0820020001

A dissertation submitted to
Tongji University in conformity with the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science

Study on Seismic Performance of

Chuan Dou-style Column and Tie Joint
Wood Frame House

Candidate:
Ling Huang
Student Number: 0820020001
School/Department: School of Civil Engineering
Discipline:
Civil Engineering
Major:
Structural Engineering
Supervisor:
Prof. Shiming Chen

March, 2011

ANSYS

Tongji University Master of Science Abstract

ABSTRACT
Chuan Dou-style or Column and Tie Joint wood frame farm house is still
widely used in the southwest China where the local economy is underdeveloped, and
normally in earthquake prone areas. Some unreasonable traditional detailing would
make the seismic damage even severer. To provide guidance for construction of the
traditional Chuan Dou-style wood frame house and popularization of the modern
wood houses, the construction methods of the Chuan Dou-style wood frame house
was studied systematically. The theory and the finite element analysis were done to
investigate the loading behavior of several typical tenon and mortise joints which are
adopted in the Chuan Dou-style wood frame house. The numerical simulation of the
entire wood frame house was then carried out by using the joint properties or the
moment-rotation curves derived from the typical tenon and mortise joints analysis to
study seismic performance of the Chuan Dou-style wood frame house.
This several typical tenon and mortise joints commonly adopted in the Chuan
Dou-style wood frame house were analyzed, and it is found that bending capacity and
initial bending stiffness increase significantly with the length of the tenon and also the
variation of the tenon cross-section. Alteration of tenon however, has little effect on
the moment - rotation curves. Tenon-through and mortise pegged joint is the ideal
style to connect the column and fang. This paper also describes the analytical models
that are used to simulate the full time-history response of the Chuan Dou-style wood
frame farm house subjected to dynamic loads. The numerical simulation results are
found meeting the project requirements. The natural frequency and seismic response
(displacement, acceleration) of the Chuan Dou-style wood frame will change with the
variation of the joints.
Key Words: Chuan Dou-style wood frame, tenon and mortise joints, rotational
stiffness,

dynamic

time-history

simulationANSYS

II

analysis,

numerical

1 ........................................................1
1.1 ...................................................1
1.2 .............................................5
1.3 .........................................8
2 ..................................9
2.1 ................................9
2.2 ........................................10
2.3 ........................................12
2.4 .................................13
2.5 ........................................15
2.6 .....................................16
2.6.1 ...........................16
2.6.2 ...............................16
3 .......................................21
3.1 ............................................21
3.2 ......................................21
3.3 .....................23
3.3.1 ...................................23
3.3.2 ...................................24
3.3.3 ...................................26
3.4 ......................................27
3.4.1 .........................................27
3.4.2 ...........................................28
3.4.3 .................................28
3.4.4 .............................31
3.4.5 ....................................32
4 ...................................44
4.1 ......................................................44
4.2 SAP2000 ...........................................44
4.3 ...................................45
4.3.1 ...................................45
4.3.2 .............................................45
4.3.3 .............................................50
4.3.4 ...................51
4.4 ...........................54
4.4.1 ....54
4.4.2 .........55
4.4.3 .........56
5 .................................................58
III

5.1 ......................................................58
5.2 ......................................................59
..............................................................60
..........................................................61
........................63

IV

1
1.1

3.5 km

2 km

1.1

7
4 20

20
4 1988 5 1.1
1.1 20

18951906
19201934
19461955
19661976
1988

7
10
12
14
14

2530
12
27

20 7.5 7
35 1.2 1920 1976
20 [1]
1.2 20

1902.8.22

8.25

500

1906.12.23

280 2000

1914.8.5

7.5

1917.7.31

7.5

1920.6.5

1920.12.16

8.5

20

1922.9.2

7.5

14

1923.3.24

7.25

3000

1925.3.16

3600
7

10

1927.5.23

4000 90

11

1931.8.11

300

12

1932.12.25

7.5

270 8090

13

1933.8.25

7.25

6800 2500
60

14

1935.4.21

3200

1.2 20
15

1936.8.22

7.5

16

1947.3.17

7.75
2

10 15

17

1947.7.29

7.75

18

1950.8.15

8.5

19

1951.11.18

20

1955.4.14

7.5

90

21

1970.1.5

7.7

90

22

1972.1.25

23

1973.2.6

7.9

24

1973.9.29

7.6

25

1976.5.29

7.5

26

1976.7.28

7.8

24

27

1988.11.6

7.6

748 41.2

28

1999.9.21

7.6

2333

90

10
29

2001.11.14

8.1

30

2002.3.31

7.5

31

2002.6.29

7.2

32

2003.12.10

33

2006.12.26

7.2

34

2008.3.21

7.3

35

2008.5.12

69226

2008 5 12 14 28
8.0Ms
31.021 103.367 20km 10km

2008 9 1 12
69226 17923 374643 5000

51 132596 km2
12597.5m2 8437.7

2050km 4050

2008 5 12 14 28

1.2 1.3

65.91
[2]

56.6 1.3
1.3

13.64%
18.86%

65.91%
56.55%

20.45%
24.59%

90%
76%85% 85%[3] 2006
2000 [4]

1.2

()

1937

[5]
20 80
[6]

90 [7-9]

0. 05
S

1/3

3
Simplex

[10]
[11]

[12-14]
()

[15] SAP2000
50
30
[16-20]

1: 3. 52

[21]

50%
[22]

[23, 24]

William M. Bulleit [25]

Jonathan David Shanks[26] 168

Yoshiyuki Suzuki and Masaki Maeno[27]

Triantafyllos Makarios Milton Demosthenous [28] 2003 8 14

2~4

Jonathan Shanks Peter Walker[29]

A HeiduschkeB Kasal P Haller[30, 31]

J.K.
Hwang S. G. Hong[32]
1/2
Junji Kiyono Aiko Furukawa[33]

1.3

2
2.1

2.1

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.3

(b)

2.3

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.5
2

2.6
3
2.7

2.8

10

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.3

7000
3000

[6]
11

2.4

2.9
L R T

LT
[34]

2.9

2.10
(
)
2

(L)(R)(T) ELERET
2.1

12

2.10

2.1

/ /
3
kg m
200
9
590
11
670
9
750
11
390
12
550
10
590
9

GPa

RT LR LT GLT/ GLR/ GTR/

MPa MPa
MPa MPa MPa

6.274
11.239
15.790
13.700
11.583
16.272
16.400

296
1172
1516
2240
896
1103
1300

EL/

ER/

ET/

13

203
621
827
1140
496
573
900

0.66
0.72
0.71
0.75
0.43
0.68
0.63

0.23
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.37
0.42
0.43

0.49
0.63
0.51
0.51
0.47
0.51
0.37

200
690
896
1060
690
676
910

310
896
1310
1610
758
1172
1180

33
228
269
460
39
66
79

1/2 610
50 1/51/15

15 40

5060

1.72
2.0 [34]

2.5

2.2

50

4RRenewRecycleReuseReduce
16
400 3
1 300 34 27 5

14

2.2

kN / m
HPB235

C30
MU15 M10

/
3

N /m

78.50
5.00
23.00
18.00

210.00
17.00
14.30
2.31

0.37
0.29
1.61
7.79

2.6
2.6.1

150mm
250mm 31

4.5m 4.2m
82.5cm

2.6.2
1

250mm 200mm
210mm
270mm 100mm
60mm
15

60100mm
[35]

2.11

2.12

150mm250mm

16

2.13

200mm 70mm

2.14

0.750.9m

17

2.15

60mm

2.3
2.3

180X40

185X45

190X50

195X55

200X60

195X55

190X50

185X45

180X40

200X60

195X55

190X50

185X45

180X40

185X45

190X50

195X55

200X60

185X45

190X50

195X55

200X60

195X55

190X50

185X45

200X60

195X55

190X50

195X55

200X60

160X40

165X45

160X40

150mm 80mm
18

2.16

100mm
30mm 80mm

0.60.58 0.50.55

2.17

19

3
3.1

[6]

3.2

3.1

3.1

20

3.1

a b c
3.1

60mm

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.4

21

3.3
3.3.1

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.4

3.6

F
F/2 F/2
3.7

22

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.3.2

3.9

23

3.9

bh 2
M

E
6

(3.1)

bh
E

3.10

24

(3.2)

y y
y
RD

(3.3)

R2 y2

M y A ( y 0.5y ) y x y ( y 0.5y )
R

M 4 dM 4 y R 2 y 2 ( y 0.5y ) dy
0

4 y y R 2 y 2 dy
0

4
0

(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)

E 2
y R 2 y 2 dy
R

(3.7)

D 3 E
32

(3.8)

3
X1

M
24 M

f
2
z h
zh 2

6 4

(3.9)

f m MPa

X2
V 2V

fv
A zh
f v MPa

3.93.10 3.11

25

(3.10)

3.11

3.3.3

3.12 [8]

3.12

3.4
3.4.1
W. S. King1996[36]
3.13a 1:3
26

35mm 50mm 25mm 30mm 15mm

300mm 300mm
12%
3.13b 0.2rad

b
3.13

3.4.2
Solid45 Solid45
xy z
3.14

Targe170 Conta174

[37, 38]

27

3.14 Solid45

3.4.3
L R T
XYZ 9

3.2
3.2
EX(Mpa)

EY(Mpa)

EZ(Mpa)

PRXY

PRYZ

PRXZ

GXY(Mpa)

GYZ(Mpa)

GXZ(Mpa)

1220

12200

610

0.2

0.47

0.43

915

732

219.6

3.15 tensionyield

tensionyield tension max com yield

com yield com max Etan ten s ion
Etan com [39]

28

tensionyield
Etan ten s ion

com max com yield

Etan com

tensionyield tension max

com yield

3.15

hill

y y
x x
z z

0
x x
y y
z z

(3.11)

M 112 M 222 M 332 2( M 11M 22 M 22 M 33 M 11M 33 ) 0

(3.12)

: j j j
j = j

K
j j

(3.13)

K x x

(3.14)

M jj

3.3

29

3.3

(Mpa)

4.21

14.84

4.6177

Etengent compressionMpa

2064.9

(Mpa)

4.2

29.96

Etengent tensionMpa

2064.9

(Mpa)

GtengentMpa

2920mm
80mm 160mm
1/2 8mm
3.16 3.17 3.18

3.16

3.17 MPa

30

3.18

Y X
Z 3.2 EY
15kN

15kN

10kN 10.25MPa, ANSYS

10.25MPa,
10kN

3.4.4

1/2 8
3.19

FKN 1 0.1
0.4~0.6 0.6

X
u

31

a ANSYS

b 1/2

c
3.19

3.4.5
126000Nmm X
, 3.20
3.21

Z 15.5MPa
14.84MPa 3.22 (Y )
5.5MPa4.2MPa 3.23
0.02rad

32

2.1

-2

10

1.8

1.5

1.2
0.9
0.6

0.3
0.0
0

10

13

15

18

20

N mm 10
3.20

3.21

3.22

3.23

143000Nmm
3.24 3.25
33

Y 4.45MPa
4.21MPa 3.26
0.03rad

12

10-2

10

8
6
4
2

0
0

10

13

15

18

20

23

N mm 10

3.24

205000Nmm
3.273.30 Mises

3.27 Mises

34

3.28

3.29 Mises

3.30

0.2rad
0.2rad

3.31

3.31

35

m0m3 M0M2
T1 T2
90mm

T3 T4
3.4

10mm20mm30mm
5mm 1.531.982.35
1.171.361.51

0.2rad
3.5 3.32

3.32

1/2

10mm 20mm 30mm

1.381.61 1.331.65 3.6
3.33

36

3.4 mm

m0

20

30

50

m1

25

35

60

m2

30

40

70

35

45

80

m3

M0

50

M1

60

M2

70

15

6080

100

15

6080

100

25

2575

80

25

2575

80

25

2575

80

1010100

25

2575

80

1010100

T1

25

65

90

T2

90

T3

25

65

90

T4

90

37

3.5

m0
m1
m2
m3

Nmm
1.28105
1.31105
1.62105
1.89105

rad
0.0337
0.0225
0.0216
0.0212

Nmm/rad
3.80106
5.82106
7.50106
8.92106

Nmm
1.84105
2.15105
2.50105
2.77105

3.6

M0
M1
M2

Nmm
9.03104
1.21105
1.43105

rad
0.0215
0.0209
0.0211

Nmm/rad
4.21106
5.82106
6.79106

Nmm
1.68105
2.24105
2.78105

3.33

3.5 3.6

m0 M0m1 M1 m2 M2
3.34

38

39

c
3.34

1/2 8

T1
T1m3T1
m3 T1
m3 T1 m3
3.35 T1 m3

40

3.35 T1 m3

3.36 T1 T2

1/2
3

3.36 T1 T2

~
T1T3 3.37

T2T4 3.38

T4 T2
T1 T3
41

T1
T2

3.37 T1 T3

3.38 T2 T4

2
3

3.53.6

42

4
4.1

1
2
3

SAP2000
SAP2000

4.2 SAP2000
SAP2000 Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI)
Windows

SAP2000

SAP2000

Wen
SAP2000
[40, 41]

4.3
4.3.1

43

3900mm4200mm
4.1
1/2 2.10m 1.95m 2.25m

1530mm500mm100mm
4.2 [42]

4.1

4.2

4.3.2

4.3

1
[42]

[40]
4.1 E 10%

=269kg/m3E1=12200MPaE2=1220MPaE3=610MPa12=0.3713=0.472
3=0.43G12=915MPaG13=732MPaG23=219.6MPa

44

4.3

4.1

mm
50100
50100501105075
D=80
D=70

4.4
[40]

45

4.4

6

4.5 3 12
12 3 13
13 [40]

KinematicTakeda Pivot 4.6

Takeda

Pivot Takeda

[40]

46

4.5 3

4.6

A B 4.7

4.7

47

Kx

Ky

K y

Kz

0
Kx

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Ky

0
Kz

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Ky
0

Kx

0
Ky

0
0
Kz

0
0
0
Kx

0
0
0
0
Ky

Kx

K z 0
0 Kx

0
0

0
0

K z
0
0
0
0
0
Kz

4.2

KxN/mm

Ky=KzN/mm

Kx=Ky=KzNmm

r1=10 530

r3=10-5530

0.098*109-3.92*109

5.75*1010-9.57*1010

5.75*1010-9.57*1010

113.3*106

127950*106

296.711*106

1*1015

2.5078*106

1.6358*109

1.26*109

1.41*109

1.5*109

1*1010

3.179*106

2.196*107

-5

0.3062*106-23.6054*106

MultiLinear Plastic

109N/mm
3.38 3.39
3 4.3
48

SAP2000 Kinematic
4.3

A
B

rad Nmm
0.009
43128
0.009
47618

rad
0.018
0.023

Nmm
292649
338390

rad Nmm
0.106
467626
0.112
468034

mg
mg

0.40.6[43] 0.6
1500N f kx
k

x x f k

f 1/ 6 f f 150 N k 150 N / mm

0.02[31]
4.8

4.8

4.3.3
49

1940 EL-Centro 0.1g 0.2g 0.3g 0.4g0.5g 5

4.3.4
6 4.4 4.9

4.4

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00

/S
0.34
0.29
0.28
0.12
0.11
0.10

amode 1

50

/Hz
2.95
3.45
3.54
8.07
9.28
10.45

bmode 2

cmode 3
4.9

4.104.12 0.2g0.4g
4.5 4.13
0.2g0.4g
4.104.13 4.5

51

4.10 0.2g

4.11 0.3g

4.12 0.4g

52

4.5

EL-Centro

g
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

mm

2.38
2.71
13.9%
5.77
5.42
-6.1%
10.6
8.13
-23.3%
16.73
10.83
-35.3%
19.57
13.62
-30.4%

mm

4.65
4.87
4.7%
10.01
9.74
-2.7%
19.1
14.6
-23.6%
25.95
19.47
-25.0%
28.99
24.34
-16.0%

4.13

4.4

4.4.1
MultiLinear Plastic

AB

1.4107Nmm/rad
4.14
53

a 0.1g

b 0.2g

c 0.3g

d 0.4g

4.14 0.1g0.4g

4.4.2
4.3

4.15

54

4.15

4.15 103Nmm/rad
1011Nmm/rad 3
0.430.370.22Hz
107Nmm/rad109Nmm/rad

1.4107Nmm/rad

4.4.3
4.3
103Nmm/rad109Nmm/rad
EL-Centro 0.1g0.3g0.5g 3
4.16
4.17

55

4.16

4.17

4.16 1

107Nmm/rad109Nmm/rad

4.17 1 0.1g
2
0.3g 0.5g

56

5
5.1

8
107Nmm/rad109Nmm/rad

10 0.1g

57

0.3g 0.5g

5.2

18
2

58

59

2011 3

60

[1] . [Z]. : ,
2008.
[2] . [J].
. 2009(2): 47-50.
[3] . [J]. . 2002(5): 69.
[4] . [J]. . 2004(3): 2932.
[5] . [M]. : , 2006.
[6] . [M]. : , 1992.
[7] . [J]. .
2001(1): 137-144.
[8] . [J].
. 1991(3): 55-62.
[9] Y Oda. [J]. . 2006(1): 4364.
[10] . [Z]. : 2003.
[11] . [J]. ().
2004(3): 332-335.
[12] . [Z]. : 1999.
[13] . [J].
(). 1999(2).
[14] . [J]. .
2000(1): 32-35.
[15] . [J].
. 2003(9): 986-988.
[16] . [D]. , 2006.
[17] . ANSYS[D]. , 2007.
[18] . [D]. , 2008.
[19] . [D]. , 2010.
[20] . [D]. , 2005.
[21] .
[J]. . 2003(2): 1-10.
[22] . [D]. , 2006.
[23] . [J]. . 2006(10):
168-173.
[24] . [J].
. 2010(2): 88-92.
[25] Bulleit W M, Sandberg L B, Drewek M W, et al. Behavior and modeling of wood-pegged
61

[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]
[30]

[31]

[32]
[33]

[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

timber frames[J]. Journal of structural engineering New York, N.Y. 1999, 125(1): 3-9.
Shanks J D, Chang W S, Komatsu K. Experimental study on mechanical performance of allsoftwood pegged mortice and tenon connections[J]. Biosystems Engineering. 2008, 100(4):
562-570.
Suzuki Y, Maeno M. Structural mechanism of traditional wooden frames by dynamic and
static tests[J]. STRUCTURAL CONTROL & HEALTH MONITORING. 2006, 13(1): 508522.
Makarios T, Demosthenous M. Seismic response of traditional buildings of Lefkas Island,
Greece[J]. ENGINEERING STRUCTURES. 2006, 28(2): 264-278.
Shanks J, Walker P. Strength and stiffness of all-timber pegged connections[J]. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering. 2009, 21(1): 10-18.
Heiduschke A, Kasal B, Haller P. Analysis of wood-composite laminated frames under
dynamic loads-analytical models and model validation. Part I: connection model[J].
PROGRESS IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND MATERIALS. 2006, 8(3): 103-110.
Heiduschke A, Kasal B, Haller P. Analysis of wood-composite laminated frames under
dynamic loads-analytical models and model validation. Part II: frame model[J]. PROGRESS
IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND MATERIALS. 2006, 8(3): 111-119.
Junji Kiyono A F. capacity in colum-connecting beam joints of traditional wooden structure
in Korea[J]. Protection of Historical Buildings. 2009.
Kiyono J, Furukawa A. Casualty occurrence mechanism in the collapse of timber-frame
houses during an earthquake[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2004,
33(12): 1233-1248.
. [M]. : , 1991.
. [M]. : , 2007.
King W S, Yen J, Yen Y. Joint characteristics of traditional Chinese wooden frames[J].
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES. 1996, 18(8): 635-644.
. ANSYS[M]. : , 2007.
. ANSYS[M]. :
, 2008.
. [J]. . 2008(2): 232236.
Csi. CSI[M]. 2004.
. SAP2000[M]. : ,
2009.
. [D]. , 2009.
. [M]. :
, 2008.

62

1985 10
2008 7
2008 9

[1]

63