buildings

Article
In-Plane Strength and Stiffness of Cross-Laminated
Timber Shear Walls
Md Shahnewaz 1 ID
, Shahria Alam 2 ID
and Thomas Tannert 1, * ID

1 Integrated Wood Engineering, University of Northern British Columbia,

Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9, Canada; md.shahnewaz@alumni.ubc.ca
2 School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, BC V1V 1V7, Canada;
shahria.alam@ubc.ca
* Correspondence: thomas.tannert@unbc.ca




Received: 28 June 2018; Accepted: 30 July 2018; Published: 3 August 2018


Abstract: The research presented herein investigated the in-plane performance of cross-laminated
timber (CLT) shear walls for platform-type buildings under lateral loading. Finite element models of
CLT connections (i.e., brackets, hold-downs and self-tapping screws) were developed in OpenSees
and calibrated against experimental tests to represent the connections’ hysteresis behaviour under
cyclic tension and shear loading. The results were incorporated into models of CLT single and
coupled shear walls. The results in terms of peak displacement, peak load and energy dissipation
were in good agreement when compared to full-scale shear wall tests. Subsequently, a parametric
study of 56 single and 40 coupled CLT shear walls was conducted with varying numbers and types
of connectors (wall-to-floor and wall-to-wall) for evaluating their seismic performance. It was found
that the strength, stiffness and energy dissipation of the single and coupled CLT shear walls increased
with an increase in the number of connectors. Single shear walls with hold-downs and brackets
performed better under seismic loading compared to walls with brackets only. Similarly, coupled
shear walls with four hold-downs performed better compared to walls with two hold-downs. Finally,
ductility of coupled shear walls was found to be 31% higher compared to that of single shear walls.
The findings from this research are useful for engineers to efficiently design CLT shear walls in
platform-type construction.

Keywords: Finite Element Analyses; connection; ductility; parameter study; seismic performance

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
With a rise in sustainable practices, the construction industry is increasingly considering timber
as a low-carbon footprint material for larger residential and non-residential applications. New mass
timber products such as laminated veneer lumber (LVL) cross-laminated timber (CLT) [1], efficient
connectors such as long self-tapping screws (STS) [2,3], innovative ductile connections [4,5], and
pre-fabrication [6] have created an opportunity to build mid- to high-rise timber buildings.
CLT panels consist of several layers of boards stacked crosswise and glued together.
A CLT element usually has three to nine glued layers of boards placed orthogonally to each other
(90◦ ) to form a solid panel [7]. Use of CLT for wall and floor panels offers many advantages:
The cross-lamination itself provides improved dimensional stability and thermal insulation, and
a fairly good response in case of fire, which are added benefits resulting from CLT’s massiveness [8].
Furthermore, CLT is a clean product to work with, resulting in little waste or dust produced on site,
which is preferable in terms of health and safety.

Buildings 2018, 8, 100; doi:10.3390/buildings8080100 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2018, 8, 100 2 of 13
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 14

Platform-type construction,
construction, where each floor acts as a platform for the floor above, is the most
common structural system used for low to mid-rise CLT buildings [8]. CLT shear walls, both single
and/or coupled walls
and/or coupled walls (Figure
(Figure 1a–c),
1a–c), are
are commonly
commonly connected to the foundation or a concrete podium
by steel brackets and hold-downs using metal fasteners like screws and nails (Figure 1d), while CLT
walls and floors
floors in
inthe
theupper
upperstoreys
storeysareare connected
connected byby brackets
brackets andand hold-downs
hold-downs (HD)(HD)
or byorSTS.
by STS.
The
The panels
panels in between
in between floorsfloors and walls
and walls are connected
are connected by screwsby screws using lap
using either either lap orjoints
or spline spline(Figure
joints
(Figure 1e–f). “Designing
1e–f). “Designing and building
and building CLT structures,
CLT structures, also also in earthquake-prone
in earthquake-prone regions
regions is no
is no longera
longer
adomain
domainfor forearly
earlyadopters,
adopters,but
butisisbecoming
becominga apart
partofofregular
regulartimber
timberengineering
engineeringpractice”
practice”[9].
[9].

Figure 1. CLT shear walls: (a) single, (b) coupled wall with lap joint, (c) coupled wall with spline joint,
Figure 1. CLT shear walls: (a) single, (b) coupled wall with lap joint, (c) coupled wall with spline joint,
(d) connectors and fasteners, (e) half-lap joint, (f) spline joint.
(d) connectors and fasteners, (e) half-lap joint, (f) spline joint.

1.2. Impact of Connections on Performance of CLT Shear Walls

1.2. Impact of Connections on Performance of CLT Shear Walls
Since CLT panels are rigid in comparison to their connections, the stiffness of CLT systems
Since CLT panels are rigid in comparison to their connections, the stiffness of CLT systems mostly
mostly depends on the connections. Other aspects, such as openings cut into CLT panels, also affect
depends on the connections. Other aspects, such as openings cut into CLT panels, also affect the shear
the shear wall stiffness [10]. Tomasi and Smith [11] investigated the mechanical behaviour of angle
wall stiffness [10]. Tomasi and Smith [11] investigated the mechanical behaviour of angle brackets
brackets connecting CLT walls to the foundation and found that the connection’s capacity depended
connecting CLT walls to the foundation and found that the connection’s capacity depended on the
on the geometries of the bracket (i.e., length and shape, presence of ribs and corrugation) and the
geometries of the bracket (i.e., length and shape, presence of ribs and corrugation) and the fasteners
fasteners connected to CLT panels (e.g., annular nails) and foundation (e.g., bolts).
connected to CLT panels (e.g., annular nails) and foundation (e.g., bolts).
Gavric et al. [12,13] conducted monotonic and cyclic tests on different hold-downs, brackets and
Gavric et al. [12,13] conducted monotonic and cyclic tests on different hold-downs, brackets
shear connections for foundation, wall and -floor connections using 5-ply 85 mm-thick wall and 5-
and shear connections for foundation, wall and -floor connections using 5-ply 85 mm-thick wall
ply 142 mm-thick floor panels. The shear connections were tested in two configurations of half-lap
and 5-ply 142 mm-thick floor panels. The shear connections were tested in two configurations of
and spline joints with STS of 8 × 80 mm and 8 × 140 mm. They observed that brackets have similar
half-lap and spline joints with STS of 8 × 80 mm and 8 × 140 mm. They observed that brackets
capacity and stiffness under tension and shear loading. In contrast, hold-downs showed higher
have similar capacity and stiffness under tension and shear loading. In contrast, hold-downs showed
strength and stiffness in tension when compared to bracket connections, while their shear resistance
higher strength and stiffness in tension when compared to bracket connections, while their shear
was negligible. The shear connections showed a ductile performance, and, for the chosen STS
resistance was negligible. The shear connections showed a ductile performance, and, for the chosen
configurations, the half-lap joints exhibited higher strength and stiffness compared to the splines.
STS configurations, the half-lap joints exhibited higher strength and stiffness compared to the splines.
A similar study was conducted by Schneider et al. [14] on bracket connections using three types
A similar study was conducted by Schneider et al. [14] on bracket connections using three types
of fasteners: Spiral nails, ring nails and STS. They performed cyclic tests and developed a numerical
of fasteners: Spiral nails, ring nails and STS. They performed cyclic tests and developed a numerical
model; the numerical results (ductility, stiffness and strength) showed good correlation with tests,
model; the numerical results (ductility, stiffness and strength) showed good correlation with tests,
however, the calculated damage index of the connections was found to be significantly different
however, the calculated damage index of the connections was found to be significantly different when
when compared to test results. Hossain et al. [3] evaluated the performance of CLT shear connections
compared to test results. Hossain et al. [3] evaluated the performance of CLT shear connections using
using STS by conducting monotonic and cyclic tests on butt joints where the screws were installed at
a doubly inclined angle between two panels acting in withdrawal. The results showed that highly
ductile joints can be achieved.
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 3 of 13

