AWC SDPWS2015 Commentary Printable
AWC SDPWS2015 Commentary Printable
SDPWS
ERRATA
January 2017
April 2018
COMMENTARY
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
50 SDPWS COMMENTARY
FOREWORD
The Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic In developing the provisions of the SDPWS, data and
(SDPWS) document was first issued in 2002. It contains experience with structures in-service has been carefully
provisions for materials, design, and construction of wood evaluated by the AWC Wood Design Standards Committee
members, fasteners, and assemblies to resist wind and for the purpose of providing a standard of practice. It is
seismic forces. The 2015 edition is the fourth edition of intended that this document be used in conjunction with
this publication. competent engineering design, accurate fabrication, and
The Commentary to the SDPWS is provided herein and adequate supervision of construction. Therefore AWC does
includes background information for most sections as well not assume any responsibility for errors or omissions in
as sample calculations for each of the design value tables. the SDPWS and SDPWS Commentary, nor for engineering
The Commentary follows the same subject matter designs and plans prepared from it.
organization as the SDPWS. Discussion of a particular Inquiries, comments and suggestions from the readers
provision in the SDPWS is identified in the Commentary of this document are invited.
by the same section or subsection. When available, refer- American Wood Council
ences to more detailed information on specific subjects
are included.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 51
C2 GENERAL DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
C2.1 General
C2.1.1 Scope C2.1.3 Sizes
Allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance Sizes of wood products vary by both product type and
factor design (LRFD) provisions are applicable for the end use conditions. Actual wood product dimensions are
design of wood members and systems to resist wind and typically a function of moisture content at the time that
seismic loads. For other than short-term wind and seismic measurements are taken. For this reason, dimensions are
loads (10-minute basis), adjustment of design capacities reported in terms of reference environmental conditions.
for load duration or time effect shall be in accordance Products such as lumber, timbers, and wood structural
with the National Design Specification® (NDS®) for Wood panels have been historically reported in terms of “nomi-
Construction (6). nal” dimension nomenclature. These product names are
associated with minimum dimensions at reference en-
C2.1.2 Design Methods vironmental conditions or a reference moisture content
specification for the manufacturing process as described in C
Both ASD and LRFD (also referred to as strength the product standards. For example, the minimum dressed
design) formats are addressed by reference to the National dry dimensions of a “2x4” are 1.5 inches x 3.5 inches for
C2.2 Terminology
ASD Reduction Factor: This term denotes the spe- shear walls and diaphragms in seismic applications. The
cific adjustment factor used to convert nominal design nominal unit shear capacity for seismic, νs, was derived
values to ASD reference design values. by dividing the nominal unit shear capacity for wind by
Nominal Strength: Nominal strength (or nominal 1.4. This was done to be consistent with the ratio of wind
capacity) is used to provide a common reference point and seismic design capacities for wood structural panel
from which to derive ASD or LRFD reference design shear walls and diaphragms in model building codes (2)
values. For wood structural panels, tabulated nominal and allow for a single ASD Reduction Factor of 2.0 to be
unit shear capacities for wind, νw, (nominal strength) were used for both wind and seismic applications. For fiberboard
derived using ASD tabulated seismic values from industry and lumber shear walls and lumber diaphragms, similar
design documents and model building codes (2, 18, 19, assumptions were used.
20) times a factor of 2.8. The factor of 2.8, based on mini- For shear walls utilizing other materials, ASD unit
mum performance requirements (8), has commonly been shear capacity values from model building codes (2) and
considered the target minimum safety factor associated industry design documents (20) were multiplied by 2.0 to
with ASD unit shear capacity for wood structural panel
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
52 SDPWS COMMENTARY: GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
develop nominal unit shear capacity values for both wind is due to the fact that typical reference design values are
and seismic. based on a statistical estimate of a near-minimum value
While varying approaches are used across the variety (5th percentile).
of products (e.g. wood structural panels, lumber sheathing, The following resistance factors are used in SDPWS:
structural fiberboard, gypsum wallboard) and applications a) sheathing in-plane shear, fD = 0.80, b) sheathing out-
(e.g. shear walls, diaphragms, wall sheathing, and roof of-plane bending fb = 0.85, and c) connections, fz = 0.65.
sheathing) covered by SDPWS, the most common basis LRFD resistance factors have been determined by an
of nominal strength is the factoring up of historic ASD ASTM consensus standard committee (16). Examination
design values such that when nominal strength is divided of fD=0.80 is addressed in ASTM D 5457 (16) where
by the specified ASD reduction factor, the identical design calibration is used to reduce differences between ASD and
value to that specified in prior codes will result. Under LRFD for in-plane shear. For seismic design of shear walls
such an approach, conservatisms inherent in the original and diaphragms, the specified fD = 0.80 is applied to the
ASD design value determination and the product standards nominal unit shear capacity for seismic which is a reduced
are maintained. Importantly, nominal strength values and nominal unit shear capacity derived by dividing the nomi-
methods of adjusting values for use as part of engineered nal unit shear capacity for wind by 1.4 (see C2.2 Nominal
design using either ASD or LRFD (e.g. ASD reduction Strength). Use of the reduced seismic nominal unit shear
factors or LRFD resistance factors) are based upon the capacity times fD = 0.80 is algebraically equivalent to use
premise that the structural products fully comply with the of an “effective fD = 0.57” times the unreduced nominal
applicable product standards referenced in this Specifica- unit shear capacity (i.e. nominal unit shear capacity for
tion. For example, wood structural panels used in shear wind, Rwind) for calculation of the LRFD design unit shear
wall and diaphragm applications or as wall and roof sheath- capacity for seismic:
ing must conform to the requirements found in DOC PS
1 (58) or PS 2 (8) as applicable. These product standards 0.8 RWind
include minimum performance requirements, applicable vSeismic
= − LRFD 0.8
= RSeismic = 0.57 RWind (C2.2-1)
1.4
test methods, and quality assurance for which design meth-
ods in this specification are considered suitable. Examples where:
of such baseline criteria include requirements for strength,
0.80 = φD; sheathing resistance factor for in-plane
stiffness, and fastener performance in product standards shear of shear walls and diaphragms for
for sheathing and panel products used in shear walls and/ both wind and seismic
or diaphragms.
Resistance Factor: For LRFD, resistance factors are Rwind = nominal unit shear capacity for wind
assigned to various wood properties with only one factor Rseismic = nominal unit shear capacity for seismic
for each stress mode (i.e. bending, shear, compression,
tension, and stability). Theoretically, the magnitude of a 0.57 = “effective φD” where reference strength is
associated with the unreduced nominal unit
resistance factor is considered to, in part, reflect relative
shear capacity (i.e. Rwind)
variability of wood product properties. However, for wood
design provisions, actual differences in product variability
are already embedded in the reference design values. This
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 53
C3 MEMBERS AND
CONNECTIONS
C3.1 Framing
C3.1.1.1 Wall Stud Bending Strength and Stiffness For design purposes, a slightly more conservative
Design Value Increase: Wall studs sheathed on both sides value of 1.5 was chosen to represent a modified 2x4 stud
are stronger and stiffer in flexure (i.e., wind loads applied wall system as follows:
perpendicular to the wall plane) than those in similar,
unsheathed wall assemblies. The enhanced performance 2x4 Stud grade Douglas fir studs
of these wood stud wall assemblies is recognized in wood Framing
at 24" o.c.
design with the wall stud repetitive member factor, Cr, for
1/2" gypsum wallboard attached
bending strength and stiffness, which accounts for effects
with 5d cooler nails at 7" o.c.
of partial composite action and load-sharing (1). This is in Interior Sheathing
edge and 10" o.c. field (applied
contrast to the repetitive member factor, Cr, in the NDS (6)
vertically).
which applies to a much broader range of repetitive mem-
ber assembly applications and is limited to bending stress 3/8" wood structural panels at-
increases of no more than 15%. Increases in the assembly
stiffness are directly proportional to partial composite
Exterior Sheath- tached with 8d common nails
ing at 6" o.c. edge and 12" o.c. field
C
action and load-sharing; the effect can conservatively be (blocked).
approximated with the wall stud repetitive member fac-
C3.2 Sheathing
Nominal uniform load capacities in SDPWS Tables results in higher capacity, the more conservative two-span
3.2.1 and 3.2.2 assume a two-span continuous condition. continuous condition was selected because this condition
Out-of-plane sheathing capacities are often tabulated in frequently exists at building end zones where the largest
other documents on the basis of a three-span continuous wind forces occur.
condition. Although the three-span continuous condition
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
54 SDPWS COMMENTARY: MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS
Determine the nominal uniform load capacity in Maximum uniform load based on shear strength for a
SDPWS Table 3.2.1 Nominal Uniform Load Capacities two-span condition:
(psf) for Wall Sheathing Resisting Out-of-Plane Wind
Loads for the following conditions: 19.2 Fs Ib / Q 19.2 × 130
ws = = = 238 psf
lclearspan (12 − 1.5)
Sheathing type = wood structural panels
Span rating or grade = 24/0 Maximum uniform load based on bending governs.
Min. nominal thickness = 3/8 in. Converting to the nominal capacity basis of SDPWS
Strength axis = perpendicular to supports Table 3.2.1:
Actual stud spacing = 12 in.
2.16
wnominal = × ASD10 -yr
ASD (normal load duration, i.e., 10-yr) bending capacity: fb
Fb S = 250 lb-in./ft width from Table C3.2A SDPWS Table 3.2.1
2.16
= ×167 = 424 psf
ASD (normal load duration, i.e., 10-yr) shear capacity: 0.85
Fs I b/Q = 130 lb/ft width from Table C3.2B ≈ 425 psf
where:
Maximum uniform load based on bending strength for a
two-span condition:
C
2.16/0.85 = conversion from a normal load du-
96 Fb S 96 × 250 ration (i.e., 10-yr ASD basis) to the short-term
wb = = = 167 psf
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
56 SDPWS COMMENTARY: MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS
Determine the nominal uniform load capacity in Maximum uniform load based on shear strength for a
SDPWS Table 3.2.1 Nominal Uniform Load Capacities two-span condition:
(psf) for Wall Sheathing Resisting Out-of-Plane Wind
Loads for the following conditions: 19.2 Fs Ib / Q 19.2 × 205
ws = = = 375 psf
lclearspan (12 − 1.5)
Sheathing type = wood structural panels
Span rating or grade = 40/20 Maximum uniform load based on shear governs. Con-
Min. nominal thickness = 19/32 in. verting to the nominal capacity basis of SDPWS Table
Strength axis = perpendicular to supports 3.2.1:
Actual stud spacing = 12 in. 2.16
wnominal = × ASD10− yr
ASD (normal load duration, i.e., 10-yr) bending capacity: φb SDPWS Table 3.2.1
Fb S = 625 lb-in./ft width from Table C3.2A 2.16
= × 375 = 953 psf
0.85
ASD (normal load duration, i.e., 10-yr) shear capacity:
Fs I b/Q = 205 lb/ft width from Table C3.2B ≈ 955 psf
C3.3 Connections
Section 3.3 refers the user to the NDS (6) when design- the connection) rather than out-of-plane bending or shear
ing connections to resist wind or seismic forces. In many capacity of the panel.
