/
How has mass timber been tested for seismic performance? Part 1
How has mass timber been tested for seismic performance?

Part 1

Photo Credit: Erik Jepsen

It has long been observed that timber structures, which tend to have stiff components but ductile connections, perform comparatively well in earthquakes [1]. A lot of research and effort has gone into demonstrating that this property translates into mass timber buildings as well, since many regions with active mass timber industries are also earthquake prone. This is certainly true in the Pacific Northwest, a landscape molded by seismic activity and blanketed in forest.

In the Event of an Earthquake

Buildings encounter different kinds of external loads and forces while in service. Structures  contain multiple systems that are designed to manage these external forces. Gravity systems support the weight of the building itself, while lateral force resisting systems handle sideways forces introduced by events like wind and, more to the point, earthquakes.

In the event of an earthquake, the seismic ground movements induce an unusual set of forces and added energy into affected buildings, and that energy needs to go somewhere. Buildings designed according to seismic safety standards have designated pathways to dissipate the energy while retaining the life-safety of people in and around the building as much as possible. If they did not, the energy might dissipate in ways that could be very harmful to the building’s occupants.

Testing Seismic Performance

In order to ensure that a given structural system is up to the challenge, researchers and engineers use a variety of tools to assess a structures potential response to a seismic event.

Seismic performance testing is often completed at multiple scales, working from small-scale component tests up to full specimens. This way, detailed information about the individual performance of specific elements and connections can be gathered before getting into the complexity of how they work together. Structural testing laboratories can be set up to mimic the back-and-forth motion of an earthquake at a much slower speed, or they can apply pressure in one direction until something fails. Often, the researchers are just as interested in the questions of what failed first, and how, as they are in the amount of force it took.

As a structural testing facility, this type of work is often found in Emmerson.  In fact, this summer Dr. Erica Fischer’s lab set up a series of seismic and service tests for the largest mass timber diaphragm assembly ever studied in this manner, measuring in at 70ft x 30ft – nearly the entirety of Emmerson’s sizable strong floor. 

In order to get closer to the real experience of an earthquake, where structures must contend with fast, unpredictable ground movements, an even more specialized facility is required. Large shaking tables, with the capability to simulate earthquakes underneath full-scale structures, are fairly uncommon, but the data they provide are invaluable.

As mass timber has matured as a structural material, so too has it made its way into the structures put to the test by shake tables worldwide. At this point, there have been several building-scale seismic testing programs dedicated to mass timber structures, providing a growing body of evidence that mass timber can achieve strong seismic performance. A few of those programs are discussed below.

Notable Tests

The SOFIE project, a multiphase research project conducted by IVALSA (the Trees and Timber Institute of Italy’s National Research Council) was among the first of its kind when it concluded in 2008 [2,3]. It included a variety of tests involving European spruce (Picea abies) CLT, using several shake tables in Japan. The first full-scale specimen was a 3-story CLT building tested on a mono-axial shake table. The second was a 7-story CLT structure designed according to Eurocode 8, tested on a multi-directional table [4].

The shake table testing programs simulated 10 major earthquakes, and through it all, no residual drift was observed in either building. There was some minor, repairable damage – particularly in the building connections – but the researchers confidently indicated that the results of these tests fully supported the use of mass timber in earthquake prone regions.

A Japanese National Research Project funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan that started in 2011, tested a series of panelized structures made from sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) CLT [5]. The structures, which ranged from 3 to 5 stories, featured panel systems of different orientations, aspect ratios, and connections.  The tests were considered successful, with minimal drift and repairable damage, though one test did see a panel rupture in compression. 

On the other side of the Pacific Ring of Fire, in 2017, some of the largest seismic testing programs for mass timber structures began. The NHERI TallWood project was a highly collaborative effort led by faculty from the Colorado School of Mines. Its opening effort involved subjecting a two-story mass timber building, outfitted with three different mass timber lateral systems over the course of the tests, to more than 30 separate ground motions and simulations of historically recorded earthquakes [6,7]. This test was a proof of concept for timber post-tensioned rocking walls as a seismically resilient lateral force resisting system in an open concept building [6–10].

Photo Credit: Erik Jepsen

Data from this study were used to inform another study of a 2-story mass timber building supported by FEMA, which provided data used to add CLT shear walls to the U.S. building code ASCE 7-22 [11–13]. It was also an early test of the timber post-tensioned rocking walls system that would later be utilized in Peavy Hall at OSU [10].

This series of tests was not the end, though. Researchers at OSU and beyond have continued to build out our understanding of the capabilities of mass timber construction, including the role it can play in resilient structures – those that can not only withstand an earthquake, but also recover from them.

References

[1]          R. Langenbach, Resisting Earth’s Forces: Typologies of Timber Buildings in History, Structural Engineering International 18 (2008) 137–140. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686608784218806.
[2]          A. Ceccotti, C. Sandhaas, M. Yasumura, Seismic performance of X-Lam buildings: the Italian SOFIE project, in: Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Toronto, Canada, 2010: p. 10.
[3]          A. Ceccotti, C. Sandhaas, M. Okabe, M. Yasumura, C. Minowa, N. Kawai, SOFIE project – 3D shaking table test on a seven‐storey full‐scale cross‐laminated timber building, Earthq Engng Struct Dyn 42 (2013) 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2309.
[4]          R. Nishi, Y. Kawamata, R. Enokida, T. Inoue, K. Tabata, E-Defense Shake Table Experiments Implemented by NIED and Collaborative Research Projects in 2005–2022, JDR 18 (2023) 492–512. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2023.p0492.
[5]          M. Sato, H. Isoda, Y. Araki, T. Nakagawa, N. Kawai, T. Miyake, A seismic behavior and numerical model of narrow paneled cross-laminated timber building, Engineering Structures 179 (2019) 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.054.
[6]          J.W. van De Lindt, J. Furley, M.O. Amini, S. Pei, G. Tamagnone, A.R. Barbosa, D. Rammer, P. Line, M. Fragiacomo, M. Popovski, Experimental seismic behavior of a two-story CLT platform building, Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.079.
[7]          A.R. Barbosa, L.G. Rodrigues, A. Sinha, C. Higgins, R.B. Zimmerman, S. Breneman, S. Pei, J.W. Van De Lindt, J. Berman, E. McDonnell, Shake-Table Experimental Testing and Performance of Topped and Untopped Cross-Laminated Timber Diaphragms, J. Struct. Eng. 147 (2021) 04021011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002914.
[8]          H.-E. Blomgren, S. Pei, Z. Jin, J. Powers, J.D. Dolan, J.W. Van De Lindt, A.R. Barbosa, D. Huang, Full-Scale Shake Table Testing of Cross-Laminated Timber Rocking Shear Walls with Replaceable Components, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2019) 04019115. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002388.
[9]          H.-E. Blomgren, S. Pei, Z. Jin, J. Powers, J.D. Dolan, J.W. Van De Lindt, A.R. Barbosa, D. Huang, Full-Scale Shake Table Testing of Cross-Laminated Timber Rocking Shear Walls with Replaceable Components, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2019) 04019115. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002388.
[10]       S. Pei, J.W. Van De Lindt, A.R. Barbosa, J.W. Berman, E. McDonnell, J. Daniel Dolan, H.-E. Blomgren, R.B. Zimmerman, D. Huang, S. Wichman, Experimental Seismic Response of a Resilient 2-Story Mass-Timber Building with Post-Tensioned Rocking Walls, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2019) 04019120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002382.
[11]       J.W. Van De Lindt, J. Furley, M.O. Amini, S. Pei, G. Tamagnone, A.R. Barbosa, D. Rammer, P. Line, M. Fragiacomo, M. Popovski, Experimental seismic behavior of a two-story CLT platform building, Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.079.
[12]       J.W. van de Lindt, M.O. Amini, D. Rammer, P. Line, S. Pei, M. Popovski, Seismic Performance Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber Shear Wall Systems in the United States, Journal of Structural Engineering 146 (2020) 04020172. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002718.
[13]       S. Pei, K.L. Ryan, J.W. Berman, J.W. van de Lindt, S. Pryor, D. Huang, S. Wichman, A. Busch, W. Roser, S.L. Wynn, Y. Ji, T. Hutchinson, S. Sorosh, R.B. Zimmerman, J. Dolan, Shake-Table Testing of a Full-Scale 10-Story Resilient Mass Timber Building, Journal of Structural Engineering 150 (2024) 04024183. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-13752.