Wall Panel Design Evaluation of site conditions and local building code regulations

APPENDIX A FLOW-CHART FOR DESIGN OF PANELIZED WALL SYSTEMS

Selection of a design approach Engineered Design

Determine gravity and lateral loads according to Section 4.3.

Prescriptive Design
Based on site conditions, building classification, and building configuration, select structural wall parameters from the local prescriptive building code provisions.

Alternate Means and Methods of Design

Develop a panel configuration that meets the design criteria.

Design walls, including member sizing and lateral wall analysis, to resist the determined loads in accordance with Section 4.4.1. Use design methods and wall configurations specified in the governing building code or Appendices B, C, and D of this Guide.

Validate the proposed configuration by testing in accordance with Section 4.4.2.

Required wall parameters include, but are not limited to, framing member types and sizes, sheathing types and sizes, framing and sheathing fastening schedules, fastener types, anchorage specification including anchor types and spacings.

Determine gravity and lateral loads according to Section 4.3.

Based on design results, develop a set of panel shop drawings that include information specified in Section 2.5.1.

Design walls using the proposed configuration in accordance with Section 4.4.1.

Based on design results, develop a set of panel shop drawings that include information specified in Section 2.5.2.

Panels are required to be inspected in the factory in accordance with Section 3.3.2. Panelized walls are required to be inspected on site by a local building official in accordance with Section 3.4.3.

Based on design results, develop a set of panel shop drawings that include information specified in Section 2.5.1.

Panels are required to be inspected in the factory in accordance with Section 3.3.2. Panels with innovative configurations are required to be a subject to a third-party quality assurance program (Section 4.4.5). Panelized walls are required to be inspected on site by a local building official in accordance with Section 3.4.3.

Panelized walls are required to be inspected on site by a local building official in accordance with Section 3.4.3.

A-1

APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN DATA B1. General This appendix provides supplemental technical data for wall design in accordance with this document, but which is not provided in the reference documents listed in Section 1.6 or in the model building codes. The scope of this appendix covers shear wall resistance values and design information for wall bending members. The objective of this appendix is not to incorporate all the information necessary to complete design of a wall, instead, it is intended to supplement the material design specifications as set forth by the governing building code or specified in Section 1.6 of this Guide. B2. Shear Wall Resistance Data Characteristic shear wall values are presented in Tables B1 and B3 for light-frame wood and cold-formed steel, respectively. To compare with design loads, characteristic shear wall values should be modified as specified in Section 4.4.3 of this Guide. The characteristic shear wall values reported in this section were measured experimentally by testing of full-scale shear walls or obtained analytically by interpolating or extrapolating test data using the connection yield theory. The test shear walls were fully restrained against uplift so that the failure mode was predominantly governed by degradation of sheathing fasteners rather than restraint connections of the shear wall assembly. Therefore, to use these values the designer should detail the shear walls to resist the uplift forces or should reduce the wall resistance to account for partial restraint (see Appendix D). The capacity of shear walls sheathed on opposite faces with the same sheathing materials using identical fastening methods shall be permitted to be calculated as a sum of capacities of each side. The capacity of shear walls sheathed on opposite faces with the same sheathing materials using different fastening methods shall be permitted to be calculated as a capacity of the stronger face or twice the capacity of the weaker face whichever is greater. For wind design, the capacity of shear walls sheathed with structural wood panels on one side and gypsum wallboard panels on the other side shall be permitted to be calculated as a sum of capacities of both sides. If the resistance of gypsum wallboard panels is used in the structural analysis, the gypsum wallboard installation method shall be specified on the shop drawings and the walls shall be inspected upon gypsum wallboard installation for conformance with the wall design. B2.1 Wood Shear Walls The characteristic shear wall values (Table B1) are adopted from NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA Publication 273, BSSC 1997). These values are allowed to be modified using the nail size adjustment factors (Table B2) to determine the unit shear resistance of wood shear walls assembled with pneumatic or box nails. The values are based on wall segments that are fully restrained from overturning.

B-1

TABLE B1 CHARACTERISTIC SHEAR VALUES FOR WALLS FRAMED WITH DOUGLAS-FIR-LARCH OR SOUTHERN PINE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Minimum Minimum Characteristic shear wall values, lb/ft Nominal Nail Nail Spacing at Panel Edges (inches)10 11 Nail Size Panel Grade Panel Penetration (Common) Thickness in Framing 6 4 312 212 (inches) (inches) 5/16 1 1/4 6d 700 1,010 1,130 1,200 3/8 750 1,080 1,220 1,540 1 1/2 8d Structural I 7/16 815 1,220 1,340 1,590 15/32 880 1,380 1,550 1,620 15/32 1 5/8 10d 1,130 1,500 1,700 2,000 5/16 650 700 900 1,200 1 1/4 6d C-D, C-C Sheathing, 3/8 680 800 1,000 1,350 plywood panel 3/8 700 880 1,200 1,500 siding and other 1 1/2 8d 7/16 720 900 1,300 1,560 grades covered in 15/32 820 1,040 1,420 1,600 US DOC PS1 and 15/32 900 1,400 1,500 1,900 PS2. 1 5/8 10d 19/32 1,000 1,500 1,620 1,950
1 2

