This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

TECHNICAL REPORT Calculation models for prefabricated wood-based Loadbearing stressed skin panels for use in roofs

TR 019 Edition February 2005

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR TECHNICAL APPROVALS

Table of contents

Page

Foreword................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.4.6 5 5.1 5.2 List of symbols.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Material properties.................................................................................................................................... 8 Skins .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Bond between core and skins ................................................................................................................. 8 The mechanical properties of the core................................................................................................... 8 Requirements for stresses and safety levels ........................................................................................ 9 General....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Ultimate limit state .................................................................................................................................... 9 Serviceability limit state........................................................................................................................... 9 Actions and combinations of actions................................................................................................... 10 General..................................................................................................................................................... 10 Permanent actions.................................................................................................................................. 10 Variable actions ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Actions due to long term effects........................................................................................................... 10 Combinations of actions in the ultimate limit state ............................................................................ 10 Combinations of actions in the serviceability limit state ................................................................... 11 Calculation method for determining the characteristic loads ........................................................... 12 Performance of the design .................................................................................................................... 12 Wrinkling of the skin at a support......................................................................................................... 14 Model N ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Annex A

A.1 Beam theory by taking account of the shear deformations of the core ........................................... 16 A.2 Single-span element ............................................................................................................................... 16 A.3 Two-span element ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Annex B B.1 B.2 Model N ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Approximation method for sandwich panels with wooden ribs according to prEN 1995-1-1 ........ 19 Single-span element ............................................................................................................................... 19 Calculation model by Kreuzinger ................................................................................................. 22

Annex C C.1 C.1.1 C.1.2 C.2 C.2.1 C.2.2 C.3 C.3.1 C.3.2 C.4 C.4.1 C.4.2 C.5 C.5.1

Model........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 22 Analytical Kreuzinger model ................................................................................................................. 23 Model for a glued stressed skin panel, closed box type double-skin, without wooden ribs, with loadbearing insulation (type A) ............................................................................................................. 26 Verification of ultimate limit states ....................................................................................................... 26 Verification of serviceability limit states .............................................................................................. 31 Model for a stressed skin panel, closed box type double-skin, with wooden ribs and (non)loadbearing insulation (type B1 and C1) .............................................................................................. 33 Verification of ultimate limit states ....................................................................................................... 33 Verification of serviceability limit states .............................................................................................. 40 Model for a stressed skin panel, open box type single-skin, with wooden ribs and (non)loadbearing insulation (type B2 and C2) .............................................................................................. 42 Verification of ultimate limit states ....................................................................................................... 42 Verification of serviceability limit states .............................................................................................. 48 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 49 General..................................................................................................................................................... 49

TR 019 2

C.5.2

Standards and codes ..............................................................................................................................49 Model N ............................................................................................................................................51 Material properties..........................................................................................................................53

Annex D Annex E E.1 E.2 E.2.1 E.2.2 E.2.3 E.3 E.3.1 E.3.2 E.4 E.4.1

In general..................................................................................................................................................53 Wood-based skins ...................................................................................................................................54 Particleboard synthetic bonded according to EN 312-5......................................................................54 OSB/3 (Oriented Strand Board / grade 3) ..............................................................................................55 Plywood ....................................................................................................................................................56 Loadbearing insulation ...........................................................................................................................57 Example of EPS (expanded polystyrene)..............................................................................................57 EPS (expanded polystyrene), XPS (extruded polystyrene), PUR (polyurethane).............................57 Wooden rib ...............................................................................................................................................59 Solid timber of coniferous species and poplar ....................................................................................59

References ............................................................................................................................................................60

TR 019 3

The requirements for these stressed skin panels are incorporated in the ETA Guideline Nr. H. The “Kreuzinger” model was specifically developed for wood-based stressed skin panels for use in roofs. B and D. TR 019 4 . Lüning Adviesbureau voor technische houtconstructies B. As far as the calculation model “Kreuzinger” is concerned. Dr.Doetinchem .-Ing. The model can also be used for the calculation of other composite panels for use in roofs (e.Gemert . 019 for prefabricated wood-based loadbearing stressed skin panels. Dr. In future the model can also be made applicable for the calculation of prefabricated wood-based loadbearing stressed skin panels for use in walls and floors.The Netherlands.-Ing. No existing EOTA Technical Report is superseded by this TR. Model “Kreuzinger” (see annex C) is included on behalf of the Dutch mirror committee. according to ETA Guideline Nr. the model has been developed (on behalf of UNIDEK Bouwelementen B. described in annexes A.Foreword This EOTA Technical Report (TR) has been adopted by EOTA WG 03.for self-supporting composite lightweight panels).V.V. H.Part 2 .04/03 “Prefabricated wood-based loadbearing stressed skin panels” and endorsed by the EOTA Technical Board. The Technical Report specifies the theoretical background of the several models for the calculation of prefabricated wood-based loadbearing stressed skin panels for use in roofs. 016 . Kreuzinger and an applied model of Prof. NOTES The calculation models. In that case the specific product characteristics of wood-based stressed skin panels have to be replaced by those of the composite panels. . consultants in engineered timber and has been based on the Eurocodes as well on both the general model of Prof.E. . Blass.g.The Netherlands) by H.J. are included on behalf of the German mirror committee.

variable concerning effective flange width b width of certain layer. perpendicular to the grain of face veneer (wood-based skin) ⊥ planar // in-plane TR 019 5 . along the grain of face veneer (wood-based skin) 90 perpendicular to the grain (timber). width of support c factor of co-operation. variable concerning effective flange width µ Poisson’s ratio ρ mass density σ stress τ shear stress Subscripts A virtual beam A B virtual beam B M material c compression d design f flange i ith layer in stressed skin panel k characteristic m bending n enlarging o at support t tension v shear def deformation ef effective concerning flange width eff effective mean mean mod modification red reduction 0 along the grain (timber). angle γ partial factor λ slenderness ratio.1 List of symbols Main symbols A area (of cross-section) E modulus of elasticity G shear modulus I second moment of area K modulus of subgrade reaction M bending moment N axial force Q shear force R reaction force at support S section modulus W moment of resistance a distance between the centers of the two outer layers. variable concerning effective flange width d thickness f strength of a material. factor h height i certain layer in stressed skin panel k factor λ span. length n total of layers in stressed skin panel z distance from the center of a certain layer to the neutral axis α factor for EPS core at support.

particleboard. polyurethane) single-skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e.g. without wooden ribs. could be beneath or above the wooden ribs TR 019 6 .g. polyurethane) lower skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e. expanded/extruded polystyrene. oriented strand board. plywood) core : wooden ribs and loadbearing insulation (e. plywood) core : loadbearing insulation (e. with loadbearing insulation: upper skin(s) core lower skin(s) cross section upper skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e.g.g. particleboard. oriented strand board. particleboard.g.2 Introduction The models are capable of calculating stressed skin panels of the following types. plywood) Type B1 Stressed skin panels. plywood). closed box type double-skin.g.g. oriented strand board. open box type single-skin. with wooden ribs and loadbearing insulation: core single-skin(s) cross section core : wooden ribs and loadbearing insulation (e. oriented strand board. polyurethane) lower skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e. plywood) Type B2 Stressed skin panels. expanded/extruded polystyrene. particleboard.g. with wooden ribs and loadbearing insulation: upper skin(s) core lower skin(s) cross section upper skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e. oriented strand board. to be used in roofs: Type A Stressed skin panels. closed box type double-skin. particleboard. expanded/extruded polystyrene.

particleboard. mineral wool) or without insulation single-skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e.g. oriented strand board.g. plywood).g.Type C1 Stressed skin panels. open box type single-skin. with wooden ribs and non-loadbearing insulation or without insulation: core single-skin(s) cross section core : wooden ribs and non-loadbearing insulation (e. could be beneath or above the wooden ribs TR 019 7 . oriented strand board. particleboard. particleboard. with wooden ribs and non-loadbearing insulation or without insulation: upper skin(s) core lower skin(s) cross section upper skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e. oriented strand board. plywood) core : wooden ribs and non-loadbearing insulation (e.g. plywood) Type C2 Stressed skin panels. mineral wool) or without insulation lower skin(s) : wood-based skin(s) (e. closed box type double-skin.g.

3.3 3.1 Material properties Skins Timber products according to prEN 1995-1-1 3.3 The mechanical properties of the core Shall be determined and declared by the manufacturer (according to annex E.3). TR 019 8 . The durability of the bond shall be verified by tests.2 Bond between core and skins The bond between core and skins shall be tested by means of tensile tests (bonding capacity). clause E.

shall be characterized by the most critical of the following failure modes either individually or in combination: • • • • • • • • • Wrinkling (local buckling) of a face of the panel with consequential failure. A combination of bending and tension failure of the core.carrying capacity γM γ i = decisive loading factor ψ i = combination factor S ki = characteristic load X k = characteristic value of strength property γ M = decisive partial factor for material property k mod = modification factor for duration of load and moisture content 4. A combination of bending and compression failure of the core.4 4. In the case of mere timber constructions temperature gradients need normally not be taken into account. Crushing of the core at a support. shrinkage or swelling. snow. Failure of the panels at the points of attachment to the supporting structure. The serviceability limit state shall be characterized by one of the following: • The attainment of a specified limiting deflection. wind and walking-on as well as from temperature gradients.3 Serviceability limit state The verification of the serviceability limit state shall be sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the panels under the serviceability loads. which corresponds to the maximum load-carrying capacity of the panel. 4. however. temperature differences which are no longer to be neglected may possibly occur. A combination of bending and tension failure of a face of the panel. Shear failure of the bond between the face and the core. TR 019 9 . S d ≤ Rd S d = design value of load S d = ∑ γi ψ i S ki X d = k mod Xk Rd = design value of load .2 Ultimate limit state The ultimate limit state. Shear failure of the core.1 Requirements for stresses and safety levels General The product shall be of sufficient mechanical resistance. that they do not affect – neither individually nor in combination – the serviceability of the product. A combination of bending and compression failure of a face of the panel. in order to be able to resist to the stresses resulting from self-weight. These loads shall be weighted such. In the case of sandwich panels.

4. These values are to be considered as standard values for the country where the designed structure are to be located. The accidental combination is intended for use mainly in those cases where exceeding the limit state is caused by special events. • • • The fundamental combination is intended for use mainly in those cases where exceeding the limit state causes significant damage. e. Construction loads. Mass of any permanent components of the structure and installation that apply load to the element.4.4 Snow loads. Partial safety factors and combination factors are also defined and described in the particular National Application Document of each Member State. They shall be considered either individually or in combination using the “boxed” combination factors and the “boxed” partial safety factors. 4.2 to 4. The load combinations are described in Eurocode 1 ‘Basis of design and actions on structures’. Wind loads.3 Self-weight of the panel (calculating from the nominal dimensions and mean densities).5 Combinations of actions in the ultimate limit state The basis of design common to all Eurocodes. These numerical values are identified as ‘boxed’ or by [ ].4. Variable actions The variable actions shall include the following: • • • • 4.g.4 shall be taken into account in the design for mechanical resistance.4.2 Permanent actions The permanent actions to be taken into account in the design for mechanical resistance shall include the following: • • 4. Creep also causes a change in the stresses with time and this shall be taken into account in the design. Actions due to long term effects Deformations of sandwich panels of type A may increase with time as a consequence of creep of the core.4. TR 019 10 .g.4 4. Load combinations are defined by using the combination factors (ψ).4.1 Actions and combinations of actions General Characteristic values of actions are specified in Eurocode 1 ‘Basis of design and actions on structures’ or in other relevant loading codes. The actions in 4. The seismic combination is intended for use in the case where exceeding the limit state is caused by the special seismic event. Design values of actions are defined by enlarging the characteristic load values with the partial safety factors (γ). explosion or fire. 4. They are also defined and described in the particular National Application Document of each Member State. due to access to a roof or ceiling). Live loads (e. specifies different types of load combinations which may be used for verification in the ultimate limit state.4.4.

• The characteristic combination is intended for use mainly in those cases where exceeding the limit state causes unacceptable irreversible deformation or significant damage. • The quasi-permanent combination is intended for use mainly in those cases where exceeding the limit state is associated with unacceptable irreversible deformation in the long-term. specifies different types of load combinations which may be used for verification in the serviceability limit state. The load combinations are described in Eurocode 1 ‘Basis of design and actions on structures’.4. • The frequent combination is intended for use mainly in those cases where exceeding the limit state is associated with reversible deformations or minor damage.6 Combinations of actions in the serviceability limit state The basis of design common to all Eurocodes.4. TR 019 11 .

The action-effects of the sandwich panels of type A and type B1 can be calculated with the method using programmes for "statics of a lattice frame". which can be used as a function of the type of the structural system of the sandwich panels and of the structure (single-span beam or multi-span beam). the resulting deformations or restraints can be calculated from an equivalent temperature gradient. The modification factors shall be determined experimentally. The action-effects of sandwich panels of type B1 can be calculated as single-span beam in good approximation and as multi-span beam approximately by using the flexible bond theory. Because of the imperfections of the skin this stabilization is long-term-depending. 5. Annex A contains calculations formulas from prEN 14509:2002 for single-span beams and multi-span beams. The action-effects of the sandwich panels of type A and type B1 can be calculated by using the Kreuzinger method. Due to the co-action of the core the following peculiarities result. the solutions of the differential equations of the elastic bond or the differential method can be used for the calculation of the action-effects of the sandwich panels.5 Calculation method for determining the characteristic loads The action-effects of sandwich panels with loads uniformly distributed along the panel width can normally be calculated according to the elastic bond theory as beam structures. if the skins can be considered for themselves as rigid composite compound units (always given for one-piece floor layers). if the skins can be considered for themselves as rigid composite compound units (always given for one-piece floor layers). the compressed skin is stabilized by the core. These actions shall be compared with the design values of the component resistances in accordance with prEN 1995-1-1. For single-span beams and multi-span beams Annex B contains calculation methods from Eurocode 5 with an adaptation to the situation of the sandwich panel of type B1. Sufficient stability can be approximately verified by establishing that the bond stress between core and skins does not exceed the time-depending design value. with a"creep modulus". All calculation methods can be approximately used. or the sandwich panels shall be designed for local loadings as surface elements by taking the flexible bond into account. A partial safety factor of γM=1. In the case of local loading due to man load the effective width used for the load transfer shall be considerably reduced (for loading at the panel edge to bm<b/3). Furthermore. which cannot be used for mere wood constructions because of the required buckling verification. b) c) d) e) If shrinkage or swelling of the skins has to be taken into account. for the calculation of the redistrubuted action-effects due to creep of the core under the action of the self-weight and of the snow loading. a) The action-effects of sandwich panels of type A can be calculated by using the classical beam theory taking account of the shear deformation of the core. if the skins can be considered for themselves as rigid composite compound units (always given for one-piece floor layers). TR 019 12 . This model can also be applied for multi-layer sandwich panels or for sandwich panels with skins being for themselves components with a flexible bond. which have to be considered in the design. The calculation formulas are given in Annex C. A number of calculation methods is given in the Annex for the calculation of sandwich panels as beam structures.5 is considered necessary for safeguarding the material properties of the core. which is proposed in Eurocode 5 for timber structures with flexible bond. In the case of sandwich panel type A without wooden ribs and in the case of sandwich panel type B1 with wooden ribs with big spacing. and can also be used for surface structures. This model is shown in Annex D.1 Performance of the design The design values of the actions shall be determined in accordance with prEN 1995-1-1.

which are designed only on the basis of prEN 1995-1-1. the buckling verification may be omitted without taking the bedding by the core into account.1 + Eu . it is allowed to use the core for the stabilization of the skins.1 + u .2 eu Eu. The bedding of the skin can be calculated with c= π E c Gc a The calculation shall be carried out according to the second order theory. The acceptance of the transverse reaction shall be verified without spreading in the core. If. For type B1 with wooden ribs almost the entire reaction must be accepted by the ribs by pressing vertically to the fibre direction.2 tl. This leads to a reduction of the acceptable longitudinal compression force.1t u .1 El.1 u .8899 Bu Ec Gc σc = a nki n f0 σc π n Ec Gc f 0 (1 + k def ) a nki − n =half of wrinkling wave length =mathematical wrinkling load [N/mm] =normal force in the skin [N/mm] =imperfection of the skin with a being half the wave length =bond stress [N/mm²] In the area of intermediate supports the skin has additionally to accept the transverse compression resulting from the reaction.1 u .1 + Eu .1 Gc El.1 u .2 12 12 Eu .2 4 a = π3 2 Bu E c Gc 3 tc n a a n nki = 1.2 u . if the verification of the acceptance of the bond stresses is successful.1 tu. for the system with wooden ribs.1 u .2 el tc b Bending stiffness of skin: (t + t ) t3 t3 E t E t Bu = Eu . For mere wood constructions in panel system. For type A the reaction must be accepted by the core. TR 019 13 .2 u .Example bond stress between upper skin and core: tu. the verification of the acceptance of the bond stresses with long term loading is successful.2 t u .2 Bond stress tl.2 u .1 2 Eu. The long term behaviour is to be taken into account.

3 σ'm. The local design moment M’0.0.2 .fin.3 ⋅ I3 b3 M' 0.2 Wrinkling of the skin at a support The wrinkling phenomenon of the skin is caused by the local influence of the shear force on the wood-based skin in combination with the compression force in the skin.3·I3) and a modulus of subgrade reaction K.3 Qd.fin.d.d = Qd.fin.3 Nd.27 ⋅ E t(c).3 3 Nd.2 concerning the lower wood-based skin: Em.⊥.g.3 ⋅ 3 b3 ⎪ ⎩ where: b ⋅d3 I3 = 3 3 12 concerning the loadbearing insulation core: the final modulus of elasticity for compression or tension. local design ‘wrinkling’ stresses in the lower wood-based skin at an intermediate support Modulus of subgrade reaction K underneath the lower wood-based skin: ⎧ E t(c).fin.fin. loaded by the design shear force Qd.⊥.3 σc.2 ⎪ ⎪ d2 ⎪ K = max ⎨ E t(c).0.d for an elastic supported wood-based skin with an own bending stiffness (Em.2 ⎪0.fin.d.d.5.2 ⋅ 3 I ⎪ Em.0.E.d. A short description of this theory is given here.3 the planar final modulus of elasticity for bending along the grain of face veneer.3 d3 intermediate support Figure 5.3 Qd. Et(c). A theory leading to a verification of stresses for this phenomenon is described in the SKH-Publication 94-02 [5].⊥.0.⊥. layer 1 d1 2 d2 σc.fin.3 in layer 3: λ= K 4 4 ⋅ Em.3 4⋅λ TR 019 14 .3 σ'm.fin.

d. TR 019 15 .d Local design compression and bending stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin) at a support: σ c.d.3 fm.3 4 ⋅ Em.3 + σ' m.3 ≤ 100 .3 = Nd.3 fc.d with the factor fn: fn = 1− 1 N d.fin.⊥.The design compression force Nd.//.d.3 ⋅ I 3 ⋅ λ2 M' d.3 in the lower wood-based skin increases the design moment M’0.3 A3 σ' m.d.3 = fn ⋅ M' 0.3 W3 The maximum design compression and bending stress must be compared to the design in-plane compression strength along the grain of face veneer and the design planar bending strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.0.d.3 = M' d.d.0.⊥. σ c.0.

2 ) bt u .1 12 12 + + Eu .1 + El . 2 (t l .1 El .2 tc tu.1bt l .1 El.1bt u . 2 bt u .Annex A Model N (Informative) A. 2 bt u .1 eu = El . 2 bt l .1 + ⎜ 2 2 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ El .2 Single-span element q q Eu.1 + El .1 + El .1 12 t l3.1 + Eu .1bt u .2 tl.2 eu L tl.1bt u .1bt u . 2 ) El . 2 bt u .1 u .2 ) 4 Bs = Bu + Bl + Q= (E (E u .1b Bl = El .1bt l .1 tc el b Eu . 2 ⎜ t u . 2 Eu . 2 bt l .1 3 t u . 2 bt u .2 ) 4 2 2 t l3.1 tu.1bt l . 2 ) + (El .1 + Eu . 2 (eu + t c + el )2 qbL 2 qbL2 M = 8 qbL2 5qbL4 max f = + 384 Bs 8Gc bt c TR 019 16 . 2 )(El .1 + Eu . 2 bt l . 2 b + El .1 + Eu .1bt l .1 Eu .2 ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + Eu . 2 bt l .2 ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + El . 2 El . 2 t l .1 el = Bu = Eu .1 12 (t + tl . 2 t u .1 Gc El. 2 bt u .1 + tu . 2 ⎜ t l .1b tu.1bt l . 2 bt l . 2 bt l . 2 bt u .1 + El .1 u .1 bt u .1 + ⎜ 2 2 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ Eu .1bt l .1 tl .1 + Eu .2 Eu. 2 b 3 t u .1 Beam theory by taking account of the shear deformations of the core A.

N =±

M (eu + t c + el ) Bu Bs

Bl Bs

Mu = M

Ml = M

θ=

(eu + t c + el )

α l Tl − α u Tu

θL2 fT = 8

A.3 Two-span element

4 3 4 ⎛ a3 ⎞ ⎛ a3 ⎞ ⎞ qb(L1 + L2 ) ⎛ a3 ⎜ ⎟ − 2⎜ f3 = ⎜L + L ⎟ +⎜L + L ⎟ ⎟− ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ L1 + L2 24 Bs 2 ⎠ 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 1 ⎝ 1 ⎝

R (L + L2 ) L1 a3 − 2 1 6 Bs L1 + L2

2

2 ⎛ ⎛ L ⎞2 ⎛ a ⎞ ⎞ M3 3 1 ⎜1 − ⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎜ L1 + L2 ⎟ ⎜ L1 + L2 ⎟ ⎟ Gc bt c ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝

θ=

(eu + t c + el )

θ (L1 + L2 )2 ⎛ ⎜

2 f 2,T f 2,1 L1 L2 L1 + L2 ⎛ L1 ⎞ L1 ⎟ −⎜ ⎜ L1 + L2 ⎜ L1 + L2 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝

2

α l Tl − α u Tu

f 2,T = R2,T =

⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠

M 2,T = − R2,T F1,T = − R2,T F3,T = − R2,T

L2 L1 + L2 L1 L1 + L2

q

L1 F1 F2

L2

TR 019 17

F3

3 4 4 ⎛ L1 ⎞ ⎛ L1 ⎞ ⎞ qbL1 L2 qb(L1 + L2 ) ⎛ L1 ⎜ ⎟ f 2, 0 = − 2⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ L + L ⎟ + ⎜ L + L ⎟ ⎟ + 2G bt ⎜ L1 + L2 24 Bs c c 2 ⎠ 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 1 ⎝ 1 ⎝ 2 2 L1 L2 L1 L2 f 2,1 = + 3(L1 + L2 )Bs (L1 + L2 )Gc bt c

R2 = R1 = R3 =

f 2, 0 qb(L1 + L2 ) L2 − R2 (L1 + L2 ) 2 f 2,1

qb(L1 + L2 ) L1 − R2 (L1 + L2 ) 2

2 qbL1 2

M 2 = R1 L1 −

**R12 max M 1 = 2qb max M 3 = R1 qb R a3 = 3 qb a1 =
**

3 4 4 ⎛ a1 ⎞ ⎛ a1 ⎞ ⎞ qb(L1 + L2 ) ⎛ a1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟− ⎟ +⎜ ⎜ f1 = − 2⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ L1 + L2 24 Bs ⎝ L1 + L2 ⎠ ⎝ L1 + L2 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 2 2 R2 (L1 + L2 ) L2 a1 ⎛ ⎛ L2 ⎞ ⎛ a1 ⎞ ⎞ M1 ⎜1 − ⎜ ⎟ − ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ L + L ⎟ − ⎜ L + L ⎟ ⎟ + G bt 6 Bs L1 + L2 ⎜ ⎝ 1 2 ⎠ 2 ⎠ ⎠ c c ⎝ 1 ⎝

R32 2qb

TR 019 18

Annex B

Model N

(Informative)

B.1 Approximation method for sandwich panels with wooden ribs according to prEN 1995-1-1 B.2 Single-span element

q

q

beff 1 Cu,eu

eu

Eu,1 Gr Gc El,1 El,2 Gr

tc

tu,1 tu,2

beff 2 Eu,2

L

tl,2 tl,1 tc

Cl,el b r1

el

b

br 2

Schubfedersteifigkeiten:

Sf u ,1 = 1 eu t + c Cu Gr br ,1 1 el t + c Cl Gr br ,1 1 eu t + c Cu Gr br ,2 1 el t + c Cl Gr br ,2 + Gc beff ,1 − br ,1 tc beff ,1 − br ,1 tc beff ,2 − br ,2 tc beff ,2 − br ,2 tc

Sf l ,1 =

+ Gc

Sf u ,2 =

+ Gc

Sf l ,2 =

+ Gc

TR 019 19

1t u .w .2 ) + γ l .1beff .1 = El .2 = 1+ γ u .2 beff .1 eu .1t l .1 + t l .1t l .1 + t u .2 L2 1 π beff .1beff .1beff .1t l .1t u .2 (t u .1 + Eu .1beff .1t l .1 + 12 12 Eu .1beff .2 beff .2 ⎜ t u .1 = Eu .1 t u .1 + Eu .1 = t t l .1t u .2 beff .1t u .2 (t l .1t u .1t l .2 beff .1t c3 (eu + t c + el )2 = Bu .2 )2 t u .1 + Bl .1 L2 γ γ u .2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ El .1t l .1 + El .2 = 1+ π beff .1t l .1 + l .1 + u .2 ) 12 TR 019 20 .2 Bu .1beff .2 ⎜ t l .γ u .2 ) br .1t u .1 γ u .1t l .1 + E r + γ u .1 = t t u . 2 t u .2 beff .1 + Eu .2 beff .2 beff .1t u .1beff .1t l .1 (Eu .1 + Eu .1 L2 γ l .2 beff .1 (El .1t l .1 (El .1t l .1 + Eu .1t l .1beff .2 t u .1 12 12 El .1 + El .1beff . 2 t l .1 (Eu .1 + Eu .1beff .1 + El .1 3 3 Eu .2 beff .1t u .1t u .2 (Eu .2 )2 t l3.2 )γ l .1t u .1beff .2 ) 2 1 Sf u .2 L2 Effective bending stiffnesses Eu .1beff .2 ⎜ 2 2 ⎝ El . 2 ) 2 1 Sf l .2 t l .2 (El . 2 ) 2 1 Sf u .1 + Bl .2 ) 2 Sf l .2 beff .1 = 1+ π beff .1t l .1t u .1 El .1 ⎛ + Eu .2 beff .2 4 Bs .1 t l3.1 + El .2 beff .1 + Eu .1t l .1t u .1beff .1 Eu .1 + El .1 (Eu .1 (El .2 beff .1 + El .2 beff .2 4 El .1beff .1 + El .1 el .2 ⎜ 2 2 ⎝ Eu .1t u .1t u .1 ⎛ + El .1 = 1+ π beff .

2 beff .w .2 (El .1 + El .1 ⎡ ⎛ tc ⎤ ⎞ ⎢γ u .1beff .1 (Eu .1 ⎜ 2 + el .2.2 4 er .2 t l .2 t u .2 beff . 2 = 2 8 5qbL4 f = 384(Bs .1beff .1beff .1 + Eu .1 = M1 Bs .2 (El .1t l .2 beff .2 beff .1 + Eu .2 t u .1 + t l .1t l .2 (El . γl.2 shall be calculated.1 (El .2 t l .2 (Eu .2 − el .2 ) + E r br .2 (El .2 t u .w .1beff .1 ⎡ ⎛ tc ⎤ ⎞ ⎢ γ l .2 t l .2 t c3 (eu + t c + el )2 + Bs .2 beff .1 + El .2 ) + γ l .1 + Eu .2 + 12 12 El .2 t u .1beff .1beff .2 )γ l .1 Eu .1t u .2 ⎟ + t l .1 ⎟ + t u .1 + Bs .2 tl .2 = El .1 (Eu .1t l .2 )⎜ c + eu .w . TR 019 21 .1 + Eu .1 + t l .2 ⎥ ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ This applies correspondingly to multi-span beams.2 t l .2 beff .1t l .2 beff .2 + 12 12 Eu .2 )2 t l3.2 tl .2 t l .2 )2 t u .2 beff .1beff ..2 + er .1 t l3.1beff .2 (Eu .2 ) 12 1 qbL Q1.2 beff .1t r ⎛t ⎞ ⎛t ⎞ γ u .1 + t u .2 beff .2 t l .1 = − M1 Bs .2 − eu .1 + Eu .2 + E r γ u .2 ⎡ ⎛ tc ⎤ ⎞ ⎢ γ l .1beff .2 ⎥ ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ min σ u . γu.2 Bu .1.w .2 )⎜ c + el .2 t l .2 + Bl .1beff .2 ) + Er br .1beff .2 = Bu .1 ⎥ ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ ⎦ ⎡ ⎛ tc ⎤ ⎞ ⎢ γ u .1 El .. instead with L. w.2 − er .1t u .1 ⎛t ⎞ ⎛t ⎞ γ u .2 )⎜ c + el .2 beff .2 ) br .2 ⎟ ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠ = (Eu .2 beff .1 + El .2 beff .1 ⎜ 2 + eu .1beff .2 t u .2 )⎜ c + eu .1beff .2 ) + γ l .2 beff .2 Bl .1 + Eu .2 = Eu .1beff .1 + t u .2 − el . γl. 2 = 2 2 1 qL2 M 1.2 M2 Bs .1 + El .2 t l .1 + El . 2 ) El . with 0.1 ⎟ + t l .2 ⎜ 2 + el .1t u . w.2 4 min σ u .1beff ..1 + t l . The shear effect coefficients γu.2 γ u .2 (Eu .2 ⎟ + t u .2 tu .1t u .1 ⎟ − γ l .2 (t u .8 of the smaller one of two adjacent spans.2 t l .2 3 3 Eu .2 (t l .2 beff .2 t r γ u .2 t u .2 tu .1 + Eu .1beff .1 + El .er .2 beff .1 t u . w.1 + er .1 (El .1 − er .2 = − max σ l .1 + El .2 beff .2 = M2 Bs .1beff .1beff .2 t u .2 ⎟ − γ l .1 + t u .1.1 + El . 2 − eu .2 t l .2 t u .2 ) + γ l .2 beff .1 + Eu .1 ⎥ ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ ⎦ max σ l .1 ⎟ ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠ = γ u .2 ⎜ 2 + eu .2 t u .2 t u ..

From the curvature of each layer a bending stress occurs in each different layer.1. Prof. the composite element also has two bending stiffnesses: the own bending stiffness and the Steiner bending stiffness. each layer contains planar shear stresses at the interface of the adjoining layers.1 Shear deflection The model Kreuzinger [1] contains the following assumptions for the shear deflections: To determine the shear stiffness the shear stress line (product of shear stress and layer width) between the center of the two outer layers is assumed to have a constant course. Dr.-Ing.1). layer 1 2 a i n i n-1 u interface 1 2 Figure C. consisting of several pliable cross-sections with different thickness and width. has proposed a new and general model for calculating a composite element [1].1 . Axial forces cause axial stress in each layer i. connected with each other.Linearity of the shear deflections C.-Ing. C.Annex C Calculation model by Kreuzinger (Informative) C. Therefore.1.1.1. 4.1 Summary The stiffness matrix takes into account equilibrium in the deformed state (linear static). Shear forces cause shear stresses in each layer i. Thus the total shift u is related to the thickness of the composite beam.1. The bending stress in each different layer depends on the own bending stiffness of each different layer i (Ei·Ii). Dr. The course of the shear deflection of the total cross-section is assumed to be linear (figure C. This results in a linear shear stress distribution over the depth of each layer due to the shear force transfer at the interface.1.1 Model Prof. an effective shear modulus or shear stiffness for the whole cross-section can be given.3 Stresses 1. Kreuzinger of the University of München. between the center of the two outer layers. Germany. Blass of the University of Karlsruhe. C. From the shear force transfer at the interface of the adjoining layers. Therefore. These stiffnesses will be described by two virtual beams A en B. Blass. The distance from the neutral axis to the layer center also influences the axial stress in each different layer.2 Stiffnesses Besides the shear stiffness. which could be of a different thickness. has adapted the general model to a suitable model to calculate a timber-concrete composite floor system [2]. 2. The following text is mainly based on the example given by Prof.-Ing. C. Dr. the axial stress in each different layer also depends on the Steiner bending stiffness. 3. width and material.1. TR 019 22 . Germany.

2 Analytical Kreuzinger model C. The last three terms in parentheses deal with the shear deflection.2.1 Neutral axis The neutral axis depends on the relation of the partial stiffness under axial load (Ei·Ai) of each different layer i to ⎛ n ⎞ the total stiffness under axial load ⎜ Ei ⋅ Ai ⎟ of the cross section.2 the model of this new virtual Kreuzinger beam is shown.1.1.2. This can be achieved in the model by placing the beams parallel to each other and connecting them with mutual nodes.2.1.1.3 Virtual beam B The composite action of n cross-sections is represented by the Steiner bending stiffness in virtual beam B. as.4 Kreuzinger beam All the relevant stiffnesses are now systematic applied to two virtual beams A and B. both beams are neither spatial nor substantially separated from each other. C.Model of the Kreuzinger beam TR 019 23 . In figure C. The shear stiffness of the composite element is described in virtual beam B.1. ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ i=1 ⎠ ∑ C.2 . The following assumptions are valid: (EI )B = ∑ Ei ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi2 i =1 n (Steiner bending stiffness) 1 1 1 = = 2 (GA)B S a ⎛ n-1 1 d1 ⋅⎜ + + ⎜ ⎝ i=1 ci 2 ⋅ G1 ⋅ b1 ∑ ∑G ⋅b di i= 2 i n −1 + i ⎞ dn ⎟ 2 ⋅ Gn ⋅ bn ⎟ ⎠ (finite shear stiffness) The first term in parentheses deals with the slip deflection. depending on the connection between the layers. depending on the shear moduli of the layers.2 Virtual beam A The own bending stiffness of n layers is represented by virtual beam A: (EI ) A = ∑ Ei ⋅ Ii i =1 n (own bending stiffness) The shear stiffness of virtual beam A is assumed to be infinite. virtual beam A with own bending stiffness (EI)A mutual node for mutual deflection virtual beam B with Steiner bending stiffness (EI)B and finite shear stiffness 1/(GA)B Figure C. Also represented in virtual beam B is the composite action at the interface of the adjoining layers and the finite shear stiffness. in reality.2. Hereby the important requirement is: both virtual beams A and B must experience the same deflection. C.C. The two outer layers are only partially accounted for.

In figure C. MB.1) where: bi ⋅ di3 12 bi ⋅ di2 Wi = 6 bi width of layer i di thickness of layer i Ii = TR 019 24 . By the names A or B one can recognize the virtual beam and the stresses which belong to that beam. b1 d1 d2 di layer 1 2 b2 i bi bi+1 dn n bn cross section axial and bending stresses layer 1 z 2 neutral axis i n σm.1 MA NA NB MB shear stresses layer 1 2 i τB.i-1.3 .3 as σm.i+1 n QA QB τB.Stresses in the composite element Bending stress in layer i: M A ⇒ Mi = Ei ⋅ Ii ⋅M (EI ) A A ⇒ σ m.i.i Figure C. The forces MA and QA of virtual beam A are divided among the different layers proportionally to the own bending stiffness of layer i (Ei·Ii) and the total own bending stiffness (EI)A.3 the axial.n σc.i τA.n or σm.n σt. QA. Each different layer takes into account a bending stress and a parabolic shear stress distribution. with which the total shear stress in layer i can be calculated. Then these virtual forces are translated to the internal forces in each different layer of the composite element.The Kreuzinger beam can now be loaded by action which results in deflection and internal virtual forces (MA. NB). The forces MB and QB of virtual beam B deliver the constant axial stress in each layer i and the shear stress distribution at the interface of the adjoining layers.g. bending and shear stresses in a five layer composite element are shown.i = Mi Wi (e. NA. QB.1 z1 z2 zi zi+1 zn σm. shown in figure C.

i = τ A.i = min⎨ ⎩τB.i.i+1 ∑E ⋅ A ⋅z i i i=1 i i ⎧bi min⎨ ⎩bi+1 (e.i+1 = ⋅ EI )B ( ⎧τB.i 16 ⋅ τ A.i > τ 2. shown in figure C.3 as τB.i 4 τ max. shown in figure C.3 as τA.i = τ1.i 2 + 2 τ 2.3 as σt.i + τ 2.i − τB.i-1.i+1 Shear stress at the interface of the adjoining layers between layer i and i+1: QB QB ⇒ τB.1) i where: N = N A + NB Ai = bi ⋅ d i The axial force N from the actions on the structure is distributed on the partial cross-sections of the stressed skin panel according to the longitudinal stiffness values of the partial cross-sections. TR 019 25 .i+1 = ⋅ (EI )B ∑E ⋅ A ⋅z i i i=1 i i ⎧bi min⎨ ⎩bi+1 (e.i+1) τ 2.i-1.i ∑E ⋅ A ⋅z i i i=1 i-1 i ⎧bi-1 min⎨ ⎩bi (e.i or σ t.i = Ni Ai ∑E ⋅ A i i=1 n (e.i 4 where: QA ⇒ τ A.i = Ei ⋅ Ii 3 1 ⋅Q ⋅ ⋅ (EI ) A A 2 di ⋅ bi QB = ⋅ (EI )B (e.i ≤ τ 2.i if τ A.g.n or σc. shown in figure C.3 as τB.i.i if τ A.i+1) The calculated deflection must not exceed the limiting values for the deflection and the design values of the calculated stresses must not exceed the design values of the material strengths.i) QB ⇒ τB.i. shown in figure C.g. Shear stress in layer i: τ max.g.i + τ1.Axial stress in layer i: MB and N ⇒ Ni = Ei ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ MB + (EI )B Ei ⋅ Ai ⋅ N ⇒ σ c. shown in figure C.i.i.g.i-1.i) QB QB ⇒ τB.3 as τB.i.i + τ 2.g.i τ1.i = τB.i-1.

mean.mean.//.E. concerning the insulation core: Et(c). appears to be a factor of 100 to 200 times smaller than the Steiner bending stiffness. For wood-based skins like OSB or plywood the material properties parallel and perpendicular to the grain direction of face veneer are different.1. C.i the mean modulus of elasticity for compression or tension Et(c). cross-section of the three layers stressed skin panel without wooden rib.0.0.1(3) the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer.2.g. Some characteristic and mean values of the material properties are given in chapter 5.0. C. represented by virtual beam A.2.00 the term ∑c i =1 n −1 1 i in the general equation for the shear stiffness (see also C.//. virtual beam A plays no part and is ignored.1 ⋅ b1 (finite shear stiffness) where: Ai = bi ⋅ d i concerning the wood-based skin: Et(c).1. without wooden ribs.2.C.2 ⋅ b2 2 ⋅ G ⊥. G⊥.1 Verification of ultimate limit states The design strength values must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].1.mean. closed box type double-skin.i the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for compression or tension. 1 1 1 = = (GA)B S a 2 ⎛ ⎞ d1 d2 d3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ + + ⎜ 2 ⋅G Gmean.mean.mean. Therefore the connection between flange and web is assumed to be infinitely stiff.mean. TR 019 26 . with loadbearing insulation (type A) layer 1 z2 2 3 b1= b2= b3 wood-based skin Figure C.1 Virtual beam A The own bending stiffness.4 .mean. Because the factor of co-operation is assumed to be 1. with loadbearing insulation wood-based skin loadbearing insulation d1 neutral axis d2 d3 z1 a z3 In this example the main direction of the wood-based skin (the grain direction of face veneer) is parallel to the span direction. As there is no effect in the load distribution and singularity errors are caused by the large difference in stiffnesses.3 ⋅ b3 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⊥. represented by virtual beam B.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi2 (Steiner bending stiffness) The wood-based skins are glued to the core.0.2.3) is neglected.0.0.//.2 Virtual beam B Virtual beam B contains the Steiner bending stiffness and a finite shear stiffness resulting in a noticeable shear deflection: (EI )B = ∑E i =1 3 t(c). C.2 Model for a glued stressed skin panel.

The calculated virtual design bending.0.3 Design compression or tension stress From the calculated virtual design bending and axial forces Md. In this example we assume that the upper wood-based skin and the loadbearing insulation core experience compression and the lower wood-based skin experiences tension.d. each layer can experience compression or tension stress.1.//.Design stresses in the stressed skin panel of type A C.5 a design example is given. layer 1 z1 z2 z3 σc.1) t(c).1 ⋅ A1 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.2.B in the structure.0.d virtual beam B with (EI)B and (GA)B u MB.3 3 σt. qd NB.0.mean.B neutral axis τd.d.5 . The stressed skin panel of type A is now described as a virtual beam B with the Steiner bending stiffness (EI)B and a finite shear stiffness (GA)B.2. Virtual beam B can now be loaded by design combination of actions (see chapter 6) to determine the maximum design internal forces. Virtual design bending moment Md.B + E t(c). Qd.//. a simply supported Kreuzinger beam of type A In figure C.d.3 Figure C.//. Nd.B is translated to design axial stress in each different layer i by ratio of the Steiner bending stiffness.B Qd.d.B: Depending on the direction of the moment Md.B and Nd.B.1 ⋅ A1 ⋅ z1 (EI )B ⋅ M d.2 a 2 σc.1.6 .mean.Gmean.1 = Nd.B τd.d Figure C.B and the axial force Nd.d.d QB.B. shear and axial forces (Md. Bending stress in each layer i do not occur.mean.i ⋅ Ai TR 019 27 .B.B ⇒ σ c.6 as σc.E.1 Md.B.2 Nd.1 = E t(c). Design compression stress in layer 1 (upper wood-based skin): Nd.B) are then translated to the design axial and shear stresses in each different layer i.g.1 A1 (shown in figure C. because the own bending stiffness is neglected.2 the mean shear modulus.

//.B.d.d.d.1 τ d.0.B ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩b3 (shown in figure C.2.2.mean.d.2 = E t(c).2 Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 2 and 3: τ d.0.2.//.1.2) The maximum design shear stress at the interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2 must be compared to the minimum value of the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of layer 1 (upper wood-based skin) or the design shear strength of layer 2 (loadbearing insulation core).d.0.1.0.d.2) t(c).//.2 = Nd.3 C.d.3 = Nd.B ⇒ σ t.//.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B Qd.mean.0.//.6 as σt.2 A2 (shown in figure C.B.i ⋅ Ai The maximum design compression stress must be compared to the design compression strength of the loadbearing insulation core.1.3 = E t(c).2 = ∑E i=1 1 t(c).4 Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers From the calculated virtual design shear force Qd.2 ≤ fc.d.2 ⋅ A2 ⋅ z 2 (EI )B ⋅ M d.B.3 A3 (shown in figure C.6 as τd.6 as τd.3 ⋅ A3 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.d.mean.mean. σ c. σ t.3 ≤ f t.2 Design tension stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin): Nd.B + E t(c).B.mean. σ c.3) t(c).d.0.i ⋅ Ai The maximum design tension stress must be compared to the design in-plane tension strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.The maximum design compression stress must be compared to the design in-plane compression strength along the grain of face veneer of the upper wood-based skin.B ⇒ σ c.//.1 ≤ fc.d.3 ⋅ A3 ⋅ z3 (EI )B ⋅ M d.B: Design shear stress at the interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2: τ d.2 ≤ min⎨ ⎩f v.1.1 Design compression stress in layer 2 (loadbearing insulation core): Nd.mean.⊥.3) TR 019 28 .//.0.mean.B.2 ⋅ A2 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.3 = ∑E i=1 2 t(c).mean. ⎧f v.6 as σc.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B Qd.d.B + E t(c).0.B ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩b2 (shown in figure C.//.0.

3 ≤ min⎨ ⎩f v.i Qd.3 C.1 = τ1.d.1.d.0.mean.2.B.B.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B Qd.B.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of the upper wood-based skin.2.d.B.1.3 τ 2.2) τ d. ⎧f v.1.1.⊥.d.0.The maximum design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 2 and 3 must be compared to the minimum value of the design shear strength of layer 2 (loadbearing insulation core) or the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of layer 3 (lower wood-based skin).B (shown in figure C.⊥.2 τ 2.1 ≤ f v.6 as τd.1 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.d.1.d.2 TR 019 29 .1.mean.1.2 τ1.B.d.1 = τ d.B.2 = τ1.1 = 0 τ d.2 = ∑E i=1 1 t(c).B.2.0.d.2.mean.1 + τ 2.2.B.d.B.B.2) ⎧τ d. τ max.d.d.5 Design shear stress From the calculated virtual design shear force Qd.d.3) ⎧τ d.2.2 τ max.d.6 as τd.2 − τ d.3 τ max.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design shear strength of the loadbearing insulation core.2 = min⎨ ⎩τ d.B.d.B.0.1. τ max.1.2 τ d.1 − τ d.B: Design shear stress in layer 1 (upper wood-based skin): τ d.//.//.B.1.2 = τ d.2 ≤ fv.6 as τd.B ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩b2 (shown in figure C.B ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩b2 Qd.B.1 Design shear stress in layer 2 (loadbearing insulation core): τ d.0.B.d.2 = τ d.B.B.0.0.1 = τ d.0.2 = ∑E i=1 1 t(c).//.1 τ1.B.1.3 = ∑E i=1 2 ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩b3 (shown in figure C.2 + τ 2.d.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B t(c).

3 = ∑E i=1 2 t(c).3 = τ1.d.d.3 − τ d.3 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.Design shear stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin): τ d.3 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.6 as τd.3 + τ 2.B.d.2.1.3. τ max.2.d.2.B.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⋅ (EI )B Qd.3 τ max.B. σ c.2.2.4 τ 2.B.3 = τ d.d.3) τ d.7 – Effective support length of the loadbearing insulation core Effective support area of the loadbearing insulation core: Intermediate support: Aeff = B ⋅ (Ls + k ⋅ e ) End support: Aeff = B ⋅ Ls + k ⋅ e ( 2 ) TR 019 30 .6 Local design compression stress in layer 2 (loadbearing insulation core) at a support The verification is taken from the ECCS / CIB Report [13].0.B.⊥.3 ≤ f v.0.2 = Rd Aeff where: Rd Aeff the maximum design reaction force at a support.2.B.3.2.3 τ1.B ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩b3 (shown in figure C.B.3. layer 1 Ls+k·e e 2 Ls 3 e layer 1 2 Ls+k·e/2 Ls 3 Rd intermediate support Rd end support Figure C.B.mean.d. the effective support area of loadbearing insulation core at a support.d.4 = τ d.d.B.3 = τ d.//.4 = 0 ⎧τ d.3 C.

Final stiffness properties of each action using the appropriate kdef values for virtual beam B: E fin.00 C. the contribution of each action to the total deflection should be calculated separately using the appropriate kdef values.i = Gmean.2 ≤ 1. The panel-to-timber connection must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]. σ c. e = 100 mm should be used.where: B k e the supported width of the loadbearing insulation core.2 fc. depending on the actual situation and the demands of the client. C. the distance between the centers of the face layers.1. e ≤ 100 mm. k = 0. For sandwich panels with e > 100 mm. the shear deflection is of great influence.i TR 019 31 .2 Verification of serviceability limit states As the loadbearing insulation core has a small finite shear stiffness. a distribution parameter.i). The maximum design compression stress must be compared to the reduced design compression strength of the loadbearing insulation core.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef.1. Specific numerical limits of deflection or slope should in principle be decided by the structural engineer from case to case.i = Emean.50 for loadbearing insulation core. an extra noticeable deflection caused by the small finite shear stiffness shall be calculated. A load combination which consists of actions belonging to different load duration classes.2.1 Design value of the stiffness properties of each layer i Virtual beam B can now be loaded by combination of actions to be used for verification in the serviceability limit state (see also chapter 6) to determine the maximum total deflection.d.2. The final deformation of the stressed skin panel fabricated from members which have different creep properties should be calculated using modified final stiffness moduli (Efin.i and Gmean.i and Gfin.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ k def.i Gfin.8 Influence of temperature … needs brief research and a remark or recommendation here… C. C.2.i) by the appropriate value of (1+kdef.1. C. Some recommendations for limits of deflection are given in prEN 1995-1-1 [12] in absence of more precise information.9 Fastening of the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure In case the stressed skin panel is supported by a timber structure.i).2.2. metal fasteners can be used to connect the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure.2. Besides a deflection caused by the elastic stiffness. which are determined by dividing the instantaneous values of the modulus for each member (Emean.2.7 Design wrinkling stress The wrinkling phenomenon in the wood-based skin due to compression stress in the field or due to compression and bending stress at the support is described in chapter … and 5.d. The calculated deflection must not exceed the limiting values for the deflection.

concerning the loadbearing insulation core: Emean.mean.0.i the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer G⊥. Gmean. TR 019 32 . For permanent actions.mean. ψ2 should be taken equal to 1. Gmean. ψ2 a factor for the quasi-permanent value of a variable action.i the mean shear modulus Gmean.//.i the mean modulus of elasticity for compression or tension Et(c).concerning the wood-based skin with the grain of face veneer parallel to the span direction: Emean.mean.i the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity for compression or tension along the grain of face veneer Et(c).00.0.

with wooden ribs and (non)-loadbearing insulation (type B1 and C1) wood-based skin wooden rib bef.1 of the prEN 1995-1-1.10·λ 25·hf.3 bef.1 With non-loadbearing (unstiff) insulation (type C1) In case the space between the wooden ribs consists of non-loadbearing (unstiff) insulation the effective flange width should be taken from table 3.1 Effective flange width bef of wood-based skins C.1.E.3.3 Model for a stressed skin panel. cross-section of the three layers stressed skin panel with wooden ribs and (non)loadbearing insulation bef.1 . closed box type double-skin.1.15·λ Particleboard 30·hf.3. 1 2 λ = span of beam hf. Some characteristic and mean values of the material properties are given in chapter 5.10·λ OSB 25·hf. C.1 b2 bw d1 d2 d3 neutral axis bf bef.I • perpendicular to the webs 0.I • parallel to the webs 0.i = thickness of flange (of wood-based skin layer i) TR 019 33 .3 In this example the main direction of the wood-based skin (the grain direction of face veneer) is parallel to the span direction.I 0. bef.3 insulation wood-based skin Figure C.1.3.1 z1 a z3 z2 b2 bef. C. For wood-based skins like OSB or plywood the material properties parallel and perpendicular to the grain direction of face veneer are different.1 layer 1 b2 2 3 bef.I 1 Plate buckling2 Flange material Shear lag Plywood.Maximum effective flange widths due to the effect of shear lag and plate buckling according to prEN 1995-1-1 The center-to-center distance of the wooden ribs should not exceed 600 mm.1 Verification of ultimate limit states The design strength values must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].C.g.20·λ Table C. Remark: Type C1 can also be calculated by the EC 5 method. The minimum value between the columns due to the shear lag and due to the plate buckling should be taken. with grain direction in the outer plies: 20·hf.I 0.8 .

i − λ 2.i the planar mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for bending. TR 019 34 .mean.1.//.1.i µi C.mean.1) (for the wooden rib core) concerning the wood-based skin: Em. Therefore the wood-based skins of type B1 are supported by the loadbearing (stiff) insulation core.i ⋅ π ⋅ bf α 2.90.90.i π ⋅ bf ⋅ ( ( λ2 1.i ⋅ π ⋅ bf 2⋅λ λ 2. Virtual beam A Virtual beam A contains the own bending stiffness of the three layers: (EI ) A = ∑ Em.0.i − µi λ bf bw Et(c). glued to the wood-based skins (type B1) The space between the wooden ribs forms a stressed skin panel of type A. Effective flange width of the wood-based skins: bef.i ⋅ di3 12 b ⋅d3 Ii = i i 12 (for the wood-based skins and bef.⊥.3.i ⋅ tanhα 2.3. the rib width.mean.⊥. the in-plane Poisson’s ratio of wood-based skin layer i. The effect of plate buckling may be disregarded. The shear stiffness of virtual beam A is assumed to be infinite.i = 2⋅λ λ 1.//.i ) ) where: α 1.2 With loadbearing (stiff) insulation.i G//.//. concerning the wooden rib core: Em.0.0.i ⋅ tanhα 1. the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity perpendicular to the grain of face veneer for compression or tension of wood-based skin layer i.mean.i according to C.i − bw bf = 2 ⋅ λ ⋅ λ 1. the in-plane mean shear modulus of wood-based skin layer i.i Et(c).⊥. the web spacing.i E t(c).i ⋅ Ii i =1 3 where: Ii = bef.mean.i E t(c).2 the span of the beam.0.i = ai − ai2 − ci ai = ci = E t(c).90.i the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.1.//.i − λ2 2.mean.C.0.mean.i = ai + ai2 − ci λ 2.3.mean.mean.1. the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for compression or tension of wood-based skin layer i.mean. The analytical solution for the maximum effective flange widths due to the effect of shear lag is independent of the type of insulation because it only takes into account shear lag and no plate buckling and therefore may be used in all cases.//.i 2 ⋅ G / /.mean.i = λ 1.

