JOINT RESEARCH REPORT

Evaluation of Force Transfer

Around Openings – Experimental
and Analytical Studies

Effective Date March 21, 2011

Final Report
USDA Joint Venture Agreement 09-11111133-117
©2011 APA – THE ENGINEERED WOOD ASSOCIATION • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. • ANY COPYING, MODIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER USE OF THIS PUBLICATION OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY APA IS PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAWS.

WOOD
The Natural Choice
Engineered wood products are a good choice for the environment. They
are manufactured for years of trouble-free, dependable use. They help
reduce waste by decreasing disposal costs and product damage. Wood is a
renewable, recyclable, biodegradable resource that is easily manufactured
into a variety of viable products.

A few facts about wood.

■ We’re growing more wood every day. Forests fully cover one-third
of the United States’ and one-half of Canada’s land mass. American
landowners plant more than two billion trees every year. In addition,
millions of trees seed naturally. The forest products industry, which
comprises about 15 percent of forestland ownership, is responsible for 41
percent of replanted forest acreage. That works out to more than one billion trees a year,
or about three million trees planted every day. This high rate of replanting accounts for the
fact that each year, 27 percent more timber is grown than is harvested. Canada’s replanting
record shows a fourfold increase in the number of trees planted between 1975 and 1990.
■ Life Cycle Assessment shows wood is the greenest building product.
A 2004 Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials
(CORRIM) study gave scientific validation to the strength of wood as a
green building product. In examining building products’ life cycles – from
extraction of the raw material to demolition of the building at the end
of its long lifespan – CORRIM found that wood was better for the environment than steel
or concrete in terms of embodied energy, global warming potential, air emissions, water
emissions and solid waste production. For the complete details of the report, visit www.
CORRIM.org.
■ Manufacturing wood is energy efficient.
Percent of Percent of
Wood products made up 47 percent of all Material Production Energy Use
industrial raw materials manufactured in the Wood 47 4
United States, yet consumed only 4 percent Steel 23 48
of the energy needed to manufacture all
Aluminum 2 8
industrial raw materials, according to a
1987 study.
■ Good news for a healthy planet. For every ton of wood grown, a young
forest produces 1.07 tons of oxygen and absorbs 1.47 tons of carbon
dioxide.
Wood: It’s the natural choice for NOTICE:
The recommendations
the environment, for design and for
in this guide apply only
strong, lasting construction. to products that bear the
ING APA trademark. Only
SHEATH
RATED products bearing the APA
32/16R SPAC
ING trademark are subject to
SIZED FO RE 1
EXPOSU 0.451 IN. the Association’s quality
ESS
THICKN auditing program.
0
00 PRP-108
C-D
PS 1-09 CATEGORY
15/32
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 3

E VA LUATION OF FORC E TR A N S F E R A ROUN D OPE NINGS —

E X PE R I M E NTA L A N D A N A LY TIC A L S TUDIE S

Final Report
USDA Joint Venture Agreement 09-11111133-117

Borjen Yeh, Ph.D., P.E.

Tom Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.
APA – The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA

Frank Lam, Ph.D., P.Eng

Minghao Li, Ph.D.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

Doug Rammer, Ph.D., P.E.

James Wacker, P.E.
USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI

March 21, 2011

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 4

E VA LUATION OF FORC E TR A N S F E R A ROUN D OPE NINGS —

A N E X PE R I M E NTA L A N D A N A LY TIC A L S TUDY

Final Report
USDA Joint Venture Agreement 09-11111133-117

E X EC UTI V E S UM M A RY

This report contains research results on one of the major design methods concerning wood structural panel (WSP)
sheathed shear walls with openings – force transfer around openings (FTAO). This study was undertaken by a joint
effort between APA – The Engineered Wood Association and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), Madison, WI
under a joint venture agreement funded by both organizations. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
provided technical supports and consultation on the computer shear wall model simulation and analysis.

The design method for force transfer around openings has been the subject of interest by some engineering groups in
the U.S., such as the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). Excellent examples of FTAO targeted
to practitioners have been developed by a number of sources. However, very little test data are available to confirm
design assumptions. Among various techniques that are generally accepted as a rational analysis in practice, drag
strut, cantilever beam and Diekmann technique were examined in this study and a wide range of predicted forces
was noted. This variation in predicted forces results in some structures being either over-built or less reliable than the
intended performance objective.

This research was performed in two parts. Part 1 was an experimental study conducted at APA and Part 2 was a
model analysis performed by the UBC based on the experimental study plan from Part 1. This report is presented
based on these two approaches. This is the first of a series of studies that are designed to look into this design method
in hope for a better characterization and understanding of the method.

This research was supported in part by funds provided by the USDA Forest Products Laboratory, which is acknowl-
edged and greatly appreciated by the project team.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: FULL-SCALE SHEAR WALL TESTS FOR FORCE TRANSFER AROUND OPENINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 Test Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.4 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.5 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix A – Cyclic Tests, Global Wall Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix B – Monotonic Tests, Global Wall Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix C – Hold-down Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix D – Anchor Bolt Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Appendix E – Strap Forces Around Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix F – Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

PART 2: MODELING FORCE TRANSFER AROUND SHEAR WALL OPENINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

1.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

2.2 Wall 2D – Shear Wall Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

2.3 Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2.4 Modeling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

2.5 Summary and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

2.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 6

PA RT 1:
F ULL -SC A LE S H E A R WA LL TE S TS FOR
FORC E TR A N S F E R A ROUN D OPE NINGS

Tom Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.

Borjen Yeh, Ph.D., P.E.
APA – The Engineered Wood Association

A B S TR ACT

Wood structural panel (WSP) sheathed shear walls and diaphragms are the primary lateral-load-resisting elements in
wood-frame construction. The historical performance of light-frame structures in North America is very good due,
in part, to model building codes that are designed to safeguard life safety. These model building codes have spawned
continual improvement and refinement of engineering solutions. There is also an inherent redundancy of wood-frame
construction using WSP shear walls and diaphragms. As wood-frame construction is continuously evolving, design-
ers in many parts of North America are optimizing design solutions that require the understanding of force transfer
between lateral load-resisting elements.

The North American building codes provide three solutions to walls with openings. The first solution is to ignore the
contribution of the wall segments above and below openings and only consider the full-height segments in resisting
lateral forces, often referred to as segmented shear wall method. The second approach, which is to account for the
effects of openings in the walls using an empirical reduction factor, is known as the “perforated shear wall method.”
The final method, which has a long history of practical use, is the “force transfer around openings method.” This
method is codified and accepted as simply following “rational analysis.” Much engineering consideration has been
given to this topic (SEAOSC Seismology Committee, 2007) and excellent examples targeted to practitioners have been
developed by a number of sources (SEAOC, 2002, Breyer et al. 2007, Diekmann, 1998). However, unlike the perfo-
rated shear wall method, very little test data has been collected to verify various rational analyses. Typically walls that
are designed for force transfer around openings attempt to reinforce the wall with openings such that the wall per-
forms as if there was no opening. Generally increased nailing in the vertical and the horizontal directions as well as
blocking and strapping are common methods being utilized for this reinforcement around openings. The authors are
aware of at least three techniques which are generally accepted as rational analysis. For this paper, drag strut, canti-
lever beam and Diekmann technique were used to predict force transfer around openings. These techniques result in
wide ranges of predicted forces. This variation in predicted forces results in some structures being either over-built or
less reliable than the intended performance objective.

A joint research project of APA – The Engineered Wood Association, the University of British Columbia (UBC), and the
USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) was initiated in 2009 to evaluate the variations of walls with pier widths that
meet code prescribed limitations. This study examines the internal forces generated during these tests and evaluates
the effects of size of openings, location of openings, size of full-height piers, and different construction techniques by
using the segmented method, the perforated shear wall method, and the force transfer around openings method. Full-
scale wall tests as well as analytical modeling were performed. The research results obtained from this study will be
used to support design methodologies in estimating the forces around the openings. This report provides test results
from 8 feet x 12 feet full-scale wall configurations, which will be used in conjunction with the analytical results from
a computer model developed by the UBC to develop rational design methodologies for consideration by the U.S.
design codes and standards.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 7

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The North American building codes provide three solutions to walls with openings. The first solution is to ignore the
contribution of the wall segments above and below openings and only consider the full-height segments in resist-
ing lateral forces, often referred to as segmented shear wall method. This method could be considered the traditional
shear wall method. The second approach, which is to account for the effects of openings in the walls using an empiri-
cal reduction factor, is known as the “perforated shear wall method.” This method has tabulated empirical reduction
factors and a number of limitations on the method. In addition, there are a number of special detailing requirements
that are not required by the other two methods. The final method is codified and accepted as simply following “ratio-
nal analysis.” Much engineering consideration has been given to this topic (SEAOSC Seismology Committee, 2007)
and excellent examples targeted to practitioners have been developed by a number of sources (SEAOC, 2002, Breyer
et al. 2007, Diekmann, 1998). However, unlike the perforated shear wall method, very little test data has been col-
lected to verify various rational analyses. Typically walls that are designed for force transfer around openings attempt
to reinforce the wall with openings such that the wall performs as if there was no opening. Generally increased
nailing in the vertical and the horizontal directions as well as blocking and strapping are common methods being
utilized for this reinforcement around openings. The authors are aware of at least three techniques which are gener-
ally accepted as rational analysis. The “drag strut” technique is a relatively simple rational analysis which treats the
segments above and below the openings as “drag struts” (Martin, 2005). This analogy assumes that the shear loads
in the full-height segments are collected and concentrated into the sheathed segments above and below the openings.
The second simple technique is referred to as “cantilever beam.” This technique treats the forces above and below the
openings as moment couples, which are sensitive to the height of the sheathed area above and below the openings.
A graphical representation of these two techniques is given in Figure 1. The mathematical development of these two
techniques is presented by Martin (2005).

FIGURE 1

REPRESENTATION OF THE DRAG STRUT TECHNIQUE (LEFT) AND THE CANTILEVER BEAM TECHNIQUE (RIGHT) FOR
ESTIMATING FORCES AROUND WALL OPENINGS (MARTIN, 2005)

L1
1
V L1 Lo L2 hU

p F1
v ho/2

v 1 v V2
V1
v v h
2 F2 ho/2
p
v h1

L2 2

Finally, the more rigorous mathematical technique is typically credited to a California structural engineer, Edward
Diekmann, and well documented in the wood design textbook by Breyer et al. (2007). This technique assumes that
the wall behaves as a monolith and internal forces are resolved by creating a series of free body diagrams as illus-
trated in Figure 2. This is a common technique used by many west coast engineers in North America. Although the
technique can be tedious for realistic walls with multiple openings, many design offices have developed spreadsheets

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 8

based on either the Diekmann method or SEAOC (2002). A known limitation of this technique is that when the
height above opening is less than 12 inches, the resolved shear forces become quite large, resulting in the apparent
overstressing of the wood structural panel wall sheathing.

Of the three common techniques, the predicted internal forces can vary significantly, based on wall geometry. In
extreme cases discussed below, the differences in the predicted internal forces may vary by 800%. The purpose of
this research is to provide experimental data for comparison and perhaps improvement to the rational analyses.

