brigham young university - curee.org€¦ · brigham young university 2002 curee publication no....

Nail, Wood Screw, andStaple Fastener Connections

Fernando S. FonsecaSterling K. Rose

Scott H. Campbell

Brigham Young University

2002

CUREE Publication No. W-16

The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) through a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award administered by the CaliforniaGovernor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) and is supported by non-Federal sources fromindustry, academia, and state and local government. California Institute of Technology (Caltech)is the prime contractor to OES. The Consortium of Universities for Research in EarthquakeEngineering (CUREE) organizes and carries out under subcontract to Caltech the tasks involv-ing other universities, practicing engineers, and industry.

the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project

CUREE

Disclaimer

The information in this publication is presented as apublic service by California Institute of Technology andthe Consortium of Universities for Research in EarthquakeEngineering. No liability for the accuracy or adequacy ofthis information is assumed by them, nor by the FederalEmergency Management Agency and the CaliforniaGovernor’s Office of Emergency Services, which providefunding for this project.

CUREE Publication No. W-16

Nail, Wood Screw, andStaple Fastener Connections

Fernando S. FonsecaSterling K. Rose

Scott H. Campbell

Brigham Young UniversityProvo, Utah

CUREEConsortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering

1301 S. 46th StreetRichmond, CA 94804

tel.: 510-665-3529 fax: 510-665-3622email: [email protected] website: www.curee.org

2002

ISBN 1-931995-07-9

First Printing: August 2002

Printed in the United States of America

Published byConsortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)1301 S. 46th Street - Richmond, CA 94804-4600www.curee.org (CUREE Worldwide Website)

CUREE

Preface | iii

Preface

The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project originated in the need for a combined research and implementation project to improve the seismic performance of woodframe buildings, a need which was brought to light by the January 17, 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan region. Damage to woodframe construction predominated in all three basic categories of earthquake loss in that disaster:

Casualties: 24 of the 25 fatalities in the Northridge Earthquake that were caused by building damage occurred in woodframe buildings (1);

Property Loss: Half or more of the $40 billion in property damage was due to damage to woodframe construction (2);

Functionality: 48,000 housing units, almost all of them in woodframe buildings, were rendered uninhabitable by the earthquake (3).

Woodframe construction represents one of society’s largest investments in the built environment, and the common woodframe house is usually an individual’s largest single asset. In California, 99% of all residences are of woodframe construction, and even considering occupancies other than residential, such as commercial and industrial uses, 96% of all buildings in Los Angeles County are built of wood. In other regions of the country, woodframe construction is still extremely prevalent, constituting, for example, 89% of all buildings in Memphis, Tennessee and 87% in Wichita, Kansas, with "the general range of the fraction of wood structures to total structures...between 80% and 90% in all regions of the US….” (4). Funding for the Woodframe Project is provided primarily by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Stafford Act (Public Law 93-288). The federal funding comes to the project through a California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). The Project Manager is Professor John Hall of Caltech. The Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), as subcontractor to Caltech, with Robert Reitherman as Project Director, manages the subcontracted work to various universities, along with the work of consulting engineers, government agencies, trade groups, and others. CUREE is a non-profit corporation devoted to the advancement of earthquake engineering research, education, and implementation. Cost-sharing contributions to the Project come from a large number of practicing engineers, universities, companies, local and state agencies, and others. The project has five main Elements, which together with a management element are designed to make the engineering of woodframe buildings more scientific and their construction technology more efficient. The project’s Elements and their managers are:

1. Testing and Analysis: Prof. André Filiatrault, University of California, San Diego, Manager; Prof. Frieder Seible and Prof. Chia-Ming Uang, Assistant Managers

2. Field Investigations: Prof. G. G. Schierle, University of Southern California, Manager

3. Building Codes and Standards: Kelly Cobeen, GFDS Engineers, Manager; John Coil and James Russell, Assistant Managers

4. Economic Aspects: Tom Tobin, Tobin Associates, Manager

5. Education and Outreach: Jill Andrews, Southern California Earthquake Center, Manager

iv | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

The Testing and Analysis Element of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project consists of 23 different investigations carried out by 16 different organizations (13 universities, three consulting engineering firms). This tabulation includes an independent but closely coordinated project conducted at the University of British Columbia under separate funding than that which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the Woodframe Project. Approximately half the total $6.9 million budget of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is devoted to its Testing and Analysis tasks, which is the primary source of new knowledge developed in the Project.

Woodframe Project Testing and Analysis Investigations

Task # Investigator Topic

Project-Wide Topics and System-level Experiments

1.1.1 André Filiatrault, UC San Diego

Kelly Cobeen, GFDS Engineers

Two-Story House (testing, analysis)

Two-Story House (design)

1.1.2 Khalid Mosalam, Stephen Mahin, UC Berkeley Bret Lizundia, Rutherford & Chekene

Three-Story Apt. Building (testing, analysis) Three-Story Apt. Building (design)

1.1.3 Frank Lam et al., U. of British Columbia Multiple Houses (independent project funded separately in Canada with liaison to CUREE-Caltech Project)

1.2 Bryan Folz, UC San Diego International Benchmark (analysis contest)

1.3.1 Chia-Ming Uang, UC San Diego Rate of Loading and Loading Protocol Effects

1.3.2 Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford University Testing Protocol

1.3.3 James Beck, Caltech Dynamic Characteristics

Component-Level Investigations

1.4.1.1 James Mahaney; Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc. Anchorage (in-plane wall loads)

1.4.1.2 Yan Xiao, University of Southern California Anchorage (hillside house diaphragm tie-back)

1.4.2 James Dolan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Diaphragms

1.4.3 Rob Chai, UC Davis Cripple Walls

1.4.4.4 Gerard Pardoen, UC Irvine Shearwalls

1.4.6 Kurt McMullin, San Jose State University Wall Finish Materials (lab testing)

1.4.6 Gregory Deierlein, Stanford University Wall Finish Materials (analysis)

1.4.7 Michael Symans, Washington State University Energy-Dissipating Fluid Dampers

1.4.8.1 Fernando Fonseca, Brigham Young University Nail and Screw Fastener Connections

1.4.8.2 Kenneth Fridley, Washington State University Inter-Story Shear Transfer Connections

1.4.8.3 Gerard Pardoen, UC Irvine Shearwall-Diaphragm Connections

Analytical Investigations

1.5.1 Bryan Folz, UC San Diego Analysis Software Development

1.5.2 Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford University Demand Aspects

1.5.3 David Rosowsky, Oregon State University Reliability of Shearwalls

Preface | v

Not shown in the tabulation is the essential task of managing this element of the Project to keep the numerous investigations on track and to integrate the results. The lead management role for the Testing and Analysis Element has been carried out by Professor André Filiatrault, along with Professor Chia-Ming Uang and Professor Frieder Seible, of the Department of Structural Engineering at the University of California at San Diego. The type of construction that is the subject of the investigation reported in this document is typical “two-by-four” frame construction as developed and commonly built in the United States. (Outside the scope of this Project are the many kinds of construction in which there are one or more timber components, but which cannot be described as having a timber structural system, e.g., the roof of a typical concrete tilt-up building). In contrast to steel, masonry, and concrete construction, woodframe construction is much more commonly built under conventional (i.e., non-engineered) building code provisions. Also notable is the fact that even in the case of engineered wood buildings, structural engineering analysis and design procedures, as well as building code requirements, are more based on traditional practice and experience than on precise methods founded on a well-established engineering rationale. Dangerous damage to US woodframe construction has been rare, but there is still considerable room for improvement. To increase the effectiveness of earthquake-resistant design and construction with regard to woodframe construction, two primary aims of the Project are:

1. Make the design and analysis more scientific, i.e., more directly founded on experimentally and theoretically validated engineering methods and more precise in the resulting quantitative results.

2. Make the construction more efficient, i.e., reduce construction or other costs where possible,

increasing seismic performance while respecting the practical aspects associated with this type of construction and its associated decentralized building construction industry.

The initial planning for the Testing and Analysis tasks evolved from a workshop that was primarily devoted to obtaining input from practitioners (engineers, building code officials, architects, builders) concerning questions to which they need answers if they are to implement practical ways of reducing earthquake losses in their work. (Frieder Seible, André Filiatrault, and Chia-Ming Uang, Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction, CUREE Publication No. W-01, 1999.) As the Testing and Analysis tasks reported in this CUREE report series were undertaken, each was assigned a designated role in providing results that would support the development of improved codes and standards, engineering procedures, or construction practices, thus completing the circle back to practitioners. The other elements of the Project essential to that overall process are briefly described below. To readers unfamiliar with structural engineering research based on laboratory work, the term “testing” may have a too narrow a connotation. Only in limited cases did investigations carried out in this Project “put to the test” a particular code provision or construction feature to see if it “passed the test.” That narrow usage of “testing” is more applicable to the certification of specific models and brands of products to declare their acceptability under a particular product standard. In this Project, more commonly the experimentation produced a range of results that are used to calibrate analytical models, so that relatively expensive laboratory research can be applicable to a wider array of conditions than the single example that was subjected to simulated earthquake loading. To a non-engineering bystander, a “failure” or “unacceptable damage” in a specimen is in fact an instance of successful experimentation if it provides a valid set of data that builds up the basis for quantitatively predicting how wood components and systems of a wide variety will perform under real earthquakes. Experimentation has also been conducted to improve the starting point for this kind of research: To better define what specific kinds of simulation in the laboratory best represent the real conditions of actual buildings subjected to earthquakes, and to develop protocols that ensure data are produced that serve the analytical needs of researchers and design engineers.

vi | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Notes (1) EQE International and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, The Northridge Earthquake of January

17, 1994: Report of Data Collection and Analysis, Part A, p. 5-18 (Sacramento, CA: Office of Emergency Services, 1995).

(2) Charles Kircher, Robert Reitherman, Robert Whitman, and Christopher Arnold, “Estimation of Earthquake

Losses to Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1997, p. 714, and Robert Reitherman, “Overview of the Northridge Earthquake,” Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Vol. I, p. I-1 (Richmond, CA: California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 1998).

(3) Jeanne B. Perkins, John Boatwright, and Ben Chaqui, “Housing Damage and Resulting Shelter Needs: Model

Testing and Refinement Using Northridge Data,” Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Vol. IV, p. IV-135 (Richmond, CA: California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 1998).

(4) Ajay Malik, Estimating Building Stocks for Earthquake Mitigation and Recovery Planning, Cornell Institute for

Social and Economic Research, 1995.

Preface | vii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank FEMA for providing funding through the California OES and the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Brigham Young University for providing matching funds for this research project. Thanks to Mr. Robert Reitherman, CUREE Executive Director for coordinating the overall project. Thanks to Professor John Hall (California Institute of Technology), manager of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project; Professors André Filiatrault, Frieder Seible and Chia-Ming Uang (University of California, San Diego), managers of the Testing and Analysis element; and Ms. Kelly Cobeen (GFDS Engineers), Mr. John Coil (Thoron-Tomassetti / Coil & Welsh), and Mr. James Russell, managers of the Building Codes and Standards element for their guidance, support, and comments throughout this research task. Thanks to Professor James Beck and Ms. Vanessa Camelo (California Institute of Technology); Professor Rob Chai and Mrs. Tara Hutchinson (Univesity of California, Davis); Professors William Cofer, Ken Fridley, and Michael Symans (Washington State University); Professor Greg Deierlein and Helmut Krawingler (Stanford University); Professor Dan Dolan (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University); Mr. Seb Ficadente (F&W Inc.); Dr. Bryan Folz (University of California, San Diego); Professor Frank Lam (University of British Columbia); Mr. Philip Line (American Forest & Paper Association); Mr. James Mahaney (WJE Associates); Professor Kurt McMullin (San Jose State University); Professor Khalid Mosalam (University of California, Berkeley); Professor Gerry Pardon (University of California, Irvine); Mr. Steve Pryor (Simpson Strong-Tie); Professor David Rosowsky (Oregon State University); Professor Yan Xiao (University of Southern California) for their many questions, comments, suggestions, and assistance during and after each research meeting. Thanks to Mr. Tom Skaggs (APA–The Engineering Wood Association); Mr. Ed Diekmann; Mr. John Kurtz (ISANTA); and Ms. Kelly Cobeen (GFDS Engineers) for providing some of the materials used in the testing program. Also, Mr. Darius Campbell for donating the staples and staple gun. Thanks to Mr. Justin Rabe, a former graduate student in the Civil and Engineering Department at Brigham Young University, for designing and constructing the testing apparatus. Also, Curt McDonald, Paul Lattin, and Holly Rose graduate students that assisted during assembling and testing. Thanks to Mr. David Anderson, the technician in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Brigham Young University, for his assistance during initial setup and data acquisition.

viii | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Preface | ix

Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Fernando S. Fonseca, Ph.D., P.E.

Brigham Young University Provo, Utah

Sterling K. Rose and Scott H. Campbell

Brigham Young University Provo, Utah

Summary

Testing of several sheathing-to-wood connection types in lateral bearing under fully reversed

cyclic loading was conducted under Task 1.4.8.1 - Nail, Wood Screw and Staple Fastener

Connections. Task 1.4.8.1 is one of the tasks of the Testing and Analysis element of the

CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project. The purpose of the testing was to obtain load-slip curves

for each connection type so that a database could be compiled. The database consists of a set of

ten parameters for each connection type. For each connection type, a group of ten specimens

were tested. The parameters were extracted from the load-slip curve of each specimen and

averaged for the ten specimens of each group. The database will be integrated into the 3-

Dimensional Seismic Analysis Software for Woodframe Construction developed in Task 1.5.1 -

Analysis Software.

Specimens were assembled by attaching a piece of sheathing panel to a wood member. Different

thicknesses of oriented strand board and plywood were used as sheathing panels. All specimens

were assembled using the same type of wood member except two test groups. Several types and

sizes of nails, wood screws, and staples were used as fasteners to attach the sheathing panel to the

wood member. Specimens were assembled such that load could be applied perpendicular and

parallel to the grain of the wood member. To characterize the materials used, the density of the

oriented strand boards was obtained, the moisture content of the wood members was measured,

and the bending yield strength of the fasteners was determined.

A fixture was designed and constructed for the testing of the specimens. The design was aimed

at making the fixture easy to use and more efficient without compromising the results. The main

advantage of the fixture is the clamping system that allows for quick setup. The clamps are also

beneficial because they provide a consistent clamping force. There are no bolts to be tightened,

so forces applied by the clamps to secure the specimen during testing are similar from test to test.

As a specimen was tested, however, the sheathing panel came in contact with parts of the fixture.

A study was therefore conducted to determine the magnitude of the friction between the

sheathing panel and the fixture. Study results indicate that the friction between the specimen and

the fixture is negligible.

x | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Testing was accomplished using the simplified basic loading history developed in Task 1.3.2 -

Testing Protocol. A study was conducted to determine , which is the reference deformation that

defines the variations in deformation amplitude of the loading history. Concurrently, a study was

conducted involving the recommended loading histories that may represent the seismic demands

imposed on the connections due to ordinary ground motion. The simplified basic loading history

was selected because there were no significant differences between the behavior of the tested

specimens and because the extraction of the database parameters from the load-slip curves would

be significantly simpler without compromising the results. A reference deformation value was

determined for each of the three types of connectors to be tested. The frequency for testing all

specimens was 0.5 Hz.

Testing was conducted on an INSTRON universal testing machine. The testing machine was

controlled by the MTS Teststar II software, which has data acquisition features. Connector slip

was measured by two-cable extension linear position transducers mounted at the base of the

testing apparatus. To measure the applied load, a load cell was installed between the testing

machine and the testing apparatus. Data were recorded at a rate of 20 points per second.

A data reduction program was written to extract the database parameters from the load-slip

curves. Ten parameters are required for modeling the hysteretic behavior of the connections in

the analysis software developed in Task 1.5.1. The program extracted the parameters for each

load-slip curve, which were then averaged for the ten curves for each connection group. The

parameters and , which represent the strength degradation and stiffness degradation,

respectively, within cycles of same displacement amplitude were maintained constant. A

parametric study was conducted using and ; the results show that the model was not sensitive

to either one of them. The study showed that a value of 0.6 for and a value of 1.1 for would

yield satisfactorily result.

The database was assembled and is available from CUREE on a CD-Rom. The CD-Rom was set

up with a data viewer and contains a simple search engine. The parameters for each connection

group as well as the parameters for each specimen tested are presented in a tabular form. In

addition, the measured data of each test, a picture of each specimen taken right after completion

of the test, and the mode of failure of each specimen are included in the data viewer.

Furthermore, the data viewer includes theoretical strength values for each connection type. The

data viewer is expandable and can be updated to include data from existing as well as future

sheathing-to-wood connection tests.

