Design Models of Light Frame Wood Buildings

under Lateral Loads

B. Kasal, A.M.ASCE1; M. S. Collins, A.M.ASCE2; P. Paevere, A.M.ASCE3; and G. C. Foliente, A.M.ASCE4

Abstract: In this paper, different methods of lateral force distribution and design are described and compared with the results of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

experiments on a full-scale woodframe test house, and with a detailed three-dimensional analysis using a Finite Element 共FE兲 model. The
primary motive for this analysis and investigation is to provide the basic understanding required for the development of improved design
procedure共s兲 for light-frame wood buildings subjected to lateral loads. Improved procedures for lateral load distribution should be
analytically correct in their philosophy, and offer reasonable trade-offs between the uncertainties and omissions in the design process and
simplicity for the end-user. In this paper, eight methods are used to predict the distribution of design wind forces to the walls of an
example L-shaped single-story woodframe house, in a moderate hurricane prone environment. The results are compared and the differ-
ences in the predictions between the various methods are highlighted. Four of these methods are further compared against the results of
physical experiments conducted on a full-scale test house. The FE model was generally the most accurate in predicting the experimentally
measured load distribution, followed by the ‘‘plate method’’ and the ‘‘rigid beam method’’ described herein.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2004兲130:8共1263兲
CE Database subject headings: Wooden structures; Lateral loads; Load distribution; Framed structures; Full scale tests; Models.

Introduction The Residential Structural Design Guide: 2000 Edition

Accurate design tools, for predicting the performance of wood-
frame buildings in natural disasters such as hurricanes and earth-
quakes, are important to provide the consistent and reasonable
levels of safety expected by the large numbers of people who live
in these buildings. Accurate prediction of building performance is
also needed for other design considerations such as damage con-
trol to mitigate the economic impact of natural disasters. Continu-
ing housing developments in high natural hazard areas such as
California and the U.S. coastlines mean that the development of
improved design tools, based on an improved understanding of
whole house response to natural hazard loads, is both worthwhile
and urgent. Such design tools should be analytically correct, and
offer reasonable tradeoffs between the uncertainties and omis-
sions in the design process 共e.g., impact of finishes兲 and simplic-
ity for the end-user.
1 walls.
Professor, Dept. of Wood and Paper Science,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-8005. E-mail:
bo – kasal@ncsu.edu
2 sence of a coherent body of evidence, makes no attempt to iden-
Graduate Student, Dept. of Wood and Paper Science,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-8005. E-mail:
mscollins@eos.ncsu.edu
3
Research Scientist, CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Tech-
nology, PO Box 56, Highett, 3190, Australia. E-mail:
phillip.paevere@csiro.au
4
Team Leader and Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Manufactur-
ing and Infrastructure Technology, PO Box 56, Highett, 3190, Australia.
E-mail: greg.foliente@csiro.au
Note. Associate Editor: David V. Rosowsky. Discussion open until
January 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on May 22, 2002;
approved on March 13, 2003. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, August 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2004/8-1263–1271/$18.00.
共NAHBRC 2000兲, published by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, provides the state-of-the-practice in en-
gineering design of light-frame homes, apartments, and town-
houses in the United States. This guide outlines the steps required
to design a building’s lateral force resisting system 共LFRS兲, and
indicates the importance in the design process of determining the
distribution of lateral loads within the building. The guide identi-
fies and describes the three most common methods of lateral force
distribution 共in order of popularity兲:
1. The tributary area method—based on an assumption that the
horizontal diaphragms are ‘‘flexible’’ compared to the shear
walls;
2. The total shear method—based on designer judgment of the
load distribution; and
3. The relative stiffness method—based on the assumption that
the horizontal diaphragms are ‘‘rigid’’ compared to the shear
The guide ‘‘highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the
various approaches 共to lateral force distribution兲 but, in the ab-
tify which approach, if any, may be considered superior.’’
In this paper, these and other methods of lateral force distribu-
tion and design are described and compared with a detailed three-
dimensional analysis, using a finite element 共FE兲 model, and with
the results of experiments on a full-scale L-shaped woodframe
test house. Fig. 1 shows the floor-plan and configuration of the
test house. Further details are given in Paevere et al. 共2003兲. The
work described herein addresses design predictions in lateral
loadings up to a design wind load in a hurricane prone climate
with a suburban environment 关i.e., Exposure ‘‘B’’ based on ASCE
7-98 共ASCE 1999兲兴. It is anticipated that the results presented
herein will contribute to the ‘‘body of evidence’’ required to de-
velop recommended method共s兲 for lateral force distribution in
light-frame wood buildings.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 1263

