See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277646296

Mechanical Properties of Southern Pine Cross-Laminated Timber

Article  in  Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · October 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001203

CITATIONS READS
18 2,071

2 authors, including:

Daniel Hindman
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
52 PUBLICATIONS   342 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Develop Highrise Timber Building Design Manual View project

Movement of Unbraced / Partially Braced Joists During Construction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Hindman on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanical Properties of
Southern Pine Cross-Laminated
Timber

by

Daniel P. Hindman, Associate Professor, dhindman@vt.edu

John C. Bouldin, Research Associate, woodyzz@vt.edu

This paper is published in the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, who

hold the copyright to the final published version of this work. This post-print
version is for information only.
Full Citation:
Hindman, D. P., J. C. Bouldin. 2015. Mechanical Properties of Southern
Pine Cross-Laminated Timber. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.
27(9), 04014251 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0001203
 1 Mechanical Properties of Southern Pine Cross-Laminated Timber
2 Daniel P. Hindman, PhD, PE, M. ASCE 1, and John C. Bouldin, PhD 2

3 Abstract

4 Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a novel wood building material suitable for floor, roof, and wall

5 assemblies in low and mid- rise construction as an alternative to concrete and steel. CLTs are

6 considered to provide good seismic resistance, fast erection times, carbon sequestration, and a

7 significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over other construction materials. Southern

8 pine is an abundant forest resource, yet has not been commercially used for CLT manufacturing.

9 The purpose of this paper was to measure the bending and shear properties of CLT material

10 fabricated using southern pine lumber compared to the ANSI/APA PRG-320 product standard.

11 Bending strength, bending stiffness, shear strength, resistance to shear by compression loading

12 strength, and resistance to delamination were measured according to ANSI/APA PRG-320, and

13 test results were compared to the V3 grade values. Bending tests were conducted on jointed

14 beams due to test length requirements. Bending strength, bending stiffness, and wood failure in

15 resistance to shear by compression loading tests exceeded the published values for the V3 grade,

16 while resistance to delamination did not meet the established criteria. The resistance to

17 delamination results may have been effected by the uncontrolled moisture content of the lumber

18 during fabrication of the CLTs. The application of glued laminated lumber standards to CLT

19 products requires clarification in the orientation of loading directions for the resistance to shear

20 by compression loading test and the measurement of all four sides of the resistance to

1
Associate Professor, Virginia Tech Department of Sustainable Biomaterials, 1650 Research Center Dr. Blacksburg,
VA 24061. Email: dhindman@vt.edu.
2
Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Virginia Tech Department of Sustainable Biomaterials, 1650 Research Center
Dr. Blacksburg, VA 24061. Email: johnbouldin@vt.edu.
21 delamination specimens. Increased scrutiny of moisture content quality control is highly

22 encouraged for the production of CLTs.

23 CE Database Subject Headings: Cross-Laminated Timbers, CLT, Mechanical Properties,

24 Resistance to shear by compression loading, Rolling Shear, Southern Pine, Resistance to

25 delamination

26

27 Introduction

28 Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a novel building material consisting of orthogonal layers of

29 sawn lumber, at least three layers thick, glued together to form a massive timber element suitable

30 for use as structural floor, roof, and wall assemblies (ANSI/APA 2012). Currently, CLTs are

31 manufactured in Europe and Canada primarily using spruce (Picea spp.) and lodgepole pine

32 (Pinus contorta). At least one CLT manufacturing facility has been constructed in the United

33 States using the Douglas fir-Larch species group (OEI 2010), and another CLT venture has been

34 announced (Morrison 2010).

35 Advantages of CLT construction include faster on-site construction times, lighter weight

36 materials, use of a sustainable natural resource, improved insulation properties, carbon

37 sequestration, lower embodied energy, and lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to typical

38 concrete construction (Robertson 2007). Cross-laminated timber construction performs well in

39 seismic events (Ceccotti and Follesa 2006), and is seen as an alternative to steel and concrete in

40 mid-rise structures (Crespell and Gagnon 2010). CLT panels have been successfully used in

41 Europe, Canada, and Australia to construct eight to 10 story commercial structures (MGB et al.

42 2012). Feasibility studies for CLT buildings of 30 stories (Ward 2009, MGB et al. 2012) and 42

43 stories (SOM 2013) have already been developed in North America. The U.S. CLT Handbook
44 (Karacabeyli and Douglas 2013) presents a review of CLT manufacturing, structural design,

45 seismic, fire, vibration, acoustic, and environmental performance.

46 In the southeastern United States, southern pine is a common structural material, growing in a

47 wide swath from Florida to Texas, and northwards through Virginia and Maryland (Koch 1972).

48 Southern pine includes four species; loblolly pine (P. taeda), longleaf pine (P. palustris),

49 shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and slash pine (P. elliotii) (Koch 1972). Loblolly pine (P. taeda) is

50 the second most prevalent species in Virginia as of 2010, with a 10.4% increase in the number of

51 trees between 2007 and 2010 (Rose 2012). This resource is renewable and can be grown

52 economically in pure stands (Koch 1972). Due to density, strength, and stiffness properties,

53 southern pine is suitable for use in structural building components such as trusses, floor systems,

54 decks, and post frame construction, and is a preferred lumber for pressure preservative treatment

55 (SFPA 2013).

56 Applicable Standards

57 Recently, ANSI/APA PRG 320-2012 Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber

58 (PRG 320) was published (ANSI/APA 2012). PRG 320 defines standard requirements for

59 manufacturing, performance, and qualification testing of CLTs. Seven different grades of CLT

60 materials are defined based on the use of visual or mechanical grading and species group (Table

61 1). Grades E1 through E4 use machine stress rated (MSR) lumber for the parallel (strong axis)

62 layers, and grades V1 through V3 use visually graded lumber. The V3 grade uses visually

63 graded southern pine. ANSI/APA PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012) provides strength and stiffness

64 design values for each of the grades described above.

65 The construction methods for the manufacture of CLT panels are also specified in PRG 320

66 (ANSI/APA 2012). Boards oriented in the parallel direction (strong axis) must have a net width

67 of at least 1.75 times the lamination thickness, and boards oriented in the perpendicular direction

68 (weak axis) must have a net width of 3.5 times the lamination thickness unless the boards are

69 edge glued. Adhesives used must comply with AITC 405 Standard for Adhesives Used in

70 Structural Glued Laminated Timber except for Section 2.1.6(AITC 2005), and shall be evaluated

71 for heat performance per Section 6.1.3.4 of DCO PS1 Structural Plywood (NIST 2009). The

72 moisture content of all lumber during fabrication must be 12 % ± 3%, and the moisture content

73 must be greater than or equal to 8% at the time of testing (ANSI/APA 2012).

74 PRG 320 also specifies the testing methods used for evaluation of bending and shear properties

75 of CLT panels. Bending specimens should have a width of 30.5 cm with a center-to-center span

76 of 30 times the panel depth (ANSI/APA 2012). Bending tests are to be conducted using third-

77 point loading flatwise to the top ply as specified in ASTM D 198 Standard Test Methods of

78 Static Testing of Lumber in Structural Sizes (ASTM 2013a). The bending strength characteristic

79 value should be determined by ASTM D 2915 Standard Practice for Sampling and Data-

80 Analysis for Structural Wood and Wood-Based Products (ASTM 2013b) methods and multiplied

81 by a factor of 2.1 for comparison to grade property values given in PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012).

82 The average bending stiffness is used for comparison to PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012) table

83 values.

84 Shear specimens should have a width of 30.5 cm with a center-to-center span of five to six times

85 the panel depth (ANSI/APA 2012). A center point loading is applied to the panel flatwise a

86 specified in ASTM D 198 (ASTM 2013a) for shear property determination. The shear strength

87 characteristic value should be determined by ASTM D 2915 (ASTM 2013b) methods and
 88 multiplied by a factor of 3.15. At the current time, shear strength values specific to CLT grades

89 have not been assigned.

90 Other tests for adhesive-related properties are also specified in PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012),

91 including ANSI/AITC A190.1-2007 Structural Glue Laminated Timber (ANSI/AITC 2007),

92 which specifies the use of test standard AITC T107 Shear Test (AITC 2007a) for resistance to

93 shear by compression loading evaluation, and AITC T110 Cyclic Delamination Test (AITC

94 2007b) for assessing resistance to delamination of adhesive bonds between the CLT layers.