FIGURE 2

REPRESENTATION OF THE DIEKMANN TECHNIQUE (1998) AND DRAWINGS FROM BREYER ET AL. (2007).
Global free body diaphragm of wall with openings (left), beam behaviour of various sheathed areas (center), and
horizontal and vertical cuts for establishing internal shears (right)

1.2 TE S T PL A N

In an effort to collect internal forces around openings of loaded walls, a series of twelve wall configurations were
tested, as shown in Figure 3. The left hand side of Figure 3 illustrates a framing plan, which also includes anchor
bolt and holddown location and additional details. On the right hand side of Figure 3, sheathing and strapping plan
is illustrated. This test series is based on the North American code permitted walls nailed with 10d common nails
(0.148 inches by 3 inches) at a nail spacing of 2 inches. The sheathing used in all cases was nominal 15/32-inch ori-
ented strand board (OSB) APA STR I Rated Sheathing. All walls were 12 feet long and 8 feet tall. The lumber used for
all of these tests was kiln-dried Douglas-fir, purchased from the open market, and was tested after conditioned to
indoor laboratory environments (i.e. dry conditions). Each individual 2x4 stud was nailed to the respective end plates
with two 16d common (0.162 inch by 3-1/2 inch) end nails. The headers were built-up double 2x12s with a 1/2-inch
wood structural panel spacer between the two pieces of lumber. In general, built-up 2x members were face-nailed to
each other with 10d common nails face-nailed at 8 inches on center.

The walls were attached to the steel test jig with 5/8-inch diameter anchor bolts with 3x3x0.229-inch square plate
washers. In some cases, 5/8-inch Strainsert calibrated bolts were substituted for the anchor bolts such that uplift
forces at the anchor bolts could be directly measured. Figure 3 illustrates anchor bolt location and where the cali-
brated bolts were located. The overturning of the walls was resisted by Simpson Strong-Tie HDQ8 Hold-downs,
attached to the double 2x4 end studs with 20 - 1/4-x3-inch SDS screws. These hold-downs were attached to the steel
test jig with 7/8-inch diameter bolts. In some cases, 7/8-inch calibrated bolts were substituted for the hold-down bolts
such that hold-down forces could be directly measured.

Wall 1 is based on the narrowest segmented wall (height-to-width ratio of 3.5:1) permitted by the code with over-
turning restraint (hold-downs) on each end of the full-height segments. Simpson Strong-Tie HDQ8 hold-downs were
used to resist the overturning restraint for the twelve wall configurations. The height of the window opening for Wall
1 is common to many walls tested in this plan, at 3 feet. Walls 2 and 3 are based on the perforated shear wall method,

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 9

C0 = 0.93. Hold-downs are located on the ends of the wall with no special detailing other than the compression
blocking on Wall 3. Wall 4 is a force transfer around openings wall which has identical geometry to Walls 1, 2 and 3,
and is used to compare the various methods for designing walls with openings.

Wall 5 has the same width of piers as the first four walls. However, the opening height was increased to 5 feet. Wall
6 was common to Wall 4 with the exception that the typical 4 feet x 8 feet sheathing was “wrapped around” the wall
opening in “C” shaped pieces. This framing technique is commonly used in North America. It can be more time effi-
cient to sheath over openings at first and then remove the sheathing in the openings area via a hand power saw or
router.

Wall 7 is a segmented wall with height-to-width ratio of the full-height segments to 2:1. Wall 8 is a match to Wall 7,
but designed as a force transfer around openings wall. The window height in Wall 9 is increased from 3 feet to 5 feet
tall. Walls 10 and 11 contain very narrow wall segments for use in large openings such as garage fronts. The two walls
are designed with openings on either side of pier and only on wall boundary, respectively. Finally, Wall 12 contains a
wall with two asymmetric openings.

Most walls were tested with a cyclic loading protocol following ASTM E 2126, Method C, CUREE Basic Loading
Protocol. The reference deformation, , was set as 2.4 inches. The term  was 0.5, resulting in maximum displace-
ments applied to the wall of +/- 4.8 inches. This displacement level was based on APA’s past experience with cyclic
testing of WSP shear walls. The displacement-based protocol was applied to the wall at 0.5 Hz with the exception of
Wall 8b, which was loaded at 0.05 Hz. Two walls (Wall 4c and 5c) were tested following a monotonic test in accor-
dance with ASTM E 564.

Several different top plate boundary conditions were used for this series of tests. Table 1 lists which load head was used
for the various tests. The first load head used was deemed the “short” load head. The load head was fabricated from
two commercial hold-downs, and attached to the top of the wall with a number of 1/4-inch diameter self-drilling, self-
tapping lag screws. The intent was that the short load head would not provide additional stiffness to the double wood
top plate of the wall. The racking loads were transferred into the first full-height pier, and the load head did not extend
to the header. However, as wall forces became larger, the load head resulted in a large concentrated force at the end of
the load head. Figure F1 shows a double top plate net section fracture, as related to the short load head.

An intermediate load head was also utilized in some of the tests. The intermediate load head was a longer channel
that was built up by welding two angles, toe-to-toe, together. The load head was directly connected to the top of the
wall with a number of 1/4-inch diameter self-drilling, self-tapping lag screws. This load head provided very little
additional stiffness to the double top plate of the wall. However, the length of the load head did not extend the entire
length of the 12-foot-long walls, thus providing different top plate boundary conditions over the two full-height piers.
There was also some concern that the internal forces on one end of the wall were being transferred through the load
head, and not through the straps. Figure F2 shows this load head.

A special cyclic “long” load head was fabricated that extended the entire length of the wall. This load head “floated”
over the wall, making no direct continuous contact to the top of the wall, thus assuring all force continuity on the
walls intended for studying force transfer around openings was achieved via the straps. The racking forces were
transferred directly into the double top plates by end-grain bearing, for both the “push” and the “pull” cycle. Large
diameter bolts were installed in slotted holes (slots parallel to length of wall) into the full-height piers. The purpose of
these bolts and slotted holes was to eliminate racking forces from being transferred through the bolts, while providing
restraints that forced the wall to remain planar. Figure F3 shows this load head.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 10

Finally, monotonic racking tests were conducted with the load being transferred directly into the top plate; thus no
load head was utilized. The wall remained planar via structural tubes and low friction rub blocks directly bearing on
face and back side of wall. Figure F4 shows this setup.

For walls detailed as force transfer around openings, two Simpson Strong-Tie HTT22 hold-downs in line (facing seat-
to-seat) were fastened through the sheathing and into the flat blocking (Wall 4 in Figure 3, Figure 5, and Figure F12
in Appendix F illustrate this detail). The hold-downs were intended to provide similar force transfer as the typically
detailed flat strapping around openings. The hold-downs were connected via a 5/8-inch diameter calibrated tension
bolt for measuring tension forces.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 11

FIGURE 3

FRAMING PLANS (RIGHT) AND SHEATHING PLANS (LEFT) FOR VARIOUS FORCE TRANSFER AROUND OPENINGS
ASSEMBLIES

Wall 1
12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"
Objective:
Est. baseline case for
3.5:1 segmented wall .
2'-3"

3'-0"
8'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

3'-10"
2'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Wall 2
12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"

Objective:
No FTAO, compare to wall 1.
Co = 0.93. Examine effect of
2 -3"
3'-0"

sheathing above and below

opening w/ no FTAO. Hold
8'-0"

down removed.
2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2'-0"
3'-10"

3'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Wall 3
12'-0"
x flatwise Nail sheathing to blocking
2'-3" 2'-3"
blocking same as edge nail spacing
Objective:
No FTAO, compare to walls
1 and 2. Examine effect of
compression blocking.
3'-0"

2'-3"
8'-0"
8'-0"

2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2-0"
3'-10"

3'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 12

FIGURE 3 (Continued)

FRAMING PLANS (RIGHT) AND SHEATHING PLANS (LEFT) FOR VARIOUS FORCE TRANSFER AROUND OPENINGS
ASSEMBLIES

Plan view detail (2) HTT & HTT22 uses 32-16d

calibrated bolt Sinkers and total
2x flatwise blocking capacity is 5250 lbf
Wall 4 5/8" Strainsert (ASD).
12'-0" bolt to measure Expected FTAO = 1200 –
2'-3" 2'-3" HTT22 4500 lbf (ASD) x 25 =
tension force
3000 – 11250 lbf (Peak)
Objective:
FTAO, compare to wall 1
Examine effect of straps.
2 -3"

3'-0"
8'-0"
2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2'-0" "0

3'-10"
1
-'
3

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0"
A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
(2) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
(1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.

Wall 5 2x flatwise blocking

12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"
HTT22
Objective:
FTAO, compare to wall 4.
Examine effect of straps with
larger opening. 2'-3"
5'-0"
8'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

1'-10"

2'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length
Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
bolts (HD) will be used to
(2) 5/8" dia.
instrument forces for this test.
(1) 7/8" dia.

Wall 6 2x flatwise blocking 5/8" Strainsert

12'-0" bolt to measure
2'-3" 2'-3" HTT22 tension force
Objective:
Compare to wall 4. Examine
effect of sheathing around
2'-3"
3'-0"

opening.
8'-0"

2-0" "
3'-10"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs 0

1
-'
3

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0"
A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
(2) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 13

FIGURE 3 (Continued)

FRAMING PLANS (RIGHT) AND SHEATHING PLANS (LEFT) FOR VARIOUS FORCE TRANSFER AROUND OPENINGS
ASSEMBLIES

Wall 7
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Est. baseline case for 2:1
segmented wall.

3'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"

8'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

3'-10"
5/8" Dia. A.B.
3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (3) 5/8" dia. (A.B.) and

1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed
(3) 5/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
along length (2) 7/8" dia. for this test.

Wall 8
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Compare FTAO to wall 7.
3'-0"

4'-0" 4'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs
8'-0"
3'-10"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (7) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and

1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed (3) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
along length (1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.

Wall 9
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Compare FTAO to walls 7 and
8. Collect FTAO data for wall
with larger opening.
4'-0" 4'-0"
8'-0"
5'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

1'-10"

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (7) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and

Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" (3) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed (1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.
along length

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 14

FIGURE 3 (Continued)

FRAMING PLANS (RIGHT) AND SHEATHING PLANS (LEFT) FOR VARIOUS FORCE TRANSFER AROUND OPENINGS
ASSEMBLIES

Wall 10
12'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
Objective:
FTOA for 3. 5:1 Aspect ratio
pier wall. No sheathing
below opening. Two hold
downs on pier (fixed case).

8'-0"
7'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P. W.

Strainsert bolts A total of (4) 5/8" dia. (A.B.,and straps) and

8"
8" (2) 5/8" dia. (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD) will be
AB’s are evenly distributed along length (8" from end, typ.) (2) 7/8" dia. used to instrument forces for this test.

Wall 11
12'-0"

2'-0" 2'-0"
Objective:
FTOA for 3.5:1 Aspect ratio
pier wall. No sheathing
below opening. One hold
down on pier (pinned case).
8'-0"
7'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

Strainsert bolts A total of (4) 5/8" dia. (A.B.,and straps) and

(2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolt (HD) will be
(1) 7/8" dia. used to instrument forces for this test.

Wall 12 12'-0"

4'-0" 2'-0"
Objective: 1'-6" 2'-0" 2'-6"
FTOA for asymmetric
multiple pier wall.
4'-0"
8'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

2'-4"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

1'-0" 3'-4" 3'-2" 1'-0"

Strainsert bolts A total of (12) 5/8" dia. and (2) 7/8" dia.
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (4) 5/8" dia. Strainsert bolts could be used to instrument
(2) 7/8" dia. forces for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 15

1. 3 R E S ULTS

Global Response
Cyclic hysteretic plots and various cyclic parameters of the individual walls are provided in Appendix A of this report.
Monotonic plots are provided in Appendix B, hold-down force plots are provided in Appendix C, and finally anchor
bolt forces plots are provided in Appendix D of this report. Figure 4 are hysteric plots of the applied load versus the
displacement of the walls. The response curves are representative for all walls tested. One can observe the relatively
increased stiffness of perforated shear walls (Wall 2) versus the segmented walls (Wall 1). However, the relatively brit-
tle nature of the perforated walls should be noted as the perforated shear walls resulted in sheathing tearing. As one
might expect, the walls detailed for force transfer around openings (Wall 4d and 5d) demonstrated increased stiffness
as well as strength over the segmented walls. In addition, the response of the walls was related to opening sizes with
the larger openings resulting in both lower stiffness and lower strength.

FIGURE 4

HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOUR OF VARIOUS WALLS, TYPICAL OF THE CYCLIC TESTS

20,000

15,000

10,000
Applied Load (lbf)

5,000

-5,000

-10,000
Wall - 1b
Wall - 2a
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

20,000

15,000

10,000
Applied Load (l bf)

5,000

-5,000

-10,000
Wall - 4d
Wall - 5d
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 16

Table 1 represents the maximum loads resisted by the various walls and calculated load factors. The expected wall
capacity is based on the code listed allowable unit shear multiplied by the effective length of the wall, as determined
by the sum of the lengths of the full-height piers. For the perforated shear walls, a further factor of Co was included.
Table 1 also provides measured hold-down forces as observed when the wall was subjected to ASD unit shear, which
resisted overturning of the segments.

TABLE 1

GLOBAL RESPONSE OF TESTED WALLS

Effective Average Outboard Inboard
ASD Unit Wall Wall Applied Load Hold-down Hold-down
Wall Shear(1), V Length(2) Capacity(3) to Wall ASD Load Force Force Load
ID (plf) (ft) (lbf) (lbf) Factor(4) (lbf) (lbf) Head
Wall 1a 4.5 3,915 5,421 1.4 7,881 5,313 Short
Wall 1b 4.5 3,915 5,837 1.5 6,637 6,216 Short
Wall 2a 4.5 3,631 7,296 1.9 2,216 Short
Wall 2b 4.5 3,631 6,925 1.8 3,248 Long
Wall 3a 4.5 3,631 10,370 2.6 2,602 Short
Wall 3b 4.5 3,631 8,955 2.3 4,090 Long
Wall 4a 4.5 3,915 14,932 3.8 1,140 Short
Wall 4b 4.5 3,915 17,237 4.4 3,674 Intermediate
Wall 4c(5) 4.5 3,915 17,373 4.4 1,336 None
Wall 4d 4.5 3,915 15,328 3.9 1,598 Intermediate
Wall 5b 4.5 3,915 13,486 3.4 5,216 Intermediate
Wall 5c(5) 4.5 3,915 11,887 3.0 4,795 None
Wall 5d 4.5 3,915 11,682 3.0 4,413 Long
Wall 6a 870 4.5 3,915 11,948 3.1 1,573 Long
Wall 6b 4.5 3,915 13,582 3.5 1,285 Long
Wall 7a 8 6,960 12,536 1.8 6,024 3,677 Short
Wall 7b 8 6,960 10,893 1.6 6,577 3,844 Long
Wall 8a 8 6,960 15,389 2.2 4,805 Long
Wall 8b (6) 8 6,960 15,520 2.2 5,548 Long
Wall 9a 8 6,960 15,252 2.2 4,679 Long
Wall 9b 8 6,960 16,647 2.4 5,212 Long
Wall 10a 4 3,480 7,473 2.1 5,311 5,690 Long
Wall 10b 4 3,480 6,976 2.0 4,252 3,731 Long
Wall 11a 4 3,480 6,480 1.9 6,449 Long
Wall 11b 4 3,480 5,669 1.6 5,843 Long
Wall 12a 6 5,220 16,034 3.1 2,856 Long
Wall 12b 6 5,220 15,009 2.9 3,458 Long
(1) Typical tabulated values are based on allowable stress design (ASD) unit shear.
(2) Based on sum of the lengths of the full-height segments of the wall.
(3) The shear capacity of the wall, V, is the sum of the full-height segments times the unit shear capacity. For “perforated shear walls” (Walls 2 & 3), this
capacity was multiplied by Co = 0.93. No reduction was taken based on aspect ratio of the walls.
(4) Wall capacity divided by the average load applied to the wall.
(5) Monotonic test.
(6) Loading time increased by 10x.

In general, the segmented walls (Wall 1 and Wall 7) resulted in the lowest load factors of the walls tested. The perfo-
rated shear wall (Wall 2) also performed at a lower level than the walls specifically detailed with force transfer around
openings. Surprisingly, the compression blocking with no straps (Wall 3a) resulted in a significantly improved per-
formance over Wall 2. Another general observation is that the larger the wall opening, the lower the load factors. The
wall global behaviour seemed to be insensitive to the different loading rate (Walls 8a and 8b). In addition, the walls

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 17

with typical window openings that are sheathed both above and below openings, and the walls with the narrow-
est piers (height-to-width ratios of 3.5:1) based on the minimum pier width permitted in the North American codes
(Walls 3, 4, 5 and 6) resulted in higher load factors than walls with full-width piers at a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
(Walls 7, 8 and 9).

A variety of failure modes were observed, as shown in Appendix F. In general, lumber failure was not a significant
limit state with the exception of the wall shown in Figure F1. The more typical failure modes were related to wood
panel tearing around the openings, as illustrated in Figures F5 through F8, and F12. The traditional shear walls
(Walls 1 and 7) showed more classic failure modes. Figure F9 illustrates a typical failure mode of nail head pulling
out of the side of the panel. Nail head pullout was also a common failure mode, as illustrated in Figure F10.

Table 1 also lists the average outboard hold-down response of the walls, when the walls were subjected to the ASD
design load. The data is not conclusive on the effect of the load head length on the overturning hold-down forces.
The repeatability of the hold-down forces was not as good as the overall global response of the walls. Wall 4b had
relatively high hold-down forces, but did not match well with the other hold-down forces observations on Wall 4.
Given the lack of conclusive data, only observations can be provided. Based on comparisons of Walls 5c and 5d, the
difference between no load head and the long load head appears to be relatively minor. In general, the long load head
appears to lead to relatively higher hold-down forces as compared to the short load head (Wall 2a vs 2b and Wall 7a
vs 7b). As a recommendation for future tests on force transfer around openings, the load head should not be in direct
contact with the top of the wall so that the top plate is not stiffened by the load head, and more importantly, avoiding
a parallel force transfer load path via the load head. Cyclic hysteretic plots and various cyclic parameters of the indi-
vidual walls are provided in Appendix A of this report. The backbone curves and the equivalent energy elastic-plastic
curves were analyzed by an Excel spreadsheet, which follows the procedures outlined in ASTM E2126. Monotonic
plots are provided in Appendix B,

Hold-down, Anchor Bolt and Strap Force Responses

The hold-down force plots are provided in Appendix C of this report. The internal forces around openings were mea-
sured with calibrated tension bolts, as discussed in the test plan above (also see Figures F12 and F13). The anchor
bolt uplift force plots are provided in Appendix D. Finally, the strap forces plots are presented in Appendix E. Figure
5 illustrates the notation of the force gages as well as a typical response curve of wall load versus internal force around
opening. The response curves show hysteretic behaviour, which is likely due to cumulative damage of the wall as
well as the orientation of the bolt recording tension forces as may be influenced by the differential displacement of
the hold-down seats in the vertical direction. Deflection measurements may potentially be used to correct the load
to “pure horizontal tension.” However, in the range of the wall ASD values, the internal load response was relatively
linear elastic.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 18

Table 2 provides a summary of the predicted forces based on the various techniques. Table 3 provides a comparison
of the measured internal forces at the wall at the allowable value to the predicted strap forces. The measured internal
forces were taken at the cycle in which the walls were loaded to the allowable design value.

FIGURE 5

NOTATION OF INTERNAL FORCE GAGES (TOP FIGURE), AND TYPICAL RESPONSE CURVE (BOTTOM FIGURE)

Top East B
olt
Top West
Bolt

Boom East Bolt Boom West Bolt

Wall 5d
12,000
Strap Force s Around Openi ngs (lbf)

Top East
Top West
10,000
Boom West
Boom East
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

TABLE 2

PREDICTED STRAP FORCES AT THE ASD DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE WALLS

Predicted Strap Forces at ASD Capacity (lbf)
Diekmann
Drag Strut Technique Cantilever Beam Technique Technique
Wall ID Top Bottom Top Bottom Top/Bottom
Wall 4 1,223 1,223 4,474 2,724 1,958
Wall 5 1,223 1,223 6,151 4,627 3,263
Wall 6 1,223 1,223 4,474 2,724 1,958
Wall 8 1,160 1,160 7,953 4,842 1,856
Wall 9 1,160 1,160 7,953 6,328 3,093
Wall 10 1,160 n.a. (1) 7,830 n.a. (1) n.a. (1)
Wall 11 1,160 n.a. (1) 7,830 n.a. (1) n.a. (1)
Wall 12 653 1,088 4,784 4,040 1,491
(1) Not applicable.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 19

TABLE 3

INTERNAL FORCES OF TESTED WALLS AT THE ASD DESIGN CAPACITY AS COMPARED TO VARIOUS PREDICTED STRAP
FORCES
Error(2) for Predicted Strap Forces at the ASD Design Value
Measured Strap Diekmann
Forces (lbf)(1) Drag Strut Technique Cantilever Beam Technique Technique
Wall ID Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top/Bottom
Wall 4a 687 1,485 178% 82% 652% 183% 132%
Wall 4b 560 1,477 219% 83% 800% 184% 133%
Wall 4c(3) 668 1,316 183% 93% 670% 207% 149%
Wall 4d 1,006 1,665 122% 73% 445% 164% 118%
Wall 5b 1,883 1,809 65% 68% 327% 256% 173%
Wall 5c(3) 1,611 1,744 76% 70% 382% 265% 187%
Wall 5d 1,633 2,307 75% 53% 377% 201% 141%
Wall 6a 421 477 291% 256% 1,063% 571% 410%
Wall 6b 609 614 201% 199% 735% 444% 319%
Wall 8a 985 1,347 118% 86% 808% 359% 138%
Wall 8b(4) 1,493 1,079 78% 108% 533% 449% 124%
Wall 9a 1,675 1,653 69% 70% 475% 383% 185%
Wall 9b 1,671 1,594 69% 73% 476% 397% 185%
Wall 10a 1,580 n.a.(5) 73% n.a.(5) 496% n.a.(5) n.a.(5)
Wall 10b 2,002 n.a.(5) 58% n.a.(5) 391% n.a.(5) n.a.(5)
Wall 11a 2,466 n.a.(5) 47% n.a.(5) 318% n.a.(5) n.a.(5)
Wall 11b 3,062 n.a.(5) 38% n.a.(5) 256% n.a.(5) n.a.(5)
Wall 12a 807 1,163 81% 94% 593% 348% 128%
Wall 12b 1,083 1,002 60% 109% 442% 403% 138%
(1) Reported strap forces were based on the mean of the “East” and “West” recorded forces at the capacity of the walls as tabulated in Table 1.
(2) Error based on ratio of predicted forces to mean measured strap forces. For Diekmann method, the larger of the top and bottom strap forces was used
for calculation. Highlighted errors represent non-conservative predictions and significant ultra-conservative prediction (arbitrarily assigned as 300%).
(3) Monotonic test.
(4) Loading time increased by 10x.
(5) Not applicable.

As shown in Table 3, the measured strap forces were based on the mean east and west strap forces for the top and
bottom of the opening. As demonstrated in Figure 5, the strap forces were symmetric about the y-axis, thus averaging
strap forces was justifiable.

Model Comparisons to Experimental Strap Forces

Table 2 provides the predicted strap forces at the wall ASD value for the three techniques discussed above. The calcu-
lation of these forces is beyond the scope of this paper. However, Martin (2005) covers the drag strut and cantilever
beam calculations, and Breyer (2007) covers the Diekmann calculations.

The Diekmann technique assumes symmetric forces at the top and bottom of the window opening to wall interface;
hence the maximum of the two measured strap forces was used for the error calculation in Table 3. Also included in
Table 2 is the error, in percent, of the calculated strap forces. There is shading for predictions that fall below 100% of
the observed strap forces, which would be considered non-conservative. The errors are also shaded when the predic-
tions exceed the measured forces by three times (300%), which are considered excessively conservative.

Several items may be observed from the test results reported in Table 2. The measured strap forces for Wall 6 were
smaller than that for the matching wall, Wall 4. This is due to the fact that the forces were transferred through the
wrap-around OSB sheathing in Wall 6, thus less demand was placed on the straps. Also, as one would expect, as the
openings in the walls increased, the strap forces increased. In addition, as the width of the full-height pier decreased,
the relative magnitude of the strap forces increased. The largest strap forces, relative to the applied load, were

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 20

observed for the large garage-type openings, Walls 10 and 11. Other observations are that the strap forces are reason-
ably repeatable and that the strap forces are relatively insensitive to loading rate (Walls 8a and 8b) and cyclic versus
monotonic loading (Walls 4c and 5c).

Several observations can also be made about the three methods for predicting strap forces. First, the drag strut tech-
nique, arguably the simplest method for estimating strap forces, resulted in predicted strap forces that were less than
the observed strap forces for nearly every wall. The cantilever beam technique was, by far, the most conservative
method. For every wall tested, the cantilever beam technique over-predicted at least one of the strap forces by more
than 300 percent. It should also be noted that although the cantilever beam technique decouples the strap forces at
the top and the bottom of the window, it always predicted the strap forces at the top of the wall as higher than the
bottom of the wall, which is based on the underlying assumption of the moment couples, since the height of the
sheathed area above the wall was consistently less than the height of the sheathing below the opening for the walls
tested.

Finally the Diekmann technique provided reasonable predicted results (within 190 percent) for all walls with the
exception of Wall 6. As discussed above, Wall 6 was an atypical wall since the sheathing wrapped around the open-
ing, thus the forces were transferred through the sheathing as opposed to the strap forces. It is important to note that
even though the Diekmann technique provides reasonable prediction, it is still quite crude and extremely conserva-
tive in some cases. Improved force transfer around openings design procedures could result in more efficient sizing of
straps, blocking, and nailing to transfer forces around openings.

1. 4 S UM M A RY A N D CONC LUS ION

Twelve different wall configurations were tested to study the effects of openings on both the global and local
responses of walls. The replications showed good agreement between each other, even when test duration was
extended to ten times greater the original duration. In terms of the global response, the segmented wall approach
resulted in walls with the lowest load factors (based on observed global load divided by allowable capacity of the
walls), followed by walls built as perforated shear walls (i.e., no special detailing for forces around openings), and
finally the walls specifically detailed for force transfer around openings. In general, as opening sizes were increased,
the wall strength and stiffness values were negatively impacted. An unexpected observation was that for walls with
typical window openings, the walls with the narrowest piers based on the minimum pier width permitted in the
North American codes resulted in higher load factors than walls with full-width piers (height-to-width ratio of 2:1).

Of the twelve wall configurations tested, internal forces were collected on eight of the configurations. For the walls
tested, the measured forces at the bottom of the windows were greater than the measured forces at the top of the win-
dow. Also, as expected, as the window opening was increased and as the pier width was decreased, the strap forces
was increased relative to the global applied force to the wall. Of these eight configurations, it could be concluded that
the drag strut technique consistently underestimated the strap forces, and the cantilever beam technique consistently
overestimated the strap forces. The Diekmann technique, the most computationally intensive technique, seemed to
provide reasonable strap force predictions for the walls with window type openings.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 21

1. 5 AC K NOW LE DGE M E NTS

The authors would like to thank Zeno Martin for his initial work on this project, Tom VanDorpe for comments on
an earlier draft of this report, and Alex Salenikovich for sharing his cyclic data analysis program. This work is a
joint research project of APA – The Engineered Wood Association, the University of British Columbia, and the USDA
Forest Products Laboratory. This research was supported in part by funds provided by the USDA Forest Products
Laboratory.

1.6 R E F E R E NC E S

1. ASTM International. 2009. Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical
Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings, ASTM E 2126 - 09. West Conshohocken, PA.

2. ASTM International. 2009. Standard Practice for Static Load Tests for Shear Resistance of Framed Walls for Buildings,
ASTM E 564 - 06. West Conshohocken, PA.

3. Breyer, D. E., K. J. Fridley, K. E. Cobeen and D. G. Pollock. 2007. Design of Wood Structures ASD/LRFD, 6th ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

4. Diekmann, E. F. 1998. Diaphragms and Shearwalls, Wood Engineering and Construction Handbook, 3rd ed.,
K. F. Faherty and T. G. Williamson, eds, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

5. Kolba, A. 2000. The Behavior of Wood Shear Walls Designed Using Diekmann’s Method and Subjected to Static In-Plane
Loading. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Marquette University.

6. Martin, Z. A. 2005. Design of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Openings: A Comparison of Methods. Wood
Design Focus. 15 (1): 18 – 20.

7. SEAOC. 2002. Seismic Design Manual, Volume II: Building Design Examples – Light Frame, Masonry and Tilt-Up (1997
UBC), Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

8. SEAOC Seismology Committee. 2007. “Openings in Wood Frame Shear Walls,” January 2007. The Seaoc Blue Book:
Seismic Design Recommendations. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 22

A PPE N DI X A – C YC LIC TE S TS, GLOB A L WA LL DATA

Wall 1a
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-2,000

Series1
-4,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-6,000

-8,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 1b
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-2,000

Series1
-4,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-6,000

-8,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 23

Wall 2a
10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000
Applied Load (lbf)

2,000

-2,000

-4,000 Series1
Backbone
-6,000
EEEP Yield

-8,000

-10,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 2b
10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000
Applied Load (lbf)

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
Series1
Backbone
-6,000
EEEP Yield

-8,000

-10,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 24

Wall 3a
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 3b
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 25

Wall 4a
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 4b
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 26

Wall 4d
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 5b
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 27

Wall 5d
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 6a
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 28

Wall 6b
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 7a
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 29

Wall 7b
15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000
Series1
Backbone
-10,000 EEEP Yield

-15,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 8a
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 30

Wall 8b
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 9a
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 31

Wall 9b
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 10a
10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000
Applied Load (lbf)

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
Series1
Backbone
-6,000
EEEP Yield

-8,000

-10,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 32

Wall 10b
10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000
Applied Load (lbf)

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
Series1
Backbone
-6,000
EEEP Yield

-8,000

-10,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 11a
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-2,000

Series1
-4,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-6,000

-8,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 33

Wall 11b
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-2,000

Series1
-4,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-6,000

-8,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 12a
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 34

Wall 12b
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Applied Load (lbf)

-5,000

Series1
-10,000
Backbone
EEEP Yield
-15,000

-20,000
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 35

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 36

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 37

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 38

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 39

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 40

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 41

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 42

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 43

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 44

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 45

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 46

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 47

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 48

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 49

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 50

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 51

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 52

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 53

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 54

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 55

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 56

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 57

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 58

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 59

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 60

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 61

A PPE N DI X B – MONOTONIC TE S TS, GLOB A L WA LL DATA

Wall 4c
20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000
Applied Load (lbf)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

Series1
4,000

2,000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Wall 5c
15,000

10,000
Applied Load (lbf)

5,000

Series1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Top of Wall Displacement (inches)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 62

A PPE N DI X C – HOLD -DOW N FORC E S

Wall 1a
14,000
West Outboard

12,000 West Inboard

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 1b
14,000
West Outboard

12,000 West Inboard

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 63

Wall 2a
10,000

West
9,000

8,000

7,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 2b
8,000
East
7,000
West

6,000

5,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 64

Wall 3a
12,000

West

10,000

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 3b
10,000
East
West
8,000

6,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 65

Wall 4a
12,000
East

10,000 West

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4b
14,000
East
12,000 West

10,000

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 66

Wall 4c
12,000

East
10,000

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4d
18,000
East
16,000 West

14,000

12,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 67

Wall 5b
20,000
East

West

15,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

5,000

-5,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 5c
20,000

East

15,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

5,000

-5,000
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 68

Wall 5d
16,000
East
14,000 West

12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 6a
12,000
East

10,000 West

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 69

Wall 6b
14,000
East

12,000 West

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 7a
18,000
East Outboard
16,000 East Inboard

14,000

12,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 70

Wall 7b
16,000
East Outboard
14,000 East Inboard
WestInboard
12,000
West Outboard
10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 8a
16,000
East
14,000 West

12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 71

Wall 8b
18,000
East
16,000
West
14,000

12,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 9a
16,000
East
14,000
West

12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 72

Wall 9b
16,000
East
14,000
West
12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 10a
14,000
East Outboard
12,000 East Inboard
West Inboard
10,000 West Outboard

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 73

Wall 10b
12,000
East Outboard
10,000 East inboard
West Inboard
8,000 West Outboard

6,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 11a
16,000
East
14,000
West

12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 74

Wall 11b
14,000
East
12,000
West

10,000

8,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 12a
16,000
East
14,000
West

12,000

10,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 75

Wall 12b
20,000
East

West

15,000
Hold Down Force (lbf)

10,000

5,000

-5,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 76

A PPE N DI X D – A NC HOR BOLT FORC E S

Wall 1a
2,500
West Pier
Window

2,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,500

1,000

500

0
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 1b
2,500
West Pier
Window

2,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,500

1,000

500

0
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 77

Wall 2a
3,000
West Pier

2,500 Window

2,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,500

1,000

500

-500

-1,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 2b
1,500
West Pier
Window

1,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

500

-500

-1,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 78

Wall 3a
3,500
West Pier
Window
3,000

2,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 3b
2,500
West Pier

2,000 Window

1,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,000

500

-500

-1,000

-1,500
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 79

Wall 4a
6,000
Pier
Window
5,000

4,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4b
1,500
Pier
Window

1,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

500

-500

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 80

Wall 4c
5,000
Pier
Window
4,000

3,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

2,000

1,000

-1,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4d
6,000
Pier
Window
5,000

4,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 81

Wall 5b
6,000
Pier

5,000 Window

4,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 5c
1,000
Pier

800 Window

600
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

400

200

-200

-400

-600
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 82

Wall 5d
3,000
Pier
Window
2,500

2,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,500

1,000

500

0
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 6a
2,500
Pier
Window
2,000

1,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,000

500

-500

-1,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 83

Wall 6b
2,000
East Pier
West Pier
1,500

1,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

500

-500

-1,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 7a
5,000
West 12" from end
West 36" from end
4,500
Window

4,000

3,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 84

Wall 7b
2,500
East 12" from end
East 36" from end
2,000
West 36" from end
West 12" from end
1,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,000

500

-500

-1,000

-1,500
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 8a
2,000
West 12" from end
1,800 Window

1,600

1,400
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 85

Wall 8b
1,500
West 12" from end
West 36" from end

1,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

500

-500

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 9a
3,500
East 12" from end
3,000
East 36" from end

2,500

2,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,500

1,000

500

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 86

Wall 9b
2,500
West 12" from end
Window
2,000

1,500
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

1,000

500

-500

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 10a
1,600
West 7" from end
1,400
West 18" from end

1,200

1,000
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

800

600

400

200

-200

-400

-600
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 87

Wall 10b
400
East 16" from end

300 West 16"  from end

200
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

100

-100

-200

-300

-400
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

No anchor bolt data collected for Wall 11a

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 88

Wall 11b
300
East 16" from end
200 West 16" from end

100

0
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

-600
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

No anchor bolt data collected for Wall 12a

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 89

Wall 12b
400
West 12" from End
200 West 72" from End

-200
Anchor Bolt Tension (lbf)

