A Component Approach For The Hysteretic Behaviour of Connections

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:2023–2042

Published online 13 June 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2310
A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of connections

in cross-laminated wooden structures
Giovanni Rinaldin1,*,†, Claudio Amadio2 and Massimo Fragiacomo1

1
Department of Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
2
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
SUMMARY
In this paper, a numerical model to estimate the dissipative capacity and describe the cyclic response of
cross-laminated (X-lam) timber buildings is presented. The connections between panels and to the founda-
tion (metal hold-downs and angle brackets, and screwed connectors) are modelled with nonlinear hysteretic
multispring elements taking into account the strength interaction between different degrees of freedom
according to a predefined domain. The timber components (solid X-lam floors and wall panels) are modelled
using elastic shell elements. By calibration on experimental cyclic tests carried out on each degree of
freedom, important features of timber connection behaviour such as post-peak strength, pinching and
stiffness degradation can all be considered. In addition, the effect of friction at the interface between panels
and with foundation can be taken into account. These springs have been implemented as external
subroutines in a widespread software package such as Abaqus. By comparison with the experimental results
of cyclic tests carried out on single X-lam walls, coupled X-lam walls and a single-storey X-lam building,
the accuracy of the proposed model is demonstrated. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 23 October 2012; Revised 15 April 2013; Accepted 23 April 2013
KEY WORDS: X-lam timber structures; component modelling; hysteretic behaviour; nonlinear springs;
seismic resistance; wood buildings
1. INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The use of timber for multistorey buildings has increased significantly in the last decade for several
reasons, including sustainability considerations, aesthetic appearance and high strength-to-weight
ratio of the material. A new construction system based on the use of solid cross-laminated (X-lam)
panels has quickly spread throughout the world. The system involves the use of larger volume of
wood compared with light-frame construction; however, the ease and rapidity of erection are a
significant advantage. The panels are composed by several layers of wooden boards glued to each
other with alternating fibres direction (Figure 1).
This layout increases the stability of the panels that are no longer subjected to significant
dimensional changes because of shrinkage/swelling of wood. The panels can be effectively used for
walls and floors of gravity and lateral load resisting systems in multistorey timber buildings. In
general, the building is erected using a platform construction technique, where the wall panels are
first connected to the foundation and to each other, followed by the floor panels that are placed atop
the wall panels and connected to them. The walls of the next floor are then placed above the floor
panels, which therefore can be used as a working platform from the builder.
*Correspondence to: Giovanni Rinaldin, Department of Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, University of Sassari,
Piazza Duomo, 6, 07041 Alghero, Sassari, Italy.
†
E-mail: grinaldin@uniss.it
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2024 G. RINALDIN, C. AMADIO AND M. FRAGIACOMO
Figure 1. Photo of a cross-laminated panel (copyright IVALSA-CNR).
The connections between wall and foundation, and between the upper wall and the supporting floor
panel are obtained with metal devices such as angle brackets and hold-downs connectors, which are
nailed and bolted to the wall and to the foundation/supporting floor panel, respectively. Adjacent walls
and adjacent floor panels are connected through self-drilling screws, which are also used for the
connection between floor panels and supporting walls. Several investigations were carried out on X-lam
panels, including design of multistorey buildings for gravity loads [1], seismic resistance [2, 3],
experimental testing under gravity and cyclic loads [4] and development of numerical models [5, 6].
Extensive shake table testing performed on full-scale three-storey and seven-storey X-lam buildings
within the SOFIE research project [3, 7] showed that the buildings were able to survive high-intensity
earthquake ground motions with very limited damage [6, 8]. Furthermore, a significant amount of
energy was dissipated, mostly in the connections between panels and with the foundation. A
behaviour factor q = 3 was recommended for design of X-lam buildings [9] when an appropriate
choice of the connection system is made. It is known that in a wooden structure most of the
dissipative capacity takes place in the steel fasteners ([8] and [10]) as timber behaves mostly
elastically with only little plasticization in compression, parallel and perpendicular to grain.
Some research was recently conducted also in North America, where the abbreviation CLT—
cross-laminated timber—is generally used. Topics investigated include the seismic design of CLT
structures [11, 12] and the experimental cyclic behaviour of CLT single and coupled walls. On the
basis of these studies, a value for the behaviour factor of CLT buildings between 2.0 and 2.5 was
proposed [13].
Several numerical models were proposed to investigate the seismic behaviour of timber structures
where the nonlinear behaviour is concentrated in the connections.
A first approach, proposed by Foschi [14], is based on predicting the nonlinear behaviour of
structural components and connections via nonlinear analysis conducted at the fasteners level. This
method is powerful but requires a full characterization of the embedment properties and may be of
difficult application for large structures. The full cyclic characterisation of the metal connector is in
fact calculated during the analysis for every single fastener, such as screws or nails.
An easier way to model X-lam structures is to use nonlinear springs for the fasteners. For example,
using the software SAP2000 [15], orthotropic elastic shell elements were adopted to model timber
panels, and multilinear elastic springs were employed to model the connections [16]. This approach
can be effectively used to calculate the monotonic response of a structure and to perform a nonlinear
pushover analysis. However, an accurate cyclic characterization of the connections using a suitable
hysteretic behaviour cannot be implemented in SAP2000. Only a predefined hysteretic law can be
used [17], which leads to loss of accuracy when estimating the dissipated energy.
Another phenomenological approach is based on modelling steel connectors using macrosprings
made of a group of springs and dampers, arranged in parallel and in series. This method requires the
evaluation of an equivalent damping coefficient to characterize the nonlinear behaviour of the
springs. The seismic capacity of a three-storey X-lam building was predicted using this methodology
implemented in Straus7 software package [6]. This analysis was conducted calibrating the
macrosprings on the entire wall response rather than on the behaviour of each single connector.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:2023–2042
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
A COMPONENT APPROACH FOR BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTIONS IN X-LAM STRUCTURES 2025
The model cannot consider strength degradation and a post-peak softening branch. Furthermore, it is
not possible to take into account the effect of friction.
With the aim to carry out nonlinear analyses of three-dimensional light-frame timber buildings [18],
the computer program LightFrame 3D was developed at the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver. The software formulation consists mainly on the use of three basic elements: beams,
panels and connections. The Foschi’s ‘micromodel’ is employed to predict the monotonic and cyclic
behaviour of single connectors such as nails and screws, on the basis of the properties of the
materials involved in the connection (timber and steel). The program was used for monotonic and
cyclic static analyses of timber structures, with excellent accuracy in terms of displacement.
However, this software cannot be used for X-lam structures as it does not allow the user to
implement different materials (X-lam panels instead of sawn timber and sheathing material) and
connectors different from nails and screws.
Another approach is based on the phenomenological characterization of the connector
nonlinear behaviour. The software DRAIN-3D, developed by NISEE (PEER, University of
California, Berkeley), has been used by some researchers as a base platform to implement
cyclic relationships for wooden connectors [19]. Implemented relationships include rotational
and translational degree of freedoms for modelling semirigid elements such as hold-downs and
angle brackets using nonlinear springs. Although the model cannot fit precisely the hysteretic
behaviour of each spring, and the strength degradation could not be considered, the predicted
global structural response was accurate. The dissipated energy could be estimated with
excellent precision once the equivalent damping was calibrated on the experimental results.
This implementation was also used by Ceccotti et al. [9], and it was proved to be very
effective to measure the seismic vulnerability of an X-lam building. However, the impairment
of strength and stiffness that are typical features of X-lam panels and connections subjected to
cyclic loading could not be considered.
Many other examples of nonlinear phenomenological springs can be found in literature, the
great part of which being developed ad hoc for wood frame sheathed shear walls. The model
developed by Foliente [20] is based on the modifications of the Bouc–Wen–Baber–Noori
hysteresis law and considers strength/stiffness degradation and the typical pinching effect of the
connections in wooden structures. The model proposed by Dolan et al. [21] can also account
for the behaviour and interaction between adjacent panels and out-of-plane stiffness. The wall
behaviour is schematized with an assemblage of elements such as beams, nonlinear springs and
plates. The model was used to predict the shear wall monotonic response in some experimental
tests. Another approach based on the assemblage of various elements interconnected by special
joints was proposed by Kasal et al. [22]. Falk et al. [23] developed a 2-D element for
monotonic analysis of wood diaphragms, whereas Yasumura [24] and Collins et al. [25]
focused on the dynamic analysis of light wood frame structures. All these approaches start
from some considerations based on the cyclic behaviour of plywood sheathed shear walls
carried out by Dean et al. [26]. Finally, Heiduschke et al. [27] developed a model that
represent the semirigid connections, modelled as an assemblage of springs and dampers, in a
moment-resisting wood frame, obtaining a good accuracy also in the estimation of the
dissipated energy. The most important features of the aforementioned models, particularly the
stiffness and strength degradation, and the pinching effect have been included in the model
developed in this paper.
To improve existing numerical approaches, a new component model for cyclic and seismic analyses
of X-lam buildings has been developed. In this model, the steel connections are schematized using
nonlinear hysteretic multispring elements. The multispring has hysteretic behaviour different for
each degree of freedom and is implemented as an external subroutine in Abaqus software package.
The model has the capability to consider all features of typical X-lam connections, namely nonlinear
hysteretic behaviour, post-peak behaviour, strength and stiffness degradation, pinching behaviour,
interaction between axial and shear resistance of connectors, and influence of friction. The
derivation of the basic equations is presented, and the accuracy of the model is estimated by
comparisons with experimental cyclic tests carried out on single and coupled X-lam panels, and on a
single-storey building.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
2. COMPONENT APPROACH
The proposed approach is based on the use of nonlinear multispring elements to represent the
behaviour of typical connections used in X-lam buildings, such as angle brackets, hold-downs
(or tie-downs) and single nails or screws. The X-lam panels are schematized with linear elastic shell
elements. The model is based on the evidence that the dissipative capacity of X-lam wooden
buildings subjected to earthquake excitation mainly depends on the connections between the panels
and with the foundation. The advantage of the proposed model is the possibility to predict the cyclic
behaviour of entire panels, subassemblies and buildings once each spring has been calibrated on
cyclic tests carried out on different types of connection. A phenomenological way to represent the
nonlinear hysteretic behaviour of the connection has been chosen, because it allows the user to fully
control and model the steel connections in a simple way. The model developed simulates the cyclic
behaviour through a nonlinear spring characterized by linear branches in the force-displacement
domain, including elastic and plastic field. No additional material implementations are needed to use
this model: the springs work with several input parameters (listed in the following), which fully
describe the cyclic behaviour and define the adopted hysteretic rule. The springs are calibrated on
the results as force-displacement curves of cyclic tests carried out on the different connection
systems. However, simplified models based on analytical approaches can also be used to calibrate
the springs for similar connections but with different number and diameter of fasteners [30, 31]. The
model also includes allowance for stiffness and strength degradation, which are features of great
importance in the cyclic behaviour of timber structures, as well as strength interaction between
different degrees of freedom, and allowance for friction.
2.1. Constitutive model of the components