95 Kim et al (2013) measured the resistance to shear by compression loading strength of CLT

96 composed of red pine (Pinus densiflora) with a polyurethane adhesive against the Korean glulam

97 standard. The test methods used were similar in approach to AITC T107 (AITC 2007a),

98 although the acceptance values differed. Kim et al. (2013) measured a shear strength of 3.5

99 MPa, and 90.3% wood failure for red pine CLT layers.

100 Currently, there has been little testing of CLT material properties in the United States. No

101 published research of mechanical property evaluation of southern pine CLTs was found. With

102 the recent publication of PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012), a test standard for performance-rated CLT

103 panels is now available in the United States. In order to demonstrate the capability of CLT

104 materials produced using a regional wood species, the purpose of this paper was to measure the

105 properties of CLT panels produced using southern pine lumber, and compare the results with the

106 V3 grade values found in PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012). Mechanical property evaluation included

107 bending strength, bending stiffness, shear strength, resistance to shear by compression loading

108 strength, and resistance to delamination. Moisture content and specific gravity were also

109 measured.
110 Materials and Methods

111 Southern pine CLT panels were fabricated at the Research and Design Center for Advanced

112 Manufacturing & Energy Efficiency (R&D CAMEE), a division of the Southern Virginia Higher

113 Education Center (SVHEC) in South Boston, VA. All CLT layers were constructed using No. 2

114 southern pine nominal 2x4 lumber. Since fabrication occurred in the winter months, the relative

115 humidity at the facility was low and the wood moisture content was not measured at the time of

116 fabrication, and may have been less than the recommended range of 9% - 15% (ANSI/APA

117 2012).

118 Individual layers were edge glued using a polyurethane adhesive and a customized clamping

119 fixture. These layers were surfaced using a computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine

120 with a flycutter bit. The approximate final thickness of each layer was 34.9 mm. A five layer

121 CLT panel was assembled in a cold press using polyurethane adhesive. Estimates of press

122 pressure applied to the samples were between 413 to 483 kPa, which was less than the 689 kPa

123 required by the adhesive manufacturer. The final CLT product thickness was 17.5 cm. Due to

124 the size of the press, individual CLT panels were pressed 30.5 cm wide by 1.83 m long.

125 Since no specialized CLT production equipment was available, a multiple lap joint 15.2 cm long

126 (Figure 1) was created to connect three of the 1.83 m long CLT sections together into a 5.49 m

127 long specimen for the bending testing. The lap joint was fabricated using a CNC mill, then

128 applying adhesive to the joint, clamping the segments together longitudinally and re-pressing the

129 joint in the cold press. A total of ten 5.49 m long specimens were fabricated for testing

130 according to the sample size recommended in PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012). The completed CLT
131 specimens were shipped to the testing facility at Virginia Tech and stored indoors for

132 approximately five weeks before testing began.

133 The 5.49 m long CLT specimens were tested in bending. Then, undamaged sections of the

134 bending specimens were cut for shear samples. Finally, smaller specimens were cut for moisture

135 content, specific gravity, resistance to shear by compression loading strength, and resistance to

136 delamination tests. All testing was conducted at the Brooks Forest Products Center at Virginia

137 Tech, except for the resistance to delamination, which was conducted at the Wood Science and

138 Technology Program at West Virginia University.

139 Bending

140 Bending test procedures were based on ASTM D 198 (ASTM 2013a). Because of space

141 limitations, the actual center-to-center span was 4.72 m, a span-to-depth ratio of 27:1, as

142 compared to a value of 30:1 specified by PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012).

143 Two point loads were applied at the third points (1.57 m from each end) to the flatwise

144 (perpendicular to the face layer) beam. An MTS universal testing machine with integrated load

145 cell (222 kN range), and data acquisition system was used for the bending tests. Reaction

146 supports were attached to a self-reacting strongback reinforced by steel posts. A constant

147 displacement rate of 0.64 cm per minute was applied until failure. Figure 2 is a photograph of a

148 bending test specimen on the testing machine. Due to the location of the two lap joints at

149 equidistant points along the length of the CLT specimens, the joints were roughly aligned with

150 the load points for the third-point bending set-up.

151 An aluminum yoke was supported on screws at the supports was used to measure the deflection

152 of the neutral axis at midspan with an LVDT (± 5.08 cm range, ± 0.25%). Load and
153 displacement data were continuously monitored throughout the test. Maximum load was used

154 for bending strength calculations and the linear portion of the load-deflection curve was used for

155 bending stiffness calculations.

156 After testing the first bending specimen the authors became concerned about failure at the lap

157 joint. Therefore, the lap joints were reinforced by a series of screws (ASSY VG CYL 8 mm x

158 160 mm and 8 mm x 240 mm). The 160 mm long screws were placed perpendicular to the CLT

159 layers from the bottom face of the beam. The 240 mm screws were placed at a 45 degree angle

160 to the front face of the beam (Figure 3).

161 Subsequent moisture content and specific gravity of the bending specimens were measured after

162 testing. Moisture content testing using the oven dry method specified in ASTM D 4442

163 Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Base

164 Materials (ASTM 2013c), and specific gravity measurement used the volume by immersion

165 method in ASTM D 2395 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Wood and Wood-Base

166 Materials (ASTM 2013d).

167 Shear

168 After testing the 5.49 m long bending specimens, a 1.22 m long undamaged section was cut from

169 each sample for shear testing. None of the shear specimens contained any splice joints. ASTM

170 D 198 (ASTM 2013a) procedures were used for shear testing. Originally, a width of 30.5 cm

171 and a span of 1.07 m were used for shear testing with a span-to-depth ratio of 6.98:1, while PRG

172 320 recommends a span-to-depth ratio of 5 to 6:1 (ANSI/APA 2012). However, due to the

173 failure loads approaching the 222 kN limit of the universal testing machine, many of the samples

174 were cut to 22.9 cm wide.

175 A center point loading of the specimens was applied using an MTS universal testing machine

176 with an integrated 222 kN load cell (± 1% sensitivity). Two yokes, one on each side, were

177 supported at the neutral axis over the supports to measure the neutral axis midspan deflection

178 using two LVDTs (± 25.4 mm range, ± 0.25% sensitivity). A displacement rate of 1.27 mm per

179 minute was used. Maximum load was used for shear strength calculations.

180 Resistance to Shear by Compression Loading

181 The resistance to shear by compression loading test applied a shear force at the bondline of a

182 stepped specimen cut from the bending specimens previously tested. According to AITC T107

183 (AITC 2007a), the resistance to shear by compression loading test is conducted with the load

184 oriented parallel to grain of the entire specimen. However, CLT bondlines present both a

185 parallel to grain and perpendicular to grain surface at every bond interface. AITC T107 (AITC

186 2007a) procedures are a reasonable test standard when applied to glued laminated timbers, where

187 cross-laminations are not present. For uniformity of testing, all resistance to shear by

188 compression loading test specimens were placed in the testing machine with the parallel to grain

189 lamination being held upright in the fixture, while the perpendicular to grain lamination was

190 loaded.

191 Three resistance to shear by compression loading samples were cut from each of the four

192 bondlines in each of the 10 test specimens for a total of 120 resistance to shear by compression

193 loading test specimens. The shear area for the specimens measured approximately 4.44 cm by

194 5.08 cm, and testing was conducted based on ASTM D 143 Standard Test Methods for Small

195 Clear Specimens of Timber (ASTM 2013e). The displacement rate was 0.61 mm per minute.

196 All specimens were loaded until failure and the ultimate load was recorded.
197 Resistance to Delamination

198 AITC T110 (AITC 2007b) describes the method to assess the resistance to delamination of

199 bonded wood composites. As stated previously for AITC 107 (AITC 2007a), the resistance to

200 delamination test assumes that all laminations are in the parallel to grain direction, while CLT

201 bondlines contain a parallel to grain, and a perpendicular to grain lamination at each bondline.

202 One full-depth sample measuring 76.2 mm by 76.2 mm by 174.6 mm was cut from each of the

203 10 bending specimens. Because all four faces of the CLT test specimen exhibit end grain, the

204 length of each bondline on each face of the test specimens was measured, rather than only two

205 end grain faces as specified in AITC T110 (AITC 2007b). The samples were then weighed,

206 submerged in water, placed in an autoclave and subjected to a vacuum of 63.5 mm of mercury

207 for 30 minutes followed by a pressure cycle of 517 kPa for two hours. The specimens were then

208 placed in a drying oven at 71° C until dried to within 9% to 15% of the original weight.

209 Due to radial and tangential swelling of each lamina during the autoclave procedure, the length

210 of the exposed bondlines increased and the bondlines became a curve, rather than remaining a

211 straight line due to barreling of the specimen from Poisson’s effect. After the autoclave and

212 drying procedures, the total length of each expanded bondline was measured, as was the total

213 length of bondline separation on each face for each specimen. The percentage of delamination

214 was calculated based on the post-testing bondline lengths. Figure 4a is a photograph of the

215 resistance to delamination specimen after testing demonstrating the barreling from Poisson’s

216 effect. Figure 4b is a photograph of the bondline separation observed.

217 Results and Discussion

218 Bending
219 The bending strength, bending stiffness, moisture content and specific gravity values from

220 testing are shown in Table 2. The allowable bending strength and the bending stiffness were

221 both greater than the V3 grade value in PRG-320 (ANSI/APA 2012). This comparison is

222 difficult due to differences in the experimental beam composition and the use of jointed

223 segments for testing. The coefficient of variation (COV) associated with the bending strength

224 and stiffness indicated low variability among the test samples. Screw reinforcement of the lap

225 joints was added for the later nine samples, and did not appear to affect the bending strength and

226 stiffness. Moisture content values were above the minimum limit for testing of CLT properties

227 specified by ANSI/APA PRG-320 (ANSI/APA 2012). The average specific gravity was equal to

228 the specific gravity of the southern pine species group listed in the National Design Specification

229 for Wood Construction (AF&PA 2012).

230 The load-deflection curves of the 10 bending specimens are shown in Figure 5. The load-

231 deflection curve from CLT 1, the unreinforced specimen, is bolded while the other nine CLT

232 load-deflection curves are grey. The load-deflection curves show a consistent stiffness behavior

233 indicating little if any effect of the splice joint upon stiffness or ultimate load. For instance, CLT

234 1, which had no reinforcement, had a stiffness of 3790 kN-m2/m, and an ultimate load of 35.5

235 kN, while the other nine bending specimens had bending stiffness values ranging from 3660 kN-

236 m2/m to 4880 kN-m2/m and the ultimate load ranged from 32.6 kN to 46.7 kN.

237 The first bending specimen, which was unreinforced, failed at one of the lap joints connecting

238 the three CLT segments together. The failure split the lower lap joint layer away from the beam

239 and fractured several of the other lap joints (brash tension), but also demonstrated cross-grain

240 splitting on both the tension and compression faces (Figure 6). The other nine bending

241 specimens failed in a similar manner to the beam shown in Figure 3. The reinforced samples
242 experienced cross-grain bending as well as the brash tension and joint separation observed for

243 the unreinforced beam. The consistency of bending failure between Figures 3 and 6 seems to

244 indicate that there is little difference in the beam performance of the reinforced and unreinforced

245 beam specimens.

246 Shear

247 Shear strength values from the shear test specimens are shown in Table 2. The PRG 320

248 standard contains no criteria for shear strength of CLT beams. These values are offered for

249 comparison to other test methods and materials. Failure included tension failure in the lower

250 plies, horizontal shear in the parallel plies, shear at the bondlines, and rolling shear within the

251 cross ply layers. Most specimens exhibited a combination of these failures. Some localized

252 crushing of the wood fibers under the loading test fixture were also observed. Figure 7 is a

253 photograph of a shear specimen after testing showing shear failures extending from the cross-

254 grain layers, through the joint and into the parallel layers.

255 Resistance to Shear by Compression Loading

256 The wood failure, resistance to shear by compression loading strength and resistance to

257 delamination percentages measured from the CLT specimens and comparisons to the appropriate

258 allowable standard values are shown in Table 3. The threshold for acceptable wood failure given

259 in ANSI/AITC A 190.1 (ANSI/AITC 2007) is ≥ 80% for softwoods, and the percentage of wood

260 failure for the tested specimens was 81.6%. The majority of wood failure was observed in the

261 cross plies, not parallel-to-grain in the strength axis plies.

262 Three different failures were observed in the resistance to shear by compression loading testing

263 including rolling shear in the cross lamina (Figure 8a), adhesive failure (Figure 8b), and wood
264 failure parallel-to-grain in the vertical strength-axis plies (Figure 8c). Most specimens exhibited

265 a combination of these failures across the sheared surface area. Specifically, rolling shear failure

266 is not addressed in AITC T107 (AITC 2007a), since rolling shear failure is not observed in glued

267 structural timber where all plies are oriented parallel to the strength axis of the member (AITC

268 2004). Both the rolling shear and parallel-to-grain shear failures were considered wood failure

269 versus the adhesive failure. Kim et al. (2013) combined the rolling shear and parallel-to-grain

270 shear failure areas to calculate the percentage wood failure, and found similar values of percent

271 wood failure for both parallel and perpendicular oriented specimens. At this time, it is unknown

272 whether the differentiation of rolling shear and parallel-to-grain shear failures has an effect upon

273 the resistance to shear by compression loading properties.

274 Resistance to Delamination

275 The percentage of resistance to delamination measured from the CLT specimens is shown in

276 Table 3. For softwoods, AITC T110 (AITC T110 2007b) specifies that bondline delamination

277 shall not exceed 5%, while the average delamination for the resistance to delamination

278 specimens was 17.3%. The variability of the delamination results was very high, with a COV of

279 77.3%, and resistance to delamination values ranging from 3% to 33% .

280 Yeh (2014) noted that deviation from the required moisture content at the time of pressing in

281 CLT layers can cause excessive delamination. The uncontrolled moisture content at for these

282 samples may have been related to the resistance to delamination exceeding the criteria. This

283 result further serves to underscore the care needed in the manufacturing process of CLT

284 fabrication to control the moisture content of the layers before assembly. Further research may
285 be needed to ensure that the resistance to delamination of southern pine CLTs produced with the

286 lumber moisture content meeting ANSI/APA PRG-320 corresponds with the established criteria.

287 Conclusions

288 The bending, shear, resistance to shear by compression loading, and resistance to delamination

289 properties of a southern pine CLT panel were measured. The bending strength, bending stiffness

290 and resistance to shear by compression loading properties met or exceeded the requirements of

291 the V3 grade CLT defined in ANSI/APA PRG-320 (APA 2012). However, the resistance to

292 delamination results did not meet the established criteria and also exhibited a high coefficient of

293 variability. Uncontrolled moisture content at the time of specimen fabrication was thought to

294 contribute to the resistance to delamination results. Shear strength properties are not currently

295 tabulated in ANSI/APA PRG-320, but results of the present study are presented as a point of

296 reference for the development of future standards. The resistance to shear by compression

297 loading and resistance to delamination testing were adapted from glued laminated timber

298 manufacturing and may require further changes for CLT testing. The orientation of CLT

299 resistance to shear by compression loading specimens was to place the parallel-to-grain

300 lamination on the loading side of the test apparatus to promote consistency in the testing

301 methodology. Resistance to delamination length measurements of the total bondline should be

302 performed after the autoclave treatment of the specimens and all four sides should be measured.

303 Acknowledgements

304 Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Virginia Center for Innovative

305 Technology. Special thanks to David Kenealy, Director, and Travis Buchanan, previously

306 Project Manager, of the Research and Design Center for Advanced Manufacturing & Energy
307 Efficiency (R&D CAMEE), a division of the Southern Virginia Higher Education Center

308 (SVHEC). The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. David DeVallance,

309 Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of the Wood Science and Technology Program at

310 West Virginia University’s Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, and to his graduate

311 students for providing access to their testing facilities and for help in the autoclave testing.

312 References

313 AF&PA (2012). National Design Specification for Wood Construction. American Forest

314 & Paper Association. Washington, DC.

315 AITC (2004). AITC 117 Standard Specifications for Structural Glued Laminated Timber

316 of Softwood Species. American Institute of Timber Construction, Centennial, OH.

317 AITC (2005). AITC 405 Standard for Adhesives for Use in Structural Glued Laminated

318 Timber. American Institute of Timber Construction, Centennial, OH.

319 AITC (2007a). AITC T107 Shear Test. American Institute of Timber Construction,

320 Centennial, OH.

321 AITC (2007b). AITC T110 Cyclic Delamination Test. American Institute of Timber

322 Construction, Centennial, OH.

323 ANSI/AITC (2007). A190.1-2007 American National Standard for Wood Products,

324 Structural Glued Laminated Timber. American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC),

325 Centennial, CO.

326 ANSI/APA (2012). PRG 320 Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated

327 Timber. APA – The Engineered Wood Association. Tacoma, WA.

328 ASTM (2013a). D198-09 Standard Test Methods of Static Testing of Lumber in

329 Structural Sizes. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). West Conshohocken,

330 PA.

331 ASTM (2013b). D2915-10 Standard Practice for Sampling and Data-Analysis for

332 Structural Wood and Wood-Based Products. American Society of Testing and Materials

333 (ASTM). West Conshohocken, PA.

334 ASTM (2013c). D4442-07 Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content

335 Measurement of Wood and Wood-Base Materials. American Society of Testing and Materials

336 (ASTM). West Conshohocken, PA.

337 ASTM (2013d). D2395-07 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Wood and

338 Wood-Based Materials. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). West

339 Conshohocken, PA.

340 ASTM (2013e). D143-09 Standard Test Methods for Small Clear Specimens of Timber.

341 American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). West Conshohocken, PA.

342 Ceccotti, A. and Follesa, M. (2006). Seismic Behaviour of Multi-Storey XLam

343 Buildings. Presented at the International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber

344 Structures. November 9-10, 2006. Coimbra, Portugal.

345 <http://www.timberengineering.it/Pubblicazioni/img/Articoli_scientifici/2006_cost-

346 e29_Seismic%20Behaviour.pdf> (Feb. 18, 2014).

347 Crespell, P. and Gagnon, S. (Eds.) (2010). Cross Laminated Timber: A Primer.

348 FPInnovations and Binational Softwood Lumber Council (2013).

349 <http://www.fpinnovations.ca/MediaCentre/Library/publications/clt-primer.pdf> (Jan. 7, 2014).

350 Karacabeyli, E., and Douglas, B. (Eds.) (2013). CLT Handbook: cross laminated timber.

351 U.S. Edition. FPInnovations and Binational Softwood Lumber Council. Pointe-Claire, Quebec,

352 Canada.

353 Koch, P. (1972). Utilization of the Southern Pines. U.S. Department of Agriculture

354 Forest Service, Washington, DC.

355 Kim, H., Oh, J., Jeong, G., Yeo, H., and Lee, J. (2013). Shear Performance of PUR

356 Adhesive in Cross Laminating of Red Pine. Journal of Korean Wood Science and Technology.

357 Vol 41, no. 2, pp. 158-163.

358 MGB Architecture and Design, Equilibrium Consulting, LMDG Limited, and BTY

359 Group (2012). The Case for Tall Wood Buildings.

360 <http://wecbc.smallboxcms.com/database/rte/files/Tall%20Wood.pdf> (Jan. 7, 2014).

361 Morrison, Clarke (2010). Green, Clean Technology to Build Touted in Asheville-Based

362 Partnership. Asheville Citizen-Times. <http://www.citizen-

363 times.com/article/20100523/NEWS/305230041/Green-clean-technology-build-touted-Asheville-

364 based-partnership> (Jan. 7, 2014).

365 NIST (2009). Voluntary Product Standard PS 1-09 Structural Plywood. National Institute

366 of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce. Gaithersburg, MD.

367 OEI (2010). Montana Sustainable Building Systems. Open EI Wiki.

368 <http://en.openei.org/wiki/Montana_Sustainable_Building_Systems> (Jan. 7, 2014).

369 Robertson, A. (2007). A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mid-Rise Office

370 Building Construction Alternatives: Laminated Timber or Reinforced Concrete. Master’s

371 Thesis, University of Toronto.

372 Rose, A. K. (2012). 2010 Forest Inventory and Analysis Fact Sheet. E-Science Update

373 SRS-056. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Asheville, NC.

374 SFPA (2013). Southern Pine Use Guide. Southern Forest Products Association. Kenner,

375 LA.

376 <http://members.southernpine.com/publications/download/526ec2d401ac9ad71d000207/Use%2

377 0Guide_0613_L.pdf> (Jan. 23, 2014).

378 Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), LLP. (2013). Timber Tower Research Project.

379 <https://www.som.com/sites/default/files/20130506_SOM-Timber-Tower-Final-Report_2.pdf>

380 (Jan. 18, 2014).

381 Ward, R. (2009). Going to New Heights – Building the World’s Tallest Mixed-Use

382 Wood Structure. Structure. August, 2009. <http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2009-8/F-

383 NewHeights-Ward-Aug09.pdf> (Jan. 7, 2014).

384 Yeh, B. J. (2014). Personal Communication. February 2, 2014.

List of Tables
Table 1. CLT Grades Specified by ANSI/APA PRG 320 (ANSI/APA 2012)
Table 2. CLT Testing Results and Comparison to ANSI/APA PRG-320 Values (ANSI/APA
2012).
Table 3. Comparison of Wood Failure, Bondline Shear Strength, and Face Delamination to
AITC A 190.1 Values
 Table 1. CLT Grades Specified by ANSI/APA PRG 320 (data from ANSI/APA 2012)
CLT Grade Parallel Layers Perpendicular Layers
E1 1950f-1.7E Spruce-Pine-Fir MSR No. 3 Spruce-Pine-Fir lumber
lumber
E2 1650f-1.5E Douglas fir-Larch MSR No. 3 Douglas fir-Larch lumber
Lumber
E3 1200f-1.2E Eastern Softwoods, No. 3 Eastern Softwoods,
Northern Species, or Western Woods Northern Species, or Western
MSR Lumber Woods Lumber
E4 1950f-1.7E Southern pine MSR Lumber No. 3 Southern pine Lumber
V1 No. 2 Douglas fir-Larch Lumber No. 3 Douglas fir-Larch Lumber
V2 No. 1 / 2 Spruce-pine-fir Lumber No. 3 Spruce-pine-fir Lumber
V3 No. 2 Southern pine Lumber No. 3 Southern pine Lumber
 Table 2. CLT Testing Results and Comparison to ANSI/APA PRG-320 Values.
1
Property Experimental Value ANSI/ APA PRG-320
Grade V3 Value
(ANSI/APA 2012)
Bending Strength, 102 kN-m/m (14.3%) N/A
Average (COV)
Bending Strength, 37.1 kN-m/m 23.1 kN-m/m
Allowable Value
Bending Stiffness, 4,110 kN-m2/m 3,900 kN-m2/m
Average (COV) (8.8%)
Shear Strength, Average 532 kN/m (8.3%) N/A
(COV)
Shear Strength, 146 kN/m N/A
Allowable Value
Moisture Content, 9.8% (4.4%) > 8.0%
Average (COV)
Specific Gravity, 0.55 (3.1%) 0.552
Average (COV)
1
Experimental CLTs were composed of No. 2 Southern Pine for both parallel and perpendicular
layers. Grade V3 CLTs are composed of No. 2 Southern Pine for parallel layers and No. 3
Southern Pine for perpendicular layers.
2
Specific gravity of southern pine species group is 0.55 according to NDS (AF&PA 2012).
 Table 3. Comparison of Wood Failure, Bond Line Shear Strength, and Face Delamination to
AITC A 190.1 Values

Property1 Experimental Values, AITC A 190.1

Average (COV) Values
Wood Failure 81.6% (8.2%) > 80%
Bond Line Shear 4.38 MPa (8.3%) N/A
Face Delamination 17.2% (72.9%) <5%
1
All specimens extracted from previously tested bending samples.
List of Figures

Figure 1. Multiple Lap Joint used to Fabricate CLT Bending Specimens. Lines Added for
Effect.

Figure 2. CLT Bending Specimen Test Set-up

Figure 3. Pattern of Screw Reinforcement on Underside of Bending Specimen

Figure 4 (a) Face Delamination Specimen After Testing, (b) Close-Up of Bondline Separation

Figure 5. Load-deflection Curves of the CLT Bending Specimens

Figure 6: Failure at the Unreinforced Splice Joint In First CLT Bending Specimen.

Figure 7. Shear Bending Specimen After Testing Demonstrating Rolling Shear Failure,
Adhesive Failure, and Shear Parallel-to-Grain Failure.

Figure 8. Bondline Shear Failures, (a) Rolling Shear, (b) Adhesive Failure, (c) Shear Parallel-to-
Grain
View publication stats