State of the Art in Designing for Robustness of Engineered Timber Buildings

Toby Hodsdon*1, Benoit P. Gilbert2 and Richard Neuhercz3

1
Associate, Arup, Brisbane, Australia and
Adj. Assoc. Prof, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Australia.
(E-mail: toby.hodsdon@arup.com)
2
Assoc. Prof, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Australia.
(E-mail: b.gilbert@griffith.edu.au)
3
Senior Structural Engineer, DesignMake, Sydney, Australia.
(E-mail: Richard.Neuhercz@lendlease.com)

ABSTRACT

Engineered wood products are enabling larger and taller timber buildings to be constructed, extending
construction practices beyond traditional use of the material. Specific measures are required to ensure
that levels of safety are maintained, even after an accidental event.

In some structural forms, such as post-and-beam, the robustness of engineered timber structures can be
limited by difficulties in achieving continuity in floors and beams that can offer alternative l oad paths.
Further, the post-failure behaviour of modern connections and fasteners is not always understood, and
consequently designers of engineered timber buildings must be cautious and methodical in their
approach to achieve a robust design.

The National Construction Code (NCC) (“National Construction Code” 2016) and forthcoming 2019
edition, requires that all structures are designed to avoid disproportionate collapse and provides a
verification method for use when structures do not meet the “Deemed-to-Satisfy” (DTS) provisions.
The accompanying handbook (ABCB 2016) usefully expands on this and explains that “notional
removal of structural elements… is the only method that allows some form of assessment of structural
robustness to be made”. Publications prepared by Wood Solutions (2016) and other international bodies
such as the Institution of Structural Engineers and Department of Defence (2009) provide guidance on
this and related design approaches to assist the structural engineer.

Through the ARC Industrial Transformation Research Hub on Tall Timber Buildings, Arup and
Lendlease are supporting Griffith University carry out load tests to understand the behaviour of post -
and-beam structures when a column is removed. A specific aim is to develop connect ion designs that
will provide enhanced capacities to withstand joint rotations and offer reliable alternative load paths in
the event that support to a column is lost.

This paper summarises the requirements of the NCC and explains some of the features of engineered
timber buildings that pose challenges to achieving robustness. Design approaches commonly adopted in
Australia at this time are presented and future developments discussed, including the most promising
developments from the ongoing tests at Griffith University.

The term “engineered timber buildings” has been adopted to apply to all timber structures that are of a
scale that require the use of engineered wood products and typically fall outside the DTS provisions of
the NCC. This includes multi-storey stud frame, mass timber construction and post-and-beam type
structures. It is the last of these that is subject to ongoing research.
BACKGROUND

Australia is following global trends in the adoption of timber as the primary structural material for
residential and commercial buildings of ever-increasing size. Whilst designers can draw on successful
designs and technology from around the world, regulatory requirements, construction details and design
practices here are still developing and must keep pace with evolving construction techniques so that
safety is assured.

Figure 1. Structure of 25 King Street by Lendlease uses glulam beams and CLT floors
Image: Storaenso www.storaenso.com

Structural robustness has been identified by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) as one
important field that requires attention. Described in the ABCB Structural Ro bustness Handbook (2016),
robustness is the ability of a structure to “withstand accidental actions without being damaged to an
extent disproportionate to the original cause”. The handbook further discusses provisions in the
Eurocode and ASCE/SEI 7-05, highlighting that the ASCE achieves robustness by achieving
“continuity, redundancy and energy dissipating capacity (ductility)”. However, there are fundamental
features of engineered timber buildings that pose specific challenges in this regard and demand design
attention.

Until recently in Australia, design requirements related to robustness have been limited and not been
explicit in nature. Design and construction practices have relied on the inherent robustness of the
common forms of structure and its codified detailing to achieve an acceptable level of safety in
buildings. In the case of timber, the material has typically been applied to low-rise residential stud-
frame construction where high levels of redundancy in members and fasteners achieves levels of
robustness suitable for domestic construction. Timber design practice must now adapt so that we may
achieve improved levels of reliability and robustness appropriate for tall timber structures.

In 2012, the National Construction Code strengthened the requirements for robustness of buildings and
structures and introduced specific ‘Performance Requirements’ to ensure they are designed to sustain
local damage without disproportionate damage or collapse of the structural system as a whole. The
2016 version introduced ‘Verification Methods’ to enable designers to demonstrate compliance where
construction materials and details departed from ‘Deemed-to-Satisfy’ provisions. The route to
demonstrating compliance for these clauses is described in the ABCB handbook.
Performance Requirement BP1.1 (a) (iii) of Volume One requires that:

(a) A building or structure, during construction and use, with appropriate levels of reliability,
must –
…
(iii) be designed to sustain local damage, with the structural system as a whole remaining
stable and not being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original local damage;
…

BV2 sets out that this may be verified by:

(a) assessment of the structure such that upon the notional removal in isolation of –
(i) any supporting column; or
(ii) any beam supporting one or more columns; or
(iii) any segment of a load bearing wall of length equal to the height of the wall,

the building remains stable and the resulting collapse does not extent further than the
immediately adjacent storeys; and

(b) demonstrating that if a supporting structural component is relied upon to carry more than
25% of the total structure, a systematic risk assessment of the building is undertaken and
critical high risk components are identified and designed to cope with the iden tified
hazard or protective measures chosen to minimise the risk.

The new forms of timber construction are not always covered by a “Deemed-to-Satisfy” solution, and
therefore structural engineers designing engineered timber buildings commonly find that th ey must
specifically design their structures against disproportionate collapse.

The introduction of the robustness Verification Method is welcome, however with the exception of a
publication by Wood Solutions (2016) there is little guidance for practicing engineers on how best to
apply it to engineered timber buildings. Further, there is currently a lack of test data allowing post-
failure structural behaviour to be understood, and a need to develop construction details and ‘best
practice’ guidance that establishes an acceptable minimum resistance to accidental actions.

ACHIEVING ROBUST ENGINEERED TIMBER BUILDINGS

Forms of engineered timber structure

The following discussion is based on the following emerging forms of engineered timber structure,
distinguished here primarily by the prevailing load bearing elements as follows:
 ‘Mass timber’ – construction with load-bearing walls and floors of LVL or CLT, commonly used
for residential and similar forms of construction;
 ‘Post and beam’ – structures constructed of Glulam or LVL, with mass timber floors of LVL or
CLT, commonly used for commercial buildings;
 ‘Multi-storey stud frame’ – buildings with timber stud frames and roof trusses, using joists
floors formed into prefabricated cassettes or using mass timber floors; or
 ‘Hybrid’ – includes structures with a number of materials, for example steel structural frame
with mass timber floors over, or mass timber construction with concrete core.
Timber’s inherent robustness
‘Multi-storey stud frame’ construction exhibits good robustness due to a very high level of redundancy
in the large number of individual studs, joists and rafters. Loss of individual components can typically
be accommodated readily, however the loss of wall frames in multi-storey framed construction can
cause disproportionate collapse without specific measures to provide alternate load paths , such as the
introduction of rim beams and posts within walls.

‘Mass timber’ construction also performs very well for a few reasons:
 Whilst panels are typically designed for one-way spanning, they have the ability to work in two
directions;
 there are typically a large number of load-bearing elements, offering a high level of redundancy;
 wall panels have the ability to span as beams; and
 high connection capacities can be developed along panel joints.

‘Post and beam’ structures present greater challenges due to the low level of redundancy of frame
components. When the integrity of a column or beam is lost, there is unlikely to be any residual
capacity and load must be redistributed through the floor if it is to be transferred to adjacent structure.

Challenges of timber
There are some fundamental features of timber buildings that make achieving robustness particularly
challenging. These include:
 Timber is a brittle material;
 Timber is typically found to be much greater in strength under accidental actions than designed
due to the use of grade stresses that reflect the variable and natural properties of timber, and the
short duration of loads. Consequently, overloaded structures commonly fail at the connections –
the failure of which can result in rapid loss of integrity of a structural frame;
 Structural elements are typically one-way spanning and can often have limited continuity;
 Timber can be accidentally damaged or degraded by natural phenomena such as fire, pests and
fungal growth caused by prolonged water ingress;
 Site erection of prefabricated or modular elements involve site-connections which may not be
designed with continuity or tie forces in mind, and are few in number;
 Continuity of structure can be limited by manufacturing and transportation constraints;
 Post and beam structures use deep members, causing large deformations at connections when
subject to the accidental loss of support and related joint rotations, requiring high levels of joint
ductility;
 Timber structures are typically lightweight, meaning imposed and wind loads are significant and
extreme loads are more likely to cause failure; and
 For tall or heavily loaded structures, the need to avoid cross-grain compression of floors results
in details that have limited continuity of floors over walls.

Current methods
Designers are adopting a range of approaches to achieving robust structures. These have typically been
focussed on designing structures that provide alternative load paths – either through primary frames or
through secondary elements such as floors. Approaches include:
 Double-span or multi-span floors so that panels, joists or cassettes are supported in at least three
locations, such that loss of one support does not cause collapse.
 Multi-span beams in post-and-beam structures, for the same reason, usually configured as a two
parallel beams passing either side of columns. This can also be configured as a continuous beam
with splices designed for shear and tension only that also offer continuity in event that a support
is lost.
  Use of perimeter ‘rim’ beams, intersecting load-bearing walls and posts in multi-storey stud
framed structures, drawing on practice developed by the UK timber frame industry. (UKTFA,
2008)
 Introduction of discreet steel ties or drag bars fastened to timber frame, which may also be part
of the design of floor diaphragms.
 Adoption of post-tensioning in beam design, as developed by University of Canterbury, NZ,
which provides a structure capable of post-failure catenary action. (Buchanan 2011).
 Adoption of rocking walls, also developed by University of Canterbury, NZ, that allows
connections to dissipate energy without ultimate failure.
 Use of continuity in sheeting or tertiary elements with appropriate nailing.

In all cases, it is necessary for the engineer to carry out ultimate strength checks on collapsed structure
to ensure beams and connections are satisfactory following the notional removal of a support.

The introduction of ties and checking of connections for minimum tie forces is not specifically required
by the NCC, but is considered best practice, drawing on guidance from the UK and the European timber
design code.

Where localised collapse cannot be avoided, then it may be possible to demonstrate failure results in
the collapse of an acceptably small proportion of the overall floor area. This is not explicitly set-out in
the NCC, however European practice places a limit of 15% of the total floor area or 70m2 whichever is
smaller. This approach was adopted by Lendlease in the design of 25 King Street.

Specifically, the design process investigated notional element approval and adopted minimum
horizontal and vertical tie forces calculated according to BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006, Annex A, for Class 2b
building type. Four cases of element removal were investigated in order to understand the behaviour of
the CLT panel and beams upon the removal of a column. The structure features glulam beams on a 6m
grid, and consequently design cases included CLT spanning 12m or cantilevering 6m. The CLT panels
and remaining beams were shown to be satisfactory against ULS checks when subject to minimum load
set out by AS1170.0 clause 6.2.2.

The NCC also allows a risk-based approach to be adopted on all building types. In such cases, hazards
and their likelihood are identified, and possible building responses considered to ensure they are
proportionate and acceptable.

Where appropriate, critical structural elements may be protected from the hazard. An example of a
‘protected’ element might be the use of traffic barriers between traffic and timber columns. An
alternative approach to similar problems is the use of concrete piers to elevate timber column
baseplates. Such an approach has added benefits of improving durability, resistance to termite attack
and can be a significant feature of the architectural design.

Design challenges
There are challenges to the design of structures to achieve robustness. These include:
 Proprietary connections have not always been tested for tension load transfer or subjected to
large joint rotations;
 Connections have not always been tested for fire;
 Secondary forces and dynamic effects arising during collapse are not fully understood;
 Designers do not have many examples of details that achieve continuity and can maintain high
tie forces in event of failure;
 Diaphragm design guidance is limited.
CURRENT RESEARCH

Griffith University in the Gold Coast, Australia, is carrying out load testing of connections and scale
testing of 2-D and 3-D engineered timber frames (C.H. Lyu, 2019). Early results suggest that timber
frames connected with proprietary shear connectors do not always accommodate large joint rotations
associated with potential collapse mechanisms, and have failed at shear forces less than their design
values. On this basis, it has been concluded that designers cannot assume that continuity and integrity
will be maintained in the event of a notional column loss without specific design and/or testing.

Figure 2. Scale testing of post-and-beam structure with CLT floor at Griffith University

Observations taken from the load tests has illustrated the use of CLT floors, where continuous across a
number of spans, offers a very effective alternative load path that can avoid collapse . The adoption of
multiple spanning floor elements should therefore be adopted wherever possible.

FUTURE OF ROBUST TIMBER STRUCTURES

Engineered timber structures can achieve the desired level of protection against disproportionate
collapse, however there is opportunity for additional guidance, development of typical details, and
structural testing of common configurations that can give designers greater confidence and
opportunities, and provide buildings with greater levels of safety.

The work at Griffith University has demonstrated CLT floors can be effective in achieving robustness,
but to further improve performance and to give designers flexibility, there is a need to develop
approaches to post and beam structures that allow continuity to be maintain ed following notional
removal of a column.

The University, Arup and Lendlease are developing connection designs that will provide enhanced
capacities to withstand joint rotations and offer reliable alternative load paths in an accidental event.

The development of numerical methods by Griffith University may potentially allow this research to be
further expanded. It would be advantageous to develop guidance for designers so that the behaviour of
structures after initial failure can be modelled reliably.
 Figure 3. Specially designed connections allow large deformation during test at Griffith University

There is also an opportunity to develop details that enable tie forces to be transferred through column -
beam connections or through the floor system. Corner columns are particularly susceptible, and the
development of details to achieve ties in these areas will be welcome. Edge columns also warrant
attention, and the detailing of fasteners or brackets that assure the restraint of timber columns in tall-
timber buildings will be beneficial. It is important to avoid detachment of columns in a failure event.

In all cases, the design of connections and details that are resistant to fire is highly desirable since the
development of a robust structure can be an important measure in a fire engineered solution. There is
opportunity for fire testing of relevant connections and frame solutions.

Keywords: Robustness, NCC, connection testing, column removal, engineered timber

Acknowledgement: Griffith University, University of Queensland, ARC Timber Hub, Alex Edwards
(Arup) and Joseph Thiang (Arup)

References:
ABCB Guide (2016). Structural Robustness Handbook. Canberra, Australia: The Australian Building Codes Board.
Buchanan, A., Palermo, A., Carradine, D., and Pampanin, S. (2011). “Post-tensioned timber frame buildings”. The Structural
Engineer, 89 (17), p 24-30
Department of Defence (2009). UFC 4-023-02: Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse: UFC 4-023-02, Washington,
DC, USA.
Institution of Structural Engineers (2010). Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings.
London, UK.
Lyu, C.H., Gilbert, B.P., Gunalan,S., Karampour, H., Underhill, I.D. and Guan, H., (2018). "Progressive Collapse Experimental
Response of Mid-Rise Mass Timber Frame Buildings under an Edge Column Removal Scenario". Abstract submitted for
Pacific Timber Engineering Conference (PTEC) 2019, Brisbane, Australia.
National construction code. (2016). Volume One, Building code of Australia, Class 2 to Class 9 buildings. Canberra, Australia:
The Australian Building Codes Board.
UKTFA (2008). Structural Guidance of Platform Timber Frame. UKTFA Special Project, May 2008. UK Timber Frame
Association, London, UK.
Wood Solutions Guide No. 39 (2016) Robustness in Structures. Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited, Melbourne,
Australia.