Only planar springs with three degrees of freedom have been considered in this study, for the sake of
simplicity, as this is the most important case. However, the theory can be easily generalized to the case
of a spatial spring with six degrees of freedom.
A generic multispring is characterized by three degree of freedoms ui = (v1, u2, ’), namely axial and
transversal local displacements, and in-plane rotation (Table I).
The elastic force components Fe,i = (Ne,i, Ve,i, Me,i) are uncoupled and the local elastic stiffness
matrix Ki for the generic spring i is diagonal:
Fe;i ¼ Ki ui (1)
Table I. Basic definition of nonlinear springs.

Congruence equations – spring degrees of freedom:
’ = ’2’1
g = u2u1
e = v2v1
Constitutive equations – spring forces: Nodal equilibrium equations (reactions with opposite sign of
internal forces in the spring):
M = M(’) T1 = T
T = T(g) T2 = T
N = N(e) M1 = M
M2 = M
N1 = N
N2 = N
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
2 3
kN;i 0 0
Ki ¼ 4 0 kV;i 0 5 (2)
0 0 kM;i
with
kN,i axial stiffness;

kV,i shear stiffness;
kM,i rotational stiffness.
For every step i of analysis, the spring returns stiffness and force values to the solver.
Every steel connection (such as angle brackets, hold-downs and screws, see Figure 2) can act in
different directions. For a hold-down, for example, both axial and shear components must be
considered. The rotational stiffness is usually negligible for small linear connectors with closely
spaced fasteners such as hold-downs, angle brackets and screws, but may become important when
modelling large connections such as beam-column joints in moment-resisting frames. To properly
represent every type of timber connection, different hysteretic laws can be used for a single spring,
one for each degree of freedom (shear, axial and rotational component). In this paper, the rotational
degree of freedom has been considered as linear elastic, and the corresponding stiffness neglected
because only small linear hold-downs, angle brackets and screwed connectors were modelled.
However, it is possible to consider for the rotational degree of freedom a proper hysteretic
behaviour such as the one for shear when modelling moment connections.
Finally, the stiffness and strength degradation models are described. In addition, a strength domain
is implemented between axial and shear law. The static friction effect is also introduced to model
the wall–foundation and floor–wall interactions. All these capabilities are implemented in the same
user element.
2.2. Shear hysteresis law

The hysteresis law used for shear components is symmetric and represents the typical in-plane
behaviour of an angle bracket in the direction parallel to the joint. Figure 3 displays the shear force
versus shear displacement (slip) piecewise-linear law implemented in the model.
This hysteretic behaviour has the following features:
• It is made of 16 branches.
• The backbone curve is made of three branches: an elastic, a plastic with hardening and a softening
branch before failure.
Figure 2. Angle brackets (left) and hold-down (right) connectors in a cross-laminated panel (copyright
IVALSA-CNR).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 3. Piecewise-linear law of shear spring component.
• The curve is symmetric; if an unloading occurs, branch #4 is followed until a given percentage
(chosen by the user with the SC parameter) of the maximum force is reached on the backbone
curve. Branch #6 models the pinching effect, and branch #40 takes to the backbone curve with
a degraded elastic stiffness.
• Branches #1 to #6 are positive with respect to the force, and branch #7 is for reloading between
pinching branches; branches #10, #20, #30, #40, #50, #60 are negative and branch #70 are for
unloading between pinching branches.
• Branches #8 and #80 are used to obtain a better fit with the experimental data: the user has to set
two additional parameters for the slope and arrival point of branch #8 (and #80).
The model is defined by 11 input parameters, which are
(1) Elastic stiffness, kel.
(2) Yielding force, Fy.
(3) First inelastic stiffness (hardening branch), kp1.
(4) Peak strength, Fmax.
(5) Second inelastic stiffness (softening or hardening branch), kp2.
(6) Ksc factor: it sets the unloading stiffness of branches #4 and #50, which is obtained by multiplying
the elastic stiffness kel by this factor Ksc.
(7) RC parameter: it sets the lower limit of branches #5 and #40 by multiplying the force value F
attained before entering the unloading path by this parameter RC.
(8) SC parameter: it sets the lower limit of branches #4 and #50 by multiplying the force value
attained before entering the unloading path F by this parameter SC.
(9) Ultimate displacement, du: when this value is attained, a brittle failure occurs.
(10) Stiffness coefficient c5 of branch #5, which multiplies the elastic stiffness kel.
(11) Stiffness degradation parameter dkf: it controls the linear degradation of the unloading stiffness
once entered in the plastic range (Eqn (3)).
2.3. Axial hysteresis law

The axial law is characterized by hysteresis loops in tension and contact behaviour in compression
(the typical behaviour of a hold-down in axial direction). Figure 4 displays the axial force versus
axial displacement piecewise-linear law used to model the behaviour of the axial component.
The axial hysteretic law has the following features:
• It is made of 11 branches.
• The law is not symmetric: three branches form the backbone curve in tension, whereas branches
#10 and #20 are overlapped in compression. Note that the behaviour in compression is linear
elastic with high stiffness to model the contact between the X-lam panel and the foundation, or
between the wall panels and the floor panel underneath.
• When an unloading from the skeleton curve occurs, it takes the force to a minimum value on the
compression branch.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 4. Piecewise-linear law of axial spring component.
The model is defined by 14 input parameters, which are the ones described for the shear law with the
following ones in addition:
(12) Stiffness coefficient c10 for the compression branches #10 and #20, that multiplies the elastic
stiffness kel; it is always >1.
(13) Force value at the end of branch #6 in percentage of yielding force, F6.
(14) Force value at the beginning of branch #60 in percentage of yielding force, F60.
2.4. Stiffness and strength degradation

Stiffness and strength degradations have been implemented in the model as they are both important
features of timber connections. For both spring models a degradation of stiffness proportional to the
maximum displacement attained during the load history has been assumed for the last unloading
branches #5 and #40 (after the pinching effect). This effect has been taken into account with Eqn (3):

d max
k deg ¼ kel 1 1 dk f (3)
dult
where
kdeg = degraded stiffness;
kel = elastic stiffness;
dmax = maximum displacement attained during the load history;
dult = ultimate displacement;
dkf = stiffness degradation parameter.
The strength degradation depends on the energy dissipated and on the maximum displacement
attained during the load history. Because of the complexity of evaluating the dependence of the
strength degradation on both these quantities, three calibration parameters have been introduced: a
linear and two exponential ones. The adopted equation is reported in Eqn (4).
a
Edis EdisðAÞ d max b
Δd ¼ gdel (4)
Edis dult
where
Δd = additional displacement at reloading because of the strength degradation;
g = linear parameter;
del = displacement at yielding force;
a = exponential energy degradation parameter;
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Edis = dissipated energy;

Edis(A) = dissipated energy at the beginning of unloading path;
dmax = maximum displacement attained during the loading history;
dult = ultimate displacement;
b = exponential displacement degradation parameter.
2.5. Elastic strength domain

In general, axial and shear hysteretic laws are used together in the same spring to schematize a simple
X-lam connection (hold-down, angle bracket and screwed connections). In this case, an elastic strength
domain is required to check if, at every loading step i, axial and shear forces returned by the spring are
still acceptable. The domain formulation is taken from a European Technical Approval document for
X-lam connections [28], and has the following form:
2 2
FN FV
þ ⩽1 (5)
RN RV
where
FN is the axial force at the previous analysis step;
RN is the yielding axial strength of the connector given by the user as an input parameter;
FV is the shear force at the previous analysis step;
RV is the yielding shear strength of the connector given by the user as an input parameter.
If the point characterized by the axial and shear forces (FN, FV) in the spring is inside the domain
shown in Figure 5, the force-displacement laws are kept constant and independent of each other and
no interaction between axial and shear force is considered. When the point (FN, FV) reaches the
domain limit defined by Eqn (5), then the backbone curves are reduced by considering FN and FV as
the elastic strengths, modifying consequently the cyclic laws and keeping constant the peak and the
ultimate displacements. This reduction is applied only once, when the elastic limit is first reached.
Finally, when the ultimate displacement is attained in one DOF, also the spring in the other DOF is
forced to break.
2.6. Static friction contribution

The significant influence of friction at the interfaces between wall and floor panels, and between wall
and foundation, on the behaviour of X-lam structures was pointed out by some researchers [3, 29]. The
gravity load at these interfaces provides a significant additional shear resistance because of friction that
Figure 5. Shear-axial force domain according to Eqn (5).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
sums up to the shear resistance of the angle brackets, hold-downs and screws. The contribution of
static friction can be lumped in every spring schematizing the connections and is taken into account
through Eqn (6).
Ff ¼ kf FN (6)
where
FN = axial force at the current analysis step;
kf = static friction coefficient;
Ff = static friction force.
The friction force varies with the axial load measured in each spring and consists of a contribution
in sliding resistance proportional to the static friction coefficient. When the shear force exceeds
the friction resistance, the panel starts moving and the friction force is assumed proportional to the
axial force.
In this paper, the value kf =0.4 was assumed as suggested by Dujic et al. in [3] for friction
between panels.
It should be noticed that the friction at the wall–foundation and floor–wall interfaces must be added
in the model as it is not included in the experimental tests carried out on single connectors and,
therefore, in the springs. Conversely, the friction at the connector-panel interface is already included
in the experimental cyclic tests carried out on the connectors and, therefore, in the springs.
However. this friction is by far less significant as it only depends on the prestressing effect when the
nails/screws are inserted in the timber, which is usually lost after short time because of relaxation
and creep phenomena in the perpendicular to grain direction of timber.
3. MODEL CALIBRATION
Prior to analysing subassemblies or entire buildings made of X-lam, it is necessary to calibrate the
springs on the results of cyclic tests carried out on typical connectors: hold-downs, angle brackets
and screwed connections.
3.1. Experimental cyclic tests on single connectors

