European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 79–92 | Cite as

Experimental and numerical evaluation of hold-down connections on radiata pine Cross-Laminated-Timber shear walls: a case study in Chile

  • F. BenedettiEmail author
  • V. Rosales
  • A. Opazo-Vega
  • J. Norambuena-Contreras
  • A. Jara-Cisterna


Cross-Laminated-Timber (CLT) structures have gained popularity in the field of medium-rise buildings due to the quick fabrication and assembly of the panels. However, connections in radiata pine CLT shear walls and the behavior of CLT structures under lateral loads is still not well understood. In this context, this paper studies the structural behavior of hold-down connections on radiata pine CLT walls by means of experimental tests and numerical simulations under static and dynamic conditions. The test response of connections was replicated by calibrating two hysteretic models on OpenSees. The main results showed that applied models can reproduce the hysteretic behavior of hold-down connections with high precision. It was observed that hold-down connections on radiata pine CLT walls reached a loading capacity similar to other wood species, but the strength and stiffness degradation was quicker, and no significant difference with the parallel to grain capacity of angle bracket connections was noticed. In addition, it was found that radiata pine CLT walls can achieve suitable cyclic loading performance with low damage level in connections and reach high levels of displacement ductility. Finally, the importance of friction in the load capacity of the wall was also shown.



The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided through CD InES UBB Sustainable Habitat Performance Agreement awarded by Chilean Ministry of Education. Besides, the authors want to thank for the technical support given by José L. Concha from LabMAT of the University of Bío-Bío.


  1. Blass H, Fellmoser P (2004) Design of solid wood panels with cross layers. In: Proceedings of the 8th world conference on timber engineering, pp 1001–1006Google Scholar
  2. Brandner R, Flatscher G, Ringhofer A, Schickhofer G, Thiel A (2016) Cross laminated timber (CLT): overview and development. Eur J Wood Prod 74(3):331–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ceccotti A (2008) New Technologies for construction of medium-rise buildings in seismic regions: The XLAM case. Struct Eng Int 18:156–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceccotti A, Sandhaas C, Okabe M et al (2013) SOFIE project—3D shaking table test on a seven-storey full-scale cross-laminated timber building. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn 42:2003–2021. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EN 12512 (2001) Timber structures—test methods—cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical fasteners. CEN, Brussels, Belgium Google Scholar
  6. EN 338:2016 (2016) Structural timber—strength classes. CEN, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  7. Flatscher G, Bratulic K, Schickhofer G (2015) Experimental tests on cross-laminated timber joints and walls. Proc ICE Struct Build, 168(11): 868–877. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Folz B, Filiatrault A (2002) SAWS—Seismic Analysis of Woodframe Structures, Version 1.0, CUREE Publication No. W-21, Richmond, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A (2015a) Cyclic behavior of typical screwed connections for cross-laminated (CLT) structures. Eur J Wood Prod 73:179–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A (2015b) Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-laminated (CLT) structures. Mater Struct 48:1841–1857. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hristovski V, Dujic B, Stojmanovska M, Mircevska V (2013) Full-scale shaking-table tests of xlam panel systems and numerical verification: specimen 1. J Struct Eng 139:2010–2018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Izzi M, Rinaldin G, Polastri A, Fragiacomo M (2018a) A hysteresis model for timber joints with dowel-type fasteners. Eng Struct 157:170–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Izzi M, Polastri A, Fragiacomo M (2018b) Modelling the mechanical behaviour of typical wall-to-floor connection systems for Cross-Laminated Timber structures. Eng Struct 162:270–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Izzi M, Polastri A, Fragiacomo M (2018c) Investigating the hysteretic behavior of Cross-Laminated Timber wall systems due to connections. J Struct Eng. Google Scholar
  15. Karacabeyli E, Douglas B (eds) (2013) Cross-Laminated Timber handbook, US EDITION. FPInnovations, Poitn-ClaireGoogle Scholar
  16. Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R (2001) Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures. CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour M, Rizzano G (2017) Seismic behavior of cross-laminated timber panel buildings equipped with traditional and innovative connectors. Arch Civ Mech Eng 17:382–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowes L, Mitra N, Altoontash A (2004) A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames. In: PEER Report 2003/10. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, BarkelyGoogle Scholar
  19. McKenna F, Fenves G, Filippou F, Mazzoni S, Scott M, Elgamal A, Yang Z, Lu J, Arduino P, McKenzie P, Deierlein G, Law K (2006) OpenSees. University of California, BarkelyGoogle Scholar
  20. Pei S, van de Lindt JW, Popovski M et al (2016) Cross-Laminated Timber for Seismic Regions: Progress and Challenges for Research and Implementation. J Struct Eng 142:E2514001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Polastri A, Giongo I, Angeli A, Brandner R (2017) Mechanical characterization of a pre-fabricated connection system for cross laminated timber structures in seismic regions. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  22. Popovski M, Gavric I (2016) Performance of a 2-story CLT house subjected to lateral loads. J Struct Eng 142:E4015006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rinaldin G, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2013) A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of connections in cross-laminated wooden structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:2023–2042. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider J, Karacabeyli E, Popovski M, Stiemer SF, Tesfamariam S (2014) Damage assessment of connections used in Cross-Laminated Timber subject to cyclic loads. J Perform Constr Facil 28:A4014008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider J, Shen Y, Stiemer SF, Tesfamariam S (2015) Assessment and comparison of experimental and numerical model studies of cross-laminated timber mechanical connections under cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 77:197–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shen Y-L, Schneider J, Tesfamariam S et al (2013) Hysteresis behavior of bracket connection in Cross-Laminated-Timber shear walls. Constr Build Mater 48:980–991. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomasi R, Smith I (2015) Experimental characterization of monotonic and cyclic loading responses of CLT panel-to-foundation angle bracket connections. J Mater Civ Eng, 27(6): 04014189(1–10). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yasumura M, Kobayashi K, Okabe M, Miyake T, Matsumoto K (2016) Full-scale tests and numerical analysis of low-rise CLT structures under lateral loading. J Struct Eng 142:E4015007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Benedetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. Rosales
    • 2
  • A. Opazo-Vega
    • 1
  • J. Norambuena-Contreras
    • 1
    • 3
  • A. Jara-Cisterna
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Bío-BíoConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Wood and Design LaboratoryUniversity of Bío-BíoConcepciónChile
  3. 3.LabMAT, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Bío-BíoConcepciónChile

Personalised recommendations