Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Robustness of timber structures in seismic areas|
|Abstract:||Some of the properties sought in seismic design of buildings are also considered fundamental to guarantee structural robustness. Moreover, some key concepts are common to both seismic and robustness design. In fact, both analyses consider events with a very small probability of occurrence, and consequently, a significant level of damage is admissible. As very rare events,in both cases, the actions are extremely hard to quantify. The acceptance of limited damage requires a system based analysis of structures, rather than an element by element methodology, as employed for other load cases. As for robustness analysis, in seismic design the main objective is to guarantee that the structure survives an earthquake, without extensive damage. In the case of seismic design, this is achieved by guaranteeing the dissipation of energy through plastic hinges distributed in the structure. For this to be possible, some key properties must be assured, in particular ductility and redundancy. The same properties could be fundamental in robustness design, as a structure can only sustain significant damage if capable of distributing stresses to parts of the structure unaffected by the triggering event. Timber is often used for primary load‐bearing elements in single storey long‐span structures for public buildings and arenas, where severe consequences can be expected if one or more of the primary load bearing elements fail. The structural system used for these structures consists of main frames, secondary elements and bracing elements. The main frame, composed by columns and beams, can be seen as key elements in the system and should be designed with high safety against failure and under strict quality control. The main frames may sometimes be designed with moment resisting joints between columns and beams. Scenarios, where one or more of these key elements, fail should be considered at least for high consequence buildings. Two alternative strategies may be applied: isolation of collapsing sections and, provision of alternate load paths . The first one is relatively straightforward to provide by deliberately designing the secondary structural system less strong and stiff. Alternatively, the secondary structural system and the bracing system can be design so that loss of capacity in the main frame does not lead to the collapse. A case study has been selected aiming to assess the consequences of these two different strategies, in particular, under seismic loads.|
|Appears in Collections:||FCT: DEC - Artigos em revista internacional com arbitragem científica|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.