Scribd
Upload
52 views

Seismic Performance of Timber Structures

The document summarizes two studies on the seismic performance of light wooden frame buildings. The first study tested a six-story wooden apartment building and found that it performed well under seismic loads based on a performance-based seismic design approach. The second study tested two-story wooden houses and found that non-structural finishes, like gypsum wallboard and stucco, significantly reduced displacement responses, with stucco performing the best. Both studies provided valuable data on the seismic behavior of light wooden frame construction.

Uploaded by

Allan Marbaniang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
52 views

Seismic Performance of Timber Structures

The document summarizes two studies on the seismic performance of light wooden frame buildings. The first study tested a six-story wooden apartment building and found that it performed well under seismic loads based on a performance-based seismic design approach. The second study tested two-story wooden houses and found that non-structural finishes, like gypsum wallboard and stucco, significantly reduced displacement responses, with stucco performing the best. Both studies provided valuable data on the seismic behavior of light wooden frame construction.

Uploaded by

Allan Marbaniang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

HS 792 Assignment

Seismic performance of light wooden frame buildings : A summary

Allan Lambor Marbaniang


Roll No: 184040016

1
Introduction
Light wooden frame design is a popular type of construction in North America. There is, however not
a substantial understanding of the performance of such buildings during seismic events. The load paths,
non-performance based design philosophy and few numerical, and experimental seismic response data make
timber a less popular material than concrete or steel (Filiatrault et al., 2010). The study of a light frame
wood six-story apartment under seismic excitation was performed by (van de Lindt et al., 2010). The
aim of the study was to investigate the effects of different seismic activities on such a building along with
the assessment of the performance based seismic design (PBSD) philosophy used. Filiatrault et al. (2010)
had performed seismic tests on two story houses based on designs common to the Californian region.
The overall performance of the buildings under different seismic loads was investigated along with the
consideration of nonstructural finishes on the seismic performance. A brief summary of these two similar
studies is given.

Experimental setup and test building


A six-story building was tested with two small bedrooms and two bigger bedroom units for each floor
(van de Lindt et al., 2010). The dimension was shorter in the x-direction than the y-direction. Steel rod
ties are kept to prevent overturning and reducing uplift. The building is placed on a shake table, where
three tests was performed for each seismic level. Accelerometers were used to find the acceleration at each
floor while string potentiometers to find diagonal shear wall drift,out of plane diaphragm displacement
and uplift. An optical tracking system was used to measure the absolute displacement.
California style buildings with a garage designed for Seismic Zone 4 following the 1988 Uniform Building
code edition were however used by Filiatrault et al. (2010). The aim was to evaluate the capability
of current buildings in the region. The buildings were stiffer in the longitudinal direction. Different
modifications for the same building type without non structural finishing (Phase 1), with gypsum wallboard
finishing on the interior perimeter (Phase 2), gypsum wallboard finishing on all interior walls (Phase 3)
and stucco external finishing (Phase 4) were tested separately. Two shake tables capable of triaxial testing
were used to fit the size of the two buildings. Displacement, accelerometers, anchor bolt load cells were
all used to find various structural responses. The behaviour of the sill plate and shear wall was also kept
under observation.
With regards to the seismic test, van de Lindt et al. (2010) had used three levels of seismic test data
for different seismic hazard levels of exceedance with return periods of 50, 475 and 2500 years. Filiatrault
et al. (2010) had however used five different seismic levels using Design Earthquake and near field ground
motion as the Maximum Considered Earthquake.

Natural frequencies
White noise was used to find the natural time periods for both studies. The six story building had the
same values in both horizontal directions for the six story case, showings that the building had symmetrical
stiffness and strength properties (van de Lindt et al., 2010). Fundamental periods were found also found
initially and after every seismic test for the two story building (Filiatrault et al., 2010). Phase 3 (partial
gypson wallboard finishing) showed a reduction in the time period with respect to Phase 1 (no finishing),
while Phase 4 (full gypson wallboard finishing) was similar to Phase 4. Phase 5 (stucco External wall
finishing), however showed the largest reduction in the time period. The period was longer in the transverse
direction along with a torsional coupling, especially in the first two Phases.

2
Response and Damage
Optical methods were used (van de Lindt et al., 2010) to find geometrical deformed shapes. The profile of
the response for different intensities was similar, as the same ground motion was used. The maximum roof
displacement increased with an increase in the intensity. The global hysteresis plots also showed the same
behavior. van de Lindt et al. (2010) also found that the maximum drift occurred in the upper stories.
Shear deformations were also caused, besides due to inter story drifts, due to uplift and elongation under
the global shear wall bending. High accelerations at the top of the building were recommended to be taken
into consideration during a PBSD design. Although, the building was symmetric, torsion was seen to be
developed causing an increase in the inter story drift. The distribution corresponded with the first mode,
and being uniformly distributed over the height. A high strength tie down system was found to be needed
to resist uplift forces during high seismic intensity.
Filiatrault et al. (2010) found the displacements response to be smaller in the longitudinal direction.
The building with gypsum wallboard (Phase 3) finishing in the interior perimeter showed less displacements
than the building without finishes. Using the gypsum finishing (Phase 4) on all the interior walls further
decreased the displacements, with the exterior stucco finishing (Phase 5) showing the least displacements.
The finish was therefore found to effect the structural behaviour, with only the last three phases showing
a linear response. The response of the garage perimeter was also investigated. A soft story mechanism at
high seismic levels was found to be possible due to the presence of the maximum lateral displacements.
There was no significant damage in the six story building, even for the strongest seismic intensity
(van de Lindt et al., 2010). The shear walls exhibited most of the cracking for the two story building,
mainly at the corners for Phase 3 test (Filiatrault et al., 2010). Ceiling damage was also seen in Phase
4 test while Phase 5 test showed cracking at the window and door corners. Most of the damage started
after the second seismic level and worsened as the level increased. The sill plates also showed considerable
damage around the entire perimeter.

Conclusion
A summary of two studies based on light-frame wooden construction under seismic effects was given.
van de Lindt et al. (2010) found a PBSD approach to have better performance under seismic loads. The
building also exhibited a torsional response contrary to the symmetric floor-plan and mass distribution.
Filiatrault et al. (2010) found that non structural finishes had a strong effect on the behaviour of the
building. Stucco external finishes showed the greatest reduction in displacements while gypsum wallboard
still performed better than building without nonstructural finishes.

References
Filiatrault, A., Christovasilis, I. P., Wanitkorkul, A., and van de Lindt, J. W. (2010). Experimental seismic
response of a full-scale light-frame wood building. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(3), 246–254.

van de Lindt, J. W., Pei, S., Pryor, S. E., Shimizu, H., and Isoda, H. (2010). Experimental seismic
response of a full-scale six-story light-frame wood building. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(10),
1262–1272 (Taken from moodle paper pool).

You might also like