STS by conducting monotonic and cyclic tests on butt joints where the screws were installed at a doubly
inclined angle between two panels acting in withdrawal. The results showed that highly ductile joints
can be achieved.
Other studies focused on developing analytical models to estimate the resistance of single- and
multi-panel CLT shear walls. Gavric and Popovski [15] proposed five models (D1–5): D1—assumed
sliding only and that the resistance was equal to the shear resistance of the brackets; D2—assumed
rocking and sliding with the resistance based on the shear resistance of the brackets and the overturning
resistance of the HDs; D3—assumed pure wall rocking behaviour with the resistance being determined
by accounting only for the uplift contribution of the connectors; D4—assumed sliding and rocking and
that the brackets contributed to both shear and uplift resistance according to a quadratic interaction
equation; and, D5—also assumed sliding and rocking with the brackets contributing to the shear and
uplift resistances, but according to a linear interaction equation.
Flatscher and Schickhofer [16] applied a displacement-based approximation of connections’
behaviour to describe the behaviour of CLT walls beyond the peak load at hand of a parameters study
using experimentally verified finite element (FE)-simulations. They confirmed the distinct connection
influence on the behaviour of CLT structures and suggested that initial slip values may essentially
underestimate the actual wall deflections. It was further suggested that the application of vertical
joints does not always improve the structural behaviour, as load-carrying capacity, stiffness and energy
dissipation is decreased. Further, it was shown that the sole application of angle brackets may have
a positive influence on load distribution compared to a combination of brackets with hold-downs [16].
Hysteretic models to capture the performance of vertical panel joints in CLT wall systems have
been developed [17,18]. Tamagnone et al. [19] proposed a non-linear procedure for the seismic
design of CLT wall systems whereupon a triangular compressive force at the wall-to-support interface
was considered and the neutral axis calculated from an iterative procedure. Although wood is
an orthotropic material, this model assumed wood to be a uniaxial elastic material. Furthermore,
the model assumed that the displacement of the wall during rocking can happen in the negative
Z-direction (e.g., whereby the wall corner can penetrate into the foundation) which is not a realistic
scenario. Most recently, analytical models to determine the elastic stiffness and strength of multi-panel
CLT shear walls based on the minimum potential energy approach were proposed by Casagrande
et al. [20]. A kinematic model of multi-panel walls based on the stiffness ratio of HD and vertical
shear connector between panels was used to study the elastic kinematic behaviour of a multi-panel
CLT shear wall by adopting the dimensionless stiffness and load ratios to describe the shear wall’s
load-deformation path taken through different elastic behaviours under increasing lateral force.
Furthermore, it should be noted that under the current draft stage for the new edition of Eurocode 5,
coupled shear walls are considered to dissipate higher energy compared to single walls because they
are connected via energy dissipative vertical shear connectors [21].

1.3. Performance of CLT Shear Walls in Platform-Type Construction

Understanding the actual behaviour of CLT shear walls under lateral loads is important for
a reliable design of CLT buildings [22]. Popovski et al. [23] performed a series of quasi-static
monotonic tests on CLT shear walls with 12 different configurations of wall-to-floor, wall-to-wall
and storey-to-storey bracket connections, and demonstrated adequate seismic performance. Placing
hold-downs on each end of the wall further improved the seismic performance. Gavric et al. [24]
performed cyclic tests on both single and coupled CLT walls with three different wall configurations:
(a) Single wall panels, (b) coupled wall panels with lap-joints, and (c) coupled wall panels with LVL
spline joints. The walls were constructed with 85 mm-thick 5-ply CLT panels with angle brackets
(BMF 90 × 48 × 3 × 116 mm) and hold-downs (HTT-22) used to connect the wall to the foundation
using annular ring nails (12 − 4 × 60 mm). 8 × 100 mm STSs were used for the wall-to-wall vertical
joints. It was observed that the failure of the systems occurred at the connections, while the CLT
wall panels were subjected to negligible in-plane deformations. Reynolds et al. [25] investigated
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 4 of 13

the deformation and resistance of CLT shear walls for platform construction and confirmed that the
movement of the shear walls was governed by rigid body movement of the panels. The authors further
reported that the design methods currently used by structural engineers underestimate the resistance
of the shear walls.

1.4. Objectives
The use of CLT in residential and non-residential buildings is becoming increasingly popular
in North America. While the 2016 supplement to the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in
Wood, CSAO86 [26], provides provisions for CLT structures used in platform-type applications, it does
not provide guidance for the in-plane stiffness and strength of CLT shear walls. Understanding the
in-plane behaviour of CLT shear wall systems is essential for the reliable design of CLT buildings under
lateral loads, yet no universal agreement has been reached for determining their in-plane stiffness
and strength. The objective of this study was to quantify the strength, stiffness, ductility and energy
dissipation capacity of CLT single and coupled shear walls with various types of connections for
platform-type construction.

2. Finite Element Analysis

2.1. CLT Connections

Finite Element Analyses (FEA) models for different CLT connectors for wall configurations
were developed based on previous research (Figure 1). Gavric et al. [12,13] performed tests on steel
brackets (90 × 48 × 116 mm) with different fasteners, hold-downs using ring nails and double
plane shear tests on CLT wall-to-wall, half-lap and spline joints using a different number of STS
following the EN 12,512 [27] loading protocol. Schneider et al. [14] performed tests on steel brackets
(90 × 48 × 116 mm) with four different fasteners (B1 to B4 ) applying a modified CUREE loading
protocol [28]. The connections referenced are designated as B1 to B5 for brackets, HD1 to HD2 for
hold-downs, and WW1 to WW2 for shear connectors throughout the article as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. CLT connections.

Connection Type ID Fasteners Reference

B1 18 16d SN 3.9 × 89 mm [14]
B2 18 SFS screw 4 × 70 mm [14]
Steel bracket
B3 10 SFS screw 5 × 90 mm [14]
90 × 48 × 116 mm
B4 12 RN 3.8 × 76 mm [14]
B5 11 RN 4 × 60 mm [12]
Hold-down: HTT16 HD1 9 RN 4 × 60 mm [12]
Hold-down: HTT22 HD2 12 RN 4 × 60 mm [12]
Half-lap joint WW1 2 STS 8 × 80 mm [13]
Spline joint WW2 4 STS 8 × 80 mm [13]

CLT connections loaded in tension and shear (Figure 2a,d, respectively) were modelled in
OpenSees [29] using zero-length spring elements as shown in Figure 2b,e and were defined by
two nodes at the same location, where the nodes are connected by the uniaxial material model
“Pinching4” [30] to represent the force-deformation relationship for the element. Pinching4 (Figure 2g)
is a piecewise linear model with a “pinched” load-deformation response that accounts for strength
and stiffness degradation under seismic loading [30]. The model accounted for the cyclic strength
degradation between different cycles, as observed in the experimental tests. The model includes
16 parameters to define the backbone curve and unload-reload paths along with pinching behaviour.
The least-square method was employed to estimate the parameters of the Pinching4 model from the
backbone of the tested connections. The parameters were calculated based on the response of the forces
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 5 of 13

at corresponding displacements from the backbone curve using equivalent energy elastic plastic (EEEP)
curves according to ASTM E2126 [28]. An EEEP curve is a perfectly elastic plastic representation of
the actual response of the specimen, which encompasses the same area of the experimental backbone
curve from2018,
Buildings the8,origin to the
x FOR PEER ultimate displacement.
REVIEW 5 of 14

Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Figure 2. Cyclic tension test (a) schematic; (b) FE model and (c) loading protocol; cyclic shear test;
Figure 2. Cyclic tension test (a) schematic; (b) FE model and (c) loading protocol; cyclic shear test;
(d) schematic; (e) FE model and (f) loading protocol; (g) Pinching4 model.
(d) schematic; (e) FE model and (f) loading protocol; (g) Pinching4 model.
Figure 2. Cyclic tension test (a) schematic; (b) FE model and (c) loading protocol; cyclic shear test;
2.2. CLT(d)Shear Walls
schematic;
2.2. CLT Shear Walls (e) FE model and (f) loading protocol; (g) Pinching4 model.
FEA models for CLT walls were developed based on research conducted at FPInnovations,
2.2. CLT
FEA Shear for
models Walls
Vancouver, Canada CLT walls
[23,24]. were developed
Popovski based
et al. [23] tested CLT onpanels
researchmade conducted at FPInnovations,
of 3-ply European spruce
Vancouver, Canada
FEA models
with a thickness [23,24].
of 94formm Popovski
CLT(Figure
walls were et
1a and al. [23]
developed tested
Table 2).based CLT
Steel on panels
research
brackets made of
andconducted 3-ply
hold-down European spruce
at FPInnovations,
connectors with
with aVancouver,
thickness
various fasteners of (annular
94 mm
Canada (Figure
[23,24]. 1a and
ringPopovski
nails, spiral Table
et al. [23]2).
nails, Steel
tested
screws, CLTbrackets
andpanels
timber and
made hold-down
of 3-ply
rivets) connectors
were European
used spruce
for the with
wall-
various withfasteners
a thickness
to-foundation (annular
of 94 mm
connections. ring
The nails,
(Figure 1aspiral
test setups nails,
and Table
for 2). screws,
single Steel and timber
andbrackets
coupled and
CLT rivets)
hold-down
shear were areused
connectors
walls forinthe
with
shown
various
wall-to-foundationfasteners (annular ring nails, spiral nails, screws, and timber rivets) were
Figure 3a,b. Similarly, Gavric et al. [24] performed cyclic tests on three different wall configurations: in
connections. The test setups for single and coupled CLT shear used
wallsfor the
are wall-
shown
Figure to-foundation
3a,b. shear
(a) Single Similarly, connections.
walls Gavric
(panel et ofThe
al. test
3 m[24]× 3setups
m); (b)for
performed single
cyclic
coupled and coupled
tests
shear on three
walls CLTdifferent
(two shear walls
panels, wallare
each shown
m × 3inm)
ofconfigurations:
1.5
(a) withFigure
Single 3a,b.
shear walls
a half-lap Similarly,
joint;(panel Gavric
and, (c) et
ofcoupled al. [24]
3 m × 3shear performed
m); (b) coupled
wall cyclic tests
sheareach
(two panels on
wallsthree
of(two different
1.5 mpanels, wall configurations:
each an
× 3 m) with of LVL × 3 m)
1.5 mspline
(a) Single shear walls (panel of 3 m × 3 m); (b) coupled shear walls (two panels, each of 1.5 m × 3 m)
withjoint (Table 2).
a half-lap Brackets
joint; and, (c) and hold-downs
coupled shear with
wall annular
(two panels ring each
nails of
were1.5 mused× 3for
m)wall-to-foundation
with an LVL spline
with a half-lap joint; and, (c) coupled shear wall (two panels each of 1.5 m × 3 m) with an LVL spline
connections
joint (Table 2). and STSs were
Brackets and used for wall-to-wall
hold-downs verticalring
with annular shearnails
connections.
were used As for
listed in Table 2, eight
wall-to-foundation
joint (Table 2). Brackets and hold-downs with annular ring nails were used for wall-to-foundation
single CLTand
connections shear wallwere
STSs tests used
from Popovski et al. [23], and two single and six coupled wall tests from 2,
connections and STSs were usedforfor wall-to-wall vertical
wall-to-wall vertical shear
shear connections.
connections. Asinlisted
As listed ineight
Table 2, Table
Gavric
eight et al.
single [24] werewall usedtests
for the model validation.
single CLT shear wall tests from Popovski et al. [23], and two single and six coupled wall tests fromtests
CLT shear from Popovski et al. [23], and two single and six coupled wall
from Gavric
Gavric etet al.
al.[24]
[24]were
wereusedused forfor
thethe model
model validation.
validation.

Figure 3. CLT
Figure shear
3. CLT wall’s
shear test
wall’s testsetup
setup((a)
((a)single
singlewall
wall and
and (b)
(b) coupled wall);schematic
coupled wall); schematicofofFEFEmodels
models
Figure 3. CLT
((c) ((c)
single shear
wall and wall’s
(d) test setup
coupled wall); ((a) single
and, (e) wall and
CUREE (b) coupled
loading [28]. wall); schematic of FE models
single wall and (d) coupled wall); and, (e) CUREE loading [28].
((c) single wall and (d) coupled wall); and, (e) CUREE loading [28].
FEAFEAmodels
modelsof of
CLT single
CLT singleand
andcoupled
coupledshear
shearwalls
walls were developedin
were developed inOpenSees
OpenSees(Figure
(Figure3c,d).
3c,d).
These tests
These demonstrated
tests demonstratedthatthatCLT
CLTpanels
panelsacted
acted as
as aa rigid
rigid body and all
body and all non-linear
non-lineardeformation
deformation
occurred at the
occurred connections
at the connections[18].
[18].To
Torepresent
representthe
theactual
actual kinematic behaviourofofthe
kinematic behaviour theshear
shearwalls,
walls, the
the
CLTCLT panels
panels were
were modelled
modelled using
using plane-stressshell
plane-stress shellelements
elements with elastic
elasticmaterial
materialproperties
properties(as listed
(as listed
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 6 of 13

Table 2. Experimental data set for single and coupled CLT shear walls.

Number (#) and Type # HDs Load

Wall Type Wall ID # Screws (Type) Reference
of Brackets (Type) (kN/m)
SN-00 4 (B1 ) - - 0.0 [23]
SN-02 4 (B1 ) - - 10.0 [23]
SN-03 4 (B1 ) - - 20.0 [23]
S1-05 4 (B2 ) - - 20.0 [23]
S2-06 4 (B3 ) - - 20.0 [23]
Single
RN-04 4 (B4 ) - - 20.0 [23]
SN-20 7 (B1 ) - - 20.0 [23]
SNH-08 3 (B1 ) 2 (HD1 ) - 20.0 [23]
I.1 2 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) - 18.5 [24]
I.2 4 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) - 18.5 [24]
II.1 4 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) 20 (WW1 ) 18.5 [24]
II.3 4 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) 10 (WW1 ) 18.5 [24]
II.4 4 (B5 ) 4 (HD2 ) 5 (WW1 ) 18.5 [24]
Coupled
III.1 4 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) 2 × 20 (WW2 ) 18.5 [24]
III.2 4 (B5 ) 2 (HD2 ) 2 × 10 (WW2 ) 18.5 [24]
III.3 4 (B5 ) 4 (HD2 ) 2 × 5 (WW2 ) 18.5 [24]

FEA models of CLT single and coupled shear walls were developed in OpenSees (Figure 3c,d).
These tests demonstrated that CLT panels acted as a rigid body and all non-linear deformation occurred
at the connections [18]. To represent the actual kinematic behaviour of the shear walls, the CLT panels
were modelled using plane-stress shell elements with elastic material properties (as listed in Table 3)
and the metal connectors were modelled using non-linear zero-length springs with the Pinching4
hysteresis model as shown in Figure 2g.
Both Gavric’s and Schneider’s tests [12,14] showed that bracket connections have similar resistance
to cyclic shear and tension (Table 2). Therefore, each bracket was modelled with two-orthogonal
zero-length springs at the same location (Figure 3c,d) and calibrated from connection tests as described
in the previous section. The orthogonal zero-length springs simulate the sliding and rocking of the
shear walls. In contrast, the hold-downs were modelled using only a single zero-length spring to resist
rocking by neglecting their shear resistance as observed by Gavric et al. [12]. In the coupled shear wall
FEA (Figure 3d), the vertical shear connectors for both half-lap and spline joints were modelled using
two-node non-linear spring Pinching4 elements. The calibrated models for connections (brackets,
hold-downs and STSs screw connections) were then incorporated in the CLT shear wall model.

Table 3. CLT material properties.

Elastic Modulus (MPa) Shear Modulus (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio

Ex Ey Ez Gxy Gyz Gzx vxy vyz vzx
11,700 9000 1000 563 731 100 0.35 0.07 0.35

2.3. Parametric Study for Single and Coupled CLT Walls

A parametric study was performed on single and coupled CLT shear walls with variations in
the number and types of brackets and hold-downs. Two types of single shear walls were considered:
CLT shear walls with brackets only (Case A), and CLT shear walls with both brackets and hold-downs
(Case B). The CLT panels were 2.3 m × 2.3 m, 3-ply and 94 mm thick. For Case A, the shear walls
with brackets were analyzed with five different types of fasteners (B1 to B5 ; Table 1), with the number
of brackets varying from 4 to 7. Where walls were connected by brackets and hold-downs (Case B),
two types of hold-downs (HD1 or HD2 ) were considered at the end of wall-to-floor interfaces, with the
number of brackets varying from 2 to 5. Therefore, the total number of connectors remained the same
for both Case A and Case B type walls.
In the parametric study on coupled CLT shear walls, the number and types of brackets (B1 to B5 ),
hold-downs (HD1 to HD2 ) and vertical joints (WW1 to WW2 ) was varied. Two 1.15 m × 2.3 m CLT
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 7 of 13

panels (3-ply, 94 mm thick, and total wall size same as single wall size of 2.3 m × 2.3 m) were connected
by vertical joints as shown in Figure 1b,c. Two types of coupled shear walls were considered: CLT
coupled shear wall with 2 hold-downs (2HDs) at the outer edges of each panel (Case C); and CLT
coupled shear walls with 4 hold-downs (4HDs), both at the outer and inner edges of each panel
(Case D). Each wall had a total of 4 brackets (2 on each side of the panel) connected with either half-lap
joints (WW1 ; 20 screws in one row) or spline joints (WW2 ; 20 screws in two rows of ten). Reversed
cyclic displacements were applied in the top nodes of the FEA wall models following CUREE loading
protocol (Figure 3e). Table 4 summarizes the parameters.

Table 4. Overview of parameter study.

Wall Type Single Walls Coupled Walls

Case A Case B Case C (2HDs) Case D (4HDs)
Connector
(brackets B1 to B5 ) (HD1 or HD2 ) (brackets B1 to B5 ) (brackets B1 to B5 )
# Brackets 4, 5, 6, 7 2, 3, 4, 5 2 (half-lap joint) 2 (spline joint)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. CLT Connections

The FEA models of connections were calibrated using the test results presented by Gavric et
al. [12,13] and Schneider et al. [14]. Figure 4a,b show the hysteresis of bracket B1 under shear and
tension, respectively, Figure 4c shows the hysteresis of hold-down HD1 under tension, and Figure 4d
shows the hysteresis of STS half-lap joint WW1 under shear. The Pinching4 model accurately captured
the load-deformation hysteresis behaviour, including the backbone curves of CLT connections, with the
hysteresis loops showing that the FEA line up with the test results in most of the cycles. However,
in some cycles, the test results show irregular drops or changes in slope as a result of sudden fastener
failures or formation of cracks and wood failure that was not captured by the FEA models.
From the FEA, the connections’ stiffness, ductility, yield and ultimate load, and yield and ultimate
displacement were calculated. All parameters as listed in Table 5 (ultimate load (Pu ), ultimate
displacement (du ), yield load (Py ), yield displacement (dy ), ductility (D) and elastic stiffness (Ke ))
were computed based on EEEP curves. The peak loads (Ppeak ) and the energy dissipation capacity
(E) from the hysteresis loops are also shown in Table 5. From these results, it can be shown that the
brackets have similar strength, stiffness and ductility under both tension and shear tests; therefore,
they can be utilized for designing for both shear and tension resistance. The differences between
the FEA models and experiments of Gavric et al. [12,13] and Schneider et al. [14] were found to be,
on average, 7% and 12% for peak loads and energy dissipation, respectively. These differences can
be considered acceptable and therefore, the connection models may be deemed appropriate to be
implemented into the full-scale CLT shear wall model to validate these experimental results.

Table 5. CLT Connection FE results and parameters from EEEP curve.

