See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239388145

Performance of a Woodframe Structure during Full-Scale Shake-Table Tests:

Drift, Damage, and Effect of Partition Wall

Article in Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · February 2007

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:1(35)

CITATIONS READS

12 297

3 authors, including:

John W. van de Lindt Shiling Pei

Colorado State University Colorado School of Mines
306 PUBLICATIONS 4,694 CITATIONS 109 PUBLICATIONS 1,800 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Collaborative Research: Fundamental Mechanics and Conditional Probabilities for Prediction of Hurricane Surge and Wave Loads on Elevated Coastal Structures View
project

Functional Reliability of Road Tunnels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shiling Pei on 12 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Performance of a Woodframe Structure during Full-Scale
Shake-Table Tests: Drift, Damage, and Effect
of Partition Wall
John W. van de Lindt, M.ASCE1; Hongyan Liu2; and Shiling Pei3

Abstract: The dynamic performance of a woodframe structure is examined through the qualitative correlation between the transient
interstory drift and the observed damage following a series of full-scale shake-table tests. The structure was subjected to simulated
Northridge earthquake ground motions scaled to seismic hazard levels of 50, 10, 2, and 1% exceedance in 50 years. Added mass was used
in an effort to examine the qualitative correlation of the observed performance with the performance tabulated in FEMA 2000. The
structure was repaired to the extent possible between each test. The structure was tested at three different structural/nonstructural stages:
共1兲 oriented strand board 共OSB兲 only; 共2兲 gypsum wall board 共GWB兲 and OSB; and 共3兲 OSB, GWB, and a nonstructural interior partition
wall, in order to determine the effect of each component and to qualitatively determine its effect on overall damage to the system. It was
determined that qualitative damage descriptions were not significantly different from those given in FEMA 2000. It was also found that
the percent torsion increased with increasing peak ground acceleration. The effect of GWB on structural response and damage was as
expected, but the partition wall behaved differently than expected. Specifically, the partition wall sustained very little damage even though
it had full load transfer at the top plate.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0887-3828共2007兲21:1共35兲
CE Database subject headings: Earthquake engineering; Ground motion; Performance characteristics; Shear walls; Framed
structures; Wood structures; Shake table tests.

Introduction objectives of these tests were: 共1兲 to provide a qualitative damage

The earthquake engineering research and design communities, in-
cluding those involved in woodframe construction, are currently
evolving toward the development of performance-based seismic
design 共PBSD兲. PBSD is a design philosophy in which the re-
sponsibility is given to the designer to demonstrate adequate/
acceptable performance of her/his structure under prescribed seis-
mic hazard loading conditions. While the concept itself has been
reasonably developed through vision documents 共e.g., SEAOC
1996兲, the performance requirements and corresponding structural
response quantities have not been fully refined, particularly for
woodframe structures. This paper presents the results of a series
of uniaxial shake table tests performed at Colorado State Univer-
sity on a woodframe structure whose seismic mass as well as
finish materials were both varied as part of the investigation. The
1 stucco exterior together significantly decreased the peak displace-
Associate Professor, Colorado State Univ., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Mail Stop 1372, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372. E-mail:
jwv@engr.colostate.edu
2
Doctoral Candidate, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins, CO 80523–1372.
3
Doctoral Candidate, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins, CO 80523–1372.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2007. 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 September 14, 2005; approved on January 4, 2006. This
paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 21, No. 1, February 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2007/1-35–
43/$25.00.
description as a function of drift and, to the extent possible, com-
pare thus with the damage descriptions provided in the perfor-
mance level tables of FEMA 2000; and 共2兲 to determine the effect
of a partition wall and of gypsum wall board 共GWB兲 on structural
performance.
A significant number of tests on full-scale woodframe struc-
tures have been performed over the last several decades, with the
majority of them being static 共e.g., Boughton and Reardon 1984兲
or slow cyclic tests 共see van de Lindt 2005 for a significant list兲.
A few shake-table tests have been performed very recently 共e.g.,
Filiatrault et al. 2002兲. All of those test structures were designed
to 共or near to兲 current code standards, which are strength-based in
nature, and while damage was observed and recorded, the intent
of those studies was to investigate the state of the practice. The
effect of nonstructural finishes was investigated by Filiatrault
et al. 共2002兲, and they concluded that the effect of GWB and a
ment while only moderately increasing the seismic acceleration
response. In that study, they did not test the effect of only the
GWB. Although stucco adds a significant amount of stiffness to a
structure, much of the building stock is comprised of woodframe
structures with wood, vinyl, or aluminum siding, which contrib-
utes little to stiffness and strength. Thus, one objective in this
study is to investigate the effect of GWB on damage and perfor-
mance without the inclusion of stucco.
As stated earlier, to date neither of these objectives has been
investigated experimentally, and it is believed that this must be
done at some level prior to pursuing the development of a
performance-based seismic design 共PBSD兲 philosophy for wood-
frame structures.

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 35

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Description of Tests in This Study
Test Design hazard level Performance expectation Weight at
number 共return period兲 共FEMA 2000兲 roof level Structural description
01 72 years Immediate occupancy 73 kN OSB only; no partition walls; no finishes
02 475 years Life safety 73 kN OSB only; no partition walls; no finishes
03 2,475 years Collapse prevention 73 kN OSB only; no partition walls; no finishes
04 ⬃5,000 years Not applicable 89 kN OSB only; no partition walls; no finishes
05 2,475 years and ⬃5,000 years Collapse prevention 98 kN OSB+ GWB; no partition walls
06 2,475 years and ⬃5,000 years Collapse prevention 98 kN OSB+ GWB+ partition walls

Test Setup and Test Details
Test Structure
The shake-table tests of the woodframe structure consisted of a
series of tests during different stages of construction and sub-
jected to different seismic hazards, i.e., spectrally scaled ground
motions. The test matrix and associated structural and seismic
hazard details, i.e., return period, are presented in Table 1. Fig. 1
shows a drawing of the shearwalls in the earthquake parallel di-
rection with the associated dimensions 共note: all dimensions are
in meters兲. The shearwalls were fully anchored with hold downs
at the ends of each shearwall as indicated in Fig. 1. The founda-
tion consisted of a W12⫻ 38 steel beam bolted directly to the
steel shake table surface. All anchor bolts were spaced as close to
共but not exceeding兲 0.6 m 共24 in.兲, studs on all exterior shear-
walls were spaced at 400 mm 共16 in.兲 on-center, studs on interior
nonstructural partition walls were also 400 mm 共16 in.兲 on-center,
Fig. 1. Shearwall lines in woodframe structure 共wall line A-A, top;
wall line B-B, bottom兲
and 2 ⫻ 4 nominal dimension lumber was used for all framing. All
walls had nail spacings of 152 mm 共6 in.兲 around the sheathing
panel exterior and 304 mm 共12 in.兲 on the interior studs. Under in
situ conditions, a roof diaphragm and roof truss system would be
tied into the top plates of the shearwalls. However, in the case of
this study the test structure was intended to represent the bottom
story of a multistory structure, because this was typically where
weaknesses in woodframe buildings occurred during recent earth-
quakes. To enforce this boundary condition, to the extent possible,
a steel plate was bolted into the top of the walls, i.e., along the
entire perimeter. It was 76 mm 共3 in.兲 in width so that it did not
interfere with sheathing rotation during the racking of the walls.
Then, a steel roof diaphragm was welded directly to this top plate,
with one truss located directly over each wall stud when possible,
and spanning the short direction of the structure between Walls
A-A and B-B. Oriented strand board 共OSB兲 was fastened to the
trusses using wood-to-steel self-tapping screws at 150 mm 共6 in.兲
on-center to form a roof diaphragm. Steel truss members and
12 mm 共15/ 32 in.兲 OSB provided the sidewalls above the roof
diaphragm to form a “bin” for the added seismic mass, which was
placed in the form of sandbags. This modified roof system was
applied in order to place a significant amount of additional seis-
mic weight/mass at the roof level during very large ground mo-
tions in the test setting.
The fourth column of Table 1 shows the weight of the sand-
bags plus the roof assembly for each test. Fig. 2 shows a solid
model of the shake table configuration and setup. The shearwalls
were located parallel to the ground motion direction as detailed in
Fig. 1. The transverse walls were both 2.44⫻ 2.44 m 共8 ⫻ 8 ft兲
solid wood walls with two vertical OSB sheathing panels and 8d
box nails 关2.9 mm 共0.113 in.兲兴. Studs for all walls were 2 ⫻ 4
dimension lumber spaced at 16 in. on-center and anchor bolts
were also used in these walls. In the upper left of Fig. 2, a smaller
solid model is shown with a typical truss roof for comparison and
to show the orientation of the partition walls for Test 06. Selection
of the seismic mass/weight for the tests is discussed hereafter.
The floor diaphragm consisted of 9.5-in.-deep floor joists with
19/ 32 in. OSB sheathing glued and nailed in a manner consistent
with modern residential construction practices. Nail spacing was
8d box nails at 152 mm 共6 in.兲 on the floor sheathing perimeters
and 304 mm 共12 in.兲 on the interior. The floor joists were oriented
along the long direction of the house such that they had a 4.88 m
共16 ft兲 clear span. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the footprint of the
house was approximately 2.6⫻ 4.88 m 共8.4⫻ 16 ft兲 A window
and door on one side 共Wall B兲 and two windows on the opposite
side 共Wall A兲 were included. All shearwalls were sheathed with
12 mm 共15/ 32 in.兲 OSB on one side and 共when included in the
test兲 12.7 mm 共1 / 2 in.兲 gypsum wall board 共GWB兲 on the other
side. For partition walls, 12.7 mm 共1 / 2 in.兲 GWB was installed

36 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 2. Solid model view of shake table test setup
on both sides of the framing. No. 5 drywall screws
spaced at 200 mm 共8 in.兲 were used for all GWB
installation.
Test Setup
The shake table test setup is shown in the photograph in Fig. 4.
Displacement gauges were installed at various locations through-
out the test structure. The numerous gauges were positioned to
measure displacement at the top of the structure, uplift, and any
torsion. Fig. 5 presents the acceleration response spectra for the
Fig. 3. Plan view of woodframe structure. Partition walls are
indicated by dashed lines.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 37
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 4. Photograph of woodframe structure being tested on uniaxial
shake table
scaled Northridge earthquake 关recording station: L.A. North Far-
ing Road; see Krawinkler et al. 共2000兲 for details兴 at each of the
four aforementioned seismic hazard levels 共i.e., in Table 1兲 used
during this study. These were the target ground motions used as
input to the shake table. Reproductions of the ground displace-
ments and recorded displacements were virtually exact. Also,
shown on the left side of the plot is the typical structural period
range for one- to three-story woodframe buildings. A low ampli-
tude free vibration test was performed on the test specimen, and
the measured structural period when 80 kN was present at roof
level was just under 0.4 s, indicating that the specimen was ap-
proximately representative of a three-story structure.
Fig. 5. Acceleration response spectra developed from the 共L.A.
North Faring Road兲 Northridge accelograms used in this study. Also
shown is the range of typical structural periods for woodframe
structures.

Fig. 6. Incremental mass analysis curves and peak drifts recorded
when 89 kN was placed at roof level
Test Results and Observations
Selection of Weight at Roof Level
The first set of tests 共test numbers 01 through 04兲 were performed
on the bare structure, in which only OSB was installed and no
finish materials were present. In order to determine what weight/
mass should be placed at the roof level, a series of nonlinear
dynamic analyses were performed. The Seismic Analysis of
Woodframe Structures 共SAWS兲 共Folz and Filiatrault 2004a,b兲
program was employed to model the structure. The mass at roof
level was incrementally increased, while the Northridge earth-
quake record was kept constant with either the 50%/50 year,
10%/50 year, or 2%/50 year seismic hazard level. Details of this
approach can be found in van de Lindt and Liu 共2005兲 and van de
Lindt and Gupta 共2006兲. Fig. 6 presents the results of these analy-
ses in the form of incremental mass analysis 共IMA兲 curves, whose
shape and behavior are very similar to an incremental dynamic
analysis 共IDA兲 curve, because incrementing the mass has a simi-
lar effect to incrementing the ground motion.
FEMA 2000 defines a performance level—or perhaps more
appropriately worded, performance expectation—as 1, 2, and 3%
transient drift for the immediate occupancy 共IO兲, life safety 共LS兲,
and collapse prevention 共CP兲 levels, respectively. There are some
permanent drift expectations also, but these are not addressed
here, because it is difficult to numerically predict permanent de-
formation accurately. A total of 73 kN 共16.3 kips兲 was placed at
the roof level, which, as can be seen from the dash-dot curve in
Fig. 6, numerically produces a 3% transient displacement re-
sponse at roof level for the woodframe structure.
The numerical analysis overpredicted the peak response sig-
nificantly. This was believed to be the result of omitting the trans-
verse walls in the model. Although this approach is consistent
with analyses used in the recent verifications of the SAWS model
共Folz and Filiatrault 2004a,b兲, recent experimental load path stud-
ies have shown that transverse walls take approximately 20% of
the lateral loading 共Paevere et al. 2003兲. Thus, the need for inclu-
sion of a transverse element representative of the transverse wall
is becoming more evident.

Table 2. Structural and Nonstructural Performance Levels Excerpted 共in part兲 from FEMA 2000
Structural Performance Levels 共FEMA 2000兲a
Element Type Collapse prevention Life safety Immediate occupancy
Wood stud wall Primary Connections loose. Nails Moderate loosening of Distributed minor hairline
partially withdrawn. Some connections and minor splitting cracking of gypsum and plaster
splitting of members and panels. of members. veneers.
Veneers dislodged.
Secondary Sheathing sheared off. Let-in Connections loose. Nails Distributed minor hairline
braces fractured and buckled. partially withdrawn. Some cracking of gypsum and plaster
Framing split and tractured splitting of members and panels. veneers.
Drift 3% transient or permanent 2% transient; 1% permanent 1% transient; 0.25% permanent
Horizontal Not applicable Large permanent distortion with Some splitting at connections. No observable loosening of
wood partial withdrawal of nails and Loosening of sheathing. withdrawal of fasteners. No
diaphragms extensive splitting of elements Observable withdrawal of splitting of sheathing or framing.
fasteners. Splitting of sheathing
and framing.
Nonstructural Performance Levels 共FEMA 2000兲b
Element Hazards reduced Life safety Immediate occupancy Hazards reduced
Partitions Distributed damage; Distributed damage; some Cracking to about 1.6 mm Cracking to about 1.6 mm
some severe cracking, severe cracking, crushing, and 共1 / 16 in.兲 width at openings. 共1 / 16 in.兲 width at openings.
crushing, and racking racking in some areas. Minor crushing and cracking at Minor crushing and cracking at
in some areas. corners. corners.
Ceilings Extensive damage. Extensive damage. Dropped Minor damage. Some suspended Generally negligible damage.
Dropped suspended suspended ceiling tiles. ceiling tiles disrupted. A few Isolated suspended panel
ceiling tiles. Moderate Moderate cracking in hard panels dropped. Minor cracking dislocations, or cracks in hard
cracking in hard ceilings. in hard ceilings. ceilings.
ceilings.
a
Excerpted 共in part兲 from FEMA 2000, Table C1-3.
b
Excerpted 共in part兲 from FEMA 2000, Table C1-5.

