Dynamic Testing of Two Different Timber Wall PDF

SHORT TERM SCIENTIFIC MISSION
University of Ljubljana
FGG KPMK

Dynamic testing of two different
timber wall construction systems

Report of a Short Term Scientific Mission
to
IZIIS, Skopje Macedonia

within the frame of COST E29
Innovative Timber and Composite
Elements/Components for Buildings

Bruno Dujic
University of Ljubljana

SHORT TERM SCIENTIFIC MISSION COST E29

B. Duj ic April 2006 Page 2

Background of research activities
The new generations of lightweight, prefabricated structures are recently
becoming more popular in European market. The new trends are bringing multistory
timber structures. Special attention is paid to buildings located in earthquake prone
areas of middle and south Europe. Therefore, the appropriate guidelines for designing
have to be set for existing and new timber structural systems to assure their seismic
resistance. The new European directives and standards (Construction Product
Directive, Eurocodes) are more demanding regarding to seismic resistance of structures
in seismic active European countries. Therefore, industry of prefabricated timber
structures should follow these demands if it would like to be present on worldwide
market of seismic areas.
In Slovenian construction practice a lot of attention is put on seismic design but till
now timber structures were ignored against other type of structures. The main reason
is that we manly built from other type of materials especially in concrete, steel and
family houses mostly from clay bricks. But nowadays new types of eco construction
systems are more and more present also in Slovenian regions.
Cooperation between research institutes
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering (ULFGG) is last
few years oriented in seismic research of timber structures. Through research
activities ULFGG established strong connections with two important institutes and
research partners with specific knowledge on two different research areas. Partners
from Institute for Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology from Skopje
Macedonia (IZIIS) are experts in seismic research and partners from MPA Stuttgart -
Otto Graf Institute (MPA) are experts in timber research. After very strong earthquake
which occurred in Skopje 1963, at IZIIS was installed one of the largest shaking
platforms in Europe. With some exchange visits and given lectures of researchers from
above mentioned institutions we set an outline of future research on evaluation of
seismic behavior of timber structures.
The execution of dynamic tests of four different timber models on shaking table at
IZIIS in Skopje, Macedonia is based on our own motivation and agreement between
collaborating research institutions to step forward on seismic research of European
types of timber buildings. With evaluation of their dynamic response parameters we
would like to clarify research needs for future research projects based on these
findings. With these research activities important contribution will be done in the
promotion of timber structures on seismic areas, especially in Slovenian and
Macedonian market, were timber structures were ignored against other type of


structures. The benefit of promotion will reflect also in ecological orientation of
investors, because nowadays more and more attention is paid on bio and ecological
aspects of chosen construction material, where wood has many advantages against new
and other conventional type of materials.
Previous research as starting point for present research activities
Within existing collaboration between MPA and ULFGG, the basic wall segments of
two different load-bearing systems of timber structures were already tested last year
at ULFGG. Tested wall panels of the first system were consisted from timber frames
with both sides sheathed gypsum fiber boards which were fixed to the frame with steel
staples. Further discussed tests of the second system are wall segments of solid cross
laminated wooden walls KLH panels. For the racking tests of the first system was
responsible Mr. Ruediger Finn from MPA, therefore this STSM report is concentrated
only on testing of the second system consisted from KLH panels.
Description of KLH panels
The basic material for production of cross-laminated solid timber panels is the
side-wood from trunk edge zones of spruce. For the production of cross-laminated
timber the technically dried timber with moisture of 12% (+/- 2%) is used. Pests, fungi
and insect attacks that may cause damage are thus excluded. Cross-laminated timber
is produced from spruce strips that are crosswise stacked on top of each other. Cross
lamination of the timber strips has many advantages. It minimizes swelling and
shrinkage in the board plane, considerably increases static strength and shape
retention properties and enables load transfer across the entire plane of panel.
The individual layers of wood are glued by the solvent-free and formaldehyde-free
polyurethane based adhesive Purbond HB 110 produced by Swiss company Collano. It
is tested according to DIN 68141 and other criteria of FMBA Baden-Wrttemberg, MPA-
Otto Graf Institute, Stuttgart. The adhesive is approved according to DIN 1052 and EN
301 for production of load-bearing timber building components and special
construction techniques, both for interior and exterior construction.


The boards undergo strict, visual quality
assortment. Depending on application or
load-bearing requirements, 3, 5, 7 or
more layers are stacked on top of each
other; up to a maximum thickness of 60
cm (Fig.1). Cross laminated panel - KLH
or in German language Kreuzlagenholz
is applicable for all construction parts in
structure as wall, floor or roof panel
(Fig.2).

Fig.1: Cross-laminated solid
wooden KLH panel.
Fig.2: Applicability of KLH panels for
different structural elements.
Racking tests of KLH wall panels
Racking tests were carried out on walls of length 244 cm and story height at
combined constant vertical load and monotonous or cyclic horizontal load applied
according to different loading protocols. Wall panels were tested at various boundary
conditions which enabled wall deformations from cantilever up to pure shear.
Influences of boundary conditions, magnitudes of vertical load and type of anchoring
systems were evaluated on the base of deformation mechanisms and racking strengths
of wall segments. Differences in mechanical properties between monotonic and cyclic
responses were studied.


At racking tests of wall diaphragms the main challenge was to simulate realistic
boundary conditions that may occur during the action of an earthquake. In reality, the
boundary conditions may change during an earthquake excitation because of changes
of the building characteristics due to development of damages. Therefore, the testing
device for quasi static cyclic testing should allow the altering of boundary conditions.
Which mechanism will be established during dynamic shaking of building depends on
combination of different parameters (shear stiffness of wall element, magnitude of
vertical load, stiffness and load-carrying capacity of anchors) and boundary condition
of wall installation into the structure; for example if the wall is fixed by metal
connections as in platform construction or up-lift of wall is constrained by frame
structure. Following this idea three major cases of boundary conditions are most likely
to appear in reality (Fig. 3):
shear cantilever mechanism, where one edge of the panel is supported by the
firm base while the other can freely translate and rotate (Case A);
restricted rocking mechanism, where one edge of the panel is supported by the
firm base while the other can translate and rotate as much as allowed by the
ballast that can translate only vertically without rotation (Case B) and
shear wall mechanism, where one edge of the panel is supported by the firm
base while the other can translate only in parallel with the lower edge and
rotation is fully constrained (Case C).
In Case A and Case B the panel is exposed to constant vertical load in every
stage of the cycling excitation or horizontal deformation induced along the upper edge
where the ballast is acting. In Case C the vertical load increases when the panel
tends to uplift due to displacements along the upper horizontal edge. In practice, the
Case A represents mostly the behavior of narrow panels and panels located in attic
and vertically loaded only by flexible roof constructions. The Case B is typical for
panels carrying the floor construction above it and the Case C is the typical case of
infill of a stiff surrounding frame.
The response of the tested wooden walls does not depend only on the boundary
conditions and the magnitude of vertical load but mostly on the configuration and
mechanical properties of the constituent elements and the assembly as a whole.
However, ignoring of the influence of different boundary conditions and the level of
vertical load may lead to miss-interpretation of the observed response. In Figure 1
three different patterns of wall behavior are presented: shear, rocking and combined
shear rocking response. All of them can develop under boundary conditions of shear
cantilever mechanism (Case A). The behavior depends on the shear stiffness of the
wall diaphragm as a whole, the magnitude of vertical load and the layout and
mechanical characteristics of the anchors. The shear response develops either if the


panel is flexible in shear or if the magnitude of the vertical force is relatively high.
The rocking response is typical for weakly anchored stiff panels or a low level of
vertical loading. Combined behavior can be observed in most cases of realistic
behavior of panels where different combinations of panel stiffness, anchoring and
vertical load take place. The response of panels tested with Case A boundary
conditions represents the conservative behavior. If the same panel is exposed to other
boundary conditions (Case B or Case C) the response values of rocking and
combined shear-rocking may be higher than the values observed using Case A
conditions. The reason therefore is the lowering of the tensile forces developed in the
vertical edges of the panel, consequently lowering the tensile loading of anchors.
Testing under conditions of the Case B is justified only when the behavior of the
panel in the real building is governed by an in and out of plane stiff floor diaphragm
(composite wood-concrete or solid wood slab). Testing under conditions of the Case
C is suitable for panels designed to act as frame infill, panels with glued-in-rods or for
highly vertically loaded walls in the lowest story of multistory buildings.
The results of testing under conditions of the Case C can not be considered
applicable to most realistic cases and may lead to serious mistakes if used wrongly in
the design of structures. Due to underestimation of the importance of the boundary
conditions the load bearing capacity of the panels is extremely overestimated
especially when the panels are loaded with vertical loads of low intensity or when the
panels are weakly anchored. However, at present the majority of known tests in
Europe and hereon based expertise and technical approvals are based on the Case C
conditions.

Case A: Rocking
response of walls
Case B: Combined shear
rocking response of wall
Case C: Shear response
of walls
Figure 3: Typical responses of wooden wall panels exposed to
combined vertical and horizontal load.
The complete information about the mechanical characteristics of wooden wall
panels and their anchoring can be obtained from responses both to monotonous and


cyclic loading with proper combination of vertical forces (Figure 3). The protocol of EN
594 is sufficiently covering the monotonous loading of wall panels. Unfortunately, the
protocol of EN 12512 covers only cyclic testing of particular joints made with
mechanical fasteners, what is an insufficient tool for evaluation of the behavior factor
q needed for design of earthquake resistant buildings. On the other hand, the ISO
16670 standard also addresses only the joints but the proposed protocol can be also
used for testing of wooden wall diaphragms. The reason therefore is that ultimate
joint displacement is used, instead of yield slip (EN 12512) which is difficult to define.
Since the ISO protocol is based on ultimate displacement it can forward a behavior
factor q as addressed in Eurocode 8.
The comparison of the responses of solid wooden panels subjected to cyclic and
monotonous loading (Fig. 4) well illustrates the importance of cycling testing. It was
observed that the load carrying capacity of the panel exposed to cyclic loading is
between 10 to 20% lower than the resistance of the panel exposed to monotonous
loading. The cyclic response shows slightly higher initial stiffness due to hardening of
the fasteners exposed to low-cycle fatigue and lower ductility. Therefore, earthquake
design of wooden buildings can not be properly performed without data obtained from
cyclic testing of panels exposed to different intensities of vertical load.
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement at the top of the wall [mm]

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

L
o
a
d

[
k
N
]
cyclic horizontal load
EN 594 defined horizontal load
monotonous incrising horizontal load

Figure 4: An example of differences between monotonic and cyclic responses of solid
wooden wall panels with length of 2.44 m at vertical load of 15kN/m.
It is obvious that there is a need for development of an integral European standard
that would cover both monotonous and cyclic testing of wall diaphragms. The new


standard should also include the criteria for determination of limitations of inter-story
drifts according to the concept of performance based earthquake engineering design.
The graphs in Figure 5 reveal the influence of vertical load intensity both on the
load carrying capacity and the type of response mechanisms as discussed above and
presented in Figure 3. The characteristic of stiff solid wooden panels behavior is that
the shear mechanism does not develop in spite of varying boundary conditions from the
Case A to the Case B. It was reached when boundary conditions were set to the
Case C.

0
30
60
90
120
150
10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical load per meter length of the wall [kN/m']

H
o
r
.

l
o
a
d

c
a
r
r
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

[
k
N
]
Fmax (Case C)
Fy (Case C)
Fmax (Case A)
Fy (Case A)
Boundary
Conditions - Case C
Boundary
Conditions - Case A

Figure 5: Influence of vertical load intensity on load carrying capacity of
solid wooden wall panels with length of 2.44 m.
Dynamic tests of KLH models on shaking platform at IZIIS
Two full-scale models have been constructed and tested on the shaking table at
the IZIIS Laboratory, Skopje, Macedonia in order to investigate the response of massive
wooden wall panel systems under earthquake excitation. The basic idea was to make a
correlation between the results from the quasi-static tests already preformed at the
Laboratory of Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering in Ljubljana and the results
from the shaking table tests. Comparative tests on structural segments with two
parallel walls of length 244 cm and story height linked together with slab timber panel
were performed in January and February this year. Dynamic tests were divided into
harmonic and seismic tests on two different KLH models. The main task of research
was to define mechanical properties of dynamic responses of tested models.
Dynamically developed failure mechanisms on wall segments could confirm reality of
proper boundary conditions set at racking tests executions. With establishing such


relationships dynamic properties also for other type of light load-bearing systems could
be defined on the base of known quasi-static cyclic or monotonic mechanical
properties. My dairy research activities are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Research activities at IZIIS in the period between 22.1.2006 and 07.2.2006:
Date Research activity
22.01.2006
- arrival in Skopje (transportation of instrumentation equipment
and data acquisition system with my car from Ljubljana)
23.01.2006
- working meeting of researchers before starting with lab activities
- installation of the first model on the platform (KLH model with
one unit wall element of length 244 cm)
24.01.2006
- ambient vibration test on the first model without added mass
- comparison with the eigenvalue analytical results for verification
of the analytical model (with mass only due to self weight)
25.01.2006
- positioning of full mass on the model
- ambient vibration test on model with added mass
of the analytical model (with total mass: due to self weight +
added mass)
26.01.2006
- instrumentation of the first model
27.01.2006
- experimental determination of the natural frequencies of the
model (force vibration method)
28.01.2006
- sinusoidal dynamic tests with low amplitudes
- seismic tests: earthquakes with low and high maximal
acceleration peak
- sinusoidal dynamic tests with higher amplitudes until failure
- random vibration tests after each important seismic or dynamic
excitation for evaluating eventual damages of the first model
- inspection of damages on the model
30.01.2006
- removing instruments and masses from the first model
- removing tested model from the platform
31.01.2006
- installation of the second model on the platform (KLH model with
wall elements assembled by screwing from two basic units of
length 122 cm)



01.02.2006 - ambient vibration test on model with added mass
of the analytical model
02.02.2006 - instrumentation of the second model
- experimental determination of the natural frequencies of the
model (force vibration method)
03.02.2006 - sinusoidal dynamic tests with low amplitudes
- seismic tests: earthquakes with low and high maximal
acceleration peak
- sinusoidal dynamic tests with higher amplitudes until failure
- random vibration tests after each important seismic or dynamic
excitation for evaluating eventual damages of the second model
- inspection of damages on the model
04.02.2006 - removing instruments and masses from the second model
- removing tested model from the platform
06.02.2006 - collecting tools and instrumentation
- preparing tested elements for transportation back to Slovenia
07.02.2006 - departure and transportation of instrumentation equipment and
data acquisition system back to Ljubljana
till July 2006 All data evaluation will be done in June 2006 after my teaching
obligation at UL Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering.
Complete processing of data of seismic and dynamic responses will be done until
July 2006 when the final report will be issued with evaluation of dynamic properties of
KLH system.
Description of KLH models
Two tested one storey models were made of KLH panels, product of Austrian
Company Massiveholz GmbH. Specimen 1 consisted of two one-unit wall elements of
dimension 244/272/9.4 cm and Specimen 2 consisted of two wall elements assembled
by screwing together two basic units of length 122 cm. Both models had a ceiling
element with dimensions of 244/210/16.2 cm and were stiffened by placing two more
panels 190.5/272/9.4 cm in lateral direction (Fig. 6 and 7). Solid wooden wall panels
are composed of three layers of cross glued lamellate wood. The tested wooden panels
of 244/272/9.4 cm have relatively high stiffness and load-bearing capacity. Therefore,


the critical elements that govern the wooden shear cantilever response to earthquake
excitations are anchors connecting wall panels with floor or building foundation.

Figure 6: Specimen 1 consisted of
two one-unit wall elements of
dimension 244/272/9.4 cm.
Figure 7: Specimen 2 consisted of two
wall elements assembled by screwing
two basic units of length of 122 cm.
Wall and floor panels are basically connected together with steel fasteners
(screws) and metal connectors in variety of configurations. Corner connectors are also
used for anchoring of wall panels into the building foundation. The main purpose of
herein reported research was to examine the properties of wall panel anchors and to
provide data to be used in design of earthquake resistant structures composed of KLH
walls. The research resulted in several improvements of structural system regarding
the modification of anchorages and usage of fasteners. The improvement mostly lead
to substantial increase of ductility of structural assemblages and thus to more
desirable earthquake response of buildings composed of KLH elements.
In presented tests corner connectors of height of 105 mm with ribs were used and
placed on every 60 cm of wall length. For fixing corner connector to KLH wall panel 10
annularly nails 4,0/60mm were used and for fixing it to reinforced concrete foundation
beam two bolts M12 were used(Fig. 8).


Figure 8: Applied anchorage system.
The mass applied to the structure corresponds to 3-storey structure. Preliminary
estimations defined a mass of about 5 tons acting on a single wall panel with length of
244 cm representing ground floor wall of the considered building type. Following this
estimation and taking into consideration that each model consisted of two wall panels
and one roof panel additional mass of 9.6 tons was applied. Therefore 24 steel ingots
(3 layers by 8 ingots 400 kg each) were placed and connected rigidly to the roof KLH
panel (Fig. 9).

Figure 9: Top view of the applied mass to the model.


Shaking table installed at IZIIS
The shaking table on which the structural models were installed in order to be
subjected to a biaxial earthquake motion is a pre-stressed reinforced concrete panel
5.0 x 5.0 m in plan (Fig. 10). Four vertical hydraulic actuators located at four corners,
at a distance of 3.5 m in both orthogonal directions, with total force capacity of 888
kN, support the table. The total weight of the shaking table is 330 kN. The natural
frequency of the shaking table is 48 Hz for maximum loading mass placed in the center
of the table. The maximum applied accelerations are: vertical 0.50g and horizontal
0.70g with maximum displacement in vertical direction 0.050 m and in horizontal
direction 0.125 m. The frequency range is 0-80 Hz. In order to provide the required
power of the actuators three inter-connected hydraulic pumps with maximum flow of
1.250 l/min and a maximum pressure of 350 x 105 Pa are used. The gravity load due to
the table and the model mass is sustained by a special system, located in the lower
part of each of the four vertical actuators, with static supports which utilize nitrogen.
The total bearing capacity for static loads is 720 kN. The horizontal and vertical
actuators of the table are supported by reinforced concrete rigid structure with a total
mass of 12.000 kN. The shaking system controls five degrees of freedom of the table,
two translations and three rotations. The analog control system controls
displacements, velocity, differential pressure and acceleration of the six actuators.
Reverse control is provided by three-variable servo control system, which is capable of
controlling displacements, velocities and acceleration simultaneously. A complete
package of computer programs for control and acquisition has also been used.

Figure 10: Display of the shaking table at IZIIS.


Instrumentation of the models
Figure 11 and 12 show the disposition of the measuring instruments for Model 1 and
Model 2.
For Model 1 for each of the wall panels, one LVDT was used to measure
displacement at the top edge of the wall panel, one LVDT was used for measuring the
slip between the wall and roof element, two LVDTs were measuring the diagonal
deformations, two were measuring uplift of the wall and one LVDT was used to
measure the slip between the wall element and the RC foundation.
For Model 2, for each of the wall panels, one LVDT was used to measure
displacement at the top edge of the wall panel, one LVDT was used for measuring the
slip between the wall and roof element, four LVDTs were measuring the diagonal
deformations, four were measuring uplift of the wall, one LVDT was used to measure
the slip between the wall panel element and the RC foundation, and two LVDTs were
measuring the slip between the two screwed single panels.
Five accelerometers were utilized in the dynamic tests: one accelerometer was
placed on the shaking table to check the input motion; two were placed on the
foundations to check weather any slip motion between the shaking table and the test
specimens exists and two were mounted at the top of both of the wall panel elements
in order to see whether any torsion appears. Table 2 and 3 give the detailed
description of the measured parameters and instruments designation for Specimen 1
and Specimen 2 accordingly.
Table 2: Instrumentation of Model 1.
Designation Instrument - type Description
596, 597 LVDT displacement at the top edge
087, 088 LVDT slip between the wall and roof element
012, 014 LVDT vertical deformations
016, 019 LVDT vertical deformations
571, 572 LVDT slip between the wall and the RC foundation
343, 344 LVDT uplift of the wall
454, 452 LVDT slip between shaking table and test specimen


Acc1, Acc2 Accelerometers acceleration at the foundation
Acc3, Acc4 Accelerometers acceleration at the right top end
Acc5 Accelerometers acceleration at the left top end

Table 3: Instrumentation of Model 2.
Designation Instrument - type Description
596, 597 LP displacement at the top edge
Yellow, Black LVDT slip between the wall and roof element
014, 016, 599, 598 LVDT vertical deformations
023, 024, 012, 019 LVDT vertical deformations
571, 572 LVDT slip between the wall panel element and
the RC foundation
344, 341, 343, 340 LVDT uplift of the wall
452, 454 LVDT slip between shaking table and test
specimen
White, Green,
Brown, Red
LVDT slip between two screwed single panel
units
Acc1, Acc2 Accelerometers acceleration at the foundation
Acc3, Acc4 Accelerometers acceleration at the right top end
Acc5 Accelerometers acceleration at the left top end



Figure 11: Disposition of measuring instruments for R right and
L left wall panel of Model 1.



Figure 12: Disposition of measuring instruments for R right and
L left wall panel of Specimen 2.


Shaking table test program
After assembling the models on the shaking table and loading them with the ballast
the same test procedures were preformed for both of the tested specimens. Before
dynamic test execution ambient and forced vibration tests were performed to define
fundamental period of each model (Fig. 13). After damageable seismic and harmonic
test changing of fundamental periods of the tested models were estimated by random
vibration tests. Low-level random vibration tests were applied to measure if some
damage was occurred in the model.

Figure 13: The ambient and forced vibration tests to define fundamental periods.
Several seismic acceleration input motions were applied on the models with peak
ground acceleration increasing gradually from 0.06 g up to 0.55 g. In the next step the
models were subjected to harmonic excitation with frequencies of 7.5 Hz and 5.0 Hz.
After each earthquake and harmonic excitation, low-level random vibration tests were
carried out in order to monitor the change of the natural frequencies and eventual
damages on the models, what was impossible to recognize by visual inspection of the
model. Described test procedures for Model 1 and Model 2 have been summarized in
Table 4 and 5.



Table 4: Dynamic test procedure for Model 1.
Type of Test Description, Results
Ambient Vibration Tests Full Mass 9.6 tons;
7.4 Hz longitudinal, 3.4 Hz lateral, 15.8 Hz vertical,
9.6 Hz torsion
Forced Vibration Tests Full Mass 9.6 tons;
7.2 Hz longitudinal, 3.2 Hz lateral
Test Span* Acceleration of Platform
El Centro (x-component) 100 0.04 g
Petrovac (x-component) 100 0.06 g
Kobe JMA (NS-component) 100 0.09 g
Tolmezzo (x-component) 100 0.13 g
Albstadt (x-component) 65 0.27 g
Tolmezzo (y-component) 300 0.35 g
Harmonic tests 7.5 Hz 10 45 (step 5)
Harmonic tests 5 Hz 15, 30 60 (step 10)
*Span is the 1/1000 of ultimate capacity of shaking table during the particular test run.
(span value of 100 means running of table at 10% of its ultimate capacity)



Table 5: Dynamic test procedure for Model 2.
Type of Test Description, Results
Ambient Vibration Tests Full Mass 9.6 tons;
7.4 Hz longitudinal, 3.6 Hz lateral,16.2 Hz vertical,
10.6 Hz torsion
Forced Vibration Tests Full Mass 9.6t; 6.8 Hz longitudinal
Test Span Acceleration of Platform
Albstadt (y-component) 65 0.18 g
Kobe (EW Component) 100 0.09 g
Harmonic Test 7.5Hz 10
Harmonic Test 5Hz 15
Albstadt (y-component) 50
Albstadt (x+y component) 13h + 50v
Tolmezzo (y-component) 400 0.24 g
Tolmezzo (x+y ) 400h + 500v


Test results and discussion
Preformed test proved the non-linear behavior of the massive wooden wall panel
systems. The main source of the non-linearity is certainly the connection, i.e. the steel
anchorage system. The solid wooden wall panel itself behaves mostly linear-elastically
except around the contact area with mechanical fasteners where deformation of wood
fiber because of embedding stress perpendicular to fibers is present. For the cases
observed during the experimental tests, when the connections are much weaker parts
of the system than the wooden panel itself, the total dissipation of the energy and,
consequently, the total non-linearity comes from there. Therefore since the concept of
the seismic design is based on dissipation of the energy, in practice we will always
have panel elements, which are much stronger than the connections.
In Figure 14 some acceleration responses of different strong seismic excitation
have been compared. Amplification of acceleration at the top of the wall up to 0.62 g
was observed in Petrovac record where maximum acceleration reached at shaking
table was 0.37 g.

-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time [s]

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

t
h
e

t
o
p

o
f

m
o
d
e
l

[
g
]
Kobe_JMA_EW_700
ElCentro_850
Petrovac_550
Tolmezzo_300

Figure 14: Comparison of acceleration records measured
at the top edge of wall on Model 1.
From comparison of test responses different parameters will be set as influence of
connection details. On diagram in Figure 15 absolute displacement measured at the
tope edge of wall was compared as absolute response of Model 1 and Model 2.
Significant difference was observed as influence of vertical edge, where both wall
units were screwed together. On the base of comparison of relative displacements and
energy dissipation difference should be more clarified and defined.


-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time [s]

A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

t
o
p

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
abs_displ_M1
abs_displ_M2

Figure 15: Comparison of absolute horizontal moving of both models measured at the
top edge of the walls during the same seismic excitation El Centro (span 850).
In Figure 16 accelerations at basement level and at the top edge of walls of Model
2 are presented. Four measurements were done in longitudinal direction and one at
the top of wall in lateral direction. Excitation was harmonic with sinusoidal waves at 5
Hz with span 60. Fundamental frequency of the specimen was changed after all seismic
excitations because the cumulative damages. Therefore the excitation frequency was
close to the fundamental, as can be observed from acceleration records. The model
acceleration exceeds 100% of g in lateral direction. Although no visible damages were
observed, model behaved unevenly due to weakening of connections. Therefore,
substantial rotation was observed. Test run was stopped because ballast elements
(ingots) fixed atop of model started to move in lateral direction.


-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%

o
f

g
]
ACC_1 ACC_3

-100
-50
0
50
100
150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%

o
f

g
]
ACC_2 ACC_4 ACC_5

Figure 16: Harmonic test with sinusoidal excitation of 5 Hz at shaking table span of 60
(6% of its capacity). Accelerations were measured on the basement level and at the
top edge of the walls in longitudinal and lateral directions.



Conclusions
The experimental investigation gives an insight in the seismic response of massive
wooden wall panel systems and lead to following conclusions:
Two full-scale massive wooden wall panel systems have been assembled and
tested at the IZIIS Laboratory. The first specimen consisted of KLH one unit wall
elements (244/272/9.4cm) while the second specimen consisted of two screwed
together KLH unit wall segments with length of 122 cm.
Series of dynamic tests have been preformed in order to investigate the
structural behavior of these types of systems under dynamic conditions. Several
earthquake records, significant for Central and Southern Europe have been
applied to the models.
Both of the test specimens behaved very well during seismic tests. In both of the
models seismic energy is dissipated through connections between foundations and
panels and the panels themselves. Therefore no failure within the panels is
observed. The dynamic tests have proved the ductile behavior of the connections
at both models and exhibit excellent correlation with the results from quasi-
static tests.
After processing of tests results final report will be issued with more precise
conclusions.
Future cooperation and results dissemination
Future cooperation between ULFGG, MPA and IZIIS will base on research activities
that took place both in Skopje and Ljubljana. Findings from the test results and
mathematical modeling will define future research needs and preparation of project
proposals. In the scope of existing cooperation Mrs. Marta Stojmanovska from IZIIS and
Mr. Ruediger Finn from MPA will finish their Ph.D. theses. The project results will be
published in the joint report and papers in international journals. Some papers are
under preparation and research results will be shortly reported on WCTE 2006 in
Portland, USA and on First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology in Geneva 2006.
Further outcome of project will be jointly developed mathematical model as well
as assessment and design strategy based on developed model. The aim of the
cooperation is also to assure funds from industry and other type of projects for testing
a whole wooden house model on shaking table at IZIIS in Macedonia.


In the scope of COST E29 action we are interested for exchange knowledge which
exist in Europe on seismic design of modern wooden structures and define some
outlines as research needs and future cooperation. The most important parameter in
seismic design is racking strength of load-bearing structure which is preloaded with
some magnitude of vertical load. Therefore there is still need to evaluate how
horizontal forces transmit through floor construction in different especially new
European systems of light timber structures. There is a question how stiff are those
floor constructions and if they could be taken into account as rigid compared to wall
rigidity or how semi rigid they are. In Europe massive wooden structures assembled
from cross laminated solid wooden panels becoming more and more popular. These
structures have good chance to be competitive with other type of structures also for
multistory buildings, if we define correct guidelines for design with proper and enough
dissipative elements as metal fasteners.
Acknowledgement
The COST E29 Management Committee and the representatives of COST Office are
gratefully acknowledged for their Short Term Scientific Mission grant, which contribute
to successful progress of this research work. In addition, local host Prof. Mihail
Garevski and his research team from IZIIS are thanked for their efforts and help during
my stay in Skopje, Macedonia. The research cooperation with IZIIS was enabled by the
bilateral Slovenian and Macedonian cooperation supported by Ministry of Science,
Higher Education and Technology of Republic of Slovenia.

Dynamic Testing of Two Different Timber Wall PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Testing of Two Different Timber Wall PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHORT TERM SCIENTIFIC MISSION

You might also like