Lenon Mines 0052N 10900

DESIGN AND BEHAVIOR OF A MID-RISE
CROSS-LAMINATED TIMBER BUILDING
by
Conor Lenon
A thesis submitted to the Faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado
School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science (Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Golden, Colorado
Date
Signed:
Conor Lenon
Signed:
Dr Shiling Pei
Thesis Advisor
Golden, Colorado
Date
Signed:
Dr. John McCray
Head Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
ii
ABSTRACT
Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) is a new engineered wood material that was

introduced in the past decade as a promising candidate to build structures over 10
stories. So far, a handful of tall CLT buildings have been built in low seismic regions
around the world. Full-scaled seismic shaking table tests revealed the vulnerability of
this building type when resisting seismically-induced overturning. This study proposes
a new analysis and design approach for developing overturning resistance for platform
CLT buildings. New structural detailing is proposed to alter the moment-resisting
mechanism and enable coupled action through the floor system. The method is applied
to the design of a 12-story CLT building, which was evaluated numerically to assess the
conservativeness of the design through system level finite element model simulations.
Key words: Cross-Laminated Timber building, seismic design, Overturning, anchor tie
down system
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER 1 HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 2 THESIS APPROACH OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CHAPTER 3 CLT DESIGN APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1 Floor Sizing for Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Floor Sizing for Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Wall Sizing for Vertical Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Wall Sizing for Perpendicular to Grain Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5 Wall Sizing for Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6 Wall Bracket Selection for Shear Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.1 Flexible Diaphragm Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.2 Rigid Diaphragm Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.7 Global Overturning Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.7.1 Global Overturning System vs Stacked Shear Wall Design . . . . 21
3.7.2 Global Overturning Moment Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.3 Global Overturning Moment Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7.4 Overturning Moment Tension Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7.5 Design For Coupling Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7.6 Shear Transfer Through CLT Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.7.7 Shear Transfer Through Custom Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.8 Lateral Wind Load Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CHAPTER 4 FULL DESIGN OF A TWELVE STORY CLT BUILDING . . . . . . . 33

4.1 Properties and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Floor Sizing For Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
iv
4.3 Floor Sizing for Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4 Wall Sizing for Vertical Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5 Wall Sizing for Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.6 Wall Sizing for Perpendicular to Grain Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.7 Summary of Gravity Design Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.8 Story Forces Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.9 Wall Bracket Selection for Shear Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.10 Overturning Moment Compression Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.11 Overturning Moment Tension Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.12 Overturning Moment Shear Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.12.1 Panel and Wall Shear Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.12.2 Floor Panel Connection Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.13 Lateral Wind Load Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
CHAPTER 5 MODELING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1 Full Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2 CLT Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3 Connection Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.4 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.5 Load Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.6 ATS Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.7 Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
CHAPTER 6 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6.1 Global deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.2 ATS Rod Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.3 Lateral Shear Load on the Bracket Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.4 Floor Panel Connection Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.5 Compression Load at Story One Bearing Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

7.1 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2 Drawbacks and Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
REFERENCES CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 A 5-layer CLT panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1.2 The Forte building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1.3 The Stadthaus building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 1.4 The inside of the Wood Innovation and Design Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.1 Wall and floor panel layouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3.1 Simpson Strong Tie bracket design information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3.2 Allowable load directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Figure 3.3 Tributary areas for the flexible diaphragm for y-direction walls. . . . 18
Figure 3.4 Free body diagram of the shear due to accidental torsion. . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 3.5 Global (left) and stacked shear wall (right) overturning moment. . . 22
Figure 3.6 Simple shear stack connected by coupling beams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 3.7 Location of ATS rods and compression due to lateral story forces. .25
Figure 3.8 Simplified FBD of a CLT building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 3.9 A single 3-story ATS system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3.10 Panel-to-panel connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 3.11 Cross-section view of the shear connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 4.1 Wall line labels for the x and y-direction walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 4.2 Compression zones for x and y direction loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Figure 5.1 Model of a 12-story CLT building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 5.4 CLT properties used in AxisVM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 5.5 Examples of gaps and springs in the model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 5.6 y-direction lateral loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 5.7 Steel properties used in AxisVM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 5.8 ATS rod placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 6.1 ATS rod labels for x-direction loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 6.2 ATS rod labels for y-direction loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
v
Figure 6.3 Global deformation for load case 5 in the x-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 6.4 Global deformation for load case 7 in the x-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 6.5 Global deformation for load case 5 in the y-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 6.6 Global deformation for load case 7 in the y-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 6.7 Amplified deformation for load case 7 in the x-direction. . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 6.8 Story one ATS rod forces for load case 7 x-direction loading. . . . . . . 74
Figure 6.9 Story one ATS rod forces for load case 7 y-direction loading . . . . . . . 75
Figure 6.10 Panel connection shears (in kips) at each interface for load case 5. 89
Figure 6.11 Panel connection shears (in kips) at each interface for load case 7. 90
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Seismic Design Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 4.2 CLT Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 4.3 CLT Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 4.4 Tabulated values used to calculated EIef f for 5 and 9 layers. . . . . . .35
Table 4.5 Tabulated values used to calculated EIef f for 3 and 7 layers. . . . . . .36
Table 4.6 EIef f for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer floors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 4.7 Tabulated values used to calculate Sef f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 4.8 Factored bending strength, Mb , and bending load, Md . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 4.9 Tabulated values used to calculate GAef f for 5 and 9 layers. . . . . . . 37
Table 4.10 Tabulated values used to calculate GAef f for 3 and 7 layers. . . . . . . 37
Table 4.11 GAef f for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer floors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 4.12 lmax for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layers floors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Table 4.13 Load in pounds on each story using 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer panels. . . . . 39
Table 4.14 Wall capacity and load at story 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 4.15 Tabulated values for the ELF procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Table 4.16 Ai and Li for X-direction wall lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 4.17 Ai and Li for Y-direction wall lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 4.18 Vti values in kips for X-direction wall lines for each story. . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 4.19 Vti values in kips for Y-direction wall lines for each story. . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 4.20 Design shear (kips) for each x-direction wall line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 4.21 Design shear (kips) for each y-direction wall line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 4.22 Maximum allowed spacing (inches) for each x-direction wall line. . . 46
Table 4.23 Maximum allowed spacing (inches) for each y-direction wall line. . . 47
Table 4.24 Minimum required spacing of brackets in x and y directions. . . . . . . 47
Table 4.25 Location of end of compression zone and compression in each story. 50
Table 4.26 Tension in x and y direction on each story. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Table 4.27 Number of ATS rods required at each exterior wall, by story. . . . . . 51
Table 4.28 Tabulated values used to calculate (Ib/Q)ef f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
vii
Table 6.1 Forces (kips) in each ATS rod for x-direction loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 6.2 Forces (kips) in each ATS rod for y-direction loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 6.3 Average shear load on the bottom and top of each story (kips). . . . 80
Table 6.4 Shear (kips) on each wall line for load case 5 in the x-direction. . . . 81
Table 6.5 Shear (kips) on each wall line for load case 7 in the x-direction. . . . 82
Table 6.6 Shear (kips) on each wall line for load case 5 in the y-direction. . . . 83
Table 6.7 Shear (kips) on each wall line for load case 7 in the y-direction. . . . 84
Table 6.8 Spacing (inches) on each wall line for load case 5 in the x-direction. 85
Table 6.9 Spacing (inches) on each wall line for load case 7 in the x-direction. 86
Table 6.10 Spacing (inches) on each wall line for load case 5 in the y-direction. 87
Table 6.11 Spacing (inches) on each wall line for load case 7 in the y-direction. 88
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Shiling Pei, for providing the guidance, contacts, and expertise necessary
to guide me and aid in completing this study.
Dr. Greg Kinglsey, P.E., P. Eng. of KL&A, Inc. for serving on the thesis
defense committee, consistently reviewing my work, and providing necessary criticism
and skepticism to ensure a complete design.
Dr. Scott Breneman, P.E., S.E. of WoodWorks, Steve Pryor of Simpson Strong
Tie, and Phillip Line, P.E. of the American Wood Council for lending their collective
CLT expertise to review and aid in developing the design procedure.
Dr. Jeno Balogh for his expertise and error troubleshooting for AxisVM
modeling, in addition to adding features to AxisVM that were necessary for non-linear
analysis of the 12-story CLT building.
Dr. Panos Kiousis and Dr. Paulo Tabares for serving on the thesis defense
committee and remaining flexible with defense dates.
Scott Roman for providing continuous LaTeX support and troubleshooting.
Colonel (Retired) Paul Olsen, P.E., my uncle, for supporting, advising, and
inspiring me, all while continuing to remind me of the important things in life.
ix
CHAPTER 1
HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified mechanistic design for a

mid-rise, 12 story, CLT building for a location in North America with high seismicity,
including a new solution to resist global overturning. This study will be the first full
attempt at a CLT building design in the United States, with the potential to save
detailing, construction, and material costs (compared to standard CLT and timber
framing methods) using the newly proposed global overturning system. As the use and
viability of CLT continues to grow and the cost continues to decrease, CLT projects will
be beneficial in North America, as well as throughout the world, because of the highly
sustainable nature of CLT as well as the potential for carbon negative projects.
Sustainable construction is one of many potential solutions to reducing global
carbon emissions. As the population of the world continues to increase, new challenges
are arising while at the same time old challenges are becoming more difficult to solve.
One such challenge is urbanization: cities are growing rapidly, which leads to new
buildings, which leads to increased CO2 emissions.[1]
Tall buildings in the range of 8 to 20 stories are often used for residential and
light commercial applications in modern cities, and are exclusively built with steel and
concrete. Currently, steel construction accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions, while
concrete accounts for 5%.[1]
A new highly-sustainable engineered wood material called cross-laminated
timber (CLT) was developed in central Europe and has spread in the last two decades.
CLT uses multiple layers of 1x or 2x dimension lumber, glue laminated together so that
grain in each layer is perpendicular to the surrounding layers.[2] CLT panels can be
manufactured to almost any size; only being limited by the size of the machines
available. The CLT panels can then be precut and pre-grooved into the necessary
shapes and shipped to the CLT building construction site. The CLT panels are used as
both floor and wall panels. An example of a CLT panel is shown in Figure 1.1.
1
Figure 1.1: A 5-layer CLT panel.[3]
The main advantage of CLT is sustainability without sacrifices - 1 m3 of CLT

can sequestrate (essentially store from the atmosphere) 1 tonne of CO2 .[1] The
sequestration is possible because of the long-term nature of buildings and the relatively
large volume of CLT used compared to timber framing. Therefore, it is relatively easy
for CLT to be carbon neutral, and in the cases of some manufacturers CLT projects can
even have a negative carbon footprint, where the major carbon emissions in the entire
process are during transport of the CLT panels. Normally, sustainability innovations
require sacrifices in living standards, aesthetics, and schedule. CLT buildings minimize
the potential for problems such as rot, pest, fungus and insect infestations by
factory-drying panels to a moisture content below 12%. CLT is also a very good natural
insulator and has good acoustic properties, requiring little additional treatment.[4]
Sustainable forestation is possible and being practiced in countries such as
New Zealand, Japan, and Canada, among others. Additionally, CLT panels can be
manufactured from smaller diameter trees, meaning there can be a faster turnover in
tree cutting and growing.[1]
Construction is quick and efficient, as everything is pre-fabricated and the
construction process is dry. Additionally, unlike prefabricated concrete, holes can be
drilled anywhere in CLT panels and don’t need to be drilled during the process of
manufacturing of the CLT panels. The process works extremely well in urban
environments as only conventional tools are needed, the project footprint is small, and
there’s very little dust and noise. The lower weight of the building also means there are
2
fewer demands on the foundation.[4]
Fire resistance of CLT is much better than traditional timber framing. Fire
will char the exterior layers of CLT, leading to protection for the interior layers.
Additionally, gypsum layers can be added to CLT panels to further strengthen the fire
resistance.[5]
CLT panels are particularly strong at resisting gravity loads: the panels behave
as solid wood pieces in load-bearing applications. In residential applications, there are
usually enough wall lines that gravity load resistance is not the controlling factor.
The governing load case for CLT buildings in high-seismic or high-wind zones
is likely to be the lateral load. Lateral loading behavior for CLT is the least understood
aspect of its design, especially for multi-story CLT building systems. CLT panels are
much stiffer than light-frame wood shear walls, meaning the walls themselves generally
remain elastic and do not dissipate energy. Therefore, the connections require special
considerations to develop ductility and dissipate energy. Failure to obtain ductility and
energy dissipation leads to higher acceleration amplifications, which leads to high
demands on global overturning - ie the building rocking back and forth as a whole.
Global overturning is especially an issue in taller buildings.[4]
Multiple tall CLT buildings have been built overseas, including the 9-story
Stadthaus apartment building in London, and the 10-story, 105’ Forte Living building
in Australia. The designers of Forte Living believe that 25-30 stories are possible with
the same design. The Forte building was built in 38 weeks for $11 million AUS.[6] The
Forte building is shown in Figure 1.2.
The Stadthaus building was completed in 49 weeks (as opposed to 72 estimated
for a similar building made of concrete) and stores 185,000 kg of carbon (opposed to
emissions of 125,000 kg with the concrete design), while being comparable in cost. The
timber structure itself was constructed in 27 days by four men (each working 3 days a
week), while the entire project took 49 weeks total. As designers and contractors get
more experience with CLT, the cost and build time will continue to be competitive for
even larger scale projects.[4] The Stadthaus building is shown in Figure 1.3.
CLT buildings are also very aesthetically pleasing, as demonstrated by the 8
story, 96 ft tall Wood Innovation and Design Center in Canada. The building is not
completely made out of CLT, but demonstrates the favorable aesthetics that CLT can
3
provide due to the decision to leave all of the structural elements (CLT panels and
glulam beams and columns) visible to the end-users, shown in Figure 1.4.[1]
Figure 1.2: The Forte building.[7]
4
Figure 1.3: The Stadthaus building. [8]
5
Figure 1.4: The inside of the Wood Innovation and Design Center.[9]
On September 17th, 2015, the winners of the US Tall Wood Building

Competition were announced. The competition awards $1.5 million to the winning
submissions to begin design work on tall CLT wood buildings. The west coast winner is
the 12-story Framework Project, LLC, in Portland Oregon. The East Coast winner is
475 West 18th in New York City, with a target LEED Platinum certification, with other
goals beyond what LEED requires.[10] Ideally these two buildings will be the first tall
CLT buildings completed in the United States. The Framework Project is relevant to
this study as seismic design will be necessary, and will be the first example of a real
CLT project designed for major seismic forces.
Although most of the existing tall CLT buildings were constructed at locations
with low seismicity, seismic engineering research on CLT lateral systems has been
conducted by a number of researchers around the world. A number of attempts have
been made to design CLT buildings with superior performance in moderate to large
earthquakes, include a few full-scaled shake table tests on multi-story CLT buildings
[11]. The University of Ljubljana conducted one of the first studies on lateral resistance
of CLT. The study tested 15 solid CLT walls with different anchorage (connection)
details and vertical load levels under monotonic and cyclic loading. The tests found
6
that the load-bearing capacity of CLT walls was limited by the strength of the
anchorage and local failure of wood at the connections, and was increased by the
presence of vertical loading.[12]
The next study by the same group tested the relationship between boundary
conditions and wall resistance. It was found that the ultimate lateral strength of the
wall is significantly increased if translation and rotation are restricted. Another study
was then done with the intent of validating a numerical model for CLT walls with
openings. It was found that openings in CLT walls that are up to 30% of the wall
surface will not significantly reduce shear capacity, but will reduce the stiffness. This
result confirms that panelized shear wall strength is largely controlled by the
connections. Following tests included shake table tests on single-story CLT box
assemblies and more single-panel tests with different arrangements and numbers of
panels.[12]
Italy also conducted CLT research, beginning in the early 2000s, as part of the
SOFIE project - one of the most comprehensive seismic performance studies of CLT
systems to date. The SOFIE project included connection tests, CLT panel shear wall
tests, and multiple full-scaled building system tests. Many of the tests attempted to
improve on realism of the models, including shake table tests of three configurations of
a one-story building with a realistic floorplan, doors, and windows. The one story
assembly was found to retain the stiff but ductile characteristics expected of CLT
buildings.[12]
A 3-story building was tested in order to determine the q-factor for Eurocode
8. The building was subjected to 15 ground motions, with only minor repairs between
tests. The building remained standing, with the damage being concentrated to the
hold-down connections for the CLT walls. The study determined that most earthquake
damage will occur at the connections, with CLT panels remaining mostly elastic.
Panelized CLT walls will develop ductility primarily through connections deformation.
The major point of concern is the significant uplift resistance that is required on the
anchor system and lower floors.[12]
A 7-story building was tested at the conclusion of the SOFIE project. During
the tests, some damage occurred to the hold-down elements at the lower stories, which
confirms the findings from the 3-story test that overturning resistance is a major
7
concern. After 10 tests, there was no displacement in the building, however high floor
accelerations were measured at the top stories.[12]
Other studies have also been conducted to define CLT characteristics. It was
found that panelized CLT walls (where the height is similar to the width) will rock
about their corners and cause uplift and shear forces on the connections, while long wall
panels (with a low height-to-length ratio) will be unable to rock and therefore subject
the connections to pure shear. CLT panels can be modeled using shell or block elements
with consideration for nonlinear effects such as contact, friction, and connection
hysteresis. To this date, a full real collapse of a CLT building has not been observed.
There is still research to be done, such as understanding panelized wall behavior in
realistic 3D building configurations, developing a system to quantify CLT system
damage and damage to nonstructural components, performance-based seismic design
options, and lateral force resisting systems for large earthquakes.[12]
CLT is a promising material for achieving seismically resilient tall buildings,
but currently there is no widely accepted approach for tall CLT building design for
seismic regions in the U.S.
In this study, the discussion is limited to panelized tall CLT construction, in
which long CLT panels serve as both the LFRS and gravity load bearing components.
A good example for this construction style is the Stadthaus Building in London. Unlike
a tall building with a concentrated core for LFRS surrounded by gravity frame on the
exterior, panelized CLT buildings typically have smaller rooms and are more suitable
for residential applications. In a traditional lateral design of multi-story building with
shear wall systems, the lateral force demand is distributed to each designated shear wall
line in the building floorplan. Next the individual shear wall stacks are designed for
shear and overturning resistance.[4] This study presents an alternate view of the lateral
force transferring mechanism in a panelized CLT building and develops a method to
design and size overturning restraining system based on building global overturning
demand.[12] The proposed approach seeks to simplify the construction of panelized tall
CLT construction and provide good reliability for such buildings against overturning,
which was identified by many experimental studies to be one of the greatest challenges
of tall CLT construction.
8
CHAPTER 2
THESIS APPROACH OVERVIEW
The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified mechanistic design for

mid-rise, 12 story, CLT building design for a location in North America with high
seismicity, including a new solution to resist global overturning.
A CLT Building must be designed for all load cases present in ASCE 7-10.[13]
Vertical loads are resisted by the bending strength of the CLT floor panels and the
bearing strength of the CLT wall panels. Lateral loads are resisted by connector
brackets with wood screws. The brackets are sized based on the worst-case scenario for a
rigid and flexible diaphragm assumption. Overturning moments due to the lateral loads
are resisted by the bearing strength of the CLT wall panels and the tensile strength of
the Anchor Tie-Down System (ATS). The ATS is made up of steel rods surrounding the
outside of the building in order to provide resistance to the tensile force due to the
overturning moment. A specialized connection is designed to allow for transfer of shear
forces across the building. In order to determine the seismic loads on each story, the
equivalent lateral force procedure from ASCE 7-10 is used with an assumed R factor.
The 2015 NDS does recognize CLT as a structural material, but it does not
contain enough information to conduct a full seismic design for CLT buildings.
Nonetheless, applicable provisions from the NDS CLT chapter are used in this study to
develop the design approach, while most of the additional information needed is
obtained from The CLT Handbook.[14] Load resistance factor design (LRFD) is used.
Although ASD is very widely used for wood design, the NDS is moving towards
LRFD.[15] Note that the CLT handbook uses a general process that can then be
multiplied by the applicable factors for LRFD or ASD. Therefore, some equations may
appear to be ASD equations when they can also be used as LRFD equations, as long as
the equations are multiplied by the appropriate LRFD factors.
A 12-story building is designed, as it is at the upper height-limit of the current
CLT buildings and the definition of mid-rise residential structures. The floorplan is
loosely modeled off of the Stadthaus CLT apartment building in the Murray Grove
neighborhood of London. The floorplan used in this study is larger than the Stadthaus
9
floorplan due to the use of 12 stories in the study, compared to the 9-story Stadthaus.
The wall line locations used in this study are shown in Figure 2.1a. The floor panel
layout is shown in Figure 2.1b.
The floorplan features a 70’ by 70’ base, with two stairwells and four elevators
located in the center of the building. There are four symmetrical apartment units. The
four elevators can be split to access the bottom half or the top half of the building.
Unused elevator shafts on the top half can be converted to storage space. The floor
panels are divided to have a maximum side length of 35’, and placed in a staggered
pattern such that there is no continuous gap in the x-direction.
After the design is complete, the building is modeled and loaded using the
design lateral forces through a nonlinear static analysis using a generalized finite
element package, AxisVM.[16] The finite element model analysis results are compared
with the simplified design calculation to quantify the accuracy of the design.
10
(a) floorplan with wall layouts. (b) floorplan with floor panel layouts.
Figure 2.1: Wall and floor panel layouts, units in ft.
11
CHAPTER 3
CLT DESIGN APPROACH
The required steps for design are detailed in the following sections. The first
step is the initial sizing of the CLT panels in the building, which will be used for both
the wall and floor panels. The initial panel sizes are based on the strength and
serviceability requirements. The vertical loads consist of the LRFD loads from Load
Cases 1-7 from ASCE 7-10. The lateral loading is determined using the Equivalent
Lateral Force (ELF) procedure from ASCE 7-10 Chapter 12. The load combinations
considered in this study are LRFD Load Case 1 through Load Case 7.
3.1 Floor Sizing for Bending
Floor size for CLT can be controlled by bending strength or vibration. The
bending loads are obtained from ASCE 7-10 LRFD Load Combinations 1 and 2. Load
Case 3 is not considered live roof load is taken to be the same as the live load, and the
snow and rain loads will be less than the live load.
LC1 1.4D (3.1)
LC2 1.2D + 1.6L (3.2)
The combination of loads is used to determine the maximum moment in the floor panel
using a one-way slab assumption assuming a propped cantilever. The propped
cantilever accounts for the pin-like behavior at the exterior walls due to lack of support
from continuation of the CLT floor panel. The maximum moment is given as:
w × l2
Md = (3.3)
8
lbf t
Where Md is the maximum moment in ft
, w is the load per square foot from the
LRFD load combinations, and l is the floor span of the short direction of the longest
slab in the building, which is 15.5 ft in this case.
Chapter 10 of the NDS and Chapter 3 of the CLT Handbook are used to
determine the bending strength of the CLT panels. The bending strength is given as:
12
Mb = Fb′ Sef f (3.4)
Where Mb is the unfactored bending strength, Fb′ is the allowable bending stress of the
CLT panel, and Sef f is given as:
2EIef f
Sef f = (3.5)
E1 h
Where EIef f is the effective bending stiffness, E1 is the modulus of elasticity of the
outermost layer, and h is the thickness of the whole CLT panel. EIef f is given as:
n n
h3i X
Ei Ai zi2
X
EIef f = E i bi + (3.6)
i=1 12 i=1
Where Ei is the modulus of elasticity of layer i, bi is 12 inches (assuming a 1 ft wide
section is being designed), hi is the thickness of layer i, Ai is the cross-section area of
layer i, and zi is the distance from the centroid of the CLT panel cross-section to the
centroid of layer i. Note that for layers 2 and 4, the bending orientation is in the minor
axis. Because of the minor-axis bending, the modulus of elasticity of layers 2 and 4 is
assumed to be the minor strength modulus of elasticity divided by 30, per APA PRG
320.
Mb must be multiplied by a product-standard reduction factor of 0.85 (per the
CLT Handbook Chapter 2.1.1 equation 2), a format conversion factor of 2.54, a bending
factor of 0.85, and a lambda factor (per NDS Table 10.3.1):
Mb × 0.85 × 2.54 × 0.85 × λ (3.7)
Where λ is 0.6 if Load Case 1 is used, and 0.8 if Load Case 2 is used.
3.2 Floor Sizing for Vibration
The vibration design is done in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 3 of the

CLT Handbook. The maximum span is given as:
1 (EIapp )0.293
lmax = (3.8)
12.5 (ρA)0.122
Where lmax is the maximum span, EIapp is the apparent stiffness in the span direction,
ρ is the density of the CLT (multiplied by a factor of 1.0625), and A is the cross-section
area of a 1 ft wide CLT section. EIapp is given as:
13
1
EIapp = 1 11.52 (3.9)
EIef f
+ GAef f (12l)2
Where l is the design span, which is the longest span in the short direction of an
unsupported area of CLT floor panel. GAef f is given as:
a2
GAef f = n−1
(3.10)
hi hi hn
+ +
P
2G1 b G1 b 2G1 b
i=2
Emajor Eminor
Where a is given as 5.5 and G1 is given as 16
for the major direction, and 160
for
the minor direction.
Therefore, if lmax > l, the design is adequate for vibration.
3.3 Wall Sizing for Vertical Loads
The wall size will depend on the ability of the wall to resist compression and
buckling. Additionally, the size of the wall will control the perpendicular to grain
compression stress on the floors. The wall capacity in psi is given as:
Fc′ = Fc∗ Cp (3.11)
Where Fc∗ is the major-axis allowable compression stress of the CLT multiplied by all
NDS factors except the Cp factor. Cp is the stability factor. Fc∗ is given as:
Fc∗ = Fc ∗ 2.4 ∗ 0.9 ∗ λ (3.12)
Where 2.4 is the format factor, 0.9 is the resistance factor, and λ is 0.6 if Load Case 1
was used, 0.8 if Load Case 2 was used, and 1 with any other load case. The Cp factor is
given as:
s
1 + (PcE /Pc∗ ) 1 + (PcE /Pc∗ ) 2 (PcE /Pc∗ )
Cp = ( ) − (3.13)
2c 2c c
Where Pc∗ = Fc∗ A// , c is 0.9 for CLT, and PcE is given as:
π 2 EIapp−min
′
PcE = (3.14)
l2
′
Where l is the wall height, and EIapp−min = 0.5184EIapp
14
3.4 Wall Sizing for Perpendicular to Grain Compression
The bearing capacity of a CLT floor panel is given as:
Fc⊥ A⊥ (3.15)
Where Fc⊥ is the perpendicular to grain allowable bearing stress, multiplied by a format
factor of 1.67 and a resistance factor of 0.9, and A⊥ is the cross-sectional area of the
wall that is bearing on the floor, assuming a 1-foot long section of wall. Bearing load is
given as the load on the story (in pounds) divided by the total wall length of the story.
Because the vertical loads will not govern the wall sizes, the tributary areas
are not considered. If a more accurate calculation of wall loading is required, tributary
areas should be used.
3.5 Wall Sizing for Fire
One benefit of CLT over timber framing is fire resistance - in the event of a
fire, there will be a charred layer of CLT. 3-layer panels can reach fire class F-30,
meaning they will retain structural integrity for at least 30 minutes in a fire.[4] In the
Stadthaus project, 5-layer panels are used to obtain a fire protection class of F 60.[4]
Because in-depth design for fire resistance is outside the scope of this project, a
minimum of 5-layer thick panels are used for walls and floors.
3.6 Wall Bracket Selection for Shear Resistance
Simpson Strong-Tie brackets with wood screws are used to connect floor
panels to wall panels. The design strength of the connectors are determined based on
the January 1, 2015 Simpson Strong-Tie memo titled “Connectors for Cross-Laminated
Timber Construction”.[17] Using screws, the ABR9020 bracket has an allowable shear
stress of 1480 lbs for ASD, and is 2 9/16” long. The ABR105 bracket has an allowable
shear capacity of 1880 lbs for ASD, and is 3 9/16” long. The bracket information is given
in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 . Because story shears are very large for the 12-story
building, ABR 105 brackets will be used. Because the Table values are given for ASD,
they must be converted to LRFD. In ASCE 7-10 section 12.4.2.3, a multiplier of 0.7 is
used to convert the seismic loading to ASD from LRFD. In order to keep the
15
demand/capacity ratio for seismic loading consistent between ASD and LRFD, the ASD
connector strengths are increased by 1/0.7 = 1.43. Therefore, the LRFD allowable
shear capacity for ABR105 brackets is 1880 ∗ 1.43 = 2688 lbs.
Figure 3.1: Simpson Strong Tie bracket design information.
Figure 3.2: Allowable load directions.
Next, the available wall length must be determined in order to determine the
unit shear demand in the wall. The calculated ELF shear was applied in both the x and
y directions. The number of brackets in each wall line is determined by the total wall
line shear demand and the length of the available wall length that can be used to install
the connectors. Brackets can be attached to both sides of interior walls, and can be
attached to the internal side of exterior walls.
16
Given the total story shear from the ELF method, the shear demand for each
wall line can be determined using either a flexible or rigid diaphragm assumption. The
flexible diaphragm assumption assumes that each wall line will take a portion of the
story force proportional to the tributary area of the wall line. The rigid diaphragm
assumption assumes that each wall line will take a portion of the story force
proportional to the relative stiffness of the wall line. Because the exterior walls can only
have brackets on the interior side, the exterior walls will have half of the stiffness of the
interior walls. Because currently there is no well-recognized approach to determine
whether a CLT diaphragm is rigid or flexible, the design in this study will consider both
the rigid and flexible diaphragm assumptions to bound the final design. Therefore,
regardless of how the diaphragm behaves, the design should be conservative.
3.6.1 Flexible Diaphragm Assumption
The tributary areas are obtained by equally dividing the floor area between
each wall line. For example, if a wall had two walls running parallel to it, one 4’ away
and one 5’ away, the tributary width would be 4’ divided by 2 plus 5’ divided by 2,
which is 5.5’. The tributary area would then be the tributary width times the length of
the building in each direction. The tributary areas for the y-direction walls are shown in
Figure 3.3. The shear demand for each wall is therefore given as:
Ai
Vi = P Vx (3.16)
A
Where Vi is the shear on wall line i, Ai is the tributary area of wall line i, A is the
P
total area of the floorplan, and Vx is the story shear. The required spacing for each wall
line is determined using equation 3.17.
Vi
s = Vn /( ) (3.17)
Li
Where s is the center-to-center spacing of the brackets, and Vn is the shear strength of
the brackets. Li is the length of wall line i that is available to brackets, and therefore
counts interior walls as double their actual length.
17
Figure 3.3: Tributary areas for the flexible diagraphm assumption for y-direction walls.
3.6.2 Rigid Diaphragm Assumption
Using the rigid diaphragm assumption, the stiffness of the wall lines need to be
determined first. In this study, it is assumed that the wall line stiffness is proportional
to the length of the wall lines. Furthermore, the floorplan is largely symmetric in both
directions, thus the eccentricity is assumed to be zero and the story force on each wall
line is given as:
Li
Vi = P Vx (3.18)
L
Where Vi is the shear on wall line i, and Li is the length of wall line i. L is the total
P
wall length available to brackets, and therefore counts the interior walls as double their
actual length. Vx is the story shear. The required spacing for each wall line is
determined using equation 3.17.
18
Vi
s = Vn /( ) (3.19)
Li
Where s is the center-to-center spacing of the brackets, Vn is the shear strength of the
brackets, Vi is the shear on wall line i, and Li is the available wall length for brackets of
wall line i. By substituting equation 3.18 into equation 3.19, it is found that the bracket
spacing will be uniform throughout the story:
Vx
s = Vn /( P ) (3.20)
L
Note that the spacing applies to one side of a wall. Therefore, interior walls will have
brackets spaced at s on each side of the wall, while the exterior walls will have brackets
spaced at s on only the interior sides. It should also be noted that brackets will be
required on both the top and bottom of the walls in order to ensure shear transfer.
The rigid diaphragm assumption also includes accidental torsion caused by
locating the center of mass 5% of the length of the building away from the center of
stiffness. In this study, the accidental torsion is considered approximately by increasing
and decreasing the shear demands at the symmetric wall lines about the center of
rigidity of the building. The decrease is proportional to the distance that the wall line is
from the center of stiffness, and the stiffness is proportional to the length of the wall
line. Therefore the share of shear that each wall line gets will be proportional to the
moment arm from the center of rigidity (not where the story shear acts), as well as the
Li value of that shear wall.
The free body diagram of the accidental torsion is shown in Figure 3.4. Note
that the accidental torsion forces, Vti , only resist the accidental torsion moment caused
by Vx . The accidental torsion forces do not resist the y-direction loading caused by Vx ;
these forces are resisted by the shear forces on the wall determined in equation 3.18.
Therefore, the free body diagram satisfies equilibrium for moment, but does not satisfy
equilibrium for sum of forces in y unless the shear forces on the walls are added in to
the diagram.
The total moment that must be resisted by the 5% accidental torsion is given
as:
n
X Li l i
Vx L0.05 = V1 li (3.21)
i=1 L1 l 1
19
Where Vx L0.05 is the moment caused by accidental torsion, V1 is the shear at the first
L i li
wall line (furthest from the center of rigidity), L 1 l1
is the ratio of Vti to V1 where i is the
wall line, and li is the moment arm measured from the center of rigidity. V1 can be
solved from equation 3.21, then Vi for the remaining wall lines can be solved using the
ratio:
Figure 3.4: Free body diagram of the additional shear due to accidental torsion.
Vti Li l i
= (3.22)
V1 L1 l 1
Vti is the shear caused by the moment due to accidental torsion. Using superposition,
the Vi can be added back into the shear on each wall. The shear on each wall is related
to the stiffness and deflection of each wall line.
Because bracket spacing is no longer uniform throughout the story due to
accidental torsion, the new equation for spacing will be a modification of equation 3.19:
Vx ± Vti
s = Vn /( ) (3.23)
Li
Where Vti is the shear due to accidental torsion. Note that depending on the direction
of displacement of the center of mass, one side of the building will have a reduction in
required spacing while the other side will increase. Because accidental torsion can
happen in either direction, the reduction in required spacing should be used on all shear
walls.
3.7 Global Overturning Moment
The purpose of the Anchor Tie-Down system (ATS) is to resist the tensile
forces on the walls caused by the overturning moment that exists due to the lateral
20
seismic loads. The compressive forces are resisted by the compression strength of the
CLT panels.
3.7.1 Global Overturning System vs Stacked Shear Wall Design
Traditionally, global overturning is dealt with by designing each shear wall

stack to resist its own local overturning. Global overturning can be defined as the
tendency of the entire building to overturn as one piece as a result of earthquake
loading. As shown in Figure 3.5, a building has 3 shear wall segments and can be
viewed in two ways with respect to overturning resistance.
The first method assumes that each shear wall segment will resist a portion of
the overturning moment, where the lateral seismic load is evenly distributed between
the shear wall segments. Each segment will experience compression and tension due to
the moment, where the tension is resisted by the tie-down system in each segment. This
method is called the stacked shear wall method, and is the traditional method used.
The second method assumes that the building will overturn globally - ie, the
moment due to overturning will span the base of the entire building, instead of being
distributed to the individual shear walls. This assumption relies on the building being
rigid, as that is the only way the building can overturn as one unit. The tension due to
the overturning moment will be resisted by a tie-down system at the edge of the
building, while the shear walls at the other end will resist the compression.
The assumption of rigidity is contingent on the ability of the building to
transfer shear in the vertical direction between different shear wall stacks. This concept
is essentially identical to the couple shear wall / frame system used in steel and concrete
construction. In traditional wood construction, it is very difficult to transfer vertical
shear because the floor system in light-frame wood construction is mainly made of
i-joists. As a result, the individual shear wall stacks have to be tied-down individually
in order to resist overturning. The robustness of the CLT construction and floor itself
provide an opportunity to utilize the global overturning model, however the detailed
calculation and design approach must ensure that the correct demands be considered
when designing the floor and wall details of such buildings.
21
Figure 3.5: Global (left) and stacked shear wall (right) overturning moment.
Consider a simple example of 2 isolated shear wall stacks connected by

coupling beams shown in Figure 3.6. A simple lateral earthquake load of magnitude P
can be assumed to be acting on the top left corner of the building. In the case of local
P
overturning, each of the two shear wall stacks will experience a lateral load of 2
acting
PH
at a height of H, giving a moment of 2
at the base of each shear wall stack. The
PH WS
restoring moment due to the weight must also be subtracted, giving 2
− 2
, where S
is the width of each shear wall stack. The tie-down system will have to resist the tension
caused by the moment about the compression corner (which is the bottom right corner),
P H−W S
where the tension is given by ( 2 /S . The best-case scenario for moment resistance
/2)
would be the shear wall stacks each accounting for half the length of the building, which
P H−W (L/2) PH W
would give a tie-down force of 2 /(L/2) at each stack, or simplified to L
− 2
.
If the building is assumed to be rigid, the total moment will be P H − 2 W2L ,
P H−W L
and the total tension force that must be resisted by the tie-down system will be L
,
PH
or simplified to L
− W . Therefore, the isolated shear walls will actually have to resist
more tension force in total than the global overturning tie-down system. Additionally,
in the global overturning case there will only be one tie-down system at the end of the
building, while in the isolated shear wall case a tie-down system is necessary at each
shear wall. Note that this design is also only for one direction, when all four considered
earthquake directions (+x, -x, +y, -y) must be accounted for. Therefore, as long as the
global overturning method is validated, by using it there will be savings in terms of
material, detailing, and construction time due to the reduction of necessary tie-down
22
elements.
In order for the global overturning assumption of rigidity to be valid, the floor
panels between shear wall stacks must be able to act as coupling beams to transfer the
out of plane shear between the shear wall stacks. The floor panel itself can transfer
both shear and moment, but it is not continuous in one direction of the floorplan. Thus
special connections must be implemented on the floor diaphragm panel interface to
carry over the shear force. At mid-point between the two shear wall stacks, there is an
inflection point for coupling. By placing the connections between the floor panels at the
points of inflection, the connections only need to be designed for shear. The connections
are placed at the points of inflection because they are weak points in the system; the
floor panels and shear walls will be able to resist the moment and shear demands
imposed elsewhere.
Figure 3.6: Simple shear stack connected by coupling beams.
3.7.2 Global Overturning Moment Calculation
The overturning moment due to the seismic load is calculated using the story
forces calculated during the ELF procedure. The equation for the overturning moment
23
at story i is given by:
n
X
Mi = F xj (H)(j − i + 1) (3.24)
j=1
Where F xj is the story force at story j, H is the story height, and (j − i + 1) is the
number of stories between story i and story j. Equation 3.24 assumes that the moment
is being summed from the lowest point of the wall, because that is where the maximum
moment arm will be between story i and j. This means that for story 1, the moment
will be summed for the ground floor of the building, and for story n (the stop story),
the moment will be summed from the elevation of story n-1.
3.7.3 Global Overturning Moment Design Methodology
Traditionally, the overturning demand is calculated based on shear wall stacks

assumed to be isolated from the building, and then resisted by hold-down or tie-down
systems. Recent full-scale shaking table tests of multi-story building structures[11]
observed that most of the tie-down demand and damage is caused by the global
overturning (ie the entire story generating overturning moment as a cantilever beam).
In this study, we will explore a new design approach for Anchor Tie-Down systems
using global overturning.
The concept is shown in Figure 3.7. The overturning moment will be resisted
by the tie-down system in tension and the CLT walls in compression on the other side
of the floorplan. The design process will start by assuming that only the far side CLT
wall line will resist compression (shown in Figure 3.7), then iteratively add more interior
walls into the compression zone until the walls in compression are able to resist the
compression demands imposed by the overturning moment.
The overturning moment will cause both compressive and tensile forces in the
building, in addition to shear throughout the building. A free-body diagram is shown in
Figure 3.8. It is assumed that the building will tip about point B, meaning compression
forces will be concentrated at the exterior walls near point B, and tension will be
concentrated at the ATS rods at point A. The weight is a combination of the dead load
and live load, obtained from load combinations 5 and 7. The most exterior wall at point
B is assumed to reach the capacity for perpendicular to grain compression, Ccrush ,
before the next most exterior wall is engaged in compression. A wall in compression has
24
two components of compression from superposition: Cg and Cf . Cg is the evenly
distributed wall load due to the weight, W. Therefore, Cg = W . Cf is the remaining
P
compression that must be applied to the wall in order for failure due to crushing to
occur. C is the residual compression obtained when enough wall lines are used to fully
resist the compression due to load cases 5 and 7. Note that this model assumes the
entire building is rigid, and therefore shear forces must be able to be developed
throughout the building.
Figure 3.7: Location of ATS rods and compression due to the lateral story forces.
The process to determine the tension and compression to resist the

overturning moment is iterative. Using only one wall line, it should be checked that the
compression force, C, is less than the compression force for failure, Cf . If this is the
case, then only one wall line is needed to resist the compression due to load cases 5 and
7. If this is not the case, then a second wall line should be added. C can be obtained by
summing the moments about point A (in order to eliminate the unknown tension).
Repeat this process of adding in wall lines until C is verified to be less than Cf . From
here, the free body diagram is fully defined. The total tension that must be resisted can
be determined by summing forces in z (the vertical direction in Figure 3.8). The total
25
compression that must be resisted will be the sum of Cf , Cg , and C. However, because
the calculation is based on iteratively adding wall lines until the compression demands
are met, the compression resistance will be adequate when the moment diagram is fully
defined.
Figure 3.8: Simplified FBD of a CLT building.
Because both the walls in the x and y-directions will resist compression, the
walls must be converted to their perpendicular direction. For example, if the
overturning moment is acting about the x-axis (as shown in Figure 3.7, the walls that
act in the y-direction must be converted to the corresponding location in y and length
in x. The length will be the same, and the location in y will be the centroid of the
portion of the wall. Before the conversion is done, the walls in y must be split up
between the locations of the x-direction walls. By splitting up the y-direction walls, it is
ensured that only the portion of the y-direction wall acting between each x-direction
wall will be used. The result of converting the walls will be a list of wall locations and
26
corresponding lengths that can be used for the iterative process.
3.7.4 Overturning Moment Tension Design
The Anchor Tie-Down System (ATS) consists of steel rods spanning vertically
between stories. There are existing ATS systems for application in light-frame wood
construction.[18] An example 3-story ATS system from Simpson Strong Tie is shown in
Figure 3.9. Note that the rod is tied to every floor, and therefore will transfer forces to
each story. This is in contrast to other systems that only tie the rod to the top and
bottom story. Some advantages of a system where all the floors are tied of are reduced
drift, an efficient load patch, construction stability, and shrinkage accommodation at
each story. Figure 3.7 illustrates the engaged ATS and exterior wall for the shown
lateral story forces. The ATS will be in place at all four exterior walls, to account for all
four directions of lateral loading.
ATS-SR10H150 rods will be used, as they are the strongest rods available from
the Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Tiedown Systems Catalog.[19] Each rod is 10/8” in
diameter and has an allowable tensile capacity of 69,030 lbs for ASD. AISC Chapter D,
“Design of Members in Tension”, specifies a tensile yielding ASD factor of 1.67 and an
Pn
LRFD factor of 0.9. The ASD capacity is given as Ω
, and the LRFD capacity is given
as ΦP n, meaning the ASD tensile capacity will be multiplied by 1.67*0.9 to convert to
LRFD. This gives an LRFD tensile capacity of 103.5 kips. Rods will be placed along
the exterior walls of the building, which allows for the maximum possible moment arm.
Load Case 7 will be the governing load case for tension. The number of rods
necessary on each exterior wall for each story will be the total tension divided by the
allowable tensile strength of 103,545 lbs. More ATS rods will be required in lower
stories.
3.7.5 Design For Coupling Action
The tension in the ATS rods and compression in the CLT needs to be
transferred through the building in the form of a global shear force. In order for the
tensile and compressive forces to develop, the shear forces must be resisted by the
elements in building. The largest shear force demand will be the equal to compression
force. The weight of the building will cause a smaller shear on the tension side of the
27
building. As this shear force is transferred throughout the floorplan, the cross-section of
the floorplan that has the least shear resistance will control the shear strength.
Figure 3.9: A single 3-story ATS system. [18]
The floor layout has a strong direction in shear, and a perpendicularly oriented
weak direction. The strong direction will be along the longitudinal direction of the CLT
panels: shear in this direction will be transferred through the CLT floor panel material
itself, as well as the walls where applicable. The CLT floor panels likely will not span
the entire strong direction, but as long as the discontinuities in the panels are staggered,
there will be at least some CLT floor panels available in even the worst-case (least
28
available CLT for shear resistance) scenario.
The weak direction occurs because of continuous splicing in the longitudinal
direction of the CLT panels. Any shear being transferred across the weak direction will
have to be transferred across the panel connections, which are assumed to have little
shear strength. In order validate the underlying assumption for global overturning that
the entire structure can transfer shear, these panel connections can be strategically
placed underneath perpendicular wall lines. This placement ensures that the sections of
the floor panels that have zero shear strength are supplemented by wall lines that are
able to transfer the shear.
In many cases, however, this strategic placement is difficult or impossible due
to the wall lines not allowing enough length for the walls to develop the full moment
and shear that must be resisted. Therefore, a more general approach is to add
specifically designed shear connections between the panels. These connections are made
of steel dowels that fit between the panels. The dowels are held in place by steel
end-caps that ensure load is being transferred purely in compression. A tensile load
would cause uplift forces on the relatively weak glue, and is not desirable. A
cross-section of an example of this connection is shown in Figure 3.10. The end caps
will be effectively continuous (ie, the full length of the 70’ interface between panels).
However, the 70’ length can be broken down into shorter pieces. Note that in reference
to the connection, the top, middle, and bottom CLT layers are in the weak direction
(the strong direction is perpendicular to the connection).
3.7.6 Shear Transfer Through CLT Panels
In the strong direction, it can be conservatively assumed that in the worst-case

scenario there will be 50% of the floor diaphragm available for shear resistance. In the
weak direction, the lesser strength of the CLT panels and the panel shear connections
will control.
From the CLT Handbook, the shear strength for a 1’ width of CLT panel is
given as:
Fv′ (Ib/Q)ef f (3.25)
Where Fv′ is the factored shear strength in psi, given as:
29
Fv ∗ Cm ∗ Ct ∗ 2.88 ∗ 0.75 ∗ λ (3.26)
Where Cm and Ct are 1, and lambda is 1. (Ib/Q)ef f is the effective area of a 1’ width
section of CLT that can be used, and is given as:
EIef f
(Ib/Q)ef f = n/2+1
(3.27)
Ei hi zi
P
i=1
Where EIef f is the effective bending stiffness, Ei is the modulus of elasticity of layer i,
hi is the thickness of layer i, except for the middle layer where it is half of the thickness.
zi is the distance from the centroid of layer i to the neutral axis, except for the middle
layer, where it is the distance from the centroid to the top half of the middle layer.
Figure 3.10: Panel-to-panel connection.
The shear resistance will therefore be the total length of the building times Fv′
times the number of stories. The resistance can be divided by 2 for the conservative
assumption that 50% of the cross-section will be panel-to-panel connections.
In the weak direction, the shear resistance of the panels will be the same as
found in the strong direction, without the 50% reduction. At locations where there is a
gap in the floor panels, the shear will be resisted by the walls. The shear strength for a
1’ length of wall panel is obtained from equation 3.25. The exterior walls should be
30
conservatively ignored when calculating shear strength at the gaps between the floor
panels.
3.7.7 Shear Transfer Through Custom Connection
A cross-section of the connection with the expected loading and resultant

forces is shown in Figure 3.11. The gap between the two end caps should be as close to
zero as possible, and is enlarged in the figure for clarity.
The eccentricity between the shear load and compression resistance
(transferred from the steel caps to the wood) will cause a moment. In the case of the
right-side end cap, the moment will cause clockwise rotation, therefore creating higher
compression loads on one end of side of the cap, and low loads on the other end. The
loading distribution on each side of the cap is assumed to be triangular. The distributed
loading that the CLT panel exerts on the steel plates is shown in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11: Cross-section view of the shear connection
The first failure mode of the connection is the shear failure of the steel dowels.
The shear resistance is 0.6 times Fy , times a φ factor of 1.0. The width of steel needed
per story can be determined from the equation:
Vstory
0.6Fy = (3.28)
A
31
The dowels can then be sized and spaced based on the required area of steel
from equation 3.28.
The second failure mode of the connection is the perpendicular to grain
compression transferred into the CLT from the end caps. From Figure 3.11, C1 is found
to be equivalent to two times the shear load, or 2V, and C2 is found to be equivalent to
V. C3 is found to be zero. Therefore, the perpendicular compression is checked
assuming a triangular distribution with a volume of 2V. The peak value of the
triangular distribution will be the load that must be designed for. The minimum
required area of steel necessary for perpendicular to grain compression is given as:
4V
A= (3.29)
Fc⊥ × 1.67 × 0.9
The third failure mode of the connection is the shear of the top and bottom of
the steel caps due to the transfer of the compression load. The third failure mode will
use equation 3.28.
The fourth failure mode of the connection is the bending failure of the top and
bottom of the steel caps due to the transfer of the compression load. The following
equation can be used to solve for the maximum length of the connection (which is
dependent on the moment arm of the shear force), or the minimum thickness of the
connection (where either the length of thickness is assumed):
Mc
Fb ≥ (3.30)
I
The fifth failure mode is the shear of the CLT, which will use the same checks
as section 3.7.6. Non-structural screws should be used on each end of the end caps to
hold them in place.
3.8 Lateral Wind Load Design
The wind load should also be checked, although it is very unlikely that it will
control due to the high-seismic location. The procedure found in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 27
is used as the building is not low-rise. The wind pressure obtained from the direction
procedure can be used to determine the overturning moment and story shear at the
base of the building. As long as the overturning moment due to wind is lower than the
overturning moment due to seismic, wind load will not control.
32
CHAPTER 4
FULL DESIGN OF A TWELVE STORY CLT BUILDING
Using the design procedure described in Chapter 3, the following section is a

step-by-step complete design of a 12-story CLT building located in Los Angeles, CA.
4.1 Properties and Assumptions
The seismic factors are determined for the coordinates 34.044◦ N, 118.238◦ W.
The seismic design factors are obtained from the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps.[20]
The seismic factors are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Seismic Design Factors
Occupancy 3 Ss 2.377 g Fa 1
Site Class 3 Sds 0.832 g Fv 1.5
Sds 1.585 I 1 R 3
Sd1 0.832 Site Class D
The assumed properties of the CLT are shown in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. The
CLT panels are made CLT Grade E1, found in Table 1 of APA Standard PRG 320.[21]
Grade E1 uses Spruce-Pine-Fir South (SPF). The properties of SPF can be found in
Table 4A of the 2015 NDS Supplement.[22]. The R value is currently undefined for
CLT, and is assumed in this study to be 3.[12]
Table 4.2: CLT Properties
Major Minor
Bending Strength fb 1950 500 psi
Modulus of Elasticity E 1.7 × 106 1.2 × 106 psi
Tensile Strength ft 1375 250 psi
Compression Strength fc 1800 650 psi
Shear Strength fv 135 135 psi
Rolling Shear Strength rv 45 45 psi
33
Table 4.3: CLT Properties
Fc Perp Fc⊥ 425 psi

CLT Weight W 26.21 pcf
Layer Thickness h 1.375 in
Design Width b 12 in
a factor a 5.5
Specific Gravity SG 0.42
ASCE Load Combinations 1 and 2 (equation 3.1 and equation 3.2) are used to
determine the loading. The dead load consists of the weight of the CLT panels, as well
as a 30 psf supplementary dead load to account for the weight of the slab and carpet.
Additionally, a dead load of 5 psf is added to each wall to account for a 1/2” thick layer
of gypsum on each side for fire resistance.. The live load is 50 psf, which is obtained
from ASCE 7-10 Table 4-1, assuming that the floor will be used for office use. Likely
the building will be used for residential purposes, but the office assumption is more
conservative and gives more usability flexibility. The design method assumes that the
CLT panels will be 3, 5, 7, or 9 layers thick. It is expected that the required thickness
of the CLT for a 12-story building will not exceed 9 layers.
4.2 Floor Sizing For Bending
The factored bending strength and bending load for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer CLT
panels are shown in Table 4.8. Mb is obtained from equation 3.3, where l is 15.5 feet
(obtained from Figure 2.1a, and w is obtained from load cases 1 and 2 (equations 3.1
and 3.2). Load case 1 is given to be:
1.4 ∗ Self W t + 1.4 ∗ 30 (4.1)
Where 30 is the load in psf of the slab and carpet, and SelfWt is the weight of the floors
h
in psf. SelfWt is given as (n)(W )( 12 ), where n is the number of layers of CLT, h is the
thickness of the CLT layers, and W is the weight of the CLT in pcf. The conversion
factor of 12 is used to convert h from inches to feet. Load case 2 is given as:
34
1.2 ∗ Self W t + 1.6 ∗ 50 + 1.2 ∗ 30 (4.2)
Where 50 is the live load of 50 psf. Mb is obtained from equations 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6,
where the CLT properties from Table 4.2 and 4.3 are used. The Mb for load case for the
corresponding Md is used.
EIef f for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer floors is calculated using equation 3.6, the values
used for 5 and 9 layer floors are shown in Table 4.4. The values used for 3 and 7 layer
floors are shown in Table 4.5. Separate tables are needed as the outside layer must be
the strong direction, meaning the middle layer will be a different direction for 3 and 7
layers than for 5 and 9 layers.
The values of EIef f are shown in Table 4.6. EIef f is calculated using the
tabulated values from Table 4.4 and Table 4.5, where the exterior layers are removed as
the number of layers decreases. For example, to calculate the properties of the 3-layer
floor, only the values from layers (ie, rows) 3, 4, and 5 are used.
Table 4.4: Tabulated values used to calculate EIef f for 5 and 9 layers.
h3
Layer Ei (psi) Ai (in2 ) zi (in) Ei bi 12i (×103 lbin2 ) Ei Ai zi2 (×106 lbin2 )
1 1.7 × 106 16.5 5.5 4419.3 848.5
2 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 4.125 104 11.2
3 1.7 × 106 16.5 2.75 4419.3 212.1
4 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 1.375 104 1.2
5 1.7 × 106 16.5 0 4419.3 0
6 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 1.375 104 1.2
7 1.7 × 106 16.5 2.75 4419.3 212.2
8 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 4.125 104 11.2
9 1.7 × 106 16.5 5.5 4419.3 848.5
Sef f is determined using equation 3.5. The tabulated values used to calculate Sef f ,
shown in Table 4.7.
Mb is obtained from equation 3.4, where Fb′ is 4095 psi. Md is obtained from
equation 3.3, where w is 148 psf using Load Case 2.
It is apparent from Table 4.8 that 3 layer CLT floors will be adequate for
35
bending load. Because the floors do not transfer load to each other, 3 layer floors will
be adequate for bending for all 12 stories.
Table 4.5: Tabulated values used to calculate EIef f for 3 and 7 layers.
h3
Layer Ei (psi) Ai (in2 ) zi (in) Ei bi 12i (×103 lbin2 ) Ei Ai zi2 (×106 lbin2 )
1 1.7 × 106 16.5 4.1 4419.3 477.3
2 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 2.8 104.0 5.0
3 1.7 × 106 16.5 1.4 4419.3 53.0
4 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 0.0 104.0 0.0
5 1.7 × 106 16.5 1.4 4419.3 53.0
6 1.2 × 106 /30 16.5 2.8 104.0 5.0
7 1.7 × 106 16.5 4.1 4419.3 477.3
Table 4.6: EIef f for 3, 5, 7 and 9 layer floors
Layers 3 5 7 9
EIef f (×109 lbin2 ) 0.115 0.440 1.089 2.17
Table 4.7: Tabulated values used to calculate Sef f
Layers EIef f E1 h
3 0.115 × 109 1.7 × 106 1.375
5 0.440 × 109 1.7 × 106 1.375
7 1.089 × 109 1.7 × 106 1.375
9 2, 16 × 109 1.7 × 106 1.375
Table 4.8: Factored bending strength, Mb , and bending load, Md .
Layers 3 5 7 9
Mb (kft) 9.78 22.45 39.68 61.49
Md (kft) 3.81 4.02 4.24 4.46
36
4.3 Floor Sizing for Vibration
lmax , the maximum short-direction span, is obtained from equations 3.8, 3.9,
and 3.10. The tabulated values used to determine GAef f , which needed for equation
3.8, are shown in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Tabulated values used to calculate GAef f for 5 and 9 layers.
Layer Gi (psi) h/G/b (psi)

1 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
2 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
3 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
4 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
5 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
6 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
7 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
8 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
9 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
Table 4.10: Tabulated values used to calculate GAef f for 3 and 7 layers.
Layer Gi (psi) h/G/b (psi)

1 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
2 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
3 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
4 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
5 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
6 1.2 × 106 /(16 ∗ 10) 15.278 × 106
7 1.7 × 106 /16 1.078 × 106
From Table 4.12, it is determined that 5 layer floors are necessary for vibration. This is
a thicker requirement than the bending load requirement. Therefore, 5 layer floors will
be used throughout the building.
37
Using equation 3.10, GAef f for 3, 5, 7 and 9 layer panels is shown in Table 4.11
Table 4.11: GAef f for 3, 5, 7 and 9 layer floors
Layers 3 5 7 9
GAef f (×106 lb) 1.8495 0.9247 0.6165 0.4624
Sef f is determined using equation 3.5. The tabulated values used to calculate Sef f ,
shown in Table 4.7.
For a 15.5’ span, the values for lmax are given for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer floors in
Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: lmax for 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer floors.
Layers 3 5 7 9
lmax (kft) 13.01 17.45 19.91 20.54
4.4 Wall Sizing for Vertical Loads
The wall load uses Load Combinations 1 and 2, where the dead load due to
the self-weight will be the weight of the walls and floors of the stories above. Using the
worst-case of load combinations 1 and 2, Table 4.13 is generated and gives the total
load in pounds on each story, assuming either uniform 3, 5, 7, or 9 layer walls
throughout the structure. In all cases load case 2 governs.
The load on each story can be divided by the total parallel to grain wall area,
A// , of the story to determine the load in psi on each story. Note that A// does not
include perpendicular to grain layers, so for example a 5 layer panel would have an A//
equal to the thickness of 3 layers. The load on each story can then be compared to Fc′ Cp
to determine if the wall sizes are adequate. The capacities and loads on story 1 for a
building using 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer wall panels (and 5 layer floor panels) are shown in
Table 4.14. Story 1 is used because it’s the worst-case story.
By comparing the load to the capacity, it can be seen that 3 layer walls (using
a story height of 9 ft) will be adequate throughout the structure for compression and
buckling.
38
Table 4.13: Load in pounds on each story using 3, 5, 7, and 9 layer panels
Story 3 5 7 9
1 9.07 × 106 9.64 × 106 1.02 × 107 1.08 × 107
2 8.31 × 106 8.82 × 106 9.33 × 106 9.84 × 106
3 7.54 × 106 8.00 × 106 8.46 × 106 8.92 × 106
4 6.78 × 106 7.18 × 106 7.59 × 106 8.00 × 106
5 6.01 × 106 6.37 × 106 6.72 × 106 7.08 × 106
6 5.24 × 106 5.55 × 106 5.86 × 106 6.16 × 106
7 4.48 × 106 4.73 × 106 4.99 × 106 5.24 × 106
8 3.71 × 106 3.92 × 106 4.12 × 106 4.32 × 106
9 2.95 × 106 3.10 × 106 3.25 × 106 3.40 × 106
10 2.18 × 106 2.28 × 106 2.38 × 106 2.49 × 106
11 1.41 × 106 1.46 × 106 1.52 × 106 1.57 × 106
12 6.47 × 105 6.47 × 105 6.47 × 105 6.47 × 105
Table 4.14: Wall capacity and load at story 1.
Layers 3 5 7 9
Fc′ Cp (psi) 1409.1 2569.2 2965.0 2915.6
Load (psi) 349.40 247.35 196.32 165.71
4.5 Wall Sizing for Fire
Because 3-layer panels are adequate for the gravity loads, 5-layer panels are
used for fire to provide a sacrificial layer in case of a fire and meet the minimum fire
requirements defined previously. Gypsum could also be added to the exterior of the
5-layer walls, but fire resistance calculations are outside the scope of this project.
4.6 Wall Sizing for Perpendicular to Grain Compression
Next, the perpendicular to grain compression must be checked. From equation

3.15, it is determined that for 5 layer walls, the perpendicular to grain bearing capacity
is 52,699 lbs over 1 ft of wall length. From Table 4.13, it is determined that the bearing
39
load at story 1 for 5-layer panels is 12,244 lbs over 1 ft of wall length. Therefore the 5
layer wall capacity is greater than the load. Because the walls are equal sizes, the initial
assumption is valid. If the walls varied in size throughout the different stories, then the
design would have to be iterated.
4.7 Summary of Gravity Design Results
The 12-story building will use 5 layer CLT floors and 5 layer CLT walls for
each 9’ tall story. This thickness will be adequate for gravity loading under dead and
live loads. The strength of the wall and diaphragm does not control the design. The
floor design is controlled by vibration, and the wall design is controlled by fire resistance
restrictions.
4.8 Story Forces Determination
Based on the equivalent lateral force procedure from ASCE 7-10, the total
base shear, V , is equal to Cs W . Currently there is no seismic force modification factor
for CLT shear wall systems. Based on earlier work by Pei et al. 2014 [12] an estimated
R factor of 3.0 was adopted in this study. Note that rigorous analysis and justification
must be in place to propose a suitable R factor for CLT construction, which is out of
the scope of this study. Given an R factor of 3, Cs is determined in ASCE 7-10 section
12.8.1.1 using the Sds , SD1 , S1 , T, R, and I from Table 4.1. Cs is found to be 0.4139. W
is the seismic weight, which is the entirety of the dead load of the building (except the
bottom half of the first story, which is part of the foundation). The CLT material dead
weight was calculated using a density of 26.21 pcf. An additional secondary dead load
of 30 psf on the floors is added to account for nonstructural components such as the
slab, carpet, and other fixtures installed.
Each floor has an area of 4828 sq ft with 5-layer (6.875” thick) panels. Each
floor has 787 ft of 5-layer walls (6.875” thick) that are 9’ tall each, leading to a total
wall volume of 4057.97 ft3 per story. The weight of the CLT plus the 30 psf dead load
on the floors and 5 psf load on the walls gives a weight of 366,230 lbs per story, except
the roof which is 280,650 lbs. Note that in this case one story is defined as the floor and
half of the walls above and below the floor. Therefore, the roof is the floor panels and
half of the walls below the floor panels. The total seismic weight is 4309 kips. The base
40
shear is found to be 1784 kips.
The building period is determined using ASCE 7-10 equation 12.8-7, where Ct
is 0.02 and x is 0.75 from ASCE 7-10 Table 12.8-2. The period, T, is determined to be
0.67 seconds. The lateral story forces are found using ASCE 7-10 equations 12.8-11 and
12.8-12 where wi is 366.23 kips for each story, except the roof which is 280.65 kips.
The story shear for each story is found using ASCE 7-10 equation 12.8-13.
The tabulated values used in the ELF procedure including the values of Fi , the story
shear Vi , and the story overturning moment, Mi , are given in Table 4.15. A value of
k=2 is used.
Table 4.15: Tabulated values for the ELF procedure.
Story hx (ft) wx (k) whkx (kft2 ) Cvx Fi (k) Vi (k) Mi (kft)

