UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluation of direct stucco-woodframe connectors in improved stucco shear walls Sofali, Vahid 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_fall_sofali_vahid.pdf [ 7.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0063110.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0063110-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0063110-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0063110-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0063110-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0063110-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0063110-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0063110-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0063110.ris

Full Text

EVALUATION OF DIRECT STUCCO-WOODFRAME CONNECTORS IN IMPROVED STUCCO SHEAR WALLS by Vahid Sofali B.Sc. Civil Engineering, K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 1996 A THESIS SUBMITTED ll4 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER) August 2008 © Vahid Sofali, 2008 ABSTRACT Due to the weakness of the connections between woodframe and stucco, a large number of woodframe residential buildings with stucco as a shear resisting member were damaged during past earthquakes. This has resulted in the shear resistance of stucco being reduced in a number of building codes. A number of research projects have been conducted on stucco shear walls since then and the results from all research projects indicated that stucco separates from the wood frame due to the weakness of the connections between the wood frame and stucco when subjected to lateral cyclic loading. On the other hand, when properly attached to wood frame, stucco can have a significant contribution to the stiffness of the structure. A special connector was developed to provide direct shear connection between stucco and woodframe structures. The device is designed to have adequate stiffness and strength, and to act as a ductile “fuse” so that stucco shear walls will have a well defined strength and significant ductility. As part of the current research project, numerous tests were conducted on stucco-connector-woodframe elements to study the shear connectors, and provide important design information. Tests were also conducted on 8 ft by 8 ft stucco wall panels with and without the special connectors. The tests show that stucco shear walls with the connectors have much greater shear strength and ductility than regular stucco walls. The tests also show that stucco walls with the shear connectors can achieve similar strengths and similar ductility as plywood shear walls. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 IMPROVED STUCCO SYSTEM 3 1.3 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ON SHEARLOCKS 5 1.4 OBJECTIVES 6 1.5 METHODOLOGY 6 1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION 6 CHAPTER 2 ELEMENT TESTS 2.1 PREVIOUS STUDY 8 2.2 CURRENT STUDY 11 2.3 TEST SETUP 11 2.4 LOADING PROTOCOL 14 2.5 SPECIMENS 15 2.6 DISCUSSION OF TEST PARAMETERS 17 2.7 DISCUSSION OF MEASURED TEST RESULTS 21 2.7.1 Inner sleeve geometry 21 2.7.2 Fasteners prevented from pulling out of Shearlock 22 2.7.3 Pre-grooved wood members 24 2.7.4 Weep Screed 26 2.8 SUMMARY OF ELEMENT TESTS 28 111 CHAPTER 3 WALL PANEL TESTS 3.1 METHODOLOGY 29 3.2 TEST SETUP 30 3.3 INSTRUMENTATION 33 3.4 LOADING PROTOCOL 35 3.4.1 Reverse Cyclic loading protocol 35 3.4.2 Monotonic loading protocol 37 3.5 SPECIMENS 38 3.5.1 Plywood Shearwall 39 3.5.2 Regular Stucco Shearwall 40 3.5.3 Stucco Shearwall with Special Shear Connectors 42 3.6 SUMMARY OF TEST SPECIMENS 43 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF PANEL TEST RESULTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION 44 4.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 44 4.2.1 Plywood shearwalls 44 4.2.2 Regular stucco shearwalls 47 4.2.3 Stucco shearwalls with Shearlock connectors 49 4.3 MONOTONIC TEST RESULTS 52 4.4 CYCLIC TEST RESULTS 53 4.4.1 Peak load and displacement at peak load 53 4.4.2 Envelopes 53 4.4.3 Effective Stiffness (K ) 54 4.4.4 Displacement Capacity (i ) 54 4.4.5 Yield displacement (z) 54 4.4.6 Displacement Ductility (ps) 57 4.4.7 Resisting shear at 0.5% drift (V0005h) 57 4.4.8 Performance factor (P) 57 4.5 DISCUSSION OF CYCLIC TEST RESULTS 60 iv CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY 5.1 ELEMENT TESTS 66 5.2 PANEL TESTS 67 APPENDIX A — Phase I — Element Tests 71 APPENDIX B — Phase II— Panel Tests 140 APPENDIX C — Recorded data, Photos, and Video clips of Panel Tests 205 V LIST OF TABLES Table 2.5.1 — Summary of element testspecimens. 17 Table 2.7.1 — Summary of test results — Inner sleeve geometry 22 Table 2.7.2 — Summary of test results — Fasteners prevented from pulling out 23 Table 2.7.3 — Summary of test results — Pre-grooved wood member 25 Table 2.7.4 — Summary of test results — Pre-grooved wood member with and without cap.. 26 Table 2.7.5 — Summary of test results — Weep screed 27 Table 3.6.1 — Summary of test specimens 43 Table 4.3.1 — Summary of monotonic test results 52 Table 4.4.1 — Summary of cyclic test results 59 Table A. 1 — Test results of specimen ODLT 73 Table A.2 — Test results of specimen NDLT 1 77 Table A.3 — Test results of specimen NDLT2 81 Table A.4 — Test results of specimen NDLT3 85 Table A.5 — Test results of specimen NDLT4 89 Table A.6 — Test results of specimen NDLT5 93 Table A.7 — Test results of specimen NDLT6 97 Table A. 8 — Test results of specimen NDLT7 101 Table A.9 — Test results of specimen NDLT8 105 Table A. 10 — Test results of specimen NDLT9 109 Table A.1 1 — Test results of specimen NDLT1O 113 Table A.12 — Test results of specimen NDLT1 1 117 Table A.13 — Test results of specimen NDLT12 121 Table A. 14 — Test results of specimen WS 1 125 Table A. 15 — Test results of specimen WS2 129 Table A. 16 — Test results of specimen WS3 133 Table A.17 — Test results of specimen WS4 137 Table B. 1 — Test results of specimen PLC1 145 Table B.2 — Test results of specimen PLC2 149 Table B.3 — Test results of specimen PLC3 153 Table B.4 — Test results of specimen PLC4 157 vi Table B.5 — Test results of specimen PLC5 161 Table B.6 — Test results of specimen PLC6 165 Table B.7 — Test results of specimen STC1 172 Table B.8 — Test results of specimen SHC1 178 Table B.9 — Test results of specimen SHC2 182 Table B. 10 — Test results of specimen SHC3 186 Table B.l 1 — Test results of specimen SHC4 190 Table B.12 — Test results of specimen SHC5 194 Table B.13 — Test results of specimen SHC6 198 Table B. 14— Test results of specimen SHC7 202 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1.1 — Picture of earthquake damage to stucco walls due to lack of embedment (http://www.nbmg.unr.edu) 2 Figure 1.2.1 — Construction of a traditional stucco wall system 3 Figure 1.2.2 — Details of Shearlock 4 Figure 1.2.3 — Deformation of Shearlock under high shear demand 5 Figure 2.1.1 — Element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002) 8 Figure 2.1.2 — Shear element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002) 9 Figure 2.1.3 — Testing apparatus 9 Figure 2.3.1 — Element test setup (Mastschuch 2002) 11 Figure 2.3.2 — Element test instrumentation 13 Figure 2.5.1 — Inner sleeve geometry— different transitions 16 Figure 2.6.1 — Typical test result 20 Figure 2.7.1 — Envelope comparisons 21 Figure 2.7.2 — Envelope Comparisons 23 Figure 2.7.3 — Envelope comparisons 24 Figure 2.7.4 — Envelope Comparisons 25 Figure 2.7.5 — Envelope Comparisons 27 Figure 3.2.1 — Mechanical setup 30 Figure 3.2.2 — Bottom Channel, elevation view 31 Figure 3.2.3 — Bottom Channel, plan view 31 Figure 3.2.4 — Top Channel, elevation view 32 Figure 3.2.5 — Tie rod connection to bottom channel 33 Figure 3.3.1 — Instrumentation 34 Figure 3.4.1 — Calculation of A and A 35 Figure 3.4.2 — CUREe/Caltech Basic Loading Protocol (A = 62mm) 37 Figure 3.5.1 — Shipping of specimens 39 Figure 3.5.2 — Plywood specimen 40 Figure 3.5.3 — Stucco without Shearlock 41 Figure 3.5.4 — Stucco with Shearlock 42 Figure 4.2.1 — Pullout failure 45 viii Figure 4.2.2 — Pull through failure.46 Figure 4.2.3 — Tearout failure 46 Figure 4.2.4 — Stud connection failure 47 Figure 4.2.5 — Staple failure 47 Figure 4.2.6 — Crack width and distribution before test, STM (cracks width ranged from 0.1mm to 0.75mm) 48 Figure 4.2.7 — Crack width and distribution after test, STM (existing cracks width remained unchanged and no additional cracks were formed) 48 Figure 4.2.8 — Fastener fracture 49 Figure 4.2.9 — Fastener pullout 50 Figure 4.2.10 — Fastener popout 50 Figure 4.2.11 — Shearlock pullout 51 Figure 4.2.12 — Corner break out 51 Figure 4.3.1 — Load-Deformation curve for monotonic tests 52 Figure 4.4.1 — Normalized primary cycle envelopes — plywood specimens 55 Figure 4.4.2 — Normalized primary cycle envelopes — stucco specimens 56 Figure 4.4.3 — Typical panel test result 58 Figure 4.5.1 — Load-Deformation curve, plywood cyclic test PLC1 60 Figure 4.5.2 — Primary envelope curves — plywood cyclic tests 61 Figure 4.5.3 — Load — Deformation curve, regular stucco cyclic test STC1 62 Figure 4.5.4 — Load — Deformation curve, stucco with shear connector cyclic test SHC1. ... 63 Figure 4.5.5 — Primary envelope curves — stucco with Shearlock cyclic tests 64 Figure 4.5.6— Comparison of load-deformation envelopes of the three wall systems 65 Figure A. 1 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen ODLT 74 Figure A.2 — Failure of the fasteners of specimen ODLT 75 Figure A.3 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT1 78 Figure A.4 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT1 79 Figure A.5 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 1 79 Figure A.6 — Complete load-deformation and envelope curves of specimen NDLT2 82 Figure A.7 — Failure of the fasteners of specimen NDLT2 83 ix Figure A.8 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT3 86 Figure A.9 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT3 87 Figure A. 10 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT3 87 Figure A. 11 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT4 90 Figure A. 12 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT4 91 Figure A. 13 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT4 91 Figure A. 14— Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT5 94 Figure A. 15 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT5 95 Figure A. 16 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT5 95 Figure A.17 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT6 98 Figure A. 18 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT6 99 Figure A. 19 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT6 99 Figure A.20 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT7 102 Figure A.2 1 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT7 103 Figure A.22 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT7 103 Figure A.23 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT8 106 Figure A.24 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT8 107 Figure A.25 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT8 107 Figure A.26 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT9 110 Figure A.27 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT9 111 Figure A.28 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT9 111 Figure A.29 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimenNDLTl0 114 Figure A.30 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 10 ... 115 Figure A.31 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT1O .... 115 x Figure A.32 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT1 1 118 Figure A.33 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 11 ... 119 Figure A.34 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 11 .... 119 Figure A.35 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen NDLT12 122 Figure A.36 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 12 ... 123 Figure A.37 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 12 .... 123 Figure A.38 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen WS1 126 Figure A.39 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS 1 127 Figure A.40 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS 1 127 Figure A.41 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen WS2 130 Figure A.42 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS2 131 Figure A.43 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS2 131 Figure A.44 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SW3 134 Figure A.45 —Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS3 135 Figure A.46 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS3 135 Figure A.47 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen WS4 138 Figure A.48 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS4 139 Figure A.49 — Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS4 139 Figure B.1 — Backbone curve of specimen PLM 142 Figure B.2 — Failure mode of specimen PLM 142 Figure B.3 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLM 143 Figure B.4 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC1 146 Figure B.5 — Failure mode of specimen PLC1 147 Figure B.6 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC1 147 xi Figure B.7 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC2 150 Figure B.8 —Failure mode of specimen PLC2 151 Figure B.9 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC2 151 Figure B. 10— Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC3 154 Figure B.11 — Failure mode of specimen PLC3 155 Figure B.12 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC3 155 Figure B.13 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC4 158 Figure B.l4 — Failure mode of specimen PLC4 159 Figure B. 15 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC4 159 Figure B.16 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC5 162 Figure B.17 — Failure mode of specimen PLC5 163 Figure B.18 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC5 163 Figure B.19 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen PLC6 166 Figure B.20 — Failure mode of specimen PLC6 167 Figure B .21 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLC6 167 Figure B.22 — Backbone curve of specimen STM 169 Figure B.23 — Failure mode of specimen STM 169 Figure B.24 — Pictures of failure of specimen STM 170 Figure B.25 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen STC1 173 Figure B.26 — Pictures of failure of specimen STC1 174 Figure B.27 — Backbone curve of specimen SHM 176 Figure B.28 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHM 176 Figure B.29 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC 1 179 Figure B.30 — Failure mode of specimen SHC1 180 Figure B.3 1 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC 1 180 xii Figure B.32 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC2 183 Figure B.33 — Failure mode of specimen SHC2 184 Figure B.34 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC2 184 Figure B.35 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC3 187 Figure B.36 — Failure mode of specimen SHC3 188 Figure B.37 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC3 188 Figure B.38 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC4 191 Figure B.39 — Failure mode of specimen SHC4 192 Figure B.40 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC4 192 Figure B.41 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC5 195 Figure B.42 — Failure mode of specimen SHC5 196 Figure B.43 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC5 196 Figure B.44 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC6 199 Figure B.45 — Failure mode of specimen SHC6 200 Figure B.46 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC6 200 Figure B.47 — Complete Load - Deformation plot and Envelope curves of specimen SHC7 203 Figure B.48 — Failure mode of specimen SHC7 204 Figure B.49 — Pictures of failure of specimen SHC7 204 Figure C. 1 — List of recordings 207 xl” ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research supervisor, Professor Perry E. Adebar, Ph.D. for his detailed and constructive comments and for his important support throughout this work. This project was conducted under the auspices of the Professional Partnership Program in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of British Columbia. The industrial partner was SACKS Industrial Corp. of Vancouver, B.C. I would like to thank Mr. Abe. J. Sacks, president of SACKS Industrial Corp., who provided the financial support along with testing apparatus and specimens supply. Special thank is given to two consultants of SACKS Industrial Corp. Mr. William Spilchen for his professional and technical advice through the whole experimental study and supervising the construction of all specimens and Dr. Harald R. Davis for his input and suggestions regarding the design and modifications of the testing apparatus and for his professional recommendations from beginning to the end of the research study. The experimental study would not have been possible without the assistance of the structural laboratory and machine shop technicians. Special thanks are extended to Mr. Doug Smith and Mr. John Wong for helpful participation in assembling the apparatus and instrumentation. Finally, but certainly not the least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and special thanks to my wife, Azadeh, whose limitless love, patience, tolerance, mental support and encouragement was the difference that made this academic goal possible for me. I am grateful of our charming newborn son, Artin, who is the joy of my days. xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Before the Northridge earthquake that occurred in January 17, 1994 the most common lateral resistance system in southern California for low-rise woodframe residential construction was portland cement plaster (stucco) applied to open framing with no structural sheathing. Due to the weakness of the connections between woodframe and stucco, a large number of woodframe residential buildings with stucco as a shear resisting member were damaged during the Northridge earthquake (Figurel.1.1). As a result, the EERI reconnaissance Report (Holmes and Somers, 1995) recommended reducing the stucco shear value in building codes until appropriate design parameters are determined. In order to investigate the behavior of stucco shear walls and due to a long tradition of employing stucco shear walls in residential buildings, a number of research projects have been conducted on stucco shear walls since the Northridge earthquake. The experimental research on 8 ft x 8ft wall panels at University of California — Irvine (Larsen, 2000) included two types of stucco shear walls with open stud construction. One type had wire lath attached with furring nails at 6 in. spacing and the other type had wire lath stapled at 6 in. spacing. The results of both tests indicated that stucco remains essentially rigid and the damage occurrs in the connection between the woodframe and the stucco. Experimental studies on 811 x 811 plywood and OSB shear walls along with plywood shear walls with stucco at the University of California — San Diego (Gatto and Uang, 2001) showed that adding stucco over sheathing significantly increased the initial stiffuess and the strength of the shear wall compared to the plywood and OSB shear walls without stucco. A number of 411 x 811 stucco shear walls with wire lath stapled / nailed to OSB sheathing were tested at the University of British Columbia (Taylor et al. 2002). The test results indicated that the undamaged rigid stucco detached from the wood frame due to pull out of the staple / nail, or fracture of the wire lath, or unhooked wire lath from nails. Full scale dynamic test of two-storey single-family woodframe house with exterior stucco walls were conducted at the University of California - San Diego (Fisher et al. 2000) 1 as well as the University of British Columbia (Ventura et al. 2002). Both results were similar in that the displacement response of the structure incorporating the exterior stucco was considerably reduced compared to the structure without stucco. The observations of both tests indicated that the structure with stucco behaved as a shell with increased lateral stiffness. Figure 1.1.1 - Picture of earthquake damage to stucco walls due to lack of embedment (http://www.nbmg.unr.edu). The results from all mentioned research projects indicated that stucco separates from the wood frame due to the weakness of the connections between the wood frame and stucco when subjected to lateral cyclic loading. On the other hand, when properly attached to wood frame, stucco can have a significant contribution to the stiffness of the structure. 2 1.2 IMPROVED STUCCO SYSTEM A stucco shear wall in open stud construction consists of wood frame members that resist vertical and transverse lateral loads as columns and beam-columns, building paper which prevents moisture penetration and provides formwork for casting stucco, and wire lath nailed or stapled to wood frame which connects the overlaid stucco to wood frame and helps to reduce the size of shrinkage cracks. Stucco layer resists in-plane lateral loads in shear and nails/staples resist the combined shear and tension loads. Due to low capability of nail/staple in resisting the high shear flow demand in the critical wall regions, fracture of nail/staple, or fracture of wire lath followed by the separation between stucco and wood frame has occurred during earthquakes. To improve the connection between the stucco and wood frame, a stucco system with enhanced seismic performance was developed which consists of specially developed shear transfer devices, called Shearlocks (Adebar et a!. 2003). Shearlock provides a direct connection between stucco and wood frame which is stiff, strong and has significant ductility. Figure 1.2.1 — Construction of a traditional stucco wall system. 3 A Shearlock connection consists of two pieces: a sleeve and a fastener. The sleeve is made of medium carbon steel, type 4130, and is hot-dipped galvanized for added corrosion protection. The V2 in. long sleeve is designed to provide the required anchorage strength in 7/8 in. thick stucco and, at the same time, to prevent serviceability problems such as “pop off’ of the stucco over the head of the sleeve. The diameter of the outer head is designed to ensure adequate anchorage to the stucco. The inner head diameter provides the resistance to combine bending and pull-out of the Shearlock from the stucco. The fastener is 3 in. long in order to have adequate pull-out resistance from wood frame members. The diameter of the fastener as well as the grade of the steel provides the shear resistance of the device. The type of steel ensures adequate low-cycle fatigue capacity. The Shearlock due to its length and significant bending resistance contributes to the overall lateral displacement capacity of the shear wall (Mastschuch, 2002). Further details about Shearlocks are given in Adebar et a!. (2003). Sleeve Inner Head Figure 1.2.2 — Details of Shearlock. Shearlock provides a stiff, strong and ductile direct connection between stucco and wood frame members and ensures that stucco does not separate from the wood frame in the event of an earthquake. The inner transition curve of Shearlock limits the inelastic action of a stucco shear wall to the deformation of the fastener itself. By placing Shearlocks into the locations of high shear flow (along the top and bottom plate and along the joist headers at the floor levels), the demand on stucco, wire lath, and wire lath connections will be significantly reduced. Outer Head Stucco Shearlock Fastener 4 Stucco Wood Frame Figure 1.2.3 - Deformation of Shearlock under high shear demand. 1.3 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ON SHEARLOCKS In order to study the details of the shear connectors, a small element testing approach was developed by Mastschuch (2002). The objective of the preliminary research project was to experimentally evaluate Shearlock connectors. The study included the influence of the following variables on the performance of Shearlock connectors: • Types of Shearlock fasteners • Heat treatment of fasteners • Internal geometry of Shearlock sleeves • Spacing and edge distance of Shearlocks • Stucco compressive strength • Displacement increment of the cyclic loading protocol Some additional tests were also employed on regular stucco and plywood systems in order to permit comparisons with the improved stucco system. The element specimens consisted of a 600 mm long piece of 2 x 4 in. lumber, connected by two shear connectors to a 2 ft x 2 ft panel of stucco. The stucco was held in special testing frame, and the 2 x 4 in. lumber was displaced relative to the stucco using the same loading protocol as was in the wall panel tests. The details of the element testing program are described in detail by Mastschuch (2002). 5 1.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the current research project was to experimentally evaluate the behavior of the stucco shear walls with Shearlock connectors and compare the test results with other shear resistant wall systems. The study included two phases: phase 1 involved element testing similar to the previous research but on additional variables influencing the performance of Shearlock. Phase 2 involved 8 ft by 8 ft shear wall panel tests under monotonic and cyclic loading. Additional panel tests were also conducted on regular stucco and plywood systems in order to permit comparisons with the improved stucco system. 1.5 METHODOLOGY The objectives of this study were achieved by first choosing wall configurations for the experimental testing program. An attempt was made to use the element testing results to assist in constructing the wall panel specimens. Several element specimens were tested to complete the element testing. Three types of shear walls were investigated in this study. Several specimens of each chosen wall type were constructed. A self reacting frame was used to apply the racking shear force horizontally at the top of the wall. At least one monotonic test and one cyclic test were performed on each type of wall. Two more cyclic tests were performed on identical specimens to provide information on the repeatability of the results. Experimental results were then analyzed and compared. 1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION This thesis is divided into 5 chapters. The element test procedures and results are discussed in Chapter 2. This includes sections covering testing methodology, testing apparatus, type and construction of specimens, instrumentation, loading protocol and discussion of the test results. Chapter 3 describes the procedure and methodology of the panel tests. Chapter 4 describes the test results, including the initial stifffiess, shear strength, drift capacity and ductility. The failure modes and the test observations of the experimental study are also 6 included. Chapter 5 presents a summary, conclusions and some recommendations for future work. A complete summary of the test results for each tested specimen is provided in the appendices. The results contain name of the specimen, date of testing, characteristics of the specimen, brief results, test observations, hysteresis plots, envelope curves and pictures of failure modes. Appendix A contains element test results, Appendix B contains panel test results, and Appendix C contains recorded data, photos and video clips of panel tests. 7 CHAPTER 2 ELEMENT TESTS 2.1 PREVIOUS STUDY In order to study the details of the shear connectors, a small element testing approach was developed by Mastschuch (2002). The element specimens were designed to represent a small segment from a shear wall panel. Initially each specimen consisted of an 18 in. x 24 in. panel of stucco connected by two Shearlocks to a 24 in. long piece of 2 x 4 in. lumber. Shearlocks spaced at 8 in. on center to ensure appropriate connector edge distance. The stucco panel was held in a specially designed testing apparatus and the 2 x 4 in. lumber was displaced relative to the stucco using a certain loading protocol. The same loading protocol was used for the full size wall panel test. Figure 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 show the element specimen containing a wood member and a stucco plate that are attached by two Shearlocks. Figure 2.1.3 shows a picture of the testing apparatus in which the specimens were tested horizontally. Figure 2.1.1 - Element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002). 8 V -4 Shear-lock w.rd v Wood frame member (b) Figure 2.1.2 - Shear element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002). L (a) r Stucco Figure 2.1.3 - Testing apparatus. 9 68 tests in total were conducted by Mastschuch (2002) to examine the influence of different variables on the performance of the Shearlock. The experimental study was divided into four phases: - Phase I — Pilot tests: 9 tests were conducted to evaluate the specially designed testing apparatus and to investigate a few important parameters such as number and type of Shearlocks, wire lath nail spacing and nailing details. - Phase II — Ductile link tests: 24 tests examined the portion of the Shearlock that was embedded in the wood frame member. The stucco panel was replaced by a steel plate with clamped sleeve portion of the Shearlock. This simulation greatly reduced time needed to construct the specimens and eliminated the stucco failure. This series of tests included variables that influence the displacement capacity of the Shearlock. Types of fasteners, inner sleeve geometry, annealing of the fasteners, type of annealing, and reference displacement of the loading protocol were investigated in phase II. These tests showed that the shear connectors are capable of resisting a shear force of up to 2 kN (450 lbs) per connector while allowing displacements of up to 30mm (1.2 in.) - Phase III - Strong link tests: 26 tests examined the sleeve portion of the Shearlock to evaluate the anchorage strength of the connector in the stucco. Over-strength fasteners were used in this series of tests to force a failure in the stucco portion of the specimen. To eliminate the fastener fatigue failure and induced stucco failure, all specimens were loaded monotonically. The influence of compressive strength of stucco, Shearlock spacing, edge distance and type of wood member on anchorage strength of the connectors were investigated in Phase III. These tests showed that the minimum pull-out resistance of the shear connectors from stucco with typical in-situ compressive strength of stucco is about 4 kN (900 lbs) per connector. Thus for normal strength fasteners, the factor of safety against sleeve pull-out from stucco is 2. It was also observed that the anchorage strength of the sleeves is not significantly reduced when the connectors are spaced as close as 76 mm (3 in.) centre to centre, or located within 45 mm (1% in.) from the edge of the stucco. - Phase IV — Full connection test: 9 tests evaluated the structural performance of three different types of shear wall systems: stucco system with Shearlock connectors, regular stucco systems, and plywood systems. Optimal Shearlock characteristics based on the results of preceding tests were used in Phase IV. A complete report of these element tests is given by Mastschuch (2002). 10 2.2 CURRENT STUDY To complete the element testing, 17 additional tests were conducted to determine how certain characteristics influence the ductility of the Shearlock. Internal geometry of the sleeve, preventing the nail head from pulling out of the Sleeve, pre-grooving the wood member, and effect of weep screed evaluated in Phase I of the current experimental research. Since evaluating the above parameters was independent from the stucco characteristics, a steel plate with clamped sleeve was used to simulate the stucco. 2.3 TEST SETUP The specially designed element testing apparatus consisted of two parts; the fixed part and the moving part. The fixed part was designed to hold the stucco plate in the horizontal position and was anchored to the reaction floor. The moving part was designed to clamp the wood member and was connected through the load cell to the hydraulic actuator on one end (Figure 2.3.1). j— Support / Figure 2.3.1 - Element test setup (Mastschuch 2002). The fixed part was constructed as a braced HSS frame (3x3x112 in.) with four columns welded to the rectangular HSS bottom frame at each corner with two braces on each side to provide lateral stability in the tested direction. A steel base plate with welded bottom frame 11 was anchored with 2 in. diameter threaded rods into the concrete reaction floor in the structural laboratory. Two steel angles were bolted to the HSS columns to support the stucco from the bottom along its longitudinal edges. The angles were provided with slotted holes allowing for vertical adjustment due to geometrical imperfection of the specimens. Two horizontal steel plates, which connected the columns in the transverse direction, supported two horizontally adjustable 16 in. long steel angles at two stucco edges in order to restrain it against moving in the horizontal (in plane) direction. The moving part was made of two 1/4 in. thick steel plate with three predrilled 1/2 in. diameter holes to secure the wood stud between the plates. Two 1 in. diameter steel bars provided a bearing at each end of the moving stud. To provide a minimal bearing friction during testing, the steel bars were driven through guidance steel tubes with Teflon. On end of the moving part was free; another was attached through the load cell to the displacement controlled hydraulic actuator. After conducting a few tests, it was observed that the moving part was free to rotate about the testing direction. In order to prevent this phenomenon in the next series of tests, two new supporting angles were added to the apparatus to provide guiding rollers for the moving part. The friction between these supports and the moving part was minimized by lubricating the steel angle edges prior to each test. The displacement controlled hydraulic actuator (50,000 lbs both in compression and tension) was bolted to the steel H column that was anchored to the laboratory floor. On end of the load cell (Model 101 0-AF) with 2000 lbs capacity was attached to the hydraulic actuator; another was attached through a specially made pined connector to the eye rod (part of testing apparatus). The pinned connector allowed movement of the eye rod in horizontal direction to eliminate applying any out of plane forces to the wood stud. The load cell was calibrated up to the full capacity of 2000 lbs with 1 lb accuracy of reading. The input signal for the hydraulic actuator was provided by the exact material testing generator (Model 340). The magnitude of applied shear load was measured by a local cell placed between the hydraulic actuator and testing apparatus. The absolute horizontal movement (drift capacity) and the vertical movement (separation) between stucco simulated plate and wood stud were measured by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT). Six data channels recorded the following measurements: - shear load (load cell) - horizontal movement of the hydraulic actuator (built in LVDT) 12 - absolute horizontal displacement between the plate and the wood stud (LVDT 1 and LVDT 2) - vertical displacement of the plate (LVDT 3 and LVDT 4) LVDT 1 and LVDT 2 were screwed to each side of the wood stud in opposite direction, and were attached to two aluminum angles that were connected to the bottom of the steel plate. The absolute horizontal displacement between the wood stud and the steel plate is the displacement of interest. LVDT 3 and LVDT 4 were screwed to the magnetic base sitting on the testing apparatus and attached to the stucco from the top to measure the out of plane separation of the steel plate (Figure 2.3.2). A personal computer data acquisition system and LabTech Notebook data acquisition sofiware were used to collect the experimental data at a frequency of 50 Hz. Figure 2.3.2 - Element test instrumentation. 13 2.4 LOADIN PROTOCOL The loading protocol is defined by variation in deformation amplitudes, using the reference displacement A as the absolute measure of deformation amplitude. The loading history consists of initiation cycles, primary cycles, and trailing cycles. Initiation cycles are executed at the beginning of the loading history. They serve to check loading equipment, measurement devices, and the force-deformation response at small amplitudes. A primary cycle is a cycle that is larger than all the preceding cycles and is followed by smaller cycles, which are called trailing cycles. All trailing cycles have an amplitude that is equal to 75% of the amplitude of the preceding primary cycle. All cycles are symmetric, i.e., they have identical positive and negative amplitudes. The following sequence of cycles was executed: - Four cycles with an amplitude of 0.05 A (initiation cycles) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.075 A - Four trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.1 A - Four trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.2 A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.3 A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.4 A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of0.7A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 1.0 A - Two trailing cycles - Increased steps of the same pattern with an increase in amplitude of 0.5 A, i.e., one primary cycle of amplitude equal to that of the previous cycle plus 0.5 A, followed by two trailing cycles. 14 For the current study, reference displacement A was estimated based on displacement capacity of specimens from previous Shearlock element tests conducted by Mastschuch. Reference displacement of 25.4 mm was used for all the specimens. The rate of loading varied during the testing from 0.25 mm/s to 3.5 mm/s as a constant period of 30 seconds was used. All rates of loading were within the recommended range from 0.1 mm/s to 10 mm/s (Krawinkler et a!. 2000). 2.5 SPECIMENS Different series of specimens were tested. Each series consisted of specific types of element specimen that corresponded with particular variables under investigation. Each specimen contained two Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing (except NDLT2) and to eliminate the stucco failure, a 16 x 24 x 3/4 in. steel plate was used to simulate the stucco panel. Several holes were drilled in steel plate to reduce weight of plate. Two steel cassettes with the clamped sleeve portion of the Shearlocks were locked inside the plate by eight (four on top and four on bottom) 6 x 1 in. steel plates screwed to the main steel plate, which were placed into the testing apparatus. The wood stud was assembled separately and attached to the moving part of the testing apparatus from the bottom. Green Douglas Fir wood stud with measured moisture content of 14% to 19% at the time of testing was used for all specimens. As the ductile portion of the Shearlock, cold drawn Bostitch fasteners with no coating were used in all specimens. All fasteners were heated under the critical temperature of 677 °C (1250 °F) and were slowly cooled in ambient air. The first variable under investigation was the internal geometry of the sleeve portion of the Shearlock. Two types of internal geometry were investigated: the internal radius of 0.375 in. with sharp transition, and the internal radius of 0.375 in. with smooth transition (Figure 2.5.1). 15 Sharp Transition Figure 2.5.1 — Inner sleeve geometry - different transitions. In a real stucco shear wall, a 0.3 75 in. thick layer of stucco covers the outer head of the Shearlock; therefore the fastener is restrained from popping out of the sleeve head. To investigate this phenomenon in a series of tests, a 3/16 in. aluminum plate was placed over the fastener head and was secured by clamp screws to the main steel plate. A series of tests examined the possibility of increasing the drift capacity of the Shearlock by providing a groove in the wood member. A cone shape groove was countersunk into the wood stud at the location of the Shearlock. The last series of element tests involved specimens with attached galvanized metal sheet between the sleeve and the wood member, simulating weep screed on the stucco wall along the sole plate. A 28 gauge galvanized sheet was connected to the wood stud either by Shearlock fasteners or by both Shearlock fasteners and 4 additional 1 ¾ in. long roofing nails. A Summary of element test specimens is presented in Table 2.5.1. - Smooth Transition 16 Table 2.5.1 — Summary of element test specimens. Specimen CharacteristicsName ODLT 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, sharpinner transition NDLT1 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smoothinner transition NDLT2 1 Shearlock at load cell, smooth innertransition NDLT3 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smoothinner transition 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth NDLT4 inner transition, fasteners prevented from pulling out 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth NDLT5 inner transition, fasteners prevented from pulling out 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth NDLT6 inner transition, pre-grooved wood members 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth NDLT7 inner transition, pre-grooved wood members 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth NDLT8 inner transition, pre-grooved wood members Specimen CharacteristicsName 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, NDLT9 smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, NDLT1O smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, NDLT1 smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, NDLT12 smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, ws smooth inner transition, 28 ga. galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, 28 ga. WS2 galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails and four roofing nails (1% in) 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, 28 ga. WS3 galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails and four roofing nails (1 3/4 in) 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, WS4 smooth inner transition, 28 ga.galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails 2.6 DISCUSSION OF TEST PARAMETERS The detailed information of the test results including the summary of specimen characteristics, the most important test results (maximum shear force, drift at peak load, drift capacity, vertical separation between stucco and wood frame member, failure mode), and the test observations with pictures of the failure mode for each element test is provided separately in the Appendix A. For each specimen, a table with the peak load and 17 corresponding displacement at every loading cycle, the complete load — deformation relationship including all hysteretic loops and the envelope curve connecting the load value at the maximum deformation level of each particular cycle are also presented in the Appendix A. In order to compare the performance of different groups of specimens, it is necessary to simplifr the complicated nonlinear hysteretic relationship in terms of simple parameters, such as peak shear load, effective stiffness, displacement capacity, and displacement ductility. The complete load — deformation relationship for a typical specimen is shown in Figure 2.6.1. The description of how the simplified parameters were determined follows in the section below. Peak load and displacement at peak load For each specimen, the maximum positive and the maximum negative shear load are referred to as the peak loads. The peak load was reported as the load per connector for all specimens. The displacement at peak load (Apeak) is defined as the displacement level at the maximum positive and the maximum negative shear load. Envelopes The element test loading protocol consists of primary cycles and at least two trailing cycles as described in Section 2.4. The applied load at the maximum displacement was selected from each cycle. If the maximum load value did not correspond with the maximum displacement level, two points were found for the particular cycle. The first point indicated the peak load value and the second point indicate the load at the maximum displacement. Three envelopes were obtained by connecting the selected points of the particular cycle. Effective Stiffhess (Ks) The effective stiffness was defmed as the secant stiffness at 80% of the maximum shear load from the primary envelope curve. Displacement Capacity ) The displacement capacity of the specimen was defined as an indicator of the acceptance criteria. According to Krawinkler (Krawinkler et a!. 2000) a basic concept is to define the 18 force level associated with acceptable performance as that primary cycle amplitude at which both of the following criteria are fulfilled for the last time: - The load at maximum amplitude of primary cycle is not less than 80% of the peak load that was applied to specimen in respective direction. - After the trailing cycles have been completed and the next primary cycle is attempted, the maximum load at deformation greater or equal to the deformation amplitude of the previous primary cycle is not less than 40% of the peak load that was applied to specimen in respective direction. The ultimate displacement A was defined as AU_80%. Yield Displacement (A,,) The ratio between 90% of maximum shear force and the effective stiffness was used to calculate the yield displacement A ,. Displacement Ductility (p,) In the event of an earthquake, the induced lateral forces are linked to displacement demand and the effective stiffness of structures. Thus the very different effective stiffness of the specimens need to be considered when comparing the displacement capacities. A useful parameter that accounts for both the displacement capacity and effective stiffness is the ratio between ultimate displacement A and the yield displacement A,,, which is called displacement ductility p. The ratio of ultimate displacement A to yield displacement A,, is the displacement ductility ,u of the specimen. 19 — z 0 Cl) L’ J a . 0 C _ J - q . 8y P e a k (÷ ) 0. 8 Vp ea k() (-) sp ea k (.) H ys te re si s lo op s • Pr im ar y Cy cl e — — — 1s tT ra ili ng Cy cl e 2n d Tr ai lin g Cy cl e Se ca nt st iff ne ss 0 D ef or m at io n [m m] A pe ak (+) A u8 0% (+) 2.7 DISCUSSION OF MEASURED TEST RESULTS All the element tests conducted in this experimental study examined the portion of the Shearlock that is embedded in wood frame. The stucco was simulated with a steel plate in these tests. 2.7.1 Inner sleeve geometry Two different inner transitions (sharp and smooth) with the same inner radius of 0.375 in. were examined. The fasteners were 0.12 in. diameter and 3 in. long. A reference displacement of 25.4 mm was used for the cyclic load protocol. The test results are summarized in Table 2.7.1 and the envelopes are compared in Figure 2.7.1. 3.5 I I I I I I I 3 -1 4 4- I. —I 4 I— I I I I I 2 I I I I •I I I I I I I2 /-z i I I I I I . 1.5 4 4 4-I— I I I / I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Io I I I, I I I 4 .2 i I I I I I I . 0.5 - I I I I I I I 0 4 4 4- -0.5 ___________________ -15 — _J___._ 1 —SharpTransition o i 1 I I I Smooth Transition 1 _J 4 I I I I I I Smooth Transition 2 -2.5 —— SmoothTransition3 —3.5 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] Figure 2.7.1 - Envelope comparisons. The specimen with sharp transition in the internal radius had a slightly higher initial stiffness than the other specimens; however it failed in a very brittle manner at 13.45 mm displacement due to the fracture of the fastener. Specimens with smooth transition demonstrated a relatively ductile behavior with higher peak shear load and higher displacement at peak shear load. None of the fasteners of specimens NDLT1 and NDLT2 21 experienced fracture and only one fastener of specimen NDLT3 fractured at displacement of 23 mm (eighth primary cycle). Table 2.7.1 — Summary of test results — Inner sleeve geometry. VPeak A Peak K A,,Specimen [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mm] [mm] ODLT 2.92 13.45 0.24 14.17 11.0 1.3 (Sharptransition) -2.15 -14.13 0.15 -15.67 -12.9 1.2 NDLTI 2.93 20.58 0.19 31.03 13.9 2.2 (Smooth transition 1) -1.92 -20.56 0.12 -37.49 -14.4 2.6 NDLT2 -2.95 30.36 0.19 42.00 -14.0 -3.0 (Smooth transition 2) -2.69 -31.56 0.16 -38.00 -15.1 2.5 NDLT3 3.32 19.77 0.22 22.20 13.6 1.6 (Smooth transition 3) -2.89 -20.31 0.19 -25.20 -13.7 1.8 Shearlocks with smooth inner radius transition had much better performance than Shearlocks with sharp transition. Therefore all new specimens, either for element test or for full size wall test, were built using Shearlocks with smooth inner radius transition. 2.7.2 Fasteners prevented from pulling out of Shearlock In order to simulate the stucco restraint over the outer head of Shearlock which will resist the fastener pop out of the sleeve head, a 3/16 in. aluminum plate was placed over the fastener head and was secured by clamp screws to the main steel plate. A reference displacement of 25.4 mm was used. The test results are summarized in Table 2.7.2 and the envelopes are compared in Figure 2.7.2. 22 3.5. I I I I I I 3. - —4— .. ._ I :: __ I I I . I WithoutCapl . -1 .r -1.5 -- L___ ‘ . WithoutCap2 -- -2 _../_ WithoutCap3 -- -2.5 —--—WithCapl -- —--—WithCap2 —3.5 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] __________ ____________ Figure 2.7.2 - Envelope Comparisons. There was no significant influence on the initial stiffhess due to the different Shearlock head condition. As can be seen from the envelope comparison, the big difference between the envelope curves occurred at the very end, afier reaching the peak shear load. One specimen from each group experienced ductile fracture of one of the fasteners. For the specimens without cap the length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was smaller than that of specimens with cap. Table 2.7.2 — Summary of test results — Fasteners prevented from pulling out. . A Peak K u-8O’% AySpecimen [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mml [mm] NDLTI 2.93 20.58 0.19 31.03 13.9 2.2 (Without cap 1) -1.92 -20.56 0.12 -37.49 -14.4 2.6 NDLT2 -2.95 30.36 0.19 42.00 -14.0 -3.0 (Without cap 2) -2.69 -31.56 0.16 -38.00 -15.1 2.5 NDLT3 3.32 19.77 0.22 22.20 13.6 1.6 (Without cap 3) -2.89 -20.31 0.19 -25.20 -13.7 1.8 NDLT4 2.96 19.56 0.22 32.24 12.1 2.7 (With cap 1) -1.92 -21.79 0.13 -33.62 -13.3 2.5 NDLT5 3.03 27.03 0.25 39.00 10.9 3.6 (Withcap2) -2.45 -31.06 0.15 -35.00 -14.7 2.4 23 It was concluded that preventing the fastener head from pulling out of the Shearlock head had no significant effect on the performance of the Shearlock. 2.7.3 Pre-grooved wood members A cone shape groove was countersunk into the wood stud at the location of the Shearlock to investigate the possibility of increasing the drift capacity of the connector. A reference displacement of 25.4 mm was used. The test results are summarized in Table 2.7.3 and the envelopes are compared in Figure 2.7.3. 3.5 I I I I I 3 —I 4 I— —4 -4.-.-— : •I__ .5 I 2 1 I I I ,_- .1.. I .-------- z i I I I I / • I . 1.5 -4 4 4- — I I I I I ‘I ••. I I I S i I I I I I I I C.) i I I I I I I Io I I I I p I I I I _ 0.5 ._I I I I I I ° 0 4 4 4- -1_. NotPre-groovecll CI) I I I I0.5 : NotPre-grooved2 C) i 0. -1 - ;- NotPre-grooved3 - I I I .‘ 1 I -1.5 ----.- -,-- I —--—Pre-groovedl -2 - —--—Pre-grooved2 — j:.—.— — — — — -2.5 —. i- —--—Pre-grooved3 4 I I -4 4 ‘- —--—Pre-grooved4 I I I I I -3.5 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation Lmml Figure 2.7.3 - Envelope comparisons. As can be seen from the envelope comparison curves, the initial stiffness of the specimens with pre-grooved wood members were significantly lower than that of specimens without pre-grooved members. Except one pre-grooved specimen with p= 3.3, other pre grooved members did not have a better drift capacity in compare to not pre-grooved specimens. Additionally, the specimens with pre-grooved wood member reached to a smaller peak shear in compare to not pre-grooved specimens. 24 Table 2.7.3 — Summary of test results — Pre-grooved wood member. VPeak A Peak K AU_SO% Specimen PA [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mm] [mm] NDLTI 2.93 20.58 0.19 31.03 13.9 2.2 (Not pre-grooved 1) -1.92 -20.56 0.12 -37.49 -14.4 2.6 NDLT2 -2.95 30.36 0.19 42.00 -14.0 -3.0 (Not pre-grooved 2) -2.69 -31.56 0.16 -38.00 -15.1 2.5 NDLT3 3.32 19.77 0.22 22.20 13.6 1.6 (Not pre-grooved 3) -2.89 -20.31 0.19 -25.20 -13.7 1.8 NDLT6 3.01 29.00 0.22 41.00 12.3 3.3 (Pre-grooved 1) -2.38 -19.75 0.09 -34.56 -23.8 1.5 NDLT7 2.21 19.76 0.11 37.72 18.1 2.1 (Pre-grooved 2) -2.30 -19.38 0.14 -30.66 -14.8 2.1 NDLT8 2.74 18.34 0.20 31.57 12.3 2.6 (Pre-grooved 3) -2.07 -32.74 0.08 -39.25 -23.3 1.7 NDLT9 2.71 30.56 0.16 38.38 15.2 2.5 (Pre-grooved 4) -2.31 -32.41 0.08 -39.42 -26.0 1.5 Adding a cap to the specimens with pre-grooved wood member resulted in decreasing both initial stiffhess and peak shear load. As can be seen from the envelope comparison curves (Figure 2.7.4) there is about 30% drop in the peak shear load. The test results for element tests with pre-grooved wood member with cap are summarized in Table 2.7.4. 3.5 I I I I I I I -1 -a.---”—... I I I •I I 25 I I I I •II I I I I, I 1 4 I I I I I — ‘ z i I I I . 1.5 4 I I I I I I I I I S .2 I I I I I I I I0.5 I I I I —- - Pre-groovedwithcapl -0.5 5 Pre-groovedwithcap20 I I ___ . -1 - Pre-groovedwithcap3 t I I I gI I I -1.5 ----.- ----.--“. -. —--—Pre-groovedwithoutcapi -2 ---- 4 —..—Pregroovedwithoutcap2 — — . I I -2.5 —--—Pre-groovedwithoutcap3 - - -- — - - —Pre-groovedwithoutcap4 I - i: HI -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] Figure 2.7.4 - Envelope Comparisons. 25 Table 2.7.4 — Summary of test results — Pre-grooved wood member with and without cap. VPeak A Peak KSpecimen [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mm] [mm] NDLT6 3.01 29.00 0.22 41,00 12.3 3.3 (Pre-grooved without cap 1) -2.38 -19.75 0.09 -34.56 -23.8 1.5 NDL17 2.21 19.76 0.11 37.72 18.1 2.1 (Pre-grooved without cap 2) -2.30 -19.38 0.14 -30.66 -14.8 2.1 NDLT8 2.74 18.34 0.20 31.57 12.3 2.6 (Pre-grooved without cap 3) -2.07 -32.74 0.08 -39.25 -23.3 1.7 NDLT9 2.71 30.56 0.16 38.38 15.2 2.5 (Pre-grooved without cap 4) -2.31 -32.41 0.08 -39.42 -26.0 1.5 NDLTIO 2.75 19.22 0.18 33.32 13.8 2.4 (Pre-grooved with cap 1) -2.86 -14.47 0.19 -34.93 -13.5 2.6 NDLTII 1.71 19.02 0.11 39.73 14.0 2.8 (Pre-grooved with cap 2) -1.98 -32.48 0.07 -38.08 -25.5 1.5 NDLTI2 1.43 20.38 0.09 32.84 14.3 2.3 (Pre-grooved with cap 3) -0.99 -21.80 0.04 -36.21 -22.3 1.6 Pre-grooving the wood member showed no significant improvement on the performance of the shear transfer device, therefore it will not be considered as an option for the full size panel test. 2.7.4 Weep Screed To simulate weep screed on the stucco wall, a 28 gauge galvanized sheet was connected to the wood stud either by Shearlock fasteners only (not nailed) or by both Shearlock fasteners and 4 additional 1 3/4 in. long roofmg nails (nailed). A reference displacement of 25.4 mm was used. The test results are summarized in Table 2.7.5 and the envelopes are compared in Figure 2.7.5. 26 3.5 I I I I I I I I I 3 —-4—4—4- —-.1_I--—. 2 _ —--—Weep Screed,nailed2 -3.5 H . -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] Figure 2.7.5 - Envelope Comparisons. The specimens with nailed weep screed experienced brittle fracture of both fasteners at displacement of about 13mm, while the specimens with not nailed weep screed experienced the ductile fracture of one of the fasteners. Table 2.7.5 — Summary of test results — Weep screed. . VPeak A Peak K A_tO% Specimen ,U1 [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mm] [mm] WSI 2.24 30.84 0.19 41.00 10.6 3.9 (Weep screed - not nailed 1) -2.18 -32.87 0.13 -44.00 -15.1 2.9 WS4 2.61 28.19 0.15 38.36 15.7 2.4 (Weep screed - not nailed 2) -2.54 -21.48 0.18 -36.83 -12.7 2.9 WS2 2.94 11.75 0.27 12.78 9.8 1.3 (Weep screed - nailed 1) -1.91 -14.60 0.24 -16.45 -7.2 2.3 WS3 2.75 12.43 0.23 13.52 10.8 1.3 (Weepscreed-nailed2) -1.83 -8.50 0.25 -14.60 -6.6 2.2 It was concluded that when the weep screed is attached to the wood member by roofing nails, it will restrain the Shearlock fastener from moving sideways when it is subjected to shear load. This restraint increases the shear demand on the body of the fastener and results in brittle fracture of Shearlock fastener. To overcome this failure, slotted holes or oversized 27 holes need to be punched in the weep screed at the location of the Shearlock to facilitate the free movement of the fastener. 2.8 SUMMARY OF ELEMENT TESTS A total of 68 specimens were tested by Mastschuch (2002), and an additional 17 specimens were tested in this research study. These tests showed that the shear connectors are capable of resisting a shear force of up to 2 kN (450 ibs) per connector while allowing displacements of up to 30 mm (1.2 in.). Tests also showed that the minimum pull-out resistance of the shear connectors from stucco with typical in-situ compressive strength of stucco is about 4 kN (900 lbs) per connector. Thus for normal strength fasteners, the factor of safety against sleeve pull out from stucco is 2. It was also observed that the anchorage strength of the sleeves is not significantly reduced when the connectors are spaced as close as 76 mm (3 in.) center to center, or located within 45 mm (1% in.) from the edge of the stucco. Other investigated variables were: the internal geometry of the sleeve portion of the Shearlock, restraining fastener from popping out of the sleeve head, pre-grooving the wood member, and attaching weep screed to wood member. The best performance of the Shearlock was observed when the sleeve portion of the Shearlock had a smooth transition, fasteners were free to pop out of the sleeve head, wood member was not pre-grooved, and fasteners were free to move laterally regardless of presence of weep screed. 28 CHAPTER 3 WALL PANEL TESTS 3.1 METHODOLOGY Shearwalls resist lateral loads such as those imposed on structures by wind or earthquake. Shearwalls also form part of the vertical load path in structures. When they are subjected to out of plane loads as well as in plane loads, these walls act as diaphragms and the vertical load resisting components can be considered as beam-columns. Although these load combinations can cause buckling and can significantly reduce the load capacity of the walls, it is unlikely that earthquake loading occurs simultaneously with other loads. Therefore, the combined type of load demand is not considered in this study. When a wall is subjected to lateral in-plane loads, the fasteners work with the rigid sheathing panels and relatively flexible frame to carry the load. Wood frame walls are highly redundant systems; incorporating closely spaced members and fasteners. Such a system is forgiving of weak component, but complex to understand, model and analyze. One reason is nonlinear load-slip characteristic of the fasteners. Their ability to redistribute loads and to dissipate energy as they deform are factors that contribute to their suitability to resist earthquake ground motion. Wall panels tested under slow reverse-cyclic loading with the displacement demand progressively increased until the wall is destroyed does not simulate the conditions of a real earthquake; but does provide a way to compare different wall systems, and does provide an opportunity to understand how a particular wall system will fail if the earthquake demands exceed the capacity. In this study, 17 wall panels have been tested to better understand stucco walls with or without the shear connectors and how they compare to plywood walls. This experimental study examined 3 different types of full scale (8 ft. x 8 ft.) shearwalls: - Plywood shearwall - Regular stucco shearwall - Stucco shearwall with special shear connectors 29 3.2 TEST SETUP All the panel tests were conducted at UBC structures lab. A self reacting steel frame capable of testing a wall panel specimen was used as the test setup. The rigid base beam of the test setup was attached to the thick concrete floor of the laboratory through 10—2 in. anchor rods. The dimensions of the test fixture and its connection to the concrete floor were such that the test frame could be considered as a solid unit without any deformation relative to its members and to the ground. The basic test set-up used in all tests is shown in Figure 3.2.1. The bottom plate of the wall was bolted to test frame using 4—5/8” bolts. In addition, 2—5/8” bolts were connected to hold-downs attached to the end studs. The top plate of the wall was bolted to a loading beam using six 5/8” bolts. A hydraulic actuator was used to apply the lateral load at 13 in. above the top of the 8 ft high wall. II - II. -H: H V II -II ‘‘V. JI . . U I -; -. . ‘.‘ II.. V 1 II. - I —— . ii . V 4 VVV II I. .11 . - ‘ H’: III. . ‘ 14. •I I. VII . II . . V. I - . . - -- II: V. . £ II Figure 3.2.1 — Mechanical setup. 30 Guide Beams - _______ Test Frame — 5/8 in. bolts Shearwall Pane / [Er I [I II L. !NI Hold-downJ Bottom Channel 5/8 in. Anchor bolts 5/8 in. bolt Fixed to the test frame All wall panel specimens were 8 ft high and 8 ft long, and had 2 x 4 in. studs spaced at 16 in. The ends of the walls either had a double stud (2—2 x 4 in.) or had a single 4 x 4 in. For the plywood specimens only, the center stud was replaced by a 3 x 4 in. member to allow for adequate nailing along the vertical joint of the 4 ft x 8 ft plywood sheets. The bottom plate on all walls was a 3 x 4 in. member, and the top plate of all walls consisted of 2—2 x 4 in. members. At the bottom, the shear wall specimen was attached to a specially designed steel channel with 4—5/8 in. anchor bolts and 2—5/8 in. anchor rods at the location of hold downs. A 2 Y2 in. x 2 1/2 x ¼ in. washer plate was used for each anchor bolt to distribute the load on the bottom plate. The bottom channel consisted of 6 in. x Y2 in. web plate and 3 Y2 in. x 1/2 in. flanges, with 12—3/8 in. stiffener plates along the length to ensure rigidity in transferring the anchor bolt forces to the rigid base. The bottom channel was attached to the test frame with 2—1 in. bolts at each end. 31 1344? 64” 2—2” 1—10” 2’—2” 64” 44?? , 3,j I I I F+f3I4”Hole N. N N N N ‘ ‘ N’ N. PL. 1/2” 2’ 6” _._iO” 10”.....4.... 1’—4” 6” ...I....iO” 10” 6” 6” 2” 8’ Figure 3.2.2 - Bottom Channel, elevation view. PL. 6”x5”xl/2” H H. -.. ,, 0•Li_ 1 LLPL. 7”x5”xl/2” PL. 7”x5”xl/2” 7’, Figure 3.2.3 - Bottom Channel, plan view. At the top, the shear wall specimen was attached to a load beam with 6 equally spaced 5/8 in. bolts. The load beam was a custom built channel with 6 in. x V2 in. web plate and 3 V2 31 in. x ‘/2 in. flanges. The load beam was guided at both sides such that it prevented out of plane movement but allowed for uplift of the specimen. 1’—4” 1III, I ________________________________________________________ [ ---- 3/4” Hole I 8” PL. 1/2” Stiffener (Typ.) Figure 3.2.4 - Top Channel, elevation view. The flange width of both bottom channel and load beam was designed to allow space for rotation of the sheathing panels and provide a better simulation of the wood interface that normally would be at the shearwall. A 550 kN, ± 300mm stroke hydraulic actuator was used to load the specimen. Initially the actuator was placed at 330 mm above the loading beam. To reduce the overturning moment the actuator was later moved closer to the loading beam (150 mm above the loading beam). The displacement controlled hydraulic actuator was bolted through a pin connector to the steel column of the test frame. The pin connector allowed movement of the actuator in vertical direction to eliminate applying any bending moment to the actuator shaft. One end of the load cell was attached to the hydraulic actuator; another end was attached through a specially designed pin connector to the load beam. The pin connector was attached with 2—1 in. bolts to the load beam. Two different boundary conditions on the wall panels were used in the tests. In some tests, the top loading beam shown in Figure 3.2.1 was permitted to move anywhere within a vertical plane defined by guide beams on either side of the loading beam. That is, the loading beam was free to move laterally, and up and down; but not out-of-plane. In these tests, the wall panels had to resist considerable over-turning. The second type of boundary condition that was used included 3/4 in. tie-rods between the loading beam and the test frame below the specimen. In these tests, the loading beam was completely restricted from moving vertically. 1’-4” P-4” 1-4” 1-4” .I I 1. I 8” 1’—4’ 1’—4” 1’-.4” 1—4” 32 This boundary condition is appropriate if the 8 ft long wall panel is considered to be a small piece of a long shear wall. 3.3 INSTRUMENTATION Initially an extensive instrumentation plan was used to capture localized effects in addition to the global response of the test specimens. After conducting the first test, it turned out that some of the measurements were not of the interest according to the objectives of this research study; therefore the corresponding instruments were not installed for the rest of the tests. For example, two pair of displacement transducers was installed diagonally to capture the information required for calculating the shear deformation of the panels. In this case, more supplementary information was required for the data to be analyzed properly and also this information was not of the interest. The magnitude of applied shear load was measured by a load cell placed between the hydraulic actuator and the load beam pin connector. The absolute horizontal movement (drift capacity), the vertical movement (uplift), and the out of plane movement between the plywood or stucco and the wood frame (separation) were measured by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) and string potentiometers (SP). Nine data channels recorded the following measurements: Figure 3.2.5 - Tie rod connection to bottom channel. 33 - shear load (load cell), - horizontal movement of the hydraulic actuator (built in displacement transducer) - absolute horizontal displacement between the top plate and the rigid base (LVDT 1, LVDT2, SP1, SP2) - out of plane displacement of the plywood or stucco at bottom corner (LVDT3) - lift off of the specimen at the location of one of the hold downs (LVDT4) - absolute slippage between the bottom plate and the rigid base (LVDT5) All the displacement transducers were attached to the test frame as a rigid reference support through various connection details. These details are depicted in Figure 3.3.1. A personal computer data acquisition system and dasylab (ver.5) data acquisition software were used to collect the experimental data at a frequency of 50 Hz. Test Frame Load Cell IC II I I C I I LVDT 5 Figure 3.3.1 — Instrumentation. 34 3.4 LOADING PROTOCOL Two different types of loading protocol were used for testing shearwall specimens: reverse cyclic loading protocol and monotonic loading protocol. 3.4.1 Reverse Cyclic loading protocol Although it is believed that cyclic testing better describes the seismic capacity of shearwalls, the lack of a consistent protocol that defines the test procedure and acceptance criteria presents a problem. Some common loading protocols that have been used by several research groups are the Sequential Phased Displacement (SPD) protocol, the Forintek Canada Corporation (FCC) protocol, and the International Standards Organization (ISO) protocol. The SPD and the FCC protocols consist of a large number of cycles with the amplitude of each cycle based in the yield displacement of test specimen. The ISO protocol has a smaller number of cycles with the cyclic amplitude based on the displacement at ultimate load. The CUREe/Caltech loading protocol is defined by variation in deformation amplitudes, using the reference displacement A as the absolute measure of deformation amplitude, calculated as 60% of the ultimate displacement Am The ultimate displacement Am is defined as the displacement at 80% of the maximum load on the degradation portion of the monotonic curve (Figure 3.4.1). F O.8xF 0 I 0 -j I A0.6 X Displacement Figure 3.4.1 — Calculation of A and A. 35 The cyclic loading history consists of initiation cycles, primary cycles, and trailing cycles. Initiation cycles are executed at the beginning of the loading history. They serve to check loading equipment, measurement devices, and the force-deformation response at small amplitudes. A primary cycle is a cycle that is larger than all the preceding cycles and is followed by smaller cycles, which are called trailing cycles. All trailing cycles have amplitude that is equal to 75% of the amplitude of the preceding primary cycle. All cycles are symmetric, i.e., they have identical positive and negative amplitudes. The following sequence of cycles was executed for the abbreviated basic loading protocol: - Four initiation cycles with an amplitude of 0.05 A (six cycles for basic loading protocol) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.075 A - Four trailing cycles (six trailing cycles for basic loading protocol) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.1 A - Four trailing cycles (six trailing cycles for basic loading protocol) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.2 A - Two trailing cycles (three trailing cycles for basic loading protocol) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.3 A - Two trailing cycles (three trailing cycles for basic loading protocol) - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.4 A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 0.7 A - Two trailing cycles - A primary cycle with an amplitude of 1.0 A - Two trailing cycles - Increased steps of the same pattern with an increase in amplitude of 0.5 A, i.e., one primary cycle of amplitude equal to that of the previous cycle plus 0.5 A, followed by two trailing cycles. As it appears from the above sequence cycles, the basic loading protocol has 8 smaller cycles more than the abbreviated basic loading protocol. The rate of loading varied during the testing from 0.4 mmls to 10 mm/s as a constant period of 30 seconds was used for the cycles with a displacement of less than 75mm and a 36 constant velocity of 10 mm/s was used for the cycles with a displacement of greater than 75mm. All rates of loading were within the recommended range from 0.1 mm/s to 10 mm/s (Krawinkler et at. 2000). A typical test took about 22 minutes to complete. 150 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 Time [sec.] Figure 3.4.2 - CUREe/Caltech Basic Loading Protocol (A = 62mm). 3.4.2 Monotonic loading protocol The objective for performing the monotonic testing was to obtain the reference displacement A for the CUREe/Caltech loading protocol. The monotonic test conducted in accordance with ASTM E 564-95 static loading test. The sequence of loading steps is described below: - Preload of approximately 10% of estimated ultimate load and hold for 5 mm., - Unload the specimen and wait 5 mm., - Reload of approximately 33% of estimated ultimate load and hold for 5 mm., - Unload the specimen and wait 5 mm., - Reload of approximately 66% of estimated ultimate load and hold for 5 mm., - Unload the specimen and wait 5 mm., - Reload of approximately 100% of estimated ultimate load and hold for 5 mm., - Unload the specimen and wait 5 mm., - If specimen does not fail, reload monotonically until failure will occur E E C a) E 0(a 100 50 0 -50 -100 37 3.5 SPECIMENS Three different types of shearwalls, including plywood shearwall, regular stucco shearwall, and stucco shearwall with special shear connectors were tested. All attempts were made to build the plywood shearwall and the stucco shearwall with special connectors to the same extent of strength. 8 ft. square woodframe shearwalls intended to model the common construction practice were used as the test specimens. Douglas Fir studs were placed at 16 in. on centre with double 2 in. x 4 in. top plates and a single 3 in. x 4 in. sill plate. End studs were either single 4 in. x 4 in. or double 2 in. x 4 in. end studs anchored by Simpson PHD5 hold downs were used at the hold down boundaries. The hold downs were fastened to the end studs using 14— 1 6d green vinyl sinkers. The framing was nailed together using 1 6d nails according to the specifications outlined in UBC table 23-Il-B-i (ICBO 1997). The moisture content of the wood was measured by Delmhurst moisture meter and found to range from 14% to 19% at the time of testing. All shearwall panel specimens were constructed at Sacks Industrial Corp., Vancouver, BC and transported to the structures laboratory of UBC. A specially built “A” frame was used to deliver 4 specimens at a time to UBC and to deliver the tested specimens back to Sacks shop (Figure 3.5.1). 38 3.5.1 Plywood Shearwall All attempts were made to build the plywood shearwall and the stucco shearwall with special connectors to the same extent of strength. According to element test results, the shear connectors are capable of resisting a shear force of up to 2.6 kN (580 lbs) while allowing displacements of up to 30 mm (1.2 in.). In an 8 ft. long shearwall panel with shear connectors spacing at 6 in. (17 Shearlocks along the edge), the expected resisting shear would be 9,860 lbs or 1,230 lbs/ft. Based on the plywood panel test results conducted by American Plywood Association (APA) and University of California / Irvine, the average load factor between the code design value and the maximum shear from the experimental results is 2.7 (APA/UC Irvine 1995). Therefore the configuration of the plywood shearwall was chosen so that it can resist an ultimate shear force of 1,230 lbs/ft. From the APA plywood panel design charts, the configuration of the panel with design shear load of 460 lbs/ft was chosen for this study. Two vertically oriented 4 ft x 8 ft structural grade sheets of 1/2 in. plywood were fastened to the framing using lOd nails at 4 in. on centre along the top and bottom plates, end studs and centre stud. For plywood specimens the centre stud was replaced with a 3 in. x 4 in. member to allow for adequate nailing along the vertical joint of the 4 ft x 8 ft plywood Figure 3.5.1 — Shipping of specimens. 39 sheets. A 1/8 in. gap was placed between the two plywood sheathing panels at the interior interface. All the nails were driven flush with the surface of the sheathing. The nailing scheme resulted in minimum 3/8 in. edge distance at outer edges of the sheathing panels. The plywood was also nailed to the intermediate stud at 12 in. spacing. An illustration outlining the elements of the wall system is given in Figure 3.5.2. 3.5.2 Regular Stucco Shearwall holes (5/8 in. bolts) 15/32 in. plywood (4 ft x 8 ft board) lOd Common, 3 in. long gun nails, 4 in. o/c 2x4 @ 16 in. o/c PHD5 Simpson strong tie 5/8 in. Diameter bolt 3/4 in. holes (5/8 in. Anchor bolts) The regular stucco shearwall had stapled wire lath over single layer of building paper with no additional comiectors. The building paper was secured in place using horizontal wire stones at 6 in. spacing. The 1 ‘/ in. welded wire lath (Structalath) was attached with 11 gauge, 1 Y2 in. long, 1 1/4 in. wide crown staples at 12 in. on centre to the framing members. The stucco boundaries were confined by a 3/4 in. aluminum stop that was screwed around the form. The stucco had a 5 in. overhang around the perimeter of the wall to prevent the edge distance 1-4” l’-4” 1-4’ 1-4” 1-4” Two 2x4 Figure 3.5.2 — Plywood specimen. 40 effects. Two additional 2 in. x 4 in. wood member were screwed around the shearwall panel to protect the overhung stucco during transportation. Portland cement plaster, commonly referred to simply as stucco, is a cementitious material similar to mortar in composition. Advantages of stucco include versatility of design and aesthetic appeal, variety of finish styles and color, water resistance, good performance in a variety of climates, good fire-resistant properties, low maintenance and life-cycle cost ratio, and impact resistance. Portland cement plaster is commonly applied in one to three coats: First, a 3/8 in. scratch coat, second, a 3/8 in. brown coat, and finally, a 1/8 in. finishing coat. In this study two-coat system (scratch coat and brown coat) with the total thickness of 3/4 in. was applied by an experienced plaster. The stucco mix was in accordance with IBC 2000 stucco mix with an average compressive strength of 24 MPa. 8’ 12” olc Figure 3.5.3 — Stucco without Shearlock. Because water is the catalyst for the cement curing process, shortening or shrinkage of the plaster will inevitably occur as the mixing water evaporates. This shrinkage will typically create randomly distributed cracks in solid stucco panels. 41 I 1—4’ 1—4’ 1-4’ 1-4’ 1—4” 1—4” 3/4 in. holes (5/8 in. bolts) PHD5 Simpson strong tie 5/8 in. Diameter bolt in. holes (5/8 in. Anchor bolts) The stucco panels were cured similar to in-situ conditions and transported to the structures laboratory after at least 28 days for testing. An illustration outlining the elements of the regular stucco wall system is presented in Figure 3.5.3. 3.5.3 Stucco Shearwall with Special Shear Connectors The stucco shearwall with special shear connectors had the same configuration as regular stucco shearwall except it had staples at 6 in. on centre and additional Shearlocks at 6 in. spacing along the perimeter of the wall. An illustration outlining the elements of this shearwall system is given in Figure 3.5.4. A common feature of stucco walls is the implementation of weep screeds at the bottom perimeter, which allow for the exit of any moisture that penetrates the plaster and is intercepted by the building paper. The effect of weep screed on the behavior of the stucco wall with Shearlocks was examined in this series of test. 7/8 in. Stucco Wire lath stapled at 6” ole Shearlock @ 6” ole around the perimeter 4x4 PHD5 Simpson strong tie 5/8 in. Diameter bolt in. Anchor bolts) 1 ‘-4” 1-4” 1-4” 1 ‘a” I“ 1 ‘a” holes (5/8 in. bolts) Figure 3.5.4 — Stucco with Shearlock 42 3.6 SUMMARY OF TEST SPECIMENS The CUREE/Caltech cyclic loading protocol requires a reference displacement to characterize the displacement history. For each type of shearwall one monotonic test was conducted to determine the reference displacement. A variety of wall configurations and testing procedures were examined to evaluate the influence of corresponding parameters. There were three basic types of wall panel specimens, and the first two letters in the specimen name signifies the type: plywood (PL), regular stucco (ST), and stucco with the special shear connectors (SH). Most specimens were subjected to reverse-cyclic displacement, while a few were subjected to monotonically increasing displacement. The third letter in the specimen name signifies cyclic (C) or monotonic (M). The wall panels were tested using the CUREe/Caltech protocol (Krawinkler 2000). The basic protocol was used for SHC2 to SHC7, while the abbreviated protocol was used for all other specimens. A matrix outlining the organization of the testing is given in Table 3.6.1. Table 3.6.1 — Summary of test specimens. Stucco Reference Specimen Panel End Tie- Other1 Age Displacement name Characteristics Studs Downs Idays] 1mm] PLM No - - PLC1 2-2x4 - No - 67 PLC2 1/2” plywood - No - 67 PLC3 Nailed at 4” o/c - lOd Yes - 67 PLC4 nails A No - 67 PLC5 1-4x4 A-B-C No - 67 PLC6 A-B No - 90 STM Wire lath stapled at 2-2x4 - Yes 167 - STC1 12” o/c Yes 225 44 SHM Yes 174 - SHC1 2-2x4 Yes 179 67 SHC2 Wire lath stapled at - No 27 62 SHC3 6” 0/c and Shearlocks No 49 62 SHC4 at 6” o/c around the No 49 62 SHC5 perimeter 1-4x4 No 84 62 SHC6 D No 21 62 SHC7 E No 28 62 Other: A = Y” gap between plywood sheets; B = Additional gang-nail used to connect end stud to top plate; C =6 - 8d nails at 4” ole were added at the side corners of each plywood board; D = Weep screed added over building paper; E = Shear connector spacing reduced to 4 in. along end studs. 43 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF PANEL TEST RESULTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION The detailed information of the test results including the summary of specimen characteristics, the most important test results (maximum shear force, drift at peak load, drift capacity, vertical separation between stucco and wood frame member, failure mode), and the test observations with pictures of the failure mode for each panel test is provided separately in the Appendix B. For each specimen, a table with the peak load and corresponding displacement at every loading cycle, the complete load — deformation relationship including all hysteretic loops and the envelope curve connecting the load value at the maximum deformation level of each particular cycle are also presented in the Appendix B. 4.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 4.2.1 Plywood shearwalls Some characteristics of the plywood shearwall behavior were consistent through most of the tests regardless of the sheathing configuration or the loading protocol. An overview of characteristics general to most of the plywood specimens is presented in this section. Observations specific to each specimen are presented in the Appendix B. Rotation of the plywood sheets and deformation of the fasteners as the displacement demand was increased has been observed in all the shearwall testing. Both plywood sheets experienced a similar rotation and the top and bottom plates remained relatively horizontal until a line of fasteners failed in one panel; then the plywood pulled away from the framing and the rotation was relaxed. Due to the plywood being on only one side of the framing, eccentricity was imposed on the framing and twisting of the studs occurred during the test (Figure 4.2.4). Three failure modes for the fasteners were observed during the experimental study: - fasteners pulling out of the framing [pullout failure], (Figure 4.2.1) 44 - fasteners pulling through the plywood [pull through], (Figure 4.2.2) - fasteners tearing through the edge of the plywood [tearout], (Figure 4.2.3) From the above failure modes, pullout failure was the most ductile and strongest failure mode where the rest of the failure modes were very brittle. In most tests fasteners pulling through the sheathing at the bottom corners dominated the failure. After the peak shear load, increase in the displacement demand caused excessive damage to the framing members without any significant shear resistance. Figure 4.2.1 — Pullout failure. 45 Figure 4.2.2 — Pull through failure. Figure 4.2.3 — Tearout failure. 46 4.2.2 Regular stucco shearwalls In both monotonic and cyclic tests, the stucco layer rotated and the staples deformed and failed as the displacement demand was increased. Staple pullout or fracture along the studs and the plates dominated the failure (Figure 4.2.5). No damage to the stucco layer or framing members was observed during the regular stucco shearwall test. Figure 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 show the distribution of shrinkage cracks before and after the monotonic panel test STM. As can be seen in these photos, no additional cracks were formed as a result of shear testing. Figure 4.2.4 — Stud connection failure. Figure 4.2.5 — Staple failure. 47 Figure 4.2.7 - Crack width and distribution after test, STM (existing cracks width remained unchanged and no additional cracks were formed). Figure 4.2.6 — Crack width and distribution before test, STM (cracks width ranged from 0.1mm to 0.75mm). 48 4.2.3 Stucco shearwalls with Shearlock connectors As has been seen in all previous shearwall testing, the stucco panels rotated and the fasteners deformed as the shear demand was increased. Due to the ductile connection between stucco and woodframe, very little or no damage to the framing members were observed. Four different failure modes for the connectors were observed in the testing, three of which were related to fasteners failure and the other one was related to the bond between the stucco and the sleeve portion of the connector: - fasteners fracture [fracture], (Figure 4.2.8) - fasteners pullout [pullout], (Figure 4.2.9) - fasteners pop-out [pop-out], (Figure 4.2.10) - Shearlock pulling out of the stucco [Shearlock pullout], (Figure 4.2.11) Figure 4.2.8 — Fastener fracture. 49 Figure 4.2.9 — Fastener pullout. Figure 4.2.10 — Fastener popout. 50 Figure 4.2.11 — Shearlock pullout. Fasteners failure started near the corners of the stucco and progressed further along the top and bottom plates and vertical edges of the panel, away from the corners, as the load- displacement cycles continued. Since the higher shear forces occur on the fasteners which are furthest away from the centroid of the rotation of the panel, the corners of the stucco layer experienced break out failure in result of the high shear demand on the restraining connectors. This failure was observed in all stucco specimens which had two Shearlocks very close to each other at the corner (Figure 4.2.12). Figure 4.2.12 — Corner break out. 51 4.3 MONOTONIC TEST RESULTS The objectives of the monotonic panel tests were to obtain preliminary data on the load- displacement characteristics and load capacity of each type of shearwalls to compute the reference displacement Am for the CUREE loading protocol, as discussed in section 3.4.1. Monotonic test results are summarized in Table 4.3.1, and the load-displacement curves are shown in Figure 4.3.1. Table 4.3.1 — Summary of monotonic test results. . VPeak APeak Am A=O•6m Specimen [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] PLM 39.5 103 111 67 STM 11.6 37 77 46 SHM 50.8 47 135 81 55 I I I I I I I I I I50 I I I I I I I45 I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Deformation [mml Figure 4.3.1 — Load-Deformation curve for monotonic tests. 52 Although the calculated reference displacement for each wall system was different, to permit the comparison between different wall systems, a constant reference displacement of 67mm was used for all the specimens. 4.4 CYCLIC TEST RESULTS In order to compare the performance of different groups of specimens, it is necessary to simplifr the complicated nonlinear hysteretic relationship in terms of simple parameters, such as peak shear load, effective stiffness, displacement capacity, and displacement ductility. The complete load — deformation relationship for a typical specimen is shown in Figure 4.4.3. A summary of the cyclic test results is presented in Table 4.4.1. The description of how the simplified parameters were determined follows in the section below. 4.4.1 Peak load and displacement at peak load For each specimen, the maximum positive and the maximum negative shear load are referred to as the peak loads (Vpeak). The displacement at peak load (Apeak) is defined as the displacement level at the maximum positive and the maximum negative shear load. 4.4.2 Envelopes The panel test loading protocol consists of primary cycles and at least two trailing cycles as described in section 3.4. The applied load at the maximum displacement was selected from each cycle. If the maximum load value did not correspond with the maximum displacement level, two points were found for the particular cycle. The first point indicates the peak load value and the second point indicates the load at the maximum displacement. Three envelopes were obtained by connecting the selected points of the particular cycle. 53 4.4.3 Effective Stiffness (K3,) The effective stiffness was defined as the secant stiffness at 50% of the maximum shear load from the primary envelope curve. 4.4.4 Displacement Capacity () The displacement capacity of the specimen was defined as an indicator of the acceptance criteria. According to Krawinkler (Krawinkler et al. 2000) a basic concept is to define the force level associated with acceptable performance as that primary cycle amplitude at which both of the following criteria are fulfilled for the last time: - The load at maximum amplitude of primary cycle is not less than 80% of the peak load that was applied to specimen in respective direction. - After the trailing cycles have been completed and the next primary cycle is attempted, the maximum load at deformation greater or equal to the deformation amplitude of the previous primary cycle is not less than 40% of the peak load that was applied to specimen in respective direction. The ultimate displacement A was defined as 4.4.5 Yield displacement (A3,) To determine the yield displacement of the specimens, a variety of curves were reviewed to establish how to convert the nonlinear envelope into equivalent bilinear envelope. Figure 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 show primary cycles envelopes for plywood shearwalls and stucco shearwalls where the load values were normalized by the peak load and the displacement values were normalized by the ultimate displacement. The earlier defined effective stiffness (at 50% of peak load) was used for the elastic portion of the bilinear response, and 90% of the peak load was used for the equivalent yield load. As can be seen from these Figures, this approach gives good results for all the specimens. 54 The ratio between 90% of maximum shear force and the effective stifihess was used to calculate the yield displacementA. 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 I 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 02 0 0.0 -J -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation -1.2 -1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1---1- I -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 t 0.0 -j -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 t 0.0 -I -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I ——I————+—fr——I———— I4b — I I I I I I I I _I__J__j__L__I__J _L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..I_.Ji__L__I_ .IJ..LJ._..LL. :*:::f::F: z::[E4iz -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1hIihuI1iIIIra\ 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 __I__J__i__L__I__J_L 0 I I I I I I I I I a 0.0 ——I————t——b 02 I I I I II I I I I I I I I -0.4 _IJ_1_LJ LLl_.._L. -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation —; 1.0 I I I I I I I0.8 0.6 ——I——-—+————I—————H—H OA 02 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0.0 I-—— I I I I I I I I I I I -0.2 Nm -0.4 — I._J......i..._L__I _J__L_L...J.._.li._L..... ! tt-rt, Figure 4.4.1 - Normalized primary cycle envelopes — plywood specimens. -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 55 -0.8 STC1 L_ —1.0 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 : 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12 Deformation 1.0 I 0.8 0.6 ——I——H————H——I——— 0.4 ------ 0.2 __I__1__i__L__I__J[/_L__L__I____L__ I I I I I I I I 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 _I.J__J._.L__I_ __L__L__I_..___. ,E .E+ZjbZ .zzz: -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 0.4 0.2 ‘scJ1z>zF1—sH3lz -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1.0 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation 1.0 I I .-_L....l I 0.4 02 __l__1__1__L__I__II__L I I I I I f I 0.0 Itfr -0.2 : -0.4 __I__1__J.__L__I_ ..ii -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Deformation Figure 4.4.2 — Normalized primary cycle envelopes — stucco specimens. 0 -J 0 -s 0 aS r r i I I I I I I I I I I — —I— — — — + — — — —I— — — — —I— — — —4—— — — I I I I I I I I I I I1LIJ LLJ1L I I I I I I I I- I-— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL____I_ JL_L_J__J__L__ _____ -SHC2 0:6 ________ 56 4.4.6 Displacement Ductility (PA) In the event of an earthquake, the induced lateral forces are linked to displacement demand and the effective stiffness of structures. Thus the very different effective stiffness of the specimens need to be considered when comparing the displacement capacities. A useful parameter that accounts for both the displacement capacity and effective stiffness is the ratio between ultimate displacement ‘ and the yield displacement A, which is called displacement ductility PA• The ratio of ultimate displacement A to yield displacement A,, is the displacement ductility PA of the specimen. 4.4.7 Resisting shear at 0.5% drift (V0005h) Another useful parameter in comparing the test results of different systems is the resisting shear at a displacement of 0.5% of the height of the specimen. Most building codes introduce a value proportioned to the resisting shear at 0.5% drift as the allowable shear resistance of the shear wall. 4.4.8 Performance factor (P) To compare the overall performance of wall systems, there is a need to develop a parameter that accounts for both ductility and shear resistance of a specimen. The multiplication of displacement ductility and the peak shear load is introduced as a representative of overall performance. To make comparison easier, this product is then divided by the maximum performance factor of all specimens (SHC 1 in this study report) and presented in the summary test result table as performance factor P. 57 40 L l 00 cM z 0 0 - J I 0 - c U) 30 20 10 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 12 5 - 10 0 - 75 - 50 - 25 0 25 50 75 10 0 12 5 D ef or m at io n [m m ] Table 4.4.1 — Summary of cyclic test results. VPeak A Peak K VO.Oo5h Specimen [kN] [mm] [kN/mm] [mm] [mm] [kN] (%) 45 73 1.2 76 34 2.3 18 45 PLCI -40 -78 1.1 -86 -32 2.7 -15 40 40 69 1.5 74 25 3.0 19 53 PLC2 -41 -86 1.4 -93 -26 3.6 -19 55 61 88 1.2 100 46 2.2 21 58 PLC3 -52 -89 1.1 -102 -41 2.5 -18 48 46 80 1.5 90 27 3.4 20 67 PLC4 -44 -90 1.3 -97 -30 3.2 -18 53 53 83 1.4 108 34 3.2 21 74 PLC5 -50 -93 1.2 -127 -37 3.4 -18 64 53 109 1.3 110 37 3.0 19 68 PLC6 -46 -75 1.2 -110 -36 3.1 -17 53 11 31 2.0 46 5 9.5 9 45 STCI -8 -17 2.1 -42 -4 11.5 -8 36 52 90 1.8 111 25 4.4 24 100 SHCI -40 -62 2.1 -116 -17 6.7 -22 100 33 91 1.2 110 24 4.6 16 65 SHC2 -25 -61 1.2 -108 -20 5.4 -14 52 33 90 1.3 108 23 4.7 16 68 SHC3 -29 -61 1.3 -98 -20 4.9 -16 54 34 90 1.6 116 19 6.0 18 90 SHC4 -26 -61 1.1 -106 -21 5.1 -14 50 39 88 1.1 117 32 3.6 15 62 SHC5 -31 -92 0.8 -119 -36 3.3 -11 39 30 90 1.1 122 26 4.7 14 63 SHC6 -26 -62 1.1 -116 -22 5.4 -13 52 28 42 1.4 101 18 5.5 16 68 SHC7 -21 -42 1.0 -81 -18 4.5 -12 35 59 4.5 DISCUSSION OF CYCLIC TEST RESULTS Figure 4.5.1 presents the load-deformation response of the plywood wall specimen PLC 1. The maximum positive shear force was 45 kN, and the maximum negative shear force was 40 kN. The maximum shear force was reached at a displacement of about 73 mm. When the plywood wall panel was pushed to a larger displacement demand, the wall failed due to nail pull through the plywood boards. The residual strength after nail pull through was very low. 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I t I I I 40 I I I I I I 30 - j 20 t I I I 0 •-- -i--- - I - -- _I I JtzhtzJ: -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure 4.5.1 — Load-Deformation curve, plywood cyclic test PLC1. Figure 4.5.2 presents the envelope curves of the primary cycles for all the plywood cyclic tests. Up to the displacement of 25mm (1% drift) all specimens followed a common path on the load-deformation envelope. At 0.5% drift the mean positive shear load was about 20 kN. At 1% drift the positive shear resistance was about 30 kN and the negative shear resistance was about 27 kN for all the specimens. Specimen PLC3 had the highest peak shear load of 61 kN due to the use of vertical tie-downs. Vertical tie-downs reduced the effect of over turning moment and therefore reduced the shear demand on the end studs. However PLC3 experienced a very brittle failure and it has the lowest displacement ductilityp among 60 the plywood specimens. PLC5 and PLC6 had a more ductile behavior due to the use of gang nails in the end stud to top plate connection. 70 I I I t I I I I I I 60 I I I I — II I I I V I I I I I I I 50 4 1- 4- I I I I ‘.t I I I • ••.40 tV% I I I I I I I .1. 30 I I I I I I.•. I”•••._’ 20 4 4- I I I I I I I I I • 10 I I I I I I I U 0 I __I ‘a •--a-—PLC1 10 •—4l - 4 4-———-- I- • ‘. I I I - - PLC2 I I I -20 ----- -‘ —--—-‘PLC3 -30 --- - ————PLC I I I PLC5 :: - — ____ -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation —______________ Figure 4.5.2 — Primary envelope curves — plywood cyclic tests. Figure 4.5.3 shows the load-deformation response of regular stucco wall specimen STC 1. The maximum positive shear force applied to the wall panel was 11 kN, and the maximum negative shear force was 8 kN. The envelope to the cyclic response includes a range from about 10 to 40 mm during which the peak load in the cycle is about 10 kN. Although the regular stucco shearwall didn’t perform very well in term of shear resistance; it behaved very ductile and its displacement ductility was 9.5 in the positive direction and 11.5 in the negative direction. Beyond 50 mm displacement, the shear strength of the wall panel degraded rapidly. Initially the intention was to conduct cyclic test on 3 similar specimens of each type of shearwall. Due to the very poor performance of specimen STC 1 no further panel tests were performed on the regular stucco shearwall. 61 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 —-4—4— ——————1-— -4—4—4-— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure 4.5.3 — Load — Deformation curve, regular stucco cyclic test STC1 Figure 4.5.4 presents the load-deformation response of the stucco shearwall with shear connector, specimen SHC1. For this specimen, the maximum positive shear force was 52 kN, and the maximum negative shear force was 40 kN. The maximum shear force was reached at a displacement of about 90 mm. When the stucco wall panel was pushed to a larger displacement demand, the wall failed in a very ductile manner due to the combination of fastener pull out and fastener fracture. The residual strength at the end of the test (5% drift) was 40 kN in the positive direction and 30 kN in the negative direction which are equal to 78% and 74% of the corresponding peak shear force. 62 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 —-I—————— + —--—--i— —————I—— -- I I I I 30 — — — — - - - 20 L -- — p I I I I I 10 - - -- - •0 I 0 - I- - - - -- - _j I I I I I I I -10 — — I I I I I I I I I I I I I -20 I I I I I I I I I I I I -30 -I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -40 -: -: I I I I I I I -50 i -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mmj Figure 4.5.4 — Load — Deformation curve, stucco with shear connector cyclic test SHC1. Figure 4.5.5 presents the envelope curves of the primary cycles for all shear wall specimens with shear connector. Up to the displacement of 25mm (1% drift) all specimens followed a common path on the load deformation envelope; except specimen SHC1 which had a higher shear load due to the use of vertical tie-downs. Specimens SHC2, SHC3 and SHC4 had a very similar response to the imposed displacement. For these specimens, the maximum positive shear force was about 33 kN at a displacement of 90 mm, and the maximum negative shear force was about 26 kN at a displacement of 61 mm. When the stucco wall panel was pushed to a larger displacement demand, the wall failed in a very ductile manner due to the combination of fastener pull out and fastener fracture. Corner break-out was observed during the test and some of the shear connectors separated from the stucco due to a relatively weak bond between the sleeve and concrete. Specimen SHC5 had slightly higher shear resistance due to the fact that the stucco age at the time of the testing was 84 days, in compare to 27 days for SHC2 and 49 days for SHC3 and SHC4. The higher concrete strength at the time of testing resulted in no corner cracks or break-out failure, no stucco pop out and no Shearlock separation from the stucco during the test. 63 Specimen SHC6 had weep screed with horizontal slotted holes over the building paper along the bottom plate. Since the actual direction of the shear load imposed to each fastener along the bottom plate was not purely horizontal, the weep screed provided a vertical support for the stucco and limited the rotation of the stucco along the base. Strong connection at base resulted in failure of the fasteners along the top plate. Because of the relatively poor concrete quality of this specimen, delaminated stucco was observed on some edges. Specimen SHC7 had Shearlocks at 4” spacing along the end studs and Shearlocks at 6” spacing along the plates. Limited rotation of the stucco layer was observed during the test. Stress concentration along the end studs resulted in stucco failure along the vertical Shearlocks. 60 I I I 50 SHC7 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125! Deformation Figure 4.5.5 — Primary envelope curves — stucco with Shearlock cyclic tests. 64 Figure 4.5.6 compares the load-deformation envelope of three different shearwall systems. This comparison shows that stucco walls with the shear connectors can achieve similar strengths as plywood shear walls while at the same time having a greater displacement capacity than plywood shear walls. 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 4 4- I I I I I I I :: izztz::zi:z 10 - - - I - - z I I I I I I I I I • 0 4 I- 4 I- (U - I I I I I o I I I I I I .I —10 I I I I I I I I I I —Shearlock I I I I -20 I —4-—Plywood -30 --41 I I I I I —4-—StuccowithoutShearlock I I _________—-________ -40 I- -50 --H-HI -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 - Deformation [mm] Figure 4.5.6 - Comparison of load-deformation envelopes of the three wall systems. 65 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY A number of buildings with exterior stucco walls suffered severe damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Many of the failures were the result of poor embedment of wire mesh. Considerable research has been done since then on woodframe walls with stucco. This research has shown that stucco significantly contributes to the stiffness and strength of woodframe construction. The research has also shown that if stucco is pushed beyond its drift capacity, a brittle failure of the connection between stucco and the woodframe will result. A special shear connector has been developed (Adebar et al. 2003) to provide a direct shear connection between stucco and woodframe that is stiff and strong. The shear connectors are to be installed around the perimeter of stucco shear walls at a spacing that depends on the design shear strength of the wall. The connectors have been designed to act as the weak-link in a stucco shear wall so that when the seismic demand on the wall exceeds the design shear strength, the connectors will deform inelastically. Numerous reverse-cyclic tests have been done on stucco with the direct shear connectors. A large number of 2 ft x 2 ft stucco element tests have been done to examine connector characteristics such as fastener type, geometry of connector sleeve, minimum pull out resistance of connectors from stucco, minimum connector spacing, and minimum stucco edge distance. In addition, 8 ft x 8 ft wall panels have been tested to better understand stucco walls with and without the shear connectors and how stucco walls compare to plywood walls. 5.1 ELEMENT TESTS A total of 68 specimens were tested by Mastschuch (2002), and an additional 17 specimens were tested in this research study. These tests showed that the shear connectors are capable of resisting a shear force of up to 2 kN (450 lbs) per connector while allowing displacements of up to 30 mm (1.2 in.). Tests also showed that the minimum pull-out resistance of the shear connectors from stucco with typical in-situ compressive strength of stucco is about 4 kN (900 lbs) per connector. Thus for normal strength fasteners, the factor of safety against sleeve pull out from stucco is 2. It was also observed that the anchorage strength of the sleeves is not 66 significantly reduced when the connectors are spaced as close as 76 mm (3 in.) center to center, or located within 45 mm (1/4 in.) from the edge of the stucco. The detailed information of the test results including the summary of specimen characteristics, the most important test results, and the test observations with pictures of the failure mode for each element test is provided separately in the Appendix A. A summary of significant test results is presented below: - Shearlocks with smooth inner radius transition had much better performance than Shearlocks with sharp transition. - Preventing the fastener head from pulling out of the Shearlock head had no significant effect on the performance of the Shearlock. - Pre-grooving the wood member showed no significant improvement on the performance of the shear transfer device - Adding a cap to the specimens with pre-grooved wood member resulted in decreasing both initial stiffness and peak shear load. - Slotted holes or oversized holes need to be punched in the weep screed at the location of the Shearlock to facilitate the free movement of the fastener. The best performance of the Shearlock was observed when the sleeve portion of the Shearlock had a smooth transition, fasteners were free to pop out of the sleeve head, wood member was not pre-grooved, and fasteners were free to move laterally regardless of presence of weep screed. 5.2 PANEL TESTS Three different types of full scale shearwall panels were tested as part of this research study: plywood shearwall, regular stucco shear wall, and stucco shearwall with special shear connectors. The details of these tests are summarized in this thesis, and the test results are briefly described. One monotonic test and six cyclic tests were performed on the plywood shearwalls. Rotation of the plywood sheets and deformation of the fasteners as the displacement demand was increased has been observed in all the plywood shearwall testing. Both plywood sheets experienced a similar rotation and the top and bottom plates remained relatively horizontal until a line of fasteners failed in one panel; then the plywood pulled away from the framing and the rotation was relaxed. 67 Three failure modes for the fasteners were observed during the experimental study: - fasteners pulling out of the framing, - fasteners pulling through the plywood, - fasteners tearing through the edge of the plywood. From the above failure modes, pullout failure was the most ductile and strongest failure mode where the rest of the failure modes were very brittle. In most tests fasteners pulling through the sheathing at the bottom corners dominated the failure. After the peak shear load, increase in the displacement demand caused excessive damage to the framing members without any significant shear resistance. One monotonic test and one cyclic were performed on the stucco shearwall without Shearlocks. In both monotonic and cyclic tests, the stucco layer rotated and the staples deformed and failed as the displacement demand was increased. Staple pullout or fracture along the studs and the plates dominated the failure. No damage to the stucco layer or framing members was observed during the regular stucco shearwall test. One monotonic test and seven cyclic tests were performed on the stucco shearwall with Shearlock connectors. Similar to the previous shearwall testing, the stucco panels rotated and the fasteners deformed as the shear demand was increased. Four different failure modes for the connectors were observed in the testing, three of which were related to fasteners failure and the other one was related to the bond between the stucco and the sleeve portion of the connector; no damage to the framing members were observed: - fasteners fracture, - fasteners pullout, - fasteners pop-out, - Shearlock pulling out of the stucco. The tests have shown that stucco shear walls with the connectors have much greater shear strength and much more ductility than regular stucco walls. The tests have also shown that stucco walls with the shear connectors can achieve similar strengths as plywood shear walls while at the same time having a greater displacement capacity than plywood shear walls (Figure 4.5.6). Wall panels tested under slow reverse-cyclic loading with the displacement demand progressively increased until the wall is destroyed does not simulate the conditions of a real 68 earthquake; but does provide a way to compare different wall systems, which was the objective of this research study. However to complete the evaluation of Shearlock connectors in stucco shearwalls there is a need to investigate more parameters such as the effect of real time seismic loading and the effect of increased rigidity along the corners of a building. To investigate these parameters, full-scale shaketable tests of a cubical shape woodframe house with exterior stucco walls with Shearlock connector needs to be conducted. 69 REFRENCES: Adebar, P., H. Davis, W. Spilchen, and A. Sacks, 2003. “Stucco Fastening System,” US Patent 6668501. Fisher, D., A. Filiatrault, B. Foltz, C-M Uang and F. Seible, 2000. “Shake Table Tests of a Two-Story Woodframe House,” Report No. SSRP-2000/15, UC San Diego. Gatto, K, and C-M Uang, 2001. “Cyclic Response of Woodframe Shearwalls: Loading Protocol and Rate of Loading Effects,” Report No. SSRP-2001/06, UC San Diego. Holmes W., and P. Somers, 1995. “Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 Reconnaissance Report,” Earthquake Spectra, Sup. C, Vol. 11, Pub. 95-03/2, EERI, 135-142. Krawinkler, H., 2000. “Development of a Testing Protocol for Woodframe Structures,” Report, Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., Stanford University, 85 pp. Larsen, D.M., 2000. “Mitigation of Economic Loss of Wood Framed Structures,” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., UC Irvine, 129 pp. Mastschuch, T. 2002. “Evaluation of Direct Stucco-Woodframe Connectors for Enhanced Seismic Performance,” MA.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia. Taylor, G., C. Ventura, H. Prion, M. Kharrazi, 2002. “Static and Dynamic Earthquake Testing of Rainscreen Stucco Systems for British Columbia Residential Wood Frame Construction,” Report, Dept. of Civil Eng. Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, 20 pp. Ventura, C., G. Taylor, H. Prion, and M. Kharrazi, S. Pryor, 2002. “Full-Scale Shaking Table Studies of Woodframe Residential Construction,” 7NCEE, Boston. International Code Council. International Building Code. 2000. American Society of Civil Engineers, “ASCE Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”, ASCE 7-98, Reston, VA, 2000. American Society of Civil Engineers, “ASCE 16— Load and Resistance Factor Design Standard for Engineered Wood Structures,” 1997. AWC. National Design SpecUicationsfor Wood Construction. American Wood Council, 1997. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC). “Standard Method of Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Framed Walls for Buildings,” 1996a. 70 APPENDIX A Phase I - Element Tests 71 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: ODLT Test Date: May 21, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with sharp inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement z = 25.4 mm Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.92 [kN] I -2.15 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +13.45 [mni] I -14.13 [mm] - Max. Drift: +14.17 [mm] I -15.67 [mm] - Max Separation: 10.22 [mm] - Failure mode: Fracture of both fasteners Test Observations: - Brittle fracture of both fasteners was observed during the testing. - Yielding of the fasteners in the positive direction started in the sixth primary cycle at the input displacement amplitude of + 10 mm. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in the negative direction started in the third primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 5.08 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - In the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm both fasteners experienced fracture in the positive direction and the specimen failed in a brittle manner. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 40 mm for the fastener located closer to the load cell and 32 mm for the fastener located closer to the free end. - No fastener pullout from the wood stud was observed during the testing. 72 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.1 — Test results of specimen ODLT. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kNI DispI. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mm] 0.075i 0.64 1.091 Primary 0.15(1.91 mm) -0.76 -1.31 0.47 0.82 0.45 0.882 Trailing 0.20 -0.54 -0.94 -0.53 -1.00 0.46 0.75 0.44 0.883 Trailing 0.140.056k. -0.54 -1.00 (1.43 mm) 0.45 0.82 0.41 0.884 Trailing 0.14 -0.54 -1.00 0.45 0.82 0.42 0.885 Trailing 0.14 -0.54 -0.94 6 Primary 0.1A 0.74 1.63(2.54 mm) -0.82 -1.81 -0.81 -1.88 0.51 1.167 Trailing 0.15 -0.57 -1.31 -0.56 -1.38 0.50 1.168 Trailing 0.140.075A -0.58 -1.38 (1.91 mm) 0.49 1.229 Trailing 0.14 -0.57 -1.25 -0.57 -1.31 0.50 1.2210 Trailing 0.12 -0.57 -1.13 -0.57 -1.38 11 Primary 0.2t 1.22 3.67(5.08 mm) -0.95 -3.63 0.60 2.7212 Trailing 0.550.15k -0.63 -2.75 -0.63 -2.94 (3.81 mm) 0.60 2.7913 Trailing 0.45 -0.64 -2.88 14 Primary 0.3k 1.62 5.64(7.62 mm) -1.06 -5.63 -1.05 -5.81 0.58 4.4215 Trailing 1.080.225z -0.54 -4.69 (5.72 mm) 0.58 4.14 0.57 4.2816 Trailing 1.03 -0.56 -4.44 -0.56 -4.50 17 Primary 0.4A 2.02 7.54 1.95 7.61(10.16 mm) -1.19 -7.75 0.51 5.9118 Trailing 1.510.3 -0.49 -5.94 -0.48 -6.13 (7.62 mm) 0.54 5.8419 Trailing 1.60 -0.49 -6.19 20 Primary 0.7 13.45(17.78 mm) -14.13 0.32 10.8721 Trailing 4.640.525A -0.34 -11.00 (13.34 mm) 0.31 10.6022 Trailing 2.80 -0.34 -11.25 23 Primary lOu 1.38 15.35 0.05 20.58(25.4 mm) -0.18 -11.94 -0.12 -21.44 0.15 14.60 0.15 14.7424 Trailing 6.420.75A -0.19 -12.69 -0.12 -15.94 (19.05 mm) 0.14 15.01 0.13 15.2125 Trailing 6.14 -0.19 -0.81 -0.13 -16.19 26 Primary 1.5 0.12 16.03 0.06 31.45 7.85(38.1 mm) -0.16 -4.81 -0.13 -29.81 0.13 16.91 0.03 23.3727 Trailing 7.691.125u -0.15 -23.75 -0.15 -23.81 (28.58 mm) 0.13 1.77 0.03 23.5028 Trailing 7.91 -0.15 -1.38 -0.13 -24.19 29 Primary 2.OA 0.09 17.39 0.05 42.18 7.68(50.08 mm) -0.17 -5.56 -0.14 -31.94 0.12 2.04 0.02 31.0430 Trailing 10.221.5k -0.15 -4.50 -0.11 -29.88 (38.10 mm) 0.11 2.51 0.01 31.4531 Trailing 9.21 -0.15 -6.50 -0.10 -29.81 Values are given only when the Maximum ioad does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 73 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 3 —-——— - ——---- -—----—————— ———-———--——— ———-— ——---— 2.5 2 15 1 L I I I I 1:1 -i 1 Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I Deformation [mm] Figure A.1 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen ODLT. 74 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.2 - Failure of the fasteners of specimen ODLT. 75 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT1 Test Date: May 18, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.93 [kN] / -1.92 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +20.5 8 [mm] / -20.56 [mm] - Max. Drift: +3 1.03 [mm] / -37.49 [mm] - Max Separation: 2.85 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Yielding of the fasteners in the positive direction started in the sixth primary cycle at the input displacement amplitude of 12 mm. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in the negative direction started in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25 .4 mm. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 67% of the peak load in both directions. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 74 mm for both fasteners. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 22 mm. 76 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.2 - Test results of specimen NDLT1. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Load [kNJ Displ. [mm] [mm] 0.075k 0.46 1.16 0.46 1.221 Primary 0.13(1.91 mm) -0.44 -1.44 0.27 0.82 0.27 0.882 Trailing 0.13 -0.26 -1.13 0.27 0.82 0.26 0.953 Trailing 0.120.056t -v.27 -1.06 -0.26 -1.13 (1.43 mm) 0.27 0.884 Trailing 0.10 -0.26 -1.13 0.28 0.75 0.27 0.885 Trailing 0.09 -0.26 -1.13 -0.24 -1.19 6 Primary 0.1A 0.50 1.63 0.50 1.70 0.13(2.54 mm) -0.52 -1.94 0.37 1.167 Trailing 0.15 -0.31 -1.50 0.35 1.09 0.32 1.298 Trailing 0.070.075S -0.31 -1.44 -0.31 -1.50 (1.91 mm) 0.34 1.22 9 Trailing 0.09 -0.31 -1.50 0.33 1.16 0.32 1.2210 Trailing 0.08 -0.32 -1.44 -0.31 -1.50 11 Primary 0.2. 0.79 3.74 0.78 3.80 0.18(5.08 mm) -0.69 -3.88 -0.67 -3.94 0.53 2.7912 Trailing 0.140.15 -0.51 -2.94 -0.50 -3.00 (3.81 mm) 0.51 2.7213 Trailing 0.11 -0.51 -3.06 14 Primary 0.3E 1.12 6.11 0.45(7.62 mm) -0.87 -5.88 0.58 4.3515 Trailing 0.180.225k. -0.56 -4.56 (5.72 mm) 0.57 4.3516 Trailing 0.09 -0.54 -4.56 17 Primary 0.4th 1.59 8.29 1.59 8.22(10.16 mm) -1.04 -8.06 0.66 6.1818 Trailing 0.170.3 -0.58 -6.13 (7.62 mm) 0.60 6.1119 Trailing 0.09 -0.57 -6.06 20 Primary 0.7t 2.76 14.60(17.78 mm) -1.75 -14.13 0.62 11.1421 Trailing 0.520.525\ -0.66 -10.13 -0.61 -10.69 (13.34 mm) 0.52 11.0722 Trailing - -- 0.36 -10.38 -0.58 -10.81 23 Primary 20.58 2.93 21.12(25.4 mm) -20.56 -1.90 -20.38 0.64 15.9624 Trailing 0.210.75z -0.58 -13.50 -0.52 -15.56 (19.05 mm) 0.52 16.1025 Trailing 0.23 -0.51 -13.50 -0.48 -15.63 26 Primary 1.5k 2.68 25.47 2.29 32.19 2.85(38.1 mm) -1.85 -31.19 0.75 20.44 0.65 24.1127 Trailing 2.211.1251 -0.87 -15.31 -0.51 -23.38 (28.58 mm) 0.64 18.81 0.53 24.1828 Trailing 0.91 -0.77 -16.94 -0.65 -23.38 29 Primary 2.OA 1.93 38.04 1.70 43.40 2.23(50.08 mm) -1.29 -42.38 -1.25 -42.25 0.73 32.3330 Trailing 2.671.5 -0.84 -28.31 -0.55 -31.81 (38.10 mm) 0.62 28.53 0.54 32.3331 Trailing 2.58 -0.70 -29.25 -0.56 -31.88 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 77 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I - - . .. I • Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I Deformation [mm] Figure A.3 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT1. 78 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.4 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT1. Figure A.5 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT1. 79 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT2 Test Date: May 20, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, one Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.95 [kN] I -2.69 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +30.36 [mm] I -31.56 [mm] - Max. Drift: > +42 [mm] I <-38 [mm] - Max Separation: 2.39 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fastener Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fastener was observed during the testing. - After the first primary cycle with the amplitude of 1.91 mm followed by four trailing cycles the specimen behaved elastically; no degradation of stiffness in the trailing cycles. - In the second primary cycle with the amplitude of 2.54 mm, four trailing cycles showed small degradation of stiffness of the specimen. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - At the end of the testing (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 92% of the peak load in positive direction and 86% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slot in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fastener was 76 mm. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 12 mm. 80 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.3 - Test results of specimen NDLT2. Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* VerticalSeparationCycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mmj Load [kNJ Displ. [mm] [mm] 0.075A 0.60 1.22 0.58 1.361 Primary 0.24(1.91 mm) -0.64 -1.56 0.46 0.95 0.44 1.022 Trailing 0.22 -0.48 -1.25 -0.47 -1.19 0.44 1.02 0.40 1.093 Trailing 0.230.056A -0.47 -1.25 -0.46 -1.31 (1.43 mm) 0.45 0.95 0.35 1.09 4 Trailing 0.24 -0.48 -1.31 0.44 1.025 Trailing 0.20 -0.46 -1.31 6 Primary 0.1A 0.60 1.83(2.54 mm) -0.65 -2.13 0.51 1.367 Trailing 0.20 -0.52 -1.69 0.48 1.438 Trailing 0.210.075A -0.53 -1.69 (1.91 mm) 0.49 1.369 Trailing 0.23 -0.53 -1.69 0.49 1.4910 Trailing 0.23 -0.52 -1.81 11 Primary 0.2A 0.86 3.80 0.85 3.87(5.08 mm) -0.81 -4.00 -0.81 -4.13 0.62 2.78 0.60 3.1212 Trailing 0.250.15A -0.64 -3.13 (3.81 mm) 0.63 2.9913 Trailing 0.23 -0.62 -3.19 14 Primary 0.3 1.21 6.05(7.62 mm) -1.02 -6.13 0.71 4.48 0.70 4.6215 Trailing 0.250.225A -0.68 -4.69 (5.72 mm) 0.68 4.5516 Trailing 0.26 -0.67 -4.69 17 Primary 0.4A 1.51 8.08(10.16 mm) -1.21 -8.06 0.64 6.2518 Trailing 0.230.3s -0.71 -6.25 (7.62 mm) 0.60 6.05 0.60 6.1819 Trailing 0.24 -0.71 -6.25 20 Primary 0.7A 2.55 14.60(17.78 mm) -2.23 -14.38 0.70 11.1421 Trailing 0.250.525A -0.65 -7.69 -0.61 -11.06 (13.34 mm) 0.59 11.07 0.58 11.2722 Trailing 0.22 -0.63 -9.50 -0.57 -11.06 23 Primary 1.OA 2.81 20.78(25.4 mm) -2.65 -21.13 0.64 15.8324 Trailing 0.200.75i -0.79 -11.88 -0.62 -15.88 (19.05 mm) 0.59 16.1025 Trailing - 0.20 -11.56 -0.58 -15.94 26 Primary 1.5 30.36 2.94 31.92 1.34(38.1 mm) -31.56 23.7727 Trailing 0.191.125 -1.01 -20.94 -0.68 -23.88 (28.58 mm) 0.69 14.60 0.55 24.1828 Trailing 0.20 -0.73 -14.63 -0.58 -24.06 29 Primary 2.OA 2.92 39.12 2.70 42.86 2.26(50.08 mm) -2.32 -38.13 0.78 32.1930 Trailing 2.301.5 -0.83 -27.31 -0.49 -32.19 (38.10 mm) 0.67 30.43 0.57 32.7431 Trailing 2.39 -0.76 -22.63 -0.53 -32.31 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 81 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I I I I EEEHHE EE EH E4EEJE Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I 3 -4 4. .1. - I- - 1- I I I I 2 5 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I2 4- 1.5 - . - . . - - • 1 I I I I I Io o I I I . —z 0.5 4 I e———— I I I I I I W 0 I I I I I I I Cl) I I I I I I I _ -0.5 —_-.—. o — - - - l_ — .I I I I I - . _1 4. 4.. .4 L 4. I I I I I -1.5 I PrimaryCycle -2 - . 4 ———lsttrailingCycle Deformation [mm] Figure A.6 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT2. 82 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.7 - Failure of the fasteners of specimen NDLT2. 83 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT3 Test Date: May 21, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +3.32 [kN] I -2.89 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +19.77 [mm] I -20.31 [mm] - Max. Drift: +22.20 [mm] / -25.20 [mm] - Max Separation: 3.49 [mm] - Failure mode: Ductile fracture of one fastener Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with the ductile fracture of one fastener was observed during the testing; another fastener experienced no fracture. - Yielding of the fasteners in the positive direction started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 7.62 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - In the eighth primary cycle, at 23 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, the fastener located closer to the free end experienced ductile fracture. - At the end of the testing (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 46% of the peak load in both directions. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 60 nmi for the fastener located closer to the load cell and 34 mm for the fastener located closer to the free end. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 19 mm. 84 Appendix A Table A.4 - Test results of specimen NDLT3. Phase I — Element Tests Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacemenr Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Dispi. [mm] Load [kN] Dispi. [mm] Separation[mm] 1 Primary 0.075A 0.53 1.02(1.91 mm) -0.64 -1.38 0.16 2 Trailing 0.42 0.61 -0.51 -1.00 -0.48 -1.06 0.19 3 Trailing 0.42 0.680.056S -0.50 -1.06 0.20 (1.43 mm) 0.41 0.68 0.39 0.95 4 Trailing -0.51 -1.06 0.21 5 Trailing 0.40 0.75 -0.51 -1.06 0.17 6 Primary 0.1 0.58 1.49 0.50 1.63(2.54 mm) -0.68 -1.88 0.17 7 Trailing 0.44 1.16 0.44 1.09 -0.52 -1.38 -0.51 -1.50 0.19 8 Trailing 0.43 1.090.075A -0.52 -1.44 0.21 (1.91 mm) 0.43 1.09 0.42 1.169 Trailing -0.52 -1.38 0.17 10 Trailing 0.42 1.16 -0.52 -1.44 0.15 11 Primary 0.2E 1.07 3.60(5.08 mm) -0.94 -3.75 0.25 12 Trailing 0.54 2.790.15A -0.64 -2.94 0.23 (3.81 mm) 0.55 2.72 0.55 2.6513 Trailing -0.68 -2.88 0.27 14 Primary 0.3A 1.52 5.77(7.62 mm) -1.31 -5.75 0.62 15 Trailing 0.58 4.420.225z -0.78 -4.38 0.53 16 Trailing (5.72 mm) 0.69 4.35 -0.74 -4.38 0.24 17 Primary 0.4A 1.79 7.95(10.16 mm) -1.57 -7.81 0.80 18 Trailing 0.65 6.050.3k -0.67 -6.06 0.71 19 Trailing (7.62 mm) 0.68 5.84 0.68 5.98 -0.67 -6.00 -0.67 -6.13 0.24 20 Primary 0.7A 3.05 14.26(17.78 mm) -2.69 -14.13 1.20 21 Trailing 0.81 10.660.525A -0.63 -11.00 1.38 22 Trailing (13.34 mm) 0.66 10.73 -n -- -.oo 0.30 23 Primary 1.OA 19.77 3.27 20.44(25.4 mm) -20.31 1.91 24 Trailing 15.490.75A -0.55 -11.81 -0.45 -15.81 0.45 (19.05 mm) 0.55 15.6225 Trailing -0.51 -11.81 -0.45 -15.75 0.43 26 Primary 1.5A 2.32 23.43 1.65 31.92(38.1 mm) -1.59 -31.31 3.83 27 Trailing 0.40 23.91 1.125 -0.52 -15.25 -0.32 -23.38 2.26 28 Trailing (28.58 mm) 0.39 24.04 -0.47 -15.31 -0.33 -23.38 2.24 29 Primary 2.0E 1.49 41.84 1.48 42.86(50.08 mm) -1.35 -42.06 30 Trailing 0.45 29.82 0.42 32.26 1.5z -0.53 -26.25 -0.23 -31.69 3.46 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.42 29.89 0.38 32.33 -0.47 -27.19 -0.25 -31.31 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 85 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I J I I I I 3 - 4. I I I I I ________________________________ ____ ________ Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I 3 - 4. .4. -1 I- ————-4 I I I I I I I I I 25 I I I I 2 -1.5 PrimaryCycle -2 - 4_.. ———lstTrailingCycle Deformation [mm] Figure A.8 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT3. 86 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.9 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT3. Figure A.1O - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT3. 87 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT4 Test Date: May 26, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, fasteners pullout of Shearlock were prevented Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.96 [kN] I -1.92 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +19.56 [mm] / -21.79 [mm] - Max. Drift: +32.24 [mm] / -33.62 [mm] - Max Separation: 16.88 [mm] - Failure mode: Ductile fracture of one fastener Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with the ductile fracture of one fastener was observed during the testing. - Rotation of the moving arm of the test apparatus was observed during the test. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - In the last primary cycle, at 33 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, the fastener located closer to the free end experienced ductile fracture. - At the end of the testing (41 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 44% of the peak load in both directions. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 66 mm for the fastener located closer to load cell and 50 mm for another fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 20 mm. 88 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.5 — Test results of specimen NDLT4. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude SeparationLoad LkN] Displ. Cmml Load [kNI Dispi. [mmj CmmI 1 Primary 0.075A 0.53 1.29(1.91 mm) -0.57 -1.51 0.16 2 Trailing 0.40 1.02 0.39 0.95 -0.45 -1.18 0.21 3 Trailing 0.39 0.88 0.38 1.020.056 -0.44 -1.18 0.18 (1.43 mm) 0.38 0.95 0.37 1.024 Trailing -0.45 -1.12 0.17 5 Trailing 0.38 0.95 -0.44 -1.12 0.17 6 Primary 0.1 0.59 1.77(2.54 mm) -0.60 -2.10 0.23 7 Trailing 0.42 1.22 0.42 1.29 -0.47 -1.51 -0.46 -1.58 0.24 8 Trailing 0.42 1.290.075A -0.46 -1.58 0.25 (1.91 mm) 0.41 1.369 Trailing -0.46 -1.51 -0.45 -1.58 0.23 10 Trailing 0.41 1.22 0.41 1.29 -0.46 -1.25 -0.44 -1.64 0.28 11 Primary 0.2tX 1.07 3.60 1.05 3.67(5.08 mm) -0.69 -3.87 -0.68 -3.94 0.50 12 Trailing 0.50 2.850.15z -0.49 -3.08 0.56 (3.81 mm) 0.48 2.8513 Trailing -0.50 -3.15 0.59 14 Primary 0.3A 1.57 5.71(7.62 mm) -0.76 -6.23 -0.75 -6.43 1.12 15 Trailing 0.47 4.350.225E -0.48 -4.59 -0.48 -4.73 1.21 (5.72 mm) 0.45 4.3516 Trailing -0.48 -4.66 -0.47 -4.73 1.20 17 Primary 0.4A 1.99 7.61(10.16 mm) -0.89 -8.60 1.98 18 Trailing 0.43 5.980.3i -0.44 -6.37 2.23 (7.62 mm) 0.41 6.0519 Trailing -0.45 -6.37 2.25 20 Primary 0Th 2.70 13.58(17.78 mm) -1.94 -15.16 5.55 21 Trailing 0.37 10.800.525z -0.36 -10.89 -0.35 1l 5.82 (13.34 mm) 0.33 10.7322 Trailing —-- -0.35 -11.55 5.86 23 Primary 1.0 19.56(25.4 mm) -21.79 9.88 24 Trailing 15.28 0.75k -0.29 -16.34 10.18 (19.05 mm) 0.24 15.15 0.23 15.2125 Trailing -0.29 -16.14 -0.25 -16.34 10.30 26 Primary 1.5A 2.94 26.01 2.89 30.36(38.1 mm) -2.39 -32.09 16.81 27 Trailing 0.15 22.891.125k -0.21 -24.87 16.86 28 Trailing (28.58 mm) 0.14 22.82 -0.18 -24.61 16.88 29 Primary 2.0 1.32 36.00 1.15 41.43(50.08 mm) -1.04 -36.62 16.83 30 Trailing 0.07 27.78 1.5 -0.14 -32.48 -0.13 3347 3.01 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.07 28.73 -0.16 -33.21 3.26 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 89 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I Deformation [mml 3.5 I I I I I I I I 3 - 4- -I. L - I I I I 2 5 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I2 - 1 -. - o I I I I I I I z 0.5 4 I I I I o 0 - — _J.____. — aI I I I I U) I — I I I I L. 0.5 I— o I I I I I I I • -1 - L. . - I I . I -1.5 PrimaryCycle I I I I -2 -i . ———lstTraIIIngCycle - Deformation [mm] Figure A.1 1 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT4. 90 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.13 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT4. Figure A.12 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT4. 91 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT5 Test Date: May 28, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, fasteners pullout of Shearlock were prevented. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +3.03 [kN] I -2.45 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +27.03 [mm] / -31.06 [mm] - Max. Drift: > +39 [mm] / <-35 [mm] - Max Separation: 20.02 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - No rotation of the moving arm of the test apparatus was observed during the test. - Yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test (40 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 80% of the peak load in both directions. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 67 mm for the LC fastener and 79 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 19 mm. 92 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.6 — Test results of specimen NDLT5. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude SeparationLoad [kNj Dispi. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mm] 1 Primary 0.075t 0.47 1.02 0.47 1.09(1.91 mm) -0.64 -1.19 -0.54 -1.25 0.12 2 Trailing 0.37 0.75 0.36 0.82 -0.45 -0.88 0.18 3 Trailing 0.36 0.68 0.35 0.750.056t -0.44 -0.88 -0.44 -1.00 0.18 (1.43 mm) 0.37 0.68 0.36 0.75 4 Trailing -0.44 -0.88 -0.44 -1.00 0.14 5 Trailing 0.36 0.68 0.34 0.75 -0.44 -1.00 0.16 6 Primary 0.1 0.52 1.49 0.52 1.56(2.54 mm) -0.58 -1.81 0.16 7 Trailing 0.39 1.09 -0.46 -1.31 0.18 8 Trailing 0.38 1.02 0.37 1.160.075A -0.46 -1.06 -0.45 -1.25 0.20 (1.91 mm) - 0.38 1.16 0.38 1.229 Trailing -0.46 -1.25 0.18 10 Trailing 0.38 1.09 -0.46 -1.31 0.17 11 Primary 0.2t 0.93 3.46 0.92 3.53(5.08 mm) -0.74 -3.81 -0.73 -3.94 0.66 12 Trailing 0.44 2.720.15t -0.48 -2.63 -0.45 -2.81 0.43 (3.81 mm) 0.43 2.7213 Trailing -0.48 -2.88 -0.48 -2.75 0.46 14 Primary 0.3A 1.42 5.57(7.62 mm) -0.91 -5.69 1.50 15 Trailing 0.46 4.280.225A -0.49 -4.38 1.10 (5.72 mm) 0.43 4.3516 Trailing -0.48 -4.38 1.19 17 Primary 0.4t 1.87 7.40(10.16 mm) -1.10 -7.81 2.42 18 Trailing 0.45 5.84 0.3 -0.47 -6.00 1.96 (7.62 mm) 0.42 5.7719 Trailing -0.47 -6.06 2.15 20 Primary 0.7 2.77 13.38(17.78 mm) -1.99 -14.00 5.89 21 Trailing 0.40 10.19 0.525L -0.43 -11.06 6.02 22 Trailing (13.34 mm) 0.37 10.32 -0.41 -10.81 -0.40 -10.88 6.27 23 Primary 1.0E 2.91 19.22(25.4 mm) -2.38 -20.75 10.24 24 Trailing 0.33 14.74 0.75 -0.37 -15.63 . 10.72 (19.05 mm) 0.30 14.6025 Trailing -C ‘ -15.75 10.88 26 Primary 1.5th 27.03 2.99 29.41(38.1 mm) -31.06 15.37 27 Trailing 0., 22.35 1.125 -0.31 -23.75 15.24 28 Trailing (28.58 mm) 0.22 21.94 -0.29 -23.69 15.62 29 Primary 2.0 2.63 34.98 2.45 39.39 20.02(50.08 mm) -1.94 -35.06 30 Trailing 0.17 30.43 r -1.59 -35.25 20.021.5t\ -0.20 -31.44 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.16 29.95 20.00 -0.23 -31.06 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 93 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 1 ________________________ _______ _______ Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I -1 1- . I I I I I 2 5 I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I2 - I I I I I I I . 1.5 L I I I I I I I I o o i i I I I I I I I0.5 - +- + I__—_—.-1 0 I I —U) I I I I -0.5 ,— o I I I I I I I • -1 L I- L 0 I I I I I _ -1.5 I Primarycycle I I I I I -2 - 1 ._.__ ———lstTralllngCycle Deformation [mm] Figure A.14 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT5. 94 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.15 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLTS. Figure A.16 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLTS. 95 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT6 Test Date: June 1, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 18 mm, depth = 10 mm). Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +3.01 [kN] I -2.38 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +29.00[mm] I -19.75 [mm] - Max. Drift: > +41 [mm] / -34.56 [mm] - Max Separation: 15.17 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. The specimen gained its stiffness in the fifth and the sixth primary cycles. Degradation of the initial stiffness was more significant in the negative direction. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25 .4 mm. - At the end of the testing (41 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 83% of the peak load in positive direction and 76% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 70 mm for the LC fastener and 65 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 16 mm. 96 Appendix A Table A.7 — Test results of specimen NDLT6. Phase I — Element Tests Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kNI DispI. [mm] Load [kNI Dispi. [mml [mmj 0.075A 0.28 1.49 0.28 1.561 Primary 0.22(1.91 mm) -0.24 -1.63 0.22 1.222 Trailing 0.21 -0.20 -1.19 0.21 1.293 Trailing 0.210.056 -0.20 -1.19 -0.20 -1.25 (1.43 mm) 0.21 1.224 Trailing 0.25 -0.20 -1.19 0.22 1.22 0.21 1.295 Trailing 0.24 -0.20 -1.25 6 Primary 0.liX 0.30 1.97 0.30 2.11 0.29(2.54 mm) -0.28 -2.00 -0.27 -2.13 0.23 1.49 0.23 1.567 Trailing 0.25 -0.22 -1.56 0.23 1.49 0.22 1.568 Trailing 0.310.075 -0.23 -1.63 -0.22 -1.69 (1.91 mm) 0.22 1.56 0.22 1.639 Trailing 0.29 -0.22 -1.50 -0.22 -1.69 0.22 1.63 0.22 1.5610 Trailing 0.29 -0.23 -1.63 -0.21 -1.69 11 Primary 0.2A 0.46 4.01(5.08 mm) -0.35 -3.94 -0.35 -4.13 0.31 2.9212 Trailing 0.470.15A -0.29 -3.00 (3.81 mm) 0.29 3.1213 Trailing 0.46 -0.30 -2.81 -0.29 -2.94 14 Primary 0.3t\ 0.85 5.71(7.62 mm) -0.42 -5.94 0.36 4.2815 Trailing 0.610.225A -0.32 -4.56 (5.72 mm) 0.35 4.3516 Trailing 0.62 -0.32 -4.63 17 Primary 0.4A 1.41 7.68(10.16 mm) -0.50 -7.88 -0.49 -8.19 0.43 5.84 0.42 5.7118 Trailing 0.850.3k -0.34 -6.31 (7.62 mm) 0.44 5.8419 Trailing 0.70 -0.34 -6.13 20 Primary 0Th 2.69 13.65(17.78 mm) -1.18 -14.13 0.72 10.1921 Trailing 1.120.525 -0.56 -10.63 -0.55 -10.69 (13.34 mm) 0.60 10.3222 Trailing 0.81 -0.55 -10.56 23 Primary 1.0k T 2.92 19.76(25.4 mm) -19.75 069 14.87 (19.05 mm) 15.01 24 Trailing -0.61 -15.63 2.590.75 25 Trailing 1 -0.56 -15.81 0.75 26 Primary 1.5 29.00 2.98 30.56 22.55 (38.1 mm) 220 27 Trailing -0.70 I -17.31 -0.39 -24.25 3.13 (28.58 mm) 0.53 r 13.86 0.46 22.7528 Trailing -0.60 -21.56 -0.43 -24.25 1.45 29 Primary 2.OA 2.73 38.85 2.51 41.36 15.17(50.08 mm) -1.80 -35.69 0.72 28.39 0.68 30.8430 Trailing 10.861.5k -0.87 -23.44 -0.40 -31.63 (38.10 mm) 0.81 24.45 0.53 30.7731 Trailing 5.05 -0.75 -22.38 -0.44 -31.63 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 97 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I i I I I I I 3 - 4- .4. 4.- t___ ,- - 2 5 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1.5 - -. -H -1 - . . • 0.5 - — - I I I I I 0 -— - - -- I II I I U) I I I I .. -0.5 0) I I I I I I I • -1 —— -I 4.. _.4 4- -C I I I I I I I I I I I o - _I I I I I I I -2 - —I I— I I I I I I I -2.5 I -L L I I I I I -3 I I I I I -3.5 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mmJ 3.5 I I I I I 3 -I 4. - I-—— I I I I I I I 2.5 I 2 -1.5 r PrimaryCycle -2 - . .. —— —lstTrailingCycle Deformation Lmm] Figure A.17 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT6. 98 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.18 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT6. Figure A.19 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT6. 99 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT7 Test Date: June 3, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 18 mm, depth = 10 mm). Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.2 1 [kN] / -2.30 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: + 19.76 [mm] / -19.38 [mm] - Max. Drift: +37.72 [mm] / -30.66 [mm] - Max Separation: 15.21 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. The specimen gained its stiffness in the fifth and the sixth primary cycles. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - At the end of the testing (40 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 76% of the peak load in positive direction and 64% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 51 mm for the LC fastener and 45 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 19 mm. 100 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.8 - Test results of specimen NDLT7. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kNJ Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mm] 0.075th 0.19 1.36 0.19 1.561 Primary 0.20(1.91 mm) -0.30 -1.50 -0.29 -1.75 0.17 0.95 0.16 1.092 Trailing 0.17 -0.24 -1.25 0.16 1.153 Trailing 0.150.056k -0.24 -1.19 -0.24 -1.25 (1.43 mm) 0.17 1.15 4 Trailing 0.16 -0.24 -1.19 -0.23 -1.25 0.16 1.095 Trailing 0.21 -0.23 -1.25 -0.23 -1.31 0.1t 0.21 2:046 Primary 0.17(2.54 mm) -0.31 -2.13 0.20 1.36 0.19 1.567 Trailing 0.20 -0.26 -1.44 -0.26 -1.69 0.19 1.498 Trailing 0.170.075i -0.26 -1.69 (1.91 mm) 0.18 1.36 0.18 1.499 Trailing 0.16 -0.26 -1.44 -0.26 -1.69 0.18 1.29 0.17 1.5610 Trailing 0.24 -0.26 -1.56 -0.26 -1.63 11 Primary 0.2A 0.24 3.87 0.23 4.01(5.08 mm) -0.42 -4.06 -0.42 -4.19 0.24 2.65 0.23 3.0612 Trailing 0.330.15A -0.33 -3.13 (3.81 mm) 0.23 2.72 0.22 3.1213 Trailing 0.18 -0.33 -3.25 14 Primary 0.3A 0.31 5.98 0.30 6.04 0.52(7.62 mm) -0.57 -6.38 0.26 3.33 0.25 4.5515 Trailing 0.760.225k -0.42 -4.63 -0.41 -4.88 (5.72 mm) 0.25 3.94 0.24 4.5516 Trailing 0.35 -0.41 -4.69 17 Primary 0.4z 0.37 7.95(10.16 mm) -0.72 -8.06 0.26 6.18 0.26 6.2518 Trailing 1.090.3A -0.49 -5.88 (7.62 mm) 0.27 6.1119 Trailing 0.43 -0.47 -5.81 -0.46 -5.94 20 Primary 0Th 1.50 13.45(17.78 mm) -2.12 -14.13 0.28 10.8021 Trailing 4.810.525 -0.80 -10.81 (13.34 mm) 0.42 10.3922 Trailing 0.68 -0.65 -10.81 . 0.5023 Primary 19.76(25.4 mm) -19.38 -2.22 -20.50 0.67 13.18 0.62 14.8724 Trailing 0.340.75z -0.44 -10.50 -0.34 -16.06 (19.05 mm) 0.46 15.1525 Trailing 0.29 -0.42 -10.44 -0.34 -16.00 26 Primary 1.5A 2.07 29.27 2.03 30.56 8.60(38.1 mm) -1.91 -30.06 -1.88 -30.44 0.73 20.78 0.71 22.6227 Trailing 6.961.125k -0.70 -14.06 -0.26 -23.94 (28.58 mm) 0.54 14.40 0.51 22.6928 Trailing 0.78 -0.61 -15.38 -0.35 -24.06 29 Primary 2.0 1.67 40.62 15.21(50.08 mm) -1.50 -32.63 -1.47 -32.69 0.70 30.3630 Trailing 12.131.5/i -0.74 -25.81 -0.22 -30.69 (38.10 mm) 0.60 23.77 0.49 30.6331 Trailing 3.86 -0.60 -20.06 -0.24 -30.69 • Values are given only when the Maximum load does not uccur at the Maximum displacement. 101 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -J 1- S I I I I I I I I I 2 5 I I I I I I I I — I I I I I I I I I I ____________ ____________________________________________________ Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I I I L _J I I I I I I I I 25 I I I I I I I 2nngCe -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] Figure A.20 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT7. 102 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.21 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT7. Figure A.22 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT7. 103 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT8 Test Date: June 9, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 18 mm, depth= 10mm). Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.74 [kN] / -2.07 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +18.34 [mm] / -32.74 [mm] - Max. Drift: +3 1.58 [mm] / -39.34 [mm] - Max Separation: 28.03 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. The specimen gained its stiffness in the fifth and the sixth primary cycles. - Degradation of the stiffness was more significant in the negative direction. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - At the end of the testing (43 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 66% of the peak load in positive direction and 69% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 63 mm for both fasteners. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 16 mm. 104 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.9 — Test results of specimen NDLT8. Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* VerticalSeparationCycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kNI Displ. [mm] Load [kN] DispI. [mm] [mm] 0.075A 0.27 1.22 0.26 1.431 Primary 0.37(1.91 mm) -0.37 -1.64 0.13 0.88 0.09 1.222 Trailing 0.34 -0.31 -1.11 -0.28 -1.25 0.13 1.023 Trailing 0.300.056k -0.32 -1.11 -0.31 -1.25 (1.43 mm) 0.14 1.02 4 Trailing 0.30 -0.31 -1.18 0.13 1.025 Trailing 0.30 -0.31 -1.25 6 Primary 0.1A 0.33 1.77 0.37(2.54mm) -0.41 -1.97 -0.40 -2.16 0.18 1.29 0.18 1.367 Trailing 0.30 -0.34 -1.57 -0.34 -1.64 0.17 1.368 Trailing 0.300.075L -0.34 -1.64 (1.91 mm) 0.18 1.29 0.17 1.43 9 Trailing 0.29 -0.34 -1.64 -0.33 -1.70 0.18 1.29 0.17 1.4310 Trailing 0.29 -0.34 -1.57 -0.25 -1.64 11 Primary 0.2A 0.43 3.80(5.08 mm) -0.46 -4.26 -0.46 -4.39 0.35 2.7212 Trailing 0.410.15A -0.44 -3.27 (3.81 mm) 0.34 2.72 13 Trailing 0.37 -0.43 -3.27 14 Primary 0.3A 0.77 5.57 0.74 5.64(7.62 mm) -0.49 -6.35 -0.48 -6.61 0.42 4.08 0.42 4.1415 Trailing 0.410.225 -0.46 -4.91 -0.46 -4.85 (5.72 mm) 0.39 4.2116 Trailing 0.41 -0.47 -4.98 17 Primary 0.4A 1.48 7.61(10.16 mm) -0.50 -8.12 -0.48 -8.84 0.44 5.16 0.43 5.7118 Trailing 0.430.3A -0.55 -6.48 -0.54 -6.42 (7.62 mm) 0.41 5.6419 Trailing 0.25 -0.56 -6.48 20 Primary 0Th 2.72 13.86(17.78 mm) -1.07 -15.19 0.72 10.1921 Trailing 0.370.525E -0.92 -11.13 (13.34 mm) 0.53 10.2622 Trailing 0.32 -0.75 -11.20 23 Primary 18.34 2.34 20.17 16.86(25.4 mm) -1.07 -21.87 0.72 15.01 0.71 15.1524 Trailing 1.440.751k -0.76 -16.04 -0.76 -16.50 (19.05 mm) 0.52 14.9425 Trailing 0.37 -0.77 -16.44 26 Primary 1.51x 2.42 24.93 1.96 31.92(38.1 mm) -32.74 0.36 24.7227 Trailing 21.531.1251k -0.82 -19.51 -0.75 -24.69 (28.58 mm) 0.65 20.31 0.58 23.0928 Trailing 1.99 -1.02 -18.66 -0.78 -24.82 29 Primary 2.01k 2.02 36.61 1.80 42.93 22.88(50.08 mm) -1.52 -41.51 -1.42 -43.28 0.29 29.7530 Trailing 28.031.51k -0.85 -33.98 (38.10 mm) 0.81 31.1831 Trailing 17.15 -1.16 -29.01 -0.99 -33.46 * Values are given only wnen the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 105 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests S,.., P I I Deformation [mmj 3.5 I I I I I I Deformation [mm] Figure A.23 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT8. 106 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.24 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT8. Figure A.25 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT8. 107 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT9 Test Date: June 11, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter 21 mm, depth = 12 mm). Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.71 [kN] / -2.31 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +30.56 [mm] / -32.41 [mm] - Max. Drift: +43.88 [mm] / <-43 [mm] - Max Separation: 26.21 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. The specimen gained its stiffness in the fourth and the fifth primary cycles. - Degradation of the stiffness was more significant in the negative direction. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - At the end of the testing (43 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 80% of the peak load in positive direction and 87% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 70 mm for the LC fastener and 57 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 17 mm. 108 Appendix A Table A.1O — Test results of specimen NDLT9. Phase I — Element Tests Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kNI Displ. [mm) Load LkNI Dispi. [mm) Separation [mmj 1 Primary 0.075A 0.26 1.36(1.91 mm) -0.37 -1.57 -0.35 -1.64 0.25 2 Trailing 0.19 0.95 0.19 1.16 -0.32 -1.24 -0.32 -1.31 0.24 3 Trailing 0.19 1.02 0.18 1.090.056A -0.31 -1.24 -0.31 -1.31 0.26 (1.43mm) 0.18 1.09 4 Trailing -0.32 -1.31 0.26 5 Trailing 0.19 1.09 0.18 1.16 0.26 -0.31 -1.31 -0.30 -1.38 6 Primary 0.1A 0.28 1.77(2.54 mm) -0.39 -1.96 -0.38 -2.10 0.26 7 Trailing 0.21 1.29 0.20 1.50 -0.34 -1.51 -0.34 -1.70 0.26 8 Trailing 0.20 1.22 0.19 1.430.075z -0.34 -1.64 0.26 (1.91 mm) 0.20 1.43 0.20 1.50 9 Trailing 0.26 -0.34 -1.64 -0.33 -1.70 10 Trailing 0.20 1.43 0.18 1.50 0.25 ________ -0.34 -1.57 -0.30 -1.70 11 Primary 0.2 0.52 3.67(5.08 mm) -0.48 -4.26 -0.48 -4.45 0.50 12 Trailing 0.27 2.72 0.26 2.920.15A -0.39 -2.95 -0.39 -3.14 0.53 (3.81 mm) 0.26 2.7913 Trailing -0.39 -3.21 0.56 14 Primary 0.3S 0.82 5.64(7.62 mm) -0.58 -6.68 0.78 15 Trailing 0.32 4.35 ________ 0.225th -0.41 -4.78 0.81 (5.72 mm) 0.29 4.35 0.27 4.4216 Trailing -0.40 -4.85 -0.39 -4.98 0.80 17 Primary 0.4 1.15 7.54(10.16 mm) -0.69 -8.71 1.02 18 Trailing 0.32 5.84 0.31 5.91 0.3 -0.43 -6.55 1.05 (7.62 mm) 0.31 5.7119 Trailing -0.42 -6.55 1.01 20 Primary 0.7A 2.11 13.04 2.05 13.58(17.78 mm) -1.19 -15.13 4.10 21 Trailing 0.49 10.260.525th -0.56 -11.52 1.28 (13.34 mm) 0.37 10.3222 Trailing -0.54 -11.59 1.08 23 Primary 1.0k 2.48 19.22 2.36 20.11(25.4 mm) -1.70 -22.07 2.71 24 Trailing 0.52 13.45 0.50 14.88 0.75E -0.66 -14.93 -0.66 -16.63 1.13 (19.05 mm) 0.43 15.1525 Trailing -0.( -16.37 -0.62 -16.63 1.14 26 Primary 1.5t 30.56 2.50 31.99(38.1 mm) -32.41 21.76 27 Trailing 22.48 1.125A -0.94 -22.46 -0.67 -25.54 5.08 (28.58 mm) 0.59 16.23 0.46 23.0328 Trailing -0.79 -23.05 -0.78 -25.73 1.55 29 Primary 2.OA 2.50 42.18 2.18 43.88(50.08 mm) -2.02 -43.02 26.41 30 Trailing 0.55 30.50 1.5A -1.03 -31.04 -0.89 -33.85 10.17 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.68 18.34 0.53 31.45 -0.90 -24.16 -0.78 -33.92 4.82 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 109 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I I I I - - . I Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I 3 - . Deformation [mm] Figure A.26 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT9. 110 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.27 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT9. Figure A.28 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT9. 111 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT1O Test Date: June 21, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 21 mm, depth 12 mm), fasteners pullout of Shearlock were prevented. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.75 [kN] / -2.86 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: + 19.22 [mm] / -14.47 [mm] - Max. Drift: +3 3.32 [mm] / -34.93 [mm] - Max Separation: 34.51 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Fastener pullout of wood stud with prevented pullout of Shearlock resulted in a large separation between the steel plate and the wood stud. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in the negative direction started in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 64% of the peak load in both directions. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 60 mm for the LC fastener and 67 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 19 mm. 112 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.1l — Test results of specimen NDLT1O. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kNJ DispI. [mml Load [kNI Displ. [mml [mm] 0.O75 0.24 1.22 0.23 1.361 Primary 0.18(1.91 mm) -0.40 -1.38 -0.40 -1.51 0.20 0.88 0.19 1.022 Trailing 0.18 -0.30 -1.11 -0.29 -1.24 0.19 1.093 Trailing 0.170.056 -0.30 -1.24 (1.43 mm) 0.19 0.95 0.19 1.024 Trailing 0.18 -0.30 -1.11 -0.24 -1.18 0.20 1.025 Trailing 0.22 -0.30 -1.18 6 Primary 0Th 0.30 1.83 0.22(2.54 mm) -0.43 -2.03 0.24 1.367 Trailing 0.21 -0.33 -1.51 0.24 1.368 Trailing 0.210.075A -0.33 -1.57 (1.91 mm) 0.24 1.369 Trailing 0.18 -0.32 -1.51 0.23 1.3610 Trailing 0.18 -0.33 -1.57 0.2A 0.53 3.8011 Primary 0.29(5.08 mm) -0.67 -3.99 0.26 2.9912 Trailing 0.480.15 -0.42 -3.08 (3.81 mm) 0.25 2.92 0.24 2.9913 Trailing 0.48 -0.41 -3.01 -0.41 -3.08 0.3A 0.76 5.7714 Primary 0.82(7.62 mm) -0.98 -6.02 0.27 4.28 0.26 4.7515 Trailing 1.020.225 -0.39 -4.65 (5.72 mm) 0.25 4.28 0.25 4.6916 Trailing 1.05 -0.40 -4.65 17 Primary 0.4 1 1.00 7.81 1.50(10.16 mm) I -1.32 -8.121 0.28 6.32 0.28 6.3818 Trailing 1 710.3z -0.37 -6.29 (7.62 mm) 0.28 6.18 0.28 6.3219 Trailing -0.37 -6.22 1.80 20 Primary 0Th T 2.63 13.52 4.95 21 Trailing -10.28 -0.37 -11.46 5.52 031 11.07 (13.34 mm) r 0.29 10.80 0.29 11.0022 Trailing -0.38 -10.48 -0.36 -11.46 5.65 23 Primary 1.Ot 19.22 2.72 20.04 15.76 -21.35(25.4 mm) 272 24 Trailing I -0.32 -15.32 -0.28 -16.83 13.320.75A (19.05 mm) r 0.28 15.6925 Trailing -0.32 -15.32 -0.29 -16.89 13.84 26 Primary 1.5k 2.58 29.68 2.38 30.90(38.1 mm) -2.42 -32.54 -2.40 -33.00 0.26 1.43 0.23 23.7727 Trailing 27.351.125 -0.26 -25.80 (28.58 mm) 0.22 23.5728 Trailing 28.01 -0.25 -25.80 29 Primary 2.OA 1.99 36.00 1.85 41.77(50.08 mm) -1.80 -43.67 -1.78 -44.33 0.29 32.3330 Trailing 28.491.5 -0.35 -27.96 -0.18 -33.26 (38.10 mm) 0.25 32.7431 Trailing 27.96 -0.37 -28.35 -0.16 -33.20 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 113 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 . L _______ _____ _________________ ___________________ -o. - a -1 1_ — - -1.5 Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I -I -- - I -J -1.5 PrimaryCycle I I I I — — — 1st Trailing Cycle -2 ::E Deformation [mm] Figure A.29 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT1O. 114 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.30 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT1O. Figure A.31 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT1O. 115 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: NDLT1 1 Test Date: June 22, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners (diameter = 21 mm, depth = 12 mm), fasteners pullout of Shearlock were prevented. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +1.7 1 [kN] I -1.98 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: + 19.02 [mm] / -32.48 [mm] - Max. Drift: +39.73 [mm] / -38.08 [mm] - Max Separation: 25.91 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Fastener pullout of wood stud with prevented pullout from the Shearlocks resulted in a large separation between the steel plate and the wood stud. - Large separation between the wood stud and the steel plate caused the steel plate become unstable; rotation of steel plate occurred during the sixth primary cycle. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - At the end of the testing (40 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 78% of the peak load in positive direction and 66% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 39 mm for the LC fastener and 46 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 25 mm. 116 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.12 — Test results of specimen NDLT11. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude SeparationLoad [kNj Dispi. [mmj Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mmj 1 Primary 0.075t 0.27 0.88 0.22 1.09(1.91 mm) -0.50 -1.83 0.80 2 Trailing 0.22 0.47 0.20 0.61 -0.44 -1.51 -0.44 -1.44 0.86 3 Trailing 0.20 0.47 0.20 0.540.056A -0.44 -1.51 0.91 (1.43 mm) 0.20 0.61 4 Trailing -0.44 -1.38 0.94 5 Trailing 0.19 0.41 0.12 0.54 -0.44 -1.44 0.96 6 Primary 0.1A 0.24 1.29(2.54 mm) -0.49 -2.10 1.07 7 Trailing 0.20 0.81 0.20 0.75 -0.44 -1.64 -0.44 -1.70 1.10 8 Trailing 0.20 0.68 0.19 0.750.075 -0.44 -1.57 -0.43 -1.83 1.12 (1.91 mm) 0.19 0.68 0.18 0.759 Trailing -0.44 -1.70 -0.43 -1.90 1.14 10 Trailing 0.19 0.75 0.19 0.81 -0.44 -1.70 -0.43 -1.83 1.18 11 Primary 0.2A 0.41 3.12(5.08 mm) -0.61 -4.32 1.48 12 Trailing 0.26 2.110.15t -0.51 -3.21 1.57 (3.81 mm) 0.24 2.04 0.24 2.17 13 Trailing -0.50 -3.27 1.62 14 Primary 0.3A 0.53 5.09(7.62 mm) -0.71 -6.55 2.07 15 Trailing 0.27 3.800.225A -0.52 -4.98 2.21 (5.72 mm) 0.24 3.8016 Trailing -0.51 -5.04 2.23 17 Primary 0.4i 0.70 7.27(10.16 mm) -0.77 -8.32 -0.76 -8.38 2.73 18 Trailing 0.26 5.16 0.22 5.30 0.3 -0.51 -6.61 2.71 (7.62 mm) 0.24 5.0319 Trailing -0.51 -6.55 -0.51 -6.61 2.62 20 Primary 0.7i 1.46 13.18(17.78 mm) -1.13 -15.26 9.10 21 Trailing 0.13 10.190.525z -0.43 -11.20 -0.43 -11.85 8.66 22 Trailing (13.34 mm) 0.12 10.05 -0.44 -11.20 -0.43 -11.85 8.64 23 Primary 19.02(25.4 mm) -1.48 -22.07 17.52 24 Trailing 0.12 14.87 0.75A -0.41 -16.89 -0.41 -17.16 17.24 25 Trailing (19.05 mm) 0.14 14.60 -0.44 -17.03 17.01 26 Primary 1.5k 1.64 29.68(38.1 mm) -32.48 21.87 27 Trailing 0.13 18.41 0.07 21.731.125A -0.36 -21.54 -0.33 -25.21 14.48 28 Trailing (28.58 mm) 0.09 16.84 0.05 21.53 -0.35 -21.48 -0.31 -25.21 13.02 29 Primary 2.OA 1.59 33.42 1.33 40.62(50.08 mm) -1.30 -42.17 25.91 30 Trailing 0.00 0.00 1.5k -0.26 -1.11 -0.22 -33.26 23.74 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.00 0.00 -0.27 -1.11 -0.21 -33.39 23.52 Values ar given only when the Maximum ioad does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 117 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I P I I I I I I I I 3 L _l I I I I I I I I I 2 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :zizzrzzizz:zzEzzçr::::::::::: [1 Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I J I J I .L I I I I I I I 2.5 I - :4 __________— Deformation [mm] Figure A.32 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT11. 118 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.33 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT11. Figure A.34 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT11. 119 Appendix A Phase 1— Element Tests Specimen: NDLT12 Test Date: June 24, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 21 mm, depth 12 mm), fasteners pullout of Shearlock were prevented, rotation of all moving parts were prevented. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +1.43 [kN] I -0.99 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +20.3 8 [mm] I -21.80 [mm] - Max. Drift: +32.84 [mm] I -36.21 [mm] - Max Separation: 37.49 [mm] - Failure mode: No fracture of the fasteners Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with no fracture of the fasteners was observed during the testing. - Fastener pullout of wood stud with prevented pullout from the Shearlocks resulted in a large separation between the steel plate and the wood stud. - Large separation between the wood stud and the steel plate (37.49 mm) caused the stiffness and the shear strength of the specimen be reduced. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25 .4 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25 .4 mm. - At the end of the testing (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 77% of the peak load in positive direction and 66% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud caused by the bearing of the fasteners was 35 mm for the LC fastener and 49 mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 26 mm. 120 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.13 - Test results of specimen NDLT12. At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* VerticalTe of Prescribed SeparationCycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kNI Displ. [mml Load [kN] Displ. [mml [mm] 0.075A 0.29 1.97 0.57primary (1.91 mm) -0.37 -1.57 -0.36 -1.64 0.24 1.43 0.23 1.56 0.592 Trailing 034 -1.24 0.23 1.43 0.23 1.56 0.643 Trailing 0.056t -0.33 -1.18 -0.33 -1.31 (1.43 mm) 0.22 1.49 4 Trailing -0.33 -1.18 -0.32 -1.24 0.23 1.49 0.22 1.56 0.685 Trailing -0.33 -1.24 0.1k 0.29 2.38 0.28 2.45 0.776 pnmry (2.54 mm) -0.38 -2.23 0.24 1.77 0.23 1.97 0.827 Trailing -0.34 -1.64 0.22 1.77 0.22 1.90 0.848 Trailing 0.075S -0.33 -1.51 -0.32 -1.64 (1.91 mm) 0.22 1.90 0.869 Trailing -0.32 -1.24 -0.31 -1.57 0.21 1.63 0.20 1.83 0.8410 Trailing -0.33 -1.51 0.2A 0.41 4.08 1.0211 Primary (5.08 mm) -0.46 -4.19 -0.45 -4.26 0.27 2.92 0.26 3.06 1.1212 . Trailing 0.15A -0.37 -3.21 (3.81 mm) 0.27 3.19 1.1613 Trailing -0.37 -3.21 0.3 0.58 6.11 1.3514 Primary (7’.62 mm) -0.52 -6.35 -0.51 -6.42 0.31 4.69 1.5515 Trailing 0.225k -0.39 -.4.98 (5.72 mm) 0.28 4.62 1.5716 Trailing -0.37 -4.85 J 0.4A 0.77 8.01 2.0817 Pry (10.16 mm) -0.59 -8.58 0.30 6.05 2.1918 Trailing 0 3A -0.36 -6.48 19 Trailing -0.36 -6.55 762mm) 0.29 6.11 2.19 0.7k 1.41 14.60 7.4820 1 Primary (17.78 mm) -0.60 -15.13 0.18 11.41 0.18 11.4821 Trailing 0.525A -0.32 -10.93 -0.31 -11.39 (13.34 mm) 0.17 11.41 7.7122 Trailing -r 2 -10.93 -0.32 -11.39 1.OA 20.38 1.43 20.58 16.5323 Primary (25.4 mm) -21.80 0.17 I 16.78 16.8524 Trailing 0.75A -0.29 j -15.78 -0.29 -16.44 (19.05 mm) 0.14 16.57 16.8525 Trailing -0.29 -16.11 -0.29 -16.50 26 Primary (38.1 mm) -0.84 -33.53 0.12 24.86 31.50 ] 1.5A 1.43 22.35 1.25 31.38 31.15 27 Trailing 1 125A -0.21 -1.31 -0.21 -25.41 28 Trailing (28:58 mm) 0.09 24.38 31.48 -0.22 -23.05 -0.22 -25.41 2.0t 1.14 32.94 1.10 41.9729 1 Primary (50.08 mm) -0.65 -44.85 0.03 29.82 0.03 33.0830 Trailing 1.5A -0.20 -3.73 -0.18 -33.98 (38.10 mm) 0.01 32.87 37.4931 Trailing -0.19 -1.83 -0.17 -33.92 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not cccur at the Maximum displacement. 121 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I I I I I 3 —I 4- .4. -I 4- -4 4- I I I I I I I I I 2 5 I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 5 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I2 I 1 I I I I I I O -1.5 PrimaryCycle I I I I I -2 - —— —lstTrailingCycle -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mmj Figure A.35 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT12. 122 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.36 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT12. Figure A.37 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT12. 123 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: WS1 Test Date: June 25, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement z 25.4 mm, galvanized metal sheet (28 ga.) was placed between the Shearlock and the wood stud to simulate weep screed. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.24 [kN] I -2.18 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +30.48 [mm] / -32.87 [mm] - Max. Drift: > +41 [mm] / <-44 [mm] - Max Separation: 27.23 [mm] - Failure mode: Ductile fracture of one fastener Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with the ductile fracture of one fastener was observed during the testing; another fastener experienced no fracture. - In the last primary cycle, at 27 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, the fastener located closer to the load cell experienced ductile fracture. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - At the end of the testing (44 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 89% of the peak load in positive direction and 84% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud was 34 mm for the LC fastener and 30mm for the FE fastener. - The length of the slots in the metal sheet was 17 mm for the LC fastener and 10mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 16 mm. 124 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.14 - Test results of specimen WS1. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude SeparationLoad [kN] Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mm] 1 Primary 0.075A 0.35 1.36(1.91 mm) -0.51 -1.64 0.17 2 Trailing 0.26 1.02 -0.42 -1.31 0.20 3 Trailing 0.29 1.02 0.25 1.090.056 -0.41 -1.18 -0.32 -1.24 0.18 (1.43 mm) 0.28 1.02 0.26 1.09 4 Trailing -0.41 -1.18 -0.41 -1.24 0.20 5 Trailing 0.28 1.09 0.18 -0.42 -1.18 -0.33 -1.24 6 Primary 0.liI 0.41 1.83(2.54 mm) -0.54 -2.23 0.21 7 Trailing 0.31 1.36 0.31 1.43 -0.44 -1.57 -0.34 -1.64 0.18 8 Trailing 0.29 1.430.075A -0.44 -1.64 0.20 (1.91 mm) 0.30 1.43 9 Trailing -0.44 -1.64 -0.43 -1.70 0.24 10 Trailing 0.30 1.43 0.29 1.49 -0.44 -1.70 0.20 11 Primary 0.2E 0.64 3.74(5.08 mm) -0.74 -4.26 0.68 12 Trailing 0.42 2.920.15A -0.52 -3.34 0.87 (3.81 mm) 0.39 2.85 13 Trailing -0.52 -3.21 -0.52 -3.34 0.89 14 Primary 0.3 0.95 5.50 0.94 5.64(7.62 mm) -0.93 -6.29 128 15 Trailing 0.44 4.350.225A -0.55 -4.98 1.26 (5.72 mm) 0.44 4.21 16 Trailing -0.55 -4.98 1.28 17 Primary 0.4A 1.37 7.61(10.16 mm) -1.12 -8.51 2.40 18 Trailing 0.43 5.840.3k -0.54 -6.68 -0.52 -6.74 1.76 (7.62 mm) 0.49 5.8419 Trailing -0.63 -6.68 1.48 20 Primary 0.Th 2.07 13.72(17.78 mm) -1.96 -14.80 4.67 21 Trailing 0.40 11.000.525A -0.67 -10.80 -0.67 -11.39 22 Trailing (13.34 mm) 0.51 10.53 -0.72 -11.52 2.27 23 Primary 1.0i 2.19 19.83(25.4 mm) -2.17 -21.74 12.84 24 Trailing 0.27 15.690.75A -0.89 -16.30 13.21 (19.05 mm) 0.66 12.43 0.66 15.0125 Trailing -“ -16.76 1.30 26 Primary 1.5th 30.84(38.1 mm) -32.87 25.50 27 Trailing I 1.56 0.12 24.381.125A -0.82 -23.70 26.20 28 Trailing (28.58 mm) [ 0.85 20.72 0.83 22.55-1.09 j -19.84 -0.71 -25.08 29 Primary 2.0th 1.99 41.70(50.08 mm) -1.83 -44.07 26.95 30 Trailing 0.12 33.89 0.12 34.23 1.5 -0.34 -32.35 27.23 31 Trailing (38.10 mm) 0.43 29.27 0.41 30.77 -0.56 -27.57 -0.43 -33.79 7.41 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 125 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I .4 -‘ .4 I. 4 - I I I I I I 2 I I Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I 3 -4 1 4- -4 4- - I I I I I I I I 25 I I I I I I I Deformation [mm] Figure A.38 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen WS1. 126 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.39 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS1. Figure A.40 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS1. 127 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: WS2 Test Date: June 28, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement z = 25.4 mm, galvanized metal sheet (28 ga.) was connected to the wood stud with 4 roofing nails (1 3/4” long) to simulate weep screed. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.94 [kN] I -1.91 [kN] -Drift at the peak shear: +11.75 [mm] I -14.60 [mm] - Max. Drift: + 12.78 [mm] I -16.45 [mm] - Max Separation: 16.01 [mm] - Failure mode: Fracture of both fasteners Test Observations: - Brittle fracture of both fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. - In the sixth primary cycle, at 13 mm displacement and in the seventh primary cycle, at 18 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, both fasteners experienced fracture and the specimen failed in a brittle manner. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - The length of the slots in the wood stud was 17 mm for the LC fastener and 24mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 5 mm for the LC fastener and 10mm for the FE fastener. 128 Appendix A Table A.15 - Test results of specimen WS2. Phase I — Element Tests Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical SeparationCycle Amplitude Load [kNI Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] [mm] 0.075 0.61 0.82 0.61 0.881 Primary 0.40(1.91 mm) -0.71 -0.92 0.41 0.54 0.38 0.612 Trailing 0.39 -0.54 -0.59 -0.54 -0.72 0.40 0.54 0.32 0.613 Trailing 0.340.056k -0.54 -0.65 (1.43 mm) 0.39 0.61 4 Trailing 0.36 -0.54 -0.59 0.38 0.61 0.38 0.685 Trailing 0.34 -0.53 -0.65 -0.52 -0.72 6 Primary 0.lt\ 0.66 1.50(2.54 mm) -0.75 -1.38 0.43 1.097 Trailing 0.46 -0.55 -0.98 -0.55 -1.05 0.42 1.098 Trailing 0.520.075 -0.55 -0.98 (1.91 mm) 0.42 0.95 9 Trailing 0.54 -0.55 -0.98 -0.54 -1.05 0.42 0.95 0.38 1.0210 Trailing 0.51 -0.54 -0.98 11 Primary 0.2A 1.20 3.53(5.08 mm) -0.98 -3.41 0.54 2.5112 Trailing 0.790.15 -0.66 -2.55 (3.81 mm) 0.51 2.5113 Trailing 0.85 -0.66 -2.62 14 Primary 0.3A 1.73 5.57(7.62 mm) -1.34 -5.50 0.55 4.2115 Trailing 1.410.225z -0.63 -4.32 (5.72 mm) 0.53 4.0816 Trailing 1.19 -0.68 -4.13 17 Primary 0.4A 2.11 7.61(10.16 mm) -1.85 -7.86 0.49 5.7118 Trailing 1.780.3A -0.82 -5.70 (7.62 mm) 0.61 5.7119 Trailing - -. 1.27 -5.63 -0.81 -5.70 20 Primary 0Th 11.75 1.51 14.26(17.78 mm) -14.60 0.3, 11.0021 Trailing 10.770.525A -0.39 -9.23 -0.33 -11.26 (13.34 mm) 0.26 10.9422 Trailing 10.77 -0.38 -9.50 -0.36 -11.20 23 Primary 1.0 1.60 18.54 -0.03 20.65(25.4 mm) -0.38 -9.50 -0.16 -23.11 0.07 10.87 0.00 14.7424 Trailing 8.050.75A -0.28 -12.38 -0.19 -17.22 (19.05 mm) 0.06 11.75 -0.01 15.1525 Trailing 7.00 -0.40 -9.95 -0.21 -17.16 26 Primary 1.5A 0.11 6.52 -0.03 31.38(38.1 mm) -0.33 -8.64 -0.15 -33.85 0.05 8.63 -0.04 23.4327 Trailing 3.531.125 -0.14 -20.69 -0.13 -25.14 (28.58 mm) 0.00 0.0028 Trailing 1.19 -0.14 -22.07 -0.13 -25.54 29 Primary 2.0i 0.00 0.00 1.13(50.08 mm) -0.16 -35.16 -0.15 -45.31 0.00 0.0030 Trailing i.i1.5e -0.13 -22.92 -0.13 -34.12 (38.10 mm) 0.00 0.0031 Trailing i.is -0.14 -20.63 -0.13 -34.18 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 129 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 I I I I I I I I I 3 -I 1- . 355 _ Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I - .4 L ::LHE*: Et.1E lEE z:::: EHE z Deformation [mm] Figure A.41 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen WS2. 130 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.42 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS2. Figure A.43 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS2. 131 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Specimen: WS3 Test Date: June 28, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement z\ = 25.4 mm, galvanized metal sheet (28 ga.) was connected to the wood stud with 4 roofing nails (1 3/4” long) to simulate weep screed. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.75 [kN] I -1.83 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: + 12.43 [mm] / -8.50 [mm] - Max. Drift: + 13.52 [mm] / -14.60 [mm] - Max Separation: 8.21 [mm] - Failure mode: Fracture of both fasteners Test Observations: - Brittle fracture of both fasteners was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffhess of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 2.54 mm. - In the sixth primary cycle, at 13 mm displacement and in the seventh primary cycle, at 18 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, both fasteners experienced fracture and the specimen failed in a brittle manner. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 17.78 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the fifth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 10.16 mm. - The length of the slots in the wood stud was 17 mm for the LC fastener and 10mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 7 mm for the LC fastener and 5 mm for the FE fastener. 132 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.16 - Test results of specimen WS3. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Dispi. [mmj Load [kN] Dispi. [mml SeparationLmm 0.075A 0.51 1.16 0.51 1.221 Primary 0.48(1.91 mm) -0.74 -1.24 2 Trailing 0.43 0.88 0.53 -0.50 -0.79 -0.49 -0.92 0.42 0.953 Trailing 0.560.056A -0.50 -0.85 (1.43 mm) 0.41 0.82 0.37 0.95 4 Trailing 0.53 -0.49 -0.85 0.41 0.82 0.40 0.885 Trailing 0.64 -0.50 -0.85 6 Primary 0.1A 0.61 1.70 0.62(2.54 mm) -0.77 -1.57 0.45 1.29 0.37 1.367 Trailing 0.67 -0.53 -1.24 0.44 1.22 0.33 1.438 Trailing 0.660.075z\ -0.53 -124 (1.91 mm) 0.42 1.36 0.35 1.29 9 Trailing 0.68 -0.52 -1.24 0.42 1.22 0.39 1.3610 Trailing 0.69 -0.52 -1.24 11 Primary 0.2A 1.04 3.80 0.83(5.08 mm) -1.11 -3.73 0.60 2.79 0.58 2.8512 Trailing 0.890.15z -0.63 -2.88 (3.81 mm) 0.56 2.92 13 Trailing 0.93 -0.64 -2.88 14 Primary 0.3A 1.46 6.05(7.62 mm) -1.49 -5.96 0.60 4.6215 Trailing 1.670.225j -0.55 -4.78 (572 mm) 0.54 4.62 16 Trailing 1.71 -0.58 -4.71 17 Primary 0.4A 1 1.91 7.95 (10.16 mm) -8.05 I 0.49 6.2518 Trailing 3600.3A -0.50 -6.48 (7.62 mm) 0.56 6.11 19 Trailing -0.65 -6.35 1.60 0Th 12.43 1.66 14.60 8.2120 Primary (17.78 mm) I -1.76 I -14.60 -1.75 -14.99 0.26 1 11.61 21 Trailing 0.525i -0.39 j -8.19 -0.32 -11.33 4.84 (13.34 mm) I 0.28 I 11.68 22 Trailing [ -0.34 -9.23 -0.32 -11.33 1.60 23 Primary 1 1.OA 1.33 18.75 -0.03 21.80 1.39 24 Trailing (25.4 mm) -0.08 -12.38 -0.08 -22.66 0.00 0.00 0.75A -0.08 -15.65 -0.07 -16.89 25 Trailinj (19.05 mm) 0.00 0.00 -0.09 -0.33 -0.07 -16.89 1 .5z 0.00 0.00 1.4026 J Primary (38.1 mm) -0.10 -33.53 0.00 0.00 27 1 Trailing 1.421.125th -0.07 -6.16 -0.07 -25.01 (28.58 mm) 0.00 0.00 28 Trailing 1.43 -0.08 -6.55 -0.07 -25.01 2.OA 0.00 0.00 1.4229 Primary (50.08 mm) -0.10 -27.11 -0.10 -44.33 0.00 0.00 30 Trailing 1.411.5z -0.08 -8.25 -0.08 -33.20 (38.10 mm) 0.00 0.00 31 Trailing 1.45 -0.09 -30.78 -0.08 -33.07 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 133 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests a S ‘3 0 2 a) a) -C Co I a) 0. a)0 -J 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I : -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Deformation [mm] Figure A.44 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen WS3. 134 a S S ‘30 I- a) 0 -C CO I- 0 a 0 a)0 -J 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 —1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 I I I I I i J L J. j___ 2ndTrailingCyde I I I I I I I I I I I I - .- I I I I I I Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.45 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS3. Figure A.46 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS3. 135 Phase I — Element TestsAppendix A Specimen: WS4 Test Date: May 18, 2004 Characteristics: Stucco replaced with steel plate, two Shearlocks with 12 in. spacing, Shearlock with smooth inner transition, Bostitch fastener (heat-treated), reference displacement A = 25.4 mm, galvanized metal sheet (28 ga.) was placed between the Shearlock and the wood stud to simulate weep screed. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force per Shearlock: +2.61 [kN] / -2.54 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +28.19 [mm] I -21.48 [mm] - Max. Drift: +3 8.36 [mm] / -36.83 [mm] - Max Separation: 31.68 [mm] - Failure mode: Ductile fracture of one fastener Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen with the ductile fracture of one fastener was observed during the testing; another fastener experienced no fracture. - In the last primary cycle, at 40 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud in the positive direction, the fastener located closer to the free end experienced ductile fracture. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 38.1 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 25.4 mm. - At the end of the testing (42 mm displacement between the steel plate and the wood stud) the specimen was able to resist 74% of the peak load in positive direction and 69% of the peak load in negative direction. - The length of the slots in the wood stud was 34 mm for the LC fastener and 38mm for the FE fastener. - The length of the slots in the metal sheet was 17 mm for the LC fastener and 20mm for the FE fastener. - The fastener pullout from the wood stud was 22 mm. 136 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Table A.17 - Test results of specimen WS4. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Separation[mm] 0.075A 0.41 1.29 0.41 1.43I Primary 0.48(1.91 mm) -0.75 -1.64 0.36 0.95 0.35 1.022 Trailing 0.50 -0.59 -1.24 -0.58 -1.31 0.35 0.95 0.34 1.023 Trailing 0.550.056A -0.59 -1.31 -0.54 -1.38 (1.43 mm) 0.34 1.02 4 Trailing 0.59 -0.57 -1.31 0.33 1.025 Trailing 0.61 -0.57 -1.31 6 Primary 0.1k 0.43 1.83 0.43 1.90 0.68(2.54 mm) -0.78 -223 0.34 1.36 0.34 1.497 Trailing 0.75 -0.56 -1.70 -0.55 -1.77 0.33 1.43 0.32 1.498 Trailing 0.780.075A -0.55 -1.64 -0.54 -1.77 (1.91 mm) 0.32 1.36 0.31 1.56 9 Trailing 0.82 -0.56 -1.70 -0.55 -1.77 0.30 1.36 0.30 1.4910 Trailing 0.84 -0.55 -1.70 11 Primary 0.2i\ 0.60 380 1.09(5.08 mm) -1.06 -4.32 0.41 2.99 0.41 3.0612 Trailing 1.250.15A -0.61 -3.27 (3.81 mm) 0.38 3.12 0.37 3.19 13 Trailing 1.32 -0.59 -3.27 14 Primary 0.3 0.82 5.84 0.81 5.77 1.78(7.62 mm) -1.37 -6.42 -1.35 -6.35 0.41 4.82 0.41 4.6915 Trailing 1.940.225k -0.61 -5.04 -0.61 -4.91 (5.72 mm) 0.37 4.82 16 Trailing 1.89 -0.59 -4.98 2.5617 Primary 0.4tS 1.04 7.81(10.16 mmj -1.71 -8.58 -1.70 -8.51 0.39 6.2518 Trailing 2.670.3A -0.63 -6.74 (7.62 mm) 0.39 6.32 19 Trailing 2.23 -0.61 -6.74 6.1120 Primary 0.7i 2.06 13.92(17.78 mm) -2.39 -14.86 -2.35 -15.19 0.30 11.0721 Trailing 6.450.525A -0.66 -11.66 (13.34 mm) 0.48 10.32 22 Trailing 2.35 -0.59 -11.66 -0.58 -11.98 15.1923 Primary 1 i.o 19.77(25.4 mm) -21.48 059 14.74 24 Trailing 0.75 -0.48 -10.80 -0.46 -16.96 2.71 0.50 I 14.94 0.50 14.7425 Trailin (19.05 mm) -0.44 L -13.29 -0.43 -17.22 2.32 26 Primary 1.5A 28.19 2.56 30.97 31.61 (38.1 mm) -2.29 -31.82 -2.19 -33.00 0.70 20.31 0.67 21.94 27 Trailing 10.651.125A -0.83 -16.57 -0.51 -25.08 (28.58 mm) 0.76 20.85 0.73 22.14 28 Trailing 4.68 -0.76 -16.70 -0.53 -25.14 29 Primary 2.OA 2.00 39.73 1.93 41.97 26.55 (50.08 mm) -1.77 -43.15 -1.76 -43.87 0.65 29.21 30 Trailing 31.681.5A -0.73 -29.66 -0.42 -34.25 (38.10 mm) 0.49 24.79 0.39 30.29 31 Trailing 24.09 -0.36 -30.45 -0.22 -34.64 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 137 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests 3.5 r r I I I I I I I I 3 - 4. - - I Deformation [mm] 3.5 I I I I I I 3 -4 4- .4. -.4 I-. -4 4-. Deformation [mm] ______________________ Figure A.47 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen WS4. 138 Appendix A Phase I — Element Tests Figure A.49 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS4. Figure A.48 - Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS4. 139 APPENDIX B Phase II - Panel Tests 140 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLM Test Date: Oct. 29, 2004 Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, Y2” thickness, lOd nails at 4” 0/c around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, Monotonic test Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +39.50 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: + 102.70 [mm] -Max. Drift: +111.3 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nails pull through the board Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners started at 18mm of displacement. - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and around the perimeter of one of the plywood boards which was in tension pulled through the plywood during the testing. - Minor pullout of only 3 fasteners around the perimeter of one of the plywood boards which was in compression was observed during the testing. - Maximum shear force was reached at the displacement of 102.70 mm. - At 104 mm of displacement the plywood board in tension was separated from the end stud and the bottom plate resulted in a very brittle failure of the specimen. 141 Appendix B 50 45 40 35 ‘30 25 0 —‘ 20 15 10 5 0 Deformation [mm] Figure B.1 - Backbone curve of specimen PLM. Front View • Nail Pullthraugh (Separated) @ Minor Nail Pullout 1Sepueated Stud (From SitlITop plate) Legend 4 Minar Nail Pullthrough Nail Tearout 0 No Damage Figure B.2 - Failure mode of specimen PLM. 142 Phase II Panel Tests I I I I I I I I —-—————————— -l I- I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - L I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I 0 25 50 75 100 125 OnoOOOOOOO :1 o o S S S C C C C S S S R Back View Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Figure B.3 — Pictures of failure of specimen PLM. 143 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC1 Test Date: Nov. 17, 2004 Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, Y2” thickness, 1 Od nails at 4” ole around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 66.78 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +45.44 [kN] / -40.46 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +72.51 [mm] I -77.64 [mm] - Max. Drift: +75.92 [mm] / -85.87 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nails pull through the board Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 20.03 mm. - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and along the bottom corner of the plywood board (close to hold-downs) pulled through the plywood during the testing. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - In the last primary cycle, separation of the plywood boards from the frame along the bottom plate followed by the fracture of the studs resulted in a very brittle failure of the specimen. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen abruptly dropped and at the end of the test (110 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 35% of the peak load in the positive direction and 16% of the peak load in the negative direction. 144 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.1 - Test results of specimen PLC1 Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Dispi. [mmj Load [kNI Dlspl. [mm] I Primary 0.075A 4.94 0.89(5.01 mm) -5.60 -3.55 2 Trailing 3.81 -0.32 -3.25 -2.63 3 Trailing 3.90 0.180.056iX -3.39 -2.77 (3.74 mm) 4.05 -0.07 4 Trailing -3.62 -2.52 5 Trailing 4.00 0.11 -3.62 -2.66 6 Primary 0.1i. 6.63 3.14(6.68 mm) -6.54 -4.83 -6.49 -5.07 7 Trailing 4.80 -0.43 -4.56 -3.80 8 Trailing 5.17 0.640.075A -4.38 -3.94 (5.01 mm) 4.80 0.71 9 Trailing -4.28 -3.87 10 Trailing 5.13 0.43 -4.99 -3.80 11 Primary 0.2E 11.81 7.36(13.36 mm) -11.76 -9.62 12 Trailing 8.84 4.040.15A -7.81 -7.10 13 Trailing (10.02 mm) 8.98 4.18 -7.86 -7.20 14 Primary 0.3A 16.23 10.83(20.03 mm) -17.12 -14.23 15 Trailing 11.67 7.430.225A -10.77 -10.68 (15.03 mm) 11.81 7.36 16 Trailing -10.82 -10.75 17 Primary 0.4 20.37 15.26(26.71 mm) -21.69 -19.52 18 Trailing 14.02 10.650.3E -13.31 -14.41 (20.03 mm) 14.11 10.44 19 Trailing -13.50 -14.30 20 Primary 0Th 30.44 29.80(46.75 mm) -31.38 -35.27 21 Trailing 19.38 21.08 0.525 -17.97 -26.12 (35.06 mm) 19.57 22.51 22 Trailing -17.92 -26.12 23 Primary 1.OA 38.57 47.24(66.78 mm) -37.92 -52.02 24 Trailing 22.20 33.98 0.75A -19.01 -38.15 (50.09 mm) 22.34 34.09 25 Trailing -19.43 -38.08 26 Primary 1.5z 72.51 45.35 75.33 (100.17 mm) -77.64 27 Trailing 20.65 5489 1.125A -17.17 -58.30 (75.13 mm) 19.76 54.96 28 Trailing -16.89 -58.13 29 Primary 2.OA 26.44 69.93 15.99 104.99 (133.56 mm) -9.13 -51.60 -6.59 -109.05 30 Trailing 8.14 80.02 1.5A -2.78 -79.42 -2.64 -82.04 31 Trailing (100.17 mm) 7.39 78.28 7.39 80.44 -2.96 -80.87 -2.78 -81.97 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 145 Appendix B 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -125 Phase II — Panel Tests z 0 -I L i I I I I I I I I = I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] z 0 -j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — — —.•,__— I I I I I — I I I PrimaryCyde I — — — 1st Trailing Cycle Deformation [mm] 75 100 125 Figure B.4 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC1. 146 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests o a • • Nail Pullthroagh (Separated) @ Minor Nail Pullout — Separated Stud (From Sill/Top plate) Legend 4/ Minor Nail Putlthrough Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.5 - Failure mode of specimen PLC1. 147 ow Front View Back View Figure B.6 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC 1. Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC2 Test Date: Feb. 14, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, W’ thickness, 1 Od nails at 4” olc around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 66.78 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +40.47 {kN] I -40.93 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +69.04 [mm] / -86.11 [mm] - Max. Drift: +74.38 [mm] / -93.16 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nails pull through the board Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the second primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 6.68 mm. - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and along the bottom corner of the plywood board (close to hold-downs) pulled through the plywood during the testing. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - In the last primary cycle, separation of the plywood boards from the frame along the bottom plate followed by the fracture of the studs resulted in a very brittle failure of the specimen. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen abruptly dropped and at the end of the test (116 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 15% of the peak load in both directions. 148 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.2 - Test results of specimen PLC2. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Cycle Amplitude Load [kNJ Displ. [mmj Load [kN] Dispi. [mml 0.075A 9.88 3.841 Primary (5.01 mm) -8.94 -3.93 7.01 2.862 Trailing -6.73 -2.91 7.06 2.893 Trailing 0.056t -6.73 -2.84 (3.74 mm) 7.01 2.85 4 Trailing -6.96 -2.95 7.06 2.725 Trailing -6.87 -2.83 6 Primary 0.1k 11.34 5.17(6.68 mm) -11.01 -5.28 8.66 4.067 Trailing -8.23 -3.96 8.70 4.208 Trailing 0.075E -8.28 -3.86 (5.01 mm) 8.75 3.92 9 Trailing -8.19 -3.80 8.80 4.0910 Trailing -8.23 -3.97 11 Primary 0.2tS 17.88 10.71(13.36 mm) -17.45 -10.75 12.94 8.3112 Trailing 0.15 -12.61 -8.06 (10.02 mm) 12.94 8.00 13 Trailing -12.51 -8.13 14 Primary 0.3A T 22.39 16.53 (20.03 mm) I -21.87 -15.91 t 15.90 12.8715 Trailing 0.225 -14.82 -12.11 (15.03 mm) 15.90 12.90 16 Trailing -14.96 -12.21 17 Primary 0.4A 26.30 22.12(26.71 mm) -25.31 -21.54 -25.12 -21.66 17.59 16.9518 Trailing 0.3 -16.37 -16.18 -16.28 -16.32 (20.03 mm) 17.88 17.23 19 Trailing -16.65 -16.26 -16.46 -16.32 20 Primary 0Th 34.86 39.01 34.25 39.25(46.75 mm) -33.87 -39.01 -33.02 -39.18 20.98 30.17 20.51 30.24 21 Trailing 0.525 -19.48 -29.44 -18.68 -29.56 (35.06 mm) 20.93 30.22 22 Trailing -19.62 -29.54 23 Primary 1.OA 40.36 55.88 37.44 56.29(66.78 mm) -39.99 -55.37 -36.22 -55.79 21.59 43.48 19.43 43.51 24 Trailing 0.75A -20.60 -42.90 (50.09 mm) 21.69 43.29 18.86 43.69 25 Trailing - -43.11 26 Primary 1.5A 69.04 25.03 79.34 (100.17 mm) -86.11 1 59.75 10.44 60.25 27 Trailing 1.125A -17.83 -64.02 (75.13 mm) 14.02 60.76 28 Trailing -18.02 -63.77 2.OA 22.02 86.36 5.97 108.2129 Primary (133.56 mm) -21.31 -82.60 -5.65 -116.49 5.65 81.09 30 Trailing 1 .5A -6.02 -91.89 (100.17 mm) 5.50 80.34 31 Trailing -6.35 -91.14 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 149 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 60 I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] 60 I I I I I I I I 50 - - I I I I I 40 - - - - 30 I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure B.7 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC2. 150 Appendix B Front View Phase II— Panel Tests Back View • Nail Pullthrough (Separated) @ Minor Nail Pullout — Separated Stud (From Silt/Top plate) Legend f Minar Nail Pullthrough ( Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.8 - Failure mode of specimen PLC2. ‘I. Figure B.9 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC2. 151 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC3 Test Date: Feb. 17, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, ‘/2” thickness, lOd nails at 4” olc around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement \ = 66.78 mm, tie-downs were used to keep the loading beam horizontal. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +61.11 [kN] / -52.26 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +87.52 [mm] I -89.08 [mm] - Max. Drift: +99.57 [mm] I -102.05 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nails pull through the board Test Observations: - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and along the bottom corner of the plywood board (close to hold-downs and along the centre stud) pulled through the plywood during the testing. Some of the fasteners along the top plate also experienced failure. - A large relative rotation between two plywood boards was observed during the testing. - Maximum positive and negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - In the last primary cycle, separation of the plywood boards from the frame along the bottom plate resulted in a brittle failure of the specimen. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen dropped and at the end of the test (120 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 40% of the peak load in the positive direction and 47% of the peak load in the negative direction. 152 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.3 - Test results of specimen PLC3. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Dispi. [mmj Load [kN] Dispi. [mmj 1 Primary 0.075z 8.84 3.02(5.01 mm) -7.72 -3.95 2 Trailing 7.06 2.16 -5.74 -2.96 3 Trailing 7.01 1.980.056A -5.93 -2.96 (3.74 mm) 6.96 1.844 Trailing -5.83 -3.03 5 Trailing 7.20 1.96 -5.83 -2.90 6 Primary 01z 11.24 4.45(6.68 mm) -9.88 -5.35 7 Trailing 8.70 3.04 -7.24 -3.96 -7.10 -3.96 8 Trailing 8.70 3.00 8.37 3.040.075zS -7.20 -3.99 -7.15 -4.07 (5.01 mm) 8.75 3.119 Trailing -7.24 -4.03 10 Trailing 8.70 3.13 -7.29 -4.04 11 Primary 0.2A 18.68 10.03(13.36 mm) -16.75 -10.83 12 Trailing 14.25 7.400.15A -12.00 -8.19 (10.02 mm) 14.25 7.42 13 Trailing -12.14 -8.09 14 Primary 0.3A 24.18 15.67(20.03 mm) -21.97 -15.87 15 Trailing 17.22 11.510.225k -15.15 -12.45 (15.03 mm) 17.55 11.87 16 Trailing -15.10 -12.40 17 Primary 0.4z 27.75 21.08(26.71 mm) -25.64 -22.04 18 Trailing 19.71 16.100.3 -16.89 -16.59 (20.03 mm) 19.71 16.14 19 Trailing -16.98 -16.63 20 Primary 0.7E 39.33 39.08(46.75 mm) -35.56 -39.85 21 Trailing 24.09 29.84 0.525A -20.27 -30.19 (35.06 mm) 24.04 29.78 22 Trailing -20.56 -30.02 23 Primary 1.OA 49.06 57.51(66.78 mm) -43.80 -57.99 24 Trailing 26.81 44.26 0.75t -22.16 -44.71 (50.09 mm) 26.77 44.16 25 Trailing -44.59 26 Primary 1.5i 87.52 60.87 88.38 (100.17 mm) -89.08 -51.70 -89.78 27 Trailing 69.05 27.66 69.25 1.125 -21.78 -69.02 (75.13 mm) 27.47 69.15 27.14 69.32 28 Trailing -22.06 -69.23 29 Primary 2.0E 50.90 97.86 24.27 120.57 (133.56 mm) -27.28 -120.07 -24.65 -122.53 30 Trailing 14.40 94.39 13.64 94.59 1.5A -12.33 -96.47 31 Trailing (100.17 mm) 14.35 94.22 13.17 94.63 -12.56 -96.00 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 153 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 70 I I I I I I I I 60 J L I I I I I I I 50 40 30 - . I— — - I I I I I I I 20 I - - - - z I I 10 —I 4- •4• I 0 -- - - -- I _J I I I I I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] 70 I I I I I 60 = E ___ -20 PrimaryCycle -30 - --- ———lstTrailingCycle - 2ndTraiIiflgCYGIe -50 I I I I I I —60 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure B.1O - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC3. 154 Appendix B Front View Phase II— Panel Tests Figure B.11 - Failure mode of specimen PLC3. Back View • • Nail Pullthrough (Separated) @ Minor Nail Pullout ® Nail Pullout (Separated) Legend I) Minor Nail Pulltlrrough Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.12 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC3. 155 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC4 Test Date: May 26, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, 1/2 thickness, 1 Od nails at 4” 0/c around the perimeter of the boards, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 30cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 66.78 mm, ¼” gap between plywood boards along the centre stud. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +45.58 [kN] / -44.12 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +79.55 [mm] / -90.11 [mm] - Max. Drift: +90.13 [mm] / -96.54 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nails pull through the board Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 20.03 mm. - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and along the end stud pulled through the plywood during the testing. Some of the fasteners along the top plate also experienced failure. - Maximum positive and negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - In the last primary cycle in the positive direction, separation of the plywood boards from the frame along the bottom plate and along the end stud in the tension zone, followed by the separation of studs from the plates, resulted in a very brittle failure of the specimen. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen suddenly dropped and at the end of the test (120 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 38% of the peak load in the positive direction and 46% of the peak load in the negative direction. 156 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.4 - Test results of specimen PLC4. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mm) Load [kN) Displ. [mm] 1 Primary 0.075E 9.46 3.16(5.01 mm) -8.42 -4.19 2 Trailing 7.62 2.14 -6.49 -3.25 3 Trailing 7.67 2.230.056 -6.49 -3.23 (3.74 mm) 7.67 2.32 4 Trailing -6.49 -3.20 5 Trailing 7.72 2.23 -6.54 -3.16 6 Primary 0.1 11.67 4.61(6.68 mm) -10.30 -5.52 7 Trailing 9.13 3.20 -7.86 -4.24 8 Trailing 9.13 3.120.075k -7.86 -4.22 (5.01 mm) 9.13 3.05 9 Trailing -7.86 -3.96 10 Trailing 9.17 3.19 -7.90 -4.21 11 Primary 0.2A 18.63 10.15(13.36 mm) -17.12 -11.05 12 Trailing 14.21 7.320.15A -12.51 -8.31 (10.02 mm) 14.16 7.47 13 Trailing -12.56 -8.31 14 Primary 0.3A 23.43 15.66(20.03 mm) -22.11 -16.91 15 Trailing 17.12 11.550.225A -15.66 -12.50 (15.03 mm) 17.22 11.70 16 Trailing -15.71 -12.68 17 Primary 0.4A 26.58 21.32(26.71 mm) -25.97 -22.63 18 Trailing 18.91 15.900.3A -17.73 -17.19 (20.03 mm) 18.86 15.93 19 Trailing -17.83 -17.25 20 Primary 0Th 35.05 38.04(46.75 mm) -35.37 -40.21 21 Trailing 22.06 28.82 0.525A -21.54 -30.75 (35.06 mm) 21.92 28.88 22 Trailing -21.69 -30.76 23 Primary 1.OA 40.88 53.15(66.78 mm) -42.01 -58.87 24 Trailing 23.38 41.84 0.75th -23.38 -45.21 (50.09 mm) 23.43 41.83 25 Trailing - -44.96 26 Primary 1.5A 79.55 (100.17 mm) -89.59 -44.12 -90.11 27 Trailing 18.72 63.90 1.125z -19.90 -69.08 (75.13 mm) 16.56 63.89 28 Trailing -19.62 -69.57 29 Primary 2.OA 17.12 112.59 (133.56 mm) -30.20 -100.26 -20.13 -123.91 30 Trailing 6.16 80.75 6.12 81.66 1.5i -11.10 -92.42 31 Trailing (100.17 mm) 6.07 82.13 6.02 83.64 -11.57 -93.56 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 157 Appendix B 60 — 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -125 Phase II — Panel Tests Figure B.13 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC4. 158 z 0 -J I I I I I I I I I I / zz I - -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I I40 I I I I I I I __ -20 PrimaryCycle — — — let Trailing Cycle -30 2ndTrailingCycle : :zt -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 125 Deformation [mm] 50 75 100 Appendix B Front View Phase II— Panel Tests Back View • Nail Pullthrough (Separated) 5) Minor Nail Pullout — Seporated Stud (From Silt/Top plate) Legend 4) Minor Nail Pultttrrough Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.14 - Failure mode of specimen PLC4 159 Figure B.15 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC4 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC5 Test Date: May 31, 2005 Characteristics: The same characteristics as the specimen PLC4, gang nails connected the end studs to the top plate, 6 additional 8d nails at 4” ole were used at the side corner of each plywood board, reference displacement A = 66.78 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +53.11 [kNI / -49.77 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +83.43 [mm] I -93.07 [mm] - Max. Drift: >+ 107.52 [mm] / <-127.09 [mm] - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Nail pull through along the centre stud Test Observations: - Ductile performance of the specimen was observed during the testing - Some of the additional 8d fasteners pulled out of the frame. - Most of the fasteners along the centre stud pulled through the plywood during the testing. - The nails along the top plate had the same contribution as the nails along the bottom plate in carrying the shear load. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - A large relative rotation between two plywood boards was observed during the testing. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test (125 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 87% of the peak load in both directions. 160 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.5 - Test results of specimen PLC5. Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement*Cycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kNI Dispi. CmmI Load [kNJ Displ. [mm] 0.075A 10.35 3.401 Primary (5.01 mm) -8.09 -4.33 8.14 2.472 Trailing -6.07 -3.21 8.23 2.503 Trailing 0.056 -6.16 -3.21 (3.74 mm) 8.19 2.42 4 Trailing -6.12 -3.21 8.19 2.575 Trailing -6.16 -3.14 0.1 12.51 4.936 Primary (6.68 mm) -10.11 -5.64 9.93 3.667 Trailing -7.39 -4.23 9.97 3.458 Trailing 0.075z -7.39 -4.01 (5.01 mm) 9.88 3.60 9 Trailing -7.39 4.12 9.93 3.6310 Trailing -7.43 -4.22 0.2k 19.66 10.6311 Primary (13.36 mm) -17.03 -11.34 14.87 7.8312 Trailing 0.15A -12.18 -8.41 (10.02 mm) 14.96 7.97 13 Trailing -12.23 -8.65 0.3A 24.93 16.2714 Primary (20.03 mm) -22.34 -17.43 17.83 12.0815 Trailing 0.225A -15.90 -13.10 (15.03 mm) 17.88 12.07 16 Trailing -15.99 -13.25 0.4A 28.18 21.4617 Primary (26.71 mm) -27.75 -24.02 20.09 16.2118 Trailing 0.3A -18.49 -17.98 (20.03 mm) 20.09 16.10 19 Trailing -18.63 -18.02 0Th 37.30 36.9820 Primary (46.75 mm) -38.53 -42.43 26.01 29.3821 Trailing 0.525E -23.76 -34.75 (35.06 mm) 25.73 28.88 22 Trailing -23.99 -34.68 1.0k 44.83 543623 Primary (66.78 mm) -46.29 -62.01 27.75 42.40 24 Trailing 0.75i -25.97 -47.40 (50.09 mm) 27.57 42.43 25 Trailing -47.47 83.431 .526 Primary (100.17 mm) -93.07 64.56 27 Trailing 1.125i -23.61 -72.10 (75.13 mm) 26.81 64.64 28 Trailing -23.94 -72.43 2.0 48.64 101.62 46.62 107.5229 Primary (133.56 mm) -43.65 -122.23 -42.81 -127.09 15.62 86.88 30 Trailing 1.5E -13.22 -97.57 (100.17 mm) 11.29 88.00 31 Trailing -11.67 -97.86 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 161 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 60 I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I 40 30 - I I I I I I I I I I I 20 - — — -. I I I I I z I I I10 .4 +— I I I I ___________ 0 - - -- I _I I -10 1-— -4 ——— — - 4- + -: I I I I I -20 - I I I I I I I I I I 1 —30 -, I 4 I I I I I I I I -40 -l 4- I I I I I I I I I I I -50 I -140 -105 -70 -35 0 35 70 105 140 Deformation [mm] 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I50 I I I I I I I I I I 40 30 - - - - I I I I I I I I 20 — I I I I I Z I I I I I10 -4 I- 1- —I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I0 -I- -4 4- + -I -‘ : : PCyde ‘% ‘-- — — — 1st Trailing Cycle -30 2ndTrailingCycle : zh tz t:hti.i: -140 -105 -70 -35 0 35 70 105 140 Deformation [mm] Figure B.16 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC5. 162 Appendix B Front View Phase II— Panel Tests Back View • Nail Pullthrougli (Separated) @ Minor Nail Pullout — Separated Stud (From Sill/Top plate) Legend C Minor Nail Pallthrough Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.17 - Failure mode of specimen PLC5. 163 Nails Figure B.18 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC5. Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: PLC6 Test Date: Jun. 9, 2005 Characteristics: The same characteristics as the specimen PLC4, gang nails connected the end studs to the top plate, reference displacement z 90 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +52.87 [kN] / -46.15 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +108.56 [mm] / -75.23 [mm] -Max. Drift: +109.81 [mm] / -109.69 [mm] - Max Separation: Nail pull through / Fracture of end - Failure mode: studs Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 27 mm. - Most of the fasteners along the bottom plate and along the centre stud pulled through the plywood during the testing. Some of the fasteners along the top plate also experienced failure. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 135 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 90 mm. - In the last primary cycle in the positive direction, separation of the plywood boards from the frame along the bottom plate and along the end stud close to the hold-downs, followed by the fracture of the end studs, resulted in a very brittle failure of the specimen. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen suddenly dropped and at the end of the test (173 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 14% of the peak load in the positive direction and 5% of the peak load in the negative direction. 164 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.6 - Test results of specimen PLC6. Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement*Cycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Load [kNI Displ. Emmi 0.075 10.07 4.951 Primary (6.75 mm) -8.47 -5.52 8.33 3.272 Trailing -6.02 -4.26 8.33 3.343 Trailing 0.056 -6.07 -4.24 (5.07 mm) 8.28 3.41 4 Trailing -6.16 4.26 8.28 3.205 Trailing -6.16 -4.18 0.1A 12.37 6.476 Primary (9 mm) -11.20 -7.31 9.69 4.687 Trailing -7.86 -5.52 9.78 4.61 9.27 6.508 Trailing 0.075 -7.90 -5.38 (6.75 mm) 9.74 4.75 8.28 6.53 9 Trailing -8.04 5.45 9.69 4.6110 Trailing -7.95 -5.45 0.2A 19.99 13.37 19.66 15.3911 Primary (18 mm) -18.91 -14.22 14.44 9.8112 Trailing 0.15A -12.42 -10.96 (13.5 mm) 14.39 9.74 13 Trailing -12.47 -10.90 0.3A 26.39 20.5514 Primary (27 mm) -24.65 -21.91 17.97 15.2715 Trailing 0.225E -15.48 -16.73 (20.25 mm) 18.11 15.28 16 Trailing -15.52 -16.52 0.4A 31.24 28.1317 Primary (36 mm) -29.35 -29.27 20.42 20.9318 Trailing 0.3A -17.59 -22.18 (27 mm) 20.46 21.00 19 Trailing -17.69 -22.12 -16.42 -22.62 0Th 43.65 50.5420 Primary (63 mm) -40.79 -51.11 25.07 38.58 21 Trailing 0.525A -21.36 -38.57 (47.25 mm) 24.93 38.57 22 Trailing -21.59 -38.67 1.0i 49.86 74.3023 Primary (90 mm) -75.23 24.60 50.76 24 Trailing 0.75 -20.51 -55.92 (67.5 mm) 24.70 50.64 25 Trailing -20.79 -56.20 1.5k 108.56 50.71 109.7226 Primary (135 mm) -42.10 -107.78 -10.49 -119.39 18.91 81.33 27 Trailing 1.125A -4.47 -86.52 (101.25 mm) 17.97 81.24 28 Trailing -3.58 -78.61 -3.01 -87.02 2.OA 25.97 108.34 7.48 157.9429 Primary (180 mm) -2.59 -136.01 -2.26 -173.67 4.99 115.19 30 Trailing 1.5E -0.57 -123.36 -0.47 -124.57 (135 mm) 5.03 115.81 31 Trailing -0.89 -124.39 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 165 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 60 I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ‘F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I 30 I I I I I 20 — I I I I I I I I I I z i I I I I I I 10 ————H H I_______ I I I I I I I I 0 r---- ri II I I I I I —10 ————- ——-I——— —I— —I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -20 ————-1 _ ___, — — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -30 ———— _ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -40 ————-a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -50 -180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Deformation (mm] 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 30 ---- ---- 20 ————H _ I—ç4 4- I I I I I I z I I I I I% I . 10 ————H H H 4--- -- — I I I I I I I %I I I I I I I I0 H—————# F-————4 4 -F + .3 I I I I I I Iis’. i i I I I 10 H 4_______4 4 I I \‘I I I I I I -20 ----- -----1 - PrimaryCycle — — — 1st Trailing Cycle -30 ————a 1- __—- 4 -- I I I 2nd Trailing Cycle : :tt:t. -180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Deformation (mm] ________- Figure B.19 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC6. 166 Appendix B Front View Phase II — Panel Tests Back View • Nail Pullthrough (Separated) Ft Minor Nail Pullout — Separated / Broken Stad Legend C Minor Nail Pullthrough Nail Fracture 0 No Damage Figure B.20 - Failure mode of specimen PLC6. 167 Figure B.21 - Pictures of failure of specimen PLC6. Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: STM Test Date: Mar. 2, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ regular stucco panel, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, welded wire mesh stapled at 12” 0/c 011 studs and stapled at 6” o/c on plates, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, lots of shrinkage cracks were on the stucco prior to the test, tie-downs were used to keep the loading beam horizontal, Monotonic test. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +11.57 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +37.36 [mm] - Max. Drift: +76.8 [mm] - Failure mode: Staples pull-out / fracture Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the connectors started at 6mm of displacement. - Stucco behaved very rigid and maintained its rigidity with no failure until the end of the test. - The wood frame behaved very flexible and maintained its stability until the end of the test. - Relative rotation between the stucco and the wood frame caused most of the staples to be pulled out of the frame during the testing. Wire mesh also experienced fracture in some instances. - Maximum shear force was reached at the displacement of 37.36mm. - At 115 mm of displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate, stucco hit the pin connection of the tie-downs in the base beam. 168 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Figure B.22 - Backbone curve of specimen STM. ,. e W W e ± Wire Fracture Staple Pullout Hidden Failure Legend — Staple Fracture Staple Pullout/Fracture 0 No Failure Figure B.23 - Failure mode of specimen STM. 169 12 10 8 z 0 -j 4 2 0 L I I F- -I— I I I I I I I I I I -I F- -F--— I I I I I I I I I I F I I I I I 0 25 50 75 100 Deformation [mm] 125 150 175 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Figure B.24 — Pictures of failure of specimen STM. 170 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Specimen: STC1 Test Date: Apr. 29, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ regular stucco panel, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, welded wire mesh stapled at 12” 0/c on studs and stapled at 6” o/c on plates, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, tie-downs were used to keep the loading beam horizontal, reverse cyclic test, A = 46.1 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +10.77 [kN] / -8.33 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +30.52 [mm] / -17.27 [mm] - Max. Drift: +45.58 [mm] / -42.22 [mm] - Failure mode: Staples pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the connectors in both directions started in the third primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 9.22 mm. - Stucco behaved very rigid and maintained its rigidity with no failure until the end of the test. - The wood frame behaved very flexible and maintained its stability until the end of the test. - Relative rotation between the stucco and the wood frame caused most of the staples to be pulled out of the frame during the testing. Wire mesh also experienced fracture in some instances. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 32.27 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 13.83 mm. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test (90 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the specimen was able to resist 18% of the peak load in the positive direction and 15% of the peak load in the negative direction. 171 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.7 - Test results of specimen STC1. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mml Load [kNI Displ. 1mm] 1 Primary 0.075 5.74 2.83(3.46 mm) -5.46 -2.67 2 Trailing 4.23 2.20 -4.00 -1.95 3 Trailing 4.23 2.230.056A -3.95 -2.06 (2.58 mm) 4.23 2.19 4 Trailing -3.91 -2.02 5 Trailing 4.19 2.02 -3.95 -2.11 6 Primary 0.1z 6.63 3.89(4.61 mm) -6.26 -3.63 7 Trailing 4.66 3.02 -4.28 -2.86 8 Trailing 4.70 2.910.075k -4.28 -2.81 (3.46 mm) 4.75 3.12 9 Trailing -4.28 -2.86 10 Trailing 4.66 3.12 -4.28 -2.78 11 Primary 0.2 8.66 8.11(9.22 mm) -7.67 -8.32 12 Trailing 5.60 6.190.15A -4.80 -6.27 (6.92 mm) 5.50 6.40 13 Trailing -4.80 -6.24 14 Primary 0.3k 17 ] 12.79(13.83 mm) -12.60 9.8015 Trailing 5460.225 [ -4.70 -9.70(10.37 mm) 5.46 974 16 Trailing [ -4.70 j -9.64 17 Primary 0.4k 9.36 17.32(18.44 mm) -8.33 -17.27 18 Trailing 5.17 13.12 0.3A -4.42 -13.04 (13.83 mm) 5.13 13.02 19 Trailing -4.61 -13.04 20 Primary 0.7z 30.52 -30.98 -8.00 -31.52(32.27 mm) 804 23.22 21 Trailing -3.53 -23.630.525A (24.2 mm) 4.89 23.12 22 Trailing -3.58 j -23.67 23 Primary 1.Ot\ 9.08 44.16(46.1 mm) -6.26 -45.47 24 Trailing 3.76 33.54 0.75 -2.31 -34.54 (34.58 mm) 3.72 33.51 25 Trailing -2.35 -34.34 26 Primary 1.5A 6.44 52.26 4.70 67.54 (69.15 mm) -3.11 -66.88 -2.96 -68.66 27 Trailing 2.16 49.90 2.12 51.00 1.125E -1.22 -51.06 (51.86 mm) 2.02 49.60 28 Trailing -1.46 -49.71 -1.41 -52.04 29 Primary 2.0 2.54 63.03 1.98 90.62 (92.2 mm) -1.79 -69.10 -1.22 -91.86 30 Trailing 1.08 36.19 0.94 68.53 1.5s -0.80 -59.33 -0.61 -69.02 31 Trailing (69.15 mm) 1.04 64.09 0.89 68.60 -0.75 -68.55 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 172 Appendix B 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -100 15 — 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -100 Phase II — Panel Tests -I -1 - - - -J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Deformation [mm] z CD 0 -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2ridTrailingCycle I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Deformation [mm] Figure B.25 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen STC1. 173 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Figure B.26 — Pictures of failure of specimen STC1. 174 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: SHM Test Date: Mar. 9, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” 0/c around the perimeter, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, welded wire mesh stapled at 12” o/c on studs and stapled at 6” o/c on plates, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, tie-downs were used to keep the loading beam horizontal, Monotonic test. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +50.82 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +46.90 [mm] - Max. Drift: +135.4 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Maximum shear force was reached at the displacement of 46.90mm. - At 60 mm of displacement top and bottom corner of the stucco started cracking. - At 85 mm of displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate, stucco hit the pin connection of the tie-downs in the base beam. Stucco rotation was limited due to this conflict and the specimen gained stiffhess at this point. - At 140 mm of displacement, one of the two 2x4s of the end stud in the tension zone cracked and separated from the frame. - Separation of the stucco from the wood frame was limited due to the existence of tie-rods. - No Shearlock separation from the stucco was observed during the testing. - No stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (160 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - Almost all the staple connections were failed and Shearlock fasteners were the only connectors to hold the stucco. 175 Appendix B 55 50 45 40 35 z 30 25 -J 20 15 10 5 0 Phase II— Panel Tests Figure B.27 - Backbone curve of specimen SHM. 176 —I-- I I I F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F I I I I I I I I I I I F F I I I I F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F I -t I— -t -I- — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —I -t * -- I I I I I I I I I F I 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Deformation Cmml - Pictures of failure of specimen SHM. Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: SHC1 Test Date: Mar. 14, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” olc around the perimeter,, two 2x4s for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement z = 66.78 mm, tie-downs were used to keep the loading beam horizontal. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +5 1.65 [kN] I -39.70 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +89.53 [mm] I -61.74 [mm] -Max. Drift: +111.12[mm] / -116.38[mmj - Max Separation: - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out I fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 100.17 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 66.78 mm. - At 35 mm of displacement bottom corners of the stucco started cracking. - Separation of the stucco from the wood frame was limited due to the existence of tie-rods. - No Shearlock separation from the stucco was observed during the testing. - No stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (124 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 78% of the peak load in the positive direction and 74% of the peak load in the negative direction. 177 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.8 - Test results of specimen SHC1. Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement*Cycle Cycle Amplitude Load [kNI Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Dispi. [mmj 0.075z 11.90 2.901 Primary (5.01 mm) -11.24 -3.40 9.17 1.992 Trailing -8.19 -2.60 9.17 1.993 Trailing 0.056A -8.28 -2.60 (3.74 mm) 9.27 2.06 4 Trailing -8.23 -2.53 9.22 2.065 Trailing -8.28 -2.56 0.1A 14.49 4.286 Primary (6.68 mm) -13.50 -4.72 11.01 3.007 Trailing -9.55 3.54 11.67 2.938 Trailing 0.075A -9.60 -3.51 (5.01 mm) 12.94 2.86 9 Trailing -9.55 3.54 11.15 2.9310 Trailing -9.50 -3.51 0.2A 21.36 10.2111 Primary (13.36 mm) -20.70 -10.25 14.82 7.2512 Trailing 0.15z -13.78 -7.79 (10.02 mm) 14.77 7.38 13 Trailing -13.74 -7.85 0.3A 28.22 16.0114 Primary (20.03 mm) -24.89 -16.41 18.06 11.9315 Trailing 0.225A -15.52 -12.44 (15.03 mm) 17.69 12.10 16 Trailing -15.34 -12.47 0.4i. 32.32 21.9417 Primary (26.71 mm) -27.90 -22.78 18.72 16.31 18 Trailing 0.3z\ -15.76 -17.32 (20.03 mm) 18.35 16.28 19 Trailing -15.52 -17.29 0.7E 45.11 39.7020 Primary (46.75 mm) -36.13 -42.26 22.49 28.83 19.43 30.32 21 Trailing 0.525A -17.31 -32.62 (35.06 mm) 19.95 30.25 22 Trailing -16.98 -32.59 1 .0 48.45 58.6323 Primary (66.78 mm) -61.74 19.85 44.97 24 Trailing 0.75 -13.92 -48.06 (50.09 mm) 18.82 45.18 25 Trailing -14.11 -48.06 1.526 Primary (100.17 mm) 3867 89.53 -94.90 9i 69.0527 Trailing 1.125z\ -8.61 .j -73.37 (75.13 mm) 14.30 69.19 28 Trailing -8.37 j -73.64 2.0 40.36 113.1329 Primary (133.56 mm) -29.31 -124.02 10.11 93.43 30 Trailing 1.5A -5.08 -99.08 (100.17 mm) 9.31 93.81 31 Trailing -4.99 -99.18 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at th Maximum displacement. 178 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _9 j I40 — I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 — z i I I I I I 10 - - •1-———— —— — I I 0 •--- - - --+- I I I I -10 ————— ———b I — I I I I I I I I I I I I I -20 —— ——-4 4 I I I I I I I I I I I -30 - I I I I I I I I I I I I -40 - I I I I I I I I I I -50 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] 60 I I I I I I I I 50 - - - - I - _ -20 - pnmaryycie — — —lstTrailing Cycle 30 -i----——-----i—-———— 2ndTiIingCycie -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] ___________ Figure B.29 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC1. 179 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Nail Fracture Legend 0 Nail Pulloat Figure B.30 - Failure mode of specimen SHC1. Figure B.31 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC1. 180 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: SHC2 Test Date: Jun. 23, 2005 Characteristics: 8 ‘x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” 0/c around the perimeter, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement z = 62 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +32.60 [kNj / -25.45 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +90.66 [mm] / -61.49 [mm] - Max. Drift: +109.96 [mm] / -107.70 [mm] - Max Separation: 27.21 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 62 mm. - Some Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - No stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (123 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - Separation of the stucco along the bottom plate was more significant; a narrow longitudinal crack was fonned at the level of the sixth Shearlock from the bottom due to this separation. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 68% of the peak load in the positive direction and 62% of the peak load in the negative direction. 181 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.9 - Test results of specimen SHC2. cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Dlsplacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude . Se tLoad [kN] Dispi. [mml Load [kNI Displ. [mm] iaa1on 1 Primary 0.075k 8.19 4.44 LmmJ (4.65 mm) -7.29 -4.63 0.30 2 First Trailing 6.40 3.190.056A -5.03 0.26 7 Last Trailing (3.47 mm) 6.44 3.34 -5.08 0.22 8 Primary 0.1A 9.78 5.82(6.20 mm) -8.89 -6.10 0.33 9 First Trailing 7.57 4.510.075i. -6.12 -4.71 0.26 14 Last Trailing (4.65 mm) 7.43 4.51 -6.21 -4.71 0.31 15 Primary 0.2A 15.48 11.95(12.40 mm) -13.64 -12.17 0.58 16 Trailing 10.77 8.97 -8.70 -9.23 0.56 17 Trailing 0.15b 10.77 9.05(9.30 mm) -8.66 -9.23 0.56 18 Trailing 10.63 9.05 -8.70 -9.31 0.54 19 Primary 0.3A 19.00 17.97(18.60 mm) -16.65 -18.37 0.98 20 Trailing 12.28 13.54 -9.69 -13.84 0.95 21 Trailing 0.225A 12.18 13.54(13.95 mm) -9.93 -13.84 0.84 22 Trailing 12.23 13.62 -9.74 -13.76 0.99 23 Primary 0.4t 21.12 24.24(24.80 mm) -18.58 -24.60 1.52 24 Trailing 12.84 18.280.3A -10.16 -18.36 1.69 252 Trailing (18.60 mm) 12.75 18.14 -10.21 -18A4 1.72 26 Primary 0Th 28.04 42.47(43.40 mm) -23.29 -42.96 4.04 27 Trailing 13.97 31.970.525z -10.82 -32.01 4.49 28 Trailing (32.55 mm) 13.69 31.99 -10.87 -32.38 4.43 29 Primary 1.0i 30.39 60.79(62 mm) 2545 61 805 30 Trailing 13.17 45.72 0.75A -9.83 -45.95 8.92 31 Trailing (46.50 mm) 12.70 45.87 -9.88 -46.18 8.88 32 Primary 90.66 30.81 91.64 (93 mm) -24.79 -92.46 18.74 33 Trailing 11.48 68.71 1.125A -8.42 -69.34 20.56 34 Trailing (69.75 mm) 10.91 68.70 -8.33 -69.34 21.03 35 Primary 2.OA 22.96 119.20 22.11 122.70 (124 mm) -15.90 -123.03 27.21 36 Trailing 7.62 91.65 7.53 92.32 1.5k -5.18 -92.61 26.33 37 Trailing (93 mm) 7.01 92.10 -5.41 -92.61 26.31 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 182 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 40 30 - 20 10 z • 0 Cu 0 -J -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] 40 30 20 10 z • 0 Cu 0 -J -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 Deformation [mm] 75 100 125 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Last Trailing Cycle -4 - -4 4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure B.32 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC2. 183 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests • Nail Pullout Legend e Nail ucture After Pullout [ Shearlock Pullout Figure B.33 - Failure mode of specimen SHC2. Figure B.34 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC2. 184 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: SHC3 Test Date: Jun. 30, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” olc around the perimeter, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 62 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +32.74 [kN] I -29.21 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +90.47 [mm] / -60.73 [mm] -Max.Drift: +108.12[mm] / -98.01[mm] - Max Separation: 28.06 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out I fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 18.60 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 62 mm. - At 32 mm of displacement top and bottom corners of the stucco started cracking. - Some Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - No stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (123 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 61% of the peak load in the positive direction and 50% of the peak load in the negative direction. 185 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.1O - Test results of specimen SHC3. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical ycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mmj Separation 1 Primary 0.075A 10.07 454 [mm] (4.65 mm) -8.84 -4.52 0.29 2 First Trailing 8.09 3.60 0.056A -6.59 335 0.33 7 Last Trailing (3.47 mm) 8.00 3.45 -6.45 -3.42 0.29 8 Primary 0.1A 11.38 6.16(6.20 mm) -10.35 -6.14 0.39 9 First Trailing 8.84 4.56 0.075A -7.29 -4.60 0.26 14 LastTrailing (4.65 mm) 8.84 4.48 -7.43 -4.53 0.38 15 Primary 0.2 16.23 12.43(12.40 mm) -15.43 -12.03 0.51 16 Trailing 11.62 9.22 -9.88 -9.10 0.58 17 Trailing 0.15A 11.48 9.16(9.30 mm) -9.93 -9.10 0.60 18 Trailing 11.34 9.15 -9.83 -9.10 0.67 19 Primary 0.3A 19.66 18.38(18.60 mm) -18.96 -18.53 1.03 20 Trailing 12.80 13.84 -10.96 -13.68 1.28 21 Trailing 0.225z 12.56 13.77(13.95 mm) -10.91 -13.90 1.27 22 Trailing 12.70 13.78 -10.82 -13.82 1.25 23 Primary 0.4A 22.02 24.43(24.80 mm) -21.26 -24.28 1.88 24 Trailing 13.08 18.45O.3A -11.24 -18.27 2.16 252 Trailing (18.60 mm) 12.84 18.52 -11.29 -18.42 2.10 26 Primary 0.7A 29.45 42.69(43.40 mm) -27.75 -42.57 4.57 27 Trailing 13.74 32.36 0.525A -12.00 -32.08 5.07 28 Trailing (32.55 mm) 13.12 32.29 -11.95 -32.01 5.06 29 Primary 1.OA 31.75 61.19(62 mm) a9ir 6073 832 30 Trailing 12.89 46.25 0.75A -10.58 -45.88 9.41 31 Trailing (46.50 mm) 12.37 46.26 -10.58 -46.10 9.27 32 Primary 15A 3274 9047 3152 9224 (93 mm) -25.54 -92.13 19.78 33 Trailing 10.16 69.22 1.125i -7.43 -69.02 22.15 34 Trailing (69.75 mm) 9.60 69.30 -7.20 -69.10 21.68 35 Primary 2.OeX 20.93 122.29 20.09 123.56 (124 mm) -14.72 -121.42 28.06 36 Trailing 6.92 92.14 6.92 92.74 iSA -4.42 -91.91 26.95 37 Trailing (93 mm) 6.49 92.53 - -4.42 -91.84 27.30 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 186 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests 40 30 - 20 10 z D0 0 -J -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure B.35 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC3. 187 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — I I I I I 4- 4 -I 4- 4- I I I I I I I L I I _____ PrimaryCycle ———FirstTrailingCycle 11111:: 1:7111-: II I 7 71 7 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests a a 0 a a a • . a . e a • a a a • Nail Pullout © Nail Fracture Before Pullout Legend e Nail Fracture After Pullout 0 Sheurloek Pullout 0 . 0 0 0 0 . . . a a a a 0 . . 0 0 0 a I I 0 I I Figure B.36 - Failure mode of specimen SHC3. Figure B.37 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC3. 188 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Specimen: SHC4 Test Date: Jul. 15, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” 0/c around the perimeter, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 62 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +34.48 [kN] / -26.25 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +89.71 [mm] / -61.16 [mm] - Max. Drift: +116.01 [mm] / -106.45 [mm] - Max Separation: 19.68 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stifffiess of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 18.60 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 62 mm. - At 24.9mm of displacement top and bottom corners of the stucco started cracking. - Some Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - One stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (123 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 75% of the peak load in the positive direction and 59% of the peak load in the negative direction. 189 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Table B.11 - Test results of specimen SHC4. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kNJ Displ. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Separation [mm] 1 Primary 0.075A 10.44 4.20(4.65 mm) -7.24 -4.61 0.20 2 First Trailing 8.23 3.110.056 499 344 0.51 (3.47 mm) 8.28 3.04 7 Last Trailing -4.99 -3.51 0.44 8 Primary 0.1 12.18 5.64(6.20 mm) -8.66 -6.09 0.40 9 First Trailing 9.50 4.190.075 -5.65 -4.66 0.24 (4.65 mm) 9.36 4.26 14 Last Trailing -5.74 -4.61 0.57 15 Primary 0.2A 17.92 11.50(12.40 mm) -13.50 -12.10 0.44 16 Trailing 12.65 8.58 -8.04 -9.23 0.74 17 Trailing 0.15A 12.56 8.91(9.30 mm) -8.09 -9.26 0.67 18 Trailing 12.28 8.73 -8.00 -9.11 0.78 19 Primary 0.3 21.03 17.51(18.60 mm) -15.90 -18.13 1.01 20 Trailing 13.55 13.27 -8.70 -13.70 1.25 21 Trailing 0.225A 13.31 13.46(13.95 mm) -8.84 -13.87 1.18 22 Trailing 13.22 13.12 -8.75 -13.85 1.35 23 Primary 0.4A 23.19 23.56(24.80 mm) -17.59 -24.42 1.82 24 Trailing 13.74 17.81 0.3A -9.03 -18.54 2.33 (18.60 mm) 13.55 17.80252 Trailing -8.99 -18.44 2.39 26 Primary 0.7A 30.77 41.75(43.40 mm) -23.52 -42.93 4.21 27 Trailing 14.39 31.69 0.525A -9.17 -32.43 4.52 (32.55 mm) 14.07 31.6228 Trailing -9.03 -32.41 4.38 29 Primary 1.0E 33.78 59.90(62 mm) -61.16 6.47 30 Trailing 13.55 45.04 0.75A -8.09 -46.36 6.64 (46.50 mm) 13.27 45.3131 Trailing -7.90 -46.08 6.10 32 Primary 1.5 89.71 33.92 91.03(93 mm) -25.45 -92.25 10.75 33 Trailing 11.53 68.27 1.125A -6.12 -69.39 11.56 (69.75 mm) 11.01 67.98 10.44 68.5134 Trailing -5.97 -69.74 11.76 35 Primary 2.OA 26.58 119.99 25.97 122.22(124 mm) -15.57 -123.78 19.04 36 Trailing 8.00 91.69 1.5S -3.58 -93.14 19.51 37 Trailing (93 mm) 7.72 91.44 -3.25 -93.04 19.68 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 190 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 40 30 20 10 z D 0 0 -j -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 Deformation [mm] 75 100 125 Figure B.38 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC4. 191 30 20 10 z 0 0 -J -10 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 Deformation [mm] 50 75 100 125 I I I I Last Trailing Cycle 4- + 4 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests Broken Corner Pro-Damaged Stucco • Nail Pullout © Nail Fracture Before Pullout Legend e Nail Fracture After Pullout 0 Shcarloctc Pullout Figure B.39 - Failure mode of specimen SHC4. Stucco Figure B.40 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC4. 192 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Specimen: SHC5 Test Date: Aug. 4, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” 0/c around the perimeter, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement z\ = 62 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +39.04 [kN] / -31.00 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +87.85 [mm] / -92.48 [mm] -Max.Drift: +116.85[mmj / -119.10[mm] - Max Separation: 30.37 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Degradation of the initial stiffness of the specimen due to yielding of the fasteners in both directions started in the fourth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 18.60 mm. - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - No corner crack was observed during the test. - None of the Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - No stucco pop out was observed during the testing. - At the end of the test (123 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 76% of the peak load in both directions. 193 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.12 - Test results of specimen SHC5. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kNJ Dispi. [mml Load [kNJ Displ. Lmm] Separation [mmj 1 Primary 0.075th 7.48 4.41(4.65 mm) 457 0.44 2 First Trailing 5.93 3.51 0.056 -3.81 337 0.20 (3.47 mm) 5.97 3.417 Last Trailing -3.81 -3.48 0.34 8 Primary O.lt 9.22 5.77(6.20 mm) -6.68 -6.04 0.37 9 First Trailing 6.92 4.43 0.075k -4.61 -4.40 0.17 (4.65 mm) 7.06 4.5314 Last Trailing .4.47 -4.51 0.37 15 Primary 0.2S 14.87 12.00(12.40 mm) -11.10 -12.04 0.40 16 Trailing 10.49 9.01 -6.92 -9.23 0.24 17 Trailing 0.15A 10.40 9.02(9.30 mm) .6.92 -9.14 0.51 18 Trailing 10.58 9.15 -6.96 -9.08 0.41 19 Primary 0.3A 19.48 17.92(18.60 mm) -14.72 -17.94 0.47 20 Trailing 12.75 13.51 .8.42 -13.78 0.57 21 Trailing 0.225 12.47 13.62(13.95 mm) -8.42 -13.78 0.61 22 Trailing 12.51 13.51 -8.52 -13.76 0.74 23 Primary 0.4 22.96 23.75(24.80 mm) -17.31 -24.39 0.88 24 Trailing 13.69 17.87 0.3A -9.08 -18.67 1.05 (18.60 mm) 13.45 18.00252 Trailing -9.03 -18.37 1.31 26 Primary 0.7i 33.68 40.80(43.40 mm) -25.50 -42.94 3.30 27 Trailing 15.52 30.83 0.525A -10.35 -32.72 (32.55 mm) 15.01 30.9428 Trailing -10.21 -32.66 4.04 29 Primary 1.OA 36.69 58.09(62 mm) -29.87 -61.65 7.08 30 Trailing 14.82 44.37 0.75A -9.17 -46.84 8.09 31 Trailing (46.50 mm) 13.92 44.67 -° -46.87 8.22 32 Primary 1.5/i 87.85 38.48 88.89(93 mm) -92.48 14.66 33 Trailing 67.79 1.125/i -6.92 -69.72 17.63 (69.75 mm) 11.57 67.7434 Trailing -6.49 -70.13 17.76 35 Primary 2.0/i 30.48 119.76 29.49 120.56(124 mm) -23.76 -123.59 26.49 36 Trailing 7.76 90.13 7.62 91.24 1.5/i -3.43 -93.55 30.37 37 Trailing (93 mm) 7.01 90.39 6.87 91.13 -3.15 -93.11 29.72 Values ar given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 194 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests 40 30 20 10 z • 0 c0 0 -J -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125i Deformation [mm] Figure B.41 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC5. 195 10 z • 0 0 -J -10 -20 -30 -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 Deformation [mm] 50 75 100 125 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I• 4 -4 I- 4- I I I I I I I I I I J. j- — I I I I I - I • _L .- _____j_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — — I I I I ——-—r PñmaryCyce F F ———FirstTrailingCycle .1., Appendix B Phase U — Panel Tests • Nail Pullout ft Nail Fracture Before Pullout Legend Nail Fracture After Pullout 0 Shearloclc Pullout Figure B.42 - Failure mode of specimen SHC5. Figure B.43 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC5. 196 Appendix B Phase U — Panel Tests Specimen: SHC6 Test Date: Aug. 11, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 6” olc around the perimeter, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A = 62 mm, weep screed with long slot holes was placed over the building paper along the bottom plate, no Shearlocks on corners. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +30.30 [kN] I -25.83 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +90.43 [mm] / -61.69 [mm] - Max. Drift: +117.18 [mm] I -115.92 [mm] - Max Separation: 18.61 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out I fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Weep screed provided a vertical support for the stucco and limited the rotation of the stucco. - Small movement of the weep screed was observed during the test. - Separation of the stucco along the top plate was more significant (40 mm). - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the eighth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 93 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the seventh primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 62 mm. - Some of the Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - Delaminated stucco was observed on some edges. - At the end of the test (123 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 85% of the peak load in the positive direction and 75% of the peak load in the negative direction. 197 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.13 - Test results of specimen SHC6. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacemenr Vertical Cycle Amplitude Load [kN] Displ. (mml Load [kNj Displ. [mm] Separation[mm] 1 Primary 0.075z 7.20 4.41(4.65 mm) -7.15 -4.34 0.24 2 First Trailing 5.69 3.380.056z\ -5.22 -3.41 0.34 7 Last Trailing (3.47 mm) 5.55 3.32 -5.32 -3.66 0.30 8 Primary 0.IA 8.52 5.78(6.20 mm) -8.70 -6.12 0.10 9 First Trailing 6.35 4.360.075E -5.93 -4.51 0.37 14 Last Trailing (4.65 mm) 6.40 4.36 -6.02 -4.87 0.27 15 Primary 0.2k 13.78 12.06(12.40 mm) -13.17 -12.36 0.24 16 Trailing 9.46 9.23 -8.42 -9.27 0.44 17 Trailing 0.15A 9.36 9.09(9.30 mm) -8.51 -9.17 0.37 18 Trailing 9.31 9.05 -8.51 -9.34 0.37 19 Primary 0.3A 17.45 18.20(18.60 mm) -16.65 -18.26 0.81 20 Trailing 11.10 13.67 -9.88 -14.04 0.78 21 Trailing 0.225k 11.15 13.56(13.95 mm) -9.88 -13.93 0.71 22 Trailing 10.82 13.37 -9.88 -13.98 0.81 23 Primary 0.4th 20.13 24.19(24.80 mm) -18.96 -24.61 1.15 24 Trailing 11.71 18.09 0.3 -10.35 -18.72 1.45 252 Trailing (18.60 mm) 11.48 18.01 -10.44 -18.62 1.42 26 Primary 0Th 27.57 42.14 (43.40 mm) -24.65 -43.06 3.10 27 Trailing 12.33 31.730.525 -10.87 -32.49 3.51 28 Trailing (32.55 mm) 11.95 31.80 -10.82 -32.61 3.64 29 Primary 1.0 60.70 -61.69 5.83(62 mm) 1 06 45.7130 Trailing 0.75t 31 Trailing (46.50 mm) ;9.50 I -46.49 6.570.63 45.58 -9.50 j -46.50 6.64 32 Primary 1.5th .__..1E1iI.hl[ 90.43 28.46 91.54 -92.71 10.08(93mm) 2507 9.36 T 68.5333 Trailing Trailing (69.75 mm) -7.90 -69.76 11.901.1 25A 8.84 68.71 -8.04 j -69.61 12.00 35 Primary 2.0t 25.78 122.24(124 mm) -19.24 -123.39 16.04 36 Trailing 6.45 90.72 6.40 91.87 1.5A -5.69 -92.17 18.64 37 Trailing (93 mm) 5.83 91.92 -5.17 -92.72 18.81 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 198 Appendix B 40 30 20 10 z D0 cu 0 -I -10 -20 -30 -40 Phase II— Panel Tests 30 20 10 z D0 Cu 0 -I -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Last Trailing Cycle H + H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure B.44 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC6. 199 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Stucco pop-out [ • Nail Pullout @ Nail Fracture Before Pullout Legend e Nail Fracture After Pullout ® Shearlock Pullout Figure B.45 - Failure mode of specimen SHC6. Figure B.46 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC6. 200 Appendix B Phase II Panel Tests Specimen: SHC7 Test Date: Aug. 18, 2005 Characteristics: 8’x8’ stucco panel with Shearlocks at 4” 0/c on end studs and Shearlocks at 6” o/c on top and bottom plates, 4x4 for end studs, 3x4 for bottom plate, two 2x4s for top plate, actuator positioned at 40cm above the loading beam, reverse cyclic test, reference displacement A 62 mm. Brief results: - Max. Shear Force: +27.90 [kN] / -20.70 [kN] - Drift at the peak shear: +41.98 [mm] / -42.40 [mm] -Max. Drift: +l01.38[mmj / -80.54 [mm] - Max Separation: 67.84 [mm] - Failure mode: Fasteners pull out / fracture Test Observations: - Ductile behavior of the panel was observed during the testing. - Separation of the stucco along the bottom plate was more significant (67.84 mm). - Maximum positive shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 43.40 mm. - Maximum negative shear force was reached in the sixth primary cycle with the input displacement amplitude of 43.40 mm. - Some of the Shearlocks experienced separation from the stucco during the testing. - The stucco cracked along the Shearlocks on the end studs. - At the end of the test (122 mm relative displacement between the top plate and the bottom plate) the stucco was securely in place with no hazard of falling off. - After the peak load, the shear resistance of the specimen gradually dropped and at the end of the test the specimen was able to resist 63% of the peak load in the positive direction and 50% of the peak load in the negative direction. 201 Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests Table B.14 - Test results of specimen SHC7. Cycle Type of Prescribed At Max. Load At Max. Displacement* Veilical Cycle Amplitude Load [kNJ Dispi. [mm] Load [kN] Displ. [mm] Separation[mm] 1 Primary 0.075A 8.09 4.52(4.65 mm) -6.44 -4.33 0.40 2 First Trailing 6.35 3.400.056 -4.42 -3.32 0.24 (3.47 mm) 6.30 3.53 7 Last Trailing -4.42 -3.40 0.24 8 Primary 0.1A 10.16 6.22(6.20 mm) -7.67 -5.88 0.37 9 First Trailing 7.43 4.580.075A -5.03 -4.29 0.51 14 Last Trailing (4.65 mm) 7.39 4.56 -5.08 -4.51 0.47 15 Primary 0.2t 15.76 12.03(12.40 mm) -11.57 -11.89 0.61 16 Trailing 10.96 9.12 -7.34 -9.06 0.71 17 Trailing 0.15A 10.68 9.16(9.30 mm) -7.34 -9.02 0.94 18 Trailing 10.63 9.18 -7.29 -9.13 0.71 19 Primary 0.3t 19.81 17.86(18.60 mm) -14.30 -18.09 1.48 20 Trailing 12.61 13.55 -8.47 -13.78 1.72 21 Trailing 0.225A 12.42 13.44(13.95 mm) -8.47 -13.68 1.75 22 Trailing 12.33 13.62 -8.51 -13.72 1.75 23 Primary 0.4A 22.11 23.86(24.80 mm) -16.23 -24.11 3.00 24 Trailing 13.22 18.120.3 -8.94 -17.98 3.24 252 Trailing (18.60 mm) 13.22 18.12 -8.94 -18.30 3.20 26 Primary 0.7A 41.98(43.40 mm) -42.40 7.58 27 Trailing 12.98 31.88 0.525k -9.36 -32.07 8.56 28 Trailing (32.55 mm) 12.42 31.44 12.33 31.97 -9.22 -32.08 8.76 29 Primary 1.0k 26.25 60.25(62 mm) -20.37 -60.93 17.83 30 Trailing 11.67 45.810.75 -8.56 -46.03 20.93 31 Trailing (46.50 mm) 11.15 46.00 -8.28 -45.98 21.50 32 Primary 1.5A 24.70 89.87 24.60 91.39(93 mm) -15.66 -85.14 39.19 33 Trailing 9.97 68.54 9.93 69.121.125A -6.49 -69.22 46.95 34 Trailing (69.75 mm) 9.83 69.02 -6.44 -69.18 46.51 35 Primary 2.0z 17.69 121.59 17.45 122.72(124 mm) -10.40 -121.23 61.37 36 Trailing 8.80 91.79 8.61 92.361.5z -4.70 -92.14 67.84 37 Trailing (93 mm) 8.28 92.23 -4.56 -91.74 67.23 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 202 Appendix B Phase II — Panel Tests 40 30 20 10 z • 0 0 -J -10 -20 -30- -40 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] Figure B.47 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC7. 203 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Deformation [mm] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B Phase II— Panel Tests • Nail Pullout © Nail Fracture Before Pullout Legend Nail Fracture After Pullout © Shearluck Pullout Figure B.48 - Failure mode of specimen SHC7. Figure B.49 - Pictures of failure of specimen SHC7. 204 APPENDIX C Recorded data, Photos & Video clips of Panel Tests 205 Appendix C Recorded data, Photos & Video clips of Panel Tests The experimental data of each panel test performed in this research study was collected by personal computer data acquisition system and dasylab data acquisition software at a frequency of 50 Hz. Each data file for regular panel tests with about 20 minutes duration consisted of over 60,000 records for various fields such as displacements of different LVDTs and string potentiometers. The recoded data was then processed using some macro programs in Microsoft Excel to plot a smooth load deformation curve. For each test this processed Excel file is recorded on the attached DVD for future reference. Also included in the DVD as extra material are all the pictures and video clips that have been recorded during the test. Figure C. 1 illustrates the location of each file by showing all the folders and subfolders of the attached DVD. 206 PL C1 PL C2 PL C3 t’ J PL C4 (D 0 PL C5 ST C1 S T M I SH C 1 SH C 2 SH C 3 S H C 4 SH C 5 SH C 6 SH C 7 SH M I PL C6 Ph ot os I PL C6 PL C6 V id eo s PL C6 xi s PL M I

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0063110/manifest

Comment

Related Items