INVESTIGATING THE MECHANICAL BEHAVIOUR OF MULTI-PANEL

BALLON-TYPE CLT SHEARWALLS THROUGH FULL-SCALE TESTS

Dalu Xing1, Daniele Casagrande2, Ghasan Doudak3
ABSTRACT: Balloon-type Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) shearwall systems have gained widespread application in
modern construction due to their ability to reduce perpendicular-to-grain compression deformation and minimize vertical
shrinkage compared with traditional platform-type shearwall constructions. However, despite the increasing adoption of
balloon-type CLT shearwalls in construction practices, research on their mechanical performance remains limited, and
existing timber design codes lack specific provisions and guidelines. This paper presents an experimental campaign aimed
at investigating the structural performance of multi-panel balloon-type CLT shearwalls under lateral loading conditions.
The study examines connection stiffness as the key influencing parameter and discusses the kinematic modes as well as
structural resistance and lateral displacement. A comparison between experiments and numerical modelling analysis is
also undertaken and discussed.

KEYWORDS: balloon-type, cross-laminated timber, deformation and displacement, kinematic mode

1 – INTRODUCTION resistance are the mechanical connections adopted to

anchor the panels to the foundations (or the floor below)
Balloon-type CLT shearwalls represent a widely utilized and to connect adjacent panels [7-9]. Conversely, for
lateral load-resisting system (LLRS) in mid-rise timber balloon-type shearwalls, deformations of panels can be
buildings, offering several advantages, including significant [10], particularly in configurations where the
reducing deformation due to perpendicular-to-grain aspect ratio is over 6:1 [2].
compression, minimizing vertical shrinkage effects
within the structural system, and streamlining both While analytical and numerical models have proven
installation and construction processes, which can effective in predicting the horizontal deformation
contribute to overall cost and time efficiency in behaviours and emphasizing the critical role of boundary
construction [1,2]. Despite their growing application in conditions in system performance [1,2], the availability
modern timber construction, current building codes and of experimental data for validating these models remains
design standards [3-5] have yet to establish the necessary limited. Investigations of balloon-type CLT shearwall
design provisions and detailing guidelines, which present tests have either focused on lower aspect ratio [11] or
challenges for designers to ensure structural reliability considered walls consisting of only a single panel [12].
while optimizing the performance of these systems. Hence, the scarcity of full-scale experimental
investigations poses a challenge in bridging the gap
Balloon-type CLT shearwalls typically extend across between theoretical predictions and real structural
multiple stories and often exhibit panel aspect ratios performance, highlighting the necessity for further
exceeding 4:1. As a result, the analytical approaches and studies.
design methodologies developed for platform-type
shearwalls [6] may not be directly applicable. A key The current research project aims to undertake an
distinction between the two systems lies in their experimental campaign to investigate the mechanical
deformation mechanisms. In platform-type shearwalls, behaviour of full-scale multi-panel balloon-type CLT
panel deformation is generally considered negligible, shearwalls. This study seeks to provide a deeper
while the primary contributors to system flexibility and understanding of the structural performance of such

1 Dalu Xing, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada, dxing010@[Link]

2
Daniele Casagrande, Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Italy,
[Link]@[Link]
3 Ghasan Doudak, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada, gdoudak@[Link]

[Link] 116
systems by examining critical parameters that influence first phase of the study, two-panel shearwall systems with
their response. This paper focuses on the results of the fixed panel aspect ratio of 8.3 were considered, while the
first phase of the experimental campaign involving the number of hold-downs ranged from one to four and the
impact of parameters such as the relative stiffness number of connections in the vertical joints between
between hold-down and vertical joints. The ratio between adjacent panels was fixed at thirty-two pairs, thereby
the hold-down stiffness ݇௛ௗ and that of vertical joints ݇௩௝ varying the relative stiffness. A standardized naming
is of particular significance since it influences the convention is adopted, where for instance, in specimen
kinematic modes of the shearwalls under the lateral loads. “S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32”, the notation “S-5/0.6” specifies
The paper also presents a comparison between results that each panel had dimensions of 5 m (height) × 0.6 m
obtained from a numerical model and those from the (width), “P2” indicates that the specimen comprises two
experimental tests. panels, while “H2V32” represents the inclusion of two
hold-downs and thirty-two pairs of vertical joints
2 – MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY between adjacent panels.

2.1 MATERIALS AND GEOMETRICAL 2.2 TEST SET-UP AND LOAD PROTOCOL
PROPERTIES
Fig. 1 provides an overview of the test setup. The CLT
The test specimens consisted of five-layer CLT panels panels were positioned horizontally and braced securely
with a total thickness of 175 mm with outer layers out of plane at their base.
oriented along the vertical direction of the wall. The CLT
panels used in this study conform to grade E1 as specified The experimental test setup represented full-scale, two-
in the Canadian standard [4] and are supplied by Nordic story balloon-type shearwalls, subjected to two equal
Structures (Canada). Each panel measures 5,000 mm in horizontal point loads at the diaphragm level of each
height and 600 mm in width. story. To maintain equal force distribution at each
loading point, a single hydraulic actuator was centrally
Proprietary hold-downs (WHT620 [13]) were connected positioned at the midspan of a rigid I-shaped steel
to the CLT panel using 55 Φ4 × L60 mm annular shanked spreader beam, ensuring balanced load application.
nails and to the steel base beam using a Φ20 × L1000 mm
steel rod. The spline joint between panels consisted of A steel base beam with a length of 3505 mm was
25.4 mm (1 inch) thick plywood, nailed with countersunk anchored to the ground, simulating the foundation of the
Φ8 × L80 mm screws. system. Additionally, to prevent lateral sliding of the
shearwalls during testing, a steel shear key was installed
The materials and properties relevant to the CLT panels, at the panel ends, providing necessary lateral
mechanical connectors, and vertical joint fasteners are confinement and maintaining the intended structural
summarized in Table 1. The mechanical performance of behaviour throughout the experiment.
the hold-down and vertical joints was obtained from
tensile and shear tests [14]. A monotonic displacement-controlled loading protocol
was employed, utilizing a hydraulic actuator with a
Table 2 presents a summary of the testing matrix, loading rate of 25 mm/min. During the tests, the ambient
detailing the different specimen configurations. In the temperature was maintained at 20 ± 2℃, with a relative
humidity of 65 ± 5%. Additionally, the equilibrium
Table 1: Material and properties
moisture content of the specimens was controlled at 12 ±
Name Properties
Young’s modulus of
2%.
11700
longitudinal layers EL (MPa)
CLT panel [4] The lateral displacement of the shearwall was monitored
Young’s modulus of
9000
transverse layers ET (MPa) at the two diaphragm heights of 2.4 m and 4.8 m. These
Maximum tensile resistance Thd, max (kN) 93.4
Displacement at the maximum tensile Table 2: Testing matrix
14.1
Hold-down [14] resistance point ΔT-hd, max (mm) Panel Number of
Ultimate tensile resistance Thd, u (kN) 73.9 Specimen No. aspect Number connections in Number of
ratios of panels the vertical hold-downs
Ultimate tensile displacement ΔT-hd, u (mm) 17.2
(h/b) joints
Maximum shear resistance Svj, max (kN) 7.5 S-5/0.6-P2-
Displacement at the maximum shear 8.3 2 32 1
Vertical joint 43.2 H1V32
[14]
resistance point ΔS-vj, max (mm) S-5/0.6-P2-
Ultimate shear resistance Svj, u (kN) 6.5 8.3 2 32 2
H2V32
Ultimate shear displacement ΔS-vj, u (mm) 55.7 S-5/0.6-P2-
8.3 2 32 4
H4V32

117 [Link]
 Plan view Side view
(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 1. (a) Site layout and overview; (b) Testing setup; (c) Details about the monitored positions at Point 1 (P1) and Point 2 (P2)

measurements were obtained using linear variable This shearwall exhibited rocking motion about its center
differential transformers (LVDTs) placed at both of rotation, accompanied by a small uplift in panel 1 at
shearwall edges. In addition to tracking the lateral point P2. The deformation in the vertical joints was also
displacement, other key performance parameters evident as loading increased.
included panel uplift, relative slip between adjacent
panels, and compressive deformation at the rotation The ultimate failure was governed by rupture in the hold-
centres of the CLT panels (Fig. 1c). The uplift of the down, marking a complete loss of the shearwall lateral
panels was directly measured using LVDTs at Point 1 (P1) resistance. Residual deformations were observed at the
positioned at the central axis of the outermost hold-down panel-to-panel interface.
and Point 2 (P2) located at the opposite bottom corner of
When the number of hold-downs were increased in
the panel.
specimens S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32 and S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32,
the specimens displayed rocking behaviour with two
3 - TEST RESULT AND DISCUSSION
centre of rotations (one for each panel) and significant
3.1 DEFORMATION AND KINEMATIC deformation was observed in the vertical joints, but
MODES ultimately the failure occurred in the hold-downs. This
can be attributed to the mechanical properties of the
Fig. 2 illustrates a typical deformation progression connectors, with the hold-downs possessing significantly
observed during the loading of specimen S-5/0.6-P2- lower ultimate tensile displacement (ΔT-hd, u) compared to
H1V32. the ultimate shear displacement of the vertical joints (ΔS-
vj, u), as shown in Table 1.

[Link] 118
 The original status before loading

The entire deformation after failure

(a) The entire structural deformation

1. Original 2. At hold-down uplift of 6 mm

3. At hold-down uplift of 15 mm 4. After failure

(b) The deformation development at the bottom of panels

Figure 2: The structural deformation development of S5/0.6-P2-H1V32 under the lateral load: (a) the entire structural deformation; (b) the deformation
development at the bottom of panels

A close look at the panel uplift and deformation Regarding the kinematic response, two distinct kinematic
progression is presented in Fig. 3. The characteristics of modes were identified based on the observed rotational
the hold-down can be effectively quantified based on the behavior of the panels. These include coupled-panel (CP)
displacement recorded at P1, whereas the kinematic mode, where each panel rocks independently around its
behavior of the shearwall system can be deduced from respective center of rotation, and single-wall mode (SW),
the displacement measurements at P2. Analysis of the where the panels rock about a single center of rotation
load-displacement curves at P1 reveals that the tensile positioned at the end of the entire shearwall. It was
displacement at the peak resistance of the hold-downs observed, for the configurations tested, that SW mode
remained consistent across different specimens, was dominant when only one hold-down was used.
generally ranging from 13 mm to 16 mm. This result However, as the number, and hence stiffness, of hold-
aligns well with the connection testing results obtained downs increased, the system transitioned from SW mode
from the literature [14]. to CP mode. For example, when four hold-downs were

119 [Link]
 Panel 2 Panel 1

P2 P1
Centre of rotation

(a) S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32

Panel 2 Panel 1

P2 P1
Centre of rotation

(b) S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32

Panel 2 Panel 1

P2 P1
Centre of rotation

(c) S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32
Figure 3: Two monitored points for measuring the tensile displacement of hold-downs (P1) and tracing the kinematic modes of shearwalls (P2) for the
specimens:(a) S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32, (b) S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32 and (c) S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32

utilized, the CLT panel at P2 was consistently in contact commercially available finite element (FE) software
with the base support, as shown in Fig. 3b and 3c. package SAP2000 [16]. A pushover analysis was
performed to simulate the applied loading conditions, as
3.2 LATERAL RESISTANCE AND illustrated in Fig. 5.
DISPLACEMENT
In the FE model, two-dimensional thick-shell elements
Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between the total lateral were employed to represent the behaviour of the CLT
loads applied and the corresponding lateral shearwall panels. A mesh size of 10 mm × 10 mm was
displacements measured at the edge of the second adopted [6] and each mesh unit was modelled as a four-
diaphragm level (4.8 m). node quadrilateral element. The mechanical properties of
the CLT panels were incorporated using the
As summarized in Table 3, the specimen with a single homogenized approach [17,18].
hold-down (S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32) attained a maximum
lateral resistance of 36.2 kN, corresponding to a The behaviours of the hold-downs and vertical joints
displacement of 156 mm. When the number of hold- were modelled using link or spring elements. Hold-
downs was doubled (S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32), the maximum downs were represented by two-node link elements
lateral resistance increased by roughly 1.7 times, connected to the steel base beam, accounting for both
accompanied by a 40% increase in displacement. tensile and shear responses. Similarly, vertical joints
Another doubling of the number of hold-downs (S-5/0.6- were modelled as two-node links that connected adjacent
P2-H4V32) resulted in only a 1.5 times higher maximum panels, providing shear resistance in both in-plane
lateral resistance and a 26% larger displacement. This orthogonal directions.
observation implies that increasing the number or
stiffness of hold-downs is not linearly proportional to the The results of the comparison are illustrated in Fig. 6.
overall horizontal resistance of the structure, which is Overall, the pushover curves obtained from the numerical
likely caused by the shift in kinematic mode. simulations show good agreement with the experimental
results. The numerical curves demonstrated consistent
4 – COMPARISON BETWEEN TESTING behaviour, comparable peak lateral resistances, and close
AND NUMERICAL MODELLING displacements at peak load when compared to the
physical tests. A quantitative comparison is summarised
A comparison between the experimental results and the in Table 4. The results show reasonable agreement for the
numerical simulation was undertaken using the peak lateral load and displacement with errors ߝ within

[Link] 120
 100
S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32
90 S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32

Load of the actuator (kN)

80 S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Displacement at the second diaphragm level (mm)

Figure 4: The relationship between actuator load and displacement at the second diaphragm level for the specimens: S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32, S-5/0.6-P2-
H2V32, and S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32

Table 3: Mechanical properties of shearwall tests

Specimen Structural lateral Ultimate Ultimate lateral

Number of Kinematic Peak lateral load Displacement at peak
stiffness (1) lateral load(2) displacement Δu
No. hold-down mode Fmax (kN) load Δmax (mm)
kl (kN/mm) Fu (kN) (mm)
S-5/0.6-P2-
1 SW 0.36 36.2 155.5 29.0 159.8
H1V32
S-5/0.6-P2-
2 CP 0.40 61.3 212.6 49.1 214.5
H2V32
S-5/0.6-P2-
4 CP 0.50 89.9 269.5 71.9 288.8
H4V32

Note: (1) Total lateral stiffness kl is calculated according to ASTM-E 2124 [14].
(2) Ultimate lateral load Fu is defined as 80% of the peak lateral load Fmax after peak.

(a) Before loading (b) After loading

Figure 5: The numerical model for the specimen S5/0.6-P2-H2V32 (a) before loading and (b) after loading

Table 4: Numerical values of peak lateral load, displacement at peak load and lateral stiffness with their deviations from experimental values

Model No. Peak lateral load ࢿ (%)

Displacement at peak
ࢿ (%)
Lateral stiffness
ࢿ (%)
Fmax (kN) load Δmax (mm) kl (kN/mm)
S-5/0.6-P2-
33.7 7 141.5 9 0.30 16
H1V32
S-5/0.6-P2-
60.7 1 225.8 6 0.34 15
H2V32
S-5/0.6-P2-
91.9 2 278.5 3 0.40 20
H4V32

121 [Link]
 100 100
Testing Testing
90 90
FE modelling FE modelling
80 80
Applied lateral loads (kN)

Applied lateral loads (kN)

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Displacement at the second diaphragm level (mm) Displacement at the second diaphragm level (mm)

(a) S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32 (b) S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32

100
Testing
90
FE modelling
80
Applied lateral loads (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Displacement at the second diaphragm level (mm)

(c) S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32

Figure 6: The comparisons between FE numerical modelling and testing result for the specimens (a) S-5/0.6-P2-H1V32, (b) S-5/0.6-P2-H2V32 and (c)
S-5/0.6-P2-H4V32

10%, while greater deviation (up to 20%) is found for the ultimate failure consistently occurred due to hold-downs
initial stiffness. rupture, which happened prior to the vertical joints
achieving significant inelastic damage, due to the
Such discrepancies ( ߝ ) between the numerical and disparity in their ultimate displacement capacities.
experimental results may be attributed to variability in
material properties, and the use of idealised multi-linear Both coupled-panel (CP) and single-wall (SW) mode
constitutive models to represent the non-linear behaviour behaviours were observed, depending on the relative
of mechanical connectors. Despite these limitations, the stiffness of the connectors. The increase in the number or
overall correlation indicates that the numerical approach stiffness of hold-downs was not linearly proportional to
provides a reasonably accurate prediction of the the overall horizontal resistance of the structure.
structural performance of the tested CLT shear walls.
The numerical model effectively captured the key
5 – CONCLUSION structural behaviours observed in the experiments, with
strong agreement for the peak lateral load and
The experimental investigation of the multi-panel displacement, and slightly greater deviation for the initial
balloon-type CLT shearwall systems provides significant stiffness.
insights into their performance, including the
deformation characteristics, failure mechanisms, and Future research will explore the impact of other factors,
kinematic behaviour. The test results revealed that the including aspect ratio and number of panels.
shearwall primarily underwent rocking motion, and the