Panels applied vertically or horizontally directly to framing and blocked at all edges. Nominal framing thickness shall be a minimum of 2 inches. Studs are spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center. 3 Values extrapolated from cyclic testing. 4 Values can be adjusted for intermediate nail sizes or nail penetration less than specified using the connection yield theory. 5 Use 80 percent of values for yield strength. 6 For framing member species other than Douglas-Fir-Larch or Southern Pine the values shall be reduced using the Specific Gravity Adjustment Factor = [1-(0.5-SG)] 1, where SG is specific gravity of lumber species. 7 Minimum nail edge distance of 3/8 inch shall be provided along panel edges. 8 Maximum allowable aspect ratio of a shear wall segment is 3.5:1. Resistance of wall segments with aspect ratios between 3.5:1 and 2:1 shall be adjusted using the following reduction factor: 0<2b/h<1.0, where b = segment width and h = segment height. 9 Shear values are permitted to be adjusted for sheathing nail types using nail size adjustment factors provided in Table B2. 10 Maximum nail spacing in the panel field is 12 inches. 11 Common nail diameters: 6d 0.113 inch, 8d 0.131, and 10d 0.148. 12 3x or greater framing at sheathing joints.

Nominal Nail Size (penny weight) 6d 8d 10d

TABLE B2 NAIL SIZE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR USE WITH CHARACTERISTIC SHEAR WALL RESISTANCE VALUES1 Nail Type Nail Length Pneumatic (inches) Common2 Box3 (by diameter in inches) 0.092 0.113 0.131 1-7/8 to 2 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 N/A4 2-3/8 to 2-1/2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.75 1.0 3 1.0 0.8 N/A4 N/A4 0.8

0.148 N/A4 N/A4 1.0

Source: Residential Structural Design Guide, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C., 2000. 1 The adjustment factors are based on ratios of the single shear nail values in NER-272 (NES, Inc., 1997) and the NDS (AF&PA, 1997) and are applicable only to wood structural panel sheathing on wood-framed walls. Nail size, diameter, and length should be verified with the manufacturer. 2 Common nail diameters are as follows: 6d (0.113 inch), 8d (0.131 inch), and 10d (0.148 inch). 3 Box nail diameters are as follows: 6d (0.099 inch), 8d (0.113 inch), and 10d (0.128 inch). 4 Diameter not applicable to nominal nail size.

B-2

B2.2 Light-Gage Steel Shear Walls - The characteristic shear wall values (Table B3) are adopted from NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA Publication 368, BSSC 2001). Cold-formed steel walls are assembled using self-drilling self-tapping screws and sheathed using structural wood-based panels.
TABLE B3 CHARACTERISTIC SHEAR VALUES FOR WALLS FRAMED WITH COLD-FORMED STEEL 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Characteristic shear wall values, lb/ft Panel Sheathing Type Nail Spacing at Panel Edges (inches) 6 4 3 15/32-inch-thick Structural I plywood 780 990 1,465 7/16-inch-thick oriented strand board 700 915 1,275
1 2

2 1,625 1,700

Panels applied vertically or horizontally directly to framing and blocked at all edges. Studs shall be a minimum 1 5/8 inch by 3 1/2 inch C-section with 3/8 inch return lip. The studs shall be capped on both ends using track section measured minimum 1 1/4 inch by 3 1/2 inch. 3 Wall studs and track shall be made of a minimum 33 mil (20 gage) steel with a minimum galvanized coating of G 60 in accordance with ASTM A 653 or equivalent. 4 Framing screws shall be minimum 5/8-inch-long No. 8 with wafer head. Sheathing screws shall be a minimum 1-inch-long No. 8 with bugle head with a minimum head diameter of 0.292 inches. 5 Minimum fastener edge distance of 3/8 inch shall be provided along panel edges. 6 Studs are spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center. 7 Maximum fastener spacing in the panel field is 12 inches. 8 Screws extend through the steel member a minimum of three exposed threads.

B3. Repetitive Member Factors and Composite Action Factors The repetitive member factors and composite action factors set forth in this section are only applicable to the design of bending members consisting of an assembly of dimension lumber as specified. B3.1 Repetitive Member Factors When three or more parallel solid-sawn wood members are spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center and connected with structural sheathing or other load distributing elements, they comprise a structural system with more bending capacity than the sum of the single members acting individually. Because the nominal design values tabulated in the NDS are based on performance of individual members, an increase in allowable stress is permitted to account for load redistribution between repetitive members. System assembly tests support the range of repetitive member factors shown in Table B4 for the specified design applications. With the exception of the 1.15 repetitive member factor, the NDS does not currently recognize the values in Table B4. Therefore, the values in Table B4 are provided for use by the designer as an alternative method based on various sources of technical information including standards, code recognized guidelines, and research studies. For more information on repetitive member effects and composite action, consult the references provided in Section B3.4.

