Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of softening behaviour of timber light-frame walls subjected to in-plane forces using simple FE models
Linnaeus University, Växjö, Linnéuniversitetet.
School of Engineering, Linnæus University, Växjö, Linnéuniversitetet, Linnaeus University, Växjö.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Structural and Construction Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0336-6433
Faculty of Technology, Linnaeus University.
2014 (English)In: Engineering structures, ISSN 0141-0296, E-ISSN 1873-7323, Vol. 81, p. 464-479Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The present investigation focuses on evaluating the entire load–displacement relationship, especially the softening part, of light-frame wall segments subjected to in-plane monotonic forces when the load-slip curves of the individual sheathing-to-framing fasteners are considered. Different sheathing-to-framing joint characteristics, including unloading behaviour, and stud-to-rail joint characteristics are incorporated in the analyses. Two loading cases are investigated: Horizontal loading resulting in uplift of the leading stud and diagonal loading representing a fully anchored wall.Two common types of finite element (FE) models for the sheathing-to-framing joints are used for the analyses: A single spring model and a spring pair model, where the joint characteristics valid for the timber properties perpendicular and parallel to the grain are used. The maximum capacity of the wall segments is somewhat overestimated when using the spring pair model compared to that of the single spring model. The softening parts of the load–displacement curves are significantly affected, regardless of whether the perpendicular or parallel characteristics of the joints are used.The results from FE simulations using models with perpendicular and parallel characteristics are compared with full scale test results for walls with a single segment loaded horizontally and diagonally. The behaviour of the wall segments subjected to horizontal loading is dominated by fastener displacements perpendicular to the bottom rail. Hence, FE models including perpendicular characteristics should be used. For diagonal loading the behaviour of the wall segments is dominated by displacements parallel to the framing members, and FE models including parallel characteristics should therefore be used.The analyses were extended to multiple segment walls resulting in the same type of behaviour as single segment walls.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 81, p. 464-479
National Category
Building Technologies
Research subject
Timber Structures
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-5365DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.032ISI: 000347494000039Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84955270937Local ID: 373a5a47-26e5-447e-8de9-6e868b428c1bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-5365DiVA, id: diva2:978239
Note
Validerad; 2014; 20141125 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Girhammar, Ulf Arne

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Girhammar, Ulf Arne
By organisation
Structural and Construction Engineering
In the same journal
Engineering structures
Building Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 54 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf