Seismic Performance Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber

Shear Wall Systems in the United States

John W. van de Lindt, F.ASCE 1; M. Omar Amini, A.M.ASCE 2; Douglas Rammer, M.ASCE 3;
Philip Line, M.ASCE 4; Shiling Pei, M.ASCE 5; and Marjan Popovski 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Seismic force resisting systems based on cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls have garnered considerable attention for in
mid-rise construction around the world. The purpose of this study was to determine seismic performance factors for CLT shear wall systems in
platform type construction. These factors, namely, the response modification factors, R, overstrength factor, Ωo and deflection amplification
factor, Cd , have been developed in this study for CLT walls and proposed for inclusion in ASCE 7. The study follows the FEMA P695
methodology that incorporates testing, evaluating a design methodology, defining the design space representative of typical construction, and
comprehensive performance evaluation. The testing phase of the project consisted of connector testing and CLT shear wall testing, all with
nonproprietary generic connectors to facilitate building code recognition. The design methodology and archetype development process are
also discussed in this paper. A total of nine index buildings were developed from which 72 archetypes were extracted for this study. The
archetypes were designed based on the design methodology and assessed with nonlinear pushover analysis and incremental dynamic analysis.
Based on the required collapse margin, an R factor of 3 is proposed for CLT shear wall systems with 2∶1 or mixed aspect ratio panels up to 4∶1,
and an R factor of 4 is proposed for CLT shear wall systems made up of only 4∶1 aspect ratio panels. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002718. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction utilized as a lateral force resisting system, and a review of some

Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has now been commonly accepted
as a newly engineered wood product that has the potential to ex-
pand the wood building market (UNECE and FAO 2017). Although
CLT was introduced over two decades ago, it was only in the past
decade that researchers started focusing on utilizing CLT as a lateral
force resisting system, and this resulted in an increase in the
number of studies geared toward investigating CLT system behav-
ior and performance under cyclic and dynamic loading. Most of
these studies originated in Europe (e.g., Dujic et al. 2006; Ceccotti
2008; Hristovski et al. 2012) and more recently in North America
(e.g., Popovski et al. 2010; Pei et al. 2013; Popovski and Gavric
2015) and Japan (e.g., Okabe et al. 2012; Tsuchimoto et al. 2014).
These studies demonstrated that CLT systems can be effectively
1
Harold H. Short Endowed Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil and Envir-
onmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372
(corresponding author). Email: jwv@colostate.edu
2
Postdoctoral Research Associate, USDA Forest Products Laboratory,
One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, WI 53726. Email: mohammad.amini@
usda.gov
3 is provided in Amini et al. (2018). The methodology consists
Research General Engineer, USDA Forest Products Laboratory,
One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, WI 53726. Email: douglas.r.rammer@
usda.gov
4
Director, Structural Engineering, American Wood Council, 222
Catoctin Circle SE, Suite 201, Leesburg, VA 20175. Email: pline@awc.org
5
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-6458-3124. Email: spei@mines.edu
6
Principal Scientist and Quality Manager, Advanced Building Systems
Dept., FPInnovations, 2665 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.
Email: marjan.popovski@fpinnovations.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 26, 2019; approved on
February 25, 2020; published online on June 22, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
of these studies is provided in Pei et al. (2014). With the introduction
of CLT to the US construction market and the current modern urbani-
zation trend (Alig et al. 2004), many believe that it can serve as a very
effective solution for the commercial and mixed-use building mar-
kets in seismic regions. In a study based on a nationwide survey of
architectural firms across the United States regarding the adoption of
CLT, building code compatibility issues, initial cost, and the lack
of CLT manufacturers were identified as the most important barriers
(Mallo and Espinoza 2015).
CLT based seismic force resisting systems (SFRS) are not rec-
ognized in current US design codes and lack recognized seismic
performance factors (SPFs) necessary for seismic design via the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) design procedures (ASCE 2016);
therefore, the use of CLT for seismic force resistance is through
potentially complex and costly alternative methods provisions of
the building code. The purpose of this study is to determine the
SPFs known as the response modification factor, R, overstrength
factor, Ωo , and deflection amplification factor, Cd , for the ELF
procedure through the application of the FEMA P695 (FEMA
2009) methodology. An overview of the FEMA P695 approach
of evaluating a design method for the proposed seismic force
resisting system, conducting a series of tests that range from con-
nector to shear wall system-level testing, developing archetypes
within the design space representative of typical construction,
and evaluating the performance of these archetypes. This process
is summarized in Fig. 1 and the details discussed throughout
this paper.
As an integral part in every step of the FEMA P695 methodol-
ogy, an independent peer-review team of experts are required to
evaluate and debate every step and approach taken by the project
team. The peer-review panel was carefully selected to meet all the
criteria specified in the FEMA P695 methodology.
Results from the study have been proposed for implementation
in ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for

© ASCE 04020172-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. CLT shear wall system evaluation process.

Buildings and Other Structures and Special Design Provisions for
Wind and Seismic (SDPWS). The following sections highlight the
key P695 processes followed in this study to develop the SPFs for
CLT shear walls in platform construction.
Test Program
Tests were conducted to evaluate strength, stiffness, and deformation
characteristics of the CLT platform wall system when subjected to
simulated seismic loading. Test results are used for validating the
design methodology and numerical models. Material testing was not
conducted as part of this study since the CLT shear wall material is
specified to follow standard ANSI/APA PRG 320 (APA 2012), pro-
viding material properties of engineered CLT products.
Both connector and shear wall tests were conducted using a test
protocol specifically developed for light-frame wood shear walls,
connections, and other assembly tests by Krawinkler et al. (2000).
Percent of Reference Displacement
Fig. 2 presents what has become known as the CUREE test pro-
tocol. The displacement controlled cyclic testing protocol consists
of initiation cycles, primary cycles, and trailing cycles. The refer-
ence displacement was obtained from monotonic loading tests. The
reference displacement, Δ, is defined as the deformation where the
resistance drops, for the first time, below 80% of the peak resis-
tance. Connector testing and shear wall testing are briefly presented
as follows; however, more detailed information on the testing phase
is provided in Amini et al. (2018).
Connector Tests
Connector tests were performed on two different types of connec-
tors, namely, angle bracket connectors (used for attachment of the
wall to diaphragms) and inter-panel connectors used for the attach-
ment of adjacent wall panels in a multi-panel shear wall. Both types
of connectors (A3 and E1) were manufactured from 2.74 mm

200

100
% ref

-100

-200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cycle
Fig. 3. A3 type connector with (8) 16d box nails (dimensions in
Fig. 2. CUREE loading protocol. (Data from Krawinkler et al. 2000.) millimeters).

