EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2309

SOFIE project – 3D shaking table test on a seven-storey full-scale

cross-laminated building

Ario Ceccotti1, Carmen Sandhaas2,*,†, Minoru Okabe3, Motoi Yasumura4,

Chikahiro Minowa5 and Naohito Kawai6
1
CNR-IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute, San Michele all’Adige, Italy
2
Timber Structures and Building Construction, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
3
Better Living, Tsukuba, Japan
4
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan
5
National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED), Tsukuba, Japan
6
Department of Architecture, Kogakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

SUMMARY
Multi-storey buildings made of cross-laminated timber panels (X-lam) are becoming a stronger and econom-
ically valid alternative in Europe compared with traditional masonry or concrete buildings. During the
design process of these multi-storey buildings, also their earthquake behaviour has to be addressed,
especially in seismic-prone areas such as Italy. However, limited knowledge on the seismic performance
is available for this innovative massive timber product.
On the basis of extensive testing series comprising monotonic and reversed cyclic tests on X-lam panels, a
pseudodynamic test on a one-storey X-lam specimen and 1D shaking table tests on a full-scale three-storey
specimen, a full-scale seven-storey building was designed according to the European seismic standard
Eurocode 8 and subjected to earthquake loading on a 3D shaking table. The building was designed with a
preliminary action reduction factor of three that had been derived from the experimental results on the
three-storey building.
The outcomes of this comprehensive research project called ‘SOFIE – Sistema Costruttivo Fiemme’
proved the suitability of multi-storey X-lam structures for earthquake-prone regions. The buildings demon-
strated self-centring capabilities and high stiffness combined with sufficient ductility to avoid brittle failures.
The tests provided useful information for the seismic design with force-based methods as defined in
Eurocode 8, that is, a preliminary experimentally based action reduction factor of three was confirmed.
Valid, ductile joint assemblies were developed, and their importance for the energy dissipation in buildings
with rigid X-lam panels became evident. The seven-storey building showed relatively high accelerations in
the upper storeys, which could lead to secondary damage and which have to be addressed in future research.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 18 October 2012; Revised 12 April 2013; Accepted 12 April 2013

KEY WORDS: multi-storey timber buildings; cross-laminated timber; seismic performance; shaking table tests;
full-scale tests; Eurocode 8

1. INTRODUCTION

Timber has an excellent weight–strength ratio in comparison with other common construction materials
such as masonry or concrete. Furthermore, ductility of timber structures can be obtained through a proper
design of the joints with mechanical fasteners (e.g. [1]). This underlines the suitability of timber for use in

*Correspondence to: Carmen Sandhaas, Institute for Timber Structures and Building Construction, Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology.
†
E-mail: sandhaas@kit.edu

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

seismic prone regions. Visual inspections and evaluations after seismic events confirmed that timber
buildings behaved very well during severe earthquakes [2, 3].
Several research have already been undertaken to determine the seismic behaviour of timber
buildings, mostly in Japan, Canada and the USA (e.g. [4–9]). Mainly, these research projects deal
with modern woodframe buildings or post and beam structures, as they represent about 50–90%
of the residential buildings in these three countries. A vast literature exists on the racking
behaviour of shear walls (e.g. [8]) and pseudodynamic tests (e.g. [9]). Full-scale 3D shaking
table tests on light-frame wood buildings have also been carried out [5, 6]. The tests on the
18.6
12.4 m six-storey woodframe building [5] and the same building with a steel moment
frame on the ground floor [6] served to verify the direct displacement design approach [10]
developed for woodframe buildings. The six-storey building with a steel moment frame on the
ground floor was subjected to two-scaled Canoga Park records of the 1994 Northridge earthquake
before the steel frame was locked to test only the six-storey woodframe structure that was
subjected to three-scaled Canoga Park records with a maximum level 3 of intensity representing
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The authors conclude that steel moment frame
structures prove to be suitable for commercial space with large openings on the ground floor of
multi-storey woodframe buildings and that the woodframe structure itself performed well with
only non-structural damage. Further conclusions state that the design according to the direct
displacement design approach seemed to result in enhanced seismic behaviour of woodframe
structures in comparison with force-based methods.
However, construction methods with innovative materials such as cross-laminated (X-lam) massive
timber panels have not been fully covered yet. Quasi-static reversed cyclic tests [11–14], cyclic tests on
connections [15] and preliminary shaking table tests [16] were carried out. Their findings underlined
the potential of X-lam constructions as enough system ductility can be obtained without showing
brittle failures. Understanding the seismic behaviour of X-lam buildings is a prerequisite to its use in
earthquake-prone countries such as Italy. The lack of comprehensive research on X-lam buildings
resulted in the research project Sistema Costruttivo Fiemme (SOFIE). The SOFIE project covered
investigations in material behaviour, building physics, fire, durability and earthquake behaviour
including quasi-static reversed cyclic tests on wall panels, pseudodynamic tests and full-scale
shaking table tests of a three-storey building and a seven-storey building.
The SOFIE project was a cooperative research project supported by Trento Province, Italy,
and coordinated and conducted by CNR-IVALSA (Trees and Timber Institute – Italian National
Research Council). The shaking table tests of the project were carried out together with Japanese
partners from Shizuoka University, Building Research Institute and the National Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED). The tests on the seven-storey building were carried out on
NIED’s 3D 20
15 m shaking table in Miki close to Kobe. It was the first time that a full-scale
seven-storey building, of whatever material, has been tested on a 3D shaking table.

2. SEVEN-STOREY SOFIE BUILDING

2.1. Preliminary tests

The major tests within the SOFIE project were full-scale shaking table tests of multi-storey X-lam
buildings. Before carrying out these complex full-scale tests, preliminary tests on building element
scale needed to be undertaken for two main reasons. First, the general behaviour under cyclic
loading had to be assessed to develop suitable timber joints for the full-scale buildings. Second, data
for numerical models had to be generated. The shaking table tests were hence preceded by a series
of other tests:
• tests on joints;
• in-plane monotonic and quasi-static reversed cyclic tests on 3
3 m wall panels with different
joints, opening layouts and vertical load [17, 18]; and
• pseudodynamic tests on a one-storey specimen of about 7
7 m in three different opening layouts
in the external walls parallel to the shaking direction and without vertical load [18].

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

The series of monotonic and cyclic tests on different wall panel layouts allowed optimising standard
joinery of X-lam buildings by using commercially available hold-downs, steel angles, screws and
nails [17, 18]. The main scope during the optimisation process was to obtain ductile hysteretic
behaviour without brittle failure modes. As the hold-downs used for the three-storey building were
not suitable for high slender buildings that develop higher uplift forces, special high-strength
IVALSA hold-downs have been developed. Figure 1 shows the test rig with an inserted specimen
(pan33a) and the location of hold-downs (fastened with 6 mm lag screws, see Appendix A) and
steel angles. Figure 2 shows typical results in terms of upper horizontal displacement (Figure 2(a))
and uplift versus loading (Figure 2(b)). A vertical load of 18.5 kN/m was applied during the
monotonic test, and the final ductile failure at the end of test consisted in combined embedment
of the wood and development of plastic hinges in the lag screws (test was terminated at 80 mm
horizontal displacement).

2.2. Preparative full-scale test on three-storey building

Using the in the previous testing series optimised joints [17, 18], A 1D full-scale test on a three-storey
X-lam building was carried out on the NIED shaking table in Tsukuba, Japan [19–21]. The three-
storey building was designed according to the simplified lateral force method in Eurocode 8 [22]
applying a peak ground acceleration PGA = 0.35 g, the PGA for the most hazardous seismic region
in Italy, and a behaviour factor q = 1.0, which is the action reduction factor in Eurocode 8.

Figure 1. Test rig for monotonic and cyclic tests at CNR-IVALSA; specimen pan33a is shown.

250 250

200 200
Load [kN]

Load [kN]

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal displacement [mm] Uplift [mm]
(a) (b)

Figure 2. Test result of monotonic test on pan33a using IVALSA hold-down, see Figure 1. (a) Graph of horizontal
load versus horizontal displacement on top of panel; (b) graph of hold-down load versus hold-down uplift.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

Therefore, a purely elastic design was carried out without considering overstrength or any energy-
dissipating mechanisms. According to [23], an initial behaviour factor q can finally be determined
by Equation (1):

PGAnear-collapse
q¼ (1)
PGAdesign

where PGAnear-collapse = PGA at near-collapse state and PGAdesign = design PGA.

This approach is simple and straightforward as the design values can be directly compared with
the PGA values of the full-scale test results of the building after reaching a previously defined
near-collapse state.
The three-storey X-lam building had three storeys with a total height of 10 m and was 7
7 m
in plan. Every storey was loaded with additional 15 t to account for the total weight of a finished
X-lam building. The building was tested in three different configurations, differing in the size of the
ground floor openings in the external walls parallel to the shaking movement. The last configuration
with an asymmetric opening of 4 m on one external wall and 2.25 m on the other wall was tested
up to near collapse, which was defined as the failure of one or more hold-downs. Configuration C
is given in Figure 3. For more information concerning layout, joints and measuring, please refer to
literature [19–21].
Three different earthquakes were applied, El Centro, Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Kobe
and the Italian earthquake of Nocera Umbra, in increasing intensities of 0.15 g, 0.5 g and higher.
A total of 26 earthquakes were applied on the three-storey building, six on configuration A, eight
on configuration B and 12 on configuration C. Table I gives results for configuration C and
earthquakes with a PGA ⩾ 0.5 g. Near-collapse state was reached during the Nocera Umbra quake
with a PGA of 1.2 g.

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2nd - 3rd FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN

4.000
6.935

2.255

2.255

Direction of
Shaking

EXTERNAL WALL THICKNESS 85 mm

INNER WALL THICKNESS 85 mm
6.935
Thickness floor panels 142 mm
Thickness roof panels 85 mm

NORTH WALL ELEVATION SOUTH WALL ELEVATION EAST AND WEST WALL ELEVATION
10.0

6.935

Figure 3. Three-storey SOFIE building in configuration C.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

Table I. Three storeys, results for configuration C and earthquakes with PGA ⩾ 0.5 g.
Record PGAtest [g] Restoring intervention (before the test) Observed damage (after the test)
Nocera Umbra 0.50 Tightening of bolts None
El Centro 0.50 Tightening of bolts; replacing of screws None
in in-plane wall-to-wall joints
JMA Kobe 0.50 Idem None
JMA Kobe 0.80 Idem Slight deformation of screws
in in-plane wall-to-wall joints
JMA Kobe 0.50 Idem None
JMA Kobe 0.50 Tightening of bolts None
JMA Kobe 0.80 Replacing of hold-downs; tightening Slight deformation of screws
of bolts; replacing of screws in in-plane in in-plane wall-to-wall joints
wall-to-wall joints
Nocera Umbra 1.20 Tightening of bolts; replacing of screws Hold-down failure; deformation of
in in-plane wall-to-wall joints screws in in-plane wall-to-wall joints
PGA, peak ground acceleration; JMA, Japan Meteorological Agency.

