Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Elasto-plastic model for analysis of influence of imperfections on stiffness of fully
anchored light-frame timber shear walls
Ulf Arne Girhammar
a,
, Bo Kllsner
b,c
a
Department of TFE Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Ume University, SE-901 87 Ume, Sweden
b
School of Technology and Design, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden
c
SP Wood Technology Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Box 5609, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 12 May 2009
Keywords:
Shear walls
Imperfections
Gaps
Uplift
Plastic model
Full anchorage
Stiffness
Shear wall displacement
a b s t r a c t
In order to stabilize timber-framed buildings against lateral loads, the diaphragm action of roofs, floors
and walls is often used. This paper deals with the influence of imperfections such as gaps and uplift on the
stiffness and the horizontal displacement of fully anchored shear walls. The significance of analyzing the
effects of imperfections is evident when evaluating the stiffness of shear walls; tests of walls show that
the horizontal displacement is underestimated in calculations using the stiffness of sheathing-to-framing
joints as obtained from experiments. Also, in real structures where hold-downs are used, the influence of
gaps and uplift should be included in order to obtain realistic displacements in the serviceability limit
state. The analytical model is based on ideal plastic behavior of the mechanical sheathing-to-timber
joints with stresses parallel to the perimeter of the frame and on linear elastic behavior for stresses
perpendicular to the bottom rail. Using this elasto-plastic model, the equations for the stiffness and the
deflection versus the number of segments in the wall are derived. The fully anchored condition for the
shear walls is simulated by applying a diagonal load to the shear wall. Three types of imperfections are
evaluated: Walls with gaps at all studs, a gap only at the trailing stud, and gaps at all studs, except at the
trailing stud. It is shown that the effect of imperfections on the stiffness of the wall in the initial stage is
considerable. Depending on the distribution of the gaps and the number of segments included in the shear
wall, the displacement of the shear wall is increased several times compared to that of a fully anchored
wall diaphragm with no gaps; e.g. for a single segment wall more than four times. However, for walls
with more than six segments the effect of imperfections can be neglected. Finally, the theoretical model
is experimentally verified.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In order to stabilize timber-framed buildings against lateral
loads, the diaphragm action of roofs, floors and walls is often
used. A previous paper focused on the structural behavior of
fully anchored wall diaphragms without imperfections under
plastic conditions, Kllsner & Girhammar [1]. Based on this plastic
theory, the influence of imperfections such as gaps and uplift on
the stiffness and horizontal displacement of those shear walls
is evaluated in this paper. Only static loading conditions are
considered.
The analytical methods used in this paper are suitable for
hand calculations of the horizontal displacement of shear walls
with imperfections and subjected to static loads. They are based
on ideally fully plastic properties of the mechanical sheathing-
to-timber connections of the shear wall. The condition of full

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 90 786 74 95; fax: +46 90 786 64 69.
E-mail address: ulfarne.girhammar@tfe.umu.se (U.A. Girhammar).
anchorage will be simulated by applying a diagonal load to the
shear wall, see Girhammar & Kllsner [2]. In particular, three types
of imperfections in wall diaphragms are evaluated: (1) walls with
gaps at all studs (Fig. 1(a)); (2) walls with a gap only at the trailing
stud (Fig. 1(b)); and (3) walls with gaps at all studs, except at the
trailing stud (Fig. 1(c)). The third case occurs when the gap at the
trailing stud in the first case is closed.
The same kind of analyses as presented in this paper and
the companion plastic paper [1] have been published in two
corresponding papers [2,3] where elastic conditions are assumed.
For a more detailedbackgroundandprevious researchdealing with
imperfections and their consequences in timber shear walls, the
reader is referred to Girhammar and Kllsner [2].
2. Analytical background
2.1. Plastic model
For the theoretical background, the reader is referredtoKllsner
& Girhammar [1]. A typical part of a fully anchored shear wall
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.016
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2183
(a) Gaps at all studs. (b) A gap only at the trailing stud. (c) Gaps at all studs, except at the trailing stud.
Fig. 1. Three types of gaps (imperfections) in light-frame timber shear walls evaluated in this paper. Only the framing members in the sheathed wall are shown.
a b c

