You are on page 1of 16

Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Assessment and comparison of experimental and numerical model


studies of cross-laminated timber mechanical connections under
cyclic loading
J. Schneider a,⇑, Y. Shen b, S.F. Stiemer c,1, S. Tesfamariam a,2
a
School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
b
China Electronics engineering Design institute, Beijing 100142, People’s Republic of China
c
Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, 6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

 Cross-laminated timber connections were tested and modeled with finite element model.
 Test and model results were analyzed with two assessment methods to evaluate the model.
 The equivalent energy elastic–plastic model showed good correlation of test and model.
 The cumulative energy method is more precise to evaluate hysteretic models.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Earthquake engineering is a major consideration for structures along the west coast of North America.
Received 17 June 2014 The current building code of Canada is based on design criteria, which are defined by stresses and mem-
Received in revised form 2 December 2014 ber forces calculated from prescribed levels of applied lateral shear force. Traditional wood-frame build-
Accepted 17 December 2014
ings are known to perform well in earthquakes. However, with the development of new engineered wood
Available online 10 January 2015
products, such as CLT (cross-laminated timber) and more consideration to build higher than the existing
six stories limit in wood-frame structures, highlights the need to use innovative hybrid techniques for
Keywords:
buildings. Hybrid buildings with steel frame structures incorporated with CLT infill walls offer one pos-
Cross-laminated timber
Connections
sible solution to residential and commercial multi-level buildings to overcome the height limitation. In
SAWS model order to make such a structure applicable for an earthquake prone area, it is important to understand
Seismic performance the structural performance of the connection between steel and CLT elements. In this research, six con-
Damage index nection combinations have been tested and modeled in a finite element program. The load–displacement
Damage prediction test results are assessed with two evaluation methods. The first method follows the American Society of
Damage assessment Testing Method, where ductility ratio, elastic shear stiffness, and the EEEP-curve (equivalent energy elas-
tic–plastic curve) are generated and assessed. The second method follows an energy-based accumulation
principle, where the test results are used to calculate a damage index at each time step. Both methods are
used to compare test and model results and assess the accuracy of the model as well as addressing the
capability of each assessment method. Depending on the purpose of the model one or the other assess-
ment method might be suitable. For an analysis of the overall ductility or elastic shear stiffness, applying
the method provided by ASTM will give relatively accurate results to assess a hysteretic load–displace-
ment model such as the SAWS model in this research. The assessment with a damage accumulation
method is a great tool to capture more details of the hysteretic load–displacement curve. Energy dissipa-
tion is valuable indicator besides ductility and elastic shear stiffness to evaluate the model.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jonny.schneider@gmx.net (J. Schneider), shenyinlan@hotmail. Earthquakes resistant engineering is a major consideration for
com (Y. Shen), sigi@civil.ubc.ca (S.F. Stiemer), solomon.tesfamariam@ubc.ca (S.
structures along the west coast of North America. Especially higher
Tesfamariam).
1
Tel.: +1 (604) 600 1924. buildings need to be properly designed, in order to provide service-
2
Tel.: +1 (250) 807 8185. ability or life safety in a seismic event. Generally, wood-frame

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.029
0950-0618/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
198 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

buildings are known to perform well in earthquakes [24]; however, load–displacement curve of a cyclic loading protocol relate to dam-
there are limitations under code that prevent the use of wood age progression over time?).
framing in all desired building designs. For instance, the provincial Over the years many different damage assessment attempts
building code of British Columbia (BC) limits multi-story wood have been made (Table 1). Damage indices are categorized into glo-
frame buildings to a maximum height of six stories [3]. The current bal and local damage indices. Global damage indices describe the
code is based on design criteria, which are defined by stresses and overall damage state of a structure, whereas local damage indices
member forces calculated from prescribed levels of applied lateral describe the damage which occurs in an individual member or
shear force [15]. Innovative hybrid techniques, where steel frame joint between adjacent members.
structures are incorporated with cross-laminated timber (CLT) Damage can be measured in relation to curvature, rotation,
infill walls, offer one possible solution to residential and commer- energy or displacement. For most damage principles, a damage
cial multi-level buildings to overcome the six-storey height limita- index D is calculated. The goal of damage indices is to provide a
tion [7,28]. means of quantifying numerically the damage under earthquake
Seismic demand and seismic capacity of a structure are impor- loadings [30]. The damage index has to be calibrated and should
tant factors for the design procedure. Timber-frame structures are range between zero and one. Zero represents no damage, where
relatively lightweight structures that obtain their great seismic one is considered collapsed or destroyed.
performance through ductile connections between studs and In previous research, the damage index was computed at one
sheathing, which provide sufficient ductility to the shearwall sys- point after the entire loading procedure was completed (e.g. [19])
tem through a variety of load paths [24]. CLT shearwall panels, Schneider et al. [25] investigated six connection types and devel-
however, are relatively rigid bodies with no studs or sheathing; oped a damage scale for Kraetzig’s energy-based damage index
therefore, different methods and connections must provide ductil- (Table 1). The proposed preliminary damage scale distinguished
ity and energy dissipation. CLT wall-to-floor connections are five damage limit states: None, Minor, Moderate, Severe and Col-
designed using L-shaped steel brackets, which are nailed or lapse (Table 2). The proposed prediction scale applying Kraetzig’s
screwed to the CLT wall panel on one side, and bolted to the floor damage accumulation model is necessarily limited to the connec-
on the other side of the bracket. To apply such bracket connections tions tested; however, it provides a preliminary approach for pre-
within a CLT-based hybrid structure (Fig. 1), comprehensive under-
standing of their structural performance under reversed cyclic
loading is required (e.g. [9,26]).
Performance-based design is a methodology, where structural Table 1
Categories of damage principles.
design criteria have to achieve a certain level of performance [15].
Damage, displacement, or drift, which are easily measurable, can Damage principle Description References
be related to such performance objectives. However, to measure Non-cumulative The model neglects the effect of repeating [30]
and evaluate damage is more complex undertaking. Damage is indices cycles that occur in earthquakes
influenced by accumulation of structural damage, variation of fail- Deformation-based Models connect damage directly to the [29,30]
cumulative displacement or rotation of an element or
ure modes of the structural components, and number of cycles
indices structure
before failure occurs [30]. One possible way to assess and evaluate Energy-based Models consider the energy absorption in [16,18,30]
is the introduction of damage indices (e.g. [25]). Beyond calculating cumulative a system or element under cyclic loadings
the maximum capacity prior to failure of a connection, it is also indices
Combined Combined models consider displacement [22,30,21]
important to characterize and understand the path to failure (e.g.
cumulative and energy absorption in one index
what is damage? How can damage be quantified? Are there indices
intermediate damage stages before collapse? How does a

Fig. 1. Proposed timber-steel hybrid structure.


J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 199

Table 2
Relationship between damage index and observed damage of connection test.

Degree of Damage description Kraetzig’s damage


damage index
None No visible damage observed D < 0.20
Minor Minor pull-out of fasteners (20% of fastener length); light plastic deformation of bracket; minor repairs are required 0.20 6 D < 0.35
Moderate Visual permanent deflections of bracket; shear failure of up to 2 fasteners; extensive pull-out of fasteners (50% of fastener length); 0.35 6 D < 0.65
can be fixed and reactivated as a connection
Severe More than 80% of the fasteners failed (shear and pull-out failure); severe crack in bracket; separation of bracket from CLT panel; 0.65 6 D < 0.80
requires replacement of bracket in different position at CLT wall to be serviceable again; severe wood crushing in outer layer of
CLT
Collapse Total or partial collapse of connection (90% or more fasteners failed) D > 0.80

Table 3
List of previous research on modelling wood connections.

Author Model Comment


Polensek and Laursen [23] Development of a tri-linear curve to describe the backbone curve Pinchinga was considered in the model
of nailed plywood-to-wood connection
Dolan [8] Development of a hysteretic constitutive law based on exponential A hysteresis loop was divided into four segments, which are
curves defined by different exponential equations with four boundary
conditions, respectively
Ceccotti and Vignoli [4] Creating a hysteresis model for moment-resisting semi-rigid wood Pinching and stiffness degradationb are included
joints
Foliente [10] A general hysteresis model containing 13 parameters for single The hysteretic constitutive law can generate a smooth and versatile
and multiple degree of freedom wood joints based on a modified varying hysteresis shape that accounts for nonlinearity, strength
Bouc-Wen-Baber-Noori model (BWBN) and stiffness degradation, and pinching
Chui et al. [6] Development of a detailed nonlinear finite element model for a The nail was modeled as a beam element that incorporates the
single-shear nailed wood joint under reversed cyclic loading effects of large deformation and hysteretic nature. The embedment
behavior of wood under the action of a nail was described using
Dolan’s four exponential segments (1989)
Foschi [13] Development of a general model based on mechanical interaction To achieve pinching behaviour as gaps were formed between the
between the connector and the surrounding wood medium beam and the medium, the connector was modeled as an elastic–
plastic beam in a nonlinear medium which acted in only
compression
He et al. [17] Modification of the model of Foschi [13] in a three dimension
timber light-frame model
Folz and Filiatrault [11] A general and simple hysteresis model for timber structures with Developed for sheathing-to-framing connector accounts for
ten parameters was developed Nonlinearity, strength and stiffness degradation, and pinching
subjected to general cyclic loading were considered. This model
has been incorporated into a program called CASHEW. It was
developed for cyclic analysis of wood-framing shear walls
Chui and Yantao [5] Development of a mathematical model based on the previously It is used to predict the moment-rotation response of the timber
developed single-fastener finite element model (1998) connection containing multi-fasteners under general cyclic loading
a
Pinching is a sudden loss of stiffness. It is caused by loosening and slipping of the connection under repeated cyclic loading along with large deformations.
b
Progressive loss of stiffness in each loading cycle.

dicting the behaviour of bracket type connections in combination to model the connections in OpenSees with a CUREE-10 parame-
with CLT. ters model. The finite element model (FEM) is used to predict the
For generic application of the connections in hybrid structures, load–displacement response and energy dissipation characteristic
it is necessary to develop a component model of the connection for of the connections under general monotonic and cyclic loading
wall and building modeling. It is desirable to find a simple way to (Shen et al. [27]). The modeled results will be compared with the
model the main features of the connection subjected to general experimental results by using two different performance assess-
monotonic and cyclic loading protocols. Compared to CLT connec- ment methods. In the first approach, ductility ratio, elastic shear
tions, traditional wood-frame construction is a relatively mature stiffness, and the equivalent energy elastic–plastic (EEEP) curve
system that can provide an important reference for modeling of according to ASTM 2127-11 (2011) will be calculated and com-
CLT connections with the program OpenSees and its subroutine pared with the ASTM code provision. In the second method, the
called Seismic Analysis of Wood frame Structures (SAWS). energy-based damage indices according to Kraetzig’s damage accu-
Modeling studies have ranged from simple models based on mulation principle will be applied and compared. The proposed
load–deformation relationship from cyclic tests to highly sophisti- damage scale [25] for Kraetzig’s damage accumulation principle
cated models, including detailed nonlinear elements for each fas- will be compared with the calculated damage indices generated
tener [20]. Table 3 summarizes the model development over the from the model.
course of the last decades.
Although these mechanics-based models can capture some
mechanical features of the joints, the real behavior of a nail joint 2. Experimental test and analytical models

is rather complicated under different loading situation and it is dif- 2.1. Test outline
ficult to accurately capture those in a numerical model [31]. Mean-
while, the simple model generates the same level of accuracy as Fig. 2 gives an overview of the procedure which was used for this study. The test
the sophisticated model and greater computational effort has to series considers six connections. Two brackets and five fastener types were tested
with three-ply CLT wall panels (94 mm total thickness). Fig. 3 summarizes the test
be considered with increasing model complexity [11].
combinations including the test ID. The test program comprises tests parallel and
In the following subsection, experimental work and load– perpendicular to the outer grain direction of the CLT panels. ASTM 2127-11
displacement curves reported by Schneider et al. [25] will be used (2011) was used to determine the loading protocol. All tests were performed with
200 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

Assessment of CLT Connections

Connection Tests
Parallel and perpendicular to the grain directions

Experimental Results

Finite Element Modelling


of the Connections

Performance assessment calculations Performance assessment calculations


(static and dynamic) (dynamic)
EEEP Curve Energy-based Damage Index

Comparison Comparison

Evaluation of Performance
Assessment Methods for
FEM model

Fig. 2. Flowchart to describe the procedure of damage accumulation assessment.

a displacement controlled monotonic and cyclic loading protocol. The monotonic the stiffness ratio of the pinching part of the hysteretic curve (R4 > 0) where the
program is conducted with a unidirectional and downwards loading at a rate of pinching behavior is simplified to assuming a parallelogram. The parameters a
6.35 mm (1/400 ) per minute. The cyclic loading steps followed CUREE (Consortium (a > 0) and b (b > 0) control the stiffness degradation and energy degradation,
of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering) loading protocol. The rate respectively. The degrading stiffness KP is based on previous loading history, as
of displacement was chosen at 2.54 mm/s (0.100 ) per second. Time, displacement, given by:
and force were monitored at each incremental displacement step. The loading pro- a
tocol for test parallel was modified compared to the original loading cycles. A K P ¼ S0 ½ðF 0 =S0 Þ=b  xun  ð4Þ
bracket in CLT structures is mounted with one side to the floor and the other side
where xun is the last unloading displacement off the envelop curve.
to the wall. Based on the orientation, the wall can move up but cannot move down
below the floor level. To acknowledge that restriction, the protocol for tests parallel
to the grain was adjusted and cycles do not go in the negative range. Schematic 2.3. Analytical assessment methods
drawings of the test set-ups are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
In this paper, two performance assessment methods are applied to compare the
modeled results with the test results. The first method uses only the envelope curve
2.2. SAWS hysteretic model of the load–displacement graph to assess the performance and neglects influences
of individual cycles. The second method, a damage accumulation method is an
SAWS model is derived from the load–deformation relationship based on hys- approach, where the performance of the connection is assessed under consideration
teretic shapes obtained from general monotonic and cyclic tests. The required of each loading cycle over time. The methods are explained in detail in the following
material properties were derived from the CLT handbook [14] and the report ‘‘Stan- sections.
dard of performance-rated cross-laminated timber’’ [1]. SAWS model in OpenSees is
a CUREE-10 parameter model, which can take into account highly nonlinear, stiff-
2.4. Ductility and equivalent energy elastic–plastic curve
ness and strength degradation and pinching behavior. It can produce smooth hys-
teretic loops.
Ductility and elastic shear stiffness are important numbers to assess and rate
The envelope curve is defined by an exponential function curve and a linear line,
connections. Since the load–displacement curve does not provide an exact elastic
which was proposed by Foschi [12]
and plastic section, the American Society of Testing Methods 2126-11 [2] provides
F ¼ sgnðxÞ ðF 0 þ R1 S0 jxjÞ ½1  expðS0 jxj=F 0 Þ; jxj 6 jDu j ð1Þ a method to translate the irregular load–displacement curve into an ideally linear
elastic–plastic curve, where ductility ratio, yielding force (Fyield) and related dis-
F ¼ sgnðxÞ  F peak þ R2 S0 ½x  sgnðxÞ  Du ; jDu j < jxj 6 jDF j ð2Þ placement, ultimate force (Fult) and related displacement, as well as elastic shear
stiffness can be determined and compared exactly. The linear elastic–plastic curve
is an idealized assumption of the connection behavior.
F ¼ 0; jxj > jDF j ð3Þ The ductility ratio Dratio is calculated as the ratio of the ultimate displacement at
The CUREE-10 parameters model was first described by Folz and Filiatrault [11]. 80% load of maximum load after reaching maximum load (Dult) and the displace-
Ten parameters are used to control the hysteretic constitutive law, seen from Fig. 6. ment at yielding (Dyield).
F0 represents intercept strength for the asymptotic line to the envelope curve Dult
(F0 > FI > 0), Du stands for the displacement at peak load (Du > 0), and DF as the fail- Dratio ¼ ð5Þ
Dyield
ure displacement. S0 represents the initial stiffness of the hysteretic curve (S0 > 0).
The stiffness ratio of the asymptotic line to the envelope curve (0 < R1 < 1.0) is given In order to find Dyield, the yield load Fyield and the plastic portion of the equiv-
by R1. R2 describes the stiffness ratio on the descending segment of the envelope alent energy elastic–plastic (EEEP) curve has to be determined. The plastic portion is
curve (R2 < 0). R3 presents the stiffness ratio of the unloading segment off the enve- characterized with a horizontal line equal to Fyield. The equation to determine this
lope curve (R3 < 1). FI indicates intercept strength for the pinching part (FI > 0), R4 yield plateau is given with
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 201

Bracket Type Fastener Type Test ID


parallel perpendicular
to grain to grain
(L) (P)

B-N-L-C1 B-N-P-C2

+
B-N-L-C2 B-N-P-C3
B-N-L-C3 B-N-P-C4
B-N-L-C4 B-N-P-C5
10 Sprial nail 3.8 x B-N-L-C5 B-N-P-C7
89mm (N)
Bracket B

A-R-L-C4 A-R-P-C1

+
A-R-L-C5 A-R-P-C2
A-R-L-C6 A-R-P-C6
A-R-L-C7 A-R-P-C7
12 Ring shank nail 3.4 x A-R-L-C8 A-R-P-C8
76mm (R)
Bracket A

A-r-L-C1 A-r-P-C3
A-r-L-C2 A-r-P-C4
+ A-r-L-C3
A-r-L-C4
A-r-P-C5
A-r-P-C6
12 Ring shank nail 3.8 x
A-r-L-C5 A-r-P-C7
60mm (r)
Bracket A

A-S-L-C7 A-S-P-C5
+ A-S-L-C8
A-S-L-C9
A-S-P-C6
A-S-P-C8
A-S-L-C10 A-S-P-C9
Connections in 18 Self-drilling screw 4 x
A-S-L-C11 A-S-P-C10
CLT panels 70mm (s)
Bracket A

A-s-L-C4 A-s-P-C3

+
A-s-L-C5 A-s-P-C4
A-s-L-C6 A-s-P-C7
A-s-L-C7 A-s-P-C8
9 Self-drilling screw 5 x A-s-L-C8 A-s-P-C9
90mm (S)
Bracket A
A-N-L-C1
A-N-P-C2
A-N-L-C2
A-N-P-C3
A-N-L-C3
+ A-N-L-C4
A-N-P-C4
A-N-P-C5
A-N-L-C5
18 Spiral nail 3.8 x A-N-P-C6
A-N-L-C6
89mm (N) A-N-L-C7
A-N-P-C7

Bracket A

Fig. 3. Overview of tested connection combinations and test identifications.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
2A where De = energy-related damage index, Fi = force in i-th cycle, di = displacement in
F yield ¼ Dult  D2ult  Ke ð6Þ i-th cycle, Fy = force at yielding, and dy = displacement at yielding. Gosain et al. con-
Ke
sidered only hysteretic results as long as they have not dropped below 75% of the
where A representing the area under the curve from zero to ultimate displacement yielding point after reaching the maximum capacity. The first half-cycle of loading
(Dult) and Ke being the elastic shear stiffness which is given as: at given amplitude is called primary half-cycle (PHC). The subsequent part of the cycle
after peak load is called follower (FHC) (Fig. 7). Based on previous research, Kraetzig
0:4F max et al. [18] developed a more complex energy-based formulation which considers
Ke ¼ ð7Þ
De half-cycles (Fig. 7). The response of the first loading cycle of given loading level is
called primary half-cycle (PHC). The ensuing cycle at given load level called follower
De = corresponding displacement at 0.4 Fmax.
half-cycle (FHC). By including of the FHC in the formulation, stiffness and strength
degradation can be captured. Kraetzig’s cumulative damage formulation has to be
2.5. Energy-based damage model
calculated individually for the positive (D+, tension) and negative side (D, compres-
sion) sides of the hysteresis loops. The overall damage index is defined as:
Gosain et al. [16] formulated a model to describe damage by using energy
absorption. The energy absorption is used to describe damage as follows: D ¼ Dþ þ D  Dþ D ð9Þ
X F i di +  + 
De ¼ ; F i =F y P 0:75 ð8Þ where D = damage in positive cycle, D = damage in negative cycle, D D = interac-
i
F y dy tion of D+ and D.
202 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of test set-up parallel to the grain.

Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of test-set-up perpendicular to the grain.

+
The positive damage index D is defined as: model. Similar to the approach applied by Shen et al. [27], the
P P
þ Eþp;i þ Eþi parameter estimations for the present model applications are
D ¼ P ð10Þ
Eþf þ Eþi shown in Tables 4 and 5.
where E+p,i = energy in a PHC, E+i = energy in a FHC, and E+f = energy in a monotonic
test to failure. For the negative part of the response (D), the damage index is calcu- 3.2. Hysteretic response
lated using the same formula only with the negative parameters inserted (i.e. Ep,i,
Ei, Ef).
The inclusion of the FHC energy in the numerator as well as in the denominator Cyclic loadings were performed for all test combinations and for
limits the influence to a lower level compared to the primary term. As such, both direction parallel and perpendicular to the grain. Besides generat-
deformation and fatigue-type damage are taken into account. ing the EEEP curves, ductility, elastic shear stiffness, maximum load
and related displacement were analyzed. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the
3. Results and comparison of test and model EEEP curves separated by direction, parallel and perpendicular to
the grain. The summarized values are shown in Table 6. In the cyc-
3.1. SAWS hysteretic model results lic test results, Bracket A combined with 18 spiral nails showed
highest ductility values in both directions (parallel to the grain
The monotonic and cyclic experimental results of the six con- D = 6.2 and perpendicular to the grain D = 4.9). The elastic shear
nections are used to check the predictive capability of SAWS stiffness is calculated at 0.4Fmax as the ratio between force and cor-
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 203