Experimental cyclic tests have been recently carried out on typical X-lam connections [30, 31], in
accordance with current regulations.
These experimental results have been used to calibrate the two DOFs hysteretic springs
schematizing the different connectors. To obtain a schematization of the backbone curve consistent
with design codes, the elastic stiffness (slope of branch #1 in the presented laws), the hardening
stiffness (slope of branch #2) and the yielding force (namely Fy) values have been obtained
following the EN 12512:2001 regulation [32]. An additional softening branch has been added
(branch #3) after the hardening phase to follow the envelope of the experimental results.
Plastic branches and unloading/reloading stiffnesses have been obtained by an iterative calibration
process, such that the difference between experimental and numerical total energy of each DOF was
minimized. To aid in the calibration process, a software for automated calibration was developed,
and it is freely available on the Internet [33]. This software evaluates automatically the slopes of
branches #1 and #2 and the yielding force according to EN 12512:2001 [32]. Then, the user can
specify unloading/reloading stiffnesses and the slope of branch #3 through the parameters RC, SC,
KSC, C5 and Kp2 that characterize the cyclic paths and the softening branch. Every time that a
parameter is changed, the program recalculates the total energy according to the developed
hysteresis model, imposing the same displacement used in the experimental test. After that, it
searches an optimum value for the parameters governing the strength degradation by minimizing the
standard deviation of the difference between experimental and numerical (spring) energy values
using an iterative process. The calibration process stops when the difference in total energy is lower
than 5%.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 6 shows the results (in dashed lines) of cyclic tests carried out on an angle bracket BMF
90 48 3.0 116 (BMF 07716) connected to the X-lam panel with 11 annular ring shank nails
4 60 mm type ‘Anker’ (commercial name) and to the foundation with a 12 mm diameter bolt. The
left figure refers to the angle bracket loaded in in-plane shear, whereas the right figure refers to the
case of axial force (tension) [30]. Figure 7 displays similar diagrams for a hold-down SIMPSON
HTT22 connected to the X-lam panel with 14 annular ring shank nails 4 60 type ‘Anker’ and to
the foundation with a 16 mm diameter bolt. In this case, the left figure refers to the hold-down
loaded in tension whereas the right figure refers to the case of in-plane shear [30].
Figure 8 displays similar diagrams for a panel-to-panel half-lap screwed connection with two HBS
f8 80 mm screws. The left figure displays the connection loaded in in-plane shear parallel to the
joint, whereas the right figure displays the case of in-plane shear perpendicular to the joint [31].
Figure 6. Calibration of the (a) shear DOF and (b) axial DOF of an angle bracket tested at IVALSA Trees
and Timber Institute [30], Trento, Italy.
Figure 7. Calibration of (a) axial DOF and (b) shear DOF of hold-down tested at IVALSA Trees and Timber
Institute [30], Trento, Italy.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 8. Calibration of panel-to-panel half-lap screwed connection springs loaded in in-plane shear (a)
parallel and (b) perpendicular to the joint, tested at IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute [31], Trento, Italy
(the forces displayed refer to two screws).
In the same figures, the cycles obtained from the calibrations of the multilinear springs on the
experimental results are also shown.
The strength degradation parameters have been obtained using a genetic algorithm developed
at the Department of Engineering and Architecture at University of Trieste. Once all the
stiffnesses of the hysteretic model are known, the genetic analysis is performed with the aim of
minimizing once again the difference between experimental and numerical total energy by
changing only the strength degradation parameters. In this paper, no dependence on the maximum
displacement has been considered (the parameter b is set to zero), because of the presence of a
softening branch.
For shear connections (both angle brackets and hold-downs), the mean parameters obtained are
a = 1.55 and g = 5.05e 4, whereas for the axial DOF, they are a = 2.275 and g = 2.57e 4.
These values are used in every spring. The strength degradation effect is visible in Figures 6, 7
and 8.
All the mean parameters obtained from the calibration are summarized in Table II. For screws, the
parameters are listed for a single screw, assuming the applied load was equally distributed between the
two screws in the experimental tests displayed in Figure 8. Each screw was separately modelled using a
nonlinear hysteretic spring. This set of values will be used for all the subsequent analyses because all
the connectors used in single X-lam wall and in single-storey building are of the same type of the ones
tested and have the same number of nails.
Finally, the stiffness coefficient c10 has been conventionally taken as 10 for all the tests in
axial direction.
4. NUMERICAL ANALYSES
The model proposed in this paper has been used to calculate the cyclic response of X-lam
subassemblies (single and coupled walls) and of a single-storey X-lam building that was also
experimentally tested. All the analyses presented are conducted using the implicit algorithm in the
solver Abaqus; the proposed model has been implemented in a UEL user subroutine. By comparing
numerical with experimental results, it is possible to assess the accuracy of the model and its
capability to correctly describe the actual behaviour of X-lam structures starting from the behaviour
of the components (connectors and X-lam panels).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
2034
Table II. Calibration of mean values obtained from experimental results on steel connections for cross-laminated panels.
Parameter Angle Angle bracket: Hold-down: Hold-down: Screw (half-lap joint): Screw (half-lap joint): Screw (spline joint): Screw (spline joint):
description bracket: shear tension tension shear parallallel shear perpendiclar shear parallallel shear perpendicular shear
Elastic stiffness 1.78 2.76 4.82 0.99 0.835 0.925 0.45 0.57
kel (kN/m)
First inelastic 0.22 0.41 0.69 0.12 0.065 0.09 0.047 0.045
stiffness kp1
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(kN/m)
Second inelastic 0.9 0.86 0.96 0.8 0.04 0.035 0.13 0.135
stiffness kp2
(kN/m)
Yield force 23.77 19.23 40.3 9.79 1.27 1.395 2.405 1.62
Fy (kN)
Maximu, force 27.71 23.51 48.33 13.88 2.755 2.65 3.78 3.255
Fmax (kN)
Unloading 0.86 0.99 0.95 0.88 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.75
ratio SC
Reloading 0.66 0.88 0.86 0.66 0.78 0.73 0.85 0.61
ratio RC
Ultimate 64 24 30.2 48 40 32 40 40.4
displacement
du (mm)
Unloading 4.38 2.16 3.29 13.88 2.67 2.08 3.08 2.68
G. RINALDIN, C. AMADIO AND M. FRAGIACOMO
factor Ksc
Stiffness 1.12 0.91 1.56 0.56 0.78 0.77 0.63 0.68
coefficient c5
Force factor F6 NA 0 0.09 N.a. N.a. 0.23 NA 0.34
Force factor F60 NA 0.66 0.01 NA NA 0.01 NA 0.01
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:2023–2042
4.1. Experimental cyclic tests of cross-laminated wall panels

