Performance of a 2-Story CLT House Subjected

to Lateral Loads
Marjan Popovski 1 and Igor Gavric 2

Abstract: A 2-story full-scale model of a cross-laminated timber (CLT) house was tested under quasi-static monotonic and cyclic loading.
The primary objectives were to investigate 3D system performance of a CLT structure subjected to lateral loads in terms of lateral strength and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deformability capacity, global behavior of the structure, frequency response of the structure before and after each test, and performance of
anchoring connectors (hold-downs, brackets) and connections between CLT panels. The house was 6.0 × 4.8 m in plan with a height of
4.8 m. A total of five (one push-over and four cyclic) quasi-static tests were performed, one direction at a time. Parameters, such as the
direction of loading, number of hold-downs, and number of screws in perpendicular wall-to-wall connections, were varied in the tests. The
CLT structure performed according to the design objectives, with the ultimate resistance being almost identical in both directions. Failure
mechanisms, i.e., shear failure of nails in the brackets in the first story as a result of sliding and rocking of the CLT wall panels, were similar in
all tests. Even after the maximum force was reached, no global instabilities of the house were detected. Torsion effects did not compromise the
integrity, stability, or the lateral resistance of the building. The outcomes of the full-scale CLT house tests will be used for further analytical
and numerical analyses to help the implementation of CLT as a structural system in the North American building codes and material
standards. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001315. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cross-laminated timber; Full-scale tests; Cyclic tests; Seismic performance; Wood structures.

Introduction
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative wood product and a
structural system that was first developed approximately 20 years
ago in Austria and Germany and is gaining popularity in residential
and nonresidential applications. This product that uses cross-
laminated solid timber boards for prefabricated wall and floor
panels offers many advantages. The cross-lamination process itself
provides improved dimensional stability to the product. Openings
for windows and doors are being precut using computer numerical
controlled (CNC) machines. Once delivered on the construction
site, CLT panels are rapidly erected and assembled using ordinary
tools and fasteners and non-highly-skilled manpower. The advan-
tages of CLT technology, such as light weight and rapidity of con-
struction along with its sustainable and environmental friendly
nature, make it an excellent alternative to reinforced concrete and
steel for multistory low and medium rise buildings. In earthquake
prone areas, seismic resistance of this construction system must be
demonstrated. Currently, no relevant seismic regulations for CLT
structures exist worldwide; therefore, extensive research on 3D
behavior of CLT structures is being performed by research groups
around the world.
In 2006, researchers from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia,
performed an experimental research program on 3D structural
behavior of two single-story box CLT models under dynamic
1
Principal Scientist, FPInnovations, Advanced Building Systems,
2665 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4. E-mail: marjan
.popovski@fpinnovations.ca
2
Visiting Scientist, FPInnovations, Advanced Building Systems, 2665
East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 (corresponding author).
E-mail: gavric.igor@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 31, 2014; approved on
February 26, 2015; published online on May 28, 2015. Discussion period
open until October 28, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/E4015006(12)/$25.00.
conditions. The research included shaking table tests at the Institute
of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology in Skopje,
Macedonia (Dujic et al. 2006). Several earthquake records were
applied to the model’s structure with the maximum ground accel-
eration of 0.6g (Petrovac, Montenegro earthquake record). Both
test specimens behaved according to expectations, and no visible
damage was registered. Tests showed that the seismic energy was
dissipated through the panel to the foundation anchorage system
and through the vertical screwed connection between two wall
units.
The most comprehensive study to quantify the seismic behavior
of 3D CLT structures so far was the part of the Sistema Costruttivo
Fiemme (SOFIE) project in Italy. This project was undertaken by
the Trees and Timber Institute of the National Research Council of
Italy (CNR-IVALSA) in collaboration with the National Institute
for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention in Japan (NIED),
Shizuoka University, and the Building Research Institute (BRI)
in Japan. The testing program included pseudodynamic tests on
a 1-story 3D specimen in three different layouts (Lauriola and
Sandhaas 2006), shake table tests on a 10-m high, 3-story building
(Ceccotti and Follesa 2006; Ceccotti 2008), and a series of full-
scale shaking table tests on a 7-story CLT building at the E-Defense
facility in Miki, Japan (Ceccotti et al. 2013).
Results from the pseudodynamic tests on 3D single-story spec-
imens showed that the construction system is very stiff, reaching a
maximum stiffness value of 47 kN=mm, while still having ductile
behavior of connections (Lauriola and Sandhaas 2006). The initial
stiffness of the 3D specimen with asymmetric configuration (larger
opening on one side) was similar to that of the symmetric configu-
ration (same openings on both sides), suggesting that the larger
opening did not significantly affect the building stiffness, and the
wall behavior was mostly affected by the connections for lower
levels of lateral force. Shaking table tests on the 3-story house con-
ducted in the laboratories of the NIED in Tsukuba, Japan, showed
that the CLT structure survived 15 destructive earthquakes without
any severe damage (Ceccotti and Follesa 2006; Ceccotti 2008). The

© ASCE E4015006-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 7-story building tested in Miki, Japan, had a floor plan of 13.5 ×
7.5 m and a total height of 23.5 m. The building was subjected to
several consecutive 3D earthquake motions, including the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 (Magnitude = 7.2), with 100%
intensity (peak ground acceleration of 0.6g in the x-direction, 0.82g
in the y-direction, and 0.34g in the vertical direction). The structure
withstood all tests without any significant damage. The first story
drift was 38 mm (1.3%) in the y-direction and 29 mm (1%) in the
x-direction, with a total deflection at the top of the building of 175
and 287 mm in both directions, respectively (Ceccotti et al. 2013).
Recently, a 3-story CLT building was tested on the shaking table
at the National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC), Portugal,
within the Seismic Performance of Multistory Timber Buildings
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
quasi-static monotonic and cyclic lateral loads in both directions,
one direction at a time. Lateral loads were applied on both stories of
the house. The primary objectives of the tests were to investigate
(1) the load-deformation response of a 3D CLT structure subjected
to lateral loads and the story drifts that CLT as a system can sustain
without significant structural failure; (2) global response of the
structure, focusing on the performance of CLT slabs subjected
to in-plane loads, performance of parallel and perpendicular walls,
and potential torsional response of the structure as a result of differ-
ent sizes of wall openings; (3) frequency response of the structure
before and after each test to detect levels of damages of the struc-
ture; and (4) failure mechanisms and performance of connections
between CLT panels and anchoring connections.

