You are on page 1of 9

Review of Seismic Performance of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) as a New Archetype per FEMA p695

By Luke deBarathy Advisor: Dr. J.D. Dolan

The following literature review locates and reviews previous works relevant to cross laminated timbers (CLT) performance under seismic loading conditions in preparation for a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) p695 study. FEMA p695 is the American standard procedure that establishes consistent seismic response parameters (R, Cd, o) used in current national building codes. The review fails to uncover any previous or ongoing efforts to complete a FEMA p695 study for a CLT archetype. However, a very pertinent article authored by Ario Ceccotti was discovered that summarizes the results of a full-scale shake table test of a 3 story CLT structure paired with the outcome of a finite element analysis using Eurocode 8 guidelines. This study shows that the seismic performance of the CLT panels is dependent on the connections. Ceccotti also concludes that the CLT archetype is a self-centering construction system and shows advantageous and exceptional seismic performance. In an interview, Dr. J. D. Dolan, who has expertise in finite element analysis modeling and wood materials, stated that the FEMA p695 requirements are more extensive and demanding than those specified in Eurocode 8, and thus CLT buildings of more than a couple stories may need to incorporate damping mechanisms for incorporation in the United States building codes. Nonetheless, the data gleaned from

Ceccottis previous work should prove an invaluable resource with which to validate the results of a FEMA p695 analysis.

Cross laminated timber (CLT) is an engineered wood product fabricated by adhering and compressing wood layers called lamellas in perpendicular grain orientations to form a solid panel. CLT was developed in Austria in the early 1990s. The number of buildings constructed using CLT panels as the main structural system has seen exponential growth in Europe in the last decade, and market share for CLT construction is expected to continue to escalate for decades to come [5]. Professionals from a diverse array of backgrounds and perspectives are enthusiastic and optimistic about CLTs potential as a construction material and building type in North America.

This literature review is the preliminary research for a forthcoming project that will analyze the lateral behavior and seismic performance of a CLT building by engineering a finite element model using SAP2000 software. The goal of the project is to calculate the appropriate response modification factor, R, displacement amplification factor, Cd, and overstrength factor, o, in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) p695 methodology. The objective of this literature review is to locate and critically review previous works relevant to CLTs performance under seismic loading conditions in preparation for the project as well as to find information beneficial to completing a FEMA p695 study.

The primary reason CLT construction in America has lagged that of Europe is because CLT construction is not considered by the International Building Code (IBC) or the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards. Specifically, no

recommendations or specifications are provided regarding CLTs seismic behavior -- the precise issue the impending project proposes to address. Granted, cross laminated timber is not addressed by the Eurocode either, but the vast majority of CLT construction has occurred in low seismic risk zones located in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. In these countries, wind loads control lateral design, and therefore engineers assume the lateral force resisting systems designed for wind loading will be adequate in a seismic event [3]. Neighboring Italy, however, is not a country in a low seismic risk zone, and thus has taken the lead on evaluating the behavior of CLT structures in a seismic event. The SOFIE Project is an Italian funded program tasked with researching this new construction system, and is responsible for the first full-scale seismic testing of a CLT structure [1]. In a report published in February 2008 in Structural Engineering International, Ario Ceccotti, director of the SOFIE Project, summarized the results of a full-scale shake table test of a 3 story CLT structure paired with the outcome of a finite element analysis performed using the time domain program DRAIN-3DX. This report is titled New Technologies for Construction of Medium-Rise Buildings in Seismic Regions: The XLAM Case.

The objective of the SOFIE Project was to calculate the value of the action reduction factor of a CLT building type, specifically the q variable known as the behavior factor for implementation in Eurocode 8 [1]. Both the IBC and Eurocode 8 have adopted the concept of dividing the elastic response spectra by a single action reduction factor (ARF) to arrive at the inelastic design spectra [2]. The ARF is a function of the material properties and connection assembly of a structural system. The ARF reflects the capability of a structure to dissipate energy through inelastic behavior, and is used in design to reduce the forces obtained in a linear analysis in order to account for the non-linear response of the structure [3]. The response modification factor, R, is the analogous ARF in the IBC/ASCE to the behavior factor, q, in Eurocode 8 [2]. For the project, the response modification factor, R, will be

determined following the procedure detailed in FEMA p695. The formal title for FEMA p695 is, The Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. This report provides a standard procedure to establish R, Cd, and o for the linear design methods traditionally used in current national building codes [4]. The primary design performance objective of FEMA p695 is ensuring consistent and rational building system performance, and minimizing the risk of structural collapse under a specified maximum seismic load [4]. The methodology outlined by FEMA p695 is based on the assessment of several representative building designs whose collapse performance is evaluated through a series of non-linear static and dynamic analyses using numerical models that are calibrated to experimental test data. Application of seismic parameters determined on this basis

ensures that the resulting structural system designed according to these provisions has an acceptably low collapse probability [4]. The procedure followed by the SOFIE Project is fundamentally similar to that of FEMA p695 in that it evaluated the performance of the structure, shown in Figure 1, on the basis of escalating peak ground acceleration (PGA) until the structure was determined to reach a state of near collapse. Although, Dr. J. Dan Dolan, who has expertise in finite element analysis modeling and wood materials, has noted that the FEMA p695 PGA requirements are more extensive and demanding than those used in the SOFIE Project [3].

Figure 1: The SOFIE Projects test building on the shake table (left) and the computer model (right) [1]

Shake table tests on the 3-story structure in the laboratories of the National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) in Tsukuba, Japan showed that the CLT structure survived 15 destructive earthquakes without any severe damage [1]. The collapse state definition for the tests was defined to be a failure of one or more hold-down anchors, which was reached only during the last test that simulated the Nocera Umbra quake record with a PGA of 1.2g.

