Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Force-based seismic design of mixed CLT/Light-Frame buildings T

a,⁎ b
M. Follesa , M. Fragiacomo
a
dedaLEGNO, Via Masaccio 252, 50132 Florence, Italy
b
Department of Civil, Construction-Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of L’Aquila, Via Giovanni Gronchi 18 - Zona industriale di Pile, 67100
L'Aquila, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the results of a numerical study aimed to investigate the seismic behaviour of mixed multi-
Hybrid buildings storey wood buildings made of CLT and Light-Frame shear walls acting at the same level. Eurocode 8 provides
Capacity design little information on the seismic design of buildings with different lateral load resisting systems working at the
Force-based method same level. A suggestion is given to perform non-linear static or non-linear dynamic analysis to design the
Non-linear dynamic analysis
structure. The application of linear analysis methods using the force-based procedure is not possible since the
Lightframe timber walls
value of the behaviour factor q of the mixed system is unknown. The aim of this investigation is to propose a
Cross-laminated panels
simple analytical formulation to estimate the value of the q-factor of the mixed system, so as to enable the use of
the force-based philosophy of Eurocode 8 for the seismic design of mixed CLT/Light-Frame buildings. This was
achieved by analysing the results of non-linear dynamic (time-history) analyses performed on a four-storey case-
study building with different combinations of CLT and Light-Frame shear walls. Finally, the validity of the
proposed formulation is checked by means of non-linear dynamic (time-history) analyses performed on the same
four storey case-study building in one of the hybrid combinations of CLT and Light-Frame shear walls.

1. Introduction
Mixed structures are buildings where two different lateral load-re-
sisting systems made of the same or different materials are used at the
same level (systems working in parallel) or at different levels (systems
working in series). For the first case, the most common definition is
“hybrid buildings” while for the second one is “podium structures”.
According to Eurocode 8 [1], the seismic design of buildings can be
performed using the force-based method. This design method assumes
that the energy dissipation capacity of the structure is implicitly con-
sidered by dividing the seismic forces obtained from a linear analysis by
the behaviour factor q, which accounts for the non-linear response of
the structure. The value of the behaviour factor depends on (i) the
material, (ii) the structural system and (iii) the capacity-based design
procedure applied in the seismic design. Using this approach, the values
of the behaviour factor q are provided for a given combination of (i)
and (ii) and, according to (iii), for each Ductility Class defined by
Eurocode 8 (Medium and High, being the value of the behaviour factor
q for Ductility Class Low equal to 1.5 irrespective of the material and
the structural system).
Therefore, when buildings are made with a mixed combination of
lateral load-resisting systems working at the same level made either
with different materials and/or different structural systems (hybrid
structures according to the most common definition) this method can
no longer be used, as the value of the behaviour factor q to be applied in
the seismic design using a linear analysis is unknown.
Note that in accordance with this definition, a structure may be
defined as hybrid when different materials are used to resist the seismic
forces at the same level (e.g. timber and concrete or timber and steel)
and also when different structural systems are used (e.g. the Cross
Laminated Timber and Light-Frame timber systems, like in the case
investigated in this study). This is an important remark, as often timber
buildings made with different structural systems like in the case of
Fig. 1 are not regarded in the common practice by designers or building
authorities as mixed structures as they are made of the same material.
In a recently presented proposal of revision of the Chapter 8 of
Eurocode 8 for the seismic design of timber buildings [2,3], some
provisions on this subject have been included. If different lateral load
resisting systems are used to resist loads in the same direction and at the
same level, even if made of different materials, the lowest value of the
behaviour factors q of the two systems could be used. In order to use
higher values of the behaviour factor q, non-linear static (push-over) or
non-linear dynamic (time-history) analyses should be carried out. The
use of specific analytical relationships to determine the behaviour
factor q of the hybrid structure should be allowed if these relationships
are derived following a specified procedure.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: follesa@dedalegno.com (M. Follesa), massimo.fragiacomo@univaq.it (M. Fragiacomo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.091
Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 17 January 2018; Accepted 26 April 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo
Fig. 1. Example of a timber building with external Light-Frame walls and internal CLT walls.
However, non-linear static or dynamic analysis are often too com-
plex for everyday design practice, also considering that it is not easy to
know the nonlinear and hysteretic behaviour of mechanical joints or
structural components as often they are not provided within the tech-
nical specifications of commercial type connections.
In order to address this design issue, this paper presents the results
of a numerical study performed on a specific application of hybrid
structures, i.e. buildings made of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) and
Light-Frame (LF) shear walls acting at the same level. A specific ana-
lytical relationship is proposed to calculate the behaviour factor q of the
hybrid structure. The relationship is validated against the results of
non-linear dynamic analyses carried out on a case-study hybrid
building. The proposed analytical relationship could be implemented
for a force-based design procedure in seismic design codes such as the
Eurocode 8.
2. Literature review
The Light-Frame (LF) system and the Cross Laminated Timber (CLT)
system are nowadays the two most used structural systems in Italy and
Europe for the construction of multi-storey timber buildings. The
former system is well-known and widely used also in North America,
Asia and Australasia. The latter system, despite its relatively recent
development, is already regarded as the main structural system used in
Europe for the construction of multi-storey buildings, with a large
number of significant buildings up to 9 storeys recently built all over
Europe even in medium to high seismicity areas.
There is a growing demand by architects and designers about the
possibility of using both the structural types together as the lateral-load
resisting system in the construction of multi-storey buildings, especially
in earthquake prone areas. A typical example is the design of LF
buildings with CLT stairs and lift cores or CLT buildings with LF par-
tition walls. The possibility of using hybrid CLT/LF construction in the
same building allows the best performance in terms of mechanical,
thermal and acoustic properties of the CLT panels to be coupled with
the lightness and ease of construction of LF walls.
629
Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642
Another option, even if less common in European Countries where
the construction of multi-storey timber buildings has a less enduring
tradition, is the use of structural components of one of the two systems
for the seismic retrofit of existing timber buildings, like e.g. the use of
stiffening CLT walls inside existing LF buildings [4].
Some studies have been carried out on the seismic design of hybrid
multi-storey timber buildings. Chen et al. [5] developed an idealized
elasto-plastic mechanical-based model for the evaluation of the system
ductility ratio of hybrid systems with two different types of lateral load
resisting system (LLRS). According to this simplified model, the ducti-
lity of the whole system depends upon stiffness ratio, strength ratio,
ductility ratio and displacement at failure of the two subsystems. Fur-
thermore, an empirical model for estimating the ductility ratio μ, ex-
pressed as the ratio of the displacement at failure to that at yielding
conditions, and the ductility-related force modification factor Rd ac-
cording to the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2010, [6]), of
hybrid buildings containing two types of LLRS was proposed and vali-
dated through non-linear time-history analysis. The results showed that
the current approach of NBCC 2010 of considering the lowest value of
the force modification factor RdR0, where R0 is the over-strength related
force modification factor, between the two systems seems too con-
servative.
Guo et al. [7] studied the seismic performance of hybrid podium
structures with lower steel frames storeys and upper Light wood-frame
structure up to a maximum of 3 storeys. The results demonstrated that
this type of structure could be safely designed using the linear static
method of analysis and the response spectrum analysis, even if no
specification is given on the force modification factor used in the de-
sign.
Zhou et al. [8] investigated the seismic force modification factor
R = RdR0 and the value of the fundamental vibration period according
to the National Building Code of Canada of 67 multi-storey hybrid
Light-Frame/masonry buildings with different combinations of (i)
number of storeys, (ii) properties of the two sub-systems and (iii)
properties of the connection between them. The numerical analysis
results showed that the failure mode of the hybrid building is
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo
influenced by the relative stiffness of the wood, masonry and connec-
tion system and by the ultimate deformation of the sub-systems, hence
suggesting that an R value larger than the lowest value of the two sub-
systems can be used to design the hybrid building. Empirical equations
were also proposed for the evaluation of Rd and R0 of the hybrid
building.
Simple design provisions within the Eurocode 8 force-based philo-
sophy are needed in order to safely allow the seismic design of hybrid
multi-storey timber buildings. This could be done by either (i) clearly
defining new hybrid structural types with their associated values of the
behaviour factor q or (ii) providing simple design formulas, based on
extensive numerical simulations or analytical methods, which could be
applied for the calculation of the behaviour factor q of the hybrid
system.
In this paper, non-linear dynamic analyses are performed on a four-
storey case-study building in different configurations of CLT/LF walls
for a set of recorded earthquake ground motions. Results are discussed,
and a simple analytical formulation for the calculation of the behaviour
factor q of the mixed system is presented for possible implementation in
the Eurocode 8.
3. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a hybrid CLT/LF
system
Following the procedure described in [9] and proposed also in [10],
the evaluation of the seismic design parameters of hybrid multi-storey
CLT/LF buildings is made according to the following:
(1) A case study 4-storey building is selected, adapted from [11], and
designed in four different configurations of LF and CLT walls,
starting from an “all Light-Frame” wall configuration and ending
with an “all CLT” wall configuration (Fig. 2).
(2) The building is designed according to Eurocode 8 [1] with the
equivalent static force procedure, assuming q = 1. A three-dimen-
sional numerical model of each configuration of the four-storey
building is implemented in the software package for structural
analysis SAP2000 [12], with the aid of a pre- and post-processing
software specifically developed by Tecnisoft [13] (see Section 4.2
for more details about the preliminary design and the details of the
model). According to Eurocode 8 [1], the behaviour factor q is
defined as the “factor used for design purposes to reduce the seismic
actions in a linear static or modal analysis in order to account for the
non-linear response of a structure, associated with the material, the
structural system and the design procedures”.
(3) Based on the preliminary design results, a 3D non-linear model of
the four buildings is implemented in the FE program DRAIN-3DX
[14]. See Section 5 for more details and references about the non-
linear model.
(4) The structural components (LF shear walls and connections of CLT
walls) of the 3D non-linear building model are calibrated based on
experimental results under fully reversed cyclic loading on struc-
tural sub-assemblies (shear walls) or connections.
(5) A set of 8 recorded earthquake ground motion is selected.
(6) A “near-collapse” criterion is chosen.
(7) Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is performed for each of the
four building configurations and each ground motion.
(8) For each building configuration and each selected ground motion,
the q-value is assessed according to the following equation:
PGAnearcollapse
q=
PGAdesign (1)
where PGA signifies the peak ground acceleration.
630
Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642
4. Preliminary design of the case study building
The hybrid CLT/Light Frame structure is a four-storey residential
building which contains six apartments and has plan dimensions of
18 × 11 m and average height of 13 m.
Walls are made with 5-layer, 120 mm thick CLT panels at all storeys.
Hold-downs HTT22 connected with 12 Anker nails 4 × 60 mm are used
on the CLT walls to prevent uplift. Two types of angle brackets manu-
factured by Rothoblaas were used as base and inter-storey shear con-
nection: the WVS90110 (connected with 1 φ12 steel rod class 4.6 to the
foundation and 11 4 × 60 mm Anker nails to the CLT wall) for the
shear-transferring connections of the 1st storey, and the WB90 for the
connections of the upper storeys. Light Frame walls are built with
60 mm × 120 mm C24 Spruce lumber with 3.01 × 65 mm common
nails spaced at 150 mm on panel edges and at 300 mm on internal
supports used to fasten the 12 mm OSB panels to the framing members.
The floor diaphragms are built with 5-layer, 144 mm CLT panels and
the roof diaphragm with glulam (GLT) beams and 3-layer, 66 mm CLT
panels. Fig. 3 shows the plan view of all storeys in Configuration C.
4.1. Gravity loads
Gravity loads for the seismic combination were estimated based on
the structural and non-structural elements. The permanent loads G per
unit area (including self-weight and the weight of insulation and
cladding materials) of external LF and CLT walls are 0.91 kPa and
1.33 kPa respectively, while the permanent loads G per unit area of
internal LF and CLT walls are 0.63 kPa and 1.12 kPa, respectively. The
permanent loads of the floors and roof are 3.43 kPa and 1.28 kPa, re-
spectively. The imposed loads Q for the floors are 2.00 kPa for re-
sidential use; for the roof, no accidental load is considered for the
seismic combination. Based on these gravity loads, Table 1 lists the total
permanent and imposed loads as well as the seismic weight of each
floor of the building for configuration C (configuration A, B and D are
not reported for the sake of brevity). The total seismic weight of the
building is W = 3858.3 kN.
4.2. Seismic design action
The design response spectrum is calculated for Tolmezzo, a small
town near the epicentre of the 1976 Friuli Earthquake, for a 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years, according to the Italian National
Building Code [15] with the following parameters:
• nominal life of the structure equal to 50 years;
• design ground acceleration a = 0.237 g;
g
• soil factor S = 1.17 for ground type B;
• amplification factor F = 2.41
0
• lower limit of the period of constant spectral acceleration branch
T = 0.151 s;
B
• upper limit of the period of constant spectral acceleration branch
T = 0.453 s;
C
• value defining the beginning of the constant displacement response
range of the spectrum T = 2.55 s;
D
• seismic force modification factor q = 1.0.
The preliminary design of the buildings was performed via a linear
elastic analysis with the equivalent static force procedure as specified in
Section 3. A three-dimensional schematization of the four-storey
building was implemented in the widespread software package for
structural analysis SAP2000 [12]. A pre- and post-processing software
named Modest, specifically developed by Tecnisoft [13], was used to
aid in the implementation. This model implements shell elements in
order to model the behaviour of the actual CLT panels, and linear link
elements to schematize the steel angle bracket connection behaviour.
LF walls are also schematized by means of shell elements with
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 2. 3D view of the hybrid CLT/LF building for the four different configurations investigated: A-all Light-Frame walls, B-all Light-Frame walls with lift shaft and
stair core made with CLT walls, C-External Light-Frame walls and internal CLT walls, D-all CLT walls. In blue the Light Frame shear walls and in green the CLT shear
walls. Roof panels are not showed for the sake of clarity. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

