Lesson E.01 - ENG - FEM Modelling of A CLT Building PDF

Università degli Studi di Padova
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Edile e Ambientale - DICEA
Course: PRECAST AND TIMBER STRUCTURES

Academic year: 2016-17
Professors: PhD. Eng. Roberto Scotta
PhD. Eng. Davide Trutalli davide.trutalli@dicea.unipd.it
PhD. Eng. Luca Pozza
Eng. Luca Marchi luca.marchi@dicea.unipd.it
Lesson no.: E.01

Rev: 24/05/17
Title: FEM modelling of a CLT building

Precast and timber structures – academic year 2016-2017 - Davide Trutalli – Luca Marchi
Università degli Studi di Padova - Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Edile e Ambientale - DICEA
OUTLINE
1. Preliminary static design of CLT wall and floor panels

2. Preliminary seismic design and arrangement of
connections based on a simplified linear static analysis
3. Evaluation of preliminary stiffness and strength of
connections (FIRST ITERATION)
4. FEM modelling of the building:
Natural frequency analysis
Modal response spectrum analysis
5.Evaluation of final stiffness and strength of

connections (LAST ITERATION) – EXERCISE FOR THE
STUDENTS
GEOMETRY OF THE BUILDING
PLAN VIEWS
FIRST STOREY SECOND STOREY
GEOMETRY OF THE BUILDING
SIDE VIEWS
PRELIMINARY STATIC AND SEISMIC DESIGN
Analysis of loads
1st storey floor
g1: CLT panel – thickness = 20cm 1,00 kN/m²
g2: Non structural walls + finishing + suspended ceilings 2,00 kN/m²
q: Variable load 2,00 kN/m²

Ψ2 = 0,3
TOTAL 5,00kN/m²
Wseismic= 1,00 + 2,00 + 0,3 x 2 = 3,6kN/m²
2nd storey floor
g2: Non structural walls + finishing + suspended ceilings 2,00 kN/m²
q: Variable load: snow 1,50 kN/m²

Ψ2 = 0,0
TOTAL 4,50kN/m²
Wseismic = 1,00 + 2,00 + 0,0 x 1,5 = 3,0kN/m²
Structural walls
g2: Finishing 1,50 kN/m²
TOTAL 2,00 kN/m
Preliminary static design
Producers’ tables may be used
1st storey floor:
gk = 2.0 kN/mq
qk = 2.0 kN/mq
L = 6.0m
 Thickn.: 196mm 5 layers
2nd storey floor (roof):
gk = 2.0 kN/mq
qk = 1.5 kN/mq
L = 6.0m
 Thickn.: 196mm 5 layers
Preliminary static design
Producers’ tables may be used
WALLS (AREF floor 3x1m; h wall 3m):
gk = (3.0kN/mq + 3.0kN/mq) x 3m +
(1.5kN/mq + 1.5kN/mq) x 3m =27 kN/m
qk = (1.5kN/mq + 2.0kN/mq) x 3m
=10.5kN/m
 Thickn. 97mm 3 layers
Computation of seismic masses
Afloor1 = 108.0 m2 Area of floors
Afloor2 = 72.0 m2
Pwall_storey1 = 60.0 m
Pwass_storey2 = 42.0 m
Length of walls in plan
SEISMIC WEIGHT AT ROOF: W_PCOP

W_ PCOP  72.0  3.0  42.0  2.0 1.50  342.0kN
4.75
W_ PCOP  342.0kN / 72m 2  4.75kN / m 2  t / mm 2  4.84 10 7 t / mm 2
9.81 10 6
SEISMIC WEIGHT AT INTERSTOREY FLOOR: W_P1

W_ P1  108.0  3.6  60.0  2.0  3.0  748.8kN
6.93
W_ P1  748.8kN / 108m 2  6.93kN / m 2  t / mm 2  7.07 107 t / mm 2
9.8110 6
NOTE:
1) Once the seismic weights of floors are known, a linear static analysis can be performed to estimate the
seismic force at each storey.
2) This scheme considers only masses at the floor level. In this way, finite elements without density can
be modelled to reduce the number of vibration modes.
Linear static analysis
The building dues not comply with regularity criteria (in plan and in elevation). Therefore, the
linear static analysis is not permitted.
Nevertheless, it is a useful way to:
• Estimate seismic masses and storey shear;
• Evaluate accidental torsional effects;
• Perform a preliminary design of connections and evaluate their stiffness to obtain a
preliminary model;
• Verify the results from modal response spectrum analysis.
Sd [g] DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA Earthquake action:

0.600
- Friuli Venezia Giulia – Gemona del Friuli;
0.500
ULS DLS - Soil type C;
0.400 - T1=0.05H3/4=0.192s
0.300
- q0=2.0
- kR=0.8
0.200
- q0xkR=1.6
0.100
0.000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Sd(T1) = 0.52g
Period T [s]
Horizontal seismic forces at each storey
Wi (kN) Mi (t) zi (m) zj Wj (KNm) Fi (kN)
STOREY 2 342.00 34.86 6.00 2052.00 270.78

STOREY 1 748.80 76.33 3.00 2246.40 296.43
TOT. 1090.80 111.19 4298.40 567.22
Fh  Sd (T1 )  W  λ  0.52 1090.80 1.00  567.22kN
FP1_1.25  296.43 1.25  370.0kN

HORIZONTAL SEISMIC FORCES
(Increased by 25%, to be used as
conservative estimation including effects FPCOP_1.25  270.78 1.25  338.0kN
of irregularities)
Accidental torsional effects
12.0m 6.0m
Earthquake // to x:
ey_P1 = 0.05 x 12000.0mm = 600.0 mm
ey_PCOP = 0.05 x 12000.0mm = 600.0 mm
12.0m
Earthquake // to y:
ex_P1 = 0.05 x 12000.0mm = 600.0 mm
y ex_PCOP = 0.05 x 12000.0mm = 600.0 mm
The eccentricity value is assumed constant at

x both storeys
COMPUTATION OF ACCIDENTAL TORSIONAL MOMENTS FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:

Earthquake // to x: These moments can be applied
MT_P1_X = 600.0 mm x 296.43kN = 177.8 x 106 Nmm directly to the centre of mass in
MT_PCOP_X = 600.0 mm x 270.78kN = 162.47 x 106 Nmm the numerical model and
combined with the vertical static
Earthquake // to y: loads and the results from
MT_P1_y = 600.0 mm x 296.43kN = 177.8 x 106 Nmm dynamic analysis
MT_PCOP_y = 600.0 mm x 270.78kN = 162.47 x 106 Nmm
Modelling of CLT building: iterative procedure
It is assumed that the distribution of seismic forces among the walls does not depend on the characteristics of the CLT
panel (thickness, inertia, length ...) but only on the connections to foundation and at each floor level. In the first step,
the connections are distributed according to the length of the walls.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
EQUIVALENT LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
Elastic period T according to code formulation
1st DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS

ANALYTICAL MODELS
Evaluation of type, resistance, stiffness and distribution
FE MODEL OF THE BUILDING

Stiffness and distribution according to the i-th design of connections
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL FREQUENCY AND RESPONSE-SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
Evaluation of i-th values of T and values of seismic force for each connection
SEISMIC FORCE SEISMIC FORCE

> (greater than) < (lower than)
CONNECTION STRENGTH CONNECTION STRENGTH
Not verified
UPDATE CONNECTION DLS VERIFICATIONS

DESIGN (i+1) RESPONSE-SPECTRUM
Strength, stiffness and distribution ANALYSIS
Verified
STOP
Modelling of CLT building: iterative procedure
STEP 1: Definition of a FIRST arrangement of
connections and of their strength based on
equivalent linear static analysis and simplified
UPDATE OF
computation schemes. The resistance (Ri) and CONNECTION
the stiffness (Ki) of each connection are now STIFFNESS
available to obtain a preliminary model.
ELASTIC PERIOD,
DISTRIBUTION
STEP 2: Modelling of the building. The modal OF FORCES AND
response spectrum analysis is performed, DRIFTS
UPDATE OF
combining results with static forces and accidental CONNECTION
torsional moments. The forces for each STRENGTH
connection element (Fi) are now available.
ULS AND DLS
VERIFICATIONS
STEP 3: Verification in terms of forces of the
connection elements comparing the forces (Fi)
with the resistances (Ri)
Fi > Ri  Ri+1 ≥ Fi
Fi ≤ Ri  STOP
 UPDATING Ki+1
according to Ri+1 DLS VERIFICATION
Shear-resistant connections
The calculation of the strength of the angle brackets can be made referring to the manufacturer's
catalogs. If the stiffness is known (from experimental tests), it can be used directly in the model,
obtaining more reliable values than using the stiffness of the nails obtained from Code (kser) multiplied
by the number of nails in the connection.
In this building the chosen connections are:

ANGLE BRACKETS TYPE WBR100 FULLY NAILED (12 ANKER NAILS 4x60mm)
8.94kN 1.0
Rk , ANG  8.94kN Rd , ANG   5.96kN
1.5
VPT_1.25 / Rd_ANG = 708.0/5.96  120 ANGLE BR. AT FOUNDATION

1ST ITER. DISTRIBUTION:
(V=SEISMIC SHEAR) VP1_1.25 / Rd_ANG = 338.0/5.96  60 ANGLE BR. AT FLOOR LEVEL
L_WALL_PT_x = 18.6m  120/18.6 = 6.5 ANGLE BR./m

L_WALL_PT_y = 22.8m  120/22.8 = 5.3 ANGLE BR./m AT FOUNDATION
L_WALL_P1_x = 11.4m  60/11.4 = 5.3 ANGLE BR./m
L_WALL_P1_y = 16.8m  60/16.8 = 3.6 ANGLE BR./m AT FLOOR LEVEL
SEE PLAN VIEW OF CONNECTIONS (1ST-ITERATION)

Uplift-resistant connections
The calculation of the strength of the hold-downs can be made referring to the manufacturer's
catalogs. If the stiffness is known (from experimental tests), it can be used directly in the model,
obtaining more reliable values than using the stiffness of the nails obtained from Code (kser) multiplied
by the number of nails in the connection.
In this building the chosen connections are:

HOLD-DOWNS TYPE WHT 540 WITH 42 ANKER NAILS 4x60mm (hereafter HD1)
HOLD-DOWNS TYPE WHT 440 WITH 30 ANKER NAILS 4x60mm (hereafter HD2)
81.1kN 1.0
Rk ,WHT 540  81.1kN Rd ,WHT 540   54.07kN
1.5
57.9kN 1.0
Rk ,WHT 440  57.9kN Rd ,WHT 440   38.6kN
1.5
Forces at hold-downs are calculated with a rotational equilibrium of each panel (cantilever panel –
scheme B) and of the entire building (global overturning – scheme A).
A: global overturning 2nd storey
MINSTAB= FPCOP x 3m = 270.78 x 3 = 812.34 kNm

<
MSTAB = WCOP x 3m = 342.0 x 3 = 1026.0 kNm
A: global overturning of the building

MINSTAB = FPCOP x 6m + FP1 x 3m =
= 270.78 x 6 + 296.43 x 3 = 2514.0 kNm
<
MSTAB = WCOP x 3m + WP1 x 5m =
= 342.0 x 3 + 748.8 x 5 = 4770.0 kNm
Global overturning stability is here guaranteed by vertical loads. Otherwise, it is necessary to verify that the hold-
downs of the wall on the building side in tension are sufficient.
1/6 FPCOP
B: verification of the most loaded wall
Wall // to floor span. 56.3 kN
1/5 FP1 1/3 FPCOP 18.0 kN
3.0 m
1/10 FP1 1/6 FPCOP
2/5 FP1 1/3 FPCOP
1/10 FP1
2/5 FP1 1/3 FPCOP 37.0 kN

18.0 kN
3.0 m
56.3  3  18.0  0.9
FHD _ P1   84.8kN  2 WHT 440
1.8
56.3  6  37.0  3  36.0  0.9
FHD _ PT   231.3kN  4 WHT 540 1.8 m
1.8
NOTE: The chosen hold-downs are not sufficient to resist entirely the forces. However, the assumption of this simplified static scheme
(cantilever panel without coupling beam) may result in an overestimation of hold-downs for narrow panels (as in this case), as it neglects the
stabilizing contribution offered by the orthogonal walls at corner and T joints and of coupling beams (lintels). This overestimation is
automatically corrected during iterations in numerical analysis, especially if the stiffness of vertical joints with lintels is properly modelled.
AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLE BRACKETS