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Details of test house
Overview and Description of Lateral Force
Distribution Methods
A light-frame wood building is an assemblage of several compo-
nents and diaphragms with repetitive members such as walls,
floors, and roof systems connected by intercomponent connec-
tions such as bolts, metal straps, or proprietary connectors form-
ing a three-dimensional highly indeterminate structural system.
Because little is known about how the load is shared and distrib-
uted in such a complex structural system, simplifying assump-
tions are made in analysis and design. This simplification can
result in either over- or under-designed elements, resulting in ei-
ther over-conservative 共and therefore uneconomical兲 or poten-
tially non-conservative structures. Shear wall forces in a light-
frame wood building, for example, may be over-predicted by
130% or under-predicted by 60% using the tributary area method,
in which the building is idealized as a flexible beam on rigid
supports 共Kasal and Leichti 1992兲.
There is an increasing interest in a systems approach to the
analysis and design of light-frame buildings. The forces induced
by high winds and earthquakes act on the whole building and are
then distributed to the LFRS within the building. The design of
individual subsystems and components are therefore highly de-
pendent on the accuracy and reliability of methods used to dis-
tribute global building loads to the various components of the
building. This step in the analysis and design process is so critical
that if an inappropriate method of distributing these loads is cho-
sen, the ensuing effort spent for a detailed engineering design of
the components may yield completely inaccurate results. Thus, it
is possible to have an ‘‘engineered’’ house that is potentially less
safe than the one that has not been engineered; or in other words,
the fact that a house has been engineered can create a false sense
of confidence of safety and performance.
1264 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271
Because of the growing interest in Europe to use light-frame
wood construction in multistory residential buildings, there has
also been a strong interest there recently to evaluate and improve
the design methods for light-frame wood construction 共Andreas-
son 2000兲. A general approach to design against wind and earth-
quake loads—citing recent research results and trends, and iden-
tifying key issues that should be considered in analysis and
design—can also be found in Foliente 共1998兲, Foliente and Kasal
共2000兲, and Cobeen 共1997兲. Based on the results of the CUREE-
Caltech woodframe project 共Hall 2000兲, numerous improvements
in earthquake design of woodframe buildings are expected in the
near future.
In the following sections, a critical commentary of common
design assumptions, and a description of some currently used and
some proposed methods for determining the distribution of lateral
loads to the shear walls in woodframe buildings are given.
Common Design Assumptions
Current analytical and design methods used for lateral load dis-
tribution are based on a number of assumptions. In the following,
we provide comments on some of the commonly used assump-
tions:
• Diaphragms are flexible or rigid—As a horizontal load-
resisting member subjected to lateral loads, any diaphragm
will have a finite deflection. However, its flexibility is usually
defined relative to the rest of the structure. That is, the magni-
tude of expected diaphragm deflection relative to shear wall
deformation is frequently used to characterize a diaphragm as
rigid or flexible. The International Building Code 共IBC 2000兲
uses the relative deflection of shear walls and diaphragms to
determine the diaphragm type. The rule is that a diaphragm is
rigid when the lateral deformation of the diaphragm is less
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Description of different load distribution methods 关共a兲 to 共h兲 in plan view兴

than two times the average story drift. Thompson 共2000兲 dem-
onstrated that for most woodframe buildings, the diaphragms
would be considered as rigid due to significantly larger shear
wall deformations as compared with diaphragm deflection.
The relatively rigid nature of diaphragm behavior in typical
light-frame wood buildings has been observed and docu-
mented both experimentally and analytically 共Phillips et al.
1993; Leichti and Kasal 1993; Paevere et al. 2003兲.
• Interior walls have unknown or negligible capacity—The lat-
eral capacity of interior walls, which are mostly sheathed with
nonstructural panels, is commonly ignored in design, although
these walls can be designed as load-bearing walls. Research
studies have shown that gypsum sheathed walls can carry sig-
nificant in-plane loads 共Gad 1997; Karacabeyli and Prion
1999兲. Therefore, if the interior walls are effectively or mar-
ginally connected to a diaphragm, their influence should be
included in building performance analysis.
• External walls carry most or all of the loads—Exterior walls
are designed as load-bearing walls and are frequently sheathed
with structural boards. These are considered the main lateral
load-resisting elements in the house. However, by neglecting
the stiffness and contribution of interior walls, the exterior
walls may, in some cases, be over-designed.
• Shear wall stiffness is approximately equal—This assumption
is almost never met. Assuming equal shear wall stiffness for
all walls can lead to both over-designed and under-designed
walls in the same house.
• Shear walls behave linearly—This assumption can be used
where small wall deformations are expected. If walls are
loaded beyond the ‘‘elastic’’ limit, this assumption will yield
both over- and under-designed walls.
• The building does not rotate when loaded laterally—This as-
sumption, used in simple beam-type models of the building’s
LRFS, as shown in Figs. 2共c and e兲, neglects different wall
stiffnesses and does not account for the offset between center
of stiffness and applied load. In a nonlinear system, the center
of stiffness will change its location.
These assumptions are exploited to varying degrees by different
design and analytical methods for lateral force distribution. Some

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 1265

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271

 of the more commonly used and some proposed methods for lat-
eral force distribution are described in detail in the following
sections.
Tributary Area Method
This method is the simplest analytical technique and is based on
an assumption that the horizontal diaphragm is flexible so that
lateral forces are distributed in proportion to the tributary area
associated with the shear walls, rather than the stiffness. As
shown in Fig. 2共a兲, the tributary area method can be represented
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
as a series of flexible beams on rigid supports, with varying line
loads to account for changes in house geometry. This method
does not consider the effect of stiffness on load distribution and is
based on assumptions, which are rarely met in practice, as noted
above. It has been shown that this approach can lead to inaccurate
results for certain plan configurations 共Kasal and Leichti 1992兲
and can lead to both conservative and nonconservative results.
Continuous and Simple Beam Methods
The simple beam and continuous beam design approach can be
considered as a subset of the tributary area method. In these two
cases, the roof configuration is not taken into account, whereas in
the tributary area method the configuration of the roof and the
wall elevations are considered in determining the loading distri-
bution to the shear walls. As shown in Fig. 2共c兲, the simple beam
method models the building using a series of simple beams
loaded by a uniform line load equal to the total wind load divided
by the length of the building. The continuous beam method uses a
beam continuous over simple supports with a line load equal to
the total wind load divided by the length of the building, as shown
in Fig. 2共e兲.
Total Shear Method
This approach, based on the designer’s judgment, requires mini-
mal calculations. The method dictates that the total shear resis-
tance in all the walls must add up to the total applied shear. The
distribution of the shear resistance is left up to the judgment of
the designer. The distribution should be determined such that a
desirable response 共i.e., minimum torsion兲 under wind and earth-
quake loads will result. For the purposes of the comparisons pre-
sented herein, it is assumed that the shear forces are distributed
evenly into all resisting walls, as shown in Fig. 2共g兲, regardless of
their stiffness or location.
Relative Stiffness Method—With and Without Torsion
This approach is the converse of the tributary area approach. It is
based on an assumption that the horizontal diaphragm is rigid so
that lateral forces are distributed in proportion to the stiffness of
the shear walls, as shown in Fig. 2共b兲, rather than their associated
tributary area. If the rotation of the building is considered, then
the torsional stiffness will affect the load distribution as well as
the shear wall stiffness and the building is effectively represented
as a rigid beam on linear springs, as shown in Fig. 2共d兲. When
torsion is included, the locations of the center of stiffness 共COS兲
or center of force 共COF兲 are used in calculating the shear force
applied to each wall. If torsion is ignored, then the wind load is
effectively applied without regard to the COS or the COF. Includ-
ing the torsional effects is a more theoretically correct approach
1266 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271
although most design codes do not allow for a reduction in design
shear caused by torsion. In this paper, we will examine both
cases.
Rigid Beam on Elastic Foundation Method
The approach is the same as the relative stiffness method with
torsional effects included, and is shown in Fig. 2共d兲. In this
method, the building is represented by a rigid beam, thus incor-
porating the rigid diaphragm assumption, on elastic foundations.
As long as the diaphragm deformation is negligible relative to the
story drift, this assumption holds true for most light-frame wood
buildings. This method has been discussed in detail by Kasal and
Leichti 共1992兲. Linear springs may be used to represent the shear
walls when the loads and corresponding responses are small. The
method is not suitable where strong nonlinear response of the
system is expected, such as for earthquake loading, where the
structure can be loaded well beyond its elastic limit.
Rigid Beam on Inelastic Foundation Method
This method, shown in Fig. 2共f兲, is an extension of the rigid beam
on the elastic foundation method, which includes nonlinear in-
elastic behavior of the shear walls. The critical parameters are the
load-deformation relationships used in the nonlinear springs,
which represent the shear walls. Although there is a substantial
degree of uncertainty in estimating the entire load deformation
path of shear walls 共especially for those with openings兲, this
method gives relatively good estimates of shear wall reactions in
a nonlinear system and is simple, efficient, and easy to program.
This model requires an iterative solution 共e.g. Newton method兲
共Kasal and Leichti 1992兲. Instability of the system of governing
equations and multiple solutions may be a problem as with many
numerical solutions.
Plate Method
In the plate method, the building is represented as a simplified
two- or three-dimensional model, which can capture the contribu-
tion of stiffness of transverse walls to the overall response of the
building. As shown in Fig. 2共h兲, a rigid or flexible plate represents
the diaphragm and the walls are represented by springs. The load-
ing can be unidirectional or bidirectional, and the response in-
cludes the in-plane contribution from all of the walls in the struc-
ture. Out-of-plane bending stiffness of walls and their
contribution to the structural response is not accounted for in this
model. The model, which can include masses, can be loaded by
static or dynamic loads such as for an earthquake analysis. Shear
wall in-plane stiffness can be represented by linear or nonlinear
springs. In the simplest plate model the in-plane stiffness is con-
trolled by the plate thickness and material properties. The plate
model can easily be used for multistory building analyses, and,
due to its simplicity, for stochastic analysis. The model requires a
structural analysis program containing linear thin plate and spring
elements to represent linear/nonlinear wall behavior. Estimates of
the load-deformation characteristics of the springs representing
walls, plate stiffness 共i.e., the diaphragm stiffness兲, and the loca-
tion of the vertical center of mass that define the story heights are
required. This model can simulate energy dissipation and strength
and stiffness degradation provided the spring elements used have
this capability.
 Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Model Table 1. Comparison of Calculated Lateral Load Distributions under
Design Wind Load of 30 kN
The three-dimensional model based on FE, the most inclusive of
the methods described herein, is shown to be the most accurate Calculated reaction force 共kN兲
共in the following sections兲. The FE representation can capture the Design procedure W1 W2 W3 W4 Total
behavior of an entire building based on properties of materials
Tributary area 4.81 9.99 7.47 7.19 29.46
and connections in the structure. The model used in this paper is
Relative stiffness 0.86 6.79 13.58 8.48 29.71
relatively complex and has been based on previous work by Kasal
Relative stiffness incl. torsion 1.18 8.41 13.25 6.66 29.5
et al. 共1994兲, but with several modifications including:
Simple beam 3.3 9.89 11.55 4.96 29.7
1. Studs in the model are represented by elastic beam elements
Continuous beam 1.55 11.4 13.22 3.5 29.67
with axial stiffness included;
2. Sheathing is represented by plate elements 共with membrane Rigid beam on inelastic springs 2.07 7.87 19.92 ⫺0.17 29.69
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stiffness removed兲. The plate properties are calculated using
the parallel axis theorem to incorporate the offset of sheath-
ing with respect to neutral axis;
3. Actual masses of individual components are included as
mass densities and are calculated based on actual geometry
of these components 共additional masses such as the chimney
can be included兲;
4. The roof, which can include mass, is modeled as a folded
plate 共i.e., no individual roof trusses or joists are modeled兲.
More complex roof models 共linear or nonlinear兲 can be in-
cluded;
5. Intercomponent connections can be modeled as nonlinear
springs, with either hysteretic or standard nonconservative
nondegrading behavior;
6. The model can be loaded dynamically; and
7. The in-plane shear stiffness of each of the shear walls is
modeled using a nonlinear spring. This element is energeti-
cally equivalent to a detailed FE model of a shear wall. The
detailed shear wall model includes nonlinear hysteretic ele-
ments for nails and shell elements for studs and sheathing.
The model can include material plasticity for the shell ele-
ments. Alternatively, the properties for the energetically
equivalent spring can be obtained from shear wall tests.
Due to its complexity, this model is most appropriate as a re-
search tool, and can be used to study the behavior of light-frame
buildings subjected to various static and dynamic loads, to con-
duct parametric studies as well as to generate inputs for other
simpler models. The FE mesh used to represent the example light-
frame house is shown in Fig. 2共i兲.
Numerical Comparison of Lateral Force Distribution
Methods
In order to compare numerically the differences between the pro-
posed and currently used methods described above, each method
was used to calculate the distribution of lateral load to the North-
South oriented walls of an example L-shaped woodframe house,
under a design wind load of approximately 30 kN 共6.75 kips兲.
Overall details of the house used in the examples are given in Fig.
1, and a full description of the house is given in Paevere et al.
共2003兲. The wind load provisions in the Residential Structural
Design Guide 共NAHBRC 2000兲 provided the basis for the design
wind load. The wind load was calculated assuming a 120-mph
共192-kph兲 zone with an exposure ‘‘B’’—which is equivalent to a
suburban exposure condition based on ASCE 7-98 共ASCE 1999兲.
Table 1 lists the results of the different lateral force distribu-
tion methods for the four walls aligned with the North-South axis
in Fig. 1共b兲. The variation among the calculated reaction forces
using the different methods is quite large. This variability is un-
derstandable since the methods examined cover a range of com-
plexity and are based on different underlying assumptions about
Plate (E⫽11,300 MPa) 1.22 4.81 17.05 6.62 29.7
Plate (E⫽1130 MPa) 1.57 6.05 15.65 6.44 29.71
Finite element model 1.46 6.15 14.61 7.64 29.86
the behavior of the house. Disturbingly, there is a large difference
in the calculated values for two of the most common approaches,
i.e., relative stiffness and tributary area methods. This disparity
supports earlier findings by Kasal and Leichti 共1992兲, and raises
some serious questions about the design methods used in light-
frame construction. Which of the values are conservative and
which are nonconservative? Which method gives the most accu-
rate distribution?
Apart from the tributary area and total shear methods, all of
the lateral force distribution methods examined herein require an
estimate of the stiffness characteristics of the walls 共i.e. elastic
stiffness or full load-displacement relationship兲. Estimation of the
wall stiffness is crucial, since the methods of force distribution
are very sensitive to the values used. Various simplified methods
are available for estimating wall stiffness characteristics
共NAHBRC 2000兲, including the perforated shear wall method
and the segmented shear wall method. However, the load dis-
placement relationships calculated using these methods resulted
in estimates that were an order of magnitude different, when com-
pared with experimentally derived values 共Paevere et al. 2003兲.
Of note, the walls in the full-scale test house do not satisfy the
anchorage requirements for the perforated shear wall or seg-
mented shear wall method as outlined in the Residential Struc-
tural Design Guide. Additionally in some cases, the walls were
also outside the recommended aspect ratio limits. Since the meth-
ods listed in the Residential Structural Design Guide proved to be
unsatisfactory in determining realistic stiffness values, another ap-
proach was needed since realistic estimates of the stiffness of the
shear walls are necessary to experimentally validate the various
methods of lateral force distribution.
The approach used to estimate the stiffness was based on FE
modeling and experimental testing. FE models of all the walls
were developed, based on those described in Kasal et al. 共1994兲.
The FE simulations generated monotonic force displacement
curves to ultimate load based solely on the material properties and
the connection properties of the individual joints, as well as
boundary conditions for the walls to simulate either a free stand-
ing wall or a wall in a house. Unfortunately, the boundary condi-
tions of the individual walls within the house are unknown. The
boundary conditions on the perimeter of the walls are a function
of the intercomponent connections. These are not well docu-
mented and difficult to establish. The work of Groom 共1992兲 is
one of the very few studies available today that investigate the
performance of intercomponent connections in a light-frame
building. These connections are nonuniform and load history de-
pendent. The nonuniformity means that although the general na-
ture of the connections 共linear or nonlinear, type of hysteresis,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 1267

