CHAPTER 8

Design and detailing rules for

timber buildings

8.1. Scope
This chapter covers the rules for the seismic design of timber buildings, following in a loose Clause 8.1
way Section 8 of EN 1998-1. However, it does not elaborate on all clauses in that section; and
neither does it strictly follow the sequence of clauses.
It is important to stress that for the overall design of a timber building, the rules of
EN 1998-1 are additional to those presented in EN 1995-1-1.

8.2. General concepts in earthquake resistant timber

buildings
Timber is generally considered to be a suitable structural material for construction in seismic Clauses 8.1.2,
areas, due to its relatively light weight and reasonable strength, both in tension and in 8.1.3
compression.
This is apparent from Table 8.1, where typical values of unit mass and strength of different
structural materials are presented, together with the ratio of these two variables, which is a
particularly relevant characteristic for the earthquake resistance of structures. The good
performance of wood is apparent from the table, with the range of f/r values for wood being
similar to that of structural steel. However, the behaviour of timber elements does not
present large deformational ductility, which is also an important property for the seismic
resistance of structures (as discussed in Chapter 2). In fact, the response of timber elements

Table 8.1. Typical values of unit mass and strength for various structural materials and
corresponding ratios

Unit mass r Strength f Ratio f/r

Structural material (kg/m3) (range) (MPa) (10-3 MPa/kg/m3)

Wood Compression and tension 550 20-30 35-55

Structural steel Compression and tension 7800 275-355 35-45
Concrete Compression 2400 25-80 10-30
Tension 2400 2-3.5 0.8-1.5
Reinforced concrete Bending 2500 10-25 4-10
Masonry Compression 2100 4-8 1.9 - 3.8
Tension 2100 0.3 - 0.5 0.1-02
DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1998-1 AND EN 1998-5

up to failure is approximately linear elastic with sudden collapse, mostly associated with
defects inherent to its natural origin.
As for other structural materials, EN 1998-1 distinguishes between dissipative structural
behaviour and low-dissipative structural behaviour for timber structures.
Dissipative structural behaviour is characterized by the existence in the structure of parts
(dissipative zones) which are able to resist the earthquake action in its inelastic range, and
thus are able to dissipate hysteretically the energy that the earthquake inputs into the
structure. In contrast, low-dissipative structural behaviour is characterized by a response of
the structure to the seismic action in its elastic range, i.e. without significant yielding of its
members or hysteretic dissipation of energy.
Taking into account the limited ability of wood to behave non-linearly as discussed before,
in timber structures the dissipation of energy should take place mostly in the connections,
with the timber elements themselves behaving in the elastic range, in which the response is
very good.
The brittle failure of timber elements results from natural defects in the material, for
instance knots. Only for compression perpendicular to the grain may some non-linear
response be expected, with some capability for energy dissipation. In total contrast, tension
perpendicular to grain exhibits a markedly brittle failure associated with splitting of the
material.
Accordingly, what establishes the main difference between dissipative and low-dissipative
timber structures is the nature of their connections. Hence, EN 1998-1 presents a basic
distinction between semi-rigid joints and rigid joints, the former being associated with the
possibility of being provided with the capability of dissipating energy under reversed cycling,
whereas the latter (essentially glued solid timber joints) are devoid of such capability.
Dissipation of energy in semi-rigid joints results normally from two main sources:

• cyclic yielding of the metallic (normally steel) dowel-type fasteners of the connection (as
nails, staples, screws, dowels or bolts)
• crushing of the wood fibres bearing against the dowel.

