Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 212

Monolithic Unibody Light-Frame Structures: An Integrated Solution for

Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Building Energy Enhancement
Hongyu Zhou*; Adam L. Brooks; Zhenglai Shen; and Dominic Hanna
*
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville,
Huntsville, AL 35899. E-mail: hongyu.zhou@uah.edu

Abstract
This research investigates an innovative unibody light-frame design which
utilizes the flexibility/versatility of fibrous composites in construction, as well as the
sustainable feature of agricultural waste plant-fiber materials. Unlike conventional
light-frame constructions, where ply-wood or light-gauge steel sheathings are
installed onto the supporting frame though fasteners, the building envelope
components proposed in this research were cast-in-place to form a monolithic
conformation. The mechanical performances of the composing natural/synthetic
hybrid fiber materials were investigated in this study, in conjunction with the
feasibility of the associated construction method. Furthermore, the structural
performances of this new structure form and its ability to resist natural hazards were
studied through experimental tests and the results were compared to those of
conventional light-frame structures. The results indicate that the innovative
monolithic design has enormous potential to offer enhanced and tunable structural
performance (i.e., structural integrity, ductility) of light-frame building structures, as
well as to provide superior energetic properties of the building envelope.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Light-frame construction constitutes a large portion of the residential and
commercial building inventory in the United States (Swensen et al. 2014a, 2014b). In
light-frame residential house structures, plywood sheathed shear walls are among the
most commonly used exterior envelopes to provide enclosure of residential spaces,
which often also serves as the primary lateral force resisting mechanism in events of
earthquakes and wind storms. While during past earthquakes light-frame residential
house construction generally performed well with respect to life safety, however,
recent shaking table tests (van de Lindt et al. 2007, 2010, 2011) have indicated that
traditional shear walls may not provide sufficient stiffness and energy dissipation,
which would lead to large deformation causing substantial damage to both structural
and non-structural components. The wide-spread damages have led to significant
financial losses. In the post-disastrous review of 1994 Northridge earthquake, it was
concluded that the largest contributor to financial losses was the widespread minor to
moderate residential housing damage, where more than half of the $25.6 billion total
losses ($40 billion according to Kircher et al. (Kircher et al. 1997) were attributed to
the repair and replacement of damaged residential houses (Comerio 1997). In
addition, some non-structural damages, e.g., water and gas line rupture, may lead to

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 213

secondary disasters (i.e., fire, flooding etc.) that pose further threats to residents life
safety and may also cause larger scale damage to the structures.
Differing from most multistory buildings where the structural frames are
designed and constructed separately with their cladding and partitioning systems,
light-frame residential structures utilize (at least part of) the plywood or OSB
partitioning boards to provide stability and lateral strength to the supporting frames.
The plywood or OSB sheathings are normally attached to the structural frames
through fasteners such as nails and screws (Swensen et al. 2014). Experimental tests
performed on wood and light-gauge steel frame shear walls indicated that the
structural behavior and integrity of the light-frame structural components reply
heavily on the performance of fasteners (Liu et al. 2012; Pei et al. 2012), i.e., the
component failure are primarily due to loss of connection between sheathing and the
supporting frame (see Figure 1). Besides the weakened structural performance caused
by fastener failures, conventional Lateral load
interiorly-insulated walls have also
shown problematic energy
performance due to thermal
bridging at joints and stud
locations (Al-Sanea and Zedan
2012; Sveipe et al. 2011), and air
infiltration/exfiltration through
gaps between the sheathing panels
(Li et al. 2006). The infiltrated air
also causes moisture fluctuation, Figure 1. Wall failure due to the loss of
mold growth, and declined in-door connection between sheathing and framing
air quality (Husman 1996).
To circumvent these issues associated with conventional building envelopes,
several trails of research have been carried out, among which a UniBody house
construction concept was proposed by Swensen et al. (Swensen et al. 2014a, 2014b)
aiming at increasing the stiffness and strength of light frame building envelope
components, and in conjunction with low-cost seismic isolators the system was able
to limit damage under moderate-to-strong ground motions. In the NEESR-UniBody
project (Swensen et al. 2014a, 2014b), the improved stiffness and strength were
achieved through a design methodology that accounts for the structural participation
of the cladding and partitioning systems (i.e., the gypsum partition walls and stucco
cladding); and by using combined mechanical and adhesive connections between the
sheathing and framing, the structural performances of these components were further
enhanced. On the other hand, researches have demonstrated the superior energy
performance of externally insulated wall systems than their interiorly-insulated
counterparts by improving the continuity of the insulation layer and, thus, to reduce
thermal bridging at the stud and seam locations (Kolaitis et al. 2013).
One common feature of these design philosophies to improve both the
structural and energetic performances of building envelope systems was through the
enhancement of component/sub-system integrity. In this light, this research exploits a
new design and construction methodology for light-frame structures which integrates
the partitioning sheathing and the supporting frame together as a monolithic structure.

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 214

The method utilizes sustainable natural fibers from agricultural waste sources (e.g.,
coconut coir etc.) as basic constituents and build-blocks for a unibody residential
structure design.

2.0 MONOLITHIC ENVELOPE CONSTRUCTION FOR STRUCTURAL

INTEGRITY AND ENHANCED ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Motivated by the overarching goal of simultaneously improving the structural
and energetic performance of light-frame building structures, the objectives of this
research are to develop a new envelope design and construction methodology that
harnesses the translational advancements in sustainable natural fiber composite
materials and high-efficiency composite synthesis and processing methods: an
economical and scalable approach will be explored for envelope component/full-
structure constructions; and experimental validation tests will be carried out on the
proposed material and prototype envelope components to verify the hypothesis that
the performance of light frame structures can be drastically improve by seamlessly
integrating sheathing panel and the framing as a monolithic piece.

Sustainable Natural Room Enclosures

Material Sources & Structures

Fiber Processing & Monolithic Integration

Hybridization with Structural Frames
Figure 2. Monolithic light-frame structure design for multi-hazard resilience and
enhanced building energy performance

Figure 2 presents an illustrative view of the proposed monolithic construction

of a light frame wood residential structure, where natural plant-based fibers mats
(hybridized with glass fiber surface veil) were used as the base materials for the
construction of structural sheathings. The natural plant fiber mats are processed from
cheap agricultural waste sources such as coconut husk (for the coir fiber) and
recycled bamboo timber. The (hybrid) natural fiber mats are wrapped around the
structural framing to form a seamless enclosure of the structure, see Figure 2. The
fiber mat installation can be facilitated using high-efficiency air-powered roofing nail

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 215

gun. The process requires minimal manpower, and provides very high flexibility to
architecturally complex structure shapes by utilizing the shapeable nature of fiber
mats. After transferring a polymer binder (such as polyester) to saturate the fiber mat,
the exterior envelope of structure (i.e., sheathing together with the supporting frame)
is casted into a monolithic piece.
Unlike conventional light-frame constructions where ply-wood or light-gauge
metal sheathings are installed onto the structural frame though fasteners, the envelope
components (i.e., exterior walls and roofing) of this proposed system were cast-in-
place by utilizing the shapeable nature of treated plant fiber mats. The structure
provides a monolithic conformation which not only eliminates the structural integrity
issue caused by problematic fastener behavior during extreme load events (e.g.,
earthquakes and wind-storms); it also creates an airtight barrier that effectively
minimizes thermal and moisture breaching.

3.0 AGRICULTURAL-WASTE BASED COMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR ENVOPE

CONSTRUCTION
Material Constituents and Processing
In order to select suitable materials that have the desirable mechanical and
physical properties for building envelope construction, and at the same time, are
economical for large-scale structural applications, a series of prototyping and
experimental tests were carried out for identifying the material(s) having balanced
performance and pricing. Emphasis was given to natural fiber materials originated
from agricultural waste resources. The use of agricultural waste-based materials in
envelope construction will achieve two primary ends. First, the use of sustainable
materials will reduce embodied carbon of the structures. Second, their abundant
sources provide an economically viable option for alternative construction materials.
In the present research, three types of natural fibers (i.e., natural coconut coir,
jute fiber, and bamboo fiber extracted from moso-bamboo timber) were explored as
baseline materials for envelope construction; and among these options, coconut coir
fiber was selected for further study due to the well-balanced performance-to-price
ratio, and its abundancy in the north American market. To take the full advantage of
the design and processing flexibility of natural fiber composite materials, the fibers
were processed into non-woven mats with dimension of 3/8-inch thick (in bulk
format), 60-inch wide and 250-feet long and they were packaged as rolled fiber mats.
The coconut coir fiber mats require very minimal processing and are easy to transport
in large quantity. In order to provide the strength and stiffness needed as structural
sheathing and desirable water/moisture resistance, thin glass fiber surface veils were
attached to one or both side(s) of the natural fiber mat. Since the usage of glass fiber
veil may influence the final price of the material, three different types of glass fibers,
i.e., 0.75-oz/ft2 random strand mat (2R0.5F1C), 1.5-oz/ft2 random strand mat
(2RF1C); and Saertex woven mat (2WF1C), were investigated in conjunction with
the coconut coir fibers in this research.
Material Mechanical Performance
The mechanical performances of the coconut coir/ glass hybrid fiber
composite materials were experimentally determined in accordance with ASTM
D3039 for unidirectional tension and ASTM D7264 for three-point bending. The

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 216

specimens for material testing were prepared using a vacuum bagging setup. The
fiber mats were saturated with a laminating epoxy (PROSETTM LAM125) and cured
under vacuum pressure of 25 psig for 24 hours. Depending on the types of glass fiber
veil used, the specimen groups were named as 2R0.5F1C for materials that are
composed of a coconut fiber core and 0.75-oz/ft2 random-orientated fiberglass strand
mat on both surfaces; 2RF1C for coconut fiber core and 1.5-oz/ft2 random-orientated
fiberglass mat; and 2WF1C for coconut fiber core and bi-axial woven fiberglass
fabric. The final thickness of cured laminate depends on both the material type, as
well as the processing vacuum pressure (i.e., higher vacuum pressure would result in
thinner panel and less matrix polymer usage).
Table 1. Results from uniaxial tension tests (ASTM D3039)*
Youngs Failure Failure
Thickness
Modulus Stress** Strain
(inch)
(ksi) (ksi) (inch/inch)
2R0.5F1C 0.2728 333.5 2.526 0.0082
2RF1C 0.2441 488.2 5.474 0.0134
2WF1C 0.2764 504.8 6.299 0.0207
* Results shown are the mean values of multiple specimens tested per test group.
** The failure stress in unidirectional tension is calculated as nominal stress where the gross
cross-section area of specimen was used.
Extensometer

Gauge
Strain

Side View Front

Figure 3. Unidirection tension test (ASTM D3039) setup and test samples

Table 2. Results from three-point bending tests (ASTM D7264)

Flexural Failure Failure
Thickness
Modulus* Stress** Strain
(inch)
(ksi) (ksi) (inch/inch)
Plywood 0.2656 1230.0 8.323 --
2R0.5F1C 0.2504 463.0 5.263 0.0217
2RF1C 0.2312 628.9 7.637 0.0167
2WF1C (thin) 0.2514 985.7 11.14 0.0226
2WF1C (thick) 0.3308 770.4 11.33 0.0340
* The flexural secant modulus of elasticity was calculated according to ASTM D7264/D7264M.
** The failure stress is calculated as nominal stress where the gross cross-section area of
specimen was used according to ASTM D7264/D7264M-07.

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 217

The uni-axial tension tests (ASTM D3039) were performed on a MTS-810

universal material testing system with 110,000 pound-force (lbf) load capacity. The
tensile strain was measured using an extensometer with a 2-inch gauge length
(Epsilon Tech. Inc.) throughout the tests, see Figure 3. A high resolution camera was
staged to record the damage onset and failure of the test specimens at two frames per
second. The data acquisition channels (National InstrumentTM) were synchronized
and acquiring data at a sampling rate of 10 samples per second. The test setup and
instrumentation are shown in Figure 3. Table 1 summarizes the tensile properties of
the coconut coir/ glass hybrid composites, where the results are calculated as mean
values of multiple test samples according to ASTM D3039. The elastic moduli of the
three types of materials tested are modest as compared to wood, and it is a function of
the amount of format of glass fiber used, see Table 1. For the specimen group
2R0.5F1C, the samples failed at average tensile strength of 2526 psi with
corresponding rupture strain at 0.0082. By doubling the amount of glass fiber used
(i.e., using the same random fiber strand mat but twice as thick as that used for
2R0.5F1C), 2RF1C had 46% increase in elastic modulus and reached nearly 2 times
the tensile strength (5474 psi on average). The material samples with woven glass
fiber mat (i.e., 2WF1C) have slightly higher average elastic modulus and strength
than 2RF1C. The representative stress-strain relationships are plotted in Figure 4 (a).
Regardless of the glass fiber type used, the tensile failures had shown an abrupt
pattern, which was featured by the fracture of fibers (i.e., both glass and coconut coir
across the fracture surfaces), as shown in Figure 4 (a).

7500 150
(a) (b)
2RF1C 2WF1C
(thick)
2WF1C
Stress (psi)

5000 2WF1C 100

(thin)
Force (lbf)

Plywood
(baseline)
2500 50
2R0.5F1C
2RF1C
2R0.5F1C
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Tensile Strain (in/in) Deflection (inch)
Figure 4. Comparisons of the mechanical behavior of coconut coir/glass hybrid
fiber composites: (a) stress-strain relationships under unidirectional tension; and
(b) load-deflection relations under three-point bending

In addition, three-point bending tests were performed on four (4) types of

coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber composites (i.e., 2R0.5F1C, 2RF1C, 2WF1C (thin),
and 2WF1C (thick)) and the baseline plywood, see Table 2 and Figure 4 (b). The only
difference between 2WF1C (thin) and 2WF1C (thick) is laminate thickness due to
different vacuum pressure used during material processing (i.e., the same amount of
fibrous materials were used for both types of samples). The flexural modulus and
apparent bending strength of the materials were calculated according to ASTM
D7264, see Table 2. The flexural moduli of all four types of composites are, to some

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 218

extent, lower than that of the plywood tested in this study; while most composite
samples (except 2R0.5F1C) have shown better displacement ductility, see Figure 4
(b). The flexural behaviors (i.e., load-deflection curves) of four specimen groups are
plotted in Figure 5. The plywood samples (Figure 5 (a)) have shown relatively large
discrepancy with respect to displacement ductility, which may mainly due to the un-
uniform defect distribution within the wood layers. Comparing the bending behaviors
of 2R0.5F1C and 2RF1C, the average flexural modulus of 2RF1C is 35% higher than
2R0.5F1C (see Table 2), which is consistent with the tensile test results (see Table 1);
however, the load-deflection curves of 2RF1C have exhibited much more ductile
behavior than 2R0.5F1C. The high displacement ductility of 2RF1C was attributed to
its compression failure mode, where the loss of strength was caused by the
compressive crush of glass fibers on the top surface. For specimen groups with woven
glass fiber fabric (i.e., 2WF1C), the thicker group having average laminate thickness
of 0.33 inches (not plotted in Figure 5) yielded higher stiffness and bending strength
and the failures were featured by the tensile rupture of the glass fibers on the bottom.

100 0.100 100 0.100

(a) (b)

Strain (in/in)
75 0.075 75 0.075
Force (lbf)
Force (lbf)

50 0.050 50 0.050
Load - Deflection
Max. Tensile
Strain
25 0.025 25 0.025
Plywood
(baseline) 2R0.5F1C
0 0.000 0 0.000
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Deflection (inch) Deflection (inch)
100 0.100 100 0.100
Load - Deflection Load - Deflection
(c) Max. Tensile Strain (d) Max. Tensile Strain
75 0.075 75 0.075
Force (lbf)

Force (lbf)
Strain (in/in)

Strain (in/in)

50 0.050 50 0.050

25 0.025 25 0.025

2RF1C 2WF1C (thin)

0 0.000 0 0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Deflection (inch) Deflection (inch)
Figure 5. Flexural behavior of coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber composites: (a)
baseline plywood; (b) 2R0.5FC; (c) 2R1FC; and (d) 2WF1C (thin)

4.0 ENVELOPE CONSTRUCTION, TESTING, AND PERFORMANCE

Prototype Construction
Following the material development and characterization, a prototype model
house and five (5) shear panels were constructed for (i) validating the envelope

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 219

construction method proposed in this research; and (ii) serving as test panels for the
mechanical/structural performance characterization. In constructing the monolithic
building envelopes, the sustainable coconut coir fiber mats (at current market price of
$0.5/yard, 60-inch wide) are pre-laminated with the fiberglass surface veil ($0.75-
1.25/yard depending on the types of fiberglass fabric/mat used) as the base material
for the sheathings. The pre-laminated fiber roll will be attached to the supporting
frames (either wood or cold-formed light gauge steel) using an air-powered roofing
nail gun, see Figure 6. To provide extra support of the sheathing, a ductile spray-on
elastomer layer (e.g., polyuria) may be applied to the exterior side of the envelope.
The elastomeric layer will serve as an air and moisture barrier (the spray-on
construction process is similar to that of an elastomeric air barrier), and it can also act
as an airtight mold for the subsequent vacuum-assist resin transfer. Following the
elastomer spray, a vacuum bag film will be applied to the interior surface of the
envelope, and together with the elastomeric sprayed-on film, it creates an airtight
enclosure to facilitate a final stage of vacuum-assisted transfer of the polymer binder
(e.g., polyester), see Figure 6.

Coconut Coir/Glass Fiber Polymer Binder

Supporting Wood-Frame Mat Sheathing Transfer
Figure 6. Construction of a monolithic uni-body wood frame structure with
coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber mat sheathing

The polymer-bonded coconut coir, sandwiched between the elastomer exterior

surface and a glass fiber reinforced interior face, provides structural stability of the
envelope panel. The cured monolithic envelope provides high strength (against high
wind pressure and earthquakes) and impact resistance (against wind-borne debris),
and meanwhile, the microporous elastomer provides excellent moisture resistance and
thermal and acoustic insulation. In addition, the highly deformable nature of polyurea
elastomer (>700% elongation) provides additional energy dissipation mechanism and
protection of the envelope system (Zhou et al. 2014).
Experimental test program
In addition to the wood frame prototype house, five shear panels were
constructed with the coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber composites using the same
construction method as previously described. The panels for testing were constructed
using pine board with nominal sections of 1 x 2 inches (actual measurement of wood
cross section was x 1). Square frames that had outer measurements of 16 by 16
inches were constructed with screwed joints at the four corners. Four out of the five

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 220

frames have a center stud to replicate the studs of building envelope components. The
panels were each layered with different sheathing materials, where the plywood and
coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber mats were cut to suitable dimensions as needed. These
fiber mat sections were measured at 18 x 18 inches so that the edge of the sheathing
mat could be sufficiently wrapped around the frame. Roofing nails were used to
fasten the sheets onto the supporting frame. For the panel having elastomer layer, the
polyurea was sprayed onto its exterior surface using a compressed air fixture. The
detailed panel layup is listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Shear panel layup

Center
Layup Polyurea
Stud
Single sheet of plywood, replicating
Plywood_Single shear behavior of plywood panel No Yes
without seam
Sheathed with two pieces of
Plywood_Joint No Yes
plywood panels replicating a joint
Polyurea, Frame, ,Coconut Coir,
0.5g1c-PU Randomly orientated glass fiber Yes No
strand mat (0.75-oz/ft2)
Frame, Coconut Coir, Random
1g1c No Yes
glass fiber strand mat (1.5-oz/ft2)
Frame, Saertex woven fiberglass
mat, Coconut Coir, Randomly
2g1c
orientated glass fiber strand mat No Yes
(1.5-oz/ft2)

Figure 7. Shear panel test setup: (a) the picture-frame panel shear test fixture;
and (b) failure of the plywood sheathed shear panel with joint seam

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 221

The panels were tested under cyclic in-plane shear using a picture-frame shear
fixture and the results are compared to those of conventional plywood constructions
with and without connection joints, see Figure 7. The test panels were clamped inside
a hinged fixture, and the cyclic shear load was applied using a MTS-810 servo-
hydraulic test system. The loading was applied under quasi-static displacement-
controlled condition (i.e., sine wave-form); and two cycles were repeated for each
displacement level.
Results
Compared in Figure 8 are the applied load (in kilo-pound force) versus
diagonal displacement data for the five shear panels tested with wood framing and
either plywood (with and without connection joint) or the coconut coir/glass hybrid
fiber mat sheathings. Results in Figure 8 (a) are for two plywood sheathed panels, one
with a joint seam at center stud location. Figure (b) compares the results between two
coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber sheathed panels: one (0.5g1c - PU) with a 0.75-oz/ft2
randomly orientated glass fiber strand mat on the interior surface, and a 1/8-thick
polyuria moisture-proof layer on the exterior; another (1g1c) with a layer of 1.5-oz/ft2
randomly orientated glass fiber strand mat attached to the interior surface only. Figure
8 (c) presents the hysteretic results of the 1g1c panel compared with those of 2g1c
(the 2g1c panel has a Saertex woven glass fiber attached to the exterior surface and a
1.5-oz/ft2 randomly orientated glass fiber strand mat on interior side). The shear
behaviors of all tested panels are summarized in Table 4.
6.0k 9.0k
Plywood Joint 1g1c
Plywood single
(a) 6.0k 0.5g1c - PU (b)
3.0k
3.0k
Force (lbf)
Force (lbf)

0.0 0.0

-3.0k
-3.0k
-6.0k

-6.0k -9.0k
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement (inch) Displacement (inch)
18.0k 18.0k
1g1c Plywood Joint
12.0k
2g1c (c) 12.0k Plywood Single (d)
0.5g1c - PU
1g1c
6.0k 6.0k 2g1c
Force (lbf)

Force (lbf)

0.0 0.0

-6.0k -6.0k

-12.0k -12.0k

-18.0k -18.0k
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Displacement (inch) Displacement (inch)

Figure 8. Quasi-static cyclic shear test results: hysteretic responses of (a) seamed
plywood and single plywood sheathed panels; (c) 0.5g1c-PU and 1g1c; (d) 1g1c
and 2g1c; and (d) backbone curves of all tested panels

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 222

The comparison between two plywood sheathed panels indicates that the
existence of joint seams will notably weaken both the stiffness and strength of the
final structural assembly. The load-bearing capacity (i.e., the maximum force
observed in the tests) of single plywood shear panel was 32% higher than that of the
seamed panel with a joint at center stud location, and the structural stiffness of single
plywood panel was nearly 70% higher than its seamed counterpart. The weakened
stiffness due to joint seam(s) was caused by the change of deforming mechanism,
where the total deformation of seamed panel is contributed by both the shear
deformation of sheathing panel as well as the sliding as shown in Figure 9. On the
other hand, the difference in load-bearing capacity was primarily due to pre-matured
fastener failures at the joint locations, see Figure 7 (b). For the seamed plywood panel,
cracks developed at the fastener locations due to stress concentration, and its strength
is dictated by either the nail pullout or the bearing of the nail against the plywood
board. Because of the differences in deformation and load-bearing mechanisms, the
plywood shear panel with seamed joints failed at higher displacement value (0.797
inches) as compared to its single
panel counterpart, which fails at
0.64-inch displacement. This
observation is consistent with the
full-scale wall component tests
carried out by Pei et al. (Pei et al.
2012), where the failure of plywood
sheathed shear walls were feature of
by detachment of sheathing panels
from support wood frame. The
single plywood shear panel is Figure 9. Deformation mechanisms of
similar to the structure that fastened plywood sheathed shear panels w/o
with adhesive connections connections seam
(Swensen et al. 2014).

Table 4. Quasi-static cyclic shear panel test results

Peak Force, Displacement at Structural Stiffness*
Fmax (kips) Fmax (inch) (kips/inch)
Plywood (Single) 4.719 0.640 9.876
Plywood (Seam) 3.592 0.797 5.707
0.5g1c 7.271 0.676 10.86
1g1c 8.719 0.991 9.484
2g1c 15.403 0.694 26.80
* Structural stiffness was calculated based on (Ibarra et al. 2005).

Compared with plywood shear panel, the load-bearing capacities of the shear
panels sheathed with coconut coir/glass hybrid fiber composite are in general higher,
however, the stiffness of panels with only random strand fiber mats (i.e., 0.5g1c and
1g1c) are similar to that of single-piece plywood shear panel. With the reinforcement
of Saertex woven (45) glass fiber fabric, the 2g1c panel had shown significantly

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 223

higher values in both stiffness (nearly 2 times higher than the single-piece plywood
panel) and shear strength (more than 3 times higher than plywood-single).
The structural properties tested by the cyclic shear tests are listed in Table 4.
The shear behavior of coconut coir/glass fiber composite sheathed panels depends
strongly on the layups. Generally, the increase of the glass fibers contents would lead
to the increasing of load capacity. The shear load capacity of 1g1c was approximately
20% higher than that of 0.5g1c; and stiffness-wise, the panel 0.5g1c (10.86 k/inch)
and 1g1c (9.484 k/inch) are similar, which is consistent with material test results (see
Table 2 and Figure 5). The randomly orientated glass fiber strands may have limited
effects in increasing structural stiffness and strength; however, it may improve the
ductility of the shear panels by providing additional reinforcements near failure, see
Table 4 and Figure 8 (b). While the structural strengths of 0.5g1c and 1g1c are close
to each other, the corresponding displacement at peak force increased about 47% for
1g1c. The panels reinforced with Saertex woven glass fiber bears a high level of shear
load (Table 4 and Figure 8). The structural stiffness of 2g1c sample is 26.80 kips/inch,
which is significantly greater than those of specimens 0.5g1c (10.86 kips/inch) and
1g1c (9.484 kips/inch). This is mainly due to the 45 woven texture of the
reinforcing glass fibers, which provided both high strength and stiffness in shear.
Figure 8 (d) plots the backbone curves of the five shear panels tested. In
general, the shear strength of monolithic shear panels made with the hybrid coconut
coir/glass fiber composite are higher than that of the plywood sheathed panels.
However, the post-peak load-displacement curves of the composite panels exhibit
abrupt drops (i.e., the plywood sheathed panel presented a more stable load
degradation behavior after reaching the load capacity). This may be due to the fact
that the monolithic shear panels are highly elastic with little degradation/damage until
peak strengths were reached. Similar phenomena have been observed with the
unibody shear walls with adhesively attached gypsum board and claddings
(Swensen et al. 2014a). It is worthwhile to note that, the material tensile and flexural
properties of coconut coir/glass fiber composites are similar to (or in many cases
lower than) plywood as previously presented in Tables 1, 2 and Figures 4, 5. This
may imply that by eliminating the problematic connection issue between structural
sheathing and the supporting frame, the overall performance of structural assembly
can be remarkably improved. In addition, the mechanical properties of hybrid fiber
composite are highly tailorable by changing its material constituents and layup
sequence, which offers additional design spaces in building envelope construction.
When higher structural strength and stiffness are required, the flexible design of
sheathing materials may introduce extra stiffness and strength to the light-frame
structure backbone. The 2g1c panel maintained about 1/3 of its peak strength out to
the displacement level of 2.8-inch (see Figure 8 (c)), where the remaining strength
was higher than peak strength value of the seamed plywood shear panel. Thus, by
tuning the fiber layup of composite shear panels, high structural stiffness and strength
can be obtained without compromising the post-peak structural load bearing behavior.