B-3

TABLE B4 REPETITIVE MEMBER FACTORS FOR USE WITH DIMENSION LUMBER1, 2, 3 Recommended Cr References Application Value (Section 1.6 or D3.3) AF&PA,1996 Two adjacent members sharing load4 1.1 to 1.2 HUD, 1999 Three adjacent members sharing load4 1.2 to 1.3 ASAE, 1997 Four or more adjacent members sharing load4 1.3 to 1.4 ASAE, 1997 Three or more members spaced not more than 24 inches on center with suitable surfacing to distribute loads to adjacent 1.15 NDS, 1997 members (i.e., decking, panels, boards, etc.)5 Wall framing (studs) of three or more members spaced not 1.52x4 or smaller AF&PA, 1996 more than 16 inches on center with minimum 3/8-inch-thick 1.352x6 SBCCI, 1999 wood structural panel sheathing on one side and 1/2-inch thick 1.252x8 Polensek, 1975 gypsum board on the other side subjected to wind pressure 6 1.22x10
Source: Residential Structural Design Guide, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C., 2000. 1 Factors shall be used to determine adjusted allowable bending stress. 2 NDS recommends a Cr value of 1.15 only as shown in the table. The other values in the table were obtained from various codes, standards, and research reports referenced in Section B3.4 of this Appendix. 3 Dimension lumber bending members are to be parallel in orientation to each other, continuous (i.e., not spliced), and of the same species, grade, and size. The applicable sizes of dimension lumber range from 2x4 to 2x12. 4 Cr values are given as a range and are applicable to built-up columns and beams formed of continuous members with the strong-axis of all members oriented identically. In general, a larger value of Cr should be used for dimension lumber materials that have a greater variability in strength (i.e., the more variability in strength of individual members the greater the benefit realized in forming a repetitive member system relative to the individual member strength). For example, a two-ply built-up member of No. 2 grade (visually graded) dimension lumber may qualify for use of a Cr value of 1.2 whereas a two-ply member of No. 1 dense mechanically graded lumber may qualify for a Cr value of 1.1. The individual members should be adequately attached to one another such that the individual members act as a unit (i.e., all members deflect equally) in resisting the bending load. 5 Refer to the NDS and the NDS Commentary for additional guidance on the use of the 1.15 repetitive member factor. 6 The Cr values are based on wood structural panel attachment to wall framing using 8d common nails spaced at 12 inches on center. For fasteners of a smaller diameter, multiply the Cr values by the ratio of the nail diameter to that of an 8d common nail (0.131 inch diameter). The reduction factor applied to Cr need not be less than 0.75 and the resulting value of Cr should not be adjusted to less than 1.15. Doubling the nailing (i.e., decreasing the fastener spacing by one-half) can increase the Cr value by 16 percent.

B3.2 Header System Effect Factors The system effect factors for header systems discussed in this section include a combination of repetitive member (load sharing) effect and composite action effect. This appendix considers a header consisting of double members to be a repetitive member system; therefore, a repetitive member factor, Cr, of 1.1 to 1.2 is applicable (see Table B4). Headers are generally designed to support all loads that are within the tributary length of the header including loads from upper stories and roof. However, typical platform construction uses a double top plate above the header that creates a composite member with resistance greater than the resistance of the individual header. When an upper story is supported, a floor band joist and sole plate of the wall above also resist the load and reduce the forces in the header. Testing results (HUD, 1999) show that a repetitive member factor is valid for headers constructed of only two members as shown in Table B4 and that additional composite effects produce large increases in capacity when the header is overlaid by a double top plate, band joist and sole plate. Consequently, an overall system factor of 1.8 was found to be a simple, conservative design solution (Table B5). That system factor is applicable to the allowable bending stress value, Fb, of the header members only. The above adjustment factor is not currently recognized in the NDS and should be used at the designers discretion as an alternative means and method of design.

B-4

TABLE B5 HEADER SYSTEM EFFECT FACTORS Header Type and Application1 Recommended Cr Value2 2x10 double header of No. 2 Spruce-Pine-Fir 1.30 3 Header with double top plate, 2x10 floor band joist, and sole plate 1.8 4 of wall located directly above.
Source: Residential Structural Design Guide, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C., 2000. 1 For other applications and lumber sizes or grades, refer to the Cr factors in Table B3. 2 Apply Cr in lieu of factors in Table B3 to determine adjusted allowable bending stress. 3 Use Cr = 1.35 when the header is overlaid by a minimum 2x4 double top plate without splices. This factor is higher than the factors recommended in Table B4 because it is based on testing of the specific system configuration. The factors in Table B4 are recommended for a wide range of applications and represent conservative estimates of the actual system response. 4 Includes repetitive and composite effect of other members in the specified system.

B3.3 Horizontal Shear Factor The horizontal shear factor, CH, in the NDS was developed based on the assumption that shear design values for dimension lumber, Fv, did not incorporate a reduction for end splitting of lumber. During recent re-evaluation of this assumption, the ASTM D7 Task Committee assigned to this topic found that shear design values did incorporate a reduction for the effect of end splitting. Therefore, a CH factor of 2.0 should be used with the 1997 NDS provisions (and previous editions of NDS) until this error is corrected in the future NDS editions. The CH factor applies to parallel-to-grain shear stress, Fv, in bending members. B3.4 References AF&PA, National Design Specification for Wood Construction, American Forest and Paper Association, Washington DC, 1997. AF&PA, Wood Frame Construction Manual SBC High Wind Edition, American Forest and Paper Association, Washington DC, 1996. ASAE, Design Requirements and Bending Properties for Mechanically Laminated Columns (EP 559), American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 1997. BSSC, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-273), Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 1997. BSSC, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA-368), Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 2001. Bonnicksen, L.W. and Suddarth, S.K., Structural Reliability Analysis of Wood Load Sharing Systems, Paper No. 82, American Society of Testing and Materials, Fifth National Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1965. Douglas, B.K. and Line, P., System Effects in Wood Assemblies, Proceedings of the International Wood Engineering Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1996. FPRS, Wall & Floor Systems: Design and Performance of Light Frame Structures, Proceedings 7317, Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1983. HUD, System Performance of Wood Header Assemblies, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1999. NAHBRF, Stress and Deflection Reduction in 2x4 Studs Spaced 24 Inches on Center Due to the Addition of Interior and Exterior Surfacings, NAHB Research Foundation, Rockville, MD, July 1974. National Evaluation Service, Inc. Report No. NER-272, Power Driven Staples, Nails, and Allied Fasteners for Use in All Types of Building Construction, Council of American Building Officials, Falls Church, VA, 1996.
B-5

Polensek, A., Rational Design Procedure for Wood Stud Walls under Bending and Compression Loads, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, September 1975. Rosowsky, D. and Ellingwood, B., Reliability of Wood Systems Subjected to Stochastic Live Loads, Wood and Fiber Science, Society of Wood Science and Technology, Madison, WI, 1992. SBCCI, Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, AL, 1999. Wolfe, R.W., Performance of Light-Frame Redundant Assemblies, Proceedings of 1990 International Timber Engineering Conference, Vol. 1, 124-131, 1990. Wolfe, R.W., Structural Performance of Light-Frame Truss-Roof Assemblies, Proceedings of the International Wood Engineering Conference, Vol. 3, Omnipress, Madison, WI, 1996.

B-6

APPENDIX C LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION MODELS C.1 General This appendix presents methods for distribution of lateral building forces to shear walls in light-frame construction. Each method is briefly summarized and the assumptions involved in formulation of the methods are presented. The appropriate method should be determined by the building designer or wall designer in accordance with the provisions of the governing building code. C.2 Methods Load distribution methods are presented with sufficient detail to allow the user to implement each method without consulting other sources. However, to obtain a better understanding of the methods and related research, the reader is referred to more detailed reports specified in Section C4 of this Appendix. C2.1 Tributary Area Method (Flexible Diaphragm Method) The tributary area method is used to distribute the story lateral load between the shear walls based on tributary areas assigned to each shear wall. In wind design, the tributary areas are associated with exterior wall surfaces, whereas in seismic design, the tributary areas are associated with plan configurations. The tributary area method assumes that the diaphragm acts as a flexible beam and does not provide a mechanism to distribute forces between the walls. Due to extensive experience, this method is considered as accepted engineering practice and is widely used with lateral load analysis of residential buildings. Although the tributary area method is simple to use and in most cases it provides conservative solutions, according to recent research findings (Section C4) it misrepresents the response of light-frame construction and can result in misguided design decisions. For example, the method lacks the ability to effectively use the resistance of intermediate and short wall segments that are abundant in the irregular-shaped residential buildings. In addition, the method can result in nonconservative designs of shear wall components on the element level due to underestimation of loads acting on individual walls. C2.2 Rigid Diaphragm Method without Torsion This method is used to distribute the story lateral load between the shear walls based on the relative shear wall stiffnesses. The principal assumption is that the diaphragm stiffness is relatively high compared to the stiffness of supporting shear walls. Thus, the rigid diaphragm distributes loads to the supporting walls in proportion to their relative stiffnesses. The wall capacity is typically used as a measure of its stiffness. The total story shear load is distributed to individual shear wall lines according to the ratio of the wall capacity (stiffness) to the total capacity of all parallel walls on the story under consideration. Recent research findings (Section C4) have shown that the rigid diaphragm method is a more accurate model for light-frame wood construction compared to the tributary area method. However, insufficient information is available on performance of buildings with significant plan irregularities to assess appropriate limitations on use of this method, if any. The reader is further referred to NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 368, BSSC 2001) for detailed descriptions of irregularities that affect the building response. C2.3 Rigid Diaphragm Method with Torsion This method is an extension of the method described in Section C2.2. In addition to distributing the total story lateral force to the shear
C-1

walls based on their relative stiffnesses, an additional force is assigned to each wall due to rotation of the rigid diaphragm. The rotation occurs when the load vector and the resistance vector are not collinear, resulting in a force couple in addition to direct shear. This method is typically used to model response of irregular buildings with complicated branched plans. The torsion force component can either increase or offset the direct shear force component. However, model building codes do not allow for a reduction of the direct shear force due to the torsion effects. Current model building codes also limit the degree of lateral resistance that can be provided by torsional response through limits on building plan aspect ratio (length to width) where torsional analysis is permitted. When designing buildings with branched plans, the engineer should exercise judgement on whether sections of an irregular diaphragm are sufficiently interconnected to provide a unit action or the diaphragm should be modeled as a group of individual diaphragms. The magnitude of the torsional component is determined as follows:
VT = M T ri Vi J
n i

(C.E1) (C.E2)

J = Vi ri 2

where: VT = torsional shear load on a wall line; MT = torsional moment a product of total story shear load and perpendicular distance between the load vector and resultant resistance vector for load direction under consideration; ri = distance from the wall to the center of stiffness (center of resistance); Vi = design shear wall capacity (or consistent measure of stiffness); J = torsional moment of inertia of the story. C2.4 Plate Element Method This method models a diaphragm with two-dimensional elements formulated using plate theory. The diaphragm movement is restricted by imposing spring reactions that represent shear walls. The in-plane stiffness of the plate elements and stiffness of connections between the plates can be adjusted to improve accuracy of the model. This model can be solved by commercial or proprietary computed-aided structural analysis procedures. Recent research demonstrated that the plate element method accurately models light-frame wood construction (HUD 2001). C3. Alternative Rational Analyses This section is not intended to limit the use of alternate design methods that use recognized principles of mechanics and engineering. Examples of such methods include finite element analysis, matrix analysis, energy-based formulations, closed-from solutions, and others. C4. Publications Relevant information regarding methods for distribution of lateral forces in light-frame construction can be found in the following publications: Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA Publication 369), Washington, DC, 2001. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA Publication 368), Washington, DC, 2001.
C-2