equivalent axial, shear and bending stiffness of the actual LF walls. This
schematization takes into account the shear and bending flexibility of
the wall, and the flexibility due to the sheathing-to-frame nail slip. The
screw and rod connections to the foundation and the supporting timber
floor are schematized with linear link elements. Hold-down anchors are
not explicitly modelled either in the CLT or in the LF walls as they have
a marked non-linear behaviour with different stiffness values in tension
and compression due to the wall-to-floor and wall-to-foundation con-
tact in compression, which cannot be represented in a linear analysis.
Floor diaphragms are assumed to be in-plane rigid using a kinematic
constraint while the out-of-plane stiffness is not considered. Fig. 4
displays the numerical model of the building extracted from the pre-
processing software Modest used in the implementation.
The connections of CLT and Light Frame walls at each storey con-
sidered in the preliminary design and based on common construction
practice are summarized in Table 2. CLT walls are designed without
vertical step joints as monolithic panels. The stiffnesses of the connec-
tions used in the design are computed at first based on the slip modulus
at serviceability limit state of each fastener Kcon calculated according to
Table 7.1 of Eurocode 5, Part 1-1 [16] and the procedure described in
[17]. According to this procedure, the horizontal stiffness KH of the
connection is computed based on the slip modulus at serviceability limit
state of each fastener Kcon used to connect the metal plate of each
connector to the wall or floor panel and assuming the metal plate to
concrete connection as rigid for the wall-foundation connection.
K con = 2·ρm1.5 ·d/23 (2)
where ρm and d signify the mean density of timber in [kg/m3] and the
fastener diameter in [mm], respectively, with the values of Kcon in [N/
mm]. For n nails, the horizontal stiffness of the connection KHi is given
by:

631
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 3. Plan view of all storeys with the location of CLT (green) and Light Frame (blue) walls for configuration C. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1 different type of shear walls (e.g. midply walls) would be applied in
Total permanent load, imposed load and seismic weight for each level of the such cases. However, for the purposes of the numerical analysis, it is
building in configuration C. irrelevant whether the same seismic resistance is reached using a single
Storey # Permanent loads, G Imposed loads, Q Seismic weight, stronger connector or multiple weaker connectors. The resistance of the
(kN) (kN) G + 0.3Q (kN) LF walls is calculated based on the nail spacing and therefore can be set
exactly equal to the seismic shear demand. For CLT walls, however, the
1 981.4 413.3 1105.4
lateral resistance is based on the number of wall-to-floor and wall-to-
2 981.4 413.3 1105.4
3 995.1 413.3 1119.1
foundation connectors, which have a certain, given number of nails,
4 528.4 0.00 528.4 therefore the strengths are slightly higher than the seismic shear de-
Sum 3486.3 1239.9 3858.3 mand.

KHi = n·K con (3) 5. Non-linear analysis

For the wall to floor connection the horizontal stiffness KH is com-

puted considering two horizontal springs in series: (i) the wall-metal
plate connection, with stiffness KHw; and (ii) the metal plate-floor
connection, with stiffness KHf.
1 This model was successfully used in the prediction of the non-linear
KH = 1 1
+ response of both Light Frame and CLT real buildings subjected to shake
KHw KHf
4.3. Analysis results
Table 3 shows the results of the preliminary design for building
configuration C only (again for the sake of brevity) in terms of shear
forces acting on each wall together with the calculated design strength
for each wall, for the first storey, according to the wall identification
numbers given in Fig. 3.
The results in terms of nail spacing and number of connectors are of
course unrealistic in practical cases where nail spacings lower than 5 cm
are found for Light-Frame walls or large numbers of angle brackets or
hold-down anchors are found. In real cases, stronger connections and
The numerical model for the non-linear dynamic analysis is a 3D
space frame model created using the commercially available software
Drain-3DX [14] in which a hysteretic model with pinching behaviour
developed at the University of Florence [18] was implemented [19].
(4)
table tests [20,21] and was recently implemented with new features
such as the possibility to account for strength and stiffness degradation
due to cyclic loading [22].
The 3D model is composed of rigid beams, columns and spring
elements simulating LF and CLT walls and connections. CLT walls are
composed of (i) rigid straight members simulating the rigid CLT panels,
(ii) shear connections (steel angle brackets), schematized with non-
linear cross horizontal springs with symmetric behaviour, and (iii) hold-
down anchors, schematized with vertical non-linear springs with dif-
ferent behaviour in tension and in compression. LF walls are modelled
with (i) four pinned rigid straight members and (ii) two non-linear
diagonal springs with symmetric behaviour to simulate the behaviour
of the wall including the nail slip flexibility, (iii) two non-linear springs

632
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 4. Undeformed shape of the numerical model for the linear dynamic analysis.

with different behaviour in tension and compression placed at the end
of the wall to simulate the hold-down behaviour, and (iv) two cross
horizontal linear springs to simulate the anchor bolts and screwed wall-
to-foundation and wall-to-floor connection. Both wall models are illu-
strated in Fig. 5.
CLT and LF wall models have been calibrated based on the results of
cyclic tests conducted on full-scale walls and CLT connections at CNR-
IVALSA in Italy [23,24] and on tests conducted on full-scale LF walls at
FP Innovations, Canada [25]. Fig. 6 shows the results of the calibration
procedure for CLT and LF walls in terms of both cyclic behaviour and
dissipated energy.
Once the calibration procedure was completed, the entire 3D model
was built based on the results of the preliminary design. As a simplifi-
cation of the model analysed in the preliminary design, the 4th storey
was schematized as a full storey with a flat roof, without the slight roof
inclination of the roof showed in Figs. 2 and 4. This modification in the
Author’s opinion did not affect significantly the final results.
Masses and vertical loads were lumped on the storey nodes. Floors
were schematized as rigid by means of equivalent, very stiff cross-
bracings modelled with truss elements, not showed in Fig. 7 for the sake
of clarity.
5.1. Earthquake records
For the non-linear time-history analysis, a set of 8 recorded earth-
quake ground motions has been chosen, 6 of which are international
historical earthquakes. The remaining 2 records are two components of
a spectrum-compatible earthquake for the same type of soil considered
in the seismic preliminary design, occurred in 1976 in the same region
(Friuli) in Tolmezzo.
The details of the chosen ground motion records are listed in
Table 4.
5.2. Near-collapse criterion
The choice of the near-collapse criterion is crucial for the evaluation
of the behaviour factor q through nonlinear time-history analysis,
especially in this case where a hybrid building with different types of
lateral load resisting systems is analysed. Different criteria have been
proposed in literature for CLT and LF buildings. For CLT structures,
Ceccotti et al. [26] proposed a maximum uplift value for one or more
hold-down anchors based on experimental research. For LF structures,
an extensive discussion on the evaluation of the collapse limit can be
found in [27]; a possibility is to establish a maximum value of the inter-
storey drift, e.g. 2 or 2.5%. This value represents the maximum ultimate
interstorey drift displacement according to the reference seismic design
code requirements representing the state of “near collapse” equivalent
to extensive damage in the building or based on experimental results
observations.
However, considering the different seismic behaviour of the two
structural systems, the choice of the near-collapse criterion based on a
single deformation parameter seems inappropriate as it may not be

Table 2
Connections for CLT and LF walls considered in the preliminary design.
Storey # CLT wall-base connections Light Frame wall-base connections Light Frame wall sheathing and nail spacing

1 WVS90110 steel angle brackets connected with 1 ϕ12 steel rod class 4.6 to 1 ϕ12 steel rod class 4.6 to the 12 mm OSB panels connected to the framing
the foundation and 11 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails to the CLT walls spaced @ foundation spaced @ 100 mm c/c members by 3.01 × 65 mm common nails spaced
300 mm c/c @ 75 mm c/c
2 WB90 steel angle brackets connected with 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails to the ϕ12 × 140 screws to the CLT floors 12 mm OSB panels connected to the framing
CLT walls and 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails + 2 HBSϕ4 × 60 to the CLT floors spaced @ 100 mm c/c members by 3.01 × 65 mm common nails spaced
spaced @ 500 mm c/c @ 100 mm c/c
3 WB90 steel angle brackets connected with 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails to the ϕ12 × 140 screws to the CLT floors 12 mm OSB panels connected to the framing
CLT walls and 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails + 2 HBSϕ4 × 60 to the CLT floors spaced @ 150 mm c/c members by 3.01 × 65 mm common nails spaced
spaced @ 700 mm c/c @ 150 mm c/c
4 WB90 steel angle brackets connected with 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails to the ϕ12 × 140 screws to the CLT floors 12 mm OSB panels connected to the framing
CLT walls and 8 ϕ4 × 60 anker nails + 2 HBSϕ4 × 60 to the CLT floors spaced @ 200 mm c/c members by 3.01 × 65 mm common nails spaced
spaced @ 1000 mm c/c @ 150 mm c/c

633
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Table 3 EN 12512 [28], whichever occurs first.

Preliminary design results – configuration C. Although there has not been any full-scale dynamic collapse tests
Preliminary design results case C – All external LF Walls, All Internal CLT Walls conducted on CLT buildings, the 2% inter-storey drift limit for CLT
walls is chosen here based on the damage observed in an earlier ex-
Wall # Length [m] Wall Sei. Wall type Nail Wall shear perimental study on CLT walls and buildings [29]. In this case, the
direction Shear spacing s strength ultimate displacement is mainly governed by the rocking and sliding
[kN] [cm] [kN]
behaviour caused by the uplift and shear-restrain deformation of the
PT01 1.03 X 20.0 LF 3.10 20.0 connections. Although the choice of the 2% inter-storey drift limit may
PT02 1.10 X 21.3 LF 3.29 21.3 seem a bit too conservative for LF walls where the horizontal dis-
PT03 0.87 X 11.2 LF 3.91 11.2 placement is manly governed by the nail slip in the sheathing-to-
PT05 2.25 X 90.9 CLT N/A 92.0
framing connection, it was adopted based on the fact that for nearly
PT07 0.87 X 11.2 LF 3.91 11.2
PT08 1.10 X 21.3 LF 3.29 21.3 symmetric buildings (like the ones investigated in this study) the as-
PT09 1.03 X 20.0 LF 3.10 20.0 sumption of rigid floor diaphragm leads to the same displacement de-
PT10 1.86 X 62.9 CLT N/A 69.0 mand for both LF and CLT walls.
PT11 1.86 X 60.9 CLT N/A 69.0
PT12 1.24 X 26.8 CLT N/A 34.5
PT13 1.24 X 26.8 CLT N/A 34.5 5.3. Analysis results
PT14 7.65 X 1005.2 CLT N/A 1012.0
PT15 3.99 X 271.1 CLT N/A 276.0 For each configuration, the case study building was analysed both in
PT16 3.11 X 162.5 CLT N/A 172.5 X and Y direction, considering the same seismic record applied in one
PT17 3.11 X 162.5 CLT N/A 172.5
PT18 3.99 X 271.1 CLT N/A 276.0
direction at a time, therefore different q-values were found in X and Y
PT19 0.96 X 14.7 LF 3.66 14.7 directions. For the dynamic analysis, a time-step of 0.005 s was used
PT20 0.94 X 14.4 LF 3.58 14.4 and a 5% stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping was applied in order
PT21 0.59 X 3.6 LF 5.60 3.6 to account for the dissipating contribution of non-structural elements
PT22 1.09 X 20.1 LF 3.43 20.1
such as partition walls. According to the procedure described in Section
PT23 3.08 X 207.8 LF 1.23 207.8
PT24 1.09 X 20.1 LF 3.44 20.1 3, for each ground motion record and each configuration, Incremental
PT25 0.59 X 3.6 LF 5.60 3.6 Dynamic Analysis is performed by scaling the PGA’s and increasing its
PT26 0.94 X 14.4 LF 3.58 14.4 values until the near-collapse criterion is reached in one of the walls.
PT27 0.96 X 14.7 LF 3.66 14.7 The results in terms of ultimate Peak Ground Acceleration PGAu and
PT28 0.99 Y 14.6 LF 3.88 14.6
PT29 0.95 Y 14.0 LF 3.72 14.0
the corresponding calculated values of the behaviour factor q are
PT30 5.54 Y 639.8 LF 0.72 639.8 summarized in Table 5 for the four building configurations. Recall that
PT31 0.48 Y 2.3 CLT N/A 11.5 the behaviour factor q is calculated as a ration of PGAu over PGA design
PT32 3.47 Y 180.8 CLT N/A 184.0 (Eq. (1)), which has been assumed as 0.237 g, as described in Section
PT33 4.02 Y 241.5 CLT N/A 253.0
4.2.
PT34 2.13 Y 65.9 CLT N/A 69.0
PT35 6.18 Y 535.7 CLT N/A 540.5 The first remark about the analysis results is that the proposed
PT36 0.98 Y 13.1 CLT N/A 23.0 Eurocode 8 values for the current behaviour factors q of the two
PT37 4.02 Y 242.2 CLT N/A 253.0 structural systems, i.e. q = 3 for Light Frame buildings with rigid floor
PT38 0.48 Y 2.3 CLT N/A 11.5 diaphragms and q = 2 for CLT buildings are confirmed by almost all the
PT39 3.47 Y 181.4 CLT N/A 184.0
PT40 0.99 Y 14.7 LF 3.86 14.7
analysed cases, meaning that in almost all the analysed cases higher q-
PT41 0.95 Y 14.1 LF 3.70 14.1 values were found with respect to the one proposed by Eurocode 8. For
PT42 5.54 Y 643.5 LF 0.71 643.5 configuration A, i.e. all LF walls, the average value of q was 3.89 in X
and 4.39 in Y direction which are far above the proposed code values.
Also for configuration D the average q values in X and Y directions are
representative of the hybrid building seismic behaviour. Therefore, a above the code proposed values, and only for Northridge earthquake
choice has been made to consider either the attainment of a 2% inter- are lower than 2. According to the analysis results a q value respectively
storey drift or the deformation corresponding to 80% of the maximum of 4.0 for LF structures and 2.0 for CLT structures seems reasonably
load reached in the descending part of the first cycle backbone curve acceptable. The q values found for the hybrid configuration B were only
attained by any connection or CLT or LF wall sub-systems as defined in the lift and stair case walls are made with the CLT system, is closer to

Vertical loads
concentrated
on model nodes Vertical loads
concentrated
on model nodes

Rigid frame
simulating Rigid pinned frame
simulating wall
CLT wall frame
behaviour
Non-linear symmetric cross
2.95
springs simulating wall
2.44
sheathing-to-framing stiffness

Non-linear asymmetric vertical Non-linear asymmetric

springs simulating hold-down and vertical springs
angle brackets vertical stiffness simulating hold-down
vertical stiffness

Non-linear symmetric cross Linear symmetric horizontal

horizontal springs 4.88 cross springs
2.95
simulating angle-bracket simulating anchor bolt
horizontal stiffness horizontal stiffness

Fig. 5. Model schematization of a CLT (left) and LF (right) walls.

634
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 6. Calibration procedure for CLT and LF walls. Comparison in terms of cyclic behaviour and dissipated energy.

the reference configuration with all LF walls (Configuration A). The q
values found for the hybrid configuration C were all the internal walls
are made with the CLT system are closer to the reference configuration
with all CLT walls (Configuration D).
The results for the four configurations show a general decrease of
the calculated q factors from configuration A (only LF walls) to
configuration D (only CLT walls). The collapse occurred for config-
uration A in most cases due to the collapse displacement reached for LF
walls at first storey both in X and Y direction and only in few cases was
due to hold-down failures. For configuration B, the collapse was mainly
due to hold-down failures in both CLT and LF walls and only for few
earthquake records occurred for LF walls collapse. For configurations C

Fig. 7. Drain-3DX 3D-model of the 4-storey

case study building and of the first storey
only for the sake of clarity and fundamental
periods for the four building configurations.
LF walls are schematized with blue lines and
CLT walls are schematized with green lines.
Masses are lumped on model nodes re-
presented with grey dots and hold-down
anchors are represented with pink lines.
Floors are schematized as rigid by means of
equivalent rigid cross bracings, not showed
in the figure for the sake of clarity. (For in-
terpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

Configura on Natural vibra on period [s]

A 0.85
B 0.72
C 0.60
D 0.41

635
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Table 4
Details of the ground motion records used for the non-linear time-history analysis.
N. Name Country Date Station Dir. Duration (s) PGA (g)

1 Kobe Japan 1995/01/16 JMA N-S 24.00 0.820

2 El Centro California 1940/05/19 Imperial Valley N-S 29.00 0.313
3 Brienza Italy 1980/11/23 Brienza N-S 20.00 0.220
4 Northridge California 1994/01/17 Newhall E-W 19.98 0.600
5 Loma Prieta California 1989/10/18 Corralitos E-W 39.98 0.644
6 Kocaeli Turkey 1999/08/17 Yapi Kredi N-S 27.88 0.168
7 Friuli 1 Italy 1976/05/06 Tolmezzo N-S 21.00 0.370
8 Friuli 2 Italy 1976/05/06 Tolmezzo SE-NW 21.00 0.480

Table 5 6. Analytical formulation for the seismic design of hybrid CLT/

Analysis results for the four configurations. Light-frame buildings
X Direction Y Direction
The results found in §5.3 confirm that the values of the behaviour
Record Name PGAu [g] q PGAu [g] q factors found for the hybrid configurations B and C are always higher
than the lowest behaviour factor of the two structural systems (except
Configuration A
Kobe 0.95 4.01 1.21 5.09
for one case, i.e. Brienza record in X direction were the resulting q value
El Centro 0.88 3.73 0.98 4.12 was higher in configuration D than the one found for configuration C).
Brienza 0.86 3.63 0.92 3.87 Therefore, an intermediate value of the q factor between the proposed
Northridge 0.82 3.46 0.89 3.76 code values for the two reference systems can be assumed for the hybrid
Loma Prieta 0.99 4.19 1.01 4.27
building. The proposed analytical formulation, similar to the one pro-
Kocaeli 0.93 3.91 1.01 4.25
Tomezzo N-S 0.94 3.99 1.22 5.15 posed in [8], refers to the ratio between the total horizontal stiffness of
Tolmezzo E-W 0.99 4.18 1.08 4.57 the less ductile system and the total calculated horizontal stiffness of
Average 3.89 4.39 the building in the same direction.
Configuration B
Kobe 0.93 3.94 1.15 4.85
qH = (qHD−qLD ) × (1−k ) + qLD k = min(ki ) i = 1,2,…,n (5)
El Centro 0.87 3.66 0.94 3.97
Brienza 0.75 3.16 0.78 3.29 where
Northridge 0.76 3.21 0.65 2.74
Loma Prieta 0.71 3.00 0.73 3.08 qH – is the behaviour factor q of the hybrid system
Kocaeli 0.91 3.82 1.01 4.10 qHD – is the behaviour factor q of the Higher Ductility system (LF in
Tomezzo N-S 0.85 3.59 0.92 5.05
Tolmezzo E-W 0.79 3.33 0.82 4.20
this case)
Average 3.46 3.91 qLD – is the behaviour factor q of the Lower Ductility system (CLT in
this case)
Configuration C
Kobe 0.69 2.92 0.78 3.29 ki – is the ratio between the horizontal stiffness of the Low Ductility
El Centro 0.62 2.60 0.63 2.68 system (CLT in this case) and the total horizontal stiffness of the
Brienza 0.64 2.69 0.68 2.87 building in the reference direction at the ith storey
Northridge 0.62 2.62 0.61 2.57 n – is the number of storeys in the building.
Loma Prieta 0.69 2.91 0.69 2.91
Kocaeli 0.67 2.82 0.69 2.90
Tomezzo N-S 0.68 2.89 0.83 3.51 In order to apply the formulation proposed in Eq. (5), the stiffness of
Tolmezzo E-W 0.66 2.78 0.77 3.27 CLT and LF shear walls have to be evaluated. In the following a detailed
Average 2.78 3.00 discussion on the calculation methods proposed in literature to evaluate
Configuration D the lateral stiffness of CLT and LF walls is given.
Kobe 0.47 2.00 0.69 2.93
El Centro 0.57 2.42 0.50 2.09
Brienza 0.66 2.78 0.60 2.52 6.1. Evaluation of stiffness of Light-Frame and CLT walls
Northridge 0.45 1.91 0.44 1.85
Loma Prieta 0.51 2.15 0.57 2.42 According to Casagrande et al. [30], the horizontal deformation of a
Kocaeli 0.59 2.51 0.60 2.54
LF shear wall can be divided into four main components: (i) nail slip in
Tomezzo N-S 0.63 2.66 0.77 3.27
Tolmezzo E-W 0.64 2.72 0.64 2.69 sheathing-to-framing connection, (ii) wood-based sheathing shear de-
Average 2.39 2.54 formation, (iii) sliding deformation due to slip in the anchor bolts or
angle brackets used for the base connection of the shear wall, and (iv)
rocking deformation due to both hold-down stretching and timber plate
and D, the collapse occurred mainly for hold-down failures in CLT walls squashing perpendicular to grain. Besides these four components, ac-
and only in few cases for angle brackets failure in CLT walls. Since the cording to [31] also the (v) bending deformation of the shear wall
building was designed in all the four configurations at each storey for should be taken into account. Based on literature test results [32] and
the reference seismic shear, the collapse occurred not always in the first considering that, according to capacity design provisions, often all
storey but also in the second and third storey, especially for config- other components are designed with overstrength requirements, com-
urations C and D. ponent (i) is usually predominant.
It must be emphasized however that these results are very sensitive Component (iv) is influenced by the amount of vertical load and
to the near-collapse criteria chosen for this study. Different near-col- therefore it will be activated only when the overturning moment due to
lapse criteria (e.g. a less conservative criterion for the inter-storey drift) the horizontal load is greater than the stabilizing moment due to the
would lead to different evaluation of the q-factors for the different gravity load.
building configurations. For CLT shear walls, Gavric et al. [33] identified again four main
components for the total horizontal deflection: (i) rocking, (ii) sliding,

636
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 8. Deflection components of a Light-Frame shear wall: (i) nail slip, (ii) sheathing shear deformation, (iii) sliding deformation, (iv) rocking due to hold-down
stretching and compression perpendicular to the grain in the base plate, (v) bending deformation related to the axial shortening and elongation of the compression
and tension chords.

(iii) bending deformation of the panel and (iv) shear deformation of the 1 1 1 1 1 1
= + + + +
panel. However, being the CLT wall panels very rigid, studies con- Ktot ,CLT KSH KB KA KH KVJ (8)
ducted so far demonstrated that only the rocking and sliding component
where KSH and KB are the shear and bending contributions of CLT pa-
are significant, while the other two components are generally negli-
nels, respectively equal to:
gible, especially in the case of wall panels without openings.
The total wall stiffness Ktot for LF shear walls can be evaluated ac- GAeff ·κ
K SH =
cording to the following equation: h
1 1 1 1 1 1 3·EJeff
= + + + + KB =
Ktot ,LF KC KP KA KH KB (6) h3
where KC, KP, KA, KH, KB are the stiffness components corresponding to where
the deflection components (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of Fig. 8 respec-
tively. By defining the different contributions, Eq. (6) can be translated G – shear modulus of CLT panel
in the following way (see Fig. 9): Aeff – effective area of the vertical layers, namely the cross-sectional
1 λ·sc h 1 i h2 2·h3 area of the board layers oriented in the vertical direction
= + · + A + 2 + κ – shape reduction factor for shear deformation = 5
Ktot ,LF l·nP ·kc l GP ·nP ·tP l·kA l ·kH 3·E ·A·l 2 (7) 6
EJeff – effective bending stiffness of the panel considering the con-
where the following notation applies: tribution of the layers loaded parallel to the grain.
KA – is the stiffness due to the sliding-restraint connections, which is
h – total height of the shear wall the same as for LF buildings, and KVJ is the stiffness due to the
l – total length of the shear wall vertical step joints between CLT panels, if present, which is given by:
GP – shear modulus of the sheathing panels
kVJ·l2
nP – number of sheathing panels KVJ =
tP – thickness of the sheathing panels n·h2
sc – nail spacing where
kc – nail stiffness
iA – shear-restraint connection spacing n – total number of vertical step joints
kA – shear-restraint connection stiffness kVJ – stiffness of the vertical step joint depending on the layout of
kH – uplift-restraint connection stiffness the joint and on the stiffness of the single fasteners.
1 1
λ = α 2·( η + ξ ) – with:
α=
h
– with b width of the sheathing panel and Usually, for practical applications, the calculation of the horizontal
b
1 α2 5
stiffness of a LF or a CLT building is made assuming the stiffness of the
η= 6
·(1 + 3·α ) – ξ = 12 ·(6 + 2 ·α ) shear walls as proportional to the wall length. However, this is a sim-
E – elastic modulus of the boundary elements (vertical members at plification as the wall stiffness depends on different parameters such as
shear wall boundary) the wall geometry, the connection system and the amount of vertical
A – area of boundary element cross section load. As an example, Fig. 10 shows the variation of Ktot/Kb with respect
to l/b where Ktot is the total stiffness of the shear wall of length l, and Kb
For CLT shear walls, Eq. (6) can be modified in the following way: is the stiffness of a wall of length b, where b is the length of the
sheathing panel for the case of the LF building and of the wall panel for

Fig. 9. Deflection components of a single CLT panel: (a) panel rocking, (b) bending, (c) shear deformation, (d) slip of base connections (modified, after [33]).

637
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 10. Variation of the total stiffness ratio Ktot/Kb with respect to l/b for a LF and a CLT wall. The dashed line refers to the simplified linear stiffness-length
relationship.

the case of a CLT wall. For the LF wall the following parameters were
taken into account: double 1250 × 2950 mm OSB/3 sheathing,
2.8 × 60 ringed nail spaced at 150 mm c/c on sheathing edges, 1 + 1
hold-down WHT 340 with 20 4 × 60 ringed nails (stiffness
kH = 5705 N/mm) and shear-restraint connections made with WHT
Plates with 20 4 × 60 ringed nails (stiffness kA = 5653 N/mm). For the
CLT wall the following parameters were assumed: 2400 × 2950 mm
wall panels, vertical joints made with 6 × 100 self-tapping screws in
two rows spaced at 150 mm c/c connecting two CLT panels with a
28 mm plywood strip placed on the external side, 1 + 1 hold-down
WHT 440 with 30 4 × 60 ringed nails (stiffness kH = 6609 N/mm) and
shear-restraint connections made with WHT Plates with 30 4 × 60
ringed nails (stiffness kA = 8479 N/mm).
As can be observed from Fig. 10, a LF wall with a length of 3 times
the sheathing panel length has 4.3 times the stiffness of a wall with a
length equal to the sheathing panel length. A wall with a length of 6
times the sheathing panel length has 7.6 times the stiffness of a wall
with a length equal to the sheathing panel length, for the same con-
nection layout. For the CLT wall, a wall with a length of 3 times the
length of a single panel has 4.8 times the stiffness of a wall with a length
equal to the length of a single panel. A wall with a length of 6 times the
length of a single panel has 11.2 times the stiffness of a wall with a
length equal to the length of a single panel, for the same connection
layout.
6.2. Parametric study for a 4-storey case study building
Using the previous equations, the evaluation of the lateral stiffness
of the 4-storey hybrid LF/CLT building analysed in §5 in Configuration
C was made, but with a different layout of connections, including this
time also the vertical step joints in the CLT shear walls.
The layout of connections showed in Table 6 for CLT and LF walls
was applied at each storey, considering the same length (1250 mm) for
OSB sheathing panels and CLT panels. The stiffness values for hold-
down connections, angle brackets, nails and screws are taken from
[32,34,35].
According to the layout of connections described in Table 6, the
trend of variation of the stiffness with the length of the wall at each
storey was analysed for different cases, respectively (i) LF walls and (ii)
CLT walls. The results are displayed in Figs. 11 and 12 together with the
trend line equations of the wall stiffness.
6.3. Evaluation of the behaviour factor q for the hybrid system
The evaluation of the behaviour factor q of the hybrid system is
made using the analytical formulation proposed in Eq. (5) which refers
to the total horizontal stiffness of the less ductile system with respect to
the total calculated horizontal stiffness of the building in the same di-
rection. The procedure is the same as that described in § 3, except that
in step 1 the building is designed with the q value derived from Eq. (9),
and in step 8 for each ground motion record the PGAnear-collapse is
compared with the PGAdesign.
By applying the stiffness values derived in §6.2 to Configuration C
with the layout of connections of Table 6, the values of the stiffness
ratio k obtained for each storey are showed in Table 7.
The lowest value of the stiffness ratio k of the less ductile system
with respect to the total calculated horizontal stiffness of the building in
the X direction is 0.773, whereas in Y direction is 0.709 ≈ 0.71. For the
sake of simplicity, the lowest value of 0.71 is applied in both directions.
Considering a reference q value of 4.0 for the LF system in High
Ductility Class and 3.0 for the CLT system in High Ductility Class with
segmented walls according to [2] and [3], the calculated q value for the
hybrid system is:
qH = (4.0−3.0) × (1−0.71) + 3.0 = 3.29 (9)
6.4. Preliminary design
Table 8 shows the results of the preliminary design, carried out with
the same gravity loads and the same design seismic actions of §4 for the
case-study building in Configuration C. The shear forces acting on each
wall are shown, together with the calculated number or spacing of

Table 6
Layout of connections at each storey.
Storey # Hold-down connection Angle bracket connection Sheathing to framing connection Vertical step joints (CLT)
(LF)

1 WHT620 with 30 4 × 60 ringed nails TCF 200 with 30 4 × 60 ringed nails 2.8 × 60 ringed nails [K = 360 N/ 8 × 100 self-tapping screws
[K = 9967 N/mm] [K = 8479 N/mm] @ 400 mm c/c mm] @ 50 mm c/c [K = 840 N/mm] @ 100 mm c/c
2 WHT440 with 30 4 × 60 ringed nails TTF 200 with 30 + 30 4 × 60 ringed nails 2.8 × 60 ringed nails [K = 360 N/ 8 × 100 self-tapping screws
[K = 6609 N/mm] [K = 8212 N/mm] @ 700 mm c/c mm] @ 75 mm c/c [K = 840 N/mm] @ 150 mm c/c
3 WHT440 with 20 4 × 60 ringed nails WVS 90,110 with 11 + 11 4 × 60 ringed nails 2.8 × 60 ringed nails [K = 360 N/ 8 × 100 self-tapping screws
[K = 5705 N/mm] [K = 2090 N/mm] @ 300 mm c/c mm] @ 100 mm c/c [K = 840 N/mm] @ 200 mm c/c
4 WHT340 with 12 4 × 60 ringed nails WVS 90,110 with 11 + 11 4 × 60 ringed nails 2.8 × 60 ringed nails [K = 360 N/ 8 × 100 self-tapping screws
[K = 3423 N/mm] [K = 2090 N/mm] @ 600 mm c/c mm] @ 150 mm c/c [K = 840 N/mm] @ 300 mm c/c

638
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Fig. 11. Trend of the wall stiffness Ktot/Kb vs l/b for Light Frame walls at each storey, where l = wall length, b = sheathing panel length. Blue curve: real curve.
Dashed red line: linear stiffness/wall length relationship. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Fig. 12. Trend of the wall stiffness Ktot/Kb vs l/b for CLT walls at each storey, where l = wall length, b = sheathing panel length. Blue curve: real curve. Dashed red
line: linear stiffness/wall length relationship. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

639
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Table 7
Stiffness values and values of the stiffness ratio k at each storey for the case-study building displayed in Fig. 3.
CASE C - ALL EXTERNAL LF WALLS, ALL INTERNAL CLT WALLS

Wall # Wall Type of Kb Wall Wall # Type of Kb Wall Wall # Type of Kb Wall Wall # Type of Kb Wall
direction wall (LF/ stiffness wall (LF/ stiffness wall (LF/ stiffness wall (LF/ stiffness
CLT) [kN/m] CLT) [kN/m] CLT) [kN/m] CLT) [kN/m]

PT01 X LF 1.03 0.97 P101 LF 0.68 0.59 P201 LF 0.57 0.50 P301 LF 0.41 0.31
PT02 X LF 1.03 0.97 P102 LF 0.68 0.62 P202 LF 0.57 0.53 P302 LF 0.41 0.33
PT03 X LF 1.03 0.77 P103 LF 0.68 0.49 P203 LF 0.57 0.42 P303 LF 0.41 0.26
PT05 X CLT 1.44 4.12 P105 CLT 0.99 2.43 P205 CLT 0.84 1.79 P305 CLT 0.51 0.76
PT07 X LF 1.03 0.77 P107 LF 0.68 0.49 P207 LF 0.57 0.42 P307 LF 0.41 0.26
PT08 X LF 1.03 0.97 P108 LF 0.68 0.62 P208 LF 0.57 0.53 P308 LF 0.41 0.33
PT09 X LF 1.03 0.91 P109 LF 0.68 0.59 P209 LF 0.57 0.50 P309 LF 0.41 0.31
PT10 X CLT 1.44 3.21 P110 CLT 0.99 1.81 P210 CLT 0.84 1.33 P310 CLT 0.51 0.47
PT11 X CLT 1.44 3.21 P111 CLT 0.99 1.81 P211 CLT 0.84 1.33 P311 CLT 0.51 0.47
PT12 X CLT 1.44 1.43 P112 CLT 0.99 0.98 P212 CLT 0.84 0.83 P312 CLT 0.51 0.51
PT13 X CLT 1.44 1.43 P113 CLT 0.99 0.98 P213 CLT 0.84 0.83 P313 CLT 0.51 0.51
PT14 X CLT 1.44 17.03 P114 CLT 0.99 11.14 P214 CLT 0.84 8.31 P314 CLT 0.51 4.78
PT15 X CLT 1.44 8.28 P115 CLT 0.99 5.24 P215 CLT 0.84 3.89 P315 CLT 0.51 2.05
PT16 X CLT 1.44 6.18 P116 CLT 0.99 3.82 P216 CLT 0.84 2.83 P316 CLT 0.51 1.40
PT17 X CLT 1.44 6.18 P117 CLT 0.99 3.82 P217 CLT 0.84 2.83 P317 CLT 0.51 1.40
PT18 X CLT 1.44 8.28 P118 CLT 0.99 5.24 P218 CLT 0.84 3.89 P318 CLT 0.51 2.05
PT19 X LF 1.03 0.85 P119 LF 0.68 0.55 P219 LF 0.57 0.46 P319 LF 0.41 0.29
PT20 X LF 1.03 0.83 P120 LF 0.68 0.53 P220 LF 0.57 0.45 P320 LF 0.41 0.28
PT21 X LF 1.03 0.52 P121 LF 0.68 0.33 P221 LF 0.57 0.28 P321 LF 0.41 0.17
PT22 X LF 1.03 0.96 P122 LF 0.68 0.62 P222 LF 0.57 0.52 P322 LF 0.41 0.32
PT23 X LF 1.03 3.89 P123 LF 0.68 2.52 P223 LF 0.57 1.88 P323 LF 0.41 0.00
PT24 X LF 1.03 0.96 P124 LF 0.68 0.62 P224 LF 0.57 0.52 P324 LF 0.41 0.32
PT25 X LF 1.03 0.52 P125 LF 0.68 0.33 P225 LF 0.57 0.28 P325 LF 0.41 0.17
PT26 X LF 1.03 0.83 P126 LF 0.68 0.53 P226 LF 0.57 0.45 P326 LF 0.41 0.28
PT27 X LF 1.03 0.85 P127 LF 0.68 0.55 P227 LF 0.57 0.46 P327 LF 0.41 0.29
PT28 Y LF 1.03 0.87 P128 LF 0.68 0.56 P228 LF 0.57 0.48 P328 LF 0.41 0.29
PT29 Y LF 1.03 0.84 P129 LF 0.68 0.54 P229 LF 0.57 0.46 P329 LF 0.41 0.28
PT30 Y LF 1.03 5.91 P130 LF 0.68 4.92 P230 LF 0.57 3.97 P330 LF 0.41 0.00
PT31 Y CLT 1.44 0.55 P131 CLT 0.99 0.38 P231 CLT 0.84 0.32 P331 CLT 0.51 0.19
PT32 Y CLT 1.44 7.04 P132 CLT 0.99 4.40 P232 CLT 0.84 3.27 P332 CLT 0.51 1.67
PT33 Y CLT 1.44 8.36 P133 CLT 0.99 5.29 P233 CLT 0.84 3.94 P333 CLT 0.51 2.08
PT34 Y CLT 1.44 3.84 P134 CLT 0.99 2.24 P234 CLT 0.84 1.65 P334 CLT 0.51 0.67
PT35 Y CLT 1.44 13.52 P135 CLT 0.99 8.77 P235 CLT 0.84 6.54 P335 CLT 0.51 3.68
PT36 Y CLT 1.44 1.13 P136 CLT 0.99 0.78 P236 CLT 0.84 0.66 P336 CLT 0.51 0.40
PT37 Y CLT 1.44 8.36 P137 CLT 0.99 5.29 P237 CLT 0.84 3.94 P337 CLT 0.51 2.08
PT38 Y CLT 1.44 0.55 P138 CLT 0.99 0.38 P238 CLT 0.84 0.32 P338 CLT 0.51 0.19
PT39 Y CLT 1.44 7.04 P139 CLT 0.99 4.40 P239 CLT 0.84 3.27 P339 CLT 0.51 1.67
PT40 Y LF 1.03 0.87 P140 LF 0.68 0.56 P240 LF 0.57 0.48 P340 LF 0.41 0.29
PT41 Y LF 1.03 0.84 P141 LF 0.68 0.54 P241 LF 0.57 0.46 P341 LF 0.41 0.28
PT42 Y LF 1.03 5.91 P142 LF 0.68 4.92 P242 LF 0.57 3.97 P342 LF 0.41 0.00

KCLT_X/Ktot_X = 79.25% KCLT_X/Ktot_X = 78.84% KCLT_X/Ktot_X = 77.27% KCLT_X/Ktot_X = 78.68%

KCLT_Y/Ktot_Y = 76.78% KCLT_Y/Ktot_Y = 72.62% KCLT_Y/Ktot_Y = 70.90% KCLT_Y/Ktot_Y = 91.67%

connectors, only for the first storey, according to the wall identification
numbers given in Fig. 3.
As can be seen from the preliminary design results, the ratio of the
shear of CLT walls with respect to the total shear in X and Y direction is
respectively 78.1 and 72.1%, values quite similar to the CLT wall
stiffness ratios given in Table 7.
6.5. Model simplification
Considering that in this case, unlike for the model described in § 5,
also vertical step joints in CLT shear walls were included, a further step
was performed. In order to simplify the schematization of the CLT
walls, each wall composed by more than one panel with vertical step
joint was previously analysed, in a preliminary study not reported in
this paper for sake of brevity, with a 2D model of the wall composed by
rigid straight members simulating the rigid CLT panels and transla-
tional non-linear springs to simulate the vertical screwed step joints.
This model was then transformed into an equivalent macro-element
including the non-linear behaviour of the vertical step joints, according
to the schematization of Fig. 13.
Once the calibration procedure was completed, the entire 3D model
was built and analysed based on the results of the preliminary design
with the same procedure described in Chapter 5.
6.6. Analysis results
For the non-linear dynamic analysis, a time-step of 0.005 s was used
and a 5% stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping was applied in order
to account for the dissipating contribution of non-structural elements
such as partition walls. The results in terms of ultimate Peak Ground
Acceleration PGAu are summarized in Table 9 for X and Y direction.
The PGAU values found are all well above the design acceleration
PGAdesign = 0.237 g, confirming the validity of the formulation pro-
posed in Eq. (5) for the calculation of the behaviour factor of the hybrid
building, and also the validity of the values of the behaviour factor for
Light-Frame and CLT structures in High Ductility Class proposed in [2]
and [3].
7. Conclusions
A numerical study was performed on the seismic design of hybrid
multi-storey wood buildings made of CLT and Light-Frame shear walls
acting at the same level according to the force-based procedure of
Eurocode 8. The study was based on a set of non-linear dynamic (time-

640
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Table 8
Results of the preliminary design for the 1st storey walls.
Preliminary design results storey #1

Wall # Length [m] Wall Sei. Sei. Sei. Wall type Shear No Shear Nail Screw Uplift No Uplift
direction Shear Shear Uplift connection connections spacing s spacing VJ connection connections at
[kN] [kN/m] [kN] type [cm] s [cm] type each end

PT01 1.03 X 7.0 6.81 38.9 LF TCF 200 1 9 N/A WHT 620 1
PT02 1.10 X 7.0 6.41 10.9 LF TCF 200 1 10 N/A WHT 620 1
PT03 1.27 X 8.6 6.82 96.9 LF TCF 200 1 11 N/A WHT 620 2
PT05 2.25 X 22.0 9.80 48.8 CLT TCF 200 2 N/A 55 WHT 620 1
PT07 1.27 X 6.9 24.03 83.7 LF TCF 200 1 14 N/A WHT 620 2
PT08 1.10 X 7.0 6.40 12.9 LF TCF 200 1 10 N/A WHT 620 1
PT09 1.03 X 6.9 6.64 38.0 LF TCF 200 1 9 N/A WHT 620 1
PT10 1.86 X 18.6 9.97 73.7 CLT TCF 200 2 N/A 54 WHT 620 2
PT11 1.86 X 19.3 10.35 44.9 CLT TCF 200 2 N/A 52 WHT 620 1
PT12 1.24 X 8.5 6.82 0.0 CLT TCF 200 1 N/A N/A WHT 620 1
PT13 1.24 X 8.1 6.49 0.0 CLT TCF 200 1 N/A N/A WHT 620 1
PT14 7.65 X 150.0 19.60 40.2 CLT TCF 200 9 N/A 27 WHT 620 1
PT15 3.99 X 69.9 17.53 73.8 CLT TCF 200 4 N/A 31 WHT 620 2
PT16 3.11 X 40.1 12.90 0.0 CLT TCF 200 3 N/A 42 WHT 620 1
PT17 3.11 X 40.1 12.92 0.0 CLT TCF 200 3 N/A 42 WHT 620 1
PT18 3.99 X 70.1 17.58 75.6 CLT TCF 200 4 N/A 31 WHT 620 2
PT19 0.96 X 7.3 7.53 52.2 LF TCF 200 1 7 N/A WHT 620 2
PT20 0.94 X 6.4 6.75 15.5 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 1
PT21 0.59 X 3.6 6.08 45.6 LF TCF 200 1 6 N/A WHT 620 1
PT22 1.09 X 9.0 8.26 66.4 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 2
PT23 3.08 X 29.9 9.70 58.2 LF TCF 200 2 9 N/A WHT 620 2
PT24 1.09 X 8.8 8.04 60.9 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 2
PT25 0.59 X 3.6 6.15 46.3 LF TCF 200 1 6 N/A WHT 620 1
PT26 0.94 X 6.3 6.74 15.6 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 1
PT27 0.96 X 7.1 7.33 50.2 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 1
PT28 0.99 Y 8.6 8.68 71.9 LF TCF 200 1 7 N/A WHT 620 2
PT29 0.95 Y 8.6 9.01 30.1 LF TCF 200 1 6 N/A WHT 620 1
PT30 5.54 Y 72.8 13.14 128.9 LF TCF 200 5 6 N/A WHT 620 3
PT31 0.48 Y 2.5 5.25 26.3 CLT TCF 200 1 N/A N/A WHT 620 1
PT32 3.47 Y 64.6 18.63 138.5 CLT TCF 200 4 N/A 29 WHT 620 3
PT33 4.02 Y 75.6 18.80 104.1 CLT TCF 200 5 N/A 29 WHT 620 3
PT34 2.13 Y 24.8 11.68 86.7 CLT TCF 200 2 N/A 46 WHT 620 2
PT35 6.18 Y 127.5 20.62 0.0 CLT TCF 200 8 N/A 26 WHT 620 1
PT36 0.98 Y 4.8 4.93 51.4 CLT TCF 200 1 N/A N/A WHT 620 2
PT37 4.02 Y 72.3 17.97 95.4 CLT TCF 200 5 N/A 30 WHT 620 2
PT38 0.48 Y 2.3 4.87 26.0 CLT TCF 200 1 N/A N/A WHT 620 1
PT39 3.47 Y 60.5 17.43 130.7 CLT TCF 200 4 N/A 31 WHT 620 3
PT40 0.99 Y 7.4 7.45 58.9 LF TCF 200 1 8 N/A WHT 620 2
PT41 0.95 Y 7.5 7.85 23.7 LF TCF 200 1 7 N/A WHT 620 1
PT42 5.54 Y 63.4 11.43 128.0 LF TCF 200 4 7 N/A WHT 620 3

history) analyses carried out with 8 ground motion records applied
separately in two perpendicular directions on a four-storey case study
building in four different configurations of CLT and Light-frame walls,
namely: one with all Light-Frame shear walls, one with all CLT shear
walls, and two in between. The analyses were performed with a 3D
space frame model implemented in the software package Drain-3DX
and using a hysteretic model for semi-rigid mechanical joints in timber
structures with pinching behaviour recently improved with new fea-
tures such as allowance for stiffness and strength degradation due to
cyclic loading. The results showed that the proposed Eurocode 8 values
for the current behaviour factors q of the two structural systems, i.e.
q = 3 for Light Frame buildings with rigid diaphragms and q = 2 for
CLT buildings are confirmed and that the q value of the hybrid system
could be assumed as somewhere in between the proposed code values

Fig. 13. Simplification procedure for CLT walls with vertical joints.

641
M. Follesa, M. Fragiacomo Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 628–642

Table 9 factor of hybrid building systems. In: Proceedings of 13th World Conference on
Analysis results. Timber Engineering (WCTE). Quebec City, Canada; 2014.
[6] NRC “National Building Code of Canada 2010”. Canadian Commission on Building
X Direction Y Direction and Fire Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario; 2010.
Record Name PGAu [g] PGAu [g] [7] Guo S, He M, Ni C. Seismic analysis of hybrid multi-story light wood frames in
China. In: Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE).
Kobe 0.324 0.339 Quebec City, Canada; 2014.
El Centro 0.305 0.313 [8] Zhou L, Chui YH, Ni C. Seismic performance of mid-rise light wood frame building
Brienza 0.287 0.308 connected to a stiff core. In: Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Timber
Northridge 0.265 0.247 Engineering (WCTE). Quebec City, Canada; 2014.
[9] Ceccotti A, Follesa M, Lauriola MP. Quale fattore di struttura per gli edifici multi-
Loma Prieta 0.335 0.328
piano a struttura di legno con pannelli a strati incrociati? (in Italian). In: XII
Kocaeli 0.302 0.311
Convegno ANIDIS L’ingegneria sismica in Italia. Pisa, Italy; 2007.
Friuli 1 0.302 0.289
[10] Ceccotti A, Sandhaas C. A proposal for a standard procedure to establish the seismic
Friuli 2 0.291 0.315 behaviour factor q of timber buildings. In: Proceedings of 11th World Conference on
Timber Engineering (WCTE). Riva del Garda, Italy; 2010.
[11] Vassallo D, Christovasilis IP, Follesa M, Fragiacomo M. Design of a four-story Cross
for the two reference systems. Laminated Timber Building in Northern Italy. Wood Design Focus. Volume 23;
2013.
Therefore an analytical formulation based on the ratio of the total [12] Computers & Structures Inc. SAP2000—Integrated finite element analysis and de-
horizontal stiffness of the less ductile system with respect to the total sign of structures. Ver. 14. Berkeley, CA: Computers & Structures Inc.; 2000.
calculated horizontal stiffness of the building in the same direction is [13] Tecnisoft s.a.s. “ModeSt – Version 8.12”, Prato, Italy; 2017.
[14] Prakash V, Powell GH. DRAIN-3DX: Base program description and user guide.
proposed and applied for one of the two hybrid configurations in one Report No. UCB/SEMM-94/08. Berkeley: Department of Civil Engineering,
direction. The results confirm the validity of the proposed formulation; University of California; 1994.
however more analyses are needed in order to confirm the validity and [15] Ministero delle Infrastrutture. Decreto del Ministero delle Infrastrutture 14/01/08 -
Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Roma; 2008.
the applicability also for other hybrid building configurations.
[16] Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1–1: General rules and rules for
Finally, it must be emphasized however that the results found in this buildings. EN 1995-1-1. CEN, Brussels, Belgium; 2009.
study are very sensitive to the chosen near-collapse criteria (i.e. the [17] Follesa M, Christovasilis I, Vassallo D, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A. Seismic design of
multi-storey CLT buildings according to Eurocode 8. In: Ingegneria Sismica, Special
attainment of a 2% inter-storey drift or the deformation corresponding
Issue on Timber Structures. n. 04/2013, 2013. p. 27–53.
to 80% of the maximum load), which may be regarded as conservative [18] Ceccotti A, Vignoli A. A pinching hysteresis model for semi-rigid joints. Eur Earthq
at least for LF walls. A different assumption for the near-collapse cri- Eng J 1989;3:3–9.
teria would lead to different evaluation of the q-factors for the different [19] Ceccotti A, Follesa M, Karacabeyli E. 3D seismic analysis of multi-storey wood
frame construction. In: Proceedings of 6th World Conference on Timber
building configurations. Engineering (WCTE). Whistler Resort, Canada; 2000.
However, the analytical formulation proposed seems suitable for the [20] Follesa M, Ni C, Popovski M, Karacabeyli E. Blind prediction of the seismic response
seismic design based on the Eurocode 8 force-based philosophy and of the neeswood capstone building. In: Proceedings of the World Conference on
Timber Engineering. Riva del Garda, Italy; 2010.
therefore for a possible inclusion in the next generation of seismic [21] Folz B, Filiatrault A. Blind predictions of the seismic response of a woodframe
provisions for timber buildings. house: an international benchmark study. Earthq Spectra 2004;20(3):825–51.
[22] Follesa M. Seismic design of timber structures – a proposal for the revision of
Chapter 8 of Eurocode 8. Phd Thesis. Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italy; 2015.
Acknowledgements [23] Gavric I. IVALSA X-Lam Connection Tests Report. Research report. CNR-IVALSA,
San Michele all’Adige (TN), Italy; 2013.
DPC-ReLUIS is gratefully acknowledged for partially funding the [24] Gavric I. IVALSA X-Lam Wall Tests Report. Research report, CNR-IVALSA, San
Michele all’Adige (TN), Italy; 2013.
research activity within the framework of the 2017 ‘Timber structures’
[25] Karacabeyli E., Ceccotti A. Nailed wood-frame shearwalls for seismic loads, test
research project, WP 3 ‘CLT panels: reduction of the seismic vulner- results and design considerations. In: Proceedings of the Structural Engineers World
ability of existing buildings, and update of existing regulations for new Congress (SEWC). San Francisco, USA, 1996. Paper Reference T207-6; 1998.
[26] Ceccotti A, Follesa M, Lauriola MP. Quale fattore di struttura per gli edifici multi-
buildings’.
piano a struttura di legno con pannelli a strati incrociati? Pisa: XII Convegno
ANIDIS L’ingegneria sismica in Italia; 2007. [in Italian].
References [27] FEMA. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695; 2009.
[28] EN 12512: Timber structures – Test methods –Cyclic testing of joints made with
mechanical fasteners. CEN. Brussels, Belgium; 2001.
[1] Eurocode 8 (2004): Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General [29] CNR-IVALSA - “Shaking Table Test of a 3 Storey XLam Building – Final Report”.
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN. (EN 1998-1-1). SOFIE Project Internal Report, S. Michele all’Adige (TN); 2007.
[2] Follesa M, Fragiacomo M, Vassallo D, Piazza M, Tomasi R, Casagrande D, et al. A [30] Casagrande D, Rossi S, Sartori T, Tomasi R. Analytical and numerical analysis of
proposal for a new Background Document of Chapter 8 of Eurocode 8. In: timber framed shear walls. In: World Conference on Timber Engineering 2012,
Proceedings of the international network on timber engineering research meeting WCTE 2012, 5; 2012. p. 497–03.
INTER 2015. Ŝibenik, Croatia. paper 48-102-1 - ISSN: 2199-9740; 2015. [31] Ni C, Karacabeyli E. Deflection of Nailed Shearwalls and Diaphragms. In: WCTE
[3] Follesa M, Fragiacomo M, Casagrande D, Tomasi R, Piazza M, Vassallo D, et al. The World Conferences on Timber Engineering, 8th; 2004. p. 275–78.
new version of Chapter 8 of Eurocode 8. In: Eberhardsteiner J, Winter W, Fadai A, [32] Sartori T, Tomasi R. Experimental investigation on sheathing-to-framing connec-
Pöll M, editors. CD-ROM Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber tions in wood shear walls. Eng Struct 2013;56:2197–205.
Engineering (WCTE 2016), August 22–25, 2016, Vienna, Austria. Austria: Vienna [33] Gavric I, Ceccotti A, Fragiacomo M. Experimental cyclic tests on cross-laminated
University of Technology; 2016, ISBN: 978-3-903039-00-1. timber panels and typical connections. In: Proceedings of the 14th ANIDIS
[4] Van de Lindt JW, Bahmani P, Mochizuki G, Pryor SE, Gershfeld M, Tian J, et al. Conference, Bari (Italy), September 2011; 2011.
Experimental seismic behavior of a full-scale four-story soft-story wood-frame [34] Gavric I. “IVALSA X-Lam Connection Tests Report”. Research report, CNR-IVALSA,
building with retrofits. II: shake table test results. J Struct Eng 2016;E4014004. San Michele all’Adige (TN), Italy; 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001206. [35] Roothoblaas srl. “Wood connectors and timber plates”. Product catalogue; 2015.
[5] Chen M, Chui YH, Doudak G. An approach for estimating seismic force modification

642