STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NEW BRACEFASTENER WITH DAMPING MECHANISM FOR WOODEN HOUSES
Tomoki Furuta1, Masato Nakao2 and Tsuyoshi Makita3
ABSTRACT: To improve ductility and damping performance of braced wall in Post and Beam construction wooden
house, a new brace fastener which fastens the end of a diagonal wood brace to the end of column was developed. The
new faster is able to absorb relative displacement between the end of a brace and a wood frame. Moreover, due to theeffect of plastic deformation of steel “bridge” and shear deformation of high damping rubber, stiffness and damping
force are added to the fastener. In this paper, static shear loading test of a wood frame with a wood brace which isfastened by the new brace fasteners, incremental analysis and earthquake response analysis of two-storied wooden
houses with the new brace fasters are presented. It was found that the new brace faster reduces story drift of wooden
houses to less than 50% under large earthquake motion compared to conventional fastener.

KEYWORDS: Brace Fastener, Response Control, High Damping Rubber

1 INTRODUCTION 123
In Japanese Post and Beam construction wooden houses,
diagonal wood brace is one of the most useful andimportant seismic member. However, its ductility is notgood in comparison with nailed plywood wall. Its
connection between the end of a diagonal wood brace
and the corner of column and sill or beam is not able toabsorb the vibration energy under earthquakes efficiently.
To improve the ductility and damping performance, a
new brace fastener which fastens the end of a diagonal
wood brace to the end of column was developed for Post
and Beam construction wooden houses.
The new brace fastener has steel “bridge” which deforms
and absorbs relative displacement between the end of abrace and a wood frame when a brace is subjected to atensile load. Moreover, under a repeated load, the“bridge” absorbs vibration energy due to plastic
deformation of steel. In addition to the “bridge”, a highdamping rubber which is included in the brace fastener issubjected to shear force under a tensile repeated load,
stiffness and damping force are added to the fastener.
The new brace faster contains not only stiffness but also
ductility and damping, it contributes response control
effect to a brace fastener.
In this paper, shear loading test of a wood frame with awood brace which is fastened by the new brace fastenerand earthquake response analysis of two-storied wooden
houses which have wood braces with the new brace
fasters and conventional brace fasters are presented.
1

Tomoki Furuta, Daiichi Institute of Technology,
t-furuta@daiichi-koudai.ac.jp
2
Masato Nakao, Yokohama National University,
mnakao@ynu.ac.jp
3
Tsuyoshi Makita, KANESHIN Co., ltd.
makita@ys-gr.jp

Response control devices for wooden houses on themarket nowadays are relatively high price. The
manufacturing cost of this new brace faster is lower incomparison with the devices on the market. It is
expected that a large number of wooden houses areequipped with this new fastener and response control
will be standard function for wooden houses. This newbrace fastener contributes to relieve society of fear ofearthquakes.

2 OUTLINE OF THE NEW BRACEFASTENER
The schematic of the new brace fastener is shown in
Figure 1. It is manufactured from a steel plate with
3.2mm thick as shown in Figure 2. Four portions are cut
off to form six “bridges.” Width of the bridge is 5mm
each. To form the fastener, the plate is turned down at
the bridges as shown in Figure 3 and a space of 120mmx
150mmx5mm between the plate is made. The both sidesof the edge of the plate are jointed at the center of thefastener as shown in Picture 1. High damping rubber
whose shear stiffness is 0.4N/mm2 is inserted in thespace with 5mm thick and glued to the inside faces ofthe plate. Covering rubber with 0.3-0.7mm thick is also
glued to the outer face of the fastener at the same time.
The covering rubber protects the steel from rust andaverage the shear force that affects the bridges. Picture 2
shows completed new brace fastener.
The brace fastener is fastened to a wood brace and awood frame as shown in Picture 3 using six 45mm longwood screws and nine 75mm long wood screws
respectively. Diameters of the 45mm long and 75mm
long wood screws are both 3.7mm.
When a wood brace is subjected to a tensile force,
relative displacement between two parallel faces of theplate is induced and strain is concentrated on the bridges.
The bridges are plastic deformed and the high damping
rubber is shear deformed. The two mechanisms absorb
relative displacement between the end of a wood brace
and the end of a column, and moreover, produce
stiffness and damping force.