-400

-600

-800

-1,000

-1,200

-1,400

-1,600
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 90

A PPE N DI X E – S TR A P FORC E S A ROUN D OPE NINGS

Wall 4a
9,000
Top East
8,000 Top West
Bottom West
7,000
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4b
10,000
Top East
Top West
8,000 Bottom West
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 91

Wall 4c
12,000
Bottom West
Top East
10,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 4d
12,000
Top East
Top West
10,000
Bottom West
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 92

Wall 5b
12,000
Top East
Top West
10,000
Bottom West
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 5c
8,000
Top East
7,000 Bottom West

6,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 93

Wall 5d
12,000
Top East
Top West
10,000
Bottom West
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 6a
9,000
Top East
8,000
Top West

7,000 Bottom West

Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 94

Wall 6b
10,000
Top East

8,000 Top West

Bottom West

6,000 Bottom East

Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

4,000

2,000

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000
-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 8a
7,000
Top East

6,000 Top West

Bottom West

5,000 Bottom East

Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 95

Wall 8b
7,000
Top East
6,000 Top West
Bottom West
5,000 Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 9a
8,000
Top East
7,000 Top West
Bottom West
6,000
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 96

Wall 9b
7,000
Top East
6,000 Top West
Bottom West
5,000
Bottom East
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 10a
6,000
Top ast

5,000 Top test

4,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 97

Wall 10b
6,000
Top East
5,000
Top West

4,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000
-10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 11a
6,000
Top East

5,000 Top West

4,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 98

Wall 11b
6,000
Top East
5,000
Top West

4,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000
-8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 12a East Window Opening

6,000
Top East

5,000 Top West

Bottom West

4,000 Bottom East

Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 99

Wall 12a West Window Opening

6,000
Top West

5,000 Bottom West

4,000
Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

3,000

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 12b
5,000
Top East

4,000 Top West

Bottom West

3,000 Bottom East

Strap Forces Around Openings (lbf)

2,000

1,000

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Applied Top of Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 100

A PPE N DI X F – PHOTOS

FIGURE F1

DOUBLE TOP PLATE FAILURE FOR WALL 4A, USING “SHORT” LOAD HEAD)

FIGURE F2

WALL 5A, WITH “INTERMEDIATE” LOAD HEAD (PAINTED GRAY

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 101

FIGURE F3

WALL 7B, WITH “LONG” LOAD HEAD (unpainted steel)

FIGURE F4

WALL 5C, WITH NO LOAD HEAD (Actuator is pushing directly on double top plate)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 102

FIGURE F5

WALL 6A, SHEATHING TEARING, TOP EAST STRAP

FIGURE F6

WALL 6A, SHEATHING TEARING, TOP WEST STRAP

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 103

FIGURE F7

WALL 6A, SHEATHING TEARING, BOTTOM WEST STRAP

FIGURE F8

WALL 6A, SHEATHING TEARING, BOTTOM EAST STRAP

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 104

FIGURE F9

WALL 7B, NAIL HEAD PULL-OUT FROM BOTTOM OF PANEL

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 105

FIGURE F10

WALL 9B, NAIL WITHDRAWAL

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 106

FIGURE F11

WALL 12B, SHEATHING TEARING

FIGURE F12

WALL 6A, SHOWING STRAPS AND DISPLACEMENT GAGES

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 107

FIGURE F13

WALL 10B, SHOWING INSTRUMENTED HOLD DOWNS AND ANCHOR BOLTS

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 108

PA RT 2: MODE LING FORC E TR A N S F E R A ROUN D S H E A R WA LL

OPE NINGS

Frank Lam, Ph.D., P.Eng

Minghao Li, Ph.D.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

A B S TR ACT

A nonlinear finite element based structural analysis program Wall2D has been developed to model the force transfer
around openings of perforated shear walls. The kernel of Wall2D is the model of the nonlinear load-slip response of
the frame to sheathing wall connectors. Model predictions were compared with the test results. Since the perforated
shear walls encountered failure modes such as tearing and buckling of sheathing panels, failure of framing members
and connections, the load path within the wall systems changed once such failure modes were encountered. As a
result, Wall2D over predicted the ultimate capacity of the perforated shear walls and can only be used to consider
the response up to the design capacity. Comparisons of maximum force transfer around openings (FTAO) at the
wall design capacity from the test results, WALL2D model and simplified analogs are presented. The prediction error
range of the computer model at the wall design capacity is from –15.4% to +4.3%.

The Drag Strut method can either under predict or over predict the maximum FTAO. The Cantilevered Beam,
Coupled Beam, and Diekmann’s methods on the other hand are very conservative. When compared to the test data,
using Diekmann’s method as a base, a reduction correction factor of 1.2 to 1.3 might be considered to account for the
contribution of the framing and nail elements within the wall system. Diekmann’s method however is not suitable to
predict the FTAO in cases when the wall segment below the opening is not available as in the case of a garage door
opening. Future studies are needed to fine tune the computer model to consider the currently ignored nonlinearity
and failure modes.

1.2 INTRODUCTION

The current design codes provide three solutions to wood shear walls with openings. The first one considers only full-
height wall segments and ignores the contribution of wall segments above and below openings. The second one takes
into account the wall segments with openings using an empirical reduction factor. The last solution is the “force trans-
fer around openings” (FTAO) method in which shear walls are designed for the forces transferred around openings.
And nails, metal straps, blocking members may be required to reinforce the corners of openings. In the last solution,
rational structural analyses are needed to obtain the amount of forces transferred around openings.

Martin (2005) provided a detailed review of the common design methods of wood shear wall with openings: tradi-
tional segmented shear wall approach, drag strut method, and cantilevered beam analog. Depending on the geometry
of a perforated shear wall, the drag strut and cantilevered beam methods can yield very different estimates of the
forces around the openings. Diekmann (2005) provided a discussion on Martin’s article and presented a method he
proposed (1997) based on Vierendeel truss analog. Kolba (2000) performed a detailed experimental study on perfo-
rated wood shear walls focusing on the applicability of Diekmann’s method. Although the results were inconclusive,
detailed explanations of the assumptions of Diekmann’s method were provided. Robertson (2004) discussed differ-
ent methodologies available to an engineer for analyzing and designing force transfer around openings in plywood
sheathed shear walls. He discussed building codes requirements and analyzed examples of several perforated shear
wall configurations using the drag strut method, cantilevered beam method, and coupled beam analogy (a varia-
tion of Diekmann’s method but seems to lack some equilibrium rigor). Large differences in estimated force transfer

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 109

around opening were found. Lam (2010) also reviewed four commonly used “rational” design methods (Drag Strut,
Cantilevered Beam, Coupled Beam, and Diekmann’s method) and compared the estimations of maximum trans-
fer forces of five cases of shear wall with openings. The results indicated that depending which “rational” analysis
method is used the results can vary significantly. This reinforces the need to study the FTAO problem carefully to
enhance our understanding.

In this study, a finite element model “WALL2D” has been used to estimate the FTAO in twelve different types of shear
walls with different sizes of opening, widths of full-height wall piers and construction techniques, as shown in Figure
1. Monotonic loading was applied on the top of each wall and internal forces in the FTAO metal straps, hold-downs,
and anchor bolts were obtained. The modeling predictions were compared with the shear wall test results provided
by the APA laboratory for the model verification.

2 .2 WA LL 2D – S H E A R WA LL MODE L

The WALL2D model was developed at the University of British Columbia (UBC) to study the behavior of panel-
sheathed wood shear walls under monotonic loads and cyclic loads. It was compiled in Intel Visual Fortran Compiler
V10.1 (Intel, 2005). This original version of the WALL2D model consists of linear elastic beam elements for the fram-
ing members, orthotropic plate elements for the sheathing panels, linear springs for framing connections, and ori-
ented nonlinear springs for panel-frame nailed connections. A special feature of this wall model is the implementation
of a mechanics-based nail connection model, called HYST, to account for the nonlinear springs connecting the fram-
ing members to the sheathing panels. The current version of the HYST model can fully address strength and stiffness
degradation as well as the pinching effect in a typical hysteresis of a panel-frame nail connection. In this project, to
study the FTAO in the shear walls, two types of spring elements have been added. One is the tension-only springs for
hold-downs, anchor bolts, and metal straps around the wall openings; the other one is the compression-only springs
to account for contacts between wood members and contacts between sill plates and the foundation.

The detailed introduction of the WALL2D model as well as the HYST model can be found in a research paper submit-
ted to Journal of Structural Engineering for publication (Li et al. 2011).

FIGURE 1

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

Wall 1
12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"
Objective:
Est. baseline case for
3.5:1 segmented wall .
2'-3"
3'-0"
8'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

3'-10"

2'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 110

FIGURE 1 (Continued)

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

Wall 2
12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"

Objective:
No FTAO, compare to wall 1.
Co = 0.93. Examine effect of
2 -3"

3'-0"
sheathing above and below
opening w/ no FTAO. Hold

8'-0"
down removed.
2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2'-0"

3'-10"

3'-0"
5/8" Dia. A.B.
3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Wall 3
12'-0"
x flatwise Nail sheathing to blocking
2'-3" 2'-3"
blocking same as edge nail spacing
Objective:
No FTAO, compare to walls
1 and 2. Examine effect of
compression blocking.
3'-0"

2'-3"
8'-0"
8'-0"

2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2-0"
3'-10"

3'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts A total of (2) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
(1) 7/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
for this test.

Plan view detail (2) HTT & HTT22 uses 32-16d

calibrated bolt Sinkers and total
2x flatwise blocking capacity is 5250 lbf
Wall 4 5/8" Strainsert (ASD).
12'-0" bolt to measure Expected FTAO = 1200 –
2'-3" 2'-3" HTT22 4500 lbf (ASD) x 25 =
tension force
3000 – 11250 lbf (Peak)
Objective:
FTAO, compare to wall 1
Examine effect of straps.
2 -3"
3'-0"
8'-0"

2'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs 2'-0" "0
3'-10"

1
-'
3

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0"
A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainser
(2) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
(1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 111

FIGURE 1 (Continued)

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

Wall 5 2x flatwise blocking

12'-0"
2'-3" 2'-3"
HTT22
Objective:
FTAO, compare to wall 4.
Examine effect of straps with
larger opening. 2'-3"

5'-0"
8'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

1'-10"
2'-0"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0" A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length
Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
bolts (HD) will be used to
(2) 5/8" dia.
instrument forces for this test.
(1) 7/8" dia.

Wall 6 2x flatwise blocking 5/8" Strainsert

12'-0" bolt to measure
2'-3" 2'-3" HTT22 tension force
Objective:
Compare to wall 4. Examine
effect of sheathing around
2'-3"
3'-0"

opening.
8'-0"

2-0" "0
3'-10"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs 1

-'
3

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.
1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-0"
A total of (6) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
(2) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
(1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.

Wall 7
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Est. baseline case for 2:1
segmented wall.
3'-0"

4'-0" 4'-0"
8'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

3'-10"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (3) 5/8" dia. (A.B.) and

1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD)
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed
(3) 5/8" dia. will be used to instrument forces
along length (2) 7/8" dia. for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 112

FIGURE 1 (Continued)

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

Wall 8
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Compare FTAO to wall 7.

3'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

8'-0"
3'-10"
5/8" Dia. A.B.
3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (7) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and

1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed (3) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
along length (1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.