38 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 3. Peak Drift and Qualitative Damage Comparisons for Tests in This Study
FEMA
Peak drift 2000
Northridge earth- 关mm 共in.兲兴 Qualitative damage description performance
quake hazard level
Test level/structural used for
number configuration Wall A-A Wall B-B Observed FEMA 2000 summary comparison
01 50%/50 year; 7.5 共0.30兲 8.1 共0.32兲 None N/A Immediate
PGA= 0.27g; OSB occupancy
only
02 10%/50 year; 13.0 共0.51兲 14.2 共0.55兲 Several nails near door pulled Moderate loosening of Life safety
PGA= 0.61g; OSB out 3–5 mm. connections and minor
only splitting of members and
panels.
03 2%/50; PGA 14.8 共0.58兲 15.9 共0.63兲 Nails putting out 3–5 mm. Partial withdrawal of nails, Collapse
= 0.84g; OSB only Separation of end posts in permanent deformation, prevention
corners approximately 5 mm. splitting of elements.
04 1%/50; 35.0 共1.38兲 44.2 共1.74兲 Nails sheared off on at Partial withdrawal of nails, Collapse
PGA= 1.0g; OSB least/nails near door and 3 permanent deformation, prevention
only nails near window. Some splitting of elements.
corner nails broken or pulled
through.
05 2%/50 and 1%/50 26.8 共1.05兲; 32.5 共1.28兲; Structural: Numerous nails Structural: Connections loose, Collapse
successively, no 33.3 共1.31兲 40.7 共1.60兲 partially of fully pulled partial withdrawal of nails, prevention
repairs between; through. Nails near door veneers dislodged.
OSB+ GWB pulled out 5 mm
Nonstructural: GWB cracked Nonstructural: Some serve Hazards
near corners and near doors cracking, crushing, and reduced
and windows. Seams between racking in some areas.
GWB panels damaged
significantly. Piece of drywall
broken off and large diagonal
crack in GWB.
06 2%/50 and 1%/50 25.3 共1.0兲; 28.7 共1.1兲; Structural: Very Similar to test Structural: Connections loose, Collapse
successively, no 29.8 共1.3兲 33.7 共1.2兲 05, except approximately half partial withdrawal of nails, prevention
repairs between; as many nails pulled through veneers dislodged.
OSB+ GWB an exterior.
partition walls
Nonstructural: GWB cracks in Nonstructural: Some severe Hazards
corner and near windows and cracking, crushing, and reduced
doors. Very little damage to racking in some areas.
partition wall that was parallel
to ground motion.

Observed versus Expected Performance/Damage
The focus of this investigation was on the performance of the
structure as compared to the FEMA 2000 expectations/
descriptions, which are shown excerpted 共in part兲 in Table 2.
Table 3 presents the peak drifts as well as the qualitative damage
descriptions for Tests 01 through 04. Because that the structure
did not have GWB or partition walls during these tests, only the
structural performance in Table 2 is used for comparison for Tests
01 through 04. In Tests 02 and 03, although transient drifts of 2
and 3% were not reached, there was some agreement between the
observed and FEMA 2000 damage descriptions. In order to ob-
serve larger drift levels, 13 kN was added at the roof level, and
the earthquake was scaled to approximately a 1% in 50 year ex-
ceedance level, which resulted in a ground motion having a peak
ground acceleration 共PGA兲 of 1.0g. The structure was repaired
and retested with this larger ground motion and, as seen in Table
3, there was more than double the interstory drift. Numerous cor-
ner nails pulled out of the shearwalls or were pulled through the
sheathing. Comparing this to the most severe performance level
available in the FEMA 2000 prestandard, collapse prevention, one
can see a reasonable comparison. However, no splitting of struc-
tural members, i.e., sill plates, was observed. In fact, for fully
anchored wood shearwalls, this is not common except at very
large drifts, perhaps well in excess of 3%. Splitting of sill plates
was studied in detail by Bracci and Jones 共1998兲.
The structure was then repaired to the extent possible and
GWB was installed on the interior of all shearwalls and transverse
walls. A texture spray was added and dark paint applied so that
cracking and crushing could easily be identified following testing.
In addition, another 9 kN of weight was added at the roof level,
bringing the total to 98 kN 共22 kips兲. Note in Table 2 that for
nonstructural performance there is also a “hazards reduced” per-
formance level, which is cited in the FEMA 2000 prestandard.
Fig. 7 shows the 2 and 1% in 50 year ground accelerations ap-
plied one after another, as well as the ground displacement used
as input to the shake table. The measured displacement for the
structure is shown in the lower window.
The observed structural damage was primarily in the form of

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 39

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 7. Scaled Northridge ground acceleration, ground displacement
for shake table input, and resulting structural displacement response
for Test 04

the nails pulling through the OSB, particularly near the openings
共windows and door兲. Nonstructural damage was primarily dam-
age to the GWB at the panel seams and some damage in the
corners of the panel. A piece of the GWB was broken off and a
large diagonal crack occurred, indicating significant racking in the
GWB. This was reasonably consistent with the hazards reduced
performance level articulated in FEMA 2000, even though the 3%
drift was not reached. Fig. 8 shows photos of the typical nail
pullout behavior and GWB cracking that was observed following
Test 05.
The structure was repaired both structurally and nonstructur-
ally following Test 05. Partition walls were installed, as shown by
the dashed lines in Fig. 3. Fig. 9 shows a photograph of the two
small rooms formed by the nonstructural partition wall. The struc-
tural damage observed following Test 06 was very similar to that
observed following Test 05. However, approximately half as
many nails pulled through the sheathing. The nonstructural dam-
age observed was primarily GWB cracks near the corner and near Fig. 8. Photographs of structural and nonstructural damage observed
windows and doors. There was almost no visible damage to the during testing
partition wall.

Trends in Drift and Damage

Of the displacement transducers that were placed at numerous
locations throughout the structure, two were placed at the top of
each 4.88 mm 共16 ft兲 shearwall section 共shown previously in Fig.
1兲 in order to observe the difference in peak displacement when
two windows versus one window and a door were included. Fig.
10 shows a comparison of the response of the side with the win-
dow and door and the side with the two windows. As expected,
the side with the door consistently had a larger peak deformation
response. The relative difference between the two increased as
peak ground acceleration increased; for example,
⌬B−B
max − ⌬max
A−A
d= 共1兲
⌬B−B
max

where ⌬A−A
max and ⌬max ⫽peak displacement at the top of Walls A-A
B−B

and B-B, respectively. Fig. 11 presents the value of d versus the Fig. 9. Photograph of the nonstructural partition wall sheathed on
PGA. Note that the values of d at 0.27g and 0.61g are from Tests both sides with 12 mm 共1 / 2 in.兲 GWB. The view above is looking
01 and 02 in Table 3, and that the values of d at 0.84g and 1.0g into the two door openings of two equally sized rooms.