Wood screw holefor column(6)Wood screw holefor brace(6)High damping rubber(t=5mm, G=0.4N/mm2)

Picture 2: Completed new brace fastener

56.4

11.4

(Unit: mm)

5.0
5.0

5.0

Figure 1: New brace fastener

Thickness of steel
plate: 3.2mm
Bridge(Width: 5mm)

Picture 3: New brace fastener installed at the end of brace

3 STATIC SHEAR LOADING TEST

Figure 2: New brace fastener before turning down

Figure 3: Turning down to form the fastener

Picture 1: New brace faster before gluing high damping
rubberFirstly, static shear loading test of a wood frame with awood brace which is fastened by the new developed
brace fasteners was conducted.
The specimen was constructed by Japanese Post andBeam construction system as shown in Figure 4. The
wood frame consists of two columns, a sill and a beam.
Species of the column and sill was Japanese cedar while
the one of the beam was Douglas fir. Cross section of thecolumn and the sill was 105mmx105mm while the oneof the beam was 180mmx105mm. Each member isconnected with tenon and mortice, and two 75mm longnails were driven penetrating tenon and mortice. A stud
between two columns is connected to the beam and thesill with two 75mm long nails. A diagonal wood brace
whose species was Tsuga heterophylla and the crosssection was 90mmx45mm was installed inside the wood
frame. The wood brace was fastened to the end ofcolumns by the new brace fasteners. According to the
Building Standard Law in Japan, allowable shear
strength of a wood frame with single wood brace isprescribed as 3.57kN.
The specimen was set in the test apparatus, and tie rods
were applied to restrict uplift of the beam. Lateral
repeated load, from 0.17% (1/600) to 2% (1/50) of story
drift, was applied to the beam and one directional load
up to 6.67% (1/15) followed. Number of plus and minus
repeated load was three on one stage of story drift. For
compressive side of the wood brace, maximum story
drift was up to 0.83% (1/120).
Three specimens with a brace were prepared for this test
and one frame specimen without brace was also preparedand tested.
Figure 5 shows shear force-story drift relationships ofthe specimens. For this shear loading test, the high

910
805

105

105

Shear force (kN)

0.6

0.2
0
-1 0
-0.2

Shear force (kN)

8
6
4
2
0
-1-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10

Beam

8
6
4
2
0
-1-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10

Shear force (kN)

30

Stud
Column2730
2587.5

Frame

0.4

8
6
4
2
0
-1-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10

180

105

Picture 5: Sprit on the end of brace

Shear force (kN)

damping rubber which was installed of the brace fastener
was not glued to the inside face of the fastener forconservative evaluation while the covering rubber was
glued to the outer face of the fastener.
When the story drift exceeded 1% of story drift, relative
displacement between the two parallel plates of thefastener was detected, area of the hysteresis loop became
larger. Finally, the bridges between the two parallel
plates of the fastener were torn off as shown in Picture 4.
Though the test was continued until 6.67% (1/15) ofstory drift, remarkable decline of the shear force was notdetected. In ultimate state, the head of a wood screw on
the edge of the fastener was torn off in some specimen, it
did not affect shear force. Split on the end of a woodbrace was also observed as shown in Picture 5, however,decline of shear force was not detected.
Tests with the fastener whose high damping rubber was
glued to the inside face of the plate were also conducted.
Figure 6 shows skeleton curves of all the specimens.
From the figure, the shear force of the specimen withglued high damping rubber is higher than the one
without gluing from 1% of story drift. Considering the
failure mode of the former test, yield of the bridge
occurred at around 1% of story drift, therefore, the highdamping rubber began to carry the shear force at around
1% of story drift. After that, shear force of the specimen
with glued high damping rubber increased as the story
drift increased smoothly. Moreover, variations in theshear forces of the specimens with glued high damping
rubber was remarkably small, it is considered that thehigh damping rubber averages the shear force which
affects six bridges.

