aovmith fush-drven na specimens with F1575-95,Amal book of standards,Vol.15.08,ASTM,Philadel- ve of 22 and 5e APA(1).Plyood diaphragm,The Engineered Wood The E overdriven 4. omH.W.(998 of timber shear walls promise de deve ationdemands may surpass nd Design of Wood折rd naosAdtoeemdans anjy,R.K ary to de ood shear walls. cpthcomph Engineers Associ nv reng over Gray.R.G..and Zacher,E.( Hall.J.E (1996) “N uake of January 17.:Recon- mi rov Kar 6 walls for s ral Enginee 1206 World Congress.San Francisco,paper No are used to ca et desigr als used ir Rep.CUREE-Caltech Woodfr Task 13 1 Nat for us Acknowledgments 1997. d)l ad lests for rk described in this al panel she walls Jniversit Rep.No.165. tion.Technical Services Div The Romer gra stants Mathew B Uang.C.M.F ult.A..Seib od fra References walls "Proc.SEAOC 57th A Advanced c ms catalog.(1999).Advanced Connector Sys ned from d小vnami A H-S.Ane ed AsCE New York JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/JULY 2002/907 200pared to specimens with flush-driven nails, specimens with nails overdriven 3.2 and 4.8 mm recorded losses in displace￾ment capacity of 22 and 56%, respectively. Thus, due to the random nature of overdriven depth that can be anticipated in field construction of shear walls, significant reduction in dis￾placement capacity can be expected when nails are highly overdriven. 4. Capacity of shear walls with any significant percentage of nails overdriven more than 1.6 mm will be seriously com￾promised. Although calculated load factors are adequate to prevent loss of life during an earthquake or strong wind event, deformation demands may surpass strength demands. In this case, shear walls with nails overdriven more than 3.2 mm may fail because they cannot sustain the imposed defor￾mations. Additional testing and analysis are necessary to de￾termine an acceptable percentage of shear wall nails that are overdriven 3.2 and 4.8 mm. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate the effects of overdriven-nail-depth combinations on the strength of shear walls since overdriven-nail depth is stochastic. 5. Capacity of shear walls constructed with plywood panels that have overdriven nails may be more seriously compro￾mised than those constructed with OSB. Larger reductions in wall strength, stiffness, and displacement capacity may be observed due to the layered configuration, lower density, and orientation of the grain ~in each of the layers! of the plywood panel. A comprehensive testing and analysis program is nec￾essary to determine the effects of overdriven sheathing nails on plywood shear wall capacity. 6. Capacity of shear walls constructed with any percentage of nails, overdriven to any depth, may be seriously compro￾mised if incorrect values are used to calculate target design ~allowable! shear. The engineer must ensure that the materi￾als used in construction are those specified or, alternately, use the values for design that correspond to materials that will actually be used. Acknowledgments The work described in this paper was funded by the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Brigham Young University. The assistance of former graduate research assistants Mathew B. Fielding, Trevor R. Pratt, and Justin A. Rabe during construction and testing of the specimens is gratefully acknowledged. References Advanced connector systems catalog. ~1999!. Advanced Connector Sys￾tems, Inc., Tempe, Ariz. American Society for Testing and Materials ~ASTM!. ~1997!. ‘‘Standard test method for determining bending yield moment of nails.’’ ASTM F1575-95, Annual book of standards, Vol. 15.08, ASTM, Philadel￾phia. APA. ~1980!. Plywood diaphragm specification, The Engineered Wood Association. Tacoma, Wash. Andreason, K. A., and Tissell, J. R. ~1994!. ‘‘Effects of overdriven nails in shear walls.’’ Rep. No. T94-9, APA—The Engineered Wood Asso￾ciation, Technical Services Division, Tacoma, Wash. Dinehart, D. W., and Shenton, H. W. ~1998!. ‘‘Comparison of static and dynamic response of timber shear walls.’’ J. Struct. Eng. 124~6!, 686– 695. Dolan, J. D. ~1999!. ‘‘Code development for seismic design of wood￾frame structures: Testing needs. Proc., Invitational Workshop on Seis￾mic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction, F. Seible, A. Filiatrault, and C. Uang, eds., Los Angeles, 9–14. Ficcadenti, S. J., Castle, T. A., Sandercock, D. A., and Kazanjy, R. K. ~1996!. ‘‘Laboratory testing to investigate pneumatically driven box nails for the edge nailing distance of 3/89 thick plywood shear walls.’’ Proc., SEAOC 57th Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Associa￾tion of California, San Francisco, 389–399. Gray, R. G., and Zacher, E. G. ~1988!. ‘‘Dynamic testing of wood shear panels.’’ Architecture: AIA J. 77~3!, 121–124. Hall, J. F. ~1996!. ‘‘Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994: Recon￾naissance report, Volume 2.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 11, 125–176. International Conference of Building Officials ~ICBO!. ~1997!. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, Calif. Jones, S. N., and Fonseca, F. S. ~2000!. ‘‘Cyclic testing of oriented strand board shear walls with over-driven nails.’’ Rep. No. CES-00-03, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah. Karacabeyli, E., and Ceccotti, A. ~1998!. ‘‘Nailed wood-framed shear walls for seismic load: Test results and design considerations.’’ Proc., Structural Engineers World Congress, San Francisco, paper No. T207-6. Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A., and Medina, R. ~2000!. ‘‘Development of a testing protocol for wood frame structures.’’ Draft Research Rep., CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Task 1.3.1. National Evaluation Service Committee. ~1997!. ‘‘Power-driven staples and nails for use in all types of building construction.’’ Rep. No. NER-272, Council of American Building Officials. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California ~SEAOSC!. ~1997!. Standard method of cyclic (reversed) load tests for shear re￾sistance of framed walls for buildings, SEAOSC, Whittier, Calif. Tissell, J. R. ~1996!. ‘‘Wood structural panel shear walls.’’ Rep. No. 165, APA—The Engineered Wood Association, Technical Services Divi￾sion, Tacoma, Wash. Uang, C. M., Filiatrault, A., Seible, F., and Gatto, K. ~2001!. ‘‘Rate of loading and loading protocol effects.’’ Draft Research Rep., CUREE￾Caltech Woodframe Project Task 1.3.1. Zacher, E. G., and Gray R. G. ~1985!. ‘‘Dynamic tests of wood framed shear walls.’’ Proc., SEAOC 57th Annual Convention, Structural En￾gineers Association of California, San Francisco, 41–61. Zacher, E. G., and Gray, R. G. ~1989!. ‘‘Lessons learned from dynamic tests of shear panels.’’ Proc., Sessions Related to Design, Analysis and Testing at Structural Congress, A. H-S. Ang, ed., ASCE, New York, 134–142. JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2002 / 907 Downloaded 05 Jan 2009 to 222.66.175.206. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright