STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS OF

TYPICAL X-LAM CONNECTIONS

Igor Gavric1, Massimo Fragiacomo2 and Ario Ceccotti3

ABSTRACT: This paper presents some of the results of an extensive experimental programme on typical X-Lam
connections, conducted at CNR-IVALSA research institute. The goal of this research is to provide a better
understanding of the seismic performance of connections in cross-laminated timber buildings subjected to seismic
actions. In-plane monotonic and cyclic shear tests were performed on mechanical screwed connections between
adjacent parallel wall-wall and floor-floor X-Lam panels. In addition, monotonic and cyclic tests were carried out on
orthogonally connected panels (wall-wall and wall-floor) subjected to shear and withdrawal load. Mechanical properties
in terms of strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, ductility ratio and impairment of strength were evaluated. The
overstrength factor, which is of great importance in capacity-based design, was also evaluated for the different types of
connection tested.

KEYWORDS: X-Lam panels, Cyclic tests, Joints, Mechanical fasteners, Strength and deformation characteristics

1 INTRODUCTION 123 behaviour of typical X-Lam connections (1-D models),

The SOFIE research project (‘Fiemme’ Construction
System), coordinated and conducted by the CNR-
IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute, started in 2005
with an aim to develop seismic resistant sustainable
multi-storey timber buildings made of prefabricated
cross-laminated panels. First, racking tests of wall panels
with different layouts of connections and openings [1]
and pseudo-dynamic tests of a full scale one-storey
building were performed [2], continued with shaking
table tests of a 3-storey building in 2006 [3], and ended
with shaking table tests of a 7-storey building in 2007,
the latter one conducted at the world’s largest seismic
testing facility (E-Defense) in Miki, Japan. Experimental
tests provided excellent outcomes, as the buildings were
able to survive a series of strong recorded earthquakes,
such as Kobe earthquake (1995), virtually undamaged,
while at the same time demonstrating significant energy
dissipation. However, further research in this field is still
needed in order to better characterize the seismic
1
Igor Gavric, PhD Candidate, DICAR – Department of Civil
Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste. Piazzale
Europa 1, 34127 Trieste, and Research Assistant, IVALSA
Trees and Timber Institute, CNR. Via Biasi 75, 38010 San
Michele all'Adige (Tn). Email: gavric.igor@gmail.com
2
Massimo Fragiacomo, Associate Professor of Structural
Design, Department of Architecture, Design and Urban
Planning, University of Sassari. Piazza Duomo 6, 07041
Alghero. Email: fragiacomo@uniss.it
3
Ario Ceccotti, Director, IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute,
CNR. Via Biasi 75, 38010 San Michele all'Adige (Tn). Email:
ceccotti@ivalsa.cnr.it
single wall panels or series of adjacent wall panels (2-D
models), and entire X-Lam buildings (3-D models).
In order to understand better the seismic performance of
typical connections used in cross-lam buildings and their
behaviour in lateral resistant X-Lam wall systems, an
extended experimental programme on typical X-Lam
connections was undertaken. Experimental values will
be used to develop analytical predictions of the
connection seismic behaviour in terms of strength and
stiffness properties. Furthermore, experimental test
results will serve for fitting newly developed hysteretic
theoretical models [4]. The X-Lam connections will be
represented as non-linear springs with hysteretic
properties and will be modelled in advanced numerical
software (Abaqus).
Once non-linear components, representing X-Lam
connections, are calibrated on the experimental results,
the FE (2-D) models will be validated on the
experimental results of different wall configurations
[1,5]. Furthermore, 3-D FE models of the single storey
SOFIE building [2], 3- and 7-storey SOFIE buildings
will be implemented and used to compare numerical and
experimental results. A parametric study will then be
carried out using the aforementioned FE model to extend
the results of the experimental tests to different
configuration of technical interest, including different
geometry of the buildings, types of accelerograms,
values of PGA (peak ground acceleration), types of
connectors, layout of connections, etc.
In CLT construction, all walls in one storey contribute to
the lateral and gravity resistance. Therefore, they provide
a degree of redundancy and a system effect, which can
influence significantly the building stiffness and strength brackets and 1.6 for screwed connections between
properties. The effect of wall-wall connections, wall- perpendicular cross-lam panels [7].
floor connections and floor-floor connections on the Experimental tests on several different types of screwed
seismic performance of CLT walls is particularly adjacent parallel wall panels were performed by Muñoz
influential as the X-Lam panels are relatively stiff, and et. al. [12], Sandhaas et. al. [13] and Joyce et. al. [14].
therefore will be investigated in this paper. In a recent Experimental values of load-carrying capacity were
study [6,7] it was demonstrated that different approaches compared with calculations using existing design codes
to model connections between panels in X-Lam provisions (EC5 [20], CSA086 [21]) and with new
buildings can markedly influence the building stiffness, design models proposed by Uibel and Blaß [15,16].
vibration period, base shear forces, and building Their study focused on the development of a calculation
ductility. Thus, understanding the cyclic behaviour of methodology of the load-carrying capacity of
