How To Calculate Deformations in Timber Structures Using Eurocode 1

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8
At a glance
Powered by AI
The document discusses how to calculate deformations in timber structures using Eurocode 1 and its approach to serviceability limit states and design values of actions.

Eurocode 1 defines serviceability limit states as conditions beyond which specified service requirements for a structure or structural element are no longer met, including the satisfactory functioning, comfort of people, and appearance of elements.

For irreversible limit states, the design value uses the characteristic or rare combination, while for reversible limit states the frequent combination is used.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 5

1998
ISBN 0 900510 04 9

How to calculate deformations in timber structures using


Eurocode 1
This guidance document complements the TRADA Guidance Document GD4 ‘How to calculate
deformations using Eurocode 5’. It explains the principles of Serviceability Limit State design which are
set out in Eurocode 1: Part 1: Basis of Design, and how to apply these principles to structural timber
members, assemblies and built-up components. It recommends deflection limits corresponding to the
defined limit states, and provides some simple worked examples.

Introduction
GD4 explained how to calculate the deflec- u the appearance of elements such as roofs,
tions of loaded members and the slip in ceilings and walls (which requires their
mechanically fastened joints in accordance with deflection to be limited to a visually accept-
DD ENV 1995 1-1: 1994 Eurocode 5: Design of able level)
timber structures Part 1.1 General rules and
rules for buildings (EC5). Irreversible serviceability limit states are
EN 1991-1: Eurocode 1 - Basis of design and permanent: they remain exceeded once the
actions on structures - Part 1:Basis of design responsible actions have been removed. For
(EC1) provides a basis of design for all the struc- example a plasterboard ceiling may be cracked
tural Eurocodes, and its rules and combination by excessive deflection of the supporting joists.
factors for serviceability design differ in some Reversible serviceability limit states are
respects from those given in Eurocode 5 and its temporary: they are no longer exceeded once
National Application Document. The definitions the responsible actions have been removed. For
of the serviceability limit states in EC1 provide a example a floor subjected to dynamic loading
logical basis for design, and the approach to may vibrate excessively now and again, or a
creep given in the code significantly simplifies rafter under a rare heavy snow load may deflect
the design procedure for more complicated beyond visually acceptable limits, but in neither
design situations. At the time of publishing this case is any permanent damage done.
document, it seems likely that the EC1 rules will
eventually supersede the EC5 rules, so this Guid- Design values of actions for
ance Document explains serviceability design
serviceability
for timber structures to EC1.
It is obviously more important not to exceed
an irreversible limit state than a reversible one,
Serviceability limit states so when checking the former, the design values
EC1 defines serviceability limit states as of the actions are set at a level which is likely to
conditions beyond which specified service be exceeded much more rarely than that used to
requirements for a structure or structural check the latter type of serviceability limit state.
element are no longer met. The most common For irreversible limit states, the design value
service requirements which must be met are: of an action combination is calculated using the
characteristic or rare combination:
u the satisfactory functioning of the structure
and its elements (including the integrity of
attached non-structural members such as
(1) ∑G k, j + Qk,1 + ∑ ψ 0, i Qk, i
i >1
EC1 (9.16)

plasterboard or glass, and maintenance of


pond-free slopes on flat roofs) This is the same combination that is used to
u the comfort of people (which requires floor check ultimate limit states, but for serviceability
vibration to be limited to an acceptable level) safety is not an issue, so the load safety factors γG

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 1 of 8
and γQ are omitted. In expression (1) Qk,1 is the When the factor ψ2 is set to reduce all the
characteristic value of the dominant variable variable actions to their average value
load. The characteristic value of a snow load, for throughout the design life of the structure,
example, is set at a level such that the prob- expression (3) as a whole gives the time-average
ability of its being exceeded in any one year is load. As this expression is used to assess the
0.02. This means that on average the character- creep component of deformations, it is required
istic snow load will be exceeded once every 50 when checking both reversible and irreversible
years. The factor ψ0 reduces the values of any serviceability limit states.
secondary variable actions to a level which takes
into account the reduced probability that their Coefficients for representative
most unfavourable value will occur at the same
time as the most unfavourable value of the values
dominant variable action. The values of the psi factors for use with EC1
For reversible serviceability limit states, the are given in EC1 Table 9.3 and are shown (with
frequent combination is used. This sets the the names of the building categories slightly
design value of an action combination to a level modified) in Table 1. (These values differ in
which, unless specified otherwise, is likely to be some cases from those given in the UK EC5
exceeded in ordinary buildings either 5% of the National Application Document).
time or 300 times per year. It is calculated as: EC1 gives no factors for imposed loads in
industrial buildings such as workshops. In build-
ings with permanent heavy machinery the
(2) ∑G k, j + ψ 1,1Qk,1 + ∑ ψ 2, i Qk, i
i> 1
EC1 (9.17)
factors for Category E should be used, otherwise
lower values would generally be more
appropriate.
The factor ψ1 reduces the dominant variable
action to its frequent value, as specified above,
and the factor ψ2 reduces the secondary variable
actions to a level which is likely to occur at the
same time as the frequent value of the dominant
variable action.
Finally when checking the long-term effects
of serviceability limit states, ie creep in the case
of timber structures, the quasi-permanent
combination is used. Quasi-permanent values
of the actions are calculated as:

(3) ∑G k, j + ∑ ψ 2, i Qk, i
i >0
EC1 (9.18)

Table 1 Coefficients for the representative values of actions

Action ψ0 ψ1 ψ2
Imposed loads
A: Residential, institutional, educational 0.7 0.5 0.3
B: Offices and banks 0.7 0.5 0.3
C: Public assembly 0.7 0.7 0.6
D: Retail 0.7 0.7 0.6
E: Storage 1.0 0.9 0.8
Snow loads 0.6 0.2 0.0
Wind loads 0.6 0.5 0.0

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 2 of 8
Creep Recommended deflection limits
Both the elastic deflection of loaded timber The actual deflections at which the various
members and the relative movement of loaded limit states are reached depend on the particular
timber members fastened together mechanically limit state, the materials involved, and the
increase with time. This time-dependent purpose of the building. No specific limits are
increase in deformation is termed “creep”. EC5 provided or required by EC1, but some recom-
states that the creep deformation corresponding mendations are given in Tables 2 and 3. In these
to an instantaneous deformation of uinst may be tables:
calculated as kdefuinst. Different values of kdef are u1,d = design value of instantaneous
required for different durations of load, which (elastic) deformation caused by
can lead to complications with load combina- permanent actions
tions involving several different load durations, u2,d = design value of instantaneous
since the creep produced by each action has to (elastic) deformation caused by
be worked out separately. variable actions
When calculating creep deformations in ucreep = creep deformation caused by
accordance with EC1 however, all the variable permanent and variable actions.
actions are first converted to an equivalent L = structural span of beam
permanent action using expression (3) above. he = height of eaves from ground
The deformation produced by this permanent hs = storey height
action is then multiplied by the appropriate
value of kdef for loads of permanent duration to
obtain the creep deformation. The values of kdef
for other load durations are not required. (For
temporary structures with a design life not
exceeding 10 years, the values of kdef for long-
term rather than permanent duration would be
used.)
The calculation of creep deformation is illus-
trated later in this Guidance Document.

Table 2 Recommended vertical deflection limits

Limit state Example of use Recommended limits


Irreversible Cracking of plasterboard following L
u2, d ≤
Instantaneous installation 350
Irreversible Cracking of plasterboard at end of design L
u2, d + ucreep ≤
Final life 250
Reversible Vibration performance of floors 14 mm
u1, d + u2, d ≤ min of
Instantaneous Domestic timber joisted floors L / 333

Non-domestic floors See note 2


Reversible Appearance of roofs and ceilings or L
u1, d + u2, d + ucreep ≤
Final1 serviceability of floors at end of design life 200
1
This check is unlikely to be critical for a floor or ceiling with attached plasterboard.
2
EC5 Clause 4.4.3 gives design rules which, in conjunction with information provided in CIB paper
W18/29-15-5: “Natural frequency prediction for timber floors” by Bainbridge and Mettem, may be
used for timber floors in general. Further guidance for designers is given in GD6 ‘Vibration in
timber floors’.

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 3 of 8
Table 3 Recommended horizontal deflection limits

Limit state Example of use Recommended limits


Irreversible Portal frames With masonry he
u2, d ≤
Instantaneous 300
Without masonry he
u2, d ≤
200
1
Multi-storey buildings Per storey he
u2, d ≤
300
Whole height he
u2, d ≤
500
Irreversible Load-bearing masonry Horizontal deflections he
u1, d + u2, d + ucreep ≤
Final caused by vertical actions2 650
1
Recommendations taken from Steelwork Design guide to BS 5950: Volume 4: 1991. TTL is
currently investigating requirements for timber frame buildings with more than 4 storeys.
2
Note that this limit does not relate to horizontal deflections caused by wind loads. It is
approximately equivalent to the limit currently used in the design of domestic trussed rafters.
Recommendations for the differential deflection (vertical and horizontal) between the bays of a
portal frame are given in Steelwork Design Guide to BS 5950: Volume 4: 1991.

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 4 of 8
Examples of deformation calculations
The following two examples rework two of the examples used in GD4.

Domestic ceiling joists


A 3250 mm long domestic ceiling joist is Referring to Table 2:
subject to three actions: dead load due to self-
weight, an imposed distributed ceiling load and
L 3250
an imposed unit load attributed to the presence = = 9.29 mm > 7.74 mm ∴ ΟΚ
of snow. These produce the following instanta- 350 350
neous deflections:
L 3250
= = 13.00 mm > 9.17 mm ∴ OK
Dead load u1 = 1.74 mm 250 250
Distributed imposed load u2,1 = 2.12 mm
L 3250
Imposed point load u2,2 = 6.26 mm = = 16.25 mm > 10.91 mm ∴ OK
200 200
From Table 1, for imposed loads in residen-
tial buildings: Since the dominant action is the short-term
point load, the creep component in this example
ψ0,1 = 0.7 ψ1,1 = 0.5 ψ2,1 = 0.3 is relatively small. The governing situation is the
ψ0,2 = 0.6 ψ1,2 = 0.2 ψ2,2 = 0.0 integrity of the plasterboard immediately
following installation. If there were no plaster-
board, only the third condition (visual accept-
(Note that the values of ψ1 differ from the
ability) would have to be considered, and a
value used in GD4, which was taken from the
greater deflection would be acceptable.
EC5 National Application Document rather than
EC1.)
Plywood spliced nailed joint
From EC5: Table 4.1, for solid timber in
The joint is in the tie member of an exposed
Service class 1, permanent duration:
roof truss in Service class 1. It resists a tensile
kdef,perm = 0.6.
force caused by two actions which produce the
following deformations in the form of slip:
Since deflections are proportional to load,
the deflections caused by individual actions may Dead load u1 = 0.140 mm
be combined using the combination rules (1), Imposed snow load u2 = 0.105 mm
(2) and (3) given above. The presence of the
plasterboard means that an irreversible limit From Table 1, for snow loads in residential
state is involved. buildings,
ψ0,1 = 0.6 ψ1,1 = 0.2 ψ2,1 = 0.0
Using expression (1):
u2,1 + ψ 0,2u2,2 From EC5: Table 4.1, for solid timber in
u2,d = minimum of Service class 1, permanent duration:
u2,2 + ψ 0,1u2,1
kdef,perm = 0.6.
2.12 + 0.6 × 6.26
= minimum of
6.26 + 0.7 × 2.12 Assuming that the aim is to prevent cracking
= 7.74 mm in the plasterboard ceiling, then this is an irre-
versible serviceability limit state calculation, for
Using expression (3): which expression (1) applies. Since there is only
one variable load, ψ0 is not needed.
ucreep = kdef,perm ( u1 + ψ2,1 u2,1 + ψ2,2 u2,2)
= 0.6 (1.74 + 0.3 x 2.12 + 0.0 x 6.26)
= 1.43 mm

u2,d + ucreep = 7.74 + 1.43 = 9.17 mm


u1 + u2,d + ucreep = 1.74 + 9.17 = 10.91 mm

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 5 of 8
u1,d = 0.140 mm Final deformations of assemblies

u2,d = 0.105 mm Using the EC1 approach to creep instead of


the EC5 approach simplifies the determination
ucreep = kdef,perm ( u1,d + ψ2,1 u2,d ) of final deformations in assemblies such as roof
= 0.6 (0.140 + 0.0 x 0.105) = 0.084 mm trusses. Deformations in assemblies are usually
obtained nowadays with the help of a computer
u1,d + u2,d + ucreep = 0.140 + 0.105 + 0.084 program. The recommended design method is
= 0.329mm as follows.

1 Analyse the structure for all relevant load


Deformations in assemblies and
cases and load combinations ignoring creep.
built-up components (For ultimate limit states use factored loads:
The most efficient timber structures often for serviceability limit states use unfactored
incorporate assemblies or built-up components loads.)
made from members which are fastened 2 Analyse the structure once more applying a
together. These members may be made of “creep” action to all the members. This is
similar materials, such as the solid softwood determined using the combinations:
members of trussed rafters which are connected
using punched metal plate fasteners, or the lami-
nates in mechanically laminated beams which
kdef, perm (∑ γ G, i Gk, i + ∑ ψ 2, i γQ, i Qk, i )

are fastened together by vertical steel dowels. for ultimate limit states
Alternatively the members may be made of kdef, perm (∑ Gk, i + ∑ ψ 2, i Qk, i )
different materials, such as solid timber and for serviceability limit states
plywood or laminated veneer lumber and
oriented strand board. In components such as 3 Add the results obtained in step 2 (normal
I-beams, box-beams and stressed skin panels, stresses, shear stresses, bending moments,
these different materials may be glued or nailed deflections) to the results obtained in step 1
together. for each of the relevant load cases and load
The creep deformation both in members and combinations.
in mechanical joints can be a significant part of
the final deformation, and in assemblies and As an alternative to steps 2 and 3, safe results
built-up components it affects the distribution of for both ultimate and serviceability limit states
final stresses as well as the overall deflections. It may usually be obtained by re-analysing the
should therefore not be ignored. Allowing for structure for all relevant load cases and load
creep deformation in assemblies and built-up combinations using modified values of the
components, however, can present considerable E
difficulties to an engineering designer. The elastic moduli, E’, such that E = .
1 + kdef, perm
following suggestions should help.
Since the answers given by this method are
approximate, if any of the resulting deforma-
tions or stresses are near or above their allow-
able level, they should be determined more
precisely using steps 2 and 3.
In some assemblies, particularly bolted or
connectored trusses, the slip in the joints has a
significant effect on the overall deflection. Most
frame analysis programs find it difficult to cope
with joint slip, although some sophisticated
programs do allow for linear springs at unsup-
ported member joints. Generally the best way is
to introduce short, fictitious members at each
joint where slip can occur, so proportioned that
the extension of the fictitious member under a
force N is the same as the slip value. Great care
should be taken to avoid rounding-off errors and
at multiple-member nodes.

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 6 of 8
Glued components Mechanically fastened components
For glued I-beams and box-beams in which EC5 Annex B gives a design method for
the flanges and the webs are made of different mechanically fastened components such as
materials, it is usual to convert the thickness of nailed I-beams and box-beams. The stiffness of
either the flanges or the web to an equivalent these components is governed, not only by the
thickness in the other material, based on the stiffness of the component materials, but also by
ratio of the two elastic moduli, and to use the the stiffness of the joints. The formula for calcu-
new geometrical section to determine an effec- lating the effective value of EI therefore includes
tive cross-sectional area, Aef, and an effective a factor Ki, the slip modulus for the joints.
second moment of area, Ief. Whereas the initial value, Ki,init, can easily be
The calculation of final values, Aef,fin and Ief,fin, calculated from EC5 Table 4.2 or GD4 Table 5
is difficult, because it depends on the creep that (modified by Clause 6.1(9) for ultimate limit
has separately taken place in the flanges and the states), calculating the final value, Ki,fin, is more
web, which in turn depends on the average difficult. The following method developed by
share of the load which the flanges and the web TTL is recommended.
have resisted. Using the EC1 approach,
however, and the values of kdef, perm for different Ki, init
Ki, fin =
panel product materials given in EC5, TRADA Fi, qp
1 + kdef, perm
Technology has demonstrated that for uniformly Fi, d
distributed loading in Service classes 1 and 2,
safe values of Aef,fin and Ief,fin may be calculated as: Where
Kdef,perm = value of kdef for permanent load
Aef,fin = φAAef duration taken from EC5 Table 4.1
Ief,fin = φIIef or GD4, Table 3
with values of φA and φI taken from Table 4. Fi,qp = load per shear plane per fastener
when the quasi-permanent load Fqp
Table 4 Built-up components with solid timber or
is applied to the beam
glulam flanges: factors to convert initial values of
Fi,d = load per shear plane per fastener
Aef and Ief to final values
when the design load Fd is applied
to beam. Fd must include the
permanent loads.
Web material, as Modification factor
specified in EC5
The quasi-permanent load is calculated using
φA φI the combinations:
Plywood 0.90 0.95 ∑ γG, i Gk, i + ∑ ψ 2,1 γQ, i Qk, i
Tempered hardboard 0.75 0.85 for ultimate limit states
or particleboard ∑ Gk, i + ∑ ψ 2, i Qk, i
Oriented strand board 0.65 0.75 for serviceability limit states
(OSB)
Where materials with two different creep
properties, kdef,1,perm and kdef,2,perm are involved, then
Ki,fin should be calculated as:
Ki, init
Ki, fin =
 Fi, qp 
 1 + kdef, perm 
 Fi, d 

The calculation of Fi,qp/Fi,d may be simplified


when all the loads on a beam are full-length
u.d.l.’s. In this case the ratio Fqp/Fd may be used
instead of Fi,qp/Fi,d.

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 7 of 8
References
Standards
DD ENV 1995 1-1: 1994 Eurocode 5: Design of
timber structures Part 1.1 General rules and rules
for buildings (EC5)

EN 1991-1: Eurocode 1 - Basis of design and


actions on structures - Part 1:Basis of design

TRADA and TRADA Technology publications


Guidance Document GD4 How to calculate
deformations using Eurocode 5. TRADA, Hugh-
enden Valley. 1994

Other publications
Steelwork Design guide to BS 5950: Volume 4:
1991

This document was prepared as part of a collaborative research


project sponsored by the Timber Research and Development
Association and the Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the contents, the company cannot
accept liability for loss or damage arising from the use of the information supplied.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form, by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of the copyright owners.
Published by TRADA Technology Ltd, Chiltern House, Stocking Lane, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire HP14 4ND, UK.
Telephone: +44 (0)1494 563091 Fax: + 44 (0)1494 565487 Email: information@ttlchiltern.co.uk

 1998 TRADA Technology Ltd, Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe, Bucks HP14 4ND.
GD 5 Page 8 of 8.

You might also like