In this example the wood-based skins are glued to the wooden ribs.C.i the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0. If the connection between skin and wooden rib is made of mechanical fasteners.0.d Figure C. the shear stiffness might influence the stress distribution and the deformation.i ⋅ d i (for the wood-based skins and bef.d QA.8 a design example is given.mean.d QB. In these cases. concerning the wooden rib core: Et(c). a simply supported Kreuzinger beam of type B1 or C1 In figure C.1 ⋅ bef.3 ⋅ bef.0. qd mutual node virtual beam A with (EI)A virtual beam B with (EI)B and (GA)B NA. The stressed skin panel of type B1 or C1 is now described as a virtual beam A with the own bending stiffness (EI)A and a virtual beam B with the Steiner bending stiffness (EI)B.9 . The slip stiffness can be calculated according to EC 5. the factor of co-operation is less than 1.d NB.3) is neglected.mean.d u MB.1(3) the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer. G⊥.0. Gmean. TR 019 35 .1 (finite shear stiffness) where: Ai = bef.0. The total number of layers should then not 1 i exceed 5.mean.E. Both beams are placed parallel to each other and they are connected with mutual nodes.1.3. Mechanical fasteners are not allowed i 1 1 1 = = (GA)B S a 2 ⎛ ⎞ d1 d2 d3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ + + ⎜ 2 ⋅G Gmean.g.1.0.2.i the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for compression or tension. Because the factor of co-operation is assumed to be 1.mean.0.00 and the slip stiffness due to mechanical fastening has to be taken into account by the term ∑ c .//.00 the term ∑c i =1 n −1 i =1 n −1 1 i in the general equation for the shear stiffness (see also C. Therefore the connection between flange and web is assumed to be infinitely stiff.3 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⊥.mean.//.3 Virtual beam B Virtual beam B contains the Steiner bending stiffness: (EI )B = ∑ E t(c). Mechanical fasteners are only mentioned to complete the formulas.1) Ai = bi ⋅ d i (for the wooden rib core) concerning the wood-based skins: Et(c).3.mean.2 the mean shear modulus.//.d u MA.i according to C.1.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi2 i =1 3 (Steiner bending stiffness) The shear stiffness should also be taken into account for slender webs and small λ/h-ratios.2 ⋅ b2 2 ⋅ G⊥.mean.

The calculated virtual design bending.d.mean. Design bending stress in layer 1 (upper wood-based skin): M d.mean.d.B + E t(c).3.0.1 W1 (shown in figure C.B 3 σm.B: Depending on the direction of the moment Md.3 Figure C.2.mean.A.Stresses in the stressed skin panel of type B1 or C1 C.A.0. ≤ 100 Design bending stress in layer 2 (wooden rib core): M d. σ c.3.d. Qd.A and Nd.A + Nd. Nd.0.2 τd.A.2 a 2 σt.d.d.mean. axial and shear stresses in each different layer i.A.B and Nd.//.B.1) t(c).0. shear and axial forces (Md.1 A1 (shown in figure C. Nd.1 fc.2 Nd.1 σm.4) to determine the maximum design internal forces. Nd.1 ⋅ I1 (EI ) A ⋅ M d.10 .d.B τd.9 as σm.1 + σ m.2 σm.1) where: W1 = 2 bef.2 W2 (shown in figure C.4 Design compression or tension stress in combination with bending stress From the calculated virtual design bending and axial forces Md. layer 1 z1 z2 z3 σc.1 according to C.A.//.1 ⋅ A1 ⋅ z1 (EI )B ⋅ M d.9 as σm.d.⊥.B) are then translated to the design bending.A ⇒ σ m.B in the structure. In this example we assume that the upper wood-based skin experiences compression and the lower wood-based skin and the wooden rib core experience tension.d.B and the axial forces Nd.1 Md.1.A.1 ⋅ A1 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.i ⋅ Ai The maximum combined design compression and bending stress must be compared to the combined design in-plane compression strength along the grain of face veneer and the design planar bending strength along the grain of face veneer of the upper wood-based skin.1 = E t(c).B ⇒ σ c.1 = M d.B.2 = E0.A Qd.B.1.1 fm.3 Qd.1 = Em.d.1) Design compression stress in layer 1 (upper wood-based skin): Nd.A ⇒ σ m.1 .A neutral axis Md.1 = ( ) Nd. every layer can experience compression or tension stress.//.d.3 σt.d.//.mean.d.d.1.0.A Nd.⊥. Md.1 ⋅ d1 6 (for the wood-based skins and bef.2 ⋅ I2 (EI ) A ⋅ M d.0.B.d. Md.9 as σc.A.d.2 = M d.A.3 τd.B τd.d. Qd.1 τd.2) TR 019 36 .The combined virtual beams A and B can now be loaded by design combination of actions (see clause 4.

d.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧bef.0.mean.i ⋅ Ai The maximum combined design tension and bending stress must be compared to the combined design inplane tension strength along the grain of face veneer and the design planar bending strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.//.9 as σm.3.d.2 ⋅ A2 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.1.B: Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2: τ d.0.d.0.B + E 0.3 = Em.mean.2 ⋅ A2 ⋅ z 2 (EI )B ⋅ M d.3 ⋅ I3 (EI ) A ⋅ M d.d.//. C.3 f t.0.0.d.2 + σ m.B.A + Nd.B + E t(c).3 + σ m.//.⊥.3 W3 (shown in figure C.2 ≤ 100 .2 f t.mean.mean.0.3 ⋅ d 3 6 (for the wood-based skins and bef.3.9 as σt.3 according to C.2 fm.9 as σt.3 A3 (shown in figure C.2 = ⋅ Ai ( ) Nd.B ⇒ σ t. Design bending stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin): M d.5 Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers From the calculated virtual design shear force Qd.0.1) Design tension stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin): Nd.d.where: W2 = 2 b2 ⋅ d 2 6 (for the wooden rib core) Design tension stress in layer 2 (wooden rib core): Nd.2 = E 0.B ⋅ ∑E i=1 1 t(c).d.2 = (EI )B Qd.d.//.mean.1.0.3 ⋅ A3 ∑E i=1 3 ⋅ Nd.3 = ( ) Nd.//.d.2) TR 019 37 .3 = M d.3 fm.d.2 A2 (shown in figure C.i The maximum combined design tension and bending stress must be compared to the combined design tension and bending strength along the grain of the wooden rib core.1 min⎨ ⎩b2 (shown in figure C.3 = E t(c).3) where: W3 = 2 bef.1.1.d.d.3 ≤ 100 .2) t(c).mean.d.mean.3) t(c).0. σ t.//.d.A + Nd.⊥.9 as τd. σ t.B.mean.3 ⋅ A3 ⋅ z 3 (EI )B ⋅ M d.B ⇒ σ t.A ⇒ σ m.

d.2.d.d.3) The maximum design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 2 and 3 must be compared to the minimum value of the design shear strength of layer 2 (wooden rib core) or the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of layer 3 (lower wood-based skin).0.1 2 + 2 τ 2.2 τ 2.d.A.d.1 + τ 2.1 = Em.B.B.1 = 0 Qd. ⎧f v.1 − τ d.1.2 τ max.d.d.B.2 = τ d.0.B. ⎧ f v.1.0.d.2 = (EI )B ⋅ ∑E i=1 1 t(c).mean.0.2.1 ≤ τ d.0.2 4 τ max.B τ d.3.1 τ1.1 = τ d.9 as τd.1 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.B ⋅ ∑E i=1 2 t(c).1 4 τ 2.1 : 16 ⋅ τ d.⊥.9 as τd.1 + τ1.2 ≤ min⎨ ⎩f v.d.A.d.1 + if τ d.B.B.0.The maximum design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2 must be compared to the minimum value of the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of layer 1 (upper wood-based skin) or the design shear strength layer 2 (wooden rib core).1.B.mean.1 τ d.1 = τ d.1.A ⋅ 3 1 ⋅ 2 d1 ⋅ bef.B.3 C.A.1 ⇔ if τ d.d.⊥.1 ⋅ I1 (EI ) A ⋅ Qd.A.1 + τ d.1 ⇔ τ max.1 TR 019 38 .d.B.d.B.2 τ 2.//. τ max.A and Qd.mean.1 > : ⇔ τ max.1.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of the upper wood-based skin.2 Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 2 and 3: τ d.d.1 = τ d.1.B: Design shear stress in layer 1 (upper wood-based skin): τ d.1 4 τ d.A.1 min⎨ ⎩b2 (shown in figure C.1.A.3 = (EI )B Qd.0.1 16 ⋅ τ d.1.//.B.2 4 if τ d.3 ≤ minimum of ⎨ ⎩f v.1.A.1 > ⇔ if τ d.6 Design shear stress From the calculated virtual design shear forces Qd.0.1 ≤ f v.1 = τ 1.B.9 as τd.d.1 ≤ τ 2.1.⊥.B.B.1.B.d.1) τ d.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧bef.2.d.B.1 = τ d.0.1.d.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩bef.2 τ d.2 2 + 2 τ d.A.3 (shown in figure C.⊥.B.A.A.1 (shown in figure C.2) ⎧τ d.d.

2 4 : τ max.3 : 2 16 ⋅ τ d.2.d.3 (shown in figure C.A.A.3 τ 2.2) τ d.i ⎧bef.B.2.2) τ d.B.B.A ⋅ 3 1 ⋅ 2 d 2 ⋅ b2 ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi (shown in figure C.B.3 τ max.//.2 + 16 ⋅ τ d.2 = E0.B ∑E i=1 2 t(c).2 = min⎨ ⎩τ d.3 ≤ τ d. τ max.2 = τ1.A.3 = Em.d.d.3 > : ⇔ τ max.d.1.2.3 + τ d.4 τ 2.3 = τ d.2 2 + 2 τ 2.9 as τd.2.B.3 τ 2.d.B.d.2.3 + τ2 d.3 (shown in figure C.B.0.A.3 4 TR 019 39 .2.3 if τ d.d.B.9 as τd.0.d.3 16 ⋅ τ d.A.Design shear stress in layer 2 (wooden rib core): τ d.2 Design shear stress in layer 3 (lower wood-based skin): τ d.3 = (EI )B Qd.A.mean.3 + τ 2.3 = (EI )B Qd.3 2 + τ2 2.A.2.B.3) τ d.2.3 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.2 + τ 2.3 ≤ τ 2.2 = τ d.d.2.1.B.4 = τ d.3.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩bef.9 as τd.3) τ d.A.d.d.d.d.2 ≤ f v.2 − τ d.//.1.4 = 0 ⎧τ d.3 4 if τ d.2 ≤ τ 2.3 if τ d.A.3 + τ1.mean.d.9 as τd.B.B ⋅ ∑E i=1 2 t(c).2 if τ d.2.i ⎧b2 min⎨ ⎩bef.3) ⎧τ d.2 > τ 2.3 4 τ d.⊥.d.2 τ1.mean.3 − τ d.A.A.mean.mean.B.A.3 ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi (shown in figure C.2 = τ d.B.0.d.2 τ max.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design shear strength of the wooden rib core.d.A.B.d.3 ⋅ I3 (EI ) A ⋅ ⋅ Qd.B ∑E i=1 1 t(c).A.A.B.A ⋅ 3 1 ⋅ 2 d 3 ⋅ bef.A.d.1 min⎨ ⎩b2 (shown in figure C.2.//.2 4 : τ 2.3 = τ d.3 = τ d.B.1.9 as τd.2.2.2 + τ1.3.0.d.B.3 4 ⇔ if τ d.3 > ⇔ if τ d.d.B.B.B.3.d.2 ⋅ I2 (EI ) A ⋅ ⋅ Qd.3 τ1.2 = (EI )B Qd.

i). C.⊥.3 + τ 2.i i=1 = .3 ≤ f v.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef.2.1 Design value of the stiffness properties of each layer i Both virtual beams A and B can now be loaded by combination of actions to be used for verification in the serviceability limit state to determine the maximum total deflection.i and Gmean.3 The wood-based skins are supported by the relatively rigid wooden rib core.3 ⇔ τ max.d. The final deformation of the stressed skin panel fabricated from members which have different creep properties should be calculated using modified final stiffness moduli (Efin.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef. which are determined by dividing the instantaneous values of the modulus for each member (Emean. τ d.3 = τ d. concerning the wooden rib core: the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.d. A load combination which consists of actions belonging to different load duration classes.B.3.i ∑ n −1 Gfin. The calculated deflection must not exceed the limiting values for the deflection. cfin.1.mean. ci Gmean.⊥.2 Verification of serviceability limit states C.i). Specific numerical limits of deflection or slope should in principle be decided by the structural engineer from case to case. C.i and Gfin.3.d.0.3. Therefore the local wrinkling effect of the skin doesn’t occur in the stressed skin panel of type B1 or C1.i = 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef.i concerning the wood-based skin with the grain of face veneer parallel to the span direction: Emean. Emean.d.2.3 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin. metal fasteners can be used to connect the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure. Some recommendations for limits of deflection are given in prEN 1995-1-1 [12] in absence of more precise information.τ max.i = Emean. the contribution of each action to the total deflection should be calculated separately using the appropriate kdef values.d.i = Emean.i Final stiffness properties of each action using the appropriate kdef values for virtual beam B: E fin.max.i) by the appropriate value of (1+kdef.7 Fastening of the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure In case the stressed skin panel is supported by a timber structure. The panel-to-timber connection must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].i TR 019 40 .i The shear moduli and the slip moduli of the connections should also be modified using the modification factor kdef.mean.i the planar mean modulus of elasticity for bending along the grain of face veneer Em. Final stiffness properties of each action using the appropriate kdef values for virtual beam A: E fin.0. depending on the actual situation and the demands of the client.3 = τ1.

0.00. For permanent actions.mean.i the mean shear modulus Gmean.i veneer Et(c).0. Emean. ψ2 should be taken equal to 1.i the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer G⊥. concerning the wooden rib core: the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.mean.//.concerning the wood-based skin: the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity for compression or tension along the grain of face Emean.i ψ2 a factor for the quasi-permanent value of a variable action.mean. Gmean. Gmean. ci TR 019 41 . the slip modulus between the layers of the stressed skin panel.

1. C.1 With non-loadbearing (unstiff) insulation (type C2) In case the space between the wooden ribs consists of non-loadbearing (unstiff) insulation the effective flange width should be taken from table 3.Maximum effective flange widths due to the effect of shear lag and plate buckling according to prEN 1995-1-1 The center-to-center distance of the wooden ribs should not exceed 600 mm.4 Model for a stressed skin panel.i = thickness of flange (of wood-based skin layer i) TR 019 42 .4.I • parallel to the webs 0.2 .1 Verification of ultimate limit states The design strength values must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].i 0.2 1 b1 bf bw b1 d1 d2 Figure C.1 of the prEN 1995-1-1. open box type single-skin.C.10·λ OSB 25·hf.I • perpendicular to the webs 0. C. Remark: Type C2 can also be calculated by the EC 5 method.4. cross-section of the two layers single-skin stressed skin panel with wooden ribs and (non)-loadbearing insulation In this example the main direction of the wood-based skin (the grain direction of face veneer) is parallel to the span direction. with wooden ribs and (non)-loadbearing insulation (type B2 and C2) insulation layer b1 z1 az 2 bef. For wood-based skins like OSB or plywood the material properties parallel and perpendicular to the grain direction of face veneer are different.1.g.4.I 0.I Plate buckling4 Flange material Shear Plywood.15·λ Particleboard 30·hf. with grain direction in the outer plies: 20·hf. Some characteristic and mean values of the material properties are given in chapter 5.10·λ 25·hf. bef.E. The minimum value between the columns due to the shear lag and due to the plate buckling should be taken.1.11 . lag3 3 4 λ = span of beam hf.2 neutral axis 2 bef.1 Effective flange width bef of the wood-based skin C.20·λ Table C.2 wooden rib wood-based skin bef.

i ) ) where: α 1.mean. Effective flange width of the wood-based skins: bef.90.4.mean.0.90. the in-plane Poisson’s ratio of wood-based skin layer i. concerning the lower wood-based skin: Em. the web spacing. glued to the wood-based skins (type B2) The wood-based skin is supported by the loadbearing (stiff) insulation core.1.i − λ2 2.⊥.mean.i − bw bf = 2 ⋅ λ ⋅ λ 1. TR 019 43 .⊥.mean.⊥.i E t(c).i = ai − ai2 − ci ai = ci = E t(c). the rib width.C.2 the span of the beam.mean.4.i G//.1) 12 concerning the upper wooden rib: Em.0. The analytical solution for the maximum effective flange widths due to the effect of shear lag is independent of the type of insulation because it only takes into account shear lag and no plate buckling and therefore may be used also for open box type single-skin stressed skin panels.i ⋅ π ⋅ bf 2⋅λ λ 2.i ⋅ π ⋅ bf α 2.//.i − λ 2.i E t(c).mean.i π ⋅ bf ⋅ ( ( λ2 1.i the planar mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for bending.0.i = λ 1. Virtual beam A Virtual beam A contains the own bending stiffness of the two layers: (EI ) A = ∑ Em.i Et(c).i µi C.//.i ⋅ tanhα 2.2 ⋅ d 2 (for the wooden rib) (for the wood-based skin and bef.i − µi λ bf bw Et(c).//.i ⋅ Ii i=1 2 where: I1 = I2 = 3 b1 ⋅ d1 12 3 bef.mean.0.2 With loadbearing (stiff) insulation.i ⋅ tanhα 1.mean.1.mean.i the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.0.i = 2⋅λ λ 1. the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity perpendicular to the grain of face veneer for compression or tension of wood-based skin layer i.90.//. the in-plane mean shear modulus of wood-based skin layer i.mean.i 2 ⋅ G / /.//.mean.2 according to C. The effect of plate buckling may be disregarded. the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for compression or tension of wood-based skin layer i.1.i = ai + ai2 − ci λ 2.4.1.

d QB.4. C. G⊥. 1 1 1 = = 2 (GA)B S a ⎛ ⎞ d1 d2 ⎟ ⋅⎜ + ⎜ 2 ⋅G 2 ⋅ G ⊥.mean.mean.00 and the slip stiffness due to mechanical fastening has to be taken into account by the term ∑ c .2 qd mutual node virtual beam A with (EI)A virtual beam B with (EI)B and (GA)B NA.//. the factor of co-operation is less than 1.2.d u MA.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi2 i =1 2 (Steiner bending stiffness) The shear stiffness should also be taken into account for slender webs and small λ/h-ratios.0.//. the shear stiffness might influence the stress distribution and the deformation.3 Virtual beam B Virtual beam B contains the Steiner bending stiffness: (EI )B = ∑ E t(c). If the connection between skin and wooden rib is made of mechanical fasteners.1 concerning the lower wood-based skin: Et(c).0.i the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity along the grain of face veneer for compression or tension.1.0.2 according to C.d NB.mean.d QA.0.4.mean.1) concerning the upper wooden rib: Et(c).E.mean.i the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.//.1 ⋅ b1 (finite shear stiffness) where: A1 = b1 ⋅ d1 A2 = bef. a simply supported Kreuzinger beam of type B2 or C2 TR 019 44 .mean. The total number of layers should then not 1 i exceed 5. Therefore the connection between flange and web is assumed to be infinitely stiff. Gmean.1.2 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ mean.The shear stiffness of virtual beam A is assumed to be infinite. the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer. Because the factor of co-operation is assumed to be 1.0.3) is neglected.2 ⋅ bef.d Figure C.12 .00 the term ∑c i =1 n −1 i =1 n −1 1 i in the general equation for the shear stiffness (see also C. the mean shear modulus. In this example the wood-based skins are glued to the wooden ribs. The slip stiffness can be calculated according to EC 5.1. In these cases.2 ⋅ d 2 (for the wooden rib) (for the wood-based skin and bef.g.d u MB.

//.2 τd.1 ⎞ σ ⎜ ⎟ + m.d.mean.B and Nd. The calculated virtual design bending.1 Md.0.4 Design compression or tension stress in combination with bending stress From the calculated virtual design bending and axial forces Md. Both beams are placed parallel to each other and they are connected with mutual nodes.mean.In figure C.2 σt.A and Nd.B z2 2 σm.1 Nd.1 ≤ 100 .12 as σc.d.Stresses in the stressed skin panel of type B2 or C2 C. layer σm.i The maximum combined design compression and bending stress must be compared to the combined design compression and bending strength along the grain of the upper wooden rib.2 Figure C.d.11 a design example is given.2 Qd.B. ⎛ σ c. Design bending stress in layer 1 (upper wooden rib): M d.1.1 = ⋅ Ai ( ) Nd.A Qd. Md.0. The combined virtual beams A and B can now be loaded by design combination of actions (see chapter 6) to determine the maximum design internal forces.B τd.A.d.d.1) where: W1 = 2 b1 ⋅ d1 6 (for the wooden rib) Design compression stress in layer 1 (upper wooden rib): Nd.B in the structure.A.1 ⎝ c.d.1 ⋅ I1 (EI ) A ⋅ M d.d.4. In this example we assume that the upper wooden rib experiences compression and the lower wood-based skin experiences tension.A neutral axis Nd.1 = E 0.1 ⎠ 2 TR 019 45 .A ⇒ σ m.d. Qd.1 A1 (shown in figure C.A Md.A + Nd.B) are then translated to the design bending.1 = M d.1 ⋅ A1 ∑E i=1 2 ⋅ Nd.1 W1 (shown in figure C.1 = E 0.A.B: Depending on the direction of the moment Md.B.d.A. ⎜f ⎟ fm.A.1 ⋅ A1 ⋅ z1 (EI )B ⋅ M d. axial and shear stresses in each different layer i.13 .B ⇒ σ c. The stressed skin panel of type B2 or C2 is now described as a virtual beam A with the own bending stiffness (EI)A and a virtual beam B with the Steiner bending stiffness (EI)B.d.B and the axial forces Nd.1) t(c).d.B + E0.mean. shear and axial forces (Md. Nd.12 as σm. every layer can experience compression or tension stress.mean.1. Md. Nd.B 1 a z1 σc. Nd.A. Qd.B.A.1 τd.d.

12 as σm.d.mean.B EIB ⋅ ∑E i=1 1 t(c).2 ⋅ A2 ∑E i=1 2 ⋅ Nd.B ⇒ σ t.2 f t.⊥.d.1 τ d.12 as σt.0.2 ⋅ I2 (EI ) A ⋅ M d.i ⋅ Ai The maximum combined design tension and bending stress must be compared to the combined design inplane tension strength along the grain of face veneer and the design planar bending strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.mean.2 = ( ) Nd.0.2 = Em.1.1.1) τ d.2 according to §4.12 as τd.0.0.0.A.B + E t(c).i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩bef.mean.2 ≤ min⎨ ⎩f v.2 W2 (shown in figure C.B: Design shear stress in layer 1 (upper wooden rib): τ d.⊥.d.2) where: W2 = 2 bef. ⎧f v.d. ≤ 100 C.B.B.mean.6 Design shear stress From the calculated virtual design shear forces Qd.1) Design tension stress in layer 2 (lower wood-based skin): Nd.0.2 ⋅ A2 ⋅ z 2 (EI )B ⋅ M d.//.2 + σ m.A ⇒ σ m.1 ⋅ I1 (EI ) A ⋅ Qd.12 as τd.d.d.0.2) t(c).A.1 = E 0.A ⋅ 3 1 ⋅ 2 d1 ⋅ b1 (shown in figure C.2 = E t(c).0.A and Qd.//.2 .1 = 0 TR 019 46 .A + Nd.0.2 A2 (shown in figure C.B.B.1.1.2 (shown in figure C.d.//.Design bending stress in layer 2 (lower wood-based skin): M d.d.2 ⋅ d 2 6 (for the wood-based skin and bef.2 C.mean.4.2 = M d.d.//.//.1.1.2 fm.B: Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2: τ d.2) The maximum design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers 1 and 2 must be compared to the minimum value of the design shear strength of layer 1 (upper wooden rib) or the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of layer 2 (lower wood-based skin).4.5 Design shear stress at interface of adjoining layers From the calculated virtual design shear force Qd.mean.⊥.2 = Qd. σ t.d.

d.2 if τ d.12 as τd.B.//.d.2) τ d.1.d.1 if τ d.B.d.2 2 2 τ 2.1 = τ d.2 4 + : ⇔ τ max.A.1.2 = τ d.d.A.2 + τ d.d.B.2 τ1.1.1 τ1.2 + τ 2.1 4 ⇔ if τ d.2 = τ d.B.d.2 − τ d.1 > τ 2.B.3 = 0 ⎧τ d.A.2 = τ d.1.2 ⋅ I2 (EI ) A 1 ⋅ Qd.A. τ max.A.1 = τ d.1 2 + τ2 2.1.1 + τ 2.B.B.1 : 2 16 ⋅ τ d.d.B.0.d.B.d.A.B.d.2 The wood-based skin is supported by the relatively stiff wooden rib.d.1.A ⋅ 3 1 ⋅ 2 d 2 ⋅ b2 ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi (shown in figure C.2 (shown in figure C.2 if τ d.1.d.2 ≤ τ 2.B.d.1.2 (shown in figure C.1.2 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.A. τ d. TR 019 47 .B.1 = τ d.d.A.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design shear strength of the upper wooden rib.1 + τ 2.2 4 ⇔ if τ d.mean.⊥.B.1.mean.d.1.d.B.1 = min⎨ =0 ⎩τ d.1 16 ⋅ τ d.B EIB ⋅ ∑E i=1 t(c).2) τ d.2 ≤ f v.B EIB ⋅ ∑E i=1 1 t(c).2.d.2 = τ1.2 = Qd.0.d.B.2 16 ⋅ τ d.B.A.2 16 ⋅ τ d.d.0.2 4 : τ max.2 > τ 2.12 as τd.//.1 ⇔ τ max.B.1 = τ d.2 if τ d.A.B.2.d.⊥.2 = Qd.2 τ 2.B.2 4 : ⇔ τ max.0.1 − τ d.B.A.d.B.max.d.0.d.B.1.1 + τ d.1 4 ⇔ if τ d.1.d.d.d.d.2 > τ d.A.1 ≤ f v.3 τ 2.2 = τ d.A.1.2 τ max.1.B.2 = Em.12 as τd.2 2 + 2 τ d.2 τ max.2 = τ d.d.1 ≤ τ d.A.1.1.2 + τ 2.1 Design shear stress in layer 2 (lower wood-based skin): τ d.2 ≤ τ d.1.A.1.2 4 τ max. Therefore the local wrinkling effect of the skin doesn’t occur in the stressed skin panel of type B2 or C2.1 ≤ τ 2.A.B.1 > τ d.1 = τ 1.2 4 ⇔ if τ d.i ⋅ Ai ⋅ zi ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩bef.2 + τ2 d.2) ⎧τ d.2 ⇔ τ max.A.0.1 + τ1.3 = τ d.1.i ⎧b1 min⎨ ⎩bef.mean.2 The maximum design shear stress must be compared to the design planar shear strength along the grain of face veneer of the lower wood-based skin.2.A.B.τ d.2 + τ1.

depending on the actual situation and the demands of the client.⊥. ci the slip modulus between the layers of the stressed skin panel.//. The final deformation of the stressed skin panel fabricated from members which have different creep properties should be calculated using modified final stiffness moduli (Efin. Emean.i Final stiffness properties of each action using the appropriate kdef values for virtual beam B: E fin. metal fasteners can be used to connect the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure.4.mean. Some recommendations for limits of deflection are given in prEN 1995-1-1 [12] in absence of more precise information.i) by the appropriate value of (1+kdef. A loadcombination which consists of actions belonging to different load duration classes.i and Gfin. TR 019 48 . The timber-to-timber connection must be calculated according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]. concerning the wooden rib core: the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0.i ψ2 a factor for the quasi-permanent value of a variable action. C.i ∑ n −1 Gfin.4. Gmean. Specific numerical limits of deflection or slope should in principle be decided by the structural engineer from case to case. Emean.mean.mean.4.i = 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef. Gmean.C. which are determined by dividing the instantaneous values of the modulus for each member (Emean.0.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef.1 Design value of the stiffness properties of each layer i Both virtual beams A and B can now be loaded by combination of actions to be used for verification in the serviceability limit state to determine the maximum total deflection.0.i concerning the wood-based skin with the grain of face veneer parallel to the span direction: Emean. Final stiffness properties of each action using the appropriate kdef values for virtual beam A: E fin.i = Emean.i = Emean.i 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ kdef.i the mean shear modulus Gmean. concerning the wooden rib core: the mean modulus of elasticity along the grain E0. The calculated deflection must not exceed the limiting values for the deflection.i). ci Gmean.00. the contribution of each action to the total deflection should be calculated separately using the appropriate kdef values.mean.2. ψ2 should be taken equal to 1.i i=1 = .i the planar mean shear modulus along the grain of face veneer G⊥. For permanent actions.2 Verification of serviceability limit states C. cfin.i The shear moduli and the slip moduli of the connections should also be modified using the modification factor kdef.i the planar mean modulus of elasticity for bending along the grain of face veneer Em.1.mean.i and Gmean.i).i veneer Et(c).0. The stressed skin panel of type B2 or C2 should be fastened by connecting the wooden ribs to the supporting timber structure.i concerning the wood-based skin: the in-plane mean modulus of elasticity for compression or tension along the grain of face Emean.7 Fastening of the stressed skin panel to the supporting structure In case the stressed skin panel is supported by a timber structure.

with the relevant load factors. The results of the calculations have been verified in two different ways: 1.M. C.5.-Ing. A material database with all relevant material properties and material factors. When the principle of the Kreuzinger beam is implemented in a F.M. The choice of the appropriate service class is recommended as follows: Service class 2 for the outer wood-based skin and service class 1 for the remaining components. In case of the stressed skin panel of type A the applied F.2. several models have been developed for different types of prefabricated loadbearing wood-based stress skin panel. Prof.E. calculation program. Analytical calculations according to the Langlie method [4]. C. H. to be used in roofs. program must be able to calculate shear deflection. This is valid. when the stressed skin panel of type A is used. e. when they are used in roofs.1 Concerning the wood-based skin At this moment the characteristic and mean values of the material properties are also defined in the European Standard EN 12369-1: 2000. the specific singularity problems5 in the matrix operations. kdef) are defined in the prEN 1995-1-1 [12]: Eurocode 5: 2002. The appropriate material factors (γM.M.5. The freedom of the structure geometry. With the help of this example. Kreuzinger [1]. The Kreuzinger model describes the behaviour of the stressed skin panels when they are mainly loaded perpendicular to their plane. 2. kmod. 6 F.C. Independent F.3). kdef) are now defined in the prEN 1995-1-1 [12]: Eurocode 5: 2002. The general model has been adapted to avoid. C.M.J. 5 Singularity problems occur when several stiffnesses are used in the model and the difference between the stiffnesses is so large that small values (almost zero) appear in the F.2 Concerning the wooden rib core At this moment the characteristic and mean values of the material properties are also defined in the European Standard EN 338 and EN 1194. matrix.6-calculations with the program ANSYS (version 5. to be used in roofs. H. the shear deflection is taken into account by the Kreuzinger model.5.E.g. In case one or more members of the composite stressed skin panel contains a finite shear stiffness. based on the Kreuzinger model.M. kmod. one can achieve very fast calculation of the stressed skin panel with the following advantages: • • • A database of load cases and load combinations. are safe.-Ing. Blass [2] adapted the general model to a suitable model to calculate a timber-concrete composite floor element.: Finite Element Method TR 019 49 . for each type of stressed skin panel. Dr.1 General The general theoretical model to calculate a composite element is developed by Prof.5 Recommendations C.E. In comparison with experimental results the calculation results. The appropriate material factors (γM.2. is made with the consideration that partly the stressed skin panel is in the outside climate and partly it is in the inside climate.E. Dr. The calculation of these stressed skin panels.2 Standards and codes In general the characteristic and mean values of the material properties are defined in each Member State’s National Application Document.5.E.

2. tension. The appropriate material factors (γM. In the end the calculation must be made according to the definitive version of the CEN. so they are to be determined by testing according to prEN 14509.5 Confusing new prEN1995-1-1: Eurocode 5 with a different order of chapters With the NVN-ENV 1995-1-1. kdef) are missing in the Eurocodes.v.2.5. published by SKH [5] (the Netherlands) and the verification of the compression stress at a support is based on the ECCS / CIB Report Publication 257 [13] (Europe). is missing in the Eurocode.A.2.P. version 2002 [12] by CEN has a new order of chapters and there has been essential changes in calculation formulations.D. the verification of the wrinkling stress at a support is based on the theory of ir. compression. Amstel. C. kmod.5.C. In this report we refer to the CEN-version prEN 1995-1-1. version 1993 [9. 09-10-2002 [12]. [8] into one design code with another order of chapters. The German draft E DIN 1052:2000 has combined the prEN 1995-1-1 and their N. H. For now.5. Differences in the calculation formulations can be found when comparing the several versions of Eurocode 5 with each other. or by test results conforming EN standards and codes. shear) can be verified according to the Design Code prEN1995-1-1 [12]: Eurocode 5: 2002.4 Concerning the ultimate limit state The general forces (bending.3 Concerning the loadbearing insulation core Characteristic values of the material properties are partly defined in the European Standards EN 13163 (EPS) and EN 13164 (XPS). The latest prEN 1995-1-1.11] by CEN a uniform layout has been used for all Member States. The wrinkling stress may be calculated by the wellknown formula of Plantema [3] too. TR 019 50 .10. When using this calculation model in practice. as the wrinkling stress of the wood-based skin and the compression stress of the loadbearing insulation core at a support. the material properties should be used conforming the latest EN standards and codes. In case of the stressed skin panel of type A: the verification of the local phenomena. C.

i +1 2Gi bi 2Gi +1bi +1 Ad = 3 ld 2∆lE 1 1 Ci . which means that the stresses calculated with this system are already the resulting stresses. for example by calculating with Ap=Dl*(di+di+1)/2. but universal calculation model for the composite cross-section could be as follows: l D If the posts of this multi-member truss are designed to be rigid. The fact that more time and work is needed for the system is partly compensated by the result.i +1 + di d i +1 + 2Gi bi 2Gi +1bi +1 ld= Ad= E= length of diagonals area of diagonals E-modulus of the diagonals (free to chose) By means of the area of the diagonals each truss plane can be adapted to the shear stiffness between two loadbearing layers of the composite cross-section. the shear stiffness between two layers is S =G tideell = 2tideell (di + di +1 ) E ∆l (d i + d i +1 ) l3 G 2 d 2 Ad S=E 2∆lAd 3 ld 1 1 d d i +1 = + i + S Ci . and if the influence of the expansions of the truss flanges on the shear stiffness is neglected. TR 019 51 di di . The skins pass through the entire length of the composite beam without intermediate hinge.Annex D Model N (Informative) A somewhat more complicated.

where the flexibility of the bond does not affect the action-effects of the composite beam. TR 019 52 . by entering a shear stiffness of the "layered beams". it is possible to take account of the shear deformation resulting from the proportionate transverse force of the relevant layers. or for sandwich beams with two skins having a small own bending stiffness. the complicated calculation with the equivalent truss system and the decomposition of the system into virtual beams can be omitted.Further. It is pointed out that for all systems.

Annex E Material properties (Informative) E. the local strength classes with their local names. oriented stranded board. polyurethane) 3. which is mentioned above.00. When using this calculation model in practice. particleboard. The final value Xfin of a material property with the mean stiffness value Xmean in the serviceability limit state is defined as: X mean X fin = 1 + ψ 2 ⋅ k def where: kdef the modification factor.g.g. Wood-based skins (e. Strength and stiffness parameters can also be determined on the basis of tests. Loadbearing insulation core (e. e. TR 019 53 . It is also possible to measure the material properties of a certain product conforming existing European Standards (EN) to specify the specific characteristic and main values of this certain product. the EN 338 strength class system for solid timber and the EN 1194 strength class system for glued laminated timber. solid timber. or by test results conforming EN standards and codes. glued laminated timber. Besides each Member State can use.g. ψ2 a factor for the quasi-permanent value of a variable action. They can be seen as boxed values. in conjunction with the particular National Application Document. Wooden rib core (e. The design value Xd of a material property with the characteristic strength value Xk in the ultimate limit state is defined as: X X d = kmod ⋅ k γM where: γM the partial safety factor for the material property kmod the modification factor taken into account the effect on the strength parameters of the duration of the actions and the moisture content. These values are to be considered as standard values for the country where the designed structure are to be located. which are necessary in the Kreuzinger model and that the material belongs to one of the three material types. For permanent actions. There are European standards which provide strength class systems. plywood) 2. expanded/extruded polystyrene.1 In general Three material types can be used in prefabricated wood-based loadbearing stressed skin panel: 1. the calculation must be made according to these latest standards and/or codes. in accordance with the appropriate European standard or on well-established relations between the different properties. As soon as the missing factors and verifications are present in new Eurostandards and/or -codes. to calculate the creep influence. ψ2 should be taken equal to 1. which in time can be replaced by more accurate values. taken into account the effect on the stiffness parameters of the duration of the actions and the moisture content. laminated veneer lumber) In common the prEN 1995-1-1 provides no data on strength and stiffness properties for structural materials.g. New material can be used on condition that the characteristic and mean strength and stiffness values of the material property are known. the material properties should be used conforming the latest EN standards and codes. The values for the material properties in the following paragraphs are data which are available at this moment.

mean In-plane (//) E-modulus Et(c).k Stiffness in N/mm² Planar (⊥) E-modulus Em.80 E.6 9.9 9.//.//.4 6.60 instantaneous 1.0 7.k In-plane (//) Tension ft.30 Strength modification factor: kmod according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].30 medium-term 0.00 TR 019 54 .5 1.0 12. Particleboard acc.E.4 6.65 0. oriented stranded board / grade 3 and plywood. E.k Compression fc.1.2.mean G-modulus G⊥.2.k shear fv. The particleboard is here classified according to EN 312 part 5.20 Long-term 0.//.2 Wood-based skins Examples of wood-based skins are: particleboard.1 9.8 1. Load duration class Permanent Service class 1 2 2.24 1800 100 1100 550 500 0.8 8.24 Partial factor for material properties according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]: γM = 1.1 10.1.24 2100 100 1200 600 500 0.3 Serviceability limit states Deformation modification factor: kdef according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].mean Density in kg/m³ Density ρk In-plane (//) Poisson’s ratio µ E.0 7.1. Load duration class Service class 1 2 Permanent 0.2 1.45 0.6 5.2 1.30 0.24 2900 200 1700 830 600 0.8 1.⊥.9 12.25 3.0 4.⊥. effecting the strength parameters and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for particleboard according to EN 312 part 5.2 Ultimate limit states > 6-13 > 13-20 Thickness range [mm] > 20-25 >25-32 >32-40 > 40 14.⊥.2 6.1 5.24 2700 200 1600 770 550 0.45 short-term 0. effecting the stiffness parameters to calculate the creep influence and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for particleboard according to EN 312 part 5. EN 12369-1 Material properties Strength in N/mm² Planar (⊥) Bending fm.9 11.1 Material properties Characteristic and mean values are taken from the EN 12369-1.10 0.5 1.2.85 0.1 Particleboard synthetic bonded according to EN 312-5 E.1 3200 200 1800 860 650 0.2.mean G-modulus G//.24 2400 100 1400 680 550 0.6 7.

5 7.4 1.90.2 OSB/3 (Oriented Strand Board / grade 3) E.k shear fv.2.24 4930 100 3800 1080 550 0.4 4930 100 3800 1080 550 0.2 12.mean Et(c).40 0.2.mean G-modulus G⊥.k In-plane (//) Tension ft.0.70 1.90. effecting the stiffness parameters to calculate the creep influence and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for OSB/3 according to EN 300.//.0 9.8 1. OSB/3 acc. The OSB is here classified according to EN 300 OSB/3.90.9 15.//. to grain of face veneer (90) Thickness range [mm] > 6-10 >10-18 > 18-25 18.2.0.24 1980 50 3000 1080 550 0.5 6.1 Material properties Characteristic and mean values are taken from the EN 12369-1.2.4 0.4 15.25 TR 019 55 .50 2.k Compression fc.24 4930 100 3800 1080 550 0.3 Serviceability limit states Deformation modification factor: kdef according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].0.24 Ultimate limit states Partial factor for material properties according to prEN 1995-1-1[12]: γM = 1.mean ρk µ 1980 50 3000 1080 550 0.0 14.90 E.90.20 Strength modification factor: kmod according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].24 Em.0.7 7.30 0.0 12. Load duration class Permanent Service class 1 2 1.0 0.2 0.90.5 7.0 9.90.E.55 0.k fc.mean G//.4 14.mean In-plane (//) E-modulus Et(c).mean G⊥.2.24 1980 50 3000 1080 550 0.⊥.0.9 16.0 9.⊥.0 1. Load duration class Permanent long-term medium-term short-term instantaneous Service class 1 2 0.0.k ft. effecting the strength parameters and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for OSB/3 according to EN 300.90 0.⊥.10 0.//.90.2 along grain of face veneer (0) Thickness range [mm] > 6-10 >10-18 > 18-25 perp.8 12.2.//.2.0.⊥.40 0.//.8 fm.9 8.⊥.70 0.k fv.k 9.mean G-modulus G//.⊥. EN 300 Material properties Strength in N/mm² Planar (⊥) Bending fm.k Stiffness in N/mm² Planar (⊥) E-modulus Em.//.50 0.mean Density in kg/m³ Density ρk In-plane (//) Poisson’s ratio µ E.

The plywood is here classified according to EN 636-2.5 18 18 fm.mean In-plane (//) E-modulus Et(c).⊥.90 0.90.k ft.90.mean G-modulus G⊥.3.mean Et(c).k Stiffness in N/mm² Planar (⊥) E-modulus Em.2.0.07 Partial factor for material properties according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]: γM = 1.k Tension ft.//.0.60 0.20 Strength modification factor: kmod according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]. Plywood acc.90.10 E.0.0.k 12 2.90.k fv.70 0.//.3 Serviceability limit states Deformation modification factor: kdef according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].90. DIN 68705-3 Material properties Strength in N/mm² Planar (⊥) Bending fm.mean ρk µ 1500 250 2500 500 400 0.k fc.⊥.mean G-modulus G//.k In-plane (//) Compression fc.k shear fv.3 Plywood E.//.90 1. mentioned in the draft E DIN 1052 [8].//.2.mean G//.3.10 1. Load duration class Permanent Service class 1 2 0.1 Material properties Characteristic and mean values are taken from the German standard.mean Density in kg/m³ Density ρk In-plane (//) Poisson’s ratio µ E.2.⊥.⊥.0.90.0.80 0.2 Ultimate limit states along grain of face veneer (0) perpendicular to grain of face veneer (90) 32 2.mean G⊥.0.80 1.⊥.3.//.90.2. Load duration class Permanent long-term medium-term short-term instantaneous Service class 1 2 0.00 TR 019 56 .5 9 9 5500 250 4500 500 400 0.⊥.E. effecting the stiffness parameters to calculate the creep influence and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for plywood according to EN 636 part 2.//.60 0.80 0.07 Em. effecting the strength parameters and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure for plywood according to EN 636 part 2.70 0.

When using this calculation model in practice.2.060 5 2.100 0.050 4 1.mean G-modulus Gmean Density in kg/m³ Density ρk Creep coefficient Chapter A. PUR (polyurethane) E.3.150 0.075 6 2.5 0.100 9 4.5 EPS150 0.1 Example of EPS (expanded polystyrene) E.8 A. E. EPS class names is based on the compression strength of the EPS. EN 13163 Material properties Strength in N/mm² compression tension shear Stiffness in N/mm² E-modulus G-modulus Density in kg/m³ density Strength class EPS100 EPS120 0. Other (missing) values can be taken from the following tables.6 TR 019 57 .k Shear fv.18 22.1 Properties Characteristic values are taken from EN 13163. as it is described in prEN 14509: Annex A. the material properties should be used conforming the latest EN standards and codes.mean Gmean ρk EPS80 0.6 A.3 “Shear test on the core material” or in prEN 12090: “Thermal insulating products for building applications . prEN 14 509 Strength in N/mm² Compression fc. or by test results conforming EN standards and codes.150 0.k Et(c).060 0.09 27.120 0.E.080 0.2 A.200 0.200 0.5 EPS200 0.1 Properties Characteristic values are taken from EN 13163 or EN 13164.2 EPS (expanded polystyrene).82 15 E.00 32.k ft.k Stiffness in N/mm² E-modulus Et(c). EPS acc. The G-modulus can also be measured by tests.1 A.27 17.085 7 3.5.73 20 0. EN 13164 Material properties acc. EN 13163/ XPS acc.3.k fv.3.125 0.125 11 5.100 0.3 A.1.3 Loadbearing insulation An example of loadbearing insulation is expanded polystyrene (EPS).2 A.170 0.k Tension ft.250 0. XPS (extruded polystyrene). EPS acc.Determination of shear behaviour”.5 EPS60 fc. EPS is now classified in the European Standard EN 13163.3.

25 if no more exact assessment according to ENV 1991-1 is made.00 1.50 0. to Eurocode is necessary in case of testresults with v>0.25 0. XPS and PUR in the permanent-term is limited to a maximum value equal to 25% of the characteristic failure load of EPS.50 0. With the kmod-value of 0. XPS and PUR: kdef = 7.3 Serviceability limit states The deformation modification factor is based on the indicative numbers given in prEN 14 509.2.2 Ultimate limit states The partial factor for material properties is based on the indicative numbers given in prEN 14 509 and a consensus with the German mirror group. Partial factor for material properties acc. Load duration class permanent long-term medium-term short-term instantaneous Service class 1 2 0.3.00 1.E.00 The values for the long-term and medium-term load duration classes are from the results of linear interpolation between the known values of the permanent and short-term load duration classes. Deformation modification factor of EPS. An assessment acc. Deformation modification factor: kdef. XPS and PUR in the short-term. the value for short-term is used. effecting the stiffness parameters to calculate the creep influence. E.75 1.75 0.00 TR 019 58 . For the instantaneous class.25 the maximum load on EPS.2.00 1. effecting the strength parameters and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure.25 0.1. to prEN 14 509 of EPS/ XPS/PUR: γM = 1. Strength modification factor: kmod.3.

10 E.k tension ft.E.1.1.60 0.60 0.80 TR 019 59 .8 8000 500 310 Strength class C18 C22 18 11 18 2.4. Load duration class permanent long-term medium-term short-term instantaneous Service class 1 2 0.4 10000 630 340 C24 24 14 21 2.4.0. Load duration class permanent Service class 1 2 0.k Stiffness in N/mm² E-modulus E0. effecting the strength parameters and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure. EN 338 Material properties Strength in N/mm² bending fm.2 Ultimate limit states C16 16 10 17 1.mean G-modulus Gmean Density in kg/m³ density ρk E.80 0.4 Wooden rib Example of wooden rib is solid timber.70 0.k compression fc.30 Strength modification factor: kmod according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12].10 1.80 0.1. effecting the stiffness parameters to calculate the creep influence and depending on the load duration and the moisture content in the structure.4.4.0.60 0.1 Solid timber of coniferous species and poplar E.5 11000 690 350 Partial factor for material properties according to prEN 1995-1-1 [12]: γM = 1.k shear fv.90 1.3 Serviceability limit states Deformation modification factor: kdef according to prEN1995-1-1 [12].1 Properties Characteristic and mean values are according to EN 338 Solid timber acc.0 9000 560 320 22 13 20 2.70 0. E.90 0.

Baustatik oder Geheimwissenschaft? Berlin. januari 1996 [8] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. Scheiben und Schalen. STAHLBAU 10. Karlsruhe. Plates and Shells. 1966 [4] Langlie. Sandwich Construction. SKH Publicatie 94-02. Ontwerp en berekening van houtconstructies. December 1993 [10] NEN Nederlandse Normalisatie-instituut Vertaling hoofdstukken 3 tot en met 6 van Eurocode 5 deel 1-1 (inclusief correctieblad). Berechnung von Sandwichelementen mit ebenen metallischen Deckschichten . Entwurf E DIN 1052:2000-05. general rules and rules for buildings prEN 1995-1-1 Final Draft. 1995 [12] CEN/TC 250/SC 5: N195 Eurocode 5 . 21-05-1996 [11] Informationsdienst Holz Eurocode 5 + Nationales Anwendungsdokument (Deutsch). Part I: Design Publication 257.nr. Entwurf.1: General rules. Mai 2000 [9] CEN European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 5. Rekenprogramma voor sandwichelementen en enkelhuidige ribpanelen. Sidney. prEN 1995-1-1.References to annex C [1] Kreuzinger Platten.016. Holzbauwerke Originaltexte STEP 4. Bauen mit Holz 1/99 S. 96/15.34-39 [2] Blass Berechnung von Holz-Beton-Verbundträgern mit der Schubanalogie. Deel 1-1: Algemene regels en regels voor gebouwen NAD-NVN-ENV 1995-1-1. Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und Bemessungsregeln für den Hochbau Berlin. N136. doc.1: General rules. The Bending and Buckling of Sandwich Beams.J. Part 1. 1999 [3] Plantema. general rules and rules for buildings Stockholm. New York. F. ein Berechnungsmodell für gängige Statikprogramme. UDC: 624. Part 1.1994 [6] CEN/TC 250/SC 5 Eurocode 5 . English version NV 1995-1-1:1993.92. C. Karlsruhe. European recommendations for sandwich panels. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Huizen. Berechnung und Bemessung von Holzbauwerken.Design of timber structures.Design of timber structures.02:624. 1985 [5] SKH Stichting Keuringsbureau Hout Houtachtige dakconstructies. Design of timber structures. 10-10-2000 [7] NEN Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut NAD HOUT (Nederlands) Richtlijnen voor het gebruik van NVN-ENV 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5. 23-10-2000 TR 019 60 . London. Delft. John Wiley&Sons Inc.07.V. 09-10-2002 [13] ECCS/CIB European Convention for Constructional Steelwork CIB Report.

- 100739154 CAPRA Calcul Dynamique Des Structures en Zone Sismique
- View Content
- 133
- Stability of Elastic and Partially Plastic Frames PhD Dissertati
- 85361572 Structural Stability W F Chen E M
- 28430301 Worked Examples for the Design of Steel Structures Euro Code
- 85361572 Structural Stability W F Chen E M
- Discussion_ Buckling of One-Story Frames
- 347757 an Idiots Guide to AutoLISP
- pap_0583_MS-26
- 28430301 Worked Examples for the Design of Steel Structures Euro Code
- Elementary Princi 00 Hard u of t
- SSB04 Detailed Design of Portal Frames
- 94529241 Str Stability Timoshenko
- Steel Code Check Theory Enu
- Dynamic Analysis of Steel Frames With Flexible Connections

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Couple Shear Wall
- Torsion
- ASTM C 393
- BDP08b_Wide_Column_Models.pdf
- AS1 QB 2013
- AERO2359-1210_assmt-1
- Link Click
- Http Www.inrisk.ubc.CA Process.php File=STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Kirchhoff Plates
- 05_DOM_Lec05-06
- Modeling cracked behavior of shear walls in ETABS.docx
- BME-017 jun09
- 5_beams1
- Rev_3.pdf
- BeamAssignmentSolutions.pdf
- SOM Lecture
- Method for Approximate Analysis of ... Kobielak Piekarz Tatko-libre
- Bending
- Chapter 4
- Shear and Moment Problems
- 5
- Strength of Materials
- Thesis Example
- 57419_CTTS_64_100_103
- som ppt on bending.pdf
- Beams
- Back m
- Files 2-Handouts Ch06
- T3000CS2264043_0 Calculation Plate Girder Penetrations
- Aircraft Structures Notes 1
- Chap07.ppt
- Tr 019 Total

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd