8/30/2017

Resolving Wood Shear Wall Design Puzzles

with Force Transfer Around Openings

Presented by: Jared S. Hensley, P.E.

Disclaimer: This presentation was developed by a third party and is not funded by
American Wood Council or the Softwood Lumber Board.
1

Resolving Wood Shear Wall Design Puzzles with Force

Transfer Around Openings
“The American Wood Council”  This course is registered with
is a Registered Provider with  AIA CES for continuing professional 
The American Institute of 
Architects Continuing Education  education. As such, it does not 
Systems (AIA/CES), Provider  include content that may be 
#50111237. deemed or construed to be an 
approval or endorsement by the 
AIA of any material of construction 
Credit(s) earned on completion  or any method or manner of 
of this course will be reported  handling, using, distributing, or 
to AIA CES for AIA members. 
Certificates of Completion for  dealing in any material or product.
both AIA members and non‐AIA  ______________________________
members are available upon  Questions related to specific materials, 
request. methods, and services will be addressed at
the conclusion of this presentation.

1
 8/30/2017

Course Description
This presentation provides an overview of the Force Transfer Around
Openings (FTAO) shear wall design approach, recent research in this area,
and a side-by-side comparison of design results between segmented,
perforated, and FTAO design methods. This methodology is based on a
joint research project of APA – The Engineered Wood Association,
University of British Columbia (UBC), and USDA Forest Products
Laboratory that examined variations of shear walls with code-allowable
openings. The study evaluated internal forces generated during testing and
assessed the effects of opening sizes, full-height pier sizes, and different
construction techniques, including the segmented, perforated, and FTAO
methods. Asymmetric piers, multiple openings, and C-shaped sheathing
were investigated and rational design methodologies in accordance with
the International Building Code have been created.

Learning Objectives
1. Participants will investigate past and current methods for
determining force transfer around openings for wood shear walls
through discussion of the joint research project of APA – The
Engineered Wood Association, the University of British Columbia
(UBC), and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL).
2. Participants will compare the effects of different opening sizes, full-
height pier sizes, and their relationships to the three industry shear
wall approaches by illustrating use of the segmented, perforated,
and FTAO methods.
3. Participants will observe how the study examined internal forces
generated during loading by reviewing full-scale wall test data as
well as analytical modeling performed in determining statistical
accuracy.
4. Participants will conclude that research results obtained from this
study can be used to support different design methodologies in
estimating forces around openings accurately.
4

2
 8/30/2017

Audience Poll

1. What is your profession?

A. Architect
B. Engineer
C. Builder
D. Building Official
E. Other

Audience Poll

2. How would you describe your

knowledge of Force Transfer Around
Openings?
A. Expert
B. Intermediate
C. Novice
D. What am I doing here?

66

3
 8/30/2017

Agenda

1. Shear Wall Design Challenges

2. History of FTAO Research at APA
3. Advancements in FTAO
 Asymmetric Pier Widths
 Multiple Openings
 C-shaped Panels
 Deflection Calculations
 Conceptual Keys
4. Benefits of FTAO with Continuous Wood
Structural Panels 7

Shear Wall Design Challenges

4
 8/30/2017

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Segmented Perforated Force Transfer

1. Aspect Ratio of 1. Code provides 1. Code does not
2:1 specific provide guidance
2. Aspect ratio up to requirements for this method
3.5:1, if allowable 2. The capacity is 2. Different
shear is reduced determined based approaches using
by 2b/h on empirical rational analysis
equations and could be used
tables
15 SDPWS 4.3.5 9

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Segmented Wood Shear Walls
bs
 Only full height V
segments
are considered
 Hold-downs at each h
wall segment
 Max aspect ratio
 2:1 – without
adjustment
 3.5:1 – with
adjustment v v
 New to SDPWS-15
H H H H
Aspect ratio h:bs as shown in figure 10
15 SDPWS Section 4.3.5.1
10

5
 8/30/2017

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Perforated Shear Walls
bs
 Openings V
accounted for
by empirical
adjustment
factor h
 Hold-downs only at
ends
 Uplift between hold t
downs, t, at full
t
height segments is vmax
also required
vmax
 Limited to 870 plf H H
Aspect ratio h:bs as shown in figure
11
11
15 SDPWS 4.3.5.3

Shear Wall Design Challenges

FTAO Shear Walls
bs
 Openings V
accounted for by
strapping or framing h
 “based on a
rational analysis”
 Hold-downs
only at ends
 H/w ratio defined
by wall pier v
H H
Aspect ratio h:bs as shown in figure
12
12
15 SDPWS 4.3.5.2

6
 8/30/2017

Audience Poll

3. How often do you use FTAO when

designing a building utilizing wood
shear walls?
A. > 50% (Frequently)
B. 0-25% (At least once per job)
C. 0% (I only use segmented or perforated)
D. N/A (I don’t design wood buildings.)

13
13

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Shear Wall Aspect Ratio Adjustments
 Definitions of h and b are the same as in previous codes
 ALL shear walls with 2:1 < aspect ratios <= 3.5:1 shall
apply reduction factor known as the aspect ratio factor
 Aspect Ratio Factor (WSP) = 1.25-0.125h/bs
 Formerly applied only to high seismic

h:b ratio Segmented h:b ratio Perforated

Excerpt Fig 4D Excerpt Fig 4C 14
14
15 SDPWS 4.3.4

7
 8/30/2017

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Shear Distribution to Shear Walls in Line
 Individual shear walls in line shall provide the same
calculated deflection. Exception:
 Nominal shear capacities of shear walls having 2:1<aspect
ratio<=3.5:1 are multiplied by 2bs/h for design. Aspect ratio
factor (4.3.4.2) need not be applied.

h:b ratio Segmented h:b ratio Perforated

Excerpt Fig 4D Excerpt Fig 4C 15
15
15 SDPWS 4.3.3.4.1

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Perforated Shear Wall Aspect Ratios
 Full Height wall segments 2:1 < aspect ratio <= 3.5:1
 Multiply those segments by 2bs/h to calculate Li and ΣLi
 Sections 4.3.4.2 and 4.3.3.4.1 do not apply
L
L1 L2 L3 L4

16
16
15 SDPWS 4.3.4.3

8
 8/30/2017

Audience Poll

4. When designing shear walls with the

NEW aspect ratio factor of 1.25-
0.125h/bs, the deflection of each
individual shear wall must be…
A. < 1 inch
B. equal.
C. dependent on the wall material.
D. a parabola.

17
17

Shear Wall Design Challenges

Typical FTAO Application
 Residential, Multifamily
 Single Opening
 Design assumes equal pier width
 Commercial
 Strap continuous wall line above
and below openings
 Fully sheath wall
Field Survey
 18+ sites fall 2010 (LA, Orange and San Diego Counties)
 Multi-Family
 40-90% of all shear applications utilized FTAO
 Single-Family
 80% Minimum 1-application on front or back elevation
 70% Multiple applications on front, back or both
 25% Side wall application in addition to front or back application
18

9
 8/30/2017

History of FTAO Research at APA

Joint Research Project
 APA - The Engineered Wood Association (Skaggs & Yeh)
 University of British Columbia (Lam & Li),
 USDA Forest Products Laboratory (Rammer & Wacker)

Study was initiated in 2009 to:

 Examine the variations of walls with code-allowable openings
 Examines the internal forces generated during full-scale testing
 Evaluate the effects of size of openings, size of full-height piers,
and different construction techniques
 Create analytical modeling to mimic testing data

19

History of FTAO Research at APA

Study results will be used to:
 Support design methodologies in estimating the forces
around the openings
 Develop rational design methodologies for adoption in
the building codes and supporting standards
 Create new tools/methodology for designers to
facilitate use of FTAO

20

10
 8/30/2017

History of FTAO Research at APA

Prominent FTAO Techniques

 Drag Strut Analogy

 Forces are collected
V L1 Lo L2
and concentrated into
the areas above and
vp
below openings
 Strap forces are a v 1 v
function of opening
and pier widths v v h
2

vp

21

History of FTAO Research at APA

Prominent FTAO Techniques

 Cantilever Beam Analogy

L1
 Forces are treated as moment 1
couples hU
 Segmented panels are piers at F1
ho/2
sides of openings
 Strap forces are a function of V1 V2
height above and below opening
F2 ho/2
and pier widths
h1

L2 2

22

11
 8/30/2017

History of FTAO Research at APA

Prominent FTAO Techniques

 Diekmann
 Assumes wall behaves as
monolith
 Internal forces resolved via
principles of mechanics

23

Audience Poll

5. In which FTAO method are the forces

determined by calculating moment
couples?
A. Drag Strut Analogy
B. Cantilever Beam Analogy
C. Diekmann (Thompson)
D. The Unicorn Method

24
24

12
 8/30/2017

History of FTAO Research at APA

FTAO Design Example Comparison
2,000 lbf 2.3' 4' 4'

2'

4'
8'

2'

10.3' 25

History of FTAO Research at APA

FTAO Design Example Comparison
Drag Strut Analogy
 F1 = 284 lbf
 F2 = 493 lbf
Cantilever Beam Analogy
 F1 = 1,460 lbf
 F2 = 2,540 lbf
Diekmann Technique
 F1 = 567 lbf
 F2 = 986 lbf
26

13
 8/30/2017

History of FTAO Research at APA

Prominent FTAO Techniques
Drag Strut Analogy
 Martin, Z.A. 2005. Design of wood structural panel shear walls with
openings: A comparison of methods. Wood Design Focus 15(1):18-20
Cantilever Beam Analogy
 Martin, Z.A. (see above)
Diekmann Method
 Diekmann, E. K. 2005. Discussion and Closure (Martin, above), Wood
Design Focus 15(3): 14-15
 Breyer, D.E., K.J. Fridley, K.E. Cobeen and D. G. Pollock. 2014. Design
of Wood Structures ASD/LRFD, 7th ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
SEAOC/Thompson Method
 SEAOC. 2014. 2015 IBC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Volume 2:
Examples for Light-frame, Tilt-up and Masonry Buildings. Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA
27

Advancements in FTAO
APA Testing w/ CUREE Basic Loading Protocol

28

14
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
Test Plan
 12 wall configurations tested
 Walls were tested with and without FTAO strapping
 Wall nailing; 10d commons (0.148” x 3”) at 2” o.c.
 Sheathing; 15/32 Perf Cat oriented strand board
(OSB) APA STR I
 All walls were 12 feet long and 8 feet tall
 Cyclic loading protocol following ASTM E2126,
Method C, CUREE Basic Loading Protocol

29

Advancements in FTAO
3'-0"

8'-0"
3'-10"

30

15
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO

5'-0"
1'-10"

31

Advancements in FTAO
5'-0"

7'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
2'-4"

32

16
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
Information Obtained Through Testing
 Cyclic hysteretic plots and various cyclic parameters
of the individual walls
 Hold down force plots
 Anchor bolt force plots
 Hysteric plots of the applied load versus the
displacement of the walls
 Hysteric plots of the applied load versus strap forces

33

Advancements in FTAO
Measured vs Predicted Strap Forces
Measured Strap Error (2) For Predicted Strap Forces at ASD Capacity (%)
Forces (lbf) (1) Diekmann SEAOC/Thompson
Drag Strut Technique Cantilever Beam Technique Technique Technique
Wall ID Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top/Bottom Top Bottom
Wall 4a 687 1,485 178% 82% 652% 183% 132% 406% 115%
Wall 4b 560 1,477 219% 83% 800% 184% 133% 499% 115%
Wall 4c (3) 668 1,316 183% 93% 670% 207% 149% 418% 129%
Wall 4d 1,006 1,665 122% 73% 445% 164% 118% 278% 102%
Wall 5b 1,883 1,809 65% 68% 327% 256% 173% 204% 160%
Wall 5c (3) 1,611 1,744 76% 70% 382% 265% 187% 238% 166%
Wall 5d 1,633 2,307 75% 53% 377% 201% 141% 235% 125%
Wall 6a 421 477 291% 256% 1063% 571% 410% 663% 357%
Wall 6b 609 614 201% 199% 735% 444% 319% 458% 277%
Wall 8a 985 1,347 118% 86% 808% 359% 138% 269% 120%
Wall 8b (4) 1,493 1,079 78% 108% 533% 449% 124% 177% 150%
Wall 9a 1,675 1,653 69% 70% 475% 383% 185% 217% 166%
Wall 9b 1,671 1,594 69% 73% 476% 397% 185% 218% 172%
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Wall 10a 1,580 n.a. 73% n.a. 496% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Wall 10b 2,002 n.a. 58% n.a. 391% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Wall 11a 2,466 n.a. 47% n.a. 318% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Wall 11b 3,062 n.a. 38% n.a. 256% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5) (5)
Wall 12a 807 1,163 81% 94% 593% 348% 128% n.a. n.a.
Wall 12b 1,083 1,002 60% 109% 442% 403% 138% n.a. (5)
n.a. (5)
34

17
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
Testing Observations

Click to Play
Wall 13

35

Advancements in FTAO
Testing Results
 12 assemblies tested, examining the three approaches
to designing and detailing walls with openings
 Segmented
 Perforated Shear Wall
 Force Transfer Around Openings
 Walls detailed for FTAO resulted in better global
response

36

18
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
Conclusions of Tests
 Comparison of analytical methods with tested values
for walls detailed as FTAO
 The drag strut technique was consistently un-conservative
 The cantilever beam technique was consistently
ultra-conservative
 SEAOC/Thompson provides similar results as Diekmann
 SEAOC/Thompson & Diekmann techniques provided
reasonable agreement with measured strap forces
 Better guidance to engineers will be developed by
APA for FTAO
 Summary of findings for validation of techniques
 New tools for IRC wall bracing 37

Audience Poll

6. Which FTAO method tested was found

to be consistently un-conservative?
A. Drag Strut Analogy
B. Cantilever Beam Analogy
C. Diekmann (Thompson)
D. The Unicorn Method

38
38

19
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
 www.apawood.org/publications
 Report is 149 pages, 28.5 MB

Enter:
“Force Transfer”
or “M410”

39

Advancements in FTAO
 SEAOC Convention 2015 Proceedings
 Basis of APA FTAO Design Methodology

40

20
 8/30/2017

Advancements in FTAO
Asymmetric Pier Widths
 Martin, Diekmann (Wood Design Focus, 2005)

41

Advancements in FTAO

Multiple Openings
 APA FTAO Testing Wall 12
 Two openings
 Asymmetric pier widths
 Diekmann Rational
Analysis

42

21
 8/30/2017

Conceptual Keys
The method assumes the following:
 The unit shear above and below the openings is equivalent.
 The corner forces are based on the shear above and below
the openings and only the piers adjacent to that unique
opening.
 The tributary length of the opening is the basis for
calculating the shear to each pier. This tributary length is
the ratio of the length of the pier multiplied by the length of
the opening it is adjacent to, then divided by the sum of the
length of the pier and the length of the pier on the other
side of the opening.
 For example, T1 = (L1*Lo1)/(L1+L2)
43

Conceptual Keys
The method assumes the following:
 The shear of each pier is the total shear divided by the L of
the wall, multiplied by the sum of the length of the pier and
its tributary length, divided by the length of the pier:
 v1 = (V/L)(L1+T1)/L1
 The unit shear of the corner zones is equal to subtracting
the corner forces from the panel resistance, (R). R is equal
to the shear of the pier multiplied by the pier length:
 Va1 = (v1L1 – F1)/L1 L
V L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3

44

22
 8/30/2017

Conceptual Keys
The method assumes the following:
 Once the entire segment shears have been calculated,
then the design is checked by summing the shears
vertically along each line. The first and last line equal
the hold-down force, and the rest should sum to zero.

45

Audience Poll

7. Which lateral design method do you

believe is the most economical?
A. Segmented
B. Perforated
C. FTAO
D. Duct Tape

46
46

23
 8/30/2017

Shear Wall Design Examples


 Segmented Shear Wall
Approach

 Perforated Shear Wall

Approach

 Force Transfer Around

Opening Approach

47
47

Shear Wall Design Examples

Standard Example Wall with 3 openings.

