Multistorey Timber

Buildings Seismic
Design Guide

M. P. NEWCOMBE
University of Canterbury

First Edition
2008
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
2. LATERAL FORCE DESIGN FOR LIGHT TIMBER FRAME ......................... 2
2.1 Displacement-Based Design ............................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Force-Based Design ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Comparison of DBD and FBD Lateral Forces and Displacements ................................................ 10
3. DESIGN OF A PLYWOOD SHEAR WALL....................................................... 11
3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design........................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Design for Strength............................................................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Wall Deflection..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design................................................................................................... 23
4. DESIGN OF SOLID TIMBER FRAMES AND WALLS ................................... 24
4.1 Description of design example ....................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Frame Design ................................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State Design ................................................................................................. 26
4.2.2 Serviceability Limit State Design ......................................................................................... 40
4.3 Wall Design.................................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design ................................................................................................. 47
4.3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design ......................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 61
1. INTRODUCTION

This guide provides examples for the seismic design of common forms of timber
multistorey buildings.
The target audience for this document ranges from graduate engineers to experienced
engineers that infrequently design in timber.
In section 2, simple procedures are given for determining the design lateral loads for a
regular light timber frame multistorey building. The design example considers both a
‘force-based’ and a ‘displacement-based’ design philosophy which is generally
applicable to all types of regular structure.
In section 3, a plywood shear wall is designed. Firstly, the wall is first designed for
strength under the ultimate limit state loads. Then the wall displacements are checked for
both ultimate and serviceability limit state conditions.
In section 4, a hypothetical solid timber frame and wall are designed. The frames are
designed for strength under the ultimate limit state loads. The displacements are checked
for serviceability limit state conditions using a simplified method. Three moment
resisting connection arrangements are considered for the frame; a steel gusset, an epoxied
rod connection and a post-tensioned connection. The walls are designed using the same
philosophy as the frames. Two moment resisting connections are considered; an epoxied
rod connection and a post-tensioned connection.

1
2. LATERAL FORCE DESIGN FOR LIGHT TIMBER FRAME

The displacement-based and force-based design of a simple light timber frame building is
presented in this section.
For the state of the art displacement-based design procedure for light timber frame refer
to Filiatrault et al [2002] and Pang and Rosowsky [2007]. For further information of the
force-based design procedure refer to Buchanan et al [2008] and the Multistorey Timer
Buildings Manual [2001].
Note, for the lateral force design of solid timber frames using post-tensioning refer to
Priestley et al [2007], Pampanin et al [2006] and Newcombe, [2008a; 2008b].

2.1 Displacement-Based Design

A five storey light timber frame building with plywood sheathed shear walls is designed
to have a plastic hinge on the bottom floor. The elastic deformation of the 2nd to 5th floors
may be ignored (generally not the case). The resulting displacement profile is given in
Fig.1. The same seismic weight of 245kN may be assumed for each floor, including the
roof. The interstorey height is 3.2m.
The building must be designed according the NZS1170.5 displacement spectra for 1/500
year return period earthquake (Soil C, Wellington City). The design displacement
spectrum is given in Fig. 2. Under this seismic intensity the maximum allowable lateral
displacement is 40mm per floor.
The general hysteretic shape for a plywood sheathed shear walls is given in Fig. 3a with
the associated area-based equivalent viscous damping in Fig. 3b.
Determine the design base shear and lateral forces to be applied to the structure.

Fig. 1 – Displaced shape of 5-storey building and SDOF idealization

2
 0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Sd (m)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T

Fig. 2 –Design Displacement Spectrum

2 20
Area-based Hysteretic Damping (%)

1.5

1 15
N ormalized Force

0.5

0 10

-0.5

-1 5

-1.5

-2 0
-0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

b)
a)

Fig. 2 – a) Hysteretic behavior of plywood sheathed shear wall b) The area-based

damping associated with the hysteresis

3
Step 1: The design displacement Δd, the effective mass me and effective height He must
be determined:

The peak design displacement for the SDOF representation:

( ) ∑ (m Δ )
n n
Δ d = ∑ mi Δ i
2
i i
i =1 i =1
The effective mass:
n
me = ∑ (mi Δ i ) Δ d
i =1
The effective height:
n n
H e = ∑ (mi Δ i H i ) ∑ (m Δ ) i i
i =1 i =1
Using a spreadsheet:

Storey, i Height, Hi Weight, wi Mass, mi Δi mi*Δi mi*Δi2 mi*Δi*Hi

(m) (KN) (tonnes) (m)
5 16 245 25.0 0.04 1.00 0.040 15.98
4 12.8 245 25.0 0.04 1.00 0.040 12.79
3 9.6 245 25.0 0.04 1.00 0.040 9.59
2 6.4 245 25.0 0.04 1.00 0.040 6.39
1 3.2 245 25.0 0.04 1.00 0.040 3.20
Sum 4.99 0.20 47.95

Therefore:

( ) ∑ (m Δ ) = 04..20
n n
Δ d = ∑ mi Δ i = 0.040m
2
i i
i =1 i =1 99

n
me = ∑ (mi Δ i ) Δ d =
4.99
= 125tonne (= the total mass is effective in this mechanism)
i =1 0.040

n n
H e = ∑ (mi Δ i H i ) ∑ (m Δ ) =
47.95
i i = 9.6m (60% of the total height)
i =1 i =1 4.99

Step 2: Calculate the equivalent viscous damping:

ξ eq = ξ el + ξ hyst

The elastic damping can be assumed to be 2%: ξel = 2.0%. The hysteretic damping can be
obtained from Fig. 2. At a design displacement of 0.04m, the hysteretic damping
ξhyst=10.0%.

4
Therefore, the equivalent viscous damping is:

ξ eq = ξ el + ξ hyst = 2.0 + 10.0 = 12.0%

Step 3: Determine the effective period from the reduced design displacement spectrum

The scale factor to be applied to the design displacement spectrum (with 5% damping) is:

0. 5
⎛ 7 ⎞ ⎛ 7 ⎞
0 .5

Req = ⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ = 0.707
⎜2+ξ ⎟ ⎝ 2 + 12 ⎠
⎝ eq ⎠

The scaled displacement spectrum becomes:

S d (ξ eq ) = Req S d (5% )

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Sd (m)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1 Sd(5%)
0.05 Req*Sd(5%)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)
Sd (m)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1

The effective period is obtained from the scaled displacement spectrum: Te = 0.55s.

5
Step 4: Obtain the equivalent lateral stiffness

4π 2 me 125
Ke = 2
= 4π 2 = 16313.4kN / m
Te 0.55 2
Note; this is a secant elastic stiffness to the peak displacement response.

Step 5: Determine the base shear

Vb = K e Δ d = 16313.4 × 0.04 = 652.5kN

Step 6: Distribute the base shear up the structure

If it is assumed that there is essentially a sinusoidal response at the peak displacement the
base shear should be distributed in proportion to mass and displacement:

n
Fi = Vb (mi Δ i ) ∑ (m Δ ) i i
i =1

Note; force-based design uses height instead of displacement which indirectly implies
that the displacement profile is linear.

To account for higher modes of vibration 10% of the base shear is added to the roof and
the remaining 90% distributed:

n
Fi = Ft + 0.9Vb (mi Δ i ) ∑ (m Δ ) i i
i =1
Where: Ft = 0.1Vb when i = n (at the roof)
= 0 when i ≠ n (all floors excluding the roof)

Again, using a spreadsheet:

Storey, i Floor Force

(KN)
5 182.84
4 117.54
3 117.54
2 117.54
1 117.54
Sum (Vb) 653.00

6
2.2 Force-Based Design

Determine the lateral design forces for the same building described in Part 1 using a
force-based design philosophy. It is commonly assumed, as in this example, that the
structural ductility for walls is μ = 4.

Step 1: Estimate the notional period:

According to the Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual (2001) the natural period can be
estimated from the following formula:

N
T1 =
20
Where: N= the number of storeys.

5
T1 = = 0.25
20

This supplies the maximum elastic seismic coefficient C(T), as shown below:

1.4

1.2
Acceleration Spectrum: C

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T

Step 2: Obtain the horizontal force coefficient

From the design acceleration spectrum, shown above, the elastic seismic coefficient is:

C (T1 ) = 1.172

This is then educed by the kμ factor and the Sp factor (NZS1170.5).

