Bott Masters Thesis Etd

HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS OF WOOD DIAPHRAGMS
by

James Wescott Bott

Thesis submitted to the faculty of

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

CIVIL ENGINEERING

APPROVED:

J. Daniel Dolan, Co-Chairman W. Samuel Easterling, Co-Chariman

Joseph R. Loferski

April 18, 2005

Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: wood diaphragm, shear stiffness, diaphragm stiffness, diaphragm deflection

HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS OF WOOD DIAPHRAGMS

by

James Wescott Bott

ABSTRACT

An experimental investigation was conducted to study the stiffness of wood diaphragms.
Currently there is no method to calculate wood diaphragm stiffness that can reliably account for
all of the various framing configurations. Diaphragm stiffness is important in the design of wood
framed structures to calculate the predicted deflection and thereby determine if a diaphragm may
be classified as rigid or flexible. This classification controls the method by which load is
transferred from the diaphragm to the supporting structure below.
Multiple nondestructive experimental tests were performed on six full-scale wood
diaphragms of varying sizes, aspect ratios, and load-orientations. Each test of each specimen
involved a different combination of construction parameters. The construction parameters
investigated were blocking, foam adhesive, presence of designated chord members, corner and
center sheathing openings, and presence of walls on top of the diaphragm.
The experimental results are analyzed and compared in terms of equivalent viscous
damping, global stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness in order to evaluate the
characteristics of each construction parameter and combinations thereof. Recommendations are
presented at the end of this study as to the next steps toward development of an empirical method
for calculating wood diaphragm stiffness.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to extend his warmest thanks to Dr. Daniel Dolan and Dr. Sam
Easterling for their unending guidance and support. A special thanks also goes to Dr. Joseph
Loferski for serving as a committee member, and to CUREE for sponsoring the research.
There are several individuals who proved invaluable during the experimental phase of the
project. They include Bob Carner, Kenny Albert, and Guy Anderson. A special thanks goes to
an undergraduate research assistant, Mike Boyce, who provided the greatly needed labor and
assistance during specimen construction and testing.
Finally the author would like to thank his loving and understanding wife and family for
their support and dedication.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
TABLE OF FIGURES vi
TABLE OF TABLES viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Research 4
1.3 Literature Review 7
1.3.1 Early Testing 7
1.3.2 Dynamic Testing 10
1.3.3 Similar Diaphragms 12

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 15

2.1 Scope of Testing 15
2.2 Test Apparatus 16
2.3 Diaphragm Construction 23
2.4 Test Parameters 27
2.5 Instrumentation 38
2.6 Test Protocol 45
2.7 Test Data Analysis 46
2.7.1 Yielding 47
2.7.2 Global Deformation 49
2.7.3 Cyclic Stiffness 51
2.7.4 Shear Deformation 56
2.7.5 Shear Stiffness 58
2.7.6 Flexural Deformation 60
2.7.7 Flexural Stiffness 60
2.7.8 Hysteretic Energy 61
2.7.9 Equivalent Viscous Damping 63

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 67

v
3.1 Introduction 67
3.2 Test Conditions 67
3.3 Nail Bending Test Results 69
3.4 Moisture Content and Density Results 71
3.5 Construction Parameter Results 73
3.6 Diaphragm Stiffening Methods 78

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82

4.1 Summary 82
4.2 Conclusions 83

REFERENCES 86

APPENDIX A 88

APPENDIX B 95

APPENDIX C 119

APPENDIX D 120

APPENDIX E 128

vi
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1.1 Cross-Section of a Typical Wood Framed Floor 2

1.2 Deep Beam Analogy 4

2.1 Load Frame, Actuator Connection, and Load Distribution Channel 17

2.2 Triangular Reaction Frame 18

2.3 Basic Test Apparatus and Configuration 20

2.4 Triangular Reaction Frame Plan View Schematic 21

2.4a Elevation View of Triangular Reaction Frame 21

2.5 Partial Section of Diaphragm Test Apparatus (loading parallel to joists) 22

2.6 Rim-Joist Splice for 10 x 40 ft. Specimens 24

2.7 Basic Specimen Sizes / Orientations (16 x 20 ft. and 20 x 16 ft.) 25

2.7 (Cont.) Basic Specimen Sizes / Orientations (10 x 40 ft.) 26

2.8 Fully Sheathed 10 x 40 ft. Specimen 27

2.9 Corner Sheathing Opening 29

2.10 Center Sheathing Opening 30

2.11 Test Configuration with Chords (and corner opening) 32

2.12 Test Configuration without Chords 32

2.13 Test Configuration with Walls 34

2.14 Wall-Lifting Davits 35

2.15 10 x 40 ft. Specimen with Walls and Wall-Braces 36

2.16 Application of Sprayed Foam Adhesive 37

2.17 Foam Adhesive Shown After Removal of a Sheathing Panel 38

vii
TABLE OF FIGURES, Contd
Figure Page

2.18 LVDTs and Mounting Bracket 40

2.19 Instrumentation Plan for 16 x 20 ft. Specimen 42



2.22 Idealized Elastoplastic Force-Deformation Curve 48

2.23 Simplified Diaphragm Deformation Curve with Sign Convention 50

2.24 Diaphragm Deformation Curve - Specimen 2, Test 8 50

2.25 Stiffness of a Linearly Elastic System 51

2.26 Cyclic Stiffness Calculation Methods 53

2.27 Global Load-Deformation Hysteresis, Specimen 3, Test 3 55

2.28 Global Load-Deformation Hysteresis, Specimen 3, Test 24 55

2.29 Diaphragm Deformation Theory 56

2.30 Diaphragm Shear Deformation 57

2.31 Numerical Integration of a Load-Deformation Hysteresis 62

2.32 Damping relationship to an equivalent viscous system 64

3.1 Diaphragm Specimen with Canopy 68

3.2 Floor Diaphragm with an Opening and Collector Ties 80

viii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table Page

3.1 Average Moisture Content and Density Results by Specimen 72

3.2 Average Percent Differences by Construction Parameter 74

A.1 Specimen 1 Test Results 89






B.1 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking 96

B.2 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Foam Adhesive 99

B.3 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking and Foam Adhesive 101

B.4 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Increased Nail Density 102

B.5 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Chords 103

B.6 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Walls 105

B.7 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Center Sheathing Openings 109

B.8 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Corner Sheathing Openings 113

C.1 Instrument Descriptions 119

D.1 Specimen 1 Joists Moisture Content and Density 121

D.2 Specimen 1 Sheathing Moisture Content and Density 122



ix



E.1 Specimen 1 Test Descriptions 129






CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Modern structural engineering frequently involves sheathed construction, a load
resistance method exemplified in various structural elements by many combinations of suitable
materials. A common form of sheathed construction, the diaphragm, is a thin, usually planar
system of sheathing and frame members, intended to withstand considerable in-plane forces.
When referring to residential housing, everyday plywood construction typically comes to mind.
Most apparent examples of diaphragms are walls, upper-story floors, and roofs of
everyday structures such as residential houses, office buildings, and warehouses. Though similar
in function, wall diaphragms, called shear walls, require different consideration for design and
analysis, and thus fall outside of the scope of this investigation. Roofs and above-grade floors,
when designed as such, fall into the classification as true diaphragms. Typical combinations of
materials employed are wood sheathing on wood frame, metal sheathing on wood frame, metal
sheathing on metal frame, wood sheathing on metal frame, and variations using concrete,
structural insulation panels, and other construction materials. This research project is limited to
wood-framed and plywood-sheathed floor diaphragms typical in residential housing.
The common floor and roof diaphragm serves dual purposes by supporting vertical forces
(from loads such as furniture, people, snow, uplift, and its own dead load) and by transmitting
horizontal forces (from wind pressure or earthquake accelerations) to the supporting shear walls.
Floors and roofs are inherently able to carry gravitational loads due to the typical design by
which appropriately spaced framing members are covered with sheathing and fastened together.
Joists and rafters, the common framing members of floors and roofs, respectively, are oriented to
maximize the moment of inertia for resistance to flexure. Thus, a 2x10 floor joist would be
installed such that the nominal ten-inch side is vertical. The sheathing spans the distance
between and transmits loads to the framing members below. The framing members then
distribute the loads proportionally to supporting walls or posts. Also, when adequately fastened
together, the sheathing and framing can produce a flexurally efficient composite section.
Resistance to vertical forces, though a primary consideration in design and construction of floors
and roofs, is not the subject of this study.

Sheathing
Wood Floor Joists

Figure 1.1 Cross-Section of a Typical Wood Framed Floor
Horizontal forces applied to diaphragms are almost exclusively from wind and
earthquakes. Wind pressure on the exterior walls is transmitted proportionately along the edge
of a diaphragm as a uniform load. In the case of wind-loaded floors, connections with the top
plate of the wall below and the bottom plate of the wall above provide paths for load transfer.
When subjected to earthquake accelerations, its own inertia, or resistance to motion, and that of
attached walls or partitions causes horizontal loading of a diaphragm. Diaphragms are usually
more than capable of withstanding these loadings due to high in-plane shear capacity. Sheathing
material itself exhibits considerable in-plane shear strength. Hence, the reason a sheet of
plywood is much more rigid when loaded along the thin edge (in-plane) as opposed to the large
flat surface (out of plane). Accordingly, a low aspect ratio system of sheathing panels, properly
fastened together end-to-end along the edges, has an effective shear capacity. The fact that it is
usually so thin makes sheathing an efficient and lightweight means of resisting in-plane loads.
Resistance to these in-plane loads through diaphragm action may be compared to the
loading of a deep wide-flange beam, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. The shear walls of a structure
are analogous to the simple supports of the beam and provide the reaction against the forces
transmitted through the diaphragm. The inter-connected sheathing panels behave like the web of
the beam to resist the shear component of in-plane loads. And, the extreme edges of the
sheathing and/or the boundary members running perpendicular to the direction of the loads
simulate the flanges of the beam by carrying the tension and compression from the flexural
reaction to the loads.
Flange
Web

Figure 1.2 Deep Beam Analogy

The behavior of floor and roof diaphragms has become an important issue with respect to
lateral stiffness and deflection. It has been noted that there is seldom a problem with the strength
of diaphragms, because failures are predominantly associated with the connections between a
diaphragm and supporting walls. Though the occurrence of actual failures is rare, diaphragms
have sometimes been a controlling factor in the overall failure of structures during seismic events
(Dolan 1999). Poor understanding of wood diaphragm behavior has spurred the interest of
researchers to formulate more accurate methods of analysis and design similar to methods
already employed in the design of cold-formed steel diaphragms.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF RESEARCH
The objective of this study is to evaluate the stiffness effects of various diaphragm
construction parameters for use in the development of an accurate method to determine shear
stiffness of wood diaphragms based on the formulas currently used in cold-formed steel design.
Such a formula would allow an improved method of predicting diaphragm deflections. The
capability to accurately calculate diaphragm stiffness and deflections will enhance the safety and
economy of wood diaphragms.
The current lack of an accurate method to predict diaphragm stiffness prevents designers
from knowing exactly how much stiffness to expect from any given design. Adequate
diaphragm stiffness is required in order to allow load sharing among the supporting shear walls.
In other words, flexible diaphragms resist loads locally (i.e., they can not transfer loads
horizontally very far). Thus, the loads induced into a flexible diaphragm must be transferred to
local supports (i.e., walls that are the closest to the location of the induced load). A perfectly
rigid diaphragm would be the other end of the spectrum where all of the supporting walls share
in resisting the load according to their relative stiffness. In reality, the diaphragm stiffness falls
somewhere in between these two extremes. However, the higher the diaphragm stiffness, the
better the load sharing capability is of the structural system and therefore, the better the expected
performance.
Currently, diaphragms must be classified as either flexible or rigid in order to select one
of two different design methods for the transfer of load to the supporting structure. Wood
diaphragms have been traditionally assumed as flexible, thereby allowing a load distribution
design based on the tributary area method. This method, however, is not applicable when
diaphragms exhibit torsional irregularities such as asymmetric geometry and openings (e.g.
stairwells) or differences in locations of center of rigidity and center of force. To account for
such torsional irregularities a designer must assume a rigid diaphragm and transfer the load based
on relative stiffness of the supporting walls.
According to the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for new
Buildings and Other Structures (1997) and as adopted in the Uniform Building Code (1997) and
the 2000 International Building Code a diaphragms classification changes from rigid to flexible
when diaphragm deflection under load is equal to or greater than twice the deflection of the
supporting walls. Thus, designers are now forced to calculate the stiffness of wood diaphragms,
(and convert the stiffness into a corresponding deflection) in order to even make the distinction
between rigid and flexible.
Predicting diaphragm stiffness (or deflection) is difficult because currently there is no
simple and accurate method that can account for geometrical irregularities as well as all of
todays varying construction practices. The one current method for calculating deflection of
wood diaphragms as developed by APA is complicated and is not able to incorporate many
factors such as sheathing openings, absence of chords, use of sheathing adhesive, and non-
rectangular shapes. Designers need a simple and accurate method to determine wood diaphragm
stiffness if they are expected to even begin to select the proper load distribution method.
The specific objective of this study is to evaluate several basic diaphragm construction
details for their individual and combined effects on diaphragm stiffness. These results will then
be used under another task of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project to develop and calibrate a
finite element model for diaphragm analysis. The overall goal of the experimental diaphragm
testing and finite element modeling is the development of an equation to accurately predict wood
diaphragm stiffness in the form of shear stiffness, G, as already accomplished by the cold-
formed steel industry.
This specific task is accomplished by a series of experimental tests on full-scale
diaphragms followed by careful analysis of the results. The test materials and procedures are
discussed in detail in Chapter II. Data collected from the tests is evaluated in Chapter III for
numerical trends indicating the effects of the various specimen configurations on stiffness.
These trends are used to make general observations regarding the stiffening characteristics of
each diaphragm construction parameter. All of the stiffness results for every test of each
specimen are listed for reference in Appendix A.

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
The objective of this literature review is to examine the studies in the field of theoretical
and experimental diaphragm research. A study of research performed in this field is important in
order to know what characteristics have already been established and what questions of
diaphragm behavior are still unanswered. Sporadic since the 1950s, most of the testing of wood
diaphragms has occurred at the facilities of the Douglas-fir Plywood Association (DFPA),
American Plywood Association (APA), Oregon State University, Oregon Forest Products
Laboratory, Washington State University, and West Virginia University. The volume of
literature available is small, therefore, rather than place the review in a separate chapter, the
reviewed literature is provided as a section within this chapter.

1.3.1 Early Testing
The DFPA sponsored some early tests in diaphragm behavior. Countryman (1952)
describes lateral tests on plywood-sheathed diaphragms. Four specimens, 12 x 40 ft. and 20 x 40
ft., and six one-quarter scale models, 5 x 10 ft., were tested by monotonic loading at fifth-points.
The specimens had varying parameters such as blocking, openings, staggered panels, gluing,
plywood thickness, nail size, and boundary nailing patterns. Stiffness of the diaphragms was
calculated from measured lateral deflection in the middle of the lower chord and applied load.
Shear deformation, and not flexural deformation was determined to be the predominant form of
deflection. Load versus deflection plots show that the actual deflection was consistently higher
than calculated values using existing equations. It was found that diaphragms behave like a
horizontal girder with a shear-resistant web. Due to their location at the extreme edges, chord
members of a diaphragm act like the flanges of a girder by resisting the flexural tension and
compression forces. The sheathing serves as the web of the girder to resist the shear. Strength
and stiffness of the specimens was found to be primarily dependent on the strength of the nailed
plywood-to-frame connections.
Due to over conservative design codes, the DFPA pursued further studies in diaphragm
action. Countryman and Colbenson (1954) report on tests of fifteen full-scale diaphragms,
conducted to better understand the strength effects from:
1. Omission of blocking
2. Panel arrangement
3. Nailing schedules
4. Span-thickness combinations
5. Length-width ratio
6. Seasoning of frame lumber
7. Use of three inch lumber
8. Cut-in blocking for chords
9. Load application perpendicular to joists
10. Screwed cleats in lieu of blocking

All 24 x 24 ft. specimens were monotonically loaded with four equal lateral forces at fifth
points of the span, and deflections were measured from the middle of the unloaded chord.
Plywood thickness and nailing schedule, along with blocking to a lesser degree, were found to be
the predominant factors in determining strength and stiffness. Ultimate applied shears ranged
from 733 to 2530 plf, while ultimate deflections occurred from 0.52 to 3.2 in. For blocked
diaphragms, the measured deflections are consistent with a formula produced as a result of the
DFPA Report No. 55 (Countryman 1952) with an average error of 15%.
In conjunction with the research described above, the DFPA also sponsored tests at the
Oregon Forest Products Laboratory. The two 20 x 60 ft. roof diaphragms tested, were
constructed with the lightest framing and plywood thickness permissible at that time for a roof of
this size (Stillinger and Countryman 1953). The 2 x 10 joists were framed at 24 in. o.c. and
sheathed with 3/8-in. thick plywood. One of diaphragms was blocked along the panel edges.
The diaphragms were loaded monotonically by hydraulic jacks at the fifth points. The 3/8-in.
thick plywood was found to be adequate, though not as strong as specimens with thicker
plywood. The lightweight framing system performed adequately. Lastly, it was found that for
unblocked diaphragms, no special boundary nailing detail was required regardless of the reduced
strength.
The APA became interested in lateral shear testing of diaphragms not composed of
Douglas-fir plywood. Tissell (1966) validated the DFPA tests from 1955 as well as going on to
test diaphragms of other various species of wood that were becoming popular in construction.
Nineteen full-scale 16 x 48 ft. diaphragms were tested. Plywood characteristics, sheathing-to-
framing connections, nail types, and framing member types were varied in the tests. Monotonic
loading from 16 hydraulic jacks at 3 ft. on center was used to approximate a uniform lateral load.
Lateral deflections were measured with dial gages at mid span of the tension chord. The design
shear values were found to be very conservative, with the average ultimate load being 1545 plf
and the average allowable design load being only 420 plf (includes factors of safety). Sheathing
of different species of wood was found to have a small but accountable change in shear strength
and stiffness. However, effects from plywood grade and quality were found to be negligible.
Tissell concluded that shear strength equivalent to that of blocked diaphragms is possible by
stapling tongue-and-groove 2-4-1 plywood. Further, shorter ring-shank nails are permissible as
long as a minimum penetration is attained. Open-web steel joist-framed diaphragms were
slightly stronger than the lumber framed diaphragms. The DFPA design values determined from
the tests previously discussed (Countryman and Colbenson 1954) were found to adequately
conservative.

1.3.2 Dynamic Testing
GangaRao and Luttrell (1980) explain the efforts at West Virginia University to quantify
shear response of diaphragms with the ultimate goal being the preparation of accurate analysis
models for future design purposes. Since diaphragms had been mainly studied under static
loading conditions, they propose that stiffness characteristics are an equally critical issue in a
correct estimation of behavior under real-life dynamic loading. Preliminary dynamic results
from tests at West Virginia University were used to derive joint slip and shear deformation
response equations based on dynamic loading. They predicted that damping characteristics with
respect to joint slip are the critical factors needed to appropriately describe diaphragm behavior
under dynamic loads.
At the time, Polensek (1979) was the only researcher making attempts at quantifying
damping characteristics for horizontal dynamic loading. His tests of plywood sheathed
diaphragms with six or ten inch joists yielded average equivalent viscous damping ratios
between 0.07 and 0.11. However, he considered that the data accumulated had been too varied
for an accurate estimation of the damping ratio. It was apparent, however, that an increase in the
damping effect is directly proportional to floor span.
At West Virginia University, Jewell (1981) performed experimental tests on partial
(cantilever) diaphragms in order to analyze a range of different parameters such as nail spacing,
boundary conditions, connection details, load type, and damping capacity. Three 16 x 24 ft.
diaphragms and six 16 x 16 ft. diaphragms were tested under monotonic, cyclic, and impact
loads in the directions perpendicular and parallel to the joists. Replica diaphragms were also
modeled in the same configurations as flexible composite members in a finite element analysis to
determine any inaccuracy in this theoretical approach. Based on a comparison of the theoretical
and experimental test results, Jewell was able to analyze relationships of plywood behavior, nail
slip, effect of loading, effect of joist hangers, and damping to the stiffness of diaphragms. In
most cases, the finite element approach yielded slightly less conservative results for stiffness
(i.e., predicted deflections were lower than actual), based on the parameters listed above.
Corda (1982) and Roberts (1983) performed additional cantilever diaphragms tests at
West Virginia University in another codependent study involving laboratory testing and finite
element modeling. Corda tested six 16 x 24 ft. specimens cyclically and statically to failure in
order to study local and global in-plane shear stiffness response to variations of blocking,
openings, plywood thickness, corner stiffeners, and framing nail sizes. It is noteworthy that nail
softening after loads up to 9 kips on some specimens caused a large decrease in stiffness.
Increased plywood thickness (without using longer nails) and corner openings reduced strength
but had little effect on stiffness. Roberts theoretical analysis of equivalent models of the
diaphragms tested by Corda, showed some evident discrepancies. Problems with the finite
element analysis program included the limitation to monotonic loading, inaccurate predictions of
panel slip, and the iterative processes of calculation of diaphragm deflection with respect to nail
slip, a bilinear relationship, demanding the modification of results to a nonlinear solution using
the tangent stiffness method. Based on the problems encountered, Roberts suggested that the
limitations imposed on the program user in modeling plywood diaphragms need to be eliminated
by further experimental research into stiffness characteristics of panel slip, plywood layout and
connection, diaphragm openings, and nail slip under cyclic loading.
A recent APA report by Tissell and Elliott (1997) describes diaphragm testing for high
load conditions equivalent to earthquakes accelerations. The primary intent was to formulate
design and construction approaches for these high-load diaphragms, which may incorporate
use of two layers of plywood, thicker plywood, or stronger fastener conditions. Ten of the
diaphragms tested were 16 x 48 ft., and the dimensions of an eleventh specimen were changed to
10 x 50 ft. Hydraulic jacks at a spacing of 24 in. o.c. were used to apply a cyclic uniform load
along the long side of the diaphragms. Results show that it is possible to increase shear strength
by increasing the number of fasteners or adding another layer of sheathing in areas of high shear.
This report also notes that plywood panel shear capacity must be checked for high-load
diaphragms. Staples were found to be adequate fasteners in lieu of nailed sheathing-to-framing
connections. Along the same lines, field glued joints and a reduced number of nails are adequate
for these diaphragms.

1.3.3 Similar Diaphragms
The abundant studies of floors comprised of materials other than wood are important in
order to understand general behavior of diaphragms. It is possible that wood diaphragm design
methods may be simplified and accurately rationalized in terms of methods already in use for
other materials. A theoretical study of the behavior of composite steel beam and concrete deck
diaphragms was made by Widjaja (1993) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Similar to many efforts currently in progress for wood diaphragms, the purpose of this study was
to develop an accurate finite element analysis model that predicts diaphragm behavior,
incorporates possible variations of design parameters, and derives design strength equations.
Similarly, experimental cantilever tests on cold-formed steel diaphragms are important in the
design of many steel-frame building roofs and composite floors (during construction, before
concrete). Post-frame diaphragm testing (wood frame and metal sheathing) is also significant in
terms of the more agricultural or shed type buildings.
With sponsorship from NUCOR Research and Development, Hankins et al. (1992)
performed eighteen cantilever diaphragm tests at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University to determine strength and stiffness of cold-formed steel sheathing, 20 and 22 gage
thickness (Vulcraft 1.5B1 deck), welded or bolted to a steel frame. The 16 x 16 ft. specimens
were subjected to monotonic loads. Thirteen diaphragms utilized an 8 ft. span, requiring only
one filler beam. The other five specimens had a filler beam spacing of 4 ft., requiring three filler
beams. Bolt and puddle weld arrangement, used to secure the sheathing, was varied to determine
its effects on diaphragm behavior. Results from the tests indicate that specimens with thicker
gage sheathing have more strength and stiffness. However, even though specimens with smaller
filler beam spacing (three filler beams as opposed to one) had more strength, the diaphragm
stiffness was less in some cases.
Hausmann and Esmay (1977) report the results of tests on twenty-six full size post-frame,
metal-clad diaphragm panels. All specimens were 8 x 16 ft. with rafters at 4 ft. o.c. along the 16
ft. side and purlins at 2 ft. o.c. along the 8 ft. side. Loaded monotonically at the ends of the three
interior rafters, the panels were analyzed for strength and stiffness based on varying parameters
such as framing arrangement, type, number, and metal of fasteners, aluminum or steel sheathing,
and with or without insulation. It was determined that purlins laid flat to the rafters was the more
suitable method of framing. Screw fasteners in the panel valleys increased diaphragm stiffness
and strength, especially for the steel clad specimens. Aluminum panels were more suitable with
nailing, due to a larger cover width for each sheet. Placing insulation between wood-framing
and metal cladding not only reduces diaphragm strength, but also seriously affects stiffness.
Fastener configurations have important and measurable effects on diaphragm behavior.
Anderson and Bundy (1990) performed additional post-frame diaphragm tests to outline
the effects of openings in the sheathing. Fifteen cantilever specimens, 7-2/3 x 12 ft. with two
interior rafters and seven purlins were tested monotonically with varying amounts of sheathing
missing. Diaphragms were constructed with SPF lumber, screw fasteners, and steel sheathing.
Fastener configurations were found to be extremely important for diaphragm stiffness.
Openings in the sheathing at normal intervals caused the specimens to be ineffective as
diaphragms. It was also found that spacing of purlins has little impact on strength or stiffness of
the diaphragms.
In addition to the physical testing, there has been a great deal of computer modeling of post-
frame diaphragms for scientific purposes in order to aid designers and validate experimental
results. For example, Wright and Manbeck (1993), among many others, conducted finite
element analyses of post-framed diaphragm panels. Following procedures provided by Woeste
and Townsend (1991), they modeled full size 8 x 12 ft. diaphragms with 2x4 in. purlins at 2 ft.
o.c., 2x6 in. rafters at 3 ft. o.c., and steel cladding secured with 16d nails. The finite element
model was compared to three identical experimental diaphragm tests. The finite element model
closely predicted diaphragm shear strength, but under-estimated shear stiffness by 28%. Results
show that discrepancies arise due to difficulties in modeling nonlinear behavior of fasteners and
intricate load paths between the wood frame and steel sheathing.
CHAPTER II: EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 15

CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

2.1 SCOPE OF TESTING
Multiple stiffness tests and one test to failure were performed on each of six full-scale
diaphragms at the Thomas M. Brooks Forest Products Center of the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University located in Blacksburg, Virginia. Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) sponsored the research under its Wood Frame
Project, Task 1.4.2 Diaphragm Studies.
Diaphragm dimensions for four specimens were 20 x 16 ft. with varying orientations,
while two high-aspect ratio specimens were 10 x 40 ft. Multiple tests on each specimen were
possible due to the non-damaging deflections being imposed, allowing an economical means of
incorporating multiple test parameters. Test parameters investigated for effects on diaphragms
stiffness were: 1) corner opening, 2) center opening, 3) fully sheathed, 4) 6-12 nail pattern, 5) 3-
12 nail pattern, 6) with/without chords, 7) with/without walls, 8) with/without blocking, and 9)
with/without foam adhesive. Specimens were subjected to non-destructive, low-amplitude
dynamic-cyclic loading by a computer-controlled hydraulic actuator, while load and deflection
values were being recorded by a computer data acquisition system. The final test on each
specimen, though not a primary focus of this study, was an attempt to cause diaphragm failure.

2.2 TEST APPARATUS
Diaphragm testing was conducted on a 22 X 50 ft. concrete pad with 42 in. wide by 27 in.
tall concrete back-walls along two adjacent sides. The heavily reinforced back-walls have two
7/8 in. diameter anchor bolts embedded in the concrete at 2 ft. on center with a 400,000 lb point-
load capacity at a minimum spacing of 6 feet.
A computer controlled hydraulic actuator was mounted horizontally at the midpoint of
the 50 ft. back-wall. The actuator had a 55 kip capacity with a 6 in. stroke, and included a 50
kip Interface load cell, screwed onto the end of the hydraulic cylinder. Load was transferred
from a ball joint at the end of the actuator, through a pin-connected gusset to a 20 ft. long
C6x10.5 steel channel. The channel, as shown in Figure 2.1, was fastened along the entire width
in the center of the specimen span with 5/8 in. diameter lag screws. In cases where a joist did not
fall in the center of the diaphragm, 4x4 blocks are placed under the sheathing to provide a
backing for the lag screws used to attach the steel load distribution channel.

Figure 2.1 Load Frame, Actuator Connection, and Load Distribution Channel

Offset equal distances (based on dimensions of diaphragm specimens) from the centerline
of the actuator were triangular reaction frames, as shown in the photograph of Figure 2.2. The
frames were constructed of 4 X 6 in. steel tubes welded together. Each reaction frame was

connected to the concrete back-wall with four 7/8 in. diameter anchor bolts. A one-inch thick
end plate was welded to the end of the steel tube of the reaction frame and was drilled and tapped
for a 1 in. threaded rod. A two-foot piece of threaded rod was screwed through the plate into
the steel tube leaving the desired length exposed. A shop-fabricated, full-bridge load cell made
of 2 in. diameter steel rod and strain gauges screwed onto the opposite end of the threaded rod.
The load cell had a large hex-nut welded to one end to connect to the threaded rod protruding
from the triangular reaction frame. Gusset plates welded to the opposite end of the load cell
provided a pinned connection to the diaphragm support frame.

Figure 2.2 Triangular Reaction Frame

Each end of the diaphragm was attached to a 20 ft.-L2x2x steel angle, which was
welded intermittently to the side of a 20 ft.-3 X 5 in. steel tube using lag screws. One end of
each steel tube was pin-connected to the gusset plates of the reaction load cells. This support

frame served the same purpose as shear walls by transmitting loads out of the diaphragm at each
end. The reaction frame load cells then measured these loads. The support frame served a
secondary purpose, to hold the diaphragm at the proper elevation for concentric loading from the
actuator. Several one-inch diameter PVC pipes were also placed on the concrete under the
specimen to help hold the interior of the specimen at the proper elevation, and to act as
frictionless rollers under the joists as load was applied. The schematic drawings of Figures
2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 illustrate all of the elements of the test apparatus including the specimen support
frame, the triangular reaction frame, and the load distribution channel.

Figure 2.3 Basic Test Apparatus and Configuration
Steel Channel
(C6 x 10.5)
Lag Screws
Concrete Back Wall
See Figure 2.4
for Detail
Fig.
2.5
Load Cell
Actuator
Diaphragm Size
and Sheathing
Layout Varies
Support Frame
3" x 5" Steel Tube
Triangular Reaction
Frame
Load Cell

Load Cell
Steel Tube
Frame
Fig.
2.4a

Figure 2.4 Triangular Reaction Frame Plan View Schematic

Pinned Connection
Concrete
Backwall
Diaphragm Support Frame

Figure 2.4a Elevation View of Triangular Reaction Frame

Figure 2.5 Partial Section of Diaphragm Test Apparatus
(for specimens loaded parallel to the joists)
Steel Angle:
-Welded to Steel Tube
-Lag Screwed to End Joist
2 x 12 Joists @ 16"
(Douglas Fir)
23
32
" T&G Plywood
Sheathing
PVC Pipe Rollers
1
1
4
"
Steel Channel (C6X10.5) - Lag

Screwed to non-structural blocks
Steel Pipe
Roller
3" x 5" x
3
8
" Steel Tube

2.3 DIAPHRAGM CONSTRUCTION
Of the six, full-scale diaphragm specimens, two were 16 x 20 ft. in dimension and were
loaded parallel to the direction of the joists on the 20 ft. side. Two specimens were 20 x 16 ft. in
dimension, loaded perpendicular to the joists on the 16 ft. side. The last two specimens were 10
x 40 ft. in dimension, loaded parallel to the joists on the 40 ft. side. Resembling the size and
shape of one side of a roof of a typical residential home, these 10 x 40 ft. specimens were
intended to test the envelope of diaphragm performance with respect to aspect ratio.
The diaphragm specimens were framed with Douglas-fir 2 x 12 joists spaced at 16 in. o.c.
and nailed with three 16d nails at each end to a 2 x 12 Douglas-fir rim joist. In the case of
specimens loaded parallel to the direction of the joists, the bottom of each end joist was attached
to the diaphragm support frame using lag screws as shown in Figure 2.5. Conversely, when
loading was applied perpendicular to the joists, the rim-joists were connected to the support
frames. Since the lumber used was 20 ft. in length, the rim joists of the 40 ft. long specimens
had to be spliced in the center with steel plates and bolts as shown in Figure 2.6 (while such a
splice may not be feasible in real-life construction due to interference with finish materials,
effective transfer of compression and tension forces in the chords was essential for valid test
results). The three main specimen configurations, including loading and reaction locations, are
schematically illustrated in Figures 2.7a-c. A photograph of a 10 x 40 ft diaphragm specimen is
presented in Figure 2.8.
A wood sample was taken from each joist of every specimen for moisture content and
density analysis. This information was recorded for possible use when evaluating test results,
since moisture content changes in lumber affects fastener performance.

Figure 2.6 Rim-Joist Splice for 10 x 40 ft. Specimens (typical both sides)

(a) 16 x 20 ft. Specimen

(b) 20 x 16 ft. Specimen
Figure 2.7 Basic Specimen Sizes / Orientations
20'
Load Applied
4'x8'x
23
32
" T&G
Plywood Sheathing
16'
Cut-out shows
framing layout below
2 x 12 Joists @ 16"
(Douglas Fir)
2 x 4 Blocking
(on flat)
2 x 12 Rim-Joist
(Douglas Fir)
20'
Load Applied
16'
C
H
A
P
T
E
R

I
I
:

E
X
P
E
R
I
M
E
N
T
A
L

P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E

2
6

10'
Load Applied
4'x8'x
23
32
" T&G Plywood
Sheathing
40'
(c) 10 x 40 ft. Specimen

Figure 2.7 (Continued) Basic Specimen Sizes / Orientations

Figure 2.8 Fully Sheathed 10 x 40 ft. Specimen

The specimens were sheathed with nominal 4 x 8 ft. sheets of 23/32 in. tongue-and-
groove plywood in a staggered panel configuration. Sheathing was cut as required to complete
the desired panel configuration. Sheets were attached to the framing with 10d nails in a 6/12 nail
pattern, meaning nails are spaced at 6 in. around the perimeter and at 12 in. on the interior
supports of each sheathing panel. Typical sub-flooring construction adhesive was not used
between the joists and plywood sheathing; however some tests involved the use of sprayed foam
adhesive.

2.4 TEST PARAMETERS
Specimens were subjected to a number of different construction variations, including the
multiple combinations thereof. The variations tested were:
1. Sheathing openings fully sheathed, corner opening, center opening

2. Chord members with / without rim joist
3. Blocking with / without 2 x 4 blocking
4. Walls with / without 4 ft. tall stud-framed walls
5. Sprayed foam adhesive & nails versus nailed only
6. Sheathing nail density 6/12 versus 3/12 nail pattern

Variations to the basic specimen listed above, are individually discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs.
Openings in the plywood sheathing were intended to simulate common openings in floors
of residential homes for stairways, atriums, and vaulted ceilings. These openings weaken and/or
cause torsional irregularities that can dramatically affect the stiffness of diaphragms. Duplex
(double-headed) 10d nails were used to fasten the sheathing panels that were to be removed from
the specimens in order to simulate openings. The corner opening in all sizes and orientations of
specimens was easily achieved by removing one full 4 x 8 ft sheet of plywood from a corner.
However, the center opening presented more challenges due to the staggered sheathing
configuration and tongue-and-groove plywood. For both orientations of the 16 x 20 ft.
specimens, an 8 x 12 ft. rectangular opening was made by prying the unfastened sheets up in the
center along the tongue-and-groove seam like an army tent and lifting them out. Some sheets
had to be cut in half to achieve a rectangular opening. Due to the high aspect ratio of the 10 x 40
ft. specimens, a proportional rectangular opening in the center was not reasonable, since typical
roof and floor diaphragms would not have such an opening. A schematic drawing and
accompanying photograph of the two opening types used in the tests are presented in Figures 2.9
and 2.10.

