You are on page 1of 92

Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept.

‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 1 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

LVL Portal Frame Design


CHH Woodproducts New Zealand

Disclaimer

This design example has been prepared solely to provide guidance and recommendations to suitably qualified engineers and other suitably qualified
design professionals for diligent and professional use by them (and no other person) in the calculation of design solutions for LVL portal frame systems
in accordance with currently available New Zealand Standards.

To the best of Carter Holt Harvey’s knowledge and belief this example has been prepared in accordance with currently available technology and
expertise however good design and construction practice may be affected by factors outside the control of Carter Holt Harvey and beyond the control and
scope of this design example. This example is not intended to be used as the sole recipe, nor is it to be considered the authoritative method, for
producing the relevant design and it is assumed that the relevant designers will employ sound and current engineering knowledge and will take all
reasonable care when designing LVL portal frame solutions using this example.

Accordingly, Carter Holt Harvey and its employees, agents and design professionals accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever and howsoever
arising for any losses, damages, costs or expenses (whether direct, indirect and/or consequential) arising from any errors or omissions which may be
contained in this example, nor does it accept responsibility to any persons whatsoever for designs prepared in reliance upon this example or any other
information contained in this document.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 2 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Purlin design


2.1 Dead Load
2.2 Live load
2.3 Wind load
2.4 Proposed Purlin Layout
2.5 Connection Design
2.6 Lateral restraint design
2.7 Purlins supporting axial loading

3.0 Portal frame design


3.1 Proposed Portal Frame
3.2 Serviceability
3.3 Strength
3.4 Design Actions
3.5 Rafter Design
3.5.1 Combined bending and compression
3.5.2 Combined bending and tension
3.5.3 Flybrace design
3.6 Column Design
3.6.1 Combined bending and compression
3.6.2 Combined bending and tension
3.6.3 Flybrace design
3.7 Gusset Design
3.7.1 Knee Gusset Design
3.7.2 Ridge Gusset Design
3.7.3 Nail Ring Design
3.7.3.1 Knee Nail Ring Design
3.7.3.2 Ridge Nail Ring Design
3.8 Column to Footing Design

4.0 Girt Design, Side Wall


4.1 Wind Loading
4.2 Connection Design

5.0 Mullion Design, Side Wall


5.1 Wind Loading
5.2 Connection Design

6.0 Eaves Beam Design


6.1 Wind Loading
6.2 Connection Design

7.0 Girt Design, End Wall


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 3 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

7.1 Wind Loading


7.2 Connection Design
8.0 Mullion Design, End Wall
8.1 Wind Loading
8.2 Connection Design

9.0 Longitudinal Bracing Design

10.0 Bibliography

Appendix 1 - Mullion deflection, bending and shear equations

Appendix 2 - 90mm thick hy90 compared with 63mm thick hySPAN

Published by: CHH Woodproducts New Zealand


September 2008

Enquires : Free call 0800 808 131


Free fax 0800 808 132

Web : www.chhwoodproducts.co.nz/engineerszone
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 4 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

1.0 Introduction

This design example has been provided as an aid to engineers in the development of design solutions for LVL
and I-beam portal frame systems. The development of loading and the design of footings are not covered as
part of this example as their nature is not specific to timber. The design example has been prepared assuming
the building is proposed for Auckland, is within an Industrial Estate, and is subject to the following site
information:

Building Span 30.0 m


Building length 60.0 m, consisting of 6 x 10.0 m bays
Building Clear Height 6.0 m
Dominant openings 6.0 x 6.0 m in one end and one side wall
Cladding Pierce fixed sheeting of weight 6.0 kg/m2
Region A6, v500 = 45 m/s, v20 = 37 m/s
Terrain Category 3
Directional Multipliers as per AS/NZS 1170.2:2002

This example has been based on relevant current design standards as detailed below:
• AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural design actions. Part 0: General principles
• AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural design actions. Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other actions
• AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 Structural design actions. Part 2: Wind actions
• NZS 3603:1993 Timber structures standard
• AS 1720.1-1997 Timber structures. Part 1:Design Methods
Note: Snow and Earthquake loading have been ignored due to location.

Other Referenced Design Documents:


• Technical Note 82-07-04 - Limit States Design Information for Specific Engineering Design for New
Zealand Construction.
• Mitek Specifiers’ and Users’ Manual.
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 5 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

2.0 Purlin Design

Purlin Span 10,000-90 = 9910 mm


Purlin Spacing 1600 mm (max.)

Propose HJ360 90 hyJOIST for use as purlin

Typically a hyJOIST purlin roof system becomes cost effective at spans above 6.0 m whilst hySPAN or MSG pine
pulins remain cost effective for spans less than 6.0 m.

2.1 Dead load

Assume roof sheeting mass of 6.0 kg/m2 plus a miscellaneous load of 1.0 kg/m2

7.0 × 1.6 × 9.81


w*g = + self_weight
1000
∴ w*g = 0.17 kN/m

Serviceability

Deflection of timber i-beams requires the consideration of shear deflection as well as bending deflection.
Additional guidance on the calculation of shear deflection can be found in many Timber Design texts and is briefly
discussed in Technical Note 82. Timber components subjected to long term loads such as dead load require the
consideration of creep effects. Table 2.5, NZS 3603:1993 demonstrates the relationship between duration of load
and creep. The k2 factor is applied to elastic deflections. LVL products are considered dry at the time of supply
and can be assumed to have a moisture content less than 18%.

Refer Technical Note 82 for Section and Material Properties.

δT = k2(δbending + δshear )
 5.w.l 4 w.l 2   5 × 0.17 × 9910 4 0.17 × 99102 
δ = k2  +  = 2 .0 . 9
+ 6
 384.EI x 8.GAw   384 × 2338 × 10 8 × 2.39 × 10 
∴ δG = 20.0mm or Span 495

Serviceability limits for timber purlins are the same as those applied to other building products. For long term
deflection of industrial purlins span/300 or 30.0 mm are deemed acceptable.

2.2 Live load

Live load of 0.25 kPa applied in accordance AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Table 3.2.

w*g = 0.25 × 1.6 = 0.40kN / m

Serviceability

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 6 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

 5 × 0.40 × 99104 0.40 × 99102 


δQ = 1.0. 9
+ 6
 384 × 2338 × 10 8 × 2.39 × 10 
∴ δG = 23.5mm or Span 421

Strength

Based on respective k1 and load combination factors, combined dead and live load design actions will always be
more critical for design than permanent loads where low roof masses (less than 20 kg/m2) are applied.

w1*.2G +1.5Q = 1.2 × 0.17 + 1.5 × 0.40


∴ w1*.2G +1.5Q = 0.80kN / m

w.l 2 0.80 × 9.9 2


M 1*.2G +1.5Q = =
8 8
∴ M 1*.2G +1.5Q = 9.8kNm

Check Bending Capacity

The bending capacity of an I-beam is based on the critical flange stresses due to bending. For composite timber I-
beams the bending moment capacity can be based on a lever arm action about the centroid of the flanges with
one flange in tension and the other in compression for a single span application. The restraint offered to the
compression flange is instrumental in the capacity of the I-beam. Further guidance on the bending moment
capacities of I-beams may be found in Technical note 82.

Purlin design assumes the use of pierce fixed roof sheeting providing continuous lateral restraint to the
top flange of the purlin. Since compression edge is fully restrained k8=1.0.

So for bending about XX axis

Since k8>0.73

ØM bx = Ø.k1 . f t . A f .D1 × 10 −6 kNm Refer Technical Note 82

where:

Ø = 0.9 k1 = 0.80 f t = 33MPa

AF = 90 × 36 −
(318 − 288) × 12
2
2
∴ AF = 3060mm
D1 = 360 − 36 = 324mm

ØM bx = 0.9 × 0.8 × 33 × 3060 × 324 × 10−6 kNm


∴ ØM bx = 23.6kNm > M *

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 7 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Check Shear Capacity

0.80 × 9.9
v1*.2G +1.5Q =
2
∴ v1*.2G +1.5Q = 4.0kN

From table 14, Technical note 82

ØV = k1 .12.6 = 0.8 × 12.6


∴ ØV = 10.1kN > v *

2.3 Wind loading

θ = 0˚, Lateral wind critical (by inspection)

a = min(0.2b, 0.2d, h) = 6.0m

w*i = qu .spacing .(ka .kl .c pe − c pi )


w1* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 1.5 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61)
∴ w1* = −2.63kN / m
w2* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 1.0 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61)
∴ w2* = −2.02kN / m

Calculate weff

Calculate Reactions

R* = − 2.02 × 1.955+ − 2.63 × 3.000


∴ R* = − 11.84kN

Calculate Moment

* − 2.63 × 3.0 2 −
M = 11.84 × 4.955 −
Wu − 2.02 × 2.0 × 4.0
2
*
∴ M Wu = − 30.7 kNm
0.17 × 9.9 2 −
M 0*.9G +Wu = 0.9 × + 30.67
8
∴ M 0*.9G +Wu = −28.8kNm

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 8 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Calculate weff


* 30.67 × 8
weff =
9 .9 2
*
∴ weff = − 2.50kN / m

For uplift

w0*.9G +Wu = 0.9 × 0.17 − 2.50


∴ w0*.9G +Wu = − 2.35kN / m

Serviceability

To obtain the serviceability wind load the ultimate uniform loads can be factored by the square of the ratio
serviceability wind speed to ultimate wind speed.
2
v 
ws =  s  × ws
 vu 
2
 37 
ws =   × − 2.50= − 1.69kN / m
 45 
 5× − 1.69 × 9910 4 − 1.69 × 9910 2 
δ w = 1.0. 9
+ 
 384 × 2338 × 10 8 × 2.39 × ×10 6 
∴ δ w = 99.0mm or Span 100

The acceptance of serviceability is at the engineer’s discretion. On the basis of applied local pressure factors and
the instantaneous nature of the wind gust span/100 is deemed acceptable.

Strength

Since the tension flange is fully restrained under uplift actions and the hyJOIST purlin is a composite section, use
Appendix C of NZS3603:1993 for stability calculations.

Check Capacity

Calculate S1

0.5
1.1.EI x 
S1 =   Eq. C1.1, NZS 3603
 M E .y 

where:

EI x = 2338 × 109 Nmm 4 y = 360 / 2 = 180mm


Technical Note 82
ME = ?

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 9 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Eqn. C7 may be employed due to the continuous restraint offered to the tension flange by the pierce fixed sheeting.
A suitably designed lateral restraint system provides intermediate buckling restraint to the purlins.

Calculate Euler Buckling Moment

2
 
(EI y ) D + yo2  π  + GJ
2

 4  Lay 
ME = Eq. C7, NZS 3603
(2. yo + yh )
where:

yo = 360 / 2 = 180mm yh = −360 / 2 = −180mm D = 360mm


9 2
EI y = 57.7 × 10 Nmm GJ = 1848 × 106 Nmm 2
Lay = 9910 / 4 = 2478mm (Restraint at quarter points)

2
 3602  π 
(
57.7 × 10  9
)
+ 180 2   + 1848 × 10
6

ME =  4  2478 

2 × 180+ 180 ( )
∴ M E = 43.7 kNm

0.5
1.1. × 2338 × 109 
⇒ S1 =  6 
 43.7 × 10 × 180 
∴ S1 = 18.1

Calculate k8

Since 25>S>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 18.1+ − 0.0116 × 18.12 + × 18.13
5000
∴ k8 = 0.76

Since k8>0.73

ØM bx = Ø.k1 . f t . A f .D1 × 10 −6 kNm Refer Technical Note 82

where:

Ø = 0.9 k1 = 1.0 f t = 33MPa


2
AF = 3060mm
D1 = 324mm
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 10 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØM bx = 0.9 × 1.0 × 33 × 3060 × 324 × 10−6 kNm


∴ ØM bx = 29.4kNm > M *

Note: Where k8 < 0.73 the moment capacity becomes a function of the compression flange buckling
rather than the tension flange being critical. The moment capacity equation is altered to represent this
where the characteristic tension stress is replaced by the product of the stability factor k8 and the
characteristic compression stress.

ie. ØM bx = Ø.k1 .k 8 . f c . A f .D1 × 10 −6 kNm

Calculate shear and support reaction for wind load.

Considering local pressure factors

Case 1
w*i = qu .spacing .(ka .kl .c pe − c pi ) + 0.9.wg
w1* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 1.5 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61) + 0.9 × 0.17
∴ w1* = −2.48kN / m
w2* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 1.0 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61) + 0.9 × 0.17
∴ w2* = −1.88kN / m

1  3 .9 2 
R0*.9G +Wu =  − 1 . 88 × + −2.48 × 6.0 × 6.9
9 .9  2 
∴ R0*.9G +Wu = −11.81kN

Case 2
w*i = qu .spacing .(ka .kl .c pe − c pi ) + 0.9.wg
w1* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 2 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61) + 0.9 × 0.17
∴ w1* = −3.09kN / m
w2* = 0.84 × 1.6 × (1.0 × 1.0 ×− 0.9 − + 0.61) + 0.9 × 0.17
∴ w2* = −1.88kN / m

* 1  6 .9 2 
R 0.9 G +Wu = − 1.88 × + −3.09 × 3.0 × 8.4
9 .9  2 
∴ R0*.9G +Wu = −12.2kN

Calculate dead & live load combined actions

0 .8 × 9 .9
R* = = 4.0kN
2
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 11 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Timber capacity is dependant on the duration of the load in question, this must be taken into account in the
determination of the critical load case. One method of assessing the critical design load is to remove the duration
of load factor,k1, from the capacity equation and divide the load action effect by k1,

*
RMax  − 12.2 4.0 
= max , 
k1  1 .0 0 .8 
*
Rmax
∴ = −12.2kN
k1

Check shear capacity

Since k1 was taken into account in the calculation of design action, apply k1=1.0

ØV = k1.12.6 = 1.0 × 12.6


Table 14, Technical note 82
∴ ØV = 12.6kN > v*

Therefore the HJ360 63 hyJOIST is suitable for use as a purlin based on the implied loading at
a spacing not exceeding 1600 mm

2.4 Proposed Purlin Layout

2.5 Connection design

Connection of hyJOIST purlins to LVL rafters needs to ensure that the structural integrity of both the hyJOIST purlin
and the hySPAN rafter are maintained. Connection to the hyJOIST by nailing through the plywood web provides
the most cost effective method of connection for purlins typically subject to high wind loads (please note this type
of connection is not recommended for i-beams subject to high permanent and/or live loads). Nailing through
plywood allows for nailing close to the end/edge of the plywood. Packing out the web and using proprietary joist
hangers can also provide a suitable connection however the cost of the packing, brackets and labour involved can
make this an expensive alternative.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 12 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Purlin connection blocks, or seating blocks as they are sometimes called, have been used in a number
of design situations for connection of C or I beam purlins where the connection block is either screwed
or nailed to the rafter and the web of the composite purlin is connected directly to the connection
block. A purlin connection block is proposed for connection using Ø2.87 diameter nails through the
plywood web and 14g type 17 screws through the connection block to the rafter. Target the connection
for design shear capacity, ØVps of the purlin.

Note: The selection of a suitable purlin connection block needs to take into account the end and edge distances of
the fasteners as well as the spacing along and across the grain. The use of 4 x-banded connection block reduces
the tendency of the long band to split, allowing for the spacing of fasteners into the face to be similar along the
grain to across the grain. The orientation of the connection block is important where the plywood web is fixed to
the face of the connection block.

Calculate minimum number of Ø2.87 FH nails

Joint Group J5 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQk Eq. 4.1, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Q k Eq. 4.2, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 k1 = 1.0 Qk = 0.526kN NZS 3603

k=1.4 since nails are through plywood with flat head nails.
k=1.1 since we are proposing 20 nails per connection Cl. 4.2.2.2(g) NZS 3603
(linear interpolation between 1.3 for 50 nails and 1.0 for 4 nails)

Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, nails are in single shear and are nailed into the
edge or face of the timber.

From Table 14, Technical Note 82 ØVps=12.6.k1

12.6 × 1.0 = 0.8 × n × 1.0 × 1.4 × 1.1 × 0.526


∴ n = 19.4

Say 20/50xØ2.87 FH nails, nailed through plywood web into purlin connection block

Calculate minimum number of 14g type 17 Hex Head screws


Type 17 screws are preferred for timber connection as they are a self drilling screws through the timber.

Joint Group J4 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.5, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.6, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 13 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 3.303kN NZS 3603


Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, screws are in single shear and are screwed into the
edge or face of the timber.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

From Table 14, technical note 82 ØVps=12.6.k1

12.6 × 1.0 = 0.8 × n × 1.0 × 3.303


∴ n = 4.76

Say 5/100x14g type 17 Hex Head screws, screwed through the purlin connection block into the rafter.

Proposed Purlin Connection

2.6 Lateral restraint design

The lateral restraint system needs to prevent the top and bottom flange of the hyJOIST purlin from
moving independently of each other. Many systems are appropriate but may require the fabrication of
special components. One of the most effective systems is to use hyJOIST pieces together with a
hyCHORD bottom flange restraint and continuous mild steel galvanised strap over the top, as shown
below.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 14 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Calculate force on lateral restraint

* 0.05M A
FA = k33 .k34 .k35 . Eq. B9, NZS 3603
d (nr + 1)

where:

k33 = 1.0 (Wind loading)


k34 = 0.4
 m +1   22 + 1 
k35 = min ,5  = min ,5  = 5
 2   2 
M A = 28.79kNm
d = 360mm
nr = 3

0.05 × 28.79 × 106


FA = 1.0 × 0.4 × 5 ×
360(3 + 1)
∴ FA = 2.0kN

Check capacity of lateral restraint – propose 90x45 hyCHORD

N c* = N t* = 2.0kN

Typically a 45 mm thick section is recommended to allow for a 75mm long screw through both the lateral restraint
and into the flange of the hyJOIST. Using hyCHORD for the lateral restraint is a good choice given its high strength
and lower cost.

Consider column action

Since Lay=1600 mm and Lax=1600 mm (defined by purlin spacing)

N c* ≤ ØN ncx and
N c* ≤ ØN ncy Eq. 3.17, NZS 3603

Minor axis buckling is critical by inspection

N ncy = k1.k8 . f c . A Eq. 3.19, NZS 3603

∴ ØN ncy = Ø.k1.k8 . f c . A

where:

2
Ø = 0.9 f c = 45MPa A = 90 × 45 = 4050mm

ØN ncx = 0.9 × k1 × k 8 × 45 × 4050


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 15 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴ ØN ncx = 164.0.k1 .k 8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis

k10 .L Lay
S3 = or whichever is less Eq. 3.15, NZS 3603
b b

1600
S3 =
45
∴ S3 = 35.6

Since 25>S3>10

k8 = a5 .S a6
k8 = 235.5 × 35.6 −1.937
∴ k8 = 0.23

Since k1 = 1.0

∴ ØN ncx = 38.3kN > N c*

Consider tension strength

N t* ≤ Ø.N nt Eq. 3.20 NZS 3603


N nt = k1.k4 . f t . A Eq. 3.21 NZS 3603

∴ ØN nt = Ø.k1.k4 . f t . A

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f t = 33MPa k4 = 1.0 Technical Note 82


A = 90 × 45 = 4050mm 2
k1 = 1.0

ØN nt = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 33 × 4050

∴ ØN nt = 120.3kN

Consider connection between purlins and lateral restraint

Use screws for increased withdrawal capacity for practical purposes

Calculate minimum number of 14g type 17 Hex Head screws

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 16 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Joint Group J4 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.5, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.6, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 3.303kN NZS 3603


Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, screws are in single shear and are screwed into the
edge or face of the timber.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

Consider Qk reduction due to the penetration into the receiving member (Purlin/blocking)

Penetration = 75-45 = 30 mm

Since da = 6.3 mm Table 4.5, NZS 3603

Therefore portion of diameter in penetration = 4.76

Calculate reduction from capacity relating to 7 da Cl. 4.3.2(e), NZS 3603

4.76
Reduction factor = = 0.68
7

∴ Qk = 0.68 × 3.303 = 2247 N

So:

2.0 × 1.0 = 0.8 × n × 1.0 × 2.247


∴ n = 1.11

Say 2/75x14g type 17 Hex Head screws, screwed through the purlin connection block into the rafter.

2.7 Purlins subject to axial loads

Purlins in end bays may be subjected to tension and compression forces from braced bays. These
forces need to be considered in the design capacity. Refer to section 9.0, Longitudinal bracing.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 17 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

3.0 Portal Frame Design

The following portal frame has been analysed using elastic structural analysis with Microstran. Elastic
structural analysis of a timber portal frame differs little from that applied to steel members except for
the different section and material properties. For solid timber a five percent allowance for shear
deflection is included in the average modulus of elasticity which removes any need for the separate
consideration of shear deflection.

To achieve portal frame action rigid connections need to be made at both the ridge and eave. One of
the most efficient methods of providing rigid connections is via use of nailed plywood gussets. The
additional stiffness provided by the knee and ridge gussets is generally ignored in analysis.

3.1 Proposed Portal Frame

Refer Technical Note 82 for Material Properties.

3.2 Serviceability

Serviceability design limits for timber and steel buildings are very similar where the consideration of
cladding and absolute clearances need to be taken into account in the relative stiffness of the frame.
Short term duration of loading for wind, live and earthquake loads may be calculated by applying a
duration of load factor of 1, hence using the elastic deflection directly from analysis packages. For long
term loads the effects of creep need to be taken into account. NZS 3603 Table 2 defines k2 as 2.0 for
loading of twelve months or more where the moisture content is less than 18%.

Serviceability – 900x90 hySPAN portal frame


Deflection
Load Case k2
Vertical Horizontal
Dead load* 2.0 96.2 mm or span/302 16.2 mm or height/396
Live load 1.0 75.5 mm or span/385 9.6 mm or height/668
Wind loading
Lateral wind1 1.0 134.7 mm or span/216 28.4 mm or height/225
Lateral wind2 1.0 74.5 mm or span/390 15.7 mm or height/408
Longitudinal wind1 1.0 108.5 mm or span/268 13.5 mm or height/475
Longitudinal wind2 1.0 64.6 mm or span/450 8.1 mm or height/792
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 18 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

* It is typical to pre-camber the portal by its un-factored deflection (ie. Approx 50 mm in the case)

3.3 Strength

The selection of design moments is important in the design of timber portal frames. The nature of the
interaction of gussets provide specific locations for the selection of critical design actions for the
design of rafters, columns gussets and nail rings. Hutchings and Bier [2000] provide guidance on the
design moment locations as shown below.

Location A – Rafter design actions at knee


Location B – Column design actions
Location C – Knee gusset design actions
Location D – Gusset to rafter at knee connection actions
Location E – Gusset to column connection actions
Location F – Ridge gusset design actions
Location G – Ridge gusset to rafter design actions

A further check along the rafter is require where the critical design actions may not to be at the
gusseted location and should be taken as the maximum along the rafter.

3.4 Design Actions

The consideration of critical design actions also needs to take in account the effect of duration of load factors for
capacity, hence affecting the determination of critical load case. As with steel portal frames the bending moment
diagram should also be taken into account together with the lateral and torsional restraint offered by purlins,
girts and flybraces. The following design actions have been tabled as being of interest, other actions have been
dismissed by inspection. The point of contraflexure is within close proximity for each case meaning that the
critical load case can be determined by inspection.

Critical Design Actions


Column Rafter
M* N* V* M* N* V*
Load Case k1 kN kN kN kN kN kN
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 -240.0 -84.1 71.5 -268.0 -60.4 50.5
0.9G+Wu - Lat 1.0 271.0 101.0 55.4 293.0 67.3 87.6
1.2G+Wu - Lat 1.0 -276.0 -113.0 62.3 -307.0 -79.2 -95.0

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 19 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

k1 factored Design Actions


Column Rafter
M*/k1 N*/k1 V*/k1 M*/k1 N*/k1 V*/k1
Load Case k1 kN kN kN kN kN kN
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 -300.0 -105.1 89.4 -335.0 -75.5 63.1
0.9G+Wu - Lat 1.0 271.0 101.0 55.4 293.0 67.3 87.6
1.2G+Wu - Lat 1.0 -276.0 -113.0 62.3 -307.0 -79.2 -95.0

3.5 Rafter Design

A check of the capacity of main frame members of a timber portal frame involves a check of combined bending and
buckling action, both in plane and out of plane, and a check of combined bending and tension.

3.5.1 Combined bending and compression

Design Criteria

 M x*   N c* 
  +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.23 NZS 3603
 ØM nx   ØN ncx 
2
 M x   N c* 
*
  +   ≤ 1 .0 Eq. 3.24 NZS 3603
ØM  ØN 
 nx   ncy 

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = -268.0 kNm N c* = -60.4 kN V* = 50.5 kN

Consider Bending Moment Capacity

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

For solid sections with member depths greater than 300 mm, apply size factor (k11, AS 1720.1). For
further information refer AS1720.1 (Clause 2.4.6) or Technical Note 82.

Therefore ØM n = Ø.k1.k4 .k5 .k8 .k11. f b .Z

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa Technical Note 82

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 20 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

0.167
 300 
k11 =  
 d 
0.167
Cl. 2.4.6 AS1720.1
 300 
∴ k11 =   = 0.83
 900 

d 2 .b 900 2 × 90
Z= =
6 6
∴ Z = 12.15 × 106 mm3

ØM n = 0.9 × k1 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k 8 × 0.83 × 48 × 12.15 × 10 6


∴ ØM n = 435.65.k1 .k 8 kNm

Since k1=0.8

ØM n = 348.52.k 8 kNm

Calculate k8
The timber structures standard does not talk about ‘critical flange’ like the steel structures standard however
similar principles apply to the restraint of LVL beams. Guidance is provided for solid sections in Clauses 3.2.5 of
NZS 3603:1993 for end-supported beams with discrete restraint to the compression edge (Cl 3.2.5.2) and tension
edge continuously restrained (Cl 3.2.5.3). Typically these can be useful in the calculation of slenderness of simple
beams and secondary framing however composite sections and members within structural frames require
analysis using Appendix C of NZS3603:1993 for slenderness calculations.