cases, resistance to out-of-plane forces due to wind may
be limited by connection capacity (withdrawal capacity of
where applicable. The design must account for stresses within the system; cross-grain bending and/or tension
induced into framing members and all other components perpendicular-to-the-grain of wood members within the
and hardware within the system, as well as resulting de- system.
flections thereof. Eccentricities resulting in cross-grain bending or
When detailing uplift force resisting systems, ec- tension perpendicular-to-the-grain stresses within wood
centricities in the uplift load path should be minimized or members should be avoided. Other factors that must be
eliminated wherever possible (see Figure C3.4). In loca- considered include deflection compatibility of the uplift
tions where this is not possible, the effect of eccentricities force resisting system with the wall(s) in which it is used
in the uplift load path must be considered. Such effects and dimensional changes in the wood elements due to
may include, but are not limited to: moments induced moisture content fluctuations.
into elements of the uplift force resisting system; torsion
within, and rotation of, the top plate and/or other elements
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
58 SDPWS COMMENTARY: MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 59
C4 LATERAL FORCE-
RESISTING SYSTEMS
C4.1 General
C4.1.1 Design Requirements seismic forces from concrete or masonry walls are given to
address deformation compatibility and are largely based on
General design requirements for lateral force-resisting field observations following major seismic events. Wood
systems are described in this section and are applicable to diaphragms and horizontal trusses are specifically permit-
engineered structures. ted to resist horizontal seismic forces from masonry or
concrete walls. For construction over one story in height,
C4.1.2 Shear Capacity wood diaphragms and horizontal trusses are permitted to
resist horizontal seismic forces from masonry or concrete
Nominal unit shear capacities (see C2.2) for wind and walls provided that the design of the diaphragm does not
seismic require adjustment in accordance with SDPWS rely on torsional force distribution through the diaphragm.
4.2.3 for diaphragms and SDPWS 4.3.3 for shear walls to Primary considerations for this limitation are the flexibility
derive an appropriate design value. of the wood diaphragm relative to masonry or concrete C
walls and the limited ability of masonry or concrete walls
C4.1.3 Deformation Requirements to tolerate out-of-plane wall displacements without failure.
The term “horizontal trusses” refers to trusses that are
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
60 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
phragms and walls of structural concrete or masonry (46, span taken as the distance between continuous cross-ties
47, 48, and 49). The changes were introduced to prohibit of the main diaphragm, or use of a subdiaphragm that
designs that induced cross grain bending in wood members spans the full distance between side walls. In either case,
and relied on plywood sheathing in lieu of tension ties. subdiaphragms must meet all requirements for diaphragms
The requirement for continuous ties, the subdiaphragm and additionally are limited to a maximum aspect ratio of
concept, and special detailing requirements in SDPWS are 2.5:1 consistent with the ASCE 7 limitation and intended
consistent with those found in ASCE 7 and prior editions to limit bending deformation and address deformation
of the building code where they originally appeared. compatibility with the rest of the diaphragm. The 2.5:1
Continuous ties spanning the full width of the aspect ratio limit first appeared in the 1997 UBC. Although
diaphragm are required to be provided at wall anchorage some designs have successfully used aspect ratios as high
points to the diaphragm so that the entire diaphragm width as 4, which is the limiting aspect ratio for blocked wood
is engaged in resisting wall anchorage forces. Because wall structural panel diaphragms, the aspect ratio limit of 2.5:1
anchors are often spaced as close as 4 feet on center, and is the maximum permitted and considered more suitable
because it is inefficient to provide continuous ties across for a broad range of applications.
the full diaphragm width at this close spacing, the subdia- C4.1.5.1.1 While direct loading of wood framing in
phragm concept has been developed. This analytical tool cross grain bending or cross grain tension is not associated
enables a designer to detail connections along the continu- with an allowable design stress and should therefore be
ous tie load paths within the diaphragm, without resorting avoided as part of a designed load path, transfer of anchor-
to complex analysis which would be needed given the high age forces through wood framing subject to cross grain
level of redundancy within a wood framed diaphragm. bending and cross grain tension are specifically prohibited.
The subdiaphragm is a smaller diaphragm within the main Details commonly employed for transfer of anchorage
diaphragm (Figure C4.1.5A) designed to ensure the local forces into the diaphragm use mechanical attachment
wall anchorage forces can be safely transferred through between the wall anchor and wood framing oriented per-
the connections and members to the main diaphragm. Wall pendicular to the wall (Figure C4.1.5B) avoiding direct
anchor forces are developed into the subdiaphragm, and loading of wood framing in cross grain bending. Figure
continuous ties across the diaphragm are provided at each C4.1.5B illustrates a typical wall anchor attached to a
end of each subdiaphragm rather than at each wall anchor. sub-diaphragm roof purlin. Sheathing edge nailing into the
Figure C4.1.5A illustrates subdiaphragms that anchor the purlin is provided as part of the load path between sheets
west wall for seismic loading in the east-west direction. of panel sheathing, but the sheathing is not considered
Similar subdiaphragms would be provided along the north part of the connection between the purlin and the ledger.
and south walls for loading in the north-south direction Detailing of cross ties for tension relies on mechanical
and along the east wall. attachment of framing members (Figure C4.1.5C) avoid-
Use of subdiaphragms for purposes of distributing ing direct loading of wood framing in cross grain tension.
concrete or masonry structural wall anchorage forces
may entail multiple subdiaphragms with subdiaphragm
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 61
Wood Structural
Panel Sheathing
Subdiaphragm for
east-west loads
C
See Figure C4.1.5C for ties
between framing members Subdiaphragm chord Concrete or Masonry Wall
Tie Force
Tie Force Tie Force Tie Force
Potential cross-grain
bending failure
a) Appropriate wall anchor detail where anchor b) Inappropriate wall anchor detail where
forces are transferred directly into diaphragm anchor forces induce cross-grain bending in
framing the wood ledger (not permitted)
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
62 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
a) Appropriate continuity tie detail where b) Inappropriate continuity tie detail where
continuity of wall anchor forces is maintained sheathing is used to maintain continuity of
by ties between framing members tension where tension perpendicular to grain
stresses are induced in the wood beam
(not permitted)
C4.1.5.1.2 Reliance on diaphragm sheathing to pro- shall be designed to account for seismic forces generated
vide continuity between framing members is specifically by the additional mass of such elements.
prohibited. The intended design approach is to preserve Design of wood members to support the additional
sheathing and sheathing nailing for in-plane shear loading mass of concrete and masonry elements shall be in ac-
and to reduce potential for concentration of deformation cordance with the NDS and required deflection limits as
at sheathing joints between chords. The limitation is also specified in concrete or masonry standards or model build-
intended to prohibit the design of wood sheathing to pro- ing codes (2). Masonry is defined as a built-up construction
vide tension continuity for wall anchorage forces (Figure or combination of building units or materials of clay, shale,
C4.1.5C). concrete, glass, gypsum, stone, or other approved units
bonded together with or without mortar or grout or other
C4.1.6 Wood Members and accepted methods of joining.
Systems Resisting Seismic Forces
from Other Concrete or Masonry C4.1.7 Toe-Nailed Connections
Construction
Limits on use of toe-nailed connections in seismic
Seismic forces from other concrete or masonry con- design categories D, E, and F for transfer of seismic forces
struction (i.e. other than walls) are permitted and should is consistent with building code requirements (2). Test
be accounted for in design. SDPWS 4.1.6 is not intended to data (12) suggests that the toe-nailed connection limit on
restrict the use of concrete floors – including wood floors a bandjoist to wall plate connection may be too restrictive;
with concrete toppings as well as reinforced concrete however, an appropriate alternative limit requires further
slabs – or similar such elements in floor construction. It study. Where blocking is used to transfer high seismic
is intended to clarify that, where such elements are pres- forces, toe-nailed connections can sometimes split the
ent in combination with a wood system, the wood system block or provide a weakened plane for splitting.
General requirements for wood diaphragms include The total mid-span deflection of a blocked, uniformly
consideration of diaphragm strength and deflection. nailed (e.g. same panel edge naling) wood structural panel
diaphragm can be calculated by summing the effects of
four sources of deflection: framing bending deflection,
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 63
panel shear deflection, deflection from nail slip, and de- E = modulus of elasticity of diaphragm chords,
flection due to chord splice slip: psi
(bending, chord (shear, panel (shear, panel (bending, chord A = area of chord cross-section, in.2
deformation deformation) nail slip) splice slip)
excluding slip)
W = width of diaphragm in direction of applied
δ dia =
5vL
+
3
vL
+ 0.188 Len +
∑ ( x∆ c ) (C4.2.2-1)
force, ft
L = diaphragm dimension perpendicular to the ∆c = diaphragm chord splice slip at the induced
direction of the applied force, ft unit shear, in.
E = modulus of elasticity of diaphragm chords, Distribution of shear forces among shear panels in a
psi diaphragm is a function of the layup and nailing pattern
A = area of chord cross-section, in.2 of panels to framing. For this reason, shear deflection in
a wood diaphragm is related to panel shear, panel layout,
W = width of diaphragm in direction of applied
nailing pattern, and nail load-slip relationship. In Equa-
force, ft
tion C4.2.2-2, panel shear and nail slip are assumed to be
inter-related and have been combined into a single term to
Gνtν = shear stiffness, lb/in. of panel depth. See
Table C4.2.2A or C4.2.2B. account for shear deformations. Equation C4.2.2-3 equates C
apparent shear stiffness, Ga, to nail slip and panel shear
x = distance from chord splice to nearest stiffness terms used in the four-term equation:
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
64 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
shear stiffness for wood structural panel shear wall and Diaphragm length, L = 24 ft
diaphragm construction where: Diaphragm width, W = 24 ft
Panel edge nail spacing = 6 in.
1) framing moisture content is greater than 19% Boundary nail spacing = 6 in. o.c. at boundary
at time of fabrication (green), and parallel to load (4 in. o.c. at boundary perpen-
2) framing moisture content is less than or equal dicular to load for walls A and B)
to 19% in-service (dry).
Calculated deflections at 1.4 x ns(ASD) closely match
The average ratio of “green” to “dry” for Ga across test data for blocked and unblocked diaphragms.
shear wall and diaphragm cells ranged from approximately In Table C4.2.2F, calculated deflections using SDPWS
0.52 to 0.55. A rounded value of 0.5 results in slightly Equation 4.2-1 are compared to deflections from two tests
greater values of calculated deflection for “green” fram- of 20 ft x 60 ft (W = 20 ft, L = 60 ft) diaphragms (26) at
ing when compared to the more detailed 4-term deflection 1.4 times the allowable seismic design value for a hori-
equations. Although based on nail slip relationships zontally sheathed and single diagonally sheathed lumber
applicable to wood structural panel shear walls, this reduc- diaphragm. Calculated deflections include estimates of
tion can also be extended to lumber sheathed diaphragm deflection due to bending, shear, and chord slip. For both
construction. diaphragms, calculated shear deformation accounted for
nearly 85% of the total calculated mid-span deflection.