Experimental monotonic and cyclic tests were carried out at IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute on
single X-lam panels in accordance to EN 12512 [32]. The experimental setup is depicted in Figure 9.
Several tests were carried out by imposing a cyclic lateral displacement on the top of the
2.95 2.95 m panel (Figure 9), after a vertical loading of 18.5 kN/m was applied [30]. The X-lam
panel was made of five layers of 17-mm thick wooden boards glued to each other.
The wall panels were connected to the foundation using two hold-down SIMPSON HTT22 placed at
the ends of the wall, and either two (test 1.1) or four (test 1.2) angle brackets BMF 07716 placed along
the base. The hold-down and angle bracket connectors are the same and have the same nailed and
bolted connection to the X-lam wall and foundation as those tested under cyclic and monotonic
loading at CNR-IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute [30] and presented in the previous section.
Consequently, they can be schematized with springs with the hysteretic behaviour characterized by
the parameters listed in Table II as a result of the calibration process.
The imposed displacement history is displayed in Figure 10; the nodes subjected to this imposed
displacement are shown in Figure 11(b).
The X-lam wall was modelled in Abaqus using a 2-D schematization with elastic and isotropic four-
node shell elements (type S4R), characterized with an average Young’s modulus of 5685 MPa and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.35. The value of the Young’s modulus was obtained by averaging the
equivalent moduli of the panel in the parallel and perpendicular to face grain directions. These
equivalent moduli are the weighted average of the elastic moduli parallel and perpendicular to the
grain, E0 = 11 GPa and E90 = 0.37 GPa, respectively, considered for the layers parallel and
perpendicular to the direction of calculation [16, 34]. The Poisson’s ratio value of 0.35 is an average
value already used in literature [6] to schematize X-lam panels with an equivalent isotropic material.
Figure 9. Test apparatus used in [30].
Figure 10. Loading protocol used at IVALSA for the wall tests according to EN 12512 [32].
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 11. (a) Mesh and springs used to model panel 1.2 and (b) an example of deformed shape (amplifica-
tion factor of 100) during the numerical analysis with contour of principal compressive stresses in kN/mm2.
Because the influence of the mesh size was found to be not particularly important, a convenient
mesh size has been adopted to have a regular mesh (namely shell elements all the same size) and, at
the same time, ensure the springs are located as close as possible to the actual connector positions.
Every connection was modelled with hysteretic nonlinear springs, placed as in Figure 11(a) and
calibrated on the experimental results as shown previously. Every spring connects two coincident
nodes: a node of the shell elements schematizing the wall panel, and a fixed node schematizing the
foundation.
The experimental-numerical comparison is displayed in Figure 12 as lateral force versus imposed
displacement, showing an overall acceptable approximation. It must be pointed out that, unlike other
software packages, no convergence problems arose at any time during the cyclic analysis.
Furthermore, it can be noticed from Figure 11(b) that the deformations of the panel are very limited,
and concentrated around the hold-down in compression. Conversely, significant deformation occurs
in the springs.
Tests on coupled walls, connected with screws, were also carried out [31]. The coupled walls had
the same layout, size and type of connectors used to anchor each wall panel to the foundation as the
single wall 1.2. Two types of vertical joint between adjacent panels were investigated: (i) in test 2.1
Figure 12. Numerical-experimental comparison of cross-laminated panels (a) 1.1 and (b) 1.2 subjected to
cyclic loading.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
(Figure 13(a)), a half-lap joint with self-threaded screws type HBS f8 80 mm were used to connect
the panels together, and the screws were placed on a single row at 150 mm c/c; and (ii) in test 3.1
(Figure 13(b)), a spline joint with LVL strip and double row of self-threaded screws at 150 mm c/c
was used. Additional springs representing the screws hysteretic behaviour were used at the wall-wall
interface. These spring elements (see hysteretic properties in Table II), placed along the vertical
symmetry axis of the joint, connect two coincident nodes belonging to the shell elements of the
adjacent panels. Numerical-experimental comparisons of total lateral force versus top deflection of
wall tests 2.1 and 3.1 are presented in Figure 14(a) and (b), respectively.
During the experimental tests, a nonsymmetrical behaviour was noticed, whereas the proposed
numerical approach returns symmetrical results. Despite this fact, there is an overall good accuracy
between experimental and numerical curves; therefore, it is possible to use the proposed approach to
investigate the behaviour of other structures having similar characteristics in terms of connection
and wood properties. Furthermore, different types of wall configuration and layout can be analysed
with a proper calibration of the spring elements over the experimental properties of connectors.
Figure 13. Layout of cross-laminated panel tests (a) 2.1 and (b) 3.1 [31].
Figure 14. Numerical-experimental comparison of cross-laminated coupled walls (a) 2.1 and (b) 3.1
subjected to cyclic loading.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Also, the numerical total energies were computed and compared with the experimental ones in
Figure 15, showing an average difference of 3.6%; this is a further confirmation of the model
accuracy as the dissipated energy is a fundamental quantity in seismic analyses.
4.2. Single-storey cross-laminated building