FIRST ITERATION
AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF HOLD-DOWNS

FIRST ITERATION
MODELLING
Modelling strategies
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

Connections at the base Rigid  Actual stiffness Actual stiffness
Connections between floors and
walls above
Rigid  Actual stiffness Actual stiffness
Connections between floors and
Rigid Rigid Actual stiffness
walls underneath
Vertical panel-to-panel joints Rigid Actual stiffness Actual stiffness
Connections between perpendicular
Rigid Rigid Actual stiffness
walls (corners and T-joints)
Connections at bracing system (only
for light frame)
Stiffness of timber panel  Equivalent stiffness Equivalent stiffness
Connections between adjacent floor
Rigid Equivalent stiffness Actual stiffness
panels
Lintels Rigid Actual stiffness Actual stiffness
SUITABILITY WRONG CORRECT CORRECT
EFFICIENCY SIMPLE EFFICIENT COMPLEX
 = always wrong
MODELLING
Modelling strategies IN THIS EXERCISE:
MAIN CONCEPTS:
Monolithic wall
a) CONSTRUCTIVE TYPOLOGY
Coupled/uncoupled walls
b) CORNER / T-JOINTS Deformable

Rigid
c) CONNECTIONS FLOOR – WALL UNDERNEATH Deformable
Rigid
d) ANGLE BRACKETS / HOLD-DOWNS Deformable
Deformable
e) STIFFNESS OF FLOOR
Rigid
Density of elements
f) MASSES / SEISMIC WEIGHTS
Masses applied to floor levels
In the model, the actual stiffness of connections must be evaluated carefully as it influences
significantly the global response of the building and the distribution of the seismic forces
MODELLING
Modelling strategies
Computation of the shear stiffness of one 4x60mm Anker nail (one shear
plane, timber-to-timber connection):
k ser_nail   m  d 0.8 / 30  420 1.5  4 0.8 / 30  870.0 N/mm

1 .5
Modification for steel-to-timber connection:
k ser_nail - timber/steel  2  k ser_nail - timber/timber  1740.0 N/mm
ANGLE BR. WBR 100  k WBR100  12  k ser_nail - timber/steel  20880.0 N/mm
HOLD-DOWN WHT 440 k WHT440  30  k ser_nail - timber/steel  52200.0 N/mm
HOLD-DOWN WHT 540 k WHT540  42  k ser_nail - timber/steel  73060.0 N/mm
These are the real stiffness values. In the model another

correction has to be made to hold-down modelling
MODELLING
Equivalent stiffness of connections
Using a linear model, an equivalent stiffness has to be used to model the hold-downs
ROCKING: MODEL ≠ REALITY
To have the same top

displacement between
model and reality the
solution is:
kHD_model = 2 x kHD_reality
REALITY MODEL
d y_r    B  d y_HD_r  FHD / k HD _ r d y_m    B / 2  d y_HD_m  FHD / k HD _ m
H 1 d x_r  d x_m  k HD _ m  2  k HD _ r
d x_r  d y_r  H / B  FHD   d x_m
H
 2  d y_m  H / B  FHD  
2
B k HD _ r B k HD _ r
MODELLING
The irregularity in plan and in elevation of the building

requires the use of a linear (spectral) dynamic analysis to
determine the seismic forces at each connection element.
A numerical model that faithfully represents the stiffness

of connections and the distribution of the seismic masses
is needed.
THE NUMERICAL MODEL IS REALIZED BASED ON

STIFFNESS AND MASS VALUES OBTAINED IN THE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN (1st iteration i=1)
STEP 0: Editing material properties
Definition of model units:
Global Units
Energy-compatible system: mm – T – J – MPa - N
Editing of material properties:
Property  Beam or Plate
1D Elements 2D Elements
HD_1_PT_X2 Walls PT
HD_1_PT_X4 Walls P1
HD_2_PT_X2 Load Patch
HD_2_P1_X2
HD_2_P1
HD = hold-down
A_1X_PT
A = angle brackets
A_2X_PT
PT = 1st storey
A_1Y_PT
P1 = 2nd storey
A_2Y_PT
X – Y = Directions
A_1X_P1
X2 – X4 = number of hold-
A_2X_P1
downs in the same node
A_1Y_P1
CURB: beam at the floor
A_2Y_P1
edges
CURB
1D ELEMENTS
Hold-downs: axial stiffness only  Element type: “connection”
Example:
HD_1_PT_X2
1D ELEMENTS
Angle brackets: shear stiffness along their sliding direction only
Example: A_1X_PT Example: A_1Y_PT

1D ELEMENTS
A way to check the local system with reference to the global system
1st node
2nd node
local system
Note: to model the checking beam, extrude a node in direction -z, to be consistent with
the following procedures.
1D ELEMENTS
Curb: beam element
Necessary for load patches
Cross-section: 500 x 100 mm
1D ELEMENTS
Creation of 13 mono-dimensional elements with the previously calculated
mechanical properties (available in the Excel file)
connection Kser single n° nails for Kser n° connections Total kser Rd Total Rd
ID elements (in
type nail each connection for each element connection element
the model)
connection element
- [N/mm] - [N/mm] - [N/mm] [kN] [kN]
HD_1_PT_X2 WHT_540 1740 42 73060 2 292240 54.07 108.13
HD_1_PT_X4 WHT_540 1740 42 73060 4 584480 54.07 216.27
HD_2_PT_X2 WHT_440 1740 30 52186 2 208743 38.60 77.20
HD_2_P1_X2 WHT_440 1740 30 52186 2 208743 38.60 77.20
HD_2_P1 WHT_440 1740 30 52186 1 104371 38.60 38.60
A_1X_PT WBR_100 1740 12 20874 12 250492 5.96 71.52
A_2X_PT WBR_100 1740 12 20874 24 500983 5.96 143.04
A_1Y_PT WBR_100 1740 12 20874 10 208743 5.96 59.60
A_2Y_PT WBR_100 1740 12 20874 30 626229 5.96 178.80
A_1X_P1 WBR_100 1740 12 20874 10 208743 5.96 59.60
A_2X_P1 WBR_100 1740 12 20874 20 417486 5.96 119.20
A_1Y_P1 WBR_100 1740 12 20874 7 146120 5.96 41.72
A_2Y_P1 WBR_100 1740 12 20874 18 375737 5.96 107.28
2D ELEMENTS
CLT walls at 1st and 2nd floor. Thickness 100mm  Elements type “Plate/Shell”
1D and 2D ELEMENTS
Removal of density from all elements (1D and 2D)
STEP 1: Load cases
Global  Load and Freedom Cases
Total: 10 different load cases (see excel file)
STEP 1: Editing load cases
Renaming of Load Cases and defining possible inertia loads
Load Cases DEPENDING from gravity Load Cases NOT DEPENDING from
gravity
Load cases All the other load cases

W_P1 and W_PCop
STEP 2: Modelling of the building
Modelling of base nodes through global Cartesian coordinates:
Definition of the basic modulus:

6m x 6m composed of 20 nodes
(5 per corner)
To increase the rapidity in modelling the geometry:
Tools  Copy  by Increment
ADD MISSING NODES

Connection of nodes via "auxiliary beams" that will be erased, therefore the
beam properties are irrelevant
Creation of walls in +Z direction, extruding the "auxiliary beams“
Tools  Extrude  by Increment
Subdivision of shell elements to improve the quality of the mesh
Tools  Subdivide
2 elements
Copy of walls to model the 2nd storey
Tools  Copy  by Increment
Creation of connections at the 1st storey (foundation), extruding the nodes in –Z (160mm)
Tools  Extrude  by Increment
To select all the nodes at the same level  “select by region”
Attribution at each beam of the proper “connection” type
Attributes  Beam  Property Type
Removal of the not needed connections with the exception of the connections at the end
and mid nodes of each panel to model the hold-downs and angle brackets respectively
Creation of connections at 2nd storey using “Copy” (copy of connections of
1st floor and modification of properties) or “Create” (creation of beam
elements, linking the upper node to the lower node).
Attribution at each beam of the proper “connection” type

Attributes  Beam  Property Type
Modelling of restraints at each node below the connections at 1st storey (foundation)
Attributes  Node  Restraint
Modeling of the rigid curbs above the walls using 1D elements (curb) that
will simulate the presence of the floor and lintels so as to ensure
congruent displacements among walls.
“Select by Region” + “Hide unselected” to simplify this step
End release rotation  about axes 1 and 2 at each node of the curb:
1. "Select by Property”  curb
2. Attributes  Beam  End Release Rotation
N.B.: Deselect the Beam Ends near the nodes in the center of the openings (if not erased
in the previous step).
STEP 3: Load Patches
Modelling of the floors for the transfer of vertical loads to the walls
Tools  Create Load Patches
The beams at the Load Patch boundary

have to be selected  the curbs can be
used with this aim
The default load patch transfers constant loads to the entire perimeter: it should be changed!
STEP 3: Load Patches
Modification of the load patches to be consistent with the reality (UNIDIRECTIONAL CLT
FLOORS). Attributes  Plate Load Patch Type
To modify this property the beams

indicated by the menu must be selected, in
this case the not loaded beams.
Type to
choose
STEP 4: Modelling of mass
Selection of the Load Case and application of the relative mass to the floor
Attributes  Plate  Non-Structural Mass
Mass unit: t/mm2. Dyn Factor = 1

WP1 = 7,07x10-7t/mm2
WPCop = 4,84x10-7 t/mm2
STEP 4: Modelling of mass
Possible check that the distribution of loads is correct
Tools  Convert  Patch Loads to Beam Loads
The mass applied to the floor will

be distributed on the beams on the
basis of the chosen "Patch"
After the check go back, because the

masses have doubled!!
STEP 5: Modelling of floors
Modelling of rigid diaphragms to simulate the floors and to impose the accidental moments
required by Codes: Tools  Auto Assign  Restraints
Select all floor nodes by “Select by

Region”
STEP 5: Modelling of floors
The software creates a master node, which is the centre of mass with respect to the selected nodes
NOTE: Check the position of the Master node, which must be the centre of mass
of the floor. Otherwise, adjust its position using Tools  Move  Absolute
1st storey (floor) 2nd storey (roof)

STEP 6: Application of the seismic forces
Application of the calculated seismic forces for Linear Static Analysis selecting the
proper Load Cases and applying the nodal forces
Attributes  Node  Force
STEP 6: Application of the seismic forces
Fh_X_P1 Fh_Y_P1
Fh_X_COP Fh_Y_COP
STEP 6: Application of the accidental moments
Application of the accidental torsional moments for Linear Static and Spectral
Response analyses to the centre of mass (i.e., to the master node of the rigid floors)
Attributes  Node  Moment
MT_X_P1 , MT_Y_P1 MT_X_COP , MT_Y_COP
STEP 7: ULS / DLS spectrum
Upload the Response Spectrum into the Table. The spectrum is available in the Excel file
Tables Factor vs Frequency/Period
Sd [g] DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA

0.600
0.500
ULS DLS
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Period T [s]
Select period
Upload both ULS and DLS spectrum
STEP 8: Equivalent Linear Static Analysis
Linear static analysis
Solver  Linear Static
Select all the forces /

reactions / stresses to be
calculated
Select all the Load Cases that

will be combined
STEP 8: Equivalent Linear Static Analysis
To combine the Load Cases so as to obtain the linear static solution in the two main
directions Ex and Ey Result  Linear Load Case Combination
Create 3 load
combinations:
• One combination to
verify the seismic
mass (Wseismic)
• Two combinations
to perform the
equivalent linear
static analysis
(LS_EX - LS_EY)
STEP 9: Verification of the seismic mass (1st strategy)
For the verification of the mass of the modelled building
Summary  Model
Select “mass” and only

the load cases with the
masses applied to the
load patches (then
verify also the other
load cases without
mass)
Total Mass = 111.2 T 

STEP 9: Verification of the seismic mass (2nd strategy)
An equivalent test is to calculate the sum of the node reactions in Z direction:
1. Open result file and select

the combination “Wseismic”
2. Open menu “Peek”
3. Select Reaction Sum
4. Check that the total FZ is

equal to the total weight of
the building
Total Reaction = 1090 kN 
STEP 10: Natural Frequency
Vibration modes and frequencies of the structure
Solver  Natural Frequency
• Select the maximum number of

vibration modes
• select “Mode Partecipation”
• Select “Sturm Check”
• Select all the Load Cases having

the seismic masses
STEP 11: Spectral Analysis
Modal response spectrum analysis
Solver  Spectral Response
• Select “Modal” damping
• Select Result Sign “Auto”
• Select “SRSS” and “Modal”
• Select all the forces / reactions /

stresses to be calculated
STEP 11: Spectral Analysis
Choice of vibration modes to be included based on the participating mass
Set the damping factor of

the structure
= 0.02
Select the spectrum for each spectral case (ULS + DLS)
NOTE: If the spectrum unit is ag / g, it must be multiplied by the gravity acceleration

(9806 mm/s2)
STEP 12: Linear Load Case Combinations
The modal response spectrum analysis as the linear static analysis, requires the
modelling of the accidental eccentricity of the masses. It is also necessary to
combine the results of the spectral analysis with the results of the linear static
analysis to accounts for the effects of the vertical loads.
1. Taking advantage of what has already been done for the Load Cases of Linear
Static Result  Linear Load Case Combination
2. From the table the results of the spectral analysis must be imported
File type .sra
3. The 8 new combinations according to codes must be created, combining each

action with the 30% of the action in the other direction (see the excel file)
Ex + 0,3Ey ; Ex – 0,3Ey; -Ex – 0,3Ey etc…
STEP 12: Linear Load Case Combinations
4. The results of spectral analysis are combined with the appropriate coefficients:
(+1, -1, +0,3, -0,3), and the same coefficients are applied to the torsional moments
NOTE: Don’t apply coefficients to horizontal static forces

NOTE: The table of coefficients is available in the excel file
STEP 13: Final check
The final check of the total base shear is made by opening the results of the MODAL analysis,
considering the participating mass of the first mode and comparing it with the results of the
equivalent linear static (if the period provides the same spectral ordinate, e.g., the plateau).
Peek  Reaction Sum
From LDA: Fh = 395 kN / 0.72 = 549 kN

From LSA: Fh = 567 kN (see preliminary design) 
STEP 14 – Iterations
Strength and number of connections must be verified from “RESULTS” of linear static analysis
combined with the spectral analysis, evaluating the shear or axial forces at each connection
element and the shear force for meter length of the shell elements for the verification of the
CLT panels. The verification must be performed for each seismic combination.
If one or more "connection" elements have strength < force or are too overdesigned, it is
necessary to modify them (increasing or decreasing the number of connections at that
point), i.e., modifying the stiffness in the property of the element. This change involves
variations in terms of period and distribution of seismic forces.
It is therefore necessary to continue with some iterations (usually 2 or 3) and re-perform all 3
analyses at each iteration to obtain a model where the connections are suitably designed
and stiffness and strength are reciprocally consistent for each element. This last model will
allow the final verifications. Finally, the DLS verification must be performed (it is normally
fulfilled, given the low q-factor).
The student can conclude the exercise modifying the plan

of connections (dwg file) with the connections obtained in
the last iteration.
Lesson E.01 – FEM modelling of a CLT building
EXTRA SLIDE: advanced modelling techniques
Model 1: already realized
Modelling of panel-to-panel
vertical joints
Modelling of connections
at interstorey
Modelling of possible
coupling between walls
Model 2: advanced
Modelling of panel-to-panel
vertical joints
Adding of the stiffness of

screws to the edges of the
walls
Modelling of connections
at interstorey
Modelling of possible
coupling between walls
THE PRECISION OF THE MODEL INCREASES. THE STIFFNESS DECREASES

Model 2: advanced
1. Duplication of nodes
2. Updating of the model:

- Updating of curbs
- Updating of floors
- Splitting of hold-down elements
3. Addition of one or more

"connection" elements that
simulate the shear stiffness of the
screws between the two panels
Computation of the stiffness of the screws
The panel-to-panel screws have a stiffness (evaluated for one shear plane) given by EC5 or
CNR-DT 206.
Screw 8 = 3851,5 x 8/20 = 3022 N/mm  1screw/20cm  15screws  Kser = 45325 N/mm
Comparison of the 1st mode deformations
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
Uplift is resisted by all the hold- Uplift is resisted by the hold-downs at the
downs along the wall orthogonal end of the panels parallel to the seismic
to the seismic direction direction
(WORSE MODEL for hold-downs)
Comparison of the 1st mode periods
The simplifications made in the modeling phase affect the period

obtained by frequency analysis. This variation can lead to
significant underestimation of the seismic forces.
Sd(T)[g]
0.60
The seismic forces decrease
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The period increases
0.00
T [s]
0 1 2 3 4

Lesson E.01 - ENG - FEM Modelling of A CLT Building PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson E.01 - ENG - FEM Modelling of A CLT Building PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Università degli Studi di Padova

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Edile e Ambientale - DICEA

Course: PRECAST AND TIMBER STRUCTURES

Lesson no.: E.01

Title: FEM modelling of a CLT building

1. Preliminary static design of CLT wall and floor panels

5.Evaluation of final stiffness and strength of

FIRST STOREY SECOND STOREY

g2: Non structural walls + finishing + suspended ceilings 2,00 kN/m²

q: Variable load 2,00 kN/m²

g2: Non structural walls + finishing + suspended ceilings 2,00 kN/m²

q: Variable load: snow 1,50 kN/m²

g2: Finishing 1,50 kN/m²

TOTAL 2,00 kN/m

1st storey floor:

2nd storey floor (roof):

WALLS (AREF floor 3x1m; h wall 3m):

 Thickn. 97mm 3 layers

SEISMIC WEIGHT AT ROOF: W_PCOP

SEISMIC WEIGHT AT INTERSTOREY FLOOR: W_P1

Sd [g] DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA Earthquake action:

Wi (kN) Mi (t) zi (m) zj Wj (KNm) Fi (kN)

STOREY 2 342.00 34.86 6.00 2052.00 270.78

Fh  Sd (T1 )  W  λ  0.52 1090.80 1.00  567.22kN

FP1_1.25  296.43 1.25  370.0kN

The eccentricity value is assumed constant at

COMPUTATION OF ACCIDENTAL TORSIONAL MOMENTS FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:

1st DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS

FE MODEL OF THE BUILDING

SEISMIC FORCE SEISMIC FORCE

UPDATE CONNECTION DLS VERIFICATIONS

In this building the chosen connections are:

VPT_1.25 / Rd_ANG = 708.0/5.96  120 ANGLE BR. AT FOUNDATION

L_WALL_PT_x = 18.6m  120/18.6 = 6.5 ANGLE BR./m

SEE PLAN VIEW OF CONNECTIONS (1ST-ITERATION)

In this building the chosen connections are:

A: global overturning 2nd storey

MINSTAB= FPCOP x 3m = 270.78 x 3 = 812.34 kNm

A: global overturning of the building

2/5 FP1 1/3 FPCOP

2/5 FP1 1/3 FPCOP 37.0 kN

AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLE BRACKETS

AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF HOLD-DOWNS

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

b) CORNER / T-JOINTS Deformable

k ser_nail   m  d 0.8 / 30  420 1.5  4 0.8 / 30  870.0 N/mm

Modification for steel-to-timber connection:

k ser_nail - timber/steel  2  k ser_nail - timber/timber  1740.0 N/mm

ANGLE BR. WBR 100  k WBR100  12  k ser_nail - timber/steel  20880.0 N/mm

HOLD-DOWN WHT 440 k WHT440  30  k ser_nail - timber/steel  52200.0 N/mm

HOLD-DOWN WHT 540 k WHT540  42  k ser_nail - timber/steel  73060.0 N/mm

These are the real stiffness values. In the model another

ROCKING: MODEL ≠ REALITY

To have the same top

The irregularity in plan and in elevation of the building

A numerical model that faithfully represents the stiffness

THE NUMERICAL MODEL IS REALIZED BASED ON

Energy-compatible system: mm – T – J – MPa - N

Example: A_1X_PT Example: A_1Y_PT

Total: 10 different load cases (see excel file)

Load cases All the other load cases

Definition of the basic modulus:

ADD MISSING NODES