© ASCE 04020172-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. E1 type connector equivalent to A3 type connector (dimensions
in millimeters).
(0.105 in.) thick ASTM A653 (ASTM 2017) Grade 33 sheet metal,
as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
The A3 connector, designed per the National Design Speci-
fication (ANSI and AWC 2015), uses eight 16d box nails
Fig. 5. Test setup configurations: (a) connector shear test; (b) connector uplift test; and (c) inter-panel connector shear test.
Table 1. Connector test matrix
Test type Connector type
Shear A3- (8)16d box (3-1=2 × 0.135 in:, 88.9 × 3.5 mm) nails
in vertical leg and two 5=8 in: (15.88 mm) diameter rods
(ASTM 1554 Grade A36 steel) in horizontal leg
Uplift A3- (8)16d box nails (3-1=2 × 0.135 in:, 88.9 × 3.5 mm)
in vertical leg and two 5=8 in: (15.88 mm) rods (ASTM
1554 Grade A36 steel) in horizontal leg
Shear Inter-panel (8)16d box (3-1=2 in: × 0.135 in:,
88.9 × 3.5 mm) nails on each side connector center line
© ASCE 04020172-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172
(3-1=2 × 0.135 in:; 88.9 × 3.5 mm) in the vertical leg and threaded
rods fabricated from ASTM F1554 (ASTM 2018) Grade A36 steel
in the horizontal leg. The metal brackets were designed to force
localized wood crushing around the nail, nail yielding, and pull-
out of the nails from the CLT panel to ensure predictable ductile
behavior. Two different grades of CLT, E1 and V2, based on
ANSI/APA PRG320 (APA 2012) were used in connector tests.
To capture statistical variability in the tests, one monotonic
and ten cyclic tests are performed for each configuration. Connec-
tor test setups are shown in Fig. 5 and the test matrix provided in
Table 1. Both connector types, A3 and E1, performed as intended,
and ductile nail yielding and withdrawal mechanisms were
observed.
A summary of the connector test results are provided in Table 2,
and detailed results are available in Amini (2018). Values in the
table represent averages of the test results. From the test data,
parameters that define connector backbone were calculated based
on the procedure in FEMA P795 (FEMA 2011) that is similar to
ASTM E2126 (ASTM 2009) except for the definition of Δyield .
FEMA P795 is the complementary methodology to FEMA P695
used to show performance equivalence for alternative structural
components.
CLT Shear Wall Tests
Quasi-static cyclic tests were conducted on a suite of CLT shear
walls to systematically investigate the effects of various design
parameters on the lateral performance that include boundary
CLT Grade Tests
E1 One monotonic and 10 cyclic
V2
E1 One monotonic and 10 nonreversed cyclic
V2
E1 One monotonic and 10 cyclic tests
V2
J. Struct. Eng.
 ductility capacity,
μeff (Δu =ΔY;eff )
conditions of the CLT shear wall imposed by the CLT diaphragm,

Avg. effective
presence of gravity loading, connector type, connector plate thick-

4.13

4.32

9.14

8.39

6.84

7.72
ness, CLT grade, CLT panel aspect ratio, CLT panel thickness, and
presence of inter-panel connector (vertical joint). Shear wall test
specimens were designed following the proposed design method
using equally spaced prescribed shear connectors in accordance
with the design method. The design approach assumes that all over-
Avg. ultimate

Δu [mm (in.)]
derformation

27.7 (1.09)

26.4 (1.04)

25.9 (1.02)

27.4 (1.08)

24.4 (0.96)

22.1 (0.87)
turning is resisted by an overturning anchor (tie rod or holddowns)
(0.8 Fmax )

and CLT panel compression at the wall ends, while the shear is
resisted solely by the angle brackets. This assumption was also
adopted in the initial stages of the SOFIE project (Ceccotti 2008),
and this assumption aligns well with the already established design
assumptions for light-frame wood shear walls. A comparison of
Avg. displacement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ΔFmax [mm (in.)]

to ultimate load

different analytical models with experimental data (Gavric et al.

corresponding

20.8 (0.82)

20.8 (0.82)

16.0 (0.63)

20.3 (0.80)

16.8 (0.66)

14.7 (0.58)
2015) showed this assumption to be conservative. The CLT shear
wall test setup is shown in Fig. 6, and the test matrix is provided
in Table 3.
CLT panels demonstrated rigid behavior with energy dissipation
concentrated in the connectors. Boundary constraints and gravity
loading were both found to have a beneficial effect on wall strength
Fmax [kN (kip)]
ultimate load

and stiffness. The specific gravity also had a significant effect on

15.12 (3.40)

16.86 (3.79)

16.95 (3.81)
14.46 (3.25)

16.50 (3.71)

13.03 (2.93)

wall behavior, while the thickness of the CLT panel was found to be
Avg.

less influential. Higher aspect ratio panels (4∶1) demonstrated lower

stiffness and substantially larger deformation capacity than moder-
ate aspect ratio panels (2∶1). However, based on the test results,
there is likely a lower bound for the aspect ratio (at 2∶1) where it
ΔY;eff [mm (in.)]

ceases to benefit deformation capacity of the wall because of the

effective yield

6.9 (0.27)

6.1 (0.24)

2.8 (0.11)

3.3 (0.13)

3.6 (0.14)

2.8 (0.11)

panel behavior transitions from rocking to sliding. Multi-panel con-

Avg.

figuration comprising high aspect ratio panels connected through

vertical inter-panel connectors demonstrated considerably larger de-
formation capacity. A detailed discussion of the effects of these
parameters is presented in Amini et al. (2018).
The damage for all the configurations was mainly concentrated
[kN/mm (kip/in.)]
initial stiffness KI

in the angle connectors attaching the bottom of the CLT shear wall
4.59 (26.23)

4.71 (26.92)

5.92 (33.78)
2.21 (12.61)

2.77 (15.83)

4.67 (26.64)

to the base CLT panel used to transfer the shear load. Fastener
Avg.

yielding and withdrawal were observed with no signs of fatigue,

and the inter-panel connectors (connectors along the vertical joint)
also showed nail yielding and withdrawal. For the 2∶1 aspect ratio
panels, the damage was due to a combination of sliding and rock-
ing; while in the case of the 4∶1 aspect ratio, panels the damage was
0.061
0.061

0.099
0.053
0.042
0.055
0.044
0.064
0.055
0.067
COV

mainly due to the rocking. Fig. 7 shows typical damage photos of

—

nailed connectors at the base of the wall after experiencing approx-

imately 2.5%h top of wall displacement under cyclic loading. The
connectors and nails have gone through numerous cycles to this
Peak load

15.17
13.74
16.99
16.06
13.97
12.14
16.50
13.79
16.90

16.99
(kN)

point and withdrawal is a fraction of an inch as can be seen in

—

the photos (a) and (b) below.

Load (kip)
excursion

Negative

Negative
Negative

Negative

Negative

Negative

Design Requirements for CLT Special Shear Wall

Positive

Positive
Positive

Positive

Positive

Positive

Seismic Force Resisting System

A key step in the FEMA P695 process is to define a design method
for the new lateral system proposed. The scope of this study con-
Table 2. Connector tests results

grade
CLT

fines the application of the system to platform frame construction

V2

V2

V2

E1
E1

E1

whereby CLT floor panels bear on and are supported by CLT walls
below (i.e., balloon-type construction is outside the scope). The de-
sign method used in this study has been proposed for adoption in
Connector
type

SDPWS. These provisions are intended to be applied in combina-

A3
A3

E1

tion with requirements of the 2015 National Design Specification®

for Wood Construction (NDS®) including Appendix E (ANSI
and AWC 2015), ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Build-
Uplift
Shear

ings and Other Structures (ASCE 2016), and the applicable build-
type
Test

ing code.

© ASCE 04020172-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04020172-5
Fig. 6. CLT shear wall test.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 3. CLT shear wall test matrix
Test Height Length Number of Thickness Number of Connector Gravity Holddown rod
number Grade (m) (m) Plys (mm) connectors type load (kN=m) diameter (mm)
01a,b,c V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 3 A1 9.92 (2)16
02a,b,c V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 3 A1 9.92 (2)16
03 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 9.92 (2)16
04 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 18.68 (2)16
05 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 9.92 (2)16
06a E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 9.92 (2)16
09 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 — (2)16
10 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 4 A3 — (2)16
11 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 2 A3 — (1)16
13 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 2 A3 — (1)16
14 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 — (2)16
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

15 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 2 A3 — (1)16

17 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 4 A3 — (2)16
18 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 2 A3 — (1)16
19 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 5 A3 — (2)19
20 V2 2.44 1.22 7 239 5 A3 — (2)19
21 V2 2.44 0.61 3 99 2 A3 — (2)16
22d V2 2.44 2.44 3 99 4 A3 — (1)16
23 V2 2.44 2 (0.61) 5 169 4 A3 — (2)16
26 V2 2.44 4(0.61) 5 169 8 A3 — (2)16
a
Tests 01, 02, and 06 were performed with the imposed boundary condition. The imposed boundary condition is explained in detail in Amini et al. (2018).
b
Tests 01 and 02 were performed during the exploratory phase of the A-type connector thickness. The A1 connectors were problematic and not used
in future work.
c
The top and bottom CLT panels matched the CLT wall panel grade in all testing, except for Test 01 and 02. The wall panels were of V2 grade while the top and
bottom CLT panels were of E1 grade. Top and bottom CLT panels of E1 and V2 grades were 6.89 in. and 6.65 in. in thickness, respectively.
d
Test 22 was (8 × 8 ft; 2.44 × 2.44 m) 1∶1 aspect ratio wall that is not covered by the design methodology.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Typical damage photos of the connector after 2.5%h top of wall displacement: (a) Wall 04; and (b) Wall 05.

Capacity design principles are employed that ensure the devel-
opment of the expected shear capacity of the prescribed nailed con-
nectors of the CLT shear wall. Detailing requirements promote
yielding of nails and metal connectors at CLT panel edges to enable
combined rocking and sliding behavior of individual wall panels
before the ultimate shear wall strength limit state is reached. The
design method also requires that all other load resisting connections
(not specifically prescribed as part of the designated seismic force
resisting system) to be designed to develop Mode III or Mode IV
yielding and, as applicable, comply with net section tension rup-
ture, row tear-out, and group tear-out in accordance with NDS
Appendix E (ANSI and AWC 2015).
Typical CLT shear wall configurations are shown in Figs. 8
and 9. CLT panels forming either a single panel or multi-panel
shear wall shall not have an aspect ratio, h=bs , greater than 4∶1
nor less than 2∶1, where h = wall panel height and bs = wall panel
length. Individual panels forming the multi-panel shear wall shall
have the same aspect ratio, h=bs . Prescribed nailed connectors are
provided at the bottom of the panel, top of the panel, and vertical
joints of multi-panel shear walls and tie-down anchors to transfer
the overturning induced tension forces and are provided at each
end of each shear wall. In addition to the maximum and minimum
aspect ratio requirements, prescribed connectors, and connector
spacing requirements, the design method also includes other re-
quirements such as those for the overturning devices and compres-
sion zone to ensure the development of full shear capacity in the
multi-panel configurations.
While only key elements of the proposed design method have
been discussed, the details of the design provisions can be found in
Amini (2018). A comparison of the CLT shear wall test results and
design values calculated using the proposed provisions is provided
in Table 4.
Index Buildings and Archetypes
Based on the FEMA P695 process, the performance of a newly
proposed lateral system needs to be evaluated via realistic index

© ASCE 04020172-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Typical single panel configuration.
building floor plans under different design configurations. In this
study, nine main building configurations (i.e., index building mod-
els), consisting of single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings,
and commercial (including mixed-use) mid-rise buildings, and 72
archetypes extracted from these index buildings were developed,
forming a design space for CLT shear walls. The purpose is to
© ASCE 04020172-7
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172
Fig. 9. Typical multi-panel configuration.
verify the performance of a class of building configurations that
can be considered as typical cases and not buildings having unique
and irregular configurations that can be handled on a case-by-case
basis. For each building in the design space, the structural design
for the lateral force resisting system involves the selection and
design of individual shear walls within the building floor plan. Var-
iables considered in developing the index building are provided in
Table 5. Floor plans for some of the index buildings with the ex-
tracted archetypes highlighted in red dashed lines are provided in
Figs. 10 and 11 with the remaining plans and archetypes extraction
presented in Amini (2018). Example extracted archetypes with
their phenomenological model, which will be explained later, are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
The design space was divided into several performance groups
with each one categorized based on variables such as seismic
design category, gravity load, and building height variations. Dif-
ferent wall lengths (wall lines in a building) of 0.75–6.1 m and
6.1–18.3 m were considered, together with other variables includ-
ing the aspect ratio of the panels, gravity loads, seismic design
category, and period domain (Table 6). Since a large number
of walls options were possible for a certain performance group,
tributary area and the available shear wall length were used as
J. Struct. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Summary of CLT isolated shear wall testing results

Strength design Drift design

© ASCE
Fmax (kN) Minimum
Holddown LRFD LRFD Load measured
rod nominal sesign Test/LRFD in test total Theoretical
Test Height Length Number of Thickness Number of Connector Gravity diameter Positive Negative capacity strength design wall deflection deflection Measured/
number Grade (m) (m) Plys (mm) connectors type (kN/m) (mm) (+ve) (−ve) (kN) (kN) strengtha (kN) (mm) (mm) theory
03 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 9.92 (2)16 65.79 65.03 34.69 17.39 3.78 17.38 12.09 16.08 0.75
04 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 18.68 (2)16 69.83 63.25 34.69 17.39 4.02 17.38 12.75 15.05 0.85
05 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 9.92 (2)16 79.62 80.73 34.69 17.39 4.64 17.38 9.14 14.14 0.65
06b E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 9.92 (2)16 86.78 80.15 34.69 17.39 4.99 17.38 13.03 14.14 0.92
09 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 3 A3 — (2)16 67.21 51.69 34.69 17.39 3.86 17.38 22.10 17.21 1.28
10 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 4 A3 — (2)16 67.61 58.36 46.26 23.17 2.92 23.17 20.45 21.33 0.96
11 V2 2.44 1.22 5 169 2 A3 — (1)16 35.72 38.70 23.13 11.61 3.33 11.59 16.00 17.91 0.89
13 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 2 A3 — (1)16 33.79 47.68 23.13 11.61 4.11 11.59 17.30 16.06 1.08
14 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 3 A3 — (2)16 88.87 73.48 34.69 17.39 5.11 17.38 12.93 15.28 0.85
15 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 2 A3 — (1)16 45.19 49.02 23.13 11.61 4.22 11.59 14.83 16.06 0.92
17 E1 2.44 1.22 5 175 4 A3 — (2)16 108.98 97.41 46.26 23.17 4.70 23.17 16.26 17.26 0.94
18 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 2 A3 — (1)16 29.98 32.47 23.13 11.61 2.80 11.59 16.94 18.90 0.90
19 V2 2.44 1.22 3 99 5 A3 — (2)19 79.75 73.08 57.82 28.96 2.75 28.97 19.76 21.62 0.91
20 V2 2.44 1.22 7 239 5 A3 — (2)19 85.00 83.13 57.82 28.96 2.94 28.97 15.57 18.08 0.86
21 V2 2.44 0.61 3 99 2 A3 — (2)16 31.98 26.47 23.13 11.61 2.75 11.59 39.37 46.71 0.84
23 V2 2.44 2 (0.61) 5 169 4 A3 — (2)16 59.34 61.56 46.26 23.17 2.66 23.17 21.39 26.95 0.79
26 V2 2.44 4(0.61) 5 169 8 A3 — (2)16 105.51 108.09 92.52 46.35 2.33 34.76 16.99 18.70 0.91
Average 0.89
a
The ratio was calculated based on the maximum of the positive and negative excursion.
b

04020172-8
Test 06 was performed with the imposed boundary condition. The imposed boundary condition is explained in detail in Amini et al. (2018).

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 5. Range of variables considered for the definition of CLT
archetypes
Variable
Elevation and plan configuration
Building vertical configuration
Interior and exterior non-structural
wall finishes
Seismic design category
Gravity load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Value/Range
• Various shear wall lengths
• Shear wall line of low,
high, and mixed aspect
ratio CLT panels
• 1–6 Stories
• 3.05 m (10 ft) story height
• Not considered
• Dmax and Cmax =Dmin
• ASCE 7 (2016) Table C3-1
Values for R were 3 and 4 with Cd ¼ 3. In total, 9 index buildings
and 72 archetypes were considered in this study. The selected ar-
chetypes were designed to ensure overstrength (provided shear
capacity over shear demand) was minimized. After the design,
the as-designed buildings were assessed for collapse safety via
numerical modeling and analysis.
Numerical Model and Analyses
According to the FEMA P695 methodology, to the extent possible,
the numerical model used for components should simulate all
significant deterioration mechanisms that can lead to collapse,
i.e., degradation in stiffness and strength, and inelastic deformation.

additional parameters to narrow down archetype wall selection. In
the end, selected shear walls were generally the worst-case scenarios
within the index building, having a large tributary area to shear wall
length ratio in most design cases. In some cases, mixed aspect ratio
wall lines were selected to represent a wall line that includes walls
with both high and low aspect ratio panels (e.g., having both cases
shown in Figs. 8 and 9) in a wall line. A couple of example perfor-
mance groups are provided in Table 7, and for a detailed list, the
reader is referred to Amini (2018).
Seismic loads are defined in terms of seismic design category
(SDC) and occupancy category of the structure. Based on the meth-
odology, structures are considered Occupancy Category I or II and
receive an importance factor equal to 1.0. The archetypes were de-
signed for the design earthquake (DE) in SDC Dmax since the high-
est SDC governs system performance. Designs were based on the
ELF procedure explained in Sec 12.8 of ASCE 7 (2016), and the
archetypes were then evaluated via numerical modeling for a set
of predefined ground motions. The design of index buildings was
conducted using initial (trial) values for the response modifica-
tion factor, overstrength factor, and deflection amplification factor.
Based on the test results, CLT shear walls with connectors used as
the primary energy dissipation mechanism exhibit hysteretic behav-
ior similar to light-frame wood shear walls. The phenomenological
CUREE-SAWS hysteretic model developed by Folz and Filiatrault
(2001) as part of the CUREE-Caltech project was used in this study
to characterize the CLT shear wall behavior. The model requires 10
parameters to define the force, stiffness, and their degradation as
part of the hysteretic behavior. The 10-parameter hysteretic model
used as part of this project is calibrated using the test results that
incorporate tension rods for overturning and the prescribed shear
connectors in accordance with the design method. To account for
the difference in panel height between the model (10 ft; 3.05 m) and
the tests (8 ft; 2.44 m) while preserving the aspect ratio, the load-
displacement test data were adjusted by multiplying the force and
displacement data from the tests by 1.25 (¼ 10=8). The fitting was
performed using the curve fitting tool in SAPWood (Pei and van
de Lindt 2007), and the parameters were determined considering
the average of the positive and the negative envelope curves. Ex-
amples of SAWS model fitted to the scaled test data are shown in
Figs. 14–17.
Analyses consisting of nonlinear static and dynamic analysis
were performed on the index archetypes that met all requirements

Fig. 10. Index Building 4 floor plan with highlighted shear wall lines.

© ASCE 04020172-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Index Building 6 floor plan with highlighted shear wall lines.
specified within the methodology and were modeled using the pro-
posed modeling approach. All the archetype designs and the cor-
responding modeling are performed with A3 type connectors. CLT
system modeling has been performed with various levels of com-
plexity by many researchers in the past. While a finite element (FE)
based approach can be used in certain cases, the computational de-
mand for a study such as FEMA P695 typically favors more efficient
models with simplified kinematic assumptions. Static pushover was
performed in OpenSees (version 2.4.6) for each archetype to deter-
mine maximum base shear resistance, V max , and ultimate displace-
ment, δu . These analysis results were used to determine overstrength
factor, Ω, and period based ductility, μT . The former is defined as the
ratio of maximum base shear over design base shear, and the latter is
obtained from the pushover analyses using the following equation. A
sample pushover curve is shown in Fig. 18
δu
μT ¼ ð1Þ
δ y;eff
where δ u = roof displacement corresponding to 80% post peak load
(0.8V max ); and δy;eff = effective yield roof displacement.
Dynamic analysis was performed using the SAPWood software
version 2.0 (Pei and van de Lindt 2007) that was developed as part
of the NEESWood project for analysis of light-frame wood build-
ings. The accuracy and reliability of the software have been vali-
dated through several studies using full-scale system-level test data
(Pei and van de Lindt 2009; van de Lindt et al. 2010). The incre-
mental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002)
© ASCE 04020172-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172
was performed for a set of 22 bi-axial ground motions (44 records)
termed far-field in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009). The ground motion
scaling was performed in accordance with the FEMA P695 meth-
odology where a record set is scaled by a single factor such that the
median response spectrum of the normalized set matches the spec-
tral acceleration of interest at the fundamental period of the build-
ing. According to the FEMA P695 methodology, the damping can
be in the range of 2%–5% of critical damping, and for the purpose
of this study, the conservative lower bound of 2% critical damping
was assumed. This damping was applied based on classic Rayleigh
damping using the mass matrix and the initial stiffness matrix. It is
important to point out that previous studies of SAPWood have
shown appropriate consideration of the energy dissipation associ-
ated with damping.
The results of the IDA were used to generate the fragility curve
that then leads to the determination of median collapse spectral ac-
celeration (ŜCT ) (Ibarra et al. 2002). Based on the CLT shear wall
test results discussed earlier, additional information presented in
detail in Amini et al. (2018), and expert opinions of the project team
and the peer-review panel, nonsimulated collapse criteria based on
an inter-story drift ratio of 4.5% and 5.5% (specified limit state)
were used for cases of low aspect ratio panels and high aspect ratio
panels, respectively. These values were deemed to be conservative
relative to the large drifts observed in the tests and small enough to
limit any significant contributions of second-order effects. Where
low and high aspect ratio are mixed within an archetype wall line,
the inter-story drift ratio of 4.5% is assigned to represent collapse.
For example, if an archetype comprised both high and low aspect
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. 6-story archetype extracted from Index Building 4.

Performance Evaluation

As specified in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009), the collapse margin

ratio, CMR, for each archetype was calculated using the following
equation:
S^ CT i
CMRi ¼ ð2Þ
SMT
where S^ CT = median collapse intensity; and SMT = MCE ground
motion intensity.
CMR was then adjusted to an adjusted collapse margin ratio
(ACMR) using the spectral shape factor (SSF) to account for the
effects of spectral shape.
Fig. 13. 2-story archetype extracted from Index Building 6.
ACMR ¼ CMR × SSF ð3Þ
ratio panels, maximum inter-story drift at any story was compared The SSF was determined based on the SDC for which the
to the limit state of 4.5% to determine if collapse happens. A sam- archetype was designed, code based period, and period based
ple IDA analysis with the corresponding fragility obtained based on ductility obtained from the pushover analysis. ACMR was then
the CLT shear wall collapse criteria is shown in Fig. 19. compared to the acceptable ACMR that is calculated based on

Table 6. Performance group criteria

Grouping criteria
Design load level
Basic configuration Aspect ratio Gravity Seismic Period domain
0.76–6.1 m wall= Low aspect ratio panels/ High/low SDC Dmax =SDC Dmin Short/long
6.1–18.3 m wall High aspect ratio panels/
2.5–20 ft wall= Mixed aspect ratio panels
20–60 ft wall

© ASCE 04020172-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

 Table 7. Example performance groups
Grouping criteria
Design load level
Group Period Archetype
number Basic configuration Aspect ratio Gravity Seismic domain number
PG-1 0.76–6.1 m wall=2.5–20 ft wall Low aspect ratio panels High SDC Dmax Short 1
2
3
PG-2 Long 4
5
6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Test 10 scaled data and hysteretic fit. Fig. 16. Test 23 scaled data and hysteretic fit.

Fig. 15. Test 19 scaled data and hysteretic fit. Fig. 17. Test 26 scaled data and hysteretic fit.

range of structural performance. The quality ratings associated with

the uncertainties corresponding to the record-to-record variability,
design requirements, test data, and modeling. Record-to-record
uncertainty considers the variability in response of the index arche-
types due to the ground motions. Design requirements uncertainty
and test data uncertainty account for completeness and robustness
of the design requirements and the test data, respectively. Modeling
uncertainty is related to the accuracy of the models in capturing
collapse performance and the extent of archetypes to represent the
these for the purpose of this study are shown in Table 8. The quality
ratings were selected considering the test data, design requirements
that are based on established design provisions of NDS, and mod-
eling approach. These ratings were assigned based on a review of
FEMA P695 descriptions of quality ratings and comparison to the
ratings assigned to light-frame wood shear wall example in the
FEMA P695 report. While special aspects of design include the use
of prescribed connectors and special design criteria for overturning

© ASCE 04020172-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

 Roof Displacement (in.)
Table 8. Quality ratings used for evaluation
0 2 4 6 8 10
300
Quality
V max
60 rating
250 Uncertainty value Description
0.8*Vmax 50 Record-to-record 0.40 β RTR ¼ 0.1 þ μT ≤ 0.40
200 (β RTR )

Base Shear (kip)

Base Shear (kN)

40 Design 0.20 Good: Medium in completeness

150 requirements (β DR ) and robustness and high confidence
30 Test data (β TD ) 0.20 Good: Medium in completeness
and robustness and high confidence
100
20 Modeling (β MDL ) 0.20 Good: Medium in representation
y u
of collapse characteristics and high in
50 10 accuracy and robustness of models
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Roof Displacement (mm) also regarded as “good” because it involved both connector level
testing and fully reversed cyclic shear wall testing under different
Fig. 18. Archetype 02 nonlinear static pushover analysis.
boundary conditions for the prescribed connectors permitted by the
design requirements. Tested components that form the CLT shear
wall are also addressed by existing code reference design standards.
5 The method assumes all fragilities and the total system collapse
uncertainty are then given by the following equation:
4.5
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
4 β TOT ¼ β RTR þ β 2DR þ β 2TD þ β MDL 2
ð4Þ
3.5
The effect of uncertainty on the fragility curve is demonstrated
S T (g)

3 in Fig. 19. While the median remains unchanged, additional uncer-

SCT=2.54 tainty flattens the curve, resulting in a higher probability of collapse
2.5 at MCE spectral intensity. Detailed discussion on the consideration
SMT=1.5 of uncertainties on collapse evaluation is provided in Chapter 7 of
2
the FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009) report and Amini (2018).
1.5

1 Response Modification Factor, R

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For a trial R factor to be deemed acceptable, all the individual
(a) Maximum Story Drift (%)
archetypes needed to pass the ACMR20% criteria (FEMA P695 cri-
teria for an individual archetype to pass), and the average of the
1
performance groups exceed the ACMR10% criteria (FEMA P695
criteria for a performance group) for the performance groups.
0.8 As mentioned earlier, acceptable ACMR (ACMR20% , ACMR10% )
criteria were calculated based on total system collapse uncertainties
(Table 7-3 FEMA P695). Results for individual archetypes are
Probability

0.6
presented in Chapter 8 of Amini (2018), and a summary of the cal-
culated ACMR compared with acceptable ACMR for the perfor-
0.4 mance groups are provided in Figs. 20 and 21 for the R ¼ 3 and
R ¼ 4 cases, respectively. All the individual archetypes and perfor-
mance groups designed with R ¼ 3 and R ¼ 4 passed their corre-
0.2
sponding criteria. It is important to note that the R ¼ 4 case was for
archetypes with high aspect ratio panel only configurations. This
0 was due to the better deformation capacity demonstrated by the
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 high aspect ratio panel only configurations during the shear wall
(b) S a (g) testing.

Fig. 19. Archetype 02 nonlinear dynamic analysis: (a) IDA; and

(b) collapse fragility curve with lognormal fit. Overstrength Factor, Ωo
Results for individual archetypes are presented in Chapter 8 of
Amini (2018). For the R ¼ 3 case, for all the archetypes, the over-
to ensure the development of connector shear capacity, a rating of strength factor calculated for the archetypes range from 1.8 to 4.85
“good” is given as opposed to the “superior” used for light-frame with most values centered around 3 and the average overstrength
wood shear walls because the CLT shear wall is a new system. factors for the performance groups range from 2.29 to 3.53. Sim-
Modeling employs the same techniques as used for light-frame ilarly, for the R ¼ 4 case, for archetypes with high aspect ratio
wood except that the nonsimulated collapse drift limits of 4.5% and panel only configurations, the overstrength factor ranged from 2.34
5.5% are imposed based on CLT panel aspect ratios, which is more to 5.25 with most values centered around 3. The average of the
conservative than the larger drifts observed in the tests. Test data are performance groups ranged from 2.02 to 4.03. Based on FEMA

© ASCE 04020172-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

 3.5 3.46 3.42 3.43

Calculated ACMR 3.1

3.04 3
3 Acceptable ACMR
2.81 2.87 2.85 2.87
2.73 2.75 2.74
2.64 2.62 2.59
2.53 2.5
2.5 2.32 2.36
2.15 2.16 2.2
2.13
1.93 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.93 1.93 1.93
2 1.91
ACMR

1.86 1.88 1.9 1.86 1.89 1.89

1.81

1.5

0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP
P

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP
,L

,L
,S

,S

,S

0,

4,

8,

2,

6,

0,

4,

8,

2,

6,
3,

7,

1,

5,

9,

3,

7,

1,

5,
-2

-6
-1

-5

-9

-1

-1

-1

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-4

-4
-1

-1

-2

-2

-2

-3

-3

-4

-4
PG

PG
PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG
PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG

PG
HG LG HG LG HG LG HG LG HG LG HG LG

LR HR MR LR HR MR

0.76m-6.1m (2.5ft-20ft) wall 6.1m-18.3m (20ft-60ft) wall

Fig. 20. Summary of ACMR for performance groups R ¼ 3, ξ ¼ 0.02 (damping ratio), ϕ ¼ 0.50 (resistance factor for in-plane shear), NSC
(nonsimulated collapse) = 4.5% inter-story drift for LR and 5.5% for HR, HG (high gravity), LG (low gravity), LR (low aspect ratio), HR (high
aspect ratio), MR (mixed aspect ratio).

