STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF CROSS

LAMINATED TIMBER AND ITS DESIGN

FOR A MULTI STOREY STRUCTURE
Final Report

School of MACE 3rd Year Civil Engineering

MACE 31030 & 40510 Individual Project 2020-2021
Full Year (Civil)

University ID: 10381464

1
Abstract
Timber, one of the oldest construction materials known to man is given a new lease in life in
the form of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT). Relatively unknown at first, CLT has gain
recognition as a form of engineered timber, which increases the application of timber
components for much larger structures than previously possible or practical.

In a world where the ever-looming threat of climate change is ever present, CLT is ever now
being recognised in many developed nations due to its structural strength and low emission
of greenhouse gases via its manufacturing process.

With that said, other structural properties need to be investigated to determine whether CLT
fits its true purpose as a major structural component in multi storey buildings. This project
report includes a literature review of the existing research and usage of CLT and intends to
verify its compatibility in multi storey buildings with proven experimental testing data and
computational /mathematical methods.

The project intends to design a CLT structure which showcases the structural capabilities of
CLT with Hand Calculation Analysis.

2
Acknowledgement
A special token of gratitude is extended to my supervisor Dr Lee Cunningham for his dedicated
mentorship throughout the period of this project. Quick responses to emails, additional
supervisor meetings outside the timetable scope are just a few of many guidance and
attention he has bestowed.

I would also like to thank my parents and family support. The never-ending queries and
encouragement they have given in the past academic year have been surreal. Juggled in with
the exams and other module coursework, the help could not be forgotten.

Appreciation is also warranted for Mr Victor Wong and Mr JJ Wong for their much-needed
foresight into timber and specifically Cross Laminated Timber. Being timber industry players
themselves, their knowledge on the material and their past research papers have been
beneficial in shaping of this report.

3
List of Figures
Figure 1 Timber [29]................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Timber Constituents which shows the different aspects of softwood and hardwood,
in both ray and longitudinal cells. [34] .................................................................................... 12
Figure 3 Flow process of timber to its products. [21] .............................................................. 14
Figure 4 Stress and strain graphs for forces parallel and perpendicular to grain. [39] ........... 15
Figure 5 Regular Plywood [27] ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 CC Grade Italian Poplar Plywood [41] Figure 7 AB Grade
Birchwood Plywood [41] .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 Cross laminated timber perspective view of layers. [12} Figure 9 Cross-
Laminated-Timber side view. [11] ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 10 Multi-storey platform-frame construction using CLT. [10] ..................................... 23
Figure 11 CLT platform-frame external wall-floor junction [10] ............................................. 24
Figure 12 Wall to Floor Connection [2] .................................................................................... 24
Figure 13 A typical floor slab arrangement using CLT showing the continuity over internal
loadbearing walls and discontinuity over separating walls. [10] ............................................ 26
Figure 14 A hybrid option for combining highly insulated external walls with CLT loadbearing
cross-walls. [10] ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 15 Comparison of the energy consumption (GJ/m2) of various construction methods
during production [11] ............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 16 Predicted transportation distances from European manufacturers to a given UK
construction site [23] ............................................................................................................... 29
Figure 17 Dalston Lane during mid-construction with CLT seen used as structural frame. [2]
.................................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 18 A view of the interior and exterior parts of Dalston Lane with the yellow highlights
indicating CLT structures. [32] ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 19 Front view of Dalston Lane interior where yellow highlights indicate floor slab and
wall panels being made from CLT [32] .................................................................................... 32
Figure 20 Trafalgar Place, completed CLT project in London [16] ........................................... 33
Figure 21 Overall Schematic of Trafalgar Place [38] ................................................................ 34
Figure 22 Plan view of under-construction part of Trafalgar Place [38] ................................. 34

4
Figure 23 Bridport House [37] ................................................................................................. 35
Figure 24 CLT Wall panels erected on-site at Bridport House. [37] ........................................ 36
Figure 25 Cross Laminated Timber specimen in a (5-layer) and b (3-layer). [20] ................... 37
Figure 26 Stress–strain relationship for CLT panels under in-plane compression for both
major and minor compressive direction. [20] ......................................................................... 39
Figure 27 Orientation of the experimental setup with a closer look at the shear plane on the
right. [4] ................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 28 Graph on left showing typical load displacement behaviour for series ‘EN-C’ [4] .. 41
Figure 29 Placement of cohesive elements in numerical model. [4} ...................................... 42
Figure 30 Boxplot of shear strength fv, net,12 of setup “EN” vs. parameter variations with
median values of setup “CIB” included. [4] ............................................................................. 43
Figure 31 Plot of Shear strength against shear area of CLT specimen from various published
testing data [4] ......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 32 Short span bending test setup. [43] ........................................................................ 45
Figure 33 Modified planar shear test setup. [43] .................................................................... 45
Figure 34 Rolling Shear failure mode of CLT20 (Left) and CLT35 (Right) [43] ......................... 46
Figure 35 RS failure modes observed in the planar shear specimens. [43] ............................ 46
Figure 36 Cumulative distribution of RS strength of the bending specimens. [43] ................ 47
Figure 37 Cumulative distribution of RS strength of the planar shear specimens [43] .......... 47
Figure 38 Experimental setup of the bending test. [20] .......................................................... 49
Figure 39 Bending Displacements of 3-layer CLT specimens [20] ........................................... 51
Figure 40 Bending Displacements of 5-layer CLT specimens [20] ........................................... 51
Figure 41 Failure mode of CLT bending panels of 3-layer (Left) and 5-layer (Right) [20] ....... 51
Figure 42 Cross Laminated Timber specimen after fire testing from three different
orientations. [7] ....................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 43 Results of vertical and horizontal deflection of the walls [7] .................................. 56
Figure 44 Results of vertical deflection of the floors. [7] ........................................................ 57
Figure 45 Delamination Test Results. [30] ............................................................................... 59
Figure 46 The median delamination and wood fibre failures values for specimens
manufactured with different pressures. [30] .......................................................................... 59
Figure 47 CLT specimen before delamination test. [30].......................................................... 60
Figure 48 CLT specimen after delamination test. [30]............................................................. 60

5
Figure 49 CLT specimen after delamination test. [30]............................................................. 60
Figure 50 Connection between CLT floor slab and Load bearing wall [45] ............................. 62
Figure 51 Cross section of CLT floor slab [44] .......................................................................... 63
Figure 52 Load path of CLT Floor slab and Wall....................................................................... 63
Figure 53 Load path of CLT floor slab and joists ...................................................................... 64
Figure 54 Plan View of Design of Multi-storey Building .......................................................... 65
Figure 55 Front Elevation of Design of Multi-storey Building ................................................. 66
Figure 56 Side Elevation of Design of Multi-storey Building ................................................... 67
Figure 57 Section View of Floor Slab showing thickness of each layer. .................................. 67
Figure 58 Section View of the CLT Wall Panel ......................................................................... 68
Figure 59 Wall Panels with Openings. [33] .............................................................................. 78
Figure 60 normal and shear stress diagrams in a CLT section for various values of the
connection efficiency factor γ. [31] ......................................................................................... 82
Figure 61 The 4x4 stiffness matrix K [31]................................................................................. 82
Figure 62 Notch Shear Connection (Left) and Screw Shear Connection (Right) [36] .............. 84
Figure 63 Principal shear force F in relation to the screw connection [36] ............................ 85
Figure 64 Notch depth tk = 20 mm, without hanger for timber in front of the notch; Kser = Fv
/u = 584 kN/mm/m [36]........................................................................................................... 85
Figure 65 Notch depth tk = 15 mm, hanger thickness Δt = t1 – tk = 5 mm beneath the notch;
Kser = 707 kN/mm/m [36] ......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 66 Load deflection curve in full plate test [36] ............................................................. 87
Figure 67 Influence of the side length ratio on the maximum deflection [36] ....................... 88
Figure 68 Comparison by deflection of different timber‐concrete‐composite slabs [36} ...... 88

6
List of Tables
Table 1 Timber strength classes based on European Standard BS EN 336. [39] ..................... 13
Table 2 Common structural engineered timber products in Europe. [21] .............................. 13
Table 3 Regular Plywood characteristics [24] .......................................................................... 16
Table 4 ASTM Codes for CLT .................................................................................................... 21
Table 5 CSA Codes for CLT ....................................................................................................... 21
Table 6 ASTM Codes for CLT .................................................................................................... 22
Table 7 CSA Codes for CLT ....................................................................................................... 22
Table 8 Stiffness and strength of CLT specimen in parallel and perpendicular to grain
directions. [20] ......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 9 Test parameters and main statistics of density and shear strength at 12 % moisture
content according to Hirschmann (2011) [4] ........................................................................... 40
Table 10 Summary of all the test results in terms of average RS strength, COV and the
characteristic strength values. [43] ......................................................................................... 48
Table 11 Measurements and parameters of CLT specimen in bending test. [20] ................... 49
Table 12 Experimental results for 3-layer CLT bending panels (CL3/105/3300) [20] ............. 52
Table 13 Experimental results for 5-layer CLT bending panels (CL5/155/4800) [20] ............. 52
Table 14 Test results of fire tests on CLT wall panels [7] ......................................................... 55
Table 15 Test results of fire tests on CLT floor panels [7] ....................................................... 56
Table 16 Material properties for strength graded timber used for CLT [33] .......................... 69
Table 17 Examples of characteristic strength values for CLT panels based on the strength
properties of the timber board [33] ........................................................................................ 69
Table 18 Examples of characteristic strength values for CLT panels based on the strength
properties of the timber board [33] ........................................................................................ 70
Table 19 Density of CLT Panels [33] ......................................................................................... 70
Table 20 Properties of 5-layer symmetrical CLT panel, strip of width bx = 1.0 m. Slab
thickness 160 mm (40/20/40/20/40) [33] ............................................................................... 70
Table 21 Load and Load factors [33] ........................................................................................ 70
Table 22 Partial factor for safety class, γd, when designing in the ultimate limit state [33] ... 71
Table 23 Values for kmod for CLT. [33]..................................................................................... 71
Table 24 Values for kdef for CLT. [33] ........................................................................................ 71

7
Table 25 Properties of 3-layer symmetrical CLT panel, strip of width bx = 1.0 m. Panel
thickness 90 mm (30/30/30). [33] ........................................................................................... 79
Table 26 Verification indices ρPERP,E for the MoE tests for loads perpendicular to plane in the
moment-critical configuration. ................................................................................................ 83
Table 27 Parameters and boundary conditions of Slab Composite [36] ................................. 84
Table 28 Specimen Parameters to Load Bearing Test [36] ...................................................... 86
Table 29 Timetable .................................................................................................................. 91
Table 30 Gantt Chart ................................................................................................................ 92

8
 Table of Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... 3

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 4

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 1.................................................................................................................................. 11

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11
1.1 Background Information .................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Report Aim. ........................................................................................................................ 18

1.3 Report Objective ................................................................................................................ 18

1.4 Report Outline.................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 2.................................................................................................................................. 20

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 20

2.1 Dimensions and Manufacturing Process ........................................................................... 20

2.2 Application in Structural Components in a Multi-storey Building. .................................... 23

2.3 Environmental Sustainability ............................................................................................. 27

2.4 Review of Completed Multi storey buildings involving Cross Laminated Timber ............. 30

Chapter 3.................................................................................................................................. 37

3. Review of Experimental Data on the Mechanical Behavior of CLT Panels. .................................. 37

3.1 In-plane behavior ............................................................................................................... 37

3.2 Out of Plane Behavior ........................................................................................................ 48

3.3 Practicality Test .................................................................................................................. 53

Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................. 62

4. Computational and Mathematical Analysis ................................................................................. 62

4.1 Design of a CLT Multi storey Building and Hand-Calculation Analysis .............................. 62

4.2 Numerical Modelling using Modified Gamma Method beam theory. .............................. 80

4.3 Two-way Spanning Cross Laminated Timber-Concrete-Composite-Slabs......................... 83

9
Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................. 89

5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 89
5.1 Summary of Report ............................................................................................................ 89

5.2 Comparison with a Steel Concrete frame building ............................................................ 89

5.3 Future work ........................................................................................................................ 90

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix: AutoCAD drawing of Cross Laminated Timber Multi-storey Building Design

Final Word Count: 11160

10
Chapter 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information
1.1.1 Timber
Before we go into Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), the report will give some background
information on timber and plywood. Both unique structural materials that will help give a
better insight into CLT.

A type of wood which has been processed into beams and planks, timber possesses a high
strength to weight ratio, incredibly useful in construction as a supporting structure. [15] It is
made from wood or firewood of growing trees which can yield a minimum standard
dimensional size. With only wood specifically adapted for building purposes being called
timber.

Figure 1 Timber [29]

In present, angiosperms (Plants producing flowers and enclosed seeds) are the most
abundant tree forming groups, but almost all timber comes from gymnosperms (Plants
producing uncovered seeds such as spruce, pine, fir). [21] In this report, we will look
specifically at gymnosperms, softwood rather than angiosperms, hardwood. This is largely
due to the overwhelming use of softwood timber used for Cross Laminated Timber being

11
source from Europe. Figure 2 below shows a microscopic outlook on the timber constituents
in both ray and longitudinal cells for both softwood and hardwood.

Figure 2 Timber Constituents which shows the different aspects of softwood and hardwood, in both ray and longitudinal
cells. [34]

Timber is usually harvested from mature trees of the ripe age where it will be known as
“roundwood”. [21] It is then transported from the forest to sawmills for further processing to
remove bark and surface defects. Of which, 50% is recovered as usable board and plank
products. [21]

An important aspect in manufacturing timber product is strength grading. According to the

standard BS EN 14081-3, (Shown in Table 1) [22] it consists of two types, visual strength
grading (VSG) and machine strength grading (MSG). VSG largely concerns structural
weaknesses such as knots on the timber surface or splits and defects result of drying. [21] On
the other hand, MSG entails the stiffness and density for the strength classes using calibrated
rollers. [21] Further characteristics shown in strength classes include bending strength (units

12
in N/mm2), Examples include ‘C14’ (weakest) to ‘C50’ (strongest) as defined by the European
standard, BS EN 338. [21]

Table 1 Timber strength classes based on European Standard BS EN 336. [39]

Table 2 Common structural engineered timber products in Europe. [21]

13
 Figure 3 Flow process of timber to its products. [21]

Table 2 and Figure 3 above shows the many structural materials that are made from timber
and their simplified manufacturing process, along with its application and usage.

Structural timber possesses many advantageous properties which makes it competitive in the
construction materials market. As mentioned before is its high strength to weight ratio. This
proves helpful in lower bearing pressures and lighter foundations. Examples include areas of
bearing pressure sensitivity such as brownfield areas or tunnelling for tubes or roads. [39]

They also have high resistance to acid and alkali when compared to steel and concrete. [39]
Structures at swimming pools or docks tend to have relatively corrosive environments that
will affect the structural integrity of normal steel concrete structures. [39]

Timber stress and strain properties differ slightly however depending on its orientation
geometry with regards to the direction of force applied. When force is parallel to the grain,
an elastic behavior until fracture is observed for tension, while a slight plastic behavior occurs
after reaching its elastic limit for compression. For force perpendicular to grain, elastic limit
is realitively small for both tension and compression with compression again showing a region
of plastic behavior. All demonstrated by the stress-strain graphs in Figure 4.

14
 Figure 4 Stress and strain graphs for forces parallel and perpendicular to grain. [39]

1.1.2 Regular Plywood

In this sub-section, we will discuss regular plywood. The reason for discussion is because CLT
is now commonly accepted as the replacement for regular plywood as the common timber
structure material used. As shown from Figure 3 previously, plywood is one of many timber
products used for the construction industry, made up of thin multiple cross-banded veneers.
[24] Plywood can be broken down to two main types, deciduous (beech, poplar, birch) and
conifer (spruce, pine). [24]

Figure 5 Regular Plywood [27]

Shown in Figure 5, plywood is of cross-banded construction bonded with phenol resin

adhesive. While standard gluing quality is adequate for exterior use when properly protected.
[24] Urea formaldehyde glue adhesives meanwhile are used in dry or humid conditions. [24]

15
They usually have higher values given their ability to meet European standards relating to
formaldehyde emission and content. The other adhesive is phenol formaldehyde glued which
exhibits very low levels of formaldehyde emissions. [24]

Characteristic N/mm2
Bending, fmll 21.8–65.9
Bending, fm⊥ 6.0–34.8
Compression, fcll 18.5–31.8
Compression, fc⊥ 14.0–25.6
Tension, ftll 14.4–45.8
Tension, ft⊥ 10.9–36.9
Panel shear 7.0–9.5
Modulus of Rigidity, GV 530–620
Table 3 Regular Plywood characteristics [24]

These parameters in Table 3 encompasses various types of construction plywood (Birch

Plywood 9N/mm2, Combi Plywood 5N/mm2, Spruce Plywood 4N/mm2) and will be compared
with the data obtained for CLT later in the report.

Classification of Plywood depends on Bonding Quality and Biological Durability. Both of which
are affected by the adhesive type and core veneer quality. The classes of which are as follows:
Class 1 - Dry interior use only, Class 2 – Use in humid areas or exposure to occasional wetting
and Class 3 - Unprotected exterior use or exposure to frequent wetting. [42]

Figure 6 CC Grade Italian Poplar Plywood [41] Figure 7 AB Grade Birchwood Plywood [41]

The Grading of plywood in the UK is unique and may differ with other countries. They consist
of AB, B, BR ‘veneer’, BB, C and CC. The quality of which follows a downward trend along the
alphabetical order. [41] Starting with the highest quality at Grade AB and the lowest at Grade

16
CC. To illustrate, Grade AB (Figure 6) has a very consistent surface appearance with low
variations in colour. Small pin knots are allowed, but only a few millimetres in diameter. On
the other end of the spectrum, Grade CC (Figure 7) has open knots, discolouration, and splits
which affects its aesthetics. [41] The structure is still sound but underlying defects may still
exist on the underside of the material.

1.1.3 Cross Laminated Timber

The principle of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) is a simple one in nature. Imagine plywood,
where its reduction in strength and stiffness perpendicular to the grain compared with
parallel to the grain is ‘evened out’ with successive laminates of alternate grain orientation.
[11] What it makes up for strength, it gains in thickness. Thicker than plywood, comparable
to masonry, cross laminated timber has been touted as the new concrete of the construction
industry. [5]

The history of CLT is not an old one. First developed in Europe in the 1970s it has seen a
continuous development ever since. With special accolades going to Austria and Germany.
[5] The future does look bright for CLT. Since its market introduction in the early 1990s,
production of CLT has grown at a tremendous rate with production potentially reaching three
million cubic metres in 2025, with most of the growth happening outside Western Europe.
[11]

Figure 8 Cross laminated timber perspective view of layers. [12} Figure 9 Cross-Laminated-Timber side view. [11]

17
While its current presence in the UK has been largely imported from mainland Europe, great
strides have been made as the UK market develops, with several locally based UK plants
producing CLT from local timbers may soon become commercially viable. Furthermore,
numerous feasibility and research studies on CLT have already been published locally. [5]
Mostly on the Scottish-grown Sitka spruce which is manufactured in the UK. [5] However,
there is currently no equivalent design guide in the UK, but TRADA is in the process of
developing design and specification guidance to support the UK design industry. [11]

1.2 Report Aim.

Despite its growing popularity in Europe, timber used in construction material still has
relatively low exposure in other parts of the world where its mass timber is used merely for a
trading commodity, rather than a viable and sustainable construction material. The report
intends to demonstrate CLT as the new path forward to build a more sustainable future for
the world while showcasing its structural and practicality prowess.

1.3 Report Objective

The four main objectives for this report are as followed:

i) Understanding the mechanical properties of CLT panels.

ii) Review existing design guidance.

iii) Examine CLT current use via a series of case studies.

iv) Design a CLT structure which showcases its structural capabilities.

1.4 Report Outline

The report begins with the formalities with regards to the starting sequence of a report. With
a short abstract on CLT, followed by an acknowledgement of all parties involved in this
endeavour. It ends with a table of figures, tables and contents which guides the reader in
dissecting the report.

The first chapter of the report discusses the background knowledge on Timber, Plywood and
Cross Laminated Timber along with the report’s objective and organisation that layouts the
structure and flow of the final report to come. This keeps the report in a more structured way
and steadies the readers.

18
It is then followed by Chapter 2 which details the literature review researched. They
encompass four main key features, from the dimensions and manufacturing processes, the
application of CLT in structural components in a multi storey building, its environmental
sustainability and reviews of certain completed multi-storey buildings using CLT.

The report then moves on to Chapter 3, the magnus opus of the whole study, which layouts
the various experimental testing data on CLT’s structural capabilities. The included highlights
are the shear strength test, rolling shear test, bending test, compression test, fire resistance
test and the delamination test. All analysed to the highest of precision from experts around
the world.

Chapter 5, a more mathematical and computational analysis of Cross Laminated Timber.

Methods including a Multi-storey Building design with Hand-Calculation Analysis, Analysis of
numerical modelling using Modified Gamma Method beam theory and study of the Two-way
Spanning Cross Laminated Timber-Concrete-Composite-Slabs using finite element method
simulations with the programme OASys GSA will be discussed further in the report.

A conclusion of the report regarding the summary of the report, comparisons with other
material frame buildings and future works will be presented in Chapter 6.

References for sources studies are included in the bibliography.

19
Chapter 2
2. Literature Review
2.1 Dimensions and Manufacturing Process

Before we get into its structural properties, the report will first discuss about the material
itself. First, CLT is prefabricated using several layers of kiln-dried timber, laid flat-wise, and
glued together on their wide faces. [10] The adhesives used to glue the panels together are
Emulsion polymer isocyanate (EPI), one-component polyurethane (PUR) and Phenolic types
such as phenol-resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF), which all comply with the CSA O112.10 and
ASTM D7247 codes and are evaluated for their heat performance when exposed to fire. [10]
In the case of adhesives used, CLT cannot be treated with water borne preservatives as it will
have negative effects on the bond adhesion. [10] All the laminations are manufactured in one
direction using the same grade and species of timber. [10] When glued together in a press,
pressure is applied over the entire surface area of the plane, does increasing its overall
stiffness. [10] Vacuum or hydraulic press techniques were used to ensure an effective
adherence of the adhesives with the lamellas. The completed CLT panel is then trimmed along
the edges before being plane and sanded and transferred to a machining station where
openings will be cut for windows and doors and staircases of floors with a multi-axis machine.

The manufacturing process starts with boards of timber being glued to form CLTs of 80-
200mm thickness. [10] [11] Dimensions between 2.40 m and 4.00 m high, and up to 12.00
meters long can be achieved in some cases. [11] The plates are then cut into pieces and
placed in containers or low-platform trucks for transportation to various construction sites.
[11] The UK however does restrict practical lengths to 13.5 m for timber transported by trucks.
In the United Kingdom, CLT is standardised by the timber strength graded in BS EN 14081-
1:2005. [10]

CSA codes are for timber products standardised in Canada while ASTM is for the United States
of America. For both codes, they refer to timber as lumber. The symbols they used for certain
characteristics like bending strength and shear strength are the same with suffixes determine
the orientation and type. Examples include fb,90 (Bending strength), Seff (effective shear
modulus) and fv,0 (Shear strength). Below tables show the ASTM and CSA codes used for Cross
Laminated Timber.

20
Table 4 ASTM Codes for CLT

Table 5 CSA Codes for CLT

21
Table 6 ASTM Codes for CLT

Table 7 CSA Codes for CLT

22
2.2 Application in Structural Components in a Multi-storey Building.
90% of CLT strength comes from its fittings and joint. Only the remaining 10% comes from the
timber itself. [11]

In a multi- storey building, CLT structures are usually built using a ‘platform frame’ approach
(Figure 10 & 11). What that means is that walls are temporarily braced with raking props
before floor panels are lowered onto them and fixed. In certain cases, erection commences
from a corner or braced location before fixing the CLT. [10]

Figure 10 Multi-storey platform-frame construction using CLT. [10]

In the majority of CLT floor structures, they are usually arranged as one-way spanning slabs,
although two-way spanning capabilities of large slabs can be utilised with the aid of some
computer-aided analysis techniques which will be discussed later in the report. [10]

23
 Figure 11 CLT platform-frame external wall-floor junction [10]

After the completion of the floor slab, CLT is then used to build the wall panels which the CLT
floor slabs provided the platform for. [10] An intuitive way of accommodating the strengths
of both these components is arranging the CLT floor slabs parallel to the external walls. [10]
This enables the walls to be highly insulated and non-loadbearing. [10] Another feature is
adding cross walls which increases its load carrying capacity and thermal performance and
acts as an efficient horizontal diaphragm. This of course is provided if the connections
between adjacent slabs are designed accordingly. [10] On a side note, support is needed from
masonry basements, concrete, or timber frame walls for thin CLT floor slabs.

Figure 12 Wall to Floor Connection [2]

24
Figure 12 details a connection used in a CLT project in London called Dalston Lane. The CLT
contractors B&K Structures used it to increase the connection stiffness between the project’s
vertical wall panels and limit the horizontal deflection of the building due to wind. [2] The
connection also aids in preventing the floor panels from being crushed by the weight of the
structure and load above. [2] The connector comprises four angle brackets, each positioned
above and below the floor panels on either side of the wall and linked together by bolts. [2]
This is useful as a wind blow will cause one side of the connection to rise and the other to
compress, which forces on the risen side being transferred from the bracket through the bolt
to the bracket below and then down through the wall. [2] All to avoid the structure being led
up on the floor panel. [2] Finally, a non-shrink, non-compressible grout plug is fitted between
the floor panels to prevent the floor being crushed on the side of the connection under
compression. [2]

On timber floor structures, they can be supported by the CLT wall panels. This can be done in
two ways: One is the support on top, also known as the platform-frame approach while the
other is from the inside of the CLT wall panels, also known as balloon-framed approach. [10]
For the platform frame approach, the CLT wall panels are combined with engineered timber
joists built into the wall panels where the vertical load can be transferred through the floor
zone using timber ring beams and solid timber blocking between the joists. [10] In this detail,
the solid blocks and ring beam should be an engineered timber product such as laminated
veneer lumber (LVL) or laminated strand lumber (LSL) to minimise shrinkage across the floor
zones. [10] As an alternative to using engineered timber within the platform frame floor
zones, top chord supported open web joists can be used to avoid the requirements for solid
blocking beneath walls. Shear plates and screws act as horizontal shear transfers in the
permanent formwork. [10] Allowance of working margin of error is small at 2mm, given the
usage of highly accurate components. [11]

Often an overlooked benefit, the construction process vastly improves using CLT. It does not
just possess better dimensional stability than sawn timber, but it also allows for prefabrication
of long, wide floor slabs, long single-storey walls, and tall wall panel. Something very useful
in large multi-storey buildings. [10] The prefabrication is not just excellent in quality but is
also easily assembled, on-site programmed, and dismantled when needed. [10] This has been
to largely attribute to its low onsite mechanical fixings’ requirements and unrequired usage

25
of large, prefabricated panels and heavy power tools. [10] With the assembly of a 200 square
metre houses only requiring 5 working days and 4 working personnel. [11]

Another key feature of CLT is that it distributes concentrated loads as line loads at foundation
level. [10] This greatly reduce the requirement for localised pad foundation, which will be
highlighted in one of the completed projects below. [10]

CLT walls have high axial load capacity due to the bearing area of loadbearing elements and
high in-plane shear strength to resist horizontal loads. [10] Both features that will be studies
on later in the report.

Figure 13 A typical floor slab arrangement using CLT showing the continuity over internal loadbearing walls and
discontinuity over separating walls. [10]

26
 Figure 14 A hybrid option for combining highly insulated external walls with CLT loadbearing cross-walls. [10]

Mechanical holding-down resistance can also be greatly reduced by using CLT structures as
they have significant deadweight to resist overturning forces. [10] Something lacking in
common timber.

One interesting point of CLT is that its structural fixings are easily obtained. [10] This has
greatly helped CLT slabs which require slimmer floors than joisted timber floor solutions. [10]
Thus, achieving the design capacity with ease. [10]

All this information will be used for the design and analysis for the multi storey building in the
later part of the report.

2.3 Environmental Sustainability

Cross Laminated Timber boasts numerous benefits to environmental sustainability, but
notwithstanding is its low CO2 emission per cubic metre, when compared to concrete and
steel. [11] CLT does contains sequestered carbon, which is carbon naturally stored in wood
during tree growth and is not released into the atmosphere, unlike the production of steel
and concrete. [11] And the evidence shows, with an energy consumption of -0.5GJ/m2. While
the production of reinforced concretes consumes 1.05GJ/m2. [11] (Data shown in Figure 15)

27
 Figure 15 Comparison of the energy consumption (GJ/m2) of various construction methods during production [11]

CLT also acts as a supplement to concrete floors by increasing its thermal mass and
contributes towards the overall ‘U’ value of the building envelope with a thermal conductivity
of 0.13W/mk. [10] This is especially prominent in cantilever slab situations where thermal
bridging may occur. [10]

When compared with other timber products, CLT boasts one of the lowest transportation
distances required from European manufacturers to UK construction sites. (Figure 14) With
just an average of 1500km distance covered, CLT greatly aids in reducing the carbon footprint
through emissions of transports by sea and road. CLT dimensions need to be limited though
as not all trucks or containers are able to store and transport CLT of overwhelming
configurations.

28
 Figure 16 Predicted transportation distances from European manufacturers to a given UK construction site [23]

Special attention goes to Dalston Lane, a development we will discuss shortly. It has used
approximately 4500 cubic metres of timber, which roughly translates to 2300 full grown trees.
This has been used to house 800 people in this development, which again equates to three
trees per person. [2] A remarkable feat, nonetheless. One might wonder about the number
of trees felled but the timber used is grown in sustainably managed forests in Austria and
Germany before being manufactured into CLT in Austria and driven to the UK. [2] A total of
111 deliveries of timber were made to the site. [2] When compared to an equivalent-sized
concrete building, a total of 700 deliveries would be required just to build the frame. [2] A
huge decrease of emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is observed.

The close-fitting nature of CLT means it is easy to make buildings very airtight - figures of air
leakage rates less than 3m3m2/hr@50pa are routinely achieved, which cuts down operational
energy use. [16] This was demonstrated by testing data obtained from Trafalgar Place,
another project soon to be discussed.

Another case study project which will be analysed in the report is the Bridport House. A
carbon neutral project for the next 30 years, the prefabricated nature of CLT ensures the units
are fully airtight at 3m3m2/hr@50 pa (3 times better than the Building Regulations in the UK)
and energy conserving. [37] The project even achieved a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
[37] As one of the lead architects Paul Karakusevic described, “The air testers said it was the
most airtight construction they had ever measured.” [37] The carbon stored in Bridport House

29
was calculated to consist of 1,500m3 of timber, which equates to approximately 1,180 tonnes
of CO². [40] To put into perspective, it would take 165 years for this amount of carbon to be
saved if the building were generating the outstanding 9.7% of its energy from decentralised
or renewable sources. [40]

Besides that, a recent study by EAL consult showed that the large usage of CLT (i.e., timber)
has helped solve a vexing problem in North America. The millions of pine trees that have been
killed by a widespread beetle infestation but are still standing in Western forests, posing a
great fire risk. No longer they can be regrown but with CLT, their economic value is enhanced
and will not be left to waste. [6]

Furthermore, the US Forest Service in 2011 have concluded that wood has superior
environmental performance over other materials such as concrete or steel, even when the
wood stems from diseased trees. [5] Something far superior to a contaminated iron ore with
impurities.

2.4 Review of Completed Multi storey buildings involving Cross Laminated Timber
2.4.1 Dalston Lane

Figure 17 Dalston Lane during mid-construction with CLT seen used as structural frame. [2]

30
Situated in London, UK is one of the world’s largest cross-laminated timber (CLT) building that
follows the requirements of the Eurocode and is fully certified. [2] Standing at ten-storeys,
Dalston Lane boasts a 121-unit 33.8 metres tall development made entirely from CLT from
the first floor upwards. [2] Everything from core walls, floors and stairs involved using CLT.
According to its lead engineer, CLT buildings are 30% lighter than a building which uses steel
and concrete frames. [2] This has also opened an avenue to an additional 15 homes built on
the site when compared to using steel or concrete instead. [2]

The site of Dalston Lane is a challenging one as a train line and a planned train route run under
the site. [2] To tackle such a predicament, weight restrictions were added. Conditions like this
prove to be ideal for CLT.

Despite its predominantly CLT oriented structure, the ground floor of Dalston Lane does have
an element of concrete. This is mainly to prevent dampness to affect the condition of timber.
[2] Furthermore, slightly less than three and a half tonnes of steel were used for the upper
floor decks, mainly as additional support beams. [2]

Figure 18 A view of the interior and exterior parts of Dalston Lane with the yellow highlights indicating CLT structures. [32]

31
Figure 19 Front view of Dalston Lane interior where yellow highlights indicate floor slab and wall panels being made from
CLT [32]

The CLT panels were used for the buildings’ external walls, party walls, the walls surrounding
the block’s three access cores and the floors, ceilings, and access stairs of the apartments. [2]
All delivered to the site complete with specifically requested cut-outs for doors, windows and
pre-formed holes for soil pipes and wirings. [2] On-site application of this CLT panels was thus
greatly eased.

A total of 4400m3 of CLT panels were used for this project but they all usually range from 2.2m
in width and up to 13.5m in length. [2] Panel thickness however differs more with wall panels
having 160mm thickness on ground level due to large downward force but get progressively
thinner as levels increase. With the uppermost level having a thickness of only 100mm.
Loadbearing walls were stacked up on each other to increase structural efficiency. [2] Floor
Panels on the other hand have two distinct thickness. 140mm for the residential apartments
and 220mm for the office building. (Larger imposed load) [2] The floor spans were limited to
between 4m and 5m to maximise available space in height. [2]

32
2.4.2 Trafalgar Place

Figure 20 Trafalgar Place, completed CLT project in London [16]

One of the many brainchildren of Australian property developer Lendlease, Trafalgar Place is
the first phase of the Elephant and Castle regeneration project in London. It comprises seven
apartment blocks of 235 flats, two blocks of which are constructed mainly from CLT. [16]

The timber panels are made to measure in the factory, complete with openings for doors and
windows. This translates to a longer lead-in time, usually 12 weeks from scheme design to the
panels arriving on site. But this has not deterred Lendlease, with their project manager Mills
saying that the construction process is quicker, cleaner, and less hazardous than concrete.
[16] With an astonishing eight men needed to construct a block than the usual 70 if concrete
was used. [16]

33
 To illustrate, when compared to concrete, the first CLT block took 12 weeks compared to 20
weeks. [16] A near half reduction from its original time taken. [16] CLT panels arrive ready to
crane into position and are simply screwed together. [16] The need for carpenters to building
the shuttering and additional workforce to
put in the rebar, pour the concrete and strike
the shuttering is thus not needed. [16] And
additional five-week propping regime is also
imposed while the concrete cures. With CLT,
follow-on trades can start work as soon as
each floor is completed. [16]
Figure
Figure 21 4.4b2
Overall Schematic of Trafalgar Place [38]

Figure 22 Plan view of under-construction part of Trafalgar Place [38]

On Figure 22, it shows that walls and soffits of Cross Laminated Timber were used. As
described earlier in Section 4.1, Load from the upper floors is directly transferred to the
continuous wall sections, largely aided by its high axial load capacity.

Spruce sourced from FSC-certified forests in Austria, they provide a strong support for upper
floor loads. [38] The timber was sourced from a company called EURBAN where they
standardise the C24 graded CLT panels to be 320mm in thickness. [38] These ‘master’ panels
were then further processed into smaller panels with window and door cut-outs (panels of
required size and geometry) and transported to the site. [38]

34
A platform frame approach was adopted here as described in section 4.1. Where raking props
were used to temporarily brace the walls before lowering the floor panels onto them.
Engineered timber joists were built into the CLT wall panels using timber ring beams to aid in
transfer of vertical load.

2.4.3 Bridport House

A 100% social housing located at the Colville Estate of the London Borough of Hackney;
Bridport House is a redevelopment project for the area that replaces the 438 existing homes
with 900 new homes of up to four bedrooms. [37] Most of which are allocated for social
renting and shared ownership. [37] Design by architects Karakusevic Carson, Bridport House
boasts as the first multi-storey building in the UK where its ground floor is wholly
constructed using CLT. [37]

The circumstances for the project were not easy. Funding by the local authority was at £3.4
million with a period of completion to be within 18 months. CLT proved to aid greatly as the
CLT framework only required a mere 10 weeks to be put up. [37] Largely due to the easy on-
site assembly of the panels discuss earlier in the report. Comparing to the traditional
concrete framework which requires 24 weeks.

Figure 23 Bridport House [37]

The high strength to weight ratio of CLT was again useful for this project as one of London’s
main drainage (A Victorian storm relief sewer) runs under the project site and where heavy
traditional concrete structure would prove to be unsuitable. Load bearing CLT panels were
placed in a various position on each floor to spread the load and its self-weight along a line

35
(rather than a point). [37] Doubling the height of the original structure was thus made
possible, while only increasing its loading by 10%. [37]

The CLT were sourced from PEFC-4,300 certified spruce trees, supplied by Stora Enso Wood
Products’ factory and integrated sawmill in Austria.

Figure 24 CLT Wall panels erected on-site at Bridport House. [37]

36
Chapter 3
3. Review of Experimental Data on the Mechanical Behavior of CLT Panels.
All experimental data in this chapter have been sourced from research papers by other
researchers and they have been referenced accordingly in the bibliography as well as in the
text itself.

3.1 In-plane behavior

3.1.1 Tension and Compression test
In this compression test, CLT panels used were manufactured with a width of 310 mm, using
the No.2-grade Canadian black spruce lumber. [20] A common softwood used in research of
CLT in the United Kingdom. [20] Cold press with polyurethane adhesive were all applied to
the CLT panels where a further edge gluing was performed to increase its structural
performance. [20] Additional improvements were also introduced, which included lumber
shrinkage relief by sawing, forming the relief kerfs in the longitudinal laminations. [20] The
purpose of which is to release stress and reduce the chances of developing cracks when the
moisture content declines in dry conditions. [20]

Figure 25 Cross Laminated Timber specimen in a (5-layer) and b (3-layer).

[20]

The following measurements on CLT specimens and experimental parameters used are as
followed. Cross-section of the bending lumber at 35 mm × 35 mm (width × depth) (Shown is
Figure 21). [20] Total length at 900 mm (larger than 25 times of the lumber thickness at

37
875 mm). Net span of the lumber for the three-point bending tests at 750 mm. [20] And a
constant displacement loading rate of 5.0 mm/min being applied on the specimens. [20]

Below shows the results of the Compression test.

