) particle board and fibreboard sheathing are at least 13 mm thick.
In these cases and with additional requirements for fasteners (nail diameter d not exceeding
3.1 mm and sheathing panel thickness of 4×d minimum), wall panels with nailed
diaphragms, connected by nails or bolts can be assigned to high ductility class with a value
of the behaviour factor q taken as up to 5. It should be noticed that there are no specific
requirements or provisions for OSB.
In France, the behaviour factor is limited to a value of q= 3 even for buildings that comply
with high ductility class.
Concerning OSB sheathing panels, q =3 is accepted if they comply with the requirements for
particleboard which implies a minimum thickness of 13 mm. As a consequence, for 12 mm
thick OSB sheathing panel, q is limited to 1.5 due to the lack of specific background as
mentioned in the French National Annex. This leads to the use of 15 mm thick OSB
sheathing. This situation is very penalizing because OSB sheathing represent up to 80% of
timber shear walls on the French market and most of the current structures don’t need such
thickness.
Then, this paper presents an experimental study on walls with 12 mm thick OSB sheathing
panel. For comparison purposes, walls made with particle board and plywood sheathing

1
were also tested. The objective is to assess experimentally a seismic behaviour factor q for
12 mm thick OSB sheathing.

2 Walls configurations
Tests were performed on walls of 2,4 m height by 2,4m long with the three following types
of sheathing panels:
- (config. CP10) 10 mm thick plywood complying with EN 636-3,
- (config. P16) 16 mm thick particleboard complying with EN 312/P5,
- (config. OSB12) 12 mm thick OSB/3 complying with EN 300.
These three configurations correspond to the minimum configurations used in seismic zones
in France.
Except for the sheathing panels, shear walls for tests have identical characteristics:
- sheathing panels are fixed using threaded nails of 2.5 mm diameter and 50 mm length
complying with EN 14 592,
- the spacing of the nails is 150 mm and 300 mm respectively on panel edges and panel
center,
- the span of studs is 600 mm. Studs and horizontal members are connected by 4
threaded nails.
In these conditions, according to Eurocode 8, configurations (CP10) and (P16) can be
assigned to the high ductility class. A wall description is presented in Figure 1.

3 Cyclic load tests

The objective of the cyclic load tests was to determine a displacement limit at the top of the
wall which will be used as the near-collapse criterion for dynamic tests. The displacement
limit (V90% ) was chosen as the displacement at the top of the wall corresponding to the
reduction of the maximum force by 10%.

3.1 Test Methods

Figure 1 : Shear wall dimensions and loading for cyclic test.

2
For each configuration, two cyclic tests were performed with realistic boundary conditions
(wall is anchored by available stiff commercial anchor brackets and a total vertical dead
load of 15 kN is applied) according to the standard ISO 21581:2010 [2] based on [3]. Test
assembly and shear wall dimensions are presented in Figure 1. The rate of displacement
was chosen to achieve ultimate displacement within 1 minute. The ultimate displacements,
measured previously with the static monotonic test, were respectively 124 mm, 116 mm
and 100 mm for plywood, particle board and OSB configurations.

3.2 Cyclic tests on plywood, particle board and OSB configurations

Cyclic tests on plywood, particle board and OSB configurations are presented,
respectively, in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

25000 25000

15000 15000

5000 5000
Force (N)
Force (N)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20
-5000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-15000 -15000

-25000 -25000
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 2 : load-displacement and envelope curves for cyclic tests at the top of the wall with 10
mm thick plywood sheathing (CP10) (left: test n°1 / right: test n° 2).

25000 25000

15000 15000

5000 5000
Force (N)
Force (N)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20
-5000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-15000 -15000

-25000 -25000
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 3 : load-displacement and envelope curves for cyclic tests at the top of the wall with 16
mm thick particle board sheathing (P16) (left: test n° 1 / right: test n°2).
Courbes enveloppes et EEEP - 403/11/725.1/6 OSB CHARGÉ

15000
15000
Fmax
90%Fmax 10000
10000

5000
5000
Force (N)
Force (N)

0
0
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
V90%Fmax
-5000 -5000

-10000 -10000

-15000 -15000
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 4 : load-displacement and envelope curves for cyclic tests at the top of the wall with 12
mm thick OSB sheathing (OSB12) (left: test n°1 : right : test n°2).
3
The following were observed:
- shear failure mode of the fasteners of the panels,
- hardening of the nails,
- damage to the particle boards around the nails,
- the anchorage brackets were undamaged.

3.3 Near-collapse criterion for dynamic tests

In Table 1, for each cyclic test, are given:
- the maximum force Fmax (see figure 4, left),
- the following displacements VFmax, V90%Fmax, V80%Fmax corresponding respectively
to the displacements at the forces Fmax, 90% Fmax,and 80% Fmax,
- and the displacement limit chosen as the near collapse criterion.
Fmax VFmax V90%Fmax V80%Fmax Limit displacement (mm)
(kN) for dynamic test
(mm) (mm) (mm)
CP10 /1,5T/ ISO 21581 20,8 45 54 64
54
CP10 /1,5T / ISO 21581 22,2 44 56 62
P16 /1,5T/ ISO 21581 22,0 63 66 69
60(*)
P16 /1,5T / ISO 21581 22,2 63 67 71
OSB12 /1,5T/ ISO 21581 12,4 34 51 59
51
OSB12 /1,5T / ISO 21581 14 34 54 62
Table 1 : Maximum force and displacements corresponding to Fmax, 90%Fmax, 80%Fmax ,
determined from the envelope curve of cyclic tests. (*) To avoid any geometrical instability of the
structure, displacement on the top the wall is limited to 60 mm.

4 Dynamic tests
4.1 Test Methods
The same wall configurations were then
tested on a shaking table with the
following conditions:
- a total dead load of 15 kN or 20 kN
is applied on the top of the wall,
- wall is anchored by stiff fasteners in
accordance with the provisions of
Eurocode 5 and Eurocode 8,
- the direction of shaking test is
parallel to the wall plane.
The horizontal displacement is measured at
the top of the wall.

Figure 5: shear wall and dead load for dynamic test.

4
The test method for each wall is the following :
Step a) vibration test with white noise is performed at a low level to determine its
natural frequency f0;
Step b) a seismic test is performed with the earthquake signal at its original Peack
Ground Acceleration to determine the displacement at the top of the wall; this step is
not systematically made;
Step c) a seismic test is performed with the same earthquake at an increased PGA,
named PGAnear collapse, test , calibrated in order to reach a displacement at the top of
the wall as close as possible to the near collapse criterion (see column 6 of Table 1),
without over passing it.
Step d) a seismic test, identical to the step (b), is performed to verify shear wall load
bearing capacity after the seismic events.
Thus, for each shear wall tested, we can calculate the experimental value of the behaviour
factor qtest according to:
qtest = PGAnear collapse, test / PGAdesign EC8, q=1 (1)
where PGAdesign EC8, q=1, is the ground acceleration corresponding to the maximum
allowable PGA for the tested wall if designed according to linear lateral force method of
analysis of Eurocode 8, with q=1. The relation (1) was used by [4] and [5] in a hybrid
approach coupling finite elements modeling and experimentation.
These values of q are presented in tables 2, 3 and 4 (column 10) respectively for
configurations CP10, P16 and OS12 for each wall tested.
The total number of shear walls tests that were performed is 16: 8 seismic tests for OSB12,
4 seismic tests for particleboard P16 and 4 seismic tests for plywood CP10.

4.2 Choice of earthquakes

Three different earthquake signals were applied for each configuration test.
Two of them were selected from a database of 40 earthquakes representative of medium
(PGA=1.6g) and high (PGA=3g) seismic zones in France (where g=9.81 m/s2). Both
earthquakes were chosen with the following criteria:
- to be the most destructive to the walls. To achieve this, the power spectral density and
other general seismic indicators (Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity …) were
determined for each earthquake normalized at PGA=1g;
- to be compatible with the limitations (allowed displacement and acceleration) of the
shaking table.
Finally, both selected earthquakes (hereafter named earthquake 1 and earthquake 2) were
among the five most destructive on our dtabase. More details are given in [6].
Additionally, a third earthquake, named Aquila (occurred in Italy in 2009, named
earthquake 3), was also used for seismic tests.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 represent respectively the acceleration vs time curve for earthquakes 1, 2
and 3.

5
 0,25
0.4
0,2

0.3
0,15

0.2 0,1

Accélération (g)
Accélération (g)

0,05
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.0 -0,05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0,1
-0.1

-0,15
-0.2
-0,2

-0.3 -0,25

-0,3
-0.4

Temps (s) Temps (s)

Figure 6: earthquake 1 (PGA=0.33g) Figure 7: earthquake 2 (PGA=0.24g)

0,60000000

0,40000000

0,20000000
Acceleration (g)

0,00000000
0 5 10 15 20 25

-0,20000000

-0,40000000

-0,60000000

-0,80000000

Temps (s)
.
Figure 8: earthquake 3 (PGA=0.56g)

4.3 Results of the CP10 configuration

Four walls CP10 were tested on the shaking table with the three earthquakes. The results
are presented in Table 2.
The displacement at the top of the wall vs time curves of dynamic tests of CP10 walls n°9
and n°21 (compared with OSB12 wall n° 7 and n°18) are presented in Figure 10 and 9 in
section 4.5.

