Evaluation of the 

High-Heel Roof-to-Wall 

Connection with Extended 

OSB Wall Sheathing 

Andrew DeRenzis 

Vladimir Kochkin

Xiping Wang

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–222
April 2013

DeRenzis, Andrew; Kochkin, Vladimir; Wang, Xiping. 2013. Evaluation of 

the high-heel roof-to-wall connection with extended OSB wall sheathing. 

General Technical Report FPL-GTR-222. Madison, WI: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 11 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

A recently completed testing project conducted to evaluate optimized structural roof-to-wall attachment solutions 

demonstrated the effectiveness of wood structural panels 

in restraining high-heel trusses against rotation. This study 

was designed to further evaluate the performance of OSB 

wall sheathing panels extended over the high-heel truss in 

resisting combined uplift and shear forces. Five full-size 

roof–wall assemblies were constructed with extended OSB 

wall sheathing and each was tested under a different loading 

combination. Our test results indicate that using extended 

wood structural panel wall sheathing as the primary connection element at the roof-to-wall interface of energy trusses 

can provide a continuous load path in both the shear and 

uplift directions and can be considered a viable option for 

residential construction in most areas of the country. 

Keywords: Lateral performance, high-heel truss, OSB wall 

sheathing, roof system, roof-to-wall connection 

Acknowledgments 

This project was funded through a cooperative research 

agreement between the National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB) Research Center and the USDA Forest 

Service Forest Products Laboratory. This research was 

supported in part by funds provided by Norbord, Inc.

Contents

Introduction....................................................................... 1

Objectives ......................................................................... 1

Methods and Materials...................................................... 1

 General.......................................................................... 1

 Specimen Construction ................................................. 1

 Test Setup and Protocol................................................. 3

Results............................................................................... 6

Summary and Conclusions ............................................. 10

References....................................................................... 10

Appendix—Summary of the Shear Load Versus 

Horizontal Displacement Curves for Tests B 

Through E ....................................................................... 11

Conversion Table

English unit Conversion factor SI unit

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (m) 1.6093 kilometer (km)

pound (lb) 0.45359 kilogram (kg)
Evaluation of the High-Heel Roof-to-Wall 

Connection with Extended OSB Wall 

Sheathing

Andrew DeRenzis, Structural Engineer

Vladimir Kochkin, Director

National Association of Home Builders Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Xiping Wang, Research Forest Products Technologist

Forest Products Laboratory,Madison, Wisconsin 

Introduction

This study responds to the new requirements for roof-towall connections in the 2012 International Residential Code 

(IRC 2012). The new IRC provisions specify complex details for attachment of rafters and trusses to the supporting 

walls. These new requirements, which apply to high-heel 

energy trusses even in the low-wind areas, are labor intensive and add cost to construction of light-frame wood buildings. A recently completed testing project (NAHBRC 2011; 

DeRenzis and others 2012) conducted to evaluate optimized 

structural roof-to-wall attachment solutions demonstrated 

the effectiveness of wood structural panels in restraining 

high heel (i.e., energy) trusses against rotation.

The current study was designed to evaluate the performance 

of oriented strandboard (OSB) wall sheathing panels extended over the high heel truss in resisting combined uplift 

and shear forces. No additional connecting hardware was 

installed to investigate the construction efficiencies in using extended wall sheathing to perform multiple structural 

functions: transfer of roof shear load, restraining high heel 

trusses from rotation, and resisting uplift forces. Testing was 

conducted on full-size roof specimens under combined uplift and shear loading. The structural limitations of this type 

of roof-to-wall connection were established. This method 

for connecting the roof to the walls complements the recently codified approach of providing a continuous combined 

uplift and shear load path using wood structural panels. In 

addition to the structural functions, the extended OSB serves 

as an insulation stop or baffle for the attic insulation at the 

heel.

The results of this study are expected to further expand prescriptive construction solutions optimized for structural and 

energy performance and constructability. 

Objectives

The specific objective of this study is to develop an 

uplift–shear capacity interaction curve for extended wood 

structural panel wall sheathing used as the primary connecting element at the roof-to-wall interface.

Methods and Materials

General

Testing was conducted at the National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB) Research Center Laboratory Facility 

located in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. All specimens were 

constructed in the laboratory and all construction materials 

were purchased from local suppliers. The Norbord Tall Wall/

Windstorm OSB product used for the wall sheathing was 

donated by Norbord Inc., Toronto, Canada.