connections in X-Lam building is crucial for their connections with dowel-type fasteners in the direction
seismic design. perpendicular to the CLT panel and parallel to their
Another important aspect of seismic design is to ensure narrow side (i.e., edge joints). A simplified calculation
the development of cyclic yielding occurs in the model, minimum edge and end distances, and spacing of
dissipative zones. All other structural members and fasteners in the aforementioned connection types were
connections shall be designed with sufficient proposed. In addition, withdrawal strength of self-
overstrength. Dissipative zones shall be located in joints tapping screws, typically used in connecting X-Lam
and connections, whereas the timber members panels perpendicular to the plane of the panel or in edge
themselves shall be regarded as behaving elastically [8]. joints, was also investigated [17].
Thus, overstrength values of typical X-Lam connection
will be derived on the basis of statistical analysis of 3 EXPERIMENTAL TEST
experimental test results on several samples of each PROGRAMME
configuration tested in the experimental programme.
For each of the 20 different configurations listed in
2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON X-LAM Table 1 at least one monotonic and six cyclic tests were
performed in order to obtain statistically representative
CONNECTIONS
values. The types of connections and type of X-Lam
The research presented in this paper is part of an panels were selected based on the typical connection
experimental programme on connections conducted at details used in the 3-story SOFIE building tested in
CNR IVALSA. The experimental programme is divided Japan [3].
into three main parts: (i) hold-down connection tests; (ii)
angle brackets connection tests; and (iii) screwed panel- Table 1: Test matrix for para. wall-wall connection details
panel connection tests. Only the latter tests are presented
Test Loading Type and number
in this paper. Both hold-down and steel angle bracket configuration direction of screws
tests were performed under monotonic and cyclic
loading, separately in two directions: shear and tension Wall–Wall panel connections (parallel panels)
[5]. Two different variations of connections were tested,
steel base-panel and panel-panel connections. The first
variation represents connections of wall panels to Lateral HBS Φ8x80mm
foundations connections. The second variation represents parallel 2x2 screws
connections of wall panels to floor panels in upper (lap joint)
stories of X-Lam buildings. All mechanical properties
9
were derived following the prEN12512 standard [9] and
the overstrength factors were evaluated using statistical
analysis. For angle brackets the overstrength values in Lateral HBS Φ8x80mm
both directions, tension and shear, were found to range parallel 2x4 screws
from 1.1 to 1.3, depending on the statistical approach. (spline joint)
Values for hold-downs ranged from 1.2 to 1.3 in tension
and from 1.4 to 1.6 in shear direction. 10
An ongoing research project at Technical University of
Graz (Austria) included a series of monotonic and cyclic Lateral HBS Φ8x80
tests on different types of angle brackets with several perpendicular 2 screws
different types of anchoring. For each bracket at least (lap joint)
three cyclic test repetitions were performed. 11
Overstrength values were found to be below the value of
1.3 for both directions, shear and uplift [10].
Lateral HBS Φ8x80
Previously, a comprehensive investigation was perpendicular 2x2 screws
undertaken at University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) to (spline joint)
determine the seismic behaviour of X-Lam wall panels 12
and connections [11]. In a preliminary study, an
overstrength factor of 1.3 was suggested for angle
Table 2: Test matrix for perp. wall-wall connection details spacing between fasteners was in accordance with the
reference building [18].
Test Loading Type and number
configuration direction of screws
Table 4: Test matrix for floor-floor connection details
Wall–Wall panel connections (orthogonal panels)
Test Loading Type and number
configuration direction of screws
Lateral HBS Φ10x180
perpendicular 2x2 screws Floor–Floor panel connections

13 Lateral HBS Φ10x140

parallel 2x2 screws
(lap joint)
Lateral HBS Φ10x180
perpendicular 2x2 screws 19

14
Lateral HBS Φ10x140
perpendicular 2 screws
(lap joint)
Withdrawal HBS Φ10x180
4 screws 20
15
4 TEST SETUPS
Screwed in-plane shear tests were performed on Eurocode standard EN1998-1 [8] states that the
connections between parallel adjacent X-Lam panels, properties of dissipative zones of timber structures
using different types of vertical joints: (i) spline joints should be determined by tests performed either on single
with Kerto LVL strip, and (ii) lap joints. In addition, joints, on whole structures or on parts thereof in
experimental tests were carried out also on orthogonally accordance with prEN12512 [9]. The standard procedure
connected panels (wall-wall and wall-floor) subjected to for cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical
shear in two different directions and withdrawal load fasteners prescribed by prEN12512 was followed in all
(see Tables 2 and 3). of the tests, with input displacement rate varying from
0.2 to 0.8 mm/s so that a duration of each test did not
Table 3: Test matrix for wall-floor connection details exceed the time limit of 30 min. Monotonic tests were
Test Loading Type and number carried out by displacement controlled ramping at a
configuration direction of screws loading rate varying from 0.05 mm/s to 0.2 mm/s.
Specimens were stored and tested under controlled
Wall–Floor panel connections
conditions with 50% RH and 20°C.

Lateral HBS Φ10x260 SECTION 1-1: FRONT VIEW:

perpendicular 2x2 screws TEST 9: 50 300 50 HBS 8x80
85 HEA 220 profile
16 250 200 250

TEST 10: fi16 threaded

45 90 45 45 90 45 rods
Lateral HBS Φ10x260 100
perpendicular 2x2 screws 85
HBS 8x80
200 300 200 350

17 TEST 19:
HBS 10x140
150 120 160 120 150 100
1 1
142

270 160 270

Withdrawal HBS Φ10x260 250 200 250

4 screws Figure 1: Test setups of configurations 9, 10 and 19

(measures in mm)
18
All shear tests were conducted using a reversed cyclic
procedure with predefined yield values which were
Finally, tests were performed on floor-floor panel
varying from configuration to configuration, depending
connections, using lap joint (Table 4). In this paper 12
on experimental yield values obtained from monotonic
configurations of screwed panel-panel connection tests
tests. However, all tension tests and withdrawal tests
are presented (configurations 9-20).
were subjected to a non-reversed modification of the
Wall panels were 5-layered X-Lam with a thickness of
procedure outlined in prEN12512 due to restrained
85 mm (17-17-17-17-17) and floor panels were 142 mm
movement (timber-timber or timber-foundation contact)
thick with 6-layered build-up structure (27-17-27-27-17-
in compression direction. Shear tests of in-plane screwed
27). Number of fasteners in each configuration and
connections between parallel adjacent panels were tested
with two different types: (i) lap joint with 50 mm overlap middle wall panel in the case of test 13 is rotated by 90°
length for test configuration 9 and 120 mm long step with respect to the panel in test 16. Consequently, the
joint for test configuration 19; and (ii) spline joint with threaded parts of the screws in test 13 are positioned
Kerto LVL strip, notched into outer side of connection, perpendicular to the wood grain direction and in test 16
28 mm thick and 180 mm wide. In test configurations 9 parallel to the wood grain direction.
and 19 panels were directly connected to each other with The layout of test 14 is similar to configuration 13 in
two self-tapping screws on each side, with 10 cm terms of screw type, spacing, type of panels and
spacing between them. On the other hand, in case of orientation of panels, whereas configuration 17 is similar
configuration 10, double row of screws were used to to configuration 16. The direction of loading in these two
connect the LVL strip with two wall panels, also with 10 cases is at the shorter side of the panel edge. As the edge
cm spacing in vertical direction (Figure 1). distances are relatively short, brittle failures of panels
Similarly, test configuration 11, 12 and 20 had screws due to splitting might occur. In Figure 4 the orientation
positioned at a distance of 10 cm. While the lower panel of the middle layer of wall panel with the threaded part
was fixed to a HEA profile, the upper panel followed the of self-tapping screws can be seen.
non-reversed cyclic loading protocol. Over-lap
dimensions and screw type in test 11 were equal as in TEST 14: TEST 17:

configuration 9; test 12 was similar to test 10; and test 20

fi16 threaded
had the same connection detail as test 19 (Figure 2). rods

HBS 10x180
SECTION 1-1: FRONT VIEW: 165 165
TEST 11: TEST 12: TEST 20:
450 85 85 450
HEA 220 profile
200 HBS 10x260 200

fi16 threaded
1
rods

HBS 8x80 85 350 85 142 300 142

Figure 4: Test setups of configurations 14 and 17

HBS 10x140
200
200
110 150 (measures in mm)
50 90
120

To determine the withdrawal properties of X-Lam

90
200 200 150
110

connections with self-tapping screws subjected to

1
monotonic and cyclic loads, test configurations 15 and
85 85 142 75 450 75
18 were designed. In both cases four screws with 7.5 cm
Figure 2: Test setups of configurations 11, 12 and 20
were used. In test configuration 15, screws were driven
(measures in mm)
perpendicular to the grain, while in case of configuration
To investigate the cyclic shear behaviour of orthogonal 18 screws were placed parallel to the grain.
wall-wall connections and wall-floor connections, two TEST 15: TEST 18:
different types of test setups were designed. Whilst in all
aforementioned test configurations the fasteners were
positioned perpendicular to the plane of the panels, in the
fi16 threaded
following configurations (Figures 3-5) the fasteners were
rods
inserted into the narrow sides of the X-Lam panels, also
known as edge joints.
450
TEST 13: TEST 16: 450
HBS 10x180
HEA 220 profile
142
85