Table of Contents | xi

Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii

Summary ............................................................................................................................ ix

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... xi

Index of Figures ................................................................................................................ xii

Index of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiv

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

Specimens ............................................................................................................................2

Test Matrix ...........................................................................................................................3

Materials and Material Properties ........................................................................................4

Sheathing Panels ............................................................................................................4

Wood Members ..............................................................................................................5

Fasteners ........................................................................................................................8

Specimen Assembly ...........................................................................................................11

Testing Setup .....................................................................................................................13

Testing Apparatus ........................................................................................................13

Load Cell ......................................................................................................................14

Position Transducers ....................................................................................................14

Testing Machine...........................................................................................................15

Data Acquisition ..........................................................................................................15

Loading Protocol ................................................................................................................16

Determination of the Reference Deformation ∆ ..........................................................16

Reference Deformation for Nails .................................................................................17

Reference Deformation for Wood Screws ...................................................................19

Reference Deformation for Staples ..............................................................................20

Loading Rate ................................................................................................................21

Preliminary Studies ............................................................................................................22

Loading History ...........................................................................................................22

Friction .........................................................................................................................23

Simple Analysis .................................................................................................................25

Data Reduction and Viewer ...............................................................................................26

Stiffness and Strength Degradation Parameters ...........................................................28

Load-Slip Curves .........................................................................................................29

Data Viewer .................................................................................................................29

References ..........................................................................................................................31

xii | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Index of Figures

Figure 1: Typical Specimens .............................................................................................80

Figure 2: Schematic Representation of the Specimens. .....................................................81

Figure 3: Type and Thickness of Sheathing Panels ...........................................................82

Figure 4: Wood Member ....................................................................................................83

Figure 5: Fasteners .............................................................................................................84

Figure 6: Fastener Edge Distance ......................................................................................85

Figure 7: Fastener Driven Depths ......................................................................................86

Figure 8: Stamps on Sheathing Panels ...............................................................................87

Figure 9: Moisture Box ......................................................................................................88

Figure 10: Moisture Meter .................................................................................................89

Figure 11: Specimens Drying. ...........................................................................................90

Figure 12: Time Required for Specimens to Achieve a Dry Condition. ...........................91

Figure 13: Testing Apparatus for Determining Bending Yield Strength of Fasteners. .....92

Figure 14: Bending Yield Strength Test in Progress .........................................................93

Figure 15: Typical Load-Slip Response of a Fastener to the

Bending Yield Strength Test ........................................................................94

Figure 16: Locations Along a Screw Where the

Bending Yield Strength Can Be Determined ...............................................95

Figure 17: Specimen Assembly Apparatus ........................................................................96

Figure 18: Punches for Nails..............................................................................................97

Figure 19: Punches for Staples ..........................................................................................98

Figure 20: Testing Apparatus.............................................................................................99

Figure 21: Testing Apparatus Parts..................................................................................100

Figure 22: Frictionless Rolling System............................................................................102

Figure 23: Testing Apparatus Load Cell ..........................................................................103

Figure 24: Testing Apparatus String Pots ........................................................................104

Figure 25: Overall Testing Setup .....................................................................................105

Figure 26: Simplified Basic Loading History ..................................................................106

Figure 27: Typical Monotonic Load-Slip Response of a Specimen ................................107

Figure 28: Typical Perpendicular Specimen with an Offset Fastener .............................108

Figure 29: Typical Perpendicular Specimen with a Center Fastener ...............................109

Figure 30: Typical Parallel Specimen with a Center Fastener .........................................110

Figure 31: Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History,

Perpendicular ∆=0.17 in ...........................................................................111




Parallel ∆=0.17 in .....................................................................................116


Parallel ∆=0.20 in .....................................................................................119



Index of Figures | xiii




Specimen with Staple, Perpendicular ∆=0.17 in .......................................124


Specimen with Staple, Perpendicular ∆=0.20 in .......................................125


Specimen with Staple, Parallel ∆=0.17 in .................................................126

Figure 40: Loading Rate Corresponding to Loading Frequency .....................................127

Figure 41: Load-Slip Response to the Basic Loading History,




Figure 43: Rolling System and Sources of Friction .........................................................136

Figure 44: Testing Apparatus Setup for Friction Study ...................................................137



Figure 46: Load-Slip Response for Connection Type No.03 ..........................................140

Figure 47: Load-Slip Response for Connection Type No.47 ..........................................145

Figure 48: Average Results for Connections Type No.03 and 47 ...................................150

Figure 49: Parameters for Modeling Load-Slip Curves ...................................................151

Figure 50: Range Used for Extraction of Initial Stiffness Parameter ..............................152

Figure 51: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r1 and F1 ........................................153

Figure 52: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r2 ....................................................154

Figure 53: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r3 ....................................................155

Figure 54: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r4 and F1 ........................................156

Figure 55: Sensitivity of a Load-Slip Curve to the Stiffness Degradation Parameter .....157

Figure 56: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Nail Specimen .....158

Figure 57: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a

Wood Screw Specimen ..............................................................................159

Figure 58: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Staple Specimen ..160

Figure 59: The Measured and the Average Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a

Nail Specimen ............................................................................................161

xiv | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Index of Tables

Table 1: Test Matrix...........................................................................................................34

Table 2: Sheathing Panel Manufacturers ...........................................................................40

Table 3: Density of the Oriented Strand Board Sheathing Panels .....................................41

Table 4: Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly ..............................................................43

Table 5: Lumber Moisture Content at Testing ...................................................................45

Table 6: Results of the Study Validating the Moisture Meter. ..........................................53

Table 7: Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly (Corrected). ..........................................54

Table 8: Lumber Moisture Content at Testing (Corrected). ..............................................56

Table 9: Dimensions of the Fasteners. ...............................................................................64

Table 10: Nail Bending Yield Strength .............................................................................65

Table 11: Wood Screw Bending Yield Strength ................................................................66

Table 12: Reference Deformations ....................................................................................67

Table 13: Monotonic Loading Results for Perpendicular Loaded Specimens

Assembled with Nails ...................................................................................68

Table 14: Monotonic Loading Results for Parallel Loaded Specimens

Assembled with Nails ...................................................................................69


Assembled with Screws ................................................................................70


Assembled with Staples ................................................................................71

Table 17: Property Summary for the Basic Loading History Connection Type ................72

Table 18: Property Summary for the Simplified Basic Loading History

Connection Type ...........................................................................................73

Table 19: Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No.03 ..........................74

Table 20: Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No.47 ..........................76

Introduction | 1

Introduction

The objective of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is to significantly reduce earthquake

losses in woodframe construction. The project is divided into five elements: Testing and

Analysis, Field Investigations, Building Codes and Standards, Economic Aspects, and Education

and Outreach. Task 1.4.8.1 - Nail, Screw and Staple Fastener Connections is one of the twenty-

one interrelated tasks of the Testing and Analysis element.

The objective of Task 1.4.8.1 was to establish a parameter database for sheathing-to-wood

connections tested in lateral bearing under fully reversed cyclic loading. The database is

comprised of a set of ten parameters for each connection type. The objective was accomplished

by testing several sheathing-to-wood connection types. For each connection type, ten specimens

were tested. The parameters were extracted from the load-slip curve of each specimen and

averaged for the ten specimens of each group. The database will be integrated into the 3-

Dimensional Seismic Analysis Software for Woodframe Construction developed in Task 1.5.1 -

Analysis Software.

2 | Nail, Wood Screw, and Staple Fastener Connections

Specimens

Figure 1 shows a typical specimen, assembled by attaching a piece of a sheathing panel to a

wood member. Two types of specimens, according to the direction of the applied load, were

tested: parallel and perpendicular. Parallel specimens had the grain of the wood member parallel

to the direction of the applied load, while perpendicular specimens had the grain of the wood

member perpendicular to the direction of the applied load.

Figure 2 shows the overall dimensions of the specimens. Specimens were constructed by

attaching a nominal 2 by 4 in wood member, 6 in long, to a 12 by 4 in piece of a sheathing panel.

For the perpendicular specimens, the length of the wood member was parallel to the smaller

dimension of the sheathing panel. The sheathing panel was attached to the smaller cross-

sectional dimension of the wood member, and the connector was inserted in the center of the

wood member. The length of the wood member for the parallel specimens was turned 90

degrees with respect to that of the perpendicular specimens. The connector, however, was still

inserted in the center of the wood member.

Specimen configurations used in this research were selected to represent limiting bounds for both

the perpendicular and parallel specimens. The lower bound was caused by the sheathing panel

bearing on the fastener against the 3/8 in sheathing panel edge. This situation caused a worst-

case scenario, whereas the upper bound represented a best-case scenario. This was formed when

the fastener boar against the full side of the sheathing panel. These configurations were selected

for testing limiting bounds and do not represent specific locations in a shear wall.

Introduction | 3

Test Matrix

Table 1 summarizes the tests conducted and the variables of each test group. For each test

group, a total of ten specimens were tested. The variables of the testing program are briefly

described below:

The type and thickness of the sheathing panel (see Figure 3). Two types of sheathing

panels were used: oriented strand board (OSB) and plywood. Several OSB panel

thicknesses were tested: 3/8, 7/16, 15/32, and 19/32 in. Only 15/32 in plywood was used.

The type of wood member (see Figure 4). Douglas Fir-Larch (DF-L) was used for all

specimens except for two test groups that were assembled with pressure treated Hem-Fir

(PT HF).

The moisture condition of the wood member at assembling and testing time. Most

coupons were assembled with green or wet wood, which is defined as having a moisture

content greater than 19 percent. Few coupons were assembled with dry wood, which is

defined as having a moisture content less than 12 percent. All specimens were tested with

the wood member in a dry condition.

The type and size of fastener (see Figure 5). Three types of fasteners were used: nails,

wood screws, and staples. Nails used were 8d cooler (2 3/8 in long by 0.113 in diameter),

8d common (2 1/2 in long by 0.131 in diameter), 10d framing (3 in long by 0.131 in

diameter), 10d common (3 in long by 0.148 in diameter) and 10d common short (2 1/8 in

long by 0.148 in diameter). Limited nail penetration tests were also conducted. For those

tests, three nail lengths were used. The shorter 8d cooler nail lengths were 1 11/16 and 2

in; the shorter 8d common nail lengths were 1 13/16 and 2 in. Wood screws used were No.

8 (2 in long by 0.164 in diameter), No. 8 (3 in long by 0.164 in diameter), and No. 10 (3 in

long by 0.190 in diameter). All wood screws used in this research were rolled thread-

hardened. Staples used were 16 gage (1 3/4 in long, 1/2 in crown).

The edge distance (see Figure 6). Edge distance is defined as the distance from the

center of the connector to the nearest edge of the sheathing panel. Most specimens were

assembled with 3/8 in edge distance, which was the control edge distance. To determine

the effects of edge distance, four other distances were used: 2, 1/4, 3/16, and 1/8 in.

The depth to which the head of the nail is driven past the surface of the sheathing panel

(see Figure 7). This depth is commonly known as overdriven depth. In addition to the

flush-driven condition, which was the reference, four overdriven depths were considered:

-1/16, +1/16, +1/8, and +3/16 in. The negative sign means that the head of the nail was

above the surface of the sheathing panel, while the positive sign means that the head of the

nail was below the surface of the sheathing panel.

The direction of loading with respect to the direction of the grain of the wood member.

Two directions were considered: parallel and perpendicular. Parallel specimens were

assembled with the grain of the wood member parallel to the direction of the applied load,

while perpendicular specimens were assembled with the grain of the wood member

perpendicular to the direction of the applied load.


Materials and Material Properties

Sheathing Panels

Sheathing panels were obtained from three different sources. The APA –The Engineered Wood

Association donated the 3/8, 7/16, 15/32, and 19/32 in OSB as well as the 15/32 in plywood. A

sheet of 19/32 in OSB was purchased locally, and a sheet of 3/8 in OSB was obtained through

direct contact with Louisiana Pacific.

Table 2 summarizes the manufacturer of each sheathing panel; Figure 8 shows the rating stamp

on each of the sheathing panels. Theoretically, there should be no difference in specimen

response due to the manufacturer of the sheathing panel. To quantify any difference in response

that might exist, however, 3/8 and 19/32 in OSB panels were obtained from three different

manufacturers, and 7/16 in OSB panels were obtained from two different manufacturers. The

15/32 in plywood was donated and was not a full panel; because of that, it lacked the

manufacturer stamp.

The density of the OSB panels was determined according to the guidelines for common testing

items of Element 1 – Testing and Analysis. Several standards from the American Society for

Testing and Materials were referenced directly or indirectly including ASTM D1037–96a

(1996a); ASTM D2395–93 (1993); ASTM D4442–92 (1992); and ASTM D4761–96 (1996b).

The samples for determining the density of the OSB panels were obtained from the interior of the

panel. OSB panels are usually denser around the edges due to the pressing. The samples were

obtained from at least 2 in away from the edges of the panel. Three samples 3 in wide by 6 in

long were obtained from each OSB panel.

Several intermediate steps were necessary in order to determine the density of the OSB panels.

The following is an outline of the procedure used:

The moisture content of a sample was determined using Method B – Oven-Drying

(Secondary) as specified in ASTM D4442–92 (1992) and Sections 119 and 120–Moisture

Content and Specific Gravity from ASTM D1037–96a (1996a). Equation 1 was used to

compute the moisture content of the sample.

]/)([100 FFWM (1)

where M is the moisture content (percent), W is the initial weight (g), and F is the final

oven-dry weight (g). The initial weight of the sample was obtained at the beginning of the

test using an electronic scale. The sample was then placed in a drying oven at 103 C until

a constant weight was attained, which took approximately 48 hours. To insure that the

sample had reached constant weight, measurements were taken at least two hours apart of

each other. The final weight was determined using the same electronic scale.

Introduction | 5

The specific gravity of a sample was determined using Equation 2 (1996, 1993).

)(/)( twLFKgrsp (2)

where sp gr is the specific gravity, K is a conversion factor (0.061), and L, w, and t are the

length, width, and thickness, respectively, of the sample (in).

The specific weight or density of the sample was then determined by multiplying the

specific gravity of the sample (sp gr) by the specific weight of water (62.4 lb/ft3).

Table 3 summarizes the density of the OSB panels used in this research. The intermediate

values necessary to determine the density are also presented. A target density between 38 and 40

lb/ft3 was suggested in the guidelines for common testing items of Element 1 – Testing and

Analysis. There is very small variance in OSB panel density between manufacturers. One panel

thickness, 15/32 in, was slightly above; and one panel thickness, 19/32 in, was slightly under the

suggested target density.

Wood Members

Wood members or lumber were standard 2 by 4 in Douglas Fir-Larch No. 2 or better. Two test

groups were assembled with pressure-treated Hem-Fir (PT HF). The lumber used in this

research complied with the guidelines for common testing items for Element 1 – Testing and

Analysis.

One of the variables of the testing program was the lumber moisture condition. A significant

number of wood structures in California are built with green or wet lumber, which statistically

will not be the condition of the lumber during an earthquake. Thus, the specimens were required

to be constructed with green lumber (except for two test groups) and to be tested after the lumber

reached a dry condition. According to the National Design Specifications (NDS) for Wood

Construction (1997a), green or wet lumber has moisture content of at least 19 percent, and dry

lumber has maximum moisture content of 12 percent. The lumber was obtained from Pinnacle

Lumber of Tacoma, Washington. Measurements indicated that the lumber, at the time of

purchase, had moisture content of at least 19 percent. The lumber was stamped green and

Douglas Fir-Larch No. 2 or better.

Several months were required to complete testing. Retaining the lumber moisture during those

months was, therefore, necessary if all specimens were to be assembled with green lumber. To

maintain the moisture content of the lumber as close as possible to that at the time of purchase,

plastic wrapping was used during transportation, and a moisture box was constructed for the

lumber storage. Figure 9 shows the moisture box. The box was composed of a framed bin 4 ft

wide, 3 ft tall, and just over 8 ft long. The box was sealed with plastic in an attempt to maintain

the moisture of the lumber. Also, a storage rack, providing a clearance of approximately 2 in

between the bottom of the box and the bottom of the lumber, was constructed and placed at the

bottom of the moisture box. That space was filled with approximately 1 in of water in an attempt

to keep the humidity constant.


Because of the large number of specimens, moisture content was measured using a Delmhorst R-

2000 wood moisture meter. Figure 10 shows the moisture meter. The Delmhorst R-2000 is a

resistance type meter with insulated pins that gives quickly and accurately the moisture gradient

(the difference between the shell and core moisture), an estimate of the average moisture content,

and the range of moisture content. The Delmhorst R-2000 measures moisture content over the

range of 6 to 60 percent. A moisture test is conducted by inserting the prongs of the moisture

meter into the center of the lumber to about 1/4 of the member thickness.

The moisture content of the lumber was checked at the time of purchase to confirm that it met

the testing program specifications. Several measurements were made on different lumber

members to ensure proper moisture content. Most of the measurements were between 30 and 40

percent with some as high as 50 percent. All measurements were higher than the threshold for

green lumber. The records of the measurements unfortunately were lost.

The moisture content of the lumber was measured during assembly; those readings are

summarized in Table 4. The following general procedure was used to measure the moisture

content of the lumber: randomly choose a wood member from the lumber pile; cut the wood into

6 in long pieces; randomly select a sample; measure the moisture content in the center of the

sample. The Delmhorst R-2000 wood moisture meter has the capability of reading and storing

up to ten readings. The average reading can then be retrieved. Table 4 gives the average

reading made for each wood member; individual sample readings were not recorded. The results

show that the moisture content of the lumber at assembly is higher than the required minimum.

These results confirm that the lumber was green at purchase time since there should not have

been any change in moisture content from purchase to assembly time because the lumber was

stored in a moisture box.

Prior to assembling and testing the specimens, a simple study was conducted to determine how

long it would take for the wood members to reach a dry condition. The motivation for the study

was to minimize the sporadic checking of moisture content of the large number of specimens.

For this study, ten specimens were used. After assembly, the specimens were left to dry in a

climate-controlled room (see Figure 11) that was maintained between 68 and 70°F; the ambient

air moisture, however, was not recorded. Measurements were made every day for twenty

consecutive days. Figure 12 shows the results of the study, indicating that the wood members

reached a dry condition within approximately 11 days.

Testing of the specimens was conducted approximately 14 days after assembly. This time frame

was used because it best fit the testing schedule. Final moisture content measurements were

made right after testing. Table 5 gives the average moisture content reading for each wood

member right after testing. Measurements were taken at the center of each wood member. The

results show that the moisture content of the wood member at testing time was lower than the

threshold specified for dry lumber for all specimens except for two of them—specimens 35-05

and 90-02 (the first number corresponds to the test group and the second number corresponds to

the specimen number within the group).

A simple study was conducted to validate the measurements made with the moisture meter. The

readings from the moisture meter were compared to the moisture content as determined using

Introduction | 7

Method B – Oven-Drying (Secondary) as specified in ASTM D4442–92 (1992). Table 6

summarizes the results of the study. Three wet wood samples were considered in the study. For

one of those samples, however, the moisture content as determined using Method B was lower

than the threshold for wet wood. Thus, three more samples were added to the original set. For

the six wet wood samples, the average moisture content as determined using Method B was 20.5

percent and as measured by the moisture meter was 27.8 percent. The average reading from the

moisture meter for the wet wood samples was approximately 36 percent higher than the

measurements as determined using Method B. If a reduction of 36 percent is applied to the

readings summarized in Table 4 (see Table 7), any reading below 25.8 percent violates the

moisture content threshold for wet lumber. For wood member Nos. 16, 23, 31, 32, 34, 57 and 59

the moisture content after applying the correction factor is 17.9, 18.7, 16.5, 17.6, 17.8, 18.8, and

18.2 percent, respectively. These measurements are slightly lower than the threshold of 19

percent specified for wet lumber.

Three dry wood samples were also considered. The average moisture content as determined

using Method B was 6.2 percent and as measured by the moisture meter was 8.2 percent. The

average reading from the moisture meter for the dry wood samples was approximately 33 percent

higher than the measurements as determined using Method B. If a reduction of 33 percent is

applied to the readings summarized in Table 5 (see Table 8), the moisture content of all

specimens at testing time is below the maximum 12 percent specified for dry lumber.

The validation of the measurements made using the moisture meter should have been

accomplished prior to assembling and testing the specimens. Because the Delmhorst R-2000

wood moisture meter has a microcontroller circuit that corrects for individual species and is

widely used, the accuracy of the readings was never questioned. Questions about the accuracy of

the measurements were raised, however, after the testing was complete. Those questions

prompted the aforementioned study.

To determine the effects of construction with dry versus wet lumber, 20 specimens were

assembled with dry lumber. These specimens were assembled with the same wet wood except

that the wood was let to dry to below 12 percent moisture content prior to assembly. The process

of drying was accomplished by simply letting the wood dry in a climate controlled room. As

shown in Table 7, those specimens were assembled with wood member No. 48, which had a

corrected moisture content of less than 6 percent.

Before assembly of the specimens, the lumber was cut to 6 in lengths. A few specimens were

then assembled (with green wood) and tested after the wood dried. During those preliminary

tests, it was observed that the testing fixture and consequently the response of the specimens

were very sensitive to imperfections in the lumber. The specimens with significant bowed

lumber (cupping) could not be placed flush within the fixture and would rock during testing.

Cupping is a common side effect of curing small-dimension lumber, which causes the wood to

bend away from the center of the pith. Because specimens were assembled with a small piece of

wet lumber and let to dry, significant cupping was observed in a few specimens. Thus, the

specimens that showed significant cupping were discarded. Overall, very few specimens were

rejected; thus, it is believed that bias was not introduced in the testing program.


Fasteners

Table 9 summarizes the dimensions and Figure 5 shows the various fasteners used in this testing

program.

Several sizes of nails were used in this testing program. Nails used were 8d cooler (2 3/8 in long

by 0.113 in diameter), 8d common (2 1/2 in long by 0.131 in diameter), 10d framing (3 in long

by 0.131 in diameter), 10d common (3 in long by 0.148 in diameter), and 10d common short (2

1/8 in long by 0.148 in diameter). Limited nail penetration tests were also conducted. For those

tests, three nail lengths were used. These shorter nails were manufactured from full-length nails

by cutting them with shears to the specified lengths. The ends of the nails were pointed with a

grinder. Care was taken to control the nail temperature during the grinding process to minimize

any possible changes in the properties of the nail. The lengths for the shorter 8d cooler nails

were 1 11/16 and 2 in, while the lengths for the shorter 8d common nails were 1 13/16 and 2 in.

Halsteel manufactured all nails used in this research except the 10d common short nails. The 8d

cooler nails and the 10d framing nails were provided by the managers of Element 1 – Testing

and Analysis. The 10d framing nails provided, however, were collated at a 30 angle, which did

not match the angle of the nail gun. Therefore, the 10d framing nails used in this research were

purchased locally. The International Staple, Nail and Tool Association (ISANTA) provided the

8d and the 10d common nails except the 10d common short nails, which were provided by Mr.

Ed Diekmann. All nails were coated with a proprietary thermal plastic resin with adhesive

properties.

The bending yield strength of the nails was determined according to ASTM F1575–95 (1995a).

Figure 13 shows the testing apparatus. The apparatus consists of a base and two blocks. The

base has a steel rod that is gripped by the testing machine. The two blocks are attached to the

base by two screws. The base is fitted with a set of holes such that the blocks can be moved

further apart or close together depending on the length of the nail being tested. The blocks have

cylindrical bearing points that allow the sample to rotate freely. A steel rod with an end

cylindrical point is used to apply the load to the specimen. The diameter of the cylindrical

bearing points and cylindrical loading point is 3/8 in. Testing was conducted on an INSTRON

universal testing machine. Figure 14 shows the apparatus in the INSTRON machine. The load

and displacement were measured using the internal machine load cell and displacement

transducer. The INSTRON machine was controlled by the MTS Teststar II software, which has

data acquisition capabilities. Data were recorded at a rate of 20 points per second.

ASTM F1575–95 (1995a) does not specify the number of samples to be tested. Fifteen

replicates, as suggested by ICBO criterion AC95 – Acceptance Criteria for Test Method to

Determine Bending Yield Moment of Nails (1996c), were used to determine the bending yield

strength of the nails. The samples were selected randomly from the nail box.

Figure 15 shows typical test results used to calculate the bending yield strength of a specimen.

The bending yield strength is calculated from the bending yield moment, My, according to

Equation 3:

Introduction | 9

Z

MF

y

yb (3)

where Fyb is the nominal fastener bending yield strength (psi) and Z is the effective plastic

section modulus (in3) for full plastic hinge (for circular, prismatic nails, Z = d

3/6, where d is the

nail diameter). The bending yield moment, My, is calculated according to Equation 4:

4

bp

y

sPM (4)

where P is the yield load determined from the load-displacement curve and sbp is the spacing

between the cylindrical points of the testing apparatus. The yield load corresponds to the load

for the 5 percent diameter displacement offset from the initial stiffness (see Figure 15). The

initial stiffness was determined by fitting a straight line through the initial linear portion of the

load-displacement curve up to the load corresponding to approximately 50 percent of the

maximum load.

Table 10 summarizes the results of the bending yield tests for the nails. ASTM F1575–95

(1995a) does not specify a minimum bending yield strength. According to the NDS (1997a) and

report No. NER-272 from the National Evaluation Service Committee (1997b), however, the

minimum average bending yield strength is 100 ksi for nails with a diameter less than or equal to

0.135 in (3.429 mm) and 90 ksi for nails with a diameter greater than 0.135 in (3.429 mm). As

shown in Table 10, the nails used in this research meet these minimum requirements.

Three wood screw sizes were used in this testing program. Wood screws used were No. 8 (2 in

long by 0.164 in diameter), No. 8 (3 in long by 0.164 in diameter), and No. 10 (3 in long by

0.190 in diameter). The managers of Element 3 – Building Codes & Standards provided 50 No.

8 (2 in long), 20 No. 8 (3 in long), and 50 No. 10 (3 in long) wood screws. These wood screws

were bought at Home Depot and manufactured by Crown Bolt. Because the number of wood

screws was not enough, additional No. 8 (2 in long) and No. 8 (3 in long) wood screws, also

manufactured by Crown Bolt, were purchased at a local Home Depot. All wood screws used in

this research were flathead rolled thread-hardened coated with zinc.

There is no standard for determining the bending yield strength of wood screws. According to

ICBO criterion AC120 – Acceptance Criteria for Wood Screws (1996d), tests must be in

accordance with ICBO criterion AC95 (1996c), which in turn references ASTM F1575-95

(1995a). The procedure outlined in ASTM F1575-95 (1995a), which is for nails, was therefore

used. The major drawback is that ASTM F1575-95 (1995a) does not specify the location along

the length of the wood screw to apply the load, since location along the length is irrelevant for

nails. As shown in Figure 16 there are two possibilities: mid-length, which includes the threads,

or at the transition zone, which is the location of the transition from smooth shank to threaded

shank. A few tests were conducted by applying the load at the transition zone; however, the

calculated bending yield strength was significantly higher than that specified by the NDS

(1997a). All wood screws were, therefore, tested at mid-length because such an approach would

yield slightly more conservative results. No crushing of the threads was observed during testing.


Table 11 summarizes the results of the bending yield tests for the wood screws. ASTM F1575–

95 (1995a) does not specify a minimum bending yield strength. According to the NDS (1997a),

design values for wood screws are based on estimated bending yield strength for common wire

nails of same diameter, which corresponds to a minimum average bending yield strength of 100

ksi for 6g screws; 90 ksi for 7g, 8g, and 9g screws; 80 ksi for 10g and 12g screws; 70 ksi for 14g

and 16g screws; 60 ksi for 18g and 20g screws; and 45 ksi for 24g screws. As shown in Table

11, the wood screws used in this research meet these minimum requirements.

Staples used in this testing program were 16 gage. As specified in NER-272 (1997a), staples

should have a 7/16 in minimum outside dimension crown width. Furthermore, for Group II

wood species the minimum penetration for staples is 1 in (NER-272). The staples used in this

research were 1 3/4 in long and had a 1/2 in outside crown, complying with the minimum

requirements. The staples were purchased locally. Paslode manufactured the staples used in this

research. Staples were coated with a proprietary thermal plastic resin with adhesive properties.

Similar to wood screws, there is no standard for determining the bending yield strength of

staples. ASTM F1575–95 (1995a) allows the bending yield strength of smooth shank nails to be

determined from either finished nails or specimens of drawn wire stock from which the nails

would be manufactured. The bending yield strength of the staples could therefore have been

determined from the wire the staples were manufactured. Because the staples were purchased

locally, wire samples were not available. The bending yield strength of the staples was therefore

not determined.

Introduction | 11

Specimen Assembly

The specimens were assembled using the wooden apparatus shown in Figure 17. The simple

wooden apparatus was constructed to secure the longer cross-section dimension of the wood

member in an upright position while aligning the fastener at the specified edge distance for the

sheathing panel. The fastener was driven in the center of the smaller cross section dimension of

the wood member. Such a procedure allowed for uniformity in constructing the specimens.

A Porter Cable model FR 350 pneumatic framing nailer was used to drive the nails. The nail gun

was set using an adjustable nosepiece to slightly underdrive the nails. The slightly underdriven

nails were set to their proper depth using a hammer for the flush-driven nails. Once a specimen

was assembled, the nail was examined to make sure it was flush with the surface of the sheathing

panel.

The specimens with overdriven or underdriven nails were set to their proper depth using a

hammer and special punches. The punches are shown in Figure 18. The body of a punch is 3/4

in round mild steel. The drive pin is pressed fit into the punch body and protrudes from the end

of the punch the exact length of the final desired overdriven depth. The punches for the

underdriven nails were also constructed of mild steel; however, a hole was milled into the end of

the punch to the desired underdriven depth. The ends of the punches were heat-treated. Using

the same nail gun setting as before, the nails were slightly underdriven. They were then set to

their proper depth using a hammer and the corresponding punch. The specimens with staples were constructed using the same wooden apparatus. The staples

were inserted with the crown parallel to the long dimension of the wood member. ASTM

D1761–88 (1988) specifies that the staple shall be inserted with its crown at a 45 (10) angle

to the grain direction of the wood member. Two geometric restrictions, however, existed that

prevented the staples from being inserted as per ASTM D1761–88 (1988): the width of the wood

member and the edge distance specified for the sheathing panel. The staples were therefore

inserted according to NER-272 (1997b), which specifies that staples attaching diaphragms and

non-diaphragm structural-use panels shall be installed with their crowns parallel to the long

dimension of the wood member, and shall be driven flush with the surface of the sheathing panel.

A Paslode 3200/50 S16 pneumatic stapler was used to drive the staples. The specimens with

staples were assembled using the same procedure as that used to assemble specimens with nails

except that a different set of punches were used. The punches for the staples are shown in

Figure 19.

Measurements taken prior to and following the construction of several specimens indicate that

there was neither shortening of the pins nor increase in the depth of the holes. Nails and staples

overdriven and underdriven by the described method were usually within 1/64 in of the desired

depth. The specimens with wood screws were also assembled using the wooden apparatus. The main

difference is that a lead hole was drilled prior to construction of the specimens. The NDS

(1997a) specifies that for wood with specific gravity less than 0.6, the part of the lead hole


receiving the shank shall be approximately 7/8 the diameter of the shank and that part receiving

the threaded portion shall be 7/8 the diameter of the wood screw at the root of the thread (1997a).

For the No. 8 wood screws, a lead hole of 1/8 in (3.175 mm) diameter was drilled; for the No. 10

wood screws the diameter of the lead hole was 5/32 in (3.969 mm). The same size hole was

drilled through the sheathing panel and into the wood member for the entire length of the wood

screw. Wood screws were driven using a Makita 14 volt cordless drill. The wood screws were

examined to ensure that they were flush with the sheathing panels. Neither overdriven nor

underdriven specimens with wood screws were tested.

Introduction | 13

Testing Setup

Testing for this research initative was conducted on an INSTRON universal testing machine.

The testing machine was controlled by the MTS Teststar II software, which has data acquisition

features. Connector slip was measured by two cable extension linear position transducers

mounted at the base of the testing apparatus. To measure the applied load, a load cell was

installed between the testing machine and the testing apparatus. The testing apparatus used was

specially designed and constructed to handle a large quantities of specimens quickly and easily

without comperming accuracy.

Testing Apparatus

ASTM D1761–88 (1988) details the testing of a single fastener connection. This standard,

however, is used to test the fastener in simple, monotonic shear. There have been several

concerns raised about the prescribed setup. Several testing devices have been proposed to

remedy the various shortcomings, but the proposed devices require significant setup time and

have made the specimen setup very difficult.

A new testing apparatus was designed and constructed for this research (2000). The apparatus is

shown in Figure 20. With the prospect of testing close to one thousand specimens, a simple and

rapidly changeable apparatus was required. The new testing apparatus incorporates the main

properties of the standard testing apparatus and some properties of alternative testing devices.

The principal design modifications were aimed at making the fixture easy to use and more

efficient without sacrificing accuracy.

The main improvement of the apparatus is a new clamping system. A clamping system was

designed and engineered so that the apparatus would firmly secure the specimen and yet would

allow rapid change of specimens. Two clamps secure the specimen in place by clamping down

the wood member as shown in Figure 21(a). Two other clamps are used to secure the sliding

backside of the apparatus. The reason for this sliding backside is that the apparatus can then be

used to test different sheathing panel thickness. Figure 21(b) shows the sliding backside away

from the specimen; Figure 21(c) shows the sliding backside at the final position. Another

clamp, shown in Figure 21(d), is used to firmly grab the sheathing panel.

Although the clamping system allows for rapid change of specimens, there was a potential for

specimen rocking. To minimize the potential for rocking, the plate used to clamp down the

wood member has four corner tabs. These tabs allow specimens with reasonable cupped wood

members to be tested. Extreme amounts of cupping also interfere with the movement of the

sheathing panel. The sheathing panel must move parallel to the face of the wood member. The

cupping shape of the wood member makes it impossible to mount the specimen in the testing

apparatus while maintaining a planar relationship between the sheathing panel and the wood

member. As previously mentioned, specimens with large amounts of cupping were discarded

because they could not be tested. Very few specimens were rejected; thus, it is believed that bias

was not introduced in the testing program.


A more important reason for the four corner tabs is to eliminate a compressive stress state on the

wood member. If a flat plate were used, the clamping force necessary to secure the specimen

firmly in the testing apparatus would also cause compression parallel to grain in the wood

member. This compression could, among other things, restrain the withdrawal of the fastener,

especially during monotonic loading, increase the lateral resistance of the fastener, increase the

stiffness of the connection, and increase the occurrence of fatigue failure.

There was also a potential for slip between the clamp and the sheathing panel. Several testing

apparatuses use bolts to secure the sheathing panel, thus eliminating the slip between the

apparatus and the sheathing panel. These apparatuses, however, are cumbersome, requiring

significant amounts of time during setup. The apparatus used in this research relied on friction

between the clamp and the sheathing panel because the force applied to the sheathing panel

through the clamp was perpendicular to the force applied during testing. To minimize the slip

potential, the clamp was chosen so that a large contact area between the face of the clamp and

the sheathing panel would exist. That measure was sufficient to prevent slip between the clamp

and the sheathing panel.

In addition to the new clamping system, the testing apparatus has the frictionless rolling system

shown in Figure 22. As a specimen is loaded, the sheathing panel must move parallel to the face

of the wood member (in plane) without moving out of plane. The sliding backside of the

apparatus shown in Figures 21(b) and 21(c) prevents any out-of-plane movement, while the

frictionless rolling system allows the sheathing panel to freely move in plane.

Load Cell

For accuracy purposes, the testing apparatus has its own load cell, as shown in Figure 23. The

load cell manufactured by Sensotec, model number 41/0571-07, has a range of plus or minus five

hundred pounds and is accurate to the nearest hundredth of a pound.

Position Transducers

Figure 24 shows the instruments used to measure the fastener slip. Displacements were

measured by linear position transducers mounted at the base of the testing fixture. The

transducers were mounted leveled as closely as possible to the fastener to improve the accuracy

of the measurements. The displacements measured correspond to the slip in the fastener. Two

LX-PA cable extension transducers (string pots) were used. UniMeasure, Inc. manufactured the

transducers, which have a range of 3.8 in, have essentially infinite resolution, and are linear to ±

1 percent of the full range.

Introduction | 15

Testing Machine

Testing was conducted in an INSTRON universal testing machine model 1321. The testing

apparatus including the load cell and string pots were attached to the testing machine as shown in

Figure 25. The INSTRON machine is capable of cycling at 50 Hz and has an axial load capacity

of 20,000 lb. For this research initiative, the load range was set to of 5,000 lb.

The INSTRON machine is outfitted with an internal load cell and a Linear Variable

Displacement Transformer (LVDT) transducer.

Data Acquisition

The MTS Teststar II software, which has data acquisition capabilities, controlled the INSTRON

machine. Data were recorded at a rate of 20 points per second. The following data were

recorded:

Applied displacement. This is the displacement as specified by the loading protocol.

String pots displacement. This is the displacement measured at the fastener location,

which corresponds to the fastener slip. Theoretically, this displacement should be exactly

equal to the applied displacement. Due to elongation of the sheathing panel, slip at the

grips, and relaxation of the specimen, however, there may exist a small difference between

the fastener slip and the applied displacement.

Load from the internal machine load cell. This is the load corresponding to the applied

displacement as measured by the internal load cell.

Load from the loading apparatus load cell. The load cell attached to the loading

apparatus has less signal noise than the internal load cell. Theoretically, load readings

from both load cells should be equal; due to signal noise, however, there may exist a small

difference between the measurements.

The redundancy in the data acquisition procedure was chosen for safeguard reasons.


Loading Protocol

Testing was accomplished using the simplified basic loading history developed in Task 1.3.2 -

Testing Protocol. One of the main reasons for this selection was that this protocol is particularly

useful for the development of analytical models. The loading history is defined by variations in

deformation amplitudes, using the reference deformation as the absolute measure of

deformation amplitude.

The simplified basic loading history is shown in Figure 26. The protocol consists of initiation

cycles and primary cycles. All cycles have identical positive and negative amplitudes. Initiation

cycles are executed at the beginning of the loading history; they serve to check the loading

equipment, measuring devices, and the response at small amplitudes. There are six initiation

cycles with amplitude of 0.05. Seven primary cycles follow with amplitude of 0.075. The

amplitude of the primary cycle is then increased to 0.1, and seven cycles are completed. The

procedure is repeated for amplitudes of primary cycles equal to 0.2 and 0.3, and four cycles

are completed for each one of these amplitudes. Then the procedure is repeated for amplitudes

of primary cycles equal to 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0, each having only three total cycles. After 1.0,

the amplitude is increased by 0.5, each having also three total cycles, i.e., three cycles of 1.5,

three cycles of 2.0. The loading protocol stops after the three cycles of amplitude equal to 3.5

are completed. Deformation control was used throughout the testing.

Determination of the Reference Deformation

The loading history is defined by variations in deformation amplitudes, using the reference

deformation as the absolute measure of deformation amplitude. The reference deformation

is defined as the maximum deformation the test specimen is expected to sustain according to a

prescribed acceptance criterion and assuming that the proposed loading history has been applied

to the test specimen. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate the deformation capacity of the

specimens prior to cyclic testing.

The general guidelines to determine the deformation are as follows:

Conduct a monotonic test, which provides data on the monotonic deformation capacity,

m. This capacity is defined as the deformation at which the applied load drops, for the

first time, below 80 percent of the maximum load that was applied to the specimen.

Figure 27 shows the load-deformation response of a typical monotonic test, including the

maximum load and monotonic deformation capacity.

Use a specific fraction of m as the reference deformation for the cyclic load test. A

value of = 0.6m has been suggested. The reference deformation is also highlighted in

Figure 27.

Table 12 summarizes the values of the reference deformation used for the loading protocol.

Several sizes and types of fasteners and sheathing panels will be tested in this research initiative.

Because the deformation capacity will be determined empirically, a different value for was

Introduction | 17

expected for each different specimen configuration. Mainly for simplicity, a reference

deformation was selected for each loading protocol, depending on the type of fastener used,

i.e., only one value for all specimens assembled with nails. Furthermore, a lower bound value

was selected because of normal variation in material and the desire to test specimens with

weaker configuration than the baseline configuration. For those specimens, a lower bound value

for the reference deformation could yield a full-spectrum load-slip curve, in other words a curve

with post-peak response. A full-spectrum curve was necessary to extract the parameters

necessary for modeling.

Reference Deformation for Nails

Several perpendicular-to-grain specimens were tested using a monotonic loading protocol. The

results of those tests are summarized in Table 13. Two sets of specimens were tested: the first

set had eleven specimens assembled to represent a possible general worst-case scenario. This

was accomplished by offsetting the nail 7/16 in from the center of the smaller cross-sectional

dimension of the wood member, as shown in Figure 28. The offset distance was determined by

offsetting the edge of the sheathing panel 1/16 in from the center of the wood member and at the

same time maintaining the minimum 3/8 in edge distance for the nail. The 1/16 in distance was

determined by assuming a 1/8 in gap between sheathing panels. The other set only had four

specimens and was assembled with the nail driven in the center of the smaller cross-sectional

dimension of the wood member as shown in Figure 29.

The value for as determined from the first set of results was 0.17 in, while the value for as

determined from the second set of results was 0.22 in. The results from several specimens within

the first set were disregarded. The last column in Table 13 briefly describes the reason those

results were not included in the determination of the reference deformation .