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Load-displacement relationships for individual walls in test
house
etc.兲 is known the actual behavior of a specific connection and its
influence is unknown. The second condition requires the entire
load history to be known so that a determination of the force and
stiffness of the intercomponent connection may be made and the
resulting influence on the wall quantified. Ideally, one would test
each intercomponent connection to correctly model the system
effects and influence of adjacent elements on the wall behavior.
In order to estimate these boundary conditions and to check
the veracity of the force displacement curves generated by the FE
model, a series of tests were conducted on the full-scale test
house, to obtain the in-situ values of initial stiffness. The experi-
ments consisted of testing each wall while restraining the remain-
ing walls thus minimizing the various load distribution paths and
somewhat isolating the individual wall. This series of tests was
used to update the initial stiffness of the entire force displacement
curves. Again, only the values for the initial stiffness were modi-
fied to account for the boundary conditions as the effects of the
boundary conditions on load-deformation curves become less pro-
nounced at higher displacement and load levels.
The calculated load-displacement characteristics of the indi-
vidual walls are given in Fig. 3, and the initial stiffness and mea-
sured capacities for the walls are summarized in Table 2. The
capacities listed in Table 2 are the measured capacities taken dur-
ing destructive cyclic testing of the house 共Paevere et al. 2003兲.
The values listed in Table 2 should be considered as a lower
bound for the capacities of the walls when subjected to a mono-
tonic load since the capacities were obtained during a cyclic test.
The stiffness values listed in Table 2 correspond to the adjusted
FE calculations as described above. The tabulated stiffness values
are only useful for linear elastic models while the entire force
displacement curve shown in Fig. 3 is necessary for nonlinear
behavior.
In Table 3, the ‘‘error’’ of the results given in Table 1, when
compared with the FE model, for the four North-South oriented
walls is given. The error is calculated as error⫽共simplified
method value⫺FE calculated value兲/共FE calculated value兲
⫻100%. The results suggest that the plate method predicts the
distribution of shear wall reactions best when compared to the FE
Table 2. Summary of Calculated Stiffness and Measured Capacity of
Test House Walls
Wall property Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4
Stiffness 共kN/mm兲 0.8 4.2 14 9
Capacity 共kN兲 7.1 28 33 48
1268 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271
Table 3. ‘‘Error’’ for Different Lateral Load Distribution Methods
Compared to Finite Element Model Calculations
Percent error compared to finite element
Method W1 W2 W3 W4
Tributary area 230 62 ⫺49 ⫺6
Relative stiff ⫺41 10 ⫺7 11
Relative stiff incl. torsion ⫺19 37 ⫺9 ⫺13
Simple beam 126 61 ⫺21 ⫺35
Continuous beam 6 85 ⫺10 ⫺54
Rigid beam on inelastic springs 42 28 36 ⫺102
⫺16 ⫺22 ⫺13
Plate (E⫽11,300 MPa) 17
Plate (E⫽1130 MPa) 8 ⫺2 7 ⫺16
model. The predictions are within ⫾20%, which is reasonable
considering the simplicity of the plate model, compared to the
complexity of the FE model. This conclusion holds true for the
example house presented here, even if the stiffness of the plate
used in the analysis is uncertain by an order of magnitude. Illus-
trating this result through the use of two different plate stiff-
nesses, E⫽11,300 MPa and E⫽1130 MPa. This was done to
study the effect of plate stiffness on the distribution of forces. The
plate stiffness may be difficult to estimate and the calculation
shows the sensitivity to an error in plate stiffness. The two moduli
were selected based on the constituent material properties with
the second modulus one order of magnitude less than the first.
The first modulus is roughly equal to the modulus of the plywood.
The shear moduli are thus an order of magnitude different as well
since an isotropic material model was used.
The next most accurate method appears to be the relative stiff-
ness approach 共based on the assumption of a rigid roof and ceiling
diaphragm兲, followed by the three different beam methods. The
tributary area method appears to be the least accurate 共based on
the assumption of a flexible roof and ceiling diaphragm兲, although
it is currently one of the most commonly used approaches. It
seems for the example house under consideration that the meth-
ods based on a more rigid diaphragm action, which also allow
some control of the diaphragm flexibility 共i.e., the two plate meth-
ods兲, give the best results. Note that it is the more flexible of the
two plate models examined which is more accurate. This is con-
sistent with experimental results in Paevere et al. 共2003兲 which
indicate the roof and ceiling diaphragm for the house has some
degree of flexibility, but is effectively rigid compared to the walls.
It should also be noted that all of the methods examined can both
under- and over-predict the forces in individual walls compared to
the FE model.
Experimental Validation of Selected Design Methods
The numerical comparisons above, demonstrate that different lat-
eral force distribution methods can result in quite different esti-
mates of the forces in the individual walls for the house exam-
ined. Prior to the experiments conducted by Paevere et al. 共2003兲,
no experimental data suitable for validating the different lateral
load distribution methods for irregular-plan light-frame structures
were available. In the following section, four of these load distri-
bution methods are compared with the results of full-scale experi-
ments, conducted on the L-shaped woodframe house. The test
house was built on a grid of 60 load-cells, which measured the
reaction forces in three principal directions, under the bottom
plate of the walls with a spacing of approximately one-meter.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Applied displacement cases used in experiments