Type of Test ID Pu (kN) du (mm) Py (kN) dy (mm) D (–) Ke (kN/mm) Ppeak 1 (kN) Ppeak 2 (kN) E 1 (kNm) E 2 (kNm)
B1 39.5 29.6 45.4 6.9 4.3 6.6 51.9 51.0 6.2 6.0
B2 43.0 27.9 48.0 8.1 3.4 5.9 52.1 53.9 4.4 4.1
B3 35.0 23.4 37.3 7.8 3.0 4.8 44.3 44.3 2.5 2.7
Tension B4 31.6 22.8 35.2 4.6 5.0 7.7 39.9 42.2 2.8 2.5
B5 20.2 23.1 20.2 8.1 2.9 2.5 25.8 24.2 0.9 1.0
HD1 30.0 23.2 32.4 12.9 1.8 2.5 38.0 36.8 1.1 1.0
HD2 40.8 22.0 41.8 8.5 2.6 4.9 51.9 50.2 1.3 1.4
B1 33.7 33.2 38.1 7.7 4.3 5.0 41.5 44.8 6.5 7.2
B2 42.1 32.4 50.0 9.4 3.5 5.9 53.4 54.8 8.5 8.3
B3 41.6 33.7 43.0 10.7 3.2 4.2 51.9 50.6 8.6 8.2
Shear B4 34.6 29.5 37.3 6.9 4.4 5.6 43.3 42.1 6.6 5.9
B5 20.9 35.4 23.9 11.2 3.2 2.2 26.0 27.8 4.8 5.2
WW1 3 2.2 31.1 2.2 6.4 4.9 0.4 2.7 2.7 0.5 0.5
WW2 3 1.6 47.9 1.7 9.7 5.0 0.2 2.0 2.0 0.6 0.5

Note: 1 FE results, 2 test results; 3 calculations are based on single connector/shear plane.
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 8 of 13
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

60 60
Test Test
40 FE Model 40 FE Model
Envelope Envelope
20 20

Load [kN]
Load [kN]

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
(a) Displacement [mm] (b) Displacement [mm]
60 8
Test Test
6
40 FE Model FE Model
Envelope 4 Envelope
20
2

Load [kN]
Load [kN]

0 0

-2
-20
-4
-40 -6

-60 -8
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
(c) Displacement [mm] (d) Displacement [mm]

Figure 4. CLT connection’s test vs. FEA model: (a) Bracket B1- shear; (b) bracket B1- tension;
Figure 4. CLT connection’s test vs. FEA model: (a) Bracket B1 - shear; (b) bracket B1 - tension;
(c) hold-down HD1-tension, and (d) STS connector WW1-shear (two connectors).
(c) hold-down HD1 -tension, and (d) STS connector WW1 -shear (two connectors).
3.2. CLT Shear Walls
3.2. CLT Shear Walls
The calibrated connection models were incorporated into the FEA models of the CLT shear walls
and calibrated
The the wall modelsconnectionwere analyzed
models were using incorporated
the loading protocols
into the followed
FEA models in theoffull-scale
the CLT tests
shearofwalls
and thePopovski et al. [18]were
wall models and Gavric
analyzed et al. [19]. the
using Similar to these
loading tests, reverse
protocols cyclicin
followed displacements
the full-scale were
tests of
applied in the top nodes of the FEA wall models, and the resulting force
Popovski et al. [18] and Gavric et al. [19]. Similar to these tests, reverse cyclic displacements were was measured in each cycle
at the bottom of the wall support. The load-displacement graphs from the tests and FEA models were
applied in the top nodes of the FEA wall models, and the resulting force was measured in each cycle at
plotted together, and the accuracy of the FEA models was compared and validated against the CLT
the bottom of the wall support. The load-displacement graphs from the tests and FEA models were
shear wall test results as presented in Figure 5. The hysteresis loops along with their backbone curves
plotted together,
indicate andagreement
a strong the accuracy betweenof the FEA
tests andmodels
FEA. was compared and validated against the CLT
shear wallThe testparameters
results as presented
representing the shear wallhysteresis
in Figure 5. The loops along with
seismic performance theirstrength
(stiffness, backbone curves
and
indicate a strong
ductility) were agreement
calculated between tests andcurves
from the backbone FEA. based on EEEP curves according to ASTM E2126
The
[25] parameters representing
(Table 6). Overall, the peak theand shear wall seismic
ultimate loads and performance (stiffness,
displacements, energystrength and ductility)
dissipations and
were stiffness
calculatedof the wallsthe
from increased with the
backbone increasing
curves basednumber
on EEEP of connectors. For example,
curves according the single
to ASTM wall [25]
E2126
(Tablewith four brackets
6). Overall, and two
the peak andHDsultimate(I.1) showed
loads and 42% and 48% higherenergy
displacements, peak loads and displacements,
dissipations and stiffness of
respectively, compared to the single wall with two brackets and two HDs (I.2). Moreover, with the
the walls increased with the increasing number of connectors. For example, the single wall with four
higher gravity loading, peak and ultimate loads, energy dissipation and stiffness all increased.
brackets and two HDs (I.1) showed 42% and 48% higher peak loads and displacements, respectively,
However, the change in ductility was not found to be significant and no clear trend was observed.
comparedIntothe thecoupled
single wall with two brackets and two HDs (I.2). Moreover, with the higher gravity
shear walls, the walls with four HDs showed better seismic performance
loading, peak and ultimate
compared to walls with two HDs loads, energy
in terms dissipation
of peak andand stiffness
ultimate alland
loads, increased. However,
displacements the change
and energy
in ductility was not
dissipation. found to be
Additionally, significant
with and no clear
the same number trendinwas
of screws observed.
vertical connections, the walls with
In the coupled
half-lap shear walls,
joints showed higherthe walls withinfour
performance HDs
terms of showed
peak andbetter seismic
ultimate loadsperformance
compared to compared
walls
withwith
to walls spline
twojoints.
HDsMost importantly,
in terms of peakthe andchange in ductility
ultimate loads,of thedisplacements
and walls with half-lap andjoints
energywasdissipation.
found
to be significant
Additionally, with the (i.e.,same
36% higher
number compared
of screwsto walls with spline
in vertical joints). the walls with half-lap joints
connections,
showed higher performance in terms of peak and ultimate loads tests
As seen in Table 6, the average differences between FEA and on single
compared to CLT
wallswalls’
withtests [18]joints.
spline
in the peak loads, peak displacements and energy dissipation capacities were 5%, 10% and 6%,
Most importantly, the change in ductility of the walls with half-lap joints was found to be significant
(i.e., 36% higher compared to walls with spline joints).
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 9 of 13

As seen in Table 6, the average differences between FEA and tests on single CLT walls’ tests [18]
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
in the peak loads, peak displacements and energy dissipation capacities were 5%, 10% and 6%,
respectively. Similarly,
respectively. by comparing
Similarly, FEA
by comparing to tests
FEA onon
to tests coupled
coupledCLT
CLTwalls,
walls,the
the average differencesinin the
average differences
peak the
loads,
peak loads, peak displacements and energy dissipation capacities were found to be4%,
peak displacements and energy dissipation capacities were found to be 4%,7%7%and
and 11%,
respectively. The differences were small and can be considered as acceptable.
11%, respectively. The differences were small and can be considered as acceptable.

150 150
Test Test
100 FE Model 100 FE Model
Backbone Backbone
50 50
Load [kN]

Load [kN]
0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
-100 -50 0 50 100 -100 -50 0 50 100
(a) Displacement [mm] (b) Displacement [mm]

Figure 5. CLT shear wall FEA vs. test: (a) Single shear wall (SN-00) and (b) coupled shear wall (II.1).
Figure 5. CLT shear wall FEA vs. test: (a) Single shear wall (SN-00) and (b) coupled shear wall (II.1).
Table 6. CLT single and coupled shear walls parameters from EEEP curve and FEA.
Table 6. CLT single and coupled shear walls parameters from EEEP curve and FEA.
Ppeak 1 Ppeak 2 dpeak 1 dpeak 2 E1 E2 Pu 1 dy 1 D1 Ke 1
ID
Ppeak(kN)
1 Ppeak(kN)
2 (mm)
dpeak 1 (mm)
dpeak 2 (kNm)
E1 E(kNm)
2 Pu(kN)
1 d(mm)
y
1 (–)
D 1 (kN/mm)
Ke 1
ID
SN-00 (kN)93.3 (kN)88.9 (mm) 48.3 (mm)
44.9 (kNm)
26.4 (kNm) 27.8 (kN) 73.2 (mm)
19.0 3.5
(–)
4.4
(kN/mm)
SN-02 96.4 90.3 40.2 41.7 28.8 30.5 74.9 17.8 3.9 4.7
SN-00 93.3 88.9 48.3 44.9 26.4 27.8 73.2 19.0 3.5 4.4
SN-02SN-03 96.499.6 90.398.1 46.2
40.2 44.1
41.7 29.9
28.8 30.531.0 78.9
74.9 17.8
17.8 4.5
3.9 4.94.7
SN-03 S1-05 99.697.8 98.1102.7 46.231.8 44.1 35.3 29.925.6 31.028.1 78.979.7 17.8 18.6 3.3
4.5 4.94.9
S1-05S2-06 97.892.9 102.7 100.1 31.834.8 35.3
42.2 25.625.0 28.126.9 79.776.4 18.6 3.3
19.2 3.3 4.64.9
S2-06 92.9 100.1 34.8 42.2 25.0 26.9 76.4 19.2 3.3 4.6
RN-04
RN-04 99.399.3 102.3 102.3 35.735.7 39.2
39.2 25.625.6 26.826.8 79.679.6 16.6 16.6 3.4
3.4
5.45.4
SN-20SN-20 153.9153.9 152.1 152.1 47.447.4 40.9
40.9 44.344.3 45.545.5 124.9 124.9 19.4
19.4 4.2
4.2 7.27.2
SNH-08
SNH-08126.2126.2 118.2 118.2 49.849.8 53.1
53.1 36.436.4 37.737.7 99.599.5 14.3 3.9
14.3 3.9 7.37.3
I.1
I.1 75.075.0 70.770.7 34.734.7 38.7 38.7 12.612.6 13.113.1 59.759.7 12.6 3.0
12.6 3.0 5.05.0
I.2 106.7 104.2 51.5 57.3 21.9 24.1 86.2 16.2 3.5 5.9
I.2 106.7 104.2 51.5 57.3 21.9 24.1 86.2 16.2 3.5 5.9
II.1 95.1 97.2 47.9 53.4 30.0 32.0 74.9 15.7 5.1 5.3
II.3II.1 84.195.1 84.497.2 50.547.9 46.6 53.4 26.930.0 28.432.0 66.274.9 14.9 15.7 5.1
5.6 5.35.0
II.4II.3 100.884.1 93.184.4 57.850.5 53.8 46.6 21.126.9 24.528.4 80.166.2 21.3 14.9 5.6
3.7 5.04.2
III.1II.4 94.6100.8 102.593.1 70.057.8 66.0 53.8 30.821.1 33.124.5 75.480.1 18.5 4.5
21.3 3.7 4.24.6
III.2 88.2 91.8 68.6 65.4 27.3 25.5 68.6 19.5 4.3 3.9
III.3
III.1 101.7
94.6 102.5
102.9
70.0
56.1
66.0
54.3
30.8
21.1 28.0
33.1 75.4
81.0
18.5
22.3
4.5
3.6
4.64.0
III.2 88.2 91.8 68.6 65.4
1 27.32 25.5 68.6 19.5 4.3 3.9
Note: FE results, test results.
III.3 101.7 102.9 56.1 54.3 21.1 28.0 81.0 22.3 3.6 4.0
Note: 1 FE results, 2 test results.
3.3. Parametric Study
3.3. Parametric Study
The results from the parametric study on single walls, illustrated in Figure 6, demonstrate that
The stiffness
the capacity, results from
andthe parametric
energy study on
dissipation single walls,
increase with illustrated in Figure
an increase 6, demonstrate
in the number that
of connectors.
the capacity, stiffness and energy dissipation increase with an increase in the number of connectors.
By increasing the connectors from four to seven, the average strength, stiffness and energy dissipation
By increasing the connectors from four to seven, the average strength, stiffness and energy dissipation
in single shear walls with brackets increased by 57%, 39%, and 30%, respectively (Figure 6a,b,d).
in single shear walls with brackets increased by 57%, 39%, and 30%, respectively (Figure 6a,b,d).
Similarly, the increase in average strength, stiffness and energy dissipation in the shear walls with
Similarly, the increase in average strength, stiffness and energy dissipation in the shear walls with
brackets and hold-downs
brackets and hold-downs was 53%,
was 53%,33%,
33%,and
and39%,
39%, respectively (Figure
respectively (Figure 6e,f,h).
6e,f,h). While
While the the increase
increase in in
strength in single shear walls was found to be linear with the increase in the number
strength in single shear walls was found to be linear with the increase in the number of connectors, of connectors,
the increase in stiffness
the increase andand
in stiffness energy
energy dissipation
dissipation did
did not followaalinear
not follow linear trend.
trend. However,
However, placing
placing the the
HDs onHDs oncorner
the the corner of the
of the single
single wallsincreased
walls increased the
the seismic
seismicperformance
performance significantly (i.e.,(i.e.,
significantly the increase
the increase
in stiffness
in stiffness and and energy
energy dissipation
dissipation wasfound
was foundto to be
be 49%
49% and
and23%,
23%,respectively).
respectively).There
Therewaswas no clear
no clear
trend observed in the change in ductility in the shear walls, however, the
trend observed in the change in ductility in the shear walls, however, the walls with HDs walls with HDs showed
showed
higher ductility compared to walls with brackets only (i.e., 7% higher ductility).
higher ductility compared to walls with brackets only (i.e., 7% higher ductility).
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 10 of 13
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

200 200 HD1+B1

HD1+B2
B1 HD1+B3
150
Ppeak [kN]
150

Ppeak [kN]
HD1+B4
B2
HD1+B5
100 B3 100 HD2+B1
B4 HD2+B2
HD2+B3
50 50
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 HD2+B4
(a) (e) HD2+B5
Number of connectors Number of connectors

9 9 HD1+B1
8 HD1+B2
8
B1
Ke [kN/mm]

HD1+B3

Ke [kN/mm]
7 7 HD1+B4
B2
6 HD1+B5
6 B3
HD2+B1
5 B4 5
HD2+B2
4 HD2+B3
4
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 HD2+B4
(b) (f) Number of connectors
Number of connectors HD2+B5

7 7 HD1+B1
HD1+B2
6 6
B1 HD1+B3
5 5 HD1+B4
B2
D [-]

HD1+B5
D [-]

4 4
B3
HD2+B1
3 B4 3 HD2+B2
2 HD2+B3
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 HD2+B4
(c) (g) Number of connectors HD2+B5
Number of connectors

70 70 HD1+B1
HD1+B2
60 60
B1 HD1+B3
E [kNm]

E [kNm]

50 50 HD1+B4
B2
40 HD1+B5
40 B3 HD2+B1
30 30 HD2+B2
B4
20 20 HD2+B3
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 HD2+B4
(d) (h) HD2+B5
Number of connectors Number of connectors

Figure 6. Single walls with brackets: (a) capacity, (b) stiffness, (c) ductility, and (d) energy. Single
Figure 6. Single walls
walls with withand
brackets brackets: (a) capacity,
HDs: (e) capacity, (b) stiffness,
(f) stiffness, (c) and
(g) ductility, ductility, and (d) energy. Single walls
(h) energy.
with brackets and HDs: (e) capacity, (f) stiffness, (g) ductility, and (h) energy.
The results from the parametric study on coupled CLT shear walls are shown in Figure 7. By
comparing the same number of connectors in the vertical shear connections of the coupled shear
The results from
walls, it was the parametric
observed that the wallsstudy on coupled
with half-lap CLT shear
joints performed better walls
comparedaretoshown
walls within Figure 7.
By comparing
spline the same
joints. numberstrength,
The average of connectors in the vertical
stiffness, ductility shear
and energy connections
dissipation of the shear
in the coupled coupled shear
wallsobserved
walls, it was with half-lap
thatjoints
the was
walls found
with to half-lap
be 16%, 32%, 10%,
joints and 18% higher,
performed betterrespectively,
comparedwhen to walls with
compared to walls with spline joints (Figure 7a,b,d). Furthermore, the coupled shear walls with four
spline joints. The average strength, stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation in the coupled shear walls
HDs showed higher strength, stiffness and energy dissipation (i.e., 43%, 25%, and 14% higher,
with half-lap joints was
respectively) when found to be
compared to 16%, 32%, shear
the coupled 10%,walls
andwith
18%twohigher, respectively,
HDs (Figure when
7e,f,h). The compared to
coupled
walls withshear
spline
wallsjoints (Figure
with the 7a,b,d).
HD2 type Furthermore,
of hold-down the coupled
showed higher shear walls
seismic performance withoffour
in terms HDs showed
strength,
higher strength, stiffness and energy dissipation (i.e., 43%, 25%, and 14% higher, respectively) when
compared to the coupled shear walls with two HDs (Figure 7e,f,h). The coupled shear walls with
the HD2 type of hold-down showed higher seismic performance in terms of strength, stiffness and
energy (i.e., 12%, 8% and 26% higher, respectively) compared to shear walls with the HD1 type of
hold-down. By contrast, the ductility decreased with an increase in the number of HDs by 20%.
However, the average ductility of the coupled shear walls was found to be 5.1, some 31% higher than
the single CLT shear wall’s average of 3.9.
 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

stiffness and energy (i.e., 12%, 8% and 26% higher, respectively) compared to shear walls with the
HD1 type of hold-down. By contrast, the ductility decreased with an increase in the number of HDs
Buildings 20%.8,However,
by 2018, 100 the average ductility of the coupled shear walls was found to be 5.1, some 31%11 of 13
higher than the single CLT shear wall’s average of 3.9.

150 150

PPeak [kN]
PPeak [kN]
120 120

90
90
WW1 WW2 2HD1 2HD2
4HD1 4HD2
60
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 60
(a) (e) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

6 6

Ke [kN/m]
Ke [kN/m]

5 5

4 4
WW1 WW2 2HD1 2HD2
4HD1 4HD2

3 3
(b) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 (f) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

7 7

6 6
D [-]

D [-]

5 5

2HD1 2HD2
4 WW1 WW2 4 4HD1 4HD2

3 3
(c) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 (g) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

70 70

60 60
E [kNm]
E [kNm]

50 50

40 40
2HD1 2HD2
30 WW1 WW2 30 4HD1 4HD2

20 20
(d) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 (h) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

Figure 7. Coupled CLT shear walls with half-lap vs. spline joints: (a) capacity, (b) stiffness, (c)
Figure 7. Coupled CLT shear walls with half-lap vs. spline joints: (a) capacity, (b) stiffness, (c) ductility,
ductility, and (d) energy. Coupled CLT shear walls with two HDs vs. four HDs: (e) capacity, (f)
and (d) energy. Coupled CLT shear walls with two HDs vs. four HDs: (e) capacity, (f) stiffness,
stiffness, (g) ductility, and (h) energy.
(g) ductility, and (h) energy.

4. Conclusions
The present study evaluated the behaviour of single and coupled CLT shear walls under lateral
loading. FEA models of CLT connections were developed using nonlinear springs which were
calibrated against test results and utilized to model full-scale shear walls under reversed cyclic loading.
The FEA models of the CLT shear walls were compared to and verified against published test results.
Subsequently, a parametric study was conducted with variations in the number and type of connectors
evaluating the capacity, stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation for both single and coupled CLT
shear walls. The investigations allowed the following conclusions to be drawn:
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 12 of 13

(1) The FEA models using the Pinching4 element accurately predicted the hysteresis behaviour of
CLT connectors (e.g., brackets, hold-downs and shear screws).
(2) The FEA models of CLT shear walls closely predicted the load-deformation curves and the energy
dissipation capacities of the shear walls when compared to published test results.
(3) It was observed that the capacity, stiffness and energy dissipation of the single and coupled CLT
shear walls increases with the increase in the number of connectors.
(4) Ductility in the coupled shear walls was found to be 31% higher than in single shear walls.
The decrease in ductility with an increase in the number of connectors was not significant.
(5) Single shear walls with hold-downs and brackets performed better under seismic loading
compared to walls with brackets only (23% higher stiffness, 49% more energy dissipation).
(6) Coupled shear walls with four HDs performed better compared to coupled shear walls with
two HDs (e.g., 43%, 25%, and 14% higher capacity, stiffness and energy dissipation, respectively,
observed).
(7) Coupled shear walls with half-lap joints performed better under seismic loading compared to
walls with spline joints.

In order to efficiently design CLT buildings, it is important to accurately predict the strength and
stiffness of both single and coupled CLT shear walls with various types and numbers of connectors.
The findings from this research will be a useful tool for engineers to efficiently design CLT shear walls
in platform-type construction.
The findings from this study were based on the CLT connections that were available and used in
traditional timber construction; however, a future study aims to investigate CLT shear walls with high
performance connections that dissipate high seismic energy. The present study focused on CLT coupled
walls with two panels only. Future research will focus on CLT coupled walls with more than two panels
connected vertically. Furthermore, this research considered a constant vertical load of 20 kN/m on the
CLT shear wall, which corresponds to a realistic loading for mid-rise CLT platform-type buildings.
As this vertical load has an impact on the resistance and deflection of CLT shear walls, future work
should focus on this parameter, in addition to top joints and perpendicular walls.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, M.S.; Methodology, M.S. and T.T.; Supervision, S.A. and T.T.;
Writing-original draft, M.S. and T.T.; Writing-review & editing, S.A. and T.T.
Funding: This research was supported by the British Columbia Innovation Council through funding to the BC
Leadership Chair in Tall Wood and Hybrid Structures Engineering.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Brandner, R.; Flatscher, G.; Ringhofer, A. Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): Overview and Development. Eur. J.
Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 331–351. [CrossRef]
2. Dietsch, P.; Brandner, R. Self-tapping screws and threaded rods as reinforcement for structural timber
elements—A state-of-the-art report. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 97, 78–89. [CrossRef]
3. Hossain, A.; Danzig, I.; Tannert, T. Cross-Laminated Timber Shear Connections with Double-Angled
Self-Tapping Screw Assemblies. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016099. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, X.; Popovski, M.; Tannert, T. High-capacity hold-down for mass-timber buildings. Constr. Build. Mater.
2018, 164, 688–703. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.; Shahnewaz, M.; Tannert, T. Seismic reliability analysis of a timber steel hybrid system. Eng. Struct.
2018, 167, 629–638. [CrossRef]
6. Loss, C.; Frangi, A. Experimental investigation on in-plane stiffness and strength of innovative steel-timber
hybrid floor diaphragms. Eng. Struct. 2017, 138, 229–244. [CrossRef]
7. Brandner, R.; Bogensperger, T.; Schickhofer, G. In plane Shear Strength of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT):
Test Configuration, Quantification and influencing Parameters. In Proceedings of the CIB W18, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 26–29 September 2013.
Buildings 2018, 8, 100 13 of 13

8. Gagnon, S.; Pirvu, C. Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Handbook; FPInnovations: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012.
9. Tannert, T.; Follesa, M.; Fragiacomo, M.; González, P.; Isoda, H.; Moroder, D.; Xiong, H.; van de Lindt, J.
Seismic Design of Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings. Wood Fiber Sci. 2018, in press.
10. Shahnewaz, M.; Tannert, T.; Alam, M.S.; Popovski, M. In-Plane Stiffness of Cross Laminated Timber Panels
with Openings. Struct. Eng. Int. IABSE 2017, 27, 217–223. [CrossRef]
11. Tomasi, R.; Smith, I. Experimental characterization of monotonic and cyclic loading responses of CLT
panel-to-foundation angle bracket connections. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 27, 04014189. [CrossRef]
12. Gavric, I.; Fragiacomo, M.; Ceccotti, A. Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-laminated
(CLT) structures. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1841–1857. [CrossRef]
13. Gavric, I.; Fragiacomo, M.; Ceccotti, A. Cyclic behaviour of typical screwed connections for cross-laminated
(CLT) structures. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2015, 73, 179–191. [CrossRef]
14. Schneider, J.; Shen, Y.; Stiemer, S.F.; Tesfamariam, S. Assessment and comparison of experimental
and numerical model studies of cross-laminated timber mechanical connections under cyclic loading.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 77, 197–212. [CrossRef]
15. Gavric, I.; Popovski, M. Design models for CLT shearwalls and assemblies based on connection properties.
In Proceedings of the INTER Conference, Bath, UK, 1–4 September 2014.
16. Flatscher, G.; Schickhofer, G. Displacement-based determination of laterally loaded Cross Laminated Timber
(CLT) wall systems. In Proceedings of the INTER 2016 Meeting, Graz, Austria, 16–19 August 2016; p. 49-12-1.
17. Rinaldin, G.; Amadio, C.; Fragiacomo, M. A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of connections
in cross-laminated wooden structures. Eartq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 42, 2023–2042. [CrossRef]
18. Izzi, M.; Polastri, A.; Fragiacomo, M. Investigating the hysteretic behaviour of Cross-Laminated Timber wall
systems due to connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018035. [CrossRef]
19. Tamagnone, G.; Rinaldin, G.; Fragiacomo, M. A novel method for non-linear design of CLT wall systems.
Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 760–771. [CrossRef]
20. Casagrande, D.; Doudak, G.; Mauro, L.; Polastri, A. Analytical Approach to Establishing the Elastic Behavior
of Multipanel CLT Shear Walls Subjected to Lateral Loads. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 144, 04017193. [CrossRef]
21. Follesa, M.; Fragiacomo, M.; Casagrande, D.; Tomasi, R.; Piazza, M.; Vassallo, D.; Canetti, D.; Rossi, S.
The new provisions for the seismic design of timber buildings in Europe. Eng. Struct. 2018, 168, 736–747.
[CrossRef]
22. Ceccotti, A.; Lauriola, M.; Pinna, M.; Sandhaas, C. SOFIE Project—Cyclic Tests on Cross-Laminated
Wooden Panels. In Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Portland, OR, USA,
6–10 August 2006.
23. Popovski, M.; Schneider, J.; Schweinsteiger, M. Lateral load resistance of cross laminated wood panels.
In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Riva del Garda, Italy, 20–24 June 2010.
24. Gavric, I.; Fragiacomo, M.; Ceccotti, A. Cyclic Behaviour of CLT Wall Systems: Experimental Tests and
Analytical Prediction Model. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 141, 04015034. [CrossRef]
25. Reynolds, T.; Foster, R.; Bregulla, J.; Chang, W.S.; Harris, R.; Ramage, M. Lateral-Load Resistance of
Cross-Laminated Timber Shear Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 143, 06017006. [CrossRef]
26. Canadian Standards Association. CSA O86-16. Engineering Design in Wood; Canadian Standards Association:
Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2016.
27. Timber Structures—Test Methods—Cyclic Testing of Joints Made with Mechanical Fasteners; EN 12512;
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
28. ASTM International. Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for
Buildings; ASTM E2126-11; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
29. McKenna, F.; Fenves, G.L.; Jeremic, B.; Scott, M.H. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.
2000. Available online: http://opensees.berkely.edu (accessed on 30 June 2017).
30. Mitra, N. Pinching4 Model. OpenSees User Documentation. 2012. Available online: http://opensees.
berkeley.edu (accessed on 30 June 2017).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).