The design peak ground acceleration was PGAdesign = 0.35 g. The near-collapse criterion was met at
a peak ground acceleration of PGAnear-collapse = 1.20 g. According to Equation (1), an initial behaviour
factor can be determined to

PGAnear-collapse 1:20
q¼ ¼ ¼ 3:4 (2)
PGAdesign 0:35

A behaviour factor of q = 3 is a good indication of the sufficient ductility and energy dissipation
capacity of X-lam buildings. Furthermore, the three-storey building did not collapse and remained
standing without permanent deformations. To illustrate the good lateral behaviour of X-lam wall
elements, values for lateral load-carrying capacity and stiffness for X-lam and platform frame walls
can be compared. The ultimate load-carrying capacity of a midply shear wall under a vertical load
of 18.2 kN/m was around 9 kN/m [8], whereas cyclic tests on X-lam panels under a vertical load of
18.5 kN/m provided a capacity of 39 kN/m [17]. A similar difference exists for the values of lateral
stiffness; midply timber frame walls have a lateral stiffness of around 0.8 kN/m ∙ mm [8] and X-lam
walls of 2.4 kN/m ∙ mm [17].
With the obtained test results on joints, wall assemblies and the 1D shaking table test on a full-scale
three-storey specimen, the seven-storey X-lam building could be prepared. Furthermore, the already
mentioned numerical model has been developed [21]. In [21], modelling results for different
earthquake loadings on the three-storey building have been presented. It was shown that the behaviour
factor q remained the same.
However, the building geometry did not change. Furthermore, the building response and energy
dissipation occurring before the near-collapse state is not considered applying Equation (1). As
stated in [24], this approach establishes a behaviour factor that is valid for design; any contribution
of ductile behaviour before reaching the near-collapse state is not considered. Moreover, the
frequency content of an earthquake and its effects on a structure is not taken into account.
In [24], the three-storey building was remodelled, evaluating the q-factor as the ratio of elastic base
shear over plastic base shear. The three-storey building was subjected to different earthquake loadings,
and the building’s eigenfrequency was modified to consider other building setups. However, the
modelling results presented in [24] did not yield different q-factors in comparison with those in [21].
The chosen q-factor for design is still 3.
Moreover, the influence of different lengths of the wall panels is considered to be rather small. In the
three-storey building, the walls of 6.94 m were assembled by three wall panels. Assuming one single
long wall panel without vertical joints, the q-factor should be reduced slightly as instead of energy
dissipation in the vertical joints of walls composed by various wall panels, long wall panels will
dissipate less energy.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

2.3. Force-based design

The seven-storey building was designed with the simplified lateral force method according to
Eurocode 8 [22] and with a behaviour factor of q = 3 derived from the shaking table test on the
three-storey building. Soil class B was chosen with a soil factor of S = 1.25, and the maximum
value of the design response spectrum was considered. The building was designed differently in
long and short direction with a design peak ground acceleration of ag = 0.82 g when shaking along
Y (long direction) and ag = 0.60 g when shaking along the short direction X.
It must be stated that, according to the Italian National Annex of Eurocode 8, the maximum design
ground acceleration for the Italian territory is 0.35 g. However, the seismic design of the seven-storey
building was carried out with the peak ground acceleration values of the Kobe JMA earthquake, one of
the most devastating earthquakes that occurred in the last decennia.
Furthermore, an importance factor of g I = 1.5 was chosen as for ‘buildings whose integrity is of vital
importance for civil protection’ [22].

2.4. Building Geometry and Materials

The seven-storey building as shown in Figures 4 and 5 had 7.5
13.5 m in plan with a total height of
23.5 m. It comprised 250 m3 of spruce wood (Picea abies) from certified forests (Forest Stewardship
Council/Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification) in the Northern Italian Trentino region.
The X-lam timber panels were produced with planks of a thickness of about 20 mm, a width
between 150 mm and 250 mm and an alternating assembly of longitudinal and perpendicular layers
until reaching the desired panel thickness.
The different wall thickness per storey due to different structural needs and the weight of the
building are summarised in Table II. The internal walls have the same wall thickness as the external
walls. Two plan views with the arrangement of the inner walls and the coordinate directions X, Y
and Z are shown in Figure 5(a).

Figure 4. Seven-storey building.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

Figure 5. (a) Two plan views of the building; (b) south view of the test building.

Table II. Wall thicknesses and weights per level.

Storey Wall thickness [mm] Weight of wood/steel [t] Additional weight [t]
1 142 16.2/0.8 —
2 142 24.8/1.2 30
3 125 21.6/0.9 30
4 125 21.6/0.8 30
5 85 17.5/0.6 30
6 85 16.1/0.2 30
7 + roof 85 6.0 + 5.5/0 —
Total additional load [t] 150
Total weight timber panels [t] 129.5
Weight steel for joints [t] 4.5
Total weight building [t] 284

The floor panels consisted also of X-lam panels with a constant thickness of 142 mm. As only
the building shell was tested, additional loads are needed to be arranged to account for the loads
resulting from finishings and imposed loads. Finishings are necessary for both walls and floors,
where usually the floor construction is very heavy, as an extra layer of sand is added for acoustic
insulation. As for imposed loads, according to European seismic design, 30% of the imposed loads
have to be considered. Therefore, an extra 30 t were added per floor, see Figure 6.

2.5. Joints
The joints have been designed according to the resulting design shear forces per storey. The various
joint types needed in the building were carried out with self-drilling screws except for the IVALSA
hold-downs, which were fastened to the wall panels with lag screws. Examples of joints are shown
in Figure 7. The number of connectors such as shear connectors, hold-downs and screws were
reduced when gaining building height according to the calculated horizontal and uplift forces. The
joint layout and information on the used fasteners are given in Appendix A.
In general, two critical joint locations of this construction technique were identified: the wall joints
in the corners and the joint of the floor slab to the lower wall. These two joints were designed such as

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

Figure 6. Additional load on floors.

lag screws

hold-down

142
(b)

hold-down

(a) (c) (d)

Figure 7. (a) IVALSA hold-down; (b) shear connector; (c) shear connector at base level; (d) interstorey joint.

not to allow for any failure. The first joint had to ensure the box-type behaviour of the building without
the walls falling apart. The second joint had to ensure that the floor slabs remained on the walls and did
not glide too much. Joints providing ductility are other kinds of joints, such as vertical in-plane wall-to-
wall joints and the joints with hold-downs (Figure 7(a)) and shear connectors (Figure 7(b)–(c)). The
in-plane wall-to-wall joints were made with notches in the two adjacent panels covered by a laminated
veneer lumber strip fastened with self-drilling screws [25]. During the shaking table test on the
three-storey building, the importance of the in-plane wall-to-wall joints became evident. Ductility
and energy dissipation capacity of this type of joint was investigated by further research [25] that
could confirm the good properties. Apart from the hold-down joints and the shear joints, only
these in-plane wall-to-wall joints worked considerably during the three-storey shaking table test,
as can be seen in Table I.
Moreover, the previous test series have shown that this construction technique leads to stiff
buildings that have a box-type behaviour. In a slender and stiff building, the uplift restraints have an
important role as they are heavily loaded because of the prominent racking movement of the
building. This is especially true for shaking along the short direction X of the seven-storey building
as then it behaved as a bending beam. The hold-down joints provide a continuous path loading; they

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

are acting as a ‘chain’ running over the building height. The hold-downs at interstorey level are
provided beneath and above the floor slab; the two hold-downs are connected by a threaded bar
running through the slab. This joint type can be seen in Figure 7(d). In between, the X-lam panels
are transferring the loads.

2.6. Measuring equipment

The building was equipped with 265 channels measuring displacements and accelerations. The
coordinates and positions X1 to X3 and Y1 to Y3 of the measuring system are indicated in Figure 5(a).
The accelerations were measured with one 3D accelerometer per storey (Figure 8(a)). On each
storey, eight 1D accelerometers measuring in the three coordinate directions were also assembled.
Accelerometers were necessary to establish the natural frequencies of the building before and after
each test series. A change in frequencies gives indications about the damage that occurred during
the series. Furthermore, with the records of the 3D accelerometers, the forces acting on the building
were calculated.
Another important value is the interstorey drift measured through the system shown in Figure 8(b).
The trapezoid plywood boards were fastened on the lower and respectively on the upper floor panel
without allowing for deformations. A simple transducer at mid height was then measuring the slip
between the two floor panels. This system was arranged six times per storey on storeys 1–3, whereas
only four systems were used per storey on floors 4–7.
Furthermore, uplift (Figure 8(c)), vertical sliding of the in-plane wall-to-wall joint (Figure 8(d)) and
the horizontal slip between floor and wall panels were recorded. Uplift was measured in every storey:
per storey, six transducer positions at lower floor level and four at upper floor level. The slip of the
in-plane wall-to-wall joints was measured four times per storey. The horizontal slip between floor
and wall panels (upper and lower walls) was measured with four transducer positions per storey.
The slip between floor panels and between wall panels in building corners was not measured. As these
joints were designed to be rigid, no movement was expected in these joints. Pencil lines confirmed
this assumption – the lines passing the different building elements were not displaced at the end of
the testing series.
The measurement sampling of the seismic tests was performed with a frequency of 200 Hz, whereas
the load in terms of accelerations was applied with a frequency of 50 Hz. A 30-Hz low-pass filter was
used for all measurement recordings.
142

upper
floor

transducer
2950

plywood

lower
floor
142

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8. Measuring equipment. (a) 3D accelerometer; (b) interstorey drift; (c) uplift; (d) slip of in-plane
wall-to-wall joint.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

2.7. Test schedule

Contrary to the shaking table tests on the three-storey specimen, only one configuration was tested, and
fewer earthquakes were applied. Three earthquakes were chosen, JMA Kobe, the Italian earthquake of
Nocera Umbra and Kashiwazaki R1 that occurred on the Japanese west coast only a couple of weeks
before the tests. The first six earthquakes were applied in one dimension and with two different
intensities. The larger earthquake component was applied along the long direction Y; the component
with lower PGA instead was applied in the short direction X of the building. The next three tests
were 3D tests where all earthquake components were applied. Between the single earthquakes, a
free vibration test was carried out to determine the change of eigenfrequency and to measure the
damping properties. Therewith, the damage induced by the seismic loading could be assessed. All
tests are listed in Table III.

3. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The test results of the full-scale shaking table tests on the seven-storey X-lam building are given in
Table IV (for level numbering, see Figure 5(b)). Table IV lists the natural frequencies measured
before and after major earthquakes and mentions the observed damage and subsequent restoring
interventions. The test outcomes of the shaking table test on the three-storey building were
confirmed. The seven-storey building remained upright and was easy to repair with some simple
restoring interventions. The construction technique was found to be self-centring and to have no
significant damage up to a PGA of 0.82 g, the maximum PGA of the JMA Kobe earthquake.
Incidentally, test 12, JMA Kobe 3D with original PGA, was interrupted. The hold-downs on floor
level of storey 2 (level 1, see Figure 5(b)) in the N–E corner in both building directions failed
during the test (Figure 16(a)) and had to be reinforced by adding hold-downs until the calculated
quantity of hold-downs was reached and by moving the present hold-downs adjacent to their
original position to fasten them again to the panels. These hold-down failures were due to a mere

Table III. Test schedule of the seven-storey building.

