3.8 Article

Comparing In-Plane Equivalent Shear Stiffness of Timber Diaphragms Retrofitted with Light and Reversible Wood-Based Techniques

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000602

Keywords

Timber diaphragms; Seismic retrofitting; In-plane stiffness; OSB panels; Plywood panels; Reversible seismic strengthening

Funding

  1. NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Matschappij)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a uniform and simple method based on the calculation of the secant stiffness of the floors at reference drifts for timber diaphragms strengthening techniques. The results offer indicative values of equivalent shear stiffness for each considered technique, contributing to a more aware and reliable use and design of wood-based retrofitting solutions for existing timber diaphragms.
In-plane behavior of timber diaphragms is usually characterized by means of an equivalent shear stiffness. However, this value depends on how the stiffness of the floors is evaluated from the experimental tests. Although an increasing number of research studies have provided a deeper insight into the seismic characterization of as-built and retrofitted timber diaphragms, the use of different standards or assumptions have led to inhomogeneous and not comparable results. With a focus on light, reversible, wood-based strengthening techniques applied to existing diaphragms, this study proposes a uniform and simple method based on the calculation of the secant stiffness of the floors at reference drifts. By means of this procedure, relevant research studies from the literature were compared, and homogeneous, indicative values of equivalent shear stiffness were proposed for each considered strengthening technique. These results can contribute to a more aware and reliable use, design, and linear modeling of wood-based retrofitting solutions for existing timber diaphragms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available