7
 C (T1 )S p
C d (T1 ) =
kμ

For soil class C and a period of less than 0.7s equal energy assumption is applied:

(μ − 1)T1
kμ = +1
0 .7
Note, the minimum natural period in that above equation is 0.4s, hence:

kμ =
(4 − 1)0.4 + 1 = 2.714
0.7

For ductilities greater than 2:

S p = 0.7

Therefore:

1.172 × 0.7
C d (T1 ) = = 0.302
2.714

Step 3: Determine the design base shear

Vb = C d (T1 )Wtot = 0.302 × 245 × 5 = 370.0kN

Step 4: Distribute the base-shear up the structure

The forces are distributed in an inverse triangular pattern in which the lateral forces are
proportional to the floor mass and height. As in Part 1, 10% of the base shear is added to
the roof and the remaining 90% is distributed amongst the other floors to account for
higher modes.

n
Fi = Ft + 0.9Vb (mi H i ) ∑ (mi H i )
i =1
Where: Ft = 0.1Vb when i = n (at the roof)
= 0 when i ≠ n (all floors excluding the roof)

8
Again, using a spreadsheet:

Floor
Storey, i mi*Ηi Force
(KN)
5 399.6 148
4 319.7 88.8
3 239.8 66.6
2 159.8 44.4
1 79.9 22.2
Sum (Vb) 1198.8 370.0

Step 5: Check the inelastic displacements

Under a force-based design the elastic displacements resulting from the design lateral
forces are determined and multiplied by the ductility. Under NZS1170.5, this is done
whether an equal energy or equal displacement rule is applied.

A theoretical inelastic displacement can be obtained by assuming an elastic-plastic

response, as shown below, where Py = Vb:

Therefore:
Vb
Δy =
K elastic
Where:
4π 2 mtot 4π 2 5 × 25
K elastic ≈ 2
= = 30843kN / m
T1 0.4 2

So:
370.0
Δy ≈ = 0.0120m
30843

It follows that the inelastic displacement is approximated as:

Δ u ≈ Δ y μ = 0.0120 × 4 = 0.048m

9
2.3 Comparison of DBD and FBD Lateral Forces and Displacements

Storey, i Floor Force

(KN)
DBD FBD
5 182.84 148
4 117.54 88.8
3 117.54 66.6
2 117.54 44.4
1 117.54 22.2
Sum (Vb) 653.0 370.0

• The base shear for DBD is higher than FBD by 76%.

• The lateral loads are distributed to the floors in the same way for FBD, regardless
of the deformation mechanism.
• The inelastic displacements are much lower than those expected under a force-
based design.

Note, it is shown in the next example (plywood shear wall design) that the elastic
deformation of a plywood shear wall can be much more significant than the inelastic
deformation. Hence, it is unrealistic to assume a ductility of 4 (as is often done). This is
part of the reason why the lateral forces for FBD and DBD vary so much.

10
3. DESIGN OF A PLYWOOD SHEAR WALL

Perform an ultimate limit state and serviceability design of a plywood sheathed shear
wall subject to lateral loading. It may be assumed that earthquake governs the lateral load
design.
The wall chords and studs have been designed based on the gravity load design.
The plywood wall is part of a building with a 50 year design working life and an
importance level (under NZS1170.0) of 2. Therefore, the ultimate limit state design
earthquake has an annual probability of exceedence 1/500 years and the serviceability
limit state design has an annual probability of exceedence of 1/25 years. To determine the
ultimate limit state lateral loads a force-based design was performed. This assumed
ductility of 4 and natural period of 0.3s.

3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

Conduct a detailed design of a plywood wall. The preliminary loads are given in Fig. 1a.
The wall (illustrated in Fig. 1b) is 6.5 long, 6 storeys high with an interstorey height of
2.615m. Steel square hollow sections are used for the chords.

LEVEL Fi
(kN)
7 16.1
6 27.9
5 29.4
4 29.1
3 28.8
2 28.1
Sum Vb=159.4

Fig. 1 – a) ULS loads applied to plywood wall b) Details of the plywood wall

11
3.1.1 Design for Strength

Step 1: Determine the design actions:

The interstorey shear:

n
V *i = ∑ Fk
k =i

The interstorey moment:

n
M *i = ∑ Fk ( H k − H i )
k =i

The chord force:

M *i
N *i =
LW

CHORD
SHEAR MOMENT FORCE
LEVEL Fi Hi V*i M*i N*i
(kN) (m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m)
7 16.1 15.69 16.1 0.0 0.0
6 27.9 13.075 44.0 42.1 6.5
5 29.4 10.46 73.4 157.2 24.2
4 29.1 7.845 102.5 349.1 53.7
3 28.8 5.23 131.3 617.1 94.9
2 28.1 2.615 159.4 960.5 147.8
1 0 0 159.4 1377.3 211.9

Step 2 Design nail capacity

φQn = φnkQk
Where: Qk = 0.695kN = Characteristic strength of nail in single shear in dry timber
(Table 27.5, TDG 2007)
n = Number of nails
k = 1.4×1.3 = 1.82. Timber-timber connections in plywood, 1.4 and large number
of fasteners(>50), 1.3 (p.g. 307, TDG 2007).

∴φQn = 0.8 × 1.0 × 1.4 × 1.3 × 0.695 = 1.01kN for 3.33mm diameter nails.

12
Step 3 Determine nail spacing and consequent overstrength factor

The shear flow:

V *i
q *i =
Lw

Required nails:

B
V *i ≤ φ Qn
s
Divide by B:
φQn φQ
q* ≤ Therefore; s ≤ *n
s q
The overstrength factor (usually taken as 2.0 for nails):

s RQRD 1.6 s RQRD 1.6 s RQRD

φ0 = = = 2 .0
s PRVD φ s PRVD 0.8 s PRVD
Where: s RQRD = the required nail spacing (mm)
s PRVD = the provided nail spacing (mm)

SHEAR

φ0
FLOW REQUIRED PROVIDED
LEVEL q*i SPACING SPACING
(kN.m) (mm) (mm)
7 2.48 408 150 5.44
6 6.77 149 150 1.99
5 11.29 89 75 2.39
4 15.77 64 50 2.56
3 20.20 50 50 2.00
2 24.52 41 40 2.06

Step 4 Determine overstrength design actions

Elastic

Inelastic

Shear Mechanism
Fig. 2 – Shear mechanism of plywood wall

13
The overstrength shear forces:

Vos = φ 01V *i
Where: φ 01 = 2.06 = Overstrength factor of the floor
subject to inelastic deformation.

CHORD
SHEAR MOMENT FORCE
LEVEL Vosi Mosi Nosi
(kN) (kN.m) (kN)
7 33.2 0.0 0.0
6 90.6 86.7 13.3
5 151.2 323.8 49.8
4 211.2 719.2 110.6
3 270.5 1271.3 195.6
2 328.4 1978.6 304.4
1 328.4 2837.3 436.5

Step 5 Shear capacity of Plywood in Walls

The shear capacity of the wall is provide by the plywood sheeting.

V p * ≤ φVni (NZS3603, clause 6.5.1.4)

Where:
2
φVni = k1 k 8 k14 k15 k18 f ps td
3

And:
k1 = Load duration factor (1.0)
k8 = Stability factor (NZS3603, Appendix H, Eq. H3):
Determine slenderness ratio:
AL
S 3 = 0.126C 7 w
IwIL
Where: C7 = 1.0 (usually for plywood walls)
Usually, k8 = 1.0 for typical plywood walls but dwangs must placed frequently to ensure
plywood panel stability. For simplicity we will assume k8 = 1.0.
k14 = Moisture content factor = 1.0
k15 = Face grain orientation factor = 1.0
k18 = Framing support factor = 1.0 (supported on 2 or more sides)
fps = 4.7MPa (characteristic shear strength of plywood panel)
t = thickness of panel
d = depth of panel considered (Lw = 6.5m in total).
φ = 1.0 (overstrength design)

14
Therefore;
2
φVni = f ps td
3

Calculate the capacities for different thickness of ply:

PLY
THICKNESS φVni
(mm) (kN)
12 244
15 306
17 342
19 394
21 428
25 501

Allocate the required plywood thickness to each storey:

SHEAR PLY
LEVEL Vosi THICKNESS φVni
(kN) (mm) (kN)
7 33.2 12 244
6 90.6 12 244
5 151.2 12 244
4 211.2 12 244
3 270.5 15 306
2 328.4 17 342
1 328.4 17 342

Step 5 Check the capacity of the chords and design the tie downs under combined axial
and gravity loads:

The capacity design seismic induced chord forces (Nos) must be combined with the
gravity induced axial force (NG+0.4Q). Since the gravity loadings are not provided, it is
assumed that gravity load case governs (N1.2G+1.5Q). Therefore, for this example, the steel
chords specified in Fig. 1b are assumed to be sufficient.

