Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00661-w

S.I.: 10TH IMC CONFERENCE

Numerical approaches for cross‑laminated timber roof

structure optimization in seismic retrofitting of a historical
masonry church

Nicola Longarini1 · Pietro Crespi1 · Manuela Scamardo1

Received: 30 October 2018 / Accepted: 1 June 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
In recent earthquakes, historical masonry churches have demonstrated to be vulnerable
structures. Strengthening interventions based on the introduction of a roof diaphragm can
be considered a valid solution in order to obtain a box-behaviour of this kind of structures.
Among the possible different roof-diaphragm solutions, the wooden based ones represent
an effective alternative, satisfying the conservation requirements in terms of material com-
patibility and reversibility, together with a significant improvement of the structural behav-
iour. After a short literature review of all the wooden based strengthening interventions, the
possibility to consider cross-laminated timber (CLT) as a roof-diaphragm strengthening for
existing churches is discussed in this paper. The effectiveness of this retrofitting solution is
inquired numerically by means of different kind of linear and nonlinear analysis, focusing
on the role played by the steel connections among the different CLT panels. The Basilica
of Collemaggio has been chosen as case study to test the possibility to apply CLT roof dia-
phragm on an existing masonry church, adopting different modelling approaches. A short
discussion on the optimisation of the steel connection layout is also presented.

Keywords  Cross-laminated timber · Roof · Historical masonry churches · Seismic

retrofitting · Finite element model

1 Introduction

Historical masonry buildings were originally designed to withstand static loads despite
these buildings were built in regions nowadays classified as seismic zones. Recent Italian
earthquakes occurred in L’Aquila (2009), Emilia Romagna and Lombardia (2012), Marche

* Nicola Longarini
nicola.longarini@polimi.it
Pietro Crespi
pietro.crespi@polimi.it
Manuela Scamardo
manuela.scamardo@polimi.it
1
Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di
Milano, Milan, Italy

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

and Umbria (2016) pointed out that many masonry historical buildings and churches can-
not adequately withstand seismic actions (Augenti and Parisi 2010; D’Ayala and Paganoni
2011; Penna et  al. 2014; Dal Cin and Russo 2016; Formisano et  al. 2017; Valente and
Milani 2018a; Liberatore et al. 2019).
Particularly, the observation of post-earthquake damages allowed the identification of
several recurring collapse mechanisms of masonry churches (Benedetti and Castellani
1981; Parisi et al. 2008; Lagomarsino 2012). Among these, some local failures related to
the out-of-plane behaviour of masonry macro-elements could happen (Brandonisio et  al.
2008; Valente and Milani 2018b). For instance, the excessive overturning of the perimeter
walls caused by seismic transversal actions, with respect to the nave axis, could also lead to
a collapse of the supported timber roof elements (Giuriani et al. 2016).
The possibility to strengthen existing structures, avoiding these kinds of failures,
could represent an interesting opportunity to preserve the cultural heritage. For histori-
cal churches, the selection of the best seismic retrofitting strategy is not trivial. The seis-
mic assessment analysis of the structure could point out possible weaknesses of this type
of constructions. Furthermore, comparative analyses among different configurations of
churches (single nave, three aisles, single nave with underground crypt, etc.) could be use-
ful to select the most effective intervention (Lucibello et  al. 2010; Valente et  al. 2017a;
Betti et al. 2018; Valente and Milani 2018c).
Post-earthquake damage observation has shown that a common collapse mechanism
involves excessive rocking of the longitudinal walls of the church. To improve the trans-
versal behaviour of the structure under ground shaking, a change in the structural configu-
ration able to achieve a box-behaviour could be useful. This strategy can be applied to
historical masonry churches with a wooden roof structure by introducing a roof diaphragm
(Giuriani 2004). In this way, the out-of-plane rocking of the longitudinal walls can be
reduced while keeping the in-plane shear actions transferred to the head walls limited.
Several roof-diaphragm structural configurations were proposed in the past (Giuriani
and Marini 2008; Parisi and Piazza 2015), satisfying or not the material compatibility and
intervention reversibility criteria. Recently, the increased sensitivity to preservation and
maintenance of heritage buildings has led to consider innovative and compatible solutions
for the strengthening of wooden roof structures. One of these is based on the introduction
of CLT panels as a dissipative bracing system. Cross laminated panels are characterized by
an alternated sequence of glued timber layers, where fibers are orthogonally oriented from
one layer to another.
The panels are usually adopted as walls or slabs in new timber buildings (Izzi and Trees
2014; Popovski et al. 2014; Ronca et al. 2014). Nevertheless, they can also be used in the
structural rehabilitation of historical buildings. In this case, CLT panels can be placed on
the existing wooden beams and planks to create wood-to-wood composite sections. These
panels have enough in-plane stiffness to guarantee the floor diaphragm effect (Gubana
2015).
The energy dissipated by the timber roof-diaphragm plays an important role in the walls
rocking control. Thus, the roof-diaphragm should be designed in terms of strength, stiff-
ness and ductility in order to develop a dissipative behaviour under seismic excitation. The
design of suitable steel connections could be helpful to achieve such a result (Piazza et al.
2008). In fact, a connection resistance exceeding the seismic demand leads to an elastic
response without energy dissipation, while a too stiff connection can increase the in-plane
shear in the wooden folded elements.
Even if the roof-diaphragm behaviour is the focus of this work, an adequate representa-
tion of the linear and nonlinear behaviour of the masonry elements is required to investigate

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

the global behaviour of historical churches (Betti and Vignoli 2011; Milani et  al. 2017;
Valente et  al. 2017b). The high level of complexity related to the modelling and analy-
sis of historical masonry structures has led to develop very different approaches, based on
different hypothesis, with different level of accuracy and computational costs (Roca et al.
2010). The available strategies include: (i) simplified method, based on structural com-
ponents (Lagomarsino et  al. 2013), (ii) limit analysis, often used to predict the ultimate
capacity (Milani 2013), (iii) discrete element method, applied to regularly shaped masonry
or stone blocks such as columns and arches(Pagnoni 1994), (iv) micro or macro-modelling
based on finite element method (Lourenço et al. 1995). When dealing with large and com-
plex structures, simplified methods reveal to be very useful in order to obtain the global
structural response without requiring excessive computational effort. These approaches are
based on the discretization of the structure by macro-elements, with concentrated nonlin-
ear response. In the present work, masonry is modelled with a simplified discretization by
means of equivalent mono-dimensional elements representing the head and longitudinal
walls (Preti et al. 2017).

2 Roof diaphragm strengthening solutions

The Italian design code (NTC2018 2018) classifies the seismic strengthening solutions in
repairing, improvement and upgrading interventions, as a function of the achieved increase
in terms of safety. The different strengthening levels could be obtained with different tech-
niques. In case of historical buildings, the selection of the most suitable technique should
consider also the conservation requirement, remembering that even the less invasive inter-
vention can eliminate the most important vulnerabilities (Parisi et al. 2008).
Several strengthening solutions have been conceived and applied for the roof diaphragm
seismic retrofitting of historical buildings and churches. The state-of-the-art analysis on
this subject has identified twelve different roof diaphragm strengthening solutions, shortly
listed in Table 1 together with their typical acceptability by the Cultural Heritage Offices
(CHO) (Fig. 1).
Solution N. 1 considers the addiction of a thin concrete slab, with a typical thickness
of about 40–50 mm, connected to the existing plank with steel studs (Turrini and Piazza
1983). This solution significantly increases the self-weight of the structure; therefore, a
lighter Solution N. 2 was formulated by adding a very thin high-performance concrete slab
(Meda and Riva 2001).
Other different solutions are based on the introduction of steel elements. For example,
Solution N. 3 adopts steel profiles connected by metal connection (e.g. threaded bars) to
wooden beams (Ongaretto et  al. 2016). Typically, steel profiles are positioned under the
plank layer to avoid invasive interventions on the upper part of the deck. Even if this solu-
tion is typically considered as an out-of-plane strengthening technique, it could be use-
ful also to prevent rocking of the vertical walls when in-plane behaviour is considered.
Moreover, this in-plane contribution can be transformed in a diaphragm when Solution 3
is combined with some elements of the following Solutions 4 and 5. On the contrary, Solu-
tion N. 4 is an example of a dry, reversible and low invasive technique where steel beams
are replaced by metal steel strips, connected to the wooden beams through steel dowels.
This Solution can be considered to realize the diaphragm effect if diagonal steel strips and
L-shape perimetral profiles are also positioned, creating a horizontal lattice truss able to
improve the floor in-plane stiffness (Gattesco and Macorini 2010).

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 1  Section views of possible roof-diaphragm solutions

Sometimes, Solution N. 5, these steel strips can be substituted with a thin steel plate
(2–3 mm thick) applied on the existing wooden planks (Plizzari and Giuriani 2001), gener-
ally with some conservation implications.
Solution N. 6 considers Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) as a reinforcement; it can be
considered an interesting rehabilitation intervention in existing buildings due to its very
high strength/weight and stiffness/weight ratios (Corradi et al. 2017). FRP can be placed
both on the extrados or intrados of existing timber structures. The FRP sheets bonded on
the wooden planks surface represent an in-plane (horizontal) bracing system whereas com-
pression forces are supported by the existing wooden layer (possibly reinforced by an addi-
tional wooden layer, if required).
Solution N. 7 represents an example of wood-to-wood intervention, consisting of a new
layer of glulam planks connected to the existing beams by means of x-crossed self-tap-
ping screws. This solution is presented in (Tomasi et al. 2010) where the effectiveness of
double-thread screws, characterized by two opposite threads separated by a smooth part
in the middle of the shank, is tested. With this solution, a T-shaped cross section of the
slab can be obtained, where the existing beams represent the web and the new glulam
planks represent the flange (Roensmaens et  al. 2019). Solution N. 8 is another example

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 1  Possible structural solutions for wooden roof diaphragm

N. Description CHO Remarks on CHO requirements

1 Normal Strength Concrete (NSC) slab (thickness Irreversibility, invasiveness,
≅ 40-50 mm) with stud connectors weight increase, wet solution

2 High Strength Concrete (HSC) slab (thickness ≅ Irreversibility, invasiveness,

25-30 mm) with stud connector weight increase, wet solution

3 Wooden beams reinforced with anchored steel Low reversibility, invasiveness,

profiles (metal connectors) different material

4 Steel strips connected to the wooden beams by Reversibility, invasiveness,

steel dowels different material

5 Thin steel plate (thickness ≅ 2-3 mm) with stud Low reversibility, invasiveness,
connectors different material

6 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) stripes glued Invasiveness, difficult installation,

on extrados/intrados of existing timber structures costs, different material
7 New layer of glulam planks connected to the Compatibility, reversibility,
existing beams by inclined screws limited invasiveness

8 Plywood panels (thickness ≅ 3 mm) on existing Compatibility, reversibility,

planks limited invasiveness

9 Two layers of nailed inclined wooden planks on Compatibility, reversibility,

existing planks or new planks layer on joists limited invasiveness

10 Addition of nailed wooden planks orthogonal to Compatibility, reversibility,

the existing ones limited invasiveness

11 Addition of new planks on floor joists connected Compatibility, reversibility,

by dry hardwood dowels limited invasiveness

12 CLT panels on existing planks Compatibility, reversibility

Common CHO evaluation: red = unacceptable, yellow = potentially acceptable, green = acceptable

of wood-to-wood intervention where over-layered plywood panels are placed on the exist-
ing wooden planks (Giuriani 2004). The panels are connected: themselves by nailed steel
strips, to the roof rafters by steel studs and to the masonry walls by vertical anchored
bars. The diaphragm can be alternatively arranged as in Solution N. 9, where two layers
of inclined wooden planks are superimposed and nailed (Parisi and Piazza 2015), or as in
Solution N. 10 considering a new layer of orthogonal planks (Giuriani 2004).
A recently proposed technique, Solution N. 11, consists in the installation of new planks
above each floor joist with a dry connection made of hardwood pins, aimed to achieve in-
plane and out-of-plane stiffness upgrading with a reversible intervention (Gubana 2010).
Solution N. 12 adopts CLT panels to realise the roof-diaphragm placed on the com-
mon rafters. The realization of the new CLT layer implies three types of connections: (i)
between adjacent CLT panels, (ii) between panels and timber beams and (iii) along the
perimeter walls. This solution is particularly suitable if, after an accurate survey, the exist-
ing planks need to be removed. Some hypothesis about the connections between the CLT
panels with glulam existing beams were recently investigated (Gubana 2015).
CLT (sometimes referred as Xlam) panel is a structural plywood in crossed hardwood
layers. Common CLT panels can be defined as products obtained by gluing, with an

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

adequate pressure, classified (as a function of their strength) wooden boards, arranged in
layers (at least three) rotated by 90° each other, in order to obtain structural timber panels
suitable for service classes 1 and 2 (EN1995-1-1 2008). The use of CLT panels for timber
deck and roof strengthening is typically well accepted by the CHO due to its compatibility
of the material with respect to the original one. The effectiveness of CLT panels in terms of
seismic response (Gavric et al. 2014) was confirmed in several experimental tests (Ceccotti
2010; Gubana 2015).
Analytically, the elastic moduli of these kind of orthotropic panels can be evaluated by
applying the classical homogenization theory of laminated composite materials (Kubiak
2013).

3 Connections effect on the CLT diaphragm

3.1 General criteria

To avoid out-of-plane rocking mechanisms, masonry structures can be strengthened with

the introduction of a diaphragm able to guarantee a box behaviour of the building, improv-
ing its performances against seismic loads (Marques 2014). Roof-diaphragm can contribute
in the limitation of horizontal displacements of the building (Betti et al. 2014; Sivaraja and
Thandavamoorthy 2015) only if an adequate connection between roof and walls is guaran-
teed (Moreira et al. 2016; Scotta et al. 2018).
Typically, the structural elements involved in the realization of the box-behaviour of a
church are: roof-diaphragm, head walls (or gables), eaves chords, lateral walls and vertical
ties. In this configuration, when a seismic action is applied transversally with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the church, CLT panels work as in-plane shear resisting elements. In
this way, horizontal actions can be transferred to the head walls thank to the connections
among all the involved structural elements. For this reason, an optimization of the connec-
tions is compulsory in order to obtain a suitable dissipation with an adequate strength and
stiffness.
In timber structures, connections can be classified in carpentry joints and mechanical
joints. For the considered intervention involving CLT panels, only connections with steel
plates and nails or screws are considered. The design of this kind of connection is based on
the Johansen theory (Johansen 1949).
From Johansen’s tests, the collapse of the connection between wooden elements is due
to the yielding of the cylindrical shank with the formation of one or more plastic hinges.
Johansen former theory was the extended (Mohler and Maier 1969; Larsen 1977; Blass
et al. 1995) to take into account further typical geometrical and mechanical issues of prac-
tical applications (one-plane shear with two wooden elements connection, two-planes shear
with three wooden elements connection, wood–wood connection with cylindrical shank
elements and wood-steel connections with steel plates and cylindrical shank elements). For
the sake of completeness, other brittle mechanisms not considered in Johansen’s theory
should be taken into account in connection design: splitting, plug shear, group tear out
(Parisi and Piazza 2015).
Regarding the possible implementation of the connections in Finite Element Models
(FEM), aimed to the seismic retrofitting design, it is worth nothing that the roof structure
of a generic church is typically modelled as: (i) mono-dimensional elements represent-
ing the wooden trusses and (ii) bidimensional orthotropic elements for the timber (single/

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

double) planks or CLT panels. In this simple roof modelling strategy, steel connections are
usually not considered. As a consequence, their stiffness (in linear analyses) and their dis-
sipative effects (in nonlinear analyses) cannot be pointed out. Recently, a modelling of a
roof bracing system by means of equivalent diagonal non-linear axial springs was proposed
(Gattesco and Boem 2018), aimed to the numerical schematization of a traditional masonry
structure with a multi-slope timber roof.
In more accurate analyses, the stiffness and dissipation contribute of steel connections
should be explicitly taken into account, as it will be shown in the following.
Finally, regarding the in-plane mechanical properties of CLT panels, it must be pointed
out that different producers can declare significantly different stiffness and resistances for
the same panel typology. For instance, see Table 2 with technical information about three
similar commercially available CLT panels.
Focusing on the in-plane shear resistance, even if the geometric layout and the wood class
are more or less the same, producer C gives a significantly higher resistance with respect to
the other two. Going into details, producer C furnishes a shear resistance evaluated from the

Table 2  Mechanical properties and resistances for three different producers

Property Producers
A B C

Thickness (mm) 100 100 100

Number of layers 5 5 5
Thickness of the layer (mm) 20 20 20
Number of the glued faces 4 4 4
Wood Softwood Softwood Softwood
Class of the wood C24 (external), C16 (internal) C24 (exter- C24
nal), C16
(< 30%
internal)
E0,mean parallel to the fibers (MPa) 12,000 11,600 11,500
G0,90,mean parallel to the fibers (MPa) 690 250 690
Tensile strength ­ft,0,k (MPa) 14 14 14.5
Shear strength ­fv,0,90,k (MPa) 5 2 3.2
Shear resistance evaluation On the net area (2 layers) On the net On the gross
area (2 area (5
layers) layers)
Tensile resistance ­FX,d (kN/m) 579.31 579.31 600.00
Tensile resistance ­FY,d (kN/m) 386.21 386.21 400.00
Design shear resistance ­fv,0,90,d (MPa) 3.45 1.38 2.21
Total thickness (gross area method) (mm) – – 100
Shear resistance ­FXY,d (kN/m) – – 220.69
Net thickness in X direction (mm) – 60 –
Net thickness in Y direction (mm) – 40 –
Minimum net thickness (mm) – 40 –
Shear resistance ­FXY,d (kN/m) – 55.17 –
Equivalent thickness of the panel (mm) 80 – –
Shear resistance ­FXY,d (kN/m) 137.93 – –

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

experimental failure load divided by the gross area of the panel (5 layers of boards), while the
other two producers give the shear resistance calculated, on the bases of the laminated com-
posite theory, considering the wood shear strength (2–5 MPa) for the net area of the panel (2
layers of boards). For design optimization purposes, a so wide scatter of results is not accepta-
ble because it can lead to very different and possibly unrealistic configurations of the roof-dia-
phragm, simply due to an unstandardized way to determine the shear strength (ETA06/0138
2017).

3.2 Connections as springs

Steel connections can be simulated with springs in the finite element model of the roof. The
mechanical properties of these springs, placed along the perimeter of the CLT panels, are
characterized as a function of the single screw stiffness.
The stiffness of a single self-tapping screw embedded in wood can be determined numeri-
cally, for instance according to Eudocode 5 formulation (EN1995-1-1 2008) or by means of
experimental tests.
The shear stiffness of a single screw is defined through the slip modulus ­Kser (Table 7.1 of
Eurocode 5) in case of: (i) timber to timber connection and (ii) wooden-based panel to timber
connection. The stiffness of a screw for the seismic ultimate limit state ­Ku can be determined
as a function of ­Kser, according to section 2.2.2 of EN 1995-1-1.
The expressions of K ­ ser and ­Ku are briefly recalled in the following equations (1):

Kser = (ρ1.5 ) ⋅ (d∕23)

[m ] (1)
Ku = 2 ⋅ (2∕3) ⋅ Kser ∕100

where ρm is the density of the timber element (expressed as kg/m3); d is the nominal diam-
eter of the screw (mm), as it is specified in Table 7.1 of Eurocode 5.
To clarify the limits of the method, it should be remarked that some differences in stiff-
ness values determined with Eurocode 5 expressions and obtained from experimental results
can be possible (Longarini et al. 2018). In fact, considering a d = 10 mm screw, the previous
Eqs. (1) provide K ­ u = 6.48 kN/mm while for the same screw experimental tests show a secant
­ u = 8.26 kN/mm (Sandhaas and van de Kuilen 2017).
stiffness of K
In the FEM model, four stiffnesses are considered for each spring: in-plane stiffnesses
­Kx = Ky, out-of-plane stiffness K­ z and bending stiffness K ­ r, where in-plane or out-of-plane is
referred to the CLT plane.
The in-plane stiffness ­Kx = Ky, per unit length, is calculated by multiplying the shear stiff-
ness ­Ku of a single screw by the number of screws present in one-meter length of connection.
Regarding the out-of-plane behaviour of the connection, considering a typical configura-
tion involving a couple of steel plates on both faces of the CLT panel along the joint between
two panels, the transversal ­Kz and rotational K ­ r stiffnesses can be evaluated by the following
Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. In these equations, the two steel plates are considered as a cou-
ple of cantilevers. Thus, the transversal (with respect to the CLT panel) stiffness K ­ z can be
evaluated as the shear force in the steel plate caused by a unit displacement orthogonally ori-
ented to the panel. Similarly, the bending stiffness ­Kr is the moment caused by a unit rotation
around the joint.
Kz = 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ EJ/l3 (2)

Kr = 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ EJ/l (3)

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

where E is the Young modulus of steel; J = 1/12·b·s3 is the inertia moment of the steel plate
per unit length (b = 1000 mm is the unit length and s is the thickness of the steel plate); l is
the free length of the cantilever (distance between the center of the steel plate and the row
of screws).
A possible way to introduce springs into a FEM to account for the stiffness of con-
nections is represented in Fig.  2. Springs are modelled with their longitudinal local axis
orthogonal to the perimeter and in the same plane of CLT panels. The connection between
one panel and the other roof components (trusses, panels, walls) is modelled by means
of the equivalently stiff springs in each perimeter node of the panel mesh (Fig.  2b). For
comparison, a traditional modelling strategy disregarding the steel connections effect, i.e.
considering a full compatibility between adjacent panels, is also shown in Fig. 2a.

(a) FEM detail of CLT roof structure without steel connections

(b) FEM detail of CLT roof structure with springs (in red) modelling the steel connections

Fig. 2  FEM without (a) or with (b) connections as springs

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

In the general configuration shown in Fig.  2b, the free length of the steel plates in
Eqs.  (2) and (3) should be defined carefully in order to determine the stiffness of the
equivalent spring representing the steel connection. In fact, in case of panel-to-wall con-
nection, modelled with a single spring, the free length can be assumed as the distance
between the two rows of screws connecting the steel plate to the panel (on one side) and
to the wall (on the other side). On the contrary, the case of panel-to-panel connection
(Fig. 3a), modelled with a couple of springs on both sides of the truss, is different. Here,
the free length of the steel plates must be assumed equal to one half of the distance
between the two rows of screws connecting the steel plate to the panels. In this case,
also the number of screws considered in the evaluation of the spring stiffness should be
equal to the screws present in each side (left or right) of the connection (Fig. 3b, c).
When dealing with nonlinear analyses, the linear properties of the previously defined
equivalent springs should be modified to account for energy dissipation and stress redis-
tribution due to the connection behaviour.
The previous modelling strategy (Fig. 3) can be adopted also for nonlinear analyses
simply considering nonlinear springs. The introduction of nonlinear springs in the FEM
leads to an explicit consideration of the dissipative effects due to connection’s behav-
iour. In this way, forces ­FR in the CLT panels, determined with the nonlinear analysis,
can be compared to the corresponding ones ­Fd = FE/q obtained from the linear dynamic
analysis, considering the behaviour factor q. As a result, some considerations on the
assumed value of q can be drown. For instance, if F ­ R will be lower than F
­ d, the real
energy dissipation was underestimated, and a possible increase of the behaviour factor q
should be considered.
In the following, a nonlinear static analysis is performed to check the stresses redis-
tribution and dissipation capabilities of the roof CLT strengthening.
In such analysis, the roof structure can be isolated from the rest of the construction
and a pushover analysis under displacement control can be performed to detect the in-
plane forces in the bidimensional finite elements and the plasticization of the nonlinear
springs, as well as the relative displacements between panels.
The nonlinear behaviour of the springs can be modelled in different ways. In Sorelli
et al. (2005), the tri-linear law is assigned to the springs with forces and displacements
at yielding and failure taken from experimental tests.
When a nonlinear dynamic analysis should be performed, the energy dissipation of
the connections can be represented by degrading constitutive laws like the Clough model
(Genshu and Yongfeng 2007) or the trilinear degrading law (Lin et al. 2015). The trilin-
ear degrading law is adopted in the FEM of the case study discussed in the following.
The characteristic values of forces and displacements describing the monotonic loading
branches of the constitutive law comes from experimental tests (Preti et al. 2017).

3.3 Connections as equivalent finite elements

Steel connections can be modelled in the FEM of the roof structure also in a differ-
ent way, if the purpose is the execution of linear analyses. In this approach, the zone
where the CLT panel and the steel connection are superimposed can be represented by
an equivalent bidimensional orthotropic element. As a result, CLT panels appear sur-
rounded by “stripes” of bidimensional finite elements having a modified stiffness in
order to consider also the steel connection contribute.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 3  Example of CLT panel-to-panel connection. a Cross section, b springs idealization, c upper and
lower plan views

The equivalent elements modelling the connection are characterized by equivalent stiff-
­ w* and shear G
nesses defined in terms of elastic E ­ w* equivalent moduli, respectively evalu-
ated by the following equations (Giuriani and Marini 2008):
( )
E∗w = Kn ⋅ lp ∕ 2Awn + Kn ⋅ lp ∕Ew (4)
( )
G∗w = Kn ⋅ lp ∕ 2Awn + Kn ⋅ lp ∕Gw (5)

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 4  Geometrical data required in the definition of the connection equivalent moduli

Fig. 5  Detail of the roof FEM showing the connections modelled as stripes of equivalent elements

where ­Kn is the in-plane (shear) stiffness of the single screw (or bolt), determined accord-
ing to Eurocode 5 or from experimental tests (equal to the previously defined K ­ u, see
Sect.  3.2); ­lp is the width of the stripe of finite elements representing the connection;
­Awn = Δxn·s is the tributary cross section of a single screw (Δxn is the spacing of the screws
and s is the thickness of the CLT panel); ­Ew is the elastic modulus of CLT in the considered
direction; ­Gw is the in-plane shear modulus of CLT.
The Eqs. (4) and (5) consider only the in-plane stiffness ­Kx = Ky but not the out-of-plane
shear stiffness ­Kz and bending stiffness ­Kr. A graphical representation of the considered sym-
bols is presented in Fig. 4.
The stripes of modified finite elements placed along the perimeter of the CLT panels
should take into account the different types of connections on the different sides of the panel:
panel-to-panel connections or wall-to-panel connections.
An example of CLT roof with connections’ equivalent elements is depicted in Fig.  5.
Finally, it should be remarked that, in this kind of modelling, each equivalent element has
orthotropic mechanical properties; thus, local axes of the elements must be aligned with the
CLT panel fibers.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

4 Numerical simulations

4.1 The case study

The connections modelling presented in Sect.  3 is here applied to the case study of the
Basilica of Collemaggio, struck by the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. A plan and a section of
the church are shown in Fig. 6. The earthquake caused the failure of the transept area: the
dome, the barrel vaults, the triumphal arch with the wall above, the two main pillars and
the roof structures collapsed.
The designed strengthening interventions provides for a new layer of CLT panels, over-
lapped to the existing single layer plank. The panel-to-panel connection is realized by
means of two steel plates and screws (Fig. 3). The connection of the panels with the below
wooden trusses is guaranteed by two additional vertical plates, welded to the previous
ones, and screws. The upper and lower steel plates are continuous along the wooden truss,
while the couple of vertical plates are placed only between the wooden purlins. Threaded
steel bars, linked to the cross lam panels by washers and hexagonal nuts, guarantee the
connection with the masonry walls and the concrete curb located at the top of them. The
wall-to-panel connections details are essential to achieve the global box behaviour (Marini
et al. 2018).
The main aim of the following analyses is the optimization of the new CLT roof struc-
ture in terms of panel thickness and in-plane stiffness control.