HBS 10x260

fi16 threaded 182.5 85 182.5 182.5 85 182.5

rods 450 450
75 75

150 150 Figure 5: Test setups of configurations 15 and 18

450
375 100 450
375 100 (measures in mm)
125 125
75 75 75 75
HBS 10x260
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
HBS 10x180
85 350 85 142 300 142 The experimental test results were assessed in terms of
Figure 3: Test setups of configurations 13 and 16 strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, damping ratio and
(measures in mm) ductility, following the standard procedure from
prEN12512 [9].
Test configurations 13 and 16 represent edge joints
between wall-wall and wall-floor panels loaded in the
direction of the longer side of the edge. On each side two
self-tapping screws were positioned with 10 cm of
spacing. As seen from Figure 3, the orientation of the
5.1 PARALLEL PANELS presented. Energy dissipation properties are measured by
5.1.1 In-plane shear loading the quantities νeq(1st) and νeq(3rd), which represent the
The hysteresis loops of configuration 19 obtained during equivalent viscous damping ratio calculated at the 1st and
the cyclic tests are displayed in Fig. 6 together with the 3rd cycles of the hysteretic loop at the displacement point
1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle backbone curves. Figure 7 shows a where the maximum load was reached. In order to ensure
photo of the experimental setup of test configuration 19. that the given values of the behaviour factor may be
Failure type of step joint connections and spline used, ductility classes are defined in EC8-1. The
connections, subjected to in-plane shear was found to be dissipative zones shall be able to deform plastically for
mode “e” from European yielding model [20] with at least three fully reversed cycles at a static ductility
bending of the screws and formation of one plastic ratio of 4 for ductility class M structures and at a static
hinge. In some tests fracture of screws eventually ductility ratio of 6 for ductility class H structures,
occurred. A slight embedding of the screws head was without more than a 20% reduction of their resistance.
noticed at higher rates of displacement. No brittle failure The values of mechanical properties for a single
modes could be observed – no cracks or splitting specimen were analyzed by taking into account the
occurred during the monotonic and cyclic tests. results from both sides of hysteretic loops. The mean
values for a specific connection configuration were
obtained by calculating the average value of all six
19‐CS‐04: Force ‐ Displacement
12 cyclic test results within the specific configuration.
10 Based on a statistical analysis of the experimental
8 results, the coefficients of variation (COV) were
6 calculated (see Table 5).
4

2 Table 5: Mechanical properties of parallel panel-panel

connections under in-plane shear loading
Force [kN]

0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2

-4 Mechanical Test configuration

-6
1st cycle backbone curve
2nd cycle backbone curve
property 9 10 19
-8 3rd cycle backbone curve

-10
Hysteresis xmean COV xmean COV xmean COV
Monotonic test

-12 k,el [kN/mm] 1.24 18.59 0.84 16.28 1.27 20.67

Displacement [mm]
k,pl [kN/mm] 0.11 20.01 0.10 39.81 0.21 20.67
Figure 6: Hysteresis loops of test configuration 19 Fy [kN] 3.23 11.95 4.85 17.67 6.67 10.23
vy [mm] 2.55 11.99 5.70 22.75 5.39 26.91
Fmax [kN] 5.25 13.18 7.33 11.89 10.10 4.28
vmax [mm] 23.50 9.81 34.37 17.40 29.83 0.12
Fu [kN] 4.20 13.18 5.86 11.89 8.08 4.29
vu [mm] 31.55 2.48 37.66 8.79 33.59 18.66
D [-] 12.81 10.34 7.15 21.20 6.58 10.23
Dmon [-] 15.98 - 14.43 13.44 -
F30 [kN] 4.61 15.98 7.81 12.59 9.44 13.31
D30 [-] 12.12 11.01 7.30 21.49 6.14 21.73
Ductility class H H M
νeq(1st) [%] 14.52 6.71 14.72 10.48 22.20 4.12

Figure 7: Experimental setup of test configuration 9 νeq(3rd) [%] 9.12 23.37 11.27 14.86 15.17 7.63

Table 5 displays the average strength and deformation
properties of connection configurations 9, 10 and 19,
according to the prEN12512 standard. More specifically,
kel and kpl represent initial stiffness and plastic stiffness;
Fy and vy signify yielding load and yielding
displacement; Fmax and vmax denote maximum load and
maximum displacement; Fu and vu signify ultimate load
and ultimate displacement; D signifies ductility ratio
(ratio between ultimate displacement and yield
displacement); Dmon represents ductility ratio, obtained
from monotonic tests. As one of the criteria for ultimate
value in prEN12512 is also strength at 30 mm
displacement, force F30 and ductility ratio D30 are
Step joint in wall-wall connection (Test 9) exhibited
50% higher initial stiffness in comparison with spline
joint (Test 10). However, 40% higher resistance of test
configuration 10 in comparison with test 9 was found at
46% higher maximum displacement. Furthermore,
ultimate displacement at spline joint was 19% higher.
Both test configurations 9 and 10 can be classified in
ductility class H (high). In terms of energy dissipation
capacity, spline joint exhibited 24% higher damping
ratio at the 3rd cycles.
In test 19, a thicker panel, longer screws with larger
diameter, and an over-lap with longer notch were used
and resulted in higher yield load and yield displacement,
higher average strength but lower ductility level than in joints prevented resistance to higher loads at larger
test configuration 9. In addition, damping ratio at the 3rd displacements. In addition, COV (coefficient of
cycles was found to be 66% higher. variation) values of mechanical properties raised to 30%.
Test configuration 20 with 120 mm lap and 142 mm
5.1.2 In-plane axial loading thick panel performed better than configuration 10 (50
The hysteresis loops of configuration 12 obtained during mm lap, 85 mm thick panel) as no brittle failure modes
the cyclic tests are displayed in Fig. 8 together with the were observed. Ultimate values were reached at
1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle backbone curves. Figure 9 shows a relatively large displacements, on average more than 40
photo of the experimental setup of test configuration 12. mm. Due to higher yielding displacement, the ductility
Failure modes associated with lap connections were ratio was relatively low and consequently so was also the
found to be different than those with a LVL spline, when ductility class. Energy dissipation capacity in the 1st
tested under in-plane axial loading. For connections with cycles was found to be noticeably higher, while 2nd and
lap configuration (Tests 11 and 20), the mean failure 3rd cycles showed almost equal damping capacity as
mode was due to splitting of the wall panel or failure of configuration 11.
glue bond in inner layers. In addition, in some tests plug
shear in the zone of screw thread was observed. On the Table 6: Mechanical properties of parallel panel-panel
other hand, in cases of LVL spline connections the connections under in-plane axial loading
observed failure modes were mainly associated with
Mechanical Test configuration
pull-through of head with formation of one plastic hinge
property 11 12 20
within the X-Lam panel (Test 12).
xmean COV xmean COV xmean COV
12‐CS‐03: Force ‐ Displacement
8
k,el [kN/mm] 1.25 29.65 0.94 17.02 0.83 6.98
7 k,pl [kN/mm] 0.21 29.65 0.16 17.02 0.14 6.98
6 Fy [kN] 2.91 17.64 3.23 7.02 6.91 9.36
5
vy [mm] 2.34 24.17 3.13 20.05 7.30 14.78
4
Fmax [kN] 4.91 24.41 6.40 4.96 9.83 11.75
Force [kN]

1st cycle backbone curve vmax [mm] 17.51 28.84 39.40 8.90 31.59 28.22
2
2nd cycle backbone curve

1
3rd cycle backbone curve Fu [kN] 3.93 24.42 5.12 4.94 7.87 11.75
Hysteresis

0
Monotonic test
vu [mm] 23.76 17.79 50.52 16.28 41.17 15.61
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
-1 D [-] 10.71 31.69 16.36 14.18 5.74 23.85
-2
Dmon [-] 20.97 - 15.66 - 8.99 -
Displacement [mm]
F30 [kN] - - 6.02 2.82 9.16 15.78
Figure 8: Hysteresis loops of test configuration 12 D30 [-] - - 9.91 20.19 4.20 16.87
Ductility class H H M
νeq(1st) [%] 5.98 10.56 5.81 9.41 8.58 13.73
νeq(3rd) [%] 2.97 19.30 3.30 13.93 2.49 12.16

5.2 ORTHOGONAL PANELS

Figure 9: Experimental setup of test configuration 12
By comparing the results from test configurations 11 and
12, it is possible to recognize a significant difference in
initial stiffness. Step joint connection exhibits 33%
higher initial stiffness in comparison with spline LVL
connection. However, spline joint was able to resist
higher forces at displacement values which were more
than twice as large. The reason for that was mainly the
different type of failure, as brittle failure modes in step
5.2.1 Shear loading parallel to the joint
The hysteresis loops of configuration 16 obtained during
the cyclic tests are displayed in Fig. 10 together with the
1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle backbone curves. Figure 11 shows a
photo of the experimental setup of test configuration 16.
Considerable embedment of the self-tapping screws head
into the X-Lam panel was observed at higher
displacement values. This could be an indication that the
threaded length of the shank was able to hold the axial
tensile forces generated in the screw without significant
withdrawal, known as the “rope effect” which enhances
the lateral load resistance of the connection.
Displacements above 30 mm eventually caused splitting
in the panel. As it can be seen in Table 7, mechanical
properties for both configurations (13 and 16) were very
similar to each other. This indicates that the orientation
of the middle wall panel did not influence the overall
performance of the aforementioned connection types.
 16‐CS‐07: Force ‐ Displacement 5.2.2 Shear loading perpendicular to the joint
12
The hysteresis loops of configuration 17 obtained during
10
the cyclic tests are displayed in Fig. 12 together with the
1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle backbone curves. Figure 13 shows a
8

photo of the experimental setup of test configuration 17.

6

Behaviour of test configurations 14 and 17 were similar

4

in terms of mechanical response to cyclic loading (see

Force [kN]

0
-40 -30 -20 -10
-2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Table 8).
1st cycle backbone curve
-4
2nd cycle backbone curve
-6 3rd cycle backbone curve 17‐CS‐07: Force ‐ Displacement
Hysteresis 12
-8
Monotonic test
10
-10

Displacement [mm] 8

Figure 10: Hysteresis loops of test configuration 16 4

Force [kN]
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-2

-4

1st cycle backbone curve

-6
2nd cycle backbone curve
-8 3rd cycle backbone curve
Hysteresis
-10
Monotonic test

-12

Displacement [mm]

Figure 12: Hysteresis loops of test configuration 17

Figure 11: Experimental setup of test configuration 16

Table 7: Mechanical properties of orthogonal panel-panel

connections under loading parallel to the joint

Mechanical Test configuration

property 13 16
Figure 13: Experimental setup of test configuration 17
xmean COV xmean COV
k,el [kN/mm] 1.49 21.11 1.45 22.44 One notable difference is the higher ultimate
k,pl [kN/mm] 0.25 21.11 0.24 22.44 displacement reached in the case of test 17. It was found
out that the reason for that was the failure modes. In both
Fy [kN] 5.25 6.96 5.04 16.96
cases yielding of the screws occurred, leading to the
vy [mm] 3.44 13.36 3.59 26.83 splitting of the middle panel due to unfulfilled
Fmax [kN] 7.54 6.82 7.87 13.89 requirement for minimum thickness of X-Lam panel,
which should have been at least 10 diameters according
vmax [mm] 23.10 22.64 27.14 16.76
to the Uibel and Blaß proposal [16]. In the case of test
Fu [kN] 6.03 6.81 6.30 13.89 14, splitting occurred at lower values of displacement,
vu [mm] 31.94 3.27 32.25 2.72 leading to lower ultimate displacement attained.
D [-] 9.65 16.77 10.05 33.95
Dmon [-] 17.27 - 30.61 -
F30 [kN] 6.67 3.18 7.26 13.68
D30 [-] 9.04 15.43 8.92 37.47
Ductility class M M
νeq(1st) [%] 17.31 4.38 17.75 6.44
νeq(3rd) [%] 13.29 4.68 13.87 8.18
Table 8: Mechanical properties of orthogonal panel-panel
connections under loading perpendicular to the joints

Mechanical Test configuration

property 14 17
xmean COV xmean COV
k,el [kN/mm] 1.30 21.36 0.97 13.60
k,pl [kN/mm] 0.22 21.36 0.16 13.60
Fy [kN] 5.29 22.23 5.84 8.97
vy [mm] 4.22 23.45 5.95 18.86
Fmax [kN] 7.92 16.47 8.53 7.13
vmax [mm] 27.31 13.79 28.57 10.48
Fu [kN] 6.34 16.45 6.82 7.11 Figure 15: Experimental setup of test configuration 15
vu [mm] 31.82 0.61 48.27 18.55
Both test configuration 15 and 18 performed with
D [-] 10.81 25.01 8.90 23.66 relatively low average yielding displacement, 1.30 mm
Dmon [-] 16.35 - 21.57 - for test 18 and 1.75 mm for test 15. Average yield force,
F30 [kN] 7.46 15.40 8.17 7.12 peak force and ultimate force were all very similar in
either case (Table 9), with difference of less than 10%. A
D30 [-] 10.34 24.02 5.57 17.93 reason for that could be the same type of failure
Ductility class H H mechanism. Penetration length was in both cases
νeq(1st) [%] 18.20 9.51 15.05 9.09 sufficient to resist the withdrawal forces. In most cases,
penetration of the screw head led to pull-through the
νeq(3rd) [%] 12.41 21.66 11.00 14.46
orthogonal panel. High level of ductility was therefore
attained as in the post-elastic phase degradation of forces
5.2.3 Axial (withdrawal) loading was relatively low. As expected, damping capacity due
The hysteresis loops of configuration 18 obtained during to screw withdrawal was relatively low, around 1.3-2.2%
the cyclic tests are displayed in Fig. 14 together with the in the 3rd cycles.
1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle backbone curves. Figure 15 shows a
photo of the experimental setup of test configuration 15. Table 9: Mechanical properties of orthogonal panel-panel
The modes of failure were mainly head penetration of connections under withdrawal loading
screw head in the member representing the orthogonal
wall element (Test 15) or floor element (Test 18). Mechanical Test configuration
Sometimes it was combined with withdrawal from the property 15 18
wall panel. While turning back to the zero position after xmean COV xmean COV
head embedment, local splitting occurred in the outer
laminates of orthogonal panel due to forces acting k,el [kN/mm] 2.90 6.21 4.08 11.76
perpendicular to the grains. k,pl [kN/mm] 0.19 14.13 0.23 15.30
Fy [kN] 4.66 13.03 5.08 18.63
18‐CS‐04: Force ‐ Displacement
10 vy [mm] 1.75 15.75 1.30 23.51
Fmax [kN] 7.83 7.27 8.10 7.78
8

vmax [mm] 28.04 15.20 18.56 10.30

6
Fu [kN] 6.27 7.27 6.52 7.40
4
vu [mm] 49.50 14.38 28.92 17.16
Force [kN]

1st cycle backbone curve

D [-] 28.77 16.85 23.80 35.53

2nd cycle backbone curve
2 3rd cycle backbone curve
Hysteresis

0
Monotonic test Dmon [-] 21.85 - 27.74 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
F30 [kN] 7.66 8.32 - -
-2

D30 [-] 17.52 14.17 - -

-4

Displacement [mm]
Ductility class H H
νeq(1st) [%] 8.25 10.06 9.17 6.74
Figure 14: Hysteresis loops of test configuration 18 νeq(3rd) [%] 1.32 7.62 2.15 8.49
5.3 OVERSTRENGTH FACTORS
Brittle members in timber structures must be designed
for the overstrength related to the strength of the ductile
connections to ensure the ductile failure mechanism will
take place before the failure of the brittle members. The
ovestrength ratio γov is defined as the ratio between the
95th percentile of the connection strength distribution and
the analytical prediction of the design connection
strength Fd.. The design strength capacity Fd was
calculated by dividing the characteristic experimental
strength F0.05 by the strength partial factor γM, assumed to
be equal to one according to the Eurocode 8 for
dissipative timber structures. The experimental
characteristic strength values from tests were based on
the lower 5th percentile values assuming three different
distributions, with a 75% confidence level; (i) normal
distribution; (ii) log-normal distribution; (iii) standard
procedure for calculation of characteristic 5-percentile
values from the EN14358 standard [19].
A comparison of overstrength factors evaluation with
these three approaches was done. With normal and log-
normal distributions overstrength values were ranging
from 1.15 to 1.7, except for the case of configuration 11,
where due to the brittle failure, the high scatter of load-
carrying capacity leads to an overstrength factor of 2.3.
An average overstrength value calculated including all
12 configurations was 1.46. On the other hand, the
approach from EN14358 standard gave the most
conservative values, as this standard procedure requires
larger variance for lower number of performed tests.
Overstrength values range from 1.2 to 1.9, excluding the
case of configuration 11, where the value was found to
be 3.3. An average overstrength value of all test
configurations using this procedure was 1.74.

Table 10: Overstrength factors (γov) of typical screwed X-Lam panel-panel connections

Type of Test configuration

distribution 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Normal
F0.05 [kN] 4.12 5.95 2.94 5.51 6.69 5.78 6.90 6.07 7.53 7.06 9.39 7.93
F0.95 [kN] 6.39 7.97 6.89 7.00 8.38 10.07 8.77 9.67 9.53 9.14 10.81 11.73
γov [-] 1.55 1.34 2.34 1.27 1.25 1.74 1.27 1.59 1.27 1.29 1.15 1.48
Log-Normal
F0.05 [kN] 4.20 6.00 3.18 5.52 6.74 5.97 6.95 6.20 7.55 7.14 9.42 7.99
F0.95 [kN] 6.48 8.02 7.21 7.05 8.40 10.29 8.79 9.83 9.58 9.15 10.81 11.95
γov [-] 1.54 1.34 2.27 1.28 1.25 1.72 1.26 1.59 1.27 1.28 1.15 1.50
EN14358
F0.05 [kN] 3.81 5.62 2.64 5.23 6.41 5.27 6.59 5.59 7.16 6.75 9.13 7.30
F0.95 [kN] 7.14 8.56 8.67 7.45 8.83 11.63 9.27 10.91 10.11 9.67 11.16 13.08
γov [-] 1.88 1.52 3.28 1.42 1.38 2.21 1.41 1.95 1.41 1.43 1.22 1.79

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS numerical analyses of X-Lam walls and buildings, as