Fisher, D., Filiatrault, A., Folz, B., Uang, C., and Seible, F., Shake Table Tests of a Two-Story Woodframe House. Report No. SSRP 2000/15. Division of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 2000. HUD, Residential Structural Design Guide, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Washington, DC, 2000. HUD, Whole Structure Testing and Analysis of a Light-Frame Wood Building (Three Reports), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Washington, DC, 2001. Kasal, B., and Leichti, R. J., Incorporating Load Sharing in Shear Wall Design of Light-Frame Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 3350-3361, 1992. Phillips, T. L., Itani, R. Y., and McLean, D. I., Lateral Load Sharing by Diaphragms in WoodFramed Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119(5), pp. 1556-1571, 1992.

C-3

APPENDIX D METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WALL RESISTANCE D1. General Resistance of shear walls to in-plane lateral loading may be determined according to one of the methods presented in this Appendix. Each method is briefly summarized and the assumptions involved in formulation of the methods are presented. The appropriate method should be determined by the building designer or wall designer in accordance with the provisions of the governing building code. D2. Methods Analysis methods are presented with sufficient detail to allow the user to implement each method without consulting other sources. However, to obtain a better understanding of the methods and related research, the reader is referred to more detailed reports specified in Section D3 of this Appendix. The first three methods (Sections D2.1, D2.2, and D2.3) need input of unit shear resistance values that can be determined from Appendix B or measured experimentally in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.4.2. Alternatively, the shear wall resistance can be estimated using analytical methods (Sections D2.4 and D2.5). D2.1 Perforated Shear Wall Method. This method relates shear capacity of a wall with perforations (i.e., doors or windows or both) to a wall of identical configuration without perforations through an empirical reduction factor, F, determined as follows:
r 3 2r 1 r= 1 + Ao H li F=

(DE.1) (DE.2)

where: F r Ao H li = = = = = reduction parameter; sheathing area ratio; total area of openings; height of the wall; and, summation of length of all full height wall segments.

To implement this method, the designer shall multiply the shear wall resistance calculated based on the total wall length (including the length of perforations) by the reduction factor, F 1.0, determined with Equation DE.1. The total shear resistance of a shear wall line is determined as follows:
V=FLv

(DE.3)

where: V F L v = = = = total lateral resistance of a perforated shear wall line; reduction parameter determined using Equation DE.1; total length of a shear wall line including length of perforations; unit shear resistance determined from Appendix B or Sections 4.4.2, D2.4, or D2.5.

The method requires that overturning restraints are installed at the wall ends that typically coincide with building corners. The method has been validated for light-frame wood and coldD-1

formed steel shear walls sheathed with wood structural panels with the maximum wall unit shear capacity (unfactored) not exceeding 1,200 lb/ft (See Appendix B). D2.2 Segmented Shear Wall Method - This method uses resistance of fully sheathed segments located between wall openings. Each segment should be fully restrained against overturning. The contribution of the components above and below openings is ignored. The unit shear resistance is multiplied by the segment length to determined shear resistance of the segment. The total resistance of a shear wall line is determined as a sum of the resistances of all individual segments as follows:
V = li vi
i =1 n

(DE.3)

where: V = total lateral resistance of a shear wall line; li = length of an individual shear wall segment; vi = unit shear resistance of an individual shear wall segment determined from Appendix B or Section 4.4.2, D2.4 or D2.5; n = number of shear wall segments in a shear wall line. D2.3 Ni-Karacabeylis Method This mechanics-based method is formulated such that the resistance of a nonperforated shear wall segment with a partial overturning restraint is expressed as a fraction of the resistance of an identical shear wall segment with a full restraint. The shear capacity ratio for a wall with a partial overturning restraint and the full overturning restraint can be determined as follows:
= 1 + 2 + 2 = R , M CN 0 1

(DE.3) (DE.4)

where:

= ratio of the lateral load capacity of a wall segment with partial uplift restraint to the capacity of a wall segment with full uplift restraint; = wall segment aspect ratio; = uplift restraint effect which is equal to unity for the walls fully restrained against overturning; M = total number of nails along the end stud of a shear wall segment; CN = capacity of a single nail connection that can be measured experimentally or estimated using the connection yield theory; R = uplift restraint force on the end stud of shear wall that can include contribution of partial overturning restraint, gravity load, corner effect, and other system effects.

The total resistance of a shear wall line is determined as a sum of the resistances of all individual segments as follows:
V = i li vi
i =1 n

(DE.5)

where: V = total lateral resistance of a shear wall line; = see Equation DE.3; li = length of an individual shear wall segment;
D-2

vi = unit shear resistance of an individual shear wall segment determined from Appendix B or Section 4.4.2, D2.4 or D2.5; n = number of shear wall segments in a shear wall line. D2.4 Shear Through Panel Rotation - This method is used to determine shear resistance of a fully restrained light-frame nonperforated shear wall segment through modeling the rotation response of individual sheathing panels that are fastened to the wall framing with nails or screws. The method is formulated with an assumption that a sheathing panel rotates around its center as a rigid body (infinite in-plane shear modulus). The contribution of an individual nail to the total shear resistance is determined based on the distance from the nail to the center of panel rotation and relative nail displacement. The unit shear wall value (characteristic strength) of an individual shear wall panel is determined as follows:
CN Ki
i =1 total

v =

(DE.5)
2

B
2

x y K i = (sin ) i cos + i sin B H

(DE.6)

where: CN = peak resistance of individual sheathing fastener that can be measured experimentally or determined using the connection yield theory; B = sheathing panel width; H = sheathing panel height; = angle between the diagonal and the vertical edge of individual sheathing panel; i = sheathing fastener enumerator, i changes from 1 to the total number of sheathing fasteners in a panel; xi = horizontal coordinate of i-th fastener relative to the panel center; yi = vertical coordinate of i-th fastener relative to the panel center; Ki = geometric characteristic of fastening schedule of a sheathing panel. The total resistance of a shear wall line can be determined using methods described in Sections D2.2, D2.3, or D2.4 of this Appendix. The resistance of an individual sheathing fastener, CN, can be measured experimentally or estimated analytically using the connection yield theory. Narrow shear wall segments with aspect ratio greater than 2:1 can have significant bending component in their response and should not be analyzed with Equations DE.5 and DE.6 unless the bending contribution is included. Because this method does not model wall ductility, energy dissipation mechanism, and other failure modes, the designer should detail the wall configuration so that none of these factors can negatively affect the wall response under a design event. D2.5 Alternate Rational Analyses This section is not intended to limit the use of alternate design methods that use recognized principles of mechanics and engineering. Examples of such methods include finite element analysis, matrix analysis, energy-based formulations, closed-from solutions, and others. D3. Publications Relevant information regarding methods for estimating resistance of lightframe shear walls can be found in the following publications:

D-3

Dolan, J., and Heine, C., Monotonic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations, Prepared for the NAHB Research Center, Inc. by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1997. Dolan, J., and Heine, C., Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations, Prepared for the NAHB Research Center Inc. by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1997. Dolan, J., and Heine, C., Sequential Phased Displacement Tests of Wood Framed Shear Walls with Corners, Prepared for the NAHB Research Center, Inc. by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1997 Dolan, J., and Johnson, A., Cyclic and Monotonic Tests of Long Shear Walls with Openings, Prepared for the American Forest & Paper Association by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1996. NAHB Research Center, Inc., Monotonic Tests of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Walls with Openings, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Iron and Steel Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 1997. NAHB Research Center, Inc., The Performance of Perforated Shear Walls with Narrow Wall Segments, Reduced Base Restraint, and Alternative Framing Methods, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and The National Association of Home Builders by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 1998. NAHB Research Center, Inc., Perforated Shear Walls with Conventional and Innovative Base Restraint Connections, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and The National Association of Home Builders by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 1999. HUD, Residential Structural Design Guide: A state-of-the-art review and application of engineering information for light-frame homes, apartments, and townhouses, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and The National Association of Home Builders by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 2000 Ni, C., and Karacabeyli, E., Effect of overturning restraint of performance of shear walls, Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Whistler Resort, British Columbia, Canada, 2000. Ni, C., Karacabeyli, E., and Ceccotti, A., Design of shear walls with openings under lateral and vertical loads, Paper prepared for PTEC'99, Draft v. 4, December 2, 1998. Salenikovich, A. J., The racking performance of light-frame shear walls, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2000. Sugiyama, H., and Matsumoto, T., Empirical Equations for the Estimation of Racking Strength of a Plywood Sheathed Shear Wall with Openings, Summary of Technical Papers, Annual Meetings, Trans. of A.I.J. Japan, 1994. Sugiyama, H., and Yasumura, M, Shear Properties of Plywood Sheathed Wall Panels with Openings. Trans. of A.I.J., No. 338. Japan, 1984.

D-4

APPENDIX E DESIGN EXAMPLE This example demonstrates the design methods for analysis of the lateral force resisting system of a one-story house (Figure E1). The design lateral load is distributed between the shear walls according to two methods: flexible diaphragm method and rigid diaphragm method (see Appendix C for description of the methods). Figures E2 and E3 show a graphical representation of analytical models for both methods. Then, the shear resistance of Wall 4 (Figures E1 and E4) is analyzed using three methods: segmented shear wall method, perforated shear wall method, and Ni-Karacabeylis method (see Appendix D description of the methods).

Figure E1 Shear Wall Schedule for a One-Story House

DESIGN INPUT Design Format Load Direction Wind Load in NS direction Design Basis Reduction Factor Load Duration Factor Shear Wall Parameters: Structural Sheathing Panels Sheathing Nails Lumber Species Stud Spacing ASD North-South (NS) 20,000 lb (assumed) Capacity 0.5 (Table 4.2) 1.0 (Wind Load) Structural OSB panels Common nails SPF (SG = 0.42) 16 inches o.c.
E-1

Shear Wall Height Interior Sheathing Wall configurations

8.1 ft none See Table E1

TABLE E1 WALL CONFIGURATIONS Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 32 ft 9 ft 21 ft 1 none 1 Window Window 3 ft 6 ft 6 ft 9 ft 21 ft 6 ft

Parameter Total length Number of openings Opening type Opening length First segment Second segment

Wall 4 20 ft 1 Door 4 ft 11 ft 5 ft

LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION Flexible Diaphragm Method The total lateral load is distributed between the shear walls based on the tributary areas associated with each wall on a purely geometric basis. Figure E2 is a graphical representation of the mechanical model based on a simple beam approach. Table E2 summarizes individual shear wall loads.

