Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR LONG-SPAN POST-TENSIONED TIMBER FRAMES UNDER GRAVITY LOADING

Wouter van Beerschoten1, Alessandro Palermo2, David Carradine3, Stefano Pampanin4

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the development of a design procedure for post-tensioned timber gravity frames. Post-tensioned timber frames are capable of achieving long spans, while reducing member depth. Within the design procedure the beam-column connection stiffness forms an essential component. It influences the deflections of beams and bending moment distributions in the frame. Experimental testing has given insight into the different deformation components and resulted in stiffness values for a post-tensioned connection. These experimental derived stiffness values have been used for a detailed analysis of a post-tensioned timber frame. Several simplifications in the design are possible and influences on the design are shown. The design procedure will be verified by future full-scale frame tests with one and two bays subjected to gravity loading. KEYWORDS: Timber frames, LVL, Post-tensioning, Gravity loading, Design procedure

1 INTRODUCTION 123
Recent developments in New Zealand and Australia, facilitated by the Structural Timber Innovation Company (STIC), have resulted in the development of unbonded post-tensioned timber frames for use in multi-storey and long-span structures [1]. Initially the system was developed as moment-resisting frames and walls to resist earthquake loading [2], following developments in precast concrete seismic design [3]. Unbonded posttensioned concrete frames have further evolved for gravity dominated frames, using draped tendon profile, e.g. the Brooklyn system [4]. Frames designed for mainly gravity loading can be either used in non-seismic areas as main structural system or in seismic-areas as gravity (secondary) frame in combination with other lateral load resisting (primary) systems. The same design principles are now being applied to timber with recent research focusing on gravity design of post-tensioned frames for multi-storey timber buildings.
Wouter van Beerschoten, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Email: wouter.vanbeerschoten@pg.canterbury.ac.nz 2 Alessandro Palermo, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Email: alessandro.palermo@canterbury.ac.nz 3 David Carradine, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Email: david.carradine@canterbury.ac.nz 4 Stefano Pampanin, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Email: stefano.pampanin@canterbury.ac.nz
1

In the past, multi-storey timber buildings have typically been used as residential and hotel buildings [5]. These types of buildings have numerous walls placed within the building resulting in short span floors and beams. For office and commercial buildings this is often not desirable and large open floor plans are required. Timber-concrete composite flooring systems [6] or alternative prestressed concrete slabs can span large lengths though supporting beams become highly loaded and need larger section sizes to withstand floor loads. Post-tensioned timber frames can reduce the depth of these beams [7], opening up the way for multi-storey timber office and commercial buildings. An example of practical application of this structural system is shown in Figure 1, which shows construction of the College of Creative Arts building for the Massey University in Wellington. The frames are post-tensioned with draped tendons to enhance gravity-load capacity of the system.

Figure 1: Construction of an unbonded post-tensioned timber frame (c/o A. Buchanan)

Figure 2: Layout of post-tensioned timber frame

Engineered wood products, such as glue laminated timber (glulam) and Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), make it possible to manufacture long span hollow core box sections, which can be used in combination with post-tensioning. Continuous unbonded post-tensioning cables, anchored at exterior columns, clamp beams and columns together, creating moment resisting connections as shown in Figure 2. One stressing operation can create several beam-column connections at once, making it an efficient construction system. This paper is limited to LVL, but glulam timber or other engineered wood solutions can also be used [8]. For the sake of brevity only hollow core box sections are herein considered. The objective of this paper is to present the design methodology for post-tensioned timber gravity frames. Key parameters for the frame design such as strength, stiffness, joint behaviour and tendon elongation are addressed. Experimental testing results of the joint behaviour are presented. A prototype building is described and this has been used for the design of a full gravity frame. For this design a non-linear frame model has been made, whereby the connection response is based on experimental testing results. Possible simplifications in the design are presented and their impact on the modelling has been evaluated.

the frame. Stiff connections can reduce member sizes and increase resistance to lateral loading. Determining this connection stiffness is complex, due to anisotropic timber behaviour and non-uniform contact stresses.

Figure 3: Gravity frame deformation components

2 GENERAL FRAME DESIGN


Traditional timber frame design is often governed by deflections. On the contrary, design of post-tensioned timber frames is more often governed by strength. Posttensioning forces add a precamber to the beams which helps to satisfy deflection criteria. The ultimate limit state (ULS) strength of the beams is linked to deflections as post-tensioning tendons extend significantly when beams deflect, resulting in an increase in post-tensioning force [9]. The connection strength is governed by the limited compressive strength perpendicular to grain of the column, though this area can be reinforced using long fully threaded screws [10]. This form of steel reinforcement also helps to reduce post-tensioning losses, as further explained in Section 2.2. 2.1 FRAME DEFORMATIONS Three deformation components need to be evaluated in the design; beam (b), joint (joint) and column (c) deformation (Figure 3). The beam and column deformations can be calculated based on standard mechanical equations. The stiffness of beam-column joints influences deflections and moment distribution in

Figure 4: Beam-column joint deformation components: joint panel shear deformation (external connections only) (j), interface compression deformation (int) and gap opening (gap).

Previous research on joint deformation [11] has shown that it can be split into three parts (Figure 4); joint panel shear deformation (for external connections only), interface compression deformation and gap opening. The beam-column joint is clamped together by the posttensioning force. This compression forces causes the column interface to deform (int) due to the low modulus of elasticity perpendicular to grain. When vertical loading is increased a point is reached when the compressive stress at the top is zero, referred to as the decompression point. When the connection is loaded past the decompression point a gap will open (gap)

between the beam and column and connection stiffness decreases significantly. Opening of the gap results in a reduced contact area and an increased tendon length and stress. External joints have post-tensioning anchored at top of the connection and the compressive force from the beam is focussed lower down the connection. This leads to a region of high shear stress within the column, which combined with the relatively low shear modulus of timber results in joint panel shear deformation (j). 2.2 POST-TENSIONING LOSSES As in every post-tensioned construction, post-tensioning losses need to be analyzed in order to determine the long term behaviour. Post-tensioned timber beams are loaded parallel to grain only and experimental testing has shown that long-term losses are in the order of 10% in this direction. However, depending on the ratio between bay length and column depth, post-tensioning losses in frames can be up to three times higher due to effect of perpendicular to grain compression stresses in the columns [12]. These stresses result in relatively large deformations, which cause a reduction in post-tensioning force. Steel reinforcement such as fully threaded screws located in zones of high perpendicular to grain stress can help to reduced losses [13]. Screws can also be used to increase the perpendicular to grain strength at connection interface and at the post-tensioning anchorage.

Full-scale experimental research (Figure 5) has focused on determination of the initial stiffness of exterior beam column connections with draped tendons. The specimen was based on an external connection in a prototype building, which is further described in Section 4. Column reinforcement using long fully threaded screws placed behind a steel corbel (Figure 6) was tested in order to minimise compression deformation and thus increase the stiffness of connections.

Figure 6: Screw reinforcement of column

The beam height was 526mm, based on standard available LVL seizes of 300mm x 63mm for top and bottom flange and 400mm x 45mm for the webs. The column was solid LVL with a cross-section of 500mm x 300mm. Four post-tensioning tendons (7-wire strands, 12.7mm diameter) were used. Each tendon was first stressed up to 55kN and subsequently to 110kN. Further dimensions and specifications of the test setup can be found in [16].

3 JOINT BEHAVIOUR
Previous testing on small scale post-tensioned beamcolumn connections [14] identified that compression perpendicular to the grain in the column at the connection interface limited the connection moment capacity. The compression due to the post-tensioning force combined with the reduced contact area due to gap opening created large localized stresses at the column interface. The strength of LVL perpendicular to grain is about 12MPa, compared to 45MPa parallel to grain, and the stiffness only about 0.5GPa compared to 11GPa. This issue was more apparent in full scale testing [15], where significant reductions in stiffness and posttensioning forces were observed when using an unreinforced column.

Figure 7: Connection moment-rotation graphs with unreinforced and reinforced column. Also shown are the non-linear curves used for frame modelling

Figure 5: Image of external beam-column connection test specimen, implementing a draped tendon profile [16]

Experimental testing measurements from potentiometers across the connection interface resulted into connection moment-rotation curves shown in Figure 7. These curves are a combination of the interface compression deformation and gap opening, as they could not be measured separately. The interface compression deformation causes the initial stiffness. The reduction in stiffness is caused by gap opening (Figure 8), resulting in

a sudden variation in neutral axis depth (geometry nonlinearity). The black line is from the unreinforced connection, whereas the grey line is from the connection reinforced with screws and steel corbel. The screwreinforced connection has an initial stiffness of 52kNm/mrad compared to 32kNm/mrad for the unreinforced connection. The latter also shows residual rotation after the two cycles to the ULS design connection moment of 101kNm, indicating plastic deformation of the timber. The reinforced connection does not show any permanent deformation, indicating that the connection response is fully elastic. The green and red curves have been used to model the non-linear behaviour of the connection in the frame design.

4 PROTOTYPE BUILDING
To illustrate the frame design procedure, a prototype building based on a four storey reinforced concrete building in New Zealand has been re-designed with a post-tensioned timber gravity frame (Figure 10). In the design of these frames it was assumed that the lateral loads were resisted by walls, bracing or other lateral load resisting systems. The beams span 7.6m and the average floor span is 6.1m. The initial post-tensioning force of 440kN (4 x 12.7mm diameter tendons) is chosen to balance the dead load of the floor, though different design choices in terms of load balancing can be made allowing practitioners to optimize the design. Long term post-tensioning losses of 25% have been estimated.

Figure 10: Prototype building [17]

Figure 8: Gap opening at interface during experimental testing with unreinforced column

Joint panel shear deformation was measured using diagonal potentiometers over the contributing shear area; the resulting stiffness was 40kNm/mrad. The contributions of column rotation, joint panel deformation and connection rotation (interface compression and gap opening) at the SLS design level and ULS design level are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that the screwreinforced connection has significantly less connection rotation compared to the unreinforced connection. This is mainly due to the reduced interface compression deformation.

A timber-concrete composite floor results in a dead load of 3kPa and the office building is designed with 3kPa live load. Five load cases (L.C.) are considered; (1) posttensioning only; (2) post-tensioning combined with floor load; (3) short and (4) long term Serviceability Limit State loading and (5) Ultimate Limit State loading. Combination factors have been taken from the Australian/New Zealand Timber Design standard (AS/NZS3603) [18]. The corresponding uniform distributed loads (UDL), post-tensioning force (Fpt) and resulting uplift force at the deviator (Fv) are shown in Table 1. Due to tendon elongation (T.e.) effects, these forces depend on the amount of gap opening and beam deflection, which resulted in an iterative design [9].
Table 1: Different load cases and loads

UDL [kN/m] 1 PT only 0 2 PT + Floor 18 3 SLS1 (short) 31 4 SLS2 (long) 25 5 ULS 49 1 T.e. = Tendon elongation L.C. Description

T.e. 1 [%] 6% 10% -25% 17%

Fpt [kN] 440 466 484 330 515

Fv [kN] 64 68 71 48 75

Figure 9: Rotation contributions under SLS and ULS loading for screw-reinforced and unreinforced column interface

5 NON-LINEAR FRAME MODEL


In order to take into account all deformation components in a frame design, a non-linear framework analysis program is needed. Previous research on post-tensioned timber seismic frames [19] has either used multi-spring elements to model the contact interface between beam and column or macro elements such as momentrotational springs which represent the overall connection behaviour. The latter approach is used for gravity frames as this can be easily used by practitioners. In this model the screw reinforcement of the column has been used, wherefore the rotational spring parameters are based on results of experimental testing. Schematization of a section of the frame model is shown in Figure 11. The post-tensioning is modelled using equivalent forces, whereby the force depends on the deflections of the beam and amount of gap opening (tendon elongation effects). The interface compression deformation and gap opening are modelled with a nonlinear rotational spring, which is offset from the centre of the column by a rigid link. The joint panel deformation is taken into account with an additional rotational spring.

Figure 12: Bending moments under PT only load (precamber effects)

5.1 DEFLECTIONS Mid-span deflections of beams are shown in Table 2. The precamber due to post-tensioning is 13.9mm. Short term deflections (L.C.3) of 4.5mm are well within the deflection limit of span over 200, which is 38mm. Long term instantaneous deflections (5.8+13.9=19.7mm) need to be multiplied by a creep factor, where a Service Class 2 (load duration of 12 months or more and moisture content of 18% or less) is assumed for commercial/office buildings. The creep factor is 2 (k2) according to AS/NZS3603 [18] or 1.8 (1+kdef) according to Eurocode 5 (EC5) [20] resulting in long-term deflections of 25mm or 22mm respectively. This gives a unity check of 25 / 38 = 0.66. The unity check is the design value divided by the allowable value and thus must be smaller than one to satisfy design criteria.
Table 2: Bending moments and mid-span deflection of beams under different load cases
Bending moment [kNm] 1 External Internal Mid-span conn. conn. 1 PT only 75 -82 94 2 PT + Floor 22 -36 29 3 SLS (short) -9 16 -18 4 SLS (long) -17 26 -30 5 ULS -51 72 -91 Load Case (L.C.) Shear force at conn. [kN] -64 3 42 46 107 Mid-span deflection 2 [mm] -13.9 -3.3 4.5 5.8 14.3