Wall 9
12'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Objective:
Compare FTAO to walls 7 and
8. Collect FTAO data for wall
with larger opening. 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"
5'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

1'-10"

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

A total of (7) 5/8" dia. (A.B., and

Strainsert bolts straps) and (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert
1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" (3) 5/8" dia. bolts (HD) will be used to
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then somewhat evenly distributed (1) 7/8" dia. instrument forces for this test.
along length

Wall 10
12'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
Objective:
FTOA for 3. 5:1 Aspect ratio
pier wall. No sheathing
below opening. Two hold
downs on pier (fixed case).
8'-0"
7'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P. W.

Strainsert bolts A total of (4) 5/8" dia. (A.B.,and straps) and

8"
8" (2) 5/8" dia. (2) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolts (HD) will be
AB’s are evenly distributed along length (8" from end, typ.) (2) 7/8" dia. used to instrument forces for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 113

FIGURE 1 (Continued)

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

Wall 11
12'-0"

2'-0" 2'-0"
Objective:
FTOA for 3.5:1 Aspect ratio
pier wall. No sheathing
below opening. One hold
down on pier (pinned case).

8'-0"
7'-0"
HDQ 8 Hold Downs

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

Strainsert bolts A total of (4) 5/8" dia. (A.B.,and straps) and

(2) 5/8" dia. (1) 7/8" dia. Strainsert bolt (HD) will be
(1) 7/8" dia. used to instrument forces for this test.

Wall 12 12'-0"

4'-0" 2'-0"
Objective: 1'-6" 2'-0" 2'-6"
FTOA for asymmetric
multiple pier wall.
4'-0"
8'-0"

HDQ 8 Hold Downs

2'-4"

5/8" Dia. A.B.

3"x3"x0.229" P.W.

1'-0" 3'-4" 3'-2" 1'-0"

Strainsert bolts A total of (12) 5/8" dia. and (2) 7/8" dia.
AB’s are placed 1-ft in from ends then evenly distributed along length (4) 5/8" dia. Strainsert bolts could be used to instrument
(2) 7/8" dia. forces for this test.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 114

2.3 MODE L IN PUT FIGURE 2

SCHEMATICS OF NAIL TEST CONFIGURATION

To calibrate the HYST nail model parameters (Foschi et al.,
2010; Li et al., 2011) implemented in WALL2D model, nail con-
nection tests have been conducted at Timber Engineering and
Applied Mechanics Laboratory at UBC. In each nail connection,
a 10d common nail fastener was used to connect a piece of 2x4
Douglas-fir lumber and a piece of 1/2-in.-thick OSB sheathing
panel. A total of 15 specimens were tested under monotonic
loading and cyclic loading. The CUREE near-fault protocol and
the CUREE basic/standard protocol were used for the cyclic tests.
Figure 2 shows the test setup of the nail connections.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 115

Figure 3 shows the test results in terms of load-slip curves under monotonic loading and cyclic loading. The major
failure modes observed in these nail connections were the nail pull-through failures, as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 3

LOAD-SLIP CURVES OF NAIL CONNECTIONS TESTED UNDER MONOTONIC LOADS AND CYCLIC LOADS
(1 mm = 0.03937 in.; 1 N = 0.2248 lbf)

3000
Monotonic tests

2500
M1
M2
2000
M3
Load (N)

1500 M4
M5
1000 AVG

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Slip (mm)

Reversed cyclic tests (CUREE near-fault)

3000

2000 N1
N2
1000
Load (N)

N3
0 N4
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 N5
-1000
Avg

-2000

-3000
Slip (mm)

Reversed cyclic tests (CUREE standard)

3000

2000 SD1
SD2
1000 SD3
SD4
Load (N)

0 SD5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Avg
-1000

-2000

-3000
Slip (mm)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 116

FIGURE 4

MAJOR FAILURE MODES OF THE NAIL CONNECTIONS

The average backbone curve of the load-slip curves was used to calibrate the HYST nail model parameters (Foschi et
al., 2010; Li et al., 2011). Figure 5 shows the comparison between the calibrated HYST model predictions and the test
results. The calibrated HYST models were then implemented in the WALL2D model to represent the load-slip hyster-
esis of the nailed panel-frame connections.

FIGURE 5

AVERAGE TEST LOOPS vs MODEL LOOPS OF THE NAILED CONNECTIONS (CUREE BASIC/STANDARD PROTOCOL)
(1 mm = 0.03937 in.; 1 N = 0.2248 lbf)
p y p
DFir-OSB-10Dnail-test
2.5
2
1.5
1

0.5
Load (kN)

0
-30 -20 -10 -0.5 0 10 20 30

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Slip (mm)

DFir-OSB-10Dnail-model
2.5

1.5

0.5
Load (kN)

0
-30 -20 -10 -0.5 0 10 20 30

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
Slip (mm)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 117

In this study, the modulus of elasticity for Douglas-fir lumber was assumed to be 1.45 x 106 psi (10 GPa) (CSA, 2005).
For the OSB sheathing panels, Young’s moduli Ex and Ey were assumed as 0.51 x 106 psi (3.5 GPa) and 0.29 x 106 psi
(2.0 GPa) along the major axis and the perpendicular axis, respectively; the shear-through-thickness rigidity Gxy was
taken as 73 x 103 psi (0.5 GPa). Poisson ratios Yxy and Yyx were 0.13 and 0.23 (Thomas, 2003).

HDQ8 hold-downs with allowable tension loads of 7,630 lbf (33.9 kN) were used in these walls to resist shear wall
uplifting. HTT22 tension ties with allowable tension loads of 4,165 lbf (18.5 kN) were used for to transfer the forces
around shear wall openings. At the allowable loads, the deflections of HDQ8 and HTT22 are estimated at 0.094 in.
(2.4 mm) and 0.152 in. (3.9 mm), respectively. In the wall model, the stiffness of the tension-only springs for the
HDQ8 hold-downs and HTT22 ties were assumed to be 81,170 lbf/in. (14.2 kN/mm) and 27,401 lbf/in. (4.8 kN/mm),
respectively. The technical information of HDQ8 and HTT22 was obtained from the website of the manufacturer
(Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., 2010).

2.4 MODE LING R E S ULTS

Figure 6 to Figure 41 show the comparisons between the modeling results and the test results in terms of the load-
drift curves and the relationship between applied wall loads and the internal forces of hold-downs, anchor bolts and
the metal straps for FTAO. In the computer modeling, these walls were loaded up to approximately 4 in. (100 mm)
monotonically in wall drift in a displacement control mode.

FIGURE 6

WALL #1 – WALL2D MODEL

HD1

AB2 HD2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 118

FIGURE 7

WALL #1 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 01a, 01b vs Model

10000
wall 01a
8000
wall 01b
6000
model
Load (lbf) 4000
2000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-2000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 8

WALL #1 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

g p
Wall 01a
14000 HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
12000 HD2-test HD2-model
AB2-test AB2-model
10000
Internal force (lbf)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 01b
14000 HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
12000 HD2-test HD2-model
AB2-test AB2-model
10000
Internal force (lbf)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 119

FIGURE 9

WALL #2 – WALL2D MODEL

HD1

AB2 AB1

FIGURE 10

WALL 2 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

g
Wall 02a, 02b vs Model
20000
wall 02a
wall 02b 15000
model
10000
Load (lbf)

5000

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5000

-10000

-15000
Drift (in)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 120

FIGURE 11

WALL #2 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 02a
8000
HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
6000 AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)

4000

2000

0
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 02b
8000 HD1-test
HD1-model
AB1-test
6000 AB1-model
Internal force (lbf)

4000

2000

0
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

FIGURE 12

WALL #3 – WALL2D MODEL

HD1

AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 121

FIGURE 13

WALL #3 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 03a, 03b vs Model

20000
wall 03a
wall 03b 15000
model
Load (lbf) 10000

5000

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5000

-10000

-15000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 14

WALL #3 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 03a
10000
HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
8000
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000

4000

2000

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 03b
10000
HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
8000
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000

4000

2000

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 122

FIGURE 15

WALL #4 – WALL2D MODEL

Top
Top East
East Top
Top West
West

Bottom East
East Bottom
BottomWest
W t

HD1

AB2 AB1

FIGURE 16

WALL #4 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 04b, 04d vs Model

20000
wall 04b
wall 04d 15000

model 10000
5000
Load (lbf)

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-5000 0 1 2 3 4 5

-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Drift (in)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 123

FIGURE 17

WALL #4 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 04b
14000

12000 HD1-test HD1-model

AB1-test AB1-model
Internal force (lbf) 10000 AB2-test AB2-model

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 04b-FTAO Top East-test

10000 Top East-model
Top West-test
8000 Top West-model
Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000 Bot West-test

Bot West-model
4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 124

FIGURE 17 (Continued)

WALL #4 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 04d
14000

12000 HD1-test HD1-model

AB1-test AB1-model
10000 AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 04d-FTAO Top East-test

10000 Top East-model
Top West-test
Top West-model
8000
Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000 Bot West-test

Bot West-model
4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 125

FIGURE 18

WALL #5 – WALL2D MODEL

Top East
Top East Top West
Top West

Bottom East Bottom

Bottom East BottomWest
W t
HD1

AB2 AB1

FIGURE 19

WALL #5 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

g
Wall 05b, 05d vs Model
20000
wall 05b
wall 05d 15000
model 10000
Load (lbf)

5000

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000
Drift (in)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 126

FIGURE 20

WALL #5 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 05b
20000
HD1-test HD1-model
15000 AB1-test AB1-model
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)
10000

5000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-5000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 05b-FTAO Top East-test

10000 Top East-model
Top West-test
Top West-model
8000
Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000 Bot West-test

Bot West-model
4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Wall 05d
18000
16000 HD1-test HD1-model
14000 AB1-test AB1-model
AB2-test AB2-model
12000
Internal force (lbf)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000
-2000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 127

FIGURE 20 (Continued)

WALL #5 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 05d-FTAO Top East-test

10000 Top East-model
Top West-test
8000 Top West-model
Bot East-test
Internal force (lbf) Bot East-model
6000 Bot West-test
Bot West-model
4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 21

WALL #6 – WALL2D MODEL

Top East
Top East Top West
Top West

BottomEast
Bottom BottomWest
East Bottom
W t

HD1

AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 128

FIGURE 22

WALL #6 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 06a, 06b vs Model

25000
wall 06a
20000
wall 06b 15000
model 10000
Load (lbf)
5000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-5000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 23

WALL #6 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 06a
10000
HD1-test HD1-model
8000 AB1-test AB1-model
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000

4000

2000

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 06a-FTAO Top East-test

2500 Top East-model
Top West-test
2000
Top West-model
1500 Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

1000 Bot West-test

Bot West-model
500

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-500

-1000

-1500
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 129

FIGURE 23 (Continued)

WALL #6 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 06b
8000
7000 HD1-test HD1-model
6000 AB1-test AB1-model
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf) 5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-15000 -10000 -5000 -1000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 06b-FTAO Top East-test

3000 Top East-model
Top West-test
2500
Top West-model
2000 Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

1500 Bot West-test

Bot West-model
1000
500
0
-15000 -10000 -5000 -500 0 5000 10000 15000

-1000
-1500
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 24

WALL #7 – WALL2D MODEL

HD1

HD2 AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 130

FIGURE 25

WALL #7 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

g
Wall 07a, 07b vs Model
20000
wall 07a
15000
wall 07b
model 10000
Load (lbf)
5000

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 26

WALL #7 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 07a
HD1-test
12000
HD1-model
10000 HD2-test
HD2-model
8000
Internal force (lbf)

AB1-test
6000 AB1-model
AB2-test
4000
AB2-model
2000

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 07b
HD1-test
12000
HD1-model
10000 HD2-test
HD2-model
8000
Internal force (lbf)

AB1-test
6000 AB1-model
AB2-test
4000
AB2-model
2000

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 131

FIGURE 27

WALL #8 – WALL2D MODEL

TopEast
Top East Top West
West

Bottom
BottomEast
East Bottom West
W t

HD1

AB2 AB1

FIGURE 28

WALL #8 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 08a, 08b vs Model

30000
wall 08a
wall 08b 20000
model
10000
Load (lbf)

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-10000

-20000

-30000
Drift (in)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 132

FIGURE 29

WALL #8 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 08a
12000 HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
10000
AB2-test AB2-model
8000
Internal force (lbf)
6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000

Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 08a-FTAO Top East-test

4000 Top East-model
Top West-test
3500
Top West-model
3000 Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

2500 Bot West-test

2000 Bot West-model

1500
1000
500
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 -500 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 133

FIGURE 29 (Continued)

WALL #8 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 08b
14000 HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
12000
AB2-test AB2-model
10000
Internal force (lbf)
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 08b-FTAO Top East-test

6000 Top East-model
Top West-test
5000 Top West-model
Bot East-test
4000 Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

Bot West-test
3000
Bot West-model
2000

1000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-1000

-2000
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 30

WALL #9 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

TopEast
Top East Top
Top West
West

Bottom East
East BottomWest
Bottom
W t

HD1

AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 134

FIGURE 31

WALL #9 – LOAD-DRIFT TEST RESULTS vs MODEL

Wall 09a, 09b vs Model

25000
wall 09a
20000
wall 09b
15000
model
Load (lbf) 10000
5000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-5000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 32

WALL #9 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 09a
16000 HD1-test HD1-model

14000 AB1-test AB1-model

AB2-test AB2-model
12000
10000
Internal force (lbf)

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000-2000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

-4000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 09a-FTAO Top East-test

8000 Top East-model
Top West-test
Top West-model
6000 Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

Bot West-test
4000 Bot West-model

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 135

FIGURE 32 (Continued)

WALL #9 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 09b
16000 HD1-test HD1-model

14000 AB1-test AB1-model

12000 AB2-test AB2-model

Internal force (lbf) 10000

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000-2000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

-4000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 09b-FTAO Top East-test

8000 Top East-model
Top West-test
Top West-model
6000 Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

Bot West-test
4000 Bot West-model

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 33

WALL #10 – WALL2D MODEL

Top East Top West

HD1

HD2
AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 136

FIGURE 34

WALL #10 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 10a, 10b vs Model

10000
wall 10a
8000
wall 10b
6000
model
Load (lbf) 4000
2000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-2000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 35

WALL #10 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 10a
10000 HD1-test HD1-model

AB1-test AB1-model
8000
AB2-test AB2-model
Internal force (lbf)

6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 10a-FTAO Top East-test

3500
Top East-model
3000
Top West-test
2500 Top West-model
2000
Internal force (lbf)

1500
1000
500
0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 -500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

-1000
-1500
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 137

FIGURE 35 (Continued)

WALL #10 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 10b
10000 HD1-test HD1-model
AB1-test AB1-model
8000 AB2-test AB2-model

Internal force (lbf)

6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 10b-FTAO Top East-test

5000 Top East-model
Top West-test
4000
Top West-model
3000
Internal force (lbf)

2000

1000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-1000

-2000

-3000
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 36

WALL #11 – WALL2D MODEL

Top East Top West

HD1

AB2 AB1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 138

FIGURE 37

WALL #11 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 11a, 11b vs Model

10000
wall 11a
8000
wall 11b 6000
model 4000
Load (lbf)
2000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-2000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 38

WALL #11 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 11a
16000 HD1-test HD1-model

14000 AB1-test AB1-model

12000 AB2-test AB2-model

Internal force (lbf)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 11a-FTAO Top East-test

6000
Top East-model
5000 Top West-test
Top West-model
4000
Internal force (lbf)

3000

2000

1000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-1000

-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 139

FIGURE 38 (Continued)

WALL #11 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 11b
12000 HD-test HD1-model

10000 AB1-test AB1-model

8000 AB2-test AB2-model

Internal force (lbf)
6000

4000

2000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-2000

Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 11b-FTAO Top East-test

6000
Top East-model
5000 Top West-test
Top West-model
4000
Internal force (lbf)

3000

2000

1000

0
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
-1000

-2000

-3000
Wall load (lbf)

FIGURE 39

WALL #12 – WALL2D MODEL

Top East
East Top West
Top West

Bottom East
East Bottom West
Bottom
W t

HD1

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 140

FIGURE 40

WALL #12 – MODEL PREDICTED LOAD-DRIFT CURVES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 12a, 12b vs Model

25000
wall 12a
20000
wall 12b
15000
model
Load (lbf) 10000
5000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-5000 0 1 2 3 4 5
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Drift (in)

FIGURE 41

WALL #12 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 12a
14000

12000 HD1-test HD1-model

10000
Internal force (lbf)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-2000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 12a-FTAO Top East-test

3500 Top East-model
3000 Top West-test
Top West-model
2500
Bot East-test
2000
Internal force (lbf)

Bot West-test
1500 Bot East-model

1000 Bot West-model

500
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 -500 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

-1000
-1500
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 141

FIGURE 41 (Continued)

WALL #12 – MODEL PREDICTED INTERNAL FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Wall 12b
14000 HD-test HD1-model

12000 AB1-test AB1-model

10000 AB2-test AB2-model

Internal force (lbf)
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000-2000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

-4000
Wall Load (lbf)

Wall 12b-FTAO Top East-test

Top East-model
4000
Top West-test
Top West-model
3000
Bot East-test
Bot East-model
Internal force (lbf)

2000
Bot West-test
Bot West-model
1000

0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-1000

-2000
Wall load (lbf)

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 142

2.5 S UM M A RY A N D DI SC US S ION S

The wood shear wall model WALL2D was developed to study the behavior of typical wood frame wall systems.
Currently, the wall model lacks the ability to consider the degradation in shear walls caused by other failure modes
except for the panel-frame nail connections. Such failure modes, including tearing and buckling of the sheathing
panels as well as failure of framing members and framing connections, are uncommon in typical non-perforated shear
walls under reverse cyclic loading. As observed in the perforated shear wall tests, these failures can indeed occur
during loading. With continued application of loads, the wall further weakens and the load path within the wall can
alter resulting in the changes of the measured hold down forces and FTAO. To take such behavior into consideration
requires additional failure criteria to be developed and new computational schemes to update the system stiffness
matrix during the load steps. As the current computer model could not recognize part of the wall has failed, it over
predicted the ultimate capacity of these perforated wall systems. Although the WALL2D program is capable of esti-
mating the behavior of shear walls under reversed cyclic loading, for the perforated shear wall cases we only ran the
program under monotonic loading schemes. The modeling results showed that when the drifts of the walls went up
to 4", the load-drift curves indicated high nonlinearity. In the shear wall tests, at this amount of wall deformation, sig-
nificant damage in the nail connections, sheathing panels and some framing connections have occurred.

For design purpose, we are interested in the wall response at the wall design capacity. In the U.S., a wall capacity of
870 lbf/ft (12.7 N/mm) is a typical tabulated value based on allowable stress design (Skaggs et al., 2010). Based on this
value, the design capacity of the walls considered in this study was established by multiplying this unit shear capac-
ity with the effective length of the wall (i.e., considering the walls with full-height segments). For wall 2 and wall 3,
which are perforated walls with only two hold-downs installed on the outermost ends of the walls, their shear wall
design capacity is further modified by an additional factor C0 = 0.93. For the walls with FTAO metal straps, no C0
adjustment is required. In this study, the model predicted hold-down forces and FTAO were compared against the
test results at the wall design capacity level.

Table 1 shows the comparisons between the predicted hold-down forces and the test results. The prediction error
range is from –20.6% to +48.7%. Out of the 12 cases, walls 1, 2, and 9 have the prediction errors of -20.6%, +22.5%
and +19.0%, respectively. The case of wall 4 has a wide range of measured hold-down forces, which resulted in a pre-
diction error of 48.7%. The rest of the cases had absolute prediction errors range 0.5% to 10.3%.

Table 2 shows the comparisons between the predicted metal strap forces around openings and the test results. The
prediction error range is from -38.2% to +44.2%. The case of wall 4 has a wide range of measured FTAO values,
which resulted in a prediction error of 44.2%. Given the relatively high variability in the test data and the simplifica-
tions/assumptions in the computer model, the predicted errors in most cases seem to be reasonable. In design prac-
tice, it is of interest to evaluate the maximum FTAO value for the different walls at the design load capacity level to
size the required hardware connection. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the test results with the computer model
and simplified analog predictions.

Table 3 shows the maximum FTAO values from the test data in comparison with the values from the computer model
and four “rational” design methods (Drag Strut, Cantilevered Beam, Coupled Beam, and Diekmann’s method). The
prediction error range of the computer model is -15.4% to +4.3%. The Drag Strut method can both under predict and
over predict the maximum FTAO. The Cantilevered Beam, Coupled Beam, and Diekmann’s methods on the other
hand seem to be very conservative. Compared to test data and using the Diekmann’s method as a base, a reduction
correction factor of the order of 1.2 to 1.3 might be considered to account for the contribution of the framing and nail
elements within the wall system. Diekmann’s method however is not suitable to predict the FTAO in cases when the
wall segment below the opening is not available as in the case of garage door opening.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 143

It should be noted that the FTAO in Wall 6 with the wrapped around sheathing panel cannot be reasonable predicted
by the simplified analog even with the correction factor. The limitation of WALL2D model is that it considers only
the nonlinearity from panel-frame nail connections and does not consider the degradation caused by the nonlinear-
ity or failure in sheathing panels, framing members and framing connections. Therefore, WALL2D over predicted the
load-carrying capacity for some walls where significant nonlinear deformation occurred in the components. The peak
load values predicted by WALL2D loaded up to the wall drift of 4" and the associated wall deformations are given in
Table 4. Furthermore, in the cases of perforated shear walls, the modulus of elasticity of framing members also plays
an important role in the distribution of internal forces in the system.

