Multistorey Timber

Buildings Seismic
Design Guide

M. P. NEWCOMBE

Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering

University of Canterbury

Sixth Edition, 2010

This design guide was written by Michael Newcombe for a series of lectures in ENCI
499 “Timber Engineering” in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering
at the University of Canterbury. It was used as seminar notes for continuing education
seminars on “Seismic Design of Timber Structures” offered by the Timber Design
Society and the University of Canterbury in 2008 and 2009. It has been updated several
times.
The author is a PhD candidate at the University of Canterbury. His research on multi-
storey timber buildings is supported by the Structural Timber Innovation Company Ltd
(STIC) and supervised by Dr. Stefano Pampanin and Prof. Andy Buchanan.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
2. LATERAL FORCE DESIGN FOR LIGHT TIMBER FRAME ......................... 2
2.1 Displacement-Based Design ............................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Force-Based Design ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Comparison of displacement-based and force-based designs ........................................................ 10
3. DESIGN OF A PLYWOOD SHEAR WALL....................................................... 11
3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design........................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Design for Strength............................................................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Wall Deflection..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design................................................................................................... 23
4. SIMPLIFIED DESIGN OF SOLID TIMBER FRAMES AND WALLS .......... 24
4.1 Frame Design ................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.1 Ultimate Limit State Design ................................................................................................. 26
4.1.2 Serviceability Limit State Design ......................................................................................... 40
4.2 Wall Design.................................................................................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State Design ................................................................................................. 48
4.2.2 Serviceability Limit State Design ......................................................................................... 60
5. SIMPLIFIED DISPLACEMENT-BASED AND FORCE-BASED DESIGN OF
POST-TENSIONED TIMBER FRAMES .................................................................... 64
5.1 Lateral force design........................................................................................................................ 65
5.1.1 Displacement-based design .................................................................................................. 65
5.1.2 Force-based design ............................................................................................................... 68
5.2 Calculating the frame actions......................................................................................................... 71
5.3 Design member sizes and post-tensioning ..................................................................................... 74
6. POST-TENSIONED COUPLED TIMBER WALLS USING UFP PLATES ... 81
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 82
1. INTRODUCTION

This guide provides worked examples on the seismic design of traditional and new-
generation timber multistorey buildings. The target audience for this document ranges
from graduate engineers to experienced engineers that infrequently design in timber.

In section 2, simple procedures are illustrated for determining the design lateral loads for
a regular light timber frame multistorey building. The design example considers both a
‘force-based’ and a ‘displacement-based’ design philosophy which are generally
applicable to regular structures. Important inaccuracies in the ‘force-based’ procedure are
highlighted.

In section 3, a plywood shear wall is designed. The wall is first designed for strength
under ultimate limit state loads. Then the wall displacements are checked for both
ultimate limit state conditions.

In section 4, a hypothetical solid timber frame and wall are designed. The frames are
designed for strength under the ultimate limit state loads. The displacements are checked
for serviceability limit state conditions using simplified methods. Four moment resisting
connection arrangements are considered for the frame; a steel gusset, an epoxied rod
connection, a post-tensioned connection and a hybrid post-tensioned connection. The
walls are designed using a similar manner to the frames. Two moment resisting
connections are considered; an epoxied rod connection and a post-tensioned connection.

In section 5 a preliminary design of a post-tensioned frame is performed using a

displacement-focused approach. This example includes how to determine the lateral
forces using both a ‘force-based’ and ‘displacement-based’ approach plus how to design
the members and post-tensioning.

In section 6 a preliminary design of a post-tensioned walls coupled by U-shaped flexural

plates is performed. This example includes how to determine the lateral forces using
displacement-based design.

The reader should note that this document is intended as a guide. The author takes no
professional responsibility for the concepts presented in this document.

1
2. LATERAL FORCE DESIGN FOR LIGHT TIMBER FRAME

The displacement-based and force-based design of a simple light timber frame building is
presented in this section. This example intentionally contrasts the two methodologies,
highlighting inaccurate assumptions that can be made with force-based design.
For more information on displacement-based refer to Priestley et al [2007]. For force-
based design refer to Buchanan et al [2008] and the Multistorey Timer Buildings Manual
[2001] For the state of the art displacement-based design procedure for light timber frame
refer to Filiatrault et al [2002b], Pang and Rosowsky [2007; 2009].

Example 2.1:
The design earthquake lateral forces must be determined for a five-storey light timber
frame building with plywood sheathing. The following assumptions/specifications are
given:
• The wall shall be designed to have a plastic hinge on the bottom floor. The elastic
deformation of the 2nd to 5th floors may be ignored (generally not the case). The
displacement profile, resulting from these assumptions, is given in Fig.1.
• The same seismic weight of 245kN may be assumed for each floor, including the
roof.
• The interstorey height is 3.2m.
• The building must be designed according the NZS1170.5 acceleration and
displacement spectra for 1/500 year return period earthquake (Soil C, Wellington
City). The design acceleration and displacement spectrum is given in Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3 respectively.
• Under this seismic intensity the maximum allowable lateral displacement is
40mm per floor.
• For displacement-based design, the general hysteretic shape for a plywood
sheathed shear walls is given in Fig. 4a with the associated area-based equivalent
viscous damping in Fig. 4b.

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

2
 1.4

1.2

Spectral acceleration: Sa (g)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Fig. 2 –Design acceleration spectrum

0.45

0.4
Spectral displacement: Sd (m)

0.35

0.3

0.25
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Fig. 3 –Design displacement spectrum

2
Area-based Hysteretic Damping

20
1.5
Normalized Force

1 15
0.5
(%)

0 10
-0.5
-1 5

-1.5
-2 0
-0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

b)
a)

Fig. 4 – a) Hysteretic behavior of plywood sheathed shear wall b) The area-based

damping associated with the hysteresis

3
2.1 Displacement-Based Design

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

The peak design displacement for the SDOF representation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2: Calculate the equivalent viscous damping:

ξ eq = ξ el + ξ hyst

The elastic damping can be assumed to be 2%: ξel = 3.0% [Pang and Rosowsky, 2008].
The hysteretic damping can be obtained from Fig. 4. At a design displacement of 0.04m,
the hysteretic damping ξhyst=10.0%.

4
Therefore, the equivalent viscous damping is:

ξ eq = ξ el + ξ hyst = 3.0 + 10.0 = 13.0%

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

The displacement spectrum, Sd, can be calculated from the acceleration spectrum, Sa, as
shown below:
T2
Sd = Sa
4π 2
The scale factor to be applied to the design displacement spectrum (with 5% damping) is:
0 .5
⎛ 7 ⎞ ⎛ 7 ⎞
0. 5

Req = ⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ = 0.68
⎜2+ξ ⎟ ⎝ 2 + 13 ⎠
⎝ eq ⎠

The scaled displacement spectrum becomes:

S d (ξ eq ) = Req S d (5% )

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Sd (m)

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

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1

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

5
Step 4: Obtain the equivalent lateral stiffness

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

Step 5: Determine the base shear

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

Step 6: Distribute the base shear up the structure

If it is assumed that there is essentially a sinusoidal, first-mode response at the peak

displacement, the base shear can be distributed in proportion to mass and displacement:

n
Fi = Vb (mi Δ i ) ∑ (m Δ ) i i
i =1

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

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

Again, using a spreadsheet:

Storey, i Floor Force

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

6
2.2 Force-Based Design

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

Step 1: Estimate the natural period:

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

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

5
T1 = = 0.25
20

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

Step 2: Obtain the horizontal force coefficient

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

C (T1 ) = 1.172

Note, for current force-based design 5% elastic damping is usually inherently assumed
for light timber frame.

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

C (T1 )S p
C d (T1 ) =
kμ

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

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

kμ =
(4 − 1)0.4 + 1 = 2.71
0.7

7
For ductilities greater than 2:

S p = 0.7

Therefore:

1.172 × 0.7
C d (T1 ) = = 0.302
2.714

Step 3: Determine the design base shear

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

Step 4: Distribute the base-shear up the structure

The design lateral forces are proportioned to each floor according to the floor mass and
overall floor height for force-based design. As for displacement-based design, 10% of the
base shear is added to the roof and the remaining 90% is distributed amongst the other
floors to account for higher modes.

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

Again, using a spreadsheet:

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

Step 5: Check the inelastic displacements

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

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

response, as shown below, where Py = Vb:

8
Therefore:
Vb
Δy =
K elastic

The code minimum period of 0.4s is used to determine the elastic stiffness. Hence;

4π 2 mtot 4π 2 5 × 25
K elastic ≈ 2
= = 30843kN / m
T1 0.4 2

So:
370.0
Δy ≈ = 0.0120m
30843

It follows that the total displacement is approximated as:

Δ u ≈ Δ y μ = 0.0120 × 4 = 0.048m

9
2.3 Comparison of displacement-based and force-based designs

Storey, i Floor Force

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

The following key points are drawn from this comparison:

• For this example, the base shear according to DBD is higher than FBD by 76%.
This is mainly due to the force-reduction factor assumed for FBD (1/kµ) and DBD
(Req). For FBD and DBD the elastic forces are reduced by 63% and 32%
respectively.

• The arbitrary choice on natural period for FBD (0.4s) results in predictions of the
total inelastic displacement (0.048m) that are similar to DBD (0.04m). However,
in reality the displacement of the wall, designed using the above FBD
assumptions, will undergo much larger displacements than predicted. This will
result in more structural and non-structural damage (partitions etc) and potential
losses in terms of deaths and downtime.

• For FBD, the lateral loads are always distributed to the floors in the same way,
regardless of the desired mechanism. This is because the height, instead of
displacement, is used to distribute the forces up the structure. Hence, force-based
design inherently assumes that the displacement profile of a structure is always
linear (which is not the case here). Like in this example, this may result in an
over-design wall at the upper floors.

It is shown in the next example (plywood shear wall design) that the elastic deformation
of a plywood shear wall can be much more significant than the inelastic deformation
(from the nails), especially for multi-storey structures. Hence, it is unrealistic to assume a
system ductility of 4 (as is often done). The assumption of system ductility, and the
subsequent calculation of the force-reduction factor, is the major cause for variation
between FBD and DBD.

10
3. DESIGN OF A PLYWOOD SHEAR WALL

An ultimate limit state and serviceability design shall be performed for a plywood
sheathed shear wall subject to lateral loading. It may be assumed that earthquake governs
the lateral load design. This design example is based off a design example provided by
Banks [2005].

Example 3.1:
Design the six storey plywood sheathed shear wall shown in Fig. 1b. The following
assumptions/specifications are given:
• It is assumed that the wall chords and studs have been designed based on the
gravity load design.
• The plywood wall is part of a building with a 50 year design working life and an
importance level (under NZS1170.0) of 2. Therefore, the ultimate limit state
design earthquake has an annual probability of exceedence 1/500 years and the
serviceability limit state design has an annual probability of exceedence of 1/25
years.
• To determine the ultimate limit state lateral loads a force-based design was
performed. This assumed ductility of 4 and natural period of 0.4s.
• The preliminary loads are given in Fig. 1a.
• The wall (illustrated in Fig. 1b) is 6.5 long, 6 storeys high with an interstorey
height of 2.615m. Steel square hollow sections are used for the chords.

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

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

11
3.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

3.1.1 Design for Strength

Step 1: Determine the design actions:

The interstorey shear:

n
V *i = ∑ Fk
k =i

The interstorey moment:

n
M *i = ∑ Fk ( H k − H i )
k =i

The chord force:

M *i
N *i =
LW

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

Step 2 Design nail capacity

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

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

12
Step 3 Determine nail spacing and consequent overstrength factor

The shear flow:

V *i
q *i =
Lw

Required nails:

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

s RQRD 1.6 s RQRD 1.6 s RQRD

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

SHEAR

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

Step 4 Determine overstrength design actions

Elastic

Inelastic

Fig. 2 – Shear mechanism of plywood wall

13
The overstrength shear forces:

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

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

Step 5 Shear capacity of Plywood in Walls

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

V p * ≤ φVni (NZS3603, clause 6.5.1.4)

Where:
φVni = k1 k 8 k14 k15 k18 f ps td
The above expression is only appropriate for uniform shear, where the chords take all
wall flexure. And:
k1 = Load duration factor (1.0)
k8 = Stability factor (NZS3603, Appendix H, Eq. H3):
Determine slenderness ratio:
AL
S 3 = 0.126C 7 w
IwIL
Where: C7 = 1.0 (usually for plywood walls)
Usually, k8 = 1.0 for typical plywood walls but dwangs must placed frequently to
ensure plywood panel stability. For simplicity we will assume k8 = 1.0.
k14 = Moisture content factor = 1.0
k15 = Face grain orientation factor = 1.0
k18 = Framing support factor = 1.0 (supported on 2 or more sides)
fps = 4.7MPa (characteristic shear strength of plywood panel)
t = thickness of panel
d = depth of panel considered (Lw = 6.5m in total).
φ = 1.0 (overstrength design)

14
Therefore;
φVni = f ps td

Calculate the capacities for different thickness of ply:

PLY
THICKNESS φVni
(mm) (kN)
12 366
15 459
17 513
19 591

Allocate the required plywood thickness to each storey:

SHEAR PLY
LEVEL Vosi THICKNESS φVni
(kN) (mm) (kN)
7 33.2 12 366
6 90.6 12 366
5 151.2 12 366
4 211.2 12 366
3 270.5 12 366
2 328.4 12 366
1 328.4 12 366

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

The capacity design seismic induced chord forces (Nos) must be combined with the
gravity induced axial force (NG+0.4Q). We will assume for this example that the maximum
gravity load case (N1.2G+1.5Q) governs the sizes of the chords and studs. Hence, the steel
chords specified in Fig. 1b are assumed to be sufficient.

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

15
 Fig. 3 – Chord to foundation connection detail

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

Therefore, assuming grade 500 steel;

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

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

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

The design shear for the connections on level 1 is:

Vos = 133kN

Use M16 bolts. The capacity of one bolt is:

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

Hence;

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

16
 a)

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

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

Fig. 5 – Base connection

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

Vos = 328kN

Use M16 bolts. Hence;

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

3.1.2 Wall Deflection

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

Panel Shear:

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

Cumulative
SHEAR PLY
LEVEL V*i THICKNESS Δs Δs
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm)
7 16.1 12 1.03 33.63
6 44.0 12 2.81 32.61
5 73.4 12 4.69 29.80
4 102.5 12 6.55 25.11
3 131.3 12 8.38 18.56
2 159.4 12 10.18 10.18
1 159.4 12 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 33.63

Nail Slip:

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

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

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

Qn
Q=
φ0

Hence:
2
Q2 ⎛ 1 ⎞
= ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟⎟
⎝φ
2
Qn ⎠

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

Overturning:

Δ r = (δ t + δ c )
H
B

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

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

The compressive deformation; δ c is expected to be negligible since the chords are steel
square hollow sections that extend up the entire height of the structure.

19
The tensile elongation at the base δ t is created by the deformation of steel tie rods.
Hence, this will also depend on the detailing on the hold down connection.

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

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

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

Since overturning is a rigid body deformation the displacement at each floor is directly
related to the height of that floor:

Hi
∴ Δ r ,i = (0.57 + 0 )
6 .5

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

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

20
 7

LEVEL
4

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

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

2
M H
Δ f ≈ b total
3EI

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

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

For the second moment of area use parallel axis theorem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interstorey drift is:

Δ − Δi
θ = i +1 × 100 (%)
H

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Interstorey

LEVEL Hi Δs Δn Δr Δf Δ Drift, θ
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%)
7 15.69 33.63 8.47 1.38 6.85 50.33
6 13.075 32.61 8.30 1.15 6.82 48.87 0.06
5 10.46 29.80 7.01 0.92 6.59 44.32 0.17
4 7.845 25.11 6.12 0.69 5.99 37.91 0.25
3 5.23 18.56 5.34 0.46 4.82 29.18 0.33
2 2.615 10.18 4.07 0.23 2.89 17.36 0.45
1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66

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

strain limits or code based drift limit states. For a plywood wall, significant loss of
strength can occur after 40mm of displacement per floor. Hence, a drift limit would be:
40
θ lim it = × 100 = 1.53%
2615

Under NZS1170.5 the maximum allowable interstorey drift is 2.5%. Therefore, the wall
does not exceed the ultimate limit state displacement limits:
θ max = 0.66% ≤ 1.53% ≤ 2.5% ⇒ O.K !

Note; the nail slip deformation is only 17% of the total deformation of the wall. Hence,
the maximum ductility for the design of this wall is approximately 1.20. Note; this value
is far from common force-based design ductilities of up to 4!

22
3.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

Step 1 Determine the serviceability limit state loads

The serviceability limit state loads must be obtained. For a force-based design this will
simply be a scaled version of the ultimate limit state loads. Under NZS1170.5, kμ = 1.0,
Sp = 0.7 and the return period factor for a 1/25 year event is 0.25. Therefore, the lateral
design forces are scaled by:

( 4 − 1) × 0.4
+1
k μ ,U S p , S Rs 0 . 7 0.7 0.25
= = 0.678
k μ , S S p ,U Ru 1 0 .7 1

Hence, the lateral loads for the serviceability design are:

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

Step 2 Calculate total wall deflection for the service loads

The same procedure, as used for ultimate limit state forces, can be repeated to determine
the lateral deflections under serviceability loading.

Step 3 Check the deflection limitations

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

Also, the Multistorey Timber Buildings Manual suggests that interstorey deflection
should be limited to:
H 2615
= = 8.8mm Or in terms of drift: θ s = 0.33%
300 300

Hence, since the forces have not reduced significantly but the drift limitation is much
more stringent it is likely that the service condition will govern the design. However, note
that such stringent serviceability deflection limits may not be necessary. Pang and
Rosowsky [2009] propose that up to 1.0% drift is acceptable for frequent (serviceability)
earthquakes.

23
4. SIMPLIFIED DESIGN OF SOLID TIMBER FRAMES AND
WALLS

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

Example 4.1:
Perform an ultimate limit state and serviceability design for the first floor of a solid
timber frame and a solid timber wall, shown in Fig. 6a and 6b. The following
assumptions/specifications are given:
• The preliminary sizes of the frame and wall are also given in Fig. 6. The frame is
constructed using laminated veneer lumber (HySpan from CHH) and the wall is
constructed from Glulam (GL12).
• The ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state design forces have been
predetermined using a force-based design for the earthquake load combination
(G+ψcQ+E).
• For frames run parallel to the floor system. Hence, the beam-column connections
are not required to resist gravity load induced moments.
• The serviceability drift limitation for the frame is 0.33%.

For the frame 4 types of moment resisting connections will be considered; a steel gusset
plate connection, an epoxied steel rod connection, a post-tensioned connection and a
hybrid post-tensioned connection. For the solid wall both an epoxied connection and a
post-tensioned connection will be considered.

Realistically each type of moment resisting connection will provide different levels of
energy-dissipation (or hysteretic damping). Therefore the design lateral forces should be
altered accordingly. However, for the purposes of this example the same lateral force
demands with be considered for all connection types.

24
 a)

b)
Fig. 6 – Frame and wall geometry

25
4.1 Frame Design

4.1.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

The design moments for the frame are given below:

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

Design 1: Steel gusset plate connection

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

26
Step 1: Design Screws

The design strength per screw is:

φF = φkk1Qk
Where: k = kp×k50 = 1.5×1.3 = 1.95 (>3mm steel plate and >50 screws expected)
k1= 1.0 (short term load)
Qk = 1.652kN (basic screw strength: TDG, 2007, Table 27.5)
φ= 0.8 for nails and screws

∴ φF = 0.8 × 1.95 × 1.0 × 1.652 = 2.58kN

Now the minimum spacing, c, between each row of screws (according to NZS 3603) is
10 diameters (10Da) parallel to grain and 5 nail diameters perpendicular to grain:

10 Da = 10 × 4.88 = 49mm
5Da = 5 × 4.88 = 25mm Say c = 50mm

The worst-case (smallest) nail pattern is considered with the smallest r and q; this is the
nail pattern within the beam. With the nail pattern given above (r = 350mm and q =
225mm) and c = 25mm we can fit a maximum of 5 rows of screws (n = 5).
Since there is no angle of inclination for the beam (θ = 0) and r/q <1.5 we can use the
following formula to determine the pitch of the nails:

p ≤ 3.6φFnrq / M *

[ ]
p ≤ 3.6 × 2.58 × 5 × 225 × 350 / (150 × 10 3 ) / 2 gussets = 48.8mm ≈ 50mm ≥ 10 Da

Therefore, use a nail pitch of 50mm (p = 50mm). Hence, there will be 5 rows of 4.88mm
diameter screws spaced at 50mm vertically and 25mm horizontally:

The moment capacity of the fasteners is:

φM n = 3.6φFnrq / p = 3.6 × 2.58 × 5 × 225 × 350 / 50 / 10 3 = 73kN .m (per gusset)

27
φM n = 146kN .m (per connection)
M * ≤ φM n
(Within 5%)
150 ≈ 146 ⇒ O.K !

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

But the width of the nail pattern will also double (r = 2×0.225 = 0.45m). Therefore, if the
same number of rows, nail spacing and pitch is used in the column, as shown above, the
moment capacity will be sufficient. This will result in approximately 460 screws per side!

Step 2: Design gusset plate

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

The overstrength factor:

1.6 146
φ0 = = 1.95
φ screws 150

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

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

φ 0 M * ≤ φM n
293 ≤ 400 ⇒ O.K !

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

For most designs the size of the beams and columns will be defined by deflection
limitations for either ultimate or serviceability limit state. Hence, the strength
requirement for the beams and columns is unlikely to be critical. However, for a robust
design the section strength must be checked. Note, in some situations a reduced section
should be considered because of voids running through the column or beam.

For the beam:

Flexure:

φM n = φkf b Z

28
 Where: k = k24= 0.92 (for a 500 deep section in flexure with for short term loads)
fb = 48MPa (the bending strength of HySpan LVL)
bh 2 250 × 500 2
Z= = = 10.42 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6

∴ φM n = 1.0 × 0.92 × 48 × 10.42 = 460kN .m

φ 0 M * ≤ φM n
293 ≤ 460 ⇒ O.K !

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

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

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

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

φ 0V * ≤ φVn
1.95 × 50.8 ≤ 441
99 ≤ 500 ⇒ O.K !

For the column:

The column capacity is higher than the beam but due to higher modes of dynamic
response it is possible that the column will be subject to higher moments and shears.

Flexure:
It is tentatively recommended that the dynamic amplification factor for the design
of reinforced concrete frames (NZS3101) is used herein:

ω = 1.3 (At the second floor)

The design moment at the centerline of the column is:

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

29
 And:
2
bc hc 250 × 600 2
Z= = = 15.00 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6
k = k24= 0.89 (for a 600 deep section in flexure with for short term loads)
∴ φM n = 1.0 × 0.89 × 48 × 15.00 = 641kN .m

ωφ 0 M *cl ≤ φM n
1.3 × 1.95 × 165 ≤ 641
418 ≤ 641 ⇒ O.K !

Shear:

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

It is tentatively recommended that the shear force dynamic amplification factor

for the design of reinforced concrete frames is used herein:

ω v = 1.3

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

∴ φVn = 1.0 × 1.0 × 5.3 × 100 = 530kN

ω vφ 0V * ≤ φVn
1.3 × 1.95 × 110 ≤ 530
279 ≤ 530 ⇒ O.K !

Combined Axial and Moment:

The combined actions of moment and axial load should also be checked for the
columns under the seismic combination:

⎛ M* N *c ⎞ ⎛ M* N *t ⎞
⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0 and ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
⎝ φM n φN nc ⎠ ⎝ φM n φN nt ⎠

Where: N*c & N*t = the compression and tension combined axial force from
gravity (G+ψEQ) and seismic load (usually critical on exterior columns).
φN nc & φN nt = the compressive and tensile axial column capacity.

30
Design 2: Epoxied rod connection

The ductility of the frame system is derived from the yielding epoxied steel rods at the
beam-column connection.

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

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

φM n = φAs f y (x1 + x 2 )

Where: As = the area of steel per layer

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

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

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

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

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

M * ≤ φM n
150 < 178 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design the connection to ensure yielding of the bar occurs

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

1.25
φ 0 rod = = 1.39
φ steel

An epoxy bonded steel connection must satisfy:

φ 0 N * ≤ φQn

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

For steel yielding:

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

For wood fracture:

(φQn ) wood = φ conn k1 Aw f t

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

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

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

= 825kN

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

For bar pull-out:

(φQn ) pullout = φ conn k1 nk g Qk

32
Where: kg = group factor = 0.9 for 4 bars
n = number of steel bars
Qk = characteristic strength of bond failure
Qk = 6.73k b k e k m (l / d ) 0.86 (d / 20)1.62 (h / d ) 0.5 (e / d ) 0.5

Where: d = steel bar diameter (12 ≤ d ≤ 24 mm)

l = embedment length (5d ≤ l ≤ 20d)
h = hole diameter (1.15d ≤ h ≤ 1.4d)
e = edge distance for center of bar (e ≥ 1.5d)
kb = bar type factor (threaded: 1.0, deformed: 0.8)
ke = epoxy factor (East221: 1.0, West System: 1.0, K-80: 1.0,
Araldite 2005: 1.2)
km = moisture factor (moisture content < 15%: 1.0, 15-22%: 0.8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 × 942
∴ Ast ≈ = 75mm 2
25

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

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

Step 3: Design for shear

The beam shear force can be taken by either shear keys/corbels or by dowel action of the
epoxied rods. If the shear resistance is provided by the epoxied rods in dowel action the
capacity should be check according to Park and Paulay, [1975]. Bars that are designed to
yield in tension or compression should not be relied upon to carry shear. Hence in this
design a shear key must be used.

The overstrength factor is:

178
φ 0 = 1.39 = 1.65
150

V * = 50.8kN (From Design 1)

φ 0V * = 1.65 × 50.8 = 83.8kN
The design of the shear key is not included in this design example. However, the simple
timber block or steel equal angle can be used. The fastening of the corbel can be designed
using standard expressions in NZS3603 or Eurocode 5.

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

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

34
Design 3: Post-tensioned connection

The behavior of a post-tensioned connection is termed ‘non-linear – elastic’. There is no

yielding of steel reinforcement and hence, no mechanical energy dissipation (or hysteretic
damping). However, it is still essential to maintain a hierarchy of strength. The post-
tensioned connection between the beam and column provides the ‘ductile’ mechanism.
The beam and column sections should be protected again possible overstrength of the
beam-column connections and remain within their elastic range.

To use this system, contact the Structural Timber Innovation Company Ltd
(www.stic.co.nz), for a free license.

For this example the following additional assumptions are required:

• The initial force in the 9-0.5’ strands is 70% of their yield force. Each strand has a
cross-sectional area of 99mm2.
• The code drift limitation for ultimate limit state (θLIMIT) is 2.5%. It may be
assumed that the imposed connection rotation (θimp) is 1/3rd of the drift limit:

θ LIMIT 2 .5
θ imp = = = 0.83% = 0.0083
3 3

Note, for the design of Post-Tensioned frames the moment capacity is highly dependent
on the imposed connection rotation.

Step 1: Determine flexural capacity of the connection

There are existing procedures to determine the moment-capacity of post-tensioned

connections [Newcombe et al., 2008; Newcombe et al., 2010]. A simplified procedure is
given below:

Impose a connection rotation:

As shown above the imposed connection rotation is assumed to be 1.25%.

35
Calculate the neutral axis depth, c:

⎛ 0.054 ⎞
c = αβ hb ⎜ − 0.12 ⎟
⎜ θ ⎟
⎝ imp ⎠

Where α is a correction factor for the columns transverse elastic modulus, Eperp,
and is empirically expressed in MPa. Since there is steel reinforcement protecting
the perpendicular to grain timber for the column, the parallel to grain elastic
modulus can be used.
390 390
α= + 0.42 = + 0.42 = 0.45
E perp 13200
While β is a correction factor for the initial axial stress in beams, fi, and is
empirically expressed in MPa as:
f
β= i
4 .5
And;
0.7 × 1560 × 9 × 99
fi = = 7.8MPa
500 × 250
Hence;
7.8
β= = 1.73
4.5

And, therefore;
⎛ 0.054 ⎞
c = 0.45 × 1.73⎜⎜ − 0.12 ⎟⎟ × 500 = 184 mm
⎝ 0.0083 ⎠

Apply member compatibility:

The elongation of the tendon:

⎛h ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ − c ⎟ = 0.0083 × (250 − 184 ) = 0.55mm
⎝2 ⎠
Therefore, there is minimal elongation of the tendon due to opening of a gap at
the connection. The strain is:

nΔ pt 4 × 0.55
Δε pt = = = 0.0002
l ub 13600

Where: n = the number of connections

lub = the unbonded length of the tendon

36
 Note: the stress in the tendon should be checked at the design rotation. The stress
in the tendon should be less than 90% of the yield stress. Obviously this will not
be a problem for this design since there is no additional stress due to gap opening
and the initial tendon stress is only 70% of yield.

ε pt = ε pt ,i + Δε pt = 0.0055 + 0.0002 = 0.0057 ≤ 0.9ε y

Determine the stress in the timber at the extreme compression fiber:

2T pt
ft = χ ≤ fy
cbb
Where bb is width of beam at the connection interface and χ is a factor to
account for non-linear stress distributions. A χ -value of 1 is assumed for this
example (which corresponds to a linear compressive stress distribution).

And:
T pt = ε pt E pt A pt = 0.0057 × 200000 × 9 × 99 / 10 3 = 1016kN

Hence;
2 × 1016 × 10 3
ft = 1× = 44MPa ≤ f y = 48MPa
184 × 250
The peak timber stress should be less than the yield stress of timber; otherwise
there is significant loss of strength.

Evaluate the moment capacity

⎛h c⎞ ⎛ 500 184 ⎞
φM n = φT pt ⎜ − ⎟ = 0.9 × 1016 × ⎜ − ⎟ = 173kN .m
⎝2 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠

M * ≤ φM n
150 ≤ 173 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design for shear

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

A tentatively suggested overstrength factor is:

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

37
The shear key should be designed to resist:
φ 0V * = 1.36 × 50.8 = 69.1kN

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

Step 3: Design for steel plate and epoxied rods

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

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

φ 0 T pt ≤ φN n
1382 ≤ 1800 ⇒ O.K !

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

And:
bpt 2
φM n = φf y
6

Try a 25mm plate:

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

M * ≤ φM n
5.9 ≤ 7.0 ⇒ O.K !

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

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

38
Design 4: Post-tensioned hybrid connection

Energy dissipation devices or non-stressed reinforcement can be added to enhance the

moment capacity of the connection or increase energy dissipation of the frame (which
will reduce the seismic design forces).

To use this system, contact the Structural Timber Innovation Company Ltd
(www.stic.co.nz), to obtain further information and a free license.

39
4.1.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

The service design moments for the frame are given below:

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

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

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con

Conservatively, flexural and shear deformation of the members is taken to the column
and beam centerlines.

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

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

40
Design 1: Steel gusset plate connection

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

For the beam:

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

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

⎛ 6500 13200 500 2 ⎞

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

For the column:

⎛H Et hc ⎞
2

θ c = φ c ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎝6 G 4 H ⎟⎠

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

⎛ 3000 13200 600 2 ⎞

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

For the connection:

The deformation from the nails in the gusset plate connection can be approximated in the
same way as plywood shear walls. It is assumed that the connection rotation occurs about
the center-line of the column (conservative):

Δn
θ con =
q

⎛ q⎞
Where: Δ n = 2⎜1 + ⎟e n
⎝ r⎠

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

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

Q = applied load on nail (kN)

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

2
⎛ 75 ⎞
e m ≈ k 37 (0.8)⎜ ⎟ = 0.21mm
⎝ 146 ⎠
⎛ 350 ⎞
∴ Δ n = 2⎜1 + ⎟0.21 = 1.07mm
⎝ 225 ⎠

Therefore:
1.07
∴θ con = = 0.0031
350

The total frame rotation is approximately:

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0 + 0.0031 = 0.0077 = 0.77%

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

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

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

Therefore:
θ > θ lim it
0.77 > 0.33 ⇒ NOT .OK !

To satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence, the
serviceability conditions govern the design.
Even though the limit proposed by the MTBM for LTF is exceeded, there is little
guidance given in the serviceability deflection limits within NZS1170.0. Ultimately, the
maximum service displacement should be defined by building cladding and level of
comfort expected by the owner under a service event (wind or earthquake). For the
purposes of this example the design will not be altered due to serviceability requirements.

42
Design 2: Epoxied rod connection

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

For the beam:

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

Similar to Design 1.
∴θ b = 0.0031

For the column:

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

Similar to Design 1.

∴θ c = 0.0015

For the joint panel:

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

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

V jh V jv
Where: γ j = γ h + γ v = +
GA jh GA jv

The deformation mechanism is shown below:

43
And: γ h and γ v are the horizontal and vertical shear distortion respectively.
V jh and V jv are the horizontal and vertical average shear force within the joint
panel respectively.
A jh and A jv are the horizontal and vertical joint area respectively.
G = 660 MPa (For HySpan)

Because the vertical shear area, A jv , is so large γ v can be ignored. The average shear
force within the joint panel can be approximated as:
2M *
V jh = − Vcol
hb
2M * cl
Where: Vcol =
H

Therefore;
2 × 75 2 × 83
V jh = − = 245kN
0.5 3

245 × 10 3
∴γ j = + 0 = 0.0029
660 × 500 × 250

Therefore:
⎛ 600 500 ⎞
∴θ j = 0.0029⎜1 − − ⎟ = 0.0021
⎝ 6500 3000 ⎠

For the connection:

The deformation can be approximated as:

⎛ hc ⎞
θ con = θ s ⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎟
⎝ Lbay ⎠

2Δ s
Where: θ s =
x avg

Here only the strain within the unbonded length of the epoxied rods is considered, strain
penetration is ignored. The following approach can only be used if the steel rods have not
yielded. Hence:

M *cl l ' ub
Δs ≈
x avg E s Ast

44
 x avg = 350mm (The average lever arm between the epoxied rods)
l 'ub = 25mm (The unbonded length of the steel)
Ast = 1885mm 2 (Total area of steel per side)
M *cl 75
= Fs = = 214kN ≤ F y = 565kN (The axial force in the epoxied rods)
x avg 0.35

25
∴ Δ s = 214 × 10 3 = 0.0142mm
200000 × 1885

2 × 0.0142
∴θ s = = 81.7 × 10 −6
350

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

⎝ 6500 ⎠

Hence, the connection deformation is insignificant and can be ignored. This is due to the
relatively short unbonded length. Note; strain penetration deformation can be significant
and normally should not be ignored.

The total frame rotation is approximately:

θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0.0021 + 0 = 0.0067 = 0.67%

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

Again, to satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence,
the serviceability conditions govern the design.

45
Design 3: Post-tensioned connection

For the serviceability limit state design we will only consider Design 3. Although no gap
opening will occur in the beam-column connections at serviceability limit state, there is
still connection rotation. However, this is difficult to accurately quantify. Empirical
equations from the ultimate limit state designed can be rearranged and used here.

For the beam:

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

Similar to Design 1 and 2.

∴θ b = 0.0031

For the column:

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

Similar to Design 1 and 2.

