6.3.

2 Study of Base Shear vs displacement in Z direction

From Figure 6.4, the displacement based force along the joist direction gave large base
shear resistance because the joists also contributed in transferring lateral forces. The
maximum base shear was 304308 N, (84% of model’s total weight) given by R1 whereas
for UM1 it is 80%. Hence, in Z direction upto peak base shear resistance, connection type
did not contribute significantly. The energy dissipation was earlier in Z direction for all
the 7 cases because of the global behavior of the model. Though the rigidity has been
contributed by joists elasticity, the in-plane walls reach its degradation stage earlier
because of failure of joists i.e. falling Off of joists. The cluster of peak base shear region
for almost all 7 cases from Figure 6.4 inferred that up to its peak base shear resistance,
the effect of joists were significant. Then at its softening stage, the behavior relied on the
diaphragm to wall connection, i.e. on the connections stiffness. RF5 was not able to
withstand large force because the joists reached their maximum compression capacity
before steel bracing fails. RF2 and RF3 reach their ultimate collapse stage earlier because
the timber to concrete slab connector shear studs may have reached plastic stage earlier
than for R1 case due to the yielding of connections before failure of elements. Though
the tension resisting capacity of wood was high as compared to concrete, RF2 and RF3
failed earlier because of low tension resisting capacity of concrete as well as yielding of
shear studs. RF4 is the ductile case because, wood alone was used as retrofit element and
its ultimate collapse stage was at 3.4 mm.

6.3.3 Study of Performance Point in X direction

The model is a case for one bay one storey, Table 6.3 proved that the model with flexible
diaphragms have complex diaphragm behavior and also Table 6.2 summarised the modal
case analysis results which showed building with timber floor diaphragm have multiple
dominate modes and as stated in ATC-40, the higher modes and participation factor has
been accounted for inelastic performance point calculation. It is because equivalent
SDOF system is valid for rigid diaphragms but for flexible diaphragms, the lower mode
shapes do not predict coupling of floor and vertical structural elements together.
However, Nakamura (2014, 2017) has given an expression which can give satisfactory
results as obtaining inelastic target displacement.

50