Preliminary cyclic tests were also conducted to help establish a reasonable value for the

reference deformation . Six specimens were assembled with the nail offset as described above

and tested using the simplified basic loading protocol with the reference deformation equal to

0.17 in. The load-slip curves of all six specimens are shown in Figure 31. Consideration was

given only to the positive load-and-slip portion of the curves, because this portion of the curve

contains the limiting information needed for modeling purposes. The behavior of specimens No.

2 and 3 was significantly different from the others due to the mode of failure. The wood member

of specimens No. 2 and 3 split, while the other four specimens failed because the nail tore

through the sheathing panel edge. Also, specimen No. 4 failed prematurely, as is evident by the

lack of post-peak response. The load-slip curves of the other three specimens exhibit the desired

behavior for modeling purposes. The curves have full envelopes with considerable post-peak

response.

In addition, three specimens were assembled with the fastener driven in the center of the wood

member. These specimens were also tested using the simplified basic loading protocol. The

reference deformation , however, was equal to 0.20 in. According to the monotonic test results,

the reference deformation should have been 0.22 in. The value 0.20 in was selected for testing

simply because the previous set of tests conducted with equal to 0.17 in resulted in good


overall response, and an increase from 0.17 to 0.20 in was thought to be more reasonable. The

load-slip curves of all three specimens are shown in Figure 32. Consideration was given only to

the positive load-and-slip portion of the curves, because this portion of the curve contains the

limiting information needed for modeling purposes. All three specimens failed because the nail

tore through the sheathing panel edge. Specimen No. 1 failed somewhat prematurely, as is

evident by the lack of post-peak response. The load-slip curves of the other two specimens

exhibit the desired behavior for modeling purposes. The curves have full envelopes with

considerable post peak response.

The reference deformation was selected to be 0.17 in for specimens assembled with nails and

having the load applied perpendicular to the grain of the wood member. The reasons for the

selection are the following:

The load-slip curves did not show significant sensitivity to the different reference

deformation values used. Both values yielded curves with full envelopes and reasonable

post-peak response.

A lower bound was desirable in order to obtain reasonable curves for the different

specimen configurations. Testing will be conducted on many specimens with weaker

configurations than those tested during this preliminary study, which are representative of

the baseline configuration. For the weaker specimens, a higher value for the reference

deformation could cause the specimens to fail prematurely, lacking therefore any post-peak

response. Such an occurrence would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine

the parameters necessary for modeling those specimens.

Several parallel-to-grain specimens were also tested using a monotonic loading protocol. The

results are summarized in Table 14. A set of seven specimens assembled with the nail driven in

the center of the smaller cross-sectional dimension of the wood member was tested. Unlike the

perpendicular-to-grain specimens, no specimen with an offset nail was tested. Because the load

was applied parallel-to-grain, there would not have been any difference in response between a

specimen with offset nail and one with the nail driven in the center of the wood member (see

Figure 30).

The value for as determined from these parallel-to-grain tests was 0.23 in. This value is

similar to the value obtained from the perpendicular-to-grain tests conducted on specimens with

nails driven in the center of the wood member.

Cyclic tests were also conducted for the parallel-to-grain condition. All specimens were

assembled with the nail in the center of the wood member and tested using the simplified basic

loading protocol. A group of six specimens were tested with the reference deformation equal

to 0.17 in, and a group of four specimens were tested with the reference deformation equal to

0.20 in. Simplicity was the main reason for using the same values for the reference deformation

as used to test perpendicular-to-grain specimens. The load-slip curves of the six first

specimens are shown in Figure 33 and for the last four specimens in Figure 34. Consideration

was given only to the positive load-and-slip portion of the curves, because this portion of the

curve contains the limiting information needed for modeling purposes. All specimens, with

exception of specimen No 4 of the first group, failed because the nail tore through the sheathing

Introduction | 19

panel edge. Nail withdrawal was observed for specimen No. 4 of the first group. The load-slip

curves of all specimens exhibit the desired behavior for modeling purposes. The curves have full

envelopes with considerable post-peak response.

The reference deformation was selected also to be 0.17 in for specimens assembled with nails

and having the load applied parallel to the grain of the wood member. The reasons are (a) that

some of the parallel-to-grain specimens were expected to be weaker than those tested in this

preliminary study, and (b) simplicity.

Reference Deformation for Wood Screws

The procedure to establish a reference deformation for the specimens assembled with nails was

followed for specimens assembled with wood screws. The main difference is that only

specimens perpendicular-to-grain and with wood screws inserted in the center of the wood

member were tested (see Figure 29).

Four specimens were tested using a monotonic loading protocol; the results are summarized in

Table 15. The value for as determined from these tests was 0.12 in.

Cyclic tests were also conducted. The specimens were assembled with the wood screw in the

center of the wood member and tested using the simplified basic loading protocol. A group of

three specimens were tested with that reference deformation value. Two other specimens were

tested with the reference deformation equal to 0.17 in. The load-slip curves of the three first

specimens are shown in Figure 35 and for the other two specimens in Figure 36. Consideration

was given only to the positive load-and-slip portion of the curves, because this portion of the

curve contains the limiting information needed for modeling purposes. All specimens

experienced fatigue failure of the wood screw. The sudden drop in load after the peak load is

evidence of this behavior. Although there is a sudden decrease in load after the peak load, the

load-slip curves of all specimens still exhibited some post-peak response and therefore the

desired behavior for modeling purposes.

Thus, the reference deformation was selected to be 0.12 in for specimens assembled with wood

screws. This reference deformation will be used regardless of the loading direction.


Reference Deformation for Staples

The procedure previously used to establish a reference deformation for the specimens assembled

with nails and wood screws was also followed for specimens assembled with staples. Only

specimens with staples inserted in the center of the wood member were considered (see Figure

29).

Staples are thought to be similar to nails. In fact, loads for staples can be reasonably taken to be

equal to twice the value for a nail with a shank diameter equal to that of one leg of the staple,

provided that the crown width is adequate and that the penetration of both legs of the staple into

the wood member is approximately two-thirds of the length (1994, 1995b). Thus, very few

staple specimens were considered in this preliminary study.

Two specimens were tested using a monotonic loading protocol; the results are summarized in

Table 16. These specimens were loaded perpendicular-to-grain. The value for as determined

from these tests was 0.30 in, a value significantly larger than the one obtained from tests

conducted on specimens with nails. The staple did not tear through the edge of the sheathing

panel, as was the case with the specimens assembled with nails. Furthermore, as slip increased

the peak load remained essentially constant as the staple slowly withdrew from the wood

member. Slip was notably large before the load dropped, for the first time, below 80 percent of

the peak load. Consequently, the reference deformation was therefore significantly large and

even unrealistic.

Cyclic tests were conducted using a more realistic value for the reference deformation . Two

values were studied: 0.17 in and 0.20 in. The specimens were assembled with the staple in the

center of the wood member and tested using the simplified basic loading protocol. Two

specimens were tested with the load applied perpendicular-to-grain: one with a reference

deformation equal to 0.17 in and another with a reference deformation equal to 0.20 in. A third

specimen was tested with the load applied parallel-to-grain and with a reference deformation

equal to 0.17 in. The load-slip curves for those specimens are shown in Figures 37, 38, and 39,

respectively. Consideration was given only to the positive load and positive slip portion of the

curves, because this portion of the curve contains the limiting information needed for modeling

purposes. All three specimens experienced fatigue failure of the staple. The sudden drop in load

after the peak load is evidence of this behavior. It is expected that most of the specimens

assembled with staples will fail in a similar matter. Although there is a sudden decrease in load

because of the failure mode of the staple specimens, some post-peak response is still evident, and

the parameters necessary for modeling can be extracted.

The reference deformation was therefore selected to be 0.20 in for specimens assembled with

staples. This value was deemed to be appropriate and will be used regardless of the loading

direction.

Introduction | 21

Loading Rate

The frequency selected for testing all coupons was 0.5 Hz. The testing protocol does not have

any specific recommendation on loading rate; however, reference is made to ISO, which

recommends a displacement rate between 0.1 and 10 mm/sec. The loading frequency used was

converted to loading rate using a simple conversion factor. Figures 40(a), 40(b), and 40(c)

show the loading rate for the entire loading history for the three reference deformations used in

this testing program, respectively: 0.12 in for the wood screws, 0.17 in for the nails, and 0.20 in

for the staples. Because the loading frequency was constant throughout the entire loading

history, the loading rate varied throughout the loading history.


Preliminary Studies

Several preliminary investigations were conducted prior to testing the complete set of specimens.

These investigations involved the following variables:

The recommended loading histories that may represent the seismic demands imposed

on the connection due to ordinary ground motion.

The friction between the specimen and the testing fixture.

Loading History

This study involved testing several specimens using the basic and the simplified basic loading

histories. The simplified basic loading history is a potentially simplified alternative to the basic

loading history. Both loading histories are defined by variations in deformation amplitudes,

using the reference deformation as the absolute measure of deformation amplitude.

The basic loading protocol consists of initiation cycles, primary cycles, and trailing cycles. All

cycles have identical positive and negative amplitudes. Initiation cycles are executed at the

beginning of the loading history. A primary cycle is a cycle that is larger than all of the

preceding cycles and is followed by smaller cycles, which are called trailing cycles. All trailing

cycles have amplitudes equal to 75 percent of the amplitude of the preceding primary cycle.

The simplified basic loading history is similar to the basic loading history except that the trailing

cycles of the basic loading history are replaced by cycles of amplitude equal to that of the

preceding primary cycle. Thus, in the simplified basic loading history, cycles of equal amplitude

are being executed at each step.

Seven specimens were tested using the basic loading history; six specimens were tested using the

simplified basic loading history. Both loading histories used a reference deformation equal to

0.17 in. All specimens were assembled perpendicular-to-grain with the nail driven in the center

of the smaller cross-section dimension of the wood member (see Figure 29). The load-slip

curves for the specimens tested using the basic loading protocol are shown in Figure 41; the

load-slip curves for the specimens tested using the simplified basic loading protocol are shown in

Figure 42. Consideration was given only to the positive load and positive slip portion of the

curves, because this portion of the curve contains the limiting information needed for modeling

purposes. All specimens failed because the nail tore through the sheathing panel edge.

Both loading histories were developed with an emphasis on performance evaluation. Emphasis

was placed on a conservative but realist simulation of cycles that contribute significantly to

damage at the 10/50 hazard level, as well as on adequate simulation of potentially damaging

cycles at hazards levels associated with higher performance levels. Both considerations make

the basic loading history more complicated because they require the distinction between primary

and trailing cycles as well as the execution of a large number of relatively small cycles. In

contrast, the simplified basic loading history makes no distinction between primary and trailing

cycles. This simplification facilitates the execution of the test as well as the interpretation of the

Introduction | 23

results; however, it may overestimate the extent of damage, particularly for large amplitude

cycles.

A qualitative comparison between the load-slip curves of the specimens tested illustrates the

intent of the loading history. The specimens tested using the basic loading history have on

average a slightly greater load-slip curve envelope and are able to sustain slightly more

deformation. In contrast, the specimens tested using the simplified basic loading history have on

average load-slip curves that exhibit slightly earlier failure and slightly less capacity.

Nevertheless, there is no significant difference between the responses of the specimens tested

using the two loading protocols.

Similar results were found from a quantitative comparison between the load-slip curves of the

specimens tested. The results, shown in Tables 17 and 18, are compared on an average basis.

The initial stiffness and maximum load for the simplified basic loading history connection type

were 9 and 17 percent lower, respectively, than that of the basic loading history connection type.

The slip at maximum load had also decreased by 18 percent from the basic loading history

connection type to the simplified basic loading history connection type. In addition, the

simplified basic loading history connection type absorbed 6 percent less total energy than the

basic loading history connection type. These results confirm the qualitative comparison that was

preformed and also show that there is no significant difference between the two loading

protocols.

The simplified basic loading protocol is particularly useful for the development of analytical

models. The extraction of the database parameters from load-slip curves obtained from

simplified basic loading history tests will be significantly simpler without compromising the

results. Thus, the simplified basic loading protocol was selected for this research initiative.

Friction

This study was conducted to determine the magnitude of the friction within the testing setup. As

shown in Figure 43, two main sources of friction exist within the testing system: the sheathing

panel rubbing against the rollers of the testing apparatus, and the rollers rubbing against the rest

of the testing apparatus. The following precedure was used to quantify the overall friction within

the setup:

A test was conducted without any specimen but with the testing apparatus mounted on

the INSTRON testing machine (Condition No. 1). Figure 44(a) shows the test setup for

this condition. The data recorded represents the signal noise of the testing machine.

A test was conducted with a piece of sheathing panel clamped on the top part of the

testing apparatus and pressed as tightly as possible against the rollers of the testing

apparatus (Condition No. 2). Figure 44(b) shows the test setup for this condition. This

condition represents a worst-case scenario because in an actual test setup, the sliding

backside of the testing apparatus will not be pressed against the sheathing panel.

Although the sliding of the backside of the apparatus is a manual procedure, the operator

must be careful not to cram the backside against the sheathing panel. Furthermore, the


sliding backside is fitted with a frictionless rolling system that should allow the sheathing

panel to move freely. The results of this test give the friction between the sheathing

panel and the testing apparatus, combined with the friction between the frictionless

rollers and the rest of the testing apparatus.

The final test was conducted with a full specimen (Condition No. 3). Figure 44(c) shows

the test setup for this condition, which represents actual testing conditions.

To obtain the correct force applied to a specimen, the force measured during the sheathing panel

test must be subtracted from the force measured during the final test.

Several tests were conducted using Conditions No. 1 through No. 3. The measured load-slip

curves for Conditions No. 1 are shown in Figure 45(a). These results indicate that the signal

noise in the load cell is approximately 1.0 lb. This value corresponds to approximately 1 percent

of the load cell range. The measured load-slip curves for Condition No. 2 are shown in Figure

45(b). These results show that the combined friction between the sheathing panel and the rollers

and between the rollers and the rest of the testing apparatus is less than 1.5 lb. In fact, it is

difficult to distinguish between the friction within the testing setup and the signal noise of the

load cell. Figure 42 shows the measured load-slip curve for condition No. 3. As shown in these

curves, measured load values for actual tests are in the neighborhood of 200 lb. The signal noise,

as well as the load value corresponding to the friction within the system, accounts for about 1

percent of the measured load in an actual set up. Thus the friction within the system can be

neglected, for all practical purposes.

Introduction | 25

Simple Analysis

The objective of this research initiative doesn’t include analysis of the data. A comprehensive

analysis of the data is being conducted as a separate research program. A study of the response

of connection types No. 03 and No. 47 (see Table 1) is included in this report as an example of

the analysis being conducted.

Figure 46 and Figure 47 show the load-slip curves for all specimens of connection types No. 03

and No. 47, respectively. Connection type No. 03 was assembled with 3/8 in OSB, Douglas-Fir

Larch green wood member, flush-driven 8d cooler nails, and 3/8 in edge distance. Connection

type No. 47 was assembled with the same materials, except that 8d common nails were used.

Both sets were tested after the wood member reached a dry condition. Loading was applied

perpendicular to the grain of the wood member.

Tables 19 and 20 summarize the material properties and the results for each specimen within

both sets. Results are given in terms of initial stiffness, maximum load, and slip at maximum

load.

Results are compared on an average basis. The initial stiffness and maximum load for

connection type No. 47 are approximately 23 and 6 percent greater, respectively, than those for

connection type No. 03. The slip at maximum load, however, is 17 percent greater for

connection type No. 03 than that of connection type No. 47. Thus, on average, connection type

No. 47 is stiffer, has greater strength capacity, but has slightly less slip capacity. These results

are very typical in the sense that an increase in initial stiffness and strength capacity are usually

followed by a decrease in slip capacity.

Figure 48 shows the average values for initial stiffness, maximum load, and slip at maximum

load for both connection types. Also plotted are the standard deviations, which are significantly

high. In fact, there is an overlap of almost plus or minus one standard deviation for the averages.

For example, the average initial stiffness minus one standard deviation for connection type No.

47 is approximately the same value as the average initial stiffness for connection type No. 03.

Similarly, the average initial stiffness plus one standard deviation for connection type No. 03 is

approximately the same value as the average initial stiffness for connection type No. 47.

These results, therefore, show that connector type No. 47 is stiffer and has greater strength

capacity but has less slip capacity than connector type No. 03.


Data Reduction and Viewer

The objective of this testing program was to establish a parameter database for sheathing-to-

wood connections tested in lateral bearing under fully reversed cyclic loading. The parameters

are necessary for modeling purposes. The parameter database will eventually be integrated into

the 3-Dimensional Seismic Analysis Software for Woodframe Construction developed in Task

1.5.1 - Analysis Software.

As discussed in this report, several sheathing-to-wood connections were tested. The test results

were summarized as load-slip curves. For each connection type, a group of ten specimens was

tested. The database comprised a set of ten parameters for each connection type. Two of the

parameters were maintained constant; the rest were extracted from the load-slip curve of each

specimen and averaged for the ten specimens of each group. The parameters are defined below

and shown graphically in Figure 49.

1. Ko – Initial stiffness

2. δu – Slip corresponding to maximum load Fu

3. r1 – Secondary stiffness divided by Ko

4. F1 – The load corresponding to the y intercept of the line with slope r1Ko

5. r2 – Degradation stiffness divided by Ko

6. r3 – Unloading stiffness divided by Ko

7. r4 – Pinching stiffness divided by Ko

8. FI – The load corresponding to the y intercept of the line with slope r4Ko

9. α – Stiffness degradation factor

10. β – Strength degradation factor.

The first five parameters, Ko, δu, r1, F1, and r2, establish the envelope response of a connector

subjected to monotonic loading. The representation of the envelope response by these

parameters captures crushing of the wood member and sheathing panel and the yielding of the

connector. The other five parameters, r3, r4, FI, α, and β, define the hysteretic part of the

connector response to general cyclic loading.

The parameters were extracted from the positive quadrant (where positive load and positive slip

are plotted) of the load-slip curve. As a specimen is cyclically loaded, depending on the

direction of the loading, the connector will either tear through the edge of the sheathing panel or

bear against the sheathing panel, which would cause the connector to withdraw from the wood

member. There is, therefore, a noticeable difference between the positive quadrant and the

negative quadrant (where negative load and negative slip are plotted) of a load-slip curve.

Plotted in the positive quadrant is the ―tearing data‖, while plotted in the negative quadrant is the

―bearing data‖. Because the ―tearing data‖ usually cause the failure of the specimen; those data

appear to represent more realistically what a sheathing-to-wood connection will actually

experience.

A simple program was written to extract the parameters from the load-slip curves. A significant

number of curves were generated from the testing program. Thus it became necessary to

Introduction | 27

automate the extraction procedure. The program simply reads a data file and extracts the

parameters. The extraction procedure is outlined below:

Two cable extension transducers were used to measure the slip of the connector. The

average of the two measurements is calculated, and the initial slip is subtracted from the

measured slip.

The data are separated into primary and secondary loops. Primary loops are those

generated from the first loading to a given applied displacement level. Secondary loops

are generated from all the subsequent cycles to that same applied displacement level.

The maximum load, Fu, and its corresponding slip, δu, are extracted.

The initial stiffness, Ko, is determined by using the ascending branch of the first

primary loop of the data. Figure 50 shows the part of a typical load-slip curve used to

determine the initial stiffness. The data used in determining the initial stiffness are

bracketed between two percentage values of the maximum load. For example, if the

maximum load is 200 lb, the lower bound is 10 percent, and the upper bound is 40 percent,

the data between 20 and 80 lb would then be used to determine the initial stiffness for the

curve. A lower bound was necessary to avoid data in the range of the signal noise while

the upper bound was necessary to avoid the nonlinear part of the curve. Once the data

were bracketed, the initial stiffness was determined using a least squares fit to the data.

The parameter r1 and the load corresponding to the y intercept of the line with slope

r1Ko, F1 are also determined by using the ascending branch of the primary loop of the data.

Figure 51 shows the part of a typical load-slip curve used to determine both parameters.

The data to be used in determining a ―secondary‖ stiffness are bracketed between the

maximum load and a percentage value of that load. For example, if the maximum load is

200 lb and the lower bound is 60 percent, the data between 120 and 200 lb would be used

to determine the ―secondary‖ stiffness for the load-slip curve. Once the data were

bracketed, a least squares fit was used to fit a line through the data. The parameter r1 is

then determined by dividing the slope of the line by Ko. The parameter F1 corresponds to

the y intercept of that line.

The parameter r2 is determined using a similar procedure to that used to determine the

parameter r1, except that the data used are the descending branch of the envelope curve

(after the maximum load has been reached). The primary loops of the data are also used to

determine r2. Figure 52 shows the part of a typical load-slip curve used to determine

parameter r2. The data to be used in determining the descending stiffness of the envelope

curve are bracketed between the maximum load and a percentage value of that load.

Descending stiffness was the stiffness of the envelope curve past the maximum load. For

example, if the maximum load is 200 lb and the lower bound is 60 percent, the data

between 200 and 120 lb would be used to determine the descending stiffness for the load-

slip curve. Once the data were bracketed, a least squares fit was used to fit a line through

the data. The parameter r2 is then determined by dividing the slope of the line by Ko.

The parameter r3 is determined using a similar procedure to that used to determine

parameters r1 and r2. The primary and secondary loops are used to determine r3. Figure

53 shows the part of a typical load-slip curve used to determine parameter r3. The data to

be used in determining the unloading stiffness are bracketed along the load axis and along


the slip axis. Along the load axis the data are bracketed between the maximum load and a

percentage value of that load. Along the slip axis the data are bracketed between a certain

number of cycles prior to reaching the maximum load and a certain number of cycles after

the maximum load is reached. For example, if the maximum load is 200 lb and the lower

bound is 50 percent, the data would be bracketed along the load axis between 100 and 200

lb. By considering four cycles before and one cycle after the maximum load is reached,

the data would be bracketed along the slip axis between those cycles. For each cycle

bracketed, a least-squares fit was used to fit a line through the data. The total number of

lines will depend on the number of cycles considered. An average line was then

determined. The parameter r3 was then determined by dividing the slope of the average

line by Ko.

The parameter r4 and the load corresponding to the y intercept of the line with slope

r4Ko, FI are determined by using the pinched part of the load-slip curve. Figure 54 shows

the part of a typical load-slip curve used to determine both parameters. Significant

pinching is generally noticeable on a few cycles prior to the reaching of the maximum load

and continues a few cycles prior to failure of the specimen. The data to determine the

pinching stiffness are bracketed along both axes. Along the load axis the data are

bracketed by choosing the number of cycles prior to the reaching of the maximum load.

Along the slip axis, the data are bracketed by selecting a percentage value of the slip

corresponding to the maximum load. The percentage value corresponds to an upper bound

to limit the selection to the linear part of the pinching. The percentage value is used in

both slip directions. For example, if the slip corresponding to the maximum load is 0.2 in

and the upper bound is 20 percent, the data would be bracketed along the slip axis between

–0.04 and +0.04 in. By considering two cycles before and two cycles after the maximum

load is reached, the data would be bracketed along the load axis between those cycles. For

each cycle bracketed, there will be a set of data for positive load and a set of data for

negative load. A least-squares fit is then used to fit a line through the data. The total

number of lines will depend on the number of cycles considered. An average line is then

determined. The parameter r4 is then determined by dividing the slope of the average line

by Ko. The parameter FI corresponds to the y intercept of the average line.

Stiffness and Strength Degradation Parameters

The stiffness degradation parameter influences the stiffness of secondary loops, while the

strength degradation parameter influences the maximum load secondary loops reach.

A simple study was conducted to determine the sensitivity of the overall response of a sheathing-

to-wood connection to these two parameters. The measured load-slip curve was compared to the

load-slip curve generated using the extracted parameters. The study was conducted by setting all

parameters constant, except α or β. Then, either α or β was also maintained constant while the

other parameter was varied by small increments. Figure 55 shows the result of one of the case

studies. For the case shown, β was set equal to 1.1, and α varied from 0.4 to 0.8 in 0.1

increments. The various curves in Figure 55 show that the load-slip response of a specimen is

not sensitive to small changes in α. In fact, the study shows that the load-slip response is not

sensitive to changes in the values of α and β. Reasonable values for α and β were around 0.6 and

1.1, respectively.

Introduction | 29

In this research, the stiffness degradation parameter, α, was set equal to 0.6, and the strength

degradation parameter, β, was set equal to 1.1.

Load-Slip Curves

A typical load-slip curve for each fastener type was generated using the parameters from their

specific load-slip curve. The measured and calculated curves for the typical perpendicular-to-

grain specimens fastened with a nail, wood screw, and staple are shown in figures 56, 57, and

58, respectively. There is very good agreement between the positive quadrant data of the actual

and calculated curves. The agreement is not so good in the negative quadrant because the data

shown for the computed curve were generated using the parameters extracted from the actual

positive quadrant data. The load-slip curve generated using the parameters will, therefore,

always be symmetric.

A set of ten parameters was extracted for each type of sheathing-to-wood connection. In order to

establish a curve for each connection type, the parameters for the ten tests conducted per group

were averaged. Figure 59 shows the measured load-slip curve and the load-slip curve generated

using the averaged parameters for that specific connection for a typical sheathing-to-wood

connection assembled with a nail perpendicular to the grain of the wood member. As seen in

Figure 59 the agreement between the measured curve and the average generated load-slip curve

is not very good. The reason is simply because the average curve cannot represent accurately an

individual measured curve.

Data Viewer

A data viewer was designed to present the ten parameters from each type of sheathing-to-wood

connection tested in this research initiative. Also included is the set of parameters for each

individual specimen. The data viewer also provided a way to easily link the parameters, the

actual data, and a picture of each specimen. The picture shows the specimen after testing. The

mode of failure of each specimen is also presented.

Another feature of the data viewer is a comparison of the theoretical strength values with the

actual values observed from testing. The theoretical values were obtained by using the NDS

yield mode calculations for a monotonically pulled connection. These values should indicate the

maximum load that the connection can be expected to resist and the initial yield mode of the

connection. The initial yield mode was not easily observed in the cyclic testing, but overall

calculated strength values correlated well with the measured values.

The data viewer was designed and constructed in a spreadsheet. A copy of the data viewer will

be made available from CUREE on a CD-ROM.

This page left intentionally blank.

Introduction | 31

References

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1988. ―Standard Test Methods for

Mechanical Fasteners in Wood,‖ ASTM D1761–88, Annual Book of Standard, ASTM,

Philadelphia, P.A.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. ―Standard Test Methods for Direct

Moisture Content of Wood and Wood-Base Materials,‖ ASTM D4442–92, Annual Book of

Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, P.A. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993. ―Standard Test Methods for Specific

Gravity of Wood and Wood-Base Materials,‖ ASTM D2395–93, Annual Book of Standard,

ASTM, Philadelphia, P.A. American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC). 1994. Timber Construction Manual, 4th ed.,

AITC, Englewood, CO. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1995a. ―Standard Test Method for

Determining Bending Yield Moment of Nails,‖ ASTM F1575–95, Annual Book of

Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, P.A. Faherty, Keith F., and Williamson, Thomas G. (eds.). 1995b. Wood Engineering and

Construction Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New Your, NY.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1996a. ―Standard Test Methods for

Evaluating Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials,‖ ASTM D1037–

96a, Annual Book of Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, P.A. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1996b. ―Standard Test Methods for

Mechanical Properties of Lumber and Wood-Base Materials,‖ ASTM D4761–96, Annual

Book of Standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, P.A. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). 1996c. Acceptance Criteria for Test

Method to Determine Bending Yield Moment of Nails, AC95. ICBO, Whittier, CA. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). 1996d. Acceptance Criteria for Wood

Screws, AC120. ICBO, Whittier, CA. American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). 1997a. National Design Specification for

Wood Construction and Supplement. 1997 ed., AF&PA, Washington, DC. National Evaluation Service Committee. 1997b. ―Power-Driven Staples and Nails for Use in All

Types of Building Construction,‖ Report No. NER-272, Council of American Building

Officials (Available from ISANTA, Chicago, IL). Rabe, Justin A. and Fonseca, Fernando S. 2000. ―The effect of Over-Driven Nails Heads on

Single Shear Connections with Oriented Strand Board Sheathing,‖ Technical Report No.

CES-00-04, Brigham Young University, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Provo, UT.

Tables | 33

Tables


Table 1: Test Matrix

Test Test Sheathing Wood Moisture Fastener Edge Loading

No. Variable Name Member Condition Type Distance Direction Samples

01 Control 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

02 Control 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

03 Task 1.1.1 3/8 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

04 Task 1.1.1 3/8 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

05 Task 1.1.1 7/16 OSB mfg 1 DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

06 Task 1.1.1 7/16 OSB mfg 1 DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

07 Task 1.1.1 19/32 OSB T&G DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

08 Task 1.1.1 19/32 OSB T&G DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

09 OSB Density 3/8 OSB mfg 1 DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

10 OSB Density 3/8 OSB mfg 1 DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10







Over-

driven

Depth

Tables | 35

Table 1 (Cont.): Test Matrix



17 Panel 15/32 PLY std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

18 Panel 15/32 PLY std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

19 Panel 2 Layers 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

20 Panel 2 Layers 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

21 Panel 2 Layers 19/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

22 Panel 2 Layers 19/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

23 Wood Member 7/16 OSB std PT HF Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

24 Wood Member 7/16 OSB std PT HF Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

25 Moisture Condition 7/16 OSB std DF-L Dry / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

26 Moisture Condition 7/16 OSB std DF-L Dry / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

27 Nail Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" -1/16 Perp 10

28 Nail Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" -1/16 Para 10

29 Nail Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" +1/16 Perp 10

30 Nail Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/8" +1/16 Para 10



Over-

driven

Depth







35 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail L1 3/8" 0 Perp 10

36 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail L1 3/8" 0 Para 10

37 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail L2 3/8" 0 Perp 10

38 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail L2 3/8" 0 Para 10

39 Fastener Common 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

40 Fastener Common 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10









Over-

driven

Depth

Tables | 37




51 Fastener Size 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

52 Fastener Size 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

53 Fastener Size 19/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Perp 10

54 Fastener Size 19/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Framing Nail 3/8" 0 Para 10

55 Fastener Staple 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" 0 Perp 10

56 Fastener Staple 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" 0 Para 10

57 Fastener Staple 15/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" 0 Perp 10

58 Fastener Staple 15/32 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" 0 Para 10

63 Staple Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" -1/16 Perp 10

64 Staple Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" -1/16 Para 10

65 Staple Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" +1/16 Perp 10

66 Staple Overdrive 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 16ga. Staple 3/8" +1/16 Para 10





Over-

driven

Depth





81 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #8 Rolled-Hardened L1 3/8" 0 Perp 10

82 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #8 Rolled-Hardened L1 3/8" 0 Para 10

83 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #10 Rolled Hardened 3/8" 0 Perp 10

84 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #10 Rolled Hardened 3/8" 0 Para 10

85 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 1/4" 0 Perp 10

86 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 1/4' 0 Para 10


88 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 3/16" 0 Para 10


90 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 1/8" 0 Para 10

91 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail L1 3/8" 0 Perp 10

92 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail L1 3/8" 0 Para 10

93 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail L2 3/8" 0 Perp 10

94 Limited Penetration 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Common Nail L2 3/8" 0 Para 10

95 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #8 Rolled-Hardened L2 3/8" 0 Perp 10

96 Fastener Screw 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry #8 Rolled-Hardened L2 3/8" 0 Para 10

Over-

driven

Depth

Tables | 39




97 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail + 2" 0 Perp 10

98 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail + 2" 0 Para 10

99 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 2" 0 Perp 10

100 Edge Distance 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 8d Cooler Nail 2" 0 Para 10

101 10d short Normal 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Common Short 3/8" 0 Perp 10

102 10d short Normal 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Common Short 3/8" 0 Para 10

103 10d short Flat 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Common Short 3/8" 0 Perp 10

104 10d short Flat 7/16 OSB std DF-L Wet / Dry 10d Common Short 3/8" 0 Para 10

Over-

driven

Depth


Table 2: Sheathing Panel Manufacturers

Name Thickness (in) Type1 Manufacturer

Ainsworth

Louisiana Pacific

Slocan Group

Ainsworth

Slocan Group

15/32 OSB 15/32 OSB Louisiana Pacific

Boise Cascade

Louisiana Pacific

Tolko Industries

Weyerhaeuser

15/32 PLY 15/32 Plywood Unknown

1 OSB stands for Oriented Strand Board

Sheathing

3/8 OSB 3/8 OSB

7/16 OSB 7/16 OSB

19/32 OSB 19/32 OSB

Tables | 41

Table 3: Density of the Oriented Strand Board Sheathing Panels

Sheathing Sample Initial Final Moisture Volume Density

Name Number Weight (g) Weight (g) Content (in3) sp gr

1 (pcf)

01 72.04 69.59 3.5% 7.09 0.60 37.3

02 69.19 67.06 3.2% 6.88 0.59 37.1

03 77.11 74.73 3.2% 6.91 0.66 41.1

Average 3.3% 0.62 38.5

01 66.73 63.98 4.3% 6.59 0.59 36.9

02 70.99 68.04 4.3% 6.69 0.62 38.7

03 72.75 69.66 4.4% 6.69 0.63 39.6

Average 4.4% 0.62 38.4

01 71.28 69.28 2.9% 6.85 0.62 38.5

02 71.67 69.60 3.0% 6.90 0.61 38.4

03 73.31 71.19 3.0% 6.98 0.62 38.8

Average 2.9% 0.62 38.6

01 84.17 81.86 2.8% 7.88 0.63 39.5

02 81.35 78.62 3.5% 7.93 0.60 37.7

03 81.76 78.85 3.7% 7.97 0.60 37.7

Average 3.3% 0.61 38.3

01 83.00 79.85 3.9% 8.02 0.61 37.9

02 82.50 79.43 3.9% 7.86 0.62 38.5

03 83.31 80.28 3.8% 7.89 0.62 38.7

Average 3.9% 0.61 38.4

01 99.89 95.07 5.1% 8.84 0.66 40.9

02 96.25 91.60 5.1% 8.70 0.64 40.1

03 97.87 93.18 5.0% 8.72 0.65 40.7

Average 5.1% 0.65 40.6

1 sp gr stands for specific gravity

15/32 OSB

std

3/8 OSB

std

3/8 OSB

mfg 1

3/8 OSB

mfg 2

7/16 OSB

std

7/16 OSB

mfg 1


Table 3 (Cont.): Density of the Oriented Strand Board Sheathing Panels

Panel Sample Initial Final Moisture Volume Density

Type Number Weight (g) Weight (g) Content (in3) sp gr

1 (pcf)