results concerning only seismic test

performed with PGAnear-collapse (see section 4.1, step c)
Max. displ. (mm) and permanent actual
Wall f0 dead load earthquake associated input PGAdesignEC8,q=1 qtest =
damage displ. PGAnear-collapse
N° (Hz) (kN) signal (B) (A)/(B)
PGAnear-collapse (mm) (A)

shear failure
9 5.8 15 1 42 mm at 1.19g 0.1 1.1 g 0.32 g 3.4
on 3 nails

shear failure
19 5 20 2 50 mm at 0.88g on 5 nails
5 1.1 g 0.24 g 4.5

21 7 20 2 45 mm at 0.73g none 3.5 0.9 g 0.24 g 3.7

shear failure
20 5.4 20 3 49 mm at 1.3g on 5 nails
5 1.4 g 0.24 g 5.8

Table 2 : results of dynamic tests for CP10 walls: column 2 indicates the natural frequency of the
wall determined before the first seismic test (see section 4.1, step a); column 7 indicates the
permanent displacement at the top of the wall after the seismic test made with PGAnear-collapse;
column 8 indicates the actual value of PGAnear-collapse, test which can be different from the input PGA;
column 10 indicates the qtest value for each wall, calculated as mentioned in section 4.1. (g = 9.81
m/s2)

6
The main observations are the following:
- concerning all CP10 walls, the only visible damage (see column 8 of Table 2) due
to earthquake at PGAnear-collapse,test (see § 4.1 step c) is shear failure of the nails
without damage of the panel ;
- all walls having suffered the earthquake at PGAnear-collapse,test, are able to
withstand an earthquake at its regular PGA, without collapsing;
- the maximum displacement of wall n°9 (42 mm) for seismic at PGAnear-
collapse,test level (see step c of section 4.1) is well below the criterion of 54 mm. So,
the value of 3.4 for q, calculated for the earthquake1 is very conservative. Tests
performed on walls n° 19 and n° 20, with earthquakes 2 and 3, led to higher
conservative values for q: respectively 4.5 and 5.8.

4.4 Results of the P16 configuration

Four walls P16 were tested on the shaking table using two of the three earthquakes. The
results are presented in Table 3.
The displacement at the top of the wall vs time curve of dynamic test of P16 walls n°16
(compared with OSB12 wall n° 15) is presented in Figure 11 in section 4.5.

The main observations are the following:

- concerning wall n°17, damage of the panel around only 3 nails was observed;
- all walls having suffered the earthquake at PGAnear-collapse,test, are able to
withstand an earthquake at its regular PGA, without collapsing;
- the maximum displacement of walls n°10 and n°17 at PGAnear-collapse,test are
below the criterion of 60 mm. So, the values of 4.5 and 8 for q, are conservative
respectively for the earthquakes 1 and 3.
results concerning only seismic test
performed with PGAnear-collapse (see section 4.1, step c)

Max. displ. (mm) and permanent actual

Wall f0 dead load earthquake PGAnear- PGA
associated input damage displ. design EC8,q=1 qtest =
N° (Hz) (kN) signal (B) (A)/(B)
PGAnear-collapse (mm) collapse (A)

shear failure on 2
5 7.4 15 1 39 mm at 1.25g nails
0.1 1.15 g 0.35 g 3.3

10 nailed
withdrawals /
10 6.2 20 1 54 mm at 1.25g panel without
1.5 1.17 g 0.26 g 4.5
damage

16 7 15 3 41 mm at 1.8g none 0.2 2.07 g 0.35 g 6.0

damage of the
17 5 20 3 51 mm at 1.8g panel around 3 10 2.09 g 0.26 g 8.0
nails

Table 3 : results of dynamic tests for P16 walls. For explanations, see Table 2.

7
 4.5 Results of the OSB12 configuration and proposal for the
behaviour factor for OSB12
Height walls OSB12 were tested on the shaking table using the three earthquakes. The
results are presented in Table 4.
The main observations are the following:
- concerning all OSB12 walls (except wall n°13 which over-passed the displacement
limit of 51mm), there was no damage induced by seismic tests;
- all walls having suffered the earthquake at PGAnear-collapse,test, are able to
withstand an earthquake at its regular PGA, without collapsing;
- concerning earthquake 1, four identical tests were performed (on walls n° 7, 8, 11
and 12). The variation (around 9%) of the experimental values of the maximum
displacement at the top is explained by the higher stiffness of the walls n°7, 11 and
12 in comparison with wall n°8.
The following values for behaviour factor of OSB12 were calculated:
- a conservative value of 3.2 for earthquake 1 (walls n° 7, 8, 11, 12)
- a conservative value of 3.8 for earthquake 2 (wall n° 18)
- a conservative value of 4.5 for earthquake 3 (wall n° 15).
Furthermore, comparison of experimental displacements curves of OSB12 and CP10
measured for identical (or very close) seismic tests are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
We can observe that dynamic behaviour of OSB12 and CP10 walls are very similar.
In the opposite, comparison between OSB12 and P16, presented in Figure 11, shows that
P16 walls can suffer significantly higher seismic event than OSB12 wall with similar
displacements.
results concerning only seismic test
performed with PGAnear-collapse (see section 4.1, step c)

dead Max. displ. (mm) and permanent actual

Wall f0 earthquake associated input PGAdesign EC8,q=1 qtest =
load damage displ. PGAnear-collapse
N° (Hz) signal (B) (A)/(B)
(kN) PGAnear-collapse (mm) (A)

7 6.8 15 1 39 mm at 1.06g none 7 1g 0.31 g 3.2

8 5.8 15 1 45 mm at 1,06g none 10 0.98 g 0.31 g 3.1

11 7.2 15 1 36 mm at 1,06g none 4 1g 0.31 g 3.2

12 7 15 1 38 mm at 1,06g none 2 1g 0.31 g 3.2

1 nail
13 5.6 20 1 57 mm at 1,06g withdrawal 7 1g 0.24 g /*

14 6.5 15 2 42 mm at 0,88g none 1 1.1 g 0.31 g 3.5

18 5.5 20 2 46 mm at 0,73g none 3 0.9 g 0.24 g 3.8

15 6 15 3 40 mm at 1,3g none 6 1.4 g 0.31 g 4.5

Table 4 : results of dynamic tests for OSB12 walls. For explanations, see Table 2. * Concerning
wall n° 13, q test is not calculated because the near collapse criterion is over-passed.

8
 OSB12 Wall N°18 for earthquake 2 at 0,9g
4
CP10 Wall N°21 for earthquake 2 at 0,9g
3
displacements at the top

2
of the walls (cm)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1

-2

-3

-4
time (s)
-5

Figure 9 : experimental displacements vs time curves for wall n°18 (OSB12) and wall n° 21
(CP10) when submitted to same seismic test (earthquake 2 at 0,9g).

5 OSB12 wall N°7 for earthquake 1 at 1g

CP10 wall N°9 for earthquake 1 at 1.1g
4

3
displacements at the top

1
of the wall
(cm)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1

-2

-3

-4
time (s)
-5

Figure 10 : experimental displacements vs time curves for wall n°7 (OSB12) and wall n° 9
(CP10) when submitted to quasi-same seismic test (earthquake 1 at 1g).

5
P16 wall n°16 for earthquake 3 at 2.07g
4
OSB12 wall n°15 for earthquake 3 at 1.4g
displacements at the top

3
of the wall (cm)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-1

-2

-3

-4
time (s)

Figure 11 : experimental displacements curves vs time for wall n°15 (OSB12) and wall n° 16
(P16) when submitted to earthquake 3, first one at 1.4g, second one at 2.07g.
9
5 Conclusions
This experimental study concerned dynamic tests carried out on three different light frame
walls having racking resistances designed according to the capacity design principles and
supporting a dead load up to 850 kg/m.
The dynamic tests showed that failure modes are due to the yield moment of the fasteners
connecting the sheathing panels to the wooden frame.
For earthquake 1, which is among the five most destructive of our database on 40
representative earthquakes of seismic French zones, a conservative value q of 3.2 was
calculated for OSB12 walls.
Moreover, the dynamic behaviour of walls with OSB (12 mm) and plywood (10 mm)
sheathing panels are very similar:
- their near-collapse criterion displacement are very close,
- during dynamic tests performed with identical earthquakes, their experimental
dynamic displacement curves are very similar.
Thus, it is proposed that a conservative behaviour factor q for OSB sheathing panel with a
thickness of 12 mm should be q = 3, as is the value allowed for CP10 complying
requirements for high ductility class in France.

6 Acknowledgments
This research project was supported by CODIFAB (French Federation of Wood Industry)
and DHUP (French Ministry of Lodging).

7 References
[1] EN 1998-1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings.
[2] ISO 21581:2010 : Timber structures- Static and cyclic lateral load test metrhods for
shear walls.
[3] Yasumura M., Karacabeyli E.: International test standard development for lateral load
test for shear walls, Proceedings of CIB-W18, paper 40-15-5, 2007, Slovenia.
[4] Ceccotti A., Sandhaas C., A proposal for a standard procedure to establish the seismic
behaviour factor q of timber buildings, WCTE, World Conference on Timber Engineering,
2010, Italy.
[5] Schädle P., Blass HJ., Influence of different standards on the determination of
earthquake properties of timbre shear wall systems, Proceedings of CIB-18, paper 43-15-2,
2010, New-Zealand.
[6] Research report, FCBA, comportement parasismique des murs à ossature bois, 2012.

10