Overall details of the house are given in Fig. 1, and a detailed
description of the house and the experimental setup are given in
Paevere et al. 共2003兲 and Paevere 共2002兲. The four design proce-
dures used in the experimental validation were
1. Rigid beam model;
2. Plate model with ‘‘rigid’’ diaphragm, E⫽11,300 MPa
共1640 ksi兲;
3. Plate model with ‘‘flexible’’ diaphragm, E⫽1,130 MPa
共164 ksi兲; and
4. Finite element model
In the full-scale experiments, four different displaced shapes were
applied to the house, and the reaction forces under the four North-
South oriented walls were measured. The displacement fields ap-
plied to the house corresponded to the four different fundamental
assumptions concerning the deflection of the house in the North-
South direction, under a design wind load. The displacements
were determined after calculating the design wind load for each
wall for the respective cases and then calculating the subsequent
displacement. A plan view of these displacement fields is shown
graphically in Fig. 4. The four different displaced shapes, were
applied incrementally to the house at the top plate level of the
four North-South oriented walls, until the total applied load was
equal to the design wind load 共30 kN or 6.75 kips兲, or until the
displacement in any wall was greater than 1.9 mm 共0.075 in.兲,
whichever occurred first. Full details of the load and displacement
measurement systems used are given in Paevere 共2002兲. The dis-
placement limit of 1.9 mm 共0.075 in.兲 was set to minimize struc-
tural damage, in order to preserve the house for further experi-
mentation 共Paevere et al. 2003兲. The values of the applied
displacements and the measured reaction forces under walls W1
to W4 are summarized in Table 4. The sum of the reaction forces
is provided in the right-hand column. Note that for applied dis-
placement cases three and four, the design wind load could not be
achieved in the experiment without exceeding the prescribed dis-
placement limit of 1.9 mm.
Importantly, the testing procedure is used purely to compare
and validate the load distribution methods examined, and not to
evaluate the response to the design wind load. The four imposed
displacement fields were not intended to represent the real build-
ing displacement under a wind load, but rather to cover a range of
implicitly assumed displaced shapes for the different lateral force
distribution methods.
In Table 5, the measured load distributions, for the four differ-
ent displacement cases, are compared against calculated values
using four different load distribution methods. Table 5, starting
from the far-left column includes the experimentally measured
reaction forces in each wall, the measured load in each wall as a
percentage of the total load for all four walls, the measured load
in each wall as a percentage of the measured capacity of each
wall 共from Table 2兲, the calculated reaction forces from each of
the four methods examined, and the percentage error for each
method. The error is calculated as error⫽(predicted value
⫺measured value)/(measured value)⫻100%. The percentage of
total load in the second column of Table 5 does not include the
reaction forces in the cross walls 共i.e., the East-West oriented
walls兲, which are perpendicular to the direction of loading. The
measured capacities of the walls were taken from later testing that
examined ultimate and post-ultimate behavior 共Paevere et al.
2003兲.
The FE model provided the most consistent and accurate esti-
mates of the load distribution, for all walls under each loading
condition examined. The plate method and the rigid beam method
were less accurate than the FE model, but provided reasonable
results considering their simplicity. All of the methods examined,
can either under- or over-estimate the experimentally measured
load in individual walls to some extent. All four methods exam-
ined predicted experimental values to within ⫾20%, apart from
wall W4 under applied displacement case three. The load levels in
wall W4 under this displacement profile were very small. The

Table 4. Experimentally Applied Displacements and Measured Load Distribution in Test House
Applied displacement 共mm兲 Measured reaction 共kN兲
Applied displacement case W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 Sum
1-关Fig. 4共a兲兴 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 4.3 14.0 6.6 25.7
2-关Fig. 4共b兲兴 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2 5.8 14.3 6.8 28.1
3-关Fig. 4共c兲兴 1.9 1.4 0.8 0.1 1.3 5.2 10.1 0.4 17.0
4-关Fig. 4共d兲兴 1.3 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 5.2 9.2 3.8 19.0

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 1269

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271

 Table 5. Comparison between Measured and Calculated Load Distribution under Four Different Applied Displacement Cases (1 kN
⫽0.225 kips, na⫽not applicable兲
Test Reaction forces 共kN兲 Percent error
Reaction Percent Percent of Rigid beam Plate model Plate model Finite Rigid Plate model Plate model Finite
Wall 共kN兲 total load wall capacity model E⫽11,300 E⫽1130 element beam E⫽11,300 E⫽1130 element
共a兲 Displacement Case 1
W1 0.8 3.1 11.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.0 12.5 ⫺18.1 12.5
W2 4.3 16.7 15.8 4.4 3.9 5.2 3.9 ⫺2.3 9.3 ⫺20.2 9.3
W3 14.0 54.5 43.6 14.9 13.5 13.7 12.9 ⫺6.4 3.6 2.1 7.9
W4 6.6 25.7 14.0 6.5 6.4 6.0 6.6 1.5 3.0 9.1 0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Total 25.7 100.0 — 26.6 24.5 25.8 24.1 — — — —

共b兲 Displacement Case 2
W1 1.2 4.3 17.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 8.3 8.3 ⫺1.7 15.0
W2 5.8 20.6 21.2 4.7 4.6 6.2 5.0 19.0 20.7 ⫺6.2 13.8
W3 14.3 50.9 44.5 17.3 17.7 15.3 15.4 ⫺21.0 ⫺23.8 ⫺7.0 ⫺7.3
W4 6.8 24.2 14.5 6.7 7.3 6.2 7.1 1.5 ⫺7.4 9.6 ⫺3.7
Total 28.1 100.0 — 29.8 30.7 28.8 28.4 — — — —
共c兲 Displacement Case 3
W1 1.3 7.6 18.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 15.7 15.4 18.5 15.4
W2 5.2 30.6 19.0 5.0 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.2 ⫺3.3 1.0 6.9
W3 10.1 59.4 31.5 10.3 9.9 8.7 9.8 ⫺2.1 2.5 13.9 2.9
W4 0.4 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 ⫺116 ⫺275 ⫺268 ⫺150
Total 17.0 100.0 — 17.2 17.8 16.4 16.8 — — — —
共d兲 Displacement Case 4
W1 0.8 4.2 11.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 ⫺2.5 ⫺8.7 ⫺13.8 ⫺4.0
W2 5.2 27.4 19.0 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.3 ⫺5.8 ⫺3.8 ⫺9.2 ⫺1.9
W3 9.2 48.4 28.7 9.4 9.7 9.3 8.9 ⫺2.2 ⫺5.2 ⫺1.1 3.2
W4 3.8 20.0 8.1 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7 5.3 7.9 3.2 2.4
Total 19 100.0 — 19.3 19.5 19.6 18.8 — — — —

resulting errors were large under this case, however when com-
pared to the capacity of the wall the percent error is negligible.
Comments on Experiment
Notably, the internal walls such as W3, the stiffest wall in the
house at low levels of displacement, are often not structurally
connected to the roof and ceiling diaphragm, but are connected to
the rest of the structure via the end walls and nonstructural con-
nections. This effect can only be modeled properly using the FE
model. The experiments and analysis presented here were limited
in magnitude to 1.9 mm displacement. At such small displace-
ment levels, the effect of tolerances and geometrical imperfec-
tions may be exaggerated even though the induced displacements
were large enough to achieve a 30 kN 共6.75 kips兲 total reaction
共design wind level兲 in some of the displacement cases. Given
such low displacement levels the roof and ceiling diaphragms
may not have been fully engaged.
Conclusions
In this paper, different methods of lateral load distribution have
been described and compared with the results of experiments on a
single-story full-scale woodframe test house, and with a detailed
three-dimensional analysis using a FE model.
Eight different methods were used to predict the distribution of
design wind forces to the walls of the house, for a moderate
hurricane prone environment. The results were compared and the
differences in the predictions from the different methods were
highlighted. Compared to a detailed nonlinear FE model of the
house under examination, the plate model was the most accurate
in predicting the load distribution, followed by the relative stiff-
ness model followed by the three different beam methods. The
tributary area method predicted with the least accuracy, although
it is one of the most commonly used approaches by engineers
today. For the example house under consideration, the methods
which are based on a more rigid diaphragm, but also allow con-
trol of the degree of flexibility 共i.e., the two plate methods兲 gave
the best results. This finding is consistent with experimental re-
sults in Paevere et al. 共2003兲 which indicate the roof and ceiling
diaphragm for the house had some degree of flexibility, but is
effectively rigid compared to the walls.
Four of the load distribution methods were further investigated
with the results of physical experiments conducted on a full-scale
test house. The FE model was generally the most accurate in
predicting the experimentally measured load distribution, justify-
ing its use as the reference for the comparisons between different
design models. This is followed by the plate method and then the
rigid beam method. All four methods examined generally pre-
dicted experimental values with reasonable accuracy 共within
⫾20%).
For the type of load and house configuration studied in this
work, the plate method and the rigid beam method are the most
practical, since they both predict with acceptable accuracy, with-

1270 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271

 out requiring a sophisticated computer modeling effort. However,
the rigid beam method may not be appropriate if the cross wall
contribution to the load distribution is significant, or if the roof
and ceiling diaphragm is more flexible than for the house exam-
ined. The primary difficulty in applying these analytical methods
is in the determination of the stiffness characteristics of the walls.
Acknowledgments
The work presented herein has been jointly funded by the CSIRO,
the NAHB Research Center, and the United States Department of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politehnica University of Timisoara on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Agriculture. The writers would like to acknowledge the technical
advice and assistance provided by Jay Crandell from the NAHB
Research Center.
References
Andreasson, S. 共2000兲. ‘‘Three-dimensional interaction in stabilisation of
multi-story timber frame building systems.’’ Rep. TVBK-1017, Divi-
sion of Structural Engineering, Lund Univ., Lund, Sweden.
ASCE. 共1999兲. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE 7-98, Reston, Va.
Cobeen, K. 共1997兲. ‘‘Seismic design of low-rise light-frame wood
buildings—State-of-the-practice and future directions.’’ Earthquake
performance and safety of timber structures, G. C. Foliente, ed., For-
est Products Society, Madison, Wis., 24 –35.
Foliente, G. C. 共1998兲. ‘‘Design of timber structures subjected to extreme
loads.’’ Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 1共3兲, 236 –244.
Foliente, G. C., and Kasal, B., eds. 共2000兲. ‘‘Wind safety and perfor-
mance of wood buildings.’’ Forest Products Society Publication No.
7258, Forest Products Society, Madison, Wis.
Gad, E. F. 共1997兲. ‘‘Performance of brick-veneer steel-framed domestic
structures under earthquake loading.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Melbourne, Australia.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 1271
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(8): 1263-1271
Groom, K. M. 共1992兲. ‘‘Nonlinear finite-element modeling of intercom-
ponent connections in light-frame wood structures.’’ MS thesis, Or-
egon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore.
Hall, J. F. 共2000兲. ‘‘The CUREe-Caltech woodframe project.’’ Proc.,
World Conf. on Timber Engineering 共CD-ROM兲, British Columbia,
Canada, p. 7.1.1.
International Building Code 共IBC兲. 共2000兲. Final Draft, International
Code Council, Birmingham, Ala.
Karacabeyli, E., and Prion, H. G. L. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic research on wood-
frame construction in Canada.’’ CUREE Publication No. W-01, Proc.,
Invitational Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of
Woodframe Construction, CUREE, Richmond, Calif.
Kasal, B., and Leichti, R. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Incorporating load sharing in shear
wall design of light-frame structures.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 118共12兲, 3350–
3361.
Kasal, B., Leichti, R. J., and Itani, R. Y. 共1994兲. ‘‘Nonlinear finite-element
model of complete light-frame wood structure.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
120共1兲, 100–119.
Leichti, R. J., and Kasal, B. 共1993兲. ‘‘A look at the structure as a three-
dimensional system.’’ FPS Proc. 7312, Forest Products Society, Madi-
son, Wis.
NAHBRC. 共2000兲. Residential structural design guide: 2000 Edition,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rockville, Md.
Paevere, P. J. 共2002兲. ‘‘Full-scale testing, modelling and analysis of light-
frame structures under lateral loading.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The Univ. of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic-
toria, Australia.
Paevere, P. J., Foliente, G., and Kasal, B. 共2003兲. ‘‘Load-sharing and
redistribution in a one-story woodframe building.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
129共9兲, 1275–1284.
Phillips, T. L., Itani, R. Y., and McLean, D. I. 共1993兲. ‘‘Lateral load
sharing by diaphragms in wood-framed buildings.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
119共5兲, 1556 –1571.
Thompson, D. S. 共2000兲. ‘‘Wood diaphragm and shear wall deflections.’’
Proc., ASCE Structures Congress 2000, Advanced Technology in
Structural Engineering, CD ROM, M. Elgaaly, ed., ASCE, Reston,
Va.