∴θ c = 0.0015

For the joint panel:

The shear deformation within the joint panel is similar to that shown for the epoxied rod
connection (Design 2), therefore:

∴θ j = 0.0021

For the connection:

The deformation can be approximated as:

⎛ hc ⎞
θ con = θ imp ⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎟
⎝ Lbay ⎠

2
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0.054 ⎟
Where: θ imp ≈
⎜ c ⎟
⎜ + 0.12 ⎟
⎝ αβ hb ⎠

46
And c (the neutral axis depth) can be determined from the moment demand:
⎛ hb M * ⎞
c = 3⎜ − ⎟
⎜ 2 T ⎟
⎝ pt , i ⎠

Where: T pt ,i = 0.7 × 9 × 99 ×1560 = 973kN (the initial post-tensioning force)

Hence:
⎛ 500 75 × 10 3 ⎞
c = 3⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ = 519mm > 500mm
⎝ 2 973 ⎠

Therefore, the connection has not decompressed. From previously:

α = 0.45
β = 1.73
Hence:
2
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0.054 ⎟ = 0.0014
θ imp ≈
⎜ 519 ⎟
⎜ + 0.12 ⎟
⎝ 0.45 × 1.73 × 500 ⎠
And:
⎛ 600 ⎞
θ con = 0.0014⎜1 − ⎟ = 0.0012
⎝ 6500 ⎠
The total frame rotation is approximately:
θ = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con = 0.0031 + 0.0015 + 0.0021 + 0.0012 = 0.0079 = 0.79%

Therefore:
θ > θ lim it
0.79 > 0.33 ⇒ NOT .OK !

Again, to satisfy the above drift limitation the member sizes must be increased. Hence,
the serviceability conditions govern the design, and the member sizes should be increased
to satisfy this drift limitation.

47
4.2 Wall Design

4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State Design

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

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

Design 1: Epoxied connection

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

48
Step 1: Determine the flexural capacity of the connection

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

The force equilibrium within the connection can be expressed as follows:

N * +2Ts = 2C s + C t = 2C s + 0.5ε t E con cb
Where: Ts and Cs are the tensile and compressive forces in the steel rods, and Ct is the
compressive force applied by the timber.

Firstly, it is assumed that all steel bars yields in tension and compression on the left and
right respectively. Therefore, if we assume Cs equals Ts:
N * = C t = 0.5ε t E con cb

Initially we will assume 3 × 20mm diameter bars per layer. Strain hardening is ignored:
∴ Ts = C s = A s f y = 942 × 300 = 283kN

The required moment equilibrium within the section can be expressed as:
M* ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛l c⎞
= Ts1 ⎜ d1 − ⎟ + Ts 2 ⎜ d 2 − ⎟ + C s1 ⎜ d1 '− ⎟ + C s 2 ⎜ d 2 '− ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟
φ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3⎠
Where: Ts1 = Ts2 = Cs1 = Cs2 = As fy = 283kN
d1 = 3.8m
d2 = 3.7m
d1’ = 0.2m
d2’ = 0.3m
φ = 0.8 for Glulam

Rearranging, the force equilibrium equation above:

N*
εt =
0.5E con cb
Where: Econ ≈ 0.55Et = 0.55×12000 = 6600MPa = the effective elastic modulus of the
timber at the connection.
b = 200mm

Expanding the moment equilibrium equation:

M* ⎛ 4c ⎞ ⎛l c⎞
= As f y ⎜ d1 + d 2 + d1 '+ d 2 '− ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟
φ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3⎠

Rearranging, the following solution is found:

l M* 4 1530
As f y (d1 + d 2 + d1 '+ d 2 ') + N * w − 283 × (3.8 + 3.7 + 0.2 + 0.3) + 152 × −
2 φ 2 0.8 = 1532mm
c= =
4 N* 4 152
As f y + × 283 +
3 3 3 3

49
Now the strain in the timber can be determined:
152 × 10 3 f 29
εt = = 0.00015 ≤ ε y = c = = 0.0044
0.5 × 6600 × 1532 × 200 E con 6600
Note: timber yielding should be avoided. This will cause stiffness and strength
degradation, and the linear stress block assumption will no longer be appropriate.

The initial assumption that the compression steel is yielding must be checked. If we
assume that the epoxied rods are fully bonded with the timber, the following is true:
ε (c − d 2 ') 0.00019(1220 − 300 ) fy 300
ε s2 ' = t = = 0.00014 ≤ ε y = = = 0.0015
c 1220 E s 200000

Therefore, the design assumption is not correct; the compressive reinforcement is not
yielding. With such small strains, it is reasonable that the compressive reinforcement is
ignored.

Hence, the force equilibrium equation must be updated:

N * +2Ts
εt =
0.5 E con cb

And the moment equilibrium equation:

M* ⎛ 2c ⎞ ⎛l c⎞
= As f y ⎜ d1 + d 2 − ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟
φ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3⎠

Rearranging the above equation:

l M* 4 1530
As f y (d1 + d 2 ) + N * w − 283 × (3.8 + 3.7 ) + 152 × −
2 φ 2 0.8 = 2148mm
c= =
2 N* 2 152
As f y + × 283 +
3 3 3 3
n
l M*
As f y ∑ l i + N * w −
i =1 2 φ
c=
2 N*
As f y +
3 3

Now the strain in the timber is:

εt =
(152 + 2 × 283) × 10 3 = 0.00051
0.5 × 6600 × 2148 × 200

Check force equilibrium is satisfied:

C t = N * +2Ts
C t = 0.5 × 0.00051 × 6600 × 2148 × 200 = 723kN
2Ts + N * = 718kN ≈ 723kN Within 5%: OK!

50
Now check the moments demand is satisfied:
⎛ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c⎞ ⎛l c ⎞⎞
φM n = φ ⎜⎜ Ts1 ⎜ d1 − ⎟ + Ts 2 ⎜ d 2 − ⎟ + N * ⎜ w − ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎠
⎡ ⎛⎛ 2.15 ⎞ ⎛ 2.15 ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 4.0 2.15 ⎞⎤
∴ φM n = 0.8 × ⎢283 × ⎜⎜ ⎜ 3.8 − ⎟ + ⎜ 3 .7 − ⎟ ⎟⎟ + 152⎜ − ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠⎦
= 0.8 × [1717 + 195]
= 0.8 × [1912]
= 1530kN .m

M * ≤ φM n
1530 ≤ 1530 ⇒ O.K !

Note: the above procedure gives no indication of wall displacement due to connection
rotation.

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

This is similar to Design 2 in Part 1.

1.25
φ 0 rod = = 1.39
φ steel

An epoxied connection must satisfy:

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn

For yield steel yielding:

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

For wood fracture:

(φQn ) wood = φ conn k1 Aw f t

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

f t = 12.5MPa (tensile strength of GL12)

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

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

51
For bar pull-out:
(φQn ) pullout = φ conn k1 nk g Qk

Where: kg = group factor = 0.8 for 6 bars

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

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

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

Therefore:
(φQn ) pullout = 1.0 × 1.0 × 6 × 0.8 × 147 = 706kN

φ 0 rod N * ≤ φQn
708 ≈ 706 ⇒ O.K !

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

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

2 × 942
∴ Ast ≈ = 75mm 2
25
Therefore, 1-10mm diameter bar will be used for transverse reinforcement.

The final details of the connection are given below:

52
Note; 1.At the end of an expoxied connection high stresses are applied to the timber, by
staggering the bar ends a plane of weakness is avoided.
2. A length of bar (≈lw/20=200mm) should be debonded at the connection
interface to prevent excessive strain in the epoxied bars. For real design the strain
in these bars must be evaluated and limited to 5%.

Step 3: Design for shear

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

V * = 306kN

A shear key must be designed to resist the overstrength shear and prevent the wall from
sliding. The design is not performed in this example.

1530
φ o = 1.39 = 1.39
1530

φ oV * = 557kN

E.g.:

Step 3: Check the section capacity of the wall

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

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

ω = 1.0 (At the ground floor)

53
 φM n = φkf b Z
Where: k = k1k23
k1= 1.0 for short term loads
k23= 0.5 for size effect (this factor is unreliable for this size section)
fb = 25MPa (the bending strength of GL12)
2
bl 200 × 4000 2
Z= w = = 533.33 × 10 6 mm 3
6 6
∴φM n = 1.0 × 0.5 × 25 × 533.33 = 6667kN .m

ωφ 0 M * ≤ φM n
1.0 × 1.39 × 1530 ≤ 6667 ⇒ O.K !

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

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

V * = 306kN

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

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

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

ω vφ 0V * ≤ φVn
1.1 × 1.39 × 306 ≤ 1973

Therefore, the section size is sufficient.

54
Design 2: Post-tensioned connection

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

is no yielding of steel reinforcement and therefore no mechanical energy dissipation.

The force in the tendons changes markedly depending on the rotation of the connection.
The initial tendon force in the 8-0.5’ strands is 50% of their yield force. Each strand has a
cross-sectional area of 99mm2.

Step 1: Determine connection flexural capacity

Impose a connection rotation

The code drift limitation for structural elements is 2.5%. However, to prevent
timber crushing and the yielding of the post-tensioning the design rotation can be
reduced to say 1.0%. For a post-tensioned timber wall the ratio of the connection
rotation to the total rotation of the wall is roughly 1.0 at ultimate limit state.

For the purposes of this example we can assume:

θ imp = 1.0% = 0.010

Guess neutral axis

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

l w 4000
c= = = 500mm
8 8

55
Apply member compatibility

The elongation of the tendon:

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

Hence:
nΔ pt 1 × 15
ε pt = = = 0.00231
l ub 6500
Where: n = the number of connections
lub = the unbonded length of the tendon (Height of structure plus
embedment into the concrete: 6500mm)

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

ε pt ,i + ε pt ≤ 0.9ε y

Tpt ,i
Where: ε pt ,i =
Apt Es

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

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

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

The strain in the timber:

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

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

The decompression curvature is usually so small it can be ignored for the

56
 calculation of the timber strain at high levels of connection rotation. However, the
calculation is shown below:
2(T pt ,i + N *)
φ dec =
E con bh 2

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

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

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

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

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

Calculate the compressive force in the timber

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

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

Check connection equilibrium

By equilibrium:
C t = T pt + N

Check that Ct is approximately equal to Tpt.