The first mechanism tends to be stable, and provides large hysteretic loops (typical of
reversed yielding of steel in bending), whereas the second mechanism is characterized
by thin hysteretic loops, which are markedly pinched and present significant strength
degradation for cycling at constant amplitude. This is caused by the progressive increase in
size of the cavity that is being formed in front of the dowel by the wood crushing, as the
succession of cycles progresses. Naturally, the response of the connection as a whole results
from the interaction between the two mechanisms, and so to achieve good dissipative
behaviour it is crucial to achieve a correct balance between the wood crushing and the dowel
yielding, for which the more significant parameter is the slenderness of the dowel-type
element (i.e. the ratio between the thickness of the connected member and the fastener
diameter).
Besides the main distinction between dissipative and low-dissipative structures, EN 1998-1
subdivides dissipative structures into two ductility classes, namely Ductility Class Medium
(DCM) and Ductility Class High (DCH), with Ductility Class Low (DCL) being assigned to
low-dissipative structures. The use of the concept of ductility classes is established in general
terms in Section 2 of EN 1998-1 (see clause 2.2.2(2)); the subdivision of classes indicated for
timber structures is in line with those established for other structural materials (reinforced
concrete, steel and composite).
The choice between ductility classes in timber structures is left to the designer, as is the
case for other materials. However, in this case it is foreseen that national authorities in the
relevant National Annex may establish some limitations in the use of the various ductility
classes (i.e. the applicability of the different ductility classes to timber structures is a
Nationally Determined Parameter). In any case, as noted in Section 2.2.2, the choice
between different ductility classes corresponds roughly to the trading between higher lateral

186
 CHAPTER 8. DESIGN AND DETAILING RULES FOR TIMBER BUILDINGS

resistance on the one hand and higher deformation capability in the non-linear range
(ductility) and energy dissipation capacity on the other hand.
For timber structures the parameters that influence its ductility classification are the
structural type (essentially reflecting the greater or lesser redundancy of the structure as a
whole) and the nature of the structural connections (essentially reflecting its ductility and
energy dissipation capacity). For the latter, EN 1998-1 states in general that the properties of
the dissipative zones (i.e. the connections) should be determined by tests, in accordance with
prEN 12512.85 However, for the most common connection types, some deemed to satisfy
rules are presented in the code, in order to reduce the burden of testing connections in
ordinary design situations.
As a final remark and in line with other structural materials, it should be noted that for
timber structures of DCL, the behaviour factor may be taken up to q = 1.5. Even though, as
indicated above, for this ductility class no significant decrease of the earthquake forces is
expected on account of a non-linear response, the use of a behaviour factor slightly greater
than q = 1 is justified by the overstrength that structures normally present under earthquake
action.

8.3. Materials and properties of dissipative zones

In general, the requirements for wood materials set out in EN 1995-1-1 (Eurocode 5 for Clause 8.2
timber structures) also apply in the design of earthquake-resistant timber structures covered
by EN 1998-1. The same is true for the steel elements included in joints and connections,
concerning the requirements set forth in EN 1993-1-183 (Eurocode 3 for steel structures).
However, in order to ensure the required dissipative behaviour in timber structures of DCM
and DCH, some additional requirements have to be fulfilled with regard to the mechanical
characteristics of the materials and to the characteristics of joints. In all cases, the objective
of the additional requirements is to avoid brittle failures and to obtain connections with
stable behaviour under large deformation reversals.
For connections in framed systems, no specific conditions are set, besides the general
reference to the need to demonstrate by testing that the connections have a stable low-cycle
fatigue response and the explicit indication that glued joints may not be considered as
dissipative zones (since they respond elastically up to failure which is essentially brittle due
to debonding). In contrast, for sheathing materials some minimum mechanical characteristics
are required, namely:
• for particle-board panels the density should be at least 650 kg/m3
• for particle-board and fibre-board sheathing the thickness should be at least 13 mm
• for plywood sheathing the thickness should be at least 9 mm.
This is intended to ensure the excellent ductile behaviour shown by nailed shear panel
systems, which is usually superior to conventional diagonal bracing but relies very much on
the properties of the sheathing boards.86 Also important for the appropriate (i.e. stable)
response of this sort of system is the avoidance of the pull-out of the nails under transverse
cycling. To this end, a point side penetration of 6-8 times the sheathing thickness is
appropriate, and smooth nails should be avoided or be provided with additional provision
against withdrawal (e.g. by coating or clenching).