1 9 366.23 29665 0.0016 3 1784 133352
2 18 366.23 118659 0.0065 12 1781 117300
3 27 366.23 266982 0.0146 26 1770 101427
4 36 366.23 474634 0.0260 46 1743 85936
5 45 366.23 741616 0.0406 72 1697 71037
6 54 366.23 1067927 0.0584 104 1625 56946
7 63 366.23 1453567 0.0795 142 1521 43887
8 72 366.23 1898536 0.1038 185 1379 32083
9 81 366.23 2402835 0.1314 234 1194 21764
10 90 366.23 2966463 0.1622 289 959 13161
11 99 366.23 3589420 0.1963 350 670 6508
12 108 280.65 3273502 0.1790 319 319 2042
Total 4309.18 18283804
The story shear occurs directly below the story. For instance, the shear on the
walls below the floor of story 1 will be 1784 kips (associated with story 1), while the
shear on the walls directly above the floor of story 1 will be 1781 kips (associated with
story 2).
4.9 Wall Bracket Selection for Shear Resistance
Figure 4.1 shows the wall lines in the x and y directions. Note that the length
of the wall does not affect the tributary area. The spacing is calculated using equation
3.17 for the flexible diaphragm assumption and 3.20 for the rigid diaphragm
assumption. The length of each wall line available to brackets, Li and the tributary area
for each wall line, Ai are obtained from Table 4.16 for x-direction walls and Table 4.17
41
for y-direction walls. Note that Li for interior walls is doubled to account for the
placement of brackets on each side of the walls.
Figure 4.1: Wall line labels for the x and y-direction walls.
Table 4.16: Ai and Li for X-direction wall lines.
Wall Line X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

Ai (f t2 ) 403 551 403 315 289 341 228 341 289 315 403 551 403
Li (f t) 70 74 48 74 28 46 74 46 28 74 48 74 70
Table 4.17: Ai and Li for Y-direction wall lines.
Wall Line Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9
Ai (f t2 ) 639 796 420 411 298 411 420 796 639
Li (f t) 70 67 42 60 62 60 42 67 70
42
The shear values added or subtracted from each wall line, Vti , are obtained
from equation 3.22 and 3.23. The values of Vti are shown in Table 4.18 for the
x-direction walls and 4.19 for the y-direction in order to represent accidental torsion.
Table 4.18: Vti values in kips for X-direction wall lines for each story.
Wall Line X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

1 50 35 18 17 6 3 0 -3 -6 -17 -18 -35 -50
2 49 35 18 17 6 3 0 -3 -6 -17 -18 -35 -49
3 49 35 18 17 6 3 0 -3 -6 -17 -18 -35 -49
4 48 34 18 17 5 3 0 -3 -5 -17 -18 -34 -48
5 47 33 18 17 5 3 0 -3 -5 -17 -18 -33 -47
6 45 32 17 16 5 3 0 -3 -5 -16 -17 -32 -45
7 42 30 16 15 5 3 0 -3 -5 -15 -16 -30 -42
8 38 27 14 13 4 2 0 -2 -4 -13 -14 -27 -38
9 33 23 12 12 4 2 0 -2 -4 -12 -12 -23 -33
10 27 19 10 9 3 2 0 -2 -3 -9 -10 -19 -27
11 19 13 7 7 2 1 0 -1 -2 -7 -7 -13 -19
12 9 6 3 3 1 1 0 -1 -1 -3 -3 -6 -9
Table 4.19: Vti values in kips for Y-direction wall lines for each story.
Story Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9
1 70 31 17 7 0 -7 -14 -31 -70
2 70 31 17 7 0 -7 -14 -31 -70
3 69 31 17 7 0 -7 -14 -31 -69
4 68 31 17 7 0 -7 -14 -31 -68
5 66 30 17 7 0 -7 -14 -30 -66
6 64 29 16 7 0 -7 -13 -29 -64
7 60 27 15 6 0 -6 -12 -27 -60
8 54 24 13 6 0 -6 -11 -24 -54
9 47 21 12 5 0 -5 -10 -21 -47
10 38 17 9 4 0 -4 -8 -17 -38
11 26 12 7 3 0 -3 -5 -12 -26
12 13 6 3 1 0 -1 -3 -6 -13
Table 4.20 and Table 4.21 show the design shear values for each wall line for
both the rigid and flexible diaphragm assumption for each story, for the x-direction and
y-direction wall lines, respectively. Table 4.22 and Table 4.23 show maximum spacing
allowed for each wall line for both the rigid and flexible diaphragm assumption for each
story, for the x-direction and y-direction wall lines, respectively. In the tables, “f”
represents a flexible assumption while “r” represents a rigid assumption.
43
Table 4.20: Design shear (kips) for each x-direction wall line for rigid and flexible
diaphragm assumptions.
Story X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

1 f 149 102 74 58 53 63 42 63 53 58 74 102 149
1 r 215 105 66 96 36 56 88 53 30 79 48 70 116
2 f 148 102 74 58 53 63 42 63 53 58 74 102 148
2 r 215 105 66 96 36 56 87 53 30 79 47 70 116
3 f 147 101 74 58 53 62 42 62 53 58 74 101 147
3 r 213 104 65 95 36 55 87 52 30 78 47 70 115
4 f 145 99 73 57 52 62 41 62 52 57 73 99 145
4 r 210 103 64 94 35 55 86 52 30 77 46 68 112
5 f 141 97 71 55 51 60 40 60 51 55 71 97 141
5 r 205 100 63 92 34 53 83 50 29 75 45 67 108
6 f 135 93 68 53 49 57 38 57 49 53 68 93 135
6 r 196 96 60 88 33 51 80 48 28 72 43 64 101
7 f 127 87 63 50 45 54 36 54 45 50 63 87 127
7 r 183 89 56 82 31 48 75 45 26 67 41 60 92
8 f 115 79 57 45 41 49 32 49 41 45 57 79 115
8 r 166 81 51 74 28 43 68 41 23 61 37 54 78
9 f 99 68 50 39 36 42 28 42 36 39 50 68 99
9 r 144 70 44 64 24 37 59 35 20 53 32 47 61
10 f 80 55 40 31 29 34 23 34 29 31 40 55 80
10 r 116 56 35 52 19 30 47 28 16 42 26 38 40
11 f 56 38 28 22 20 24 16 24 20 22 28 38 56
11 r 81 39 25 36 13 21 33 20 11 30 18 26 13
12 f 27 18 13 10 10 11 7.5 11 10 10 13 18 27
12 r 39 19 12 17 6.4 10 16 9.5 5.4 14 8.5 13 20
44
Table 4.21: Design shear (kips) for each y-direction wall line for rigid and flexible
diaphragm assumptions
1 f 236 147 78 76 55 76 78 147 236
1 r 301 126 76 103 102 95 62 95 161
2 f 235 147 77 76 55 76 77 147 235
2 r 301 126 76 103 102 95 62 95 161
3 f 234 146 77 75 54 75 77 146 234
3 r 299 125 76 102 102 95 62 94 160
4 f 230 144 76 74 54 74 76 144 230
4 r 294 124 75 100 100 93 61 93 158
5 f 224 140 74 72 52 72 74 140 224
5 r 286 120 73 98 97 91 59 90 153
6 f 215 134 71 69 50 69 71 134 215
6 r 274 115 70 94 93 87 57 86 147
7 f 201 125 66 65 47 65 66 125 201
7 r 257 108 65 88 87 81 53 81 138
8 f 182 114 60 59 42 59 60 114 182
8 r 233 98 59 79 79 74 48 73 125
9 f 158 98 52 51 37 51 52 98 158
9 r 201 85 51 69 68 64 42 63 108
10 f 127 79 42 41 30 41 42 79 127
10 r 162 68 41 55 55 51 33 51 87
11 f 89 55 29 28 21 28 29 55 89
11 r 113 47 29 39 38 36 23 36 61
12 f 42 26 14 14 10 14 14 26 42
12 r 54 23 14 18 18 17 11 17 29
45
Table 4.22: Maximum allowed spacing (inches) for each x-direction wall line for rigid
and flexible diaphragm assumptions.

1 f 15 12 10 21 8.5 12 28 12 8.5 21 10 12 15
1 r 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 19
2 f 15 12 10 21 8.5 12 28 12 8.5 21 10 12 15
2 r 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 19
3 f 15 12 11 21 8.5 12 29 12 8.5 21 11 12 15
3 r 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 20
4 f 16 12 11 21 8.7 12 29 12 8.7 21 11 12 16
4 r 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 17 17 20
5 f 16 12 11 22 8.9 12 30 12 8.9 22 11 12 16
5 r 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 21
6 f 17 13 11 23 9.3 13 31 13 9.3 23 11 13 17
6 r 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 22
7 f 18 14 12 24 10 14 33 14 10 24 12 14 18
7 r 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 18 19 20 25
8 f 20 15 13 27 11 15 37 15 11 27 13 15 20
8 r 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 29
9 f 23 18 16 31 13 18 42 18 13 31 16 18 23
9 r 16 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 37
10 f 28 22 19 38 16 22 53 22 16 38 19 22 28
10 r 20 21 22 23 23 25 25 26 28 28 30 32 57
11 f 40 31 28 55 23 31 76 31 23 55 28 31 40
11 r 28 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 40 40 43 45 179
12 f 85 66 58 115 47 66 159 66 47 115 58 66 85
12 r 59 64 66 69 70 74 76 78 83 85 91 95 114
46
Table 4.23: Maximum allowed spacing (inches) for each y-direction wall line for rigid
and flexible diaphragm assumptions
1 f 10 7.4 8.7 13 18 13 8.7 7.4 10
1 r 7.5 8.6 8.9 9.4 10 10 11 11 14
2 f 10 7.4 8.8 13 18 13 8.8 7.4 10
2 r 7.5 8.6 8.9 9.4 10 10 11 11 14
3 f 10 7.4 8.8 13 18 13 8.8 7.4 10
3 r 7.6 8.6 8.9 9.5 10 10 11 11 14
4 f 10 7.5 8.9 13 19 13 8.9 7.5 10
4 r 7.7 8.7 9.1 10 10 10 11 12 14
5 f 10 7.7 9.2 13 19 13 9.2 7.7 10
5 r 7.9 9.0 9.3 10 10 11 11 12 15
6 f 11 8.1 10 14 20 14 10 8.1 11
6 r 8.2 9.4 10 10 11 11 12 13 15
7 f 11 8.6 10 15 21 15 10 8.6 11
7 r 8.8 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 16
8 f 12 10 11 16 24 16 11 10 12
8 r 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 18
9 f 14 11 13 19 27 19 13 11 14
9 r 11 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 21
10 f 18 14 16 24 34 24 16 14 18
10 r 14 16 16 18 18 19 20 21 26
11 f 26 20 23 34 49 34 23 20 26
11 r 20 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 37
12 f 53 41 49 71 102 71 49 41 53
12 r 42 48 49 53 55 57 61 64 78
The minimum values for the maximum required spacing for each story is shown in
Table 4.24. The spacing used in design cannot exceed these minimum values.
Table 4.24: Minimum required spacing of brackets in x and y directions for each story
for the flexible and rigid assumptions.
Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
sx (in) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.3 10 11 13 16 23 47
flexible
sy (in) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7 8.1 8.6 10 11 14 20 41
flexible
sx (in)
10 11 11 11 11 12 12 14 16 20 28 59
rigid
sy (in)
7.5 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.8 10 11 14 20 42
rigid
47
The smallest spacing in Table 4.24 is 7.4 inches, which is larger than the
length of the bracket and is therefore feasible. On the first floor, the minimum spacing
required when accounting for both rigid and flexible ranges from 7.4 to 10.1 inches, so it
is not very advantageous to have different spacings on each wall line. Therefore, the
minimum required spacing should be used for all wall lines. The spacing for the flexible
assumption governs the minimum required spacing for all wall lines.
4.10 Overturning Moment Compression Design
Given the calculated overturning demand for each story in Table 4.26, the
simplified force couple model in Figure 3.8 can be used to check the compression force
on the bearing walls under combined dead load and overturning. First, Ccrush is given
as 52,699 lbs per foot of wall length. The weight, W , is obtained from load cases 5 and
7, and is determined in pounds. Per ASCE 7-10 section 12.4.2.3, a 0.2Sds factor is
added or subtracted from the dead load factor. For load case 5, on story 1, W is equal
to 9.22 × 106 lbs. For load case 7 on story 1, W is equal to 2.43 × 106 lbs.
Initially, the total area of the wall lines engaged in compression at the first
story is not known. An iterative process is needed to identify the total wall area under
compression through trial-and-error. Using the exterior wall for the first iteration it is
lb
determined that Cg = W . Because Cg is resisting W , Cg can then be converted to ft
by
dividing W by the length of the wall being used, which is 70 feet for the first wall line.
From here it is apparent that Cg > Cf , and therefore more walls will be needed. When
adding in more walls, Cg should be determined by dividing W by the total wall length
currently being used.
After more iteration, it is determined that for load case 5 (which controls
compression), the compression zone in story 1 will extend 16 feet into the building for a
moment about the y-axis, and 9.625 feet for a moment about the x-axis. The total
compression being resisted at story one is 7190 kips for a moment about the y-axis, and
7230 kips for a moment about the x-axis. Therefore, every wall until 16 feet in y or
9.625 feet in x will reach the crushing load, at which point the last walls in the
compression zone will resist the remainder of the load.
The location of the compression zones are shown in Figure 4.2 from the edge
and the total compression being resisted by each story is shown in Table 4.25. dx is the
48
distance from the edge of the building that the x-direction walls are, and therefore dx is
a distance in the y-direction. It follows that dy is the x-direction distance from the edge
of the building of the y-direction walls. Only the results for load case 5 are shown in
Table 4.25, as load case 5 is the compression-controlling load case. Note that for the
wall lines in stories 7 through 12 in both the x and y directions, only the edge walls are
needed to resist compression.
Figure 4.2: Compression zones for x and y direction loading.
Because none of the compression zones in Table 4.25 exceed the length of the
building, the building is adequately designed to resist the compression demands
imposed by the overturning moment.
49
Table 4.25: Location of end of compression zone and total compression in each story
for x and y-direction wall lines.
Story dx (ft) dy (ft) Cx (kips × 103 ) Cy (kips × 103 )

1 16 9.625 7.19 7.23
2 12 9.625 6.44 6.51
3 12 9.625 5.69 5.79
4 6.25 9.625 5.00 5.07
5 6.25 9.625 4.32 4.35
6 6.25 9.625 3.66 3.66
7 0.5 0.5 3.05 3.05
8 0.5 0.5 2.46 2.46
9 0.5 0.5 1.88 1.88
10 0.5 0.5 1.33 1.33
11 0.5 0.5 0.81 0.81
12 0.5 0.5 0.33 0.33
4.11 Overturning Moment Tension Design
The tension design consists of selecting ATS rods that are able to resist the
tension demands imposed by the overturning moment. The tension is governed by the
shape of the compression zone - ie, if the compression zone is large, there will be a less
moment arm available for the tension to resist the moment, thus requiring a larger
tension force. The tension, however, is counteracted by the weight of the building.
Therefore, load case 7 governs as there lower factors on the dead load (compared to load
case 5) and there is no live load. The total tension that must be resisted at story 1 is
found to be 922 kips for a moment about the x-axis and 922 kips for a moment about
the y-axis. The total tension to be resisted is obtained by summing the forces in the
z-direction in Figure 3.8. Load Case 7 should be used as the governing load case for
tension design. The tension on each story for x and y-direction walls is given Table 4.26.
Table 4.26: Tension in x and y direction on each story.
Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Tension x 922 795 669 543 422 306 199 106 32 -19 -39 -22
Tension y 922 795 669 543 422 306 199 106 32 -19 -39 -22
It is found that on story 1, each exterior wall will require 10 ATS rods. The
rods are 10/8” in diameter with a strength of 103.5 kips. In stories 10, 11, and 12, the
restoring moment due to the weight is larger than the moment due to the story forces,
50
and therefore no ATS rods are necessary. The number of rods required per story for
each exterior wall is shown in Table 4.27.
Table 4.27: Number of ATS rods required at each exterior wall, by story.
Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. Of
9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0
(Rods)
It should be noted that the size or number of the ATS rods can be decreased
at upper stories. For example, of the 9 ATS rods used in story 1, only 8 would have to
continue through story 2, 7 through story 3, and so on. Alternatively, 9 rods could be
used throughout the entire structure on each wall with SST coupling devices used to
decrease the rod size in upper stories.
4.12 Overturning Moment Shear Transfer
The largest shear that the building experiences will be the total compression
on the building, which is 7230 kips, or 603 kips of shear on each story. This shear will
need to be transferred through every cross-section of the building.
4.12.1 Panel and Wall Shear Transfer
The tabulated values used to calculate (Ib/Q)ef f are shown in Table 4.28.
Note that only the top half of the CLT panel is used, as it is a Q calculation.
Table 4.28: Tabulated values used to calculate (Ib/Q)ef f .
Layer E (x106 psi) z (in) Ehz

