Fully Reversed Cyclic Loading Of Shear Walls Fastened With Engineered Nails

摘要

Fifteen shear walls, each constructed with either conventional or engineered sheathing nails, were tested under fully reversed cyclic loads. Four types of conventional nails (named 0.113, 0.113R, 0.131, and 0.148 nails) and three types of engineered nails (named EN1, EN2L, and EN2H nails) were used. Walls with EN1 nails exhibited the highest ultimate load capacity; walls with 0.148 and 0.131 nails had 18 and 26% reduction in load capacity when compared to walls with EN1 nails. The ultimate load of walls with EN2H nails, though 15% less than that of walls with EN1 nails was greater than that of any other wall. The load capacity of walls with EN2H nails was 8% greater than that of walls with EN2L nails and greater than that of walls with 0.113 and 0.131 nails by 24 and 14%, respectively. Walls with 0.113 and 0.113R had basically the same load capacity. The stiffest walls were those with 0.148 nails with stiffness 10% greater than those with EN1 nails. The stiffness of walls with EN1 nails was effectively equal to that of walls with 0.131 nails. The stiffnesses of walls with EN2L and EN2H nails were basically the same. The stiffness of walls with EN2 nails was 20 and 26% smaller than that of walls with 0.113 and 0.131 nails, respectively. Walls with 0.113R were the least stiff walls; their stiffness was 44% lower than that of walls with 0.148 nails. The displacement capacity of walls with EN1 nails was 89 and 97% of that of walls with 0.131 and 0.148 nails, respectively. Walls with 0.113 and 0.131 nails had essentially the same displacement capacity. Compared to walls with 0.113 and 0.131 nails, walls with EN2L nails had an 8% increase while walls with EN2H nails had a 4% decrease in displacement capacity. Walls with 0.113R nails exhibited the lowest displacement capacity, only 75% of that of walls with EN1 nails. Walls with EN1 nails dissipated slightly more energy than those with 0.148 nails; they dissipated approximately 16% more energy than those walls with 0.131 nails. Walls with EN2H and 0.131 nails dissipated basically the same amount of energy. Walls with EN2L nails dissipated 5% less energy than walls with EN2H and 0.131 nails. Walls with EN2L and EN2H nails dissipated, respectively, 5 and 10% more energy than walls with 0.113 nails. Walls with 0.113R nails dissipated the lowest amount of energy, 75% of that dissipated by walls with EN1 nails.