Development of earthquake bracing systems for multi-storey buildings

using slender shear wall elements in cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Kamyar Tavoussi1, Wolfgang Winter2, Tamir Pixner3

1 Assistant Professor, Dr. DI,

2 Prof. DDI, Head of Department,
3 Research Assistant,
Vienna University of Technology, Department of
Structural Design and Timber Engineering, Austria

Summary
In modern timber buildings big openings in the façade are getting more common. The aim of the
presented research project conducted together with a producer of CLT and the Austrian forest
products laboratory (Holzforschung Austria) was to minimize the number and size of the shear walls
provided to resist seismic loads by using stiff massive panels and non-conventional high
performance anchorage systems in steel.
The panels out of several layers of boards were glued using vacuum pressing equipment. These
elements were optimized by the variation of the number of layers and their geometry.
Several full size tests with different configuration of boards were carried out.
The tests showed good results even for high horizontal cyclic loadings.

1. Introduction

Europe has a long tradition of multi-storey timber based urban buildings. In the last century cement
based buildings dominated completely the market in central Europe but for several years modern
timber constructions are developed.
CLT is a new product invented 15 years ago in Europe. Produced with heavy hydraulic presses
under 5-7 kg/cm² it is used for structural elements.
Early 2006 the company Mölltaler Ökohaus (1) and the Department of Structural Design and
Timber Engineering at the Vienna University of Technology started a research project co-financed
by the Austrian Found for applied Research (FFG). The aim was to develop an innovative
earthquake-resistant timber structure using a small number of slender shear walls to make big
openings possible.
These shear walls should be produced in an
economic production process using vacuum
pressing equipment under a pressure of 1-2
kg/cm².
One objective was the optimal board
configuration of CLT walls for resistance
against lateral forces.

Fig. 1 Production hall with vacuum press

The seismic design was based on a case study of a two-storey single-family house with
asymmetrical bracing system and low torsion stiffness as worst case (Fig.2). A “propeller-system”
out of horizontal arranged CLT panels for transmission of horizontal loads to the stiffening shear
walls was developed (Fig.2,3). The remaining structure (ceiling and columns) which is not part of
the bracing system could be built conventionally.

Fig. 3 3D – model of stiffening walls

Fig. 2 Plan view of ground floor and first floor and “propeller-system”

2. Design approach
Worst case assumptions were used to determine the maximum load the panels should resist. The
load-set-up for the seismic design refers to the design code EN 1990 (2). The seismic calculation
was based on the Italian design code (3) (similar to EN 1998 (4)). According to the seismic zone 1
of Italy a horizontal ground-acceleration of 0,35 g was applied. A behaviour factor of q = 2 was
assumed. For the time history analyses of the building seven artificial earthquakes according to EN
1998 were generated.
Static and dynamic analyses were computed with framework
software (RSTAB, Fa. Dlubal (5)) frequently used by structural
engineers. The structural behaviour of the shear walls were
modelled using a special configuration of quadratic frames with
eccentric connections.

Fig. 4 Quadratic frame

The maximum representative lateral load under earthquake for one shear wall was approx. 140 kN,
leading to vertical anchorage of approx. 400 kN. These anchor forces could not be transmitted by
conventional methods. The design of a new anchor system became necessary.
For estimation and comparison of static and dynamic resistance of different wall types against
lateral loading following tests were planed and carried out.
3. Development and monotonic testing of 12 different panel types
3.1 Configuration of boards
By combining criteria’s of optimal structural behaviour and production preferences 12 wall types
were produced. Each wall type differed in the thickness, orientation and the angle of the laminated
boards. The dimension of all test samples was 120 by 280 cm. The quality of the boards is C24 (W5
and W6 different) according to EN 338 (6).

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

32 32 32 32

32 32(66,8°) 32(45°) 32(±49,4°)

32 32 32 32

32 32(66,8°) 32(45°) 32(±49,4°)

32 32 32 32

Σ 160 Σ 160 Σ 160 Σ 160

W1 W2 W3 W4

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

32 15 (OSB) 32 32

32 32(45°) 32

32 (C16) 60/120 32 32
Joists
32 32(-45°) 32

32 32 32
15 (OSB)
Σ 160 Σ 150 Σ 160 Σ 160

W5 W6 W7 W8 (produced with
hydraulic press)

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

32(-45°) 32(-45°) 32(-45°) 32(-45°)

32(45°) 32(45°)

40 70(45°) 77(45°) 47

32(45°) 32(45°)

32(-45°) 32(-45°) 32(-45°) 32(-45°)

Σ 168 Σ 134 Σ 141 Σ 175

W9 W10 W11 W12

Fig. 5 12 Panel types with thickness (mm) and angel of inclined laminated boards
3.2 Testing setup
The lateral force for the most stressed slender shear wall resulting from dynamic analysis was
approx. 140 kN. The standard test equipment for shear walls used for timber frame houses are
carried out with significant lower loads (10-20 kN). For the extreme high load a special test setup
had to be developed.

The hydraulic cylinder (green) which put

the pressure on the end of the wall (brown)
could reach a maximum of 200 kN of
compression and 150 kN of tension. These
maximum loads were applied.
The existing frame (black) was modified
by additional elements (red) for such high
loading.
The high tensile forces were anchored for
the monotonic tests with steel bars (A=14
cm2) (blue).
These bars were fixed with steel plates
(blue) at the top of the wall and at the
vertical additional steel element (red) on
the other end.
Fig. 6 Testing apparatus

Because of the high load the deformation of the test apparatus and the anchorage system had to be
considered to determine the displacement of the wall itself.
The measured displacement at the
top of the wall was the result of 3
components:
u total = u frame + u steel + u wood

Fig. 7 Contributions to total measured displacement

02 04 01…Measurement of total Displacement

01
02…Measurement of Steel bar elongation
03+04…Measurement of Steel frame rotation

03

Fig. 8 Points of measurement

3.3 Test Results
The tests were carried out referring to EN 594 (7).

Fig. 9 “F - u total” Diagram (simplified, phase of decreasing loading not shown)

Fig. 10a “F - u frame“Diagram (deformation Fig.10b “F - u steel” Diagram (deformation

due to steel frame rotation, mean value) due to steel bar elongation, mean value)

No fracture could be observed for the majority of tested walls.

The best results (Fig. 9) were supplied by wall 2 and 3 with two inclined layers oriented in the same
direction. These walls were asymmetric assembled and tested with the inclined layers in the
direction of compression. The better performance of wall 2 demonstrates the efficiency of layers
inclined in the direction of the diagonal of the wall (66,8°). Nevertheless the advantage of wall 2
compared to wall 3 was not that significant. In consideration of economic efficiency an angle of 45
degrees for inclined layers was chosen for further tests. Furthermore the asymmetric configuration
leaded to the legitimate assumption of a weaker performance of the wall in the other direction. In
the following tests inclined layers for walls were arranged in both directions.
Wall 1 (vacuum pressed) and 8 (hydraulic pressed) with identical crossed board configuration but
with different production methods showed comparable results, remarkably lower than the best
panels with inclined boards (W2, W3).
The poor performance of wall 10 and 11 due to the fracture of the overloaded diagonals pointed out
the necessity of a vertical layer.
Wall 9 and 12 with inclined layers in both directions did not perform better than the conventional
cross laminated walls during monotonic tests. If the theoretically better performance of inclined
layers would really exist, this had to be proved by cyclic testing.
4. Cyclic testing of 2 selected panel types
4.1 Configuration of boards

2 configuration types were selected for further cyclic tests. Wall 13 was identical with wall 1 except
a thicker vertikal middle layer (40 mm instead of 32 mm). The board configuration of wall 14 and
wall 15 was identical with wall 9.

[mm] [mm]

32 32(-45°)

32 32(45°)

40 40

32 32(45°)

32 32(-45°)

Σ 168 Σ 168
W13 W14/15

Fig. 11 2 Panel types with thickness (mm) and angel of inclined laminated boards

4.2 Anchorage system

The anchorage system consists of two steel channels (each: A=23cm2) placed on both sides of the
shear wall. The idea was to transmit the tensile forces with a steel element to the top of the wall to
avoid anchoring high tensile loads directly in the wood.
For the steel to steel connection of the tension element to the anchor in the foundation special steel
nails as driving fasteners (8) were used. This non-detachable connection executable on the
construction site can provide high ductility in case of earthquake (Fig. 12).

Fig.12 Assembly of wall and anchorage system

4.3 Test Results
To describe and estimate the behaviour of such shear walls for an earth-quake scenario tests were
carried out referring to ISO 16670 (9).
Wall 14 and wall 15 were tested mirror-inverted (Fig. 14b, 15b).

Fig. 13a Wall 13: “F - u total” Diagram Fig. 13b Wall 13

Fig. 14a Wall 14: “F - u total” Diagram Fig. 14b Wall 14

Fig. 15a Wall 15: “F - u total” Diagram Fig. 15b Wall 15

The asymmetric hysteresis is due to the characteristics of the hydraulic cylinder which could not
apply the same tension force as compression force.
The hysteresis shows a decreasing stiffness with increasing cycling loading for wall 13. The
stiffness of wall 14 and 15 remains almost similar with increasing cycling loading.
 5. Conclusion
5.1 Shear wall
The tests showed the similar efficiency of multilayer shear walls produced by vacuum presses in
comparison to walls produced under high pressure with hydraulic presses.
No fracture could be observed for the majority of tested walls.
A vertical layer increases the load carrying capacity considerably and will be necessary for such high
loads.
Under cyclic loading perpendicular laminated timber panels decrease their stiffness more significant
compared to inclined laminated timber panels.

5.2 Anchorage System

The damping capacity of the whole
element (Shear wall in
combination with the tension
elements and the anchorage
system) had been significant
influenced by the plastification of
the steel plates and the local
plastification of the compressed
wood (approx. 2,5 kN/cm² under
max. lateral load of 200 kN).

Fig. 16 Plastification of the steel plates

The tested anchorage system proved to be reliable for high tensile forces.
The ductility could be increased by optimising the tension elements and the number of driven steel
nails. This is advantageous in case of earthquakes.

6. References
1…Ökohaus Systembau GesmbH, Latzendorf 100, A - 9832 Stall
2…EN 1990: Eurocode – Basis of structural design, CEN, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels
3…Normativa sismica Edifici-bozza aggiornata al 25/03/03
4…EN 1998-1: EUROCODE 8 – Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, - Part 1: General
Rules, seismic Action and Rules for Buildings, CEN, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels
5…Ing.-Software Dlubal GmbH, Am Zellweg 2, D-93464 Tiefenbach
6…EN 338: Structural timber–strength classes, CEN, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels
7…EN 594:1995 Timber Structures – Test Methods – Racking Strength and Stiffness of Timber
Frame Wall Panels, CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
8...Hilti Austria Ges.m.b.H. Altmannsdorferstr. 165, Postfach 316, A-1231 Wien
9…ISO 16670:2003 International Standard, Timber Structures – Joints made with Mechanical
Fasteners – Quasi-static Reversed-cyclic Test Method, First Edition 2003-12-15.