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

So:
∴1023 ≠ 984 + 152
(Out by 11%)
1023 ≠ 1136 ⇒ NOT .OK !
Need to iterate with the neutral axis depth.

57
Update neutral axis and iterate

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

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

Repeating steps 1-5:

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

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

Evaluate the moment capacity

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

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

M * ≤ φM n
1530 ≈ 1658 ⇒ O.K !

Step 2: Design for shear

The connection should be design to resist the overstrength shear. The overstrength factor
for post-tensioned connections is to protect the columns and beams from failing if the

58
actual rotation is larger than the design rotation and if the timber or steel is stronger than
expected.
A tentatively suggested overstrength factor is:

1.25 1.25
φ0 = = = 1.56
φ 0.8

The shear key should be designed to resist:

φ 0V * = 1.56 × 306 = 477kN

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

Step 4: Check the section capacity of the wall

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

59
4.2.2 Serviceability Limit State Design

The service design moments for the wall are given below:

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

deformation.
Here the deflection at the roof of the structure is determined and it is assumed that the
wall deforms with a linear displacement profile, hence:

Δ roof
θ=
H total

Where: Δ roof = Δ f + Δ S + Δ con

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

60
For shear:

Design 1: Epoxied connection

From the approximated bending moment diagram:

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

And from the shear force diagram:

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

For the connection:

The deformation can be approximated as:

Δ con = θ s H total

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

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

61
 x avg = 3600mm (Average distance between bars)
M *cl 1071
= Fs = = 298kN ≤ F y = 565kN (The axial force in the epoxied rods)
x avg 3.6

Therefore;
200
∴ Δ s = 298 = 0.158mm
200000 × 1885
2 × 0.158
∴θ con = = 88 × 10 −6
3600

∴ Δ con = 88 × 10 −6 × 6000 = 0.53mm

The roof deflection:

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

The total wall rotation is approximately:

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

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

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

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

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

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

62
Design 2: Post-tensioned connection

The flexural and shear deformation will be the same as

in Design 1.

For the connection:

Δ con = θ s H total

However, for a post-tensioned connection the connection deformation will be negligible

if the connection has not decompressed. The decompression moment can be determined
as:
M dec = (T pt ,i + N * ) w = (618 + 152 ) = 513kN .m < M * = 1071kN .m
l 4
6 6

Therefore, there will be some rotation in the connection. This can be approximated by the
following formula (see ultimate limit state design for definisions):

θ con =
( )
Lcant T pt ,i + N *
1.5 E con c 2 b

And, the neutral depth, c, will be:

⎛ lw M * ⎞⎟ ⎛ 4000 1071 × 10 3 ⎞
c=3 ⎜ − = 3⎜ − ⎟ = 1830mm
⎜ 2 T + N * ⎟ ⎜⎝ 2 618 + 152 ⎟⎠
⎝ pt ,i ⎠
Therefore;
4800 × (618 + 152) × 10 3
∴θ con = = 0.00056
1.5 × 6600 × 1830 2 × 200

∴ Δ con = 0.00056 × 6000 = 3.36

Therefore, the roof deflection is simply:

Δ roof = Δ f + Δ S + Δ con = 1.0 + 2.61 + 3.36 = 6.97mm

The total wall rotation is approximately:

Δ roof 6.97
θ= = = 0.12%
H total 6000

Therefore:
θ < θ lim it
0.12 < 0.33 ⇒ OK !
Hence the drift limitations under service conditions are easily satisfied. Hence, the
ultimate limit state conditions govern the design.

63
5. SIMPLIFIED DISPLACEMENT-BASED AND FORCE-BASED
DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED TIMBER FRAMES

Post-tensioned frame systems are a cost competitive timber alternative for commercial or
office type buildings. The system enables an open floor plan, rapid construction and
excellent seismic performance. In addition, the system is easy to design, if the correct
approach is taken. For any limit state, the size of the sections and the amount of post-
tensioning is nearly always governed by deflection limitations.
Within this section, a simplified displacement-focused design procedure is presented.
Both a displacement-based and forced-based approach is considered, even though both
approaches provide the same lateral forces. The force-based methodology fits into current
code accepted procedures (NZS1170.5:2004). Further information can be found in
Newcombe et al [2010].

Example 5.1:
A simple two-storey, two bay frame is considered, as shown in section 4 (see Fig. 6).
Hence, the same interstorey height, bay length and preliminary section sizes are used.
The following additional assumptions/specifications are given:
• The frame has pinned connections at the base.
• The floor runs parallel to the frames and is supported by gravity beams that span
between the columns. Hence, only seismic moment demand is considered for the
design of the beam-column connections.
• The same seismic weight of 245kN may be assumed for each floor.
• The building must be designed according the NZS1170.5 acceleration and
displacement spectra for 1/500 year return period earthquake (Soil C, Wellington
City). The design acceleration and displacement spectrum is given in section 2;
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 respectively.
• Under this seismic intensity the maximum allowable interstorey drift is 2.5%.
• For both the displacement-based and force-based design the elastic (or inherent)
damping is assumed to be 5%. No additional damping or energy dissipation is
provided.
• For the displacement-based design a linear displacement profile is realistic.

64
5.1 Lateral force design
The acceleration and displacement spectrum (from section 2) are repeated here are Fig. 7
and 8.
Note: the displacement spectrum, Sd, can be calculated from the acceleration spectrum,
Sa, as shown below:
T2
Sd = Sa
4π 2
1.4

1.2
Spectral acceleration: Sa (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Fig. 7 –Design acceleration spectrum

0.45

0.4
Spectral displacement: Sd (m)

0.35

0.3

0.25
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Fig. 8 –Design displacement spectrum

5.1.1 Displacement-based design

The frame system is idealized as an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF):

65
Step 1: The design displacement Δd, the effective mass me and effective height He must
be determined:

The peak design displacement for the SDOF representation:

( ) ∑ (m Δ )
n n
Δ d = ∑ mi Δ i
2
i i
i =1 i =1
Where:
Δ1
Δi = δi
δ1
And:
δi Hi
= = the mode shape (linear displacement profile)
δ1 H n
So:
H i Δ1
Δi =
Hn
And:
Δ 1 = H 1 ⋅ θ d = 3.0 × 0.025 = 0.075m

The effective mass:

n
me = ∑ (mi Δ i ) Δ d
i =1
The effective height:
n n
H e = ∑ (mi Δ i H i ) ∑ (m Δ ) i i
i =1 i =1

Using a spreadsheet:

Height, Weight, Mass,

Storey, i Hi wi mi Δi mi*Δi mi*Δi2 mi*Δi*Hi
(m) (KN) (tonnes) (m)
2 6 245 25.0 0.150 3.75 0.562 22.48
1 3 245 25.0 0.075 1.87 0.140 5.62
Sum 490.00 5.62 0.70 28.10

Therefore:
( ) ∑ (m Δ ) = 50..62
70
n n
Δ d = ∑ mi Δ i
2
i i = 0.125m
i =1 i =1

n
5.62
me = ∑ (mi Δ i ) Δ d = = 45.0tonne (90% of the total mass)
i =1 0.125

66
 n
28.1 n
H e = ∑ (mi Δ i H i ) ∑ (mi Δ i ) = = 5.0m (83% of the total height)
5.62
i =1 i =1

Step 2: Determine the system damping

For this example 5% of critical damping is assumed. This is also inherently assumed for
force-based design according to NZS1170.5. There is no hysteretic damping for the
system:

ξ eq = κξ el + ξ hyst = 5% + 0 = 5%

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

0.45

0.4
Spectral displacement: Sd (m)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)
Spectral displac

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1

By entering the displacement spectrum with the design displacement the effective period
is obtained: Te = 1.0s.

67
Step 4: Obtain the equivalent lateral stiffness

4π 2 m e 45.0
Ke = 2
= 4π 2 = 1777kN / m
Te 1.0 2
Note; this is a secant elastic stiffness to the peak displacement response.

Step 5: Determine the base shear

Vb = K e Δ d = 1777 × 0.125 = 222kN

Step 6: Distribute the base shear up the structure

For a two-storey structure is reasonable to distribute the forces according to first mode
response:
n
Fi = Vb (mi Δ i ) ∑ (m Δ )
i i
i =1
Again, using a spreadsheet:

Storey, i Floor Force

(KN)
2 148
1 74
Sum (Vb) 222

5.1.2 Force-based design

The frame system is designed to be elastic.

Step 1: Estimate the natural period:

The natural period of post-tensioned frame systems varies substantially depending on the
displacement demand. To determine the equivalent natural period of the SDOF system,
the allowable design drift, θd, of 2.5% drift must be considered. A similar approach is
suggest by Deam [2005].

Firstly, displacement of the equivalent SDOF must be determined. Again, it is assumed

that the displacement profile is linear. For a linear displacement profile the following
expression is true:

68
Δ d = H eθ d

( ) ∑ (H w )
n n
Where: H e = ∑ H i wi
2
i i
i =1 i =1

Storey, i Height, Hi Weight, wi wi*Ηi wi*Ηi2

(m) (KN)
2 6 245 1470 8820
1 3 245 735 2205
Sum 490 2205 11025

Therefore:
11025
∴He = = 5.0m
2205
∴ Δ d = 5.0 × 0.025 = 0.125m

The design displacement is then applied to the design displacement spectrum to

determine the period:
Spectral displac

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1

As for displacement-based design: Te = 1.0s.

Step 2: Obtain the horizontal force coefficient

From the design acceleration spectrum, shown above, the elastic seismic coefficient is:
C (Te ) = 0.50

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

C (T1 )S p
C d (T1 ) =
kμ
Where: k μ = 1 and S p = 1.0

Note; it could be argued that the frame system has inherent ‘ductility capacity’ (or more
correctly; displacement capacity). Therefore, Sp of 0.7 could be used.

69
Hence:
C d (T1 ) = C (T1 ) = 0.50

Step 3: Determine the design base shear

Often in force-based design the total weight of the structure is used to calculate the base
shear. This is overly conservative. Thee effective weight should be used. If a linear
displacement profile is assumed, the following is true:

n
2205
We = gme = ∑ (wi H i ) H e = = 441kN
i =1 5

Vb = C d (T1 )We = 0.50 × 441 = 222kN

Step 4: Distribute the base-shear up the structure

Again, for a two-storey structure is reasonable to distribute the forces according to first
mode response. For a linear displacement profile the following equation is true:

n
Fi = Vb (wi H i ) ∑ (w H )
i i
i =1
Again, using a spreadsheet:

Storey, i Floor Force

(KN)
2 148
1 74
Sum (Vb) 222

Therefore, for these design assumptions that same lateral design forces are calculated
using displacement and force based design.

70
5.2 Calculating the frame actions
From the design lateral forces the bending moments and shear forces for the frame must
be calculated. The most appropriate methodology to do this is ‘Equilibrium Approach’
proposed by Priestley et al [2007].

The distribution of strength throughout the frame is essentially a designer choice,

provided is matches the physical characteristics of the frame and the assumptions made
for the lateral force design. More specifically:
• A linear displacement profile is assumed in the lateral force design. Hence, all
beam-column connections will be subjected to similar rotations.
• Because the strength of post-tensioned connections is defined by the connection
rotation and the amount of post-tensioning, all connection moments at one level
will be similar.

Step 1: Determine the total overturning moment (OTM)

n
OTM = ∑ Fi H i
i =1

Storey, i Hi Fi Fi.Hi
(m) (kN) (kN.m)
2 6.0 148 888
1 3.0 74 222
Sum Vb=222 OTM=1110

Step 2: Decide how much of the OTM will be taken by the column bases:

n
OTM = ∑ M c , j + TLbase
j =1

n
Where: ∑ M c , j = the sum all column-base moments
j =1

T = the seismic tension force induced in the exterior

column
Lbase = the total frame length (to column centrelines)

Hence, the sum of the column base moments must be decided. Since pinned based
connection have been specified:
n

∑M
j =1
c, j =0

71
Step 3: Determine the remaining tension and compression force in the exterior columns:

n
OTM − ∑ M c , j
j =1 1110 − 0
T =C = = = 85.4kN
Lbase 13

Step 4: Proportion the seismic tension and compression force to each beam up the height
of the building:

A rational way to proportion the seismic axial forces into beam shears is to use the total
shear force diagram. This will ensure that an effectively linear displacement profile is
maintained. Hence:

V S ,i
V B ,i = T n

∑V
i =1
S ,i

Where: VB ,i = the beam shear at the ith floor

Storey, i Fi Vsi VBi

(kN) (kN) (kN)
2 148 148 34.2
1 74 222 51.2
Sum Vb=222 ∑Vsi=370

Step 5: Calculate beam design moments

As introduced, because all beam-column connections will have the same amount of
reinforcing (or post-tensioning) the design moments are similar for each connection on
the ith level.

Lb
M B ,i = V B , i
(At the column centerlines)
2
Where Lb = the length of the bay from column centerline to column centerline

The beam-column connection design moments at the column face are:

L b − hc
M cf ,i = M B ,i
Lb
Where hc = the column width (600mm)

72
 Storey, i VBi MBi Mcfi
(kN) (kN.m) (kN.m)
2 34.2 111 101
1 51.2 166 151

Step 6: Calculate column design moments

The sum of the column moments above and below the ith floor must equal the sum of the
beam moments.

∑M c ,i , above + ∑ M c ,i ,below = ∑ M B ,i

It is reasonable to assume that the column moments immediately above and below the ith
floor are equal. If this is assumed the following equation is valid:

For the 1st storey: MB/2 MB MB/2

n

∑M
j =1
C, j = nb M B ,i

For the 2nd storey (the Roof):

n

∑M
j =1
C, j = 2 n b M B ,i MB/2 MB MB/2
Where nb = the number of bays

Storey, i MBi ∑Mc

(kN.m) (kN.m)
2 111 444
1 166 332

Hence, in this example the worst-case column moment is on the top floor.

By equilibrium the moments induced in the interior and exterior columns can be
determined:

Storey, i Mc,ext Mc,int Sum

(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m)
2 111 222 444
1 83 166 332

73
5.3 Design member sizes and post-tensioning
As introduced, the deflection of the frame governs the section sizes and the amount of
post-tensioning. The deflection response of frame system can be conservatively idealized
to an internal beam-column connection:

Fig. 9 –Internal beam-column idealization

The deflection of the frame can be broken into its components:

θ D = θ b + θ c + θ j + θ con
.

Fig. 10 –Deflection components

74
Step 1: Calculate the beam and column deformation

φb ⎛⎜ (Lb − hc )2 Et hb ⎞
2
⎟
φc ⎛⎜ (H − hb )2 Et hc 2 ⎞⎟
θb = + And θ c = ⎜ +
Lb ⎜⎝ 6 G 4 ⎟⎠ H⎝ 6 G 4 ⎟⎠

Where: Et and G are the bending and shear elastic modulus respectively
hb = the depth of the beam
hc = the depth of the column.

From section 4, the bending and shear modulus are 13200 MPa and 660 MPa
respectively. The curvature in the beam and column is also a function of the applied
moment in the connection (Mcon) and the frame geometry:

M con M L (H − hb )
φb = And φc = con b
Et I b Et I c H (Lb − hc )
Where: Ib and Ic are the section moments of area of the beam and column respectively.
Mcon= the connection design moment =151kN.m

Therefore:
151 × 10 6 1
φb = = 4.39 × 10 − 6
250 × 500 3
mm
13200 ×
12
151 × 10 6 6500(3000 − 500 ) 1
φc = = 2.33 × 10 −6
250 × 600 3000(6500 − 600 )
3
mm
13200 ×
12

Hence:
4.39 × 10 −6 ⎛ (6500 − 600 )2 13200 500 2 ⎞
θb = ⎜ + ⎟ = 0.0048
6500 ⎜ 6 660 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
2.33 × 10 −6 ⎛ (3000 − 500) 2
13200 600 2 ⎞
θc = ⎜ + ⎟ = 0.0022
3000 ⎜ 6 660 4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Step 2: Calculate the joint panel zone deformation

The joint panel deformation can be significant. A simplified approach for determining
this deformation is given here:
⎛ h h ⎞
θ j = γ ⎜⎜1 − c − b ⎟⎟
⎝ Lb H ⎠

Where: γ = γ h + γ v , γ h and γ v are the horizontal and vertical joint distortion respectively.

75
The vertical joint distortion can be ignored. For a rectangular section: the horizontal joint
distortion can be approximated as:
V jh
γh =
GAsh
Where V jh = the average horizontal shear force within the joint panel region.
Ash = bc hc = the horizontal shear area within the joint panel.

And:
2 M con
V jh = − Vcol
hb
2M c ,int 2 × 166
Where Vcol = = = 111kN
H 3.0

Hence:
2 × 151
V jh = − 111 = 493kN
0.50
Note: for cases where the beam section is not rectangular, numerical integration is
required to find the average horizontal shear force and the joint distortion γ.

Hence:
493 ×10 3
γ =γh = = 0.0050
660 × 600 × 250

And:
⎛ 600 500 ⎞
θ j = 0.0050⎜1 − − ⎟ = 0.0037
⎝ 6500 3000 ⎠

Step 3: Determine the allowable connection rotation

The moment capacity of a connection gradually increases as the connection rotation

increases. Furthermore, at a certain connection rotation, the moment capacity increases as
the force from the post-tensioning increases. Hence, to minimize the required post-

76
tensioning reinforcement the maximum allowable connection rotation should be used for
design of the post-tensioning.

θ con = θ d − (θ b + θ c + θ j ) = 0.025 − (0.0048 + 0.0022 + 0.0037 ) = 0.025 − (0.0107 ) = 0.0143

The actual imposed connection rotation at the connection, θimp, is slightly higher than the
interstorey rotation due to the connection, θcon:

θ con 0.0143
θ imp = = = 0.0158
⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ 600 ⎞
⎜⎜1 − c ⎟⎟ ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ Lb ⎠ ⎝ 6500 ⎠

Step 4: Design beam-column connection

The connection moment capacity is calculated at the allowable imposed connection

rotation. Sufficient post-tensioning force must be applied so that the beam-column
connections have sufficient moment capacity, within the allowable connection rotation.

To determine the moment capacity of the beam-column connections, a simplified

procedure is presented here, similar to that shown in section 4. As in section 4, the
perpendicular-to-grain timber in the column is protected by steel plates and epoxied rods.

Impose connection rotation

The allowable connection rotation θimp is applied to the connection.

Estimate the neutral axis position

The following relationship can be used:
⎛ 0.054 ⎞
c = αβ hb ⎜ − 0.12 ⎟
⎜ θ ⎟
⎝ imp ⎠
Where: α is a correction factor for the columns transverse elastic modulus
Eperp, and is empirically expressed in MPa as:
390
α= + 0.42
E perp
While β is a correction factor for the initial axial stress in beams, fi, and

77
 is empirically expressed in MPa as:
f
β= i
4 .5

The perpendicular-to-grain timber within the column is protected. Hence, Eperp, is

equal to the parallel-to-grain elastic modulus:13200 MPa.
390
α= + 0.42 = 0.45
13200

The initial stress, fi, is related to the applied post-tensioning force, Tpt,i. Here a
post-tensioning force must be assumed:

Try 1-40mm diameter MacAlloy 1030 Bar, stressed to 60% of its ultimate tensile
stress:

π
T pt ,i = 0.6 × 1030 × × 40 2 / 10 3 = 777kN
4

And;
777 × 10 3
fi = = 6.21MPa ≤ 0.4 f y = 19MPa
500 × 250
Hence;
6.21
β= = 1.38
4.5

And, therefore;
⎛ 0.054 ⎞
c = 0.45 × 1.38⎜⎜ − 0.12 ⎟⎟ × 500 = 96mm
⎝ 0.0158 ⎠

Apply member compatibility:

The elongation of the tendon:

⎛h ⎞
Δ pt = θ imp ⎜ − c ⎟ = 0.0158 × (250 − 96 ) = 2.43mm
⎝2 ⎠

The strain due to gap opening is:

nΔ pt 4 × 2.43
Δε pt = = = 0.00071
lub 13600

Where: n = the number of connections

lub = the unbonded length of the tendon

78
 Note: the stress in the tendon should be checked at the design rotation. The stress
in the tendon should be less than 90% of the yield stress or 70% of the ultimate
tensile strength (UTS):

ε pt = ε pt ,i + Δε pt ≤ 0.9ε y or T pt = T pt ,i + Δε pt E pt A pt ≤ 0.7Tu

The elastic modulus of this size of MacAlloy Bar up to 70% of UTS is

approximately 170000 MPa. Hence:
T pt = 777 + 0.00071 × 170000 × 1257 / 10 3 = 929kN ≤ 0.7Tu = 906kN
(within 5%: OK!)

Determine the stress in the timber at the extreme compression fiber:

2T pt
ft = χ ≤ fy
cbb
Where: bb is width of beam at the connection interface
χ is a factor to account for non-linear stress distributions. A χ -value of 1
is assumed for this example (which corresponds to a linear compressive
stress distribution).

Hence;
2 × 906 × 10 3
f t = 1× = 76MPa > f y = 48MPa
96 × 250
The peak timber stress within the neutral axis depth has exceeded the yield stress
of timber.

This means the neutral axis depth predicted above is inaccurate. It can be
conservatively assumed that the moment capacity of the connection does not
increase after the yield point of the connection.

To determine the neutral axis depth and rotation at which timber yielding occurs
iteration is required, because the tension in the post-tensioning depends on the
neutral axis depth and visa versa. Initially we assume: Tpt = Tpt,i. Hence:
2T pt j
cy j = χ
f y bb
2
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0.054 ⎟
θ imp , y j ≈ ⎜ ⎟
c
⎜ y j + 0.12 ⎟
⎜ αβ h ⎟
⎝ b ⎠
⎛h ⎞
Δ pt j = θ imp , y j ⎜ b − c y j ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

79
 nΔ pt j
Δε pt j =
lub
T pt j +1 = T pt ,i + Δε pt j E pt A pt
Loop until Tpt,j is approximately equal to Tpt,j+1 (within say 5%). Putting this into a
spreadsheet:

c y = 137mm
θ imp , y = 0.0093
T pt = 819kN

Evaluate the moment capacity

The moment capacity is evaluated at the yield point of the connection:

⎛h c⎞ ⎛ 500 137 ⎞
φM n = φT pt ⎜ − ⎟ = 0.9 × 819 × ⎜ − ⎟ = 151kN .m
⎝2 3⎠ ⎝ 2 3 ⎠

M * ≤ φM n
151 ≤ 151 ⇒ O.K !

The rotation ductility of the connection is:

θ imp 0.0158
μ= = = 1.7
θ imp , y 0.0093
Note; at serviceability limit state timber yield should be avoided.

Therefore, the preliminary section sizes are sufficient ando one MacAlloy 1030 40mm
diameter bar is required.

Step 3: Design the connections on other levels

The moment demand for beam-column connections on the top floor is significantly lower
than the 1st floor. The same approach, as shown above, can be followed to determine the
required section sizes and post-tensioning.

For this design the same section size and post-tensioning is (conservatively) used for both
levels.

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

The section capacity of the beams and columns, considering overstrength and dynamic
amplification, must be checked. Note that the maximum column moment for this design
is on the top floor. Refer to section 4 for more detail.

80
6. POST-TENSIONED COUPLED TIMBER WALLS USING UFP
PLATES

This structural system has recently received a lot of attention from practicing structural
engineers within New Zealand and is perceived as an attractive structural system for
several future building projects. It was used for 3 storey timber building at the Nelson and
Marlborough Institute of Technology campus.

To use this system, contact the Structural Timber Innovation Company Ltd
(www.stic.co.nz), to obtain further information and a free license.

81
REFERENCES

Course notes for ENCI 614 Timber Engineering (2005). Design of Typical 6.5m Plywood
Wall, University of Canterbury.
Beattie, G., Buchanan, A., Gaunt, D., and Ed, S. 2001. Multistorey Timber Buildings
Manual, Carter Holt Harvery, Origin, James Hardie, Gib, New Zealand.
Buchanan, A., Deam, B., Fragiacomo, M., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. 2008. Multi-
Storey Prestressed Timber Buildings in New Zealand. Structural Engineering
International, Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), Vol. 18: 2.
Deam, B. 2005. A Displacement-Focused, Force-Based Structural Design Procedure.
New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference Rotorua, New
Zealand, pp. 8.
Filiatrault, A., ASCE, M., Fischer, D., Folz, B., and Uang, C. M. 2002a. Seismic Testing
of Two-Story Woodframe House: Influence of Wall Finish Materials. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 10: 128.
Filiatrault, A., M.ASCE, and Folz, B. 2002b. Performance-Based Design of Wood
Framed Buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128: 1, pp. 39-47.
Grant, D. N., Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. 2005. Modelling inelastic response
in Direct Displacement-Based Design. Report 2005/03, IUSS Press, Pavia.
Kelly, J. M., Skinner, R. I., and Heine, A. J. 1972. Mechanism of Energy Absorption in
Special Devices for Use in Earthquake Resistant Structures. Bulletin New Zealand
Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. Vol. 5: 3, pp. 63-88.
Newcombe, M. P. 2008. "Seismic Design of Multistorey Post-Tensioned Timber
Buildings," Masters Thesis, University of Pavia, Pavia.
Newcombe, M. P., Cusiel, M. R., Pampanin, S., Palermo, A., and Buchanan, A. H. 2010.
Simplified Design of Post-Tensioned Timber Frames. CIB W18 Workshop on
Timber Structures, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 12.
Newcombe, M. P., Pampanin, S., Buchanan, A., and Palermo, A. 2008. Section Analysis
and Cyclic Behavior of Post-Tensioned Jointed Ductile Connections for Multi-
Storey Timber Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12: Special
Issue, pp. 83-110.
NZS3101:2006. Concrete Structures Standard: Appendix B: Special Provisions for
Seismic Design of Ductile Jointed Precast Concrete Structural Systems, New
Zealand Standards, Wellington.
Pang, W., and Rosowsky, D. 2007. Direct Displacement Precedure for Performance-
based seismic Design of Multistorey Woodframe Structures. NEESWood Report
NW-02, Texas A&M University, College Station,
<http://www.engr.colostate.edu/NEESWood/publications.html>.
Pang, W., and Rosowsky, D. 2008. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Six-Storey
Woodframe Structure. Structural Engineering International, Journal of the
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), Vol.
18: 2, pp. 179-185.
Pang, W., and Rosowsky, D. 2009. Direct Displacement Procedure for Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Mid-Rise Wood-Framed Structures. Earthquake

82
 spectra, Vol. 25: 3, pp. 583-605.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, London, Sydney, Toronto.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS PRESS, Pavia, Italy.

83