8.4. Ductility classes and behaviour factors

The choice of ductility class has a direct influence on the value of the behaviour factor q that, Clause 8.3
in turn, controls the lateral forces for which the structure has to be designed (as discussed in
general terms in Chapters 2 and 4, independently of the structural material). For timber
structures, EN 1998-1 presents upper limit values of the behaviour factor depending on the
ductility class and the type of structure and connections used.

187
DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1998-1 AND EN 1998-5

Table 8.2. Maximum values of the behaviour factor q for timber structures of DCM and DCH

Structural type DCM DCH

Wall panels with glued diaphragms Glued panels Nailed panels

connected with nails and bolts q = 2.0 q = 3.0
Wall panels with nailed diaphragms — Nailed panels
connected with nails and bolts q = 5.0
(q = 4.0)
Trusses Doweled and bolted joints Nailed joints
q = 2.0 q = 3.0
Mixed structures with timber framing and q = 2.0 —
non-load-bearing infills
Hyperstatic portal frame with doweled and m≥4 m≥6
bolted joints q = 2.5 q = 4.0
(q = 2.5)

Besides the general upper limit of q = 1.5 for DCL accounting for overstrength, for DCM
and DCH the values indicated for q in Table 8.1 of EN 1998-1 are reproduced in Table 8.2
with a different arrangement that highlights the influence of the various parameters on the
ductility of timber structures (namely the superior behaviour of correctly designed and
executed nailed connections).
The values presented in Table 8.2 are appropriate for buildings, which are regular
in elevation (see Chapter 4). For buildings with non-regular structure in elevation, the
behaviour factor should be reduced by 20%, as is also required for buildings of other
structural materials, in order to account for the expected higher local ductility demands in
those cases.
The values presented in Table 8.2 are applicable if the dissipative zones in the structure
are able to withstand, without a decrease of strength of more than 20%, three fully reversed
cycles at a ductility demand of m = 4 for DCM and m = 6 for DCH. For portal frames the
ductility should be evaluated in terms of the rotational capacity of the joints, whereas in wall
panels the ductility should be evaluated in terms of shear displacements of the panels.
In principle, the available ductility should be measured by testing. For non-bilinear
responses (i.e. a response without a clear identification of the yielding point), as is normally
the case for timber joints with doweled metal connectors, it is sometimes difficult to evaluate
the available ductility, due to the absence of a precise value for the yielding displacement (or
rotation). To overcome this difficulty, a bi-linear diagram enveloping the real constitutive
diagram may be used as an equivalent response, in which case the yielding is defined
precisely. It is suggested87 that for timber structures the second branch of such an equivalent
bi-linear envelope has a stiffness which is one-sixth of the stiffness of the initial (linear)
branch.
This requirement of testing would be very cumbersome in most ordinary design cases, and
so the following deemed to satisfy rules are given in EN 1998-1:
(1) The slenderness of the fasteners in doweled, bolted and nailed connections should be
greater than 10 (t/d ≥ 10, with t being the thickness of the connected member and d the
fastener diameter) and the fastener diameter should not be larger than 12 mm.
(2) The sheathing material (wood based) in shear walls and floor diaphragms should have a
thickness larger than four times the fastener diameter (t ≥ 4d), and the nail diameter
should not exceed 3.1 mm.
These requirements reflect that, for good performance of the connections under cyclic
load, thick timber and slender dowels are preferable because they allow for yielding in
bending of the fasteners (whereas with stocky dowels the failure mode will mostly be

