Experimental investigation of multi-layered strong wood-frame shear walls with nonstructural Type X gypsum wallboard layers under cyclic load

System effects in T‐shaped timber shear walls: Effects of transverse walls, diaphragms, and axial loading

“…The peak strengths of both connection types are similar to each other, surpassing the values reported in previous studies 3,15,52,53 . Regarding the elastic stiffness, both connection types meet the criterion identified in our previous study 51 . Specifically, the stiffness of the screwed connections is approximately 300% higher than that of the slotted connections.…”

“…Moreover, since the T-shaped SW specimens had a tridimensional response and underwent a hexagonal displacement protocol, the stress-uplifting curves exhibited a more hexagonal response (see Figures 16C, S9 38 , and S10 38 in the supplementary material) rather than the linear response observed in the planar SW under in-plane loading protocols. 8,29,30 This bidirectional response is consistent with the expected behavior of overturning restraint systems in LFTBs under earthquake loading. Furthermore, as the compressive deformation under the bearing plate increased (see Figure S11 38 in the supplementary material), the rod also experienced some compressive stresses (illustrated in the negative y-axis of Figure 16).…”

“…To qualify as a suitable candidate for a SW‐to‐TSW connection, the vertical stiffness requirement is crucial (if the stiffness is not large enough, there are no benefits from the TSW effect). Preliminary numerical models reported by the authors 51 indicate that SW‐to‐TSW connection should possess a stiffness of at least 40% of that of the planar SW (in this case 1.6 kN/mm for assembly‐level specimens). Additionally, the connection must demonstrate sufficient overstrength to remain within the linear‐elastic range.…”

“…These tensile stresses could be attributed, at least in part, to the high levels of compressive plastic deformation at the bottom plate, which might have misaligned the kinematics of the system, causing the rod to experience some tension. 8 The maximum uplift at the corner of the T-shaped SW is approximately 35% smaller than that of the planar SW. This reduction is no doubt due to the TSW effect.…”

“…Tests conducted on multistory timber buildings have revealed that the actual lateral stiffness of timber structures might exceed the theoretical stiffness consistent with the aforementioned assumptions. [3][4][5][6][7] This stiffness may be due to gypsum wallboards and facade finishes, [8][9][10][11] and system (coupling) effects due to other structural members. [3][4][5][6][7]12 By system effects, here, we refer to interactions of planar SW with other structural assemblies that cause its behavior to deviate from the theoretical behavior of an isolated, cantilever planar assembly.…”