An hold-down device was designed and tested experimentally for seismic applications (Seismic Hold-Down, SHD). The magnitude of axial strength as well as the up-lift displacement capacity is mainly oriented to cross-laminated-timber (CLT) buildings with medium-to-high ductility. There is consensus in the design practice of hold-down devices for promoting, as dissipative mechanism, flexural yielding of the dowel-type connectors (e.g. nails, screws) combined to timber’s embedment. Few are the applications aiming at hold-down’s optimization as it emerges from up-to-date literature review. In this framework, SHD was conceived such that tension break-out of steel was promoted at a reduced segment (fuse) of the vertical flange. In the context of capacity design, a convenient overstrength was assumed for other failure mechanisms, e.g. anchor’s pullout, laterally-loaded steel-to-timber connection, shear-plug of timber. The mechanical response under axial load was consistently predicted by an application of the component method, i.e. global stiffness and strength were analytically-derived using simplified series of non-linear mechanical springs. Three-dimensional finite elements model was employed to investigate buckling of the fuse which might occur, during cycles, when up-lift displacement is recovering. In practical circumstances, it is recommend to design SHD devices of a CLT wall similarly to diagonal elements of steel bracings, i.e. neglecting the contribution of the compressed element. Finally, SHD is compared to traditionally-designed hold-down, which mostly dissipates (and fails) at steel-to-timber connection. Overall hysteretic response is somehow similar, although the inelastic mechanisms involved are different. For example, both the devices show pinching during cycles which for SHD is mainly caused by buckling of the fuse while, for traditional hold-down, is dominated by timber’s embedment.
Read full abstract