Evolution of Wood Shear Wall Testing, Modeling,

and Reliability Analysis: Bibliography

John W. van de Lindt, M.ASCE1

Abstract: A summary of wood shear wall testing, wood shear wall modeling, and wood shear wall reliability analysis studies over the
last two decades is presented in chronological order. However, since the objective was to present the evolution of shear wall testing and
modeling, and not to identify every study that has ever taken place, this paper is limited to manuscripts widely available, such as journal
and conference papers. It is divided into three sections—shear wall testing, shear wall modeling, and shear wall reliability analysis studies.
The review of each study appears in the section of this paper that the present writer felt the majority of the effort and contributions of the
researchers was made, although many of the studies may belong in two or even three of the aforementioned categories. These important
and closely related topics are presented in an effort to provide practicing structural engineers with a chronological diary of how engineers’
understanding of wood shear wall behavior has evolved.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0680共2004兲9:1共44兲
CE Database subject headings: Shear walls; Models; Reliability analysis; Wood; Bibliographies.

Introduction Starting as early as the 1940s, standard racking tests were

The main lateral load-carrying members of low-rise wood struc-
tures are shear walls. A shear wall consists of dimensional lumber
sheathed with plywood, oriented strand board 共OSB兲, or other
sheathing material to create a stiff wall assembly. Lateral forces
induced into the wall are resisted primarily by the sheathing and
are transferred to framing members via nailed connections. Shear
walls utilize the high racking strength of the sheathing to provide
rigidity against shear forces and minimize deflections. Through
this composite action, a shear wall system is able to effectively
dissipate energy and transfer loads to the foundation of a building.
Fig. 1 presents a schematic diagram showing the various compo-
nents that make up a typical wood shear wall. Light-frame wood
structures, in general, demonstrate favorable responses during
moderate and even severe ground shaking. This is the result of
two beneficial characteristics.
1. Their strength/stiffness to weight ratio is high; i.e., they have
low seismic masses.
2. Wood shear walls that make up the majority of the force-
resisting mechanism for these structures exhibit highly non-
linear responses, even at low force levels. Fig. 2 presents the
results of a monotonic shear wall test, or push-over test.
Notice that there is no distinct yield point or linear region.
Wood shear walls are capable of dissipating a large amount
of energy through the summation of the individual fastener
deformations. The result is a hysteretic response similar to
the hysteresis presented in Fig. 3.
1 passed testing, modeling, and reliability analysis. The review of
Assistant Professor, Michigan Technological Univ., Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Houghton, MI 49931.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2004. 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 January 13, 2003; approved on April 2, 2003. This paper is
part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
Vol. 9, No. 1, February 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/2004/1-
44 –53/$18.00.
developed to help designers calculate the shear strength of wood
shear walls. Since then, a great deal of experimental research has
been conducted to quantify both the static and the dynamic char-
acteristics, and subsequently the behavior, of wood shear walls.
Experimental studies have ranged from static to pseudodynamic
as well as full-scale shaketable studies. A primary motive for
much of the experimental studies was the development of static
and/or dynamic numerical models to predict wood shear wall be-
havior during simulated earthquake loadings. Models have ranged
from simple formulas for the prediction of strength, stiffness, and
deformation to complex nonlinear finite element models detailed
enough to include nonlinear elements for each fastener. Recently,
some models have incorporated structural reliability concepts in
order to help estimate the reliability of shear walls under earth-
quake loads. Their general aim is to provide a knowledge base
upon which implementation decisions can be made for
performance-based seismic design of wood structures. Many of
these reliability analyses rely on suites of ground motions devel-
oped outside of the scope of the study, and some include variabil-
ity in the shear wall hysteretic/material properties.
Experimental studies of shear walls help engineers to under-
stand and improve the behavior of shear walls under dynamic
loading, and to improve seismic design approaches and codes. A
review of this early research is detailed in bibliographies written
by Carney 共1975兲 and Peterson 共1983兲. This paper presents a
review of wood shear wall testing, modeling, and reliability
analysis from 1982 to the present. Many of the studies reviewed
belonged to more than one of the categories, and several encom-
each study appears in the section of this paper that the writer felt
the majority of the effort and contributions of the researchers was
made. The majority of this review effort was focused on readily
available publications, such as journal and conference articles.
Wood Shear Wall Testing
In addition to a brief description of each study, Table 1 provides a
summary of the wall dimensions, the sheathing types, fastener

44 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 2. Force-displacement relationship for wood shear wall. Notice
Fig. 1. Typical components of single panel wood shear wall that at this very low force/displacement level there is significant
nonlinear behavior.

types, and the loading protocol used in each of the studies, when
available. Also, please note that the wall dimensions, sheathing
dimensions, and nail dimensions are presented in the system of
units, i.e., metric or U.S. customary, as originally presented.
In 1983, Atherton 共1983兲 presented the results of tests on 10
16⫻48 ft wood-framed diaphragms sheathed with particleboard.
The main purpose of the tests was to examine the effect of the
sheathing thickness, nail size, nail spacing, blocking, and sheath-
ing pattern on the strength of the diaphragms. Increasing nail
spacing had the largest effect on the wall strength, and blocking
had a smaller, but what the author considered significant, effect.
An experimental program to investigate the behavior of seven
shear wall assemblies used in manufactured housing was con-
ducted by Nelson et al. 共1985兲. Their study investigated the size
and location of the shear wall within an assembly, the number of
glued sides of hardwood paneling, and the number of floor joists
below the shear wall. The failure mechanisms were described in
detail for each of the seven tests and the ultimate load ranged
from 2,980 to 6,100 lb for their samples. Their conclusions were
that the connection of the shear wall to the floor for the
windward-side shear walls was typically the location of failure,
and a significant amount of load may be transferred to the side
wall during lateral loading. Patton-Mallory and Wolfe 共1985兲
tested 11 full size shear walls 共see Table 1 for lengths兲 and 200
small walls, i.e., scaled, to improve the database for the racking
resistance of light-frame wood walls sheathed with plywood and
gypsum. The tests showed that the racking strength was linearly
proportional to the wall length, and the authors recommended that
the length of wall containing openings for windows or doors
should be neglected in racking resistance calculations. They con-
clude that gypsum wallboard does contribute to shear wall perfor-
mance and is additive to the resistance provided by the plywood
sheathing. Interestingly, a very recent article focused on shake-
table tests of a two story house and the influence of wall finish
materials 共Filiatrault et al. 2002兲 reported the same findings as

Fig. 3. Hysteretic response of wood shear wall

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 45

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Summary of Wood Shear Wall Tests

Study Walls tested Sheathing type共s兲 and connectors Loading protocol

Atherton 共1983兲 10 16⫻48 ft 7/16 and 5/8 in. particleboard; 8d and 10d nails Cyclic
Nelson et al. 共1985兲 Four 8 ft, 0 in. Glue Monotonic
Three 10 ft, 6 in.