The computer model was used to predict the behavior of the 3-story building during the shake table tests, and showed accurate correlation with the test results. Using the same analytical model, a number of non-linear time-history dynamic analysis were conducted using 8 different earthquake records and an evaluation of the behavior factor q for seismic design according to Eurocode 8 was conducted [1]. The q-factor is calculated as a ratio of the acceleration that caused the near collapse condition (PGAu) and the design acceleration (PGAcode) for the location for which the building was designed. The PGAcode value for Italy is .35g. For 7 of the 8 earthquakes, the q-factor was greater than 3.0, and in two cases even greater than 4.0, with an average of 3.4 [1]. Table 1 lists the behavior factors, q, listed in Eurocode 8 [6], and response modification factors, R, listed in ASCE 7-05 [7], for various building types. Two

observations can be made by comparing the action reduction factors (ARFs) from this table. The first is that a CLT archetype will have a very different seismic behavior than light frame construction with wood sheathed shear walls. The second observation is that no direct relationship between the ARFs can be established between the two codes.

Eurocode "Structural Type" Steel moment resisting frames Steel frame with concentric bracing Steel frame with eccentric bracing Steel inverted pendulum

Behavior Factor "q" per Eurocode 8 4 4 4 2

ASCE 7-05 "Seismic Force-Resisting System" Ordinary steel moment frame Ordinary steel concentrically braced frame Steel eccentrically braced frame Cantilevered column system ordinary steel moment frame

Response Modification Factor "R" per ASCE 705 Table 12.2 3.5 3.25 8 1.25

Reinforced concrete frame system Reinforced concrete wall system Reinforced concrete inverted pendulum frame Precast wall structures Composite concrete walls coupled with steel beams Composite steel plate shear walls Unreinforced masonry Reinforced masonry Nailed wall panels with nailed diaphragms, connected with nails and bolts Cross Laminated Timber Panels per Ceccotti testing

3 3 1.5 1.5 3 3 1.5 2.5

Ordinary reinforced concrete moment frame Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls Cantilevered column system ordinary concrete moment frame Ordinary precast shear walls Composite reinforced concrete shearwalls with steel elements Composite steel plate shear walls Ordinary plain masonry shear walls Ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls Light frame walls sheathed with wood structural panels rated for shear resistance Cross Laminated Timber Panels

3 4 1 3 5 6.5 1.5 2


Table 2: The Eurocode Behavior Factor compared to the ASCE 7-05 Response Modification Factor of various structures.

Ceccotti concludes that a reasonable value for q is 3.0 for the CLT archetype. Furthermore, results from the quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels showed that the connection layout and design has a strong influence on the overall behavior of the wall. Hysteresis loops were found on average to have an equivalent viscous damping of 12%. Furthermore, stiffness of the structure was found to be constant regardless of symmetric configuration of openings. Thus, Ceccotti concludes that behavior of the wall is

controlled by the connections and not the CLT panels [1]

Ceccotti notes that the CLT structure withstood multiple destructive quakes in a row without significant repairs, and that even the quake producing a near-collapse state was not able to permanently deform the building. Thus, Ceccotti concludes that the CLT archetype is a self-centering construction system and shows advantageous and exceptional seismic performance [2]. Dolan is more skeptical about the CLTs overall seismic performance. His

concern is that the accelerations at upper levels of a multi-story CLT structure will be unacceptably high for incorporation in ASCE Standards [3]. However, Dolan remains optimistic about the possibility of using CLT as the main lateral force resisting system for multi-story buildings given that connections between the panels most influence the seismic performance of the archetype. Dolan predicts that CLT buildings of more than a couple stories will need to incorporate damping mechanisms at the hold-downs between the shear wall and the floor diaphragm below. Damping dissipates energy thereby decreasing the acceleration the structure experiences in an earthquake and lends ductility thereby increasing the response modification coefficient, R [3]. The data gleaned from the SOFIE Projects seismic analysis research should prove invaluable as a template and resource for the forthcoming FEMA p695 study for a CLT archetype. Because Ceccottis computer model was tested with a full-scale shake table test and verified to be accurate, one can conclude that further modeling of CLT lateral force resisting systems can be justified without requiring additional costly shake table testing to verify the accuracy of the models data. Duplicating the layout and configuration of the structure from Ceccottis study will greatly simplify and expedite the process of computing the appropriate R value for a CLT archetype. Most importantly,

however, using the same layout is logical because the results obtained from Ceccottis study can then be used to validate the projects results.

[1] Ceccotti, Ario. (2008). New Technologies for Construction of Medium-Rise Buildings in Seismic Regions: The XLAM Case. Structural Engineering International, 156-165. [2] Dogangun, Adam & Ramazan Livaoglu (2006). A Comparative Study of the Design Spectra Defined by Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC, and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C Sample Buildings. Journal of Seismology, Volume 10, Number 3, 335-351, DOI

10.1007/s10950-006-9020-4 [3] Dolan, J.D. (2011, February 15). Professor of Civil Engineering, Washington State University. Interview [4] Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors FEMA p695. [5] Schickhofer, Gerhard. (2011, February). CLT European Experiences [PowerPoint slides]. Institute for Timber Engineering and Wood Technology, Graz University of Technology. Presented at: Cross Laminated Timber Symposium held in Vancouver, BC on February 8, 2011 [6] MSZ EN1998:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, CEN, 2005. [7] ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005.