(SERIES) project conducted by researchers from Graz University

of Technology and LNEC (Costa et al. 2013). The goal of the tests
was to assess the seismic performance of the building, panel ele-
ments, and steel connectors, defined in terms of relative displace-
ments and hold-down forces. A total of 32 seismic tests were
performed using the 1979 Montenegro earthquake and 2011
Tohoku earthquake records with a maximum ground acceleration
of 0.5g. Overall, only minor damages were detected on a visual
inspection after the tests. Only a slight decrease in the natural fre-
quency of the building after the tests was measured, confirming no
significant damage of the specimen.
Description of the CLT House
The house was 6.0 m long (E-W direction) and 4.8 m wide (N-S
direction). The height of the house was chosen to accommodate the
height limitations of the laboratory, so the story height was 2.34 m,
and the total height was 4.8 m. The house was built on a steel-beam
grid that was bolted down to a strong floor (Fig. 1).

Research Objectives

FPInnovations, the Canadian Forest Research Institute, has under-

taken a multidisciplinary research project on determining the prop-
erties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and its early adoption in
construction. One of the objectives of the project was to quantify
the seismic performance of CLT wall assemblies and structures
with CLT panels (Popovski et al. 2011). A series of quasi-static
monotonic and cyclic tests on connections and CLT wall panels
were conducted (Popovski et al. 2010). Tested configurations in-
cluded: single panel walls with three different aspect ratios, multi-
panel walls with step-joints and different types of screws to connect
them, as well as 2-story wall assemblies. CLT walls were connected
to the foundation/slab below using off-the-shelf steel brackets with
annular ring nails, spiral nails, and screws; combination of steel
brackets and hold-downs; diagonally placed long screws; and cus-
tom made brackets with timber rivets. Results showed that CLT
walls have adequate seismic performance when nails or screws
are used in the brackets (Popovski and Karacabeyli 2011). The
use of hold-downs with nails on each end of the wall improved
its seismic performance. The use of diagonally placed long screws
to connect the CLT walls to the floor below resulted in less ductile
wall behavior owing to the sudden pullout of the screws. Results
also showed that step-joints in longer walls can be an effective
solution not only to reduce the wall stiffness and thus reduce
the seismic input load, but also to improve the wall deformation
capabilities (Popovski and Karacabeyli 2012). Analytical models
of CLT walls were developed based on the results from the wall
tests. These models were then incorporated in analytical models
of midrise CLT buildings, and a series of nonlinear dynamic analy-
ses were conducted (Pei et al. 2012, 2013a, b). Results from these
analyses were used to propose appropriate values for R-factors for
CLT structures for the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC)
(National Research Council of Canada 2010) and preliminary
R-factors for ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010) in the United States.
The work presented in this paper is a continuation of the effort to
Fig. 1. CLT house before loading: (a) in the E-W direction; (b) in the
quantify the overall performance of CLT structures under lateral
N-S direction
loads. A 2-story full-scale model of a CLT house was tested under

© ASCE E4015006-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Plan view with placement of brackets and hold-downs (dimensions in meters): (a) first story; (b) second story

At the time of ordering, there were no Canadian CLT producers,
so the panels used for construction of the house were produced
by KLH Massivholz GmbH in Austria from European spruce (Pi-
cea abies), with non-edge-glued boards with a manufacturer den-
sity value of 400 kg=m3 . The house was built in a platform style,
with the second-story walls placed on the top of the first-story floor
slab. All wall, floor, and roof panels were three-ply CLT with a
thickness of 94 mm. In practice, the thickness of the floor panels
would probably be 120 mm to satisfy the floor vibration demands.
The lower thickness of floor panels was chosen considering the space
limitations related to container shipment and was not expected to
have significant influence on the house performance. The CLT wall
panels and openings in the first story were chosen so that the house
was symmetrical in the longitudinal (E-W) direction and asymmet-
rical in the transversal (N-S) direction (Figs. 2 and 3).
On the east side of the first story, there was a door and a window
opening (0.9 × 1.85 m door, and 1.2 × 1.0 m window) in a single
CLT panel. On the west side, the wall panel had one large patio
door opening (2.2 × 1.85 m). On the second story, both east and
west walls consisted of a single 4.8-m-long panel with two 0.9 ×
0.9 m window openings. The walls on the north and south sides
consisted of three shorter wall segments connected with 45-mm-
wide step joints (5 × 90 mm SFS intec screws spaced at 300 mm).
Two window openings (0.8 × 0.9 m) were present in the north and
south wall lines in both stories (Fig. 3). In addition to peripheral
walls, there were also two 1.6-m-long semipartition walls in the
N-S direction on both stories (Fig. 2). The walls perpendicular
to one another were connected with 8 × 200 mm self-tapping
screws spaced at 100 mm at a 90° angle, parallel to the end grain
with 120 mm end distance and 47 mm edge distance. Both slabs
(first story and the roof) were also connected to the walls under-
neath using 8 × 200 mm screws spaced at 100 mm. Each horizontal
slab consisted of three individual 2-m-wide CLT panels spanned
in the N-S direction connected to one another with a step joint
(60-mm step width) and 10 × 80 mm screws spaced at 100 mm,
driven to the CLT panels at a 90° angle.
Wall panels were connected to the steel foundation using
commercial off-the-shelf BMF-Winkelverbinder 90 × 48 × 3 ×
116 mm brackets and Simpson Strong Tie HTT4 hold-downs.
Brackets were anchored to the steel foundation with two
(d ¼ 12 mm) bolts; whereas in the second story, they were fastened
to the CLT slab using three 10 × 80 mm screws. Spiral nails
(3.9 × 89 mm) were used to connect the brackets and hold-downs
to the CLT wall panels. Two hold-downs (one on each wall) were
placed at each of the four corners of the house at each level and at
the partition walls. Hold-down continuity was provided along the
load path with hold-downs placed on both sides of the first-story
slab connected with a d ¼ 16 mm through bolt. The types of con-
nections used in the CLT house and the number of fasteners and
their spacing are presented in Table 1.
The CLT house was designed in a way that the energy dissipa-
tion would occur in the brackets, hold-downs, and in parallel wall-
to-wall step joints; whereas in the other connections (floor-to-wall,
floor-to-floor, and perpendicular wall-to-wall connections), no
damages were desired. The number of nails in the brackets was
calculated according to the shear force seismic demand in each
story. The seismic demand for the house design was calculated us-
ing the equivalent static procedure of NBCC (National Research
Council of Canada 2010) for a location such as Vancouver, British
Columbia, with assumed force modification factors of Rd ¼ 2.0