Patton-Mallory and Wolfe 共1985兲 Three 8⫻8 ft 1/2 in. gypsum with 1.25 in. drywall nails; Monotonic
Two 8⫻16 ft 1/2 in. gypsum and 1/2 in. CDX plywood
Six 8⫻24 ft
200 22 in.⫻2,
4, 6, and 8 ft
Falk and Itani 共1987兲 Four 8⫻24 ft 1/2 in. plywood with 6d common nails Sine waves at varying frequencies,
and 1/2 in. gypsum with 1/2 in. gypsumboard nails free vibration
Cheung et al. 共1988兲 Seven 8⫻8 ft 1/2 in. Douglas Fir; 8d smooth galvanized boxnails Monotonic
Stewart et al. 共1988兲 11 2.4⫻2.4 m 7.5 and 12 mm Quasi static, sinusoidal shaketable,
and El Centro 1940 shaketable
Polensek and Schimel 共1991兲 Five 2.44⫻2.44 m 9.5 mm plywood; 12.7 mm gypsum Static cyclic
Deam et al. 共1991兲 Five 9.0⫻3.6 m Plywood Cyclic
Dolan and Madsen 共1992兲 11 2.4⫻2.4 m 9 mm waferboard and 9 mm plywood Monotonic, slow cyclic
Schmid et al. 共1994兲 Three 8⫻4 ft 1/2 in. plywood; 10d⫻ 2.125 in. vinyl coated nails Reversed cyclic pseudostatic
Leiva-Arevena 共1996兲 2.4⫻2.4 m 12 mm Radiata-pine; helically threaded 50 mm nails Reversed cyclic: BRANZ P21 test
procedure 共New Zealand兲
Karacabeyli and Ceccotti 共1996兲 Six 2.4⫻4.9 m 9.5 mm OSB; 9.5 mm plywood; 65 mm nails Ramp and cyclic
Kamiya et al. 共1996兲 Six 2.42⫻1.82 m 7.5 mm plywood; 9 and 12 mm plywood Shaketable: El Centro 1940,
19 2.42⫻1.82 m Taft 1952
Serrette et al. 共1997兲 18 2.44⫻2.44 m Plywood, OSB, gypsum, FiberBond Monotonic with initial preload
15 0.61⫻0.61 m to set connections
Lam et al. 共1997兲 11 2.4⫻7.3 m 1.2⫻2.4 m panels and 1.2 ⫻7.3 m panels Monotonic and reversed cyclic
Yamaguchi and Minowa 共1998兲 2.94⫻3.64 m 9 mm plywood; N50 50 mm nails Shaketable: Kobe 1995
He et al. 共1998兲 2.4⫻7.2 m OSB Reversed cyclic, three different
protocols
Shenton et al. 共1998兲 Eight 2.4⫻2.4 m 15/32 in. plywood; 1/2 in. OSB; 8d nails Reversed cyclic, SPD
Dinehart and Shenton 共1998a兲 12 2.44⫻2.44 m 11.9 mm plywood or 12.7 mm OSB; 8d nails Static cyclic, dynamic reversed
cyclic
Kawai 共1998兲 19 2.79⫻3.64 m Plywood, braces, gypsum, plywood with sliding board Pseudodynamic, cyclic
Dolan and Heine 共1998兲 22 2.4⫻12 m 12 mm plywood; 12 mm OSB Monotonic, reversed cyclic: SPD
Ficcadenti et al. 共1998兲 24 2.4⫻2.4 m 9.5 mm plywood Reversed cyclic: various
Dinehart and Shenton 共1998b兲 Four 2.4⫻2.4 m 11.9 mm plywood; 8d nails Reversed cyclic: SPD
Karacabeyli and Ceccotti 共1998兲 2.44⫻4.88 m — Monotonic, reversed cyclic,
and pseudodynamic: various
earthquakes
Bracci and Jones 共1998兲 8⫻8 ft 15/32 in. Reversed cyclic
He et al. 共1999兲 Eight 2.4⫻7.32 m 9.5 mm OSB; 50 mm 6d nails Monotonic, reversed cyclic
Dinehart et al. 共1999兲 8⫻8 ft 15/32 in. plywood; 8d nails Reversed cyclic: SPD
Shipp et al. 共2000兲 14 8⫻8 ft 15/32 or 3/8 plywood; 8d or 10d common nails Reversed cyclic
Karacabeyli et al. 共2001兲 13 8⫻4 ft 7/16 in. OSB; 82 mm nails Shaketable: scaled Kobe 1995,
20 2.44⫻2.44 m Landers 1992
Higgins 共2001兲 2.4⫻2.4 m 11.9 mm plywood; 8d nails Reversed cyclic
Durham et al. 共2001兲 12 2.4⫻2.4 m 9.5 mm OSB; 50 mm spiral nails Monotonic, cyclic, shaketable:
Landers 1992
Note: Wall dimensions are reported in the units and to the accuracy that they were originally reported in the study.

46 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
being very significant. In fact, it appears that the exclusion of wall
finish materials from experimental studies could lead to overly
conservative results.
Falk and Itani 共1987兲 measured the dynamic characteristics of
10 different wood diaphragms, four of which they designated as
shear walls. Free-vibration tests were performed to measure natu-
ral frequencies and damping ratios of the four walls. Then,
forced-vibration tests using sine waves at varying frequencies
were performed to develop displacement response spectra for the
walls. They found that the reduction in stiffness of the walls due
to openings was approximately equal to the proportion of the
walls occupied by the openings. Clearly this reinforces the earlier
conclusion of Patton-Mallory and Wolfe 共1985兲 that the length of
the wall containing openings should be neglected in design.
A study conducted by Cheung et al. 共1988兲 used full-scale
static and free vibration tests to verify a previously developed
nonlinear finite-element model for wood shear walls. Three dif-
ferent shear wall layouts were tested, and the connection between
the sheathing and framing was found to dominate the shear wall
behavior. Stewart et al. 共1988兲 investigated the behavior of wood
shear walls under reversed-cyclic static loading and shake-
table tests. They observed that the two failure mechanisms were
the sheathing nail heads breaking off and nail shanks withdrawing
from the framing. They also measured damping values for shear
walls. Their primary conclusions were that walls subjected to dy-
namic loading exhibited enhanced stiffness compared to those
loaded quasi statically. They also concluded that damping was
approximately 10% during elastic response, but was reduced to
5% during nonlinear response. Polensek and Schimel 共1991兲 in-
vestigated several different types of light-frame wood subsystems,
one of which was shear walls. They statically tested five shear
walls to gather some useful information when designing for wind
and seismic effects.
Deam et al. 共1991兲 tested full-scale three-story plywood shear
walls cyclically to failure. The shear walls were designed to the
current 共at the time兲 New Zealand code. Their major conclusion
was that large displacements in the bottom story were able to be
accommodated without instability problems occurring. Dolan and
Madsen 共1992兲 tested full-scale shear walls in order to compare
the effects of sheathing type, i.e., plywood versus waferboard, on
wall performance. Their motivation was that the assumption that
the two materials are equivalent had been made in the U.S. build-
ing code, but was never verified. This included assumptions about
the equivalent stiffness for shear walls built using each of the
materials. The authors concluded that sheathing type played an
insignificant role in the working stress range of the shear walls as
well as the ultimate capacity. They also observed that the wafer-
board sheathed shear walls had lower deflections at high loads,
i.e., upper 50%, than did plywood sheathed shear walls.
A study by Schmid et al. 共1994兲 focused on testing plywood
sheathed shear walls with a height-to-width ratio of 2:1, rather
than the more common 1:1, since the uniform building code al-
lows shear panels a ratio of 3.5:1. They concluded that vertical
dead load applied to walls helps to increase the capacity at lower
displacement levels, but they made no conclusions about this at
higher displacement levels. They also determined that uplifting at
the end was the key factor to lateral wall displacement and, there-
fore, proper anchor bolt use is required. The authors recom-
mended decreased shear values for walls with a height-to-width
ratio of 2:1.
Leiva-Arevena 共1996兲 tested wood shear walls in order to es-
timate the damping ratio using the equivalent viscous damping
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 47
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
method. It was concluded that shear walls possess considerable
energy absorption and damping capacity. Equivalent viscous
damping was found to be between 0.2 and 0.4%. Karacabeyli and
Ceccotti 共1996兲 outlined a five-year research program on wood
shear walls in Canada. They discussed one set of the tests that
examined the effect of fastener type on wall performance and the
effect of gypsum wallboard on shear wall capacity. They deter-
mined that gypsum wallboard increases the strength and stiffness,
but lowers the ductility, of the wall when compared to walls with
only OSB or plywood sheathing. This is, of course, the obvious
trade-off, since deformation is required to absorb input energy,
but deformation results in damage. Kamiya et al. 共1996兲 pre-
sented the results of two different series of shear wall tests. The
first set of tests were shaketable tests that compared the effect of
fastening the studs with bolts instead of nails. A comparison of
the earthquake load with the design load of the wall was also
made. They observed little difference in the response of the wall
whose studs were fastened with nails versus the response of the
wall whose studs were fastened with bolts. However, when the
acceleration was increased, the maximum displacement response
of the wall with nailed studs increased significantly more than
that of the bolted wall. The second set of tests examined various
plywood sheathing thicknesses and focused on the effect of mass
on the response.
A study by Serrette et al. 共1997兲 investigated the static racking
behavior of several different metal framed shear walls. The walls
were sheathed with various materials such as OSB and plywood.
They found that the shear capacity values of the OSB and ply-
wood walls were similar.
Lam et al. 共1997兲 evaluated the resistance of wood shear walls
sheathed with oversize panels. Oversize panels are sheathings,
either OSB or plywood, that are larger than the standardized
1.22⫻2.44 m 共4⫻8 ft兲. In general, the oversized panels are still
2.44 m 共8 ft兲 in one direction, but can be some multiple of 1.22 m
共4 ft兲 in the other direction. Under monotonic loading, the walls
sheathed with oversize panels were found to have a significantly
increased stiffness and lateral load-carrying capacity. Under cy-
clic loading, the walls built with standard 共2.4⫻1.2 m兲 panels
were found to dissipate more energy. Both of these conclusions
are logical, since the energy being dissipated is a result of the nail
deformations occurring as a result of the rotations of the indi-
vidual sheathing panels. Different failure modes were observed
during the cyclic tests and monotonic tests. Yamaguchi and
Minowa 共1998兲 performed shaketable tests of wood shear walls
using the 1995 Kobe north-south component of the ground mo-
tion recorded at the Kobe Marine Meteorological Observatory as
well as some static tests. Some of the walls tested dynamically
collapsed following the maximum response. They observed that
the walls tested dynamically had more strength, but lower ductil-
ity than the walls statically tested. They also verified a method to
predict the collapse of shear walls and verified its accuracy using
three additional ground motions.
The influence of cyclic test protocols for wood shear wall test-
ing was examined by He et al. 共1998兲. They compared a test
protocol commonly used in Canada, the European Committee for
Standardization, and a proposed protocol. They concluded that
loading protocols with a large number of cycles can result in
fatigue failure of the nails. The authors felt that their proposed
protocol more effectively reflects the walls’ performance under
seismic loading. Several years earlier, Skaggs and Rose 共1996兲
reviewed some test methods for wood shear walls. Shenton et al.
共1998兲 performed tests to characterize the degradation of stiffness
and energy dissipation during cyclic loading. The tests were con-
ducted using a sequential phase displacement 共SPD兲 procedure
共Shepherd 1996兲 recommended by the Structural Engineers Asso-
ciation of Southern California. They observed that the effective
stiffness decreased linearly with repeated cycling at the same dis-
placement level. The energy dissipation of the wall was found to
decrease significantly with the first cycle of a new, increased,
amplitude and only moderately with the cycles of the same am-
plitude that followed. The SPD procedure has many cycles and
could certainly result in nail fatigue, as discussed previously 共He
et al. 1998兲.
Dinehart and Shenton 共1998b兲 conducted a comparison be-
tween four static and eight dynamic shear wall tests. It was de-
termined that the static tests predicted the maximum load of the
dynamic tests fairly well, but were unable to reasonably predict
most dynamic properties. They also determined that the failure
modes of the walls were quite different for the static and dynamic
loading cases. A discussion about this paper disagreed with the
authors’ use of the SPD loading technique used to simulate an
earthquake 共Karacabeyli et al. 1999兲.
Ficcadenti et al. 共1998兲 applied the E 564 load protocol
共ASTM 1994兲 to four identical sets of plywood sheathed shear
walls using three different cyclic load protocols. They concluded
that loading cycles with numerous cycles in the elastic range low-
ered the ultimate strength of the shear wall. They also observed
several different types of failure modes, indicating that plywood
shear wall behavior was significantly influenced by tension forces
in the individual fastener subassemblies.
Dolan and Heine 共1998兲 tested 22 walls using monotonic and
reversed-cyclic displacement control loading. Their walls had
various configurations with openings for windows and doors as
well as various anchorage conditions. They observed a change in
failure mode when overturning restraints were not used. The walls
were tested monotonically and using reversed-cyclic loading.
Monotonically tested walls sustained a higher load at displace-
ments beyond capacity than did the walls subjected to reversed-
cyclic loading. They concluded by making recommendations that
may be applied to design.
Dinehart and Shenton 共1998a兲 compared the response of wood
shear walls with and without passive dampers. Cyclic lateral tests
were conducted on conventional walls and walls with a viscoelas-
tic damper located in a diagonal brace. The brace/damper in-
creased the load capacity and stiffness of the wall by more than
30%, and the energy dissipation capabilities by more than 50%.
Karacabeyli and Ceccotti 共1998兲 tested several wood shear walls
using different testing protocols. They used a cyclic protocol
共ASTM 1993兲 and several other protocols with fewer cycles and
lower frequency. Their goal was to examine the difference on the
maximum load carrying capacity, ultimate displacement, enve-
lope curves, and dissipated energy due to the testing protocol.
They found that the maximum load-carrying capacity was ap-
proximately equal regardless of the protocol. The maximum load-
carrying capacity for the pseudodynamic tests was found to be
approximately 15% greater than those found during the cyclic and
monotonic tests. Bracci and Jones 共1998兲 investigated the split-
ting of the sill plate that occurred during the Northridge earth-
quake by testing shear walls with and without confining plates at
the base of the walls. The confining plates provided the walls with
additional stiffness, a slight increase in maximum load, and ap-
proximately 26% more energy dissipation capacity.
Kawai 共1998兲 conducted comprehensive tests on 16 different
shear wall configurations that were found to have suffered dam-
48 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
age during the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan. Both static and
pseudodynamic tests were conducted, and the testing results
matched well with the response from their proposed bilinear/slip
hysteresis model. He et al. 共1999兲 investigated the influence of
openings on the lateral resistance of wood shear walls built with
standard and oversize sheathing panels. The application of over-
size sheathing panels improved the shear wall performance.
Openings caused a significant decrease in strength and stiffness,
and a change in failure mode. Shear walls with openings had a
combination of nail and panel failures. An existing nonlinear
finite-element program was used to predict the shear wall behav-
ior, but the authors felt that some fine tuning of the program was
needed to provide more consistent results for the systems. Dine-
hart et al. 共1999兲 tested shear walls in order to compare the per-
formance of conventional walls with that of walls that included
viscoelastic dampers. They tested five different damper configu-
rations and found increases in energy dissipation as high as 59%.
They also observed significant increases in the effective stiffness.
Shipp et al. 共2000兲 investigated the effectiveness of different
types of hold-down hardware during reversed-cyclic loading.
They determined that the type of hold-down anchor had a small
effect on the maximum lateral force carried by the walls. Karaca-
beyli et al. 共2001兲 introduced a new type of shear wall system
developed in Canada. The new shear wall was tested using a
shaketable and was found to perform better than conventional
shear walls. The improved performance is achieved by rearrang-
ing the location of the sheathing. Rather than having studs on one
side, the sheathing was sandwiched between two studs rotated 90°
from their conventional orientation. The fasteners connecting the
sheathing to the studs then become loaded in double shear.
Higgins 共2001兲 presented the results from wood shear walls
cyclically tested with a new type of hysteretic damper called a
kinematically expanding hysteretic damper. The device has re-
sulted in significant improvement of the shear wall performance.
In addition, a time history analysis was performed for single-
degree-of-freedom 共SDOF兲 systems, and it was determined that a
significant reduction in response can be achieved with the instal-
lation of the new dampers.
Durham et al. 共2001兲 tested 12 shear walls with standard and
oversize OSB panels. The walls’ shear capacity increased 26%
when using large sheathing panels. They also used the same num-
ber of nails for some of the walls, redistributing the nails nor-
mally found at the interior seams to the exterior of the walls.
These walls had an increased shear capacity of 104%. The walls
were tested monotonically, reversed-cyclically, and using a
shaketable. During the shaketable tests, the walls sheathed with
the oversize panels drifted approximately 25% less than the stan-
dard walls.
Wood Shear Wall Modeling
The goal of a numerical or mathematical model is to help quantify
system and/or component behavior, and eventually provide for a
better understanding of complex structural behavior. Modeling of
wood shear walls has evolved over the last two decades from
simple racking equations for displacement and ultimate capacity
to complex nonlinear dynamic models.
Easley et al. 共1982兲 derived formulas for sheathing fastener
forces, linear wall stiffness, and nonlinear load-strain wall behav-
ior. They based these formulas on deformation patterns observed
during the testing portion of their work, and confirmed the mod-
els’ adequacy using linear and nonlinear finite-element analysis.
 Fig. 4. Explanation of pinching in hysteresis loops. Pinching in wood shear wall hysteresis typically occurs at larger responses.
They concluded that their formula for sheathing forces should
only be applied in the linear range, with the exception of the side
and maximum end fastener force, which is accurate well into the
nonlinear range. Itani et al. 共1982兲 developed a procedure to cal-
culate the racking performance of wood shear walls by replacing
each sheet of sheathing with a pair of diagonal springs. The stiff-
ness of each spring was estimated from the stiffness of an indi-
vidual sheathing to frame connector/fastener.
Cheung and Itani 共1983兲 developed a finite-element model to
predict the static and dynamic behavior of light-frame wood shear
walls. The model employed a nonlinear nail load-slip element,
and a numerical example was presented for static and dynamic
loading. A year later, Itani and Cheung 共1984兲 presented a finite-
element model that used joint, beam, and two-dimensional plane
stress elements to model nail connectors, frame members, and
sheathing, respectively. The nonlinear nail element was based on
measured nail load-slip properties. Their finite-element model
was general and did not impose restrictions on the sheathing ar-
rangement, load application, or distorted geometry. The results of
their model agreed well with experimental results. Itani and Rob-
ledo 共1984兲 presented a finite-element model that used beam ele-
ments, constant strain triangles, and joint elements. The nonlin-
earity was restricted to the joint elements and the behavior of
some, but not all, of the nails was included in the models. Both
continuously sheathed walls and walls with openings were con-
sidered, and they concluded that both models provided reasonable
predictions at low computer cost.
McCutcheon 共1985兲 formulated a general procedure to deter-
mine the racking response of wood shear walls using energy
methods. His procedure provided a flexible alternative to empiri-
cal formulas that only applied to specific wall configurations. Lat-
eral load-slip data for nailed connections were used to calibrate
the model, and the procedure was confirmed using full-scale shear
wall tests. A simple numerical shear wall model was developed by
Gupta and Kuo 共1985兲. They used a generalized coordinate ap-
proach to derive equilibrium equations for the wall, and then ex-
tended the approach to multiple panel walls by assuming a sinu-
soidal deformed shape for the vertical studs. They confirmed the
adequacy of their model by using a finite-element model and
shear wall tests performed by Easley et al. 共1982兲 and Foschi
共1982兲. Gupta and Kuo concluded that their model was accurate
and simple enough to be used in repetitive dynamic analyses.
Gupta and Kuo 共1987兲 later developed a five degree of freedom
model for single story shear walls that included uplift behavior of
the studs. Two more degrees of freedom were added for addi-
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 49
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
tional stories. The model agreed well with available experimental
results, and was used to show the effect of vertical load on the
load-displacement curve for a shear wall.
In 1987, Patton-Mallory and McCutcheon 共1987兲 extended the
model previously developed by McCutcheon 共1985兲 to model
racking behavior of shear walls sheathed on both sides with dis-
similar materials. Recall that several of the experimental studies
discussed earlier concluded that the inclusion of the wall finish
materials is critical for accurate modeling of wood frame struc-
tures. Asymptotic curves were used to model fastener load slip.
The model was compared to the results of numerous small wall
tests, and predicted the racking behavior of the shear wall well.
Kamiya 共1988兲 developed a simplified model that broke the hys-
teresis into several sections derived from trends in shear wall
data. The model was verified using six pseudodynamic shear wall
tests, and produced good results. Gutkowski and Castillo 共1988兲
developed a mathematical model for light-frame wood shear
walls that used conventional stiffness matrices for the stud-frame
members and two-dimensional orthotropic-plane stress elements
for the sheathing. They used nonlinear fastener elements to model
the slip between the stud frame and the sheathing. Linear spring
connector elements were used to model the joints between the
stud frame members. Experimental results from 10 shear wall
tests were used to confirm a high degree of accuracy for their
model.
A two-dimensional finite-element model for all types of wood
diaphragms including shear walls was developed by Falk and
Itani 共1989兲. Their formulation included a nonlinear finite element
that accounted for the distribution and stiffness of fasteners con-
necting the sheathing to the framing. Parametric studies on nail
stiffness and nail spacing were performed, and it was concluded
that nail spacing had more of an effect on the wall stiffness than
did nail type.
Filiatrault proposed a new concept for the design of wood
shear walls. Friction devices in the corner of the walls were ana-
lytically modeled, and were shown to significantly reduce the
vibration amplitude and eliminate pinching in the hysteresis.
Pinching of hysteresis occurs at moderate to high displacement
levels, and an explanation is shown in Fig. 4. The elimination of
pinching means that more energy is being dissipated by the sys-
tem as a result of the friction device. Dolan and Filiatrault 共1990兲
developed a single degree of freedom oscillator model based on
static test data capable of predicting the steady-state response of
nailed shear walls. Their model broke the hysteresis into six linear
regions requiring five basic assumptions. The model was verified
using four shear wall test specimens, and was found to be accu-
rate. The authors concluded that the model will help with the
transition from static to dynamic shear wall tests and theory. Fili-
atrault 共1990a,b兲 formulated a simple analysis model to predict
the static and dynamic response of timber shear walls. This model
incorporated arbitrary geometry of the framing, sheathing and
connections, and wall discontinuities, i.e., openings. A
displacement-based energy formulation was used to develop the
static and dynamic equilibrium equations. The model was verified
with full-scale shear wall racking and shaketable tests, and was
found to be accurate.
A numerical model for nonlinear static analysis of wood shear
walls was developed by Dolan and Foschi 共1991兲 that included
nonlinear connector behavior, bearing behavior between sheath-
ing panels, and the effects of out-of-plane bending of the sheath-
ing. The sheathing-to-sheathing bearing element was modeled as
a bilinear spring, and modeled only in-plane forces. The sheathing
element deformations were described using a cubic polynomial in
each direction; hence, 12 degrees of freedom at each node were
required. The authors conclude that their model is general and
capable of modeling irregular shapes as well as adhesive connec-
tions. Kasal and Leichti 共1992兲 developed a two-dimensional
model that was equivalent to a detailed three-dimensional model.
The equivalent model was formulated using equivalent energy
concepts, and yielded the global behavior of the structure in rea-
sonable computer times. It may be applied to wood shear walls
with or without openings.
White and Dolan 共1995兲 developed a finite-element model to
examine the behavior of timber shear walls subjected to mono-
tonic or dynamic loading. They used four types of elements—a
beam element for the framing, a plate element for the sheathing,
nonlinear springs for the sheathing to frame connectors, and a
bilinear spring to model bearings between adjacent sheathing
panels. The adequacy of the program was confirmed using
existing experimental data, and the model predicted the strength
of the wall very well. The correlation coefficient between the
model and the dynamic test results was approximately 0.84 for
displacement.
A general hysteresis model for timber structures was created
based on a modified Bouc-Wen-Baber-Noori 共BWBN兲 model by
Foliente 共1995兲. That model could handle multiple degrees of
freedom, and incorporated stiffness degradation, strength degra-
dation, and pinching. The proposed model compared well against
experimentally determined hysteresis shapes, and can be used to
model a wood shear wall; hence, it is included here. Foliente et al.
共1999兲 formulated a hysteretic restoring force model. It was
shown that for some practical cases, statistical linearization could
be used in place of the more time intensive Monte Carlo simula-
tion to estimate shear wall response statistics. Kasal and Xu de-
veloped a mathematical model using constitutive equations to
analyze nonlinear joint behavior. The model incorporated stiffness
and strength degradation as well as pinching, and could be used to
describe the hysteretic behavior of wood shear walls. Richard
et al. 共1998兲 and Davenne et al. developed a numerical model for
dynamic modeling that assumed all of the energy dissipation to
occur in the joints. The model was developed based on the ob-
served behavior of single joints tested under static monotonic and
reversed-cyclic loadings. Pseudodynamic tests were carried out
on three walls to confirm the adequacy of the finite-element
model. King and Deam 共1998兲 present the results of a study to
develop a rational method of rating the seismic capacity of shear
50 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. Explanation of Reliability Index and Probability of Failure
Reliability index Corresponding failure probability
1.0 0.159
1.5 0.067
2.0 0.023
2.5 0.0062
3.0 0.0013
3.5a 0.000233a
4.0 0.0000317
4.5 0.0000034
5.0 0.00000029
7.0 0.00000000000128
8.0 0.000000000000000666
a
Reliability index corresponding to a failure probability of approximately
2 in 10,000; i.e., 0.0002.
walls from experimental results. Some nonlinear modeling issues
were also addressed.
The results of the response of a wood shear wall from an
equivalent linear response method were compared to the results of
a more complicated time history analysis by Kawai 共1999兲. It was
determined that the equivalent linear response tended to underpre-
dict displacements, while energy methods tended to overpredict
displacements. In an effort to bridge the gap between the SDOF
and multi-degree-of-freedom systems, a discrete three degrees of
freedom hysteretic model was developed by Dinehart and Shen-
ton 共2000兲. The model has the ability to account for wall geom-
etry, fastener type, fastener spacing, and sheathing type. The
model accurately predicted hysteretic behavior at low displace-
ment levels, but failed to predict the pinched hysteresis observed
in experimental tests. Folz and Filiatrault 共2001兲 developed a nu-
merical model for wood shear walls under quasi static loading.
Three structural components were used—rigid framing members,
linear elastic sheathing panels, and nonlinear sheathing-to-
framing connectors. The model accounts for hysteretic pinching,
stiffness, and strength degradation. A procedure was also pre-
sented for calibrating SDOF systems to predict the nonlinear dy-
namic response of shear walls under seismic loading.
Reliability Analysis of Wood Shear Walls
As the field of structural engineering, particularly earthquake en-
gineering, moves toward the implementation of performance-
based design, it is critical that performance levels for wood struc-
tures correspond to the targeted reliability levels. Reliability
analysis for structures subjected to earthquake loading has been
pursued for several decades. A common measure of reliability is
the reliability index, which corresponds to a failure probability.
For example, the footnoted row in Table 2 presents the reliability
index corresponding to a failure probability of approximately 2 in
10,000; i.e., 0.0002. Reliability index levels ranging from 2 to 4.5
are fairly common in structural design codes. Interestingly, only
recently have reliability techniques been combined with seismic
analysis for wood shear walls. Several of the studies here in-
cluded modeling and reliability, and several included testing,
modeling, and reliability techniques.
Ceccotti and Foschi 共1999兲 evaluated a seismic design proce-
dure for wood shear walls in the Canadian National Building
Code. They coupled nonlinear dynamics with first order reliability
methods to calibrate a design factor. This study included variabil-
ity in the peak ground accelerations and variability of some of the
hysteretic parameters. The parameters were fit to experimental
data, and the authors selected a coefficient of variation based on
engineering judgment. They concluded that the code procedure
was adequate for the geographical area considered. Another study
only considered the probabilistic characteristics of peak ground
accelerations 共Foliente et al. 1999兲. The system variability was
assumed to play a minor role in the overall response of the shear
wall. That study used two models, a modified BWBN model and
a simpler model, which did not include pinching and stiffness
degradation, to investigate the effect of pinching on reliability
estimates. They found that neglecting pinching and stiffness deg-
radation produced unconservative reliability estimates. This is
logical, since pinching of the hysteresis loop decreases the area
within the loop, which is a direct measure of seismic energy dis-
sipation due to hysteresis. Thus, neglecting pinching would make
the model seem to dissipate more energy than the shear wall is
really capable of dissipating, resulting in unconservative response
estimates.
Foliente 共2000兲 developed another procedure for calculating
the reliability of shear walls under uncertain earthquake loading
that did not include the effect of uncertain hysteretic parameters.
A modified BWBN hysteresis model was used within a Monte
Carlo simulation framework to compute reliability estimates. The
study was conducted for a site located in Tokyo. Paevere and
Foliente 共2000兲 investigated the effect of excluding hysteretic
pinching and stiffness degradation on peak wall response and re-
liability estimates. Using the BWBN hysteresis model and Monte
Carlo simulation, the authors ran eight different analyses, and
found that pinching and degradation have a significant effect on
peak response and reliability estimates.
Rosowsky 共2002兲 presented a risk-based methodology for the
seismic design of wood shear walls. That study included a se-
quence of sensitivity analyses using the CASHEW program 共Folz
and Filiatrault 2001兲, evaluating the sensitivity of the peak re-
sponse to a suite of ground motions, and the development of a
risk-based procedure for the performance-based design of wood
shear walls. Recommendations for the development, implementa-
tion, and acceptance of performance-based design codes were
made by the author.
A study by van de Lindt and Walz 共2003兲 investigated the
seismic reliability of a wood shear wall at three sites around the
United States. A total of seven different suites of ground accel-
eration records, consisting of 10 acceleration records each, were
used. A polynomial backbone hysteresis model was developed
based on the results of slow cyclic shear wall tests. Time domain
simulation was employed to generate a statistical distribution for
the peak response of the shear wall for three earthquake hazard
levels. These response peaks were then fit to a Weibull distribu-
tion, and the reliability index for varying levels of allowable dis-
placement was estimated.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The evolution of wood shear wall testing, modeling, and reliabil-
ity analysis has been presented beginning in the early 1980s
through the present day. Wood shear wall testing has evolved
from simple static racking tests to complex shaketable tests ca-
pable of assessing wall performance under accurate simulated
ground shaking. Modeling has perhaps evolved further in two
decades than anyone might have expected, due directly to the
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 51
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
availability of computing resources at the individual level. Any
mention of computing time as a limiting factor in numerical mod-
els 共e.g., finite-element models兲 is virtually nonexistent in model
documentation today. Reliability assessments of wood shear walls
have been limited to date, but have served to help calibrate sev-
eral load and resistance factor wood design codes around the
world and have started the ball rolling toward performance-based
light-frame wood design. In fact, the reliability of wood shear
walls will most probably find its greatest use in the performance-
based seismic design of engineered wood shear walls over the
next decade. If performance-based design is to be fully developed
and implemented in the next decade, it will be necessary to de-
velop damage models for light-frame wood structures that can be
used to assess performance in terms of losses to owners. Testing
that incorporates measurement and quantification of damage lev-
els will be key to the development and proper calibration of these
models. Currently, drift levels and some simple measures are re-
lated back to damage estimates, introducing additional uncer-
tainty into the performance estimates. Additionally, although
modeling techniques and their resulting accuracy have advanced
significantly, it is recommended to develop simpler models that
have the accuracy necessary for the implementation of
performance-based design, but do not prohibit the repetitive
analyses that may be required.
References
ASTM. 共1993兲. ‘‘Proposed standard test method for dynamic properties
of connections assembled with mechanical fasteners 共3rd draft兲.’’
West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共1994兲. ‘‘Standard method of static load test for shear resistance
of framed walls for buildings.’’ E 564-76, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Atherton, G. H. 共1983兲. ‘‘Ultimate strength of structural particleboard
diaphragms.’’ Forest Products. J., 33共5兲, 22–26.
Bracci, J. M., and Jones, A. 共1998兲. ‘‘Performance of bolted wood-to-
concrete connections and bolted connections in plywood shear walls.’’
Proc., Structural Engineering Worldwide, Paper No. T207-2, Elsevier
Science, New York.
Carney, J. M. 共1975兲. ‘‘Bibliography on wood and plywood diaphragms.’’
J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 101共11兲, 2423–2436.
Ceccotti, A., and Foschi, R. O. 共1999兲. ‘‘Reliability assessment of wood
shear walls under earthquake excitation.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Com-
putational Stochastic Mechanics.
Cheung, C. K., and Itani, R. Y. 共1983兲. ‘‘Analysis of sheathed wood-stud
walls.’’ Proc., 8th Conf. on Electronic Computation, ASCE, New
York, 683– 696.
Cheung, C. K., Itani, R. Y., and Polensek, A. 共1988兲. ‘‘Characteristics of
wood diaphragms: Experimental and parametric studies.’’ Wood Fiber
Sci., 20共4兲, 438 – 456.
Deam, B. L., Dean, J. A., and Buchanan, A. H. 共1991兲. ‘‘Full scale testing
of 3-story plywood shearwalls.’’ Proc., Pacific Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering.
Dinehart, D. W., and Shenton, H. W., III. 共1998a兲. ‘‘Comparison of the
response of timber shear walls with and without passive dampers.’’
Proc., Structural Engineering Worldwide, Paper No. T207-5, Elsevier
Science, New York.
Dinehart, D. W., and Shenton, H. W., III. 共1998b兲. ‘‘Comparison of static
and dynamic response of timber shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 124共6兲,
686 – 695.
Dinehart, D. W., and Shenton, H. W., III. 共2000兲. ‘‘Model for dynamic
analysis of wood frame shear walls.’’ J. Eng. Mech., 126共9兲, 899–908.
Dinehart, D. W., Shenton, H. W., III, and Elliott, T. E. 共1999兲. ‘‘The
dynamic response of wood-frame shear walls with viscoelastic damp-
ers.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 15共1兲, 67– 86.
Dolan, J. D., and Filiatrault, A. 共1990兲. ‘‘A mathematical model to predict
the steady-state response of timber shear walls.’’ Proc., Int. Timber
Engineering, 765–772.
Dolan, J. D., and Foschi, R. O. 共1991兲. ‘‘Structural analysis model for
static loads on timber shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 117共3兲, 851– 861.
Dolan, J. D., and Heine, C. P. 共1998兲. ‘‘Cyclic response of light-framed
shear walls with openings.’’ Proc., Structural Engineering Worldwide,
Paper No. T207-3, Elsevier Science, New York.
Dolan, J. D., and Madsen, B. 共1992兲. ‘‘Monotonic and cyclic tests of
timber shear walls.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 19共3兲, 115– 422.
Durham, J., Lam, F., and Prion, G. L. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic resistance of
wood shear walls with large OSB panels.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 127共12兲,
1460–1466.
Easley, J. T., Foomani, M., and Dodds, R. H. 共1982兲. ‘‘Formulas for wood
shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108共11兲, 2460–2478.
Falk, R. H., and Itani, R. Y. 共1987兲. ‘‘Dynamic characteristics of wood
and gypsum diaphragms.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 113共6兲, 1357–1370.
Falk, R. H., and Itani, R. Y. 共1989兲. ‘‘Finite element modeling of wood
diaphragms.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 115共3兲, 543–559.
Ficcadenti, S., Steiner, M., Pardoen, G., and Kazanjy, R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Cyclic
load testing of wood-framed, plywood sheathed shear walls using
ASTM E 564 and three loading sequences.’’ Proc., 6th U.S. National
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
Filiatrault, A. 共1990a兲. ‘‘Analytical predictions of the seismic response of
friction damped timber shear walls.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
19, 259–273.
Filiatrault, A. 共1990b兲. ‘‘Static and dynamic analysis of timber shear
walls.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 17共4兲, 643– 651.
Filiatrault, A., Fischer, D., Folz, B., and Uang, C.-M. 共2002兲. ‘‘Seismic
testing of two-story woodframe house: Influence of wall finish mate-
rials.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 128共10兲, 1337–1345.
Foliente, G. C. 共1995兲. ‘‘Hysteresis modeling of wood joints and struc-
tural systems.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 121共6兲, 1013–1022.
Foliente, G. C. 共2000兲. ‘‘Reliability assessment of timber shear walls
under earthquake loads.’’ Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake En-
gineering, Paper No. 612.
Foliente, G. C., Paevere, P. J., Saito, T., and Kawai, N. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic
reliability analysis of timber buildings.’’ Proc., Pacific Timber Engi-
neering Conf.
Folz, B., and Filiatrault, A. 共2001兲. ‘‘Cyclic analysis of wood shear
walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 127共4兲, 433– 441.
Foschi, R. O. 共1982兲. ‘‘Performance evaluation of shear walls, and dia-
phragms with waferboard sheathing.’’ Rep. Prepared for Canadian
Waferboard Association, Forintek Canada Corp.
Gupta, A. K., and Kuo, G. P. 共1987兲. ‘‘Wood-framed shear walls with
uplifting.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 113共2兲, 241–259.
Gupta, A. K., and Kuo, P.-H. 共1985兲. ‘‘Behavior of wood-framed shear
walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 111共8兲, 1722–1733.
Gutkowski, R. M., and Castillo, A. L. 共1988兲. ‘‘Single- and double-
sheathed wood shear wall study.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 114共6兲, 1268 –1284.
He, M., Lam, F., and Prion, G. L. 共1998兲. ‘‘Influence of cyclic test pro-
tocols on performance of wood-based shear walls.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng.,
25共3兲, 539–550.
He, M., Magnusson, H., Lam, F., and Prion, H. G. L. 共1999兲. ‘‘Cyclic
performance of perforated wood shear walls with oversize OSB pan-
els.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 125共1兲, 10–18.
Higgins, C. 共2001兲. ‘‘Hysteretic dampers for wood frame shear walls.’’
Proc., 2001 Structures Congress.