3-layer CLT, CL3/105

Properties Perpendicular-to-grain
Parallel-to-grain direction
direction
Stiffness (MPa), Ec3,0 and
7614.4 4303.8
Ec3,90

Strength (MPa), fc3,0 and fc3,90 21.1 13.4

5-layer CLT, CL5/155

Stiffness (MPa), Ec5,0 and

6838.8 3717.4
Ec5,90

Strength (MPa), fc5,0 and fc5,90 23.5 14.7

Table 8 Stiffness and strength of CLT specimen in parallel and perpendicular to grain directions. [20]

Analysis from the graphs of Table 8 shows that the average in-plane major compressive
strength (fc3,0) and the average in-plane minor compressive strength (fc3,90) for the 3-layer CLT
panels are 21.1 MPa with a COV of 6.7% and 13.4 MPa with a COV of 9.8%, respectively. [8]
While the average in-plane major compressive strength (fc5,0) and the average in-plane minor
compressive strength (fc5,90) of the 5-layer CLT panels are 23.5 MPa with a COV of 6.0% and
14.7 MPa with a COV of 6.5% respectively. [8] Overall in the major or minor compressive
direction, an increase of the CLT thickness increases the in-plane compressive strength of the
CLT panels. [8]

In addition, the fc3,90 or the fc5,90 is more than twice of the perpendicular-to-grain compressive
strength of the lumber (flc,90). [8] This is largely due to the CLT structure restraining the
horizontal expansion in the laminations under vertical compression and thus increasing the
minor compressive strength of CLT. [8] In conclusion, the enhancing effect increases with
increasing number of layers of CLT. [20]

38
Figure 26 Stress–strain relationship for CLT panels under in-plane compression for both major and minor compressive
direction. [20]

For comparison with regular plywood, we will use the 5-layer CLT. At perpendicular to the
grain, CLT has an average compressive strength of 14.7MPa (around the range of regular
plywood at 14.0-25.6MPa) and parallel to the grain at 23.5MPa (slightly below average than
the range of plywood of 18.5-31.8MPa)

3.1.2 Shear strength test

The principal consideration used in this plane shear strength test on CLT by Hirschmann (2011)
is that only one failure plane exists for shear loads perpendicular to grain. [4] Only direct use
of test data is needed here without any data processing with the specimen itself gained
directly from the full-size CLT elements. [4] Minor disadvantages such as the interaction of
shear and compression and the overestimation of the bearing capacity are largely ignored
due to the small angle rotation of the test specimen of 14°. [4] The experimental setup is
shown in Figure 27 where the shear failure plane and zone are highlighted in red.

39
 Figure 27 Orientation of the experimental setup with a closer look at the shear plane on the right. [4]

The CLT test material itself is a Norway spruce (Picea abies) of nominal strength class C24
according to EN 408. Conditioned at 20 °C and 65 % relative humidity to reach an expected
average moisture content, u = 12 %. [4] A total of ten tests per series were executed where
the top layers with 40 mm thickness were used. [4] Other parameters include thickness at 10,
20, 30 mm; annual ring orientation (AR) consisting of flat grain boards (fgB), rift grain boards
(rgB) and heart boards (hB) and width gaps of 1.5, 5.0 and 25.0 mm. [4]

Table 9 Test parameters and main statistics of density and shear strength at 12 % moisture content according to
Hirschmann (2011) [4]

40
All executed tests in series “CIB” and “EN” failed in the expected plane due to shear
perpendicular to grain. [4] Key takeaways from the results show that the mean and median
shear strengths at equal parameter settings in series “CIB” are always higher. [4] Assume that
the load path in “CIB” is proportional to the shear stress, a higher compression perpendicular
to grain stresses can be observed. [4] However, due to the moment, an interaction of tension
perpendicular to grain and shear is shown.

A possible stiffening of the compression zone attracts additional loads with both
configurations providing comparable test values. [4] Given that the uncertainty in statistical
inference in series “CIB” is higher and the load path more complex, the test setup “EN” is
preferred with a wider range of testing parameters. [4]

Although the material quality and parameter settings are comparable, the mean and
dispersion of fv,net in series “CIB_A” are significantly lower where an unexpected low
coefficient of variation is observed. [4] This may be due to the test preparation, whereby more
than one specimen per series originates from the same board. [4]

Figure 28 Graph on left showing typical load displacement behaviour for series ‘EN-C’ [4]

As the graph in Figure 28 shows, both “EN” and “CIB” show similar characteristic load-
displacement behaviour. [4] Hooke’s Law is clear in the first part of the graph while the second
part showcases a clear softening property, where failure due to a new shear mechanism is
observed. [4]

41
In part 1 of the graph before the peak load was reached, a linear elastic material behaviour
within approximately 0.2 Fmax to 0.8 Fmax is shown after some hardening of 20% Fmax, followed
by a regressive non-linear relationship until Fmax. [4] At which a combined failure of shear
mechanisms I “net-shear” and II “torsion” takes place. [4] Initiated by local exceeded
resistance in opposite corners of the failure plane, zones of interacting shear and tension
perpendicular to grain were clear. [4]

In part 2, after the peak load, softening is characterised by reaching a steady state at about
40 % to 50 % Fmax, enabling large deformations which increase shearing parallel to grain. [4]
It follows a successive dissolution of the separation of annual rings that leads to a composite
of fixed end beams, active in tension and bending parallel to grain. [4]

Figure 29 Placement of cohesive elements in numerical model. [4}

Failure at Fmax due to shear forces perpendicular to grain is caused by exceeding the local
resistance of interacting mechanisms I and II. [4] Furthermore, A softening to steady state is
given at approximately 40 % to 50 % Fmax while a successive dissolution of the shear fracture
zone leads to an increase of shearing parallel to grain and separation of the annual rings. [4]

In all, the shear forces applied perpendicular to grain lead to shearing parallel to grain which
also leads to the shear capacities and the shear behaviour parallel to grain and thus shear
resistance is perpendicular to grain. [4]

42
When compared with shear strength of regular plywood (7.0-9.0MPa), CLT reigns higher with
a median shear strength of 10.0-11.0MPa. (Shown in Figure 26 and 27)

Figure 30 Boxplot of shear strength fv, net,12 of setup “EN” vs. parameter variations with median values of setup “CIB”
included. [4]

Annual Ring Orientation:

Various studies from Keenan et al. (1985), Denzler and Glos (2007), Dahl and Malo (2009) and
Brandner et al. (2012) found significant higher shear strength (averaging 6 % to 40 %) in RL
(radial-longitudinal) in comparison to TL direction (tangential-longitudinal), Müller et al.
(2004) [4] [17] [18] [19] Shearing mainly occurs in the transition zone of early and latewood
in TL and fracturing of early and latewood in RL. This leads to flat grain boards to have higher
shear resistance than rift grain and heart boards. [4]

Layer Thickness:

Load transfer from top layers to the core layer via the gluing interfaces were found to have
caused a locking effect which restrains the shear action. The highest which is in the gluing
interface and declines until the centre of the core lamella. [4]

43
 Figure 31 Plot of Shear strength against shear area of CLT specimen from various published testing data [4]

Relatively good congruence is found overall with the steeper regressive course in fv,net,mean
against the shear area As largely dedicated to the locking effect mentioned earlier. [4]

3.1.3 Rolling Shear Test

Defined as the shear stress acting on the radial–tangential plane perpendicular to the grain,
rolling shear (RS) is an intriguing aspect of the mechanical properties of CLT. The RS strength
of timber is very low compared with its longitudinal shear strength. [43] For CLT, the crosswise
layup may induce high RS stresses in the cross layers under the high out-of-plane loads. To
illustrate, a CLT floor supported by columns with high concentrated loads may cause critical
RS zone in its supporting area while high bending loads on short-span CLT floors may have
high RS stresses in the vicinity of the anchoring points for lifting. [43]

For the RS test, the CLT specimen used is of a New Zealand Radiata pine (Pinus radiata)
structural timber of 35- and 20-mm thick laminations, graded CLT20 and CLT35. The influence
of lamination thickness on the rolling shear (RS) strength properties of CLT is studied. [43] The
short-span three-point bending tests and the modified planar shear tests from the
conventional two-plate planar shear test were used to exert high RS stresses in the cross
layers of the CLT specimens which causes the RS failure mechanism. [43]

For the short span bending test, factors such as sawing patterns of the laminations and gap
locations were not considered due to the laminations having mixed sawing patterns and the

44
location of the gaps being random throughout the cross layers. [43] A three-point bending
span-to-depth ratio of six were adopted, as shown in Figure 32.

Figure 32 Short span bending test setup. [43]

Figure 33 Modified planar shear test setup. [43]

For the modified planar test (shown in Figure 33), 4 steel plates in two pairs are connected to
CLT with screwed connections to transfer the loads between the steel plates and the CLT

45
specimen. [43] 2 rows of 4.7 mm X 32 mm stainless screws were installed on opposite sides
of the CLT specimen to connect the plates with the face layer where shear load is applied.
[43]

The results of the test showed (Figure 34 & 35) shear cracks at inclined angles 40°–50° to the
beam axis were initiated in the cross layers and further propagated to the glue lines between
the layers. The failure mode was brittle. [43] Some of the specimens of both CLT types
experienced tensile failures at the bottom edge at the final loading stage. [43]

Figure 34 Rolling Shear failure mode of CLT20 (Left) and CLT35 (Right) [43]

Figure 35 RS failure modes observed in the planar shear specimens. [43]

46
 Figure 36 Cumulative distribution of RS strength of the bending specimens. [43]

Figure 37 Cumulative distribution of RS strength of the planar shear specimens [43]

The RS strength was simply calculated by dividing the failure load by loaded shear area (165
mm X 950 mm). [43] The results are shown in Table 10.

47
Combining both sets of the test results from Table 10, Figure 36 & 37, CLT20 specimens have
a 21% higher average RS strength and 23% higher characteristic RS strength than CLT35
specimens. A large volume of wood loaded under RS stresses for CLT35 which causes a higher
probability of critical strength-reducing deflects than CLT20.

Bending Test Planar Shear Test

Characteristic value Characteristic value
Type Mean (MPa) COV (MPa) Mean (MPa) COV (MPa)
CLT35 1.97 0.131 1.45 1.99 0.122 1.49
CLT20 2.45 0.135 1.77 2.33 0.127 1.84
Table 10 Summary of all the test results in terms of average RS strength, COV and the characteristic strength values. [43]

The European Standard EN16351:2013 recommends the minimum width-to-thickness ratio

of 4 to be used for higher RS characteristic strength of 1.1 MPa as it has been found that width
to thickness ratio may affect RS strength results.

3.2 Out of Plane Behavior

3.2.1 Bending test – Modulus of Rupture (MOR) and Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)
For the bending test of Cross Laminated Timber, we would be looking at the same black spruce
CLT panels. Mentioned in the shear strength test. Ten of these will be 3300-mm-length 3-layer
CLT panels with 35/35/35 mm layups (CL3/105/3300) which are used in testing the bending
performance in the major strength direction, whereas another ten 4800-mm-length 5-layer
CLT panels with 35/25/35/25/35 mm layups (CL5/155/4800) are for the minor strength
direction. [20]

The span-to-thickness ratios of the 3-layer CLT bending panels and the 5-layer CLT bending
panels are 30.4 and 30.0 respectively, with a constant width of 310mm. As determined by
the ANSI/APA PRG 320 [26], which specified a span-to-thickness ratio of 30 and a width larger
than 305 mm for CLT bending specimens. [20]

Figure 28 below shows the loading configurations of a four-point bending test as specified in
prEN 16351 [28]. The two loading points are separated by a distance equal to six times of the
CLT thickness, h and applied to the central span of the bending specimens. [20] Displacement
loading rate of 6.4 mm/min was constantly applied on the CLT bending specimens with four
linear voltage displacement transducers (LVDTs 1-4) being used to aid in the measurements

48
of the global displacements of the bending mechanism (LVDTs 1-2) and displacements
corresponding to the shear free zone (LVDTs 3-4). [20]

Figure 38 Experimental setup of the bending test. [20]

No.
Specimen No. of Thickness Span Width Loading Target
of
label specimens (mm) (mm) (mm) configuration properties
layers
Two out-of- Bending
CL3/105/3300 10 3 105 3300 310 plane loading strength
points & stiffness
Two out-of- Bending
CL5/155/4800 10 5 155 4800 310 plane loading strength
points & stiffness
Table 11 Measurements and parameters of CLT specimen in bending test. [20]

The key parameters for the bending test are as followed, local bending stiffness (EIm,l) and the
global bending stiffness (EIm,g). The equations are based on EN 408. [20]

EIm,l = a*l21*(F2−F1)/16(w2−w1) (1)

EIm,g = (3al2−4a3)/(48*((w2−w1/F2−F1)−(a/2GAeff))) (2)

GAeff = κ*∑I Gi*bi*hi (3)

fb = Mmax*Seff (4)

Seff = EIm,l*E1*h/2 (5)

49
 - a, distance between the loading head and the nearest support
- l1, gauge length for the local displacement measurement
- F1 and F2 , 10% and 40% of the ultimate load-resisting capacity (Fmax) respectively.
- w1 and w2, local displacements (1) and global displacement (2) corresponding to the
F1 and the F2, respectively.
- GAeff, effective shear stiffness
- bi, width of lamination
- hi, thickness of lamination.
- Gi , shear modulus parallel to grain
- G0, shear modulus parallel to grain for longitudinal laminations = 682.8 MPa
- G90, rolling shear modulus for transverse laminations = 68.3 MPa
- Κ, shear correlation factor = 0.23
- fb, bending strength.
- Mmax, Maximum Bending Moment
- Seff, Effective section modulus
- EIm,l, Local bending stiffness representing the pure bending mechanism.
- h, CLT thickness
- E1, MOE of the CLT outermost laminations = 10925 MPa

For each CLT bending specimen shown in Figure 28, the global displacement corresponding
to Fmax is approximately 5.6 mm larger than the corresponding average displacement from
the LVDTs 3–4. [20] The gap between the average displacement of LVDTs 1–2 and LVDTs 3–4
is called the local displacement for the 3-layer CLT bending specimens. [20]

As shown in Figure 31 below, the gap between the average displacement from the LVDTs 1–
2 and LVDTs 3–4 is around 3.0 mm when the load reaches Fmax, which translates to the local
displacement for the 5-layer CLT bending specimens. [20]

50
 Figure 39 Bending Displacements of 3-layer CLT specimens [20]

Figure 40 Bending Displacements of 5-layer CLT specimens [20]

Figure 41 Failure mode of CLT bending panels of 3-layer (Left) and 5-layer (Right) [20]

In above Figure 41, brittle tension failure dominates the failure mode, especially in the
longitudinal section for both specimens. With special attention needed for the finger joint

51
section in the mid span of the CLT bending specimen, showing the highest damage to be done
there.