Consider slenderness equation

0.5
1.1.EI x 
S1 =   Eq. C1 NZS 3603
 M E.y 

Since for 900x90 hySPAN

900 3 × 90
EI x = 13200 × = 72.17 × 1012 Nmm 4
12
900
y= = 450mm
2
Therefore:
0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  
 ME 

Calculate Euler moment, ME

Consider compression edge unrestrained from edge of column to point of contraflexure.

Some authors including Milner [1997] have developed theories based on the contribution of lateral restraint
offered to the tension edge by purlins and girts, such theories are beyond the scope of this example.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 21 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Consider Moment Diagram

 c 
L 
[
M E =  5  (EI )y .GJ ]
0.5
Eq. C3 NZS3603
 ay 

where:

0
β= =0 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints
268

c5 = 5.5 Table C1 NZS3603

90 3 × 900
EI y = 13200 × = 721.71 × 10 9 Nmm 4
12
Since for rectangular sections:

 B  D × B3
J = 1 − 0.63 ×  × Eq. C2 NZS 3603
 D 3
 90  900 × 90 3
GJ = 660 × 1 − 0.63 × × = 135.25 × 10 9 Nmm 2
 900  3

Therefore:

 5 .5 
ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
]0.5

 4900 
∴ M E = 350.68kNm

From previous:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 22 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 350.68 × 10 
∴ S1 = 22.43

Since 25>S1>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 22.43+ − 0.0116 × 22.432 + × 22.433
5000
∴ k8 = 0.56

∴ ØM n = 348.52 × 0.56 = 195.2kNm

ØMn<M* so consider flybrace. The flybrace needs to be located relative to purlin spacing along the
rafter but also needs to offer the appropriate level of stability to the rafter. Propose 3rd purlin from eave.

Consider moment diagram

Calculate Euler moment, ME


 c 
L 
[
M E =  5  (EI )y .GJ ]0.5
Eq. C3 NZS 3603
 ay 

where:

171.1
β= = 0.64 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints
268.0

c5 = 3.82 Table C1 NZS 3603

Therefore:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 23 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

 3.82 
ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
]
0.5

 1741 
∴ M E = 685.51kNm

From previous:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 685.51 × 10 
∴ S1 = 16.04

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 16.04+ − 0.0116 × 16.04 2 + × 16.04 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.86

∴ ØM n = 348.52 × 0.86 = 299.7 kNm > M *

Check remaining unrestrained section

M* = 171.1 kNm Lay = 3160 mm c5 = 5.5

Therefore:

 5 .5 
ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
] 0.5

 3160 
∴ M E = 543.78kNm

From previous:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 543.78 × 10 
∴ S1 = 18.01

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 NZS 3603 Cl C2.10


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 18.01+ − 0.0116 × 18.012 + × 18.013
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.77

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 24 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴ ØM n = 348.52 × 0.77 = 268.4kNm > M *

Consider region along rafter between point of contraflexure and apex along the rafter.

Bending Moment Diagram

Since purlins provide restraint to compression edge, Lay = 1600 mm where c5 = 3.1 (moment ratio
between purlins = 0 (conservative)).

Calculate Euler Moment

 3 .1 
ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
]0.5

 1600 
∴ M E = 605.33kNm

From previous:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 605.33 × 10 
∴ S1 = 17.07

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 17.07 + − 0.0116 × 17.07 2 + × 17.07 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.81

∴ ØM n = 348.52 × 0.81 = 282.3kNm > M *

Consider column action

Major axis buckling XX

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 25 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

N ncx = k1.k8 . f c . A Eq. 3.18 NZS 3603

∴ ØN ncx = Ø.k1.k8 . f c . A

where:

2
Ø = 0.9 f c = 45MPa A = 900 × 90 = 81000mm

ØN ncx = 0.9 × k1 × .k8 × 45 × 81000

∴ ØN ncx = 3280.5.k1.k8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the major axis

L=Lax=14221 mm (rafter length from ridge to column)

k10 .L Lax
S2 = or whichever is less NZS 3603 Eq. 3.14
d d

k10 = 1.0 (Conservative)

1.0 × 14221
S2 =
900
∴ S 2 = 15.80

Since 25>S2>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 NZS 3603 Cl C2.10


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 15.80+ − 0.0116 × 15.80 2 + × 15.80 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.87

Since k1 = 0.8

∴ ØN ncx = 2278.1kN > N c*

Minor axis buckling YY

From previous:

∴ ØN ncx = 3280.5.k1.k8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis YY

Lay=1600 mm (purlin spacing)

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 26 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

k10 .L Lay
S3 = or whichever is less Eq. 3.15 NZS 3603
b b

1600
S3 =
90
∴ S3 = 17.78

Since 25>S3>10
k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603
1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 17.78+ − 0.0116 × 17.78 2 + × 17.78 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.78

Since k1 = 0.8

∴ ØN ncx = 2047.03kN > N c*

Combined actions

 268.0   60.4 
 +  = 0.92 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.23 NZS 3603
 299.7   2278.1 
2
 268.0   60.4 
  +  = 0.83 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.24 NZS 3603
 299.7   2047.0 

3.5.2 Combined bending and tension

Design Criteria

 N t*   M * 
  +   ≤ 1 .0 Eq. 3.25 NZS 3603
 
 ØN nt   ØM n 

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 0.9G+Wu Lateral wind

M* = 293.0 kNm (at eave)


M* = -171.8 kNm (along rafter)
N t* = 69.9 kN V* = 87.6 kN

Consider Bending Moment Capacity

From previous:

ØM n = 435.65.k1.k8 kNm

Since k =1.0, wind gust


1
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 27 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØM n = 435.65.k8kNm

Calculate k8

Calculate Euler moment, ME

Consider compression edge restrained by purlins at 1600 c/c until point of contraflexure.

Bending Moment Diagram

 c 
L 
[
M E =  5  (EI )y .GJ ]
0.5
Eq. C3 NZS 3603
 ay 

where:

176.2
β= = 0.60 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints (purlins)
293.2

c5 = 3.9 Eq. C3 NZS 3603

EI y = 721.71 × 109 Nmm 4


GJ = 135.25 × 109 Nmm 2

Therefore:

 3.90 
ME =  [ 9
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9
]
0.5

 1600 
∴ M E = 761.54kNm

From previous:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 28 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

0.5
176.418 × 10 9 
S1 =  6 
 761.54 × 10 
∴ S1 = 15.22

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 NZS 3603 Cl C2.10


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 15.22+ − 0.0116 × 15.22 2 + × 15.22 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.90

∴ ØM n = 435.65 × 0.90 = 392.1kNm > M *

Check remaining sections between points of contraflexure (ie. Negative moment along the rafter)

Propose flybracing as detailed below

Consider region along rafter between point of contraflexure and apex along the rafter.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 29 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Bending Moment Diagram

Calculate Euler Moment

Three buckling zones exist for wind uplift, each restrained at strategic purlin locations by flybraces.
Consideration of bending moment diagram and restraint locations display.

Region 1 c5 = 5.5, Lay = 5183 mm


Region 2 c5 ~ 3.1, Lay = 2x1600 = 3200 mm
Region 3 c5 = 3.1, Lay = 2x(1050+229) = 2558 mm

 c5 
Since: M E = function 
L 
 ay 

Therefore Region 2 is critical buckling region

 3 .1 
⇒ ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
]0.5

 3200 
∴ M E = 302.66kNm

From previous:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 302.66 × 10 
∴ S1 = 24.14

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 24.14+ − 0.0116 × 24.14 2 + × 24.14 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.49

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 30 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴ ØM n = 435.65 × 0.49 = 213.5kNm > M *

Consider tension strength

N t* ≤ Ø.N nt Eq. 3.20 NZS 3603


N nt = k1.k4 . f t . A Eq. 3.21 NZS 3603

For solid sections with member depths greater than 150 mm, apply k11 size factor for tension. For
further information refer AS1720.1 (Clause 2.4.6) or Technical Note 82.

Therefore ØN nt = Ø.k1.k4 .k11. f t . A

where:

Ø = 0.9 f t = 33MPa k4 = 1.0 Technical Note 82


A = 900 × 90 = 81000mm
k1 = 1.0
0.167
 150 
k11 =  
 d 
0.167
Cl. 2.4.6 AS1720.1
 150 
∴ k11 =   = 0.74
 900 

ØN nt = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.74 × 33 × 81000

∴ ØN nt = 1780.2kN

Combined actions

 69.9   171.8 
 +  = 0.84 ≤ 1.0 q. 3.25 NZS 3603
 1780.2   213.5 

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 31 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 900 × 90 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 54000mm 2
3

∴ φVS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 54000


∴ φVS = 257.6kN > V *

Use 900x90 hySPAN as rafter with flybraces to locations as detailed.

3.5.3 Flybrace design

Critical Design Moment at flybrace location M* = -171.1 kNm, where k1=0.8

Calculate force on lateral restraint

* 0.05M A
FA = k33 .k34 .k35 . Eq. B9, NZS 3603
d (nr + 1)

where:

k33 = 1.0 (Dead and live loads)


k34 = 0.4
 m +1  1+1 
k 35 = min ,5  = min ,5  = 1
 2   2 
M A = −171.1kNm
d = 900mm
nr = 1

0.05 × 171.1 × 10 6
F A = 1 .0 × 0 .4 × 1 ×
900(1 + 1)
∴ FA = 1.9kN

Note: FA is the horizontal force and is shared between two components, one in tension and one in
compression.

Check capacity of flybrace – propose 90x45 hyCHORD

N c* = N t* = 1.90kN

Calculate force in brace

1.90
N c* = N t* = = 2.7 kN
Cos (45)

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 32 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Typically a 45 mm thick section is recommended to allow for a 75mm long screw through both the flybrace and into
the flange of the hyJOIST. Using hyCHORD for the lateral restraint is a good choice given its high strength and
lower cost.

Consider column action

Since Lay=765 mm and Lax=765 mm (defined by brace length)

N c* ≤ ØN ncx and
N c* ≤ ØN ncy Eq. 3.17 NZS 3603

Minor axis buckling is critical by inspection

N ncy = k1.k8 . f c . A Eq. 3.19 NZS 3603

∴ ØN ncy = Ø.k1.k8 . f c . A

where:

2
Ø = 0.9 f c = 45MPa A = 90 × 45 = 4050mm

ØN ncx = 0.9 × k1 × k 8 × 45 × 4050

∴ ØN ncx = 164.03.k1 .k 8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis

k10 .L Lay
S3 = or whichever is less Eq. 3.15 NZS 3603
b b

764
S3 =
45
∴ S 3 = 16.98

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 16.98+ − 0.0116 × 16.98 2 + × 16.98 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.82

Since k1 = 1.0

∴ ØN ncx = 134.50kN > N c*

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 33 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Consider tension strength

N t* ≤ Ø.N nt Eq. 3.20 NZS 3603


N nt = k1.k4 . f t . A Eq. 3.21 NZS 3603

∴ ØN nt = Ø.k1.k4 . f t . A

where:

Ø = 0.9 f t = 33MPa k4 = 1.0 Technical Note 82


A = 90 × 45 = 4050mm
k1 = 1.0

ØN nt = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 33 × 4050

∴ ØN nt = 120.3kN

Consider connection between purlins and rafters and flybrace

Screws are required to provide tension connection to rafter/purlin

Calculate minimum number of 14g type 17 Hex Head screws

Joint Group J4 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.5, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.6, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 3.303kN NZS 3603


Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, screws are in single shear and are screwed into the
edge or face of the timber.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

Consider Qk reduction due to the penetration into the receiving member (Purlin/blocking)

Penetration = 75-45 = 30 mm

Since da = 6.3 mm Table 4.5, NZS 3603

Therefore portion of diameter in penetration = 4.76

Calculate reduction from capacity relating to 7 da Cl. 4.3.2(e), NZS 3603

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 34 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

4.76
Reduction factor = = 0.68
7

∴ Qk = 0.68 × 3.303 = 2247 N

So:

ØQn = 0.8 × 1.0 × 2 × 2.247


∴ ØQn = 4.0kN

Consider screws in tension

N * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.8, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k . p.Qk Eq. 4.9, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k . p.Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 79.5 N / mm p = 35mm NZS 3603


Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, screws are in single shear and are screwed into the
edge or face of the timber.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

ØQn = 0.8 × 2 × 1.0 × 35 × 79.5


∴ ØQn = 4.45kN

Say 2/75x14g type 17 Hex Head screws, screwed through pre-drilled holes in flybrace into rafter and
purlin.

Proposed flybrace connection

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 35 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

3.6 Column Design

3.6.1 Combined bending and compression

Design Criteria

 M x*   N c* 
  +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.23 NZS 3603
 ØM nx   ØN ncx 
2
 M x*   N c* 
  +   ≤ 1 .0 Eq. 3.24 NZS 3603
 
 ØM nx   ØN ncy 

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = -240.0 kNm N c* = -84.1 kN V* = 71.5 kN

Consider Bending Moment Capacity

From previous:

ØM n = 435.65.k1.k8 kNm

Since k1=0.8

ØM n = 348.52.k8kNm

Calculate k8

For 900x90 hySPAN:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  
 ME 

Calculate Euler moment, ME

Girts provide tension edge restraint to the outside of the outside of the frame. By inspection from the
rafter analysis one flybrace is proposed at the middle girt, 3490 mm from the ground.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 36 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Consider bending moment diagram

 c 
L 
[
M E =  5  (EI )y .GJ ]
0.5
Eq. C3 NZS 3603
 ay 

where:

Region 1
− 179.3
β= = 0.59 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints
− 303.0

c5 = 3.92 Eq. C3 NZS 3603


Lay = 2530mm

Region 2
0
β= =0 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints
− 179.3

c5 = 5.5 Eq. C3 NZS 3603


Lay = 3470mm
EI y = 721.71 × 109 Nmm 4
GJ = 135.25 × 109 Nmm 2

Therefore Region 1 is critical:

 3.92 
ME =  [ 9
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9
]
0.5

 2530 
∴ M E = 484.08kNm

From previous:
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 37 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

0.5
176.418 × 10 9 
S1 =  6 
 484.08 × 10 
∴ S1 = 19.09

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 19.09+ − 0.0116 × 19.09 2 + × 19.09 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.71

∴ ØM n = 348.52 × 0.71 = 247.5kNm

Consider column action

Major axis buckling XX

From previous:

∴ ØN ncx = 3280.5.k1.k8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the major axis

L=Lax=6000 mm (column height from rafter to footing)

k10 .L Lax
S2 = or whichever is less Eq. 3.14 NZS 3603
d d

k10 = 1.0 (conservative) Fig. 3.5 NZS 3603

1.0 × 6000
S2 =
900
∴ S 2 = 6.67

Since 10<S2 k8 =1.0 and k1 = 0.8

∴ ØN ncx = 2624.4kN > N c*

Minor axis buckling YY

From previous:

∴ ØN ncx = 3280.5.k1.k8 .kN

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 38 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis YY

Lay=1660 mm (girt spacing)

k10 .L Lay
S3 = or whichever is less Eq. 3.15 NZS 3603
b b

1660
S3 =
90
∴ S3 = 18.44

Since 25>S3>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 Cl C2.10 NZS 3603


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 18.44+ − 0.0116 × 18.44 2 + × 18.44 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.75

Since k1 = 0.8

∴ ØN ncx = 1968.3kN > N c*

Combined actions

 240.0   84.1 
 +  = 1 .0 ≤ 1 .0 Eq. 3.23 NZS 3603
 247.5   2624.4 
2
 240.0   84.1 
  +  = 0.98 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.24 NZS 3603
 247.5   1968.3 

3.6.2 Combined bending and tension

Design Criteria

 N t*   M * 
  +   ≤ 1 .0 Eq. 3.25 NZS 3603
ØN  ØM 
 nt   n 

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 0.9G+Wu Lateral wind

M* = 271.0 kNm N t* = 101.0 kN V* = 55.4 kN

Consider Bending Moment Capacity

From previous, since k1=1.0, wind gust


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 39 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØM n = 435.65.k8kNm

Calculate k8

Calculate Euler moment, ME

Consider compression edge restrained by grits at 1660 c/c.

Bending Moment Diagram

 c 
L 
[
M E =  5  (EI )y .GJ ]
0.5
NZS3603 Eq. C3
 ay 

where:

177.7
β= = 0.66 β = ratio of bending moments between buckling restraints (grits)
271.0

c5 = 3.78 NZS3603 Eq. C3

EI y = 721.71 × 109 Nmm 4


GJ = 135.25 × 109 Nmm 2

Therefore:

 3.78 
ME =  [
 721.71 × 10 × 135.25 × 10
9 9
]0.5

 1660 
∴ M E = 711.43kNm

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 40 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

From previous:

0.5
176.418 × 109 
S1 =  6 
 711.43 × 10 
∴ S1 = 15.75

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3 NZS 3603 Cl C2.10


1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 15.75+ − 0.0116 × 15.75 2 + × 15.75 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.87

∴ ØM n = 435.65 × 0.87 = 379.0kNm > M *

Consider tension strength

Since k1 = 1.0 , k11 = 0.74

ØN nt = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.74 × 33 × 81000

∴ ØN nt = 1780.2kN

Combined actions

 101.0   271.0 
 +  = 0.77 ≤ 1.0
 1780.2   379.0 

Use 900x90 hySPAN as column with flybraces to locations as detailed.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 41 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

3.7 Gusset Design

The knee and ridge connections of an LVL portal frame can be completed by using a plywood gusset.
Plywood gussets allow an ease of fabrication and can be readily fixed using machine driven nails.
Plywood or minimum 4 x-band gussets are recommended for use in heavily nailed rigid connections
because the x-band plies help reduce the tendency of the long band plies to split. This allows the nail
spacing to be governed by the grain direction of the rafter or column which ever the gusset is being
fastened to.

Plywood is available in Stress Grade F11 from Carter Holt Harvey in thicknesses up to and including 25
mm. For thicknesses over 25 mm required for large span portal frames CHH have developed 4 x-band
hySPAN sheets (2400x1200) in a 42mm thickness allowing 28 mm (8 plies) of parallel plies.

Design actions can be factored by the duration of load factor k1 for comparison in the determination of
the critical design action.

Gusset Design Actions


Knee Ridge
M* N* V* M* N* V*
Load Case K1 kNm kN kN kNm kN kN
1.35G 0.6 -123.0 -31.6 19.2 69.7 -19.0 2.5
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 -324.0 -83.1 50.5 183.6 -50.1 6.6
0.9G+Wu – Lat 1.0 362.0 102.2 -54.3 -156.9 71.1 -5.0
1.2G+Wu –Lat 1.0 -382.0 -111.7 -65.2 171.2 -75.5 14.5
0.9G+Wu – Long 1.0 239.1 64.6 55.1 -117.0 65.9 25.3
1.2G+Wu –Long 1.0 -295.4 -60.3 -69.7 161.0 -56.6 7.5

k1 factored Gusset Design Actions


Knee Ridge
M*/k1 N*/k1 V*/k1 M*/k1 N*/k1 V*/k1
Load Case K1 kNm kN kN kNm kN kN
1.35G 0.6 -205.0 -52.6 32.0 116.2 -31.7 4.2
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 -405.0 -103.9 63.1 229.5 -62.6 8.3
0.9G+Wu – Lat 1.0 362.0 102.2 -54.3 -156.9 71.1 -5.0
1.2G+Wu –Lat 1.0 -382.0 -111.7 -65.2 171.2 -75.5 14.5
0.9G+Wu – Long 1.0 239.1 64.6 55.1 -117.0 65.9 25.3
1.2G+Wu –Long 1.0 -295.4 -60.3 -69.7 161.0 -56.6 7.5

3.7.1 Knee gusset design

The capacity of a plywood gusset is based on the critical depth at which the gusset bends, which is a
horizontal line across the centroid of the rafter and column intersection as shown below.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 42 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Geometrically, assuming the rafter depth


and column depth are equal, the critical
section for the knee connection may be
calculated by:

L−D
Depthcs = D +
 D
1 + 1 −  tan θ
 2L 

Design Criteria

2
 N c*   M i*   Vi* 
  +   +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 6.17 NZS 3603
 ØN nc   ØM ni   ØVni 
2
 N t*   M i*   Vi* 
  +   +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 6.18 NZS 3603
 ØN nt   ØM ni   ØVni 

It is typical that the design shear and tension action effects have little influence on the size of a gusset and can in
many cases be omitted from calculation such is their effect on sizing. Compression loads are generally past
through in bearing and not required for consideration in gusset design.

Critical Design Actions

Load case - 1.2G+1.5Q – (Combined bending, compression and shear)

M* = -324.0 kNm Nc* = -83.1 kN V* = 50.5 kN k1=0.8

Load case - 0.9G+Wu (Lateral wind) - (Combined bending, tension and shear)

M* = 362.0 kNm Nt* = 102.2 kN V* = 54.3 kN k1=1.0

Consider bending moment capacity

Many authors have proposed methods of calculating the capacity of plywood gussets. Batchelor [1984] proposes
a bilinear stress distribution along the critical section while Hutchings [1987] methodology assumes a
triangulated stress distribution across the critical section and recommends the application of a size factor.
Hutchings [1987] methodology is applied in this example. This methodology is suitable for application to both
opening and closing moments of portal frames, and has been used on many portal frame structures. Milner and
Crosier [2000] propose a similar calculation based on a triangulated stress distribution but propose an alternate
critical section and omit the use of the size factor.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 43 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

M i* ≤ ØM ni Eq. 6.9 NZS 3603


2
t e .d
M ni = k1 .k 8 .k14 .k15 . f pb . Eq. 6.10 NZS 3603
6

Now include size factor - for further information on size factor, k11 refer AS1720.1 (Clause 2.4.6) or Technical Note
82.

te .d 2
Therefore ØM ni = Ø.k1.k8 .k11.k14 .k15 . f pb .
6

Since the gussets are in pairs:

 t .d 2 
ØM ni = 2.Ø.k1.k8 .k11.k14 .k15 . f pb . e 
 6 

Propose 42 mm 4 x-band LVL, where:

Ø = 0 .9
k1 = ?
k8 = 1.0 (localised, gusset edges are restrained by gusset stiffeners)
k14 = 1.0 (moisture content < 18%)
k15 = 1.0 (only parallel plies are being considered)
0.167
 300 
k11 =   Cl. 2.4.6 AS1720.1
 d 
f b = 48MPa
t e = (42 − (4 × 3.5)) = 28mm
 28 × d 2 
ØM ni = 2.0.9 × k1 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k11 × 48 × 
 6 
ØM n = 403.2 × k1 .k11 .d 2 kNm

For 900x90 hySPAN portal frame with 7.5˚ pitch

1200 − 900
d = 900 +
 900 
1 + 1 −  tan (7.5)
 2 × 1200 
∴ d = 1177.2mm
0.167
 300 
k11 =  
 1177.2 
∴ k11 = 0.80

Calculate bending moment capacity

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 44 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØM ni = 403.2 × k1 × 0.8 × 1177.2 2


∴ ØM ni = 447.0 × k1 .kNm

Calculate Shear Capacity

V p* ≤ ØVni Eq. 6.15 NZS 3603


2
Vni = .k1.k8 .k14 .k15 .k18 . f ps .t.d Eq. 6.16 NZS 3603
3

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f ps = 5.3MPa Technical Note 82


k1 = ?
k14 = 1.0 (moisture content < 15 %)
k15 = 1.0 (face grain = 0˚)

 2 
Vni = 2 0.9 × × k1 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 42 × d 
 3 
∴Vni = 267.12 × k1 .d .kN

Since d = 1177.2mm

∴Vni = 314.45 × k1 .kN

Consider tension capacity

N t* ≤ Ø.N nt Eq. 6.11 NZS 3603

N nt = k1 .k14 .k15 . f pt .t t .d Eq. 6.12 NZS 3603

∴ ØN nt = Ø.k1 .k14 .k15 . f pt .t e .d

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f pt = 33MPa Technical Note 82


k1 = ?
k14 = 1.0 (moisture content < 15 %)
k15 = 1.0 (face grain = 0˚)

t e = 28mm (parallel plies only)

ØN nt = 2[0.9 × k1 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 33 × 28 × d ]


∴ ØN nt = 1663.2.k1 .d .kN
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 45 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Since d = 900mm (use minimum section) - conservative

∴ ØN nt = 1496.9 × k1 .kN

Consider compression capacity

N c* ≤ Ø.N nc Eq. 6.13 NZS 3603

N nc = k1 .k 8 .k14 .k15 . f pc .t e .d Eq. 6.14 NZS 3603

∴ ØN nc = Ø.k1 .k 8 .k14 .k15 . f pc .t e .d

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f pc = 45MPa Technical Note 82


k1 = ?
k14 = 1.0 (moisture content < 15 %)
k 8 = 1.0 (localised, gusset edges are restrained by gusset stiffeners)
k15 = 1.0 (face grain = 0˚)
t e = 28mm (parallel plies only)

ØN nc = 2[0.9 × k1 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 45 × 28 × d ]


∴ ØN nc = 2268.0 × k1 .d .kN

Since d = 900mm (use minimum section) - conservative

∴ ØN nc = 2041.2 × k1 .kN

Consider Combined Actions

Combined bending, compression and shear from Eq. 6.17, NZS 3603:1993

Factor capacities by appropriate duration of load, k1 = 0.8

2
 83.1   324.0   50.5 
 +  +  = 1.07 ≥ 1.0
 0.8 × 2041.2   0.8 × 447.0   0.8 × 314.5 

It is typical to consider the maximum implied forces on the structure, rather than the applied forces at the specific
design location. However if the design criteria is not met then consideration of the implied design actions at the
design location may be required. Therefore consider moment and shear forces at critical stress line for analysis.

Design Actions at critical stress line, Load case 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = -303.0 kNm Nc* = -83.1 kN V* = 50.5 kN k1=0.8

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 46 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

2
 83.1   303.0   50.5 
 +  +  = 0.97 ≤ 1.0
 0.8 × 2041.2   0.8 × 447.0   0.8 × 314.5 

Combined bending, compression and shear from Eq. 6.18, NZS 3603:1993

Factor capacities by appropriate duration of load, k1 = 1.0

2
 102.2   362.00   54.3 
 +  +  = 0.90 ≤ 1.0
 1.0 × 1496.9   1.0 × 447.0   1.0 × 314.5 

3.7.2 Ridge Gusset Design

The design of the ridge gusset is similar to the knee gusset where the design capacity is based on the
moment resistance offered by the ridge gusset section. Typically a mitre type joint is considered.
Hutchings [1989] proposes a 0.9 factor be applied to the critical section as defined below.

Savings in design and fabrication can be made by keeping the distance ‘L’ constant across the ridge and the knee
gussets. Whilst the ridge gusset may be ‘thinner’ often for consistency of purlin lengths and minimum gusset
order quantities it may be preferable to maintain similar gusset thicknesses.

D
Dgusset = + L. tan θ
Cosθ
Depthcs = 0.9.Dgusset

Design Criteria

2
 N c*   M i*   Vi* 
  +   +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 6.17 NZS 3603
 ØN nc   ØM ni  ØV
 ni 
2
 N t*   M i*   Vi* 
  +   +   ≤ 1.0 Eq. 6.18 NZS 3603
 ØN nt   ØM ni   ØVni 

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = 183.6 kNm Nc* = -50.1 kN V* = 6.6 kN

Critical load case - 0.9G+Wu – Lateral wind


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 47 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

M* = -156.9 kNm Nt* = 71.1 kN V* = -5.0 kN

Consider Bending Moment Capacity

From previous, propose 42mm 4 x-band LVL, where:

ØM n = 403.2 × k1 .k11 .d 2 kNm

For 900x90 hySPAN portal frame with 7.5˚ pitch

900
D gusset = + 1200 × tan(7.5)
Cos (7.5)
∴ D gusset = 1065.7 mm
d = 0.9 × D gusset = 959.2mm
0.167
 300 
k11 =  
 959.2 
∴ k11 = 0.82

Calculate bending moment capacity

ØM ni = 403.2 × k1 × 0.82 × 959.2 2


∴ ØM ni = 305.5 × k1 .kNm > M *

Calculate shear force capacity

From previous:

Vni = 267.12 × k1 .d .kN


∴Vni = 256.2 × k1 .kN

Calculate Tension Capacity

From previous:

∴ ØN nt = 1663.2.k1 .d .kN

Since d = 900mm (use minimum section) - conservative

∴ ØN nt = 1496.9 × k1 .kN

Calculate Compression Capacity

From previous:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 48 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴ ØN nc = 2268.0 × k1 .d .kN

Since d = 900mm (use minimum section) - conservative

∴ ØN nc = 2041.2 × k1 .kN

Combined bending, compression and shear from Eq. 6.17, NZS 3603:1993

Factor capacities by appropriate duration of load, k1 = 0.8

2
 50.1   183.6   6 .6 
 +  +  = 0.63 ≤ 1.0
 0.8 × 2041.2   0.8 × 305.5   0.8 × 256.2 

Combined bending, compression and shear from Eq. 6.18, NZS 3603:1993

Factor capacities by appropriate duration of load, k1 = 1.0

2
 71.1   156.9   5 .0 
 +  +  = 0.57 ≤ 1.0
 1.0 × 2041.2   1.0 × 305.5   1.0 × 256.2 

Use 42 mm 4 x-Band hySPAN as both knee and ridge gusset pairs

3.7.3 Nail ring design

The design of the nail ring is important because more than half of the nailing needs to be performed on
site. It is also important to consider end and edge distances together with allowable nail spacings
(both along and across the grain) for the chosen fasteners. Selection of the nail diameter is also critical
as it will affect the available spacing and hence number of nails within the group as well as the
required penetration into the column/rafter. A staggered nail pattern provides an increased moment
capacity by maximising the lever arm action about the nail group centroid.

The design of nail groups associated with rigid moment connections are often subjected to combined
actions including bending, axial and shear forces. Whilst the bending and axial forces contributions
are minor they need to be taken into account. It is normally most efficient to calculate the proportion of
force remaining in the nails after the contribution to the design moment affect is taken out.

The complexity of calculations for the nail ring mean hand calculations can be time consuming and
conservative. For this reason computer packages are often employed to develop design solutions. The
following design data have been taken from design capacity tables relating to the corresponding roof
pitch and member size.

The design methodology, including k factors, from AS1720.1 has been applied to create nail ring
capacities for a number of section sizes and gusset widths. These tables can be found in Engineering
Bulletin No.2, Rigid Moment Connections using CHH veneer based products. AS1720.1 was used due to
its close relationship between the lateral capacities of nails in testing with CHH’s range of LVL and the
published values for joint group JD4. It should be noted that many of the ‘k’ factors used in calculation
of connection capacities differ between the standards and it is recommended that for connections
these not be mixed and matched.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 49 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

3.7.3.1 Knee nail ring design

Critical Design Actions

The critical design actions need only be considered in the nail ring design as the effects of stress reversal do not
affect the nature of the nail design.

Knee, Critical load case - 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = -324.0 kNm N c* = -83.1 kN V* = 50.5 kN k1=0.77#


#
As per Table 2.7, AS1720.1

The methodology proposed for the calculation of nail group capacity for combined bending, axial and
shear force involves the following steps:

1. Calculate moment capacity of nail rings in accordance with AS1720.1. AS1720.1 provides a
capacity calculation for transfer of in plane moments through nailed moment ring such that:

 i =n 3

 r 2 
φM j = φ .k1 .k13 .k14 .k16 .k17 .rmax .Qk .∑  i  AS1720.1 Eq. 4.2(4)
 i =1  rmax  
 
where:

n = number of fasteners
Qk= characteristic strength of fastener
ri= distance to the ith fastener from the centroid of the fastener group
rmax= the maximum value of ri
Ø = capacity factor (0.8 - nails used with primary elements in structures other than houses)
k1 = duration of load factor (Clause 2.4.11, AS1720.1)
k13 = 1.0 (nails in side grain)
k14 = 1.0 (nails in single shear)
k16 = 1.1 (nails driven through plywood gussets)
k17 = multiple nail factor for resisting in plane moments (AS1720.1 Table 4.3(B))
Qk = 810 N (Ø3.15 nail, JD4 strength group, AS1720.1 Table 4.1 (B))

Since nail rings will be applied through gusset pairs the total moment resistance offered by nail
rings connecting gusset pairs is:

  i=n 3

  r  
φM = 2.φ .k1 .k13 .k14 .k16 .k17 .rmax .Qk .∑  i
2

 i =1  rmax 
    


2. Calculate remaining portion of nail capacity after bending actions have been considered.
3.
a. φQn = φ .k1 .k13 .k14 .k16 .k17 .Qk
 M* 
b. φN axial / shear = 1 −  × φQn × n
 φM 

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 50 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

4. Calculate vectorial sum of the combined axial and shear forces for comparison with remaining
capacity. These forces are assumed to be evenly distributed over the nail group.

*  (N ) + (v ) , (N ) + (v )
* 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 
N axial / shear = max c t 
 

Engineering Bulletin 2 – Rigid Moment Connection Details can be used for selection of the moment ring
capacity for the nail ring to suit the 7.5˚ roof pitch and 1200 mm wide gusset as drawn above.

From Table 50, Engineering Bulletin 2 for nine (9) nail rings

φM = 0.77 × 454.14
∴ φM = 349.7 kNm
and φQn = 0.855kN

Calculate remaining nail group capacity after resistance to moment has been calculated.

 M* 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × φQn × n
 φM 

 324.0 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × 0.855 × (684 × 2 )
 349.7 
∴ φN axial / shear = 86.0kN

Calculate vectorial sum of axial and shear force, divided by k1 for direct comparison

*  (N ) + (v ) , (N ) + (v )
* 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 
N axial / shear = max c t 
 
  83.1  2  50.5  2  102.2  2  54.3  2 
*    
  0.77   0.77 
N axial / shear = max + ,   +
  1 .0   1 .0  

/ shear = max (126.3,115.7 )


*
N axial
*
∴ N axial / shear = 126.3kN

*
Since N axial / shear > φN either add an additional nail ring or adjust nail size. Try using a Ø3.33 nail.
Using Table 3 from Engineering Bulletin 2 the capacity of the nail rings can be factored proportionally to
the Characteristic Capacity of the nail laterally loaded in single shear.

898
Ø3.33/Ø3.15 factor = = 1.11
810
Therefore:
φM = 0.77 × 454.14 × 1.11
∴ φM = 388.15kNm ≥ M *
φQn = 0.855 × 1.11
and
∴ φQn = 0.949kN
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 51 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Calculate remaining nail group capacity after resistance to moment has been calculated.

 M* 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × φQn × n
 φM 
 324.0 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × 0.949 × (684 × 2 )
 388.15 
∴ φN axial / shear = 214.6kN > N *

Use nine nail rings of Ø3.33 x75 FH nails to pattern as marked.

Proposed Nail Ring

3.7.3.2 Ridge nail ring design

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 1.2G+1.5Q

M* = 183.6 kNm Nc* = -50.1 kN V* = 6.6 kN

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 52 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Engineering Bulletin 2 – Rigid Moment Connection Details can be used for selection of the moment ring
capacity for the nail ring to suit the 7.5˚ roof pitch and 1200 mm wide gusset as drawn above.

From Table 50, Engineering Bulletin 2 apply four (4) nail rings. Since we are using Ø3.33 nails in the
knee connection, apply same nail size in the ridge, therefore apply 1.11 factor from previous to apply
nail ring capacities from Table ##.

φM = 0.77 × 265.96 × 1.11


∴ φM = 227.3kNm ≥ M *
and φQn = 0.949kN From previous

Calculate remaining nail group capacity after resistance to moment has been calculated.

 M* 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × φQn × n
 φM 

 183.6 
φN axial / shear = 1 −  × 0.949 × (344 × 2 )
 227.3 
∴ φN axial / shear = 125.52kN

Calculate vectorial sum of axial and shear force, divided by k1 for direct comparison

*  (N ) + (v ) , (N ) + (v )
* 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 
N axial / shear = max c t 
 
  50.1  2  6.6  2  71.1  2  5.0  2 
*   
  0.77   0.77 
N axial = max + ,   + 
/ shear
 1 .0   1 .0  
 
/ shear = max (65.6,71.1)
*
N axial
*
∴ N axial / shear = 65.6 kN < φN

Use four nail rings of Ø3.33 x75 FH nails to pattern as marked.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 53 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

3.8 Column to footing connection design

Connection of portal frame columns to footings can be achieved by base brackets that are suitably sized and fixed
directly to the LVL columns. A similar design philosophy is applied to the design and specification of hold down
anchors and base plates as would normally be applied to steel where the buckling of the plate under tension
needs to be considered.

The connection of the base brackets to the column could be achieved using nails, screws or bolts. Nails are
typically not recommended of base plates in larger structures because of the number of nails required combined
with the fact they would need to be hand driven through holes in plates. Bolts can be used and are good to aid in
the transfer of bracing loads across the column. Screws are ideal for most base bracket connections due to their
ease of application. It is important that screw patterns are staggered for both sides of the column so that splitting
of the LVL does not occur.

Again reactions are factored to take into consideration duration of load factors.

Consider Design Reactions

PF1
Rx Ry (Rx2+Ry2)0.5 Angle
Load Case k1 kN kN kN
1.35G 0.6 19.19 35.82 40.6 61.8
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 50.53 86.87 100.5 59.8
0.9G+Wu (Lateral) 1.0 -58.60 -99.28 115.3 59.4
1.2G+Wu (Lateral) 1.0 -53.96 115.53 127.5 65.0
0.9G+Wu (Long) 1.0 -24.61 -78.67 82.4 72.6
1.2G+Wu (Long) 1.0 52.50 102.30 115.0 62.8

k1 adjusted values
PF1
Rx Ry (Rx2+Ry2)0.5 Angle
Load Case k1 kN kN kN
1.35G 0.6 31.98 59.70 67.7 61.8
1.2G+1.5Q 0.8 63.16 108.59 125.6 59.8
0.9G+Wu (Lateral) 1.0 -58.60 -99.28 115.3 59.4
1.2G+Wu (Lateral) 1.0 -53.96 115.53 127.5 65.0
0.9G+Wu (Long) 1.0 -24.61 -78.67 82.4 72.6
1.2G+Wu (Long) 1.0 52.50 102.30 115.0 62.8

It is typical in Timber structures to provide a moisture barrier at the base of the columns to eliminate the column
from getting wet and staying wet during the construction period. This can be typically achieved by using H3.2
treated Plywood and melthoid at both the LVL column end and ground as detailed in the structural drawings.
Downwards loads may be considered to be taken out in bearing so for the design of connections only uplift loads
need be considered.

Calculate minimum number of 14g type 17 Hex Head screws

Joint Group J4 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.5, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.6, NZS 3603

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 54 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 3.303kN k = 1.25 NZS 3603


Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, screws are in single shear and are screwed through
close fitting steel plates into the edge or face of the timber.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

Since critical design reaction is 115.3 kN, calculate minimum number of 14g screws.

115.3 = 0.8 × 1.0 × n × 1.25 × 3.303


∴ n = 34.9

Say 48/14gx50 type 17 Hex Head screws, screwed through base plate sides into column.

Proposed Connection

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 55 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

4.0 Girt Design, side wall

Girt Span (10,000-(90+65))/2 = 4923 mm


Girt Spacing 1660 mm

Propose 190x45 hyCHORD for use as side wall girt

4.1 Wind loading

The capacity of solid timber girts is also dependant on the nature of lateral tortional buckling restraint and the
critical edge to which the loading and restraint is provided. It is therefore important to consider both positive and
negative wind pressures.

θ = 0˚, Lateral wind

qu=0.84 kPa Case 1 cp,e= +0.7, cp,i= -0.56, kL= 1.25


Case 2 cp,e= -0.3, cp,i= +0.61

θ = 90˚, Longitudinal wind

qu=0.76 kPa Case 1 cp,e= -0.65, cp,i= +0.54, kL= 1.5

Calculate design loading

w*i = qu .spacing .(k a .kl .c pe − c pi )


w1* = 0.84 × 1.66 × (1.25 ×+ 0.7 − − 0.56)
∴ w1* = +1.93kN / m
w2* = 0.76 ×1.66 × (1.5 ×− 0.65 − + 0.54)
∴ w2* = −1.84kN / m

Serviceability

Refer Technical Note 82 for Section and Material Properties.

2
 37 
ws =   × + 1.93= + 1.30kN / m
 45 
 5.w.l 4 
δ w = k 2 . 
 384.EI x 

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 56 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

 5× + 1.30 × 4923 4 
δ w = 1.0. 9 
 384 × 283 × 10 
∴ δ w = 35.3mm or Span 140

Strength

Check capacity for positive wind pressures

w.l 2 +1.93 × 4.92


M* = =
8 8
*
∴ M = 5.79kNm

Consider shear and support reaction for wind load

w.l +1.93 × 4.9


V* = =
2 2
* *
∴ N = V = 4.73kN

Calculate Bending Moment Capacity

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k8 × 48 × 271 × 103


∴ ØM n = 11.7.k8kNm

Continuous restraint to compression edge via pierce fixed sheeting, therefore k8=1.0

ØM = 11.7 kNm > M *

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 57 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa
AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 190 × 45 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 5700mm 2
3

∴VS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 5700


∴VS = 27.2kN > V *

Consider negative wind pressures.



w.l 2
* 1.84 × 4.9 2
M = =
8 8
*
∴ M = −5.5kNm

Calculate bending moment capacity

From previous:

ØM n = 11.7.k8 kNm

Calculate k8

Continuous lateral restraint is provided to the tension edge via pierce fixed sheeting.

Calculate S1

d
S1 = 3. Eq. 3.6 NZS 3603
b
190
S! = 3 × = 12.67
45

Since 25>S1>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 12.67 + − 0.0116 × 12.67 2 + × 12.673
5000
∴ k8 = 0.97

∴ ØM = 11.7 × 0.97
ØM = 11.3kNm > M *

4.2 Connection design

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 58 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Connection of hyCHORD girts is easiest performed using proprietary brackets and screws or nails. The proposed
bracket is manufactured by Mitek. It is important to ensure that the depth of proprietary brackets is at least 60%
of the depth for beams up to 50 mm thick. Propose JH47x190 to suit 190x45 hyCHORD. It is typical to apply a
practical minimum number of nails for bracket and beam stability, for members around 190 mm deep we
recommend a minimum of 10/Ø3.15x35 FH nails ie. 5/Ø3.15 nails per tab.

Check Capacity

Joint Group J5 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.1, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.2, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 k1 = 1.0 Qk = 0.631kN


NZS 3603
n = 10

k=1.25 since nails are through steel side plates < 3.0 mm thickness.
Other ‘k’ modifaction factors are not relevant as timber is dry, nails are in single shear and are nailed into the
edge or face of the timber.

ØQn = 0.8 × 10 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.631


∴ Qn = 6.3kN > N *

Also confirm Characteristic Strength Capacity of Bracket.

ØQ = 18.0kN > N * Mitek Literature

The 190x45 hyCHORD girt to span 4.9 m at maximum 1660 mm spacing is adequate to support the
design load.

Proposed Girt Layout

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 59 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

5.0 Mullion design, side wall

The mullion is best calculated as a vertical member supporting a series of point loads that share a common spacing, which
is typical of mullions. Standard beam formulae have been adapted to best provide accurate but easy to calculate
equations. Refer Appendix 1 for beam equations, where n is the number of girts.

Consider side wall mullion


Mullion Span 6.4 m

Girt Spacing 1660 mm

Propose 300x63 hySPAN for use as side wall mullion.

5.1 Wind loading

Girts provide lateral restraint to the compression edge for positive pressures and to the tension edge for negative
wind pressures. Girt reactions have been recalculated excluding the local pressure factors as the mullion does not
directly support the cladding.

θ = 0˚, Lateral wind

Girt loading (positive pressure) P*= +8.61 kN

θ = 90˚, Longitudinal wind

Girt loading (negative pressure) P*= -7.35 kN

Serviceability

Apply maximum wind pressure for serviceability


2
 37 
Ps =   × + 8.61= + 5.82kN
 45 
n=4
Appendix 1
P.L3  1 4 
δw = k 2 . .n.3 − 1 + 2 
192.EI  2  n 

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 60 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

5820 × 6400 3  1 4 
δ w = 1 .0 x 6
× 4 × 3 − 1 + 2 
192 × 13200 × 142 x10  2  4 
∴ δ w = 30.3mm or Span 211

Strength

Calculate bending moment and shear

Positive wind pressures

+
* P.l 8.61 × 6.4
M = n. = 4×
8 8
*
∴ M = 27.55kNm

Negative wind pressures


P.l 7.35 × 6.4
M * = n. = 4×
8 8
* −
∴ M = 23.5kNm

Consider shear and support reaction for wind load

+
P 8.61
V * = (n − 1).
= 4×
2 2
* * +
∴ N = V = 17.2kN

Calculate Bending Moment Capacity

Positive Pressure.

Calculate k8

Compression edge restrained by girts at 1660 mm spacing.

0.5
L  2
 
0.5
ay .  d 
S1 = 1.35  − 1  Eq. 3.5 NZS 3603
 b   b   

0.5
1660  300 2  0.5 
 
S1 = 1.35  − 1 
 63   63   

∴ S1 = 14.95

Since 25>S1>10

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 61 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3.S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 14.95+ − 0.0116 × 14.952 + × 14.953
5000
∴ k8 = 0.90

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 1 = 1 .0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k8 × 48 × 945 × 103


∴ ØM n = 40.82.k8kNm

Since k8=0.90

ØM = 36.74kNm > M *

Negative Pressure.

Calculate k8

Tension edge restrained by girts at 1660 mm spacing.

Consider Stability equation for Discrete Restraint to Tension Edge from AS 1720.1.

0.5
 Lay 
1.35
d   
S1 =   Eq. 3.2(5) AS 1720.1-2008
b  d 
1.35 0.5
 300   1660 
S1 =    
 63   300 
∴ S1 = 19.34

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3
1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 19.34+ − 0.0116 × 19.34 2 + × 19.34 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.70

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 62 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 1 = 1 .0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k8 × 48 × 945 × 103


∴ ØM n = 40.82.k8kNm

Since k8=0.70

ØM = 28.6kNm > M *

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa
AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 300 × 63 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 12600mm 2
3

∴VS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 12600


∴VS = 60.1kN > V *

5.2 Connection design

Two different connections are required for the mullion. Connection to the ground is proposed using
Mitek CF2x brackets whilst the connection to the eaves beam can be performed using two Mitek N21
Diagonal Cleats. The design capacities expressed in the Mitek literature are based on fully nailing out
the holes. We can calculate a reduced number of fasteners for ease of installation whilst maintaining
the structural integrity. It is recommended that the reduced number of fasteners are evenly distributed
across the tab/bracket area.

Propose use of proprietary Ø3.15x35 FH nails for connection to mullion.

Joint Group J5 Table 3, Technical Note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.1, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.2, NZS 3603

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 63 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 k1 = 1.0 Qk = 0.631kN


NZS 3603
n=?

k=1.25 since nails are through steel side plates < 3.0 mm thickness.
Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, nails are in single shear and are nailed into the
edge or face of the timber.

ØQn = 0.8 × n × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.631


ØQn = n × 0.631kN
17.22
∴n = = 27.25
0.631

Say 15/Ø3.15x35 FH nails per tab, per bracket. Stagger nails.

Also check Characteristic Strength Capacity of Bracket.

One pair of Mitek N21 Diagonal Cleats.

ØQ = 40.0kN > N * Mitek Literature

One pair of CF2x brackets with 2/M12 Chemical anchors.


Load in shear only.

ØQ = 48.0kN > N * Mitek Literature

Proposed Mullion Connection

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 64 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 65 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

6.0 Eaves beam design

Eaves Beam Span 10,000-(90+(2x41)) = 9828 mm


Mullion location Mid-span (critical)

Propose 400x63 hySPAN for use as eaves beam

6.1 Wind loading

Positive pressure

P*= +17.22 kN, w*=+0.97kN/m

Negative pressure

P*= -14.7 kN, w*=-0.69 kN/m

Serviceability

Positive wind pressure critical for serviceability


2
 37 
Ps* =   ×+ 17.22= + 11.64kN
 45 
2
 37 
w =   ×+ 0.97 = + 0.66kN / m
*
s
 45 
 5×+ 0.66 × 98284 +11640 × 98283 
δw = 1.0. 9
+ 
 384 × 4435 × 10 48 × 4435 ×109 
∴ δw = 70.0mm or Span 140

Strength

Check capacity for positive wind pressures

w.l 2 P.L + 0.97 × 9.8 2 17.22 × 9.8


M* = + = +
8 4 8 4
*
∴ M = 53.8kNm

Consider shear and support reaction for wind load


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 66 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

w.l P + 0.97 × 9.8 17.22


V* = + = +
2 2 2 2
* *
∴ N = V = 13.4kN

Calculate Bending Moment Capacity

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

For solid sections with member depths greater than 300 mm, apply k11 size factor. For further
information refer AS1720.1 (Clause 2.4.6) or Technical Note 82.

Therefore ØM n = Ø.k1.k4 .k5 .k8 .k11. f b .Z

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 1 = 1 .0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa
0.167
 300 
k11 =  
 d 
0.167
Cl. 2.4.6 AS1720.1
 300 
∴ k11 =   = 0.95
 400 

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k 8 × 0.95 × 48 × 1680 × 10 3


∴ ØM n = 68.9.k 8 kNm

Continuous restraint to compression edge via pierce fixed sheeting, therefore k8=1.0

ØM = 68.94kNm > M *

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa
AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 400 × 63 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 16800mm 2
3
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 67 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴VS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 16800


∴VS = 80.1kN > V *

Consider negative wind pressures.

w.l 2 P.L − 0.69 × 9.8 2 − 14.7 × 9.8


M* = + = +
8 4 8 4
* −
∴ M = 44.3kNm

Calculate bending moment capacity

From previous:

ØM n = 68.94.k8kNm

Calculate k8

Continuous lateral restraint is provided to the tension edge via pierce fixed sheeting.

Calculate S1

d
S1 = 3. Eq. 3.6 NZS 3603
b

400
S! = 3 × = 19.04
63

Since 25>S1>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 19.04+ − 0.0116 × 19.042 + × 19.043
5000
∴ k8 = 0.72

∴ ØM = 68.94 × 0.72
ØM = 49.6kNm > M *

6.2 Connection design

Connection of the eaves beam to the column needs to provide both torsional restraint as well as
adequate fastening for the horizontal wind loads. It is proposed to use a combination of a pair of Mitek
MS1430 split joist hanger together with a Mitek N21 Diagonal Cleat.

Calculate load taken by split joist hangers using 6/ 14g type 17 Hex Head screws per member
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 68 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Joint Group J4 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.5, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.6, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 * k1 = 1.0 Qk = 3.303kN NZS 3603

k=1.25 since nails are through steel side plates < 3.0 mm thickness.
Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry and screws are in single shear.
*Ø=0.8 is applied as Type 17 screws are as reliable as nails in service.

ØQn = 0.8 × 6 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 3.303


∴ ØQn = 18.2kN

Consider use of Diagonal Cleat to provide stability and additional support

Joint Group J5 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.1, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.2, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 k1 = 1.0 Qk = 0.631kN


NZS 3603
n = 10

k=1.25 since nails are through steel side plates < 3.0 mm thickness.
Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, nails are in single shear and are nailed into the
edge or face of the timber.

ØQn = 0.8 × 10 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.631


∴ Qn = 6.3kN

Consider design Reaction, N* = 13.8 kN

ØQT = 18.2 + 6.3


∴ QT = 24.5kN > N *

Proposed Connection

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 69 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Also confirm Characteristic Strength Capacity of Bracket.

N21 Diagonal Cleat, one only


ØQ = 20.0kN Mitek Literature

Pair of MS1430 Split Joist Hangers


ØQ = 29.6kN Mitek Literature

Total capacity of brackets

ØQ = 20.0 + 29.6 = 49.6kN > N *

7.0 Girt Design, end wall

Girt Span 6000 mm


Girt Spacing 1660 mm

Propose 240x45 hySPAN for use as end wall girt

7.1 Wind loading

The capacity of solid timber girts is also dependant on the nature of lateral tortional buckling restraint and the
critical edge to which the loading and restraint is provided. It is therefore important to consider both positive and
negative wind pressures.

θ = 0˚, Lateral wind

qu=0.84 kPa Case 1 cp,e= -0.65, cp,i= +0.61, kL= 1.5, over 6.0 m
Case 2 cp,e= -0.65, cp,i= +0.61, kL= 2.0, over 3.0 m

θ = 90˚, Longitudinal wind

qu=0.76 kPa Case 1 cp,e= +0.7, cp,i= -0.65, kL= 1.25, over 3.0 m

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 70 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Calculate design loading

Case 2 is critical by inspection

w*i = qu .spacing .(ka .kl .c pe − c pi )


w1* = 0.84 × 1.66 × (2.0×− 0.65 − + 0.61)
∴ w1* = −2.66kN / m
w2* = 0.84 × 1.66 × (1.0×− 0.65 − + 0.61)
∴ w2* = −1.76kN / m

Calculate weff
Calculate Reactions

R* = − 2.66 × 1.5+ − 1.76 × 1.5


∴ R* = − 6.63kN

Calculate Moment


2.66 × 1.5 2 −
*
M Wu = − 6.63 × 3.0 − − 1.76 × 1.5 × 2.25
2
*
∴ M Wu = − 10.96kNm

Calculate weff


* 10.96 × 8
w eff =
6 .0 2
*
∴ weff = − 2.44kN / m

Calculate critical reaction and shear

Calculate Reactions

1 − 3 .0 2 − 
R* =  2 . 66 × + 1.76 × 3.0 × 4.5
6 .0  2 
∴ R* = − 7.31kN

Serviceability

Refer Technical Note 82 for Section and Material Properties.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 71 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

2
 37 
ws =   ×− 2.44= − 1.62kN / m
 45 
 5.w.l 4 
δw = k2. 
 384.EI x 
 5×− 1.62 × 6000 4 
δw = 1.0. 9 
 384 × 684 × 10 
∴ δw = 40.0mm or Span 150

Strength

Calculate Bending Moment Capacity

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 1 = 1 .0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k 8 × 48 × 432 × 10 3


∴ ØM n = 18.7.k 8 kNm

Calculate k8

Since negative pressures produce a higher moment than positive pressure for this case and continuous restraint
is offered, the tension edge restraint will produce a less stable option, hence we only need to consider capacity for
negative pressure in this case.

Continuous lateral restraint is provided to the tension edge via pierce fixed sheeting.

Calculate S1

d
S1 = 3. Eq. 3.6 NZS 3603
b

240
S1 = 3 × = 16.0
45

Since 25>S1>10

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 72 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 16.0+ − 0.0116 × 16.02 + × 16.03
5000
∴ k8 = 0.86

∴ ØM = 18.67 × 0.86
ØM = 16.1kNm > M *

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa
AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 240 × 45 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 7200mm 2
3

∴ VS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 7200


∴ VS = 34.34kN > V *

7.2 Connection design

Propose JH 47x190 to suit 240x45 hySPAN so that the same bracket can be used for both side and end walls (Depth
of bracket is 79.2 % of girt depth so suitable).

Consider 12/Ø3.15x35 FH nails.

Joint Group J5 Table 3, Technical note 82

S * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.1, NZS 3603


Qn = n.k .Qk Eq. 4.2, NZS 3603

ØQn = Ø.n.k .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.8 k1 = 1.0 Qk = 0.631kN


NZS 3603
n = 12

k=1.25 since nails are through steel side plates < 3.0 mm thickness.
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 73 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Other ‘k’ modification factors are not relevant as timber is dry, nails are in single shear and are nailed into the
edge or face of the timber.

ØQn = 0.8 × 12 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.631


∴ Qn = 7.6kN > N *

Also confirm Characteristic Strength Capacity of Bracket.

ØQ = 27.0kN > N * Mitek Literature

The 240x45 hySPAN girt to span 6.3 m at maximum 1660 mm spacing is adequate to support the
design load.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 74 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

8.0 Mullion design, end wall

Wind posts may be designed for buildings where smaller frames are used in the end walls. Wind posts would be required
to resist axial loads from the frames as well as horizontal wind loads. A reduced frame was not used in this example as its
analysis is similar to other portal frame components where special attention is paid to the bending moment diagram and
restraint offered by purlins. Additional end wall bracing may also be required to limit the sway achieved by the reduced
section frame.

End wall mullions are typically symmetrical about the ridge line to allow for repetition of detail and order lengths.
Depending on spans and quantities individual calculations of mullion sizes may have cost benefits. In this case given
there are only four mullions per end wall we will design the mullion that has the maximum span.

End wall mullions can be detailed to fix to the inside or outside of the end wall frame. Connection to the outside of the
frame is less complicated because the purlins do not create clashes with proposed mullion locations.

Consider end wall mullion

Mullion Span 8.2 m

Girt Spacing 1660 mm

Propose 400x63 hySPAN for use as end wall mullion.

8.1 Wind loading

Girts provide lateral restraint to the compression edge for positive pressures and to the tension edge for negative
wind pressures. Girt loads have been recalculated excluding local pressure factors.

θ = 0˚, Lateral wind

Girt loading (negative pressure) P*= -10.56 kN

θ = 90˚, Longitudinal wind

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 75 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Girt loading (positive pressure) P*= +10.20 kN

Serviceability

Apply maximum wind pressure for serviceability

2
 37 
Ps =   × + 10.56= − 7.14kN
 45 
n=5
P.L3  1  1  1 
δw = k 2 . .n − .3 − 1 − 2  Appendix 1
192.EI  n   2  n 
7140 × 8200 3  1  1  1 
δ w = 1 .0 x 6
× 5 −  × 3 − 1 − 2 
192 × 13200 × 336 x10  5   2  5 
∴ δ w = 55.9mm or Span 147

Strength

Calculate bending moment and shear

Positive wind pressures

+
P.l 10.20 × 8.2
M = (n − 1).
*
= (5 − 1)×
2 2

8.n 8×5
* +
∴ M = 50.2kNm

Negative wind pressures


P.l 10.56 × 8.2
M * = (n 2 − 1).
= (5 2 − 1)×
8.n 8×5
* −
∴ M = 52.0kNm

Consider shear and support reaction for wind load


P 10.56
V * = (n − 1).
= (6 − 1) ×
2 2
* *
∴ N = V = 26.4kN

Calculate Bending Moment Capacity

Positive Pressure.

Calculate k8

Compression edge restrained by girts at 1660 mm spacing.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 76 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

0.5
L  2
 
0.5
ay .  d 
S1 = 1.35  − 1  Eq. 3.5 NZS 3603
 b   b   

0.5
1660  400 2  0.5 
 
S1 = 1.35  − 1 
 63   63   

∴ S1 = 17.35

Since 25>S1>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 17.35+ − 0.0116 × 17.352 + × 17.353
5000
∴ k8 = 0.80

M * ≤ ØM n Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


M n = k1.k 4 .k5 .k8 . f b .Z Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k 1 = 1 .0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 48MPa

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k 8 × 48 × 1680 × 10 3


∴ ØM n = 72.6.k 8 kNm

Since k8=0.80

ØM = 58.1kNm > M *

Negative Pressure.

Calculate k8

Tension edge restrained by girts at 1660 mm spacing.

Consider Stability equation for Discrete Restraint to Tension Edge from AS 1720.1.

0.5
 Lay 
1.35
d   
S1 =   Eq. 3.2(5) AS 1720.1
b  d 
1.35 0.5
 400   1660 
S1 =    
 63   400 
∴ S1 = 24.69
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 77 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a 3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3
1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 24.69+ − 0.0116 × 24.69 2 + × 24.69 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.47

From previous:

ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k8 × 48 × 1680 × 103


∴ ØM n = 72.58.k8kNm

Since k8=0.47

ØM = 34.11kNm < M * Not sufficient

The effect of beam slenderness have reduced the capacity of this section such that it is not suitable to support the
required load. In this type of situation it is an opportunity to select a thicker, lower strength and cost section such
as 400x90 hy90 to replace the 400x63 hySPAN. Whilst hy90 has a lower Characteristic Bending Strength the
additional thickness means that a 63mm hySPAN and 90mm hy90 compare favourably with each other as a direct
strength and stiffness comparison (refer Appendix 2). The fact that the hy90 section in question has a lower depth
to breadth ratio means it is more stable, and hence may be suitable for the end wall mullion.

Try 400x90 hy90 as end wall mullion:

1.35 0.5
 400   1660 
S1 =    
 90   400 
∴ S1 = 15.26

Since 25>S1>10

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 15.26+ − 0.0116 × 15.262 + × 15.263
5000
∴ k8 = 0.89

For hy90:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f b = 35MPa

So:

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 78 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

400 2 × 90
ØM n = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × k8 × 35 ×
6
∴ ØM n = 75.60.k8 kNm

Since k8=0.89

ØM = 67.3kNm > M *

Calculate Shear Capacity

V * ≤ ØVn Eq. 3.3 NZS 3603


Vn = k1.k4 .k5 . f s . AS Eq. 3.4 NZS 3603

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa

Consider reduced section at notch for shear capacity, notch to match 240 deep girt.

AS = 2.b.d / 3
2 × 240 × 90 Cl 3.2.3.1 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 14400mm 2
3

∴VS = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 14400


∴VS = 68.7kN > V *

Consider notching of mullion top.

The mullion notch to accommodate the rafter needs to be checked. The notch will only fracture due to an opening
moment which would be caused by a positive wind pressure. Since the rafter acts as a support for the mullion the
moment at the notch is zero, however the shear force needs to be considered as per equation 3.7, NZS 3603.

M* = 0 kNm, V* = N* = 26.4 kN

M*
V * + 1 .2 ≤ 1.5Ø.k1.k4 .k5 .k7 . f s . Asn Eq. 3.7, NZS 3603
dn

where:

Ø = 0 .9 k1 = 1.0
Technical Note 82
k 4 = k 5 = 1 .0 f s = 5.3MPa

It is best practice to always make the notch slope as long as possible to limit the stress concentration at the notch
location.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 79 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Since:

a = (400 − 240) = 160mm


bn = 4 × 160 = 640mm
a ≥ 0.1.d
2 .2
k7 = 0.25 Table 3.1 NZS 3603
d
2 .2
∴ k7 = = 0.49
4000.25
Asn = 2.b.d n / 3
2 × 240 × 90 Cl 3.2.6 NZS 3603
∴ AS = = 14400mm 2
3
26.4kN ≤ 50.5kN

8.2 Connection design

Connection to the ground is proposed using Mitek CF2x brackets, similar to the side wall mullion. The
connection to the rafter requires tension capable fixings. One system using proprietary brackets
involves the use of three Mitek concealed purlin cleats (CP80) together with one suitable length
cyclone tie.

Consider system capacity

CT1200 Cyclone Tie, wrapped around mullion with 5 nails per end.

ØQ = 13.0kN * Mitek Literatue

3/ Concealed purlin cleats (CP80), fixed with 8/Ø3.15x30 FH nails and 4/14gx35 type 17 screws per
bracket

ØQ = 1.5 × 16.0 = 24.0kN Mitek Literatue


*
∴ ØQ = 13.0 + 24.0 = 37.0kN > N Mitek Literatue

Proposed Connection

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 80 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 81 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

9.0 Longitudinal Bracing

Portal Frame action takes care of the lateral loads however Longitudinal Bracing is required to transfer the
longitudinal forces to the ground. For spans up to 20m strap bracing is a cheap and easy way to achieve the
required longitudinal bracing requirements. For spans above 20m the installation time required for strap bracing
can outweigh any advantages of the low costs of materials. Traditional threaded rod may be used for bracing or
timber braces can be developed.

Timber (LVL) braces can be used for loading in tension and compression and can be suitably fixed to purlins and
girts to reduce buckling lengths. Both Mitek and Pryda have proprietary brackets suitable for connection to timber
frames.

Matching bracing points with mullion/wind post loads is theoretically the best option but is nearly always
impractical for larger structures. Essentially the braced bays will act as a truss transferring the loads through the
purlins between braced bays. This can be easily modelled using structural analysis packages.

θ = 90˚, Longitudinal wind

qu=0.76 kPa cp,e (Windward) = +0.7, cp,e (Leeward)= -0.3

Calculate design loading

Calculate end wall force

1  heave + hridge  b
Area = . .
2 2 2
1  6.789 + 8.764  30
Area = . .
2 2  2
Area = 58.3m 2 / side
_ wall = q u . A.(c p ,e (W ) − c p ,e ( L ) )
*
Pend
* + −
Pend _ wall = 0.76 × 58.3 ×( 0.7 − 0.3)
*
∴ Pend _ wall = 44.3kN

Consider friction due to sheeting profile

d 60.0
= = 7 .7
h 7.79
Cl 5.5 AS/NZS 1170.2:2002
d 60.0
= = 2 .0
b 30.0

Since both building ratios exceed 4 the friction force acting on the building needs to be resisted.

Calculate Friction Force

Calculate Load Area for friction

Area = (b + 2h)(d − 4h) AS/NZS 1170.2 Eqn. 5.5(a)


Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 82 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

(30.0 + 2 × 7.8)(60 − 4 × 7.8


Area = )
2
∴ Area = 656.6m 2 / side

For large buildings the area may be broken up into its roof and wall contribution to take advantage of the lower
loads to be resisted however for this example the loads do not reach levels where any significant advantage may
be gained.

c f = 0.04 - Ribs across the wind direction AS/NZS 1170.2 Table 5.9
*
P friction = qu . A friction .c f
*
Pfriction = 0.76 × 656.6 × 0.04
*
∴ Pfriction = 20.0kN

Total load to be resisted by bracing per side

*
PTotal = Pend* _ wall + Pfriction
*

*
PTotal = 44.3 + 20.0
*
∴ PTotal = 64.3kN

For long buildings it is good practice to have a bracing bay each end of the building rather than relying on the
building to transfer all bracing loads from one end to the other, for this example we propose two braced bays.

Therefore the horizontal load to be transferred in each braced bay is 32.15 kN.

Consider Roof Bracing Layout (Wall Bracing similar except tension only)

Calculate force in roof brace

32.15
Rbrace = = 40.3kN
Cos37.1

Calculate force in wall brace

32.15
Rbrace = = 38.2kN
Cos32.6
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 83 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Design for critical load, 40.3 kN

Propose 2/90x45 hyCHORD braces, separated with 7mm plywood strips to form a spaced column.

Calculate Buckling capacity

N ncx = k1.k8 . f c . A NZS3603 Eq. 3.18

∴ ØN ncx = Ø.k1.k8 . f c . A

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f c = 45MPa A = 2 × 90 × 35 = 6300mm Technical Note 82

ØN ncx = 0.9 × k1 × .k8 × 45 × 6300

∴ ØN ncx = 255.2 × k1 .k8 .kN

Minor axis critical for buckling by inspection

Minor axis buckling YY

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis YY

Purlin _ spacing
Lay =
Sinα
1600
∴ Lay = = 2652mm
Sin37.1

This component is considered to be a spaced column. Clause E4 of AS1720.1 details stability equations for spaced
columns. This procedure can be used to determine the slenderness coefficient for this member.

A
S 5 = 0.3g13 .g 28 .L. Eq. E4(5) AS1720.1
I
where:

g13=1.0 Table 3.2 AS1720.1


g28=1.0 Table E5 AS1720.1

A=2x90x35=6300 mm2
90
(
I yy = 77 3 − 7 3 × )12
∴ I yy = 3.421 × 10 3 mm 4

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 84 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

6300
∴ S 5 = 0.3 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 2652 ×
3.421 × 10 3
∴ S 5 = 34.15

Since S5>25

k 8 = a5 .S a6
k 8 = 235.5 × 34.15 −1.937 Eq. 3.18 NZS3603
∴ k 8 = 0.25

Since k1 = 1.0

∴ ØN ncx = 64.37 kN > N c*

Consider connection, propose proprietary Mitek B145 bracket system

Consider 2/M16 Bolts

For three member system

be = 2 × 35 = 70mm Table 4.9 NZS3603


Qskl = 2.Qkl Table 4.9 NZS3603

Since load is parallel to the grain

Qkl = min(k11 . f cj .d a2 ,0.5 × be . f cj .d a ) Cl 4.4.2(a)(i) NZS3603

Apply joint group J3 for bolts parallel to the grain Technical Note 82

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 85 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

∴ Qkl = min(2.0 × 45.2 × 16.0 2 ,0.5 × 70 × 45.2 × 16.0)


∴ Qkl = min(23.14,25.31)
∴ Qkl = 23.14kN

Calculate Bolt system capacity

N * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.16 NZS3603


Qn = n.k1 .k12 .k13 .Qsk Eq. 4.17 NZS3603
ØQn = Ø.n.k1 .k12 .k13 .Qk

where:

Ø = 0.7 n = 2 Qsk = 2 × 23.14 = 46.28kN


k1 = 1.0 k12 = 1.0 k13 = 1.0

Therefore:

ØQn = 0.7 × 2 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 46.28


∴ ØQn = 64.8kN > N *

Consider bracket bolts in tension

N * ≤ ØQn Eq. 4.18 NZS3603


Qn = f pj . Aw Eq. 4.19 NZS3603
ØQn = Ø.n. f pj . Aw

where:

Ø = 0 .7 n = 2 f pj = 14.5MPa
Aw = 65 × 65 − π × 18 2 NZS 3603
∴ Aw = 3206.7 mm 2

Therefore:

ØQn = 0.7 × 2 × 14.5 × 3206.7


∴ ØQn = 65.1kN > N *

Check colt capacity for fin plate connection to cleat.

Propose M16 G8.8 bolt, including threads ØV = 59.3 kN > N*

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 86 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Consider Wall Bracing Connection

9.1 Purlins subject to axial loads

Purlins in end bays may be subjected to tension and compression forces from braced bays. These
forces need to be considered in the design capacity. The load to be transferred through the purlin
system in both tension and compression is relative to the force in the brace. This force can be
calculated as a designer would for a steel building.

Critical Design Actions

Critical load case - 0.9G+Wu (from section 2)

M* = -28.8 kNm N c* = N t* = 9.64 kN ØM = 29.4 kNm

Consider column action of purlins subject to axial force due to bracing loads.

Major axis buckling XX

N ncx = k1.k8 . f c . A Eq. 3.18 NZS3603

∴ ØN ncx = Ø.k1.k8 . f c . A

Take only the flange area into account. Remember to include for the penetration of the web into the flange.
Technical Note 82 includes guidance on the calculation of hyJOIST section properties.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 87 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f c = 45MPa
 t.(hr − hw ) 
A = 2. B.h f − 
 2 
 9 × (318 − 288)  2
A = 2. 90 × 36 −  = 6210mm
 2 
6
EA = 13200 × 6210 = 81.97 × 10 N

ØN ncx = 0.9 × k1 × .k8 × 45 × 6210

∴ ØN ncx = 251.50.k1.k8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the major axis

L=Lax=9910 mm (Purlin length)

0.5
 0.823(EA) 
S3 =   Eq. D2 NZS3603
 PE 

(
 0.823 81.97 × 106 
S3 = 
) 0.5

PE 
 
0.5
 67.46 × 106 
∴ S3 =  
 PE 

Calculate Euler buckling load.

π 2 (EI )y
PE =
L2E
π 2 × 2338 × 109
PE =
9910 2
∴ PE = 235150 N

Calculate S3

0.5
 67.46 × 106 
∴ S3 =   = 16.93
 235150 

Since 25>S1>10a

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 88 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

k8 = a1 + a2 .S + a3.S 2 + a4 .S 3
1
k8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 16.93+ − 0.0116 × 16.932 + × 16.933
5000
∴ k8 = 0.82

Since k1 = 1.0

∴ ØN ncx = 205.8kN > N c*

Minor axis buckling YY

From previous:

∴ ØN ncx = 251.5.k1 .k 8 .kN

Calculate k8 for buckling about the minor axis YY

Lay=3303 mm (lateral restraint spacing)

Calculate Euler buckling load. Design assumes that top edge of purlin is continuously restrained by
roof sheeting and bottom flange is effectively restrained by lateral restraint.

2
   2 
(EI )y  π   d + yo2  + GJ
 Lay   4 
PE = Eq. D3 NZS3603
y o ( y o + 2. y e ) +
(EI )× + (EI )y
(EA) (EA)
2
 π   360 
2
57.7 × 109 ×    + 180 2  + 1848 × 106
 2478   4 
PE = 9
2338 × 10 57.7 × 109
180(180 + 2 × 0 ) + +
(
81.97 × 106 ) (
81.97 × 106 )
∴ PE = 127582 N

Calculate S3

0.5
 67.46 × 106 
∴ S3 =   = 22.99
 127582 

Since 25>S1>10

k 8 = a1 + a 2 .S + a3 .S 2 + a 4 .S 3
1
k 8 = 0.21 + 0.175 × 22.99+ − 0.0116 × 22.99 2 + × 22.99 3
5000
∴ k 8 = 0.53
Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008
Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 89 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Since k1 = 1.0

∴ ØN ncy = 133.3kN > N c*

Combined actions

 28.8   9.6 
 +  = 1.02 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.23 NZS3603
 29.4   205.8 
2
 28.8   9.6 
  +  = 1.03 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.24 NZS3603
 29.4   133.3 

Note that the combined actions are 3 % over, however both axial and bending moment capacities are based on the
flange area of the hyJOIST, although listed at 36 mm the hyJOIST flanges have a minimum thickness of 38 mm,
therefore increasing the capacity by 3 %.

Consider tension strength

N t* ≤ Ø.N nt Eq. 3.20 NZS 3603


N nt = k1.k4 . f t . A Eq. 3.21 NZS 3603

∴ ØN nt = Ø.k1.k4 . f t . A

Since the section depth of the individual components is less then 150, size effect factor k11 can be ignored.

where:

Ø = 0 .9 f t = 33MPa k4 = 1.0 Technical Note 82

k1 = 1.0

ØN nt = 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 33 × 6210

∴ ØN nt = 184.44kN

Combined actions

 28.8   9.6 
 +  = 1.03 ≤ 1.0 Eq. 3.25 NZS 3603
 29.4   184.4 

Note that the combined actions are 3 % over, however both axial and bending moment capacities are based on the
flange area of the hyJOIST, although listed at 36 mm the hyJOIST flanges have a minimum thickness of 38 mm,
therefore increasing the capacity by 3 %.

The HJ360 90 hyJOIST are suitable for the imposed combined actions from longitudinal winds wind
loads and bracing.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 90 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

10.0 References

1. CHH Woodproducts New Zealand, Technical Note 82-07-04, Limit States Design Information for
Specific Engineering Design for New Zealand Construction.
2. CHH Woodproducts New Zealand, Engineering Bulletin No. 2 –Rigid Moment Connections
using CHH veneer based products.
3. Batchelor, M.L. (1984), Improved Plywood Gussets for Timber Portal Frames, Proceedings of
the Pacific Timber Engineering Conference, Auckland 1984, Paper No. 185B.
4. Hutchings B.F (1989), Moment Joist Design, Design, Construct and Detailing in Timber
Conference, 15-17 May, 1992, Timber Development Association (NSW) Ltd.
5. Hutchings B.F and Bier H (2000), Timber Engineering Design Made More Accessible,
www.chhwoodproducts.co.nz/engineerszone
6. Milner H.R (1987), The Design and Construction of Timber Portal Frames, Chisolm Institute of
Technology
7. Milner H.P and Crozier D.A (2000), Structural Design of Timber Portal Frame Buildings,
Engineers Australia Pty Ltd.
8. National Association of Forest Industries, Timber Datafile SS1, Timber Portal Frames, National
Association of Forest Industries
9. Standards Australia, AS 1720.1-1997 Timber Structures, Part 1: Design methods
10. Standards New Zealand, NZS 3603:1993 Timber structures standard

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 91 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Appendix 1 - Mullion deflection, bending and shear equations

The following design action equations have been provided from commonly available equations for a series of
evenly spaced point loads as idealised for a mullion in service.

Due to the nature of loading of mullions ‘n’ in the equations is the number of girts supported by the mullion. It
is assumed that the loads applied by girts at each location are equal.

Where n is odd:

P.L3  1  1  1 
∂= n − n .3 − 2 1 − n 2 
192.EI    

M max =
2
(
n − 1 .P.L )
8.n
n. P
R* =
2

Where n is even:

P.L3  1 4 
∂= .n.3 − 1 + 2 
192.EI  2  n 
P.L
M max = n.
8
n.P
R* =
2

Note: The reaction equation differs slightly from the conventional reaction equation for a series of point loads
supported by a simply supported beam. This is to take into account the fact that a girt is located at the base
of the mullion.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008


Project: 30 metre Span LVL Portal Frame Design Date: Sept. ‘08
For: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts NZ Page: 92 / 92
At: Industrial Park, Auckland, New Zealand Designed : C.R

Appendix 2 – 90mm thick hy90 compared with 63mm thick hySPAN

The following serviceability and strength (bending moment) comparisons between a 63 mm hySPAN section
and a 90mm thick hy90 have been provided to illustrate the relative similarities between the sections. The
Characteristic Properties have been taken from “Limit States Design Information” Technical Note 82-07-04.

Serviceability Strength
B.D 3
B.D 2
EI = E. ØM = Ø.k1−8 . f b
12 6
90.D 3 90.D 2
EI hy 90 = 9500. = 71250.D 3 ØM hy 90 = Ø.k1−8 .35. = 525.D 2
12 6
63.D 3 63.D 2
EI hySPAN = 13200. = 69300.D 3 ØM hySPAN = Ø.k1−8 .48. = 504.D 2
12 6
∴ EI hy 90 > EI hySPAN ∴ ØM hy 90 > ØM hySPAN

As can be seen above, in both serviceability and strength limit states, an equivalent depth 90mm thick hy90
exhibits structural properties exceeding those of a 63mm hySPAN. Please note that these comparisons do not
take into account the effects of lateral stability.

Carter Holt Harvey Limited September 2008