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.

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 xiv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  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  CHAPTER 4  43  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 (V h) 0005  57  4.4.8 Performance factor (P)  57  4.5 DISCUSSION OF CYCLIC TEST RESULTS iv  60  CHAPTER 5  SUMMARY  5.1 ELEMENT TESTS  66  5.2 PANEL TESTS  67  APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C  —  —  —  Phase I  —  Element Tests  71  Phase II— Panel Tests  140  Recorded data, Photos, and Video clips of Panel Tests  205  V  LIST OF TABLES  Table 2.5.1 Table 2.7.1 Table 2.7.2 Table 2.7.3 Table 2.7.4  —  —  —  —  —  Table 2.7.5 Table 3.6.1  —  Table A. 1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A. 8 Table A.9  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Table A. 10  Table B. 1 Table B.2 Table B.3 Table B.4  —  —  —  —  Weep screed  27  77  Test results of specimen NDLT2  81  Test results of specimen NDLT3  85  Test results of specimen NDLT4  89  Test results of specimen NDLT5  93  Test results of specimen NDLT6  97  Test results of specimen NDLT7  101  Test results of specimen NDLT8  105  —  Table A.17  Pre-grooved wood member with and without cap.. 26  Test results of specimen NDLT 1  —  Table A. 16  25  73  —  Table A. 15  Pre-grooved wood member  Test results of specimen ODLT  —  Table A. 14  —  23  59  —  Table A.13  Summary of test results  —  Fasteners prevented from pulling out  Summary of cyclic test results  —  Table A.12  Summary of test results  —  22  52  —  Table A.1 1  Summary of test results  —  Inner sleeve geometry  Summary of monotonic test results  —  —  Summary of test results  —  43  —  Table 4.4.1  Summary of test results  Summary of test specimens  —  Table 4.3.1  Summary of element test specimens. 17  —  Test results of specimen NDLT9  109  Test results of specimen NDLT1O  113  Test results of specimen NDLT1 1  117  Test results of specimen NDLT12  121  Test results of specimen WS 1  125  Test results of specimen WS2  129  Test results of specimen WS3  133  Test results of specimen WS4  137  Test results of specimen PLC1  145  Test results of specimen PLC2  149  Test results of specimen PLC3  153  Test results of specimen PLC4  157 vi  Table B.5 Table B.6 Table B.7 Table B.8 Table B.9  —  —  —  —  —  Table B. 10  Test results of specimen PLC5  161  Test results of specimen PLC6  165  Test results of specimen STC1  172  Test results of specimen SHC1  178  Test results of specimen SHC2  182  Test results of specimen SHC3  186  Test results of specimen SHC4  190  Test results of specimen SHC5  194  Test results of specimen SHC6  198  Table B. 14— Test results of specimen SHC7  202  Table B.l 1 Table B.12 Table B.13  —  —  —  —  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1.1.1  Figure 1.2.1 Figure 1.2.2 Figure 1.2.3 Figure 2.1.1 Figure 2.1.2 Figure 2.1.3 Figure 2.3.1 Figure 2.3.2 Figure 2.5.1 Figure 2.6.1 Figure 2.7.1 Figure 2.7.2 Figure 2.7.3 Figure 2.7.4 Figure 2.7.5 Figure 3.2.1 Figure 3.2.2 Figure 3.2.3 Figure 3.2.4 Figure 3.2.5 Figure 3.3.1 Figure 3.4.1 Figure 3.4.2 Figure 3.5.1 Figure 3.5.2 Figure 3.5.3 Figure 3.5.4 Figure 4.2.1  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Picture of earthquake damage to stucco walls due to lack of embedment (http://www.nbmg.unr.edu)  2  Construction of a traditional stucco wall system  3  Details of Shearlock  4  Deformation of Shearlock under high shear demand  5  Element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002)  8  Shear element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002)  9  Testing apparatus  9  Element test setup (Mastschuch 2002)  11  Element test instrumentation  13  Inner sleeve geometry— different transitions  16  Typical test result  20  Envelope comparisons  21  Envelope Comparisons  23  Envelope comparisons  24  Envelope Comparisons  25  Envelope Comparisons  27  Mechanical setup  30  Bottom Channel, elevation view  31  Bottom Channel, plan view  31  Top Channel, elevation view  32  Tie rod connection to bottom channel  33  Instrumentation  34  Calculation of A and A  35  CUREe/Caltech Basic Loading Protocol (A  =  62mm)  37  Shipping of specimens  39  Plywood specimen  40  Stucco without Shearlock  41  Stucco with Shearlock  42  Pullout failure  45 viii  Figure 4.2.2 Figure 4.2.3 Figure 4.2.4 Figure 4.2.5 Figure 4.2.6  Pull through failure  —  —  —  —  .  Tearout failure  46  Stud connection failure  47  Staple failure  47  Crack width and distribution before test, STM  —  (cracks width ranged from 0.1mm to 0.75mm) Figure 4.2.7  Figure 4.2.8 Figure 4.2.9  —  —  Figure 4.2.11  Figure 4.3.1  —  Figure 4.4.3  —  Figure 4.5.1  —  Figure 4.5.2  —  Figure 4.5.3  —  Figure 4.5.4 Figure 4.5.5  Fastener fracture  49  Fastener pullout  50  —  —  Figure 4.4.2  48  —  —  Figure 4.4.1  remained unchanged and no additional cracks were formed)  —  Figure 4.2.12  —  —  Fastener popout  50  Shearlock pullout  51  Corner break out  51  Load-Deformation curve for monotonic tests  52  Normalized primary cycle envelopes  plywood specimens  55  stucco specimens  56  Normalized primary cycle envelopes  —  —  Typical panel test result  58  Load-Deformation curve, plywood cyclic test PLC1  60  Primary envelope curves  61  Load Load  —  —  —  plywood cyclic tests  Deformation curve, regular stucco cyclic test STC1 Deformation curve, stucco with shear connector cyclic test SHC1.  Primary envelope curves  —  stucco with Shearlock cyclic tests  Figure 4.5.6— Comparison of load-deformation envelopes of the three wall systems Figure A. 1  Figure A.2 Figure A.3  Figure A.4 Figure A.5 Figure A.6 Figure A.7  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  48  Crack width and distribution after test, STM (existing cracks width  —  Figure 4.2.10  46  62 ...  63 64 65  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen ODLT  74  Failure of the fasteners of specimen ODLT  75  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT1  78  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT1  79  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 1  79  Complete load-deformation and envelope curves of specimen NDLT2  82  Failure of the fasteners of specimen NDLT2  83  ix  Figure A.8  Figure A.9  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  —  —  Figure A. 10 Figure A. 11  Figure A. 12 Figure A. 13  specimen NDLT3  86  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT3  87  —  —  —  —  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT3  87  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT4  90  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT4  91  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT4  91  Figure A. 14— Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  Figure A. 15 Figure A. 16 Figure A.17  Figure A. 18 Figure A. 19 Figure A.20  Figure A.2 1 Figure A.22 Figure A.23  Figure A.24 Figure A.25 Figure A.26  Figure A.27 Figure A.28 Figure A.29  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  specimen NDLT5  94  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT5  95  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT5  95  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT6  98  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT6  99  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT6  99  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT7  102  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT7  103  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT7  103  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT8  106  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT8  107  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT8  107  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT9  110  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT9  111  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT9  111  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimenNDLTl0 Figure A.30 Figure A.31  —  —  114  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 10 Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT1O x  ...  ....  115 115  Figure A.32  —  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT1 1 Figure A.33 Figure A.34 Figure A.35  —  —  —  118  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 11 Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 11  ...  ....  —  Figure A.37 Figure A.38  —  Figure A.39  —  Figure A.40  —  —  Figure A.41  —  Figure A.42 Figure A.43  —  —  Figure A.44  —  119  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen NDLT12 Figure A.36  119  122  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT 12 Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT 12  ...  ....  123 123  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen WS1  126  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS 1  127  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS 1  127  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen WS2  130  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS2  131  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS2  131  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  135  Figure A.47  Figure A.48 Figure A.49 Figure B.1 Figure B.2 Figure B.3 Figure B.4  Figure B.5 Figure B.6  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS3 Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen WS4  138  Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS4  139  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS4  139  Backbone curve of specimen PLM  142  Failure mode of specimen PLM  142  Pictures of failure of specimen PLM  143  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen PLC1  146  Failure mode of specimen PLC1  147  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 Figure B.9  —  151  Pictures of failure of specimen PLC2  151  Figure B. 10— Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  Figure B.11 Figure B.12 Figure B.13  Figure B.l4 Figure B. 15 Figure B.16  Figure B.17 Figure B.18 Figure B.19  Figure B.20 Figure B .21 Figure B.22 Figure B.23 Figure B.24 Figure B.25  Figure B.26 Figure B.27 Figure B.28 Figure B.29  Figure B.30 Figure B.3 1  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  specimen PLC3  154  Failure mode of specimen PLC3  155  Pictures of failure of specimen PLC3  155  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen PLC4  158  Failure mode of specimen PLC4  159  Pictures of failure of specimen PLC4  159  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen PLC5  162  Failure mode of specimen PLC5  163  Pictures of failure of specimen PLC5  163  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen PLC6  166  Failure mode of specimen PLC6  167  Pictures of failure of specimen PLC6  167  Backbone curve of specimen STM  169  Failure mode of specimen STM  169  Pictures of failure of specimen STM  170  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen STC1  173  Pictures of failure of specimen STC1  174  Backbone curve of specimen SHM  176  Pictures of failure of specimen SHM  176  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC 1  179  Failure mode of specimen SHC1  180  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC 1  180  xii  Figure B.32  Figure B.33 Figure B.34 Figure B.35  Figure B.36 Figure B.37 Figure B.38  Figure B.39 Figure B.40 Figure B.41  Figure B.42 Figure B.43 Figure B.44  Figure B.45 Figure B.46 Figure B.47  Figure B.48 Figure B.49 Figure C. 1  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC2  183  Failure mode of specimen SHC2  184  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC2  184  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC3  187  Failure mode of specimen SHC3  188  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC3  188  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC4  191  Failure mode of specimen SHC4  192  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC4  192  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC5  195  Failure mode of specimen SHC5  196  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC5  196  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC6  199  Failure mode of specimen SHC6  200  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC6  200  Complete Load Deformation plot and Envelope curves of -  specimen SHC7  203  Failure mode of specimen SHC7  204  Pictures of failure of specimen SHC7  204  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.  Figure 1.2.1  —  Construction of a traditional stucco wall system.  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.  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 V 2 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).  Outer Head  Stucco  Shearlock Sleeve  Fastener 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. 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 L  -4  (a) Shear-lock  r Stucco  w.rd  v  Wood frame member (b) Figure 2.1.2 Shear element test specimen (Mastschuch 2002). -  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 0.07 5 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  -  Figure 2.5.1  Smooth Transition  —  Sharp Transition  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.  16  Table 2.5.1 Specimen Name ODLT NDLT1  —  Summary of element test specimens.  Characteristics  Specimen Name  Characteristics  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, sharp inner transition 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition  NDLT9  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members  NDLT1O  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out  NDLT1  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out  NDLT12  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members, fasteners prevented from pulling out  NDLT2  1 Shearlock at load cell, smooth inner transition  NDLT3  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition  NDLT4  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, fasteners prevented from pulling out  NDLT5  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, fasteners prevented from pulling out  ws  NDLT6  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members  WS2  NDLT7  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members  WS3  NDLT8  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, pre-grooved wood members  WS4  2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, 28 ga. galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, 28 ga. galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails and four roofing nails (1% in) 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, smooth inner transition, 28 ga. galvanized sheet connected with Shearlock nails and four roofing nails (1 3/4 in) 2 Shearlocks at 12 in. spacing, 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  L’J  C  _J  0  a.  0 Cl)  z  —  -  yPeak(÷) 8 q.  (-)  speak (.)  0  —  —  •  Deformation [mm]  0.8 Vpeak()  —  Apeak (+)  2nd Trailing Cycle Secant stiffness  Hysteresis loops Primary Cycle 1st Trailing Cycle  Au80% (+)  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  3 2  z . I—  o  .2  .  I I  2  I -1 I  I 4 I  I 4I  I I  I I  I I  4I I I  I 4-  i  i  I  I 4 I I I I  I  I 4  I 4  1.5  4 I  1 0.5  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 I I I  I I I I  I I 4 I  -  0  I  I  I  -0.5  o  -15  i 4  _J  -2.5  —SharpTransition  1  _J___._  —  1  I  I I  I I  Smooth Transition 1  I  I  I  I  Smooth Transition 2 ——  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  Specimen  Summary of test results  —  —  Inner sleeve geometry.  VPeak  A Peak  K  [kN]  [mm]  [kN/mm]  A,, [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 2.2  NDLTI  2.93  20.58  0.19  31.03  13.9  (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  --  -1.5  ._  I I —4—  I  I  -1  .  I  I  3.  -2  WithoutCapl  I  .  .  .r  L___  I  ‘  WithoutCap2  --  --  WithoutCap3  _../_  —--—WithCapl  -2.5  --  —3.5  -40  -50  -30  -20  -10  10  0  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 —  .  Specimen [kN]  —  Fasteners prevented from pulling out.  A Peak  K  u-8O’%  Ay  [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 4  1  I  I  i  I -4 I I I I  I 4 I I I I  I  I  I  4  4  4-  I  I  I  3  I I—  :  .5  z .  2  _  C) 0.  .1..  ,_-  I  .--------  1.5  I i i  0.5 I  ° CI)  I  -4.-.-—  •I__  I  S C.)  o  I —4  0  I 4I  •  /  I  I —  I I I I  I I  ••.  ‘I I  p  I I I I  I ._I I I  NotPre-grooved2  : i  -1 -  -1.5  ;-  I  I  I  NotPre-grooved3 1  .‘  -,--  ----.-  I I I I  NotPre-groovecll  -1_.  0.5  I I I I  -  I  —--—Pre-groovedl  I  -2  —--—Pre-grooved2 -  —  j:.—.—  -2.5  —  —  —  —  iI  —.  4  I  -4  4  I  I  I  I  I  -30  -20  -10  0  10  ‘-  —--—Pre-grooved3 —--—Pre-grooved4  -3.5 -50  -40  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%  [kN]  [mm]  [kN/mm]  [mm]  Specimen  PA [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 1.6  NDLT3  3.32  19.77  0.22  22.20  13.6  (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 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  I  I  -1 I  25  I I  —  z .  •I  I  I  •I I  1  4  ‘ i  1.5  I  I  .2  I  -a.---”—...  I I I,  I  0.5  I  S I  I  I  —-  Pre-groovedwithcapl -  -0.5 0 .  t  I  -1 I  -1.5 -2  5  Pre-groovedwithcap2  I  Pre-groovedwithcap3  -  I  gI  I  ----  I  —--—Pre-groovedwithoutcapi  ----.--“.  ----.-  -.  —..—Pregroovedwithoutcap2  4  —  -2.5  I  —  I  .  I  —--—Pre-groovedwithoutcap3  -  -  --  -50  -40  -30  i: -20 -10  0  —  Figure 2.7.4 Envelope Comparisons.  25  -  I  -  -  HI 10 20  Deformation [mm]  -  —Pre-groovedwithoutcap4 30  40  50  Table 2.7.4  —  Summary of test results  Specimen  —  Pre-grooved wood member with and without cap.  VPeak  A Peak  K  [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 2.6  NDLT8  2.74  18.34  0.20  31.57  12.3  (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 2.8  NDLTII  1.71  19.02  0.11  39.73  14.0  (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 —-4—4—4-  3  I  I  I  I  I  —-.1_I--—.  2 —--—Weep Screed,nailed2  H -30  -3.5 -40  -50  .  -20  0  -10  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%  [kN]  [mm]  [kN/mm]  [mm]  [mm]  Specimen  1 ,U  WSI  2.24  30.84  0.19  41.00  10.6  (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  -  -  -  3.9  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.  Test Frame  Guide Beams  -  -  II  —  -H: H  5/8 in. bolts  Shearwall Pane V  II  -II  JI  ‘‘V.  .  I  ‘.‘  -;  -.  .  UII..  .  V  1  Iii  .  I. .11 III. V.  VII I -  II.  ——  .  4  V  J  H’: •I I.  ‘ .  ‘  . .  .  -  --  14. II II:  . V.  £ Hold-down 5/8 in. bolt  II  VVV  -  .  . .  II  / [Er I [I  II  L. !NI  Bottom Channel Fixed to the test frame  Figure 3.2.1  —  Mechanical setup.  30  5/8 in. Anchor bolts  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.  j  31 44? 64”  2—2”  I  I  N. N 2’  6”  1—10”  2’—2”  N N  _._iO”  10”.....4....  N 1’—4”  I  ‘ 6” ...I....iO”  10”  13 64” 44??  ‘  N’ N.  6”  6”  3, ” Hole 4 I 3 F+f ,  PL. 1/2” 2”  8’  Figure 3.2.2 Bottom Channel, elevation view. -  PL. 6”x5”xl/2”  . Li_ 1  -..  LL  ,  H  H  0•  PL. 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 V 2 in. web plate and 3 V 2 31  in.  x  ‘/2  in.  flanges.  The  load  beam  was  guided  plane movement but allowed for uplift of the  1’-4”  P-4”  I  1.  .I 8”  1’—4’  at  both  sides  such  it  prevented  out  of  specimen.  1’—4”  1-4”  1-4”  1III, I  [  I 1’—4”  that  1’-.4”  1—4”  I  8”  ----  3/4” Hole  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. 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.  Figure 3.2.5 Tie rod connection to bottom channel. -  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: 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  LVDT 5  I  I  C  I  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 I  0 0  I  -j  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. 150 100  E E  50  C  a)  0  E 0  (a  -50 -100  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 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  Figure 3.5.1  —  Shipping of specimens.  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 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.  1-4”  1-4’  l’-4”  1-4”  1-4”  Two 2x4  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)  Figure 3.5.2  —  Plywood specimen.  3.5.2 Regular Stucco Shearwall 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 Y 2  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  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’  I  1—4’  1—4’  1-4’  1-4’  1—4”  1—4”  3/4 in. holes (5/8 in. bolts)  12” olc  PHD5 Simpson strong tie 5/8 in. Diameter bolt  in. holes (5/8 in. Anchor bolts)  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  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. 1 ‘-4”  1-4”  1-4”  1  I“  ‘a”  1 ‘a”  holes (5/8 in. bolts)  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)  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.  Specimen  Panel  End  name  Characteristics  Studs  PLM PLC1 PLC2 PLC3 PLC4 PLC5 PLC6 STM STC1 SHM SHC1 SHC2 SHC3 SHC4 SHC5 SHC6 SHC7  1 Other  2-2x4 1/2” plywood  -  -  Nailed at 4” o/c lOd nails -  A A-B-C A-B  1-4x4 Wire lath stapled at 12” o/c  2-2x4  -  2-2x4 Wire lath stapled at 6” 0/c and Shearlocks at 6” o/c around the perimeter  Other: A = Y” gap between plywood sheets; B  -  1-4x4  =  D E  TieDowns No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No  Stucco  Reference  Age  Displacement  Idays]  1mm]  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  167 225 174 179 27 49 49 84 21 28  67 67 67 67 67 90 -  44 -  67 62 62 62 62 62 62  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 connector spacing reduced to 4 in. along end studs.  43  =  Weep screed added over building paper; E = Shear  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  —  Figure 4.2.3  Pull through failure.  —  Tearout failure.  46  Figure 4.2.4  —  Stud connection failure.  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 4.2.5  —  Staple failure.  47  Figure 4.2.6  —  Crack width and distribution before test, STM (cracks width ranged from 0.1mm to 0.75mm).  Figure 4.2.7  -  Crack width and distribution after test, STM (existing cracks width remained unchanged and no additional cracks were formed).  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  —  Figure 4.2.10  Fastener pullout.  —  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 loaddisplacement 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 loaddisplacement 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  Am 6 A=O•  [kN]  [mm]  [mm]  [mm]  PLM  39.5  103  111  67  STM  11.6  37  77  46  SHM  50.8  47  135  81  .  Specimen  55  I  50 45  0  I I  I  I I  I I  I I  I  I I  I  I  I I  I  I  20  40  60  80  100  Deformation [mml  Figure 4.3.1  —  Load-Deformation curve for monotonic tests.  52  120  140  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 (A peak) 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  ) 3, 4.4.3 Effective Stiffness (K  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 (A ,) 3 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 displacement A.  1.0  1.0 0.8  0.8 0.6  t -j  0.4  0.4 0.2 0.0  t -I  -0.2 -0.4  I  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  -0.2 -0.4  I  I  I I I I I I4b I I I  —  _L  I  I  I  I  I  I I I I I I I I I I I .IJ..LJ._..LL.  :*:::f::F: z::[E4iz  -1.2  1.0  I  I  I I I I I I I I I ..I_.Ji__L__I_  -0.8 -1.2  -1  0 0.2 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  1.0  1hIihuI1iIIIra\  0.6 0.6 0.4  I -1.2  -1  -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 02 Deformation  1.0 0.6 0.6  -J  _I__J__j__L__I__J  0.2 0.0  -0.6  -0.6 -0.8  0  I I I I I I t I I I I I ——I————+—fr——I———— I I I I I  0.6  —;  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  0.8 0.6 0.4 a 0.0 02 -0.4  1.2  -1.2  1.0  0  -0.6  I  I  I  I  I  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  I  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  —  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Nm  !  -0.8 0.4  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  ——I——-—+————I—————H—H  OA 02 0.0 -0.2 -0.4  1---1I -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  I  0.6  0.0 -0.2 -0.4  -1  -1  0.8  0.4 02  -1.2  __I__J__i__L__I__J_L I I I I I I I I I ——I————t——b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _IJ_1_LJ LLl_.._L.  0.2 0  -1.2  I._J......i..._L__I  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  Figure 4.4.1 Normalized primary cycle envelopes -  55  _J__L_L...J.._.li._L.....  tt-rt, -1  I I-—— I  0.4  0.6  — plywood specimens.  0.8  1  1.2  1.0  I  0.8 ——I——H————H——I———  0.6  0.4 0.2 0  0 -J  -s  —1.0 -1.2  1.0 0.8 0.6  0.2 0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 Deformation  -1  —  0.4  r  r  I —I— I  I —  I —  + I  0.6  0.8  I  i  —  I  0.4  —  —  —  I —I—  —  I  —  I  —  I  I —I— I  S  -0.4 -0.6  _I.J__J._.L__I_  ,E .E+ZjbZ  1  -1.2  1.2  —  —  I  I I —4—— I I  —  -1.2  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  .zzz:  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  —  0.4 0.2  ‘scJ1z>zF1—sH3lz  -SHC2  -0.8 -1.0  -1  __L__L__I_..___.  I  I  I1LIJ LLJ1L I I I I I I I I-— II I I I I I I I I I I I I I IL____I_ JL_L_J__J__L__  0.2 a 0.0 -0.2  0  0.0 -0.2 -0.4  L_  STC1  -0.8  ------  __I__1__i__L__I__J[/_L__L__I____L__ I I I I I I I I  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  -1.2  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  1.0  1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4  :  0.2  0:6  -1.2  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  -1.2  1.0 0.8  1.0  0.6 0.4  0.4  0.2  02  I  __l__1__1__L__I__II__L I I I I Itfr  0.0 -0.2 -0.4  -1.2  -1  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0 Deformation  Figure 4.4.2  —  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  12  I  -1.2  __I__1__J.__L__I_  -1  56  —  I  I  f  I  0.8  1  :  ..ii  -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 Deformation  Normalized primary cycle envelopes  .-_L....l  0.4  0.6  stucco specimens.  1.2  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  h) 0005 (V  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  00  Ll  cM  0  -c U)  I  -J  -40 -125  -30  -20  -10  00  z  10  20  30  40  -100  -75  -50  -25  Deformation [mm]  0  25  50  75  100  125  Table 4.4.1  PLC2  PLC3  PLC4  A Peak  K  [kN]  [mm]  [kN/mm]  PLC6  STCI  SHCI  SHC2  SHC3  SHC4  SHC5  SHC6  SHC7  VO.Oo5h  [mm]  [mm]  [kN]  (%)  45  73  1.2  76  34  2.3  18  45  -40  -78  1.1  -86  -32  2.7  -15  40  40  69  1.5  74  25  3.0  19  53  -41  -86  1.4  -93  -26  3.6  -19  55  61  88  1.2  100  46  2.2  21  58  -52  -89  1.1  -102  -41  2.5  -18  48  46  80  1.5  90  27  3.4  20  67  -90  1.3  -97  -30  3.2  -18  53  -44 PLC5  Summary of cyclic test results.  VPeak  Specimen  PLCI  —  53  83  1.4  108  34  3.2  21  74  -50  -93  1.2  -127  -37  3.4  -18  64  53  109  1.3  110  37  3.0  19  68  -46  -75  1.2  -110  -36  3.1  -17  53  11  31  2.0  46  5  9.5  9  45  -8  -17  2.1  -42  -4  11.5  -8  36  52  90  1.8  111  25  4.4  24  100  -40  -62  2.1  -116  -17  6.7  -22  100  33  91  1.2  110  24  4.6  16  65  -25  -61  1.2  -108  -20  5.4  -14  52  33  90  1.3  108  23  4.7  16  68  -29  -61  1.3  -98  -20  4.9  -16  54  34  90  1.6  116  19  6.0  18  90  -26  -61  1.1  -106  -21  5.1  -14  50  39  88  1.1  117  32  3.6  15  62  -31  -92  0.8  -119  -36  3.3  -11  39  30  90  1.1  122  26  4.7  14  63  -26  -62  1.1  -116  -22  5.4  -13  52  28  42  1.4  101  18  5.5  16  68  -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 50 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  30  I  I I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I  j  -  20 I  t  0  •--  -i---  I  -  -  --  _I  I  -125  -100  -75  JtzhtzJ: -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 ductility p 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  60  I I  50  I I  40  I  I  t I I  I I I 4 I I  I  I  I  I I I I 4-  I I 1I  I I  I  V I  I I  I  I I  —  ‘.t  I •  I  I  I  I  I 4  I  ••.  tV%  I  I  .1.  30 I  20 •  10  I  I  I  I  I.•.  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I I  I  I  •--a-—PLC1  ‘a •—4l  4  -  4-———--  ‘.  •  II  I I  I  -20  -  -  PLC2  I  —--—-‘PLC3  ---  ————PLC  -  I  -125  I  -‘  -----  -30  :  U __I  0 10  I”•••._’  4-  I  I  I  PLC5 —  -  -100  -75  -50  -25  25  0  Deformation  50  75  100  125  —______________  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  30  I I  I I I I I —-4—4— I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I ——————1-— -4—4—4-— 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  50 40  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  I  I  I I  —  —  —  -  L  20 —  -  I-  0  -  I  I  --  -  I -  -  -  --  -  -  I  I  _j  I  -10  I  I  I I I  I  I  I I  I  I  —  I I  -30  —  I  I I  -20  -I I I  I I  -40 -50 -125  -  I  10 •0  -  --  --  I  I  p  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  -100  -75  -50  I  I  0  25  I  I  75  100  i  -25  50  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  Deformation  Figure 4.5.5  —  Primary envelope curves stucco with Shearlock cyclic tests. —  64  125!  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  40  I  I I  I  I  4 I  I I 4I  -  -  I I  I  I  I  : izztz::zi:z z  10  • (U o  0  I I 4 I  -  I  .I —10  I I I  I I  -20  I I II I  1  I  I  -40 -50 --H-HI -125 -100 -75 -50  -  I I-  4  I I I  --4  -  I I I I  I I  I  I  I  I I  I  I  I I  —Shearlock —4-—Plywood  I  -30  I  I  I  -  I I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  —4-—StuccowithoutShearlock  I-25  0  25  50  75  100  Deformation [mm]  -  Figure 4.5.6 Comparison of load-deformation envelopes of the three wall systems. -  65  125  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, “AS CE 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 SpecUications for 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  Specimen: ODLT  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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 Table A.1  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075i (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  Cycle  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056k. (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2t (5.08 mm) 0.15k (3.81 mm) 0.3k (7.62 mm) 0.225z (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm)  —  lOu (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm) 1.5 (38.1 mm) 1.125u (28.58 mm) 2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5k (38.10 mm)  Element Tests  Test results of specimen ODLT. At Max. Load Load [kNI 0.64 -0.76 0.47 -0.54 0.46 -0.54 0.45 -0.54 0.45 -0.54 0.74 -0.82 0.51 -0.57 0.50 -0.58 0.49 -0.57 0.50 -0.57 1.22 -0.95 0.60 -0.63 0.60 -0.64 1.62 -1.06 0.58 -0.54 0.58 -0.56 2.02 -1.19 0.51 -0.49 0.54 -0.49  DispI. [mm] 1.09 -1.31 0.82 -0.94 0.75 -1.00 0.82 -1.00 0.82 -0.94 1.63 -1.81 1.16 -1.31 1.16 -1.38 1.22 -1.25 1.22 -1.13 3.67 -3.63 2.72 -2.75 2.79 -2.88 5.64 -5.63 4.42 -4.69 4.14 -4.44 7.54 -7.75 5.91 -5.94 5.84 -6.19 13.45 -14.13 10.87 -11.00 10.60 -11.25 15.35 -11.94 14.60 -12.69 15.01 -0.81 16.03 -4.81 16.91 -23.75 1.77 -1.38 17.39 -5.56 2.04 -4.50 2.51 -6.50  0.7 (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm)  —  0.32 -0.34 0.31 -0.34 1.38 -0.18 0.15 -0.19 0.14 -0.19 0.12 -0.16 0.13 -0.15 0.13 -0.15 0.09 -0.17 0.12 -0.15 0.11 -0.15  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.15 0.45 -0.53 0.44  0.88 -1.00 0.88  0.41  0.88  0.42  0.88  -0.81  -1.88  -0.56  -1.38  0.20 0.14 0.14 0.14  0.15 0.14  -0.57  -1.31  -0.57  -1.38  -0.63  -2.94  0.14 0.12  0.55 0.45  -1.05  -5.81  0.57 -0.56 1.95  4.28 -4.50 7.61  -0.48  -6.13  1.08 1.03  1.51 1.60  4.64 2.80 0.05 -0.12 0.15 -0.12 0.13 -0.13 0.06 -0.13 0.03 -0.15 0.03 -0.13 0.05 -0.14 0.02 -0.11 0.01 -0.10  20.58 -21.44 14.74 -15.94 15.21 -16.19 31.45 -29.81 23.37 -23.81 23.50 -24.19 42.18 -31.94 31.04 -29.88 31.45 -29.81  Values are given only when the Maximum ioad does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  73  Vertical Separation [mm]  6.42 6.14 7.85 7.69 7.91 7.68 10.22 9.21  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 3  —-———  -  ——----  -—----——————  ———-———--———  ———-—  ——---—  2.5 2 15  1  1:1  1  I  -i  L I  I  I  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  Figure A.2 Failure of the fasteners of specimen ODLT. -  75  —  Element Tests  Phase I  Appendix A  —  Element Tests  Test Date: May 18, 2004  Specimen: NDLT1  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  2.85 [mm]  Max Separation:  No fracture of the fasteners  Failure mode:  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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075k (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  Cycle  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  0.056t (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.075S (1.91 mm)  0.2. (5.08 mm) 0.15 (3.81 mm) 0.3E (7.62 mm) 0.225k. (5.72 mm) 0.4th (10.16 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.7t (17.78 mm) 0.525\ (13.34 mm)  At Max. Load Displ. [mm]  Load [kNJ  Displ. [mm]  0.46 -0.44 0.27 -0.26 0.27 -v.27 0.27 -0.26  1.16 -1.44 0.82 -1.13 0.82 -1.06 0.88 -1.13 0.75 -1.13  0.46  1.22  0.27  0.88  0.26 -0.26  0.95 -1.13  0.28 -0.26 0.50 -0.52 0.37 -0.31 0.35 -0.31 0.34 -0.31 0.33 -0.32 0.79 -0.69 0.53 -0.51 0.51 -0.51 1.12 -0.87 0.58 -0.56 0.57 -0.54 1.59 -1.04 0.66 -0.58 0.60 -0.57 2.76 -1.75 0.62 -0.66 0.52 -  1.63 -1.94 1.16 -1.50 1.09 -1.44 1.22 -1.50 1.16 -1.44 3.74 -3.88 2.79 -2.94 2.72 -3.06 6.11 -5.88 4.35 -4.56 4.35 -4.56 8.29 -8.06 6.18 -6.13 6.11 -6.06 14.60 -14.13 11.14 -10.13 11.07 -10.38 20.58 -20.56 15.96 -13.50 16.10 -13.50 25.47 -31.19 20.44 -15.31 18.81 -16.94  --  (25.4 mm) 0.75z (19.05 mm) 1.5k (38.1 mm) 1.1251 (28.58 mm) 2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5 (38.10 mm)  At Max. Displacement*  Load [kN]  0.64 -0.58 0.52 -0.51 2.68 -1.85 0.75 -0.87 0.64 -0.77 1.93 -1.29 0.73 -0.84 0.62 -0.70  38.04 -42.38 32.33 -28.31 28.53 -29.25  0.13 0.13  0.12 0.10  0.27 -0.24 0.50  0.88 -1.19 1.70  0.32 -0.31  1.29 -1.50  0.09 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.09  0.32 -0.31 0.78 -0.67  1.22 -1.50 3.80 -3.94  -0.50  -3.00  0.08 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.18 0.09  1.59  8.22 0.17 0.09  -0.61  -10.69  -0.58 2.93 -1.90  -10.81 21.12 -20.38  -0.52  -15.56  -0.48 2.29  -15.63 32.19  0.65 -0.51 0.53 -0.65 1.70 -1.25  24.11 -23.38 24.18 -23.38 43.40 -42.25  -0.55 -31.81 0.54 32.33 31 Trailing -0.56 -31.88 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  77  Vertical Separation [mm]  0.52 0.36  0.21 0.23 2.85 2.21 0.91 2.23 2.67 2.58  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  Specimen: NDLT2  —  Element Tests  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: Drift at the peak shear:  Max. Drift:  +2.95 [kN]  I  -2.69 [kN]  +30.36 [mm]  I  -31.56 [mm]  +42 [mm]  I  <-38 [mm]  >  2.39 [mm]  Max Separation:  No fracture of the fastener  Failure mode:  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. -  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Values are given only  0.056A (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.225A (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3s (7.62 mm) 0.7A (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm) 1.OA (25.4 mm) 0.75i (19.05 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. [mmj  Load [kNJ  0.60 -0.64 0.46 -0.48 0.44 -0.47 0.45 -0.48  1.22 -1.56 0.95 -1.25 1.02 -1.25 0.95 -1.31  0.58  1.36  0.44 -0.47 0.40 -0.46 0.35  1.02 -1.19 1.09 -1.31 1.09  0.44 -0.46 0.60 -0.65 0.51 -0.52 0.48 -0.53 0.49 -0.53 0.49 -0.52 0.86 -0.81 0.62 -0.64 0.63 -0.62 1.21 -1.02 0.71 -0.68 0.68 -0.67 1.51 -1.21 0.64 -0.71 0.60 -0.71 2.55 -2.23 0.70 -0.65 0.59 -0.63 2.81 -2.65 0.64 -0.79 0.59 -  1.02 -1.31 1.83 -2.13 1.36 -1.69 1.43 -1.69 1.36 -1.69 1.49 -1.81 3.80 -4.00 2.78 -3.13 2.99 -3.19 6.05 -6.13 4.48 -4.69 4.55 -4.69 8.08 -8.06 6.25 -6.25 6.05 -6.25 14.60 -14.38 11.14 -7.69 11.07 -9.50 20.78 -21.13 15.83 -11.88 16.10 -11.56  1.5 (38.1 mm) 1.125 (28.58 mm)  At Max. Displacement*  -1.01 0.69 -0.73 2.OA 2.92 (50.08 mm) -2.32 0.78 1.5 -0.83 (38.10 mm) 0.67 -0.76 when the Maximum load does  Displ. [mm]  0.24 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.20  0.20 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.85 -0.81 0.60  3.87 -4.13 3.12  0.25 0.23  0.70  4.62  0.25 0.26  0.23 0.60  6.18  -0.61 0.58 -0.57  -11.06 11.27 -11.06  -0.62  -15.88  -0.58 2.94  -15.94  30.36 31.92 -31.56 23.77 -20.94 -0.68 -23.88 14.60 0.55 24.18 -14.63 -0.58 -24.06 39.12 2.70 42.86 -38.13 32.19 -27.31 -0.49 -32.19 30.43 0.57 32.74 -22.63 -0.53 -32.31 not occur at the Maximum displacement.  81  Vertical Separation [mm]  0.24  0.25 0.22  0.20 0.20 1.34 0.19 0.20 2.26 2.30 2.39  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  3  -4 I  25  I I  2 1.5 • o  z  0.5  W  0  _  o -  I  I I  .  -0.5  I  4 I  I I  I I  I  .1. I I I I  I  I I-  -  I -  I I I I  I I  .  -  I  1  o  Cl)  -  4. I I I I 4-  I  I  I  I  I I I  e————  I I I  I  .  -  I  .  I 1-  I I  -  I  —  I  I  I I  I  I I  I  I  I I  —_-.—.  — - - - l_  _1  .  I  —  .I  I  I 4..  4. I  I  -1.5  I  .4 I  4.  PrimaryCycle  I  -2  L  4  .  ———lsttrailingCycle  Deformation [mm]  Figure A.6 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT2. -  -  82  Appendix A  Phase I  Figure A.7 Failure of the fasteners of specimen NDLT2. -  83  —  Element Tests  Appendix A  Phase I  Specimen: NDLT3  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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  Phase I  —  Element Tests  Table A.4 Test results of specimen NDLT3. -  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  0.056S (1.43 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Dispi. [mm]  0.53 -0.64 0.42 -0.51 0.42 -0.50 0.41 -0.51  1.02 -1.38 0.61 -1.00 0.68 -1.06 0.68 -1.06 0.75 -1.06 1.49 -1.88 1.16 -1.38 1.09 -1.44 1.09 -1.38 1.16 -1.44 3.60 -3.75 2.79 -2.94 2.72 -2.88 5.77 -5.75 4.42 -4.38 4.35 -4.38 7.95 -7.81 6.05 -6.06 5.84 -6.00 14.26 -14.13 10.66 -11.00 10.73  0.40 -0.51 0.1 (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2E (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225z (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3k (7.62 mm) 0.7A (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm)  0.58 -0.68 0.44 -0.52 0.43 -0.52 0.43 -0.52 0.42 -0.52 1.07 -0.94 0.54 -0.64 0.55 -0.68 1.52 -1.31 0.58 -0.78 0.69 -0.74 1.79 -1.57 0.65 -0.67 0.68 -0.67 3.05 -2.69 0.81 -0.63 0.66 -n --  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  1.OA (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm)  -0.55 0.55 -0.51  1.5A (38.1 mm)  2.32 -1.59 0.40 -0.52 0.39 -0.47 1.49 -1.35 0.45 -0.53 0.42 -0.47  1.125 (28.58 mm) 2.0E (50.08 mm) 1.5z (38.10 mm)  Values are given only when the Maximum load does  At Max. Displacemenr Load [kN]  Dispi. [mm]  0.16  -0.48  -1.06  0.19 0.20  0.39  0.95  0.21 0.17  0.50  1.63  0.17  0.44 -0.51  1.09 -1.50  0.19 0.21  0.42  1.16  0.17 0.15 0.25 0.23  0.55  2.65  0.27 0.62 0.53 0.24 0.80 0.71  0.68 -0.67  5.98 -6.13  -.oo 19.77 20.44 3.27 -20.31 15.49 -0.45 -11.81 -15.81 15.62 -11.81 -15.75 -0.45 23.43 1.65 31.92 -31.31 23.91 -15.25 -0.32 -23.38 24.04 -15.31 -0.33 -23.38 1.48 41.84 42.86 -42.06 29.82 0.42 32.26 -26.25 -0.23 -31.69 29.89 0.38 32.33 -27.19 -0.25 -31.31 not occur at the Maximum displacement.  85  Vertical Separation [mm]  0.24 1.20 1.38  0.30 1.91 0.45 0.43 3.83 2.26 2.24  3.46  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I  I  3  J  I  I  I  I  4. I  I  I  I  I  ________________________________  Deformation [mm]  3.5 I  3  -  I  25  I  I 4. I I  I I  I .4. I  I  I -1 I I  II  I ————-4 I  I I  2  PrimaryCycle  -1.5 -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  Specimen: NDLT4  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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 Table A.5  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Values are given only  0.056 (1.43 mm)  0.1 (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2tX (5.08 mm) 0.15z (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225E (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3i (7.62 mm) 0Th (17.78 mm) 0.525z (13.34 mm)  —  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT4. At Max. Load  Load LkN]  Displ. Cmml  0.53 -0.57 0.40 -0.45 0.39 -0.44 0.38 -0.45  1.29 -1.51 1.02 -1.18 0.88 -1.18 0.95 -1.12  0.38 -0.44 0.59 -0.60 0.42 -0.47 0.42 -0.46 0.41 -0.46 0.41 -0.46 1.07 -0.69 0.50 -0.49 0.48 -0.50 1.57 -0.76 0.47 -0.48 0.45 -0.48 1.99 -0.89 0.43 -0.44 0.41 -0.45 2.70 -1.94 0.37 -0.36 0.33 -0.35  1.0 (25.4 mm) 0.75k (19.05 mm)  —  -0.29 0.24 -0.29 1.5A 2.94 (38.1 mm) -2.39 0.15 1.125k -0.21 (28.58 mm) 0.14 -0.18 2.0 1.32 (50.08 mm) -1.04 0.07 1.5 -0.14 (38.10 mm) 0.07 -0.16 when the Maximum load does  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNI  Dispi. [mmj  0.39  0.95  0.38  1.02  0.37  1.02  0.16  0.95 -1.12 1.77 -2.10 1.22 0.42 1.29 -0.46 -1.58 -1.51 1.29 -1.58 1.36 -0.45 -1.58 -1.51 0.41 1.29 1.22 -0.44 -1.64 -1.25 1.05 3.67 3.60 -3.87 -0.68 -3.94 2.85 -3.08 2.85 -3.15 5.71 -6.23 -0.75 -6.43 4.35 -4.59 -4.73 -0.48 4.35 -4.66 -0.47 -4.73 7.61 -8.60 5.98 -6.37 6.05 -6.37 13.58 -15.16 10.80 -10.89 -0.35 1l 10.73 -11.55 19.56 -21.79 15.28 -16.34 15.15 0.23 15.21 -16.14 -0.25 -16.34 26.01 2.89 30.36 -32.09 22.89 -24.87 22.82 -24.61 36.00 1.15 41.43 -36.62 27.78 -32.48 -0.13 3347 28.73 -33.21 not occur at the Maximum displacement.  89  Vertical Separation CmmI  0.21 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.50 0.56 0.59 1.12 1.21 1.20 1.98 2.23 2.25 5.55 5.82 5.86 9.88 10.18 10.30 16.81 16.86 16.88 16.83 3.01 3.26  Appendix A  Phase I  3.5  —  Element Tests  I  I  Deformation [mml  3.5 I  3  -  25  I  2  I 4I I I I  I  I -I. I I I I  I I I  0.5  o  0  U) L.  o  •  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  I  I  I  -  — _J.____.  I  0.5  —  aI  —  I  I— I  -1  I  I  I  .  L. I  -  I  I  .  -  PrimaryCycle  -1.5 I -i  -2  I  I .  I  ———lstTraIIIngCycle  Deformation [mm]  -  Figure A.1 1  I  -  I I I I  -  1  zo  I L  -  Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT4. -  90  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  Figure A.12 Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen NDLT4. -  Figure A.13 Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen NDLT4. -  91  Appendix A  Phase I  Specimen: NDLT5  —  Element Tests  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: Drift at the peak shear:  +3.03 [kN]  I  -2.45 [kN]  +27.03 [mm]  /  -31.06 [mm]  +39 [mm]  /  <-35 [mm]  Max. Drift:  >  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 Table A.6  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075t (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Values are given only  —  0.1 (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2t (5.08 mm) 0.15t (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225A (5.72 mm) t 4 0.  (10.16 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.7 (17.78 mm) 0.525L (13.34 mm) 1.0E (25.4 mm) 0.75 (19.05 mm)  -  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT5. At Max. Displacement*  At Max. Load  0.056t (1.43 mm)  —  Load [kNj  Dispi. [mm]  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.47 -0.64 0.37 -0.45 0.36 -0.44 0.37 -0.44 0.36 -0.44 0.52 -0.58 0.39 -0.46 0.38 -0.46 0.38 -0.46 0.38 -0.46 0.93 -0.74 0.44 -0.48 0.43 -0.48 1.42 -0.91 0.46 -0.49 0.43 -0.48 1.87 -1.10 0.45 -0.47 0.42 -0.47 2.77 -1.99 0.40 -0.43 0.37 -0.41  1.02 -1.19 0.75 -0.88 0.68 -0.88 0.68 -0.88 0.68 -1.00  0.47 -0.54 0.36  1.09 -1.25 0.82  0.35 -0.44 0.36 -0.44 0.34  0.75 -1.00 0.75 -1.00 0.75  2.91 -2.38 0.33 -0.37 0.30 -C ‘  1.5th (38.1 mm) 0., 1.125 -0.31 (28.58 mm) 0.22 -0.29 2.63 2.0 (50.08 mm) -1.94 0.17 1.5t\ -0.20 (38.10 mm) 0.16 -0.23 when the Maximum load does  0.52 1.49 1.56 -1.81 1.09 -1.31 1.02 1.16 0.37 -1.06 -1.25 -0.45 1.16 1.22 0.38 -1.25 1.09 -1.31 3.46 3.53 0.92 -3.81 -0.73 -3.94 2.72 -0.45 -2.63 -2.81 2.72 -0.48 -2.88 -2.75 5.57 -5.69 4.28 -4.38 4.35 -4.38 7.40 -7.81 5.84 -6.00 5.77 -6.06 13.38 -14.00 10.19 -11.06 10.32 -10.81 -0.40 -10.88 19.22 -20.75 14.74 -15.63 14.60 -15.75 27.03 2.99 29.41 -31.06 22.35 -23.75 21.94 -23.69 34.98 2.45 39.39 -35.06 -1.59 -35.25 30.43 -31.44 29.95 -31.06 not occur at the Maximum displacement. .  r  93  Vertical Separation [mm] 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.66 0.43 0.46 1.50 1.10 1.19 2.42  1.96 2.15 5.89 6.02 6.27  10.24 10.72 10.88  15.37 15.24 15.62 20.02 20.02 20.00  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5  1  Deformation [mm]  3.5 I -1  2 5 I  1.5 0.5  •  0  I  I  I  I  i  i +-  I  -  0 o  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__—_—.-1  I  I  I  I  I L  L  o U)  I  I I I I  -  I  o  I  I I I I  .  I  2 .  I 1-  I I  -0.5 -1  I I +  I  I I  I  I  I L I  I  I  -1.5  I  ,— I  I  I  I  I  I  -2  I  I I I-  I  I 1  -  —  ._.__  Primarycycle ———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  Specimen: NDLT6  —  Element Tests  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 18 mm, depth  25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 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  Phase I Table A.7  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.liX (2.54 mm)  0.075 (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3t\ (7.62 mm) 0.225A (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3k (7.62 mm) 0Th (17.78 mm) 0.525 (13.34 mm)  T  1.5 (38.1 mm)  (28.58 mm) 2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5k (38.10 mm)  1  At Max. Displacement*  Load [kNI  DispI. [mm]  Load [kNI  Dispi. [mml  0.28 -0.24 0.22 -0.20 0.21 -0.20 0.21 -0.20 0.22  1.49 -1.63 1.22 -1.19 1.29 -1.19 1.22 -1.19 1.22 -1.25  0.28  1.56  -0.20 0.30 -0.28 0.23 -0.22 0.23 -0.23 0.22 -0.22 0.22 -0.23 0.46 -0.35 0.31 -0.29 0.29 -0.30 0.85 -0.42 0.36 -0.32 0.35 -0.32 1.41 -0.50 0.43 -0.34 0.44 -0.34 2.69 -1.18 0.72 -0.56 0.60 -0.55 2.92  1.97 -2.00 1.49 -1.56 1.49 -1.63 1.56 -1.50 1.63 -1.63 4.01 -3.94 2.92 -3.00 3.12 -2.81 5.71 -5.94 4.28 -4.56 4.35 -4.63 7.68 -7.88 5.84 -6.31 5.84 -6.13 13.65 -14.13 10.19 -10.63 10.32 -10.56 19.76 -19.75 14.87 -15.63 15.01 -15.81  069 -0.61  0.75 (19.05 mm)  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT6. At Max. Load  0.056 (1.43 mm)  1.0k (25.4 mm)  —  —  -0.56  29.00  Vertical Separation [mmj 0.22 0.21  -0.20  -1.25  0.21 0.25  0.21  1.29  0.30 -0.27 0.23  2.11 -2.13 1.56  0.22 -0.22 0.22 -0.22 0.22 -0.21  1.56 -1.69 1.63 -1.69 1.56 -1.69  -0.35  -4.13  0.24 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.29 0.29  0.47  -0.29  -2.94  0.46  0.61 0.62  -0.49 0.42  -8.19 5.71  0.85 0.70  -0.55  -10.69  1.12 0.81  2.59 0.75 2.98  30.56  -0.39 0.46 -0.43 2.51  -24.25 22.75 -24.25 41.36  0.68 -0.40 0.53 -0.44  30.84 -31.63 30.77 -31.63  220 -0.70 0.53 -0.60 2.73 -1.80 0.72 -0.87 0.81 -0.75  I r  22.55 -17.31 13.86 -21.56 38.85 -35.69 28.39 -23.44 24.45 -22.38  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  97  3.13 1.45 15.17 10.86 5.05  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I  3 25  I I  2 1.5  ..  0)  _I  I  I t___  I  I I I  I ,-  -  I  .  I I  I I  I I  -H  .  -  -  -0.5  —  I  I  I  I  I  I  I -—  -  I  I -  I  -  I  --  I  I  I  I  -1  •  I 4.-  -.  0.5  -C  o  I I I  I I  -  0 U)  I .4.  -  1 •  i 4-  -  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I  I  4..  -I  ——  4-  _.4  I I  I I  I —I I  I I— I  I  -L  L  I I  -  -2  -  I  -2.5  I  -3  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  -20  -10  -3.5 -50  -40  -30  0  10  20  30  40  50  Deformation [mmJ  3.5 3  -I I  I  I  4. I  I  I  I  I I-—— I  -  I  I  I  2.5  I  2  r  -1.5  -2  —— -  .  ..  PrimaryCycle —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  Specimen: NDLT7  —  Element Tests  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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075th (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  Cycle  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  • Values are given only  At Max. Load Load [kNJ 0.19 -0.30 0.17 -0.24 0.16 -0.24 0.17 -0.24  0.056k (1.43 mm)  0.16 -0.23 0.21 -0.31 0.20 -0.26 0.19 -0.26 0.18 -0.26 0.18 -0.26 0.24 -0.42 0.24 -0.33 0.23 -0.33 0.31 -0.57 0.26 -0.42 0.25 -0.41 0.37 -0.72 0.26 -0.49 0.27 -0.47 1.50 -2.12 0.28 -0.80 0.42 -0.65  0.1t (2.54 mm)  0.075i (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225k (5.72 mm) 0.4z (10.16 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0Th (17.78 mm) 0.525 (13.34 mm)  (25.4 mm)  .  0.67 -0.44 0.46 -0.42 1.5A 2.07 (38.1 mm) -1.91 0.73 1.125k -0.70 (28.58 mm) 0.54 -0.61 2.0 1.67 (50.08 mm) -1.50 0.70 1.5/i -0.74 (38.10 mm) 0.60 -0.60 when the Maximum load does 0.75z (19.05 mm)  Displ. [mm]  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  1.36 0.19 1.56 -1.50 -0.29 -1.75 0.95 1.09 0.16 -1.25 1.15 -1.19 -0.24 -1.25 1.15 -1.19 -0.23 -1.25 1.09 -1.25 -0.23 -1.31 2:04 -2.13 1.36 0.19 1.56 -1.44 -0.26 -1.69 1.49 -1.69 1.36 0.18 1.49 -1.44 -0.26 -1.69 1.29 0.17 1.56 -1.56 -0.26 -1.63 3.87 4.01 0.23 -4.06 -0.42 -4.19 2.65 0.23 3.06 -3.13 2.72 0.22 3.12 -3.25 5.98 0.30 6.04 -6.38 3.33 0.25 4.55 -4.63 -0.41 -4.88 3.94 0.24 4.55 -4.69 7.95 -8.06 6.18 0.26 6.25 -5.88 6.11 -5.81 -0.46 -5.94 13.45 -14.13 10.80 -10.81 10.39 -10.81 19.76 -19.38 -2.22 -20.50 13.18 0.62 14.87 -10.50 -0.34 -16.06 15.15 -10.44 -0.34 -16.00 29.27 2.03 30.56 -30.06 -1.88 -30.44 20.78 0.71 22.62 -14.06 -0.26 -23.94 14.40 0.51 22.69 -15.38 -0.35 -24.06 40.62 -32.63 -1.47 -32.69 30.36 -25.81 -0.22 -30.69 23.77 0.49 30.63 -20.06 -0.24 -30.69 not uccur at the Maximum displacement.  101  Vertical Separation [mm] 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.24  0.33 0.18 0.52 0.76 0.35  1.09 0.43  4.81 0.68 0.50 0.34 0.29 8.60 6.96 0.78 15.21 12.13 3.86  Appendix A  Phase I  3.5 I -J I  25  I  —  I  I  I 1I  I  I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I I I  I I I  I I I  —  Element Tests  I  S  I  I  I I I  I  I I I  I Deformation [mm]  3.5  I  I  I  I  I I  25  I  I I  I  I  I I  I I  I I  I L I I  I _J I I  2nngCe  -40  -50  -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  Figure A.21  Phase I  -  —  Element Tests  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  Specimen: NDLT8  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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 Table A.9  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  Cycle  *  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  0.056k (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54mm)  0.075L (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225 (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0Th (17.78 mm) 0.525E (13.34 mm)  (25.4 mm) 0.751k (19.05 mm) 1.51x (38.1 mm) 1.1251k (28.58 mm) 2.01k (50.08 mm) 1.51k (38.10 mm)  —  —  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT8. At Max. Load  At Max. Displacement*  Load [kNI  Displ. [mm]  Load [kN]  DispI. [mm]  0.27 -0.37 0.13 -0.31 0.13 -0.32 0.14 -0.31  1.22 -1.64 0.88 -1.11 1.02 -1.11 1.02 -1.18  0.26  1.43  0.09 -0.28  1.22 -1.25  -0.31  -1.25  0.13 -0.31 0.33 -0.41 0.18 -0.34 0.17 -0.34 0.18 -0.34 0.18 -0.34 0.43 -0.46 0.35 -0.44 0.34 -0.43 0.77 -0.49 0.42 -0.46 0.39 -0.47 1.48 -0.50 0.44 -0.55 0.41 -0.56 2.72 -1.07 0.72 -0.92 0.53 -0.75  1.02 -1.25 1.77 -1.97 1.29 -1.57 1.36 -1.64 1.29 -1.64 1.29 -1.57 3.80 -4.26 2.72 -3.27 2.72 -3.27 5.57 -6.35 4.08 -4.91 4.21 -4.98 7.61 -8.12 5.16 -6.48 5.64 -6.48 13.86 -15.19 10.19 -11.13 10.26 -11.20 18.34 -21.87 15.01 -16.04 14.94 -16.44 24.93 -32.74 24.72 -19.51 20.31 -18.66 36.61 -41.51 29.75 -33.98 31.18 -29.01  -1.07 0.72 -0.76 0.52 -0.77 2.42 0.36 -0.82 0.65 -1.02 2.02 -1.52 0.29 -0.85 0.81 -1.16  0.37 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.30  -0.40 0.18 -0.34  -2.16 1.36 -1.64  0.37 0.30 0.30  0.17 -0.33 0.17 -0.25  1.43 -1.70 1.43 -1.64  -0.46  -4.39  0.29 0.29  0.41 0.37 0.74 -0.48 0.42 -0.46  5.64 -6.61 4.14 -4.85  0.41 0.41  -0.48 0.43 -0.54  -8.84 5.71 -6.42  0.43 0.25  0.37 0.32 2.34  20.17  16.86  0.71 -0.76  15.15 -16.50  1.44 0.37  1.96  31.92  -0.75 0.58 -0.78 1.80 -1.42  -24.69 23.09 -24.82 42.93 -43.28  31 Trailing -0.99 -33.46 Values are given only wnen the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  105  Vertical Separation [mm]  21.53 1.99 22.88 28.03 17.15  Appendix A  Phase I  S,.  P  —  Element Tests  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  Specimen: NDLT9  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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  Phase I Table A.1O  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  Cycle  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  ________  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056A (1.43mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.075z (1.91 mm)  0.2 (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3S (7.62 mm) 0.225th (5.72 mm) 0.4 (10.16 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.7A (17.78 mm) 0.525th (13.34 mm) 1.0k (25.4 mm) 0.75E (19.05 mm)  —  2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5A (38.10 mm)  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT9. At Max. Load  Load [kNI  Displ. [mm)  0.26 -0.37 0.19 -0.32 0.19 -0.31 0.18 -0.32 0.19 -0.31 0.28 -0.39 0.21 -0.34 0.20 -0.34 0.20 -0.34 0.20 -0.34 0.52 -0.48 0.27 -0.39 0.26 -0.39 0.82 -0.58 0.32 -0.41 0.29 -0.40 1.15 -0.69 0.32 -0.43 0.31 -0.42 2.11 -1.19 0.49 -0.56 0.37 -0.54 2.48 -1.70 0.52 -0.66 0.43 -0.(  1.36 -1.57 0.95 -1.24 1.02 -1.24 1.09 -1.31 1.09 -1.31 1.77 -1.96 1.29 -1.51 1.22 -1.64 1.43 -1.64 1.43 -1.57 3.67 -4.26 2.72 -2.95 2.79 -3.21 5.64 -6.68 4.35 -4.78 4.35 -4.85 7.54 -8.71 5.84 -6.55 5.71 -6.55 13.04 -15.13 10.26 -11.52 10.32 -11.59 19.22 -22.07 13.45 -14.93 15.15 -16.37  -0.94 0.59 -0.79 2.50 -2.02 0.55 -1.03 0.68 -0.90  30.56 -32.41 22.48 -22.46 16.23 -23.05 42.18 -43.02 30.50 -31.04 18.34 -24.16  1.5t (38.1 mm) 1.125A (28.58 mm)  —  At Max. Displacement* Load LkNI  Dispi. [mm)  -0.35 0.19 -0.32 0.18 -0.31  -1.64 1.16 -1.31 1.09 -1.31  0.25 0.24 0.26 0.26  0.18 -0.30  1.16 -1.38  -0.38 0.20 -0.34 0.19  -2.10 1.50 -1.70 1.43  0.20 -0.33 0.18 -0.30  1.50 -1.70 1.50 -1.70  -0.48 0.26 -0.39  -4.45 2.92 -3.14  0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.78 0.81  0.27 -0.39  4.42 -4.98  0.80 1.02  0.31  5.91  1.05 1.01  2.05  13.58  4.10 1.28 1.08  2.36  20.11  0.50 -0.66  14.88 -16.63  -0.62 2.50  -16.63 31.99  -0.67 0.46 -0.78 2.18  -25.54 23.03 -25.73 43.88  -0.89 0.53 -0.78  -33.85 31.45 -33.92  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  109  Vertical Separation [mmj  2.71 1.13 1.14 21.76 5.08 1.55 26.41 10.17 4.82  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  -  I  -  .  I Deformation [mm]  3.5 I  3  -  I  I  I  I  .  Deformation [mm]  Figure A.26 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT9. -  -  110  Phase I  Appendix A  —  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  Phase I  Appendix A  —  Element Tests  Test Date: June 21, 2004  Specimen: NDLT1O  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: -  -  -  -  -  +2.75 [kN]  Max. Shear Force per Shearlock:  /  -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 Table A.1l  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.O75 (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0Th (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15 (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225 (5.72 mm)  1  I 1  0.3z (7.62 mm) 0Th  T  Load [kNJ  DispI. [mml  0.24 -0.40 0.20 -0.30 0.19 -0.30 0.19 -0.30 0.20 -0.30  1.22 -1.38 0.88 -1.11 1.09 -1.24 0.95 -1.11 1.02 -1.18 1.83 -2.03 1.36 -1.51 1.36 -1.57 1.36 -1.51 1.36 -1.57 3.80 -3.99 2.99 -3.08 2.92 -3.01 5.77 -6.02 4.28 -4.65 4.28 -4.65 7.81 -8.12 6.32 -6.29 6.18 -6.22 13.52  0.30 -0.43 0.24 -0.33 0.24 -0.33 0.24 -0.32 0.23 -0.33 0.53 -0.67 0.26 -0.42 0.25 -0.41 0.76 -0.98 0.27 -0.39 0.25 -0.40 1.00 -1.32 0.28 -0.37 0.28 -0.37 2.63 031  (13.34 mm)  r  1.Ot (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm) 1.5k (38.1 mm) 1.125 (28.58 mm) 2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5 (38.10 mm)  11.07 -10.28 10.80 -10.48 19.22 -21.35 15.76 -15.32 15.69 -15.32 29.68 -32.54 1.43 -25.80 23.57  0.29 -0.38 272  rI  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT1O. At Max. Load  0.056 (1.43 mm)  0.4 (10.16 mm)  —  —  -0.32 0.28 -0.32 2.58 -2.42 0.26 -0.26 0.22 -0.25 1.99 -1.80 0.29 -0.35 0.25 -0.37  -25.80 36.00 -43.67 32.33 -27.96 32.74 -28.35  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNI 0.23  Displ. [mml  -0.40 0.19 -0.29  1.36 -1.51 1.02 -1.24  0.19 -0.24  1.02 -1.18  0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.29 0.48  0.24 -0.41  2.99 -3.08  0.26  4.75  0.25  4.69  0.48 0.82 1.02 1.05 1.50  0.28  6.38  0.28  6.32  1 71 1.80 4.95  -0.37 0.29 -0.36 2.72  -11.46 11.00 -11.46  -0.28  -16.83  -0.29 2.38 -2.40 0.23  -16.89 30.90 -33.00 23.77  5.52 5.65  20.04 13.32 13.84  27.35 28.01  1.85 -1.78  41.77 -44.33  -0.18  -33.26  -0.16  -33.20  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  113  Vertical Separation [mm]  28.49 27.96  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5  L  .  a  -o.  -  1_  -1  —  -  -1.5  Deformation [mm]  3.5  I  I  I  I  -I  --  I I  -  -J  PrimaryCycle  -1.5 I  -2  I  I  I  —  —  —  1st Trailing Cycle  :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  Specimen: NDLT1 1  —  Element Tests  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 Table A.12  Cycle 1  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  Primary  0.075t (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056A (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.075 (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15t (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225A (5.72 mm) 0.4i (10.16 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.7i (17.78 mm) 0.525z (13.34 mm)  (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm) 1.5k (38.1 mm) 1.125A (28.58 mm) 2.OA (50.08 mm) 1.5k (38.10 mm)  —  —  Element Tests  Test results of specimen NDLT11. At Max. Load  At Max. Displacement*  Load [kNj  Dispi. [mmj  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.27 -0.50 0.22 -0.44 0.20 -0.44 0.20 -0.44 0.19 -0.44 0.24 -0.49 0.20 -0.44 0.20 -0.44 0.19 -0.44 0.19 -0.44 0.41 -0.61 0.26 -0.51 0.24 -0.50 0.53 -0.71 0.27 -0.52 0.24 -0.51 0.70 -0.77 0.26 -0.51 0.24 -0.51 1.46 -1.13 0.13 -0.43 0.12 -0.44  0.88 -1.83 0.47 -1.51 0.47 -1.51 0.61 -1.38 0.41 -1.44 1.29 -2.10 0.81 -1.64 0.68 -1.57 0.68 -1.70 0.75 -1.70 3.12 -4.32 2.11 -3.21 2.04 -3.27 5.09 -6.55 3.80 -4.98 3.80 -5.04 7.27 -8.32 5.16 -6.61 5.03 -6.55 13.18 -15.26 10.19 -11.20 10.05 -11.20 19.02 -22.07 14.87 -16.89 14.60 -17.03 29.68 -32.48 18.41 -21.54 16.84  0.22  1.09  0.20 -0.44 0.20  0.61 -1.44 0.54  -1.48 0.12 -0.41 0.14 -0.44 1.64 0.13 -0.36 0.09 -0.35 1.59 -1.30 0.00 -0.26 0.00 -0.27  -21.48 33.42 -42.17 0.00 -1.11 0.00 -1.11  0.80 0.86 0.91 0.94  0.12  0.54  0.20 -0.44 0.19 -0.43 0.18 -0.43 0.19 -0.43  0.75 -1.70 0.75 -1.83 0.75 -1.90 0.81 -1.83  0.96 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.18 1.48 1.57  0.24  2.17  1.62 2.07 2.21 2.23  -0.76 0.22  -8.38 5.30  -0.51  -6.61  2.73 2.71 2.62 9.10  -0.43  -11.85  -0.43  -11.85  8.66 8.64 17.52  -0.41  -17.16  17.24 17.01 21.87  0.07 -0.33 0.05 -0.31 1.33  21.73 -25.21 21.53 -25.21 40.62  -0.22  -33.26  -0.21  -33.39  Values ar given only when the Maximum ioad does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  117  Vertical Separation [mmj  14.48 13.02 25.91 23.74 23.52  Phase I  Appendix A  3.5  I  I  3  I  I  I  I I  25 I  P  I  I  I I I I  I  I I  I  I I I I  I L I  I I  I I  I I  Element Tests  I  I  I  —  I  I _l I I I I  I I I  :zizzrzzizz:zzEzzçr:::::::::::  [1 Deformation [mm]  3.5  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  J  I  J  I  I  I  I  I .L 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  =  21 mm, depth  25.4 mm, wood stud was pre-grooved around the fasteners ( diameter = 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. -  Prescribed Amplitude  Te of  Cycle  Cycle  0.075A (1.91 mm)  primary 2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  pnmry  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  .  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Pry  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  1  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  1  0.075S (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3 (7’.62 mm) 0.225k (5.72 mm)  J  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.4A (10.16 mm) 0 3A 762mm) 0.7k (17.78 mm)  Primary  21  29  0.1k (2.54 mm)  Trailing  13  20  0.056t (1.43 mm)  0.525A (13.34 mm)  At Max. Load 0.29 -0.37 0.24 034 0.23 -0.33 0.22 -0.33 0.23 -0.33 0.29 -0.38 0.24 -0.34 0.22 -0.33 0.22 -0.32 0.21 -0.33 0.41 -0.46 0.27 -0.37 0.27 -0.37 0.58 -0.52 0.31 -0.39 0.28 -0.37 0.77 -0.59 0.30 -0.36 0.29 -0.36 1.41 -0.60 0.18 -0.32 0.17 -r 2  1.OA (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm)  ]  1.5A (38.1 mm) 1 125A (28:58 mm) 2.0t (50.08 mm) 1.5A (38.10 mm)  Displ. [mml  Load [kNI  0.17 -0.29 0.14 -0.29 1.43 -0.84 0.12 -0.21 0.09 -0.22 1.14 -0.65 0.03 -0.20 0.01 -0.19  Values are given only when the Maximum load does  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mml  1.97 -1.57 -1.64 -0.36 1.43 1.56 0.23 -1.24 1.56 1.43 0.23 -1.31 -1.18 -0.33 1.49 -1.24 -1.18 -0.32 1.56 1.49 0.22 -1.24 2.45 2.38 0.28 -2.23 1.97 0.23 1.77 -1.64 1.90 1.77 0.22 -1.64 -0.32 -1.51 1.90 -1.57 -1.24 -0.31 0.20 1.83 1.63 -1.51 4.08 -4.26 -4.19 -0.45 2.92 0.26 3.06 -3.21 3.19 -3.21 6.11 -6.42 -6.35 -0.51 4.69 -.4.98 4.62 -4.85 8.01 -8.58 6.05 -6.48 6.11 -6.55 14.60 -15.13 11.41 0.18 11.48 -10.93 -0.31 -11.39 11.41 -10.93 -0.32 -11.39 20.38 1.43 20.58 -21.80 I 16.78 -15.78 -0.29 -16.44 16.57 -16.11 -16.50 -0.29 22.35 1.25 31.38 -33.53 24.86 -0.21 -1.31 -25.41 24.38 -23.05 -0.22 -25.41 32.94 1.10 41.97 -44.85 29.82 0.03 33.08 -3.73 -0.18 -33.98 32.87 -1.83 -0.17 -33.92 not cccur at the Maximum displacement.  j  121  Vertical Separation [mm] 0.57 0.59 0.64  0.68 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.84 1.02 1.12 1.16 1.35 1.55 1.57 2.08 2.19 2.19 7.48  7.71 16.53 16.85 16.85 31.15 31.50 31.48  37.49  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I —I I  3 2 5  I 4I I I I  I  I  I .4. I I  I I I I  I  I -I  I I  I  I 4I I  I I  I  I  I -4 I I I I  I 4I I I  2  Deformation [mm]  3.5 25 2  I  I  I  I  I I  I I  I  1  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  PrimaryCycle  O -1.5 -2  I  I  I ——  -  -50  -40  -30  -20  -10  0  10  20  —lstTrailingCycle  30  40  50  Deformation [mmj  Figure A.35 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen NDLT12. -  -  122  Phase I  Appendix A  —  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  Test Date: June 25, 2004  Specimen: WS1  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: Drift at the peak shear:  +2.24 [kN]  I  -2.18 [kN]  +30.48 [mm]  /  -32.87 [mm]  +41 [mm]  /  <-44 [mm]  Max. Drift:  >  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  Phase I  Appendix A  —  Element Tests  Table A.14 Test results of specimen WS1. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  Cycle  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  At Max. Load  0.056 (1.43 mm)  0.liI (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2E (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.225A (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3k (7.62 mm) 0.Th (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm) 1.0i (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm)  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.35 -0.51 0.26 -0.42 0.29 -0.41 0.28 -0.41 0.28 -0.42 0.41 -0.54 0.31 -0.44 0.29 -0.44 0.30 -0.44 0.30 -0.44 0.64 -0.74 0.42 -0.52 0.39 -0.52 0.95 -0.93 0.44 -0.55 0.44 -0.55 1.37 -1.12 0.43 -0.54 0.49 -0.63 2.07 -1.96 0.40 -0.67 0.51 -0.72 2.19 -2.17 0.27 -0.89 0.66  1.36 -1.64 1.02 -1.31 1.02 -1.18 1.02 -1.18 1.09 -1.18  -“  1.5th (38.1 mm) 1.125A (28.58 mm) 2.0th (50.08 mm) 1.5 (38.10 mm)  I  [  -0.82 0.85 -1.09 1.99 -1.83 0.12 -0.34 0.43 -0.56  j  1.83 -2.23 1.36 -1.57 1.43 -1.64 1.43 -1.64 1.43 -1.70 3.74 -4.26 2.92 -3.34 2.85 -3.21 5.50 -6.29 4.35 -4.98 4.21 -4.98 7.61 -8.51 5.84 -6.68 5.84 -6.68 13.72 -14.80 11.00 -10.80 10.53 -11.52 19.83 -21.74 15.69 -16.30 12.43 -16.76 30.84 -32.87 1.56 -23.70 20.72 -19.84 41.70 -44.07 33.89 -32.35 29.27 -27.57  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.17 0.20 0.25 -0.32 0.26 -0.41  1.09 -1.24 1.09 -1.24  -0.33  -1.24  0.31 -0.34  1.43 -1.64  0.18 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.20  -1.70 1.49  -0.43 0.29  0.24 0.20 0.68 0.87  -0.52 0.94  -3.34 5.64  0.89 128 1.26 1.28 2.40  -0.52  -6.74  1.76 1.48 4.67  -0.67  -11.39 2.27 12.84 13.21  0.66  15.01  1.30 25.50  0.12  24.38  0.83 -0.71  22.55 -25.08  26.20  26.95 0.12  34.23  0.41 -0.43  30.77 -33.79  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  125  Vertical Separation [mm]  27.23 7.41  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I .4  I  I  I -‘ I I  I  2  .4  I  I  I I. I  4 I  I 4I I  I -4 I I  -  I Deformation [mm]  3.5 I  3  -4 I  25  I  I  I  I I  I 1  I I  I  I I  4I 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  Specimen: WS2  —  Element Tests  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:  -Drift at the peak shear: -  -  -  Max. Drift:  +2.94 [kN]  I  -1.91 [kN]  +11.75 [mm]  I  -14.60 [mm]  + 12.78  I  -16.45 [mm]  Max Separation:  [mm]  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  Phase I  —  Element Tests  Table A.15 Test results of specimen WS2. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075 (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  Cycle  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056k (1.43 mm)  0.lt\ (2.54 mm)  0.075 (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15 (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225z (5.72 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNI  Displ. [mm]  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.61 -0.71 0.41 -0.54 0.40 -0.54 0.39 -0.54  0.82 -0.92 0.54 -0.59 0.54 -0.65 0.61 -0.59 0.61 -0.65 1.50 -1.38 1.09 -0.98 1.09 -0.98 0.95 -0.98 0.95 -0.98 3.53 -3.41 2.51 -2.55 2.51 -2.62 5.57 -5.50 4.21 -4.32 4.08 -4.13 7.61 -7.86 5.71 -5.70 5.71 -5.63 11.75 -14.60 11.00 -9.23 10.94 -9.50 18.54 -9.50 10.87 -12.38 11.75  0.61  0.88  0.38 -0.54 0.32  0.61 -0.72 0.61  0.38 -0.53 0.66 -0.75 0.43 -0.55 0.42 -0.55 0.42 -0.55 0.42 -0.54 1.20 -0.98 0.54 -0.66 0.51 -0.66 1.73 -1.34 0.55 -0.63 0.53 -0.68 2.11 -1.85 0.49 -0.82 0.61 -  -.  0Th (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm) 1.0 (25.4 mm) 0.75A (19.05 mm) 1.5A (38.1 mm) 1.125 (28.58 mm) 2.0i (50.08 mm) 1.5e (38.10 mm)  At Max. Displacement*  0.3, -0.39 0.26 -0.38 1.60 -0.38 0.07 -0.28 0.06 -0.40 0.11 -0.33 0.05 -0.14 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.16 0.00 -0.13 0.00 -0.14  -9.95 6.52 -8.64 8.63 -20.69 0.00 -22.07 0.00 -35.16 0.00 -22.92 0.00 -20.63  0.40 0.39 0.34 0.36  0.38 -0.52  0.68 -0.72  -0.55  -1.05  0.34  0.46 0.52  -0.54 0.38  -1.05 1.02  0.54 0.51  0.79 0.85  1.41 1.19  1.78 -0.81 1.51  -5.70 14.26  -0.33  -11.26  -0.36 -0.03 -0.16 0.00 -0.19 -0.01 -0.21 -0.03 -0.15 -0.04 -0.13  -11.20 20.65 -23.11 14.74 -17.22 15.15 -17.16 31.38 -33.85 23.43 -25.14  -0.13  -25.54  -0.15  -45.31  -0.13  -34.12  -0.13  -34.18  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  129  Vertical Separation [mm]  1.27  10.77 10.77  8.05 7.00  3.53 1.19 1.13 i.i  i.is  Appendix A  Phase I  —  Element Tests  3.5 I -I  3  I 1-  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  .  355  Deformation [mm]  3.5 I  I  I  I .4  -  lEE z::::  ::LHE*: Et. EE 1  EHE  I L  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  Specimen: WS3  —  Element Tests  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: -  -  -  -  -  +2.75 [kN]  Max. Shear Force per Shearlock:  I  -1.83 [kN]  Drift at the peak shear:  + 12.43  [mm]  /  -8.50 [mm]  Max. Drift:  + 13.52  [mm]  /  -14.60 [mm]  8.21 [mm]  Max Separation:  Fracture of both fasteners  Failure mode:  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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  Cycle  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  At Max. Load 0.51 -0.74 0.43 -0.50 0.42 -0.50 0.41 -0.49 0.41 -0.50  0.056A (1.43 mm)  0.1A (2.54 mm)  0.61 -0.77 0.45 -0.53 0.44 -0.53 0.42 -0.52 0.42 -0.52 1.04 -1.11 0.60 -0.63 0.56 -0.64 1.46 -1.49 0.60 -0.55 0.54 -0.58 1.91  0.075z\ (1.91 mm)  0.2A (5.08 mm) 0.15z (3.81 mm) 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.225j (572 mm) 0.4A (10.16 mm)  1 I  0.3A (7.62 mm) 0Th (17.78 mm)  Dispi. [mmj  Load [kN]  0.49 -0.50 0.56 -0.65  -1.76 0.26 Trailing 21 -0.39 0.525i (13.34 mm) 0.28 I Trailing 22 -0.34 [ 1.33 1.OA 1 Primary 23 -0.08 (25.4 mm) 0.00 Trailing 24 0.75A -0.08 (19.05 mm) 0.00 Trailinj 25 -0.09 0.00 1 .5z Primary 26 -0.10 (38.1 mm) J 0.00 Trailing 27 1 -0.07 1.125th (28.58 mm) 0.00 Trailing 28 -0.08 0.00 2.OA Primary 29 -0.10 (50.08 mm) 0.00 Trailing 30 1.5z -0.08 0.00 (38.10 mm) Trailing 31 -0.09 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not I  I 1 j I  1.16 -1.24 0.88 -0.79 0.95 -0.85 0.82 -0.85 0.82 -0.85 1.70 -1.57 1.29 -1.24 1.22 -124 1.36 -1.24 1.22 -1.24 3.80 -3.73 2.79 -2.88 2.92 -2.88 6.05 -5.96 4.62 -4.78 4.62 -4.71 7.95 -8.05 6.25 -6.48 6.11 -6.35 12.43 -14.60 11.61 -8.19 11.68 -9.23 18.75 -12.38 0.00 -15.65 0.00 -0.33 0.00 -33.53 0.00 -6.16 0.00  At Max. Displacement Load [kN]  Dispi. [mml  0.51  1.22  -0.49  -0.92  0.48 0.53 0.56  0.37  0.95  0.40  0.88  0.53 0.64 0.62  0.37  1.36  0.33  1.43  0.35  1.29  0.39  1.36  0.67 0.66 0.68 0.69 0.83  0.58  2.85  0.89 0.93  1.67 1.71  360 1.60 1.66 -1.75  14.60 -14.99  -0.32  -11.33  -0.32 -0.03 -0.08  -11.33 21.80 -22.66  -0.07  -16.89  -0.07  -16.89  8.21 4.84 1.60 1.39  1.40 -0.07  -25.01  -25.01 -0.07 -6.55 0.00 -44.33 -0.10 -27.11 0.00 -33.20 -0.08 -8.25 0.00 -33.07 -0.08 -30.78 occur at the Maximum displacement.  133  Vertical Separation Lmm  1.42 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.45  Phase I  Appendix A  3.5  —  Element Tests  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  a S ‘3  0 2  a)  a)  -C Co I  a) 0. a)  0  -J  :  -40  -50  -30  -20  -10  10  0  20  30  I  i  50  40  Deformation [mm]  3.5 I  I  I  I  3 2.5 2  a S S  ‘3  0 I-  1.5 1  0.5  a)  0 -C CO I-  0 -0.5  0  a 0  —1  a)  0 -1.5 -J -2 J  -2.5  J.  L  I  I I  I  I  I  -3  I I  I  j___ I I I I  2ndTrailingCyde I  -  I  I  I  I  0  10  20  30  .-  -3.5 -40  -50  -30  -20  -10  40  50  Deformation [mm]  Figure A.44 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen WS3. -  -  134  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  Appendix A  —  Element Tests  Test Date: May 18, 2004  Specimen: WS4  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: -  -  -  -  -  +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  Max. Shear Force per Shearlock:  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 I  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  Primary  0.075A (1.91 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailin  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Values are given only  0.056A (1.43 mm)  0.1k (2.54 mm)  0.075A (1.91 mm)  0.2i\ (5.08 mm) 0.15A (3.81 mm) 0.3 (7.62 mm) 0.225k (5.72 mm) 0.4tS (10.16 mmj 0.3A (7.62 mm) 0.7i (17.78 mm) 0.525A (13.34 mm)  1  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  0.41 -0.75 0.36 -0.59 0.35 -0.59 0.34 -0.57 0.33 -0.57 0.43 -0.78 0.34 -0.56 0.33 -0.55 0.32 -0.56 0.30 -0.55 0.60 -1.06 0.41 -0.61 0.38 -0.59 0.82 -1.37 0.41 -0.61 0.37 -0.59 1.04 -1.71 0.39 -0.63 0.39 -0.61 2.06 -2.39 0.30 -0.66 0.48 -0.59  1.29 -1.64 0.95 -1.24 0.95 -1.31 1.02 -1.31 1.02 -1.31  0.41  1.43  0.35 -0.58 0.34 -0.54  1.02 -1.31 1.02 -1.38  i.o (25.4 mm) 0.75 (19.05 mm) 1.5A (38.1 mm)  At Max. Displacement*  059 -0.48 0.50 -0.44  -2.29 0.70 1.125A -0.83 (28.58 mm) 0.76 -0.76 2.00 2.OA -1.77 (50.08 mm) 0.65 -0.73 1.5A 0.49 (38.10 mm) -0.36 when the Maximum load does  1.83 1.90 0.43 -223 1.36 1.49 0.34 -1.77 -1.70 -0.55 1.49 1.43 0.32 -1.64 -1.77 -0.54 1.56 1.36 0.31 -1.77 -1.70 -0.55 1.49 0.30 1.36 -1.70 380 -4.32 3.06 0.41 2.99 -3.27 3.19 0.37 3.12 -3.27 5.77 0.81 5.84 -6.35 -1.35 -6.42 4.69 4.82 0.41 -4.91 -0.61 -5.04 4.82 -4.98 7.81 -8.51 -8.58 -1.70 6.25 -6.74 6.32 -6.74 13.92 -15.19 -2.35 -14.86 11.07 -11.66 10.32 -11.98 -0.58 -11.66 19.77 -21.48 14.74 -16.96 -0.46 -10.80 14.74 0.50 14.94 I -17.22 -0.43 -13.29 30.97 28.19 2.56 -33.00 -2.19 -31.82 21.94 0.67 20.31 -25.08 -0.51 -16.57 22.14 0.73 20.85 -25.14 -0.53 -16.70 41.97 1.93 39.73 -43.87 -1.76 -43.15 29.21 -34.25 -0.42 -29.66 30.29 0.39 24.79 -34.64 -0.22 -30.45 not occur at the Maximum displacement.  L  137  Vertical Separation [mm] 0.48 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.84 1.09 1.25 1.32 1.78 1.94 1.89 2.56 2.67 2.23 6.11 6.45 2.35 15.19 2.71 2.32 31.61 10.65 4.68 26.55 31.68 24.09  Phase I  Appendix A  3.5 3  r  r  I  I 4.  I  I  I  I  —  Element Tests  I  I  -  -  -  I  Deformation  3.5 I -4  3  I 4-  I  I  I .4.  [mm]  I -.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.48 Failure of the fastener located closer to the load cell, specimen WS4. -  Figure A.49  -  Failure of the fastener located closer to the free end, specimen WS4.  139  APPENDIX B  Phase II Panel Tests -  140  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  Test Date: Oct. 29, 2004  Specimen: PLM  Characteristics: 8’x8’ plywood wall panel, Two 8’x4’ plywood boards vertically placed, Y ” thickness, lOd nails at 4” 0/c around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for 2 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: Drift at the peak shear:  -Max. Drift: -  -  +39.50 [kN] + 102.70  [mm]  +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  Phase II  Panel Tests  50 I I  45  —-——————————  I I -l  I I  I I I-  40 35  I I  I I  I I  I  ‘30  I I  I L  I I I I  25 0 —‘  I  I  I  I I  I I I  I I  20 I  I  I  I  I  I I  I  I  L  15 10  I I  I  I  5  -I I  0 25  0  I  I  I  I  50  75  I  100  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.1 Backbone curve -  of specimen  PLM.  :1  OnoOOOOOOO  o o S  S  S  C  C  C  C  S  S  S  R  Back View  Front View  • Nail Pullthraugh (Separated)  @ Minor Nail Pullout  Sepueated Stud (From SitlITop plate) 1  Legend Nail Tearout  4 Minar Nail Pullthrough  0 No Damage  Figure B.2 Failure mode of specimen PLM. -  142  125  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, Y ” thickness, 1 Od nails at 4” ole around the perimeter of the boards, two 2x4s for 2 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 -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  I  Primary  0.075A (5.01 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Cycle  *  0.056iX (3.74 mm)  0.1i. (6.68 mm)  0.075A (5.01 mm)  0.2E (13.36 mm) 0.15A (10.02 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0.225A (15.03 mm) 0.4 (26.71 mm) 0.3E (20.03 mm) 0Th (46.75 mm) 0.525 (35.06 mm) 1.OA (66.78 mm) 0.75A (50.09 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Dispi. [mmj  4.94 -5.60 3.81 -3.25 3.90 -3.39 4.05 -3.62  0.89 -3.55 -0.32 -2.63 0.18 -2.77 -0.07 -2.52  4.00 -3.62 6.63 -6.54 4.80 -4.56 5.17 -4.38 4.80 -4.28 5.13 -4.99 11.81 -11.76 8.84 -7.81 8.98 -7.86 16.23 -17.12 11.67 -10.77 11.81 -10.82 20.37 -21.69 14.02 -13.31 14.11 -13.50 30.44 -31.38 19.38 -17.97 19.57 -17.92 38.57 -37.92 22.20 -19.01 22.34 -19.43  0.11 -2.66 3.14 -4.83 -0.43 -3.80 0.64 -3.94 0.71 -3.87 0.43 -3.80 7.36 -9.62 4.04 -7.10 4.18 -7.20 10.83 -14.23 7.43 -10.68 7.36 -10.75 15.26 -19.52 10.65 -14.41 10.44 -14.30 29.80 -35.27 21.08 -26.12 22.51 -26.12 47.24 -52.02 33.98 -38.15 34.09 -38.08 72.51 -77.64 5489 -58.30 54.96 -58.13 69.93 -51.60 80.02 -79.42 78.28 -80.87  1.5z (100.17 mm) 1.125A (75.13 mm) 2.OA (133.56 mm) 1.5A (100.17 mm)  20.65 -17.17 19.76 -16.89 26.44 -9.13 8.14 -2.78 7.39 -2.96  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNI  Dlspl. [mm]  -6.49  -5.07  45.35  75.33  15.99 -6.59  104.99 -109.05  -2.64 7.39 -2.78  -82.04 80.44 -81.97  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  145  Appendix B  Phase II  —  Panel Tests  60 50  40 30  L  i  I  I  0 -I  I  I  I  I  I  -25  0  25  50  75  100  I  I I  I I  = I  20  z  I  10  0 -10 -20 -30 -40  -50 -125  -100  -75  -50  125  Deformation [mm]  60 I I  50 40 30  I  z 0  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  20  I I  I  I I  I  I I  I  I I —.•,__—  I  I  I  I  I  —  —  I  I  I  10 0  -j  -10 PrimaryCyde  -20  I  —  — —  1st Trailing Cycle  -30 -40  -50 -125  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.4 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC1. -  -  146  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  o a •  ow  Back View  Front View  • 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. -  Figure B.6 Pictures of failure of specimen PLC 1. -  147  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.  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (5.01 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  Cycle  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  At Max. Load  0.056t (3.74 mm)  0.1k (6.68 mm)  0.075E (5.01 mm)  0.2tS (13.36 mm) 0.15 (10.02 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0.225 (15.03 mm) 0.4A (26.71 mm) 0.3 (20.03 mm) 0Th (46.75 mm) 0.525 (35.06 mm) 1.OA (66.78 mm) 0.75A (50.09 mm)  T  I  t  Load [kNJ  Displ. [mmj  9.88 -8.94 7.01 -6.73 7.06 -6.73 7.01 -6.96 7.06 -6.87  3.84 -3.93 2.86 -2.91 2.89 -2.84 2.85 -2.95 2.72 -2.83  11.34 -11.01 8.66 -8.23 8.70 -8.28 8.75 -8.19 8.80 -8.23 17.88 -17.45 12.94 -12.61 12.94 -12.51 22.39 -21.87 15.90 -14.82 15.90 -14.96 26.30 -25.31 17.59 -16.37 17.88 -16.65 34.86 -33.87 20.98 -19.48 20.93 -19.62 40.36 -39.99 21.59 -20.60 21.69  5.17 -5.28 4.06 -3.96 4.20 -3.86 3.92 -3.80 4.09 -3.97 10.71 -10.75 8.31 -8.06 8.00 -8.13 16.53 -15.91 12.87 -12.11 12.90 -12.21 22.12 -21.54 16.95 -16.18 17.23 -16.26 39.01 -39.01 30.17 -29.44 30.22 -29.54  -  26  Primary  1.5A (100.17 mm)  55.88 -55.37 43.48 -42.90 43.29 -43.11 69.04 -86.11 59.75 -64.02 60.76 -63.77 86.36 -82.60 81.09 -91.89 80.34 -91.14  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Dispi. [mml  -25.12  -21.66  -16.28  -16.32  -16.46 34.25 -33.02 20.51 -18.68  -16.32 39.25 -39.18 30.24 -29.56  37.44 -36.22 19.43  56.29 -55.79 43.51  18.86  43.69  25.03  79.34  60.25 10.44 1 -17.83 14.02 Trailing 28 -18.02 108.21 5.97 22.02 2.OA Primary 29 -116.49 -5.65 -21.31 (133.56 mm) 5.65 Trailing 30 -6.02 1 .5A (100.17 mm) 5.50 Trailing 31 -6.35 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  27  Trailing  1.125A (75.13 mm)  149  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  60 I  I I  I I  I I  -100  -75  -50  -25  50  I I  I I  I I  I I  I -125  0  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  60  I  I  50  I  I  I  -  I  I  -  I  40  I  I  I  I -  -  -  I -  30  I -100  -125  -75  -50  0  -25  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.7 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC2. -  -  150  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  ‘I.  Back View  Front View  • Nail Pullthrough (Separated)  @ Minor Nail Pullout  —  f  (  0 No Damage  Separated Stud (From Silt/Top plate)  Legend Minar Nail Pullthrough  Nail Fracture  Figure B.8 Failure mode of specimen PLC2. -  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. -  At Max. Load  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075z (5.01 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  8.84 -7.72 7.06 -5.74 7.01  Trailing  0.056A (3.74 mm)  -5.93  4 5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  Cycle  *  01z (6.68 mm)  0.075zS (5.01 mm)  0.2A (13.36 mm) 0.15A (10.02 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0.225k (15.03 mm) 0.4z (26.71 mm) 0.3 (20.03 mm) 0.7E (46.75 mm) 0.525A (35.06 mm) 1.OA (66.78 mm) 0.75t (50.09 mm)  Load [kN]  6.96 -5.83 7.20 -5.83 11.24 -9.88 8.70 -7.24 8.70 -7.20 8.75 -7.24 8.70 -7.29 18.68 -16.75 14.25 -12.00 14.25 -12.14 24.18 -21.97 17.22 -15.15 17.55 -15.10 27.75 -25.64 19.71 -16.89 19.71 -16.98 39.33 -35.56 24.09 -20.27 24.04 -20.56 49.06 -43.80 26.81 -22.16 26.77  1.5i (100.17 mm) 1.125 (75.13 mm) 2.0E (133.56 mm) 1.5A (100.17 mm)  -21.78 27.47 -22.06 50.90 -27.28 14.40 -12.33 14.35 -12.56  Dispi. [mmj 3.02 -3.95 2.16 -2.96 1.98 -2.96 1.84 -3.03 1.96 -2.90 4.45 -5.35 3.04 -3.96 3.00 -3.99 3.11 -4.03 3.13 -4.04 10.03 -10.83 7.40 -8.19 7.42 -8.09 15.67 -15.87 11.51 -12.45 11.87 -12.40 21.08 -22.04 16.10 -16.59 16.14 -16.63 39.08 -39.85 29.84 -30.19 29.78 -30.02 57.51 -57.99 44.26 -44.71 44.16 -44.59 87.52 -89.08 69.05 -69.02 69.15 -69.23 97.86 -120.07 94.39 -96.47 94.22 -96.00  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Dispi. [mmj  -7.10 8.37 -7.15  -3.96 3.04 -4.07  60.87 -51.70 27.66  88.38 -89.78 69.25  27.14  69.32  24.27 -24.65 13.64  120.57 -122.53 94.59  13.17  94.63  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  J  60  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  L I  50 40 30  -  z  I— I  .  I  I  I  I  20  I  10  •4•  0  --  -125  -100  I -  -  I  -  -  --  I  _J  -  I -  I  I 4-  —I  —  -  -75  -50  -25  0  I  I  I  I  I  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  70  I  I  I  I  I  60  = E PrimaryCycle  -20 -30  ———lstTrailingCycle  ---  2ndTraiIiflgCYGIe  -50 —60 -125  I  I  I  -100  -75  -50  -25  0  I  I  I  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm] Figure B.1O Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC3. -  -  154  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  Back View  Front View  •  •  Nail Pullthrough (Separated)  @ Minor Nail Pullout  ® Nail Pullout (Separated)  Legend I) Minor Nail Pulltlrrough  Nail Fracture  0 No Damage  Figure B.11 Failure mode of specimen PLC3. -  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 Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. [mm)  Load [kN)  Displ. [mm]  3.16 -4.19 2.14 2 Trailing -3.25 2.23 Trailing 3 0.056 -3.23 (3.74 mm) 2.32 4 Trailing -3.20 2.23 7.72 Trailing 5 -3.16 -6.54 11.67 4.61 0.1 6 Primary -10.30 -5.52 (6.68 mm) 9.13 3.20 7 Trailing -7.86 -4.24 9.13 3.12 Trailing 8 -4.22 0.075k -7.86 (5.01 mm) 9.13 3.05 Trailing 9 -3.96 -7.86 9.17 3.19 Trailing 10 -4.21 -7.90 10.15 18.63 0.2A 11 Primary -11.05 -17.12 (13.36 mm) 14.21 7.32 Trailing 12 -12.51 -8.31 0.15A (10.02 mm) 7.47 14.16 Trailing 13 -8.31 -12.56 23.43 15.66 0.3A 14 Primary -16.91 -22.11 (20.03 mm) 17.12 11.55 15 Trailing -12.50 0.225A -15.66 11.70 (15.03 mm) 17.22 16 Trailing -12.68 -15.71 21.32 26.58 0.4A Primary 17 -22.63 -25.97 (26.71 mm) 15.90 18.91 Trailing 18 -17.19 0.3A -17.73 15.93 (20.03 mm) 18.86 Trailing 19 -17.25 -17.83 38.04 35.05 0Th Primary 20 -40.21 -35.37 (46.75 mm) 28.82 22.06 Trailing 21 -30.75 -21.54 0.525A 28.88 (35.06 mm) 21.92 Trailing 22 -30.76 -21.69 53.15 40.88 1.OA Primary 23 -58.87 -42.01 (66.78 mm) 41.84 23.38 Trailing 24 -45.21 -23.38 0.75th 41.83 (50.09 mm) 23.43 Trailing 25 -44.96 79.55 1.5A Primary 26 -90.11 -44.12 -89.59 (100.17 mm) 63.90 18.72 Trailing 27 -69.08 -19.90 1.125z 63.89 (75.13 mm) 16.56 Trailing 28 -69.57 -19.62 112.59 17.12 2.OA Primary 29 -123.91 -20.13 -100.26 -30.20 (133.56 mm) 81.66 6.12 80.75 6.16 Trailing 30 -92.42 -11.10 1.5i 83.64 6.02 82.13 6.07 (100.17 mm) Trailing 31 -93.56 -11.57 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 1  Primary  0.075E (5.01 mm)  9.46 -8.42 7.62 -6.49 7.67 -6.49 7.67 -6.49  At Max. Displacement*  -  157  Appendix B  60  Phase II  —  Panel Tests  —  I  I I  50  I I  I I  I I  I  40  30  /  20  z 0 -J  zz  10 0  I  -10 -20  -  -30  -40 -50 -125  -100  -75  -50  -25  0  25  50  75  100  I I  125  Deformation [mm]  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  I  I I  50  I  40  __ PrimaryCycle  -20 —  —  -30  : :zt  -100  -125  —  let Trailing Cycle 2ndTrailingCycle  -75  -50  0  -25  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.13 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC4. -  -  158  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  Back View  Front 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 -  Figure B.15 Pictures of failure of specimen PLC4 -  159  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]  /  <-127.09 [mm]  Max. Drift:  >+ 107.52  [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 Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (5.01 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  Cycle  0.056 (3.74 mm)  0.1 (6.68 mm)  0.075z (5.01 mm)  0.2k (13.36 mm) 0.15A (10.02 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0.225A (15.03 mm) 0.4A (26.71 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0Th (46.75 mm) 0.525E (35.06 mm) 1.0k (66.78 mm) 0.75i (50.09 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNI 10.35 -8.09 8.14 -6.07 8.23 -6.16 8.19 -6.12 8.19 -6.16 12.51 -10.11 9.93 -7.39 9.97 -7.39 9.88 -7.39 9.93 -7.43 19.66 -17.03 14.87 -12.18 14.96 -12.23 24.93 -22.34 17.83 -15.90 17.88 -15.99 28.18 -27.75 20.09 -18.49 20.09 -18.63 37.30 -38.53 26.01 -23.76 25.73 -23.99 44.83 -46.29 27.75 -25.97 27.57  1 .5 (100.17 mm)  Dispi. CmmI 3.40 -4.33 2.47 -3.21 2.50 -3.21 2.42 -3.21 2.57 -3.14 4.93 -5.64 3.66 -4.23 3.45 -4.01 3.60 4.12 3.63 -4.22 10.63 -11.34 7.83 -8.41 7.97 -8.65 16.27 -17.43 12.08 -13.10 12.07 -13.25 21.46 -24.02 16.21 -17.98 16.10 -18.02 36.98 -42.43 29.38 -34.75 28.88 -34.68 5436 -62.01 42.40 -47.40 42.43 -47.47 83.43 -93.07 64.56 -72.10 64.64 -72.43 101.62 -122.23 86.88 -97.57 88.00 -97.86  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNJ  Displ. [mm]  -23.61 26.81 -23.94 107.52 46.62 48.64 2.0 Primary 29 -127.09 -42.81 -43.65 (133.56 mm) 15.62 Trailing 30 -13.22 1.5E (100.17 mm) 11.29 Trailing 31 -11.67 * Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 1.125i (75.13 mm)  161  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  60  I  I I  I  50  I  40 30  I  I  I  I I  I I  I  I I  -  I I  20  I I  I I —  -  I  -.  z  I I  I  I I .4  10  I I  I  I  —  I I +— I  I  I  0  -  _I  -  --  ———  —  I  I  -10  1-—  -20  -4 I  I I  I  —30  I  4I  + I  I I  I I  I I  -  -: I  I 1 -,  I I -l  I  -40  I I  -50 -140  4 I  I I  I I  I I  I  I  I I  I 4I I  -35  0  35  70  105  I  I I  I I  I I  I I  I  I  I  -105  -70  140  Deformation [mm]  60 50 40 30  20 Z  10 0  I I  I  I I  I I  -  I I  I I  I  -  -  I I  I I 1I 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 II I 4-  :  :  -‘  I -I  PCyde ‘%  ‘--  —  -30  —  —  1st Trailing Cycle 2ndTrailingCycle  : zh tz t:hti.i: -140  -105  -70  0  -35  35  70  105  140  Deformation [mm] Figure B.16 - Complete Load - Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC5.  162  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  Nails  Back View  Front 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. -  Figure B.18 Pictures of failure of specimen PLC5. -  163  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: Drift at the peak shear:  -Max. Drift: -  -  +52.87 [kN]  /  -46.15 [kN]  +108.56 [mm]  /  -75.23 [mm]  +109.81 [mm]  /  -109.69 [mm]  Max Separation: Failure mode:  Nail pull through / Fracture of end 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 Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075 (6.75 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  Cycle  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056 (5.07 mm)  0.1A (9 mm)  0.075 (6.75 mm)  0.2A (18 mm) 0.15A (13.5 mm) 0.3A (27 mm) 0.225E (20.25 mm) 0.4A (36 mm) 0.3A (27 mm) 0Th (63 mm) 0.525A (47.25 mm) 1.0i (90 mm) 0.75 (67.5 mm) 1.5k (135 mm) 1.125A (101.25 mm) 2.OA (180 mm) 1.5E (135 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  10.07 -8.47 8.33 -6.02 8.33 -6.07 8.28 -6.16 8.28 -6.16  4.95 -5.52 3.27 -4.26 3.34 -4.24 3.41 4.26 3.20 -4.18  12.37 -11.20 9.69 -7.86 9.78 -7.90 9.74 -8.04 9.69 -7.95 19.99 -18.91 14.44 -12.42 14.39 -12.47 26.39 -24.65 17.97 -15.48 18.11 -15.52 31.24 -29.35 20.42 -17.59 20.46 -17.69 43.65 -40.79 25.07 -21.36 24.93 -21.59  6.47 -7.31 4.68 -5.52 4.61 -5.38 4.75 5.45 4.61 -5.45 13.37 -14.22 9.81 -10.96 9.74 -10.90 20.55 -21.91 15.27 -16.73 15.28 -16.52 28.13 -29.27 20.93 -22.18 21.00 -22.12 50.54 -51.11 38.58 -38.57 38.57 -38.67  49.86  74.30 -75.23 50.76 -55.92 50.64 -56.20 108.56 -107.78 81.33 -86.52 81.24 -78.61 108.34 -136.01 115.19 -123.36 115.81 -124.39  24.60 -20.51 24.70 -20.79 -42.10 18.91 -4.47 17.97 -3.58 25.97 -2.59 4.99 -0.57 5.03 -0.89  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNI  Displ. Emmi  9.27  6.50  8.28  6.53  19.66  15.39  -16.42  -22.62  50.71 -10.49  109.72 -119.39  -3.01 7.48 -2.26  -87.02 157.94 -173.67  -0.47  -124.57  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  50  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  H I  I  I  I I  I  I  ‘F  30 — z  r  I I  I I  I I  I I  I I  I  20 I i ————H I  10  I  r----  0  I I  I ——-I——— I I  ————-  I I ————-1 I I  -20 -30  ————  -40  ————-a  I  __  _  I  I  I —I— I  II 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  0  30  60  90  120  150  I  I I  I I  I I  —  I I  I I  I I  I I  I  -150  -120  -90  -60  I + I I  I I  I I  I  ___,  I I  I  I  ri  I  —10  I I I_______  I  -50  -180  -30  180  Deformation (mm]  60 I  50  I I  40 30  20 z  .  10  —  .3  0 10 -20 -30  :  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 H I  ————a  I  I I I% 4--%I I I I -F I I I I  I  I  I  I F-————4 I I i i  I 4 I  I I  is’. 4_______4 \‘I I I  H I  I I  I I H I  ————H I I I I H—————#  -----  4-  I—ç4  ————H  I  4 I  -----1  I I  -  I  PrimaryCycle  4  __—-  I  I  I  -30  0  +  I  —  1-  -  —  —  1st Trailing Cycle --  2nd Trailing Cycle  :tt :t.  -180  -150  -120  -60  -90  30  60  90  120  150  180  Deformation (mm]  Figure B.19 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen PLC6. -  -  166  Appendix B  Phase II  Back View  Front 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. -  Figure B.21 Pictures of failure of specimen PLC6. -  167  —  Panel Tests  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  Phase II— Panel Tests  Appendix B  12  10 I I I  8  z  I I I I I  0  -j  4  I I I I I  -F--— I I  FI I  2  I I  I -I—  I  I  I  I  I F  I I  50  75  0 25  0  125  100  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.22  -  Backbone curve of specimen STM.  e  ,.  W  W  Staple Pullout  ± Wire Fracture  e  Hidden Failure  Legend —  Staple Pullout/Fracture  Staple Fracture  Figure B.23  -  0 No Failure  Failure mode of specimen STM.  169  150  175  Appendix B  Phase II  Figure B.24  —  Pictures of failure of specimen STM.  170  —  Panel Tests  Appendix B  Phase II  —  Panel Tests  Test Date: Apr. 29, 2005  Specimen: STC1  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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075 (3.46 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  Cycle  0.056A (2.58 mm)  0.1z (4.61 mm)  0.075k (3.46 mm)  0.2 (9.22 mm) 0.15A (6.92 mm) 0.3k (13.83 mm) 0.225 (10.37 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN] 5.74 -5.46 4.23 -4.00 4.23 -3.95 4.23 -3.91 4.19 -3.95 6.63 -6.26 4.66 -4.28 4.70 -4.28 4.75 -4.28 4.66 -4.28 8.66 -7.67 5.60 -4.80 5.50 -4.80 17  [ [  0.4k (18.44 mm) 0.3A (13.83 mm) 0.7z (32.27 mm)  546 -4.70 5.46 -4.70 9.36 -8.33 5.17 -4.42 5.13 -4.61 804  -3.53 4.89 -3.58 9.08 1.Ot\ Primary 23 -6.26 (46.1 mm) 3.76 Trailing 24 -2.31 0.75 (34.58 mm) 3.72 Trailing 25 -2.35 6.44 1.5A Primary 26 -3.11 (69.15 mm) 2.16 Trailing 27 -1.22 1.125E 2.02 (51.86 mm) Trailing 28 -1.46 2.54 2.0 Primary 29 -1.79 (92.2 mm) 1.08 Trailing 30 -0.80 1.5s 1.04 (69.15 mm) Trailing 31 -0.75 Values are given only when the Maximum load 0.525A (24.2 mm)  Displ. [mml  At Max. Displacement* Load [kNI  Displ. 1mm]  2.83 -2.67 2.20 -1.95 2.23 -2.06 2.19 -2.02 2.02 -2.11 3.89 -3.63 3.02 -2.86 2.91 -2.81 3.12 -2.86 3.12 -2.78 8.11 -8.32 6.19 -6.27 6.40 -6.24 12.79 -12.60 9.80 -9.70 974 -9.64 j 17.32 -17.27 13.12 -13.04 13.02 -13.04 30.52 -31.52 -8.00 -30.98 23.22 -23.63 23.12 -23.67 j 44.16 -45.47 33.54 -34.54 33.51 -34.34 67.54 4.70 52.26 -68.66 -2.96 -66.88 51.00 2.12 49.90 -51.06 49.60 -52.04 -1.41 -49.71 90.62 1.98 63.03 -91.86 -1.22 -69.10 68.53 0.94 36.19 -69.02 -0.61 -59.33 68.60 0.89 64.09 -68.55 does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  172  ]  Appendix B  Phase II  —  Panel Tests  15  10  5  0 -I  -5  -  -  I  I I I  I I I  -J  I I 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  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  I  -15 -100  I I I I I  I  I I  I I I  60  80  100  Deformation [mm]  15  —  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I I  I I  I  I  I  10  5  z 0 CD  0 -I  -5  2ridTrailingCycle  -10  -80  I I  I I  I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  -60  -40  -20  I  -15 -100  I I  I  I  0  20  40  I  60  80  100  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.25 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen STC1. -  -  173  Appendix B  Phase II  Figure B.26  —  Pictures of failure of specimen STC1.  174  —  Panel Tests  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  Phase II— Panel Tests  55 50 45 F  40 35  z  30 25  -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  F  I F  I F  I I  I I  I I  F I  I I  I  I I  I I  I  I I  I I  I F -II  I I  20 I  15 —  I  I I I— I  -t I  I I  I  10 I  I I  I I -t  I I  I I  I I  I I  I F  25  50  75  100  5  I I  I  I  I I  I I * I  I I  125  150  --  I I  0 0  Deformation Cmml  Figure B.27 Backbone curve of specimen SHM. -  -  Pictures of failure of specimen SHM.  176  175  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]  +111.12[mm]  /  -116.38[mmj  -Max. Drift: -  -  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. -  Cycle  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075z (5.01 mm)  2  Trailing  3  Trailing  4  Trailing  5  Trailing  6  Primary  7  Trailing  8  Trailing  9  Trailing  10  Trailing  11  Primary  12  Trailing  13  Trailing  14  Primary  15  Trailing  16  Trailing  17  Primary  18  Trailing  19  Trailing  20  Primary  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  25  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056A (3.74 mm)  0.1A (6.68 mm)  0.075A (5.01 mm)  0.2A (13.36 mm) 0.15z (10.02 mm) 0.3A (20.03 mm) 0.225A (15.03 mm) 0.4i. (26.71 mm) 0.3z\ (20.03 mm) 0.7E (46.75 mm) 0.525A (35.06 mm) 1 .0 (66.78 mm) 0.75 (50.09 mm) 1.5 (100.17 mm) 1.125z\ (75.13 mm) 2.0 (133.56 mm) 1.5A (100.17 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNI 11.90 -11.24 9.17 -8.19 9.17 -8.28 9.27 -8.23 9.22 -8.28 14.49 -13.50 11.01 -9.55 11.67 -9.60 12.94 -9.55 11.15 -9.50 21.36 -20.70 14.82 -13.78 14.77 -13.74 28.22 -24.89 18.06 -15.52 17.69 -15.34 32.32 -27.90 18.72 -15.76 18.35 -15.52 45.11 -36.13 22.49 -17.31 19.95 -16.98 48.45 19.85 -13.92 18.82 -14.11 3867 9i -8.61 .j 14.30 -8.37 j 40.36 -29.31 10.11 -5.08 9.31 -4.99  Displ. [mm] 2.90 -3.40 1.99 -2.60 1.99 -2.60 2.06 -2.53 2.06 -2.56 4.28 -4.72 3.00 3.54 2.93 -3.51 2.86 3.54 2.93 -3.51 10.21 -10.25 7.25 -7.79 7.38 -7.85 16.01 -16.41 11.93 -12.44 12.10 -12.47 21.94 -22.78 16.31 -17.32 16.28 -17.29 39.70 -42.26 28.83 -32.62 30.25 -32.59 58.63 -61.74 44.97 -48.06 45.18 -48.06 89.53 -94.90 69.05 -73.37 69.19 -73.64 113.13 -124.02 93.43 -99.08 93.81 -99.18  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  19.43  Dispi. [mmj  30.32  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at th Maximum displacement.  178  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  60  I  40  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 •1-————  I  _9  I I  I I  I  j  I I —  30  I I  I -  I  20  z  I I  I I  I I  — i -  10  I -  I  I  ——  —  I  0  I  -  •---  -  --+I  I I —————  -10 -20  ——  -30  ——-4 I I I I  -40  I I I I  ———b I  —  I I I  I 4  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  0  25  I  I I  I I  I  I I  I I  50  75  100  I  I  I  -  -50  -125  -100  -75  -50  -25  125  Deformation [mm]  60 I  50  I  I  I  I  I  -  -  -  -  pnmaryycie -20  -  —  —  2ndTiIingCycie  -i----——-----i—-————  30  -125  -100  -75  -50  0  -25  25  —lstTrailing Cycle  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.29 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC1. -  -  179  Appendix B  Phase II  Nail Fracture  Legend 0 Nail Pulloat  Figure B.30 Failure mode of specimen SHC1. -  Figure B.31 Pictures of failure of specimen SHC1. -  180  —  Panel Tests  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: Failure mode:  27.21 [mm] 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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075k (4.65 mm)  2  First Trailing  7  Last Trailing  8  Primary  9  First Trailing  14  Last Trailing  15  Primary  16  Trailing  17  Trailing  18  Trailing  19  Primary  20  Trailing  cycle  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  252  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  32  Primary  33  Trailing  34  Trailing  0.056A (3.47 mm)  At Max. Load .  Load [kN]  Dispi. [mml  8.19 -7.29 6.40 -5.03 6.44  4.44 -4.63 3.19  At Max. Dlsplacement* Load [kNI  Displ. [mm]  0.26  3.34  0.075i. (4.65 mm) 0.2A (12.40 mm)  0.15b (9.30 mm)  0.3A (18.60 mm)  0.225A (13.95 mm)  0.4t (24.80 mm) 0.3A (18.60 mm) 0Th (43.40 mm) 0.525z (32.55 mm) 1.0i (62 mm) 0.75A (46.50 mm)  (93 mm) 1.125A (69.75 mm)  9.78 -8.89 7.57 -6.12 7.43  5.82 -6.10 4.51 -4.71 4.51  -6.21  -4.71  15.48 -13.64 10.77 -8.70 10.77 -8.66  11.95 -12.17 8.97 -9.23 9.05 -9.23  10.63 -8.70  9.05 -9.31  19.00 -16.65 12.28 -9.69 12.18 -9.93  17.97 -18.37 13.54 -13.84 13.54 -13.84  12.23 -9.74 21.12 -18.58 12.84 -10.16 12.75 -10.21  -13.76 24.24 -24.60 18.28 -18.36 18.14  28.04 -23.29 13.97 -10.82 13.69  42.47 -42.96 31.97 -32.01 31.99  -10.87  -32.38  30.39  0.22  -9.88  60.79 61 45.72 -45.95 45.87 -46.18  -24.79 11.48 -8.42 10.91  90.66 -92.46 68.71 -69.34 68.70  -8.33  -69.34  0.33 0.26 0.31 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.54 0.98 0.95 0.84  13.62  0.99 1.52 1.69 1.72  -18A4  2545 13.17 -9.83 12.70  4.04 4.49 4.43 805 8.92 8.88 30.81  91.64  122.70 22.11 119.20 22.96 -123.03 -15.90 92.32 7.53 91.65 7.62 Trailing 36 -92.61 -5.18 1.5k 92.10 (93 mm) 7.01 Trailing 37 -92.61 -5.41 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 35  Primary  2.OA (124 mm)  182  LmmJ  0.30  -5.08 0.1A (6.20 mm)  Vertical Se iaa t ion 1  18.74 20.56 21.03 27.21 26.33 26.31  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  I  I  I  125  Deformation [mm]  40 I  30  I  I  I  I  -  20 10  z •  0  Cu  0 -J  -10 -20 I  -30  I  I  I  I  I I I  -4 I I I  0  25  -  -40 -125  I  I  I I I  I  I I I  -100  -75  -50  -25  Last Trailing Cycle 4-  I I I  I I I  I  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.32 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC2. -  -  183  Appendix B  Phase II  • Nail Pullout  e  Legend  [  Nail  ucture After Pullout  Shearlock Pullout  Figure B.33 Failure mode of specimen SHC2. -  Figure B.34 Pictures of failure of specimen SHC2. -  184  —  Panel Tests  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]  +108.12[mm]  /  -98.01[mm]  -Max.Drift: -  -  Max Separation: Failure mode:  28.06 [mm] 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. -  Type of ycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (4.65 mm)  2  First Trailing  7  Last Trailing  8  Primary  9  First Trailing  14  LastTrailing  15  Primary  16  Trailing  17  Trailing  18  Trailing  19  Primary  20  Trailing  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  252  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  32  Primary  33  Trailing  34  Trailing  Cycle  0.056A (3.47 mm)  0.1A (6.20 mm) 0.075A (4.65 mm) 0.2 (12.40 mm)  0.15A (9.30 mm)  0.3A (18.60 mm)  0.225z (13.95 mm)  0.4A (24.80 mm) O.3A (18.60 mm) 0.7A (43.40 mm) 0.525A (32.55 mm) 1.OA (62 mm) 0.75A (46.50 mm) 15A (93 mm) 1.125i (69.75 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  10.07 -8.84 8.09 -6.59 8.00  454 -4.52 3.60 335 3.45  -6.45  -3.42  11.38 -10.35 8.84 -7.29 8.84  6.16 -6.14 4.56 -4.60 4.48  -7.43  -4.53  16.23 -15.43 11.62 -9.88 11.48 -9.93 11.34  12.43 -12.03 9.22 -9.10 9.16 -9.10  -9.83  -9.10  19.66 -18.96 12.80 -10.96 12.56 -10.91  18.38 -18.53 13.84 -13.68 13.77 -13.90  12.70 -10.82 22.02 -21.26 13.08 -11.24 12.84 -11.29  -13.82 24.43 -24.28 18.45 -18.27 18.52  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mmj  0.29 0.33 0.29 0.39 0.26 0.38 0.51 0.58 0.60  9.15  0.67 1.03 1.28 1.27  13.78  1.25 1.88 2.16 2.10  -18.42  29.45 -27.75 13.74 -12.00 13.12 -11.95  42.69 -42.57 32.36 -32.08 32.29  31.75  61.19 6073 46.25 -45.88 46.26  4.57 5.07 5.06  -32.01  a9ir  12.89 -10.58 12.37  832 9.41 9.27  -46.10  -10.58 3274 -25.54 10.16 -7.43 9.60 -7.20  9047 -92.13 69.22 -69.02 69.30 -69.10  3152  9224  123.56 20.09 122.29 20.93 -121.42 -14.72 92.74 6.92 92.14 6.92 Trailing 36 -91.91 -4.42 iSA 92.53 (93 mm) 6.49 Trailing 37 -91.84 -4.42 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. Primary  35  Vertical Separation [mm]  2.OeX (124 mm)  -  186  19.78 22.15 21.68 28.06 26.95 27.30  Appendix B  Phase II  —  Panel Tests  40  40 I I  I I  30  -  I I I  —  20  I I I  I I 4-  I  I I I -t I I I 4 I  I I  I I I  I  I  -I I  I I  I I  I I  I  4I I  I I  I  I  I  I 4I  L  10  z 0 D 0 -J  -10  I PrimaryCycle  -20 -30 -40 -125  ———FirstTrailingCycle  11111:: 1:7111-:II I 7 71 7 -100  -75  -50  0  -25  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.35 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC3. -  -  187  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  a  a  0  0  . .  .  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  a  .  I I  .  0  .  I  a  I  a a  a  0  a  a  a  •  .  a  .  e  a  •  a  a  a  • Nail Pullout  © Nail Fracture Before Pullout  e Nail Fracture After Pullout  0 Sheurloek Pullout  Legend  Figure B.36 Failure mode of specimen SHC3. -  Figure B.37 Pictures of failure of specimen SHC3. -  188  Appendix B  Phase II  Specimen: SHC4  —  Panel Tests  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: Failure mode:  19.68 [mm] 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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075A (4.65 mm)  2  First Trailing  7  Last Trailing  8  Primary  9  First Trailing  14  Last Trailing  15  Primary  16  Trailing  17  Trailing  18  Trailing  Cycle  19  Primary  20  Trailing  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  252  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  32  Primary  33  Trailing  34  Trailing  35  Primary  36  Trailing  37  Trailing  0.056 (3.47 mm) 0.1 (6.20 mm) 0.075 (4.65 mm) 0.2A (12.40 mm)  0.15A (9.30 mm)  0.3 (18.60 mm)  0.225A (13.95 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNJ  Displ. [mm]  10.44 -7.24 8.23 499 8.28  4.20 -4.61 3.11 344 3.04  -4.99  -3.51  12.18 -8.66 9.50 -5.65 9.36 -5.74  5.64 -6.09 4.19 -4.66 4.26  0.3A (18.60 mm) 0.7A (43.40 mm) 0.525A (32.55 mm)  17.92 -13.50 12.65 -8.04 12.56 -8.09 12.28 -8.00 21.03 -15.90 13.55 -8.70 13.31 -8.84  23.19 -17.59 13.74 -9.03 13.55 -8.99 30.77 -23.52 14.39 -9.17 14.07 -9.03  1.0E (62 mm) 0.75A (46.50 mm) 1.5 (93 mm) 1.125A (69.75 mm) 2.OA (124 mm) 1.5S (93 mm)  Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  33.78  0.51 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.57 0.44 0.74 0.67 0.78 1.01 1.25 1.18 1.35 1.82 2.33 2.39 4.21 4.52 4.38  13.55 -8.09 13.27  59.90 -61.16 45.04 -46.36 45.31  -7.90  -46.08 89.71 -92.25 68.27 -69.39 67.98 -69.74  33.92  -25.45 11.53 -6.12 11.01 -5.97  10.44  68.51  26.58 -15.57 8.00 -3.58 7.72 -3.25  119.99 -123.78 91.69 -93.14 91.44 -93.04  25.97  122.22  6.47 6.64 6.10 91.03  10.75 11.56  Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  190  Vertical Separation [mm] 0.20  -4.61 11.50 -12.10 8.58 -9.23 8.91 -9.26 8.73 -9.11 17.51 -18.13 13.27 -13.70 13.46 -13.87 13.12 -13.85 23.56 -24.42 17.81 -18.54 17.80 -18.44 41.75 -42.93 31.69 -32.43 31.62 -32.41  13.22 -8.75 0.4A (24.80 mm)  At Max. Displacement*  11.76 19.04 19.51 19.68  Phase II— Panel Tests  Appendix B  30 20 10  z 0 0 -J  -10  -125  -100  -75  -50  -25  0  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  40 30 20 10  z D 0  0  -j  -10 -20 -30  I  I  I  I  I  I I  + I I I  I I  -50  -25  0  I  -40 -125  -100  -75  Last Trailing Cycle  I 4  -  I I  I I I  I I I  I I I  25  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.38 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC4. -  -  191  Phase II  Appendix B  Broken Corner  Pro-Damaged Stucco  Stucco  • Nail Pullout  © Nail Fracture Before Pullout  e Nail Fracture After Pullout  0 Shcarloctc Pullout  Legend  Figure B.39 Failure mode of specimen SHC4. -  Figure B.40 Pictures of failure of specimen SHC4. -  192  —  Panel Tests  Phase II— Panel Tests  Appendix B  Test Date: Aug. 4, 2005  Specimen: SHC5  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]  +116.85[mmj  /  -119.10[mm]  -Max.Drift: -  -  Max Separation: Failure mode:  30.37 [mm] 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. -  Type of Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  1  Primary  0.075th (4.65 mm)  2  First Trailing  7  Last Trailing  8  Primary  9  First Trailing  14  Last Trailing  15  Primary  16  Trailing  17  Trailing  18  Trailing  Cycle  19  Primary  20  Trailing  21  Trailing  22  Trailing  23  Primary  24  Trailing  252  Trailing  26  Primary  27  Trailing  28  Trailing  29  Primary  30  Trailing  31  Trailing  0.056 (3.47 mm) O.lt (6.20 mm) 0.075k (4.65 mm) 0.2S (12.40 mm)  0.15A (9.30 mm)  0.3A (18.60 mm)  0.225 (13.95 mm)  0.4 (24.80 mm) 0.3A (18.60 mm) i 7 0. (43.40 mm) 0.525A (32.55 mm) 1.OA (62 mm) 0.75A (46.50 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNJ  Dispi. [mml  7.48 5.93 -3.81 5.97  4.41 457 3.51 337 3.41  -3.81  -3.48  9.22 -6.68 6.92 -4.61 7.06  5.77 -6.04 4.43 -4.40 4.53 -4.51  .4.47 14.87 -11.10 10.49 -6.92 10.40 .6.92  Primary  33  Trailing  10.58  9.15  -6.96 19.48 -14.72 12.75 .8.42 12.47 -8.42  -9.08 17.92 -17.94 13.51 -13.78 13.62 -13.78  12.51 -8.52  13.51 -13.76  22.96 -17.31 13.69 -9.08 13.45 -9.03  23.75 -24.39 17.87 -18.67 18.00 -18.37  33.68 -25.50 15.52 -10.35 15.01  40.80 -42.94 30.83 -32.72 30.94  -10.21  -32.66  36.69 -29.87 14.82 -9.17 13.92  58.09 -61.65 44.37 -46.84 44.67  34  Trailing  35  Primary  36  Trailing  37  Trailing  Values ar given only  Displ. Lmm]  87.85 -92.48 67.79 -69.72 67.74  -6.92 11.57 -6.49  0.20 0.34 0.37 0.17 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.51 0.41 0.47 0.57 0.61 0.74 0.88 1.05 1.31 3.30  4.04 7.08 8.09 8.22 38.48  88.89  -70.13 30.48 2.0/i 119.76 29.49 120.56 (124 mm) -23.76 -123.59 7.76 90.13 7.62 91.24 1.5/i -3.43 -93.55 (93 mm) 7.01 90.39 6.87 91.13 -3.15 -93.11 when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  194  Vertical Separation [mmj 0.44  -46.87  1.5/i (93 mm) 1.125/i (69.75 mm)  Load [kNJ  12.00 -12.04 9.01 -9.23 9.02 -9.14  -°  32  At Max. Displacement*  14.66 17.63 17.76 26.49 30.37 29.72  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  10  z • 0 -J  0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -125  -100  -75  -50  -25  0  25  50  75  I  I I I  100  125  Deformation [mm]  40 I I —4  30 20 10  -  c0 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  z •  I I I  I  0  I I  -10  I I I I I 4 I I _L I I I I I I I I  ——-—r  I I I  I  I I I I I I  -4 I  J. j-  I I II — I  I I 4I  -  .I I I I I I  I I I I I  I  I  I  I  I I  I  —  —  I _____j_ I  I I  I I I I I  I  PñmaryCyce  -20  F  F  ———FirstTrailingCycle  -30 .1.,  -40 -125  -100  -75  -50  0  -25  25  50  75  100  125i  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.41  -  Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC5. -  195  Appendix B  Phase U  ft Nail Fracture Before Pullout  • Nail 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  —  Panel Tests  Appendix B  Phase U  Specimen: SHC6  —  Panel Tests  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: Failure mode:  18.61 [mm] 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 Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude  At Max. Load Load [kN]  Displ. (mml  At Max. Displacemenr Load [kNj  Displ. [mm]  4.41 -4.34 3.38 First Trailing 2 0.056z\ -3.41 (3.47 mm) 3.32 7 Last Trailing -3.66 0.IA 5.78 8.52 Primary 8 -8.70 (6.20 mm) -6.12 6.35 4.36 First Trailing 9 0.075E -5.93 -4.51 (4.65 mm) 6.40 4.36 Last Trailing 14 -4.87 -6.02 13.78 12.06 0.2k 15 Primary (12.40 mm) -13.17 -12.36 9.46 9.23 16 Trailing -8.42 -9.27 0.15A 9.36 9.09 17 Trailing (9.30 mm) -8.51 -9.17 9.31 9.05 Trailing 18 -8.51 -9.34 17.45 18.20 0.3A Primary 19 (18.60 mm) -16.65 -18.26 11.10 13.67 Trailing 20 -14.04 -9.88 0.225k 13.56 11.15 21 Trailing (13.95 mm) -13.93 -9.88 10.82 13.37 Trailing 22 -13.98 -9.88 20.13 0.4th 24.19 Primary 23 (24.80 mm) -18.96 -24.61 11.71 18.09 24 Trailing 0.3 -10.35 -18.72 (18.60 mm) 18.01 11.48 252 Trailing -10.44 -18.62 27.57 0Th 42.14 26 Primary -24.65 (43.40 mm) -43.06 12.33 31.73 27 Trailing 0.525 -10.87 -32.49 (32.55 mm) 11.95 31.80 Trailing 28 -10.82 -32.61 60.70 1.0 Primary 29 (62 mm) -61.69 45.71 1 06 30 Trailing 0.75t -46.49 ;9.50 (46.50 mm) 0.63 45.58 31 Trailing -46.50 -9.50 j 1.5th 90.43 .__..1E1iI.hl[ 28.46 91.54 32 Primary (93mm) 2507 -92.71 68.53 9.36 Trailing 33 1.1 25A -7.90 -69.76 (69.75 mm) 68.71 8.84 Trailing -8.04 -69.61 j 25.78 2.0t 122.24 Primary 35 (124 mm) -19.24 -123.39 90.72 6.45 6.40 91.87 36 Trailing 1.5A -5.69 -92.17 (93 mm) 5.83 91.92 Trailing 37 -5.17 -92.72 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement. 1  Primary  0.075z (4.65 mm)  7.20 -7.15 5.69 -5.22 5.55 -5.32  I  T  198  Vertical  Separation [mm] 0.24 0.34 0.30 0.10 0.37 0.27 0.24 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.81 0.78 0.71 0.81 1.15 1.45 1.42 3.10 3.51 3.64 5.83 6.57 6.64 10.08 11.90 12.00 16.04 18.64 18.81  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  30 20 10  z D 0 Cu 0  -I  -40  -100  -125  -75  -50  -25  0  25  50  75  100  I I  I  125  Deformation [mm]  40 I I  I  I I  I I  I  30 20 10  z D 0 cu 0 -I  -10  -20 I  -30  H I I I  -40 -125  -100  I  I I I I  I H I I I  0  25  + I I I  I I I  I I  -75  -50  -25  Last Trailing Cycle  50  I  I I I  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  [  Legend  •  Nail Pullout  @ Nail Fracture Before Pullout  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  Specimen: SHC7  Panel Tests  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]  +l01.38[mmj  /  -80.54 [mm]  -Max. Drift: -  -  Max Separation: Failure mode:  67.84 [mm] 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 Cycle  Prescribed Amplitude 0.075A (4.65 mm)  At Max. Load Load [kNJ  Dispi. [mm]  8.09 -6.44 6.35 -4.42 6.30 -4.42 10.16 -7.67 7.43 -5.03 7.39  At Max. Displacement* Load [kN]  Displ. [mm]  4.52 1 Primary -4.33 3.40 First Trailing 2 0.056 -3.32 (3.47 mm) 3.53 Last Trailing 7 -3.40 0.1A 6.22 Primary 8 (6.20 mm) -5.88 4.58 9 First Trailing 0.075A -4.29 (4.65 mm) 4.56 Last Trailing 14 -5.08 -4.51 15.76 0.2t 12.03 Primary 15 (12.40 mm) -11.57 -11.89 10.96 9.12 16 Trailing -7.34 -9.06 0.15A 9.16 10.68 17 Trailing (9.30 mm) -9.02 -7.34 10.63 9.18 18 Trailing -7.29 -9.13 0.3t 19.81 17.86 19 Primary (18.60 mm) -18.09 -14.30 13.55 12.61 20 Trailing -8.47 -13.78 0.225A 12.42 13.44 21 Trailing (13.95 mm) -8.47 -13.68 13.62 12.33 Trailing 22 -13.72 -8.51 22.11 0.4A 23.86 Primary 23 (24.80 mm) -16.23 -24.11 18.12 13.22 Trailing 24 0.3 -8.94 -17.98 (18.60 mm) 13.22 18.12 252 Trailing -8.94 -18.30 0.7A 41.98 26 Primary (43.40 mm) -42.40 12.98 31.88 27 Trailing 0.525k -9.36 -32.07 (32.55 mm) 12.42 31.44 12.33 31.97 28 Trailing -9.22 -32.08 1.0k 26.25 60.25 Primary 29 (62 mm) -20.37 -60.93 11.67 45.81 Trailing 30 0.75 -8.56 -46.03 (46.50 mm) 11.15 46.00 31 Trailing -8.28 -45.98 1.5A 24.70 89.87 24.60 91.39 Primary 32 (93 mm) -15.66 -85.14 9.97 68.54 9.93 69.12 Trailing 33 1.125A -6.49 -69.22 (69.75 mm) 69.02 9.83 Trailing 34 -6.44 -69.18 2.0z 17.69 121.59 17.45 122.72 Primary 35 (124 mm) -10.40 -121.23 8.80 91.79 8.61 92.36 36 Trailing 1.5z -4.70 -92.14 (93 mm) 8.28 92.23 37 Trailing -4.56 -91.74 Values are given only when the Maximum load does not occur at the Maximum displacement.  202  Veilical Separation [mm] 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.37 0.51 0.47 0.61 0.71 0.94 0.71 1.48 1.72 1.75 1.75 3.00 3.24 3.20 7.58 8.56 8.76 17.83 20.93 21.50 39.19 46.95 46.51 61.37 67.84 67.23  Appendix B  Phase II  -100  -125  -75  -50  0  -25  25  —  Panel Tests  50  75  100  I  I I I  I I  I  50  75  100  125  Deformation [mm]  40 I I  I  I I  I I  30  I  20 10  z • 0 -J  0 -10 -20 -30-40 -125  -100  -75  -50  -25  0  25  125  Deformation [mm]  Figure B.47 Complete Load Deformation plot and envelope curves of specimen SHC7. -  -  203  Appendix B  Phase II— Panel Tests  • Nail Pullout  © Nail Fracture Before Pullout  Legend  © Shearluck Pullout  Nail Fracture After 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  t’J  0  (D  PLM  PLC6  PLC5  PLC4  PLC3  PLC2  PLC1  I  PLC6 xis  PLC6 Videos  PLC6 Photos  I  STM  STC1  SHM  SHC7  SHC6  SHC5  SHC4  SHC3  SHC2  SHC1  I  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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0063110/manifest

Comment

Related Items