Fig. 6  Case study—plan and section views. The red rectangle highlights the area with the new CLT roof
structure

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 3  Analysis phases for the design optimization process

Phase Model Analysis Aim Connections

1 Global_FEM Response Spectrum Drift Not represented

In-plane shear on the panels
2 FEM_L_1 Response Spectrum Drift Linear springs
FEM_L_2 In-plane shear on the panels Equivalent panels
3 FEM_N_L Nonlinear static In-plane shear on the panels Nonlinear springs (trilinear
Plasticization of the connec- model)
tions
4 MID_FEM Nonlinear dynamic Drift Nonlinear springs (Clough or
In-plane shear on the panels Trilinear degrading model)
Plasticization of the connec-
tions

Fig. 7  Global_FEM model

4.2 Finite element models and analyses

In order to evaluate the dissipative effects of the steel connections for the design optimiza-
tion, linear and nonlinear analyses have been performed. The analysis and optimization
process has been subdivided in four different phases (Table 3).
In Phase 1, a response spectrum analysis of the church is performed. The Global_FEM
model (Fig.  7) represents the CLT panels without modelling the connections. Bi-dimen-
sional elements represent walls, vaults, triumphal arches and CLT panels, whereas mono-
dimensional elements are used for masonry columns and wooden trusses. The walls and
columns are fully constrained at the base and linear material properties are considered.
In Phase 2, starting from the model implemented in phase 1, the modelling of connec-
tions is implemented with linear springs, in model FEM_L_1, or with equivalent panels
in model FEM_L_2. The values of the springs stiffness for the first model and the E* and
G* values for the second one are respectively shown in Tables 4 and 5, where the different
typologies of panel-to-panel connections are listed.
The values of the stiffness depend on the diameter of the steel screw, the thickness and
the width of the steel plate. The different stiffness per unit length, reported in Table 4, are
defined according to the number of screws of each different connection. The spring stiff-
ness is obtained by multiplying the stiffness per unit length for the relevant tributary length
(depending on the mesh size). Figure 8 shows a roof plan view with the distribution of dif-
ferent panel-to-panel connections.
In Tables 4 and 5 the following symbols are valid:

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Table 4  Connection stiffness in FEM_L_1

Connection types Kx (kN/mm) Ky (kN/mm) Kz (kN/mm) Kr (kN/mm/rad)

C20 PP 129.6 129.6 23.0 409,611

C24 PP 155.5 155.5 4.4 235,526
C28 PP 181.4 181.4 4.4 235,526
C32 PP 207.3 207.3 4.4 235,526

Table 5  Elastic and shear equivalent moduli (E* and G*) of equivalent panels in FEM_L_2
Connection types Screws (m) Δxn (mm) kn (Nmm) lp (mm) E* (MPa) G* (MPa)

C20 PP 20 50.00 4292 200 84.40 73.26

C24 PP 24 41.66 4292 200 100.95 85.41
C28 PP 28 35.71 4292 200 117.38 96.89
C32 PP 32 31.25 4292 200 133.71 107.74

Fig. 8  Panel-to-panel connections distribution (blue: C_20; red: C_24; green: C_28; ciano: C_32)

• C stands for connection;

• the number 20–32 represents the number of the screws per meter;
• PP stands for panel-to-panel connections;
• kn is the in-plane stiffness of a single screw;
• lp is the width of the stripe of finite elements with modified stiffness representing the
connection;
• Δxn is the spacing of the screws, defined to avoid group-effect and splitting failure
(ranging between 2.5d and 6d, (Blass and Uibel 2013).

In Phase 3, a local FEM representing one pitch of the roof (FEM_N_L, Fig.  9) is
implemented taking into account the effect of the connection’s plasticization on the
behaviour of CLT panels.

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 9  Pitch of the roof implemented in FEM_N_L for nonlinear static analyses

Nonliear static analyses are performed assigning to the springs an inelastic behaviour by
means of a trilinear model available in the adopted software (Midas). The relative displace-
ments between panels have been evaluated.
The analysis is performed under displacement control until the maximum displacement
obtained from the global linear elastic analysis is reached. This means that there is no need
to assign degrading properties to nonlinear springs.
In Phase 4, the global response of the church is evaluated using a FEM (MID_FEM,
Fig. 10) in which: the masonry walls are represented by equivalent mono-dimensional
elements (that reproduce the actual mass of the structural members), pinned at the base
by elastic–plastic springs,; the wooden trusses are represented by mono-dimensional
elements; the CLT panels are implemented by means of bi-dimensional elements with

Fig. 10  Global equivalent finite element model MID_FEM for nonlinear static analyses

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

orthotropic properties. The panels are oriented in the same direction of the seismic
action (the transversal one).
This modelling approach is suitable to analyse the transversal response of churches
characterized by a high percentage of the total mass involved in the first vibrational
modes. It is useful for a preliminary interventions design and it has been successfully
adopted in (Giuriani et al. 2016).
The seismic action is applied by means of a set of seven spectrum-compatible accel-
erograms (Lin and Ghaboussi 2001; Iervolino et  al. 2010a, 2011) detected by the free
software Rexel 3.5 (Iervolino et  al. 2010b). The connections are modelled as springs
with bilinear skeleton Clough hysteretic behaviour (Rinaldin et  al. 2013; Gavric et  al.
2015; Hossain et al. 2015; Preti et al. 2017; Shahnewaz et al. 2018). A representation of
Clough model is given in Fig. 11.
The unloading stiffness is obtained reducing the elastic one as in the following
equation:

| |β
KR = K0 |Dy ∕Dm | ≤ K0 (6)
| |
where ­KR is the unloading stiffness, K
­ 0 is the elastic stiffness, D
­ y is the yield displacement,
­ m is the maximum displacement and β is the unloading stiffness degradation parameter,
D
assumed equal to 0.4 (Otani 1981).
As the deformation increases, the unloading stiffness gradually reduces.
The triumphal arch system, rebuilt in concrete after the collapse, and the façade have
in-plane strength and stiffness greater than the longitudinal walls ones. Therefore, these
structural members have been implemented by equivalent elastic mono-dimensional ele-
ments fully restrained at the base (Giuriani and Marini 2008; Preti et al. 2014).
Nonlinear properties have been assigned instead to the equivalent mono-dimensional
elements representing the longitudinal walls by means of rotational hinges, located at
the base of the elements, allowing for rocking mechanism.
The inelastic hinges characteristics are defined by moment–curvature curves (M–χ)
detected from preliminary pushover analyses. These analyses are performed on a sub-
structure of mono-dimensional elements representing the transversal seismic resistant
system (i.e. two columns and the piers of the longitudinal walls included between the
openings or the abutments).
A sectional fibers discretization is adopted. Nonlinear masonry properties can be
assigned to the sections by means of a concrete trilinear model (Midas), with zero ten-
sile resistance, or a concrete damaged elasticity model(Lubliner et  al. 1989; Lee and

Fig. 11  Clough degrading
model adopted for springs in the
MID_FEM (F is the force on the
connection and D is the displace-
ment)

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 12  a Concrete trilinear model assigned to the sectional fibers for the pushover analysis. b Bilinear
model assigned to the inelastic hinges in the MID_FEM

Table 6  In-plane shear F­ xy in Connections Fxy (kN/m) dx (cm)

CLT panels and maximum drift
­dx in the different hypothesis of
Not modelled 172 12.60
connections modelling
Springs (FEM_L_1) 132 13.72
Equivalent panels (FEM_L_2) 140 12.96

Fenves 2002) with tensile cracking and compressive crushing as main failure modes
(Milani et al. 2018). In the present work, the concrete trilinear model has been adopted
(Fig. 12a).
The yielding and ultimate values of the M-χ curve obtained from the pushover analy-
sis have been then assigned to the inelastic rotational springs of the MID_FEM model by
means of a bi-linear model (Fig. 12b).

4.3 Results and comparisons

4.3.1 Phase 1 and Phase 2

The global FEM of the church without the modelling of the connections (Global_FEM) is
used to perform an elastic linear analysis with global ductility factor q = 2.
For the CLT panels adopted, with thickness equal to 100 mm and C24 strength class,
the in-plane limit shear F ­ xy,R, evaluated by the application of (ETA12/0281 2018), is about
137 kN/m.
The values of in-plane shear F ­ xy,S obtained from the analysis result to be greater than
­Fxy,R, especially in the areas close to the head walls. In the central area of the roof, F­ xy,S is
instead lower than F ­ xy,R, with an average value of 60 kN/m. Increasing the panel thickness
in order to verify the stresses everywhere will imply an unjustified increasing of weight and
cost in the areas where the stresses are already generously verified.
By introducing the modelling of the connections using springs (FEM_L_1) or equiv-
alent elements (FEM_L_2), a decreasing of in-plane shear is observed. Table 6 shows

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 13  CLT panels that not verified the limit in-plane shear value. In yellow, the not verified elements in
Global_FEM, in red the not verified elements in FEM_L_2

Fig. 14  In-plane shear acting on the CLT panels (kN/m). The areas where panels not satisfy the security
verification are enlarged on the right

a comparison of the results obtained in the different models in terms of in-plane shear
­Fxy,S and transversal displacement d­ x of the church.
A further comparison is made in terms of CLT panels that not verify the limit in-
plane shear value. In Fig.  13, the yellow elements represent the not verified panels in
the Global_FEM, while the red elements the not verified ones in the FEM_L_2. It is
possible to observe that the number of not verified elements decreases, together with the
safety ratio ­Fxy,S/Fxy,R.

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 15  In-plane shear force ­Fxy distribution in FEM_N_L (values in kN/m)

Fig. 16  Status of yielding of nonlinear springs in FEM_N_L. The springs in plastic field are green; the
springs in elastic field are blue

The distribution of in-plane shear forces over the roof structure in the different model-
ling approaches is reported in Fig. 14, with a focus on the areas where the higher values of
­Fxy,S have been recorded.
According to the obtained results, the introduction of the connections in the model
have shown a decreasing of the in-plane shear forces in the CLT panels of about 20–25%.
Together with the in-plane shear forces decreasing, a small drift increasing (about 10%)
has been also evaluated but the stresses distribution in the masonry walls remains com-
patible to the masonry mechanical properties (Table 6). Moreover, the values obtained in
FEM_L_1 and FEM_L_2 results very similar, both for in-plane shear and maximum drift,
with a difference about the 6% due to the different modelling hypotheses (connections as
springs or as equivalent bi-dimensional elements). The best modelling solution is the one
that represents a fair compromise between admissible drift (i.e. admissible stresses in the
masonry walls) and in-plane shear in CLT panels (i.e. panels thickness, strength class of
wood, in-plane shear in the head walls).

4.3.2 Phase 3

The nonlinear static analyses of the local FEM_N_L model is performed for an imposed
displacement obtained from the linear elastic analysis of the Global_FEM, subjected to a
transversal seismic action, and multiplied by a ductility factor q = 2.
The results show a redistribution of stresses when the plasticization of the connections
occurs and confirm the value of the ductility factor preliminarily adopted in the global
model (Global_FEM). In fact, none of the inelastic springs modelling the connections
exceeds its maximum plastic displacement when the imposed drift, coming out from the
linear analisys with Global_FEM, is applied. Therefore, the ultimate displacement of the
springs is not reached; thus, the available ductility of the connections is not fully achieved.
The maximum obtained value of in-plane shear force is about 123 kN/m (Fig. 15) and
the plasticization of the nonlinear springs is observed. The status of yielding for the nonlin-
ear springs (plastic hinges) is shown in Fig. 16.
In the analysis of the transversal response, the contribution of the relative sliding
between adjacent CLT panels can be evaluated.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 17  FEM_NL—relative displacement occurring in adjacent panels

The relative displacement d­ rel between the central part and the right side of the here con-
sidered roof pitch (Fig. 17) is given by the difference between the maximum displacement
of the central part ­(dx = 123 mm) and the one of the right side ­(dxr = 10.7 mm) and is equal
to ­drel = 112.3 mm. The displacement ­drel is given by two contributions: the first one is due
to the sliding between adjacent panels (i.e. to the connections); the second one is due to the
wood deformation. By summing up each relative displacement obtained between adjacent
panels, the contribution due to the sliding can be evaluated as it is shown in Table 7.

4.3.3 Phase 4

Considering nonlinear properties for masonry and CLT roof, nonlinear dynamic analyses
have been performed on the MID_FEM.
Referring to the areas of the roof with the higher in-plane shear forces (Fig.  18), the
average of the maximum values is calculated to understand the contribution given by the
connections. For these areas, a comparison in terms of in-plane shear force in CLT pan-
els obtained from all the linear and nonlinear analyses performed on the different imple-
mented models is shown in Fig. 19. The three linear analysis refer to the models without
connections, with connections as springs and with connections as equivalent panels. The
seven values of nonlinear dynamic analyses refer to the seven adopted accelerograms. For

Table 7  Values of relative Connection (from the right part to the center of the Relative
displacements of the ten adjacent roof) displacement
panels and total sliding (mm)

1 2.0
2 6.0
3 7.0
4 7.0
5 6.0
6 5.0
7 3.0
8 2.0
9 2.0
10 1.0
Total sliding 41.0

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 18  Areas of the roof with the higher values of in-plane shear forces

Fig. 19  Comparison between the in-plane shear forces acting on the CLT panels in linear and nonlinear
analyses for the areas of the roof highlighted in Fig. 18

completeness, the average values and the standard deviations of the in-plane shear forces
are also reported.
The nonlinear analyses show a decreasing of the actions in the panels, with a standard
deviation about 15.90 kN/m. The standard deviation detected by nonlinear analyses is less
than the one obtained with linear analyses (about 21.10 kN/m) and represents the influence
of the connections in the seismic valuations.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, several roof-diaphragm structural solutions for the seismic strengthening of
historical churches have been discussed. Among all the possible solutions, the attention has
been focused on the introduction of CLT panels that, together with an optimization of the
steel connections in terms of strength and stiffness, allows to avoid out-of-plane mecha-
nisms, improving the box behaviour of the masonry structure.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

The presence and the dissipative effects of the steel connections have been investi-
gated by linear and nonlinear analyses, in the hypothesis of a seismic action orthogonal
to the longitudinal axis of the church. Alternative approaches for the implementation of
connections in the finite element model of the structure have been discussed and applied
to a case study.
The followings remarks can be stated:

• Wooden based roof solutions in the seismic improvement of historical churches are
appreciated by the CHO and their effectiveness in achieving the global box behav-
iour of the structure under the seismic (transversal) action is comparable to other
alternative techniques. Among the wooden based roof solutions, the CLT panels
diaphragm represents an opportunity to achieve a significant improving in terms of
lateral walls rocking control, using a prebuilt solution that reduces the construction
time;
• To have a reliable evaluation of the seismic response of the church, the steel connec-
tions must be represented in the FEM; two different ways to model the connections
have been presented: springs and equivalent panels. The performed analyses have
shown that the connections implementation leads to a reduction of the in-plane shear
forces in CLT panels, together with a small drift increase of the masonry walls;
• Without an explicit connections implementation, the thickness of CLT panels must be
increased in order to satisfy the in-plane shear verifications, incrementing the inertial
forces and the cost constructions;
• The connections can be represented with nonlinear springs and pushover analysis can
be performed to detect their inelastic behaviour. In the presented case study, the plas-
ticization of connections has occurred in the areas of the roof close to the head walls.
This is a typical behaviour of church with a long nave and wooden trusses supported by
lateral walls;
• The consideration of roof-diaphragm connections and masonry inelastic properties
have shown an in-plane shear force reduction of about 35% respect to the linear analy-
ses results obtained with the model without connections;
• The analyses have shown the effectiveness of CLT roof diaphragm as a valid solution
for the seismic structural rehabilitation of historical masonry churches. To control the
drift in case of nave transversal response, an optimization of the connections and the
thickness of CLT panels is required;
• The numerical approaches here discussed can represent a valid tool in order to evaluate
the efficiency of the connections in the roof-diaphragm optimization.

Acknowledgements  The authors kindly acknowledge prof. Alberto Franchi for his supervision and for the
precise and useful suggestions given during the implementation of the numerical analyses.

References
Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Learning from construction failures due to the 2009 L’Aquila. J Perform Constr
Facil, Italy, Earthquake. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.00001​22
Benedetti D, Castellani A (1981) Costruzioni in zona sismica. Masson Italia, Milano
Betti M, Vignoli A (2011) Numerical assessment of the static and seismic behaviour of the basilica of Santa
Maria all’Impruneta (Italy). Constr Build Mater. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2010.12.028

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2014) Comparative analysis on the seismic behaviour of unrein-
forced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​
ruct.2013.12.038
Betti M, Borghini A, Boschi S et al (2018) Comparative seismic risk assessment of basilica-type churches. J
Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13632​469.2017.13096​02
Blass HJ, Uibel T (2013) Joints with dowel type fasteners in CLT structure. In: European conference on
Cross Laminated Timber. Graz, pp 119–134
Blass HJ, Aune P, Choo BS et al (1995) Timber engineering. Step 1: basis of design, material properties,
structural components and joints. In: Hout C (ed)
Brandonisio G, Mele E, Santaniello R, De Luca A (2008) Seismic safety of basilica churches: analysis of ten
case studies. In: Struct Anal Hist Constr Preserv Saf significance Proc Sixth Int Conf Struct Anal Hist
Constr 2–4 July 2008, Bath, United Kingdom
Ceccotti A (2010) Il progetto SOFIE sugli edifici di legno con tecnologia X-lam: riflessioni a margine delle
prove sismiche su tavola vibrante. Rivista Modulo, BE MA Editrice, Milano
Corradi M, Borri A, Righetti L, Speranzini E (2017) Uncertainty analysis of FRP reinforced timber beams.
Compos Part B Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compo​sites​b.2017.01.030
D’Ayala DF, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th
April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-010-9224-4
Dal Cin A, Russo S (2016) Annex and rigid diaphragm effects on the failure analysis and earthquake dam-
ages of historic churches. Eng Fail Anal. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfa​ilana​l.2015.09.010
EN1995-1-1 (2008) Eurocode 5: design of timber structures—part 1-1: general common rules and rules for
buildings. Proc ICE Civ Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2001.144.6.39
ETA06/0138 (2017) Solid wood slab element to be used as a structural elements in building - EOTA
ETA12/0281 (2018) HASSLACHER CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER—Solid wood slab element to be
used as a structural element in buildings - EOTA
Formisano A, Ciccone G, Mele A (2017) Large scale seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation of a masonry
churches sample in the historical centre of Naples. In: AIP Conference Proceedings
Gattesco N, Boem I (2018) Numerical study on the reduction of the seismic vulnerability of historical
industrial buildings with wide timber roofs. Procedia Struct Integr. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.prost​
r.2018.11.039
Gattesco N, Macorini L (2010) High reversibility technique for in-plane stiffening of wooden floors. In:
Structural analysis of historic construction: preserving safety and significance
Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Popovski M, Ceccotti A (2014) Behaviour of cross-laminated timber panels under
cyclic loads. RILEM Bookseries. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7811-5_62
Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A (2015) Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-lami-
nated (CLT) structures. Mater Struct Constr. https​://doi.org/10.1617/s1152​7-014-0278-7
Genshu T, Yongfeng Z (2007) Seismic force modification factors for modified-Clough hysteretic model.
Eng Struct 29:3053–3070. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2006.12.007
Giuriani E (2004) L’organizzazione degli impalcati per gli edifici storici. Spec Legno Strutt 134:30–43
Giuriani E, Marini A (2008) Wooden roof box structure for the anti-seismic strengthening of historic build-
ings. Int J Archit Herit. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15583​05080​20637​33
Giuriani EP, Marini A, Preti M (2016) Thin-folded shell for the renewal of existing wooden roofs. Int J
Archit Herit. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15583​058.2015.10756​26
Gubana A (2010) Experimental tests on timber-to-cross lam composite section beams. In: Proc 11th World
Conf Timber …
Gubana A (2015) State-of-the-Art Report on high reversible timber to timber strengthening interventions on
wooden floors. Constr Build Mater. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2015.06.035
Hossain A, Lakshman R, Tannert T (2015) Shear connections with self-tapping screws for cross-
laminated timber panels. Conference ASCE Structures Congress, Portland, Oregon. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/97807​84479​117.195
Iervolino I, De Luca F, Cosenza E (2010a) Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to
real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2010.04.047
Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010b) REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic
structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-009-9146-1
Iervolino I, Galasso C, Paolucci R, Pacor F (2011) Engineering ground motion record selection in the ITal-
ian ACcelerometric Archive. Bull Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-011-9300-4
Izzi M, Trees CNRI (2014) Advanced modelling of CLT wall systems for earthquake resistant timber struc-
tures. In: State-of-the-art, pp 247–260
Johansen KW (1949) Theory of timber connections, vol 9. IABSE Publications, pp 249–262
Kubiak T (2013) Static and dynamic buckling of thin-walled plate structures. Springer, Switzerland

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Lagomarsino S (2012) Damage assessment of churches after L’Aquila earthquake (2009). Bull Earthq
Eng 10:73–92. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-011-9307-x
Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model
for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engst​r uct.2013.08.002
Larsen HJ (1977) Johansen’s nail tests. Bygningsstatiske meddelelser 48:9–30
Lee J, Fenves GL (2002) Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech.
https​://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892)
Liberatore D, Doglioni C, AlShawa O et  al (2019) Effects of coseismic ground vertical motion on
masonry constructions damage during the 2016 Amatrice-Norcia (Central Italy) earthquakes. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.soild​yn.2019.02.015
Lin CCJ, Ghaboussi J (2001) Generating multiple spectrum compatible accelerograms using stochastic
neural networks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https​://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.50
Lin H, Tang S, Lan C (2015) Damage analysis and evaluation of high strength concrete frame
based on deformation-energy damage model. Math Probl Eng 2015:1–10. https​://doi.
org/10.1155/2015/78138​2
Longarini N, Crespi P, Franchi A et al (2018) Cross-lam roof diaphragm for the seismic retrofitting of
historical masonry churches. In: Proceedings of the International Masonry Society Conferences
Lourenço PB, Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J (1995) Two approaches for the analysis of masonry structures:
micro and macro-modeling. Heron 40(4):313–340
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E (1989) A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050​-4
Lucibello G, Brandonisio G, Mele E, De Luca A (2010) Seismic Behavior of some Basilica Churches
after L’Aquila 2009 Earthquake. Adv Mater Res. https​://doi.org/10.4028/www.scien​tific​.net/
amr.133-134.801
Marini A, Giuriani E, Belleri A, Cominelli S (2018) Dowel connections securing roof-diaphragms to
perimeter walls in historic masonry buildings and in-field testing for capacity assessment. Bull
Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-018-0333-9
Marques R (2014) Masonry box behavior. In: Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering
Meda A, Riva P (2001) Strengthening of wooden floors with high performance concrete slabs. Restor
Build Monum 9(6). https​://doi.org/10.1515/rbm-2003-5807
Midas Midas GEN FX Program—general structure design system
Milani G (2013) Lesson learned after the Emilia-Romagna, Italy, 20–29 May 2012 earthquakes: a limit
analysis insight on three masonry churches. Eng Fail Anal. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfa​ilana​
l.2013.01.001
Milani G, Shehu R, Valente M (2017) Possibilities and limitations of innovative retrofitting for
masonry churches: advanced computations on three case studies. Constr Build Mater. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2017.04.075
Milani G, Valente M, Alessandri C (2018) The narthex of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem:
a non-linear finite element approach to predict the structural damage. Comput Struct. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.comps​truc.2017.03.010
Mohler K, Maier G (1969) the coefficient of friction of spruce timber in view of the efficiency of timber-
connections using frictional resistance. Holz als Roh und Werkst 27:303–307
Moreira S, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB (2016) Design parameters for seismically retrofitted
masonry-to-timber connections: injection anchors. Int J Archit Heritage 10:217–234
NTC2018 (2018) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti. Sup-
plemento ordinario n. 8 alla Gazzetta ufficiale Serie generale. n. 42
Ongaretto E, Pozza L, Savoia M (2016) Wood-based solutions to improve quality and safety against seismic
events in conservation of historical buildings. Int J Qual Res. https​://doi.org/10.18421​/ijqr1​0.01-01
Otani S (1981) Hysteresis models of reinforce concrete for earthquake response analysis. J Fac Eng
36:407–441
Pagnoni T (1994) Seismic analysis of masonry and block structures with the discrete element method.
In: 10th European conference, Earthquake engineering, pp 1674–1694
Parisi MA, Piazza M (2015) Seismic strengthening and seismic improvement of timber structures. Con-
str Build Mater. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2015.05.093
Parisi MA, Chesi C, Tardini C, Piazza M (2008) Seismic vulnerability assessment for timber roof struc-
tures. In: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Penna A, Morandi P, Rota M et al (2014) Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earth-
quake. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2255–2273. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-013-9496-6

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Piazza M, Baldessari C, Tomasi R (2008) The role of in-plane floor stiffness in the seismic behaviour of
traditional buildings. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WC)
Plizzari G, Giuriani E (2001) Studio sperimentale sul comportamento dei solaio in legno rinforzati con
lastra in acciaio per resistere alle azioni sismiche. In: V Workshop Italiano sulle costruzioni composte,
pp 277–292
Popovski M, Gavric I, Schneider J (2014) Performance of two-storey CLT house subjected to lateral loads.
In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Timber Engineering
Preti M, Bolis V, Marini A, Giuriani E (2014) Example of the benefits of a dissipative roof diaphragm in the
seismic response of masonry. In: Proc 9th Int Conf Struct Anal Hist Constr
Preti M, Loda S, Bolis V et al (2017) Dissipative roof diaphragm for the seismic retrofit of listed masonry
churches. J Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13632​469.2017.13602​23
Rinaldin G, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2013) A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of con-
nections in cross-laminated wooden structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.2310
Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G, Pela’ L (2010) Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Clas-
sical and advanced approaches. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17:299–325. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1183​
1-010-9046-1
Roensmaens B, Van Parys L, Branco J, Descamps T (2019) Proposal of a CLT reinforcement of old timber
floors. In: RILEM Bookseries
Ronca P, Crespi P, Bonardi D et al (2014) High performance wooden building subjected to seismic action.
Int J Hous Sci Appl 38(3):161–172
Sandhaas C, van de Kuilen JWG (2017) Strength and stiffness of timber joints with very high strength steel
dowels. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2016.10.046
Scotta R, Trutalli D, Marchi L, Pozza L (2018) Seismic performance of URM buildings with in-plane non-
stiffened and stiffened timber floors. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2018.02.060
Shahnewaz M, Alam S, Tannert T (2018) In-plane strength and stiffness of cross-laminated timber shear
walls. Buildings. https​://doi.org/10.3390/build​ings8​08010​0
Sivaraja SS, Thandavamoorthy TS (2015) Dynamic behaviour of single storied box-type masonry buildings
with and without roof slab and shock table studies on scaled building models. 41:601–611
Sorelli LG, Meda A, Plizzari GA (2005) Bending and uniaxial tensile tests on concrete reinforced with
hybrid steel fibers. J Mater Civ Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0899-1561(2005)17:5(519)
Tomasi R, Crosatti A, Piazza M (2010) Theoretical and experimental analysis of timber-to-timber joints con-
nected with inclined screws. Constr Build Mater. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2010.03.007
Turrini G, Piazza M (1983) Una tecnica di recupero statico del solai in Legno TT—technique for static rein-
forcement of wooden beam floors. Recuperare 5:224–237
Valente M, Milani G (2018a) Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of historical
masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua. Eng Fail Anal. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfa​ilana​l.2018.06.017
Valente M, Milani G (2018b) Damage survey, simplified assessment, and advanced seismic analyses of two
masonry churches after the 2012 Emilia earthquake. Int J Archit Herit. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15583​
058.2018.14926​46
Valente M, Milani G (2018c) Seismic response and damage patterns of masonry churches: seven case stud-
ies in Ferrara, Italy. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2018.08.071
Valente M, Barbieri G, Biolzi L (2017a) Damage assessment of three medieval churches after the 2012
Emilia earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-016-0073-7
Valente M, Barbieri G, Biolzi L (2017b) Seismic assessment of two masonry Baroque churches damaged by
the 2012 Emilia earthquake. Eng Fail Anal. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfa​ilana​l.2017.05.026

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13