Timber buildings are increasing in their dimensions. Structural robustness is imperative for all buildings and specifically important for tall buildings. Lives can be saved if disproportionate collapse can be avoided after a catastrophic event (e.g. accident, terrorism). The literature about robustness is comprehensive concerning concrete and steel buildings, but is rather limited regarding timber. This paper reviews robustness in general and robustness of timber buildings in particular. Robustness is an intrinsic structural property, enhancing global tolerance to local failures, regardless of the cause. A deterministic approach to assess robustness is to remove certain loadbearing elements from the structure and compare the consequences to given limits. Design methods for robustness may be direct by assessing effects of local failure, or indirect by following guidelines. For robust timber buildings, the connections are the key aspects. Usually, metal connectors may provide the required joint ductility. For robust light timber-frame construction, rim beams may be designed. For timber posts and beams and cross laminated timber, guidance regarding robustness is scarce, but in some aspects they seem to be similar to steel frames and precast concrete. Future research should assess the capacity of connections, and evaluate the adequacy of seismic connectors for robust timber buildings.

No abstract

Multi-storey cross-laminated timber (CLT) buildings are a comparatively recent construction type. Knowledge concerning the performance of CLT buildings regarding the prevention of disproportionate collapse after unforeseeable events (e.g. accidents or acts of terrorism) is not as refined as that for concrete and steel buildings. In particular, alternative load paths (ALPs) after the removal of a wall panel in platform-framed variants have not yet been studied in detail. The goal of this work was therefore to study ALPs in CLT buildings. An eight-storey bay of an existing building was evaluated by conducting a non-linear static pushdown analysis in a finite element analysis on three representative storeys. The analyses accounted for single fastener behaviour, timber crushing, friction, brittle failure and large deformations. The force–deformation behaviours elicited under the pushdown analyses were subsequently inserted in a simplified dynamic model to evaluate the transient response of the entire bay. Four ALPs were identified in this case – shear resistance in the floor panels, arching action of the walls, catenary action in the floor panels and hanging action from the roof. The dynamic analysis did not show a collapse, unless the inter-compartment stiffness was significantly reduced. The resistance mechanisms are described in this paper, which may provide information for improved building design.

No abstract

No abstract