40 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 10. Variation in response of “door side” 共wall line A-A兲 and “window side” 共wall line B-B兲
are averages from Tests 03 through 06, because in the latter cases
more than one value was available. A clear upward trend is iden-
tifiable in Fig. 11, indicating that the torsion may increase as the
peak ground acceleration increases. While not conclusive due to
the limited number of tests, it is clear that torsion does not remain
constant as the ground motion is scaled, even for this simple
rectangular structure with asymmetric openings.
Effect of Seismic Weight/Mass at Roof Level
The effect of increasing the weight at roof level is shown graphi-
cally in Fig. 12. As one would expect, as the weight increases the
Fig. 11. Trend of torsion as function of peak ground acceleration
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 41
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
peak drift also increases. However, it should be noted that a mod-
erate increase in the weight at roof level, e.g., 25%, resulted in
increases in the peak drift of more than 100% in some cases.
Effect of Nonstructural Partition Wall
Test 06 was identical to Test 05 except that a nonstructural parti-
tion wall was included, as shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 9.
The damage sustained by the structure was discussed earlier.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the structure sheathed with OSB
and GWB when the partition wall is not present and when it is
present. The effect was significantly greater for wall line B-B than
for wall line A-A, where line A-A had one door and one window
and wall line B-B had two windows. The effect on peak displace-
ment ranged between approximately 5 and 17%.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented the results of an experimental investigation
into the performance of a woodframe structure subjected to simu-
lated Northridge ground motions. The tests consisted of a series
of tests with four different seismic hazard levels 共ground motion
scaling using spectral scaling兲 and several different weights at the
roof level of the structure, designed to be representative of the
bottom level of a multistory structure. The structure was tested at
different stages of finishes, i.e., OSB only, OSB+ GWB, and
OSB+ GWB+ a partition wall. Damage and drifts were carefully
examined and comparisons to the FEMA 2000 prestandard de-
scription are presented. Based on the study described herein, the
following conclusions can be reached:
1. The damage descriptions developed following each test, i.e.,
qualitative observations, were not significantly different from
 Fig. 12. Variation in peak transient drift with weight at roof level
those given in the FEMA 2000 prestandard, even though the
transient drift was significantly less. However, there was no
splitting of members, which might be more likely to occur at
these larger levels of drift.
2. A moderate increase of the mass at roof level produced a
significant effect on the peak transient drift for the test speci-
men. While this may seem somewhat obvious, it is indicative
of the high degree of nonlinearity in the response of even
simple woodframe structures such as the rectangular struc-
ture tested.
3. For this specimen, subjected to a simulated Northridge earth-
quake, torsion increased somewhat linearly with PGA. Per-
haps more generally significant here is that, if torsion in-
creases with PGA for an only slightly irregular structure,
should the 5% accidental torsion value in ASCE 7 be exam-
ined further for woodframe structures?
4. Although the partition wall was located equidistant from
each of the shearwall lines A-A and B-B, the reduction in
drift was significantly larger on shearwall line B-B, which
was the side with two windows.
5. The partition wall, which had full load transfer from the roof
through a welded steel top plate, reduced the overall re-
sponse of the building as expected. Interestingly, it did not
sustain damage itself, indicating that the cracking in the non-
structural partition wall was below the level at which crack-
ing occurs in GWB.
Table 4. Effect of Partition Wall on Peak Transient Drift
2% in 50 years 1% in 50 years
Wall OSB+ GWB OSB+ GWB+ PW OSB+ GWB OSB+ GWB+ PW
Wall A-A 26.75 mm 25.26 mm 33.26 mm 29.77 mm
Wall B-B 32.47 mm 28.11 mm 40.71 mm 33.74 mm
42 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 15 Feb 2010 to 129.82.230.109. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
There is still a dearth of test data on the dynamic 共shake table兲
performance of woodframe structures, particularly at the whole or
system level. While much can be learned from testing and ana-
lyzing simple structures and subassemblies, it is recommended
that asymmetric full-scale structures be systematically tested in
order to identify structural 共and nonstructural兲 performance
trends.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to thank Colorado State University for
providing funding for the specimens and shake table, Jack E.
Cermak for partial funding of the steel frame, and Ken Fridley of
the University of Alabama for his advice in the construction of the
test specimens. The writers are grateful to Carter Mast, a National
Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates
共NSF-REU兲 fellow at Colorado State University, for constructing
and repairing the structure throughout this study.
References
Boughton, G. N., and Reardon, G. F. 共1984兲. “Simulated wind tests on the
Tongon Hurricane House.” Technical Rep. 23, James Cook Cyclone
Structural Testing Station, Townsville, Australia.
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, Elsevier, New York, Paper
No. T207-2.
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.
FEMA. 共2000兲. “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilita-
tion of buildings, Report No. 356, Washington, D.C.
Folz, B., and Filiatrault, A. 共2004a兲. “Seismic analysis of woodframe
structures buildings. I: Model formulation.” J. Struct. Eng., 130共9兲,
1353–1360.
Folz, B., and Filiatrault, A. 共2004b兲. “Seismic analysis of woodframe
structures buildings. II: Model implementation and verification.” J.
Struct. Eng., 130共9兲, 1361–1370.
Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A., and Medina, R. 共2000兲.
“Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures.”
CUREE Publication No. W-02, Consortium of Universities for Re-
search in Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, Calif.
Paevere, P. J., Foliente, G. C., and Kasal, B. 共2003兲. “Load-sharing and
redistribution in a one-story woodframe building.” J. Struct. Eng.,
129共9兲, 1275–1284.
SEAOC. 共1996兲. “Recommended lateral force requirements and commen-
tary, Appendix B: Vision 2000, Conceptual Framework for
Performance-Based Seismic Design, Structural Engineers Association
of California.
van de Lindt, J. W. 共2005兲. “Damage-based seismic reliability concept for
woodframe structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 131共4兲, 668–675.
van de Lindt, J. W., and Gupta, R. 共2006兲. “Damage and damage predic-
tion for wood shearwalls subjected to simulated earthquake loads.” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., 20共2兲, 176–184.
van de Lindt, J. W., and Liu, H. 共2005兲. “Non-structural elements in
performance-based seismic design of woodframe structures.” J.
Struct. Eng., in press.

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 43

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