Brace

Story drift (%)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No.1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Story drift (%)

No.2
1

2

3 4 5 6
Story drift (%)

7

No.3

1

2

3 4 5 6
Story drift (%)

7

Figure 5: Shear force-story drift relationship of braced
specimen with the new brace fasteners

Column&Sill: 105x105(Japanese cedar)
Beam: 180x105(Douglas fir)
Stud: 105x30(Japanese cedar)
Brace: 90x45(Canadian Hem Fir)
Tenon: 85x50x30

Figure 4: Frame with single brace specimen

Shear force (kN)

105

Sill
Sill

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Glued
Not glued

0

1

2

3
4
Story drift(%)

5

6

7

Figure 6: Comparison between shear force-story drift
relationship of specimen with glued and not glued highdamping rubber
Picture 4: Tear of a bridge

68

Tention side2

Experiment
Model

0
0
-2

1

2

3

Story drift (%)

4

6
Shear force (kN)Shear force (kN)

4

4

-6

-4

2

4

6

8

Story drift (%)

Figure 9: Shear force-story drift relationship of braced framewith the new fastener from incremental analysis
Table 1: Equivalent viscus damping factor of braced framewith the new fastener and conventional fastener

Story drift
(%)
0.33
0.67
1.00
2.00
3.33
6.67

New fastener
(%)
4.4
8.6
8.7
16.3
19.8
23.0

15
10
5
0
-8 -6 -4 -2-5 0-10-15

Conventional fastener
(%)
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1

2

4

6

8

Story drift (%)

Figure 10: Shear force-story drift relationship of braced framewith conventional fastener from incremental analysis

2Compression side

0
0

-4

-8

15
10
5
0
-2-5 0-10-15Shear force(kN)

Based on the static shear loading test, FEM analysis
model was built. For the positive loading side, the braceis subjected to tensile force, tri-liner model as shown in
Figure 7(a) was built while NCL model [1] was adopted
for the negative loading side where the brace is subjected
to compressive force as shown in Figure 7(b). For thecompression side, it was assumed that buckling of abrace occurs at 6.5kN based on the former study.
FEM analysis model with double wood braces as shownin Figure 8 was built and incremental analysis was
performed. Figure 9 shows shear force-story drift
relationship from the analysis. Calculating equivalentviscus damping factor from the shear force-displacement
relationship, 8.7% in 1.0% of story drift and 16.3% in
2% of story drift were derived as shown in Table 1. The
value is approximately equal level as a wood frame withnailed plywood.
The analysis with conventional brace fasteners was also
conducted. The analysis model which was calibrated by
the shake table test results is shown in Figure 10 [2] andequivalent viscus damping factor was calculated. It isfound that there is remarkable difference between the
new brace fastener and conventional fastener in damping
performance.

Shear force(kN)

4 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS

-2

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8
Story drift (%)1(a) Tension side(b) Compression side
Figure 7: Hysteresis model of braced frame with the newfastener

Figure 8: Analysis model of frame with double brace forincremental analysis

5 EARTHQUAKE RESPONSEANALYSIS
Earthquake response analysis of the two-storied wooden
house which has wood braces fastened by the newfasteners and conventional fasteners was performed.
Figure 11 shows analysis model of a two-storied wooden
house. The non-linear diagonal springs in the model
represent double wood brace and nailed plywood. Figure
9, Figure 10 and Figure 12 are hysteresis models of awood frame with double wood brace fastened by the newbrace fasteners, the one with double wood brace fastenedby conventional brace fasteners and the one with nailed
plywood respectively.
Parameters of the analysis model were a ratio of existing
wall length to required wall length(Re), a ratio of thesecond floor area to the first floor area(Rf) and a ratio ofwall length of nailed plywood shear wall to whole wall
length.
A double wood brace was arranged on the first floor andlumped masses at every node and wall length on thesecond floor were adjusted to meet the corresponding Re
and Rf.
Weight of the first floor(W1) and the one of the second
floor(W2) of analysis models were calculated by
Equation (1), (2) and (3).

W =0.667•Qa / C0 / Re
W1 = W / (1+Rm•Rf)
W2 = W - W1

(1)
(2)
(3)

where W is weight of whole analysis model of a twostoried wooden house(= W1+W2). It is assumed that 33%
of shear force which affects a wooden house is carriedby non-structural members, so 0.667 is multiplied in
Equation (1). Qa is an allowable shear strength of adouble wood brace on the first floor(=7.13kN), C0 is
ratio of required shear force to the weight of a building
at damage limit (=0.2), Rm is ratio of weight of unit areaon the second floor to the one on the first floor(defined
as 0.7 in this study). In Building Standard Law in Japan,
Qa of shear walls and C0 for wooden houses are defined
as above. Natural period of the analysis model of Rf=1.0
in the case of Re=1.0 and is 0.43 sec, the one of Re=2.0 is
0.30sec.
Input earthquake waves to the analysis models wereJMA Kobe which was scaled down to 55% and BCJ
L2(Level 2 simulated earthquake wave for structuraldesign by The Building Center of Japan). Figure 13
shows the response spectra of the two earthquake waves.
Damping ratio of 5% was given to the all analysis
models.
Tensile brace
Compressive brace

Plywood shear wall
Tensile brace
Compressive brace

Figure 11: Earthquake response analysis model
Shear force
(kN)

15
10
5
0
-8 -6 -4 -2-5 0
-10
-15

2

4

6

8

Story drift (%)

Figure 12: Hysteresis models of frame with nailed plywood

Responce acc. (gal)

1500
1000
500

JMA Kobe 55%
BCJ L2

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Natural period (sec)Figure 13: Response spectra (h=5%)

1

Figure 14 shows maximum story drift and story shear
coefficient under JMA Kobe wave. The story drift tends
to decreases as Re increases. It is also found thatmaximum response drifts of the cases with the new brace
fastener are conservative in comparison with the ones
fastened by conventional fastener. At Re=1.0, while driftof 1st floor with conventional fastener is over 5%, theone with the new fastener is approximately 3%.
As for story shear coefficient, it increases as Re increases.
The one with new fastener is slightly larger than the one
with conventional fastener.
Figure 15(a) shows ratio of story drift with the newfastener to the one with conventional fastener, while
Figure 15(b) shows the case of shear coefficient. The
maximum ratio of story shear coefficient is 1.15 which issame value as ratio of maximum shear force of Figure 9
to the one of Figure 10. In most of the analysis cases on
Figure 15 (a), the ratio of story drift is under 0.5.
Considering the ratio of story shear coefficient is under
1.15, damping effect of the new fastener is remarkable.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show earthquake response andcoefficient of story drift and story shear coefficient under
BCJ L2 wave. The response story drift with the newbrace fasteners was almost less than 70% in comparison
with conventional fastener. In the case of Re=1.0, somestory drifts of 1st floor with the new fastener are higher
than the one with conventional fastener. However, themaximum story drift with the new faster is under 2.5%
while the one with conventional faster is under 2%, thedifference between them is small.
Lately, the number of wooden houses which have nailed
plywood wall on the outer face of external wall isincreasing. Nailed plywood wall has great influence on
shear strength of wooden houses. To examine theinfluence, analysis model with both brace and nailed
plywood wall was built and additional analysis was
conducted.
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show earthquake response andratio of story drift and story shear coefficient when 50%
of wall length of wood brace was replaced by plywood
shear wall.
Comparing with Figure 14(a), it is found that story drift
decreased by 20% by replacing wood brace withconventional fastener with nailed plywood. It isconsidered that the structural performance of wood bracewith conventional brace fastener is over estimatedbecause total wall length after the replacement is thesame as the one before the replacement. In the case of
the new brace fastener, the replacement by plywood
shear wall caused little change in response displacement.
It means that seismic performance evaluated from theearthquake response analysis is equivalent to the one ofnailed plywood wall.

0
1.0

1.5
Re

4
2
0

1.5
Re

4

2

1.0
0.5

1.5
Re

0.5

1.0
0.5

Rf =0.25

4
2
0

1.5
Re

1.5
Rf=0.25
1.0

0.5

1.5
Re

(a) Story drift

2.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5

Rf=0.75
1.0
0.5

1.0

2.0

Rf=0.5
1.0
0.5

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.5
1.0

0.5
0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

1.0

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.25

1.0
0.5

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.25
1.0
0.5
0.0

0.0

0.0
1.0

1.5
Re

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

1.0

Rf=1.0
1.0

0.0
1.0

Rf=0.5

2.0

1.5

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.5
Re

0.0

1.5
Re
Rf=0.75

New / Conventional

6

0.5

1.5

1.5

2.0

Story shear coefficient

1.5
Re

1.0

1.0

0.0
1.0

Rf=1.0

0.0

1.0

0

1.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

Rf=0.75

Story shear coefficient

Rf =0.5

1.5
Re

0.0

0.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

New / Conventional

0.5

New / Conventional

1.5
Re

6

Story drift (%)

1.0

0.0
1.0

Story drift (%)

Rf=1.0

1.0

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

Rf =0.75

1.0

1.5

2.0

6

2.0

New / Conventional

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

2

1.5
Re

Rf=1.25
1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

6

4

0.5

0.0

2.0

Rf =1.0

1.0

1.5

New / Conventional

1.5
Re

0.5

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional0

1.0

Story shear force of 1st floor
Story shear force of 2nd floor

1.5

New / Conventional2

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional

4

Disp. of 1st floor
Disp. of 2nd floor

New / Conventional

Rf =1.25

1.0

1.5

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

6

New fastener, 1st floor
New fastener, 2nd floor

New / Conventional

Conventional fastener, 1st floor
Conventional fastener, 2nd floor

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

(b) Story shear coefficient (a) Disp. with new fastener/ (b) Story shear coefficient withconventional fastener
new fastener / conventional
fastener
Figure 14: Maximum earthquake response under JMA Kobe wave Figure 15: Effect of the new brace fastener under JMA
Kobe wave

1.0

2
0
1.0

1.5
Re

4
2
0
1.5
Re

4
2
0
1.5
Re

Story drift (%)

Rf =0.25
4
2
0
1.5
Re

(a) Story drift

2.0

1.5
Re

New / Conventional

New / Conventional

1.0

2.0

1.5
Rf=1.0
1.0
0.5

0.5

1.5
Re

1.0

1.5
Re

1.5
Rf=0.75
1.0
0.5

1.5
Rf=0.5
1.0
0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

1.5
Re

Rf=0.251.0
0.5

Rf=0.5
1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Re

2.0

Rf=0.75

1.0
0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5

Rf=0.5
1.0

0.5
0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.25
1.0
0.5
0.0

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

Rf=1.0

0.0
1.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0.0

1.5
Re

0.0
1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

6

1.5
Re

0.0

0.0

Rf=0.75

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

Rf =0.5

1.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

6

1.0

1.0

1.0

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

Rf =0.75

1.0

Rf=1.0

0.5
0.0

1.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

6

1.5
Re

Rf=1.25
1.0

New / Conventional

4

0.5

1.5

New / Conventional

Story shear coefficient

Rf =1.0

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

6

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

Story shear force of 1st floor
Story shear force of 2nd floor

1.0

New / Conventional

1.5
Re

0.5

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional

0

1.0

1.5

New / Conventional2

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional

4

Disp. of 1st floor
Disp. of 2nd floor

New / Conventional

Rf =1.25

1.0

1.5

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

6

New fastener, 1st floor
New fastener, 2nd floor

New / Conventional

Conventional fastener, 1st floor
Conventional fastener, 2nd floor

1.5
Re

1.5

2.0

Rf=0.25

1.0
0.5
0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

(b) Story shear coefficient (a) Disp. with new fastener/ (b) Story shear coefficient withconventional fastener
new fastener / conventional
fastener
Figure 16: Maximum earthquake response under BCJ L2 wave
Figure 17: Effect of the new brace fastener under BCJ L2
wave

Story shear coefficient

Rf =1.0
4

2

1.5
Rf=1.0
1.0
0.5

1.5
Re

Story shear coefficient6
Rf =0.75

4
2

1.5
Re

1.5
Rf=0.75
1.0

0.5

1.5
Re

Story shear coefficient6

Rf =0.5
4
2

1.5
Re

1.0

1.5
Re

1.5
Rf=0.51.0

0.5

Story shear coefficient6
Rf =0.25
4
2

0

1.5
Re

1.5
Rf=0.25

1.0
0.5

1.5
Re

(a) Story drift

2.0

Rf=0.75
1.0
0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

2.0

Rf=1.0
1.0
0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.75
1.0
0.5

0.0
1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.5
1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5

Rf=0.5
1.0

0.5
0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.25
1.0
0.5

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

1.5

2.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

0.0
1.5
Re

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

0.0
1.0

2.0

Rf=1.0

1.0

New / Conventional

1.0

Rf=1.25

2.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0

1.5
Re

0.0

1.0

2.0

1.5

0.0
1.0

New / Conventional

1.0

0.5

2.0

0.0

0

Story drift (%)

1.5
Re

New / Conventional

Story drift (%)

6

1.0

0.0
1.0

2.0

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional

1.5
Re

New / Conventional

1.0

Story drift (%)

0.5
0.0

0

Story drift (%)

1.0

1.5

New / Conventional2

Rf=1.25

New / Conventional

4

1.5

Story shear force of 1st floor
Story shear force of 2nd floor

1.0

New / Conventional

Rf =1.25

Disp. of 1st floor
Disp. of 2nd floor
New / Conventional

Story shear coefficient

Story drift (%)

6

New fastener, 1st floor
New fastener, 2nd floor

New / Conventional

Conventional fastener, 1st floor
Conventional fastener, 2nd floor

1.5
Re

2.0

1.5
Rf=0.25
1.0

0.5
0.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

1.0

1.5
Re

2.0

(b) Story shear coefficient (a) Disp. with new fastener/ (b) Story shear coefficient withconventional fastener
new fastener / conventional
fastener
Figure 18: Maximum earthquake response with nailed plywood
Figure 19: Effect of the new brace fastener with nailed
under JMA Kobe wave
plywood under JMA Kobe wave

6 CONCLUSIONSThe structural performance of the new brace fastenerwas examined through static shear loading test,
incremental analysis and earthquake response analysis. It
was found it has not only higher seismic performancebut also damping performance from the static shear
loading test and incremental analysis. Earthquake
response analysis showed that the new brace fastenerdecreases more than 50% of story drift. Moreover,structural performance of wood brace with the new brace
fastener is equivalent to the one of nailed plywood.
Since its manufacturing procedure is simple and the costis lower than conventional dampers on the market, it isexpected that a large number of wooden houses areequipped with the new fastener and safer wooden houses
against earthquakes are realized.

REFERENCES[1] Matsunaga, H., Miyazu, Y. and Soda, S. : A
Universal Modeling Method for Wooden
Shear/Nonshear Walls, Journal of Structural andConstruction Engineering 74: 639, 889-896, 2009
(in Japanese)[2] Furuta, T. and Nakao, M.: Earthquake Response
Estimation of Wooden House with New Brace
Fastener, World Conference on Timber Engineering
2014. 8