Comparison with Diaphragm Test Data Tested deflection for Diaphragm 4 is slightly greater than
Tests of blocked and unblocked diaphragms (4) are estimated by calculation and may be attributed to limited
compared in Table C4.2.2E for diaphragms constructed effectiveness of the diaphragm chord construction which
as follows: utilized blocking to transfer forces to the double 2x6 top
plate chord. For Diaphragm 2, chord construction utilized
Sheathing material = Sheathing Grade, 3/8" mini- 2-2x10 band joists.
mum nominal panel thickness
Nail size = 8d common (0.131" diameter, 2½"
length)
Table C4.2.2A Shear Stiffness, Gνtν (lb/in. of depth), for Wood Structural Panels
Table C4.2.2B Shear Stiffness, Gνtν (lb/in. of depth), for Other Sheathing
Materials
Minimum Nominal
Sheathing Material Gvtv
Panel Thickness (in.)
Plywood Siding 5/16 & 3/8 25,000
3/8 25,000
Particleboard 1/2 28,000
5/8 28,500
Structural Fiberboard 1/2 & 25/32 25,000
Gypsum board 1/2 & 5/8 40,000
Lumber All 25,000
24/0 P A A A
Sheathing
C
24/16 P A A
32/16 P A A A
Table C4.2.2E Data Summary for Blocked and Unblocked Wood Structural
Panel Diaphragms
Table C4.2.2F Data Summary for Horizontal Lumber and Diagonal Lumber
Sheathed Diaphragms
Calculated Actual
Diaphragm Description 1.4vs(ASD) Ga δ1
δ
(plf) (kips/in.) (in.) (in.)
Horizontal Lumber Sheathing
Diaphragm 4
– Dry Lumber Sheathing 70 1.5 0.81 0.93
– 2 x 6 chord (double top plates), 5 splices
Diagonal Lumber Sheathing
Diaphragm 2 – Green Lumber Sheathing
420 6.0 1.23 1.05
– 2 x 10 chord, 3 splices
– Exposed outdoors for 1 month
1. Calculated deflection equal to 0.81" includes estimates of deflection due to bending, shear, and chord slip (0.036" + 0.7" + 0.07" = 0.81"). Calculated deflection
equal to 1.23" includes estimates of deflection due to bending, shear, and chord slip (0.13" + 1.05" + 0.05" = 1.23").
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 67
Derive Ga in SDPWS Table 4.2A for a blocked wood Panel shear stiffness:
structural panel diaphragm constructed as follows: Gntn = 77,500 lb/in. of panel depth Table C4.2.2A
Derive Ga in SDPWS Table 4.2B for an unblocked Ga = 15 kips/in. SDPWS Table 4.2A
wood structural panel diaphragm constructed as follows:
Case 1 - unblocked
Sheathing grade = Structural I Ga = 0.6 Ga (blocked)
(OSB) = 0.6 (15.0) = 9.0 kips/in. SDPWS Table 4.2B
Nail size = 6d common
(0.113" Cases 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 - unblocked
diameter, 2" Ga = 0.4 Ga (blocked)
length) = 0.4 (15.0) = 6.0 kips/in. SDPWS Table 4.2B
Minimum nominal panel thickness = 5/16 in.
Minimum width of nailed face = 2x nominal
Boundary and panel edge nail spacing = 6 in.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
68 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
Figure C4.2.2A Diaphragm allowable design value for a single 16d common nail in
Dimensions a face-nailed connection is: Z′ASD = 226 lb.
and Shear and
Moment Diagram The axial force (T or C) at each joint:
L = 48'
16' 16'
M x 65, 280 ft − lb
(T or C ) =
A B
C ase 1 blo cked = = 2, 720 lb
D ia p h ra gm
d iaphra grm , W 24 ft
chord joint 7 /16" O S B
she ath ing , 8d
W = 24' com m on nail a t The number of 16d common nails, n, is:
6 " o.c. a t a ll
p a n el edges
2, 720 lb
n= = 12 nails
226 lb / nail
A llow ab le stress design load, ω = 2 5 5 plf
Use twelve 16d common nails on each side of joint
vm ax = 2 55 plf A and joint B to transfer chord axial forces. Designers
should consider whether a single maximum chord force
Vx = ω(L/2 - x)
at mid-span of the diaphragm should be used to determine
the number of fasteners in each splice joint since the
x M m ax = 7 3,44 0 ft-lb
M = 6 5,28 0 ft-lb M = 6 5,28 0 ft-lb actual location of joints may not be known. The number
of 16d common nails based on the maximum chord force
Mx = ω x (L - x)
2
at mid-span of the diaphragm is:
design loads. Strength level design loads can be estimated The second top plate is designed as a splice plate.
by multiplying the allowable stress design seismic loads,
shown in Figure C4.2.2A, by 1.4. Term 2. Deflection due to shear, panel shear, and
A spliced chord member has an “effective” stiffness nail slip:
(EA) due to the splice slip that occurs throughout the 0.25vL
chord. In this example, and for typical applications of δ dia ( panel shear + nail slip ) =
1000Ga
Equation C4.2.2-2, the effect of the spliced chord on mid-
span deflection is addressed by independently considering 0.25(1.4 x 255 plf )( 48 ft )
=
deflection from: a) chord deformation due to elongation 1000(14 kips / in.)
or shortening assuming a continuous chord member per = 0.306 in.
deflection equation Term 1, and b) deformations due to
chord splice slip at chord joints per deflection equation where:
Term 3. Ga = 14 kips/in., apparent shear stiffness
Diaphragm deflection is calculated in accordance with (SDPWS Table 4.2A)
the following:
Term 3. Deflection due to bending and chord splice
5vL3 0.25vL
slip:
C
δ dia = +
8 EAW 1000Ga δ dia ( chord splice slip ) =
∑ ( x∆ )
c
2W
∑ ( x∆ )
∑ (16 ft × 0.054 in.) + (16 ft × 0.054 in.) δ dia = 0.078 in. + 0.306 in. + 0.072 in. = 0.456 in.
δ dia (tension chord splice slip ) =
2(24 ft )
= 0.036 in.
for distribution of horizontal diaphragm shear loads. For ASCE 7 and applicable for diaphragms idealized as rigid or
diaphragms idealized as flexible, loads are distributed to modeled as semi-rigid. For diaphragms idealized as flex-
vertical resisting elements (e.g. shear walls) according to ible, where distribution is by tributary area, requirements of
tributary area, whereas for diaphragms idealized as rigid, this section are not applicable because such structures are
loads are distributed according to the relative stiffnesses of not considered to be torsionally irregular under ASCE 7.
the vertical resisting elements. For diaphragms modeled as C4.2.5.2 Open Front Structures: While 4.2.5.2 in-
semi-rigid, the distribution of horizontal diaphragm shear troduces requirements specific to wood diaphragms in
loads to shear wall lines employs a more complex analysis open front structures, these are in addition to and not a
dependent on the relative stiffness of the diaphragm and replacement of general seismic design criteria of ASCE 7.
vertical resisting elements. A defining characteristic of an open front structure is the
The use of semi-rigid diaphragm modeling for presence of a cantilevered diaphragm for transfer of forces
purposes of distribution of horizontal force is always to vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system.
permissible under ASCE 7. It is the method considered to A structure with shear walls on three sides only (open
most rationally account for actual distribution of horizontal front) is one simple form of an open front structure. Open
diaphragm shear loads to vertical resisting elements; how- front structures rely on diaphragm rigidity for transfer of
ever, a semi-rigid diaphragm analysis requires significant forces through diaphragm rotation and are considered to be
calculation effort for all but the simplest box structures. more vulnerable to torsional response than other box type
An acceptable alternative to semi-rigid diaphragm analysis structure configurations due to reliance on the diaphragm
is the envelope analysis where distribution of horizontal for torsional force distribution to elements that are not
diaphragm shear to each vertical resisting element is the optimally located at diaphragm edges. As a result, open
larger of the shear forces resulting from analyses where
the diaphragm is idealized as flexible and the diaphragm
front structure provisions require limitations on seismic
drift and building configuration similar to provisions for C
is idealized as rigid. While two separate analyses must torsionally irregular structures that are not open front for
be performed, one for the diaphragm idealized as flexible the purpose of reducing the likelihood of an unacceptable
diaphragm length, Lʹ. Center of rigidity, CR, is located at The exception in SDPWS 4.2.5.2 excludes relatively
the mid-point of the longitudinal shear wall and center of small diaphragm cantilevers from open front criteria. Small
mass, CM, is located at the geometric center of diaphragm diaphragm cantilevers, with Lʹ of six feet or less, are often
dimensions LʹxWʹ. Components of diaphragm deflection present and the complexity and limitations associated with
contributing to seismic drift at edges consist of translation, open front criteria was not judged to be warranted. While
rotation, and diaphragm shear including flexural deforma- such small diaphragm cantilevers are exempt from open
tions as depicted in Figure C4.2.5B. An important aspect of front requirements of 4.2.5.2, general seismic design cri-
the example is that flexural and shear deformations of the teria of ASCE 7 remain applicable as well as provisions of
diaphragm are to be included in the required check of drift 4.2.5.1 for cases where a torsional irregularity is present.
at diaphragm edges. This deformation of the diaphragm is
to be included whether the diaphragm is idealized as rigid
or modeled as semi-rigid.
W'
CR
V L'
CM
C4.2.5.2.1 Simplification of open front criteria was tabulating Ga values for 3-ply, 4-ply, 5-ply, and composite
judged appropriate for relatively small one story structures panels separately.
where Lʹ is not more than 25 feet and Lʹ/Wʹ is less than or C4.2.6.3 Fasteners: Adhesive attachment in dia-
equal to 1:1. In such structures, the diaphragm is permit- phragms can only be used in combination with fasteners.
ted to be idealized as rigid for distribution of horizontal Details on type, size, and spacing of mechanical fasteners
shear forces regardless of whether the diaphragm meets used for typical floor, roof, and ceiling diaphragm assem-
the calculation based definition of idealized as rigid in SD- blies are provided in Tables 4.2A, 4.2B, 4.2C, and 4.2D
PWS 4.2.5. Other requirements for cantilever diaphragms and in SDPWS 4.2.7 Diaphragm Assemblies.
remain applicable including provisions of 4.2.5.1 for cases
where a torsional irregularity is present as well as general C4.2.7 Diaphragm Assemblies
seismic design criteria of ASCE 7.
C4.2.7.1 Wood Structural Panel Diaphragms: Where
C4.2.6 Construction Requirements wood structural panel sheathing is applied to solid
lumber planking or laminated decking – such as in a
C4.2.6.1 Framing Requirements: The transfer of forces retrofit or new construction where wood structural panel
into and out of diaphragms is required for a continuous load diaphragm capacities are desired – additional fastening,
path. Boundary elements must be sized and connected to aspect ratio limits, and other requirements are prescribed
the diaphragm to ensure force transfer. This section pro- to develop diaphragm capacity and transfer forces to
vides basic framing requirements for boundary elements boundary elements.
in diaphragms. Good construction practice and efficient C4.2.7.1.1 Blocked Diaphragms: Standard construc-
design and detailing for boundary elements utilize framing
members in the plane of the diaphragm or tangent to the
tion of wood structural panel diaphragms requires use of
full size sheets, not less than 4'x8' except at changes in C
plane of the diaphragm (See C4.1.4). Where splices occur framing where smaller pieces may be needed to cover the
in boundary elements, transfer of force between boundary roof or floor. Panel edges must be supported by and fas-
P an el e dge
P an el e d g e
P an el e dge
P an el e dge P an el e dge
n ail sp acing n ail sp acing
P an el e dge
n ail sp acing
S ta g g ered ro w o f fasteners A d jo in in g P an el E d g e
a t p an e l e d g e (stag g e re d ro w o f fas te n e rs
a t each p an el e d g e )
C4.2.7.1.2 High Load Blocked Diaphragms: Provi- in-use relative to moisture content immediately following
sions for wood structural panel blocked diaphragms with manufacture. In some cases, due to exposure conditions
multiple rows of fasteners, also known as “high load following manufacture, the expected increase in panel
diaphragms” are consistent with provisions in the 2006 dimensions is smaller than anticipated by the 1/8" mini-
International Building Code (IBC) and the 2003 Na- mum gap and therefore the gap at time of installation may
tional Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) be less than 1/8" minimum. Dimensional change and
Provisions. Tests of nailed plywood-lumber joints (32) recommendations for installation can vary by product
closely match recommended nailing patterns and verify and manufacturer, therefore recommendations of the
calculations of unit shear associated with multiple rows manufacturer for the specific product should be followed.
of 10d common wire nails in Table 4.2B. The high load C4.2.7.1.3 Unblocked Diaphragms: Standard con-
diaphragm table specifies use of framing with a minimum struction of unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms
3" or 4" nominal width for the nailed face and a minimum requires use of full size sheets, not less than 4′x8′ except at
3" nominal depth at adjoining panel edges and boundaries changes in framing where smaller sections may be needed
to provide adequate edge distance and penetration depth for to cover the roof or floor. Unblocked panel widths are
multiple rows of 10d common wire nails at these locations limited to 24" or wider. Where smaller widths are used,
(see SDPWS Figure 4B). These requirements are important panel edges must be supported by and fastened to framing
to limit splitting associated with the specified nailing re- members or blocking. The 24" width limit coincides with
quired for high load blocked diaphragms. Fastener spacing the minimum width where panel strength capacities for
per line is listed in Table 4.2B as well as number of lines of bending and axial tension are applicable (6). For widths
fasteners. Nails should not be located closer than 3/8" from less than 24", capacities for bending and axial tension
panel edges. Where the nominal width of nailed face and should be reduced in accordance with applicable panel size
nail schedule permits greater panel edge distance, a 1/2" factors, Cs, in the National Design Specification (NDS) for
minimum distance from adjoining panel edges is speci- Wood Construction (6). Apparent shear stiffness values
fied. Apparent shear stiffness values are tabulated for each provided in SDPWS Table 4.2C are based on standard
combination of nailing and sheathing thickness consistent assumptions for panel shear stiffness for oriented strand
with the format of tabulating apparent shear stiffness, Ga, board (OSB), plywood, and nail load slip (see C4.2.2).
for typical blocked and unblocked diaphragms. C4.2.7.2 Diaphragms Diagonally Sheathed with Single
SDPWS Figure 4B depicts a 1/8" minimum gap be- Layer of Lumber: Single diagonally sheathed lumber dia-
tween adjoining panel edges to allow for dimensional phragms have comparable strength and stiffness to many
change of the panel. In general, 4′x8′ panels will increase wood structural panel diaphragm systems. Apparent shear
slightly in dimension due to increased moisture content
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 75
stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.2D is based on assumptions aphragms have low strength and stiffness when compared
of relative stiffness and nail slip (see C4.2.2). to those provided by wood structural panel diaphragms
C4.2.7.3 Diaphragms Diagonally Sheathed with and diagonally sheathed lumber diaphragms of the same
Double-Layer of Lumber: Double diagonally sheathed overall dimensions. In new and existing construction,
lumber diaphragms have comparable strength and stiff- added strength and stiffness can be developed through
ness to many wood structural panel diaphragm systems. attachment of wood structural panels over horizontally
Apparent shear stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.2D is based on sheathed lumber diaphragms (see SDPWS 4.2.7.1). Ap-
assumptions of relative stiffness and nail slip (see C4.2.2). parent shear stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.2D is based on
C4.2.7.4 Diaphragms Horizontally Sheathed with assumptions of relative stiffness and nail slip (see C4.2.2).
Single-Layer of Lumber: Horizontally sheathed lumber di-
∆a = total vertical elongation of wall anchorage rods in the standard test set-up. The relative contribution
system (including fastener slip, device of each of the deflection components will vary by aspect
elongation, rod elongation, etc.) at the ratio of the shear wall. For other than narrow shear walls,
induced unit shear in the shear wall, in. deformation due to shear deformation (combined effect
In SDPWS Equation 4.3-1, deflection due to panel of nail slip and panel shear deformation) is the largest
shear and nail slip are accounted for by a single appar- component of overall shear wall deflection.
ent shear stiffness term, Ga. Calculated deflection, using Effect of wall anchorage slip becomes more signifi-
either the 4-term (Equation C4.3.2-1) or 3-term equation cant as the aspect ratio increases. The SDPWS requires an
(SDPWS Equation 4.3-1), are identical at 1.4 times the al- anchoring device (see SDPWS 4.3.6.4.2) at each end of
lowable shear value for seismic (see Figure C4.3.2). Below the shear wall where dead load stabilizing moment is not
1.4 times the allowable shear value for seismic, calculation sufficient to prevent uplift due to overturning. For standard
using the 3-term equation overestimates deflection rela- anchoring devices (tie-downs), manufacturers’ literature
tive to the 4-term equation but are generally negligible for typically includes ASD capacity (based on short-term
design purposes. These small differences, however, can load duration for wind and seismic), and corresponding
influence load distribution assumptions based on relative deflection of the device at ASD levels. Deflection of the
stiffness if both deflection calculation methods are used device at strength level forces may also be obtained from
in a design. For consistency and to minimize calculation- manufacturers’ literature. Reported deflection may or may
based differences, either the 4-term equation or 3-term not include total deflection of the device relative to a wood
equation should be used. post and elongation of the tie-down bolt or strap in ten-
Each term of the 3-term deflection equation accounts sion. All sources of vertical elongation of the anchoring
for independent deflection components that contribute to device, such as slip in the connection of the device to the
overall shear wall deflection. For example, apparent shear wood post, elongation of the tie-down rod, and slack in
stiffness is intended to represent only the shear component the anchorage strap, should be considered when estimating
of deflection and does not also attempt to account for the Δa term in SDPWS Equation 4.3-1. Estimates of Δa at
bending or wall anchorage slip. In many cases, such as strength level forces are needed when evaluating drift in
for gypsum wallboard shear walls and fiberboard shear accordance with ASCE 7 is required.
walls, results from prior testing (17 and 23) used to verify In shear wall table footnotes (SDPWS Table 4.3A),
apparent shear stiffness estimates were based on ASTM a factor of 0.5 is provided to adjust tabulated Ga values
E 72 (41) where effect of bending and wall anchorage (based on fabricated dry condition) to approximate Ga
slip are minimized due to the presence of metal tie-down where “green” framing is used. This factor is based on
analysis of apparent shear stiffness for wood structural
Figure C4.3.2 Comparison of 4-Term panel shear wall and diaphragm construction where:
and 3-Term Deflection
Equations 1) framing moisture content is greater than 19% at
time of fabrication (green), and
SDPWS, Linear 3-term equation 2) framing moisture content is less than or equal to
Non-linear, 4-term equation
19% in-service (dry).
Calculated1 Actual
Reference Description 1.4ns(ASD) Ga d d Ga
(plf) (kips/in.) (in.) (in.) (kips/in.)
Structural Fiberboard Sheathing
1/2" structural fiberboard, roofing nail (11 gage x
1-3/4"), 2" edge spacing, 6" field spacing, 16" stud 364 5.5 0.53 0.46 6.3
spacing. 8' x 8' wall. (3 tests).
Ref. 17
25/32" structural fiberboard, roofing nail (11 gage x
1-3/4"), 2" edge spacing, 6" field spacing, 16" stud 378 5.5 0.55 0.53 5.7
spacing. 8' x 8' wall. (3 tests).
Gypsum Wallboard (GWB) and Gypsum Sheathing
1/2" GWB interior applied vertically and joint
finished. GWB Nail (1-1/4") at 8" o.c. at all framing
Ref. 572 92 3.5 0.21 0.16 4.6
members. 24" stud spacing. 8' x 8' wall. (3 tests –
controls).
1/2" GWB interior applied horizontally and joint
finished and 1/2" gypsum sheathing exterior ap- C
plied vertically. GWB Nail (1-1/4") at 8" o.c. at all
framing members. Gypsum sheathing nail (1-1/2" 315 12.0 0.21 0.23 11.0
Calculate the apparent shear stiffness, Ga, in SDPWS Nail load/slip at 1.4 νs(ASD):
Table 4.3A for a wood structural panel shear wall con- Vn = fastener load (lb/nail)
structed as follows:
= 1.4 vs(ASD) (6 in.)/(12 in.)
Sheathing grade = Structural I = 140 lb/nail
(OSB) en = (Vn/456)3.144 Table C4.2.2D
Nail size = 6d common = (140/456) 3.144
= 0.0244 in.
(0.113" diameter,
2" length) Calculate Ga:
Minimum nominal panel thickness = 5/16 in.
