See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322357062

Finite Element Modelling of a Three-Storey Cross Laminated Timber Structure

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 556

3 authors:

Chrysl Aranha J. M. Branco

Aalto University University of Minho
16 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS    153 PUBLICATIONS   753 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paulo B. Lourenco
University of Minho
944 PUBLICATIONS   14,135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic-V: Vernacular Seismic Culture in Portugal View project

Sustainable strengthening of masonry structures with textile reinforced mortars View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chrysl Aranha on 07 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF A THREE-STOREY CROSS LAMINATED
TIMBER STRUCTURE

Chrysl A. Aranha, Jorge M. Branco and Paulo B. Lourenço

Abstract

The burgeoning of the Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) industry in recent years along with the
shift to performance-based design, has created an interest in the use of these timber
constructions, particularly in medium- and high-rises in seismic areas. However, current
European codes lack substantial guidelines for the efficient design of these structures. New
provisions based on experimental research and complemented by numerical analyses need to
be defined. In the scope of the SERIES project, a three-storey full-scale CLT building was
subjected to biaxial input motions on a shake table with Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) levels
reaching up to 0.5g. A numerical model of the house was developed in SAP2000 and validated
with the results obtained from the experimental tests. Special attention was paid to the
modelling of the mechanical connections in the building due to the significant role that they
play in the behaviour of the structure under lateral loads. The stiffness of the connections was
determined from prior experimental tests that had been conducted by TUGraz on the individual
connectors and walls. This paper explores the application of non-linear dynamic analyses in the
seismic performance of CLT buildings through an appraisal of the model developed in the
current paper.

1. INTRODUCTION
In traditional timber frame structures, finite element models can be classified into three
categories depending on the components they represent. Micro-models capture the load-slip
behaviour of fasteners, meso-models capture the load-slip behaviour of connectors and macro-
models capture the load-slip behaviour of timber shear walls themselves. In the case of CLT
structures, experiments have demonstrated that the ductility of panelised CLT walls arises
mainly from connection deformation, whereas the panels themselves remain elastic without
undergoing any damage, except in the vicinity of the connections. Since the behaviour of CLT
structures is, for the most part, governed by their connectors, the replication of their load-slip
behaviour is a prerequisite for the finite element model of the whole structure.
Under earthquake ground motions, structures and their components are subjected to load
reversals and the sources of non-linearity in the load-slip behaviour of the connectors increase.
The modelling of the pinched hysteretic behaviour of the connectors would entail the
determination of expected strength and stiffness degradation and energy dissipation values.
Most of the models to date are suited to the joints and subassemblies that they are designed for
but cannot be used for connections made with other wood-based products or fasteners of other
types.
In this paper, the focus will be on representing the load-slip behaviour of tested angle
brackets and hold-downs using a pre-defined hysteretic model in SAP2000 and validating them
with results obtained from cyclic tests conducted on CLT wall panels fitted with these
connectors, followed by a validation at the level of the entire CLT structure itself, using the
results obtained from the non-linear time history analysis.

Page 1
2. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN
The Institute of Timber Engineering and Wood Technology (TU Graz) in Austria conducted
an extensive experimental campaign along with the competence centre holz.bau forschungs
gmbh (hbf) and organized it in the phases listed below. In Figure 1, a schematic of the tests
performed can be seen.
I. Component level- connections:
Simpson Strong-Tie AE116 (BMF 98x 116x 3) angle brackets, HTT 22 hold-downs and
self-tapping screws were tested in this phase. The monotonic tests for the single joints were
conducted using the procedure outlined in EN 26891 [1] while the loading procedure for the
cyclic tests was carried out according to ISO 16670 [2]. To determine the behaviour of the
connections near failure, quasi static monotonic tests were carried out, while their energy
dissipation capacity and behaviour under load reversal was established through cyclic tests
conducted [3, 4, 5]. Tests representative of the angle brackets and hold downs used at the
foundation level and in the higher storeys were conducted by using a rigid base in the case
of the former and a CLT panel base for the latter. The angle brackets were tested in shear
and tension while, the hold-downs, which primarily resist axial loads, were only tested in
tension.
II. Component level- CLT walls:
Square CLT panels of size 2.5m x 2.5m and with different connector configurations were
subsequently subjected to quasi-static tests. Among the tested wall types only two main
configurations were chosen for the numerical modelling. In walls of type A, four AE 116
are used and in walls of type B, HTT 22 are present at the corners and two angle brackets
AE 116 are provided in the interior. The effect of vertical loading was also assessed [5, 6].
III. Global level- CLT building:
A full-scale three storey CLT building, with a rectangular plan of dimensions 5.17m × 6.76m
and 7.74m ridge height was subjected to a series of seismic tests at the National Laboratory
of Civil Engineering (LNEC) in Lisbon, Portugal as part of the Seismic Engineering
Research Infrastructures for European Synergies (SERIES) project [7] on timber buildings.
The connectors used in this structure were the same type as those tested in the first phase.
Unlike the 3-storey and 7-storey CLT buildings tested in the SOFIE project, this building
was composed of individual panels only. The CLT building was subjected to a bidirectional
seismic input, whereas the SOFIE buildings were subjected to a unidirectional and
tridirectional input, respectively [8]. The tested building was designed by researchers from
TU Graz in accordance with typical CLT constructions in Austria and a description of the
construction details can be found in [7].
The input signal for the seismic tests was the one recorded at Ulcinj – Hotel Albatros
during the Montenegro earthquake that took place on the 15th of April, 1979. The system
was tuned at every stage and dynamic characterization tests were conducted before and after
every seismic test with different levels of intensity. The seismic testing was carried out with
four different peak ground acceleration (PGA) values - 0.07g, 0.15g, 0.28g and 0.5g. No
repairs were carried out any stage, except for adjustment of the torque in the anchor bolts
[7].
The seismic testing was carried out on two days. Since the seismic tests conducted on the
first day failed to produce any damage in the building, the building was weakened by
severing about half of the angle brackets and nail plates and replacing all the hold-downs of

Page 2
 the external walls in the top-most storey with angle brackets. The weakened building was
subjected to a further series of shaking table tests on the following day. Totally, 32 seismic
tests and 14 dynamic identification tests were carried out.

Figure 1: Component to structural level tests performed by TU Graz and holz.bau forschungs
gmbh

3. NUMERICAL MODELLING OF CLT STRUCTURES

3.1 Component level

In order to model the cyclic behaviour of the connectors, hysteresis models that can simulate
their actual force-displacement relationship need to be defined. In SAP2000 [9], the models
available to define hysteretic behaviour are the Kinematic, Takeda or Pivot models. The
Kinematic model is more suited to metals and does not incorporate any kind of degradation.
The Takeda model incorporates stiffness degradation, but there is no means of specifying the
amount of degradation. Although the Pivot model was developed to simulate the nonlinear
response of reinforced concrete members [10], it has parameters that can control the loading
path through pre-define pivot points and hence it was chosen.
The load-slip path was defined based on the first envelope curves of the connectors, which
corresponded to the curve joining the points of maximum load corresponding to the first cycle
at each level of displacement. The connectors were represented by multi-linear plastic links
assigned with the Pivot hysteresis behaviour. As the Pivot model does not account for strength
degradation, a comparison between the experimental load-slip behaviour and a model whose
hysteresis behaviour was defined by the third envelope curve was also chosen. However, when
the calibrated connection models were used in the wall models, the dissipated energy was
under-estimated by up to 30% in walls of type A, and about 60% in walls of type B [11]. Owing
to this, the decision to use the first backbone curve of the connections in the calibration of the
walls was taken. The force-displacement graphs of the angle brackets in shear and tension and
the hold-downs in tension obtained using the first backbone curve is plotted along with the
experimental values in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. A comparison of the energy dissipated
(Ed) and the maximum load (Fmax) values obtained experimentally and numerically are
presented in Table 1.

Page 3
 40 40

30
20
20

10

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

0
0

-10 -20
-20

-30 -40
Exp Exp
-40 SAP2000-1 SAP2000-1
-60
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 2: Hysteretic response obtained from experimental test and SAP2000 model for angle
brackets in shear (left) and tension (right)
40

20
Force (kN)

-20

-40
Exp
SAP2000-1
-60
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (mm)

Figure 3: Hysteretic response obtained from experimental test and SAP2000 model for hold
down in tension

Table 1: Comparison between the test and model values for the single joint tests
Joint test Property Experimental SAP2000
Angle bracket -shear Ed (kNmm) 5759 6182
Fmax (kN) 35.6 35.1
Angle bracket -tension Ed (kNmm) 2834 5217
Fmax (kN) 36.1 36.0
Hold-down -tension Ed (kNmm) 3784 6718
Fmax (kN) 51.5 50.0

On completion of the calibration of the load-slip behaviour of the connectors, they were
incorporated in the wall models as two joint multi-linear plastic link elements having one end
fixed and the other at the base of the wall. The wall models were composed of linear plane
stress finite elements and assigned elastic orthotropic properties, representing CLT, as defined

Page 4
in [12]. Each angle bracket was modelled with axial and shear properties while the hold-downs
only had an axial component. The designation of the tested walls is given in Table 2 (see Figure
1 for connector layout). The comparison of the cyclic load-slip behaviour of the tested walls
with the corresponding results obtained using SAP2000 are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Table 2: Tested CLT wall configurations
Wall Corner connections Interior connections Vertical loading
A1 Angle brackets Angle brackets 0
A2 Angle brackets Angle brackets 20.8kN/m
B1 Hold downs Angle brackets 5kN/m
B2 Hold downs Angle brackets 20.8kN/m

60
80
40 60

20 40
Force (kN)

20
0 Force (kN)
0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60
Exp -60 Exp
SAP2000 SAP2000
-80 -80
-60 -30 0 30 60 -50 -25 0 25 50
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 4: Comparison of hysteretic response of experimental test and model of wall A1 (left)
and A2 (right)
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 Exp -60 Exp

SAP2000 SAP2000
-80 -80
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 5: Comparison of hysteretic response of experimental test and model of wall B1 (left)
and B2 (right)
The values of initial stiffness (kser) and the yield load (Fy) of the walls were determined as per
the guidelines specified in [13]. The ductility (μ) was determined from the first envelope curves
formed by joining the points of maximum load. The equivalent viscous damping ratio (νeq), was

Page 5
determined from the third envelope curve formed by joining the points of maximum slip, as
given in [14]. A comparison of the experimentally and numerically obtained values for the
aforementioned mechanical properties are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Comparison of mechanical properties of the CLT walls obtained experimentally and
numerically
Kser Fmax Ed
Wall (kN/mm) Fy (kN) (kN) νeq (%) μ (kNmm)
A1 Experimental 3.41 44.18 53.78 14.2 3 10037
SAP2000 3.59 44.59 59.30 18.5 4 11592
A2 Experimental 9.75 31.61 61.18 17.8 13 20590
SAP2000 3.47 42.01 63.40 24.7 5 19680
B1 Experimental 2.56 62.88 69.98 9.9 2 20371
SAP2000 2.35 55.70 66.74 12.7 2 21411
B2 Experimental 4.69 53.43 71.73 20.2 4 35207
SAP2000 3.15 54.38 61.09 18.6 3 22591

From the wall level modelling, it is inferred that although the predictive models in SAP2000
are not able to capture the deterioration in strength for subsequent loading cycles, they can be
useful in determining the lateral load resistance of the walls and the yield load values. Except
in the case of wall B2, the results in terms of energy dissipation are also reasonably accurate.
The numerical models of the walls where just angle brackets were used as connectors (A1 and
A2) resulted in a better fit than the models B1 and B2. This could be due to the absence of the
shear component of the hold-downs. The accuracy of the wall models with four angle brackets
also proves the importance of the angle bracket as a connector that contributes to both axial and
shear resistance. The principal requirement posed by [15] concerning hysteretic rules is that
they can realistically reflect the energy dissipation of the members within the range of the
applied displacements. Since the non-linear response is limited to ductile failure mechanisms
of cyclic force transfer and brittle members are overdesigned, the omission of the strength and
stiffness degradation of the members does not significantly affect the results of the analysis
[16].

3.2 Structural level

Following the component level models, a full-scale 3D model of the CLT building was
developed in SAP2000. Material properties for CLT were defined as in [12]. No diaphragm
constraints were used in the floor and roof of the models. A rigid connection between the floor
panels with the walls in the storey below was assumed, whereas the floor panel was connected
to the wall panels of the upper storey only at the locations of the angle brackets and hold-downs.
The properties of the multi-linear plastic links simulating the angle brackets and hold-downs in
the upper floors were defined based on the quasi-static tests conducted on the CLT wall-floor
connector tests while for the connectors in the foundation, the properties of the links were
derived from quasi-static tests conducted on the CLT wall-rigid base tests. A high value of
stiffness was assigned to the links, representing the connectors, in the out-of-plane direction.
Since screwed joints are generally designed with sufficient overstrength in CLT structures, the
connection between orthogonal walls was assumed to be rigid. The ridge board and lintels were

Page 6
 simulated by suitably dimensioned beam elements. The finite element model of the CLT house
can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Finite element model of CLT house tested at LNEC, Portugal

In the analysis of models using non-linear dynamic methods, the seismic action is
represented in the form of time histories of the ground motion, conforming, on average, to the
5% damping elastic response spectrum defining the seismic action. For both the original and
weakened models, the acceleration time-histories of the Montenegro earthquake in the X- and
Y-directions, scaled to a PGA of 0.5g, were used as input in order to obtain a comparison with
their behaviour in the seismic tests conducted at LNEC. Since no major damage was sustained
by the building, the validity of the model was only determined by a comparison between the
experimental and numerical results obtained based on the base shear coefficient (BSC) versus
total drift curves for the original and weakened building can be seen in Figures 7 and 8,
respectively. The ratio of the base shear force to the seismic weight of the structure is the BSC.
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
Base shear coefficient
Base shear coefficient

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

Exp Exp
Model Model
-1.0 -1.0
-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Total drift (%) Total drift (%)

Figure 7: BSC versus total drift plots for the X (left) and Y (right) directions of the original
building

Page 7
 1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
Base shear coefficient

Base shear coefficient

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

Exp Exp
Model Model
-1.0 -1.0
-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Total drift (%) Total drift (%)

Figure 8: BSC versus total drift plots for the X (left) and Y (right) directions of the weakened
building
From the graphs of base shear coefficient versus total drift, it is clear that the hysteresis loops
obtained from the model are narrower than the corresponding experimental loops, which results
in an underestimation of the dissipated energy. Even at the wall level, there was an
underestimation of the amount of dissipated energy, so this discrepancy at the building level is
expected. The incorporation of friction and the modelling of screwed joints could have
increased the energy dissipated by the models. The maximum base shear values determined
from the non-linear time history analysis was less than the experimental values in both
directions, for the original as well as the weakened buildings. In terms of stiffness, a good match
between the model and the test building in the X-direction was seen for both the original and
weakened buildings. In the Y-direction, however, the models were less stiff than the tested
structures.
Non-linear dynamic analysis also provides a better insight into the connector behaviour. In the
tests on the CLT walls, it was seen that the failure of the angle brackets was dependent on their
position, with the brackets close to the corner failing in tension and those in the interior failing
in shear [7]. Hence, the use of angle brackets in areas subjected to huge uplift is not advisable.
The maximum slippage in the tests of 0.5g PGA was 2.23mm and the maximum slippage of the
link in the same location was 2.32mm. The maximum uplift recorded in the experimental tests
was 5.23mm and in the model, the uplift at the same location was 4.69mm. When the load-slip
curves of all the connectors in the model were plotted, for both the original and weakened
configurations of the structure, it was observed that they were all functioning well within their
peak capacities. This corroborates the fact that there was no damage to the building.

4. CONCLUSIONS
None of the full-scale CLT buildings that have been subjected to shaking table tests have
suffered major damage or collapse [9, 10]. Therefore, it is essential to develop models that can
simulate the behaviour of these structures and indicate possible failure mechanisms for
earthquakes of different intensities, thereby reducing the cost and effort involved in further
experimental campaigns. Non-linear time history analyses constitute the most accurate way of
capturing the response of buildings under seismic excitations and comparisons between
experimental and numerical results provide a foothold to establish the suitability of these

Page 8
methods [17]. In the case of the direct integration time history analysis in SAP2000, satisfactory
results were obtained in terms of stiffness of the structure. However, the energy dissipated by
the models was much lower than the tested structures. This analysis was useful to study the
behaviour of the connectors at the global level. A comparison between the experimental and
numerical values of maximum uplift and slip evinced that the deformations in the model were
close to the experimental results. The work undertaken also highlights the importance of the
characterization of the connector behaviour in the global response of the structure. Future work
must focus on assessing the influence of the in-plane stiffness of CLT floors on the seismic
behaviour of the structure and the incorporation of friction between wall and floor panels and
between wall panels and the foundation, which plays a role in energy dissipation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to specially acknowledge the Institute of Timber Engineering and Wood
Technology (TU Graz) in Austria and the competence centre holz.bau forschungs gmbh (hbf),
for providing the experimental data. The work undertaken in this paper has been supported by
the FCT (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology), within ISISE, project
UID/ECI/04029/2013.

REFERENCES
[1] CEN. ‘EN 26891: Timber structures - Joints made with mechanical fasteners - General principles
for the determination of strength and deformation characteristics’. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, (1991).
[2] ISO. ‘ISO 16670: Timber structures – Joints made with mechanical fasteners – Quasi-static
reversed-cyclic test method’. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva,
Switzerland, (2003).
[3] Flatscher G and Schickhofer G. Verbindungstechnik in BSP bei monotoner und zyklischer
Beanspruchung - Statusbericht TU Graz. 9. Grazer Holzbau-Fachtagung, Graz, Austria, G1-G22
(2011) (German).
[4] Flatscher G. Versuchstechnische betrachtung zyklisch beanspruchter wandelemente in der Holz-
Massivbauweise. 18. Internationales Holzbau- Forum 2012, Garmisch- Partenkirchen, Germany,
Band I, Prolog IV, (2012) (German).
[5] Flatscher G, Bratulic K and Schickhofer G. Experimental tests on cross-laminated timber joints and
walls, Proceedings of the ICE - Structures and Buildings (2015). DOI: 10.1680/stbu.13.00085.
[6] Hummel J, Flatscher G, Seim W and Schickhofer G. ‘CLT wall elements under cyclic loading –
details for anchorage and connection’. COST Action FP1004, Focus Solid Timber Solutions –
European Conference on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), Graz, (2013) 152–165.
[7] Flatscher G and Schickhofer G. ‘Shaking-table test of a cross-laminated timber structure’,
Proceedings of the ICE - Structures and Buildings (2015). DOI: 10.1680/stbu.13.00086
[8] Ceccotti A, Sandhaas C, Okabe M, Yasumura M, Minowa C and Kawai N. ‘SOFIE project – 3D
shaking table test on a seven-storey full-scale Cross-laminated timber building’, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42 (2013) 2003–2021. doi:10.1002/eqe.2309.
[9] CSI. SAP2000 ultimate (v15.0.0) – structural analysis program, Computer and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, California, (2011).
[10] Dowell RK, Seible F and Wilson EL. ‘Pivot hysteresis model for reinforced concrete members’,
ACI Structural Journal, 95 (1998) 607–618.
[11] Aranha CA. ‘Experimental and numerical assessment of the seismic behaviour of log and cross
laminated timber structures’. Doctoral Thesis, University of Minho, Portugal (2016)

Page 9
 [12] Aranha CA, Branco JM, Lourenço PB, Flatscher G and Schickhofer G. ‘Finite element modelling
of the cyclic behaviour of CLT connectors and walls’, Proceedings of the World Conference on
Timber Engineering WCTE 2016, (2016).
[13] CEN. ‘EN 12512: Timber structures – Test methods – Cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical
fasteners’. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2001).
[14] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall (1995).
[15] CEN. ‘EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings’, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium, (2004).
[16] Fardis M, Carvalho E, Elnashai A, Faccioli E, Pinto P and Plumier A. ‘Designers' guide to EN
1998-1 and 1998-5. Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistant structures (Designers'
Guide to Eurocodes)’. Thomas Telford Publishing, (2005).
[17] Pinho R. ‘Nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures subjected to seismic action.’ Advanced
earthquake engineering analysis. Volume 494 of the series CISM International Centre for
Mechanical Sciences (2007) 63-89.

Page 10

View publication stats