188
 CHAPTER 8. DESIGN AND DETAILING RULES FOR TIMBER BUILDINGS

associated with the crushing and splitting of the timber fibres, which does not allow for the
dissipation of energy).
In any case, the numerical values are relatively severe, and it has been suggested86 that an
even less demanding value of t/d ≥ 8 is still very much on the safe side in terms of the ductility
of connections. Also it is worth mentioning in this context that EN 1995-1-1 (Eurocode 5 for
timber structures in general) allows much larger bolts and dowels with diameters up to
30 mm (clauses 8.5.1.1 and 8.6 of EN 1995-1-1).
Hence, when the above requirements are not met strictly (i.e. if t/d ≥ 8 and t ≥ 3d,
respectively, for cases 1 and 2 above) it is still permitted to avoid testing of the connections of
dissipative structures, but the maximum values of the behaviour factor should be decreased
as shown in parentheses in Table 8.2.

8.5. Detailing
For buildings of DCM and DCH, additional detailing rules are required in comparison with Clauses 8.5.2,
the general provisions of EN 1995-1-1. These additional rules are intended to enhance the 8.5.3
behaviour of connections and horizontal diaphragms.
For bolts, an absolute limit of 16 mm is established for their diameter, unless toothed ring
connectors are also used These provide some confinement of the wood in front of the bolt
and allow for the larger bearing forces associated with larger bolts. Furthermore, it is
required that in pre-drilled connections they are tightly fitted. This is because oversized
holes may cause a non-uniform distribution of loads in different bolts of the same connection.
In such cases there may be a tendency to overload some bolts, which triggers premature
splitting and crushing of the wood bearing against these bolts, initiating a chain collapse in
the other bolts.
For floor diaphragms, the additional detailing provisions are intended to increase the
effectiveness of the sheathing material and the stability of its connection (particularly at
the edges of the panels) to the framing timber elements. This is reflected by forbidding
consideration of the increased resistance of edge fasteners (allowed for in general terms for
‘non-seismic/non-ductile’ cases by clause 9.2.3.1 of EN 1995-1-1) and by more strictly
controlling (i.e. limiting) the nail spacing at the panel edges allowed by clause 9.2.3.2 of
EN 1995-1-1.
Also closer spacing has to be adopted for fasteners in areas of discontinuity in case of
relatively high seismicity (agS ≥ 0.2g) to avoid the premature initiation of rupture in those
areas and to somehow compensate for their decreased stiffness. In any case, the minimum
spacing established in EN 1995-1-1 (clause 10.8.1) should always be respected to ensure that
splitting of the wood is prevented. Accordingly, in these areas of discontinuity, the dimensions
of the timber elements should be generous to allow effective nailing that is not too closely
spaced.

8.6. Safety verifications

Safety verifications are to be made using the general resistance models provided in Sections Clause 8.6
5 and 6 of EN 1995-1-1. Naturally, in the seismic design situation, the strength modification
factor kmod, which accounts for the influence of the duration of the load (and also of the
moisture content) on the resistance of timber or wood-based materials should be taken with
the value appropriate for instantaneous actions (see Table 3.1 of EN 1995-1-1).
Regarding the partial factor for material properties gM to be used in the ultimate limit
state verifications, an important distinction is made between:
• structures of DCL, for which the gM values for the fundamental load combinations are
recommended, and
• structures of DCM or DCH, for which it is permitted to use the smaller (equal to 1.0)
values recommended for the accidental load combinations (see Table 2.3 of EN 1995-1-1).

189
DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1998-1 AND EN 1998-5

This is an important departure from analogous recommendations in other sections of

EN 1998-1 for other structural materials (namely Section 5 for reinforced concrete, Section 6
for steel and Section 7 for composites), in which it is recommended that gM values for the
fundamental load combinations are used in the seismic design situation. This rule has an
important influence on the outcome of the design for the two types of structure (low
dissipative and dissipative), and reflects the more reliable response of timber connections
and timber structures satisfying the additional requirements for dissipative structures which
are set forth in this section of EN 1998-1.

190