4.4 Article

Seismic Response of Post-Tensioned Cross-Laminated Timber Rocking Wall Buildings

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 146, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002673

Keywords

Cross-laminated timber (CLT); Self-centering; Nonlinear response history analysis; Near-field earthquakes; Structural wall

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1635156]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nonlinear time history analyses were conducted for 5-story and 12-story prototype buildings that used post-tensioned cross-laminated timber rocking walls coupled with U-shaped flexural plates (UFPs) as the lateral force resisting system. The building models were subjected to 22 far-field and 28 near-fault ground motions, with and without directivity effects, scaled to the design earthquake and maximum considered earthquake for Seattle, with ASCE Site Class D. The buildings were designed to performance objectives that limited structural damage to crushing at the wall toes and nonlinear deformation in the UFPs, while ensuring code-based interstory drift requirements were satisfied and the post-tensioned rods remained linear. The walls of the 12-story building had a second rocking joint at midheight to reduce flexural demands in the lower stories and interstory drift in the upper stories. The interstory drift, in-plane wall shear and overturning moment, UFP deformation, and extent of wall toe crushing is summarized for each building. Near-fault ground motions with directivity effects resulted in the largest demands for the 5-story building, while the midheight rocking joint diminished the influence of ground motion directivity effects in the 12-story building. Results for both buildings confirmed that UFPs located higher from the base of the walls dissipated more energy compared to UFPs closer to the base. (C) 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available