1 2

= positive value is upwards bending moment = positive value is downwards (negative is uplift)

Figure 11: Detailed frame model

5.2 BENDING AND COMPRESSION STRENGTH The capacity of the beams according to AS/NZS3603 is given by the unity check in Equation 1, whereby the compression and bending capacity are given by Equation 2 and 3 respectively. Equation 1 is more conservative than equations given in EC5, where the ratio of compressive force over compressive strength is squared.

The bending moments in the full frame under posttensioning only load (L.C. 1) are shown in Figure 12. An overview of the bending moments in the beams under other load-cases is given in Table 2. Load case 1 shows the highest bending moments in the beam, though the increase in compressive force in load case 5 makes the ULS loading governing the strength design. It can be noticed that the internal connection moments are higher than the external connection moments due to the difference in stiffness. In this example the bending moments at mid-span of the beam are smaller than the connection moments. If loading is further increased (or the span is increased) the connection moment will only increase slightly due to tendon elongation effects (gap opening), whereas the mid-span moment will increase substantially.

M y* N c* 1 N nc ny
With:

(1)

N nc k1 k8 f c A M ny k1 k8 f b Z
Where (in the ULS):
Nc* = Compression force = 515kN Nnc = Compression capacity My* = Bending moment = 91kNm Mny = Bending capacity = Strength reduction factor = 0.9 (for LVL)

(2) (3)

k1 = Load duration factor = 0.8 k8 = Stability factor = 1.0 fc = Compression strength = 45MPa fb = Bending strength = 48MPa A = Cross-sectional area = 73800mm2 Z = Section modulus = 9.5x106 mm3

Resulting in Nnc = 2657kN, Mny = 365kNm and a unity check of:


515 91 + = 0.22 + 0.28 = 0.5 < 1 0.9 2657 0.9 365
Figure 13: Parameter study on section depth

5.3 SHEAR STRENGTH The maximum shear stress in the box beam is at midheight of the two webs. The design check for shear is given in Equation 4 and the shear capacity of the beam is given by Equation 5.

V* 1 Vn
With:

(4)

From Figure 13 it follows that a minimum section depth of 425mm is required, whereby long term deflections and shear strength are both governing the design. The shear strength can easily be increased by thickening the webs of the box section. A possibility to reduce long term deflections is to restress the frames after a certain time to compensate for the post-tensioning loss. 5.6 UNREINFORCED CONNECTION

Vn k1 f s
Where:

2t w I z Sz

(5)

V* = Shear force = 107kN fs = Shear strength = 6MPa tw = Thickness web = 45mm Sz = Section modulus of half the section = 6.17x106 mm3 Iz = Second moment of inertia = 2.5x109 mm4

Experimental testing (Section 3) provided data on the stiffness of the unreinforced connection, which has also been implemented in the framework analysis. A comparison between the screw reinforced and unreinforced connection is shown in Table 4. Displacements are all increased due to the lower connection stiffness. Further, the bending moments at the connection are reduced whereas the bending moment at mid-span increased. The differences in bending moments in the beam are not very significant, considering it is not governing the design. The difference in connection rotation is more influential in the column design. Plotting the data points on the connection moment-rotation graph (Figure 8), it can be seen that the screw-reinforced connection is just reaching gap-opening and still behaves linear elastic, whereas the unreinforced connection is already clearly in the non-linear part. This non-linear part is partly caused by plastic behaviour of the column under compression perpendicular to grain, indicating damage to the column.
Table 4: Comparison between different connections
Property Precamber Mid-span deflections (L.C. 3) Mid-span deflections (L.C. 4) Bending moment at internal connection (L.C. 1) Bending moment at mid-span (L.C. 1) Bending moment at internal connection (L.C. 5) Bending moment at mid-span (L.C. 5) Rotation at internal connection (L.C.1) Rotation at internal connection (L.C. 5) [mm] [mm] [mm] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [mrad] [mrad] Reinforced connection 13.9 4.5 5.8 94 -82 -84 72 2.7 2.4 Unreinforced connection 15.9 4.7 6.1 81 -90 -72 78 4.1 3.5

Resulting in Vn = 176kN and a unity check of: 107 = 0.68 < 1 0.9176 5.4 OVERVIEW Table 3 shows an overview of the design checks for the beams in the post-tensioned timber frame. Both deflections and strength requirements are well within design limits, showing a possibly overdesigned section.
Table 3: Overview of unity checks

Design criteria Short term deflections Long term deflections Bending & compression strength Shear strength

Unity check 0.12 0.66 0.50 0.68

5.5 REDUCTION OF SECTION HEIGHT A parametric study has been performed to illustrate the effect of reducing the beam depth. The eccentricity of the post-tensioning decreases resulting in a smaller angle of the tendons at deviators and thus a reduced uplift force in the beam. In this study the initial post-tensioning force was kept the same and it was assumed that the connection stiffness did not change. The outcome of the parametric study is shown in Figure 13.

6 DESIGN SIMPLIFICATIONS
The previous section gave an example of a non-linear frame analysis, which although simplified still presents a reasonable level of complexity for day-to-day use in a practitioner engineers office. The following section shows which further simplifications can be made, and how these influence the results. 6.1 JOINT PANEL DEFORMATION The joint panel shear deformation in the external connections leads to a reduction in stiffness at that connection. Ignoring the joint panel deformation in the ULS design alters the moment distribution in the frame. Figure 14(a) and (b) show the bending moments in the beam with and without the joint panel influence. It can be seen that the maximum moment in the beam decreases from 84kNm to 77kNm, an 8% decrease, resulting in a non-conservative design.

can be derived from standard mechanics equations based on column dimensions and material properties. The rotational stiffness from the column, joint panel shear deformation, interface compression and gap opening are combined in a non-linear rotational spring (Figure 15).

(a) Detailed model

Figure 15: Beam model and external rotational spring stiffness

(b) Without external joint panel stiffness

The results of the beam analysis are shown in Figure 14(d). It can be seen that it matches well with the results of the full frame analysis; only the external connection moment is slightly over-estimated, which can indicate an overestimation of the column stiffness. The above mentioned simplifications show that a reasonable level of accuracy can be achieved when modelling only the beam and ignoring tendon elongation effects. Care needs to be taken with the external joint panel shear deformation as ignoring that contribution can lead to a non-conservative design.

(c) Without tendon elongation

(d) Beam model Figure 14: Bending moment distribution in beam under ULS loading.

7 OUTLOOK
So far the evaluation of connection behaviour was mainly based on experimental testing. Further analytical and numerical studies are ongoing to accurately predict this connection stiffness. This will be verified using a full scale experimental test of a post-tensioned timber frame subjected to gravity loading, as shown in Figure 16. One bay and two bay specimens will be subjected to different loading scenarios and results will be compared with predictions from the design procedure.

6.2 TENDON ELONGATION A further simplification to the design would be to ignore the increase in post-tensioning force due to tendon elongation. The uplift forces at the deviators are not increasing, resulting in an increase of bending moments in the beam. This is shown in Figure 14(c), where an 13% increase (84kNm to 95kNm) can be seen. 6.3 BEAM ONLY DESIGN A significant simplification would be to model only the beam, and not the full frame. This simplification means that column rotational stiffness needs to be included in the external connection. This stiffness (138kNm/mrad)

Figure 16: Test setup for full scale frame test

8 CONCLUSIONS
This paper shows the design of post-tensioned timber gravity frames. These frames allow for long spans while limiting section sizes. The design procedure focussed on connection stiffness as this forms an essential component due to the influences on deflections of beams and bending moment distributions in the frame. Strength and deflection checks are balanced in the design, making for a more optimal use of LVL, compared to conventional deflection governed design. Options for simplifying the design process are shown and their effect is evaluated. Ignoring the external joint panel shear deformation leads to underestimation of the bending moments in the beams, whereas ignoring the tendon elongation leads to a conservative design. Further developments based on a more extensive sensitivity analysis will lead to a better understanding of the connection behaviour, optimizations the herein presented gravity frame design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The experimental testing was funded by the Structural Timber Innovation Company (STIC) Ltd. The LVL was supplied by Nelson Pine Industries Ltd. and manufactured by Hunterbond Laminates in Nelson. The post-tensioning material was supplied by BBR Contech. The scholarship provided by the University of Canterbury is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] A. H. Buchanan, A. Palermo, D. Carradine, and S. Pampanin, "Post-tensioned timber frame buildings," The Structural Engineer, vol. 89, 2011. [2] A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, A. H. Buchanan, and M. P. Newcombe, "Seismic design of multi-storey buildings using Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)," NZSEE Conference, Wairakei Resort, Taupo, New Zealand, 2005. [3] M. J. N. Priestley, S. Sritharan, J. R. Conley, and S. Pampanin, "Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS Five-story Precast Concrete Test-Building," PCI journal, vol. 44, pp. 42-67, 1999. [4] S. Pampanin, C. Pagani, and S. Zambelli, "Cablestayed and suspended post-tensioned solutions for precast concrete frames: the Brooklyn system," New Zealand Concrete Society Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2004. [5] FWPA, "New Applications of Timber in Nontraditional Market Segments: High Rise Residential and Non-residential (commercial) Buildings," Forest & Wood Products Australia, Melbourne, Australia PNA013-0708, 2009. [6] D. Yeoh, "Behaviour and design of timber-concrete composite floor system," PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010.

[7] W. van Beerschoten, A. Palermo, and D. Carradine, "Gravity Design of Post-Tensioned Timber Frames for Multi-Storey Buildings," 43rd ASCE/SEI Structures Congress, Chicago, IL, USA, 2012. [8] T. Smith, S. Pampanin, D. Carradine, A. Buchanan, F. Ponzo, A. Cesare, and D. Nigro, "Experimental Investigations into Post-Tensioned Timber Frames with Advanced Damping Systems.," Il XIV Convegno di Ingegneria Sismica, Bari, Italy, 2011. [9] A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, D. Carradine, A. Buchanan, B. Lago, C. Dibenedetto, S. Giorgini, and P. Ronca, "Enhanced performance of longitudinally post-tensioned long-span LVL beams," 11th WCTE, Trentino, Italy, 2010. [10] I. Bejtka and H. J. Blass, "Self-tapping screws as reinforcement in beam supports," CIB-W18, Florence, Italy, 2006. [11] W. Van Beerschoten, T. Smith, A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, and F. Ponzo, "The Stiffness of Beam to Column Connections in Post-Tensioned Timber Frames," CIB-W18/44, Alghero, Italy, 2011. [12] M. Davies and M. Fragiacomo, "Long Term Behaviour of Laminated Veneer Lumber Members Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons," NZ Timber Design Journal, vol. 16, p. 8, 2007. [13] R. Crocetti and R. Kliger, "Anchorage systems to reduce the loss of pre-stress in stress-laminated timber bridges," in ICTB 2010, Lillehammer, Norway, 2010. [14] A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, and A. Buchanan, "Experimental investigations on LVL seismic resistant wall and frame subassemblies," in First European Conference in Seismic Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [15] A. Iqbal, S. Pampanin, and A. H. Buchanan, "Seismic Performance of Prestressed Timber Beam-Column Sub-Assemblies," New Zealand Society for Eearthquake Engineering Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 2010. [16] W. Van Beerschoten, A. Palermo, D. Carradine, F. Sarti, and A. Buchanan, "Experimental Investigation on the Stiffness of Beam-Column Connections in Post-Tensioned Timber Frames," Structural Engineering World Conference, Como, Italy, 2011. [17] J. M. M. Amigo, "Feasibility of Multi-storey PresLam Timber Buildings: Design, Construction and Cost," Master of Science, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Napier University, Edinburgh, 2010. [18] Standards New Zealand, Timber structures standard, NZS 3603:1993, Wellington, New Zealand, 1993. [19] M. P. Newcombe, S. Pampanin, and A. H. Buchanan, "Numerical Modelling and Analysis of a Two-Storey Post-Tensioned Timber Frame with Floor Diaphragms," in 14th ECEE, Ohrid, Macedonia, 2010. [20] CEN, Eurocode 5 : Design of timber structures Part 1-1: General - Common rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization EN1995-1-1:2004 (E), Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

Potrebbero piacerti anche