Analysis of Specimens
The SSG, SSO and SSGO walls were analyzed through the methods described above, and the finite element analysis results are illustrated from Figures 7 to 9. When the horizontal monotonic load was applied to the walls on point c, the side ac of walls was in tension, the side bd was in compression, and the walls sloped. The sheathing was mainly damaged in the screw connections at the top and bottom of walls, the compressed back-to-back studs locally buckled, and Stud No. 4. overall buckled. The double-faced sheathing could constrain steel frame more effectively than single-sided sheathing, so the studs had lighter distortion in double-faced wall than in single-sided wall.
(a) Displacement along X-direction (b) Displacement along X-direction (c) Displacement along X-direction of steel framing of gypsum sheathing of OSB
Fig. 9. Displacement of wall with gypsum sheathing on the back and OSB sheathing on the face.
Fig. 10. Comparison of results between test and finite element analysis.
Table 4. The results of test and finite element analysis.
The finite element analysis results were close to those of tests (as shown in Figure 10). There were no obvious yield points in load-displacement curves in Figure 10. The characteristic points of curves were determined by the methods suggested in Chinese Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building (JGJ 101-96, 1996). The comparisons of results between test and finite element analysis were listed in Table 4.
There was a clear error between walls’ displacements at yield points or maximal load point measured through test and that calculated by finite element analysis, and the maximum error was 24.56%. But the errors on shear resistance of the SSG wall, SSO wall and DSGO wall were only
0. 34% to 1.84%, and the errors on yield load of these three kinds of walls were only 2.1% to 6.03%. The finite element analysis results were close to those of the test. The shear resistance of SSO calculated by finite element analysis was 11.24 kN/m, which was only 3.1% lower than that of wall with the same configuration listed in Japan Iron and Steel Federation (2002). So the method of finite element analysis used in this paper was proved to be correct.