1 1.7 2.75 6.428
2 1.2/30 1.375 0.076
3 1.7 0.688 0.8041
(Ib/Q)ef f is found to be 60.23 in2 . Fv′ is determined to be 918 psi from

equation 3.26. From equation 3.25, the shear strength for a 1’ width of CLT panel is
lb
equal to 55,291 ft
. Multiplying the shear strength by 35’ (assuming only half of the
building length is able to take shear due to gaps in the floor) gives a strength of 3870
kips per story, which is able to resist the 603 kips of shear imposed on the story.
It is conservatively assumed that the exterior walls will not take any of the
shear load. The height of interior walls on each story needed to take the shear can be
51
calculated by dividing the demand, 603 kips, by the strength, 55.3 kips/ft, giving a
required height of 11 feet. Therefore, as long as two interiors wall are present across a
panel-to-panel interface with no other way of resisting shear, the shear will be
adequately transferred. However, this shear transfer mechanism is not available at the
long splices of floor where there are no interior walls. A connection detail must be
installed at the splice to transfer this shear demand.
4.12.2 Floor Panel Connection Design
There are two locations in the weak direction where a 70’ long gap in the floor
with no CLT panel to take the shear. The two locations are shown in Figure 4.3. In
these cases, the floor panel connections will take all of the shear (albeit realistically with
some contribution from the exterior walls).
If the 70’ long gaps were moved to overlap the adjacent wall lines, there would
not be enough wall length available for the walls to properly develop the shear that
must be transferred. Therefore, instead of placing the gaps near wall lines, the gaps are
placed directly between two wall lines, and a connection is designed to resist the forces
that must be transferred across the gap.
Because the shear connections are placed directly between two wall lines, an
inflection point will occur at the shear connections. Therefore, there will be no moment
being transferred between the floor panel connections; only shear.
The first failure mode is checked using equation 3.28 a V of 603 kips, assuming
1.375” diameter dowels. It is found that over the 70’ length of the interface, 19 steel
dowels are required.
The second failure mode is checked using equation 3.29. The minimum length
of the connection for perpendicular to grain compression is found to be 4.5 inches.
The third failure mode is checked using equation 3.28. The minimum thickness
required for shear of the steel is found to be 0.066” thick.
The fourth failure mode is checked using equation 3.30, where the length of
1
the connection is assumed to be 6” (greater than the minimum of 4.5 inches), I = 12
bt3 ,
and b is 70’. The minimum required thickness of steel is found to be 0.729 inches.
From the design constraints of each failure mode, each 70’ interface will have
19 equally spaced 1.375” diameter dowels, held in place by steel end caps that are 6”
52
long at the top and bottom and 3/4” thick.
Figure 4.3: The locations of the panel-to-panel interfaces with no interior walls to resist
shear.
4.13 Lateral Wind Load Check
The basic wind speed, V , is determined from ASCE 7-10 Fig 26.5 1A, for Risk
Category III buildings (to be conservative). From the table, V is found to be 115 mph.
ASCE Load Combination 6 will be used, 0.9D+1.0W. From ASCE 7-10 Table
26.6-1, the wind directionality factor, kd , is found to be 0.85. Because the building is in
an urban area and over 30 ft tall, the surface roughness category is B and the exposure
category is C.
Because the building is not low-rise, the direction procedure found in ASCE
7-10 Chapter 27 will be used. The building is designated as an enclosed simple
diaphragm building in accordance with section 26.2, which allows Part 2 to be used.
The building is classified as a Class 2 building. From section 26.8, kzt is permitted to be
53
1.0. From section 26.10.1, the building is considered to be enclosed.
The net wall pressure, ph and p0 , are found from Table 27.6-1 for exposure C,
L
where h=108 ft, B
=1, and V =115. From the Table and interpolation, ph =46.28 and
p0 =35.96 psf. From Table 27.6-2, it’s determined that the roof force required to
investigate overturning is 0.
The total overturning force due to the wind at story 1 will therefore be the
volume of the trapezoidal prism caused by ph and p0 , which is equal to:
ph + p0
∗h∗L (4.3)
2
Where h is the total building height and L is the length of the wall. The force is equal
to 310,867.2 lbs, with the centroid located at 56.3 ft from the base. This leads to an
overturning moment due to the wind of 17,489 kft, which is less than the seismic
overturning moment of 133,352 kft. While the load factors in load case 4 are larger for
Snow, Rain, and Live Roof than in load case 5, it is apparent that the overturning
moment due to the seismic load will govern due to the full magnitude of difference
between the seismic and wind overturning moment.
54
CHAPTER 5
MODELING
AxisVM structural modeling software is used to conduct a non linear analysis

of the building design. The model consists of shell elements, gap elements, springs,
loads, and nodal supports.
5.1 Full Model
A full isometric view of the model is shown in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Figure
5.1 shows the building with hidden lines and labeled supports and ATS rods. Figure 5.1
shows the rendered building. Figure 5.3 shows the wire-frame model. The exterior walls
are split into 35’ sections for the model, as 70’ sections are difficult for transportation
and installation.
5.2 CLT Panels
Most of the CLT modeling parameters can be obtained from Table 4.2 and
Table 4.3, and plugged directly into AxisVM material properties. The AxisVM inputs
are shown in Figure 5.4. The CLT panels are modeled as shell elements.
Poisson’s ratio should have 6 inputs: one for each combination of stretching (x,
y, z) and shrinking (x, y, z). However, AxisVM only allows for one Poisson’s ratio input,
v, which is taken as 0.29. 0.29 is the maximum Poisson’s ratio value for wood.[23]
The thermal expansion of wood ranges from 17 × 10− 6 to 25 × 10−6 in/in/◦ F.
The maximum value of 25 × 10− 6 in/in◦ F is used.[23]
The 5% modulus of elasticity value, E0.05 , is 5% of the strong-direction
modulus of elasticity, which is equal to 85 ksi.
PRG 320 assumes the shear modulus, G, is equal to E/16. The mean shear
modulus is reported as the mean of 3 layers of strong direction and 2 layers of weak
direction wood, which gives a Gmean of 93.75 ksi.
The kcr value is a coefficient for cracking, and is taken as 1.[24]
The partial factor, vm , is taken as 1.
55
Figure 5.1: Model of a 12-story CLT building.
56
57
58
Figure 5.4: CLT properties used in AxisVM.
5.3 Connection Elements
Because the analysis is linear, the connections are modeled using stiffness
parameters. The parameters are estimated from proprietary connection data from
Simpson Strong Tie. The stiffness is 15238 lb/in in direction F1, 34233 lb/in in
direction F2 and F3, and 29809 lb/in in direction F4 in reference to the directions in
Figure 3.2. The factored maximum allowable strength in F1, F2, F3, F4 is 2688 lbs,
1766 lbs, 3289 lbs, and 2109 lbs respectively. The stiffness parameter in the z (vertical
direction) and y (horizontal shear) for the floor panel connections are calculated using
the equation for the shear modulus:
59
F/A
G= (5.1)
∆x/l
F
Where G is the shear modulus, ∆x
is the stiffness parameter, l is the length of the
connection, and A is the cross-sectional area of the connection. G for steel is given as
10800 ksi, l is taken as the full 12 inches length of the connection to be conservative,
and A is the cross-sectional area of a 1.375” diameter steel rod. Using these values, the
stiffness parameter is determined to be 2673 kip/in for each connection for shear.
The stiffness parameter in the x (axial) direction can be determined using the
equation for deformation strain:
P AE
= (5.2)
δ L
P
Where δ
is the stiffness parameter, A is the cross-sectional area, E is the modulus of
elasticity of steel (given as 29000 ksi), and L is the length of the connection (12 inches).
The axial stiffness parameter is determined to be 3588 kip/in for each connection.
Two gap elements are used for every CLT panel-to-panel interface to prevent
overlapping panels during deflection. To simplify the mesh and decrease model run-time
a maximum of two springs are used for each CLT panel interface with stiffness
parameters defined based on the connection stiffness and the number of connections the
spring is representing. The number of connections represented by the spring is
determined by the length of the panel and the required spacing of the connections.
The number and location of gap elements and springs will remain constant
from story to story, however the stiffness of the springs will decrease as the story
number increases. The stiffness is inversely proportional to the spacing. The stiffness of
the springs in the interior walls is double that of the exterior walls.
The gap elements are placed as close as possible to the end of each wall
without disturbing the mesh. The gap elements are compression elements, meaning the
gap can expand with almost no resistance (very low stiffness), but when contact is
created (due to compression), the gap develops a very large compression stiffness.
An example of gaps and springs placed in the model is shown in Figure 5.5.
Gaps are circled, while springs are boxed. The portion of the building shown is a
corner, with two CLT floor panels and walls above and below them. Note that the gaps
and springs are placed such that the connection to the floor panels occurs on the edge
60
of the floor panels.
Figure 5.5: Example of gaps and springs in the model
5.4 Mesh
The springs and gap elements are placed strategically in order to make the
mesh as simple as possible. The mesh is generated with a target of using 48”
quadrilateral elements. When nodes are closer than 48” to each other, the mesh is finer.
All elements in the mesh are quadrilaterals, which satisfies the desired mesh properties.
5.5 Load Cases
For both load case 5 and 7, an analysis was run for lateral loading applied (at
each story) in the x and y directions. Each load case also contains live load and dead
load, including gravity load. Figure 5.6 shows example lateral loading the y-direction.
5.6 ATS Modeling
The ATS rods are modeled as truss elements, attached at each end to the side
of the building with rigid springs (ie, the strongest springs possible). The rods are also
placed not to disturb the mesh. This restriction leads to 7 rods being placed on the
y-direction wall and 8 rods placed on the x-direction wall. The rods are sized equally
and add up to the total area of steel on each story. For instance, on story 1, 9 rods at
10/8” diameter each are required per the design analysis. Therefore, 11.04 in2 of steel is
61
required on each wall. Split between 7 rods for the y-direction walls, this amounts to
1.58 in2 per rod, or a diameter of 1.42” per rod. In upper stories, where zero ATS rods
are required, an equivalent of 1 ATS rod is still used.
For the x-direction load cases, only rods on the west (left) half of the building
are included, as the east ATS rods are expected to be in compression and the ATS rods
have an assumed compression design strength of zero ksi. For the y-direction load cases,
only rods on the south half of the building are used. The ATS rod layout for the
x-direction load cases is shown in Figure 5.8. The locations of the ATS rods are circled.
Additionally, the gaps used on the walls are represented by squares. The springs are
also visible as faded orange zig-zags.
The inputs used to model the steel are shown in Figure 5.7. Note the mass of
the ATS rods is taken to be zero so as not to interfere with the stiffness of the CLT.
This would be more important in a dynamic analysis.
5.7 Supports
Pin supports were placed at the corners of every ground-level floor panel as
well as the ground-level ATS rod bases to ensure accurate load transfer into the ground
and ensure stability. This enables compression load to be transferred into all wall lines,
instead of being concentrated to exterior wall lines (if there were only supports on the
exterior).
62
Figure 5.6: y-direction lateral loading
63
Figure 5.7: Steel properties used in AxisVM.
64
Figure 5.8: ATS rod placement for x-direction loading.
65
CHAPTER 6
NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
A nonlinear analysis is run for load cases 5 and 7 with lateral loading in the x
and y directions. The results of interest are the global deformation shape of the model,
the tension forces in the ATS rods, the shear forces in the springs, the shear forces in
the panel-to-panel connection springs, and the compression experienced at the base
story due to overturning. The wall lines referenced in the following sections are labeled
in Figure 4.1. The ATS rod labels are shown in Figure 6.1 for x-direction loads and
Figure 6.2 for y-direction loads.
The initial results are promising in terms of the feasibility of the design. The
discrepancies between the expected design values and the model values were identified
and explained based on decisions made in the modeling process.
Figure 6.1: ATS rod labels for x-direction loading.
66
Figure 6.2: ATS rod labels for y-direction loading.
6.1 Global deformation
Figure 6.3 shows the global deformation for load case 5 in the x-direction. The
displacement at the center node in the circled line of nodes is 3.321” in the x-direction,
with a total displacement of 3.631”. Figure 6.4 shows the global deformation for load
case 7 in the x-direction. The displacement of the center node in the circled line of
nodes is 3.537” in the x-direction, with a total displacement of 3.3.625”. Figure 6.5
shows the global deformation for load case 5 in the y-direction. The displacement of the
center node in the circled line of nodes is 4.376” in the y-direction, with a total
displacement of 4.391”. Figure 6.6 shows the global deformation for load case 7 in the
y-direction. The displacement of the center node in the circled line of nodes is 4.509” in
the y-direction, with a total displacement of 4.514”. In order to more clearly show the
deflected shape of the shear connections that are expected to behave as coupling beams,
Figure 6.7 shows the amplified deformation for load case 7 in the x-direction.
Figure 6.7 shows that the building is not behaving in a truly rigid manner, but
is still able to transfer shear throughout the building. Because of the use of pin
67
connections at the bottom of the building (which represent the foundation), the
building is restrained from truly overturning as one structure. The circled areas on the
deformed shape show examples of the panel-to-panel interface acting as a coupling
beam, where the rest of the building is acting like shear wall stacks. Despite the not
truly rigid behavior, as long as the coupling beams (and all other cross sections) are
able to transfer the shear forces, tie-down rods will not be necessary in the interior
walls. Additionally, the displacement between point A and point B in the Figure 6.7 in
the z-direction is 0.351 inches for load case 7, compared to x-direction deformations of
3.603 and 3.563 inches for point A and B respectively, meaning the building is deflecting
more globally than it is locally. The deformation is primarily bending-controlled with
some shear deflection present.
6.2 ATS Rod Forces
The expected worst-case (load case 7) ATS rod forces in the first story
compared to the ATS rod forces determined by the analysis are shown in Figure 6.8 for
the x-direction load and Figure 6.9 for the y-direction.
The ATS rod forces on each story are shown in Table 6.1 for the x-direction
load and Table 6.2 for the y-direction load.
In Figure 6.8, it is apparent that the tension due to overturning moment is
greatest at the corners of the building. The initial design assumed even distribution of
ATS rods based on the assumption that the out-of-plane floorplan was rigid. However,
it is apparent that the middle of the floorplan is less stiff, and therefore the rods in the
middle are not as effective. In Figure 6.9, the ATS rods at the edge take the largest
amount of tension.
By comparing Table 4.26 with the total values in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2, it
can be seen that the total tension in each story is less than expected. In story 1, for
example, the expected total tension is 922 kips. For the x direction, the model gives a
tension of 705 kips, and in the y direction gives a tension of 635 kips. This is an
indication that the ATS rods have enough strength to resist the tension demands, as
long as they are properly placed or allowed to reach inelastic failure and distribute the
forces to other rods.
68
Figure 6.3: Global deformation for load case 5 in the x-direction
69
Figure 6.4: Global deformation for load case 7 in the x-direction
70
Figure 6.5: Global deformation for load case 5 in the y-direction
71
Figure 6.6: Global deformation for load case 7 in the y-direction
72
Figure 6.7: Amplified deformation for load case 7 in the x-direction
73
Figure 6.8: Story one ATS rod forces compared to the expected value for load case 7 x-direction loading
74
Figure 6.9: Story one ATS rod forces compared to the expected value for load case 7 y-direction loading
75
Table 6.1: Forces (kips) in each ATS rod for x-direction loading.
ATS Rod 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Y1 159 117 83 56 37 23 13 5.2 1.0 -0.2 -0.3 0.1
Y2 21 18 15 12 8.7 6.2 4.4 2.3 1.2 0.5 1.0 8.7
Y3 16 15 14 12 8.3 5.8 4.2 1.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1
Y4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Y5 15 13 12 10 6.6 4.4 3.0 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1
Y6 21 17 15 12 8.5 6.1 4.3 2.2 1.1 0.5 0.9 8.5
Y7 161 120 86 59 40 25 14 6.3 1.4 -0.2 -0.2 0.2
XS1 104 72 52 38 25 16 10 4.2 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.4
XS2 55 39 34 27 18 12 8.6 3.4 1.7 0.7 0.6 0.2
XS3 3.4 14 17 17 14 10 7.7 3.5 2.0 0.9 1.0 0.8
XS4 -9.2 1.8 8.9 11 9.0 6.9 5.4 2.5 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.8
XN1 103 74 55 40 27 18 11 4.9 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.4
XN2 55 41 36 29 20 13 10 4.0 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.2
XN3 6.3 15 19 19 15 11 8.5 3.9 2.3 1.1 1.0 0.7
XN4 -7.4 3.9 11 13 10 7.8 6.0 2.8 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.5
Total 705 563 460 354 247 166 111 48 20 6.3 6.9 22
Table 6.2: Forces (kips) in each ATS rod for y-direction loading.
ATS Rod 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
YW1 16 14 12 10 7.4 5.5 4.1 2.6 1.5 0.9 1.5 7.6
YW2 203 99 62 39 24 13 7.2 2.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2
YW3 65 53 44 30 19 12 7.5 2.7 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.2
X1 8.0 4.8 7.8 7.0 5.4 4.3 3.4 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.7
X2 8.4 7.8 7.7 6.7 5.0 3.8 3.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1
X3 5.7 8.3 7.6 6.5 5.0 3.8 2.8 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
X4 11 10 7.7 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1
X5 11 10 7.7 6.3 4.9 3.6 2.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1
X6 5.7 8.3 7.7 6.6 5.1 3.8 2.8 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
X7 8.5 7.9 7.8 6.8 5.1 3.8 3.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1
X8 8.3 5.0 8.0 7.1 5.5 4.3 3.4 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.7
YE1 17 14 12 10 7.5 5.5 4.1 2.6 1.5 0.9 1.5 7.6
YE2 203 98 62 40 24 13 7.2 2.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2
YE3 65 53 44 30 19 12 7.5 2.7 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.2
Total 635 394 298 212 142 92 61 27 11 4.3 5.2 19
6.3 Lateral Shear Load on the Bracket Springs
The average shear load on the springs that represent brackets across all the
wall lines on each story is given in Table 6.3 for both load cases. All shear loads are
taken as positive regardless of their in-plane direction. The shear load in Table 6.3 is
76
determined at both the bottom and top of the walls in the story. In the table, “b”
stands for “bottom” and “t” stands for “top”.
The shear load on each wall line on each story is shown in Table 6.4 and Table
6.5 for the x-direction, and Table 6.6 and Table 6.7 in the y-direction. The required
spacing based on the total shear load on each wall line on each story is shown in Table
6.8 and Table 6.9 for load cases 5 and 7 in the x-direction, respectively. Table 6.10 and
Table 6.11 give the average required spacing for load cases 5 and 7 in the y-direction.
“t” represents the top portion of the story, and “b” represents the bottom.
From Table 6.4 through Table 6.11, it is apparent that the exterior walls take
a larger share of the shear than expected and require smaller spacings than expected.
The middle of the floor plan is less stiff, and the out-of-plane floor plan is not rigid,
which both contributed to the larger shear demands on the exterior walls. The exterior
walls are able to use half as many brackets per foot as the interior walls, which means it
is more difficult to meet the shear demands. Therefore, one option for design could be
to design all of the shear resistance for the interior shear walls, while using as few
brackets as possible for the exterior shear walls. The exterior brackets will reach
plasticity quickly, but there will be far fewer brackets to repair or replace.
6.4 Floor Panel Connection Force
The panel connection out-of-plane shear is determined from left (west) to right
(east) for each story. The reported values in Figure 6.10 and 6.11 show the total shear
force at each 70’ long panel-to-panel interface for each story (1 through 12) for load
cases 5 and 7, respectively. The bottom interfaces are not included because the
supports lead to 0 shear at those locations. The total shear is also shown, as well as a
total using the absolute values of the shear at each location.
The floor panel connection shear varies largely from the expected values. The
main reason for the variance is that during the design process it, the connections were
designed under the assumption that the walls and floor panels do not resist the shear
while the floor panel connections are engaged. This is a conservative assumption, as
demonstrated in Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11 by the shear values that are significantly
smaller than the expected value of 602 kips at each panel. The small shear values taken
by the shear connections demonstrate that the building is theoretically able to transfer
77
the shear forces across every cross-section, including the coupling beams where the 70’
continuous gaps are present.
The shear forces are generally the largest on the east and north sides of the
building, and decrease in magnitude towards the west and south ends. This matches the
shape of the expected shear diagram, where the largest shear is at the compression end
of the building, and decreases in a roughly linear trend in relation to the weight of the
building until the tension end of the building. Were total shear shown, including the
shear taken by the walls, it is expected that the shear would decrease in a more clearly
defined linear trend.
Negative shear values are present, indicating deflection on the compression side
that are higher than (relative to z) the deflection on the tension side. The negative
shear values at the panel-to-panel interface (between wall lines Y2 and Y3, and between
wall lines Y7 and Y8) can be explained by the positive deflection at points A and B
(and their corresponding points on the other interface) in Figure 6.7. The positive
deflection does not occur at the exterior walls, because there is no discontinuity at the
exterior walls between wall lines Y2 and Y3, or between Y7 and Y8. The springs
located at the exterior walls will retain positive shear values, however the deflections
that occur in the interior of the building will cause larger negative shear values,
resulting in an overall negative shear value on the story.
The negative deflection at the middle interface, located at wall line Y5, will
occur only at the exterior walls. The interior walls are continuous, while the exterior
walls are separated at wall line Y5. The separation causes the exterior walls to rotate
separately, leading to a positive deflection (and therefore negative shear) between the
west end of the east wall and the east end of the west wall.
6.5 Compression Load at Story One Bearing Walls
The compression load at story 1 is determined using the vertical gap and
spring elements at the base of story 1 for the load case 5 model. Because the total
compression experienced by the model is desired, any springs that are in tension are not
included in the calculation. The compression check only uses the gap and spring
elements in the compression zone - ie the zone outside of the influence of the ATS rods.
For the x-direction loading, the compression experienced in the compression
78
zone is 8346 kips. For the y-direction loading, the compression experienced in the
compression zone is 10966 kips.
The compression loads at story one for each direction of loading are larger
than the expected values of 7190 kips for x-direction loading and 7230 kips for
y-direction loading. Most of the error is due to the initial assumption that the exterior
walls would fail before any of the interior walls took any of the compression load.
Realistically, the compression will be spread more evenly to the interior walls lines,
which have a smaller moment arm, resulting in a larger total compression value.
Note that the compression load does not include springs in tension, meaning
there are actually less springs and gaps available than expected to take the compression
loading. However, the simplification decisions used in modeling mean that gaps are
under-utilized. In a more complex model, there would be more gap elements available
to take the compression, which would mean less imbalanced tension members that
should be in compression.
79
Table 6.3: Average shear load on the bottom and top each story (kips)
Story LC5 X LC5 Y LC7 X LC7 Y

