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

Cowled, CJL; Crews, K; Gover, D

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

Cowled, CJL Crews, K

Gover, D

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 288, pp. 1-16
Issue Date:: 2021-06-21

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

The embargo period expires on 21 Jun 2023

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (1.85 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Cowled, CJL
dc.contributor.author	Crews, K https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1450-1423
dc.contributor.author	Gover, D
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-18T04:54:49Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-18T04:54:49Z
dc.date.issued	2021-06-21
dc.identifier.citation	Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 288, pp. 1-16
dc.identifier.issn	0950-0618
dc.identifier.issn	0950-0618
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155342
dc.description.abstract	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.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	Construction and Building Materials
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123103
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.subject	0905 Civil Engineering, 1202 Building
dc.subject.classification	Building & Construction
dc.title	Influence of loading protocol on the structural performance of timber-framed shear walls
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	288
utslib.for	0905 Civil Engineering
utslib.for	1202 Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CBI - Centre for Built Infrastructure
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
utslib.copyright.embargo	2023-06-21T00:00:00+1000Z
dc.date.updated	2022-03-18T04:54:47Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	288

Abstract:

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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155342