Timber Engineering

LIMIT STATES DESIGN

LIMIT STATES DESIGN
AS1170.0-2002
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Structural Performance
Structures must comply with NCC.
▪ Includes level of safety.
Structures must perform reliably under all
expected actions.
▪ withstand extreme or frequent actions.
Clients have an expectation of satisfactory
performance to fulfill design function.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Structural Performance

Limit States – different design

situations where the structure is at its
limit of satisfactory performance.
Targets performance at all stages of
the design life of the structure.
Each Limit State has different:
▪ load combinations.
▪ behaviour models.
▪ performance limits.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Structural Performance
Limit States ensure structures perform to satisfaction of
client. Includes:
Serviceability:
▪ avoiding excessive cracking or bending.
▪ penalty - inconvenience, offensive appearance.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Structural Performance
Ultimate: Others :
▪ avoiding failure, breakage. Fire
▪ penalty - risk to life. ▪ safe evacuation of
Strength occupants.
▪ avoiding failure, buckling. ▪ safety for fire-fighters.
Stability Fatigue
▪ avoiding detachment, ▪ avoiding growth of
collapse. dangerous cracks under
repeated loadings.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability - Functionality
Appearance or visual impact
● unsightly deflection.
● misalignment at corners.
Discomfort
● vibration - or noise.
Inconvenience in operation
● jamming doors or windows.
● slope of drainage lines.
Damage
● to partitions or brittle building elements due
to deflection of members under or over.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Deflection Limits
Must be associated with (a) a given “load combination” and
(b) a reason for the limit (consequence of exceedence).
Appendix B in AS 1720.1 gives guidance only. Actual Limits
are set by agreement between client and designer.
Load Suggested
Item Controlling Design MoE
scenario limit
Columns Side sway Ws H/500 E mean
Rafters / E mean
Sag G+ys Q L/300
Trusses

Floor joists
Sag G+y Q L/300 E mean
(UDL)
Floor Sag L/300
bearers G+y Q E mean
Broken Clearance
Bearers G+yQ E 0.05
partition (>12mm)
over
partition
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability
Limits
▪ absolute (e.g. 15mm clearance over partition).
▪ relative (e.g. span/350 for appearance, comfort).
▪ dynamic - frequency, damping, comfort.
Model
Elastic/plastic deformation models (E.g. For a simply
supported beam with load distributed uniformly :
For timber
5 w L4
 = j2
Result 384 E I
Estimate of structural response under likely
serviceability conditions.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability
Modulus of Elasticity E
▪ Characteristic E- close to mean.
▪ Used for appearance or non-critical applications.
▪ 5%ile E can be found by approximation.
▪ used where damage may result or in critical
applications.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability
Section properties
▪ Use design dimensions:
▪ seasoned timber - nominal dimensions.
▪ unseasoned timber - nominal dimensions minus 3mm.
Loads
▪ Use serviceability loads.
▪ Close to normal working loads.
Span
▪ use design span (Design Standards for steel, concrete,
timber).
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Combination of Actions
Limits can be exceeded by 5% in any year:
▪Reasonably common - similar to maintenance cycle,
▪Must be associated with a serviceability limit,
Imposed action Serviceability Load Factors:
▪ 𝜓s factor ~0.7 for short term imposed action.
▪ 5% per year exceedence load.
▪ ~70% of nominal imposed action.
▪ 𝜓 factor ~ 0.4 for long term imposed action.
▪ closer to average imposed action.
▪Function of use of building.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Combination of Actions
Given in AS/NZS 1170.0 4.3
For short duration imposed action alone – 𝜓sQ
(e.g. vibration, footfall or deformation under machines).
For long duration imposed action alone - 𝜓Q
(e.g. long-term deformation of cambered beams.)
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Combination of Actions
Total Loading conditions (in AS/NZS 1170.0 4.3):
Short-term:
Total deformation under load
• G + 𝜓s Q for clearance problems or appearance
• G + 𝜓Q + Ws
• G + 𝜓Q + Es
• G + 𝜓Q + Ss
• Long-term
Total deformation under load
• G for clearance problems or appearance
or damage to claddings
• G + 𝜓Q
• G + 𝜓Q + Ss (Alpine)
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Design Summary
▪ Establish serviceability requirements.
▪ Determine serviceability load cases and limits.
▪ Find relevant combinations of actions.
▪ Determine loads.
▪ Model serviceability response.
▪ Check response against limits.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 1
“Guess and check” for beam serviceability
A “simply supported” floor bearer carries a short-term (one day
max) serviceability load of 8.0kN/m and will span 4 m.
Select a GL12 grade Glulam member to limit the short-term
imposed action deflection to [span/250]. (The deflection limit
applies to the short-term imposed load considered in isolation and
is as agreed with the architect).
GL12 grade glulam has a characteristic Modulus of Elasticity of
11,500MPa.