1 b 1803 1845 1722 1745
t 2097 1820 1998 1746
2 b 1923 1762 1835 1744
t 1839 1744 1799 1744
3 b 1686 1731 1597 1732
t 1733 1732 1701 1732
4 b 1690 1706 1621 1707
t 1594 1709 1560 1707
5 b 1491 1660 1425 1661
t 1586 1664 1575 1662
6 b 1522 1590 1478 1590
t 1434 1594 1427 1591
7 b 1368 1488 1297 1488
t 1455 1492 1439 1488
8 b 1369 1349 1331 1349
t 1309 1353 1260 1349
9 b 1238 1168 1156 1169
t 1284 1175 1260 1167
10 b 1209 944 1160 948
t 1120 951 1060 939
11 b 1079 701 994 678
t 997 682 980 667
12 b 1060 444 975 386
t 942 438 849 372
80
Table 6.4: Shear (kips) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case 5 in the x-direction
Story X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 Total

1 b 536 98 19 43 11 74 277 74 12 39 19 99 502 1803
t 619 85 18 36 26 80 336 83 24 36 18 87 647 2097
2 b 577 135 6.6 46 13 87 196 89 11 53 6.3 136 565 1923
t 578 79 4.3 34 12 73 243 75 10 34 4.5 82 610 1839
3 b 532 107 8.1 40 8.0 85 146 88 8.3 38 6.7 109 509 1686
t 535 84 9.4 31 17 74 199 77 16 32 7.6 84 568 1733
4 b 493 121 16 42 15 91 147 93 14 52 15 121 472 1690
t 498 68 17 31 10 76 160 78 10 30 16 70 530 1594
5 b 459 100 20 30 5.5 87 106 89 5.9 28 19 101 440 1491
t 466 92 21 32 17 79 143 81 16 33 20 91 496 1586
6 b 428 111 21 39 16 94 110 97 14 50 21 110 411 1522
t 436 73 22 27 6.0 78 125 80 6.2 26 21 72 462 1434
7 b 399 99 20 37 7.2 85 95 88 7.9 26 20 99 385 1368
t 406 99 20 34 18 79 121 81 16 35 20 98 427 1455
8 b 369 100 19 40 16 95 92 97 14 51 19 99 357 1369
t 372 86 20 34 5.6 77 103 79 5.3 32 21 85 390 1309
9 b 332 98 23 42 8.9 80 89 82 9.2 31 22 98 324 1238
t 326 96 25 40 18 75 105 77 17 41 25 95 345 1284
10 b 287 94 27 44 17 92 81 93 15 55 29 92 283 1209
t 271 89 31 40 7.4 72 86 74 6.6 36 32 88 288 1120
11 b 229 94 32 46 13 86 81 87 13 37 34 94 232 1079
t 194 88 34 50 14 68 95 70 13 51 36 87 197 997
12 b 145 97 44 75 19 109 82 109 17 81 45 95 142 1060
t 109 105 70 69 17 65 70 67 16 63 74 104 114 942
81
Table 6.5: Shear (kips) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case 7 in the x-direction
Story X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 Total

1 t 572 60 22 32 7.5 73 221 76 8.0 29 22 60 541 1722
b 653 69 21 32 8.3 74 255 77 7.4 32 37 70 664 1998
2 t 599 81 3.3 38 5.5 83 192 86 6.2 41 38 81 582 1835
b 601 59 2.0 30 4.4 71 208 74 3.9 29 37 60 621 1799
3 t 545 63 10 27 5.6 86 133 89 5.9 26 20 60 527 1597
b 553 79 11 22 8.0 74 164 77 6.7 22 33 76 576 1701
4 t 504 84 17 30 8.1 91 142 94 6.8 35 42 82 485 1621
b 514 58 18 23 5.0 77 148 79 5.3 23 17 55 537 1560
5 t 470 68 21 26 5.6 89 88 92 6.0 20 20 66 452 1425
b 481 95 22 25 11 81 124 83 10 26 21 93 504 1575
6 t 440 95 22 30 10 97 105 99 9.0 36 22 92 423 1478
b 450 67 22 27 5.5 80 104 82 5.5 26 22 65 472 1427
7 t 409 67 21 35 6.6 88 66 90 7.0 29 21 65 393 1297
b 416 100 21 29 12 82 105 84 11 28 21 97 434 1439
8 t 373 95 18 33 11 97 88 99 10 37 18 93 360 1331
b 379 68 20 33 6.2 78 79 80 6.0 31 21 66 393 1260
9 t 333 72 22 40 7.4 82 59 84 7.7 34 22 69 323 1156
b 332 95 24 34 13 78 95 80 12 34 24 94 345 1260
10 t 288 87 26 37 12 93 78 95 11 40 27 86 280 1160
b 275 70 29 38 6.7 73 67 75 6.4 35 30 68 288 1060
11 t 233 74 30 46 10 81 58 82 10 41 31 71 226 994
b 200 85 30 43 11 70 90 72 10 42 32 85 210 980
12 t 145 89 37 62 13 101 83 101 12 63 38 88 142 975
b 116 86 56 63 14 65 52 66 13 58 59 84 118 849
82
Table 6.6: Shear (kips) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case
5 in the y-direction
Story Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Total
1 b 520 99 157 92 108 92 158 99 520 1845
t 520 99 129 106 111 106 129 99 521 1820
2 b 516 140 93 73 117 73 93 140 516 1762
t 516 140 83 74 117 74 83 140 517 1744
3 b 514 151 66 73 119 74 66 152 515 1731
t 515 151 67 74 119 74 67 152 515 1732
4 b 504 154 61 73 120 73 61 154 505 1706
t 504 154 62 73 121 73 62 154 505 1709
5 b 486 152 59 73 121 73 59 152 486 1660
t 486 152 61 72 122 73 61 152 486 1664
6 b 461 146 57 70 121 70 57 146 461 1590
t 461 146 59 70 122 70 59 146 461 1594
7 b 429 136 54 65 118 65 54 136 430 1488
t 429 136 56 65 119 65 56 136 430 1492
8 b 391 122 49 58 109 58 49 122 391 1349
t 391 122 51 58 109 58 51 122 391 1353
9 b 343 105 41 47 94 47 41 106 344 1168
t 343 105 45 46 94 46 45 106 344 1175
10 b 284 86 34 31 71 31 34 86 285 944
t 284 86 38 30 72 30 38 87 285 951
11 b 208 66 31 18 55 18 31 66 209 701
t 208 66 30 14 46 14 30 66 208 682
12 b 107 41 39 12 46 12 39 41 107 444
b 107 42 30 18 44 18 30 42 107 438
83
Table 6.7: Shear (kips) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case 7 in the y-direction
Story Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Total
1 b 542 92 114 74 99 74 115 93 542 1745
t 542 92 114 73 102 73 115 92 542 1746
2 b 533 141 75 68 108 68 75 141 534 1744
t 534 141 75 68 109 68 75 141 534 1744
3 b 528 151 62 68 113 68 62 151 529 1732
t 528 151 62 68 113 68 62 151 529 1732
4 b 515 150 59 70 119 70 59 150 515 1707
t 515 150 59 70 119 70 59 150 515 1707
5 b 491 146 59 72 124 72 59 146 492 1661
t 491 146 59 72 124 72 59 146 492 1662
6 b 462 140 58 72 126 72 58 140 463 1590
t 463 140 58 72 126 72 58 140 463 1591
7 b 428 131 54 69 124 69 54 131 429 1488
t 428 131 54 69 124 69 54 131 429 1488
8 b 387 119 50 61 115 61 50 119 388 1349
t 387 119 50 61 115 61 50 119 388 1349
9 b 339 104 43 50 97 50 43 104 340 1169
t 339 104 42 49 97 49 43 104 340 1167
10 b 280 88 37 33 71 33 37 88 280 948
t 280 88 34 33 71 33 34 88 280 939
11 b 205 67 30 15 43 15 30 67 206 678
t 205 67 25 14 42 14 25 67 205 667
12 b 105 40 29 6.6 25 6.6 29 40 105 386
t 104 47 16 11 16 11 16 47 105 372
84
Table 6.8: Spacing (inches) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case 5 in the x-direction

