Reveals limited residual deformation and effective self-centering in mass-timber walls, indicating strong design stability.
Mass-timber rocking-wall systems are designed to limit residual deformation by concentrating lateral response in controlled uplift, recentering, and replaceable energy-dissipation mechanisms. Full-scale shake-table records provide a rare opportunity to evaluate this design concept using reproducible physical descriptors rather than isolated peak-response quantities. The public NHERI TallWood two-story mass-timber rocking-wall experiment is reanalyzed using fourteen sequential earthquake records, measured table accelerations, floor and roof accelerations, and instrumented deformation channels. A physics-informed workflow extracts input-intensity, transfer-function, coherence, modal-frequency, equivalent-damping, residual-deformation, self-centering, and deformation-weighted inertial-demand descriptors. An experiment-updated equivalent elastic Abaqus model converts selected identified states into three-dimensional displacement and stress-transfer fields. The identified dominant frequency decreases from approximately 2.11 Hz in the initial low-level event to approximately 0.70 Hz after the final maximum-level excitation, corresponding to a frequency-squared stiffness-loss index near 0.89. Despite this pronounced modal softening, measured residual deformation remains small in absolute terms, and the self-centering index remains moderate to high over most of the sequence. The results indicate that the tested system evolves mainly through changes in contact, uplift, diaphragm compatibility, and interface stiffness rather than through a conventional cumulative plastic-damage mechanism. The descriptor set and calibrated finite-element visualization provide a transferable basis for comparing future mass-timber shake-table datasets and for linking open experimental repositories, modal identification, and finite-element state visualization in performance-based seismic assessment of low-damage timber buildings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: