E4642

CLT
CROSS-LAMINATED TIMBER
CLT
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
www.fpinnovations.ca
Special Publication SP-528E
CL
Edited by
Sylvain Gagnon
and Ciprian Pirvu
FPInnovations
Qubec, QC
2011
Contents

1

Introduction
to cross-laminated timber
Cross-laminated
timber manufacturing
Structural design
of cross-laminated timber elements
C h a p t e r
Seismic performance
of cross-laminated timber buildings

C h a p
ter

Connections in
cross-laminated timber buildings
Duration of load and creep factors

for cross-laminated timber panels
C h a p t e r
Vibration performance
of cross-laminated timber floors

C h a p
ter

Fire performance
of cross-laminated timber assemblies
Acoustic performance
of cross-laminated timber assemblies

10

Building enclosure design

of cross-laminated timber construction
Environmental performance
of cross-laminated timber
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
C h a p t e r
11
and
C h a p Lifting
ter
12
handling of CLT elements
Preface
FPInnovations Building Systems Research Program has been generating technical data to facilitate:

Platform Frame Wood Construction
Heavy Timber Frame Construction
Cross-Laminated Timber Construction
Multi-disciplinary teams working in cooperation with the design and construction community
and research alliances have contributed greatly to the application of Platform Frame and Heavy Timber
Frame systems together with hybrid systems in Canada.
Cross-laminated timber (CLT), an emerging successful system from Europe, has been identified
by the forest products industry, the research and wood design communities as a new opportunity
for increasing the use of wood in non-traditional applications.
Building on the European experience, FPInnovations has prepared this peer-reviewed CLT Handbook to:

Provide immediate support for the design and construction of CLT systems as alternative solutions
in building codes;
Provide technical information for implementation of CLT systems in building codes and standards.
This FPInnovations CLT Handbook, prepared under the Transformative Technologies Program
of Natural Resources Canada, provides technical information relating to manufacturing,
all aspects of design and construction, and environmental considerations.
Erol Karacabeyli, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., FPInnovations
Richard Desjardins, M.Sc., Eng., FPInnovations
Acknowledgements
The completion of such an exhaustive manual on this new, but very promising technology was a great
venture that would not have been possible without the contribution of many people and numerous
national and international organizations.
First and most of all, we would like to express our special thanks to all researchers and technicians
at FPInnovations who, through their work and knowledge, contributed to the writing of individual
chapters. To the same extent, special thanks go to all reviewers and collaborators from external sources
who shared their precious time and expertise in improving this manual.
We would like to express our sincerest gratitude to Natural Resources Canada for the financing and
support provided through the Transformative Technologies Program. We also wish to acknowledge the full
assistance and support provided by FPInnovations management: Pierre Lapointe, Jim Dangerfield,
Alan Potter, Herv Deschnes, Richard Desjardins and Erol Karacabeyli.
Our very special thanks to Madeline Leroux, who did very well in transforming ideas and concepts into
drawings. Thanks also to Norine Young, Marie-Claude Thibault and Bill Deacon for the editing review;
to Odile Fleury for her help in bibliographic references; and to Richard Gosselin for his appreciated
experienced advices. The graphic design and layout was performed by Propage (www.propage.com).
Sylvain Gagnon
Funding for this publication

was provided by
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

CLT handbook : cross-laminated timber / edited by Sylvain Gagnon
and Ciprian Pirvu. -- Canadian ed.
(Special publication, ISSN 1925-0495 ; SP-528E)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-86488-547-0
1. Laminated wood. 2. Laminated wood construction. 3. Engineered
wood construction. I. Gagnon, Sylvain, 1970- II. Pirvu, Ciprian, 1968III. Title: Cross-laminated timber. IV. Series: Special publication
(FPInnovations (Institute)) ; SP-528E
TA666.C57 2011
624.184
C2010-907793-8
2011, FPInnovations
ISSN 1925-0495
ISBN 978-0-86488-547-0
For additional copies and/or

further information, contact
FPInnovations
2665 East Mall

Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Printed in Canada
319, rue Franquet

Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
Introduction to cross-laminated timber

CHAPTER
Author
FPInnovations
FORIN-Chapitre 1.indd 2
10-12-22 15:34
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their special thanks to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) for their financial
contribution to studies conducted at FPInnovations in support of the introduction of cross-laminated timber
product in Canada.
FPInnovations expresses its thanks to its industry members, NRCan (Canadian Forest Service), the Provinces
of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Qubec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon Territory for their continuing guidance and financial support.
2011 FPInnovations. All Rights reserved.
No part of this published Work may be reproduced, published, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, whether or not in translated form, without the prior written permission of FPInnovations, except
that members of FPInnovations in good standing shall be permitted to reproduce all or part of this Work for their own use but not for resale, rental or
otherwise for profit, and only if FPInnovations is identified in a prominent location as the source of the publication or portion thereof, and only so long
as such members remain in good standing
This published Work is designed to provide accurate, authoritative information but it is not intended to provide professional advice. If such advice is
sought, then services of a FPInnovations professional could be retained.
10-12-22 15:34
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT), an innovative engineered wood product developed in Europe, has been gaining
increasing popularity in residential and non-residential applications in several countries. Numerous impressive
buildings built around the world using CLT have become a good testimony of the many advantages that this
product can offer to the construction sector. In order to gain wide acceptance, cross-laminated timber, as a product
and structural system, needs to be implemented in the North American codes and standards.
This chapter puts forward an introduction to CLT as a product and the CLT construction in general, along
with different examples of buildings made of CLT panels. A road map for codes and standards implementation
of CLT in North America is also included.
ChapTER 1 Introduction
iii
10-12-22 15:34
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1
Brief History 1
FPInnovations Research Program and Motivation 2
Brief Definition of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) 4
Some Benefits of Cross-Laminating 7
Manufacturing Process 10
Structural Design and Serviceability Considerations of CLT 13
6.1 Proposed Analytical Design Methods 14

6.2 Seismic Performance of CLT Buildings 14
6.3 Connections and Construction of CLT Structures 16
6.4 Duration of Load and Creep Behaviour 16
6.5 Vibration Performance of Floors 17
6.6 Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies 17
6.7 Acoustic Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies 17
6.8 Building Enclosure Design of Cross-Laminated Timber Construction 18
7
Environmental Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber 20
Codes and Standards Road Map for CLT 21
Cross-Laminated Timber in Construction 23
9.1 Residential Buildings 23

9.2 Office and Commercial Buildings 31
9.3 Hybrid Structures 36
iv
10-12-22 15:34
List of Tables
Table 1
Current and projected codes and standards activities for CLT 22
List of Figures
Figure 1 CLT panel configuration 4
Figure 2 Examples of CLT panel cross-sections 5
Figure 3 Example of CLT panel cross-sections and direction of fibres of the top layers 6
Figure 4 CLT panel vs. glued-laminated timber 7
Figure 5 (a) Floor assembly made of four 3-ply CLT panels acting in one direction 8
(b) Floor assembly made of one 3-ply CLT panel acting in both directions 9
Figure 6 CLT wall assembly 11
Figure 7 CLT floor or roof assembly 12
Figure 8 Seven-storey CLT house tested at E-Defense Laboratory in Miki, Japan as a part
of the SOFIE Project 15
Figure 9 CLT floor sound-insulated by the top 18
Figure 10 CLT floor sound-insulated by the bottom 18
Figure 11 Eight-storey building under construction protected by a tent 19
Figure 12 Single-family house in Rykkinn, Norway 23
Figure 13 Single-family house in Oslo, Norway 24
Figure 14 Single-family house in Klagenfurt, Austria (courtesy of KLH) 25
Figure 15 Multi-family building in Judenburg, Austria (courtesy of KLH) 26
Figure 16 Multi-family building in Berlin, Germany 27
Figure 17 Multi-family building in Vxj, Sweden 28
Figure 18 Multi-family building in London, United Kingdom (courtesy of KLH and Waugh-Thistleton) 29
v
10-12-22 15:34
Figure 19 Multi-family building in LAquila, Italy (courtesy of Binderholz) 30

Figure 20 Impulsezentrum, Graz, Austria (courtesy of KLH) 31
Figure 21 Viken Skog BA, Hnefoss, Norway (courtesy of Moelven) 32
Figure 22 Juwi head office, Wrrstadt, Germany (courtesy of Binderholz) 33
Figure 23 Workshop, Fgen, Austria (courtesy of Binderholz) 34
Figure 24 Warehouse, Katsch, Austria (courtesy of KLH) 35
Figure 25 Residential building in South Carolina, USA (courtesy of Binderholz) 36
Figure 26 Parking Garage in Innsbruck, Austria (courtesy of KLH) 37
vi
10-12-22 15:34
1
Brief History
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative wood product that was first developed in Austria and Germany
and ever since has been gaining popularity in residential and non-residential applications in Europe. There are
currently several CLT producers in Europe.
In the mid 1990s, Austria undertook an industry-academia joint research effort that resulted in the development
of modern CLT. For several years, progress was slow but in the early 2000s, construction in CLT increased
significantly, partially driven by the green building movement but also due to better efficiencies, product
approvals, and improved marketing and distribution channels. Another important factor has been the perception
that CLT is a non-light construction system, like masonry and concrete, which are extensively used in residential
construction in many European countries.
The use of CLT panels in buildings has increased over the last few years in Europe. Numerous impressive buildings
and other types of structures built around the world using CLT have become a good testimony of the many
advantages that this product can offer to the construction sector. The easy handling in construction and the high
level of prefabrication involved that facilitate a quick erection time are just some of the key advantages, especially
in mid-rise construction (e.g. 5 to 8 storeys). Good thermal insulation, good sound insulation and a fairly
good performance under fire conditions are added benefits that come as a result of the massiveness of
the wood structure.
While this product is well-established in Europe, work on the implementation of CLT products and systems
has just begun in Canada and the United States. The use of CLT in North America is gaining interest in both
the construction and wood industries. Several North American manufacturers are in the process of product
and manufacturing assessment or have already started pilot production.
In this chapter, we put forward an introduction to CLT as a product and the CLT construction in general, along
with different examples of buildings and other types of structures made with CLT panels. A road map for codes
and standards implementation of CLT in North America is also included in this chapter.
1
10-12-22 15:34
2
FPInnovations
Research Program
and Motivation
The European experience showed that CLT construction can be competitive, particularly in mid-rise and high-rise
buildings. Although CLT has barely been used in North America to date, it could be used as a viable wood-based
structural solution for the shift towards sustainable densification of urban and suburban centres in Canada and
the USA. In order to gain much needed wide acceptance and popularity, CLT, as a structural system, needs to be
implemented in the North American codes and standards.
Under the Transformative Technologies Program of Natural Resources Canada, FPInnovations launched
a multi-disciplinary research program on CLT in 2005. Based on studies and the knowledge gained from
the European experience, FPInnovations has prepared this peer-reviewed CLT Handbook. Most of the work
included in this Handbook has been peer-reviewed by national and international well skilled experts in wood
design and construction.
Moreover, in support of FPInnovations research activities on CLT and other new generation building systems,
a new NSERC network (NEWBuildS) has been established with CLT being one of its four themes. The CLT
research under the network is focused on the manufacturing and performance issues of CLT products and
assemblies. Research on hybrid construction where CLT is used together with wood-based or non-wood materials
is also covered under the various themes. The research is conducted by several Canadian universities in close
collaboration with FPInnovations researchers.
This Handbook provides key technical information related to the manufacturing, design and performance
of CLT in construction in the following areas:

Cross-laminated timber manufacturing

Structural design of cross-laminated timber elements
Seismic performance of cross-laminated timber buildings
Connections in cross-laminated timber buildings
Duration of load and creep factors for cross-laminated timber panels
Vibration performance of cross-laminated timber floors
Fire performance of cross-laminated timber assemblies
Acoustic performance of cross-laminated timber assemblies
Building enclosure design of cross-laminated timber construction
Environmental performance of cross-laminated timber
2
10-12-22 15:34
Finally, this comprehensive Handbook provides immediate support for the design and construction of CLT
systems as alternative solutions in building codes. Additionally, it provides technical information for implementing
CLT systems in building codes and standards.
Note: This document was developed using a series of reports prepared by FPInnovations to support
the introduction of CLT in the North American market. The information contained in these reports represents
current research results and technical information made available to FPInnovations from many sources, including
researchers, wood product manufacturers, and design professionals. The information has been reviewed by
staff and others including design engineers and architects, and wood product manufacturers. Although every
reasonable effort has been made to make this work accurate and authoritative, FPInnovations does not warrant
and assumes no liability for the accuracy or completeness of the information or its fitness for any particular
purpose. It is the responsibility of users to exercise professional knowledge and judgment in the use of
the information.
3
10-12-22 15:34
3
Brief Definition of
Cross-Laminated
Timber (CLT)
CLT panels consist of several layers of boards stacked crosswise (typically at 90 degrees) and glued together
on their wide faces and, sometimes, on the narrow faces as well. A cross-section of a CLT element has at least
three glued layers of boards placed in orthogonally alternating orientation to the neighboring layers. In special
configurations, consecutive layers may be placed in the same direction, giving a double layer (e.g. double
longitudinal layers at the outer faces and additional double layers at the core of the panel) to obtain specific
structural capacities. CLT products are usually fabricated with three to seven layers and even more in some cases.
Figure 1 illustrates a CLT panel configuration while Figure 2 shows examples of possible CLT panel cross-sections.
Figure 3 illustrates a 5-layer CLT panel with its two cross-sections.
G-664
Transverse Planks
Longitudinal Planks
Figure 1
CLT panel configuration
4
10-12-22 15:34
G-664
Figure 2
Examples of CLT panel cross-sections
5
10-12-22 15:34
er
lay
op
re
on
cti
e
dir
A
b
fib
of
of
et
th
Section A-A
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
Section B-B
Variable
Variable
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
G-664
Figure 3
Example of CLT panel cross-sections and direction of fibres of the top layers
Thickness of individual boards may vary from 10 mm to 50 mm and the width may vary from about 60 mm to
240 mm. Boards are fingerjoined using structural adhesive. Boards are visually or machine stress-rated and are
kiln dried. Panel sizes vary by manufacturers; typical widths are 0.6 m, 1.2 m, and 3 m (could be up to 4~5 m
in particular cases) while length can be up to 18 m and the thickness can be up to 400 mm. Transportation
regulations may impose limitations to CLT panel size.
The lumber or boards in the outer layers of CLT panels used as walls are normally oriented parallel to vertical
loads to maximize the wall resistance. Likewise, for floor and roof systems, the outer layers run parallel to
the major span direction.
CLT panels used for prefabricated wall and floor structures offer many advantages. The cross-laminating process
provides improved dimensional stability to the product which allows for prefabrication of wide and long floor
slabs and single storey long walls. Additionally, cross-laminating provides relatively high in-plane and out-of-plane
strength and stiffness properties in both directions, giving it a two-way action capability similar to a reinforced
concrete slab. The reinforcement effect provided by the cross lamination in CLT also considerably increases
the splitting resistance of CLT for certain types of connection systems.
6
10-12-22 15:34
4
Some Benefits of
Cross-Laminating
Figure 4 illustrates the primary difference between CLT and glued-laminated timber products. Figure 5a shows
a floor built with four individual CLT panels acting mostly in one direction, while Figure 5b illustrates the same
floor, this time built with one CLT panel only acting most likely in two directions (i.e. two-way action).
Cross-Laminated Timber
CLT
Glulam
G-664
Figure 4
CLT panel vs. glued-laminated timber
7
10-12-22 15:34
a
G-664
(a)
8
10-12-22 15:34
a
G-664
(b)
Figure 5
(a) Floor assembly made of four 3-ply CLT panels acting in one direction
(b) Floor assembly made of one 3-ply CLT panel acting in both directions
Distance a may reach 4 meters
9
10-12-22 15:34
5
Manufacturing
Process
A typical manufacturing process of CLT includes the following steps: lumber selection, lumber grouping and
planing, adhesive application, panel lay-up and pressing, and product cutting, marking and packaging. The key
to a successful CLT manufacturing process is consistency in the lumber quality and control of the parameters
that impact on the quality of the adhesive bond. Stringent in-plant quality control tests are required to ensure
that the final CLT products will fit for the intended applications.
Chapter 2 entitled Cross-Laminated Timber Manufacturing provides general information about CLT
manufacturing targeted mainly to engineers, designers, and specifiers. The information contained in
this chapter may also be useful to potential CLT manufacturers.
Seed documents prepared by FPInnovations for a North American CLT product standard are presented
and used as an example for discussing how CLT panel quality may be evaluated.
Figure 6 illustrates a typical CLT wall assembly, and Figure 7 illustrates a typical CLT floor or roof assembly.
10
10-12-22 15:34
5~
0m
15
No.2/No.1
Up to 3 m
No.3/Stud
16
18
G-671
Figure 6
CLT wall assembly
11
10-12-22 15:34
45
50 ~
0m
m
G-671
Up
18
to
~
16
3m
No.2 & Btr or

MSR 1650 fb
No.3/Stud
Figure 7
CLT floor or roof assembly
12
10-12-22 15:34
6
Structural
Design and
Serviceability
Considerations
of CLT
CLT panels are typically used as load-carrying plate elements in structural systems such as walls, floors and roofs.
Basically, the objectives are to provide a structure which is safe and serviceable to use, economical to build and
maintain, and satisfactorily performs its intended function.
For floor and roof CLT elements, key critical characteristics that must be taken into account are the following:
In-plane and out-of-plane bending and shear strength and stiffness
Short-term and long-term behaviour:
- instantaneous deflection
- long-term strength for permanent loading
- long-term deflection (creep deformation)
Vibration performance of floors
Compression perpendicular to grain strength (bearing)
Fire performance
Acoustic performance
Durability
For wall elements, the load-bearing capacity is critical and shall be verified together with the in-plane and
out-of-plane shear and bending strength. In addition, fire and acoustic performance along with the durability
of the system are key characteristics that must be taken into account at the design stage.
13
10-12-22 15:34
6.1
Proposed Analytical Design Methods

Different design methods have been adopted in Europe for the determination of basic mechanical properties
of CLT. Some of these methods are experimental in nature while others are analytical. For floor elements,
experimental evaluation involves determination of flexural properties by testing full-size panels or sections
of panels with a specific span-to-depth ratio. The problem with the experimental approach is that every time
the lay-up, type of material, or any other manufacturing parameters change, more testing is needed to evaluate
the bending and shear properties of such new product configurations.
However, the analytical approach, once verified with the test data, offers a more general and less costly alternative.
An analytical approach generally predicts strength and stiffness properties of CLT panels based on the input
material properties of the laminate boards that make up the CLT panel.
Proposed analytical procedures for determining the basic mechanical properties of CLT panels in timber
construction are given in the Chapter 3 entitled Structural Design of Cross-Laminated Timber Elements.
6.2
Seismic Performance of CLT Buildings

Based on the literature review of the research work conducted around the world and the results from a series
of quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels conducted at FPInnovations, CLT wall panels can be used as an effective
lateral load resisting system. Results to date have shown that the CLT wall panels demonstrated adequate seismic
performance when nails or slender screws are used with steel brackets to connect the walls to the floors below.
The use of hold-downs with nails on each end of the walls tends to further improve their seismic performance.
Use of diagonally placed long screws to connect CLT walls to the floor below is not recommended in high seismic
zones due to lower ductility and brittle failure mechanism. Use of step joints in longer walls can be an effective
solution not only to reduce the wall stiffness and thus reduce the seismic input load, but also to improve the wall
deformation capabilities. Timber rivets in smaller groups with custom made brackets were found to be effective
connectors for CLT wall panels. Further research in this field is needed to further clarify the use of timber rivets
in CLT and to verify performance of CLT walls with alternative types of connection systems (e.g. bearing types).
While most CLT buildings are of a platform type of structural system, they are far less susceptible to develop soft
storey mechanisms than many other structural systems of the same type. Since the nonlinear behaviour (and the
potential damage) is localized in the hold-down and bracket connection areas only, the panels that are also the
vertical load carrying elements are virtually left intact in place, and well connected to the floor panels, even after
a near collapse state is reached. In addition, in CLT construction, all walls in one storey contribute to the lateral
and gravity resistance, thus providing a degree of redundancy and a system sharing effect.
Preliminary evaluation of the force modification factors (R-factors) for the seismic design of structures according
to the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) was also performed. Based on the experimental and analytical
research work conducted in this field in Europe and at FPInnovations, the performance comparison to already
existing systems in NBCC and on the equivalency performance criteria given in ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria
(AC130), proposed force modification factors (R-factors) for the seismic design of CLT structures are provided
in Chapter 4 entitled Seismic Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings.
14
10-12-22 15:34
Figure 8
Seven-storey CLT house tested at E-Defense Laboratory in Miki, Japan as a part of the SOFIE Project
15
10-12-22 15:34
6.3
Connections and Construction of CLT Structures

Connections in timber construction, including those built with CLT, play an important role in maintaining
the integrity of the timber structure and in providing strength, stiffness, stability and ductility. Consequently,
they require a thorough attention of the designers.
Traditional and innovative connection systems have been used in CLT assemblies in Europe. Several types
of traditional and innovative connection systems for connecting CLT panels to panels, walls to walls and walls
to floors are described in details in Chapter 5 entitled Connections in Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings.
Researchers in Europe have developed design procedures for traditional connections in CLT, including dowels,
wood screws and nails which are commonly used in Europe for designing CLT assemblies. The proposed
European design procedure provided in Chapter 5 deals only with ductile failure modes to determine the lateral
load resistance of such connections. Empirical expressions were developed for the calculation of characteristic
embedment properties of each type of fastener, depending on its location with respect to the plane of the panel
(perpendicular to or on edge). Those expressions were verified by European researchers and results seem to
correspond well with predictions. European Yield Model (EYM) equations as given in Eurocode 5 were adopted
for the design using CLT fastener embedment strength equations.
Information on the applicability of the proposed design approach from Europe to traditional connection systems
in CLT in Canada are also presented in Chapter 5. It is believed that once the embedment properties of such
fasteners in CLT are established, it would be possible to apply current ductile design provisions in CSA O86-09.
Due to the reinforcing effect of cross lamination in CLT, it is speculated that current minimum geometric
requirements given in CSA O86-09 for dowels, screws and nails in solid timber or glulam are applicable to CLT.
However, designers need to be cautious about this as further verification is required, considering the specific
features of each panel. Brittle failure modes also need to be taken into account which has not been investigated
yet. Further work is needed to verify possible brittle failure modes associated with each type of fasteners in
CLT connections, especially for closely spaced fasteners.
Chapter 5 is mainly focused on CLT assemblies. But, since all buildings are considered to be mixed constructions
to a certain extent, the scope covers hybrid constructions, where other wood-based systems (e.g. light frame,
glulam, etc.) or combined with other materials such as concrete or steel are mixed with CLT to resist certain
types of loads, such as the lateral loads.
6.4
Duration of Load and Creep Behaviour

Duration of load is defined as the duration of continuing application of a load or a series of periods of intermittent
applications of the same load (CSA O86-09, 2009). Creep is defined as an increase in deformation of a material in
time under constant loading, which translates into an increase in deformation over time.
Given the nature of CLT, with orthogonal arrangement of layers and either mechanically fastened with nails or
wood dowels, or bonded with structural adhesive, it is more prone to time-dependent deformations under load
(creep) than other engineered wood products such as glued-laminated timber. Therefore, special attention must
be paid to the duration of load and creep behaviour of such products. Long-term behaviour of structural wood
products is accounted for in the Canadian design standard by using load duration factors which are applied
to adjust specified strengths. Since CLT is not covered by the CSA O86-09, load duration and service factors
for CLT do not exist in CSA O86-09.
Two main options for early adopters of CLT systems in Canada are proposed in Chapter 6, entitled
Duration of Load and Creep Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber Panels. In addition to the load duration
and service factors, tentative solutions for taking into account creep in CLT structural elements are proposed.
These recommendations are in line with the specifications of CSA O86-09 and NBCC.
16
10-12-22 15:34
6.5
Vibration Performance of Floors

Laboratory and field tests on CLT floor assemblies have indicated that the vibration behaviour of CLT floors is
different from lightweight wood joisted floors and heavy concrete slab floors. A proposed design methodology
for controlling vibrations of CLT floors under normal walking is given in the Chapter 7 entitled Vibration
Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Floors.
6.6
Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies

CLT panels have the potential to provide good fire resistance, often comparable to typical massive assemblies
of non-combustible construction. This is due to the inherent nature of thick timber members to slowly char at a
predictable rate, allowing massive wood systems to maintain significant structural capacity for extended durations
when exposed to fire.
In order to facilitate the acceptance of future code provisions for the design of CLT panels with regard to fire
resistance, a one-year research project has been launched at FPInnovations as of April 2010. The main objective
of the project is to develop and validate a generic calculation procedure to calculate the fire resistance ratings
of CLT wall and floor assemblies. A series of full-scale fire resistance experiments is currently underway to
allow a comparison between the fire resistance rating measured during a standard fire resistance test and that
calculated using the proposed procedure. In light of the fact that the research project has just begun, a simple
but conservative design procedure is presented in Chapter 8 of the Handbook, entitled Fire Performance
of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies, following the current state-of-the-art information from Europe
and North America.
The Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood (CSA O86) can be used to calculate the fire resistance
rating of CLT panels along with the same methodology that is currently used for calculating the fire resistance
ratings of glulam and heavy timber in the United States, New Zealand and Europe. This method is called the
reduced (or effective) cross-section method and allows the use of the design values that can be found in the wood
design standard, CSA O86. The calculation procedure described in Chapter 8 should be employed by a fire
protection engineer familiar with wood design.
6.7
Acoustic Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies

Adequate levels of noise/sound control in multi-family buildings are mandatory requirements of most building
codes in the world. In many jurisdictions, these requirements are as strictly enforced as those for structural
sufficiency and fire safety. Much effort has been spent on evaluation of sound transmission class (STC) and impact
sound insulation class (IIC) of floor and wall assemblies and on studies of flanking transmission in multi-family
dwellings in Canada. However, limited amount of work has been done in Canada on the acoustic performance
of CLT systems.
In Chapter 9, entitled Acoustic Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies, it is demonstrated that
CLT floor and wall assemblies made of CLT elements can have good acoustical performance in residential,
multi-residential and non-residential buildings. Estimated STC and IIC ratings of existing generic floor
assemblies used in Europe are provided for benchmarking. Figures 9 and 10 show examples of floors using
sound insulation systems.
17
10-12-22 15:34
Figure 9
CLT floor sound-insulated by the top
Figure 10
CLT floor sound-insulated by the bottom
6.8
Building Enclosure Design of Cross-Laminated

Timber Construction
The design of CLT panels for building enclosure in North America requires considerable efforts in order to ensure
their long-term durability, particularly in areas with high moisture loads such as the coastal regions. Like other
wood products, the key to CLT durability is to keep it dry. There is a potential for slow drying due to the big
mass of wood in the product once moisture gets into the panel. Since CLT has been used for prefabrication in
Europe for over a decade, a lot of attention has been paid to protecting the CLT panels from getting wet during
transportation or construction. One way of controlling the wetting during transport of CLT elements is to use
closed containers. As for assembly, Europeans have adopted several methods for controlling moisture during
construction. Delivering CLT panels just on time for assembly to minimize construction time is just one strategy.
Other methods that have been successfully implemented in Europe involve the construction of a temporary
roofing system to protect against rain and snow during construction. Other methods involve building the actual
roof system of the structure on ground, then jack it up as the building goes up. Figure 11 shows a system of tent
used in Sweden during the construction of an 8-storey CLT building.
CLT is usually not manufactured to be exposed to exterior environment and the panels should be protected from
rain and high relative humidity levels with a properly designed building envelope. Like other wood construction
types, the use of basic measures such as overhangs and the integration of drained and ventilated rainscreen walls
will effectively prevent rain penetration into building assemblies. In addition, appropriate design and application
of insulation materials, air control and vapour control strategies, as well as ground moisture control measures are
needed. Such measures will ensure that the panels will be kept warm and dry, help prevent moisture from being
trapped and accumulated within the panels during the service life, and ensure the energy efficiency of
CLT building enclosure. Chapter 10 provides details on durability aspects of CLT.
18
10-12-22 15:34
Figure 11
Eight-storey building under construction protected by a tent
19
10-12-22 15:35
7
Environmental
Performance
of CrossLaminated Timber
The environmental footprint of CLT is frequently discussed as potentially beneficial when compared to
functionally equivalent concrete systems. Inherent to that discussion is an assumption that the comparative
environmental profile of CLT will be lower, based on the generic life cycle analysis (LCA) profiles of wood
and concrete. In particular, CLT (because it is made of wood), is assumed to have a light carbon footprint, due
to relatively low embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in wood versus concrete, and due to the carbon
storage capacity of wood products.
Existing environmental comparisons between wood and concrete buildings generally focus on light wood framing
using lumber, whereas CLT is a massive structural system involving at least three times more wood material, and
added processing and auxiliary materials such as adhesives as with any engineered (composite) wood products.
In other words, the footprint of a CLT building is not the same as a light-frame building, and we therefore cannot
simplistically assume CLT will compare as favourably to concrete as light framed wood.
In Chapter 11, efforts are focused on quantifying the environmental footprint of CLT. Given the early stages
of CLT research and development efforts in North America, this work is considered very much preliminary
in nature. Some of the quantified environmental characteristics of CLT as a construction material, without
conducting a full life cycle assessment (LCA), are presented in the chapter. Since no existing comparative literature
on CLT has been found, efforts have been focused on trying/developing several approaches to estimate the
footprint of CLT and its comparison to concrete. Using existing LCA data on Canadian glulam as a proxy, the
footprint of the material itself compared to the materials in reinforced concrete, and of the material in a midrise
building compared to concrete was examined. Modified glulam LCA data were used to approximate an LCA
for a CLT floor section and compare it to a functionally equivalent concrete floor section. In all these cases, it is
estimated that the CLT will substantially outperform concrete in every environmental metric addressed by LCA.
Finally, CLT products with different thicknesses and glue lines were tested for their volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions in order to assist engineers and builders to better
select their construction materials with less impact on indoor air quality. Emissions were evaluated according to
ASTM D 5116 and were collected after 24 hours of samples exposure in the small chamber. Results are given in
Chapter 11 entitled Environmental Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber.
20
10-12-22 15:35
8
Codes and
Standards Road
Map for CLT
Under Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)s Transformative Technologies and provincial Programs,
FPInnovations has been playing a pivotal role in the identification of Next Generation Wood Building Systems
to facilitate the expanded wood use outside the traditional housing market by:

Going to new heights in Platform Frame Wood Construction (up to 6 storeys)

Revival of Heavy Timber Frame Construction (up to 10 storeys)
Adoption of CLT from Europe (up to 10 storeys)
Facilitating Hybrid Construction
Notable initial successes were achieved in Canada where a number of 5- and 6-storey residential and office
buildings have been built, and the discussion about changes in building codes to allow greater use of wood
systems was initiated. The British Columbia Building Code already made a revision to allow platform wood-frame
residential construction up to 6 storeys, and Qubec allowed the construction of a heavy timber/concrete hybrid
office building.
The implementation of CLT in the regulatory systems in Canada and the United States requires a multi-level
strategy that includes development of a product standard, material design standard(s) and adoption of CLT on
building code levels. The current state and projected short term and medium term activities of the standardization
processes in those three levels are summarized in Table 1. Energy and green codes are also important aspects of
regulatory systems and will be included in the future.
21
10-12-22 15:35
Table 1
Current and projected codes and standards activities for CLT
Current Situation
(November 2010)
Proprietary route
European Draft
Product
Standard
Level
FPInnovations Drafts
APA Draft
ISO Work Item
Material
Design
Standard
Level
FPInnovations CLT
Handbook and other peerreviewed information
Short Term
(1 year)
Medium Term
(5 years)
Proprietary acceptance as
floor/roof/wall assemblies
European Draft
FPInnovations CLT
Handbook and other peerreviewed information
CLT strength classes

European Standard
APA/ANSI Standard
APA/ANSI Standard
ISO Draft
ISO Standard
CWC and AWC initiate the

process based on
FPInnovations Handbook
and other peer-reviewed
information
Proprietary acceptance
Building
Code Level
Proprietary CLT
CWC and AWC initiate the

building code process
based on FPInnovations
CLT Handbook and other
peer-reviewed information
Acceptance in the 2014

edition of CSA 086
in Canada
Acceptance in the NDS
in the USA
Acceptance in the 2015

NBCC in Canada
Acceptance in the 2015 IBC
in the USA
FPInnovations drafted CLT Plant Qualification and Product Standards (see Appendix in Chapter 2 for
more details) and passed them to the ANSI-accredited APA Committee to be used as seed documents for the
development of a single North American product standard that could be used as a basis for an ISO standard that
would harmonize North American and European standards. An ISO Task Group was formed under the ISO
Technical Committee on Timber Structures for the development of an ISO Standard for CLT.
It is anticipated that CLT manufacturers will use the proposed standards to gain acceptance of proprietary
CLT products by code-recognized evaluation services (e.g. CCMC, ICC-ES, NTA, IAMPO).
A North American Advisory Committee on CLT was formed to advance the implementation of CLT technology.
The Advisory Committee formed a Research/Standards Subcommittee so that the related activities on CLT can
be streamlined. Based on the initial assessment, seismic and fire design issues have been identified as the most
important ones to address. American Wood Council (AWC) and Canadian Wood Council (CWC) already
initiated the process of implementing CLT in the material codes.
This CLT Handbook prepared by FPInnovations and its research collaborators includes structural (including
seismic and connections) and fire design, vibration characteristics, sound transmission, building envelope and
environmental performance of CLT to:
p rovide immediate support for the design and construction of CLT systems as alternative solutions
in building codes;
provide technical information for implementation of CLT systems in building codes and standards.
In order to ensure that CLT is as easy to specify as non-wood systems, a strength class system (with few classes
similar to steel and concrete) incorporating many CLT products is highly recommended for implementation
in the next code cycle. The use of a stress class system will allow a designer to do a conceptual design using CLT
panels with desired capacities readily available. This reduces the cost of design and should help ensure a positive
reception of CLT by the design community.
22
10-12-22 15:35
9
Cross-Laminated
Timber in
Construction
The purpose of this section is to present selected interesting examples of buildings built around the world
using CLT elements.
9.1
Residential Buildings
Figure 12
Single-family house in Rykkinn, Norway
23
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 13
Single-family house in Oslo, Norway
24
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 14
Single-family house in Klagenfurt, Austria (courtesy of KLH)
25
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 15
Multi-family building in Judenburg, Austria (courtesy of KLH)
26
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 16
Multi-family building in Berlin, Germany
27
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 17
Multi-family building in Vxj, Sweden
28
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 18
Multi-family building in London, United Kingdom
(courtesy of KLH and Waugh-Thistleton)
29
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 19
Multi-family building in LAquila, Italy (courtesy of Binderholz)
30
10-12-22 15:35
9.2
Office and Commercial Buildings
Figure 20
Impulsezentrum, Graz, Austria (courtesy of KLH)
31
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 21
Viken Skog BA, Hnefoss, Norway (courtesy of Moelven)
32
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 22
Juwi head office, Wrrstadt, Germany (courtesy of Binderholz)
33
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 23
Workshop, Fgen, Austria (courtesy of Binderholz)
34
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 24
Warehouse, Katsch, Austria (courtesy of KLH)
35
10-12-22 15:35
9.3
Hybrid Structures
Figure 25
Residential building in South Carolina, USA (courtesy of Binderholz)
36
10-12-22 15:35
Figure 26
Parking Garage in Innsbruck, Austria (courtesy of KLH)
37
10-12-22 15:35
10-12-22 15:35
10-12-22 15:35
10-12-22 15:35
10-12-22 15:35
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
FPInnovations, its marks and logos are registred trademarks of FPInnovations.
10-12-22 15:35
Cross-laminated timber manufacturing

CHAPTER
Authors
Brad (Jianhe) Wang, Ph.D., FPInnovations
Ciprian Pirvu, Ph.D., FPInnovations
Conroy Lum, P.Eng., FPInnovations

Peer Reviewers
Romulo C. Casilla, Ph.D., RCC Consulting Ltd.
Y. H. Chui, Ph.D., P.Eng., University of New Brunswick
Bob Knudson, Ph.D., FPInnovations
10-12-22 15:46
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this study was provided by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) under the Transformative
Technologies Program, which was created to identify and accelerate the development and introduction of
products such as cross-laminated timber in North America.
2011 FPInnovations. All rights reserved.
as such members remain in good standing.
This published Work is designed to provide accurate, authoritative information but it is not intended to provide professional advice. If such advice
is sought, then services of a FPInnovations professional could be retained.
10-12-22 15:46
Abstract
This chapter provides general information about the manufacturing of CLT that may be of interest to the design
community. The information contained in this chapter may also provide guidance to CLT manufacturers in
the development of their plant operating specification document.
Typical steps of the manufacturing process of CLT are described, and key process variables affecting adhesive bond
quality of CLT products are discussed. Proposed methods for evaluating panel quality are presented.
ChapTER 2 Manufacturing
iii
10-12-22 15:46
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1
Introduction 1
Raw Materials for CLT 2
2.1 Lumber 2
2.2 Adhesive 2
3
CLT Manufacturing Process 4
3.1 Primary Lumber Selection 6

3.1.1 Lumber Moisture Content and Temperature 6

3.1.2 Lumber Characteristics Affecting Adhesive Bond Quality 7
3.2 Lumber Grouping 7
3.3 Lumber Planing 8
3.4 Lumber/Layers Cutting to Length 8
3.5 Adhesive Application 8
3.6 Panel Lay-up 9
3.7 Assembly Pressing 9

3.8
CLT On-line Quality Control, Surface Sanding and Cutting 10
3.9 Product Marking, Packaging and Shipping 11

4
Product Quality Assurance 12
4.1 CLT Product and Plant Qualification 12

4.2 Block Shear Tests 13
4.3 Tests for Assessing Visual Quality of CLT 13
5
References 15
Appendix 1 Seed Document for Proposed Cross-Laminated Timber Plant Qualification Standard
Appendix 2 Seed Document for Proposed Cross-Laminated Timber Product Standard
iv
10-12-22 15:46
List of Tables
Table 1
Typical characteristics of adhesives for CLT manufacturing 3
List of Figures
Figure 1
The manufacturing process of CLT products 5
Figure 2
Lumber shrinkage relief 9
Figure 3
Proposed delamination specimen 12
Figure 4
Check development in CLT panels 13
v
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
1
Introduction
Components (lumber and adhesives) selected for cross-laminated timber (CLT) and the design and operation
of manufacturing processes (adhesive application, panel pressing, etc.) need to be carefully considered to ensure
a reliable and consistent product. CLT products evaluated for code compliance by a recognized evaluation service,
or produced and independently certified as meeting a national standard, provide product specifiers with a basis for
comparing competing product performance and assurance that minimum requirements have been considered in
the product design.
In North America, the desire is to support the development of CLT with a single product standard that is
recognized both in Canada and the United States. While this effort does not prevent individual manufacturers
from pursuing code recognition through evaluation services, it is felt that efforts specifically directed towards
developing a bi-national standard will help to accelerate product awareness, and acceptance in the marketplace and
amongst regulators. At the time of this report, initiatives have been launched to develop a CLT product standard.
One of these has been the development of two seed documents by FPInnovations, which could after consideration
by a committee, form the basis of a CLT product standard. Copies of those two seed documents were sent to the
APA Standards Committee on Cross-Laminated Timber (PRG-320).
In this chapter, we will make reference to these two seed documents (hereafter referred to as the proposed
CLT standard) to facilitate the discussion on CLT manufacturing issues. The seed documents are included
in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this chapter.
1
10-12-22 15:46
2
Raw Materials
for CLT
2.1
Lumber
CLT is manufactured from a wide range of dimension lumber or boards in Europe, but the first generation of
Canadian CLT will likely be manufactured primarily from structural dimension lumber or boards that meet
the requirements of CSA O141 in Canada and PS 20 in the United States. Doing so allows manufacturers and
designers to utilize design values published in the national codes (CSA O86 in Canada, and the National Design
Specification in the USA) to derive capacities for CLT panels (see Chapter 3, Structural Design of Cross-Laminated
Timber Elements, for more information). One advantage is that such lumber will typically be marked as HT
(heat treated), meaning that the resulting CLT product will also meet national and international
phytosanitary requirements.
Although any grade with published design values can be used in CLT, in most cases the visual quality requirements
for lumber stock will be Structural Light Framing No. 2 & Better grade (NLGA, 2003) for the major direction,
namely, the general direction of the outermost layers of the CLT panel, and No. 3 & Better grade for the minor
direction perpendicular to the major one. Machine rated lumber grades such as 1650Fb-1.5E may also be specified,
particularly for the major direction.
2.2
Adhesive
The proposed CLT standard requires that adhesives used in the manufacturing of CLT meet the structural
adhesive standard CSA O112.10 Evaluation of Adhesives for Structural Wood Products (Limited Moisture
Exposure) (CSA, 2008). Adhesives meeting this specification, while having a high degree of moisture resistance,
are intended only for products targeted at dry service conditions. Because of the sensitivity of wood stress in
rolling shear to moisture, dry service is the proposed moisture service class targeted for CLT in the proposed CLT
standard (see Chapter 6, Duration of Load and Creep Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber, for more information).
Adhesives that traditionally have been used for laminated beam applications in Canada are also suitable
for bonding CLT. Such adhesives will have met standards for adhesives suitable for exterior exposure, such as
CSA O112.9 Evaluation of Adhesives for Structural Wood Products (Exterior Exposure) (CSA, 2010).
Although adequate structural and moisture exposure performance of the adhesive are important attributes,
there are other issues that need to be considered when selecting an adhesive for CLT.
For thick CLT panels, the pressing operation may become a bottleneck if commercial heat cured adhesives,
such as phenol formaldehyde, are used. Structural cold-set adhesives are preferred to increase the manufacturing
productivity. Appearance of the bondline and wear on cutting tools used to shape CLT panels are
other considerations.
2
10-12-22 15:46
Classes of structural adhesives that could be used include:

Phenolic types such as phenol-resorcinol formaldehyde1 (PRF);
Emulsion polymer isocyanate (EPI);
One-component polyurethane (PUR).
PRF is a well-known adhesive for structural use, and commonly used for glued-laminated timber manufacturing
in North America. EPI adhesive is used for wood I-joist and lamination. PUR adhesive has been commonly used
in Europe to produce CLT. It should be noted that not all formulations within a class may meet the requirements
of the structural adhesive standard, and there may be considerable variation in working properties within each class.
Documentation from independent sources indicating that the adhesive has met the appropriate standards should be
requested, and the working properties needed by the manufacturing process should be discussed with the adhesive supplier.
In addition to cost and working properties, each class may possess other attributes that may be important. Among
the three adhesive types indicated above, PRF is dark brown whereas EPI and PUR are light-coloured. PUR is
manufactured without the addition of solvents or formaldehyde and is moisture reactive. Due to the chemical
reaction, PUR normally produces slight foaming during hardening.
Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the three types of structural adhesives.
Table 1
Typical characteristics of adhesives for CLT manufacturing
Adhesive
Item
Units
PRF*
EPI**
PUR***
Cured adhesive colour
Dark
Light
Light
Component
Liquid, two
components
Liquid, two
components
Liquid, single
component
(isocyanate prepolymer)
Solids content
(%)
50
43
100
Wood moisture content

(MC)
(%)
6 - 15%
6 - 15%
> 8%
optimal 12%
Target application rate

(single spread)
(g/m2)
375 - 400
(75 - 80 lb/msf)
275 - 325
(55 - 65 lb/msf)
100 - 180
(20 - 35 lb/msf)
Assembly time
(min)
40
20
45
Pressing time
(min)
420 - 540
60
120
Applied pressure
(psi)
120
120
120 - 200
Cost ****
($/lb)
2.0
3.5
4.8
More information can be found in the adhesive manufacturers technical bulletin.
Note: *
**
***
****
Represented by Hexions LT series;

Represented by Hexions EPI series;
Represented by Purbonds HB series;
Estimated price which may vary from time to time.
PRF may be more appropriate for multiple panel pressing where a large number of panels are pressed consecutively in a multi
opening press. Using PRF with a single panel pressing in a single opening press is not likely to be cost effective because of
the long pressing times, unless there is a way of applying heat, such as preheating the lumber.
3
10-12-22 15:46
3
CLT
Manufacturing
Process
Before considering the manufacturing process, it is necessary to establish the panel dimensions of interest,
as this influences the choice of manufacturing technology and plant layout.
CLT is manufactured according to a wide range of specifications for various structural applications. To simplify
the range of panel lay-ups available to designers, efforts are underway to establish either target performance classes
or standard lay-ups for a floor, wall or roof application. Regardless of whether there will be performance classes
or standard lay-ups, CLT panels will be manufactured in multiple layers consisting of three or more layers of
the same or different thickness of lumber or boards in a 90 crisscross pattern.
The orthogonal arrangement of layers in CLT adds dimensional stability and two-way action capability to the
product. In certain cases, two adjacent layers can be aligned in the same direction to meet certain specifications.
Fundamentally, it is possible to produce any CLT thickness by combining the following layer thicknesses:
19 mm ( in.), 25 mm (1 in.), and 38 mm (1.5 in.) up to maximum 50 mm (2 in.). The final CLT thickness ranges
from 72 mm to 400 mm. While it is possible to have panels that are not symmetrical through the thickness
(e.g. top and bottom outer plies with different thickness or mechanical properties), it is likely that most panels
will be symmetrical except perhaps for the layer designated as the appearance face or for fire-protection.
Panel size is generally dictated by the press size. The width of CLT panels ranges from 0.5 m to 3 m, and may reach
5 m for certain applications. Some manufacturers produce CLT panels up to 18 m long.
Figure 1 shows schematically the typical manufacturing process of CLT products, which involves the following
nine basic steps:
1) Primary lumber selection,
2) Lumber grouping,
3) Lumber planing,
4) Lumber or layers cutting to length,
5) Adhesive application,
6) Panel lay-up,
7) Assembly pressing,
8) CLT on-line quality control, surface sanding2 and cutting, and
9) Product marking, packaging and shipping.
Surface sanding is optional.

4
10-12-22 15:46
1 Primary lumber selection

E-rating
(optional)
MC check
MC Visual
check
grading
2 Lumber grouping
3 Lumber planing
4 Lumber/layers cutting to length
5 Adhesive application
6 Panel lay-up
7 Assembly pressing
8 CLT on-line quality control,

surface sanding and cutting
9 Product marking,
packaging and shipping
Figure 1
The manufacturing process of CLT products
5
10-12-22 15:46
Each step may include several sub-steps. Step 1 includes lumber moisture content (MC) check and quality
control (QC). Lumber QC generally involves visual grading with or without E-rating. For a CLT plant with
an annual capacity below 30,000 m3, Step 3 is to plane (or surface) lumber on all four sides before cutting up
to length for face-gluing. For a CLT plant with an annual capacity of 30,000 m3 or above, Step 3 could involve
secondary lumber preparation ( Julien, 2010), which has the following three options: lumber end-joining only,
lumber edge-gluing only, and both lumber end-joining and edge-gluing.
The key to a successful CLT manufacturing process is consistency in the lumber quality and control of the
parameters that affect the quality of the adhesive bond. Much of what is described in this section should appear in
the Plant Operating Specification document. This document should be in line with the requirements of the CLT
product and plant qualification standards and specific to each manufacturing facility.
3.1
Primary Lumber Selection

In Europe, some manufacturers produce two grades of CLT panels: construction grade and appearance grade.
Lumber stock may be selected in accordance to the grade of the CLT panel; for appearance grade CLT, the
outermost layer(s) may have specific visual characteristics for aesthetic purposes. Some European manufacturers
produce a so-called composite CLT by surface bonding wood composites or engineered wood products such as
OSB, plywood and laminated veneer lumber to CLT. This composite CLT is outside the scope of this chapter.
Most adhesives require that surfaces be planed prior to adhesive application and pressing to ensure a strong and
durable bondline. This means that graded lumber, which is usually supplied surfaced on four sides (S4S), will
need to be re-planed just prior to bonding. Depending on the amount of wood removed, this may alter the grade
of the lumber so a grade verification step may need to be added. While there may be savings in using rough sawn
lumber (only planed once, thus resulting in higher fibre recovery), the manufacturing process will more likely have
to include a lumber grading step (visual grading with or without E-rating) after planing as the amount of wood
removed will be more than when using S4S lumber.
3.1.1
Lumber Moisture Content and Temperature

Packages of kiln dried lumber are usually solid-stacked and dried to a MC of 19% or less at the time of surfacing.
The standard MC specification for lumber may not be suitable for all CLT manufacturing processes. Some
adhesives are more sensitive to MC than others; it is best to conduct trials with production runs on lumber with
representative levels of MC, remembering that MC levels may vary from season to season. Lacking information on
the interaction between the manufacturing process and lumber MC, it is recommended that lumber having a MC
of 12 2% be targeted for CLT manufacturing to ensure proper bond quality of the product. Another reason for
limiting the MC variation is to minimize the development of internal stresses between pieces due to differential
shrinkage which is dependent on differential MC, growth ring orientation and species. It is recommended that the
maximum difference in MC between adjacent pieces that are to be joined not exceed five percentage points.
The lumber packages should be wrapped and stored in a warehouse to prevent wetting. Storage facilities of
sufficient capacity should be available to maintain the required MC and temperature of the lumber. To achieve
the target MC, the package must be unpacked, stickered by row to allow air circulation and/or re-stacked
for drying.
A hand-held radio-frequency MC meter (capacitance type) or an electrical resistance moisture meter can be used
to check the lumber MC. Capacitance based MC meters with sets of metallic plates placed above and below
the lumber to measure the electric capacitance as the lumber passes transversally at line speed can be used in
production. Other on-line MC meters using emerging technologies such as a bench-type near-infrared (NIR)
moisture spectroscopy or a microwave MC sensor may be installed to continuously monitor the MC of lumber
pieces as they pass by. Note that the former can only measure the MC on the surface while the latter allows
6
10-12-22 15:46
a deeper penetration of microwave field into the product, leading to a more accurate MC measurement. More
research and development is needed to adapt the latter two emerging technologies for on-line measurement
of lumber.
Wood temperature will affect the bondline quality, and the adhesive manufacturers recommendations should
be followed. The ambient temperature in the manufacturing facility may also have an effect on some process
parameters such as the open assembly time and adhesive curing time; therefore it is recommended that the
ambient temperature be at least 15C. The wood temperature and MC, as well as the ambient temperature in the
manufacturing facility may change throughout the year, which points to the need for a QC program that includes
monitoring these parameters. As the effect of temperature and MC on the bondline and panel quality is better
understood, revisions can be made to the Plant Operating Specification to better allocate monitoring resources.
3.1.2
Lumber Characteristics Affecting Adhesive Bond Quality

In addition to the lumber MC and temperature, there are other lumber characteristics that may affect the quality
of the adhesive bond. These either impact on the pressure that is effectively applied to the bondline, or simply
reduce the available bonding surface. Lumber warp in the form of bow, crook, cup and twist are examples of
the former. Wane is a common example of the latter.
Standard grades of framing lumber permit these characteristics to varying degrees. While these limits are
acceptable for wood frame construction, some of these characteristics need to be restricted when manufacturing
CLT in order to ensure formation of a good bondline.
It is important that the impact of these characteristics, if permitted, be taken into account in the product
manufacturing and expected bondline performance. In the proposed CLT standards, for example, this is addressed
by grading to achieve an effective bondline area3 of a minimum of 80%. Characteristics impacting the bondline
are then permitted provided that when they are averaged over an area of 1.3 m x 1.3 m, they displace not more
than 20% of the total area.
Consider wane, for example. Wane is the presence of bark or a lack of wood at the corner of a square-edged
lumber piece. It will reduce the bonding area and concentrate the stresses in a CLT panel. However, wane
cannot be ignored because it is a permitted characteristic in all lumber visual grades. The effect of wane can
be accommodated by removing pieces with excessive amounts of wane and/or rearranging or reorienting pieces
with wane.
3.2
Lumber Grouping
In production, preparation of lumber for the major direction and minor direction of the CLT may follow
different steps. In grouping lumber for these two directions, the MC level and visual characteristics of lumber are
primary considerations. In some cases, E-rating is also performed in conjunction with visual grading. In general,
for the purpose of establishing panel capacities, all lumber for the major direction will be required to have the
same engineering properties. Similarly, the lumber for the minor direction (cross plies) will have a single set of
engineering properties. To ensure aesthetic quality, the exposed surfaces of the outer-most layers may be of a better
visual appearance.
It may be desirable to place higher quality lumber in designated areas in a panel where fasteners will be installed
to maximize the effectiveness of fastening (see Chapter 5, Connections in Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings, for
more information).
The effective bonding area is defined as the proportion of the lamination wide face averaged over its width that is able
to form a close contact bond upon application of pressure.
7
10-12-22 15:46
3.3
Lumber Planing
Lumber planing (or surfacing) helps activate or refresh the wood surface to reduce oxidation for improved
gluing effectiveness. Removal of a very thin surface layer ensures better bonding ( Julien, 2010). Lumber planing
must achieve the required precision to ensure optimal gluing. In most cases, planing on all four sides is required
to ensure dimensional uniformity. However, in some cases, only face and back planing may suffice if the width
tolerance is acceptable and lumber edges are not glued. In general, removing 0.1 in. (2.54 mm) from the thickness
and 0.15 in. (3.81 mm) from the width is recommended ( Julien, 2010). Due to the inevitable variations in drying
efficiency and wood characteristics, it is possible for recently kiln-dried lumber pieces to exhibit higher-thanaverage MC after planing. If this problem is encountered, steps should be taken to remove and recondition those
pieces. The suitability of those pieces for bonding after reconditioning may need to be assessed.
3.4
Lumber/Layers Cutting to Length

A cutting station rips the lumber (or layers if edge-gluing is used) lengthwise for stacking. Transverse layers may be
generated from the longitudinal layers by cross-cutting into shorter sections based on the dimensions of the press,
if the same grade and size of wood is used for both longitudinal and transverse layers.
3.5
Adhesive Application4
In a typical glue application system used in a through-feed process, which is generally seen for PUR and PRF
adhesives, the extruder heads move and apply parallel lines/threads of the adhesive in an air tight system with
direct supply from an adhesive container. The layers may be lightly wetted with water mist (about 15-20 g/m2)
to help the curing reaction when PUR adhesives are used. The production feed speed is generally around
20-60 m/min.
If the CLT layers are formed in advance, the glue applicator will consist of a series of side-by-side nozzles installed
on a beam, and will travel longitudinally over the layers. The typical speed takes about 12 seconds for 16 m long
layers ( Julien, 2010).
Adhesive application should occur within 24 hours of planing to overcome such issues as surface oxidation, ageing
and dimensional instability of the wood, and improve wettability and bonding effectiveness.
The actual adhesive application rate (or glue spread level) must be checked against that specified by the adhesive
manufacturers. The desired rate is affected by the quality of the wood and the application system. The amount of
adhesive applied must ensure uniform wetting of the wood surface. Proper application rate is evidenced by very
slight but even squeeze-out along the entire bondline. The adhesive applicator and application rate are generally
adhesive dependent.
The bonding surfaces of surfaced lumber must be clean and free from adhesive-repellent substances such as oils,
greases or release agents, which would have a detrimental effect on bond quality. Prior to gluing, the layers should
be cleaned with a compressed air jet to remove any debris.
Disruptions in the manufacturing process may be caused by issues related to adhesive application, such as
exceeding the maximum allowed assembly time, which may result in adhesive pre-cure. Procedures should be
in place to promptly resolve the cause of such disruptions. Such procedures should be included in the Plant
Operating Specification.
This chapter refers to CLT manufactured with glued laminations. However, aluminum nails or wooden dowels may also be
used to assemble the laminations, although such products are not covered in the CLT Handbook.
8
10-12-22 15:46
Edge gluing of wood pieces that make up the CLT layers is not a common practice among manufacturers due
to the added manufacturing cost. In order for edge-gluing to be effective, edge planing must be done in advance.
As a trade-off between cost and improved product performance, edge-gluing only the surface layer lumber could
be adopted.
3.6
Panel Lay-up
In general, CLT panel lay-up is similar to plywood with adjacent layers aligned perpendicular to each other,
with the only difference being that each layer of the CLT panel consists of multiple lumber pieces. A minimum
effective bonding area of 80% is recommended, although the target level may be increased or decreased
depending on the structural demands placed on the panel. While there are a number of wood characteristics that
may affect the available bond area, the producer is ultimately responsible to find the most effective way of meeting
the requirements. In the case of wane, this may be accomplished by orienting lumber pieces such that the bark
and pith faces of adjacent pieces face up. Doing this also has the advantage of reducing the tendency for
the panel to warp.
The assembly time is defined as the time interval between the spreading of the adhesive on the first piece of lumber
or layers and the application of target pressure to the assembly. The manufacturing process and any restart after
a temporary disruption should ensure that the assembly time does not exceed the maximum target set out in
the adhesive specification. In some cases, these may need to be more restrictive than the adhesive manufacturer
specifications if ambient conditions are not ideal.
If the CLT layers are formed with edge-gluing in advance, the layers are generally stacked in a crisscross pattern
with a vacuum gripper ( Julien, 2010).
3.7
Assembly Pressing
Pressing is a critical step of the CLT manufacture accounting for proper bond development and CLT quality.
Two main types of press are used for CLT manufacturing: vacuum press (flexible membrane) and hydraulic
press (rigid platen). A vacuum press generates a theoretical maximum pressure of 14.5 psi (0.1 MPa). Such a low
pressure may not be sufficient to suppress the potential warping of layers and overcome their surface irregularities
in order to create intimate contact for bonding. To address this deficiency, lumber shrinkage relief can be
introduced to ease pressing and dissipate potential stress resulting from uneven swelling and shrinkage. Lumber
shrinkage reliefs can be introduced by sawing to release the stress and in turn reduce the chances of developing
cracks when CLT panels lose moisture (Figure 2). However, the relief kerfs cannot be too wide or too deep
because they may reduce the bonding area and affect the panel capacity.
Figure 2
Lumber shrinkage relief
9
10-12-22 15:46
A rigid hydraulic press can generate much higher vertical pressure and side pressure than a vacuum press.
To minimize the potential gaps between the lumber pieces in the main layers, application of a side pressure
in the range of 40 to 80 psi is recommended concomitantly with vertical pressing.
A side pressure is sometimes needed to ensure that gaps between laminations in the major direction are not too
wide. CLT product specifications may have a maximum permitted gap between adjacent laminations in the outer
and inner layers. To effectively apply the side pressure to the assembly, the length of the cross plies must be less
than the total width of the main laminations.
If the CLT layers are formed via edge-gluing in advance, a vertical press without side pressure would suffice.
Some vertical presses allow for multiple panels to be pressed simultaneously at high pressures up to 870 psi
( Julien, 2010). A lateral unloading device is generally used to un-stack multiple CLT panels loaded in a single
opening press. The assembly should be pressed within the specified assembly time. Both assembly time (time
between when the adhesive is applied and when the target pressure is applied) and pressing time (time under
the target pressure) are dependent on the ambient temperature and air humidity. If the assembly time is shorter
than the minimum recommended by the adhesive manufacturer, the pressing time may need to be increased
to compensate.
During pressing, it is recommended that the ambient temperature be higher than 15C because some adhesives
may take longer to cure at low temperatures.
3.8
CLT On-line Quality Control, Surface Sanding5 and Cutting

As a means of on-line QC, an automated visual grading system may be installed to monitor the surface quality
and appearance of CLT. Advanced camera vision technologies are currently used for on-line QC of veneer and
plywood; however, additional research and development is needed to adapt such technologies to on-line QC of
CLT. The combination of advanced equipment and regular external and internal quality surveillance would ensure
that CLT products are fit for the intended applications.
An industrial sanding machine designed for wood composite products such as plywood may be used to sand one
CLT panel at a time to the target thickness with a tolerance of + 0.1 mm. Typically, the speed is about 2 m/min.
Note that the material removal is generally limited to 0.5 mm in total, namely 0.25 mm per surface ( Julien, 2010).
The permitted tolerances of CLT products will likely be specified in design standards; however, tighter tolerances
may be specified by building project.
After sanding, CLT panels are then conveyed to a machining station where a multi-axis numerically-controlled
machine cuts out openings for windows and doors, splices and other required parts. Cutting is performed under
strictly controlled conditions for maximum accuracy. Minor repairs are carried out manually at this stage of
the manufacturing process.
Surface sanding of CLT products is optional.

10
10-12-22 15:46
3.9
Product Marking, Packaging and Shipping

Product marking ensures that the correct product is specified, delivered and installed. It is also an important part
product conformity assessment by providing the information to allow designers, contractors and the authority
having jurisdiction to check the authenticity of the product. In the proposed CLT standard, the following
information is indicated to be placed on CLT products: manufacturers logo or mill code, reference to the CLT
standard to recognize the product has met the standards requirements, lamination grade, species and thickness
to derive the capacity of CLT elements, adhesive service class (e.g. Limited Moisture Exposure, Heat Resistant
Adhesive), and evidence of third-party conformity assessment (Agencys logo). Additional markings on the
panels may show the main direction loading of the panels in the structure and, possibly, the zones designed
to receive connectors.
Because CLT panels are intended for use under dry service conditions, the panels should be protected from
weather during transportation, storage and construction on the job site.
11
10-12-22 15:46
4
Product Quality
Assurance
As there are a number of process-related issues that would affect the integrity of the bond line, there should be
a process in place to qualify a plant to ensure that it has the means to assess and control the quality of the input
components and the final product.
Industrial mass production of CLT panels requires an in-plant quality control (QC) program. It is proposed that
the product quality assessment consists of a product pre-qualification step and an initial plant qualification of
full size production. This is followed by an ongoing quality program to maintain this qualification. The plants
quality program, which includes ongoing QC testing, is required to be described in detail in the Plant Operating
Specification and builds on the requirements of the applicable standard.
The surface quality of the CLT panels may need to be controlled if the panels are used for appearance applications.
If the panels are to be exposed, the quality of visible surfaces should meet the appearance criteria of the specifier,
which may include, for example, considerations such as knot quality, surface smoothness, and absence of surface
gaps between lumber pieces. A somewhat lower appearance quality can be tolerated on construction grade panels
if agreed with the client ( Julien, 2010).
4.1
CLT Product and Plant Qualification

The proposed CLT standard uses delamination testing as a means to assess quality of the bond line. In the
delamination test, a core specimen (see Figure 3), extracted from a pre-qualification or production panel, is
saturated with water and then dried to evaluate the adhesive bond lines ability to resist the wood shrinkage and
swelling stresses. The test also assesses somewhat the ability of the adhesive to withstand moisture degradation. In
the delamination test, separation in the wood adjacent to the bond line, as opposed to separation in the adhesive,
is not considered delamination.
Figure 3
Proposed delamination specimen
12
10-12-22 15:46
The proposed CLT standard specify limits on the amount of delamination permitted in an individual bond line,
in a delamination specimen consisting of several bond lines, in a small area of the panel evaluated using several
delamination specimens, and for the overall panel. When all these requirements are met, the manufacturing
process is deemed to be producing CLT with bond lines of acceptable quality.
4.2
Block Shear Tests

Preliminary tests carried out at FPInnovations suggest that wood failure results from block shear specimens tested
under vacuum-pressure-dry conditions could be used to assess the bond quality. A block shear test may be useful
for QC assurance in lieu of, or in addition to, delamination tests for assessing the bond quality of CLT products.
For additional information on this topic refer to the report on block shear testing of CLT (Casilla et al., 2010b).
4.3
Tests for Assessing Visual Quality of CLT

Wood shrinkage is not equal in all directions due to the anisotropic nature of wood. As a result, drying checks
may develop in CLT panels during storage and use if the MC of the wood at the time of manufacture is
significantly different from equilibrium MC of the ambient conditions (Figure 4). The shrinkage can develop
tensile stresses which could exceed the local wood strength perpendicular to the grain causing checks or cracks.
Although the checks may partially or fully close if exposed to higher humidity environment, they will reappear
when the panel is re-dried.
Figure 4
Check development in CLT panels
13
10-12-22 15:46
Checks affect the aesthetic value of the surface, and could thus lower the products market acceptance. Checks
and gaps at the unglued edges of adjacent laminations normally will not have a significant impact on strength
properties; however, some of the panels physical properties, such as thermal conductivity and moisture diffusion
may be affected. These properties may have an impact on energy performance and durability of the building
assembly. The severity of checking could be used as one of the parameters in classifying the product into different
appearance grades (Casilla et al., 2010a).
In addition to limiting the MC of the lumber at the time of manufacturing, surface checking can potentially be
minimized by using quarter-sawn lumber and by laying up the outer layers in such a way that their growth rings
are concave from the bond line. A disadvantage of this arrangement is that it will not help minimize panel
warping. As for gaps forming between lumber pieces, this can be minimized or prevented by edge-gluing,
but this will likely increase the development of checks.
Simple tests may be carried out on small 2 ft. x 2 ft. (approximately 600 mm x 600 mm) panels to assess check and
gap development under the temperature and relative humidity conditions expected in-service. These tests would
provide an indication of the appearance of these products after long-term exposure in service to dry conditions,
or the effectiveness of steps taken to minimize checking.
14
10-12-22 15:46
5
References
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). American Wood Council (AWC). 2005. NDS: National design
specifications for wood construction. Washington, DC: AF&PA. 174 p.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2005. Softwood lumber. CSA O141-05. Mississauga, ON: CSA. 78 p.
______. 2008. Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (limited moisture exposure). CSA O112.10-08.
Mississauga, ON: CSA. 42 p.
______. 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09. Mississauga, ON: CSA. 222 p.
______. 2010. Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (exterior exposure). CSA O112.9-10.
Mississauga, ON: CSA. 45 p.
Casilla, R., C. Lum, C. Pirvu, B. J. Wang, I. Chiu, and P. Symons. 2010a. Checking in CLT panel products.
Draft Report. Vancouver, BC: FPInnovations.
Casilla, R., C. Pirvu, B. J. Wang, C. Lum, I. Chiu, P. Symons, G. Chow, and A. Andersen. 2010b. Block shear
testing of CLT panels. Draft Report. Vancouver, BC: FPInnovations.
Julien, F. 2010. Manufacturing cross-laminated timber (CLT): Technological and economic analysis, report
to Quebec Wood Export Bureau. 201001259-3257AAM. Quebec, QC: FPInnovations. 176 p.
National Lumber Grades Authority (NLGA). 2003. Standard grading rules for Canadian lumber.
New Westminster, BC: NLGA. 275 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2010. American
softwood lumber standard. Voluntary Product Standard PS 20-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. 40 p.
15
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Seed Document for Proposed Cross-Laminated

Timber Plant Qualification Standard
DRAFT
Prepared by FPInnovations
ChapTER 2 I-1
10-12-22 15:46
draft

Contents
Introduction I-5
1 Scope I-5
2 Reference Publications I-5
3 Definitions I-6
4 Quality System I-8
4.1 General I-8
4.2 Plant Operating Specification I-8
4.2.1 Operating Procedures and Records I-8
4.2.2 Specification Limits I-8
4.2.3 Product Marking I-8
5 Tests for Facilities Qualification I-9
5.1 General I-9
5.2 Pre-Qualification I-9
5.2.1 General I-9
5.2.2 Sample Preparation I-9

5.2.3 Sample Conditioning I-11

5.2.4 Specimens I-11
5.3 Qualification of Effective Bond Area I-12
5.3.1 General I-12

5.3.2 Sample Selection and Inspection I-12
5.4 Initial Plant Qualification I-13

5.4.1 General I-13

5.4.2 Sample Preparation I-13

5.4.3 Sample Conditioning I-13
5.5 Subsequent Plant Qualification I-13

5.5.1 General I-13
5.5.2 Reduced Level of Qualification Testing I-14
5.6 Delamination Resistance Test I-15
5.6.1 General I-15

5.6.2 Sample I-15

5.6.4 Test I-15

5.6.5 Measurements I-15

5.6.6 Requirements I-16
6 Records I-17
0
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Structural Properties CLASS for CLT Panels [to be completed] I-17

Calculating Design Capacities for CLT Panels [to be completed] I-17
Sample Delamination Calculations [to be completed] I-17
ChapTER 2 I-2
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Factors to be evaluated with the pre-qualification sample I-10

Combination of factors for pre-qualification testing I-10
Visual characteristics reducing the effective bond area I-12
Subsequent qualification in response to material changes I-14
Reduced qualification testing in response to material changes I-14
Maximum permitted delamination I-16
Delamination re-sampling and re-evaluation I-16
Figure
Figure 1 Delamination core specimen locations (a = 102 cm, L = 60+ cm) I-11
ChapTER 2 I-3
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a wood panel product made by glue or nail laminating solid wood, composite
wood, or structural wood sheathing products to a thickness corresponding to the minimum dimension for heavy
timber. Components in a layer are typically arranged so that the principal axis of the components in one layer is
orthogonal to the principal axis of adjacent layers. The principal axes of the outer layers are usually parallel to
the long axis of the panel.
draft
0 Introduction
1 Scope
This Standard covers the evaluation of manufacturers producing CLT that meet the requirements of the CrossLaminated Timber Product Standard (hereafter referred to as the Product Standard).
The Standard does not establish capacities for CLT panels. Guidance is provided in Appendix B.
Reference Publications
CSA (Canadian Standards Association)
CSA O112 Series Standards for Wood Adhesives

O112.7-M1977 (R2006)

Resorcinol and phenol-resorcinol resin adhesives for wood (room- and intermediate-temperature curing)

O112.9-10
Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (exterior exposure)
O112.10-08
Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (limited moisture exposure)
National Lumber Grades Authority

Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber, 2007
SPS 1
Special Products Standard for Fingerjoined Structural Lumber, 2010
SPS 2
Special Products Standard for Machine Graded Lumber, 2010
SPS 6
Special Products Standard for Structural Face-Glued Lumber, 2005
National Institute of Standards and Technology
PS 20-10
American Softwood Lumber Standard
ASTM International (American Society for Testing and Materials)
D 4444-08
Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Standardization and Calibration of Hand-Held Moisture Meters
D 7438-08
Standard Practice for Field Calibration and Application of Hand-Held Moisture Meters
D 6782-05
Standard Test Methods for Standardization and Calibration of In-Line Dry Lumber Moisture Meters
ChapTER 2 I-5
10-12-22 15:46
draft
3 Definitions
Adhesive a substance capable of holding materials together
Adherend a body held to another body by an adhesive
Agency an independent body that is competent to evaluate a manufacturers ability to meet the requirements
of this Standard and to operate a certification system in which the interests of all parties concerned with
the functioning of the system can be represented
Assembly time the time interval between the spreading of the adhesive on the adherend and the application
of the target pressure to the assembly
Note: For assemblies involving multiple layers or parts, the assembly time begins with the spreading of
the adhesive on the first adherend.
Closed assembly time the time between completion of assembly of the laminations for bonding
and the application of the target pressure or heat, or both, to the assembly
Open assembly time the time between the spreading of the adhesive on the adherend(s) and
the completion of the assembly of the parts for bonding
Bondline the layer of adhesive which attaches two adherends
Face bondline the bondline joining the wide faces of laminations in adjacent layers
Edge bondline the bondline joining the narrow faces of adjacent laminations within one layer
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) the wood product made by bonding, under pressure, graded laminating stock
the grain of which is essentially parallel in each layer and is produced in accordance with the requirements of
this Standard
Delamination the separation of layers in a laminate due to failure of the adhesive either in the adhesive itself
or at the interface between the adhesive and the adherend
Bondline delamination the length of delamination observed in a single bondline of a delamination
specimen expressed as a percentage of the total length of that bondline
Specimen delamination the average delamination across all face bondlines in a delamination specimen
Zone delamination the average of the specimen delamination of specimens sampled within
a pre-qualification panel, or the area defined by the grid overlaid on a full-size panel
Panel delamination delamination within a full-size panel based on the average of the zone
delamination results
Edge (panel edge) the narrow face of a panel that exposes the ends or narrow faces of the laminations
Finished edge the panel edges that have been trimmed or machined to a specified quality
and tolerance after pressing
Unfinished edge the panel edges that are neither specified as finished or as meeting the tolerances
provided in this Standard
Effective bonding area proportion of the lamination wide face averaged over its length that is able to form
a close contact bond upon application of pressure
Face one of the four longitudinal surfaces of a piece or panel
Lamination (or lumber) narrow face the face with the least dimension perpendicular
to the lamination (or lumber) length
Lamination (or lumber) wide face the face with the largest dimension perpendicular
Panel face the wide face of a panel
Finger joint a joint between two pieces, the ends of which have been formed into a series of mating
fingers through either the wide or narrow faces of the pieces
ChapTER 2 I-6
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Grade the designation of the quality of a piece of wood

Glue skip absence of adhesive on one or both adherends
Lamination lumber, including stress rated boards, that has been prepared for laminating
Layer all laminations on one side of a bondline
Outermost the laminations on the panels wide face and all adjacent layers with laminations having
the same grain orientation (e.g. parallel to the major direction)
Outer the layer adjacent to the outermost layer and all adjacent layers with laminations having
the same grain orientation (e.g. parallel to the minor direction)
Inner the laminations between the outermost layers
Lay-up the number and thickness of laminations, combination of grades and species, and orientation
of laminations
Length
CLT length dimension of the CLT panel or specimen parallel to the major direction
Lamination length dimension of the lamination parallel-to-the-grain after planing
Lumber length dimension of the lumber parallel-to-the-grain at the time of stress grading
Note: The lamination and lumber may include finger joints provided the finger joints are manufactured
to a recognized specification that retains the lumber grade.
Bondline length dimension of a single adhesive layer along the edges of the panel
Total bondline length dimension of all adhesive layers along the edges of the panel
Lumber
Machine evaluated lumber structural lumber that has been graded by means of a non-destructive test
and visual grading, conforming to the requirements for machine stress-rated lumber, with the exception
that the process lower fifth percentile modulus of elasticity (MOE) equals or exceeds 0.75 times the
characteristic mean MOE for the grade
Machine stress-rated lumber structural lumber graded by means of a non-destructive test and visual
grading, in accordance with the requirements of CSA O141
Sawn lumber the product of a sawmill not further manufactured other than by sawing, re-sawing,
passing lengthwise through a standard planing mill, and cross-cutting to length
Structural lumber lumber in which strength is related to the anticipated end use as a controlling factor
in grading or selecting
Visually stress-graded lumber structural lumber that has been graded in accordance with the
provisions of the National Lumber Grades Authority Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber
Major direction general direction of the grain of the outermost layers of the CLT panel
Minor direction perpendicular to the major direction
Species the commercial name of the wood species or species combinations that are used to formulate lumber
grading rules for the purposes of assigning common design properties
Note: Unless otherwise specified, the species of a panel is the species of the exposed face or the appearance face.
Specimen a part, item, or the whole of a sample, taken as representative of a whole or a collection of items
Stress grade a classification of CLT where combinations of laminating grades are arranged so they are suitable
for resisting the type and magnitude of stress assigned to the grade
Thickness
CLT thickness dimension of the CLT panel or specimen perpendicular to the plane of the panel
Lamination thickness dimension of the lamination perpendicular to the wide face after planing
Lumber thickness smaller cross-section dimension of the lumber at the time of stress grading
Specified thickness dimension of the CLT panel perpendicular to the panel for purposes
of design calculation
ChapTER 2 I-7
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Visual grade
CLT (panel) visual grade the visual grade of one or both of the outermost layers
Lumber visual grade the visual grade at the time the lumber is grade marked
Lamination visual grade the grade of the lamination just prior to bonding
Width
CLT width dimension of the CLT panel or specimen perpendicular to the major direction
Lamination width dimension of the lamination between unglued edges of the wide face
Lumber width larger cross-section dimension of the lumber at the time of stress grading
Note: The lamination and lumber may include edge bonds provided they are manufactured
to a recognized specification that retains the lumber grade
Quality System
4.1
General
4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3
CLT shall be manufactured under a quality system that is audited by an independent

third-party agency (hereafter referred to as the Agency).
Manufacturers shall be qualified by the Agency to manufacture and to mark CLT conforming
to the Product Standard.
Manufacturers shall establish a quality control program with appropriate control limits
for maintaining the manufacturing process within the Specification Limits.
Manufacturing parameters with Specification Limits shall include, at a minimum,

those parameters listed in Clause 5.2.
4.2
Plant Operating Specification
4.2.1
Operating Procedures and Records
4.1.4
Recordkeeping and the operating procedures necessary for ensuring the proper manufacturing of CLT shall be
described in a Plant Operating Specification.
4.2.2
Specification Limits
4.2.2.1 Specification limits for manufacturing parameters including those evaluated under this Standard (see Clause 5.2)
shall be listed in the Plant Operating Specification.
4.2.2.2 The quality control program and basis for the control limits shall be described in the Plant Operating Specification.
4.2.3
Product Marking
The product shall bear durable and legible markings and/or provided with a certificate that indicates,
at a minimum, the following:
(a) A reference to this Standard
(b) Manufacturers logo, or a manufacturing facility code known to the Agency
(c) Laminate grade, species and thickness in sufficient detail to derive the capacity
(d) Adhesive service class (e.g. HRA, Limited Moisture Exposure)
(e) Evidence of third-party conformity assessment (e.g. Agency logo)
ChapTER 2 I-8
10-12-22 15:46
General
5.1
5.1.1
Qualification tests shall be performed under the supervision of the Agency to demonstrate the capability of the
manufacturing process to produce the desired product. Such tests shall be repeated should any method or material
be changed.
5.1.2
Except as permitted in Clause 5.2.1, qualification samples shall be manufactured using the press,
adhesive formulation, and adhesive application system from the facility to be qualified.
5.1.3
Except as required in Clause 5.2.2, the input component (lumber and adhesive) and the manufacturing parameters
(clamping pressure and time, adhesive spread, etc.) shall be representative of that to be used by the facility.
5.1.4
The method used to measure the moisture content of laminations used in the qualification samples shall
be similar to that to be used in production.
5.1.5
Moisture content shall be measured using a handheld moisture meter calibrated in accordance with Method
D 4444 and used in accordance with Practice D 7438, or an in-line meter calibrated in accordance with
Method D 6782.
5.1.6
Ambient conditions under which qualification samples are manufactured shall be representative of operating
conditions. Otherwise, additional qualification testing for parameters to be used for the range of ambient
conditions shall be undertaken.
draft
5 Tests for Facilities Qualification
Pre-Qualification
5.2
5.2.1 General
5.2.1.1 Specification Limits to be specified in the Plant Operating Specification shall be pre-qualified using full thickness
qualification test panels of not less than 60 cm in the major direction, 45 cm in the minor direction, or more than
90 cm in either direction (hereafter referred to as Pre-qualification Test Panels).
Note: A Pre-qualification Test Panel of more than 60 cm is recommended, particularly for thicker CLT products.
5.2.1.2 Pre-qualification Test Panels shall be prepared at the facility or at an alternative facility acceptable to the Agency.
5.2.1.3 All Pre-qualification Test Panels shall be:
(a) Of the same approximate length and width at the time of pressing;
(b) Pressed individually; and
(c) Taken from approximately the geometric centre of the larger panel, if applicable.
5.2.2
Sample Preparation
5.2.2.1 Application of pressure to manufacture pre-qualification test samples shall be by a platen that has similar rigidity
as that to be used in the facility to be qualified. The applicability of the results shall be documented by the Agency.
Note: For example, Pre-qualification Test Panels for facilities using a vacuum press should be clamped using
a vacuum press or an air bag inserted between the sample and the rigid platen.
ChapTER 2 I-9
10-12-22 15:46
draft
5.2.2.2 Adhesive shall be applied to the laminations in a manner similar to that to be used in the facility to be qualified.
Note: In addition to considering the amount of adhesive applied, sample preparation facilities should distinguish
between, for example, roller versus curtain coating and single spread versus double spread, which vary in the
uniformity of the adhesive spread.
5.2.2.3 Except as permitted in Clause 5.2.2.4, the factors specified in Table 1 shall be prepared in the combinations
specified in Table 2. Each panel shall be labelled to indicate the factor and measurement.
Table 1
Factors to be evaluated with the pre-qualification sample
Deviation from Nominal

Factor
Parameter
- (Below Nominal)
+ (Above Nominal)
Total assembly time
0 minute
0 minute
Moisture content
2 MC PP
2 MC PP
Adhesive spread
90% of nominal
110% of nominal
Clamping pressure
90% of nominal
100% of nominal
Wood surface temperature
-0C
+5C
The minimum and maximum levels to be evaluated shall be the greater of the deviation in the Table or
the permitted deviation stated in the Plant Operating Specification and monitored on an ongoing basis.
Moisture content percentage points.
Total assembly time is the sum of the open and closed assembly time. Ambient conditions (air temperature and
relative humidity) to be within the range anticipated during production. Otherwise, the adhesive formulation
or assembly times evaluated should be adjusted to accommodate the anticipated ambient conditions.
Table 2
Combination of factors for pre-qualification testing
Measurement
Replicates
Note: Table contents adapted from ASTM E 1169, Standard Guide for Conducting Ruggedness Tests.
ChapTER 2 I-10
10-12-22 15:46

laminations, only the lay-ups with the minimum and maximum overall thickness need to be evaluated.
(b) Where lay-ups have identical outer and outermost lamination species, grade and thickness, only the lay-up
with the greatest overall thickness need to be evaluated.
(c) Where lay-ups differ only by the nominal width of the laminations in one or more layers, only the lay-ups
with the minimum width laminations and with the maximum width laminations need to be evaluated.
5.2.3
draft
5.2.2.4 (a) Where two or more lay-ups with the same number of layers differ by only the thickness of the
Sample Conditioning
Samples shall be stored in an environment maintained at 202C/655% RH until the adhesive has cured
sufficiently to permit evaluation.
Note: For panels larger than the specified pre-qualification panel size, it is permissible to trim the panels
to the specified size to facilitate conditioning.
5.2.4 Specimens
5.2.4.1 Three delamination specimens shall be extracted from each Pre-qualification Panel as shown in Figure 1
and labelled to indicate the panel number and the specimen position within the panel.
5.2.4.2 Where the panel is larger than the specified Pre-qualification Test Panel size, the pre-qualification sampling
area shall be 60 cm to 90 cm square located at the geometric center of the panel.

L
Major
direction
R = 45 mm
(typical)
Figure 1
Delamination core specimen locations (a = 102 cm, L1 = 60 to 90 cm, L2 = 45 to 90 cm)
ChapTER 2 I-11
10-12-22 15:46
draft
5.3
Qualification of Effective Bond Area
5.3.1 General
5.3.1.1 The manufacturer shall establish visual grade rules for the bonded faces and limit the average glue skip
to maintain an average effective bond area of 80% or more.
Note: Alternatively, glue skips may be treated as delamination. See the Product Standard
for additional information.
5.3.1.2 The manufacturers visual grade rules established to achieve the target effective bond area shall include,
at a minimum, limits on the characteristics listed in Table 3.

Table 3
Visual characteristics reducing the effective bond area
Characteristic
Subcategories to be Included and Limited
Knots
Knots generally classified as to quality:

loose knots, knot holes, unsound knots, burls, or equivalent
Holes
Very large hole (greater than 1 inch in diameter)
Pitch streaks
All
Pockets
All
Pitch or bark seams
All
Shake
Limit as wane
Wane
All
Decay (unsound wood)
All
Compression wood
Limit as skip
Size
See size tolerances in the Product Standard
Eased edges
Exceeding the standard radius
Skip
All
Manufactured holes
Limit as wane
Grain
Chipped, torn, loosened or raised grain
Planing
Knife marks, wavy dressing, machine bite, machine gouge shall

be limited
5.3.1.3 The bond area displacement shall be based on characteristic measurements consistent with the NLGA
Standard Grading Rules.
5.3.2
Sample Selection and Inspection
5.3.2.1 Samples shall be drawn from representative production of laminations meeting the manufacturers visual grade
rules and positioned in accordance with the Plant Operating Specification.
ChapTER 2 I-12
10-12-22 15:46
or more over any randomly selected area not more than 1.3 m x 1.3 m.
Note: A mask with a square opening of 1.3 m may be used to facilitate inspection.
5.3.2.3 All pieces within the layer shall be rotated and the opposite faces inspected.
5.4
Initial Plant Qualification
draft
5.3.2.2 The layer formed by the laminations shall be verified by the Agency to provide an effective bond area of 80%
5.4.1 General
Following pre-qualification, a representative sample of the largest panels to be manufactured for each lay-up
shall be subjected to qualification testing.
5.4.2
Sample Preparation
5.4.2.1 Two qualification panel samples shall be prepared from a representative sample of laminations following
the procedures outlined in the Plant Operating Specification.
5.4.2.2 From each grade, species, and width used to fabricate the panel, a total of 30 pieces of laminations shall
be randomly selected and the following recorded for each piece:

(a) Moisture content (see Clauses 5.1.4 and 5.1.5)
(b) Lamination thickness to the nearest 0.05 mm
5.4.3
Sample Conditioning
Panel samples shall be stored under the conditions and for the duration as specified in the Plant Operating
Specification to allow the adhesive to cure.
5.4.4 Specimens
A 1.3 m x 1.3 m or smaller square grid shall be overlaid onto each panel. Three delamination cores shall be
randomly taken from within the boundary of each square.
Note: A scheme that generates a random number pair for positioning of the delamination cores within each
square is recommended.
5.5
Subsequent Plant Qualification
5.5.1 General
Material changes to the manufacturing process or facilities shall be subjected to subsequent qualification testing.
The requirements of Clauses 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 shall be reapplied for material changes listed or equivalent
to that listed in Table 4.
ChapTER 2 I-13
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Table 4
Subsequent qualification in response to material changes
Category
Applicable
Clause(s)
5.2, 5.3, 5.4
5.2, 5.3
5.4
Notes
Material Change (Examples)
Press equipment
Excludes replacement with

identical press
Adhesive formulation class
Addition or substitution of species from

a different species group
Changes to the visual grade rules that

reduce the effective bond area or the
effectiveness of the applied pressure
(e.g. warp permitted)
Other changes to the manufacturing

process or component quality not listed
above.
Adhesive composition (e.g. fillers

and extenders)
Increase in panel width or length of

more than 20%
Table 5,Category D items when the

production process is not under Level II
sampling as defined in the Product
Standard
Additional evaluation in
accordance with Clause 5.4
is at the discretion of the
Agency
It is recommended that changes involving two or more manufacturing parameters be subjected to evaluation
in accordance with Clause 5.4.
5.5.2
Reduced Level of Qualification Testing

Reduced qualification testing is permitted for the material changes listed or equivalent to that listed in Table 5.
Table 5
Reduced qualification testing in response to material changes
Category
D
Applicable
Clause(s)
Product
Standard Level I
sampling
Notes
Material Change (Examples)
Increases in width or length of not

more than 20%
Increase in panel thickness of a

currently qualified lay-up by two
lamination thickness
Production shall be at or
eligible for Level II sampling
under the Product Standard
ChapTER 2 I-14
10-12-22 15:46
Delamination Resistance Test
5.6.1 General
The delamination test shall be used to assess the quality of the bondlines.
5.6.2
Sample
The test specimens shall be taken from each panel prepared as described in Clause 5.2 or sampled as described
in Clause 5.4.
draft
5.6
5.6.3 Specimens
Specimen height shall be equal to the thickness of the panel from which it is sampled. Specimen diameter shall be
between 80 and 90 mm. Sawn end-grain and side-grain surfaces are permitted to be sanded prior to conditioning
to remove blemishes such as burn marks and facilitate inspection of the bondlines provided the overall diameter is
not reduced to less than 80 mm.
5.6.4 Test
5.6.4.1 The weight of each test specimen prior to conditioning shall be recorded to the nearest gram.
5.6.4.2 The test specimen(s) shall be placed in an autoclave or pressure vessel, weighted down, and covered in water at a
temperature of 18 to 27C. All test specimen(s) shall be separated such that all bondlines are exposed to the water.
5.6.4.3 A vacuum of between 70 and 85 kPa shall be drawn and held for 30 min. The vacuum shall then be released and
a pressure of 480 to 550 kPa shall be applied for 2 h.
5.6.4.4 The test specimen(s) shall then be removed from the pressure vessel and placed in a drying oven. The test
specimen(s) shall be dried in air at 65 to 75C. During the drying period, the test specimen(s) shall be placed
approximately 50 mm apart and oriented with their bondlines parallel to the flow of air. The airflow rate and
relative humidity shall be such that the specimen(s) are dried to within 10 to 15% above their original test weight
within a period of 10 to 15 h.
5.6.4.5 When the test specimen(s) have returned to within 10 to 15% above their original test weight, delamination
shall be measured and recorded.
Note: Delamination should be measured immediately after removal of the specimens from the oven.
If measurement is delayed, areas of poor bond can close up because the block core dries out to a state of
equilibrium with the outer block surface, or the surface can pick up moisture.
5.6.4.6 Clauses 5.6.4.2 to 5.6.4.5 shall be repeated as required for an additional delamination exposure cycle if
the observed delamination exceeds the limit (maximum permitted delamination) after one (1) cycle but less
than the limit after two (2) cycles (see Table 6).
5.6.5 Measurements
5.6.5.1 Delamination is measured along the glue lines and shall exclude knots, grade defects, and wood failure
in the bondline area.
Note: After all delamination exposure cycles are completed, the specimen may be chiselled apart at the bondline
to further evaluate the quality of the glue bond.
5.6.5.2 Glue skips on bondable surfaces if not counted as delamination shall be averaged from all specimens from a panel
and shall not exceed the maximum permitted glue skip established in Clause 5.3.1.1.
ChapTER 2 I-15
10-12-22 15:46
draft
5.6.6
Requirements
5.6.6.1 Delamination specimens meeting the requirements of Table 6 for one (1) delamination exposure cycle
as described in Clauses 5.6.4.2 to 5.6.4.5:
(a) Need not be subjected to a second cycle; and

(b) The results from the single delamination exposure cycle shall be used for the bondline delamination
and specimen delamination assessment.
Note: See Appendix C for sample delamination calculations for a bondline, and for the average delamination
in a specimen, zone and panel.
Table 6
Maximum permitted delamination
Bondline
Average of Specimens
Specimen
Zone
Panel
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
25%
30%
20%
25%
15%
20%
10%
15%
Result from delamination averaged across all bondlines in an individual specimen

Result from delamination averaged across all specimens within the zone
Result from delamination averaged across all the specified zones within the panel
5.6.6.2 If the requirements of Table 6 are not met, specimen re-sampling and re-evaluation of delamination is permitted
as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Delamination re-sampling and re-evaluation
Sampling Stage
Delamination Deficiency
Re-sampling Permitted
Pre-qualification panel
Specimen or zone
Replacement panel shall be prepared

and evaluated.
Full-size panel
Specimen
A replacement specimen shall be randomly

selected from the same zone to replace
the specimen.
Zone
Up to two additional specimens shall be

randomly selected in sequence from the
same zone and combined with the original
samples for computing the average
delamination.
Panel
The zone with the highest average

delamination shall be re-sampled as noted
above for a zone deficiency.
Initial qualification
Subsequent
qualification
5.6.6.3 If glue skip is noted, the average glue skip observed shall not exceed the maximum permitted glue skip established
in Clause 5.3.1.1.
ChapTER 2 I-16
10-12-22 15:46
Sufficient records shall be maintained to enable the Agency to verify that testing in accordance with this Standard
has been carried out.
Appendix A

Structural Properties CLASS for CLT Panels [to be completed]

Classification of floor, wall and roof panels
draft
6 Records
Appendix B Calculating Design Capacities for CLT Panels [to be completed]

Flexural capacity and stiffness
Appendix C

Sample Delamination Calculations [to be completed]

Bondline delamination
Specimen delamination
Zone delamination
Panel delamination
ChapTER 2 I-17
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Seed Document for Proposed

Cross-Laminated Timber Product Standard
DRAFT
Prepared by FPInnovations
ChapTER 2 II-1
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Contents
Introduction II-5
1 Scope II-5
2 Reference Publications II-5
3 Definitions II-6
4 Panel Classification II-9
4.1 General II-9
4.2 Stress Grade II-9
4.3 Appearance II-9
5 Panel Tolerances II-9
5.1 General II-9
5.2 Bondline Position II-9
5.3 Panel Length and Width II-9
5.4 Squareness II-9
5.5 Straightness II-9
6 Materials II-10
6.1 Lumber II-10

6.1.1 General Requirements II-10

6.1.2 Grading II-10

6.1.3 Edge-glued and Fingerjoined Laminations II-10

6.1.4 Visual Quality II-10
6.1.5 Minimum Sizes (lumber after surfacing) II-10

6.1.6 Maximum Sizes (lumber after surfacing) II-10
6.2 Adhesives II-11
7 Manufacturing II-11
7.1 General II-11
7.2 Lumber Preparation II-11
0

7.2.1
General II-11

7.2.2
Surfacing II-11

7.2.3
Lamination Thickness II-12

7.2.4
Reworked Lumber II-12
7.2.4.1 General II-12

7.2.4.2 Shrinkage Relief II-12
7.2.4.3 Planing Prior to Bonding II-12
7.2.5

Moisture Content II-12
7.3 Panel Orientation Marking II-12

7.4 Panel Protection II-12
7.5 Repairs II-12

7.5.1
From Delamination Sampling II-12


7.5.1.2 Plug Locations II-13

7.5.1.3
Plug Material II-13

7.5.2
Other Repairs II-13

ChapTER 2 II-2
10-12-22 15:46
draft
8 Process Requirements II-13

8.1 General II-13
8.2 Bonding Surface Quality II-13
8.2.1 Target Effective Bonding Area II-13

8.2.2 Lumber Growth Ring Orientation II-13

8.2.3 Lamination Grade Limits II-13

8.2.4 Glue Skip in the Face Bondline II-13
8.3
Resistance to Delamination II-13
Quality Control II-14
9.1 General II-14
9.2 Quality Control Sampling II-14

9.2.1 Increased Sampling Following Initial Plant Qualification (Level I) II-14

9.2.1.2 Panel Sampling II-14

9.2.1.3 Specimen Sampling II-14

9.2.2 Reduced Sampling Following Initial Plant Qualification (Level II) II-14

9.2.2.2 Panel Sampling II-14

9.2.2.3 Specimen Sampling II-15
9.3 Delamination Resistance Testing II-15

9.3.1 Specimen Preparation II-15

9.3.2 Measurements II-15

9.3.3 Requirements II-16
10 Records II-17
11 Re-inspection II-17
11.1 General II-17
11.2 Visual Inspection II-17

11.2.1 Visual Grade of Outer Faces II-17

11.2.2 Growth Ring Orientation of Cross-Plies II-17

11.2.3 Bondline Separation II-17
11.3 Delamination II-18
Appendix A Test Methods [to be completed] II-18
Appendix B Evaluation of Rolling Shear Properties [to be completed] II-18
Appendix C Glued Lumber Requirements [to be completed] II-18
Appendix D Visual Quality Class for CLT Panels [to be completed] II-18
Appendix E Structural Properties Class for CLT Panels [to be completed]
II-18
Appendix F Calculating Design Capacities for CLT Panels [to be completed] II-18
Appendix G Sample Delamination Calculations [to be completed] II-18
ChapTER 2 II-3
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Lumber grade requirements and proportions II-10

Optional adhesive requirements for special exposure conditions II-11
Laminate thickness variation II-12
Maximum permitted delamination (and glue skips) II-16
Re-sampling and re-evaluation for delamination (or glue skip) II-16
ChapTER 2 II-4
10-12-22 15:46
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a wood panel product made by glue or nail laminating solid wood, composite
wood, or structural wood sheathing products to a thickness corresponding to the minimum dimension for heavy
timber. Components in a layer are typically arranged so that the principal axis of the components in one layer is
orthogonal to the principal axis of adjacent layers. The principal axes of the outer layers are usually parallel to the
long axis of the panel.
draft
0 Introduction
Manufacturer must be qualified in accordance with the companion Cross-Laminated Timber Plant Qualification
Standard (hereafter referred to as the Plant Qualification Standard).
1 Scope
This Standard covers the evaluation of CLT made by bonding solid wood lumber components with a structural
adhesive. Although beyond the scope of this standard, the principles of this Standard may be applied to CLT
made by bonding composite wood components.
This Standard does not establish capacities for solid wood lumber component or for CLT panels. See Appendix F
for guidance on computing CLT panel capacities.
Fingerjoining, edge-gluing, or face-gluing of CLT panels is not permitted under this Standard.
Reference Publications
CSA (Canadian Standards Association)
CSA O112 Series Standards for Wood Adhesives

O112.7-M1977 (R2006)

Resorcinol and phenol-resorcinol resin adhesives for wood (room- and intermediate-temperature curing)

O112.9-10
Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (exterior exposure)
O112.10-08
Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (limited moisture exposure)
CSA O141-05
Softwood lumber
CAN/CSA-O86-09
Engineering design in wood
National Lumber Grades Authority
Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber, 2007
SPS 1
Special Products Standard for Fingerjoined Structural Lumber, 2010
SPS 2
Special Products Standard for Machine Graded Lumber, 2010
SPS 6
Special Products Standard for Structural Face-Glued Lumber, 2005
ChapTER 2 II-5
10-12-22 15:46
draft
National Institute of Standards and Technology

PS 20-10
American Softwood Lumber Standard
American Forest & Paper Association, Inc.
National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction Supplement: Design Values for Wood
Construction 2005 Edition
ASTM International (American Society for Testing and Materials)
D 4444-08
Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Standardization and Calibration of Hand-Held Moisture Meters
D 7438-08
Standard Practice for Field Calibration and Application of Hand-Held Moisture Meters
D 7247 07
Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Shear Strength of Adhesive Bonds in Laminated Wood Products
at Elevated Temperatures
D 7374 08
Standard Practice for Evaluating Elevated Temperature Performance of Adhesives Used in End-Jointed Lumber
3 Definitions
Adhesive a substance capable of holding materials together
Adherend a body held to another body by an adhesive
Agency an independent body that is competent to evaluate a manufacturers ability to meet the requirements
of this Standard and to operate a certification system in which the interests of all parties concerned with
the functioning of the system can be represented
Bond the attachment at an interface between adhesive and adherends or the act of attaching adherends together
by adhesive
Bondline the layer of adhesive which attaches two adherends
Face bondline the bondline joining the wide faces of laminations in adjacent layers
Edge bondline the bondline joining the narrow faces of adjacent laminations within one layer
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) the wood product made by bonding, under pressure, graded laminating stock
the grain of which is essentially parallel in each layer and is produced in accordance with the requirements of
this Standard
Curing converting an adhesive into a fixed or hardened state by chemical or physical action
Delamination the separation of layers in a laminate due to failure of the adhesive either in the adhesive itself
or at the interface between the adhesive and the adherend
Bondline delamination the length of delamination observed in a single bondline of a delamination
specimen expressed as a percentage of the total length of that bondline (the circumference of the
delamination specimen)
Specimen delamination the average delamination across all face bondlines in a delamination specimen
Zone delamination the average of the specimen delamination of specimens sampled within
a pre-qualification panel, or the area defined by the grid overlaid on a full-size panel
Panel delamination delamination within a full-size panel based on the average of the zone
delamination results
Edge (panel edge) the narrow face of a panel that exposes the ends or narrow faces of the laminations
Finished edge the panel edges that have been trimmed or machined to a specified quality and
tolerance after pressing
Unfinished edge the panel edges that are neither specified as finished or as meeting the tolerances
provided in this Standard
ChapTER 2 II-6
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Effective bonding area proportion of the lamination wide face averaged over its length that is able to form
a close contact bond upon application of pressure
Face one of the four longitudinal surfaces of a piece or panel
Lamination (or lumber) narrow face the face with the least dimension perpendicular
Lamination (or lumber) wide face the face with the largest dimension perpendicular
Panel face the wide face of a panel
Finger joint a joint between two pieces, the ends of which have been formed into a series of mating
fingers through either the wide or narrow faces of the pieces
Grade the designation of the quality of a piece of wood
In-control is when the production continues to meet the process requirements of this Standard
Item panels produced in sequence with the same lay-up, regardless of the panel length or width
Lamination lumber, including stress rated boards, that has been prepared for laminating
Layer all laminations on one side of a bondline
Outermost the laminations on the panels wide face and all adjacent layers with laminations having
the same grain orientation (e.g. parallel to the major direction)
Outer the layer adjacent to the outermost layer and all adjacent layers with laminations having
the same grain orientation (e.g. parallel to the minor direction)
Inner the laminations between the outermost layers
Lay-up the number and thickness of laminations, combination of grades and species, and orientation
of laminations
Length
CLT length dimension of the CLT panel or specimen parallel to the major direction
Lamination length dimension of the lamination parallel-to-the-grain after planing
Lumber length dimension of the lumber parallel-to-the-grain at the time of stress grading
Note: The lamination and lumber may include finger joints provided the finger joints are manufactured
Bondline length dimension of a single adhesive layer along the edges of the panel
Total bondline length dimension of all adhesive layers along the edges of the panel
Lumber
Machine evaluated lumber structural lumber that has been graded by means of a non-destructive test
and visual grading, conforming to the requirements for machine stress-rated lumber, with the exception
that the process lower fifth percentile modulus of elasticity (MOE) equals or exceeds 0.75 times the
characteristic mean MOE for the grade
Machine stress-rated lumber structural lumber graded by means of a non-destructive test and visual
grading, in accordance with the requirements of CSA O141
Sawn lumber the product of a sawmill not further manufactured other than by sawing, re-sawing,
passing lengthwise through a standard planing mill, and cross-cutting to length.
Structural lumber lumber in which strength is related to the anticipated end-use as a controlling factor
in grading or selecting
Visually stress-graded lumber structural lumber that has been graded in accordance with the
provisions of the National Lumber Grades Authority Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber
Major direction general direction of the grain of the outermost layers of the CLT panel
Minor direction perpendicular to the major direction
Moisture content the weight of moisture in wood expressed as a percentage of its oven-dry weight
Out-of-control is when the process no longer meets one or more of the process requirements of this Standard
ChapTER 2 II-7
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Package one or more panels pressed together for curing

Panel a single CLT structural element formed by bonding laminations with a structural adhesive
Piece a single board or plank, one or more which may be used in a lamination
Sample one or more units of product taken from a lot or batch or a portion of material taken from a panel,
in order to represent that lot, batch, or panel for inspection purposes
Setting the initial stages of curing of adhesives
Shift that portion of production represented by the Level I or Level II quality control sample
Species the commercial name of the wood species or species combinations that are used to formulate lumber
grading rules for the purposes of assigning common design properties
Note: Unless otherwise specified, the species of a panel is the species of the exposed face or the appearance face.
Specimen a part, item, or the whole of a sample, taken as representative of a whole or a collection of items
Stress grade a classification of CLT where combinations of laminating grades are arranged so they are suitable
for resisting the type and magnitude of stress assigned to the grade
Stress rated board (SRB) lumber less than 2 inches in nominal thickness and 2 inches or more in nominal width
that has been graded using the same grade-limiting specifications as those applied to structural dimension lumber
Structural composite lumber the wood product that is either laminated veneer lumber (LVL), parallel strand
lumber (PSL), laminated strand lumber (LSL), or oriented strand lumber (OSL), as defined in ASTM D 5456
and manufactured for use in structural applications
Thickness
CLT thickness dimension of the CLT panel or specimen measured perpendicular to the plane
of the panel
Lamination thickness dimension after planing of the lamination measured perpendicular
to the plane of the panel
Lumber thickness smaller cross-section dimension of the lumber at the time of stress grading
Specified thickness dimension of the CLT panel perpendicular to the plane to be used for purposes
of establishing the panel capacity by calculation
Visual grade
CLT (panel) visual grade the visual grade of one or both of the outermost layers
Lumber visual grade the visual grade at the time the lumber is grade marked
Lamination visual grade the grade of the lamination just prior to bonding
Wane the presence of bark or a lack of wood, for whatever cause, at the corner of a square-edged piece
Warp any deviation from a true or plane surface, including crook, bow, cup, twist, or any combination
of these (see NLGA Standard Grading Rules for additional details)
Width
CLT width dimension of the CLT panel or specimen perpendicular to the major direction
Lamination width dimension of the lamination between unglued edges of the wide face
Lumber width larger cross-section dimension of the lumber at the time of stress grading
Note: The lamination and lumber may include edge bonds provided they are manufactured
Wood failure (per cent) the area of wood fibre remaining at the bondline following completion
of the specified shear test
Note: Wood failure is determined by means of visual examination and is expressed to the nearest 5%
of the test area.
ChapTER 2 II-8
10-12-22 15:46
Panel Classification
4.1
General
Panels shall be classified and marked to indicate their lumber grade composition, appearance and panel thickness.
Panels shall be further specified by their length and width, or any suitable description of their size.
4.2
draft
Stress Grade
The stress grade shall be determined by acceptable engineering analysis or by the applicable design standard based
on the panel composition.
Note: See Appendix F of this Standard for the recommended engineering analysis.
4.3
Appearance
Panel appearance shall be as agreed to between the buyer and seller.
Note: See Appendix D for guidance on specifying panel appearance.
Panel Tolerances
5.1
General
5.1.1
Panel and component dimensions shall be specified at a reference moisture content of 15% (See PS20 or O141
for shrinkage coefficients).
Textured or other face or edge finishes are permitted to alter the tolerances specified in this section. The designer
shall compensate for any loss of cross-section and/or specified strength of such alternations.
5.2
Bondline Position
5.1.2
The actual bondline position within the panel thickness shall not deviate by more than 5% of the overall specified
thickness from the bondline position based on the specified lamination thickness.
5.3
Panel Length and Width

Where panel length or width are specified and no tolerances are provided, the tolerance for both length and width
shall be +0 mm, -4 mm and shall be applied to the specified width and length.
5.4
Squareness
Unless specified otherwise or designated as unfinished, panel face diagonals shall not differ by more than 3 mm.
5.5
Straightness
Unless specified otherwise or designated as unfinished, deviation of edges from a straight line between adjacent
panel corners shall not exceed 2 mm.
ChapTER 2 II-9
10-12-22 15:46
draft
6 Materials
6.1
Lumber
6.1.1
General Requirements
6.1.2
Lumber shall be obtained from structural lumber complying with the requirements of CSA O141 in Canada,
or PS 20 in the United States.
Grading
Lumber shall be graded in accordance with the National Grade Rule and have design properties specified in
either CSA O86 or the National Design Specification
6.1.3
Edge-glued and Fingerjoined Laminations
6.1.3.1 End and edge-glued joints in grade marked laminations shall meet the applicable standard for the stress grade
of the lumber.
Note: Structural glued lumber meeting Standards conforming to the latest edition of the American Lumber
Standard Committee Glued Lumber Policy are acceptable (e.g. NLGA SPS 1 and SPS 6).
6.1.3.2 Adhesive used for end and edge-glued joints shall meet the requirements of CSA O112.10.
6.1.4
Visual Quality
Lumber visual grade quality in each layer shall meet the visual requirements in Table 1.
Table 1
Lumber grade requirements and proportions
Grain Direction
of Layer
Primary Grade
Secondary Grade
Maximum Proportion
of Secondary Grade
Major
No. 2 or higher
No. 3
10%
Minor
No. 3 or higher
N/A
N/A
Note: Other structural grades such as machine graded lumber or light framing grades are permitted provided
their visual grade requirements are no less restrictive than specified in this clause.
6.1.5
Minimum Sizes (lumber after surfacing)
6.1.5.1 Cross laminations shall have a width-to-thickness ratio of 3.5 or more, and a thickness not less than 17 mm.
6.1.5.2 Cross laminations (lumber after surfacing) with a width-to-thickness ratio of less than 3.5 shall be assigned rolling
shear strength and modulus values developed in accordance with Appendix B.
6.1.6
Maximum Sizes (lumber after surfacing)

Laminations shall not exceed 50 mm in thickness.
Note: See the definition of lamination thickness.
ChapTER 2 II-10
10-12-22 15:46
Adhesives
6.2.1
The base adhesive shall meet or exceed the requirements of CSA O112.10.
6.2.2
The specific formulation(s) to be used in production shall meet the requirements of the Plant
Qualification Standard.

6.2.3
Where panels are intended for the conditions specified in Table 2, the adhesive used shall meet the additional
requirements shown in Table 2 and the panels shall be marked to indicate the requirements met.
draft
6.2
Table 2
Optional adhesive requirements for special exposure conditions
Condition
Adhesive Standard and/or Designation
Wet service conditions - wood moisture content

to exceed 19% while in service
CSA O112.9 - Exterior

ASTM D 2559 - Class B
Unprotected fire exposure - panels to be

designed as heavy timber elements
ASTM D 7374 - HRA (Heat Resistant Adhesive)

ASTM D 7247 - Elevated temperature test of
adhesive bond
Preservative treatment of the panel or laminations may be required.

Other requirements such as minimum panel and outermost lamination thickness may apply.
Information on Adhesive Service class to appear on the product mark. See the Plant Qualification standard.
7 Manufacturing
7.1
General
Only panel lay-ups qualified in accordance with the Plant Qualification Standard are permitted to be qualified
for production under this Standard.
7.2
Lumber Preparation
7.2.1
General
The lumber surface quality and variation in thickness within and between pieces of lumber shall be limited
to ensure a consistent bond.
7.2.2
Surfacing
Surfaces of laminations to be bonded shall be machine-finished to a uniformly smooth surface, but shall
not be sanded.
ChapTER 2 II-11
10-12-22 15:46
draft
7.2.3
7.2.4
Lamination Thickness
The tolerance on lamination thickness shall meet the requirements of Table 3.
Table 3
Laminate thickness variation
Layer
Under
Over
Outermost plies
0.0 mm
1.0 mm
Other plies
0.0 mm
0.5 mm
Reworked Lumber
7.2.4.1 General
Laminations that have been re-manufactured or re-sawn shall be re-graded, except as permitted below.
7.2.4.2 Shrinkage Relief
In laminations, longitudinal kerfs provided to relieve shrinkage stresses shall not be more than one-half
the lamination thickness, and shall not displace in total more than 10% of the lamination cross-section or more
than 5% of the lamination width.
7.2.4.3 Planing Prior to Bonding
The lumber shall be visually re-graded when planing prior to bonding results in the removal of more than 3%
of the original thickness from either face.
Note: The final thickness or width should be used in determining the panel capacity.
7.2.5
Moisture Content
Lumber moisture content shall be within the range qualified and specified in the Plant Operating Specification.
7.3
Panel Orientation Marking

If applicable, panels shall be clearly marked to ensure correct orientation of the panel in the structure
or of any special zones in the panel specifically designed to receive connectors or treatment.
7.4
Panel Protection
Panels shall be protected from weather and mechanical damage while in the care of the manufacturer.
Note: Instructions on the care and protection of the product during transport and construction should
be provided.
7.5
Repairs
7.5.1
From Delamination Sampling
7.5.1.1 General
Plugs shall be laminated and bonded using an adhesive with equal or better bond performance as that used
for the panel.
Note: Laminated plugs with grain parallel to the axis of the plug are permitted to be used to repair panel holes
from delamination sampling.
ChapTER 2 II-12
10-12-22 15:46
The use of the panel shall consider the location of repair plugs. Panels with repair plugs located near points
of high concentration of loading (for example, hold down connectors or reduced area such as lintel areas)
should be avoided.
7.5.1.3 Plug Material
The moisture content of the plug material shall be less than the average moisture content of the panel being
repaired. Consideration shall be given to the potential differential shrinkage between the plug and the panel
being repaired.
7.5.2
draft
7.5.1.2 Plug Locations
Other Repairs
Repair of flaws in panels shall be carried out under the supervision of a structural engineer familiar with panels
and the end-use conditions for the panel.
Process Requirements
8.1
General
The manufacturer shall ensure that the correct size and grade of material are used in the lamination process,
and that a durable and effective adhesive bond is formed between layers.
8.2
Bonding Surface Quality
8.2.1
Target Effective Bonding Area

Lumber meeting the visual grade requirements of Table 1 shall be further graded and pieces laid up to maintain
an effective bonding area of 80% or better on surfaces to be bonded.
8.2.2
Lumber Growth Ring Orientation

If required to maintain the minimum effective bond area, laminations in cross-plies shall be oriented such that
the bark and pith faces of adjacent pieces generally alternate.
8.2.3
Lamination Grade Limits

Grade limits intended to limit the amount of lamination warp that will not be corrected upon application
of pressure shall be qualified using the Pre-qualification provisions of the Plant Qualification Standard.
8.2.4
Glue Skip in the Face Bondline

The average glue skip in a face bondline shall not exceed the level established to maintain the minimum
effective bond area.
8.3
Resistance to Delamination
Bondline resistance to delamination shall meet or exceed the levels established under the Pre-qualification
provisions of the Plant Qualification Standard.
ChapTER 2 II-13
10-12-22 15:46
draft
Quality Control
General
9.1
Ongoing evaluation of the process properties listed in Clause 8 shall be performed to confirm that the quality
of the manufactured product remains consistent.
9.1.2
Separate quality control records shall be maintained for each lay-up regardless of panel width and length.
9.1.1
9.1.3 The sampling method and control forms shall be approved by the Agency.
9.1.4
Production shall be held pending results of the Quality Control testing specified in Clauses 9.2 and 9.3
on representative samples.
9.2
Quality Control Sampling
9.2.1
Increased Sampling Following Initial Plant Qualification (Level I)
9.2.1.1 General
Level I sampling shall apply after initial or any subsequent qualification as defined in the Plant
Qualification Standard.
9.2.1.2 Panel Sampling
The first and last panel from each item produced in a shift shall be selected for testing.
9.2.1.3 Specimen Sampling
A uniform square grid, 1.3 m x 1.3 m or smaller, shall be overlaid onto each panel from which:
(a) Two square grids, one from first half and the second from the second half length of the panel length, shall
be randomly selected for delamination specimen sampling; and
(b) Three delamination cores shall be randomly taken from within the boundary of each square.
Note: A computer generated random number pair for positioning the delamination cores within each square
is recommended.
9.2.2
Reduced Sampling Following Initial Plant Qualification (Level II)
9.2.2.1 General
Level II sampling is permitted with the approval of the Agency and following at least 7 consecutive shifts of incontrol production under Level I sampling.
9.2.2.2 Panel Sampling
A panel representative of the held production of each item shall be selected.

Note: It is recommended that the panel be selected at the end of the last shift in which each item is produced,
provided the number of shifts does not exceed three. If the number of shifts exceeds three, the sampling should
be made every three shifts. Consideration should be given to scheduling or increasing the frequency of sampling
around start-up and shut-down of the production line for maintenance or shift changes.
ChapTER 2 II-14
10-12-22 15:46
A uniform square grid, 1.3 m x 1.3 m or smaller, shall be overlaid onto each panel from which:
(c) Two square grids shall be randomly selected for delamination specimen sampling, and
(d) One delamination core shall be randomly taken from within the boundary of each square.
Note: A computer generated random number pair for positioning the delamination cores within each square
is recommended.
9.3
Delamination Resistance Testing
9.3.1
Specimen Preparation
draft
9.2.2.3 Specimen Sampling
Specimen length shall be equal to the thickness of the panel from which it is sampled. Specimen diameter shall be
between 80 and 90 mm. Sawn end-grain and side-grain surfaces are permitted to be sanded prior to conditioning
to remove, for example, burn marks to facilitate inspection of the bondlines, provided the overall diameter is not
reduced to less than 80 mm.
9.3.1.1 The weight of each test specimen prior to conditioning shall be recorded to the nearest gram.
9.3.1.2 The test specimen(s) shall be placed in an autoclave or pressure vessel, weighted down, and covered in water at
a temperature of 18 to 27C. All test specimen(s) shall be separated such that bondlines are exposed to the water.
9.3.1.3 A vacuum of between 70 and 85 kPa shall be drawn and held for 30 min. The vacuum shall then be released
and a pressure of 480 to 550 kPa shall be applied for 2 h.
9.3.1.4 The test specimen(s) shall then be removed from the pressure vessel and placed in a drying oven. The test
specimen(s) shall be dried in air at 65 to 75C. During the drying period, the test specimen(s) shall be placed
approximately 50 mm apart and oriented with their bondline parallel to the flow of air. The airflow rate and
relative humidity shall be such that the specimen(s) are dried to within 12 to 15% above their original test weight
within a period of 10 to 15 h.
9.3.1.5 When the test specimen(s) have returned to within 12 to 15% above their original test weight, delamination
shall be measured and recorded.
Note: Delamination should be measured immediately after removal of the specimens from the oven. If
measurement is delayed, areas of poor bond can close up because the block core dries out to a state of equilibrium
with the outer block surface, or the surface can pick up moisture.
9.3.1.6 Clauses 9.3.1.2 to 9.3.1.5 shall be repeated as required for each additional delamination exposure cycle
if the observed delamination exceeds the limit after 1 cycle (see Table 4).
9.3.2
Measurements
9.3.2.1 Delamination is measured along the glue lines and shall exclude knots, grade defects, and wood failure
in the bondline area.
9.3.2.2 Glue skip is permitted to be assessed as delamination.
Note: Once the test cycle is completed, the specimen may be chiselled apart at the bondline to further
evaluate the quality of the glue bond. The bondline separation assessed here may be separated into glue skips
and delamination.
9.3.2.3 Glue skips on bondable surfaces if not assessed as delamination shall be averaged from all specimens from a panel.
ChapTER 2 II-15
10-12-22 15:46
draft
9.3.3 Requirements
9.3.3.1 Delamination of a specimen meeting the requirements of Table 4 for one (1) delamination exposure cycle
as described in Clauses 9.3.1.2 to 9.3.1.5:
(a)Need not be subjected to a second cycle; and

(b)The results from the single delamination exposure cycle shall be used for the bondline and specimen
delamination assessments.
Note: See Appendix G for sample delamination calculations for a bondline, and for the average delamination
in a specimen, zone and panel.
Table 4
Maximum permitted delamination (and glue skips)
Bondline
Average of specimens
Specimen
Zone
Panel
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
1 cycle
2 cycles
25%
30%
20%
25%
15%
20%
10%
15%
Result from delamination averaged across all bondlines in an individual specimen

Result from delamination averaged across all specimens within the zone
Result from delamination averaged across all the specified zones within the panel
9.3.3.2 If the requirements of Table 4 are not met, re-sampling and re-evaluation of delamination are permitted
as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Re-sampling and re-evaluation for delamination (or glue skip)
Sampling Stage
Full-size Panel
Level I sampling
Level II sampling
Deficiency
Re-sampling Permitted
Specimen
A replacement specimen shall be randomly

selected from the same zone to replace the
specimen.
Zone
Up to two additional specimens shall be

randomly selected in sequence from the
same zone and combined with the original
samples for computing the average
delamination (or glue skips).
Panel
The zone with the highest average

delamination (or glue skips) shall be
re-sampled as noted above for a zone
deficiency.
9.3.3.3 If assessed separately from delamination, the average glue skip expressed as a percentage of the bond area observed
shall not exceed the limit established for the plant.
ChapTER 2 II-16
10-12-22 15:46
Sufficient records shall be maintained to enable the Agency to verify that testing in accordance with this Standard
has been carried out, and that the requirements of this Standard have been met prior to the release of production.
11 Re-inspection
draft
10 Records
General
11.1
Panels shall be reassessed on the basis of their visual quality and, if required, resistance to delamination.
11.2
Visual Inspection
11.2.1
Visual Grade of Outer Faces

The visual grade of the lumber on the outermost layer shall be in accordance with the specified grade
of the lamination and the provisions of Clauses 11.2.1.1 to 11.2.1.2
11.2.1.1 Seasoning checks need not be considered.

11.2.1.2 The specified grade limits are permitted to be adjusted to account for planing as permitted in Clause 7.2.4.
11.2.2
Growth Ring Orientation of Cross-Plies

Where cross-ply laminations are not all edge-glued, cross-ply laminations that do not have alternating growth
ring patterns with adjacent laminations shall not exceed on average 10% of the total area for each bondline.
Note: The growth ring orientation of the exposed ends of laminations at the edges of panels can be surveyed.
Because changes in growth ring orientation may occur along the length of a lamination due to end-jointing,
opposite edges may need to be examined.
11.2.3
Bondline Separation
11.2.3.1 Except that excluded in Clause 11.2.3.2, the total length of bondline separation along the finished edges
of the panel shall not exceed 10% of the total length of the bondline along the same edges.
11.2.3.2 The following are permitted to be excluded from the total length of bondline separation:
(a)Separation at the bondline not exceeding 20 mm in depth as determined by a 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) feeler gauge;
(b)Separation around characteristics other than warp that are limited by the manufacturers to achieve
the minimum bond area; and
(c)Separation in wood away from the bondline.
ChapTER 2 II-17
10-12-22 15:46
draft
11.3
Delamination
Random sample or cores subject to delamination testing
Requirements for the average (no check for the maximum)
Appendix A Test Methods [to be completed]

Modifications to ASTM test methods for properties of interest to users of this Standard
ASTM D 4761, Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Properties for Lumber and
Wood-Base Structural Material
ASTM D 2718, Standard Test Methods for Structural Panels in Planar Shear (Rolling Shear)
Appendix B Evaluation of Rolling Shear Properties [to be completed]
Practice for establishing the rolling shear modulus and strength of wood using ASTM D 2718
Appendix C
Glued Lumber Requirements [to be completed]

Glued lumber conforming to the American Lumber Standard Glued Lumber policy
are permitted for use with this Standard
Appendix D Visual Quality Class for CLT Panels [to be completed]

Provisions for assessing checks in CLT panels used under low moisture content conditions
Appendix E
Structural Properties Class for CLT Panels [to be completed]

Classification of floor, wall and roof panels
Appendix F Calculating Design Capacities for CLT Panels [to be completed]

Flexural capacity and stiffness
Appendix G
Sample Delamination Calculations [to be completed]

Bondline delamination
Specimen delamination
Zone delamination
Panel delamination
ChapTER 2 II-18
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:46
Structural design of
cross-laminated timber elements
CHAPTER
Authors
Sylvain Gagnon, Eng., FPInnovations
Marjan Popovski, Ph.D., P.Eng., FPInnovations

Peer Reviewers
Kevin D. Below, Ph.D., Eng., Douglas Consultants Inc.
Robert Malczyk, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., StructEng, MIStructE, MBA, Equilibrium Consulting Inc.
David Moses, Ph.D., P.Eng., PE, LEED AP, Moses Structural Engineers
10-12-22 15:44
Acknowledgements
10-12-22 15:44
Abstract
Various methods have been adopted in Europe for the determination of design properties of CLT. Some of these
methods are experimental in nature while others are analytical. Other methods involve a combination of both
empirical and analytical approaches based on model testing. Experimental evaluation involves determination of
flexural properties by testing full-size panels or sections of panels with a specific span-to-depth ratio. The problem
with the experimental approach is that every time the lay-up, type of material, or any of the manufacturing
parameters change, more testing is needed to evaluate the bending properties of such products.
An analytical approach, once verified with the test data, offers a more general and less costly alternative. Such an
analytical approach can generally predict the strength and stiffness properties of CLT panels based on the material
properties of the laminate planks that make up the CLT panel.
No analytical approach has been universally accepted by European CLT manufacturers and designers. The most
common analytical approach that has been adopted for CLT in Europe is based on the mechanically jointed beams
theory that is available in Annex B of Eurocode 5 (EN 2004). According to this theory, the Effective Stiffness
concept is introduced and a Connection Efficiency Factor (i) is used to account for the shear deformation of
the perpendicular layer, with =1 representing a completely glued member, and =0 no connection at all. This
approach provides a closed (exact) solution for the differential equation only for simply supported beams/panels
with a sinusoidal load distribution. However, the differences between the exact solution and those for a uniformly
distributed load or point loads are minimal and are acceptable for engineering practice (Ceccotti, 2003).
Blass and Fellmoser (2004) have applied the Composite Theory (also named k-method) to predict flexural
properties of CLT. However, their work did not account for shear deformation in individual layers.
More recently, a new method called Shear Analogy (Kreuzinger, 1999) has been developed in Europe that seems
to be applicable for solid panels with cross layers. The methodology takes into account the shear deformation of
the longitudinal and the cross layers and is not limited by the number of layers within a panel. This method seems
to be the most accurate and adequate for prediction of stiffness properties of CLT panels.
Almost all the studies conducted in Europe so far have focused primarily on predicting the stiffness and not the
strength properties of CLT panels in flexure. Also, little information is available on creep and vibration behaviours
of CLT panels. While flexural stiffness of CLT panels is usually of greater interest for designers than the strength,
since the structural design is mostly governed by serviceability criteria, from a product standard development
point of view there is a need to characterize the strength properties as well, to ensure certain minimum panel
strength in service. There is a need to adopt a design methodology for determination of the stiffness and the
strength properties of CLT in flexure by further exploring the shear analogy approach. It is expected that the
proposed analytical approach will be accepted in the upcoming CLT product standard. The procedure to calculate
the design properties should be based on material properties for lumber published in the design standards,
and should be consistent with the design philosophy in the CSA O86, the Canadian Standard for Engineering
Design in Wood. Because of these potentially important features, the developed analytical method will need
to be comprehensively verified against test data.
ChapTER 3 Structural

iii
10-12-22 15:44
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures vii
1
Cross-Laminated Timber Panels Definition 1
Analytical Procedures for CLT Elements 4
2.1 Introduction to Design Procedures used in CLT Floor, Roof and Wall Systems
and their Limitations 4
2.2 Mechanical Properties of CLT Elements used in Floor and Wall Systems 5
2.2.1 Board Properties 5

2.2.2 Lumber Grade and Moisture Content 5
2.2.3 Rolling Shear Modulus and Shear Deformation Loads Perpendicular to the Plane 5
2.2.3.1 Rolling Shear Modulus Loads Perpendicular to the Plane 5

2.2.3.2 Shear Deformation Loads Perpendicular to the Plane 6
2.3 Analytical Design Methods for CLT Elements used in Floor Systems 7

2.3.1 Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method) 7
2.3.1.1 General Assumptions and Calculations 7

2.3.1.2 Bending Strength and Stiffness Loads Perpendicular to the Plane
(Floor and Roof ) 8
2.3.1.3 Shear Strength Loads Perpendicular to the Plane (Floor and Roof ) 10

2.3.2 Composite Theory k Method 12
2.3.2.1 General Assumptions 12

2.3.2.2 Bending Strength and Stiffness Loads Perpendicular to the Plane
(Floor and Roof ) 14
2.3.3 Shear Analogy Method (by Kreuzinger) 14
2.3.3.1 General Assumptions and Procedure 14

2.3.4 Simplified Design Methods for Calculating Bending and Shear Strengths
(Out-of-Plane) 19

iv
10-12-22 15:44
2.3.4.1 Bending Strength 19

2.3.4.2 Shear Strength 19

2.3.5 Regular Two-Way Slab System Loaded Perpendicular to the Slab Plane 20
2.3.6 Bending Strength and Bending Stiffness Loads Parallel to the Plane (Diaphragms) 21
2.3.7 Additional Stresses 21
2.3.8 Cantilevered and Statically Indeterminate CLT Elements 22
2.3.9 CLT Slab Supported by a Post (Compressive Resistance Perpendicular to the Grain) 22
2.4 Analytical Design Methods for CLT Elements used in Wall Systems 22

2.4.1 CLT Wall Panels Under Axial In-Plane Loads and Out-of-Plane Loads 22
2.4.1.1 Mechanically Jointed Columns Theory (Eurocode 5) 22

2.4.1.2 CSA O86-09 Approach Combined with Mechanically Connected
Beams Theory 23
2.5 Analytical Design Procedures for CLT Elements used as Beams and Lintels 24

2.5.1 Simplified Design Methods for Calculating Bending Strength (In-Plane) 25
2.5.2 Composite Theory k Method 26
2.6 Modification Factors (K-factors) 26

2.6.1 Load Duration Factor KD 26
2.6.2 Service Condition Factor KS 27
2.6.3 System Factor KH 27
2.6.4 Treatment Factor KT 27
2.6.5 Lateral Stability Factor KL for Beams and Lintels 27
2.6.6 Size Factor for Bending KZb 27
2.6.7 Curvature Factor KX and Radial Resistance KR 27
2.7 Creep Behaviour of CLT in Bending 27

2.8 Vibration of CLT Floors 27
3
Design Examples 28
3.1 Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) and Bending Strength using the Mechanically
Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method) 28
3.1.1 Five-Layer CLT Panel 28
3.1.2 Seven-Layer CLT Panel 33
3.2 Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) According to Composite Theory (k-Method) 39

3.2.1 Five-Layer CLT Panel 115 mm thick 39
3.2.2 Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick 40
3.2.3 Seven-Layer CLT Panel 226 mm thick 41

v
10-12-22 15:44
3.3 Calculation of True Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) and Effective Shear Stiffness (GAeff)
According to the Shear Analogy Method (Kreuzinger) 42
3.3.1 True Bending Stiffness (EIeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick 42
3.3.2 Shear Stiffness (GAeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick 46
3.4 Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) and Deflection under Live Load Using
the Three Proposed Design Methods 48
3.4.1 Bending Stiffness (EIeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick 48
3.5 Calculation of Out-of-Plane Bending Strength 56

3.5.1 Out-of-Plane Bending Strength of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick 56
3.6 Calculation of In-Plane Bending Strength (Lintels or Beams) 61

3.6.1 In-Plane Bending Strength of a Three-Layer CLT Panel 94 mm thick 61
Conclusion and Recommendations 65
References 66

vi
10-12-22 15:44
List of Tables
Table 1 Ratio between mid-span deflection of concrete-wood T beam with deformable connections
(values calculated exactly) and the deflection of the beam with perfectly rigid connections, under
various loadings 8
Table 2
Composition factors k for solid wood panels with cross layers (Source: Blass, 2004) 13
Table 3 Effective values of strength and stiffness for solid wood panels with cross layers
(Source: Blass, 2004) 14
List of Figures
Figure 2
Examples of CLT panel cross-sections 2
Figure 3
Example of CLT panel cross-sections and direction of fibre of the top layers 2
Figure 4 (a) Floor assembly made of four CLT panels acting in one direction
(b) Floor assembly made of one CLT panel acting in both directions 3
Figure 5
Rolling shear deformation of a 5-layer CLT panel 6
Figure 6
Cross-section of CLT panel with five layers 11
Figure 7
Beam differentiation using the shear analogy method 15
Figure 8
Bending and shear stresses in beam A using the shear analogy method (Source: Kreuzinger) 16
Figure 9
Normal and shear stresses in beam B using the shear analogy method (Source: Kreuzinger) 17
Figure 10 Final stress distribution obtained from the superposition of the results from beams A and B
(Source: Kreuzinger) 17
Figure 11 CLT panel loaded perpendicular to the plane 21
Figure 12 CLT panels (beams or lintels) under axial in-plane loads 25

vii
10-12-22 15:44
10-12-22 15:44
1
Cross-Laminated
Timber Panels
Definition
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels consist of several layers of boards stacked crosswise and glued together
on their faces. Therefore, a cross-section of a CLT element must have at least three glued layers of boards placed
in orthogonally alternating orientation to the neighboring layers (Mestek et al., 2008). The narrow faces (edges)
of the boards are usually not glued together, although sometimes boards positioned in the longitudinal direction
of the panel are edge-glued. Some manufacturers will also produce panels having the transverse planks edgeglued. Also, in some cases (special configurations), consecutive board layers may be placed in the same direction,
giving a double layer, e.g. double longitudinal layers at the outer faces and additional double layers at the centre
of the panel. CLT products are usually fabricated with 3 to 11 board layers. Figure 1 illustrates a CLT panel
configuration while Figure 2 shows examples of CLT panel cross-sections. Figure 3 illustrates a 5-layer CLT panel
with its cross-sections. Finally, Figure 4a shows a floor built with four CLT panels acting mostly in one direction
while Figure 4b illustrates the same floor, this time built with only one CLT panel acting most likely in
two directions.
Transverse Planks
G-664
Longitudinal Planks
Figure 1

1
10-12-22 15:44
G-664
Figure 2
A
er
on
ti
ec
dir
A
b
of
of
re
fib
lay
op
et
th
l
G-670
Section A-A
D
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
Section B-B
D
Variable
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
Variable
G-670
G-664
Figure 3
Example of CLT panel cross-sections and direction of fibre of the top layers

2
10-12-22 15:44
a
G-664
G-664
(a) (b)
Figure 4
(a) Floor assembly made of four CLT panels acting in one direction
(b) Floor assembly made of one CLT panel acting in both directions
Distance a may reach 4 meters

3
10-12-22 15:44
2
Analytical
Procedures
for CLT Elements

2.1
Introduction to Design Procedures used in CLT Floor,

Roof and Wall Systems and their Limitations
Different methods have been adopted for the determination of basic mechanical properties of CLT in Europe.
Some of these methods are experimental in nature while others are analytical. For floor elements, experimental
evaluation involves determination of flexural properties by testing full-size panels or sections of panels with a
specific span-to-depth ratio. The problem with the experimental approach is that every time the lay-up, type of
material, or any of the manufacturing parameters change, more testing is needed to evaluate the bending properties
of such new products.
Obviously, the analytical approach, once verified with the test data, offers a more general and less costly alternative.
An analytical approach generally predicts strength and stiffness properties of CLT based on the material properties
of the laminate planks that make up the CLT panel.
The most common analytical approach that has been adopted for CLT in Europe is based on the Mechanically
Jointed Beams Theory (also named Gamma Method) that is available in Annex B of Eurocode 5 (EN 2004).
According to this theory, the Effective Stiffness concept is introduced and a Connection Efficiency Factor
(i) is used to account for the shear deformation of the perpendicular layer, with =1 representing a completely
glued member, and =0 no connection at all. This approach provides a closed (exact) solution for the differential
equation only for simply supported beams/panels with a sinusoidal load distribution; however, the differences
between the exact solution and those for uniformly distributed load or point loads are minimal and are acceptable
for engineering practice (Ceccotti, 2003).
Blass and Fellmoser (2004) have applied the Composite Theory (also named k-method) to predict some design
properties of CLT. However, this method does not account for shear deformation in individual layers and is
reasonably accurate for high span-to-depth ratio.
the cross layer and is not limited to a restricted number of layers within a panel. This method seems to be the most
accurate and adequate for CLT panels.
Other methods involve a combination of both empirical and analytical approaches based on model testing. No
analytical approach has been universally accepted by CLT manufacturers and designers for now, and almost all
of the studies have focused primarily on predicting stiffness and not strength properties of CLT panels in flexure.
While flexural stiffness of CLT panels is usually of greater interest for designers than the strength, since the
structural design is almost always governed by serviceability criteria, from a product standard development point
of view there is a need to characterize the strength properties as well, to ensure certain minimum panel strength

4
10-12-22 15:44
in service. There is a need to adopt a design methodology for determination of the stiffness and the strength
properties of CLT in flexure by further exploring the shear analogy approach. It is expected that the proposed
analytical approach will be accepted in the upcoming CLT product standard. The procedure to calculate the
design properties should be based on material properties for lumber published in design standards, and should be
consistent with the design philosophy in the CSA O86, the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood.
Because of these potentially important features, the developed analytical methods will need to be comprehensively
verified against test data.
Important Note: The proposed design procedures given in this chapter only apply to cross-laminated timber
products manufactured with a gluing process (i.e. face-glued). Therefore, this chapter does not cover nailed or
doweled CLT products.
2.2
2.2.1
Mechanical Properties of CLT Elements

used in Floor and Wall Systems
Board Properties
Usually, thickness of individual boards currently produced varies from 10 mm to 50 mm and the width varies
from 80 mm to 240 mm. Boards are fingerjoined using structural adhesive for longer spans. Boards are visually
or machine stress-rated and are usually kiln dried to achieve average moisture content of 12% 2%.
Basic mechanical properties of the boards used in CLT elements vary from one producer to another. The most
important European producers use boards stress graded C24 according to EN Standards (EN 338 and EN 1912)
or S10 according to DIN Standard. The equivalent in Canada would be MSR 1650Fb-1.5E lumber, that gives
a modulus of elasticity of about 10300 MPa (NLGA, 2010 and CSA O86). Some producers use lower grades for
boards located in the inner layers and for transverse layers (e.g. C16 similar to No. 3 NLGA grade and C18 similar
to 2&Btr NLGA grade). Wall elements may also be manufactured using lower grades of boards.
2.2.2
Lumber Grade and Moisture Content

Analytical design procedures given in this chapter apply to CLT elements manufactured using Canadian lumber
graded in accordance with the NLGAs Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber and identified by the stamp
of an association or independent grading agency in accordance with CSA O141. Additionally, boards graded
using in-house quality control standards may be used but shall be validated by a certification agency. It is finally
recommended to use boards having a maximum moisture content of 12% 2% for pilot projects until further
research in this area is conducted.
2.2.3
Rolling Shear Modulus and Shear Deformation Loads Perpendicular to the Plane
2.2.3.1 Rolling Shear Modulus Loads Perpendicular to the Plane
Rolling shear strength and stiffness in CLT has been identified as a key issue that may control the design and
performance of CLT floor or wall systems. As a result of the manufacturing process of CLT panels, i.e. layers
that are stacked crosswise, the load bearing behaviour of this planar element is affected by the material itself
and by its constructive anisotropy (Mestek et al., 2008). Work performed at the University of British Columbia
(Bejtka and Lam, 2008) on CLT panels built with Canadian lodgepole pine laminates has confirmed this finding.
The magnitude of the effective bending stiffness of the panel and consequently the stress distribution in the
layers depend largely on the rolling shear modulus of the cross-wise layers (Fellmoser and Blass, 2004). Little
information, however, is available on the rolling shear properties of CLT panels or on the determination
of such properties.
The rolling shear modulus depends on many factors such as species, cross-layer density, laminate thickness,
moisture content, sawing pattern configurations (annual rings orientation), size and geometry of the boards crosssection, etc. Dynamic and numerical methods have recently been developed in Europe to measure the rolling shear

5
10-12-22 15:44
modulus (Steiger et al., 2008). However, there is no general agreement among researchers, manufacturers and
code officials on which method should be adopted to determine rolling shear modulus and strength. There is a lack
of generalised calculations or test methods that can be adopted for the determination of rolling shear properties
of CLT applicable to a wide spectrum of product lay-up details. Test methods adapted from standardized shear
tests for panel type products have not been found to be satisfactory since they were developed for panels with thin
layers. There is a need to develop a test method and a calculation procedure to determine the rolling shear strength
and modulus of CLT.
In the literature (Mestek et al., 2008), the rolling shear modulus GR is assumed to be 1/10 of the shear modulus
parallel to the grain of the boards, G0 (i.e. GR G0/10). In Europe, the rolling shear modulus GR of CLT panels
is usually established using the Common Understanding of Assessment Procedure (CUAP) for a solid wood slab
element to be used as a structural element in building (ETA request No. 03.04/06). The specified shear modulus
(rolling shear modulus) of boards perpendicular to the grain (GR) in that document is 50 MPa. The same value
is proposed in Blass and Grlacher (2000). That gives a shear modulus of boards parallel to the grain, G0, of
500 MPa.
Based on experience and the literature, the shear modulus G of wood products is generally assumed to be
established between 1/12 and 1/20 of the true modulus of elasticity, i.e. Etrue/G0 12 to 20. For example,
for softwood lumber, this ratio may be assumed to be 16. Using this ratio for boards made of visually graded
No. 1/No. 2 SPF sawn lumber with an MOE of 9500 MPa results in G0 being about 595 MPa and a rolling shear
modulus of 59.5 MPa. In this case, the given magnitude of the rolling shear modulus in the literature seems to
be on the conservative side. Thus, assuming a rolling shear modulus of 50 MPa in all cases, e.g. SPF, D Fir-L and
Hem-Fir lumber, and MSR and visually graded boards, is on the conservative side. Figure 5 illustrates the rolling
shear deformation behaviour of a 5-layer CLT cross-section.
G 10 Grolling shear
t
G-664
G rolling shear
G
Figure 5
Rolling shear deformation of a 5-layer CLT panel
2.2.3.2 Shear Deformation Loads Perpendicular to the Plane
It is suggested that the shear deformation of CLT panels loaded uniformly may be neglected for elements having
a span-to-depth ratio (l/d) higher than 20 (Mestek et al., 2008). Other literature and CLT panel producers give
as a boundary condition a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 30 before neglecting the shear deformation of the
panel. This is also the ratio that is suggested for use in Canada until further research in this area is conducted. One
should always be careful about setting these boundaries. Lower ratios tend to be uneconomical and have higher
influence of shear deformation, while larger ones may be controlled by the vibration properties and probably

6
10-12-22 15:44
creep deformation. According to preliminary calculations by the authors of this chapter using the Shear Analogy
Method, for a slab with a span-to-depth ratio of 30, the contribution of shear deformation was about 11% while
it was 22% for a slab with a ratio of 20.
2.3
Analytical Design Methods for CLT Elements

used in Floor Systems
During the last decade, various types of analytical models for the evaluation of basic mechanical properties
of CLT slab elements have been developed and proposed. This section provides more detailed information
about some of the most commonly used design methods.
It is important to note that, since CLT panels are a relatively soft and light building material for slabs, the design
(e.g. minimum thickness and maximum span) is often more driven by serviceability criteria (e.g. vibration,
deflection and creep) than by strength ones (e.g. bending and shear strength).
2.3.1
Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
2.3.1.1 General Assumptions and Calculations
Some CLT panel manufacturers use the design philosophy of Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory that is included
in Annex B of Eurocode 5 (EN 1995: 2004). As the name suggests, this method was originally developed for
beams (e.g., I or T beams) connected with mechanical fasteners with stiffness K uniformly spaced at distance s
along the length of the beams. This method, also named Gamma Method (-method), was developed in 1955 by
Professor Karl Mhler. According to this method, the stiffness properties of the mechanically jointed beams are
defined using the Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) that depends on the section properties of the beams and the
connection efficiency factor . Factor depends on the slip characteristics of the fasteners (s/K ratio), being zero
for no mechanical connection between the beams and equalling unity for rigidly connected (glued) beams.
Since CLT panels are glued products with no mechanical joints present, some modifications were needed to the
theory to make it applicable to CLT panels. If we assume that only boards oriented in the longitudinal direction
are carrying the load, then we can take into account the rolling shear stiffness (or deformability) of the cross layers
as stiffness (or deformation) caused by imaginary fasteners connecting the longitudinal layers. In other words,
the longitudinal layers of the CLT panels are taken as beams connected with mechanical fasteners that have
stiffness equal to that of the rolling shear deformation of the cross layers (Figure 5). In this case, the s/Ki ratio for
fasteners at each interface i in the equation for determining the factor should be replaced with the rolling shear
slip (shear deformation between load carrying layers) according to equation [1].
[1]

where:
GR

b
s
Ki
=
=
=
=
=
shear modulus perpendicular to the grain (rolling shear modulus)

thickness of board layers in direction perpendicular to the action
width of the panel (normally 1 meter)
spacing between mechanical fasteners (but not present in glued CLT)
slip modulus of mechanical fasteners (but not present in glued CLT)
The mechanically jointed beams theory is derived using simple bending theory; therefore, all its basic assumptions
are valid. Shear deformations are neglected in the beams (i.e. longitudinal layers of the CLT slab) and are
included only for the cross layers by evaluating the rolling shear deformation. This approach provides a closed
(exact) solution for the differential equation only for simply supported beams/panels with a sinusoidal (or

7
10-12-22 15:44
uniform) load distribution giving a moment M = M(x) varying sinusoidally or parabolically. However, the
differences between the exact solution and those for uniformly distributed load or point loads are small. Table 1
shows, for example, the ratio between mid-span deflection of timber-concrete T beam (2.5 m and 10 m spans)
with deformable connections (values calculated exactly) and the deflection of the beam with perfectly rigid
connections, under various loadings. As can be seen, the differences are less than 3%, and are deemed acceptable
for engineering practice (Ceccotti, 2003).
Table 1
Ratio between mid-span deflection of concrete-wood T beam with deformable connections (values calculated
exactly) and the deflection of the beam with perfectly rigid connections, under various loadings
Type of Load
Beam with 2.5 m Span
Beam with 10 m Span
Concentrated load at mid span
1.9313
1.3492
Concentrated load at third points
1.9060
1.3266
Uniformly distributed load
1.9039
1.3258
Sinusoidal load
1.9021
1.3190
The mechanically jointed beams theory assumes that CLT elements are simply supported and have a span of l.
For cantilever CLT slabs, it is suggested that the length l to be used in the calculations should be equal to two
times the cantilever length lc. To determine the Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) in continuous multi-supported
beams, two approaches are suggested: a simplified procedure, and an iterative procedure. Since the factor (and
therefore the effective stiffness) value depends on the length of the beam between the two zero-moment points
(inflection points), according to the simplified procedure one can take the span in calculations to be equal to
0.8 l. In the iterative procedure, one can start by considering the EIeff along the length of the beam calculated using
a certain length l (say 0.8 l) and use a simple computer program to determine the points of inflection for
a beam with that EIeff. Then, by obtaining the new length between deflection points, one should re-calculate
the EIeff and do the analysis again. Usually after only a few iterations a stable solution for the EIeff can be obtained.
As previously mentioned, rolling shear modulus GR can be assumed to be 1/10 of the shear modulus parallel
to the grain of the boards, G0 (i.e. GR G0/10). The rolling shear modulus GR recommended for use in CUAP
2005 is 50 MPa. Some CLT manufacturers publish a value of 60 MPa, while others will adjust this value to the
corresponding bending stiffness of lumber used in the panel (i.e. the higher the MOE, the higher the GR). Most
common values of GR for spruce vary from 40 to 80 MPa.
The formulae and examples of calculations of the effective bending stiffness (EIeff) of CLT panels (slabs) with five
and seven layers are given in Section 3 of this chapter. It can be seen that only longitudinal layers, i.e. layers acting
in the direction of the loading (net cross-section), are used for calculating the EIeff, while the cross layers are taken
into account only through their rolling shear properties. It should be noted that this calculation method applies
to CLT slabs with relatively high span-to-depth ratios (i.e. 30 and higher) since it ignores the contribution of
the shear deformation in the longitudinal layers.
2.3.1.2 Bending Strength and Stiffness Loads Perpendicular to the Plane (Floor and Roof)
The evaluation process of CLT panels in most ETA product approvals in Europe employs a hybrid approach by
using a mix of analytical models and mechanical testing. Tests are based on existing standards (e.g. EN, DIN)
normally using the CUAP 03.04/06 (2005). This document stipulates that the bending strength of the slab needs
to be defined in relation to the effective section modulus Seff of the CLT element. The bending strength shall then
be calculated from the test results and using the effective section modulus.

8
10-12-22 15:44
The expression for the effective section modulus is shown in equation [2]:
[2]

where:
Seff = effective section modulus
Ieff = effective moment of inertia (see Figure 6 and Section 3)
htot = total depth of the panel
[2a]
where 0<1 (=1 for rigid connection and =0 for no connection. But typically may vary from 0.85 to 0.99).
Following the CUAP 03.04/06, bending tests shall be performed using national standard EN 408, Timber
structures Structural timber and glued laminated timber Determination of some physical and mechanical
properties and observing the principles given in standard EN 789, Timber structures Test methods
Determination of mechanical properties of wood based panels.
However, according to the mechanically jointed beams theory, and according to Appendix B of Eurocode 5,
the maximum bending stress in the panel can be obtained as:
[3]
where local is the stress in the outside layer as a consequence of bending of that layer, while global is the axial stress
developed in the outside layer due to bending. Local and global stresses can be obtained according to the equations
[4] and [5].
[4]
[5]

The term a1 is the distance between the centroid of the first lamina and the centroid of the panel cross-section,
and h1 is the thickness of the first (outermost) lamina (see Section 3). Having the equations [4] and [5] in mind,
the maximum bending stress can be expressed as:
[6]
or in other words:
[7]

9
10-12-22 15:44
When the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal, i.e. E1=E2=E3=E, then the maximum bending
stress can be obtained as:
[8]
Note: Some producers in Europe use only local bending stresses (local) in their calculations (see Equation B.8 from
section B.3 in Eurocode 5). However, global stresses (global) should be added to find the total bending stress in any
layer (see equation B.7 from section B.3 in Eurocode 5).
If we use CSA O86 design analogy, we can let:
[9]
and determine the factored moment bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb as:
[10]
Equation [10] is valid when the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal.
2.3.1.3 Shear Strength Loads Perpendicular to the Plane (Floor and Roof)
Experimental methods are normally used for assessing the shear strength of a structural glued product. It is
stipulated in the CUAP 03.04/06 that shear tests shall be performed using the principles of EN 408, Timber
structures Structural timber and glued laminated timber Determination of some physical and mechanical
properties. Tests shall be performed on simply supported slabs using loads applied to the full width of the panels
and close enough to the supports to create a shear failure. The shear strength is then calculated using the following
equation:
[11]

where:
= maximum shear strength (MPa)
V = maximum shear force (N)
Agross = gross cross-sectional area of the panel = b htot (mm2)

10
10-12-22 15:44
According to the simple bending theory (and theory of mechanically jointed beams), maximum shear stresses
occur where the normal stresses are equal to zero, and the shear stress can be obtained as:
[12]

where:

V
Q
b
=
=
=
=
shear stress (MPa)

maximum shear force (N)
static moment of area for the cross-section (mm3)
width of the cross-section perpendicular to the shear flow (mm); usually 1000 mm
For a CLT panel with five layers (see Figure 6), the static moment of area, Q, for that part of the section above
the centroidal axis, can be calculated as:
[13]

So if we use CSA O86 design analogy, we can let:
[14]
Having in mind equations [12] to [14], we can express the factored longitudinal shear resistance, VrL, in terms of
the specified shear strength, Fv, as:
[15]

In a similar way, with the appropriate modifications, the equations for CLT panels with three or seven layers
can be developed. In the case of three-layered panels, it should be noted that the strength Fv should be replaced
with the rolling shear strength FvR.
VrL
VrR
A1,E1,I1
A1,E1,Gr1
h tot
A2,E2,I2
hi
hi
hi
hi
a1
a2
a1
a3
hi
width (b)
Figure 6
Cross-section of CLT panel with five layers

11
10-12-22 15:44
In CLT panels with five layers or more, the shear strength at the cross layers (rolling shear resistance) should also
be checked. In this case, the static moment of area Q should be calculated for an axis just above the middle layer
and can be expressed as:
[16]
The factored rolling shear resistance, VrR, can be expressed in terms of the specified rolling shear strength, FvR,
according to equation [17].
[17]

The shear resistance of the CLT panel, Vr, should then be chosen as the lower value of the longitudinal shear
resistance, VrL, and the rolling shear resistance, VrR, as shown in equation [18].

2.3.2
Composite Theory k Method
2.3.2.1
General Assumptions
[18]
This design method is well-known in the plywood industry. In the original version of this method, the plies of
plywood panels stressed perpendicular to the grain are not taken into account in the calculation of the properties
in bending (i.e. E90 = 0).
To overcome this deficiency, with respect to CLT panels, the general method used to calculate the effective
bending stiffness (EIeff) has been modified and is based on the following assumptions:
A
linear stress-strain relationship and Bernoullis hypothesis of plane cross-sections remaining plane
are assumed;
Th
e calculation method is based on the strength and stiffness properties of all layers; layers loaded parallel
to the grain and cross layers loaded perpendicular to the grain. Stiffness of cross layers as used in the
calculations is taken as: E90 = E0 / 30;
S hear deformation is not taken into account. Therefore, the method may be used only for relatively high
span-to-depth ratios (i.e. l/h 30);
Composition factors are determined for certain loading configurations (see Table 2).
Table 2 provides the formulas to evaluate the composition ki factors for certain configurations of loading with
respect to the panel orientation. For instance, the factor k1 represents the composite factor for plates loaded
perpendicular to the plane and is used for calculating the properties in bending parallel to the panel. Table 3 gives
the effective values of strength and stiffness for solid wood panels with cross layers (Source: Blass, 2004).

12
10-12-22 15:44
Table 2
Composition factors k for solid wood panels with cross layers (Source: Blass, 2004)

13
10-12-22 15:44
Table 3
Effective values of strength and stiffness for solid wood panels with cross layers (Source: Blass, 2004)
Loading
To the grain of outer skins Effective strength value
Effective stiffness value
Perpendicular to the plane loading

Parallel
fb,0,eff = fb,0 k1
Eb,0,eff = E0 k1
Perpendicular
fb,90,eff= fb,0 k2 am/am-2
Eb,90,eff= E0 k2
Parallel
fb,0,eff = fb,0 k3
Eb,0,eff = E0 k3
Perpendicular
fb,90,eff = fb,0 k4
Eb,90,eff= E0 k4
Parallel
ft,0,eff
= ft,0 k3
Et,0,eff = E0 k3
Perpendicular
ft,90,eff = ft,0 k4
Et,90,eff = E0 k4
Parallel
fc,0,eff
= fc,0 k3
Ec,0,eff = E0 k3
Perpendicular
fc,90,eff = fc,0 k4
Ec,90,eff = E0 k4
Bending
In-plane loading
Bending
Tension
Compression
2.3.2.2 Bending Strength and Stiffness Loads Perpendicular to the Plane (Floor and Roof)
The maximum bending stress may be expressed as:

[19]


[20]
where Fb,eff is the effective bending strength value fb,0,eff obtained from Tables 2 and 3.
Thus, the factored moment bending resistance, Mr, in terms of the specified bending strength Fb, can be
expressed as:
[21]

Examples are given in Section 3 for the calculation of the effective bending stiffness (EIeff) and bending strength
of CLT panels using the k-method.
2.3.3
Shear Analogy Method (by Kreuzinger)
2.3.3.1 General Assumptions and Procedure
This calculation method is, according to the literature (Blass and Fellmoser, 2004), the most precise design
method for CLT. It is used, with the help of a plane frame analysis program, to consider the different moduli
of elasticity and shear moduli of single layers for nearly any system configuration (e.g. number of layers, span-todepth ratio). The effect of shear deformations is not neglected. In the shear analogy method, the characteristics
of a multi-layer cross-section or surface (such as multi-layer CLT panels) are separated into two virtual beams

14
10-12-22 15:44
A and B. Beam A is given the sum of the inherent flexural strength of the individual plies along their own neutral
axes, while beam B is given the Steiner points part of the flexural strength, the flexible shear strength of the
panel, as well as the flexibility of all connections. These two beams are coupled with infinitely rigid web members,
so that an equal deflection between beams A and B is obtained. By overlaying the bending moment and shear
forces (stresses) of both beams, the end result for the entire cross-section can be obtained (Figure 7).
Beam A (bending stiffness (EI)A = BA and shear stiffness
(GA)A = SA~ )
Web members with infinite axial rigidity
Beam B (bending stiffness (EI)B = BB and shear stiffness
(GA)B = SB)
Figure 7
Beam differentiation using the shear analogy method
Beam A is assigned a bending stiffness equal to the sum of the inherent bending stiffness of all the individual layers
or individual cross-sections as shown in equation [22].
[22]
where:
BA = (EI)A
bi = width of each individual layer, usually taken as 1 m for CLT panels
hi = thickness of each individual layer
The bending stiffness of beam B is calculated using Steiners theorem (given as the sum of the Steiner points
of all individual layers):
[23]

where BB is (EI)B and zi is the distance between the center point of each layer and the neutral axis (see Section 3).
Additionally, beam B contains the shear stiffness and the stiffness of the flexible connections, if they exist.
The shear stiffness of beam B, SB, is (GA)B and can be calculated as:
[24]

where:
[25]

is the slip of the fasteners between the beams.

15
10-12-22 15:44
In the above equations, the values for E0 shall be used for the longitudinal layers while E90 = E0/30 is suggested
to be used for cross layers. Also, in the same equations, the shear modulus for the longitudinal layer should be
assumed to be G, while that for the cross layers shall be, for the rolling shear, GR.
The auxiliary members have infinite flexural strength and shear strength and serve only to connect the two beams.
The continuity of deflections between beams A and B (A = B) must be valid at every point. Using a spreadsheet,
the virtual section sizes of beams A and B and the values for MA, MB, VA and VB are produced. Bending moments
MA,i and shear forces VA,i of each individual layer of beam A can be obtained using the equations [26]
and [27] respectively.
[26]
[27]

where MA and VA are the bending and shear forces on beam A.
Bending stresses A,i and shear stresses A,i of each individual layer of beam A can be obtained using
the equations [28] and [29] respectively.
[28]
[29]
i=1
i=2
z
i=3
tA,3
A,3
i=4
Bending
stress
Shear
stress
Figure 8
Bending and shear stresses in beam A using the shear analogy method (Source: Kreuzinger)
Axial forces NB,i , normal stresses B,i of each individual layer of beam B, and shear stresses at the interface
of the two layers of beam B, B,i,i+1 can be obtained using the equations [30], [31] and [32] respectively.
[30]

16
10-12-22 15:44
[31]
[32]
i=1
i=2
z
i=3
t2,3
B,3
i=4
Bending
stress
Shear
stress
Figure 9
Normal and shear stresses in beam B using the shear analogy method (Source: Kreuzinger)
The final stress distribution obtained from the superposition of the results from beams A and B is shown in
Figure 10. It should be noted that the shear distribution in Figure 10 includes the influence of the connector
devices that will not be existent for a CLT panel.
i=1
i=2
z
i=3
t3,4
i=4
Bending
stress
Shear
stress
Figure 10
Final stress distribution obtained from the superposition of the results from beams A and B (Source: Kreuzinger)
Using the shear analogy method, the maximum deflection umax in the middle of the CLT slab under a uniformly
distributed load can be calculated as a sum of the contribution due to bending and to shear:
[33]

17
10-12-22 15:44
or in other terms:
[34]

which can be expressed as:
[35]
where = 1.0 and can be expressed according to equation [36], where k (kappa) is the shear coefficient
form factor equal to 1.2 (i.e. 6/5 = 1.2) (see Timoshenko).
[36]

The effective bending stiffness can be obtained using equation [37].
[37]

The effective shear stiffness can be obtained using equation [38].
[38]

In the case of a concentrated force P in the middle of the span of the CLT slab, the equation for the maximum
deflection is given as:
[39]
which can be expressed as:
[40]
where = 1.0 and can be expressed according to the equation [41], where k (kappa) is the shear coefficient
form factor equal to 1.2 (6/5 = 1.2).

18
10-12-22 15:44
[41]

Some examples of the calculation of the effective true bending stiffness (EIeff) and effective shear stiffness (GAeff)
using the shear analogy method are given in Section 3.
2.3.4
Simplified Design Methods for Calculating Bending and Shear Strengths

(Out-of-Plane)
The next equations are simplified design methods proposed for calculating the capacity in bending
and in shear of CLT elements acting as floors and ceilings.
2.3.4.1 Bending Strength
The bending stress may be expressed as:

[42]

The maximum stress will occur for
, so equation [42] can be expressed as:

[43]

[44]
and determine the factored moment bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb as:
[45]
where E1 is the modulus of elasticity of the outer longitudinal layer in tension and (EI)eff is determined according
to Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 or 2.3.3.
When the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal, then equation [45] can be expressed as:

[46]
2.3.4.2 Shear Strength
Other methods for determining the maximum shear strength of CLT panels in the literature are shown
in equations [47] and [49].

19
10-12-22 15:44
[47]
where coefficient c is a reduction factor calculated as:
[48]
According to Blass (2004), the maximum shear strength of CLT panels can be calculated as:
[49]

where:
Qi = static moment of area, calculated in a way similar to equation [13].
2.3.5
Regular Two-Way Slab System Loaded Perpendicular to the Slab Plane

CLT elements used in floor assemblies will normally act in the principal direction when loaded perpendicular
to the plane. In a floor/roof assembly, the slab made of CLT panels may be supported on walls, beams or columns,
or by a mix of support conditions. For instance, the plate can be simply supported on two parallel sides at the
extremities and free, or connected to another plate, along the other two edges. It should be noted that a CLT slab
can also be supported on three or even four sides, as there are panels on the market that have a width of 3 or even
4 meters. Consequently, the two-way behaviour of the CLT slab system has to be carefully studied as well. Such
an evaluation has to include the influence of the support conditions, as different support conditions may modify
the relative effective stiffness of the plates at the supports:
Plate hinged along two edges and free along two edges;
Plate hinged along three or four edges;
Plate supported on columns.
In the evaluation of the two-way action of CLT slabs, some of the details related to the design of concrete
slabs may be adopted. According to the Concrete Design Handbook (CDH, 2005) and CSA A23.3, Design
of Concrete Structures, a regular two-way slab system is one that consists of approximately rectangular panels
supporting primarily uniform gravity loading. In particular, it is mentioned that this system shall meet geometric
limitations such as the following:
1. Within a panel, the ratio of the longer to the shorter span, centre-to-centre of supports, is not greater than 2.0;
2. For slab systems with beams (or walls) between supports, the relative effective stiffness of beams (or walls)
in the two directions is not less than 0.2 or greater than 5.0;
3. Column offsets are not greater than 20% of the span (in the direction of the offset) from either axis between
centrelines of successive columns; and
4. The reinforcement is placed in an orthogonal grid (similar to CLT panel behaviour).

20
10-12-22 15:44
Figure 11 illustrates two rectangular plates in bending, where a is the shorter span and b the longer span.
Case A illustrates a rectangular plate having a ratio of b/a greater than 2 (b/a > 2) while Case B shows
a rectangular plate having a ratio of b/a lower or equal to 2 (b/a 2).
1
b
1
t
a<b
Case A: b
a >2
b
G-664
Case B: b
a2
Figure 11
CLT panel loaded perpendicular to the plane
Based on the theory of plates (Timoshenko, 1959) and on the details presented above, it is suggested that plates
supported on four sides should be designed in one direction (i.e. short direction) when b/a > 2. In that case,
the length L used in the design should be a. For plates supported on four sides and having a ratio of b/a 2,
the design should be made in two directions with L1= a, and L2 = b.
It should be noted that the calculation of bending moments and deflections of rectangular CLT plates acting
in two directions is quite complex and should take into consideration many parameters, e.g. support conditions,
relative effective stiffness at the supports, MOE of longitudinal and transversal layers as well as parallel and
perpendicular to the action of the load, rolling shear in both directions, etc. Therefore the complexity of the design
in many cases may outweigh the benefits of taking the two-way action into account. In most cases, the design of
a CLT plate in a single direction will result in a more conservative solution. It is also suggested to use a minimum
of 5 layers if the two-way action needs to be evaluated. The verification shall be made using the 3-layer section in
the center of the panel (without the outer layers).
2.3.6
Bending Strength and Bending Stiffness Loads Parallel to the Plane (Diaphragms)
Floor and roof diaphragms are important horizontal structural elements in wood buildings that carry vertical
loads as well as lateral loads. The inertia forces caused by earthquakes or lateral forces from wind need to be
transferred by the diaphragm to the supporting walls and then to the foundation. Over this load path, the in-plane
stiffness and strength of the diaphragms will affect the load distribution among the wall systems, which will affect
the design. It is unclear at this point if the common assumption of flexible wood diaphragms can be applied to
CLT wood diaphragms. In addition, an appropriate design model for estimating the in-plane stiffness of CLT
diaphragms needs to be developed. Research studies on the in-plane stiffness and strength of CLT diaphragms
have not been conducted.
Consequently, it is suggested that buildings with CLT diaphragms be designed using the International Building
Code analogy (IBC, 2006). One should first design the structure using the flexible diaphragm assumption,
and then do the same using the rigid diaphragm approach. The more critical solution should then govern
the final design.
2.3.7
Additional Stresses
If the boards used in the cross layers are not edge-bonded (glued), additional stresses perpendicular to the grain
may occur in these boards due to the rotation around their longitudinal axis. These rolling shear and tensile
perpendicular to the grain stresses should be verified by testing if the ratio of board width to board thickness is less

21
10-12-22 15:44
than 4. If wider boards are grooved to reduce stress and to keep the boards straight prior to gluing and pressing,
the grooves are regarded as free (unbonded) edges.
2.3.8
Cantilevered and Statically Indeterminate CLT Elements

The proposed analytical design procedures generally assume that CLT elements are simply supported with
a span of l . For cantilevered CLT slabs, it is suggested that the length l in the calculations be taken as two
times the cantilever length lc.
To determine the Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff) in continuous multi-supported beams, two approaches
are suggested: a simplified procedure, and an iterative procedure. In the simplified procedure, the span in
the calculations is taken as 0.8 l. In the iterative procedure, one can start by considering the EIeff along the length of
the beam calculated using a certain length l (say 0.8 l) and use a simple computer program to determine the points
of inflection for a beam with that EIeff. Then by obtaining the new length between deflection points, one should
re-calculate the EIeff and do the analysis again. Usually after only a few iterations a stable solution for the EIeff can
be obtained.
2.3.9
CLT Slab Supported by a Post (Compressive Resistance Perpendicular to the Grain)

As a minimum, the capacity of CLT panels in compression perpendicular to the grain should be verified using
the loading surface of the post and using design provisions given in CSA O86-09, Article 6.5.9. Additionally,
the panels should be verified in bending and shear in the two directions (see Section 2.3.5).
2.4
Analytical Design Methods for CLT Elements

used in Wall Systems
CLT panels used as wall systems are subjected to three types of loading:
1) vertical in-plane loading from the gravity loads,
2) lateral in-plane loading coming from wind and earthquake loads, and
3) lateral out-of-plane loading that comes from wind loads.
Not much information is available in the literature for CLT walls subjected to in-plane loading.
If CLT walls were under out-of-plane wind loading only, they should be analysed in the same way as floor systems
under vertical loads as in Section 2.3 of this chapter.
It should be noted that, for wall applications, especially for 3-layer panels, CLT wall panels should normally
be placed with the outer layers parallel to the gravity loads.
2.4.1
CLT Wall Panels Under Axial In-Plane Loads and Out-of-Plane Loads
CLT walls under axial in-plane loads in combination with out-of-plane wind loads can be designed using different
approaches. Details about these approaches are described further in this section.
2.4.1.1 Mechanically Jointed Columns Theory (Eurocode 5)
Details of the mechanically jointed columns theory are included in Annex C of Eurocode 5. Following
this method and assumptions made, the effective slenderness ratio eff can be calculated as:
[50]

22
10-12-22 15:44
where Atot is the total cross-sectional area of the panel, l is the height (buckling length) of the wall element,
and the effective moment of inertia Ieff is given as:
[51]
where (EI)eff is determined according to Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 or 2.3.3, and Emean is the modulus of elasticity
of boards acting parallel to the axial load (i.e. vertical layers).
The effective slenderness ratio eff can then be substituted in equation 6.21 of Eurocode 5, and the compressive
resistance of the CLT walls under axial loads, or under combined axial and bending loads, can be calculated using
Section 6.3 of Eurocode 5.
2.4.1.2 CSA O86-09 Approach Combined with Mechanically Connected Beams Theory
Some of the cross-sectional properties for CLT panels calculated using the mechanically connected beams
theory can be used in combination with Clause 5.5.6 from the Canadian Timber Design Standard CSA O86-09
to calculate the compressive resistance of CLT walls. According to this method, the resistance of the cross layers
is not taken into account, or in other words, it is assumed that only the layers oriented parallel to the axial force
carry the load. Using CSA O86-09 Clause 5.5.6.2.2, the slenderness ratio Cc for rectangular CLT walls can be
calculated as:
[52]

where reff can be calculated as:
[53]

where Ieff can be calculated using one of the three methods proposed in Section 2.3.
Aeff can be calculated as:
[54]
where b is normally taken as 1000 mm and hi is the thickness of boards parallel to the axial load.
The design procedure for determining the buckling strength can continue as specified in Clause 5.5.6 of
CSA O86-09, substituting the cross-section area A with Aeff , and the total thickness d with the effective
thickness heff. The width of the cross-section should be taken as 1000 mm. It should be noted that many producers
in Europe limit the panel slenderness ratio H/reff to 150.
Using the same substitutions, including the substitution of Ieff for I, the compressive resistance of CLT walls with
combined axial and out-of-plane (bending) loadings should be calculated using Section 5.5.10 of CSA O86-09.

23
10-12-22 15:44
In cases where the P- effects need to be accounted for, then the CSA O86-09 procedure should include
the factored moment that accounts for the P- effects, and in such case equation [55] for beam-column capacity
should be satisfied:
[55]
where Pf is the factored compressive axial load, Mr is the factored bending moment resistance and Mf, P- is
the factored bending moment that includes P- effects calculated as:
[56]

where:
e0 = panel deflection due to axial load eccentricity. Eccentricity should be taken as d/6, where d is
the panel thickness;
0 = initial wall imperfections in the mid of the panel usually taken as H/500, where H is the wall height;
f = deflection due to out-of-plane loading (bending);
PE = Euler buckling load in the plane of the bending moment using Ieff and E05 of boards parallel to the axial
load. Ke is the effective length factor and L is the wall height. The Euler buckling load, PE, is given as:
[56a]
Since shear deformations play a significant role in determining the properties of CLT panels, it is important
to include them in the calculation of the axial load capacity of the walls. Using the basic buckling formula that
accounts for shear deformations (Bazant and Cedolin, 2003, page 32) and substituting (GA)eff for GA, the axial
load capacity is given as:
[57]

where k (kappa) is the shear coefficient form factor equal to 1.2 (see Timoshenko).
2.5
Analytical Design Procedures for CLT Elements

used as Beams and Lintels
CLT elements under axial in-plane loads acting as deep beams or lintels can be designed using different
approaches. Details of these approaches are described in this section. Figure 12 illustrates two 5-layer CLT systems
under in-plane bending loads. The same configurations are possible for 3- and 7-layer CLT panels.

24
10-12-22 15:44
G-670
G-670
Figure 12
CLT panels (beams or lintels) under axial in-plane loads
2.5.1
Simplified Design Methods for Calculating Bending Strength (In-Plane)

The bending stress may be expressed as:
[58]

The maximum stress will occur for
expressed as:
where H is the beam depth; therefore equation [58] can be
[59]

If we use the CSA O86 design analogy, we can let:
[60]
and determine the factored moment bending resistance, Mr, in terms of the specified bending strength, Fb, as:
[61]
where Emean is the mean modulus of elasticity of the longitudinal layer in tension and (EI)eff is determined using
the net cross-section.
When the moduli of elasticity of all longitudinal layers are equal, then equation [61] can be expressed as:
[62]

and Ieff can be calculated as:
[63]
where H is the beam depth and hi is the thickness of boards perpendicular to the axial load (effective boards).

25
10-12-22 15:44
It should be noted that this method assumes a composite action between effective longitudinal boards. A (much)
more conservative way to evaluate the Ieff would be to sum the individual moments of inertia of all effective boards.
2.5.2
Composite Theory k Method

[64]

[65]
where Fb,eff is one of the effective bending strength values fm,0,eff or fm,90,eff obtained from Tables 2 and 3.
Then, the factored moment bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb can be
expressed as:
[66]
where Sgross can be calculated as:
[67]

and where htot is the total thickness of the CLT panel and H is the beam depth. It should be noted that this method
also assumes a composite action between effective longitudinal boards. Two examples are given in Section 3 for
the calculation of the effective bending strength of CLT panels under axial in-plane loads using the two previous
design methods.
2.6
Modification Factors (K-factors)

As stipulated in the CSA Standard O86, the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood, the specified
strengths and capacities of structural wood components shall be multiplied by the appropriate modification
factors. Since CLT products are relatively new in Canada and are not yet included in CSA O86-09, some
assumptions must be made by the designers for the use of these factors. Some recommendations are given
in this section.
2.6.1
Load Duration Factor KD

Special attention should be paid to the Load Duration Factor, KD. Since a CLT floor/roof system may be heavier
than a lightweight joist floor (i.e. the specified long-term load vs. the specified standard-term load is usually higher
in CLT floors), it is recommended to follow design provisions given in Section 4.3.2.3 of CSA O86. See also
Chapter 6 on Duration of Load and Creep Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber Panels.

26
10-12-22 15:44
2.6.2
Service Condition Factor KS

For now, it is recommended to use CLT products indoor or in covered outdoor spaces (i.e. dry conditions) until
further research in this area is conducted. Thus, it is recommended to use a service condition factor equal to unity
(KS = 1.0). For humid service (i.e. protected exterior conditions), please refer to the Chapter 6 on Duration of
Load and Creep Factors for Cross-Laminated Timber Panels.
2.6.3
System Factor KH
For the moment, it is recommended to use a system factor, KH, equal to unity (KH = 1.0). Further work is needed
to determine if CLT construction can benefit from the use of the system factor.
2.6.4
Treatment Factor KT
For now, it is recommended to use CLT products indoor (i.e. dry exposure) or in covered outdoor spaces until
further research in this area is conducted. Then, no treatment would be required and KT should be equal to unity.
However, if a CLT product is impregnated with any strength-reducing chemicals, it is recommended to test the
product as stipulated in CSA O86, Sections 4.3.4.4 and 6.4.4, and to use an appropriate value for the KT factor
that corresponds to the influence of the strength-reducing chemicals.
2.6.5
Lateral Stability Factor KL for Beams and Lintels

The bending moment capacity of beams and lintels shall take into account the lateral stability of the element
by evaluating the factor KL. Some design provisions in CSA O86 could be used by designers as guidance.
In particular, Sections 6.5.6.4 and 8.5.7 of CSA O86 could be helpful.
2.6.6
Size Factor for Bending KZb

As demonstrated for Glulam beams (Foschi, 1993), the bending resistance of a CLT product may also be
controlled by the tensile strength of the end-joints used in the outer tension laminations. Therefore, it is suggested
to follow design provisions given in Section 6.5.6.5.1 of CSA O86 for calculating KZbg.
2.6.7
Curvature Factor KX and Radial Resistance KR

This chapter does not cover curved CLT products.
2.7
Creep Behaviour of CLT in Bending

CLT panels are used as load-carrying slab/plate elements in structural systems, and as such, duration of load
and creep behaviour are critical characteristics that should be taken into account in design. FPInnovations
proposed two different options to take care of creep and duration of load for cross-laminated timber panels.
Those provisions are provided in Chapter 6 of this Handbook.
2.8
Vibration of CLT Floors

Laboratory tests performed by FPInnovations on CLT floors (Gagnon and Hu, 2007) showed that the vibration
behaviour of CLT floors is different from lightweight wood joisted floors and heavy concrete slab floors. CLT
floors are heavier than conventional wood joisted floors and lighter than concrete slab floors. FPInnovations
proposed a design method for controlling vibrations in CLT floors. Additional design provisions are provided
in Chapter 7 of this Handbook.

27
10-12-22 15:44
3
Design Examples
The main purpose of the following examples is to illustrate the proposed design methods for calculating the basic
design properties of cross-laminated timber panels used in North American buildings. Engineers should be aware
that not all the necessary checks are included in each example.
Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff)

and Bending Strength using the Mechanically Jointed
Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
3.1
3.1.1
Five-Layer CLT Panel

h1
a1
h1
h
tot
h2
N.A.
a3
h2
h3
width (b)
Cross-section of a 5-layer CLT panel

Where:
hi = Thickness of board layers in direction of actions
= Thickness of board layers in direction perpendicular to actions
(Note: could be different)

28
10-12-22 15:44
and
and

where
= slip modulus due to shear deformation between layers and GR = shear modulus perpendicular
to the grain or rolling shear modulus.
and
In the case where:

then:
Panel properties for this example:

29
10-12-22 15:44
34
162
mm
30
a1
34
N.A.
30
a3
34
1000
1) Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness using the Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
For longitudinal application (i.e. l = 6000 mm)
then,

30
10-12-22 15:44
where:
we find:

31
10-12-22 15:44
2) Calculation of Bending Strength using the Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
(E1=E2=E3)
In that case,
then,
3) Calculation of Bending Strength using the Simplified Method

32
10-12-22 15:44
3.1.2
Seven-Layer CLT Panel

1) Calculation of Effective Bending Stiffness using the Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
1
2
h
tot
hi
34
hi
30
hi
34
hi
30 mm
hi
34
hi
30
hi
34
width (b)
Cross-section of a 7-layer CLT panel

Panel properties for this example:
Where:
EI(1) is the effective bending stiffness of a 5-layer cross-section (crosswise)
EI(2) is the bending stiffness of the 3 middle layers (with the 3 layers acting longitudinally)
EI(3) is the effective bending stiffness of the 3 middle layers (crosswise)

33
10-12-22 15:44
a) Calculation of EI(1) using a 5-layer cross-section

hi
tot
hi
a1
hi
N.A.
hi
a3
hi
width (b)
where:
where:
then:
for

34
10-12-22 15:44
then,
where:

35
10-12-22 15:44
we find:
b) Calculation of EI(2)
c) Calculation of EI(3) using a 3-layer cross-section

1 h1
h
hi
h1
tot
hi
a1
a3
N.A.
hi
width (b)

36
10-12-22 15:44
where:
then:
where:
for i=1

we find:

37
10-12-22 15:44
Finally,
2) Calculation of Bending Strength using the Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)
(E1=E2=E3)
In that case,
then,

38
10-12-22 15:44
3) Calculation of Bending Strength using the Simplified Method
3.2
3.2.1

According to Composite Theory (k-Method)
Five-Layer CLT Panel 115 mm thick
27
17
115
mm
27 mm
17
27
width (b)
From Table 2:

39
10-12-22 15:44
From Table 3:
3.2.2
Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick

34
19
140
mm
34 mm
19
34
width (b)
From Table 2:

40
10-12-22 15:44
From Table 3:
3.2.3
Seven-Layer CLT Panel 226 mm thick

34
30
2
34
226
mm
30 mm
34
30
34
width (b)

41
10-12-22 15:45
From Table 2:
From Table 3:
Calculation of True Effective Bending Stiffness (EIeff)

and Effective Shear Stiffness (GAeff) According to
the Shear Analogy Method (Kreuzinger)
3.3
3.3.1
True Bending Stiffness (EIeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick

Z
Y1
h1
Y2
h2
Z1
Z2
Y3
h3
Z4
Y4
h4
Z3 N.A.
Z5
Y5
h5
width (b)

42
10-12-22 15:45
Where:
h1 = 32 mm
h2 = 21 mm
h3 = 34 mm
h4 = 21 mm
h5 = 32 mm
E0 = 11000 MPa
E0 = 7000 MPa
E0 = 7000 MPa
E0 = 7000 MPa
E0 = 11000 MPa
E90 = 370 MPa ( 11000/30)

E90 = 230 MPa ( 7000/30)
E90 = 230 MPa ( 7000/30)
E90 = 230 MPa ( 7000/30)
E90 = 370 MPa ( 11000/30)
h total = h1+ h2 + h3 + h4 + h5 = 140 mm and b = 1000 mm
1) Determine location of the Neutral Axis Z
(Note that for symmetric panels and same E, Z = htotal/2)


43
10-12-22 15:45
Then:

44
10-12-22 15:45
and,
2) Calculation of
Then,

45
10-12-22 15:45
3) Calculation of
Then,
Finally:
3.3.2
Shear Stiffness (GAeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick
Y2
h2
Y1
h1
Z1
Z2
Y3
h3
Z4
Y4
h4
Z3 N.A.
Z5
Y5
h5
width (b)

46
10-12-22 15:45
Where:
h1 = 32 mm
h2 = 21 mm
h3 = 34 mm
h4 = 21 mm
h5 = 32 mm
G0 = 690 MPa
G0 = 440 MPa
G0 = 440 MPa
G0 = 440 MPa
G0 = 690 MPa
G90 = 69 MPa
G90 = 44 MPa
G90 = 44 MPa
G90 = 44 MPa
G90 = 69 MPa
( G0/10)
( G0/10)
( G0/10)
( G0/10)
( G0/10)
Then,

47
10-12-22 15:45
3.4
3.4.1

and Deflection under Live Load Using
the Three Proposed Design Methods
Bending Stiffness (EIeff) of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick
34
19
140
mm
34 mm
19
34
width (b)
Panel properties and parameters for this example:

48
10-12-22 15:45
1) Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)

h1
a1
h1
h
tot
h2
N.A.
a3
h2
h3
width (b)
For longitudinal application (i.e. L = 4500 mm)

49
10-12-22 15:45
then,
where:
we find:
Then, the deflection under uniform Live Load can be calculated as:

50
10-12-22 15:45
2) Composite Theory (k-Method)

34
19
140
mm
34 mm
19
34
width (b)
From Table 2:
From Table 3:

51
10-12-22 15:45
3) Shear Analogy Method (Kreuzinger)

Z
Y1
h1
Y2
h2
Z1
Z2
Y3
h3
Z4
Y4
h4
Z3 N.A.
Z5
Y5
h5
width (b)
Where:
h1 = 34 mm
h2 = 19 mm
h3 = 34 mm
h4 = 19 mm
h5 = 34mm
E0 = 11000 MPa
E0 = 9000 MPa
E0 = 11000 MPa
E0 = 9000 MPa
E0 = 11000 MPa
E90 = 370 MPa

E90 = 300 MPa
E90 = 370 MPa
E90 = 300 MPa
E90 = 370 MPa
( 11000/30)
( 9000/30)
( 11000/30)
( 9000/30)
( 11000/30)
a) Determine location of the Neutral Axis Z

52
10-12-22 15:45
Then:
and,

53
10-12-22 15:45
b) Calculation of
Then,
c) Calculation of
Then,
d) Calculation of EIeff:

54
10-12-22 15:45
e) Calculation of Shear Stiffness


55
10-12-22 15:45
Summary for a 140 mm 5-layer panel:

Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method): L = 4.9 mm (correct for l/h>30)
Composite Theory (k-Method):
L = 4.6 mm (correct for l/h>30)
Shear Analogy Method (Kreuzinger):
L = 5.0 mm
It can be seen that the final results are very similar using the three proposed methods and
for a span-to-depth ratio of about 30.
3.5
Calculation of Out-of-Plane Bending Strength
3.5.1
Out-of-Plane Bending Strength of a Five-Layer CLT Panel 140 mm thick

34
19
140
mm
34 mm
19
34
width (b)

56
10-12-22 15:45

57
10-12-22 15:45
1) Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method)

From Figure 6, the term a1 is the distance between the centroid of the first lamina and the centroid of the panel
cross-section, and the term h1 is the thickness of the first (outermost) lamina.
In this example, the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal to 11000 MPa:

Subsequently, the factored moment bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb
may be determined as:
From Figure 6 and from the example given for mechanically jointed beams theory in Section 3.4, we obtained:
In that case,
then,

58
10-12-22 15:45
2) Composite Theory (k-method)


where Fb,eff is the effective bending strength value obtained from Tables 2 and 3. Then, the factored moment
bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb can be expressed as:
From Section 3.4 for the example given for the composite theory we obtained:
From Table 3:
where:
(from CSA O86)
then,
In that case,
then,

59
10-12-22 15:45
3) Simplified Method
Subsequently, the factored moment bending resistance Mr in terms of the specified bending strength Fb may
be determined as:
In this example, the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal i.e. E1=E2=E3=E = 11000 MPa.
Then the maximum bending stress can be obtained as:
From Section 3.4 for the example given for the Shear Analogy Method (Kreuzinger) we obtained:
In that case,
then,

60
10-12-22 15:45
Summary for a 140 mm 5-layer panel:

Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory (Gamma Method): Mr = 66.6 kN-m
Composite Theory (k-Method):
Mr = 67.6 kN-m
Simplified Method: Mr = 67.7 kN-m
3.6
Calculation of In-Plane Bending Strength (Lintels or Beams)
3.6.1
In-Plane Bending Strength of a Three-Layer CLT Panel 94 mm thick

hi
hi

61
10-12-22 15:45
Note: In this example, the compression edge of the beam is supported throughout its span l (i.e. KL=1.0).
1) Simplified Method
In this example, the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal. Thus, the factored moment bending
resistance, Mr, in terms of the specified bending strength, Fb, may be expressed as:
And Ieff can be calculated as:
where H is the beam depth equal to 1000 mm and hi is the thickness of boards perpendicular to the axial load:

62
10-12-22 15:45
In that case,
then,
2) Composite Theory (k-Method)

In this example, the modulus of elasticity of all longitudinal layers is equal. Thus, the factored moment
bending resistance, Mr, in terms of the specified bending strength, Fb, may be expressed as:
where Fb,eff is the effective bending strength values fb,0,eff obtained from Tables 2 and 3 for the longitudinal boards.
From Table 2 with m=3:
From Table 3 using fb,0 = fb = 26.1 MPa for longitudinal boards (from CSA O86):

63
10-12-22 15:45
Thus,
where:

64
10-12-22 15:45
4
Conclusion and
Recommendations
It was demonstrated in this chapter that various methods have been adopted in Europe for the determination of
design properties of CLT. However, no analytical approach has been universally accepted by CLT manufacturers
and designers so far.
It seems that the most common analytical approach that has been adopted for CLT in Europe is based on the
mechanically jointed beams theory that is available in Annex B of Eurocode 5 (EN 2004). This approach provides
a closed solution for the differential equation only for simply supported beams/panels with a sinusoidal load
distribution. However, the differences between the exact solution and those for a uniformly distributed load or
point loads are minimal and are acceptable for engineering practice (Ceccotti, 2003).
Another design methodology has been proposed by Blass and Fellmoser (2004). This method applies the
Composite Theory (also named k-method) to predict flexural properties of CLT. However, this method does
not account for shear deformation in individual layers.
the longitudinal and the cross layers and is not limited by the number of layers within a panel. This method seems
to be the most accurate and adequate for prediction of stiffness properties of CLT panels.
It was also found in the literature that almost all studies conducted in Europe so far have focused primarily on
predicting the stiffness and not the strength properties of CLT panels in flexure. While flexural stiffness of CLT
panels is usually of greater interest for designers than the strength, since the structural design is mostly governed by
serviceability criteria (i.e. deflection and vibration), from a product standard development point of view, there is
a need to characterize the strength properties as well, to ensure certain minimum panel strength in service. Design
methods to evaluate out-of-plane and in-plane bending strength have been proposed. Design methods for walls
were also proposed in this chapter.
There is a need to adopt a design methodology for determination of the stiffness and the strength properties
of CLT in flexure by further exploring the shear analogy approach. It is expected that the proposed analytical
approach will be accepted in the upcoming CLT product standard. The procedure to calculate the design
properties should be based on material properties for lumber published in the design standards, and should be
consistent with the design philosophy in CSA O86, the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood.
Because of these potentially important features, the developed analytical method will need to be comprehensively
verified against test data.

65
10-12-22 15:45
5
References
Aicher, S., and G. Dill-Langer. 2000. Basic considerations to rolling shear modulus in wooden boards.
Otto-Graf-Journal 11:158-165.
Bazant, Z. P., and L. Cedolin. 2003. Stability of structures: Elastic, inelastic, fracture, and damage theories.
Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. 1011 p.
Bejtka, I., and F. Lam. 2008. Cross laminated timber as innovative building material. In Proceedings of the CSCE
Annual Conference, Qubec, QC. Montral, QC: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. CD-ROM.
Blass H. J., and P. Fellmoser. 2004. Design of solid wood panels with cross layers. In Proceedings of the 8th World
Conference on Timber Engineering, June 14-17, 2004, Lahti, Finland, 2:543-548.
Blass, H. J., and T. Uibel. 2007. Edge joints with dowel type fasteners in cross laminated timber. In Proceedings of
CIB-W18 Timber Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, paper 40-7-2.
Bogensperger, T., T. Moosebrugger, and G. Schickhofer. 2007. New test configuration for CLT-wall elements
under shear load. In Proceedings of CIB-W18 Timber Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany,
paper 40-21-2.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). 2004. Design of concrete structures. CSA A23.3-04. Rexdale, ON: CSA. 214 p.
______. 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09. Rexdale, ON: CSA. 222 p.
Ceccotti A. 2003. Composite structures. In Timber Engineering, ed. S. Thelandersson and H. J. Larsen, chapter 21.
West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons.
Chen, J. Y. 2009. Development of cross lamination technology for MPB engineered wood products thick
laminated MPB wood plates: Report submitted to Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. Contract number
FII-MDP-09-0083. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Department of Wood Science.
European Committee for Standardization. 2004. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Part 1-1: General
Common rules and rules for buildings. EN 1995-1-1. Brussels: CEN. 124 p.
Fellmoser, P., and H. J. Blass. 2004. Influence of rolling shear modulus on strength and stiffness of structural
bonded timber elements. In Proceedings of CIB-W18 Meeting, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, paper 37-6-5.

66
10-12-22 15:45
Foschi, R. O. 1993. Design recommendations for timber bridges: Report to CSA-S6 Committee. Report No. 1.
Jbstl, R. A., T. Bogensperger, and G. Schickhofer. 2008. In-plane shear strength of cross laminated timber. In
Proceedings of CIB-W18 Timber Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, paper 41-12-3.
Jbstl, R.A., T. Moosbrugger, T. Bogensperger and G. Schickhofer. 2006. A contribution to the design and system
effect of cross laminated timber (CLT). In Proceedings of CIB-W18 Timber Engineering, University of Karlsruhe,
Karlsruhe, Germany, paper 39-12-5.
Jbstl, R. A., and G. Schickhofer. 2007. Comparative examination of creep of GTL and CLT-slabs in bending.
In Proceedings of CIB-W18 Timber Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, paper 40-12-3.
Kreuzinger H. 1995. Mechanically jointed beams and columns. In Timber Engineering STEP 1, ed. H. J. Blass et
al., B11/1-8. Almere, The Netherlands: Centrum Hout.
______. 1999. Platten, Scheiben und Schalen ein Berechnungsmodell fr gngige Statikprogramme.
Bauen mit Holz 1: 34-39.
Mestek, P., H. Kreuzinger, and S. Winter. 2008. Design of cross laminated timber (CLT). Paper presented
at the 10th World Conference on Timber Engineering, June 2-5, 2008, Miyazaki, Japan.
sterreichisches Institut fr Bautechnik (OIB). 2005. CUAP (Common Understanding of Assessment
Procedure): Solid wood slab element to be used as a structural element in buildings. ETA request no. 03.04/06.
Wien, Austria: OIB. 28 p.
Steiger, R., and A. Glzow. 2009. Validity of bending tests on strip-shaped specimens to derive bending strength
and stiffness properties of cross laminated solid timber (CLT). In Proceedings of CIB-W18 Timber Engineering,
University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, paper 42-12-4.
Steiger, R., A. Glzow, and D. Gsell. 2008. Non-destructive evaluation of elastic material properties of cross
laminated timber (CLT). In Proceedings of the COST E53 Conference, October 29-30, 2008, Delft, The Netherlands,
p. 171-182.
Timoshenko, S., and S. Woinowsky-Krieger. 1959. Theory of plates and shells. New York: McGraw-Hill. 580 p.

67
10-12-22 15:45
10-12-22 15:45
10-12-22 15:45
10-12-22 15:45
10-12-22 15:45
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:45
Seismic performance of
CHAPTER
Authors
Marjan Popovski, Ph.D., P.Eng., FPInnovations
Erol Karacabeyli, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., FPInnovations
Dr. Ario Ceccotti, Director IVALSA, Italy

Peer Reviewers
Don Anderson, Ph.D., P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia
Ron DeVall, Ph.D., P.Eng., Read Jones Christoffersen Consulting Engineers, Vancouver, BC
Grant Newfield, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., StructEng., Read Jones Christoffersen Consulting Engineers, Vancouver, BC
Robert Malczyk, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., StructEng, MIStructE, MBA, Equilibrium Consulting Inc.
Mark Porter, P.Eng., MIStructE, LEED AP, Associated Engineering
Don Kennedy, P.Eng., Associated Engineering
10-12-22 15:43
Acknowledgements
In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all other members of the research team,
especially Messrs Paul Symons, Phillip Eng and Bill Deacon of FPInnovations. Their sincere efforts greatly
contributed to the successful completion of the research work presented here.
10-12-22 15:43
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative wood product that was first developed some 20 years ago in
Austria and Germany and ever since has been gaining popularity in residential and non-residential applications
in Europe. European experience shows that this system can be competitive, particularly in mid-rise and high-rise
buildings.
In this chapter, a literature review on the research work conducted around the world related to the seismic
performance of cross-laminated timber (CLT) wall panels and structures is included. This is followed by the
results from a series of quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels that were conducted at FPInnovations Wood
Products laboratory in Vancouver. CLT wall panels with various configurations and connection details were
tested. These configurations included single panel walls with three different aspect ratios, multi-panel walls with
step joints and different types of screws to connect them, as well as two-storey wall assemblies. Connections
for securing the walls to the foundation included off-the-shelf steel brackets with annular ring nails, spiral nails,
and screws; combination of steel brackets and hold-downs; diagonally placed long screws; and custom made
brackets with timber rivets. Results showed that CLT walls can have adequate seismic performance when nails
or screws are used with the steel brackets. Use of hold-downs with nails on each end of the wall improves their
seismic performance. Use of diagonally placed long screws to connect the CLT walls to the floor below is not
recommended in high seismic zones due to less ductile wall behaviour and to the sudden screw pull-out failure
mechanism. Use of step joints in longer walls can be an effective solution not only to reduce the wall stiffness and
thus reduce the seismic input load, but also to improve the wall deformation capabilities. Timber rivets in small
groups with custom made brackets were found to be effective connectors for CLT wall panels.
In addition, this chapter includes a survey of potentially available methods for development and assessment of
R-factors for different structural systems. Studies conducted in Europe on the assessment of the behaviour q-factor
(European R-factor equivalent) for CLT structures and their findings are also discussed. Finally, based on all
available information, estimates were made on the values of R-factors for CLT structures according to the National
Building Code of Canada, and capacity-based design procedures for CLT structures were drafted.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

iii
10-12-22 15:43
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1
Introduction 1
Previous Research in the Field 2
CLT Wall Specimens in the FPInnovations Study 5
Test Set-up and Loading 11
Results and Discussion 12
Seismic Force Modification Factors (R-factors) for CLT Structures 26
6.1 Methods for Determining the R-factors 26

6.1.1 European Approaches 26
6.1.2 Equivalency Approach 27
6.1.3 The FEMA P695 Procedure 27
6.2 Estimate of Values for R-factors in CLT Structures 28
6.2.1 Behaviour Comparison with Structural Systems Already in NBCC 28
6.2.2 Equivalency Approach (AC130) 28
6.2.3 The European Experience 33
7
Basics of Capacity Design for CLT Structures 36
Conclusions 38
References 39
ChapTER 4 Seismic

iv
10-12-22 15:43
List of Tables
Table 1 Test matrix for 2.3 m long and 2.3 m high walls 7
Table 2
Test matrix for 3.45 m long and 2.3 m high walls 8
Table 3
Test matrix for two-storey assemblies and tall walls 9
Table 4
Selected average wall properties obtained from the experimental program 13
Table 5
AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls based on the initial load cycle envelope 30
Table 6
AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls based on the secondary load cycle envelope 31
Table 7
Average AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls 32
Table 8
Earthquake records and calculated q-factors from the analyses (Ceccotti, 2008) 34
Table 9 The q-factor obtained using two different approaches, the PGA approach, and the base shear
approach (results for the building analysed in Ceccotti (2008) are shown in colour) 35
List of Figures
Figure 1 Three-storey CLT house tested at NIED Laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan 2
Figure 2 Seven-storey CLT house tested at E-Defense Laboratory in Miki, Japan 3
Figure 3 Brackets for CLT walls used in the tests 6
Figure 4 Fasteners used in the testing program 9
Figure 5 Sketch of the test set-up used for CLT walls 11
Figure 6 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 00 with no vertical load 14
Figure 7 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 03 with 20 kN/m vertical load 15
Figure 8 Results from monotonic and cyclic tests on CLT walls with the same configuration 15
Figure 9 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 04 with ring nails 16
Figure 10 Failure modes of the bracket connections at late stages of testing for: a) wall 02 with spiral nails;
and b) wall 04 with annular ring nails 16
Figure 11 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 05 using 18 screws with D=4.0 mm and L=70 mm 17
Figure 12 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 06 using 10 screws with D=5.0 mm and L=90 mm 17
Figure 13 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 08A using brackets and hold-downs 18
ChapTER 4 Seismic

v
10-12-22 15:43
Figure 14 Behaviour of one corner of wall 08A during testing 18

Figure 15 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 10A using timber rivets 19
Figure 16 Behaviour of wall 12 using two panels during testing 20
Figure 17 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 11 with 3.8 x 89 mm WT-T screws used in the step joints 20
Figure 18 Hysteretic behaviour for the two-panel wall 12 with regular 5 x 90 mm screws used in the step joints
under CUREE cycling protocol 21
Figure 19 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 14 consisting of one 3.45 m long panel 22
Figure 20 Hysteretic behaviour for the three-panel wall 16 where panels were connected with regular
5 x 90 mm screws 22
Figure 21 Hysteretic behaviour for the two-panel wall 12A tested under ISO cycling protocol 23
Figure 22 Hysteretic behaviour for wall 22 with WT-T screws 23
Figure 23 Bracket failure modes for a) wall 25 with 40 L=65 mm rivets; and b) wall 27 with
20 L=90 mm rivets 24
Figure 24 Deflection of wall 29C at the top of both storeys at various stages of testing 25
Figure 25 Deformed shapes of the analytical model under Nocera Umbra Earthquake record at PGA
of 1.2 g (Ceccotti, 2008) 33
Figure 26 Typical storey of a CLT structure with various connections between the panels (drawing courtesy
of Dr. Ceccotti) 37
ChapTER 4 Seismic

vi
10-12-22 15:43
1
Introduction
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative wood product that was first developed some 20 years ago in
Austria and Germany and has since been gaining popularity in residential and non-residential applications in
Europe. By using cross-laminated solid timber boards for prefabricated wall and floor panels, this system offers
many advantages. The cross lamination process provides improved dimensional stability to the product that allows
for prefabrication of long floor slabs and single-storey walls. Openings for windows and doors can be pre-cut
using sophisticated Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machines. CLT panels are easy to process and to
assemble with ordinary tools. Quick erection of solid and durable structures is possible even for non-highly-skilled
workers. Good thermal insulation and a fairly good behaviour in case of fire are added benefits resulting from the
massiveness of the wood structure. European experience shows that this system can be competitive, particularly in
mid-rise and high-rise buildings. Although CLT has rarely been used in North America to date, it could be used
as a viable wood-based structural solution for the shift towards sustainable densification of urban and suburban
centres in Canada and the US. In order to gain much needed wide acceptance and popularity, CLT as a structural
system needs to be implemented in the North American codes arena.
For these reasons, the Wood Products Division of FPInnovations has undertaken a multi-disciplinary research
project on determining the structural properties of typical CLT construction. One of the important parts of
the project is to quantify the seismic resistance of structures with CLT panels, including the development of
the force modification factors (R-factors) for seismic design according to the National Building Code of Canada.
In this chapter, some of the results from a series of quasi-static monotonic and cyclic tests on CLT wall panels
are presented, which are the first of their kind conducted in North America. This is followed by a survey of the
potentially available methods for development or assessment of R-factors for different structural systems, and
some findings from Europe related to CLT as a structural system. Finally, based on the available information,
conservative estimates are made for the R-factors for CLT structures appropriate for the National Building
Code of Canada.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

1
10-12-22 15:43
2
Previous Research
in the Field
The most comprehensive study to quantify the seismic behaviour of low- and mid-rise CLT construction was
part of the SOFIE project in Italy. This project was undertaken by the Trees and Timber Institute of the National
Research Council of Italy (CNR-IVALSA) in collaboration with National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention in Japan (NIED), Shizuoka University, and the Building Research Institute (BRI) in Japan. The
testing program included tests on connections; in-plane cyclic tests on CLT wall panels with different layouts of
connections and openings (Ceccotti et al., 2006); pseudo-dynamic tests on a one-storey 3-D specimen in three
different layouts (Lauriola and Sandhaas, 2006); shake table tests on a three-storey, 7 m x 7 m in plan and 10 m
high building under different earthquakes (Ceccotti and Follesa, 2006); and finally a series of full-scale shaking
table tests on a seven-storey CLT building conducted at E-Defense facility in Miki, Japan.
Results from quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels showed that the connection layout and design has a strong
influence on the overall behaviour of the wall (Ceccotti et al., 2006). Hysteresis loops were found on average to
have an equivalent viscous damping of 12%. Similar to the cyclic tests, the pseudo-dynamic tests showed that
the construction system is very stiff but still ductile (Lauriola and Sandhaas, 2006). It was found that the initial
stiffness of the 3-D specimen with asymmetric configuration (openings of 4.0 m on one side and 2.25 m on
the other) was similar to that of the symmetric configuration (openings of 2.25 m on both sides), suggesting that
the larger opening on one side did not affect the building stiffness very much. It thus confirmed that the behaviour
of the wall is due to the connections and not to the wooden panel for lower levels of lateral force.
Figure 1
Three-storey CLT house tested at NIED Laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan
ChapTER 4 Seismic

2
10-12-22 15:43
Shaking table tests on the 3-storey house conducted in the laboratories of the NIED in Tsukuba, Japan
(Figure 1) showed that the CLT construction survived 15 destructive earthquakes without any severe damage
(Ceccotti and Follesa, 2006). The collapse state definition for the tests was defined to be failure of one or more
hold-down anchors, which was reached only during the last test that used the Nocera Umbra earthquake record
with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 1.2 g. An analytical model of the 3-storey house was developed using the
DRAIN 3-DX computer program. The model was used to predict the behaviour of the 3-storey house during the
shaking table tests, and showed good correlation with the test results. Using the same analytical model, a number
of non-linear time-history dynamic analyses were conducted using eight different earthquake records and an
evaluation of the behaviour factor q for seismic design according to Eurocode 8 was conducted (Ceccotti et al.,
2006; Ceccotti, 2008). The behaviour factor q was defined as the ratio between the PGA that caused the failure
(uplift of 25.5 mm at one or more hold-down positions in the walls) vs. the design PGA. For seven out of eight
earthquakes, the q-factor was greater than 3.0 and in two cases even greater than 4.0, with an average of 3.4.
The next series of shaking table tests from the SOFIE project was conducted in October 2007 at the Hyogo
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre in Miki, Japan. The building had a floor plan of 13.5 m x 7.5 m, and
was comprised of seven storeys with a total height of 23.5 m (Figure 2). The building walls were made of CLT
panels with a thickness of 142 mm on the first two floors, 125 mm on floors three and four, and 85 mm on the last
three floors, where less loads were expected. The walls were connected to each other using self-drilling (tapping)
screws. Each wall consisted of several 2.5 m long panels connected together with screws. The floors were also made
with CLT panels with a thickness of 142 mm, and were connected to the walls with steel brackets and screws.
The building was designed using a q-factor of 3, and importance factor of 1.5 according to Eurocode. The testing
consisted of several consecutive applications in all three orthogonal directions of two earthquake ground motions,
including the record from the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake from 1995, also known as Kobe Earthquake
(M=7.2) with 100% intensity (0.6 g acceleration in shorter X-direction, 0.82 g in longitudinal Y-direction, and
0.34 g in vertical Z-direction). The structure withstood all tests without any significant damage. The first storey
drift was 38 mm (1.3% drift) in the Y-direction and 29 mm (1% drift) in the X-direction, with the total deflection
at the top of the building being 175 mm and 287 mm, respectively.
Figure 2
Seven-storey CLT house tested at E-Defense Laboratory in Miki, Japan
ChapTER 4 Seismic

3
10-12-22 15:43
The most comprehensive study to determine the seismic behaviour of 2-D CLT wall panels was conducted at the
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. During the project that was partially supported by KLH Massiveholz GmbH
from Austria, numerous quasi-static monotonic and cyclic tests were carried out on walls with lengths of 2.44 m
and 3.2 m and heights of 2.44 m and 2.72 m (Dujic et al., 2004). Walls were subjected to combined constant
vertical load and either monotonic or cyclic horizontal loads. Wall panels were tested with various boundary
conditions which enabled the development of load vs. wall deformation relations from cantilever to pure shear
wall behaviour. Influence of boundary conditions, magnitude of vertical load and types of anchoring systems
were investigated (Dujic et al., 2005, 2006). Differences in mechanical properties between monotonic and
cyclic responses were also studied (Dujic and Zarnic, 2006), as was the influence of openings on the shear wall
properties (Dujic et al., 2006, 2007). Two configurations of walls with equal dimensions, one with no opening
and one with a door and a window, were tested under the same boundary conditions. Analytical models of CLT
wall panels were developed in the computer program SAP 2000, and were verified against the test results. The
verified analytical models were used for a parametric study that included 36 mathematical models having different
patterns of openings (Dujic et al., 2008). Results of the parametric study were used to develop mathematical
formulas describing the relationship between the shear strength and stiffness of CLT wall panels with and without
openings. As part of the project, shaking table tests were conducted on two single-storey box CLT models at the
Dynamic Testing Laboratory of the Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology (IZIIS)
in Skopje, Macedonia (Dujic et al., 2006; Hristovski et al., 2005). The intent was to make a correlation between
the results from the quasi-static tests and the results from the shaking table tests. Based on these tests, the main
characteristics of the dynamic response of the tested models were determined.
Finally, CLT wall tests were carried out by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in order to compare the performance
of such a modern system vs. the traditional timber-frame construction (Schdle et al., 2010).
ChapTER 4 Seismic

4
10-12-22 15:43
3
CLT Wall
Specimens in the
FPInnovations
Study
In the testing program at FPInnovations in Vancouver, a total of 32 monotonic and cyclic tests were performed.
All walls were 3-ply CLT panels with a thickness of 94 mm. They were made of European spruce and
manufactured at KLH Massiveholz GmbH in Austria, one of the largest CLT manufacturers in Europe. Since
the CLT panels had to be shipped in a container over the ocean, one of the panel dimensions was limited to
2.3 m, which was the height and width of the container. CLT walls with 12 different configurations were tested.
Details about the testing matrix and the different wall configurations I to XII are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3. In
Table 1, walls with aspect ratio of 1:1 are shown (2.3 m high and 2.3 m long), while in Table 2 walls with aspect
ratio of 1:1.5 are shown (2.3 m high and 3.45 m long). In Table 3, two-storey assemblies of 2.3 m x 2.3 m walls
are presented along with tall CLT walls that had a height of 4.9 m and a length of 2.3 m (aspect ratio of 2.1:1).
ChapTER 4 Seismic

5
10-12-22 15:43
a) Bracket A
b) Bracket B
c) Bracket C
d) Bracket D
Figure 3
Brackets for CLT walls used in the tests
Four different types of brackets (A, B, C, and D) were used to connect the walls to the steel foundation beam or to
the CLT floor panel below (Figure 3). Bracket A (BMF), 90 mm x 48 mm x 116 mm (W x D x H), and bracket B
(Simpson Strong Tie), 90 mm x 105 mm x 105 mm, are off-the-shelf products that are commonly used in CLT
applications in Europe. Brackets C and D were custom made out of 6.4 mm thick steel plates to accommodate the
use of timber rivets. The designations of the tests shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 were developed to show the bracket
type and the fastener type used in the tests. For example, designation CA-SNH-08A means that the CLT wall
had type A brackets, Spiral Nails as fasteners, had Hold-downs and was test number 08A. The following acronyms
were also used in the test designations: TR for Timber Rivets, RN for Annular Ring Nails, S1 for SFS screws
4 x 70 mm, S2 for SFS screws 5 x 90 mm, and WT for SFS WT-T type screws.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

6
10-12-22 15:43
Table 1
Test matrix for 2.3 m long and 2.3 m high walls
Wall
Configuration
Test
Designation
CA-SN-00
CA-SN-01
CA-SN-02
Brackets and Fasteners
Bracket A
SN 16d, n=18
D=3.9 mm L=89 mm
CA-SN-03
II
III
Vertical
Load
[kN/m]
Lateral
Load
CUREE
10
Monotonic
10
CUREE
20
CUREE
CA-RN-04
RN 10d (3.4 x 76 mm), n=12
20
CUREE
CA-S1-05
S1 (4 x 70 mm), n=18
20
CUREE
CA-S2-06
S2 (5 x 90 mm), n=10
20
CUREE
CC-TR-09
Bracket C, Rivets L=65 mm, n=10
20
Monotonic
CC-TR-10A
Bracket C, Rivets L=65 mm, n=10
20
CUREE
CA-SNH-07
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

Same on Hold-Down
20
Monotonic
CA-SNH-08
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

Same on Hold-Down
20
CUREE
CA-SNH-08A
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

12d (3.3 x 63 mm), n=18 on HD
20
CUREE
CA-SN-11
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

WT-T (3.8 x 89 mm), n=12
20
CUREE
CA-SN-12
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

SFS2 (5 x 90 mm), n=12
20
CUREE
CA-SN-12A
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=18

Between panels SFS2 (5 x 90 mm), n=12
20
ISO
CA-SN-20
Bracket A
SN 16d, n=18
D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
3 brackets on the back side
20
CUREE
CA-SN-21
Bracket A
SN 16d, n=6
D=3.9 mm L=89 mm
20
CUREE
CS-WT-22
WTT-T, n=18
D=6.5 mm L=130 mm
20
CUREE
CS-WT-22B
WTT-T, n=34
D=6.5 mm L=130 mm
20
CUREE
CA-SN-23
Bracket A
SN 16d, n=6
D=3.9 L=89 mm
3 brackets on the back side
20
CUREE
IV
VI
VII
ChapTER 4 Seismic

7
10-12-22 15:43
Walls in configuration I had four brackets spaced at 710 mm o.c. Walls 00 through 03 used type A brackets, which
were connected to the wall using eighteen 16d spiral nails with D=3.9 mm and L=89 mm (Figure 4a). Wall 04
used type A brackets and twelve annular ring nails with D=3.4 mm and L=76 mm (Figure 4c). Wall 05 used
type A bracket and eighteen SFS screws with D=4.0 mm and L=70 mm (Figure 4e), while wall 06 used ten
SFS screws with D=5.0 mm and L=90 mm (Figure 4d). Walls 09 and 10A used type C brackets with two rows
of five L=65 mm timber rivets (Figure 4g). In addition to three type A brackets spaced at 550 mm o.c. nailed
with eighteen spiral nails (D=3.9 mm; L=89 mm), walls 07, 08 and 08A of configuration II had Simpson Strong
Tie HTT-16 hold-downs at both ends. The hold-downs were nailed using eighteen 16d spiral nails for walls 07
and 08, while wall 08A used eighteen spiral nails with D=3.3 mm and L=63 mm (Figure 4b).
Walls from configuration III (11, 12 and 12A) consisted of two panels that were connected to the foundation in
the same way as walls from configuration I. The two panels that formed the wall were connected together using
a continuous 65 mm long step joint (lap joint) with no gap, and one vertical row of screws. Twelve SFS WTT-T
type screws with D=3.8 mm and L=89 mm, spaced at 200 mm were used in wall 11 (Figure 4i) to connect panels,
while panels in walls 12 and 12A were connected to each other using SFS screws with D=5.0 mm and L=90 mm
(Figure 4d). These walls were designed to investigate the effect of gaps in the walls on the overall wall performance
under lateral loads.
Table 2
Test matrix for 3.45 m long and 2.3 m high walls
Wall
Configuration
Test
Designation
Vertical
Load
[kN/m]
Lateral
Load
CB-SN-13
Bracket B (9 brackets)
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=10
20
Monotonic
CB-SN-14
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=10
20
ISO
CB-SN-15
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=10
SFS2 (5 x 80 mm), n=8
20
Monotonic
CB-SN-16
SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=10
SFS2 (5 x 80 mm), n=8
20
ISO
Bracket B
SN 16d, n=10
D=3.9 L=89 mm
20
ISO
VIII
IX
CB-SN-19
X
Only one CLT panel (wall 20) was tested from configuration IV. In addition to four type A brackets on the
front side, this wall had three additional brackets on the back side, spaced right in the middle between the front
brackets, for a total of seven brackets. This configuration was representative of an inside wall where both sides
of the wall are available for connecting.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

8
10-12-22 15:43
Table 3
Test matrix for two-storey assemblies and tall walls
Wall
Configuration
Test
Designation
Vertical
Load
[kN/m]
Lateral
Load
CA-SN-28
Bracket A, SN 16d (3.9 x 89 mm), n=6

Slab-to-wall screws (8 x 200 mm) at 200
20
Monotonic
CA-SN-29B
Bracket A, SN 16d, n=6 on both floors
20
ISO
CA-SN-29C
Bracket A, SN 16d, n=8 at the bottom

n=6 on the top storey
20
ISO
CD-TR-24
Bracket D, Rivets L=65mm, n=40
20
Monotonic
CD-TR-25
Bracket D, Rivets L=65 mm, n=40
20
ISO
CD-TR-26
Bracket D, Rivets L=90mm, n=40
20
ISO
CD-TR-27
Bracket D, Rivets L=90 mm, n=20
20
ISO
XI
XII
Figure 4
Fasteners used in the testing program
ChapTER 4 Seismic

9
10-12-22 15:43
To investigate the effect of the foundation stiffness in a real case scenario, walls in configurations V, VI and VII
were placed over a 94 mm thick CLT slab with a width of 400 mm. Wall 21 used four type A brackets spaced
at 710 mm o.c., while wall 23 used a total of seven brackets (four in front and three on the back) in the same
arrangement as in wall 20. Each of the brackets had six 16d spiral nails. The brackets were connected to the CLT
floor slab using three SFS WFC screws with D=10 mm and L=80 mm. Wall 22 used nine pairs of SFS WT-T
6.5 x 130 mm screws (Figure 4h) placed at an angle of 45 degrees to the slab and spaced at 280 mm. Wall 22B
used seventeen pairs of the same screws with five pairs being closely grouped near each end of the wall (spaced
at 40 mm) to simulate a hold-down effect. The rest of the screws were spaced at 320 mm.
Walls from configurations VIII, IX, and X were 3.45 m long and 2.3 m high. Walls 13 and 14 (configuration VIII)
were single-panel walls that had a total of nine type B brackets, each with ten 16d spiral nails. Brackets had
different spacing, varying from 320 mm to 460 mm. Walls 15 and 16 (configuration IX) were three-panel walls,
with the same number and position of the brackets as the walls of configuration VIII. The panels were connected
to each other using step joints and fasteners. Walls 15 and 16 used eight SFS screws of 5 x 90 mm spaced at
300 mm. Wall 19 of configuration X was the only wall in the entire research program with openings. The door was
1.9 m high and 0.8 m wide, with the door post being 500 mm wide, while the window was 1.15 m wide and 0.8 m
high. The wall was connected using seven type B brackets, each using ten 16d spiral nails.
Configuration XI included three two-storey wall assemblies consisting of a lower and upper storey wall
(2.3 m x 2.3 m) with a 94 mm CLT slab in between. Both walls were connected at the bottom using type A
brackets, spaced at 710 mm o.c. Walls 28 and 29B used six 16d spiral nails, while wall 29C used eight such nails.
The floor panel was connected to the bottom wall using SFS screws with D=8 mm and L=200 mm, spaced at
200 mm. Finally, configuration XII consisted of four single-panel tall walls (2.3 m x 4.9 m) that were connected
to the steel foundation beam using four type D brackets spaced at 710 mm. Walls 24 and 25 had forty rivets
in each bracket (L=65 mm), wall 26 had the same number of 90 mm long rivets (Figure 4f ), while wall 27 had
twenty L=90 mm rivets.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

10
10-12-22 15:43
4
Test Set-up
and Loading
A sketch of the test set-up with a specimen ready for testing is shown in Figure 5. Steel I beams with stiffeners
provided a foundation to which the specimens were bolted. Another stiff steel beam that was bolted to the top
of CLT walls was used as a spreader bar for the lateral load. Lateral guides with rollers were also used to ensure
a steady and consistent unidirectional movement of the walls. Vertical load was applied using a single 13.3 kN
hydraulic actuator located in the middle of the wall when testing 2.3 m long walls (Figure 5), or using two such
actuators located at third points for 3.45 m long walls. Only wall 00 was tested without any vertical load.
Walls 01 and 02 were tested with a 10 kN/m vertical load, which approximately corresponds to a wall being
at the bottom of a two-storey structure. All other walls were tested using a 20 kN/m vertical load, which
corresponds to a wall being at the bottom of a four-storey structure.
The walls were subjected to either monotonic or cyclic lateral loading using a 110 kN hydraulic actuator
(Figure 5). Walls 01, 07, 09, 13 and 15 were tested under monotonic (ramp) loads with a displacement rate
of 0.2 mm/s, while walls 24 and 28 were tested with a rate of 0.4 mm/s. All other walls, as shown in Tables
1, 2 and 3, were tested either using CUREE (Method C) or ISO 16670 cyclic testing protocols (Method B),
as specified in ASTM E 2126 (ASTM, 2009), with a rate of 5 mm/s. Instrumentation included displacement at
the top and bottom of the wall, uplift at both ends, as well as deformation of the wall along the wall diagonals.
Figure 5
Sketch of the test set-up used for CLT walls
ChapTER 4 Seismic

11
10-12-22 15:43
5
Results and
Discussion
As expected, the CLT wall panels behaved almost as rigid bodies during the testing. Although slight shear
deformations in the panels were measured, most of the panel deflections occurred as a result of the deformation
in the joints connecting the walls to the foundation. In case of multi-panel walls, deformations in the step joints
also had significant contribution to the overall wall deflection. Selected average properties of the CLT walls, based
on the envelope curves of both sides of the hysteretic loops obtained from the experimental program, are given in
Table 4. Analysis of the test data was conducted using the procedure specified in ASTM Standard E 2126 (ASTM,
2009). After determining the envelope curves for the cyclic tests, the Equivalent Energy Elastic Plastic (EEEP)
curves were defined and main properties based on these curves were determined. In Table 4, Ky is the initial
stiffness, y the yield displacement, Fmax the maximum load, Fmax the displacement at maximum load, and
u the ultimate displacement. It should be noted that most findings presented here are based on a single wall
test for any different wall arrangement.
The axial load value had some impact on the lateral resistance of the walls, although not as significant as expected.
Wall 00 with no vertical load had a maximum lateral resistance of 88.9 kN, while wall 02 with a 10 kN/m vertical
load had a lateral resistance of 90.3 kN. When the vertical load was increased to 20 kN/m (wall 03), the lateral
resistance increased to 98.1 kN, an increase of 10% (Figures 6 and 7). It seems that the axial load had to be at least
20 kN/m or higher to have any significant influence on the lateral load resistance. The amount of vertical load,
however, had a higher influence on the wall stiffness. The stiffness of wall 03 was 28% higher than that of wall 00.
In addition, higher values of vertical load influenced the shape of the hysteresis loop near the origin (Figures 6
and 7). It should be noted, however, that on a system (building) level, the vertical load had relatively significant
influence on the seismic performance of CLT buildings, especially at higher deformation levels, when CLT
panels basically turn into rocking structural elements.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

12
10-12-22 15:43
Table 4
Selected average wall properties obtained from the experimental program
* Value from a single monotonic test; ** Hold-down fatigue failure observed; One of the values in the loop
for Fu was at 90% of Fmax; Energy dissipated until the end of the test.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

13
10-12-22 15:43
The maximum loads obtained from the monotonic tests were greater than the corresponding values obtained from
the cyclic tests for each of the two cyclic protocols, while the ultimate deformations and loads at these deformation
levels were underestimated. An example of this is given in Figure 8. It was also observed that, during the static tests,
more deformation demand was induced on the brackets themselves than on the fasteners used to connect them.
It is therefore suggested that cyclic tests be used for determining the properties of CLT wall panels under
seismic loads.
Wall 04, with twelve 10d annular ring nails per bracket, exhibited slightly higher resistance than wall 03 with
eighteen 16d spiral nails per bracket. This was mainly due to the higher withdrawal resistance of the ring nails.
The ductility of wall 04, however, was slightly lower than that of wall 03 (Figure 9). The failure mode observed
at the brackets of wall 04 was also slightly different than that of wall 03. While spiral nails in the brackets exhibited
mostly bearing failure combined with nail deformation and withdrawal, ring nails in withdrawal had a tendency
to pull out small chunks of wood along the way, as shown in Figure 10.
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SN-00
2.3 m x 2.3 m (CUREE)
4 Type A Brackets
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Total Displacement [mm]
Figure 6
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 00 with no vertical load
ChapTER 4 Seismic

14
10-12-22 15:43
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SN-03
2.3 m x 2.3 m CUREE
4 Type A Brackets
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 7
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 03 with 20 kN/m vertical load
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
-60
CLT Walls CA-SN-01 and CA-SN-02

2.3 m x 2.3 m 4 type A brackets
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 8
Results from monotonic and cyclic tests on CLT walls with the same configuration
ChapTER 4 Seismic

15
10-12-22 15:43
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-RN-04
2.3 m x 2.3 m
4 Type A brackets
12 RN 10d, D= 3.4 mm, L=76 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 9
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 04 with ring nails

a)
b)
Figure 10
Failure modes of the bracket connections at late stages of testing for: a) wall 02 with spiral nails;
and b) wall 04 with annular ring nails
The walls with screws (05 and 06) reached similar maximum loads as the walls with nails. The load carrying
capacity for CLT walls with screws (Figures 11 and 12), however, dropped a little bit faster at higher deformation
levels than in the case of walls with nails.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

16
10-12-22 15:43
120
90
60
Load [kN]
30
0
-30
-60
CLT Wall CA-S1-05

2.3 m long 2.3 m high (CUREE)
4 Brackets Type A
18 S SFS D=4.0 mm, L=70 mm
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 11
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 05 using 18 screws with D=4.0 mm and L=70 mm
CLT wall panel with hold-downs (wall 08A) showed one of the highest stiffness for a wall with a length of 2.3 m,
its stiffness being 81% higher than wall 03 with 18 spiral nails per bracket. This CLT wall also showed relatively
high ductility capacity (Figure 13). The behaviour of one corner of wall 08A during testing is shown in Figure 14.
120
90
60
Load [kN]
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-S2-06
2.3 m long 2.3 m high (CUREE)
4 Type A brackets
10 S SFS D=5.0 mm, L=90 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 12
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 06 using 10 screws with D=5.0 mm and L=90 mm
ChapTER 4 Seismic

17
10-12-22 15:43
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SNH-08A
2.3m x 2.3m CUREE
3 A Brackets + HTT-16 (n=18; 12d nails)
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 13
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 08A using brackets and hold-downs
Figure 14
Behaviour of one corner of wall 08A during testing
Although timber rivets were developed to be used with glulam, they have recently been used in many other
engineered wood products that have strands or veneers aligned in one direction. During this research program, an
attempt was made to use rivets in CLT for the first time, despite the fact that when driven with their flat side along
the grains in the outer layers, the rivets will be oriented across the grain in the middle layer. CLT wall 10A with ten
rivets per bracket exhibited a higher stiffness than any wall tested in configuration I and was close second for a wall
with a length of 2.3 m, with its stiffness being 220% higher than wall 03 with 18 spiral nails per bracket. Rivets
ChapTER 4 Seismic

18
10-12-22 15:43
were also able to carry more load per single fastener than any other fasteners used in the program. In addition,
the wall was able to attain a relatively high ductility level. The hysteresis loop for wall 10A with timber rivets
is shown in Figure 15.
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CC-TR-10A
2.3 m x 2.3 m CUREE
4 brackets Type A
10 Timber Rivets L=65 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 15
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 10A using timber rivets
By introducing a step joint in the wall, i.e. creating a wall made of two separate panels, the behaviour of the wall
was not only influenced by the types of fasteners in the bottom brackets, but also by the type of fasteners used
in the step joint. These walls (11 and 12) showed stiffness reduced by 32% and 22% respectively, and a slightly
reduced strength, with respect to the reference wall 03. Both walls shifted the occurrence of the yield load Fy
and ultimate load Fu to higher deflection levels, while only wall 12 was able to show an increase in its
ultimate deflection.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

19
10-12-22 15:43
Figure 16
Behaviour of wall 12 using two panels during testing
Wall 11 with WT-T screws in the step joint showed ultimate load reduced by 19%, while wall 12 with regular
5 x 90 mm screws showed a reduction of only 5%. In addition, wall 11 showed higher reduction of ductility
compared to the reference wall 03, while the ductility for wall 12 was only slightly lower than that of the
reference wall. Based on the results, in the case of multi-panel walls with step joints, the use of regular screws
is recommended in high seismic zones. A photo of wall 12 during the testing is shown in Figure 16, while
the behaviour of walls 11 and 12 are shown in Figures 17 and 18, respectively.
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SN-11
2.3 m x 2.3 m, Step Joint, CUREE
4 A brackets + 12WT-T screws 3.8x89 mm
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 17
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 11 with 3.8 x 89 mm WT-T screws
used in the step joints
ChapTER 4 Seismic

20
10-12-22 15:43
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SN-12
2.3 m x 2.3 m, Step Joint, CUREE
4 Type A brackets + 12 Screws 5x90 mm
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 18
Hysteretic behaviour for the two-panel wall 12 with regular 5 x 90 mm screws used in the step joints
under CUREE cycling protocol
The presence of the step joints and the type of fasteners used to connect them was found to have more significance
on the overall wall behaviour as the length of the wall increased. For example, results from walls 14 and 16, which
had lengths of 3.45 m, showed a significant change in stiffness and strength for wall 16 with step joints (Figure 20)
compared to wall 14, which had no step joints (Figure 19). The step joints enabled wall 16 to carry a significant
portion of the maximum load at higher deformation levels, but at a considerable (25%) reduction in
maximum strength.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

21
10-12-22 15:43
200
160
120
Load [kN]
80
40
0
-40
-80
CLT Wall CB-SN-14

3.45 m long 2.3 m high (ISO)
9 Type B Brackets
10 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-120
-160
-200
-150
-120
-90
-60
-30
30
60
90
120
150
Figure 19
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 14 consisting of one 3.45 m long panel
200
160
120
Load [kN]
80
40
0
-40
-80
CLT Wall CB-SN-16

3.45 m x 2.3 m, 2 Step Joints ISO
9 Type B Brackets + 8 Screws 5x90 mm
10 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-120
-160
-200
-150
-120
-90
-60
-30
30
60
90
120
150
Figure 20
Hysteretic behaviour for the three-panel wall 16 where panels were connected with regular 5 x 90 mm screws
It is a well known fact that the protocol used for cyclic testing of wood-based connections or structural assemblies
has an influence on the test results. By comparing results for walls 12 and 12A (Figures 18 and 21), it can be seen
that the choice of the protocol had very little influence on the stiffness of the wall, the yield deflection (both
determined using the EEEP method), and the maximum load (Table 4). However, there was significant difference
in the deflection at which the maximum load was reached (41 mm with ISO vs. 53 mm with CUREE), and in
the ultimate deflection, which was 72 mm using the CUREE protocol vs. 57 mm using the ISO protocol. These
findings stress the importance of having specimens tested under both protocols so that a comparative assessment
of the wall performances can be made.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

22
10-12-22 15:44
120
90
60
Load [kN]
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CA-SN-12A
2.3 m x 2.3 m, Step Joint, ISO
4 Type A brackets + 12 Screws 5x90 mm
18 SN 16d, D=3.9 mm, L=89 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 21
Hysteretic behaviour for the two-panel wall 12A tested under ISO cycling protocol
120
90
Load [kN]
60
30
0
-30
CLT Wall CS-WT-22
2.3 m x 2.3 m CUREE
18 SFS WT-T Screws D=6.5 mm
L=130 mm
-60
-90
-120
-120 -100 -80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 22
Hysteretic behaviour for wall 22 with WT-T screws
Specimens 22 (Figure 22) and 22B that were connected to the base CLT panel with WT-T type screws placed
at 45o showed lower resistance than any single-storey wall in the program. Grouping the screws at the ends of the
panels (wall 22B) created a hold-down effect and helped increase the wall capacity by about 30% compared to that
of wall 22. Based on the test results, use of screws at an angle as a primary connector for wall-to-floor connections
is not recommended for structures in seismic regions due to reduced capability for energy dissipation (Figure 22)
and the sudden pull-out failure of screws in tension.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

23
10-12-22 15:44
The behaviour of the tall walls specimens with riveted connections was highly influenced by the number of
rivets used in each bracket. Although the number and spacing of rivets in the brackets for walls 24, 25 and 26
were chosen to satisfy the rivet yielding failure mode according to existing Canadian code specifications for sawn
lumber and glulam, they did not yield but experienced fastener pull-out combined with a wood shear plug failure
mode (Figure 23a). By increasing the spacing between the rivets in wall 27, the failure mode was changed to
the desired rivet yielding mode (Figure 23b).

a)
b)
Figure 23
Bracket failure modes for a) wall 25 with 40 L=65 mm rivets; and b) wall 27 with 20 L=90 mm rivets
Results from tests on two-storey assemblies (walls 28, 29B and 29C) showed that most of the deformation was
concentrated at the connections at the bottom of the first storey wall. For example, for the East side of wall 29B,
the maximum uplift between the floor slab and the upper storey was 4.2 mm, while it was around 60 mm at the
bottom. No significant crushing of the slab or sliding at the top floor was observed. Figure 24 shows the deflection
of wall 29C at the top of both storeys at various stages of the testing; the nearly linear lines indicating that the
deformation came mostly from rotation at the base. Also, the shape of the lines is very similar, indicating that
the deformation in the inelastic range came from rotation at the base and not shear deformation or rotation
at the intermediate floor level.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

24
10-12-22 15:44
140
120
Deflection [mm]
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
Wall Height [%]
Figure 24
Deflection of wall 29C at the top of both storeys at various stages of testing
ChapTER 4 Seismic

25
10-12-22 15:44
6
Seismic Force
Modification
Factors (R-factors)
for CLT Structures
The force modification factors (R-factors) in building codes in North America account for the capability of
the structure to undergo ductile nonlinear response, which dissipates energy and increases the building period.
This allows the structure to be designed for seismic forces smaller than the forces that would be generated if the
structure remained elastic, without increasing the displacements from the seismic loads. Different R-factors are
assigned to different types of structural systems reflecting their seismic performance during past earthquakes, and
the ability to undergo nonlinear response with limited loss of strength as the structure goes through several cycles
of motion.
In the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2005), the elastic seismic load is
reduced by two types of R-factors, an Ro-factor that is related to the over-strength of the system and an Rd-factor
that is related to the ductility of the structure. In the major model codes used in the United States, that is
the International Building Code (IBC, 2006) and the ASCE7 (ASCE7-05), there is only one R-factor, called
the response modification coefficient, which reduces the seismic design force. Eurocode 8, which is the European
model seismic code, also uses only one factor, the q-factor, for reduction of the seismic design force. Although
every model code should be considered as a separate calibrated entity as the loading code is different in the
different regions, it is useful to compare the product of RdRo in Canada to the R-factor in the US, and to
the q-factor in Europe for the same seismic hazard probability.
6.1
Methods for Determining the R-factors

Often, there is little theoretical or experimental background given in the codes for determining the numerical
values of the R-factors. Consequently, the process of assignment of R-factors requires considerable individual
judgment. Most of the current values for the R-factors in the building codes are based on past seismic performances
of the structural system and some results from non-linear time history dynamic analyses, if available.
6.1.1
European Approaches
In Europe, a common method to verify the current q-factors for various wood-based structural systems uses
results from incremental non-linear dynamic analyses. The procedure can be summarized as follows. A building
is designed according to the model code, where the structural system to be evaluated is the main Seismic Force
Resisting System (SFRS) of the structure. The SFRS of the building is designed using a q-value equal to unity.
A non-linear analytical model of the building is developed using a suitable structural analysis computer program,
where the properties of the SFRS components in the model are obtained from testing. The near collapse
condition for the model is defined, which is usually related to an ultimate deformation of the main members
in the SFRS. The analytical model is then subjected to a series of earthquake records with a gradual increase
ChapTER 4 Seismic

26
10-12-22 15:44
of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). For every earthquake record, the PGA of the record which produces
the yield condition is then determined (in two different ways as explained below), as is the PGA at which the
structure reaches the near collapse condition. The q-factor for any earthquake can then be determined using
the acceleration-based approach or the base shear approach. Both approaches are described below.
I n the acceleration-based approach, the q-factor is calculated as a ratio of the acceleration that caused the near
collapse condition (PGAu) and the design acceleration in the model code (PGAcode) for the location for which
the building was designed.
In the base shear approach, the q-factor is calculated as the ratio of the base shear force obtained from an elastic
analysis to the base shear force at the near collapse state of the structure for every input ground motion.
This method takes into consideration the influence of the input ground motion on the elastic response of
the structure.
In both methods, depending on the number of earthquake records used, the q-factor can be determined as a
probabilistic relation between the numbers of records that cause near collapse to those that do not. More details
on these approaches are given in Section 6.2.3.
6.1.2
Equivalency Approach
This approach is mostly used in the USA and is based on several publications by the International Code
Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). According to the ICC-ES acceptance criteria document AC130 (ICC-ES,
AC 130, 2009), assignment of an R-factor for new prefabricated wood shear-resisting wall assemblies can be made
by showing equivalency in their seismic performance criteria (maximum load, ductility, storey drift, etc.) obtained
from quasi-static cycle tests, compared to the same properties already observed from tests on lumber-based nailed
shear walls. This document applies to prefabricated wood shear wall assemblies in which a wood-based sheathing
or structural composite lumber (SCL) material is the primary mechanism resisting in-plane shear loads, and
wood-based material studs are designed as the gravity load resisting elements. In a similar way, the AC 322
document (ICC-ES, AC 322, 2009) specifies acceptance criteria for prefabricated cold-formed, steel lateral
force resisting assemblies.
6.1.3
The FEMA P695 Procedure

As design codes around the world have improved over the last several decades in how they address the seismic
design, one of the results was an expansion of code-approved seismic force resisting systems. This was especially
evident in the USA where, in the most recent IBC, there are more than 80 individual structural systems. Each
of these systems has individual system response coefficients (R-factors, the o factor and the Cd coefficient)
somewhat arbitrarily assigned in IBC, based largely on judgment and qualitative comparison with the known
response capabilities of other systems. Many of these recently defined structural systems have never been subjected
to significant levels of earthquake ground shaking and the potential response characteristics and ability to meet
the design performance objectives are untested and unknown.
For these reasons, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Applied Technology Council
(ATC) in the USA, under project ATC-63, have developed the FEMA P695 document (FEMA, 2009). For the
first time, this document contains a procedural methodology where the inelastic response characteristics and
performance of typical structural systems could be quantified, and the adequacy of the structural system provisions
to meet the design performance objectives could be verified. The methodology directly accounts for the potential
variations in structural configuration of buildings, the variations in ground motion to which these structures
may be subjected, and the available laboratory data on the behavioral characteristics of structural elements.
The developed procedure established for the first time consistent and rational evaluation of building system
performance and the response parameters (R, Cd, 0) used in current building codes in the USA. The primary
application of the procedure is for the seismic evaluation of new structural systems, so they have equivalent
earthquake performance for the maximum considered earthquake. It can be anticipated that this methodology
will ultimately be used by the model building codes and standards to set minimum acceptable design criteria
for standard code-approved systems, and to provide guidance in the selection of appropriate design criteria
for new systems.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

27
10-12-22 15:44
The drawbacks of the FEMA P695 procedure are that it is quite complex, very time consuming and therefore very
expensive. A large number of non-linear dynamic analyses are required on a number of different building models
with different configurations. In addition, the types of analyses required are sophisticated, and may be out of reach
for average design engineers, especially in the area of timber design. FEMA is also working on a new procedure
(FEMA P-795) entitled Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters - Component
Equivalency Methodology that is much easier to use and can be applied to introduce CLT as a substituting
element in a structural system that is already implemented in the code.
6.2
Estimate of Values for R-factors in CLT Structures

In this section, an estimate will be made of the values of the force modification factors Rd and Ro for CLT
structures in NBCC. The estimate will be based on results from experimental testing and analytical investigation
of the seismic performance of CLT wall panels and structures in Europe mentioned in Section 2 of this chapter,
along with the in-house experimental results presented. For more precise determination of the R-factors for
CLT structures, either a series of incremental dynamic analyses or the complex approach in the FEMA P695
guidelines should be used.
CLT wall panels behave almost as rigid bodies when subjected to lateral seismic loads. Although there was some
slight shear deformation measured in the panels during the in-house testing, most of the panel deflection occurred
as a result of the deformation in the connections (brackets) connecting the walls to the foundation. Where nails
were used to connect the CLT wall panels to the steel brackets, a ductile failure mode of the nailed connections
was observed in all cases. Therefore, the ductile behaviour of the nailed connections completely influenced
the behaviour of the entire wall, and will thus have a large influence on the behaviour of a CLT structure.
6.2.1
Behaviour Comparison with Structural Systems Already in NBCC

Although braced timber frames and portal moment-resisting frames in heavy timber are completely different
structural systems compared to the CLT construction, they have some common points, as the performance of
all these systems is mainly influenced by the behaviour of the connections. In braced frames, it is the connection
between the brace and the rest of the frame, while in portal moment frames it is the connection between the
column and the beam that governs the structural behaviour. These two structural systems have already been
assigned an Rd-factor of 2.0 in NBCC, when designed with moderately ductile connections. Based on the research
results from tests on braced timber frames and portal moment frames (Popovski et al., 2002, 2004 and 2008),
performance of CLT panels with ductile connections (such as nails or slender screws) is equivalent if not better
than that of these two systems.
In addition, although it is a platform type of structural system, CLT construction is far less susceptible to develop
soft storey mechanisms than many other structural systems of the same type. Since the nonlinear behaviour
(and the potential damage) is localized in the bracket connection areas only, the panels that are also the vertical
load carrying elements are virtually left intact in place, and well connected to the floor panels, even after a near
collapse state is reached. Also, in CLT construction, all walls in one storey contribute to the lateral and gravity
resistance, thus providing a degree of redundancy.
The Ro-factor for structures with CLT wall panels in NBCC can be determined according to Mitchel et al. (2003).
Based on the type of connections used, an Ro value of 1.5, which is currently used for most connections in heavy
timber construction designed according to the CSA O86, is considered to be a reasonable conservative estimate.
6.2.2
Equivalency Approach (AC130)

According to the ICC-ES acceptance criteria document AC130 (ICC-ES, AC130, 2009), assigning of an R-factor
for a new wood shear wall assembly in the USA that can be used in conjunction with wood-frame shear walls can
be made by showing equivalency of the seismic performance of the new wall assembly in terms of maximum load,
ductility, and storey drift obtained from quasi-static cyclic tests, with respect to the properties of lumber-based
ChapTER 4 Seismic

28
10-12-22 15:44
nailed shear walls, that are already implemented in the code. The equivalency criteria apply to prefabricated wall
assemblies consisting of wood-based framing (dimension lumber or structural composite lumber (SCL) material)
and a wood-based sheathing nailed to the framing. In a similar way, the AC322 document (ICC-ES, AC322,
2009) specifies acceptance criteria for prefabricated cold-formed, steel lateral force resisting assemblies.
Although CLT wall panels as a system differ from wood-frame shear walls, an effort will be made here to use
the equivalency criteria given in AC130 in assessing the seismic behaviour of CLT panels, since the criteria
are performance-based. For example, the AC130 criteria specify that, for a new shear wall assembly to have
the same seismic design response coefficients (R=6.5, Cd=4.0, 0=3.0) used in IBC for regular shear walls,
the assembly shall have the response characteristics listed below.
1. The lower bound on the ratio of the displacement at the post-peak load to the displacement at the assigned
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) load level shall be equal or greater than 11 as shown in equation [1]:
[1]

where:
ASD = the displacement at the ASD load level developed according to IBC or UBC;
U = the ultimate displacement taken from the backbone curve corresponding to an absolute load having no
more than 20 percent strength degradation of the post-peak load data point as given in ASTM E 2126.
2. The minimum post-peak displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of equation [2]:
[2]

where H is the height of the panel element.
3. The ratio of the maximum load Pmax obtained from the backbone curve of the panel to the assigned
ASD load PASD shall be in accordance with the requirements of equation [3]:
[3]
We can use the requirements shown in equations [1] to [3] to assess the performance of CLT panels according
the AC130 criteria. In order to do that, we have to make the assumption that the future design values (lateral
resistances) for CLT panels will have the same safety margin as those of regular wood-frame shear walls
according to CSA O86. In such a case, we can assume that the design values for lateral loads for CLT panels can
be derived in the same way as if they were determined for wood-frame shear walls. The specified strengths for shear
walls in Canada were soft converted from the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) values of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) in the USA. The ASD values in UBC were derived using the average maximum load obtained from
monotonic pushover tests divided by a safety factor of 2.8, or the average maximum load from cyclic tests divided
by a safety factor of 2.5. In this case, since the cyclic test results were used, we will use the second safety factor. In
addition, to be compatible with AC130 criteria, only single-storey walls tested under the CUREE protocol will
be used for the analyses. Also, walls that used WT-T screws will be excluded as they showed undesirable failure
modes. Finally, the influence of the vertical load is assumed not to have significant effect on wall performance,
as AC130 criteria do not require the presence of a vertical load during the testing of the elements.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

29
10-12-22 15:44
Main response parameters related to the AC130 criteria obtained from the envelopes of single-storey cyclic tests
on CLT wall panels are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7. Values in Table 5 are derived from the envelope curve of the
hysteresis curve in the first quadrant (initial loading quadrant), while the values in Table 6 are derived from the
envelope curve of the hysteresis curve in the third quadrant. The average values for all parameters based on both
envelope curves are given in Table 7. In all tables, Pmax is the maximum load, PASD is the load that would be an
equivalent to ASD design level (determined as Pmax/2.5), ASD is the displacement at PASD, and u is the ultimate
displacement (displacement at which the load has dropped to 80% of the maximum).
Table 5
AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls based on the initial load cycle envelope
Wall
PASD
ASD
Pmax
Ductility
[kN]
[mm]
[kN]
[mm]
[% drift]
u/ASD
00
35.8
5.6
89.4
69.1
3.0
12.3
02
37.4
8.6
93.4
76.2
3.3
8.9
03
41.8
6.1
104.5
62.9
2.7
10.3
04
41.8
8.6
104.6
63.9
2.8
7.4
05
42.4
6.2
106.1
43.6
1.9
7.0
06
43.0
8.2
107.6
53.9
2.3
6.6
08A
43.5
3.2
108.8
61.5
2.7
19.2
10A
41.2
3.8
103.1
45.3
2.0
11.9
12
39.3
9.0
98.2
70.2
3.1
7.8
14
74.7
4.5
186.9
69.9
3.0
15.5
16
54.8
8.7
137.0
101.9
4.4
11.7
20
64.6
6.7
161.5
71.6
3.1
10.7
21
23.0
3.9
57.5
84.5
3.7
21.7
23
29.0
4.4
72.5
78.9
3.4
17.9
Average for all CLT panels above
68.1
3.0
12.1
Minimum for all CLT panels above
43.6
1.9
6.6
As can be seen from the results above, most walls can satisfy the performance levels required by the AC130
criteria if the initial load cycle envelope properties are used. The number will be lower if the CLT wall properties
developed on the average of two envelope curves are used. Although AC130 criteria do not deal with sets of
different walls, one can always look at the average values of the entire set of CLT walls. In such a case, the average
values for the entire set of CLT walls can satisfy the criteria (Table 7). The average ductility ratio (as defined in
AC130) is 11.8, which is greater than the required minimum of 11, and the average ultimate storey drift is 3.0%,
which is greater than the required 2.8%. The minimum value for the maximum drift was about 2% while the
minimum ductility was approximately 6. The average values further improve if we take into consideration
only the set of CLT walls with nailed connections (excluding walls 5 and 6 that used screws).
ChapTER 4 Seismic

30
10-12-22 15:44
Table 6
AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls based on the secondary load cycle envelope
PASD
ASD
Pmax
Ductility
[kN]
[mm]
[kN]
[mm]
[% drift]
u/ASD
00
35.4
9.9
88.5
64.1
2.8
6.5
02
34.9
8.3
87.2
66.8
2.9
8.0
03
36.7
8.9
91.6
64.4
2.8
7.2
04
40.0
6.3
100.0
55.2
2.4
8.8
05
39.7
9.8
99.3
63.8
2.8
6.5
06
37.0
7.9
92.6
46.4
2.0
5.9
08A
42.1
6.6
105.3
54.1
2.4
8.2
10A
40.7
2.5
101.7
52.7
2.3
21.1
12
34.7
8.1
86.7
73.7
3.2
9.1
14
78.0
3.3
195.0
65.5
2.8
19.8
16
49.4
7.6
123.5
112.3
4.9
14.8
20
57.1
10.5
142.7
69.4
3.0
6.6
21
20.3
3.3
50.8
85.3
3.7
25.9
23
28.7
6.7
71.9
80.8
3.5
12.1
68.2
3.1
11.5
46.4
2.0
5.9
Wall
ChapTER 4 Seismic

31
10-12-22 15:44
Table 7
Average AC130 related properties of selected CLT walls
Wall
PASD
ASD
Pmax
Ductility
[kN]
[mm]
[kN]
[mm]
[% drift]
u/ASD
00
35.6
7.8
88.9
66.6
2.9
9.4
02
36.1
8.5
90.3
71.5
3.1
8.5
03
39.2
7.5
98.1
63.6
2.8
8.8
04
40.9
7.5
102.3
59.6
2.6
8.1
05
41.1
8.0
102.7
53.7
2.3
6.8
06
40.0
8.1
100.1
50.1
2.2
6.2
08A
42.8
4.9
107.1
57.8
2.5
13.7
10A
41.0
3.2
102.4
49.0
2.1
16.5
12
37.0
8.6
92.5
72.0
3.1
8.5
14
76.4
3.9
190.9
67.7
2.9
17.7
16
52.1
8.2
130.2
107.1
4.7
13.2
20
60.8
8.6
152.1
70.5
3.1
8.7
21
21.6
3.6
54.1
84.9
3.7
23.8
23
28.9
5.6
72.2
79.8
3.5
15.0
68.1
3.0
11.8
49.0
2.1
6.2
Based on the test results and the performance-based AC130 acceptance criteria, some of the individual CLT walls
tested (and the average of the entire wall set) can qualify as new structural wall elements and can share the same
seismic response parameters with regular wood-frame shear walls in the USA, which means using an R-factor
of 6.5. This value would correspond to having a product of RdRo in Canada of 5.1 (Rd factor of 3.0 and Ro factor
of 1.7), which is currently used in the NBCC for wood-frame shear walls. However, at this early stage of system
acceptance, the authors are of the opinion that a bit more conservative factors should be assigned for CLT
wall systems.
Based on the results of the AC130 exercise, it is recommended that a conservative estimate of force modification
factors for CLT as a structural system be an Ro factor of 1.5 and an Rd factor of 2.0.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

32
10-12-22 15:44
6.2.3
The European Experience

The basis of the European approaches for quantifying the q-factor in Eurocode 8 (EN, 2004) are presented
in Section 6.1.1 of this chapter. Some of the findings using these approaches are discussed in this section.
As mentioned in Section 2, shaking table tests on a 3-storey house were conducted in the laboratories of the NIED
in Tsukuba, Japan as part of the SOFIE project. An analytical model of the 3-storey house was developed using the
DRAIN 3-DX computer program, and the model was verified against the observed behaviour during the shaking
table tests. Using the verified analytical model (Figure 25), a number of non-linear time-history dynamic analyses
were conducted using eight different earthquake records. Based on the results from the analytical studies, an
evaluation of the behaviour factor q for seismic design according to Eurocode 8 was conducted (Ceccotti, 2008).
In this paper, the behaviour factor q was defined as the ratio between the PGA that caused near collapse
of the structure (the analytical model) vs. the design PGA. The near collapse peak ground acceleration (labeled
as PGAu,eff) was taken as the acceleration that caused uplift of 25.5 mm at one or more hold-down positions
in the walls, while the design PGA (labeled as PGAu,code) was taken equal to 0.35.

(a)
(b)
Figure 25
Deformed shapes of the analytical model under Nocera Umbra Earthquake record at PGA of 1.2 g
(Ceccotti, 2008)
The behaviour factor obtained from all eight analyses using this PGA-based approach is shown in Table 8
(Ceccotti, 2008). As shown, for seven out of eight earthquakes, the q-factor was greater than 3.0 and in two cases
even greater than 4.0, with an average of 3.4. Although the results presented here only apply to one 3-storey CLT
structure with a given configuration and initial period, some observations can still be made. It seems that a q-factor
of 3.0 is a reasonable estimate for the CLT structure evaluated that it is representative of a typical 3-storey building
that uses screws in the brackets and nails in the hold-downs.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

33
10-12-22 15:44
Table 8
Earthquake records and calculated q-factors from the analyses (Ceccotti, 2008)
Earthquake
Station and Component
PGAu,eff
Calculated q-factor
JMA, N-S
1.15
3.28
Imperial Valley, N-S
1.20
3.43
Nocera Umbra
Nocera, E-W
1.60
4.57
Northridge
Newhall, E-W
0.88
2.51
Joshua
Landers, N-S
1.09
3.11
Loma Prieta
Corralitos, E-W
1.05
3.00
Mexico City
E-W
1.23
3.51
Yapi Kredi, N-S
1.43
4.09
Kobe
El Centro
Kocaeli
Average q-factor
3.44
Further refinement of the PGA-based approach used in Ceccotti (2008) can be found in Pozza et al. (2009).
The differences in this base shear-based approach with respect to the PGA-based approach are:
Th
e q-factor is defined as a ratio of the base shear of the building during a linear elastic response and
the base shear at near collapse level for each different record. This is a more common assumption as it defines
the q-factor close to the terms of the well-known equivalent displacement rule;
Since the response of the building subjected to different earthquakes is also dependent on its initial period of
vibration, buildings with three different initial periods were used in the analyses. One building was the same as
the 3-storey model tested during the SOFIE project, while the other two were with the same geometry, but just
different mass. Although still far from the complexity of the FEMA P695 requirements, with the additions
of several buildings with different periods in the analyses, this approach moves closer to them.
In this study, the authors also used different analytical models to represent the behaviour of the CLT elements in
a building. The models were verified against the test results from the shaking table tests on the 3-storey building
that was part of the SOFIE project. They also used five artificially generated earthquakes that meet the spectrum
compatibility requirements for the regions with highest seismicity in Italy. The results from these analyses and
the comparison of this method (the base shear approach) with respect to the one used by Ceccotti (2008)
(the PGA approach) are shown in Table 9.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

34
10-12-22 15:44
Table 9
The q-factor obtained using two different approaches, the PGA approach, and the base shear approach
(results for the building analysed in Ceccotti (2008) are shown in colour)
PGA Approach
Building Period
Base Shear Approach
T=0.16 s
T=0.21 s
T=0.26 s
T=0.16 s
T=0.21 s
T=0.26 s
Earthquake 1
4.07
4.57
4.29
2.75
2.88
2.90
Earthquake 2
3.14
2.86
3.02
3.14
3.21
3.52
Earthquake 3
4.29
4.48
4.13
3.14
3.21
3.52
Earthquake 4
3.07
3.33
3.14
2.91
3.19
3.29
Earthquake 5
4.41
4.23
4.37
3.30
2.96
3.33
Average
3.80
3.89
3.79
3.05
3.09
3.31
Total average
3.83
3.15
As can be seen in Table 9, the q-factor values calculated according to the base shear approach have a lower
variability than those calculated according to the PGA-based approach. The base shear approach also showed
lower values for the calculated q-factor that was on average 21% lower than using the PGA approach. The average
values, however, showed again that a q-factor of 3.0 is acceptable for use in the seismic design of CLT structures
in Europe.
A straightforward comparison of the suggested q-factor for CLT in Europe from both studies to the force
modification factors in NBCC would correspond to a combination of Rd Ro = 3.0. Several things should be noted,
however, which may have an influence on such a statement. First, unlike in the USA and Canada, Eurocode 8
(EN, 2004) still uses design ground motions with probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years (earthquake return
period of 475 years) and that may have an effect on the results. Second, both approaches presented here used
elastically designed structures as reference structures for determining the q-factor, which usually leads to more
conservative values of the q-factor. An approach that is suggested for future research should include analytical
models of structures already designed with a certain q-factor and conduct incremental non-linear dynamic analyses
using a set of earthquake ground motions with increasing PGA or pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) values.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

35
10-12-22 15:44
7
Basics of Capacity
Design for
CLT Structures
Although the primary focus of this document is the overall seismic performance of CLT structures and not
the detailed process of their seismic design, it is important to just briefly address the fundamentals of seismic
design for CLT structures. It is suggested that the seismic design of CLT structures follows the capacity design
principles that are of major importance in seismic design in general. This design approach is based on the simple
understanding of the way a structure sustains large deformations under severe earthquakes. By choosing certain
modes of deformation, we can ensure that the brittle elements have the capacity to remain intact, while inelastic
deformations occur in selected ductile elements. These dissipative zones act as dampers to control the force
level in the structure. In steel structures, the members are typically designed to yield before the connections. For
example, in space frame systems, beam failure mechanisms are preferred since they provide sufficient structural
ductility without creating an undesirable mechanism of collapse. In timber structures, however, the failure of wood
members in tension or bending is not favourable because of its brittle characteristics, and all failures should occur
in the connections.
Consequently, it is suggested that all non-linear deformations and energy dissipation in the case of CLT structures
should occur in the connections (e.g., brackets) that connect the wall to the floor panels, in the hold-down
connections, if used, and in the vertical step joints in the walls, if present and if so chosen. All other connections
shall be designed to remain linear elastic, with a strength that is slightly higher than the force induced on each
of them when neighboring dissipative zones reach their probable strength. All connections used for energy
dissipation in CLT structures should be designed to fail in fastener yielding mode. No wood failure modes in
these connections should be allowed.
Using this strategy, the connections in horizontal step joints between floor panels (No. 2 in Figure 26) should
have sufficient over-strength and adequate stiffness to allow for the diaphragm to act as a single unit. Similarly,
connections tying up the floor panels to the walls below (No. 3 in Figure 26) should also be over-designed,
and be one of the strongest connection elements in the structure. If vertical step joints are present in the walls
(No. 4 in Figure 26), thus dividing the walls into several wall segments, the step joint connections can be designed
as yielding elements (dissipative zones) that will yield simultaneously with the steel bracket connections (or holddowns, if present) subjected to uplift at both ends of each wall segment. Yielding of the bracket connections at
panel ends should be followed by yielding of the rest of the bracket connections connecting the walls to the floor.
One can always use another design approach by over-designing the connections in the step joints, which will result
in the entire wall being able to act as a single panel. In this case, wall uplift will start to occur at both ends of
the wall during the seismic response, and the potential benefits of the step joints as energy dissipating zones
will be lost.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

36
10-12-22 15:44
2
2
1
4
3
1
Figure 26
Typical storey of a CLT structure with various connections between the panels
(drawing courtesy of Dr. Ceccotti)
The vertical joints between perpendicular walls (No.1 in Figure 26), may or may not be included as dissipative
joints. The effect of the perpendicular walls on the seismic performance of CLT walls has not yet been
investigated in depth. Until these effects are fully known and quantified, it is suggested that vertical joints
between perpendicular walls be over-designed. This approach also slightly simplifies the seismic design
procedure and gives the structure additional level of robustness and safety.
Fasteners should be randomly placed in the available space in the steel brackets and hold-downs with
the maximum fastener spacing possible. Larger fastener spacing will help avoid load concentration in
a small area of the CLT panel.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

37
10-12-22 15:44
8
Conclusions
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative wood product that is gaining popularity in residential and nonresidential applications in Europe. European experience shows that this system can be competitive, particularly in
mid-rise and high-rise buildings. Although CLT has rarely been used in North America, it may be used as a viable
wood-based structural solution for the shift towards sustainable densification of urban and suburban centers in
Canada and the USA. In order to gain much needed wide acceptance and popularity, CLT as a structural system
needs to be implemented in the North American codes arena.
Based on the literature review of the research work conducted around the world and the results from a series
of quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels conducted at FPInnovations laboratory in Vancouver, CLT wall panels
can be an effective lateral load resisting system. They can have adequate seismic performance when nails or slender
screws are used with steel brackets to connect the walls to the floors below. The use of hold-downs with nails on
each end of the walls tends to further improve their seismic performance. Use of diagonally placed long screws to
connect CLT walls to the floor below is not recommended in high seismic zones due to less ductile wall behaviour
and sudden failure mechanism. Use of step joints in longer walls can be an effective solution not only to reduce the
wall stiffness and thus reduce the seismic input load, but also to improve the wall deformation capabilities. Timber
rivets in smaller groups with custom made brackets were found to be effective connectors for CLT wall panels.
Further research in this field is needed to further clarify the use of timber rivets in CLT.
Although CLT construction is a platform type of structural system, it is far less susceptible to the soft storey
mechanism than many other structural systems of the same type. Since the nonlinear behaviour (and the potential
damage) is localized to the hold-down and bracket connection areas only, the panels that are also the vertical
load carrying elements are virtually left intact in place, and well connected to the floor panels, even after a near
collapse state is reached. In addition, all walls in one storey of a CLT construction contribute to the lateral and
gravity resistance, thus providing a degree of redundancy and a system effect.
A preliminary evaluation of the force modification factors (R-factors) for the seismic design of structures
according to the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) was also performed. Based on the experimental and
analytical research work conducted in this field in Europe and at FPInnovations, the performance comparison to
already existing systems in NBCC and on the equivalency performance criteria given in AC130, values of 2.0 for
the Rd factor and of 1.5 for the Ro are recommended as conservative estimates for CLT structures that use ductile
connections such as nails and slender screws.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

38
10-12-22 15:44
9
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load
test for shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral force resisting systems for buildings. ASTM E 2126.
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM. 15 p.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2005. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE 7-05. Reston, Virginia: ASCE. 424 p.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09.
Rexdale, Ontario: CSA. 222 p.
Ceccotti A. 2008. New technologies for construction of medium-rise buildings in seismic regions: The XLAM
case. Structural Engineering International (SEI) 18(2):156-165.
Ceccotti A., and M. Follesa. 2006. Seismic behaviour of multi-storey XLAM buildings. In COST E29:
International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures, November 9-10, 2006, Coimbra,
Portugal, 81-95.
Ceccotti A., M. Follesa, N. Kawai, M. P. Lauriola, C. Minowa, C. Sandhaas, and M. Yasumura. 2006. Which
seismic behaviour factor for multi-storey buildings made of cross-laminated wooden panels? In Proceedings of
the 39th CIB W18 Meeting, Firenze, Italy, paper 39-15-4.
Ceccotti A., M. Follesa, M. P. Lauriola, and C. Sandhaas. 2006. SOFIE Project: Test results on the lateral
resistance of cross-laminated wooden panels. Paper presented at the First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismicity, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ceccotti A., and E. Karacabeyli. 2002. Validation of seismic design parameters for wood-frame shearwall systems.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 29:484-498.
Dujic B., S. Aicher, and R. Zarnic. 2006. Testing of wooden wall panels applying realistic boundary conditions.
Paper presented at the 9th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Portland, Oregon.
____________. 2005. Investigation on in-plane loaded wooden elements: Influence of loading and boundary
conditions. Otto-Graf-Journal 16:259-272.
Dujic B., V. Hristovski, M. Stojmanovska, and R. Zarnic. 2006. Experimental investigation of massive wooden
wall panel systems subjected to seismic excitation. Paper presented at the First European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismicity, Geneva, Switzerland.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

39
10-12-22 15:44
Dujic B., S. Klobcar, and R. Zarnic. 2006. Influence of openings on shear capacity of massive cross-laminated
wooden walls. In COST E29: International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures,
November 9-10, 2006, Coimbra, Portugal, 105-118.
____________. 2007. Influence of openings on shear capacity of wooden walls. In Proceedings of the 40th
CIB-W18 Meeting, Bled, Slovenia, paper 40-15-6.
____________. 2008. Shear capacity of cross-laminated wooden walls. Paper presented at the 10th World
Conference on Timber Engineering, Myazaki, Japan.
Dujic B., J. Pucelj, and R. Zarnic. 2004. Testing of racking behavior of massive wooden wall panels. In Proceedings
of the 37th CIB-W18 Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, paper 37-15-2.
Dujic B., and R. Zarnic. 2006. Study of lateral resistance of massive X-lam wooden wall system subjected to
horizontal loads. In COST E29: International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures,
November 9-10, 2006, Coimbra, Portugal, 97-104.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. BS EN 1998-1:2004. London: British Standards
Institution (BSI). 232 p.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors.
FEMA P695. Washington, D.C.: FEMA. 421 p.
____________. 2010. Quantification of building system performance and response parameters: Component
equivalency methodology. Draft report FEMA P795. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.
Hristovski V., and M. Stojmanovska. 2005. Experimental and analytical evaluation of the racking strength
of massive wooden wall panels: Preliminary project phase, EE21C, Skopje-Ohrid, Macedonia.
ICC Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). 2009. Acceptance criteria for prefabricated, cold-formed, steel lateral-forceresisting vertical assemblies. AC 322. Whittier, California: ICC-ES. 6 p.
ICC Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). 2009. Acceptance criteria for prefabricated wood shear panels. AC 130. Whittier,
California: ICC-ES. 8 p.
International Code Council (ICC). 2006. International building code. Country Club Hills, Illinois: ICC. 664 p.
Lauriola M. P., and C. Sandhaas. 2006. Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic tests on XLAM walls and buildings.
In COST E29: International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures, November 9-10, 2006,
Coimbra, Portugal, 119-133.
Mitchell, D., R. Tremblay, E. Karacabeyli, P. Paultre, M. Saatcioglu, and D. L. Anderson. 2003. Seismic force
modification factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering 30:308327.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. National building code of Canada, 2005. Ottawa: Canada. National
Research Council. 2 v.
Popovski, M., and E. Karacabeyli. 2004. Seismic performance of riveted connections in heavy timber construction.
Paper presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

40
10-12-22 15:44
Popovski, M., and E. Karacabeyli. 2008. Force modification factors and capacity design procedures for braced
timber frames. Paper presented at the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Popovski, M., H. G. L. Prion, and E. Karacabeyli. 2002. Seismic performance of connections in heavy timber
construction. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 29:389-399.
Pozza, L., R. Scotta, and R. Vitaliani. 2009. A non linear numerical model for the assessment of the seismic
behaviour and ductility factor of X-lam timber structures. In Proceeding of the International Symposium on Timber
Structures, June 25-27, 2009, Istanbul, Turkey, 151-162.
Schdle, P., and H. J. Bla. 2010. Earthquake behaviour of modern timber construction systems. Paper presented
at the 11th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Riva del Garda, Italy.
ChapTER 4 Seismic

41
10-12-22 15:44
10-12-22 15:44
10-12-22 15:44
10-12-22 15:44
10-12-22 15:44
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:44
Connections in
CHAPTER
Authors
Mohammad Mohammad, Ph.D., P.Eng., FPInnovations
Williams Munoz, Ph.D., FPInnovations

Peer Reviewers
Pierre Quenneville, Ph.D., P.Eng., University of Auckland
David Moses, Ph.D., P.Eng., PE, LEED AP, Moses Structural Engineers
10-12-22 15:46
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their special thanks to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) for their financial
contribution to studies conducted at FPInnovations in support of the introduction of cross-laminated timber
product in Canada.
10-12-22 15:46
Abstract
The light weight of cross-laminated timber (CLT) products combined with the high level of prefabrication
involved, in addition to the need to provide wood-based alternative products and systems to steel and concrete,
have significantly contributed to the development of CLT products and systems, especially in mid-rise buildings
(5 to 9 storeys). While this product is well-established in Europe, work on the implementation of CLT products
and systems has just begun in Canada and the USA. The structural efficiency of the floor system acting as a
diaphragm and that of walls in resisting lateral loads depends on the efficiency of the fastening systems and
connection details used to interconnect individual panels and assemblies. Long self-tapping screws are typically
recommended by CLT manufacturers and are commonly used for connecting panels to panels in floors and floorto-wall assemblies. However, there are other types of traditional and innovative fasteners and fastening systems
that can be used in CLT assemblies.
This chapter focuses on a few connector systems that reflect present-day practices, some being conventional, others
being proprietary. Given the recent introduction of CLT into the construction market, it is expected that new
connection types will be developed in time. Issues associated with connection design specific to CLT assemblies
are presented. The European design approach is presented and the applicability of CSA O86-09 design provisions
for traditional fasteners in CLT such as bolts, dowels, nails and wood screws are reviewed and design guidelines
are provided.
The information given in this chapter is aimed at Canadian designers, a group which has expressed a strong interest
in specifying CLT products for non-residential and multi-storey applications. However, further studies are needed
to assist designers in the development of Canadian engineering design specifications and procedures consistent
with Canadian material design standards and the National Building Code of Canada. The technical information
will also be used to facilitate code acceptance of CLT products in North America.
ChapTER 5 Connections

iii
10-12-22 15:46
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures vii
1
Cross-Laminated Timber in Construction 1
Common Structural Systems in CLT 2
Introduction to Connections in CLT Assemblies - Overview 3
3.1 General 3
3.2 Connection Systems Commonly Used in CLT Assemblies 3
3.2.1 Wood and Self-Tapping Screws 4
3.2.2 Nails and Glulam Rivets 4
3.2.3 Bolts and Dowels 5
3.2.4 Bearing Type of Fasteners 5
3.2.5 Innovative Types of Fasteners 5
4
Connections in CLT Assemblies - Details 6
4.1 Panel-to-Panel Connections (Detail A) 7

4.1.1 Internal Spline 7
4.1.2 Single Surface Spline 7
4.1.3 Double Surface Spline 8
4.1.4 Half-Lapped Joint 9
4.1.5 Tube Connection System 9
4.1.6 Alternative Systems 10
4.2
Wall-to-Wall Connections (Detail B) 10
4.2.1 Self-Tapping Screws 10
4.2.2 Wooden Profiles 12
4.2.3 Metal Brackets 13
4.2.4 Alternative Systems 14
4.2.5 Concealed Metal Plates 15

iv
10-12-22 15:46
4.3
Wall-to-Floor Connections (Detail C) 16
4.3.1 Platform Construction 16
4.3.1.1 Self-Tapping Screws 16
4.3.1.2 Metal Brackets 17
4.3.1.3 Alternative Innovative Systems 18
4.3.1.4 Concealed Metal Plates 23
4.3.2 Balcony Details 24
4.3.2.1 Balcony in Cantilever 24
4.3.2.2 Supported Balcony 25
4.3.3 Balloon Construction 27
4.4
Wall-to-Roof Connections (Detail D) 29
4.5
Wall-to-Foundation Connections (Detail E) 31
4.5.1 Visible/Exposed Plates 31
4.5.2 Concealed Hardware 33
4.5.3 Metal Shafts 34
4.5.4 Threaded Rod/Screw 35
4.5.5 Wooden Profiles 36
4.5.6 Alternative System 37
5
Connections in Mixed Hybrid CLT Construction - Details 38
5.1
Mixed CLT with Other Wood-Based Materials and Systems 38
5.1.1 Platform Construction 38
5.1.2 Balloon Construction 40
6
Designing Connections in Cross-Laminated Timber 41
6.1
Why Connections in CLT are Different than Those in Solid Timber or Glulam 41
6.2
Current European Design Approach for Connections in CLT 42
6.3 Could CSA O86 Design Provisions be used for Design of Connections in CLT? 43
6.3.1 Current Design Philosophy for Dowel-Type Fasteners in CSA O86-09 43
6.4
Application of Current CSA O86-09 Design Provisions to Connections in CLT 45
6.4.1 Design for the Lateral Load Resistance of Bolts and Dowels in CLT 46
6.4.1.1 Embedment of Doweled and Bolted Connections Perpendicular
to the Plane of CLT Panel 46
6.4.1.2 Embedment of Doweled and Bolted Connections in the Narrow Side
(On Edge) 48
6.4.2 Lateral Load Resistance of Screws and Nails in CLT 48

6.4.2.1 Embedment of Nails and Screws Perpendicular to the Plane
of CLT Panel 48
6.4.2.2 Embedment of Nails and Screws in the Narrow Side of CLT Panels
(On Edge) 49

v
10-12-22 15:46
6.4.3 Design for the Withdrawal Resistance of Screws in CLT 49

6.4.4 Placement of Fasteners in Joints 50
6.4.5 Detailing of Connections in CLT 51
7
Conclusion 52
References 53

vi
10-12-22 15:46
List of Tables
Table 1 Recommended end and edge distances for dowel-type fasteners
(adapted from Uibel and Blass, 2007) 51
List of Figures
Figure 1 Typical CLT building with various components and connections 1
Figure 2 Different types of CLT construction systems: (a) platform construction; (b) mixed CLT walls
and light-frame roof 2
Figure 3 Self-tapping screws used in CLT connections 4
Figure 4 Power driven nails used in combination with perforated metal plates 5
Figure 5 Typical 2-storey CLT building showing various connections between floor and wall panels 6
Figure 6 Internal spline 7
Figure 7 Single surface spline 8
Figure 8 Double surface spline 8
Figure 9 Details of half-lapped joints 9
Figure 10 Details of the tube connection system 9
Figure 11 KNAPP connection system 10
Figure 12 Self-tapping screws from the exterior 11
Figure 13 Installation of self-tapping screws from the exterior 11
Figure 14 Self-tapping screws driven at an angle (toe screwing) 12
Figure 15 Concealed wooden profile 12
Figure 16 Edge protecting wooden profile 13
Figure 17 Interior metal bracket 13
Figure 18 Details of the dovetail joint 14
Figure 19 KNAPP system 14
Figure 20 Hook joint 15
Figure 21 Concealed metal plate 15

vii
10-12-22 15:46
Figure 22 Self-drilling dowel for use through steel and wood 16

Figure 23 Self-tapping screws 16
Figure 24 Metal brackets 17
Figure 25 Metal bracket and self-tapping screws 18
Figure 26 KNAPP system 19
Figure 27 Metal shaft connection details 20
Figure 28 Threaded rod/screw connection system 21
Figure 29 Glued-in rod and edge protecting wooden profile 22
Figure 30 Metal bracket and threaded rod 23
Figure 31 Concealed metal plates 24
Figure 32 Balcony in cantilever 24
Figure 33 Metal brackets adopted for design of balcony 25
Figure 34 Self-tapping screws used in balcony design 25
Figure 35 Balcony supported by the main structure 26
Figure 36 Balcony attached to the platform construction 27
Figure 37 Examples of European CLT projects with built-in balconies 27
Figure 38 SCL components for bearing support (adapted from TRADA 2009) 28
Figure 39 Metal bracket for bearing support (adapted from TRADA 2009) 28
Figure 40 Possible roof-to-wall joints configurations 29
Figure 41 Self-tapping screws 30
Figure 42 Metal bracket 31
Figure 43 Exterior metal plate 32
Figure 44 Metal brackets 32
Figure 45 Metal brackets installed on site 33
Figure 47 Metal shaft connection details 34
Figure 48 Threaded rod/screw connection system 35

viii
10-12-22 15:46
Figure 49 Concealed (a) and exposed (b) wooden profiles 36

Figure 50 KNAPP Gigant system 37
Figure 51 CLT Wall I-joist (adapted from TRADA 2009) 39
Figure 52 CLT Wall Metal plated floor truss (adapted from TRADA 2009) 40
Figure 53 CLT Wall I-joist (adapted from TRADA 2009) 40
Figure 54 CLT panel section with gaps and grooves sawn in the timber to relieve shrinkage stresses 41
Figure 55 Ductile failure modes experienced during testing of self-tapping screws
in CLT half-lapped connections 42
Figure 56 Possible failure modes in traditional solid timber or glued laminated timber 44
Figure 57 Possible brittle failure mode in CLT connections with glulam rivets 46
Figure 58 Opened connection with dowels in cross-laminated timber
(courtesy of Uibel and Blass, 2007) 48
Figure 59 Recommended end and edge distances and spacing for dowel-type fasteners
(adapted from Uibel and Blass, 2007) 50
Figure 60 Acoustic membrane inserted between walls and floors to provide air tightness
(in exterior walls) and improve sound insulation 51

ix
10-12-22 15:46
10-12-22 15:46
1
Cross-Laminated
Timber in
Construction
Use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels in building construction has increased over the last few years.
Several buildings have already been erected around the world using CLT panels, which is a good testimony
to the many advantages that this product offers to the construction industry. The light weight and high quality
of prefabrication of CLT result in quick erection times, especially in mid-rise construction (5 to 9 storeys). While
this product is well-established in Europe, work on the implementation of CLT products and systems has just
begun in Canada and the USA.
The structural efficiency of the floor system acting as a diaphragm and that of walls in resisting lateral loads
depends on the efficiency of the fastening systems and connection details used to connect individual panels and
assemblies. This chapter focuses on the design of connections for CLT construction based on current practices.
Figure 1
Typical CLT building with various components and connections

1
10-12-22 15:46
2
Common
Structural
Systems in CLT
There are several ways to design and construct CLT buildings. They all differ in the way the load-carrying
panels/elements are arranged, the way the panels are connected and the type of wood and non wood-based
materials used (such as the use of hybrid systems of construction).
The most common forms of construction systems in CLT are:
1. Platform construction, where the floor panels rest directly on top of wall panels, forming a platform for
subsequent floors (Figure 2a). This is a typical North American light frame form of construction, except
that CLT panels are used instead of stud wall systems with top and bottom plates. This is probably the most
commonly used type of structural system in Europe for CLT assemblies, especially for multi-storey buildings.
This includes buildings constructed exclusively with CLT or mixing CLT with other types of wood-based
products (e.g., CLT and glulam), or CLT with non wood-based systems. There are several advantages
to this system:

it simplifies the erection of upper storeys;

simple connection systems can be used; and
the load path is usually well-defined.
2. Balloon construction, a type of structural system where the walls continue for a few storeys with intermediate
floor assemblies attached to those walls. Due to the limitations in the length of the CLT panels and other
design and construction issues, this system is often used in low-rise, commercial or industrial buildings.
Connections are usually more complex in this form of construction. Balloon construction is generally less
common compared to platform construction. As with platform construction, mixed CLT and other types
of wood-based and non wood-based products could also be used in the balloon type of systems.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2
Different types of CLT construction systems: (a) platform construction; (b) mixed CLT walls
and light-frame roof

2
10-12-22 15:46
3
Introduction
to Connections
in CLT Assemblies
Overview
General
3.1
Connections in heavy timber construction, including those built with CLT, play an essential role in providing
strength, stiffness, stability and ductility to the structure; consequently, they require careful attention by designers.
Post-disaster surveys following strong earthquakes and hurricanes have shown that among other reasons, structural
failures often occur due to inadequately designed or improperly fabricated connections. The interruption of
continuity in the timber structure caused by the presence of connections may result in a decrease in the overall
strength and stiffness of the structure (i.e. if not properly designed) which in turn implies an increase in the crosssection of the assembled timber elements.
When structural members are attached with fasteners or some other types of metal hardware, such joints are
referred to as mechanical connections. Typically, large fastener spacing and end and edge distances are required
in most mechanical connections to avoid splitting and shear failures that are brittle in nature. The efficient design
and fabrication of connections often determines the level of success of timber buildings when competing with
other types of structural applications such as steel or concrete. This is particularly important for multi-storey
heavy timber structures and hybrid buildings, where CLT is used alone or could be used in combination with
steel or concrete.
The use of CLT panels enables a high degree of prefabrication at the plant. This facilitates the use of CNC
technology to profile the panel for installation, at the plant, of conventional and sophisticated connection systems
with a high degree of accuracy and efficiency. The dimensional stability of CLT products due to the use of kiln
dried (KD) source material is better for connection stability prior to installation and ensures good accuracy
at installation.
In this section, a very brief overview of connection types is provided. More detailed information is provided
in Section 4.
3.2
Connection Systems Commonly Used in CLT Assemblies

Currently, there is a wide variety of fasteners and many different types of joint details that can be used to establish
roof/wall, wall/floor, and inter-storey connections in CLT assemblies or to connect CLT panels to other woodbased elements, or to concrete or steel in hybrid construction. While long self-tapping screws are typically
recommended by CLT manufacturers and are commonly used for connecting panels to panels in floors and

3
10-12-22 15:46
floor-to-wall assemblies, traditional dowel-type fasteners such as wood screws, nails, lag screws, rivets, bolts and
dowels can also be effectively used in connecting panel elements. Other types of traditional fasteners, including
bearing type fasteners such as split rings and shear plates, and tooth plates, may have some potential; however,
their use is expected to be limited to applications where high loads are involved. Some interesting innovative
connection systems are finding their way to the CLT construction market. These include glued-in rods, Geka
connectors, the KNAPP system and other systems that adopt similar concepts. Such systems have good
potential for use in CLT applications, especially those that employ a high degree of prefabrication using CNC
machining technology. Fortunately, major CLT panel and glulam manufacturing facilities are equipped with
CNC technology which could facilitate the rapid adoption of such connection systems. The choice of the type
of connection to use depends largely on the type of assemblies to be connected (i.e. panel-to-panel, floor-to-wall,
etc.), panel configurations, and the type of structural system used in the building.
The following sections provide some basic information on the most commonly used types of mechanical fasteners
in CLT assemblies. Detailed applications of these fasteners are presented in Section 4.
3.2.1
Wood and Self-Tapping Screws

Wood and self-tapping screws are extensively used in Europe for the assembly of CLT panels (Figure 3). The
ease of installation and the high lateral and withdrawal capacity of such screws make them quite popular among
designers and builders as they can take combined axial and lateral loads. Wood and self-tapping screws come in a
variety of sizes and specific features. Self-tapping screws come in diameters that range from 4 mm to 12 mm and
are available in lengths up to 600 mm (TEMTIS 2008). They do not require predrilling in most cases, unlike
traditional wood or lag screws which require predrilled holes, the size of which depend on the density of the
wood-based materials they are driven into and the diameter of the screws. The design capacity of screws in CLT
must account for gaps in unglued cross-plies and other artificially sawn grooves common in CLT fabrication.
Figure 3
Self-tapping screws used in CLT connections
3.2.2
Nails and Glulam Rivets

Nails and glulam rivets are not as commonly used in the assembly of CLT panels as wood screws. Nails with
specific surface features such as grooves, helically threaded nails and glulam rivets are mostly used with perforated
metal plates and brackets and installed on the surface/plane of the panel (Figure 4). Most timber design standards

4
10-12-22 15:46
do not allow the design of nailed connections in the end grain of wood-based products for withdrawal forces.
Therefore, surface types of fasteners such as nails should not be driven in the edge of CLT panels (i.e. in end grain)
to resist withdrawal forces. For lateral resistance, however, an end grain factor is usually applied to account for
the reduction in the lateral resistance of nails driven in the end grain in most timber design standards, including
CSA O86-09 (CSA 2009).
Figure 4
Power driven nails used in combination with perforated metal plates
3.2.3
Bolts and Dowels

Bolts and dowels are very common in heavy timber construction. They can also be used in the assembly of CLT
panels, especially for lateral loading. If installed in the narrow face (on edge), care must be taken during the design,
especially in CLT panels with unglued edges between the individual planks in a layer. This could eventually
compromise the lateral resistance since there is a potential that such fasteners are driven in the gaps.
3.2.4
Bearing Type of Fasteners

While bearing-type fasteners such as split rings and shear plates are commonly used in connections of glulam,
heavy sawn timber and structural composite lumber (SCL) such as parallel strand lumber (PSL), they are not
widely used for the assembly of CLT panels. Bearing-type connections can be used in certain locations depending
on the position of the fasteners with respect to the CLT layers and the type of service load. One drawback would
be that panels require profiling at the plant prior to delivery.
3.2.5
Innovative Types of Fasteners

A new generation of fasteners such as glued-in rods, Geka connectors, the KNAPP system and others are
becoming increasingly popular in the assembly of mainstream heavy timber construction. This is driven by recent
developments in CNC technology, wood materials and the desire for a high level of prefabrication to reduce
assembly time and cost.
With respect to CLT, glued-in rods in particular can be used for connections subjected to high longitudinal and
transverse loads and to reduce the splitting potential (TEMTIS 2008). More details on these next generation
connection systems and their suitability for connecting CLT panels and assemblies are discussed in Section 4.

5
10-12-22 15:46
4
Connections in
CLT Assemblies
Details
This section is focused on providing detailed information and schematics on traditional and innovative types of
connection systems typically used in establishing connections between CLT panels, and those between walls and
foundations and walls and floors. Figure 5 shows details of the various locations of such connections in a multistorey CLT building. While most of the commonly used types of fasteners and those with some potential for
use in CLT assemblies are described below, the list is not comprehensive. Other types of innovative [alternative,
proprietary, modern, privately-developed] fasteners, not mentioned under this section, could also be used
if found suitable.
E
B
Figure 5
Typical 2-storey CLT building showing various connections between floor and wall panels

6
10-12-22 15:46
4.1
Panel-to-Panel Connections (Detail A)

This is the fundamental form of connection that is typically used to form wall and floor assemblies. It is used
to connect panels along their longitudinal edges. Due to production and transport limitations related to the
size of the panel that can be delivered to building sites, panel-to-panel connections are established mostly on
site. Connection details must be easy to assemble and should facilitate quick fabrication. The panel-to-panel
connection facilitates the transfer of forces through the wall or floor assembly. For example, when panel-to-panel
connections are used in wall assembly, the connection must be designed to resist in-plane shear and out-of-plane
bending. When the connection is used in floor assemblies acting as diaphragms, however, the connection must be
capable of transferring in-plane diaphragm forces in principle, and maintain the integrity of the diaphragms and
the overall, lateral load resisting system. Several possible panel-to-panel connection details are described below.
4.1.1
Internal Spline
A single wooden spline/strip made of lumber or SCL such as LVL could be used to form this connection. Profiling
of the panel at the plant is necessary prior to delivery. Connection between the spline and the two panel edges
could be established using self-tapping screws, wood screws or nails. One advantage of this detail is that it provides
double-shear connection; however, it requires more accurate profiling and could be challenging in terms of fitting
the different parts together on site. There are also other advantages regarding resistance to normal or out-of-plane
loading. Structural adhesive could also be applied to the different parts in addition to the mechanical fasteners
to provide more rigidity to the connection, if needed.
Screws
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Plywood or LVL
Figure 6
Internal spline
4.1.2
Single Surface Spline

This is a rather simple connection detail that can be established quickly on site. Panel edges are profiled to take
a strip/spline of lumber or SCL such as LVL or X-ply LVL. Self-tapping screws, long wood screws or nails could
be used for making the connection on site. Due to the single-shear connection involved, this connection detail
is typically inferior to the internal spline described above. Structural adhesive could also be used in this type
of connection detail.

7
10-12-22 15:46
Screws
Plywood or LVL
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Figure 7
Single surface spline
4.1.3
Double Surface Spline

This connection detail is similar to that of the single surface spline described above, except that a double spline
is used here to increase the connection strength and stiffness. Since two sets of screws are used which results
in doubling the number of shear planes resisting the load, a better resistance can be achieved using this detail.
However, this connection requires more machining and more time could be needed for erection since there is
a need to attach the two splines from both sides of the panels during the insertion of fasteners, doubling the time
needed for driving screws or nails. According to TEMTIS (2008), if SCL is used as the splines, then the joint
could be designed to resist moment for out-of-plane loading. Structural adhesives could be used to enhance
the strength and stiffness.
Screws
Plywood or LVL
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Plywood or LVL
Screws
Figure 8
Double surface spline

8
10-12-22 15:46
4.1.4
Half-Lapped Joint
This connection detail involves milling a half-lapped joint at the plant and is commonly used for panel-to-panel
connections in wall and floor assemblies (Figure 9). Long self-tapping screws are usually used to connect the panel
edges. The joint can carry normal and transverse loads but is not considered to be a moment resisting connection
(TEMTIS 2008). While this is a very simple connection detail that facilitates quick assembly of CLT elements,
there is a risk of splitting of the cross-section due to concentration of tension perpendicular to grain stresses in
the notched area. This is particularly pronounced for cases where uneven loading on the floor elements occur
(TEMTIS 2008).
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Figure 9
Details of half-lapped joints
4.1.5
Tube Connection System

This is an innovative type of connection system that has been developed and studied in Austria by G. Traetta
(2007). This system incorporates a profiled steel tube with holes (Figure 10). Panel elements arrive on site with
glued-in or screwed rods driven in the plane of the two panels to be connected and with holes machined in the
panels at certain locations along the edges where the metal tubes could be placed. The tube connector is inserted
at those locations along the panel elements and the system is tightened on site using metal nuts.
Tests have been carried out at the Building Research Center in Graz, Austria to evaluate the capacity of this
innovative system (Traetta 2007). Usually no edge profiling along the panel is needed if this connection system
as it principally relies on the pullout resistance of the screwed or glued-in rods.
Tube *
Glued or
screwed rods
Nuts
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Figure 10
Details of the tube connection system

9
10-12-22 15:46
4.1.6
Alternative Systems
Certain innovative connection systems have good potential for use in CLT panel assemblies. One example of
those is a German connection system called KNAPP, which is used in prefabricated closed wood-based panels.
The system facilitates quick erection as it involves a male/female type of attachment (Figure 11). It is mainly used
for panel-to-panel connections along the panel longitudinal edges. KNAPP brackets are usually attached to
CLT panel elements using wood screws. They provide resistance in the plane and out of the plane of the panel, in
addition to uplift resistance. The system provides resistance to in-plane and out-of-plane forces, including uplift.
The KNAPP system is equipped with a self locking mechanism that enables the wall to be tightly locked to the
adjacent wall. While it might be relatively complicated to install or dismantle this system in complex plans with
several intersecting wall segments, it does facilitate an easy and quick installation process.
KNAPP
CLT Floor
CLT Floor
Screws
Figure 11
KNAPP connection system
4.2
Wall-to-Wall Connections (Detail B)

This section covers connection details for connecting walls to walls positioned at right angles (wall junction in the
transverse direction). Such connection details include interior partitions to exterior walls or simple exterior corner
walls. Walls connected in the same plane of the panels were covered previously under panel-to-panel connections
(Detail A). Most of the connection details described below are commonly used in the assembly of CLT walls.
However, a few of these involve the use of innovative types of connection systems or details with some potential
for use in such applications. The same connection systems adopted for connecting exterior walls in the transverse
direction could be used for establishing connection between internal walls.
4.2.1
Self-Tapping Screws
Several systems have been adopted to establish connection between walls at right angles (wall junction).
The simplest form of connection relies mainly on self-tapping screws to connect the walls together (Figure 12
and 14). There are some concerns however related to this direct form of connection due to the fact that the screws
are driven in the narrow side of panels, in particular, if screws are installed in the end grain of the cross layers.
While this may not be critical for small loads, it may not be suitable for walls subjected to high wind and seismic
loads. Self-tapping screws could also be driven at an angle to avoid direct installation of screws in the narrow side
of the panel (on edge) which would optimize the performance of the connection (i.e. toe screwing).

10
10-12-22 15:46
CLT Wall
CLT Wall
Self -tapping
screws
Figure 12
Self-tapping screws from the exterior
Figure 13
Installation of self-tapping screws from the exterior

11
10-12-22 15:46
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Wall
Figure 14
Self-tapping screws driven at an angle (toe screwing)
4.2.2
Wooden Profiles
Concealed wooden profiles (keys) could also be used in a similar way, with self-tapping screws or traditional wood
screws. The advantage of this system over the direct use of self-tapping screws is the possibility of enhancing the
connection resistance by driving more wood screws to connect the profiled panel to the central wood profile/key
which is in turn, screwed to the transverse wall (Figure 15).
CLT Wall
Wooden profile
(hardwood, LVL or plywood)
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
Figure 15
Concealed wooden profile

12
10-12-22 15:46
CLT Wall
Wooden profile
(hardwood, LVL or plywood)
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
Figure 16
Edge protecting wooden profile
Other types of wooden profiles such as the one shown in Figure 16 could also be used to provide some form
of reinforcement to the panel connected edges. Those are mainly made of hardwood or SCL. They are glued
and screwed to the panel edge as mentioned earlier.
4.2.3
Metal Brackets
Another simple form of connecting walls in the transverse direction is the use of metal brackets with self-tapping
screws, nails or even glulam rivets (Figure 17). While this connection is one of the simplest and most efficient types
of connection in terms of strength resulting from fastening in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the panels,
architects normally do not prefer this system as the metal plates are exposed and have less fire resistance compared to
concealed connection systems. Some designers may choose to hide plates by profiling the wall panel at the locations
of those brackets (recessing) then cover the metal hardware with finishing materials or simply, wood caps.
CLT Wall
Screws
Metal
bracket
Screws
CLT Wall
Figure 17
Interior metal bracket

13
10-12-22 15:46
4.2.4
Alternative Systems
Several alternative connection systems could be used for connecting CLT wall to wall. One interesting system
involves the use of a dovetail type metal bracket to establish the connection between the wall panels (Figure 18).
Several forms of a male/female type of connection can be designed to resist in-plane and out-of-plane loads. The
metal brackets are attached to the wood using regular wood screws or self-tapping screws. They can be continuous
along the edge of the panel/wall or a few of short length brackets can be installed along the panel/wall edge. The
panel simply slides into place, which speeds the erection of the walls on site. Alternative systems such as hook
joint and KNAPP systems are based on the same principle (Figures 18 to 20). Wood screws are typically used to
connect the metal components to CLT wall panels. It should be noted that dovetail systems require clearance/
tolerance to facilitate the site installation. Measures should be taken to ensure that wall panels are firmly tied up.
CLT Wall
Screws
Dovetail joint
with wooden or
steel profiles
Screws
CLT Wall
Figure 18
Details of dovetail joint
CLT Wall
KNAPP
female
Screws
KNAPP
male
Figure 19
KNAPP system
CLT Wall

14
10-12-22 15:46
CLT Wall
Hook joint
male
Screws
Hook joint
female
CLT Wall
Figure 20
Hook joint
4.2.5
Concealed Metal Plates

Concealed metal plates can also be used to establish wall-to-wall connection in the transverse direction. Metal
plate thickness could range from 6 mm up to 12 mm. As discussed above, while this system has considerable
advantages over exposed plates and brackets, especially when it comes to fire performance, the system requires
precise profiling at the plant using CNC technology (Figure 21). Proprietary self-drilling dowels that can
penetrate through wood and steel such as those produced by SFS Intec (shown in Figure 22) can be used.
CLT Wall
Tight fit
dowels, SFS
dowels or
bolts
Metal plate
Screws
CLT Wall
Figure 21
Concealed metal plate

15
10-12-22 15:47
Figure 22
Self-drilling dowel for use through steel and wood
4.3
Wall-to-Floor Connections (Detail C)

Several possibilities exist when it comes to connecting walls to the floors above or connecting walls on the upper
storeys to floors, depending on the form of structural systems (i.e. platform vs. balloon), availability of fasteners
and the degree of prefabrication.
4.3.1
Platform Construction
4.3.1.1 Self-Tapping Screws
For connecting a floor or a roof to walls below, the simplest method is to use long self-tapping screws driven from
the CLT floor directly into the narrow side of the wall edge, as shown in Figure 23. Self-tapping screws could also
be driven at an angle to maximize the fastening capacity in the panel edge. The same principle could be applied
for connecting walls above to floors below, where self-tapping screws are driven at an angle in the wall near the
junction with the floor. Depending on the angle and the length of the screws, the self-tapping screws could reach
the bottom walls, further reinforcing the connection between the upper and lower walls and the floor.
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Floor
CLT Wall
Figure 23
Self-tapping screws

16
10-12-22 15:47
4.3.1.2 Metal Brackets
Metal brackets are commonly used to connect floors to walls above and below. They are also used for connecting
roofs to walls. Nails, glulam rivets and wood screws could be used to attach the metal brackets to the CLT panels
(Figures 24 and 25).
CLT Wall
Screws
Metal
bracket
Screws
CLT Floor
Screws
Metal
bracket
Screws
CLT Wall
Figure 24
Metal brackets

17
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Screws
Metal
bracket
Screws
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Floor
CLT Wall
Figure 25
Metal bracket and self-tapping screws
4.3.1.3 Alternative Innovative Systems
This section covers the whole family of innovative fastening systems described above which includes: KNAPP
system, metal shaft connection system with dowels, threaded rod/screw connection system, glued-in rod, wooden
profiles and dovetail connection system (Figures 26 to 30). Some of those systems, such as KNAPP, have a selflocking mechanism to resist against uplift.

18
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Knapp
female
Screws
Knapp
male
CLT Floor
Knapp
male
Screws
Knapp
female
CLT Wall
Figure 26
KNAPP system

19
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Tight fit
dowels or bolts
Tube with holes
Wood
cap
Adaptor
Threaded
rod
CLT Floor
Adaptor
Tube with holes
Wood
cap
Tight fit
dowels or bolts
CLT Wall
Figure 27
Metal shaft connection details

20
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Threaded
rod
Wood
cap
Adaptor
Threaded
rod
CLT Floor
Adaptor
Threaded
rod
Wood
cap
CLT Wall
Figure 28
Threaded rod/screw connection system

21
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Threaded
rod
Wood
cap
Adaptor
Threaded
rod
CLT Floor
Adaptor
Threaded
rod
Wood
cap
CLT Wall
Figure 29
Glued-in rod and edge protecting wooden profile

22
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Screws
Metal
bracket
Screws
Nut
Threaded
rod
CLT Floor
CLT Wall
Figure 30
Metal bracket and threaded rod
4.3.1.4 Concealed Metal Plates
Concealed metal plates could also be used to establish wall-to-floor connections (Figure 31). As previously
discussed, while this system has considerable advantages over exposed plates and brackets, especially when it comes
to fire performance, the system requires precise profiling at the plant using CNC technology.

23
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Tight fit
dowels, SFS
dowels or
bolts
Metal plate
Screws
CLT Floor
Screws
Metal plate
Tight fit
dowels, SFS
dowels or
bolts
CLT Wall
Figure 31
Concealed metal plates
4.3.2
Balcony Details
4.3.2.1 Balcony in Cantilever
For situations where a balcony is designed by extending the floor/roof panel to form a cantilever (Figure 32),
the connection between the wall supporting the balcony below and the floor panel can be established using selftapping screws or metal brackets. In this case, the panels should be installed with the principal axis (parallel to
the grain of the outer layers) extending outward and forming the balcony. Self-tapping screws driven at an angle
are preferred for improved performance compared to driving screws perpendicular to the plane of one panel into
the edge of the other (i.e. the wall panel) (Figure 34b). If a parapet wall on top of the balcony is built, a typical
connection detail using self-tapping screws or metal brackets could also be used (Figures 33 and 34). However,
caution should be exercised when adopting this system in design as a cantilever due to potential issues related
to water infiltration.
Figure 32
Balcony in cantilever

24
10-12-22 15:47
Figure 33
Metal brackets adopted for design of balcony
(a) (b)
Figure 34
Self-tapping screws used in balcony design
4.3.2.2 Supported Balcony
In some cases, the balcony can be designed to be attached to the main CLT structure using simple fastening
systems that allow for easy installation and dismantling (i.e. in case of any potential modification to the
configuration of the building in the future) (Figure 35). Several buildings in Europe have been constructed
with this type of balcony system. A combination of metal plates and hinges are usually employed to secure the
balcony structure/box to the main structure as can be seen in Figure 36. Usually, the balcony is attached to the
main building at four (4) points. The connection system is equipped with metal brackets which are attached to
the CLT floors (top and bottom floors as can be seen in Figure 36) using self-tapping screws or lag screws. The
balcony could be totally prefabricated as a box on the ground, at the construction site, lifted up and then secured
to the building at each location/level. Other types of metal attachments could also be used if found proper. The
gap between the building and the balcony needs to be closed with cladding materials either as part of the whole
building envelope or separately, depending on the end use. Flashing should be installed to divert rain water away
from the wall to avoid water accumulation.
For design of the balcony itself, different types of fastening systems could be used. Self-tapping screws alone or
a combination of self-tapping screws and metal brackets could be used to attach the floor and roof to the walls.

25
10-12-22 15:47
A variety of other balcony designs could be adopted. One simple concept involves designing the balcony as part
of the CLT structure (i.e. built-in). This concept has been used in the design of the Murray Grove building
in London, UK, where several corner balconies were introduced as part of the main structure floor plan
(Figure 37, left side). This is perhaps the simplest form of creating balconies. Other concepts involve designing
and constructing an external structural system (e.g. posts) to support the extremity of the balcony, while the other
side of the balcony is supported by the structure itself. This is also common in certain low-rise projects that have
been built recently in Europe.
Figure 35
Balcony supported by the main structure

26
10-12-22 15:47
Figure 36
Balcony attached to the platform construction
Figure 37
Examples of European CLT projects with built-in balconies
4.3.3
Balloon Construction
The dominant type of structural form in CLT construction in Europe is the platform type of system due to
its simplicity in design and erection. However, in non-residential construction, including farm and industrial
buildings, it is common to use tall walls with a mezzanine, which is an intermediate floor between the main floors
of a building. Mezzanine floors are often located between the ground floor and the first floor but it is not unusual
to have a mezzanine in the upper floors of a building.
To connect a typical CLT floor to a continuous CLT tall wall for such applications, several attachment options
exist. The simplest attachment detail includes the use of a wooden ledger to provide a continuous bearing support
to the CLT floor panels (Figure 38). The ledger is usually made of SCL such as LVL, LSL or PSL.

27
10-12-22 15:47
CLT ledger could also be used. Another type of attachment is established with the use of metal brackets similar
to the one shown in Figure 39 (a and b). Attachment of SCL ledger or metal brackets to the CLT wall and floor
panels is established through the use of self-tapping screws, lag screws, nails or glulam rivets.
Self-tapping
screws
SCL
Figure 38
SCL components for bearing support (adapted from TRADA 2009)
CLT Wall
Metal bracket
Screws
CLT Floor
CLT Wall
(a)
CLT Wall
Metal bracket
CLT Floor
Screws
(b)
Figure 39
Metal bracket for bearing support (adapted from TRADA 2009)

28
10-12-22 15:47
4.4
Wall-to-Roof Connections (Detail D)

For walls to sloping or flat roof connections, the same type of connection as for attaching floors to walls
is used (Figure 40). Self-tapping screws and metal brackets are the most commonly used fastening systems
in this application (Figures 41 and 42).
Figure 40
Possible roof-to-wall joints configurations

29
10-12-22 15:47
Self-tapping
screws
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Roof
CLT Roof
CLT Wall
CLT Wall
(a)
CLT Roof
Self-tapping
CLT Roof
screws
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Wall
(b)
CLT Wall
Figure 41
Self-tapping screws

30
10-12-22 15:47
Metal bracket
CLT Roof
Screws
CLT Wall
Figure 42
Metal bracket
4.5
Wall-to-Foundation Connections (Detail E)
4.5.1
Visible/Exposed Plates
In connecting CLT wall panels to concrete foundations (common for the first storey in a CLT building, with
concrete footing or with multi-storey CLT building with the first storey made of concrete) or to steel beams,
several fastening systems are available to establish such a connection. Exterior metal plates and brackets are
commonly used in such applications as there is a variety of such metal hardware readily available on the market.
Exposed steel plates, similar to those shown in Figure 43, are probably the most commonly used in Europe due to
their simplicity in terms of installation. When connections are established from outside, then a typical metal plate
is used (Figure 43). However, when access is provided from inside the building and where a concrete slab exists,
metal brackets such as those shown in Figures 44 and 45 are used. Lag screws or powder-actuated fasteners can
be used to connect the metal plate to the concrete footing/slab, while lag screws or self-drilling screws are used
to connect the plate to the CLT panel.
Typically, metal plates or brackets are placed at a 1219 mm interval. But that all depends on the level of load the
connection is supposed to resist and its ductility. Different types of metal plates or brackets can be used as shown
in Figures 43 and 44, depending on whether the CLT panel is attached to a concrete wall/footing or a slab and
whether the plate is attached from the outside or the inside of the wall panel.
To protect wood and improve the durability of CLT panels, a SCL sill plate [or bottom plate] such as that
shown in Figures 43b and 44b is installed between the concrete foundation and the CLT panels. This also
simplifies assembly.

31
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
CLT Wall
Metal plate
SCL
Metal plate
Lag
screws
Lag
screws
Concrete footing
Concrete footing
(a) (b)
Figure 43
Exterior metal plate
CLT Wall
CLT Wall
SCL
Screws
Metal
bracket
Anchor bolt
Screws
Metal
bracket
Anchor bolt
Concrete footing
Concrete footing
(a) (b)
Figure 44
Metal brackets

32
10-12-22 15:47
Figure 45
Metal brackets installed on site
4.5.2
Concealed Hardware
To achieve better fire performance and improve aesthetics, designers prefer to conceal connection systems.
Hidden metal plates similar to those shown in Figure 46 can be used, but they require some machining to produce
the grooves in the CLT panel to conceal the metal plates. Tight dowels or bolts could be used to attach the plates
to the CLT panel. However, precise CNC machining is required in some cases. Some innovative types of fasteners
that can be drilled through metal and wood (e.g. WF series of dowels from SFSIntec do not require any predrilling
or CNC machining) or other types of screws that can penetrate through both materials can also be used
for this purpose.
CLT Wall
Tight fit
dowels, SFS
dowels or
bolts
Metal plate
Anchor
bolts
Concrete footing
Figure 46

33
10-12-22 15:47
4.5.3
Metal Shafts
Another option for connecting CLT wall panels to concrete foundations is to use a hollow small diameter metal
tube/shaft with threaded ends (Figure 47). Holes are predrilled in the edge (narrow side) of the panel element to
accommodate the metal shaft, which is fixed inside the panel using small diameter dowels or bolts. Epoxy could
also be used to attach the metal shafts to the panel in the plant. The panels arrive at the construction site already
equipped with the shafts to minimize work on site. Threaded anchor bolts cast in the concrete foundations are
connected to the shafts threaded end using a nut adaptor. Usually, a small access hole in the panel is drilled to
enable connection between the adaptor and the threaded anchor bolt. A wooden cap is used to cover the access
hole and the shafts, making this a completely concealed, fire protected connection. The actual detail depends on
the magnitude of design service loads that the wall panel will resist and the panel configurations (such as window
and door openings).
CLT Wall
Tight fit
dowels or bolts
Tube with holes
Wood
cap
Adaptor
Anchor
bolt
Concrete footing
Figure 47
Metal shaft connection details

34
10-12-22 15:47
4.5.4
Threaded Rod/Screw
Like the metal shaft connection system, this system utilizes long threaded rods/screws similar to what is being
used for transverse reinforcement of large glulam beams/arches against tension stresses perpendicular to
the grain. One particular threaded rod/screw produced by SFSIntec, called Wood Bar, is suitable for this
application (Figure 48). The long threaded rod is screwed in the end grain of the panel element. The panels
arrive on site equipped with an adaptor. The installation process is similar to that described for the metal shaft
connection system.
CLT Wall
Threaded
rod
Wood
cap
Adaptor
Anchor
bolt
Concrete footing
Figure 48
Threaded rod/screw connection system

35
10-12-22 15:47
4.5.5
Wooden Profiles
Wooden profiles are commonly used in connecting structural insulated panels (SIP) and other types of
prefabricated wood-framed walls. It is important that such wooden profiles are fabricated from high density
and stable materials. Engineered wood products or hardwood can generally be used for this purpose. The major
advantage of this system is the ease of assembly. The wooden profiles are typically attached to CLT panels with
wood screws or self-tapping screws. Structural adhesives are also used, sometimes in combination with mechanical
fasteners since the wooden profile is installed in the plant. They are often used in combination with metal plates or
brackets to improve the lateral load resistance as can be seen in Figure 49. CNC machining is needed at the CLT
plant to produce the profiles in the panels. The use of wooden profiles is not limited only to wall to foundation
applications. They can also be used for wall-to-wall or floor-to-wall connections. The wooden profiles could take
several forms, as shown in Figure 49, to provide additional protection and reinforcement to the bottom edge
of the panel.
CLT Wall
CLT Wall
Wooden profile
(hardwood, LVL
or plywood)
Wooden profile
(hardwood, LVL
or plywood)
Screws
Screws
Metal
bracket
Anchor bolt
Concrete footing
Metal
bracket
Anchor bolt
Concrete footing
(a) (b)
Figure 49
Concealed (a) and exposed (b) wooden profiles

36
10-12-22 15:47
4.5.6
Alternative System
While this system is more suited for use in wall-to-wall connections, it may also be suitable for wall-to-foundation
connections. The connection between the concrete foundation and KNAPP bracket could be established through
lag screws or powder-actuated nails (Figure 50). It would be preferable to use galvanized components to prevent
corrosion as a result of water condensation at the interface with concrete.
CLT Wall
Knapp
female
Screws
Knapp
male
Concrete footing
Figure 50
KNAPP Gigant system

37
10-12-22 15:47
5
Connections in
Mixed Hybrid CLT
Construction
Details
Mixed systems using CLT with other types of wood-based materials such as glued-laminated timber (glulam)
are common. Those mixed systems are becoming increasingly popular in Europe as a way to optimize the
overall design by capitalizing on the positive attributes of the various products. Mixing CLT with other types of
construction materials such as concrete and masonry or mixing different types of structural forms is also common.
5.1
Mixed CLT with Other Wood-Based Materials and Systems

In CLT assemblies, mixing different wood-based materials and structural systems is done in such a way to optimize
the design and to meet certain performance requirements. Therefore, it is not unusual to combine CLT wall
assemblies with joisted floor systems using glulam, wood I-joists, metal plated wood trusses or other types of
engineered wood elements as the main floor support system, with either wood-based decking such as wood boards
or structural panels. The following provides a brief summary of potential structural forms where CLT and other
types of wood-based materials could be combined. Connection systems between those different materials
are described.
5.1.1
Platform Construction
For platform-type construction, the main structural supporting elements of the floor system rest on top of
the walls below. In mixed construction where walls are made of CLT panels, typical joisted floor system is placed
on top of those walls as can be seen in Figures 51 and 52.

38
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
Blocking
between
joists
Structural panel
Continuous
rimboard
CLT Wall screwed

through the
structural panel into
blocking
Screws
Joist
Self-tapping
screws
CLT Wall
Figure 51
CLT Wall I-joist (adapted from TRADA, 2009)
A combination of rimboard and blocking elements made of SCL such as PSL, LVL or LSL between joists is
generally used to ensure transfer of vertical loads from storeys above to the CLT wall below. Differential shrinkage
is not an issue here as next storey CLT walls are resting completely on the rimboard and the blocking elements.
Typical solid sawn lumber or SCL such as wood I-joists could be used as the main structural systems supporting
the subfloor. In the case of wood floor trusses, it is necessary to provide wood-based blocking to prevent localized
crushing of truss top chords and to have a uniform stress distribution along the wall perimeter (Figure 52).
The wood blocking should be made of SCL for better deformation properties and for dimensional stability.
Connection between walls above and below can be established using self-tapping screws driven at an angle
or through one of the alternative methods of fastening described above.

39
10-12-22 15:47
CLT Wall
Self-tapping
screws
Structural panel
Nails
CLT Wall screwed

through the
structural panel into
blocking
Blocking
between joists
top members
Joist
CLT Wall
Figure 52
CLT Wall Metal plated floor truss (adapted from TRADA 2009)
5.1.2
Balloon Construction
Mixed CLT construction could also be used in buildings with a balloon structural form. In this type of
construction, the joisted floor system which incorporates a variety of joist products such as sawn lumber, wood
I-joists, and SCL can be attached to the CLT walls using traditional metal hangers commonly used in light-frame
and heavy post-and-beam timber construction (Figures 53). The wall panels are continuous at the connection
between the floor system and the wall and it provides support to the floor system.
CLT Wall
Structural panel
Hanger
Joist
Figure 53
CLT Wall I-joist (adapted from TRADA 2009)

40
10-12-22 15:47
6
Designing
Connections in
Cross-Laminated
Timber

6.1
Why Connections in CLT are Different

than Those in Solid Timber or Glulam
CLT is usually made of laminated lumber boards along the strong axis of the panel and crosswise. The cross
lamination and the built-up nature of the panel, in addition to certain unique panel features such as edge-gluing
(or lack of it) and the presence of grooves sawn into the boards to relieve drying stresses, further complicate
the determination of the fastening capacity in CLT compared to traditional sawn solid lumber or SCL. Panels
from some manufacturers are produced with gaps between the longitudinal boards as big as 6 mm.
Figure 54
CLT panel section with gaps and grooves sawn in the timber to relieve shrinkage stresses
It is well established that the loading direction relative to the grain direction of wood affects the fastening capacity
when relatively large diameter fasteners (> 6 mm diameter) such as bolts, lag screws and large diameter long selfdrilling screws are used. The embedment strength of slender fasteners in wood such as nails and small wood screws
is less sensitive to grain direction. Timber design standards such as CSA O86-09 (CSA 2009) specifies different
embedment formulae for connections in timber loaded, either in the direction parallel or perpendicular to grain
for bolts and dowels exceeding 6 mm diameter. CLT manufacturers in Europe are well aware of the fastening issues
and rigorous testing programs were established to develop the fastening capacity in their products for different
dowel-type fasteners. Ultimately, embedment formulae specific to CLT panels need to be developed in order to
establish the lateral load resistance for fasteners such as screws, bolts and lag screws, taking into account the nature
of lamination, lay-up, species, edge-gluing or lack of it, and other panel specific features. Similarly, the withdrawal
resistance of fasteners such as screws and nails from the face and edges of the panel needs to be developed.

41
10-12-22 15:47
While yielding failure modes in accordance with European Yield Model (EYM) are the dominant type of failure
for slender type of fasteners in CLT (Figure 55), there is a potential for developing brittle failure modes in CLT
such as row shear, group tear-out, tension or splitting (Figure 56). However, it is less likely that such brittle failure
modes will develop with fasteners driven perpendicular to the plane of the panel. But with fasteners driven in
end grain, it is possible to trigger splitting due to tension stresses perpendicular to the grain in small thickness
panels when fasteners are loaded in shear. Therefore, there is a need to establish the conditions where brittle
failure modes may occur with large diameter fasteners used with CLT. According to tests conducted by Uibel
and Blass (2006) in Europe with dowels and screws loaded perpendicular to the plane of the panel, the
connections exhibited considerable ductility. Even when plug shear or splitting occurred in the outer layers, the
load remained at the same level or showed a localized marginal drop. This could be attributed to the reinforcement
effect provided by cross lamination in CLT. However, this finding is limited to the tested configurations.
Figure 55
Ductile failure modes experienced during testing of self-tapping screws
in CLT half-lapped connections
6.2
Current European Design Approach for Connections in CLT

Extensive research has been conducted in Europe to evaluate the fastening capacity of different types of fasteners
in CLT. Comprehensive research on the fastening capacity of CLT connections was conducted by Uibel and
Blass (2006, 2007). The shear capacity of traditional fasteners in CLT was studied by the authors with the intent
of developing a calculation methodology to establish the load carrying capacity of connections with dowel-type
fasteners in the direction perpendicular to the CLT panel and on their narrow side (i.e. edge joints). Embedment
tests were conducted using different types of CLT products and dowel-type fasteners. Empirical models expressed
as a function of the fastener diameter, wood density and loading angle relative to the grain direction of the surface
lamina were developed based on test results to establish the embedment strength under lateral loading. Different
models were developed for each of the different types of dowel-type fasteners (i.e. nails, screws and dowels). Once
the embedment strength properties were established, the load carrying capacity in accordance to Johansens yield
model (EYM) could be determined. However, the validity of these models was limited to a maximum thickness
of lamina and thickness ratio of the longitudinal and cross layers (Uibel and Blass, 2006).
Withdrawal strength of self-tapping screws, typically used in connecting CLT panels perpendicular to the plane
of the panel or in the panel edges, was also investigated by Uibel and Blass (2007). The withdrawal resistance
was derived from tests using self-tapping screws with diameters ranging from 6 mm to 12 mm. The location of
the screws was selected in such a way to have them installed at the joint between two boards within a lamina,
or between one lamina and another. The derived withdrawal resistance was expressed as a function of the screw
diameter, wood density and the screw point side length of penetration. It is important to note that when the
withdrawal capacity of a fastener is determined in the narrow side of panel, the input characteristic density value
should be that of the lamina/ply in which the fastener is driven, not that of the whole panel. Validation tests were
performed and a reasonable correlation was found between tests and predictions. The tests were also used to

42
10-12-22 15:47
rationalize the required spacing and end and edge distances. However, a more generalized and simplified approach
using the overall panel density would be recommended. Long-term lateral and withdrawal tests using self-tapping
screws in end joints are being conducted by the authors to determine the long-term behaviour under changing
environmental conditions. However, no results have been published yet.
6.3
6.3.1
Could CSA O86 Design Provisions be used for Design

of Connections in CLT?
Current Design Philosophy for Dowel-Type Fasteners in CSA O86-09
The design methods for timber connections should be able to capture all potential failure mechanisms that can
occur and be able to assign strength and deformation capacities to any of these failure modes. Fortunately, recent
editions of the Canadian timber design code Engineering Design in Wood (CSA O86-09) provides a design
methodology for bolted and dowelled connections that gives designers control over the type of failure mode the
connections will experience at the design stage. The designer needs to verify both the yielding (ductile) and the
brittle capacities of the connection, and the minimum of the two controls the design value. The yielding failure
modes are based on Johansens Yield Equation Model (sometimes referred to as the European Yield Model,
EYM), where ductile failure modes could occur due to the crushing of the wood in bearing and/or yielding
of the fastener. Typical brittle failure modes in heavy timber construction include: row shear, group tear-out,
tension at the reduced section (i.e. where bolt holes are drilled), and splitting for loading perpendicular to grain
(Figure 56). Detailed information on these types of brittle failure in bolted and dowel-type timber connections
can be found in Quenneville and Mohammad (2000).

43
10-12-22 15:47
Pf
Row Shear
Pf
Pf
Group Tear-out
Net Tension
Nf
Qf
Splitting
Bearing
Figure 56
Possible failure modes in traditional solid timber or glued laminated timber
Generally, the type of failure mode that a timber connection with a dowel-type fastener could experience
depends on several parameters including:
c onnection geometry (loaded and unloaded end and edge distances, row and bolt spacing,
type of connection);
wood member thicknesses;
fastener diameter and yield strength;
wood basic mechanical and physical properties; and
loading direction relative to grain orientation.
Ductile failure modes in CSA O86-09 are expressed as a function of the embedment strength of the mechanical
fastener or dowel in the side or main wood-based member and in the steel side plates, the yielding strength of
the fastener, members thicknesses and fastener diameter. Embedment formulae based on extensive research by
European and North American researchers were developed for the different types of wood-based materials and
loading directions relative to grain. Embedment strength formulae for wood-based connection members in
CSA O86-09 are usually given as a function of wood-based material density and fastener diameter. Most of design

44
10-12-22 15:47
provisions in timber design standards such as the National Design Specification (NDS) (AF&PA 2006) for timber
construction in the USA and Eurocode 5 (EN 2004) adopt the European Yield Model concept for the design of
dowel-type connections in timber. One set of embedment equations are typically given for slender fasteners such
as nails and wood screws for both loading directions (i.e. parallel and perpendicular to grain). However, for large
diameter fasteners, two sets of embedment equations are provided.
Transition from one failure mode to another at the design stage could be achieved through the choice that the
designer makes regarding one or a combination of the above parameters. For example, smaller loaded end and edge
distances and spacing between fasteners in a row and between rows will most likely trigger brittle failure modes.
Therefore, if designers would like to maximize the connection ductility, it is important to maximize loaded end
and edge distances and fasteners spacing and/or to use a large slenderness ratio if possible. The type of brittle
failure mode (such as row shear or group tear-out) for a connection with multiple rows is mostly determined by
the row spacing and the spacing of fasteners in a row. Smaller row spacing will result in a situation where group
tear-out capacity will govern. However, larger row spacing will increase the group tear-out capacity and trigger
a row shear failure mode. The designers can modify their connection configuration to give the desired balance
between ductility, and capacity.
6.4
Application of Current CSA O86-09 Design Provisions

to Connections in CLT
Similar to some modern SCL products such as LSL, PSL and LVL with cross layers, which have fully or partially
cross-aligned wafers or strands that can overcome the traditional problems associated with splitting of the wood,
CLT has a more favourable ability to resist splitting in simple lap joint applications due to the cross lamination.
Therefore, it is generally expected that higher capacity for splitting could be achieved in CLT compared to
solid timber.
Within the context of CSA O86, if the embedment strength properties of dowel-type fasteners are established
in CLT in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the panel and in the narrow side (edge), then it would
be possible to evaluate the ductile lateral capacity in this product following current design provisions in
CSA O86-09. Yield model equations as given in CSA O86-09 would be applicable. However, due to the grain
orientation relative to the load, it would be necessary to incorporate the proper embedment strength properties/
equations for parallel and perpendicular layers in those equations. While a single set of embedment equations will
suffice for slender type dowel fasteners ( 6 mm) for both parallel and cross layers, separate embedment equations
will be needed for large diameter dowel type fasteners. In CSA O86-09, two sets of embedment equations are
given for large fasteners loaded parallel or perpendicular to the loading direction. The modified yield equations
will take care of the layer orientation and the relative thickness of the layers. A calculation procedure/model has
been proposed by Uibel and Blass (2006) to determine the load carrying capacity of dowels in a steel-to-solidwood-panel connection with an inner steel plate. While direct substitution for embedment properties equations
derived for the parallel and cross layers can be made for ductile failure modes (i.e. failure modes a, b and c in
CSA O86-09) that involve crushing of wood, the failure modes where plastic hinges are developed require further
analysis (e.g. failure modes d, e, f and g).
Connection configuration and geometry that governs the ductile capacities of connections in CLT for doweltype fasteners need to be established as well. This includes end and edge distances, fastener type, row spacing
and slenderness ratio. Depending on the type of dowel fasteners, it is expected that, as a minimum, the current
minimum requirements for end and edge distances and for fasteners and row spacing in solid sawn lumber and
glulam, as given in CSA O86-09, could be applicable to CLT for the relevant dowel-type fasteners such as nails,
wood screws, lag bolts and lag screws. Attention should be given, however, to specific CLT panel features that
could affect the connection capacity such as gaps and grooves, which may reduce the embedment strength due
to localized weaknesses consecutive to those fabrication features, as discussed above.

45
10-12-22 15:47
Currently, long self-tapping screws (commonly used in Europe for the assembly of CLT panels) with diameters
greater than 6 mm are not covered under the current design provisions in CSA O86-09. However, the ductile
lateral resistance of bolts, lag screws, wood screws (up to 6 mm diameter), nails and rivets in CLT can be designed
following the existing provisions, provided the appropriate embedment strength properties of such fasteners
in CLT are established. Laterally loaded fasteners that do not bear on the full cross-section of the CLT have a
potential for brittle failure. For example, a group of connectors at the end of a face ply that is not edge-glued will
need to rely on transferring the tension force into the CLT panel by rolling shear (Figure 57). As discussed above,
design provisions for brittle failure modes in CLT are beyond the scope of this chapter. Until recently, no studies
that focus on the brittle behaviour of fasteners in CLT have been conducted. This is a potential research topic
in the future.
Figure 57
Possible brittle failure mode in CLT connections with glulam rivets
6.4.1
Design for the Lateral Load Resistance of Bolts and Dowels in CLT
Although bolts and dowels are not as commonly used in CLT assemblies compared to assemblies made with
glulam or other wood-based products, there is still a need to provide some guidance to designers who may choose
these types of fasteners for connections in CLT. This section is focused mainly on the design for the ductile lateral
resistance of bolts and dowels in the current Canadian timber design standard (CSA O86-09).
6.4.1.1 Embedment of Doweled and Bolted Connections Perpendicular to the Plane of CLT Panel
Two embedment models were developed by Uibel and Blass using a multiple regression analysis on 438 test
results for dowels installed perpendicular to the plane of the panel and loaded at different directions with
respect to the panel strong axis and at different positions of the fastener in the plane of the CLT panel.
The first model shown in equation [1] is quite general and is independent of the type of lay-up of the panel. The
model is expressed as a function of the fastener diameter, overall wood density of the panel and loading direction
with respect to the strong axis of the panel (i.e. grain direction of the surface layers of the CLT panel).

46
10-12-22 15:47
[1]

where,
fh,pred =
d =
=
=
predicted embedment strength (N/mm)

fastener diameter (mm)
average density of main member, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
angle between load and grain direction of the outer layer
The second model shown in equation [2], however, is panel build-up specific and has the following form:
[2]
where,
fh,pred
d

t0,i ; t90,i
t
= predicted embedment strength (N/mm)

= fastener diameter (mm)
= average density of main member, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
= angle between load and grain direction of the outer layer
= thickness of each layer (i.e. with t0 being the thickness of individual layers orientated parallel
to the outer layers and t90 the thickness of transverse layers) (mm)
= panel thickness (mm)
The validity of the two models, however, is limited to the maximum thickness of a single layer not exceeding
40 mm and the ratio of the thicknesses of the longitudinal and cross laminate being between 0.95 and 2.1.
Designers should be cautious when using these models.
The proposed equation by Uibel and Blass (2006) to establish the characteristic embedment strength of dowels
in CLT on the basis of equation [1] is given below in equation [3]:
[3]

where,
fh,k
d
k

=
=
=
=
characteristic embedment strength (N/mm)

dowel diameter (mm)
characteristic density of cross laminated timber panels, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
angle between load and grain direction of the outer layer

47
10-12-22 15:47
This embedment equation is approximately equivalent to the embedment equations given in CSA O86-09,
except that a duration of load factor of 0.8 needs to be applied to convert from short-term to standard-term
duration to be in line with the CSA O86 design procedure. The 0.8 factor is typically applied for all wood-based
products in CSA O86-09, including glulam. There could be a need to validate this factor for connections in
CLT. Current service conditions factor, duration of load factor and treatment factors (KSF, KD and KT) as given
in clauses 4.3.2, 10.2.1.5 and 10.2.1.7 of CSA O86-09, may be used provided that some conservatism is taken
into account due to the lack of research to support the adoption of those factors for CLT. Once the specified
embedment equations are established for bolts and dowels in CLT, then the unit lateral yielding resistance
of each type of fastener can be calculated as per CSA O86-09.
6.4.1.2 Embedment of Doweled and Bolted Connections in the Narrow Side (On Edge)
For situations where bolts or dowels are installed in the narrow side of the CLT panel (e.g., corner connection
between wall panels at right angles as shown in Figure 58), the equation proposed by Uibel and Blass (2007) for
calculating the characteristic embedment strength of dowels and bolts can be used. As with equations [1] to [3],
the new expression is empirical and was developed based on a large number of tests using multiple regression
analysis. Over 100 embedment tests for dowels installed in different positions and loaded either parallel or
perpendicular to the grain of the lamina were used in deriving the proposed equation. The equation is expressed
as a function of the dowel diameter and density of the relevant layer(s) in which the dowel is driven, as shown
in equation [4]:
[4]

where,
fh,k = characteristic embedment strength (N/mm)
d = fastener diameter (mm)
ply,k = characteristic density of relevant layers, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
It should be noted that, if the panel is made from materials of uniform density, then the overall density
of the panel in the vicinity of the dowel could be used in equation [4] for simplicity.
Figure 58
Opened connection with dowels in cross-laminated timber (courtesy of Uibel and Blass, 2007)
6.4.2
Lateral Load Resistance of Screws and Nails in CLT
6.4.2.1 Embedment of Nails and Screws Perpendicular to the Plane of CLT Panel
The new design provisions for nails and wood screws in CSA O86-09 provide a methodology to calculate the
lateral resistance based on the specified embedment properties of nails and wood screws in wood-based products.
Once the specified embedment strength is known, then the unit lateral capacity of the connections in CLT can
be calculated.

48
10-12-22 15:47
Characteristic embedment equations for nails of 4.2 mm and screws up to 12 mm in diameter were developed
by Uibel and Blass (2006) with fasteners installed in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the panel.
The equation is specific to the panel lay-up as it is expressed as a function of the density of the layer in which
the fastener is placed, as shown in equation [5]:
[5]

where,

k = characteristic density of cross-laminated timber panels, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
A simplified form could be used as a substitute for equation [5] if a uniform density is used in the analysis.
The validity of this equation, however, is limited to CLT panels with layers of 7 mm thickness or less (Uibel and
Blass, 2006). More work is needed to develop a more generalized expression for the determination of embedment
properties for CLT panels made of thicker lamina. Note that the proposed characteristic embedment equation
is independent of the loading direction with respect to the grain orientation of the layers.
6.4.2.2 Embedment of Nails and Screws in the Narrow Side of CLT Panels (On Edge)
Embedment equations to calculate the embedment strength of screws and nails on the narrow side of CLT panels
were also developed in Europe. Equation [6] below has been proposed by Uibel and Blass (2007):
[6]

where,
ply,k = characteristic density of relevant layers, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
6.4.3
Design for the Withdrawal Resistance of Screws in CLT

Withdrawal resistance tests of self-tapping screws in CLT driven perpendicular to the plane of the panel and
on edge (in the narrow side) were conducted in Europe, with screws driven at different locations (Uibel and Blass,
2007). Screws were placed at different positions to capture the effect of gaps (i.e. screws driven in gaps or away
from gaps). Based on tests results, equations were developed and proposed for the calculation of the characteristic
withdrawal resistance of self-tapping screws in CLT, which has the following form:
[7]

where:
Rax,s,k = characteristic withdrawal capacity (N)

lef = effective point-side penetration length (i.e. length of the threaded part minus one screw diameter) (mm)
k = characteristic density of CLT panel (whole cross-section) for fasteners driven perpendicular to the plane
of the panel or density of relevant layers for fasteners driven on edge (kg/m)
= angle between screw axis and CLT grain direction (equals to 90 in the plane of the panel or 0 in joints
on the narrow sidei.e. edge joints)

49
10-12-22 15:47
It should be mentioned, however, that the expression given in equation [7] is limited to self-tapping screws and
valid only when the characteristic withdrawal strength in solid wood exceeds the following:
[8]

where:
fax,k = characteristic withdrawal strength (N/mm)
k = characteristic density of solid wood, based on dry weight and volume basis (kg/m)
This requirement needs to be verified and modifications are expected in order to develop a more
generalized expression.
6.4.4
Placement of Fasteners in Joints
a4
,c
a4
,c
,c
a4
,
a4 c
Minimum requirements are given in CSA O86-09 for loaded end and edge distances, fastener spacing in a row and
spacing between rows of fasteners for a variety of traditional fasteners such as bolts, lag screws, nails, wood screws
and glulam rivets in solid sawn timber and glulam. While these requirements could be applied conservatively to
fasteners driven or placed in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the CLT panel (as discussed above), they
may not necessarily be applicable to fasteners placed in the narrow side (on edge) of the panel. Generally, spacing
and end distances are less critical for fasteners placed perpendicular to the plane of the CLT panel due to cross
laminations which tend to reinforce the section (as discussed above).
a3,t
a3,c
a1
a3,t
a3,c
F
ti
tCLT
ti
tCLT
Figure 59
Recommended end and edge distances and spacing for dowel-type fasteners
(adapted from Uibel and Blass, 2007)

50
10-12-22 15:47
Table 1
Recommended end and edge distances for dowel-type fasteners (adapted from Uibel and Blass, 2007)
Type of fastener
Spacings
Self-tapping screws
Dowels
a1
10 d
4d
a2
3d
4d
a3,t
12 d
5d
a3,c
7d
3d
a4,c
5d
3d
Realizing the importance of investigating the required end distances and spacing for fasteners driven or placed
on edge, European researchers have developed some minimum requirements for placement of mainly self-tapping
screws and dowels in CLT panels. This was done to avoid premature splitting and ensure that full bearing capacity
of the dowels in the CLT is achieved. This is critical for CLT panels when they are connected at right angles
(e.g. floor-to-wall or wall-to-wall corner connections) and fasteners are driven in the narrow side (on edge) of
one panel. In such situations, the fastener may tend to force fibres or plies apart across the panel thickness due
to excessive tension perpendicular to grain stresses. This could trigger premature splitting in the vicinity of the
fastener, thereby weakening the connection. Recommended end and edge distances and spacing for self-tapping
screws and dowels placed on edge in wall panels are given in Figure 59, based on European research.
6.4.5
Detailing of Connections in CLT

In detailing and optimizing connections in CLT, it is important to consider not only the strength and stiffness
performance of the connection system, but other performance attributes such as fire, sound insulation, air
tightness, durability and vibration. Typically, sealant and other types of membranes are used to provide air
tightness and improve sound insulation at the interfaces between the floor and wall plates (Figure 60). Shrinkage
and swelling in CLT due to seasonal changes in the ambient environmental conditions need to be taken into
account when designing connections. This is particularly important when other sealant products and membranes
are incorporated as that might compromise the effectiveness of such products. Differential movement between
CLT and other wood-based products or materials (in case of mixed materials and systems) need to be taken into
account at the design and detailing stages due to potential shrinkage-induced stress that could undermine the
connection capacity in CLT. Future versions of this chapter will provide more details and guidelines related
to detailing.
Figure 60
Acoustic membrane inserted between walls and floors to provide air tightness (in exterior walls)
and improve sound insulation

51
10-12-22 15:47
7
Conclusion
Connections in timber construction, including those built with CLT, play an important role in maintaining
the integrity of the timber structure and in providing strength, stiffness, stability and ductility. Consequently,
they require detailed attention by designers.
Traditional and innovative connection systems have been used in CLT assemblies in Europe. Several types
of such connection systems for connecting CLT panels to panels, walls to walls and walls to floors are described
in detail in this chapter. They are mostly based on the European experience since there is currently no CLT
production in Canada or North America at the time of writing this chapter.
Researchers in Europe have developed design procedures for traditional connections in CLT, including dowels,
wood screws and nails which are commonly used in Europe for designing CLT assemblies. The proposed design
procedure deals only with ductile failure modes to determine the lateral load resistance of such connections.
Expressions were developed for the calculation of characteristic embedment properties of each type of fastener,
depending on its location with respect to the plane of the panel (perpendicular to or on edge). The expressions
were verified and results seem to correspond well with predictions. European Yield Model (EYM) equations for
ductile failure modes as given in Eurocode 5 were adopted for design using CLT fastener embedment equations.
Information on the applicability of the proposed design approach from Europe to traditional connection systems
in CLT are presented in this chapter. It is believed that once the embedment properties of such fasteners in CLT
are established, it will be possible to apply the current ductile design provisions in CSA O86-09. Due to the
reinforcing effect of cross lamination in CLT, it is speculated that current minimum geometric requirements given
in CSA O86-09 for dowels, screws and nails in solid timber or glulam are applicable to CLT. However, designers
need to be cautious about this as further verification is required, considering the specific features of each panel
(no generic CLT panels have been produced yet in Canada). Brittle failure modes also need to be taken into
account and have not been investigated yet. Further work is needed to verify possible brittle failure modes
associated with each type of fasteners in CLT connections.

52
10-12-22 15:47
8
References
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 2006. National design specification (NDS) for wood construction
with commentary and supplement, 2005 edition. Washington, DC: AF&PA. 174 p.
Augustin, M., ed. 2008. Timber structures. Handbook 1 of Educational materials for designing and testing of
timber structures: TEMTIS. Leonardo da Vinci Pilot Project No. CZ/06/B/F/PP/168007. Ostrava, Czech
Republic: VSB - Technical University of Ostrava. 250 p.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09.
Rexdale, ON: CSA. 222 p.
Common rules and rules for buildings. EN 1995-1-1. Brussels: CEN. 124 p.
Quenneville, J.H.P., and M. Mohammad. 2000. On the failure modes and strength of steel-wood-steel bolted
timber connections loaded parallel-to-grain. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27:761-773.
TRADA. 2009. Cross laminated timber: Structural principles. High Wycombe, UK: TRADA. 8 p.
Traetta, G. 2007. Connection techniques for CLT elements. Paper presented at the TEMTIS Austrian Country
Seminar: Cross Laminated Timber, Graz, Austria.
Uibel, T., and H. J. Blass. 2006. Load carrying capacity of joints with dowel type fasteners in solid wood panels.
Paper presented at the 39th meeting of the Working Commission W18Timber Structures, International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Florence, Italy, August 2006.
_________. 2007. Edge joints with dowel type fasteners in cross laminated timber. Paper presented at
the 40th meeting of the Working Commission W18Timber Structures, International Council for Research
and Innovation in Building and Construction, Bled, Slovenia, August 2007.

53
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:47
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:47
Duration of load and creep factors for

cross-laminated timber panels
CHAPTER
Authors
Ciprian Pirvu, Ph.D., FPInnovations
Erol Karacabeyli, P.Eng., FPInnovations
Dr.techn. Gerhard Schickhofer, Graz University of Technology, Austria

Peer Reviewers
Ghasan Doudak, Ph.D., P.Eng., University of Ottawa
Paul Jaehrlich, P.Eng., CertiWood Technical Centre
10-12-22 15:47
Acknowledgements
10-12-22 15:47
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) products are used as load-carrying slab and wall elements in structural systems,
thus load duration and creep behaviour are critical characteristics that should be taken into account in design.
Given the nature of CLT with orthogonal arrangement of layers and either mechanically fastened with nails
or wood dowels, or bonded with structural adhesive, CLT is more prone to time-dependent deformations under
load (creep) than other engineered wood products such as glued-laminated timber.
Time-dependent behaviour of structural wood products is accounted for in design standards by providing load
duration factors to adjust specified strengths. Since the Canadian Standard on Engineering Design in Wood
(CSA O86-09) does not deal with CLT, it does not provide load duration and service condition factors. Until
this can be rectified, two options are proposed for adopters of CLT systems in Canada. These include not only
load duration and service factors, but also an approach to accounting for creep in CLT structural elements.
The proposed recommendations are in line with the specifications in CSA O86-09 and Canadian National
Building Code.
ChapTER 6 DOL and Creep

iii
10-12-22 15:47
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
1
Overview 1
Duration of Load and Creep Effects in Canadian Codes and Standards 2
2.1 Load Duration Factor in CSA O86-09 2

2.2 Service Condition Factor in CSA O86-09 3
3
Duration of Load and Creep Effects in European Codes and Standards 5
3.1 Strength Modification Factor in EN 1995-1-1 6

3.2 Deformation Modification Factor in EN 1995-1-1 7
4
Duration of Load and Creep Effects of CLT 8
4.1 European Approach 8

4.2 Options for a Canadian Approach 9
5
Modification Factors for Connections used in CLT Buildings 10
Product-Specific Parameters that May Affect Duration of Load and Creep Effects of CLT 11
6.1 Adhesives 11
6.2 Edge-Gluing and Width-to-Thickness Ratio 11
6.3 Release Grooves 12
6.4 Nails or Wooden Dowels in Non-adhesively Bonded CLT Products 12
7
Proposed Canadian Approach for Using Load Duration and Creep Factors in CLT Design 13
7.1 Ultimate Limit State 13

7.2 Serviceability Limit State 14

7.2.1
Deflection 14

7.2.2
Floor Vibration 14
References 15

iv
10-12-22 15:47
List of Tables
Table 1
Load duration factor, KD (Table 4.3.2.2, CSA O86-09) 2
Table 2
Service condition factor, KS, for glued-laminated timber (Table 6.4.2, CSA O86-09) 3
Table 3
Service condition factor, KS, for plywood (Table 7.4.2, CSA O86-09) 4
Table 4
Load duration classes (Table 2.1, EN 1995-1-1) 5
Table 5
Service classes (Clause 2.3.1.3, EN 1995-1-1) 6
Table 6
Strength modification factor, kmod (Table 3.1, EN 1995-1-1) 6
Table 7
Deformation modification factor, kdef (Table 3.2, EN 1995-1-1) 7
Table 8
Deformation modification factor, kdef, adjusted to CLT (based on recommendations

of Jbstl and Schickhofer - 2007) 9

v
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:47
1
Overview
This chapter aims to describe how the duration of load1 and creep2 effects of wood are taken into account in design
of wood structures, when the design is carried out in accordance with the current Canadian and European Timber
Design Standards. Moreover, since CLT is not covered by the Canadian Standard on Engineering Design in
Wood, the intent is to recommend a suitable approach for Canadian users of CLT at this time to account for
the duration of load and creep effects in the design of CLT.
Load duration is defined as the duration of continuing application of a load or a series of periods of intermittent applications
of the same load type (CSA O86-09, 2009).
Creep is defined as an increase in deformation of a material in time under constant loading.

1
10-12-22 15:47
2
Duration of
Load and Creep
Effects in
Canadian Codes
and Standards
The current United States standard for the evaluation of duration of load and creep effects (ASTM D 6815, 2002)
is a pass/fail procedure and, at the moment, does not provide a method for calculation of duration of load or creep
factors. This standard was developed for the evaluation of engineered wood products, but it would not be practical
to carry out ASTM D 6815 tests on full-size CLT specimens as it cannot lead to duration of load and creep factors
specific to CLT. The Canadian Standard on Engineering Design in Wood (CSA O86-09, 2009) takes into account
duration of load categories (that account for the dependency of wood on duration of applied load); however, it
does not include the effect of service class on the duration of applied load (that allows for sensitivity of wood to
moisture content variations and its consequent effect on creep and, typically, referred to as the mechano-sorptive
effect of wood).
2.1
Load Duration Factor in CSA O86-09

A load duration factor, KD, is specified in Clause 4.3.2 of CSA O86-09 for three load categories: short term,
standard term, and long term loading. The short term category allows up to seven days of continuous or
cumulative loading throughout the life of the structure, while the long term category implies more or less
continuous loading during the intended life of the structure. Duration of load in the standard term (e.g. snow and
occupancy loads) falls between that of short term and long term. The capacity design values in CSA O86-09 are
given for standard term load duration. The load duration factors are given in Table 1.
Table 1
Load duration factor, KD (Table 4.3.2.2, CSA O86-09)
Duration of Loading
KD
Short term
1.15
Standard term
1.00
Long term
0.65

2
10-12-22 15:47
Clause 4.3.2.3 of CSA O86-09 provides an equation for calculating the duration of load factor when the specified
long term load, PL, is greater than the specified standard term load, PS. In this case, the long term load factor may
be used or the load duration factor may be calculated as follows:
KD = 1.0 0.50 log (PL/PS) 0.65 [1]
where,
PL = specified long term load
PS = specified standard term load based on S and L loads acting alone or in combination = S, L, S+0.5L,
or 0.5S+L, determined using importance factors equal to 1.0
The load duration factors, as indicated above, are used to adjust the specified strength of lumber, wood-based
products including glued-laminated timber and plywood, and connections capacity. The specified strength of
a structural element is multiplied by a load duration factor according to Clause 4.3.2 of CSA O86-09.
2.2
Service Condition Factor in CSA O86-09

CSA O86-09 defines dry service as a climatic condition in which the average equilibrium moisture content
over a year is 15% or less and does not exceed 19%. To deal with service conditions other than dry, CSA O86-09
provides service condition factors, KS. The strength specified by CSA O86-09 for the product is multiplied by
the appropriate service condition factor. Service condition factors for glued-laminated timber are shown in
Table 2, while those for plywood are given in Table 3.
Table 2
Service condition factor, KS, for glued-laminated timber (Table 6.4.2, CSA O86-09)
Glued-Laminated Timber
KS
For Specified Strength in:

Dry Service Conditions
Wet Service Conditions
KSb
Bending at extreme fibre
1.00
0.80
KSv
Longitudinal shear
1.00
0.87
KSc
Compression parallel to grain
1.00
0.75
KScp
Compression perpendicular to grain
1.00
0.67
KSt
Tension parallel to grain
1.00
0.75
KStp
Tension perpendicular to grain
1.00
0.85
K SE
Modulus of elasticity
1.00
0.90

3
10-12-22 15:47
Table 3
Service condition factor, KS, for plywood (Table 7.4.2, CSA O86-09)
Plywood
Property to be Modified
Dry Service Conditions
Wet Service Conditions
Specified strength capacity
1.00
0.80
Specified stiffness and rigidity capacities
1.00
0.85
The service condition factors, as indicated above, are used to adjust the specified strength of lumber and woodbased products. The specified strength of a product used in wet service conditions is multiplied by the appropriate
service condition factor tabulated in CSA O86-09.

4
10-12-22 15:47
3
Duration of Load
and Creep Effects
in European Codes
and Standards
The current European approach takes into account the duration of load and creep effects by introducing load
duration classes associated with accumulated duration of load. The load duration and creep factors take into
account duration of load classes and service classes, and they are product specific. The main factors affecting
creep of solid wood-based products include the magnitude, type and duration of load, moisture content and
temperature. Interactions occur among all factors, but only the combined effects of load duration and moisture
content are taken into account in the design rules specified in Eurocode 5 - Design of Timber Structures,
EN 1995-1-1 (Eurocode 5, 2004), which provides load duration classes and modification factors for service classes
that are used in the design of structures. Load duration classes are shown in Table 4, while service classes are shown
in Table 5.
Table 4
Load duration classes (Table 2.1, EN 1995-1-1)
Accumulated Duration of Load
Load Duration Class
Permanent
> 10 years
Long
g term
6 months - 10 years
Medium term
1 week - 6 months
Short term
< 1 week
Instantaneous
N/A
Note: Standard term for load duration factor in CSA O86-09 exceeds 7 days but it is less than almost
continuous loading throughout the life of the structure.

5
10-12-22 15:47
Table 5
Service classes (Clause 2.3.1.3, EN 1995-1-1)
Service Class
Climatic Condition
Service class 1
Moisture content (MC) of material @ 20C and > 65% relative humidity (RH)
for a few weeks per year (softwood timber MC < 12%; panels MC < 8%)
Service class 2
Moisture content (MC) of material @ 20C and > 85% relative humidity (RH)
for a few weeks per year (softwood timber MC < 20%; panels MC < 15%)
Service class 3
Condition leading to higher MC than Service class 2

(softwood timber MC > 20%; panels MC > 15%)
Note: CSA O86-09 defines dry service conditions as climatic conditions at which MC of solid wood is less
than 19% per year (equilibrium MC 15%). Wet service conditions correspond to all conditions other than dry.
3.1
Strength Modification Factor in EN 1995-1-1

Product-specific strength modification factors, kmod, for service classes and load duration classes are given in
Table 6. Note that design strength and capacity values are based on tests to failure in 52 minutes, and they are
similar for glued-laminated timber and plywood.
Table 6
Strength modification factor, kmod (Table 3.1, EN 1995-1-1)
Material/Load Duration Class
Service Class 1
Service Class 2
Service Class 3
Glued-Laminated Timber
Permanent
0.60
0.60
0.50
Long term
0.70
0.70
0.55
Medium term
0.80
0.80
0.65
Short term
0.90
0.90
0.70
Instantaneous
1.10
1.10
0.90
Plywood
Permanent
0.60
0.60
0.50
Long term
0.70
0.70
0.55
Medium term
0.80
0.80
0.65
Short term
0.90
0.90
0.70
Instantaneous
1.10
1.10
0.90
Notes:
1
Plywood classified in accordance to Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of EN 636 may be used under Service Class 1;
plywood classified in accordance to Part 2 and Part 3 of EN 636 may be used under Service Class 2; and plywood
classified in accordance to Part 3 of EN 636 may be used under Service Class 3. Additional information about
the three plywood categories is given in Table 7.
6
10-12-22 15:47
3.2
Deformation Modification Factor in EN 1995-1-1

Deformation factor or creep factor, kdef, takes into account creep deformation for the relevant service classes,
and is shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Deformation modification factor, kdef (Table 3.2, EN 1995-1-1)
Material (Standard)
Service Class 1
Service Class 2
Service Class 3
Solid timber 1 (EN 14081-1)
0.60
0.80
2.00
Glued-laminated timber (EN 14080)
0.60
0.80
2.00
Plywood (EN 636 2 )

Part 1
0.80
Part 2
0.80
1.00
Part 3
0.80
1.00
2.50
Notes:
1
kdef is to be increased by 1.00 for timber near saturation point which is likely to dry out under load;
2
The 1997 edition of EN 636 classified plywood in the following three categories:
Part 1: Plywood manufactured for use in DRY conditions = interior applications with no risk of wetting, defined
in hazard class 1, with a moisture content (MC) corresponding to environmental conditions of 20C and 65% RH
(12% MC or less).
Part 2: Plywood manufactured for use in HUMID conditions = protected exterior applications as defined in
hazard class 2, with a MC corresponding to environmental conditions of 20C and 90% RH (20% MC or less).
Part 3: Plywood manufactured for use in EXTERIOR conditions = unprotected external applications, as defined
in hazard class 3, where the MC will frequently be above 20%.
The latest version of EN 636 (2003) integrates the three separate parts for plywood for use in dry conditions
(EN 636-1:1997), humid conditions (EN 636-2:1997) and exterior conditions (EN 636-3:1997), and supersedes
the 1997 editions.

7
10-12-22 15:47
4
Duration of
Load and Creep
Effects of CLT
4.1
European Approach
Material properties including duration of load and creep factors for CLT are not specified in Eurocode 5 because
of the proprietary nature of these products in Europe. However, CLT is covered in some national building codes
such as DIN 1052 (Design of Timber Structures, Germany) and SIA 265 (Timber section of the Swiss Building
Code). Engineers in Europe use allowable design values indicated in product catalogues which are made available
by the CLT manufacturers to design CLT structures, and obtain special approvals from local building officials.
Research conducted at Graz University of Technology in Austria concluded that long term behaviour of CLT
products is more likely comparable with that of other cross-laminated wood-based products (such as plywood)
as opposed to products laminated unidirectionally (such as glued-laminated timber) ( Jbstl and Schickhofer,
2007). The authors reported 30%-40% larger creep values for CLT compared to glued-laminated timber after
one year loading in bending, which is attributed to crosswise layers in CLT. Using the deformation factor obtained
for 5-layer CLT, the authors derived the deformation factors for CLT products ranging from 3-layer to 19-layer,
and recommended using the deformation factor for plywood for CLT with more than 9 layers, and increase
the deformation factor for plywood by 10% for CLT with 7 layers or less.
In Eurocode 5, the final deformation is calculated for the quasi-permanent3 combination of actions. Assuming
a linear relationship between the loads and the corresponding deformations, the final deformation (ufin) may be
calculated as a sum of the final deformation due to permanent loads (ufin,P), the final deformation due to the
main live loads (ufin,Q1), and the final deformation due to accompanying live loads (ufin,Qi) (Clause 2.2.3(5)
of EN 1995-1-1).
ufin,P
= uinst,P (1 + kdef)
-- for permanent loads, P
[2]
ufin,Q,1
= uinst,Q,1 (1 + 2,1kdef)
-- for main live loads, Q1 [3]
ufin,Q,i
= uinst,Q,i (0,i + 2,ikdef)
-- for accompanying live loads, Qi (i>1)
[4]
uinst,P, uinst,Q,1, uinst,Q,i = instantaneous deformations for loads P, Q1, Qi, respectively
where,
2,1, 2,i = factors for the quasi-permanent value of live loads;
0,i = factors for the combination value of live loads;
kdef
= deformation factor.
Quasi-permanent combination is used mainly to take into account

long term effects.

8
10-12-22 15:47
4.2
Options for a Canadian Approach

Since CSA O86-09 does not deal with CLT, it does not provide load duration and service condition factors.
Until this can be rectified, two options are proposed for adopters of CLT systems in Canada. These include not
only load duration and service factors, but also an approach to accounting for creep in CLT structural elements.
1) Option I (Consistent with the format in the Canadian Standard on Engineering Design in Wood Standard)
a)
Load Duration Factor: Use the load duration factor, KD, specified in Clause 4.3.2 of CSA O86-09.
b) Service Condition Factor: Use the service condition factor, KS = 1.0 for dry service conditions. For humid
service (protected exterior conditions), use the service condition factor, KS, for glued-laminated timber
shown in Table 2.
c) Creep Factor: The current load duration factor, KD, and service condition factor, KS, specified in
CSA O86-09, do not account for creep that may occur in CLT. In this option, the recommendation is
to determine the elastic deflection due to total load, with a 25% reduction in the rolling shear modulus,
G, for cross laminations when calculating shear stiffness, GAeff, of a CLT slab element. Moreover, it is
recommended to determine the permanent deformation due to long term loads, with a 50% reduction in
the rolling shear modulus, G, for cross laminations when calculating shear stiffness, GAeff, of a CLT slab
element. The proposed reductions in the rolling shear modulus are taken due to 30%-40% higher creep
values for CLT compared to glued-laminated timber for one year of sustained loading, as reported by
Jbstl and Schickhofer (2007).
2) Option II (Consistent with the format in the European Timber Design Standard)
a) Load Duration and Service Condition Factors: Instead of using KD and KS factors, adopt kmod factors
from Eurocode 5 for Service Classes 1 and 2 (given in Table 6).
b) Creep Factor: According to the research conducted in Europe described in Section 4.1, CLT deflects more
than glued-laminated timber in part due to the orientation of the cross-laminations and the fact that wood
creeps more in the direction perpendicular to the grain. A 10% increase in kdef factors for plywood (given in
Table 7) is reflected in the calculation of kdef factors for CLT (given in Table 8) to account for the differences
between CLT and glued-laminated timber test results obtained by Jbstl and Schickhofer (2007). One
year constant load duration can be assumed sufficient to account for the cumulative damage effects due to
occupancy and snow loads.
Table 8
Deformation modification factor, kdef, adjusted to CLT (based on recommendations of Jbstl
and Schickhofer - 2007)
Material
CLT
Service Class 1
Service Class 2
Service Class 3
0.90
1.10
N/A
For long term loads, however, a further increase of kdef or reduction of deformation limits is recommended.
A parametric study will be carried out on CLT slabs subjected to various load configurations and spans to verify
these proposals. The findings will be reflected in future editions of this chapter.

9
10-12-22 15:47
5
Modification
Factors for
Connections
used in CLT
Buildings
Load duration and time-dependent slip behaviour of connections also affect the performance of a CLT system.
CSA O86-09 specifies the same load duration factors, KD, for fastenings as shown in Table 1. Service condition
factors for fastenings, KSF, are also tabulated in the CSA standard (Table 10.2.1.5 in CSA O86-09). It is important
to note that service condition factors for fastenings are different than those for lumber or for glued-laminated
timber seasoned at moisture content of 15% or less, and above 15%. The CSA standard also specifies service creep
factors, Km, for nails and spike joints for the calculation of the lateral deformation in wood-to-wood joints
(Table A.10.9.3.2 in CSA O86-09). Work is currently underway to revise the current KSF factors for connections
in CSA to reflect the newly developed design methodology for bolts and dowels which has been adopted in
CSA O86-09. Additional information on connections with CLT is given in Chapter 5, Connections in
Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings.

10
10-12-22 15:47
6
Product-Specific
Parameters
that May Affect
Duration of
Load and Creep
Effects of CLT
6.1
Adhesives
A structural adhesive is not expected to creep in service. Canadian standards for evaluation of adhesives
for structural application have built in tests for assessing creep under various loads and service conditions. The
proposed CLT manufacturers and product qualification standard specifies that adhesives for CLT manufacturing
have to pass the minimum requirements of CSA O112.10, Standard for Evaluation of Adhesives for Structural
Wood Products for Limited Moisture Exposure (CSA O112.10, 2008). The CSA O112.10 standard requires that
creep tests are carried out at specific conditions: environment A (7 days at 20C and 95% RH), environment
B1 (7 days at 70C and ambient RH), and environment B2 (2 hours at 180C) while loaded at 2.5 MPa,
2.5 MPa, and 2.1 MPa, respectively. Adhesives passing the minimum requirements of the CSA O112.10 would
show negligible creep in the bond line, which is considered insignificant relative to the creep that occurs in
CLT products due to the orientation of crosswise laminations.
6.2
Edge-Gluing and Width-to-Thickness Ratio

CLT products without edge-glued laminations may have lower load-carrying capacities than those with edgeglued laminations due to lower rolling shear modulus. However, no research results have been published to show
any correlation between rolling shear modulus of edge-glued and non-edge-glued laminations and its effect on
load carrying capacity of the CLT element.

11
10-12-22 15:47
Parameters affecting rolling shear properties include: lamination width, direction of annual rings in boards,
earlywood to latewood ratios, adhesive type, panel pressure during manufacturing, and type of loading. A true
value of rolling shear modulus is difficult to obtain due to very low shear deflections measured during the tests,
which makes the calculation of rolling shear modulus very sensitive to experimental error. In Europe, a rolling
shear modulus of 50 MPa is used for CLT design; this value was obtained for spruce with an oven-dry density
of 460 kg/m3 (Aicher and Dill-Langer, 2000; Aicher et al., 2001). Typically, rolling shear modulus for spruce
ranges from 40 MPa to 80 MPa (Fellmoser and Blass, 2004).
Preliminary observation suggests a decrease in rolling shear modulus with decreasing width-to-thickness ratio
of boards in the cross layer. A minimum width-to-thickness ratio of 4:1 is suggested for lumber to ensure good
contact during pressing and adequate rolling shear strength (Schickhofer et al., 2009). The draft European
standard for CLT recommends further verification through testing when the minimum width-to-thickness ratio
of lumber is less than 4:1 (prEN, 2010). For these reasons, it is recommended that rolling shear strength and
modulus are verified by testing when using cross laminations with a width-to-thickness ratio of less than 3.5.
Research is ongoing to develop appropriate testing methods for assessing rolling shear strength of CLT, and
to quantify the width-to-thickness effect.
6.3
Release Grooves
CLT products manufactured with release grooves are likely to have lower load-carrying capacities than those
without release grooves due to the lower rolling shear modulus of cross laminations caused by the release grooves.
Some manufacturers in Europe mill release grooves into lumber in cross laminations to minimize the effect of
cupping. The depth of grooves may take up to 90% of the lumber thickness (prEN, 2010). Failure of CLT loaded
in bending is typically initiated in the cross layers by rotation of the cross layers and rolling of the earlywood
zones in lumber (Augustin, 2008). The grooves are weak zones in the cross section, which is significantly reduced
at the grooves and prone to failure under high loads generating narrower strips of lumber that are further likely
to roll under load leading to high deformations and ultimately failure. Since the release grooves are considered
unbonded edges, it is recommended that rolling shear strength and modulus are verified by testing when using
cross laminations with release grooves.
6.4
Nails or Wooden Dowels in Non-adhesively Bonded

CLT Products
Mechanically fastened CLT is outside the scope of the CLT Handbook and the design provisions given in
Chapter 3, Structural Design of Cross-Laminated Timber Elements, do not cover such products. In Europe, some
manufacturers are using aluminum nails or wooden dowels to vertically connect wood layers in CLT. These CLT
products are not glued-laminated, and may deflect and creep significantly more than adhesively-bonded CLT.
Researchers at University of British Columbia have found four times larger deflections for nailed CLT specimens
compared to glued CLT specimens for the same specimen thickness (Chen and Lam, 2008). The deflection range
was due to different nailing schedules of the CLT layers. These products may be more suitable for wall applications
but the load duration and creep factors recommended in this document are not applicable to non-adhesively
bonded CLT products.

12
10-12-22 15:47
7
Proposed
Canadian
Approach for
Using Load
Duration and
Creep Factors
in CLT Design
7.1
Ultimate Limit State

The recommended approach for Canadian users of CLT at this time is to follow Option I of Section 4.2.
Accept the existent load duration factors specified in the CSA O86-09 (Section 4.2, Option I (a)), with the
understanding that these factors may not conservatively account for shear perpendicular to the grain (rolling
shear) effects; however, the design of CLT used as floor and roof elements is usually governed by deflection,
and deflection falls under serviceability state design.
Use the service condition factors for glued-laminated timber specified in CSA O86-09 and given in Table 2
(Section 4.2, Option I (b)).
Verification of shear and bending out-of-plane strengths is explained in detail in Chapter 3.

13
10-12-22 15:47
7.2
Serviceability Limit State
7.2.1
Deflection
Check the elastic deflection and permanent deformation for CLT slab elements as per Section 4.2, Option I(c).
The proposed recommendation is to check the elastic deflection due to total load, calculated with a 25% reduction
in the rolling shear modulus, G, for cross laminations, as to not exceed 1/180 of the span, in accordance with
Clause 4.5.2 of CSA O86-09. Moreover, it is proposed to check the deformation due to the long term loads,
calculated with a 50% reduction in the rolling shear modulus, G, for cross laminations, as to not exceed 1/360 of
the span, in accordance with Clause 4.5.3 of CSA O86-09. The proposed recommendations are in line with the
maximum deflection limits prescribed in Table D-1 of NBCC (NBCC, 2005). Note that a limit of 1/180 of the
span will control immediate deflection under total load, while a limit of 1/360 of the span will control permanent
deflection under long term load.
7.2.2
Floor Vibration
Check maximum floor vibrations for CLT slab elements. A design method for controlling vibrations in CLT
floors is provided in Chapter 7.

14
10-12-22 15:47
8
References
Aicher, S., and G. Dill-Langer. 2000. Basic considerations to rolling shear modulus in wooden boards.
Otto-Graf-Journal 11:157-165.
Aicher, S., G. Dill-Langer, and L. Hofflin. 2001. Effect of polar anisotropy of wood loaded perpendicular to grain.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 13 (1):2-9.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2002. Standard specification for evaluation of duration of load
and creep effects of wood and wood-based products. ASTM D 6815-02a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. 11 p.
Augustin, M., ed. 2008. Wood based panels (in particular cross laminated timber (CLT)). In Timber structures.
Handbook 1 of Educational materials for designing and testing of timber structures: TEMTIS. Leonardo da Vinci
Pilot Project No. CZ/06/B/F/PP/168007, 63-99.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2008. Evaluation of adhesives for structural wood products (limited
moisture exposure). CSA O112.10-08. Rexdale, ON: CSA. 60 p.
______. 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09. Rexdale, ON: CSA. 252 p.
Chen, J. Y., and F. Lam. 2008. Development of thick laminated MPB wood plates, prepared for Forestry
Innovation Investment. Report MDP 08 0066B. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 18 p.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2004. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures.
Part 1-1: General Common rules and rules for buildings. EN 1995-1-1. Brussels: CEN. 124 p.
______. 2010. Timber structures Cross-laminated timber Requirements. Draft European Standard
prEN xxxxx. Working Document WI 124.128. Brussels: CEN. Committee CEN/TC 124. 94 p.
Fellmoser, P., and H. J. Bla. 2004. Influence of rolling shear modulus on strength and stiffness of structural
bonded elements. In CIB-W18 Meeting 37, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, paper 37-6-5.
Jbstl, R. A., T. Moosbrugger, T. Bogensperger, and G. Schickhofer. 2006. A contribution to the design and
system effect of cross-laminated timber (CLT). In CIB-W18 Meeting 39, Florence, Italy, paper 39-12-4.
Jbstl, R.A., and G. Schickhofer. 2007. Comparative examination of creep of GLT and CLT slabs in bending.
In CIB-W18 Meeting 40, Bled, Slovenia, paper 40-12-3.

15
10-12-22 15:47
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. 2006.
Users guide NBC 2005 structural commentaries (Part 4 of Division B). Ottawa, ON: NRCC. 1 v.
Schickhofer, G. 2010. Cross-laminated timber (CLT) in Europe: From conception to implementation.
Presentation made at the CLT Seminar, University of British Columbia, March 2010.
Schickhofer, G., T. Bogensperger, T. Moosbrugger, R. A. Jbstl, M. Augustin, A. Thiel, G. Traetta, et al. 2009.
BSPhandbuch: Holz-Massivbauweise in Brettsperrholz. Graz, Austria: Technische Universitt Graz, Institute fr
Holzbau und Holztechnologie. 353 p.

16
10-12-22 15:47
10-12-22 15:48
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:48
Vibration performance of
cross-laminated timber floors
CHAPTER
Authors
Lin Hu, Ph.D., FPInnovations

Peer Reviewers
Thomas Orskaug, KLH Scandinavia, Norway
Dr. Anders Homb, SINTEF Byggforsk, Norway
Dr.techn. Gerhard Schickhofer, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Dr. Ying-Hei Chui, University of New Brunswick, Canada
10-12-22 15:48
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank KLH for providing CLT panels for this study and the guidance on CLT floor
construction. Thanks are also extended to Mr. Thomas Orskaug of KLH Solid Wood Scandinavia AB and
Dr. Anders Homb of SINTEF Byggforsk for sharing their experience on massive wood slab non-joisted floor
systems with us and for providing the opportunity to visit CLT buildings in Norway. Finally, the authors wish
to thank Dr. Gerhard Schickhofer of Graz Institut fr Holzbau und Holztechnologie, Austria, for conducting
the comparison of the vibration controlled spans estimated using the method developed by FPInnovations with
the vibration controlled spans estimated with the CLTdesigner Software developed at Graz.
10-12-22 15:48
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is proving to be a promising solution for wood to compete in building sectors
where steel and concrete have traditionally predominated. Studies at FPInnovations found that bare CLT
floor systems differ from traditional lightweight wood joisted floors with typical mass around 20 kg/m2 and
fundamental natural frequency above 15 Hz, and heavy concrete slab floors with a mass above 200 kg/m2 and
fundamental natural frequency below 9 Hz. Based on FPInnovations test results, bare CLT floors were found to
have mass varying from approximately 30 kg/m2 to 150 kg/m2, and a fundamental natural frequency above 9 Hz.
Due to these special properties, the existing standard vibration controlled design methods for lightweight and
heavy floors may not be applicable for CLT floors. Manufacturers recommend to use the uniformly distribution
load (UDL) deflection method for CLT floor control vibrations by limiting the static deflections of the CLT
panels under UDL. Using this approach, the success in avoiding excessive vibrations in CLT floors relies mostly
on the engineers judgement. A new design methodology is needed to determine the vibration controlled spans
for CLT floors.
SINTEFs extensive CLT floor vibration field study found that FPInnovations new design method using 1 kN
static deflection and fundamental natural frequency as design parameters, predicted bare CLT floor vibration
performance that matched well with occupants expectations. This criterion was originally developed for wood
joisted floors. The new design method is a modified version of the original FPInnovations design method for
bare CLT floors based on bare CLT floor test data at FPInnovations. The new design method included the new
form of the design criterion using calculated 1 kN static deflection and fundamental natural frequency for bare
CLT floors as the criterion parameters, in addition to the new equations to calculate the 1 kN static deflection
and fundamental natural frequency. A simple form to directly calculate the vibration controlled spans from
CLT stiffness and density was derived from the new design method. Verification showed that the proposed
design method predicted well the vibration performance of bare CLT floors studied at FPInnovations with the
subjective ratings of the floor vibration performance. The impact study showed that the vibration controlled spans
of bare CLT floors predicted by this new design method were almost the same as the spans determined by the
CLTdesigner software that was developed in Austria. Working examples were given to demonstrate the procedure
of using the simple form of the new design method to calculate the vibration controlled spans of CLT floors.
It is concluded that the proposed design methodology to determine vibration controlled maximum spans of
bare CLT floors is promising. It is simple as it only uses the design values of CLT mechanical properties, is userfriendly, and reliable.
Wide acceptance of the proposed design method relies on the use and evaluation of the method by manufacturers
of products and designers. FPInnovations is open to feedbacks and ready to evolve the design method according to
the needs of the producers and designers. From the vibration control point of view, the low damping ratio (about
1% critical damping ratio) can be a weakness of bare CLT floors. Any measures for increasing the damping ratio
through CLT product design and CLT floor construction will enhance vibration performance of bare CLT floors.
The current form of the design method applies to CLT floors without heavy topping. A study of the effect of heavy
topping on vibration performance of CLT floors is under way.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

iii
10-12-22 15:48
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1 CLT Floors 1
2 Unique Features of CLT Floors Special Vibration Behaviour 2
2.1 Construction 2
2.2 Dead Load 3
2.3 Fundamental Natural Frequency 3
2.4 Damping 3
3 Review of the Feasibility of the Application of the Existing Design Methods for CLT Floors 4
3.1 Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) Deflection Method 4
3.2 Conventional Design Methods for Wood and Steel-Concrete Floors 4
3.3 FPInnovations Proposed Design Method for Joisted Wood Floors 5
4 Proposed Design Method for CLT Floors 7
4.1 Scope and Limitations 7
4.2 Expected Features 7
4.3 Design Criterion 7
4.4 Equations for Calculating the Criterion Parameters 8
4.5 Simple Form of Design Method 8
4.6 Verification 8
4.7 Impact Study 10
4.7.1 Comparing Proposed Design Method with UDL Deflection Method 10
4.7.2 Comparing CLT Floor Spans Determined using the Proposed Design Method with Spans
Determined using the CLTdesigner Software (Schickhofer, 2010) 11
5 Working Examples for the New Design Method 12

6 Conclusion 16
7 Recommendations 17
8 References 18
ChapTER 7 Vibration

iv
10-12-22 15:48
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of bare CLT floor dynamic characteristics 3
Table 2 Summary of common floor design methods for wood and steel-concrete floors and their scope 5
Table 3 Vibration controlled CLT floor with maximum spans determined using the new design method
vs. UDL deflection criterion 11
Table 4 Vibration controlled CLT floor spans determined using the new design method
vs. spans determined using the CLTdesigner software 11
Table 5 Specified effective apparent I (Ieff) 12
Table 6 Method to implement the calculation procedure for Example 1 into Excel 14
Table 7 Method to implement the calculation procedure for Example 2 into Excel 15
List of Figures
Figure 1 Cross-section of a bare CLT floor 1
Figure 2 Conventional lightweight wood floor built with joists and subfloor 2
Figure 3 Comparison of FPInnovations design criterion (Hu & Chui criterion) with the vibration
performance of CLT floors studied at SINTEF (Byggforsk, Norway) (Homb, 2008) 6
Figure 4 CLT floor built in laboratory for the vibration tests and subjective evaluation 9
Figure 5 Predicted CLT floor vibration performance by the proposed design method
vs. subjective rating by participants 10
Figure 6 CLT Ieff in function of span of 7 ss, 0.23 m thick CLT 13
ChapTER 7 Vibration

v
10-12-22 15:48
10-12-22 15:48
1
CLT Floors
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is proving to be a promising solution for wood to compete in building sectors
where steel and concrete have traditionally predominated. It has higher stiffness/strength to mass ratio than
cold-formed steel, reinforced concrete and masonry. Moreover, CLT building components are prefabricated. The
prefabrication accelerates the construction process and makes the construction efficient in terms of time, labour,
and materials. Another advantage for the use of CLT is the environmental benefits of wood, which makes CLT
more environmentally friendly than other building materials such as steel and concrete. Figure 1 shows the crosssection of a CLT floor.
Figure 1
Cross-section of a bare CLT floor
ChapTER 7 Vibration

1
10-12-22 15:48
2
Unique Features of
CLT Floors Special
Vibration Behaviour
Laboratory and field tests on CLT floors (Gagnon and Hu, 2007) have found that the vibration behaviour of CLT
floors is different from lightweight wood joisted floors and heavy concrete slab floors. Below are some explanations
for such differences.
Construction
2.1
Conventional lightweight wood joisted floors are usually built with joists spaced no more than 600 mm o.c. with
a wood subfloor of 15.5 mm or 18 mm thick depending on the joist spacing (Figure 2); conversely, CLT floors
have no joists and are solid (Figure 1). The appearance of CLT plates is similar to concrete slabs.
Furthermore, in comparison with joisted floors having the same span and equivalent vibration performance,
CLT floors are less deep than conventional lightweight joisted floors. For example, a 6.5 m span floor can usually
be built using 0.23 m thick CLT panels. If the same floor is built using conventional wood joists, then at least
0.3 m deep joists are needed.
Topping
Subfloor
Bridging
Ceiling Board
Joist
Ceiling Support
Figure 2
Conventional lightweight wood floor built with joists and subfloor
ChapTER 7 Vibration

2
10-12-22 15:48
2.2
Dead Load
CLT floors are heavier than conventional joisted wood floors and lighter than concrete slab floors. Currently,
thickness of the CLT panels on the market varies from 60 mm to 320 mm. For floor applications, the minimum
thickness will be about 100 mm. Therefore, the area mass of CLT floors varies from about 50 kg/m2 to 150 kg/m2.
The conventional wood joisted floor systems have an area mass of about 20 kg/m2 for base floors and about
110 kg/m2 for base floors with a 38 mm thick normal weight concrete topping. The concrete slab floors normally
have an area mass above 200 kg/m2.
2.3
Fundamental Natural Frequency

Due to the specific mass to stiffness characteristic of CLT floors, their vibrations exhibit unique behaviour
indicated by the fundamental natural frequency. The lower boundary of the measured fundamental natural
frequencies for satisfactory bare CLT floors tested in our laboratory was 10 Hz, while 15 Hz is usually measured
for bare conventional wood joisted floors and 10 Hz for bare joisted floors with a concrete topping. Concrete slab
floors normally have a fundamental natural frequency below 8 Hz. The higher the fundamental natural frequency
is, the easier it is to control the vibrations of floors.
Damping
2.4
The measured modal damping ratios of bare CLT floor specimens tested in our laboratory were about 1% of
the critical damping ratio. The conventional wood joisted floor systems normally have damping ratios around 3%.
Low damping results in vibrations in CLT floors indicate longer persistence and are more annoying to occupants
than that in conventional lightweight wood joisted floors. The higher the damping, the easier it is to control
vibrations. Damping is determined by the material and the construction details including structural and
non-structural elements, supporting systems, etc. Ungar (1992) provides a detailed discussion on structural
damping and its sources.
Table 1
Summary of bare CLT floor dynamic characteristics
Damping
About 1%
Area Mass
About 50-150 kg/m2
Fundamental Natural Frequency
Above 9 Hz
ChapTER 7 Vibration

3
10-12-22 15:48
3
Review of the
Feasibility of
the Application of
the Existing Design
Methods for
CLT Floors
3.1
Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) Deflection Method

The uniformly distributed load (UDL) deflection method attempts to control vibrations by limiting the static
deflections of the CLT panels under a uniform design load. For example, some CLT manufacturers recommend
limiting the total UDL deflection to L/400. The problem with the UDL deflection method is that it allows
the longer span floors having larger deflection than short span floors. For example, if we use the L/400 UDL
deflection method to determine the floor vibration controlled spans, then it means that the L/400 limits allow
a 3 m span floor to have a 7.5 mm deflection; consequently, it allows a 6 m span floor to have a 15 mm deflection.
Is it rational? This can explain why we often found that the long span floors usually had poor vibration
performance when the floor spans were determined using this method.
Therefore, if rationally using this method to avoid excessive vibrations in CLT floors, the design engineer needs
a good judgment to select proper UDL deflection limits accordingly to the spans. A standardized design method
is then needed for CLT floor vibration controlled design so that all CLT floors can be economically designed with
satisfactory in-service performance.
3.2
Conventional Design Methods for Wood

and Steel-Concrete Floors
The 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2005) recommends limits for static deflections of
lightweight lumber joisted floors under 1 kN static load. It was shown that this method is only applicable for wood
joisted floors without topping, i.e. floors having an area mass less than 30 kg/m2 (Hu and Gagnon, 2009).
ChapTER 7 Vibration

4
10-12-22 15:48
A design method was developed by Murray et al (1997) for heavy steel-concrete floors having fundamental natural
frequency below 9 Hz and is proposed in the Steel Design Guide. This method limits the peak accelerations of
floors to control the vibrations of heavy floors. Table 2 summarizes the scope of these common design methods.
As revealed in the table, the scopes of the existing design methods do not cover CLT floors.
Table 2
Summary of common floor design methods for wood and steel-concrete floors and their scope
Design Method
2005 National
Building Code
of Canada
Floor construction
Lightweight
joisted floors
without topping
Non-Existence
1. Lightweight
joisted floors
with topping
Murray et al.
(1997) for
Steel-Concrete
Heavy steel-concrete
2. CLT
3.3
Floor mass character

(kg/m2)
15-30
30-150
> 150
Floor frequency
characteristic (Hz)
> 15
>9
<9
FPInnovations Proposed Design Method for Joisted

Wood Floors
FPInnovations and UNB developed a design method to control vibrations in a broad range of wood joisted floor
systems with an area mass varying from 15 kg/m2 to 150 kg/m2 and for fundamental natural frequency above
9 Hz (Hu, 2007). The design method used 1 kN static deflection and fundamental natural frequency as design
parameters so that the floor stiffness and mass were accounted.
SINTEF (Homb, 2008) has conducted extensive field and laboratory studies on the vibration performance
of CLT floors. SINTEF found that the FPInnovations design criterion predicted the vibration performance
of CLT field floors that matched well the occupants expectation as illustrated in Figure 3. Each symbol in the
figure represents a CLT field floor. If the symbol is below the curve, it means that the CLT floor is accepted to
the criterion. SINTEFs field study has shown that the occupants were generally satisfied with the vibration
performance of the CLT field floors studied.
SINTEFs study confirmed that FPInnovations new design criterion is applicable to CLT floors. But the
equations for calculation of the 1 kN static deflection and fundamental natural frequency of CLT floors needed
to be developed. The equations in FPInnovations design method were originally derived from the conventional
wood joisted floors (Chui, 2002) based on ribbed plate theory, not for non-joisted slab floors like CLT floors.
Meanwhile, the form of the criterion shown in Figure 3 also needed to be calibrated to the new equations to
achieve a new design criterion for CLT floors. The next section provides details on the new proposed design
method including the new design criterion and new calculation equations.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

5
10-12-22 15:48
Static Deflection at Mid-span Under a Load of 1 kN (mm)
2,0
Egenes
Hu&Chui kriterium
Utleir
1,5
Nardo
Holz 100
Frekensgrense
1,0
0,5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Fundamental Natural Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3
Comparison of FPInnovations design criterion (Hu & Chui criterion) with the vibration performance
of CLT floors studied at SINTEF (Byggforsk, Norway) (Homb, 2008)
ChapTER 7 Vibration

6
10-12-22 15:48
4
Proposed Design
Method for
CLT Floors

Scope and Limitations
4.1
At this point, the proposed new design method to control vibrations of CLT floors is for:

1. Bare floors with finishing, partitions and furniture, but without heavy topping;
2. Vibrations induced by normal walking;
3. Well-supported floors;
4. Well-connected CLT panels;
5. Inclusion of the self weight of CLT panels only; not live load.
However, because of the mechanics-based feature, it is possible to expand its scope and to include other
construction details. A study has been planned to extend the scope in order to include various types of toppings
and ceilings, and other floor design options, including heavy topping.
Expected Features
4.2
The proposed design method is focused on target features, which include, among others:

4.3
1. Simple for hand calculation;

2. User-friendly;
3. Mechanics-based using the design values for CLT panels available in producers specifications;
4. Reliable to prevent CLT floors from excessive vibrations induced by normal walking.
Design Criterion
The design criterion is expressed in equation [1].
Or
[1]
Where:
f = fundamental natural frequency calculated using equation [2] in Hz
d = 1 kN static deflection calculated using equation [3] in mm
ChapTER 7 Vibration

7
10-12-22 15:48
4.4
Equations for Calculating the Criterion Parameters

The fundamental natural frequency can be obtained as:
[2]

Where:
f = fundamental natural frequency of 1 m CLT panel simply supported in Hz
l = CLT floor maximum span in meter
= effective apparent stiffness in the span direction for 1 m wide panel in N-m2
= density of CLT in kg/m3
A = area of cross-section of 1 m wide CLT panel, i.e. thickness x 1 m wide in m2
[3]

Where:
d = static deflection at mid-span of the 1 m wide simply supported CLT panel under 1 kN load in mm
P = 1000 N
4.5
Simple Form of Design Method

Inserting equations [2] and [3] into the design criterion, i.e. Eq. [1], we obtain the simple form of the design
method expressed by equation [4].
[4]

Using equation [4], we can determine the vibration controlled spans for CLT floors directly from the effective
apparent stiffness in the span direction, density and cross-section area of 1 m wide CLT panels.
Verification
4.6
The design method was verified using FPInnovations tests data obtained from a limited laboratory study on floors
built with CLT panels having three thicknesses: 140 mm, 182 mm and 230 mm. In these tests, the performance
of each floor was rated by a group of participants using the rating scale and procedure developed at FPInnovations
back to 1970s (Onysko and Bellosillo, 1978), evolved in the 1990s (Hu, 1997), and recently simplified and
reported by Hu and Gagnon (2010). Figure 4 shows one CLT floor built in laboratory for the vibration tests
and subjective evaluation.
The static deflection under 1 kN load and fundamental natural frequency of each floor were calculated using
equations [3] and [2], respectively. This allowed the calculation of the performance parameter using equation [1].
The comparison was also plotted in Figure 5. In the graph, each symbol represents a CLT floor while the curve
is the design criterion defined by equation [1]. If the symbol is below the curve, it means the floor vibration
performance is satisfactory and vice visa. The plot clearly demonstrates the reliability of the proposed design
method for CLT floors.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

8
10-12-22 15:48
Figure 4
CLT floor built in laboratory for the vibration tests and subjective evaluation
ChapTER 7 Vibration

9
10-12-22 15:48
2
Criterion ( f/d^0.7>13.0)
Marginal
1.5
Eq.2 (mm)
1kN Static Deflection Calculated using
Unacceptable
Acceptable
0.5
10
12
14
16
18
Fundamental Natural Frequency Calculated using Eq.1 (Hz)
Figure 5
Predicted CLT floor vibration performance by the proposed design method
vs. subjective rating by participants
4.7
Impact Study
4.7.1
Comparing Proposed Design Method with UDL Deflection Method

The vibration controlled CLT floor spans determined using the proposed design method were used to derive
the equivalent UDL deflection limits using products from KLH (Austria) as an example. The total design load
is 3.9 kN/m2, which consists of 1.5 kN/m2 dead load and 2.4 kN/m2 live load. Producers recommendation for
the UDL deflection limit is L/400.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

10
10-12-22 15:48
Table 3
Vibration controlled CLT floor with maximum spans determined using the new design method
vs. UDL deflection criterion
Type of CLT
Thickness
Vibration Controlled
Max. Span, L
Equivalent UDL
Criterion
(mm)
(m)
5-layer (5s)
140
4.75
L/417
5-layer (5s)
182
5.50
L/497
7-layer (7ss)
230
7.00
L/606
As shown in Table 3, according to the proposed design method, more stringent UDL deflection limits should be
imposed for longer span floors. This is more rational than the traditional UDL limits using a fixed ratio such as
L/400 for all spans.
4.7.2
Comparing CLT Floor Spans Determined using the Proposed Design Method
with Spans Determined using the CLTdesigner Software (Schickhofer, 2010)
The vibration controlled CLT floor spans determined using the proposed design method were compared with
the spans determined using CLTdesigner, a software developed at the University of Graz in Austria (Schickhofer,
2010). Table 4 provides the comparison.
Table 4
Vibration controlled CLT floor spans determined using the new design method
vs. spans determined using the CLTdesigner software
CLT Thickness
FPInnovations Design
Method Proposed Span
CLTdesigner Proposed Span for

1% Damping and No-topping
Floors
(Schickhofer, 2010)
(mm)
(m)
(m)
100
3.58
3.53
120
3.76
3.75
140
4.50
4.43
160
4.80
4.76
180
5.16
5.14
200
5.68
5.67
220
5.84
5.89
240
6.09
6.17
As shown in Table 4, the vibration controlled spans of bare CLT floors predicted by the proposed design method
are almost the same as the spans determined using the CLTdesigner software.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

11
10-12-22 15:48
5
Working Examples
for the New
Design Method
Examples are given below to calculate the vibration controlled spans of two CLT floors using the simple form
of the new design method given in Eq. [4].
Example 1: The design properties of the CLT panel specified by the producer are listed below (KLH, 2008).
-
-
-
-
-
Type = 7ss
Thickness = 0.23 m
Density = 480 kg/m3
Width = 1.0 m
MOE = 12 GPa
Table 5
Specified effective apparent I (Ieff)
Simple Span
Ieff
(m)
(cm4 )
45,979
74,100
84,238
88,534
ChapTER 7 Vibration

12
10-12-22 15:48
Calculation of the vibration controlled span for the floor using this CLT panels follows the steps below.
Step 1: Curve-fit the data in Table 5 to obtain equation [5] to calculate Ieff from the span (Figure 6).
100000
4
I eff (cm )
80000
60000
40000
2
y = -1489.1x + 21781x + 8980.7

20000
R = 0.9933
0
0
10
CLT Span (m)
Figure 6
CLT Ieff in function of span of 7 ss, 0.23 m thick CLT
[5]
where l is the CLT span in meter and Ieff is the effective I in m4 given by the producer.
Step 2: Calculate the first trial span, assuming that the span is 30 times the thickness of the CLT panel; this leads
to the first trial span of 6.9 m.
Step 3: Insert the trial span of 6.9 m into Eq. [5] to calculate trial Ieff ; this leads to:
= 0.00088374 m4
Step 4: Insert the value of trial Ieff , the design values of density, thickness, MOE and width of the CLT panel
into Eq. [4] to calculate the vibration controlled maximum span limit; this leads to:
ChapTER 7 Vibration

13
10-12-22 15:48
Step 5: If the trial span is less or larger than the vibration controlled span limit, then repeat steps 3 and 4 using
a new trial span to determine the new vibration controlled maximum span limit.
Step 6: Repeat step 5 until the new trial span is almost equal to the new vibration controlled span limit. This can
be easily performed if we implement the procedure into an Excel spreadsheet as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Method to implement the calculation procedure for Example 1 into Excel
Thickness
Trial Span
Ieff
Eq. [5]
MOE
Density
Span Limit
Eq.[4]
(m)
(m)
(m 4)
(GPa)
(kg/m3)
0.23
6.90
0.00088374
12
480
7.01
0.23
7.01
0.00088491
12
480
7.01
0.23
7.30
0.00088628
12
480
7.02
(m)
Finally, examining the iteration results shown in Table 6, we find that the trial span of 7.01 m is equal to the
vibration controlled span limit; therefore, we can comfortably conclude that 7.01 m is the vibration controlled
span for the CLT floor using the 7ss, 0.23 m thick CLT panels.
Above example shows the procedure to determine the vibration controlled spans for floors using CLT panels
with the specified effective apparent bending stiffness (App. EIeff). However, some producers do not provide
the effective apparent bending stiffness, but rather specify the design values of effective true bending stiffness
(True EIeff) and effective shear stiffness (GAeff). In this case, the effective apparent bending stiffness (App. EIeff)
can be determined using the following equation:
[6]

Next example demonstrates the procedure to determine the vibration controlled spans for floors using CLT panels
with the given true EIeff and GAeff .
Example 2:
Design values of the CLT panel properties are:
- Thickness = 0.14m
- Density = 500 kg/m3
- Width = 1.0 m
- True EIeff = 2.143x106 N-m2
- GAeff = 1.082x107 N
ChapTER 7 Vibration

14
10-12-22 15:48
Calculation of the vibration controlled span for the floor using this CLT panel follows the steps below.
Step 1: Calculate the first trial span, assuming that the trial span is 30 times the thickness; this leads to the first
trial span of 4.2 m.
Step 2: Insert the first trial span of 4.2 m into Eq. [6] to determine the trial effective apparent stiffness,
from the design value of the true EIeff and GAeff; this leads to:
=1.898x106 N-m2
Step 3: Insert the value of trial
, the design values of density, thickness and width of the CLT panel
into Eq. [4] to calculate the vibration controlled maximum span limit; this leads to:
Step 4: If the trial span is less or larger than the vibration controlled span limit, then repeat steps 2 and 3 using
a new trial span to determine the new vibration controlled maximum span limit.
Step 5: Repeat step 4 until the new trial span is almost equal to the new vibration controlled span limit. This can
be easily performed if we implement the procedure into an Excel spreadsheet as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Method to implement the calculation procedure for Example 2 into Excel
1m
Thickness
Trial Span
True EIeff
GA eff
EI eff
Eq. [6]
Density
Span Limit
Eq.[4]
(m)
(m)
(x10 6 N-m2)
(x10 7 N)
(x10 6 N-m
- 2)
(kg/m3)
(m)
0.14
4.20
2.143
1.082
1.900
500
4.48
0.14
4.48
2.143
1.082
1.924
500
4.50
0.14
4.50
2.143
1.082
1.926
500
4.50
0.14
4.60
2.143
1.082
1.934
500
4.50
Finally, examining the iteration results shown in Table 7, we find that the trial span of 4.5 m is equal to the
vibration controlled span limit; therefore, we can comfortably conclude that the 4.5 m is the vibration controlled
span for the CLT floor using the 0.14 m thick panels.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

15
10-12-22 15:48
6
Conclusion
It is concluded that the proposed design method to determine vibration controlled maximum spans of bare CLT
floors is promising. It is mechanics-based, utilizes the fundamental mechanical properties of CLT, is user-friendly,
and reliable.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

16
10-12-22 15:48
7
Recommendations
Wide acceptance of the proposed design method relies on its use and evaluation by designers and manufacturers.
FPInnovations welcomes feedback on the proposed design method. From a vibration control point of view, the
low damping ratio is one of the major weaknesses of bare CLT floors. Any measures for increasing the damping
ratio through CLT product design and CLT floor construction detail will enhance the vibration performance
of CLT floor systems.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

17
10-12-22 15:48
8
References
Chui, Y. H. 2002. Application of ribbed-plate theory to predict vibrational serviceability of timber floor systems.
In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Timber Engineering, August 12-15, 2002, Shah Alam, Malaysia,
paper no. 9.3.1, vol. 4, 87-93.
Gagnon, S., and L.J. Hu. 2007. Trip report : Sweden, Norway and France, November 1-11, 2007.
Quebec: FPInnovations. 22 p.
Homb, A. 2008. Vibrasjonsegenskaper til dekker av massivtre (in Norwegian). Prosjektrapport 24.
Oslo, Norway: SINTEF Byggforsk. 57 p.
Hu, L. J. 1997. Serviceability design criteria for commercial and multi-family floors. Canadian Forest Service
Report No. 4. Quebec: Forintek Canada Corp. 9 p.
______. 2007. Design guide for wood-framed floor systems. Canadian Forest Service Report No. 32.
Quebec: FPInnovations. 60 p. + appendices.
Hu, L. J., and S. Gagnon. 2009. Verification of 2005 NBCC maximum spans for concrete topped lumber joist
floors. Canadian Forest Service Report No. 2. Quebec: FPInnovations. 20 p.
_________. 2010. Construction solutions for wood-based floors in hybrid building systems. Canadian Forest
Service Report No. 1. Quebec: FPInnovations. 5 p.
KLH. 2008. Engineering. Version 01/2008. www.klh.cc (accessed July 23, 2009).
Holz.Bau Forschungs GmbH. 2010. CLTdesigner. Version 1.1.2. http://www.cltdesigner.at/webstart/testversion/
cltdesignertestversion.jnlp (accessed July 1st, 2010).
Murray, T.M., D.E. Allen, and E.E. Ungar. 1997. Floor vibrations due to human activity. Steel Design Guide
Series 11. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction and Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. 69 p.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. National building code of Canada, 2005. Ottawa: Canada.
National Research Council. 2 v.
Onysko, D., and S.B. Bellosillo. 1978. Performance criteria for residential floors: Final report to Central Mortgage
and Housing Corporation. Grant no. 120-74. Ottawa: Canada. Eastern Forest Products Laboratory. 16 p.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

18
10-12-22 15:48
Schickhofer, G. 2010. Comments on FPInnovations new design method for CLT floor vibration control.
E-mail message to author, July 1st, 2010.
Ungar, E. E. 1992. Structural damping. In Noise and vibration control engineering: Principles and applications,
edited by Leo L. Beranek and Istvan L. Vr, 451-481. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
ChapTER 7 Vibration

19
10-12-22 15:48
10-12-22 15:48
10-12-22 15:48
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:48
Fire performance of
cross-laminated timber assemblies
CHAPTER
Author
Christian Dagenais, Eng., M.Sc.

Peer-reviewers
Robert H. White, Ph.D., USDA Forest Products Laboratory
Prof. Dr. Andrea Frangi, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich
Steve Craft, Ph.D., P.Eng., CHM Fire Consultants Ltd.
Andrew Harmsworth, M.Eng., P.Eng., GHL Consultants Ltd.
Revised version
July 2014
Revised: JULY 2014
Acknowledgements
Financial support for the revision of this Chapter 8 from the Canadian edition of the CLT Handbook and for
conducting the fire-resistance test series on cross-laminated timber was provided by Natural Resources Canada
(NRCan) under the Transformative Technologies Program, which was created to identify and accelerate the
development and introduction of products such as CLT in North America.
FPInnovations wishes to express its thanks to its industry members Julie Frappier, Eng., from Nordic Engineered
Wood, and Andre Morf from Structurlam, NRCan (Canadian Forest Service), the provinces of British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Qubec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador,
and the Yukon Territory for their continuing guidance and financial support.
The author would like to express special thanks to Dr. Noureddine Benichou from the National Research Council
Canada (NRCC) and to NRCC laboratory staff who were instrumental in constructing the assemblies and
conducting the experiments. He would also like to express special thanks to Dr. Robert H. White from the US
Forest Products Laboratory and Dr. Kuma Sumathipala from the American Wood Council for allowing him to use
parts of Chapter 8 from the 2013 US Edition of the CLT Handbook, which he had the great pleasure of
co-writing with them, in revising this 2014 Canadian edition.
And lastly, special thanks to those who reviewed the chapter and provided valuable comments. In particular,
the author would like to thank Dr. Robert H. White from the US Forest Products Laboratory, Andrea Frangi
from the Institute of Structural Engineering of ETH Zurich, Steve Craft from CHM Fire Consultants and
Andrew Harmsworth from GHL Consultants.

otherwise for profit, and only if FPInnovations is identified in a prominent location as the source of the publication or portion thereof, and only so long as
such members remain in good standing. This published Work is designed to provide accurate, authoritative information but it is not intended to provide
professional advice. If such advice is sought, then services of a FPInnovations professional could be retained.
Revised: JULY 2014
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT), a relatively new building system of interest in the North American construction
sector, is helping to define a new class of massive timber products. CLT is a promising wood-based structural
component and has great potential to provide cost-effective building solutions for residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings as well as large industrial facilities. Acceptance of CLT construction into the Canadian
regulatory environment necessitates compliance with the fire-related provisions of the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC), among other regulations.
Extensive fire testing has demonstrated the ability of CLT to provide reliable fire-resistance ratings up to 3 hours
when tested under full loading conditions in accordance with CAN/ULC S101. Additional information is also
provided on related fire safety properties, including flame spread rating and fire stopping.
CLT elements are used in building systems in a similar manner to concrete slabs and solid wall elements as well
as those from heavy timber construction by limiting concealed spaces due to the use of massive timber elements,
thereby reducing the risk of concealed space fires. Moreover, CLT construction typically uses CLT panels for floor
and load-bearing walls, which allow inherent fire-rated compartmentalization, therefore again reducing the risk
of fire spread beyond its point of origin (compartment of origin).
A methodology is proposed herein for determining the fire resistance of CLT elements. This method, as a
deterministic calculation model based on limit states design, calculates the capacity of CLT elements exposed
to standard fire exposure (i.e., CAN/ULC S101), using basic wood engineering mechanics for fire-resistance
calculations of up to 3 hours, limited only by currently available test data. The method uses a linear stepped
charring rate adjustment, a fixed zero-strength layer of 7 mm, a resistance factor set to unity, a short-term duration
of load factor and member-specified strength properties adjusted to their average strength values to predict
average fire-resistance times for CLT wall and floor assemblies that closely track actual fire-resistance times for
tested assemblies. While further refinements of this method are possible, these comparisons suggest that the
methodology conservatively predicts the fire resistance of CLT assemblies.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
iii
Table
of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vi
1
Introduction 1
Background 2
Fire Safety in Buildings 4
3.1 Objectives 5
3.2 Fire Performance Attributes of CLT 5
3.3 CLT and Fire Provisions of Building Codes 6
4 Types of Construction and Occupancy Classification 7
4.1 Building Size Relative to Occupancy 7
4.2 Use of CLT in Combustible Construction 9
4.3
Use of CLT in Heavy Timber Construction 9
4.4
Use of CLT in Non-Combustible Construction 10
5
Fire Resistance of CLT 11
5.1 Test Method CAN/ULC S101 12

5.2 Mechanics-Based Design Method 14
5.3 Application of Mechanics-Based Methodology to CLT 15
5.3.1 Charring Rate and Char Depth 15
5.3.2 Approximation of Member Strength and Capacity 18
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
iv
5.4 Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Structural Requirement 19

5.4.1 Structural Fire Resistance 19
5.4.2 Use of Protective Membranes to Increase Structural Fire Resistance 26
5.5 Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Integrity Requirement 27
5.5.1 Effect of Joints on Integrity of CLT Walls and Floors 28
5.5.2 Use of Protective Membranes, Floor Coverings and Interior Finish to Address Integrity 28
5.6 Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Insulation Requirement 29
5.6.1 Theoretical Temperature Profiles for CLT Assemblies 29
5.6.2 Experimental Temperature Profile Data for CLT Assemblies 30
5.7 Comparison Between Calculation Method and Experiments 32
5.8 Composite CLT/Concrete Structure 35
5.9 Floor Design Example 36
5.9.1 Calculation of the Load-Bearing Function After 1 Hour of Standard Fire Exposure 36
5.9.2 Calculation of the Separating Function After 1 Hour of Standard Fire Exposure 38
5.10 Wall Design Example 38
5.10.1 Calculation of the Load-Bearing Function After 2 Hours of Standard Fire Exposure 38
5.10.2 Calculation of the Separating Function After 2 Hours of Standard Fire Exposure 42
6 Connections 43
7
Interior Finish 45
7.1
Test Method CAN/ULC S102 45
7.2 Flame Spread Rating of CLT 46

7.3 Fire-Retardant Treatment and CLT 47
7.4 Use of Other Membrane Products to Address Interior Finish Requirements 48
7.5 Automatic Fire Sprinklers 48
8 Service Penetrations and Construction Joints 49
8.1 Fire-Stopping Building Elements and Assemblies 49
8.2 Fire Stop Systems in CLT Construction 49
9 Nomenclature 51
10 References 54
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
v
List of Figures
Figure 1 NFPA Fire Concepts Tree adapted to the Canadian regulatory environment 4
Figure 2 Real-scale CLT fire tests 6
Figure 3 Fire-resistance criteria per CAN/ULC S101 12
Figure 4 CLT fire-resistance wall tests conducted at NRCC in Ottawa, ON 12
Figure 5 CLT fire-resistance floor tests conducted at NRCC in Ottawa, ON 13
Figure 6 Standard time-temperature curve from CAN/ULC S101 13
Figure 7 Char depth measurements of CLT wall specimens from different laminate thicknesses 16
Figure 8 Nomenclature used in calculating fire resistance of CLT exposed to fire from below 19
Figure 9 CLT wall assembly subjected to combined bending and axial compression 26
Figure 10 CLT panel-to-panel half-lapped joint detail 28
Figure 11 Experimental temperature profiles from [12] and Equation 20 31
Figure 12 Comparison between experiments [9, 13, 14] and the calculation method 34
Figure 13 Comparison between the revised Canadian method and the U.S. method 34
Figure 14 Examples of a composite CLT/concrete floor structure 35
Figure 15 Examples of connections seen in CLT platform construction (do not require protection) 44
Figure 16 Examples of connections seen in CLT balloon construction (may require protection) 44
Figure 18 CLT flame spread tests conducted at Intertek in Coquitlam, BC 46
Figure 19 CLT specimen (fully exposed) in a CAN/ULC S102 test 46
Figure 20 Examples of through and partial penetration in CLT assemblies 50
Figure 21 Examples of fire stop systems evaluated for CLT joint assemblies 50
List of Tables
Table 1 Examples of building sizes relative to occupancy group as per Division B of the NBCC 8
Table 2 Effective char depth for CLT design in Canada 17
Table 3 Strength adjustment factors (Kfi) for CLT fire-resistance design 18
Table 4 Applicable adjustment factors for CLT fire-resistance design 18
Table 5 Maximum temperature rises at unexposed surface [12] 31
Table 6 CLT assemblies configuration details [12, 17] 32
Table 7 Comparison between experiments [12, 16, 17] and calculation method 33
Table 8 Flame spread test results for 3-ply CLT specimens [65, 66] 47
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
vi
1
Introduction
Cross-laminated timber (CLT), a relatively new building system of interest in the North American construction
sector, is helping to define a new class of massive timber products. CLT is a promising wood-based structural
component and has great potential to provide cost-effective building solutions for residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings as well as large industrial facilities.
Acceptance of CLT construction into the Canadian regulatory environment necessitates compliance with the
fire-related provisions of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) [1, 2], among other regulations. Part 3
of Division B of the NBCC provides prescriptive fire safety provisions in order to meet these objectives based on a
buildings major occupancy group, its height and area as well as the presence of automatic fire sprinklers. Examples
of prescriptive fire safety strategies are limitations on the use of combustible materials for structural and interior
finishes, fire-resistance ratings of separating and load-bearing elements, limitations on the surface flammability
characteristics of interior finishes as well as provisions allowing safe means of egress to building occupants. All
of these attributes are critical and need to be provided by every building design and structural system, whether it
is of combustible or non-combustible construction. This Chapter addresses some of the common code-mandated
fire performance requirements.
Classification of a building according to its type of construction, as defined in the NBCC, is one of the key
elements in identifying limitations on the height and allowable floor areas of a building. As CLT is a relatively new
type of construction material in Canada, the inclusion of prescriptive language in the NBCC with regard to CLT
construction has just begun.
CLT construction may be classified as a type of heavy timber construction as defined in the NBCC by its mass
timber nature, attaining a degree of fire safety by placing limitations on the size of the structural elements and on
the thickness and composition of floors and roofs as well as by the avoidance of concealed spaces under floors and
roofs elements. However, as a new material, specific minimum dimensions are not provided in Article 3.1.4.7 of
Part 3 of Division B of the NBCC and may need to be established through an alternative solution. This Chapter
provides the basis for not only establishing the fire resistance of CLT elements, but also demonstrating how other
fire safety-related attributes can be achieved by using CLT.
CLT is manufactured in a similar manner to glued-laminated timber elements, to bi-national standard
ANSI/APA PRG 320 Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber [3] that provides requirements
and test methods for qualification and quality assurance for performance-rated CLT. Although this standard
is not yet referenced in the NBCC, Canadian CLT manufacturers are already accredited per this standard for
manufacturing and designing CLT elements in Canada and in the United States [4, 5]. Further discussion on the
manufacturing process and quality assurance is found in Chapter 2 of this Canadian CLT Handbook.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
1
2
BACKGROUND
Massive timber products are generally known to perform well under fire conditions due to a slow rate of charring,
which generates a thick layer of low-density insulating char and thereby protects the timber below from elevated
heat effects. Charring is a material-specific property attributed to timber and its understanding is fundamental in
estimating the reduced thickness of full-strength timber, which designers can use to calculate the residual strength
of members for a given fire exposure.
Several fire tests have been performed by CLT manufacturers on a proprietary basis. However, there is a range of
full-scale fire-resistance tests performed with CLT assemblies under various structural loading that is now publicly
available in the literature. An adapted methodology for CLT assemblies has been developed in Europe and is
currently being used on a proprietary basis by European CLT manufacturers [6-9]. The European model follows
the same principles as those prescribed in Eurocode 5: Part 1-2 [10] applicable to timber components and is based
on an extensive campaign of finite elements numerical simulations and some fire tests. While some guidance
is provided with respect to the separating function of CLT assemblies, most work is aimed at evaluating their
load-bearing function, based on a given charring rate. As of 2014, these new methods have yet to be implemented
in the European regulatory environment.
A first Canadian fire-resistance design method was published in 2011, largely based on the European model
applicable to timber elements, such as solid wood and glued-laminated timber [11]. Similarly to the European
model, the Canadian one, as of 2011, only evaluated the load-bearing function of CLT assemblies and was
developed with the limited data available at that time.
There are various factors that might affect the performance of CLT in fire, includingbut not limited towood
species, the type of adhesive used, the thickness of the panel (number of laminates), the thickness of the laminates,
the type of fire exposure, the panel-to-panel joint configuration, and the protection methods used. In order to
facilitate the acceptance of proposed code provisions for the design of CLT panels with regard to fire resistance in
Canada and the U.S., a research project was launched at FPInnovations in close collaboration with the National
Research Council Canada [12]. The objective of the project was to determine the fire resistance of CLT panels
through full-scale testing, while developing a mechanics-based calculation procedure for fire resistance of CLT
assemblies that will foster the design of fire-safe CLT buildings in North America.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
2
The information collected served as the basis for a complete design procedure recently developed and
published in the U.S. edition of the CLT Handbook [13]. Chapter 8 of this U.S. CLT Handbook provides a
mechanics-based calculation method that has been suitably adapted to the current design methodology found
in Chapter 16 of the National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction applicable to large timber
elements [14, 15]. The U.S. mechanics-based method, which uses a standard nominal char rate of 0.635 mm/min.
(1 in./hr.), a non-linear stepped charring rate adjustment, a zero-strength layer multiplier of 1.2, and a standard
variability adjustment in the design to ultimate adjustment factors, predicts average fire-resistance times for CLT
wall and floor assemblies that closely track actual fire-resistance times for tested assemblies.
The results from this test series and additional full-scale fire-resistance tests [16, 17] are used in the validation and
refinement of the current Canadian fire-resistance calculation procedure. It will namely now address the separating
function of CLT assemblies, which have already been incorporated in the recently published design methodology
of the U.S. edition of the CLT Handbook, but will also refine the structural model with respect to the loadbearing and separating functions of CLT assemblies.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
3
3
Fire Safety
in Buildings
From its first edition, published in 1941, and until the 1995 edition, the National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) has historically been published as a prescriptive code. The requirements set forth within the NBCC
have traditionally been recognized as deemed-to-satisfy the Code objectives and achieving minimum performance
levels.
In the NBCC, fire safety provisions are based, in principle, on the NFPA Fire Safety Concepts Tree [18, 19],
where fire impact management and fire ignition prevention are the two primary concepts (Figure 1). Preventing
fire ignition may be essentially addressed by following the National Fire Code of Canada (NFCC) [20], while
managing the impact of a fire is addressed by the many prescriptive provisions set forth in Part 3 of Division B
of the NBCC, entitled Fire Protection, Occupant Safety and Accessibility.
Figure 1
NFPA Fire Concepts Tree adapted to the Canadian regulatory environment
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
4
Figure 1 shows that many components need to be considered for fire safety in buildings and all branches are
inter-related with each other. An and connection means that all branches need to be satisfied to meet a specific
fire safety objective, while an or connection means that any branch will achieve the fire safety objective above it.
For example, using either an automatic or a manual fire suppression system will satisfy the Suppress fire objective.
On the other hand, Control fire by construction will be achieved only if the construction is designed in such a way
that it can control the movement of fire and can provide the required structural stability (which relates to
the fundamentals of the fire-resistance concept as detailed in Section 5 of this Chapter).
Objectives
3.1
The NBCC sets forth technical provisions for the design and construction of new buildings. It also applies
to the alteration, change of use and demolition of existing buildings. The intent of the NBCC is to establish
requirements addressing the following four objectives, which are fully described in Division A of the NBCC:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Safety (OS);
Health (OH);
Accessibility for persons with disabilities (OA); and
Fire and structural protection of buildings (OP)
Objectives describe, in very broad and qualitative terms, the overall goals that the NBCCs requirements are
intended to achieve. They also describe undesirable situations and their consequences, which the NBCC aims
to avoid occurring in buildings. The NBCC recognizes it cannot entirely avoid any undesirable event from
happening or eliminate all risks. Therefore, its objectives are to limit the probability of unacceptable risk.
It is therefore assumed, within the NBCC, that an undesirable situation may occur and means shall be provided
to limit its consequences.
3.2
Fire Performance Attributes of CLT

CLT panels have the potential to provide excellent fire resistance, often comparable to that of other building
materials, including non-combustible materials. This is due to the inherent nature of thick timber members to
char slowly at a predictable rate, allowing massive wood systems to maintain significant structural capacity for
extended durations when exposed to fire.
As with any combustible material, CLT may contribute to the growth of a compartment fire. Limited research has
been conducted to evaluate the impact of additional fixed fuel load from CLT panels on fire growth. Frangi et al.
[21] evaluated a 3-storey CLT building constructed with 85-mm thick CLT wall panels and 142-mm thick CLT
floor slabs exposed to a natural, full-scale fire. In this particular experiment, walls were protected with a 12.7-mm
fire-rated gypsum board (directly exposed to fire) and a base layer of 12.7-mm standard gypsum board, while the
ceilings were protected with 25.4-mm mineral wool insulation and a 12.7-mm fire-rated gypsum board (Figure 2a).
In an attempt to replicate similar fire severity, such as that encountered in typical residential dwellings, a design
fire load of 790 MJ/m was used and burned for slightly over 1 hour. It is reported that flashover occurred after
about 40 minutes. The fire severity started to decline after 55 minutes and was extinguished, as planned, after
one hour. Furthermore, the measured charred depth on the gypsum-protected CLT compartment elements was
very low, ranging from approximately 5 to 10 mm. No elevated temperatures were measured and no smoke was
observed in the room above the fire room. From this full-scale design fire test, it may be concluded that CLT
buildings can effectively be designed to limit fire spread beyond the point of origin.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
5
Recent studies conducted at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario showed an increase in fire growth in fully
exposed CLT room fires (Figure 2b), leading to faster flashover conditions when compared to those from CLT
rooms lined with gypsum board [22]. Where CLT was protected by two layers of gypsum board, the fire selfextinguished when all combustibles were consumed and the CLT provided no noticeable contribution to fire
growth, duration or intensity.
And lastly, the findings of a real-scale fire test of a representative 8.2 m X 6.4 m (27 ft. X 21 ft.) apartment suite
conducted in February 2013 at the National Research Council Canada (NRCC) laboratory in Ottawa indicated
that using 2 layers of 12.7-mm Type X gypsum board delayed the effect of the fire on the CLT structural elements
(Figure 2c). The fire separations on the floor of the fire origin remained intact, limiting fire spread for more than
2 hours [23].
a) 3-storey CLT fire test

in Tsukuba, Japan [21]
b) CLT room fire test at Carleton

University in Ottawa, Canada [22]
c) CLT apartment fire test at

NRCC in Ottawa, Canada
Figure 2
Real-scale CLT fire tests
These research projects highlight fire hazards associated with construction using CLT in situations where no
active fire protection is provided and where the fire burns over extended periods without response. However, as
required in many buildings by the NBCC, including all mid-rise and tall buildings, automatic sprinklers would
provide active protection against fire growth, as they would be activated before significant fire growth and fire
involvement of exposed CLT panels.
3.3
CLT and Fire Provisions of Building Codes

CLT elements are used in building systems in a similar manner to concrete slabs and solid wall elements as well
as those from heavy timber construction by limiting concealed spaces due to the use of massive timber elements,
thereby reducing the risk of concealed space fires.
Moreover, CLT construction typically uses CLT panels for floor and load-bearing walls, which allow fire-rated
compartmentalization, therefore again reducing the risk of fire spread beyond its point of origin (compartment
of origin).
The various types of construction defined within the NBCC are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this Chapter,
which will also highlight areas where CLT components may be used in compliance with the NBCC.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
6
4
Types of
Construction
and Occupancy
Classification
Building systems in the NBCC are classified in two categories and are solely based on a single material chemical
property: combustibility. Whether structural materials pass or fail the ULC S114 [24] criteria (i.e., combustible
or not), they may either be used in one of the two types of construction recognized in the NBCC, that is
1) non-combustible construction, and 2) combustible construction. Combustible structural materials are to be
used only in combustible construction, while non-combustible structural materials may be used in either type of
construction.
The NBCC defines non-combustible construction as a type of construction in which a degree of fire safety is
attained through the use of non-combustible materials for structural members and other building assemblies. The
intent in requiring non-combustible structural materials is to limit the probability that combustible construction
materials within a storey of a building will be involved in a fire, which could lead to the spread of the fire within
the storey during the time required to ensure occupant safety and for emergency responders to perform their
duties, which in turn could result in harming people and damaging the building [25]. However, the NBCC
does not explicitly address the actual performance of non-combustible structural materials when exposed to fire
conditions.
Combustible construction is simply any type of construction that does not meet the requirements for noncombustible construction. It includes conventional, light-frame wood and heavy timber construction. As defined
in the NBCC, heavy timber construction is a type of combustible construction in which a degree of fire safety
is attained by placing limitations on the minimum sizes of structural wood members and on the thickness and
composition of wood floors and roofs and by the reduction of concealed spaces under floors and roofs. Moreover,
the NBCC recognizes the enhanced level of fire safety in buildings made of heavy timber construction, by
allowing its use in many applications in lieu of non-combustible construction.
4.1
Building Size Relative to Occupancy

Most fire safety provisions set forth in the NBCC are based on the buildings major occupancy, the principal
occupancy for which a building, or part thereof, is used or intended to be used. This includes subsidiary
occupancies that form an integral part of the principal occupancy. The classification of buildings by major
occupancy group may be found in Subsection 3.1.2 of Part 3 of Division B of the NBCC. This building
classification is the starting point for other fire safety provisions, namely the allowance for combustible
construction, height and area limits and fire-resistance rating of assemblies.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
7
Depending on the major occupancy group, building sizes are regulated in Subsection 3.2.2 of Part 3 of
Division B of the NBCC. Table 1 summarizes some building sizes relative to occupancy group found in the
NBCC. Typically, stricter fire safety provisions are imposed when a building becomes larger and taller and the
allowance for combustible construction becomes limited. Greater building areas are allowed when an automatic
sprinkler system is installed.
Table 1
Examples of building size relative to occupancy group as per Division B of the NBCC
Major
Occupancy
NBCC
Article
3.2.2.24
A-2
3.2.2.25
3.2.2.26
3.2.2.48
3.2.2.50
3.2.2.51
3.2.2.53
3.2.2.55
3.2.2.56
D
3.2.2.57
3.2.2.58
3.2.2.59
3.2.2.63
3.2.2.64
E
3.2.2.65
3.2.2.73
F-2
3.2.2.74
3.2.2.75
Building
Height
(Storeys)
6
2
1
1
2
6
4
3
2
1
3
6
5
4
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
3
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
Building Area (m)

Based on the Number
of Streets Faced
1
800
1,600
800
1,200
2,400
2,400
2,880
3,600
1,600
2,400
4,800
800
1,200
1,500
1,070
1,500
2
Unlimited area
1,000
2,000
4,800
2,400
6,000
1,800
1,000
1,500
3,000
1,800
3,000
3,600
4,500
7,200
8,640
10,800
3,600
2,000
3,000
6,000
4,800
1,800
1,000
1,500
1,500
2,400
3,600
7,200
4,500
1,340
1,500
2,400
3,200
3
1,200
2,000
1,200
1,800
3,600
3,600
4,320
5,400
2,400
3,600
7,200
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Protected by
Automatic
Sprinklers
Type of
Construction
Yes
Non-comb.
No
Comb.
Yes
Comb.
Yes
Yes
Non-comb.
Comb.
No
Comb.
Yes
Comb.
No
Non-comb.
Yes
Non-comb.
Yes
Comb.
No
Comb.
Yes
Yes
Comb.
Comb.
No
Comb.
Yes
Comb.
Yes
Non-comb.
No
Comb.
Yes
Comb.
Non-comb. = non-combustible construction

Comb. = combustible construction
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
8
4.2
Use of CLT in Combustible Construction

As defined in ANSI/APA PRG 320 [3], a CLT element or panel is a prefabricated solid engineered wood
product made from at least three (3) orthogonally-bonded layers of finger-jointed, solid-sawn, visually-graded or
mechanically-graded lumber or structural composite lumber (SCL).
As such, CLT is considered an acceptable combustible building material and is therefore authorized for use in
buildings allowed to be of combustible construction.
CLT may be used in any form of combustible construction where it provided the requisite fire-resistance rating.
These ratings are generally 45 minutes or 1 hour or, in some cases, for occupancy separations up to 2 hours. CLT
assemblies have been specifically tested to CAN/ULC S101 and demonstrated to provide 45 minutes, 1 hour and
greater fire resistance as detailed in Subsection 5.7 of this Chapter.
4.3
Use of CLT in Heavy Timber Construction

As defined in the NBCC, heavy timber construction is a special type of combustible construction allowed to be
used where combustible construction is permitted and is not required to have a fire-resistance rating greater than
45 minutes. It is also generally built from a post-and-beam structural system, where the load-bearing elements need
to conform to the minimum dimensions indicated in Table 3.1.4.7 of Part 3 of Division B of the NBCC.
Similar to heavy timber construction, CLT is most likely to be used in thick and massive panels. Provided that
CLT elements are of sufficient dimensions to provide a 45-minute fire-resistance rating, CLT may reasonably be
considered to conform to the provisions for heavy timber construction. In this regard, the 2015 International
Building Code (IBC), the model building code widely used in the United States, will prescriptively allow the use of
CLT in Type IV construction, also known as Heavy Timber Construction, for exterior walls, interior walls, floors
and roofs. Specific minimum dimensions will be provided for CLT walls, floors and roofs and specific provisions
will also be provided to allow CLT in exterior walls, where non-combustible materials are traditionally required in
Type IV construction.
As of 2014, no specific prescriptive Code language has been submitted to the Canadian Commission on Building
and Fire Codes (CCBFC) for recognition of CLT as a specific type of construction in Part 3 of Division B of the
NBCC; therefore, technical information and guidance provided herein as well as the provisions approved by the
2015 IBC and the reference to ANSI/APA PRG 320 may serve as a starting point for allowing CLT to be used in
combustible and heavy timber construction in compliance with an alternative solution to the provisions set forth
in Division B of the NBCC.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
9
4.4
Use of CLT in Non-Combustible Construction

Non-combustible construction, as defined in the NBCC, requires its structural elements to be of non-combustible
materials. The acceptable solutions of Part 3 of Division B exclude the use of CLT as structural elements in noncombustible construction.
However, roofs in buildings up to 2 storeys are permitted to be of heavy timber construction, regardless of
building area or type of construction required, provided the building is entirely protected by automatic sprinklers.
There is potential for CLT to be used as roof elements in low-rise and large buildings required to be of noncombustible construction.
Moreover, a design professional wanting to use CLT in a project beyond the current prescriptive code limitations,
which would otherwise be required to be of non-combustible construction, is allowed to develop an alternative
solution in accordance with Clause 1.2.1.1.1)b) of Division A of the NBCC, which may range from the
development of a simple equivalency to undertaking a full objective-based design (also known as performancebased design). Developing an objective-based design requires that the building needs to achieve at least the
minimum level of performance required by Division B in the areas defined by the objectives and functional
statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions. In this regard, a technical guide for designing tall
wood buildings has recently been published in relation to various approaches that may be used for designing mass
timber structural elements in buildings otherwise required to be of non-combustible construction [26].
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
10
5
Fire Resistance
of CLT
Building regulations require that key building assemblies exhibit sufficient fire resistance to allow time for
occupants to escape and to minimize property losses as well as for emergency responders to carry out their
duties. The intent is to limit the possibility of structural collapse and to subdivide a building into fire-rated
compartments. A fire compartment, as defined in the NBCC, means an enclosed space in a building that is
separated from all other parts of the building by enclosing construction that provides a fire separation having a
required fire-resistance rating. The objective of the compartmentalization concept is to limit fire spread beyond
its point of origin by using boundary elements (e.g., walls, ceilings, floors, partitions, etc.) having a fire-resistance
rating no less than the minimum ratings prescribed by the NBCC. Fire-resistance ratings are usually assigned in
whole numbers of hours (e.g., 1 hour and 2 hours) or parts of hours (e.g., hour or 30 minutes and of an hour
or 45 minutes).
Structural fire performance of building assemblies is assessed by conducting fire-resistance tests in accordance
with CAN/ULC S101 [27]. A fire-resistance rating is defined as the period of time that a building element,
component, or assembly maintains the ability to perform its separating function (i.e., confining a fire by preventing
or retarding the passage of excessive heat, hot gases or flames), continues to perform a given load-bearing function,
or both, when exposed to fire under specified conditions of test and performance criteria. More specifically, a
standard fire-resistance test entails three performance criteria (Figure 3). The time at which the assembly can no
longer satisfy any one of these three criteria defines the assemblys fire resistance.
1.

2.

3.

Structural resistance: The assembly must support the applied load for the duration of the test
(relates to the load-bearing function).
Integrity: The assembly must prevent the passage of flame or gases hot enough to ignite a cotton pad
(relates to the separating function).
Insulation: The assembly must prevent the rise in temperature of the unexposed surface from being
greater than 180C at any location, or an average of 140C measured at a number of locations,
above the initial temperature (relates to the separating function).
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
11
a) Structural resistance
b) Integrity
c) Insulation
Figure 3
Fire-resistance criteria per CAN/ULC S101
When designing buildings with CLT elements, it is necessary to use assemblies that comply with the required fireresistance ratings. In some instances, such as for non-load-bearing partition wall assemblies, only the separating
function is required in defining the fire resistance (e.g., the assembly must meet only the insulation and integrity
criteria). In the case of load-bearing walls and all floor/roof assemblies, the assembly must provide both the loadbearing function (structural resistance) as well as the separating function for not less than the duration of the fireresistance rating required in the NBCC. The determination of the fire resistance of CLT assemblies has therefore
been split into requirements based on load-bearing function and separating function in this Chapter.
5.1
Test Method CAN/ULC S101

The NBCC requires that the fire-resistance rating of a building assembly be assessed by subjecting a specimen of
the assembly to a standard fire-resistance test, such as CAN/ULC S101, which is similar, in most parts, to the fire
severity and performance criteria set forth in other international standards, such as ASTM E119 [28] and ISO 834
[29]. They require a wall (Figure 4) or floor (Figure 5) assembly to be exposed to a post-flashover fire specified by
a time-temperature curve (Figure 6). CAN/ULC S101 is a performance-based standard method and is not related
to the combustibility of materials, which is typically assessed in accordance with CAN/ULC S114.
a) Unprotected CLT before test
b) Unexposed surface during test
c) Protected CLT after test
Figure 4
CLT fire-resistance wall tests conducted at NRCC in Ottawa, ON
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
12
a) Unprotected CLT before test
b) Unexposed surface during test
c) Protected CLT after test
Figure 5
CLT fire-resistance floor tests conducted at NRCC in Ottawa, ON
Time
(min)
Temperature
(C)
538
10
704
30
843
60
927
120
1010
240
1093
Figure 6
Standard time-temperature curve from CAN/ULC S101
For load-bearing assemblies, the test standard requires the assembly to be structurally loaded during fire exposure.
In order to satisfy the structural criterion, the test specimen needs to sustain the applied load, called superimposed
load as per CAN/ULC S101, throughout the fire test period. Such loading requirements are applicable to all
structural elements, including timber, steel and concrete assemblies. The superimposed load may represent a full
specified load condition or a restricted load use condition. According to CAN/ULC S101, the full specified
load condition is satisfied when the test specimen is subjected to the specified gravity loads that produce a factored
load effect as close as practical to the factored resistance of the test specimen, determined in accordance with the
appropriate limit states design standard, such as CSA O86 Engineering Design in Wood [30]. A test conducted
under the maximum load ensures that the fire-resistance rating obtained is appropriate for use in any equal or lesser
loading conditions (assuming they satisfy the load-bearing requirements). Additional information regarding
the loading conditions during a standard fire-resistance test of wood components may be found in CAN/ULC
S101 and Dagenais et al. [31] for use in Canada as well as in ASTM D6513 and D7746 standards [15, 16] for use
in the U.S.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
13
However, the limited short test span (typically around 4.7 m) and the maximum loading capacity from the fire
laboratories steel-framed test apparatus make it very difficult for CLT assemblies to be evaluated under full loading
conditions. In fact, most North American fire test facilities do not have the capacity to load CLT assemblies
to their full loading conditions. Moreover, it is doubtful that CLT floor assemblies will be structurally loaded
anywhere near their ultimate capacity and quite often may be carrying loads much lower than their design capacity
due to serviceability limits (deflection or vibration). As such, a rational fire-resistance calculation methodology,
based on first principles such as charring rate, effective reduced cross-section, and load ratio, is more suitable
to ensure an efficient and economical CLT building design.
5.2
Mechanics-Based Design Method

The proposed methodology for determining the fire resistance of CLT elements is a mechanics-based deterministic
design method based on limit states design calculation procedures. It calculates the capacity of exposed CLT
elements using basic wood engineering mechanics for fire-resistance calculations of up to 3 hours, limited by the
currently available test data. The proposed calculation methodology is also valid only for CLT manufactured with
lumber boards and adhesive meeting the requirements set forth in ANSI/APA PRG 320.
The actual mechanical and physical properties of the wood are used and the capacity of the member is directly
calculated for a given period of time. The section properties are computed assuming a stepped one-dimensional
charring rate (o) for a given time (t) of fire exposure. Reductions of strength and stiffness of wood directly
adjacent to the char layer are addressed by a fixed zero-strength layer (do) for uniformity and consistency with a
recent calculation methodology developed by Dagenais & Osborne [32] applicable to timber, glued-laminated
timber and structural composite lumber of large cross-sections. The resistance factor () is set to unity and the
duration of load factor (KD) is taken as short-term. Lastly, the member specified strength properties are adjusted
to the average strength value (i.e., mean value), based on existing accepted statistical procedures, such as ASTM
D2915 [33], used to evaluate allowable properties for structural lumber.
Finally, the wood members are designed using accepted engineering procedures found in CSA O86 and the
failure occurs when the load applied on the member exceeds the member capacity that has been reduced due to
fire exposure. It is important to note that in calculating the CLT bending moment or axial resistances, only plies
running in the direction of the applied stress are to be considered. The cross plies, while providing a fixed spacing
between the longitudinal layers, are assumed to provide no structural contribution to the bending moment or axial
resistance of the panels.
In order to estimate the reduced cross-sectional dimensions, the location of the char base must be determined as a
function of time on the basis of empirical charring rate data. The char layer may be assumed to have zero strength
and stiffness.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
14
5.3
Application of Mechanics-Based Methodology to CLT
5.3.1
Charring Rate and Char Depth

A constant one-dimensional charring rate (o) is commonly assumed for solid-sawn and glue-laminated
softwood members that are fully exposed (i.e., unprotected) throughout the time of fire exposure. This is with
the assumption that glued structural products behave similarly to solid (non-glued) timber when exposed to fire
and that the adhesive used does not exhibit delamination characteristics. An adhesive used in a glued structural
product such as CLT must maintain its bond between wood members when exposed to high temperature in order
to prevent failure at the bond line when some of the wood layers may still have considerable residual strength. The
adhesive must also maintain sufficient strength when subjected to temperatures associated with charring of wood
(generally taken as 300C [34]) in order to ensure that charred layers do not fall off. Char performs an important
insulating function and helps protect the remaining wood cross-section. If the adhesive is not able to prevent
the premature fall-off of layers, then consideration should be given to the impact on the charring rate and the
associated reduction in the fire-resistance rating of the assembly.
The CLT panels used for developing the fire-resistance calculation methodology were manufactured with a
structural polyurethane (PUR) adhesive conforming to ANSI/APA PRG 320 Standard for Performance-Rated
Cross-Laminated Timber for use in both the U.S. and Canada. During full-scale fire research on CLT walls
and floors [12], localized pieces of the charred layers were observed to fall off when the temperature at the CLT
lamination interface (glue line) approached 200C, indicating an adhesive failure and suggesting that the ASTM
D7247 [35] test may not be severe enough to address glue lines in the char layer (300C). Analysis of the data
indicated an acceleration of the char rate subsequent to the failure of a laminate. Additional fire testing of CLT
manufactured with PUR adhesive is warranted.
Such a delamination effect was also observed in experiments carried by Frangi et al. [6] on structural polyurethane
adhesive, where it actually increased the charring rate of the CLT when exposed to fire. It should be noted however
that, in Europe, structural adhesives must comply with performance requirements specified in EN 301 [36] and
EN 15425 [37]. The highest temperature in the tests according to these European standards is 70C, being held
over two weeks under constant loading of the bonded specimens. Therefore, the current European standards
provide little or no information nor do they provide a classification for adhesives at elevated temperatures
appropriate for fire-resistance design [6]. Such temperature exposure is also much lower than the temperature of
the base charred layer. The question of the integrity of a laminate that has charred therefore involves performance
at temperatures of 300C and higher. Extensive testing with a variety of products made with a phenol-resorcinolformaldehyde adhesive has shown that charring does not result in delamination when this type of adhesive is used.
Figure 7 shows typical charring rates observed from testing conducted with 5-ply CLT wall specimens made
from different laminate thicknesses. It may be observed that the thermocouples measurements (indicated as
TC data at glue line in Figure 7, when the temperature reached 300C) provide average charring rates of
0.64 mm/min and 0.78 mm/min for laminates, with a thickness of 35 mm and 21 mm, respectively. This value
incorporates the assumption that laminates of a thickness less than 35 mm, which is a typical thermal penetration
depth for softwoods, have an impact on the effective charring rate for CLT. The critical failure temperature will be
reached much faster at the glue line when thin laminates, as compared to thicker laminates, are used and this could
potentially lead to earlier fall-off of the laminates. The measured average charring rate of 0.64 mm/min is very
similar to that prescribed in other design standards such as Eurocode 5: Part 1-2 [10] and NDS [15].
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
15
Char Depth (mm)
Time (min.)
Figure 7
Char depth measurements of CLT wall specimens from different laminate thicknesses
When designing is intended for Canada, the use of a one-dimensional charring rate (o) that is adjusted as a
function of the thickness of the laminates (d in mm) as per Equation 1 is recommended, while resetting the zerostrength layer every time a glue line is crossed. As such, a conservative adjustment factor is provided in Equation 1
to account for a potential increased effective charring rate when thin laminates are used. As shown in Figure 7,
thinner laminates tend to exhibit a faster effective charring rate. However, due to the limited test data, additional
fire testing of CLT manufactured with thin laminates (less than 35 mm) is warranted to refine the inherent
conservatism. Should a CLT panel be manufactured with laminates of different thicknesses, the appropriate
charring rate is to be subsequently applied to the respective laminates, layer by layer.
[1]
It should be noted that a one-dimensional charring rate of 0.65 mm/min is a common value for most softwoods
and glued-laminated timber of a characteristic density of 290 kg/m and greater (equivalent to a relative density
value of 0.35 and greater). Other CLT charring rates may be applicable, provided that they have been established
from standard fire-resistance testing in accordance with CAN/ULC S101.
After the char depth is calculated, an additional thickness needs to be subtracted to account for the loss of strength
in the heated zone beneath the char front (i.e., a zero-strength layer, do). If the exposure time is less than 20 minutes,
then the zero-strength layer is to vary linearly from zero at time zero to a depth of 7 mm at 20 minutes (Equation 2).
This is the same practice used in Eurocode 5 Part 1-2 [10] for the heated zone used for glulam and heavy timber.
The justification for the 7-mm thickness is also provided by Schaffer et al. [38]. The effective char depth (achar,eff)
may then be evaluated as per Equation 3.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
16
[2]
[3]
where:
do
achar,eff
o
t
=
=
=
=
zero-strength layer as per Equation 2 (mm)

effective char depth (mm)
one-dimensional charring rate as per Equation 1 (mm/min)
required fire resistance (min)
When the effective char layer crosses a glued interface between laminates, the time (t) used in determining the
zero-strength layer (do) should be reset. The resetting of the zero-strength layer accounts for an increased charring
rate when a layer delaminates (falls off ) and suddenly exposes uncharred wood underneath to fire. When a layer
delaminates, the subsequent layer starts charring at an increased rate until a new charred (insulating) layer is
generated. The charring rate may then be reduced to the one-dimensional rate (Equation 1), again until the next
layer falls off.
As such, considering the above one-dimensional charring rate adjustment and a fixed zero-strength layer of
7 mm (while being reset at every glue line), the effective char depths for CLT manufactured with laminates
of equal thickness may be found in Table 2.
Table 2
Effective char depth for CLT design in Canada
Effective Char Depth, achar,eff (mm)
Fire Exposure
Lamination Thickness (mm)

19 (3/4)
21 (7/8)
25 (1)
32 (11/4)
35 (13/8)
38 (11/2)
30 min.
34
33
30
27
27
27
45 min.
51
50
47
39
36
36
1 hr.
67
66
61
54
51
51
1.5 hrs.
101
100
91
78
72
72
2 hrs.
136
133
122
102
99
99
While the U.S. stepped charring model assumes a one-dimensional charring rate of 0.635 mm/min. (1.5 in./hr.)
throughout, which leads to some minor differences with the Canadian model, it can be demonstrated that the
above calculated effective char depths are consistent with those obtained from the U.S. model described in the U.S.
edition of the CLT Handbook, therefore resulting in a similar reduction of the cross-section.
And lastly, it is anticipated that CLT manufactured with adhesives that do not exhibit delamination at
temperatures below the char front (i.e., would char at a similar rate as solid wood) may use a constant charring rate
for calculating the effective char depth (0.65 mm/min., for example) without the thickness adjustment shown in
Equation 1, and without the need to reset the zero-strength layer at every glue line.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
17
Approximation of Member Strength and Capacity
Parametric analyses are typically used to establish 5th percentile tolerance limits with a 75% confidence level.
Strength properties such as bending, tension, compression and shear are derived with this parametric analysis
(deriving a 5th percentile), while modulus of elasticity (E) for serviceability is derived from the mean values (i.e.,
average value). ASTM D2915 Standard Practice for Sampling and Data Analysis for Structural Wood and WoodBased Products [33] provides a methodology for estimating the parametric tolerance limit (PTL or pth percentile)
for a normal statistical distribution as a function of test data average values and coefficients of variation.
The following strength adjustment factor (Kfi) shown in Table 3 may be used and the average strength of CLT
laminates may be approximated by multiplying design values (Fb, Ft, Fc, and E05) by the adjustment factors
indicated in CSA O86, when applicable to CLT, which are summarized in Table 4. Additional information
regarding the strength adjustment factors may be found in Dagenais & Osborne [32].
Table 3
Strength adjustment factors (Kfi) for CLT fire-resistance design
CLT Stress Grade
Lumber Type in Strength Axis
Kfi
Machine stress rated

lumber (MSR)
1.25
Visually graded sawn

lumber
1.50
E1 1950fb-1.7E
E2 1650fb-1.5E
E3 1200fb-1.2E
V1 D-Fir No. 2
V2 SPF No. 1/No. 2
Load Duration Factor
System Factor
Service Condition
Factor
Treatment Factor
Curvature Factor
Size Factor (1)
Column Slenderness
Factor (2)
Beam Lateral
Stability (2)
Notch Factor
Table 4
Applicable adjustment factors for CLT fire-resistance design
Strength Adjustment
Factor
5.3.2
Bending
Kfi
KD
KH
KS
KT
KX
KZb
KL
Compression
Kfi
KD
KH
KS
KT
KZc
KC
Tension
Kfi
KD
KH
KS
KT
KZt
Shear
Kfi
KD
KH
KS
KT
KZv
KN
MOE (E05) (Buckling)
Kfi
KD
KH
KS
KT
MOE (E) (Serviceability)
KD
KH
KS
KT
Factor must be based on initial cross-section dimensions

Factor must be based on reduced cross-section dimensions
System, service condition and treatment factors for CLT are to be taken as unity.
(1)
(2)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
18
All member strength and cross-sectional properties should be adjusted prior to the interaction calculations. The
interaction calculations should then be conducted in accordance with appropriate CSA O86 design provisions.
5.4
Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Structural Requirement

The procedure set forth in CAN/ULC S101 is applicable to floor and roof assemblies with or without attached,
furred, or suspended ceilings and requires fire exposure to the underside of the specimen being tested. When wall
assemblies are evaluated, the specimen is exposed to fire from one side only. This structural requirement is essential
in limiting the risk of structural failure or collapse of physical elements due to the effects of a fire.
5.4.1
Structural Fire Resistance

Calculation of the structural fire-resistance failure time of CLT floor or wall assemblies is outlined in the following
four steps. The time at which the CLT assembly can no longer support the applied load defines its structural
fire resistance (tStruc). Once the CLT assembly capacity has been determined using the effective section properties
from Subsection 5.3.1 and the member strength approximations from Subsection 5.3.2 of this Chapter, the CLT
assembly may be designed using accepted design procedures for rare loading conditions, as with seismic and fire
design in accordance with the Users Guide NBC 2010 Structural Commentary (Part 4 of Division B) [39].
Figure 8 shows a CLT panel exposed to fire and some of the nomenclature used in calculating its fire resistance.
Although ANSI/APA PRG 320 follows the Shear Analogy Model for determining CLT capacities, which form
the basis for designing under normal conditions, the model is limited and only valid for CLT of symmetrical
cross-sections. As such, the classical laminated wood composite theory, as described by Bdig & Jayne [40], is
the most suitable method for fire design, as the cross-section is reduced as a function of time and then becomes
asymmetrical (i.e., an unbalanced layup). Cross-plies are not taken into account in the calculation of bending
moment resistance for floors nor wall compressive resistance parallel to grain (i.e., E90 = G0 = G90 = 0). Also,
calculations are typically made for a unit width of CLT panel, typically 1 meter.
Figure 8
Nomenclature used in calculating fire resistance of CLT exposed to fire from below
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
19
Step 1: Calculation of the effective char depth

The effective char depth can be determined by the product of the appropriate one-dimensional charring rate (o),
as per Equation 1, multiplied by the duration of fire exposure (t) (i.e., the required fire-resistance rating) with the
additional inclusion of a zero-strength layer (do). The time (t) used in determining the zero-strength layer (do)
should be reset at every glue line, as discussed in Subsection 5.3.1 of this Chapter. Alternatively, the effective char
depth for common laminate thicknesses can be taken directly from Table 2.
Moreover, should different laminate thicknesses be used, either for the major or minor strength direction, an
appropriate charring rate and effective char layer should be determined as per Equation 1 and Equation 3, for each
different laminate thicknesses respectively.
Step 2: Determination of effective reduced cross-section
The effective reduced cross-section depth remaining for design under fire conditions (hfire) may be calculated as:
[4]
where:
hfire
h
= effective reduced cross-section depth (mm)

= initial cross-section depth of the CLT panel (mm)
Since the stiffness of the crossing plies is ignored (i.e., E90 = 0), should hfire fall within a cross-ply (i.e., between
plies that are parallel to the applied stress), hfire is reduced to the distance from the unexposed face to the edge
of the nearest inner ply located in the major strength direction.
Step 3: Find location of neutral axis and section properties of the effective reduced cross-section
Equation 5 will be used to calculate the location of the neutral axis (y ) when the plies parallel to the direction
of the applied stress do not all have the same modulus of elasticity.
[5]

where:
y = distance from the unexposed surface of the panel to the neutral axis (mm)
y i = distance from the unexposed surface of the panel to the centroid of ply i (mm)
hi = remaining depth of ply i (mm)
Ei = modulus of elasticity of ply i in the major strength axis (MPa)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
20
The modulus of elasticity for plies perpendicular to the applied stress (i.e., E90) may typically be approximated as
E/30. However, in fire design, this value may conservatively be assumed to equal zero when calculating the neutral
axis and section properties of asymmetrical cross-sections by the classical laminates wood composite theory.
If the plies in the direction of the applied stress all consist of the same grade and species group and therefore have
the same modulus of elasticity, Equation 5 may be reduced to the following equation:
[6]

The effective bending stiffness of the effective reduced cross-section may be determined using Equation 7 as
follows:
[7]

where:
EIeff,fi = effective bending stiffness for fire design (Nmm)
bi = unit width of the CLT panel (typically 1 m or 1,000 mm)
hi = remaining depth of ply i (mm)
di = distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of ply i (mm)
Similarly, if the plies in the direction of the applied stress all consist of the same grade and species group
and therefore have the same modulus of elasticity, Equation 7 may be reduced to the following equation for
determining the moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section:
[8]

where:
Ieff,fi = moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section for fire design (mm4)
Step 4: Calculation of structural resistance
Using the effective reduced cross-section determined in Step 3, the member capacity may be calculated by
multiplying the adjusted specified strength values. Any contribution to the strength provided by the plies
perpendicular to the applied stress may be ignored. The design values are determined through accepted
engineering design procedures related to fire design of wood members, such as those detailed in [32] and described
herein.
The calculation of the factored bending moment and the compressive resistance parallel to grain have been split
into Steps 4a and 4b respectively, due to the different interactions used.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
21
Step 4a: Calculation of the factored bending moment resistance

The factored bending moment resistance of a CLT assembly may be calculated using an adapted procedure
of Section 6.5.6 of CSA O86, applicable to glulam members. The effective section modulus of the reduced
cross-section (Seff) is calculated based on the moment of inertia of the plies running in the direction of the applied
stress (Ieff) and the location of the neutral axis (y ), as shown in Equation 9:
[9]

where:
Seff,fi = effective section modulus for fire design (mm)
E = modulus of elasticity of the ply that sustains the greatest tensile stress, typically Ei (MPa)
If the plies in the direction of the applied stress all consist of the same grade and species group and therefore have
the same modulus of elasticity, Equation 9 may be reduced to the following equation:
[10]
The size factor in bending (KZb), lateral stability factor (KL), system factor (KH), service condition factor (KSb),
and treatment factors (KT) for CLT panels should all be set to unity. The factored bending moment resistance
of a CLT assembly is thereby calculated based on the adjusted specified strength in the bending of the wood and
the effective section modulus of the reduced cross-section, as shown in Equation 11. It should be noted that the
moment capacities in the major strength direction need to be multiplied by a factor of 0.85 for conservatism,
which has been validated by testing [3].
[11]
where:
Mr,fi = factored bending moment resistance in fire-resistance design (Nmm)
= 1.0 (in fire design only)
Fb,fi = fb (Kfi Kd KH KSb KT)
where:
fb = specified strength of wood in the strong axis (MPa), Section 5.3 of CSA O86
Kfi = strength adjustment factor as per Table 3
Kd = 1.15 (short-term for fire design)
Krb = adjustment factor in bending
= 0.85 for bending along the major strength direction
= 1.00 for bending along the minor strength direction
Mf = maximum induced factored moment in fire-resistance design (Nmm), calculated based
on values from Equation 12
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
22
According to the Users Guide NBC 2010 Structural Commentary (Part 4 of Division B) [39], seismic and fire
events are considered rare occurrences. As such, principal load factors (Gi and Qi) for rare loads, as with seismic
and fire design, may be set to unity because of their low annual probability of occurrence. The loading condition
shown in Equation 12 may be used for the fire-resistance design of CLT assemblies.
[12]
where L + D are the load effect due to the sum of the specified live and dead loads and where Rfi is the factored
capacity for fire design adjusted to average ultimate capacity, as outlined in this Chapter.
Provided that the structural resistance of the effective reduced cross-section is greater than the effects induced
by the specified design load shown in Equation 12, the fire resistance of the CLT element will be equal to or
greater than that of the resistance used in determining the reduced cross-section. Serviceability limit states,
such as deflections, are usually not as much a concern as ultimate limit states (i.e., strengths) during fire design
considerations [41].
Should a performance-based fire safety design approach be used, in which the specific fire scenario has
design fire(s) with time-temperature relations other than those specified in the standard CAN/ULC S101
fire-resistance test, additional analysis may be required. For example, a thermal and mechanical analysis
may be needed in order to determine an appropriate charring rate and zero-strength layer.
Moreover, in such a design scenario and based on the judgment of the fire protection engineer, it may be
appropriate to use the load factors suggested in paragraph 25 of Structural Commentary A of the Users
Guide NBC 2010 Structural Commentary (Part 4 of Division B), along with appropriate resistance ()
and adjustment factors in accordance with CSA O86. It is not recommended to use strength adjustment
factors and the reduced load combination specified in paragraph A-25 of the Structural Commentary
when conducting performance-based fire design.
It should be noted that the effective reduced cross-section, neutral axis, moment of inertia, and section modulus
are continually changing during fire exposure as the cross-section is being reduced; therefore, in cases where
fire resistance may be the controlling design factor, it is recommended that these calculations be completed in a
spreadsheet so the bending moment resistance may be calculated as a function of time.
A sample calculation of the bending moment resistance of a CLT floor assembly is shown in Section 5.9 of this
Chapter.
Step 4b: Calculation of factored compressive resistance parallel to grain
The factored axial compressive resistance parallel to the grain of a CLT assembly may be calculated using an
adapted procedure of Sections 6.5.8 of CSA O86, applicable to glulam, where only the layers oriented parallel to
the axial force are assumed to carry the load; however, the total area of the reduced cross-section (Atot,fi) is to be
used when calculating the slenderness ratio (CC,fi) of the effective reduced cross-section, as per Equation 13.
[13]

where:
Le = effective length, typically equal to the unbraced height of the CLT wall (mm)
Ieff,fi = moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section (mm4)
Atot,fi = total area of the effective reduced cross-section (mm)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
23
The CLT wall size factor in axial compression (KZc, based on initial cross-section) and slenderness factor
for fire-resistance design (KC,fi, based on effective reduced cross-section) must be calculated as follows:
[14]
[15]
where:
Fc,fi = fc (Kfi Kd KH KSc KT)
where:
fc = specified strength of the wood in the strong axis (MPa), Section 5.3 of CSA O86
CC = slenderness ratio of the effective reduced cross-section, Equation 13
L = panel length (mm)
E = modulus of elasticity of the wood in the strength axis (MPa), Section 5.3 of CSA O86
The system factor (KH), service condition factors (KSc and KSE), and treatment factors (KT) for CLT panels should
all be set to unity. The factored compressive resistance parallel to the grain of a CLT assembly is thereby calculated
based on the adjusted specified strength in compression parallel to the grain of the wood, the area and the
slenderness factor of the reduced cross-section, as shown in Equation 16.
[16]
where:
Pr,fi = factored compressive resistance parallel to grain in fire-resistance design (N)
= 1.0 (in fire design only)
Fc,fi = fc (Kfi Kd KH KSc KT)
where:
fc = specified strength of the wood in the strength axis (MPa), Section 5.3 of CSA O86
Aeff,.fi = effective reduced cross-sectional area (mm)
KZc = size factor in axial compression, Equation 14
Kc,fi = slenderness factor for fire design, Equation 15
Pf = maximum induced axial compressive force in fire design, Equation 12 (N)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
24
When exposed to fire, a CLT wall assembly is subjected to second-order effects (i.e., P- effects) due to
the charring of the fire exposed surface. The cross-section is reduced as a function of time, causing the neutral
axis to shift towards the unexposed surface, therefore creating an increasing eccentricity as a function of time
(Figure 9). It is strongly recommended that the fire resistance of a CLT wall assembly be calculated using the
procedures specified in Section 6.5.12 of CSA O86 for combined bending and axial loading. The time at which
the CLT wall assembly can no longer support the applied axial load defines its structural fire resistance (tStruc).
Equation 17 provides an alternate form of the equation found in CSA O86 for CLT assemblies.
[17]
where:
Pf = maximum induced axial compressive force in fire design, Equation 12 (N)
Pr,fi = factored compressive resistance parallel to grain in fire design, Equation 16 (N)
Mf = maximum out-of-plane induced factored moment in fire design, Equation 12 (Nmm)
f = deflection due to out-of-plane loading (bending) (mm)
e0 = panel deflection due to axial load eccentricity (mm)
0 = initial wall imperfections at mid-height of the panel usually taken as L/500 + h/6,

where:
L is the panel height and h is the panel initial depth (mm)
Mr,fi = factored bending moment resistance in fire design, Equation 11 (Nmm)
PE,fi =
where:
E = modulus of elasticity of the wood in the strength axis (MPa), Section 5.3 of CSA O86
Ieff,fi = moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section for fire design (mm4)
Le = effective length, typically equal to the unbraced height of the CLT wall (mm)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
25
Figure 9
CLT wall assembly subjected to combined bending and axial compression
Note that the effective reduced cross-section, neutral axis, moment of inertia, and slenderness ratio are continually
changing during fire exposure as the cross-section is being reduced; consequently, in cases where fire resistance may
be the controlling design factor, it is recommended that these calculations be completed in a spreadsheet so the
axial capacity can be calculated as a function of time.
A sample calculation of a CLT wall assembly subjected to combined bending and axial loading is shown in
Section 5.10 of this Chapter.
5.4.2
Use of Protective Membranes to Increase Structural Fire Resistance

The proposed mechanics-based design procedure, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.1 of this Chapter, predicts average
fire-resistance times for CLT wall and floor assemblies that closely track actual fire-resistance times for tested
assemblies up to 3 hours. Full-scale fire-resistance wall and floor tests have been conducted on CLT protected
and unprotected with gypsum board. These tests have shown that the fire resistance of CLT assemblies may be
increased when protective membranes are used.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
26
The calculation methods in the previous sections are based on an unprotected CLT panel fully exposed to
standard fire exposure. Experiments by the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory on tension members [42] and by
FPInnovations on CLT assemblies protected with Type X gypsum boards [12, 43] indicate that the structural
failure time of protected assemblies may be calculated as the failure time of an unprotected assembly, in
accordance with Subsection 5.4.1 of this Chapter, plus the inclusion of additional time to account for protection
measures. When gypsum board is directly applied on the fire exposed side, the following times may be added to
the structural failure time of an unprotected assembly:
a) 15 minutes for one layer of 12.7-mm ( in.) type X gypsum board
b) 30 minutes for one layer of 15.9-mm ( in.) type X gypsum board
c) 40 minutes for two layers of 12.7-mm ( in.) type X gypsum board
d) 60 minutes for two layers of 15.9-mm ( in.) type X gypsum board
The gypsum board protective membranes should be attached directly to the massive timber members using
57-mm (2 in.) Type S drywall screws spaced at 305 mm (12 in.) on the center along the perimeter and
throughout. Screws must be kept at least 38 mm (1 in.) from the edges of the boards. When using a single
thermal protective membrane, the gypsum board joints should be covered with tape and coated with joint
compound. End joints must be staggered between adjacent gypsum boards. When using two layers of thermal
protective membranes, the face layer joints should be covered with tape and coated with joint compound. In all
cases, the screw heads of the exposed layer should also be covered with joint compound. End joints in the face layer
must be staggered between adjacent gypsum boards and end joints of the base (1st) layer.
5.5
Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Integrity Requirement

As mentioned in Section 5 of this Chapter, integrity is one of the two requirements of the separating function of
building assemblies. The time at which the CLT panel-to-panel joint can no longer prevent the passage of flame or
gases hot enough to ignite a cotton pad, when exposed to a standard fire, defines the integrity fire resistance (tInt).
This requirement is essential in limiting the risk of fire spread to compartments beyond the compartment of fire
origin.
Panel-to-panel joint performance depends on joint configuration and connection details (refer to Chapter 5 of this
CLT Handbook), where an integrity failure may occur when the connection detail can no longer withstand the
applied load in either shear or withdrawal. For instance, when using wood screws to connect CLT panels together,
a minimum penetration no less than 5 times the wood screw diameter is required for single shear connections.
As the exposed face chars over a period of time, the thickness that would provide an adequate lateral or withdrawal
capacity is reduced. Further to the full-scale fire-resistance tests, and inspired by the European methodology for
timber assemblies specified in Eurocode 5: Part 1-2, a simple calculation model has been developed for half-lapped
CLT panel-to-panel joints (Figure 10) and is represented in Equation 18.
[18]
where:
tInt = integrity fire resistance time (min.)
Kj = CLT panel-to-panel joint coefficient
= 0.35 (for half-lapped joint at mid-depth)
Refer to Subsection 5.5.1 of this Chapter for other configurations.
h = CLT panel thickness (mm)
o = one-dimensional charring rate = 0.65 mm/min.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
27
Figure 10
CLT panel-to-panel half-lapped joint detail
5.5.1
Effect of Joints on Integrity of CLT Walls and Floors

The panel-to-panel joint configuration may affect the integrity performance of CLT assemblies. The sides of
individual CLT panels are shielded from full fire exposure by adjacent panels collectively acting as a joint. Partial
exposure may occur as panels shrink and joints between panels open.
So far, only half-lapped joints have been evaluated (Figure10) where the joint was located at mid-depth of the CLT
panels and overlapping for at least 64 mm (2 in.). The joints were also fastened using self-tapping wood screws of
90 mm (3 in.), 160 mm (6 in.), and 220 mm (8 in.) for CLT assemblies made of 3, 5 and 7 plies respectively.
A bead of construction adhesive was also used to ensure that the joint was sealed.
However, connection details of CLT assemblies may also consist of single- or double-surface splines or internal
spline(s). These tightly fitted joint profiles should offer sufficient fire resistance provided the loss in depth of the
reduced cross-section has not yet reached the internal spline, but this has yet to be properly evaluated for fire
resistance in CLT assemblies.
The integrity of building assemblies is also regulated in the NBCC by the requirements for through-penetrations
(i.e., service penetrations) in assemblies to be fire resistance rated. (Refer to Subsection 8.1 of this Chapter for
further details.)
5.5.2
Use of Protective Membranes, Floor Coverings and Interior Finish to Address Integrity
The calculation shown in Subsection 5.4.1 is based on an unprotected CLT panel-to-panel half-lapped joint fully
exposed to standard fire exposure. When the integrity requirement cannot be fulfilled by the CLT panels alone,
additional floor coverings or wall sheathings may be used to increase the integrity failure time. For example, the
thickness of the floor coverings may be added to the CLT assembly thickness (h) when using Equation 18.
If gypsum board is used, the assigned time listed in Subsection 5.4.2 may be added to the unprotected CLT
assembly integrity failure time, provided it is used on the fire-exposed side.
Moreover, Equation 18 considers the influence of half-lapped joints not backed by other means on the unexposed
side. As such, when structural elements, panels, flooring, or a concrete topping on the unexposed side are added,
the integrity criteria may be assumed to be satisfied, as these additional membranes will prevent the flame
penetration through the assembly and the joint coefficient (Kj) may then be set to unity.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
28
5.6
Fire Resistance of CLT Assemblies Insulation Requirement

As mentioned in Section 5 of this Chapter, insulation is the second performance expectation of the separating
function of building assemblies. The time at which the CLT assembly can no longer prevent the temperature on
the unexposed surface from rising above 180C at any location, or an average of 140C measured at a number of
locations, above the initial temperature, defines the insulative fire resistance (tIns). This requirement is intended to
limit the risk of fire spread to compartments beyond the compartment of fire origin as well as to allow safe egress
within the space located on the side of the assembly away from the fire (unexposed side).
5.6.1
Theoretical Temperature Profiles for CLT Assemblies

Heat transfer occurs from regions of high temperature to regions of cooler temperature within solids (e.g., from
the fire room of origin to adjacent compartments through a wall or floor assembly). This mode of heat transfer
in solid materials is conduction and is a well-known mechanism that satisfies Fouriers law of conduction.
Conduction is also related to the material thermal conductivity (k) represented by the three dimensional (3-D)
transient heat transfer partial differential equation shown in Equation 19.
[19]
where T is the temperature (K), kx,y,z are thermal conductivities in x, y, z directions (W / mK ), Q is the internally
generated heat due to the chemical reaction (W / m), is the density (kg / m), c is the specific heat
( J / kgK), and t is the time (s).
Heat transfer through a material that exhibits charring behaviour is slightly more complicated than that of other
materials such as steel and concrete. The internally generated heat due to the chemical reaction consists of two
parts: 1) the pyrolysis of the wood expressed by an Arrhenius function and 2) the heat absorption per unit volume
due to evaporation of water. More information with regard to the rate of heating, pyrolysis of the wood and
evaporation of water may be found in [44-46].
Materials with a high thermal conductivity (such as steel) are usually considered to be good thermal conductors,
while those having a low thermal conductivity (such as wood) are considered to be good thermal insulators. As
such, the transient or steady-state heat transfer by conduction through CLT is low when compared with other
materials having higher thermal conductivity.
Charring of wood is a complex process and can be quite challenging to model. Defining thermal properties for
every stage of pyrolysis can also be onerous. As such, commercially available finite element software packages are
normally used for solving the differential equations. Such temperature predictions may be useful for determining
the rate of wood charring when conducting a performance-based fire design. It should be noted that current
thermal properties are calibrated for fire tests with standard fire exposure (CAN/ULC S101, for example) and
should not be used for thermal analyses for other fire exposures.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
29
5.6.2
Experimental Temperature Profile Data for CLT Assemblies

As the use of finite element analysis may not be available to most building designers, there is experimental
temperature profile data available for solid wood slabs. In one such generic temperature profile discussed by
Janssens & White [47], the temperature at a distance from the char front is described by Equation 20 when
the member behaves as a semi-infinite solid,
[20]
where T is the temperature (C), Ti is the initial temperature (room temperature usually assumed to be 20C),
Tp is the char front temperature (300C), x is the distance from the char front (mm) and a is the thermal
penetration depth (mm). Based on data for eight species [48], the best fit values for the thermal penetration
depth (a) were 34 mm for spruce with a dry density of 425 kg/m and 33 mm for southern pine (510 kg/m).
In the previous edition of Eurocode 5 (EN1995-1-2:1994), the thermal penetration depth was assigned a value
of 40 mm.
As a result, no temperature rise is assumed on the unexposed side until the CLT thickness is less than 35 mm or
40 mm. The remaining CLT thickness required to keep the average unexposed temperature increase below 140C
(or a temperature of about 160C at a single point) indicated by Equation 20 is 12 mm. At this thickness, the slab
will no longer behave as a semi-infinite solid and the unexposed face will likely not be at ambient temperature.
This implies that the required thickness to prevent a temperature rise on the unexposed side is actually greater
than 12 mm. According to Janssens & White [47], temperature profiles in wood do not appear to be very sensitive
to moisture content. In almost every case, conservative temperatures (i.e., slightly higher) are calculated when a
is taken as 40 mm. The differences are minor and suggest that the profile recommended in the Eurocode is quite
reasonable.
In order to facilitate future Code acceptance for the design of CLT panels for fire resistance, a research project
was recently carried out at FPInnovations. The main objective of the project was to develop and validate a generic
calculation procedure to compute the fire-resistance ratings of CLT wall and floor assemblies. A series of full-scale
wall and floor fire-resistance experiments in accordance with CAN/ULC S101 standard time-temperature curve
was conducted to allow a comparison between the fire resistance measured during a standard fire-resistance test
and that calculated using the proposed alternative method. Figure 11 shows the experimental temperature profile
data obtained from this series of tests compared to the profile obtained by using Equation 20. This illustrates that
insulation failure is unlikely to be a concern for CLT assemblies prior to integrity or structural failure, since the
temperatures on the unexposed side of the char front rapidly decrease to ambient.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
30
Temperature profile
Distance from char front at end of test (mm)
Figure 11
Experimental temperature profiles from [12] and Equation 20
The results presented in Table 5 demonstrate that the insulation requirement is easily met because temperature rise
was very minimal on the unexposed surface. This is true even for a temperature difference across a CLT wall
of 1020C, where the effective reduced CLT thickness (remaining thickness) was as thin as 49 mm.
Table 5
Maximum temperature rises at unexposed surface [12]
Failure Time
(min)
Effective
Reduced
Thickness
(mm)
Furnace
Unexposed
Surface
Initial
Condition
Temperature
Rise on
Unexposed
Surface
E2 114 mm (3-ply)
106
97
992C
24C
23C
1C
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
113
92
1015C
21C
21C
0C
V2 105 mm (5-ply)
57
49
1050C
30C
21C
9C
105
971C
22C
23C
1C
Wall
CLT Stress Grade and

Thickness
Floor
E2 114 mm (3-ply)
(1)
77
(1)
Temperature
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
96
105
982C
20C
20C
0C
V2 105 mm (3-ply)
86
56
973C
60C
22C
38C
V2 175 mm (5-ply)
124
89
1006C
27C
23C
4C
V2 245 mm (7-ply)
178
105
1049C
30C
20C
10C
Test was stopped due to equipment safety concerns. Failure was not reached.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
31
Comparison Between Calculation Method and Experiments

As previously mentioned, FPInnovations, in close collaboration with NRCC, conducted eight fire-resistance tests
to develop and validate a generic fire-resistance calculation procedure of CLT assemblies for Code compliance
(detailed in Subsections 5.4 to 5.6 of this Chapter).
Different load ratios were applied depending on the number of plies and the assembly type (wall or floor). The
assemblies were outfitted with thermocouples at five locations, embedded throughout and in the panel-to-panel
joints, and with deflection gauges at nine locations.
Assemblies consisted of CLT panels, which were constructed of SPF No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, or machine stress
rated (MSR) lumber boards and came from different manufacturers across Canada. The dimensions of the floor
assemblies were 3.61 m x 4.85 m long (142 in. x 190 in.) and the wall assemblies were 3.66 mm x 3.05 m high
(144 in. x 120 in.). All of the assemblies used a half-lapped, panel-to-panel joint that was fastened with self-tapping
screws. The joints were also sealed during assembly, using a 6-mm bead of construction adhesive.
The panels were manufactured with a structural polyurethane adhesive conforming to the ANSI/APA PRG 320
standard. Some of the CLT panels were fully exposed to fire (unprotected), while others were protected with
Type X gypsum boards. Table 6 summarizes the configuration details of CLT assemblies from this test series as
well as some additional full-scale fire-resistance tests [16, 17].
Table 6
CLT assemblies configuration details [12, 17]
Wall
CLT Stress Grade

and Thickness
Lumber Grade in Major

Strength Direction
Gypsum Board
Protection (mm)
Superimposed
Load
Load Ratio
(LSD)
E2 114 mm (3-ply)
MSR 1650Fb 1.5E
2 x 12.7
333 kN/m
94%
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
MSR 1950Fb 1.7E
Unprotected
333 kN/m
40%
V2 105 mm (5-ply)
SPF No. 1/No. 2
Unprotected
72 kN/m
49%
(1)
MSR 1950Fb 1.7E
Unprotected
295 kN/m
95%
E1 175 mm (5-ply) (2)
MSR 1950Fb 1.7E
1 x 15.9
127 kN/m
15%
E2 114 mm (3-ply)
MSR 1650Fb 1.5E
2 x 12.7
2.7 kPa
34%
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
MSR 1950Fb 1.7E
Unprotected
11.8 kPa
59%
V2 105 mm (3-ply)
SPF No. 1/No. 2
1 x 15.9
2.4 kPa
72%
V2 175 mm (5-ply)
SPF No. 1/No. 2
1 x 15.9
8.1 kPa
100%
V2 245 mm (7-ply)
SPF No. 1/No. 2
Unprotected
14.6 kPa
100%
E1 105 mm (3-ply)
Floor
5.7
Note:
Load ratios are based on FcAeff KZcKC for walls and FbSeffKZbKLKrb for floors, under normal design conditions.
Fire-resistance test conducted in collaboration with the Canadian Wood Council [17].
Fire-resistance test conducted in collaboration with the American Wood Council [16].
Gypsum protection was applied on both sides of the CLT wall assembly.
(1)
(2)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
32
The observed times to fire-resistance failure are compared to calculated values in Table 7. In this table, the assigned
fire-resistance values take into consideration the additional time needed to account for the use of gypsum board
protection. Figure 12 shows the test data compared to fire resistances calculated using the lower of either a
structural or integrity failure. The insulation requirement is not listed since temperatures to indicate an insulation
failure were never reached in any of the tests, as shown in Table 5; therefore, only the structural (load-bearing)
and integrity failure times are indicated, calculated as per Subsections 5.4 and 5.5 of this Chapter. While it can be
observed from Figure 12 that the calculation method predictions are conservative, inherent conservatism seems
included in the wall calculation method, mainly due to the interaction for combined bending and axial loading
conditions. The stepped charring rate may also be too conservative for CLT walls, where potential delamination
is less commonly observed as opposed to CLT floors. Further investigation into CLT wall charring behavior is
warranted.
And lastly, Figure 13 compares the predicted failure times from the Canadian fire-resistance calculation method
(i.e., as used in this Chapter) with the U.S. method indicated in the U.S. edition of the CLT Handbook. The
predicted failure times are very similar, providing consistency on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.
Table 7
Comparison between experiments [12, 16, 17] and calculation method
Structural (min.)
Integrity (min.)
Assigned Fire
Resistance (min.)
E2 114 mm (3-ply)
106 (R)
19 + 40 = 59
61 + 40 = 101
59 (R)
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
113 (R)
101
94
94 (E)
V2 105 mm (5-ply)
57 (R)
41
56
41 (R)
E1 105 mm (3-ply)
32 (R)
17
56
17 (R)
186 (R)
117 + 30 = 147
94 + (2x30) = 154
147 (R)
41 + 40 = 81
61 + 40 = 101
81 (R)
Wall
CLT Stress Grade and Thickness
(1)
E1 175 mm (5-ply) (2)

E2 114 mm (3-ply)
Floor
Canadian Calculation Methodology
Experiments
Failure Time
(min.)
77
(3)
E1 175 mm (5-ply)
96 (E)
104
94
94 (E)
V2 105 mm (3-ply)
86 (E)
31 + 30 = 61
56 + 30 = 86
61 (R)
V2 175 mm (5-ply)
124 (E)
95 + 30 = 125
94 + 30 = 124
124 (E)
V2 245 mm (7-ply)
178 (R)
106
131
106 (R)
(1)
Fire-resistance test conducted in collaboration with the Canadian Wood Council [17].
(2)
Fire-resistance test conducted in collaboration with the American Wood Council [16].
Gypsum protection was applied on both sides of the CLT wall assembly.

(3)
Test was stopped due to equipment safety concerns. Failure was not reached.
(R) = Structural failure (mechanical resistance)

(E) = Integrity failure (panel-to-panel joints)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
33
E
SE
RV
AT
IV
CO
N
Predicted Failure Times (min.)
Test Failure Times (min.)
CDN Predicted Failure Times (min.)
Figure 12
Comparison between experiments [9, 13, 14] and the calculation method
US Predicted Failure Times (min.)

Figure 13
Comparison between the revised Canadian method and the U.S. method
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
34
5.8
Composite CLT/Concrete Structure

Composite structures made from timber/concrete are becoming more and more popular, especially for long span
floor systems as well as to provide enhanced serviceability and acoustic performance. Usually, the concrete would
mainly be stressed in compression while the timber would be stressed in tension. The composite structure may be
either a concrete slab connected to a massive timber slab, such as CLT (i.e., a sandwich assembly) or a concrete
slab connected to timber beams (e.g., a T-shaped cross-section). Typically, the composite action between the
materials is provided by shear connector plates or discrete fasteners, such as bolts and screws (Figure 14).
Concrete slab
Concrete slab
Acoustic
membrane
Mass timber
element
Shear connector
plate
Acoustic
membrane
Mass timber
element
Discrete shear
connectors
Figure 14
Examples of a composite CLT/concrete floor structure
While further research is required to better understand the fire behavior of these hybrid systems, full-scale
experiments on composite timber-concrete assemblies by Frangi et al. [49] and ONeil et al. [50] showed that
their structural fire resistance can easily be calculated using the reduced cross-section of the timber components.
The fire-resistance methodology described through Sections 5.4 to 5.6 may thereby be applicable. As mentioned
in Subsection 5.5.2 of this Chapter, it is assumed that the integrity criteria will not be reached, since the concrete
topping will prevent flame penetration through the assembly and the joint coefficient (Kj) may then be set to unity.
As the behavior of composite timber-concrete structures is governed by the shear connection between the
materials, it is also essential that heat transfer through the assembly be sufficiently limited so as not to affect
the shear connectors (including adhesive, if used). Also, as with structural design under normal conditions,
calculations of new sectional properties (due to an upward shift of the neutral axis) and applied stress are required.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
35
5.9
Floor Design Example

The following floor design example follows the steps listed above for determining whether the fire resistance of
an exposed 5-ply CLT floor assembly meets the hypothetically required fire-resistance rating of 1 hour. The floor
assembly has the following specifications:
- 5-ply CLT floor panel made from 35 X 89-mm lumber boards (thickness of 175 mm)
- V2 CLT grade as per ANSI/PRG 320
- Floor span = 6.1 m (20 ft.)
- Major strength direction plies
fb,0 = 11.8 MPa
E0 = 9 500 MPa
Specific gravity = 0.42 (4.2 kN/m) (per CSA O86-09, Table A.10.1)
- Minor strength direction plies
fb,90 = 7.0 MPa
E90 = 9 000 MPa
- Adhesive in accordance with ANSI/PRG 320 requirements
- Panels are connected using a half-lapped joint as per Figure 10
- Applied load of 2.4 kPa (live)
- Induced bending moment represents a load ratio of 57% (normal conditions).
5.9.1.
Calculation of the Load-Bearing Function after 1 Hour of Standard Fire Exposure

The effective char depth may be directly obtained from Table 2 and is equal to 51 mm for 35-mm thick laminates
after 1 hour of standard fire exposure.
Step 2: Determination of the effective reduced cross-section

The effective reduced cross-section is then calculated using Equation 5.
In this floor design example, hfire falls within a ply of the minor strength direction (i.e., within the 2nd ply from the
exposed side); therefore, only the 3rd and 5th plies (from the exposed side) may be considered, providing a total
effective reduced thickness of 105 mm.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
36
Since the V2 CLT grade is of a symmetrical lay-up in accordance with ANSI/PRG 320, the simplified Equations 7
and 9 may be used to determine the neutral axis and the moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section.
Calculations are made for a unit width of CLT panel (1000 mm). The 3rd ply centroid is located at 87.5 mm from
the unexposed side.
Step 4a: Calculation of the factored bending moment resistance

Using the effective reduced cross-section determined in Step 2 and ignoring any contribution to the strength
provided by the cross-plies (i.e., minor strength direction), the factored bending moment resistance of the CLT
floor assembly may be determined using the basic procedure described with Equations 11 and 12.
The applied specified loads are as follows:
The induced bending moment in the fire-resistance design is then equal to:
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
37
The induced bending moment represents a load ratio of 48% of the reduced cross-section capacity after 1 hour of
fire exposure and, therefore, the CLT floor assembly meets the required 1-hour fire resistance under these loads,
span, and CLT grade and configurations.
5.9.2
Calculation of the Separating Function after 1 Hour of Standard Fire Exposure

The separating function of the CLT floor assembly is determined by using Equation 18 as follows:
It is noted that assuming a concrete topping is added on top of the CLT panels, the joint coefficient (Kj) may
be taken as unity, as the integrity fire resistance would be 269 min., which may, in some situations, change the
calculated failure mode from integrity to structural, or vice-versa.
From the calculated fire resistance of this particular CLT floor assembly (load-bearing and separating functions),
the CLT panels could then be left exposed from underneath (ceiling), provided they also meet other fire-related
provisions from Part 3 of Division B of the NBCC (e.g., flame spread rating).
Wall Design Example
5.10
The following wall design example follows the steps listed above for determining whether the fire resistance of a
5-ply CLT wall assembly meets the hypothetically required fire-resistance rating of 2 hours. The wall assembly has
the following specifications:
- 5-ply CLT wall panel made from 35 x 89 mm lumber boards (thickness of 175 mm)
- E1 CLT grade as per ANSI/PRG 320
- Wall height = 3.66 m (12 ft.)
- Major strength direction plies
fb,0 = 28.2 MPa
fc,0 = 19.3 MPa
E0 = 11 700 MPa
- Minor strength direction plies
fb,90 = 7.0 MPa
E90 = 9 000 MPa
- Adhesive in accordance with ANSI/PRG 320 requirements
- Panels are connected using a half-lapped joint as per Figure 10
- Panels are protected by one layer of 15.9 mm Type X gypsum board on both sides
- Applied load of 350 kN/m (live)
- Induced axial load represents a load ratio of 49% of the factored axial compression capacity and 71%
of the bearing capacity (normal conditions).
5.10.1
Calculation of the Load-Bearing Function after 2 Hours of Standard Fire Exposure

Since the protective membrane provides 30 min. before the onset of charring of the CLT panels in accordance
with Subsection 5.4.2 of this Chapter, the structural fire-resistance calculation is made for a fire exposure of only
90 minutes.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
38

The effective char depth may be directly obtained from Table 2 and equals 72 mm for 35-mm thick laminates after
1.5 hours of standard fire exposure.
Step 2: Determination of effective reduced cross-section

The effective reduced cross-section is then calculated using Equation 5.
In this wall design example, hfire falls within a ply of the major strength direction (i.e., within the 3rd ply from the
exposed side); therefore, only a portion of the exposed ply (33 mm) and the complete 1st unexposed ply are used to
calculate the residual strength of the CLT in this example.
Since the E1 CLT grade is of a symmetrical lay-up in accordance with ANSI/PRG 320, the simplified Equations 7
and 9 may be used to determine the neutral axis and the moment of inertia of the effective reduced cross-section.
Calculations are made for a unit width of CLT panel (1000 mm). The 3rd ply centroid is located at 86.5 mm from
the unexposed side.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
39
Step 4b: Calculation of factored compressive resistance parallel to grain

Using the effective reduced cross-section determined in Step 2 and ignoring any contribution to the strength
provided by the cross-plies (i.e., minor strength direction), the factored compressive resistance parallel to the grain
of the CLT wall assembly may be determined by using the basic procedure described from Equations 13 to 16.
(based on initial cross-section)
(based on initial cross-section)
The applied specified axial loads are as follows:
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
40
As mentioned in Subsection 5.4.1 of this Chapter, a CLT wall assembly is subjected to second-order effects (i.e.,
P- effects) due to the charring of the fire exposed surface (Figure 9). As such, it is strongly recommended that the
fire resistance of a CLT wall assembly be calculated using the procedures for combined bending and axial loading,
as shown in Equation 17.
The deflections generated from P- effects may be determined as follows:
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
41
The induced combined bending moment and axial compression represents a load ratio of 84% of the reduced
cross-section capacity after 90 minutes of standard fire exposure; therefore, the CLT wall assembly meets the
required 2-hour fire resistance under these loads, wall height, CLT grade and configurations as well as with
a 15.9-mm Type X gypsum board protective membrane on both sides.
5.10.2
Calculation of the Separating Function after 2 Hours of Standard Fire Exposure

The separating function of the CLT wall assembly is determined by using Equation 18 as follows:
According to Subsection 5.5.2 of this Chapter, a directly applied 15.9-mm Type X gypsum board will provide an
extra 30 minutes to the integrity fire resistance of unprotected CLT assemblies by delaying the time of ignition of
the CLT panels underneath; therefore, the use of such a protective membrane would provide a CLT floor assembly
with a 2-hour fire-resistance rating (94 min. + 30 min. = 124 min. 2 hours). Moreover, when the unexposed
side of a half-lapped joint is backed by other means such as gypsum board to prevent flame penetration, the joint
coefficient (Kj) may be considered to be unity.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
42
6
Connections
As described in Chapter 5 of this Handbook, there is a wide variety of fasteners and many different types of joint
details that may be used to establish roof-to-wall, wall-to-floor, and inter-storey connections in CLT assemblies or
to connect CLT panels to other wood-based elements, or to concrete or steel in hybrid construction. While long,
self-tapping screws are typically recommended by CLT manufacturers and are commonly used for panel-to-panel
connections in floors (as per Figure 10) and floor-to-wall assemblies, traditional dowel-type fasteners, such as
wood screws, nails, lag screws, rivets, bolts and dowels, may also be effectively used in connecting panel elements.
Connections in post-and-beam timber construction, including those built with CLT, play an essential role
in providing strength, stiffness, stability, ductility, and structural fire resistance. Moreover, connections using
metallic fasteners, such as bolts, dowels, and steel plates or brackets, are widely used to assemble massive timber
components or CLT panels and to provide an adequate load path for gravity and/or lateral loads; consequently,
these connections require attention by designers to ensure that these are not the weak link in heavy timber
buildings exposed to fire.
Performance of timber connections exposed to fire may be quite complex due to the influence of numerous
parameters, such as the type of fasteners, the geometry of the connection, different failure modes as well as
different thermal conductivity properties of steel, wood and char layer components. As such, most building codes,
including the NBCC, do not provide a specific fire design methodology for determining the fire performance
of timber connections.
Due to the high thermal conductivity of steel, metallic fasteners and plates directly exposed to fire may heat up
and conduct heat into the wood members. The wood components may then experience charring on the exposed
surface and around the fastener. As a result, the capacity of a metallic connection is reduced to the strength
reduction of the steel fasteners at elevated temperatures and the charring of the wood members [8, 51-58];
therefore, where a fire-resistance rating is required by the NBCC, connections and fasteners are required to be
protected from fire exposure by wood, gypsum board or other protection approved for the required rating.
However, some connections are not vulnerable to the damaging impact of fire. For example, a CLT wall-to-floor
connection used to resist wind or seismic load, as shown in Figure 15, will not be significantly impacted by fire.
Nevertheless, connections used to resist gravity loads, as shown in Figure 16, may require some special
considerations for increasing their resistance to fire exposure from underneath.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
43
Figure 15
Examples of connections seen in CLT platform construction (do not require protection)
Figure 16
Examples of connections seen in CLT balloon construction (may require protection)
To improve aesthetics, designers often prefer to conceal connection systems. Hidden metal plates similar to those
shown in Figure 17 may be used, but they require machining to produce grooves in the CLT panel to conceal the
metal plates.
When the connections are used in fire-retardant or preservative treated wood, recommendations with regard
to types of metal fasteners need to be obtained from the chemical manufacturer, since some treatments cause
corrosion of certain metals.
Figure 17
It is advisable to review the recommendations in Chapter 5 of this Handbook with respect to proper detailing
of connections in CLT assemblies.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
44
7
Interior Finish
The spread of flames over solid materials is a fundamental behaviour influencing fire dynamics and growth within
a compartment; therefore, many provisions in the NBCC limit the use of combustible interior finishes, such as
the interior wall and ceiling finish as well as the interior floor finish. The concept of flame spread rating (FSR) is a
second fire protection measure allowing fire management by controlling the rate of fire growth, as shown in Figure 1.
The rate of fire growth will depend on the time it will take a flame to spread from the point of origin (i.e., ignition)
to involve an increasingly large area of combustible material [59]. Factors influencing a materials thermal response
are, among others, the materials thermal conductivity, heat capacitance, thickness, and blackbody surface
reflectivity. An increase in the values of these properties usually corresponds to a decrease in the rate of flame
spread [60]. Previous studies and results presented in White et al. [61] suggest that there is a relation between
the time to reach flashover conditions in an ISO 9705 room/corner fire test [62] and the ASTM E84 [63] flame
spread indices of materials, where longer times to flashover conditions were observed in rooms lined with materials
exhibiting low flame spread indices.
Once a fire is ignited, the rate at which it grows has a significant impact on the life safety of occupants and
the time available to evacuate. This is directly influenced by the surface flammability of building contents and
materials; consequently, Division B of the NBCC limits the allowable flame spread rating and smoke development
class (SDC) of interior finishes based on the location, building occupancy and availability of an automatic fire
suppression system. These provisions are set forth in Part 3 of Division B of the NBCC and are intended to
limit the spread of fire and products of combustion through a building in a manner that allows safe egress of the
occupants and limits the damage to the building in which the fire originated.
7.1
Test Method CAN/ULC S102

In Canada, the flame spread rating (FSR) of a material, assembly or structural member is determined on the basis
of no less than three standard fire tests conducted in conformance with CAN/ULC S102 [64]. Some construction
materials may be assigned an FSR in generic terms, such as in the case of gypsum board and most softwood lumber
species, based on historical data, which are specified in Appendix D-3 of the NBCC. Results of FSR testing on
proprietary materials are usually available from accredited fire testing laboratories.
The primary purpose of the test is to determine the comparative burning characteristics of the material or assembly
under test by evaluating the flame spread over its surface when exposed to a test fire. The test method attempts to
establish a basis on which surface burning characteristics of different materials or assemblies may be compared,
without specific considerations of all the end-use parameters that might affect these characteristics. Flame spread
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
45
rate and smoke density are recorded as dimensionless in this test, and there isnt necessarily a relation between
these two measurements. The test method is only a means of evaluating the response of materials, products or
assemblies to a particular fire exposure under controlled laboratory conditions and may not reflect the relative
surface burning characteristics of tested materials under all building fire conditions.
The CAN/ULC S102 standard test method, also called the Steiner Tunnel test, exposes a 7.32 m x 508 mm
(nominal 24 ft. long x 20 in. wide) specimen to a controlled air flow of 1.2 0.025 m/s and flaming fire exposure
of 90 kW. The furnace consists of a test chamber having inside dimensions of 450 mm in width and 300 mm in
depth (Figure 18). In a successful calibration of the test parameters using an 18-mm thick red oak flooring sample
conditioned to 7% moisture content, the flame reaches the end of the tunnel and the vent-end thermocouple registers
a temperature of 527C in 5.5 0.25 minutes. Such a calibration assigns a benchmark FSR of 100 to the red oak
specimen.
Figure 18
CLT flame spread tests conducted at Intertek in Coquitlam, BC
7.2
Flame Spread Rating of CLT

In order to evaluate the surface burning characteristics of fully exposed massive timber assemblies, flame spread
tests on CLT assemblies have been conducted in accordance with the CAN/ULC S102 test method (Figure 19).
a) CLT before the CAN/ULC S102 test
b) CLT during the CAN/ULC S102 test
Figure 19
CLT specimen (fully exposed) in a CAN/ULC S102 test
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
46
Test results provide low flame spread ratings when compared to those of common combustible interior finish
materials listed in Appendix D-3 of NBCC. The flame spread values for the 3-ply CLT specimens are indicated in
Table 8.
Table 8
Flame spread test results for 3-ply CLT specimens [65, 66]
CLT Assembly
Flame Spread Rating
Smoke Developed
Classification
SPF E1 Stress grade (min. 105 mm)
35
40
SPF V2 Stress grade (min. 99 mm)
40
30
The use of materials that exhibit flame spread ratings that are lower than typical combustible interior finish
materials would result in a reduced risk of ignition and a potentially longer time to flashover conditions,
depending on the configuration of the room of fire origin. In such cases, this reduced risk would make it possible
to achieve the NBCC objectives and functional statements [F02 OS1.2, OP1.2] when developing an alternative
solution.
7.3
Fire-Retardant Treatment and CLT

Wood products may be treated with fire retardants to improve their fire performance, for example, by delaying
time to ignition, reducing heat release rate and lowering flame spread ratings. Such fire retardant treatments
(FRT) may also reduce the smoke developed classification of FRT wood and wood-based products. While FRT
enhances the flame spread performance of wood and wood-based products, such treatments do not make them
non-combustible materials.
There are two types of FRT: 1) surface coatings and 2) pressure-impregnated chemicals. There are also two
objectives for treating wood products with fire retardant chemicals. One objective is to take advantage of some
provisions in the NBCC, where fire retardant-treated wood (FRTW) may be used in lieu of non-combustible
construction. The other objective is to meet requirements set forth in Division B of the NBCC for a specified
FSR. The term fire retardant-treated wood in the NBCC is limited to wood that has been pressure impregnated
in conformance with CSA O80 [67] series and that exhibits an FSR of no more than 25 when tested per
CAN/ULC S102.
CLT components treated to meet FRTW specifications are not expected to be available in the near future. The
wood industry currently does not recommend the use of fire retardant treatments of glulam. This is likely due to
the potential effects of proprietary treatments on the mechanical properties and performance of the adhesives.
Should CLT components be subjected to pressure-impregnated, fire-retardant treatments, the effects on
mechanical properties will need to be addressed in the design. The tabulated specified strength values published in
CSA O86 are for untreated members. Reference-specified strength values, including connection strength values,
for lumber and CLT pressure-treated with fire retardant chemicals, should be obtained from the manufacturer
providing the treatment.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
47
In addition to pressure impregnated treatments, fire retardant surface treatments may also be used to address
interior finish requirements that are more restrictive than the flame ratings for untreated wood. Surface treatments,
including clear intumescent coatings, allow designers to use unprotected CLT (e.g., without gypsum board or
other cladding), while achieving the more restrictive finish rating requirements. While Division B of the NBCC
permits the use of coatings to address the finish rating requirements, field application of these coatings and
questions of durability in certain applications may create difficulties in its acceptance in new construction by the
authorities having jurisdiction. Flame spread tests conforming to CAN/ULC S102 on a 3-ply (105-mm) CLT
initially protected by an intumescent coating demonstrated that an FSR of 25 may be achieved [65]. However,
as surface treatment products are proprietary in nature, this low FSR may not be achievable for all treatment
products available on the market, even if they claim to achieve such a low rating when tested on thin wood
planks or structural panels (e.g., OSB). It is strongly recommended that proper test data be obtained from
the manufacturers before specifying that such products comply with NBCC provisions.
It should be noted that pressure impregnated fire-retardant treatments are marketed to reduce the FSRs and
provide lower flammability performance. Such fire-retardant treatments do not have an appreciable effect on
the charring rate, which is an important parameter in assessing fire resistance. They are not used to improve fire
resistance.
In an attempt to evaluate the effect of surface treatments (e.g., intumescent coatings) on fire resistance, full-scale
fire-resistance tests have been conducted on 3-ply (105-mm) CLT wall assemblies. Surprisingly, the treated
CLT assembly failed earlier than the untreated CLT wall assembly [17]. The difference was not that significant,
but one explanation for such a variance may be that by the time the intumescent coating had degraded and no
longer provided its thermal insulation, the furnace temperature (i.e., heat flux emitted to the CLT surface) was
significantly greater. At that point, the uncharred wood ignited and burned faster than usual (at a rate much higher
than 0.65 mm/min.), thereby reducing the effective cross-section more quickly. Further research is required to
properly evaluate the effect of surface coatings on charring rate (i.e., fire resistance) on timber assemblies.
7.4
Use of Other Membrane Products to Address

Interior Finish Requirements
The most common method for addressing FSR and SDC interior finish requirements is the installation of gypsum
board. According to Table D-3.1.1.A of the NBCC, gypsum board has an FSR of 25. For situations where there
is no fire-resistance rating requirement, the gypsum board can be regular or non-fire-rated gypsum board. When
used to address fire-resistance requirements, the gypsum board will need to be fire-rated as either Type X or
Type C. Likewise, the interior finish requirements for a low FSR may also be addressed by decorative hardwood
plywood panels, particleboard, or medium-density fiberboard panel products that have been treated with
fire-retardant chemicals to achieve an FSR of no more than 25.
7.5
Automatic Fire Sprinklers

Automatic fire sprinklers are an important fire safety feature in any building. For certain buildings and
occupancies, the NBCC will require the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. As previously
discussed, the inclusion of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in a building may provide benefits in terms
of allowable heights and areas as well as in terms of lower fire-resistance requirements for building elements.
The applicable standards for automatic fire sprinkler systems are NFPA 13, 13R and 13D [68-70].
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
48
8
Service
Penetrations and
Construction
Joints

8.1
Fire-Stopping Building Elements and Assemblies

Fire stop systems are intended to ensure the integrity of a fire compartment by maintaining the fire-resistance
rating of the floor and/or wall assemblies that they penetrate or at construction joints. Subsection 3.1.9 of
Division B of the NBCC prescribes penetrations of an assembly to be sealed by a fire stop system that has been
tested in accordance with CAN/ULC S115 [71].
When required, fire stops need to provide an F- or FT-rating no less than the fire protection rating for closures
in the fire separation set forth in Table 3.1.8.4 of Division B of the NBCC. An F-rating may be defined as the time
period that the through-penetration fire stop system limits the spread of fire through the penetration. It is noted
that T-ratings (based on temperatures on the unexposed side of the penetration) are typically prescribed only
for firewalls and other separations between buildings.
8.2
Fire Stop Systems in CLT Construction

There are numerous fire stop systems that are already approved for use with concrete and/or light-frame
construction (Figure 20). Both of these types of construction have similarities to CLT assemblies, where concrete
is massive and typically does not have void cavities, and light-frame contains wood elements. Provided that
material compatibility is confirmed and that the fire stop is not located in the potential char layer during
fire exposure, it may be demonstrated that many concrete slab fire stop systems are suitable for timber slab
penetrations. A literature review on this mattercarried out by CHM Fire Consultants Ltd., on behalf of
FPInnovationscovering research conducted in Europe, demonstrates that fire stop systems currently used in
reinforced concrete and light-frame construction may be used with success in solid wood construction [72].
Additional information may also be found in an Austrian planning brochure [73]. Yet, due to the proprietary
nature of most fire stop systems, it is recommended that a qualified fire protection engineer undertake or oversee
the design and use of fire stop systems in CLT construction.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
49
a) Fire stop sealant

in a through-penetration
b) Membrane protection
in a partial penetration
Figure 20
Examples of through- and partial penetration in CLT assemblies
While very little information is available on the fire performance of fire stops used in CLT assemblies with partial
or full penetrations or at construction joints, FPInnovations participated in a recent test series of fire-stopped CLT
assemblies in accordance with CAN/ULC S115. The test series evaluated various fire-rated joint fillers (caulking)
and sealing tapes commercially available and approved for concrete assemblies (Figure 21). The results showed that
a 90-min. and 120-min. fire resistance may be achieved even with mass timber elements, provided that the charred
layer does not interfere with the fire stop system. For instance, the penetration of metal pipes should be properly
insulated to avoid excessive heat transfer from to the pipe to the CLT, which may lead to charring around the
opening. While this information has not yet been published and research is still ongoing, FPInnovations will be
publishing these results in the near future.
Figure 21
Examples of fire stop systems evaluated for CLT joint assemblies
Further research needs to be carried out in order to adequately investigate the fire performance of fire stop systems
in massive timber construction. Engineering judgment may also be requested from fire stop manufacturers on a
project-by-project basis.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
50
9
nomenclature
= one-dimensional charring rate (mm/min.)
= deflection due to out-of-plane loading (bending) (mm)
= resistance factor as per CSA O86 (considered to be 1.0 for fire-resistance design)
= density of material (kg / m)
= thermal penetration depth, Equation 20 (mm)
achar,eff = effective char depth (mm)

bi
= unit width of the CLT panel (typically 1 m or 1,000 mm)
= specific heat of material used for heat transfer calculations ( J / kgK)
= thickness of laminates (mm)
di
= distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of ply i (mm)
do
= zero-strength layer thickness (mm)
fb
= specified bending strength as per CSA O86 (MPa)
fc
= specified strength in compression parallel to grain as per CSA O86 (MPa)
ft
= specified strength in tension parallel to grain as per CSA O86 (MPa)
fv
= specified strength in shear as per CSA O86 (MPa)
= initial cross-section depth of the CLT panel (mm)
hfire
= effective reduced cross-section depth (mm)
hi
= remaining depth of ply i (mm)
kx,y,z = thermal conductivities in x, y, z directions for heat transfer calculations (W / mK )

t
= fire exposure time (hours or minutes)
tIns
= fire-resistance, insulation requirement (hours or minutes)
tInt
= fire-resistance, integrity requirement (hours or minutes)
tstruc
= fire-resistance, structural requirement (hours or minutes)
= distance from the char front, Equation 20 (mm)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
51
= distance from the unexposed surface of the panel to the neutral axis (mm)
y i
= distance from the unexposed surface of the panel to the centroid of ply i (mm)
Aeff
= area of the effective initial cross-section (mm)
Aeff,fi = area of the effective reduced cross-section (mm)

Atot
= total area of the initial cross-section (mm)
Atot,fi = total area of the effective reduced cross-section (mm)

CC
= slenderness ratio of the initial cross-section
CC,,fi = slenderness ratio of the effective reduced cross-section

D
= specified dead load (kPa or kN/m)
= specified modulus of elasticity of the ply that sustains the greatest tensile stress, typically Ei (MPa)
E05
= modulus of elasticity (5th percentile) of the ply that sustains the greatest tensile stress,
for design of compression members (MPa)
Ei
= modulus of elasticity of the ply i in the major strength axis (MPa)
E90,i = modulus of elasticity of the ply i in the minor strength axis (MPa)
EIeff
= effective bending stiffness of the initial cross-section (Nmm)
EIeff,fi = effective bending stiffness of the reduced cross-section (Nmm)

Fb,fi = fb (Kfi Kd KH KSb KT)
G0i
= shear modulus of the ply i in the major strength axis (MPa)
G90,i = shear modulus of the ply i in the minor strength axis (MPa)
Ieff
= effective moment of inertia of the initial cross-section (mm4)
Ieff,fi
= effective moment of inertia of the reduced cross-section (mm4)
KC
= slenderness factor for compression members as per CSA O86
KC,fi = slenderness factor for compression members in fire-resistance design

KD
= load duration factor as per CSA O86
Kfi
= strength adjustment factor for fire-resistance design as per Table 3
KH
= system factor as per CSA O86
Kj
= CLT panel-to-panel joint coefficient, Equation 18
KL
= lateral stability factor for bending members as per CSA O86
KN
= notch factor as per CSA O86
KS
= service condition factor as per CSA O86
KSc
= service condition factor for compression parallel to grain as per CSA O86
KSE
= service condition factor for modulus of elasticity as per CSA O86
KT
= treatment factor as per CSA O86
KZb
= size factor for bending as per CSA O86
KZc
= size factor for compression as per CSA O86
KZt
= size factor for tension as per CSA O86
KZv
= size factor for shear as per CSA O86
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
52
= specified live load (kPa or kN/m)
= CLT wall panel length, Equation 14 (m)
Le
= effective length, typically equal to the unbraced height of the CLT wall (mm)
Mf
= maximum induced factored moment in fire-resistance design, Equation 12 (Nmm)
Mr,fi = factored bending moment resistance in fire-resistance design (Nmm)

PE,fi
Pf
= maximum induced axial compressive force in fire-resistance design, Equation 12 (N)
Pr,fi
Q
= factored compressive resistance parallel to grain for fire-resistance design (N)
Rfi
= factored design capacity adjusted to average ultimate capacity
Seff
= effective section modulus of the initial cross-section (mm)
Seff
= effective section modulus of the reduced cross-section (mm)
= temperature (C or K)
Ti
= initial temperature (C)
Tp
= char front temperature (C)
= rate of heat consumption per unit volume due to chemical reaction (W / m)
T t = temperature as a function of time t (K / s)

T x = temperature in the x-direction (K / m)
T y = temperature in the y-direction (K / m)
T z = temperature in the z-direction (K / m)
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
53
10
references
[1]
NRCC, National Building Code - Canada (volume 1), Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council
Canada, 2010.
[2]
NRCC, National Building Code - Canada (volume 2), Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council
Canada, 2010.
[3]
ANSI, Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber (ANSI/APA PRG 320-2012),

New York (NY): American National Standards Institute, 2012.
[4]
APA, Product Report PR-L306C - Nordic X-Lam, APA - The Engineered Wood Association,
Tacoma (WA), 2012.
[5]
APA, Product Report PR-L314 - Structurlam CrossLam, APA - The Engineered Wood Association,
Tacoma (WA), 2013.
[6]
A. Frangi, M. Fontana, E. Hugi and R. Jbstl, Experimental analysis of cross-laminated timber panels
in fire, Fire Safety J., vol. 44 (8), pp. 1078-1087, 2009.
[7]
J. Schmid, J. Knig and J. Kohler, Design Model for Fire Exposed Cross-Laminated Timber, at the Sixth
International Conference on Structures in Fire, June 24, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 2010.
[8]
SP Trtek, Fire Safety in Timber Buildings - Technical Guideline for Europe (SP Report 2010:19),
Stockholm, Sweden: SP Trtek (Swedish Institute for Wood Technology Research), 2010.
[9]
M. Teibinger and I. Matzinger, Construction with Cross-Laminated Timber in Multi-Storey Buildings:

Focus on Building Physics, Vienna: Holz Forschung, 2013.
[10] CEN, Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 1-2: General - Structural fire design, Brussels,
Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, 2004.
[11] S. Craft, CLT Handbook (Canadian Edition): Chapter 8 - Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber,
Quebec City, Quebec: FPInnovations, 2011.
[12] L. Osborne, C. Dagenais and N. Bnichou, Preliminary CLT Fire Resistance Testing Report
(Project No. 301006155) - Final Report 2012/13, Ottawa, Ontario: FPInnovations, 2012.
[13] E. Karacabeyli and B. Douglas, CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber (U.S. Edition),
FPInnovations, 2013.
[14] C. Dagenais, R. H. White and K. Sumathipala, CLT Handbook (U.S. Edition):
Chapter 8 - Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Elements, FPInnovations, 2013.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
54
[15] AF & PA, National Design Specifications for Wood Construction, Washington, DC:
American Forest & Paper Association, 2012.
[16] NGC, Cross-Laminated Timber and Gypsum Board Wall Assembly (Load-Bearing) Test Report WP-1950, NGC Testing Services, Buffalo (NY), 2012.
[17] L. Osborne and C. Dagenais, Fire-Resistance Test Report of E1 Stress Grade Cross-Laminated Timber
Assemblies (Project No. 301006155), FPInnovations, 2013.
[18] NFPA, NFPA 550: Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association, 2012.
[19] CWC, Fire Safety Design in Buildings, Ottawa (ON): Canadian Wood Council, 1997.
[20] NRCC, National Fire Code of Canada, Ottawa (ON): National Research Council Canada, 2010.
[21] A. Frangi, G. Bochicchio, A. Ceccotti and M. P. Lauriola, Natural Full-Scale Fire Test on a 3-Storey XLam
Timber Building, at the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Miyazaki, Japan, 2008.
[22] C. McGregor, Contribution of Cross-Laminated Timber Panels to Room Fires (Thesis), Ottawa (Ontario):
Carleton University, 2013.
[23] B. Taber, G. D. Lougheed, J. Z. Su and N. Bnichou, Alternative Solution for Mid-Rise Wood
Construction: Full-Scale Apartment Fire Test with Encapsulated Cross Laminated Timber Construction,
CLIENT REPORT A1-100035-01.10, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 2013.
[24] ULC, Standard Method of Test for Determination of Noncombustibility in Building Materials
(ULC S114-05), Toronto (Ont.): Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 2005.
[25] NRCC, NBC 2010 - Intent Statements, National Research Council Canada, 2012. [Online].
Available: http://irc-cgonline2.irc.nrc.ca/IRC_CGONLINEUI/IA/10NBC/intentframe.html.
[Accessible in 2012].
[26] A. Harmsworth, C. Dagenais, J. Mehaffey, G. Lougheed, R. Heikkila and G. Chen, Chapter 5: Fire Safety
and Protection - Technical Guide for the Design and Construction of Tall Wood Buildings in Canada,
Pointe-Claire (Quebec): FPInnovations, 2014.
[27] ULC, Standard Method of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction Materials (ULC S101-07),
Toronto, Ontario: Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 2007.
[28] ASTM, ASTM E119-12: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012.
[29] ISO, ISO 834-1: Fire-Resistance Test - Elements of Building Construction - Part 1: General Requirements,
Geneva (Switzerland): International Standard Organization, 1999.
[30] CSA, CSA O86-09: Engineering Design in Wood, Mississauga (Ontario): CSA Standards, 2009.
[31] C. Dagenais, L. Osborne and N. Benichou, Full-Scale Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Walls
and Floors, at the 13th International Symposium Interflam, Royal Holloway College, UK, 2013.
[32] C. Dagenais and L. Osborne, Development of a Canadian Fire-Resistance Design Method for Massive
Wood Members (Project No. 301006148), Quebec City, QC: FPInnovations, 2013.
[33] ASTM, ASTM D2915-03: Standard Practice for Evaluating Allowable Properties for Grades of Structural
Lumber, vol. 04.10, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2003.
[34] FPL, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material, Madison (WI): Forest Products Laboratory,
2010.
[35] ASTM, ASTM D7247-07a: Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Shear Strength of Adhesive Bonds
in Laminated Wood Products at Elevated Temperatures, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International,
2007.
[36] CEN, EN 301: Adhesives, Phenolic and Aminoplastic for Load-Bearing Timber Structures, Brussels,
Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, 1997.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
55
[37] CEN, EN 15425: Adhesives - One Component Polyurethane for Load Bearing Timber Structures
- Classification and Performance Requirements, Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for
Standardization, 2008.
[38] E. L. Schaffer, C. M. Marx, D. A. Bender and F. E. Woeste, Strength Validation and Fire Endurance
of Glued Laminated Timber Beams (FPL-RP-467), Forest Products Laboratory, Madison (WI), 1986.
[39] NRCC, Users Guide NBC 2010: Structural Commentaries (Part 4 of Division B), Ottawa (Ont.):
National Research Council Canada, 2011.
[40] J. Bodig and B. A. Jayne, Mechanics of Wood and Wood Composites, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company Inc., 1993.
[41] A. H. Buchanan, Structural Design for Fire Safety, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., 2002.
[42] R. H. White, Fire Resistance of Wood Members with Directly Applied Protection, at the
Fire & Materials Conference, January 26-28, 2009, San Francisco, CA, 2009.
[43] S. T. Craft, R. Desjardins and J. R. Mehaffey, Investigation of the Behaviour of CLT Panels Exposed
to Fire, at the 12th International Conference on Fire and Materials, San Francisco, CA, 2011.
[44] SFPE, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (4th Edition), Quincy (MA): Society of Fire
Protection Engineers, 2008.
[45] L. Lu, Fire Modelling Heat Transfer Computer Model of a 3-ply Cross-Laminated Timber Board under
Standard Fire Exposure using ANSYS (CFS Final Report 3.22), Ottawa, Ontario: FPInnovations, 2012.
[46] S. Craft, CUWoodFrame - A Heat and Mass Transfer Model for Light-Frame Wood Floors Exposed to Fire
(Thesis), Ottawa (Ont.): Carleton University, 2009.
[47] M. L. Janssens and R. H. White, Short Communication: Temperature Profiles in Wood Members
Exposed to Fire, Fire & Materials, vol. 18, pp. 263-265, 1994.
[48] R. H. White, Charring Rate of Wood for ASTM E119 Exposure, Fire Technology, vol. 28(1),
pp. 5-30, 1992.
[49] A. Frangi, M. Knobloch and M. Fontana, Fire Design of Timber-Concrete Composite Slabs with Screwed
Connection, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), vol. 136, pp. 219-228, 2010.
[50] J. ONeil, D. Carradine, P. J. Moss, M. Fragiacomo, R. Dhakal and A. H. Buchanan, Design of
Timber-Concrete Composite Floors for Fire Resistance, Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, vol. 2(3),
pp. 231-242, 2001.
[51] L. Peng, G. Hadjisophocleous, J. Mehaffey and M. Mohammad, On the Fire Performance of
Wood-Wood-Wood and Wood-Steel-Wood Connections Using Bolts and Dowels as Fasteners, at the
Interflam, 12th International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering, Nottingham, UK , 2010.
[52] A. Frangi, C. Erchinger and M. Fontana, Experimental Fire Analysis of Steel-to-Timber Connections
using Dowels and Nails, Fire and Materials, vol. 34, pp. 1-19, 2010.
[53] M. Audebert, Approche exprimentale et modlisation du comportement au feu dassemblages bois sous
diffrents types de sollicitations (PhD Thesis), Clermont-Ferrant: Universit Blaise-Pascal - Clermont II,
2010.
[54] J. Norn, Load-Bearing of Nailed Joints Exposed to Fire, Fire and Materials, vol. 20, pp. 133-143, 1996.
[55] P. Lau, Fire Resistance of Connections in Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) (M.Sc. Thesis), New Zealand:
University of Canterbury, 2006.
[56] P. Moss, A. H. Buchanan, M. Fragiacomo, P. Lau and T. Chuo, Fire Performance of Bolted Connections
in Laminated Veneer Lumber, Fire and Materials, vol. 33, pp. 223-243, 2009.
[57] P. Moss, A. H. Buchanan, T. Nilsen and M. Fragiacomo, Fire Resistance of Connections using Steel Plates
and Mechanical Fasteners in Timber Structures, Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 243-258,
2011.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
56
[58] P. Racher, K. Laplanche and D. Dhima, Thermo-Mechanical Modelling of the Timber Connection
Behaviour under Fire, at the Fourth International Conference on Structures in Fire (SiF06), Aveiro,
Portugal, 2006.
[59] D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (Second Edition), John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
[60] R. H. White and M. A. Dietenberger, Chapter 18: Fire Safety of Wood Construction, in Wood
Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material, Madison, WI, Forest Products Laboratory, 2010,
pp. 18-1 - 18-22.
[61] R. H. White, M. A. Dietenberger, H. Tran, O. Grexa, L. Richardson, K. Sumathipala and M. Janssens,
Comparison of Test Protocols for the Standard Room/Corner Test, Fire and Materials, vol. 23,
pp. 139-146, 1999.
[62] ISO, ISO 9705: Fire Tests - Full-Scale Room Test for Surface Products, Geneva (Switzerland):
International Standard Organization, 1993.
[63] ASTM, ASTM E84-12: Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012.
[64] ULC, Standard Method of Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials and Assemblies
(ULC S102), Toronto, Ontario: Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 2010.
[65] C. Dagenais, Surface Burning Characteristics of Massive Timber Assemblies (Project No. 301006155),
FPInnovations, 2013.
[66] C. Dagenais, Surface Burning Characteristics of V2 Stress Grade Cross-Laminated Timber
(Project No. 301007969), FPInnovations, 2013.
[67] CSA, CSA O80 Series-08 (R2012): Wood Preservation, Mississauga (Ontario): CSA Standards, 2012.
[68] NFPA, NFPA 13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, Quincy, MA: National Fire
Protection Association, 2013, p. 384.
[69] NFPA, NFPA 13R: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to
and including Four Stories in Height, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2013.
[70] NFPA, NFPA 13D: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings
and Manufactured Homes, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2013.
[71] ULC, Standard Method of Fire Tests of Firestop Systems (ULC S115), Toronto (Ont.):
Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 2011.
[72] C. Dagenais, Literature Review: Fire Stop Requirements as Related to Massive Wood Wall and Floor
Assemblies (Project No. 301006155), FPInnovations, 2013.
[73] M. Teibinger and I. Matzinger, Fire-Resistant Sealing in Timber Construction, Vienna: Holz Forschung,
2012.
Revised: JULY 2014
ChapTER 8 Fire
57
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
Revised: JULY 2014FPInnovations, its marks and logos are registred trademarks of FPInnovations.
Acoustic performance of
cross-laminated timber assemblies
CHAPTER
Authors
Jean-Luc Kouyoumji, Ph.D., FCBA, France
10-12-22 15:49
Acknowledgements
FPInnovations would like to thank Mr. Jean-Luc Kouyoumji for his much appreciated collaboration to this
section, as well as Mr. Wolfgang Weirer and Mr. Thomas Orskaug, from KLH, for their special contributions
to this study.
10-12-22 15:49
Abstract
Adequate levels of noise/sound control in multi-family buildings are mandatory requirements of building codes in
Canada, the United States, Europe, and most developed Asian countries. In many jurisdictions, these requirements
are as strictly enforced as those for structural sufficiency and fire safety. Much effort has been spent on evaluation
of sound transmission class (STC) and impact sound insulation class (IIC) of floor and wall assemblies and on
studies of flanking transmission in multi-family dwellings in Canada. However, little work has been done so far
in Canada on the acoustic performance of CLT systems in construction.
This chapter focuses mainly on the development of CLT floor and wall assemblies made of cross-laminated
timber elements capable of good acoustic performance in residential, multi-residential and non-residential
buildings in Canada and the USA. Existing generic floor and wall assemblies used in Europe are also
presented in this chapter, as well as examples of floor assemblies tested in laboratories that could be used
in the North American market.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

iii
10-12-22 15:49
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Figures v
1 Objectives 1
2 Cross-Laminated Timber Panel Definition 2
3 Building Code Requirements for Acoustic Performance 4
4 Acoustic Performance of Generic Wood-Frame Assemblies 5
5 Flanking Transmission in Building Systems 6
6 CLT Assemblies and Acoustics 7
6.1 Collaboration with the FCBA (France) 7
6.2 Existing CLT Floor Assemblies in Europe 7
6.2.1 Floor Assemblies Tested by the FCBA in 2006 7
6.2.2 Proprietary Floor Assemblies by a European CLT Panel Producer 18
6.3 CLT Floor Assemblies Tested at the FCBA for FPInnovations 23
6.3.1 Dry Topping 23
6.3.2 Suspended Ceiling 24
6.3.3 Results 25
6.4 Existing CLT Wall Assemblies in Europe 32
7 Conclusion 39
8 References 40
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

iv
10-12-22 15:49
List of Figures
Figure 2 Examples of CLT panel cross-sections 3
Figure 3 FERMACELL subfloor 23
Figure 4 Subfloor with THERMISOREL, lumber sleepers and OSB (wood topping) 23
Figure 5 Suspended ceiling system 24
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

v
10-12-22 15:49
10-12-22 15:49
1
Objectives
This chapter focuses mainly on the development of CLT floor and wall assemblies made of cross-laminated timber
elements capable of good acoustic performance in residential, multi-residential and non-residential buildings in
Canada and the USA. Existing generic floor and wall assemblies used in Europe are also presented in this chapter,
as well as examples of floor and wall assemblies that could be used in the North American market.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

1
10-12-22 15:49
2
Cross-Laminated
Timber Panel
Definition
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels consist of several layers of boards glued on faces with most of the layers
stacked crosswise. The cross-section of CLT elements is generally characterized by at least three glued board
layers with orthogonally alternating orientation of neighbored layers (Mestek et al., 2008). Most of the time,
the narrow faces of the boards are not glued although sometimes board layers positioned in the longitudinal
direction of the panel are edge-glued. Some manufacturers will also produce panels having the transverse planks
edge-glued. Adjacent layers are placed perpendicular to each other while, for some configurations, two consecutive
board layers may be placed in the same direction, giving a double layer (i.e., double longitudinal layers at the outer
faces and additional double layers at the centre of the panel for some configurations). CLT products are usually
fabricated with 3 to 11 board layers. Figure 1 illustrates a CLT panel configuration while Figure 2 shows examples
of CLT panel cross-sections.
Transverse Planks
G-664
Longitudinal Planks
Figure 1
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

2
10-12-22 15:49
G-664
Figure 2
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

3
10-12-22 15:49
3
Building Code
Requirements
for Acoustic
Performance
Canada, the United States, Europe, and most developed Asian countries. In many jurisdictions, these requirements
are as strictly enforced as those for structural sufficiency and fire safety.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005) states that a dwelling unit shall be separated from every
other space in a building in which noise may be generated by construction providing a sound transmission class
(STC) of at least 50 dB. This level of performance shall be of 55 dB near elevators or refuse chute (NRC 2005).
NBCC 2005 has no specific requirement for impact sound insulation class (IIC), but provides a recommendation
that bare floors (i.e. those without finishes such as vinyl, carpet, etc.) achieve an IIC of 55 dB or better. Therefore,
an IIC of 55 dB or above is normally targeted. However, following a number of homeowner acoustic-comfort
surveys, these minimum requirements given for STC or recommended for IIC are not satisfactory, mostly
in multi-family buildings.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

4
10-12-22 15:49
4
Acoustic
Performance of
Generic WoodFrame Assemblies
Sound transmission class (STC), impact sound insulation class (IIC) and fire resistance (FR) ratings for many
of the generic construction assemblies traditionally used in construction of Canadian housing and small buildings
have been published in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) since 1950. Architects, fire protection
engineers and building officials make extensive use of the STC, IIC and FR ratings stated in the NBCC when
designing and approving housing and small buildings in Canada. These ratings are also extensively used in
the design of larger engineered structures. Wood-frame assemblies, more than any others, are designed and
constructed in accordance with the STC, IIC and FR ratings listed in the NBCC.
The sound performance of a typical wood floor mainly depends on the construction details, including materials
and thickness of the layers (e.g. finishing, topping, sub-floor, ceiling board, sound-absorbing material in the ceiling
cavity), the attachment between layers, the size and spacing of the joists, and the spacing of the resilient channels
it used. It can be found in the NBCC that the typical STC for generic wood-frame floor assemblies varies from
about 30 dB to 70 dB and greatly depends on the construction details used. In the same logic, data provided
for IIC for wood-frame floors range from about 20 dB to 50 dB.
In the case of wood-frame wall assemblies traditionally used in construction of Canadian housing and small
buildings, only the sound transmission class is needed. It can be found in the NBCC that the typical STC of
generic wood-frame wall assemblies varies from 30 dB to 65 dB and depends on the construction details, including
materials and thickness of the layers (e.g. gypsum boards, sound absorbing material in the wall cavity), the spacing
between the studs, and the spacing of resilient channels.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

5
10-12-22 15:49
5
Flanking
Transmission in
Building Systems
Flanking transmission may be defined as the airborne sound that reaches a building occupant by certain paths
around or through an acoustical barrier between two living spaces (walls or floors). Flanking transmission can
be particularly annoying in multi-family buildings. Adequate detailing shall be specified early in the design and
construction phase of the building. Then, simply specifying a high performance generic floor or wall system will
not guarantee an adequate STC. Different aspects of the floor or wall assemblies must be carefully considered
such as windows, partition walls, light switches, telephone outlets and lighting fixtures, plumbing systems, etc.
It should be noted that sound transmission class ratings made available for generic wood-frame assemblies
(i.e. tested in laboratory) do not consider the flanking sound transmission because only one physical barrier
(wall or floor) is tested in laboratory. This is why we recommend targeting a level of performance greater than
the minimum requirements given in the codes and detailing adequately the assemblies to limit the flanking
sound transmission.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

6
10-12-22 15:49
6
CLT Assemblies
and Acoustics
Much effort has been invested on evaluation of sound transmission class (STC) and impact sound insulation
class (IIC) of floor and wall assemblies traditionally used in construction of Canadian housing and small buildings
and on studies of flanking transmission in multi-family dwellings in Canada since 1950. Generic construction
assemblies have been published in the NBCC. However, little work has been done in Canada on the acoustic
performance of CLT systems.
6.1
Collaboration with the FCBA (France)

FPInnovations worked in close collaboration with the French Institute of Technology for Forest-Based and
Furniture Sectors (FCBA) of Bordeaux, France. The FCBA has good experience with testing, predicting and
enhancing sound transmission loss of wood construction. Different tests have already been done by the FCBA
on wood construction and especially on CLT panel floors and walls.
The FCBA provided step-by-step guidance for FPInnovations design of North American CLT floor systems,
including the selection of materials. Intensive literature review has been performed and documented. A study
period has been required to analyze, model, measure and validate the vibroacoustic behaviour of the new CLT
panel design using Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA) and Experimental SEA approaches. Finally, tests have been
performed at the FCBA in July 2009 on several floor assemblies that could be reproduced in North America.
It should be noted that numerous floor systems constructed with CLT panels have been tested at the FCBA
over the past several years for assessing the acoustic performance of such systems.
6.2
Existing CLT Floor Assemblies in Europe

In this section, several examples of common CLT floor assemblies available in European countries are presented.
Sound transmission class (STC) and impact sound insulation class (IIC) are provided for each floor assembly.
6.2.1
Floor Assemblies Tested by the FCBA in 2006

The following figures provide relevant information on different floor systems tested at the FCBA in 2006.
The product used for the tests was a 5-layer CLT panel. The floor assemblies were manufactured using typical
European construction materials.
In the first series of five floor configurations, it can be observed that the sound insulation material was installed
only on one side, i.e. on the top of or underneath the CLT floor. It can be seen that the CLT tested alone provides
a STC of 39 dB and an IIC of 24 dB. The best sound insulation performance is achieved when a suspended ceiling
is used. With this floor configuration, we may expect a STC of 64 dB and an IIC of 59 dB. When the floor is
built with a subfloor, the maximum rating obtained for STC and IIC are 53 dB and 45 dB, respectively. Then,
for approximately the same total floor thickness, STC and IIC ratings are much lower for the floor built with
a subfloor compared to the floor built with a suspended ceiling.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

7
10-12-22 15:49
Series 1
Results from tests performed at the FCBA in 2006 CLT floor assemblies using sound insulation
on the top or on the bottom
1
Floor Composition (F1.1)

1
5-layer CLT panel 146 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
39
24
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

8
10-12-22 15:49

1
Particleboard panel 22 mm
2
3
4
Sound insulation material ( 40 mm)

Lumber sleepers
REGUPOL underlayment
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
52
45
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

9
10-12-22 15:49
1 2 3 4

1
2
3
4
Lumber sleepers
5
6
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
53
45
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

10
10-12-22 15:49

1
Gypsum board 13 mm
2
3
4
Gypsum board 13 mm
Dry topping 22 mm (Pellets PLACOSOL)
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
45
32
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

11
10-12-22 15:49

1
2
3
4
Resilient supports and rails (100 mm)

Sound insulation material (100 mm)
Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
64
59
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

12
10-12-22 15:49
The next series provides CLT floor assemblies sound-insulated on both sides, i.e. top and bottom at the same time.
The maximum STC is achieved with the first configuration, with 67 dB, while the maximum IIC is achieved with
the fourth configuration, with 65 dB.
It may be observed that, even if the floor assembly is sound-insulated on both sides, there is no significant
improvement for STC compared to the maximum STC obtained for the previous series above (STC = 64 dB).
However, the IIC ratings have significantly increased, going from 59 dB to about 65 dB.
Series 2
Results from tests performed at the FCBA in 2006 CLT floor assemblies insulated on top and bottom
2 3
4 5

1
2
3
4
Lumber sleepers
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
Airborn
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
67
62

Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

13
10-12-22 15:49

1
Laminate flooring 7 mm
2
3
4
Low-density fibre board 5 mm (PHALTEX)

5
6
7

Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
62
63
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

14
10-12-22 15:49
1 2

1
Laminate flooring 7 mm
2
3
4
Low-density fibre board 10 mm (PHALTEX)

5
6
7

Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
63
64
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

15
10-12-22 15:49
1 2
4 5

1
Floorboards nailed to sleepers
2
3
4
Low-density fibre board THERMISOREL 20 mm

Lumber sleepers
5
6
7

8
9
Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
64
65
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

16
10-12-22 15:49
2 3

1
Gypsum board 13 mm
2
3
4
Gypsum board 13 mm
Dry topping 22 mm (Pellets PLACOSOL)
5
6
7

Gypsum board 13 mm
Gypsum board 13 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
63
63
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

17
10-12-22 15:49
6.2.2
Proprietary Floor Assemblies by a European CLT Panel Producer

The following series illustrates the proprietary STC and IIC data published by a European CLT panel producer.
It may be observed that the floor assembly is only sound-insulated on top, which allows the ceiling to be visible
inside buildings. The maximum ratings are obtained for the last configuration, with a STC of 64 dB and
an IIC of 72 dB. However, this floor assembly will be relatively heavy due to the use of concrete.
Series 3
STC and IIC data from a European CLT Panel Producer
1

1
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
39
23
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

18
10-12-22 15:49

1
Gypsum fibre board FERMACELL 25 mm
2
3
Sub-floor ISOVER EP3 20 mm

Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
53
49
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

19
10-12-22 15:49

1
2
3
4

Honeycomb acoustic infill FERMACELL 30 mm
5
6
Kraft paper underlayment

Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
62
59
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

20
10-12-22 15:50

1
Prefabricated concrete topping 20 mm
2
3
4

5
6
7

Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
64
60
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

21
10-12-22 15:50

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
64
72
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

22
10-12-22 15:50
6.3
CLT Floor Assemblies Tested at the FCBA for FPInnovations

The work performed by the FCBA led to the development of different floor assemblies that could be used in
the North American market. A total of six floor configurations were selected for testing. The next series gives
the sound transmission class (STC) and impact sound insulation class (IIC) for each floor configuration.
The CLT panel used for the tests was a 5-layer panel manufactured by KLH, from Austria.
6.3.1
Dry Topping
The first subfloor tested was built using gypsum fibre board glued to a rock fibre board made by FERMACELL
(Figure 3). This subfloor was installed directly on the CLT floor. The second subfloor tested was a wood topping
and was constructed using lumber sleepers screwed or not to the CLT floor. Low-density fibre boards from
THERMISOREL were installed between the lumber sleepers and finally covered by OSB panels (Figure 4).
Flooring underlayment from ROBERTS was also used in this configuration.
Figure 3
FERMACELL subfloor
Figure 4
Subfloor with THERMISOREL, lumber sleepers and OSB (wood topping)
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

23
10-12-22 15:50
6.3.2
Suspended Ceiling
The suspended ceiling system was provided by PAC International using resilient sound isolation clips RSIC-1
and furring channel. The cavities were filled with typical fibre glass insulation. Finally, two sheets of fire-rated
gypsum board were screwed to the furring channels (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Suspended ceiling system
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

24
10-12-22 15:50
6.3.3 Results
It can be seen in the next series that the maximum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 66 dB was obtained
for the floor configuration made from a wood topping subfloor together with a suspended ceiling. For the same
configuration, the IIC was relatively high, at 69 dB. It should be noted that the floor configuration using only the
suspended ceiling provided very good STC and IIC ratings of 63 dB and 62 dB, respectively. These results would
normally be sufficient in North American multi-family construction.
Series 4
Results from tests performed for FPInnovations at the FCBA July 2009
1

1
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
38
26
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

25
10-12-22 15:50

1
2
3
4

Rock fibre board 10 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
47
43
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

26
10-12-22 15:50

1
2
3
4

Rock fibre board 10 mm
5
6
7

Sound insulation material (fibre glass) (200 mm)
Gypsum board 15 mm
Gypsum board 15 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
63
66
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

27
10-12-22 15:50

1
2
3
4

Gypsum board 15 mm
Gypsum board 15 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
63
62
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

28
10-12-22 15:50
10
11

1
OSB panel 15 mm
2
3
4
Flooring underlayment ROBERTS

5
6
7
Lumber sleepers 40 mm x 40 mm
5-layer
l
CLT panel 146 mm
8
9
10

Gypsum board 15 mm
11
Gypsum board 15 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
66
69
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

29
10-12-22 15:50
10
11

1
OSB panel 15 mm
2
3
4

Low-density fibre board THERMISOREIL 20 mm
5
6
7
Lumber sleepers 40 mm x 40 mm screwed to CLT panel

8
9
10

Gypsum board 15 mm
11
Gypsum board 15 mm
Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
62
62
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

30
10-12-22 15:50

1
OSB panel 15 mm
2
3
4

5
6
7
Lumber sleepers 40 mm x 40 mm screwed to CLT panel

Airborne
(STC) dB
Impact
(IIC) dB
44
39
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

31
10-12-22 15:50
6.4
Existing CLT Wall Assemblies in Europe

In this section, some examples of common CLT wall assemblies available in European countries are presented.
Estimated sound transmission class (STC) is provided for each wall assembly.
Airborne
(STC) dB
Wall Composition (W1)

1
3-layer CLT panel (95 mm ~ 115 mm)
32 ~ 34
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

32
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
Gypsum board 15 mm
36 ~ 38
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

33
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
Gypsum board 15 mm
2
3

Gypsum board 15 mm
36 ~ 38
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

34
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
Gypsum board 15 mm
2
3
Mineral wool (~ 60 mm)

Lumber studs (38 mm x 63 mm)
4
5
6

Mineral wool (~ 60 mm)
Lumber studs (38 mm x 63 mm)
Gypsum board 15 mm
58
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

35
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
2
3
Sound insulation material (mineral or rock wool) (~ 30 mm)

48 ~ 50
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

36
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
Gypsum board 15 mm
2
3
4

Gypsum board 15 mm
55
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

37
10-12-22 15:50
Airborne
(STC) dB

1
Gypsum board 15 mm
2
3
4

5
6

Gypsum board 15 mm
60
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

38
10-12-22 15:50
7
Conclusion
Canada, the United States, Europe and most developed Asian countries. In many jurisdictions, these requirements
are as strictly enforced as those for structural sufficiency and fire safety. Much effort has been spent on evaluation
of sound transmission class (STC) and impact sound insulation class (IIC) of floor and wall assemblies and on
studies of flanking transmission in multi-family dwellings in Canada. However, very little work has been done
in Canada on the acoustic performance of CLT systems in construction.
This chapter presented CLT floor and wall assemblies made of cross-laminated timber elements capable of good
acoustic performance in residential, multi-residential and non-residential buildings in Canada and the USA. STC
and IIC ratings of existing generic floor assemblies used in Europe have been provided as reference. Moreover,
selected types of floor assemblies that may be easily replicated in Canada have been tested at the FCBA. STC and
IIC ratings of these floors are also given in this document. Finally, some examples of CLT wall assemblies used
in Europe were presented.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

39
10-12-22 15:50
8
References
Borello, G., and L. Gagliardini. 2007. Virtual SEA: Towards an industrial process. In SAE Noise and Vibration
Conference Proceedings, May 15-17, 2007, St. Charles, Illinois, paper no. 2007-0123-02.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2009. Engineering design in wood (limit states design). CSA O86-09.
Rexdale, ON: CSA. 222 p.
Common rules and rules for buildings. EN 1995-1-1. Brussels: British Standards Institution (BSI). 124 p.
Hu, L. J. 2005. Acoustic performance of wood-frame buildings. Canadian Forest Service Report No. 3.
Quebec: Forintek Canada Corp. 44 p.
Kouyoumji, J. L. 2004. Sound transmission loss prediction and vibro-acoustic SEA analysis of a wood
framed floor. Paper presented at the 33rd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
Engineering: Inter-noise 2004, August 22-25, 2004, Prague, Czech Republic.
______. 2007. Vibro-acoustic characterization of timber constructions: Measurements and modeling using
statistical energy analysis (SEA). Paper presented at the 36th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise
Control Engineering: Inter-noise 2007, August 28-31, 2007, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kouyoumji, J. L., and S. Gagnon. 2010. Experimental approach on sound transmission loss of cross laminated
timber floors for building. Paper presented at the 39th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
Engineering: Inter-noise 2010, June 13-16, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.
Kouyoumji, J. L., S. Gagnon, and S. Boulet. 2009. Sound transmission loss of cross laminated timber CLT floors,
measurements and modelling using SEA. Paper presented at the 38th International Congress and Exposition on
Noise Control Engineering: Inter-noise 2009, August 23-26, 2009, Ottawa, Canada.
Lyon, R. H., and R.G. DeJong. 1995. Theory and application of statistical energy analysis. 2nd ed. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann. 277 p.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. National building code of Canada, 2005. Ottawa: Canada. National
Research Council. 2 v.
Richardson, L. R., and M. Batista. 2002. Fire-resistance and sound-transmission-class ratings for generic woodframe assemblies. Quebec: Forintek Canada Corp. 27 p. + appendices.
Taguchi, G. 1986. Introduction to quality engineering: Designing quality into products and processes.
Tokyo: Asian Productivity Association. 191 p.
ChapTER 9 Acoustic

40
10-12-22 15:50
10-12-22 15:50
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:50
Building enclosure design of

cross-laminated timber construction
CHAPTER
Authors
Graham Finch, P.Eng., Dipl.T, M.A.Sc., EIT, RDH Building Engineering Ltd.
Dave Ricketts, P.Eng., Principal, RDH Building Engineering Ltd.
Jieying Wang, Ph.D., FPInnovations
Constance Thivierge, Eng., M.Sc., FPInnovations
Paul Morris, Ph.D., FPInnovations

Peer Reviewers
Mario D. Gonalves, Eng., Principal, Patenaude-Trempe Inc.
Mark Lawton, Eng., Principal, Morrison Hershfield Ltd.
Annette Neylon, P.Eng., C.Eng., M.Sc., Associated Engineering
Douglas L. Watts, P.Eng., MAIBC, CP, BEP, LEED AP, Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd.
10
10-12-22 15:51
Acknowledgements
10-12-22 15:51
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has become popular in Europe for the prefabricated construction of wall, roof
and flooring elements. The use of CLT in North America is gaining interest in both the construction and wood
industries. Several North American manufacturers are in the process of product and manufacturing assessment or
have already started pilot production.
For general principles of durability by design, the Best Practice Guide for Wood-Frame Envelopes (CMHC,
1999) and the Building Enclosure Design Guide Wood-Frame Multi-Unit Residential Buildings (HPO, 2010)
should be referred to for the design and construction of CLT buildings. The use of prefabricated CLT panels does
not change the basic heat, air and moisture control design criteria for an exterior wall or roof assembly. However,
different from conventional stick-built wood-frame buildings, the design of CLT building enclosures requires
additional attention due to the unique characteristics of the product. CLT panels are massive solid wood elements
and therefore have low vapour permeability and may provide a considerable level of insulation. They have a certain
level of inherent air tightness but usually require an additional air barrier. The panels may absorb a large amount
of moisture when exposed to excessive wetting and the consequent drying may be slow due to the mass of wood
in such panels.
This chapter focuses on best practice heat, air and moisture control strategies for wall assemblies that utilize CLT
panels in North American climate zones. The overlying strategies are to place insulation in such a way that the
panels are kept warm and dry, to prevent moisture from being trapped or accumulating within the panel, and to
control airflow through the panels, and at the joints and interfaces between them.
It is intended that these guidelines should assist practitioners in adapting CLT construction to North American
conditions and ensuring a long life for their buildings. However, these guidelines are not intended to substitute
for the input of a professional building scientist. This may be required in some jurisdictions, such as Vancouver BC,
and is recommended in all areas at least until such time as CLT construction becomes common practice.
ChapTER 10 Enclosure
iii
10-12-22 15:51
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1
Introduction 1
Heat, Air and Moisture Control Strategies 3
2.1 Heat, Air and Moisture Control Strategies 3

2.1.1 Choosing a Suitable Exterior Insulation Material 4
2.2 Vapour Flow Control 5
2.2.2 CLT Panels as Vapour Control Layer 6
2.3 Rainwater and Exterior Moisture Control 6
2.4 Air Flow Control 7
3
Recommended CLT Panel Conceptual Design 9
3.1 Exterior Wall Assembly 9

3.2 Roof Assemblies 13
3.3 Detailing Considerations: Installation of Windows 17
3.4 Detailing Considerations: At Grade 19
4
Control of Moisture during Construction 21
Wood Preservative Treatment for Durability 22
Conclusions 23
iv
10-12-22 15:51
List of Tables
Table 1
Examples of insulation thicknesses for CLT building assemblies 4
List of Figures
Figure 1 CLT panel constructed of three layers of cross-laminated board lumber to create a solid
wood panel suitable for prefabrication of whole wall, floor and roof elements 2
Figure 2 Best practice rainwater management strategy for CLT wall assembly. Detail shows a ventilated
and drained cladding rainscreen system where primary cladding and secondary drainage planes
are provided in addition to ventilation behind the cladding. This is typical of other exterior
insulated rainscreen wall assemblies. 7
Figure 3 Exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall assembly showing material sequencing
and schematic window penetration details 10
Figure 4 Cladding support strategy using vertical furring through rigid insulation board 11
Figure 5 Cladding support strategy using two layers of rigid insulation and two strapping members:
this configuration allows for the use of shorter screws and greater insulation thicknesses while
minimizing thermal bridging 12
Figure 6 Cladding support strategy using stud framing attached directly to CLT panel with semi-rigid
or batt insulation between framing 13
Figure 7 Top view of exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall transition to CLT sloped roof
assembly showing material sequencing 14
Figure 8 Bottom view of exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall transition to CLT sloped
roof assembly showing material sequencing 15
Figure 9 CLT flat roof detail showing material sequencing of a conventional roofing assembly with tie-in
to parapet of CLT wall 16
Figure 10 Window installation schematic using sloped wood sill and plywood box liner 18
Figure 11 At-grade CLT wall assembly schematic 20
v
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
1
Introduction
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has become popular in Europe for the prefabricated construction of wall, roof,
and flooring elements. The use of CLT in North America is gaining interest in both the construction and wood
industries. Several North American manufacturers are in the process of product and manufacturing assessment
or have already started pilot production.
CLT panels are typically constructed by laminating three or more layers of lumber together, with each layer
rotated 90 relative to the neighbouring layers to create a solid wood panel. The lumber is most commonly
adhered using a structural adhesive, with or without edge-gluing between lamina in the same layer. Manufacturing
methods and lamina quality may have an impact on the final product properties but they do not affect the overall
design strategy.
For general principles of durability by design, the Best Practice Guide for Wood-Frame Envelopes (CMHC,
1999) and the Building Enclosure Design Guide Wood-Frame Multi-Unit Residential Buildings (HPO, 2010)
should be referred to for the design and construction of CLT buildings. The use of prefabricated CLT panels does
not change the basic heat, air and moisture control design criteria for an exterior wall or roof assembly. However,
different from conventional stick-built wood-frame buildings, the design of CLT building enclosures requires
additional attention due to the unique characteristics of the product. CLT panels are massive solid wood elements
and therefore have low vapour permeability and may provide a considerable level of insulation. They have a certain
level of inherent air tightness but usually require an additional air barrier. The panels may absorb a large amount of
moisture when exposed to excessive wetting and the consequent drying may be slow due to the mass
of wood in such panels.
Although occasionally used in this way experimentally, CLT panels are not a cladding material and are not
designed to be exposed to the exterior environment. They are a moisture sensitive structural assembly, and
therefore must be protected from rain and other moisture sources through the use of properly designed
wall assemblies.
This chapter focuses on best practice heat, air and moisture control strategies for wall assemblies that utilize
CLT panels in North American climate zones. The overlying strategies are to place insulation in such a way that
the panels are kept warm and dry, to prevent moisture from being trapped or accumulating within the panel,
and to control airflow through the panels, and at the joints and interfaces between them.
1
10-12-22 15:51
Figure 1
CLT panel constructed of three layers of cross-laminated board lumber to create a solid wood panel suitable
for prefabrication of whole wall, floor and roof elements
2
10-12-22 15:51
2
Heat, Air
and Moisture
Control Strategies

2.1
Heat, Air and Moisture Control Strategies

Heat flow control is achieved using insulation to minimize space heat loss or gain through the building enclosure.
Air leakage control is also a key element of heat flow control.
Unlike stick-built wood-frame wall assemblies, where fibreglass batt insulation is traditionally placed between
the studs, CLT panels are solid and therefore require insulation, placed appropriately, on one side of the panel.
Being laminated solid wood, CLT inherently offers a nominal amount of insulation. Softwood species which
typically make up a CLT panel provide an R-value of approximately R-1.2 hft2F/Btu per inch, (i.e. R-4.2 for
a 3 in. thick panel). While this inherent R-value is a good start, additional insulation must also be provided for
the wall assembly to meet local energy code requirements. In most Canadian jurisdictions, a nominal insulation
in the range of R-20 (RSI 3.52 Km/W) may be required in walls. In the case of this 3 in. panel, it would be
necessary to add other insulating material with a minimum R-value of R-16 to the CLT wall assembly.
3
10-12-22 15:51
Table 1
Examples of insulation thicknesses for CLT building assemblies
Required Nominal
Insulation
CLT thickness
CLT insulation
Required thickness
of additional
insulation with
R-4/inch
R-value (RSI)
inch (mm)
R-value (RSI)
inch (mm)
2.0 (50)
2.4 (0.42)
2.5 (64)
3.5 (89)
4.2 (0.74)
2.0 (51)
5.5 (140)
6.6 (1.16)
1.5 (38)
2.0 (50)
2.4 (0.42)
4.5 (114)
3.5 (89)
4.2 (0.74)
4.0 (102)
5.5 (140)
6.6 (1.16)
3.5 (89)
2.0 (50)
2.4 (0.42)
6.5 (165)
3.5 (89)
4.2 (0.74)
6.0 (152)
5.5 (140)
6.6 (1.16)
5.5 (140)
12 (2.11)
20 (3.52)
28 (4.93)
The placement of the insulation may significantly affect the moisture levels and durability of the wood panel
in service. In all climate zones, most types of insulation should be placed on the exterior side of the CLT panels.
This will keep the wood in a relatively constant warm and dry indoor environment and reduce the risk of moisture
damage. Section 2.1.1 shows that the use of vapour permeable insulation materials such as mineral or wood
fibreboards are recommended in lieu of less vapour permeable foam plastics. Where wood fibre insulation boards
are used outside the weather resistant barrier, the wood should be treated to minimize water uptake and possible
fungal growth, and wall penetrations properly detailed to prevent wetting of the insulation.
CLT panels themselves may offer aesthetic benefits and may be left exposed on the interior side to showcase the
solid wood finish if the fire safety and acoustic requirements allow. This is another reason why thermal insulation
should be placed on the exterior side of the panel. When used in certain building types, some jurisdictions may
require that the interior exposed wood surface be covered with gypsum drywall or other non-combustible finish to
meet fire safety requirements. In this scenario, it might be seen as desirable to place insulation on the interior side
of the panel; however, this wall assembly is not recommended as the CLT panel will be more vulnerable to wetting
caused by vapour diffusion from the interior, or wetting from rainwater or solar driven moisture from the exterior.
2.1.1
Choosing a Suitable Exterior Insulation Material

The common construction practice of building with CLT panels in Europe has been to insulate the panels with
wood fibreboard or rigid mineral fibreboard insulation. These products currently have limited availability in some
areas of North America, but have ideal properties for CLT construction.
Both rigid mineral fibre and wood fibre insulation boards are vapour permeable and have adequate R-values of
R-3.5 to R-4.0 hft2F/Btu per inch of thickness depending on density and other factors. In a jurisdiction requiring
R-20 to R-30 (RSI 3.52 to 5.28 Km/W) of nominal insulation, 4 to 7 in. (102 to 178 mm) of rigid wood or
mineral fibre insulation board would be necessary.
4
10-12-22 15:51
Rigid mineral fibre or wood fibre boards are preferred products because they may be rigid enough to allow
for furring or cladding supports to be structurally fastened directly through the insulation without the need
for additional framing on the exterior. Long screws (> 6 to 8 in.) are available and can be used to attach furring
directly through to the CLT panels to support the cladding, if this meets the structural requirements of the
cladding attachment. Otherwise, additional support for the insulation should be provided at each floor level.
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) or expanded polystyrene (EPS) may also be sufficiently rigid to screw furring
(strapping) through; however, the vapour permeability of these foam plastic insulations is relatively low, which
reduces the drying capacity of the CLT panel and may trap moisture within the wood panels. Modeling has shown
that drying through 3 to 5 in. of either EPS or XPS on the exterior side of a CLT assembly is slow, and can lead to
damage to CLT panels that are initially wet, wetted during construction, or exposed to humid indoor conditions
or a rainwater leak during service. The use of foam plastic insulation products is not ideal for insulating CLT wall
assemblies, particularly for a heating-dominated climate, because of their low permeability and the consequently
reduced drying capacity.
Less rigid, but vapour-permeable insulation materials including semi-rigid fibreglass or mineral wool boards
commonly available in North America, are also suitable for exterior insulating CLT panels, but require additional
framing on the exterior of the panels for cladding attachment. Because furring to support the cladding cannot
be nailed through these less-dense insulation boards, 2x4 or 2x6 studs or intermittent wood blocks need to be
attached or framed to the exterior of the CLT panels for cladding support. Semi-rigid insulation boards would
then be placed tightly between the wood framing.
2.2
Vapour Flow Control

The purpose of vapour control within a wall assembly is to limit the flow of moisture by vapour diffusion, thereby
preventing interstitial condensation. Vapour control is typically provided on the warm or high vapour pressure side
of the insulating layer because the moisture drive will then be towards the more vapour open side of the assembly.
Care must be taken to avoid a design where water vapour may become trapped within an assembly by incorrect
vapour retarder or barrier placement.
In a traditional wood-frame wall assembly, vapour flow control is achieved on the inside surface of the batt
insulation using a sheet of either asphalt impregnated kraft paper (a vapour retarder), polyethylene (a vapour
barrier), or in some cases application of a vapour retarding paint on the gypsum board.
The vapour permeance of a 3 in. thick softwood CLT panel is less than 30 ng/Pasm2 (~0.5 US perms) at normal
indoor RH levels, based on the typical vapour permeance of solid softwood. Therefore, the CLT panel itself will
control the flow of vapour through the assembly in most situations. This property must be considered in the design
of a wall assembly and should be used as a design advantage instead of disadvantage. This further highlights the
importance of placing insulation on the exterior side of the CLT panel to ensure the vapour retarding layer is on
the warm side of the insulation.
In order to comply with the prescriptive requirements of some local building codes, the use of a vapour barrier
material may be contemplated in design. However, the use of an additional interior vapour control layer (i.e.
vapour retarder paint, impermeable finish or polyethylene sheet) can limit drying to the interior. Therefore,
when gypsum sheathing is used on the interior surface of the CLT panel, the vapour permeance of the paint
or wall finish should be carefully considered. This is particularly important in warmer humid climates where
the predominant vapour drive is inwards. The installation of other materials within CLT panel assemblies which
restrict panel drying, including foam plastic insulation and self-adhered bituminous membranes on the outside
surface of the panels is not recommended as they will limit drying to the exterior. These recommendations apply to
all climate zones on the principle that assemblies utilizing CLT panels should be designed to allow vapour to flow
readily out of the assembly.
5
10-12-22 15:51
2.2.2
CLT Panels as Vapour Control Layer

The vapour permeance of wood varies with relative humidity and it has a lower permeance when exposed to a
lower RH. The vapour permeance of various wood species and directions of grain can be found in the ASHRAE
Handbook of Fundamentals, among other resources.
The vapour permeance of softwood lumber at normal indoor RH levels of 30 to 50% generally ranges from
less than 10 ng/Pasm2 to as much as 110 ng/ Pasm2 (0.17 to 1.9 US perms) for a 25 mm (1 in.) thick piece
of lumber. For a CLT panel thickness of 89 mm (3 in.), the total vapour permeance would range from less than
3 ng/Pasm2 to 30 ng/Pasm2 (0.05 to 0.5 US perms). Following the performance levels intended in building
code requirements, the CLT panels themselves may meet the requirements for both a vapour retarder and
a vapour barrier.
2.3
Rainwater and Exterior Moisture Control

Rainwater management is critical to the long-term performance of all wood-frame wall assemblies. Beyond basic
design details such as using roof overhangs to shelter and reduce rainwater wetting of wall assemblies, CLT panel
wall designs require further protection. The best practice strategy for rainwater penetration control is a drained
and ventilated rainscreen cladding, which is common construction practice in the coastal climates of British
Columbia and Washington State, and other wet climates across North America. While this rainwater
control strategy may seem excessive in some climates, it may reduce problems associated with other exterior
wetting mechanisms.
This strategy as it applies to CLT panel walls dictates that a weather resistant barrier (WRB) will be either
mechanically fastened or adhered to the panels by the manufacturer in the factory or by the contractor
immediately after the CLT panels are erected on site. This will keep the panels relatively dry through the early
stages of delivery and construction. In line with the vapour open design philosophy and vapour control discussion,
the WRB material should have a high vapour permeance, (i.e. a house wrap or comparable product).
As shown in Figure 2, the WRB should then be covered with vapour permeable rigid insulation boards. Typically,
a cladding, such as fibre-cement board and stucco, would then need to be structurally attached to the CLT
panels. Cladding would not be attached directly to the CLT panels through insulation, because long screws
(> 6 to 8 in.) would be necessary for every attachment point. For cladding attachment, continuous vertical furring
(strapping) strips should be screwed through the rigid insulation to the CLT panel and the cladding should then
be attached to the furring with short fasteners. Depending on loading conditions, a structural analysis of this
cladding attachment scheme may be required. The gap between the furring strips creates an air space behind the
cladding, which is beneficial for both drainage and ventilation. This air space should, at minimum, be vented and
drained (opened at the bottom) or ideally ventilated and drained (i.e. by providing openings in the cladding
at both the top and bottom).
6
10-12-22 15:51
Figure 2
Best practice rainwater management strategy for CLT wall assembly. Detail shows a ventilated and drained
cladding rainscreen system where primary cladding and secondary drainage planes are provided in addition
to ventilation behind the cladding. This is typical of other exterior insulated rainscreen wall assemblies.
The practice of back-ventilating sidings such as wood, hardboard, and cement board is recommended by most
manufacturers to better ensure the long-term performance of their products. It is also beneficial to provide
an outlet for inward driven moisture from more absorptive claddings such as brick, stucco, stone and other
porous materials.
The cladding surface will shed the majority of the rainwater load on the wall; however, it is not the only line of
water penetration resistance. Moisture that does penetrate past the cladding will either run down the backside
of the cladding, the strapping, the surface of the insulation, or the final line of protection, the sealed WRB. Any
moisture which penetrates the cladding must then be drained back out of the assembly using flashings attached
to the CLT panel behind the WRB at floor levels and around penetrations such as windows.
2.4
Air Flow Control

Air infiltration and exfiltration is controlled through enclosure assemblies that prevent interstitial condensation
and minimize space heat energy loss or unwanted heat gain. Air flow through wall assemblies can be controlled
using either a single material or, more commonly, a series of materials which together make up a continuous
air barrier system.
In a traditional wood-frame wall assembly, air flow has to be controlled with an air barrier approach using either:
sealed polyethylene, air-tight drywall, sealed sheathing or sealed sheathing membrane.
CLT is a massive wood component but the air-tightness of CLT panels is dependent on the joints between the
individual boards and the individual layers. Gaps between individual boards or layers and checking in boards may
occur due to shrinkage during storage, transportation and construction as a result of drying or cyclical wetting
and drying. Manufacturing processes such as edge-gluing between boards can help improve the air-tightness of the
panels. If the CLT panels are used as part of the air barrier assembly within a building, appropriate measures such
7
10-12-22 15:51
as flexible sealant joints between CLT panels and other elements of the air barrier assembly would be required
for air barrier continuity. However, in most cases, the CLT panel itself cannot be relied upon for air tightness,
and it may be better practice to provide the primary air barrier system using other materials within the assembly.
The primary air barrier system could be the weather resistant barrier (WRB) adhered or mechanically fastened
to the exterior of the panel (sealed WRB approach) or a carefully detailed drywall layer on the interior side of the
panel (air-tight drywall approach). The effective implementation of the air barrier strategy would then rely on the
details to achieve continuity at penetrations such as windows or doors, as well as at interfaces with floors, ceilings,
balconies, decks, roofs and interior partitions. The details for such transitions would be similar to those used
in traditional wood-frame construction. The use of the water resistive barrier is the preferred approach in most
situations because there are fewer penetration and interface details to address.
8
10-12-22 15:51
3
Recommended
CLT Panel
Conceptual Design

3.1
Exterior Wall Assembly

Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate a CLT assembly where the exterior insulation is sufficiently rigid to allow for furring
strips to be screwed directly through it to the CLT panel with minimal compression. In this assembly, a continuous
WRB is applied before the rigid mineral fibreboard is placed on the exterior of the panel. Vertical furring such as
strips of plywood or 1x4 lumber are fastened directly through one layer of insulation to the CLT panels with long
screws (> 6 in.) to provide attachment points for the cladding, assuming this meets the structural requirements of
cladding attachment. This assembly is thermally most efficient. The space between the furring strips is left open to
provide drainage behind the cladding and openings are provided at the top and bottom of the wall for ventilation
of the cavity. The assembly shown does not contain gypsum drywall on the interior. Where required for fire safety
and acoustic control purposes, gypsum drywall would be fastened to the CLT panels or could be supported on
vertical furring strips to allow for wiring and other services to be concealed.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate two alternate cladding support framing strategies. Figure 5 shows two strapping members
attached through the insulation to the CLT panels. The first strapping member would typically be a 2x2, and the
second member a 2x2 or a size that suits the thickness of insulation. The first strapping member is attached to the
CLT panels with shorter 5 in. screws and the second is then attached to the first strapping member. This method
may be necessary where greater thicknesses of insulation are required (i.e. 6 in. insulation which would require
8 to 9 in. screws). It also offers benefits for detailing around penetrations, and allows the insulation to be installed
with staggered joints. Where less rigid mineral fibre insulation boards or batts are used, or where structural
analysis indicates a more rigid cladding support is needed, solid framing members (i.e. studs) would be required
to support the cladding. Figure 6 shows 2x6 framing lumber directly attached to the CLT panelsthermally
the least efficient of the systems discussed above.
Both the furring and framing members placed on the exterior of the WRB/air barrier should be protected
with some level of wood preservative such as borate, CA, ACQ, or CCA (for plywood only), depending on
the exposure and local building code requirements. Attention should be given to the selection of appropriate
corrosion-resistant fasteners suitable for use with the preservative chosen for wood treatment.
9
10-12-22 15:51
Vapour permeable WRB

forms the air barrier.
The WRB is taped
and sealed at joints
and transitions
Vapour permeable rigid

mineral fibre or wood
fibre insulation boards
Plywood box liner around

window rough opening
to support window frame
Vertical wood strapping

to support cladding screwed
through insulation boards
to CLT panel
Drained and ventilated air

space behind cladding
material
Air-seal panel joints

and interfaces
Figure 3
Exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall assembly showing material sequencing
and schematic window penetration details
10
10-12-22 15:51
Vertical furring screwed

through rigid insulation
boards using long
screws
Figure 4
Cladding support strategy using vertical furring through rigid insulation board
11
10-12-22 15:51
2x2 or lumber of a suitable

size attached to first
strapping layer with
appropriate length screws
2x2 strapping attached

through first layer
of insulation using
5 in. screws
Insulation retained
between framing using
either metal clips or wire
Figure 5
Cladding support strategy using two layers of rigid insulation and two strapping members: this configuration
allows for the use of shorter screws and greater insulation thicknesses while minimizing thermal bridging
12
10-12-22 15:51
Insulation retained
between framing using
either metal clips or wire
2x4 or 2x6 vertical

framing attached to CLT
panels using metal clips
Figure 6
Cladding support strategy using stud framing attached directly to CLT panel with semi-rigid
or batt insulation between framing
3.2
Roof Assemblies
The use of CLT panels within sloped roof assemblies will have similar design considerations as for walls.
CLT roof panels are typically thinner than wall panels (30 to 50 mm thick) and are detailed to span between roof
beams or trusses, and provide an interior finish similar to tongue-and-groove paneling. In this configuration, the
insulation, moisture control layer and air barrier will be placed on the exterior side of the panel similar to a CLT
wall assembly. Insulation requirements within building codes are typically higher for roofs than for walls dictating
greater insulation thicknesses. Unlike with walls, an impermeable waterproofing membrane is used with roofs
because drying is facilitated through the thinner CLT panel and exposed interior finish.
The type of roofing material will dictate the framing support structure on the exterior side of the CLT panels.
Typically, this will involve the installation of purlins or intermittent structures and sheathing to support the
roofing material. In this application, the CLT panel functions as the structural base and interior finish for the
assembly. This type of exterior insulated assembly lends itself well to the use of metal or tile roofing materials.
Figures 7 and 8 show material sequencing of a sloped CLT roof and tie-in details to a CLT wall assembly at
the underside.
CLT panels may also be used in flat or low-slope roof assembliesin which case using a conventional roofing
assembly would be best practice to protect the CLT panel. Similar to a conventional above-deck insulated woodframe roof with plywood, an air/vapour barrier, insulation and exposed roofing membrane is placed on top of the
CLT panel. Figure 9 shows material sequencing of a low-slope CLT roof and tie-in details to a CLT wall assembly.
13
10-12-22 15:51
Vapour permeable
roofing underlay
CLT roof panel
2x4 purlins to support

metal roofing
Roof underlay laps into

gutter under flashing
with edge taped
in. plywood backer

to allow fastening
of gutter
2x4 timber facer
supported between
strapping to allow
fastening of flashing
2x2 strapping fastened
through bottom layer
of insulation with long
screws and second layer
of 2x2 strapping fastened
on top with screws or clips
Two layers of rigid

mineral fibre insulation
boards (two 4 in. layers
shown here)
Roof membrane
CLT wall assembly
Figure 7
Top view of exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall transition to CLT sloped roof
assembly showing material sequencing
14
10-12-22 15:51
Vapour permeable wall

WRB wrapped onto roof
beams and underside
of roof CLT panel to
create air barrier
continuity
Protected underside of
CLT panel should be
treated with suitable
finish and left exposed
or covered with a
perforated soffit panel
Figure 8
Bottom view of exterior insulated rainscreen clad CLT exterior wall transition to CLT sloped roof
assembly showing material sequencing
15
10-12-22 15:51
Self-adhered
membrane over top
of parapet and lapped
over top edge of roof
and wall membranes
Sloped cap-flashing
2-ply SBS roofing

membrane over
gypsum roof sheathing
CLT roof panel
CLT wall assembly
Two layers
of polyisocyanurate
insulation (staggered joints)
Self-adhered air
and vapour barrier
membrane on top side
of CLT panel and onto
back side of CLT wall
parapet
Figure 9
CLT flat roof detail showing material sequencing of a conventional roofing assembly with tie-in
to parapet of CLT wall
16
10-12-22 15:51
3.3
Detailing Considerations: Installation of Windows

The installation of windows into an exterior insulated CLT panel wall assembly varies from traditional practice.
When installing a window into an exterior insulated assembly, several window installation techniques are possible
depending on the placement of the window frame. One such method which allows for the greatest flexibility is
to support the window frame using a plywood box liner constructed within the window rough opening.
A general schematic of a window installation is provided in Figure 10. Continuity of the air barrier and water
shedding surface are critical and can be detailed in a number of different ways. Key points to consider when
detailing include:
Air barrier continuity must be retained from the WRB at the CLT surface, through the rough opening
and to the window frame.
The membranes used at the window sill should preferably be vapour permeable to prevent water from being
trapped within the CLT panel or plywood.
Water should not be drained behind the insulation/WRB interface below a window or other penetration.
Water should be drained to the exterior of the insulation or directly to the exterior where possible.
17
10-12-22 15:51
Plywood box liner built

around window rough
opening to support window
frame and covered with
a vapour permeable
waterproofing membrane
Window is air-sealed
around the interior
perimeter of the frame
as part of the air barrier
assembly
Vapour permeable
waterproofing membrane
wraps sill of plywood liner
(water is not directed
to the WRB interface
behind the insulation)
Figure 10
Window installation schematic using sloped wood sill and plywood box liner
18
10-12-22 15:51
3.4
Detailing Considerations: At Grade

CLT panels must be protected from moisture at grade. Typical wood-frame construction best practice regarding
clearance between grade and wood should be followed and a minimum of 8 in. (200 mm) between the bottom of
the CLT panel and grade should be maintained. The CLT panel should also be separated from the concrete using
the foundation waterproofing and likely plastic shims to level the panels off at the top surface of the concrete wall.
A sill gasket would be used if the CLT panels were in contact with the concrete.
The exterior insulated above grade CLT details easily into an exterior insulated below grade basement wall.
Flashing is provided at the base of the above grade CLT wall which can be profiled to cover the below grade
insulation. This insulation (typically extruded polystyrene, XPS) is placed on the exterior of the concrete and
should be placed tight to the underside of the flashing. Since this can provide hidden access for termites,
the XPS insulation should be borate treated or the flashing should be installed in such a manner to act as a termite
shield where this hazard exists. Other termite management measures may be required by local building codes
as discussed below.
19
10-12-22 15:51
Strip of waterproofing
membrane and shims
between CLT panel
and concrete foundation.
Air-seal joint between CLT
panel and waterproofing
Mesh at top and bottom

of rainscreen cavity
to prevent insect
and other pest intrusion
Minimum of 8 in.
between grade
and bottom of CLT panel
Insulation below grade will

typically consist of extruded
polystyrene (XPS)
Grade sloped away

from building
Drainage medium
and free-draining
Figure 11
At-grade CLT wall assembly schematic
20
10-12-22 15:51
4
Control of
Moisture during
Construction
In Europe, a lot of attention has been paid to protecting CLT from getting wet during construction by delivering
the product just in time, minimizing construction time, and providing temporary shelters during construction.
CLT panels, similar to other wood products, should always be protected from exposure to rain, snow and the wet
ground during the construction process. CLT panels are especially vulnerable to damage from wetting due to the
nature of their laminated construction and because they are capable of absorbing large quantities of water through
the faces, exposed ends and gaps between the panel laminations.
CLT panels are much more massive than plywood or standard dimension lumber, and will take a very long
time to dry out if allowed to become wet. Therefore, prevention of wetting should be a priority in construction.
Product standards may require a certain moisture content for finished CLT panels and building codes may require
a moisture content of less than 19% at any location within a panel (surface, core or edge) before it is closed in.
In addition, it is important to keep the panels at a stable operating moisture content, because moisture related
expansion and contraction may damage the laminations and lead to distortion of the panels.
CLT panels should be temporarily protected by use of water-resistant sheet membranes or other effective methods
to reduce environmental moisture uptake until they are protected by the building roof. Temporary protection can
be attached in the manufacturing facility and should be maintained while stored on site. This protection should
also be maintained as the panels are erected in place in order to protect the panels until the roof or other elements
such as the sheathing membrane (WRB) provide adequate protection. If the protection is an impermeable
material, it will need to be removed during construction.
Even with these precautions, it is likely that CLT panels will experience some wetting during transportation or
construction, and be installed with built-in moisture in localized areas. Therefore, the most durable wall design
strategies will keep the CLT panel warm (i.e. exterior insulated) and allow for excess moisture to escape fast
enough (i.e. vapour open concept) from the assembly to prevent damage and deterioration.
21
10-12-22 15:51
5
Wood Preservative
Treatment
for Durability
CLT panels (especially any exposed portions of the panels and parts in contact with foundations) would benefit
from wood preservative treatment such as borate or copper-based preservatives, particularly in wetter or more
humid climates or where termites are prevalent. While best practice construction and design strategies attempt to
minimize exposure of the wood panels to wetting, inevitably some CLT panels will be exposed to moisture during
their lifetime and the additional factor of safety provided by wood preservatives can be beneficial to the durability
of the buildings.
In terms of treatment, preservatives used for treatment of lamina prior to manufacture of glulam posts and
beams can generally be applied to CLT wall panels. Oil-based treatments used for industrial glulam may not be
a preferred approach due to VOC emissions. Using pressure treated lumber for boards of the exterior lamination,
applying post-lamination surface treatments to the exterior and end grains, or using boron rods for local
protection may all help.
In areas with a high termite hazard, such as the Southeastern United States, multiple lines of defense should be
used to prevent termite damage to CLT panels. Appropriate site termite prevention and the use of termite soil
barriers such as termiticide soil treatment, and slab and foundation detailing to prevent termite intrusion should
be taken into consideration during design. Preservative treated wood is also recommended for CLT panels and
other wood furring and framing to prevent termite damage. In addition, termite control measures should also
be provided to below grade insulation materials such as XPS.
The use of fire retardants may help meet fire safety requirements and warrant the use of exposed CLT panels
for aesthetic purposes. Some fire retardants contain boron and will also provide decay and termite resistance.
22
10-12-22 15:51
6
Conclusions
It is intended that guidelines included in this chapter should assist practitioners in adapting CLT construction
to North American conditions and ensuring a long life for their buildings. However, these guidelines are not
intended to substitute for the input of a professional building scientist. This may be required in some jurisdictions,
such as Vancouver, BC and is recommended in all areas at least until such time as CLT construction becomes
common practice.
23
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:51
Environmental performance of
cross-laminated timber
CHAPTER
Authors
Part 1
Lal Mahalle, P.Ag., FPInnovations
Jennifer OConnor, FPInnovations
Part 2
Alpha Barry, Ph.D., MBA, FPInnovations
11
10-12-22 15:51
Acknowledgements
10-12-22 15:51
Abstract
Part 1
Environmental Footprint of CLT Preliminary Findings

In this part, we approximately determine some quantified environmental characteristics of CLT as
a construction material, without conducting a full life cycle assessment (LCA). Finding no existing comparative
literature on CLT, we attempt several approaches to estimate the footprint of CLT and the comparison to
concrete. Using existing LCA data on Canadian glulam as a proxy, we look at the footprint of the material
itself compared to the materials in reinforced concrete, and at the material in a mid-rise building compared to
concrete. We then modify glulam LCA data to approximate an LCA for a CLT floor section and compare it to a
functionally equivalent concrete floor section. In all these cases, we estimate that the CLT version will substantially
outperform concrete in every environmental metric addressed by LCA.
Part 2
Potential Indoor Air Quality Impact of Using CLT in Buildings Preliminary Findings
Five cross-laminated timber products with different thicknesses and glue lines were tested for their volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions in order to assist engineers and builders
to better select their construction materials with less impact on indoor air quality. Emissions were evaluated
according to ASTM D 5116 and were collected after 24 hours of samples exposure in the small chamber.
No correlation was observed between the cross-laminated timbers thicknesses or glue lines and the amount of
emitted individual VOCs (iVOCs), including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde or total VOCs (TVOCs). All five
CLT products showed very low levels of iVOC and TVOC emissions; most of the detected VOCs consisted of
terpene compounds originating from the softwood furnish used to manufacture the laminated timber products.
Thus, their impact on indoor quality when CLT is used for construction will be very minor, if any.
In terms of evaluating the products impact on indoor air quality, one can easily conclude that it would be
negligible, if any. The five cross-laminated timber products TVOCs and formaldehyde 24-hour results were
generally lower than those set forth by some European emissions labelling systems. Also, the European E1 grade
for wood products formaldehyde emissions set at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) or 100 parts per billion (ppb)
is 6 to 20 times higher than those measured from the cross-laminated timber products.
By July 2012, the CARB (California Government standards) Phase 2 enforcement for all composite products
will be completed and formaldehyde emission limits will vary from 0.13 ppm (130 ppb) for thin MDF (medium
density fibreboard) to 0.05 ppm (50 ppb) for hardwood plywood with composite core (HWPW-CC).
Comparing these limits to those from the cross-laminated timber products, one can conclude that these products
easily meet the most stringent CARB limit of 50 ppb.
ChapTER 11 Environmental

iii
10-12-22 15:51
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii

Part 1 Environmental Footprint of CLT Preliminary Findings iii
Part 2 Potential Indoor Air Quality Impact of Using CLT in Buildings Preliminary Findings iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
1
Environmental Footprint of CLT Preliminary Findings 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objective, Method and Limitations 1
1.3 Literature Review 2
1.4 Environmental Snapshot - CLT versus Concrete 3
1.4.1 Material Snapshot 3
1.4.2 Mid-rise Snapshot 4
1.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Displacement 5
1.4.4 Carbon Storage 5
1.5 Preliminary LCA - CLT Floor versus Concrete Floor 6
1.5.1 Study Method and CLT Results 6
1.5.2 Functional Unit for Comparison 8
1.5.3 Results of Floor Comparison - CLT versus Concrete 8
1.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis 10
1.6 Green Market Potential for CLT 10
1.7 Conclusions 11
1.8 References 12

iv
10-12-22 15:51
Potential Indoor Air Quality Impact of Using CLT in Buildings Preliminary Findings 13
2.1 Objectives 13
2.2 Background 13
2.3 Procedures and Results 14
2.3.1 Materials Sampling, Packaging, Transportation and Conditioning 14
2.3.2 Method 14
2.3.3 Quantification of Formaldehyde 17
2.3.4 Quantification of the TVOC 17

2.4 Results and Discussions 18
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 25

2.6 References 26

v
10-12-22 15:51
List of Tables
Table 1
Comparative LCA results for CLT and concrete produced and used
in Vancouver absolute values 9
Table 2
LCA, CLT versus concrete floor, various transportation scenarios 10
Table 3
Small chamber operating conditions 15
Table 4
TDU/GC/MS and HPLC operating conditions 16
Table 5
Samples 24-hour individual VOCs (iVOCs), TVOCtoluene, between n-C6 and n-C16
including formaldehyde (g/m) (114-3S and 95-3S products) 18
Table 6
including formaldehyde (g/m) (190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products) 19
Table 7
Example of some European emission labelling systems 22
Table 8
Samples 24-hour iVOCs, TVOCtoluene, between n-C6 and n-C16 emission factors
including formaldehyde (g/m.h) (114-3S and 95-3S products) 23
Table 9
including formaldehyde (g/m.h) (190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products) 24
Table 10 24-hour formaldehyde emissions as a function of product types 25
List of Figures
Figure 1 Functionally equivalent CLT materials versus reinforced concrete, LCA results,
benchmarked to CLT 3
Figure 2 Rough LCA results, mid-rise comparison, CLT versus concrete, benchmarked to CLT 4
Figure 3 Life cycle assessment methodology: the ISO 14040 framework and applications 6
Figure 4 System boundary of CLT 7
Figure 5 System boundary of ready-mixed concrete 8
Figure 6 Comparative LCA between 1 square meter of CLT and concrete floor structure 9
Figure 7 Prepared sample with edges sealed ready to be put in the chamber 14
Figure 8 General view of the 1 m environmental chamber used for emissions testing 15
Figure 9 24-hour VOCs including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde off gassing as a function
of samples types (114-3S and 95-3S products) 20
Figure 10 24-hour VOCs including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde off gassing as a function
of samples types (190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products) 20
Figure 11 24-hour TVOC emissions as a function of cross-laminated products 21

vi
10-12-22 15:51
1
Environmental
Footprint of
CLT Preliminary
Findings
1.1
Introduction
The environmental footprint of CLT is frequently discussed as potentially beneficial when compared
to functionally equivalent concrete systems. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published
information that credibly compares and quantifies the relative environmental performance of CLT versus other
structural systems. In the work reported here, we try several approaches to approximate a quantification of CLTs
environmental footprint without undertaking a full life cycle assessment (LCA) study, which is beyond the scope
of the work.
There are many existing environmental comparisons between wood and other building materials, and the results
are generally quite favourable to wood. However, these studies focus on light wood-framing using lumber, or post
and beam using glulam, neither of which is at all similar to a CLT system. Differences include a mass wall or slab
approach rather than a framed system, at least three times more wood material, and added processing and auxiliary
materials such as adhesives. In other words, the footprint of a CLT building is not the same as a light-frame
building, and we therefore cannot assume CLT will compare as favourably to concrete as previous LCA studies
have shown for traditional wood systems.
1.2
Objective, Method and Limitations

The objective of this work was to approximately determine some quantified environmental characteristics of
CLT as a construction material, without conducting a full LCA. Life cycle assessment is a rigorous, scientific
analytical procedure, guided by international standards, to measure the flows to and from nature associated with
a product or process over its full life cycle, and to interpret those flows in terms of environmental impact. LCA
involves measuring flows at manufacturing facilities. At the time of writing this chapter, there were currently no
commercial CLT manufacturing operations in North America. We could conduct such a study for European
facilities and then modify the data to North American conditions, however, project resources would not
allow for such an extensive piece of work. Our alternate method included a search for existing data and then
hypothetical LCA-type exercises using data on Canadian glulam as a proxy for CLT. Note that glulam only partly
satisfies as a proxy. While the manufacturing process may be similar, the construction method, design details
and transportation issues are not; these factors are not included in this approach. Note as well that the glulam
data used here are somewhat outdated. For these reasons, caution should be exercised in applying the theoretical
information in this report.

1
10-12-22 15:51
1.3
Literature Review
We were unable to locate any existing LCA data or credible comparative studies addressing CLT. Several
promotional pieces on the mid-rise Stadthaus building in England make comparative assertions about CLT,
but these lacked support literature, clarity and methodological accuracy.
Gustavsson et al. (2010) performed a full life cycle assessment of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for a
CLT mid-rise building in Sweden (part of the Limnologen project). Energy use and carbon flows are tracked along
the entire chain and include carbon stocks in building products and avoided fossil fuel combustion emissions
where biofuel residues are used as a substitute energy source for fossil fuel. This study is not comparative;
therefore, it does not tell us about environmental benefits over a concrete alternative. However, it is the only
published study addressing whole-building, full life cycle environmental footprinting for a CLT construction
application. The authors argue that a major carbon benefit for this wood-intensive building is the side effect of
using wood residues as an energy substitute for fossil fuel. The biofuel can be collected in the form of harvesting
residues, wood manufacturing residues, and-eventually-the CLT panels themselves at the end of their
useful life.
Robertson (2010) conducted a comparative LCA study on a five-storey office building made of concrete versus a
CLT and glulam hybrid building. This study will be published as a masters thesis in a near future, and will include
details on the development of a life cycle inventory from primary data gathered at a CLT pilot plant in British
Columbia. Results indicate a lower environmental impact for the glulam/CLT building over the concrete building
in nine out of eleven environmental indicators.
A mid-rise LCA study by John et al. (2009) could theoretically provide a comparative basis for examining
the CLT results in the Swedish study. This New Zealand study performed full LCA for four different structural
approaches to a six-storey office building (concrete, steel, and two different wood versions). While results from
the New Zealand study are not directly comparable to those of the Swedish study, we can potentially draw
general conclusions about the likely comparative results for CLT. It is useful to look at the two versions of wood
buildings in the New Zealand study. One used a fairly conventional quantity of structural wood while the other
(called timber plus by the authors) increased the use of wood in that model by assuming wood substitution
for additional products such as windows, ceilings and exterior cladding. The study found that total life cycle
energy consumption and carbon footprint both decrease as the use of wood increases. A similar examination was
performed by Meil et al. (2006) with similar results. In both studies, the reason for this benefit is the substitution
of wood for non-wood materials that have a heavier energy/greenhouse gas footprint.
In the New Zealand study, various end-of-life scenarios were examined and operating energy was included; these
are two important factors to consider when properly comparing wood to other materials in construction. In
this study, thermal mass in the buildings was accounted for in the energy modeling, and the concrete building
had the lowest operating energy consumption. However, this was overtaken by the embodied energy savings of
the timber plus version over the concrete version due to product substitution. Taking the end-of-life study in
landfill, the authors also contend that a significant portion of the carbon contained in the wood materials is stored
permanently, giving both wood versions of the building lower total life cycle carbon footprints than the steel and
concrete versions. The timber plus version has a substantially lower total carbon footprint than the other wood
version due to embodied energy savings in product substitution, lower operating energy consumption due to
thermal mass, and a greater mass of wood carbon in permanent landfill storage.
From this study, we can perhaps extrapolate some conclusions about the likely comparative performance of CLT.
If we assume that CLT has a smaller manufacturing carbon footprint than concrete and that all other life cycle
factors are similar to the timber plus model, it would follow that a CLT version would perform similarly or
perhaps better than the timber plus model, given that it would have more wood mass available for permanent
landfill storage at end of life.

2
10-12-22 15:51
Environmental Snapshot - CLT versus Concrete
1.4
We can broadly test our hypothesis that CLT has a smaller environmental footprint than concrete by accessing
existing Canadian LCA data on building materials, and using glulam as a direct proxy for CLT, under the
assumption that the manufacturing of CLT is very similar to glulam. The Impact Estimator for Buildings software
and databases from the Athena Institute are tools for examining LCA information in a construction context
and were used for this work. We created two different snapshots: the basic materials on their own, and an
approximation of a mid-rise building comparison using CLT and concrete.
1.4.1
Material Snapshot
Promotional literature on the UK building (Stadthaus) states that, according to architects estimates, an equivalent
building using reinforced concrete would consume 950 cubic meters of concrete and 120 metric tons of steel
reinforcement, in place of approximately 910 cubic meters of CLT. Using the Impact Estimator and substituting
glulam for CLT, we can roughly estimate the cradle-to-grave footprint for just the volume of the fundamental
structural materials in these two versions of the building. This is a partial LCA; while it includes all life phases,
it also omits many components that might alter comparative results (Figure 1). Note that CLT results are set as
the benchmark (100%), with concrete shown in terms of performance relative to CLT. In all categories, the CLT
materials have less environmental impact than a functionally equivalent amount of concrete (material amounts
determined by the architects according to promotional literature).
3000%
Reinforced concrete
2500%
CLT (glulam)
2000%
1500%
1000%
500%
e
W
at
er
us
og
Sm
in
Ac
g
id
ifi
ca
Re
tio
sp
n
ira
to
ry
ef
Eu
fe
ct
tr
s
op
hi
ca
O
tio
zo
n
ne
de
pl
et
io
n
ar
m
al
w
rc
e
G
lo
b
ou
Re
s
En
e
rg
y
us
us
0%
Figure 1
Functionally equivalent CLT materials versus reinforced concrete, LCA results, benchmarked to CLT

3
10-12-22 15:51
Mid-rise Snapshot
1.4.2
A more accurate approach to material comparison involves a whole-building study. Using the Impact Estimator
and again using glulam as a proxy for CLT, we can roughly compare reinforced concrete to CLT (glulam) in
the context of a mid-rise building.
In this calculation, the Impact Estimator (IE) built-in algorithms for building design are employed to model the
two mid-rise CLT buildings for which we know wood material quantities: the UK Stadthaus and the Sweden
Limnologen. A CLT version is developed based on a glulam column-beam-joist system with additional glulam
added to bring the total quantity of wood up to the same amount in the real buildings; this is a proxy method, as
the IE does not have a built-in massive wood structural system. Fasteners are included for the glulam quantities
determined by the software but not for the additional glulam added to simulate the total mass of wood in the
actual building. No other materials are includedthey are deemed in this comparison to be equivalent for both
the CLT and concrete versions. Construction, maintenance and disposal effects are included for the softwaredetermined portion of wood, but not for the added portion. Because of those missing components for the CLT
buildings, the environmental footprint may be somewhat underestimated compared to the concrete buildings.
For the concrete versions, the same area, height and assumptions about bay sizes and structural spans were input
to the IE, this time specifying a concrete slab-column-beam system; the IE determined material quantities
including all fasteners. Additional materials were added to simulate exterior precast concrete wall panels, in order
to properly compare to the CLT version (where the added glulam simulates the solid wood exterior walls among
other components). Interior walls were not included in the concrete model, whereas they are largely included in
the CLT model due to the added glulam materials; this omission may lead to an underestimate of the concrete
building footprint.
For this rough whole-building snapshot, results from the two mid-rise buildings were combined in an areaweighted average. Results are shown in Figure 2 and are similar to the previous figure.
2000%
1800%
Reinforced concrete
CLT (glulam)
1600%
1400%
1200%
1000%
800%
600%
400%
200%
e
er
us
og
W
at
Sm
zo
ne
de
pl
et
io
n
tio
ic
a
ro
ph
ef
Eu
t
or
pi
ra
t
Re
s
s
fe
ct
io
n
at
in
g
Ac
id
ifi
c
ar
m
al
w
rc
e
G
lo
b
ou
Re
s
En
e
rg
y
us
us
0%
Figure 2
Rough LCA results, mid-rise comparison, CLT versus concrete, benchmarked to CLT

4
10-12-22 15:51
1.4.3
Greenhouse Gas Displacement

Displacement factors are a measure of the efficiency of wood materials in avoiding GHG emissions. Wood
generally has lower embodied GHG emissions than functionally equivalent alternate materials; thus, when wood
is used in place of other materials, GHG emissions are typically avoided. This is a permanent and cumulative
benefit for climate change mitigation. A displacement factor specific to CLT could be generically applied to
a given volume of CLT in a construction application, for an estimate of GHG benefit in using CLT, assuming the
said application was typically built with a different material. Sathre and OConnor (2010) discuss displacement
factors at length and offer an average displacement factor for wood substitution, in units of mass of avoided
CO2 emissions per unit of mass of wood used. Their average number of 3.9 metric tons of avoided CO2 emissions
per metric ton of oven-dry wood is likely not applicable to CLT without modification, because it is based on
traditional uses of wood. CLT systems use more wood while still displacing the same GHG emissions as a
substitute material (compared to traditional wood systems such as light-frame), therefore it is less efficient at
offsetting GHG emissions. Muter and OConnor (2009) estimated an adjusted displacement factor of 0.66 metric
tons of avoided CO2 emissions per metric ton of oven-dry wood in CLT used in place of other materials. Using
data from the above-mentioned snapshot LCA study on two 8-storey buildings, we can also calculate displacement
factors, which establish at 0.81 and 0.65 metric tons of avoided CO2 emissions per metric ton of oven-dry
wood in CLT, for the Limnologen and Stadthaus buildings respectively. Until enough LCA data is available
for a refinement of these estimates, we can perhaps use an average (0.71) of the above three numbers.
1.4.4
Carbon Storage
Entirely separate from the GHG avoided emissions due to wood substitution, the issue of carbon storage in wood
can also be addressed when describing the environmental profile of wood construction elements. Wood is about
half carbon, and wood in long-term service such as construction represents a significant pool for GHG. Over the
long term, this carbon will return to the atmosphere and complete the natural carbon cycle. But the temporary
GHG storage in wood products can be reasonably taken as a carbon credit, depending on time frame and endof-life assumptions. If the time frame under consideration is short, perhaps 100 years or less, then the carbon in
wood in long-term service is often deemed as a permanent removal of GHG from the atmosphere. This reasoning
largely stems from the current urgency around climate change; a 100-year or so delay in carbon emission is helpful
in current mitigation actions to reduce GHG emissions. Over a longer time frame, issues regarding landfill
decomposition and potential release of methane become important. If the wood is burned at end of life for energy
recovery to replace fossil fuel, the avoided GHG emissions from fossil fuel are included in the assessment.
For traditional wood structural systems, the carbon mass of wood is relatively small compared to the carbon
emissions avoided by using wood instead of steel or concrete. Therefore, an important focus in the use of wood
to combat climate change is to increase the rate of wood substitution for other materials, with less emphasis on
carbon storage. With CLT, the relationship is the opposite: the carbon mass of wood is quite large compared
to the avoided emissions of alternate materials. In this case, there would be an interest in putting a value on that
stored carbon, with a motivation to keep the carbon in service for as long as possible, and to capture the energy
value of that carbon to replace fossil fuel at the end of service life.

5
10-12-22 15:51
1.5
Preliminary LCA - CLT Floor versus Concrete Floor

We next developed a theoretical life cycle inventory for CLT manufactured in BC, using existing Canadian
glulam life cycle inventory data with modifications, and we used LCA to compare CLT to concrete as a structural
floor system. We examined various potential factory locations in BC and included transportation of the final
product to a building site in Vancouver, in order to determine which manufacturing location would have the least
environmental burden.
1.5.1
Study Method and CLT Results

Modifications to the existing glulam data included adjustments to wood and adhesive volumes based on in-house
calculations. Floor sections were determined through in-house engineering. The approach followed international
standards as set forth in the ISO 14040 series. Figure 3 illustrates the methodology for ISO 14040.
Impact assessment methods were a combination of the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) from the U.S. EPA and the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
from EcoInvent.
Life Cycle Assessment Framework:
Goal and
scope
definition
Direct applications:
-Product development
and improvement
Inventory
analysis
-Strategic planning
Interpretation
-Public policy making

-Marketing
-Other
Impact
assessment
Figure 3
Life cycle assessment methodology: the ISO 14040 framework and applications
The life cycle inventory for CLT was based on a completely hypothetical production situation as CLT is currently
not commercially manufactured in North America. We performed the analysis for three alternative locations of
a potential CLT factory in BC: Vancouver, Kamloops, and Prince George. The study took into account timber
extraction from forests, transport of logs and other raw material to mill gate, and energy and raw material
consumption for the manufacturing of CLT. In addition, it included delivery of CLT to a building site for
installation. The study boundary for concrete was the same.

6
10-12-22 15:51
Energy recovery from wood waste generated during CLT manufacturing, and substitution effects of this energy
for natural gas were taken into account in the analysis as well as the forest carbon uptake that subsequently resides
as stored carbon in the wood. These two effects give CLT a negative cradle-to-gate carbon footprint; as with
most wood products, there is more carbon stored or offset by the wood than is emitted during its cradle-to-gate
manufacturing.
CLT manufacturing is a multiple output process as it generates wood waste in addition to the primary product,
CLT. This waste can be considered as a co-product as it is intended to be used for energy recovery. However,
compared to CLT, the revenue generated from wood waste could be relatively minor and, therefore,
environmental flows are not allocated to this co-product. To be conservative, the LCI is attributed entirely
to the primary product.
There were no significant differences in CLT footprint as a function of factory location.
The next two figures show the system boundary of CLT and ready-mixed concrete, respectively.
Waste
disposal
Raw
material
transport
Functional
unit of CLT
Transport to
building site
CLT production
Process
energy
Adhesive
Lumber
production
Timber
extraction
System boundary
Figure 4
System boundary of CLT

7
10-12-22 15:51
Solid waste
disposal
Functional
unit of concrete
Transport to
building site
Raw material
transport and
processing
Concrete
production
Process
energy
Cement
manufacturing
Coarse and
fine aggregate
production
SCM
Water
System boundary
Figure 5
System boundary of ready-mixed concrete
1.5.2
Functional Unit for Comparison

All environmental inputs and outputs within the system boundary are normalized to a unit summarizing
the function of the system that allows comparison of various product systems performing a similar function.
For example, both CLT and concrete perform a similar function if they are used to construct a building floor.
With the function of the system defined, a functional unit or reference flow has to be selected in order to
provide a similar basis for the comparison of these two building materials. For this reason, the functional unit
was considered to be one square metre of floor (slab) area for both CLT and concrete. However, the functionally
equivalent thicknesses of these materials may not be similar due to engineering requirements. FPInnovations
in-house structural engineering staff advised that functionally equivalent thicknesses of floors can range from
the same thickness for both CLT and concrete to a significantly thicker section for CLT. We chose to analyze
a highly conservative situation of 200 mm and 120 mm (30 MPa) for CLT and concrete respectively.
1.5.3
Results of Floor Comparison - CLT versus Concrete

Summary results of the comparative assertion of CLT versus concrete are shown in Table 1 and Figure 6
on an absolute value and percent basis respectively. The CLT floor performs better.

8
10-12-22 15:51
Table 1
Comparative LCA results for CLT and concrete produced and used in Vancouver absolute values
Impact Category
Unit
CLT
1m 2 of Floor
Concrete
1m 2 of Floor
-222.55*
90.12
Global warming
kg CO2 eq.
Acidification
H+ moles eq.
8.77
23.00
Respiratory effects
kg PM2.5 eq.
0.010
0.058
Eutrophication
kg N eq.
0.014
0.115
Ozone depletion
kg CFC-11
eq.
7.15E-09
2.65E-07
Smog
kg NOx eq.
0.21
0.23
Non-renewable fossil
fuel
MJ eq.
274.30
633.54
Note: *Net emissions, when taking into account forest carbon sequestration (248 kg CO2 eq.) and reduction in
carbon emissions from substituting wood residues for natural gas (21.8 kg CO2 eq.).
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Renewable
biomass
Smog
Ozone
depletion
-80.00
Non-rene wable
fossil fuel
-60.00
Eutrophication
-40.00
Respirato ry
effects
-20.00
Acidification
0.00
Global
warming
20.00
-100.00
CLT
Concrete - 30 MPa
Figure 6
Comparative LCA between 1 square meter of CLT and concrete floor structure
Note: This Figure graphs the data shown in Table 1 on a percentage basis, with the baseline set at the highest
number in each environmental performance category. For example, in fossil fuel consumption, the concrete
system had the highest number and was set to 100%, with the CLT number shown as 43% of the fossil fuel
use of concrete.

9
10-12-22 15:51
1.5.4
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effect of long-distance CLT transportation on the
comparative LCA results against a concrete floor structure. We compared the preparation of a concrete floor
structure using local materials to CLT manufactured in Vancouver and transported 5000 km, to simulate a
construction site in the Eastern USA. Both road and rail transport modes were considered as separate scenarios.
The same concrete manufacturing profile developed for Vancouver was used for the comparison, but with
modifications to reflect the Eastern USA energy grid.
A summary of the sensitivity analysis results are shown in Table 2. Results indicate that long-distance
transportation significantly increases the environmental impacts of CLT leaving the mill gate. However, CLT
still compares fairly well with locally manufactured concrete provided that rail is the primary transport mode.
Table 2
LCA, CLT versus concrete floor, various transportation scenarios
Impact
Category
Unit
Concrete
Produced in
the USA
Global
warming
kg CO2 eq.
96.33
Acidification
H+ moles eq.
25.72
Respiratory
effects
kg PM2.5 eq.
Eutrophication
kg N eq.
Ozone
depletion
kg CFC-11 eq.
Smog
kg NOx eq.
Non-renewable
fossil fuel
MJ eq.
CLT
Produced in
Vancouver
-222.55
CLT
Transpoted
to the USA
via Road
CLT
Transported
to the USA
via Rail
-182.11
-217.81
8.77
24.28
19.95
0.068
0.010
0.028
0.022
0.114
0.014
0.043
0.040
2.63041E-07
7.15E-09
4.97E-06
4.97E-06
0.26
0.21
0.53
0.47
719.98
274.30
891.31
406.71
Note: Impact indicators were calculated per functional unit of both products
1.6
Green Market Potential for CLT

In green programs such as LEED, there are currently no incentives that would particularly encourage the use
of CLT on environmental merits. In fact, CLT would likely first experience an environmental backlash on the
basis of material volume. A strong mandate in the sustainable construction world is the minimization of resources.
At first glance, and particularly with a North American light-frame perspective, massive wood systems appear
highly wasteful of materials. There are increased market sensitivities in particular with regard to wasteful use
of forest resources, which many feel are in need of preservation.
A marketing push around the environmental footprint of CLT would first need to direct attention away from a
natural North American comparison to light-frame and towards a comparison to concrete slab systems exclusively.
At that point, possible opportunities for CLT in the green market may revolve around health, comfort and wellbeing benefits, if the wood is allowed to be exposed. If CLT incorporates post-consumer wood waste materials,
it would certainly find a market. CLT also has excellent potential in terms of disassembly and re-use, which would
have major value from a sustainable construction perspective as it addresses conservation of resources and would
help overcome possible perceptions that CLT may be material wasteful. The effect of CLT on operating energy
performance may be attractive and should be looked at in future work.

10
10-12-22 15:51
To realize green market potential based on the real environmental benefits of CLT as discussed in this report
will require a market education process. Results discussed here show a likely strong performance against
concrete in most environmental indicators, however bringing that data to construction decision makers is
currently a challenge. This is due to the complexity of the data, challenges in weighting the importance of various
environmental indicators, uncertainty in the results, lack of real LCA data on CLT systems, and general lack of
public knowledge about LCA. Once designers are routinely using LCA to assess the environmental footprint of
structural options, they may find CLT is a good choice over concrete. Note, however, that CLT may not perform
well against other wood-frame options on an LCA basis. For a low-rise building that could be constructed with
a light-frame or post-and-beam wood system, CLT would likely be a hard sell on environmental benefits. A better
bet for capturing the green value of CLT would be the mid- and high-rise market, or low-rise buildings rarely
constructed in wood such as industrial facilities, to avoid a comparison with other wood systems. In either case,
the emergence of carbon trading options for wood systems could seriously tilt the market towards CLT. If a value
is attached to the carbon stock represented by wood products in long-lived construction service, then CLT could
become quite attractive compared to other materials, including lumber.
1.7
Conclusions
Establishing the environmental footprint of CLT as a substitute material for concrete requires significant further
work. This would include development of a real life cycle inventory for Canadian-produced CLT and its use in
structural systems, and then cradle-to-grave life cycle assessments of functionally equivalent CLT and concrete
buildings. In the absence of this information, we can only hypothesize about the comparative environmental
footprint of CLT as a structural substitute for concrete.
Our hypothesis, based on preliminary data, is that CLT likely has a lighter footprint than equivalent concrete
systems in many cases and has potential value as a carbon storage mechanism and eventual biofuel at end of life.
These two aspects of footprint are discussed separately.
As a concrete replacement, CLT would likely displace (avoid) a number of environmental emissions and other
impacts such as consumption of natural resources. The lower consumption of fossil fuel and subsequent GHG
emission reduction in the manufacturing of CLT versus reinforced concrete are particularly attractive benefits.
However, CLT is a massive material with a corresponding high transportation environmental footprint; if
transported long distances, CLT may have trouble competing on fossil fuel and GHG emissions with concrete,
which is nearly always locally manufactured. This may not be an issue if regional CLT manufacturing develops.
We note as well that CLT may not be the best wood-frame option for some cases of concrete substitution, if GHG
offset efficiency is important. For example, light-frame and post and beam wood structural systems may equally
well be able to substitute for a concrete building as CLT. In that case, the same amount of GHG savings will
result, but in a CLT version, a much greater mass of wood will be used. Instead of one CLT building replacing one
concrete building, a more efficient strategy for climate change mitigation would be several light-frame buildings
replacing several concrete buildings, using the same amount of wood as in the one CLT building. For building
applications where light-frame is not an option, this caveat does not apply. Examples include mid- and
high-rise buildings.
A separate discussion addresses the carbon storage aspect of CLT which, like most wood products, has more
carbon contained in the product than is emitted during its harvesting, manufacturing and transporting. CLT
can thus be considered carbon-negative in a cradle-to-gate context. Environmentally, this is a delayed GHG
emission; the carbon storage is temporary (the carbon stored in wood will eventually return to atmosphere) and,
therefore, over a long time frame, has no effect on global carbon balances. However, in the short term (100 years
or so), any delayed emission is helpful for the immediate societal need to reduce emissions in order to slow down
climate change. The significance of this role in the global carbon balance requires discussion. Generally, displaced
emissions are more meaningful as they are larger than typically stored carbon, and they are permanent and
cumulative. Stored carbon is only affecting climate change if the pool of carbon in wood products is increasing;

11
10-12-22 15:51
otherwise, this pool is in equilibrium with removals of wood carbon from service and with carbon absorption
by forests. A rapid market uptake of CLT could theoretically help increase the pool of carbon in wood products.
However, the consideration of carbon flows in forest ecosystems is essential to accurately understand the climate
impacts of wood product use. Similarly, the boundary needs to include consideration of carbon dynamics in
landfills, as well as predictions for likelihood that the CLT will be used as biofuel at end of life.
While it is likely that CLT has an attractive environmental profile compared to concrete, realizing market value
from that benefit may prove difficult. Displaced emissions due to the use of CLT will only be visible to a decision
maker if life cycle assessment methods are employed in the process of selecting materials. This is currently not
standard practice in the construction sector, although this may change in the near future with the inclusion of
LCA in two popular green building rating systems as well as in the emerging US green construction code. Stored
carbon in construction materials is currently not valued at all; however, this too may change due to rapid policy
activity worldwide. The green building world in North America may initially react with scepticism regarding
the environmental credentials of CLT due to concerns about resource conservation and forest protection.
These potential reactions should be anticipated in marketing campaigns for CLT.
1.8
References
Fell, D. 2010. Wood in the human environment: Restorative properties of wood in the built indoor environment.
PhD diss., University of British Columbia. 134 p.
Gustavsson, L., A. Joelsson, and R. Sathre. 2010. Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an eightstory wood-framed apartment building. Energy and Buildings 42 (2):230-242.
John, S., B. Nebel, N. Perez, and A. Buchanan. 2009. Environmental impacts of multi-storey buildings using
different construction materials. Research Report 2008-02. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury,
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering. 135 p.
McKeever, D. B., C. Adair, and J. OConnor. 2006. Wood products used in the construction of low-rise nonresidential
buildings in the United States, 2003. N.p.: Wood Products Council. 63 p.
Meil, J., M. Lucuik, J. OConnor, and J. Dangerfield. 2006. A life cycle environmental and economic assessment
of optimum value engineering in houses. Forest Products Journal 56 (9):19-25.
Muter, D., and J. OConnor. 2009. Market and GHG assessment of new wood applications. Vancouver,
BC: FPInnovations. 32 p.
Olutimayin, S. O., C. Simonson, J. OConnor, M. Salonvaara, and T. Ojanen. 2005. Effect of moisture storage
on indoor humidity and vapor boundary layer thickness. In Proceedings of the 10th Canadian Conference
on Building Science and Technology, May 12-13, Ottawa, vol. 1, 194-203.
Robertson, A. 2010. Reinforced concrete or cross-laminated timber a life cycle comparison of office building
construction. Poster presented at CYCLE 2010: 4th Canadian Forum on the Life Cycle Management of Products
and Services, May 4-5, Montral.
Sathre, R., and J. OConnor. 2010. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product
substitution. Environmental Science and Policy 13 (2):104-114.

12
10-12-22 15:51
2
Potential Indoor
Air Quality Impact
of Using CLT
in Buildings
Preliminary
Findings
2.1
Objectives
Preliminary potential indoor air quality impact of using CLT products for flooring or wall structures in residential
or non-residential buildings was evaluated by FPInnovations.
2.2
Background
As regulatory and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) address indoor air quality issues, they tend to
focus on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including formaldehyde, as key factors relating to the discomfort
reported by people working or living inside air tight buildings. This effect is known as the Sick Building
Syndrome. The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined VOCs as organic compounds with boiling
points between 50C and 260C. Wood composite products are suspected of emitting some of these organic
chemicals, namely formaldehyde, alpha- and beta-pinene, carene, camphene, limonene, aldehydes, ketones and
acetic acid. Although VOC and formaldehyde emissions from unfinished and finished wood composite panels
are very well documented, very little data exist on thick multiply products, if any.

13
10-12-22 15:51
2.3
Procedures and Results

All measurements were done in general agreement with specified standards and protocols. The precision levels
were in accordance with the technical requirements.
2.3.1
Materials Sampling, Packaging, Transportation and Conditioning

Duplicate test samples of 280 mm x 760 mm (Figure 7) were cut 300 mm from each end of a 5.5 metre long
original CLT panel. In order to avoid any potential contamination of samples, latex gloves were worn during
the whole sampling and packaging processes; also, before cutting the samples, a towel was used to clean the saw
blade. Samples were wrapped with plastic foil with no writing on the sample or on the packaging and stacked
in a conditioned room (231C and 505% RH) until ready for testing.
VOC and formaldehyde tests were performed from the same sample and at similar conditions, at a loading ratio
of 0.44 m/m with all edges sealed with a non-emitting aluminum tape material leaving two flat surfaces exposed.
Figure 7
Prepared sample with edges sealed ready to be put in the chamber
2.3.2
Method
A constant and adjustable airflow, conditioned for relative humidity, was fed through the small environmental
chamber at a rate which corresponds to an air change rate of one per hour. The VOC sampling procedures
excluding formaldehyde were similar to those described in the ASTM D 5116-97 and ANSI/BIFMA
M 7.1-2007 standards. The chamber was in stainless steel and the interior surfaces were electropolished to
minimize chemical adsorption. The chamber was equipped with suitable accessories such as inlet and outlet ports
for airflow and an inlet port for temperature/humidity measurements. The air sampling was accomplished from
the airflow outlet port. The small chamber was placed inside a controlled temperature room. The humidity of the
air flowing through the chamber was controlled by adding deionized water to the air stream, as shown in Figure 8.

14
10-12-22 15:51
Figure 8
General view of the 1 m environmental chamber used for emissions testing
The collection of VOCs on an appropriate adsorbent medium is required to avoid overloading of the analytical
equipment. In order to maintain integrity of the airflow in the small chamber, the sampling flow rate was
100 mL/min for a sampling period of 120 minutes for VOC sampling, while the formaldehyde sampling rate
was set at 1.5 L/min for 120 minutes for a total of 180 L.
Tenax cartridges were used to sample VOCs including high molecular weight aldehydes and derivatized DNPH
cartridges were used to sample formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. VOC sample tubes were analyzed by desorbing
the VOCs through a thermal desorption system and then injected into a gas chromatograph equipped with a mass
detector (GC/MS). Aldehyde tubes were desorbed with acetonitrile solvent and injected into a high performance
liquid chromatograph (HPLC). Table 3 describes the small chamber operating conditions while Table 4
summarizes the GC/MS and the HPLC operating conditions.
Table 3
Small chamber operating conditions
Parameter
Symbol
Unit
Value
Chamber volume
1.0
Loading ratio
Lr
m/m -
0.44
Temperature
231
Relative humidity
RH
505
Air exchange rate
ACH
h-1
1.0
Hours
24
Sampling time

15
10-12-22 15:51
Table 4
TDU/GC/MS and HPLC operating conditions
Thermal Desorption Unit (Type ACM 900)
Desorption temperature
250C
Desorption time
6 min
Cryofocus Unit Model 951
Cooling temperature
-50C
Time
4 min
Desorption temperature
150C
Desorption time
15 min
GC/MS: Agilent 5890 Series II Plus
Carrier gas
He, 43.2 cm/sec
Column J&W Scientific DB-1
30 m x 0.25 mm ID, 1.0 m
Injection type
Split: 22:1 at 230C
Oven heating program
10 min at 70C
8C/min at 200C
3 min at 200C
Detector
MSD, transfer line temp. 280C

HPLC Type: Agilent Series 1100
Column Zorbax Eclipse XDB-C18
Analytical 4.6 mm x 150 mm, 5 microns
Phase mobile
70% ACN:30% water
Flow rate
1.0 mL/min
Total injected volume
25 L
Column temperature
20C
Detector
DAD 360 mm

16
10-12-22 15:51
2.3.3
Quantification of Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde emissions were quantified according to the modified National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) Test Method 3500. The method can be summarized as follows: 4 mL of the scrubbers
content and 0.1 mL of 1.0% chromotropic acid are poured in a 50 mL Pyrex test tube with a screw top cap.
Six mL of concentrated sulphuric acid (96%) are slowly added and agitated for 2 minutes, then heated for
30 minutes at 100C and cooled and tested in triplicate. Solution absorbencies were read through a UV-visible
spectrophotometer set at 580 nm. Distilled water was run as a blank, and with a formaldehyde solution calibration
curve, each absorbency reading being converted into g/mL of formaldehyde. When the condensate samples were
too concentrated to yield absorbencies in the linear range of the calibration curve, aliquots of these samples were
diluted with distilled water to a level within the linear range of the calibration curve. The concentration obtained
from this dilution was back-calculated to the original concentration and presented as micrograms of formaldehyde
per litre, which is then converted into parts per million (ppm) and in emission factors as mg/m.h.
2.3.4
Quantification of the TVOC

VOC measurements from panel samples were conducted in accordance with the ASTM D 5116-97 guide and
described in great detail in Barry et al. (1999). A Thermal Desorber/Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer
(TDU/GC/MS) system was utilized to desorb and quantify the total volatile organic compounds (TVOC).
A cryo-trap device was connected to the GC column in order to cryofocus the thermally desorbed chemicals
prior to their injection into the GC. The GC oven was programmed for 10 min at 70C, followed by ramping up
the heat to 200C at a rate of 8C/min, and held for 10 minutes. The mass scan ranged from 29 to 550 atomic mass
units (amu). Quantitative evaluation was achieved by comparing the chromatogram peak area of each compound
to the corresponding peak area of a standard.

17
10-12-22 15:51
2.4
Results and Discussions

Tables 5 and 6 summarize the emitted VOCs including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone expressed in
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m). To better illustrate the variation of emissions as a function of the product
types, the results are graphically shown in Figures 9 and 10; the same scale was applied to both Figures for easy
comparison. As can be seen from these Figures, no correlation exists between emission results and the number
of glue lines involved in each product category or product thickness. Also, most of the emitted VOCs, if we
except formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are those usually emitted from softwood species, indicating that only
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde could really be associated with the products manufacturing processes. Figure 11
compares the total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), excluding formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone,
emitted from the five different products tested; as for individual VOCs, no correlation can be established between
TVOCs, the thickness or the number of plies in cross-laminated lumber products.
Table 5
including formaldehyde (g/m) (114-3S and 95-3S products)
114-3S
VOCs
95-3S
CAS #
A
Mean
Mean
Acetic acid
64-19-7
N/A*
6.7
6.7
2.4
<2.0
2.4
Hexanal
66-25-1
5.0
9.4
7.2
2.9
4.3
3.6
Alpha-pinene
7785-70-8
134.7
218.1
176.4
44.7
26.2
35.4
Beta-pinene
18172-67-3
14.6
32.7
23.6
9.9
7.8
8.8
Alphaphellandrene
99-83-2
4.7
N/A*
4.7
2.7
3.1
2.9
13466-78-9
19.1
51.0
35.0
3.6
8.3
6.0
99--87--6
78.6
5.9
42.3
43.0
45.4
44.2
Limonene
95327-98-3
7.6
11.7
9.6
3.3
2.8
3.0
Unknown
---
---
---
---
4.9
5.3
---
TVOCalpha-pinene
---
264.3
335.5
299.9
117.3
103.2
110.2
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
16.6
21.5
19.1
9.6
8.7
9.1
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
70.1
149.7
109.9
107.3
51.0
79.1
Acetone
67-64-1
33.2
65.3
49.2
45.7
24.4
35.0
3-carene
Para-cymene
* Compound for which the concentration is below the quantification limit allowed by ANSI/BIFMA.

18
10-12-22 15:51
Table 6
including formaldehyde (g/m) (190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products)
190-5S
VOCs
152-5S
210-7S
CAS #
A
Mean
Mean
Mean
Acetic acid
64-19-7
3.8
3.9
3.9
2.8
<2.0
2.8
2.8
2.1
2.4
Hexanal
66-25-1
4.4
3.8
4.1
3.1
2.6
2.8
4.4
2.1
3.2
Alpha-pinene
7785-70-8
67.9
143.5
105.7
98.6
20.5
59.6
64.9
35.2
50.0
Beta-pinene
18172-67-3
14.0
8.5
11.3
7.3
4.5
5.9
7.9
6.7
7.3
Alphaphellandrene
99-83-2
2.7
<2.0
2.7
<2.0
2.3
2.3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
13466-78-9
9.3
9.6
9.5
36.2
5.9
21.1
8.3
5.5
6.9
99--87--6
36.4
<2.0
36.4
2.8
32.5
17.7
3.0
13.6
8.3
Limonene
95327-98-3
10.7
4.6
7.7
3.4
2.3
2.8
4.2
2.7
3.5
Unknown
---
---
---
---
---
2.4
---
---
---
---
TVOC alpha-pinene
---
149.2
174.1
161.7
154.3
72.9
113.6
95.4
68.0
81.7
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
9.4
8.8
9.1
5.7
6.5
6.1
6.0
5.4
5.7
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
71.5
68.5
70.0
72.6
74.4
73.5
73.6
59.4
66.5
Acetone
67-64-1
22.3
27.6
24.9
31.2
29.8
30.5
21.5
16.1
18.8
3-carene
Para-cymene

19
10-12-22 15:51
200
180
114-3S
95-3S
160
g/m
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
ex
an
ph
al
api
ne
Be
ne
Al
ta
ph
-p
ain
ph
en
el
e
la
nd
re
ne
3ca
re
Pa
ne
ra
-c
ym
en
e
Li
m
on
Fo
en
rm
e
al
de
hy
Ac
de
et
al
de
hy
de
Ac
et
on
e
Al
Ac
et
ic
ac
id
Figure 9
24-hour VOCs including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde off gassing as a function of samples types
(114-3S and 95-3S products)
200
190-5S
180
152-5S
210-7S
160
g/m
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
ex
Al
an
ph
al
api
ne
Be
ne
Al
ta
ph
-p
ain
ph
en
el
e
la
nd
re
ne
3ca
re
Pa
ne
ra
-c
ym
en
e
Li
m
on
Fo
en
rm
e
al
de
hy
Ac
de
et
al
de
hy
de
Ac
et
on
e
Ac
et
ic
ac
id
Figure 10
24-hour VOCs including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde off gassing as a function of samples types
(190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products)

20
10-12-22 15:51
400
350
g/m
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
TVOC alpha-pinene
114-3S
95-3S
190-5S
152-5S
210-7S
Figure 11
24-hour TVOC emissions as a function of cross-laminated products
Examples of emission labelling systems in Europe in terms of VOCs, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,
are summarized in Table 7 in order to put the tested cross-laminated timber products emissions in context, and
to inform manufacturers interested in labelling their products for overseas markets. Because few individual VOC
emission limits are expressed in emission factors, i.e. mass of the emitted VOC per square metre of the product
tested per hour (g/m.h), the cross-laminated timber products emission results have been converted into emission
factors and summarized in Tables 8 and 9. Results of emission factors reported in Tables 8 and 9 were calculated
from the 24-hour sampling time compared to the voluntary limits listed in Table 7 calculated after 3, 10 or 28 days
of sample exposure in the environmental chamber. One should expect that the cross-laminated timber emission
factors would be much lower if their exposure is prolonged for an additional 3, 10 or 28 days and meet the most
stringent Blue Angel or GUT (Germany) TVOC emission limits not met after 24 hours of exposure.

21
10-12-22 15:51
Table 7
Example of some European emission labelling systems
Label
Origin
TVOC
Aldehydes Additional
Requirements
AgBB
Germany
10 mg/m3 (3 days)
3
1 mg/m (28 days)
DIBt:
120 g/m 3 (28 days)
CESAT
France
5000 g/m 3 (3 days)

200 g/m3 (28 days)
Formaldehyde:
10 g/m3 (28 days)
M1
Finland
200 g/m3 (28 days)
Formaldehyde:
50 g/m3 (28 days)
LAQI Scheme
Portugal
5000 g/m2h (3 days)

200 g/m2h (28 days)
Formaldehyde:
10 g/m3 (28 days)
Natureplus
Germany
5000 g/m2h (3 days)

200 g/m2h (28 days)
Formaldehyde:
36 g/m 3 after 3 days
or 28 days
Blue Angel
Germany
200 or 300 g/m 3

(28 days)
Formaldehyde:
60 g/m3 (28 days)
Austrian Ecolabel
Austria
1.2 mg/m 3 (3 days)

0.36 mg/m3 (28 days)
Hexanal:
70 g/m2 h (28 days),
nanonal:
20 g/m2 h after 3 days
GUT
Germany
300 g/m3 (3 days)
Formaldehyde:
10 g/m3 after 3 days
EMICODE
EC1 such as adhesives
Germany
500 g/m3 (10 days)
Formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde:
50 g/m3 each after
24 hours
Scandinavian Trade
Standards
Sweden
Declaration of TVOC
at 28 days and
26 weeks
no limits specified
Formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde according
to WHO

22
10-12-22 15:51
Table 8
including formaldehyde (g/m.h) (114-3S and 95-3S products)
114-3S
VOCs
95-3S
CAS #
A
Mean
Mean
Acetic acid
64-19-7
<2.0
2.9
2.9
5.1
N/A*
5.1
Hexanal
66-25-1
2.2
4.1
3.2
6.3
10.1
8.2
Alpha-pinene
7785-70-8
59.0
95.5
77.2
96.6
61.5
79.1
Beta-pinene
18172-67-3
6.4
14.3
10.3
21.3
18.3
19.8
Alphaphellandrene
99-83-2
2.1
<2.0
2.1
5.9
7.3
6.6
13466-78-9
8.3
22.3
15.3
7.7
19.6
13.7
99--87--6
34.4
2.6
18.5
92.9
106.6
99.8
Limonene
95327-98-3
3.3
5.1
4.2
7.1
6.5
6.8
Unknown
---
---
---
---
10.5
12.4
---
TVOC alpha-pinene
---
115.7
146.9
131.3
253.5
242.3
247.9
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
8.4
10.9
9.7
16.2
18.7
17.5
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
35.9
76.5
56.2
182.0
109.6
145.8
Acetone
67-64-1
16.7
32.9
24.8
77.5
52.6
65.1
3-carene
Para-cymene

23
10-12-22 15:51
Table 9
including formaldehyde (g/m.h) (190-5S, 152-5S and 210-7S products)
152-5S
190-5S
VOCs
210-7S
CAS #
A
Mean
Mean
Mean
Acetic acid
64-19-7
8.7
9.0
8.8
5.9
N/A*
5.9
6.4
5.1
5.8
Hexanal
66-25-1
9.9
8.7
9.3
6.6
5.9
6.2
10.3
4.9
7.6
Alpha-pinene
7785-70-8
153.1
326.6
239.9
210.1
46.2
128.1
151.9
83.1
117.5
Beta-pinene
18172-67-3
31.6
19.5
25.5
15.6
10.1
12.9
18.6
15.8
17.2
Alphaphellandrene
99-83-2
6.2
N/A*
6,2
N/A*
5.2
5.2
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
13466-78-9
21.0
21.9
21.4
77.1
13.4
45.2
19.4
13.1
16.2
99--87--6
82.1
N/A*
82.1
6.0
73.5
39.8
7.1
32.2
19.6
Limonene
95327-98-3
24.1
10.5
17.3
7.2
5.3
6.2
9.9
6.4
8.1
Unknown
---
---
---
---
5.3
2.7
---
---
TVOCalpha-pinene
---
336.7
396.2
366.4
328.5
164.7
246.6
223.5
160.6
192.0
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
18.9
20.1
19.5
10.6
12.3
11.5
14.1
12.8
13.5
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
144.2
155.9
150.0
132.9
139.5
136.2
172.3
140.2
156.3
Acetone
67-64-1
45.0
62.9
54.0
58.0
56.6
57.3
50.3
38.1
44.2
3-carene
c
Para-cymene
On the other hand, the levels of the emitted formaldehyde converted into parts per billion (ppb) are summarized
in Table 10 and, as one can see, emissions are just in the order of a few ppb. Compared to the European E1 wood
products formaldehyde emission limit of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb), all five cross-laminated timber tested products
had emissions 6 to 20 times lower than the E1 required emission limits, indicating that these products could
be installed in any European country embracing the E1 grade. When compared to the voluntary formaldehyde
emission limits for labelling (Table 7), three of the five samples meet the formaldehyde emission limits and two
samples encoded as 114-3S and 190-5S would need to be tested for longer period of time ranging from 2 to 3 days
in order to qualify for the most stringent GUT (Germany) labelling for which the formaldehyde emission limit
is set at 10 g/m after three days.

24
10-12-22 15:51
Table 10
24-hour formaldehyde emissions as a function of product types
114-3S
Formaldehyde
95-3S
190-5S
152-5S
210-7S
CAS #
50-00-0
g/m
ppb
g/m
ppb
g/m
ppb
g/m
ppb
g/m
ppb
19.1
15
9.1
19.5
16
6.1
5.7
The new formaldehyde emission limits set forth by the California government are known under the acronym
of CARB Phase I and Phase II for wood composite products particleboard, MDF, thin MDF and hardwood
plywood (HWPW) with composite core (HWPW-CC) or veneer core (HWPW-VC). By July 2012, phase II
will be enforced and formaldehyde emission limits will vary from 0.13 ppm (130 ppb) for thin MDF to 0.05 ppm
(50 ppb) for HWPW-CC. Comparing these limits to those from the cross-laminated timber products in Table 10,
one can conclude that the cross-laminated timber products easily meet the most stringent CARB limits of 50 ppb.
2.5
Conclusions and Recommendations

Five CLT products were tested for their volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde emissions, in order to assist engineers and builders to better select construction materials with
low-emitting characteristics having less impact on indoor air quality. The tested laminated products had different
thicknesses and different numbers of glue lines. Emissions were collected after 24 hours of sample exposure in
the environmental chamber.
Results did not show any correlation between individual VOCs, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde or
TVOC and the cross-laminated timber thickness or numbers of glue lines. All five products showed very low levels
of iVOC and TVOC emissions; most of the detected VOCs consisted of terpene compounds originating from
the softwood furnish used to manufacture the cross-laminated timber products.
In terms of evaluating the products impact on indoor air quality, one can easily conclude that it would be
negligible, if any. The five cross-laminated timber products TVOCs and formaldehyde 24-hour results were
generally lower than those set forth by some European emission labelling systems even if those limits were
emissions measured after 3, 10 or 28 days of sample exposure. Also, the European E1 grade for wood products
formaldehyde emissions set at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) or 100 parts per billion (ppb) is 6 to 20 times higher
than those measured from the cross-laminated timber products.
Comparing the limits that are planned to be enforced by CARB by 2012, one can conclude that the CLT products
tested in this study would easily meet the most stringent CARB limit of 50 ppb.

25
10-12-22 15:51
2.6
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1996. Standard test method for determining formaldehyde
concentration in air from wood products using a small-scale chamber. ASTM D 6007-96. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM. 8 p.
______. 2002. Standard test method for determining formaldehyde concentrations in air and emission rates
from wood products using a large chamber. ASTM E 1333-96(2002). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. 12 p.
______. 2003. Standard test method for determination of formaldehyde and other carbonyl compounds
in air (active sampler methodology). ASTM D 5197-03. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. 15 p.
______. 2006. Standard guide for small-scale environmental chamber determination of organic emissions
from indoor materials/products. ASTM D 5116-06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. 15 p.
Barry, A. 1995. Measurement of VOCs emitted from particleboard and MDF panel products supplied
by CPA mills: A report by Forintek Canada Corp. for the Canadian Particleboard Association.
Quebec, QC: Forintek. 20 p.
Barry, A., and D. Corneau. 1999. Volatile organic chemicals emissions from OSB as a function of processing
parameters. Holzforschung 53:441-446.
Barry, A., D. Corneau, and R. Lovell. 2000. Press volatile organic compounds emissions as a function of wood
processing parameters. Forest Products Journal 50 (10):35-42.
BIFMA International. 2007. Standard test method for determining VOC emissions from office furniture systems,
components and seating. ANSI/BIFMA M7.1-2007. Grand Rapids, MI: BIFMA International. 53 p.
Commission of the European Communities. 1989. Formaldehyde emission from wood based materials: Guideline
for the determination of steady state concentrations in test chambers. Report no. 2 of EUR 12196 - European
concerted action: Indoor air quality and its impact on man. COST Project 613. Brussels, Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities. 24 p.

26
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
10-12-22 15:51
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100
10-12-22 15:51
Lifting and
handling of CLT elements
CHAPTER
Primary Author
Contributing Authors, Transportation Section
Jan Michaelsen, F.E., FPInnovations
Ray Camball, P.Eng., MBA, FPInnovations
12
Acknowledgements
as such members remain in good standing
Inserted: March 2012
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) construction is a relatively new process. There is therefore very little specific
technical documentation for the erection of heavy structures designed and built with CLT panels. Current CLT
manufacturers propose lifting systems to set up prefabricated wood assemblies. However, technical documents
currently available mostly come from Europe and may appear incomplete to some engineers and builders in
North America.
In this chapter, we present a variety of lifting systems that can be used in the construction of structures using
CLT panels. We discuss the basic theory required for proper lifting techniques. In addition, we introduce various
tools and accessories that are frequently required for CLT construction, as well as good building practices to help
manufacturers build safe and efficient CLT panel structures. Finally, we discuss issues related to the transportation
of CLT assemblies from factory to building site. Regulatory aspects of transportation are also discussed.
CHAPTER 12 Lifting and Handling

iii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
1
Introduction 1
1.1 Parallel with Prefabricated Concrete Industry 1

1.2 Lifting and Handling of CLT Elements 2
2
Slinging and Fastening Systems for the Lifting and Handling of CLT Panels 9
2.1 Contact Lifting Systems 9

2.1.1 Single Lifting Loop with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube Welded
onto Flat Steel Plate 10
2.1.2 Articulated Lifting Loop with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube Welded
2.1.3 Articulated Lifting Hook with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube Welded
2.1.4 Threaded Eyelet Bolt Used with Socket Steel Tube Welded onto Flat Steel Plate 12
2.1.5 Threaded Eyelet Bolt Used with Plate and Nut 13
2.1.6 Eyelet Used with Bolt or Threaded Sleeve and Steel Plate 14
2.1.7 Threaded Eyelet Bolt, Threaded Socket, Threaded Bolt and Steel Plate 15
2.1.8 Threaded Eyelet Bolt, Threaded Socket and Steel Round Rod 15
2.1.9 Soft Lifting Sling Used with Support 16
2.1.10 Soft Lifting Sling Without Support for Vertical Elements 17
2.1.11 Soft Lifting Sling Without Support for Horizontal Elements 19
2.2 Screw Hoist Systems 20
2.2.1 Screwed Anchor 20
2.2.2 Screwed Plate and Lifting Ring 22
2.2.3 RAMPA-Type Double-Threaded Socket with Eyelet Bolt or Lifting Loop with Threaded Sleeve 23
2.2.4 SIHGA-Type Lifting System with Wood Screws and Eyelet Bolt 24


iv
2.3 Integrated Lifting Systems 25

2.3.1 Inserted Rod with Soft Sling 25
2.3.2 Inserted Rod with PFEIFER-Type Lifting Hook 28
3
General Principles for Lifting and Handling CLT Elements 29
3.1 Lifting Station and Devices 29

3.2 Determining the Weight and Center of Gravity of CLT Elements 30
3.3 Dynamic Acceleration Factors 31
3.3.1 Lifting System Used 31
3.3.2 Other Effects to Consider 32
3.4 Dissymmetrical Distribution of Load According to Center of Gravity 32
3.5 Determining Forces According to Lifting Angles 34
3.6 Determining Load Distribution According to the Number of Effective Anchors
(Suspension in Several N Effective Points) 35
3.7 Calculation of Forces Resulting from Lifting per Anchor 44

4
Other Accessories and Materials 45
4.1 Fire-resistant Rope and Joint Sealing Tapes 45

4.2 Adjustable Steel Shores 48
4.3 Beam Grip with Ratchet and Hooks 50
4.4 Beam Grip with Ratchet and Screw Plate 51
4.5 Manual Winch with Cables or Slings 52
4.6 Steel Shims and Cement-based Grout with no Shrinkage 54
5
Transportation of CLT Elements 55
5.1 Standard Weights and Dimension Regulations 55

5.1.1 Dimension Limits 55
5.1.2 Weight Limits 57
5.1.3 Other Canadian Legal Configurations 58
5.2 Oversize and Overweight Permits 59
5.3 Construction Site Limitations and Considerations 59
5.4 Other Transport Considerations 60
6
Positioning of Materials on Construction Site and Protection Against Weather 61
6.1 Positioning of Materials on Construction Site 61

6.2 Construction Load on Frame 64
6.3 Temporary Protection During Construction 64
7
References 68

v
List of Tables
Table 1 Dynamic acceleration factors (f ) 31
Table 2 Coefficient of lifting angle (z) 34
Table 3 Maximum payloads by jurisdiction for 5- and 6-axle tractor/semi-trailer combinations (t) 58
List of Figures
Figure 1 Lifting and handling of prefabricated concrete elements 2
Figure 2 Lifting and handling of CLT elements by cableway 3
Figure 3 Lifting and handling of CLT elements by helicopter 4
Figure 4 Lifting and handling of relatively light CLT elements, in Norway 5
Figure 5 Lifting and handling of CLT wall elements, in Belgium 5
Figure 6 Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Longueuil, Qubec 6
Figure 7 Lifting and handling of CLT elements in an hybrid structure, USA 6
Figure 8 Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Saint-Lambert, Qubec 7
Figure 9 Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Sweden 7
Figure 10 Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Norway 8
Figure 11 Single lifting loop with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded
onto flat steel plate 10
Figure 12 Articulated lifting loop with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded
Figure 13 Articulated lifting hook with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded
Figure 14 Threaded eyelet bolt (with base) used with socket steel tube welded onto flat steel plate 12
Figure 15 Correct use of threaded eyelet bolt (with and without base) 12
Figure 16 Threaded eyelet bolt used with plate and nut 13
Figure 17 Eyelet used with threaded bolt or sleeve and steel plate 14
Figure 18 Threaded eyelet bolt, threaded socket, threaded bolt or sleeve and steel plate 15

vi
Figure 19 Threaded eyelet bolt, threaded socket and steel round rod 15
Figure 20 Single lifting sling used with support 16
Figure 21 Lifting sling without support (with hole) 17-18
Figure 22 Lifting sling without support (without hole) 19
Figure 23 Lifting sling without support (with holes) 19
Figure 24 Lifting system with self-tapping screw 20
Figure 25 Screwed anchor 20-21
Figure 26 Screwed plate and lifting ring 22
Figure 27 RAMPA-type double-threaded socket with eyelet bolt or lifting loop with threaded sleeve 23
Figure 28 SIHGA-type lifting system with wood screw (with or without recess) 24
Figure 29 Inserted rod with soft sling 25-26-27
Figure 30 Inserted rod with lifting hook 28
Figure 31 Calculating the weight of a CLT element 30
Figure 32 Element lifted with a spreader system 33
Figure 33 CLT wall lifted with two slings symmetrically positioned Good and bad practices 36
Figure 34 CLT wall lifted with two slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity (N=2) 37
Figure 35 CLT wall lifted with two slings asymmetrically positioned to the center of gravity,
with single spreader (N=2) 38
Figure 36 CLT slab lifted with four slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity, without spreader
and without compensation system (N=2) 39
Figure 37 CLT slab lifted with four slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity,
with compensation system (N=4) 40
with single spreader (N=4) 41
with three fixed spreaders (N=2) 42
with three free spreaders (N=4) 43

vii
Figure 41 Sealing joint between floor, wall, and connectors 46

Figure 42 Joint between floor and wall with semi-rigid membrane 47
Figure 43 Joint between two floor slabs with flexible membrane 47
Figure 44 Adjustable shores for walls 48-49
Figure 45 Beam grip with ratchet and hooks 50
Figure 46 Beam grip with ratchet and screw plate 51
Figure 47 Manual winch used with soft slings 52-53
Figure 48 Junction between concrete foundation and CLT walls with steel winch and cement-based
grout without shrinkage 54
Figure 49 Available load space on a flatbed semi-trailer 56
Figure 50 Flatbed semi-trailer 57
Figure 51 Dropdeck semi-trailer 57
Figure 52 Double dropdeck semi-trailer 57
Figure 53 Super B-train flat deck combination 58
Figure 54 Storage on construction site individually wrapped bundles 62
Figure 55 Truck platform left on construction site it will be recovered on the next trip 63
Figure 56 CLT slabs temporarily stored on a floor 64
Figure 57 Use of a temporary tarpaulin 65
Figure 58 Use of a permeable tarpaulin outside scaffoldings Germany 66
Figure 59 Use of an adjustable tent Sweden 67

viii
1
Introduction
In this chapter, we present a variety of lifting systems that can be used in the construction of structures made
of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels. We discuss the basic theory required for proper lifting techniques. In
addition, we introduce various tools and accessories that are frequently required during CLT construction, as
well as good building practices to help manufacturers build safe and efficient CLT panel structures. Finally, we
discuss issues related to the transportation of CLT assemblies from factory to building site. Regulatory aspects
of transportation are also discussed.
1.1
Parallel with Prefabricated Concrete Industry

CLT construction is a relatively new process. There is therefore very little specific technical documentation for
the erection of heavy structures designed and built with CLT panels. Current CLT manufacturers propose lifting
systems to set up prefabricated wood assemblies. However, technical documents currently available mostly come
from Europe and, to some engineers and builders in North America, these documents may seem incomplete or
insufficiently adapted to the standard construction techniques that they use.
A close look at Figure 1 reveals that prefabricated concrete construction using large concrete slabs is, in many
ways, similar to the recent techniques used in CLT construction. As the prefabricated concrete construction
industry is more developed and experienced, it is easier to obtain or use systems and lifting accessories adapted
to this industry or to build on this experience.
For example, certain systems discussed in this chapter, which are sometimes used in CLT construction, are directly
inspired by the systems used in prefabricated concrete construction. In addition, a large amount of technical data
contained in the following sections is taken from documentation developed and provided by major producers of
prefabricated concrete or by manufacturers of lifting devices specialized in factory-made concrete.

1
Figure 1
Lifting and handling of prefabricated concrete elements
1.2
Lifting and Handling of CLT Elements

The emerging CLT construction industry offers various techniques for lifting and handling CLT panels so that
they can be used in the erection of buildings and other structures. The complexity of the building or its location
often dictates the techniques and systems to be used. Of course, erecting an 8-storey building in a downtown area
typically requires more preparation and precaution than a single-family residence built in the country. But if that
country house is to be perched high in the mountains, the techniques used may often be surprising
(Figures 2 and 3).

2
Figure 2
Lifting and handling of CLT elements by cableway (courtesy of KLH)

3
Figure 3
Lifting and handling of CLT elements by helicopter (courtesy of KLH)
Figures 4 to 10 show examples of CLT panels during the lifting and handling process on construction sites.
The techniques and lifting systems used are discussed in detail further in this chapter.

4
Figure 4
Lifting and handling of relatively light CLT elements, in Norway
(courtesy of Brendeland and Kristoffersen, Architects)
Figure 5
Lifting and handling of CLT wall elements, in Belgium (courtesy of HMS)

5
Figure 6
Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Longueuil, Qubec (courtesy of KLH lment)
Figure 7
Lifting and handling of CLT elements in an hybrid structure, USA (courtesy of Binderholz)

6
Figure 8
Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Saint-Lambert, Qubec (courtesy of Nordic Structures Bois)
Figure 9
Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Sweden

7
Figure 10
Lifting and handling of CLT elements, in Norway
(courtesy of Brendeland and Kristoffersen Architects)

8
2
Slinging and
fastening systems
for the lifting
and handling
of CLT panels
A variety of systems available for lifting and handling CLT panels are presented in this section. Some systems are
commonly used in CLT construction. Others are for illustrative purposes, some of which are inspired by systems
used in the prefabricated concrete industry.
Many of the systems proposed use slings. A sling is a cable that connects the fastening system to the lifting
device. It usually consists of textile rope, synthetic fiber woven strips, steel cables, or chains. Slings must always be
calibrated (working load permitted) and validated (wear and tear) before use.
2.1
Contact Lifting Systems

Lifting systems that use steel plates that provide compressive resistance on the lower face of the panels during
lifting are popularly considered the safest CLT panel handling methods. However, to avoid accidents on the lower
levels of the building once the panels are in place, great care must be taken when removing the system as the steel
plates are usually not secured once the system is unbolted.
This lifting technique requires in-plant drilling to allow the insertion of dowels or threaded sleeves with nuts. This
technique uses the woods efficient strength in compression. However, when CLT elements are intended to be
visible inside the building, local repairs will be required using wooden dowels.
It is important to note that in all cases outlined hereafter, the holes must be sealed to ensure proper air tightness
and to limit the spread of sound, smoke, and fire.

9
The following examples describe some contact lifting systems.

2.1.1
Single Lifting Loop with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube
Welded onto Flat Steel Plate
The system comprised of a single lifting loop with threaded sleeve is widely used in the construction of
prefabricated concrete. The system shown in Figure 11 is a modification of the system commonly used to lift
prefabricated concrete. Instead of enclosing the welded plate socket in concrete at the plant, the socket is welded
onto a steel plate and inserted into a previously machined hole. The lifting loop is then screwed from above using
the threaded sleeve. This system is considered simple, safe, economical, and quick to use on the construction site.
The single lifting loop used in the concrete industry can be reused but it requires enhanced inspection and quality
control to ensure safety. This system is not recommended for frequent panel rising, which may imply a high lifting
angle (>30) and therefore bending of the steel cable. The recommended maximum angle () is 30. The use of
a spreader beam can help reduce the lifting angle. It is also recommended that the radius of the hook be at least
equal to the diameter of the lifting loop steel cable. When handling is completed, the two components must be
removed carefully.
Figure 11
Single lifting loop with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded onto flat steel plate

10
2.1.2
Articulated Lifting Loop with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube
The system made of an articulated lifting loop with threaded sleeve also comes from the prefabricated concrete
industry and is installed in the same manner as the previous system. One advantage of this system is the ability
of the steel cable to rotate in all directions around the threaded sleeve. This system can thus be used more easily
for rising panels. However, the lifting angle should still be limited to 30. When handling is completed, the two
components must be removed carefully.
Figure 12
Articulated lifting loop with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded onto flat steel plate
2.1.3
Articulated Lifting Hook with Threaded Sleeve Used with Socket Steel Tube
The system comprised of articulated lifting hook and threaded sleeve used with a socket steel tube welded onto a
flat steel plate also comes from the prefabricated concrete industry. The hook allows for quick installation on the
lifting system. This system can be used for rising panels because of the ability of the hook to rotate around the steel
ring. When handling is completed, the two components must be removed carefully.
Figure 13
Articulated lifting hook with threaded sleeve used with socket steel tube welded onto flat steel plate

11
2.1.4
Threaded Eyelet Bolt Used with Socket Steel Tube Welded onto Flat Steel Plate
The threaded eyelet bolt used in conjunction with a socket steel tube welded onto a flat steel plate is also a good
option for quick and safe lifting. However, it is important to choose the right eyelet bolt and install it correctly
(Figures 14 and 15). It is recommended to use an eyelet base bolt when lifting heavy loads at an angle. Ensure there
is proper contact between the base and the wood panel. Plain or regular eyelet bolts (without base) are normally
used in straight tension when lifting heavy loads; that is, when used with a spreader beam or with only one
attachment point. Also, according to good practice, the eyelet bolts must be oriented in the same direction as the
tensioned slings since the eyelet could bend under heavy oblique loads (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health
and Safety, CCOHS). When handling is completed, the two components must be removed carefully.
Figure 14
Threaded eyelet bolt (with base) used with socket steel tube welded onto flat steel plate
Stress
Result
Angle should
not be less
than 45
Stress
Result
Welltightened
Figure 15
Correct use of threaded eyelet bolt (with and without base)

12
2.1.5
Threaded Eyelet Bolt Used with Plate and Nut

The system using threaded eyelet bolt in conjunction with a steel plate and nut is widely used in CLT construction.
However, it is important to choose the proper eyelet bolt and install it correctly. The use of an eyelet base bolt
when lifting at an angle is also recommended. Also, according to good practice, the eyelet bolts must be oriented in
the same direction as the tensioned slings since the eyelet could bend under heavy oblique loads. When handling
is completed, the system must be completely removed.
Figure 16
Threaded eyelet bolt used with plate and nut

13
2.1.6
Eyelet Used with Bolt or Threaded Sleeve and Steel Plate

The following system is similar to the system presented above, and the same recommendations apply. In this case,
the eyelet is independent from the sleeve or bolt. It is important to use an eyelet with base when lifting at an angle.
Baseless eyelets should only be used when lifting in straight tension. When handling is completed, the system must
be completely and carefully removed.
Figure 17
Eyelet used with threaded bolt or sleeve and steel plate (courtesy of Nordic Structures Bois)

14
2.1.7
Threaded Eyelet Bolt, Threaded Socket, Threaded Bolt and Steel Plate
The threaded eyelet bolt can be used with a threaded socket, a threaded bolt, or a threaded rod and steel plate. The
threaded socket can be installed in plant for future use. On the construction site, the eyelet bolt and the single bolt
or the threaded rod are screwed to the plate. Again, it is important to choose the right eyelet bolt and install it
correctly. When handling is completed, the two bolts and the steel plate are removed. The threaded socket remains
in place for future use.
Figure 18
Threaded eyelet bolt, threaded socket, threaded bolt or sleeve and steel plate
2.1.8
Threaded Eyelet Bolt, Threaded Socket and Steel Round Rod

Another system that comes from the prefabricated concrete construction industry can inspire a new, fast, and
safe system for lifting CLT panels. A threaded socket with holes at the tip is inserted into the CLT slab. This
socket is normally embedded in the concrete. An eyelet bolt is screwed into the socket. The lifting system is then
locked with a steel round rod that is in contact with the wood. When handling is complete, the three elements are
removed. However, this system can leave marks on the timber and may not be suitable if the panel must remain
visible on the underside.
Figure 19
Threaded eyelet bolt, threaded socket and steel round rod

15
2.1.9
Soft Lifting Sling Used With Support

Another system widely used in CLT construction is shown in Figure 20. A hole is drilled into the panel at the
plant (50 ~ 75 mm). On the construction site, a soft sling is inserted into the hole and a locking piece is used on
the underside. The next figure shows a piece of dimensional lumber being used. However, it is important to ensure
that the locking parts are properly fixed and will not slip during handling.
Figure 20
Single lifting sling used with support

16
2.1.10
Soft Lifting Sling Without Support for Vertical Elements

The lifting systems presented in the previous examples are intended mainly for floor and roof slabs. For wall
assemblies, a simple system requiring only one hole and a flexible sling is often used. Since walls are often lighter
than thick floor slabs, this system is often appropriate for lifting and rising. The holes must be plugged once
handling is completed, especially those in the exterior walls.

17
Figure 21
Lifting sling without support (with hole)

18
2.1.11
Soft Lifting Sling Without Support for Horizontal Elements

This simple lifting system requires no hole. However, this technique comes with a risk of instability due to the
possibility of slings slipping during lifting. Also, in order to leave enough space to release the slings once the
element is in place, the panels cannot be completely juxtaposed. Therefore, they must be drawn together with
the appropriate tools (refer to Sections 4.3 to 4.5).
Figure 22
Lifting sling without support (without hole)
The next technique requires two holes drilled in plant for each anchor point. These holes have a diameter
of approximately 50 mm and are relatively close together. A soft sling is inserted as shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23
Lifting sling without support (with holes)

19
2.2
Screw Hoist Systems

There are several lifting techniques that rely only on the withdrawal resistance of fastenings. Although these
techniques are simple and effective, they require strict control during installation and use. One advantage of this
system is that it does not affect the wood appearance when sections must remain visible on one side. This section
describes some examples.
2.2.1
Screwed Anchor
The most widely used screw hoist system in Europe is shown in Figure 24. This system is based on an anchor
used in prefabricated concrete construction. The original system uses an anchor embedded in the concrete with
a protruding head to allow connection to a lifting ring.
Figure 24 shows the two components required for lifting. A self-tapping screw makes the connection between the
CLT panel and the lifting ring. It is strongly recommended to use the self-tapping screw only once. The lifting ring
must be inspected frequently to ensure safety. This system can be installed on both the top and side of the panels.
It is important to refer to the manufacturers technical data to determine the allowable loads and for usage and
installation specifications.
Figure 24
Lifting system with self-tapping screw

20
Figure 25
Screwed anchor

21
2.2.2
Screwed Plate and Lifting Ring

There are various lifting systems using screws or lag screws in combination with steel plates with holes. Figure 26a
shows a system that uses only two self-tapping screws. This system is recommended for light-to-medium loads.
Therefore, this system offers very little flexibility in terms of allowable capacity.
However, it is possible to increase the number of screws in order to increase its lifting capacity. Figure 26b shows
a much more flexible system. The plate has sufficient pre-drilled holes to accommodate several lag screws or wood
screws. Thus, the plate provides the engineer in charge of designing the lifting systems with much more flexibility
since the same plate can be used repeatedly. The steel plates, lifting ring, and lag screws should be checked
regularly. Figure 26c shows a light panel being lifted.
a)
b)
c)
Figure 26
Screwed plate and lifting ring (courtesy of Tergos)

22
2.2.3
RAMPA-Type Double-Threaded Socket with Eyelet Bolt or Lifting Loop

with Threaded Sleeve
Another lifting method consists of using a double-threaded socket (i.e., threaded inside and outside) together with
an eyelet bolt or lifting loop. This RAMPA-type socket is screwed in plant into the panel. Similar to a lag screw,
a hole with a diameter equal to 75 ~ 90% of the socket diameter must first be drilled in the wood.
On the construction site, the eyelet bolt (or lifting loop with threaded sleeve) is installed for lifting. Once handling
is completed, the bolt is removed. The double-threaded sleeve remains in place for future use. This system can be
installed on both the top and side of the panels. It is important to refer to the manufacturers technical data to
determine the allowable loads and for usage specifications.
Figure 27
RAMPA-type double-threaded socket with eyelet bolt or lifting loop with threaded sleeve

23
2.2.4
SIHGA-Type Lifting System with Wood Screws and Eyelet Bolt

SIHGA, an Austrian company, offers an anchoring system that is screwed to the wood panels and uses an eyelet
bolt. The Idefix IFS system is shown in Figure 28.
Wood screws are used to screw the cylindrical steel component to the panel. This piece is usually attached on the
top of the panel. However, a recess can be performed into the panel at the plant in order to embed the fixed piece,
thus allowing stacking of the panels during transportation. It is important to refer to the manufacturers technical
data to determine the allowable loads and for usage specifications.
Figure 28
SIHGA-type lifting system with wood screw (with or without recess)

24
2.3
Integrated Lifting Systems

The principle of using plant-integrated support parts lends speed to job execution on construction sites. These
systems are simple and safe. In addition, if the ceilings of buildings should remain visible, no major repair is
required. However, it is better to seal the holes to ensure air tightness and to limit the spread of sound, smoke,
and fire. Some examples are given in this section.
2.3.1
Inserted Rod with Soft Sling

This technique is frequently used in Europe. It consists of first drilling one hole on the top of the panel, a few
centimetres from the edge. This hole, which has a diameter of about 50 ~ 75 mm, is placed at a depth equivalent
to about one half to two thirds of the thickness of the panel. Then, using a long drill, a hole is drilled on the side
facing the axis of the hole made on the top of the panel. A steel rod with a diameter equal to that of the hole is
then forced into the hole. It is possible to use smooth rods or reinforcement steel bars. Upon insertion of the rod,
a soft sling is installed and held by the rod. The sling should be able to get into the hole for easy stacking during
transportation. Once the lifting and handling steps have been completed, the sling is either cut or inserted into
the hole for future use. Figure 29a shows the first system.
a)
Figure 29b shows a similar system. However, instead of drilling a hole, a groove is made on the top of the panel a
few centimetres from the edge. The alteration is performed at a depth equivalent to about one half to two thirds of
the thickness of the panel. Then, using a long drill, a hole is drilled on the side. A steel rod with a diameter equal
to that of the hole is then forced into the hole. Once the panel is on the construction site, a soft sling is simply slid
under the rod; this sling can be removed once the panel is positioned. The steel bar remains in place and the hole
should be sealed.

25

26
b)
Figure 29
Inserted rod with soft sling

27
2.3.2
Inserted Rod with PFEIFER-Type Lifting Hook

The next system is once again inspired by the prefabricated concrete construction industry. This method consists
of drilling one hole on the top of the panel (re-entrant), a few centimetres from the edge. The diameter of this hole
must be large and deep enough to allow insertion of a lifting hook, as shown in Figure 30. Then, with a long drill,
a second hole is made on the side facing the axis of the hole made on top of the panel. A steel rod with a diameter
equal to that of the hole is then forced into the hole. It is possible to use smooth rods or steel rebars. Once the
panel is on the construction site, the hook is attached to the rod for the lifting and handling phase. The steel bar
remains in place and the hole should be sealed.
Figure 30
Inserted rod with lifting hook

28
3
General principles
for lifting
and handling
CLT elements
There are several types of lifting equipment that can be used on construction sites. Each has its own characteristics
for lifting and handling heavy loads such as CLT panels. It is therefore essential to choose the right lifting and
handling system for each type of component.
It is also of the outmost importance that lifting equipment be installed and operated properly. Several criteria
must be verified and validated prior to and during work on site. Engineers and builders in charge of a construction
project involving CLT panels need to consider certain important points. Some of these considerations are
presented in the following sections.
3.1
Lifting Station and Devices

The lifting station is undoubtedly a key element of the construction site. The lifting device must be selected and
positioned according to several criteria. Certain construction sites may require more than one lifting stations and
some sites may need to change the type of device being used during the construction phase.
Here are some of the elements to be considered when choosing a lifting device. The device must,
without limitation:
Be able to lift all required loads for the duration of construction:
- Types of loads may vary on the same construction site;
- The lifting device should not be moved;
Reach appropriate height with required maximum load:
- Appropriate range must be attained for all required distances, from point A to point B;
Be fast, keep a good pace and be flexible, while keeping safety first.
In addition, consideration must be given to the type of land upon which the construction will be done, as well
as the immediate surroundings. To avoid nasty surprises, it is strongly recommended to inspect the site before
choosing the type of device.

29
The grounds (slopes, streams, etc.) and the soils bearing capacity (sand, clay, etc.) are important points to consider.
As well, the stability of the operating devices must be maintained at all times. For example:

A crane can collapse under the weight of excessive load;

The ground can erode under the devices bearing points;
A device that is too close to a slope can cause a landslide and tip over;
The devices range may be too large. The device can come into contact with obstacles and fall (e.g., buildings,
trees, a second crane, power lines, etc.).
Despite all precautions that can be taken, accidents may occur. Thus, it is strictly forbidden to handle loads directly
above workers or the public. Also, to avoid serious accidents, the worker in charge of positioning the slings should
never stand between the load to be lifted and a fixed object, in case of load instability or improper operation
during lifting. Other safety-related recommendations are available from regulatory authorities.
3.2
Determining the Weight and Center of Gravity

of CLT Elements
Before choosing the proper lifting system, it is important to know the total weight of the element to be lifted,
as well as the position of its center of gravity.
Although density of wood greatly varies depending on wood species and moisture content, i.e. between 320
and 720 kg/m3 (Wood Handbook, 1999), it is generally recommended to use an average density varying between
400 and 600 kg/m3 for the calculation of the total weight of CLT elements. As a result, the density used for
evaluating lifting system loads will vary between 4 and 6 kN/m3 for CLT elements. Note that this density is
about five times lower than the density used for prefabricated reinforced concrete elements, which are usually
between 23 and 25 kN/m3. Nevertheless, the total weight of CLT elements can be considerable. As an example,
a 2.4 m x 16 m x 300 mm thick CLT slab weighs about 6 tonnes ( 60 kN). We suggest using values provided
by manufacturers.
b
L
Figure 31
Calculating the weight of a CLT element

30
The total weight of a CLT element is simply calculated as follows:
P=V
[1]
V=bLh
[2]
CLT
where:
P = CLT element weight (kN)
V = Volume of element to be lifted and handled (m)
b = Element width (m)
L = Element length (m)
h = Element thickness (m)
= CLT element average density (4~ 6 kN/m)
CLT
3.3
Dynamic Acceleration Factors
3.3.1
Lifting System Used

During lifting and handling manoeuvres, elements are subject to dynamic forces that must be taken into account.
These forces mainly depend on the chosen system, the lifting speed, and the type of ground on which the elements
are being handled.
Table 1 provides an overview of recommended lifting and handling dynamic acceleration factors for specific
devices used in construction. These factors should be taken into account for the calculation of forces. The values
are provided for informational purposes only. It is important to refer to normalized values as provided by the
relevant authorities (e.g., provincial, federal, municipal, etc.).
Table 1
Dynamic acceleration factors (f )
Lifting Device
Dynamic Coefficient of
Acceleration f
Fixed crane
1.1 ~ 1.3
Mobile crane
1.3 ~ 1.4
Bridge crane
1.2 ~ 1.6
Lifting and moving on flat terrain
2.0 ~ 2.5
Lifting and moving on rough terrain
3.0 ~ 4.0 and +
Sources: PFEIFER, SNAAM, HALFEN, PEIKKO, ARTEON

31
3.3.2
Other Effects to Consider

Wind can significantly increase forces in lifting systems. Engineers in charge of a project must consider such loads
in their calculations based on the surface in contact with the wind as well as the location and height of assemblies
requiring lifting.
However, it is normally forbidden to lift loads when weather conditions are deemed dangerous. Prefabricated
CLT elements are subject to wind movement and this phenomenon should not be underestimated.
Guide ropes may sometimes be required to prevent rotation of assemblies during lifting.
Finally, it is recommended that each lifting job be performed in a single operation or in compliance with
(sequence of ) operations intended by the engineer.
3.4
Dissymmetrical Distribution of Load

According to Center of Gravity
It is always better to fix anchors in a way to limit the eccentricity due to the center of gravity of the element to be
lifted. If anchors are dissymmetric with regard to the center of gravity, forces will not be equally distributed during
lifting and must be calculated accordingly. Tensile and shear forces must be calculated for each component to be
lifted, or the most critical elements must be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, to limit the tilt and sway of parts during lifting and handling, it is possible to use a spreader system.
Simply align the center of gravity of the element as calculated exactly facing the hook installed on the spreader
beam to prevent rotation. Figure 32 shows the appropriate method. However, if the lifting of an element is done
without a spreader beam, which is often the case in CLT construction, it is important to check the balance of
the load when lifting. Wind can also swing and spin the load.

32
Ftot
Fa
Fb
a
G
Figure 32
Element lifted with a spreader system

33
For example, the next equations are used to calculate forces in two anchors placed dissymmetrically to the center
of gravity of an element that is being lifted with a spreader system (note here that Ftot > G).
3.5
Fa = P b
(a + b)
[3]
Fb = P a = P - Fa
(a + b)
[4]
Determining Forces According to Lifting Angles

When a spreader system, similar to that shown in Figure 32, is not used when handling assemblies, it is necessary
to adjust forces in the anchors by taking into account the lifting angles. In this case, the inclination angle of the
cables or slings will vary depending on their length.
The adjustment is done by evaluating the coefficient of angle z. A range of coefficients z is presented in Table 2
according to the inclination angle . Refer to Figure 34 for more details about angles.
Table 2
Coefficient of lifting angle (z)
Cable Angle (1)
Angle (2)
Angle Coefficient z (3)
1.000
7.5
15
1.009
15
30
1.035
22.5
45
1.082
30
60
1.155
37.5
75
1.260
45
90
1.414
52.5
105
1.643
60
120
2.000
(1) It is strongly recommended to limit to 30

(2) = 2 x
(3) z = 1/cos

34
3.6
Determining Load Distribution According to

the Number of Effective Anchors (Suspension
in Several N Effective Points)
It is common practice to use only two anchor points when CLT wall or beam elements are handled on the
construction site. In such cases, it is normally sufficient to determine forces in the two anchors (N=2) according to
the position of the center of gravity, the lifting system, and the lifting angle.
However, for floor and roof slabs, or for long wall assemblies, the use of three or four anchors is generally required.
Thus, if more than two anchors are used, it may be impossible to accurately determine the load applied to each
anchor, even when anchors are positioned symmetrically to the center of gravity. Indeed, there is no guarantee that
the load will be perfectly symmetrical to the center of gravity or that the slings will be exactly the same length. It is
therefore necessary to correctly establish the maximum force by using only two effective anchors (N=2).
In special cases, for example, when the loads are not precisely known, or the element is irregular in shape, each
anchor shall be calculated so as to be capable of supporting the total load of the assembly (N=1).
Furthermore, to ensure proper distribution of forces in each anchor considered effective, it is important to use
systems with no friction. The use of free spreaders, pulleys, or shackles helps reduce unwanted friction.
Note that in all cases, it is recommended not to use excessively long slings so as to avoid instability or to create high
angles when lifting. Also, if assemblies that require lifting and handling are too long, the use of a spreader system
might be a better option, as it will limit the length of the slings.
Figures 33 to 40 present typical cases of CLT element lifting and the number of effective anchors used
in the calculations.

35
>90
Proper angle
> 90
Angle too sharp
Better performance using spreader

Figure 33
CLT wall lifted with two slings symmetrically positioned Good and bad practices

36
F tot
Number of effective anchors = 2

Figure 34
CLT wall lifted with two slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity (N=2)

37
Ftot
Fa
Fb
a
G

Figure 35
CLT wall lifted with two slings asymmetrically positioned to the center of gravity, with single spreader (N=2)

38
Ftot
F
F

Figure 36
CLT slab lifted with four slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity, without spreader and without
compensation system (N=2)

39
Ftot
F
F
F
F

Figure 37
CLT slab lifted with four slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity,
with compensation system (N=4)

40
Ftot
F
F
F
F

Figure 38
CLT slab lifted with four slings symmetrically positioned to the center of gravity, with single spreader (N=4)

41
Ftot
F
F

Figure 39
with three fixed spreaders (N=2)

42
Ftot
F
F
F
F

Figure 40
with three free spreaders (N=4)

43
3.7
Calculation of Forces Resulting from Lifting per Anchor

The maximum forces resulting from lifting using anchors must be evaluated at each stage of lifting and handling.
The maximum unfavorable value will determine the design of the lifting systems.
For example, different lifting systems can be used in the plant and on site (e.g., travelling crane in the plant vs.
regular crane on construction site). Furthermore, a component can be raised and handled in several stages and
with slings of different lengths. Also, if the same lifting systems are used more than once during handling between
the plant and its final destination, it may be required to use an oversize anchor to accommodate the effects
of repetition.
For loads that require lifting with slings placed symmetrically to the center of gravity, force per anchor is calculated
as follows:
Fi = Ftot z
N
[5]
where:
Fi = Resultant anchor force i (kN)
Ftot = P = Total weight of assembly to be lifted (kN)
= Dynamic acceleration factor (Table 1)
z = Coefficient of lifting angle (Table 2)
= Other majoration coefficient if required
N = Number of effective fasteners (see figures)
Finally, tensile and shear stress in fasteners can be established based on the lifting angle. The anchoring system can
therefore be correctly designed by the engineer by taking into account the CLT element to be lifted (i.e., wood
density, number of CLT layers, direction of the grain, etc.) and the lifting system chosen.
Important notes:
If anchors are not symmetrical to the center of gravity, they must be increased by using the appropriate static
equations (see [1] and [2]).
Other effects such as wind may significantly influence load movement on lifting systems.
If the same lifting system is used for rising, it may be necessary to reduce the allowable anchor capacity
in the calculations.
In Canada, calculations must be done using limit states. It is important to ensure that the calculated and
provided capacities of anchor systems are compatible.
Laboratory tests may be required.

44
4
Other accessories
and materials
Numerous construction accessories and materials are required on a construction site. In this section, in addition
to the items and tools normally required in conventional wood construction, we suggest products, tools, and
accessories that may be useful or essential on a construction project using CLT panels.
4.1
Fire-resistant Rope and Joint Sealing Tapes

To ensure proper sealing of CLT panel joints (i.e., floor-to-floor or floor-to-wall junctions), it is recommended
to use products that are specifically intended for this purpose. There are plenty of products on the market.
Typically, the proposed products should:
Help reduce sound transmission through floors and walls;
Ensure effective protection against fire and gas;
Improve energy efficiency by reducing heat loss and by limiting air flow (for CLT elements that are part
of the enclosure).
Fire
Fire-resistant ropes are normally cylindrical and flexible. Some products are made from incombustible mineral
fiber inserted into a fiberglass wire netting. These ropes must provide effective protection against fire and gas for
a sufficient time.
Acoustics
Acoustic membranes or tapes are specifically designed and formulated to effectively stop sound transmission
between walls and partitions. Some suppliers also indicate that the tapes are used to control the vibrations of
floor slabs (damping).
Air
To ensure air tightness, polyethylene foam-type products are often used on concrete foundation joints and
on the roof. Other types of membranes (e.g., rubber-based) can be used.

45
Figures 41 to 43 show some examples of tight joints between CLT elements.
Figure 41
Sealing joint between floor, wall, and connectors

46
Figure 42
Joint between floor and wall with semi-rigid membrane
Figure 43
Joint between two floor slabs with flexible membrane

47
4.2
Adjustable Steel Shores

During frame assembly, it is crucial to have the right tools at hand. Figure 44 shows adjustable steel shores for
adjusting wall plumbs. Shores can be adjusted with screws or with steel dowels that can be placed at frequent
intervals. This instrument is essential to ensure a precise angle of installation. The fastening at both ends is done
with screws. If the CLT panels are to remain visible, repairs may be required when the operation is complete.

48
Figure 44
Adjustable shores for walls

49
4.3
Beam Grip with Ratchet and Hooks

Figure 45 shows a beam grip with ratchet and hooks. This instrument is primarily used to bring the CLT panels
together once they are supported and juxtaposed. It is necessary to use this type of instrument to ensure that there
is proper contact between wall, floor, or roof panels. Figure 45 shows a beam grip being used to bring two floor
panels together. It can be noticed that the forged hooks have been driven in line with the exterior walls that will be
subsequently installed. If the floor must remain visible, it is essential to position the beam grip strategically so
as not to mark the wood.
Figure 45
Beam grip with ratchet and hooks

50
4.4
Beam Grip with Ratchet and Screw Plate

The beam grip can also be used to ensure proper contact between two panels that are installed perpendicularly.
Instead of hooks, the beam grip is used with two perforated plates. The beam grip is screwed onto the CLT wall
and roof elements. The clamping is then performed and the panels are screwed to one another using self-tapping
screws or other systems (refer to Chapter 5 for more information). Tightening will ensure proper contact between
the elements to limit air infiltration and sound transmission. Note in Figure 46 the weatherproofing membrane
used at the junction of the panels.
Figure 46
Beam grip with ratchet and screw plate

51
4.5
Manual Winch with Cables or Slings

Instead of a beam grip, a manual winch attached to cables or slings can be used to bring the CLT panels together.
Figure 47 shows the system in use. Steel plates are installed on the panels with screws or lag screws. A flexible sling
is used as the link between the winch and the plate. Once proper contact has been made between the panels, they
are assembled using self-tapping screws or wood screws (refer to Chapter 5 for more information).

52
Figure 47
Manual winch used with soft slings

53
4.6
Steel Shims and Cement-based Grout with no Shrinkage

It is sometimes necessary to use steel shims of different thicknesses under CLT walls, at the junction of concrete
foundations, for them to be perfectly square. Once the wall has been properly installed and is at a right angle, the
gap is usually filled with a cement-based grout. It is imperative to use a waterproof membrane at the base between
the concrete and the wood to limit the migration of water into the wood.
Figure 48
Junction between concrete foundation and CLT walls with steel winch and cement-based grout without shrinkage

54
5
Transportation
of CLT Elements
Before undertaking the design of a CLT building, consideration must be taken with regards to the transportation
of the prefabricated CLT elements. Transporting CLT panels can be costly and, depending on the size of the
element, may require specialized transportation services.
As shown in Chapter 1, CLT panels can be quite large. Typical panel widths are 1.2 m, 2.4 m, and 3 m, while
maximum lengths are dependent on the press type and may reach 18 m. As well, panels can be quite heavy. Because
of the potential size and weight of the elements, there are two main factors regarding transportation that must be
considered when planning CLT elements: highway regulations and construction site limitations.
5.1
Standard Weights and Dimension Regulations

In Canada, vehicle weights and dimensions (W&D) fall within provincial jurisdictions and limits vary from
province to province. However, the provinces and territories have agreed on National Standards for the weight
and dimension limits of heavy vehicles used in interprovincial transportation. These are contained in a Federal/
Provincial/Territorial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Under the terms of the MOU, each of the
provinces and territories will permit vehicles which comply with the appropriate weights and dimensions
described in the agreement to travel on a designated system of highways within their jurisdiction. Keep in mind,
however, that the provinces are allowed (and many do) to set more liberal W&D within their jurisdictions. More
information on the MOU may be obtained by visiting the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation
and Highway Safety website.
5.1.1
Dimension Limits
In terms of dimension limits, here are the main points with regard to road vehicles (according to dimensional
limits applicable to the U.S., which are slightly more restrictive than Canadian limitations):
Vehicle height, including load, is limited to 4.11 meters (136);
Vehicle width, including load but excluding load covering or securing devices, cannot exceed 2.6 meters (102);
Semi-trailer length, including load, cannot exceed 16.15 m (53).
Figure 49 presents these limits in a graphical format.

55
2.60 m
(max)
Maximal load length

16.15 m
Available load space
4.11 m
(max)
1.51 m
(typ.)
Figure 49
Available load space on a flatbed semi-trailer
The majority of CLT panels will be transported by the use of a flatbed semi-trailer (Figure 50). These trailers have
the advantage of being open on all sides, which facilitates loading, and having a continuous deck space from front
to back. Given that the normal height off the ground of the deck of a flatbed semi-trailer is about 1.51 m (at the
front of the trailer, which is the highest point), this permits load heights of 2.60 meters. Overall, this means that
a CLT load, comprised of one or more elements, must fit into a box with a height of 2.6 m, a width of 2.6 m, and
a length of 16.15 m if it is to be transported by a flatbed semi-trailer.
For taller structures, dropdeck (also called stepdeck) semi-trailers can also be used. However, as can be seen in
Figure 51, unlike flatbed semi-trailers, the deck of a dropdeck is not continuous. A dropdeck flatbed with smaller
255/70R22.5 type tires (but still using normal axle hubs and brakes) can be used to allow a 3 m tall load on the
rear 12.8 m section and a 2.6 m tall load on the front 3.35 m section.
Other semi-trailers with even more load height are available, such as doubledrop decks (Figure 52), but they can
be difficult to load, and the deck is divided into three sections with the lowest section having a length of about 9 m
and a deck height of 0.55 m, allowing products of up to 3.56 m in height.
Although all of these semi-trailer types can be as long as 16.15 m, many are 14.63 m (48) in length.
The dimensions given here are presented as guidelines.
It is important to check with transportation providers to verify the dimensions of their vehicles before going
forward with any transportation plan.

56
Figure 50
Flatbed semi-trailer
Figure 51
Dropdeck semi-trailer
Figure 52
Double dropdeck semi-trailer
5.1.2
Weight Limits
When it comes to weight limits, the situation is more complex. Legal Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the weight
of the vehicle and its load. Legal GVW varies not only by province, as previously mentioned, but also by the type
of vehicle, the number of axles on the vehicle, and the distance between the axles. Nonetheless, a simplified picture
can be drawn. When delivering within Canada, 6-axle semi-trailer combinations (e.g., a tandem drive tractor with
a 3-axle semi-trailer) can be used in every jurisdiction although at different allowable GVWs. In the USA, tractor/
semi-trailer combinations are limited to 5 axles.
Table 3 presents the maximum payloads authorized with 5- and 6-axle flatbed combinations by jurisdiction, taking
into account the typical tare weights for these units (14.5 t for a 5-axle unit and 16 t for a 6-axle unit) and the
legal GVW in each jurisdiction. It should be kept in mind that these are only guidelines. It may be possible to have
higher payloads with some of the superlight trailers available on the market. Also, trucks are limited in the amount
of weight that different individual axles or axle groups can carry. With odd-shaped loads, it is often difficult to
distribute the load properly between axles and thus the legal GVW cannot be obtained while maintaining legal
axle or axle group weights.

57
Table 3
Maximum payloads by jurisdiction for 5- and 6-axle tractor/semi-trailer combinations (t)
5-axle
Combinations
6-axle
Combinations
MOU*
23.0
28.5
Atlantic Provinces and

Qubec
25.0
31.5
Ontario
25.0
33.1
USA
20.0
Territory
*Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. limits all follow the MOU
Although higher GVW may be allowed in the regulation, we have included the highest practical GVW
5.1.3
Other Canadian Legal Configurations

Qubec also allows the use of 4-axle semi-trailers while Ontario allows 4- and even 5-axle semi-trailers with much
higher payloads. Given that these vehicles cannot travel outside their jurisdictions, we have not presented payload
maximums for these types of units. As well, the Canadian MOU allows the use of 8-axle B-train units (a tractor
pulling two semi-trailers; see Figure 53) at a GVW of 62.5 tonnes. However, the length of both trailers combined
is 20 m, with a lead trailer typically having a deck length of 9.75 m and a rear trailer with a deck of 8.5 m. Because
each trailer unit articulates separately (steering and suspension systems), a load cannot span from the deck of the
lead unit to the rear unit. As such, the longest panels that super B-trains can accommodate are 9.75 m. Typical
tares are in the range of 18 t, so loads of up to 44.5 t are possible.
Different possible configurations are also available in the USA, the most common being spread tandem axle semitrailers. In these configurations, the space between the two axles of a tandem group is increased from the standard
48 inches to a space reaching up to 121 inches.
Figure 53
Super B-train flat deck combination

58
5.2
Oversize and Overweight Permits

In every Canadian and U.S. jurisdiction, oversize and overweight permits are required when the dimensions or
weight of a vehicle exceeds the normal limits permitted by legislation. Larger CLT panels exceed these dimension
limits and a truckload of panels may also cause the vehicle to exceed the legally allowable Gross Vehicle Weight.
Keep in mind that these permits are only available for indivisible loads.
The regulations, permitting, and logistics of oversize and overweight transportation are quite complex. The
planning and organization of such hauls is best left to transport companies that specialize in this type of work.
If it is determined that CLT elements do not fit in the standard legal dimensions or weights described in
Section 5.1, it is important to contact one of the specialists. For more information on oversize and overweight
permitting, refer to local provincial or state authorities. A complete list may be obtained on the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration website.
5.3
Construction Site Limitations and Considerations

Transporting CLT elements to the construction site is only part of the challenge. The construction site itself may
have restrictions that are more limiting than weights and dimension regulations. First off, make sure that the route
from the plant to the construction site will allow movement on the truck, including its load, without any obstacles.
This is especially critical for oversize loads.
A common problem at construction sites occurs when a long trailer arrives and the width of the driving space
(which was fine for a short dump truck) does not allow enough clearance for the off-tracking of the rear trailer
wheels when a short radius turn is needed. Moving a fence, a shed, piles of materials, for example, to make
driveway changes can disrupt and delay deliveries and increase costs.
This can be a challenge when working in tight urban areas where the space for piling building materials and
the allowance for turns is very limited. The off-tracking is a function of the sum of the squares of the vehicle
combination wheelbases so an extra-long trailer will intrude inward on a tight turn much more than shorter
wheelbase trailers. A data chart and other methods to estimate off-tracking (SAE J 695) are available to the Society
of Automotive Engineers.
Awareness of local city regulations and pre-planning to match construction site challenges are advisable to ensure
a smooth efficient delivery without delays and cost overruns.

59
5.4
Other Transport Considerations

It is a large advantage to design the loads to fit on normal equipment which allows the option to use for-hire
carriers to deal with long distance one-way hauls where many loads must arrive and be staged at a jobsite within a
close period of time. It also reduces the vulnerability by having access to replacement vehicles when a specialized
vehicle has downtime and to deal with swings in demand.
When normal flatbeds are used, it is generally best to lay the load horizontally for easiest tarping and to have the
load centre as low and stable as possible for safety and load security. Tarping and load tie-down requirements must
take into account the fact that federal safety regulations limit the height at which workers can work without a fall
restraint system to 3 m off the ground and that many drivers are not willing to climb up high to manually tarp
a difficult load because of the safety risk.
Having each lift of CLT wrapped in a waterproof package can be helpful as long as it has a way to drain trapped
water and breathe out condensation at the bottom in case the wrapping gets damaged during handling or in case
there is an air void that allows condensation to accumulate. It is best to also have a physical tarp over the load as the
primary protection against rain, ice, debris, and wind forces. For more information on good tie-down practices,
a drivers guide may be downloaded from the Publications page of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport
Administrators website.
Closed top trailers with a lower rear floor similar to dropdeck flatbed trailers can also be used if loading and
unloading are done from the rear door. Rollers should be recessed into the floor and be raised with air pressure
to allow the CLT sections to roll when loading and unloading.
Ideally, when placing the load, the center of the payload mass (at maximum payload) should be about 1.2 meters
ahead of the center of the trailer for best weight distribution and traction.

60
6
Positioning
of materials on
construction site
and protection
against weather

6.1
Positioning of Materials on Construction Site

Once the materials have been delivered to the construction site, wood-based building materials must be stored
properly if they are not used immediately. Good planning is essential to ensure that materials have the necessary
space and proper logistics control during construction. There are costs associated with handling each shipment.
If panels must be placed temporarily on the ground prior to use, great care must be taken to protect them against
weather elements and vandalism. The panels must be installed on skids in sufficient numbers to protect them from
water runoffs and appropriate tarpaulin should be used to protect them.
Figure 54 shows CLT panel packs in the process of being unloaded from a truck for storage on site. The packs are
completely wrapped (six faces) and are deposited on wood skids to protect them from water runoffs. Although this
packaging practice may be adequate, it is crucial to use high-quality tarpaulin and to ensure that the packs remain
sealed. If there are openings, water could infiltrate and remain trapped.
Also, CLT bundles should be stacked properly to avoid overloading the lower assemblies. Skids must be properly
aligned to ensure load transfer from one bundle to another.
It should be noted that the stacking of the panels on the construction site must match the planned installation
sequence. Unnecessary handling leads to additional costs and risks of accidents or breaking.

61
Figure 54
Storage on construction site individually wrapped bundles

62
Figure 55
Truck platform left on construction site it will be recovered on the next trip

63
6.2
Construction Load on Frame

Stacking and storage of CLT elements or other heavy materials must be made while taking into account the
maximum anticipated loads for the building. If assemblies need to be placed on the construction frame, ensure
that the provisional loads do not exceed the engineers expected loads during construction.
It is recommended that CLT slabs be placed flat on the frame so they are not exposed to winds. Skids in sufficient
numbers and at regular intervals should be placed between panels.
Figure 56
CLT slabs temporarily stored on a floor
6.3
Temporary Protection During Construction

When necessary, the wood components should be protected as much as possible against the elements during frame
set-up operations. The CLT components are primarily intended for use in dry conditions with limited exposure to
water, so they should be protected from direct rain, snow and ice, especially from long exposure to these elements.
Otherwise, the wood may tarnish or become dirty during construction.
In addition, due to the hygroscopic nature of wood, CLT panels may vary slightly in size during construction
and problems can occur at joints. For example, connections can be difficult to perform on the construction site,
especially if accuracy is important.
There are some effective techniques used to provide adequate protection against weather elements during frame
set-up operations. Figures 57 to 59 show techniques used mainly in Europe to protect components from the
weather during construction.

64
Figure 57
Use of a temporary tarpaulin (courtesy of Fristad Bygg, Sweden)

65
Figure 58
Use of a permeable tarpaulin outside scaffoldings Germany

66
Figure 59
Use of an adjustable tent Sweden

67
7
References
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). 2010. Materials handling: Lifting with eye bolts.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/materials_handling/eye_bolts.html.
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). 2005. Drivers handbook on cargo securement.
http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/cargo_driver_handbook.pdf.
Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. 2011. National standards for heavy
vehicle weights and dimensions. http://www.comt.ca/english/programs/trucking/standards.html.
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 2011. Turning ability and off tracking: Motor vehicles. SAE J695.
Warrendale, PA: SAE. 13 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). 1999. Wood handbook: Wood as an
engineering material. Madison, WI: FPL. 1 v.
U.S. Department of Tranportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Oversize/overweight load permits.
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/permit_report/index.htm

68
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100

CLT
CLT
Addresses
319, rue Franquet
Qubec, QC
Canada G1P 4R4
418 659-2647
2665 East Mall
Vancouver, BC
Canada V6T 1W5
604 224-3221
Head Office
570, boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, QC
Canada H9R 3J9
514 630-4100

E4642

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E4642

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E4642

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLT

Special Publication SP-528E

Duration of load and creep factors

Building enclosure design

handling of CLT elements

Platform Frame Wood Construction

Heavy Timber Frame Construction

Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

Funding for this publication

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

For additional copies and/or

2665 East Mall

319, rue Franquet

Introduction to cross-laminated timber

2011 FPInnovations. All Rights reserved.

FPInnovations Research Program and Motivation 2

Brief Definition of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) 4

Some Benefits of Cross-Laminating 7

Structural Design and Serviceability Considerations of CLT 13

6.1 Proposed Analytical Design Methods 14

Environmental Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber 20

Codes and Standards Road Map for CLT 21

Cross-Laminated Timber in Construction 23

9.1 Residential Buildings 23

Current and projected codes and standards activities for CLT 22

Figure 19 Multi-family building in LAquila, Italy (courtesy of Binderholz) 30

Cross-laminated timber manufacturing

No.2 & Btr or

Proposed Analytical Design Methods

Seismic Performance of CLT Buildings

Connections and Construction of CLT Structures

Duration of Load and Creep Behaviour

Vibration Performance of Floors

Fire Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies

Acoustic Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Assemblies

Building Enclosure Design of Cross-Laminated

Going to new heights in Platform Frame Wood Construction (up to 6 storeys)

CLT strength classes

CWC and AWC initiate the

CWC and AWC initiate the

Acceptance in the 2014

Acceptance in the 2015

Office and Commercial Buildings

Special Publication SP-528E

Cross-laminated timber manufacturing

2011 FPInnovations. All rights reserved.

Raw Materials for CLT 2

CLT Manufacturing Process 4

3.1 Primary Lumber Selection 6

3.9 Product Marking, Packaging and Shipping 11

Product Quality Assurance 12

4.1 CLT Product and Plant Qualification 12

Typical characteristics of adhesives for CLT manufacturing 3

The manufacturing process of CLT products 5

Lumber shrinkage relief 9

Proposed delamination specimen 12

Check development in CLT panels 13

Classes of structural adhesives that could be used include:

Cured adhesive colour

Wood moisture content