An experimental testing programme on screwed
connections between adjacent X-Lam panels was
performed with the aim to better understand their
performance when subjected to seismic actions. All
mechanical properties in terms of prEN12512 procedure
were evaluated. Step joint connections performed with
higher stiffness in comparison with spline LVL joints but
in some cases their failure modes was brittle due to
splitting of the inner layer of the panel or plug shear.
Spline joints could also resist greater forces at higher
displacement values. The orientation of the layers in
shear resistance of orthogonally connected panels
through edge joint did not influence much the overall
performance. Sufficient spacings, end distances, edge
distances and panel thickness are required to prevent
brittle failures. Withdrawal tests showed that the screw
head penetration was more critical than the withdrawal
of the screw from the panel.
The outcomes of this connection test experimental
programme will be used to calibrate advanced
component FE models for non-linear static and dynamic
well as to calibrate analytical calculation methods of X-
Lam connections behavior.
This research provides a part of the missing information
on the overstrength factor for timber connections in the
Eurocode 8 – Timber part.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented in this paper was funded by the
Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy) within the
SOFIE research project.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution
to this research of IVALSA laboratory staff Mario Pinna,
Diego Magnago and Paolo Dellantonio, who provided
technical expertise for the experimental testing.
REFERENCES
[1] Ceccotti A., Lauriola M., Pinna M., Sandhaas C.
SOFIE Project - Cyclic Tests on Cross-Laminated
Wooden Panels, Proceedings of the 9th World
conference on timber engineering, Portland, Oregon
(USA), August 6th-10th 2006.
[2] Lauriola M.P., Sandhaas C. Quasi-Static and Proceedings of 43rd CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper 39-7-
Pseudo-Dynamic Tests on XLAM Walls and 5, Florence (Italy), August 28th-31st 2006.
Buildings. Cost E29 International Workshop on [16] Uibel T., Blaß H.J. Edge joints with dowel type
Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures, fasteners in cross laminated timber. Proceedings of
pages 119-133, Coimbra, Portugal, 2006. 44th CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper 40-7-2, Bled
[3] Ceccotti A. New technologies for Construction of (Slovenia), August 2007.
Medium-Rise buildings in Seismic Regions: The [17] Frese M., Blaß H.J. Models for the calculation of the
XLAM case, Journal of the International withdrawal capacity of self-tapping screws.
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Proceedings of 42nd CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper 42-7-
2-2008, 2008, 156-165. 3, Dübendorf (Switzerland), August 2009.
[4] Rinaldin G., Amadio C., Fragiacomo M. A [18] Ceccotti A. Progetto Sofie – Sistema Construttivo
component approach for non-linear behaviour of Fiemme. Relazione scientifica finale 10.12.2007.
cross-laminated solid timber panels. Proceedings of Trento, Italy, 2007.
the 14th ANIDIS Conference, Bari (Italy), [19] EN14358. Timber structures – Calculation of
September 18th-22nd 2011, DVD. characteristic 5-percentile values and acceptance
[5] Gavric I., Ceccotti A., Fragiacomo M. Experimental criteria for a sample. CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
cyclic tests on cross-laminated timber panels and [20] EN1995-1-1: 2004. Eurocode 5: Design of timber
typical connections. Proceedings of the 14th structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
ANIDIS Conference, Bari (Italy), September 18th- buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
22nd 2011, DVD. [21] CSA 086-09. Engineering design in wood. Canadian
[6] Sustersic I., Fragiacomo M., Dujic B. Influence of Standard Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada,
connection properties on the ductility and seismic 2009.
resistance of multi-storey cross-lam buildings.
Proceedings of 44th CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper 44-
15-9, Alghero (Italy), August 201.
[7] Fragiacomo M., Dujic B., Sustersic I. Elastic and
ductile design of multi-storey crosslam massive
wooden buildings under seismic actions,
Engineering structures, 2011, 33(11):3043-3053.
[8] EN1998-1: 2003. Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN,
Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
[9] EN12512: 2001. Timber structures – Test methods –
Cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical
fasteners. CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
[10] Flatscher G., Schickhofer G. Verbindungstechnik in
BSP bei monotone und zyklischer Beanspruchung –
Statusbericht TU Graz. 9. Grazer Holzbau-
Fachtagung, Graz (Austria), September 2011.
[11] Dujic B., Zarnic R. Report on evaluation of racking
strength of KLH system. University of Ljubljana,
Faculty of civil and geodetical engineering,
Slovenia, 2005.
[12] Munoz W., Mohammad M., Gagnon S. Lateral and
withdrawal resistance of typical CLT connections,
Proceedings of the 11th World conference on timber
engineering, Riva del Garda (Italy), June 20th-24th
2010.
[13] Sandhaas C., Boukes J., Van de Kuilen J.W.G.,
Ceccotti A. Analysis of X-Lam panel-to-panel
connections under monotonic and cyclic loading.
Proceedings of 42nd CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper 42-
12-2, Dübendorf (Switzerland), August 2009.
[14] Joyce T., Smith I., Ballerini M. Mechanical
behaviour of in-plane shear connections between
CLT wall panels. Proceedings of 44th CIB-W18
Meeting, Paper 44-7-2, Alghero (Italy), August
2011.
[15] Uibel T., Blaß H.J. Load carrying capacity of joints
with dowel type fasteners in solid wood panels.