Global Experimental
Global disp. Local disp. Ke bending
Load (kN)
(mm) (mm) Fmax (N/mm), stiffness, × 1011 Seff, × 105 fb
No.
(kN) (F2- (N mm2) (mm3) (MPa)
F1)/(W2-
F1 F2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1) EIm,l EIm,g
1 3.513 14.052 6.065 25.010 0.129 0.670 35.130 556.295 4.304 3.970 7.5037 30.021
2 3.12 12.48 7.390 27.980 0.152 0.730 31.200 454.590 3.578 3.180 6.2377 32.074
3 3.217 12.868 5.785 22.470 0.255 0.730 32.170 578.424 4.489 4.146 7.8263 26.359
4 4.150 16.600 7.750 30.360 0.291 0.890 41.500 550.641 4.592 3.925 8.0060 33.240
5 3.446 13.784 6.748 26.480 0.297 0.800 34.460 523.921 4.541 3.715 7.9167 27.913
6 3.738 14.952 8.232 32.590 0.247 0.890 37.380 460.383 3.853 3.224 6.7178 35.681
7 2.548 10.192 5.730 22.770 0.444 0.940 25.480 448.592 3.405 3.134 5.9363 27.524
8 3.338 13.352 6.344 24.860 0.394 0.930 33.380 540.830 4.128 3.847 7.1964 29.744
9 3.484 13.936 6.986 27.580 0.276 0.880 34.840 507.526 3.823 3.587 6.6655 33.517
10 3.168 12.672 6.677 27.260 0.225 0.820 31.680 461.740 3.529 3.234 6.1526 33.018
Mean 3.372 13.49 6.771 26.736 0.271 0.828 33.722 508.294 4.024 3.596 7.0159 30.909
Cov 12.4% 12.4% 12.3% 11.9% 15.5% 11.3% 12.4% 9.5% 11.1% 10.5% 11.1% 9.8%
Table 12 Experimental results for 3-layer CLT bending panels (CL3/105/3300) [20]

Global Ke Experimental
Global Disp. Local Disp. (N/mm), bending
Load (kN) Fmax 5
No. (mm) (mm) (F2- stiffness, × 1011 Seff, × 10
3
fb
(kN) (N mm ) 2 (mm ) (MPa)
F1)/(W2-
F1 F2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1) EIm,l EIm,g
1 3.207 12.828 8.118 32.730 0.370 1.150 32.070 390.907 8.601 8.264 10.158 29.321
2 4.019 16.076 9.482 38.370 0.472 1.390 40.190 417.371 9.158 8.867 10.816 34.509
3 3.793 15.172 8.721 34.440 0.299 1.130 37.930 442.436 9.548 9.444 11.277 31.238
4 3.031 12.124 8.072 31.230 0.467 1.200 30.310 392.650 8.650 8.304 10.216 27.554
5 4.126 16.504 9.356 36.710 0.384 1.240 41.260 452.512 10.083 9.677 11.908 32.178
6 3.787 15.148 7.664 32.150 0.356 1.070 37.870 463.979 11.095 9.944 13.104 26.840
7 4.509 18.036 9.678 39.758 0.309 1.138 45.090 449.701 11.378 9.612 13.438 31.163
8 3.166 12.664 7.421 29.370 0.577 1.281 31.660 432.730 9.407 9.220 11.111 26.464
9 3.742 14.968 9.525 36.889 0.523 1.219 37.420 410.247 11.247 8.704 13.283 26.164
10 3.534 14.136 8.717 34.400 0.528 1.350 35.340 412.802 8.993 8.763 10.622 30.900
Mean 3.691 14.766 8.675 34.605 0.429 1.217 36.914 426.533 9.816 9.080 11.593 29.633
Cov 12.6% 12.6% 9.5% 9.6% 12.8% 8.3% 12.6% 6.0% 10.9% 6.5% 10.9% 9.5%
Table 13 Experimental results for 5-layer CLT bending panels (CL5/155/4800) [20]

Key takeaways from Table 12 are that Fmax, the average ultimate load-resisting capacity of 3-
layer CLT specimen is 33.722 kN with a COV of 12.4%. While Ke, the average global initial

52
elastic stiffness is 508.294 N/mm with a COV of 9.5%. EIm,l, average local bending stiffness and
EIm,g, average global bending stiffness are 4.024 × 1011 N mm2 (COV = 11.1%) and
3.596 × 1011 N mm2 (COV = 10.5%), respectively. And fb, the average characteristic bending
strength is equal to 30.909 MPa with a COV of 9.8%.

On the other hand, for 5-layer CLT bending panels from Table 13, Fmax, the average ultimate
load-resisting capacity of 3-layer CLT specimen is 36.914 kN with a COV of 12.6%. While Ke,
the average global initial elastic stiffness is 426.533 N/mm with a COV of 6.0%. EIm,l, average
local bending stiffness and EIm,g, average global bending stiffness are 9.816 × 1011 N mm2 (COV
= 10.9%) and 9.080× 1011 N mm2 (COV = 6.5%), respectively. And fb, the average characteristic
bending strength is equal to 29.633 MPa with a COV of 9.5%.

The overall bending strength maybe significantly lower than steel (which ranges between
500MPa to 800MPa) but It is higher than regular plywood (6.0-34.8MPa) and is one of the
strongest timber materials in bending strength. Additional reinforcements may be needed
when a higher axial-imposed load is put forth.

3.3 Practicality Test

3.3.1 Fire resistance test

The most common pseudoscience people have about timber is that it is easily flammable and
will prove to be more fuel for arsonists and accidents. However, Cross Laminated Timber
differs from normal timber and concrete in more ways than one and this report will detail
various proven data which disproves all the common misconceptions.

First, we will focus on CLT wall panels which have inherent fire resistance due to their large
section size when compared to timber-frame walls comprising of discrete studs. [10]
Experiments have shown that during a fire, a charred layer forms on the surface of the CLT
(Shown in Figure 32), which insulates the remaining CLT section. [10] Thus, reducing the entry
of oxygen and heat from outside to enable the section to retain its loadbearing capacity, and
significantly delays the further surface spread of flame. [10] It therefore becomes a natural
blockade against the spread of the fire while still supporting the overall building together. This

53
proves useful during the in-service and construction stage where fire resistance requirements
are high. [10]

It was not until recently that building codes have started changing their concept to a more
performance-based approach, where structures will be evaluated fairly in terms of their
actual performance in a fire situation and not the conventional belief. [7] The reduced number
of cavities in CLT, compared to light-timber frame structures, prevents the propagation of the
fire. A main cause of structural failure in timber structures. [7]

When total fire load increases, amount of combustible material thus as well. [7] For CLT, the
charcoal layers which assure low inner temperature of the timber might fall off, but the single
boards are held together by adhesives, prevent the spreading of fire. [7]

A small horizontal furnace at EMPA in Dubendorf, Switzerland in 2007 was used to test a series
of unloaded small-scale specimens, consisting of a massive timber panel and a 3-layered
timber panel, to allow for direct comparison. [13] The specimens were either 54 mm thick or
two specimens of 27 mm thickness were put on top of each other, whereas the 3-layered
panel consisted of 18 mm and 9 mm thick layers. [13] Polyurethane adhesive was used to
bond the plies of the 3-layered panel. The specimens were subjected to the standard ISO
temperature fire curve [13].

The results showed that the fire behaviour of cross-laminated solid timber panels depends on
the behaviour of the single layers. [7] If the charred layers fall off, an increased charring rate
needs to be considered for their design. [7] The same effect is observed for initially protected
timber members after the fire protection has fallen off. [7] Moreover, the initial charring rate
of the second layer after falling off the charred layer was about twice as high until a charcoal
layer of enough thickness had developed again. [7] Thus, an increased thickness and number
of layers aid in fire protection with falling off occurrence at longer time intervals. [7]
Interestingly, vertical structural members such as walls may show a better fire behaviour in
comparison to horizontal members like floors due to higher average thickness. [7]

54
 Figure 42 Cross Laminated Timber specimen after fire testing from three different orientations. [7]

A paper titled Fire Tests on Loaded Cross Laminated Timber Wall and Floor Elements by
Andrea Frangi illustrates the above analysis with proven experimental data. [7] First and
foremost, a parameter known as fire time is used to indicate the time where the tests had to
be stopped because of integrity failure between the loaded and the unloaded panels even
though none was observed. [7]

Table 14 Test results of fire tests on CLT wall panels [7]

The charring depth dchar (mm) and the one-dimensional charring rate  (mm/min) are derived
from the remaining thickness of the wood panel after cooling off from the furnace. [7] Load
level was set at 150 kN and the compressive stress of about 3 MPa in the load bearing
(parallel) boards. Which is about 12% of the mean compressive strength f c,m of a regular
softwood timber element. [7]

An interesting result is that the vertical deflections remain very small despite the load-bearing
cross-section of the wall being reduced by at least 30% during the fire test. [7] The horizontal
deflection on the other hand is influenced by thermal expansion, increasing stress on the
remaining cross-section and the increasing eccentricity of the applied load. [7] It was also

55
observed that in the first phase of the fire tests, the wall deflects slightly in the direction of
the fire exposed side. [7]

Figure 43 Results of vertical and horizontal deflection of the walls [7]

Fire tests were also performed for floor panels on the horizontal furnace at CNR-IVALSA, using
the standard ISO temperature fire curve. [7] Load is varied for this experiment and time of
test was set at 1 hour as the objective was to determine the charring rates and deflections,
not the fire resistance time. [7]

Table 15 Test results of fire tests on CLT floor panels [7]

The charring rates were in the range of 0.75 to 0.81mm/min with greater lean towards the
latter. Of which are greater than the one-dimensional charring rate indicated by the Eurocode
5. [14]

56
 Figure 44 Results of vertical deflection of the floors. [7]

Cross sectional layup area of CLT panel were found to have no bearing on the vertical
deflection. But a higher load does result in a higher defection which reached a peak value of
L/75 (Four times higher than the normal maximum deflection accepted in the normal
serviceability conditions). [7]

Comparison of charring rates between floor and wall elements are not too drastic with rates
of 0.72mm/min and 0.79mm/min, respectively. The small difference results in the previous
analysis that floors collapse faster than walls. [7]

A closer analysis at one of the case studies projects we looked earlier in Dalston Lane shows
how the maximisation in fire resistance is done. An additional double layer of plasterboard is
cladded onto the 160mm thick CLT panels, that greatly improves their fire performance and
ensure compliance with the requirement for 120 minutes fire rating. [2] The breakdown is as
follows, plasterboard gives 49 minutes of fire protection and timber charring at 0.7mm per
minute (coinciding with the results above). It thus leaves with a 161-minute window for fire
escape, 40 minutes longer than required. [2]

3.3.2 Delamination test

A delamination test study was conducted by Karol S. Sikora, Annette M. Harte and Daniel O.
McPolin of National University of Ireland Galway, where the sample of cross laminated timber
used was Irish Sitka Spruce. The test follows provisional European Standard EN 16351:2013

57
which strictly dedicates to the provisions regarding to CLT uses in buildings and bridges. The
resistance of edge bonding of CLT is controlled by means of block shear tests according to EN
392 and prEN 16351. [28] It also states that resistance against fractures in the bond line,
specimens of specific geometry are to be exposed to certain climatic conditions which
determines its suitability. [28]

Furthermore, only vacuum pressure dried wood is considered as stipulated by Canadian and
USA handbooks on CLT. This is due to eliminate factors of moisture content and temperature
which might have negative effects on the bond line geometry and overall bonding quality.
[28]

The bonding adhesives used were of one-component polyurethane (1K-PUR) adhesives, with
bonding pressures of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 N/mm2. [30] The testing begins with the specimens
being placed in a pressure vessel and submerged in water at a temperature of 15°C. [30] A
vacuum of 80 kPa is then drawn and held for 30 minutes. [30] After which it is released, a
pressure of 550 kPa was applied for 2 hours and subsequently dried for 15 hours in a
circulating oven at a temperature of 70° ± 5°C. [30] The delaminated length for each of the
two glue lines is then measured around the perimeter of the specimen. [30] The lower value
of the wood fibres failure percentages from the two glue lines, FFmin, and the sum of the two
split areas, FFtot, were recorded. [30]

1) The total delamination Delamtot of each test piece was calculated using the equation:
- Delamtot = 100*(ltot;delam/ltot;glueline)%
- Total delamination length (in millimetres), ltot,delamis
- Sum of the perimeters of all glue lines in a delamination specimen (in millimetres),
ltot,glueline.

2) The maximum delamination Delammax of each test piece was calculated using the
equation:
- Delammax = 100*(lmax;delam/lglueline)%
- Maximum delamination length (in millimetres), lmax,delamis

58
 - Perimeter of one glue line in a delamination specimen (in millimetres), lglueline.

Figure 45 Delamination Test Results. [30]

Delamination requirement is satisfied as the wood failure percentage for each split glued
area, FF is more than 50% and the sum of the two split areas is higher than 70%. [35] As set
by prEN16351 code.

Figure 46 The median delamination and wood fibre failures values for specimens manufactured with different pressures.
[30]

59
Figure 47 CLT specimen before delamination test. [30]

Figure 48 CLT specimen after delamination test. [30]

Figure 49 CLT specimen after delamination test. [30]

As shown by the results of Figure 47, delamination had occurred in a single glue line on one
side for every CLT specimen. A higher proportion of swelling was evident in the tangential and
radial directions (Figure 48 & 49), compared to the longitudinal direction. [30] This is largely
due to the vacuum-pressure-soak-cycle which induces significant stresses between the

60
bonded surfaces. CLT layers which were not edge bonded also had small gaps appearances.
[30]

As for the results of Figure 36, the trends of wood fibre failure percentages (total and
minimum) for PUR and PRF adhesive systems showed big variations. [30] High values of above
80% for PRF, for minimum wood fibre failure for all manufacturing pressures indicate very
good durability performance of PRF glue lines. [30] While the opposite can be said for PUR
with low minimum wood failure fibres, indicating poor durability. [30]

Another key point of interest is that specimens manufactured with higher pressures have
higher values of wood fibre failures (up to 100% for both minimum and total), which suggests
substantial effect of bonding pressure on durability of specimens bonded using PUR adhesive.
[30]

However, adhesive penetration is shallower for lower pressures, resulting in thicker bonding
layer, and larger area of adhesive surface directly exposed to water. [30] Therefore, an
increase in durability for higher bonding pressure is more substantial for PUR than PRF, due
to PUR reacting with moisture and being more vulnerable to water action than PRF. [30]

In conclusion, the durability characteristics in the delamination tests were unsatisfactory for
PUR specimens manufactured with pressures below 0.8 N/mm2. [30] While the PRF
specimens demonstrated superior durability characteristics in the delamination tests with
pressure of 0.4 N/mm2 being applied during manufacturing process. [30] PRF specimens are
recommended.

61
Chapter 4
4. Computational and Mathematical Analysis
4.1 Design of a CLT Multi storey Building and Hand-Calculation Analysis
For the multi-storey building design, the selected project was a two adjacent 5-storey office
blocks with a small corridor in between for a possible stairs or elevator. The reason for this
approach is that the previous case studies mentioned earlier in the report were mainly
residential and commercial buildings. Thus, why I went for the forementioned. The middle
corridor can be interpreted to be where the staircase is situated (or possibly an elevator).
Inter-connecting loadbearing walls to be used for the partition between different rooms.

Figure 51 and 53 shows the load path follows where

permanent and imposed load are exerted on top of the
CLT floor slabs. They are then transferred to the load
bearing walls using timber ring beams and solid timber
blocking between the joists which acts a sort of primary
beam in transferring the load. (mentioned earlier in the
Section 2.2 Application in Structural Components in a
Multi-storey Building) Shear plates and screws will act
as horizontal shear transfers in the permanent
formwork. The process is repeated for all storeys of the
building. Figure 50 and 52 shows how the connection
between the CLT floor slab and load bearing wall takes
Figure 50 Connection between CLT floor slab
and Load bearing wall [45] place. With screw being used to secure the connection.

62
 Figure 51 Cross section of CLT floor slab [44]

Figure 52 Load path of CLT Floor slab and Wall

63
Figure 53 Load path of CLT floor slab and joists

64
6.1.1 AutoCAD design of Multi-storey Building
These are just short diagrams of the overall design which is used to aid in the reader to
understand the overall design. The Final design layout will be in the appendix.

Figure 54 Plan View of Design of Multi-storey Building

65
Figure 55 Front Elevation of Design of Multi-storey Building

66
 Figure 56 Side Elevation of Design of Multi-storey Building

Figure 57 Section View of Floor Slab showing thickness of each layer.

67
 Figure 58 Section View of the CLT Wall Panel

4.1.2 Floor Panels Hand Calculation

Using Figure 54 to 58, we will determine the structural compatibility of Cross Laminated
Timber for this multi storey building. The areas have been divided to 6 labelled sections, which
CLT floor panels are laid across the shorter width of the area. This load is then transferred to
the load bearing walls.

The tables below are all excerpts of the Eurocode 5 under Cross Laminated Timber section.
The parameters for the CLT Characteristic strength and stiffness values from Table 15 to Table
18 will be used to determine its structural compatibility. Table 19 on the other hand provides
us with detailed calculation on determine values associated with the net moment of area
which will be used in the calculations. And finally, Table 20 to 23 will highlight the
environmental conditions being imposed from the service and safety class chosen.

68
Table 16 Material properties for strength graded timber used for CLT [33]

Table 17 Examples of characteristic strength values for CLT panels based on the strength properties of the timber board [33]

69
Table 18 Examples of characteristic strength values for CLT panels based on the strength properties of the timber board [33]

Table 19 Density of CLT Panels [33]

Table 20 Properties of 5-layer symmetrical CLT panel, strip of width bx = 1.0 m. Slab thickness 160 mm (40/20/40/20/40)
[33]

Table 21 Load and Load factors [33]

70
 Table 22 Partial factor for safety class, γd, when designing in the ultimate limit state [33]

Table 23 Values for kmod for CLT. [33]

Table 24 Values for kdef for CLT. [33]

Before we calculate the stability of the CLT floor slabs, we will focus on the parameters
relating to the Loads and their factors. From there, we incorporate all the maximum
strength of the floor panel which will be used to determine its compatibility.

Loads (From Table 20):

Self-weight, gk = 1.1 kN/m2

Imposed load, qk = 2.0 kN/m2

The floor structure has been chosen as a 5-layer CLT panel of strength class C24 with a
thickness of 40 + 20 + 40 + 20 + 40 = 160 mm.

Service class 1 and safety class 3 chosen, γd = 1 (From Table 21).

From Table 15,

E0,x,0.05 = 7,400 MPa

E0,x,0,05 = 7 400 MPa

E0,x,mean = 11 000 MPa

71
G9090,xlay,mean = 50 MPa

G090,xlay,mean = 690 MPa

Using Table 16,

fm,k = 24 MPa

fv,k = 4 MPa

Using Table 22,

γm = 1.25

kmod = 0.8

The flow of the calculations follows as such. Determination of the design strength and load
combination, Design Moments, Design Shear and Deflections.

Calculations for Design Strength of Floor Panels in moment and shear:

Moment Design strength, fm,d = kmod*fm,k/γm = 0.8*24/1.25 = 15.36MPa

Shear Design strength, fv,d = kmod*fv,k/γm = 0.8*4/1.25 = 2.56MPa

Calculations for Load Combination:

Load, qd = γG*gk + γQ*qk = 0.89*1.35*1.1 + 1.5*2.0 = 4.32kN/m

For Area A: L = 5.0m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

Design Moment, Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*52/8 = 13.5kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 13.5*1000/3800 = 3.55MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Design Shear force, Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*5 = 10.8kN

Shear check, τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.092MPa < fv,d =

2.56MPa (Clear)

72
Rolling shear check, τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2400*1000/(30400*10000) =
0.085MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

The deflection is due to instantaneous, which are results of the permanent and imposed
along with the deflection due creep which is affected by the kdef.

Check, L/300 = 5000/300 = 16.67

Deflection due to permanent load, wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) =

5*1100*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 2.89mm

Deflection due to imposed load, wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) =

5*2000*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 5.26mm

Instantaneous Deflection, winst = wg,k + wq,k = 2.89 + 5.26 = 8.15mm < 15mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

Final deflection, wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) =

2.89*(1+0.85) + 5.26*(1+0.3*0.85) wfin = 12.3mm < 15mm (Clear)

For Area B: L = 5.0m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*52/8 = 13.5kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 13.5*1000/3800 = 3.55MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*5 = 10.8kN

τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.092MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2400*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.085MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

73
L/300 = 5000/300 = 16.67

wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*1100*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 2.89mm

wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*2000*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 5.26mm

winst = wg,k + wq,k = 2.89 + 5.26 = 8.15mm < 15mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) = 2.89*(1+0.85) +

5.26*(1+0.3*0.85) wfin = 12.3mm < 15mm (Clear)

For Area C: L = 1.5m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*1.52/8 = 1.215kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 1.215*1000/3800 = 0.3195MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*1.5 = 3.24kN

τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 3.24*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.0276MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 3.24*2400*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.0255MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

L/300 = 1500/300 = 5

wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*1100*1.5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) =

0.023mm

wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*2000*1.5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) =

0.0426mm

winst = wg,k + wq,k = 0.023 + 0.0426 = 0.0656mm < 5mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

74
wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) = 0.023*(1+0.85) +
0.0426*(1+0.3*0.85)

wfin = 0.096mm < 5mm (Clear)

For Area D: L = 3.5m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*3.52/8 = 6.615kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 6.615 *1000/3800 = 1.7395MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*3.5 = 7.56kN

τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 7.56*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.0644MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 7.56*2400*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.0595MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

L/300 = 3500/300 = 11.67

wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*1100*3.5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) =

0.0694mm

wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*2000*3.5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) =

1.26mm

winst = wg,k + wq,k = 0.0694 + 1.26 = 1.33mm < 11.67mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) = 0.0694*(1+0.85) +

1.26*(1+0.3*0.85) wfin = 1.71mm < 11.67mm (Clear)

For Area E: L = 5.0m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

75
Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*52/8 = 13.5kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 13.5*1000/3800 = 3.55MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*5 = 10.8kN

τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.092MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 10.8*2400*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.085MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

L/300 = 5000/300 = 16.67

wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*1100*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 2.89mm

wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*2000*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 5.26mm

winst = wg,k + wq,k = 2.89 + 5.26 = 8.15mm < 15mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) = 2.89*(1+0.85) +

5.26*(1+0.3*0.85) wfin = 12.3mm < 15mm (Clear)

For Area F: L = 3.21m

Calculations for Moments of Floor Panels:

Md = qd*L2/8 = 4.32*3.212/8 = 5.56kNm

σd = Md/Wx,net = 5.56*1000/3800 = 1.46MPa < fm,d = 15.36MPa (Clear)

Calculations for Shear force of Floor Panels:

Vd = 0.5*qd*L = 0.5*4.32*3.21 = 6.93kN

τd = (Vd*Sx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 6.93*2600*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.059MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa

(Clear)

76
τRv,d = (Vd*SRx,net)/(Ix,net*bx) = 6.93*2400*1000/(30400*10000) = 0.055MPa < fv,d = 2.56MPa
(Clear)

Calculations for Deformations of Floor Panels:

L/300 = 3210/300 = 10.7

wg,k = 5*gk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*1100*3.21^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) =

0.49mm

wq,k = 5*qk*L4/(384*Ex,mean*Ix,ef) = 5*2000*5^4/(384*11000*10^6*28125*10^-8) = 0.89mm

winst = wg,k + wq,k = 0.49 + 0.89 = 1.38mm < 10.7mm (Clear)

kdef = 0.85 (From Table 23)

wfin = winst + wcreep = wfin,g +wfin,q = wg,k*(1+kdef) + wq,k*(1+0.3*kdef) = 0.49*(1+0.85) +

0.89*(1+0.3*0.85) wfin = 2.023mm < 10.7mm (Clear)

5-layer CLT floor slab panel of strength class C24 with a thickness of 40 + 20 + 40 + 20 + 40 =
160 mm is found to be safe for use for this multi storey building design.

4.1.3 Wall panels with Buckling Hand Calculation

For the calculations involving the wall panels, we will use the walls for the ground floor as
they will have the highest vertical load on them. Thus, if CLT is structurally compatible for the
lower floors, it should be the same for the upper floors.

We will use the below figure 59 to illustrate the calculation process. A vertically loaded
external wall on the ground floor of a five-storey building has a height le = 4.35 m and a
width b0. The wall has two windows and the effective wall width without windows is b ef. The
design load from the roof, the wall and the floor structure above the wall is F d = 75 kN/m.
Considering that each storey of wall has 15kN/m of load acting on it which includes from the
floor or slab directly on top of it and the upper floor walls. Wind pressure across the wall is
qd = 2.4 kN/m2.

77
 Figure 59 Wall Panels with Openings. [33]

The wall is of a 3-layer panel of strength class C24 CLT, thickness 30+30+30 = 90 mm. Service
class 1, safety class 3 (γd = 1) has been set (Same as floor panels).

The following parameters for C24 class CLT had been set previously in Table 17, 18 and 22.

E0,x,0,05 = 7400 MPa

E0,x,mean = 11000 MPa

G9090,xlay,mean = 50 MPa

G090,xlay,mean = 690 MPa

fm,k = 24 MPa

fc,0,k = 21 MPa

γm = 1.25

kmod = 0.9

fm,d = kmod*fm,k/ γm = 0.9*24/1.25 = 17.28MPa

fc,0,d = kmod*fc,0,k/ γm = 0.9*21/1.25 = 15.12MPa

78
Table 24 below shows the net moment values that will be needed in the calculations later.
Including effective radius of gyration and slenderness factors which play a crucial role in the
buckling resistance.

Table 25 Properties of 3-layer symmetrical CLT panel, strip of width bx = 1.0 m. Panel thickness 90 mm (30/30/30). [33]

Buckling Formula: σc,0,d/(kc,y*fc,0,d) + σm,d/fm,d <= 1 (Checked in the Ultimate Limit State)

But first , we need to find the Reduction factor kc,y, which is used to determine if buckling
failure will occur for the wall.

Relative slenderness in Y-direction, Λrel,y = λ/π *( √(fc,0,k/E0,05)) = 98.8/ π*( √(21/7400)) =

1.675

Flexural buckling ‘k’ factor, ky = 0.5*(1+0.1(Λrel,y-0.3)+ Λ2rel,y) = 0.5(1+0.1(1.675-0.3)+1.6752) =

1.971

kc,y = 1/( ky+√( k2y- Λ2rel,y)) = 0.332

When there is an opening in the wall, it causes larger loads on the remaining sections of the
wall. As a result, we need to use a factor, fb to distribute the load evenly on the wall sections
between the windows. We will then check if the wall is able to withstand the axial
compression and the moment stress exerted on it.

79
For Front view of the building, width, b0 = 20m and effective width, bef = 20 – (6*0.75) =
15.5m

fb = b0/bef = 20/15.5 = 1.29

Vertical Load, Nd = bx*fb*Fd = 1.0*1.29*75 = 96.774kN

Vertical Moment, My,d = qd*le2/8 = 2.4*1.29*4.352/8 = 7.32

σc,0,d/(kc,y*fc,0,d) + σm,d/fm,d = Nd/(kc,y*Ax,net*fc,0,d) + My,d/(Wx,net*fm,d) =

96.774*1000/(0.332*600*100*15.12) + 7.32*1000000/(1300*1000*17.28) = 0.647 < 1
(CLEAR)

*The wall can handle the axial compression and moment stresses, with a capacity utilisation
of 65%.

For Side view of the building, b0 = 10m and bef = 10 – (4*0.75) = 7m

fb = b0/bef = 10/7 = 1.43

Vertical Load, Nd = bx*fb*Pd = 1.0*1.43*75 = 107.25kN

My,d = qd*le2/8 = 2.4*1.43*4.352/8 = 8.12

σc,0,d/(kc,y*fc,0,d) + σm,d/fm,d = Nd/(kc,y*Ax,net*fc,0,d) + My,d/(Wx,net*fm,d) =

107.25*1000/(0.332*600*100*15.12) + 8.12*1000000/(1300*1000*17.28) = 0.718 < 1
(CLEAR)

*The wall can handle the axial compression and moment stresses, with a capacity utilisation
of 72%.

The 3-layer panel wall of strength class C24 CLT, thickness 30+30+30 = 90 mm is deemed safe
for use in this multi-storey building design.

4.2 Numerical Modelling using Modified Gamma Method beam theory.

The most common approach in analysis of cross laminated timber, the modified gamma
method was founded by Blass and Gorlacher in 2003. Its application has been extended up to
9-layer CLTs and not just the normal 3 and 5 layers. We will only look at loads perpendicular
to the plane in this report, with the CLT floor slab analysis in mind. The following analysis was
conducted by Ioannis P. Christovasilis, Michele Brunetti, Maurizio Follesa, Michela Nocetti

80
and Davide Vassallo in September 2016. The Euler-Bernoulli beam element can be
implemented as no shear deformations are considered. [31]

For effective bending stiffness, EIeff,Gamma, the formula is.

EIeff,Gamma = i (Ei*bi*hi3/12) + i (γi*Ei*bi*hi*zi2) [31]

- Ei, modulus of elasticity parallel to grain

- E0, modulus elasticity for longitudinal layers
- Ei, modulus elasticity for transverse layers = 0
- bi, width
- hi, thickness.
- zi, distance from the centroid of the ith layer to the centroid of the cross section.
- γi, connection efficiency factor (non-zero for longitudinal layers and equal to unity
for the middle layer)

To obtain γi, another formula is needed.

γi = (1+( π2*Ei*bi*hi/(Leff2*G90,j*bj/hj))) [31]

- Leff, effective length of the beam

- j, reference to transverse layer connecting the ith layer with the central layer.
- G90, shear modulus in the plain perpendicular to grain or rolling shear modulus.

Effective length plays a significant role in the connection efficiency factor, by considering the
length of the beam between the two zero-moment points (inflection points).

As shown below in Figure 60, γ approaches unity when the longitudinal layers work as part of
the whole cross section and approaches zero when they work as independent layers under
bending. For the normal (left) and shear (right) stress diagrams in a 5-layer CLT section, blue
coloured hatched layers represent longitudinal boards. The others show stress and strain
when connection efficiency factor, γ equal to (b) 1.0, (c)0.5, and (d) 0.1.

81
 Figure 60 normal and shear stress diagrams in a CLT section for various values of the connection efficiency factor γ. [31]

The modified Gamma method framework is then implemented in a computer programme on

the MATLAB platform (shown in Figure 61). The purpose of which is to calculate the response
of the CLT panels under external loads in terms of displacements and moment and shear
forces. [31] Each specimen was modelled with three beam elements in series representing
the three parts of the beam (the middle part which is under constant moment and two
external parts which are under constant shear) [31]

Figure 61 The 4x4 stiffness matrix K [31]

- Le, length of the element

- EIeff, effective bending stiffness of the cross section
- GAeff, effective shear stiffness of the cross section.

The stiffness matrices were assigned values for each effective bending and shear stiffness of
the cross section. To implement the Shear Analogy, two beams in parallel were meshed with
a length equal to a quarter of the height of the respective cross section. [31] While the vertical
degrees of freedom of the nodes lying on the same geometrical points were restrained to
have the same displacements. [31]

Elastic properties measured were broken in three. The first being the global stiffness, the
second being the local stiffness, and the last based on both. [31] For the latter case, objective

82
function was used to define the equal weights for the percentage differences between
predicted and measured values. [31]

Table 26 Verification indices ρPERP,E for the MoE tests for loads perpendicular to plane in the moment-critical configuration.

Different layups of CLT used show that the global, local and both stiffness measurements do
not uniform. This is due to γ factors considered in the Modified Gamma method being
relatively low estimates for the middle part of the verification indices, as it ranges above 0.9
for 50% of its length which leads to higher estimates of the modulus of elasticity. [31]

4.3 Two-way Spanning Cross Laminated Timber-Concrete-Composite-Slabs

Up until recently, slabs involving cross laminating timber have largely been one-way. With
two-way spanning timber-concrete-composite (TCC), a new construction system which is
superior in fire safety, sound insulation and strength bearing capacity is found. The following
analysis was undertaken by Stefan Loebus, Philipp Dietsch and Stefan Winter of the Chair for
Timber Structures and Building Construction (TUM)

83
 Table 27 Parameters and boundary conditions of Slab Composite [36]

4.3.1 Shear Connection

Shear connectors shown in Table 27 above were previously known to be used in uniaxial
systems. In this composite however they will be instead applied in a 45-degree angle with
rectangular notches. (Shown in Figure 62) This is to generate a uniformly distributed shear
stiffness in both load-bearing directions. The arrangement of the connectors is either
orthogonal or following the direction of the principal shear forces. [36]

Figure 62 Notch Shear Connection (Left) and Screw Shear Connection (Right) [36]

84
Figure 63 Principal shear force F in relation to the screw connection [36]

Two main problems needed to be dealt with before the simulations and modelling can begin.
The first being the rolling shear perpendicular to the grain in the CLT as an additional semi-
rigidity in the cross section in both load-bearing axis. [36] The second of which is the
obligatory activation of the y-axis with an effective smaller static height than the y-axis. [36]
FEM simulations and tests were performed to counter both these problems.

Enlarging the effective contact length between both soft shear layers aids in the transfer of
shear stress from the notch to the next. [36] The transmission area between the layers is
therefore enlarged and enables the CLT in front of the notch to be hanged back beneath the
notch. It also helps in by-passing more effectively the gaps in CLT without edgewise-bonding.
[36]

Below shows the FEM simulation run on OASys GSA which Compares the effect of a hanger
for the timber in front of the notch by a shear stress distribution τ xz [N/mm²] with CLT‐layer
thickness t1 = t2 = t3 = 20 mm. As shown, A smaller notch depth with a hanger has a larger
shear transmission area.

Figure 64 Notch depth tk = 20 mm, without hanger for timber in front of the notch; Kser = Fv /u = 584 kN/mm/m [36]

85
Figure 65 Notch depth tk = 15 mm, hanger thickness Δt = t1 – tk = 5 mm beneath the notch; Kser = 707 kN/mm/m [36]

4.3.2 Plate Loading-bearing

Examined in two plate test series and FEM simulations. Tests ran include a torsion test on
plate sections and a full plate test in analogy to a uniaxial four-point bending test.

Table 28 Specimen Parameters to Load Bearing Test [36]

The results for both specimens (notch and screw) show a high load bearing capacity and a
constant deformation behavior along a long range of load levels. Stiffness is approximated at
55% of Fu. A final failure of the lowest layer of CLT occurs first, followed by failure of the
concrete layer.

To determine its suitability for a biaxial loading, FEM simulations compared the vertical
support’s reaction in principal and transverse directions. [36] In the FEM model, shear
stiffness of the screw connection is distributed uniformly over the plane of the slab and
transferred to the top layer. [36] Calculation of the slip modulus of the screws into the shear
modulus is then used. [36] Any potential shear reinforcement effects of the inclined screws
on the CLT element are not taken into consideration. [36] The load distribution of the
orthotropic CLT was found to range between 55/45 to 58/42, compared to a 50/50 for a

86
perfectly isotropic plate. This result demonstrates that the composite does have biaxial
loading behaviour. [36]

Figure 66 Load deflection curve in full plate test [36]

When exposed to torsional buckling, ductile behaviour is observed with the composite slab.
Ultimate force was also not reached even though the deflection exceeded the testing setup
limits (wmax > L/30). [36] While concrete cracking proves to contribute to the loss of torsional
bending stiffness of the composite. [36]

A FEM simulation to compare the different slab assemblies in one-way and two-way with side
lengths Lx X Ly = 6.0m was conducted. Parameters include:

- Shear connection continuous slip modulus, KA = 1778kN/mm/m2

- Notch connection continuous slip modulus, Kser = 800kN/mm/m for every 0.45m
- Element stiffness, EAsteel = 0.54 EACLT-layer
- Load Value, pk,inst = 7.9kN/m2 and pk,q-p = 6.7kN/m2

It was found that the defection, winst reduces by 38.8% from one-way spanning CLTCC to two-
way spanning CLTCC to two-way CLTCC + joint and by 14.3% from one-way spanning TCC (As
shown in Figure 52). [36]

It was also found that the deflection, winst of a two-way spanning slab converges to a one-way
spanning when Ly/Lx =2. (Shown in Figure 51)

87
Figure 67 Influence of the side length ratio on the maximum deflection [36]

Figure 68 Comparison by deflection of different timber‐concrete‐composite slabs [36}

88
Chapter 5
5. Conclusion
5.1 Summary of Report
Cross Laminated Timber in truth holds well as a compatible and structurally sound
construction material for a multi-storey building. Displaying comparable results of shear,
bending and compression testing with plywood and concrete steel, it also gains an upper hand
in its sustainable and aesthetic feature. Hand Calculations and Numerical modelling further
strengthens this case.

Features such as its strong fire resistance and durability makes the case that timber material
is not the risk filled commodity that it is. Besides that, the notion of timber floor slabs being
only one-way spanning has been overcome the introduction of the Two-way Spanning Cross
Laminated Timber-Concrete-Composite-Slabs.

5.2 Comparison with a Steel Concrete frame building

Using a previous case study from a structures report from Group 11 of the module Design 3,
a comparison with a concrete frame and steel frame building can be analysed. The building
has a total floor span area of 400m2 while the CLT building has a total floor span area of 430m2.
It has a floor slab of 7m width and 8m length which is comparable to the 5m X 6m Section A
discussed earlier. Height of floor is 4.6m which is almost like the 4.35m height of the CLT
building. For the steel and concrete frame, precast solid slab was chosen with secondary beam
being 557X191X161 UB, Primary beam 533X312X151 UB and Column 356X368X202 UC. The
adjusted total load of the building of a five-storey reinforced concrete frame building
translates to around ~ 7000kN.

Mass of solution:

Mean density of C24 CLT * Total Volume of CLT used for the whole building.

= 420kg/m3 * ( Total volume of floor slab + Total volume of load bearing wall)

= 420kg/m3 * [(5*(20m*10m*2) + (3.21m*5.565m) * 160mm] + [((2*43.21m*4.35m*5) +

(10m*4.35m*5*2) + (4.435m*2*5*4.35m) – (0.75m*0.75m*100)) * 90mm]

= 420kg/m3 * (334.5m3 +220.6m3)

89
= 233 tonnes of CLT with an axial load of 2286kN < ~ 7000kN of the steel concrete frame
building

Structural depths of floor slab:

CLT floor slab - 160mm

Precast solid slab - 150mm

Carbon footprint:

Total volume of CLT * Embodied carbon in tonnes per cubic metre

= 555.11m3 * 0.787 tonnes/m3

= 436.7 tonnes of embodied carbon saved

5.3 Future work

An in-depth study on the usage of angiosperms (hardwood) for Cross Laminated Timber needs
to be examined as the structural and material properties may differ with gymnosperms
(softwood). There is a huge economic and social benefit when hardwood is used for CLT as
they are usually situated at economically poorer countries with the abundance of material.
Instead of meaningless exportation of timber or land clearing for farms, purposely built timber
reserves can be established in countries like Brazil and Indonesia. Examples of such include
the forementioned in Austria and Germany. A separate report on a detailed cost and social
impact analysis of CLT can also be conducted.

90
Planning

WBS TASK START END DAYS

1 Poster -
1.1 Initial Design Wed 2/10/21 Fri 2/19/21 10
1.2 Final Design Sat 2/20/21 Wed 2/24/21 5
1.3 Submission Mon 3/08/21 Mon 3/08/21 1
1.4 Presentation Fri 3/26/21 Fri 3/26/21 1

2 Literature Review
2.1 Dimensions and Manufacturing Process Thu 10/08/20 Sat 10/17/20 10
2.2 Application in Structural Members Sun 10/18/20 Tue 10/27/20 10
2.3 Environmental Sustainability Sat 10/31/20 Mon 11/09/20 10
Review of Completed Multi storey buildings involving
2.4 Wed 11/11/20 Fri 11/20/20 10
Cross Laminated Timber
3 Methodology
3.1 Contact Angle Test Sat 11/21/20 Sat 11/28/20 8
3.2 Shear Strength Test Sun 11/29/20 Sun 12/06/20 8
3.3 Bending Test Mon 12/07/20 Mon 12/14/20 8
3.4 Compression Test Tue 12/15/20 Tue 12/22/20 8
3.5 Durability Test Wed 12/23/20 Wed 12/30/20 8
3.6 Delamination Test Thu 12/31/20 Thu 1/07/21 8

3.7 Nail and Screw Withdrawal Test Fri 1/08/21 Fri 1/15/21 8

3.8 Fire Resistance Test Sat 1/16/21 Sat 1/23/21 8

4 Computational and Mathematical Analysis

4.1 Finite Element Method Sun 1/24/21 Tue 2/02/21 10
4.2 State-space Approach Wed 2/03/21 Fri 2/12/21 10

4.3 FE simulations using Abaqus Programme Sat 2/13/21 Mon 2/22/21 10

5 Final Report Writing

5.1 Writing Process Mon 11/30/20 Wed 4/28/21 150
5.2 First Draft Wed 4/29/20 Sun 5/03/20 5
5.3 Submission Thu 5/06/21 Thu 13/06/21 1
Table 29 Timetable

91
Table 30 Gantt Chart

92
Bibliography
[1] The Canadian Wood Council - CWC. 2020. Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) - The Canadian Wood
Council - CWC. [online] Available at: <[Link]
timber/cross-laminated-timber-clt/> [Accessed 6 November 2020].
[2] [Link]. 2020. Dalston Lane: The World's Largest Timber Building. [online] Available at:
<[Link] [Accessed 6
November 2020].

[3] Betti, M., Brunetti, M., Lauriola, M., Nocetti, M., Ravalli, F. and Pizzo, B., 2016. Comparison of
newly proposed test methods to evaluate the bonding quality of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)
panels by means of experimental data and finite element (FE) analysis. Construction and Building
Materials, 125, pp.952-963.

[4] Brandner, Reinhard & Bogensperger, Thomas & Schickhofer, G. (2013). In plane Shear Strength of
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): Test Configuration, Quantification and influencing Parameters.

[5] [Link]. 2020. Understanding Cross-Laminated Timber - Fdmasia. [online] Available at:
<[Link]
timber> [Accessed 6 November 2020].

[6] Consultants, C., 2020. Cross Laminated Timber - Sustainability Consultants | EALCONSULT Energy
Compliance Consultants. [online] Sustainability Consultants | EALCONSULT Energy Compliance
Consultants. Available at: <[Link] [Accessed 6
November 2020].

[7] Kippel, M., Leyder, C., Frangi, A. and Fontana, M., 2014. Fire Tests on Loaded Cross-laminated
Timber Wall and Floor Elements. Fire Safety Science, 11, pp.626-639.

[8] Chen Z, Popovski M, Symons P (2018) Advanced wood-based solutions for mid-rise and high-rise
construction: Structural performance of post-tensioned CLT Shear Walls with Energy Dissipators.
FPInnovations Project (No. 301012204) Report: Vancouver

[9] TRADA Technology Ltd (2011) WIS 2/3-62 Cross-laminated timber: structural principles, High
Wycombe, UK: TRADA

[10] Structural Timber Association Engineering Bulletin No. 7: Cross-laminated timber construction -
an introduction, The Structural Engineer, 91 (9), pp. 41–4

[11] ArchDaily. 2020. Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): What It Is and How to Use It. [online] Available
at: <[Link]
[Accessed 6 November 2020].

[12] ArchDaily. 2020. Is Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) The Concrete of The Future? [online] Available
at: <[Link]
[Accessed 6 November 2020].

[13] ISO 834 (1999). Fire-resistance tests. Elements of building construction. Part 1: General
requirements. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[14] EN 1995-1-2 (Eurocode 5) (2004). Design of timber structures, Part 1-2: General – Structural fire
design, CEN, Bruxelles, Belgium

93
[15] Bhuiyan, T., 2021. What is Timber? Definition & Types of Timber & Lumber - Civil Engineering.
[online] [Link]. Available at: <[Link]
materials/timber/224-timber-lumber-definition-types> [Accessed 2 February 2021].

[16] Lane, T., 2020. The Rise of Cross-Laminated Timber. [online] Building. Available at:
<[Link]
timber/[Link]> [Accessed 6 November 2020].

[17] Denzler J K, Glos P (2007) Determination of shear strength values according to EN 408. Materials
and Structures, 40:79–86

[18] Dahl K B, Malo K A (2009) Linear shear properties of spruce softwood. Wood Science and
Technology, 43:499–525

[19] Brandner R (2012) Stochastic system actions and effects in engineered timber products and
structures. Dissertation, Institute of Timber Engineering and Wood Technology, Graz University of
Technology

[20] He, M., Sun, X., Li, Z. (2020) Bending, shear, and compressive properties of three- and five-layer
cross-laminated timber fabricated with black spruce. J Wood Sci 66, 38.

[21] Michael H. Ramage, Henry Burridge, Marta Busse-Wicher, George Fereday, Thomas Reynolds,
Darshil U. Shah, Guanglu Wu, Li Yu, Patrick Fleming, Danielle Densley-Tingley, Julian Allwood, Paul
Dupree, P.F. Linden, Oren Scherman. (2017) The wood from the trees: The use of timber in
construction, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 68, Part 1, Pages 333-359.

[22] BSI. BS EN 14081-3:2012 Timber Structures – Strength Graded Structural Timber with
Rectangular Cross Section Part 3: Machine Grading; Additional Requirements for Factory Production
Control. 2012.

[23] Wood For Good and PE International Ltd. Life Cycle Database, Kiln Dried Softwood, Glue
Laminated Timber, Cross Laminated Timber and Laminated Veneer Lumber. Technical report, Wood
For Good. 2013.

[24] Omer, Salah-Eldien & Ćehić, Minka & Hodžić, Atif. (2007). ANALYSIS OF PROPERTIES OF
PLYWOOD FOR SOME AREAS OF USAGE IN WOODEN CONSTRUCTIONS.

[25] Sean A. Lineham, Daniel Thomson, Alastair I. Bartlett, Luke A. Bisby, Rory M. Hadden. (2016)
Structural response of fire-exposed cross-laminated timber beams under sustained loads, Fire Safety
Journal, Volume 85, Pages 23-34.

[26] ANSI/APA PRG 320, (2018) Standard for performance-rated cross laminated timber. APA-The
Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma

[27] The Home Depot. 2021. Types of Plywood. [online] Available at:
<[Link]

[28] CEN, prEN 16351:2013, Timber structures—Cross laminated timber—Requirements (2013).

[29] Hernandez, B., 2021. Paper Demand Bolsters Timber and Materials ETFs. [online] ETF Trends.
Available at: <[Link]
materials-etfs/>

94
[30] Sikora, K., McPolin, D. and Harte, A., 2015. Shear Strength and Durability Testing of Adhesive
Bonds in Cross-laminated Timber. The Journal of Adhesion, 92(7-9), pp.758-777.

[31] Christovasilis, I., Brunetti, M., Follesa, M., Nocetti, M. and Vassallo, D., 2016. Evaluation of the
mechanical properties of cross laminated timber with elementary beam theories. Construction and
Building Materials, 122, pp.202-213.

[32] [Link]. 2021. Dalston Works | Waugh Thistleton Architects. [online] Available at:
<[Link] [Accessed 19 February 2021].

[33] Borgström, E and Fröbel, J., The CLT Handbook. 2019. Swedish Wood

[34] Encyclopedia Britannica. 2021. Wood - Microstructure. [online] Available at:

<[Link] [Accessed 10 February
2021].

[35] Grunwald, C., Fecht, S., Vallée, T., and Tannert, T.,Int.J. Adhes. Adhes.55,12–17(2014).

[36] Loebus,[Link],S.(2017):ZweiachsigeTragwirkungbeiHolz‐Beton‐
[Link]

[37] [Link]. 2021. Bridport House. [online] Available at:

<[Link] [Accessed 26 April 2021].

[38] Eurban - Specialists in Solid Timber Construction & Cross-Laminated Timber. 2021. Cross-
Laminated Timber (CLT) | CLT Specialists | Eurban UK. [online] Available at:
<[Link] [Accessed 19 February 2021].

[39] Cunningham, Lee. (2021). ‘Design of Structural Timber Notes’, MACE30792 (Civil) 2020-21 2nd
Semester. University of Manchester

[40] [Link]. 2021. Bridport House by Karakusevic Carson Architects. [online] Available at:
<[Link]
house> [Accessed 26 April 2021].

[41] Kitronik Ltd. 2021. A Guide to Plywood Grading. [online] Available at:
<[Link] [Accessed 8 May 2021].

[42] [Link]. 2021. How to Choose the Correct Plywood - Abcdepot News. [online] Available
at: <[Link] [Accessed 8
May 2021].

[43] Li, M., 2017. Evaluating rolling shear strength properties of cross-laminated timber by short-
span bending tests and modified planar shear tests. Journal of Wood Science, 63(4), pp.331-337.

[44] Opazo-Vega, A., Muñoz-Valdebenito, F. and Oyarzo-Vera, C., 2019. Damping Assessment of
Lightweight Timber Floors Under Human Walking Excitations. Applied Sciences, 9(18), p.3759.

[45] Perez, F. and Wallwork, T., 2016. Connections between CLT elements and futurechallenges for
CLT in practice. SaW COST Sweden Paper, p.17.

95
 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

13800 Joint between 2 different CLT Load-bearing walls

6200

Notes:
5000
A B
F
1. Yellow lines indicate Load

5565
Bearing Walls.
1500

C Load-bearing Walls
E 2. Crosses indicate
3500

D 3210
connections between
7170
12830
adjacent cross wall panels.
5565 3. All floor slabs are one-way
TOP VIEW spanning.
[Link] slab sections have

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

been broken down to A, B,C,
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

5565
30 D, E and F.
5. Dimensions are in
40

2217.5 2217.5 millimeters and are

750
highlighted in pink.
750

4350
20

Window Openings

FLOOR SLAB SECTION VIEW SIDE ELEVATION LOAD BEARING WALL SECTION VIEW
Top View

3210
20000 750

Cross Laminated Timber

750
4350

Multi-storey
building Design

Window Openings
University ID: 10381464

Date: 19/04/2021 Scale: 1:20

FRONT ELEVATION PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION Date: 19/04/2021