PGA

Test Input Direction Dimension Intensity [%] In X [g] In Y [g] In Z [g]

1 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3
2 Nocera Umbra E–W Y 1D 70 — 0.35 —
3 Nocera Umbra E–W Y 1D 100 — 0.5 —
4 JMA Kobe N–S Y 1D 60 — 0.5 —
5 JMA Kobe E–W X 1D 50 0.3 — —
6 Step X, Y 2D — 0.3 0.3 —
7 JMA Kobe N–S Y 1D 100 — 0.82 —
8 Step X, Y 2D — 0.3 0.3 —
9 JMA Kobe E–W X 1D 100 0.6 —
10 Step X, Y 2D — 0.3 0.3 —
11 Step X, Y 2D — 0.3 0.3 —
12 JMA Kobe interrupted X, Y, Z 3D 100 0.6 0.82 0.34
13 Step X, Y 2D — 0.3 0.3 —
14 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
15 Kashiwazaki R1 X, Y, Z 3D 50 0.155 0.34 0.204
16 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
17 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
18 JMA Kobe X, Y, Z 3D 100 0.6 0.82 0.34
19 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
20 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
21 Kashiwazaki R1 X, Y, Z 3D 100 0.311 0.68 0.408
22 Step X, Y 2D 0.3 0.3 —
*PGA, peak ground acceleration; JMA, Japan Meteorological Agency.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

Table IV. Natural frequencies, observations and restoring interventions during testing.
First frequency [Hz]
Test Input In X-direction in Y-direction

1 Step 2.34 3.32

2 Nocera Umbra E–W — —
3 Nocera Umbra E–W — —
4 JMA Kobe N–S — —
5 JMA Kobe E–W — —
6 Step 2.15 3.13
7 JMA Kobe N–S — —
8 Step 2.15 2.93
9 JMA Kobe E–W — —
10 Step 1.95 2.93
Damage Loose bolts in hold-downs, pulling-out of ringed nails in steel angles on internal E–W wall
level 1 south side of staircase.
Repair Hold-down bolts tightened, ringed nails driven back.
11 Step 1.95 3.13
12 JMA Kobe interrupted — —
13 Step 1.76 2.93
Damage All four hold-downs in N–E corner of level 1 failed (screws bent and sheared) but no
damage in vertical joint at the same place. Loose bolts in hold-downs, pulling-out of
nails – see previous damage.
Repair Hold-downs added: level 1, three in N–E corner and two in other corners; level 2, two
in all outer corners.
14 Step 1.95 3.13
15 Kashiwazaki R1 — —
16 Step 1.95 3.13
Damage No damage on hold-downs, loose hold-down bolts and pulling-out of nails in steel
angles – especially on upper storeys.
Repair Hold-down bolts tightened, ringed nails in steel angles driven back and some nails added.
17 Step 1.95 3.13
18 JMA Kobe — —
19 Step 1.76 2.73
Damage Hold-downs in levels 1 and 2 damaged but not failed (screws pulled out and bent) and
pulling out of nails.
Repair Hold-down bolts tightened (pulled-out and bent screws were not replaced) and nails
driven back.
20 Step 1.95 2.93
21 Kashiwazaki R1 — —
22 Step 1.95 2.54
Damage Often pulling-out of ringed nails in steel angles and no further damage observed
JMA, Japan Meteorological Agency.

error in the design drawings where less hold-downs were shown than required by the design according
to Eurocode 8. Another observation is the loosening of the hold-down bolts due to the excess length of
the U-profile serving as hold-down (Figure 16(c)). This led to local failure in compression
perpendicular to the grain directly underneath the hold-downs resulting in clearance between hold-
down and floor panel. Also, nail pull out in the steel angles could be observed regularly (Figure 16(b)).
Figure 9 shows the development of the first natural frequency of the building in the X-direction and
Y-direction. Any change in these frequency values before and after a test series gives an indication of
the damage experienced by the building. Before the tests, the frequencies were 2.34 Hz in X-direction
and 3.32 Hz in Y-direction. As expected, on the basis of the design strategy, the stiffness of the building
in Y is hence higher than the stiffness in X, the shorter side of the building. It can also be seen that it was
impossible to fully restore the building with the repairing interventions listed in Table IV; the initial
frequency values could not be obtained again.
Along the short direction X, the fundamental frequency decreased by 24% from 2.34 to 1.76 Hz.
Along the long direction Y, the frequency decreased by 17% from 3.52 to 2.93 Hz.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

4.0
3.5
3.0

Frequency [Hz]
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
y-direction
0.5
x-direction
0.0

test 1

test 6

test 8

test 10

test 11

test 13

test 14

test 16

test 17

test 19

test 20

test 22
Figure 9. Development of first natural frequency.

Figure 10 shows the accelerations in all three directions on level 6 measured during test 18, 3D
JMA Kobe with original PGA. The accelerometers were fastened to the floor of the seventh
storey. The maximum observed acceleration is 3.8 g in X-direction, which is a peak value in a very
short time as can be seen in the detail of Figure 10. A mean value for the maximum acceleration
averaged over a period of 0.1 s as indicated in the detail is resulting to 1.7 g. Therefore, the maximum
accelerations at the seventh storey during test 18 were relatively high, which can be explained with the
high stiffness of the building.
Other relevant measuring data are interstorey drift and uplift. These two displacement types are
critical displacements for the building. Figure 11 shows the measured interstorey drift for test 18 for
the long direction Y (Figure 11(a)) and the short direction X (Figure 11(b)). A small torsional
movement could be observed. The movement in X-direction of the building shows a maximum
difference of 89 mm for the east (X1) and west (X3) walls, whereas the difference between the south
(Y1) and north (Y3) walls is smaller with 50 mm.
The maximum single value for the interstorey drift is 67 mm between the second and third floors of
the building (see also Figure 12(b)), whereas from the monotonic tests, an ultimate value of 80 mm was

max=3.1432 min=−3.768
4
acceleration in y
2
0 2
0
−2
−2
−4 −4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
16.2 40
16.25 45
16.3 50
16.35 16.4
max=2.4254 min=−2.2493
Acceleration [*g]