[Link] 122
6 – REFERENCES construction methods,” J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 26, no. 7, pp.
3724–3746, 2020, doi:
[1] Z. Chen and M. Popovski. “Mechanics-based 10.1080/13632469.2020.1815609.
analytical models for balloon-type cross-laminated
timber (CLT) shear walls under lateral loads.” [12] X. Zhang, H. Isoda, K. Sumida, Y. Araki, S.
Engineering Structures, vol. 208, 2020, p. 109916. Nakashima, T. Nakagawa, and N. Akiyama, “Seismic
performance of three-story cross-laminated timber
[2] D. Xing, D. Casagrande, and G. Doudak. structures in Japan,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 147, no. 2, p.
“Investigating the deformation characteristics of balloon- 04020319, 2021.
type CLT shearwall.” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2023. [13] ETA-11/0086, RothoBlaas WHT Hold Downs and
Angle Brackets, European Organization for Technical
[3] Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. approval, Denmark, 2018.
National Building Code of Canada 2020. Ottawa:
National Research Council Canada, 2020. [14] M. Mohammad, Y. Zhang, and E. Karacabeyli.
“Experimental investigation of dissipative connections in
[4] CSA Group. CSA O86-19: Engineering Design in cross-laminated timber shearwalls.” Journal of Structural
Wood. Toronto: Canadian Standards Association, 2019. Engineering, vol. 146, no. 4, 2020, p. 04020031.

[5] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode [15] ASTM International, Standard Test Method for
5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-1: General – Static Testing of Framed Vertical Shear Resisting Panels
Common rules and rules for buildings, EN 1995-1-1, Using a Substitution Method, ASTM Standard E2124-20,
Brussels, Belgium: CEN, 2004. 2020.

[6] D. Casagrande, G. Doudak, L. Mauro, and A. Polastri. [16] CSA Group. “CSA O86-19: Engineering design in
“Analytical approach to establish the elastic behaviour of wood.” In: Canadian Standards Association. Toronto
multipanel CLT shear-walls subjected to lateral loads.” (2019).
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 144, no. 2, 2018,
p. 04017210. [17] H. J. Blass and P. Fellmoser, “Design of solid wood
panels with cross-layers,” in Proc. 8th World Conf. on
[7] R. Brandner, G. Flatscher, A. Ringhofer, G. Timber Engineering (WCTE), vol. 14, no. 17.6, 2004, p.
Schickhofer, and A. Thiel, “Cross laminated timber 2004.
(CLT): overview and development,” Eur. J. Wood Wood
Prod., vol. 74, pp. 331–351, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s00107- [18] R. Brandner, P. Dietsch, J. Dröscher, M. Schulte-
015-0999-5. Wrede, H. Kreuzinger, and M. Sieder, “Cross laminated
timber (CLT) diaphragms under shear: test configuration,
[8] M. Izzi, D. Casagrande, S. Bezzi, D. Pasca, M. properties and design,” Construction and Building
Follesa, and R. Tomasi, “Seismic behaviour of cross- Materials, pp. 312–327, 2017, doi:
laminated timber structures: a state-of-the-art review,” 10.1016/[Link].2017.04.153.
Eng. Struct., vol. 170, pp. 42–52, 2018, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2018.05.060.

[9] D. Casagrande, S. Bezzi, G. D’Arenzo, S.

Schwendner, A. Polastri, W. Seim, and M. Piazza, “A
methodology to determine the seismic low-cycle fatigue
strength of timber connections,” Constr. Build. Mater.,
vol. 231, p. 117026, 2020, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2019.117026.

[10] E. Karacabeyli and S. Gagnon, Canadian CLT

Handbook: 2019 Edition, Pointe-Claire, QC:
FPInnovations, 2019.

[11] Z. Li, X. Wang, and M. He, “Experimental and

analytical investigations into lateral performance of
cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls with different

123 [Link]