lines up with the test result accurately until maximum load. After
that point the test results show often irregular drops which can be
created by cracks, abrupt fastener failure or wood degradation.
Those events are not captured with the model. The model follows
an overall linear degradation of a slope of –R2S0. Calculating the
yield point, by using the EEEP curve approach, the sudden drops
can lead to a bigger variation on the ultimate displacement (Du)
between test and model which has a direct influence on the
ductility.
The elastic shear stiffness is presented by the initial slope
between the origin and the yield point. The EEEP curves of tests
and SAWS model for parallel to the grain direction match very
well. Only in the cases of A-r-L and A-s-L, the level of the plastic
plateau varies by about 10%. The positive branches of the curves
perpendicular to the grain show good agreement between test
and model. On the negative side it was found that the elastic shear
stiffness is considerably higher than on the positive side. The rea-
Fig. 6. Hysteresis model for CLT connection.
son can be found in the loading protocol. The next higher loading
step is first applied on the positive side. When it then reverses
the cycle into the negative side it has to overcome the plasticized
M PHC: Ep1+ bracket and fasteners which results in a higher force at similar dis-
placement rate. Table 6 summarizes the measured maximum
forces and the corresponding displacements from the performed
tests and the model. In only one out of 12 combinations the varia-
FHC: E1- tion of maximum load between test and model is over 10% (B-N-L-
C3). The related displacements show a good correlation between
test and model. The average variation was calculated to 5.3%. In
the case of A-r-L-C, the variation amounts to 12.5%. Overall, combi-
m nations A-N-L-C2, A-R-L-C4, A-S-L-C9, A-r-L-C3, and A-r-P-C5 pro-
фm FHC: E2+ vide the best agreement of the EEEP curve, elastic shear stiffness
and ductility ratio.
FHC: E1+ Figs. 10 and 11 represent the hysteretic curves obtained from
PHC: Ep1- test and model. The overall shape in all connection combinations
on the positive (tension) side was captured in most cases with a
high precision by the model. In Fig. 11 (perpendicular to the grain),
Fig. 7. Primary (PHC) and follower (FHC) half-cycles.
certain variations between test and model can be observed. The
reason behind that can be found in the loading protocol. The first
responding displacement. Bracket A with spiral nails shows the loading cycle always starts in tension. In the reversed cycles
biggest elastic shear stiffness parallel to the grain (Ke = 8.7 kN/ around maximum load, big plastic deformations have to be over-
mm), where bracket B shows the lowest value at 3.9 kN/mm. The come. That difference can be seen in the graph. The parameters
long ring shank nails present the highest elastic shear stiffness of the model are the same in tension and compression, which
value at 7.8 kN/mm (short ring shank nails Ke = 7.2 kN/mm). The results in a difference as it is expressed in Fig. 6.
ductility variation between test and model ranges from 2.8% (e.g.
A-S-L) to 30.6% (A-N-L). The average variation over all 12 combina- 3.3. Performance assessment using the damage accumulation index
tions was calculated to 16.8%. The greatest variation can be
explained by examining the hysteresis curves (Figs. 8 and 9). In By applying Eqs. (9) and (10) to the obtained hysteretic
some cases the level of reaching the plastic plateau (horizontal part response from testing and modelling, the cumulative damage
of the curve) varies between test and model up to 12% on the posi- index was computed at each time step. The comparative results
tive side (tension) and 18% on the negative side (compression) of are plotted in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. The results will be dis-
the graph. The average variation is calculated to 7%. The model cussed in the following subsections.

Table 4
Parameter estimation of SAWS model for monotonic connections tests.

Connection type B-N A-R A-r A-s A-S A-N


Direction L P L P L P L P L P L P
F0 [kN] 30.43 36.73 34.49 47.94 38.69 36.11 33.9 47.85 28.99 37.81 56.47 46.46
FI [kN] – – – – – – – – – – – –
Du [mm] 21 38 15 24 16 18 21 25 18 23 21 37
S0 [kN/mm] 4.442 1.933 7.051 5.103 8.332 7.089 6.479 5.825 6.297 6.028 7.179 6.646
R1 0.001 0.001 0.0624 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.1311 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.0256
R2 0.566 0.385 0.908 0.841 1.068 0.844 1.522 0.932 1.220 1.137 1.120 0.530
R3 – – – – – – – – – – – –
R4 – – – – – – – – – – – –
a – – – – – – – – – – – –
b – – – – – – – – – – – –

A, B = bracket type, L = longitudinal to the grain, P = perpendicular to the grain, more information to the used fasteners can be found in Fig. 3.
204 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

Table 5
Parameter estimation of SAWS model for cyclic connections tests.

Connection type B-N A-R A-r A-s A-S A-N


Direction L P L P L P L P L P L P
F0 [kN] 24.35 24.95 21.71 27.68 33.72 25.60 32.16 41.47 23.86 23.62 47.70 47.30
FI [kN] 3.5 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 3
Du [mm] 17 32 14 23 12 21 16 26 16 24 20 24
S0 [kN/mm] 6.683 2.811 11.14 6.210 10.20 8.800 9.824 4.362 6.330 4.705 9.100 5.440
R1 0.010 0.010 0.136 0.114 0.01 0.085 0.135 0.117 0.200 0.215 0.030 0.010
R2 0.08 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.25 0.14 0.23 0.13 0.16
R3 0.95 0.95 1 1 1 0.95 1 1.8 1 0.95 0.95 0.95
R4 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.006 0.01 0.008 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.005 0.015
A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.5
b 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.05 1.20 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.02 1.05 1.03 1.05

A, B = bracket type, L = longitudinal to the grain, P = perpendicular to the grain, more information to the used fasteners can be found in Fig. 3.

60 60

40 40

20 20

Load [kN]
Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-R-L-C4 EEEP Test A-r-L-C3
EEEP Model A-R-L-C04 EEEP Model A-r-L-C03
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-s-L-C4 EEEP Test A-S-L-C9
EEEP Model A-s-L-C04 EEEP Model A-S-L-C09
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-N-L-C2 EEEP Test B-N-L-C3
EEEP Model A-N-L-C02 EEEP Model B-N-L-C03
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 8. Equivalent energy elastic–plastic (EEEP) curve for test and SAWS model parallel to the grain.

3.4. Results for connections parallel to the grain direction ger increase in the damage index D. The shape of the modeling curve
shows similarity to the equivalent test curve. The major increases
Each graph in Fig. 12 illustrates three curves, one damage accu- created by the next loading step of the CUREE loading can be found
mulation curve generated with test results, the other damage accu- in both curves. However, since Kraetzig’s principle considers and
mulation curve generated with modeling results, and the loading accumulates damage from earlier stages, smaller variations add
curve of the connection. The plots show that all damage accumula- up over time of the entire loading process. Table 7 summarizes
tion curves generated with model results are above the test result and compares the times when D = 0.8 is reached in the test and
curves. In the first section of the curve up to D = 0.15 both curves model. The last two columns of the table presents the ratio between
show very little variation. In the following continuation of the curve time at D = 0.8 and total length of the loading protocol. Reasons for
the variation increases. The modeling curves show an overall stron- that increase can be found by closer investigation of the hysteretic
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 205

60 60

40 40

20 20

Load [kN]
Load [kN]
0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-R-P-C1 EEEP Test A-r-P-C5
EEEP Model A-R-P-C01 EEEP Model A-r-P-C05
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]
0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-s-P-C3 EEEP Test A-S-P-C5
EEEP Model A-s-P-C03 EEEP Model A-S-P-C05
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
EEEP Test A-N-P-C4 EEEP Test B-N-P-C2
EEEP Model A-N-P-C04 EEEP Model B-N-P-C02
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 9. Equivalent energy elastic–plastic (EEEP) curve for test and SAWS model perpendicular to the grain.

response. The envelope curve up to maximum load of the model and grain for the test and model, respectively are presented in Fig. 13,
test match very well. Past maximum load, the model follows a linear while Table 8 describes how the loading steps are generated in
degradation. The original tests results follow only a vague linear detail. The value to define the amplitude of the initial cycle of each
degradation. That behavior explains the differences of the greater loading level is a percentage of Dult.
increase of the damage index starting at around D = 0.5 and becom- The general characteristics of the damage accumulation curves
ing continuously greater. Another factor for the variation can be can be found as well in the test curves as in the model curves. The
found in the subsequent cycles of the loading procedure. To gener- steep increases represent the first loading cycle of each load level
ate the observed pinching of the connection, the SAWS model rises which lines up with the red curve. The following section of the
at repetitive cycles with a slope of 1/R4S0 (Fig. 6). It is a linear damage curve, which increases with a lower slope represents the
approximation to the smooth curve seen at the test. By comparing sub sequential cycles of the loading protocol. There are a few fac-
those areas of the hysteretic response, a greater variation was iden- tors that influence the characteristics of the damage curve. To
tified. This effect causes a stronger increase of the damage curve explain the variation between the two curves, the hysteretic
between the linear jumps, which are created by the next primary response has to be analyzed in detail. The energy dissipation of test
loading step. The summations of those two parts, which were iden- and model, which is described by the area enclosed by the hyster-
tified from the hysteretic response lead to the variation of DModel to esis curves (Fig. 11), does not correlate perfectly at individual load-
DTest. However, the model overestimates the damage D and is there- ing steps. On the tension side (positive quarter of graphs in Fig. 11),
fore on a conservative side at all stages. the hysteresis loops of SAWS model show similar behavior as the
loops in the plots parallel to the grain. On the compression side
of the graph, SAWS model does not accurately capture the test
3.5. Results for connections perpendicular to the grain direction
result. Except for A-r-P-C, the envelope curve of SAWS model is
shifted towards left (more deformation). The contribution of
The damage accumulation curves and the applied CUREE load-
bracket deflection towards the entire deflection is not considered
ing protocol (red3 line) for all six connections perpendicular to the
adequately in the model. Hence, the calculated damage index of
the test result reaches D = 0.8 at an earlier stage. In addition to that,
3
For interpretation of color in Fig. 13, the reader is referred to the web version of the strength degradation on the compression side does not create a
this article.
206 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

Table 6
Summary of ductility ratio, elastic shear stiffness, maximum forces, and displacement at maximum force of the connections under cyclic loading (test and model).

Test ID Cyclic loading


Ductility ratio Elastic shear stiffness Maximum force Displacement at maximum force
Du/Dyield [–]a Ke [kN/mm]a Fmax [kN] DFmax [mm]

Parallel to the grain


B-N-L-C1 5.8 4.8 24.5 17.7
B-N-L-C2 5.8 4.8 24.5 17.7
B-N-L-C3 4.7 3.3 21.7 19.4
B-N-L-C4 6.0 3.5 28.7 31.2
B-N-L-C5 5.7 2.9 25.1 31.3
Average B-N-L 5.6 3.9 24.9 23.5
SAWS-B-N-L-C03 6.5 5.0 24.2 16.8
A-R-L-C4 5.4 8.9 42.2 14.4
A-R-L-C5 5.2 10.3 45.1 14.5
A-R-L-C6 6.2 9.3 45.2 14.5
A-R-L-C7 5.8 5.4 37.5 20.8
A-R-L-C8 4.5 4.9 40.5 22.6
Average A-R-L 5.4 7.8 42.1 17.4
SAWS-A-R-L-C04 4.4 7.3 42.1 13.9
A-r-L-C1 5.2 8.4 35.4 10.6
A-r-L-C2 8.9 10.2 35.4 11.5
A-r-L-C3 5.4 6.8 32.9 11.8
A-r-L-C4 4.4 5.9 35.9 15.7
A-r-L-C5 4.2 4.7 34.4 18.5
Average A-r-L 5.6 7.2 34.8 13.6
SAWS-A-r-L-C03 5.6 7.5 32.9 11.9
A-s-L-C4 4.1 6.8 53.9 16.0
A-s-L-C5 3.5 6.4 45.7 15.5
A-s-L-C6 3.4 6.0 55.0 21.3
A-s-L-C7 3.5 5.7 51.9 20.4
A-s-L-C8 2.3 2.7 34.2 19.5
Average A-s-L 3.4 5.5 48.1 18.5
SAWS-A–s-L-C04 4.5 6.8 49.8 15.8
A-S-L-C7 3.0 5.9 52.0 17.3
A-S-L-C8 3.3 4.8 42.4 17.8
A-S-L-C9 3.2 4.9 43.6 15.9
A-S-L-C10 3.6 4.7 51.0 26.7
A-S-L-C11 4.2 5.0 40.7 21.7
Average A-S-L 3.5 5.1 45.9 19.9
SAWS-A-S-L-C09 3.4 4.7 42.5 15.9
A-N-L-C1 4.5 6.3 51.0 20.9
A-N-L-C2 7.2 10.6 49.5 19.5
A-N-L-C3 6.8 10.1 44.9 16.6
A-N-L-C4 5.7 10.2 50.2 16.1
A-N-L-C5 7.0 9.7 48.0 19.4
A-N-L-C6 5.3 5.9 57.9 35.3
A-N-L-C7 6.9 8.2 44.9 15.2
Average A-N-L 6.2 8.7 49.5 20.4
SAWS-A-N-L-C02 4.3 6.5 49.6 19.6