26’-0”
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V
8’-0”

2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

V = 3,750 lb

48
48

24
 8/30/2017

Segmented Approach

26’-0”
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V

8’-0”
2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

Does not consider contribution of sheathing

above and below openings
49
49

Segmented Approach

3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”

V
8’-0”

2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

H v H H v H H v H H v H
V = 3,750 lbs Code Limitation
Height/width Ratio = 8:3.5
2w/h = (2)(3.5)/8 = 0.875
50
50
15 SDPWS 4.3.3.4.1

25
 8/30/2017

Segmented Approach

1. Unit Shear
V = V/∑L = 3,750/15 = 250 lbs/ft
2. Allowable Shear 3’-6” walls
v allowable = 380 (0.875)=332 lbs/ft > 250 lbs/ft
15/32” Rated Sheathing 8d @ 4”o.c. at 3.5’ walls
3. Allowable Shear 4’ walls (2:1 h:w)
v allowable = 260lb/ft > 250 lbs/ft
15/32” Rated Sheathing 8d @ 6”o.c. @ 4’ walls
4. Hold-down forces
H = vh = 250 x 8 = 2,000 lbs
8 – hold downs @ 2000+ lb capacity

Note: For simplicity Dead Load contributions and various footnote 51

51
adjustments have been omitted

Segmented Approach
Summary

3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”

V
15/32”
Rated
8’- 0”

2’-8” 2’-8”
Sheathing
6’-8”
8d @
4”o.c.

H v H H v H H v H H v H
V = 3,750 lbs 15/32” Rated
8 – hold downs @
v = 250 lbs/ft Sheathing 8d
2000+ lb capacity
H = 2,000 lbs @ 6”o.c. 52
52

26
 8/30/2017

Shear Wall Design Examples

 Segmented Shear Wall

Approach


 Perforated Shear Wall
Approach

 Force Transfer Around

Opening Approach

53
53

Perforated Approach

26’-0”
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V
8’-0”

2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

H v, t v, t H
v, t v, t
V = 3,750 lb Code Limitation
Height/width Ratio = 8:3.5
2w/h = (2)(3.5)/8 = 0.875 54
54

27
 8/30/2017

Perforated Approach

1. Unit shear in the wall

v = 3,750/15 = 250 lb/ft

2. Percent of Full-Height Sheathed

∑Li/L = 15/26 = 0.57 (57%)

3. Maximum opening height

h = 6’-8”

55
55

Perforated Approach
Shear Capacity Adjustment Factor, Co

57% 0.61

56
56
15 SDPWS Table 4.3.3.5

28
 8/30/2017

Perforated Approach

4. Co – Shear Resistance Adjustment Factor

Co = 0.612 say 0.61

5. Adjusted Shear Resistance

4’-0” Walls
v allowable = 490 x 0.61 = 299 lbs/ft > 250 lbs/ft
3’-6” WALLS
v allowable = 490 x 0.875 x 0.61 = 262 lbs/ft > 250 lbs/ft
15/32” Rated Sheathing
8d @ 3”o.c. 57
15 SDPWS Table 4.3A
57

Perforated Approach

6. Uplift at Perforated Shear Wall ends (hold downs)

R = (v*H)/Co = (250*8)/(0.61) = 3,280 lbs
7. In-plane Shear Anchorage
vmax = 250/0.61 = 410plf
8. Uplift anchorage between shear wall ends
t = 250/0.61 = 410 plf (at full segments only)
9. Deflection is calculated using the 4-term deflection
equation from Chapter 23 of the 2015 IBC
using our vmax value for v and the sum of
the full height segment lengths for b.
15 IBC Equation 23-2 58
58

29
 8/30/2017

Perforated Approach
Summary
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V
15/32”
Rated

8’-0”
2’-8” 2’-8”
Sheathing
6’-8”
8d @
3”o.c.

H v, t v, t H
v, t v, t
V = 3,750 lb Vmax = t = 410 lbs/ft
v = 250 lbs/ft (wall anchorage)
H = 3,280 lbs 59
59

Shear Wall Design Examples

 Segmented Shear Wall

Approach

 Perforated Shear Wall

Approach

 Force Transfer Around

Opening Approach

60
60

30
 8/30/2017

FTAO Approach

26’-0”
6’-6” 19’-6”
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V

8’- 0”
2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

H H
V = 3,750 lbs Height/width Ratio = 2’-8” / 3’-6”
61
61

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V
ha

va va
ho

2’-8” 2’-8”
h

6’-8”
vb vb
hb

H H
1. Calculate the hold-down forces:
H = Vh/L = (3750 x 8’)/19.5’ = 1538lbs
2. Solve for the unit shear above and below the openings:
va = vb = H/(ha+hb) = 1538/(1.33’+4’) = 289 plf
62
62
CK: The unit shear above and below the openings is equivalent.

31
 8/30/2017

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V

ha
ho
2’-8” 2’-8”

h
6’-8”

hb
H H
3. Find the total boundary force above and below the openings
First opening: O1 = va x (Lo1) = 289 plf x 6’ = 1734lbs
Second opening: O2 = va x (Lo2) = 289 plf x 2’ = 578lbs

CK: The corner forces are based on the shear above and below the
63
63
openings and only the piers adjacent to that unique opening.

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V
ha

F1 F2 F3 F4
ho

2’-8” 2’-8”
h

6’-8”
F1 F2 F3 F4
hb

H H
4. Calculate the corner forces:
F1 = O1(L1)/(L1+L2) = 866# F2 = O1(L2)/(L1+L2) = 866#
F3 = O2(L2)/(L2+L3) = 308# F4 = O2(L3)/(L2+L3) = 269#

CK: Strap forces 64

64

32
 8/30/2017

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V

ha
T1 T2 T3 T4

ho
h
6’-8”

hb
H H
5. Tributary length of openings (ft)
T1 = L1(Lo1)/(L1+L2) = 3’ T2 = L2(Lo1)/(L1+L2) = 3’
T3 = L2(Lo2)/(L2+L3) = 1.1’ T4 = L3(Lo2)/(L2+L3) = 0.9’
CK: Ratio of the length of the pier x length of the opening it is
adjacent to, then / (length of the pier + length of the pier on the
other side of the opening). 65
65

FTAO Approach
L=19’-6”
L1 Lo1 L2=4’ Lo2 L3
V
ha

T1 T2 T3 T4
V2 V3
ho

V1
h

3’-0” 1.1’
6’-8”
hb

H H
6. Unit shear beside the opening
V1 = (V/L)(L1+T1)/L1 = 337 plf V2 = (V/L)(T2+L2+T3)/L2 = 388 plf
V3 = (V/L)(T4+L3)/L3 = 244 plf Check V1*L1 +V2*L2+V3*L3=V? YES

CK: The shear of each pier = the total shear / the L of the wall x
(length of the pier + its tributary length)/ by the length of the pier
66
66

33
 8/30/2017

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V

ha
ho
2’-8” 2’-8”

h
6’-8”

hb
H H

7. Resistance to corner forces 8. Resistance – corner force

 R1=V1*L1 = 1346lbs  R1-F1 = 480lbs
 R2 = V2*L2 = 1551lbs  R2-F2-F3 = 377lbs
 R3 = V3*L3 = 853lbs  R3-F4 = 583lbs
67
67

FTAO Approach
L
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V
va3
ha

va1 va2
ho

2’-8” 2’-8”
h

6’-8”
vb1 vb2 vb3
hb

H H
9. Unit shear in the corner zones
 va1 = (R1-F1)/L1 = 120 plf
 va2 = (R2-F2-F3)/L2 = 94 plf
 va3 = (R3-F4)/L3 = 167 plf
CK: The unit shear of the corner zones = panel resistance (R) -
the corner forces . R = the shear of the pier x the pier length.
68
68

34
 8/30/2017

FTAO Approach
1 2 3 4 5 6
L1 Lo1 L2 Lo2 L3
V
va1 va2 va3

ho ha
V1 2’-8” V2 2’-8” V3

h
6’-8”

hb
H H
10. Check your solution – YES to all CK: Once all segment
 Line 1: va1(ha+hb)+v1(ho)=H? shears are calculated,
check the design by
 Line 2: va(ha+hb)-va1(ha+hb)-V1(ho)=0?
summing the shears
 Line 3: va2(ha+hb)+V2(ho)-va(ha+hb)=0? vertically along each line.
 Line 4 = Line 3 The 1st and last = hold-
 Line 5: va(ha+hb)-va3(ha+hb)-V3(ho)=0? down force, and the rest
 Line 6: va3(ha+hb)+V3(ho)=H? should = zero. 69
69

FTAO Approach
Summary
26’-0”
6’-6” 19’-6”
3’-6” 3’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” 4’-0” 2’-0” 3’-6”
V
8’- 0”

2’-8” 2’-8”
6’-8”

H
V = 3,750 lb H 2-Horizontal straps rated at 866lbs
v = 388 lbs/ft
H = 1,538 lbs 15/32” Rated Sheathing 8d @ 4”o.c.
70
70

35
 8/30/2017

Segmented Approach 15/32” Rated sheathing

8d @ 4”o.c. (3’-6” walls)
8d @ 6” o.c. (4’ walls)
8 – hold downs @ 2000+
lb capacity

Perforated 15/32” Rated Sheathing

8d @ 3”o.c.
2 – hold downs @
3280 lb capacity
extensive plate
anchorage
H v, t v, t v, t v, t H
Force Transfer 15/32” Rated Sheathing
8d @ 4”o.c.
2 – hold downs @
1,538 lb capacity
2 Straps – 866 lb 71
71

Shear Wall Design Examples

26’-0”
2’-0” 3’-0” 3’-0” 8’-0” 3’-0” 5’-0” 2’-0”
V
10’- 0”

P1 P2 7’-0” P3 P4
4’-0”
6’-8”

H H
Segmented & Perforated use full height segments
 3.5:1 for 10’-0” = 34”
FTAO uses heights adjacent to openings 72
 3.5:1 for 7’-0” = 24” 2:1 for 4’-0” = 24”
72

36
 8/30/2017

Deflection Calculations - Concept

V+ 1+ 2+ 3+
h1+

h2+

h3+
H H

V- 1- 2- 3-

h3-
h2-
= average(1+2+ 3+ -
h1
1-2-3-)

H H 73

Deflection Calculations
 Wall drift estimation when using FTAO
 Historical 4-term deflection equation
 Average deflection, varying h

Wall 12
3,000

2,000
Applied Load (plf)

1,000

12a
12b
0
4 term

‐1,000

‐2,000

‐3,000

74
‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (in.)

37
 8/30/2017

Audience Poll

8. True or False: Wall sheathing can aid in

FTAO tension force resistance?
A. True
B. False

75
75

Benefits of FTAO with Continuous

Wood Structural Panels
C-shaped Panels
 APA FTAO Test Wall 6
 Framing status quo
 Reduce/eliminate
strap force

76

38
 8/30/2017

Benefits of FTAO with Continuous

Wood Structural Panels
For the Structural Engineer…
 Straightforward rational analysis
 Easy to program: Excel, web based application, or other
 Design check = confidence in calculations

77

Benefits of FTAO with Continuous

Wood Structural Panels
Value proposition
 Reduction of more costly components
 Continuous nail base + stiffer wall = fewer callbacks due to:
 Stucco cracking, water intrusion, wall buckling

78

39
 8/30/2017

Learning Objectives
1. Participants will investigate past and current methods for
determining force transfer around openings for wood shear walls
through discussion of the joint research project of APA – The
Engineered Wood Association, the University of British Columbia
(UBC), and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL).
2. Participants will compare the effects of different opening sizes, full-
height pier sizes, and their relationships to the three industry shear
wall approaches by illustrating use of the segmented, perforated,
and FTAO methods.
3. Participants will observe how the study examined internal forces
generated during loading by reviewing full-scale wall test data as
well as analytical modeling performed in determining statistical
accuracy.
4. Participants will conclude that research results obtained from this
study can be used to support different design methodologies in
estimating forces around openings accurately.
79

Questions/ Comments?
This concludes The American Institute of Architects 
Continuing Education Systems Course

Jared S. Hensley, P.E.

[email protected] (253) 426-1224 www.apawood.org
80

40