01 128.32 122.98 4.3% 10.85 0.69 43.1

02 106.55 102.46 4.0% 10.52 0.59 37.1

03 100.83 97.15 3.8% 10.62 0.56 34.8

Average 4.0% 0.61 38.3

01 108.21 103.86 4.2% 10.13 0.63 39.0

02 110.32 105.64 4.4% 10.27 0.63 39.1

03 103.04 98.84 4.2% 10.19 0.59 36.9

Average 4.3% 0.61 38.4

01 111.08 107.00 3.8% 10.37 0.63 39.3

02 107.02 103.29 3.6% 10.35 0.61 38.0

03 110.88 107.02 3.6% 10.37 0.63 39.3

Average 3.7% 0.62 38.9

01 110.21 106.11 3.9% 10.55 0.61 38.3

02 109.41 105.50 3.7% 10.68 0.60 37.6

03 108.68 104.95 3.6% 10.64 0.60 37.6

Average 3.7% 0.61 37.8

01 69.54 65.99 5.4% 7.77 0.52 32.3

02 71.79 68.04 5.5% 7.84 0.53 33.0

03 66.81 63.41 5.4% 7.83 0.49 30.8

Average 5.4% 0.51 32.11 sp gr stands for specific gravity

19/32 OSB

std

19/32 OSB

T & G

15/32 PLY

std

19/32 OSB

mfg 2

19/32 OSB

mfg 1

Tables | 43

Table 4: Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly

Board Moisture Board Moisture

Number Date Content Comments Number Date Content Comments

001 28-Jun-00 44.0% 026 19-Oct-00 29.3%

002 20-Jun-00 26.3% 027 19-Oct-00 37.8%

003 20-Jun-00 26.2% 028 19-Oct-00 49.1%

004 20-Jun-00 31.5% 029 30-Oct-00 26.8%

005 23-Jun-00 37.5% 030 30-Oct-00 26.8%

006 20-Jun-00 36.6% 031 30-Oct-00 22.5%

007 20-Jun-00 29.2% 032 30-Oct-00 24.0%

008 20-Jun-00 30.4% 033 30-Oct-00 26.7%

009 20-Jun-00 28.4% 034 30-Oct-00 24.2%

010 31-Jul-00 27.5% 035 30-Oct-00 34.5%

011 - - Not Used 036 30-Oct-00 18.7% Too Dry

012 31-Jul-00 38.0% 037 30-Oct-00 18.8% Too Dry

013 31-Jul-00 32.7% 038 13-Nov-00 28.9%

014 31-Jul-00 28.8% 039 13-Nov-00 27.8%

015 1-Aug-00 27.0% 040 15-Nov-00 44.8%

016 1-Aug-00 24.4% 041 15-Nov-00 27.7%

017 1-Aug-00 29.9% 042 17-Nov-00 44.2%

018 1-Aug-00 40.1% 043 15-Nov-00 47.3%

019 1-Aug-00 26.8% 044 - - Not Used

020 1-Aug-00 27.0% 045 17-Nov-00 27.3%

021 1-Aug-00 26.6% 046 17-Nov-00 27.6%

022 2-Oct-00 27.2% 047 17-Nov-00 35.9%

023 2-Oct-00 25.4% 048 17-Nov-00 8.0% Dry Sample

024 2-Oct-00 28.0% 049 18-Nov-00 29.8%

025 19-Oct-00 28.3% 050 18-Nov-00 31.4%


Table 4 (Cont.): Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly



051 18-Nov-00 32.3% 066 - - Not Used

052 18-Nov-00 28.2% 067 9-Dec-00 26.8%

053 29-Nov-00 26.0% 068 - - Not Used

054 29-Nov-00 26.7% 069 - - Not Used

055 29-Nov-00 28.2% 070 8-May-01 36.3%

056 29-Nov-00 29.4% 071 8-May-01 25.9%

057 9-Dec-00 25.5% 072 21-May-01 33.1%

058 9-Dec-00 49.9%

059 9-Dec-00 24.7%

060 9-Dec-00 30.7%

061 9-Dec-00 42.9%

062 9-Dec-00 48.1%

063 9-Dec-00 39.5%

064 9-Dec-00 29.3%

065 9-Dec-00 26.6%

Tables | 45

Table 5: Lumber Moisture Content at Testing

Sample Moisture Sample Moisture Sample Moisture Sample Moisture

Number Content Number Content Number Content Number Content

01-01 < 6.0% 03-06 6.8% 06-01 6.6% 08-06 6.4%

01-02 < 6.0% 03-07 6.7% 06-02 7.7% 08-07 7.8%

01-03 < 6.0% 03-08 7.4% 06-03 7.0% 08-08 6.6%

01-04 6.1% 03-09 8.0% 06-04 11.3% 08-09 8.8%

01-05 < 6.0% 03-10 6.5% 06-05 7.6% 08-10 7.1%

01-06 < 6.0% 04-01 6.5% 06-06 8.0% 09-01 7.1%

01-07 6.2% 04-02 6.7% 06-07 10.2% 09-02 6.8%

01-08 < 6.0% 04-03 6.8% 06-08 7.8% 09-03 6.4%

01-09 6.2% 04-04 6.4% 06-09 11.1% 09-04 6.5%

01-10 6.4% 04-05 7.6% 06-10 11.2% 09-05 6.8%

02-01 6.1% 04-06 6.2% 07-01 7.0% 09-06 7.9%

02-02 < 6.0% 04-07 6.5% 07-02 6.9% 09-07 6.8%

02-03 6.3% 04-08 < 6.0% 07-03 6.2% 09-08 6.8%

02-04 < 6.0% 04-09 6.3% 07-04 7.1% 09-09 7.4%

02-05 < 6.0% 04-10 6.6% 07-05 7.7% 09-10 7.8%

02-06 < 6.0% 05-01 < 6.0% 07-06 7.2% 10-01 7.5%

02-07 < 6.0% 05-02 7.8% 07-07 6.9% 10-02 6.6%

02-08 6.5% 05-03 7.1% 07-08 7.1% 10-03 7.5%

02-09 < 6.0% 05-04 6.9% 07-09 8.0% 10-04 7.1%

02-10 6.4% 05-05 6.2% 07-10 < 6.0% 10-05 6.8%

03-01 7.1% 05-06 < 6.0% 08-01 6.7% 10-06 7.2%

03-02 7.2% 05-07 6.6% 08-02 7.2% 10-07 7.3%

03-03 < 6.0% 05-08 < 6.0% 08-03 9.1% 10-08 7.1%

03-04 6.6% 05-09 6.8% 08-04 6.7% 10-09 7.1%

03-05 6.4% 05-10 6.5% 08-05 8.7% 10-10 7.3%


Table 5 (Cont.): Lumber Moisture Content at Testing



11-01 7.1% 13-06 8.9% 16-01 7.5% 18-06 11.1%

11-02 7.3% 13-07 8.0% 16-02 6.7% 18-07 10.7%

11-03 6.6% 13-08 7.7% 16-03 6.7% 18-08 8.7%

11-04 6.5% 13-09 7.8% 16-04 8.0% 18-09 10.3%

11-05 7.0% 13-10 10.9% 16-05 7.9% 18-10 9.9%

11-06 6.8% 14-01 8.8% 16-06 7.2% 19-01 6.3%

11-07 7.5% 14-02 10.8% 16-07 7.3% 19-02 6.3%

11-08 6.7% 14-03 8.0% 16-08 8.6% 19-03 6.4%

11-09 6.6% 14-04 10.0% 16-09 8.2% 19-04 6.9%

11-10 6.6% 14-05 10.0% 16-10 6.8% 19-05 6.2%

12-01 7.3% 14-06 8.9% 17-01 7.2% 19-06 6.2%

12-02 6.2% 14-07 9.8% 17-02 < 6.0% 19-07 na

12-03 6.9% 14-08 8.3% 17-03 8.5% 19-08 6.5%

12-04 6.3% 14-09 8.7% 17-04 7.6% 19-09 6.3%

12-05 6.5% 14-10 7.9% 17-05 8.5% 19-10 6.5%

12-06 7.1% 15-01 9.6% 17-06 6.8% 20-01 < 6.0%

12-07 6.6% 15-02 7.0% 17-07 7.9% 20-02 < 6.0%

12-08 6.7% 15-03 10.6% 17-08 < 6.0% 20-03 < 6.0%

12-09 6.5% 15-04 8.9% 17-09 6.2% 20-04 < 6.0%

12-10 6.8% 15-05 6.8% 17-10 8.4% 20-05 7.1%

13-01 6.8% 15-06 7.2% 18-01 7.6% 20-06 6.3%

13-02 7.4% 15-07 7.8% 18-02 8.9% 20-07 7.1%

13-03 9.7% 15-08 7.2% 18-03 9.7% 20-08 6.9%

13-04 8.9% 15-09 7.5% 18-04 9.0% 20-09 7.1%

13-05 7.8% 15-10 7.7% 18-05 8.4% 20-10 < 6.0%

Tables | 47




21-01 6.1% 23-06 6.9% 26-01 7.6% 28-06 7.3%

21-02 7.3% 23-07 7.1% 26-02 7.3% 28-07 6.1%

21-03 7.4% 23-08 7.3% 26-03 7.7% 28-08 6.1%

21-04 8.3% 23-09 7.8% 26-04 7.8% 28-09 6.3%

21-05 10.0% 23-10 6.7% 26-05 7.7% 28-10 6.3%

21-06 10.8% 24-01 < 6.0% 26-06 7.9% 29-01 < 6.0%

21-07 7.0% 24-02 < 6.0% 26-07 7.3% 29-02 < 6.0%

21-08 7.3% 24-03 < 6.0% 26-08 8.0% 29-03 < 6.0%

21-09 8.5% 24-04 < 6.0% 26-09 7.8% 29-04 < 6.0%

21-10 7.1% 24-05 < 6.0% 26-10 7.7% 29-05 na

22-01 7.7% 24-06 < 6.0% 27-01 6.5% 29-06 6.2%

22-02 < 6.0% 24-07 < 6.0% 27-02 6.4% 29-07 < 6.0%

22-03 < 6.0% 24-08 6.5% 27-03 6.2% 29-08 < 6.0%

22-04 6.3% 24-09 < 6.0% 27-04 < 6.0% 29-09 < 6.0%

22-05 < 6.0% 24-10 < 6.0% 27-05 6.8% 29-10 < 6.0%

22-06 7.2% 25-01 8.5% 27-06 6.2% 30-01 < 6.0%

22-07 7.1% 25-02 8.4% 27-07 6.7% 30-02 < 6.0%

22-08 5.7% 25-03 8.7% 27-08 6.7% 30-03 < 6.0%

22-09 7.2% 25-04 8.4% 27-09 6.6% 30-04 < 6.0%

22-10 7.6% 25-05 8.9% 27-10 6.7% 30-05 6.1%

23-01 6.7% 25-06 8.0% 28-01 6.8% 30-06 7.2%

23-02 6.7% 25-07 8.8% 28-02 6.8% 30-07 < 6.0%

23-03 7.0% 25-08 8.0% 28-03 6.7% 30-08 < 6.0%

23-04 8.0% 25-09 7.8% 28-04 6.5% 30-09 < 6.0%

23-05 6.8% 25-10 8.5% 28-05 6.7% 30-10 < 6.0%





31-01 6.2% 33-06 6.5% 36-01 8.2% 38-06 8.0%

31-02 6.2% 33-07 6.3% 36-02 7.4% 38-07 7.1%

31-03 6.4% 33-08 6.1% 36-03 8.4% 38-08 7.1%

31-04 < 6.0% 33-09 6.3% 36-04 9.1% 38-09 7.6%

31-05 6.6% 33-10 6.1% 36-05 7.8% 38-10 11.9%

31-06 < 6.0% 34-01 7.0% 36-06 8.2% 39-01 7.4%

31-07 < 6.0% 34-02 < 6.0% 36-07 8.5% 39-02 10.2%

31-08 6.9% 34-03 6.1% 36-08 8.6% 39-03 8.1%

31-09 6.8% 34-04 < 6.0% 36-09 6.4% 39-04 7.9%

31-10 6.4% 34-05 6.2% 36-10 8.5% 39-05 7.8%

32-01 6.7% 34-06 10.0% 37-01 6.8% 39-06 8.0%

32-02 7.0% 34-07 6.6% 37-02 6.2% 39-07 7.8%

32-03 6.7% 34-08 < 6.0% 37-03 6.5% 39-08 8.4%

32-04 7.1% 34-09 7.2% 37-04 na 39-09 8.6%

32-05 < 6.0% 34-10 < 6.0% 37-05 6.7% 39-10 8.4%

32-06 6.1% 35-01 < 6.0% 37-06 6.5% 40-01 9.0%

32-07 6.4% 35-02 6.6% 37-07 7.0% 40-02 6.8%

32-08 < 6.0% 35-03 6.6% 37-08 7.9% 40-03 8.4%

32-09 < 6.0% 35-04 9.9% 37-09 7.2% 40-04 7.7%

32-10 7.1% 35-05 13.5% 37-10 7.8% 40-05 7.6%

33-01 6.8% 35-06 10.7% 38-01 11.4% 40-06 7.9%

33-02 6.1% 35-07 6.6% 38-02 10.2% 40-07 8.5%

33-03 6.5% 35-08 7.4% 38-03 7.3% 40-08 8.2%

33-04 6.2% 35-09 6.3% 38-04 8.0% 40-09 6.7%

33-05 6.2% 35-10 6.7% 38-05 7.2% 40-10 7.3%

Tables | 49




41-01 6.7% 43-06 8.0% 46-01 6.3% 48-06 7.8%

41-02 8.7% 43-07 6.8% 46-02 6.6% 48-07 6.6%

41-03 6.5% 43-08 6.4% 46-03 6.8% 48-08 8.1%

41-04 7.0% 43-09 na 46-04 11.1% 48-09 7.8%

41-05 7.7% 43-10 6.6% 46-05 6.9% 48-10 7.1%

41-06 7.7% 44-01 8.2% 46-06 7.0% 51-01 7.4%

41-07 6.7% 44-02 6.9% 46-07 6.5% 51-02 7.3%

41-08 7.2% 44-03 7.1% 46-08 10.4% 51-03 < 6.0%

41-09 6.3% 44-04 8.6% 46-09 7.4% 51-04 6.7%

41-10 6.6% 44-05 7.1% 46-10 6.6% 51-05 na

42-01 6.6% 44-06 8.9% 47-01 6.2% 51-06 6.1%

42-02 7.4% 44-07 7.1% 47-02 7.9% 51-07 6.3%

42-03 7.3% 44-08 6.5% 47-03 7.0% 51-08 6.3%

42-04 7.5% 44-09 6.9% 47-04 6.5% 51-09 6.5%

42-05 6.7% 44-10 7.6% 47-05 6.6% 51-10 8.1%

42-06 6.1% 45-01 6.4% 47-06 7.1% 52-01 6.1%

42-07 8.5% 45-02 7.9% 47-07 7.7% 52-02 < 6.0%

42-08 7.8% 45-03 8.6% 47-08 6.3% 52-03 < 6.0%

42-09 7.1% 45-04 10.0% 47-09 < 6.0% 52-04 < 6.0%

42-10 7.3% 45-05 6.5% 47-10 6.3% 52-05 6.7%

43-01 6.6% 45-06 6.5% 48-01 7.3% 52-06 6.6%

43-02 6.7% 45-07 7.7% 48-02 7.9% 52-07 < 6.0%

43-03 10.5% 45-08 na 48-03 7.6% 52-08 < 6.0%

43-04 7.0% 45-09 9.4% 48-04 8.4% 52-09 < 6.0%

43-05 8.0% 45-10 < 6.0% 48-05 6.8% 52-10 < 6.0%





53-01 6.8% 55-06 < 6.0% 58-01 6.7% 64-06 7.1%

53-02 6.8% 55-07 7.6% 58-02 6.6% 64-07 6.6%

53-03 7.6% 55-08 6.9% 58-03 7.5% 64-08 6.5%

53-04 8.0% 55-09 7.5% 58-04 7.7% 64-09 6.3%

53-05 6.6% 55-10 6.9% 58-05 6.3% 64-10 6.4%

53-06 6.6% 56-01 6.7% 58-06 7.8% 65-01 6.3%

53-07 < 6.0% 56-02 6.5% 58-07 7.5% 65-02 6.3%

53-08 7.0% 56-03 6.7% 58-08 7.8% 65-03 < 6.0%

53-09 6.7% 56-04 6.5% 58-09 7.8% 65-04 6.6%

53-10 6.4% 56-05 6.3% 58-10 8.2% 65-05 < 6.0%

54-01 < 6.0% 56-06 6.5% 63-01 6.2% 65-06 6.4%

54-02 6.8% 56-07 6.6% 63-02 < 6.0% 65-07 6.1%

54-03 < 6.0% 56-08 7.4% 63-03 < 6.0% 65-08 6.2%

54-04 6.4% 56-09 7.9% 63-04 < 6.0% 65-09 6.6%

54-05 6.7% 56-10 6.8% 63-05 6.8% 65-10 < 6.0%

54-06 6.7% 57-01 6.8% 63-06 < 6.0% 66-01 6.4%

54-07 < 6.0% 57-02 7.9% 63-07 < 6.0% 66-02 6.6%

54-08 6.9% 57-03 < 6.0% 63-08 < 6.0% 66-03 7.0%

54-09 6.4% 57-04 6.2% 63-09 < 6.0% 66-04 7.7%

54-10 6.6% 57-05 6.3% 63-10 < 6.0% 66-05 6.3%

55-01 7.2% 57-06 6.5% 64-01 6.3% 66-06 6.4%

55-02 7.3% 57-07 < 6.0% 64-02 6.8% 66-07 7.9%

55-03 6.7% 57-08 7.5% 64-03 6.5% 66-08 6.9%

55-04 7.3% 57-09 6.8% 64-04 6.3% 66-09 6.4%

55-05 8.1% 57-10 7.9% 64-05 6.3% 66-10 6.5%

Tables | 51




67-01 < 6.0% 69-06 6.2% 82-01 6.8% 84-06 11.7%

67-02 < 6.0% 69-07 6.4% 82-02 6.8% 84-07 6.5%

67-03 6.3% 69-08 6.3% 82-03 7.9% 84-08 6.9%

67-04 < 6.0% 69-09 6.4% 82-04 6.3% 84-09 7.0%

67-05 < 6.0% 69-10 6.8% 82-05 6.1% 84-10 7.0%

67-06 < 6.0% 70-01 6.6% 82-06 7.8% 85-01 10.6%

67-07 < 6.0% 70-02 6.4% 82-07 6.6% 85-02 6.5%

67-08 6.2% 70-03 6.8% 82-08 8.1% 85-03 6.1%

67-09 7.5% 70-04 6.4% 82-09 7.7% 85-04 8.2%

67-10 6.6% 70-05 6.7% 82-10 8.3% 85-05 8.3%

68-01 7.2% 70-06 7.6% 83-01 6.5% 85-06 10.3%

68-02 6.9% 70-07 7.1% 83-02 6.4% 85-07 7.8%

68-03 7.3% 70-08 6.3% 83-03 < 6.0% 85-08 6.7%

68-04 6.5% 70-09 6.3% 83-04 6.4% 85-09 7.5%

68-05 < 6.0% 70-10 < 6.0% 83-05 7.2% 85-10 6.4%

68-06 < 6.0% 81-01 8.0% 83-06 < 6.0% 86-01 < 6.0%

68-07 < 6.0% 81-02 < 6.0% 83-07 6.5% 86-02 < 6.0%

68-08 7.9% 81-03 7.0% 83-08 6.9% 86-03 6.4%

68-09 < 6.0% 81-04 7.1% 83-09 < 6.0% 86-04 < 6.0%

68-10 11.9% 81-05 < 6.0% 83-10 6.9% 86-05 < 6.0%

69-01 6.9% 81-06 na 84-01 6.9% 86-06 < 6.0%

69-02 < 6.0% 81-07 7.1% 84-02 10.6% 86-07 6.5%

69-03 6.8% 81-08 < 6.0% 84-03 6.5% 86-08 6.1%

69-04 6.1% 81-09 6.5% 84-04 6.9% 86-09 6.4%

69-05 6.6% 81-10 6.5% 84-05 9.4% 86-10 7.3%





87-01 7.8% 89-06 7.6% 92-01 6.7% 94-06 9.0%

87-02 < 6.0% 89-07 7.7% 92-02 na 94-07 6.4%

87-03 < 6.0% 89-08 7.7% 92-03 6.2% 94-08 6.6%

87-04 7.2% 89-09 9.1% 92-04 7.8% 94-09 6.6%

87-05 6.6% 89-10 9.8% 92-05 6.6% 94-10 6.9%

87-06 6.9% 90-01 9.4% 92-06 7.2% 95-01 7.8%

87-07 6.9% 90-02 12.2% 92-07 6.6% 95-02 7.0%

87-08 7.8% 90-03 9.3% 92-08 < 6.0% 95-03 6.2%

87-09 < 6.0% 90-04 9.4% 92-09 8.0% 95-04 7.2%

87-10 < 6.0% 90-05 9.1% 92-10 6.4% 95-05 7.1%

88-01 < 6.0% 90-06 10.2% 93-01 6.3% 95-06 7.2%

88-02 < 6.0% 90-07 7.3% 93-02 11.9% 95-07 7.0%

88-03 < 6.0% 90-08 7.8% 93-03 < 6.0% 95-08 6.3%

88-04 7.6% 90-09 7.3% 93-04 6.6% 95-09 8.3%

88-05 6.6% 90-10 < 6.0% 93-05 6.9% 95-10 < 6.0%

88-06 < 6.0% 91-01 7.6% 93-06 8.8% 96-01 6.3%

88-07 6.2% 91-02 7.4% 93-07 7.9% 96-02 6.6%

88-08 6.7% 91-03 < 6.0% 93-08 7.4% 96-03 8.4%

88-09 6.8% 91-04 7.7% 93-09 6.3% 96-04 8.5%

88-10 6.6% 91-05 7.4% 93-10 11.2% 96-05 6.7%

89-01 6.9% 91-06 7.1% 94-01 6.2% 96-06 6.5%

89-02 6.1% 91-07 6.9% 94-02 6.4% 96-07 6.6%

89-03 7.0% 91-08 7.2% 94-03 6.6% 96-08 8.1%

89-04 8.6% 91-09 8.8% 94-04 6.5% 96-09 8.5%

89-05 9.2% 91-10 6.7% 94-05 7.7% 96-10 6.2%

Tables | 53

Table 6: Results of the Study Validating the Moisture Meter

Sample Sample Moisture Method B Percent

Type Number Meter Oven-Drying Difference

W1 26.5% 17.2% 54%

W2 27.3% 19.5% 40%

W3 27.9% 21.0% 33%

W4 33.0% 25.6% 29%

W5 25.2% 19.5% 29%

W6 27.0% 20.2% 34%

Average 27.8% 20.5% 36%

D1 8.2% 6.1% 33%

D2 8.3% 6.3% 32%

D3 8.1% 6.1% 33%

Average 8.2% 6.2% 33%

Dry

Wet


Table 7: Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly (Corrected)



001 28-Jun-00 32.4% 026 19-Oct-00 21.5%

002 20-Jun-00 19.3% 027 19-Oct-00 27.8%

003 20-Jun-00 19.3% 028 19-Oct-00 36.1%

004 20-Jun-00 23.2% 029 30-Oct-00 19.7%

005 23-Jun-00 27.6% 030 30-Oct-00 19.7%

006 20-Jun-00 26.9% 031 30-Oct-00 16.5%

007 20-Jun-00 21.5% 032 30-Oct-00 17.6%

008 20-Jun-00 22.4% 033 30-Oct-00 19.6%

009 20-Jun-00 20.9% 034 30-Oct-00 17.8%

010 31-Jul-00 20.2% 035 30-Oct-00 25.4%

011 - - Not Used 036 30-Oct-00 13.8% Too Dry

012 31-Jul-00 27.9% 037 30-Oct-00 13.8% Too Dry

013 31-Jul-00 24.0% 038 13-Nov-00 21.3%

014 31-Jul-00 21.2% 039 13-Nov-00 20.4%

015 1-Aug-00 19.9% 040 15-Nov-00 32.9%

016 1-Aug-00 17.9% 041 15-Nov-00 20.4%

017 1-Aug-00 22.0% 042 17-Nov-00 32.5%

018 1-Aug-00 29.5% 043 15-Nov-00 34.8%

019 1-Aug-00 19.7% 044 - - Not Used

020 1-Aug-00 19.9% 045 17-Nov-00 20.1%

021 1-Aug-00 19.6% 046 17-Nov-00 20.3%

022 2-Oct-00 20.0% 047 17-Nov-00 26.4%

023 2-Oct-00 18.7% 048 17-Nov-00 5.9% Dry Sample

024 2-Oct-00 20.6% 049 18-Nov-00 21.9%

025 19-Oct-00 20.8% 050 18-Nov-00 23.1%

Tables | 55

Table 7 (Cont.): Lumber Moisture Content at Assembly (Corrected)



051 18-Nov-00 23.8% 066 - - Not Used

052 18-Nov-00 20.7% 067 9-Dec-00 19.7%

053 29-Nov-00 19.1% 068 - - Not Used

054 29-Nov-00 19.6% 069 - - Not Used

055 29-Nov-00 20.7% 070 8-May-01 26.7%

056 29-Nov-00 21.6% 071 8-May-01 19.0%

057 9-Dec-00 18.8% 072 21-May-01 24.3%

058 9-Dec-00 36.7%

059 9-Dec-00 18.2%

060 9-Dec-00 22.6%

061 9-Dec-00 31.5%

062 9-Dec-00 35.4%

063 9-Dec-00 29.0%

064 9-Dec-00 21.5%

065 9-Dec-00 19.6%


Table 8: Lumber Moisture Content at Testing (Corrected)



01-01 < 4.5% 03-06 5.1% 06-01 5.0% 08-06 4.8%

01-02 < 4.5% 03-07 5.0% 06-02 5.8% 08-07 5.9%

01-03 < 4.5% 03-08 5.6% 06-03 5.3% 08-08 5.0%

01-04 4.6% 03-09 6.0% 06-04 8.5% 08-09 6.6%

01-05 < 4.5% 03-10 4.9% 06-05 5.7% 08-10 5.3%

01-06 < 4.5% 04-01 4.9% 06-06 6.0% 09-01 5.3%

01-07 4.7% 04-02 5.0% 06-07 7.7% 09-02 5.1%

01-08 < 4.5% 04-03 5.1% 06-08 5.9% 09-03 4.8%

01-09 4.7% 04-04 4.8% 06-09 8.3% 09-04 4.9%

01-10 4.8% 04-05 5.7% 06-10 8.4% 09-05 5.1%

02-01 4.6% 04-06 4.7% 07-01 5.3% 09-06 5.9%

02-02 < 4.5% 04-07 4.9% 07-02 5.2% 09-07 5.1%

02-03 4.7% 04-08 < 4.5% 07-03 4.7% 09-08 5.1%

02-04 < 4.5% 04-09 4.7% 07-04 5.3% 09-09 5.6%

02-05 < 4.5% 04-10 5.0% 07-05 5.8% 09-10 5.9%

02-06 < 4.5% 05-01 < 4.5% 07-06 5.4% 10-01 5.6%

02-07 < 4.5% 05-02 5.9% 07-07 5.2% 10-02 5.0%

02-08 4.9% 05-03 5.3% 07-08 5.3% 10-03 5.6%

02-09 < 4.5% 05-04 5.2% 07-09 6.0% 10-04 5.3%

02-10 4.8% 05-05 4.7% 07-10 < 4.5% 10-05 5.1%

03-01 5.3% 05-06 < 4.5% 08-01 5.0% 10-06 5.4%

03-02 5.4% 05-07 5.0% 08-02 5.4% 10-07 5.5%

03-03 < 4.5% 05-08 < 4.5% 08-03 6.8% 10-08 5.3%

03-04 5.0% 05-09 5.1% 08-04 5.0% 10-09 5.3%

03-05 4.8% 05-10 4.9% 08-05 6.5% 10-10 5.5%

Tables | 57

Table 8 (Cont.): Lumber Moisture Content at Testing (Corrected)



11-01 5.3% 13-06 6.7% 16-01 5.6% 18-06 8.3%

11-02 5.5% 13-07 6.0% 16-02 5.0% 18-07 8.0%

11-03 5.0% 13-08 5.8% 16-03 5.0% 18-08 6.5%

11-04 4.9% 13-09 5.9% 16-04 6.0% 18-09 7.7%

11-05 5.3% 13-10 8.2% 16-05 5.9% 18-10 7.4%

11-06 5.1% 14-01 6.6% 16-06 5.4% 19-01 4.7%

11-07 5.6% 14-02 8.1% 16-07 5.5% 19-02 4.7%

11-08 5.0% 14-03 6.0% 16-08 6.5% 19-03 4.8%

11-09 5.0% 14-04 7.5% 16-09 6.2% 19-04 5.2%

11-10 5.0% 14-05 7.5% 16-10 5.1% 19-05 4.7%

12-01 5.5% 14-06 6.7% 17-01 5.4% 19-06 4.7%

12-02 4.7% 14-07 7.4% 17-02 < 4.5% 19-07 na

12-03 5.2% 14-08 6.2% 17-03 6.4% 19-08 4.9%

12-04 4.7% 14-09 6.5% 17-04 5.7% 19-09 4.7%

12-05 4.9% 14-10 5.9% 17-05 6.4% 19-10 4.9%

12-06 5.3% 15-01 7.2% 17-06 5.1% 20-01 < 4.5%

12-07 5.0% 15-02 5.3% 17-07 5.9% 20-02 < 4.5%

12-08 5.0% 15-03 8.0% 17-08 < 4.5% 20-03 < 4.5%

12-09 4.9% 15-04 6.7% 17-09 4.7% 20-04 < 4.5%

12-10 5.1% 15-05 5.1% 17-10 6.3% 20-05 5.3%

13-01 5.1% 15-06 5.4% 18-01 5.7% 20-06 4.7%

13-02 5.6% 15-07 5.9% 18-02 6.7% 20-07 5.3%

13-03 7.3% 15-08 5.4% 18-03 7.3% 20-08 5.2%

13-04 6.7% 15-09 5.6% 18-04 6.8% 20-09 5.3%

13-05 5.9% 15-10 5.8% 18-05 6.3% 20-10 < 4.5%





21-01 4.6% 23-06 5.2% 26-01 5.7% 28-06 5.5%

21-02 5.5% 23-07 5.3% 26-02 5.5% 28-07 4.6%

21-03 5.6% 23-08 5.5% 26-03 5.8% 28-08 4.6%

21-04 6.2% 23-09 5.9% 26-04 5.9% 28-09 4.7%

21-05 7.5% 23-10 5.0% 26-05 5.8% 28-10 4.7%

21-06 8.1% 24-01 < 4.5% 26-06 5.9% 29-01 < 4.5%

21-07 5.3% 24-02 < 4.5% 26-07 5.5% 29-02 < 4.5%

21-08 5.5% 24-03 < 4.5% 26-08 6.0% 29-03 < 4.5%

21-09 6.4% 24-04 < 4.5% 26-09 5.9% 29-04 < 4.5%

21-10 5.3% 24-05 < 4.5% 26-10 5.8% 29-05 na

22-01 5.8% 24-06 < 4.5% 27-01 4.9% 29-06 4.7%

22-02 < 4.5% 24-07 < 4.5% 27-02 4.8% 29-07 < 4.5%

22-03 < 4.5% 24-08 4.9% 27-03 4.7% 29-08 < 4.5%

22-04 4.7% 24-09 < 4.5% 27-04 < 4.5% 29-09 < 4.5%

22-05 < 4.5% 24-10 < 4.5% 27-05 5.1% 29-10 < 4.5%

22-06 5.4% 25-01 6.4% 27-06 4.7% 30-01 < 4.5%

22-07 5.3% 25-02 6.3% 27-07 5.0% 30-02 < 4.5%

22-08 4.3% 25-03 6.5% 27-08 5.0% 30-03 < 4.5%

22-09 5.4% 25-04 6.3% 27-09 5.0% 30-04 < 4.5%

22-10 5.7% 25-05 6.7% 27-10 5.0% 30-05 4.6%

23-01 5.0% 25-06 6.0% 28-01 5.1% 30-06 5.4%

23-02 5.0% 25-07 6.6% 28-02 5.1% 30-07 < 4.5%

23-03 5.3% 25-08 6.0% 28-03 5.0% 30-08 < 4.5%

23-04 6.0% 25-09 5.9% 28-04 4.9% 30-09 < 4.5%

23-05 5.1% 25-10 6.4% 28-05 5.0% 30-10 < 4.5%

Tables | 59




31-01 4.7% 33-06 4.9% 36-01 6.2% 38-06 6.0%

31-02 4.7% 33-07 4.7% 36-02 5.6% 38-07 5.3%

31-03 4.8% 33-08 4.6% 36-03 6.3% 38-08 5.3%

31-04 < 4.5% 33-09 4.7% 36-04 6.8% 38-09 5.7%

31-05 5.0% 33-10 4.6% 36-05 5.9% 38-10 8.9%

31-06 < 4.5% 34-01 5.3% 36-06 6.2% 39-01 5.6%

31-07 < 4.5% 34-02 < 4.5% 36-07 6.4% 39-02 7.7%

31-08 5.2% 34-03 4.6% 36-08 6.5% 39-03 6.1%

31-09 5.1% 34-04 < 4.5% 36-09 4.8% 39-04 5.9%

31-10 4.8% 34-05 4.7% 36-10 6.4% 39-05 5.9%

32-01 5.0% 34-06 7.5% 37-01 5.1% 39-06 6.0%

32-02 5.3% 34-07 5.0% 37-02 4.7% 39-07 5.9%

32-03 5.0% 34-08 < 4.5% 37-03 4.9% 39-08 6.3%

32-04 5.3% 34-09 5.4% 37-04 na 39-09 6.5%

32-05 < 4.5% 34-10 < 4.5% 37-05 5.0% 39-10 6.3%

32-06 4.6% 35-01 < 4.5% 37-06 4.9% 40-01 6.8%

32-07 4.8% 35-02 5.0% 37-07 5.3% 40-02 5.1%

32-08 < 4.5% 35-03 5.0% 37-08 5.9% 40-03 6.3%

32-09 < 4.5% 35-04 7.4% 37-09 5.4% 40-04 5.8%

32-10 5.3% 35-05 10.2% 37-10 5.9% 40-05 5.7%

33-01 5.1% 35-06 8.0% 38-01 8.6% 40-06 5.9%

33-02 4.6% 35-07 5.0% 38-02 7.7% 40-07 6.4%

33-03 4.9% 35-08 5.6% 38-03 5.5% 40-08 6.2%

33-04 4.7% 35-09 4.7% 38-04 6.0% 40-09 5.0%

33-05 4.7% 35-10 5.0% 38-05 5.4% 40-10 5.5%





41-01 5.0% 43-06 6.0% 46-01 4.7% 48-06 5.9%

41-02 6.5% 43-07 5.1% 46-02 5.0% 48-07 5.0%

41-03 4.9% 43-08 4.8% 46-03 5.1% 48-08 6.1%

41-04 5.3% 43-09 na 46-04 8.3% 48-09 5.9%

41-05 5.8% 43-10 5.0% 46-05 5.2% 48-10 5.3%

41-06 5.8% 44-01 6.2% 46-06 5.3% 51-01 5.6%

41-07 5.0% 44-02 5.2% 46-07 4.9% 51-02 5.5%

41-08 5.4% 44-03 5.3% 46-08 7.8% 51-03 < 4.5%

41-09 4.7% 44-04 6.5% 46-09 5.6% 51-04 5.0%

41-10 5.0% 44-05 5.3% 46-10 5.0% 51-05 na

42-01 5.0% 44-06 6.7% 47-01 4.7% 51-06 4.6%

42-02 5.6% 44-07 5.3% 47-02 5.9% 51-07 4.7%

42-03 5.5% 44-08 4.9% 47-03 5.3% 51-08 4.7%

42-04 5.6% 44-09 5.2% 47-04 4.9% 51-09 4.9%

42-05 5.0% 44-10 5.7% 47-05 5.0% 51-10 6.1%

42-06 4.6% 45-01 4.8% 47-06 5.3% 52-01 4.6%

42-07 6.4% 45-02 5.9% 47-07 5.8% 52-02 < 4.5%

42-08 5.9% 45-03 6.5% 47-08 4.7% 52-03 < 4.5%

42-09 5.3% 45-04 7.5% 47-09 < 4.5% 52-04 < 4.5%

42-10 5.5% 45-05 4.9% 47-10 4.7% 52-05 5.0%

43-01 5.0% 45-06 4.9% 48-01 5.5% 52-06 5.0%

43-02 5.0% 45-07 5.8% 48-02 5.9% 52-07 < 4.5%

43-03 7.9% 45-08 na 48-03 5.7% 52-08 < 4.5%

43-04 5.3% 45-09 7.1% 48-04 6.3% 52-09 < 4.5%

43-05 6.0% 45-10 < 4.5% 48-05 5.1% 52-10 < 4.5%

Tables | 61




53-01 5.1% 55-06 < 6.0% 58-01 5.0% 64-06 5.3%

53-02 5.1% 55-07 5.7% 58-02 5.0% 64-07 5.0%

53-03 5.7% 55-08 5.2% 58-03 5.6% 64-08 4.9%

53-04 6.0% 55-09 5.6% 58-04 5.8% 64-09 4.7%

53-05 5.0% 55-10 5.2% 58-05 4.7% 64-10 4.8%

53-06 5.0% 56-01 5.0% 58-06 5.9% 65-01 4.7%

53-07 < 4.5% 56-02 4.9% 58-07 5.6% 65-02 4.7%

53-08 5.3% 56-03 5.0% 58-08 5.9% 65-03 < 4.5%

53-09 5.0% 56-04 4.9% 58-09 5.9% 65-04 5.0%

53-10 4.8% 56-05 4.7% 58-10 6.2% 65-05 < 4.5%

54-01 < 4.5% 56-06 4.9% 63-01 4.7% 65-06 4.8%

54-02 5.1% 56-07 5.0% 63-02 < 4.5% 65-07 4.6%

54-03 < 4.5% 56-08 5.6% 63-03 < 4.5% 65-08 4.7%

54-04 4.8% 56-09 5.9% 63-04 < 4.5% 65-09 5.0%

54-05 5.0% 56-10 5.1% 63-05 5.1% 65-10 < 4.5%

54-06 5.0% 57-01 5.1% 63-06 < 4.5% 66-01 4.8%

54-07 < 4.5% 57-02 5.9% 63-07 < 4.5% 66-02 5.0%

54-08 5.2% 57-03 < 4.5% 63-08 < 4.5% 66-03 5.3%

54-09 4.8% 57-04 4.7% 63-09 < 4.5% 66-04 5.8%

54-10 5.0% 57-05 4.7% 63-10 < 4.5% 66-05 4.7%

55-01 5.4% 57-06 4.9% 64-01 4.7% 66-06 4.8%

55-02 5.5% 57-07 < 4.5% 64-02 5.1% 66-07 5.9%

55-03 5.0% 57-08 5.6% 64-03 4.9% 66-08 5.2%

55-04 5.5% 57-09 5.1% 64-04 4.7% 66-09 4.8%

55-05 6.1% 57-10 5.9% 64-05 4.7% 66-10 4.9%





67-01 < 6.0% 69-06 4.7% 82-01 5.1% 84-06 8.8%

67-02 < 6.0% 69-07 4.8% 82-02 5.1% 84-07 4.9%

67-03 4.7% 69-08 4.7% 82-03 5.9% 84-08 5.2%

67-04 < 4.5% 69-09 4.8% 82-04 4.7% 84-09 5.3%

67-05 < 4.5% 69-10 5.1% 82-05 4.6% 84-10 5.3%

67-06 < 4.5% 70-01 5.0% 82-06 5.9% 85-01 8.0%

67-07 < 4.5% 70-02 4.8% 82-07 5.0% 85-02 4.9%

67-08 4.7% 70-03 5.1% 82-08 6.1% 85-03 4.6%

67-09 5.6% 70-04 4.8% 82-09 5.8% 85-04 6.2%

67-10 5.0% 70-05 5.0% 82-10 6.2% 85-05 6.2%

68-01 5.4% 70-06 5.7% 83-01 4.9% 85-06 7.7%

68-02 5.2% 70-07 5.3% 83-02 4.8% 85-07 5.9%

68-03 5.5% 70-08 4.7% 83-03 < 4.5% 85-08 5.0%

68-04 4.9% 70-09 4.7% 83-04 4.8% 85-09 5.6%

68-05 < 4.5% 70-10 < 4.5% 83-05 5.4% 85-10 4.8%

68-06 < 4.5% 81-01 6.0% 83-06 < 4.5% 86-01 < 4.5%

68-07 < 4.5% 81-02 < 4.5% 83-07 4.9% 86-02 < 4.5%

68-08 5.9% 81-03 5.3% 83-08 5.2% 86-03 4.8%

68-09 < 4.5% 81-04 5.3% 83-09 < 4.5% 86-04 < 4.5%

68-10 8.9% 81-05 < 4.5% 83-10 5.2% 86-05 < 4.5%

69-01 5.2% 81-06 na 84-01 5.2% 86-06 < 4.5%

69-02 < 4.5% 81-07 5.3% 84-02 8.0% 86-07 4.9%

69-03 5.1% 81-08 < 4.5% 84-03 4.9% 86-08 4.6%

69-04 4.6% 81-09 4.9% 84-04 5.2% 86-09 4.8%

69-05 5.0% 81-10 4.9% 84-05 7.1% 86-10 5.5%

Tables | 63




87-01 5.9% 89-06 5.7% 92-01 5.0% 94-06 6.8%

87-02 < 4.5% 89-07 5.8% 92-02 na 94-07 4.8%

87-03 < 4.5% 89-08 5.8% 92-03 4.7% 94-08 5.0%

87-04 5.4% 89-09 6.8% 92-04 5.9% 94-09 5.0%

87-05 5.0% 89-10 7.4% 92-05 5.0% 94-10 5.2%

87-06 5.2% 90-01 7.1% 92-06 5.4% 95-01 5.9%

87-07 5.2% 90-02 9.2% 92-07 5.0% 95-02 5.3%

87-08 5.9% 90-03 7.0% 92-08 < 4.5% 95-03 4.7%

87-09 < 4.5% 90-04 7.1% 92-09 6.0% 95-04 5.4%

87-10 < 4.5% 90-05 6.8% 92-10 4.8% 95-05 5.3%

88-01 < 4.5% 90-06 7.7% 93-01 4.7% 95-06 5.4%

88-02 < 4.5% 90-07 5.5% 93-02 8.9% 95-07 5.3%

88-03 < 4.5% 90-08 5.9% 93-03 < 4.5% 95-08 4.7%

88-04 5.7% 90-09 5.5% 93-04 5.0% 95-09 6.2%

88-05 5.0% 90-10 < 4.5% 93-05 5.2% 95-10 < 4.5%

88-06 < 4.5% 91-01 5.7% 93-06 6.6% 96-01 4.7%

88-07 4.7% 91-02 5.6% 93-07 5.9% 96-02 5.0%

88-08 5.0% 91-03 < 4.5% 93-08 5.6% 96-03 6.3%

88-09 5.1% 91-04 5.8% 93-09 4.7% 96-04 6.4%

88-10 5.0% 91-05 5.6% 93-10 8.4% 96-05 5.0%

89-01 5.2% 91-06 5.3% 94-01 4.7% 96-06 4.9%

89-02 4.6% 91-07 5.2% 94-02 4.8% 96-07 5.0%

89-03 5.3% 91-08 5.4% 94-03 5.0% 96-08 6.1%

89-04 6.5% 91-09 6.6% 94-04 4.9% 96-09 6.4%

89-05 6.9% 91-10 5.0% 94-05 5.8% 96-10 4.7%


Table 9: Dimensions of the Fasteners

Fastener Fastener

Type Name Length (in) Diameter (in) Crown (in)

8d Cooler 2 3/8 0.113 -

8d Cooler L1 1 11/16 0.113 -

8d Cooler L2 2 0.113 -

8d Common 2 1/2 0.131 -

8d Common L1 1 13/16 0.131 -

8d Common L2 2 0.131 -

10d Framing 3 0.131 -

10d Common 3 0.148 -

10d Common Short 2 1/8 0.148 -

#8 Rolled-Hardened L1 2 0.164 -

#8 Rolled-Hardened L2 3 0.164 -

#10 Rolled-Hardened 3 0.190 -

Staple 16 Gage 1 3/4 0.063 1/2

Fastener Size

Nail

Wood

Screw

Tables | 65

Table 10: Nail Bending Yield Strength

Sample

Number 8d Cooler 8d Common 10d Framing 10d Common

01 116,328 108,052 122,284 107,725

02 96,961 103,918 118,150 106,649

03 102,341 95,971 121,593 111,910

04 112,025 95,461 113,316 112,507

05 96,961 101,496 111,935 107,579

06 98,037 102,187 118,150 109,995

07 106,645 100,976 116,769 108,204

08 98,037 104,949 125,737 112,271

09 112,025 101,326 118,150 100,639

10 114,177 103,398 117,460 110,599

11 102,341 105,119 121,593 99,827

12 118,465 108,232 125,046 110,238

13 100,189 105,810 116,769 101,139

14 108,797 103,228 125,737 104,852

15 107,721 98,043 125,046 114,902

Average 106,070 102,544 119,849 107,936

Nail Bending Yield Strength (psi)


Table 11: Wood Screw Bending Yield Strength

Sample

Number #8 Rolled L1 #8 Rolled L2 #10 Rolled

01 108,601 81,932 93,973

02 104,147 116,168 107,856

03 106,122 104,363 106,118

04 108,370 91,847 108,166

05 94,446 123,960 106,438

06 94,691 131,752 95,556

07 89,718 90,669 104,070

08 99,909 84,534 100,439

09 92,702 113,333 92,876

10 91,966 91,847 108,166

11 98,179 91,149 100,128

12 94,691 116,647 95,556

13 104,637 102,241 92,556

14 89,977 86,657 92,090

15 94,201 110,033 105,011

Average 98,157 102,475 100,600

Wood Screw Bending Yield Strength (psi)

Tables | 67

Table 12: Reference Deformations

Fastener Loading Reference

Type Direction Deformation, (in)

Perpendicular

Parallel

Perpendicular

Parallel

Perpendicular

Parallel

Nail

Staple

Wood

Screw

0.17

0.20

0.12


Table 13: Monotonic Loading Results for Perpendicular Loaded Specimens Assembled with

Nails

a) First Set

b) Second Set

Sample Maximum 80% Max

Number Load (lb) Load (lb) m (in) (in) Comments

01 186 148 0.21 0.13 2x4 Fracture

02 134 107 0.15 0.09

03 183 147 0.25 0.15 Clamp Opened During Test

04 317 253 0.25 0.15

05 259 207 0.53 0.32 Lifting of Front Edge of 2x4

06 213 170 0.24 0.14

07 266 213 0.37 0.22

08 259 207 0.42 0.25

09 191 153 0.29 0.18

10 189 151 0.54 0.33 Lifting of Front Edge of 2x4

11 142 113 0.23 0.14

Average 217 174 0.28 0.17



01 301 241 0.45 0.27

02 312 249 0.38 0.23

03 230 184 0.4 0.24

04 207 165 0.26 0.16

Average 262 210 0.37 0.23

Tables | 69

Table 14: Monotonic Loading Results for Parallel Loaded Specimens Assembled with Nails



01 233 186 0.42 0.25

02 209 167 0.33 0.20

03 262 210 0.34 0.20

04 183 146 0.34 0.20

05 232 186 0.44 0.27

06 258 206 0.46 0.27

07 223 178 0.38 0.23

Average 229 183 0.39 0.23



Screws



01 266 213 0.22 0.13

02 159 127 0.17 0.10

03 183 146 0.21 0.12

04 290 232 0.25 0.14

Average 225 180 0.21 0.12

Tables | 71


Staples



01 232 186 0.51 0.31

02 212 170 0.47 0.28

Average 222 178 0.49 0.30


Table 17: Property Summary for the Basic Loading History Connection Type

Sample Initial Maximum Slip at Total Absorbed

Number Stiffness (lb/in) Load (lb) Max Load (in) Energy (lb-in)

CTR B1 4647 205 0.17 394

CTR B2 3610 220 0.23 669

CTR B3 4283 224 0.33 908

CTR B4 4534 239 0.22 694

CTR B5 4145 252 0.38 1015

CTR B6 3803 196 0.25 492

CTR B7 3943 244 0.24 661

Average 4138 226 0.26 690

Std Dev 380 21 0.07 217

Tables | 73

Table 18: Property Summary for the Simplified Basic Loading History Connection Type

Sample Initial Maximum Slip at Total Absorbed

Number Stiffness (lb/in) Load (lb) Max Load (in) Energy (lb-in)

CTR S1 3271 194 0.32 795

CTR S2 3253 193 0.16 735

CTR S3 4566 190 0.23 675

CTR S4 2622 126 0.15 261

CTR S5 4402 212 0.23 765

CTR S6 4590 208 0.21 660

Average 3784 187 0.21 648

Std Dev 841 31 0.06 197


Table 19: Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No. 03

a) Variables

b) Properties

Sheathing Type 3/8 in OSB

Sheathing Manufacturer Slocan Group

Sheathing Density 38.5 pcf

Wood Member Douglass Fir - Larch

Loading Direction Perpendicular

Fastener Edge Distance 3/8 in

Overdriven Depth None

Fastener Type 8d Cooler Nail (2 3/8 in x 0.113 in)

Bending Yield Strength 106 ksi

Sample Initial Maximum Slip at Max

Number Stiffness (lb/in) Load (lb) Load (in) Assembly Testing

01 2686 161 0.32 35.9% 7.1%

02 3769 179 0.24 35.9% 7.2%

03 2656 182 0.24 27.3% < 6.0%

04 2803 201 0.40 27.3% 6.6%

05 2525 174 0.16 27.3% 6.4%

06 3897 163 0.24 27.3% 6.8%

07 2929 174 0.32 27.3% 6.7%

08 2384 148 0.11 27.3% 7.4%

09 3842 178 0.24 35.9% 8.0%

10 2255 178 0.24 27.3% 6.5%

Average 2975 174 0.25 29.9% 7.0%

Std Dev 625 14 0.08 4.15% 0.51%

Wood Moisture at

Tables | 75

Table 19 (Cont.): Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No. 03

c) Failure Information

Sample Failure Yield Design Maximum

Number Mode Mode Load (lb) Load (lb)

01 Withdrawal Mode IIIs 54 161

02 Tear Out - Withdrawal Mode IIIs 54 161



05 Tear Out Mode IIIs 54 161




09 Tear Out - Withdrawal Mode IIIs 54 161



Table 20: Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No. 47

a) Variables

b) Properties

Sheathing Type 3/8 in OSB

Sheathing Manufacturer Slocan Group

Sheathing Density 38.5 pcf

Wood Member Douglass Fir - Larch

Loading Direction Perpendicular

Fastener Edge Distance 3/8 in

Overdriven Depth None

Fastener Type 8d Common Nail (2 in x 0.131 in)

Bending Yield Strength 103 ksi

Sample Initial Maximum Slip at Max

Number Stiffness (lb/in) Load (lb) Load (in) Assembly Testing

01 3920 201 0.16 26.8% 6.2%

02 3650 163 0.16 26.6% 7.9%

03 2602 184 0.16 29.3% 7.0%

04 4370 189 0.24 26.8% 6.5%

05 2867 183 0.40 26.8% 6.6%

06 3151 191 0.16 29.3% 7.1%

07 3840 181 0.16 26.6% 7.7%

08 4231 188 0.24 26.8% 6.6%

09 3489 182 0.16 29.3% < 6.0%

10 4575 188 0.24 29.3% 6.3%

Average 3670 185 0.21 27.8% 6.9%

Std Dev 650 10 0.08 1.33% 0.60%

Wood Moisture at

Tables | 77

Table 20 (Cont.): Variable and Property Summary for Connection Type No. 47

c) Failure Information

Sample Mode Yield Design Maximum

Number of Failure Mode Load (lb) Load (lb)











Figures | 79

FIGURES


Figure 1: Typical Specimens

Perpendicular

Specimen

Parallel

Specimen

Sheathing

Panel

Sheathing

Panel

Wood

Member

Wood

Member

Fastener

Applied

Load

Applied

Load

Figures | 81

Figure 2: Schematic Representation of the Specimens

Sheathing

Panel

Wood Member

Fastener

Applied

Load

Sheathing

Panel

Wood Member

Fastener

Applied

Load


Figure 3: Type and Thickness of Sheathing Panels

3/8” OSB

7/16” OSB 15/32” OSB

19/32” OSB

15/32” PLY

Figures | 83

Figure 4: Wood Member

Douglas Fir-Larch

Pressure Treated Hem-Fir


Figure 5: Fasteners

8d Cooler Nail

(2 3/8” x 0.113”)

8d Cooler Nail L1

(1 11/16” x 0.113”)

8d Cooler Nail L2

(2” x 0.113”)

8d Common Nail

(2 1/2” x 0.131”)

8d Common Nail L1

(1 13/16” x 0.131”)

8d Common Nail L2

(2” x 0.131”)

10d Framing Nail

(3” x 0.131”)

10d Common Nail

(3” x 0.148”)

10d Common Short Nail

(2 1/8” x 0.148”)

#8 Rolled Hardened Screw L1

(2” x 0.164”)

#8 Rolled Hardened Screw L2

(3” x 0.164”)

#10 Rolled Hardened Screw

(3” x 0.190”)

16 gage Staple

(1 3/4”, 1/2”)

Figures | 85

Figure 6: Fastener Edge Distance

3/8”


Figure 7: Fastener Driven Depths

Underdriven Flush-Driven Overdriven

Sheathing

Panel Wood

Member

Figures | 87

Figure 8: Stamps on Sheathing Panels

3/8” OSB std 7/16” OSB std

15/32” OSB std 19/32” OSB std


Figure 9: Moisture Box

Figures | 89

Figure 10: Moisture Meter


Figure 11: Specimens Drying

Figures | 91

Figure 12: Time Required for Specimens to Achieve a Dry Condition

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

Time (days)

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

08 09 10 Avg

14th Day

12% MC


Figure 13: Testing Apparatus for Determining Bending Yield Strength of Fasteners

Figures | 93

Figure 14: Bending Yield Strength Test in Progress


Figure 15: Typical Load-Slip Response of a Fastener to the Bending Yield Strength Test

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

0

89

178

267

356

445

534

623

0 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figures | 95

Figure 16: Locations Along a Screw Where the Bending Yield Strength Can Be Determined

Mid-Length Location

Transition Zone


Figure 17: Specimen Assembly Apparatus

Figures | 97

Figure 18: Punches for Nails


Figure 19: Punches for Staples

Figures | 99

Figure 20: Testing Apparatus


Figure 21: Testing Apparatus Parts

a) Clamps to Secure Wood Member

Figures | 101

Figure 21 (Cont.): Testing Apparatus Parts

b) Sliding Backside Away from Specimen c) Sliding Backside in Final Position

d) Top Clamp


Figure 22: Frictionless Rolling System

Figures | 103

Figure 23: Testing Apparatus Load Cell


Figure 24: Testing Apparatus String Pots

Figures | 105

Figure 25: Overall Testing Setup


Figure 26: Simplified Basic Loading History

-400%

-300%

-200%

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Cycles

Per

cen

t of

Del

ta

Figures | 107

Figure 27: Typical Monotonic Load-Slip Response of a Specimen

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

0

222

445

667

890

1112

0.00 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62 8.89

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Fmax

0.8 Fmax

m


Figure 28: Typical Perpendicular Specimen with an Offset Fastener

Sheathing

Panel

Wood

Member Fastener

Figures | 109

Figure 29: Typical Perpendicular Specimen with a Center Fastener

Sheathing

Panel Wood

Member Fastener


Figure 30: Typical Parallel Specimen with a Center Fastener

Sheathing

Panel Wood

Member

Fastener

Fastener

Figures | 111

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figure 31: Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Perpendicular, Δ = 0.17 in

a) Offset Specimen No. 1 - Nail

b) Offset Specimen No. 2 – Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figure 31 (Cont.): Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Perpendicular, Δ = 0.17 in

c) Offset Specimen No. 3 - Nail

d) Offset Specimen No. 4 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figures | 113

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


e) Offset Specimen No. 5 - Nail

f) Offset Specimen No. 6 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


a) Specimen No. 1 - Nail

b) Specimen No. 2 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figures | 115


c) Specimen No. 3 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figure 33: Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Parallel, Δ = 0.17 in



-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 117

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figure 33 (Cont.): Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Parallel, Δ = 0.17 in


d) Specimen No. 4 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


e) Specimen No. 5 - Nail

f) Specimen No. 6 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figures | 119

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figure 34: Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Parallel, Δ = 0.20 in



-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)




-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 121

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


a) Specimen No. 1 - Screw

b) Specimen No. 2 - Screw

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)



c) Specimen No. 3 - Screw

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figures | 123

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


a) Specimen No. 1 - Screw

b) Specimen No. 2 - Screw

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


Figure 37: Load-Slip Response to the Simplified Basic Loading History, Specimen with Staple,

Perpendicular, Δ = 0.17 in

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figures | 125


Perpendicular, Δ = 0.20 in

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)



Parallel, Δ = 0.17 in

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figures | 127

1.73 2.59

12.95

17.27

21.59

3.456.05

25.91

30.23

8.64

0.860.650.43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Displacement Level

Rate

(m

m/s

ec)

Figure 40: Loading Rate Corresponding to Loading Frequency

a) For Δ = 0.12 in

b) For Δ = 0.17 in

1.83 2.44

12.19

18.29

21.34

1.22

15.24

9.14

6.10

0.610.460.30

4.27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Displacement Level

Rate

(m

m/s

ec)


Figure 40 (Cont.): Loading Rate Corresponding to Loading Frequency

c) For Δ = 0.20 in

2.03 3.05

7.11

1.020.760.51

4.06

35.56

30.48

25.40

20.32

15.24

10.16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Displacement Level

Rate

(m

m/s

ec)

Figures | 129

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figure 41: Load-Slip Response to the Basic Loading History, Perpendicular, Δ = 0.17 in



-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figure 41 (Cont.): Load-Slip Response to the Basic Loading History, Perpendicular, Δ = 0.17 in



-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 131

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)




-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)



g) Specimen No. 7 - Nail

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)

Figures | 133

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)




-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)




-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 135

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)




-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


Rollers

Rubbing

Figure 43: Rolling System and Sources of Friction

Figures | 137

Figure 44: Testing Apparatus Setup for Friction Study

a) No Specimen

b) With Sheathing Panel Only


Figure 44 (Cont.): Testing Apparatus Setup for Friction Study

c) With a Specimen

Figures | 139

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-8.90

-6.67

-4.45

-2.22

0.00

2.22

4.45

6.67

8.90

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


a) Specimen No. 1

b) Specimen No. 2

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Loa

d (

lb)

-8.90

-6.67

-4.45

-2.22

0.00

2.22

4.45

6.67

8.90

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Loa

d (

N)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figure 46: Load-Slip Response for Connection Type No. 03

a) Specimen No. 1

b) Specimen No. 2

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 141

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figure 46 (Cont.): Load-Slip Response for Connection Type No. 03

c) Specimen No. 3

d) Specimen No. 4

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


e) Specimen No. 5

f) Specimen No. 6

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 143

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


g) Specimen No. 7

h) Specimen No. 8

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


i) Specimen No. 9

j) Specimen No. 10

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 145

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Figure 47: Load-Slip Response for Connection Type No. 47

a) Specimen No. 1

b) Specimen No. 2

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


c) Specimen No. 3

d) Specimen No. 4

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 147

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

x


e) Specimen No. 5

f) Specimen No. 6

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


g) Specimen No. 7

h) Specimen No. 8

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)

Figures | 149

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)


i) Specimen No. 9

j) Specimen No. 10

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Load

(N

)


Figure 48: Average Results for Connections Type No. 03 and 47

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Type No. 03 Type No. 47

Init

ial S

tiff

nes

s (l

b/in

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Type No. 03 Type No. 47M

ax

imu

m L

oa

d (

lb)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Type No. 03 Type No. 47

Dis

pla

cem

ent

at

Ma

x L

oa

d (

in)

Figures | 151

Figure 49: Parameters for Modeling Load-Slip Curves

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

-0.5 -0.375 -0.25 -0.125 0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5Slip

Loa

d

K0 r1K0

F1

r2K0

r3K0

r4K0

FI

(u,Fu)


Figure 50: Range Used for Extraction of Initial Stiffness Parameter

Figures | 153

Figure 51: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r1 And F1


Figure 52: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r2

Figures | 155

Figure 53: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r3


Figure 54: Range Used for Extraction of Parameter r4 And FI

Figures | 157

Figure 55: Sensitivity of a Load-Slip Curve to the Stiffness Degradation Parameter

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

0

89

178

267

356

445

534

623

712

801

890

0.00 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62 8.89 10.16 11.43

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Real

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


Figure 56: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Nail Specimen

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Measured Data

Calculated Data

Figures | 159

Figure 57: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Wood Screw Specimen

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Measured Data

Calculated Data


Figure 58: The Measured and the Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Staple Specimen

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Lo

ad

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Measured Data

Calculated Data

Figures | 161

Figure 59: The Measured and the Average Calculated Load-Slip Curve for a Nail Specimen

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Slip (in)

Load

(lb

)

-2224

-1779

-1334

-890

-445

0

445

890

1334

1779

2224

-20.32 -15.24 -10.16 -5.08 0 5.08 10.16 15.24 20.32

Slip (mm)

Lo

ad

(N

)

Measured Data

Calculated Data

brigham young university - curee.org€¦ · brigham young university 2002 curee publication no....

Documents