Note – 1: Serviceability load used.

2: Serviceability duration of load factor j2 = 1
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 1 Solution
Deflection Target:
Maximum deflection ( max ) is calculated by dividing the 4000 mm
span of the member by the 250 mm deflection limit:
4000
 max = =16
250
The beam dimensions must therefore have a deflection limit of
16 mm or less.
 LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 1
Guess 1:
230mm×65mm GL12 beam  Design dimensions 227 mm × 63
mm
63 ´ 2273
I= = 61.4 ´ 10 6 mm 4
12
5 L4 w
 = j2
384 E I
5 ´ ( 4000)
4
8
d =1.0 = 37.8mm
384 11, 500 ´ 61.4 ´10 6

   max
This guess was obviously way off the mark. The deflection is
a lot bigger than the maximum. A significantly bigger
member must be used.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 1
Guess 2:
295mm×65mm GL12 beam  Design dimensions
292mm×63mm
63´ 2923
I= = 131´10 6 mm 4
12
5L4 w
 = j2
384 E I
5 ´ ( 4000)
4
8
d = 1.0 = 17.7mm
384 11, 500 ´ 131 ´10 6

   max

This guess was obviously much better!

Deflection is just a little bigger than the maximum.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 1
Guess 3:
330mm x 65mm GL12 beam (Design dimensions 326mm x 63mm)
63´ 3263 5L4 w
I= = 182 ´10 6 mm 4  = j2
12 384 EI
5´ ( 4000)
4
8
d =1.0 = 12.8mm
384 11, 500 ´182 ´10 6

   max
The deflection is less than the maximum so this size should be OK.
After the third guess we have a member that would satisfy the design
problem.
That was a moderately good guess to start with but
this approach can be quite frustrating if the first guess
is not good.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 2
“Smart design” method for beam serviceability
Normally timber deflection calculations allow for “creep”
by multiplying the calculated deflection (obtained with a
short duration modulus of elasticity) by a duration of load
for serviceability factor j2 .
In this case - because the load is a short-term
serviceability load - the correct j2 = 1.0
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 2 Solution
Deflection Target:
5(4000)
4
4000 5L4 w 8
 max = = 16   = j2 =1.0   lim
250 384 E I 384 11,500I
This can be rewritten to give I in terms of the other variables
5 ´ ( 4000)
4
5L w
4
8
I ³ 1.0 = 1.0 = 145´10 6 mm 4
384 E dlim 384 11, 500 ´ 16
By looking up tables of “I” values such as those in HB108 Timber Design
(Appendix A), choose a 330×65 GL12 glulam beam (I = 182 × 106
mm4). Alternatively, assume a width of 65 mm (design width 63mm after
allowing for tolerances)
63 d 3
I  145  10 =
6
d  302
12
This shows any 65mm wide beam more than 300mm deep
will be OK.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Ultimate Limit States
Includes Strength and Stability Limit States
relating to safety - serious consequences:
• Failure is unacceptable to society
• Minimise risk - (~10-10)
• Failure where:
• load exceeds Strength Limit
• destabilising effects are exceeded
• load exceeds Stability limit

MAKE CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS –

IMAGINE THE WORST SCENARIOS
 LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Ultimate Limit States – Load Factors
Larger load factor gives lower probability of exceedence.
Load factor is a function of variability of the load:
• lower variability for permanent actions - lower load factor.
• higher variability for imposed actions - higher load factor.

Long-term
serviceability
pr Nominal Code
Imposed Actions Strength Limit
Short-term State
serviceability

load
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Ultimate Limit States – Stability
To do with stability of structure, or part of structure.
Actions are in opposing directions:
▪ one direction tends to cause instability (overturning,
detachment, etc.)
▪ other direction restoring, stabilising
Example Destabilising Stabilising
Retaining wall Soil pressure Weight of wall
Weight of roof and
Truss
Wind uplift strength of
anchorage
anchorage
Weight of Weight of backspan
Cantilever
overhang and and strength of
balcony
imposed load anchorage
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Ultimate Limit States – Stability
To do with stability of structure, or part of structure.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Stability Combination of actions

0.9G + Rd ³ 1.2G+1.5Q
R
AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.1
Permanent Imposed
Stabilising Destabilising

0.9G +Rd ³ 1.2G+y Q+Wu

R Wind
action
Permanent Arbitrary
point-in-time
AS/NZS1170.0 7.2.1 imposed
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Stability Load Combinations

Stabilising anchorage force (Rd) Destabilising imposed action (Q)

reduced by capacity factor Conservative bigger (1.5 factor)
Lots of uncertainty
No stabilising imposed action
imposed action is not always present –
cannot assume

Stabilising permanent action (GR) Destabilising permanent action (G)

conservative is smaller (0.9 factor) Less Conservative (1.2 factor)
not too much uncertainty Much less uncertainty
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 3
Truss anchorage
A roof truss in a small commercial building for Townsville, Qld, is to
be anchored to a timber wall framing system at each end.
Determine the force required to be carried by the truss anchorage
given that the truss anchorage has the following loads:
• ultimate wind uplift at one end: 3.6 kN.
• design imposed action reaction at each end: 0.9 kN,
• design permanent action reaction at each end of the following:
• Truss: 0.5 kN
• Ceiling: 0.7 kN
• Roofing: 0.2 kN
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 3

This problem is a true stability problem:

Upward loads (wind) are destabilising because the ‘uplift’
of the wind is encouraging the roof to fly.

Downward loads (permanent) are stabilising because the

combination of the other loads and the strength of the
anchorage are resisting the upward Load.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 3

Stability design equation Ed,stb + Rd ³ Ed,dst

No destabilising load either permanent or imposed.
No stabilising imposed load in Stability Limit State
combination.
Only destabilising force therefore Wu = 3.6
Hence Ed,dst =1.2G +Wu + ycQ
Ed,dst =1.2 ´ 0 + 3.6 + 0 = 3.6
Stabilising permanent load G R = 0.5+ 0.7+ 0.2 = 1.4kN
Ed,stb = 0.9G = 0.9 ´1.4 =1.26kN and 1.26 + Rd ³3.6
Rd ³ 3.6 - 1.26 = 2.34kN
Therefore truss anchorage must be designed
to resist a stability limit state uplift of 2.34 kN
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Strength Limit State
To do with strength of all or part of a structure where the
design strength is exceeded because load effects exceed
the capacity the building was designed to carry either
from:
• overloading - due to under-estimating loads.
• underperformance - due to over-estimating capacity.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Strength Limit State
Consequences of failure are often serious:
Tension members can fracture into two
parts if there is no path for the tension load.
Compression members can buckle or be
crushed under axial load if there is no path
to carry compression.
Bending members can buckle by
compression forces, flex and fracture, shear
and suffer bearing failures.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Design Capacity
There is a small probability that the actual capacity of a
particular member may be less than nominal capacity.
Characteristic strength of most materials is given by low
percentile strength (close to low end of strength
distribution). Designs use capacity factor f to allow for the
possibility that a particular element may not achieve the
strength predicted for the material.
Design capacity
(Rd) Nominal capacity R
(based on characteristic strength)
(f)
Strength
Design ensures that (Rd) > R*
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Capacity Factor f

Characteristic strength of most materials is given by 5%ile

strength. f gives consistent reliability for all materials and
structural forms.
It is dependent on:
• Material used (Steel (quality controlled for welds),
Concrete, Timber, etc.).
• Type of action (Compression, Bending, etc.).
• Accuracy of behavioural model.
• Structural role of element (e.g. primary or secondary).
• Effect of failure of a single element on whole structure.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Capacity Equation

Strength Limit State requires the Design Capacity (Rd) to

be greater than the design load (R*).
To ensure this you MUST make conservative assumptions
for:
▪ Actions
▪ Capacity of Elements

Loads Strength
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Combinations of actions

Permanent actions must always be present either alone or

in any combinations of actions:
Permanent + Imposed Action + Wind Action
Action
1.35G
1.2G + 1.5Q (long-term imposed)
1.2G + 1.5Qs (Short term imposed)
1.2G + ycQ (Arbitrary-point-in- + Wu (Wind same sense)
time imposed )
0.9G + Wu (Wind opposite sense)

AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.2
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 4

Strength limit state load

combinations.
An exposed non-trafficable roof
truss from seasoned Australian
hardwood bolted together with
steel gussets.
Trusses will support a sheet metal roof on battens,
insulation, and a raked ceiling on battens under the top
chord of the truss. Air conditioning ducts, lighting and
fans will be supported by the trusses and will
all be within the exposed trusses.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 4

Because the truss may need to carry the weight of a

person AS/NZS1170.1 3.5.2 requires a 1.4 kN gravity load
be applied to the bottom chord.

This produces a tensile force of 2.6 kN in the member.

A structural analysis of the truss gave the tensile force in a
web chord for each action.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 4

Tensile loading in the 2.4 m long web chord

kN
Permanent load 6.54 Est, perm
Imposed loads::
Construction load on roof 3.00 Est, med
From 1.4 kN concentrated load 2.6 Est, med
Lights and a/c 2.4 Known, perm
Snow load (sub alpine) 4.8 Est, med
Ultimate wind load - tension in the web chord 3.52 Est, inst
Serviceability wind load 2.76 Est, inst

Find the load combinations for the strength

limit state.
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Serviceability – Worked Design Example 4 Solution
Tensile loading in the 2.4 m long web chord
Permanent only 1.35G= 8.8
AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.2(a) 1.35 x 6.54
Permanent + imposed (const) 1.2G + 1.5 x Q = 16.0
(4.2.2(b)) (1.2 x 6.54) + 1.5(2.4+3)
Permanent + Imposed (1.4kN conc.) 1.2G + 1.5 x Q = 15.3
(4.2.2(b)) (1.2 x 6.54) + 1.5(2.4+2.6)
Permanent + Imposed (long-term) 1.2G + 1.5 x Q = 11.4
(4.2.2(c)) (1.2 x 6.54) + 1.5 x 2.4
Permanent + Snow 1.2G + 1.5 x Sr = 18.7
(4.2.2(g)) (1.2 x 6.54) + 1.5(2.4+4.8)
Permanent + Ultimate wind 15.0
(4.2.2(d))
Permanent Imposed Actions (e.g. air conditioning and
lighting) must be considered in every load combination.
Lighting has a 1.5 load factor here (though some designers use 1.2)
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Other Actions - Factored Value Combinations

Liquids (as in AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.3 ):

Type and density well defined, liquid height cannot be
exceeded:
▪1.2 Flp for static liquid pressure
▪1.2 G for self-weight of stored liquid (permanent action)
Type and density not well defined, liquid height not limited:
▪1.5 Flp for static liquid pressure
▪1.5 Q for self-weight of stored liquid (imposed action)
▪1.2 Fpnd for rainwater ponding (AS/NZS 1170.1)
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Other Actions - Factored Value Combinations

Ground Water (as in AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.3 ):

▪ 1.2 Fgw for ground water (AS/NZS 1170.1)
▪ Or 1.5 Fgw – as imposed action where not well defined

Earth pressure (as in AS/NZS1170.0 4.2.3 ):

▪ 1.0 Feu for earth pressures using limits states method
▪ 1.5 Fe for earth pressures using traditional methods
LIMIT STATES DESIGN
Robustness (AS/NZS1170.0 6.2.2)

▪ Detailing – especially connections

▪ All parts of the structure tied together
▪ Structural elements resist  (G +ycQ)(1.0 to 1.5%)
▪ Structural connections carry  (G 5%)
▪ Minimum earthquake provisions should also deliver this
resistance.
▪ Especially important for prefabricated construction.
Damage should be proportional to
the event - minor load events should
cause only minor damage.
Further Information

Visit www.WoodSolutions.com.au
For more than three thousand pages of information, inspiration and technical
publications on everything about timber in the built environment.

WoodSolutions is an initiative of Forest & Wood Products Australia.