Although WALL2D model considers the modulus of elasticity values of framing members, it would be more precise if
the modulus of elasticity of the framing members used in the wall tests can be non-destructively established apriori
for the model verification purpose. The complicated load application system and the force measurement devices also
created significant challenges in the modeling process. Overall, the WALL2D predictions of FTAO agreed reasonably
well with the test results at the shear wall design level. In future research, parametric studies can be further con-
ducted by this model to study the FTAO of various perforated walls with different opening sizes and different metal
hardware at the wall design level, providing more information for rational designs of perforated shear walls. Also,
WALL2D can be further extended to address the nonlinearities and failure mechanisms currently ignored in the anal-
ysis so that the FTAO behavior of such wall systems can be fully captured under high structural demands (high loads
and reversed cycles). With a fine tuned analysis model, studies can also be conducted to consider the FTAO behavior
of perforated wall systems under dynamic conditions.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 144

TABLE 1

MODEL PREDICTED HOLD-DOWN FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Effective Wall Hold-Down Forces at Wall Design Capacity
ASD Length Wall Capacity
(plf) (ft) (lbf) Outboard (lbf) Inboard (lbf)
Wall 1a-test 870 4.5 3915 7881 5313
Wall 1b-test 870 4.5 3915 6637 6216
Wall 1 test avg 870 4.5 3915 7259 5765
Wall 1-model 870 4.5 3915 5765 5673
Error –20.6% +1.6%
Wall 2a-test 870 4.5 3631 2216 n/a
Wall 2b-test 870 4.5 3631 3248 n/a
Wall 2 test avg 870 4.5 3631 2732
Wall 2-model 870 4.5 3631 3347
Error +22.5%
Wall 3a-test 870 4.5 3631 2602 n/a
Wall 3b-test 870 4.5 3631 4090 n/a
Wall 3 test avg 870 4.5 3631 3346
Wall 3-model 870 4.5 3631 3202
Error –4.3%
Wall 4a-test 870 4.5 3915 1140 n/a
Wall 4b-test 870 4.5 3915 3674 n/a
Wall 4c-test 870 4.5 3915 1336 n/a
Wall 4d-test 870 4.5 3915 1598 n/a
Wall 4 test avg 870 4.5 3915 1937
Wall 4 model 870 4.5 3915 2882
Error 48.7%
Wall 5b-test 870 4.5 3915 5216 n/a
Wall 5c-test 870 4.5 3915 4795 n/a
Wall 5d-test 870 4.5 3915 4413 n/a
Wall 5 test avg 870 4.5 3915 4808
Wall 5 model 870 4.5 3915 4418
Error –8.1%
Wall 6a-test 870 4.5 3915 1573 n/a
Wall 6b-test 870 4.5 3915 1285 n/a
Wall 6 test avg 870 4.5 3915 1429
Wall 6 model 870 4.5 3915 1529
Error +7.0%
Wall 7a-test 870 8 6960 6024 3677
Wall 7b-test 870 8 6960 6577 3744
Wall 7 test avg 870 8 6960 6301 3761
Wall 7 model 870 8 6960 6093 5108
Error –10.3% +35.8%

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 145

TABLE 1 (Continued)

MODEL PREDICTED HOLD-DOWN FORCES vs TEST RESULTS

Effective Wall Hold-Down Forces at Wall Design Capacity
ASD Length Wall Capacity
(plf) (ft) (lbf) Outboard (lbf) Inboard (lbf)
Wall 8a-test 870 8 6960 4805 n/a
Wall 8b-test 870 8 6960 5548 n/a
Wall 8 test avg 870 8 6960 5176
Wall 8 model 870 8 6960 5149
Error 0.5%
Wall 9a-test 870 8 6960 4679 n/a
Wall 9b-test 870 8 6960 5212 n/a
Wall 9 test avg 870 8 6960 4945
Wall 9-model 870 8 6960 5887
Error +19.0%
Wall 10a-test 870 4 3480 5311 5690
Wall 10b-test 870 4 3480 4252 3731
Wall 10 test avg 870 4 3480 4781 4710
Wall 10 model 870 4 3480 4870 4138
Error +1.9% –12.1%
Wall 11a-test 870 4 3480 6449 n/a
Wall 11b-test 870 4 3480 5843 n/a
Wall 11 test avg 870 4 3480 6146
Wall 11 model 870 4 3480 6441
Error +4.8%
Wall 12a-test 870 6 5220 2856 n/a
Wall 12b-test 870 6 5220 3458 n/a
Wall 12 test avg 870 6 5220 3157
Wall 12 model 870 6 5220 3238
Error +2.6%

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 146

TABLE 2

MODEL PREDICTED FTAO vs TEST RESULTS

Effective Wall FTAO at wall design capacity
ASD Length Wall Capacity
Wall (plf) (ft) (lbf) Top (lbf) Bottom (lbf)
Wall 4a-test 870 4.5 3915 687 1485
Wall 4b-test 870 4.5 3915 560 1477
Wall 4c-test 870 4.5 3915 668 1316
Wall 4d-test 870 4.5 3915 1006 1665
Wall 4 test avg 870 4.5 3915 730 1486
Wall 4 model 870 4.5 3915 1053 1401
Error 44.2% –5.7%
Wall 5b-test 870 4.5 3915 1883 1809
Wall 5c-test 870 4.5 3915 1611 1744
Wall 5d-test 870 4.5 3915 1633 2307
Wall 5 test avg 870 4.5 3915 1709 1953
Wall 5 model 870 4.5 3915 2038 1946
Error 19.2% –0.4%
Wall 6a-test 870 4.5 3915 421 477
Wall 6b-test 870 4.5 3915 609 614
Wall 6 test avg 870 4.5 3915 515 546
Wall 6 model 870 4.5 3915 462 337
Error –10.3% –38.2%
Wall 8a-test 870 8 6960 985 1347
Wall 8b-test 870 8 6960 1493 1079
Wall 8 test avg 870 8 6960 1239 1213
Wall 8 model 870 8 6960 1292 1047
Error 4.3% –13.7%
Wall 9a-test 870 8 6960 1675 1653
Wall 9b-test 870 8 6960 1671 1594
Wall 9 test avg 870 8 6960 1673 1623
Wall 9-model 870 8 6960 1627 1228
Error –2.7% –24.3%
Wall 10a-test 870 4 3480 1580 n/a
Wall 10b-test 870 4 3480 2002 n/a
Wall 10 test avg 870 4 3480 1791 n/a
Wall 10 model 870 4 3480 1787 n/a
Error –0.2% n/a
Wall 11a-test 870 4 3480 2466 n/a
Wall 11b-test 870 4 3480 3062 n/a
Wall 11 test avg 870 4 3480 2764 n/a
Wall 11 model 870 4 3480 2700 n/a
Error –2.3% n/a

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 147

TABLE 2 (Continued)

MODEL PREDICTED FTAO vs TEST RESULTS

Effective Wall FTAO at wall design capacity
ASD Length Wall Capacity
Wall (plf) (ft) (lbf) Top (lbf) Bottom (lbf)
Wall 12a-test 870 6 5220 807 1163
Wall 12b-test 870 6 5220 1083 1002
Wall 12 test avg 870 6 5220 945 1082
Wall 12 model 870 6 5220 824 966
Error –12.8% –10.7%

TABLE 3

COMPUTER MODEL AND SIMPLIFIED ANALOG PREDICTED MAXIMUM FTAO vs TEST RESULTS
Max FTAO at Wall Capacity (lbf)
Test Computer Drag Couple
Wall Results Model Strut Cantilever Beam Diekmann
1486 1401 1223 4474 2796 1958
4
–5.7% –17.7% 201.1% 88.2% 31.7%
1953 2038 1223 6152 3845 3263
5
4.4% –37.4% 215.0% 96.9% 67.1%
546 462 1223 4474 2796 3263
6
–15.4% 124.1% 719.5% 412.2% 497.5%
1239 1292 1160 7954 2651 1856
8
4.3% –6.4% 542.0% 114.0% 49.8%
1673 1627 1160 10937 3646 3093
9
–2.7% –30.7% 553.7% 117.9% 84.9%
1791 1787 1160 – – 9280
10
–0.2% –35.2% – – 418.1%
2764 2700 1160 – – 9280
11
–2.3% –58.0% – – 235.7%
1082 966 – – – –
12
–10.7% – – – –

TABLE 4

COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTED PEAK LOADS AND THE CORRESPONDING WALL DRIFTS
Wall Computer Model Peak load (lbf) Wall drift at peak load (in.)
1 8029 4.0
2 14991 4.0
3 17049 4.0
4 18081 2.85
5 14017 4.0
6 21973 2.98
7 17761 3.11
8 25758 3.43
9 21823 3.50
10 9881 4.0
11 8018 4.0
12 19468 4.0

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings – Experimental and Analytical Findings 148

2 .6 R E F E R E NC E S

Canadian Standard Association (CSA). 2001. Engineering Design in Wood. CSA, Toronto, On, Canada.

Diekmann, E.F. 1997. “Diaphragms and Shearwalls” in: Wood Engineering and Construction Handbook. 3rd ed.
K. F. Faherty and T. G. Williamson, eds. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 8.47–8.79.

Diekmann, E. F. 2005. “Discussion and Closure of Design of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Openings:
A Comparison of Methods.” Wood Design Focus. (15)2:14–15.

Foschi, O. R. Li, M. and Lam, F. 2010. “Modeling Hysteretic Behavior of Panel-Frame Nail Connections in Wood
Construction.” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering (under review).

Intel Corporation. 2005. Intel® Fortran Compiler Integration for Microsoft Visual Studio. Version 10.1.4160.2005.

Kolba, A. 2000. The Behavior of Wood Shear Walls Designed Using Diekmann’s Method and Subjected to Static In-Plane
Loading. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Marquette University.

Lam, F. 2010. Review of Common Methods to Estimate Force Transfer around Openings for Wood Frame Shearwalls. Report
prepared for APA – The Engineered Wood Association. University of B.C. Canada

Li, M., Foschi, R. O. and Lam, F. 2011. “Modeling Hysteretic Behavior of Wood Shear Walls with a
Protocol-Independent Nail Connection Algorithm.” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering (under review).

Martin, Z. 2005. “Design of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Openings: A Comparison of Methods.” Wood
Design Focus. (15)1:18–20.

Robertson, A. A. 2004. Comparison of Methodologies for Designing of Force Transfer around Openings in Plywood Shear
Walls. Presentation in the 2004 Forest Products Society Meeting on Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster
Issues. Session III: Disaster Mitigation. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

Simpson Strong-Ties Co., Inc. 2010. http://www.strongtie.com/products/alpha_list.html.

Skaggs, T., Yeh, B. J., Lam, F., Rammer, D. and Wacker, J. 2010. Full-Scale Shear Wall Tests for Force Transfer around
Openings. CIB-W18/43–15-3, Nelson, New Zealand.

Thomas, W. H. 2003. “Poisson’s Ratios of an Oriented Strand Board.” Wood Science and Technology, 37:259–268.

Form No. M410 ■ © 2011 APA – The Engineered Wood Association ■ www.apawood.org
ABOUT APA

APA – The Engineered Wood Association is a nonprofit trade association of and for structural wood
panel, glulam timber, wood I-joist, laminated veneer lumber and other engineered wood product
manufacturers. Based in Tacoma, Washington, APA represents approximately 150 mills throughout
North America, ranging from small, independently owned and operated companies to large integrated
corporations.

Always insist on engineered wood products bearing the mark of quality – the APA or APA EWS
trademark. Your APA engineered wood purchase is not only your highest possible assurance of product
quality, but an investment in the many trade services that APA provides on your behalf. The Association’s
trademark appears only on products manufactured by member mills and is the manufacturer’s assurance
that the product conforms to the standard shown on the trademark.

For panels, that standard may be an APA performance standard, the Voluntary Product Standard
PS 1-09, Structural Plywood or Voluntary Product Standard PS 2-10, Performance Standard for Wood-
Based Structural-Use Panels. Panel quality of all APA trademarked products is subject to verification
through APA audit.

APA’s services go far beyond quality testing and inspection. Research and promotion programs play
important roles in developing and improving plywood and other panel construction systems, and in
helping users and specifiers to better understand and apply engineered wood products. For more infor-
mation on wood construction systems, contact APA – The Engineered Wood Association, 7011 S. 19th St.,
Tacoma, Washington 98466, or visit the Association’s website at www.apawood.org.

Evaluation of Force Transfer Around Openings

We have field representatives in many major U.S. cities and in Canada
who can help answer questions involving APA trademarked products.
For additional assistance in specifying engineered wood products, contact us:

A PA H E A D Q UA R TE R S
7011 So. 19th St. ■ Tacoma, Washington 98466 ■ (253) 565-6600 ■ Fax: (253) 565-7265

P RO D U C T SU P P O R T H E LP D E S K
(253) 620-7400 ■ E-mail Address: [email protected]

D I SC L A I M E R
The information contained herein is based on APA – The Engineered Wood Association’s continuing
programs of laboratory testing, product research and comprehensive field experience. Neither APA,
nor its members make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility
for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations
included in this publication. Consult your local jurisdiction or design professional to assure compliance
with code, construction and performance requirements. Because APA has no control over quality of
workmanship or the conditions under which engineered wood products are used, it cannot accept
responsibility for product performance or designs as actually constructed.

Form No. M410/Issued July 2011