Fig. 21. Summary of ACMR for HR (high aspect ratio) panel performance groups. R ¼ 4, ξ ¼ 0.02 (damping ratio), ϕ ¼ 0.50 (resistance factor for
in-plane shear), NSC (nonsimulated collapse) = 5.5% inter-story drift for HR, HG (high gravity), LG (low gravity).

P695, the system overstrength factor, Ωo , should be larger than the Deflection Amplification Factor, C d
largest value of Ω calculated for the performance groups. Addition- For the R ¼ 3 case, Cd ¼ 3.0. It is important to note that in the case
ally, Ωo is not to exceed 1.5R and should be less than the upper of R ¼ 4, archetypes were designed using Cd ¼ 3 but that Cd ¼ 4
limit of 3.0 that is imposed for practical reasons and for consistency is proposed for purposes of design consistent with FEMA P695
with the largest value of Ωo provided in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7 for recommendation for Cd ¼ R. For the R ¼ 4 system, the use of
the current systems. Since the largest average of the performance Cd ¼ 3 in the archetype design and analysis produced equal or
groups is greater than 3, the upper limit of Ωo ¼ 3.0 is proposed for smaller ACMR’s than would be associated with Cd ¼ 4. ACMR’s
the system for both cases. associated with archetype designs based on Cd ¼ 4 were the same

© ASCE 04020172-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172

 or above those associated with Cd ¼ 3 because of the potential for
archetype designs to require added connectors to increase stiffness
(and strength) to meet seismic drift limits.
Discussion
As mentioned earlier, archetypes are intended to represent the typ-
ical application of the seismic force resisting system, and unique
and irregular configurations can be handled on a case-by-case ba-
sis. The proposed seismic force resisting system shall comply with
applicable ASCE design requirements including limits on irregu-
larity. The archetypes in this study employ stacked walls and are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
intended to rely on the irregularity provisions of ASCE 7 (12.3) to
trigger special requirements for the design for overstrength as well
as limits on the prohibition of certain irregularities in areas of high
seismicity.
A generic connector is used throughout the FEMA P695 process
for CLT shear wall to ensure applicability of the US design codes for
wood and to provide an experimentally-based performance baseline
to allow for proprietary (and other) systems to demonstrate equiva-
lence. These connectors have been evaluated under fully reversed
cyclic testing of shear walls. Additionally, connectors have been
tested as components separately under uplift loading and shear load-
ing. Where alternatives to the prescribed generic connectors are
sought, evaluation could first utilize connector testing to screen for
strength and stiffness performance and then be followed by shear wall
testing to evaluate effects of simultaneous uplift and shear loading
experienced by the connection in a shear wall application. Testing
employed bolts in the horizontal leg of the connectors. Lag screws
are prescribed as an alternative based on calculation to provide equiv-
alent lateral design strength and calculated withdrawal capacity on an
ASD basis not less than the expected strength of the connector.
The lateral drifts representing a nonsimulated collapse criteria
were selected through a combination of calculation and discussion
with the peer panel. The FEMA P695 procedure considers uncertain-
ties associated with data, modeling, ground motions, and the design
procedure by adding a prescribed amount of uncertainly for each,
resulting in an increase in the dispersion of the response fragility.
The remainder of the procedure is intended to occur at the median
values, so it is noted that calculation of the median for the responses
of the archetypes was, in the case of high aspect ratio panels and low/
mixed aspect ratio panels, larger than the collapse drift limits selected.
Thus, there is even some slight conservatism built into the process.
Conclusions
This study provides a summary of a recent FEMA P695 study of a
new design method for CLT shear walls including identification of
the SPFs for use in US building codes. Connector tests demon-
strated the importance of obtaining the desired ductile behavior.
Quasi-static cyclic tests were conducted on a suite of CLT shear
walls where the CLT panels themselves demonstrated the antici-
pated rigid behavior and energy dissipation occurred through the
connectors with the nail yielding as the primary mechanism. The
design method for CLT shear walls used in this study was devel-
oped to be in accordance with the currently available and applicable
codes and standards and augmented with provisions to ensure the
prescribed nominal unit shear capacity of the CLT shear wall is
developed. The archetypes developed as part of the study were de-
signed in accordance with the proposed design methodology, and
nonlinear numerical models were developed based on those arche-
type designs. The phenomenological CUREE model was used to
© ASCE 04020172-15
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172
characterize CLT shear wall hysteretic behavior, and nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis was completed on all the archetypes.
Results of the performance evaluation showed that R ¼ 3 can be
used for CLT shear wall systems made up of panels having a 2∶1
aspect ratio or mixed aspect ratio of 2∶1 up to 4∶1, and that R ¼ 4
can be used for cases of high aspect ratio panels only, i.e., 4∶1 as-
pect ratio. Results from the study have been proposed for recog-
nition in US building codes (such as the International Building
Code, IBC) through specific change proposals to update its refer-
ence standards such as ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads and As-
sociated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures and SDPWS.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study
are available from the corresponding author by request. These in-
clude connector test data and shear wall test data.
Acknowledgments
This study is funded by a joint venture agreement between the Uni-
ted States Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory
(FPL) and Colorado State University–USDA-USFS, 16-JV-
11111133-036. That support is gratefully acknowledged. Struc-
turlam Products LP and Nordic Structures both provided partial
donation of CLT for this project, and their contributions are ap-
preciated. The authors also acknowledge the active participation
of the peer panel, Charlie Kircher (Chair), Kelly Cobeen, and
J. Daniel Dolan. The opinion and views expressed in this paper
are solely those of the authors.
References
Alig, R. J., J. D. Kline, and M. Lichtenstein. 2004. “Urbanization on the US
landscape: Looking ahead in the 21st century.” Landscape Urban
Plann. 69 (2): 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003
.07.004.
Amini, M. O. 2018. “Determination of seismic performance factors for
cross laminated timber shear wall system based on FEMA P695 meth-
odology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Colorado State Univ.
Amini, M. O., J. W. van de Lindt, D. Rammer, S. Pei, P. Line, and M.
Popovski. 2018. “Systematic experimental investigation to support
the development of seismic performance factors for cross laminated
timber shear wall systems.” Eng. Struct. 172 (Oct): 392–404. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.021.
ANSI and AWC (American National Standards Institute and American
Wood Council). 2015. NDS National design specification for wood con-
struction. Leesburg, VA: ANSI and AWC.
APA (The Engineered Wood Association). 2012. Standard for performance-
rated cross laminated timber. ANSI/APA PRG 320. Tacoma, WA: APA.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for building and other structures.
ASCE/SEI 7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASTM. 2009. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for
shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral force resisting sys-
tems for buildings. ASTM E2126. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017. Standard specification for steel sheet, zinc-coated (galvanized)
or zinc-iron alloy-coated (galvannealed) by the hot-dip process. ASTM
A653/A653M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018. Standard specification for anchor bolts, steel, 36, 55, and
105 ksi yield strength. ASTM F1554. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Ceccotti, A. 2008. “New technologies for construction of medium-rise
buildings in seismic regions: The XLAM case.” Struct. Eng. Int. 18 (2):
156–165. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686608784218680.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Dujic, B., S. Aicher, and R. Zarnic. 2006. “Racking behavior of light pre-
fabricated cross-laminated massive timber wall diaphragms subjected to
horizontal actions.” Otto Graf J. 17: 125–142.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Quantification of
building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695. Washington, DC:
FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2011. Quantification of
building system performance and response parameters—Component
equivalency methodology. FEMA P-795. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Folz, B., and A. Filiatrault. 2001. “Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls.”
J. Struct. Eng. 127 (4): 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2001)127:4(433).
Gavric, I., M. Fragiacomo, and A. Ceccotti. 2015. “Cyclic behavior of CLT
wall systems: Experimental tests and analytical prediction models.”
J. Struct. Eng. 141 (11): 04015034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1943-541X.0001246.
Hristovski, V., B. Dujic, M. Stojmanovska, and V. Mircevska. 2012. “Full-
scale shaking-table tests of XLam panel systems and numerical verifi-
cation: Specimen 1.” J. Struct. Eng. 198 (11): 2010–2018. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000754.
Ibarra, L., R. Medina, and H. Krawinkler. 2002. “Collapse assessment
of deteriorating SDOF systems.” In Proc., 12th European Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, London, UK. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Krawinkler H., F. Parisi, L. Ibarra, A. Ayoub, and R. Medina. 2000. Devel-
opment of a testing protocol for wood frame structures. CUREE
Publication No. W-02. Richmond, CA: CUREe.
Mallo, M. F. L., and O. Espinoza. 2015. “Awareness, perceptions and will-
ingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community
in the United States.” J. Cleaner Prod. 94 (May): 198–210. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090.
Okabe, M., M. Yasumura, K. Kobayashi, T. Haramiishi, Y. Nakashima,
and K. Fujita. 2012. “Effect of vertical load under cyclic lateral load
test for evaluating Sugi CLT wall panel.” In Proc., World Conf. on
Timber Engineering, edited by P. Quenneville. Red Hook, NY: Curran
Associates.
Pei, S., and J. W. van de Lindt. 2007. User’s manual for SAPWood for
windows: Seismic analysis package for woodframe structures. Fort
Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
© ASCE 04020172-16
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020172
Pei, S., and J. W. van de Lindt. 2009. “Coupled shear-bending formula-
tion for seismic analysis of stacked shear wall systems” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38 (14): 1631–1647. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.926.
Pei, S., J. W. van de Lindt, and M. Popovski. 2013. “Approximate R-factor
for cross laminated timber walls in multi-story buildings.” J. Archit.
Eng. 19 (4): 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568
.0000117.
Pei, S., J. W. van De Lindt, M. Popovski, J. W. Berman, J. D. Dolan, J.
Ricles, and D. R. Rammer. 2014. “Cross-laminated timber for seismic
regions: Progress and challenges for research and implementation.”
J. Struct. Eng. 142 (4): E2514001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001192.
Popovski, M., and I. Gavric. 2015. “Performance of a 2-story CLT house
subjected to lateral loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (4): E4015006. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001315.
Popovski, M., J. Schneider, and M. Schweinsteiger. 2010. “Lateral load
resistance of cross-laminated wood panels.” In Proc., 11th World Conf.
on Timber Engineering, edited by A. Ceccotti, 20–24. Red Hook, NY:
Curran Associates.
Tsuchimoto, T., N. Kawai, M. Yasumura, T. Miyake, H. Isoda, C. Tsuda,
S. Miura, S. Murakami, and T. Nakagawa. 2014. “Dynamic and static
lateral load tests on full-sized 3-story CLT construction for seismic
design.” In Proc., World Conf. on Timber Engineering, edited by
A. Salenikovich. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
UNECE and FAO (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and
Food and Agriculture Organization). 2017. Forest products annual
market review 2009–2010. Geneva: UNECE and FAO Forestry and
Timber Section.
Vamvatsikos, D., and C. A. Cornell. 2002. “Incremental dynamic analysis.”
J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3): 491–514. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.141.
van de Lindt, J. W., S. Pei, H. Liu, and A. Filiatrault. 2010. “Seismic re-
sponse of a full-scale light-frame wood building: A numerical study.”
J. Struct. Eng. 136 (1): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0000086.
J. Struct. Eng.