A model of the single-storey building tested at the University of Trento by CNR-IVALSA [7] was also
implemented in Abaqus. This building is composed by an assemblage of X-lam panels connected to
the ground with angle brackets and hold-downs, both with the same characteristics and the same
numbers of fasteners of the ones presented earlier.
The building is 7 7 m in plan and 3.1 m high. The walls are 85 mm thick, and the floor is 142 mm
thick with a central opening.
Pseudodynamic tests were performed, in three different configurations obtained varying the width of
the door openings. In this paper, the asymmetric configuration of the building, characterized by two
external door openings of 4.0 m and 2.25 m width, respectively, was analysed.
Wall and floor panels have been modelled in Abaqus with four-node elastic shell elements (type
S4R); the mesh size adopted is a convenient value to ensure nodes are as close as possible to the
actual location of each connector, and to have a regular mesh (all shell elements with the same size).
Spring elements have been used to model hold-downs and angle brackets. Also the vertical
connections are modelled with spring elements representing each single screw.
The 5304 springs are placed with the help of an automatic mesher written by the authors for X-lam
structures. The location of the springs in the model is indicated in Figure 16(a) with crosses.
Each spring is characterized by one of the set of parameters listed in Table II and discussed before;
all the connections in this building are the same tested alone in [30] and [31]. All wall-to-wall
connections are screwed LVL spline joints, whereas every single floor panel is connected to the
adjacent ones with half-lap screwed joints. The vertical connections between perpendicular walls
were modelled using springs with the same properties as the springs used for in-plane wall-to-wall
connections; the same applies for the horizontal wall-to-floor connections.
The building was subjected to a pseudodynamic test that simulated the earthquake of Kobe JMA
0.5 g. Figure 17 displays the experimental time-history of the top floor displacement, which was
applied on all the nodes above the central wall (Figure 16(a)) where the hydraulic jack was
connected to the building via a strong steel profile.
A nonlinear static analysis was performed; a typical deformed shape can be seen in Figure 16(b), which
depicts the contour of the panel strains parallel to the direction of the imposed displacement. It can be
noticed that the X-lam panels do not deform considerably as most of the deformation is concentrated in
the springs, such as for the single walls analysed in the previous sections. Figure 18(a) compares
experimental and numerical results in terms of total base shear force versus top displacement,
Figure 15. Numerical-experimental comparison of time-history of the total energy during the cyclic tests on
coupled cross-laminated walls (a) 1.2 and (b) 2.1.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 16. Three-dimensional views of the (a) single-storey cross-laminated building model with springs
marked with crosses and (b) in its deformed shape with 15-time amplification, with contour of panel strains
in the direction of imposed displacement in mm/mm.
Figure 17. Displacement time-history applied on the single-storey cross-laminated building tested by
CNR-IVALSA in Trento [7].
Figure 18. Experimental-numerical comparison of (a) the hysteretic cycles and (b) total energy of the single-
storey cross-laminated building tested by CNR-IVALSA at the University of Trento [7].
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
demonstrating an overall good accuracy of the model, which slightly overestimates the envelope response
of the building. In Figure 18(b), numerical and experimental responses are compared in terms of total
energy. The final numerical value of the total energy is 2.85% higher than the experimental one, mainly
due to some approximations of the narrow inner cycles predicted by the model near the origin of
Figure 18(a).
5. CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents a model to analyse X-lam buildings subjected to earthquake excitation. The model
is composed by elastic shell elements for the timber parts and nonlinear multispring elements for
connections. Cyclic behaviour with strength and stiffness degradations is implemented for the angle
bracket, hold-down and screw connectors. Every degree of freedom for every connection type is
modelled through two hysteresis laws, one for axial DOF and the other for shear behaviour. Every
law needs a calibration on experimental data collected from single connection tests. The resistance
developed in each DOF is controlled by a strength domain. In addition, the friction contribution can
be considered when needed.
In the paper, several calibrations on single connection tests performed at CNR-IVALSA are
reported. The strength and stiffness degradation parameters were calculated by minimizing the total
energy difference between experimental and numerical results.
The same calibrations were used to model the connectors employed in single and coupled X-lam
wall panels tested at IVALSA, as the connectors had the same characteristics and number of nails of
the connectors tested alone. The total energy value predicted by the numerical analysis differs only
by 3.6%, on average, from the experimental values.
Finally, a single-storey X-lam building tested in Trento by CNR-IVALSA was modelled. The
experimental-numerical comparisons demonstrate that the model leads to accurate results: the cyclic
response is correctly reproduced with an error of 2.85% on the total energy.
The proposed hysteretic model is very robust and can be effectively used to model the seismic
performance of X-lam buildings and subassemblies. The cyclic behaviour of the steel connectors
allows a correct estimation of the dissipated energy and, consequently, a reliable prediction of the
seismic capacity of the entire timber building.
The model can therefore be used also for advanced seismic analyses of timber structures other than
X-lam buildings, for example light-frame timber walls, once the single nail connecting the sheathing to
the frames has been fully characterized, and moment-resisting frames, where the moment-rotation
relationship of semirigid beam-column connections can be experimentally characterized and then
implemented in a rotational nonlinear hysteretic spring.
Finally, if the number of springs is conveniently reduced, for example by lumping a group of springs
in an equivalent one, the model can be used also for structural design. The research in this field is
currently ongoing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writers would like to acknowledge Professor Ario Ceccotti for the useful advice given on numerical
modelling, for providing the photos of X-lam structures used in this paper and for the experimental data
of the cyclic tests carried out on X-lam panels at IVALSA-CNR Trees and Timber Institute (Italy) and on
a single-storey X-lam building at the University of Trento.
REFERENCES
1. Yates M, Linegar M, Dujic B. Design of an 8 storey residential tower from KLH – cross laminated solid timber panels.
Techniker Ltd, UK, and Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10th World Conference on
Timber Engineering WCTE 2008, Miyazaki (Japan), June 2–5, 2008, CD.
2. Tavoussi K, Winter W, Pixner T. Development of earthquake bracing systems for multi-storey buildings using
slender shear wall elements in cross-laminated timber (CLT) – Department of Structural Design and Timber
Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Austria, 9th World Conference on Timber Engineering WCTE
2006, Portland (U.S.A.), August 6–10, CD.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3. Okabe M, Ceccotti A, Yasumura M, Minowa C, Kawai N, Sandhaas C, Shimizu H. Comparison with measuring
method of internal storey drift on shaking table test of 7-storey X-lam building. 11th World Conference on Timber
Engineering WCTE 2010, Riva del Garda, Italy, CD.
4. Ceccotti A, Lauriola MP, Pinna M, Sandhaas C. SOFIE project – cyclic tests on cross-laminated wooden panels.
CNR-IVALSA Italian National Research Council, Trees and Timber Institute, San Michele all’Adige (TN), Italy,
9th World Conference on Timber Engineering WCTE 2006, Portland (U.S.A.), August 6–10, CD.
5. Boukes J. A computer model for a seven storey timber building constructed with X-lam panels and an experiment on
the Kerto-Q laminated Veneer lumber connection. M. Sc. Report, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Delft University of
Technology, Netherlands, January 2009.
6. Pozza L, Scotta R, Vitaliani R. A non linear numerical model for the assessment of the seismic behavior and ductility
factor of X-Lam timber structures. International Symposium “Timber Structures from Antiquity to the Present”
edited by J. Chilton and I. Mungan, Istanbul (Turkey), June 25–27; 151–162.
7. IVALSA-CNR Trees and Timber Institute. Progetto Sofie – new architecture with wood, http://www.progettosofie.it/, 2008.
8. Ceccotti A. New technologies for construction of medium-rise buildings in seismic regions: the XLAM case.
Structural Engineering International 2/2008: 156–165. DOI: 10.2749/101686608784218680.
9. Ceccotti A, Follesa M, Lauriola MP, Sandhaas C, Minowa C, Kawai N, Yasumura M. Which seismic behaviour
factor for multi-storey buildings made of cross-laminated wooden panels. Meeting 39 of the Working Commission
W18-Timber Structures, CIB; Florence (Italy), August 28–31, 2006.
10. Ceccotti A, Follesa M, Lauriola MP. La sperimentazione sismica sulle costruzioni di legno: attualità e prospettive.
Seminario internazionale CIAS “Evoluzione nella sperimentazione nelle costruzioni”, Cyprus.
11. Pei S, Popovski M, van de Lindt JW. Seismic design of a multi-storey cross laminated timber building based on
component level testing, 12th World Conference on Timber Engineering WCTE 2012, Auckland (New Zealand),
July 16–19, 2012, DVD.
12. Popovski M, Karacababeyli E. Seismic behaviour od cross-laminated timber structures, 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa (Portugal), 2012, DVD.
13. Pei S, van de Lindt JW, Popovski M. Approximate R-factor for cross laminated timber walls in multi-storey build-
ings, Journal of Architectural Engineering, ahead of print, accepted on 29th November 2012, ASCE. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000117.
14. Foschi RO. Modeling the hysteretic response of mechanical connections for wood structures. Proc. 6th World Conf.
on Timber Engineering. Whistler, Canada, 2000.
15. CSI Berkeley. CSI analysis reference manual, version 15, www.csiberkeley.com, 2012.
16. Fragiacomo M, Dujic B, Sustersic I. Elastic and ductile design of multi-storey crosslam massive wooden buildings
under seismic actions. Engineering Structures 2011; 33(11): 3043–3053. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.05.020.
17. Fragiacomo M, Rinaldin G. Advanced models for seismic analyses of timber buildings. Proceedings of 9.
GraHFT’11 Workshop, Graz, Austria, 2011.
18. He M, Lam F, Foschi RO. Modeling three-dimensional timber light-frame buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 2001; 127(8): 901–913. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:8(901).
19. Ceccotti A, Vignoli A. A pinching hysteretic model for semirigid joints. European Earthquake Engineering Journal,
Bologna, Italy, 1989; 3: 3–9.
20. Foliente GC. Hysteresis modeling of wood joints and structural systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1995; 121(6): 1013–1022. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:6(1013).
21. Dolan JD, Foschi RO. Structural analysis model for static loads on timber shear walls. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1991; 117(3): 851–861. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:3(851).
22. Kasal B, Leichti RJ, Itani RY. Nonlinear finite-element model of complete light-frame wood structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994; 120(1): 100–119. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:1(100).
23. Falk RH, Itani RY. Finite element modeling of wood diaphragms. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1989;
115(3): 543–559. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:3(543).
24. Yasumura M. Dynamic analysis and modeling of wood-framed shear walls, Proceedings of 6th World Conf. on
Timber Engineering, Whistler, Canada, 2000.
25. Collins M, Kasal B, Paevere P, Foliente GC. Three-dimensional model of light frame wood buildings. I: model
description. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2005; 131(4): 676–683. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(2005)131:4(676).
26. Dean JA, Stewart WG, Carr AJ. The seismic behaviour of plywood sheathed shearwalls. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1986; 19(1): 48–63.
27. Heiduschke A, Kasal B, Haller P. Analysis of wood-composite laminated frames under dynamic loads – analytical
models and model validation. Part I: connection model. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2006; 8(3):
103–110.
28. ETA Danmark A\S. European technical approval ETA-06/0106. Technical Approval for Simpson Strong-Tie Angle
Bracket 90, http://www.strongtie.dk/, in Danish.
29. Sustersic I, Fragiacomo M, Dujic B. Influence of the connection behaviour on the seismic resistance of multi-storey
crosslam buildings. Proceedings of the WCTE 2012 World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, 2012, DVD.
30. Gavric I, Ceccotti A, Fragiacomo M. Experimental cyclic tests on cross-laminated timber panels and typical connections.
Proceedings of the 14th ANIDIS Conference, Bari (Italy), September 18th-22nd 2011, DVD.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
31. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A. Strength and deformation characteristics of typical X-lam connections. Proceed-
ings of WCTE 2012, World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 16–19 July 2012, DVD.
32. EN 12512:2003 timber structures - test methods - cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical fasteners. European
norm, UNI Italian translation
33. Rinaldin G. So.ph.i. software version 4, http://giovanni.rinaldin.org/, 2011.
34. Blass HJ, Fellmoser P. Design of solid wood panels with cross layers. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on
Timber Engineering WCTE 2004, Lahti, Finland, June 14–17, 2004; 543–548.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

A Component Approach For The Hysteretic Behaviour of Connections

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

A Component Approach For The Hysteretic Behaviour of Connections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:2023–2042

A component approach for the hysteretic behaviour of connections

Giovanni Rinaldin1,*,†, Claudio Amadio2 and Massimo Fragiacomo1

Received 23 October 2012; Revised 15 April 2013; Accepted 23 April 2013

1. INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 1. Photo of a cross-laminated panel (copyright IVALSA-CNR).

2.1. Constitutive model of the components

Table I. Basic deﬁnition of nonlinear springs.

kN,i axial stiffness;

2.2. Shear hysteresis law

Figure 3. Piecewise-linear law of shear spring component.

2.3. Axial hysteresis law

Figure 4. Piecewise-linear law of axial spring component.

2.4. Stiffness and strength degradation

Edis = dissipated energy;

2.5. Elastic strength domain

2.6. Static friction contribution

Figure 5. Shear-axial force domain according to Eqn (5).

3.1. Experimental cyclic tests on single connectors

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4.1. Experimental cyclic tests of cross-laminated wall panels

Figure 9. Test apparatus used in [30].

4.2. Single-storey cross-laminated building

You might also like