Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Shear Wall Tests - Static vs. Dynami

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Please just clarify this. Is the entire shearwall assembly  the
consideration that APA made when rack testing their panels in Report 154 and
158 (I misplaced 158 temporarily)?  I'm assuming this to be so, since the
tests were performed to verify the historic values.
Please be a bit more specific.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From:	JAA [mailto:jaa(--nospam--at)aloha.net]
Sent:	Thursday, May 28, 1998 9:36 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	Re: Shear Wall Tests - Static vs. Dynami

Dear Roger Turk and Dennis Wish:
One of the reasons that these cyclic (and static) tests on plywood shear
walls are varying is the following:

The test specimen is considered by some to be the entire shear wall
assembly. This would include the fasteners, holdowns, sill plates,
anchor bolts, end studs, plywood, etc. This would be a test of the
entire assembly of components making up the shear wall.

The other test specimen would be considered the component ONLY! If you
are testing plywood, by itself, as a separate component, then you would
try to eliminate all the weakness that show up in the other components,
so that your component looks better. In these tests, the other component
variables are eliminated by altering the test specimen. For example,
eliminating the holdowns as a factor by beefing up the holdowns to
minimize the drift, or beefing up the sill size and fastening in order
to minimize sill crushing and movement. Anything to make the plywood
look better as an individual component. This is really not a "shearwall
test". However, you can justify the capacity of the plywood as a single
component.......and meanwhile, we engineers think that the assembly
making up the shear wall will act and perform as well as the test
results of the plywood as a single component.