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Elevations of CLT house (dimensions in meters): (a) west elevation; (b) east elevation; (c) north and south elevations

© ASCE E4015006-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Types of Connections Used in the CLT House and the Number of Fasteners and Their Spacing
Connection type
Wall anchoring (first story)
Wall anchoring (second story)
Parallel wall-to-wall
Perpendicular wall-to-wall
Floor-to-wall
Floor-to-floor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Connection description
E-W: 14 × BMF 90 × 48 × 3 × 116 mm brackets with six spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 2 × bolt ðd ¼ 12 mmÞ;
four (6)a HTT4 hold-downs with six spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 1 × bolt ðd ¼ 16 mmÞ
N-S: 12 × BMF 90 × 48 × 3 × 116 mm brackets with seven spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 2 × bolt ðd ¼ 12 mmÞ;
five HTT4 hold-downs with seven spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 1 × bolt ðd ¼ 16 mmÞ
E-W: 14 × BMF 90 × 48 × 3 × 116 mm brackets with four spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 3 × 10 × 80 mm SFS
screw; four (6a or 7) HTT4 hold-downs with four spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 1 × through bolt ðd ¼ 16 mmÞ
N-S: 12 × BMF 90 × 48 × 3 × 116 mm brackets with five spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 2 × bolt ðd ¼ 12 mmÞ;
five HTT4 hold-downs with five spiral nails 3.9 × 89 mm þ 1 × through bolt ðd ¼ 16 mmÞ
5 × 90 mm SFS screws spaced at 300 mm
8 × 200 mm SFS screws spaced at 100 (300b) mm
8 × 200 mm SFS screws spaced at 100 mm
10 × 80 mm SFS screws spaced at 100 mm

a
In Tests 3–5.
b
In Test 5.

and Ro ¼ 1.5 (Pei et al. 2013a, b). To simulate additional dead
loads and 25% of the snow loads according to NBCC specifica-
tions, additional distributed mass (13.6 kN of steel plates which
equals 0.47 kN=m2 of distributed surface load) was placed on both
slabs. The calculated design base shear resistance in each direction
was 105.8 kN. The shear loads were assumed to be taken by the
brackets only. Shear resistance of one bracket was calculated as a
sum of shear resistances of the nails in the bracket. At the bottom of
the first story, six nails per hold-down and bracket were used in the
E-W direction and seven nails in the N-S direction. At the second
story, that number was four and five nails in each direction, respec-
tively. The brackets and hold-downs were designed in a way that
the plasticization would occur in the nails, while no brittle failures
such as failure of steel plate would occur. Global overturning re-
sistance of the building was ensured by placing hold-downs in the
corners of the building with a sufficient number of nails. For each
test, a different nail pattern was used in each of the hold-downs and
the brackets so that the nails could be placed in nondamaged wood
with adequate spacing. After a couple of tests when all nail patterns
in the brackets and the hold-downs were used, the connectors were
then slightly moved for the remaining tests. Locations of brackets
and hold-downs at the bottom of the first story for Tests 1 and 2 are
shown in Fig. 2. The screwed connections, where no plasticization
was desired, were designed to have a considerably higher resistance
than the level of expected forces that would occur in these connec-
tions during the tests. The rules for spacing between screws in CLT
joints were also considered (Uibel and Blaß 2006, 2007). In Test 5,
64% fewer screws were used in perpendicular wall-to-wall connec-
tions compared with the previous tests to allow for some energy
dissipation.The average moisture content of the CLT panels at
the time of construction was 9%. The testing was conducted in en-
closed laboratory conditions over a period of 4 months, at a mean
temperature of 20°C and relative humidity of 50%.
Instrumentation
The CLT house was subjected to lateral loading using two hy-
draulic actuators (one on each story) that were attached on one side
to a steel reaction frame and on the other side to the CLT house. For
the tests in the E-W loading direction, the actuators were positioned
on the east side of the building [Fig. 1(a)]; and for the tests in the
N-S loading direction, the position of the actuators was at the
south side of the building [Fig. 1(b)]. Two hollow section steel beams
were bolted on top of the CLT slabs in the first story and the roof
level and were used as spreader bars for lateral load application.
In total, 78 measuring devices (channels) were installed inside
and outside of the building for Tests 1–3, whereas 83 channels were
used in Tests 4 and 5. The following values were measured during
the tests: load and stroke from the actuators; horizontal displace-
ment of the floor slab and the roof slab; in-plane deformation of
diaphragms; house sliding against the steel foundation (first story)
and sliding against the floor slab (second story); out-of-plane dis-
placement of the house to detect any torsion; uplifts of wall panels
in various locations; relative slip between CLT segments (panels) in
multipanel walls; shear deformations of selected wall segments;
and height change of the actuator pins with respect to the ground
(Fig. 4).
Testing Program
During the test program, a total of five push-over and cyclic tests
were performed on the CLT house. One push-over and two cyclic
tests (Tests 1–3) were conducted in the longer symmetrical direction
(E-W), whereas two cyclic tests (Tests 4–5) were performed in the
shorter asymmetrical direction (N-S). Before and after each test, ac-
celerometers were mounted at the center of the roof panels to first
measure the natural frequency of the house in both directions with
a hammer hit. After each test, all nails were removed from the brack-
ets and the hold-downs and were replaced according to the prede-
fined nailing schedules (cases). When all nailing cases in the brackets
and hold-downs were used, they were repositioned for one length of
the connector. This was not expected to have significant influence on
the house behavior, thus allowing for comparison between the tests.
In all tests, the upper actuator was displacement controlled,
whereas the lower actuator was force controlled. At each step of
testing, applying a stroke at the second building level generated
a force, of which half was induced at the first level. In this way,
inverted triangular distribution of loading according to the equiv-
alent static procedure in NBCC (National Research Council of
Canada 2010) was ensured.
Test 1 was conducted under monotonic (ramp) load with a dis-
placement rate of the upper actuator of 0.085 mm=s. Maximum
input displacement of the upper actuator was 71.8 mm, which
equals 1.5% of total building height, H (1.5%H). At the maximum
input displacement level, the building still did not reach its maxi-
mum horizontal load resistance. All other tests (Tests 2–5) were
tested using ASTM E 2126 Test Method B [ISO 16670 (ISO
2003)] cyclic loading protocol (ASTM 2009), as shown in Fig. 5.
Theoretical ultimate displacement for the protocol, vu (100% top
horizontal deflection level) was defined as 2.5% of the building
height (120 mm). The displacement rate in all cyclic tests was

© ASCE E4015006-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Instrumentation for measuring: (a) uplifts in the corners of the wall panels; (b) relative vertical slip between adjacent parallel wall panels;
(c) relative slip between wall and floor panels; (d) relative slip between perpendicular walls

2.54 mm=s. Test 2 was tested until the displacement at the top of
the building reached 1.25% of total building height (60 mm). Tests
3, 4, and 5 were tested until failure. Failure condition was assumed
when any of the following were reached: (1) uplift in the brackets/
hold-downs reached 25 mm; (2) the load dropped to 80% level after
the peak; and (3) displacement at the top reached 192 mm (4%H).
The CLT house test schedule is presented in Table 2.
Tests 1 and 2 had an equal number of hold-downs, brackets, and
screws connecting the CLT panels, including their positions, so that
differences in the CLT house behavior under monotonic and
cycling can be studied. Before Test 3, positions of hold-downs
and brackets were changed for the width of one connector to place
the fasteners in virgin wood locations. For the same reason, screws
in the vertical step joints between adjacent wall panels were re-
placed, but the spacing between the screws and number of screws
remained the same. To investigate the effects of additional uplift
stiffening of the house in the E-W direction, two additional
hold-downs were placed at the panel edges near the external open-
ings (one hold-down at each side) in the first story. In the second
story, two additional hold-downs were placed along the length of

© ASCE E4015006-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 150
House Test 3
Table 3. Maximum and Ultimate Resistance Values, Story Drifts at
Loading protocol Ultimate Displacement Levels, Ductility, and Dissipated Energy
100
Wall property Test 1a Test 2a Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
Fmax (kN) 383.2 368.0 365.2 356.2 356.8
Displacement [mm]

50
Δmax (mm) 60.0 60.0 65.8 71.4 71.7
Fu (kN) — — 292.2 285.0 285.5
0
Δu;tot (mm) — — 73.7 86.2 109.6
Drift at Δu (%) 1.25 1.25 1.54 1.80 2.29
-50 First-story drift (%) 1.34 1.39 1.83 2.25 3.15
Second-story drift (%) 1.16 1.11 1.25 1.34 1.45
-100 Ductility — — 2.0 3.1 2.7
Ed (kJ) — 68.59 147.9 128.3 183.7
a
-150 Values obtained at 1.25% H displacement level (60.0 mm).
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Time [s]

Fig. 5. Cyclic loading protocol of Test 3 according to ASTM E 2126
(ASTM 2009) Test Method B cyclic displacement schedule
Table 2. CLT House Test Schedule
Maximum top
horizontal
Test Test
displacement
name Test type direction (% total H)
1 Monotonic E-W 1.50
2 Cyclic E-W 1.25
3 Cyclic E-W 1.75
4 Cyclic N-S 1.75
5 Cyclic N-S 2.25
the east wall, and three additional hold-downs were placed along
the length of the west wall.
To compare cyclic response of the building in the N-S and E-W
directions, Tests 4 and 5 had the same number of hold-downs and
brackets as Test 3. Some connectors had to be repositioned for the
width of one connector on the left or right to place connections in
virgin wood locations. For same reason, screws in vertical step
joints between wall panels were replaced before Test 4. Before Test
5, both the screws in vertical step joints and the screws between
perpendicular walls were replaced. To study the effect of a lower
number of screws connecting the perpendicular walls (influence of
perpendicular wall stiffness), the number of screws was reduced by
64% in both stories in Test 5.
Results and Discussion
Load-Deformation Properties
As planned, ultimate displacement levels were not reached in Tests
1 and 2. At a displacement level of 60 mm at the top, the stiffness of
the house during the monotonic test was slightly higher than during
the cyclic tests. The resistance at this displacement level during the
monotonic test (Test 1) was also slightly (4–8%) higher than cor-
responding values from the cyclic tests in the same direction (Tests
2 and 3). Although it is difficult to make conclusions based on
single specimen tests, the results suggest that the maximum load
obtained from the push-over test was slightly higher that that ob-
tained from a reversed cyclic behavior. This is typical for most
wood-based structural systems.
In Tests 3, 4, and 5, the failure state was reached by load drop to
80% after it reached its peak. The average base shear resistance
value of the specimen was 359.4 kN, which is 3.4 times the design
shear resistance (105.8 kN). In Tests 3 and 4, the failure state was
reached attributable mostly to the effect of a large sliding compo-
nent in the first story, whereas in Test 5, both sliding and rocking
components had almost equal participation. This indicated that for
Tests 3 and 4, the sliding resistance of the CLT shear walls in the
first story was lower than their rocking (overturning) resistance.
Displacement
Inclusive of the sliding component, relatively big story drifts
(mm) rate (mm=s) (3.2%) were reached at the bottom story in Test 5 (Table 3). Tests
4 and 5 (N-S loading direction) had almost equal lateral resistance
71.8 0.085
as Test 3 (E-W loading direction), which conforms to the design
60.0 2.54
83.8 2.54 approach used. Tests in the N-S direction, however, resulted in
83.8 2.54 higher ultimate horizontal displacements (110 mm in Test 5) com-
107.7 2.54 pared with 74 mm in Test 3 in the E-W direction (Table 3). The
primary reasons for this were the higher flexibility of the wall pan-
els in the N-S direction because of the presence of door openings,
as well as the higher rocking and uplift component in the defor-
mation of the building as a result of the building aspect ratio.
Reduction in the number of screws in perpendicular wall-to-wall
connections in Test 5 also contributed to the increased flexibility
of the house, but did not compromise the performance of the
building in terms of resistance. More flexible corner connections
enabled for redistribution of deformations throughout the struc-
ture that resulted in reduction of the sliding component of defor-
mation while increasing the rocking and in-plane deformation of
the house.
The presence of additional hold-downs in Test 3 reduced
the average uplift deformations of the walls by 21% compared
with Test 2; however, since sliding was the global kinematic
mechanism, the hold-downs were unable to develop their
capacity and contribute to the building resistance. This sug-
gests that positioning of connections and hold-downs, defining
their probable resistance, and understanding the kinematic
behavior of the wall systems is crucial for a proper design of
CLT buildings.
The ductility of the house determined based on the equivalent
energy elastic plastic (EEEP) method (ASTM 2009) was found to
be 2.0 in the E-W direction (Test 3), whereas in the N-S direction,
the ductility ratios were 3.1 (Test 4) and 2.7 (Test 5). Lower duc-
tility in the E-W direction was attributed to the lower ultimate hori-
zontal displacement reached, which was affected by the aspect
ratio of the building and lower uplift-to-sliding deformation ratio
compared with the tests in the N-S direction. The decrease in duc-
tility in Test 5 compared with Test 4 was because of the lower
elastic stiffness of the house in Test 5, which resulted in higher
yield displacement level. Energy dissipation in Test 3 was 15%

© ASCE E4015006-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 500 500
House Test 1 & 3 House Test 4
400 400
Force - Force -
300 Displacement 300 Displacement

200 200

100 100
Force [kN]

Force [kN]
0 0

-100 -100 Test 4 (Cyclic)

Test 01 (Monotonic)
-200 -200 1st Backbone Curve
Test 03 (Cyclic)
-300 1st Backbone Curve -300 2nd Backbone Curve
2nd Backbone Curve
-400 -400 3rd Backbone Curve
3rd Backbone Curve
-500 -500
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

500 2
House Test 5
400
Force -
300 Displacement
House Test 3
200 Deformed
100 Shape
Force [kN]

Story
0 1
Test 5 (Cyclic) u (top) = 16.9 mm
-100
u (top) = 35.9 mm
-200 1st Backbone Curve
u (top) = 57.4 mm
-300 2nd Backbone Curve u (top) = 68.7 mm
-400 3rd Backbone Curve u (top) = 83.5 mm
-500 0
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
(c) Displacement [mm] (d) Storey Height [%]

2 2

House Test 4
Deformed House Test 5
Shape Deformed
Shape
Story

Story

1 1
u (top) = 18.2 mm u (top) = 18.4 mm
u (top) = 36.3 mm
u (top) = 38.2 mm
u (top) = 59.5 mm
u (top) = 59.6 mm u (top) = 71.0 mm
u (top) = 72.1 mm u (top) = 83.4 mm
u (top) = 95.8 mm
u (top) = 84.1 mm
u (top) = 106.3 mm
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
(e) Story Height [%] (f) Story Height [%]

Fig. 6. Total force versus total displacement relationships with backbone curves: (a) Tests 1 and 3; (b) Test 4; (c) Test 5: deformation shapes of the
house at different displacement levels; (d) Test 3; (e) Test 4; (f) Test 5

higher than in Tests 4 and 5 at 1.75% H drift. On the other hand, the (failure) was reached, no global instabilities of the house were
total energy dissipation in Test 5 was the highest because detected. Additionally, in most cases, CLT wall panels and floor
ultimate resistance was reached at larger horizontal displacement panels remained almost intact, except for the local damages in
(2.25% H drift). the connections.
In Fig. 6, force-displacement relationships and backbone curves For better understanding of the deformability of the CLT house,
of total force (base shear) versus total displacements on top of the the components that contribute to the story drifts were analyzed.
building for Tests 1 and 3 (E-W loading direction) and Tests 4 and 5 Kinematic behavior of wall panels in each story was a combination
(N-S loading direction) are presented. In addition, typical defor- of rocking, sliding, and in-plane deformations of the wall panels.
mation shapes of the building during the tests in both directions Rocking of the wall panels caused uplift deformations in hold-
are displayed. First-story drifts at ultimate displacement level were downs and brackets and global rotation of the house. Sliding caused
significantly larger than the ones in the second story in all three horizontal slip of nails in the brackets, whereas in-plane wall de-
tests. Namely, in Test 3, first-story drift was 46% larger than in formations include both shear and flexural deformations. The total
the second story. The difference was 68% in Test 4, whereas in deformation δ i;tot at story i therefore consists of four deformation
Test 5, the difference was 117%. After the ultimate deformation components

© ASCE E4015006-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 7. Lateral deformability components for a 2-story CLT building
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Contribution of Deformability Components to the House Total Deflection

First story Second story
Total deflection on
Rocking Sliding In-plane deformation Global rotation Rocking Sliding In-plane deformation top of the house
Test name δ1;r (%) δ 1;s (%) δ 1;w (%) δ2;g (%) δ 2;r (%) δ 2;s (%) δ 2;w (%) δ tot (%) δtot (mm)
3 16.0 39.5 6.9 16.0 6.3 9.9 5.4 100 73.7
4 26.6 21.4 14.9 26.6 2.7 5.4 2.4 100 86.2
5 26.8 28.3 10.8 26.8 2.2 3.3 1.8 100 109.6

δ i;tot ¼ δi;g þ δ i;r þ δ i;s þ δ i;w ð1Þ
where δ i;g represents story deformability attributable to global ro-
tation of the building; δi;r = story deformation due to rocking of the
wall panels; δ i;s = sliding contribution; and δi;w denotes in-plane
deformation of the walls. On the first story, components δ i;g and
δ i;r describe the same phenomena; thus, only one component
should be taken into account (Fig. 7).
In Table 4, contributions of deformability components to the
house total deflection and to each story deflection are presented.
The components were calculated based on the test measurements.
In Test 3, sliding deformation in the first story had by far the highest
influence on the total displacement of the building (39.5%),
whereas rocking was only 16%. For the same test, the contributions
were 9.9 and 6.3%, respectively, for the second story, suggesting
not only that the second story deformations were lower, but also
that large proportion of second story deformation was a result
of the global rotation of the building. The rocking component in
the first story was larger than the sliding component in Test 4,
whereas it was almost equal in Test 5. This resulted in the building
having larger deformation capacity during the last two tests. In-
plane deformation contributions in the first story in Tests 4 and
5 were also higher than in Test 3 owing to the presence of larger
openings.
the maximum values were 0.6 mm in the first story and 3.8 mm
at roof level. Even the highest midspan diaphragm deflection
(3.8 mm) was only 14% of the average drift of the supporting
CLT shear walls below, suggesting that both slabs (even at only
94 mm thick) were acting as rigid diaphragms and distrib-
uted the horizontal forces according to stiffness of the walls
below.
Maximum relative slip between the floor panels and the walls
below of only 1.1 mm suggested that these connections remained
rigid during all tests. Perpendicular wall-to-wall connections in
Tests 1–4 were also almost without any relative slip, whereas in
Test 5, the maximum slip of 6.2 mm was detected because of
the decreased number of screws used. This relative slip increased
the house deformability, but the global resistance of the house was
not compromised. Rigid connection behavior between the
perpendicular CLT wall panels resulted in 3D box-type behavior
of the house, with uplifts being present not only in the walls along
the direction of loading but also in the perpendicular walls (Fig. 8).

Global Response
Virtually no torsion effects were present at both stories during the
loading in the symmetrical (E-W) direction. As expected, some tor-
sional response was observed during Tests 4 and 5 (N-S direction).
The maximum difference of the deflections of the east and west
wall lines at the top of the building was 18.8 mm. The torsional
response, however, did not compromise the global behavior and
resistance of the house, which is in line with the observations from
the SOFIE project (Lauriola and Sandhaas 2006).
Maximum relative slip between CLT floor panels in the dia-
phragms was negligible, i.e., 1.7 mm in the roof slab and less than
0.5 mm in the first-story slab. Maximum relative diaphragm deflec-
tion at midspan in the E-W direction was 0.6 mm in the first story
Fig. 8. 3D box-type behavior of the house
(Test 3) and 1.5 mm at roof level, whereas in Test 5 (N-S direction),

© ASCE E4015006-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 5. Natural Frequencies of the CLT House in Both Directions before
and after Each Test
Symmetric (E-W) Nonsymmetric (N-S)
Frequency Frequency Difference Frequency Difference
test namea (Hz) (%) (Hz) (%)
1a 13.50 — 11.00 —
1b 11.00 −18.5 9.25 −15.9
2a 12.88 −4.6 11.00 0.0
2b 9.50 −29.6 8.88 −19.3
3a 13.13 −2.7 11.25 2.3
3b 8.63 −36.1 8.63 −21.6
4a 12.63 −6.4 10.75 −2.3
4b 10.38 −23.1 7.38 −32.9
−6.4 −4.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5a 12.63 10.50
5b 10.13 −25.0 7.63 −30.6
a
Tests appended with “a” signify before the test; tests appended with “b”
signify after the test.

18
10.75 Hz CLT House - Transfer Function
16 Frequency Response: Before Test 4
Asymmetric Direction (N-S)
14

Magnitude [Volts / Volt]

12

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(a) Frequency [Hz]

18
CLT House - Transfer Function
16 Frequency Response: After Test 4
Asymmetric Direction (N-S)
14
Magnitude [Volts / Volt]

Fig. 9. (a) Rocking of the wall elements with partial embedment 12

into the floor panels and out-of-plane bending of the floor panels;
10
(b) close-up of the detail
8

6
The maximum uplift deformation of 24.9 mm was reached in Test 5 7.38 Hz
in the southeast corner of the building. 4
Embedment of the wall panels into the floor panels above and
2
below, and out-of-plane bending of the floor panels, enabled the
wall panels to rock about their corners, as shown in Fig. 9. Con- 0
nections between wall panels and the floor/foundation (brackets, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
hold-downs) and step-joints between adjacent wall panels were de- (b) Frequency [Hz]
signed as the primary energy dissipation devices in the building.
During the testing, the main deformations occurred in this part Fig. 10. Frequency response transfer functions of Test 4 in the N-S
of the house, as designed. The maximum slip measured in the step direction: (a) before the test; (b) after the test
joints was 11 mm at the bottom story during Test 3.
of the house in the E-W direction was 13.5 Hz (T ¼ 0.07 s),
Frequency Response whereas in the N-S direction, it was 11.0 Hz (T ¼ 0.09 s). The
Before and after each test, the house’s natural frequencies were stiffness in the E-W direction was higher owing to longer length
measured in both directions. The initial first natural frequency of the walls in that direction. Also, there were fewer openings

© ASCE E4015006-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Failures of brackets (positioned in the direction of loading) in
the first story: (a) wood failure and an example of fatigue failure of a
nail; (b) combination of nails yielding and withdrawal (Test 4)
Fig. 12. Partial withdrawal of nails in (a) the hold-downs; (b) the brackets positioned in corners of walls perpendicular to the loading
direction (Test 3)
© ASCE
in the wall panels in the E-W direction. The measured fundamental
periods of the house in both directions were lower than the period
obtained from the NBCC (National Research Council of Canada
2010) formula for structures with shear walls (0.16 s). This is mostly
because the period formula used in NBCC refers to all structures that
use shear walls (steel, concrete, and wood) as a lateral resisting
system. This finding further signifies the need for development and
implementation of code formulas for calculating the initial period,
not only for CLT, but for all wood-based structural systems.
Despite the fact that during the tests the loading was applied in
one direction only, the natural frequencies after the tests decreased
from 16 to 36% in both directions (Table 5; Fig. 10). This also
reiterated the fact that was observed during the tests, that walls
perpendicular to the loading direction contributed to the overall
building stiffness and lateral resistance. The frequency analyses
were also able to pick up the changes in stiffness of the house ow-
ing to use of additional hold-downs (Frequency test 2a versus 3a);
and no measured reduction of stiffness existed as a result of the
lower number of screws connecting the perpendicular walls
(Frequency test 4a versus 5a). As after each test, the nails in the
hold-downs and the brackets were replaced, and the house frequen-
cies returned to within 6% of initial values before each test. The
slight differences are mostly attributed to minimal residual damages
in the connections between perpendicular walls. The values of first
natural periods/frequencies of the CLT house were obtained with
relatively low impact on the structure (hammer impact on the edge
of the roof slab). Thus, these values may not represent the vibration
properties of the building during a strong seismic event. Therefore,
the frequency and period values can serve only for comparisons and
analyses among the tests.
Failure Mechanisms
The failure mode of the house was similar in both loading direc-
tions. Lateral resistance of the house started to decrease after the
bracket connections in the first story reached their shear capacity.
This was accompanied by slight damage (wood crushing and fas-
tener yielding) in the connections along the step joints. No fatigue
failures of the screws were observed. Nails in the first-story brack-
ets failed as a result of a combination of sliding and rocking of the
building (Fig. 11). Some yielding of the nails was observed in hold-
downs in the first story; however, no hold-down failures were ob-
served. Only the hold-downs in the southeast corner of the house
E4015006-10 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. (a) Brittle local failure in the corner of the wall panel with the
large opening in the first story after Test 4; (b) reinforcement of the
damaged area of the wall panel before Test 5
during Test 5 reached a maximum uplift of 24.9 mm, which almost
matched the predetermined ultimate deflection capacity of 25 mm.
Even after the failure point was reached, no global instabilities of
the house were detected. In most cases, CLT wall and floor panels
remained almost intact, except for some local damages attributed to
connection failures. In the direction of loading, the brackets in the
first story failed because of the fatigue failure of nails [Fig. 11(a)] or
a combination of nail yielding and nail withdrawal [Fig. 11(b)],
© ASCE E4015006-11
J. Struct. Eng.
depending on the position of the bracket. Brackets located in
the central parts of the wall segments in the direction of loading
were loaded mostly in shear [Fig. 11(a)] because they were exposed
primarily to sliding deformations. In Fig. 11(a), the bracket was
moved to the left after the test to show the failure pattern of the
nails and the local panel area. On the other hand, brackets located
in the corners of the wall elements were exposed to a combination
of sliding and rocking deformations. Consequently, the failure of
nails was attributed to two-directional loading [Fig. 11(b)]. In all
tests, most deformations were concentrated in the nails, and no
damages of the brackets were observed.
Brackets and hold-downs positioned in walls perpendicular to
the loading direction were exposed to uplift forces only, causing
some nail embedment and yielding, but no failures. As the wall
panels in the direction of loading exhibited significant sliding de-
formations, they also caused some sliding of the perpendicular
walls. As a result, partial withdrawal of nails in the hold-downs
and the brackets attached to the corners of perpendicular walls oc-
curred (Fig. 12). Deformations (and damage) of hold-downs and
brackets on the second story were significantly lower compared
with the deformations of connections on the first story.
Floor and wall panels remained intact during the tests. Toward
the end of Test 4 (N-S loading direction), a crack appeared in the
corner of the patio door opening in the west wall [Fig. 13(a)]. This
wall panel had significantly lower shear strength at that point in
comparison with other wall panels; thus, this local failure was an-
ticipated to occur sometime during the tests. The crack in the corner
of the opening, however, did not influence the global stability of the
building. Before Test 5, the damaged area of the wall panel was
reinforced with a 3-mm-thick steel plate and 34 screws 10 ×
80 mm from both sides of the panel [Fig. 13(b)]. During Test 5,
no deformations were observed in the reinforced area of the wall
panel, suggesting that this may be an effective way of retrofitting
CLT structures in cases in which aesthetic appearance is not of
essence.
Conclusions
Results from the quasi-static tests on a 2-story full-scale model of a
CLT house subjected to lateral loads are presented in this paper.
The CLT structure performed according to the design objectives,
having virtually equal lateral resistance in both directions. Push-
over tests in E-W direction resulted in slightly higher stiffness
and resistance compared with those obtained from reversed cyclic
tests in the same direction. Even after the maximum force was
reached, no global instabilities of the house were detected. Some
torsional effects were observed during the tests, but they did not
compromise the integrity, stability, or lateral resistance of the build-
ing. Step joints between the CLT wall panels allowed for relative
slip during their rocking as predicted in the design. Despite the rigid
connection between floor panels and wall panels, rocking of the
wall panels was not fully restricted by floor panels above. Relative
slip between CLT floor panels in the diaphragms was negligible,
suggesting that the connections were properly designed. Despite
the fact that the CLT floor and roof diaphragms were loaded with
a spreader bar in the middle, their maximum midspan deformation
was only 14% of that at the supports, suggesting that both slabs
were acting as rigid diaphragms. The failure mechanism of the
house was similar in all the tests and consisted of failure of the nails
in the brackets at the bottom of the first story as a result of sliding
and rocking deformations of the wall panels.
Maximum story drift of 3.2% (inclusive of sliding) was reached
during Test 5 in the N-S direction, suggesting that CLT structures
J. Struct. Eng.
 can achieve relatively large story drifts. However, the sliding com-
ponent was the predominant mode of deformation in all tests. The
predominant deformation may have been different if more nails in
the brackets were used, different connectors were used, the position
of the connections was significantly different, or if the wall panels
had different aspect ratios.
The presence of additional hold-downs lowered the uplift defor-
mations of the walls but did not increase the resistance of the build-
ing, since sliding was the global kinematic mechanism. Reduction
in the number of screws in perpendicular wall-to-wall connections
did not compromise the performance of the building in terms of
resistance; however, it increased the overall building deformability.
Despite the fact that loading was applied in one direction at a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
time, the natural frequencies after the tests decreased in both direc-
tions, suggesting a drop in stiffness (damage) in connections on
opposite walls. This confirmed the observations from the tests that
not only walls parallel to the loading direction resisted the lateral
forces, but also walls perpendicular to the loading direction con-
tributed to the overall building stiffness and resistance.
The results and outcomes of this research program serve as
a solid base for understanding 3D behavior and development of
capacity-based seismic design concepts, not only for low-rise
but also for multistory CLT buildings. Namely, the tests demon-
strated that diaphragms made of CLT panels can act as rigid ones,
and most of the story drifts are a result of rocking and sliding of
CLT wall panels. Reduced number of screws in the perpendicular
wall-to-wall connections in Test 5 increased the deformability of
the building but did not compromise its performance in terms of
resistance. Further parametric studies of buildings with different
aspect ratios subjected to lateral loads are needed for establishment
of capacity-based seismic design procedure for CLT structures.
Ductility of CLT buildings can be achieved with a proper design
and selection of wall anchoring (hold-downs and brackets) and
vertical joints between adjacent wall panels. Although types of
connectors used for the CLT house may not be the best candidates
for use in high-rise CLT structures, the findings from the tests
showed that the connector positioning, and defining their resistance
based on the kinematic behavior of the structure, is crucial for a
proper design. The outcomes of the full-scale CLT house tests
will be used for further analytical and numerical analyses needed
for implementation of CLT as a structural system in the North
American building codes and material standards.
Acknowledgments
This research project was financially supported by Natural Re-
sources Canada (NRCan) under the Transformative Technologies
Agreement between the Government of Canada and FPInnova-
tions. The financial support of NRCan is greatly acknowledged.
In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution
of all other members of the research team, especially Paul Symons,
Phillip Eng, Tony Thomas, Johannes Schneider, Bill Deacon, Isaac
Chiu, and John White of FPInnovations. Their sincere efforts
greatly contributed to the successful completion of the research
work presented.
References
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE7-10, Reston, VA.
© ASCE E4015006-12
J. Struct. Eng.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for
shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral load resisting systems
for buildings.” E 2126, West Conshohocken, PA.
Ceccotti, A. (2008). “New technologies for construction of medium-rise
buildings in seismic regions: The XLAM case.” Struct. Eng. Int. SEI,
18(2), 156–165.
Ceccotti, A., and Follesa, M. (2006). “Seismic behavior of multi-story
X-Lam buildings.” Proc., COST E29 Int. Workshop on Earthquake
Engineering on Timber Structures, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty
of Sciences and Technology, Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal.
Ceccotti, A., Sandhaas, C., Okabe, M., Yasumura, M., Minowa, C., and
Kawai, N. (2013). “SOFIE project—3D shaking table test on a seven-
storey full-scale cross-laminated building.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 42(13), 2003–2021.
Costa, A. C., and Candeias, P. X. (2013). “Seismic performance of multi-
story timber buildings—TUGraz building.” Final Rep. of Timber Build-
ings Project, 〈http://www.series.upatras.gr/TIMBER_BUILDINGS〉
(Oct. 23, 2014).
Dujic, B., Hristovski, V., Stojmanovska, M., and Zarnic, R. (2006).
“Experimental investigation of massive wooden wall panel systems
subjected to seismic excitation.” Proc., 1st European Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismicity, European Association of
Earthquake Engineering (EAEE), Istanbul, Turkey.
ISO. (2003). “Timber structures—Joints made with mechanical fasteners—
Quasi-static reversed-cyclic test method.” ISO 16670, London.
Lauriola, M. P., and Sandhaas, C. (2006). “Quasi-static and pseudo-
dynamic tests on XLAM walls and buildings.” Proc., COST E29 Int.
Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Univ. of
Coimbra, Portugal.
National Research Council of Canada. (2010). “National building code of
Canada (NBCC) 2010.” Ottawa.
Pei, S., Popovski, M., and van de Lindt, J. W. (2012). “Seismic design of a
multi-story cross-laminated timber building based on component level
testing.” Proc., 12th World Conf. on Timber Engineering WCTE 2012,
P. Quenneville, ed., Auckland, New Zealand.
Pei, S., Popovski, M., and van de Lindt, J. W. (2013a). “Analytical study
on seismic force modification factors for cross-laminated timber
buildings.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 40(9), 887–896.
Pei, S., van de Lindt, J. W., and Popovski, M. (2013b). “Approximate
R-factor for cross laminated timber walls in multistory buildings.”
J. Archit. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000117, 245–255.
Popovski, M., and Karacabeyli, E. (2011). “Seismic performance of
cross-laminated wood panels.” Proc., 44th CIB-W18 Meeting, Ingen-
ieurholzbau und Baukonstruktionen, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology,
Germany.
Popovski, M., and Karacabeyli, E. (2012). “Seismic behavior of cross-
laminated timber structures.” Proc., 12th World Conf. on Timber
Engineering WCTE 2012, P. Quenneville, ed., Auckland, New Zealand.
Popovski, M., Karacabeyli, E., and Ceccotti, A. (2011). “Seismic perfor-
mance of cross-laminated timber buildings.” Chapter 4, CLT handbook,
Canadian Ed., FPInnovations Special Publication SP-528 E, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Popovski, M., Schneider, J., and Schweinsteiger, M. (2010). “Lateral load
resistance of cross-laminated wood panels.” Proc., 11th World Conf. on
Timber Engineering WCTE 2010, Ario Ceccotti and Jan-Willem van de
Kuilen, eds., Riva del Garda, Italy.
Uibel, T., and Blaß, H. J. (2006). “Load carrying capacity of joints with
dowel type fasteners in solid wood panels.” Proc., 43 rd CIB-W18
Meeting, Paper 39-7-5, Ingenieurholzbau und Baukonstruktionen,
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany.
Uibel, T., and Blaß, H. J. (2007). “Edge joints with dowel type fasteners
in cross laminated timber.” Proc., 44th CIB-W18 Meeting, Paper
40-7-2, Ingenieurholzbau und Baukonstruktionen, Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology, Germany.
J. Struct. Eng.