Fig. 2. (a) A shear wall unit built up of a timber frame and a sheet. The sheet is connected to the timber frame by means of mechanical fasteners. The center distances of
the fasteners can vary in the general case. Here they are assumed to be s
r
along the bottom and top rail, s
ps
along the perimeter studs, and s
is
along the intermediate stud,
respectively. (b) Static model of a fully anchored shear wall unit in a deformed state. The global coordinate system (x, y) has its origin in the lower left corner; (c) Force
distribution on the sheet according to the plastic lower bound method assuming a pure shear flow.
is shown in Fig. 2(a). This fundamental unit, the wall segment
consists of a sheet fastened to a timber frame. The width of the
segment is b, and the height is h. The spacing of the fasteners (s
i
)
along the top and bottom rail is denoted s
r
, along the perimeter
studs, s
ps
, and along the intermediate stud, s
is
(in this paper, we
have s
ps
= s
r
and s
is
= 2s
ps
; the influence of the intermediate
stud is neglected). The static model is shown in Fig. 2(b) and the
resulting shear flow, f
p
, the fastener strength per unit length, along
the perimeter of the sheet according to the lower bound theory
assuming a pure plastic shear flow is shown in Fig. 2(c).
A detailed description of the stress distribution in the different
parts of a wall segment subjected to a horizontal racking load
is given in Fig. 3. It is evident that the horizontal load-carrying
capacity is H = f
p
b and the vertical force in the studs and the
reaction forces in the supports are R
V2
= f
p
h = R
t
= R
c
= Hh/b.
Due to the fact that the plastic stress is distributed only parallel
to the framing members and no stress is acting perpendicular to
them, no horizontal reaction forces develop in the studs and no
vertical reaction forces on top of the studs.
2.2. Diagonal load applicationSimulation of fully anchored leading
stud
The previous analytical results are valid for shear walls fully
anchored to the floor or foundation. Theoretically, all studs are
hinged to the top and bottom rail. In practice, at least the leading
stud needs to be anchored for the results to be valid. This anchoring
is usually accomplished by using tie-downs, but a gravity load on
top of the stud, especially on leading stud, will have almost the
same effect.
Experimentally, a fully anchored leading stud can be simulated
by applying a diagonal load on the top corner of the shear wall.
For further details, see Girhammar & Kllsner [2]. Therefore, it is
convenient to analyze and test shear walls subjected to diagonal
loads. The horizontal component of the diagonal load represents
the racking load (H) and the vertical component (V
0
) represents,
for example, a gravity load on the leading stud and equals the
tensile reaction force (R
t
), which in turn equals the contact force
at the bottom of the leading stud (R
V2
) according to Fig. 3, i.e. V
0
=
R
t
= R
V2
.
3. Analysis of influence of imperfections
As discussed in Girhammar & Kllsner [2], analytical and
finite element calculations generally show that when using the
stiffness values for the sheathing-to-timber joints obtained from
experiments, the horizontal displacement of sheathed wood-
framed shear walls is underestimated as compared to the values
observed in full-scale tests of these shear walls. This is, for one
reason, due to the way the modelling of the behavior of the
2184 U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193
Fig. 3. Stress distributiononthe sheet andthe framing members ina fully anchored
shear wall according to the plastic lower bound theory assuming a pure shear
flow (f
p
).
fasteners in the shear wall, to the imperfect manufacturing of real
shear walls, and to the internal deformations that take place in the
different parts of the wall structure. These effects are pronounced
for short walls, while for long walls they often can be neglected.
These observations will be quantified in the following.
Here it is proposed that these conditions of imperfection are
taken into account by allowing for uplift of the leading stud, and
the closing of initial gaps and settlement of the framing joints,
especially at the trailing stud. The analyses will be performed
for the serviceability limit state. For further details concerning
imperfections, see Girhammar & Kllsner [2], where three types
of elastic and plastic models are discussed. In this previous paper,
the influence of imperfections on the stiffness of shear walls was
analyzed under elastic conditions. The present paper is devoted
to the same thing, but under elasto-plastic conditions. This model
builds on the plastic model developed for shear walls without
imperfections [1].
4. Effects of gaps and uplift
Tests have shown that the stiffness of shear walls of different
lengths (or consisting of different number of segments) does not
vary linearly with the wall length (valid for small deformations),
Degerman [4]. The reason for this is probably due to possible gaps
between the studs and the bottom rail, uplift of the studs and/or
plastic compression of the bottom rail under the trailing stud.
Gaps can arise due to poor manufacturing, a convexly rounded
or twisted bottom rail, and/or to shrinkage of the rails (especially
perpendicular to grain in the bottomrail). Uplift of the leading stud
can occur even in the case of diagonal loading, e.g. due to some
misalignment of the loading direction or some plastic compression
of the top rail perpendicular to grain in the area of the load
application.
The influence of gaps and uplift on the stiffness of wood-
framed shear walls will be evaluated by studying the horizontal
displacement of the top rail, u
frame
, for walls with different number
of segments subjected to a diagonal load (corresponding to a fully
anchored leading stud in a perfect wall) and by comparing it with
that of a fully anchored shear wall without gaps or uplift. The
stiffness will be evaluated in the initial stage when the applied
horizontal load is small enough not to have caused a closure of the
gap at the trailing stud.
In general, gaps and uplifts, together with different kinds of
settlements or alignments in the shear wall, will be referred to as
imperfections. The settlements and alignments in the wall will be
assumed to be concentrated to the same locations as for gaps and
uplift.
The model used will be based on the same general assumptions
as given for the plastic model according to the lower bound
method [1]. In addition, the following conditions are assumed
(cf. also Degerman [4]):
A shear flow along the perimeter of the frame or sheet is
assumed, cf. Fig. 4 (in the sheet the resultant of the shear flow
along each side is shown). The effect of the fasteners along the
intermediate stud is neglected.
The top rail is assumed not to transmit any vertical forces
through the sheathing-to-framing joints into the sheet, i.e. the
vertical component of the applied diagonal load is transmitted
directly and fully to the leading stud. This is a consequence of
the assumption of the constant plastic shear flow. But according
to Kllsner & Girhammar [1], this assumption is approximately
also justified for an elastic model, since the top rail transmits
only 7% of the vertical load.
The following cases of gaps between the studs and the bottom
rail are considered: (1) gaps at all studs (Fig. 1(a)); (2) a gap only
at the trailing stud (Fig. 1(b)); and (3) gaps at all studs, except
at the trailing stud (Fig. 1(c)) (a situation that occurs when the
gap at the trailing stud closes).
Due to the gaps, the sheets and studs can displace vertically,
which is not supposed to happen in the original model with
hinged framing joints. The vertical force (R) and the pertaining
moment (M) are introduced in order to transmit, through
the sheathing-to-timber joints, the vertical component of
the diagonal reaction force into the sheet since this vertical
component cannot be transmitted directly to that stud due to
the gap at the trailing stud, cf. Fig. 4(c). For a fully anchored
shear wall without gaps, the force (R) does not exist and the
influence of the moment (M) is neglected.
The stress distribution between the sheet and the bottom
rail induced by the vertical component (R) and the pertaining
moment (M) throughthe sheathing-to-timber joints is assumed
to be elastic according to Navier.
The elastic slip modulus (k) for the shear flow representing the
force in the fasteners is assumed to be the same both parallel
and perpendicular to the framing members.
In case of uplift, the same kind of assumptions as for gaps is
made, but in a reverse way (cf. Fig. 4(e), (f)).
The stiffness of the shear wall with arbitrary number of
segments will be evaluated in such a way as to obtain
the horizontal displacement for a representative or mean
segment of the wall comparable to a single segment wall.
4.1. A representative segment of shear walls with arbitrary number of
segments
A representative or mean segment of the shear wall with
arbitrary number of segments (n
seg
) is a segment comparable to a
single segment wall, i.e. the horizontal load applied on the system
is such that, H
n
seg
= n
seg
H, where H is the horizontal load per
segment, andthe vertical loadfully anchoring the leading studsuch
that it becomes equal to the conditions for the single segment wall,
V
0,n
seg
= n
seg
H(h/n
seg
b) = H(h/b).
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2185
a c e
b d f
Fig. 4. Assumed force distribution according to the plastic lower bound method on (a) the timber frame and (b) the sheet for a fully anchored single segment wall without
gaps; (c, d) with gaps; and (e, f) with uplift. The effect of the fasteners along the intermediate studs is neglected. If there is a gap at the trailing stud (c, d), the vertical reaction
force, V
0
, cannot be transmitted to that stud (V
1
= 0), but needs to be transmitted through the sheathing-to-timber connections by the forces R
1
and M
1
into the sheet. The
reaction force R
1
is located in the middle of the sheet. For a fully anchored shear wall without gaps, R
1
= 0 and the influence of the M
1
is neglected. The stress distribution
between the sheet and the bottomrail induced by R
1
and M
1
is assumed to be elastic according to Navier. In case of uplift (e, f), all conditions correspond in principle to those
for a shear wall with gaps (c, d). In case of gaps or uplift, the shear stresses do not attain the plastic shear flow value, i.e. f < f
p
. The positive directions of the displacements
related to the frame with the origin in the lower left corner is denoted (u
frame
, v
stud
). The positive directions of the rigid body movements (translations and rotation) of the
center of gravity (CG) of the fasteners, which in this paper equals the CG of the sheet, is denoted (u
1
, v
1
,
1
).
The effect of gaps will here be analyzed on the imperfect system
to evaluate the resulting horizontal displacement or stiffness of the
shear wall (u
imp
frame
). Due to the gap, the force in the trailing stud will
not arise. These conditions are valid up to the point when the gap
(at the trailing stud) closes, i.e. for the horizontal load, H H
imp
.
4.2. Shear walls without gaps or uplift
As a reference case, a single segment wood-framed shear wall
with no gaps is studied, Fig. 4(a), (b). The diagonal force is applied
on the frame work according to Fig. 4(a) and is transferred to the
sheet according to Fig. 4(b) via the fasteners. The displacements
of the framing members relative the fixed point of the lower
left corner is denoted (u
frame
, v
stud
). The rigid body translations
and rotation of the center of gravity (CG) of the fasteners, which
coincides with the CG of the sheet (as assumed in this paper), is
denoted (u
1
, v
1
,
1
).
For a fully anchored shear wall without gaps, there are no
displacements (of the first order) in the vertical direction, i.e. v
1
=
0 for the sheet and v
stud,0
= v
stud,1
= 0 for the studs. According to
Appendix A.1, the horizontal displacement, u
frame
, can be written
as
u
frame
=
u
frame
s
r
b
H
k
(1)
where
u
frame
, the coefficient for the compliance of the perfect shear
wall, is according to Eq. (18) given by

u
frame
= 6 for
h
b
= 2. (2)
In perfect shear walls with more than one segment, it is assumed
that each segment behaves as described above for the single
segment wall, i.e. the behavior is independent of the number of
segments, cf. Fig. 6 (horizontal solid line). The pertaining forces,
displacements and rotations in the single segment wall are shown
in Figs. 7(a) and 8(a).
4.3. Shear walls with gaps at all studs
Shear walls with gaps at all studs are studied, cf. Fig. 4(c), (d)
and Fig. 5, where the assumptions for single and two segment walls
are illustrated, respectively. According to Appendices A.2 and A.3,
the initial horizontal displacement, u
imp
frame
, up to closure of the gap
at the trailing stud (the end of the wall), i.e. 0 v
imp
trail
v
gap
trail
or
0 H H
imp
, can be written as
u
imp
frame
=
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
k
(3)
where
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
, the coefficient for the compliance of the
imperfect shear wall, is according to Eq. (26), (29) and other
calculations not shown here, given by

imp
u
frame
,n
seg
=
_

_
26.0; n
seg
= 1
11.3; n
seg
= 2
8.47; n
seg
= 3
7.44; n
seg
= 4
6.94; n
seg
= 5
6.66; n
seg
= 6
for
h
b
= 2. (4)
2186 U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193
a
b
Fig. 5. Assumed force distribution in case of a fully anchored two segment shear
wall with gaps. The effect of the fasteners along the intermediate studs is neglected.
The vertical forces, V
1
, are equal on both sides due to the fact that there is a gap at
the bottomof the stud. The reaction force R is located in the middle of the sheet. For
other notations, cf. Fig. 4.
This coefficient of horizontal compliance of the wall versus the
number of segments is shown in Fig. 6. The relative stiffness
increases with the number of segments (the stiffness of a
representative or mean segment subjected to the same relative
loading as a single segment wall). Obviously, the horizontal
displacement of the top rail for a shear wall with infinite number
of segments with gaps at all studs approaches that of a shear wall
without gaps according to Eq. (2). For a wall with about six or more
segments, the effects of imperfections can be neglected.
The horizontal displacement according to Eq. (3) takes place as
long as the vertical displacement of the trailing stud is less than the
gap, v
gap
trail
. This displacement of the trailing stud is the same as the
displacement and the rotation of the sheet at the end of the wall
(at the trailing stud) (cf. Appendices A.2 and A.3, and Figs. 4 and 5),
v
imp
trail
=

v
n
seg
,edge

v
n
seg
+
1
2

n
seg
b

=
imp
v
trail
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
k
(5)
Fig. 6. Relative flexibility of shear walls with imperfections (
imp
u
frame
/
u
frame
) versus
the number of segments in case of (i) gaps at all studs, (ii) gap only at trailing stud,
and (iii) gaps at all studs, except at the trailing stud. The flexibility (inverse stiffness)
of the imperfect wall is divided by that of a shear wall with no imperfections,
i.e. with the coefficient of horizontal compliance,
u
frame
= 6. The influence of
imperfections like gaps is obvious in case of a few numbers of segments. For a large
number of segments, the relative flexibility approaches asymptotically the value for
a wall without imperfections (
imp
u
frame

u
frame
).
where

imp
v
trail
,n
seg
=
_

_
8.00 ; n
seg
= 1
4.68 ; n
seg
= 2
3.69 ; n
seg
= 3
3.28 ; n
seg
= 4
3.07 ; n
seg
= 5
2.94 ; n
seg
= 6
for
h
b
= 2. (6)
A summary of the results concerning the forces, displacements
and rotations in imperfect shear walls with different number of
segments are shown in Fig. 7(b)(g). The fact that the angle of
rotation () is not the same in all sheets implies that either a gap
betweenthe sheets is assumed or that the horizontal contact forces
between the sheets are neglected.
4.4. Shear walls with a gap only at trailing stud
Wood-framed shear walls with a gap only at the trailing stud
are studied. For a fully anchored shear wall without gaps except
at the trailing stud, there are no vertical displacements of the
studs, except that of the trailing stud. This means that all segments
in a wall, except the end segment, behave as perfect segments.
Then, knowing the stiffness for the perfect andimperfect segments,
respectively, the stiffness for the whole wall assembly can be
obtained by considering those stiffnesses loaded in parallel by the
total load. For a wall with n
seg
number of segments, we then have
n
seg
H =
_
n
seg
1

u
frame
+
1

imp
u
frame
,1
_
kb
s
r
u
imp
frame
(7)
where
u
frame
is the coefficient of horizontal compliance for a
perfect single segment wall according to Eq. (2) and
imp
u
frame
,1
the
coefficient for an imperfect single segment wall according to Eq.
(38) in Appendix A.4 (n
seg
= 1). The horizontal displacement of
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2187
a b
d e
f
g
c
Fig. 7. Forces and displacements in shear walls with different number of segments: (a) Without gaps as the reference case; and (b)-(g) With gaps at all studs. The multipliers
are H for forces, Hh for moments, (s
r
/b)(H/k) for displacements, and (s
r
/b)(H/kb) for angle rotations. The multiplier for the additional horizontal displacement,
imp
u
frame
, is
v
gap
trail
, cf. Eq. (16). The vertical displacement at the end of the last sheet, v
nseg,edge
= v
imp
trail
, is given by Eq. (13). The variable v
rel
stud
is the displacement of the trailing stud relative
the sheet. All values are valid for aspect ratio, h/b = 2.
the top rail, valid in the range, 0 H H
imp
, can then be written
as
u
imp
frame
=
n
seg

imp
u
frame
,1

u
frame
(n
seg
1)
imp
u
frame
,1
+
u
frame
s
r
b
H
k
=
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
k
(8)
where
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
, the coefficient for the whole shear wall assembly
depending on the number of segments (n
seg
), is given by

imp
u
frame
,n
seg
=
_

_
14.0 ; n
seg
= 1
8.40 ; n
seg
= 2
7.41 ; n
seg
= 3
7.00 ; n
seg
= 4
6.77 ; n
seg
= 5
6.63 ; n
seg
= 6
for
h
b
= 2. (9)
This coefficient of horizontal compliance of the wall versus the
number of segments is shown in Fig. 6. Again, the horizontal
displacement of the top rail for a shear wall with infinite number
of segments with gaps at all studs approaches that of a shear
wall without gaps according to Eq. (2). As is evident from Eqs. (4)
and (9), the difference between gaps at all studs and a gap only
at the trailing stud varies between 0%85%. For a wall with six or
more segments, the effects of imperfections can be neglected.
The vertical displacement according to Eq. (5), is in this case
given by (Appendix A.4, Eqs. (39) and (40))
v
imp
trail
=
imp
v
trail
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
k

imp
v
trail
,n
seg
= 5 for
h
b
= 2 (10)
i.e. the coefficient
imp
v
trail
,n
seg
is independent of the number of
segments.
2188 U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193
d e
f
g
a b c
Fig. 8. Forces and displacements in shear walls with different number of segments: (a) Without gaps as the reference case; and (b)(g) With gaps at all studs, except at the
trailing stud. The multipliers are H for forces, Hh for moments, (s
r
/b)(H/k) for displacements, (s
r
/b)(H/kb) for angle rotations. The vertical displacement at the end of the
last sheet, v
nseg,edge
= v
imp
trail
, is given by Eq. (13). All values are valid for an aspect ratio of h/b = 2.
4.5. Shear walls with gaps at all studs, except at trailing stud
Shear walls with gaps at all studs, except at the trailing stud are
studied. This situation occurs after the gap at the trailing stud of
shear walls with gaps at all studs according to Section 4.3 is closed.
According to Appendix A.5, the coefficients are given by

imp
u
frame
,n
seg
=
_

_
4.67; n
seg
= 1
5.37; n
seg
= 2
5.52; n
seg
= 3
5.57; n
seg
= 4
5.60; n
seg
= 5
5.62; n
seg
= 6
for
h
b
= 2. (11)
This coefficient of the horizontal compliance of the wall versus the
number of segments is shown in Fig. 6. Obviously, when there is
no gap at the trailing stud, the gaps at the other studs will stiffen
the wall. The horizontal displacement for a shear wall with infinite
number of segments with gaps at all studs, except at the trailing
stud, approaches that of a shear wall without gaps according to
Eq. (2). A summary of the results concerning the forces, dis-
placements and rotations in imperfect shear walls with different
number of segments is shown in Fig. 8(b)(g). As is evident from
Fig. 8, the dominant displacement of the different studs is that of
the trailing stud (the end of the sheet at the trailing stud).
When there is no gap at the trailing stud or after the gap at
the trailing stud is closed, it is safe to assume that the stiffness of
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2189
the wall is the same as that of the perfect wall, i.e. corresponding
to Eq. (2).
4.6. Total horizontal displacements including effects of imperfections
The total horizontal displacement of a shear wall with
imperfections can be written as,
u
tot
frame
= u
imp
frame
(H
imp
) +u
frame
(H H
imp
) (12)
where u
imp
frame
is the displacement of the imperfect system
(represented by Eq. (4), (9) and (11)) and u
frame
of the perfect
system (cf. Eq. (2)), and where H
imp
is the horizontal load when
the initial gap at the trailing stud is closed and is determined by
v
imp
trail
=

v
n
seg
,edge

v
n
seg
(H
imp
) +
1
2

n
seg
b(H
imp
)

=
v
imp
trail
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
imp
k
= v
gap
trail
(13)
where v
imp
trail
is the absolute vertical displacement of the trailing
stud, v
n
seg
,
n
seg
are the vertical displacement and rotation of the
end sheet, respectively, cf. Fig. 4 or 5, and v
gap
trail
the magnitude of
the gap or total imperfection of the trailing stud. The displacement
of the trailing stud is assumed to equal the vertical displacement of
the sheet at the trailing stud due to translation (v
n
seg
) and rotation
(
n
seg
b/2). The vertical displacement at the end, v
imp
trail
, is illustrated
in Fig. 7. All imperfections, the gap at the trailing stud, the uplift at
the leading stud and general settlements, alignments, and leveling
in the wall (e.g. in a testing situation) can be represented by a total
gap at the trailing stud, i.e.
v
gap
trail
= v
gap
+v
uplift
+v
settle
. (14)
The horizontal load, H
imp
, is then given by
H
imp
=
1

imp
v
trail
,n
seg
kb
s
r
v
gap
trail
. (15)
The total horizontal displacement can then be written as,
u
tot
frame
=
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
s
r
b
H
imp
k
+
u
frame
s
r
b
H H
imp
k
=

imp
u
frame
,n
seg

u
frame

imp
v
trail
,n
seg
v
gap
trail
+
u
frame
s
r
b
H
k
=
imp
u
frame
,n
seg
v
gap
trail
+
u
frame
s
r
b
H
k
= u
imp
frame
+u
frame
(16)
where H is the horizontal load per segment (H
tot
/n
seg
). The relative
horizontal displacement due to imperfections in shear walls,

imp
u
frame
,n
seg
, versus the number of segments is shown in Fig. 9, both
for walls with gaps at all studs and walls with a gap only at the
trailing stud. This value is also presented in Fig. 7 for the different
shear wall cases.
In Eq. (16), the displacements related to imperfections are the
dominant ones for walls with few numbers of segments. This
means that the calculated values are very sensitive to the exact
values of the gap, uplift and settlement of the wall.
The sensitivity of the displacements to these imperfections is, as
notedabove, most likely the reasonwhy finite element calculations
generally underestimate the horizontal displacement of sheathed
wood-framed shear walls when the calculations are based on the
stiffness values for the sheathing-to-timber joints obtained from
experiments.
The displacements should be evaluated in the serviceability
limit state.
Fig. 9. Relative horizontal displacement of shear walls due to imperfections
(u
imp
frame
) versus the number of segments. The multiplier to obtain the total
displacement due to imperfections is the sum of the imperfections represented
as a gap at the trailing stud (v
gap
trail
). The influence of imperfections is obvious in
case of few numbers of segments. For a large number of segments, the influence
of imperfections on the horizontal displacement approaches zero (u
imp
frame
0).
5. Validation of the proposed theory an experimental
verification
To validate the proposed theory, shear walls with each segment
designed as shown in Fig. 2(a) are considered here. Tests on shear
walls with one to four segments and their pertaining sheathing-to-
framing joints were performed [57]. Three to four full scale wall
tests of each design and ten sheathing-to-framing joint tests were
conducted. In Table 1, the experimental and theoretical results
for the horizontal displacement under assumed elasto-plastic
conditions in the serviceability limit state (40% of the ultimate
limit load) are compared. It is evident that the applicability of the
proposed analytical procedure is fairly good. Except for one, the
values are on the safe side.
6. Summary and conclusions
The influence of imperfections, gaps anduplift, infully anchored
wall diaphragms has been analyzed. Three cases with different
types of imperfections have been evaluated and the equations for
the stiffness and the deflection versus the number of segments in
the wall derived: (1) walls with gaps at all studs; (2) walls with a
gap only at the trailing stud; and (3) walls with gaps at all studs,
except at the trailing stud. The third case occurs when the gap
at the trailing stud in the first case has been closed. The methods
used to evaluate the stiffness of the walls are based on ideal plastic
conditions for the mechanical sheathing-to-timber joints and the
lower bound theory. The model uses some results obtained from
the theory developed for perfect shear walls [1]. The fully anchored
condition for the shear walls was simulated by applying a diagonal
load to the shear wall.
It is important to evaluate the influence of gaps and uplift,
both with respect to testing situations and to real structures in
practice. In order to interpret test results for sheathing-to-framing
joints, framing joints and full scale shear walls, and to determine
2190 U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193
Table 1
Measured and calculated horizontal displacements at serviceability limit load for fully anchored shear walls with 14 segments (D1D4). Mean values from 34 tests.
Test
wall
Shear wall
Sheathing-to-framing
joints
Horizontal displacement u
0.4H
at
serviceability limit load 0.4 H
u
Ultimate load H
u
(kN)
Uplift at 0.4H
u
a
(mm)
Gap
b
(mm)
Settlement
c
(mm)
Slip modulus (kN/mm) Measured
(mm)
Calculated
(mm)
Calculated
Measured
D1 16.5 0.3 2 0
0.8
8.7 9.88 1.14
D2 29.9 0.4 2 0 5.8 6.46 1.11
D3 42.0 0.3 2 0 5.0 5.04 1.01
D4 60.1 0.4 2 0 5.1 4.81 0.94
a
Vertical uplift of the leading stud.
b
Vertical gap between the trailing stud and bottom rail; measured in tests D1 and assumed to be the same in tests D2D4. In most cases, there were gaps at all studs.
c
Settlement is a common notation for settlement, alignment, leveling, horizontal displacements of studs, non-linearity of joints and local compression, etc. These values
cannot be measured, but must be estimated. The value is chosen to represent the vertical displacement of the trailing stud. Considering that plastic conditions are assumed
in the model, it is reasonable also to assume that the settlements are fully developed, i.e. they are assumed to be zero in the model. In a corresponding study using an elastic
model [2], the value for the settlements was set to 2.0 mm.
the relevant test data to be used as input data, e.g. in infinite
element analyses, it is essential to knowthe effect of imperfections.
Also, in real structures, drying and crushing, for example, of the
timber framing members, especially with respect to movement
perpendicular to the grain will produce various imperfections
that will have not a negligible influence on the stiffness and
displacement of the wall.
The analyses show that the effect of gaps is considerable in
the initial stage of deformation of the shear wall. Depending on
the distribution of the gaps and the number of segments included
in the shear wall, the displacement of imperfect shear walls is
increased several times over that of a fully anchored shear wall
with no gaps. For an imperfect shear wall with a single segment,
the increase is of the order of more than four and two times,
respectively, in the case of gaps at all studs and a gap only at the
trailing stud. However, for imperfect shear walls consisting of more
than approximately six segments in both cases of gaps at all studs
and a gap only at the trailing stud, the effect of imperfections can
be neglected within an error of approximately 10%. In the case of
gaps at all studs and after the gap at the trailing stud has closed,
the stiffness of the shear wall increases until the next gap is closed.
This implies that as soon as the gap at the trailing stud closes,
imperfections in shear walls do not need to be taken into account
when evaluating the displacements of the wall.
Finally, to validate the proposed theory, a comparison is made
between analytically and experimentally obtained results for the
displacements of shear walls with 14 segments under elasto-
plastic conditions in the serviceability limit state. It is shown that
there is a fairly good agreement between theory and practice.
Acknowledgments
The authors express sincere appreciation for the financial sup-
port from The Development Fund of the Swedish Construction
Industry (SBUF), The Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), The County
Administrative Board of Vsterbotten, The European Unions
Structural Funds The Regional Fund, SP Wood Technology The
Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Ume
University, andCarl WikstrmFoundation, Nordmaling, Vsterbot-
ten, together with the timber and building industry.
Appendix. Analysis of influence of imperfectionsGaps and
uplift
Consider shear walls as exemplified in Figs. 4 and 5, where the
displacements of the framing members relative the fixed point
of the lower left corner is denoted (u
frame
, v
stud
). The rigid body
translations and rotation of the center of gravity (CG) of the
fasteners is denoted (u, v, ). Since s
ps
= s
r
, the center of gravity
(CG) of the fasteners equals the CGof the sheet. The influence of the
intermediate stud is neglected. The applied load is assumed to be a
diagonal load, which corresponds to the situation in the verifying
tests.
A.1. Shear walls with one segmentWithout gaps or uplift
Consider a single segment wall with no gaps according to
Fig. 4(a), (b). The diagonal force is applied on the frame work
according to Fig. 4(a) and is transferred to the sheet according to
Fig. 4(b) via the fasteners.
For a fully anchored shear wall without gaps, there is no
displacement (of the first order) in the vertical direction, i.e. v
1
= 0
for the sheet and v
stud,0
= v
stud,1
= 0 for the studs. The equations
of equilibrium and compatibility together with the constitutive
relation for the shear flow of the fasteners (f = (k/s
r
), where
denotes a displacement) are obtained as
V
0
=
h
b
H
V
0
=
k
s
r
h
1
b
2
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
_
(17)
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
+u
frame
_
.
Then, the horizontal displacement, u
frame
, for a wall without
imperfections is given by
u
frame
= 2
_
1 +
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
k
; u
frame
= 6
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2. (18)
This is the same equation, but derived in another way, as that
given by Kllsner & Girhammar [1]. This coefficient of horizontal
compliance of the wall is shown in Fig. 6. The other variables are
given by

1
= 2
s
r
b
H
kb
u
1
=
_
1 +
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
k
; u
1
= 3
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2. (19)
The results are presented in Fig. 7(a) for walls with an aspect ratio
of h/b = 2.
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2191
A.2. Shear walls with one segmentWith gaps at all studs
For a corresponding single segment shear wall with gaps,
Fig. 4(c), (d), or with uplift, Fig. 4(e), (f), the following equations
must be valid
V
0
=
h
b
H
Hh V
0
b
2
M
1
= 0
M
1
= 2
1
2
k
s
r
b
2

1
b
2

2
3
b
2
=
k
s
r
b
1
b
2
12
(20)
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
_
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
+u
imp
frame
_
.
Then, the initial horizontal displacement up to closure of the gap
or within the range of uplift or some other imperfection related to
the trailing stud, i.e. 0 v
imp
trail
v
gap
trail
or 0 H H
imp
, is obtained
as
u
imp
frame
= 2
_
1 +3
_
h
b
_
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
;
u
imp
frame
= 26
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2. (21)
It is evident from Eqs. (18) and (21) that the stiffness of the
wall is decreased more than four times in case of gaps or uplift
or corresponding imperfections. This coefficient of horizontal
compliance of the wall is shown in Fig. 6. The other quantities are
given as
M
1
=
1
2
Hh (22)

1
= 6
h
b
s
r
b
H
kb
;
1
= 12
s
r
b
H
kb
for
h
b
= 2 (23)
u
1
=
_
1 +3
_
h
b
_
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
; u
1
= 13
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2. (24)
Using the fact that R
1
= V
0
= (k/s
r
)bv
1
and V
0
= (k/s
r
)h(v
1

1
b/2v
stud,0
), respectively, the vertical displacement of the sheet
and leading stud, respectively, can be obtained as
v
1
=
h
b
s
r
b
H
k
; v
1
= 2
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2 (25)
v
stud,0
=
_
2
h
b
1
_
s
r
b
H
k
; v
stud,0
= 3
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2. (26)
The studs move vertically, the leading stud according to Eq. (26)
and the trailing stud to the same amount as the displacement
and rotation of the sheet at the end of the wall. In the basic
plastic theory, these studs are restrained from moving due to the
assumption of hinged framing joints [1]. The results are presented
in Fig. 7(b) for walls with an aspect ratio of h/b = 2.
A.3. Shear walls with two or more segmentsWith gaps at all studs
A shear wall with two segments and with gaps at all studs is
studied, Fig. 5. The following relationships for sheet no. 2, must be
valid,
V
1
=
k
s
r
h
_
v
2

2
b
2
v
stud,1
_
R
2
= V
1
=
k
s
r
b v
2
H
2
h V
1
b
2
M
2
= 0
M
2
=
k
s
r
b
2
b
2
12
(27)
H
2
=
k
s
r
b
_
u
2
+
2
h
2
_
H
2
=
k
s
r
b
_
u
2
+
2
h
2
+u
imp
frame
_
and for sheet no. 1,
V
0
=
h
2b
2H =
h
b
H
H
1
= 2H H
2
R
1
= V
0
V
1
=
k
s
r
b v
1
V
1
=
k
s
r
h
_
v
1

1
b
2
+v
stud,1
_
V
0
=
k
s
r
h
_
v
1

1
b
2
v
stud,0
_
(28)
V
1
b H
1
h +(V
0
V
1
)
b
2
+M
1
= 0
M
1
=
k
s
r
b
1
b
2
12
H
1
=
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
_
H
1
=
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
+u
imp
frame
_
.
Then, the horizontal displacement, u
imp
frame
, is given by (0 H
H
imp
)
u
imp
frame
=
2 +8
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
1 +4
h
b
s
r
b
H
k
;
u
imp
frame
= 11.3
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2 (29)
where H is the horizontal load per segment (n
seg
= 2). It is evident
from Eqs. (18) and (29) that the stiffness of the wall is decreased
almost twice in case of gaps (or corresponding imperfections at
the ends of the wall). This coefficient of horizontal compliance of
the wall is shown in Fig. 6. For illustration, the other variables are
given by
H
1
=
2 +15
h
2
b
2
2
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_H; H
1
= 1.24H;
h
b
= 2
H
2
=
2 +9
h
2
b
2
2
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_H; H
2
= 0.760H;
h
b
= 2 (30)
V
0
=
h
b
H; V
0
= 2H;
h
b
= 2
V
1
=
5
h
2
b
2
1 +4
h
b
H; V
1
= 2.22H;
h
b
= 2 (31)
M
1
=
1
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
2
_
1 +4
h
b
_
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_Hh;
M
1
= 0.184Hh;
h
b
= 2
2192 U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193
M
2
=
2 +3
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
2
_
1 +4
h
b
_
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_Hh;
M
2
= 0.204Hh;
h
b
= 2 (32)
u
1
=
2 +8
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
2
_
1 +4
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
k
; u
1
= 5.67
s
r
b
H
k
;
h
b
= 2
u
2
= u
1
(33)
v
1
=
h
b
_
h
b
1
_
_
1 +4
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
k
; v
1
= 0.222
s
r
b
H
k
;
h
b
= 2
v
2
=
_
h
b
_
2
5
_
1 +4
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
k
; v
2
= 2.22
s
r
b
H
k
;
h
b
= 2 (34)

1
= 6
h
b
1
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
_
1 +4
h
b
_
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
kb
;

1
= 4.43
s
r
b
H
kb
;
h
b
= 2

2
= 6
h
b
2 +3
h
b
+9
h
2
b
2
+6
h
3
b
3
_
1 +4
h
b
_
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
kb
;

2
= 4.91
s
r
b
H
kb
;
h
b
= 2 (35)
v
stud,0
=
24
h
4
b
4
3
h
3
b
3
8
h
2
b
2
2
h
b
1
_
1 +4
h
b
_
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
;
v
stud,0
= 1.44
s
r
b
H
k
;
h
b
= 2
v
stud,1
=
h
b
3
h
2
b
2
1
_
1 +6
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
;
v
stud,1
= 0.880
s
r
b
H
k
;
h
b
= 2. (36)
The horizontal displacement of the top rail for shear walls with
more than two segments and with gaps at all studs can be obtained
by analyzing the conditions for those cases in a corresponding
way as for two segments as illustrated in Fig. 5. The coefficient of
horizontal compliance of the wall versus the number of segments
is shown in Fig. 6. The other results are presented in Fig. 7(c)(g)
for walls with an aspect ratio of h/b = 2.
A.4. Shear walls with a gap only at trailing studOne and more
segments
For a shear wall without gaps except at the trailing stud, there
is no vertical displacement of the leading stud, i.e. v
stud,0
= 0. A
diagonal load is assumed to be applied, which in this case will not
render a truly fully anchored leading stud. The following equations
must be valid
V
0
=
h
b
H
V
0
=
k
s
r
h
_
v
1

1
b
2
_
R
1
= V
0
=
k
s
r
b v
1
(37)
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
_
H =
k
s
r
b
_
u
1
+
1
h
2
+u
imp
frame
_
.
Then, the horizontal displacement, u
imp
frame
, for a wall with these
imperfections is given by
u
imp
frame
= 2
_
1 +
h
b
+
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
=
imp
u
frame,1
s
r
b
H
k
u
imp
frame
= 14
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2.
(38)
This coefficient of horizontal compliance of the wall is shown in
Fig. 6. The other variables become
v
1
=
h
b
s
r
b
H
k
; v
1
= 2
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2 (39)

1
= 2
_
1 +
h
b
_
s
r
b
H
kb
;
1
= 6
s
r
b
H
kb
for
h
b
= 2 (40)
u
1
=
_
1 +
h
b
+
h
2
b
2
_
s
r
b
H
k
; u
1
= 7
s
r
b
H
k
for
h
b
= 2 (41)
M
1
=
k
s
r
b
1

b
2
12
=
1
6
_
1 +
b
h
_
Hh;
M
1
=
1
4
Hh for
h
b
= 2. (42)
For shear walls with two or more segments and with a gap only at
the trailing stud, the systemcan be considered as an assembly with
perfect segments, apart from the last one including the trailing
stud. The stiffnesses of the segments are arranged in parallel and
the compliance of the whole wall can then be evaluated, as shown
in Section 4.4. The coefficient of horizontal compliance of the wall
versus the number of segments is shown in Fig. 6.
A.5. Shear walls with gaps at all studs, except at trailing stud
For a single segment wall with gaps at all studs, except at the
trailing stud, one of the equations of Eq. (20) is changed to Hh
(V
0
+V
1
)b/2M
1
= 0 and the following equations must be added,
V
1
= (k/s
r
)h(v
1

1
b/2) and R
1
= V
0
V
1
= (k/s
r
)bv
1
. The
displacement of the leading stud is given as before. The horizontal
displacement, u
imp
frame
, is then given by
u
imp
frame
=
2
_
1 +4
h
b
+3
h
2
b
2
_
1 +4
h
b
s
r
b
H
k
. (43)
For a two segment wall, the following equations need to be
changedor added, Hh(V
0
+V
1
)b/2M
1
= 0, V
2
= (k/s
r
)h(v
2

1
b/2), and R
2
= V
1
V
2
= (k / s
r
)bv
2
for sheet no. 2. The
horizontal displacement, u
imp
, is then given by
u
imp
frame
=
2 +16
h
b
+49
h
2
b
2
+102
h
3
b
3
+150
h
4
b
4
+90
h
5
b
5
1 +8
h
b
+20
h
2
b
2
+39
h
3
b
3
+48
h
4
b
4
s
r
b
H
k
. (44)
For shear walls with more than two segments, the analysis can
be carried out in the same way as for two segments. The details
of the analysis are not shown here. The coefficient of horizontal
compliance of the wall versus the number of segments is shown in
Fig. 6 and the other analytical results are presented in Fig. 8(b)(g)
for walls with an aspect ratio of h/b = 2.
In dealing with the large equation systems described in the
different sections above, especially for shear wall configurations
comprised of more than two segments, the mathematical tool
Wolfram Mathematica has been used.
U.A. Girhammar, B. Kllsner / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21822193 2193
References
[1] Kllsner B, Girhammar UA. Plastic models for analysis of fully anchored light-
frame timber shear walls. Eng Struct (doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.023).
[2] Girhammar UA, Kllsner B. Analysis of influence of imperfections on stiffness
of fully anchored light-frame timber shear wallsElastic model. Mater Struct
(2009); 42:32137. (doi:10.1617/s11527-008-9458-7).
[3] Kllsner B, Girhammar UA. Analysis of fully anchored light-frame
timber shear wallsElastic model. Mater Struct (2009); 42:30120.
(doi:10.1617/s11527-008-9463-x).
[4] Degerman T. The behaviour of wood-framed walls sheathed with gypsumplas-
terboards as wind-bracing elementsForces and deformations at diaphragm
action in gypsum plasterboards. Report 31. Lund (Sweden): Department of
Building Technology, Lund Institute of Technology; 1972 [in Swedish].
[5] Girhammar UA, Kllsner B. Tests on partially anchored wood-framed shear
walls. In: 8th world conference on timber engineering. 2004.
[6] Eltoft J, Palm S. Tests of wood-framed shear walls at partial anchorage with
andwithout openings. Report 2003:1. Ume(Sweden): UmeUniversity, Faculty
of Science and Technology, Department of TFE Civil Engineering. 2003
[in Swedish].
[7] Girhammar UA, Bovim NI, Kllsner B. Characteristics of sheathing-to-timber
joints in wood shear walls. In: 8th world conference on timber engineering.
2004.