Figure E2 Flexible Diaphragm Method Model TABLE E2 SHEAR WALL LOADS ACCORDING TO FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM METHOD Fraction of Total Tributary Area of Shear Wall Load, lb Shear Wall # Tributary Wall Area Associated Wall, ft2 Wall 1 (6.0)(8.1) = 48.6 0.125 2,500 Wall 2 (19.5)(8.1) = 157.95 0.410 8,125 Wall 3 (18)(8.1) = 145.8 0.375 7,500 Wall 4 (4.5)(8.1) = 36.45 0.090 1,875 TOTAL 388.8 1.0 20,000

E-2

Rigid Diaphragm Method The total lateral load is distributed between the shear walls based on the relative capacities. Figure E3 is a graphical representation of the mechanical model based on a continuous rigid beam approach. For the first iteration, the segmented shear wall method is used to determine the wall capacities. Table E3 summarizes individual shear wall loads.

Figure E3 Rigid Diaphragm Method Model

TABLE E3 SHEAR WALL LOADS ACCORDING TO RIGID DIAPHRAGM METHOD Segmented Shear Wall Fraction of Total Wall Shear Wall # Shear Wall Load, lb Length, ft Length Wall 1 29.0 0.42 8,400 Wall 2 9.0 0.13 2,600 Wall 3 15 0.22 4,400 Wall 4 16 0.23 4,600 TOTAL 69.0 1.0 20,000

Table E4 compares results of flexible vs. rigid diaphragm methods. The flexible diaphragm method both underestimates and overestimates the shear wall loads as compared to the rigid diaphragm method. While providing a more conservative design, the flexible diaphragm method requires an impractical shear wall schedule for this building configuration (Figure E1). For example, Wall 2 has to be excluded from the analysis, because it is impractical to design a short wall segment that accounts for only 13 percent of the total shear wall length of the building in the North-South direction to resist as much as 41 percent of the total story shear load. Although Walls 3 and 4 have practically the same lengths, according to the flexible diaphragm method, Wall 3 should have capacity four times greater than that of Wall 4. The differences between the two methods diminish in significance for simple rectangular buildings that resist shear loads by only two exterior walls. Appendix C discusses the methods of lateral load distribution and examines aspects and limitations of various methods of analysis.

E-3

TABLE E4 COMPARISON OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGID DIAPHRAGM METHOD Shear Wall Load, lb Absolute Relative1 Shear Wall # Flexible Rigid Difference, lb Difference, % Diaphragm Diaphragm Wall 1 2,500 8,400 5,900 70 Wall 2 8,125 2,600 -5,525 -213 Wall 3 7,500 4,400 -3,100 -70 Wall 4 1,875 4,600 2,725 59 Total 20,000 20,000
1

Rigid diaphragm method is used as a basis.

Shear Wall Analysis Results of the rigid diaphragm analysis are used to design Wall 4 (Figure E4). The shear wall is designed using three methods: segmented, perforated, and Ni-Karakabeylis (see Appendix D for description of the methods).
LOAD

Figure E4 Wall 4

Load: P = 4,600 lb (Table E3) Segmented Shear Wall Method Minimum required unit shear wall capacity:
v= P 4,600 = = 575 lb / ft (l1 + l 2 ) 0.5 (11 + 5)

where: P, lb = 0.5 (l1 + l2), ft

E-4

= load; = reduction factor for ASD design format (Table 4.2); = total length of wall segments.

Characteristic unit shear wall resistance adjusted for lumber species: (650) [1- (0.5-0.42)] = 598 lb/ft (Table B1 of Appendix B) Wall Characteristics: Structural sheathing Nail size Nail spacing Stud spacing Lumber species Holddowns: Perforated Shear Wall Method Empirical perforation reduction factor, F:
F= r 0.83 = = 0.62 3 2 r 3 (2) (0.83)

5/16 wood structural panel 6d common (D = 0.113 inch) 6 inch o.c. on perimeter and 12 inch o.c. in field 16 inches o.c. SPF lumber at the end of each segment four holddowns overall for two segments

r=

1 1 = = 0.83 (4)(6.5) Ao 1+ 1+ (8.1)(5 + 11) H li

where: Ao H li = total area of openings; = shear wall height; = summation of lengths of all full height wall segments.

Minimum required unit shear wall capacity:

v= P 4,600 = = 742 lb / ft L F (0.5) (20) (0.62)

Characteristic unit shear wall resistance adjusted for lumber species: (820) [1- (0.5-0.42)] = 754 lb/ft (Table B1 of Appendix B) Wall Characteristics: Structural sheathing Nail size Nail spacing Stud spacing Lumber species Holddowns: 15/32 wood structural panel 8d common (D = 0.131 inch) 6 inch o.c. on perimeter and 12 inch o.c. in field 16 inches o.c. SPF lumber at the wall corners two holddowns overall

E-5

Ni-Karacabeylis Method The wall is analyzed in both directions: Direction of Loading: Left-to-Right (Figure E4) Segment 1: Segment length Uplift restraint effect: Capacity ratio: Segment 2: Segment length Uplift restraint effect: Segment aspect ratio: Capacity ratio: l1 = 11 feet 1 = 1.0 holddown bracket is installed 1 = 1.0 segment is fully restrained l2 = 5 feet 2 = 0 no overturning restraint at door opening 2 = 8.1/5 = 1.62

= 1 + 2 + 2 = 1 + 2 (0) (1.62) + 1.62 2 1.62 = 0.28

Minimum required unit shear wall capacity:

v= P 4,600 = = 740 lb / ft [1 l1 + 2l 2 ] [(1.0)(11) + (0.28)(5)] (0.5)

Direction of Loading: Right-to-Left (Figure E4) Segment 2: Segment length Uplift restraint effect: Capacity ratio: Segment 1: Segment length Uplift restraint effect: Segment aspect ratio: Capacity ratio: l2 = 5 feet 2 = 1.0 holddown bracket is installed 2 = 1.0 segment is fully restrained l1 = 11 feet 1 = 0 no overturning restraint at door opening 1 = 8.1/11 = 0.75

= 1 + 2 + 2 = 1 + 2 (0) (0.75) + 0.75 2 0.75 = 0.50

Minimum required unit shear wall capacity:

v= P 4,600 = = 874 lb / ft [ 2 l2 + 1 l1 ] [(1.0)(5) + (0.50)(11)] (0.5)

The Right-to-Left direction governs the design.

E-6

Characteristic unit shear wall resistance adjusted for lumber species: (1040) [1- (0.5-0.42)] = 956 lb/ft (Table B1 of Appendix B) Wall Characteristics: Structural sheathing Nail size Nail spacing Stud spacing Lumber species Holddowns: 15/32 wood structural panel 8d common 4 inch o.c. on perimeter and 12 inch o.c. in field 16 inches o.c. SPF lumber at the wall corners two holddowns overall

E-7

APPENDIX F EXAMPLE OF A SHOP DRAWING FOR WALL DESIGN BY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

F-1

APPENDIX G METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

The following list provides the conversion relationship between U.S. customary units and the International System (SI) units. A complete guide to the SI system and its use can be found in ASTM E 380, Metric Practice. To convert from Length inch (in.) inch (in.) inch (in.) foot (ft) yard (yd) mile (mi) Area 1 foot-pound (ft-lb) square foot (sq ft) square inch (sq in) square inch (sq in.) square yard (sq yd) square mile (sq mi) Volume cubic inch (cu in.) cubic centimeter (cu cm) cubic inch (cu in.) cubic meter (cu m) cubic foot (cu ft) cubic meter (cu m) cubic yard (cu yd) cubic meter (cu m) gallon (gal) Can. liquid liter gallon (gal) Can. liquid cubic meter (cu m) gallon (gal) U.S. liquid* liter gallon (gal) U.S. liquid cubic meter (cu m) fluid ounce (fl oz) milliliters (ml) fluid ounce (fl oz) cubic meter (cu m) Force kip (1000 lb) kip (1000 lb) pound (lb) pound (lb) Stress or pressure kip/sq inch (ksi) kip/sq inch (ksi) pound/sq inch (psi) pound/sq inch (psi) pound/sq inch (psi) pound/sq foot (psf) pound/sq foot (psf) megapascal (Mpa) kilogram/square centimeter (kg/sq cm) kilogram/square centimeter (kg/sq cm) pascal (Pa) ** megapascal (Mpa) kilogram/square meter (kg/sq m) pascal (Pa) 6.894757 70.31 0.07031 6,894.757 0.00689476 4.8824 47.88 kilogram (kg) Newton (N) kilogram (kg) Newton (N) 453.6 4,448.222 0.4535924 4.448222 16.387064 0.00001639 0.02831685 0.7645549 4.546 0.004546 3.7854118 0.00378541 29.57353 0.00002957 square meter (sq m ) square centimeter (sq cm) square meter (sq m ) square meter (sq m ) square kilometer (sq km ) 0.09290304 E 6.452 E 0.00064516 E 0.8391274 2.6 Mass per volume (density) pound per cubic foot (pcf) pound per cubic yard (lb/cu yd) Velocity mile per hour (mph) mile per hour (mph) kilometer per hour (km/hr) kilometer per second (km/sec) 1.60934 0.44704 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/cu m) kilogram per cubic meter (kg/cu m) 16.01846 0.5933 Newton-meter (N-m) 1.356 micrometer () centimeter meter (m) meter (m) meter (m) kilometer (km) 25,400 2.54 0.025 0.3048 0.9144 1.6 to multiply by To convert from Mass (weight) pound (lb) avoirdupois ton, 2000 lb grain Mass (weight) per length) kip per linear foot (klf) pound per linear foot (plf) kilogram per meter (kg/m) kilogram per meter (kg/m) 0.001488 1.488 kilogram (kg) kilogram (kg) kilogram (kg) 0.4535924 907.1848 0.0000648 to multiply by

Moment

Temperature degree Fahrenheit (F) degree Celsius (C) degree Fahrenheit (F) degree Kelvin (K) degree Kelvin (F) degree Celsius (C)
* **

tC = (tF-32)/1.8 tK= (tF+ 459.7)/1.8 tC = (tK -32)/1.8

One U.S. gallon equals 0.8327 Canadian gallon A pascal equals 1000 Newton per square meter.

The prefixes and symbols below are commonly used to form names and symbols of the decimal multiples and submultiples of the SI units. Multiplication Factor 1,000,000,000 = 109 1,000,000 = 106 1,000 = 103 0.01 = 10-2 0.001 = 10-3 0.000001 = 10-6 0.000000001 = 10-9 Prefix giga mega kilo centi milli micro nano Symbol G M k c m n

G-1

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD USER P.O. Box 23268 Washington, DC 20026-3268 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Return Service Requested

FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE & FEES PAID HUD PERMIT NO. G-795

July 2002