Itani, R. Y., and Cheung, C. K. 共1984兲. ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of sheathed
wood diaphragms.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 110共9兲, 2137–2147.
Itani, R. Y., and Robledo, F. M. 共1984兲. ‘‘Finite element modeling of
light-frame wood walls.’’ Civil engineering for practicing and design
engineers, Vol. 3, Pergamon, Tarrytown, N.Y., 1029–1045.
Itani, R. Y., Tuomi, R. L., and McCutcheon, W. J. 共1982兲. ‘‘Methodology
to evaluate racking resistance of nailed walls.’’ Forest Products. J.,
32共1兲, 30–36.
Kamiya, F. 共1988兲. ‘‘Nonlinear earthquake response analysis of sheathed
wood walls by a computer-actuator on-line system.’’ Proc., Int. Conf.
on Timber Engineering.
Kamiya, F., Sugimoto, K., and Mii, N. 共1996兲. ‘‘Pseudo dynamic test of
52 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
sheathed wood walls.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineering Conf., 2, 187–
194.
Karacabeyli, E., and Ceccotti, A. 共1996兲. ‘‘Test results on the lateral re-
sistance of nailed shear walls.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineering Conf., 2,
179–186.
Karacabeyli, E., and Ceccotti, A. 共1998兲. ‘‘Nailed wood-frame shear
walls for seismic loads: Test results and design considerations.’’ Proc.,
Structural Engineering Worldwide, Paper No. T207-6, Elsevier Sci-
ence, New York.
Karacabeyli, E., Dolan, J. D., Ceccotti, A., and Ni, C. 共1999兲. ‘‘Discus-
sion of ‘Comparison of static and dynamic response of timber shear
walls,’ by David W. Dinehart and Harry W. Shenton III.’’ J. Struct.
Eng., 125共7兲, 796 –797.
Karacabeyli, E., Stiemer, S., and Ni, C. 共2001兲. ‘‘MIDPLY shearwall
system.’’ A Structural Engineering Odyssey, Proc., 2001 Structural
Congress and Exposition, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Kasal, B., and Leichti, R. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Nonlinear finite-element model for
light-frame stud walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 118共11兲, 3122–3135.
Kawai, N. 共1998兲. ‘‘Pseudo dynamic tests on shear walls.’’ Proc., 5th
World Conf. on Timber Engineering, 412– 419.
Kawai, N. 共1999兲. ‘‘Prediction methods for earthquake response of shear
walls.’’ Proc., Pacific Timber Engineering Conf., 317–324.
King, A. K., and Deam, B. 共1998兲. ‘‘Evaluation of the structural perfor-
mance of timber framed bracing panels under earthquake attack.’’
Proc., 5th World Conf. on Timber Engineering, 18 –25.
Lam, F., Prion, H. G. L., and He, M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Lateral resistance of wood
shear walls with large sheathing panels.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 123共12兲,
1666 –1673.
Leiva-Arevena, L. 共1996兲. ‘‘Behavior of timber-framed shear walls sub-
jected to reversed cyclic lateral loading.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineer-
ing Conf., 2, 201–206.
McCutcheon, W. J. 共1985兲. ‘‘Racking deformations in wood shear walls.’’
J. Struct. Eng., 111共2兲, 257–269.
Nelson, E. L., Wheat, D. L., and Fowler, D. W. 共1985兲. ‘‘Structural be-
havior of wood shear wall assemblies.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 111共3兲, 654 –
666.
Paevere, P., and Foliente, G. C. 共2000兲. ‘‘Hysteretic pinching and degra-
dation effects on dynamic response and reliability.’’ Proc., Int. Conf.
on Applications of Statistics and Probability.
Patton-Mallory, M., and McCutcheon, W. J. 共1987兲. ‘‘Predicting racking
performance of walls sheathed on both sides.’’ Forest Products. J.,
37共9兲, 27–32.
Patton-Mallory, M., and Wolfe, R. W. 共1985兲. ‘‘Light-frame shear wall
length and opening effects.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 111共10兲, 2227–2239.
Peterson, J. 共1983兲. ‘‘Bibliography on lumber and wood panel dia-
phragms.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 109共12兲, 2838 –2852.
Polensek, A., and Schimel, B. D. 共1991兲. ‘‘Dynamic properties of light-
frame wood subsystems.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 117共4兲, 1079–1095.
Richard, N., Daudevill, L., Davenne, L., and Kawai, N. 共1998兲. ‘‘Numeri-
cal analysis of seismic response of timber shear walls with nailed
joints.’’ Proc., 11th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
Rosowsky, D. V. 共2002兲. ‘‘Reliability-based seismic design of wood shear
walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 128共11兲, 1439–1453.
Schmid, B. L., Neilsen, M., and Linderman, R. R. 共1994兲. ‘‘Narrow ply-
wood shear panels.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 10共3兲, 569–588.
Serrette, R. L., Encalada, J., Juadines, M., and Nguyen, H. 共1997兲. ‘‘Static
racking behavior of plywood, OSB, gypsum, and fiberbond walls with
metal framing.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 123共8兲, 1079–1086.
Shenton, H. W., III, Dinehart, D. W., and Elliott, T. E. 共1998兲. ‘‘Stiffness
and energy degradation of wood frame shear walls.’’ Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 25共3兲, 412– 423.
Shepherd, R. 共1996兲. ‘‘Standardized experimental testing procedure for
low-rise structures.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 12共1兲, 111–127.
Shipp, J. G., Erickson, T. W., and Rhodebeck, M. 共2000兲. ‘‘Plywood
shearwalls: Cyclical testing gives new design insight.’’ Struct. Eng.,
共July兲, 34 –37.
Skaggs, T. D., and Rose, J. D. 共1996兲. ‘‘Cyclic load testing of wood
structural panel shear walls.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineering Conf., 2,
195–200.
Stewart, W. G., Dean, J. A., and Carr, A. J. 共1988兲. ‘‘The earthquake
behavior of plywood sheathed shearwalls.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Tim-
ber Engineering, 248 –261.
van de Lindt, J. W., and Walz, M. A. 共2003兲. ‘‘Development and appli-
cation of wood shear wall reliability model.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 129共3兲,
405– 413.
White, M. W., and Dolan, J. D. 共1995兲. ‘‘Nonlinear shear-wall analysis.’’
J. Struct. Eng., 121共11兲, 1629–1635.
Yamaguchi, N., and Minowa, C. 共1998兲. ‘‘Dyamic performance of
wooden bearing walls by shaking table test.’’ Proc., 5th World Conf.
on Timber Engineering, 26 –33.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 53

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright