Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THEIR
BEHAVIOUR, LOAD DISTRIBUTION AND
COMPOSITE PROPERTIES
Part 1: Modelling
Christophe Daniel Gerber
Doctor of Philosophy
2006
University of Technology Sydney
Faculty of Engineering
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 2
7 DESIGN PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................3
7.1 Background summary ................................................................................................................. 4
7.2 Recapitulation of the Key outcomes ........................................................................................... 5
7.3 Design recommendations............................................................................................................. 5
7.3.1 Introduction and concept of the design recommendations ........................................................ 5
7.3.2 Outline of the design procedure of stressedskin panels ........................................................... 7
7.4 Concluding summary................................................................................................................. 18
7 DESIGN PROCEDURE AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
In Australia the current code edition of timber design, AS 1720.1−1997 (Australian
Standard
TM
1997), contains only minimal requirements for the design of SSP systems,
such as directives for determinations of stresses in the sheathing and interlayers. On the
other hand, it includes no guideline for estimating the tributary width of the panel.
However, the latter represents an essential aspect of SSP systems because it governs the
section properties of the floors, thus the strength and serviceability of the structures.
In Section 7.3.2, an amendment proposal to Section 5 of AS 1720.1−1997
(Australian Standard
TM
1997) is outlined. It corresponds to a thorough design procedure
for SSP constructions. It has been written and detailed in a form that could be submitted
to the Code Committee. The proposed guidelines address the composite properties of
SSP constructions – composite action and tributary width of the sheathing – and the
stress determinations in the SSP crosssections. They are based on the findings of the
subject research and are related to EC5 (European Committee for Standardisation 1995).
Furthermore, to complement the design procedure, assessment methods of the load
distribution are also proposed in the form of two equations (Equations 79 and 711).
These equations, which are capable of approximating the distribution of concentrated
point loads, permit the taking into account of the twoway action ability of SSP
structures.
Further recommendations derived from the findings of the subject research are also
proposed in this chapter. In connection to the consideration of skin discontinuities,
reduction coefficients, which are applied to the apparent stiffness of the composite
section of the SSP assemblies, are suggested. As for accounting for the type of joists –
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 4
composite Ijoists – used for building the specimens of the subject research, a
modification coefficient, which aims at calibrating the actual shear distortion
experienced by the Ijoists, is proposed.
7.1 BACKGROUND SUMMARY
In SSP systems, the joists and sheathing interact both by composite and twoway
actions (Vanderbilt et al. 1974). Thus, the sheathing acts compositely with the joists and
forms continuous beams crossing the joists. Therefore, SSP floors cannot be accurately
designed solely on the mechanical properties of the composite joists and sheathings
considered as series of individual bare elements, because such an approach results in
using the material strength properties of the SSP components inefficiently. Furthermore,
it ignores the systems’ composite and twoway actions. The first one primarily
“controls” the performance of the girders, while the lateral load distribution is regulated
by the second one. This suggests that both actions attain maximum intensity when the
strength axis of the sheathing coincides with that of the action. Therefore, optimising
the composite and twoway actions is antagonistic, because the composite action is
maximised when the joist orientation and the strength axis of the sheathing concur,
whereas the optimum twoway action is obtained when the joist’s longitudinal axis and
the strength axis of the sheathing cross orthogonally.
In Australia the current code edition for timber structures, AS 1720.1−1997
(Australian Standard
TM
1997), widely ignores the interactions present in SSP systems. It
provides only minimal recommendations about the design of SSP structures. For
example, it provides some directives for the determination of stresses in the sheathing
and interlayers but includes no guideline to characterise the composite properties of the
SSP crosssection. These are the composite action and the tributary width of the panel.
In comparison, in Europe, more comprehensive guidelines are available in several
national codes (British Standard 2004; DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. 2004;
Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003).
a)
In these standards, clear
instructions are provided for estimating the contribution of the sheathing(s) and for
verifying the stresses. On the other hand, no consideration is given to the twoway
action ability, for example, assessing the distribution of concentrated point loads.
a)
These national codes have been revised in recent times and have, on the particular topic of SSP systems,
accommodated the design guidelines of EC5 (European Committee for Standardisation 1995).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 5
Indeed, these codes consider SSP assemblies as series of composite beams formed by
the joists and portions of the sheathing(s) with no connectivity/interaction between
them, whereas, AS 1720.1−1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997) admits some load
sharing capability in repetitive parallel member constructions, to which SSP systems
belong.
7.2 RECAPITULATION OF THE KEY OUTCOMES
The design recommendations presented in Section 7.3 are based on a series of
observations/parameters, which have been identified with the laboratory investigation
conducted on fullscale SSP specimens. Precisely, the analyses/interpretations of this
investigation have permitted understanding and identifying key behavioural responses
of SSP systems, the latter being incorporated into the design recommendations. These
key outcomes are summarily recapitulated hereafter:
 linearelastic behaviour of SSP systems; this includes the determination of the
limit of the linearelastic domain and the global stiffness (see Chapter 7)
 twoway action; this includes the quantification/characterisation of the lateral
load distribution capability of SSP systems (see Chapter 8)
 composite characteristics; this includes the identification of the degree of the
composite action and the contribution of the skin(s) – tributary width – (see
Chapter 9).
NOTE: detailed information on the laboratory investigation, for example, the
concept, research plan and loading regime, is presented in Chapter 6.
7.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.3.1 Introduction and concept of the design recommendations
The following section of this chapter outlines an amendment proposal for Section 5 of
the present edition of the Australian code for timber design, AS 1720.1−1997
(Australian Standard
TM
1997). It aims to provide a thorough design procedure for SSP
systems for Australian engineers. For example, it presents guidelines for the
approximation of the tributary width of the sheathing. As mentioned previously, this
aspect is not dealt with by AS 1720.1−1997. Furthermore, this procedure recommends a
series of stress verifications, which agree with the pattern of stress distribution observed
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 6
in test specimens (see Chapter 9). To some extent, the stress analysis required by AS
1720.1−1997 disagrees with the actual stress pattern experienced by the skin(s).
Conceptually, the design recommendations proposed hereafter are related to EC5
(European Committee for Standardisation 1995). They are also influenced by the
concept of the British (British Standard 2004) and Swiss (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs
et Architectes 2003) design codes. Therefore, some aspects of these codes’ structure and
sequence are recognisable, and as such have been referenced in footnotes. The design
recommendations also capitalise on the observations and findings of the subject
research.
The procedure of EC5 has been chosen for the platform of these design
recommendations, because it is accessible and provides a safe design for SSP floors
with the most common dimensions. The capability of this EC5 approach has been
demonstrated in the subject research (see Chapter 7), that is, the deviations between the
estimated (EI
T,deck2
) and measured (EI
T,LAB
) stiffness – derived from the experimental
results – is generally within ±10%. Furthermore, EC5 estimates of the tributary width
call upon simple formulae, which consider the material of the sheathing and the span of
the floor and account for shear lag and/or plate buckling. Furthermore, EC5, by
imposing normal stress verifications on the sheathing, considers a stress pattern, which
reflects SSP behaviour more accurately.
In the next section, the design procedure attempts to follow a layout that permits a
stepbystep progress. Consideration of its compatibility with AS1720 has also been
given. Therefore, arrangements to accommodate Australian specificities such as
references to related or relevant Australian codes have been made and detailed in
footnotes. Complementary information, such as comments and references, is also
presented in footnotes.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 7
7.3.2 Outline of the design procedure of stressedskin panels
A) General design considerations
(1) This design procedure assumes that the stressedskin panel exhibits the
following characteristics:
(a) Linear variation of strain over the depth of the stressedskin panel
b)
(b) Glued splicing of the skins, ensuring continuous skins.
Therefore, the section properties of the stressedskin panel can be calculated
with the transformedsection method.
b)
(2) If condition (a), see under (1), is not fulfilled, a more detailed calculation of the
section properties of the stressedskin panel must be made.
(3) If condition (b), see under (1), is not fulfilled – skins of the stressedskin panels
are constructed without glued splices – the skins should be considered discontinuous
and the section properties of the stressedskin panel should be reduced by 10% for one
sided and 20%
c)
for twosided stressedskin panels.
(4) The glued interfaces of the stressedskin panel, which must exhibit structural
properties, require the implementation of structural adhesive such as those described in
AS/NZS 4364:1996.
d)
b)
This prerequisite is expressly recommended in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004). As a
result of the linear distribution of the strain, stressedskin panel structures comply with the requirements
of the simple beam theory (Amana & Booth 1967). Furthermore, the section properties of the composite
beams can be calculated with the transformedsection method (Gere & Timoshenko 1999).
c)
The intensity of these retrenchments corresponds to the outcomes identified by the analysis of the
laboratory testing data, that is, the analysis conducted on the global stiffness of the specimens of the
subject research has identified that discontinuing the skin(s) generate global stiffness losses of about 10%
and 20% in one and two sided specimens respectively (see Chapter 7).
d)
Australian code for bonded assemblies in loadbearing timber structures (Australian/New Zealand
Standard
TM
1996).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 8
(5) Stressedskin panels can be sheathed on one or two sides and should be
considered as a number of composite girders, the sections of which are described in
Figure 71:
Onesided stressedskin panels (assembly of Lbeams and Tbeams)
Onesided stressedskin panels with reinforcement of the tensile side of the webs
e)
Twosided stressedskin panels (assembly of Cbeams and Ibeams)
Figure 71: Construction of stressedskin panels
(6) The influence of the nonuniform distribution of the stresses in the skins due to
shear lag and buckling (see Figure 72) must be accounted for.
f)
Unless a more detailed
calculation is carried out, the tributary width of the flange(s) is calculated according to
Table 7–1.
stress distribution in the flanges at AA
portions of "equivalent" tributary width
(for example, in compressive flange)
A
A
L/2
L
L/2
s
Figure 72: Stress distribution and tributary width of the skin under flexural action
e)
McLain (1999) and Desler (2002) described this construction of stressedskin panels as a “Tflange”.
f)
Under flexural action, the skins mostly experience normal stresses (Foschi 1969b; Ozelton & Baird
2002), whose distribution is not uniform in the section of the cantilevered — unsupported — portion of
the skin(s) because of the occurrence of shear deformation (Raadschelders & Blass 1995), and whose
maximum intensity is exhibited on the webs (Foschi 1969b; Ozelton & Baird 2002).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 9
(7) The magnitude of the tributary width of the skin(s) (see Figure 73) – when
more detailed calculations are not required – is calculated as follows:
 For Tbeam and Ibeams
, ef w c ef
b b b = + (or
, w t ef
b b + ) (Eq. 71)
 For Lbeam and Cbeams
,
0.5
ef w c ef
b b b = + (or
,
0.5
w t ef
b b + ) (Eq. 72)
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
≤0.25b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
≤0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
b
ef
= b
w
+ b
c,ef
b
ef
= b
w
+ b
t,ef
b
f
b
f
’
h
f,c
h
w
h
h
f,t
b
w
b
w
b
w
b
w
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
lower skin
interior web exterior web
upper skin
Figure 73: Tributary width of the skins under flexural action (twosided stressedskin
panel)
g)
The values of b
c,ef
and b
t,ef
should not exceed the maximum value calculated for
shear lag from Table 7–1. In addition to this, the value of b
c,ef
should not exceed the
maximum value for plate buckling from Table 7–1.
h)
(8) The maximum effective contribution of the skin(s) – unsupported portions of
the skin(s) – governed by shear lag and plate buckling should be calculated according to
Table 7–1, where L corresponds to the span of the composite girder and h
f,c
corresponds
to the thickness of the compressive skin.
g)
The symbolic representation of the tributary width – grey shading – corresponds to that of SIA 265
(Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003).
h)
This statement agrees with that of BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 10
Table 7–1: Maximum effective contribution of the skins due to the effects of shear lag
and plate buckling
i)
Skin material Shear lag
1)
(tensile and
compressive skins)
Plate buckling
2) 3)
(boundary conditions:
)
Plywood, with the grain direction
of the outer plies:
– Parallel to the webs 0.1 L 20 h
f,c
– Perpendicular to the webs 0.1 L 25 h
f,c
Oriented strand board 0.15 L 25 h
f,c
Particleboard or fibreboard with
random fibre orientation
0.2 L 30 h
f,c
1)
Values for simply supported systems with single span L, respectively for systems with multiple
spans where L = distance between null flexural moment. Over the support region of the multispan
systems, the effective contribution of the skin should be halved.
2)
For an unrestrained skin edge (see Figure 73), the effective contribution of the skin should be equal
to a quarter of the value, due to plate buckling.
3) The unsupported portion of the skin – clear distance between the webs b
f
(see Figure 73) – should
not be greater than twice the effective contribution of the skin, due to plate buckling.
i)
Further research on the value of these coefficients might be beneficial in order to verify that they suit the
panel products available on the Australian market and to make optimum use of the panel’s mechanical
properties, particularly that of the group of structural plywood panels (Australian/New Zealand
Standard
TM
2004a).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 11
B) Design capacity
(9) The critical stresses of stressedskin panels – identified as such in Figure 74 –
should be verified, whereby a linear variation of strain over the depth of the stressed
skin panel is assumed.
b
ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
t,ef
0.5b
c,ef
0.5b
c,ef
b
ef
1 1
1 1
b
w
h
h
w
h
f,t
h
f,c
h
f,c
/2
h
f,t
/2
σ
f,c
σ
w,m
σ
f,m
σ
f,t
σ
w,m
σ
f,m
Figure 74: Critical stresses of the stressedskin panel under flexural action (twosided
stressedskin panel)
(10) The skins are assumed to experience flexural and axial stresses. Therefore,
both stresses, based on the relevant effective tributary width of the skins, should satisfy
the following conditions
j)
:
 The flexural strength at the extreme – exterior – fibre of the skins should satisfy
(see Clause 3.2
k)
):
*
( ) M M  > (Eq. 73)
where:
*
M is the design action effect in bending (see Clause 1.5.2.2
l)
)
 is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3
m)
).
j)
The design requirements of the axial – compression and tension – strengths are similarly identified and
qualified in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004) and SIA265 (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et
Architectes 2003). The conditions for verifying the flexural stresses are also described under another
section of both codes, that is, “Glued thinweb beams”. While flexural stresses are generally not decisive
for SSP systems with common dimensions (domestic housing), they might circumstantially become
critical.
k)
Reference to Clause 3.2 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
l)
Reference to Clause 1.5.2.2 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
m)
Reference to Clause 2.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 12
 The compression and tensile – axial – strength at the centre fibre of the skins
should satisfy (see Clause 3.3
n)
and 3.4
o)
):
*
( )
c c
N N  > (Eq. 74)
where:
*
c
N is the design action effect in compression (see Clause 1.5.2.2
p)
)
 is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3
q)
)
Note: the stability factor, k
12
, will be equal to 1.0 (see Clause 3.3.3
r)
)
*
( )
t t
N N  > (Eq. 75)
where:
*
t
N is the design action effect in tension (see Clause 1.5.2.2
p)
)
 is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3
q)
).
Unless it is assumed that the skins are discontinuous, the glued splices of the
skins should satisfy the strength requirements of the axial strength of the skins.
(11) Unless the glued splices of the skins satisfy the strength requirements of the
axial strength of the skins, the skins will be considered discontinuous and the strength of
the stressed skins panel will be reduced according to paragraph (3).
n)
Reference to Clause 3.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
o)
Reference to Clause 3.4 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
p)
Reference to Clause 1.5.2.2 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
q)
Reference to Clause 2.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
r)
Reference to Clause 3.3.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 13
(12) The webs are assumed to experience flexural and shear stresses.
s)
Therefore,
the flexural strength at the extreme fibre of webs should satisfy Equation 73, and the
shear strength at the location of the maximum shear – neutral axis of the stressedskin
panel – should satisfy Equation 76 (see Clause 3.3
t)
):
*
( ) V V  > (Eq. 76)
where:
*
V is the design action effect in shear (see Clause 1.5.2.2
u)
)
 is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3
v)
).
(13) The shear stress in the glued interfaces – sections 1–1 (see Figure 73) – should
satisfy Equation 77a (see Clause 5.6
w)
) and Equation 77a
x)
:
*
( )
sj sj
V V  > for 8
w f
b h s (Eq. 77a)
0.8
*
8
( )
f
sj sj
w
h
V V
b

 
>

\ .
for 8
w f
b h > (Eq. 77b)
where:
*
sj
V is the design action effect for shear at the glued interfaces (see Clause
1.5.2.2
u)
)
 is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3
v)
)
h
f
& b
w
see Figure 73.
For Lshaped and Cshaped crosssections, the same expression (Equation 77)
should be verified, but with 8h
f
substituted by 4h
f
. The values of b
c,ef
and b
t,ef
should not
s)
It is widely supported that the skins of SSP systems for the most part resist flexural stresses – in the
form of axial stresses – and the joists experience shear stress predominantly and flexural stress to a lesser
extent (APA – The Engineered Wood Association 1990; Desler 2002; McLain 1999; Moody, Hernandez
& Liu 1999).
t)
Reference to Clause 3.2.5 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
u)
Reference to Clause 1.5.2.2 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
v)
Reference to Clause 2.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
w)
Reference to Clause 5.6.2 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
x)
It is proposed in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004) that the permissible strength of the
glued interfaces should be limited whenever the stressedskin panel exhibits “out of proportion” physical
dimensions, for example, thin skin(s) and/or (very) wide webs.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 14
exceed the maximum value calculated for shear lag from Table 7–1. In addition, the
value of b
c,ef
should not exceed the maximum value for plate buckling from Table 7–1.
(14) The serviceability of the stressedskin panel should satisfy the requirements of
the service limit state – deformation and vibration – such as imposed by AS/NZS 1170
series (Australian/New Zealand Standard
TM
2002b).
(15) Unless the skins satisfy the requirements of continuity, the skins will be
considered discontinuous and the apparent stiffness
y)
of the stressed skins panel will be
reduced according to paragraph (3).
C) Twoway action assessment
(16) This section of the design procedure provides a method for the assessment of
the lateral load distribution of concentrated loading action. The strengthsharing factor,
k
9
(see Clause 2.4.5.3
z)
), may be taken in combination with the lateral distribution
effects.
aa)
(17) For a point load, P
*
, applied onto a girder (see Figures 75 and 76), the
maximum bending moment and shear design load effects, and also the maximum
deflection should be taken to be equal to that of an isolated girder subjected to a reduced
point load, P
*
eff
(see Equation 78).
bb)
* *
eff gi
P CT P = (Eq. 78)
where:
P
*
eff
: effective specified design point load
P
*
: specified design point load
CT: coupling term for the load introduction on a girder
subscripts: g: girder
i: 1, 2, 3 ... n
y)
The apparent stiffness accounts for the effects of the flexural and shear deformations.
z)
Reference to Clause 2.4.5.3 of AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
aa)
This consideration agrees with that of Appendix E8, AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
bb)
This approach accords with that presented in Appendix E8, AS 1720.1–1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997).
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 15
NOTE: the twoway action assessment presented hereafter in Equations 79 and
711 should be restricted to SSP systems, whose spacing/depth > 1.6.
cc)
The SSP
structures should also count at least four girders.
dd)
C1) Concentrated loading action on interior girder
(18) For a point load, P
*
, applied onto an interior girder (see Figure 75), the
coupling term, CT
gi
, should be approximated with Equation 79. The width of the
crossbeam should be equal to 1.4 times the web spacing (see Figure 75).
s
P
*
L/2
L
L/2
1.4 s
Figure 75: Point load location – interior girder
0.698 0.339 log 0.35
c
gi S
gi
h
CT n
h
 
= ÷ +


\ .
(Eq. 79)
in which:
,
3
gi app
gi
EI
h
L
= (Eq. 710a)
,
3
c app
c
EI
h
s
= (Eq. 710b)
cc)
This ratio corresponds to that of SSP systems with common dimensions/proportions such as those
exhibited by floors in domestic housing, for example, the dimensions/proportions of 356mm Ijoist
specimens are arguably not common; ratio = 1.3.
dd)
This number of girders represents the minimum that SSP systems should count (see Chapter 8).
NOTE: Both Equations 79 and 711 have been calibrated/verified using the specimens of the subject
research. It is therefore necessary to investigate/verify Equations 79 and 711 before
generalising/authorising them. Consequently, further research is required in order to determine/finalise
the scope of both equations. This scope should at least include the physical dimensions and the number of
girders (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, introducing a security coefficient in order to account for the
natural variability of structural timber and woodbased products also represents a sound and safe
practice.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 16
where:
CT: coupling term for the load introduction on a girder
h
g
: interior girderrelated expression (associated with the longitudinal
stiffness of SSP system)
h
c
: crossbeamrelated expression (associated with the perpendicular
stiffness of SSP system)
n
S
: number of skin(s)
EI: apparent flexural stiffness
subscripts: g: girder
i: 1, 2, 3 ... n
c: crossbeam
app: apparent
ee)
L: span (of the girder)
s: spacing of the girders
C2) Concentrated loading action on an exterior joist
(19) For a point load, P
*
, applied onto an exterior girder (see Figure 76), the
coupling term, CT
gi
, should be approximated with Equation 711. The width of the
crossbeam should be equal to 1.4 times the web spacing (see Figure 76).
s
P
*
1.4 s
L/2
L
L/2
Figure 76: Point load location – interior girder
0.5
0.969 0.479 log 0.35 log 0.35
c d
gi S
gi gi
h h
CT n
h h
(    
= ÷ + + (  
 
(
\ . \ . ¸ ¸
(Eq. 711)
in which:
ee)
The apparent stiffness of the member indicates that the stiffness implemented in Equations 710a and b
accounts for the effect of the flexural and shear deformation.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 17
g,app
3 gi
EI
h
L
= (Eq. 712a)
c,app
3
s
c
EI
h = (Eq. 712b)
3
d
d
T
GJ
h
L
= (Eq. 712c)
where:
CT: coupling term for the load introduction on a girder
h
g
: interior girderrelated expression (associated with the longitudinal
stiffness of SSP system)
h
c
: crossbeamrelated expression (associated with the perpendicular
stiffness of SSP system)
h
d
: deckrelated factor (associated with the torsional stiffness of nS:
number of skin(s)
EI: apparent flexural stiffness
GJ: torsional stiffness
subscripts: g: girder
i: 1, 2, 3 ... n
c: crossbeam
d: deck
app: apparent
ff)
L: span (of the girder)
s: spacing of the girders
LT: eccentricity distance
D) Particular design considerations
(20) The use of composite member for the web of the stressedskin panel should be
investigated for shear distortion in particular.
gg)
(a) 1.4 is the modification factor that should be conjoined to the section
coefficient.
ff)
The apparent stiffness of the member indicates that the stiffness implemented in Equations 712a and b
accounts for the effect of the flexural and shear deformation.
gg)
The laboratory investigation into SSP specimens has identified that, in SSP systems built with Ijoists,
complex interactions may generate increased shear distortion in the joists in comparison to that
approximated with the section coefficient, Kappa, approach (see Trus Joist’s
TM
specifier (Trus Joist
TM
a
Weyerhaeuser Business 2002b)). The Kappa coefficient should therefore be factorised – modification
factor equal to 1.40 – in order to accurately account for the shear distortion experienced by the joists.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 18
(b) Further recommendation.
hh)
7.4 CONCLUDING SUMMARY
The subject research has demonstrated that, in SSP systems, the sheathing and joists act
compositely together (see Chapter 9). Therefore, the design procedure should take
account of the system interactions, that is, the composite characters – composite action
and tributary width of the skin(s) – of SSP structures. In this chapter, an amendment to
Section 5 of the current edition of the Australian code for timber design, AS
1720.1−1997 (Australian Standard
TM
1997), which only provides minimal guidelines
for the design of SSP structures, has been outlined (see Section 7.3.2). This proposal,
which corresponds to a thorough design procedure for SSP systems, has been influenced
by the design guidelines of EC5 – EC5 codebased literature such as BS EN 19951
1:2004 (British Standard 2004) and SIA265 (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et
Architectes 2003).
The design procedure introduced in this chapter is uncomplicated and presents a
safe design for SSP floors with the most common dimensions. The tributary width is
estimated with simple formulae, which consider the material of the sheathing and the
span of the floor. It accounts for shear lag and/or plate buckling. The design procedure
also gives directives for thorough verification of the stress. For example, it imposes
normal stress verifications on the sheathing, considering therefore a stress distribution,
which reflects SSP behaviour accurately (see Chapter 9).
The effects of discontinuing the skin(s) is also accounted for in the design
procedure. It is introduced by means of a modification factor, which reduces the
properties of the SSP crosssection, that is, the properties of the structure with
continuous skin(s) are reduced. As indicated in Section 7.3.2, it is recommended that the
reduction should be as much as –10% and –20% for open and boxsection SSP systems
respectively (see Chapter 7).
This design procedure outline also contains directives – in form of two equations
(Equations 79 and 711) – for the assessment of the twoway action, that is, the lateral
distribution of concentrated point loads. Both equations permit accurate approximations
of the twoway action ability of SSP systems (see Chapter 8), thus achieving an efficient
design, which avoids conservative and noneconomic structures. However, because
hh)
The author recommends that future work examines this phenomenon of shear distortion in other Ijoist
sections and other engineered composite joists.
Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour, load distribution and composite properties
Page 19
Equations 79 and 711 have only been calibrated to the behavioural responses of the
fullscale specimens of the subject research, further investigation may be recommended
before making both equations valid for a broader population of SSP systems.
Furthermore, the application/enforcement of a security coefficient, which accounts for
the natural variability of structural timber and woodbased products, can contribute to
achieving a safer design.
In this design procedure, the influence of using engineered composite joists, such as
Ijoists, for the web is also accounted for. It has indeed been identified that the
behaviour of such joists can be altered when they are components of SSP systems.
Furthermore, the design procedure recommends that using engineered composite
joists for the web of the SSP constructions demands a thorough analysis of the shear
deformation. It has indeed been identified that the behaviour of composite joists can be
altered when they are components of SSP systems. For example, the analysis of the
laboratory investigation of the subject research has demonstrated that Ijoists experience
increased shear deformation (see Chapter 7). This phenomenon can mathematically be
accounted for using a modification coefficient applied in conjunction with the section
coefficient Kappa (see Chapters 4 and 6).
...........................3................................ 5 7....1 7........................... 5 7........................... load distribution and composite properties 7 7...... 7 7.....2 DESIGN PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 5 7.............................................................................2 Outline of the design procedure of stressedskin panels ...................3 Design recommendations..Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour...................................................... 4 Recapitulation of the Key outcomes ..................... 18 Page 2 .....................................................................................................................................3 Background summary ......................1 Introduction and concept of the design recommendations ............4 Concluding summary.......3....................................................................
In connection to the consideration of skin discontinuities. These equations.7 DESIGN PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Australia the current code edition of timber design. It has been written and detailed in a form that could be submitted to the Code Committee. However. As for accounting for the type of joists – .3. an amendment proposal to Section 5 of AS 1720. it includes no guideline for estimating the tributary width of the panel. In Section 7. It corresponds to a thorough design procedure for SSP constructions. which are capable of approximating the distribution of concentrated point loads. They are based on the findings of the subject research and are related to EC5 (European Committee for Standardisation 1995).1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). are suggested.1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997) is outlined. On the other hand. which are applied to the apparent stiffness of the composite section of the SSP assemblies. AS 1720. assessment methods of the load distribution are also proposed in the form of two equations (Equations 79 and 711). permit the taking into account of the twoway action ability of SSP structures. Furthermore. to complement the design procedure. The proposed guidelines address the composite properties of SSP constructions – composite action and tributary width of the sheathing – and the stress determinations in the SSP crosssections. the latter represents an essential aspect of SSP systems because it governs the section properties of the floors. such as directives for determinations of stresses in the sheathing and interlayers.2. thus the strength and serviceability of the structures. reduction coefficients. contains only minimal requirements for the design of SSP systems. Further recommendations derived from the findings of the subject research are also proposed in this chapter.
it provides some directives for the determination of stresses in the sheathing and interlayers but includes no guideline to characterise the composite properties of the SSP crosssection. clear instructions are provided for estimating the contribution of the sheathing(s) and for verifying the stresses. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. while the lateral load distribution is regulated by the second one. It provides only minimal recommendations about the design of SSP structures.1 BACKGROUND SUMMARY In SSP systems. Furthermore. the joists and sheathing interact both by composite and twoway actions (Vanderbilt et al. Therefore.1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). a modification coefficient. Page 4 a) . Thus. because the composite action is maximised when the joist orientation and the strength axis of the sheathing concur. for example. For example. These national codes have been revised in recent times and have. AS 1720. whereas the optimum twoway action is obtained when the joist’s longitudinal axis and the strength axis of the sheathing cross orthogonally. it ignores the systems’ composite and twoway actions. In Australia the current code edition for timber structures. V. Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003). optimising the composite and twoway actions is antagonistic. load distribution and composite properties composite Ijoists – used for building the specimens of the subject research. because such an approach results in using the material strength properties of the SSP components inefficiently. widely ignores the interactions present in SSP systems. 7. is proposed. 1974). In comparison. These are the composite action and the tributary width of the panel. The first one primarily “controls” the performance of the girders.a) In these standards. assessing the distribution of concentrated point loads. the sheathing acts compositely with the joists and forms continuous beams crossing the joists. in Europe. On the other hand. more comprehensive guidelines are available in several national codes (British Standard 2004. accommodated the design guidelines of EC5 (European Committee for Standardisation 1995). on the particular topic of SSP systems. This suggests that both actions attain maximum intensity when the strength axis of the sheathing coincides with that of the action. SSP floors cannot be accurately designed solely on the mechanical properties of the composite joists and sheathings considered as series of individual bare elements. 2004. Therefore.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. which aims at calibrating the actual shear distortion experienced by the Ijoists. no consideration is given to the twoway action ability.
NOTE: detailed information on the laboratory investigation. 7. this procedure recommends a series of stress verifications.2 RECAPITULATION OF THE KEY OUTCOMES The design recommendations presented in Section 7. which have been identified with the laboratory investigation conducted on fullscale SSP specimens.3 are based on a series of observations/parameters. this aspect is not dealt with by AS 1720. this includes the determination of the limit of the linearelastic domain and the global stiffness (see Chapter 7) twoway action.3. AS 1720. for example. These key outcomes are summarily recapitulated hereafter: linearelastic behaviour of SSP systems.1−1997. is presented in Chapter 6. the concept. this includes the quantification/characterisation of the lateral load distribution capability of SSP systems (see Chapter 8) composite characteristics. It aims to provide a thorough design procedure for SSP systems for Australian engineers. Furthermore.1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). Precisely. the analyses/interpretations of this investigation have permitted understanding and identifying key behavioural responses of SSP systems. whereas.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. it presents guidelines for the approximation of the tributary width of the sheathing.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction and concept of the design recommendations The following section of this chapter outlines an amendment proposal for Section 5 of the present edition of the Australian code for timber design. For example.3 7. As mentioned previously. this includes the identification of the degree of the composite action and the contribution of the skin(s) – tributary width – (see Chapter 9). these codes consider SSP assemblies as series of composite beams formed by the joists and portions of the sheathing(s) with no connectivity/interaction between them. AS 1720. 7. load distribution and composite properties Indeed.1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997) admits some loadsharing capability in repetitive parallel member constructions. to which SSP systems belong. the latter being incorporated into the design recommendations. research plan and loading regime. which agree with the pattern of stress distribution observed Page 5 .
They are also influenced by the concept of the British (British Standard 2004) and Swiss (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003) design codes. and as such have been referenced in footnotes. such as comments and references. Therefore. the deviations between the estimated (EIT. Page 6 .Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour.deck2) and measured (EIT.LAB) stiffness – derived from the experimental results – is generally within ±10%. load distribution and composite properties in test specimens (see Chapter 9). To some extent. because it is accessible and provides a safe design for SSP floors with the most common dimensions. The procedure of EC5 has been chosen for the platform of these design recommendations. The design recommendations also capitalise on the observations and findings of the subject research. that is. is also presented in footnotes. by imposing normal stress verifications on the sheathing. some aspects of these codes’ structure and sequence are recognisable. In the next section. the design recommendations proposed hereafter are related to EC5 (European Committee for Standardisation 1995). arrangements to accommodate Australian specificities such as references to related or relevant Australian codes have been made and detailed in footnotes. the design procedure attempts to follow a layout that permits a stepbystep progress. the stress analysis required by AS 1720. Conceptually. which reflects SSP behaviour more accurately. The capability of this EC5 approach has been demonstrated in the subject research (see Chapter 7). which consider the material of the sheathing and the span of the floor and account for shear lag and/or plate buckling. Therefore.1−1997 disagrees with the actual stress pattern experienced by the skin(s). Complementary information. Furthermore. considers a stress pattern. EC5 estimates of the tributary width call upon simple formulae. EC5. Furthermore. Consideration of its compatibility with AS1720 has also been given.
see under (1). is not fulfilled – skins of the stressedskin panels are constructed without glued splices – the skins should be considered discontinuous and the section properties of the stressedskin panel should be reduced by 10% for onesided and 20%c) for twosided stressedskin panels. ensuring continuous skins.d) This prerequisite is expressly recommended in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004). (3) If condition (b). d) Australian code for bonded assemblies in loadbearing timber structures (Australian/New Zealand StandardTM 1996). Furthermore. is not fulfilled. (4) The glued interfaces of the stressedskin panel. Page 7 b) . that is. stressedskin panel structures comply with the requirements of the simple beam theory (Amana & Booth 1967). the section properties of the stressedskin panel can be calculated with the transformedsection method. a more detailed calculation of the section properties of the stressedskin panel must be made. the analysis conducted on the global stiffness of the specimens of the subject research has identified that discontinuing the skin(s) generate global stiffness losses of about 10% and 20% in one. require the implementation of structural adhesive such as those described in AS/NZS 4364:1996.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. the section properties of the composite beams can be calculated with the transformedsection method (Gere & Timoshenko 1999).3. c) The intensity of these retrenchments corresponds to the outcomes identified by the analysis of the laboratory testing data.2 Outline of the design procedure of stressedskin panels A) General design considerations (1) This design procedure assumes that the stressedskin panel exhibits the following characteristics: (a) (b) Linear variation of strain over the depth of the stressedskin panelb) Glued splicing of the skins.b) (2) If condition (a). which must exhibit structural properties. Therefore. load distribution and composite properties 7. see under (1). As a result of the linear distribution of the strain.and two sided specimens respectively (see Chapter 7).
the sections of which are described in Figure 71: Onesided stressedskin panels (assembly of Lbeams and Tbeams) Onesided stressedskin panels with reinforcement of the tensile side of the webse) Twosided stressedskin panels (assembly of Cbeams and Ibeams) Figure 71: Construction of stressedskin panels (6) The influence of the nonuniform distribution of the stresses in the skins due to shear lag and buckling (see Figure 72) must be accounted for. load distribution and composite properties (5) Stressedskin panels can be sheathed on one or two sides and should be considered as a number of composite girders. whose distribution is not uniform in the section of the cantilevered — unsupported — portion of the skin(s) because of the occurrence of shear deformation (Raadschelders & Blass 1995).f) Unless a more detailed calculation is carried out. in compressive flange) s A A portions of "equivalent" tributary width L/2 L L/2 Figure 72: Stress distribution and tributary width of the skin under flexural action e) f) McLain (1999) and Desler (2002) described this construction of stressedskin panels as a “Tflange”. Ozelton & Baird 2002). and whose maximum intensity is exhibited on the webs (Foschi 1969b.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. stress distribution in the flanges at AA (for example. the tributary width of the flange(s) is calculated according to Table 7–1. Page 8 . the skins mostly experience normal stresses (Foschi 1969b. Ozelton & Baird 2002). Under flexural action.
5bc.5bt.ef bf 0. h) This statement agrees with that of BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004).h) (8) The maximum effective contribution of the skin(s) – unsupported portions of the skin(s) – governed by shear lag and plate buckling should be calculated according to Table 7–1.5bc .5bt.ef and bt.t hf.ef should not exceed the maximum value for plate buckling from Table 7–1. load distribution and composite properties (7) The magnitude of the tributary width of the skin(s) (see Figure 73) – when more detailed calculations are not required – is calculated as follows: For Tbeam and Ibeams bef bw bc .ef 0. the value of bc. Page 9 g) .ef should not exceed the maximum value calculated for shear lag from Table 7–1.c 1 1 bef = bw + bc.ef bef = bw + bt.ef ) (Eq.25bc.ef upper skin 0. In addition to this.5bc.ef 1 1 ≤0.5bc.5bt.ef 1 bw 1 0.5bc.ef 0.5bt.c corresponds to the thickness of the compressive skin. 71) For Lbeam and Cbeams bef bw 0.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour.5bt.ef bf’ exterior web bw interior web 1 1 1 1 0.ef 0.5bt. where L corresponds to the span of the composite girder and hf.ef (or bw bt .ef 1 1 1 1 0.5bc.ef (or bw 0.ef ≤0. 72) 0.ef 1 h hw bw 1 hf.ef 0. The symbolic representation of the tributary width – grey shading – corresponds to that of SIA 265 (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003).5bt .ef lower skin Figure 73: Tributary width of the skins under flexural action (twosided stressedskin panel) g) The values of bc.5bc.5bt.ef 0.ef ) (Eq.ef 1 bw 1 1 1 0.
i) Further research on the value of these coefficients might be beneficial in order to verify that they suit the panel products available on the Australian market and to make optimum use of the panel’s mechanical properties. particularly that of the group of structural plywood panels (Australian/New Zealand StandardTM 2004a). respectively for systems with multiple spans where L = distance between null flexural moment.c 30 hf.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. the effective contribution of the skin should be equal to a quarter of the value.1 L 0. 2) 3) The unsupported portion of the skin – clear distance between the webs bf (see Figure 73) – should not be greater than twice the effective contribution of the skin.1 L 0.15 L 0. due to plate buckling.c Oriented strand board Particleboard or fibreboard with random fibre orientation 1) Values for simply supported systems with single span L. with the grain direction of the outer plies: – – Parallel to the webs Perpendicular to the webs 0. due to plate buckling. For an unrestrained skin edge (see Figure 73). the effective contribution of the skin should be halved.c 25 hf. Page 10 .c 25 hf. load distribution and composite properties Table 7–1: Maximum effective contribution of the skins due to the effects of shear lag and plate bucklingi) Skin material Shear lag 1) (tensile and compressive skins) Plate buckling 2) 3) (boundary conditions: ) Plywood.2 L 20 hf. Over the support region of the multispan systems.
l) Reference to Clause 1.3 of AS 1720.5.5bc.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). both stresses.ef bef 0.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. whereby a linear variation of strain over the depth of the stressedskin panel is assumed.t 1 1 σf. load distribution and composite properties B) Design capacity (9) The critical stresses of stressedskin panels – identified as such in Figure 74 – should be verified.m bef 0.2 of AS 1720. k) Reference to Clause 3. m) Reference to Clause 2.3m)).ef hf.2l)) is the capacity factor (see Clause 2. (Eq. The conditions for verifying the flexural stresses are also described under another section of both codes. “Glued thinweb beams”. they might circumstantially become critical. 73) j) The design requirements of the axial – compression and tension – strengths are similarly identified and qualified in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004) and SIA265 (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003).2.m 0.ef hf.c /2 1 σf. While flexural stresses are generally not decisive for SSP systems with common dimensions (domestic housing).2.c bw 1 0.t /2 σf. that is.5bt.m σw. Page 11 .ef hf.m Figure 74: Critical stresses of the stressedskin panel under flexural action (twosided stressedskin panel) (10) The skins are assumed to experience flexural and axial stresses. should satisfy the following conditionsj): The flexural strength at the extreme – exterior – fibre of the skins should satisfy (see Clause 3. based on the relevant effective tributary width of the skins. Therefore.5bc.2k)): ( M ) M * where: M* is the design action effect in bending (see Clause 1.c h hw hf.5.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).5bt.2 of AS 1720. σw.t σf.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).
load distribution and composite properties The compression and tensile – axial – strength at the centre fibre of the skins should satisfy (see Clause 3.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).3 of AS 1720.4 of AS 1720.3.2p)) is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.3r)) ( N t ) N t* where: N t* is the design action effect in tension (see Clause 1. k12.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). r) Reference to Clause 3. the skins will be considered discontinuous and the strength of the stressed skins panel will be reduced according to paragraph (3).3.3 of AS 1720.3n) and 3. 75) Unless it is assumed that the skins are discontinuous.2 of AS 1720.2. p) Reference to Clause 1.5. (Eq.5.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). n) o) Reference to Clause 3.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour.0 (see Clause 3. the glued splices of the skins should satisfy the strength requirements of the axial strength of the skins.2. will be equal to 1.4o)): ( N c ) N c* where: * Nc (Eq.3q)) Note: the stability factor.3 of AS 1720.3q)). (11) Unless the glued splices of the skins satisfy the strength requirements of the axial strength of the skins.2. Reference to Clause 3.2p)) is the capacity factor (see Clause 2. q) Reference to Clause 2.5. 74) is the design action effect in compression (see Clause 1. Page 12 .
ef should not It is widely supported that the skins of SSP systems for the most part resist flexural stresses – in the form of axial stresses – and the joists experience shear stress predominantly and flexural stress to a lesser extent (APA – The Engineered Wood Association 1990. t) Reference to Clause 3. and the shear strength at the location of the maximum shear – neutral axis of the stressedskin panel – should satisfy Equation 76 (see Clause 3. 77a) 8h (Vsj ) f bw where: * Vsj for bw 8h f (Eq.3v)) hf & bw see Figure 73.2 of AS 1720.8 * Vsj (Eq. McLain 1999. the flexural strength at the extreme fibre of webs should satisfy Equation 73.5. thin skin(s) and/or (very) wide webs. for example.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).6. v) Reference to Clause 2. load distribution and composite properties (12) The webs are assumed to experience flexural and shear stresses. 77b) is the design action effect for shear at the glued interfaces (see Clause 1.2 of AS 1720. For Lshaped and Cshaped crosssections. w) Reference to Clause 5. Hernandez & Liu 1999).s) Therefore. Page 13 s) .2u)) is the capacity factor (see Clause 2.2. x) It is proposed in BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004) that the permissible strength of the glued interfaces should be limited whenever the stressedskin panel exhibits “out of proportion” physical dimensions.ef and bt. (13) The shear stress in the glued interfaces – sections 1–1 (see Figure 73) – should satisfy Equation 77a (see Clause 5.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. u) Reference to Clause 1.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). Moody.2.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).3v)). The values of bc.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). Desler 2002.3t)): (V ) V * where: (Eq.2.2.6w)) and Equation 77ax): * (Vsj ) Vsj for bw 8h f 0.5 of AS 1720.2u)) is the capacity factor (see Clause 2. the same expression (Equation 77) should be verified.5.5.3 of AS 1720. 76) V* is the design action effect in shear (see Clause 1. but with 8hf substituted by 4hf.
Reference to Clause 2. 3 .3z)). and also the maximum deflection should be taken to be equal to that of an isolated girder subjected to a reduced point load.5. P*eff (see Equation 78). applied onto a girder (see Figures 75 and 76). bb) This approach accords with that presented in Appendix E8. n y) z) The apparent stiffness accounts for the effects of the flexural and shear deformations. AS 1720. aa) This consideration agrees with that of Appendix E8.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour.4. the value of bc.aa) (17) For a point load. P*. Page 14 .4. (15) Unless the skins satisfy the requirements of continuity.ef should not exceed the maximum value for plate buckling from Table 7–1.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). k9 (see Clause 2.. (14) The serviceability of the stressedskin panel should satisfy the requirements of the service limit state – deformation and vibration – such as imposed by AS/NZS 1170 series (Australian/New Zealand StandardTM 2002b).1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997). may be taken in combination with the lateral distribution effects. load distribution and composite properties exceed the maximum value calculated for shear lag from Table 7–1. the skins will be considered discontinuous and the apparent stiffnessy) of the stressed skins panel will be reduced according to paragraph (3). AS 1720.5. 2. C) Twoway action assessment (16) This section of the design procedure provides a method for the assessment of the lateral load distribution of concentrated loading action. The strengthsharing factor. the maximum bending moment and shear design load effects. 78) where: P*eff: P*: CT: effective specified design point load specified design point load coupling term for the load introduction on a girder subscripts: g: girder i: 1.3 of AS 1720. In addition.bb) * Peff CTgi P* (Eq.1–1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997)..
35 hgi in which: hgi hc EI gi . introducing a security coefficient in order to account for the natural variability of structural timber and woodbased products also represents a sound and safe practice. Consequently. 710b) cc) This ratio corresponds to that of SSP systems with common dimensions/proportions such as those exhibited by floors in domestic housing. 710a) (Eq. load distribution and composite properties NOTE: the twoway action assessment presented hereafter in Equations 79 and 711 should be restricted to SSP systems. P*. the dimensions/proportions of 356mm Ijoist specimens are arguably not common.app s3 (Eq. 1. The width of the crossbeam should be equal to 1.cc) The SSP structures should also count at least four girders. Page 15 . It is therefore necessary to investigate/verify Equations 79 and 711 before generalising/authorising them. This scope should at least include the physical dimensions and the number of girders (see Chapter 8). applied onto an interior girder (see Figure 75).698nS 0. ratio = 1. whose spacing/depth > 1. 79) (Eq. should be approximated with Equation 79. NOTE: Both Equations 79 and 711 have been calibrated/verified using the specimens of the subject research.4 s P* L/2 L L/2 s Figure 75: Point load location – interior girder h CTgi 0.6. for example. the coupling term. dd) This number of girders represents the minimum that SSP systems should count (see Chapter 8).339 log c 0. app L3 EI c . Furthermore.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. CTgi. further research is required in order to determine/finalise the scope of both equations.dd) C1) Concentrated loading action on interior girder (18) For a point load.4 times the web spacing (see Figure 75).3.
P*. should be approximated with Equation 711. CTgi. Page 16 ee) .35 h hgi gi in which: 0. the coupling term. 2.4 times the web spacing (see Figure 76).969nS 0. 1.35 log d 0.4 s P* L/2 L L/2 s Figure 76: Point load location – interior girder h h CTgi 0. applied onto an exterior girder (see Figure 76).. load distribution and composite properties where: CT: hg: hc: nS: EI: coupling term for the load introduction on a girder interior girderrelated expression (associated with the longitudinal stiffness of SSP system) crossbeamrelated expression (associated with the perpendicular stiffness of SSP system) number of skin(s) apparent flexural stiffness subscripts: g: girder i: 1.5 (Eq. 3 . n c: crossbeam app: apparentee) L: s: span (of the girder) spacing of the girders C2) Concentrated loading action on an exterior joist (19) For a point load.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour.479 log c 0. The width of the crossbeam should be equal to 1. 711) The apparent stiffness of the member indicates that the stiffness implemented in Equations 710a and b accounts for the effect of the flexural and shear deformation..
The apparent stiffness of the member indicates that the stiffness implemented in Equations 712a and b accounts for the effect of the flexural and shear deformation..4 is the modification factor that should be conjoined to the section coefficient. in SSP systems built with Ijoists. 712c) hd GJ d L3 T where: CT: hg: hc: hd: EI: GJ: coupling term for the load introduction on a girder interior girderrelated expression (associated with the longitudinal stiffness of SSP system) crossbeamrelated expression (associated with the perpendicular stiffness of SSP system) deckrelated factor (associated with the torsional stiffness of nS: number of skin(s) apparent flexural stiffness torsional stiffness subscripts: g: girder i: 1. load distribution and composite properties hgi hc EI g.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. 2. n c: crossbeam d: deck app: apparentff) L: s: LT: span (of the girder) spacing of the girders eccentricity distance D) Particular design considerations (20) The use of composite member for the web of the stressedskin panel should be investigated for shear distortion in particular. Kappa. Page 17 ff) . complex interactions may generate increased shear distortion in the joists in comparison to that approximated with the section coefficient. 712a) (Eq..app s3 (Eq.40 – in order to accurately account for the shear distortion experienced by the joists. approach (see Trus Joist’sTM specifier (Trus JoistTM a Weyerhaeuser Business 2002b)). 3 . 712b) (Eq. gg) The laboratory investigation into SSP specimens has identified that. The Kappa coefficient should therefore be factorised – modification factor equal to 1.app L3 EI c.gg) (a) 1.
the composite characters – composite action and tributary width of the skin(s) – of SSP structures. This design procedure outline also contains directives – in form of two equations (Equations 79 and 711) – for the assessment of the twoway action.3. which corresponds to a thorough design procedure for SSP systems. As indicated in Section 7. the sheathing and joists act compositely together (see Chapter 9). The effects of discontinuing the skin(s) is also accounted for in the design procedure. the properties of the structure with continuous skin(s) are reduced. It accounts for shear lag and/or plate buckling.1−1997 (Australian StandardTM 1997).4 CONCLUDING SUMMARY The subject research has demonstrated that. Page 18 hh) . load distribution and composite properties (b) Further recommendation. which reduces the properties of the SSP crosssection. which reflects SSP behaviour accurately (see Chapter 9). Therefore. in SSP systems. thus achieving an efficient design. it imposes normal stress verifications on the sheathing.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. which only provides minimal guidelines for the design of SSP structures. has been influenced by the design guidelines of EC5 – EC5 codebased literature such as BS EN 199511:2004 (British Standard 2004) and SIA265 (Société Suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes 2003). This proposal.3. Both equations permit accurate approximations of the twoway action ability of SSP systems (see Chapter 8). the lateral distribution of concentrated point loads. considering therefore a stress distribution. it is recommended that the reduction should be as much as –10% and –20% for open. that is. that is. In this chapter.hh) 7.and boxsection SSP systems respectively (see Chapter 7). However.2. which consider the material of the sheathing and the span of the floor. The design procedure also gives directives for thorough verification of the stress. It is introduced by means of a modification factor. an amendment to Section 5 of the current edition of the Australian code for timber design. For example.2). The tributary width is estimated with simple formulae. The design procedure introduced in this chapter is uncomplicated and presents a safe design for SSP floors with the most common dimensions. has been outlined (see Section 7. AS 1720. because The author recommends that future work examines this phenomenon of shear distortion in other Ijoist sections and other engineered composite joists. that is. which avoids conservative and noneconomic structures. the design procedure should take account of the system interactions.
can contribute to achieving a safer design. the application/enforcement of a security coefficient. For example. Page 19 . Furthermore. the influence of using engineered composite joists. In this design procedure. the analysis of the laboratory investigation of the subject research has demonstrated that Ijoists experience increased shear deformation (see Chapter 7). for the web is also accounted for. It has indeed been identified that the behaviour of such joists can be altered when they are components of SSP systems. Furthermore.Wood stressedskin panels: An investigation of the behaviour. This phenomenon can mathematically be accounted for using a modification coefficient applied in conjunction with the section coefficient Kappa (see Chapters 4 and 6). load distribution and composite properties Equations 79 and 711 have only been calibrated to the behavioural responses of the fullscale specimens of the subject research. which accounts for the natural variability of structural timber and woodbased products. It has indeed been identified that the behaviour of composite joists can be altered when they are components of SSP systems. such as Ijoists. the design procedure recommends that using engineered composite joists for the web of the SSP constructions demands a thorough analysis of the shear deformation. further investigation may be recommended before making both equations valid for a broader population of SSP systems.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.