Perpendicular to the grain


B-N-P-C2 3.9 (6.9) 2.2 (4.6) 27.7 (29.4) 32.9 (16.6)
B-N-P-C3 3.9 (6.3) 2.1 (4.1) 25.0 (29.4) 31.8 (18.0)
B-N-P-C4 4.8 (4.1) 2.5 (2.4) 23.7 (26.0) 28.5 (17.8)
B-N-P-C5 3.6 (6.3) 2.2 (4.2) 25.9 (35.8) 29.1 (32.8)
B-N-P-C7 5.8 (7.3) 2.8 (5.4) 22.0 (34.5) 29.2 (32.0)
Average B-N-P 4.3 (5.9) 2.36 (4.1) 24.9 (31.0) 30.3 (23.4)
SAWS-B-N-P-C02 4.5 (4.5) 2.3 (2.3) 25.1 (25.1) 32.0 (32.0)
A-R-P-C1 4.1 (5.9) 4.9 (7.7) 43.4 (40.9) 24.3 (17.6)
A-R-P-C2 4.5 (3.3) 5.7 (5.2) 41.4 (46.0) 23.1 (14.9)
A-R-P-C6 3.8 (4.1) 4.9 (6.9) 42.2 (49.7) 24.5 (14.6)
A-R-P-C7 3.6 (2.9) 4.4 (4.8) 47.4 (56.6) 28.4 (26.8)
A-R-P-C8 4.8 (3.0) 4.8 (3.9) 42.0 (51.0) 28.2 (27.2)
Average A-R-P 4.1 (3.5) 4.9 (5.7) 43.3 (48.9) 25.7 (20.2)
SAWS-A-R-P-C01 3.3 (3.4) 4.1 (4.7) 41.1 (45.9) 22.4 (23.2)
A-r-P-C3 6.5 (4.7) 6.6 (5.9) 39.8 (48.9) 18.6 (20.8)
A-r-P-C4 5.6 (3.1) 6.2 (4.2) 37.2 (40.4) 20.1 (21.4)
A-r-P-C5 4.4 (5.5) 5.9 (7.3) 41.2 (41.3) 21.5 (21.9)
A-r-P-C6 4.3 (3.3) 5.2 (5.0) 41.4 (47.8) 20.7 (21.5)
A-r-P-C7 3.2 (3.0) 4.0 (4.1) 41.2 (47.9) 21.7 (21.5)
Average A-r-P 4.6 (3.7) 5.6 (5.3) 40.2 (45.3) 20.5 (21.4)
SAWS-A–r-P-C05 4.1 (4.4) 5.5 (6.1) 40.3 (42.2) 20.9 (21.1)
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 207

Table 6 (continued)

Test ID Cyclic loading


Ductility ratio Elastic shear stiffness Maximum force Displacement at maximum force
Du/Dyield [–]a Ke [kN/mm]a Fmax [kN] DFmax [mm]

A-s-P-C3 3.2 (4.3) 3.5 (8.1) 51.2 (58.3) 26.1 (20.2)


A-s-P-C4 4.2 (3.2) 4.8 (5.5) 49.7 (60.5) 24.7 (27.1)
A-s-P-C7 3.4 (3.1) 4.0 (5.0) 52.0 (64.8) 36.8 (26.8)
A-s-P-C8 4.6 (3.8) 6.5 (6.8) 51.3 (63.1) 28.5 (18.0)
A-s-P-C9 4.1 (3.8) 5.7 (6.3) 47.6 (62.4) 23.1 (20.3)
Average A-s-P 3.8 (3.6) 4.9 (6.3) 50.4 (61.9) 27.8 (22.5)
SAWS-A–s-P-C03 2.8 (2.9) 3.4 (3.6) 49.7 (52.7) 25.7 (26.4)
A-S-P-C5 3.1 (3.7) 3.5 (5.7) 48.1 (53.0) 24.5 (19.5)
A-S-P-C6 4.1 (3.7) 4.5 (5.7) 44.9 (54.2) 22.8 (23.7)
A-S-P-C8 4.3 (3.9) 4.9 (6.1) 48.3 (52.6) 22.2 (24.5)
A-S-P-C9 4.1 (3.0) 4.4 (4.7) 45.3 (55.6) 28.9 (26.5)
A-S-P-C10 4.1 (3.2) 5.3 (5.5) 51.2 (56.8) 28.8 (24.9)
Average A-S-P 3.9 (3.5) 4.5 (5.6) 47.6 (54.4) 25.4 (23.8)
SAWS-A-S-P-C05 2.8 (2.9) 3.4 (3.6) 46.7 (48.3) 23.8 (24.2)
A-N-P-C2 5.2 (4.9) 5.7 (6.7) 43.4 (46.2) 17.9 (19.7)
A-N-P-C3 6.2 (4.1) 6.2 (7.3) 48.6 (49.6) 37.3 (17.3)
A-N-P-C4 4.6 (4.6) 4.7 (7.1) 44.8 (47.0) 23.9 (19.8)
A-N-P-C5 6.1 (4.0) 5.5 (6.0) 52.0 (54.8) 40.2 (23.2)
A-N-P-C6 4.6 (3.7) 5.2 (6.1) 52.4 (54.1) 32.4 (18.0)
A-N-P-C7 3.7 (5.6) 4.1 (7.2) 51.1 (54.6) 32.8 (17.4)
Average A-N-P 4.9 (4.5) 5.2 (6.7) 48.7 (51.0) 30.7 (19.2)
SAWS-A-N-P-C04 3.4 (3.8) 3.8 (4.4) 43.0 (47.9) 23.3 (24.2)
a
Values in brackets are generated with values from the negative branch of the curve.

60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20
Test B-N-L-C Test A-R-L-C
-40 -40
Model Model
B-N-L-C A-R-C-P
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20
Test A-r-L-C Test A-s-L-C
-40 -40
Model A-r-L-C Model A-s-L-C
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20
Test A-S-L-C Test A-N-L-C
-40 -40
Model Model
A-S-L-C A-N-L-C
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 10. Hysteretic response of connection tests and SAWS model parallel to the grain.
208 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

60 60

40 40

20 20

Load [kN]
Load [kN]
0 0

-20 -20
Test A-R-C-P
Test A-r-P-C
-40 Model -40
Model A-r-P-C
A-R-C-P
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20

Load [kN]
Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20
Test A-s-P-C Test A-S-P-C

-40 Model -40 Model


A-s-P-C A-S-P-C
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
60 60

40 40

20 20
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20
Test A-N-P-C Test B-N-P-C
-40 -40
Model Model
A-N-P-C B-N-P-C
-60 -60
-70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 11. Hysteretic response of connection tests and SAWS model perpendicular to the grain.

smooth envelope curve. Often the following initial cycles of the in the advanced cycles of the test. The limitation of SAWS model
next loading steps past maximum load are irregular, where the lead to an assumption that less energy is dissipated over the course
envelope curve of the model follows a linear degradation. There- of the subsequent cycles, as there is no variation to capture the test
fore, the model assumes more energy dissipation on the compres- results accurately. Hence, the sections between the initial cycles in
sion side than actually is achieved. The influence of the ‘‘initial Fig. 13 (steep sloped lines) accent slower than the test curve. At the
cycle’’-factor is relatively small. Another factor causing the varia- beginning of the test protocol, the influence of the subsequent
tion of DModel to DTest was investigated in the behavior of the sub- cycles is insignificant and therefore good agreement between the
sequent cycles of the loading levels. The damage accumulation two curves can be observed. In the advanced stage of the test,
curves were obtained from the hysteretic responses perpendicular the increasing variation between test and model results in a
to the grain, which include loading in positive and negative direc- greater difference, especially since Kraetzig’s model approach is
tions (Fig. 11). In five out of six graphs, DModel is either equivalent an accumulation model, where previous events of the hysteresis
or above DTest in the first section up to D = 0.25. A-r-P-C, A-s-P-C, A- curve are accumulated. It was found that the biggest difference
S-P-C, and A-N-P-C continue to show good correlation until D = 0.5 between test and model of the subsequent cycles can be found at
is reached. The envelope curve and loading cycles agree very well loading levels 5–7 of the CUREE protocol (Table 8). Even though
with the tests, resulting in good agreement of the damage curve. the damage level of D = 0.8 in the model was reached at a later
In the case of B-N-P-C, DModel is close to DTest, but stays at all sec- point of the loading protocol, in connection B-N-P, A-R-P, A-s-P,
tions below DTest. In the advanced part after D = 0.25, DModel and A-N-P, DModel reached 0.8 before starting the next loading
increases slower than DTest so that the significant value of D = 0.8 level. In that perspective, the differences of test and model are in
is reached at a later point of the loading protocol. Only the connec- reasonable range. Table 9 summarizes the times of model and test
tion combination A-N-P-C (Fig. 13f) shows small variation over the when D = 0.8 was reached and the ratio between time at D = 0.8
entire curve. The pinching of the connection is created by those and total length of the loading protocol. Four out of six connections
two parallel lines. The loading and unloading of the connection fol- vary in a range from 1.5% to 9.5%. Connections A-r-P-C3 and A-s-P-
lows the same path over the entire protocol. The model parameters C4 show a higher variation of 14.6% and 11.2%. The average varia-
are limited to capture the real pinching, which increases the slope tion was calculated to 8.45%.
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 209

1 80
60
0.8

Damage factor [-]


0.75 40

Displacement [mm]
20
0.5 0
-20
B-N-L-C3 A-R-L-C4
0.25 -40
SAWS-B-N-L-C03 SAWS-A-R-L-C04
-60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

1 80
60
0.8

Displacement [mm]
Damage factor [-]

0.75 40
20
0.5 0
-20
A-r-L-C3 A-s-L-C4
0.25 -40
SAWS-A-r-L-C03 SAWS-A-s-L-C04
-60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

1 80

60
0.8

Displacement [mm]
Damage factor [-]

0.75 40

20

0.5 0

-20
A-S-L-C9 A-N-L-C2
0.25 -40
SAWS-A-S-L-C09 SAWS-A-N-L-C02
-60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 12. Cumulative damage index parallel to the grain with loading curve (red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

3.6. Comparison of the model to the assessment method summarized and compared easily in a table. Test and model
showed very good correlation. The observed differences are small
In this paper the test results of six CLT connections in two direc- and therefore it was interpreted that this model represents a good
tions to the grain were used to generate a finite element model in correlation to the testes connections.
OpenSees. To assess the accuracy of the obtained model results in However, the damage accumulation method, where the damage
comparison to the test results, two different assessment methods index D was calculated in respect to the time, it was found that the
were chosen. The first method assessed ductility, elastic shear stiff- subsequent cycles have a considerable influence on the accuracy of
ness and maximum capacity. This method focuses on the envelope the damage results. The damage accumulation principle showed, in
curve and neglects any influence from hysteretic cycles which order to reproduce the exact load displacement relation the model
occur at lower amplitude and do not contribute to the envelope needs to be modified to capture the behavior of the subsequent
curve of the load–displacement curve. The second method is a cycles.
damage accumulation approach. The damage accumulation model
considers each loading cycle not only the generated envelope
4. Summary and conclusions
curve. In addition to load and displacement, in this approach the
relation between load, displacement, and time is tracked. The dam-
In this research six connection combinations were tested and
age index D is calculated at incremental time steps, which requires
modeled in OpenSees. For the modeling, a CUREE-10 parameter
knowledge of the load, displacement, and time relation.
model approach was chosen to reproduce the test curves. This
By using both approaches, both methods showed their strength
paper has presented a comparison of the damage index computed
and weaknesses in assessing the results. The EEEP curve, and
through experimental and analytically model. Overall, there is a
herein calculated ductility, elastic shear stiffness and maximum
good trend between the two damage indices. However, since the
capacity is a straight forward method, where its results can be
analytical model is fitted and often under/overestimates at the
210 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

1 80

60
0.8

Displacement [mm]
Damage factor [-]
0.75 40

20

0.5 0

-20

0.25 -40
B-N-P-C2 A-R-P-C1
SAWS-B-N-P-C02 SAWS-A-R-P-C01 -60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

1 80
60
0.8

Displacement [mm]
Damage factor [-]

0.75 40
20
0.5 0
-20
0.25 -40
A-r-P-C3 A-s-P-C4
SAWS-A-r-P-C03 SAWS-A-s-P-C04 -60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

1 80

60
0.8

Displacement [mm]
Damage factor [-]

0.75 40

20

0.5 0

-20

0.25 -40
A-S-P-C9 A-N-P-C2
SAWS-A-S-P-C09 SAWS-A-N-P-C02 -60
Loading Protocol Loading Protocol
0 -80
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 13. Cumulative damage index perpendicular to grain with loading curve.

The obtained load–displacement results from both, test and


Table 7 model were analyzed according to the ASTM standard as well as
Time of the loading protocol (parallel to the grain) when damage index reached
to an energy-based damage accumulation principle. The two ana-
D = 0.8.
lyzing methods were used to assess and compare the results from
Test ID Time when reached Damage Ratio between t0.8Da and tTotal testing and modeling to get a better understanding of the precision
b
index 0.8 [s] protocol[%]
of the model.
Testa Modela Test Model According to the ASTM analyzing method, the overall modeling
B-N-L-C3 206 (480) 106 (480) 33.3 42.2 result correlate with the test results very well. In the ASTM method
A-R-L-C4 180 (366) 79 (366) 27.1 32.1 2126-11 [2], ductility ratio and elastic shear stiffness of the enve-
A-r-L-C3 222 (387) 111 (387) 22.3 36.9
lope curve of the hysteretic results are considered. Those values
A-s-L-C4 161 (489) 142 (489) 27.3 38.5
A-S-L-C9 91 (400) 91 (400) 24.0 33.5 are represented in the EEEP curve (Figs. 10 and 11). For the
A-N-L-C2 206 (473) 132 (473) 50.5 49.0 energy-based damage accumulation principle, the load displace-
a
ment results were processed to calculate a damage index at each
Time when damage level D = 0.8 is reached.
b
Time when loading protocol is finished.
incremental time step. The damage indices of test and model as
well as the loading schedules are plotted in Figs. 12 and 13. The
applied energy-based damage accumulation method showed a
extreme points, there are apparent differences in the cumulative greater variation between test and model than the EEEP curves. It
damage indices. Through establishing equivalency between the was observed, that the damage index curve of the model in parallel
experimental and analytical result, however, for future perfor- to the grain direction was increasing stronger for all six combina-
mance assessment, this will furnish consistent results. tions. That can interpreted as being on the conservative side as var-
J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212 211

Table 8 accumulation method is a great tool, as the dissipated energy


Amplitude of primary cycles for CUREE-protocol. under the cyclic loading is considered. The energy dissipation is
Pattern Step Minimum number of Amplitude of primary cycle, %D another indicator besides ductility and elastic shear stiffness to
cycles evaluate the model. By combining energy dissipation over time,
1 1 6 5 the damage accumulation can help to analyze exactly where test
2 2 7 7.5 and model vary and where good correlation can be found. The per-
3 7 10 formed tests and generated models showed that the major inaccu-
3 4 4 20
5 4 30
racy was found in the subsequent cycles. The damage increase in
4 6 3 40 those particular sections varied significantly, which caused a
7 3 70 greater overall variation as Kraetzig’s approach is an accumulative
8 3 100 model. Already small variation in an individual connection can
9 3 100 + 100aA (120)
change the performance result of an entire structure model as little
10 3 Additional increments of 100a
(20%) up to 160 variation will multiply with increasing number of levels of a build-
ing model. Connections are very important, as they contribute sig-
nificantly to the deformation and performance of a building.