Table 1 provides a test matrix summarizing the uplift–shear 

loading combinations. A total of five laboratory tests of a 

roof–wall assembly with extended OSB wall sheathing were 

conducted, each under a different loading combination. 

Test A (100% uplift, no shear load) and Test E (100% shear 

load, no uplift load) were conducted to anchor the combined 

loading interaction curve. The uplift load levels by percentage of total uplift capacity were selected to provide system 

performance at realistic load combinations (Tests B, C, and 

D). For typical house geometries and based on the IRC wind 

load coefficients, combined loading scenarios for residential 

construction are typically above a 2:1 uplift to shear loading ratio. Therefore, two of the three combined loading tests 

used the loading ratio above 2:1. 

Specimen Construction

Each specimen was constructed with five 24-ft span wood 

trusses with a 151⁄4-in. heel height, spaced at 24 in. on center. The overall size of the full roof system was 8 ft deep by 

24 ft wide with additional 16-in. long overhangs on each 

side. Trusses were supported at the heel by 4-ft high by 

8-ft long light-frame wood walls. The supporting walls were 

constructed with 24-in. on-center framing and sheathed on 

the exterior with 4-ft wide Norbord Tall Wall/Windstorm 

OSB panels extending up past the top plate of the wall to 
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

2

capture the energy truss heel. Figure 1 shows a photo of a 

specimen and set-up. 

Tables 2 and 3 provide summaries of materials and methods used in construction of the specimens and the fastening 

schedule for the wall sheathing, respectively. Figures 2 

and 3 show the typical test specimen and fastening detail, 

respectively.

The Tall Wall OSB sheathing was fastened to the truss heel 

with five 8d common nails (21⁄2 in. by 0.131 in.) (Fig. 3 and 

Table 3). This nailing schedule is based on the observed 

performance of OSB sheathing under lateral load only in 

Phase I testing where a total of three nails were used. For 

the current study, two additional nails were specified for 

added uplift resistance, for a total of five nails per truss heel 

(with a maximum of one of the five nails installed into the 

end grain of the bottom chord of the truss). Trusses were 

connected to the top plate with two toe-nails. No other connection hardware was installed.

Sheathing was attached to the wall framing (Fig. 3 and 

Table 3) in general accordance with the provisions approved 

by American Wood Council for the use of wood structural 

panels to resist combined uplift and shear (Coats and Douglas 2011). These provisions specify additional nails along 

the top and bottom plates of a shear wall to resist the uplift 

component in a combined loading scenario. One exception 

in the tested specimen attachment details was the 4-in. oncenter nail spacing at the top plate (increased from the 3-in. 

spacing specified in the AWC provisions) on account of the 

additional roof-to-wall load path through the sheathing-totruss heel fasteners. 

The supporting walls were anchored to the laboratory strong 

floor using 1⁄2-in. bolts at 16 in. on center with 3-in. by 3-in. 

by 0.229-in. square plate washers to prevent cross-grain 

bending failure of the bottom plates and Simpson HD hold 

downs at each wall’s end.

The 7/16-in-thick OSB roof sheathing was installed perpendicular to the truss top chord members with a staggered 

panel layout. Metal sheathing clips were installed on the 

unblocked edges of each panel at 24 in. on center between 

the framing members. A 2-in-wide roof vent was provided 

at the ridge (1 in. each side of the ridge) such that bearing 

of panel edges did not occur during testing.

The ceiling gypsum panels were installed perpendicular to 

the truss bottom chord members and the first rows of fasteners was located approximately 8 in. from the supporting 

walls (i.e., floating edges) in accordance with the Gypsum 

Association’s Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel 

Products (GA-216-2010, Gypsum Association 2010). A 

single 2x boundary member and 2x nailing member were 

installed at the front and back trusses to simulate the presence of supporting gable-end walls by providing the bearing 

surface for the exterior edges of the gypsum as the gypsum 

panels rotate under the shear loading. Figure 4 shows a 

schematic of this boundary detail.

Because the objective of the study is to evaluate the performance of the wall sheathing to energy truss heel connection, 

gypsum panels were attached to bottom truss chords using 

screws at 8 in. on center to simulate the upper bound capacity of residential ceiling diaphragms. The ceiling diaphragm 

of the Test E specimen (100% shear load, no uplift load) 

was further reinforced with additional bracing of the truss 

bottom chord members to force the failure at the energy 

truss heel connection. All interior gypsum panel joints 

for all specimens were taped and mudded; however, no 

Table 1—Test matrix

Test

Uplift load

(as percentage

of peak uplift 

capacity)

Uplift to shear 

ratio (assuming 

linear 

relationship) Shear load Purpose

A 100 NA None Establish peak uplift load 

capacity of the specimen

B 85 5.7:1 Max load at 85% uplift Develop uplift versus shear 

load capacity interaction 

relationship at various 

combined loading ratios

C 70 2.3:1 Max load at 70% uplift

D 40 0.7:1 Max load at 40% uplift

E 0 NA Max load at 0% uplift

Figure 1. Test specimen and set-up. 
Title of Report

3

finishing was done at the interface of the ceiling and the 

bearing walls. 

Test Setup and Protocol

Lateral load was applied to the specimen using the same 

methodology developed and used during Phase I testing of 

this project. Specifically, load was applied through permanent truss bracing (2 by 6 nominal Southern Pine, No. 2 

Grade lumber) attached at the center vertical web member 

of each truss approximately 2 ft, 3 in. up from the bottom. 

The intent of using a pair of typical permanent truss braces 

was to minimize the restraints imposed on the specimen by 

the loading apparatus by applying the load through members 

that are typically present in truss roof assemblies. 

Figure 5 provides the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE) 7 lateral wind load profile in the direction parallel 

to the ridge. Wind pressures are transferred to the roof and 

ceiling diaphragms through the framing of the gable-end 

wall and wall below the roof. Figure 6 illustrates the tributary area associated with each of the diaphragms, including 

the additional load into the ceiling diaphragm from the wall 

framing below. The location of the lateral loading brace 

was chosen to most closely replicate this ratio of forces in 

the roof and ceiling diaphragms by a wind load. Refer to 

DeRenzis and others (2012) for a more in-depth explanation 

of the distribution of forces and derivation of the loading 

methodology. 

Table 3—Wall sheathing fastening schedule

Location/Connection Fastener schedule

Extended wall sheathing to energy truss heel Face-nailed with five (5) 8d common (21⁄2 in. by 0.131 in.)

Wall sheathing to vertical wall framing 

(Nailing for shear)

8d common (21⁄2 in. by 0.131 in.) at 6 in. on center around 

perimeter, 12 in. on center in the field

Wall sheathing to top plate (Increased 

nailing for additional uplift load)

8d common (21⁄2 in. by 0.131 in.) at 4 in. on center along top 

plate

Wall sheathing to bottom plate (Increased 

nailing for additional uplift load)

8d common (21⁄2 in. by 0.131 in.) at 3 in. on center along top 

plate

Table 2—Construction of specimens 

Materials Methods 

Roof dimensions 24-ft roof span (plus 1-ft, 4-in. overhang on each end) 

8 ft deep (a total of 5 trusses) 

Roof pitch 7:12 

Roof framing members Metal plate connected wood trusses fabricated with No. 2 SPF lumber; 

Heel heights 151⁄4 in. 

Truss spacing 24 in. on center 

Truss-to-wall plate connection Trusses toe-nailed to top plate of wall with two 16d box (31⁄4-in. by 

0.131-in.) nails 

Fascia board 1- by 6-in. nominal lumber face-nailed to each truss end with two 8d 

common (21⁄2-in. by 0.131-in.) nails 

Roof sheathing materials 7/16-in-thick OSB sheathing installed perpendicular to framing 

member with steel edge clips and unblocked edges parallel to the 

ridge

Roof sheathing fasteners 8d common (21⁄2-in. by 0.131-in.) at 6 in. on center on panel perimeter 

and 12 in. on center in the panel field 

Ceiling material 1/2-in-thick gypsum panels installed perpendicular to truss bottom 

chord members, joints in the panel field taped and mudded 

Ceiling fasteners 1-5/8-in. Type W drywall screws at 8 in. on center with first rows of 

fasteners 8 in. in from side walls (i.e., floating edges) 

Supporting wall dimensions 8 ft long by 4 ft in height 

Supporting wall framing (including top 

plates) 

2 by 4 nominal SPF STUD or No. 2 grade lumber 

Supporting wall sheathing 7/16-in-thick Norbord Tall Wall/Windstorm OSB sheathing attached 

with 8d common (21⁄2-in. by 0.131-in.) nails 
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

4

Figure 2. Specimen construction.

Figure 3. Tall Wall OSB sheathing connection detail.
Title of Report

5

Each center vertical truss web member was reinforced with 

a double 2 by 8 vertical member to prevent weak-axis bending failure of the web. Each permanent bracing member was 

attached to the vertical reinforcing member with a single 

41⁄2-in. by 1⁄2-in. lag bolt to provide sufficient load transfer 

with minimal rotational restraint.

Figure 7 shows a schematic of the test set-up including the 

specimen, loading apparatus, and instrumentation and Figure 8 provides photos of the uplift–shear loading apparatus. 

Uplift loading was applied uniformly to the ceiling diaphragm through a pressurized rectangular air bag. The air 

bag was constructed of flexible ethylene propylene diene 

monomer (EPDM) rubber and placed on a support structure 

underneath the test specimen (Figs. 8 and 9). The support 

structure also isolated the air bag from the test specimen 

walls to prevent any restraint of the walls caused by friction 

with the bag. The top of the air bag was isolated from the 

gypsum ceiling diaphragm by a translatable bearing surface 

constructed of a series of bearing plate rollers sandwiched 

between two layers of OSB; the rollers allowed the specimen to move independently of the air bag in the lateral 

direction under combined loading. Figure 9 provides a detail 

of the translatable bearing surface. 

The lateral load was applied in tension using a computercontrolled hydraulic cylinder mounted to a steel reaction 

frame. The reaction frame was attached to the laboratory 

structural floor. Uplift loading via inflation of the air bag 

was achieved using a computer-controlled pressure load 

actuator (PLA). 

For Test A, uplift loading was applied continuously at a rate 

targeting failure to occur at approximately 5 minutes. For all 

subsequent combined loading tests, uplift load was ramped 

up to a value determined in accordance with Table 1 as a 

percentage of the peak uplift pressure achieved in Test A 

and then held constant throughout the remainder of the test. 

After the target uplift load was achieved, lateral load was 

ramped up monotonically at a constant displacement rate of 

0.06 in. per minute to allow for sufficient visual observations throughout the test. Testing was continued until failure, 

defined as a 20% drop from the peak lateral load. 

Several displacements were measured using electronic 

linear motion position transducers (LMPTs), including the 

following:

• Lateral displacement of the top of the heel (TOH) on 

the first/front truss (T1) at both ends

• Lateral displacement at the top of the supporting walls 

(TOW)

• Lateral displacement of the roof ridge

• Lateral displacement of the ceiling diaphragm

• Lateral slip at the bottom of the supporting walls

• Uplift at the end stud of the supporting walls, and

Figure 4. Ceiling diaphragm boundary detail at front 

and back trusses.

Windward

corner Wind

direction

1

6

3

2

4

5

4E 3E

2E

5E 1E

6E

a

2a

Θ

Wind

Plan

L

B

qzGCp

qhGCp

qhGCp

qhGCp

qhGCp

qhGCp

qhGCp

qzGCp

Elevation

L

Z h

Figure 5. ASCE 7 wind-loading profile.
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

6

• Compression at the end stud of the supporting walls

• Relative uplift between the supporting wall and the 

heel of the first/front truss at both ends

• Relative uplift between the supporting wall and the 

heel of the last/back truss at both ends

Lateral loading was measured using an electronic load cell 

installed between the cylinder and the loading bracket. Uplift loading was measured via an electronic pressure transducer located within the pressurized bladder. All load and 

displacement measurements were recorded using an electronic data acquisition system.

Prior to testing, a series of calibrations were conducted on 

a full-size specimen to verify the correlation of the uplift 

load calculated from the pressure measurements to the uplift 

reaction load measured using load cells placed at the 

bottom of the supporting walls. Uplift load based on 

pressure measurements was calculated as the pressure reading inside the air bladder multiplied by the area of loading 

(i.e., the translatable bearing surface) and then adjusted 

down to account for the weight of the specimen and the 

set-up. For direct measurement of uplift load (rather than 

pressure), each anchor bolt was fitted with a 5,000-lb load 

cell that measured the uplift force between the anchor bolt 

and the specimen. Oversized holes were drilled at each of 

the anchor bolt locations in the bottom plates of the supporting walls to prevent friction. The calibration indicated that 

the uplift load based on the pressure measurements and the 

reaction load measurements were within 6.5% of each other, 

with the pressure-based uplift loads being the higher of the 

two. Subsequent uplift capacities calculated from uniform 

pressure load measurements during testing were adjusted 

down accordingly. 

Calibration was also conducted to quantify the amount of 

lateral resistance the translatable bearing surface imparted 

onto the specimen through friction effects. A full-size test 

specimen was constructed without roof or ceiling sheathing, 

and subjected to incrementally increased uplift load. At each 

load increment, the uplift force was held constant while the 

specimen was laterally loaded to a set displacement and then 

allowed to return to its original position. Lateral load measurements during this calibration showed that the contribution of the frictional forces to the lateral load was negligible.

Results

The results of the testing are summarized in Table 4 including the unit uplift capacity and corresponding unit shear 

Figure 6. Tributary area of wind loads.

Figure 7. Test set-up and instrumentation.
Title of Report

7

capacity for each specimen. Figure 10 shows the uplift 

versus shear capacity interaction curve based on the test 

results. For comparison, Figure 10 also includes a simplified 

linear interaction. The Appendix provides a summary of the 

shear load versus horizontal displacement curves for Tests B 

through E, measured at various locations on the specimen, 

including the midpoint of the bottom chord of the first truss, 

the TOH of the first truss and the TOW at both ends of the 

specimen.

Test A (100% uplift) provided a benchmark uplift capacity 

for the energy truss heel connection system. Test A reached 

a unit uplift capacity of 525 lb/ft. The primary failure mode 

in Test A was a Mode IIIm yielding followed by withdrawal 

of the nails connecting the OSB wall sheathing and the truss 

heel and a withdrawal of the toe-nails from the top plate 

(Fig. 11). 

Tests B, C, and D evaluated the shear load capacity of the 

connection system at various levels of uplift loading. The 

primary failure modes of Tests B (85% uplift) and C 

(70% uplift) were similar to those seen in Test A. The majority of the OSB to heel nail connections exhibited the 

Mode IIIm Yield failure (Fig. 12), with the back trusses 

(trusses under tension caused by global overturning) reaching capacity first. A few of the nail connections at the center 

truss, where the two OSB sheets are joined, failed by nails 

pulling through the OSB edges (Fig. 13). This change in 

failure mode most likely is due to the effect of the smaller 

panel edge distances at that location in conjunction with the 

shear load component acting perpendicular to the OSB edge. 

Figure 8. Specimen uplift and lateral load apparatus.

Figure 9. Translatable bearing surface.

Table 4—Test results

Test

Uplift load

(as % of peak 

uplift capacity)

Unit 

uplift capacity 

(lb/ft)

Unit shear 

capacity 

(lb/ft)

A 100 525 —

B 85 435 143

C 70 360 236

D 40 195 393

E 0 — 592
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

8

The primary failure mode of Test D (40% uplift) was a 

cross-grain bending failure of the wall bottom plates at the 

uplift ends of the supporting walls, initiated by a failure of 

the test set-up reaction anchors that secured the tension stud 

hold-downs (Fig. 14). However, significant deformations 

were observed at the heel connection (Fig. 15), suggesting 

that the roof-to-wall connection had reached or was near its 

capacity. 

During Test D (40% uplift), the roof-to-wall connection 

had reached or was near its capacity as evidenced by the 

Figure 10. Uplift versus shear interaction curve from 

testing.

Figure 11. Primary failure mode of Test A.

Figure 12. Fastener yield failure mode of 

Test C.

Figure 13. Nail pull-through failure of Test C.

significant deformations observed at the heel connection; 

however, the overall capacity of the specimen was limited 

by the failure of the uplift hold-downs and subsequent crossgrain bending failure of the bottom plates at the uplift ends 

of the supporting walls. Further inspection indicated that the 

hold-down anchors had not been fully engaged within the 

reaction frame of the testing set-up before the start of the 

test. 
Title of Report

9

Test E (0% uplift load) benchmarked the shear capacity 

of the energy truss heel connection system. The ceiling 

diaphragm of the Test E specimen was reinforced with additional sheathing on the top face of the truss bottom chords 

to achieve failure at the energy truss heel connection. Test E 

reached a unit shear capacity of 592 lb/ft, and also exhibited 

a Mode IIIm Yield failure at the OSB-to-heel connection as 

its primary failure mode, with the nail bending/yielding occurring in the horizontal direction (Fig. 16).

Evaluation of the combined uplift and shear capacity interaction curve indicates a slightly nonlinear relationship with 

all of the tested capacities greater than those predicted by a 

linear relationship. Therefore, a linear relationship may be 

a simplified and conservative representation of the response 

under combined loading for design of energy truss heel connections using extended wood structural panel sheathing.

Figures 17 and 18 compare the combined uplift and shear 

interaction curve based on testing to design wind load scenarios for several typical house roof sizes. The roof sizes 

(24 ft by 50 ft, 36 ft by 50 ft, and 48 ft by 50 ft) were selected to bracket the majority of the building dimensions and 

roof length to width aspect ratios present in residential construction. The wind loads were determined using tables 2.2A 

and 2.5B from Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM) 

for One- and Two-Family Dwellings–2012 Edition (AWC 

2012) assuming a mean roof height of 30 ft, a 

7:12 roof pitch, and the truss span in the short direction. 

Note that the 2012 edition of the WFCM is based upon 

ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 

Other Structures (ASCE 2010) basic wind speeds for a 3-s 

gust and 700-year return period. Design wind loads were 

adjusted up by assuming a factor of safety of 

2.0 to provide a direct comparison to the uplift and shear 

capacities of the system measured from testing.

Analysis presented in Figures 17 and 18 shows that the 

capacity of the energy truss heel connection exceeds the 

adjusted design values in Exposure B wind regions for all 

analyzed building configurations at basic wind speeds up to 

120 miles per hour (mph), and in the case of the shorter roof 

spans at basic wind speeds up to 150 mph. Accordingly, the 

analysis indicates that the tested energy truss heel connection can provide a factor of safety of 2.0 in Exposure B wind 

regions 

Figure 14. Set-up anchor failure of hold-down during 

Test D.

Figure 15. Deformation of OSB-to-heel connection at 

failure of Test D.

Figure 16. Fastener yield failure mode of 

Test E.
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

10

for nearly all typical building layouts across the majority 

of the country. The applicability of the tested system is less 

extensive when comparing peak capacities to design values 

in Exposure C wind regions (Fig. 18); the system capacity yields a factor of safety of 2.0 or greater at basic wind 

speeds of up to 115 mph in only two of the three layouts 

analyzed. A basic wind speed of 115 mph, however, encompasses the greater majority of the continental United States, 

excluding only the coastal regions in the eastern half of the 

country.

Summary and Conclusions

This testing program was designed to evaluate the performance of OSB wall sheathing panels extended over the 

roof truss heel in resisting combined uplift and shear forces. 

The results of this study are expected to provide guidance 

towards further expanding prescriptive solutions optimized 

for structural and energy performance and constructability. 

The following is a summary of the conclusions that can be 

drawn from the results of this testing program: 

1. The tested system using extended wood structural panel (Norbord Tall Wall/Windstorm OSB) wall sheathing 

as the primary connecting element (without additional 

connecting hardware) at the roof-to-wall interface of 

energy trusses can provide a continuous load path in 

both the shear and uplift directions and can be considered a viable option for residential construction in most 

areas of the country (the limitations include hurricaneprone areas and homes with large roof systems).

2. The uplift versus shear capacity interaction curve for 

the energy truss heel connection system is slightly 

nonlinear, with capacities for all uplift to shear ratios 

measured in this testing program exceeding the capacities predicted based on a linear interaction. In design 

applications, a linear relationship may be a simplified 

and conservative representation of the response under 

combined loading for energy truss heel connection system using extended wood structural panel sheathing.

References

ASCE 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other 

structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). Reston, VA: American Society 

of Civil Engineers.

AWC 2012. Woodframe construction manual for one and 

two family dwellings (2012 Edition). Leesburg, VA: American Wood Council.

Coats, P.; Douglas, B. 2011.Use of wood structural panels to 

resist combined shear and uplift from wind. Structure Magazine, June 2011: 16-19.

DeRenzis, A.; Kochkin, V.; Wang, X. 2012. Evaluation of 

the lateral performance of roof truss-to-wall connections in 

light-frame wood systems. General Technical Report FPL–

GTR–214. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 25 p.

Gypsum Association. 2010. Application and finishing of 

gypsum panel products (GA-216-2010). Hyattsville, MD: 

Gypsum Association. 

ICC 2012. International residential code for one and two 

family dwellings. Country Club Hills, IL: International 

Code Council. 

NAHBC. 2011. Evaluation of the lateral performance of 

roof truss-to-wall connections in light-frame wood systems. 

Upper Marlboro, MD: National Association of Home Builders Research Center.

Figure 17. Comparison of tested capacity to typical windloading scenarios (Exposure B regions).

Figure 18. Comparison of tested capacity to typical windloading scenarios (Exposure C regions).
Title of Report

11

Appendix—Summary of the Shear Load Versus Horizontal 

Displacement Curves for Tests B Through E

Test C

Test B
Research Note FPL–RN–0300

12

Test E

Test D