5.0 SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK

This research aims to develop a new design and construction approach for
light-frame building envelopes that integrates structural sheathing and the supporting

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 224

frame as a monolithic structure, providing superior (and tailorable) structural and

energetic performances. The proposed monolithic configuration would eliminate the
problematic fastener behavior as encountered in many light-frame constructions, and
by changing the constituents and layup of the sheathing materials, variable structural
stiffness, strength, and thermal conductivity can be obtained.
The effort leverages translational advancements in natural fiber composite
materials and their processing into the applications of civil structures. The work
reported in this paper had successfully demonstrated the viability of using natural
fiber materials (hybrid with a small portion of synthetic fibers such as fiberglass) into
envelope constructions. And the proposed construction method was applied to smaller
scale envelope panels and prototype model houses. The mechanical and structural
behaviors of monolithic envelope panels were experimentally tested, and the results
have shown tremendous potential for dramatically improving building envelope
performance, both structurally and energetically. Beyond the work reported, further
research are needed for (i) models at both component and structural levels to
characterize the deformation and load-bearing mechanisms observed in this study; (ii)
systematic experiments and studies on full-size envelope component and structures to
investigate the performance limits including collapse safety; (iii) studying the system-
level energy performance of such structures; and (iv) comprehensive design and
construction guidelines for facilitating the implementation of this method.

ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially funded by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)
IIDR program (IIDR 2014-300).

REFERENCES
Al-Sanea, Sami a., and M. F. Zedan. 2012. Effect of Thermal Bridges on
Transmission Loads and Thermal Resistance of Building Walls under Dynamic
Conditions. Applied Energy 98: 58493.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.038.
Comerio, Mary C. 1997. Housing Issues After Disasters. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management 5(3): 16678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.00052.
Husman, Tuula. 1996. Health Effects of Indoor-Air Microorganisms. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health 22(1): 513.
Ibarra, Luis F., Ricardo a. Medina, and Helmut Krawinkler. 2005. Hysteretic Models
That Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 34(12): 14891511. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/eqe.495.
Kircher, Charles a., Robert K. Reitherman, Robert V. Whitman, and Christopher
Arnold. 1997. Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings. Earthquake Spectra
13(4): 70320.
Kolaitis, Dionysios I. et al. 2013. Comparative Assessment of Internal and External
Thermal Insulation Systems for Energy Efficient Retrofitting of Residential
Buildings. Energy and Buildings 64: 12331.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378778813002272.

ASCE
Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 225

Li, Qinru, Paul Fazio, and Jiwu Rao. 2006. To Apply Numerical Simulation to
Assist Drying Capacity Experiment of Light-Frame Wall Systems. Building
Integration Solutions 40798(190): 115.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40798(190)4.
Van de Lindt, John W. et al. 2010. Experimental Seismic Response of a Full Scale
Six Story Light Frame Wood Building. Journal of Structural Engineering 136(10):
126272.
Van de Lindt, John W., Hongyan Liu, and Shiling Pei. 2007. Performance of a
Woodframe Structure during Full-Scale Shake-Table Tests: Drift, Damage, and
Effect of Partition Wall. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21(1):
3543.
Van de Lindt, John W., Steven E. Pryor, and Shiling Pei. 2011. Shake Table Testing
of a Full-Scale Seven-Story Steel-Wood Apartment Building. Engineering
Structures 33(3): 75766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.031.
Liu, P, K D Peterman, C Yu, and B W Schafer. 2012. Cold-Formed Steel Shear
Walls in Ledger-Framed Buildings. : 114.
Pei, S., John W. van de Lindt, W. Wehbe, and H. Liu. 2012. Experimental Study of
Collapse Limits for Wood Frame Shear Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering
139(9): 148997.
Sveipe, E. et al. 2011. Improving Thermal Insulation of Timber Frame Walls by
Retrofitting with Vacuum Insulation Panels - Experimental and Theoretical
Investigations. Journal of Building Physics 35(2): 16888.
Swensen, S.D. et al. 2014. Finite Element Analysis of Light-Frame Unibody
Residential Structures. 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Swensen, Scott et al. 2014. Toward Damage Free Residential Houses Through
UniBody Light-Frame Construction with Seismic Isolation. In SEAOC 2014 83rd
Annual Convention Proceedings,.
Zhou, Hongyu, Kittinan Dhiradhamvit, and Thomas L. Attard. 2014. Tornado-Borne
Debris Impact Performance of an Innovative Storm Safe Room System Protected by a
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Hybrid Polymeric-Matrix Composite. Engineering
Structures 59: 30819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.10.041.

ASCE