Table 9
Time of the loading protocol (perpendicular to the grain) when damage index reached
Acknowledgements
D = 0.8.
This research was supported through funding to the NSERC
Test ID Time when reached Damage Ratio between tD = 0.8 and
index 0.8 [s] tTotal protocol [%]
Strategic Network on Innovative Wood Products and Building Sys-
tems (NEWBuildS) and the Steel Structures Education Foundation
Testa Modela Test Model
(SSEF).
B-N-P-C2 161 (483) 204 (483) 33.3 42.2
A-R-P-C1 133 (489) 157 (489) 27.1 32.1
A-r-P-C5 92 (412) 152 (412) 22.3 36.9 References
A-s-P-C3 136 (499) 192 (499) 27.3 38.5
A-S-P-C5 115 (480) 213 (480) 24.0 33.5 [1] ANSI A.N.. ANSI/APA PRG 320–2012: standard for performance-rated cross-
A-N-P-C4 225 (445) 218 (445) 50.5 49.0 laminated timber. APA – The Engineered Wood Association; 2012.
[2] ASTM. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for shear resistance
a
Length of the entire loading protocol in brackets. of walls for buildings. ASTM E 2126-11. ASTM International; 2011.
[3] BCBC. British Columbia building code. QP Publication Services; 2010.
[4] Ceccotti A, Vignoli A. Engineering timber structures: an evaluation on their
ious damage stages [25] are reached at an earlier point in the load- seismic behavior. Timber Engineering Conference, Tokyo; 1990, p. 946–53.
ing schedule. The results of the model perpendicular to the grain [5] Chui Y, Yantao L. Modeling timber moment connection under reversed cyclic
loading. J Strut Eng 2005;131(11):1757–63.
are mostly below the results of the test, which can be interpreted [6] Chui Y, Ni C, Jiang L. Finite-element model for nailed wood joints under
on the non-conservative side. Only in the case of A-N-P, the dam- reversed cyclic load. J Struct Eng 1998;124(1):96–103.
age index curve follows closely the test results and can be found on [7] Dickof C, Stiemer S, Tesfamariam, S, Wu, D. Wood-steel hybrid seismic force
resisting systems: seismic ductility. World Conference for Timber Engineering.
the conservative side. Throughout all six combinations and both New Zealand Timber Design Society; 2012, p. 104–11.
loading directions (parallel and perpendicular to the grain) a major [8] Dolan J. The dynamic response of timber shear walls. Vancouver, British
difference was found in the damage index development generated Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia, Department of Civil
Engineering; 1989.
by the subsequent cycles. Those parts increased slower than the
[9] Dujic B, Pucelj J, Zarnic R. Testing of racking behavior of massive wooden wall
index generated with the test results. The influence on the overall panels, Ljubljanar/Slovenia; 2004.
curve is significant and to a disadvantage in combinations perpen- [10] Foliente G. Hysteresis modeling of wood joints and structural systems. J Strut
Eng 1995;121(6):1013–22.
dicular to the grain as it results in an overestimation of the perfor-
[11] Folz B, Filiatrault A. Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls. J Struct Eng
mance of the connection. 2001;127(4):433–41.
By only considering the envelope curve of the hysteretic [12] Foschi R. Analysis of wood diaphragms and trusses. Part 1: diaphragms. Can J
response, the subsequent cycles are neglected completely. This Civ Eng 1977;4(3):345–62.
[13] Foschi R. Modeling the hysteretic response of mechanical connections for
research showed that the influence of subsequent cycles can be wood structures. Vancouver: World Conference on Timber Engineering; 2000.
significant depending on the method of assessing the results. The [14] FPInnovations. CLT handbook: cross-laminated
EEEP method can achieve great correlation between test and timber. Vancouver: FPInnovations; 2011.
[15] Ghobarah A. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
model, but misses the influence of the subsequent cycles on the development. Eng Struct 2001;23:878–84.
overall performance of the connections. [16] Gosain N, Brown R, Jirsa J. Shear requirements for load reversals on RC
The applied CUREE-10 parameter model showed good correla- members. J Struct Eng ASCE 1977;103(7):1461–76.
[17] He M, Lam F, Foschi R. Modeling three-dimensional timber light-frame
tion with the test results. However, this model has limited abilities buildings. J Struct Eng 2001;127(8):901–12.
for modeling the subsequent cycles. [18] Kraetzig W, Meyer I, Meskouris K. Damage evolution in reinforced concrete
Depending on the purpose of the model one or the other assess- members under cyclic loading. 5th international conference on structural
safety and reliability, San Francisco; 1989, p. 795–02.
ment method might be suitable. For an analysis of the overall duc- [19] Liang H, Wen Y-K, Foliente GC. Damage modeling and damage limit state
tility or elastic shear stiffness, applying the method provided by criterion for wood-frame buildings subjected to seismic loads. J Struct Eng
ASTM will give relatively accurate results to assess a hysteretic 2011;137(1):41–8.
[20] Lindt JW. Evolution of wood shear wall testing modelling and reliability
load–displacement model such as the SAWS model in this research.
analysis: bibliography. Pract Period 2004;9(1):44–53.
Since that approach considers only the envelope curve, which is [21] Lindt JW, Gupta R. Damage and damage prediction for wood shearwalls
mainly influenced by the first cycle of each loading step, the results subjected to simulated earthquake loads. J Perform Constr Facil 2006:176–84.
showed good correlation for all six connections, as the initial load- [22] Park YJ, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismis damage model for reinforced concrete.
J Struct Eng ASCE 1985;111(4):722–39.
ing cycle was captures relatively precise. If the model of the [23] Polensek A, Laursen H. Seismic behavior of bending components and inter-
bracket is generated to be implemented into a bigger model to ana- component connections of light-framed wood buildings. Oregon State
lyze the overall behaviour of a building, especially considering the University: Final Report to the National Science Foundation (Grant CEE-
8104626), Department of Forest Products; 1984.
time-history, it is important that to have the best possible correla- [24] Rainer J, Karacabeyli E. Wood-frame construction – meeting the challenge of
tion between test and model. In order to check for that, the damage earthquakes. Building Performance Series No. 5; 1999.
212 J. Schneider et al. / Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 197–212

[25] Schneider J, Karacabeli E, Popowski M, Stiemer S, Tesfamariam S. Damage [28] Stiemer SF, Dickof C, Tesfamariam S. Wood–steel hybrid systems: overstrength
assessment of connections used in cross-laminated timber subject to cyclic and ductility in design. In: 10th international conference on advances in steel
loads. J Perform Constr Facil 2014. concrete composite and hybrid structures, Singapore; 2012.
[26] Schneider J, Stiemer SF, Tesfamariam S, Karacabeyli E, Popovski M. Damage [29] Wang M, Shah S. Reinforced concrete hysteresis model based in the damage
assessment of cross laminated timber connections subjected to simulated concept. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15(8):993–1003.
earthquake loads. In: World conference on timber engineering, vol. [30] Williams MS, Sexsmith RG. Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: a
I. USA: Curran Associates Inc; 2012. p. 398–406. state-of-the-art review. Earthq Spectra 1995;11(2):319–49.
[27] Shen Y, Schneider J, Tesfamariam S, Stiemer S, Mu Z. Hysteresis behavior of [31] Xu J, Dolan J. Development of nailed wood joint element in ABAQUS. J Struct
bracket connection in cross-laminated-timber shear walls. Construct Build Eng 2009;135(8):968–76.
Mater 2013;48:980–91.

You might also like