{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0448099":{"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool":[{"value":"Applied Science, Faculty of","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Engineering, School of (Okanagan)","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"DSpace","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus":[{"value":"UBCO","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Askariani, Seyed Saeed","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2025-02-20T19:58:42Z","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"2025","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree":[{"value":"Master of Applied Science - MASc","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor":[{"value":"University of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings are innovative timber structures constructed exclusively from CLT panels, which serve as both walls and floors, with CLT walls acting as both gravity and lateral load resisting systems. There are two main construction techniques for CLT buildings: platform-type and balloon-type methods. Platform-type construction involves building each floor on top of the walls below, while balloon-type construction features continuous walls that extend from the foundation to the roof with floors attached at each story level. \r\nIn platform-type construction method, CLT shear walls can be built using either single monolithic panels or multiple segmented panels. Under seismic lateral loads, segmented CLT shear walls demonstrate more flexible behavior, effectively dissipating energy through their vertical inter-panel connections, largely due to rocking deformations. In contrast, monolithic CLT shear walls primarily dissipate energy through uplift deformations at their wall base connections. The rocking deformation mechanism in segmented wall panels highlights the need for a deeper understanding of interactions between wall segments and adjacent structural components. However, there remains a limited body of research focused on the effects of floor panels and the detailing of opening areas, which are often neglected in practical design, on the lateral response of segmented CLT shear wall systems.\r\nThis study, therefore, aims to thoroughly investigate the effect of these factors on the lateral response of one- and multi-story segmented CLT shear walls by using four different numerical models that differ in the inclusion of floors, parapets and lintels. The nonlinear behavior of connections is calibrated against existing test data to validate the accuracy of the finite element (FE) models in reproducing the hysteretic behavior of previously tested segmented CLT shear walls. For the purpose of this study, various archetypes differing in height, geometries, wall panel aspect ratios, floor panel bending stiffnesses, and withdrawal stiffnesses of wall-to-floor connections are subjected to monotonic pushover analysis to investigate the key characteristics of their lateral response, such as nonlinear deformation capacity, yielding hierarchy, and failure modes. The results showed that the inclusion of floors, lintels, and parapets, along with variations in wall panel aspect ratios and wall-to-floor connections, significantly influenced the lateral response of segmented CLT shear wall systems.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/90405?expand=metadata","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":"The Effect of Structural Interactions Due to Floors, Parapets and Lintels on the Lateral Response of Segmented Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Shear Walls  by  Seyed Saeed Askariani  B.A.Sc., University of Bojnord, Iran, 2014 M.A.Sc., Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, 2017  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Civil Engineering)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan)  February 2025  \u00a9 Seyed Saeed Askariani, 2025ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled:  The Effect of Structural Interactions Due to Floors, Parapets and Lintels on the Lateral Response of Segmented Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Shear Walls  submitted by Seyed Saeed Askariani in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Applied Science  Dr. Lisa Tobber, School of Engineering Supervisor Dr. Iman Hajirasouliha, University of Sheffield Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Fawad Najam, School of Engineering Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Ian Foulds, School of Engineering University Examiner         iii  Abstract Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings are innovative timber structures constructed exclusively from CLT panels, which serve as both walls and floors, with CLT walls acting as both gravity and lateral load resisting systems. There are two main construction techniques for CLT buildings: platform-type and balloon-type methods. Platform-type construction involves building each floor on top of the walls below, while balloon-type construction features continuous walls that extend from the foundation to the roof with floors attached at each story level.  In platform-type construction method, CLT shear walls can be built using either single monolithic panels or multiple segmented panels. Under seismic lateral loads, segmented CLT shear walls demonstrate more flexible behavior, effectively dissipating energy through their vertical inter-panel connections, largely due to rocking deformations. In contrast, monolithic CLT shear walls primarily dissipate energy through uplift deformations at their wall base connections. The rocking deformation mechanism in segmented wall panels highlights the need for a deeper understanding of interactions between wall segments and adjacent structural components. However, there remains a limited body of research focused on the effects of floor panels and the detailing of opening areas, which are often neglected in practical design, on the lateral response of segmented CLT shear wall systems. This study, therefore, aims to thoroughly investigate the effect of these factors on the lateral response of one- and multi-story segmented CLT shear walls by using four different numerical models that differ in the inclusion of floors, parapets and lintels. The nonlinear behavior of connections is calibrated against existing test data to validate the accuracy of the finite element (FE) models in reproducing the hysteretic behavior of previously tested segmented CLT shear walls. For the purpose of this study, various archetypes differing in height, geometries, wall panel iv  aspect ratios, floor panel bending stiffnesses, and withdrawal stiffnesses of wall-to-floor connections are subjected to monotonic pushover analysis to investigate the key characteristics of their lateral response, such as nonlinear deformation capacity, yielding hierarchy, and failure modes. The results showed that the inclusion of floors, lintels, and parapets, along with variations in wall panel aspect ratios and wall-to-floor connections, significantly influenced the lateral response of segmented CLT shear wall systems.  v  Lay Summary Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings are innovative timber structures built exclusively from CLT panels, a sustainable and innovative building material. These panels serve as both the walls and floors, with CLT walls effectively resisting both gravity and lateral loads. This research investigates how wall segments interact with other parts of CLT buildings, such as floors and structural elements above and below openings, often overlooked in designs, under horizontal earthquake forces. Advanced computer models are used to simulate the behavior of CLT walls in both one- and multi-story cases under earthquake conditions. The study also examines how various building features, such as wall panel sizes, floor panel stiffness and the stiffness of wall-to-floor connections, affect the building's ability to withstand earthquakes. The findings reveal that floors and structural elements around openings, along with panel sizes and connection stiffnesses, significantly influence the behavior of CLT walls. These insights are crucial for designing safer and more efficient timber buildings.  vi  Preface The research presented in this thesis was conducted as part of a collaborative project funded by Aspect Structural Engineers in partnership with Mitacs through the Mitacs Accelerate Program. This thesis follows a manuscript-based format, comprising work that is under review or is in preparation for journal publication: Chapter 3 \u2013 Adapted from S.S. Askariani, F. Najam, M. Popovski, and L. Tobber (2024), \u201cInvestigating Structural Interactions in One-Story Segmented CLT Shear Walls: The Role of Floors, Parapets, and Lintels,\u201d Journal of Building Engineering (under review). Chapter 4 \u2013 Adapted from S.S. Askariani, M. Popovski, and L. Tobber (2025), \u201cThe Effect of Secondary Structural Elements on the Lateral Response of Multi-Story Segmented CLT Shear Walls,\u201d Engineering Structures (submitted). The use of generative AI tools in this thesis was only restricted to improving the grammar and readability of the written work. In all manuscripts included in this thesis, the author of this thesis, S.S. Askariani, is the lead author. The lead author was primarily responsible for numerical modeling, analysis, formal interpretation of results, drafting the manuscripts, and implementing subsequent revisions. These manuscripts were developed with the collaboration and contributions of the following co-authors: - Dr. Lisa Tobber: Provided supervision for all aspects of the research and thesis preparation, secured funding for the project, guided the research methodology, and reviewed and revised all written drafts. - Dr. Fawad Najam: Supervised and contributed to the research in Chapter 3, offering methodological insights and revisions. vii  - Prof. Marjan Popovski: Supported research methodology, contributed to validation of the results, and provided critical revisions for Chapters 3 and 4.  In addition to the main manuscripts listed above, the author of this thesis has also contributed to the conference presentation below: - S.S. Askariani, F. Najam, and L. Tobber (2024), \u201cEvaluation of nonlinear seismic demands of low-rise Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings using simplified analysis methods,\u201d 18th world conference on earthquake engineering (WCEE), Milan, Italy.  Ethics approval was not required for this research as it involved numerical modeling and analytical work, with no involvement of human participants or animal subjects. This thesis is an original contribution to the field of CLT engineering and aims to advance the understanding of structural interactions in segmented CLT shear walls under lateral loading. viii  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................... xix List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xxi Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... xxii Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xxiv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research motivation........................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Research objective .......................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Thesis layout ................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................9 2.1 Cross-laminated timber ................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 CLT shear wall buildings ...................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 CLT shear wall connections.................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Classification of CLT shear walls ......................................................................... 15 2.1.3.1 Classification based on construction method .................................................... 15 ix  2.1.3.2 Classification based on kinematic behavior ...................................................... 16 2.1.3.2.1 Classification based on predominant type of wall deformation.................. 16 2.1.3.2.2 Classification based on panel interaction .................................................... 17 Research background ................................................................................................................ 18 2.2 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter 3: Investigating the Effect of Secondary Structural Elements in One-Story Segmented CLT Shear walls .......................................................................................................47 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 47 3.2 Description of the studied segmented CLT shear walls................................................ 47 3.3 Design assumptions ...................................................................................................... 49 3.4 Numerical models ......................................................................................................... 53 3.5 Numerical modeling validation..................................................................................... 64 3.6 Results and discussions ................................................................................................. 66 3.6.1 Effect of secondary components ........................................................................... 67 3.6.1.1 Impact of secondary components on shear wall strength and deformation capacity 67 3.6.1.2 Impact of secondary components on yielding and failure initiations ............... 71 3.6.1.3 Impact of secondary components on the lateral response of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls ........................................................................................... 74 3.6.1.4 Impact of secondary components on displacement contributions of the wall panels within the studied shear walls ................................................................................ 78 3.6.1.5 Impact of secondary components on the overall behavior of various connections ....................................................................................................................... 83 x  3.6.2 Effect of wall panel aspect ratio ............................................................................ 89 3.6.3 Effect of floor panel bending stiffness .................................................................. 92 3.6.4 Effect of wall-to-floor connections above ............................................................ 92 3.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 95 Chapter 4: Investigating the Effect of Secondary Structural Elements in Multi-Story Segmented CLT Shear walls .......................................................................................................97 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 97 4.2 Description of the index buildings ................................................................................ 97 4.3 Design assumptions .................................................................................................... 100 4.4 Numerical models ....................................................................................................... 102 4.5 Results and discussions ............................................................................................... 107 4.5.1 Effect of secondary components ......................................................................... 107 4.5.1.1 Impact of secondary components on shear wall strength and deformation capacity 107 4.5.1.2 Impact of secondary components on yielding and failure initiations ............. 112 4.5.1.3 Impact of secondary components on the lateral response of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes .......................................................................................... 117 4.5.1.4 Impact of secondary components on displacement contributions of the wall panels within the studied shear walls .............................................................................. 120 4.5.1.5 Impact of secondary components on the overall behavior of various connections ..................................................................................................................... 124 4.5.2 Effect of wall panel aspect ratio .......................................................................... 138 4.5.3 Effect of floor panel bending stiffness ................................................................ 139 xi  4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 141 Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion and Future Work .............................................................144 5.1 Summary and conclusion ............................................................................................ 144 5.2 Limitations and future work........................................................................................ 147 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................149  xii  List of Tables Table 2.1 Summary of research studies investigating the effect of structural interactions due to secondary structural elements on the lateral response of CLT shear walls (continued) ............... 45 Table 3.1 Range of the studied parameters for development of the studied models .................... 48 Table 3.2 Mechanical properties of connections .......................................................................... 53 Table 3.3 Required number of screws for different connections in the studied CLT shear walls 54 Table 3.4 Material models of springs employed in numerical models ......................................... 59 Table 3.5 Calibrated parameters of SAWS material model for the connections .......................... 66 Table 3.6 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of the studied shear walls simulated using different models with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm ............................................................ 68 Table 3.7 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of shear walls with geometry 2, with different screw spacing at wall-to-floor connections above, for a floor panel thickness of 175 mm....................................................................................................................................................... 94 Table 4.1 Range of the design parameters for development of the archetype models ................. 99 Table 4.2 Range of the design parameters for development of the archetype models ............... 100 Table 4.3 Required number of screws for different connections in the studied archetypes ....... 102 Table 4.4 Distribution of CLT wall panels and their thickness along the height of the studied archetypes ................................................................................................................................... 102 Table 4.5 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of the studied archetypes, simulated using different models with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm .......................................................... 108  xiii  List of Figures Figure 2.1 Cross-laminated timber ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2.2 Different CLT structural system .................................................................................. 12 Figure 2.3 Typical wall-to-floor\/foundation connections [25] ..................................................... 13 Figure 2.4 Typical panel-to-panel connections ............................................................................. 14 Figure 2.5 Different CLT shear walls ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.6 Deflection components of a single CLT wall panel .................................................... 17 Figure 2.7 Different kinematic behaviors recognized for multi-panel CLT shear walls .............. 18 Figure 2.8 Configurations of CLT wall panels tested by Dujic et al. [37] ................................... 20 Figure 2.9 Pushover curves of CLT wall panels tested by Dujic et al. [37] ................................. 21 Figure 2.10 CLT wall specimens tested by Dujic et al. [40] ........................................................ 22 Figure 2.11 Configurations of CLT wall elements tested by Ceccotti et al. [43] ......................... 23 Figure 2.12 Configurations of the three-story CLT shear wall building tested in SOFIE project [11] ................................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 2.13 The seven-story CLT shear wall building tested in SOFIE project [12] ................... 25 Figure 2.14 Configurations of CLT wall panels tested by Popovski et al. [46] ........................... 27 Figure 2.15 The effect of presence of vertical load on the hysteresis curve of CLT wall panels tested by Popovski et al. [46] ........................................................................................................ 27 Figure 2.16 The two-story CLT shear wall building tested by Popovski and Gavric [13] ........... 29 Figure 2.17 Brittle local failure occurred in the corner of door opening on the first story [13] ... 30 Figure 2.18 Rocking of wall elements with partial embedment in floor panels and out-of-plane bending of the floor panels [13] .................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2.19 Exterior view of the building with monolithic CLT wall panels [14] ....................... 31 xiv  Figure 2.20 Failure modes observed in experimental tests conducted by Yasumura et al. [14]; (a) crack at the corner of an opening in the building with monolithic shear wall panels, (b) bending failure of floor panel in the building with segmented shear wall panels ...................................... 31 Figure 2.21 Force-displacement relationships for the shear and axial components of the springs [15] ................................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 2.22 Numerical models developed by D\u2019Arenzo et al. [17] .............................................. 36 Figure 2.23 Numerical models developed by Ruggeri et al. [20] ................................................. 39 Figure 2.24 Position of perpendicular walls with respect to the shear walls studied by Ruggeri et al. [21] ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 2.25 Configurations of CLT wall assemblies tested by Ruggeri et al. [22] ...................... 41 Figure 2.26 CLT wall system geometries tested by D'Arenzo et al. [23] (dimensions in mm) .... 43 Figure 3.1 Studied segmented CLT shear walls with different geometries and wall panel aspect ratios (units in m) .......................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.2 The kinematic model used in this study for the design of CLT shear walls ............... 50 Figure 3.3 Primary and secondary loading directions for the adopted connections in the studied CLT shear walls ............................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 3.4 Schematic representation of Model I ........................................................................... 55 Figure 3.5 Schematic representation of Model II ......................................................................... 56 Figure 3.6 Schematic representation of Model III ........................................................................ 57 Figure 3.7 Schematic representation of Model IV ........................................................................ 57 Figure 3.8 General force-displacement curve of SAWS material model [57] .............................. 61 Figure 3.9 Comparison of the connection test and FE analysis results ........................................ 65 Figure 3.10 Comparison of the wall tests conducted by Pan et al. [54] and FE analysis results .. 66 xv  Figure 3.11 The effect of secondary structural elements on the pushover curve of the studied segmented CLT shear walls simulated using different models .................................................... 68 Figure 3.12 Deformed shape of the studied shear wall models with geometry 2 at their maximum lateral strength point (Deformation scale factor = 3.0) ................................................................. 69 Figure 3.13 Deformed shape of shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in the floor elements at the end of analysis (Deformation scale factor = 2.0) ................................................................................................... 74 Figure 3.14 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls with moderate aspect ratio panels ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 3.15 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls with high aspect ratio panels ................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 3.16 Displacement components of the shear wall system corresponding to the highlighted wall panel ...................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 3.17 Displacement contributions within the studied shear walls with moderate aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point ........................................................................................ 81 Figure 3.18 Displacement contributions within the studied shear walls with high aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point ........................................................................................ 82 Figure 3.19 Identification of connections in the shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Figure 3.20 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels ............................................................. 85 Figure 3.21 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels....................................................................... 86 xvi  Figure 3.22 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels ............................................................. 87 Figure 3.23 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their secondary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels................................................. 88 Figure 3.24 The effect of wall panel aspect ratio on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls ............................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 3.25 The effect of floor panel bending stiffness on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls with geometry 2 ............................................................................... 92 Figure 3.26 The effect of STSs spacing at wall-to-floor connections above on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls with geometry 2 ........................................................ 94 Figure 4.1 Typical floor plan and extracted wall lines of the studied building (units in m)......... 98 Figure 4.2 Elevation view of 4-story studied archetypes (units in m) .......................................... 99 Figure 4.3 Schematic representation of Model I ......................................................................... 103 Figure 4.4 Schematic representation of Model II ....................................................................... 104 Figure 4.5 Schematic representation of Model III ...................................................................... 105 Figure 4.6 Schematic representation of Model IV ...................................................................... 106 Figure 4.7 The effect of secondary structural elements on the pushover curve of the studied archetypes simulated using different models .............................................................................. 108 Figure 4.8 Deformed shape of the 4-story archetypes at their maximum lateral strength point (Deformation scale factor = 4.0) (continued) ............................................................................. 109 Figure 4.9 Deformed shape of the 6-story shear wall model II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in its floor elements at the end of the analysis (Deformation scale factor = 4.0) ................................................................................... 115 xvii  Figure 4.10 Force-displacement curves of different stories within the studied 4-story archetypes..................................................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 4.11 Identification of panels and coupled walls in the studied shear walls ..................... 117 Figure 4.12 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes with moderate aspect ratio panels ....................................................................................................... 118 Figure 4.13 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes with high aspect ratio panels ............................................................................................................... 119 Figure 4.14 Displacement contributions within the 4-story studied archetypes with moderate aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point .................................................................. 122 Figure 4.15 Displacement contributions within the 4-story studied archetypes with high aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point ............................................................................. 123 Figure 4.16 Identification of connections in the shear walls with low aspect ratio panels......... 125 Figure 4.17 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I ........................................ 126 Figure 4.18 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II ...................................... 127 Figure 4.19 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III ..................................... 128 Figure 4.20 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV ..................................... 129 Figure 4.21 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I ................................................. 130 xviii  Figure 4.22 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II ............................................... 131 Figure 4.23 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III .............................................. 132 Figure 4.24 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV .............................................. 133 Figure 4.25 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I .................................... 134 Figure 4.26 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II ................................... 135 Figure 4.27 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III .................................. 136 Figure 4.28 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV ................................. 137 Figure 4.29 The effect of wall panel aspect ratio on the lateral response of the studied archetypes..................................................................................................................................................... 140 Figure 4.30 The effect of floor panel bending stiffness on the lateral response of the studied archetypes analyzed using Model II ........................................................................................... 141  xix  List of Symbols \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f Factored rocking resistance of moderately ductile CLT shear walls under lateral loads \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f Factored rocking moment resistance of segmented CLT shear walls due to seismic action \ud835\udc3b Height of the shear wall \ud835\udc4f Length of CLT panels within the CLT shear walls \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc48 Uplift contribution factor \ud835\udc5a Number of CLT panels in the coupled CLT shear walls \ud835\udc5e Total factored dead load applied at the top of the CLT shear walls \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e Number of fasteners in a hold-down connection \ud835\udc5f\u210e Factored tensile resistance of each fastener in a hold-down connection \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63 Number of fasteners in a vertical joint \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63 Factored shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint \ud835\udc58\u210e Elastic stiffness of each fastener in the uplift direction of a hold-down connection \ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63 Elastic shear stiffness of each fastener in a vertical connection \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,15 15th percentile of the peak shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc65 Required factored resistance of a shear connection in the horizontal direction \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,30 Rocking moment resistance corresponding to \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,30 due to seismic action \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53 Factored rocking moment acting on the shear wall due to seismic action \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc60 Factored horizontal load on shear connections due to seismic action \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63.30 30th percentile of the peak shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56 Story over-capacity coefficient at the ith story \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56+1 Story over-capacity coefficient at the i+1th story \ud835\udc41\ud835\udc56 Number of CLT shear walls which are part of the lateral load resisting system that are parallel to lateral load at the ith story \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57 Factored rocking moment acting on the jth shear wall due to lateral load at the ith story \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,95,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57 Rocking moment resistance corresponding to \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,95 under lateral loads for the jth shear wall at the ith story \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc66 Yield strength of the connections \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc66 Yield displacement of the connections \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc62 Ultimate displacement of the connections xx  \ud835\udc38\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 Effective Young\u2019s modulus \ud835\udc380 Young\u2019s modulus parallel to grain \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 Total thickness of vertical layers \ud835\udc51 Thickness of CLT panel \ud835\udc34\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 Effective area under compression in the floor element \ud835\udc3890 Elastic modulus of the floor in the direction perpendicular to the grain \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 Effective length of the floor panel \ud835\udc3c\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 Effective moment of inertia \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56 Thickness of each layer \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc56 Distance of each layer from the centroid of the section \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc53 Length of the floor \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc53 Lateral displacement of CLT shear walls \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc53\u2212\ud835\udc64 Horizontal sliding between the floor panel and the wall panel \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5f,\ud835\udc64 Horizontal displacement due to rocking deformation of the wall panel \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc64\u2212\ud835\udc4f Horizontal sliding between the wall panel and the base \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc61 Horizontal displacement of the top toe of the wall panel \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc4f Horizontal displacement of the bottom toe of the wall panel  xxi  List of Abbreviations CLT Cross-Laminated Timber SW Single Shear Wall SW+PW Shear Wall + Perpendicular Wall MOE Modulus of Elasticity SFRS Seismic force-resisting system HDs Hold-downs SPs Splines SBs Shear brackets STSs Self-tapping screws NTHA Nonlinear time history analysis NSPs nonlinear static procedures  xxii  Acknowledgements First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Lisa Tobber, for her invaluable guidance and support throughout my master\u2019s program. Her mentorship, generosity, and unwavering support during even the most challenging times have profoundly enhanced my professional, personal, and technical skills. These lessons will stay with me for a lifetime, and for that, I am eternally grateful. I am particularly thankful for her continued support during her maternity leave. Her patience and belief in my abilities have been instrumental in maintaining my calm and focus.  I extend my thanks to my committee members, Dr. Iman Hajirasouliha and Dr. Fawad Najam, for their technical insights and constructive feedback that significantly shaped my research journey. A special thank you to Dr. Fawad Najam for his mentorship during my program. I also appreciate Dr. Marjan Popovski for his contributions to my research, which are greatly valued. I am also grateful to all the members of the ASSET Group, especially Mahya and Mohammad, for offering both friendship and technical guidance. I gratefully acknowledge the funding support provided by Aspect Structural Engineers in collaboration with Mitacs through the Mitacs Accelerate program. I also extend my thanks to Aspect Structural Engineers for supplying experimental data and offering initial insights into the practical design of CLT shear wall buildings. A heartfelt thank you goes to one of my best friends, Hadi Hosseini, for your initial assistance with MATLAB coding for post-processing, which greatly facilitated my work. To my lifelong friend, Hadi Tahmasebi, thank you for guiding me on how to learn the OpenSees software, a crucial tool for completing my thesis. xxiii  Most importantly, I wish to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support throughout this journey. To my best friend and beloved wife, Narges, your companionship and encouragement have been my cornerstone. Thank you for your endless support over the last eight years; your presence by my side has kept me motivated and at peace. Words cannot fully express my gratitude. To my parents, Seyed Hamid Askariani and Roya Naseri Moghadam, your enduring love and the values you have instilled in me\u2014hard work and honesty\u2014are treasures I will carry forever. Your sacrifices have shaped who I am today, and for that, I am profoundly thankful. To my father-in-law and mother-in-law, Aliakbar Solimanian and Fariba Bahmanyar, thank you for supporting and believing in my success throughout these years. Finally, to my friends, thank you for the laughter and memories we have shared during this period. While I can never fully repay your kindness, I hope to show how much I value and appreciate each of you. xxiv  Dedication   To my beloved wife, Narges, Your unwavering love, encouragement, and sacrifices have been my guiding light throughout this journey. This thesis is a testament to your enduring support, patience, and belief in my dreams. I am forever grateful to have you by my side.  1  Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Wood has long been an important material in the construction industry due to its architecturally favored properties, adequate tension and compression strength and ease of assembly [1]. In recent years, however, it has become even more appealing as a construction material for building structures due to its low carbon footprint, reduced embodied energy, and minimal emission of harmful pollutants [2, 3]. Additionally, prefabrication techniques and the lightweight nature of wood construction offer significant advantages, including faster construction times and increased efficiency. These attributes collectively make wood an attractive option for building structures in a world that increasingly values sustainability and resilience. However, the inhomogeneous nature of wood, with variability in its mechanical properties due to factors like knots and growth conditions, presents challenges for engineers. To minimize these variations, caused by the presence of knots and variations in growing conditions, a new class of wood products was developed namely \u201cEngineered wood products\u201d. The production of engineered wood products, such as Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), Glued-Laminated Timber (GLT), Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), which have improved strength and dimensional stability and durability comparable to that of steel and concrete, has also strengthened the use of timber in building construction [1, 4]. Two main types of construction methods are currently used for low- to mid-rise timber buildings in North America. The first method is the traditional light-frame building construction, which involves the assembly of a basic timber frame with sheathing, typically made of oriented strand boards or gypsum fiber boards, and connecting the two parts with nails or staples. The second one is the more recent development of massive wood construction with CLT. CLT is a leading 2  engineered wood product, composed of several layers of kiln-dried lumber boards arranged orthogonally and bonded together. This configuration not only improves the structural performance of the material but also expands its application to taller and more complex building designs, particularly in seismic regions. CLT is primarily utilized as load-bearing plate components in building structures, including walls, floors, and roofs [5]. Several notable buildings worldwide have been constructed using CLT, showcasing the potential of this material. For example, the Brock Commons Tallwood House in Vancouver, Canada, stands 18 stories tall and is one of the tallest mass timber buildings globally [6]. The Stadthaus at 24 Murray Grove in London, UK, was one of the first tall residential buildings made entirely from CLT, standing nine stories high [7]. The Forte building in Melbourne, Australia, rises 10 stories and was the world\u2019s tallest CLT building when it was completed [8]. The Limnologen Project in V\u00e4xj\u00f6, Sweden, is a complex of four eight-story residential buildings that exemplifies the use of CLT in multi-family housing [9]. Additionally, the Dalston Works building in London, UK, is the largest CLT building by volume, incorporating over 3,800 cubic meters of CLT [10]. With the introduction of CLT to the North American construction market and the trend of increasing urbanization, it is viewed as a promising option for mid-rise condominiums, commercial buildings, and mixed-use structures in seismic regions [5]. However, there are several unexplored aspects and details regarding the seismic behavior of these buildings that remain unaddressed in existing design codes, hindering the widespread adoption of CLT. Therefore, it is essential that future research focuses on addressing these gaps to facilitate the integration of CLT into standard construction practices and to ensure its reliable performance in seismic zones.  3  1.2 Research motivation The seismic performance of CLT lateral systems has received significant attention in the past decade, despite being introduced over 20 years ago. Initially developed in Europe for low-seismic regions, studies on the behavior of CLT under cyclic and dynamic loading have since grown, particularly in Europe, North America, and Japan. These research studies aim to ensure the safety and resilience of CLT buildings under seismic excitations. As part of this effort, numerous experimental investigations have explored the seismic performance of full-scale CLT shear wall buildings. The primary results of these experimental investigations highlighted the excellent structural performance of CLT buildings, with failures and energy dissipation primarily occurring at the wall base and vertical panel-to-panel connections [11-14]. Additionally, the results revealed the embedment of shear walls into floor panels and bending failure of floor elements themselves, particularly in opening areas [13, 14]. This has prompted numerous research studies aimed at investigating the effects of structural interactions caused by secondary structural elements, such as floors, parapets, lintels, and perpendicular walls, on the lateral response of CLT shear wall systems. Tamagnone et al. [15] studied the influence of floor diaphragm and wall-to-floor diaphragm joints on the rocking behavior of two-panel CLT shear wall assemblies. The results revealed that floor bending stiffness had minimal influence, while wall-to-floor diaphragm connections significantly affected the assembly behavior. Stiff connections led to uncoupled behavior, with increased wall-foundation slip displacements noted for specific conditions. Differences in rocking capacity between assemblies with and without floor diaphragm were more significant under higher axial loads, looser joints, and stiffer wall-to-floor connections. Casagrande et al. [16] conducted an experimental study on the mechanical performance of CLT shear walls with door and window openings, testing six different monolithic wall configurations. 4  These configurations varied in the number of CLT layers, lintel lengths, hold-down arrangements, and types of openings. Hold-down arrangements included a double hold-down configuration with anchors at both ends of each wall segment and a single hold-down configuration with anchors only at the ends of the shear wall. Results revealed brittle failures in CLT lintel beams due to bending or net shear at lintel ends, while mechanical anchors primarily failed due to tensile rupture of the steel plates, particularly at the bottom row of nails. Short lintels exhibited shear failures, whereas long lintels failed in bending. Walls with door openings demonstrated greater deformation than those with window openings. D\u2019Arenzo et al. [17] studied the effect of floor-to-wall interaction on the lateral behavior of two-panel segmented CLT shear walls. They introduced a validated analytical elastic model that accounts for floor-to-wall interaction and calculates transverse displacements and internal forces along the floor. This model was verified against numerical models developed in SAP2000 and was used to define an equivalent spring between adjacent wall panels, simplifying the complex phenomenon of floor-to-wall interactions. Results highlighted the significant impact of floor-to-wall interaction, enhancing the rocking stiffness of segmented shear-walls and altering the kinematic behavior of the shear-wall from coupled to single-coupled in some cases. Results also indicated that the presence of floor elements and floor-to-wall connections below provided additional stiffness, reducing the relative displacements between adjacent wall panels. In a follow-up study by D\u2019Arenzo and Seim [18], the analytical model and simplified strategy for considering the floor-to-wall interaction in segmented CLT shear walls, proposed by D\u2019Arenzo et al. [17], was further validated using three-panel segmented CLT shear walls. The findings revealed that floor-to-wall interaction enhances the rocking stiffness of the wall system. This enhancement 5  is mainly influenced by the stiffness of the floor-to-wall connections and is affected by the width of the wall panels. Khajepour et al. [19] investigated the effect of lintels and parapets on the lateral response of multi-story CLT shear walls using numerical models. Their study revealed that monolithic walls had higher strength and stiffness compared to segmented walls. The presence of parapets and lintels significantly influenced structural performance, with parapets taller than 0.4 meters improving lateral strength and stiffness. In two-story walls, shear failure in connectors was dominant, while hold-down failures were more common in taller shear wall frames. The inclusion of parapets shifted failure modes, leading to more ductile behavior in the system. Ruggeri et al. [20] investigated the effects of the structural interactions due to floors and lintels on the lateral response of multi-story platform-type CLT frames using nonlinear pushover analyses. The study assumed the construction of CLT frames with monolithic panels, explicitly excluding vertical connections between CLT panels (no multi-panel CLT shear walls were considered in the construction of studied frames). Results indicated the strong influence of the structural interactions due to floors and lintels, particularly floors, on the lateral response of multi-story CLT systems, indicating their ability to modify the deformation mechanism of the system. Ruggeri et al. [21] conducted a numerical study to investigate the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls. Two primary configurations were analyzed: single shear walls (SW) without perpendicular walls and shear walls connected to perpendicular walls (SW+PW). The study introduced two analytical models that account for wall base connections, including hold-downs and angle brackets, as well as the contribution of connections between shear walls and perpendicular walls. Results demonstrated that the interaction between shear walls and perpendicular walls increases rocking stiffness, lateral strength, and modifies the overall rocking 6  behavior. The study highlighted that perpendicular walls positioned on the tensile side of shear walls contribute more effectively to lateral performance. The findings emphasize the need to consider such interactions in CLT design to improve seismic resilience. Ruggeri et al. [22] conducted an experimental study to evaluate the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral performance of CLT shear walls by comparing an isolated single (i.e., monolithic) wall panel (SW) with a configuration where the wall was connected to a perpendicular wall (SW+PW). The SW+PW configuration demonstrated higher lateral strength, greater deformation capacity, and increased energy dissipation compared to the isolated wall configuration, as the perpendicular wall served as an additional hold-down, enhancing the lateral response and damping capacity. In a similar experimental investigation, D'Arenzo et al. [23] further explored the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of monolithic CLT shear walls by incorporating different wall panel aspect ratios (height to width). Their study confirmed that the presence of perpendicular walls significantly increased lateral stiffness, load capacity, and energy dissipation. Additionally, the results indicated that walls with high panel aspect ratios primarily exhibited rocking behavior, while those with low panel aspect ratios experienced more sliding.  Despite the established knowledge from prior experimental and numerical research at building and shear wall levels highlighting the contribution of structural interactions due to secondary structural elements on the lateral response of CLT shear wall buildings, there are limited research studies available that predominantly investigate the effects of interactions due to floors, parapets and lintels specifically on the lateral response of multi-panel single-story and multi-story segmented CLT shear walls.  7  1.3 Research objective This thesis aims to systematically evaluate the effects of structural interactions due to floors, parapets, and lintels on the lateral response of multi-panel single-story and multi-story segmented CLT shear walls. A comprehensive numerical study will be conducted to investigate these effects with the following specific objectives: \u2022 Investigate the effects of secondary structural elements on the lateral response of single-story CLT wall systems, \u2022 Explore the effects of secondary structural elements on the lateral response of multi-story CLT wall systems, \u2022 Assess the effects of wall panel aspect ratios, floor panel bending stiffness, vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections above on the lateral response of CLT segmented shear walls, \u2022 Investigate key characteristics of the lateral response of CLT shear wall systems, including inelastic deformation capacities, yielding hierarchies, failure modes, and the demands on shear and bending of floor diaphragms.  1.4 Thesis layout This thesis follows a manuscript-based format, including works that have been published, are currently under review, or are being prepared for submission to journals: Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter serves as an introduction to the research, providing the motivation and main purpose of the research. It outlines the structure and content of the subsequent chapters, providing an overview of the topics to be covered.  8  Chapter 2: Literature review This chapter provides an overview of the characteristics and classifications of CLT shear wall systems. It also reviews past experimental and numerical studies that have focused on analyzing the seismic behavior of CLT shear walls and buildings. Chapter 3: Investigating the effect of secondary structural elements in one-story segmented CLT shear walls Adapted from S.S. Askariani, F. Najam, M. Popovski, and L. Tobber (2024), \u201cInvestigating Structural Interactions in One-Story Segmented CLT Shear Walls: The Role of Floors, Parapets, and Lintels,\u201d Journal of Building Engineering (under review). Chapter 4: Investigating the effect of secondary structural elements in multi-story segmented CLT shear walls Adapted from S.S. Askariani, M. Popovski, and L. Tobber (2025), \u201cThe Effect of Secondary Structural Elements on the Lateral Response of Multi-Story Segmented CLT Shear Walls,\u201d Engineering Structures (submitted). Chapter 5: Conclusions  Conclusions drawn from the study, along with recommendations for future research and potential applications in the design and construction of CLT buildings. 9  Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter delves into the fundamental characteristics of CLT panels and classifications of CLT shear wall systems and buildings, with a particular focus on their seismic behavior. Following this, the chapter presents a comprehensive review of both experimental and numerical studies that have explored the seismic performance of CLT systems, as well as the influence of additional structural elements on the lateral response of CLT shear wall systems. 2.1 Cross-laminated timber CLT is an innovative engineered wood product that was first developed in Austria in the early 1990s. CLT panels are created by laminating multiple layers of solid-sawn lumber boards in a crosswise orientation, bonded together with structural adhesives (Figure 2.1). This cross-lamination process provides the panels with excellent structural rigidity and stability in both directions. Prefabricated CLT panels can be as large as up to 19.5 m by 3.5 m (height by width), depending on the manufacturer, making them suitable for a variety of construction applications [24].  Figure 2.1 Cross-laminated timber 10   CLT is primarily utilized as load-bearing plate components in building structures, including walls, floors, and roofs. The panels typically consist of an odd number of layers, ranging from three to seven, and can sometimes have even more layers depending on the specific engineering requirements. The crosswise orientation of the layers enhances the panel's strength and performance, allowing it to handle significant loads and resist deformation [24]. In special cases, double outer laminations may be parallel rather than alternating crosswise. This customization can be beneficial for specific applications where enhanced strength in a particular direction is required. The versatility and performance of CLT make it an attractive option for sustainable construction, as it combines the natural advantages of wood with modern engineering techniques [24]. CLT's development has revolutionized the construction industry, particularly in the field of mass timber construction. It offers a renewable and environmentally friendly alternative to traditional building materials such as steel and concrete. The use of CLT contributes to reduced carbon emissions and promotes sustainable forestry practices. Furthermore, CLT buildings often have faster construction times due to the prefabrication of panels, which can lead to cost savings and reduced on-site labor [24]. The adoption of CLT is growing globally, driven by its structural benefits, environmental advantages, and the increasing demand for sustainable building solutions. Research and development continue to enhance the properties and applications of CLT, ensuring its place as a key material in the future of construction.  11  2.1.1 CLT shear wall buildings CLT shear wall buildings can be constructed using two types of construction: (a) platform-type, and (b) balloon-type. Platform-frame construction, as shown in Figure 2.2(a), is the most commonly used structural system in CLT wall buildings, especially multi-story buildings. In this method, floor panels are placed directly on top of wall panels, forming a base for the upper story. Platform framing offers simple connection systems, well-defined load paths, and fast and easy erection of stories. However, one of the disadvantages of this type of framing is the accumulation of compression perpendicular to the grain [24]. In contrast, balloon-type construction utilizes continuous CLT walls throughout the height of the structure, with floor panels connected to the walls at each story level, as shown in Figure 2.2(b). This method eliminates the issue of compression perpendicular to the grain. Balloon framing is often used in low-rise, commercial, or industrial buildings due to the length limitations of the CLT panels and other design and construction constraints. In balloon construction, each shear wall bears all the loads along the building height and transfers them to the foundation, resulting in more complex connection requirements. Additionally, a significant disadvantage of balloon-type construction is the shortage of design guidelines, which can complicate the design and implementation process [24]. 2.1.2 CLT shear wall connections Due to the minor in-plane deformation of CLT panels and their inherent lack of ductility, the role of connections is crucial in maintaining the structural integrity of CLT buildings. These connections are essential for providing strength, stiffness, stability, ductility, and energy   12    (a) Platform-type CLT shear wall building (b) Balloon-type CLT shear wall building Figure 2.2 Different CLT structural system  dissipation. Effective connections are fundamental for ensuring that the overall structure performs well under various loads and environmental conditions. The structural efficiency of floor diaphragms and shear walls heavily relies on the fastening systems and connection details used to link individual panels and assemblies [24]. Mechanical connections, which include bolts, screws, brackets, and other hardware, are used to join two or more structural elements. In CLT shear wall buildings, mechanical connections are vital at several critical junctions: wall-to-foundation, wall-to-floor below, panel-to-panel (including floor-to-floor and wall-to-wall), and wall-to-floor above. Each type of connection must be designed to handle specific forces and load conditions to ensure the stability and performance of the building [24].   Wall-to-foundation and wall-to-floor below connections are commonly achieved using shear brackets and hold-downs. Shear brackets are usually placed in the middle of CLT panels to resist horizontal shear forces, while hold-downs are located at the lower corners of CLT walls to resist Concrete floorWall-foundation connectionsCLT floorCLT floorCLT wallFloor-wall connectionsConcrete floorWall-foundation connectionsCLT floorCLT floorCLT wallFloor-wall connections13  uplift forces. Figure 2.3 shows some typical hold-downs and shear brackets commonly used in CLT platform-type shear wall buildings [24].      (a) Hold-downs (b) Shear brackets Figure 2.3 Typical wall-to-floor\/foundation connections [25] Figure 2.4 illustrates some typical panel-to-panel connections found in CLT buildings: (a) single surface spline, (b) internal spline, (c) half-lap joint, and (d) simple butt joint. A spline is a type of connection used in CLT construction that involves additional strips of lumber, known as splines, to join the panels together. Therefore, space for the spline must be precisely profiled during the prefabrication process. A single surface spline is a type of spline connection that is visible on one side of CLT panels. The spline\/strip is inserted into a groove or channel that is cut into the surface and edge of panels, and is secured using self-tapping screws, wood screws, or nails. The spline\/strip can be made up of plywood, structural composite lumber, lumber or even thin versions of CLT. Although the fasteners work in single-shear, designers and builders still prefer this connection due to its simplicity. An internal spline is a type of spline connection that is completely accommodated within the thickness of CLT panels. The spline\/strip is inserted into a groove or channel that is cut into the center and edge of panels, and is typically secured using self-tapping screws, wood screws or nails. Loading in double shear, fasteners improve the lateral resistance of this connection. The half-lap joint is another type of in-plane connection used in CLT structures. 14  In this joint, CLT panels are overlapped and notched to create a flush joint. The overlapping area of each panel is typically cut to half the thickness of the panel, which is why it is called a \"half-lap\" joint. Although this is a straightforward connection that enables rapid assembly, there is a risk of the cross-section splitting due to the concentration of perpendicular-to-grain tension stresses in the notched area. A simple butt joint is a type of panel-to-panel connection, where the end-to-end joining is accomplished by driving screws with a double inclination. This joint is relatively easy to construct and does not require additional machining of the CLT panels, which can result in cost savings. However, the strength of the joint depends on the quality of the panels and the fasteners used, so proper design and construction techniques are essential for creating a durable and long-lasting connection [24].   (a) Single surface spline (b) Internal spline   (c) Half-lap joint (d) Simple butt joint Figure 2.4 Typical panel-to-panel connections Wall-to-foundation and wall-to-floor below connections, which prevent rocking and sliding of walls by transferring tension and shear forces, as well as wall-to-wall connections, which prevent relative sliding between adjacent wall panels, should be designed to accommodate all non-linear 15  deformations and energy dissipation in moderately ductile platform-type CLT structures. However, all other connections, including connections between roof\/floors and walls below, connections between perpendicular walls, and connections between floor panels, should be classified as non-dissipative. These connections should be designed to remain elastic under loading conditions. Their primary purpose is to provide structural stability without undergoing significant deformation or energy dissipation [26]. 2.1.3 Classification of CLT shear walls 2.1.3.1 Classification based on construction method In platform-type CLT buildings, CLT shear walls can be classified based on their construction method. These walls can be constructed using either monolithic panels or multiple segmented panels. Monolithic or single-panel CLT shear walls are single, continuous shear walls that offer a solid structural element with consistent behavior across the entire wall, as shown in Figure 2.5(a). On the other hand, multi-panel CLT shear walls, illustrated in Figure 2.5(b), are composed of multiple segmented panels connected through vertical panel-to-panel connections. Segmented shear walls exhibit more flexible behavior and can dissipate a higher amount of energy due to the contribution of vertical connections, in contrast to monolithic CLT shear walls. The increased flexibility and energy dissipation of segmented shear walls make them suitable for applications where enhanced dynamic performance is required, such as in areas prone to seismic activity. Therefore, the selection of monolithic or segmented panels is influenced not only by factors such as assembly ease and transportation considerations but also by seismic performance requirements. However, standardized guidelines for openings in CLT shear walls have not yet been established. In practice, several approaches are used for the sections below openings (parapets) and above 16  openings (lintels), including: (a) using a single monolithic wall panel with openings that are not part of the seismic force resisting system (SFRS) for ease of construction, (b) incorporating separate CLT elements as parapets and lintels, and (c) adopting platform framing with negligible in-plane stiffness for the parapets and lintels.    (a) Monolithic CLT shear walls (b) Segmented CLT shear walls Figure 2.5 Different CLT shear walls 2.1.3.2 Classification based on kinematic behavior CLT shear walls can be also classified based on their kinematic behavior. The first classification is based on the predominant lateral deformation component, while the second focuses on the degree of interaction between adjacent wall panels connected by a vertical screwed joint. These classifications are explained in detail in the following subsections [27]. 2.1.3.2.1 Classification based on predominant type of wall deformation The total top displacement \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc61 of a single CLT wall element is a sum of four components [Eq. (1)]: rocking \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5f, sliding \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc59, shear \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60\u210e, and bending  deformation \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc4f (see Figure 2.6). \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc61 = \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5f  +  \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc59  +  \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60\u210e  +  \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc4f  (1)  Hold-downsShear bracketsWall-to-floor connectionsVertical connectionsShear bracketsHold-downsWall-to-floor connections17      (a) Rocking (b) Sliding (c) Shear (d) Bending Figure 2.6 Deflection components of a single CLT wall panel Previous research studies performed on CLT wall systems indicated that the seismic performance and energy dissipation capability of CLT wall systems are heavily dependent on the detailing and properties of the connections. Results also indicated that the CLT walls show minor in-plane deformations (shear and bending distortion) and act almost like rigid bodies, while the connections provide all the ductility and the energy dissipation [13, 28-33]. Therefore, three possible cases of predominant deformation behavior, including (1) rocking behavior, (2) combined rocking-sliding behavior, and (3) sliding behavior, were proposed by Gavric et al. [27] for a single CLT wall panel. 2.1.3.2.2 Classification based on panel interaction Depending on the behavior of the vertical joints between the adjacent wall panels, three different kinematic behaviors can be recognized [27]: (1) coupled wall behavior, when the vertical connections are designed to yield and dissipate energy (see Figure 2.7(a)); (2) single wall behavior, when relatively stiff vertical connections with high yield strength are used (see Figure 2.7(b)); (3) combined single-coupled wall behavior, when an intermediate behavior is observed (see Figure 2.7(c)). F F F F18    (a) Coupled-panel kinematic behavior (b) Single wall kinematic behavior  (c) Intermediate kinematic behavior Figure 2.7 Different kinematic behaviors recognized for multi-panel CLT shear walls Research background Given the wealth of research in this field, this section discusses the details and outcomes of selected key research programs that have greatly contributed to understanding behavior of CLT shear walls and buildings under lateral loads and to determining seismic behavior factors and codifying this new system. An extensive research program was carried out at the University of Ljubljana to explore the lateral behavior of CLT wall panels, with partial support from KLH Massiveholz GmbH [30, 34-36]. The project aimed to assess the behavior of CLT shear wall panels subjected to a constant vertical load in combination with either pushover or cyclic loading. The study explored several factors, including boundary conditions, the magnitude of vertical loads, and different anchoring systems. F FF19  Three specific boundary conditions were evaluated, where in the first scenario, the top of the CLT wall was allowed to both translate and rotate; in the second one, translation was permitted, whereas rotation was restricted; and in the third one, only horizontal translation at the top of the wall was allowed. The wall deformation response ranged from cantilever to pure shear, influenced by the panel stiffness, vertical load magnitude, and anchors. The findings highlighted the significant effect of boundary conditions on the overall behavior of the panels. Dujic et al. [37, 38] conducted a series of cyclic tests to assess the effect of openings on the lateral response of CLT shear wall panels. The tests considered two wall configurations of identical dimensions: one with a door and window opening and the other without any openings. Simpson ABR105 angle brackets were employed to connect CLT panels to the concrete base, providing both shear and uplift resistance. The brackets were attached to the CLT panels using ring shank nails, and to the concrete base using steel bolts. To ensure consistency with the configuration used for wall with openings, an uneven distribution of angle brackets was implemented for the wall without opening. The tests included a uniform vertical load of up to 15 kN\/m, as well as an eccentric vertical load due to the rotation of the CLT element. The configuration and the details of the tested CLT walls are provided in Figure 2.8. Each configuration was evaluated using two specimens, all under same boundary conditions. Their study revealed that the load-bearing capacity of CLT wall panels was influenced by the loading condition in terms of centric and eccentric loading. Additionally, openings in CLT walls significantly reduced the lateral stiffness and changed the shape of the hysteresis curve, affecting the energy dissipation capacity. However, the lateral strength of walls with and without openings remained nearly the same (see Figure 2.9). A FE model of the test specimens was then created with SAP2000 commercially available software. Orthotropic membrane elements were utilized to represent wall panels, where 20  longitudinal springs were used to simulate connectors. In addition, bi-linear link elements were incorporated horizontally along the lower edge of the panel to model the friction between the foundation and the wall panel. This model was then calibrated to align with the experimental test data, ensuring accurate representation and analysis of the behavior of specimens. The calibrated numerical model was subsequently used to conduct a parametric study involving 36 distinct opening configurations. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of both the size and arrangement of the openings on the overall performance of the CLT panels. The study developed simplified formulas to describe the shear strength and stiffness of walls with openings, using walls without openings as a reference. The findings indicated that when the opening area was up to 30% of the total wall area, the shear strength remained largely unchanged, while the stiffness decreased by about 50%. This research further confirmed that due to the high stiffness and load-bearing capacity of CLT panels, the behavior is predominantly influenced by the connecting elements.    Configuration A Configuration B Figure 2.8 Configurations of CLT wall panels tested by Dujic et al. [37] 21    Configuration A Configuration B Figure 2.9 Pushover curves of CLT wall panels tested by Dujic et al. [37] Two full-scale shake table tests were conducted at the IZIIS Laboratory in Skopje, Macedonia, to examine the performance of CLT shear wall panels under dynamic loading conditions. The aim was to compare and correlate these dynamic test results with data from earlier quasi-static cyclic tests [34, 36, 39, 40]. The test configuration, shown in Figure 2.10(a), was composed of two walls with a floor diaphragm and two additional lateral walls. One specimen was constructed with monolithic CLT walls, while the other was assembled from segmented CLT shear walls joined with half-lap joints and secured with screws. An additional mass of 4.8 tons, representing the weight of a 3-story structure, was applied to the top of the test specimens, as illustrated in Figure 2.10(b). Steel angle brackets were employed to connect the walls to the support base. Annular nails secured the walls to the brackets, while bolts were used to fasten the brackets to the base. The specimens were subjected to various ground motions, including those from the El Centro, Petrovac, Loma Prieta, and Friuli earthquakes. Additionally, they were tested under high-frequency vibrations at 5.0 Hz and 7.5 Hz. The specimen with segmented shear walls indicated a 42% greater relative displacement compared to the specimen with monolithic wall panels. While the monolithic panels exhibited linear elastic behavior, the increased nonlinear responses in the segmented shear wall specimen were mainly attributed to the angle brackets and vertical joints. The segmented shear walls demonstrated enhanced ductility compared to the monolithic panels. Displacement (mm)Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Force (kN)22  Overall, the system's performance was in strong agreement with the quasi-static test results, confirming the reliability of the findings.   (a) Specimen on the shaking table (b) The applied mass on top of the specimens Figure 2.10 CLT wall specimens tested by Dujic et al. [40] Numerous experimental investigations have also explored the seismic performance of full-scale CLT shear wall buildings. These studies were initially performed on three- and seven-story CLT buildings as part of the Italian SOFIE Project [11, 41]. This comprehensive research initiative, supported by the Province of Trento, Italy, and coordinated by the Trees and Timber Institute of the Italian National Research Council, involved collaborations with the National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED), Shizuoka University, and the Building Research Institute (BRI) in Japan. Prior to the full-scale tests, a series of preliminary experiments were conducted, including connections tests, monotonic and quasi-static reversed cyclic tests on CLT shear wall panels, and pseudo-dynamic tests on a one-story assembly. The purpose of these preliminary tests was to assess the behavior of building-level components, develop suitable timber connections, and provide critical data for generating accurate numerical models [11, 12, 41, 42]. The testing program on CLT shear walls included four different wall panel configurations, as shown in Figure 2.11. Three of these configurations (A, C, and D) were anchored to a steel girder, while the fourth 23  configuration (B) was anchored to a CLT base. In configuration C, a CLT panel was placed on top of the wall, and the connection between the CLT wall and the top panel was secured using self-tapping screws. Standard Simpson BMF connectors were utilized for shear in most cases, except for configuration C where inclined screws were employed. In all tests, HTT22 hold-downs were used to connect the CLT panels to the base for uplift resistance. In all studied cases, steel connectors are fastened to the panels using annular ringed shank nails [43].   Configuration A Configuration B   Configuration C Configuration D Figure 2.11 Configurations of CLT wall elements tested by Ceccotti et al. [43] CLT24  Results revealed that CLT panels demonstrated high stiffness and strength, performing almost like rigid bodies. The findings further indicated that the configuration and design of the connections greatly influenced the overall performance of the wall system, with the connections being responsible for all energy dissipation. Despite local failure phenomena in CLT wall panels, the system demonstrated an average equivalent viscous damping of 14%, demonstrating good ductility and energy-dissipating capabilities, making it well-suited for seismic applications. Pseudo dynamic tests were then carried out on one-story CLT buildings with dimensions of 7 m \u00d7 7 m in plan and 3 m in height, differing in terms of openings parallel to the loading direction. The buildings were subjected to two ground motion records, El Centro and Kobe JMA, with peak ground accelerations (PGA) scaled to 0.15g and 0.50g. Hold-downs were designed to resist uplift forces, while angle brackets were designed to resist shear loads. The test results showed that the initial stiffness of the asymmetric configuration was comparable to that of the symmetric test, indicating that connector behavior primarily dictated the wall performance under low magnitude shear forces [44]. The three-story CLT building, which was 10 m in height and 7 m \u00d7 7 m in plan, was designed using a purely elastic design, where no overstrength or any energy dissipation mechanisms were considered. Three different configurations, differing in the size of the ground floor opening as shown in Figure 2.12, were tested under three different ground motions with varied intensities. The results revealed that the building maintained structural integrity across all scenarios, exhibiting no significant damage, except for a near-collapse condition observed during the Nocera Umbra earthquake at a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 1.2 g. Remarkably, the building withstood all testing without permanent deformation, leading to the recommendation of a behavior factor of 3 based on the experimental outcomes [11, 12, 41, 42, 45]. 25     Figure 2.12 Configurations of the three-story CLT shear wall building tested in SOFIE project [11] The seven-story building, shown in Figure 2.13, was 23.5 m in height and 7.5 m \u00d7 13.5 m in plan. A simplified lateral force method with a behavior factor of 3.0 was utilized for seismic design of this building. Segmented shear walls with each segment up to 2.3 m in length were utilized. Shaking table tests were conducted in all three directions of the building. Three different earthquakes including Kobe, Nocera Umbra and Kashiwazaki R1 were applied in all three directions. The structure withstood all tests without any collapse state and no residual deformation. Only some local damages were observed in connections [12, 41].  Figure 2.13 The seven-story CLT shear wall building tested in SOFIE project [12] 26  A multidisciplinary research project was then initiated in North America by FPInnovations to explore the seismic performance of CLT structures, specifically aiming to investigate seismic modification factors (\ud835\udc45\ud835\udc5c and \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc51 factors). Popovski et al. [46] conducted a series of monotonic and reverse cyclic quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels with different configurations and connection details. Their testing program included single panel walls with three different aspect ratios, multi-panel walls with step joints and different types of screws, and two-story wall assemblies (see Figure 2.14). All tests were conducted using standard Simpson BMF connectors or custom-made brackets for both shear and uplift, with the exception of a few cases where HTT16 hold-downs were employed for uplift. Most walls were anchored to a rigid steel foundation, while a few CLT walls were connected to CLT floor panels. Different types of fasteners in various sizes were used to connect the brackets to the panels. With the exception of one wall, which was tested under zero and various gravity loads, all other walls were subjected to a gravity load of 20 kN\/m. Results showed almost rigid behavior of the CLT wall panels during the tests, indicating that most of the deformation occurred due to the deformation of the metallic connections and panel-to-panel joints. It was observed that the lateral load resistance was significantly influenced only when the axial load reached or exceeded 20 kN\/m. Conversely, the results demonstrated a more pronounced effect of the vertical load on the stiffness of the walls. Furthermore, increased vertical load values affected the shape of the hysteresis loop near the origin, as illustrated in Figure 2.15. It was also found that the seismic performance of CLT wall was enhanced when hold-downs with nails were utilized on both ends of the wall. Results also indicated the very minimal impact of the loading protocol on the stiffness, yield displacement and ultimate capacity of the walls. Less ductile behavior resulted from the CLT wall panels that were connected to the floor below using diagonally placed long screws. 27      Configuration I Configuration II Configuration III Configuration IV     Configuration V Configuration VI Configuration VII Configuration VIII     Configuration IX Configuration X Configuration XI Configuration XII Figure 2.14 Configurations of CLT wall panels tested by Popovski et al. [46]    No vertical load 20 kN\/m vertical load Figure 2.15 The effect of presence of vertical load on the hysteresis curve of CLT wall panels tested by Popovski et al. [46] Displacement (mm)Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Force (kN)28  Based on the results of these tests and considering multiple approaches, including research findings from Europe, comparisons with existing structural systems in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), and a performance-based equivalency method specified in the International Code Council AC130 criteria, Popovski and Karacabeyli [47] proposed conservative estimates of \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc51 =2.0 and \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc5c  =  1.5 for including CLT in seismic design codes of Canada.  Pei et al. [48] further utilized these quasi-static test results to propose an R-factor for CLT buildings. They analyzed CLT wall behavior through a simplified kinematic model and re-designed 6-story NEESWood Capstone building using a performance-based design approach. Their numerical analyses led to a reasonable suggestion of an R-factor of 4.5 for CLT systems. To further explore their preliminary results and gain a deeper understanding of the behavior of CLT systems under lateral loads, Popovski and Gavric [13] conducted a series of quasi-static monotonic and cyclic tests on a full-scale two-story CLT building shown in Figure 2.16. The building dimensions were 6.0 m \u00d7 4.8 m in plan and 4.8 m in height. It was constructed using platform-type framing, with monolithic shear walls along one axis and segmented shear walls along the perpendicular axis. BMF brackets and HTT4 hold-downs were utilized to connect wall panels to the base or floor panel below, while self-tapping screws were employed for wall-to-wall, wall-to-floor above and floor-to-floor connections. The design was conducted to ensure energy dissipation in the steel brackets and vertical connections between adjacent wall panels, while all other connections were designed to remain elastic during the lateral loading. Different key parameters were investigated, including the direction of loading, the quantity of hold-downs, and the number of screws used in perpendicular wall-to-wall connections. 29   Figure 2.16 The two-story CLT shear wall building tested by Popovski and Gavric [13] It was observed that sliding was the primary mode of deformation in all tests. Additionally, while adding more hold-downs reduced the uplift deformation of the walls, it did not affect the overall building resistance, as sliding remained the dominant behavior. The results also indicated the significant effect of the perpendicular walls to the direction of loading on the overall building stiffness and resistance. Wood failure, nail fatigue, and a combination of nail yielding and withdrawal were the primary types of connection failures observed. Failures at the wall base connections and in the corners of door openings were noted in the tests conducted along the direction of the monolithic shear walls, as shown in Figure 2.17. Conversely, tests performed along the direction of the segmented shear walls demonstrated interactions between the wall segments and the floor diaphragm, as illustrated in Figure 2.18. 30   Figure 2.17 Brittle local failure occurred in the corner of door opening on the first story [13]   Figure 2.18 Rocking of wall elements with partial embedment in floor panels and out-of-plane bending of the floor panels [13] Yasumura et al. [14] investigated the lateral response of two full-scale 2-story CLT buildings, 6 m long and 4 m wide. One building was constructed by monolithic CLT shear walls with openings, while the other was assembled by segmented CLT shear walls with openings. Figure 2.19 shows the exterior view of the building with monolithic CLT wall panels. To replicate the load of a three-story structure, a weight equivalent to three stories was placed on the roof of the two-story buildings. The results indicated that the building with monolithic CLT wall panels exhibited more 31  than double the stiffness of the building with segmented shear walls. Conversely, the segmented shear wall building demonstrated higher equivalent viscous damping (11\u201312%) compared to the continuous shear wall building (8.5\u201310%). Additionally, cracks formed at the corners of the openings in the building with continuous shear walls, whereas the segmented shear wall building experienced bending failures in the CLT floor panels above the corners of the openings (Figure 2.20).  Figure 2.19 Exterior view of the building with monolithic CLT wall panels [14]   (a) (b) Figure 2.20 Failure modes observed in experimental tests conducted by Yasumura et al. [14]; (a) crack at the corner of an opening in the building with monolithic shear wall panels, (b) bending failure of floor panel in the building with segmented shear wall panels 32  Addressing the absence of seismic behavior factors in US building codes, Van de Lindt et al. [49] conducted a comprehensive study to determine seismic performance factors for CLT shear wall systems in platform type construction. The factors include the response modification factors, overstrength factor, and deflection amplification factor, proposed for inclusion in ASCE 7. Using the FEMA P695 methodology, the study involved evaluating a design method for the proposed seismic force resisting system, performing a series of tests from connector to shear wall system-level testing, developing archetypes representative of typical construction, and assessing the performance of these archetypes. The study focused on nine main building configurations, including single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and commercial mid-rise buildings, from which 72 archetypes were developed to form a design space for CLT shear walls. The design approach assumed that overturning was resisted by overturning anchors (tie rods or hold-downs) and CLT panel compression at wall ends, while shear was resisted solely by angle brackets. The CUREE-SAWS 10-parameter hysteretic model characterized the CLT shear wall behavior, with parameters determined from the average of the positive and negative envelope curves. Static pushover analysis in OpenSees determined the maximum base shear resistance and ultimate displacement for each archetype. Dynamic analysis used SAPWood software, and incremental dynamic analysis was performed for a set of 22 bi-axial ground motions (44 records) termed far-field in FEMA P695. Ground motion scaling followed FEMA P695 methodology, matching the median response spectrum of the normalized set to the spectral acceleration of interest at the building's fundamental period. Non-simulated collapse criteria were based on inter-story drift ratios of 4.5% for low aspect ratio panels and 5.5% for high aspect ratio panels. Boundary constraints and gravity loading positively influenced wall strength and stiffness, while CLT panel thickness had less impact. Higher aspect ratio panels (4:1) showed lower stiffness but greater 33  deformation capacity compared to moderate aspect ratio panels (2:1). Multi-panel configurations with high aspect ratio panels connected through vertical inter-panel connectors exhibited significantly larger deformation capacity. Damage in all configurations was mainly concentrated in the angle connectors used to transfer shear load. For 2:1 aspect ratio panels, damage was due to sliding and rocking, whereas for 4:1 aspect ratio panels, it was primarily due to rocking. For the R = 3 case, overstrength factors for the archetypes ranged from 1.8 to 4.85, with most values around 3. The average overstrength factors for performance groups ranged from 2.29 to 3.53. For the R = 4 case, archetypes with high aspect ratio panels had overstrength factors ranging from 2.34 to 5.25, centered around 3. The average overstrength factors for performance groups ranged from 2.02 to 4.03. The study recommends R = 3 for CLT shear wall systems with panels having a 2:1 aspect ratio or mixed aspect ratios up to 4:1, and R = 4 for high aspect ratio panels only (4:1 aspect ratio). The collective findings from extensive experiments on isolated CLT shear walls and full-scale CLT buildings highlighted the crucial role played by wall base and panel-to-panel connections, emphasizing the significance of these connections on the seismic performance of CLT platform-type shear wall buildings. However, CLT shear walls are usually connected to other structural elements like perpendicular walls, upper floors, parapets and lintels, which may affect their structural performance, particularly the rocking behavior of segmented CLT shear walls. Previous experiments on CLT buildings have revealed the effects of these interactions, including the embedding of shear wall panels into floor elements, bending failures in floor components especially near openings, and the considerable influence of perpendicular walls on the overall stiffness and strength of the building. In the last few years, various research studies have been 34  therefore dedicated to investigating the effects of structural interactions between shear walls and these structural elements in platform-type CLT shear wall buildings.  Tamagnone et al. [15] investigated the effect of floor diaphragms on the rocking behavior of CLT shear walls using finite element analysis in Abaqus software. The behavior of CLT shear walls were evaluated under displacement-controlled cyclic loads, considering a wide range of variables, including geometrical properties such as wall panel aspect ratios, mechanical properties of connectors, out-of-plane stiffness of floor diaphragms, and varying gravity loads. The wall and floor panels were modeled using four-node shell elements, while the connectors were simulated through an Abaqus subroutine whose force-displacement relationships for the shear and axial components are depicted in Figure 2.21. The contribution of friction was incorporated by a coefficient in the subroutine definition of the springs, enhancing the shear stiffness of the connectors as greater axial loads were applied.   (a) Shear (b) Axial Figure 2.21 Force-displacement relationships for the shear and axial components of the springs [15] The results revealed that the out-of-plane stiffness of the floor diaphragm has minimal effect on the overall rocking behavior of CLT wall assemblies. Instead, the primary influence on rocking behavior stemmed from the stiffness of the wall-to-floor connections. The results also indicated Backbone curveUnloading pathReloading pathSpring failureFdFd35  that stiffer connections between the wall and diaphragm tend to promote uncoupled behavior, which reduces the ability of the wall system to dissipate seismic energy. Conversely, looser connections resulted in more coupled rocking behavior, increasing ductility and energy dissipation. It was also observed that gravity loads and wall panel aspect ratios affect the rocking capacity and behavior of CLT shear walls. Higher gravity loads resulted in greater lateral strength and stiffness. Additionally, wall panels with lower aspect ratios (taller walls relative to their base width) exhibited more significant differences in rocking behavior when diaphragm configurations changed. Casagrande et al. [16] conducted an experimental study to assess the mechanical performance of CLT shear walls with door and window openings. Six different wall configurations were tested, differing in the number of CLT layers, lintel lengths, hold-down arrangements, and opening types. In the double hold-down configuration, anchors were placed at both ends of each wall segment, whereas the single hold-down configuration used anchors only at the ends of the shear wall. The results showed consistent brittle failures in the CLT lintel beams, occurring as bending or net shear failures at the lintel ends. Mechanical anchors primarily failed due to tensile rupture in the steel plate, especially at the bottom row of nails. The study highlighted that short lintels tended to experience shear failures, while long lintels primarily failed in bending. Load-displacement behavior varied significantly among the configurations, with walls containing door openings showing greater deformation compared to those with window openings. D'Arenzo et al. [17] conducted a comprehensive study to investigate the effect of floor-to-wall interaction on the rocking stiffness of segmented CLT shear walls under lateral loading. They introduced an analytical elastic model that accounts for floor-to-wall interaction and calculates transverse displacements and internal forces along the floor. This model was validated using three 36  different numerical models: a beam-beam model simulating the floor using elastic beams and floor-to-wall connections as elastic springs, and two beam-wall models that considered the entire wall-floor system (Figure 2.22).   (a) Beam-beams model   (b) Beam-walls model Figure 2.22 Numerical models developed by D\u2019Arenzo et al. [17] 37  The study included a thorough parametric analysis, varying factors such as wall-panel width, height, floor cross-section, floor bending stiffness, and connection stiffness. The analytical model was also utilized to define an equivalent spring between adjacent wall panels, simplifying the complex phenomenon of floor-to-wall interactions. The results highlighted the significant impact of floor-to-wall interaction, enhancing the rocking stiffness of segmented shear-walls (up to 30%) and altering the kinematic behavior of the shear-wall from coupled-panel to single wall or intermediate kinematic behavior in some cases. The results also indicated that the presence of floor elements and floor-to-wall connections below provided additional stiffness, reducing the relative displacements between adjacent wall panels. Khajepour et al. [19] explored the effect of lintels and parapets on the lateral response of multi-story CLT shear wall frames with door or window openings using validated numerical models developed in SAP2000 software. Their analysis involved shear walls with different heights -two, four, and six stories- with centrally placed door or window openings. The study examined several variables, including different lintel heights, lintel widths, parapet heights, and types of mechanical anchors. The results indicated a significant difference in the performance of monolithic shear walls, where the openings are cut from a single CLT panel, compared to segmented shear walls, which are assembled from separate elements. Monolithic shear walls displayed significantly higher strength and stiffness, highlighting the importance of material continuity in enhancing structural performance. The study also highlighted the critical role of both lintels and parapets in the behavior of shear walls. Specifically, lintel height had a substantial effect on failure modes, especially in the absence of parapets. Contrary to common design assumptions, parapets were found to have a considerable influence on the structural performance. Parapets exceeding 0.4 m in height significantly enhanced both the lateral strength and stiffness of the shear walls. In the two-story 38  shear walls, shear failure of mechanical connectors, such as angle brackets, was the predominant failure mode. However, in taller structures, failure of the hold-downs became more significant, particularly when parapet heights were lower. Importantly, the presence of parapets shifted the failure mechanisms from brittle failure in the CLT panels to failures in the mechanical anchors, resulting in more ductile behavior of the frame. Ruggeri et al. [20] investigated the effects of the structural interactions due to floors and lintels on the lateral response of multi-story platform-type CLT frames using two different modeling strategies. The first approach, termed the Simplified Modeling Strategy (SM), represented the commonly used method in practical design, which neglects the inclusion of floors and lintels. In this approach, CLT walls were modeled with mechanical connectors at the base, and lintels were treated as pinned elements that primarily transfer vertical loads. In contrast, the Advanced Modeling Strategy with Structural Interactions (IM) incorporated the often-ignored interactions due to floors and lintels, accounting for bending stiffness and shear transfer between components. To thoroughly examine these interactions, Ruggeri et al. [20] developed two configurations within the IM strategy: IM-MSW (Monolithic Shear Walls) and IM-ASW (Assembled Shear Walls). The IM-MSW approach modeled lintels and walls as continuous elements, providing full structural continuity, while the IM-ASW method treated lintels and wall panels as separate elements with mechanical connections. Figure 2.23 shows the different numerical modeling strategies developed by Ruggeri et al. [20]. They conducted both linear elastic and nonlinear static analyses on nine different CLT wall configurations, varying in geometry, wall panel thickness, lintel height, and floor-to-wall connections. The results of the study revealed significant differences between the simplified and advanced modeling strategies. The IM models consistently demonstrated lower story displacements, higher 39  lateral stiffness, and increased lateral capacity compared to the SM models. Furthermore, the study highlighted the importance of lintel size and floor-to-wall interactions in enhancing lateral performance. Higher lintels enhanced lateral stiffness and capacity, showing significant improvements in certain configurations. The interaction between floors and lintels was particularly pronounced in systems with shorter wall segments, where rocking played a more significant role. The results also revealed differences in failure modes between the modeling strategies. While SM models typically failed due to hold-down failures caused by rocking deformation, IM models exhibited more diverse failure modes, including lintel failures in monolithic systems and angle bracket failures in assembled systems.  (a) Simplified modeling strategy (SM)   (b) Advanced modeling strategy- Monolithic Shear Walls (IM-MSW) (c) Advanced modeling strategy- Assembled Shear Walls (IM-ASW) Figure 2.23 Numerical models developed by Ruggeri et al. [20] 40  Ruggeri et al. [21] conducted a numerical study to investigate the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls. Two primary configurations were analyzed: single shear walls (SW) without perpendicular walls and shear walls connected to perpendicular walls (SW+PW). The study introduced two analytical models that account for wall base connections, including hold-downs and angle brackets, as well as the contribution of connections between shear walls and perpendicular walls. These models were validated using two- and three-dimensional numerical models in SAP2000. A parametric analysis was performed to explore the impact of various parameters, such as wall aspect ratio, spacing of wall-to-wall connections, and vertical loads. Three different shear wall aspect ratios (height-to-width ratios) were analyzed: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. The study also considered different placements of the perpendicular walls\u2014on the tension side, central side, and compression side of the shear wall (see Figure 2.24).    Figure 2.24 Position of perpendicular walls with respect to the shear walls studied by Ruggeri et al. [21] Results demonstrated that the presence of perpendicular walls could increase lateral stiffness by up to 76% and lateral capacity by up to 100% in some configurations. The most significant improvements were observed when the perpendicular wall was positioned on the tension side of the shear wall, while no improvements were noted when the perpendicular wall was on the compression side. Additionally, the study found that interactions between shear walls and perpendicular walls influenced the deformation mechanisms of the system. The contribution of 41  perpendicular walls reduced rocking displacement and increased sliding displacement, which modified the overall load transfer mechanism. In full-building simulations, including perpendicular walls led to a 28% increase in lateral stiffness and a 48% increase in lateral capacity compared to models that ignored these interactions. The findings highlight the importance of considering perpendicular walls in the design and analysis of CLT buildings. Ruggeri et al. [22] carried out an experimental study to investigate the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral stiffness and capacity of CLT shear walls, utilizing two different configurations as illustrated in Figure 2.25. The first configuration, known as the Single Shear Wall (SW), consisted of an isolated CLT shear wall subjected to lateral forces. The second configuration, referred to as Shear Wall + Perpendicular Wall (SW+PW), was composed of a CLT shear wall connected at one end to a perpendicular wall. The walls were anchored to a steel foundation using metallic connections such as hold-downs and angle brackets. Self-tapping screws were also employed for the wall-to-wall connections.   (a) Single Shear Wall configuration (SW) (b) Shear Wall connected to a Perpendicular Wall configuration (SW+PW) Figure 2.25 Configurations of CLT wall assemblies tested by Ruggeri et al. [22] The results indicated that the SW+PW configuration exhibited higher lateral capacity and greater deformation capacity compared to the SW configuration. Although the initial elastic stiffness was 42  similar between the two configurations, SW+PW exhibited a slight reduction in stiffness overall, primarily due to the calculation methods based on EN12512. The predominant failure mechanism in both setups was rocking, with failures occurring in the hold-downs due to wood embedment and nail yielding. Notably, the perpendicular wall in the SW+PW configuration acted as an additional hold-down, enhancing the lateral performance. Cyclic tests revealed that the hysteresis behavior of the SW+PW configuration displayed significant asymmetry, indicating the substantial influence of the perpendicular wall on the lateral response. The maximum load during positive displacement reached 49.54 kN, while it was 32.01 kN during negative displacement. The SW+PW configuration also showed a higher damping capacity, with an equivalent viscous damping significantly greater than that of the SW configuration. Additionally, the energy dissipated during the cyclic tests for SW+PW was more than double that of the SW configuration. In conclusion, the study found that perpendicular walls considerably enhance both the lateral capacity and deformability of CLT shear walls, largely due to the wall-to-wall connections and their interaction with hold-down systems. The asymmetry in hysteresis loops further highlighted the role of perpendicular walls in improving the lateral performance of CLT structures.  In a follow up study, D'Arenzo et al. [23] conducted a comprehensive study to investigate the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls. Two primary wall configurations were tested including single shear walls (SW) without perpendicular walls, and shear walls connected to perpendicular walls (SW+PW). CLT panels were connected to the foundation using mechanical fasteners, including hold-downs and angle brackets. Self-tapping screws were employed to join the perpendicular walls to the shear walls. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, the study included tests on three different aspect ratios (height to width) of CLT shear walls: 2:1, 1:1, and 2:3, with heights of 2.50 m and varying lengths (Figure 2.26). 43  Both monotonic and cyclic tests were conducted to simulate different loading conditions, allowing for a thorough assessment of the behavior of walls under various scenarios. Several key parameters, including lateral stiffness, yielding load and displacement, maximum load and displacement, ultimate load and displacement, ductility, energy dissipation, and equivalent viscous damping, were analyzed and studied.    Figure 2.26 CLT wall system geometries tested by D'Arenzo et al. [23] (dimensions in mm) In addition to the experimental work, D'Arenzo et al. [23] developed two analytical models: an elastic model to predict lateral stiffness based on wall geometry and connection properties, and a load capacity model to forecast lateral load-bearing capacity by considering both rocking and sliding mechanisms of the walls. These models were then validated against the experimental results, generally showing good accuracy with a slight tendency to overestimate lateral capacity. The findings revealed significant improvements in the lateral performance of CLT shear walls when connected to perpendicular walls. It was also observed that the deformation mechanisms and failure modes varied depending on the wall's aspect ratio, with taller walls primarily exhibiting rocking behavior and shorter, wider walls more prone to sliding. The inclusion of perpendicular walls led to notable increases in lateral stiffness, load-bearing capacity, and deformation capacity 44  across all tested configurations. Furthermore, the presence of perpendicular walls enhanced energy dissipation and improved cyclic performance due to the additional connections. The study also noted interesting differences in the hysteresis loops between single shear walls and those connected to perpendicular walls, with the latter displaying asymmetric loops indicative of non-uniform connection behavior under positive and negative displacements. 2.2 Summary The studies discussed in this chapter highlighted the effectiveness of CLT panels as lateral force-resisting systems. These panels exhibited a rigid linear-elastic response, with energy dissipation and deformation primarily occurring at their base connections and vertical panel-to-panel joints. Horizontal shear forces were resisted by shear brackets, whereas hold-downs provided resistance against overturning moments. Segmented CLT shear walls exhibited greater energy dissipation capacity compared to monolithic configurations. An increase in the applied gravity load led to an enhancement in both stiffness and strength and also influenced the shape of the hysteresis loop. The boundary conditions, defined by the type and number of connections, were identified as a significant factor influencing wall performance. Openings in CLT walls significantly reduced lateral stiffness and affected energy dissipation by modifying the hysteresis behavior. Additionally, secondary structural elements such as floors, lintels, parapets, and perpendicular walls had a notable influence on the lateral response of CLT shear wall systems. While considerable research studies, summarized in Table 2.1, have explored the influence of structural interactions due to secondary structural components on the lateral response of CLT shear walls, the understanding of these interactions remains limited, particularly for multi-panel one-story and multi-story segmented CLT shear walls. Most studies on segmented CLT shear walls have focused on single-45  story configurations with a limited range of archetypes, primarily two-panel segmented CLT shear walls, providing limited insights into the behavior of multi-panel one-story and multi-story CLT shear wall systems under lateral loads. Table 2.1 Summary of research studies investigating the effect of structural interactions due to secondary structural elements on the lateral response of CLT shear walls (continued) Reference Research objective(s) Specimen(s) Research methodology Type of analysis Studied key parameters Tamagnone et al. [15] Investigating the effect of the floor diaphragm on the rocking behavior of CLT walls Segmented one-story two-panel CLT shear walls Numerical Cyclic Aspect ratio of wall panels, wall-to-foundation connections, wall-to-floor above connections, floor panels typologies and gravity loads Casagrande et al. [16] Investigating the effect of openings on the mechanical behavior of CLT walls Monolithic one-story CLT shear walls Experimental Pushover Type of openings (door or window), height of lintel and hold-down configurations D'Arenzo et al. [17] Investigating the effect of floor-to-wall interaction on the lateral response of CLT walls Segmented one-story two-panel CLT shear walls Numerical Pushover Aspect ratio of wall panels and floor panels typologies Khajepour et al. [19] Investigating the effect of parapets and lintels on the lateral response of multi-story CLT walls Monolithic and segmented multi-story CLT shear walls Numerical Pushover Number of stories, Type of openings (door or window), height of lintels, width of lintels, height of parapets and gravity loads Ruggeri et al. [20] Investigating the effect of structural interactions due to floors and lintels on the lateral response of multi-story CLT walls Monolithic multi-story CLT shear walls Numerical Pushover Length of shear walls and height of lintels Ruggeri et al. [21] Investigating the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls One-story Numerical Pushover Aspect ratio of wall panels, height of the shear walls, position of the perpendicular walls relative to the shear walls 46  Table 2.1 Summary of research studies investigating the effect of structural interactions due to secondary structural elements on the lateral response of CLT shear walls Reference Research objective(s) Specimen(s) Research methodology Type of analysis Studied key parameters Ruggeri et al. [22] Investigating the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls One-story Experimental Pushover and cyclic \u2015 D'Arenzo et al. [23] Investigating the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral response of CLT shear walls One-story Experimental and analytical Pushover Aspect ratio of wall panels  47  Chapter 3: Investigating the Effect of Secondary Structural Elements in One-Story Segmented CLT Shear walls 3.1 Introduction This chapter aims to systematically evaluate the effect of structural interactions due to floors, lintels and parapets on the lateral response of single-story segmented CLT shear walls designed using the guidelines in NBCC [50] and the recently released version of CSA O86 [26]. To achieve this, various detailed numerical models, differing in the inclusion of the secondary structural elements, are developed using OpenSees software [51]. These detailed inelastic models are used to conduct monotonic pushover analysis to explore the key characteristics of their lateral response such as lateral strength, inelastic deformation capacity, deformation mechanism, yielding hierarchy, and failure modes. The results allow us to identify critical factors affecting the performance of CLT shear walls with secondary structural elements under lateral loads. These insights provide a solid foundation for advancing research in this area and enhancing the seismic design of CLT shear wall buildings. 3.2 Description of the studied segmented CLT shear walls To investigate the effect of structural interaction due to influence of floors, parapets and lintels on the lateral response of segmented CLT shear wall systems, four detailed numerical models were developed within the OpenSees software framework [51], as elaborated in Section 4. These models were used to analyze single-story segmented CLT shear walls with different geometries, wall panel aspect ratios (i.e., the height to length ratio of individual panels), floor panel bending stiffnesses, and vertical stiffnesses of wall-to-floor connections above, range of which is presented in Table 3.1. 48  Table 3.1 Range of the studied parameters for development of the studied models Studied variable Studied range or values Shear wall length - 11.2, 16 and 20.8 m Wall panel aspect ratio - Moderate (2:1) and high (4:1) aspect ratios  Floor panel bending stiffness - Floor panel thickness of 175, 245, 315 mm Vertical stiffnesses of wall-to-floor connections above - STS spacing of 50, 100 and 200 mm  Figure 3.1 illustrates the studied multi-panel segmented CLT shear walls with different geometries and wall panel aspect ratios. Geometry 1 consists of two coupled shear walls, each 4.8 m long, with one opening that is 1.6 m in length. Geometry 2 has three coupled shear walls: two are 3.2 m long and one is 6.4 m long, along with two openings, each 1.6 m long. Geometry 3 includes four coupled shear walls: three are 6.4 m long and one is 3.2 m long, and there are three openings, each 1.6 m long. The wall panels were assumed to have two different aspect ratios in all the studied geometries: moderate (2:1) and high (4:1), as per the bounding values recommended by CSA O86-24 [26]. All panels have a consistent height of 3.2 m, with lengths varying based on the aspect ratio: 1.6 m for moderate aspect ratio panels and 0.8 m for high aspect ratio panels. A five-layered CLT panel with a total thickness of 175 mm and a 35mm layer thickness, where was utilized for the shear wall panels. The CLT floor panels were assumed to be placed with their major strength axis along the wall lengths. Three different thicknesses of CLT panels were selected to investigate the effect of bending stiffness of the floor panels: a five-layered panel with a total thickness of 175 mm and layer thicknesses of 35 mm, a seven-layered panel with a total thickness of 245 mm and layer thicknesses of 35mm and a nine-layered panel with a total thickness of 315 mm with the same thickness of layers.  All CLT panels were considered to be of E1 stress grade with MOE of 11700 MPa parallel to the grain (E0), 300 MPa perpendicular to the grain (E90), and 730 MPa for the in-plane shear modulus (G0). To investigate the effect of the vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor 49  connections above, three different self-tapping screw (STS) spacings of 50, 100 and 200 mm, were considered.  Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Geometry 1   Geometry 2   Geometry 3   Figure 3.1 Studied segmented CLT shear walls with different geometries and wall panel aspect ratios (units in m) 3.3 Design assumptions The studied segmented CLT shear walls were designed according to the guidelines in NBCC [50] and the CSA O86-24 [26] for moderately ductile CLT shear walls. A vertical gravity load of 10 kN\/m was applied to all walls. For lateral load design, a unit shear force of 15 kN\/m was assumed for all geometries. The aspect ratio of wall panels was selected as 2:1 and 4:1, in accordance with the permitted range for CLT shear wall segments considered part of SFRS, as per CSA O86-24 [26], to encourage a rocking mechanism under lateral loads. Designated ductile and energy dissipative connections were implemented at specified locations, including vertical joints between wall panels and discrete hold-downs at both ends of the coupled walls (only after yielding of the vertical joints between wall panels). All other connections were designed to remain elastic during the loading.  50  Figure 3.2 depicts the kinematic model employed in the present study for the design of studied shear walls, in accordance with CSA O86-24 [26]. This model, like all various proposed kinematic models found in [52], only accounts for the mechanical properties of the vertical and wall base connections and neglects the effects of secondary structural elements and their corresponding connections to adjacent components. It also assumes that all CLT panels have the same aspect ratio and are connected to each other with the same vertical panel-to-panel joints (i.e., type and spacing of fasteners). In addition, hold-downs are located at both ends of the wall to resist uplift forces only and do not contribute to the shear resistance.  Figure 3.2 The kinematic model used in this study for the design of CLT shear walls Based on this model, the factored rocking resistance of moderately ductile CLT shear walls under lateral loads, \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f, can be determined using the following equation [26]: \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f = \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc3b= \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc3b[\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc5f\u210e\ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc48 + \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63(\ud835\udc5a \u2212 1) +\ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc5a2] (3.1) where \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f is the factored rocking moment resistance of segmented CLT shear walls due to seismic action, \ud835\udc3b is the height of the shear wall, \ud835\udc4f is the length of CLT panels within the shear wall, \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc48 is H-51  the uplift contribution factor (1.0 when the uplift contribution of the shear connections is neglected), \ud835\udc5a is the number of CLT panels in the shear wall, and \ud835\udc5e is the total factored dead load applied at the top of the shear wall. \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e and \ud835\udc5f\u210e are respectively the number of fasteners and the factored tensile resistance of each fastener in a hold-down connection, and \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63 and \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63 are respectively the number of fasteners and the factored shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint. The capacity design procedure was followed for the seismic design of the studied CLT shear wall buildings, as prescribed by CSA O86-24 [26]. According to this design principle, hold-downs should be designed to yield only after all vertical joints have already yielded. From this point onward, this thesis defines the yielding hierarchy as the sequence of yielding between hold-downs and spline joints, ensuring that hold-downs yield only after all vertical joints have yielded. The uplift contribution factor was taken as 1.0, as no contribution from the shear brackets was considered in the uplift direction. This was due to the assumption of using shear brackets with slotted holes in the vertical direction. This type of shear bracket is a novel shear-transferring device designed to resist shear forces while allowing uplift during the rocking motion of the wall panels [53, 54]. As specified by CSA O86-24 [26], to ensure the yielding hierarchy between spline and hold-down connections and achieve the desired coupled wall behavior, the following equation was also satisfied for determining the uplift resistance of hold-down connections, \ud835\udc45\u210e.  \ud835\udc45\u210e = \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc5f\u210e \u2265{  \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,15\ud835\udc58\u210e\ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63when \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc58\u210e \u2265 \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63max (\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,15\ud835\udc58\u210e\ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63 ; \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,15 \u2212 \ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc4f) when \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc58\u210e < \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63 (3.2) where \ud835\udc58\u210e is the elastic stiffness of each fastener in the uplift direction in a hold-down connection, and \ud835\udc58\ud835\udc63 is the elastic shear stiffness of each fastener in a vertical connection. \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,15 is the 15th 52  percentile of the peak shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint. Shear connections were also designed according to the required factored resistance of a shear connection in the horizontal direction, \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc65, according to CSA O86-24 [26] as follows: \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc65 \u2265|\ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,30||\ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53|\ud835\udc39\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc60 (3.3) \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,30 = \ud835\udc4f [\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc5f\u210e\ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc48 + \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63.30(\ud835\udc5a \u2212 1) +\ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc5a2] (3.4) where \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,30 is the rocking moment resistance corresponding to \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63.30 due to seismic action, \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53 is the factored rocking moment acting on the shear wall due to seismic action, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc60 is the factored horizontal load on shear connections due to seismic action and \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63.30 is the 30th percentile of the peak shear resistance of each fastener in a vertical joint. The connections between wall panels and foundation (i.e., hold-downs and angle brackets) and vertical connections between wall panels were designed based on the mechanical properties provided by Pan et al. [54]. Meanwhile, for models considering floor elements, the connections between walls and upper floor were designed according to the mechanical properties of the wall-floor panel connections (vertical STS connections) tested by Gavric et al. [55]. According to the test results by Pan et al. [54], the yield and ultimate strengths had almost a linear relationship to the number of STS. Additionally, it was observed that the displacement capacity did not vary significantly among the tests. Therefore, the design of connections was conducted on a per-screw basis. Table 3.2 summarizes the mechanical properties of the adopted connections, which were utilized in the design process of the studied archetypes. The mechanical properties of the connections are presented on a per-screw basis. It should be noted that the yield point values presented in Table 3.2 for metal connectors, including hold-downs, shear brackets, and splines 53  (tested by Pan et al. [54]) were derived using the Yasumura and Kawai approach, as recommended in [56], while for the vertical STS connections, values were adopted from [55]. In this table, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc66 represents the yield strength, \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc66 denotes the yield displacement, and \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc62 indicates the ultimate displacement of the connections. The definition of loading directions (i.e., primary and secondary directions) for the connections are defined in Figure 3.3. Table 3.3 provides the required number of screws for different connections in the studied CLT shear walls. It is important to note that only one slotted hole shear bracket was assumed at the center of each wall panel, given the limited number of screws required for this type of connection. Based on the required number of screws for the connections, a uniform screw spacing of 100 mm was chosen for the wall-to-floor connections above in all the studied shear walls. 3.4 Numerical models Four detailed models, illustrated in Figure 3.4 to Figure 3.7, were developed within the OpenSees software framework [32] to study the effects of structural interactions. These models provide a systematic basis for evaluating the influence of secondary structural elements, often neglected in practical design, on the overall behavior of segmented CLT shear wall systems under lateral loads. Table 3.2 Mechanical properties of connections # Connection type Loading direction \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc9a  (kN) \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc9a (mm) \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 (mm) 1 Hold-downs Primary 12.05 9.57 33.45 2 Single surface splines Primary 3.55 5.74 34.80 3 Slotted hole angle brackets Primary 11.44 7.68 19.00 4 STS connections Primary 5.04 3.59 27.14 5 STS connections Secondary 5.08 1.30 18.56   54        (a) Hold-downs (b) Slotted hole shear brackets (c) Spline connections (d) STS joints Figure 3.3 Primary and secondary loading directions for the adopted connections in the studied CLT shear walls Table 3.3 Required number of screws for different connections in the studied CLT shear walls Connection type Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 Moderate aspect High aspect Moderate aspect High aspect Moderate aspect High aspect Hold-downs 5 7 6 8 6 8 Splines 12 13 13 15 14 15 Slotted hole shear brackets 4 2 4 3 5 3 STS connections 14 7 14 7 15 8  The first model, referred to as Model I in Figure 3.4, employs a simplified modeling technique, typically used in the analysis of regular CLT shear wall systems under lateral loads. As shown in Figure 3.4, this model focuses on modeling wall panels and their base connections (i.e., hold-downs and angle brackets), while neglecting the consideration of floor diaphragm, parapets and lintels. A multi-point constraint approach was instead utilized in this model to constrain the horizontal displacement of all panels, representing a rigid floor diaphragm. Primary directionSecondary directionHold-downs Angle brackets SplinesScrewedjointsPrimary directionSecondary directionHold-downs Angle brackets SplinesScrewedjointsPrimary directionSecondary directionHold-downs Angle brackets SplinesScrewedjointsPrimary directionSecondary directionold-downs Angle brackets SplinesScrewedjointsPrimary directionSecondary directionHold-do ns Angle brackets SplinesScrewedjoints55   Figure 3.4 Schematic representation of Model I The second model, referred to as Model II in Figure 3.5, extends the simplified technique used in the first model, while still neglecting the presence of parapets and lintels. As illustrated in Figure 3.5, this model expands the structural representation of CLT shear walls by incorporating not only wall panels and their base connections, but also floor panels and their connections to the walls below. Unlike the first model, this model does not rely on a multi-point constraint to simulate a rigid floor diaphragm. Instead, it explicitly models the floor diaphragm, allowing for a more detailed representation of the diaphragm behavior and its interaction with the wall panels. The first two models can be considered representative of CLT shear walls where CLT elements are used as parapets and lintels but their effects are disregarded as part of the design assumption. They can also represent cases where wood-frame elements with negligible in-plane lateral stiffness and strength are used as parapets and lintels and their effect is neglected due to this insignificant in-plane lateral stiffness and strength.  Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction56   Figure 3.5 Schematic representation of Model II The third model (Model III in Figure 3.6), incorporates CLT lintels and their connections to adjacent elements, while still neglecting the presence of parapets. Parapets still remain excluded from this model, either because their contribution is typically considered negligible as their primary function being to frame openings rather than provide significant structural continuity, or because platform framing, or similar framing\/elements with negligible in-plane lateral stiffness and strength are assumed. The fourth model, identified as Model IV in Figure 3.7, is the most comprehensive numerical model that incorporates all structural components- including CLT shear walls, floor panels, parapets and lintels- and their connection. This model considers all structural interaction that may exist in segmented CLT shear wall systems.   Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary directionFloor panel (Elastic beam-column elements)57   Figure 3.6 Schematic representation of Model III  Figure 3.7 Schematic representation of Model IV Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)Lintel (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction Lintel-wall panel joints vertical directionFloor panel (Elastic beam-column elements)Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)Floor panel (Elastic beam-column elements)Lintel (shell elements)Parapet (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction Lintel-wall panel joints vertical direction58  Comparing Models I to IV all aspects are identical, except for the progressive inclusion of floors, parapets, lintels and their corresponding connections to adjacent elements. It should be noted that the second model serves as a comparison point for two sets of models: the first two models (Models I and II), which differ only in their inclusion of floor diaphragms and wall-to-floor connections above, and the latter three models (Models II, III and IV), which vary in their incorporation of lintels or parapets and lintels and their corresponding connections to wall and floor diaphragm. For the representation of CLT wall panels, parapets and lintels, shell elements with elastic isotropic properties were implemented. The effective Young\u2019s modulus, \ud835\udc38\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53, calculated using Eq. 5, was utilized to consider the layered cross-section of the CLT element. In this equation, \ud835\udc380 denotes Young\u2019s modulus parallel to grain, \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 represents the total thickness of vertical layers, and \ud835\udc51 denotes the thickness of CLT panel. \ud835\udc38\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 = \ud835\udc380 \u2219\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc51 (3.5) Various kinds of springs, represented by zero-length link elements, with different behavior in horizontal and vertical directions were incorporated in all models to simulate the behavior of different connections utilized in the wall system, totally resulting in the identification of five unique categories of springs across all numerical models. The properties of these springs, which correspond to different features and behavior of connections, are listed in Table 3.4. Friction was not considered, and the base floor was assumed to be rigid in all models. The contact behavior between various elements was modeled using springs characterized by a uniaxial elastic-no tension material model, as described in row (a) of Table 3.4, in cases where no other connections were involved. This model was also employed in parallel with other material models to simulate contact behavior between different elements in cases where any other connections were present. 59  Table 3.4 Material models of springs employed in numerical models # Properties Parameters Representing a  Elastic-no tension material model (zero tension stiffness and linear compression stiffness) \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4e Contact b  Elastic-perfectly plastic gap material \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4f, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc66,\ud835\udc4f, gap --- c  Elastic uniaxial material model (different linear tension and compression stiffness) \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc61, \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc50 Spline joints secondary direction, lintel\/parapet-wall panel joints vertical direction d  Combined elastic-no tension and elastic-perfectly plastic gap material models \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4e, \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4f, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc66,\ud835\udc4f, gap Slotted hole angle brackets secondary direction e  Nonlinear SAWS material model [57] \ud835\udc3e0,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc390,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc3c,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc37\ud835\udc62,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc451,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc452,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc453,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc454,\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udefc\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udefd\ud835\udc52 (refer to Figure 3.8) Hold-downs secondary direction, slotted hole angle brackets primary direction, spline joints primary direction f  Combined nonlinear SAWS and elastic-no tension material models  \ud835\udc3e0,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc390,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc3c,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc37\ud835\udc62,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc451,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc452,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc453,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc454,\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udefc\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udefd\ud835\udc53, \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc50 Hold-downs primary direction, vertical STS joints secondary direction gapgapgapgapgapgapgapgapgapgapgapgap60  The compressive axial stiffness of springs simulating contact between wall panels and floor elements, \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4e,\ud835\udc64\u2212\ud835\udc53, was determined based on Eq. 6, proposed by Schickhofer and Ringhofer [58] and Bla\u00df and Gorlacher [59]. \ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc4e,\ud835\udc64\u2212\ud835\udc53 =\ud835\udc3890\ud835\udc34\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc53=\ud835\udc3890\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc53 (3.6) where \ud835\udc34\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 represents the effective area under compression in the floor element, \ud835\udc3890 refers to the elastic modulus of the floor in the direction perpendicular to the grain, which was equal to 300 MPa. The influence area for each spring modeling contact behavior between wall panels and floor elements was determined by multiplying the spring spacing, \ud835\udc56, by the effective length \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53. This effective length was derived based on a stress distribution pattern of 1:3 along the floor's thickness, as specified by Eurocode 5 [60]. A similar approach was also adopted by D'Arenzo et al. [17]. Given the nearly rigid stiffness of the foundation, similar to that of floor diaphragms, the same compressive axial stiffness was assigned to springs simulating contact between wall panels and the foundation, providing a reliable estimate for this interaction. It should be noted that Eq. 6 has been successfully used in previous studies for the same purpose [17, 18, 20]. Springs with a uniaxial elastic material model, as detailed in row (c) of Table 3.4, having different stiffnesses in compression and tension directions, were utilized to define both the contact behavior (compressive stiffness) and the behavior of spline connections in their secondary direction (tension stiffness) between the wall panels themselves. The tension stiffness of spline connections was assumed to be equal to their shear stiffness. This assumption is justified by the fact that the nonlinear behavior of spline connections in shear was largely influenced by the shear deformation and yielding of screws, which also applies to their behavior in tension [54]. For models incorporating parapets and lintels, the tension stiffness of connections between wall panels and 61  these elements was conservatively disregarded. Instead, only the contact behavior (compressive stiffness) was modeled, using springs with an elastic-no tension material model, as specified in row a of Table 3.4. Additionally, springs with a uniaxial SAWS material model, as outlined in row (e) of Table 3.4, were used to simulate the nonlinear behavior of slotted hole angle brackets and spline joints, both in their primary direction and hold-downs and vertical STS connections in their secondary direction. The nonlinear SAWS model is a comprehensive 10-parameter constitutive model that is commonly used for seismic analysis in wood frame structures. The hysteretic constitutive law of this material model is shown in Figure 3.8. It should be noted that, in contrast to the design phase of the shear walls where the shear resistance of hold-downs was neglected, the behavior of hold-downs in their secondary direction (i.e., shear resistance) was included in the numerical models to accurately capture their actual performance. The parameters of the SAWS material model for hold-downs in their secondary direction were assumed to be the same as those in their primary direction. This assumption is justified by the fact that the nonlinear behavior of the tested hold-down connections in their primary direction was solely due to the shear deformation and yielding of screws, with the steel brackets remaining elastic during the loading.  Figure 3.8 General force-displacement curve of SAWS material model [57]                                        \ud835\udc6d \ud835\udc6d    \ud835\udf39   =  . \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96     =    (\ud835\udc6d    ) \ud835\udf39      62  The nonlinear behavior of hold-downs in their primary direction and vertical STS joints in their secondary direction was modeled using springs that combined elastic-no tension material model, which simulates the wall-to-foundation and wall-to-floor contact, with SAWS material model that represents the tensile behavior of hold-downs and the vertical behavior of vertical STS connections (refer to row (f) of Table 3.4). The behavior of slotted hole angle brackets in their secondary direction was also defined by springs that combined elastic-no tension and elastic-perfectly plastic gap material models which simulate wall-to-foundation contact and the vertical behavior of slotted hole connections in the angle brackets, respectively (refer to row (d) of Table 3.4). The 'gap' parameter in the elastic-perfectly plastic gap material model was set equal to the length of the slotted holes. Noted that the primary and secondary directions of connections were previously defined in Figure 3.3. The mechanical properties of connections listed in Table 3.2 were derived based on test results obtained for loading in one direction. However, the load-bearing capacity of bracket connections, including hold-downs and angle brackets, is different for loading in multiple directions, as confirmed by previous experimental tests [61]. Rinaldin and Fragiacomo [62] found that a quadratic interaction effectively aligns with the observed outcomes in experiments involving biaxial loading of connections. Since OpenSees software does not support inelastic springs with different strength interactions for multiple loading directions and the discretization of springs using zero-length link elements results in uncoupled behavior, a simple approach was adopted in this study. This involved applying a reduction factor of 0.9 to the mechanical properties of connections to account for strength degradation in both directions. The floor panels were modeled using elastic beam column elements with flexible behavior in the out-of-plane direction, subdivided into smaller elements that were rigidly connected together. This 63  approach forms joints within the floor diaphragm, enabling its connection to corresponding joints in wall panels. This type of modeling ensures an accurate representation of the effect of floor-to-wall interaction on the lateral response of CLT shear wall systems as wall base and wall-to-floor connections above were modeled at positions closely approximating their actual installations. This approach distinguishes the numerical models presented in this article from previous simplified models where joints were considered at both ends of the panel. A mesh size of 100 mm was selected for both CLT wall panels and floor diaphragm, as further reduction in mesh size did not lead to significant changes in the results. The effective bending stiffness of floor elements, \ud835\udc380\ud835\udc3c\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53, was derived from the layered structure of the floor panels as detailed in Section 3. This calculation only considered the wooden layers aligned parallel to the bending stresses. The effective moment of inertia, \ud835\udc3c\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53, was determined using the following equation: \ud835\udc3c\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc53 =\u2211 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc563\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc56=112+ \u2211\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc562\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc56=1 (3.7) where \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56 is the thickness of each layer involved in the calculation; \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc56 represents the distance of each layer from the centroid of the section; and \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc53 is the length of the floor. The length \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc53 is based on the effective collaborative section functioning during internal bending actions, calculated using the formula outlined by Masoudnia et al. [63], which has also been utilized in previous similar studies [17, 18, 20]. Generally, as the wall panels, floor elements, parapets and lintels were characterized by elastic material models, all nonlinear behavior is attributed exclusively to the connections. Gravity loads were applied along the entire length of the studied shear walls. In the first numerical model, these vertical loads were applied to the top row of wall panel joints, while in the latter three 64  models, they were applied to the floor elements. Lateral loads were applied at the center of mass point of the studied shear walls.  3.5 Numerical modeling validation The hysteretic behavior of CLT shear walls assembled with segmented panels was validated using component-level connection tests and CLT shear wall tests conducted by Pan et al. [54]. In their study, a total of 48 individual-connection tests and 26 full-scale wall tests were conducted under quasi-static monotonic and reversed cyclic loading to investigate the lateral behavior of CLT shear walls with customized STS connections. The individual-connection tests included both panel-to-foundation (hold-downs and angle brackets) and panel-to-panel connections (single surface splines), each tested with different numbers of screws. Both the hold-down and angle bracket were fabricated from custom steel plates of grade 44W\/300W. CLT shear wall tests comprised single-, double- and triple-panel configurations, where the studied parameters included panel aspect ratios and the number of screws in connections. The connections and types of screws were identical to those utilized in the individual-connection tests. To validate the hysteretic behavior of the tested CLT shear walls, the parameters of the SAWS material model were initially calibrated for all types of connections, including hold-down, slotted hole angle bracket, and spline joint. The calibration of the SAWS material parameters involved an iterative process until a satisfactory match with the experimental test results was achieved. As previously noted, in numerical models that take into account the floor elements, the design of the connections between the wall panels and the upper floor was based on the mechanical characteristics of the vertical STS connections between the floor and wall tested by Gavric et al. [55]. Therefore, the nonlinear behavior of this connection was also calibrated in both its primary 65  and secondary directions. The same loading protocol as the original tests was applied for conducting displacement-controlled reversed-cyclic pushover analysis for both the individual-connection and wall tests. Figure 3.9 presents the comparison of the hysteresis curves for some of the tested connections and their corresponding FE models. As depicted in this figure, the hysteretic behavior of connections was successfully reproduced using the SAWS material model.  Table 3.5 presents the calibrated parameters of the SAWS model for the studied connections. In this table, the value of the first three parameters, including \ud835\udc3e0, \ud835\udc390 and \ud835\udc39\ud835\udc3c (refer to Figure 3.8), were provided for one screw.      (a) Hold-down with 9 self-tapping screws tested in its primary direction [54] (b) Slotted hole angle bracket with 2 self-tapping screws tested in its primary direction [54] (c) Spline joint with 2 screws in each panel edge side tested in its primary direction [54]   (d) Vertical STS connections tested in its primary direction [55] (e) Vertical STS connections tested in its secondary direction [55] Figure 3.9 Comparison of the connection test and FE analysis results  -500501001502002500 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM-60-40-200204060-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM-16-12-8-40481216-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM-12-8-404812-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM-4-202468100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM66  Table 3.5 Calibrated parameters of SAWS material model for the connections Type of connection Loading direction    \ud835\udc6d  \ud835\udc6d   \ud835\udc96                 Hold-down Primary 1.53 23.33 0.78 33.45 0.045 -0.1 2.50 0.015 0.001 1.05 Slotted hole angle bracket Primary 4.66 2.55 1.25 19.00 0.23 -0.15 1.70 0.015 0.20 1.08 Spline joint Primary 0.80 4.56 0.475 32.50 0.065 -0.45 1.60 0.015 0.30 1.05 STS connection Primary 1.5 8.20 1.15 23.64 0.012 -0.11 1.60 0.028 0.65 1.09 STS connection Secondary 6.00 4.70 0.00 19.0 0.025 -0.01 0.6 0.001 0.5 1.05 Numerical model I, described in Section 4, was then utilized to validate the cyclic response of the tested CLT shear walls. Figure 3.10 also illustrates the comparison of experimental and numerical results for two tested CLT wall specimens. As depicted in this figure, a notable concurrence is evident between the numerical modeling and the experimental test results, demonstrating the effectiveness of the adopted model in evaluating the nonlinear behavior of CLT shear wall systems.   (a) Coupled two-panel CLT shear wall (b) Coupled three-panel CLT shear wall Figure 3.10 Comparison of the wall tests conducted by Pan et al. [54] and FE analysis results 3.6 Results and discussions This section provides detailed evaluations of the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear wall models and presents and discusses the effects of each studied parameter. All force-displacement (pushover) curves in this study were reported up to the point where the force dropped to 80% of the maximum lateral strength of the wall system or where the floor reached its factored shear or bending resistance, whichever event happened first. The deformation capacity of the -200-1000100200-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM2:1 2:1-200-1000100200-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)TestFEM3:1 3:1 3:167  studied walls was assumed as the displacement at the maximum lateral strength of the wall system. The  factored flatwise shear and bending resistance of the floor panels were calculated using the equations provided in CSA O86-24 [26], considering a specified bending strength of 28.2 MPa for the laminations in the longitudinal layers, as prescribed in [64] for E1 stress grade CLT panels, and a specified rolling shear strength of 1.5 MPa for the laminations in the transverse layers, as determined in [65] for the same stress grade CLT panels. 3.6.1 Effect of secondary components In this section, the effect of structural interactions due to secondary structural elements on the lateral response of segmented CLT shear walls is investigated using previously described numerical models. The impact of these interactions on shear wall strength, deformation capacity, yielding and failure initiation, lateral response of coupled walls, displacement contributions within the studied shear walls, and the behavior of various connections is presented and discussed in detail. 3.6.1.1 Impact of secondary components on shear wall strength and deformation capacity Figure 3.11 presents a comprehensive comparison of the pushover curve of the studied shear walls, simulated using various models, for a floor panel thickness of 175 mm. The onset of yielding and failure in various connections is also indicated on each pushover curve. In this study, SPs denotes splines, HDs stands for hold-downs, and SBs indicates shear brackets. Table 3.6 also summarizes the lateral resistance and deformation capacity of the studied shear walls, simulated using different models, with various wall geometries and panel aspect ratios. The deformed shape of the studied shear wall models with geometry 2 at their maximum lateral strength point is also shown in Figure 3.12. 68   Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 Moderate aspect ratio       High aspect ratio         Figure 3.11 The effect of secondary structural elements on the pushover curve of the studied segmented CLT shear walls simulated using different models  Table 3.6 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of the studied shear walls simulated using different models with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm  Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Model Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 I 292.5 112.5 434.0 113.5 599.9 114.5 292.1 144.5 451.5 143.0 569.5 143.0 II 481.2 119.0 693.2 120.0 923.6 123.5 396.9 149.0 591.8 149.0 745.5 149.5 III 640.2 120 990.7 92.0 1378.4 88.5 533.1 150.5 822.3 120.5 1149.3 126.0 IV 633.5 72.5 1004.6 80.0 1485.3 80.5 596.7 139.0 968.0 116.5 1361.5 115.5  01503004506007500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)04008001200160020000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)04008001200160020000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Model IModel IIFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Model IIIModel IVFirst yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsDesign shear forceFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)69    Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Model I   Model II   Model III   Model IV   Figure 3.12 Deformed shape of the studied shear wall models with geometry 2 at their maximum lateral strength point (Deformation scale factor = 3.0)  70  Results indicated that the lateral stiffness and strength of the studied shear wall models incrementally increased with the progressive inclusion of secondary structural elements and their corresponding connections to adjacent elements, as compared to shear wall models I. Specifically, the enhancement of the maximum lateral strength was moderate when incorporating only floor elements (up to 64.5% for moderate aspect ratio wall panels and 35.9% for high aspect ratio wall panels), and more substantial when adding both floor elements and lintels (up to 129.8% for moderate aspect ratio wall panels and 101.8% for high aspect ratio wall panels), and reached its maximum with the inclusion of all secondary elements - floor elements, lintels, and parapets (up to 147.6% for moderate aspect ratio wall panels and 139.1% for high aspect ratio wall panels). When compared to shear wall models II, the maximum lateral strength of walls with moderate aspect ratio panels increased by up to 49.2%, and by up to 54.2% for walls with high aspect ratio panels, with the addition of lintels alone (shear wall models III). The inclusion of both lintels and parapets (model IV) further increased the maximum lateral resistance by up to 60.8% for walls with moderate aspect ratio panels and up to 82.6% for walls with high aspect ratio panels. When comparing the behavior of wall models that incorporate both lintels and parapets (shear wall models IV) to those with only lintels (shear wall models III), the maximum lateral strength of walls with moderate aspect ratio panels increased by up to 7.8%, and by up to 18.5% for walls with high aspect ratio panels. With the exception of geometry 1, where the lateral deformation capacity of shear wall models II and III was nearly the same and higher than that of models I and IV, shear wall models II generally exhibited greater deformation capacity compared to the other models across the remaining geometries. Specifically, comparing shear wall models II to I indicated that incorporating only floor elements into the numerical models enhanced the deformation capacity of the wall systems 71  by up to 7.9% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 4.5% for high aspect ratio panels. This enhancement in deformation capacity can be attributed to the observation that, although the addition of floor elements alone slightly limited the rocking deformation of the wall panels and increased lateral strength, it did not cause shear connection failure. Instead, it marginally increased the sliding displacement contribution of the wall system prior to the failure of splines and hold-downs, ultimately improving the lateral deformation capacity of the system. Comparing shear wall models III to II showed that adding lintels alone had no effect on deformation capacity in geometry 1, but resulted in a reduction of up to 28.3% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 19.1% for high aspect ratio panels in the other studied geometries. Comparing models IV to II revealed that the inclusion of lintels combined with parapets consistently and significantly reduced the deformation capacity across all geometries, by up to 39.1% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 22.7% for high aspect ratio panels. The reduction in deformation capacity observed in shear wall models III and IV is attributed to the fact that the addition of lintels alone, or in combination with parapets, limited the full development of rocking deformation in the wall panels. This limitation resulted in increased sliding deformation, imposing higher shear force demands on the shear connections, ultimately leading to their failure and, consequently, the failure of the entire system. 3.6.1.2 Impact of secondary components on yielding and failure initiations Although the initiation of yielding and failure in spline joints occurred before that in hold-down connections almost across all studied cases, the yielding and failure initiation in different connections has occurred almost in different coupled walls within a shear wall. Therefore, the 72  yielding and failure hierarchy needs to be further evaluated separately for each coupled wall within the studied geometries. This will be explored in detail in Section 6.1.3. In shear wall models I, only the spline and hold-down connections yielded, while shear brackets remained elastic. However, in the case of shear wall models I with moderate aspect ratio wall panels, screws in shear brackets reached their slot ends, and therefore initiated resistance against further rocking and subsequently yielded in their secondary direction as lateral displacements increased, which enhanced the ultimate lateral deformation capacity of the wall system. This type of behavior occurred only in moderate aspect ratio wall panels due to their higher vertical displacement at the location of shear brackets compared to high aspect ratio panels at the same wall displacements. Conversely, in models that included secondary elements (Models II to IV), additional connections yielded alongside spline and hold-down connections. In models incorporating only floor elements, STS connections yielded in walls with high aspect ratio panels, while both STS connections and shear brackets yielded in shear walls with moderate aspect ratio panels. The yielding of shear brackets in walls with moderate aspect ratio panels was attributed to their higher sliding deformation compared to the walls with high aspect ratio panels, which imposed greater shear demands on the brackets, eventually leading to their yielding. These results indicated that the presence of floor elements and wall-to-floor connections above provided additional stiffness against rocking deformation of wall panels, reducing the relative displacements between adjacent wall panels and promoting sliding, especially in walls with greater length. More details will be given in Section 6.1.4. In models with both floor elements and lintels, either alone or combined with parapets, both shear brackets and STS connections yielded alongside the spline and hold-down connections, with STS 73  connections yielded even before any other connections, regardless of panel aspect ratio. This demonstrates the additional effects of lintels and parapets in hindering the full extent of the rocking deformation mechanism in these walls. As a result, sliding deformation increases, leading to higher shear forces on shear connections, including STS and shear bracket connections. Noted that, except for the yielding in spline joints in shear wall models I, no yielding at connections were observed before reaching the design shear force across all geometries and models. In the case of shear wall models I and II, failure was only observed in the hold-downs and spline connections. In contrast, shear wall models that incorporated lintels alone (shear wall models III) experienced failure in STS connections in combination with splines and hold-downs. The addition of parapets led to the failure of shear brackets, which highlights the additional rocking stiffness and strength provided by these elements. This increased stiffness and strength constrained the rocking deformation mechanism in the studied wall lines, promoting wall panel sliding and leading to higher shear forces, ultimately causing shear bracket failure. Except for shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels, no bending exceedance of the factored resistance in floor elements was observed in all the studied cases before the point where the force dropped to 80% of the maximum lateral strength of the wall system. Figure 3.13 shows the deformed shape of shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in the floor elements at the end of the analysis (i.e., where bending demands exceeded the factored resistance in the floor elements). As shown in this figure, these exceedances occurred at the same location in the floor panels across all three models, precisely above the interface of the two end panels where a significant shear force was applied to the floor elements. In addition, the results indicated that the presence of openings led to an increase in shear 74  and bending demands in the floor elements located above the panels immediately before the opening areas. Geometry 1  Geometry 2  Geometry 3    Figure 3.13 Deformed shape of shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in the floor elements at the end of analysis (Deformation scale factor = 2.0) 3.6.1.3 Impact of secondary components on the lateral response of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.15 compare the pushover curve of the coupled shear walls within the studied wall geometries with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm. Figure 3.14 focuses on wall geometries with moderate aspect ratio panels, while Figure 3.15 examines those with high aspect ratio panels. Each pushover curve also indicates the points of onset for yielding and failure of different connections in the corresponding coupled wall. -120-80-4004080-240-160-80080160Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-120-80-4004080-240-160-800801600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-120-80-4004080-240-160-800801600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)Shear Moment Bending resistance exceedance in floor panels75   Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3     Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 3.14 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls with moderate aspect ratio panels CW1 CW2 CW1 CW2 CW3 CW1 CW2 CW3 CW40501001502002500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 20 40 60 80 100 120Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 20 40 60 80 100 120Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-15001503004506000 20 40 60 80 100 120Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Coupled wall 1Coupled wall 2First failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Coupled wall 3 First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)Coupled wall 476   Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3     Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 3.15 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied shear walls with high aspect ratio panels  CW1 CW2 CW1 CW2 CW3 CW1 CW2 CW3 CW40601201802403000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0601201802403000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0601201802403000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-15001503004506000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-15001503004506000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Coupled wall 1Coupled wall 2First failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Coupled wall 3 First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)Coupled wall 477  Results revealed that for shear wall models I, all coupled shear walls within a given geometry contributed to the overall lateral strength of the wall system in proportion to their individual lateral stiffness relative to the entire wall system. This is because model I follows the adopted design approach, where the design shear force is distributed according to the ratio of the lateral stiffness of each coupled wall to the total lateral stiffness of the entire wall system. However, a comparative analysis of results from other shear wall models against those from model I demonstrated that the progressive incorporation of secondary structural elements and their corresponding connections to adjacent components led to an increasing contribution to lateral strength by the coupled walls positioned on the right side of the studied wall systems. This resulted in more instances of yielding and failure in a greater number and variety of connections within these coupled walls. In the case of shear wall models I with moderate aspect ratio panels, results indicated that the intended yielding hierarchy between hold-downs and splines was achieved for all coupled walls, with the splines yielding first, followed by the hold-downs. However, in the case of shear wall models II to IV with moderate aspect ratio panels, hold-downs yielded before spline connections in the coupled walls positioned at the far-left side of the wall systems due to the single-wall behavior observed in these coupled walls, while the yielding hierarchy was achieved in the remaining coupled walls. However, in the case of shear wall models with high aspect ratio panels, regardless of the employed numerical model, the yielding hierarchy was obtained in all the coupled walls within the studied walls. This shows that using high aspect ratio panels not only can improve the deformation capacity of the segmented CLT shear walls, but also the yielding hierarchy is not affected by the presence of the secondary structural elements. For shear wall models I with moderate aspect ratio panels, the results showed that the splines failed before the hold-downs. In contrast, for shear wall models II through IV with moderate aspect ratio 78  panels, the hold-downs yielded prior to the spline connections in the coupled walls located at the far-left side of the wall systems under left-to-right loading direction (the first coupled walls) and in some other coupled walls. However, for shear wall models with high aspect ratio panels, the splines typically failed before the hold-downs in almost all coupled walls, regardless of the numerical model used. The early lateral force degradations and\/or negative force values observed in the pushover curves of the first coupled walls in shear wall models IV were caused by the wall panels sliding in the opposite direction of the applied loading. This behavior is attributed to the gap openings between the parapets and wall panels, which pushed the bottom of the wall panels in the reverse direction of the applied loading. This phenomenon was observed only in the first coupled walls due to the higher lateral stiffness of the subsequent coupled walls. When gap openings developed between the parapets and wall panels, the first coupled walls were displaced to the opposite direction of the applied loading to accommodate the induced gaps, as they had a lower capacity to resist the additional displacements\/forces compared to the subsequent coupled walls.  3.6.1.4 Impact of secondary components on displacement contributions of the wall panels within the studied shear walls The lateral displacement of the studied shear walls, \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc53, was assumed to consist of three deformation components (see Figure 3.16): horizontal sliding between the floor panel and the wall panel, \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc53\u2212\ud835\udc64, horizontal displacement due to rocking deformation of the wall panel, \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5f,\ud835\udc64, and horizontal sliding between the wall panel and the base, \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc64\u2212\ud835\udc4f. These components were calculated using the following equations: 79  \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc53\u2212\ud835\udc64 = \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc53 \u2212 \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc61 (3.8) \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5f,\ud835\udc64 = \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc61 \u2212 \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc4f (3.9) \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc64\u2212\ud835\udc4f = \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc4f (3.10) where \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc61 represents the horizontal displacement of the top toe of the wall panel, and \ud835\udeff\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc4f denotes the horizontal displacement of the bottom toe of the wall panel. It should be noted that the shear and bending distortion of CLT panels were disregarded due to their negligible contribution to the overall displacement of the shear walls. In the case of Model I, the absence of floor panels eliminates any horizontal sliding between the floor panel and the wall panels.   Figure 3.16 Displacement components of the shear wall system corresponding to the highlighted wall panel Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18 show the displacement contributions within the studied CLT shear walls with moderate and high aspect ratio panels, respectively, at their maximum strength point. As expected, the results indicated that shear walls with high aspect ratio panels exhibited a greater rocking contribution compared to those with moderate aspect ratio panels. While the results demonstrated the predominant rocking behavior of all the studied CLT shear walls, in general, the rocking contribution gradually decreased-with a corresponding increase in sliding contributions-80  as secondary structural elements and their connections to adjacent components were progressively included, compared to shear wall models I. The increase in sliding contributions can be attributed to the reduction in rocking deformations caused by the hindering effect of secondary structural elements. Additionally, the gap openings between the lintels, parapets, and wall panels imposed further displacements on the wall panels, contributing to the increased sliding behavior. For shear wall models III and shear wall models IV with high aspect ratio panels, the negative values of horizontal sliding at the top level of story in the rightmost coupled walls were due to the greater horizontal displacement of the wall panels compared to the floor panels. This was caused by gap openings between the lintels and wall panels, which pushed the tops of the wall panels, leading to more horizontal displacement than the floor panels. The negative values of horizontal sliding at the bottom level of story, observed only in the first coupled walls of geometries 2 and 3 of shear wall models IV with high aspect ratio wall panels, were caused by the wall panels sliding in the opposite direction of the applied loading. This behavior is consistent with the negative force values observed in the pushover curves for the first coupled walls of these shear wall models, as shown in Figure 3.15. The deformation components, though minor, varied from one panel to another within a coupled wall, which can be attributed to the differences in the embedment of the panels into the base or floor panel. However, the difference between deformation components of individual panels across different coupled walls increased, particularly for shear wall models III and IV. This can be explained by differences in shear force demands between the coupled walls (see Section 6.1.3) and\/or the influence of secondary structural elements that impose additional displacements on the panels.  81    Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3     Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 3.17 Displacement contributions within the studied shear walls with moderate aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1095.9 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.7 95.74.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.30204060801001 2 3 4 5 6Disp. contribution (%)Panel number96.4 96.4 95.3 95.0 95.0 95.1 96.3 96.33.6 3.6 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.9 3.7 3.70204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number96.6 96.6 95.7 95.5 95.5 95.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.43.4 3.4 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.60204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Disp. contribution (%)Panel number90.8 87.7 87.7 88.5 87.0 86.05.3 8.5 8.5 7.1 8.6 9.63.8 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.40204060801001 2 3 4 5 6Disp. contribution (%)Panel number90.7 89.0 87.3 86.8 86.8 87.0 88.1 86.34.7 6.4 7.6 9.0 9.1 9.0 5.9 7.84.6 4.5 5.1 4.2 4.1 4.0 6.0 5.90204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number90.5 89.0 87.6 88.0 88.1 88.2 88.3 88.5 88.1 86.34.2 5.9 6.7 7.5 7.6 7.6 5.8 5.9 5.2 7.15.2 5.1 5.7 4.5 4.4 4.2 5.9 5.6 6.7 6.60204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Disp. contribution (%)Panel number75.6 71.8 69.084.0 84.0 83.84.9 8.0 9.515.2 14.9 15.019.4 20.2 21.50.9 1.1 1.10204060801001 2 3 4 5 6Disp. contribution (%)Panel number68.3 65.3 73.9 73.4 72.6 71.178.6 78.65.4 7.416.7 16.7 16.7 16.321.7 21.626.3 27.39.4 9.9 10.7 12.6-0.3 -0.2-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number65.6 62.9 72.0 71.4 70.4 68.5 71.1 69.480.5 80.44.7 6.414.4 14.4 14.4 14.118.9 18.419.7 19.729.6 30.713.6 14.2 15.2 17.4 10.0 12.2-0.2 -0.1-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Disp. contribution (%)Panel number80.3 79.9 79.169.8 70.1 70.34.5 4.4 4.3 27.2 26.7 26.515.2 15.7 16.73.0 3.2 3.10204060801001 2 3 4 5 6Disp. contribution (%)Panel number73.9 73.3 69.9 70.4 70.4 69.955.7 56.11.5 1.420.8 20.1 19.7 19.1 42.2 41.824.6 25.39.3 9.5 9.9 10.92.0 2.10204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number67.9 67.4 68.2 68.9 69.1 68.4 65.5 65.555.2 55.70.8 0.615.1 14.1 13.5 12.8 23.3 22.3 41.6 41.231.3 32.016.7 16.9 17.4 18.811.2 12.33.2 3.20204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Disp. contribution (%)Panel numberRocking Sliding at the bottom level of story Sliding at the top level of story82    Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3     Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 3.18 Displacement contributions within the studied shear walls with high aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point 1 3 5 7 9111 3 5 7 91113151 3 5 7 9111315171997.9 96.9 97.0 97.9 96.9 97.02.1 3.1 3.0 2.1 3.1 3.00204060801001 3 5 7 9 11Disp. contribution (%)Panel number98.3 98.2 98.1 97.1 97.2 97.3 98.3 98.11.7 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 1.7 1.90204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number98.3 98.2 98.1 97.1 97.1 97.2 98.3 98.1 98.3 98.11.7 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.90204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19Disp. contribution (%)Panel number95.1 93.2 93.3 94.2 93.2 93.32.6 4.5 4.4 3.0 4.5 4.52.4 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.30204060801001 3 5 7 9 11Disp. contribution (%)Panel number95.1 94.3 94.2 93.7 93.7 93.9 94.4 94.21.9 2.7 2.6 3.8 3.8 3.7 2.2 2.83.0 2.9 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.3 3.00204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number94.8 94.1 94.0 93.5 93.7 93.8 94.4 94.2 94.2 94.01.9 2.7 2.6 3.8 3.8 3.7 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.83.3 3.2 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.20204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19Disp. contribution (%)Panel number84.0 81.5 80.493.0 92.7 92.62.3 4.3 4.48.0 7.9 7.813.7 14.2 15.2-1.0 -0.6 -0.4-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11Disp. contribution (%)Panel number77.1 75.490.1 89.2 88.1 86.6 95.8 95.42.0 3.05.9 6.1 6.3 6.28.2 8.120.9 21.64.0 4.7 5.7 7.3-4.0 -3.5-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number72.8 71.387.7 86.9 85.5 83.8 88.6 87.296.5 96.11.9 2.95.4 5.6 5.9 5.88.2 8.08.5 8.425.3 25.96.9 7.6 8.6 10.4 3.2 4.8-5.0 -4.5-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19Disp. contribution (%)Panel number87.3 87.2 86.7 84.6 85.3 85.70.9 0.7 0.515.5 14.6 14.011.8 12.1 12.8-0.10.1 0.2-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11Disp. contribution (%)Panel number77.3 77.3 85.986.9 87.2 87.0 86.9 87.6-0.8 -1.27.7 6.3 5.4 4.614.3 13.223.5 23.96.4 6.8 7.4 8.4-1.2 -0.8-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number73.7 73.8 83.184.1 84.3 83.8 84.6 85.1 85.6 86.5-0.7 -1.17.0 5.6 4.7 3.9 9.2 7.515.5 14.327.0 27.49.9 10.4 11.0 12.36.2 7.4-1.1 -0.8-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19Disp. contribution (%)Panel numberRocking Sliding at the bottom level of story Sliding at the top level of story83  3.6.1.5 Impact of secondary components on the overall behavior of various connections Figure 3.20 to Figure 3.23 illustrate the behavior of various connections within the studied shear wall models with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels. The location and identification details of each connection are indicated in Figure 3.19. In these figures, SPs denotes splines, HDs refers to hold-downs, SBs indicates shear brackets, and SCs signifies screwed connections. The results presented in Figure 3.20 to Figure 3.23 demonstrate that for shear wall models I and II, almost similar behavior was achieved for all hold-downs, splines, and shear brackets across the entire wall, regardless of the coupled walls in which they were used. This similar behavior of all connections across the wall was attributed to the even distribution of lateral forces, as depicted in Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.15. Notably, both hold-downs and spline joints achieved full deformation capacity, while shear brackets either remained elastic or just yielded. This behavior indicates predominant rocking deformation of shear wall models I and II, aligning with their intended design purposes. Additionally, Figure 3.23 reveals that the screws in shear brackets reached the ends of their slots and began to deform and resist against further rocking deformation, further confirming the extensive rocking deformation of walls in these models.   However, compared to shear wall models I and II, shear wall models III and IV exhibited less deformation in hold-downs and spline joints, and in the secondary direction of shear brackets, while more deformation occurred in the primary direction of shear brackets. This increased deformation, especially in the case of incorporating both lintels and parapets (model IV), ultimately led to yielding and consequently failure of the shear brackets, an outcome not observed in shear wall models I and II. This further validated the previous findings that the addition of lintels, alone or in combination with parapets, restricted the full extent of rocking deformation in the coupled walls of the studied systems. Additionally, different behavior for connections located 84  in various coupled walls was observed in shear wall models III and IV. This was particularly evident in shear wall models IV, where increased deformation was noted in the primary direction of shear brackets and reduced deformation in hold-downs and spline joints positioned in the right-side coupled walls. This aligns with the results shown in Figure 3.17, where the right-side coupled walls exhibited greater horizontal sliding displacement contributions. Figure 3.23 illustrates that from SB1 to SB8 in shear wall models III and IV, there was reduced deformation in the secondary direction of shear brackets, indicating a decrease in the rocking motion of the right-side coupled walls. This further confirmed that the inclusion of lintels and\/or parapets not only impeded the full extent of rocking deformation but also increased the sliding deformation of wall panels.   Figure 3.19 Identification of connections in the shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8SP1SP2SP3SP4SP585   HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6 Model I       Model II       Model III       Model IV         Figure 3.20 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels -150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50 75Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-30 0 30 60 90Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-150-100-50050100150-25 0 25 50Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure86    SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 Model I      Model II      Model III      Model IV        Figure 3.21 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels 0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 10 20 30 40Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure87    SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Model I         Model II         Model III         Model IV           Figure 3.22 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels 0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0102030400 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0204060801000 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure88   SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Model I         Model II         Model III         Model IV           Figure 3.23 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their secondary direction in the studied shear walls with geometry 2 and low aspect ratio panels-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure89  3.6.2 Effect of wall panel aspect ratio Figure 3.24 compares the lateral response of the studied shear walls with moderate and high aspect ratio panels, using a floor thickness of 175 mm. The initiation of yielding and subsequent failure in various connections is denoted on each pushover curve, where applicable, to illustrate the progression of nonlinear behavior during the loading process. Across all studied shear wall geometries and models, walls with moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited higher lateral stiffness compared to those with high aspect ratio panels. This can be attributed to their higher lateral strength at the same lateral displacement. The increased strength was mainly due to greater vertical deformation of wall panels and, consequently, higher resisting forces in hold-downs and spline connections, as well as a larger resisting moment arm in moderate aspect ratio panels, which collectively result in greater lateral strength than that of high aspect ratio panels at the same displacement. For shear wall models I, only small differences in maximum lateral strength were observed between walls with moderate and high aspect ratio panels. This is because Model I corresponds to the kinematic model used for designing the studied shear walls, which does not account for the influence of secondary structural elements on the lateral strength of the wall system. As a result, walls with both moderate and high aspect ratio panels exhibited similar maximum lateral strength in Model I, as they were designed to resist the same shear forces. For shear wall Models II to IV, walls with moderate aspect ratio panels achieved higher maximum lateral strength compared to those with high aspect ratio panels. This was attributed to the greater vertical displacements experienced by moderate aspect ratio panels at similar wall displacements, which enhanced the engagement of the floor panels. This increased engagement led to higher resisting forces from both the floor panels and the wall-to-floor connections above. Consequently, 90  the maximum lateral resistance of moderate aspect ratio panels was significantly improved compared to that of high aspect ratio panels. Specifically, shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited up to 23.9% higher maximum lateral strength compared to those with high aspect ratio panels. For shear wall models III, the difference was up to 20.5% higher for walls with moderate aspect ratio panels. In shear wall models IV, moderate aspect ratio panels indicated up to 9.1% higher maximum lateral strength compared to high aspect ratio panels. Notably, the enhancement in maximum lateral strength for moderate aspect ratio panels decreased slightly with the addition of lintels alone (model III) and reduced further when both lintels and parapets were included (model IV). This reduction can be attributed to the presence of these elements, which hindered the full extent of the rocking deformation mechanism compared to shear wall models II that incorporate only the floor diaphragm. However, shear walls with high aspect ratio panels exhibited greater deformation capacity than those with moderate aspect ratio panels across all studied geometries and models. This occurs because, at the same lateral displacement, walls with high aspect ratio panels impose lower deformation demands on hold-downs and spline connections, enabling them to accommodate greater deformations before the connections fail. The increase in deformation capacity varied between numerical models: up to 28.4% for shear wall models I, up to 25.2% for shear wall models II, up to 42.4% for shear wall models III, and reaching up to 91.7% for shear wall models IV. Notably, walls with high aspect ratio panels exhibited greater increases in deformation capacity with the addition of lintels alone or in combination with parapets (shear wall models III and IV). This behavior is attributed to the effect of increased horizontal sliding displacement of the studied shear walls.  91   Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 3.24 The effect of wall panel aspect ratio on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls 0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01803605407209000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)04008001200160020000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)04008001200160020000 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Moderate aspect ratio wall panelsHigh aspect ratio wall panelsFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Design shear force First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)92  3.6.3 Effect of floor panel bending stiffness Figure 3.25 compares the behavior of segmented CLT shear wall models with geometry 2 with different floor panel thicknesses. Almost identical pushover curves were obtained for the studied shear walls despite variations in floor bending stiffness (floor panel thickness). Only minor differences in the onset of yielding and failure of connections were noted. Additionally, with the increase in the thickness of the floor panels, no bending failures were observed in the floor panels of the shear wall models II with moderate aspect ratio panels.  Model II Model III Model IV Moderate aspect ratio    High aspect ratio      Figure 3.25 The effect of floor panel bending stiffness on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls with geometry 2 3.6.4 Effect of wall-to-floor connections above This section presents the effect of vertical stiffness and strength of wall-to-floor connections above on the lateral response of the studied shear walls using three different screw spacings of 50, 100 01803605407209000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 20 40 60 80 100 120Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)020040060080010000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Floor thickness 175 mmFloor thickness 245 mmFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Floor thickness 315 mmDesign shear forceFirst yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)93  and 200 mm. To ensure a consistent comparison, the total shear capacity of the STS connections was maintained equal to that of the 100 mm screw spacing case across all spacing configurations, as changing screw spacing affects the shear capacity of wall-to-floor connections above.  Figure 3.26 compares the lateral response of the shear walls with geometry 2 with different vertical stiffness for wall-to-floor connections above in case of a floor panel thickness of 175 mm. Similar to the earlier pushover curve figures, where relevant, the initiation of yielding and failure in different connections is also shown on each pushover curve. In addition, Table 3.7 provides the lateral strength and deformation capacity of the studied shear walls with different screw spacings of wall-to-floor connections above. The results indicated that the lateral strength and stiffness of the walls increased with increasing the vertical stiffness of the wall-to-floor connections above (i.e., reducing screw spacing in the wall-to-floor connections above). Specifically, decreasing the screw spacing from 200 mm to 100 mm resulted in up to a 17.1% increase in lateral strength for walls with moderate aspect ratio panels and up to a 10.3% increase for walls with high aspect ratio panels. Further reducing the spacing from 100 mm to 50 mm led to an increase in lateral strength of up to 23.1% for walls with moderate aspect ratio panels and up to 10.3% for those with high aspect ratio panels. However, the results also revealed that increasing the vertical stiffness by decreasing the screw spacing reduced the deformation capacity of the wall systems by up to 12.1% for moderate aspect ratio panels and by up to 5.6% for high aspect ratio panels. Except for spline connections, where the onset of yielding and failure was delayed, all other connections yielded earlier with increased vertical stiffness of the wall-to-floor connections above. This occurred because the increased vertical stiffness in the wall-to-floor connections reduced the relative displacements between adjacent wall panels. Specifically, increasing the screw spacing in 94  wall-to-floor connections above to 200 mm in shear wall models II resulted in reduced contribution from the floor panels, which in turn decreased the shear and bending demands on them, ultimately preventing the floor panels from exceeding their factored bending resistance.  Model II Model III Model IV Moderate aspect ratio    High aspect ratio      Figure 3.26 The effect of STSs spacing at wall-to-floor connections above on the lateral response of the studied segmented CLT shear walls with geometry 2 Table 3.7 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of shear walls with geometry 2, with different screw spacing at wall-to-floor connections above, for a floor panel thickness of 175 mm  Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Screw spacing Model II Model III Model IV Model II Model III Model IV \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 50 mm 837.8 105.5 1074.9 87.5 1083.4 76.0 699.8 150.5 896.1 114.0 1026.4 110.0 100 mm 693.2 120.0 990.7 92.0 1004.6 80.0 591.8 149.0 822.3 120.5 968.0 116.5 200 mm 591.8 117.0 911.8 96.0 960.9 84.0 536.5 148.0 783.3 125.5 939.9 122.5  020040060080010000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 20 40 60 80 100 120Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)020040060080010000 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0250500750100012500 25 50 75 100 125 150Force (kN)Displacement (mm)STSs spacing 50 mmSTSs spacing 100 mmFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)STSs spacing 200 mmDesign shear forceFirst yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at SBs (secondary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)95  3.7 Summary This chapter explored the impact of structural elements\u2014floors, lintels, and parapets\u2014on the lateral performance of single-story segmented CLT shear walls through four numerical models. Four numerical models were developed with varying levels of structural complexity: Model I included only wall panels and base connections, using rigid diaphragm constraints to simulate the floor. Model II added explicit floor modeling, while Model III incorporated CLT lintels, and Model IV included all elements\u2014walls, floors, lintels, and parapets. Based on the findings, the following conclusions can be drawn: \u2022 The results showed that all studied CLT shear walls predominantly exhibited rocking behavior. Including floors, lintels, and parapets progressively increased lateral stiffness and strength while reducing rocking displacement. Floors enhanced deformation capacity, but lintels, alone or with parapets, decreased it. \u2022 The addition of lintels, alone or with parapets, disrupted the expected force distribution among coupled wall panels, which was initially based on their stiffness ratios in the design process. \u2022 In Model I, only spline and hold-down connections yielded, while models with secondary elements also experienced yielding in shear brackets and STS wall-to-floor connections. Additionally, only floor bending demands exceeded their factored resistance in Model II with moderate aspect ratio panels. \u2022 In Model I with moderate aspect ratio panels, the intended yielding hierarchy\u2014splines yielding before hold-downs\u2014was achieved. In Models II-IV, hold-downs yielded first in the leftmost coupled walls due to single-wall behavior, but the hierarchy was maintained in other coupled walls. For high aspect ratio panels, the yielding hierarchy was consistently achieved across all coupled walls, regardless of the model. 96  \u2022 Shear wall models with moderate aspect ratio panels consistently exhibited higher lateral stiffness compared to those with high aspect ratio panels. However, walls with high aspect ratio panels consistently demonstrated greater deformation capacity across all geometries and models. \u2022 In Model I, the maximum lateral strength was nearly identical for both moderate and high aspect ratio panels. Conversely, in all other models, moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited significantly higher maximum lateral strength. \u2022 The results showed that floor panel bending stiffness had minimal impact on shear walls. However, increasing the vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections enhanced lateral stiffness and strength while reducing deformation capacity. Except for spline connections, which delayed yielding, all other connections yielded earlier with increased vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections.  97  Chapter 4: Investigating the Effect of Secondary Structural Elements in Multi-Story Segmented CLT Shear walls 4.1 Introduction This chapter aims to investigate the lateral response of multi-story segmented CLT shear walls designed according to CSA O86-24 [26] and assess the impact of secondary structural components such as floors, parapets and lintels on their lateral performance. To achieve this, four detailed inelastic FE models developed in previous chapter, differing in the inclusion of floors, parapets and lintels, are extended for multi-story shear walls using OpenSees software [51]. These models are employed to predict the force-displacement response, nonlinear deformation capacity, and deformation mechanisms of the wall system, as well as the yielding hierarchy of hold-down and spline joints under monotonic pushover analysis. The results aim to provide insights into both the effectiveness of the new seismic design procedure in CSA O86-24 [26] and the influence of secondary structural elements on the overall lateral response of multi-story CLT shear walls.  4.2 Description of the index buildings For the purpose of this chapter, one main CLT platform-type building configuration was selected. The typical floor plan of the building is depicted in Figure 4.1. The shear wall lines utilized as a lateral load resisting system are depicted in solid black lines. Each story consists of eight relatively small sized apartments, alongside an elevator and a staircase for access. The assumed location of the building was Vancouver (City Hall), British Columbia, Canada, within an area characterized by site class C. The floor panels were assumed to be oriented along the vertical axis, each with a width of 3.2 m. 98   Figure 4.1 Typical floor plan and extracted wall lines of the studied building (units in m) In accordance with FEMA P695 [66], which permits the use of 2D archetype wall models to represent wood shear walls, specific lines of shear walls within the index building were selected and designed as 2D archetype models during the seismic design phase. Different design variables including building height and wall panel aspect ratio (i.e., height to width ratio) were considered for the development of the archetype models. The building height ranged from low-rise (2-story) to mid-rise (6-story) configurations, extracted from shear wall line 1. The wall panel aspect ratios varied from moderate (2:1) to high (4:1), aligning with the allowable aspect ratios for moderately ductile CLT shear walls as specified by CSA O86-24. Consequently, six different archetype models were developed. Table 4.1 summarizes the list of studied archetypes. Figure 4.1 also shows the extracted wall line and its tributary area in the studied building plan. Figure 4.2 also provides the elevation view of 4-story studied archetypes. The wall panels were assumed to have dimensions of 3.2 meters in height, with widths of 1.6 meters for moderate aspect ratio panels (aspect ratio of 99  2:1) and 0.8 meters for high aspect ratio panels (aspect ratio of 4:1). In the case of archetypes with moderate aspect ratio panels, each story consists of two single panels at both ends of the wall line and two coupled three-panel CLT shear walls in between. For archetypes with high aspect ratio panels, each story includes four coupled walls: two coupled two-panel CLT shear walls at each end of the wall line and two coupled six-panel CLT shear walls in the middle. Table 4.1 Range of the design parameters for development of the archetype models # Archetype Number of stories Shear walls aspect ratio 1 6 Moderate 2 6 High 3 4 Moderate 4 4 High 5 2 Moderate 6 2 High     (a) 4-story archetype with moderate aspect ratio wall panels (b) 4-story archetype with high aspect ratio wall panels Figure 4.2 Elevation view of 4-story studied archetypes (units in m) In addition to the design parameters, the effect of floor panel bending stiffnesses and vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections above were also investigated. 100  4.3 Design assumptions The design of archetypes was carried out following the guidelines outlined in NBCC [50] and CSA O86-24 [26] for CLT platform-type buildings with moderately ductile CLT shear walls. Table 4.2 summarizes the specified gravity loads for the studied buildings. Live loads were determined according to the specified uniformly distributed live loads on area of floors for residential buildings. According to NBCC [50], the roof of the buildings was designed for snow loads, as they governed the live load effect. Table 4.2 Range of the design parameters for development of the archetype models  Dead (kPa) Live (kPa) Snow (kPa) Roof 1.67 1.0 1.64 Floors 3.42 1.9 \u2015 Interior walls 1.58 \u2015 \u2015 Exterior walls 1.87 \u2015 \u2015 Similar to the one-story shear walls studied in the previous section, wall panels with aspect ratios of 2:1 and 4:1\u2014within the allowable limits for CLT shear wall segments contributing to SFRS as outlined in CSA O86-24 [26]\u2014were selected to facilitate rocking behavior under lateral loads. Ductility and overstrength modification factors of \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc51 = 2.0 and \ud835\udc45\ud835\udc5c = 1.5 for CLT platform-type buildings with moderately ductile CLT shear walls were accordingly utilized to determine the seismic forces in the studied building. Ductile connections for energy dissipation were considered at specified locations, including spline joints between wall panels and discrete metal hold-downs at each end of the coupled walls (yielding only after the spline joints between wall panels have yielded). All other connections were designed with sufficient over-strength to be non-dissipative connections. The kinematic model and design procedure outlined in the previous chapter were applied to design segmented CLT shear walls. Additionally, here, following the requirements of 101  CSA O86-24 [26], the design ensured that the ratio of over-capacity coefficients between two adjacent stories, excluding the top story, satisfied the specified criterion: 0.90 \u2264  \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56+1\ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56 \u2264 1.20 (4.1) where \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56+1 and  \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56 are story over-capacity coefficient at the i+1th and ith stories, respectively. This coefficient can be calculated using the following equation [26]: \ud835\udefa\ud835\udc56 =\u2211 |\ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,95,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57|\ud835\udc41\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc57=1\u2211 |\ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57|\ud835\udc41\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc57=1 (4.2) where \ud835\udc41\ud835\udc56 represents the number of CLT shear walls which are part of the lateral load resisting system that are parallel to lateral load at the ith story, \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57 denotes the factored rocking moment acting on the jth shear wall due to lateral load at the ith story, and \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,95,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57 specifies rocking moment resistance corresponding to \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,95 under lateral loads for the jth shear wall at the ith story, which can be calculated using the following equation [26]: \ud835\udc40\ud835\udc60,\ud835\udc5f,95,\ud835\udc56,\ud835\udc57 = \ud835\udc4f [\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\u210e\ud835\udc5f\u210e\ud835\udc3e\ud835\udc48 + \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc53,\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63,95(\ud835\udc5a \u2212 1) +\ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc5a2] (4.3) Similar to the one-story segmented CLT shear walls discussed in the previous chapter, the wall-to-foundation and wall-to-floor below connections (metallic hold-downs and angle brackets) and the vertical panel-to-panel connections were designed based on the mechanical properties of connections tested by Pan et al. [54]. For models incorporating floor elements, the wall-to-floor above connections were designed using the mechanical properties of vertical STS joints as reported by Gavric et al. [55]. Table 4.3 presents the number of screws required for various connections in the studied archetypes. Noted that only a single angle bracket was considered at the middle of each wall panel in all studied archetypes. 102  Table 4.3 Required number of screws for different connections in the studied archetypes  6-story 4-story 2-story # Story HDs SPs SBs STSs HDs SPs SBs STSs HDs SPs SBs STSs 6 2 (2)* 3 (3) 2 (1) 3 (2) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 3 (5) 8 (10) 2 (2) 7 (4) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 6 (9) 17 (19) 3 (2) 10 (5) 1 (2) 2 (3) 1 (1) 3 (2) -- -- -- -- 3 11 (15) 27 (32) 4 (2) 12 (6) 3 (4) 7 (8) 2 (1) 6 (3) -- -- -- -- 2 16 (21) 40 (45) 4 (2) 14 (7) 5 (8) 15 (17) 3 (2) 8 (4) 1 (2) 2 (3) 1 (1) 3 (2) 1 22 (28) 53 (59) 4 (3) 15 (8) 8 (12) 23 (26) 3 (2) 10 (5) 2 (3) 4 (6) 1 (1) 5 (3) *Moderate aspect ratio wall panels (High aspect ratio wall panels) The major strength axis of the CLT floor panels was aligned in the vertical plan axis, corresponding to the direction of the selected archetypes. As a result, the gravity loads are expected to transfer to the perpendicular CLT shear walls. Therefore, the CLT wall panels in the studied archetypes were designed to withstand in-plane shear and support the combined gravity loads from their self-weight and only one-fourth of the load from the floor panels. Table 4.4 illustrates the distribution of the CLT wall panels and their layer thicknesses along the height of the archetypes. Table 4.4 Distribution of CLT wall panels and their thickness along the height of the studied archetypes # Story 6-story 4-story 2-story 6 35-35-35* -- -- 5 35-35-35 -- -- 4 35-35-35 35-35-35 -- 3 35-35-35 35-35-35 -- 2 35-35-35-35-35 35-35-35 35-35-35 1 35-35-35-35-35 35-35-35 35-35-35 * Bold indicates wooden board layers arranged in the vertical direction 4.4 Numerical models The detailed one-story FE models developed in the previous chapter were expanded to multi-story models in the OpenSees software platform [51]. Model I, illustrated in Figure 4.3, employs a simplified modeling approach often used in analyzing CLT shear wall systems under seismic actions. This model includes only the wall panels and their base connections, specifically hold-103  downs and angle brackets, while neglecting secondary elements such as floor elements, parapets, and lintels. A multi-point constraint technique was used to constrain horizontal displacement across all panels to represent a rigid floor diaphragm effect, simulating a unified horizontal displacement without adding the complexity of additional structural elements.  Figure 4.3 Schematic representation of Model I  Model II, shown in Figure 4.4, extends the simplified approach of Model I but still excludes parapets and lintels. This model enhances modeling detail by incorporating both wall panels with base and panel-to-panel connections and floor panels with their connections to underlying walls. Rather than using a simplified constraint to represent a rigid diaphragm, Model II explicitly simulates the floor diaphragm with frame elements, providing a detailed analysis of floor panels\u2019 behavior and their interaction with the wall panels under lateral loads.  Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction104    Figure 4.4 Schematic representation of Model II Models I and II can represent CLT shear walls with parapets and lintels made from CLT, though their effects are ignored as part of the design assumptions. These models can also apply to cases where wood-frame elements, with negligible in-plane lateral stiffness and strength, serve as parapets and lintels, allowing their effects to be neglected due to these insignificant lateral properties. Model III, as demonstrated in Figure 4.5, expands upon Model I by incorporating CLT lintels and their connections to adjacent wall panels and the upper floors. Parapets are still excluded in this model, either because their main function is to frame openings with insignificant structural effect, ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary directionContact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)Floor panels(Elastic beam-columnelements)105  or because they are assumed to be made up of platform framing or similar elements with almost negligible in-plane lateral stiffness and strength.  Figure 4.5 Schematic representation of Model III Model IV, shown in Figure 4.6, serves as the most comprehensive FE model, including all structural elements- wall and floor panels, parapets and lintels and their corresponding connections. This model captures all potential structural interactions within segmented CLT shear wall systems. Similar to the numerical models presented in the previous chapter, the CLT wall panels, parapets, and lintels were represented by shell elements with elastic isotropic properties, using the effective Young\u2019s modulus. Different types of springs, simulated by zero-length link elements, were also incorporated in the FE models to represent the contact behavior and unique horizontal and vertical Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)Lintels (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction Lintel-wall panel joints vertical directionFloor panels(Elastic beam-column elements)106  behaviors of various connections utilized in the studied wall systems. These models included five distinct categories of springs, whose properties, as well as the connection types and behaviors they represent, are described in detail in Section 3.4.  Figure 4.6 Schematic representation of Model IV Gravity loads were applied at each story level across the entire length of the studied archetypes. In Model I, these loads were applied to the top row of wall panel joints, whereas in the other models, they were applied to the floor elements. Pushover analyses were then carried out using displacement-controlled loading with a linear distribution pattern along the height of the archetypes, with the control node located at the center of mass at the roof level. A linear loading pattern was adopted to maintain consistency across all numerical models, particularly due to the significant difference between the first mode shape of Model I and the others, ensuring that the Contact or connections(Zero-length elements)Wall panels (shell elements)Floor panels (Elastic beam-column elements)Lintels (shell elements)Parapets (shell elements)ContactHDs primary directionHDs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs primary directionSPs primary directionSPs secondary directionSTSs primary directionSTSs secondary directionSlotted hole ABs secondary direction Lintel-wall panel joints vertical direction107  results solely reflect the effect of secondary structural elements. All other modeling assumptions are similar to those described in Section 3.4.  4.5 Results and discussions This section evaluates the lateral response of the studied multi-story segmented CLT shear wall models and explores the effects of secondary structural elements and the studied parameters. Similar to the force-displacement curves presented in the previous chapter, the results were reported up to the point where either the lateral strength decreased to 80% of its peak value or the floor reached its factored shear or bending resistance, whichever occurred first. Deformation capacity was similarly assumed as the displacement corresponding to the maximum lateral strength of the studied archetypes. Likewise, the factored flatwise shear and bending resistances of the floor panels were calculated using CSA O86-24 [26] equations, with a specified bending strength of 28.2 MPa for longitudinal laminations [64] and a rolling shear strength of 1.5 MPa for transverse laminations [65], both for E1 stress grade CLT panels.  4.5.1 Effect of secondary components 4.5.1.1 Impact of secondary components on shear wall strength and deformation capacity Figure 4.7 compares pushover curves of the studied archetypes, simulated by different models, with floor panel thickness of 175 mm. The initiation of yielding and failure in different connections is also shown on each pushover curve. Table 4.5 presents the lateral resistance and deformation capacity of the studied archetypes, simulated using various models with different numbers of stories and aspect ratios. Figure 4.8 illustrates the deformed shape of the 4-story models at their maximum lateral strength. 108    2-Story 4-Story 6-Story Moderate aspect ratio    High aspect ratio      Figure 4.7 The effect of secondary structural elements on the pushover curve of the studied archetypes simulated using different models  Table 4.5 Lateral strength and deformation capacity of the studied archetypes, simulated using different models with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm  Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Model 2-Story 4-Story 6-Story 2-Story 4-Story 6-Story \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udc6d\ud835\udc96 \ud835\udf39\ud835\udc96 I 107.8 117.0 177.8 163.0 308.8 273.0 137.8 225.0 229.9 282.0 334.0 304.5 II 207.8 119.5 347.2 174.0 440.0 157.5 210.5 202.0 349.3 275.0 377.5 187.5 III 276.9 129.4 460.2 190.8 520.1 151.2 272.5 180.9 451.6 274.8 449.0 163.2 IV 313.2 131.0 519.8 196.8 539.0 142.3 319.8 144.9 524.9 246.8 474.6 154.2  0701402102803500 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 80 160 240 320 400 480Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0701402102803500 60 120 180 240 300 360Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Model IModel IIFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Model IIIModel IVFirst yield at SBs (primary direction)Shear resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsDesign shear forceFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)109   Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Model I   Model II   Figure 4.8 Deformed shape of the 4-story archetypes at their maximum lateral strength point (Deformation scale factor = 4.0) (continued) 110   Moderate aspect ratio wall panels High aspect ratio wall panels Model III   Model IV   Fig. 4.8 Deformed shape of the 4-story archetypes at their maximum lateral strength point (Deformation scale factor = 4.0)111  Similar to the one-story shear walls studied in Chapter 3, the lateral stiffness and strength of the models increased incrementally with the addition of secondary structural elements (floor panels, lintels, and parapets), compared to the shear wall models I. When only floor elements were incorporated, maximum lateral strength increased moderately, reaching up to 95.3% for walls with moderate aspect ratio panels and 52.8% for those with high aspect ratio panels. The inclusion of both floors and lintels led to a more substantial maximum strength increase, up to 158.8% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 97.7% for high aspect ratio panels. The greatest increase in maximum lateral strength was achieved when all secondary elements\u2014floors, lintels, and parapets\u2014were added, resulting in increases of up to 192.3% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 132.1% for high aspect ratio panels. Comparing shear wall models III to shear wall models II, the maximum lateral strength increased by up to 33.25% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 29.4% for high aspect ratio panels. Adding parapets (Model IV) further raised maximum lateral strength by up to 50.7% for moderate aspect ratio panels and 51.9% for high aspect ratio panels. Walls with both lintels and parapets (Model IV) showed up to 13.1% greater maximum lateral strength for moderate aspect ratio panels and up to 17.4% for high aspect ratio panels compared to those with only lintels (Model III). For shear wall models with moderate aspect ratio panels, the inclusion of secondary structural elements consistently increased the deformation capacity of the wall system. However, in the 6-story shear wall models simulated using Models II to IV, the floor panels reached their factored shear or bending resistance at lower displacements, which limited the overall deformation capacity. Compared to shear wall models I, and excluding the 6-story walls, the deformation capacity increased by up to 6.7% with the addition of floor elements alone, up to 17.1% with the 112  inclusion of both floor elements and lintels, and up to 20.7% when all secondary elements were integrated into the numerical models. However, for shear wall models with high aspect ratio panels, shear wall models I demonstrated higher deformation capacities compared to the other models, except for the studied 6-story shear wall models, where the floor panels reached their factored shear or bending resistance at lower displacements. Excluding the 6-story shear walls, incorporating floor elements alone reduced the deformation capacity by up to 10.2%. The addition of both floors and lintels (Model III) further decreased deformation capacity by up to 19.6%, while integrating floors, lintels, and parapets (Model IV) resulted in additional reductions of up to 35.6% compared to shear wall models I. 4.5.1.2 Impact of secondary components on yielding and failure initiations Yielding and failure in spline joints occurred earlier than in hold-down connections in all cases studied, consistent with the design guidelines in CSA O86-24 [26]. In shear wall models I, regardless of panel aspect ratio, only the spline and hold-down connections experienced yielding, with shear brackets remaining elastic. Conversely, in models incorporating secondary elements (Models II to IV), additional connections yielded alongside the spline and hold-down connections. In models with only floor elements (Model II), STS connections yielded in walls with high aspect ratio panels, while both STS connections and shear brackets yielded in walls with moderate aspect ratio panels.  These observations indicated that the integration of floor elements and wall-to-floor connections above reduced the rocking deformation of wall panels, which in turn increased sliding, especially in walls of greater length. This increased sliding deformation increased the shear demands on the shear connections, ultimately leading to their yielding \u2014a behavior that was not observed in shear wall models I. The additional yielding of shear brackets in walls with moderate aspect ratio panels 113  also highlighted the greater restrictive effect of wider panels on rocking behavior, which instead promotes sliding and leads to the yielding of shear brackets. In models incorporating both floor elements and lintels, with or without parapets, both shear brackets and STS joints experienced yielding, alongside spline and hold-down connections. The results also indicated that the progressive inclusion of secondary components led to the earlier initiation of yielding in shear connections. This demonstrates the additional effects of lintels and parapets in restricting the full development of the rocking deformation mechanism in segmented CLT shear walls. Their presence promotes sliding deformation, even at lower deformation demands, and leads to earlier yielding of shear connections compared to models with only floor elements. Additionally, except for the yielding in spline joints in shear wall models I, no yielding at connections was observed before reaching the design shear force in almost all models. The results also revealed that the inclusion of lintels, either alone or in combination with parapets, caused the yielding of additional connection types in stories other than the top story. This contrasts with shear wall models I and II, where only spline and STS connections yielded in the second and third stories, and no connections yielded in the first story. These findings demonstrated that the inclusion of secondary structural elements, particularly parapets and lintels, not only increased the yielding of various connection types but also extended this yielding to a greater number of stories. In shear wall models I, failures were primarily observed in spline connections before the walls reached their maximum lateral strength. However, in shear wall models II, before achieving the maximum lateral strength, failures were also observed in hold-downs shortly after the failure of spline connections. In contrast, models with only lintels (Model III) exhibited failures in STS connections before those in splines and hold-downs. The addition of parapets led to failures in STS connections in walls with high aspect ratio panels, and both STS and shear bracket failures in walls 114  with moderate aspect ratio panels. This further highlights the significant influence of parapets in reducing rocking deformation while increasing sliding, amplifying forces on shear connections and ultimately leading to their failure. Except for the 6-story FE models represented by Models II to IV\u2014where both shear and bending demands in the floor elements exceeded their factored resistances at small lateral displacements and before reaching their maximum lateral strength\u2014no other models showed shear or bending demands surpassing the factored resistance in the floor elements by the end of the analysis. Figure 4.9 illustrates the deformed shape of the 6-story shear wall model II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in its floor elements at the end of the analysis (i.e., when the shear demands exceeded the factored resistance of the floor elements). As shown in this figure, the shear demand exceedance in the floor elements occurred on the second floor, just before the second opening. The results further demonstrated that the maximum shear and bending demands in the floor elements occur directly above the opening areas. To gain a clearer insight into the lateral response of the analyzed shear wall models and the onset of yielding and failure in connections throughout the heights of the archetypes, Figure 4.10 displays the force-displacement curves for various stories within the 4-story archetypes, accompanied by the yielding and failure initiation of connections at each level. As shown in the figure, wall strength degradation in all the studied archetypes was attributed to the failure of the top story. The results also revealed that the inclusion of lintels, either alone or in combination with parapets, caused the yielding of additional connection types in stories other than the top story. This contrasts with shear wall models I and II, where only spline and STS connections yielded in the second and third stories, and no connections yielded in the first story. These findings demonstrate that the inclusion of secondary structural elements, particularly parapets and lintels, not only 115  increases the yielding of various connection types but also extends this yielding to a greater number of stories.    Figure 4.9 Deformed shape of the 6-story shear wall model II with moderate aspect ratio panels, along with the shear and moment distribution curves in its floor elements at the end of the analysis (Deformation scale factor = 4.0)  -50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)-50-2502550-100-500501000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Moment (kN.m)Shear (kN)Shear Moment Shear resistance exceedance in floor panels116    Moderate aspect ratio panels High aspect ratio panels Model I   Model II   Model III   Model IV    Figure 4.10 Force-displacement curves of different stories within the studied 4-story archetypes  040801201602000 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 70 140 210 280 350 420Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 60 120 180 240 300 360Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 50 100 150 200 250 300Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 50 100 150 200 250 300Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)Story 1Story 2First failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Story 3Story 4First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)First yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)117  4.5.1.3 Impact of secondary components on the lateral response of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 present the pushover curves of the coupled shear walls in the 4-story archetypes, simulated using various models, with a floor panel thickness of 175 mm for moderate and high aspect ratio walls, respectively. Each pushover curve additionally highlights the initial points of yielding and failure for various connections in the respective coupled walls. Figure 4.11 indicates the identification of coupled walls in the studied shear walls. In this figure, the abbreviation \"W\" stands for wall, and \"CW\" represents Coupled Wall. The results indicated that in shear wall Models I, similar to the findings from the one-story shear wall Models I, all shear walls or coupled shear walls within a story contributed to the overall lateral strength of the story, approximately proportional to their individual lateral stiffness relative to the total stiffness of the story. However, a comparative analysis with other shear wall models revealed that the progressive inclusion of secondary structural elements disrupted the force distribution among the coupled walls. Similar results were also observed in the one-story shear walls studied in Chapter 3. Additionally, the results confirmed that the intended hierarchy of yielding between hold-downs and splines\u2014where spline joints yield first, followed by hold-downs\u2014was achieved for almost all coupled walls across the studied archetypes, demonstrating the effective extension of coupled wall behavior throughout each story and the overall building height.    (a) Moderate aspect ratio panels (b) High aspect ratio panels Figure 4.11 Identification of panels and coupled walls in the studied shear walls CW2W1 CW3 W41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8CW2CW1 CW3 CW41 3 5 97 11 13 152 4 6 8 10 12 14 16118   Model I Model II Model III Model IV Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.12 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes with moderate aspect ratio panels -100102030400 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-150153045600 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-2502550751000 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-3003060901200 40 80 120 160 200 240Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-150153045600 15 30 45 60 75 90Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-3003060901200 15 30 45 60 75 90Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-500501001502000 20 40 60 80 100 120Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-500501001502000 20 40 60 80 100 120Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-2502550751000 7 14 21 28 35 42Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-40040801201600 10 20 30 40 50 60Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 10 20 30 40 50 60Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 10 20 30 40 50 60Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-2502550751000 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-40040801201600 4 8 12 16 20 24Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 4 8 12 16 20 24Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 4 8 12 16 20 24Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)Wall 1Coupled wall 2First failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Coupled wall 3First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)First yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)Wall 4119   Model I Model II Model III Model IV Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.13 Force-displacement curves of the coupled walls within the studied archetypes with high aspect ratio panels -100102030400 70 140 210 280 350 420Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-150153045600 60 120 180 240 300 360Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060800 50 100 150 200 250 300Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-500501001502000 50 100 150 200 250 300Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-200204060800 30 60 90 120 150 180Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-3003060901200 25 50 75 100 125 150Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-40040801201600 25 50 75 100 125 150Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-500501001502000 30 60 90 120 150 180Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-3003060901200 12 24 36 48 60 72Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-40040801201600 12 24 36 48 60 72Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 12 24 36 48 60 72Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 15 30 45 60 75 90Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-3003060901200 4 8 12 16 20 24Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-40040801201600 4 8 12 16 20 24Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-600601201802400 5 10 15 20 25 30Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)-700701402102800 6 12 18 24 30 36Shear (kN)Displacement (mm)Coupled wall 1Coupled wall 2First failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Coupled wall 3First yield at SBs (primary direction)First yield at STSs (primary direction)First yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)Coupled wall 4120  The decreased lateral strength contribution of wall 1, coupled wall 1, and coupled wall 3 in shear wall models III and IV is attributed to their reduced displacement contribution caused by gap openings between the lintels and wall panels, and\/or between the parapets and wall panels, which restricted their deformation. This behavior occurs because, when gaps open, the movement of these walls in the direction of loading is restricted by the resistance of subsequent walls. In contrast, the increased lateral strength contribution of coupled wall 2, wall 4, and coupled wall 4 in the same models is attributed to the additional displacement contribution of these walls resulting from gap openings between the lintels and wall panels, and\/or between the parapets and wall panels. This is because, when gaps open, the absence of subsequent walls allows for greater deformation, leading to an increased lateral strength contribution. The negative force values observed in the pushover curves of wall 1 and coupled wall 1 in shear wall models IV were caused by the wall panels sliding at the bottom level of the story in the direction opposite to the applied load. This sliding deformation of the first single or coupled walls at the bottom level of story, occurring in the direction opposite to the applied load, is illustrated in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15. This behavior was attributed to gap openings between the parapets and wall panels, which forced the bottom of the wall panels to move in the reverse direction of the applied load. As gaps developed, these walls moved in the opposite direction to accommodate the induced gaps due to their lower capacity to resist additional displacements and forces compared to the stiffer subsequent coupled walls. 4.5.1.4 Impact of secondary components on displacement contributions of the wall panels within the studied shear walls Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15 illustrate the displacement contributions of wall panels within the studied 4-story archetypes with moderate and high aspect ratio panels, respectively, at their point 121  of maximum strength. The identification of wall panels for both shear walls with moderate and high aspect ratio panels is shown in Figure 4.11. Consistent with expectations and previous findings for one-story shear walls, the results revealed that shear walls with high aspect ratio panels exhibited a greater rocking contribution compared to those with moderate aspect ratio panels across all floors and cases studied. Although rocking behavior was predominant deformation mode for all the CLT shear walls analyzed, the inclusion of secondary structural elements led to a reduction in rocking contributions and a corresponding increase in sliding contributions. This shift can be attributed to the added structural elements, which limited the extent of rocking deformation and introduced additional displacements induced by lintels and parapets, stemming from gap openings at their interfaces with wall panels. Comparing the displacement contributions across different stories in shear wall model I showed a decrease in rocking deformation in the lower stories due to increased gravity loads. Shear wall models III and IV with high aspect ratio panels exhibited negative horizontal sliding values at the top level of story in the rightmost coupled walls. These negative values resulted from the wall panels exhibiting greater horizontal displacement than the floor panels, a phenomenon attributed to gap openings between the lintels and wall panels. These gaps caused the top of the wall panels to be pushed, leading to greater displacement relative to the floor panels. In the first coupled walls of shear wall models IV, negative horizontal sliding values at the bottom story were due to the wall panels moving in the opposite direction of the applied loading. This behavior aligns with the negative force values seen in the pushover curves for the first coupled walls of these models, as illustrated in Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13.122   Model I Model II Model III Model IV Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.14 Displacement contributions within the 4-story studied archetypes with moderate aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point 98.5 95.7 95.7 95.8 95.7 95.7 95.8 98.01.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 2.00204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number91.781.9 86.3 86.4 81.3 86.1 86.2 77.03.28.38.2 8.28.48.3 8.36.75.0 9.9 5.5 5.4 10.3 5.6 5.5 16.40204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number63.383.1 83.3 83.468.0 67.9 67.582.03.012.4 12.3 12.38.6 8.6 8.717.633.74.5 4.4 4.423.4 23.5 23.70.40204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number71.4 72.5 76.4 77.4 74.5 74.6 74.5 72.3-3.117.5 17.2 17.0 5.1 5.0 4.923.731.610.0 6.4 5.620.4 20.4 20.64.0-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number99.2 93.9 92.2 92.7 93.9 92.2 92.7 98.60.8 6.1 7.8 7.3 6.1 7.8 7.3 1.40204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number93.670.2 67.0 67.4 68.2 67.8 68.386.02.415.7 19.1 19.0 17.0 18.4 18.36.04.014.1 13.9 13.6 14.8 13.8 13.5 8.00204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number81.170.7 68.6 69.0 65.7 65.0 65.090.71.4 22.0 23.8 23.516.1 16.7 16.411.617.57.2 7.6 7.518.2 18.3 18.7-2.2-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number84.769.3 66.3 66.8 73.3 73.8 74.378.4-1.121.9 24.5 24.1 8.4 8.0 7.720.516.48.9 9.2 9.1 18.3 18.2 18.01.1-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number99.591.9 87.8 89.0 91.9 87.8 89.098.90.58.1 12.2 11.0 8.1 12.2 11.01.10204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number95.370.862.3 63.0 66.9 60.7 62.087.11.614.1 22.4 22.2 16.7 22.8 22.56.03.115.1 15.3 14.8 16.4 16.5 15.56.90204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number84.269.8 62.0 62.4 64.0 57.8 57.992.10.4 21.4 28.2 27.9 15.7 21.3 20.911.515.3 8.8 9.8 9.7 20.2 20.8 21.2-3.6-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number87.568.7 59.8 60.3 68.8 68.869.679.5-1.721.128.9 28.5 10.7 10.6 10.220.714.3 10.2 11.3 11.1 20.5 20.6 20.2-0.2-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number96.886.9 81.4 82.3 86.9 81.4 82.396.13.213.1 18.6 17.7 13.1 18.6 17.73.90204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number89.867.255.7 56.564.752.4 54.280.34.316.0 26.8 27.4 17.5 29.1 29.110.05.916.8 17.4 16.1 17.9 18.6 16.89.70204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number80.865.354.3 55.2 61.8 49.8 49.783.92.7 24.133.7 33.7 16.426.9 26.418.116.6 10.5 12.0 11.1 21.9 23.3 23.9-2.0-2502550751001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel number84.064.552.9 53.963.8 59.3 59.572.80.323.833.9 33.8 13.9 17.5 17.225.515.7 11.7 13.2 12.2 22.3 23.3 23.21.80204060801001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Disp. contribution (%)Panel numberRocking Sliding at the bottom level of story Sliding at the top level of story123   Model I Model II Model III Model IV Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.15 Displacement contributions within the 4-story studied archetypes with high aspect ratio panels at their maximum strength point 99.4 99.0 98.5 98.5 99.0 98.5 98.5 99.40.6 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.60204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number95.3 92.7 95.6 96.1 92.8 95.8 96.1 92.01.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.53.7 5.2 2.4 2.0 5.2 2.3 2.1 6.50204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number66.395.1 95.2 95.382.0 82.0 81.3103.80.72.9 2.8 2.82.1 2.0 2.45.233.02.0 2.0 2.015.9 16.0 16.3-8.9-2502550751001251 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number80.8 87.8 88.3 89.2 88.1 88.2 88.2 89.2-5.69.4 8.9 8.50.20.0 -0.212.224.72.8 2.9 2.311.7 11.8 12.0-1.4-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number98.8 97.8 95.3 95.4 97.8 95.3 95.4 98.71.2 2.2 4.7 4.6 2.2 4.7 4.6 1.30204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number95.787.1 83.7 84.2 87.3 84.3 84.8 90.81.55.9 9.3 9.1 6.0 9.0 8.8 3.82.86.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.4 5.40204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number83.0 88.1 85.3 85.4 83.0 79.9 79.693.90.910.4 12.7 12.55.7 8.5 8.39.116.01.6 2.0 2.111.2 11.6 12.1-3.0-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number88.5 83.8 83.5 83.9 86.4 86.4 86.4 85.1-1.713.3 13.3 13.02.7 2.5 2.215.213.22.9 3.2 3.211.0 11.1 11.5-0.3-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number98.7 97.6 93.5 93.7 97.6 93.5 93.7 98.61.3 2.4 6.5 6.3 2.4 6.5 6.3 1.40204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number96.584.4 78.3 78.6 84.1 78.7 79.091.10.95.0 10.5 10.3 5.5 10.3 10.12.92.710.6 11.1 11.0 10.4 10.9 10.8 6.00204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number86.5 87.2 81.0 81.1 81.6 76.6 76.496.90.28.5 13.7 13.55.2 9.4 9.06.313.3 4.3 5.2 5.4 13.2 14.0 14.5-3.2-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number90.1 83.4 79.1 79.4 83.4 83.1 83.4 88.3-1.910.6 14.0 13.63.2 3.0 2.512.511.8 6.0 6.9 7.0 13.4 13.9 14.1-0.8-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number97.5 95.3 89.8 90.2 95.3 89.8 90.2 97.32.5 4.7 10.2 9.8 4.7 10.2 9.8 2.70204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number93.082.972.0 72.082.872.3 72.489.72.55.7 15.1 15.1 6.0 15.1 14.93.24.5 11.4 12.9 13.0 11.2 12.6 12.7 7.00204060801001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number85.6 83.672.7 72.7 81.2 71.4 71.095.12.210.5 19.5 19.25.6 13.7 13.27.012.2 5.9 7.8 8.1 13.2 14.9 15.8-2.1-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel number88.779.2 70.7 70.882.5 78.8 79.0 86.4-0.213.320.0 19.6 4.0 6.5 5.714.011.5 7.5 9.3 9.6 13.5 14.8 15.2-0.4-2502550751001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15Disp. contribution (%)Panel numberRocking Sliding at the bottom level of story Sliding at the top level of story124  Despite being minor, the deformation components varied from panel to panel within a coupled wall. These differences can be attributed to the single wall behavior of the coupled walls or differences in the extent of their embedment into the base or floor panel 4.5.1.5 Impact of secondary components on the overall behavior of various connections Figure 4.17 to Figure 4.28 illustrate the behavior of various connections within the studied 4-story archetypes with low aspect ratio panels, analyzed using different numerical models. The location and identification details for each connection type are shown in Figure 4.16. Similar to the one-story shear walls, in shear wall Models I and II, a nearly consistent behavior was observed for all hold-down, spline, and shear bracket connections throughout the wall, regardless of the specific coupled walls they were part of. This consistency was attributed to the balanced distribution of lateral forces among the different coupled walls, particularly in Model I. However, it should be noted that SB1 and SB8 experienced lower shear forces compared to SB2 to SB7 (See Figure 4.25 to Figure 4.28). This was due to the presence of hold-downs at both bottom corners of Walls 1 and 4, which absorbed part of the shear forces in these walls. As anticipated from the behavior of different coupled walls and the displacement contribution of panels within the studied archetypes, varying behaviors in the connections of shear wall models III and IV were observed, particularly in those within the different coupled walls. The behavior of HD1 and HD2 in Models III and IV (Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.20) revealed that Wall 1 experienced uplift during rocking. Negative force values in SB1 in stories 2 to 4 of Model IV aligned with the displacement contribution results for Wall 1 in the same model and stories, where negative sliding contributions at the bottom level of the wall were identified. Additionally, Figure 4.17 to Figure 4.28 confirmed that connection failures were limited to the topmost story, with no failures observed in the connections of lower stories. 125   Figure 4.16 Identification of connections in the shear walls with low aspect ratio panels  HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8SP1SP2SP3SP4HD7 HD8Coupled wall 2Wall 1 Coupled wall 3 Wall 4126  Figure 4.17 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I  HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6 HD7 HD8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           -30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-30-20-100102030-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-45-30-150153045-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-2 0 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure127  Figure 4.18 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II  HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6 HD7 HD8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           -60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-3 0 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure128  Figure 4.19 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III  HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6 HD7 HD8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           -60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-4 0 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure129  Figure 4.20 Force-displacement curves of hold-downs in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV  HD1 HD2 HD3 HD4 HD5 HD6 HD7 HD8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           -60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-20 0 20 40 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-60-40-200204060-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-90-60-300306090-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-120-80-4004080120-5 0 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure130   SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.21 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I 03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0816243240480 6 12 18 24Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0816243240480 6 12 18 24Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0816243240480 6 12 18 24Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0816243240480 6 12 18 24Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01530456075900 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure131   SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.22 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II 03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 20 40 60 80Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0510152025300 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0510152025300 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0510152025300 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0510152025300 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 1 2 3 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 1 2 3 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 1 2 3 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 1 2 3 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure132   SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.23 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III 03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01020304050600 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure133   SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 Story 4     Story 3     Story 2     Story 1       Figure 4.24 Force-displacement curves of splines in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV 03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)03691215180 15 30 45 60Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0612182430360 4 8 12 16Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 3 6 9 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01224364860720 2 4 6 8Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure134   SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           Figure 4.25 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model I 02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)02468100 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0481216200 1 2 3Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure135    SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           Figure 4.26 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model II 036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)036912150 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)06121824300 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 2 4 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure136   SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           Figure 4.27 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model III 05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 6 12 18Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)07142128350 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure137   SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 Story 4         Story 3         Story 2         Story 1           Figure 4.28 Force-displacement curves of shear brackets in their primary direction in the studied 4-story archetype with low aspect ratio panels analyzed using Model IV-10-5051015-3 0 3 6Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)05101520250 12 24 36Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-505101520-2 0 2 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 5 10 15Force (kN)Displacement (mm)-505101520-2 0 2 4Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)010203040500 4 8 12Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)08162432400 3 6 9Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Yielding Failure138   4.5.2 Effect of wall panel aspect ratio Figure 4.29 compares the lateral response of studied archetypes with varying panel aspect ratios, using a floor thickness of 175 mm. For shear wall models I, unlike the single-story segmented shear walls discussed in the previous chapter, where minor differences in maximum lateral strength were observed between walls with moderate and high aspect ratio panels, the multi-story archetypes with high aspect ratio panels exhibited greater maximum lateral strength than those with moderate aspect ratio panels. Additionally, while walls with moderate aspect ratio panels demonstrated significantly greater lateral stiffness in single-story cases, the difference in lateral stiffness in multi-story segmented shear walls was only marginally higher for moderate aspect ratio panels. Similar to the single-story segmented shear walls studied in the previous chapter, shear wall models II to IV with moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited greater lateral stiffness compared to those with high aspect ratio panels. This was because walls with moderate aspect ratio panels demonstrated higher lateral strength at the same lateral displacements. The increased strength was primarily attributed to greater vertical deformation, which led to higher resisting forces in hold-downs, spline and STS connections, as well as a larger resisting moment arm in moderate aspect ratio panels. These factors collectively resulted in greater lateral strength compared to high aspect ratio panels at the same lateral displacement. However, for shear wall models II to IV, one-story shear wall models with moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited up to 23.9% higher maximum lateral strength compared to those with high aspect ratio panels (See chapter 3.6.2). In contrast, multi-story shear wall models with moderate aspect ratio panels showed only slightly higher maximum lateral strength compared to their high aspect ratio equivalents. This difference can be attributed 139  to the increased gravity loads in multi-story shear walls, which significantly hindered the rocking motion of the lower stories, especially in the case of moderate aspect ratio panels. The results also showed that shear walls with high aspect ratio panels demonstrated greater deformation capacity compared to those with moderate aspect ratio panels across all studied archetypes and models. This is because, at the same lateral displacement, walls with high aspect ratio panels impose lower deformation demands on their connections, allowing them to withstand larger deformations before connection failure and the resulting strength degradation in the walls occurs.  4.5.3 Effect of floor panel bending stiffness Figure 4.30 presents the effect of floor panel thickness on the lateral response of the studied multi-story archetypes analyzed using Model II. Similar to the one-story shear walls, the 2-story and 4-story shear walls exhibited nearly identical pushover curves, with only minor increases in lateral stiffness and strength despite variations in the bending stiffness (i.e., thickness) of the floor panels. Minor differences were observed in the onset of yielding and failure of connections. In contrast, for the 6-story archetypes, both lateral strength and deformation capacity increased as the thickness of the floor panels increased, due to a delay or absence of shear or bending failures in the floor panels.140   2-Story 4-Story 6-Story Model I    Model II    Model III    Model IV      Figure 4.29 The effect of wall panel aspect ratio on the lateral response of the studied archetypes  03060901201500 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 60 120 180 240 300 360Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 60 120 180 240 300 360Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 60 120 180 240 300 360Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0601201802403000 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01002003004005000 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0701402102803500 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Moderate aspect ratio wall panelsHigh aspect ratio wall panelsFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Design shear force First yield at SBs (primary direction)Shear resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)141   2-Story 4-Story 6-Story Moderate aspect ratio    High aspect ratio      Figure 4.30 The effect of floor panel bending stiffness on the lateral response of the studied archetypes analyzed using Model II 4.6 Summary This chapter focused on analyzing how secondary structural elements influence the lateral behavior of multi-story segmented CLT shear walls. To achieve this, the numerical models introduced in the previous chapter were enhanced to include multi-story configurations. The study aimed to examine critical aspects of their lateral performance, including deformation capacity under nonlinear loading, the sequence of yielding in various components, and the mechanisms leading to failure. The insights gained from this analysis are summarized in the following conclusions: 0501001502002500 30 60 90 120 150 180Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 40 80 120 160 200 240Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01503004506007500 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0501001502002500 50 100 150 200 250 300Force (kN)Displacement (mm)0801602403204000 60 120 180 240 300 360Force (kN)Displacement (mm)01202403604806000 70 140 210 280 350 420Force (kN)Displacement (mm)Floor thickness 175 mmFloor thickness 245 mmFirst failure at SPs (primary direction)First yield at HDs (primary direction)Floor thickness 315 mmDesign shear forceFirst yield at SBs (primary direction)Shear resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at STSs (primary direction)Bending resistance exceedance in floor panelsFirst yield at SPs (primary direction)First failure at HDs (primary direction)First failure at STSs (primary direction)First failure at SBs (primary direction)142  \u2022 The lateral response of the studied CLT shear walls met the intended design requirements, with the desired yielding hierarchy between hold-down and spline connections achieved and rocking as the predominant behavior, especially at the design shear force. \u2022 The lateral stiffness and strength of multi-story segmented CLT shear walls increased with the addition of secondary elements (up to 192.3%). For walls with moderate aspect ratio panels, deformation capacity increased by up to 20.7% with the inclusion of secondary elements, while in 6-story models, floor panel failures at lower displacements reduced overall deformation capacity. In contrast, for walls with high aspect ratio panels, deformation capacity decreased (up to 35.6%) with the incorporation of secondary elements. \u2022 Yielding in spline joints occurred earlier than in hold-down connections across all models, consistent with CSA O86-24. In Model I, only spline and hold-down connections yielded, while Models II to IV exhibited additional yielding in STS connections and shear brackets due to increased sliding from reduced rocking deformation. Lintels and parapets further restricted rocking, amplifying shear forces and causing shear bracket failures, especially in moderate aspect ratio panels. \u2022 In 6-story models, floor panel failures occurred at small displacements, while in other models, shear and bending demands in floor elements did not exceed their factored resistances. Maximum shear and bending demands in floor elements were consistently observed above openings, highlighting these areas as critical. \u2022 The analysis showed that in Model I and II, similar to one-story shear walls, the lateral strength contribution of each coupled wall was proportional to its stiffness relative to the total stiffness of the story. However, in Models III and IV, the inclusion of secondary elements disrupted 143  this balance as gap openings between lintels, parapets, and wall panels altered force distribution among coupled walls. \u2022 Shear wall models I with high aspect ratio panels exhibited by up to 22.7% greater maximum lateral strength than those with moderate aspect ratio panels. However, for shear wall models II to IV, walls with moderate aspect ratio panels consistently demonstrated higher lateral strength at the same lateral displacement compared to high aspect ratio panels (i.e., higher lateral stiffness), attributed to greater deformation and resisting forces in connections and a larger resisting moment arm. Despite these differences, their maximum lateral strength remained nearly the same. \u2022 High aspect ratio panels consistently exhibited greater deformation capacity (up to 48%) across all models due to lower deformation demands on connections, allowing them to withstand larger deformations before failure.  144  Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion and Future Work 5.1 Summary and conclusion This research focused on investigating the effect of structural interactions of floors above, lintels, and parapets on the lateral response of one- to multi-story segmented CLT shear walls. Four different numerical models were developed, varying in the inclusion of these elements. Model I employed a simplified approach, simulating only wall panels and base connections while neglecting floors, parapets, and lintels. Multi-point constraints were instead used to represent a rigid floor diaphragm. Model II expanded this model by explicitly modeling the floor diaphragm but still neglected parapets and lintels. Model III extended the second model by incorporating CLT lintels, though parapets remained excluded, while model IV was the most comprehensive, including all structural components, the walls, floors, parapets, and lintels, to account for full structural interaction. These models were employed to evaluate a range of segmented CLT shear walls, assessing variations in geometries, panel aspect ratios, bending stiffness of floor panels, and vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections for single-story CLT shear walls, as well as the number of stories, panel aspect ratios, and bending stiffness of floor panels in multi-story shear walls under lateral forces. The main conclusions drawn from this study are as follows: \u2022 The studied CLT shear walls exhibited the expected lateral performance, maintaining the intended yielding sequence between hold-down and spline connections, with rocking dominating their response, particularly at the design shear force. \u2022 The results highlighted the predominant rocking behavior of all the studied CLT shear walls. Progressive inclusion of floor elements, lintels, and parapets incrementally increased the lateral stiffness and strength of the shear wall models (up to 192.3% for lateral strength), as compared to shear wall models I, while reducing the rocking displacement contribution to 145  overall wall displacement. This reduction was more significant in the lower stories of multi-story shear walls due to the higher gravity loads in these stories. \u2022 The findings indicated that for one-story shear walls, the addition of floor elements enhanced the deformation capacity by up to 7.9%, while the integration of lintels, either alone or with parapets, reduced the deformation capacity (up to 39.1%), when compared with shear wall models II. In contrast, for multi-story walls with moderate aspect ratio panels, incorporating secondary structural elements consistently increased the deformation capacity of wall system by up to 20.7%. However, for walls with high aspect ratio panels, the addition of secondary structural elements actually decreased the deformation capacity (up to 35.6%). \u2022 While only spline and hold-down connections yielded in shear wall models I, shear brackets and STS wall-to-floor connections also yielded in models incorporating secondary elements.  \u2022 In one-story shear walls, within Model I with moderate aspect ratio panels, the intended yielding hierarchy was achieved, with splines yielding first, followed by hold-downs. However, in Models II to IV, hold-downs yielded before splines in the leftmost coupled walls due to their single-wall behavior, while the intended hierarchy was preserved in the other coupled walls. For models with high aspect ratio panels, the desired yielding order was consistently maintained across all coupled walls in all models, due to their coupled-wall behavior. In the case of multi-story walls, the yielding hierarchy was successfully achieved in nearly all stories across all models studied. \u2022 Unlike the one-story shear walls studied, where bending demands in floor elements exceeded their factored moment resistance only after the walls reached their maximum lateral strength, the 6-story archetypes showed shear demands exceeding the factored shear resistance at smaller lateral displacements and before reaching their maximum lateral strength. This 146  highlights the increased shear demands on floor panels in multi-story, mid-rise frames under seismic forces, emphasizing the need for further research to investigate this behavior. \u2022 The addition of lintels, either alone or in combination with parapets, significantly disrupted the force distribution between different coupled wall panels within the studied shear walls, which was initially expected to follow the stiffness ratio of each coupled wall relative to the overall stiffness of the entire wall in the design process. \u2022 Comparing the displacement contributions across different stories in shear wall model I showed a decrease in rocking deformation in the lower stories due to increased gravity loads. \u2022 Multi-story shear wall models I with high aspect ratio panels showed by up to 22.7% greater maximum lateral strength compared to those with moderate aspect ratio panels, unlike the single-story cases where the differences were minimal. For Models II to IV, both single- and multi-story walls with moderate aspect ratio panels demonstrated greater lateral strength at the same lateral displacement compared to high aspect ratio panels (i.e., higher lateral stiffness), attributed to greater deformation and resisting forces in connections and a larger resisting moment arm. Although one-story walls with moderate aspect ratio panels exhibited higher maximum lateral strength than those with high aspect ratio panels, in multi-story configurations, increased gravity loads in the lower stories restricted rocking motion, reducing the strength advantage of moderate aspect ratio panels observed in single-story cases. \u2022 High aspect ratio panels consistently demonstrated greater deformation capacity (up to 91.7%) in all models, as they imposed lower deformation demands on connections, enabling them to endure larger deformations before failure. 147  \u2022 The results showed that while floor panel bending stiffness had almost no effect on the studied shear walls, increasing the vertical stiffness of wall-to-floor connections above improved the lateral stiffness and strength but reduced the deformation capacity of the wall systems.  Generally speaking, the findings of this study highlighted the significant effect of secondary structural elements, including floors, parapets, and lintels, on the lateral response of multi-story segmented CLT shear walls\u2014an aspect typically overlooked by designers. The study further suggests that employing wood-frame elements, which possess negligible in-plane lateral stiffness and strength, as parapets and lintels (Model II) instead of those made from CLT can enhance the lateral response of segmented CLT shear walls (Models III and IV). This enhancement includes prevention of failure in shear connections before reaching maximum lateral strength of the wall system, and the avoidance of force distribution disruptions among different coupled walls within a shear wall system. However,   5.2 Limitations and future work Based on the limitations and findings of this research, the following areas are recommended for further investigation: \u2022 Future research should undertake comprehensive experimental tests to investigate the impact of floor panels on the lateral response of segmented CLT shear walls. These studies will provide valuable insights into structural behavior and contribute to more accurate modeling. \u2022 Since pushover analysis is limited in capturing dynamic effects, higher-mode contributions, and time-dependent responses that occur during actual earthquakes, 148  additional research is needed to fully understand the effects of secondary structural elements on the cyclic and seismic behavior of segmented CLT shear walls. It is recommended that future studies integrate the effects of floor panels into the seismic behavior assessments of CLT shear wall buildings to enhance predictions of building behavior during actual earthquakes. \u2022 Although nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA) is a precise approach for detailed performance evaluation of buildings, practicing engineers often seek simplified analysis methods capable of calculating seismic demands with the required level of precision. In this regard, several first-mode based nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) offer a convenient and efficient alternative to the detailed NTHA process. While these NSPs have demonstrated their efficacy in assessing the seismic behavior of various traditional structural systems, there is a limited body of research on their application to CLT shear wall buildings. Future research should focus on evaluating the relative accuracy of these NSPs specifically for CLT shear wall buildings. \u2022 Additional research should be conducted to examine how variations in lateral loading patterns, the dimensions of lintels and parapets, and the connections between floor panels affect the lateral performance of CLT shear wall buildings. 149  Bibliography 1. Youngs, R.L., History, nature, and products of wood. Forests and forest plants, 2009. 2: p. 2. 2. Puettmann, M., F. Pierobon, I. Ganguly, H. Gu, C. Chen, S. Liang, S. Jones, I. Maples, and M. Wishnie, Comparative LCAs of conventional and mass timber buildings in regions with potential for mass timber penetration. Sustainability, 2021. 13(24): p. 13987. 3. Ritter, M.A., K. Skog, and R. Bergman, Science supporting the economic and environmental benefits of using wood and wood products in green building construction. General technical report FPL-GTR-206. Madison, WI: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 2011: 9 p., 2011. 206. 4. McKeever, D.B., Engineered wood products: a response to the changing timber resource. Pacific Rim Wood Market Report, 1997. 123(5): p. 15. 5. Amini, M.O., Determination of seismic performance factors for cross laminated timber shear wall system based on FEMA P695 methodology. 2018, Colorado State University. 6. Council, C.W., Brock Commons, tallwood house, University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus, the advent of tall wood structures in Canada: a case study. Ontario, Canada, Ottawa, 2018. 7. Technology, T., Case study: Stadthaus, 24 Murray Grove, London. 2009, TRADA Technology Ltd. London, UK. 8. Review, A.N.C., Fort\u00e9 Apartments Project Feature. 2012: Melbourne, Victoria. 9. Serrano, E., Documentation of the Limnologen project: overview and summaries of sub projects results. 2009. 10. Schuler, T.A., Dalston Works, the Largest CLT Building in the World. Archit. Mag, 2018. 150  11. Ceccotti, A., New technologies for construction of medium-rise buildings in seismic regions: The XLAM case. Structural Engineering International, 2008. 18(2): p. 156-165. 12. Ceccotti, A., C. Sandhaas, M. Okabe, M. Yasumura, C. Minowa, and N. Kawai, SOFIE project\u20133D shaking table test on a seven\u2010storey full\u2010scale cross\u2010laminated timber building. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013. 42(13): p. 2003-2021. 13. Popovski, M. and I. Gavric, Performance of a 2-story CLT house subjected to lateral loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016. 142(4): p. E4015006. 14. Yasumura, M., K. Kobayashi, M. Okabe, T. Miyake, and K. Matsumoto, Full-scale tests and numerical analysis of low-rise CLT structures under lateral loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016. 142(4): p. E4015007. 15. Tamagnone, G., G. Rinaldin, and M. Fragiacomo, Influence of the floor diaphragm on the rocking behavior of CLT walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2020. 146(3): p. 04020010. 16. Casagrande, D., R. Fanti, G. Doudak, and A. Polastri, Experimental and numerical study on the mechanical behaviour of CLT shearwalls with openings. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 298: p. 123858. 17. D'Arenzo, G., S. Schwendner, and W. Seim, The effect of the floor-to-wall interaction on the rocking stiffness of segmented CLT shear-walls. Engineering Structures, 2021. 249: p. 113219. 18. D\u2019Arenzo, G. and W. Seim. Investigating the effects of the interactions between floor diaphragms and segmented cross-laminated timber shear walls. in 13th World Conference on Timber Engineering: Timber for a Livable Future, WCTE 2023. 2023. World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE). 151  19. Khajehpour, M., D. Casagrande, and G. Doudak, The role of lintels and parapets on the mechanical performance of multi-storey cross laminated timber shearwalls with openings. Engineering Structures, 2022. 255: p. 113912. 20. Ruggeri, E.M., G. D'Arenzo, and M. Fossetti, Investigating the effect of the structural interactions due to floors and lintels on the lateral response of multi-storey Cross-Laminated Timber shear walls. Engineering Structures, 2023. 290: p. 116327. 21. Ruggeri, E., G. D'Arenzo, M. Fossetti, and W. Seim. Investigating the effect of perpendicular walls on the lateral behaviour of Cross-Laminated Timber shear walls. in Structures. 2022. Elsevier. 22. Ruggeri, E.M., G. D'Arenzo, D.L. Cavoli, R.D. Cottonaro, and M. Fossetti, Experimental investigation on the lateral performance of CLT shear walls connected to perpendicular walls. Procedia Structural Integrity, 2023. 44: p. 464-471. 23. D\u2019Arenzo, G., E.M. Ruggeri, and M. Fossetti, Lateral Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Shear Walls Connected to Perpendicular Walls: Experimental Tests and Analytical Modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2024. 150(8): p. 04024080. 24. Karacabeyli, E. and S. Gagnon, Canadian CLT handbook. 2019. 25. Simpson Strong-Tie Official Website https:\/\/www.strongtie.com\/. 26. Association, C.S., CSA O86-24 Engineering design in wood. Mississauga, ON: CSA Group, 2024. 27. Gavric, I., M. Fragiacomo, M. Popovski, and A. Ceccotti. Behaviour of cross-laminated timber panels under cyclic loads. in Materials and Joints in Timber Structures: Recent Developments of Technology. 2014. Springer. 152  28. Duji\u010d, B., J. Pucelj, and R. \u017darni\u0107, Testing of racking behaviour of massive wooden wall panels. 2004. 29. Duji\u010d, B., R. \u017darni\u0107, and S. Aicher, Racking of wooden walls exposed to different boundary conditions. 2005. 30. Dujic, B., S. Aicher, and R. Zarnic. Testing of wooden wall panels applying realistic boundary conditions. in Proceedings of the 9th world conference on timber engineering, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2006. 31. Ceccotti, A., M.P. Lauriola, M. Pinna, and C. Sandhaas. SOFIE project-cyclic tests on cross-laminated wooden panels. in WCTE 2006-9th WCTE World Conference on Timber Engineering. 2006. 32. Gavric, I., A. Ceccotti, and M. Fragiacomo, Experimental cyclic tests on cross-laminated timber panels and typical connections. 2011: na. 33. Hummel, J., G. Flatscher, W. Seim, and G. Schickhofer, CLT wall elements under cyclic loading\u2014details for anchorage and connection. COST Action FP1004, 2013: p. 152-165. 34. Duji\u010d, B. and R. \u017darni\u0107, Study of lateral resistance of massive X-lam wooden wall system subjected to horizontal loads. 2006. 35. DER, W., D.L.P.I. DU CHARGEMENT, and E.D.C. D'APPUI, Investigations on in-plane loaded wooden elements\u2013influence of loading and boundary conditions. Otto-Graf-Journal, 2005. 16: p. 259. 36. Dujic, B., S. Aicher, and R. Zarnic, Racking behaviour of light prefabricated cross-laminated massive timber wall diaphragms subjected to horizontal actions. Otto Graf Journal, 2006. 17: p. 125-142. 153  37. Duji\u010d, B., S. Klob\u010dar, and R. \u017darni\u0107, Influence of openings on shear capacity of wooden walls. New Zealand journal of timber design, 2008. 16: p. 5-17. 38. Dujic, B., S. Klobcar, and R. Zarnic. Shear capacity of cross-laminated wooden walls. in Proceedings of the 10th world conference on timber engineering, Miyazaki, Japan. 2008. 39. Hristovski, V., B. Dujic, M. Stojmanovska, and V. Mircevska, Full-scale shaking-table tests of XLam panel systems and numerical verification: Specimen 1. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2013. 139(11): p. 2010-2018. 40. Dujic, B., V. Hristovski, M. Stojmanovska, and R. Zarnic. Experimental investigation of massive wooden wall panel systems subjected to seismic excitation. in First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. 2006. 41. Ceccotti, A., C. Sandhaas, and M. Yasumura. Seismic performance of X-Lam buildings: the Italian SOFIE project. in 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada. 2010. 42. Ceccotti, A., M. Follesa, M.P. Lauriola, C. Sandhaas, C. Minowa, N. Kawai, and M. Yasumura. Which seismic behaviour factor for multi-storey buildings made of cross-laminated wooden panels. in Proceedings of 39th CIB W18 Meeting, paper. 2006. 43. Ceccotti, A., M. Follesa, M. Lauriola, and C. Sandhaas. Sofie project\u2013test results on the lateral resistance of cross-laminated wooden panels. in Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismicity. 2006. 44. Lauriola, M.P. and C. Sandhaas. Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic tests on XLAM walls and buildings. in Cost E29 international workshop on earthquake engineering on timber structures. 2006. 154  45. Ceccotti, A. and M. Follesa. Seismic behaviour of multi-storey XLam buildings. in Proc., Int. Workshop on Earthquake Engineering on Timber Structures. 2006. 46. Popovski, M., J. Schneider, and M. Schweinsteiger. Lateral load resistance of cross-laminated wood panels. in World Conference on Timber Engineering. 2010. 47. Popovski, M. and E. Karacabeyli. Seismic behaviour of cross-laminated timber structures. in Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering. 2012. WCTE 2012 Committee, 2, 335\u2013344. 48. Pei, S., J.W. van de Lindt, and M. Popovski, Approximate R-factor for cross-laminated timber walls in multistory buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2013. 19(4): p. 245-255. 49. van de Lindt, J.W., M.O. Amini, D. Rammer, P. Line, S. Pei, and M. Popovski, Seismic performance factors for cross-laminated timber shear wall systems in the United States. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2020. 146(9): p. 04020172. 50. NBCC, National building code of Canada: 2020. 2020. 51. Dong, H., M. He, X. Wang, C. Christopoulos, Z. Li, and Z. Shu, Development of a uniaxial hysteretic model for dowel-type timber joints in OpenSees. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 288: p. 123112. 52. Lukacs, I., A. Bj\u00f6rnfot, and R. Tomasi, Strength and stiffness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls: State-of-the-art of analytical approaches. Engineering Structures, 2019. 178: p. 136-147. 53. Hashemi, A., P. Zarnani, R. Masoudnia, and P. Quenneville, Experimental testing of rocking cross-laminated timber walls with resilient slip friction joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2018. 144(1): p. 04017180. 155  54. Pan, Y., T. Teflissi, and T. Tannert, Experimental Parameter Study on CLT Shear Walls with Self-Tapping Screw Connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2024. 150(1): p. 04023192. 55. Gavric, I., M. Fragiacomo, and A. Ceccotti, Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-laminated (CLT) structures. Materials and structures, 2015. 48: p. 1841-1857. 56. Shen, Y., J. Schneider, S. Tesfamariam, S.F. Stiemer, and Z. Chen, Cyclic behavior of bracket connections for cross-laminated timber (CLT): Assessment and comparison of experimental and numerical models studies. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021. 39: p. 102197. 57. Folz, B. and A. Filiatrault, Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls. Journal of structural engineering, 2001. 127(4): p. 433-441. 58. Schickhofer, G. and A. Ringhofer, The seismic behaviour of buildings erected in Solid Timber Construction-Seismic design according to EN 1998 for a 5-storey reference building in CLT. 2012. 59. Blass, H.J. and R. G\u00f6rlacher. Compression perpendicular to the grain. in Proceedings of the 8th world conference of timber engineering. 2004. Finnish Association of Civil Engineers RIL Lathi, Finland. 60. Standardization, E.C.f., EN 1995-1-1: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures\u2014Part 1-1: General\u2014Common rules and rules for buildings. 2004, CEN Bruxelles, Belgium. 61. Gavric, I., M. Fragiacomo, and A. Ceccotti, Cyclic behavior of CLT wall systems: Experimental tests and analytical prediction models. Journal of structural engineering, 2015. 141(11): p. 04015034. 62. Rinaldin, G. and M. Fragiacomo, Non-linear simulation of shaking-table tests on 3-and 7-storey X-Lam timber buildings. Engineering Structures, 2016. 113: p. 133-148. 156  63. Masoudnia, R., A. Hashemi, and P. Quenneville, Predicting the effective flange width of a CLT slab in timber composite beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2018. 144(7): p. 04018084. 64. ANSI\/APA, Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber. 2019, American National Standards Institute, APA - The Engineered Wood Association. 65. Ganjali, H., T. Tannert, M. Shahnewaz, C. Dickof, C. Slotboom, and M. Popovski, Punching-shear strength of point-supported CLT floor panels. 66. Charles, K., C. Michael, and D. Gregory, Quantification of building seismic performance factors: FEMA P695. 2009, Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.    ","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Thesis\/Dissertation","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued":[{"value":"2025-05","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0448099","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"eng","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline":[{"value":"Civil Engineering","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"University of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","type":"literal","lang":"*"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI":[{"value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","type":"literal","lang":"*"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel":[{"value":"Graduate","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor":[{"value":"Tobber, Lisa","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"The effect of structural interactions due to floors, parapets and lintels on the lateral response of segmented cross laminated timber (CLT) shear walls","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI":[{"value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/90405","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}