›

Part 1

36 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
October 2014 Material properties

Material properties: effect

on deflection, rotation and
vibration — Part 1
integrity of all forms of construction. Smith and Jagger4 note that the
Denis H. Camilleri Eur Ing, A&CE, BSc (Eng), BA (Arch), CEng, overall cost of a project for hi-tech buildings is quoted at one-third
ACIArb, FIStructE, FICE for structure, one-third for finishings and one-third for services, with
Managing Partner, dhiPERITI only 6% of total costs allocated for the material costs. The number
of materials used by the construction industry has grown from a
Ian Camilleri Cassar A&CE, BE&A (Hons), MSc (Lond), DIC few hundred in the 19th century to over 160 000 today. Traditional
Partner, dhiPERITI materials are alloy steel, concrete, timber and masonry; newer
materials include plastics, composite materials such as carbon fibre,
glass fibre and metal matrix composites, duplex and other stainless
Introduction steels, non-ferrous materials, and new varieties of additives for
Over the past 20 years, structural engineering has been subjected concretes5.
to greater demands due to a wider variety of materials in use, and
the necessity to construct in a sustainable manner in order to obtain This article is the first in a three-part series outlining the serviceability
more energy-efficient buildings. Furthermore, when more than one calculations to be undertaken in the preliminary structural design
material is in use, shrinkage problems become more evident, while stage.
differential corrosion of different metals in contact with each other
has to be ascertained. Spans are getting longer, while new, advanced Here, we consider the structural properties of materials not only
structural material is becoming lighter. It is therefore not surprising in terms of their strength, but also their serviceability in use. The
that the effect of cracking in building materials due to deflection magnitude of the serviceability characteristics, as defined by
effects, together with the problem of vibrations onto structural floors, deflection and the ensuing rotation at the supports, which leads to
is increasing. Some idea of this transition can be obtained by noting cracking and the problematic effect of vibration, are examined via
that whereas the sway in a strong wind of the Empire State Building is hand calculations that give an ‘engineering feel’ to the reader.
limited to 100mm, the sway of modern skyscrapers may be as high as
1000mm1. Two design examples then follow in Parts 2 and 3, which will
demonstrate these hand calculations when undertaken in structural
The serviceability aspect has thus been growing in importance and, steel, timber, composite steel and masonry panelled construction.
in particular instances, may be as critical a design criterion as the The first example in Part 2 will be limited to simple beam/slab span
strength requirement. A structure deemed to satisfy the strength effects, while the second example (Part 3) will compare the floor slab
requirement may be classified as offering adequate structural configuration for warehouse loading in composite steel construction
robustness. It can, however, fail on the ‘fit-for-purpose’ requirement with prestressed hollow slabs. It will go on to note the basic hand
due to deflection/vibration problems. calculation for a sidesway deflection check to a three-storey vertical
structure.
Further cracking is also an issue. The measurement of crack widths
gives an indication of damage sustained. A Building Research
Establishment publication classifies damage into six categories: 0–5
according to the existing crack width2. Categories 4 and 5, which Table 1: Updated C deflection coefficient for I cm4 calculation for a
outline structural damage, note crack widths as varying from 15mm to simple support span condition for UDLs and central point loads
over 25mm. Category 2 damage, with crack widths up to 5mm which Span-to- Steel E = 205kN/mm2 Timber E = 8kN/mm2
may be easily filled, may lead to sticking of doors or windows which deflection ratio
requires easing and adjusting, together with lack of weather tightness.
UDL Point load UDL Point load
Category 0 refers to hairline cracking, where the width is less than
0.1mm, requiring no action. 1/200 1.27 2.03 43.3 52
1/360 2.29 3.66 78.0 93.75
The understanding of structural materials is an academic discipline in
itself. In an Institution of Civil Engineers' Brunel International Lecture 1/500 3.17 5.08 108.0 148.63
in 2000, Burdekin outlined the varying properties of traditional and 1/800 5.08 8.12 173.0 208.08
modern materials3. It is important to consider the part played by
the choice of materials, as these are vital to the performance and 1/1000 6.35 10.15 216.0 260.10

TSE34_36-40 v2.indd 36 25/09/2014 12:07

 www.thestructuralengineer.org

37

Hand calculations for the

Serviceability Limit State  Figure 1
Sagging 45-year-old
timber rafter — or is the
A serviceability shortfall can be gauged from camber intentional for the
shedding of waters?!
a simple, shading timber structure (Figure
1). In this instance, although there are no
dire consequences — and possibly even an
improvement to the rainwater shedding —
this could be noted as an aesthetic shortfall.

These methods are applicable to a variety

of basic structures, from simple shading
devices (as illustrated in Fig. 1) to basic
grillages supporting building services, while
also acting as aids for the preliminary design
to bridge decks. The examples that follow
note the hand calculations to be undertaken
(which are not time-consuming), via five basic
equations aided by a BCSA chart6.

Two earlier technical papers published

by the author7,8 discuss deflection,
rotation and vibration in buildings, and
refer to serviceability excluding structural
collapse. These note that the serviceability
requirements depend on the end use of a
structure, with an agricultural shed being
more lenient on serviceability requirements
than the non-load-bearing partitions in new
residential premises.
divided by E0,mean for timber. The C value calculation then calls for a
The methods outlined for the calculation of deflections are based refinement to cater for timber creep effects over time.
on the method outlined by the BCSA in producing deflection
coefficients C for steel members (Figure 2)6. For reinforced concrete, this method is applicable only in analysing
horizontal drift of a vertical structure. In this instance, the allowable
The required moment of inertia I in cm4 for a uniform distributed load drift recommended is based on span-to-deflection ratios, unlike
(UDL) is obtained from Equation 1, where C is a factor obtained from the vertical loading situations. For vertical loads, the traditional
Fig. 2 or Table 1, dependent on the span-to-deflection ratio adopted, span-to-depth ratios are applicable, although they should be
w is the serviceability load in kN/m and L is the effective span in applied flexibly to cater for the intended use of the structure.
metres. The units thus employed are consistent with the value of the When designing for a simply supported roof slab to a shed, by how
constant C adopted. much can a span-to-depth ratio of 20 be exceeded, prior to the
serviceability aspect becoming suspect? This will possibly also
I = CwL3 (1) depend on the allowable falls for the disposal of run-off waters to
remain unhindered.
Where serviceability is not an issue, it is recommended that the
specified span-to-deflection ratio relate solely to the deflection, It is even easier to go from a deflection-to-span ratio to a rotation
as calculated for the variable load Q1 alone, which is the imposed calculation. The rotation in radians θ is given by the simple
load. However, instances arise where it is necessary to minimise relationship:
crack widths to non-load-bearing partitions which may also have
cladding affixed or for vibration control; in these instances, the total θ = 3.2 x deflection-to-span ratio (3)
serviceable load is to be applied.
Similarly, adopting relatively smaller deflection-to-span ratios than
For a point load equation I is modified: those normally adopted for designs based solely on deflection
criteria will cater for vibration effects in steel or timber. In Part 2
I = CWL2 (2) of the series, a simple calculation check will be undertaken for the
vibration effects as imposed on a gym floor in a light steel-and-
Again, Table 1 gives C values for central point loads, with W taken as timber construction.
the total serviceability load in kN. For loads other than central loads,
the C values are taken from Fig. 2. Overall, excessive vibrations can be avoided by designing floor
systems to have fundamental frequencies typically above 8Hz9. The
Scaling down by inverse proportion, this method is applicable for use Institution’s Technical Guidance Note on ‘Floor vibration’10 notes
in other structural materials such as timber. For timber, this scaling is that for office buildings the minimum frequency is 4Hz, while for
obtained by multiplying the quotient of Young’s modulus Es for steel stages and dance floors this minimum is increased to 8.4Hz. It is

TSE34_36-40 v2.indd 37 25/09/2014 12:07

 ›
Part 1

38 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
October 2014 Material properties

• density of the material — the weight of the building is normally

greater than that of its contents; lighter materials thus call for smaller
sections, although they have increased vibratory effects
• coefficient of thermal expansion — this defines thermal
movements noted as low for timber and limestone masonry
• embodied energy — this relates to the sustainability of the
material adopted and to the energy and resources expended in
the manufacture and transport of materials. Even in a very efficient
building, ongoing energy use over the lifetime of the building will
represent four times that of the embodied energy used in the
construction process. However, the proportion of energy that is either
embodied or operational varies between types. The extremes are a
bridge, with high embodied energy and low operational requirements,
and a hospital, where the operational energy is high. Finally, when
the building reaches the end of its life, the energy required to alter

BCSA
or demolish the development, and to deal with the resulting site
and materials, completes the lifetime environmental costs of that
 Figure 2
Deflection coefficients C for moments of inertia for steel sections development13. Softwood timber is the most sustainable material, with
aluminium the most unsustainable
further noted that the natural frequency f1 of a simply supported • factor of safety — definitions of structural materials fall under
beam may also be obtained from its maximum deflection δ due to ‘ductile’ or ‘brittle’. The various codes of practice note that ductile
the applied load and self-weight in millimetres: materials, such as structural steelwork, have a material factor of
safety tending towards 1. Ductile behaviour sustains excessive local
f1 = 18 / δ1/2 (4) strains by plastic deformation, noted as the flat portion for steel in
Figure 3, thereby giving warning before damage occurs. Concrete,
On-site, a non-intrusive, preliminary, cheap testing plan is useful for on the other hand, with a material factor of safety of 1.5, appears to
characterising the global performance of a floor in terms of human sit on the dividing line between ductile and brittle. Other materials
footfall. A heel drop is generated by an 80kg person arching their with a material factor of safety higher than 1.5 are defined as brittle.
heels up by 60mm on the balls of their feet and then freefalling onto Brittle materials break without advance warning in the elastic range of
the floor. The peak force is about 2.2kN and the duration of the deformation (Fig. 3 shows the stress strain curve for glass)
impulse is 50ms11. The heel drop does not require an assessment of
the flooring damping system, as the (viscous) human body absorbs Although Fig. 3 notes glass as being a very brittle material, Table 2
mechanical energy whenever it is in contact with the floor. notes its E value and density to be similar to aluminium. Thus, although
the same C factor may be utilised for calculating span-to-deflection
EC5 notes that a residential timber floor may be considered to satisfy ratios for both these materials, it is important to note that glass in panes
vibration criteria if the natural frequency of the floor exceeds 8Hz. can deflect by more than its own thickness. This takes designers into
Furthermore, the immediate deflection under a 1kN point, which the realm of large deflection theory (Fig. 3), when the pane deflects by
represents a person walking on the floor, should not exceed the more than half of its thickness14. To avoid causing alarm, acceptable
deflection δ where l is the span given in millimetres12. span-to-deflection ratios for glass are limited to span/65 or should not
exceed 50mm15. In the case of prestressed glass, its strength may not
δ = 16 500 / I1.1 or 18mm if I <4m (5) be fully exploited as the deflection limit can control the design.

The term ‘serviceability’ refers to all structural behaviour, excluding It is noted that the density and the modulus of elasticity E for aluminium
structural collapse which renders a building or construction unfit for are approximately one-third that of steel. Thus, the deflections due to
its intended use. This lack of fitness may relate to human reactions dead loads for these materials are similar, even though the aluminium
(aesthetic, physiological or psychological), ranging from annoyance structure is much lighter. On the other hand, the embodied energy
to medical trauma. It may also hinder the operation of humans or content identifies steelwork as being a more sustainable material, with
equipment. In theory, it is possible to modify an unserviceable building, the production of aluminium having more impact on the environment.
so that it becomes serviceable. Serviceability limits and performance Similarly, for higher grades of steel used at the higher stress levels, the
standards as also influenced by non-structural matters such as deflections will be larger than for mild steel, as the E value is constant
architectural features, auditory and visual stimuli, and building usage, for different types of steelwork.
which militate against a single value; instead,
these should be specified in terms of sets
of limits1.

Structural material properties

Table 2 outlines the material properties that
provide values on the:

• strength of the material

• modulus of elasticity E which outlines
the deflection characteristic of the material
— the higher the E value, the lower the
deflection
 Figure 3
Ductile and
brittle materials

TSE34_36-40 v2.indd 38 25/09/2014 12:07

 www.thestructuralengineer.org

39

Table 2: Comparison of properties for structural materials

Material Ultimate stress Modulus of Density Coefficient Embodied Material
(N/mm2) elasticity (KN/m3) of thermal energy factor of
(N/mm2) expansion (MJ/kg) safety (ECs
*10-6/°C (Embodied & PREN)
CO2) (γm)
(kg/t)
Mild steel 275 205 000 70 10.8 35 (2030) 1.0
High-yield steel 460 200 000 70 10.8 35 (2030) 1.0
Prestressing wire 1570 200 000 70 35 (2030) 1.15

Aluminium alloy 255 70 000 24 23.0 300 (17 000) 1.2

Timber:
Softwood 10–30** 8000** 6 3.5** 2 (1644) 1.3
Hardwood 35–70** 12 000** 3.5** 3 (2136)
Reinforced concrete 20–60 28 000 – 40 000 24 10.8 8 (203) 1.5
Glass fibre composite 250 20 000 18 100 (8070) 1.7

Limestone masonry 7.5 17 000 20 4.0 3 (2136) 2.3–3.0

Annealed glass 13 (45*) 70 000 25 8.3 15 (1130) 1.8
Prestressed glass 45 (150*) 70 000 25 8.3 20 (1130) 1.2–1.8
* Gust loading ** Parallel to grain

Material selection
The main goal of material selection is to minimise cost while meeting
product performance goals. Of course, cost per kilogram is not the
only important factor in material selection. An important concept is
‘cost per unit of function’. For example, if the key design objective were
the stiffness of a plate of the material, then the designer would need a
material with the optimal combination of density, Young's modulus and
price. A valuable insight into the inherent properties of a wide range of
different materials is given by the series of ‘property charts’ developed
by Ashby16. These charts are plotted on logarithmic scales due to the
large variation in material properties. For example, Young’s modulus of
SEWARD, 1998

elasticity E may vary by 10M times, while the density of various materials
may vary by as little as 2000 times.

 Figure 4
Comparison of structural and functional properties of various materials
Figure 4 is based on values in Seward’s textbook on understanding
structures17. One of the properties is the strength of the different
materials per unit of weight — known as specific strength. It is noted
As fatigue performance relates to a material’s E value, the fact that that aluminium and fibre composites are more competitive, with the
aluminium’s E value is only one-third that of steel means that the least competitive being masonry and concrete. The weight of a building
fatigue strength of welded aluminium alloys at a given life is about is usually greater than its contents. Constructing a lighter structure
one-third that of corresponding steel joints. It is therefore important results in smaller structural members. On the other hand, weight can
to determine the natural frequency of vibration of the component be useful to resist wind loads. Steelwork generally requires fireproofing
and take account of the fatigue loading to be encountered3. or a paint treatment to offset corrosion effects, which consequently
reduces its efficiency.
As glass fibre’s E value stands at 1/10 that of steel, and it has
lower bond characteristics, concrete reinforced with such Deflection criteria, not strength, dictate the design of structures,
elements is different from conventional concrete. Essentially, especially where the higher grade of material is applied, unless short
concrete reinforced with glass-reinforced plastic shows larger spans are involved. The stiffness per unit of weight, known as specific
crack widths, larger deformations and lower shear strength than modulus, is a better criterion. Fig. 4 also demonstrates why steel and
conventional concrete reinforced with the same amount of steel3. aluminium appear more advantageous. The previous section, however,
Again, steel reinforcing bars are more sustainable than glass fibre discussed the fatigue weakness of aluminium as opposed to steelwork.
reinforcement.
The most economical structural materials appear to be concrete,
The long-term re-use of materials after demolition of structures also timber and steelwork. It is, however, worth noting that labour costs
needs to be accounted for. Steel is easily recycled, while concrete have been ignored in Fig. 3, while fire protection, as in steelwork,
and masonry are easily re-used as hardcore. Only timber may may also be required at an added cost. Although masonry appears
be regarded as a renewable source; however, to protect the rain expensive as a structural material, the cost also depends on the country
forests, the use of tropical hardwoods should be restricted to those where it is applied. For a country with low labour costs and restricted
obtained from properly managed schemes where timber is replaced. specialisations, it could turn out to be more economical.

TSE34_36-40 v2.indd 39 25/09/2014 12:07

 ›
Part 1

40 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
October 2014 Material properties

References and further reading

1) Leicester R. H. (1993) ‘Serviceability criteria of Structural Steelwork, London: British 12) Draycott T. and Bullman P. (2009)
for building codes’, International Colloquium Constructional Steelwork Association Structural elements design manual: Working
on Structural Serviceability of Buildings, with Eurocodes (2nd ed.), Oxford: Routledge
Gothenburg, Sweden, June, IABSE Reports, 7) Camilleri D. (2011) ‘Deflection and preliminary
69, pp. 69–84 vibration effects on structural elements’, The 13) The Institution of Structural Engineers
Structural Engineer, 89 (5), pp. 17–18 (1999) Building for a sustainable future:
2) Freeman T. J., Littlejohn G. S. and Driscoll Construction without depletion, London: The
R. M. C. (1994) Has your house got cracks? A 8) Camilleri D. (2011) ‘Rotation of supporting Institution of Structural Engineers
guide to subsidence and heave of buildings on small bearing pads in buildings’, The Structural
clay, London: Institution of Civil Engineers and Engineer, 89 (9), pp. 16–20 14) The Institution of Structural Engineers
Building Research Establishment (1999) Structural use of glass in buildings,
9) Mouring S. E. and Ellingwood B. R. London: The Institution of Structural
3) Burdekin F. M. (2000) ‘Developments in (1993) ‘Minimizing floor vibration caused by Engineers
New Materials and Methods of Construction building occupants’, International Colloquium
for the New Millennium’, Brunel International on Structural Serviceability of Buildings, 15) European Committee for Standardization
Lecture, Institution of Civil Engineers, London Gothenburg, Sweden, June, IABSE Reports, 69, (2013) prEN 16612:2013 Glass in Building.
pp. 125–132 Determination of the Load Resistance of Glass
4) Smith J. and Jagger D. (2007) Building Panes by Calculation and Testing (Draft)
Cost Planning for the Design Team (2nd ed.), 10) The Institution of Structural Engineers
Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann (2012) ‘Technical Guidance Note 11 (Level 1)’, 16) Ashby M. F. and Jones D. R. H. (1996)
The Structural Engineer, 90 (7), pp. 32–34 Engineering Materials: An Introduction to their
5) Ashby M. F., Shercliff H. and Cebon D. Properties and Applications (2nd ed.), Oxford:
(2007) Materials: Engineering, Science, 11) Nash A. (1993) ‘Transient vibration in Butterworth–Heinemann
Processing and Design, Oxford: Butterworth– light frame floors’, International Colloquium
Heinemann on Structural Serviceability of Buildings, 17) Seward D. (1998) Understanding
Gothenburg, Sweden, June, IABSE Reports, Structures: Analysis, Materials, Design (2nd
6) Weller A. D. and Allen P. H. (1990) Handbook 69, pp. 231–236 ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave

So
cia

SUSTAINABILITY
Economical

CONFERENCE
tal

2014
en

nm
E n v ir o

EARLY BIRD RATES END FRIDAY 3 OCTOBER

The conference will cover a range of topics, including re-use and adaptation,
research with a sustainable focus, and the use of materials. The conference will
also look at exemplar project case studies.
SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
Keynote: Peter Sarah Kaethner Arup Michael Sansom SCI
Date | Thursday 4 December
Guthrie Director of the Michael Ramage Tristram Hope
Time | 09:30 – 17:30
Centre for Sustainable University of Cambridge THiSolutions
Venue | King’s Fund, No. 11 Cavendish
Development, University John Gerrard Expedition Hayley Gryc Arup
Square, London W1G 0AN
of Cambridge Ben Rowe Ramboll Andrew Minson MPA –
Price | Member: £150 £125
Dr Gavin Dunn BREEAM Rupert Scott TRADA The Concrete Centre
Non-member: £250 £200

Annual Institution Events Conferences & Seminars Special Interest Series Technical Lecture Series
A programme of conferences and seminars
organised by the Institution and industry partners

Early bird rates are available until Friday 3 October. Please visit the events section of the Institution website, www.istructe.org for
more information and to buy your tickets. Ticket sales will end Friday 21 November. If you have any questions, please contact the
Events Team at [email protected]

TSE34_36-40 v2.indd 40 25/09/2014 12:07

 ›
Part 2
www.thestructuralengineer.org

Technical TheStructuralEngineer 41
Material properties November 2014

Material properties: effect

on deflection, rotation and
vibration — Part 2
Denis H. Camilleri Eur Ing, A&CE, BSc (Eng), BA (Arch), CEng, ACIArb, FIStructE, FICE
Managing Partner, dhiPERITI

Ian Camilleri Cassar A&CE, BE&A (Hons), MSc (Lond), DIC

Partner, dhiPERITI

Introduction
This article is the second in a three-part series outlining the This signifies that for timber, Equations 1 and 2 in Part 1 have to
serviceability hand calculations to be undertaken in the preliminary be factored by 1.33, after factoring up with the quotient of Young’s
structural design stage. modulus for steel divided by that for timber. This has been accounted
for when computing the timber C values (Table 1).
Structural design incorporating serviceability Reference is then made to Equation 3 in Part 1 for the calculation of
requirements rotation at the support in radians. Figure 1 highlights the relevance of
Further to the five basic serviceability equations outlined in Part 11, this rotation at the base of a simple timber structure supported on a
the following example uses the coefficients of load combinations and masonry pier. This rotation of the lightly loaded canopy also creates a
material characteristic strengths set out in the relevant Eurocodes. vertical distortion to the masonry pier due to the sagged shape of the
It goes beyond strength calculations to examine the effects of timber rafter, which produces a horizontal thrust on the pier.
deflection, vibration and rotation at the supports of an element. The Institution’s Manual for the design of steelwork building
These calculations are also useful when verifying the outputs structures to EC35 notes the following on vibration criteria:
produced from structural analysis and design programs. Although
the simplifications implicit in these formulae make them ideal for • the fundamental frequency of floors in dwellings and offices should
hand calculations, the use of automated calculation tools should not be less than three cycles/second. This may be deemed to be
not be ruled out. Options include creating a spreadsheet for these satisfied when the total deflection is less than 28mm
equations or even inputting them into a programmable calculator. • the fundamental frequency of floors used for dancing and gymnasia
In this calculation, reference is made to Table 1 for calculation should not be less than five cycles/second. This may be deemed to be
of C values, and to Equation 3 in Part 1 for calculation of rotation satisfied when the total deflection is less than 10mm
in radians. Here, Table 1 is an updated version of the table of load
values published in Part 1. Whereas Part 1 referred to a steel E value Earthquake engineers note a rule of thumb whereby ‘soft’ skeleton
of 205kN/mm2, as described by the British Constructional Steel structures have a period of fundamental natural oscillations equal
Association in 19902, here we use a steel E value of 210kN/mm2, as to roughly 1/10 of the number of floors in seconds6. For less ductile
set out more recently in EC33. Adopting the E values of EC3 results structures this constant doubles to 1/5. The period of a 15-storey
in minor savings in section sizings for the serviceability effects.
These savings are augmented in the strength calculation undertaken,
as the partial safety factors cited in EC3 are lower. Table 1: Updated deflection coefficient C for I cm4 calculation for
Note that the timber C values for lightweight timber floors a simple support span condition for UDLs and central point loads
account for a 33% increase in value over the interpolated E values Span-to- Steel E = 210kN/mm2 Timber E = 8kN/mm2
of the materials, to cater for creep effects. To allow for creep, the deflection ratio
Institution’s Technical Guidance Note ‘Design of timber floor joists’4
UDL Point load UDL Point load
states that the instantaneous deflection due to permanent loads
is to be increased by a factor of (1 + kdef), while for imposed loads a 1/200 1.24 1.98 43.3 52.0
reduced factor of (1 + ψ2.1kdef) is applied. Shear deflection can also be
1/360 2.23 3.57 77.9 93.7
accounted for by adding 10% to the calculated deflection.
With kdef given at 0.8 for an internal environment and ψ2.1 taken at 1/500 3.10 4.96 108.2 130.2
0.3, the calculated deflection has to be increased by 33% to cater for 1/800 4.96 7.94 173.2 208.4
all these effects. The effect of the distributed load on the deflection
1/1000 6.20 9.92 216.5 260.4
calculation is considered insignificant.
 ›
Part 2

42 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
November 2014 Material properties

building consequently equals approx. 1.5s, mainly at

0.67Hz. For a typical site, there may be 3–4 strong
responses with a frequency up to about 5Hz within a
frequency range of 0.2–20Hz. The higher frequencies
refer to ground motion close to the epicentre on firm soil
or rock, while the lower frequencies refer to earthquake
motion at some distance from the epicentre and on softer
soils.
As an example, consider the deflection δ, to be limited
to span/200, of a simply supported steel and timber beam
with Young’s modulus E = 210kN/mm2 and 8kN/mm2
respectively. For a simply supported beam of effective
span L in mm as subjected to a uniformly distributed load
(UDL) of w in kN/m, the central deflection in mm is given
by:

4
5
= =
•
200 384 Figure 1
Rotation at support of
sagged 45-year-old timber rafter
3
5 × 200 × ×
=
384

5 × 200 × × ( ×1000 ) 3 construction does not disrupt the existing use of the premises.
3
= = The proposed intermediate floor has an effective span of 7.5m between
(384 × × 1000) × 10 4 load-bearing masonry walls, with an overall depth of 6.25m and a storey
height of 3.5m. The structural grid adopted is shown in Figure 2, with
When using I = CwL3, where w is in kN/m and L is in m, secondary steel beams (B1) spanning 6.25m onto a steel main beam (B2)
the moment of inertia I is calculated in cm4 by dividing by with a 7.5m span.
104. This assumes consistent units throughout in mm. In Spanning onto the secondary beams are continuous softwood C18
this case: timber planks on a structural grid of 1.25m centres. The front open façade
of this mezzanine floor is glazed in laminated glass, which reduces the
risk of damage and injury at a cost not much greater than that of normal
5 × 200 × 10 9 annealed glass. Laminated glass prevents glass shards from falling and
= = 1.24
(384 × 210 × 10 7 ) flying through the air, and ensures the fenestration remains sealed, even
during the most severe loading conditions.

where the C value of 1.24 conforms to the value quoted Design of timber flooring on a 1.25m continuous span
in Table 1. The timber floor plank is to be a C18 grade planed softwood with a density
For a timber section on a simply supported span, if we of 3.5kN/m3 and E0.mean of 8kN/mm2. We assume a 25mm thick plank,
restrict the deflection to span/500: continuous across a minimum of three spans. For this condition, a bending
moment (BM) of wl2/10 is used, instead of the simple BM of wl2/8.
3.10 × 1.33 × 210 The floor loading comprises a dead load (DL) of timber planks and a gym
= = 108.2 live load (LL) which is assumed to be 5kN/m2:
8

In this case, DL = 0.025m × 3.5kN / m 3 × 1 = 0.09kN/m 2 × 1.35 = 0.12kN/ m 2

3.10 refers to the
LL = 5.0kN/ m 2 × 1 = 5.00kN/m 2 × 1.50 = 7.50kN/ m 2
steelwork’s C value
for this span-to- 5.09kN/m 2 (SLS) 7.62kN/ m 2 (ULS)
deflection ratio, as
outlined in Table 1. where the ultimate limit state (ULS) load is obtained by multiplying the
The constant 1.33 serviceability limit state (SLS) load by partial safety factors defined in EC07.
represents a 33% increase for timber sections, as
discussed earlier. The C value of 108.2 conforms to the The ultimate BM Mu is calculated as:
value quoted in Table 1.
7.62 × 1.25 2
Structural design of intermediate light flooring Mu = = 1.19 kNm/m
The following example is for the construction of a
10
mezzanine intermediate floor in an existing indoor public 2
×
swimming pool which is to be utilised as a public gym. Mu = =
The structural materials adopted will ensure that the γ 6
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

43

Table 2: I values and relative plank depths d* absolute deflection9. As a continuous span of more than three
bays, the span-to-deflection ratio for a UDL is to be reduced by
Strength Deflection-to- Deflection-to- 0.52:
span/250* span/150*
I (cm⁴) 130.2 280 168
=
d (mm) 25 32.25 27.22 (0.52 × 250 ) 130
* These ratios relate to a simple support condition
where:

1250
= = 9.62 mm
130
Using the C value of 43.3 stated in Table 1:

43.3 × 130
= 28.15
200

3
= = 28.15 × 5.09 × 1.25 3 = 280cm 4 /m
• Figure 2
Details of proposed lightweight
intermediate flooring A similar calculation for span/150 criteria yields I = 168cm4/m.
Vibration performance in timber floors may be a concern3
when spans are in excess of 4.0m. However, if a vibration check
for residential premises is to be undertaken according to EC5,
where the characteristic strength value f for C18 timber is the maximum deflection to limit vibration for a 1.25m span should
18N/mm2, the breadth b is taken per metre and the partial not exceed 1.8mm:
safety factor γm for timber is 1.3. Design of timber floor joists
notes that a factor kmod exists on the duration of the load4. span 1250
For intermediate floors defined as service class 1 and for = = 694.5
1.8
permanent self-weight and medium-term imposed floor
loads, kmod is given as 0.8. Table 1 notes that for a central point load:
It is also important to note that the behaviour of timber is
not ductile and timber design is therefore different to steel 694.5
and concrete design. The EC58 standard for designing = 52 × = 180.75
timber structures is based on a simplified method of limit
200
state, whereby characteristic values of load actions and where C = 52 and span/δ = 200.
material characteristics are adjusted by partial coefficients. As a continuous span of more than three bays, the span-to-
Timber structures are analysed using elastic structural deflection ratio for a central point load is to be reduced by 0.55:
analysis techniques in ULS and SLS states. Thus, while the
2
ULS loading is adopted as per EC5, the section modulus = 0.55 × = 0.55 × 180.75 × 1 × 1.25 2 = 155cm4
applied is the elastic, not the plastic, modulus.
As noted previously, for this rectangular section, the To satisfy vibration criteria for residential premises, this I
elastic modulus bd2/6 — not the plastic modulus bd2/4 — has value varies between a strength of 130.2cm4 and a deflection-to-
been applied. span/150 ratio of 168cm4 (Table 2).
The depth of the timber plank d in mm is calculated as: Thus, for this short span, the deflection criteria are more
onerous than the strength and vibration requirements.
They are further dependent on the type of damage to finishes
tolerated. EC5 states that limiting deflections should be specified
for each project and agreed upon with the client.

Design of secondary steel beam B1 with a 6.25m

Let us round this to 25mm, noting the arbitrary choice of a effective span
BM factor of 10 made earlier. The beam loading is calculated as:

3
100 × 2.5 3
( ) = = = 130.2cm 4/ m 7.62 kN / m 2 × 1.25 m = 9.50 kN / m (ULS)
12 12 5.09 kN / m 2 × 1.25 m = 6.36 kN / m (SLS)
Ignoring vibration effects, timber deflection to reduce
2
damage to brittle finishes is to be limited to L/250, otherwise 9.5 × 6.25 2
L/150. The Manual for the design of timber building Mu = = = 46.4kN/ m
8 8
structures to EC5, however, notes that these deflection
ratios are there to limit the curvature, rather than the
 ›
Part 2

44 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
November 2014 Material properties

Table 3: I values and relative beam depths for secondary steel beam Table 4: I values and relative beam depths for primary steel beam

Strength Deflection-to- Vibration-to- Strength Deflection-to- Vibration-to-

275N/mm² span/360 span/625 265N/mm² span/360 span/750
I (cm⁴) 1450 3892 6947 I (cm⁴) 10 230 16 270 37 103
d (mm) 180 240 270 d (mm) 327 360 460.2
kg/m 21.9 30.7 42.3 kg/m 43 57.1 82

For a fully restrained condition Zp = M/f, where f = 275N/mm2, for The f1 value of 6.11Hz confirms that this floor is adequate for use in a
grade S275 steel (t<16mm): gym, as it is greater than the required minimum natural frequency of 5Hz.
Table 3 shows that if the structural design is to respect the vibration
46.4 × 10 3 criteria, the amount of steel required is double that required solely to
= = 169cm 3 meet the strength criteria, resulting in a 100% increase in material costs.
275 Similarly, meeting the deflection criteria would result in a 50% cost
For an IPN 180 beam, Zp = 187cm3. increase compared with the strength criteria alone.
Ignoring vibration effects, the deflection of the steel beam is to be Respecting the vibration criteria will create a stiffer grillage. As
limited to span/δ = 360. the steel joist is supported on the main steel girder, this increases
the slope of the steel joist at its end, which in turn exacerbates the
3
= = 2.23 × 6.36 × 6.25 3 = 3462cm 4 deflection of the secondary joist member. A prudent design would add
half the deflection of the main beam to the calculated deflection of the
joist when verifying that its deflection does not exceed the specified
For an IPE 0 240 beam, I = 3892cm4. limits under a UDL9.
To limit vibration effects, the Manual for the design of steelwork
building structures to EC35 recommends a total allowable deflection of Design of primary steel beam B2 with a 7.5m effective span
10mm for dance floors and gyms, with the natural frequency at least 5Hz. The edge loading is to consist of 12.5mm thick laminated glass,
Thus: stiffened with glass fins at 1.25m centres, with a storey height of 3.5m
and the self-weight of the beam:
span 6250
= = 625 0.0125m × 25 kN / m3 × 3.5m + 0.75 kN /m = 1.84kN/m
10
The beam loading is calculated as:
625
= 1.24 × = 3.88
200 6.25m
9.50 kN/m ×
2
+ 1.84 kN/m × 1.35 = 26.23 kN/m (ULS)
1.25m
where C = 1.24 for span/δ = 200 (Table 1).
6.25m
= 3
= 3.88 × 6.36 × 6.253 = 6024cm 4 6.36 kN/ m ×
1.25m
2
+ 1.84 kN/ m = 17.74kN/m (SLS)

For an IPE 0 270 beam, I = 6947cm4.

2
The natural frequency f1 of a simply supported beam is derived from 7.5 2
the basic equation: Mu = = 26.23 × = 184.43 kN/m
8 8
18
1 = 1
A fully restrained condition is assumed, as the main beam is
restrained by secondary beams at 1.25m centres: Zp = M/f where
2
f = 265N/mm2 for grade S275 steel (t>16mm):

where δ is the maximum deflection due to the applied load and self- 184.43 × 10 3
weight in mm. For IPE 0 270: = = 696 cm 3
265
6024
= 10mm × = 8.67mm For an IPE A 330 beam, Zp = 702cm3.
6947 Ignoring vibration effects, the deflection of the steel beam is to be
limited to span/δ = 360 where C = 2.23 (Table 1):
Therefore:
3
= = 2.23 × 17.74 × 7.5 3 = 16 689cm 4
18
1 = 1 = 6.11Hz
(8.67 ) 2 For an IPE 0 360 beam, I = 16 270cm4.
The vibration effect in a gym can be limited by limiting the total
deflection to within 10mm. Thus:
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

45

span 7500 span 34 800

= = 750 = 750 × = 703
10 37 103
Rotation at the support is given by:
1.24 × 750
= = 4.65 3.2
200 = 0.00455 rad
703
where C = 1.24 for span/δ = 200 (Table 1). For an internal environment, total rotation is given by:

0.00455 rad + 0.005 rad (uncertainty factor ) = 0.00955 rad

3
= = 4.65 × 17.74 × 7.5 3 = 34 800cm 4 This is considered a small rotation, as it lies outside the acceptable
range of 0.015rad to 0.035rad, where 0.035rad is noted as 2°. Thus, this
For a UK 457x191x82 universal beam, I = 37 103cm4. In this case, lightweight structure, in contrast to heavy loaded transfer slabs10, generates
the natural frequency f1 is calculated by: a very reasonable rotation at the support.
On strength criteria, the bearing length of the steel beam is given by:
reaction at support / (flange width × net bearing stress). For a flange width
34 800
9.38 of 19.13 cm, on a dry mix mortar of 65% covering capacity and a grade
37 103 20/25 concrete padstone (with bearing stress given as 0.4 × 25N/mm2), the
bearing length is:

26.23
9.38 0.1913 N
79

The f1 value of 5.88Hz confirms that the floor is suitable for

use in a gym, as it is greater than the required minimum natural The total bearing length (as derived from BS 8110, Cl. 5.2.311) is given by:
frequency of 5Hz.
These deflection calculations have 79 mm + 25mm (edge spalling) + 7. 5m × 4mm /m (beam tolerance) = 134mm
been approximated to a UDL, not a
series of point loads. Figure 2 in Part 1, from the BCSA2, contains This compares to a minimum specified bearing length of steel on
factors allowing the C value to be calculated for point loads. concrete of 75mm.
To satisfy vibration criteria, while also reducing the risk of The span-to-depth ratios in this design example have been utilised both
damaging the supported glazing panel, a deeper beam size is to minimise damage to brittle materials (such as the extensive glazing) and
necessary than if designing to meet strength or deflection criteria. to reduce the vibratory effects on users of the gym.
However, when designing for vibration criteria, a larger beam size The final article in the series will present a preliminary design in composite
is again required, resulting in a 90% increase in material costs floor construction for a three-storey warehouse, with insights into the
compared to designing solely for strength criteria (Table 4). deflection/vibration effects of bridge decks — a type of structure where the
For the 457x191x82 universal beam chosen, the actual span/δ is DL may be predominant. Hand calculations will be produced for the vertical
given by: sideways deflection of this three-storey warehouse.

References and further reading

1) Camilleri D. H. and Camilleri Cassar, structures to EC3, London, UK: The Institution Engineer, 89 (9), pp. 16–20
I. (2014) ‘Material properties: effect on of Structural Engineers
deflection, rotation and vibration — Part 1’, 11) British Standards Institution (2005) BS
The Structural Engineer, 92 (10), pp. 36–40 6) Key D. (1988) Earthquake design practice 8110-1:1997 Structural use of concrete — Part
for buildings, London, UK: Thomas Telford 1: Code of practice for design and construction,
2) Weller A. D. and Allen P. H. (1990) London, UK: BSI
Handbook of Structural Steelwork, London, 7) British Standards Institution (2002) BS EN
UK: British Constructional Steelwork 1990:2002 Eurocode 0. Basis of structural
Association design, London, UK: BSI
Erratum
3) British Standards Institution (2010) BS 8) British Standards Institution (2004) BS In Part 1 of the series, published in the
EN 1993:2010 Eurocode 3. Design of steel EN 1995:2004 Eurocode 5. Design of timber September 2014 issue of The Structural
structures, London, UK: BSI structures, London, UK: BSI Engineer, Table 1 contained an error. The
timber deflection coefficient C for a central
4) The Institution of Structural Engineers 9) The Institution of Structural Engineers and point load at a span-to-deflection ratio of
(2012) ‘Technical Guidance Note 18 (Level 1)’, TRADA (2007) Manual for the design of timber 1/500 was incorrectly given as 148.63; this
The Structural Engineer, 90 (11), pp. 36–39 building structures to Eurocode 5, London, UK: should have read 130.2.
The Institution of Structural Engineers A corrected version of the article is available
5) The Institution of Structural Engineers online at: www.thestructuralengineer.org
and The Institution of Civil Engineers (2000) 10) Camilleri D. (2011) ‘Rotation of supporting
Manual for the design of steelwork building small bearing pads in buildings’, The Structural
 ›
Part 3

46 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
December 2014 Material properties

Material properties:
effect on deflection, rotation
and vibration – Part 3
Denis H. Camilleri Eur Ing, A&CE, BSc (Eng), BA (Arch), CEng, ACIArb, FIStructE, FICE
Managing Partner, dhiPERITI

Ian Camilleri Cassar A&CE, BE&A (Hons), MSc (Lond), DIC

Partner, dhiPERITI

Introduction the downstand of the steel beam is removed to create valuable stor-
This article is the third in a three-part series outlining the serviceability age height.
hand calculations to be undertaken in the preliminary structural design For the storage of heavy metal, assuming a storey height of 5m, the
stage. live load (LL) on the floor slabs is:

Structural design of a multi-storey, panelled, detached 5m x 4kN/m2 = 20kN/m2

warehouse
Further to the structural design discussed in Part 21, this additional The floor system adopted is a steel-composite construction
example refers to the serviceability requirements of a composite steel- with steel beams centred at 2.4m. For a total characteristic load of
concrete floor slab and the allowable horizontal drift of a medium-rise, 33.89kN/m2, the required thickness of the slab for the continuous
three-storey warehouse with an effective span of 12m and a storey spanning condition is 120mm. As the structural floor slab is to be used
height of 5m (Figure 1). as the finished top surface in the warehouse, grade 30/37 concrete
A preliminary sizing calculation for the composite floor slab is un- is specified, to be applied with a power float finish followed by hand
dertaken according to EC4. The rectangular stress blocks for both the trowelling.
concrete slab and the steel section, which are obtained by multiplying For reinforced concrete, span-to-depth ratios are adopted instead
the ultimate limit state (ULS) by the resultant lever arm, make for a of the span-to-deflection limits outlined here. For a span-to-depth ratio
simple calculation of the resisting moment. This hand calculation in- of 26, the 120mm concrete slab depth is the most economical solution,
cludes preliminary deflection and vibration checks. A series of techni- with the required reinforcement area based solely on strength criteria.
cal articles on composite construction, published in The Structural Engi- A 100mm slab is adequate in deflection at a span-to-depth ratio of 26,
neer in 20142–6, outlines the detailing required following the preliminary but the area of steel required is 75% higher than for the 120mm slab;
sizing analysis.
The panel structure also acts as a sway frame, with the overall side
sway limited to H/300, where H is the overall height of the structure. S Figure 1
Details of proposed multi-
storey detached warehouse
The deflection of a vertical cantilever, as subjected to wind loading,
creates a side sway deflection. The required panel thickness is dictat-
ed by this side sway deflection, together with the slenderness effects
of the wall panels, which are exacerbated by the eccentricity of the
floor slabs resulting from the fact that the slabs sit on the wall panels.
Here, the clear span is dictated by manoeuvring requirements; brac-
ing elements may be absent due to deep-plan forms. The intermediate
floor slabs are pin-jointed to the wall panels, while tying detail require-
ments may achieve a degree of stability. However, essentially, the floor
slabs are props.
Composite-steel construction is regarded as one of the most eco-
nomical systems for medium- to long-span construction, with a reduc-
tion in steel weight in the range of 30–50%5. It has benefited from the
long experience in bridge construction.
For comparison, an alternative scheme using prestressed hollow-
core panels across the 12m span is also described. In this alternative,

TSE36_46-50 Material v2.indd 46 20/11/2014 12:25

 www.thestructuralengineer.org

47

25% of this increase is to cater for deflection requirements.

In the case of reinforced concrete subjected to other physical
 Figure 2
Exaggerated
deflection twisting
profiles of hollow
properties, such as creep, span-to-depth ratios take precedence prestressed slabs,
over the span-to-deflection ratio7. The span-to-depth ratio of 20 for leading to reduction
of shear resistance of
simply supported spans is based on a span-to-deflection ratio of precast slab panels
1:250.
For prestressed slab panels, span-to-depth ratios vary from 30–40
for a span range of 6.0–13.0m. The high span-to-depth ratio refers to
an office LL, with the low value referring to warehouse loading.

PAJARI, 1997
For composite construction, the serviceability requirements entail
the calculation of the short-term, long-term and dynamic modular
ratios. For preliminary sizing, the modular ratio is to be averaged out
at 15 for imposed loads and 30 for dead loads (DLs). To calculate the
natural frequency, the modular ratio is taken as 6, while 10% of the where:
imposed load plus the DL is considered for the dynamic deflection. γs is the partial safety factor for concrete = 1.0
Rackham et al.8 note that, for internal beams in composite con-
struction, the span-to-deflection ratios will be determined by the R s = 134 # 345 # 10 -1 = 4623kN
finishes. These are to be limited to span/360 for imposed loads and 1
span/200 for total loads. For edge beams, the ratios are determined From the two respective stress blocks, it is noted that the plastic neu-
by the cladding. For glazing, these are to be limited to span/500. A tral axis falls within the base of the concrete slab.
minimum limit on natural frequency is proposed as 4 cycles/s for The moment of resistance for this composite section is given by:
most building applications, except where there is vibrating machinery,
^0.55m + 0.12m h
and 3 cycles/s for car parks. The limit may be raised to 5 cycles/s for MR = 4623kN # = 1548kN/m 2 1464kN/m
special buildings such as sport halls. 2
Hicks and Lawson9 note that, for floors subjected to pedestrian Alternative construction options to the solid slab are available. These
traffic, the fundamental frequency is to be at least 3.55 cycles/s. This include hollow-core or solid prestressed panels. If using prestressed
may be reduced to 3 cycles/s for steel-framed car parks. panels, the whole depth of the concrete panel could be used for the
concrete stress block; however, the effective width might be less than
Calculating the section of the the 2.4m adopted (it is generally less than 1.5m)5.
composite steel beam On the other hand, if profiled steel sheeting were adopted, then the
The floor load (which comprises the DL for a 120mm concrete slab overall depth of the overlying in situ concrete would not need to be used
and the storage load or LL of 20kN/m2) is calculated as: in the calculation of the concrete stress block, which could be reduced
from 120mm to 70mm. The steel decking would
also create a limitation on the placement of the
steel shear studs, while there would be less sur-
rounding concrete in the vicinity of the shear
studs, resulting in a reduced shear capacity3.
The SCI has a free composite beam checking
tool available online10, for the use of profiled steel
where the ULS load is obtained by multiplying the serviceability sheeting as decking.
limit state (SLS) load by partial safety factors defined in EC0. The deflection under total load — where span/200 and C = 1.24
The beam bending moment (BM) is calculated as: (Table 1, Part 2) — is calculated as:

I = CWL3 = 1.24 # ^22.88 # 2.4 h # 12 3 = 117661cm 4

2
(33.89kN/m 2 # 2.4m) 12 = 1464kN/m
8
The effective flange width b for this composite construction is The deflection under an imposed load — where span/360 and C =
given as span/4, but is limited to the centrelines between beams — in 2.23 (Table 1, Part 2) — is calculated as:

I = CWL3 = 2.23 # ^20.00 # 2.4 h # 12 3 = 184965cm 4

this case 2.4m is the limiting case.
As a trial section, adopt a grade S355 IPE 550 steel beam where:
tf = 17.2mm >16mm, fy = 345N/mm2.
For the deflection calculations, the modular ratio for total loading is
The compressive resistance Rc of the slab is given by: averaged out at:
0.85fck 2.88 # 30 + 20 # 15 = 16.88
R c = 0.85fck # b eff # h c #
cc 22.88
where: The imposed load deflection, which is the limiting factor, is calculated as:
fck is the characteristic cylinder strength of concrete = 30N/mm2
γc is the partial safety factor for concrete = 1.5
12000 # 184965 = 30mm
360 202906
R c = 0.85 # 30 # 2400 # 120 # 10 -3 = 4896kN (span/400 compared to required span/360)
1.5 where for a modular ratio of 15 SZS charts11 provide:
The tensile resistance Rs of the steel section is given by: I = 155 800cm4 < 184 965cm4 for an IPE 550 beam and 120mm
fy concrete slab
R s = Aa # I = 202 906cm4 > 184 965cm4 for an IPE 600 beam and 120mm
cs concrete slab

TSE36_46-50 Material v2.indd 47 20/11/2014 12:25

 ›
Part 3

48 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
December 2014 Material properties

The fundamental frequency may be calculated by first calculating the higher limit for pedestrian bridges was inspired by a baby being
the deflection given by the DL plus 10% of the imposed load: woken on a bridge by the bridge vibration.
The fundamental frequency of a vehicular bridge is quoted in the
W = (2.88 + 0.1 x 20) x 2.4m = 11.7kN/m range of 3Hz. The natural frequency of the bridge should be outside
the range of 0.5–1.5 times the fundamental frequency, to avoid intoler-
span
= 12000 = 60mm
able dynamic conditions due to resonance.
200 200 US limits on allowable LL deflection appeared in the early 1930s
when a study attempted to link the unpleasant vibrations felt on a
I = CWL3 = 1.24 # 11.7 # 12 3 = 25069cm 4 sample of bridges built during that era. The study concluded that
structures with vibrations deemed unacceptable by a subjective hu-
The actual deflection is: man response had deflections that exceeded L/800. Human reactions
to vibrations are classified as either physiological or psychological.
Psychological discomfort results from unexpected motion, but physio-
60mm # 25069 = 6mm logical discomfort, such as seasickness, results from a low-frequency,
250300
high-amplitude vibration. The limits described here produce beam-to-
where for a modular ratio of 6 SZS charts11 provide: depth ratios varying from L/15 to L/20.
I = 250 300cm4 > 184 965cm4 for an IPE 600 beam and 120mm These recommendations are consistent with the warehouse flooring
concrete slab system adopted in this example, where the span-to-depth ratio is 16.67
The fundamental frequency ft that this floor is subjected to is calcu- and the natural frequency of 7.35Hz lies outside the range of 0.5–1.5
lated by: times the fundamental frequency, so resonance does not occur.
Furthermore, the deflection limit of 1:800 allows for a rotation in ra-
ft = 18 = 7.35Hz 2 3Hz
1 dians (Equation 3, Part 1) of:
6 2

Thus, the vibration criteria are also satisfied. However, to satisfy the 3.2 = 0.004rad
strength and deflection criteria, a 15% increase in material costs has 800
to be incurred, due to an increase in section size from IPE 550 to IPE where 3.2 is the constant for a uniform distributed load (UDL), de-
600. creasing to 3 for a point load.
In addition, to satisfy the strength, deflection and vibration criteria The total rotation at the bearing may be obtained by noting that in
for this warehouse loading scenario, the span-to-depth ratio works out bridge decks the LL:DL ratio lies between approx. 0.5 (for medium
as: spans) and 1.0 (for short spans). In addition, an allowance for thermal
camber at 0.0015rad, together with a value for uncertainty taken at
12000 0.01rad, should be allowed made13. In the simple support condition, this
^600 + 120h
= 16.67
gives a total rotation in radians at the bearing of:

Once the preliminary sizing has been ascertained, the final design 0.01 (uncertainty) + 0.0015 (thermal camber) + 2 × 0.004
must be produced to conform to EC4. (traffic) = 0.02rad

Bridge decks As noted in Part 2, this is not to be considered a small rotation al-
In composite construction of bridge decks, span-to-deflection though it lies within the acceptable range 0.015–0.035rad.
ratios higher than 1:200 are advisable, although US and European
recommendations differ12. US recommendations are for the LL span- Alternative design proposal using hollow-core
to-deflection ratio not to exceed 1:800 for a vehicular bridge, or 1:1000 prestressed slab on a rigid support
for a pedestrian bridge. On the other hand, no ratio restrictions exist For the 12m effective span, a hollow-core prestressed slab with a
in European bridge specifications. It is suggested in the literature that depth of 525mm, acting compositely with a 100mm grade 30/37 con-
crete topping, provides a safe load of 23.9kN/m2 and a shear capacity
of 226.5kN/m. This exceeds the superimposed serviceable load of
22.88kN/m2, thereby satisfying the required strength criteria.
 Figure 3
Effective lengths
for sway frames
The upward camber with DL only applied is 14.32mm (δ/span =
1/838).
The resulting downward deflection on application of the full load is
23.07mm (δ/span = 1/522).
The span-to-depth ratio for this scheme is 12 000/525 = 22.85.
High deflection ratios are important in precast, prestressed hol-
low slabs supported on non-rigid supports. Tests show the reduc-
tion in shear resistance to these precast slabs to be in the region of
40–77%14. This is due to the transverse deformation of the slab ends
resulting from the deflection of the supporting beam (Figure 2)15.
Deflection-to-span ratios exceeding 1:1000 are an advantage in these
situations.
This alternative proposal is therefore a workable scheme, which sat-
isfies both the strength and serviceability criteria. In choosing between
the two schemes, the high DL imposed by the prestressed solution
should be taken into account. The DL for these panels with a 12m span
is 50% of the LL, which is comparable to bridge construction. For the
composite construction scheme, the DL only approximates to 14.5% of

TSE36_46-50 Material v2.indd 48 20/11/2014 12:25

 www.thestructuralengineer.org

49

the LL. The prestressed slab scheme produces an increase in storage

height of 95mm (overall thickness of 525mm + 100mm) compared to
15m = 50mm
the composite-steel scheme (600mm + 120mm), but this is nominal 300
for an overall storey height of 5m. The costs of the schemes, which will If this wind pressure is to be distributed onto the two supporting
be affected by fire protection required, will be decisive in determining concrete panel walls, the moment of inertia I required is given by:
between them.
3
I = CWL
The lateral stability of this multi-storey warehouse is affected by the
overall effective length of the wall panels. The overall effective length 2
for this sway structure taken at 2.2Lo, where Lo is the storey height
2 3
(Figure 3)16. A reduction factor φ for the vertical load-bearing capacity
I = 125 # 1kN/m # 15 = 210937cm 4 /m
is obtained from the masonry EC6. This reduction factor φ is depen- 2
dent on both the slenderness ratio and the eccentricity at the top of
the wall. These vertical load calculations are well catered for in The where C =125 (Table 1).
calculation of eccentricities in load bearing walls17. The authors now present To satisfy this I value, the thickness h of the concrete wall panel for
a hand calculation to limit the amount of horizontal drift. serviceability requirements is estimated as:
For a preliminary hand calculation to be performed, the required I
value at the base of the wall panel is again given by: I = CwL3 h = 3 12 # 210937 = 29.36cm (or 30cm)
The C value for a steel cantilever now works out at 18.3 for a UDL 100
and 48.3 for an edge point load. Table 1 presents C values for calcu- where:
lating the cantilever horizontal drift for members in steelwork with 3
a Young’s modulus E value of 210N/mm2, in timber with an E value I = bh
of 8kN/mm2, and in concrete with an E value of 30kN/mm2. Some 12
types of natural masonry, such as sandstone or limestone, could have A vertical load analysis will then have to be undertaken to include
Young’s modulus E values similar to concrete, so the calculation that the direct dead and imposed loads and the wind-induced BM, all ca-
follows may also apply to certain natural masonry units. tering for the eccentricity induced at the lowest level. The eccentric
As an example, let us consider the deflection δ of a cantilever steel load combination, compounded by the slenderness ratio, will then be
beam (E = 210kN/mm2) and a reinforced concrete beam (E = 30kN/ subjected to a reduction factor φ. The slenderness ratio is given as:
mm2) to be limited to span/300. For a cantilever beam of effective
span L, subjected to a UDL of w, the top deflection δ is given by:
L e = 2.2L o = 2.2 # 5m = 36.67
4
h h 0.3m
d = L = wL EC6 gives the maximum allowable slenderness ratio as 30, with a
300 8EI reduction factor φm at the centre of the panel storey height varying
Assuming consistent units throughout in mm and then converting from 0 for an eccentricity of 0.4h up to a value of 0.38 for a nominal
moment of inertia I to cm4 by dividing by 104: eccentricity of 0.05h.
3 3 Thus, to satisfy slenderness effects, the minimum wall panel thick-
I = 300 # w # L # 10004 = CwL3
^8 # E # 1000 h # 10
ness is given as:

where:
2.2 # 5m = 0.367m
w is in kN/m 30
L is in m This is greater than the 0.3m noted earlier for sway limitations.
9 Strength calculations should then follow to verify the load-bearing
300 # 10
^8 # 210 # 10 7h
C= = 17.86 capacity of the wall panel.
According to the rule of thumb for the natural frequency of framed
vertical structures described in Part 2, this three-storey structure ap-
The C value of 17.86 conforms to the value quoted in Table 1. pears to have a natural frequency in the range of 2.5Hz. If compared
For a concrete cantilever section, to restrict the deflection to to vibrating table tests performed on various masonry buildings, adobe
span/300: buildings are quoted as having a forcing frequency of 6Hz, with a
six-storey masonry building having a fundamental frequency of 2Hz,
C = 17.86 # 210 = 125 increasing to 5.5Hz for a two-storey masonry building.
30
The C value of 125 conforms to the value quoted in Table 1. Conclusions and recommendations
The method described in Parts 1–3 revolves around Equation 1 in Part
15m high panel structure subjected to wind load of 1kN/m2 118, which calculates the moment of inertia I necessary for deflection
The side sway is to be limited to: criteria to be abided by. This is undertaken in a structural engineer’s
parlance, with the units given in m and kN to give I in cm4. The method
produces coefficients, meaning that it is not restricted to steelwork
Table 1: Updated deflection coefficient C for calculating moment of but can also be applied to other materials. For concrete, this method
inertia for a cantilever span condition is applicable only to establish the requirements of horizontal side
Span-to- Steel Concrete Timber sway, as vertical deflections are based on span-to-depth ratios not
deflection E = 210kN/mm2 E = 30kN/mm2 E = 8kN/mm2 deflection-to-span ratios.
ratio Parts 1–3 move from strength calculations to the SLS, while cover-
1/300 (UDL) 17.86 125 469 ing various structural materials by adopting a universal formula with
a varying constant, which depends on the material. The preliminary
1/300 (point 47.15 330 1238
design outlined with ‘back-of-the-envelope calculations’ also helps the
load)
structural designer to perform further dynamic calculations in addition

TSE36_46-50 Material v2.indd 49 20/11/2014 12:25

 ›
Part 3

50 TheStructuralEngineer Technical
December 2014 Material properties

to the static calculations which are usually performed in the design of- structural elements’, The Structural Engineer, 89 (5), pp. 17–18
fice. The preliminary design stage now allows the rotations and vibra- 8) Rackham J. W., Couchman G. H. and Hicks S. J. (2009) SCI
tions imposed on the structure to be quantified, as it is an easy step Publication P300: Composite Slabs and Beams using Steel Decking:
to move onto rotation and vibration effects once a deflection-to-span Best Practice for Design and Construction (Revised ed.), Ascot,
ratio has been determined. At this stage, the designer and client can UK: Steel Construction Institute and Metal Cladding & Roofing
discuss the serviceability requirements gauged to be important for the Manufacturers Association
final project.
The article then examines interactions between structural materials 9) Hicks S. J. and Lawson R. M. (2003) SCI Publication P287: Design
to limit unsightly secondary failures. The outline of the characteristics of of Composite Beams Using Precast Concrete Slabs, Ascot, UK: Steel
the various structural groups of materials, which is presented in Table 2, Construction Institute
Part 1, helps to establish the values of the important design properties.
This should make it easier for the design engineer to move from one 10) SteelConstruction.info (2015) Composite Beam Checking Tool
structural material to another. Knowledge of material properties will help [Online] Available at: http://bcsatools.steel-sci.org/CompositeBeam
the structural designer to choose the appropriate structural material, (Accessed: November 2014)
based on efficiency criteria and sustainability properties, rather than
simply using the material they feel most comfortable with. 11) Swiss Metal Construction Centre (2012) C1/12 steelwork: Tables
The hand calculations presented in Equations 1–5 in Part 1, in con- de dimensionnement pour la construction mixte, Zurich, Switzerland:
junction with the BCSA deflection coefficients chart17 (Figure 2, Part 1) SZS
should help practices to design constructions that will not suffer unwar-
ranted cracking or unwelcome movement when in use, thus avoiding 12) Roeder C. W., Barth K. and Bergman A. (2002) NCHRP Web
lengthy litigation over serviceability failure. As outlined briefly in the Document 46: Improved live load deflection criteria for steel bridges
introduction to Part 1, crack width may not be the defining factor, al- [Online] Available at: www.inti.gob.ar/cirsoc/pdf/puentes_acero/
though this depends on the length, shape and density of cracks. Cracks nchrp_w46.pdf (Accessed: November 2014)
may have a negative aesthetic impact or they may need to be filled to
reduce penetration of sound and odours or the passage of fire. People 13) Camilleri D. (2011) ‘Rotation of supporting small bearing pads in
are sensitive to distinctly perceptible vibrations in an office or residential buildings’, The Structural Engineer, 89 (9), pp. 16–20
environment, but will accept vibrations approximately 10 times greater in
an active environment, such as when dining beside a dance floor or lift- 14) Pajari M. and Koukkari H. (1998) ‘Shear resistance of PHC slabs
ing weights in a gym. Finally, the age of the building also comes into the supported on beams. I: Tests’, J. Struct. Eng., 124 (9), pp. 1050–1061
equation. The older the building, the less sensitive its users are to exist-
ing cracks, deflections and vibration effects. 15) Pajari M. (1997) ‘Interaction between hollow core slabs and
On the other hand, in bridge works, no evidence of serious structural supporting beams’, IABSE Reports (Composite Construction —
damage is attributable to excessive LL deflection. Human psychological Conventional and Innovative), 999, pp. 831–836
reaction to vibration and deflection is a more significant issue than that
of structural durability. 16) Elliott K. S. (2002) Precast Concrete Structures, Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann

17) Hendry A. W. (1991) Engineers File Note No. 3: The calculation of

References and further reading eccentricities in load bearing walls, Windsor, UK: Brick Development
Association
1) Camilleri D. H. and Camilleri Cassar I. (2014) ‘Material properties:
effect on deflection, rotation and vibration — Part 2’, The Structural 18) Camilleri D. H. and Camilleri Cassar I. (2014) ‘Material properties:
Engineer, 92 (11), pp. 41–45 effect on deflection, rotation and vibration — Part 1’, The Structural
Engineer, 92 (10), pp. 36–40
2) Steel Construction Institute (2014) ‘Composite and Steel
Construction compendium Part 1: Recent developments in codes and 19) Weller A. D. and Allen P.H. (1990) Handbook of Structural
products’, The Structural Engineer, 92 (1), pp. 36–38 Steelwork, London, UK: British Constructional Steelwork Association

3) Steel Construction Institute (2014) ‘Composite and Steel Acknowledgements

Construction compendium Part 2: Shear connection in composite The authors are grateful to Chris O’Regan and Dr Graham
beams’, The Structural Engineer, 92 (2), pp. 25–27 Couchman for their advice.

4) Steel Construction Institute (2014) ‘Composite and Steel

Construction compendium Part 3: The concrete flange of a
composite beam’, The Structural Engineer, 92 (3), pp. 45–47
Erratum
5) Steel Construction Institute (2014) ‘Composite and Steel In Part 2 of the series, published in the October 2014 issue of The
Construction compendium Part 4: Composite beams using precast Structural Engineer, the section on the design of the primary steel beam
concrete units’, The Structural Engineer, 92 (4), pp. 41–43 contained an error. The edge loading calculation incorrectly gave the
laminated glass thickness as 0.125m; this should have read 0.0125m.
6) Steel Construction Institute (2014) ‘Composite and Steel Correcting this error would allow a 457×191×82 universal beam to be
Construction compendium Part 5: Construction of composite floors’, chosen.
The Structural Engineer, 92 (5), pp. 38–40 A corrected version of the article is available online at:
www.thestructuralengineer.org
7) Camilleri D. (2011) ‘Deflection and preliminary vibration effects on

TSE36_46-50 Material v2.indd 50 20/11/2014 12:25