Seismic performance evaluation of mass timber buildings equipped with resilient and conventional friction devices

Abstract

The application of mass timber elements in different structures has gained publicity over the last few years, primarily due to climate change adaptation policies and net zero carbon targets. Timber is a renewable construction material that can outperform other building materials regarding environmental impact. However, when used in seismically active regions, its application has been limited due to the uncertainties on their seismic behaviour in respect with different design standards and limited ductility in conventional connections. Conventional timber connections typically suffer from stiffness and strength degradation under cyclic loads. Their repairability is also low due to permanent damage in the fasteners and the associated crushing in the wood fibres. The use of friction connections can be an efficient way to mitigate these issues. They offer many advantages as they are economical and yet provide a high level of reliable and continuous energy dissipation. In recent years, a new generation of friction connections has been developed that can provide self-centring behaviour (i.e., the ability of the structure to return to its original position at the end of an earthquake). However, how these connections perform compared to a mass timber system with conventional timber connections is still unknown.

Several studies in the literature have suggested that these connections can enhance the performance of mass timber structures. However, the seismic performance of such systems specifically in terms of base shear, response drifts and response accelerations—has not been thoroughly investigated. This paper examines various design aspects of conventional friction connections and self-centring friction connections, providing insights into their differences concerning key seismic performance indicators. It compares the seismic performance of mass timber buildings equipped with both solutions, highlighting their advantages and limitations and drawing conclusions based on the results. The key findings are that friction connections can provides a superior seismic performance for timber structures. However, that may need to be combined with a parallel system avoid residual displacements.

Keywords

Mass timber / Resilience / Dampers / Friction / Energy dissipation

Relevance to resilience

An efficient way to introduce seismic resilience into multi-storey mass timber structures is through the use of sliding friction connections as braces. This paper investigates the seismic performance of such structures when equipped with either conventional or self-centring slip friction connections. The findings provide readers with valuable insight into the advantages and limitations of each bracing system, enabling more informed design decisions for resilient timber buildings. This work contributes to improving the seismic resilience of timber construction by introducing innovative and modern connection technologies.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ashkan Hashemi: Writing - review & editing, Writing - original draft, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Rajnil Lal: Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

[1] Junda E, Málaga-Chuquitaype C. Life cycle impacts of structural deterioration and seismic events on cross-laminated timber buildings. J Build Eng 2025;104:112282.

[2] Salgado RA, Guner S. A structural performance-based environmental impact assessment framework for natural hazard loads. J Build Eng 2021;43:102908.

[3] P. Qunneville, A. Hashemi, and P. Zarnani, “Traditional seismic fuses in timber structures - pros and cons, ” 2025.

[4] Demirci C, Málaga-Chuquitaype C, Macorini L. Seismic drift demands in multi-storey cross-laminated timber buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2018; 47(4):1014-31.

[5] Sustersic I, Fragiacomo M, Dujic B. Seismic analysis of cross-laminated multistory timber buildings using code-prescribed methods: influence of panel size, connection ductility, and schematization. J Struct Eng 2016; 142(4) E4015012.

[6] Ceccotti A, Sandhaas C, Okabe M, Yasumura M, Minowa C, Kawai N.SOFIE project- 3D shaking table test on a seven storey full scale cross laminated timber building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013; 42(13):2003-21.

[7] Chen Z, Popovski M. Seismic response of braced heavy timber frames with riveted connections. J Perform Constr Facil 2021; 35(5):4021051.

[8] M. Popovski and E. Karacabeyli, “Seismic behaviour of cross-laminated timber structures, ” 2012.

[9] Gavric I, Fragiacomo M, Ceccotti A. Cyclic behavior of CLT wall systems: experimental tests and analytical prediction models. J Struct Eng 2015; 141(11):4015034.

[10] Popovski M, Gavric I.Performance of a 2-story CLT house subjected to lateral loads. J Struct Eng 2015 E4015006.

[11] Yasumura M, Kobayashi K, Okabe M, Miyake T, Matsumoto K. Full-scale tests and numerical analysis of low-rise CLT structures under lateral loading. J Struct Eng 2015 E4015007.

[12] Lal R, Hashemi A, Quenneville P. An innovative connection system for platform-type mass timber buildings. Resilient Cities Struct 2025; 4(2):14-29.

[13] Yan L, Li Y, Chang W-S, Huang H. Seismic control of cross laminated timber (CLT) structure with shape memory alloy-based semi-active tuned mass damper (SMA-STMD). Structures 2023;57:105093.

[14] Badal PS, Tesfamariam S. Seismic collapse performance of high-rise mass timber building with buckling-restrained braced frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2024;177:108369.

[15] Daneshvar H, Chui YH, Dickof C, Tannert T. Experimental parametric study of perforated steel plate fuses for mass timber seismic force resisting systems. J Build Eng 2023;73:106772.

[16] Chen F, Li M, He M, Li Z. Direct displacement-based design and seismic performance evaluation of post-tensioned steel-timber hybrid frames equipped with braces. J Build Eng 2025;99:111660.

[17] Pall AS, Marsh C. Response of friction damped braced frames. J Struct Eng 1982; 108(9):1313-23.

[18] Baktash P, Marsh C, Pall A. Seismic tests on a model shear wall with friction joints. Can J Civ Eng 1983; 10(1):52-9.

[19] Popov EP, Grigorian CE, Yang T-S.Developments in seismic structural analysis and design. Eng Struct 1995; 17(3):187-97.

[20] Filiatrault A, Cherry S. Seismic design spectra for friction-damped structures. J Struct Eng 1990; 116(5):1334-55.

[21] Loo WY, Kun C, Quenneville P, Chouw N. Experimental testing of a rocking timber shear wall with slip-friction connectors. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014; 43(11):1621-39.

[22] Dal Lago B, Biondini F, Toniolo G. Friction-based dissipative devices for precast concrete panels. Eng Struct 2017;147:356-71. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.050.

[23] Priestley MJKMJN, Calvi GM. Displacement-Based seismic design of structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press; 2007.

[24] Ramirez CM, Miranda E.Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012; 41(11):1477-93 Sep.. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2217.

[25] J. McCormick, H. Aburano, M. Ikenaga, and M. Nakashima,“Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements, ” in Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, 2008, pp. 12-17.

[26] Upadhyay A, Pantelides CP, Ibarra L. Residual drift mitigation for bridges retrofitted with buckling restrained braces or self centering energy dissipation devices. Eng Struct 2019;199:109663.

[27] Bruneau M, MacRae G. Building structural systems in Christchurch’s Post-earthquake reconstruction. Earthq Spectra 2019; 35(4):1953-78.

[28] Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. Seismic resistant rocking coupled walls with innovative resilient Slip friction (RSF) joints. J Constr Steel Res 2017;129:215-26.

[29] Bagheri H, Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Quenneville P. The resilient slip friction joint tension-only brace beyond its ultimate level. J Constr Steel Res 2020;172: 106225.

[30] Hashemi A, et al. Enhanced seismic performance of timber structures using resilient connections: full-scale testing and design procedure. J Struct Eng 2020; 146(9):04020180.

[31] Yousef-Beik SMM, Veismoradi S, Zarnani P, Hashemi A, Quenneville P. Experimental study on cyclic performance of a damage-free brace with self-centering connection. J Struct Eng (United States) 2021; 147(1). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002869.

[32] Bagheri H, Hashemi A, Yousef-Beik SMM, Zarnani P, Quenneville P. New self-centering tension-only brace using resilient slip-friction joint: experimental tests and numerical analysis. J Struct Eng 2020; 146(10) 04020219-18.

[33] A. Hashemi, P. Zarnai, P. Quenneville, C. Wallington, D. Whittaker, and S. Govind, “Lincoln University Waimarie building: an application of friction damping devices with recentring for low damage design, ” 2023.

[34] A. Hashemi, P. Quenneville, I. Prionas, A. Sayadi, and P. Zarnani, “Application of low damage tension braces in top extensions of existing buildings: a case study for seismic upgrade, ” 2024.

[35] Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Quenneville P. Seismic assessment of rocking timber walls with energy dissipation devices. Eng Struct 2020;221:111053.

[36] American Society of Civil Engineers, “ASCE/SEI standard 7-16. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, ” 2016.

[37] New Zealand Standards, “Structural design actions (NZS 1170.5), ” Wellington, New Zeal., 2004.

[38] C. and Structures, “SAP2000 Ver. 24 (2023). ” Berkeley,CA, 2023.

[39] Hashemi A, et al. Seismic performance of a damage avoidance self-centring brace with collapse prevention mechanism. J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:273-85.

[40] Hashemi A, Quenneville P. Large-scale testing of low damage rocking Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) wall panels with friction dampers. Eng Struct 2020;206: 110166.

[41] Hashemi A, Clifton GC, Bagheri H, Zarnani P, Quenneville P. Proposed design procedure for steel self-centring tension-only braces with resilient connections. Structures 2020;25:147-56 January. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.02.024.

[42] Hashemi A, Bagheri H, Zarnani P, Quenneville P. Seismic performance of frictiondamped steel frames integrated with resilient tension-only braces. J Constr Steel Res 2021; 176. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106381.

[43] Hashemi A, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. Seismic performance of hybrid selfcentring steel-timber rocking core walls with slip friction connections. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126:201-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.07.022.

[44] S. Varier, A. Hashemi, P. Zarnani, and P. Quenneville, “Improved seismic performance of timber braced frame structures using resilient slip friction joint mechanism: a comparative design case study, ” 2020.

[45] Hashemi A, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. A numerical study of coupled timber walls with slip friction damping devices. Constr Build Mater 2016;121:373-85.

[46] Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. Seismic resilient lateral load resisting system for timber structures. Constr Build Mater 2017; 149. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.112.

[47] Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P. Seismic resistant rocking coupled walls with innovative resilient Slip friction (RSF) joints. J Constr Steel Res 2017; 129. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.11.016.

[48] Hashemi A, Zarnani P, Masoudnia R, Quenneville P.Experimental testing of rocking Cross laminated timber (CLT) walls with resilient slip friction (RSF) joints. J Struct Eng 2017; 144(1) 04017180-1 to 04017180-16.

[49] Burlotos C, Walsh K, Goded T, McVerry G, Brooke N, Ingham J. Seismic zonation and default suites of ground-motion records for time-history analysis in the South Island of New Zealand. Bull New Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 2022; 55(1):25-42.

[50] Ditommaso R, Lamarucciola N, Ponzo FC. Prediction of the fundamental period of infilled RC framed structures considering the maximum inter-story drift at different design limit states. Structures 2024;63:106422.