Panel edge fastener spacing = 6 in. 1.4vs ( ASD )
Nominal unit shear capacity for Ga =
1.4vs ( ASD )
seismic, νs = 400 plf + 0.75en Equation C4.2.2-3
SDPWS Table 4.3A Gv tv
Allowable unit shear capacity for seismic: Ga = 12,772 lb/in. ≈ 13 kips/in. SDPWS Table 4.3A
νs(ASD) = 400 plf/2 = 200 plf
ues. However, the lower stated stiffness for horizontal and edge nail spacing of 6" o.c. is the reference condition for
diagonal lumber sheathing is considered to better reflect determination of unblocked shear wall nominal unit shear
stiffness after lumber sheathing dries in service. Early stud- capacity (e.g. ν ub = ν b Cub). Blocked shear wall nominal
ies (24) suggest that stiffness after drying in service may unit shear capacity is not to be adjusted by Table 4.3A foot-
be 1/2 of that during tests where friction between boards note 2 even if unblocked shear wall construction consists
in lumber sheathed assemblies is a significant factor. of studs spaced a maximum of 16" o.c. or panels applied
C4.3.2.1 Deflection of Perforated Shear Walls: The with the long dimension across studs.
deflection of a perforated shear wall can be calculated using To account for the reduction in unblocked shear wall
SDPWS Equation 4.3-1 using substitution rules as follows stiffness, which is proportional to reduction in strength,
to account for reduced stiffness of full-height perforated SDPWS 4.3.2.2 specifies that deflection of unblocked shear
shear wall segments: walls is to be calculated from standard deflection equations
ν = maximum induced unit shear force (plf) in a using an amplified value of induced unit shear equal to ν
perforated shear wall per SDPWS Equation 4.3- / Cub. Substituting ν / Cub for ν in Equation 4.3-1 results in
9 the following equation for unblocked shear wall deflection:
b = sum of perforated shear wall segment lengths
(full-height), ft (bending) (shear) (wall anchorage slip)
be viewed as a stiffness reduction factor. For example, shear resistance, as compared with other panel types and
simplification of the shear term in Eq. C4.3.2.2-1 yields: fastener options. Except for Plywood Siding of Group 5
species (e.g. Basswood and Balsam Poplar) as defined in
vh PS 1, nominal unit shear capacities associated with the
(C4.3.2.2-2)
1000 ( Cub Ga ) “Sheathing” designation are applicable for Plywood Siding
when nailed with the larger galvanized box or common
where: nails and the nominal panel thickness is determined at the
(Cub Ga) = Apparent shear stiffness of an unblocked point of nailing along panel edges.
shear wall, Ga unblocked
Table C.4.3.3.1 Dimension of
C4.3.2.3 Deflection of Structural Fiberboard Shear Galvanized Casing
Walls: The calculated deflection of shear walls sheathed Nails in Accordance
with structural fiberboard having an aspect ratio greater With ASTM F1667 (59)
than 1.0 is underestimated when compared to results from
cyclic testing (29). An adjustment factor equal to (h/bs)1/2 Shank
is therefore used to account for the increased deflection Penny- Length Head Diameter
Diameter
of structural fiberboard shear walls having aspect ratios weight (in) (in)
(in)
greater than 1.0.
6d 2 0.099 0.142
C4.3.3 Unit Shear Capacities 8d 2-1/2 0.113 0.155
C4.3.3.3.1 For two-sided walls with the same sheath- when panels are applied on both faces of a shear wall, nail
ing material on each side (e.g., wood structural panel) and spacing is less than 6" on center on either side, and the
same fastener type, SDPWS Equation 4.3-3 and SDPWS framing member nailed face width is less than 3x framing.
Equation 4.3-4 provide for determination of combined C4.3.3.4 Shear Walls in a Line: The provisions for
stiffness and unit shear capacity based on relative stiffness distribution of shear force to shear walls in a line are lim-
of each side. ited to shear walls of similar materials and construction;
C4.3.3.3.2 For seismic design of two-sided walls with however, materials and construction are not required to
different materials on each side (e.g., gypsum on side one be identical. The intended purpose of the requirement is
and wood structural panels on side two), the combined unit to limit applicability of provisions to various assemblies
shear capacity is taken as twice the smaller nominal unit of the same material (e.g. nailed wood structural panels,
shear capacity or the larger nominal unit shear capacity, or nailed structural fiberboard) that also exhibit similar
whichever is greater. Due to lateral system combination load/deformation behavior up to failure. Nailed wood
rules for seismic design (5), the two-sided unit shear structural panel shear walls, regardless of sheathing grade
capacity based on different materials on each side of the or thickness and nailing schedule are considered to exhibit
wall will require use of the least seismic response modi- compatible behavior. For example, combination of a shear
fication coefficient, R, for calculation of seismic loads. wall with 2" nail spacing in line with a shear wall with
For a two-sided shear wall consisting of wood-structural 6" nail spacing does not violate the similar materials and
panel exterior and gypsum wallboard interior, R = 2 is construction type requirement. Provisions for distribution
applicable where shear wall design is based on two times force apply whether force is from wind or seismic and for
the capacity of the gypsum wallboard because R = 2 (as- shear walls of any length.
sociated with gypsum wallboard shear walls in a bearing C4.3.3.4.1 The distribution of shear force to shear
wall system) is the least R contributing to the two-sided walls in a line is in proportion to the stiffness of each shear
shear wall design capacity. For the same wall condition, wall. In design, at a given deflection the force in each wall
when design is based on wood structural panel shear wall is determined by multiplying the wall stiffness times the
capacity alone, R = 6.5 (associated with wood structural deflection (e.g. commonly referred to as distribution based
panel shear walls in a bearing wall system) is applicable on relative stiffness or the equal deflection approach). For
and commonly employed for design of WSP shear walls all but the case where a wall line is comprised entirely of
as the seismic force resisting system. equal stiffness shear walls, this approach results in a design
For wind design, direct summing of the contribution capacity of the shear wall line that is less than would result
of gypsum wallboard with the unit shear capacity of wood from the sum of shear wall lengths times the full design
structural panel, structural fiberboard, or hardboard panel unit shear capacity, because for a given deflection, full unit
siding is permitted based on tests (10 and 15). shear forces are not developed simultaneously in all walls
Figure C4.3.3 illustrates the provisions in Footnote 6 (see Example C4.3.3.4.1-1). The design capacity of the
of Table 4.3A and Footnote 5 of Table 4.3B requiring panel shear wall line will be the sum of the forces in each shear
joints to be offset to fall on different framing members wall at a given deflection. The limiting value of deflection
Figure C4.3.3 Detail for Adjoining Panel Edges where Structural Panels are
Applied to Both Faces of the Wall
may be associated with the shear wall in the line whose is permitted provided that shear walls with aspect ratio
design strength occurs at the smallest deflection of any greater than 2:1 have strength adjusted by the 2bs/h fac-
shear wall in the wall line or may be associated with drift tor. For structural fiberboard, distribution in proportion
or deflection limits. to shear strength of each shear wall is permitted provided
Drift limits for resistance to seismic forces are pro- that shear walls with aspect ratio greater than 1:1 have
vided in ASCE 7 and vary by building risk category, story strength multiplied by the 0.1+0.9bs/h factor. Both fac-
height, and construction material. For wood frame shear tors are based on reduced stiffness observed from testing
wall structures, allowable story drift limits for seismic (29, 35, and 36) and provide roughly similar results to
design range from 1% to 2.5% of the story height. While equal deflection for a reference wall line configuration
there is no prescribed deflection limit for wind design, con- comprised of 1:1 to 3.5:1 aspect ratio walls (see Example
sideration should be given to limiting deflections to avoid C4.3.3.4.1-2). It was judged suitable for design purposes
serviceability problems associated with finish materials for any combination of shear wall lengths.
and operability of doors and windows. Compliance with Where distribution of shear is based on the simplified
construction and materials requirements and associated alternative adjustment factor methods (e.g. 2bs/h for wood
design unit shear capacities in SDPWS for wind design structural panels and 0.1+0.9bs/h for structural fiberboard)
have been considered to provide acceptable serviceability further reduction of shear strength by the aspect ratio
performance for resistance to wind loads. factors in 4.3.4.2 is not required because the strength re-
A simplified approach is also permitted. In lieu of dis- ductions to provide for deflection compatibility represent
tribution of shear based on the equal deflection calculation the more conservative of the adjustments to account for
method, it is permitted to distribute shear in proportion to reduced stiffness and reduced strength of high aspect ratio
the strength of the shear wall provided that certain require-
ments are met. For wood structural panels, distribution of
shear walls.
C
shear in proportion to shear strength of each shear wall
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
82 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
Calculate the ASD shear capacity for the shear wall Shear Wall 2 (SW2):
line as shown in Figure C4.3.3A using the equal deflec- Nominal unit shear capacity for seismic = 520 plf
tion calculation approach. The individual blocked wood (SDPWS Table 4.3A)
structural panel shear walls are constructed with 15/32 SW2 Aspect ratio (h/bs) = 3.5
in. thick wood structural panel sheathing attached to No.2 Aspect Ratio Factor (WSP) for strength =
Douglas fir 2x4 framing with 8d nails (common or galva- 1.25 – 0.125h/bs = 0.81 (SDPWS 4.3.4.2)
nized box) spaced at 6 in. and have a reference nominal ASD unit shear capacity for seismic, vSW2 =
unit shear value for seismic of 520 plf and apparent shear 520 plf/2 x 0.81 = 210 plf
stiffness, Ga, of 13 kips/in. The end posts for both walls
Ga = 13.0 kips/in
are double 2x4’s. Vertical elongation of wall anchorage
is 1/8" at 3500 lb load. EA = 16,800,000 lb
The solution approach is to determine the proportion
of load in each shear wall at a given deflection by use Recognizing that the ASD unit shear capacity of SW1
of the SDPWS shear wall deflection equations and then is associated with the smaller deflection, the problem can
summing the shears to arrive at an ASD shear capacity be simplified to finding the reduced design unit shear in
for the shear wall line (Figure C4.3.3B). the less stiff SW2 that produces the same deflection as
SW1.
Figure C4.3.3A Shear Wall Line
Part 1 – Determine the deflection of SW1 at its ASD
unit shear capacity
V δ δ
Deflection associated with the ASD unit shear
capacity is calculated in accordance with the following
equation
8vSW 1h 3 ν SW 1h h∆
8' SW1 SW2 δ SW 1 = + + a
EAbSW 1 1000Ga bSW 1
(continued)
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 83
Part 2 – Determine the unit shear in SW2 that pro- Part 3 – Sum design strengths associated with
duces the same deflection as SW1 distribution of shear based on the equal deflection
Using equation 4.3-1, solve for unit shear that pro- calculation approach
duces equal deflection to SW1: VSW1 = 260 plf x 8 ft = 2080 lb
δ VSW2 = 141 plf x 2.3 ft = 324 lb
ν SW 2 = 141 plf
8h 3 h h2 VShear wall line = 2080 lb + 324 lb = 2404 lb
+ +
EAbSW 2 1000Ga kbSW 2 This example illustrates calculation of the ASD
shear capacity for the shear wall line (i.e. VShear wall line =
where: 2404 lb). Distribution of shear by the equal deflection
δ = 0.242 in. calculation method is equally applicable to a more typical
h = 8 ft design problem where a design load is associated with a
given shear wall line and the shear wall line is designed
EA = 16,800,000 lb to provide resistance in excess of the design load. This
= 2.3 ft calculation example includes a check of the induced unit
shear in each shear wall (i.e. SW1 and SW2) to ensure
Ga
k
= 13 kips/in.
= 28,000 lb/in. that unit shear does not exceed the unit shear capacity C
determined from aspect ratio strength reductions in ac-
Note: For SW2, the overturning anchorage force is cordance with 4.3.4.2.
1500
to equal 0.242 in. calculated in accordance with the fol- ASD strength of SW2
lowing equation: at SW1 deflection limit
(VSW2 = 324 lb)
1000
8vSW 2 h3 v h h∆
δ SW 2 = + SW 2 + a , SW 2 ASD strength of
SW2 per SDPWS
EAbSW 2 1000Ga bSW 2 4.3.4.2
500
δ SW 2 = 0.015 + 0.087 + 0.140 = 0.242 in
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
84 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
Calculate the ASD shear capacity for the shear wall SW2 Aspect ratio (h/bs) = 3.5
line from Example C4.3.3.4.1-1. In lieu of the equal Aspect ratio adjustment = 2bs/h = 0.57
deflection calculation approach of 4.3.3.4.1, the solution
approach is based on the Exception to 4.3.3.4.1 which (SDPWS 4.3.3.4.1 Exception 1)
permits distribution of shear in proportion to strength Aspect Ratio Factor (WSP) for strength = 0.81
where strength of wood structural panel shear walls is (SDPWS 4.3.4.2)
adjusted by the 2bs/h factor.
Shear wall 1 (SW1): ASD unit shear capacity for seismic, vSW2 = 520 plf/2 x
0.57 = 148 plf
Nominal unit shear capacity for seismic = 520 plf
Unit shear capacity from 4.3.3.4.1 Exception 1 does
(SDPWS Table 4.3A) not exceed the unit shear capacity determined from aspect
SW1 Aspect ratio (h/bs) = 1.0 ratio strength reductions in accordance with 4.3.4.2.
Aspect ratio adjustment = 2bs/h = 1.0
Sum design strengths associated with distribution
(SDPWS 4.3.3.4.1 Exception 1) of shear based on the aspect ratio factor adjustment
Aspect Ratio Factor (WSP) for strength =1.0 approach (e.g. 4.3.3.4.1 Exception)
(SDPWS 4.3.4.2)
VSW1 = 260 plf x 8 ft = 2080 lb
VSW2 = 148 plf x 2.3 ft = 340 lb
ASD unit shear capacity for seismic, vSW1 = 520 plf/2 x VShear wall line = 2080 lb + 340 lb = 2420 lb
1.0 = 260 plf
Note: This example illustrates the calculation ap-
Unit shear capacity from 4.3.3.4.1 Exception 1 does proach in accordance with 4.3.3.4.1 Exception 1. The
not exceed the unit shear capacity determined from aspect aspect ratio adjustment, 2bs/h is not applied cumulatively
ratio strength reductions in accordance with 4.3.4.2. with the Aspect Ratio Factor (WSP) for strength reduc-
tion of 4.3.4.2. Both are evaluated as separate checks on
Shear wall 2 (SW2): design shear strength.
Nominal unit shear capacity for seismic = 520 plf
(SDPWS Table 4.3A)
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 85
C4.3.3.5 Shear Capacity of Perforated Shear Walls: sheathed on two sides, and perforated shear walls with
The shear capacity adjustment factor, Co, for perforated high aspect ratio shear wall segments (15, 42, 43, and 44).
shear walls accounts for reduced shear wall capacity due
to presence of openings and is derived from empirical C4.3.4 Shear Wall Aspect Ratios
Equations C4.3.3.5-1 and C4.3.3.5-2 (13): and Capacity Adjustments
F = r/(3 – 2r) (C4.3.3.5-1) C4.3.4.2 The aspect ratio factor, 1.25 - 0.125h/bs, is
applicable to blocked wood structural panel shear walls
r = 1/(1+Ao/(h∑Li)) (C4.3.3.5-2) designed to resist either wind or seismic forces. The factor
ranges in value from 1.0 for 2:1 aspect ratio shear walls
The opening adjustment factor, Co, and the shear ca- to 0.81 for 3.5:1 aspect ratio shear walls and accounts for
pacity ratio, F, are related as follows: reduced unit shear capacity of high aspect ratio shear walls
relative to lower aspect ratio shear walls observed from
Co(ΣLi) = F(Ltot) (C4.3.3.5-3) monotonic and cyclic tests (35, 36). The aspect ratio fac-
tor, 1.09 - 0.09 h/bs, is applicable to structural fiberboard
shear walls designed to resist either wind or seismic forces.
SDPWS Equation 4.3-5 can be obtained by simplifica-
The factor accounts for observed reduction in peak unit
tion of C4.3.3.5-1, C4.3.3.5-2, and C4.3.3.5-3. Values of shear capacity from testing (29) and varies from 1.0 for
the shear capacity adjustment factors in Table 4.3.3.5 can 1:1 aspect ratio shear walls to 0.78 for 3.5:1 aspect ratio
be determined by assuming a constant maximum opening shear walls.
height, ho-max, such that Ao = ho‑max(Ltot‑ΣLi). Substituting Reductions in shear wall unit shear capacity are ad-
this value of Ao into Equation C4.3.3.5-2 and simplifying: dressed with aspect ratio factors in 4.3.4.2; however, the
−1
loss of stiffness as aspect ratio increases can be large and C
ho − max Ltot affect usable design unit shear capacity. For example, due
1 + − 1
Ltot h ∑ Li to reduced stiffness, a high aspect ratio shear wall may
Co = −1 (C4.3.3.5-4) reach a deflection limit or drift limit prior to developing
2. Force-transfer Shear Walls (i.e., with openings, but consistency with the judgment to limit maximum nominal
framing members, blocking, and connections around unit shear capacity for wind based on tests.
openings are designed for force-transfer);
3. Perforated Shear Walls (i.e., with openings, but C4.3.6 Construction Requirements
rather than design for force-transfer around open-
ings, reduced shear strength is used based on size C4.3.6.1 Framing Requirements: Framing require-
of openings). ments are intended to ensure that boundary members and
other framing are adequately sized to resist induced loads.
C4.3.5.1 Individual Full-Height Wall Segments: Shear C4.3.6.1.1 General framing requirements for shear
wall design provisions for individual full-height wall walls permits the use of two 2x members in lieu of a
segments, designed as shear walls without openings, are single member provided they are adequately connected
applicable to walls with wood structural panel sheathing, for transfer of induced shear forces. Cyclic tests of shear
designed and constructed in accordance with provisions walls confirms that use of two 2x members nailed (22,
as outlined in SDPWS 4.3.5.1. 25, and 30) or screwed (33) together results in shear wall
C4.3.5.2 Force-transfer Shear Walls: Force-transfer performance that is comparable to that obtained by use
shear wall design provisions are applicable to walls of a single 3x member at the adjoining panel edge. While
with wood structural panel sheathing, designed and introduced as a substitute for a 3x member at adjoining
constructed in accordance with provisions as outlined in panel edges in shear wall construction, it is also permis-
SDPWS 4.3.5.2. Design of shear walls with openings as sible to use two 2x members to substitute for a single 2x
force-transfer shear walls, also known as design for force member (e.g. for blocking, and top plates). Attachment
transfer around openings (FTAO), is required to be in ac- of the two 2x members to each other is required to equal
cordance with a rational analysis as described in SDPWS or exceed design unit shear forces in the shear wall. As
4.3.5.2. Under this approach, it is the responsibility of the an alternative, a capacity-based design approach can be
designer to establish detailing to ensure appropriateness of used where the connection between the two 2x members
the assumptions in the analysis. Limited testing has been equals or exceeds the capacity of the sheathing to framing
conducted to evaluate several rational analysis methods attachment. Where fastener spacing used in the intercon-
commonly referred to as the drag strut, cantilever beam nection of the two 2x stud members is closer than 4" on
and Diekmann methods (53). The mathematical develop- center, staggered placement is required to limit potential
ment of the drag strut method and cantilever beam method for wood splitting.
(54) are based on assumptions for shear transfer above C4.3.6.1.2 Tension and Compression Chords: SDPWS
and below the openings and development of the Diek- Equation 4.3-7 provides for calculation of tension and
mann method (55) is based on resolving internal forces compression chord force due to induced unit shear acting
assuming rigid body behavior. Another rational analysis at the top of the wall (e.g., tension and compression due
method, referred to as the SEAOC-Thompson method (56) to wall overturning moment). To provide an adequate load
is commonly employed for the design of shear walls with path per SDPWS 4.3.6.4.4, design of elements and connec-
openings for FTAO. Limited evaluation of the SEAOC- tions must consider forces contributed by each story (i.e.,
Thompson method has shown that the results for strap force shear and overturning moment must be accumulated and
predictions are similar to those of the Diekman method accounted for in the design).
for several tested wall configurations (46). C4.3.6.1.3 Tension and Compression Chords of Per-
C4.3.5.3 Perforated Shear Walls: Perforated shear forated Shear Walls: SDPWS Equation 4.3-8 provides for
wall design provisions are applicable to walls with wood calculation of tension force and compression force at each
structural panel sheathing, designed and constructed in end of a perforated shear wall, due to shear in the wall,
accordance with provisions as outlined in SDPWS 4.3.5.3. and includes the term 1/Co to account for the non-uniform
The single side limits for seismic and wind, 1,740 plf nomi- distribution of shear in a perforated shear wall. For ex-
nal and 2,435 plf nominal respectively, are based on tests ample, a perforated shear wall segment with tension end
utilizing 10d common nails at 2" o.c. at panel edges on one restraint at the end of the perforated shear wall can develop
side (45). The single side limits on maximum nominal unit the same shear capacity as an individual full-height wall
shear capacity are also applicable for double-sided walls segment (7).
(walls sheathed on two sides) because the tested walls C4.3.6.3 Fasteners: Details on type, size, and spacing
represent the maximum unit shear strength for which tests of mechanical fasteners used for typical shear wall assem-
are available. The maximum nominal unit shear capacity blies in Table 4.3A, 4.3B, 4.3C, and 4.3D are provided in
for seismic design of a double-sided wall, is 1,740 plf for SDPWS 4.3.7 Shear Wall Systems.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 87
C4.3.6.3.1 Adhesives: Adhesive attachment of shear The washer need not extend to within 1/2" of the
wall sheathing is generally prohibited unless approved sheathed edge where sheathing material nominal unit shear
by the authority having jurisdiction. Because of limited capacity for seismic is less than or equal to 400 plf nominal.
ductility and brittle failure modes of rigid adhesive shear This allowance is based on observations from tests and
wall systems (38) such systems are limited to seismic field performance of gypsum products where sheathing
design categories A, B, and C and the values of R and fastener tear-out or sheathing slotting at fastener locations
Ω0 are limited (R =1.5 and Ω0 = 2.5 unless other values were the dominant failure modes. Other sheathing materi-
are approved). If adhesives are used to attach shear wall als with nominal unit shear capacity for seismic less than
sheathing, the effects of increased stiffness (see C4.1.3 400 plf nominal are included in this provision based on
and C4.2.5), increased strength, and potential for brittle the judgment that the magnitude of unit uplift force versus
failure modes corresponding to adhesive or wood failure, sheathing type is the significant factor leading to potential
should be addressed. for bottom plate splitting.
Tabulated values of apparent shear stiffness, Ga, are Cyclic testing of wood structural panel shear walls
based on assumed nail slip behavior (see Table C4.2.2D) (25 and 30) forms the basis of the exception to the 1/2"
and are therefore not applicable for adhesive shear wall distance requirement. In these tests, edge distance was not
systems where shear wall sheathing is rigidly bonded to a significant factor for shear walls having full-overturning
shear wall boundary members. restraint provided at end posts. Overturning restraint of
C4.3.6.4.1.1 In-plane Shear Anchorage for Perforated wall segments coupled with the nominal capacity of walls
Shear Walls: SDPWS Equation 4.3-9 for in-plane shear tested were viewed as primary factors in determining wall
anchorage includes the term 1/Co to account for non- performance and failure limit states.
uniform distribution of shear in a perforated shear wall.
For example, a perforated shear wall segment with tension
Bottom plate anchor straps can also be effective in
mitigating cross-grain bending failure in the bottom plate C
end restraint at the end of the perforated shear wall can provided they have been properly tested, load rated, and
develop the same shear capacity as an individual full- installed on the sheathed side of the bottom plate.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
88 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
Figure C4.3.6B Section and Elevation View of Plate Washer in Foundation Sill
Plate (Raised Floor) Application
RIM JOIST
OR BLOCKING
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 89
C4.3.6.4.4 Load Path: Specified requirements for or length is not in increments of 4′, shear wall height is less
shear, tension, and compression in SDPWS 4.3.6 are to than a full 8′, or shear wall length is less than 4′). Racking
address the effect of induced unit shear on individual wall tests conducted on 4.5′ x 8.5′ blocked shear walls showed
elements. Overall design of an element must consider similar performance whether sheathed length and height
forces contributed from multiple stories (i.e., shear and consisted of: one 4′x8′ panel and two 6" wide sheathing
moment must be accumulated and accounted for in the pieces to make up the height and length, or one 2.5′ x 6.5′
design). In some cases, the presence of load from stories panel and two 2′ wide sheathing pieces to make up the
above may increase forces (e.g., effect of gravity loads on height and length (14).
compression end posts) while in other cases it may reduce C4.3.7.1(5): A single 3x framing member is specified
forces (e.g., effect of gravity loads reduces net tension on at adjoining panel edges for cases prone to splitting and
end posts). where nominal unit shear capacity exceeds 700 plf in
Consistent with a continuous load path for individual seismic design categories (SDC) D, E, and F. An alterna-
full-height wall segments and force transfer shear walls, tive to single 3x framing, included in SDPWS, and based
a continuous load path to the foundation must also be on principles of mechanics, is the use of 2-2x “stitched”
provided for perforated shear walls. Consideration of or interconnected two 2x members adequately fastened
accumulated forces (for example, from stories above) is together (See C4.3.6.1.1 for additional information). For
required. Accumulation of forces will affect tie-downs at sheathing attachment to framing with closely spaced or
each end of the perforated shear wall, compression resis- larger diameter nails, staggered nail placement at each
tance at each end of each perforated shear wall segment, panel edge is intended to prevent splitting in the framing
and distributed forces, ν and t, at each perforated shear wall member (Figure C4.2.7).
segment. Where ends of perforated shear wall segments
occur over beams or headers, the beam or header will need
C4.3.7.2 Shear Walls using Wood Structural Panels
over Gypsum Wallboard or Gypsum Sheathing Board: C
to be checked for vertical tension and compression forces Shear walls using wood structural panels applied over gyp-
in addition to gravity forces. Where adequate collectors sum wallboard or gypsum sheathing are commonly used
match edge distances present in cyclic tests of high aspect wood structural panel shear wall systems. Apparent shear
ratio structural fiberboard shear walls (29). stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.3D is based on assumptions
C4.3.7.5 Gypsum Wallboard, Gypsum Veneer Base, of relative stiffness and nail slip (see C4.2.2 and C4.3.2).
Water-Resistant Backing Board, Gypsum Sheathing, Gyp- Early reports (24) indicated that diagonally sheathed
sum Lath and Plaster, or Portland Cement Plaster Shear lumber shear walls averaged four times the rigidity of
Walls: The variety of gypsum-based sheathing materials horizontally sheathed lumber walls when boards were
reflects systems addressed in the model building code loaded primarily in tension. Where load was primarily in
(2). Appropriate use of these systems requires adherence compression, a single test showed about seven times the
to referenced standards for proper materials and instal- rigidity of a horizontally sheathed lumber wall.
lation. Where gypsum wallboard is used as a shear wall, C4.3.7.7 Shear Walls Diagonally Sheathed with Dou-
edge fastening (e.g. nails or screws) in accordance with ble-Layer of Lumber: Double diagonally sheathed lumber
SDPWS Table 4.3C requirements should be specified and shear walls have comparable strength and stiffness to many
overturning restraint provided where applicable (see SDPWS wood structural panel shear wall systems. Apparent shear
4.3.6.4.2). Apparent shear stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.3C stiffness in SDPWS Table 4.3D is based on assumptions
is based on assumptions of relative stiffness and nail slip of relative stiffness and nail slip (see C4.2.2 and C4.3.2).
(see C4.2.2 and C4.3.2). The nominal unit shear capacity C4.3.7.8 Shear Walls Horizontally Sheathed with
and apparent shear stiffness values for plain or perforated Single-Layer of Lumber: Horizontally sheathed lumber
gypsum lath with staggered vertical joints are based on shear walls have limited unit shear capacity and stiffness
results from cyclic tests (31). Unit shear capacity and when compared to those provided by wood structural panel
apparent shear stiffness values are larger than those for shear walls of the same overall dimensions. Early reports
plain or perforated gypsum lath where vertical joints are (21 and 24) attributed strength and stiffness of lumber
not staggered. sheathed walls to nail couples at stud crossings and veri-
C4.3.7.6 Shear Walls Diagonally Sheathed with fied low unit shear capacity and stiffness when compared
Single-Layer of Lumber: Diagonally sheathed lumber to other bracing methods.
shear walls have comparable strength and stiffness to many
Examples C4.4.1-1 and C4.4.2-1 illustrate how the panels to resist uplift and shear closely match construc-
values in SDPWS Tables 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively, tion present in verification tests. For example, testing of
were generated. Tabulated values of nominal uplift capac- shear walls resisting uplift and combined uplift and shear
ity in Table 4.4.1 and Table 4.4.2 are based on assumed used 16" o.c. and up to 48" anchor bolt spacing, 3"x3"
use of framing with specific gravity, G, equal to 0.42. An plate washers, and nails with minimum 1/2" to 3/4" panel
increase factor is provided in table footnotes to adjust edge distance depending on the number of rows of nails.
values for effect of higher specific gravity framing on the Anchor bolt spacing and size and location of plate washers
strength of the nailed connection between sheathing and were found to be important factors enabling strength of
framing. Where lower specific gravity framing is used, the sheathing to bottom plate connection to develop prior
reduced values of nominal uplift capacity are applicable to onset of bottom plate failure. Required anchor bolt
based on the effect of lower specific gravity framing on spacings as shown in Table 4.4.1.6 are a function of the
the strength of the nailed connection between sheathing combined uplift and shear forces on the bottom plate and
and framing – for example, the reduction factor is 0.92 for are based on a combination of full-scale tests and numerical
framing with G = 0.35. Adjustment factors over a range analysis (51, 52). Where other anchoring devices are used,
of framing specific gravity can be determined as follows: it is intended that spacing not exceed the values provided
Specific Gravity Adjustment Factor = [1-(0.5-G)]/0.92 for in Table 4.4.1.6 and in addition that such devices enable
0.35 ≤ G ≤ 0.49. performance of walls to be comparable to those tested with
C4.4.1.2 Panels: Full-scale testing (see C4.4.1) required anchor bolts and plate washers.
utilized panels with strength axis oriented parallel and Figure C4.4.1A illustrates the anchor bolt spacing pro-
perpendicular to studs. NDS nail connection capacities are visions in 4.4.1.6 and depicts the requirements of 4.4.6(3)
independent of panel strength axis orientation.
C4.4.1.6. Sheathing Extending to Bottom Plate or Sill
regarding placement of anchor bolts at ends of plates.
C
Plate: Construction requirements for use of wood structural
splice
C4.4.1.7 Sheathing Splices: In multi-story applica- C4.4.1.7(2) The panel splice across studs detail in
tions where the upper story and lower story sheathing Figure 4I relies on increased nailing between vertical
adjoin over a common horizontal framing member, the framing (e.g. studs) and sheathing to transfer tension forces
connection of the sheathing to the framing member can while shear is transferred through nailed connections to
be designed to maintain a load path for tension and shear. horizontal framing such as horizontal blocking. This detail
It is recognized that wood is directly stressed in tension assumes no direct loading of framing members in tension
perpendicular to grain in some details; however, those perpendicular to grain for development of the tension load
cases are prescriptively permitted and also limited to nail path. Additional nailing between sheathing and vertical
size and spacing verified by testing. Splice panel orienta- framing on each side of the panel splice maintains load
tion does not affect capacity of the sheathed tension splice path for tension. Where the panel is continuous between
joint and therefore panel orientation can be either parallel stories, as shown in Figure 4I, one option to maintain load
or perpendicular to studs. path for shear utilizes attachment of sheathing to wall plate
C4.4.1.7(1) Where sheathing edges from the upper framing as shown in Figure C4.4.1C .
and lower story meet over a common horizontal framing
member, wood stressed in tension perpendicular to grain Figure C4.4.1C Detail for Continuous
is relied upon directly to maintain load path for tension Panel Between Levels
(Figure C4.4.1B ). The location of sheathing splices (Load Path for Shear
need not occur at mid-height of the horizontal framing. Transfer Into and Out
Wall height, floor depth, available panel lengths, and of the Diaphragm Not
maintaining minimum edge distances between sheathing Shown)
nails and framing will influence the practical location of
the sheathing splice in the horizontal framing member.
Wood member stresses in this application are limited to
S pacing for shear
that which can be developed with nail spacing to 3" o.c. in upper level
(minimum) for a single-row and 6" o.c. (minimum) for a
double-row at each panel edge based on results from test-
ing. Limiting tension stresses perpendicular to grain in F asteners for shear load
horizontal framing members is accomplished by limiting path in fram ing above and
S pacing for shea r
nail spacing to 3" o.c. (minimum) for a single-row and in low er level below the diaphragm
6" o.c. (minimum) for a double-row. This limitation does
not preclude use of more closely spaced nails where the
horizontal framing member is an engineered rim board
or similar product that can resist higher induced tension
stresses perpendicular to grain. Follow manufacturers'
recommendations for minimum nail spacing permitted
for this application.
C ontinous panel betw een levels
Figure C4.4.1B Panel Splice Over
Common Horizontal C4.4.2 Wood Structural Panels
Framing Member Designed to Resist Only Uplift
from Wind
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 93
EXAMPLE C4.4.1-1 Calculate Nominal Uplift Capacity for Combined Uplift and
Shear Case
Calculate the nominal uplift capacity in SDPWS Table Z = 82 lb NDS Table 12Q (Main member:
4.4.1 for a wood structural panel shear wall constructed G = 0.42 (SPF), Side member: 15/32" OSB)
as follows:
CD = 1.6 (NDS Table 2.3.2)
Sheathing grade = Structural I (OSB) Z′ = 82 lb x 1.6 = 131 lb
Nail size = 10d common
(0.148" diameter, 3" Allowable uplift capacity = 131 lb x 2 nails/foot = 262
plf
length)
Minimum nominal panel Nominal uplift capacity = 262 plf x ASD reduction
thickness = 15/32" factor
Nailing for shear = 6" panel edge spacing
(2 nails per foot), 12" Nominal uplift capacity = 262 plf x 2 = 524 plf
field spacing (SDPWS Table 4.4.1)
Alternate nail spacing at top
and bottom plate edges = 3" (single row, 4 nails When subjected to combined shear and wind uplift
per foot) forces, the calculation for nominal uplift capacity is based
Nails available for uplift = Nails from alternate on the assumption that nails resist either shear or wind
nail spacing − Nails uplift forces. C
available for shear
only
= 4 nails per foot − 2
EXAMPLE C4.4.2-1 Calculate Nominal Uplift Capacity for Wind Uplift Only Case
Calculate nominal uplift capacity, in SDPWS Table Z = 78 lb NDS Table 12Q (Main member:
4.4.2 for wood structural panel sheathing over framing G = 0.42 (SPF), Side member: 3/8" OSB)
constructed as follows:
CD = 1.6 (NDS Table 2.3.2)
Sheathing grade = Structural I (OSB) Z′ = 78 x 1.6 = 125 lb
Nail size = 10d common
(0.148" diameter, 3" Allowable uplift capacity = 125 lb x 4 nails/ft = 500 plf
length)
Nominal uplift capacity = 500 plf x ASD reduction
Minimum nominal panel factor
thickness = 3/8"
Alternate nail spacing at Nominal uplift capacity = 500 plf x 2 = 1,000 plf
top and bottom plate (SDPWS Table 4.4.2)
edges = 3" (single row, 4 nails
per foot)
Nails available for uplift = Nails from alternate
nail spacing
= 4 nails per foot
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
94 SDPWS COMMENTARY: LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 95
COMMENTARY REFERENCES
1. ASTM Standard D 6555-03, Standard Guide for Eval- 12. Ryan, T. J., K. J. Fridley, D. G. Pollock, and R. Y.
uating System Effects in Repetitive-Member Wood Itani, Inter-Story Shear Transfer in Woodframe Build-
Assemblies, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. ings: Final Report, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA, 2001.
2. International Building Code (IBC), International
Code Council, Washington, DC, 2015. 13. Sugiyama, Hideo, 1981, The Evaluation of Shear
Strength of Plywood-Sheathed Walls with Openings,
3. Laboratory Report 55, Lateral Tests on Plywood Mokuzai Kogyo (Wood Industry) 36-7, 1981.
Sheathed Diaphragms (out of print), Douglas Fir
Plywood Association (now APA-The Engineered 14. Using Narrow Pieces of Wood Structural Panel
Wood Association), Tacoma, WA, 1952. Sheathing in Wood Shear Walls, APA T2005-08,
APA- The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma,
4. Laboratory Report 63a, 1954 Horizontal Plywood WA, 2005.
Diaphragm Tests (out of print), Douglas Fir Plywood
Association (now APA-The Engineered Wood As- 15. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum
sociation), Tacoma, WA, 1955. Wallboard and Window/Door Openings, APA 157,
APA- The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma,
5. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other WA, 1996. C
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10. Reston, VA, 2010. 16. ASTM Standard D 5457-12, Standard Specification
COMMENTARY: REFERENCES
for Computing the Reference Resistance of Wood-
6. National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Con- Based Materials and Structural Connections for
struction, ANSI/AWC NDS 2015, American Wood Load and Resistance Factor Design, ASTM, West
Council, Leesburg, VA, 2014. Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic 17. Racking Load Tests for the American Fiberboard
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures Association, PFS Test Report #96-60, Madison, WI,
and Commentary, FEMA Report 450-1 and 2, 2003 1996.
Edition, Washington, DC, 2004.
18. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls, Research Re-
8. Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural port 154, APA-The Engineered Wood Association,
Use Panels, DOC PS 2-10. United States Department Tacoma, WA, 1999.
of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2011. 19. Plywood Diaphragms, Research Report 138, APA The
Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, 1990.
9. Polensek, Anton. Rational Design Procedure for
Wood-Stud Walls Under Bending and Compression, 20. ANSI/AWC WFCM-2015, Wood-Frame Construc-
Wood Science, July 1976. tion Manual (WFCM) for One- and Two-Family
Dwellings, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA,
10. Racking Load Tests for the American Fiberboard As- 2015.
sociation and the American Hardboard Association,
PFS Test Report #01-25, Madison, WI, 2001. 21. Luxford, R. F. and W. E. Bonser, Adequacy of Light
Frame Wall Construction, No. 2137, Madison, WI:
11. Report 106, 1966 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, For-
Tests (out of print), Douglas Fir Plywood Association est Products Laboratory, 1958.
(now APA-The Engineered Wood Association), APA,
Tacoma, WA, 1966.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
96 SDPWS COMMENTARY: REFERENCES
22. Shear Wall Lumber Framing: 2x’s vs. Single 3x’s 33. Line, P., N. Waltz, and T. Skaggs, Seismic Equiva-
at Adjoining Panel Edges, APA Report T2003-22, lence Parameters for Engineered Wood-frame Wood
APA-The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Structural Panel Shear Walls, Wood Design Focus,
WA, 2003. July 2008.
23. Racking Strengths and Stiffnesses of Exterior and 34. ASTM E 2126-11, Standard Test Methods for
Interior Frame Wall Constructions for Department Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance
of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, of Walls for Buildings. ASTM International, West
D.C., NAHB Research Foundation, Inc., May, 1971. Conshohocken, PA, 2011.
24. The Rigidity and Strength of Frame Walls, No. 896, 35. Salenikovich, A. J. and J. D. Dolan, Racking Perfor-
Madison, WI, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest mance of Shear Walls with Various Aspect Ratios:
Service, Forest Products Laboratory, March 1956. Part I - Monotonic Tests of Fully Anchored Walls.
Forest Products Journal, 53(10): 65-73, Forest Prod-
25. Rosowsky, D., L. Elkins, and C. Carroll, Cyclic ucts Society, Madison, WI, 2003.
Tests of Engineered Shear Walls Considering Dif-
ferent Plate Washer Sizes, Oregon State University, 36. Salenikovich, A. J. and J. D. Dolan, Racking Perfor-
Corvallis, OR, 2004. mance of Shear Walls with Various Aspect Ratios:
Part II - Cyclic Tests of Fully Anchored Walls. Forest
26. Stillinger, J.R., Lateral Tests on Full-scale Lumber- Products Journal, 53(10), Forest Products Society,
sheathed Roof Diaphragms, Report No.T-6, Oregon Madison, WI, 2003.
State University, Corvallis, OR, 1953.
37. Krawinkler, H., F. Parisi, L. Ibarra, A. Ayoub, and
27. Ni, C. and E. Karacabeyli, Effect of Blocking in R. Medina, Development of a Testing Protocol for
Horizontally Sheathed Shear Walls, Wood Design Wood Frame Structures, CUREE Publication No.
Focus, Forest Products Society, Volume 12, Number W-02, 2000.
2, Summer, 2002.
38. Filiatrault, A. and R. O. Foschi, Static and Dynamic
28. Mi, H., C. Ni, Y. H. Chui, and E. Karacabeyli, Rack- Tests of Timber Shear Walls Fastened with Nails and
ing Performance of Tall Unblocked Shear Walls, Wood Adhesive. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer-
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume ing 18: 749-755. 1991.
132, Number 1, 145-152, 2006.
39. Combined Shear and Wind Uplift Tests on 7/16-inch
29. Cyclic Testing of Fiberboard Shear Walls with Vary- Oriented Strand Board Panels, APA-The Engineered
ing Aspect Ratios, NAHB Research Center, Upper Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, May, 2007.
Marlboro, MD, 2006.
40. Combined Shear and Wind Uplift Tests with 10d
30. Gupta, R., H. Redler, and M. Clauson, Cyclic Tests of Common Nails, APA-The Engineered Wood Associa-
Engineered Shear Walls Considering Different Plate tion, Tacoma, WA, March, 2008.
Washer Sizes (Phase II), Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR, 2007. 41. ASTM E 72-15 Standard Test Methods of Conducting
Strength Tests of Panels for Building Construction.
31. Schmid, B. Proposal S98. International Code Council ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
Proposed Changes to the 2006 International Building
Code, Volume I, Country Club Hills, IL, June 2006 42. Preliminary Perforated Shear Wall Testing. APA
Report T2005-83. APA-The Engineered Wood As-
32. Shear Capacity of Continuous Joints in High-Load sociation, Tacoma, WA, 2005.
Diaphragms, APA Report T2001L-72, Tacoma, WA,
2001. 43. Dolan, J. D. and A. C. Johnson, Monotonic Tests of
Long Shear Walls with Openings, Report No. TE-
1996-001, Virginia Tech, Brooks Forest Products
Research Center, Blacksburg, VA, 1997.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC 97
44. Dolan, J. D. and A. C. Johnson, Monotonic Tests of 56. SEAOC. 2012. 2009 IBC Structural/Seismic Design
Long Shear Walls with Openings, Report No. TE- Manual, Volume 2: Building Design Examples for
1996-002, Virginia Tech, Brooks Forest Products Light-frame, Tilt-up Masonry. Structural Engineers
Research Center, Blacksburg, VA, 1997. Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
45. Preliminary Perforated Shear Wall Testing, Report 57. Contribution of Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resis-
T2005-83, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, tance of Light-Frame Walls, Research Paper FPL 439,
Tacoma, WA, December, 2005. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory, December 1993.
46. Nosse, John. Technical Activities. Building Stan-
dards, November/December 1975. 58. PS 1-09 (Structural Plywood), United States Depart-
ment of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
47. Sheedy, Paul. Anchorage of Concrete and Masonry and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2009.
Walls. Building Standards, September/October 1983.
59. ASTM F 1667-13, Standard Specification for Driven
48. Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation Fasteners: Nails, Spikes, and Staples, ASTM, West
of Tilt-Up Buildings and Other Rigid Wall/Flexible Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
Diaphragm Structures, Structural Engineers Associa-
tion of Northern California, 2001. 60. ASD/LRFD Manual for Engineered Wood Construc-
tion, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, 2012.
49. NIST GCR 14-917-32. NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 10 – Seismic Design of Wood C
Light-Frame Structural Diaphragm Systems, A Guide
for Practicing Engineers. September 2014.
COMMENTARY: REFERENCES
50. Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1976, International
Conference of Building Officials now International
Code Council, Washington, DC, 1976.
55. Breyer, D.E., K.J. Fridley, K.E. Cobeen and D.G. Pol-
lock. 2015. Design of Wood Structures ASD/LRFD,
7th ed, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
98 SDPWS COMMENTARY: REFERENCES
Copyright © American Wood Council. Downloaded/printed pursuant to License Agreement. No reproduction or transfer authorized.
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL
American Wood Council
AWC Mission Statement
To increase the use of wood by assuring the broad
regulatory acceptance of wood products, developing
design tools and guidelines for wood construction,
and influencing the development of public policies
affecting the use and manufacture of wood products.
ISBN 978-1-940383-22-4