Figure 2.9 Corner Sheathing Opening
Load Applied

Figure 2.10 Center Sheathing Opening
Load Applied

The chords of a diaphragm are the exterior framing members that are oriented
perpendicular to the direction of loading. They serve to resist bending moment induced in a
diaphragm while also supporting the extreme edges of the sheathing. In the case of floor
diaphragms, the chords may either be the rim joist or simply the last joist at each end of the floor,
depending on the orientation and direction of loading. Residential roof diaphragms typically do
not have a true rim joist, either at the lower edge along the fascia or at the ridge (unless the fascia
board or ridge beam is considered to be effective). The absence of an effective chord is
especially prevalent for roof systems utilizing metal plate connected trusses.
Though all testing was performed on floor diaphragm specimens, chord effects should be
similar for roof-like specimens. The effectiveness of chords was quantified by running tests with
and without the designated chord members (rim joists) in place. Only those specimens having
rim joists as the chords (specimens loaded parallel to the direction of the joists) could be tested in
this manner. The rim joists were nailed to the diaphragm at each joist with three 16d duplex
nails. Plywood edges were nailed to the rim joist with 10d duplex nails at 6 in. o.c. Duplex nails
were used for easy removal of the rim joists between different test specimen configurations. One
of the diaphragm specimens is shown in both configurations of having the rim joist acting as the
chord in place and removed in Figures 2.11 and 2.12 respectively.

Figure 2.11 Test Configuration with Chords (and corner opening)

Figure 2.12 Test Configuration without Chords

Blocking is the term used for the short framing members that span between joists and
serve to interlock the unsupported joints between sheathing panels. They can have the same
cross-sectional dimensions as the joists (full-depth blocking improves noise and vibration
dampening), or blocks can simply be smaller lumber laid on flat. In this investigation, specimen
configurations with blocking used 2 x 4s laid on flat installed between joists where each line of
unsupported sheathing panel joints would fall prior to installing the sheathing. The blocks were
fastened to the joists on each side with two 16d common toe nails. Plywood panel edges that fell
over the blocks were nailed every 6 in. with 10d duplex nails for easy removal to simulate
blocked and unblocked conditions. To reconfigure the specimen without blocking, the sheathing
nails were extracted, the diaphragm was tilted on-end with a forklift, and blocks were removed.
Likewise, replacing blocking involved tilting the diaphragm up to install new 2 x 4 blocks from
below, and then re-nailing the sheathing to the blocking.
A potentially significant unknown in diaphragm design is the effect of walls on the
horizontal stiffness. Walls of a structure transfer wind loads to the floors to which they are
connected. Also, the mass of the walls themselves present added lateral loads to diaphragms
during earthquakes. These walls, especially the flexural stiffness of their own bottom plate, may
also benefit a floor diaphragm by helping to resist these same lateral loads.
For testing purposes, four-foot high walls were installed along the two chord edges of
specimens. As shown in Figure 2.13 these walls were constructed of 2 x 4 studs at 16 in. o.c.
and 7/16 in. OSB sheathing on the outside. The 2 x 4 bottom plate of the walls was fastened
through the plywood sheathing to the floor joists below with 3 x in. self-tapping Simpson
screws for a strong connection yet easy removal. For the 16 x 20 ft. specimens, regardless of
orientation, the walls were set in place and removed with a long, cable-supported, boom attached

to a large forklift. Starting with the second specimen, lever-action davits, as shown by the
photographs of Figure 2.14, were welded to the side support frames at each end of the walls to
more quickly and safely facilitate raising and lowering for configurations with and without walls.
As shown in Figure 2.15 for the 40 ft. long specimens, the walls on each side were built in 20 ft.
sections, set in place with the boom, and connected in the center. From then on, the davits at
each end of the walls accompanied by braces in the center allowed for repeated installation and
removal of walls. Braces were required to laterally stabilize the wall segments for the 10 x 40 ft.
diaphragm specimens.

Figure 2.13 Test Configuration with Walls

(a) Walls Lowered and Attached (b) Walls Unfastened and Raised
Figure 2.14 Wall-Lifting Davits

Figure 2.15 10 x 40 ft. Specimen with Walls and Wall-Braces

Current trends in construction involve the use of adhesives for an ever-widening range of
applications. In this case the method of fastening sheathing panels to framing members was
varied between nailed only and nailed plus sprayed adhesive. The adhesive material used was a
sprayed, two-part, self-expanding, poly-isocyanurate foam adhesive manufactured by ITW
Foamseal. The foam adhesive was tested using coupon tests to quantify its stiffness as a
connection. The connection stiffness was determined to be equivalent to that obtained by using
elastomeric adhesives typically used in wood floor construction. While elastomeric adhesive
would have been more representative of traditional construction, it would have prevented the
possibility of removing sheathing without damage once fastened down, thereby making it costly
and difficult to alter specimen sheathing configurations. Sheathing fastened down with the foam
adhesive could be removed with minimal damage by cutting the adhesive at the joints with a

knife. Also, testing of the foam adhesive will provide useful information for its effectiveness in
roof retrofit applications. After having tested all of the nailed-only configurations, the foam
adhesive was applied to the underside of fully-constructed specimens that could be safely tilted
on-end (i.e. the two 16 x 20 ft. and the two 20 x 16 ft. specimens). Specifically, the adhesive was
sprayed along each side of every joist at the interface with the sheathing. Adhesives were not
used on the 10 x 40 ft. specimens due to the specimens flexibility, which made tilting the
specimens without damage impossible. A photograph of the foam adhesive being applied is
shown in Figure 2.16, and a photograph of a sheathing panel removed is shown in figure 2.17.

Figure 2.16 Application of Sprayed Foam Adhesive

Figure 2.17 Foam Adhesive Shown After Removal of a Sheathing Panel

Sheathing nail density was varied for a few tests on the third and fourth specimens, both
of which were 20 x 16 ft. loaded perpendicular to the joists. The nail pattern was changed from
6/12 to 3/12 on the fully sheathed and nailed only configurations. In other words, nail spacing
around the perimeter of each sheathing panel (where supported by joists or blocking) was
decreased from 6 in. to 3 in. o.c. using easily removable 10d duplex nails. The 3-12 nail pattern
was tested while the walls and blocking parameters remain variable.

2.5 INSTRUMENTATION
Movements, deflections, and loads were measured at multiple locations on the diaphragm
specimens using electronic sensors of various types in conjunction with a computer controlled
Data Acquisition system (DAQ). The DAQ used for this project LABTECH, a Windows PC-

based program. Prior to testing, all instruments used in this research project were carefully
calibrated for accurate results. Before any series of tests in a day, all instruments were checked
to make sure they were correctly mounted, functioning properly, and zeroed. Due to the exposed
conditions of the outside testing facility, all instruments were demounted and taken inside or
covered with plastic daily to protect from inclement weather, dew, and frost.
An internal Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT) measured the deflections
caused by the hydraulic actuator. Signals from this highly sensitive device were transmitted to
the computer controller, which in turn used the information as the feedback channel to control
the actuator. Loads measured by the 50 kip Interface load cell were recorded by the DAQ and
had no effect on the displacement-controlled actuator.
The custom-built load cells at each end of the diaphragm measured the reaction loads,
both in tension and compression due to the cyclic loads from the actuator. These reactions
simulated the shear loads that supporting walls of an actual structure must withstand. Prior to
use, these load cells, as described in Section 2.2, were separately calibrated in tension only on a
universal testing machine with an excitation of 10 Volts (compression was not feasible due to a
pinned-pinned condition when using special calibration fixtures). Both were loaded
incrementally to 40 kips tension, and in each case the linear calibration plot proved that no
yielding within the load cell occurred. The slopes of these lines were used in the DAQ as
multipliers to convert the output voltage signals from the load cells into equivalent values of
load.
Horizontal movement of the plywood sheathing relative to the framing members below
was measured at two locations with external LVDTs. An aluminum bracket mounted to the
end-joist at each rear corner held the barrels of a pair of LVDTs in place horizontally. The

plungers of these instruments react against metal tabs, which were screwed and glued to the
plywood at the rear corners of the diaphragm. The LVDTs of each pair pointed in orthogonal
directions to account for biaxial sheathing movement. A photogragh of the LVDT mounting
setup is shown in Figure 2.18.

Figure 2.18 LVDTs and Mounting Bracket

String Potentiometers (abbreviated, string-pot) were used at multiple locations to
determine diaphragm movement, deformation, and slippage relative to the test frame. Seven
string-pots were set along the front face of the specimens to measure the global deflection. A
string-pot was attached to each steel side support frame to determine the slip in the side load cell
connections and between the steel frame and the diaphragm itself. Likewise, a string-pot was
mounted to the steel load channel in the center to determine any slip its lag screw connection to
the specimen. Two string-pots were mounted diagonally on each side of the diaphragm
centerline to record the deformation caused by shear deflection during testing. Schematics
illustrating the positions of each displacement sensor for each specimen configuration are
presented in Figures 2.19 through 2.21. A list describing each instrument is presented in
Appendix C.

GR1
Concrete Back Wall
LVDT
L-NS
LVDT
L-EW
GL1 SlipL
DL1
SlipC
DL2 DR1
GL2 GL3 GC
LVDT
R-NS
LVDT
R-EW
DR2
3" x 5"
Steel Tube
GR2 SlipR GR3

Figure 2.19 Instrumentation Plan for 16 x 20 ft. Specimen

Concrete Back Wall
GC GR1 GR2 GR3 SlipR GL1 GL2 GL3 SlipL
SlipC
DL1 DL2 DR1 DR2
LVDT
L-NS
LVDT
L-EW
LVDT
R-EW
LVDT
R-NS

C
H
A
P
T
E
R

I
I
:

E
X
P
E
R
I
M
E
N
T
A
L

P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E

4
4

Concrete Back Wall
GC GR1 GR2 GR3 SlipR GL1 GL2 GL3 SlipL
SlipC
DL1 DL2 DR1 DR2
LVDT
L-NS
LVDT
L-EW
LVDT
R-EW
LVDT
R-NS

2.6 TEST PROTOCOL
In most cases of experimental research, how a specimen is stressed and to what extent, is
equally as important as the specimens characteristics. In this project great care was taken to
NOT apply deflections so large that specimens reached or exceeded their yield point and were
damaged. On the other hand, it is critical to apply sufficient deflection to obtain valid test data.
This limit was found for each specimen size and orientation by loading monotonically in small
increasing increments until signs of diaphragm damage are seen or heard, or until the slope of the
load/deflection curve, shown in real-time on the DAQ computer screen, appeared to be
decreasing. The deflection amount used for all tests was slightly lower than the largest
monotonic deflection. Additionally, deflections for this project followed a cyclic pattern that
somewhat simulates the cyclic loading of earthquakes, only not nearly as rapid, since this
apparatus is not intended or equipped to perform shake-table testing.
The load protocol for all tests, except those to failure, was five sinusoidal cycles at the
predetermined deflection, 0.25 for specimens one and two (20 ft. wide), 0.20 for specimens
three and four (16 ft. wide), and 0.80 for specimens five and six (40 ft. wide). The frequency
of these cycles was set in the actuator controller at 0.0833 Hz for test durations of 60 seconds.
Five cycles, or even possibly less, are adequate since this project does not incorporate the effects
of load fatigue.
While not a primary focus of this project, the last test of each specimen was an attempt to
cause failure. The CUREE protocol (Krawinkler et al. 2000) used for these tests is a deflection-
controlled quasi-static cyclic load history. This protocol is based on a finite series of cycles with
plateaus and peaks of increasing amplitude. Yield deflection, , was estimated for each

specimen and used as the reference deflection from which amplitudes of other cycles were
determined. If failure did not occur by the end of the series, the CUREE protocol allows for
additional cycles at higher amplitudes until the specimen fails.

2.7 TEST DATA ANALYSIS
As with any physical experiment, manipulation of raw test data (in this case, load and
deflection values) is required for a logical comparison of the different specimen configurations.
In this study, several specific variables are calculated in order to weigh the benefits and
detriments caused by changing test parameters as described in Section 2.4. These variables and
the methods used for their calculation are presented in the following sections.
Test data from each deflection and load measuring instrument was recorded by the DAQ
computer and entered into a spreadsheet format. Each column of data in the spreadsheet
corresponds to one of the twenty-four channels (instruments) being used, and is ordered
chronologically with time from the start of each test. A table listing each of these instruments,
its model and serial number, and calibration coefficient is in Appendix C.
These text-format spreadsheet files were later imported individually into a Microsoft
Excel calculation template. This template was programmed with the calculations necessary for
automatic computation of stiffness results and other important variables. The template also
provided instant load-deformation graphs for the data.
The first step of the calculations was to take the raw deflection data and convert it into
tared values by subtracting out the initial reading. For example, a string potentiometer with a
range of 10 in. is drawn out 5.25 in. and attached to the specimen. The first data entry for this
channel will indicate a deflection of 5.25 in. Therefore each of the data points in that column

must be tared by either subtracting or adding 5.25 in. depending on the direction of deflection in
order to attain the actual change in deflection.
Because the DAQ system had to be manually started and stopped in conjunction with the
independently controlled actuator, a section of data from the beginning and end of each test was
invalid. Therefore, the template was also programmed to shorten the data columns to include
only the meaningful data acquired during testing.

2.7.1 Yielding
While not a desired outcome of small-deformation stiffness testing, yielding is an
important concept to understand in terms of elastic versus plastic behavior. A material subjected
to a static load will undoubtedly undergo some deformation, though potentially immeasurably
small depending on its physical properties. If once unloaded, the material returns to its original
state, it is considered to have behaved elastically. However, if the material is loaded beyond its
elastic range causing permanent deformation even after being unloaded, then it has experienced
yielding. The force, f
y
, required to cause yielding is referred to as the yield point. Further
yielding caused by continued loading past this point, but before failure, is called plastic
deformation. Idealized elastoplastic response of a material subjected to force, f, causing
deformation, , is illustrated in Figure 2.22.

Figure 2.22 Idealized Elastoplastic Force-Deformation Curve
force (f)

deformation ()
f
y

y

failure
plastic behavior elastic behavior


2.7.2 Global Deformation
Maximums and minimums were established from deflection or load readings of each
instrument. The rigid body motion determined from string potentiometers measuring slip in test
frame connections was subtracted from maximum positive and negative global deformations.
The resulting adjusted maximum global deformations were plotted against instrument location
distances along the length of the specimen. This curve represents a diaphragms shape at
maximum deformation, and also aids in visualizing effects of torsional irregularity. The sign
convention used for the purposes of this study is illustrated in Figure 2.23. Outward deformation
caused when the hydraulic actuator pushes out is considered positive. An actual diaphragm
deformation curve from Specimen 2, Test 8 (16 x 20 ft., no chords, with walls, corner opening,
blocked, nailed only) is presented in Figure 2.24. Note, the lop-sidedness (towards the right)
caused by a torsional irregularity due to the corner sheathing opening on that side.

Figure 2.23 Simplified Diaphragm Deformation Curve with Sign Convention

Figure 2.24 Diaphragm Deformation Curve - Specimen 2, Test 8
-
+
-
g
+
g
Distance Along
Diaphragm Edge
Global
Deformation
(g)
0.23
0.19
-0.12
-0.16
-0.21
-0.20
-0.15
0.13
0.19
0.24
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance, L to R (ft)
G
l
o
b
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

R
B
M

S
u
b
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

(
i
n
)

2.7.3 Cyclic Stiffness
Stiffness is the most basic and yet also the most useful of all the variables determined for
this study. In lay terms stiffness is simply a measurement of a structures capacity for resisting
deformation. Although stiffness can be expressed in several different forms, in general it is the
amount of force required to cause a known unit of elastic deformation. Thus, if a system is
linearly elastic, then its stiffness, k, can be described as the slope of the force-deformation curve
as illustrated in Figure 2.25.

Figure 2.25 Stiffness of a Linearly Elastic System

Cyclic loading requires a different approach to calculating stiffness. Cyclic loads change
the force-deformation plot from a straight line to an elliptical loop known as a hysteresis as
shown in Figure 2.26. Because the slope changes along the hysteresis, cyclic stiffness must be
approximated. A visual comparison of two common methods of determining cyclic stiffness
and their associated equations is presented in Figure 2.26. The peak-to-peak method shown in
Figure 2.26a approximates stiffness as the slope of an imaginary line between the points of
maximum positive and maximum negative deflection. Figure 2.26b shows the origin-to-peak
f

1
k

method where stiffness is an average of slopes of imaginary lines from the origin out to the
points of maximum positive and negative deflection.

(a) Peak-to-Peak Method

(b) Origin-to-Peak Method
Figure 2.26 Cyclic Stiffness Calculation Methods

f

max
+

max
-

k
+
+
+
+
=
max max
max max
f f
k
f

max
+

max
-

k
+

k
-

2
+
+
=
k k
k
f
max
+

f
max
-


The spreadsheet program determined cyclic stiffness values using both the origin-to-
peak method and the peak-to-peak method. The first value calculated was cyclic stiffness
based on the force required from the actuator to cause a unit amount of deformation (excluding
rigid body motion) at the center of the diaphragm specimen. For tests in which the load-
deformation hysteresis is not centered on the origin due to uneven loading of the specimen, the
origin-to-peak method may not seem appropriate. While the peak-to-peak method may
seem better suited for such cases of uneven loading, a comparison of the two methods shows that
the cyclic stiffness results never varied by more than 3% in all 132 tests. Therefore, both
methods are assumed to be valid for test data exhibiting uneven loading. Due to the similar
results under either method and for brevity, this study will focus on analysis using the peak-to-
peak method from this point forward. (Note: the cause of uneven loading is assumed to be
residual stresses stored in the specimen from the previous test due to friction.)
As shown by Figure 2.27, either method produces similar results for a load hysteresis that
is well centered on the origin. Likewise, for hysteresis loops that are not centered on the origin
as shown by Figure 2.28, the two methods still yield similar results.

-20
0
20
-0.25 0 0.25
Deformation (in)
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

Figure 2.27 Cyclic Load-Deformation Hysteresis, Specimen 3, Test 3
(Loops symmetric about the origin.)

-20
0
20
-0.25 0 0.25
Deformation (in)
L
o
a
d

(
k
i
p
s
)

Figure 2.28 Cyclic Load-Deformation Hysteresis, Specimen 3, Test 24
(Loops not symmetric about the origin due to uneven loading.)
-9.45 kips
9.46 kips
-0.17 in
0.18 in
-15.18 kips
9.01 kips
0.15 in
-0.20 in
Origin-to-Peak:

kip/ft 54.1
2
0.17 -
9.45 -
0.18
9.46
k
cyclic
=
+
=

Peak-to-Peak:

kip/ft 0 . 54
17 . 0 0.18
45 . 9 9.46
k
cyclic
=
+
+
=

0.2% Difference of 0.1 kip/ft.
Origin-to-Peak:

kip/ft 68.0
2
20 . 0
15.18 -
15 . 0
01 . 9
k
cyclic
=
+
=

Peak-to-Peak:

kip/ft 1 . 69
20 . 0 0.15
18 . 15 9.01
k
cyclic
=
+
+
=

1.6% Difference of 1.1 kip/ft.


2.7.4 Shear Deformation
Global deformation is the sum of diaphragm shear deformation and flexural deformation
as illustrated in Figure 2.29. Since the load is applied at the center of diaphragm specimens, then
theoretically the shear deformation for each half of the diaphragm is equal. Diaphragm shear
deformation, visually detailed in Figure 2.30, can be determined from a geometric manipulation
of deflection results from the diagonal string potentiometers.

FLEXURAL
DEFORMATION
GLOBAL DEFORMATION
(Neglecting Rigid Body Motion)
SHEAR
DEFORMATION
(g)
(f)
(s)

Figure 2.29 Diaphragm Deformation Theory

F
F
2
F
2
b b
d

s
L
2
L
2
Diagonal String Pot.
(at zero deflection)
Diagonal String Pot.
(at deflection L)

Figure 2.30 Diaphragm Shear Deformation

First, the maximum diagonal deformation values in each direction for each half of the
diaphragm are determined, then averaged together, giving an average diagonal deformation,
L
,
for each half of the diaphragm, and for both positive and negative deformation. Using small
angle assumptions, shear deformation,
s
, can be expressed as:

2
L
s
= (2.7.1)

where is shear strain of the diaphragm and is calculated from the diagonal string potentiometer
deflections and geometric diaphragm properties by:

bd
d b
L
2 2
+
= (2.7.2)
The data spreadsheet program calculated a
s
value for both halves of the specimen as
well as for maximum positive and negative diaphragm deformation. In some cases, shear
deformation for the left side of the diaphragm did not equal that of the right side and the positive
maximum did not equal the negative maximum. Though uneven loading can be attributed to
differences in positive versus negative shear deformation results, the differences in left side
versus right side shear deformation are due to different shear stiffness of each side.

2.7.5 Shear Stiffness
Shear stiffness is equal to shear force divided by shear deformation. Using the shear
deformations just determined, the spreadsheet program calculates shear stiffness for both sides of
the diaphragm using:

+
+
+
+
=
S S
shear
V V
k (2.7.3)
where V
-
and V
+
are the maximum positive and negative shear forces applied to a side of the
diaphragm.
Under symmetric loading conditions and torsionally regular construction, the shear force
resisted by either side of the diaphragm is theoretically half of the load applied at the center by
the actuator. Thus, theoretically for torsionally regular test configurations, V equals the reaction
force F/2 as shown by Figure 2.30, and can be verified by the load readings from the reaction
load cells at each side. However, asymmetric configurations such as a corner sheathing opening

may cause the diaphragm to resist more of the actuator-applied load on the stiff side of the
diaphragm and less on the soft side. In such instances, V should be determined independently
for the left and right sides using the maximum readings from the left and right side load cells,
respectively. Accordingly, for torsionally irregular configurations (corner opening being the
only case for this study) the left and right side shear stiffness values must be kept separate.
As a caveat to this approach, a recurring problem during testing of Specimens 3, 4, and 5
was electrical malfunction of the side load cells, especially on the left side. An alternate method
by statics had to be used for tests in which there was reaction load cell malfunction. As
previously indicated, for a torsionally regular and symmetrically loaded specimen, each reaction
force equals half of the actuator-applied force. Similarly, for torsionally irregular specimens (i.e.
corner opening) the reaction forces combined, though not necessarily equal, should add up to the
actuator-applied force, F. If for example, the left side load cell malfunctions, its load can be
approximated by:
R L
R F R = (2.7.4)
With the experimental shear stiffness, k
shear
, calculated for both the left and right sides of
the diaphragm specimen, the spreadsheet program uses elastic beam theory where:
s
s
A G
L
V
2
= (2.7.5)
where GA
s
is a more commonly accepted form of shear stiffness. Using the relationship:

s
shear
V
k
= (2.7.6)
Equation 2.7.5 may be solved for GA
s
in terms of k
shear
to give:

2
L
k A G
shear s
= (2.7.7)

A shear stiffness value, GA
s
, is calculated for both the left and right sides of the
diaphragm. The left and right side values are averaged together for torsionally regular
specimens, but kept separate for torsionally irregular specimens in order to allow proper
comparison of results. For such cases it is possible that the shear stiffness on one side may be
considerably higher than the other.

2.7.6 Flexural Deformation
As shown visually by Figure 2.29, flexural deformation can be determined by:

s g f
= (2.7.8)
The spreadsheet program averaged the maximum
s
values for each half of the specimen for both
positive and negative deflection. These average shear deformation values were then subtracted
from the corresponding maximum positive and negative global deformations to give a maximum
positive and a maximum negative flexural deformation.

2.7.7 Flexural Stiffness
Experimental flexural stiffness, k
f
, may be expressed as:

+
+
+
+
=
f f
f
F F
k (2.7.9)
The spreadsheet uses the above peak-to-peak equation in order to arrive at one flexural stiffness
value.
Elastic beam theory offers an approach to a more common form of flexural stiffness.
Theoretical flexural deformation of a beam with a concentrated load applied at the center is:

EI
FL
f
48
3
= (2.7.10)

where EI is the flexural stiffness of the beam, or, as in this case, the diaphragm. Solving
Equation 2.7.10 for EI in terms of k
f
(recalling that k
f
= F /
f
) gives:

48
3
L
k EI
f
= (2.7.11)
The spreadsheet program calculated flexural stiffness in the above form for each diaphragm test.

2.7.8 Hysteretic Energy
Hysteretic energy is the energy dissipated during one cyclic loading of a structure and
may be quantified as the area inside a load-deformation hysteresis for one cycle. The area within
a hysteresis from an experimental test can be approximated by numerical integration. Numerical
integration involves averaging the load values of two consecutive points along the curve.
Multiplying this average load by the difference between deformation values of the same two
consecutive data points gives the area under the curve between those two data points.
Geometrically, the calculation equates to determining the area of very narrow trapezoid. This
process must be repeated for every pair of consecutive data points all the way around the loop.
Depending on the location along the curve with respect to the deformation axis, the area is
considered either positive or negative. The net total of these incremental areas is the hysteretic
energy as represented algebraically in Equation 2.7.12:
( )
+
+
+ (
\
| +
=
n
n
n n
n n d
f f
E
1
1
1
2
(2.7.12)
where the integer n represents the individual data points around the entire loop. The spreadsheet
program follows the same process described above to arrive at a value for hysteretic energy for
each diaphragm test. However, for greater accuracy, the program calculates a total area for three
consecutive loops around the hysteresis (using data points only from the middle three loops) and

then divides the total by three, yielding an average area inside only one loop. See Figure 2.31 for
a visual description of numerical integration of a hysteresis.

Figure 2.31 Numerical Integration of a Load-Deformation Hysteresis
f

a

Area under curve between points
a and b to be considered positive
f
a
b
f
b
+
a
b
f

c

f
c
d
f
d
d
c
-
Area under curve between points
c and d to be considered negative

2.7.9 Equivalent Viscous Damping
Damping is the mechanism that causes gradual reduction of vibration in a system and
thereby a loss of energy. In structures, damping and the resulting energy loss is caused by a
variety of conditions such as internal friction of materials subjected to repeated deformations,
friction from movements at connections, opening and closing of cracks, and friction with
external or nonstructural systems with which the structure is in contact. Since the systems that
can cause damping are seemingly limitless and difficult to identify, a mathematical model
capable of predicting actual damping is nearly impossible.
Thus, a concept called equivalent viscous damping is used to represent all of the damping
mechanisms for a simplified approach under the assumption that the structure behaves as a
Kelvin solid viscoelastic element (Fischer and Filiatrault 2000). Equivalent viscous damping is
defined by equating the energy loss during a vibration cycle (i.e. the hysteretic energy as defined
in Section 2.7.8 and graphically as shown in Figure 2.32) in an actual structure to that of an
equivalent viscous system.

Figure 2.32 Damping relationship to an equivalent viscous system

Using Figure 2.32 and setting the hysteretic energy, E
d
, from one experimental cycle
equal to that of the equivalent viscous system gives:

2
2
o o
n
eq d
X k E
= (2.7.13)
where
eq
is the equivalent viscous damping ratio, is the experimental test frequency,
n
is the
natural frequency of the test structure. Strain energy, E
So
, is equal to the area of triangle OAB
(or triangle OCD) from Figure 2.32 and can be calculated from experimental stiffness, k
o
at
maximum deformation X
o
:

2
2
o o
OAB So
X k
A E = = (2.7.14)
Substituting Equation 2.7.14 into Equation 2.7.13 gives:

OAB
n
eq d
A E
4 = (2.7.15)
f

X
o
+

X
o
-

k
o
+

k
o
-

B
A
O D
C
E
d
= Hysteretic Energy
(Area enclosed by hysteresis loop)

Although for this experiment does not actually equal
n
, for simplicity the assumption as such
does allow for an acceptable approximation of
eq
(Chopra 1995). Assuming =
n
and
solving for the equivalent viscous damping ratio gives:

OAB
d
eq
A
E
4
= (2.7.16)
As shown in Figure 2.32, the maximum deformations in both the positive and negative directions
are not necessarily equal. Therefore, the equivalent viscous damping ratios should be calculated
for triangle OAB using k
o
+
and triangle OCD using k
o
-
and then averaged. Thus, equivalent
viscous damping ratio,
eq
, is commonly expressed as:

So
d
eq
E
E
4
= (2.7.17)
where E
So
is strain energy (equal to the area of triangle OAB or OCD).
For the purposes of this study, the spreadsheet program calculates the areas on both the positive
and negative sides of the curve using cyclic stiffness values determined by the origin-to-peak
method. The spreadsheet takes an average of the two strain energy values and the hysteretic
energy previously calculated, and uses a formula based on Equation 2.7.17 to determine the
equivalent viscous damping ratio for each diaphragm test.
Although equivalent viscous damping is not technically correct for the tests in this study
due to some non-linearity in the load-deformation response, the maximum specimen deflections
were kept low to minimize error. The viscous damping term is a measure of all of the damping
in the system (hysteretic and material) and is used for modeling the more complex system as a
simplified mass-spring-dash pot system. The equivalent viscous damping is the value for the
dash pot. While the design community views the concept of equivalent viscous damping as very

inaccurate for calculating damping in an actual structure, it is used in research simply as a means
of comparing damping capability.
CHAPTER III: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 67

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this diaphragm study was to test the stiffness of wood diaphragm
specimens under varying configurations in order to develop a method for determining shear
stiffness similar to that already used by the cold formed steel industry. Combined, 132 non-
destructive stiffness tests were performed on 6 different specimens. Due to the high volume of
data produced, a test-by-test analysis and comparison of results would be monotonous and not in
the best interest of the reader. Therefore, the calculations applied to each set of test data will be
thoroughly explained step-by-step in general terms. The remainder of this chapter will be
devoted to discussion of trends in test results and relating those trends back to the various
construction parameters. The individual test results are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 TEST CONDITIONS
As a foreword to discussion of results, the reader needs to be aware of the ever-changing
conditions encountered during testing, namely weather. Testing of diaphragm specimens began
on January 12, 2001 and continued until July 6, 2001. Throughout those six months the weather
played a substantial role in the test schedule, specimen moisture content, and periodic
malfunction of instruments and equipment.
As indicated in Chapter 2, the diaphragm testing facility is an outside concrete slab with
no protection from the weather. A large tarp was always used to cover specimens and equipment
overnight and during inclement weather. Snow and ice from winter storms accumulated on top
of the tarp and managed to leak under the tarp in several locations, wetting some sheathing on
Specimens 1 and 2. Frequent high wind continually blew the tarp off exposing the specimen to
rain, snow, frost, and dew. To continue testing during the near daily rain of the extremely wet
Spring 2001, a canopy made of a simple ridge board and poly sheeting was built over Specimens
3 and 4. Though the canopy as shown in Figure 3.1 would allow testing during light rain, it
would not keep specimens completely dry from wind-blown rain. The effects of wet specimen
sheathing on test data are nearly impossible to quantify. However, one can assume that some
degradation of specimen stiffness occurred as a result.

Figure 3.1 Diaphragm Specimen with Canopy
Moisture also had negative impacts on the instrumentation and test equipment. Although
all string potentiometers, LVDTs, and load cells were covered with plastic, moisture continually
caused malfunctions predominately from electrical short circuits. Notably prone to failure was
the left side reaction load cell. Failure of the reaction load cells is not an issue for symmetrical
specimen configurations (i.e. fully sheathed and center sheathing opening), since the assumption
can be made that the reaction loads are each equal to half of the load being applied at the center.
However, for torsionally irregular configurations (i.e. corner sheathing opening), this assumption
is not valid. Thus, statics was used to determine the loads at the reactions when only one load
cell failed.
The Test Description tables in Appendix E indicate notable weather conditions such as
rain, snow, and wind. The tables also indicate any significant test information such as, load
protocol, test configuration, specimen repairs, and any known malfunctioning instruments.

3.3 NAIL BENDING TEST RESULTS
Nail bending tests were performed on all four different nails used in the construction of
the diaphragm specimens. Nail bending capacity is important when determining what effect, if
any, a certain nail has on the stiffness of an overall specimen or any of its sub-components. The
four different nails used and their corresponding uses are:
Nail Description Nail Use
10d 0.132, collated, clipped-head, nail-gun Permanent sheathing fasteners
10d Duplex 0.149, double-headed Removable sheathing fasteners
16d 0.132, collated, clipped-head, nail-gun Permanent framing fasteners
16d Duplex 0.162, double-headed Removable rim-joist fasteners
The 10d duplex (double-headed) nails allowed easy removal of sheathing panels in order to
simulate floor openings. The 16d duplex were used for easy removal of the rim-joists on
specimens loaded parallel to the joists (Specimens 1, 2, 5, and 6).
Nail bending test results showed that the 10d duplex nails had a 20% higher modulus of
elasticity than the 10d gun nails, indicating a higher material stiffness. The duplex nails also had
a 13% greater diameter than the gun nails. Combining the nail material variations with the
differences in nail diameter validates the 38% higher yield load developed in bending tests of the
10d duplex nail. Therefore, assuming all other nail properties constant (i.e. nail head size and
shape, nail coatings, penetration, wood damage), in the fastening of diaphragm sheathing the 10d
duplex nails can be expected to resist more load than the 10d gun-nails. No tests were performed
to determine the overall effects of the duplex nails on diaphragm stiffness, because duplex nails
are not used in real-life construction. However, for the purposes of thorough data analysis, it
should be noted that the higher yield capacity of the duplex nail could cause a small (though
likely negligible) amount of additional diaphragm stiffness. This increased stiffness would be
limited to the fully sheathed specimens with rim joists for which the 10d duplex nails were used
to replace center-opening and corner-opening sheathing as well as fasten the sheathing edge to
the re-attached rim joist. Nails were always replaced in new positions with new nail holes when
re-nailing the sheathing, thus minimizing the realized stiffness degradation caused by damage to
the plywood sheathing and joists from repeated nailing and nail pulling.
The 16d duplex nails have a less significant structural effect on diaphragm specimens.
These duplex nails are only used for temporary fastening of the rim joist (chord member) to the
ends of each floor joist. Test configurations of Specimens 3 and 4 did not include removal of the
rim joist, because their orientation (loading applied parallel to floor joists) required that the rim
joists be the members permanently fastened to the steel frame at each side. For the in-plane
shear loading of diaphragm specimens, the fastener used to connect the rim joist to the joists is
less of a concern, since the predominant force exerted on the nailed connections is withdrawal
due to the bending of the chord. The important connections to consider with respect to the rim
joist are the nails fastening the plywood sheathing to the top edge of the rim joist. Though nail
bending tests showed that the 16d duplex nails exhibited an 11.2% higher yield capacity than the
16d gun nails, no increase in diaphragm stiffness can be expected, because the rim joist joist
connection experiences negligible shear load. No diaphragm tests were performed to actually
determine the effect of 16d duplex versus gun-driven nails in the connection of rim joists.

3.4 MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY RESULTS
Moisture content and density are important factors in the strength of wood connections.
Moisture content is defined as the percentage weight of water to weight of oven-dry wood.
Lower moisture content corresponds to higher wood strength and stiffness. Likewise, a higher
density wood (more wood is present per unit volume) will exhibit greater strength and stiffness.
Higher wood strength and stiffness has a direct influence on the strength of wood connections.
In the case of nailed connections, a higher wood strength will force deflections to occur as
inelastic deformation of the nails rather than damage to the wood around the nails.
Moisture content and density tests were performed on a sample cut from a scrap piece
from each joist of every specimen. Tests of the samples were performed during construction of
the specimens. A summary of the average results for the joists of each specimen is provided in
Table 3.1 below. All of the bulk moisture content and density data for each specimen can be
found in Appendix D.

Table 3.1 Average Moisture Content and Density Results by Specimen
Moisture Content Density
Specimen #
% (g / cc)
Specimen 1 22 0.47
Specimen 2 22 0.48
Specimen 3 29 0.48
Specimen 4 23 0.51
Specimen 5 21 0.48
Specimen 6 15 0.48
Average 22 0.48

The 2x12 Douglas-fir lumber used for the joists of each specimen was stored outside for
several months prior to the start of testing. Before and during the testing phase, the lumber was
covered with plastic sheeting to protect it from the weather with only minimal success. Wind
frequently blew the plastic off the stack exposing it to rain and ice. Water vapor under the
plastic also condensed, adding more moisture to the wood. Moisture evidently made contact
with most of the lumber in the stack because, damp mildewed wood was found throughout. As a
result the lumber exhibited higher average moisture content than the standard maximum 19% for
seasoned Douglas-fir as shown in Table 3.1 above.
The average moisture contents of lumber used for Specimens 1 and 2 were equal at 22%.
The average moisture contents for Specimens 3 and 4 were the highest, while the values dropped
steadily for Specimens 5 and 6. Specimens 3 and 4 were tested during the unusually wet Spring
of 2001 when the lumber was most susceptible to humid air and rain. Conversely, Specimens 5
and 6 were tested during dryer summer weather after the lumber had dried some of the moisture
acquired during the winter and spring. Comparison of stiffness results from tests of identical
configurations between Specimens 3 and 4 (20 x 16 ft.) and between Specimens 5 and 6 (10 x 40
ft.) did not support the logical assumption that higher moisture content in the lumber would
decrease diaphragm stiffness. In fact, comparison of data showed exactly the opposite in all but
one instance. There was no appreciable variation in wood density from one specimen to the
next. This indicates that while the wood was wet when the diaphragm specimens were
constructed, they dried over time and the water experienced after construction probably did not
re-wet more than the surface of the lumber and sheathing.

3.5 CONSTRUCTION PARAMETER RESULTS
Each construction parameter was examined for its effect on diaphragm stiffness and
damping by comparison of test results with and without the parameter, while holding all
other variables constant. In other words, there was no baseline standard test configuration used
for data comparison. For example, if the effects of blocking were desired, then results from a
test on Specimen X with the configuration of nailed only, fully sheathed, with chords, with walls,
but NO BLOCKING would be compared against the results from a test on Specimen X that is
nailed only, fully sheathed, with chords, with walls, and WITH BLOCKING. Comparisons are
presented in the form of percent difference between each pair of test results of equivalent viscous
damping, cyclic stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness. For the purpose of this study, the
percent difference is calculated from test results as the difference between the with and
without values divided by the without value. Only results from pairs of tests within the
same specimen are compared. Except for corner opening and center opening configurations,
which are compared against the fully sheathed counterpart, only the fully sheathed specimen
configuration is considered when comparing results for blocking, adhesives, walls, chords, and
nail density. Shear stiffness results for the left and right side of specimens are averaged together
for the comparison of all parameters except corner sheathing opening. Because the corner
sheathing opening did not necessarily occur on the same side for all specimens, the averaged
shear stiffness comparison results are differentiated as either full side meaning the side that is
fully sheathed, or opening side meaning the side with the sheathing opening. All comparison
results for each pair of tests are tabulated in Appendix B. The percent difference values from
each comparison within the same parameter were averaged together. For example, all of the
cyclic stiffness percent difference values from with and without chords comparisons were
averaged together to produce a 40% average percent difference as shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2
provides the average percent difference from all of the comparisons broken down by equivalent
viscous damping, cyclic stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural stiffness for each construction
parameter evaluated.

Table 3.2 Average Percent Differences by Construction Parameter

Average Percent Difference
Construction
Parameter
Equivalent Viscous
Damping
Cyclic Stiffness Shear Stiffness Flexural Stiffness
Blocking -49% 72% 135% 12%
Adhesive -41% 47% 89% 10%
Blocking & Adhesive -67% 106% 259% 5%
3-12 Nail Pattern -16% 25% 37% 7%
Chords -5% 40% 8% 154%
Walls 0% 19% 5% 54%
Center Opening 19% -30% -37% -12%
Full Side Opening Side
Corner Opening 5% -21%
4% -48%
-6%

Inspection of the comparison tables in Appendix B that make up Table 3.2 shows that
many of the percent differences are significantly higher or lower than average. This can be
attributed to error from several factors: unevenly excited side load cells, recurring failure of the
left side load cell, higher stiffness results at the outset of testing on each specimen, specimen
damage from repeated construction parameter changes, and deterioration of plywood sheathing
from repeated exposure to weather. The averaged values in Table 3.2 appear to diminish the
influence of the inordinately high and low percent differences. For example, comparing tests 4
and 44 of Specimen 2 for the effects of foam adhesive (versus nailed only) on shear stiffness
results in an actual decrease of 17% while the average was an increase of 89%. Similarly,
comparing tests 1 and 2 of Specimen 5 for the effects of walls on flexural stiffness yields an
increase of 295% while the average was only 54%.
Blocking under the otherwise unsupported edges of sheathing panels was found to have
the greatest overall impact on diaphragm stiffness and damping. As shown in Table 3.2, the
average percent difference in shear stiffness between corresponding tests of unblocked versus
blocked configurations within the same specimen was 135%. This means that on average and
with all other parameters constant, the shear stiffness of a specimen more than doubles from the
addition of blocking. Blocking also provides a 72% increase in cyclic stiffness, largely
attributable to shear stiffness due to the sharp contrast of only a 12% gain in flexural stiffness.
This makes sense because the blocking enhances the transfer of shear forces that are carried by
the sheathing. Blocking decreases the damping capability of wood diaphragms by as much as
49%.
Foam adhesive follows blocking as the second most effective method to increase
diaphragm shear stiffness. Shear stiffness and cyclic stiffness increased by 89% and 47%,
respectively. Similar to blocking, the use of adhesives caused a limited gain in flexural stiffness
of only 10%. These results provide a sound basis for recommending that all horizontal light-
frame diaphragm sheathing (floor and roof) should be glued as well as nailed.
The combination of blocking and foam adhesive together is shown to cause a tremendous
increase in shear stiffness of 259% as compared to either of the two parameters alone. It makes
sense that the shear stiffness increase for configurations that combine blocking and foam
adhesive is even greater than the sum of the individual shear stiffness gains of either parameter
alone, because when blocking is present, there are more joints to which foam adhesive can be
applied, and the transfer of shear force from one sheet of sheathing to the next is enhanced.
The 3-12 nail pattern that was only investigated for four tests on Specimens 3 and 4 each
provided only modest shear and cyclic stiffness gains in comparison to blocking or adhesive.
However, this detail should be further investigated to determine if it could be used to enhance
soft portions of diaphragms due to the presence of openings.
Center and corner sheathing openings had inconsistent effects on diaphragm stiffness.
By removing only one 4 x 8 ft. sheet of plywood (10% sheathed area reduction) from a corner,
the shear stiffness on the side with the opening decreased by 48%. Also exhibited by the corner
opening configuration, was an actual 4% increase in the shear stiffness on the side that remained
fully sheathed, due to the tendency of a torsionally irregular diaphragm to absorb more of an
applied load on its stiff side. In contrast to the 10% sheathing reduction from a corner
opening, the center opening configuration reduced the sheathed surface area by 30% (8 x 12 ft.
opening), but the shear stiffness only decreased by 37%. Thus, shear stiffness is more dependent
on the location of the opening than the size of the opening. Conversely, the decreases in cyclic
stiffness of 30% and flexural stiffness of 12% were appreciably greater for the large center
opening than for the smaller corner opening. Thus, it appears that the reduction in cyclic
stiffness varies proportionally with the percentage of sheathing removed, and, the relationship is
potentially linear for a center opening.
The presence of chords caused a 154% increase in flexural stiffness. However, because
diaphragm stiffness is largely a function of shear stiffness, this significant flexural increase only
translated into a 40% gain in cyclic stiffness. The flexural stiffness gained is mostly attributable
to the resistance to tension (or compression, depending on the direction of the flexure and the
side of the diaphragm) in the 2 x 12 chords. The diaphragm configuration without chords must
resist the same tension and compression forces with only the sheathing located along the extreme
edges.
The four feet high walls attached to the front and back edges of diaphragm specimens
produced a 54% increase in flexural stiffness, though only a 19% gain in cyclic stiffness. Similar
to chords, resistance to tension (or compression) force due to bending action is the only
significant advantage that walls offer with respect to diaphragm stiffness.
It is important to note how methods for stiffening a diaphragm can impact shear stiffness,
but not flexural stiffness, or vice versa. Sheathing and in particular any method that stiffens the
connections between adjacent sheathing panel edges will produce an increase in shear stiffness,
GA
s
, of the diaphragm. Loads applied to a diaphragm produce shear forces in the sheathed area,
which are transmitted from one sheathing panel to the next (depending on the connection
stiffness) until they can be transferred out of the diaphragm at the supports. Shear forces pass
from the edge of one sheathing panel to another through the sheathing connections to a local
framing member, then from the framing member to the sheathing connection of the adjacent
panel, and finally into the adjacent panel. While the considerable in-plane shear stiffness of each
individual sheathing panel is not a concern, the means used to interconnect the panels together to
create one large homogenous sheathing system has a direct impact on the overall diaphragm
shear stiffness. As shown by the results, the sheathing connections that employ blocking or
adhesives produce large increases in diaphragm shear stiffness by forcing the shear to be
transferred out of the diaphragm instead of being dissipated by local deflections along adjacent
sheathing panel edges.
In contrast, flexural stiffness, EI, is derived from construction techniques that simulate
the flanges of a wide-flange beam. As evidenced from test results, chord members effectively
serve this role by resisting the tension and compression forces that develop at the extreme edges
of a diaphragm. As can be expected from 2x lumber turned on-edge, chords offer a negligible
increase in shear stiffness.

3.6 DIAPHRAGM STIFFENING METHODS
When a certain aspect of the construction of a diaphragm causes an appreciable decrease
in stiffness, other construction techniques can be employed to replace the stiffness lost. The
construction parameter evaluations discussed above can be used to develop suggestions for
altering diaphragm stiffness as necessary for real-life applications.
For instance, openings in a diaphragm are the most significant stiffness decreasing
construction factors. Typical openings in floor diaphragms are for stairs, atriums, ductwork
shafts, etc. The most common occurrence of openings in roof diaphragms is due to the presence
of skylights. In either case, if the opening is in roughly the same proportion as tested in this
study, it may be possible to make up the difference in lost stiffness by increasing the nail density.
As shown in Table 3.2, the gain in stiffness due to increasing the nail density from a 6-12 pattern
to a 3-12 pattern is roughly equivalent to the stiffness lost from center and corner openings. An
opening that is significantly larger in proportion to the overall size of the diaphragm than the
configurations tested in this study may need a more effective approach to replace the stiffness,
such as installation of blocking and/or foam adhesive. Because corner openings create a
significant decrease in shear stiffness only on the side with the opening, the method used to
replace the shear stiffness may only be needed on that side.
Though outside the scope of this study, another construction method for stiffening a
diaphragm with an opening is to transfer the forces that concentrate in the framing around the
opening to the surrounding diaphragm sheathing. When the framing around an opening
experiences tension or compression forces due to diaphragm deformation, these framing
members behave like struts. Transferring these forces from the ends of the opening framing into
the diaphragm will diminish the effects of the opening and can be accomplished by extending the
framing into the diaphragm some distance in the direction perpendicular to the joists. It is
generally accepted that three or four joist spacings is enough distance to adequately transfer the
forces, but this was not investigated as part of this project. As shown in Figure 3.2, the extended
framing member, called a collector tie, is simply a line of blocking installed between floor joists.
By themselves, the collector ties can only transfer compression forces, but with the addition of
steel strapping (attached along the top of the collectors and fastened back to the opening
framing), they can also handle tension forces. Additionally, by restraining the tension and
compression forces, the collector ties essentially cause the opening framing to behave as chords.
The resulting increase in flexural stiffness (concentrated around the opening) from chord-action
can offset the loss in shear stiffness originally caused by the opening.
APPLIED
LOAD
COLLECTOR TIES
(TYP)
OPENING FRAMING
23
32
" T&G PLYWOOD
SHEATHING
JOISTS @ 16" o.c.

Figure 3.2 Floor Diaphragm with an Opening and Collector Ties

Another factor that could limit the stiffness of a diaphragm is the lack of an effective
chord member. In the case of a floor diaphragm, the chords are typically referred to as rim-joists
or band-joists. For roof diaphragms, fascia boards can serve as the chords. The stiffness gain
that is attributable to the presence of effective chords is predominately in the form of flexural
stiffness. While overall cyclic stiffness is largely proportional to the shear stiffness of a
diaphragm, Table 3.2 shows that in the case of presence of chords, a substantial gain in flexural
stiffness can result in a moderate increase in cyclic stiffness as well. Note, the effectiveness of a
chord member is highly dependent on proper splicing if necessary and proper fastening of the
overhanging edge of sheathing to the top edge of the chord. If the rim-joist of a floor diaphragm
is ineffectively installed, the associated loss of stiffness can be counteracted to some degree by
ensuring that the perimeter walls over the rim joist are well fastened to the floor. This would
entail increasing the frequency with which the bottom plate of the wall is nailed down to the
floor. One method that may increase the effectiveness of the walls is by using a double-
thickness bottom plate and staggering the boards so that the end-joints are offset. Since most of
the stiffening properties of walls attached to a diaphragm are derived from the flexural resistance
of the bottom plate itself, another method to augment the effectiveness of the walls would be to
use a 2x6 bottom plate in lieu of the standard 2x4. While the use of enlarged bottom plates was
not investigated as a part of this study, a 2x6 bottom plate would generate coordination issues
with regards to how finish materials would be attached to the wall unless the wall studs are also
enlarged accordingly.

CHAPTER IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 82

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 SUMMARY
The objective of Task 1.4.2 of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is the
experimental evaluation of varying diaphragm construction parameters for use in the
development of a simpler and more easily adaptable formula to accurately predict the stiffness of
wood diaphragms. Under this study, six diaphragm specimens were tested under cyclic
nondestructive loads and with varying construction configurations in order to evaluate the effect
on stiffness caused by each of the construction parameters. Specifically, the results for each
construction parameter are intended for use in the validation and calibration of a general-use
finite element model for diaphragm analysis under another task of the above-referenced project.
In order to achieve realistic results, these construction parameters were applied to specimens of
varying aspect ratios (4:5, 5:4, and 1:4) and orientations with respect to the direction of the loads.
The construction parameters evaluated were:
Blocking with / without 2 x 4 blocking
Sprayed foam adhesive & nails versus nailed only
Sheathing openings corner opening and center opening (versus fully sheathed)
Chord members with / without rim joist
Walls with / without 4 ft. tall stud-framed walls
Sheathing nail density 6/12 versus 3/12 nail pattern

Testing consisted of a full-scale specimen mounted to a steel test frame as described in
Chapter II. Specimens were tested under varying combinations of the above parameters. All
specimens were subjected to five equal displacement-based sinusoidal load cycles from a
computer-controlled hydraulic actuator. Each cycle included a positive and negative (push and
pull) displacement of the specimen. The maximum displacement used for testing was
determined individually for each diaphragm aspect ratio by loading the first specimen
monotonically with incrementally increasing amplitude until the load-deflection plot on the data
acquisition computer began showing signs of stiffness degradation. The amplitude used for all
of the following cyclic tests of that specimen was a slightly smaller value than the maximum
monotonic displacement.
Chapter III provides the summarized stiffness results from all 132 tests in the form of
average percent differences for each parameter. The numerical results are used to qualitatively
evaluate and rank each parameter in terms of its diaphragm stiffening performance. Based on the
results, several suggestions are made for stiffness enhancement of diaphragms that exhibit a lack
of stiffness for reasons such as openings or lack of effective chords.

4.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the numerical analysis of test results, several conclusions can be made
regarding the effects of the above construction parameters on diaphragm stiffness:

Foam adhesive and blocking is the most effective combination of parameters with an
increase in shear stiffness of 259% and an increase in cyclic stiffness of 106%.
Blocking under the otherwise-unsupported sheathing panel edges provides the greatest
individual increase in diaphragm stiffness with an average 135% increase in shear
stiffness and a 72% increase in cyclic stiffness.
The use of foam adhesive (when blocking is not present) is the second most effective
single parameter. The application of foam adhesive causes an 89% increase in shear
stiffness and a 47% increase in cyclic stiffness. Further investigation is warranted to
determine if foam adhesive alone, surface-applied to the unsupported sheathing panel
joints (where blocking would typically be installed), is nearly as effective as blocking
alone at locking the two panel edges together against horizontal shear. If determined to
be an effective means of restraining the shear in the joints between unsupported
sheathing edges, it may be a cost-saving alternative to blocking.
Diaphragm shear stiffness is directly related to the quality of the sheathing connections.
Any construction techniques that serve to better interlock sheathing panels into one
large sheathing system against horizontal shear, will result in increased shear stiffness.
Results indicate that because overall diaphragm stiffness is mostly comprised of shear
stiffness, increases in shear stiffness will usually cause similar increases in overall
diaphragm stiffness.
Center and corner sheathing openings had disproportionate effects on diaphragm
stiffness. A smaller corner opening (10% sheathing removal) caused a greater reduction
in shear stiffness (on the side with the opening) than a larger center opening (30%
sheathing removal). Thus, shear stiffness is more dependent on the location of the
opening than the size of the opening. However, it appears that the reduction in cyclic
stiffness varies proportionally with the percentage of sheathing removed, and, the
relationship is potentially linear for a center opening.
As can be expected for torsionally irregular diaphragms such as the corner opening
configuration, the side that remains fully sheathed can be expected to absorb more of
an applied load than the softer side with the corner opening, actually causing an
increase in shear stiffness on the fully sheathed side.
The presence of effective chord members (rim joists in the case of floor diaphragms)
causes a significant increase in flexural stiffness. However, because diaphragm stiffness
is largely a function of shear stiffness, this significant flexural increase only translated
into a moderate cyclic stiffness increase. The flexural stiffness gained is attributable to
the resistance to tension and compression forces by the rim joist boards themselves.
Proper splicing and adequate fastening of the overhanging edge of sheathing is important
to the performance of chords.
Perimeter walls can effectively stiffen a diaphragm if the bottom plate is continuous and
adequately fastened-down. Due to the resistance of the bottom plate to the tension forces
developed through bending action, the primary effect of walls on diaphragms is
increased flexural stiffness.

REFERENCES 86

REFERENCES

Anderson, G.A. and Bundy, D.S. (1990). Stiffness Of Screw-Fastened, Metal-Clad, Timber-
Framed Roof Diaphragms With Openings In The Sheathing, Transactions in Agriculture, ASAE
33(1), 266-273.

Building Seismic Safety Council. (1998a). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1 - Provisions, 1997 Edition, FEMA
302, Washington, D.C.

Chopra, A.K. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 97-99.

Corda, D.N. (1982). The In-Plane Shear Response of Timber Diaphragms, Masterss Thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Countryman, D. (1952). Lateral Tests On Plywood Sheathed Diaphragms, Laboratory Report
No. 55, Douglas-fir Plywood Association, Tacoma, WA.

Countryman, D. and Colbenson, P. (1954). 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests,
Laboratory Report No. 63, Douglas-fir Plywood Association, Tacoma, WA.

Dolan, J.D. (1999). Design Guidelines for Wood Diaphragms, Proposal to CUREe-Caltech
Wood Frame Project Task 1.4.2 Diaphragm Studies, Blacksburg, VA.

Fischer, D. and Filiatrault, A. (2000). Quasi-Static Test Results of Floor Diaphragms, Report for
CUREe-Caltech Wood Frame Project Task 1.1.1, University of California, San Diego, CA.

GangaRao, H.V.S. and Luttrell, L.D. (1980). Preliminary Investigations Into The Response of
Timber Diaphragms, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design Of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms,
Applied Technology Council, Berkely, CA, November 19-20, 1979, 277-295.

Hankins, S.C., Easterling, W.S., and Murray, T.M. (1992). Vulcraft 1.5BI Cantilever
Diaphragm Tests, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Report No. CE/VPI-ST-
92/01, Blacksburg, VA.

Hausmann, C.T. and Esmay, M.L. (1977). The Diaphragm Strength of Pole Buildings,
Transactions of the ASAE, 20(1), 114-116.

International Building Code 2000. International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.

Jewell, R.B. (1981). The Static and Dynamic Experimental Analysis Of Wooden Diaphragms,
Masterss Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
REFERENCES 87

Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A., Medina, R. (2000). Development of a Testing
Protocol for Wood Frame Structures, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Polensek, A. (1979). Damping Capacity of a Nailed Wood-Joist Floor, Wood Science, 11(3),
155-159.

Roberts, J.D. (1983). Finite Element Analysis Of Horizontal Timber Diaphragms, Masterss
Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Stillinger, J.R. and Countryman, D. (1953). Lateral Tests on Full-Scale Plywood Sheathed Roof
Diaphragms, Laboratory Report No. T-5, Oregon Forest Products Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Tissell, J.R. and Elliott, J.R. (1997). Plywood Diaphragms, Laboratory Report No. 138,
American Plywood Association, Tacoma, WA.

Tissell, J.R. (1966). 1966 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests. Laboratory Report No. 106,
American Plywood Association, Tacoma, WA.

Uniform Building Code 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.

Widjaja, B.R. (1993). Analytical Investigation of Composite Diaphragms Strength and
Behavior, Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Woeste, F. and Townsend, M. (1991). Simple-Beam Diaphragm Test Considerations, ASAE
Paper No. 91-4059, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

Wright, B.W. and Manbeck, H.B. (1993). Finite Element Analysis of Wood-Framed, Metal-Clad
Diaphragm Panels, Transactions of the ASAE, 36(3), 895-904.

APPENDIX A TEST RESULTS 88
APPENDIX A TEST RESULTS

A.1 INTRODUCTION
Presented below are tables of the test results for each specimen. The tables include
values in the form of equivalent viscous damping, cyclic stiffness, shear stiffness, and flexural
stiffness. The following abbreviations are used to describe the test configurations:
NC = No Chords
WC = With Chords
NW = No Walls
WW = With Walls
Full = Fully Sheathed
Center = Center Sheathing Opening
Corner = Corner Sheathing Opening
B = Blocked
UB = UnBlocked
NO = Nailed Only
N&A = Nailed and Foam Adhesive Applied
3-12 = 3-12 Nail Pattern (versus the default 6-12 nail pattern)
Table A.1 Specimen 1 Test Results
Equiv. Viscous Cyclic Left Shear Right Shear Flexural
Damping Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
(%) (kips/in) (kips) (kips) (kips-in
2
)
1 NC; NW; Corner; UB; NO 13.5 29.2 3,369 1,642 26.9E+6
2 WC; NW; Corner; UB; NO 10.9 30.7 3,098 1,432 68.6E+6
3 WC; WW; Corner; UB; NO 9.9 33.0 3,183 1,573 76.0E+6
4 NC; WW; Corner; UB; NO 11.9 37.5 3,347 1,858 83.1E+6
5 NC; WW; Full; UB; NO 11.6 43.7 3,145 58.3E+6
6 WC; WW; Full; UB; NO 10.4 48.2 3,258 83.2E+6
7 WC; NW; Full; UB; NO 11.3 44.5 3,091 66.3E+6
8 NC; NW; Full; UB; NO 12.8 29.4 2,410 26.1E+6
9 NC; NW; Center; UB; NO 12.0 18.1 1,266 18.5E+6
10 WC; NW; Center; UB; NO 10.8 29.1 1,845 58.3E+6
11 WC; WW; Center; UB; NO 8.8 30.2 1,904 61.9E+6
12 NC; WW; Center; UB; NO 9.1 22.9 1,438 41.5E+6
13 WC; NW; Center; UB; N&A 3.7 42.6 2,894 87.2E+6
14 WC; WW; Center; UB; N&A 3.8 41.3 2,912 73.1E+6
15 NC; WW; Center; UB; N&A 5.1 29.9 2,193 40.6E+6
16 NC; NW; Center; UB; N&A 4.8 21.0 1,621 21.4E+6
17 WC; NW; Full; UB; N&A 4.6 51.2 4,166 58.6E+6
18 WC; WW; Full; UB; N&A 4.4 51.3 4,054 63.2E+6
19 NC; WW; Full; UB; N&A 5.0 43.3 3,645 43.4E+6
20 NC; NW; Full; UB; N&A 4.5 35.4 3,234 28.1E+6
21 NC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A 4.9 30.5 3,559 2,031 25.1E+6
22 WC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A 4.5 37.7 3,735 2,043 58.2E+6
23 WC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A 4.3 39.5 3,973 2,064 72.7E+6
24 NC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A 5.1 35.5 3,685 2,067 44.4E+6

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
1 WC; NW; Full; B; NO 6.8 66.2 6,183 52.8E+6
2 WC; WW; Full; B; NO 6.6 71.8 6,387 62.1E+6
3 NC; WW; Full; B; NO 6.8 65.3 6,002 52.9E+6
4 NC; NW; Full; B; NO 6.9 55.5 5,627 38.2E+6
5 NC; NW; Corner; B; NO 7.2 38.6 5,028 2,824 29.3E+6
6 WC; NW; Corner; B; NO 7.3 44.5 5,368 2,519 51.7E+6
7 WC; WW; Corner; B; NO 7.0 46.7 5,378 2,643 57.2E+6
8 NC; WW; Corner; B; NO 7.4 44.1 4,942 2,506 55.6E+6
9 NC; NW; Center; B; NO 9.7 24.3 2,039 22.3E+6
10 WC; NW; Center; B; NO 9.2 34.5 2,419 55.5E+6
11 WC; WW; Center; B; NO 8.6 36.9 2,489 63.0E+6
12 NC; WW; Center; B; NO 9.7 31.2 2,173 46.6E+6
13 WC; NW; Full; UB; NO 12.9 35.6 2,640 56.9E+6
14 WC; WW; Full; UB; NO 12.5 36.4 2,555 66.1E+6
15 NC; WW; Full; UB; NO 12.8 32.9 2,413 47.5E+6
16 NC; NW; Full; UB; NO 12.5 27.5 2,347 25.1E+6
17 NC; NW; Corner; UB; NO 11.0 22.6 2,841 1,330 22.2E+6
18 WC; NW; Corner; UB; NO 10.9 26.7 2,753 1,215 60.2E+6
19 WC; WW; Corner; UB; NO 9.7 27.9 2,746 1,275 68.5E+6
20 NC; WW; Corner; UB; NO 9.9 25.0 2,698 1,164 49.8E+6
21 NC; NW; Center; UB; NO 11.0 19.4 1,570 20.3E+6
22 WC; NW; Center; UB; NO 11.2 24.9 1,609 82.2E+6
23 WC; WW; Center; UB; NO 10.9 28.2 1,831 79.4E+6
24 NC; WW; Center; UB; NO 11.5 23.5 1,603 49.5E+6
25 WC; NW; Center; UB; N&A 4.6 32.1 2,288 57.0E+6
26 WC; WW; Center; UB; N&A 8.6 36.7 2,549 76.1E+6
27 NC; WW; Center; UB; N&A 9.5 29.4 2,065 50.3E+6
28 NC; NW; Center; UB; N&A 8.9 22.9 1,793 24.8E+6
29 WC; NW; Full; UB; N&A 6.4 47.0 3,829 52.6E+6
30 WC; WW; Full; UB; N&A 6.9 47.3 3,501 74.9E+6
31 NC; WW; Full; UB; N&A 8.0 41.0 3,338 49.4E+6
32 NC; NW; Full; UB; N&A 7.8 33.4 3,284 25.7E+6
33 NC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A 8.2 26.4 3,841 1,646 22.0E+6
34 WC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A 7.2 31.7 3,883 1,505 53.1E+6
35 WC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A 7.0 33.3 3,770 1,564 67.3E+6
Table A.2 (Continued) Specimen 2 Test Results

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
36 NC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A 7.7 29.4 3,605 1,426 47.5E+6
37 WC; NW; Center; B; N&A 5.4 38.7 2,989 49.6E+6
38 WC; WW; Center; B; N&A 5.9 41.3 3,082 63.6E+6
39 NC; WW; Center; B; N&A 6.8 33.9 2,599 45.6E+6
40 NC; NW; Center; B; N&A 6.0 25.9 2,244 23.2E+6
41 WC; NW; Full; B; N&A 4.1 67.5 6,185 54.7E+6
42 WC; WW; Full; B; N&A 4.6 67.9 6,086 59.7E+6
43 NC; WW; Full; B; N&A 5.6 54.9 5,099 43.6E+6
44 NC; NW; Full; B; N&A 4.4 46.4 4,692 31.3E+6
45 NC; NW; Corner; B; N&A 4.6 37.4 4,688 2,509 30.0E+6
46 WC; NW; Corner; B; N&A 4.3 47.9 5,880 2,557 57.2E+6
47 WC; WW; Corner; B; N&A 4.3 51.0 6,171 2,684 66.0E+6
48 NC; WW; Corner; B; N&A 4.9 44.6 5,480 2,420 51.6E+6

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
1 NW; Full; B; NO 7.1 65.0 4,417 32.7E+6
2 WW; Full; B; NO 6.0 68.0 4,506 36.6E+6
3 WW; Corner; B; NO 6.6 53.8 1,784 4,334 37.0E+6
4 NW; Corner; B; NO 6.7 49.7 1,801 4,129 28.5E+6
5 NW; Center; B; NO 7.7 35.3 2,006 35.3E+6
6 WW; Center; B; NO 7.5 39.6 2,388 30.2E+6
7 NW; Full; B; NO; 3-12 6.1 83.9 6,425 33.2E+6
8 WW; Full; B; NO; 3-12 5.8 86.2 6,312 36.9E+6
9 WW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12 17.2 58.6 3,803 35.1E+6
10 NW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12 18.5 49.2 3,047 34.9E+6
11 NW; Full; UB; NO 18.6 46.3 2,880 32.1E+6
12 WW; Full; UB; NO 17.6 54.3 3,453 36.8E+6
13 WW; Corner; UB; NO 16.5 47.3 2,075 2,713 30.9E+6
14 NW; Corner; UB; NO 17.6 42.0 1,675 2,536 25.9E+6
15 NW; Center; UB; NO 17.0 24.1 996 26.2E+6
16 WW; Center; UB; NO 15.5 29.1 1,347 29.1E+6
17 NW; Full; UB; N&A 10.6 79.2 4,630 44.3E+6
18 WW; Full; UB; N&A 11.9 68.6 4,272 33.4E+6
19 WW; Corner; UB; N&A 12.2 63.2 2,128 3,647 59.2E+6
20 NW; Corner; UB; N&A 12.0 63.8 2,056 3,101 120.9E+6
21 NW; Corner; B; N&A 4.3 95.3 4,668 12,078 29.7E+6
22 WW; Corner; B; N&A 4.7 89.7 4,174 10,582 30.0E+6
23 WW; Full; B; N&A 6.5 71.6 6,296 23.5E+6
24 NW; Full; B; N&A 6.3 69.0 6,134 22.3E+6

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
1 NW; Full; B; NO 6.8 62.3 5,613 19.7E+6
2 WW; Full; B; NO 6.5 64.0 5,828 20.0E+6
3 WW; Corner; B; NO 7.1 51.7 2,691 5,800 16.7E+6
4 NW; Corner; B; NO 7.4 48.7 2,501 5,028 16.8E+6
5 NW; Center; B; NO 8.3 31.8 1,934 13.7E+6
6 WW; Center; B; NO 7.8 34.6 2,160 13.9E+6
7 NW; Full; B; NO; 3-12 4.7 77.3 7,178 21.4E+6
8 WW; Full; B; NO; 3-12 4.7 80.1 7,969 20.9E+6
9 WW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12 8.2 42.1 2,765 17.0E+6
10 NW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12 8.2 38.2 2,394 16.3E+6
11 NW; Full; UB; NO 10.7 26.6 1,418 13.7E+6
12 WW; Full; UB; NO 11.2 30.4 1,732 14.4E+6
13 WW; Corner; UB; NO 11.4 25.3 1,122 1,688 12.3E+6
14 NW; Corner; UB; NO 11.0 22.3 962 1,375 11.3E+6
15 NW; Center; UB; NO 14.9 20.5 1,058 11.0E+6
16 WW; Center; UB; NO 13.7 24.1 1,276 12.3E+6
17 WW; Full; UB; N&A 6.0 65.0 5,048 22.0E+6
18 NW; Full; UB; N&A 6.8 54.9 4,119 18.3E+6
19 NW; Corner; UB; N&A 7.4 43.2 2,361 3,679 16.4E+6
20 WW; Corner; UB; N&A 7.5 43.6 2,306 3,666 16.6E+6
21 WW; Corner; B; N&A 3.1 72.3 4,754 10,232 18.9E+6
22 NW; Corner; B; N&A 3.2 67.4 4,389 9,980 17.5E+6
23 NW; Full; B; N&A 2.7 93.3 12,857 21.4E+6
24 WW; Full; B; N&A 2.7 91.7 11,821 21.6E+6

eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
1 NW; NC; Full; B; NO 7.9 4.0 2,010 12.2E+6
2 WW; NC; Full; B; NO 8.3 8.8 1,891 48.4E+6
3 WW; WC; Full; B; NO 8.9 11.7 2,022 102.2E+6
4 NW; WC; Full; B; NO 9.2 9.4 1,728 68.2E+6
5 NW; WC; Corner; B; NO 13.3 8.4 833 3,409 54.9E+6
6 WW; WC; Corner; B; NO 13.1 9.2 812 3,443 79.4E+6


eq
k
cyclic
GA
sL
GA
sR
EI
Test
No.
Test Configuration
2
)
1 NW; NC; Full; B; NO 16.3 3.4 996 12.5E+6
2 WW; NC; Full; B; NO 16.2 5.1 850 35.2E+6
3 WW; WC; Full; B; NO 15.0 6.3 833 103.2E+6
4 NW; WC; Full; B; NO 15.1 5.7 764 80.2E+6
5 NW; WC; Corner; B; NO 14.2 4.2 331 994 86.1E+6
6 WW; WC; Corner; B; NO 14.3 4.5 367 1,030 101.5E+6

APPENDIX B TEST COMPARISONS 95
APPENDIX B TEST COMPARISONS

B.1 INTRODUCTION
The tables below provide numerical comparisons in the form of percent difference for
each of the diaphragm construction parameters evaluated in this study. The variables compared
for each pair of corresponding tests include equivalent viscous damping, cyclic stiffness, shear
stiffness, and flexural stiffness. Only tests of the same specimen are compared. The following
abbreviations are used to describe the test configurations:
NC = No Chords
WC = With Chords
NW = No Walls
WW = With Walls
B = Blocked
UB = UnBlocked
NO = Nailed Only
Table B.1 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking
Specimen
Tests Compared
(Unblocked / Blocked)
Unblocked Blocked
Percent Difference
(due to addition of blocking)
2 13 / 1 Eq. Viscous Damping,
eq
12.9 6.8 -47%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 66.2 86%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,640 6,183 134%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, WC, NW
Flexural Stiffness, EI 56.9E+6 52.8E+6 -7%
eq
12.5 6.6 -47%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
36.4 71.8 97%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,555 6,387 150%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, WC, WW
eq
12.8 6.8 -47%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 65.3 99%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,413 6,002 149%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, NC, WW
Flexural Stiffness, EI 47.5E+6 52.9E+6 11%
eq
12.5 6.9 -45%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 55.5 102%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 5,627 140%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, NC, NW
eq
6.4 4.1 -36%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.0 67.5 44%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,829 6,185 62%
Constants: 16x20, full, N&A, WC, NW
eq
6.9 4.6 -33%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.3 67.9 44%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,501 6,086 74%
Constants: 16x20, full, N&A, WC, WW
eq
8.0 5.6 -30%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
41.0 54.9 34%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,338 5,099 53%
Constants: 16x20, full, N&A, NC, WW
eq
7.8 4.4 -44%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
33.4 46.4 39%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,284 4,692 43%
Constants: 16x20, full, N&A, NC, NW
Table B.1 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking
Specimen
Tests Compared
Unblocked Blocked
Percent Difference
eq
18.6 7.1 -62%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 65.0 40%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 4,417 53%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, NW
eq
17.6 6.0 -66%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 68.0 25%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,453 4,506 31%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, WW
eq
18.5 6.1 -67%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
49.2 83.9 71%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,047 6,425 111%
Constants: 20x16, full, 3-12, NO, NW
eq
17.2 5.8 -66%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
58.6 86.2 47%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,803 6,312 66%
Constants: 20x16, full, 3-12, NO, WW
eq
10.6 6.3 -41%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
79.2 69.0 -13%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,630 6,134 32%
Constants: 20x16, full, N&A, NW
eq
11.9 6.5 -45%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
68.6 71.6 4%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,272 6,296 47%
Constants: 20x16, full, N&A, WW
eq
10.7 6.8 -36%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 62.3 134%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 5,613 296%
eq
11.2 6.5 -42%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 64.0 111%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,732 5,828 236%
Table B.1 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking
Specimen
Tests Compared
Unblocked Blocked
Percent Difference
eq
8.2 4.7 -43%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
38.2 77.3 103%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,394 7,178 200%
Constants: 20x16, full, 3-12 nails, NO,
NW
eq
8.2 4.7 -43%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
42.1 80.1 90%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,765 7,969 188%
Constants: 20x16, full, 3-12 nails, NO,
WW
eq
6.0 2.7 -55%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 91.7 41%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,048 11,821 134%
Constants: 20x16, full, N&A, WW
eq
6.8 2.7 -60%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 93.3 70%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,119 12,857 212%
Constants: 20x16, full, N&A, NW
Table B.2 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Foam Adhesive
Specimen
Tests Compared
(NO / N&A)
Nailed Only
Nails and
Adhesive
Percent Difference
(due to addition of adhesive)
eq
12.9 6.4 -50%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 47.0 32%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,640 3,829 45%
Constants: 16x20, full, UB, WC, NW
eq
12.5 6.9 -45%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
36.4 47.3 30%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,555 3,501 37%
Constants: 16x20, full, UB, WC, WW
eq
12.8 8.0 -38%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 41.0 25%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,413 3,338 38%
Constants: 16x20, full, UB, NC, WW
eq
12.5 7.8 -38%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 33.4 21%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 3,284 40%
Constants: 16x20, full, UB, NC, NW
eq
6.8 4.1 -40%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
66.2 67.5 2%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,183 6,185 0%
Constants: 16x20, full, B, WC, NW
eq
6.6 4.6 -30%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
71.8 67.9 -5%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,387 6,086 -5%
Constants: 16x20, full, B, WC, WW
eq
6.8 5.6 -18%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.3 54.9 -16%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,002 5,099 -15%
Constants: 16x20, full, B, NC, WW
eq
6.9 4.4 -36%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
55.5 46.4 -16%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,627 4,692 -17%
Constants: 16x20, full, B, NC, NW
Table B.2 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Foam Adhesive
Specimen
Tests Compared
(NO / N&A)
Nailed Only
Nails and
Adhesive
Percent Difference
(due to addition of adhesive)
eq
18.6 10.6 -43%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 79.2 71%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 4,630 61%
Constants: 20x16, full, UB, NW
eq
17.6 11.9 -32%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 68.6 26%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,453 4,272 24%
Constants: 20x16, full, UB, WW
eq
6.0 6.5 8%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
68.0 71.6 5%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,506 6,296 40%
Constants: 20x16, full, B, WW
eq
7.1 6.3 -11%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 69.0 6%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,417 6,134 39%
Constants: 20x16, full, B, NW
eq
11.2 6.0 -46%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 65.0 114%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,732 5,048 191%
Constants: 20x16, full, UB, WW
eq
10.7 6.8 -36%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 54.9 106%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 4,119 190%
Constants: 20x16, full, UB, NW
eq
6.8 2.7 -60%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
62.3 93.3 50%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,613 12,857 129%
Constants: 20x16, full, B, NW
eq
6.5 2.7 -58%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
64.0 91.7 43%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,828 11,821 103%
Constants: 20x16, full, B, WW
Table B.3 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Blocking and Foam Adhesive
Specimen
Tests Compared
(UB, NO / B, N&A)

Unblocked
No Adhes.
Blocked
Adhesive
Percent Difference
(due to blocking & adhesive)
eq
12.9 4.1 -68%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 67.5 90%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,640 6,185 134%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, WC, NW
eq
12.5 4.6 -63%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
36.4 67.9 87%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,555 6,086 138%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, WC, WW
eq
12.8 5.6 -56%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 54.9 67%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,413 5,099 111%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, NC, WW
eq
12.5 4.4 -65%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 46.4 68%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 4,692 100%
Constants: 16x20, full, NO, NC, NW
eq
18.6 6.3 -66%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 69.0 49%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 6,134 113%
eq
17.6 6.5 -63%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 71.6 32%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,453 6,296 82%
eq
10.7 2.7 -75%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 93.3 250%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 12,857 807%
eq
11.2 2.7 -76%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 91.7 202%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,732 11,821 583%
Table B.4 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Increased Nail Density
(3-12 Nail Pattern versus Standard 6-12 Nail Pattern)
Specimen
Tests Compared
(6-12 pattern / 3-12 pattern)

6-12 Nail
Pattern
3-12 Nail
Pattern
Percent Difference
(due to additional nailing)
eq
7.1 6.1 -14%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 83.9 29%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,417 6,425 45%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, B, NW
eq
6.0 5.8 -3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
68.0 86.2 27%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,506 6,312 40%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, B, WW
eq
17.6 17.2 -2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 58.6 8%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,453 3,803 10%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, UB, WW
eq
18.6 18.5 -1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 49.2 6%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 3,047 6%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, UB, NW
eq
6.8 4.7 -31%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
62.3 77.3 24%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,613 7,178 28%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, B, NW
eq
6.5 4.7 -28%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
64.0 80.1 25%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,828 7,969 37%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, B, WW
eq
11.2 8.2 -27%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 42.1 38%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,732 2,765 60%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, UB, WW
eq
10.7 8.2 -23%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 38.2 43%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 2,394 69%
Constants: 20x16, full, NO, UB, NW
Table B.5 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Chords
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Chords / Chords)
No Chords Chords
Percent Difference
(due to addition of chords)
eq
11.6 10.4 -10%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.7 48.2 10%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,145 3,258 4%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, WW
eq
12.8 11.3 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
29.4 44.5 51%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,410 3,091 28%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, NW
eq
4.5 4.6 2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.4 51.2 45%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,234 4,166 29%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, NW
eq
5.0 4.4 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.3 51.3 18%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,645 4,054 11%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, WW
eq
6.9 6.8 -1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
55.5 66.2 19%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,627 6,183 10%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, full, NW
eq
6.8 6.6 -3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.3 71.8 10%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,002 6,387 6%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, full, WW
eq
12.5 12.9 3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 35.6 29%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 2,640 12%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, NW
eq
12.8 12.5 -2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 36.4 11%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,413 2,555 6%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, WW
Table B.5 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Chords
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Chords / Chords)
No Chords Chords
Percent Difference
(due to addition of chords)
eq
7.8 6.4 -18%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
33.4 47.0 41%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,284 3,829 17%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, NW
eq
8.0 6.9 -14%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
41.0 47.3 15%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,338 3,501 5%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, WW
eq
4.4 4.1 -7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.4 67.5 46%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,692 6,185 32%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, full, NW
eq
5.6 4.6 -18%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 67.9 24%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,099 6,086 19%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, full, wW
eq
7.9 9.2 16%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
4.0 9.4 132%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,010 1,728 -14%
eq
8.3 8.9 7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
8.8 11.7 33%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,891 2,022 7%
eq
16.3 15.1 -7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
3.4 5.7 66%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
996 764 -23%
eq
16.2 15.0 -7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
5.1 6.3 25%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
850 833 -2%
Table B.6 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Walls
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Walls / Walls)
No Walls Walls
Percent Difference
(due to addition of walls)
eq
12.8 11.6 -9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
29.4 43.7 48%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,410 3,145 31%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, NC
eq
11.3 10.4 -8%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
44.5 48.2 8%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,091 3,258 5%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, WC
eq
4.6 4.4 -4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
51.2 51.3 0%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,166 4,054 -3%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, WC
eq
4.5 5.0 11%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.4 43.3 23%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,234 3,645 13%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, NC
eq
6.8 6.6 -3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
66.2 71.8 8%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,183 6,387 3%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, full, WC
eq
6.9 6.8 -1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
55.5 65.3 18%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,627 6,002 7%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, full, NC
eq
12.9 12.5 -3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 36.4 2%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,640 2,555 -3%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, WC
eq
12.5 12.8 2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 32.9 19%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 2,413 3%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, full, NC
Table B.6 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Walls
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Walls / Walls)
No Walls Walls
Percent Difference
eq
6.4 6.9 8%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.0 47.3 1%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,829 3,501 -9%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, WC
eq
7.8 8.0 3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
33.4 41.0 23%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,284 3,338 2%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, full, NC
eq
4.1 4.6 12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
67.5 67.9 1%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,185 6,086 -2%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, full, WC
eq
4.4 5.6 27%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.4 54.9 18%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,692 5,099 9%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, full, NC
eq
7.1 6.0 -15%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 68.0 5%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,417 4,506 2%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, full
eq
6.1 5.8 -5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
83.9 86.2 3%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,425 6,312 -2%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, full, 3-12
eq
18.5 17.2 -7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
49.2 58.6 19%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,047 3,803 25%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, full, 3-12
eq
18.6 17.6 -5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 54.3 17%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 3,453 20%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, full
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Walls / Walls)
No Walls Walls
Percent Difference
eq
10.6 11.9 12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
79.2 68.6 -13%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,630 4,272 -8%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, UB, full
eq
6.3 6.5 3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
69.0 71.6 4%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,134 6,296 3%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, full
eq
6.8 6.5 -4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
62.3 64.0 3%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,613 5,828 4%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, full
eq
4.7 4.7 0%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
77.3 80.1 4%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
7,178 7,969 11%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, full, 3-12
eq
8.2 8.2 0%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
38.2 42.1 10%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,394 2,765 16%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, full, 3-12
eq
10.7 11.2 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 30.4 14%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 1,732 22%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, full
eq
6.8 6.0 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 65.0 18%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,119 5,048 23%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, UB, full
eq
2.7 2.7 0%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
93.3 91.7 -2%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
12,857 11,821 -8%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, full
Specimen
Tests Compared
(No Walls / Walls)
No Walls Walls
Percent Difference
eq
7.9 8.3 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
4.0 8.8 119%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,010 1,891 -6%
eq
9.2 8.9 -3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
9.4 11.7 25%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,728 2,022 17%
eq
16.3 16.2 -1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
3.4 5.1 48%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
996 850 -15%
eq
15.1 15.0 -1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
5.7 6.3 11%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
764 833 9%
Table B.7 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Center Sheathing Openings
Specimen
Tests Compared
(Full / Center Opening)

Fully
Sheathed
Center
Opening
Percent Difference
(due to center sheathing opening)
eq
12.8 12.0 -6%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
29.4 18.1 -38%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,410 1,266 -47%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, NC, NW
eq
11.3 10.8 -4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
44.5 29.1 -35%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,091 1,845 -40%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, WC, NW
eq
10.4 8.8 -15%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
48.2 30.2 -37%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,258 1,904 -42%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, WC, wW
eq
11.6 9.1 -22%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.7 22.9 -47%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,145 1,438 -54%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, NC, wW
eq
4.5 4.8 7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.4 21.0 -41%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,234 1,621 -50%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, NC, NW
eq
5.0 5.1 2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.3 29.9 -31%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,645 2,193 -40%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, NC, WW
eq
4.4 3.8 -14%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
51.3 41.3 -20%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,054 2,912 -28%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, WC, WW
eq
4.6 3.7 -20%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
51.2 42.6 -17%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,166 2,894 -31%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, UB, WC, NW
Table B.7 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Center Sheathing Openings
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Center
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
6.8 9.2 35%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
66.2 34.5 -48%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,183 2,419 -61%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, WC, NW
eq
6.6 8.6 30%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
71.8 36.9 -49%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,387 2,489 -61%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, WC, WW
eq
6.8 9.7 43%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.3 31.2 -52%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,002 2,173 -64%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, NC, WW
eq
6.9 9.7 41%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
55.5 24.3 -56%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,627 2,039 -64%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, NC, NW
eq
12.9 11.2 -13%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 24.9 -30%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,640 1,609 -39%
eq
12.5 10.9 -13%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
36.4 28.2 -23%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,555 1,831 -28%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, WC, WW
eq
12.8 11.5 -10%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 23.5 -29%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,413 1,603 -34%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, NC, WW
eq
12.5 11.0 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 19.4 -30%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,347 1,570 -33%
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Center
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
6.4 4.6 -28%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.0 32.1 -32%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,829 2,288 -40%
eq
6.9 8.6 25%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.3 36.7 -22%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,501 2,549 -27%
eq
8.0 9.5 19%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
41.0 29.4 -28%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,338 2,065 -38%
eq
7.8 8.9 14%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
33.4 22.9 -31%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,284 1,793 -45%
eq
4.1 5.4 32%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
67.5 38.7 -43%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,185 2,989 -52%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, WC, NW
eq
4.6 5.9 28%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
67.9 41.3 -39%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
6,086 3,082 -49%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, WC, WW
eq
5.6 6.8 21%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 33.9 -38%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,099 2,599 -49%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, NC, WW
eq
4.4 6.0 36%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.4 25.9 -44%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,692 2,244 -52%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, NC, NW
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Center
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
7.1 7.7 8%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 35.3 -46%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,417 2,006 -55%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, NW
eq
6.0 7.5 25%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
68.0 39.6 -42%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
4,506 2,388 -47%
Constants: 20x16, NO, B, WW
eq
18.6 17.0 -9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 24.1 -48%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
2,880 996 -65%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, NW
eq
17.6 15.5 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 29.1 -46%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
3,453 1,347 -61%
Constants: 20x16, NO, UB, WW
eq
6.8 8.3 22%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
62.3 31.8 -49%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,613 1,934 -66%
eq
6.5 7.8 20%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
64.0 34.6 -46%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
5,828 2,160 -63%
eq
10.7 14.9 39%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 20.5 -23%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,418 1,058 -25%
eq
11.2 13.7 22%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 24.1 -21%
Shear Stiffness, GA
s
1,732 1,276 -26%
Table B.8 Test Comparisons for the Effects of Corner Sheathing Openings
Specimen
Tests Compared
(Full / Corner Opening)

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
(due to corner sheathing opening)
eq
12.8 13.5 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
29.4 29.2 -1%
Left Shear Stiffness, GA
sL
2,608 3,369 29%
Right Shear Stiffness, GA
sR
2,212 1,642 -26%
eq
11.3 10.9 -4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
44.5 30.7 -31%
sL
3,033 3,098 2%
sR
3,179 1,432 -55%
eq
10.4 9.9 -5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
48.2 33.0 -31%
sL
3,193 3,183 0%
sR
3,324 1,573 -53%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, WC, wW
eq
11.6 11.9 3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.7 37.5 -14%
sL
3,140 3,347 7%
sR
3,150 1,858 -41%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, NC, wW
eq
4.5 4.9 9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.4 30.5 -14%
sL
3,535 3,559 1%
sR
2,933 2,031 -31%
eq
5.0 5.1 2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
43.3 35.5 -18%
sL
3,967 3,685 -7%
sR
3,323 2,067 -38%
eq
4.4 4.3 -2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
51.3 39.5 -23%
sL
4,226 3,973 -6%
sR
3,883 2,064 -47%
Table B.8 (Continued) Test Comparisons for the Effects of Corner Sheathing Openings
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
4.6 4.5 -2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
51.2 37.7 -26%
sL
4,332 3,735 -14%
sR
3,999 2,043 -49%
eq
6.8 7.3 7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
66.2 44.5 -33%
sL
6,179 5,368 -13%
sR
6,187 2,519 -59%
eq
6.6 7.0 6%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
71.8 46.7 -35%
sL
6,421 5,378 -16%
sR
6,352 2,643 -58%
eq
6.8 7.4 9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.3 44.1 -33%
sL
5,910 4,942 -16%
sR
6,094 2,506 -59%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, NC, WW
eq
6.9 7.2 4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
55.5 38.6 -30%
sL
5,334 5,028 -6%
sR
5,919 2,824 -52%
Constants: 16x20, NO, B, NC, NW
eq
12.9 10.9 -16%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
35.6 26.7 -25%
sL
3,082 2,753 -11%
sR
2,198 1,215 -45%
eq
12.5 9.7 -22%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
36.4 27.9 -23%
sL
2,896 2,746 -5%
sR
2,214 1,275 -42%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, WC, WW
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
12.8 9.9 -23%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
32.9 25.0 -24%
sL
2,738 2,698 -1%
sR
2,088 1,164 -44%
Constants: 16x20, NO, UB, NC, WW
eq
12.5 11.0 -12%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
27.5 22.6 -18%
sL
2,636 2,841 8%
sR
2,058 1,330 -35%
eq
6.4 7.2 13%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.0 31.7 -33%
sL
4,575 3,883 -15%
sR
3,083 1,505 -51%
eq
6.9 7.0 1%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
47.3 33.3 -30%
sL
4,110 3,770 -8%
sR
2,892 1,564 -46%
eq
8.0 7.7 -4%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
41.0 29.4 -28%
sL
4,076 3,605 -12%
sR
2,600 1,426 -45%
eq
7.8 8.2 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
33.4 26.4 -21%
sL
3,999 3,841 -4%
sR
2,569 1,646 -36%
eq
4.1 4.3 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
67.5 47.9 -29%
sL
6,375 5,880 -8%
sR
5,996 2,557 -57%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, WC, NW
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
4.6 4.3 -7%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
67.9 51.0 -25%
sL
6,723 6,171 -8%
sR
5,449 2,684 -51%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, WC, WW
eq
5.6 4.9 -13%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 44.6 -19%
sL
5,441 5,480 1%
sR
4,757 2,420 -49%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, NC, WW
eq
4.4 4.6 5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.4 37.4 -19%
sL
4,725 4,688 -1%
sR
4,658 2,509 -46%
Constants: 16x20, N&A, B, NC, NW
eq
7.1 6.7 -6%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 49.7 -23%
sL
4,249 1,801 -58%
sR
4,585 4,129 -10%
eq
6.0 6.6 10%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
68.0 53.8 -21%
sL
4,273 1,784 -58%
sR
4,740 4,334 -9%
eq
18.6 17.6 -5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
46.3 42.0 -9%
sL
3,287 1,675 -49%
sR
2,473 2,536 3%
eq
17.6 16.5 -6%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.3 47.3 -13%
sL
4,101 2,075 -49%
sR
2,805 2,713 -3%
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
6.3 4.3 -32%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
69.0 95.3 38%
sL
6,617 4,668 -29%
sR
5,651 12,078 114%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, NW
eq
6.5 4.7 -28%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
71.6 89.7 25%
sL
6,871 4,174 -39%
sR
5,720 10,582 85%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, WW
eq
6.8 7.4 9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
62.3 48.7 -22%
sL
5,604 2,501 -55%
sR
5,622 5,028 -11%
eq
6.5 7.1 9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
64.0 51.7 -19%
sL
5,908 2,691 -54%
sR
5,747 5,800 1%
eq
10.7 11.0 3%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
26.6 22.3 -16%
sL
1,430 962 -33%
sR
1,406 1,375 -2%
eq
11.2 11.4 2%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
30.4 25.3 -17%
sL
1,759 1,122 -36%
sR
1,704 1,688 -1%
eq
6.0 7.5 25%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
65.0 43.6 -33%
sL
5,426 2,306 -58%
sR
4,671 3,666 -22%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, UB, WW
Specimen
Tests Compared

Fully
Sheathed
Corner
Opening
Percent Difference
eq
6.8 7.4 9%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
54.9 43.2 -21%
sL
4,169 2,361 -43%
sR
4,070 3,679 -10%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, UB, NW
eq
2.7 3.1 15%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
91.7 72.3 -21%
sL
12,337 4,754 -61%
sR
11,305 10,232 -9%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, WW
eq
2.7 3.2 19%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
93.3 67.4 -28%
sL
15,027 4,389 -71%
sR
10,686 9,980 -7%
Constants: 20x16, N&A, B, NW
eq
9.2 13.3 45%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
9.4 8.4 -10%
sL
1,353 833 -38%
sR
2,104 3,409 62%
eq
8.9 13.1 47%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
11.7 9.2 -22%
sL
1,561 812 -48%
sR
2,482 3,443 39%
eq
15.1 14.2 -6%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
5.7 4.2 -27%
sL
682 331 -51%
sR
846 994 17%
eq
15.0 14.3 -5%
Cyclic Stiffness, k
cyclic
6.3 4.5 -28%
sL
745 367 -51%
sR
921 1,030 12%

APPENDIX C SPECIMEN INSTRUMENTATION 119
APPENDIX C SPECIMEN INSTRUMENTATION

C.1 INTRODUCTION
The following table provides a description of each device used in this study to measure
deflections and loads. Refer to Section 2.5 for diagrams of diaphragm instrumentation layout.

Table C.1 Instrument Descriptions
Label Description Model & S/N Conversion Coeff. Offset
utpDisp Actuator Displacement Transducer n/a -0.60 V/V/inch n/a
utpLoad Actuator Load Cell Moog 50 kip 1032AGQ / 64693A -5500.0 lbs/V n/a
DL1 String Pot. Left Diagonal No.1 PA-20 / 30110380 0.048720 V/V/inch 9.750V = 10
DL2 String Pot. Left Diagonal No.2 PA-20 / 30110381 0.048480 V/V/inch 9.727V = 10
DR1 String Pot. Right Diagonal No.1 PA-20 / 30110382 0.048680 V/V/inch 9.740V = 10
DR2 String Pot. Right Diagonal No.2 PA-20 / 30110383 0.048698 V/V/inch 9.744V = 10
SlipL String Pot. Left Test Frame Slip PA-2 / 28060335 0.475924 V/V/inch 4.777V = 1
SlipC String Pot. Center Test Frame Slip PA-2 / 28060336 0.465603 V/V/inch 4.827V = 1
SlipR String Pot. Right Test Frame Slip PA-2 / 28060337 0.476062 V/V/inch 4.772V = 1
GL1 String Pot. Global Defl., Far Left PA-5 / 28060339 0.196702 V/V/inch 4.905V = 2.5
GL2 String Pot. Global Defl., Left Center PA-20 / 30110384 0.048563 V/V/inch 9.725V = 10
GL3 String Pot. Global Defl., Center Left PA-20 / 30110385 0.048673 V/V/inch 9.742V = 10
GC String Pot. Global Deflection, Center PA-20 / 30110386 0.048628 V/V/inch 9.730V = 10
GR1 String Pot. Global Defl., Center Right PA-20 / 30110387 0.048470 V/V/inch 9.707V = 10
GR2 String Pot. Global Defl., Right Center PA-20 / 27060431 0.048147 V/V/inch 9.644V = 10
GR3 String Pot. Global Defl., Far Right PT101 / A43043 0.092441 V/V/inch 4.613V = 5
L-Load Reaction Load Cell Left-side Custom-Built 40 kip 4124.1 lbs/V n/a
R-Load Reaction Load Cell Right-side Custom-Built 40 kip 4098.5 lbs/V n/a

APPENDIX D MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY DATA 120

APPENDIX D MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY DATA

D.1 INTRODUCTION
Moisture content and density was determined from a sample from each joist of every
specimen. Samples from the plywood sheathing of only Specimen 1 were also analyzed for
moisture content and density. The joist samples were cut from the scraps and analyzed at the
time of the construction of each specimen. All samples were measured for initial mass, dried
mass, and volumetric displacement (in a water bath following a wax coating). The following
tables provide moisture content and density information for each specimen.
Table D.1 Specimen 1 Joists Moisture Content and Density
Sample # Initial Mass Dried Mass H
2
O Displaced Moisture Content Density
Left to Right (g) (g) (g) : 1g = 1cc H
2
O (g / cc)
1 2.59 2.14 4.91 0.21 0.44
2 4.24 3.43 7.14 0.24 0.48
3 3.76 3.13 6.69 0.20 0.47
4 4.25 3.48 7.16 0.22 0.49
5 2.80 2.31 5.04 0.21 0.46
6 2.99 2.51 5.73 0.19 0.44
7 3.75 2.99 6.14 0.25 0.49
8 3.36 2.77 5.97 0.21 0.46
9 2.83 2.35 5.09 0.20 0.46
10 3.62 3.00 5.81 0.21 0.52
11 4.10 3.29 6.83 0.25 0.48
12 3.84 3.13 6.31 0.23 0.50
13 4.04 3.30 6.76 0.22 0.49
14 3.54 2.89 6.07 0.22 0.48
15 3.09 2.61 5.69 0.18 0.46
16 3.07 2.57 5.75 0.19 0.45
Average: 0.22 0.47
Table D.2 Specimen 1 Sheathing Moisture Content and Density
2
(g) (g) (g) : 1g = 1cc H
2
O (g / cc)
1 22.67 20.96 34.80 0.08 0.60
2 19.29 17.42 29.05 0.11 0.60
3 20.69 18.12 32.03 0.14 0.57
4 30.25 28.30 46.01 0.07 0.62
5 19.56 18.14 31.03 0.08 0.58
6 21.32 19.30 35.22 0.10 0.55
7 22.30 20.24 37.10 0.10 0.55
8 23.36 21.04 36.63 0.11 0.57
9 21.10 19.51 33.51 0.08 0.58
10 18.59 16.59 28.45 0.12 0.58
11 17.70 15.96 24.64 0.11 0.65
12 22.05 19.36 33.27 0.14 0.58
13 22.01 19.29 32.83 0.14 0.59
14 17.97 16.39 29.38 0.10 0.56
15 27.38 25.47 46.39 0.07 0.55
Average: 0.10 0.58
2
2
O (g / cc)
1 46.39 38.05 79.58 0.22 0.48
2 46.14 37.55 64.70 0.23 0.58
3 45.93 37.22 72.77 0.23 0.51
4 35.81 28.56 62.40 0.25 0.46
5 44.12 37.27 76.33 0.18 0.49
6 48.64 39.15 79.68 0.24 0.49
7 50.74 41.89 76.67 0.21 0.55
8 33.87 28.25 60.25 0.20 0.47
9 35.45 27.72 56.98 0.28 0.49
10 36.09 30.83 67.73 0.17 0.46
11 39.38 33.65 76.79 0.17 0.44
12 35.24 30.11 66.08 0.17 0.46
13 28.16 22.25 52.14 0.27 0.43
14 43.95 35.51 76.04 0.24 0.47
15 36.87 30.47 64.36 0.21 0.47
16 30.40 26.03 66.56 0.17 0.39
Average: 0.22 0.48
2
Front to Back (g) (g) (g) : 1g = 1cc H
2
O (g / cc)
1 33.16 25.60 51.68 0.30 0.50
2 32.20 24.67 52.15 0.31 0.47
3 38.59 29.86 49.20 0.29 0.61
4 28.28 21.99 47.04 0.29 0.47
5 25.30 19.74 42.05 0.28 0.47
6 26.96 20.46 50.20 0.32 0.41
7 29.30 22.49 46.77 0.30 0.48
8 25.46 19.30 43.20 0.32 0.45
9 32.70 24.73 49.45 0.32 0.50
10 21.54 16.32 33.68 0.32 0.48
11 18.72 15.60 31.40 0.20 0.50
12 40.37 31.71 69.45 0.27 0.46
13 34.89 29.64 70.87 0.18 0.42
14 39.78 30.02 61.21 0.33 0.49
15 40.40 29.24 61.35 0.38 0.48
16 29.72 23.38 49.85 0.27 0.47
Average: 0.29 0.48
2
Front to Back (g) (g) (g) : 1g = 1cc H
2
O (g / cc)
1 59.40 48.27 99.80 0.23 0.48
2 54.70 45.05 117.01 0.21 0.39
3 61.60 51.20 91.25 0.20 0.56
4 76.40 63.16 108.13 0.21 0.58
5 55.70 45.90 97.49 0.21 0.47
6 101.70 82.75 139.36 0.23 0.59
7 64.90 53.11 105.92 0.22 0.50
8 72.60 58.11 106.32 0.25 0.55
9 70.90 57.39 108.95 0.24 0.53
10 82.60 67.72 105.25 0.22 0.64
11 54.90 45.03 100.53 0.22 0.45
12 61.10 49.78 103.35 0.23 0.48
13 60.70 49.03 109.34 0.24 0.45
14 82.90 67.08 111.28 0.24 0.60
15 56.90 44.43 108.17 0.28 0.41
16 65.50 51.49 112.11 0.27 0.46
Average: 0.23 0.51
2
2
O (g / cc)
1 15.57 12.30 31.47 0.27 0.39
2 17.73 15.10 28.20 0.17 0.54
3 16.97 14.16 25.53 0.20 0.55
4 15.57 13.77 33.94 0.13 0.41
5 11.80 9.69 19.17 0.22 0.51
6 15.13 12.32 25.84 0.23 0.48
7 15.55 12.15 27.44 0.28 0.44
8 11.70 10.34 21.17 0.13 0.49
9 18.43 14.31 29.07 0.29 0.49
10 17.39 14.06 28.56 0.24 0.49
11 11.62 10.21 24.97 0.14 0.41
12 12.39 10.66 23.37 0.16 0.46
13 14.82 12.58 26.42 0.18 0.48
14 15.43 13.62 23.35 0.13 0.58
15 10.73 9.03 19.00 0.19 0.48
16 11.99 10.21 24.04 0.17 0.42
17 13.39 10.81 28.00 0.24 0.39
18 15.82 12.93 19.05 0.22 0.68
19 22.46 17.85 31.68 0.26 0.56
20 14.10 11.29 25.30 0.25 0.45
21 13.94 11.66 23.27 0.20 0.50
22 16.66 13.49 31.06 0.23 0.43
23 18.40 13.32 29.23 0.38 0.46
24 13.88 11.46 23.61 0.21 0.49
25 13.83 12.01 25.66 0.15 0.47
26 19.04 14.86 31.35 0.28 0.47
27 18.40 13.73 31.54 0.34 0.44
28 19.53 16.40 30.69 0.19 0.53
29 14.18 12.17 24.75 0.17 0.49
30 15.69 13.83 33.38 0.13 0.41
31 16.37 13.56 32.00 0.21 0.42
Average: 0.21 0.48
2
2
O (g / cc)
1 21.30 18.89 37.06 0.13 0.51
2 23.58 19.56 39.76 0.21 0.49
3 10.71 9.38 22.23 0.14 0.42
4 18.43 16.14 37.40 0.14 0.43
5 18.43 16.14 37.40 0.14 0.43
6 18.50 16.38 35.88 0.13 0.46
7 18.50 16.38 35.88 0.13 0.46
8 26.17 23.16 45.85 0.13 0.51
9 26.17 23.16 45.85 0.13 0.51
10 24.00 19.44 41.64 0.23 0.47
11 24.00 19.44 41.64 0.23 0.47
12 18.95 16.65 35.93 0.14 0.46
13 18.95 16.65 35.93 0.14 0.46
14 18.23 16.01 31.40 0.14 0.51
15 18.23 16.01 31.40 0.14 0.51
16 23.58 19.56 39.76 0.21 0.49
17 15.59 13.71 32.58 0.14 0.42
18 15.59 13.71 32.58 0.14 0.42
19 12.58 11.01 22.38 0.14 0.49
20 12.58 11.01 22.38 0.14 0.49
21 10.72 9.45 17.62 0.13 0.54
22 10.72 9.45 17.62 0.13 0.54
23 25.31 22.03 41.37 0.15 0.53
24 21.30 18.89 37.06 0.13 0.51
25 25.31 22.03 41.37 0.15 0.53
26 19.69 17.29 37.45 0.14 0.46
27 19.69 17.29 37.45 0.14 0.46
28 18.29 16.21 32.46 0.13 0.50
29 18.29 16.21 32.46 0.13 0.50
30 19.68 17.18 37.08 0.15 0.46
31 19.68 17.18 37.08 0.15 0.46
Average: 0.15 0.48

APPENDIX E TEST DESCRIPTIONS 128

APPENDIX E TEST DESCRIPTIONS

E.1 INTRODUCTION
The tables below provide descriptions of each test of every specimen in terms of test date,
load protocol, test configuration, and other significant comments such weather conditions,
malfunctioning equipment, specimen repairs, and other observations. The following are
definitions of some commonly used abbreviations found in the tables below:
NC = No Chords
WC = With Chords
NW = No Walls
WW = With Walls
B = Blocked
UB = UnBlocked
NO = Nailed Only
DAQ = Data Acquisition System
LC = Load Cell
No SlipC = The SlipC string potentiometer is malfunctioning.
No Left LC = The left side load cell is malfunctioning.

Table E.1 Specimen 1 Test Descriptions
Test
No.
Test Date Loading Configuration Comments
1 12-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.13" NC; NW; Corner; UB; NO Icy
2 16-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; UB; NO
DAQ timer set for 146 rows of useable data.
Snow
3 17-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; UB; NO Reprogrammed DAQ for pre-tared data. Snow
4 22-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; UB; NO Snow / Icy
5 22-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; UB; NO
6 24-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; UB; NO
7 24-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; UB; NO
8 24-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; UB; NO Snow
9 26-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; UB; NO
10 26-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; UB; NO
11 26-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; UB; NO Rainy / Icy
12 29-Jan-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; UB; NO
13 24-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; UB; N&A Increased DAQ data sampling rate to 100 Hz.
14 24-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; UB; N&A
15 24-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; UB; N&A
16 24-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; UB; N&A
17 27-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; UB; N&A
18 27-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; UB; N&A
19 27-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; UB; N&A
20 27-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; UB; N&A
21 28-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A
22 28-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A
23 28-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A
24 28-Feb-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A

Test
No.
1 9-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; B; NO
2 9-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; B; NO
3 9-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; B; NO
4 9-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; B; NO
5 12-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Corner; B; NO
6 12-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; B; NO
7 12-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; B; NO Rainy / Icy
8 12-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; B; NO
9 14-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; B; NO
10 14-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; B; NO
11 14-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; B; NO Rainy / Icy
12 14-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; B; NO
13 19-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; UB; NO
14 19-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; UB; NO
15 19-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; UB; NO
16 19-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; UB; NO
17 20-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Corner; UB; NO
18 20-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; UB; NO
19 20-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; UB; NO
20 20-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; UB; NO
21 21-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; UB; NO
22 21-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; UB; NO
23 21-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; UB; NO Windy
24 21-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; UB; NO Windy
25 26-Mar-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; UB; N&A
26 2-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; UB; N&A Replaced GR3 stringpot. Using new wall hoists.
27 2-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; UB; N&A
28 2-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; UB; N&A
29 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; UB; N&A
Broke left end-joist during tilt-up and replaced
it.
30 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; UB; N&A
31 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; UB; N&A
32 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; UB; N&A
33 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A
34 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; UB; N&A

Table E.2 (Continued) Specimen 2 Test Descriptions
Test
No.
35 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A
36 10-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; UB; N&A
37 18-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Center; B; N&A Windy
38 18-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Center; B; N&A Windy
39 18-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Center; B; N&A Windy
40 18-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Center; B; N&A Windy
41 24-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Full; B; N&A
42 24-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Full; B; N&A
43 24-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Full; B; N&A
44 24-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Full; B; N&A
45 24-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; NW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC
46 25-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; NW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC
47 25-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" WC; WW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC
48 25-Apr-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.25" NC; WW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC

Test
No.
1 13-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
2 13-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
3 13-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
4 13-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
5 14-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Center; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
6 14-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Center; B; NO No SlipC, No Left LVDT's, No Left LC.
7 14-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; NO; 3-12
No SlipC, No Left LC. No extra nails added along
edge where walls attach due to conflict b/w duplex
nails and bottom plate.
8 14-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; NO; 3-12
9 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12
10 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12
11 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; NO No SlipC, No Left LC. Rainy
12 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; NO No SlipC, No Left LC. Rainy
13 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
14 19-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
15 20-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Center; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
16 20-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Center; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
17 22-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; N&A No SlipC. Rainy, Windy
18 22-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; N&A No SlipC. Rainy, Windy
19 22-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; UB; N&A No SlipC. Rainy, Windy
20 22-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; UB; N&A No SlipC. Rainy, Windy
21 24-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC, No Left LC. Rainy
22 24-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; B; N&A No SlipC, No Left LC. Rainy
23 24-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; N&A
No SlipC, No Left LC. Right LC unbal., UTP Load
unbal. (>5kip higher neg.), Damage from accidental
high loading repaired. Rainy
24 24-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; N&A
No SlipC, No Left LC. Right LC unbal., UTP Load
unbal. (>5kip higher neg.), Rainy

Test
No.
1 29-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; NO No Left LC. No SlipC.
2 29-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; NO No Left LC. No SlipC.
3 29-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; B; NO No Left LC. No SlipC.
4 29-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; B; NO No Left LC. No SlipC. Windy
5 30-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Center; B; NO No SlipC. Windy
6 30-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Center; B; NO No SlipC. Windy
7 30-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; NO; 3-12
No SlipC. No extra nails added along edge where
walls attach due to conflict b/w duplex nails and
bottom plate.
8 30-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; NO; 3-12
bottom plate.
9 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12
bottom plate.
10 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; NO; 3-12
bottom plate.
11 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; NO No SlipC
12 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; NO No SlipC
13 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; UB; NO No SlipC
14 31-May-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; UB; NO No SlipC
15 1-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Center; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
16 1-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Center; UB; NO No SlipC. Rainy
17 4-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; UB; N&A No SlipC
18 4-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; UB; N&A No SlipC. Windy
19 4-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; UB; N&A No SlipC
20 4-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; UB; N&A No SlipC
21 6-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Corner; B; N&A No Left LC. No SlipC.
22 6-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Corner; B; N&A No Left LC. No SlipC.
23 8-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" NW; Full; B; N&A No Left LC
24 8-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.20" WW; Full; B; N&A No Left LC

Test
No.
1 19-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; NC; Full; B; NO No side LC's
2 19-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; NC; Full; B; NO No side LC's
3 19-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; WC; Full; B; NO No side LC's
4 19-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; WC; Full; B; NO No side LC's
5 26-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; WC; Corner; B; NO
No SlipC. Newly repaired/calibrated side LC's.
Rainy
6 26-Jun-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; WC; Corner; B; NO Rainy

Test
No.
1 5-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; NC; Full; B; NO Windy, Rainy
2 5-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; NC; Full; B; NO Windy, Rainy
3 5-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; WC; Full; B; NO Windy, Rainy
4 5-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; WC; Full; B; NO Windy, Rainy
5 6-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" NW; WC; Corner; B; NO Rainy
6 6-Jul-01 5 dynamic cycles 0.80" WW; WC; Corner; B; NO Rainy

VITA

James Wescott Bott was born in the town of Nassawadox on the Eastern Shore of
Virginia on February 5, 1977. He graduated from Broadwater Academy in Exmore, Virginia in
1995. In 1999, he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia with the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He went directly to graduate school in the
Structural Engineering and Materials Program of the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, VA. He
worked for three years for The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company and now works at R.
Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc. in Richmond, Virginia.

Bott Masters Thesis Etd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bott Masters Thesis Etd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS OF WOOD DIAPHRAGMS

Steel Channel (C6X10.5) - Lag

You might also like