The chord to foundation connection, shown in Fig. 3, must also be designed for
overstrength tension uplift forces. The gravity load induced compression can be
conservatively ignored for the design of this connection:

15
 Fig. 3 – Chord to foundation connection detail

N os ≤ φN n
N os ≤ φAs f y
N os
∴ As ≥
φf y

Therefore, assuming grade 500 steel;

436.5 × 1000
As ≥ = 970mm 2 ⇒ 4× Diameter 20mm grade 500 bars (1256mm2)
0.9 × 500

Step 6 Design the connection between the chords and the timber studs and the shear
connection between the base of the wall and the foundation:

The plywood sheeting is attached to timber studs which are then attached to the chords as
shown in Fig. 4a. Connections must exist to transfer the panel shear to the chords. The
mechanism of shear transfer is illustrated in Fig. 4b.

The design shear for the connections on level 1 is:

Vos = 133kN

Use M16 bolts. The capacity of one bolt is:

φQn = φk1 k12 k 3Qk = 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 18.5kN = 18.5kN

Hence;

133
∴ = 7.2bolts ⇒ Use M16 bolts @ 300 centres (8 bolts per floor)
18.5

16
 a)

b)
Fig. 4 – Panel-chord connection a) Details of connection b) Forces on the ground
floor

The plywood sheeting is also attached to a base plate which is connected to the
foundation, as shown in Fig. 5. This must be designed to resist the overstrength base
shear.

Fig. 5 – Base connection

17
The design shear for the connections on the base is:

Vos = 328kN

Use M16 bolts. Hence;

328
∴ = 17.7bolts ⇒ Use M16 bolts @ 350 centres (19 bolts)
18.5

3.1.2 Wall Deflection

The total deflection of the wall is made up of 4 components. Note, the displacements are
given at each level. For example the displacement at Level 2 is due to the deformation
from Level 1 to 2.

Panel Shear:

V *H
Δs =
GBt
Where: B = Wall length = Lw = 6.5m
H = Wall height = 2.615m per floor
G = Shear modulus = 525 MPa

Cumulative
SHEAR PLY
LEVEL V*i THICKNESS Δs Δs
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm)
7 16.1 12 1.03 28.96
6 44.0 12 2.81 27.94
5 73.4 12 4.69 25.13
4 102.5 12 6.55 20.44
3 131.3 15 6.71 13.89
2 159.4 17 7.19 7.19
1 159.4 17 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 28.96

Nail Slip:

Δ n = 2(1 + α )men
Where: m = Number of panels = 1 (per storey)
α = Wall aspect ratio = 2.615/1.2 = 2.18
em = Nail slip

18
 Nail slip (assume NZS3603 equation):
k (0.8)Q 2
em ≈ δ = 37 2
Qn
Where: k37 = Nail load duration factor = 1.0 (for EQ)
Q = applied load on nail (kN)

The load applied to each nail divided by the capacity of the nail is related to the
overstrength factor:

Qn
Q=
φ0

Hence:
2
Q2 ⎛ 1 ⎞
= ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟⎟
⎝φ
2
Qn ⎠

Cumulative
0 2
LEVEL (1/φ ) em Δn Δn
(mm) (mm) (mm)
7 0.03 0.03 0.17 8.47
6 0.25 0.20 1.29 8.30
5 0.18 0.14 0.89 7.01
4 0.15 0.12 0.78 6.12
3 0.25 0.20 1.27 5.34
2 *0.80 0.64 4.07 4.07
1 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 8.47
*There is no overstrength factor for the bottom floor since it is not capacity protected,
only a strength reduction factor: φ = 0.8.

Overturning:

Δ r = (δ t + δ c )
H
B

Where: δ c = compressive deformation of chord as the base of the wall

δ t = tensile deformation of chord as the base of the wall

The compressive deformation; δ c is expected to be negligible since the chords are steel
square hollow sections that extend up the entire height of the structure.
The tensile elongation at the base δ t is created by the deformation of steel tie rods.

19
Hence, this will also depend on the detailing on the hold down connection.

The length over which strain can occur in the bar is plate thickness plus some strain
penetration into the concrete. If we assume the thickness of the end plate (tp) is 20mm,
the tensile displacement can be approximated as follows:

N *1 t p 212 × 20 × 1000
δ t ≈ Δ plate + Δ concrete = + 0.022d b f y ε y = + 0.022 × 20 × 500 × 0.0025
E s As 200000 × 1256
= 0.017 + 0.550
= 0.57mm

Notes: 1. Conservatively, the gravity load induced compression in the chord is ignored.
2. The chord deformation is sometimes approximated as 0.3C for the compressive
chord and 0.2T for the tensile chord (Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual)
where C and T is in kN. This can be overly conservative for some structural
details, such as the one given above.

Since overturning is a rigid body deformation the displacement at each floor is directly
related to the height of that floor:
H
∴ Δ r ,i = (0.57 + 0 ) i
6 .5

Cumulative
LEVEL Hi Δr
(m) (mm)
7 15.69 1.38
6 13.075 1.15
5 10.46 0.92
4 7.845 0.69
3 5.23 0.46
2 2.615 0.23
1 0 0.00

Flexure:

The flexural deformation is determined from the bending moment applied to the wall.
The bending moment diagram from the wall is given below:

20
 7

LEVEL 4

1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Bending Moment (kN.m)

The flexure deformation should now be determined by moment area theorem. However,
it can be conservatively assumed that the bending moment is triangular, with zero
moment at level 7 and the base moment, Mb, at level 1 (1377kN.m). The total deflection
will be:

2
M H
Δ f ≈ b total
3EI

Where: EI = is the flexural stiffness of the chord members (ignore plywood contribution)

The flexural stiffness of the chords changes up the height of the structure. The most
deformation will occur in the first three floors where the moment is highest. Therefore,
the chord section size for the bottom 3 floors (125SH56) will be used for the flexural
stiffness.

For the second moment of area use parallel axis theorem:

I x = I x1 + Ad 2 + I x 2 + Ad 2
= (8.3 × 10 6 + 3900 × 3250 2 ) + (8.3 × 10 6 + 3900 × 3250 2 )
= 82.4 × 10 9 mm 4

And;
EI = 200000 × 82.4 × 10 9 = 16.5 × 1015 Nmm 2 = 16.5 × 10 6 kNm 2

Therefore;
M b × H total
2
M s ,i × ( H total − H i ) 2
Δ f ,i ≈ −
3 × EI 3 × EI

Where: M s ,i = the moment at every floor assuming a triangular distribution of moment.

21
 Cumulative
MOMENT
LEVEL Hi M*i Δf
(m) (kN.m) (mm)
7 15.69 0.0 6.85
6 13.075 229.5 6.82
5 10.46 459.0 6.59
4 7.845 688.5 5.99
3 5.23 918.0 4.82
2 2.615 1147.5 2.89
1 0 1377.0 0.00

Total Deformation:

The total deformation of the wall is simply the sum of all the components.
Δ = Δs + Δn + Δr + Δ f

The interstorey drift is:

Δ + Δi
θ = i +1 × 100 (%)
H

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Interstorey

LEVEL Hi Δs Δn Δr Δf Δ Drift, θ
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%)
7 15.69 28.96 8.47 1.38 6.85 45.66
6 13.075 27.94 8.30 1.15 6.82 44.20 0.06
5 10.46 25.13 7.01 0.92 6.59 39.65 0.17
4 7.845 20.44 6.12 0.69 5.99 33.24 0.25
3 5.23 13.89 5.34 0.46 4.82 24.51 0.33
2 2.615 7.19 4.07 0.23 2.89 14.37 0.39
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55

The maximum allowable displacement or interstorey drift is defined by either material

strain limits or code based drift limit states. For a plywood wall significant loss of
strength can occur after 40mm of displacement per floor. Hence, a drift limit would be:

40
θ lim it = × 100 = 1.53%
2615

Under NZS1170.5 the maximum allowable interstorey drift is θ lim it = 2.5%

Therefore, the wall does not exceed the ultimate limit state displacement limits (0.55% <
1.53% < 2.5%). OK!!!

22
3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

Step 1 Determine the serviceability limit state loads

The serviceability limit state loads must be obtained. For a force-based design this will
simply be a scaled version of the ultimate limit state loads. Under NZS1170.5, kμ = 1.0,
Sp = 1.0 and the return period factor for a 1/25 year event is 0.25.

Therefore, the lateral design forces are scaled by:

( 4 − 1) × 0.4
k μ ,U S p , S R s +1
0 .7 0.7 0.25
= = 0.678
k μ , S S p ,U Ru 1 0 .7 1
Note: The minimum period of 0.4s is used in the above equation not 0.3s.

Hence, the lateral loads for the serviceability design are:

LEVEL Fi
(kN)
7 10.9158
6 18.9162
5 19.9332
4 19.7298
3 19.5264
2 19.0518
Sum Vb=108.1

Step 2 Calculate total wall deflection for the service loads

The same procedure used in Part 1 can be repeated to determine the lateral deflections.

Step 3 Check the deflection limitations

Under NZS1170.0 deflection limitations are prescribed for serviceability conditions.

Also, the Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual suggests that interstorey deflection
should be limited to:

H 2615
= = 8.8mm
300 300

Or in terms of drift: θ s = 0.33%

Hence, since the forces have not reduced significantly but the drift limitation is much
more stringent it is likely that the service condition will govern the design.

23
4. DESIGN OF SOLID TIMBER FRAMES AND WALLS

Solid timber construction refers to moment resisting frames or walls that use large timber
sections for lateral load resistance. These sections can be constructed using cross-
laminated timber, Glulam or Laminated Veneer Lumber.

4.1 Description of design example

Perform an ultimate limit state and serviceability design for the first floor of a solid
timber frame and a solid timber wall, shown in Fig. 6a and 6b. The preliminary sizes of
the frame and wall are also given in Fig. 6. The frame is constructed using laminated
veneer lumber (HySpan from CHH) and the wall is constructed from Glulam (GL12).
The ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state design forces have been
predetermined using a force-based design for the earthquake load combination
(G+ψcQ+E).
For the frame 3 types of moment resisting connections will be considered; a steel gusset
plate connection, an epoxied steel rod connection and a post-tensioned connection. For
the solid wall both an epoxied connection and a post-tensioned connection will be
considered.

24
Fig. 6 – Frame and wall geometry

25
4.2 Frame Design

4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

The design moments for the frame are given below:

Note; the floor slabs run parallel to the frames hence the frame resists lateral loads only.

Design 1: Steel gusset plate connection

For the design of a ductile gusset plate connection a hierarchy of strength must be chosen.
The ductility of the frame system can be derived from the yielding of the fasteners
(screws or nails) or the yielding of a steel gusset plate. Obviously, the latter will not be

26
possible with a plywood gusset.
For this example we will consider yielding of the fasteners.

Step 1: Design Screws

The design strength per screw is:

φF = φkk1Qk
Where: k = kp×k50 = 1.5×1.3 = 1.95 (>3mm steel plate and >50 nails expected)
k1= 1.0 (short term load)
Qk = 0.854kN (basic screw strength: TDG, 2007, Table 27.5)
φ= 0.8 for nails and screws

∴ φF = 0.8 × 1.95 × 1.0 × 0.854 = 1.33kN

Now the minimum spacing, c, between each row of nails (according to NZS 3603) is 5
nail diameters (5Da):

5Da = 5 × 3.45 = 17mm Say c = 20mm

The worst-case nail pattern is considered with the smallest r and q; this is the nail pattern
within the beam. With the nail pattern given above (q = 350mm and r = 270mm) and c =
20mm we can fit a maximum of 7 rows of screws (n = 7).
Since there is no angle of inclination for the beam (θ = 0) and r/q <1.5 we can use the
following formula to determine the pitch of the nails:

p ≤ 3.6φFnrq / M *

p ≤ 3.6 × 1.33 × 7 × 270 × 350 /(150 × 10 3 ) = 21.1mm

Therefore, use a nail pitch of 20mm (p = 20mm).

Hence, there will be 7 rows of 3.45mm diameter screws spaced at 20mm vertically and
horizontally:

27
The moment capacity of the fasteners is:
φM n = 3.6φFnrq / p = 3.6 × 1.32 × 7 × 270 × 350 / 20 / 10 3 = 157kN .m
M * ≤ φM n
150 ≤ 157 ⇒ O.K !

For the nail pattern within the column, the moment demand will obviously be:
M *col = 2M * = 300kN .m

But the width of the nail pattern will also double (r = 2×0.27 = 0.52m). Therefore, if the
same number of rows, nail spacing and pitch is used in the column in nail pattern shown
above the moment capacity will be sufficient.

Step 2: Design gusset plate

The gusset plate must be capacity protected from the overstrength actions of the screws:

The overstrength factor:

1.6 157
φ0 = = 2.1
φ screws 150

The trial thickness of the steel gusset is 16mm. Therefore, the total plate thickness is:
16×2=32mm. The flexural strength of the plates must be checked:

32 × 500 2
φM n = φf y Z = 1.0 × 300 × / 10 6 = 400kN .m (φ = 1.0 for overstrength design)
6

φ 0 M * ≤ φM n
314 ≤ 400 ⇒ O.K !

Step 3: Check the section capacity of the beam and column

The section sizes were defined in the preliminary design to minimize deflection. The
section strength must be checked:

For the beam:

Flexure:
φM n = φkf b Z

Where: k = k24= 0.92 (for a 500 deep section in flexure with for short term loads)
fb = 48MPa (the bending strength of HySpan LVL)

28
 bh 2 250 × 500 2
Z= = = 10.42 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6

∴ φM n = 1.0 × 0.92 × 48 × 10.42 = 500kN .m

φ 0 M * ≤ φM n
314 ≤ 460 ⇒ O.K !

Shear:
M* 150
V* =
(Lbay − hc )/ 2 (6.5 − 0.6) / 2 = 50.8kN
=

φVn = φkf s As
Where: k = 1.0 for short term loads
fs = 5.3MPa (the shear strength of HySpan LVL)

2 2
As = bh = × 250 × 500 = 83.3 × 10 3 mm 2
3 3

∴ φVn = 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 83.3 = 441kN

φ 0V * ≤ φVn
2.1 × 50.8 ≤ 500
107 ≤ 500 ⇒ O.K !

For the column:

The column capacity is higher than the beam but due to higher modes of dynamic
response it is possible that the column will be subject to higher forces.
It is tentatively recommended that the dynamic amplification factor for the design of
reinforced concrete frames (NZS3101) is used herein:

ω = 1.3 (At the second floor)

The design moment at the centerline of the column is:

Lbay 6.5
M *cl = M* = 150 = 165kN
Lbay − hc 6.5 − 0.6
Note; it is conservative to use the design moment at the column centerline. The design
moment at the beam soffit may also be used.

And:
250 × 600 2
2
bh
Z= c c = = 15.00 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6

29
 k = k24= 0.89 (for a 600 deep section in flexure with for short term loads)

∴ φM n = 1.0 × 0.89 × 48 × 15.00 = 720kN .m

ωφ 0 M *cl ≤ φM n
1.3 × 2.1 × 165 ≤ 641
450 ≤ 641 ⇒ O.K !

Shear:

M * 165
V* = = = 110kN (The point of contra flexure is at the half height of the column)
H 2 1.5

It is tentatively recommended that the shear force dynamic amplification factor for the
design of reinforced concrete frames is used herein:

ω v = 1.3

And:
2 2
As = bh = × 250 × 600 = 100.0 × 10 3 mm 2
3 3

∴ φVn = 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 100 = 530kN

ω vφ 0V * ≤ φVn
1.3 × 2.1 × 110 ≤ 530
300 ≤ 530 ⇒ O.K !

30
Design 2: Epoxied rod connection

Again a hierarchy of strength must be chosen. The ductility of the frame system is
derived from the yielding epoxied steel rods.

Step 1: Determine the flexural capacity based on the yielding of the epoxied rods

Since there is effectively no axial load in the beam we can assume the neutral axis is
located in the center of the beam. In addition, since both layers of bars are located at the
edges of the beam we can assume that the nominal moment is obtained when both bars
yield.
Hence;

φM n = φAs f y (x1 + x 2 )

Where: As = the area of steel per layer

fy = 300MPa
x1 = 400mm
x2 = 300mm

M * ≤ φAs f y ( x1 + x 2 )
M*
∴ As ≥
φf y ( x1 + x 2 )

Therefore:
150 × 10 6
As ≥ = 794mm 2
0.9 × 300 × (400 + 300 )

Use 3×20mm diameter threaded rods per layer (As = 942mm2).

31
So,
φM n = φAs f y (x1 + x 2 ) = 0.9 × 942 × 300 × (400 + 300 ) / 10 6 = 178kN .m

M * ≤ φM n
150 < 178 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design the epoxied rod connections to ensure yielding of the bar occurs

The epoxied connections must be design to resist the overstrength actions of the steel
rods yielding in axial tension:

1.25
φ 0 rod = = 1.39
φ steel

An epoxy bonded steel connection must satisfy:

φ 0 N * ≤ φQn

There are three possible mechanisms of failure for epoxied connections; the yielding of
the rods, wood fracture or pull-out. The bars must yield to ensure a ductile design; this
must be the design axial force for the other modes of failure.

For steel yielding:

N * = (φQn ) steel = φ steel As ,total f y = 0.9 × 2 × 942 × 300 / 10 3 = 509kN

For wood fracture:

(φQn ) wood = φ conn k1 Aw f t

Where: Aw = area of wood prone to tensile failure = 100×250 = 25000mm2

f t = 33MPa (tensile strength of HySpan LVL)

∴ (φQn ) wood = 1.0 × 1.0 × 25000 × 33 / 10 3

= 825kN

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn
1.39 × 509 ≤ 825
708 ≤ 825 ⇒ O.K !

For bar pull-out:

(φQn ) pullout = φ conn k1 nk g Qk

Where: kg = group factor = 0.9 for 4 bars

32
 n = number of steel bars
Qk = characteristic strength of bond failure
Qk = 6.73k b k e k m (l / d ) 0.86 (d / 20)1.62 (h / d ) 0.5 (e / d ) 0.5

Where:

Try using the minimum embedment length of 20d; l = 400mm and hole diameter of h =
22mm:

∴ Qk = 6.73 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × (400 / 20) 0.86 (20 / 20)1.62 (22 / 20) 0.5 (50 / 20) 0.5 = 147 kN

Therefore:
(φQn ) pullout = 1.0 × 1.0 × 6 × 0.9 × 147 = 794kN

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn
708 ≤ 794 ⇒ O.K !
Therefore, the failure mechanism will be ductile yielding of the bars.

Transverse reinforcement:
Transverse reinforcement (shown below) may be required (especially for Glulam) to
prevent possible shrinkage cracking and cracking due moisture variation.

The transverse bars should be positioned approximately 50mm from the end of the beam
and should be approximately 1/25th of the area of the longitudinal reinforcement.

2 × 942
∴ Ast ≈ = 75mm 2
25

33
Therefore, 1-10mm diameter bar will be used for transverse reinforcement.
The final details of the connection are given below:

Note; 1.At the end of an expoxied rod connection high stresses are applied to the timber,
by staggering the bar ends a plane of weakness is avoided.
2. A small length of bar (≈hb/20=25mm) should be debonded at the connection
interface to prevent excessive strain in the epoxied bars. However, it is likely that
the epoxy is deformable enough to prevent bar rupture.

Step 3: Design for shear

The beam shear force can be taken by either shear keys/corbels or by dowel action of the
epoxied rods.
If the shear resistance is provided by the epoxied rods in dowel action the capacity should
be check according to Park and Paulay, [1975]. Note; there will be an axial tension-shear
interaction for the epoxied bars. Since in this design the bars are yielding in tension and
compression it is not possible for the bars to take any additional shear. Hence, a shear key
must be used. Dowel action can only be relied upon when the epoxied bars are not
yielding.

The overstrength factor is:

178
φ 0 = 1.39 = 1.65
150

V * = 50.8kN (From Design 1)

φ 0V * = 1.65 × 50.8 = 83.8kN
The design of the shear key is not included in this design example.

Step 4: Check the section capacity of the beam and column

This procedure will be similar to Design 1. Since the overstrength factor in this design is
lower than Design 1 the capacity of the beam and column will be sufficient.

34
Design 3: Post-tensioned connection

The behavior of a post-tensioned connection is termed ‘non-linear – elastic’. Hence, there

is no yielding of steel reinforcement and therefore no mechanical energy dissipation (or
hysteretic damping).
It is still essential to maintain a hierarchy of strength. The post-tensioning should be
designed to resist the applied moment then the beam and column sections should be
capacity protected again possible overstrength of the connection.
The initial tendon force in the 9-0.5’ strands is 70% of their yield force. Each strand has a
cross-sectional area of 99mm2.

Step 1: Determine connection flexural capacity

1: Impose a connection rotation

The code drift limitation for structural elements is 2.5%. For a post-tensioned timber
frame the ratio of the connection rotation to the total rotation of the frame is roughly 0.5.
For the purposes of this example we can assume:

θ LIMIT 2.5
θ imp = = = 1.25% = 0.0125
2 2

2: Guess neutral axis

The connection design procedure is iterative. An initial guess of the neutral axis depth is:
h 500
c= = = 250 mm
2 2

3: Apply member compatibility

The elongation of the tendon:

⎛h ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ − c ⎟ = 0.0125 × (250 − 250 ) = 0mm
⎝2 ⎠

35
Therefore, there is no additional strain in the tendon due to opening of a gap at the
connection and hence:

nΔ pt 4×0
ε pt = = =0
l ub 13600

Where: n = the number of connections

lub = the unbonded length of the tendon

Note: the stress in the tendon should be checked at the design rotation. The stress in the
tendon should be less than 90% of the yield stress. Obviously this will not be a problem
for this design since there is no additional stress due to gap opening and the initial tendon
stress is only 70% of yield.

ε pt ,i + ε pt ≤ 0.9ε y

The strain in the timber:

The monolithic beam analogy is applied assuming the timber remains elastic:
⎛ θ imp ⎞
ε t = ⎜⎜ 3 + φ dec ⎟⎟c
⎝ Lcant ⎠
Where: φdec = the decompression curvature
Lcant = the shear span = (Lbay – hc)/2 = (6500 – 600)/2 = 2950mm

The decompression curvature is usually so small it can be ignored for the calculation of
the timber strain at high levels of connection rotation. However, the calculation is shown
below:
2T pt ,i
φ dec =
E con bh 2

Where: T pt ,i = 0.7 f y A pt = 0.7 × 1560 × 9 × 99 / 10 3 = 973kN

E con = 0.55Et = 0.55 × 14000 = 7700MPa

Note; the connection elastic modulus is for a beam-column connection with steel
armouring.

2 × 973 × 10 3 1
∴ φ dec = = 4.0 × 10 −6
7700 × 250 × 500 2
mm

Therefore:
⎛ 0.0125 ⎞
ε t = ⎜3 + 4.0 × 10 −6 ⎟250 = 0.00418
⎝ 2950 ⎠
Check that the timber is not yielding. Note, that since there is steel armoring in the

36
connection the parallel to grain yield stress should be considered (0.55Et = 0.55×14000 =
7700MPa):

fc 45
εy = = = 0.00584 > 0.00418 ⇒ O.K ! (Not yielding)
E con 7700

4: Calculate the compressive force in the timber

Since the timber is elastic we can assume a linear distribution of the stress within the
compression region of the timber, hence:

C t = 0.5ε t E con ci b = 0.5 × 0.00418 × 7700 × 250 × 250 / 10 3 = 1006kN

5: Check connection equilibrium

By equilibrium:
Ct = T pt

Check that Ct is approximately equal to Tpt.

Where: T pt = T pt ,i + ΔT pt = 0.7 f y A pt + ε pt E pt A pt = 973 + 0 = 973kN

So:
∴1006 ≈ 973 ⇒ OK ! (Within 5%)
But try to improve the accuracy!

6: Update neutral axis and iterate

You can update the neutral axis by rearranging the equilibrium equation:
T pt 973
ci +1 = = = 242mm
0.5ε t E con b 4.024

Repeating steps 1-5:

Say: c = 245mm
⎛h ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ − c ⎟ = 0.0125 × (250 − 245) = 0.0625mm
⎝2 ⎠
nΔ pt 4 × 0.0625
ε pt = = = 18.4 × 10 −6
lub 13600
⎛ θ imp ⎞ ⎛ 0.0125 ⎞
ε t = ⎜⎜ 3 + φ dec ⎟⎟c = ⎜ 3 + 4.0 × 10 −6 ⎟245 = 0.00409 (<0.0058)
⎝ Lcant ⎠ ⎝ 2950 ⎠
C t = 0.5ε t E con ci b = 0.5 × 0.00409 × 7700 × 245 × 250 / 10 3 = 964kN
T pt = T pt ,i + ΔT pt = 0.7 f y A pt + ε pt E pt A pt = 973 + 18.4 × 10 −6 × 200000 × 8 × 99 / 1000 = 976 kN

37
Finally:
C t ≈ T pt (Within 2%)
⇒O.K!

7: Evaluate the moment capacity

⎛h c⎞ ⎛ 500 245 ⎞
φM n = φT pt ⎜ − ⎟ = 0.9 × 973 × ⎜ − ⎟ = 147 kN .m
⎝2 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠

M * ≤ φM n
150 ≈ 147 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design for shear

The connection should be design to resist the overstrength shear. The overstrength factor
for post-tensioned connections (1.25) is partly to protect the columns and beams from
failing if the actual rotation is larger than the design rotation and if the timber or steel is
stronger than expected.

A tentatively suggested overstrength factor is:

1.25 147 1.25 147
φ0 = = = 1.36
φ 150 0.9 150

The shear key should be designed to resist:

φ 0V * = 1.36 × 50.8 = 69.1kN

The design of the shear key is not included in this design example.

Step 3: Design for steel plate and epoxied rods

The epoxied rods should be designed to resist the shear force in step 8 above. The end
plates are used to distribute the perpendicular to grain stresses to the columns. Hence, the
plate must be large enough to satisfy:

φN n = φf p h p b p
Where: fp = 12MPa (perpendicular to grain timber strength)
hp = Height of plate (600mm)
bp = Width of plate (250mm)
φN n = 1.0 × 12 × 600 × 250 / 10 3 = 1800kN

φ 0Tpt ≤ φN n
1322 ≤ 1800 ⇒ O.K !

38
The plate should be thick enough to induce timber yielding where the gap is open
between each epoxied bar (with spacing; s =125mm). The following tentative procedure
can be followed for this example:
f p bs 2 12 × 250 × 125 2
M* = = / 10 6 = 5.9kN .m
8 8
Note; the design moment for the plate conservatively assumed the perpendicular to grain
timber is yielding.

And:
bpt 2
φM n = φf y
6

Try a 25mm plate:

250 × 25 2
∴ φM n = 0.9 × 300 × / 10 6 = 7.0kN .m
6

M * ≤ φM n
5.9 ≤ 7.0 ⇒ O.K !

Step 5: Design for shear

The beam shear force must be taken by a shear keys/corbels. Although friction forces will
resist shear this should not be relied upon.

V * = 50.8kN (From Design 1)

φ 0V * = 1.36 × 50.8 = 69.1kN
The design of the shear key is not included in this design example.

Step 4: Check the section capacity of the beam and column

This procedure will be similar to Design 1. Since the overstrength factor in this design is
lower than Design 1 the capacity of the beam and column will be sufficient.

39
4.2.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

The service design moments for the frame are given below:

Note: 1.The simplifying assumptions made in this example may not be appropriate for
future professional work.
2. All assumptions here can also be made for your assignment.

Firstly, it will be assumed that the deformation of the frame can be approximated by
considering an internal beam-column joint with points of contra flexure at the half height
of the column and half span of the beam:

The moment at the centerline of the column and beam is therefore:

Lbay 6500
M *cl = × M* = × 75 = 83kN .m
Lbay − hc 6500 − 600

To total deflection or interstorey drift (θ) of the frame is comprised of the beam, column,
joint panel and connection deformation (see lecture 17):

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con

40
Design 1: Steel gusset plate connection

For the gusset plate connection one of the deformation components can be ignored: the
joint panel deformation. The steel gusset plate reinforces the joint panel zone resulting in
negligible deformation.

For the beam:

⎛ Lb Et hb 2 ⎞
θ b = φb ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎟
⎝ 6 G 4 Lb ⎠

M *cl 83 × 10 6 1
Where: φb = = = 2.42 × 10 −6
250 × 500
3
Et I b mm
13200 ×
12

⎛ 6500 13200 500 2 ⎞

∴θ b = 2.42 × 10 −6 ⎜⎜ + ⎟ = 0.0031
⎝ 6 660 4 × 6500 ⎟⎠

For the column:

⎛H Et hc ⎞
2

θ c = φ c ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎝6 G 4 H ⎟⎠

M *cl 83 × 10 6 1
Where: φ c = = = 1.40 × 10 −6
250 × 600
3
Et I c mm
13200 ×
12

⎛ 3000 13200 600 2 ⎞

∴θ c = 1.40 × 10 −6 ⎜⎜ + ⎟ = 0.0015
⎝ 6 660 4 × 3000 ⎟⎠

For the connection:

The deformation from the nails in the gusset plate connection can be approximated in the
same way as plywood shear walls:

Δn
θ con =
q

⎛ q⎞
Where: Δ n = 2⎜1 + ⎟en
⎝ r⎠

41
And:
k 37 (0.8)Q 2
em ≈ 2
(NZS3603 nail slip equation):
Qn

Where: k37 = Nail load duration factor = 1.0 (for EQ)

Q = applied load on nail (kN)

The applied load to each nail can be approximated as the ratio of the service and ultimate
design moment:

2
⎛ 75 ⎞
em ≈ k 37 (0.8)⎜ ⎟ = 0.20mm
⎝ 150 ⎠

⎛ 350 ⎞
∴ Δ n = 2⎜1 + ⎟0.20 = 0.92mm
⎝ 270 ⎠

Therefore:

0.92
∴θ con = = 0.0026
350

The total frame rotation is approximately:

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0 + 0.0026 = 0.0072 = 0.72%

According to the Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual (MTBM) an acceptable

interstorey deflection limit for light timber frame (LTF) is:

H 3000
Δ lim it = = = 10mm
300 300
10
∴θ lim it = = 0.0033 = 0.33%
3000

Therefore:
θ > θ lim it
0.72 > 0.33 ⇒ NOT .OK !

To satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence, the
serviceability conditions govern the design.
Even though the limit proposed by the MTBM for LTF is exceeded, there is little
guidance given in the serviceability deflection limits within NZS1170.0 for this type of
structural system. Ultimately, the maximum service displacement should be defined by
building cladding and to some extent level of comfort expected by the owner under a
service event (wind or earthquake).

42
Also, it is noted that the above calculation of the deflection is conservative. The
interstorey displacement of the frame will be less than that of the assumed internal beam-
column joint.
For the purposes of this example (and your assignment) the design will not be altered due
to serviceability requirements.

Design 2: Epoxied rod connection

For the epoxied rod connection all the deformation components should be considered.

For the beam:

⎛ Lb Et hb
2
⎞
θ b = φb ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎟
⎝ 6 G 4 Lb ⎠

Similar to Design 1.
∴θ b = 0.0031

For the column:

⎛ H Et hc 2 ⎞
θ c = φ c ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎟
⎝ 6 G 4 H ⎠

Similar to Design 1.

∴θ c = 0.0015

For the joint panel:

The shear deformation within the joint panel can be evaluated from the following
formula:

⎛ ⎞
θ j = γ j ⎜⎜1 −
hc ⎟ − γ j ⎛⎜ hb ⎞⎟
Lbay ⎟ ⎝H⎠
⎝ ⎠

V jh V jv
Where: γ j = γ 1 + γ 2 = +
GA jh GA jv

And:
M *cl M *cl 83 83
V jh = Ts1 + Ts 2 − Vcol ≈ − = − = 182kN
x avg (H 2) 0.35 1.5

43
 V jv ≈ V jh = 182kN
2 2
A jh = hc bc = × 600 × 250 = 100000mm 2
3 3
2 2
A jv = hb bc = × 500 × 250 = 83333mm 2
3 3
G = 660 MPa (For HySpan)

182 × 10 3 182 × 10 3
∴γ j = + = 0.0061
660 × 100000 660 × 83333

Therefore:
⎛ 600 ⎞ ⎛ 500 ⎞
∴θ j = 0.0061⎜1 − ⎟ − 0.0061⎜ ⎟ = 0.0046
⎝ 6500 ⎠ ⎝ 3000 ⎠

For the connection:

The deformation can be approximated as:

⎛ hc ⎞
θ con = θ s ⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎟
⎝ Lbay ⎠

2Δ s
Where: θ s =
x avg

And:
M *cl l 'ub
Δs ≈
x avg E s Ast
x avg = 350mm (The average lever arm between the epoxied rods)
l 'ub = 25mm (The unbonded length of the steel)
Ast = 1885mm 2 (Total area of steel per side)

83 × 10 6 25
∴Δs = = 0.0157 mm
350 200000 × 1885

2 × 0.0157
∴θ s = = 89.7 × 10 −6
350

⎛ 600 ⎞
∴θ con = 89.7 × 10 −6 ⎜1 − ⎟ = 81.4 × 10
−6

⎝ 6500 ⎠

Hence, the connection deformation is insignificant and can be ignored. This is due to the

44
relatively short unbonded length. Note; there will also be strain penetration deformation
which has been ignored here.

The total frame rotation is approximately:

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0.0046 + 0 = 0.0092 = 0.92%

Therefore:
θ > θ lim it
0.92 > 0.33 ⇒ NOT .OK !

Again, to satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence,
the serviceability conditions govern the design (but iteration of the member sizes is not
required for the assignment).

Design 3: Post-tensioned connection

For the post-tensioned connection both the joint panel zone and connection deformation
can be ignored. This is because when service forces are applied there is not a gap opening
at the connection.

For the beam:

⎛ Lb Et hb 2 ⎞
θ b = φb ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎟
⎝ 6 G 4 Lb ⎠

Similar to Design 1 and 2.

∴θ b = 0.0031

For the column:

⎛H Et hc ⎞
2

θ c = φ c ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎝6 G 4 H ⎟⎠

Similar to Design 1 and 2.

∴θ c = 0.0015

The total frame rotation is approximately:

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0 + 0 = 0.0046 = 0.46%

45
Therefore:
θ > θ lim it
0.46 > 0.33 ⇒ NOT .OK !

Again, to satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence,
the serviceability conditions govern the design (but iteration of the member sizes is not
required for the assignment).

46
4.3 Wall Design

4.3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

The design moment and forces for the wall are given below:

The axial load at the base of the wall due to gravity load is 152kN.

Design 1: Epoxied connection

The ductility of the wall system is derived from the yielding of epoxied steel rods.

Step 1: Determine the flexural capacity from the epoxied rods and the axial load

Since there is significant axial load on the wall we must determine the position of the

47
neutral axis. Both layers of bars are located at the edges of the wall, therefore we can
assume that the nominal moment is obtained when both bars yield and when the timber
reaches its yield strain.
Considering equilibrium and assuming a linear strain profile within the neutral axis
depth:

N * = C t = 0.5ε t E con cb

Where: Econ ≈ 0.55Et = 0.55×12000 = 6600MPa (elastic modulus of the connection)

f 29
εt ≈ ε y = c = = 0.0044 = Strain in the timber
E con 6600
b = 200mm

Therefore, the neutral axis at the nominal moment capacity is:

N* 152 × 10 3
c= = = 52mm
0.5ε t E con b 0.5 × 0.0044 × 6600 × 200

Note; the neutral axis is close the first two layers of steel. Therefore, it is possible that the
bars are not yielding. Check the all the steel is yielding:

d '−c 100 − 52 fy 300

εs = εt = × 0.0044 = 0.00406 > ε y = = = 0.0015 (Yielding)
c 52 E s 200000

Now take moments about the center of compression of the timber:

⎛ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛l c ⎞⎞
φM n = φ ⎜⎜ Ts1 ⎜ d1 − ⎟ + Ts 2 ⎜ d 2 − ⎟ + C s1 ⎜ d1 '− ⎟ + C s 2 ⎜ d 2 '− ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎠

Where: Ts1 = Ts2 = Cs1 = Cs2 = As fy

d1 = 3.9m
d2 = 3.7m
d’1 = 0.1m
d’2 = 0.3m
φ = 0.8 for Glulam

Try 3 × 20mm diameter bars per layer:

∴Ts1 = Ts2 = Cs1 = Cs2 = 942×300 = 282.7 kN

48
 ⎡ ⎛⎛ 0.052 ⎞ ⎛ 0.052 ⎞ ⎛ 0.052 ⎞ ⎛ 0.052 ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 4.0 0.052 ⎞⎤
∴ φM n = 0.8 × ⎢282.7 × ⎜⎜ ⎜ 3.9 − ⎟ + ⎜ 3.7 − ⎟ + ⎜ 0.1 − ⎟ + ⎜ 0 .3 − ⎟ ⎟⎟ + 152⎜ − ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎦
= 0.8 × [2242 + 301]
= 0.8 × [2543]
= 2034kN .m

M * ≤ φM n
1530 < 2034 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design the epoxied rod connections to ensure yielding of the bar occurs

This is similar to Design 2 in Part 1.

1.25
φ 0 rod = = 1.39
φ steel

An epoxied connection must satisfy:

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn

For yield steel yielding:

N * = (φQn ) steel = φ steel As ,total f y = 0.9 × 2 × 942 × 300 / 10 3 = 509kN

For wood fracture:

(φQn ) wood = φ conn k1 Aw f t

Where: Aw = area of wood prone to tensile failure = 200×300 = 60000mm2

f t = 12.5MPa (tensile strength of GL12)

∴ (φQn ) wood = 1.0 × 1.0 × 60000 × 12.5 / 10 3 = 750kN

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn
1.39 × 509 ≤ 750
708 ≤ 750 ⇒ O.K !

For bar pull-out:

(φQn ) pullout = φ conn k1 nk g Qk

Where: kg = group factor = 0.9 for 4 bars

n = number of steel bars
Qk = characteristic strength of bond failure
Qk = 6.73k b k e k m (l / d ) 0.86 (d / 20)1.62 (h / d ) 0.5 (e / d ) 0.5

49
Try using the minimum embedment length of 20d; l = 400mm and hole diameter of h =
22mm:

∴ Qk = 6.73 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × (400 / 20) 0.86 (20 / 20)1.62 (22 / 20) 0.5 (50 / 20) 0.5 = 147 kN

Therefore:
(φQn ) pullout = 1.0 × 1.0 × 6 × 0.9 × 147 = 794kN

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn
708 ≤ 794 ⇒ O.K !

Therefore, the mechanism will be ductile yielding of the bars.

Transverse reinforcement:
Transverse reinforcement may be required (especially for Glulam) to prevent possible
shrinkage cracking and cracking due moisture variation. The transverse bars should be
positioned approximately 50mm from the end of the beam and should be approximately
1/25th of the area of the longitudinal reinforcement.

2 × 942
∴ Ast ≈ = 75mm 2
25

Therefore, 1-10mm diameter bar will be used for transverse reinforcement.

The final details of the connection are given below:

Note; 1.At the end of an expoxied connection high stresses are applied to the timber, by
staggering the bar ends a plane of weakness is avoided.
2. A length of bar (≈lw/20=200mm) should be debonded at the connection
interface to prevent excessive strain in the epoxied bars.

50
Step 3: Design for shear

The shear force should be taken by either shear keys/corbels. Since the epoxied bars will
be yielding dowel action can not be relied upon.

V * = 306kN

A shear key must be designed to resist the overstrength shear and prevent the wall from
sliding.

2034
φ o = 1.39 = 1.85
1530

φ oV * = 565kN

E.g.:

Step 3: Check the section capacity of the wall

The section sizes were defined in the preliminary design to minimize deflection. The
section strength must be checked:

Flexure:
We should protect the wall section against higher modes of amplification. However, for
the design of reinforced concrete walls tension shift must be considered. For timber
design it would be appropriate to use the reinforced concrete column amplification
factors:

ω = 1.0 (At the ground floor)

φM n = φkf b Z

Where: k = 1.0 for short term loads

fb = 25MPa (the bending strength of GL12)
200 × 4000 2
2
bl
Z= w = = 533.33 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6

51
∴ φM n = 1.0 × 1.0 × 25 × 533.33 = 13333kN .m

ωφ 0 M * ≤ φM n
1.0 × 1.85 × 1530 ≤ 13333 ⇒ O.K !

Shear:
Again we must protect the wall from increased forced due to dynamic higher modes, it is
tentatively recommended that the dynamic amplification factor for the design of
reinforced concrete walls is used herein.

nt 2
ω v = 0 .9 + = 0 .9 + = 1 .1
10 10

V * = 306kN

φVn = φkf s As
Where: k = 1.0 for short term loads
fs = 5.3MPa (the shear strength of GL12)

2 2
As = bh = × 200 × 4000 = 533.3 × 10 3 mm 2
3 3

∴ φVn = 1.0 × 1.0 × 3.7 × 533.3 = 1973kN

ω vφ 0V * ≤ φVn
1.1 × 1.85 × 306 ≤ 1973
623 ≤ 1973 ⇒ O.K !

52
Design 2: Post-tensioned connection

The behavior of a post-tensioned connection is termed ‘non-linear – elastic’. Hence, there

is no yielding of steel reinforcement and therefore no mechanical energy dissipation.
The initial tendon force in the 8-0.5’ strands is 50% of their yield force. Each strand has a
cross-sectional area of 99mm2.
See Design 3 Part 1 for more details.

Step 1: Determine connection flexural capacity

1: Impose a connection rotation

The code drift limitation for structural elements is 2.5%. However, to prevent timber
crushing and the yielding of the post-tensioning the design rotation can be reduced to say
1.0%.
For a post-tensioned timber wall the ratio of the connection rotation to the total rotation
of the frame is roughly 1.0. Hence, the flexural and shear deformation of the wall is
insignificant compared to the connection deformation.

For the purposes of this example we can assume:

θ imp = 1.0% = 0.010

2: Guess neutral axis

The connection design procedure is iterative. An initial guess of the neutral axis depth is:

l w 4000
c= = = 500mm
5 8

53
 3: Apply member compatibility

The elongation of the tendon:

⎛l ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ w − c ⎟ = 0.010 × (2000 − 500 ) = 15mm
⎝2 ⎠

Hence:

nΔ pt1 × 15
ε pt = = = 0.00231
l ub 6500
Where: n = the number of connections
lub = the unbonded length of the tendon (Height of structure plus embedment into
the concrete: 6500mm)

Check the tendon is not yielding. At ultimate limit state the stress in the tendon should
not exceed 90% of the yield stress:

ε pt ,i + ε pt ≤ 0.9ε y

Tpt ,i
Where: ε pt ,i =
Apt Es

And:
T pt ,i = 0.5 f y A pt = 0.5 × 1560 × 8 × 99 / 10 3 = 618kN

Note; for walls the initial post-tensioning force is reduced to 50% of the yield stress to
prevent yielding of the tendon at the design rotation.

618 × 10 3
ε pt ,i + ε pt = + 0.00231 = 0.0039 + 0.00231 = 0.0062
792 × 200000
⎛ 0.9 f y 0.9 × 1560 ⎞
< ⎜⎜ 0.9ε y = = = 0.0070 ⎟⎟ ⇒ O.K !
⎝ Es 200000 ⎠

The strain in the timber:

The monolithic beam analogy is applied assuming the timber remains elastic:

⎛ θ imp ⎞
ε t = ⎜⎜ 3 + φ dec ⎟⎟c
⎝ Lcant ⎠
Where: φdec = the decompression curvature
Lcant = the shear span ≈ 0.8Htotal = 0.8×6000 = 4800mm

54
The decompression curvature is usually so small it can be ignored for the calculation of
the timber strain at high levels of connection rotation. However, the calculation is shown
below:
2(T pt ,i + N *)
φ dec =
E con bh 2

Where: E con = 0.55Et = 0.55 × 12000 = 6600MPa

2 × (618 + 152 ) × 10 3 1
∴ φ dec = = 73 × 10 −9 (Negligible!)
6600 × 200 × 4000 2
mm

Therefore:
⎛ 0.010 ⎞
εt = ⎜3 + 0 ⎟500 = 0.0031
⎝ 4800 ⎠

Check that the timber is not yielding. Note, that since the timber is bearing on concrete
the parallel to grain yield stress of the timber should be considered:

fc 29
εy = = = 0.0044 > 0.0031 ⇒ O.K ! (Not yielding)
E con 6600

4: Calculate the compressive force in the timber

Since the timber is elastic we can assume a linear distribution of the stress within the
compression region of the timber, hence:

C t = 0.5ε t E con ci b = 0.5 × 0.0031 × 6600 × 500 × 200 / 10 3 = 1023kN

5: Check connection equilibrium

By equilibrium:
C t = T pt + N

Check that Ct is approximately equal to Tpt.

Where:
T pt = T pt ,i + ΔT pt = 0.5 f y A pt + ε pt E pt A pt = 618 + 0.00231 × 200000 × 792 / 10 3 = 984 kN

So:
∴1023 ≠ 984 + 152
(Out by 11%)
1023 ≠ 1136 ⇒ NOT .OK !

Need to iterate with the neutral axis depth.

55
 6: Update neutral axis and iterate

You can update the neutral axis by rearranging the equilibrium equation:

T pt + N * 984 + 152
ci +1 = = = 555mm
0.5ε t E con b 2.046

Repeating steps 1-5:

Say: c = 500mm
⎛l ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ w − c ⎟ = 0.010 × (2000 − 510 ) = 14.9mm
⎝2 ⎠
nΔ pt 1 × 14.9
ε pt = = = 0.00229 < (0.4ε y = 0.0031) ⇒ O.K !
l ub 6500
⎛ θ imp ⎞ ⎛ 0.010 ⎞
ε t = ⎜⎜ 3 + φ dec ⎟⎟c = ⎜ 3 + 0 ⎟510 = 0.00319 (<0.0044)
⎝ Lcant ⎠ ⎝ 4800 ⎠
C t = 0.5ε t E con ci b = 0.5 × 0.00319 × 6600 × 510 × 200 / 10 3 = 1074kN
T pt = T pt ,i + ΔT pt = 0.5 f y A pt + ε pt E pt A pt = 618 + 0.00229 × 200000 × 792 / 1000 = 981kN

Finally:
C t ≈ T pt + N
1074 ≈ 981 + 152 (Within 5%)
1074 ≈ 1133
⇒O.K!

7: Evaluate the moment capacity

⎡ ⎛l c⎞ ⎛l c ⎞⎤
φM n = φ ⎢T pt ⎜ w − ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ 2 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎦
⎡ ⎛ 4000 510 ⎞ ⎛ 4000 510 ⎞⎤
= 0.8 × ⎢981 × ⎜ − ⎟ + 152 × ⎜ − ⎟⎥ / 10
3

⎣ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎦
= 0.8 × [1795 + 278]
= 1658kN .m

M * ≤ φM n
1530 ≈ 1658 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design for shear

The connection should be design to resist the overstrength shear. The overstrength factor

56
for post-tensioned connections is to protect the columns and beams from failing if the
actual rotation is larger than the design rotation and if the timber or steel is stronger than
expected.
A tentatively suggested overstrength factor is:

1.25 1.25
φ0 = = = 1.56
φ 0.8

The shear key should be designed to resist:

φ 0V * = 1.56 × 306 = 477kN

The design of the shear key is not included in this design example.

Step 4: Check the section capacity of the wall

This procedure will be similar to Design 1. Since the overstrength factor in this design is
lower than Design 1 the capacity of the beam and column will be sufficient.

4.3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

The service design moments for the wall are given below:

Note; 1.The simplifying assumptions made in this example may not be appropriate for
future professional work.
2. All assumptions here can also be made your assignment.

To total deflection of the wall is comprised of flexural, shear and connection

deformation. We are interested in the deflection at the roof of the structure. It may be
assumed that the wall deforms with a linear displacement profile, hence:

57
 Δ roof
θ=
H total

Where: Δ roof = Δ f + Δ S + Δ con

Design 1: Epoxied connection

For flexure:
We can conservatively assume a linear moment profile:

Therefore:
1071 × 10 6 × 6000 2
2
M b H total
Δf = = = 1.00mm
3EI 3 × 12000 × 200 × 4000 3 / 12

For shear:

Therefore:
V s ,i H 143 × 10 3 × 3000 214 × 10 3 × 3000
Δ s = Δ s1 + Δ s 2 = = + = 2.61mm
GAs 770 × 533.3 × 10 3 770 × 533.3 × 10 3

58
For the connection:
The deformation can be approximated as:

Δ con = θ s H total

2Δ s
Where: θ s = (the deformation of the steel rods)
x avg

And:
M * l 'ub
Δs ≈
x avg E s Ast
l 'ub = 200mm (The unbonded length of the steel)
Ast = 1885mm 2 (Total area of steel per side)
x avg = 3600mm (Average distance between bars)

1071 × 10 6 200
∴Δs = = 0.158mm
3600 200000 × 1885
2 × 0.158
∴θ con = = 88 × 10 −6
3600

∴ Δ con = 88 × 10 −6 × 6000 = 0.53mm

The roof deflection:

Δ roof = Δ f + Δ S + Δ con = 1.0 + 2.61 + 0.53 = 4.14mm

The total wall rotation is approximately:

Δ roof 4.14
θ= = = 0.069%
H total 6000

According to the Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual (MTBM) an acceptable

interstorey deflection limit for light timber frame (LTF) is:

H 3000
Δ lim it = = = 10mm
300 300
10
∴θ lim it = = 0.0033 = 0.33%
3000

Therefore:
θ < θ lim it
0.069 < 0.33 ⇒ OK !

59
Hence the drift limitations under service conditions are easily satisfied. Hence, the
ultimate limit state conditions govern the design.

Design 2: Post-tensioned connection

The flexural and shear deformation will be the same as

in Design 1.
However, for a post-tensioned connection it can be
assumed that the connection deformation will be
negligible due to the initial post-tensioning.

Therefore, the roof deflection is simply:

Δ roof = Δ f + Δ S + Δ con = 1.0 + 2.61 = 3.61mm

The total wall rotation is approximately:

Δ roof 3.61
θ= = = 0.060%
H total 6000

Therefore:
θ < θ lim it
0.06 < 0.33 ⇒ OK !

Hence the drift limitations under service conditions are easily satisfied. Hence, the
ultimate limit state conditions govern the design.

60
REFERENCES
Beattie, G., Buchanan, A., Gaunt, D., and Ed, S. [2001]. Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual, Carter Holt
Harvery, Origin, James Hardie, Gib, New Zealand.
Buchanan, A., Deam, B., Fragiacomo, M., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. [2008]. "Multi-Storey
Prestressed Timber Buildings in New Zealand." Structural Engineering International, Journal of
the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), Vol. 18, No. 2.
Filiatrault, A., M.ASCE, and Folz, B. [2002]. "Performance-Based Design of Wood Framed Buildings."
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Newcombe, M. P. [2008a]. "Seismic Design of Multistorey Post-Tensioned Timber Buildings," Masters
Thesis, University of Pavia, Pavia.
Newcombe, M. P. [2008b]. "Seismic Design of Post-Tensioned Timber Frames." 14th World Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China
Pampanin, S., Palermo, A., Buchanan, A., Frafiacomo, M., and Deam, B. [2006]. "Code Provisions for
Seismic Design of Multi-Storey Post-Tensioned Timber Buildings." CIB W18 Workshop on
Timber Structures, Florence, Italy
Pang, W., and Rosowsky, D. [2007]. "Direct Displacement Precedure for Performance-based seismic
Design of Multistorey Woodframe Structures." NEESWood Report NW-02, Texas A&M
University, College Station, <http://www.engr.colostate.edu/NEESWood/publications.html>.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. [1975]. Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, London,
Sydney, Toronto.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. [2007]. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS PRESS, Pavia, Italy.

61