Influence of loading protocol on the structural performance of timber-framed shear walls

, Crews, Keith, & Gover, Dave (2021) Influence of loading protocol on the structural performance of timber-framed shear walls. Construction and Building Materials, 288, Article number: 123103.

View at publisher

Description

Timber-framed shear walls are designed to resist the lateral loads on a building from wind and earthquake. Many regions around the world have developed standard test methods for evaluating the performance of timber-framed shear walls. Currently, Australia has no such standard test method for timber-framed shear walls. The aim of this study is to develop a standard loading protocol for evaluating the performance of timber-framed shear walls in Australia that is informed by the concerns of both earthquake engineers and wind engineers. To achieve this aim, the key objective of this study is to compare the performance of a standard timber-framed shear wall under three different monotonic (groups M1, M2 and M3) and four different cyclic (groups C1, C2, C3 and C4) loading protocols according to their respective standards. The number of test panels in each group was three (3) for a total number of 21 individual tests. Structural performance characteristics of the standard test panel, such as ultimate and yield strength and global stiffness, were found to be strongly dependent on the loading protocol. For example, ultimate strength was lower for test panels subject to monotonic loading (i.e., 5.99, 6.41 and 6.34kN/m for groups M1, M2 and M3 respectively) compared to test panels subject to cyclic loading (i.e., 6.70, 6.73, 8.03 and 8.11kN/m for groups C1, C2, C3 and C4 respectively). Internal stiffness was found to be relatively consistent regardless of loading protocol. The higher ultimate and yield performance of group C3 (CUREE protocol) and C4 (Cyclone Testing Station protocol) is statistically significant, at the 5% significance level, compared to results from all other test methods (i.e., AS1720.1, EN 594, ASTM E564, BRANZ P21 and ISO 16670). Differences in boundary conditions between the loading protocols might explain some of the differences in results; however, this hypothesis is not strongly supported by the evidence. These results are used to inform our recommendations for developing an Australian standard test method for evaluating the structural performance of timber-framed shear walls.

Impact and interest:

5 citations in Scopus
3 citations in Web of Science®
Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

71 since deposited on 19 May 2021
38 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 210482
Item Type: Contribution to Journal (Journal Article)
Refereed: Yes
ORCID iD:
Cowled, Craigorcid.org/0000-0001-8907-9664
Additional Information: Acknowledgement: The work presented here is made possible by the award of an Advance Queensland A&TSI Research Fellowship to CC funded by the Queensland State Government, the Engineered Wood Products Association of Australasia and Queensland University of Technology (ATSIRF00817-18RD3). Materials were kindly provided Bretts Timber & Hardware, Hyne Timber and Carter Holt Harvey. We also wish to thank the staff at QUT’s Banyo Pilot Plant Precinct where the experimental work was done. Frank De Bruyne, Cameron Creevey, Barry Hume, Glenn Atlee and Zeph Kadel have all made this project possible and their contribution is highly valued.
Measurements or Duration: 16 pages
Keywords: shear walls, monotonic loading, cyclic loading, comparison study, loading protocols, standard test method, racking, IARE
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123103
ISSN: 0950-0618
Pure ID: 84601917
Divisions: Current > Research Centres > Centre for Materials Science
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Science
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Engineering
Current > Schools > School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Copyright Owner: 2021 Elsevier Ltd.
Copyright Statement: This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Deposited On: 19 May 2021 06:32
Last Modified: 29 Feb 2024 22:59