1 b 4.2 24 80 55 80 20 8.6 20 73 62 82 24 4.5
t 3.6 28 84 66 35 18 7.1 18 37 65 84 27 3.5
2 b 3.9 18 234 52 68 17 12 17 79 45 246 18 4.0
t 3.9 30 359 69 78 20 10 20 87 71 344 29 3.7
3 b 4.2 22 191 59 114 17 16 17 109 62 231 22 4.4
t 4.2 29 164 77 54 20 12 19 58 75 204 28 4.0
4 b 4.6 20 96 57 60 16 16 16 66 46 103 20 4.8
t 4.5 35 90 78 87 20 15 19 88 79 98 34 4.3
5 b 4.9 24 78 80 165 17 23 17 152 85 81 24 5.1
t 4.8 26 74 75 53 19 17 18 57 72 79 26 4.6
6 b 5.3 21 74 62 58 16 22 15 64 48 75 22 5.5
t 5.2 33 72 87 151 19 19 19 145 94 73 33 4.9
7 b 5.7 24 78 64 126 17 25 17 115 91 79 24 5.9
t 5.6 24 77 69 51 19 20 18 55 67 77 24 5.3
8 b 6.1 24 82 60 57 16 26 15 64 47 82 24 6.3
t 6.1 28 77 70 161 19 23 19 169 75 74 28 5.8
9 b 6.8 24 68 57 101 19 27 18 99 76 70 24 7.0
t 6.9 25 63 60 50 20 23 19 54 59 62 25 6.6
10 b 7.9 26 56 54 54 16 29 16 60 44 54 26 8.0
t 8.3 27 51 60 122 21 28 20 137 66 48 27 7.8
11 b 10 25 48 51 71 17 29 17 69 65 45 25 10
t 12 27 46 48 62 22 25 21 68 47 43 27 11
12 b 16 25 35 32 48 14 29 14 53 30 34 25 16
t 21 23 22 35 54 23 34 22 56 38 21 23 20
85
Table 6.9: Spacing (inches) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load case 7 in the x-direction

1 b 3.9 40 70 75 121 20 11 20 112 84 70 40 4.2
t 3.5 35 73 76 109 20 9.4 19 121 74 42 34 3.4
2 b 3.8 30 473 63 163 18 12 17 147 58 41 29 3.9
t 3.8 41 778 78 206 21 11 20 230 83 42 40 3.6
3 b 4.1 38 160 87 163 17 18 17 154 93 78 40 4.3
t 4.1 30 141 110 113 20 15 19 135 109 48 31 3.9
4 b 4.5 28 90 80 112 16 17 16 133 68 37 29 4.7
t 4.4 41 85 102 180 19 16 19 172 105 91 43 4.2
5 b 4.8 35 75 91 163 17 27 16 151 119 77 36 5.0
t 4.7 25 72 94 83 18 19 18 94 92 75 26 4.5
6 b 5.1 25 71 79 90 15 23 15 100 67 72 26 5.3
t 5.0 36 70 88 165 19 23 18 163 93 70 37 4.8
7 b 5.5 35 74 69 137 17 36 16 128 83 75 37 5.7
t 5.4 24 73 83 74 18 23 18 82 84 74 25 5.2
8 b 6.1 25 84 73 83 15 27 15 93 64 85 26 6.3
t 6.0 35 76 73 146 19 30 19 151 77 75 36 5.7
9 b 6.8 33 69 60 122 18 40 18 117 69 72 34 7.0
t 6.8 25 64 70 69 19 25 19 76 71 64 25 6.5
10 b 7.8 27 59 64 76 16 31 16 86 60 57 28 8.1
t 8.2 34 53 62 135 20 36 20 142 68 52 35 7.8
11 b 10 32 52 52 88 18 41 18 87 59 50 33 10
t 11 28 51 56 84 21 27 21 88 57 48 28 11
12 b 16 27 41 38 68 15 29 15 75 38 40 27 16
b 20 28 28 38 66 23 46 22 69 41 26 28 19
86
Table 6.10: Spacing (inches) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load
case 5 in the y-direction
1 b 4.3 22 8.6 21 19 21 8.6 22 4.3
t 4.3 22 11 18 18 18 10 22 4.3
2 b 4.4 15 15 26 17 26 15 15 4.4
t 4.4 15 16 26 17 26 16 15 4.4
3 b 4.4 14 20 26 17 26 20 14 4.4
t 4.4 14 20 26 17 26 20 14 4.4
4 b 4.5 14 22 26 17 26 22 14 4.5
t 4.5 14 22 26 17 26 22 14 4.5
5 b 4.6 14 23 27 16 27 23 14 4.6
t 4.6 14 22 27 16 27 22 14 4.6
6 b 4.9 15 24 28 16 27 24 15 4.9
t 4.9 15 23 28 16 28 23 15 4.9
7 b 5.3 16 25 30 17 30 25 16 5.3
t 5.3 16 24 30 17 30 24 16 5.3
8 b 5.8 18 28 33 18 33 28 18 5.8
t 5.8 18 27 34 18 34 26 18 5.8
9 b 6.6 21 33 41 21 41 33 20 6.6
t 6.6 20 30 42 21 42 30 20 6.6
10 b 7.9 25 40 62 28 62 40 25 7.9
t 7.9 25 35 64 28 63 35 25 7.9
11 b 11 33 44 110 36 109 44 33 11
t 11 33 45 138 44 138 45 33 11
12 b 21 53 35 156 43 156 35 53 21
b 21 51 45 109 46 108 45 51 21
87
Table 6.11: Spacing (inches) on each wall line on each story, top and bottom, for load
case 7 in the y-direction
1 b 4.2 23 12 26 20 26 12 23 4.2
t 4.2 23 12 26 20 26 12 23 4.2
2 b 4.2 15 18 28 18 28 18 15 4.2
t 4.2 15 18 29 18 29 18 15 4.2
3 b 4.3 14 22 28 18 28 22 14 4.3
t 4.3 14 22 28 18 28 22 14 4.3
4 b 4.4 14 23 28 17 28 23 14 4.4
t 4.4 14 23 28 17 28 23 14 4.4
5 b 4.6 15 23 27 16 27 23 15 4.6
t 4.6 15 23 27 16 27 23 15 4.6
6 b 4.9 15 23 27 16 27 23 15 4.9
t 4.9 15 23 27 16 27 23 15 4.9
7 b 5.3 17 25 28 16 28 25 17 5.3
t 5.3 17 25 28 16 28 25 17 5.3
8 b 5.8 18 27 32 17 32 27 18 5.8
t 5.8 18 27 32 17 32 27 18 5.8
9 b 6.7 21 32 39 21 39 32 21 6.6
t 6.7 21 32 39 21 39 32 21 6.6
10 b 8.1 25 36 58 28 58 36 25 8.1
t 8.1 25 40 59 28 59 40 25 8.1
11 b 11 32 45 130 47 130 45 32 11
t 11 32 53 136 47 136 53 32 11
12 b 22 54 47 292 79 292 47 54 22
t 22 46 85 174 128 174 85 46 22
88
Figure 6.10: Panel connection shears (in kips) at each interface for load case 5.
89
Figure 6.11: Panel connection shears (in kips) at each interface for load case 7.
90
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The study succeeded in proposing a simplified mechanistic design method

including a new global overturning resistance system, as well assessing the feasibility
through the use of numerical modeling software. The global overturning system has
potential based on the explainable results of the numerical analysis, however the
potential is currently capped by the limits of numerical modeling software. The system
level response seems reasonable, but the model does not fully capture the load resisting
mechanism of the proposed system.
The most important part of the global overturning system is the use of a shear
connection and CLT walls and panels to transfer the shear across the building. The
small shear forces in the shear connections demonstrate that the shear connections are
theoretically able to transfer the shear forces through every cross-section of the
building, meaning ATS rods will only be necessary at the exterior of the building, thus
showing the potential of a global overturning resistance system.
7.1 Feasibility
This study outlined a complete structural design process for a tall CLT
building in a seismic region following the ASCE 7 ELFP method using an assumed
R-factor. Numerically, the simplified design procedure was reasonable, including many
conservative assumptions to ensure adequate strength and redundant load paths,
however further experimental work such as large scale dynamic tests should be done to
validate the design.
The fact that strength does not control gravity loading shows the strength of
CLT in vertical loading applications, and the fact that vibration controls the floor
design reinforces the idea of using CLT for primarily residential construction.
The use of an anchor tie-down system to resist global overturning, instead of
the traditional stacked shear wall approach, will save money on material cost,
construction time and complexity, and detailing and design time.
91
The design of a 12-story building for seismic coefficient as large as those
present in Los Angeles is an ambitious goal, but the general feasibility of the design is
even more promising for similar building in lower-seismic areas, or for high-seismic areas
with lesser heights.
7.2 Drawbacks and Obstacles
Realistically, a tall CLT building could not be built without approval from
local jurisdiction. Currently there is no seismic force modification factor accepted in
ASCE 7 for this type of construction. Lack of complete seismic design provision in the
code framework remains the largest road block for CLT building seismic design. For its
implementation, the fire regulation on tall timber buildings has not been developed yet.
Currently, there are only two CLT manufacturers in the United States. Additionally,
contractors, designers, and the public have less experience with CLT than other
building materials, which makes it more difficult to take on projects. As CLT
experience and usage continues to grow in the United States, as well as the rest of the
world, the use of CLT will become a more viable option for residential construction
than it already is. In order for CLT to continue to advance in the United States,
however, regulations will have to be updated. Currently, many regulations regarding
wood are done with timber framing in mind. Because timber framing has different
strengths and drawbacks than CLT, CLT construction ends up being severely hindered
in ways that don’t make sense. CLT has recently been adopted into the NDS, which is
an important step in developing separate regulations for CLT.
The U.S. Tall Wood Building Competition will serve as a pioneer effort for
introducing this new construction practice in the U.S. Although the buildings selected
for the competition are likely not going to have similar floorplan configurations as this
study, the current study marks the first attempt to design a tall platform CLT building
in the U.S. using ASCE 7 methodology.
92
REFERENCES CITED
[1] Green, Michael. “Why We Should Build Wooden Skyscrapers.” TED. TED Talks,
Feb. 2013. Web. Sept 2014.
[2] Summary Report: International Tall Wood Buildings. Issue brief. Comp. Forestry
Innovation Investment. Comp. Binational Softwood Lumber Council. May 2014.
[3] “Technology of CLT-based Wooden Construction.” Lesoteka Hiše. 2013. Web. 01

Oct. 2015.
[4] Thompson, Henrietta. A Process Revealed = Auf Dem Holzweg. London: Murray &
Sorrell, 2009. Print.
[5] Stone, Jeffrey B., Ph.D., and David P. Tyree, PE, CBO. “Designing for Fire
Protection.” ENR (2015): n. pag. 1 Aug. 2015. Web. 20 Aug. 2015.
[6] Patterson, Daryl. “Forte - Creating the World’s Tallest CLT Apartment Building.”
YouTube. Rethinkwood, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 18 June 2015.
[7] “Forte.” Victoria Harbour. Dec. 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
[8] “Stadthaus Murray Grove.” E-Architect. 2015. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.
[9] “Wood Innovation Design Centre / Michael Green Architecture.” ArchDaily. 19

May 2015. Web. 27 Aug. 2015.
[10] “Winners Revealed - U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition.” U.S. Tall Wood
Building Prize Competition. ReTHINK WOOD, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Sept.
2015.
[11] Ceccotti, Ario, Carmen Sandhaas, Minoru Okabe, Motoi Yasumura, Chikahiro
Minowa, and Naohito Kawai. “SOFIE Project - 3D Shaking Table Test on a
Seven-storey Full-scale Cross-laminated Timber Building.” Earthquake Engng
Struct. Dyn. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42.13 (2013):
2003-021. Web.
93
[12] Pei, S., J. W. Van De Lindt, M. Popovski, J. W. Berman, J. D. Dolan, J. Ricles, R.
Sause, H. Blomgren, and D. R. Rammer. “Cross-Laminated Timber for Seismic
Regions: Progress and Challenges for Research and Implementation.” Journal of
Structural Engineering J. Struct. Eng. (2014). Web.
[13] SCE / SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering
Institute, 2013. Print.
[14] Gagnon, Sylvain, and Ciprian Pirvu. CLT Handbook: Cross-laminated Timber.
Québec: FPInnovations, 2011. Print.
[15] “National Design Specification for Wood Construction.” American Wood Council.
Nov. 2014. Web.
[16] AxisVM. Computer software. AxisVM. Vers. 13. 2015. Web.
[17] “Subject: Connectors for Cross-Laminated Timber Construction.” (n.d.): n. pag.

Strongtie.com. Simpson Strong Tie Company, Inc, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Jan.
2015.
[18] Simpson Strong Tie. Strong-Rod Systems. N.p.: Simpson Strong Tie, n.d.
Strongtie.com. Simpson Strong-Tie, 2015. Web. 5 Oct. 2015
[19] “ATS: Strong Rod.” Strongtie.com. Simpson Strong Tie, 2015. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
[20] “U.S. Seismic Design Maps.” U.S. Seismic Design Maps. United States Geological
Survey, 12 June 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
[21] “ANSI/APA PRG 320: Standard for Performance Rated Cross-Laminated

Timber.” ANSI/APA. APA - The Engineered Wood Association, 2012. Web. 14
June 2015.
[22] “National Design Specification Design Values for Wood Construction Supplement.”
American Wood Council, Nov. 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.
[23] Ritter, Michael A. “Timber Bridges.” (2011): n. pag. Woodcenter. United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 1990. Web. Aug. 2015.
94
[24] Porteous, Jack, and Abdy Kermani. Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5.
Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Print.
95

Lenon Mines 0052N 10900

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Lenon Mines 0052N 10900

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN AND BEHAVIOR OF A MID-RISE

CROSS-LAMINATED TIMBER BUILDING

Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) is a new engineered wood material that was

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTER 1 HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 THESIS APPROACH OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CHAPTER 3 CLT DESIGN APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CHAPTER 4 FULL DESIGN OF A TWELVE STORY CLT BUILDING . . . . . . . 33

CHAPTER 6 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 1.1 A 5-layer CLT panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 4.1 Seismic Design Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified mechanistic design for a

The main advantage of CLT is sustainability without sacrifices - 1 m3 of CLT

Figure 1.2: The Forte building.[7]

On September 17th, 2015, the winners of the US Tall Wood Building

The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified mechanistic design for

Figure 2.1: Wall and floor panel layouts, units in ft.

3.1 Floor Sizing for Bending

LC1 1.4D (3.1)

LC2 1.2D + 1.6L (3.2)

Mb × 0.85 × 2.54 × 0.85 × λ (3.7)

3.2 Floor Sizing for Vibration

The vibration design is done in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 3 of the

3.3 Wall Sizing for Vertical Loads

Fc′ = Fc∗ Cp (3.11)

Fc∗ = Fc ∗ 2.4 ∗ 0.9 ∗ λ (3.12)

The bearing capacity of a CLT floor panel is given as:

3.5 Wall Sizing for Fire

3.6 Wall Bracket Selection for Shear Resistance

Figure 3.1: Simpson Strong Tie bracket design information.

Figure 3.2: Allowable load directions.

3.6.1 Flexible Diaphragm Assumption

3.6.2 Rigid Diaphragm Assumption

3.7 Global Overturning Moment

3.7.1 Global Overturning System vs Stacked Shear Wall Design

Traditionally, global overturning is dealt with by designing each shear wall

Consider a simple example of 2 isolated shear wall stacks connected by

Figure 3.6: Simple shear stack connected by coupling beams.

3.7.2 Global Overturning Moment Calculation

3.7.3 Global Overturning Moment Design Methodology

Traditionally, the overturning demand is calculated based on shear wall stacks

The process to determine the tension and compression to resist the

Figure 3.8: Simplified FBD of a CLT building.

3.7.4 Overturning Moment Tension Design

3.7.5 Design For Coupling Action

Figure 3.9: A single 3-story ATS system. [18]

3.7.6 Shear Transfer Through CLT Panels

In the strong direction, it can be conservatively assumed that in the worst-case

Where Fv′ is the factored shear strength in psi, given as:

Figure 3.10: Panel-to-panel connection.

3.7.7 Shear Transfer Through Custom Connection

A cross-section of the connection with the expected loading and resultant

Figure 3.11: Cross-section view of the shear connection

3.8 Lateral Wind Load Design

Using the design procedure described in Chapter 3, the following section is a

4.1 Properties and Assumptions

Table 4.1: Seismic Design Factors

Table 4.2: CLT Properties

Fc Perp Fc⊥ 425 psi

4.2 Floor Sizing For Bending

1.4 ∗ Self W t + 1.4 ∗ 30 (4.1)