Load-Sharing and Redistribution in a One-Story

Woodframe Building
Phillip J. Paevere, A.M.ASCE1; Greg C. Foliente, A.M.ASCE2; and Bo Kasal, A.M.ASCE3

Abstract: This paper presents the results of a series of experiments on a full-scale one-story L-shaped woodframe house. The major
objective of the experiments was to collect data for use in the validation of analytical models, and to examine the load redistribution in
a nonsymmetrical light-frame structure under lateral loading. In these experiments, the distribution of the reaction forces underneath the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

walls, and the displaced shape of the house were measured in detail under static and static–cyclic loading. The experimental results have
provided the most detailed picture of the reaction forces beneath a nonsymmetrical light-frame structure under lateral loading ever
recorded. It was shown that there is potential for significant sharing and redistribution of applied lateral load, between the main shear walls
of a light-frame house under both pseudoelastic and inelastic response conditions. Commonly used techniques for lateral load distribution
in light-frame structures do not accommodate redistribution of the loading between the walls in the structure.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:9共1275兲
CE Database subject headings: Full-scale tests; Framed structures; Wooden structures; Load distribution; Data collection.

Introduction
Many people live and work in light-frame buildings. They rely on
these structures for protection against natural disasters such as
hurricanes and earthquakes and have an inherent expectation of
their safety. Although light-frame buildings have generally per-
formed well in natural disasters, many have also suffered exten-
sive damage 共Foliente 1998兲, causing financial loss and some-
times injuries or death. In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, for
example, 24 deaths 共including 16 deaths in the Northridge Mead-
ows apartment building兲 and financial losses of more than $20
billion occurred as a result of damage in light-frame construction.
This represented most of the fatalities, and more than half of the
total damage bill 共Office of Emergency Services 1995; Kircher
et al. 1997兲.
Until quite recently, modern technology has played only a
small role in the design and construction of light-frame buildings,
particularly those made from wood. The construction techniques
have been developed over long periods of time, based mainly on
tradition and experience. In other, relatively modern forms of
construction, such as prestressed concrete, technology has been
1
Research Scientist, CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Tech-
nology, P. O. Box 56, Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: phillip.paevere@csiro.au
2 behavior of timber systems 共Foliente 1996兲. For the primary pur-
Team Leader and Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Manufactur-
ing and Infrastructure Technology, P. O. Box 56, Highett, Victoria 3190,
Australia. E-mail: greg.foliente@csiro.au
3 testing has been employed. This allowed measurements of the
Associate Professor, Dept. of Wood and Paper Science, North
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: bo – kasal@ncsu.edu
Note. Associate Editor: David V. Rosowsky. Discussion open until
February 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 October 30, 2001;
approved on February 8, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, September 1, 2003. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9445/2003/9-1275–1284/$18.00.
applied extensively, and forms the basis of the design philosophy
and methodology. Inevitably, societal and client expectations will
drive a change toward a more technology-intensive approach to
the design and evaluation of light-frame structures, based on con-
sistent and reasonably accurate prediction of their performance.
However, the development of improved performance prediction
technologies, for light-frame structures, requires a detailed under-
standing of the structural behavior of light-frame buildings, as
well as the environmental loadings to which they are subjected
during their lifetime. Full-scale structural testing in the laboratory,
combined with analytical modelling, are essential in obtaining
this understanding.
This paper presents the results of experiments conducted on a
full-scale one-story L-shaped woodframe house. The major objec-
tives of the experiments were to: 共1兲 Collect data for use in the
validation of analytical models of light-frame structures, includ-
ing a three-dimensional finite-element 共FE兲 model; and 共2兲 exam-
ine the load distribution and load-sharing mechanisms in a non-
symmetrical light-frame structure. Complete specifications of the
test house and full details of the experimental program and results
are given in Paevere 共2002兲. Common methods of seismic perfor-
mance evaluation—quasi-static cyclic testing, pseudodynamic
testing, and shaketable testing—have complementary strengths
and weaknesses 共Foliente 1996; Leon and Deierlein 1996兲. Thus,
each has a role to play in helping us better understand the seismic
pose of obtaining detailed response data needed for the validation
of three-dimensional models of light-frame buildings, quasi-static
distribution of the reaction forces underneath the walls, and the
displaced shape of the test house in a degree of detail that has not
been previously obtained. This set of data has a unique value
because it provides a check of internal forces within whole struc-
ture models of light-frame buildings. Whole structure model vali-
dation, based on global response data alone, may lead to false
confidence in the capability of these models and even lead to
erroneous conclusions when used in analysis.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1275

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.

 Overview of Light-Frame Testing
Resistance to lateral loads in a light-framed structure is com-
monly provided by shear wall or diagonal bracing systems, con-
nected through horizontal diaphragms such as the roof and floors.
Foliente and Zacher 共1994兲, Barton 共1997兲, and Gad 共1997兲 have
reviewed literature on experimental testing of light-frame wood
and steel structural systems. Much of this work has focused on
the behavior under reversed-cyclic loading, due to the compli-
cated characteristics of the hysteresis of such systems. A common
observation from these tests is that the hysteretic behavior of a
subsystem or subassembly is determined by the hysteretic char-
acteristics of its primary connection 共Dowrick 1986兲. For ex-
ample, Stewart 共1987兲 and Dolan 共1989兲 reported that the behav-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ior of shear walls is dominated by the nailed sheathing
connection. As a result of this observation, the vast majority of
cyclic tests have been conducted on connections and subassem-
blies such as shear walls and diaphragms. Recommendations aris-
ing from these tests typically ignore system effects, and the fact
that the actual forces that the subsystem experiences in a real
structure depends primarily on the geometric and structural char-
acteristics of the whole building. Boughton’s 共1988兲 summary of
a full-scale house and isolated wall testing showed that boundary
conditions in the wall test ‘‘can influence the stiffness, ultimate
load, and failure characteristics of components under test.’’ He
also concluded that the commonly accepted assumptions regard-
ing load sharing and ductility were invalid, and in some cases
unconservative, but that structural redundancies which were usu-
ally ignored compensated for this. Full-scale whole house testing
is needed to properly understand the system behavior and prove
the validity of isolated component test results and their interpre-
tations 共Boughton 1988; Foliente and Zacher 1994兲.
Testing of full-scale light-frame structures dates back to the
1950’s in Canada, where one of the first reported experiments was
conducted by Dorey and Schriever 共1957兲, on a single-story stud-
framed house. Since then, static testing has been conducted by
Tuomi and McCutcheon 共1974兲, Reardon 共1986, 1990兲, Stewart
et al. 共1988兲, Reardon and Mahendran 共1988兲, Phillips 共1990兲,
and Reardon and Henderson 共1996兲, among others. Many of the
studies have pointed toward the importance of the interactions
between the subassemblies of the light-frame building and the
load-sharing mechanisms. The effect of the boundary conditions,
the contribution of the nonstructural components, and the loading
mechanisms, on the behavior of individual components in the
whole building are also highlighted in some of the studies. Phil-
lips 共1990兲 and Phillips et al. 共1993兲 recorded the reaction forces
beneath individual walls under static–cyclic loading, to address
the problem of load-sharing within a nonlinear system. The main
conclusions from this work were: 共1兲 the wooden roof behaved as
a rigid diaphragm and contributed significantly to lateral load
sharing among the shear walls; 共2兲 up to 20% of the lateral load
was carried by the transverse walls at small load levels; 共3兲 the
transverse walls did not contribute to load sharing among the
shear walls; and 共4兲 the stiffness contributions provided by indi-
vidual layers of sheathing were directly additive. These experi-
ments offered important insight into load sharing in a full-scale
building with regular geometry.
Dynamic testing of full-size light-frame structures has been far
less common than static testing, presumably due to the high costs
involved. However, since the 1995 Hyogo-Kanbu earthquake,
several Japanese-style woodframe structures have been shake-
table tested in Japan. These include tests by Kohara and
Miyazawa 共1998兲, Ohashi et al. 共1998兲, and Yamaguchi and Mi-
1276 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
nowa 共1998兲. These and several other dynamic tests are reviewed
in detail in Fischer et al. 共2001兲. In more recently reported dy-
namic testing, Fischer et al. 共2001兲 conducted an extensive pro-
gram of shake table tests at the University of California, San
Diego, on a two-story woodframe house as part of the Consortium
of Universitites for Research in Earthquake Engineering
共CUREE兲-Caltech Woodframe project 共Hall 2000兲. Their objec-
tive was to determine seismic performance under different levels
of seismic shaking and for different structural configurations.
Their results showed that a fully engineered woodframe house has
better seismic performance than a conventionally constructed
house, and that the nonstructural wall finishes considerably stiff-
ened the structure and changed the distribution of vertical reac-
tions in the hold downs, and generally reduced the response level.
Apart from the test by Phillips 共1990兲 on a light-frame struc-
ture with a regular plan and elevation, no detailed conclusions
about the load sharing and distribution in light-frame structures,
under lateral loading can be drawn from previous full-scale house
tests. In the work presented in this paper, the complete distribu-
tion of the reaction forces under a nonsymmetrical single-story
woodframe house and the displaced shape are determined under
static and static-cyclic loading. Without the detailed measure-
ments of the distribution of the reaction forces underneath the
frames and the walls, it would be extremely difficult to validate
whole structure models of light-frame buildings because of inher-
ent structural redundancy and indeterminacy in these systems.
Just because a whole building model matches the global response
parameters of a test house does not necessarily mean that this is
an appropriate model because internal forces 共in both value and
distribution兲 could be wrongly matched. The set of data obtained
in the experiments presented herein provides a check of internal
forces within whole structure models of light-frame buildings.
Description of Test House
The design and layout of the woodframe test house, which is the
subject of this presentation, were chosen to represent a typical
example of a North American single-story stud-framed house.
The specifications were jointly developed by the National Asso-
ciation of Home Builders Research Center 共NAHBRC兲 in the
USA and researchers at North Carolina State University. Slight
modifications were made to the construction materials used 共Aus-
tralian equivalents to US materials were used兲 and the floor plan
共the size of the rooms were adjusted slightly to match the strong
floor anchorage layout in the full-scale testing facility兲. For the
purposes of the experiments described herein, the house was as-
sumed to be built on a concrete slab foundation and to consist
only of the ‘‘structural’’ elements, and the gypsum board lining.
The following ‘‘nonstructural’’ elements were not installed in the
test house: Tapes and joint compound in the interior joints be-
tween intersecting walls; tapes and joint compound or cornices
between the wall and ceiling lining; Windows and doors and their
frames; interior and exterior door and window trims; and exterior
wall and roof cladding. The experiment was designed in this way
so that it best satisfied the implicit assumptions which are the
basis of the FE modeling strategy, and so that the behavior of the
main structural elements 共which is the focus of engineering de-
sign兲 would be the basis for any conclusions. Although finishes
were not included, the house shell was constructed such that it
could be clad externally with vinyl or timber siding on the walls
and vinyl, slate or asphalt tiles on the roof.
The house walls were constructed from Australian radiata pine
with an average density 共at 12% moisture content兲 of 550 kg/m3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Diagram of the test house
共southern yellow pine could be considered a US equivalent兲. Wall
frames were assembled from 35⫻90 mm studs at 400 mm cen-
ters, without blocking, double 35⫻90 mm top plate and a 45⫻90
mm bottom plate. Studs were endnailed to top and bottom plates
using 3.05⫻75 mm machine-driven nails 共two per end兲. Hold-
down restraints 共i.e., on end studs兲 were not used in any of the
walls. The bottom plate of all walls was anchored to a grid of load
cells using 12.5 mm bolts and plate washers at approximately 1 m
spacings. The internal lining was a 13 mm gypsum board, ori-
ented horizontally, and attached by self-drilling screws at 300 mm
spacings. The gypsum lining was not connected with tape and
joint compound in the corners between the ceiling and the roof
panels, or between intersecting walls. However, in-plane joints in
the gypsum lining within the wall and ceiling panels were joined
with tape and joint compound. Wall bracing was provided by 9.5
mm external plywood sheathing, attached with 2.87⫻50 mm
machine-driven nails at 150/300 mm spacings 共i.e., 150 mm on
perimeter, 300 mm internally兲. The roof was constructed of pre-
fabricated trusses 共pine兲 laid out without blocking on 600 mm
spacings, sheathed with 12.5 mm plywood, and fastened using
2.87⫻50 mm machine-driven nails at 150/300 mm spacings.
A schematic diagram of the house is given in Fig. 1. The plan
dimensions, the coordinate system, and the wall notation used are
shown in Fig. 2, and the wall configurations and sheathing are
shown in Fig. 3. Individual wall lengths can be derived from Fig.
2, and are drawn to the same scale in Fig. 3. Note that the wall
height is 2.4 m and the height of the roof ridge is 4.0 m. The four
north–south oriented walls in the house, walls W1–W4, were
chosen to represent a range of different but typical wall configu-
rations used in a woodframe house 共see Figs. 2 and 3兲. The non-
symmetrical L-shaped plan of the house was chosen for two rea-
sons: 共1兲 to extend and complement previous work done by
Phillips 共1990兲 on a symmetrical plan house; and 共2兲 to ensure
some torsional component to the response and, hence, engage-
ment of all the structural subsystems and load-sharing mecha-
nisms, including the roof.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1277
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
Fig. 2. Floor plan, coordinate system and wall numbering notation of
the test house 共dimensions in m兲.
Experimental Program
All testing described in this paper was carried out at the Com-
monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
共CSIRO兲 Division of Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technol-
ogy at their full-scale testing facility in Melbourne, Australia.
Two different types of experiments were conducted on the test
house: ‘‘Low level’’ and destructive. In the low-level tests, small
point loads were applied laterally at the ceiling level to determine
the extent and the distribution of the reaction forces within the
structure. To avoid irrecoverable damage, the total house dis-
placement in these tests was targeted to be less than 2 mm. These
tests were load controlled at load values roughly representative of
wind design values. In the destructive test, a lateral cyclic load up
to ⫾120 mm, was applied statically to the eastern side of the
house, in line with the north–south direction 共see Fig. 2兲.
Load and Displacement Response Measurement
Reaction forces were measured underneath the bottom plate of the
house throughout the static and destructive experiments, through
a grid of 60 load-cell units spaced approximately 1 m apart. Each
of these load-cell units is comprised of three identical unidirec-
tional load cells coupled together to measure forces in three prin-
cipal directions, X, Y, and Z 共directions are shown in Fig. 2兲. The
load-cell units are held in place and attached at the base of the
strong floor of the laboratory via a heavy metal frame. The tops of
the load cells are connected to a steel channel, which is intended
to simulate a concrete slab foundation. The sill plates of the walls
are connected to the load cells via this steel channel, using 12.5
mm bolts and plate washers spaced at approximately 1 m inter-
vals. Full details of the load-cell system and connection to the test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Wall configurations and sheathing arrangement of the test
house
house are given in Paevere 共2002兲. The entire load-cell grid has a
stiffness of 350 kN/mm in the X direction, 325 kN/mm in the Y
direction, and 465 kN/mm in the Z direction. This means that the
entire load measurement system was about ten times stiffer than
the initial stiffness of the whole house in the direction of loading
共see section entitled ‘‘Destructive Test’’兲. It should be noted that
the load measurement system is not as stiff as a concrete founda-
tion would be, and that this may have some effect on the load
distribution among the shear walls, when compared to a ‘‘real’’
house. The magnitude of this effect can be quantified using the
calibrated FE model of the house by including the structural char-
acteristics of the load measurement system in the FE model.
Loads in the actuators 共i.e., the applied loads兲 and displace-
ments were also measured throughout the tests. Displacements
were measured in the three principal directions, at the intersection
of all walls at both the top and bottom plate level, and also at the
extreme corners of the roof. Wall W4 was more extensively in-
strumented than the other walls during the destructive test, with
diagonal displacements measured across all of the openings.
Low-Level Testing
Before the low-level tests were conducted, the dead load distribu-
tion of the house was measured, without any applied loading. The
total sum of the vertical reaction forces due to self-weight was
50.775 kN. Next, a series of small point loads were applied at the
ceiling level at various places throughout the house. In these static
tests, the loads were applied with simple apparatus such as turn-
1278 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
Fig. 4. Example of displaced shape and distribution of reaction
forces from low-level tests
buckles and threaded bars with load cells installed. The complete
distribution of the reaction forces underneath the bottom plate and
the displaced shape of the house were measured for each loading
configuration. The applied loads were chosen at a suitably low
level 共all less than 15 kN兲, so as not to induce any significant
inelastic response in the house which may have caused damage or
permanent displacements and compromised further experiments
on the house. The results from one of the low-level tests are
shown diagrammatically in Fig. 4. In this example, a single point
load of 4.8 kN is applied to wall W2 only, at the top plate level,
in the X direction. The displaced shape and applied loading is
shown at the top of Fig. 4 and the distribution of the X-, Y-, and Z-
direction reaction forces are given underneath. It can be seen from
the distribution of the X-direction reaction forces, that a signifi-
cant amount 共50%兲 of the applied load is resisted by the parallel
nonloaded walls. The vertical reactions 共Z direction兲 are also dis-
tributed to the nonloaded walls. The applied load is distributed to
the nonloaded walls mainly through the roof and ceiling dia-
phragm, since the out-of-plane reactions in the transverse walls 共X
 Table 1. Load-Sharing in Low-Level Tests Under Single Point Load
Load resisted by each wall 共N兲/percentage of applied load
Test Loaded wall Applied load 共N兲 Direction W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W678 W9
1 W1 2861 N–S 610 1046 674 461 19 23 29
21% 37% 24% 16% 1% 1% 1%
2 W2 4676 N–S 333 2303 957 955 12 64 52
7% 49% 20% 20% 0% 1% 1%
3 W3 4886 N–S 53 305 3751 490 86 56 144
1% 6% 77% 10% 2% 1% 3%
4 W4 4835 N–S 67 438 1195 2995 16 73 51
1% 9% 25% 62% 0% 2% 1%
5 W8 5004 E–W 52 45 219 278 711 2496 1203
1% 1% 4% 6% 14% 50% 24%
6 W5 3795 E–W 21 61 137 50 2784 731 12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1% 2% 4% 1% 73% 19% 0%
Note: N—north, S—south, E—east, and W—west.

direction兲 are comparatively small. The in-plane reactions in the
external cross walls 共Y direction兲, indicate the torsional nature of
the response.
The results of all of the low-level tests, in which a single
concentrated load was applied to one of the walls, are summa-
rized in Table 1. The amount of load resisted by each of the four
main walls, when loaded individually, is compared to the amount
of load resisted by the rest of the structure. Table 1 shows that
between 19 and 78% of the applied load can be shared between
the walls in the house under simple concentrated loading. As for
the example shown in Fig. 4, the applied load in these tests is
generally distributed to the nonloaded walls through the roof and
ceiling diaphragm. The amount of load sharing depends on the
stiffness of the loaded wall, and the configuration and stiffness of
the surrounding structure. The amount of load redistribution ob-
served in these low-level experiments, as given in Table 1, repre-
sents a lower bound. This is because the applied loads are small
and hence all of the structural subsystems may not be fully en-
gaged. It is shown in the section on destructive testing, that the
load redistribution increases significantly once the house is
pushed to higher displacement levels. It should be noted that the
response of the test house under all of the low-level tests is non-
linear elastic, as indicated by the difference between the tangent
and 1.0 mm secant stiffness given in Table 2. These stiffness
values were derived from the initial stages of the destructive test-
ing, which is described in the following section.
Destructive Test
Experiment Description
After the low-level tests were conducted, the displaced shape and
the distribution of reaction forces throughout the structure were
measured under reversed-cyclic lateral loading. Identical static-
cyclic displacements of up to ⫾120 mm were applied at the ceil-
ing level of walls W3 and W4 in the north–south direction using
servocontrolled screw jacks. The load was distributed along the
top plate of these two walls via a 3 mm metal strap, which was
embedded in the top plate. The additional strength provided by
the steel strap may have had a minor effect on the behavior of the
top plate during the destructive test. The strap was considered
necessary, however, to provide a loading mechanism which would
allow applied loads to be distributed along the length of the walls
in both the ‘‘pull’’ and ‘‘push’’ directions, and to avoid localized
failure mechanisms from occurring at the loading points, which
would be likely under the severe loads and displacements which
were to be imposed during the destructive test. Such localized
failure mechanisms would render the destructive experiment
meaningless.
The loading mechanism and protocol are not specifically rep-
resentative of either seismic or wind loading. This is because the
major objectives of this experiment were to examine the load
distribution and load-sharing mechanisms in a nonsymmetrical
light-frame structure, and to collect data for use in the validation
of analytical models of light-frame structures, including a FE
model which incorporates three-dimensional system behavior,
and is capable of predicting load sharing 共Kasal 1992兲. So, an
important consideration in determining the loading was to ensure
the full engagement of all of the load-sharing mechanisms, espe-
cially the roof and ceiling diaphragm. Hence, loads were applied
to walls W3 and W4 only, at the top plate level, under displace-
ment control. Under this loading regime, the three-dimensional or
torsional nature of the response in the structure is maximized, and
the roof system is fully engaged in distributing the applied loads
from the eastern, to the western side of the house. Although this is
an unrealistic environmental loading scenario, it was desirable for
the purposes of validating analytical models which can predict
load sharing within the structure. Once a model is validated, it can
then be used to investigate the behavior of a range of configura-
tions under more realistic environmental loading.
The reversed-cyclic displacement-based protocol used in the
experiment is shown in Fig. 5, and is conceptually based on the
International Standards Organization 共ISO兲 standard for joints
共Foliente et al. 1998; ISO 2000兲. Displacement control was con-
sidered preferable because of the difficulties associated with a
load-controlled experiment. This would have required the design
of a multiactuator hydraulic control system, or an impractical
spreader beam structure. Cycling of the applied load is particu-
larly important for capturing the behavior of light-framed struc-
tures, given that they are prone to degradation of strength and
stiffness, and pinching of the hysteresis under cyclic loads. In
addition to this, the irregular plan may result in differing re-
sponses depending on the direction of loading, hence, the reversal
of the loading direction is also important.
Three different loading rates were used for different levels of
applied displacement, so that an appropriate density of data could
be obtained within one working day:
• For displacements up to 10 mm a rate of 2 mm/min,
• For displacements between 11–50 mm a rate of 15 mm/min,
and

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1279

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Displacement-based loading protocol used in destructive test Fig. 6. Global hysteresis response of whole house during destructive
test

• For displacements between 51–120 mm, a rate of 25 mm/min.

The displacements were applied using two servocontrolled motor-
ized screw jacks, attached to the top plate of walls W3 and W4.
Load and displacement readings were taken once every 2 s, which
was sufficiently fast given the slow loading rates used.
Global Hysteresis Response
In Fig. 6, the global hysteresis response of the whole building, in
the direction of loading 共X direction兲 is presented. The value on
the ‘‘Load’’ axis was calculated by summing all of the reaction
forces in the X direction in the load cells under the bottom plate,
at a given point in time 共same as the applied loading兲, and then
repeating this for all points in time during the experiment. The
value on the ‘‘displacement’’ axis is the centroidal displacement
of the house in the direction of loading. Note that the global
hysteresis response in Fig. 6 contains no information about the
out-of-plane behavior of the house. The hysteresis is character-
ized by ductile behavior and a large displacement capacity. Hys-
teretic ‘‘pinching’’ at the origin, and degradation of the strength
and stiffness under cyclic loading are also apparent. This type of
behavior is to be expected from a light-framed system connected
with dowel-type fasteners such as nails and screws.
The initial tangent stiffness of the whole house, in the direc-
tion of the applied loading, is approximately 36 kN/mm. The
secant stiffness at 1.0 mm displacement is 22.5 kN/mm 共see Table
2兲, indicating that the load–displacement curve is nonlinear from
the origin. As shown in Fig. 6, the total capacity of the house, in
the direction of loading, is around 100 kN with the maximum
capacity being reached at about 30 mm displacement. The house
is still resisting 80 kN at 80 mm displacement and 70 kN at 110
mm displacement, indicating that this type of construction is
highly ductile under statically applied cyclic loads. Given the se-
vere loads and displacements applied to the building in this ex-
periment and the global response of the structure, this type of
single-story building should easily resist any lateral design load
without danger of collapse 共the design wind load is approximately
30 kN and the total mass of the structure is around 50 kN兲. How-
ever, this exact response cannot necessarily be extrapolated to
other situations based on the results of this experiment alone.
Wall Hysteresis Responses
Because of the extensive instrumentation used in the experiments,
it was possible to determine the behavior of the different struc-
tural subassemblies within the house. In Fig. 7, the in-plane hys-
teresis response of each of the different walls of the house is
shown separately. The out-of-plane cross-wall contributions of
walls W5 to W9 共X direction兲 are also shown, and are lumped into
a single subsystem, as they are effectively acting together, and are
negligible when plotted separately. The in-plane contributions of
walls W6, W7, and W8 共Y direction兲 are also lumped into a single
subsystem, as they are effectively acting as a single unit in the Y
direction due to the geometry of the wall layout, and are also
negligible when plotted separately. Fig. 7 shows that the hyster-
etic characteristics of all of the walls are similar, and exhibit
comparable behavior to the global hysteresis shown in Fig. 6,
except for the doubly sided gypsum clad internal wall W3. Wall
W3 is initially stiffer than the other walls, but is more brittle and
loses capacity at a much faster rate during the test. The in-plane
initial stiffness and maximum load values for each of the sub-
systems is given in Table 2. Note that the stiffness values for the
internal cross–walls 共i.e., W6 –W8兲 in Table 2 were estimated
based on the perforated shear-wall method 共NAHBRC 2000兲, as
they could not be reliably determined from the experimental data.

Table 2. Initial In-Plane Stiffness and Capacity Characteristics of Test House and Individual Wall Systems
Structural system
Property Units House W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 –W8 W9
Initial tangent stiffness 共kN/mm兲 36 0.67 4 21 9 12 12 b
16
Stiffness at 1.0 mm displacement 共kN/mm兲 22.5 0.55 3.5 11.5 6 8 9b 11
Maximum load 共kN兲 100 12a 30a 33 50 14a 5a 18a
Displacement at maximum load 共mm兲 32 58a 62a 10 35 18a 4a 11a
Maximum displacement 共mm兲 105 58a 62a 116 117 18a 4a 11a
Load at maximum displacement 共kN兲 70 12a 30a 14.5 15.4 14a 5a 18a
a
Wall
capacity may not have been reached.
b
Estimated value.

1280 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Hysteresis response of wall systems during destructive test
The damage to the house walls was typical of gypsum and
plywood sheathed woodframe walls, with severe damage ob-
served in the plywood and gypsum on walls W3 and W4 and mild
to moderate damage observed on the other walls. More details of
the damage status of the different parts of the house can be found
in Paevere 共2002兲.
Under current practice, the testing and analysis of residential
shear-wall structures are based on the results of isolated wall test-
ing. The results of this experiment go further than this, and give
us an insight into how the shear walls behave when they are part
of a whole structure. Currently, the four main shear-walls
W1–W4 are being tested as isolated walls, the results of these
tests will then be compared to the response when part of the
whole building.
Roof and Ceiling Diaphragm Behavior
It is evident from the hysteresis plots of the individual walls in
Fig. 7 that the displacements of the nonloaded walls W1 and W2
are much smaller than the applied displacements on walls W3 and
W4. The displacement difference is due to two factors: 共1兲 the
rigid-body rotation of the house under the applied loading; and
共2兲 the in-plane shear distortion 共or racking兲 of the roof and ceil-
ing diaphragm. An approximation of the in-plane hysteresis char-
acteristics of the roof and ceiling diaphragm is given in Fig. 8.
The data on the displacement axis of Fig. 8 was derived by cal-
culating the in-plane shear distortion, in the north–south direction
of the main section of the roof and ceiling diaphragm covering
walls W2, W3, and W4. The values were derived from roof-
mounted displacement gauges which measured the X and Y dis-
placements of the test house at the corners of the roof. Note that
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1281
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
Fig. 8. Approximate hysteretic behavior of roof and ceiling
diaphragm during destructive test
only the main section of the roof covering walls W2, W3, and W4
was considered. The data on the load axis are the measured re-
storing force under wall W2. This can be assumed to be the ap-
proximate load if the roof and ceiling diaphragm is assumed to be
the main path for transferring the applied loads from the eastern
共i.e., loaded兲 side of the house, over to the western 共i.e., non-
loaded兲 side of the house. If the contribution of the cross walls to
the load sharing is ignored, then the only path for the applied load
to be distributed to wall W2 is the roof system and, as such, the
reaction under wall W2 can be considered as the approximate
in-plane shear reaction force for the main section of the roof and
ceiling diaphragm. The hysteresis plot in Fig. 8 indicates that the
roof and ceiling diaphragm is flexible but is relatively rigid com-
pared to the walls, since the shear distortion is only around 10 to
15 mm, compared to a differential displacement between the east-
ern and western walls of around 40 mm. Fig. 8 also indicates the
inelastic behavior of the roof system under the applied loading.
This is consistent with the damage observed during the experi-
ment, where there were signs of slight working of the fasteners
holding the plywood and gypsum on to the roof trusses on the
eastern side of the house. It should be noted that the deformation
level observed in the diaphragm during the test is larger than they
would be under a more uniformly distributed applied loading, and
does not indicate the likely deformation under environmental
loading.
Displaced Shapes
The displaced shapes of the house, at three stages during the
destructive test, are shown in Fig. 9, the undeformed edges are
also shown for reference. Only the perimeter walls are shown,
and the roof has been removed for clarity. These plots are snap-
shots of the displaced shape, taken at the time of peak displace-
ment on three selected cycles of displacement in the north direc-
tion. Note that the displacements of walls W3 and W4 are equal,
since the actuators are attached to these two walls and are oper-
ated in displacement control mode. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that
the major component of the displacement is in the direction of the
loading, relatively little out-of-plane or vertical displacement is
apparent. At the maximum displacement of 120 mm, the maxi-
mum out-of-plane displacement is 19 mm, which is 16% of the
in-plane displacement. The maximum vertical displacement is
around 10 mm.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Displaced shapes and distribution of reaction forces, at three displacement levels during destructive test

Load Distribution centage of the applied load, which is taken by the out-of-plane
walls is also plotted in Fig. 10. Initially, 4% of the total load is
The distribution of the reaction forces underneath the bottom
taken by the cross walls, but this increases to a maximum of 12%
plate of all the walls in the house, at various stages during the test,
at a displacement of 60 mm. This indicates that the contribution
for the X, Y, and Z direction are also shown in Fig. 9, underneath
of the cross walls to the load sharing increases under inelastic
the displaced shapes. These diagrams are graphical snapshots of
response but is still small compared to the load sharing through
the reaction force data, taken at the time of peak displacement in
the roof and ceiling diaphragm.
the north direction, and correspond to the same points during the
experiment as the displaced shapes plotted above them.
As was the case for the low-level tests, Fig. 9 shows that
Comments on Experiments
significant sharing of the in-plane 共X direction兲 and vertical 共Z
direction兲 loads occurs during the destructive test. Fig. 9 also The experiments and results described herein are based on a semi-
shows that as the amplitude of the applied loading is increased, finished house, which consisted only of the structural elements
the proportion of the applied load redistributed to the parallel
nonloaded walls, W1 and W2, also increases. The behavior for the
Z-direction reactions is similar in this manner. The load redistri-
bution becomes more pronounced as the house is pushed further
into inelastic response, and the load-carrying capacity of walls
W3 and W4 is reduced. A similar trend occurs for the peaks of the
loading cycles in the reverse direction to that shown in Fig. 9.
In Fig. 10, the percentage of the total in-plane load, which is
taken by each wall subsystem, is plotted at the peaks of the load-
ing cycles in the north direction. Here, it is highlighted that the
distribution of the load throughout the structure changes signifi-
cantly during the destructive experiment with the amount of load
resisted by each subsystem depending on the level of applied
displacement. Initially, the stiffest wall 共W3兲 resists the majority
of the load, but as the displacement increases, the more ductile
wall W4 takes over. Walls W1, W2, and the cross walls also take
Fig. 10. Percentage of applied load taken by each wall subsystem
more load as the applied displacement is increased. Similar be-
during destructive test
havior also occurs for loading in the reverse direction. The per-

1282 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.

 and the gypsum board lining. Inclusion of the nonstructural ele-
ments in the experiment 共i.e., tapes in the corners of the interior
panel materials, cornices or similar nonstructural links between
the roof and wall panels, windows, doors, and exterior wall finish兲
may alter the load paths at small displacements. The presence of
the nonstructural finishes may also increase the strength and stiff-
ness of the house, and also increase the apparent damage status.
This could be addressed by testing a finished house to compare
and enhance the results presented here, and so that the results
could be compared against field observations. It would also be
desirable to conduct similar experiments on a light-frame house
with a very different configuration than the house described
herein to provide additional data for model validation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
The experimental results presented herein provide the most de-
tailed picture of the reaction forces beneath a nonsymmetrical
light-frame structure under lateral loading ever recorded. They
have shown that there is potential for significant load sharing and
redistribution between the main shear resisting walls in the house
under lateral loads, for both pseudoelastic and inelastic response
conditions. Lateral loads are distributed mainly through the roof
and ceiling diaphragm system. Commonly used techniques for
lateral load distribution in light-frame structures 共NAHBRC
2000兲 do not accommodate redistribution of the loading between
the walls in the structure.
Under static–cyclic loading in the north–south direction on
one side of the house, the roof and ceiling diaphragm provided a
robust load–distribution path from the loaded to the nonloaded
walls. It effectively behaved as a rigid diaphragm under the ap-
plied loading, in comparison with the flexibility of the walls. The
amount of lateral load resisted by the out-of-plane walls was ini-
tially 4%, but rose to as much as 12% as the structure was loaded
into the inelastic range. The total strength capacity of the house,
in the direction of loading, was around 100 kN with maximum
capacity being reached at about 30 mm displacement. The house
was still able to resist 70 kN at 110 mm displacement, indicating
a highly ductile response under static–cyclic lateral loading.
The set of data obtained in these experiments provides a check
of internal forces within whole structure models of light-frame
buildings and is, thus, of great value in model validation. It is
recommended that a three-dimensional FE model of the whole
house be fully validated against the experimental results pre-
sented herein, and against the results of further full-scale experi-
ments on a house 共1兲 which is fully finished; and 共2兲 with a
different plan configuration. Experimentally validated models can
then be used to conduct sensitivity studies for a wide range of
practical house configurations. These are needed to develop the
basis for general recommendations for lateral force distribution in
light-frame buildings.
Acknowledgments
The work presented herein has been jointly funded by the CSIRO
and NAHB. The writers are grateful to the following people for
their contributions to the work: Jay Crandell of NAHBRC, for
providing the test house details and advice on various aspects of
the experimental program; Lyndon Macindoe, Craig Seath, and
Rod Banks of CSIRO, for the design of the experimental instru-
mentation systems and assistance in construction and testing of
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 1283
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
the house; and Michael Collins of North Carolina State University
for his assistance and advice on various aspects of the project.
References
Barton, A. D. 共1997兲. ‘‘Performance of steel framed domestic structures
subjected to earthquake loads.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Univ. of Melbourne, Australia.
Boughton, G. N. 共1988兲. ‘‘Full-scale structural testing of houses under
cyclonic wind loads.’’ Proc., 1988 Int. Conf. on Timber Engineering,
Forest Products Research Society, Madison, Wis., 2-82– 88.
Dolan, J. D. 共1989兲. ‘‘The dynamic response of timber shear walls.’’ PhD
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancou-
ver, BC, Canada.
Dorey, D. B., and Schriever, W. R. 共1957兲. ‘‘Structural test of a house
under simulated wind and snow loads.’’ ASTM Special Technical Rep.
No. 210, ASTM, Philadelphia.
Dowrick, D. J. 共1986兲. ‘‘Hysteresis loops for timber structures.’’ Bull.
New Zealand Natl. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 19共20兲, 143–52.
Fischer, D., Filiatrault, A., Folz, B., Uang, C.-M., and Seible, F. 共2001兲.
‘‘Shake table tests of a two-story woodframe house.’’ CUREE Publi-
cation No. W-06, CUREE, Richmond, Calif.
Foliente, G. C. 共1996兲. ‘‘Issues in seismic performance testing and evalu-
ation of timber structural systems.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineering
Conf., V. K. A. Gopu, ed., New Orleans, 1-29–36.
Foliente, G. C. 共1998兲. ‘‘Design of timber structures subject to extreme
loads.’’ Progr. Struct. Eng. Mater., 1共3兲, 236 – 44.
Foliente, G. C., Karacabeyli, E., and Yasumura, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘International
test standards for joints in timber structures under earthquake and
wind loads.’’ Proc., Structural Engineers World Congress 关SEWC
’98-共CD-ROM兲兴, Elsevier Science, New York, T-222–226.
Foliente, G. C., and Zacher, E. G. 共1994兲. ‘‘Performance tests of timber
structural systems under seismic loads.’’ Analysis Design and Testing
of Timber Structures Under Seismic Loads—Proc. Research Needs
Workshop, Greg C. Foliente, ed., Univ. of California Forest Products
Laboratory, Richmond, Calif., 21– 86.
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.
Hall, J. F. 共2000兲. ‘‘The CUREE-Caltech woodframe project.’’ Proc.,
World Conf., on Timber Engineering 共CD-ROM兲, Univ. of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
ISO. 共2000兲. ‘‘Timber structures—Joints made with mechanical
fasteners—Quasi-static reversed-cyclic test method.’’ ISO/WD
16670.3, Working Draft of ISO TC 165/SC/WG7, International Orga-
nization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kasal, B. 共1992兲. ‘‘A nonlinear three-dimensional finite-element model of
a light-frame structure.’’ PhD thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,
Ore.
Kircher, C., Reitherman, R., Whitman, R., and Arnold, C. 共1997兲. ‘‘Esti-
mation of earthquake losses to buildings.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 13共4兲,
703–720.
Kohara, K., and Miyazawa, K. 共1998兲. ‘‘Full-scale shaking table tests of
two-story wooden houses.’’ Proc., 5th World Conf. on Timber Engi-
neering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzer-
land, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 2-548 –555.
Leon, R. T., and Deierlein, G. G. 共1996兲. ‘‘Considerations for the use of
quasi-static testing.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 12共1兲, 87–109.
NAHB Research Center. 共2000兲. Residential Structural Design Guide:
2000 Edition—A State-of-the-Art Review and Application of Engi-
neering Information for Light-Frame Homes, Apartments and Town-
houses, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Office of Emergency Services and EQE International. 共1995兲. ‘‘The
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Report of Data Collec-
tion and Analysis.’’ Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Sacra-
mento, Calif.
Ohashi, Y., Sakamoto, I., and Kimura, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Shaking table tests of
a real scale wooden house subjected to Kobe earthquake.’’ Proc., 5th
 World Conf. on Timber Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Tech-
nology, Lausanne, Switzerland, Presses Polytechniques et Universi-
taires Romandes, 2-556 –563.
Paevere, P. J. 共2002兲. ‘‘Full-scale testing, modeling, and analysis of light-
frame structures under lateral loading.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The Univ. of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic-
toria, Australia.
Phillips, T. L. 共1990兲. ‘‘Load sharing characteristics of three-dimensional
wood diaphragms.’’ MS thesis, Washington State Univ., Pullman,
Wash.
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.
Reardon, G. F. 共1986兲. ‘‘Simulated cyclone wind loading of a brick ve-
neer house.’’ Technical Rep. No. 28, James Cook Cyclone Structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Testing Station, QLD, Australia.
Reardon, G. F. 共1990兲. ‘‘Simulated cyclone wind loading of a nu-steel
house.’’ Technical Rep. No. 36, James Cook Cyclone Structural Test-
ing Station, QLD, Australia.
Reardon, G. F., and Henderson, D. 共1996兲. ‘‘Simulated wind loading of a
1284 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:1275-1284.
two-story test house.’’ Proc., Int. Wood Engineering Conf., V. K. A.
Gopu, ed., New Orleans, 4-313–319.
Reardon, G. F., and Mahendran, M. 共1988兲. ‘‘Simulated cyclone wind
loading of a Melbourne style brick veneer house.’’ Rep. No. 34, James
Cook Cyclone Structural Testing Station, QLD, Australia.
Stewart, A. H., Kliewer, A., Goodman, J. R., and Salsbury, E. M. 共1988兲.
‘‘Full-scale tests of manufactured houses under simulated wind load.’’
Proc., 1988 Int. Conf. on Timber Engineering, Forest Products Re-
search Society, Madison, Wis., 2-97–111.
Stewart, W. G. 共1987兲. ‘‘The seismic design of plywood-sheathed shear
walls.’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Tuomi, R. L., and McCutcheon, W. J. 共1974兲. ‘‘Testing of a full-scale
house under simulated snow loads and wind loads.’’ Research Paper
FPL234, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Products
Laboratory, Madison, Wis.
Yamaguchi, N., and Minowa, C. 共1998兲. ‘‘Dynamic performance of
wooden bearing walls by shaking table test.’’ Proc., 5th World Conf.
on Timber Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Ro-
mandes.