4
acceleration in x
2
0
−2
−4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
max=2.3826 min=−3.1497
4
acceleration in z
2
0
−2
−4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [s]

Figure 10. Accelerations at level 6 during test 18.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Maximum interstorey drift during test 18. (a) Long direction: south (Y1), intermediate (Y2) and
north (Y3) walls; (b) short direction: east (X1), intermediate (X2) and west (X3) walls.
Interstorey drift storey 3 North Wall [mm]

Interstorey drift storey 3 East Wall [mm]

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

−20 −20

−40 −40

−60 −60

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) (b)

Figure 12. Interstorey drift of storey 3 during test 18. (a) Long direction, north (Y3) wall; (b) short direction,
east (X1) wall.

found (Figure 2(a)). The measured interstorey drift is hence not critical for the structural integrity of the
building. Furthermore, as can be seen in Figure 12, no residual interstorey drift was observed.
The maximum uplift during test 18 occurred in the N–E corner of the building. The maximum value
on level 0 (steel base) was 13.19 mm and the maximum uplift on the upper storeys occurred at level 2.
This uplift is composed of the uplift below and above the floor panel and resulted to 19.75 mm. The
monotonic tests have shown that this value is not critical for structural safety as then, an ultimate
uplift of 40 mm was found (Figure 2(b)).
Considering interstorey drift, known mass per storey of the SOFIE building and accelerations, load–
slip curves of the building could be derived. Applying Newton’s law, the seismic forces per storey were
calculated (using the recording of the 3D accelerometers positioned in the centre of the building) and
then plotted them against the interstorey drift of the respective storey. Figure 13 shows load–slip
curves during test 18. Measuring positions X1 (East) and Y1 (South) of the interstorey drift are
chosen. The short east and west walls (X-direction) were less stiff than the long south and north
walls (Y-direction) as designed intentionally. In [26], the interstorey deformation behaviour was
analysed, and it was concluded that in short direction, the building acted as a bending beam,
whereas in long direction, the building acted as a shear beam.
Figure 14 shows the overlap of the maximum seismic forces from Figure 13 versus the design load
resulting from the calculations according to Eurocode 8. The max base shear was 2830 kN in the long
direction and 1923 kN in the short direction. The design loads had been 3388 and 2479 kN,
respectively, which resulted in an error of 20% and 29%. This is an acceptable level, as the two
graphs also show that the design was on the safe side. The validity of the force-based approach in
Eurocode 8 could be confirmed.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

Load 6F in X [kN]
Load 6F in Y [kN]
2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 6F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 6F in X [mm]

Load 5F in X [kN]
Load 5F in Y [kN]

2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 5F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 5F in X [mm]

Load 4F in X [kN]
Load 4F in Y [kN]

2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 4F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 4F in X [mm]
Load 3F in X [kN]
Load 3F in Y [kN]

2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 3F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 3F in X [mm]
Load 2F in X [kN]
Load 2F in Y [kN]

2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 2F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 2F in X [mm]
Load 1F in Y [kN]

Load 1F in X [kN]

2000 2000

0 0

−2000 −2000

−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75

Interstorey drift 1F in Y [mm] Interstorey drift 1F in X [mm]
(a) (b)

Figure 13. Load-slip graphs of single levels, test 18. (a) In Y, south side; (b) in X, east side. Maximum shear
is 2830 kN on the first floor (1F) in the long direction Y (south side).

Figure 15 finally shows the measurements of a 3D accelerometer during a step input where the
building’s damping capabilities can be seen. Especially in Y-direction, the damping was quite
prominent with a damping of 6.9% in Y-direction and 4.6% in X-direction approximated with the
logarithmic decrement method between subsequent cycles, valid for low values of damping [27].
The first cycles were discarded to exclude any transient effects, and the calculation was based on
peak-to-peak values to exclude a possible zero offset of the data.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

(a) (b)

Figure 14. Seismic forces per storey, test result (test 18) versus design load. (a) Long direction Y, south side;
(b) short direction X, east side.

0.6
0.4 acceleration in y
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.6
Acceleration [*g]

0.4 acceleration in x
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.6
0.4 acceleration in z
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time [s]

Figure 15. Accelerations during step input, test 17.

4. DISCUSSION

After the whole series of tests with 10 major earthquakes, the building did not have any residual
displacement. The maximum values of uplift, interstorey drift and slip of vertical in-plane joints of
walls were not critical. Observable damage is given in Figure 16. Figure 16(a) shows hold-down
failure in the N–E corner after test 18, JMA Kobe 3D at original PGA.
As can be seen, the failure mode was ductile with fastener bending and embedment. Figure 16(b)
shows the pulled-out nails in shear connectors. This damage was observed especially after the
Kashiwazaki earthquake and often in the upper storeys with smaller weight where the large up–
down movement of the Kashiwazaki earthquake had great effect. Finally, Figure 16(c) shows why
the connecting bolts of the hold-downs were slack after the tests and why they had to be tightened.
Because of the small contact area of the hold-down with the wood, the wood fibres underneath the
hold-down were compressed perpendicular to the grain. The special hold-downs thus must be
produced with a plan contact area without any excess length.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 16. (a) Fastener failure of hold-downs; (b) pulling-out of nails; (c) wood failure in compression
perpendicular to the grain.

During test 18, high accelerations especially in the upper storeys with a maximum acceleration of 3.8 g
(Figure 10) were registered, however over a very short time span. Although these accelerations are
acceptable for human health as has been shown with research on roller coasters [28], they are
uncomfortable and displeasing for the habitants. Further research is needed to develop methods to
decrease the high accelerations, for instance, using tuned sloshing dampers at the upper storey. Other
possibilities to reduce the high accelerations are to use slip-friction connectors as proposed in [29] or by
assigning high ductility to some of the storeys that provide the energy dissipation capability of a multi-
storey X-lam building while the remaining storeys remain rigid and show a nearly elastic behaviour [30].
The test outcomes fully confirmed the results of the seismic test on the three-storey X-lam building;
the effectiveness of the construction system was shown. Not only does this construction system help to
avoid loss of human lives but the infrastructural losses can also be kept smaller as no permanent
deformations could be observed in the two tested buildings. Furthermore, observed damage can be
easily repaired if accessible. The force-based design approach as defined in Eurocode 8 is valuable.

APPENDIX A: Joints

The different joints in the building were as follows (for the definitions of grades, see below):
• Angle brackets in S235 as shear connectors to fasten building on steel base (BMF07116, see
Figure 7(c)), fastened with bolts M12 of class 8.8 to steel base and 11 annular ring shank nails
4
60 mm to walls;
• Angle brackets in S235 as shear connectors to fasten above-grade walls and lower walls to floor panels
(BMF07105, see Figure 7(b)), fastened with eight annular ring shank nails 4
60 mm per flange;
• IVALSA hold-downs in S235 as tension anchors in building corners and along the outer walls
(see Figure 7(a)), fastened with 30 lag screws 6
80 mm of class 4.6 to walls and with bolts
M24 of class 8.8 to steel base, respectively. M24 threaded bars of class 8.8 between the storeys,
Simpson HTT22 hold-downs fastened with 12 annular ring shank nails 4
60 mm;
• Self-drilling screws 8
180 mm of class 10.9 to connect the walls in the angles, staggered screws
with a screw distance of e = 15 cm;
• Self-drilling screws 8
140 mm of class 10.9 to connect the floor slabs (overlapped joints), e = 10 cm;
• Self-drilling screws 8
260 mm of class 10.9 to connect the floor slabs to the lower walls,
e = 15 cm; this joint is backed up by angle brackets;
• The butt joint with rebate of the walls was carried out with laminated veneer lumber strips and
self-drilling screws 8
100 mm of class 10.9, double row of staggered screws with e = 15 cm.
with (strength values are characteristic values)
• S235: European steel grade with 235 MPa yield strength and 355 MPa tension strength.
• BMF07116, BMF07105: article number of shear connectors shown in Figures 7(c) and 8(b).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

Table V. List of shear connectors per storey.

Steel angles (BMF07116 at level 1, BMF7105 the rest)
Storey In X-direction In Y-direction

Roof 48 22
7 Floor 13 —
6 Ceiling 15 12
Floor 48 38
5 Ceiling 25 26
Floor 75 57
4 Ceiling 32 52
Floor 74 98
3 Ceiling 31 53
Floor 97 106
2 Ceiling 48 53
Floor 93 114
1 Ceiling 64 58
Floor 138 128

Table VI. List of hold-down anchors.

IVALSA hold-downs HTT22 hold-downs

Storey In X In Y In X In Y

6–7 — — 10 —
5–6 4 4 20 23
4–5 23 20 — —
3–4 23 20 — —
2–3 23 20 — —
1–2 34 28 — 3
Steel base 44 39 — —

• Simpson HTT 22: article name of hold-down.

• M12, M24: bolts with a metric thread with 12 or 24 mm diameter, respectively.
• Classes 4.6, 8.8, 10.9: European bolt classes. Class 4.6 has 240 MPa yield strength and 400 MPa
tension strength; class 8.8 has 640 MPa yield strength and 800 MPa tension strength; class 10.9
has 900 MPa yield strength and 1000 MPa tension strength.
All self-drilling screws except the screws connecting the floor slabs were inclined to allow a better
loading in screw axis.
Special problems occurred with the lag screws that were used in the hold-downs. In the beginning,
no predrilling was carried out, although lag screws are no self-drilling screws. In some cases, the screw
heads were torn off, which led to the conclusion that the remaining, visually intact hold-down joints
were weakened significantly. As a matter of fact, the final failure modes of the hold-downs observed
after the interrupted Kobe 3D earthquake at 100% (test 12) were governed by a complete failure of
the screws whose heads were pulled off. Table V shows the number of shear connectors in the two
building axes X and Y per storey. Table VI shows the number of hold-down anchors after adding miss-
ing hold-downs at the corners of levels 2 and 3 after test 12.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Such an extensive research project is obviously carried out by a whole group of researchers. We would like
to thank our colleagues Gabriele Bonamini, Marco Pio Lauriola, Maurizio Follesa, Mario Moschi, Mario
Pinna and Giovanna Franch, the Japanese company Better Living and the whole staff of the E-Defense
shaking table at NIED Miki. Furthermore, such a project is also expensive – our thanks go to the Provincia
Autonoma di Trento and to the company Rothoblaas who sponsored the IVALSA hold-downs used in the
seven-storey test.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 A. CECCOTTI ET AL.

REFERENCES
1. Blass HJ, Schädle P. Ductility aspects of reinforced and non-reinforced timber joints. Eng Struct 2011; 33(11):3018–3026.
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.001.
2. Langenbach R. Resisting earth’s forces: typologies of timber buildings in history. Struct Eng Int 2008; 18(2):137–140.
DOI: 10.2749/101686608784218806.
3. Touliatos P. Seismic disaster prevention in the history of structures in Greece. Proceedings of the COST Action E5
‘Timber frame building systems – Seismic behaviour of timber buildings – timber construction in the new millennium’.
Venice, Italy, 2000.
4. Folz B, Filiatrault A. Blind predictions of the seismic response of a woodframe house: an international benchmark
study. Earthquake Spectra 1999; 20(3):825–851. DOI: 10.1193/1.1774989.
5. Van de Lindt JW, Pei S, Pryor SE, Shimizu H, Isoda H. Experimental seismic response of a full-scale six-story light-frame
wood building. J Struct Eng 2010; 136(10):1262–1272. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000222.
6. Van de Lindt JW, Pryor SE, Pei S. Shake table testing of a full-scale seven-story steel-wood apartment building. Eng
Struct 2011; 33(3):757–766. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.031.
7. Ceccotti A, Karacabeyli E. Validation of seismic design parameters for wood-frame shearwall systems. Can J Civ
Eng 2002; 29(3):484–498. DOI: 10.1139/L02-026.
8. Varoglu E, Karacabeyli E, Stiemer S, Ni C. Midply wood shear wall system: concept and performance in static
and cyclic testing. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2006; 132(9):1417–1425. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)
132:9(1417).
9. Yasumura M. Pseudodynamic tests on conventional timber structures with shear walls. Proceedings of the 36th
CIB-W18-Meeting, paper 36-15-4. Colorado, USA, 2003.
10. Pang W, Rosowsky DV, Pei S, van de Lindt JW. Simplified direct displacement design of six-story woodframe
building and pretest seismic performance assessment. J Struct Eng 2010; 136(7):813–825. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000181.

11. Dujic B, Klobcar S, Zarnić R. Influence of openings on shear capacity of wooden walls. Proceedings of the 40th
CIB-W18-Meeting, paper 40-15-6. Bled, Slovenia, 2007.
12. Blass HJ, Schädle P. Verhalten einer Massivholzbauweise unter Erdbebenlasten. Karlsruher Berichte zum
Ingenieurholzbau Band 18. Karlsruhe, Germany, 2011.
13. Popovski M, Schneider J, Schweinsteiger M. Lateral load resistance of cross-laminated wood panels. 11th World
Conference of Timber Engineering WCTE. Riva del Garda, Italy, 2010.
14. Gavric I, Ceccotti A, Fragiacomo M. Experimental cyclic tests on cross-laminated timber panels and typical
connections. 15th Conference of the Italian National Association of Earthquake Engineering (ANIDIS). Bari,
Italy, 2011.
15. Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A. Strength and deformation characteristics of typical X-lam connections. 12th
World Conference of Timber Engineering WCTE. Auckland, New Zealand, 2012.

16. Dujic B, Hristovski V, Stojmanovska M, Zarnić R. Experimental investigation of massive wooden wall panel systems
subjected to seismic excitation. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
Genf, Switzerland, 2006.
17. Ceccotti A, Lauriola MP, Pinna M, Sandhaas C. SOFIE project – cyclic tests on cross-laminated wooden panels.
Proceedings of the World Conference of Timber Engineering (WCTE). Portland, Oregon, USA, 2006.
18. Lauriola MP, Sandhaas C. Quasi-static and pseudodynamic tests on X-lam walls and buildings. Proceedings of the
COST Action E29 Workshop ‘Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures’. Coimbra, Portugal, 2006.
19. Ceccotti A, Follesa M. Seismic behaviour of multi-storey X-lam buildings. Proceedings of the COST Action E29
Workshop ‘Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures’. Coimbra, Portugal, 2006.
20. Ceccotti A, Yasumura M, Minowa C, Lauriola MP, Follesa M, Sandhaas C. Which seismic behaviour factor for
multi-storey buildings made of cross-laminated wooden panels? Proceedings of the 39th CIB-W18-Meeting, paper
39-15-2. Florence, Italy, 2006.
21. Ceccotti A. New technology for construction of medium-rise buildings in seismic regions: the X-lam case. Struct Eng
Int 2008; 18(2):156–165. DOI: 10.2749/101686608784218680.
22. EN 1998–1:2004, Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
23. Ceccotti A, Sandhaas C. A proposal for a standard procedure to establish the seismic behaviour factor q
of timber buildings. Proceedings of the World Conference of Timber Engineering (WCTE). Riva del Garda,
Italy, 2010.
24. Pozza L, Scotta R, Vitaliani R. A non-linear numerical model for the assessment of the seismic behaviour and
ductility factor of X-Lam timber structures. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Timber Structures, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2009, pp 151–162.
25. Sandhaas C, van de Kuilen JWG, Boukes J, Ceccotti A. Analysis of X-lam panel-to-panel connections
under monotonic and cyclic loading. Proceedings of the 42nd CIB-W18 Meeting, paper 42-12-2, Dübendorf,
Switzerland, 2009.
26. Okabe M, Ceccotti A, Yasumura M, Minowa C, Kawai N, Sandhaas C, Shimizu H. Comparison with measuring
method of internal story drift on shaking table test of 7 story X-Lam building. Proceedings of the World Conference
of Timber Engineering (WCTE). Riva del Garda, Italy, 2010.
27. Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill: Singapore, 1993.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 3D SHAKING TABLE TEST ON A SEVEN-STOREY FULL-SCALE X-LAM BUILDING

28. Rohde M, Kupers H. Admissible accelerations on humans for amusement park rides in the new revision of the
international standards. Bauingenieur 2012: 87(3):108–115 (in German).
29. Loo WY, Quenneville P, Chouw N. Design and numerical verification of a multi-storey timber shear wall with
slip-friction connectors. Proceedings of the World Conference of Timber Engineering (WCTE). Riva del Garda,
Italy, 2010.
30. Pei S, Dolan JD, Liu H, van de Lindt J, Ricles JM. Active damping for cross-laminated timber structures to improve
seismic performance. 12th World Conference of Timber Engineering WCTE. Auckland, New Zealand, 2012.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe