Evaluation of Ductility Capacity of the Two Existing Joglo Timber Buildings

Document Type : Regular Paper

Author

Professor, Master Program in Civil Engineering, Maranatha Christian University, Indonesia

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a 3D model of existing timber buildings to obtain the capacity curve and ductility capacity of structural systems under lateral loads. The research scope involved a case study of two existing Joglo timber buildings. Nonlinear modeling of beams and columns was performed using hinge property data for each member. Joint modeling employed spring elements to account for the effect of rotational stiffness. The evaluations included the capacity curve, ductility capacity, plastic hinge mechanisms, and energy dissipation. Results from the pushover analysis produced a capacity curve used to investigate ductility capacity and energy dissipation. Structural performance in both the x- and y-directions exhibited similar behavior, characterized as partially ductile. The existing timber buildings demonstrated ductility capacities ranging from 2.36 to 3.28, placing them in the partial ductility category. These results meet the building criteria for earthquake zones with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) exceeding 0.10g. The plastic hinge mechanism satisfied the strong column–weak beam criterion. The peak displacements at the Collapse Prevention level were 137.36 mm (Joglo-M) and 139.03 mm (Joglo-N). These values indicate that the post-elastic behavior of the structures exceeds the permitted limits, suggesting good energy dissipation capacity before final failure. Notably, these two buildings have a history of withstanding several earthquakes over the past twenty years without sustaining damage.

Graphical Abstract

Evaluation of Ductility Capacity of the Two Existing Joglo Timber Buildings

Highlights

  • This study aimed to develop a 3D model of existing Joglo timber buildings.
  • The nonlinear behavior of members is modeled using hinge properties.
  • Modeling joints using spring elements to incorporate the effect of stiffness.
  • The structural performance exhibits partial ductile behavior.
  • Joglo buildings have not experienced damage from several earthquakes.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1]     Barros RC, Braz-César MT, Naderpour H, Khatami SM. Comparative Review of the Performance Based Design of Building Structures Using Static Non-Linear Analysis, Part A: Steel Braced Frames. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2013;1:24–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22075/jrce.2014.214.
[2]     Kheyroddin A, Gholhaki M, Pachideh G. Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames Retrofitted with Steel Braces Using IDA and Pushover Methods in the Near-Fault Field. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2019;7:159–73. https://doi.org/10.22075/JRCE.2018.12347.1211.
[3]     Golafshar A, Saghafi MH, Eshaghi F. A new method for drawing the capacity spectrum for seismic analysis and structural rehabilitation. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2020;8:109–23. https://doi.org/10.22075/JRCE.2020.19106.1360.
[4]     Gu J. Sensitivity analysis of probabilistic seismic behaviour of wood frame buildings. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11:109–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.1.109.
[5]     Librian V, Ramdhan M, Nugraha AD, Mukti MM, Syuhada S, Luhr BG, et al. Detailed seismic structure beneath the earthquake zone of Yogyakarta 2006 (Mw ∼6.4), Indonesia, from local earthquake tomography. Phys Earth Planet Inter 2024;351:107170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2024.107170.
[6]     Pranata YA, Pattipawaej OC, Setiadi A. Beam-column and beam-beam connections for earthquake-resistant wooden houses. Indonesia: 2024.
[7]     CSI. SAP2000 technical manual notes 2023.
[8]     Moradei J, Brütting J, Fivet C, Sherrow-Groves N, Wilson D, Fischer A, et al. Structural Characterization of Traditional Moment-Resisting Timber Joinery. Proc IASS Symp 2018, Creat Struct Des 2018:8.
[9]     Fang DL, Mueller CT, Brütting J, Fivet C, Moradei J. Rotational stiffness in timber joinery connections: Analytical and experimental characterizations of the nuki joint. Struct Archit Bridg Gap Crossing Borders - Proc 4th Int Conf Struct Archit ICSA 2019 2019:229–36. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315229126-28.
[10]   Wiryomartono B. Traditions and Transformations of Habitation in Indonesia. Springer Singapore; 2020.
[11]    Lyu M, Zhu X, Yang Q. Dynamic field monitoring data analysis of an ancient wooden building in seismic and operational environments. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11:1043–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.6.1043.
[12]   Sodangi M, Kazmi ZA. Seismic Performance of South Nias Traditional Timber Houses: A Priority Ranking Based Condition Assessment. Earthquakes Struct 2020;18:731–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.6.731.
[13]   Zhang X, Ma H, Zhao Y, Zhao H. Dynamic responses on traditional Chinese timber multi-story building with high platform base under earthquake excitations. Earthquakes Struct 2020;19:331–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.19.5.331.
[14]   Vodiannikov MA, Kashevarova GG, Starobogatov DI. Numerical modeling and full-scale experiments of glued wooden structures joint destruction on carbon-fiber dowel pins. Int J Comput Civ Struct Eng 2020;16:101–12. https://doi.org/10.22337/2587-9618-2020-16-2-101-112.
[15]   Li Y, Lam FCF. Seismic performance of midrise timber structures - collapse prevention. Vancouver: 2012.
[16]   Daneshvar H, Chui YH. Disproportionate collapse mitigation in tall mass timber buildings. AB: 2019.
[17]   Cao AS. Modelling progressive collapse of timber buildings and it sapplications. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1995.
[18]   Cao AS, Esser L, Glarner B, Frangi A. a Nonlinear Dynamic Model for Collapse Investigations in Tall Timber Buildings – Preliminary Results. 13th World Conf Timber Eng WCTE 2023 2023;4:2268–77. https://doi.org/10.52202/069179-0301.
[19]   Cao AS, Esser L, Frangi A. Modelling progressive collapse of timber buildings. Structures 2024;62:106279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106279.
[20]   Szczotka J. The analysis of the causes of the collapse of two timber sheds during the construction. MATEC Web Conf 2019;284:02009. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201928402009.
[21]   Ghosh S, Chakraborty S. Seismic fragility analysis of wood frame building in hilly region. Earthquakes Struct 2021;20:97–107. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.1.097.
[22]   Kiyono J, Furukawa A. Casualty occurrence mechanism in the collapse of timber-frame houses during an earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:1233–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.402.
[23]   Yu Y, Takeuchi W. Analysis of Scattering Mechanisms in SAR Image Simulations of Japanese Wooden Buildings Damaged by Earthquake. Buildings 2024;14. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113585.
[24]   Eurocode. EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Ispra: 2004.
[25]   Eurocode. EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Ispra: 2005.
[26]   Filiatrault A, Folz B. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Wood Framed Buildings. J Struct Eng 2002;128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:1(39).
[27]   Jain A, Hart GC, Ekwueme C, Dumortier AP. Performance Based Pushover Analysis. Proc 13th World Conf Earthq Eng 2004:1–11.
[28]   Lindt JW, Pei S, Liu H. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Wood Frame Buildings Using a Probabilistic System Identification Concept. J Struct Eng 2008;134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:2(24.
[29]   Tesfamariam S. Performance-Based Design of Tall Timber Buildings Under Earthquake and Wind Multi-Hazard Loads: Past, Present, and Future. Front Built Environ 2022;8:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.848698.
[30]   AWC. The 2024 National Design Specification (NDS) for wood construction. Wood Design Standards Committee; 2024.
[31]   NSA. SNI 7973 Design specifications for wood construction. National Standardization Agency; 2013.
[32]   Eurocode. Eurocode 5. EN 1995-1-1:2004 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Ispra: 2004.
[33]   BSSC. NEHRP Recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures volume I – FEMA 356. Washington DC: Building Seismic Safety Council; 2020.
[34]   CBS-CBT. Sylvatest 4 user guide. Saint-Sulpice: Concept Bois Technologie; 2023.
[35]   PusGeN. Design of Indonesian spectra. Bandung: PuSGeN Ditjen Cipta Karya Ministry of Public Work and Human Settlement; 2021.
[36]   Pranata YA, Pattipawaej OC, Setiadi A. A. Compression and bearing behavior of teak wood (tectona grandis) for column and connections components of earthquake resistant wooden buildings. Final Report Internal Research Collaboration Scheme with Domestic Partners, Maranatha Christian University; n.d.
[37]   Frick H. Structural patterns and building techniques in Indonesia. Kanisius; 1997.
[38]   Bisatya W. M, Pamuda P. SANTEN-fuse AS ANEARTHQUAKE DAMPER FOR PENDOPO JOGLO. Dimens (Journal Archit Built Environ 2015;42:1–8. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.42.1.1-8.
[39]   Pranata YA, Setiadi A, Suryoatmono B, Novi. Seismic Behavior of Joglo Traditional Wooden House Located in Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Civ Eng Archit 2025;13:1171–80. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2025.130232.
[40]   Arriaga F, Osuna-Sequera C, Bobadilla I, Esteban M. Prediction of the mechanical properties of timber members in existing structures using the dynamic modulus of elasticity and visual grading parameters. Constr Build Mater 2022;322:126512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126512.
[41]   Oliveira FGR de, Campos JAO de, Sales A. Ultrasonic Measurements In Brazilian Hardwood. Mater Res 2002;5:51–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-14392002000100009.
[42]   NSA. SNI 1727 Minimum design load and related criteria. National Standardization Agency; 2020.
[43]   NSA. SNI 1726 Procedures for earthquake resilience design for building and non-building structures. National Standardization Agency; 2019.
[44]   Lingeshwaran N, Koushik S, Reddy TMK, Preethi P. Comparative analysis on asymmetrical and symmetrical structures subjected to seismic load. Mater Sci 2021;45:6471–5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.340.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 April 2025
  • Revise Date: 03 August 2025
  • Accept Date: 17 August 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics