UKTFA - Structural Guidance For Platform Timber Frame - May 2008

STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME
UKTFA Special Project, May 2008

TOPIC Design of Platform Timber Frame for Disproportionate Collapse provisions
PURPOSE BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007 includes new clauses providing guidance for complying with Part A3
of the Building Regulations 2000(updated 2004).
This Technical Note is aimed at interpreting this guidance as it applies to Platform Timber Frame buildings and
suggests methods for achieving compliance.
REPORT DATE February 2008
KEYWORDS Platform Timber Frame, Disproportionate Collapse
Building Regulations Requirement

Requirement from Part A3 of the Building Regulations 2000, updated 2004 for England & Wales:
‘The building shall be constructed so that in the event of an accident the building will not suffer collapse to an extent disproportionate to the cause’.
Requirement from Section C3 of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) - 6th Amendment 2001:
‘A building to which this standard applies must be designed and constructed so that in the event of damage occurring to any part of the building,
the extent of any resulting collapse will not be disproportionate to the cause of the damage.’
Code Requirement - relevant clauses

The following extracts are taken from British Standard
BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007
1.6.3 Accidental damage

1.6.3.1 General
In addition to designing a structure to support loads1 from normal use, there should be a reasonable probability that the structure will not collapse
catastrophically because of misuse or accident. No structure can be expected to be resistant to the excessive loads or forces that could arise from
an extreme cause, but it should not collapse to an extent that is disproportionate to the original cause.
2 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

The general recommendations in 1.6.1.1 apply to all buildings. The measures required for each Class of building as defined in
the National Building Regulations or Standards are as follows:
a) Class 1 buildings: no additional requirements.
b) Class 2A buildings either:
1) Option 1. Effective anchorage of suspended floors to load-bearing walls in accordance with 1.6.3.2; or
2) Option 2. The provision of effective horizontal ties in accordance with 1.6.3.3.
c) Class 2B buildings either:
1) Option 1. Effective horizontal ties in accordance with 1.6.3.3 and vertical ties in accordance with 1.6.3.4; or
2) Option 2. Check for the notional removal of load-bearing elements in accordance with 1.6.3.5.
d) Class 3 buildings: The designer should carry out a risk assessment as required by the National Building Regulations
or Standards.
Commentary
1 The disproportionate collapse load case (as a result of misuse, accident or extreme cause) is never defined. It is a
theoretical ‘event’ that causes a force or removal of a load bearing element as defined in the clauses.

1.6.3.2 Effective anchorage of suspended floors
A suspended floor can be considered to be effectively anchored if the connection between the floor and load-bearing wall complies with either:
• Figure M.32; or
• BS 5628-1:2005, Annex D for timber floors supported by load-bearing masonry.
2 Effective anchorage is provided by the horizontal structural junction strength of floor to wall connections as a ‘deemed
to satisfy’.
1.6.3.3 Effective horizontal ties3
All buildings should be effectively tied together at each principal floor level and at roof level. Horizontal ties should be provided as follows (see
also Figure M.I):
• Peripheral ties with a design capacity of 0.5F† should be provided around the whole perimeter of the building. Ties
should be anchored at external and re-entrant corners.
• Internal ties should be provided in two directions approximately at right angles. They should be effectively
continuous throughout their length and should be anchored at the periphery of the building. They may be
distributed evenly throughout the floor or may be concentrated at column positions. Internal ties should be
designed for a load of F†.
• External columns and load-bearing walls should be tied in by a tie perpendicular to the edge of the building. The
tie should be designed for the greater of Ft or 1% of the maximum design vertical dead and imposed load in the
column at that level. Corner columns should be tied in two directions approximately at right angles.
The basic tie force F† should be calculated as follows:
• For distributed ties: F† = 0.5(gk + qk)L kN/m but not less than 3.5 kN/m.
• For concentrated ties: F† = 0.5(gk + qk)S†L kN but not less than 10kN.
where
gk is the full dead load per unit area of the floor or roof (kN/m²).
qk is the full imposed floor or roof load per unit area (kN/m²).
s† is the mean spacing of ties transverse to the direction of the tie being considered (m).
L is the length of tie being considered (m).
When assessing the capacity of an element acting as a tie, in accordance with 1.6.3.8 or its connections in accordance with 1.6.3.9, the tie load
can be considered as an alternative load case to any other loads acting on that element.

3 Effective horizontal and vertical ties are the structural junction strengths of floor to wall connections as calculated.
The calculation formula for ties is based on similar force calculations taken from the light gauge steel industry and for the
design of restraint straps in masonry design codes. The tie force is an accidental load value.
Horizontal and vertical tie forces are not practical for most platform frame construction.
1.6.3.4 Vertical ties
Each column or wall carrying vertical load should be tied continuously from the lowest to the highest level. The tie should be capable of resisting
a tensile force equal to the maximum design load received by the column or wall from any one storey. There should be an effective connection
between vertical ties and horizontal ties at each level.
When assessing the capacity of an element acting as a vertical tie, in accordance with 1.6.3.8 or its connections in accordance with 1.6.3.9, the
tie load can be considered as an alternative load case to any other loads acting on that element.
1.6.3.5 Notional removal4 of load-bearing element
The structure should be checked for the effect of the removal, within each storey, of each supporting column, or beam supporting column(s) or
load-bearing wall(s), or any nominal length of load-bearing wall, one at a time5, to ensure that disproportionate collapse does not occur. The portion
of the building at risk of collapse should not exceed the lesser of 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70 m2.6
If the area at risk exceeds the limits given then the column, beam or load-bearing wall should be designed as a key element in accordance with
1.6.3.6.
The nominal length of a load-bearing wall should be taken as:
• In the case of an external wall, the length measured between vertical lateral restraints7.
• In the case of an internal wall, the length measured between effective vertical lateral restraints but not exceeding
2.25h, where h is the height between horizontal restraints as shown in Figure M.2.
When considering the residual structure the loading should be as defined in 1.6.3.7. The capacity of any relevant elements should be calculated
in accordance with 1.6.3.8 and their connections should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.9.
4 Key point: Notional removal relates to the imaginary removal of a defined area and is not an actual length of panel or length
of panel to a predetermined ‘weak junction’.
5 Key point: One wall at a time is notionally removed, not a number of walls together.
6 Some collapse is allowable within the limits set by the Building Regulations. ie 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70
m² whichever is the lesser and does not extend further than the immediate adjacent storeys. Storey area is the full building
plan area.
7 Vertical lateral restraints are structural walls of minimum width 1200mm and are not key elements.

1.6.3.6 Key element8
A key element should be designed for the accidental loading specified in BS 6399-1. Structural elements that provide lateral restraint vital to the
stability of a key element should also be designed as a key element. The accidental loading should be applied to the member from all horizontal and
vertical directions, in one direction at a time, together with the reactions from other building components attached to the member that are subject to
the same accidental loading but limited to the maximum reactions that could reasonably be transmitted, considering the capacity of such members
and their connections. The accidental loads should be considered as acting with the loads given in 1.6.3.7. The capacity of the element should be
calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.8 and its connections should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.9.
8 The principle of design for key elements or protected members is different from notional removal. Lengths of panel either
side of a key element are likely to be removed which may be significant leaving a ‘post and beam’ structural frame to
support the remaining building.
1.6.3.7 Design loads for the residual structure
When considering design of the residual structure the following loads should be considered, where appropriate:
• the dead load
• a third of the imposed load, except that in the case of buildings used predominantly for storage, or where the
imposed load is of a permanent nature, the full imposed load should be used.
A third of the imposed roof or snow load
• 100% of any ceiling storage loads
• a third of the wind load9
1.6.3.8 Permissible stresses for accidental load cases
When considering the probable effects of misuse, accident or particular hazards, or when computing the residual stability of the damaged structure,
the designer should normally multiply the values recommended in BS 5268-2 for all long-term permissible stresses by a factor of 2.25.10
9 The wind loading requirement is to check against racking capacity of the structure after removal of a load bearing wall.
10 The permissible stress increase factor can be assumed to be a k3 = 2.25 duration of load factor.

1.6.3.9 Permissible fastener load for accidental load cases
When considering the probable effects of misuse, accident or particular hazards, or when computing the residual stability of the damaged structure,
the designer should normally multiply the values recommended in BS 5268-2 for all long-term permissible loads on fasteners by a factor of 3.011.
In the case of fastenings through particleboard the values recommended for long-term permissible loads should be increased by a factor of 4.0.
11 The permissible fastener load increase factor can be assumed to be a k48,52 = 3.00 duration of load factor. The value is
higher for mechanical fasteners due to the factors already incorporated in the code.
References to other Guidance

1 UKTFA - Code of Practice for Engineered Wood Products 1st Ed. Jan 07
2 UKTFA - Technical Bulletin 3’ Design Guide for Disproportionate Collapse’ - March 2005
3 ‘Multi-storey timber frame buildings - a design guide’ - TRADA/BRE 2003
4 BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 2007
5 NHBC Technical Guidance Note - Part A3 Guidance - November 2004
Building Regulations Requirements

All structures must comply with the minimum UK Building Regulation requirements for robustness. The building regulations address this aspect
of the design using the term ‘disproportionate collapse’. All buildings will be subject to the robustness check as required by Part A - Structure, of
the Building Regulations - amended December 2004.
Building Regulations Table 11 has classified buildings into 4 classes based on risk assessments dependent on the type of building and levels of
occupancy, as follows.
• Class 1, Single occupancy buildings from 1 to 4 storeys e.g. detached houses, town houses etc.
• Class 2A, Houses or apartments (residential nature), not exceeding 4 storeys.
• Class 2B, Houses or apartments and other residential buildings, exceeding 4 storeys but limited to 15 storeys.
Educational buildings not exceeding 15 storeys. Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys.
• Class 3, Stadiums, sports grounds, or building subjected to high frequency of loading (crowd accumulation) etc,
subjected to full sensitivity analysis and has no specific mentioned design criteria.

Class of Building for Disproportionate Collapse
Requirement A3 as a principle applies to all buildings. Previous regulations were aimed at specific heights of buildings. For example, for 5 storey
apartments disproportionate collapse provisions applied but for 4 storey apartments it did not.
The 2004 Regulations brings the UK in line with European Code proposals in terminology and while there are some differences, the general
5-storey or greater rule for disproportionate collapse-specific design still applies. For buildings of 4 storeys or less the code and regulations aim
at good practice to achieve robustness.
Some terminology refers to ‘progressive collapse’ which is a reference to what the design for disproportionate collapse is aimed at avoiding. This
document will refer to the term ‘disproportionate collapse’.
Reference should be made to NHBC Technical Guidance Note - Part A3 Guidance - November 2004(5) for complex buildings with
multiple uses to assess the relevant Class of building.
Elements of the building with differing uses or numbers of storeys may be classed independently for disproportionate collapse as long as they can
be shown to be independently stable for wind load effects.
Meeting A3 requirements
Disproportionate collapse is instigated by localized failure of one of the elements within the structure leading to significant failure of several floors
in the building. Disproportionate collapse can be reduced or minimized by providing some structural continuity (ties) within the elements of
structure or by ensuring a degree of structural ‘redundancy’ by considering notional removal of load-bearing elements.
BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 2007 guidance

The measures required for each Class of building are as follows:
Class 1: no additional requirement.
Class 2A: either:
• Option 1 - provision of effective anchorage of suspended floors to load-bearing walls as shown in Figure M3; or
• Option 2 - provision of effective horizontal ties as shown in Figure M1.
Class 2B: either:
• Option 1 - provision of effective horizontal and vertical ties as shown in Figure M1.; or
• Option 2 - check for the notional removal of load-bearing elements
Class 3: the designer should carry out a risk assessment as required by the Building regulations.

Class 2A Buildings
The Building Regulations state that for Class 2A buildings, robustness will be achieved by providing effective horizontal ties, or effective anchorage
of suspended floors to walls.
In providing robustness for category 2A, minimum mechanical fixing specifications to provide anchorage of suspended floors to walls and notional
horizontal tying for platform timber frame structures are provided in UKTFA - Technical Bulletin 3’ Design Guide for Disproportionate
Collapse’ - March 2005(2) (see Appendix 1), UKTFA - CP for Engineered Wood Products 1st Ed. Jan 07(Fig 3.13) (1) and Figure M3
of BS5268-2:2002. (4)
For Class 2A buildings, the approach is to adopt good building practice of providing lateral restraint to walls and common anchorage details of
floors to walls. The design process will involve checking the capacity of the component interfaces (e.g. panel rail to soleplate, soleplate to floor
deck, floor joists to head binder and head binder to panel rail) against the variable horizontal wind forces. The timber frame designer should
therefore be providing a robust connection at each and every junction as part of the normal design process.
Fig 1: BS 5268 Figure M3 - exploded floor detail showing minimum nailing densities
Key points to note are:
• The fixings at each junction interface.
• The blockings at floor perimeters where joists are parallel to the wall.
Where these details are not applicable or cannot be adopted due to different framing arrangements, effective horizontal ties should be designed in
accordance with BS5268- 2:2002 Cl1.6.3.3. (4)

Class 2B Buildings
The Building Regulations guidance state that for Class 2B buildings, robustness will be achieved by providing effective horizontal ties together with
effective vertical ties or by checking that upon notional removal of a load bearing wall (one at a time in each storey of the building) the building
remains stable and that the area of floor at any storey at risk of collapse does not exceed 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70sq.m, whichever
is the smaller, and does not exceed further than the immediate adjacent storeys.
Where the notional removal of lengths of walls would result in an extent of damage in excess of the above limit, then the use of a ‘key element’
design approach for an accidental design loading of 34 kN/sq.m applied in the horizontal and vertical directions (one at a time) to the ‘key element’
and any attached components (e.g. cladding) having regard to the ultimate strength of those components and their connections, should be adopted.
Consideration of notional panel removal and a ‘Sensitivity Analysis’ approach

In checking the robustness of timber frame buildings, Engineers are to apply judgmentbased thinking to the likely 3-dimensional structural
behaviour of a building, backed, where appropriate, with a 2-dimensional structural assessment of discrete elements. The TF2000 fullsize testing
has shown that this approach is conservative but appropriate to determining the robustness of platform frame construction in buildings such as
the medium-rise TF2000 building (3).
‘Multi-storey timber frame buildings - a design guide’ - TRADA/BRE 2003(3) provides guidance for the design process for Class 2B
buildings where notional removal of load bearing walls ispart of the design check to comply with Regulation A3:
A ‘Sensitivity Analysis’ should be carried out on primary supporting members to establish if their removal, one at a time in each storey, to check
that upon its removal the rest of the structure would bridge over the resulting lack of support, albeit in a substantially deformed condition, or that
the risk of collapse of the remaining structure due to the removal of the member is within the limits prescribed by the Building regulations.
If it is not possible to bridge over a missing member or to limit the area at risk, the member should be designed as a protected or key element.
Methods of Detailing for DC - Provision of ‘Bridging Elements’

The TF2000 test building provided proof of the inherent robustness and availability of secondary load paths in platform timber frame. Therefore,
sheathed walls with no openings designed to BS5268:Part 6.1 can be regarded as deep beams with vertical shear taken in the panel to panel
connections and tension taken out through the sheathing material in continuation with any timber framework across the panel junction e.g. rim
boards. Furthermore, the TF2000 tests demonstrated that the floor has additional strength through the transverse spanning capacity of the floor that
is supported on the walls parallel to the span ( 3).
It is possible to undertake structural calculations to prove that wall panels can be supported by ‘panel action’ but often large or numerous openings
occur, leading to a requirement for additional ‘bridging members’ to be provided as part of the robustness design.
Unfortunately the TF2000 tests were specific to that building floor and panel shape and size. The findings cannot be used as a general compliance
with the regulations and independent structural checks on buildings are required.

The ‘Rim Beam’ Method
The provision of a continuous engineered timber ‘rim beam’ at every floor level (not generally required at roof level) at the end of all joist
spans ensures that structural continuity is achieved by providing vertical load transfer as a ‘bridging elements’ and horizontal continuity by
providing a nailing density at all interfaces in accordance with the recommendations of UKTFA - Technical Bulletin 3’ Design Guide for
Disproportionate Collapse’ - March 2005(2) and BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 200 - Figure M3. (4)
Fig 2: Indicative Rim Beam arrangement
This method allows joisted floor structures to be assembled in the factory as ‘cassettes’ with a ‘rim board’ used to connect the ends of the joists
together for transportation and which remains as a vertical load transfer element in the completed structure. A separate ‘rim beam’, which is usually
installed loose on site, spans between points of vertical lateral restraint (return walls) or ‘key elements’ and acts as a bridging member such that if
loadbearing walls are notionally removed between the walls or key elements, the resulting collapse will be limited to the maximum areas allowed
and any remaining structure will remain in place albeit with significant deformation being acceptable.
An example of the Rim Beam Structural Methodology is shown in Appendix 2
Intersecting return walls

Intersecting return walls must be of 1200mm minimum length in total (excluding framed openings). These walls can be non-load bearing in the
conventional sense but must be capable of transferring loads down through the structure. The use of lightweight partitions built off of floating floors
is not acceptable. The Rim Beams are supported at these wall intersections by corner stud groups. It is important that the Rim Beams supporting the
remaining structure have a full bearing on studs at the panel junctions and to achieve this, the wall panels should be lapped in the opposite manner
to the Rim Beams. If no stud clusters are present below the Rim Beam bearing, hangers or fixings are to be provided off of adjacent Rim Beams.
For external panels the minimum length of wall to be considered for notional removal is 2.4m, with no maximum length. Where the Rim Beams
cannot be designed to span the required distance between return walls, Key Element posts will be required to split the span of the Rim Beams.
For internal walls the maximum length of wall to be considered is 2.25H where H is the clear height of the panel between lateral supports.

Rim Beam Design
The Rim Beams and their connections should be designed to withstand vertical loading comprising the full floor dead load plus one third of the
normal imposed load plus the weight of a single storey of wall plus any claddings or linings. A load duration factor, K3, of 2.25 and a deflection
limit of L/30 should be applied to timber members and a k48,52 = 3.00 for mechanical fixings.
Fig 3: Example Design of a typical Rim Beam supporting a floor and external wall only

Assumptions for Rim Beam design
In designing Rim Beams, the assumptions listed below are applicable:
a) Rim beam design checks are carried out on the principal of notional removal of wall panels, one at a time, between
intersecting return walls ie: a wall is notionally removed, the structure is checked for adequacy and then the wall is replaced.
These checks are then repeated for other notionally removed panels.
b) For external panels the minimum length of wall to be considered is 2.4m, with no maximum length. For internal walls the
maximum length of wall to be considered is 2.25H where H is the clear height of the panel between lateral supports (the
top of the structural deck level below to the underside of the structural joist level above). For compartment walls, only one
leaf at a time is to be considered for removal.
c) Rim beams are designed to support the dead weight of the structure to be supported, 1/3rd of the imposed loads and a single
storey of wall panel with any supported claddings or linings, following a collapse event of the supporting wall panels below
being removed (one at a time). For this event, a duration of load factor of k3 = 2.25 and deflection limit of L/30 are applicable
for timber elements.
d) Rim beams are also to provide a horizontal tying action at all levels through the structure. The fixings presented for Category
2A buildings (BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 200 - Figure M3(4)) are the minimum fixings required for
robustness.
The Engineer is to determine the design approach for the Rim beam. The disproportionate collapse design does not require the building to be
serviceable after the event, merely safe for occupants to escape and emergency services to enter the building.
A typical Rim beam design can be seen in Fig 3.
Key Element design principles

The key element approach is not related to notional removal. The introduction of a key element is an alternative design approach. The difference
is easily explained when a key element is a column in a length of wall. This key element column is not considered as a lateral restraint to the wall
and a check of the notional removal of the wall either side of the column is not valid. The design of the column is for 34kN/sq.m in any horizontal
direction. The panels attached to the post on both sides are to be checked to see if they will remain attached to the column under this loading. If
they remain attached, then the column is designed to take the reaction from the wall panels as well as the load on the column itself.
Other considerations to achieve a ‘robust’ structure

The in-service design of the building must not be compromised by the disproportionate collapse design.
Key points to note are:
• A building should not be provided with intentional ‘weak’ points for notional panel removal. The term ‘notional’ is
deliberately used as a means of undertaking an imaginary design situation. The actual cause and practicality of
the ‘event’ is not defined or to be considered. Disproportionate collapse design is a methodology to enhance a
building robustness.
• As always, a check on the differential movement of the in-service condition of the building should be carried out.
• The support of external claddings should also be considered during an ‘event’.

Appendix 1: Minimum recommended nailing densities to provide nominal horizontal tying for
Class 2A& 2B buildings:
For conventional timber frame buildings of cellular plan form the UKTFA have recommended that the effective anchorage of floors to walls will be
achieved with a minimum density of nails as shown below.
Fig 4: Diagrammatic details of typical nailing density at all interfaces in accordance with the recommendations of BS5268: 2002
and UKTFA guidance dated December 2004
For more information regarding ‘robust’ junction connections for Platform Timber Frame buildings, refer to UKTFA Technical Note:
‘Robustness of platform timber frame and connectivity of the framing members.’

Appendix 2: Disproportionate Collapse Philosophy - Example of Rim Beam Structural
Methodology
Key to diagram:
E = external walls, I = internal load bearing walls, P = party wall (single skin), J = joists, H = clear height of the panel between lateral supports.
Design Check/D.C. Event 1: Notional removal of Internal wall panel I0 of maximum length 2.25H
Continuous joist spans J1-J5 avoid the need for rim beams on internal supports. On removal of the supporting wall I0 the joists act in double
span at each subsequent level and support the floor loads plus a single storey height of (now non-load bearing) wall panel I1-I5 supported off the
double-spanning joists. Ie. J1 supports I1, J2 supports I2 etc.
Design Check/D.C. Event 2: Notional removal of External wall panel E3 between intersecting
return walls or defined key elements. (Party walls P0 to P5 similar)
Following removal of wall panel E3, unless the joists are ‘top-hung’ over the rim beam, joists J4 are assumed to collapse or cantilever and a check
should be carried out to ensure that the resulting floor collapse will constitute less than 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70sq.m, whichever
is the smaller. Rim beam R4 is designed to support panel E4 and floor joists J5 by ‘bridging’ over the notionally removed wall panel. Subsequent
rim beams R5 support wall panels E5 and roof joists J6. The rim beams are tied back to the floor diaphragm with the minimum nailing densities.

Appendix 3: Disproportionate Collapse Philosophy - Cantilevered Joists Method
Notional removal of External wall panel E3 (Party walls similar) between intersecting return walls
or defined key elements.
Following removal of wall panel E2 continuous joists J3 cantilever and support panel E3 (including any supported cladding). Subsequent joists
also cantilever and support a storey height of wall panel. A check should be carried out to ensure that there is sufficient holding down resistance at
the backspan of the cantilevered joists to resist uplift (especially at top storey level).
Continuous joists are designed to support a single storey of wall panel plus the full dead load plus 33% of the imposed loads on that floor. A
duration of load factor of k3 = 2.25 and deflection limit of L/30 are applicable for accidental load case.

TOPIC Floor Serviceability Limits
PURPOSE Deflection of floors is classified as a serviceability issue. There have been investigations carried out by the
industry into the acceptable limits of floor deflection. In 2006 the NHBC changed their recommendations for
allowable deflection limits for I-joist engineered floor systems and BS 5268-2:2002 + Amd 1 updated
2007 has now also presented additional deflection criteria.
This report provides background to the changes and additional recommendations for floor serviceability
that Engineers may wish to follow.
KEYWORDS Platform Timber Frame, Floor joists, Deflection, Serviceability

The following extracts are taken from British Standard BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007
2.10.7 Deflection and stiffness

The dimensions of flexural members should be such as to restrict deflection within limits appropriate to the type of structure, having regard to
the possibility of damage to surfacing materials, ceilings, partitions and finishings, and to the functional needs as well as aesthetic requirments.
In addition to the deflection due to bending, the shear deflection may be significant and should be taken into account.
For most general purposes, this recommendation may be assumed to be satisfied if the deflection of the member when fully loaded does not exceed
0.003 of the span. For domestic floor joists, the deflection under full load should not exceed the lesser of 0.003 times the span or 14ζ mm, where:
ζ, = 0.86 for floors whose transverse stiffness is provided by the decking/ceiling.

= 1.00 for floors where there is additional transverse stiffness to that from the decking/ceiling.
This additional transverse stiffness may be provided by herringbone strutting or by blocking1 of depth at least 75% of the depth of the
joists or, in the case of transverse members which are continuous across the joists (i.e. joists with an open-webbed structure), by
timbers of depth at least 30% of the depth of the joists.
NOTE The 14ζ mm deflection is to avoid undue vibration under moving or impact loading. 2
Subject to consideration being given to the effect of excessive deformation, members may be precambered to account for the deflection under full
dead or permanent load, and in this case the deflection under live or intermittent load should not exceed 0.003 of the span
The following notes provide some commentary on the interpretation of the new clauses:
1 The changes reflect the trend for blocking or strutting to be omitted on proprietary joist products. Although the British
Standard does not address I-joist or open web joists this clause is in fact aimed at this market.
2 This note refers to the fact that maximum

The following extracts are taken from Eurocode 5 (BS EN 1995 -1 -1:2004) + UK National Annex:
NA to BSEN 1995-1-1:2004:
NA.2.5 Limiting values for deflections of beams [BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.2(2)]
As stated in BS EN 1990:2002, Al.4.2(2), the serviceability criteria should be specified for each project and agreed with the client. 3 The
values in Table NA.4, which take into account creep deformations, are given for guidance.
Table NA.4 Limiting values for deflections of individual beams4
Type of member Limiting value for net final deflections of individual beams, Wnet,fin
A member of span, A member

l between two supports with a cantilever, l
Roof or floor members with a plastered or plasterboard ceiling l/250 l/125
Roof or floor members without a plastered or plasterboard ceiling l/150 l/75
NOTE When calculating' Wnet,fin W,fin should be calculated as Ufin in accordance with. BS EN 1995-1-1:2004,2.2.3(5).
NA.2.6 Vibrations in residential floors [BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.3.3(2)] 5
NOTE For the value of the modal damping ratio, ζ, ,in BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.8.1(3), a value of 0,02 has been found appropriate
for typical UK floors.
NA.2.6.1 BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.3.3(2) is implemented nationally by using Table NA.5.
3 This allows for the Client to decide on the acceptable level of deflection appropriate to the building use and quality.
4 These limits are applicable to total deflection including creep deflection, something which the British Standard already
includes for. The two codes should not be mixed.
5 Vibration of residential floors is a complex area and one that requires a clear understanding of the construction mass and
product qualities.

Table NA.5 Limits for a and b in BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 expressions (7.3) and (7.4)
PARAMETER LIMIT
1,8 mm for l ≤ 4 000 mm

TOPIC
a, deflection of floor under a 1 kN point load 16 5OO/ l1.1 mm for l > 4 000 mm
where l = joist span in mm
for a ≤ 1 mm b = 180 - 60a

b, constant for the control of unit impulse velocity response
for a > 1 mm b = 160 - 40a
NOTE The formulae for b correspond, to BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, Figure 7.2. With a value of 0,02 far the modal damping ratio ζ, , the unit
impulse velocity response will not normally govern the size of floor joists in residential timber floors.
NA.2.6.2 The recommended limit on a may be compared with a corresponding floor deflection calculated as:
(NA.1) 1000 Kdist leq 3 Kamp ≤ a mm

48 (EI)joist
where
Kdist = proportion of point load acting on a single joist

leq = equivalent floor span in mm
Kamp = amplification factor to account for shear deflections in the case of solid timber and glued thin-webbed joists or joint slip hi the
case of mechanically-jointed floor trusses
(EI)joist = bending stiffness of a joist in Nmm² (calculated using Emean)
where
kdist = max Kstrut [0,38-0J08ln[14EIb / s4] ]

{ 0,30
Kstrut = 0,97 for single or multiple lines of strutting, installed in accordance with reference NA.4.1, otherwise 1,0
(EI)b = floor flexural rigidity perpendicular to the joists in Nmm²/m
s = joist spacing in mm
leq = span, t, in mm, for simply supported single span joists = 0,9 1 for the end spans of continuous joists = 0,85 f for the internal
spans of continuous joists
Kamp = 1,05 for simply-supported solid timber joists
= 1,10 for continuous solid timber joists
= 1,15 for simply-supported glued thin-webbed joists
= 1,30 for continuous glued thin-webbed joists
= 1,30 for simply-supported mechanically-jointed floor trusses
= 1,45 for continuous mechanically-jointed floor trusses.
(EI)b is calculated as the flexural rigidity of the floor decking perpendicular to the joists, using
Emean for E. Discontinuities at the edges of floor panels or the ends of floor boards may be ignored.

(EI)b may be increased by adding the flexural rigidity of plasterboard ceilings fastened directly to the soffit of the floor joists, assuming Eplasterboard =
2000N/mm².
(EI)b may be increased for open web joists with a continuous transverse bracing member fastened to all the joists within 0,1l of mid-span, by adding
the bending stiffness of the transverse member in Nmm² divided by the span l in metres.
The fundamental frequency f1 should not be less than 8 Hz unless a special investigation is made. In BS EN 1995-1-1 expression 7.5 the mass of
the floor should be the permanent actions only without including partition loads or any variable actions.
In calculating the equivalent plate bending stiffness (El) of floors, in which the decking is adhesively bonded to the joists, no allowance should
be made for composite action unless the floor is designed in accordance with 9.1.2 and with adhesives meeting the requirements of 3.6 and the
detailing and control provisions of 10.3.
Introduction
The change in BS 5268-2: 2002 clause 2.10.7 Deflection & stiffness reflect changes by earlier NHBC guidelines. The NHBC changes occurred
before in depth research. The BS 5268-2 changes followed summary recommendations by Trada and the Code Committee.
Previous research into floor serviceability

It is known that Trada Technology Ltd. were commissioned by the NHBC to develop a simple design approach for lightweight floor systems using
engineered timber joists that would ensure an in-service performance for properly constructed floors comparable to that of traditional floors made
with solid timber joists. UKTFA have discussed the history of research carried out into deflections of floor joists with Trada and this guidance
provides a summary of this research.
Research was based mainly on Eurocode 5 and on five overseas sources of information, which related design methods for I-joisted floors to user
satisfaction. It was possible to compare the results of the design methods studied with the results given by BS 5268 and EC5, and to adjust the latter
two where it appeared that they deviated from the consensus view of other researchers, while still maintaining overall performance levels similar to
those which have proved acceptable in the UK for floors made with solid timber joists and strutting up to 4 meters in span.
As a result two sets of design recommendations have been made, one for designs based on BS 5268, and the other for designs based on EC5.
Design recommendations and advice

For design to BS 5268:
For designs to BS 5268 it was concluded that:
(i) When strutting is omitted from floors in which it would normally be fitted in accordance with current best practice, the
14 mm deflection limit under dead + imposed load should be reduced to 12.6 mm.
(ii) In addition, the stiffness required for all forms of timber joist should be increased for spans from 4 m to 8 m by a factor
increasing from 1.0 to 1.4 across this range.
(iii) No other special treatment for I-joists is required. Hence, while BS 5268 continues to be used, the following
recommendations are made for the design of floors made with solid timber or prefabricated glued I-joists:

Hence, while BS 5268 continues to be used, the following recommendations are made for the design of floors made with solid timber or
prefabricated glued I-joists:
The combined instantaneous bending and shear deflection of a single joist measured in mm should not exceed the lesser of 0.003ℓ and ulim where:
ℓ = joist span in mm
ulim = 18 - L mm for joists with strutting in accordance with current best practice
= 0.9(18-L) mm for joists without strutting
where L = joist span in m.
For design to Eurocode 5

Under Eurocode design protocols, deflection limits are advisory and should be agreed by the designer and client at the beginning of the design
process. The guidance given in the UK NA to EC5 is therefore advisory. In the light of this project(3) TRADA recommends that timber floors in the
UK should be designed to Eurocode 5 and its National Annex, but with the following changes.
(i) The point load deflection limit for spans above 4000 mm should be tightened to 131030/ℓ1.35.
(ii) While I-joist designers may prefer to use the final deflection limits given in the EC5 NA when calculating span tables in
order to be able to claim that their designs are in accordance with the UK NA, for everyday office design it is recommended
that curvature deflection limits on domestic floors be calculated as in BS 5268 in order to relate the limits more closely to
research results, and to reduce design time and the possibility of errors. The effect on floor joist stiffness will be very small.
(iii) For floors in which one end of the joists is supported on a beam the frequency of vibration of the floor system as a whole
should be calculated as:
f1,system = √( f²1,joist x f²1,beam/ f²1,joist + f²1,beam)
Where the frequencies of the joists and beam f1,joist and f1,beam, are calculated as stated in EC5, but using the stiffness of
a joist or beam and the mass of the floor supported by the joist of beam without imposed load.
Where a beam is securely attached to a permanent partition above or below it, it may be possible to regard it as a deep beam
which would have a very high fundamental frequency. In this case it could be considered to be a rigid support when
calculating the fundamental frequency of the floor as a whole.

Other points for consideration
(i) Increased stiffness
It is likely that perceived floor performance would improve if the resulting joist bending stiffness at all spans were increased
by an additional factor of 10%.
(ii) Site installation
It is recommended that continuing efforts be made to ensure that floor joists, decking, plasterboard and (where fitted)
strutting are installed correctly in properly conditioned members free from building dust and debris, since squeaks and
creaks are one of the most common causes of complaints about floors.
(iii) Multiple span joists
There are difficulties in maintaining close tolerances in multiple span joist supports. Particular care should be taken to
ensure that intermediate supports on multiple-span joists are installed at the correct height, with any necessary packing
being of adequate strength and stiffness. It is recommended that for multiple span joists the span ratios are kept
approximately equal to prevent short span uplift, especially where joists are not built-in but are supported in joist hangers.
(iv) Span table options
It is recommended that if prefabricated joist manufacturers wish to publish span tables giving options for more than one
performance level, then the “10% better” and “20-% better” spans should be calculated in accordance with the tightened
Eurocode 5 point load limit of 131030/ℓ1.35, and then be reduced by 0.90.25 and 0.80.25 respectively, i.e. to 0.974ℓ for
the “10% better” and 0.946ℓ for the “20% better” options. These reductions are broadly equivalent to increasing the joist
stiffness by 10% and 20% respectively.
(v) System deflection
It is recommended that for joists supported by a beam at one end which is also subject to deflection, then the combined
instantaneous bending and shear deflection of a single joist measured in mm should not exceed the lesser of 0.003ℓ and
ulim where:
ℓ = joist span in mm
ulim = 18 - L - (ubeam/2) mm for joists with strutting in accordance with current best practice
ulim = 0.9(18 - L - (ubeam/2)) mm for joists without strutting

where L = joist span in m
and ubeam = the combined instantaneous bending and shear deflection of the beam at the connection.

TOPIC Robustness and floor to wall connectivity of Platform Timber Frame
PURPOSE To provide platform timber frame Engineers and Designers with guidance on the principles of robustness and
connectivity of walls to floors for a robust construction.
KEYWORDS Platform Timber Frame, Robustness, Fixings, Connectivity, Typical details, Disproportionate
Collapse, stability and serviceability.

Robustness of design is implied in the BS 5268 - 2- 2002(2007 edition) and referred to in the Eurocodes. However robustness as a design
principle is not always followed. The following provides clause references that should be considered.
BS 5268 - 2- 2002 - clause 1.6. ‘Design Considerations’ states the following:
1.6.1.1 The design and details of parts and components should be compatible, particularly in view of the increasing use of prefabricated
components such as trussed rafters and floors. The designer responsible for the overall stability of the structure should ensure this
compatibility even when some or all of the design and details are the work of another designer.
To ensure that a design is robust and stable
a) the geometry of the structure should be considered;
b) required interaction and connections between timber load bearing elements and between such elements and other parts of
the structure should be assured;
c) suitable bracing or diaphragm effect should be provided in planes parallel to the direction of the lateral forces acting on the
whole structure.
In addition, the designer should state in the health and safety plan any special precautions or temporary propping necessary at each and every stage
in the construction process to ensure overall stability of all parts of the structure.
1.6.1.2 With regard to the design process, design, including design for the construction durability and use in service, should be considered as
a whole.
NOTE Unless clearly defined standards for materials, production, workmanship and maintenance are provided and complied with the design
intentions may not be realized.

1.6.1.3 With regard to basic assumptions covering durability, workmanship and materials, the quality of the timber and other materials, and of
the workmanship as verified by inspections, should be adequate to ensure safety, serviceability and durability.
BS 5268 - 2- 2002 - clause 1.6.3 ‘Accidental damage’ refer to Technical Report ‘Design of Platform Timber Frame for Disproportionate
Collapse provisions’ for interpretation of this clause relating to accidental damage.
BS 5268-6.1:1996 clause 4.4 ‘Stability’ - refer to Technical Report ‘Stability of platform Timber Frame’ for interpretation of the new code
requirements for stability design of platform timber frame structures.

1 ‘Multi-storey timber frame buildings - a design guide’ - TRADA/BRE 2003
2 BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 2007
3 Trada Technology Timber frame housing: UK Structural recommendations 2006
4 BS 5268-6.1:1996 incorporating amendments Nos. 1&2.
5 BS 5268-6.2:2001
6 Trada Technology - Timber frame construction: 3rd edition: 2001
Introduction
‘Robustness’ of platform timber frame is the ability of the structure to withstand a range of variations in the predetermined design and construction
circumstances without sustaining loss of function or requiring remedial work.
In this document the terms Engineer and Designer are used to mean the following: Engineer - A suitably qualified Structural Engineer/Timber
Frame Engineer who is responsible for the numerical calculations associated with the design of the superstructure to resist the applied loadings.
Designer - A suitably qualified Structural Technician/Timber Frame Production Engineer who is responsible for the production of general
arrangement and fabrication drawings which are required to manufacture and build the structure in accordance with the Engineer’s design.
Whilst robustness and floor to wall connectivity are related subjects, this guidance is separated into two parts. Part 1 considers robustness as a
design principle and philosophy. Part 2 considers the connectivity of joists to walls as an example of good practice to be achieved at a
wall to floor junction.

Part 1 - Principles for achieving a robust building
PRINCIPLES ON BUILDING ROBUSTNESS PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME
Select a structural form which has low sensitivity to the hazards Platform timber frame is inherently robust through the
TOPIC
considered. interconnectivity of walls and floor panels. History of use, tests
and research has shown that correctly built frameworks achieve a
Avoid as far as possible structural systems, which may collapse significant level of robustness.
without warning.
The full range of the hazards or risks should be considered as
Provide structural forms that can be tied together. platform timber frame continues to be used for challenging
structures.
As new products for floors and walls get introduced into the build
process the structural integrity and ability to ensure robust
connections should be questioned at all stages.
Select a structural form and design that can survive adequately the Disproportionate collapse design principles have been established
accidental removal of an individual element or a limited part of a and used successfully - see ‘Multi-storey timber frame
structure, or reasonable localised damage. buildings - a design guide’ - TRADA/BRE 20031)
Ensure that layouts and plan arrangements provide returns and Platform timber frame is a structural form specifically for cellular
intersecting walls and floors. layouts and plan aspects greater than 2:1 will require additional
design and robustness to ensure its suitability as a building
solution.
Adopt compatible materials used in the structure and ensure Connectivity of materials used in the build process is essential
adequate interaction. and normal timber frame components provide easy methods of
fastening together.
Robustness for ‘serviceability’

The guidance contained in this report is about the provision of robustness for a structure during ‘normal’ use. The structure can be said to be ‘robust’
when it is not sensitive to slight variations in loading or as-built details or as a result of constructional tolerances. Robustness in this case is to
ensure the structure remains serviceable. This is in contrast to the new BS 5268 Part 2 clause on Disproportionate Collapse which is an ultimate
limit of robustness; i.e. the building exhibits a degree of robustness against collapse but can be unserviceable after the event causing the loss of
support.
A typical example of robustness is the ability of the structure to continue to function if, say 10% of the nails required to fix a junction have been
incorrectly installed.

The factors of safety applied in the engineering design have long been claimed to be the process whereby robustness is achieved. However, while
this is partially correct, there are other elements of robustness that fall outside of the design code factors of safety. One of the fundamental principles
of robust engineering and design is to ensure practical, ‘buildable’ solutions are applied, taking into account the potential risks in the build process
(Note that risks are known or feasible events and not the unspecified events applicable to disproportionate collapse design). An example of a robust
design solution would be to detail all elements so that they can only physically be installed in the correct orientation or location so that errors
in interpretation can not be made. One of the mantras of robust design is that if a detail can be interpreted in more than one way it is not robust.
Platform Timber Frame design and build process and the potential for errors
To achieve robustness of a structure the platform timber frame design and build process needs to be understood and an appreciation of ‘good
practice’ is also required.
The platform timber frame process can be considered as comprising the following stages:
A Engineer to design the framework and assembly based on Code criteria and good practice.
B Designer to translate the Engineer’s solutions and guidance into fabrication drawings and erecting plans.
C Fabricator to construct the assemble components and package for transportation.
D Erector to assemble the comments into a framework on site that forms the structural shell of the building.
E Follow-on trades complete the building by dressing the structural shell with services and cladding.
At each stage in the process a lack of clarity of information and potential for misinterpretation can cause errors in the build which in turn can be
considered a lack of robustness. At each stage of the process the leader, at that point of the process, has to determine if the solution being
presented is robust. Robustness is not always a calculated engineered value or deliverable. Robustness is more to do with practical solutions that have
minimal risk of not being achieved in the final assembly and build of the structure.
The responsibility for robust solutions rests with the Engineer for the structural concepts and framework solution and with the Designer for the
appropriate details, clarity of information and ability to identify errors in the virtual on-screen build process.
Engineering Robustness
The Engineer will undertake calculations for the structure and detail junctions to transfer the applied forces with a predetermined factor of safety.
The Engineer will check a structure and its components under four conditions:
1 Standard design: to withstand the applied forces and to attain the agreed level of serviceability in accordance with the code
requirements by adopting the factors of safety within the codes.
2 Construction period design check: to ensure that the structure is capable of withstanding the construction loadings
and to be stable during various stages of the construction process.
3 Robustness for Serviceability: to ensure that the detail design of the assemblies and frameworks are compatible with
each element and that the junctions of members can be fitted and secured safely and practically.
4 Design against ‘Ultimate robustness’ or Disproportionate Collapse: to ensure that the building has sufficient
strength in accordance with the rules for the type and scale of building.
Condition 3 is where the robustness of the proposed engineering solutions is to be considered by the Engineer.

Robustness Checking for the Engineer
Each project will be specific to its own criteria but as a guide the following are examples of the checking procedure to be adopted:
a Are the fixing requirements clear and appropriate for the project?
b Are the junction details checked for the applied forces eg - sole plate junctions, floor to wall junctions, roof to wall
junctions?
c Has the compatibility of elements been considered - eg cladding to frame interface.
d Are the details for assembly of components presented? e.g. are fixings and assembly instructions clear.
e Are minimum requirements for mechanical fixings achieved and where additional fixings are required, is this clearly marked
e.g. areas of high racking forces clearly noted?
f Are areas of high risk of failure noted and the necessary information translated to the designer and client for possible
‘designing-out’ of these risk areas, e.g. where multiple trade components come together to form the structure without ad
equate coordination or checking by a structural engineer.
g Material specification for durability - e.g. is the correct preservative treatment or detailing to avoid moisture present?
h Component compatibility for shrinkage - e.g. will differential movement create additional stresses to the members
and framework?
i Component connectivity to other members and finishing trades e.g. is there sufficient width of stud for the cladding fixings?
j Is there more than one way of interpreting the construction drawings?
Design Robustness
The Designer will take the Engineer’s information and translate the information onto fabrication and erection general arrangement drawings. The
Designer has the unique ability to review the building in a virtual build sequence. Structural connectivity of the frameworks should be checked at
this virtual build stage.
The Designer may adopt standard details but it is essential that the Engineer has approved these details specifically for the project.
The Designer should check the details for the following:
a Practical alignment of the structural frames and report on areas of misalignment or lack of support.
b All details at junctions or references to standard details are provided.
c The drawings have references to all special items as instructed by the Engineer.
d Ensure co ordination of information from different engineering teams working on different aspects of the structure and
build items.
e Review details to ensure that there is no ambiguity or lack of information for the fabricator and erector.

Part 2 - Connectivity of the Framing members floors to walls
Introduction
This section refers to a number of standard good practice connectivity details that are required to comply with the updated BS 5268 Parts 6.14) and
22), 2007. In particular, Figure M3 in BS 5268 Part 2 provides a ‘deemed to satisfy’ detail for robust horizontal tying of floors to walls.
For all platform timber frame structures, the approach is to adopt good building practice of providing lateral restraint to walls and common
anchorage details of floors to walls. The design process should involve checking the capacity of the component interfaces (e.g. panel rail to
soleplate, soleplate to floor deck, floor joists to head binder and head binder to panel rail) against the variable horizontal wind forces. The timber
frame designer should therefore be providing a robust connection at each and every junction as part of the normal design process.
Examples of ‘Good Practice’ to assist robust Platform Timber Frame

The following figures provide typical construction detailing between timber platform frame components for projects from 1 to 7 storeys to ensure
minimum levels of robustness. The Engineer can specify more or less fixings depending on the specific project criteria.
Index to Details:
Figure
1 Softwood joists - Wall/Floor intersection: exploded view based on Figure M3,BS 5268 -
2 2002
2 Softwood joists - alternative details at internal wall supports applicable to ‘loose’ floor construction.
3 Softwood joists - alternative details at load-bearing/Racking walls.
4 Softwood joists - details at Beams.
5 I-Joist Floors - Typical wall/floor intersection: exploded view
6 Open-web Floor joists - Typical wall/floor intersection: exploded view

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com






TOPIC Technical Report - Stability of Platform Timber Frame
PURPOSE To provide guidance and a worked example for the use of theStability clauses contained within the revised
BS 5268-6.1:1996 - Structural use of timber. Code of practice for timber frame walls. Dwellings not exceeding
seven storeys (AMD 9256) (AMD 17381) reissued November 2007.
The new code supersedes BS 5268-6.1:1988. Amendment 9256 dated June 1996. Amendment 17381 dated
November 2007.
KEYWORDS Platform Timber Frame, Racking Overturning check, Sliding

resistance check
BACKGROUND The British Standard for the design of platform timber frame buildings is covered by BS 5268-6.1:1996 and
BS 5268-6.2:2001. The November 2007 edition of BS 5268-6.1:1996 has been updated to take account of
experience with this type of construction and the issue of relevant European standards. The scope has been
extended from 4 storeys to 7 storeys. The code contains significant clause changes affecting how the stability of
timber frame racking walls are to be considered for buildings in excess of three storeys tall.
This document provides guidance on the use of the new BS 5268- 6.1:1996 Clause 4.4 Stability including a
worked example for atypical four storey building.
The change in design approach to stability required by the new clauses is significant for dwellings above three
storeys in height.
In principle, the design approach for dwellings of three storeys or less and with a maximum height to width ratio
of 2:1 is as the previous edition of the code and it is accepted that ‘whole building stability’ can be adopted.
However, to keep in line with European codes and other material standards, an increased factor of safety of 1.4
against building overturning and sliding resistance is required.

Building Regulations or Code Requirement - relevant clauses
The following extracts are taken from British Standard BS 5268-6.1:1996 (+ Amnd No.1 & No.2)
4.4 Stability
4.4.1 General
The designer should ensure overall building stability by checking that it has adequate racking overturning1 and sliding resistance to lateral loads.
Commentary
The following notes provide some commentary on the interpretation of the new clauses:
1 ‘Racking overturning’ is a deliberate statement to instruct the Engineer to consider the stability aspect of the walls that are
designed to carry lateral loads through the building (ie the chosen racking walls). Previously ‘whole building stability’
considered the racking forces to be evenly distributed through the structure such that the overturning and sliding forces
are shared throughout the assumed ‘boxtype’ structure
These checks should be made at critical levels for the completed building and for the various construction stages, when subjected to dead load,
zero imposed load, and both horizontal and vertical components of the wind load. 2
Stability is generally obtained from racking walls, set in two orthogonal directions. Unless demonstrated otherwise, walls with significant openings,
for example doors, should be considered as separate discrete walls. The racking resistance of each wall should be calculated in accordance with
4.7 for each direction.
2 Engineering checks should be carried out at various build stages. The most critical loadcase is likely to be at full frame
completion but without roof finishes, plasterboard weight and floating floor or ceiling construction.
4.4.2 Overturning
4.4.2.1 General
Subject to the limitations in 4.5, it may be assumed that floor diaphragms are capable of distributing the wind load to each racking wall in
proportion to its racking resistance. Due account should be taken of any significant eccentricity between the centroids of the wind load and the
aggregated wall racking resistance. 3
3 It is common sense that Engineers need to consider the distribution of lateral loads through asymmetric buildings to
individual racking walls. The Engineer is to consider the diaphragm action of the floors and roofs to distribute the forces
to the racking walls. Section 4.4.2.1 allows for the ceiling/decking of standard Platform Frame construction to provide this
diaphragm action without further checking for a maximum aspect ratio of 2:1.

The stability of each racking wall should be checked at the base as follows:
a) The overturning moment is the product of the apportioned wind load and the vertical distance between its centroid and the
wall base.4
4 Key point: the lever arm for overturning checks is the vertical distance to the centroid of the lateral load and not the height
of the wall panel.
b) The overturning resistance of a wall is the product of the dead load (reduced by any vertical component of the wind load)
and the horizontal distance between its centroid and the leeward corner.5
5 Engineering statics are used to calculate the inherent panel overturning resistance. Additional restoring forces can then
be considered as in the remainder of the clause.
Additional dead load from return walls, where present, can be utilized but should be limited to an outstand distance equal
to the panel height or the distance to a door or window opening, whichever is the lesser (small openings as defined in 4.9.4
may be ignored). The connection between the return wall and the racking wall should be designed to transfer the shear loads
based on the resultant applied design Forces. 6 Tension fixings may also be used to mobilize dead load from the underlying
construction and their capacity added to the dead load as a contribution to the overturning resistance.
6 The weight of walls perpendicular to the racking wall can be used within the limits given and when fixed appropriately to
the racking wall.
c The factor of safety of a racking wall against overturning is defined as the overturning resistance divided by the overturning
moment. For each racking wall, under its apportioned wind load, the factor of safety should be > 1.2.7
7 All racking walls require a minimum factor of safety of 1.2 against overturning.
The factor of safety of the total racking wall resistance, under the total wind load, should be> 1.4.8
8 The increased factor of safety of 1.4 for the aggregated overturning resistance of all racking walls brings the BS in line
with Eurocodes.
Key point: The factor of safety for racking resistance itself (ie FOS=1.0) remains unchanged with the factor of safety
inherent within the design values for basic racking resistance Rb from Table 2.

4.4.2.2 Overturning for dwellings of three or less storeys
For dwellings of three or less storeys, and with a maximum height to width ratio of 2:1. the overturning resistance of the building may be determined
as the product of its total dead load (reduced by any vertical component of the wind load) and the horizontal distance between the load centroid and
the leeward edge. The factor of safety, as defined in 4.4.2.1c) should be > 1.4.9
9 For dwellings of three storeys or less the ‘whole building approach’ for checking overturning is acceptable - (see Note 1).
Note: The UKTFA recommend that for dwellings exceeding three storeys, a ‘whole building check’ for overturning should
still be carried out and the factor of safety should be >1.4.
4.4.3 Sliding
The designer should ensure that there is a factor of safety of 1.4 against sliding at the top and bottom of each racking wall, and at sole plate level.
Friction, under dead load only, may be used in conjunction with metal fasteners when calculating the resistance to sliding10.
10 Note: The BS allows friction and mechanical fixing capacity to be considered together. When considering the use of
mechanical fixings, the British Standard published values for timber to-timber fixings already include for a factor of safety
of 1.4. The UKTFA considered that it is not appropriate to apply an additional factor of safety for the mechanical fixings.
Alternatively the ultimate mechanical fixing capacities could be used with a factor of safety applied. For fixings into
foundation materials, the Engineer should ensure that a factor of safety > 1.4 is achieved.
The coefficient of friction between timbers in contact or on the underside of the soleplate may, in the absence of other information, be taken as 0.3.11
11 The UKTFA consider that the coefficient of friction is 0.4 as an unfactored value.
4.5 Horizontal diaphragms

The design method for timber frame walls given in this British Standard assumes that, for the range of dwellings covered, the normal construction
of floors and roofs provides adequate diaphragm action, provided that, in the case of intermediate floors, a floor deck or sub-deck is fixed directly to
the top faces of the joists, or the floor is braced bysome other means. In the case of pitched roofs it is assumed that the plasterboard ceiling under
the roof, together with the roof bracing recommended in BS 5268-3 is sufficient to transfer applied wind forces to the resisting walls.12
12 The Engineer is to ensure the effectiveness of diaphragms for different construction types to transfer the horizontal loads
to the racking walls.

Due account should be taken of the eccentricity of the loading in relation to the wall panels providing resistance.13
13 This clause refers to the need for Engineers to consider the distribution of racking walls throughout a building (see
Note 3) ie the racking walls cannot be positioned on one side of a building without providing racking walls at right angles
to resist the resulting torsional effects.

1) The Institution of Structural Engineers/TRADA - Manual for the design of timber building structures to Eurocode
5 - December 2007
For a worked example of overturning, sliding, racking and roof uplift checks for a dwelling of three storeys or less reference should be made
to 2) Trada Technology - Timber Frame housing: UK Structural recommendations 3rd ed.2006 Section 7.3 Overall Stability
calculations, except that an increased factor of safety of 1.4 for overturning and sliding should be adopted in accordance with the new code
requirements.
Overturning and Sliding worked example for 4 storey dwelling

The following worked example indicates the procedures to be adopted for checking timber frame buildings of more than three storeys in accordance
with BS5268-6.1:1996 (AMD 17381) Cl 4.4.2.1.
Overall Stability of Platform Timber Frame

4-Storey Building Worked Example to BS5268-6.1:1996 (incl Ammendments 1 & 2) November 2007 edition.
Consider the example of a residential building shown below:
Roof Loads
Roof
h storey / 2
h4
Floor Loads
Third
h storey
h3
Floor Loads
Second
h storey
h2
Floor Loads
First
h storey
h1
h storey / 2
Ground
Fig. 1 Typical Section
Fig 1. Typical Section

h storey / 2
Ground
Fig 1. Typical Section
Wall 2
l/2
1
Span l
Wall 1
l/2
2
Direction 1
Joist Span
direction
Wall 3
Wind
Span l
Wall 1
l/2
3
Wall 3
Span l
l/2
Wall 2
Width b (m)
Wind Direction 2
Fig 2. Plan on typical storey

Fig 2. Plan on typical storey
Calculation of Vertical Loads
Typical Unit Loads

Assume the following typical unit loads for the worked example:
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT DEAD LOADS (kN/m2)
Permanent Gk Temporary Gktemp (see note 3)

TOPIC
Roof Uplift (see note 4) -0.20 -0.10
Roof 1.50 0.50
Floors 1.00 0.50
Ext Walls (see note 2 0.40 0.10
Int Walls 0.60 0.05

Notes:
1 The above unit loads are provided as an example. Unit loads should be calculated for each individual building, taking into account the
construction and minimum imposed loads from BS6399-1:1996 and BS6399- 3:1998 or Eurocode BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 as
appropriate.
2 The 'Permanent ' Dead Load Gk refers to the in-service applied dead loads. In the case of external wall panel self weight, this should
include for the weight of any supported cladding type.
3 The 'Temporary ' Dead Load Gktemp refers to the expected dead loads during construction and should generally exclude the weight of
roof tiles, cladding, plasterboard, floating floors and ceiling constructions (the weight of plasterboard packs may be considered when
it is specified that a building is to be 'loaded-out' during construction.
4 Roof uplift pressures have the effect of reducing the effective dead load for resisting overturning and should be considered.
Load to individual Walls

In the example, the joists are indicated as 12m long continuous span floor joists.
In such cases the internal support reactions will be increased due to the continuous nature of the joists. Taking into account the effects of pattern
loading, it can be shown that the maximum internal reaction is approximately 1.25wL and the end span reactions are 0.45wL, where L is one span
and w the UDL on that span.
For floor joists parallel to external walls it is assumed that a load equivalent to half the joist spacing is carried by that wall.
Summary of 'Loading-Down'
In the example, the loads calculated at Ground Floor Level were as follows:
(kN/m2)
Permanent Gk Temporary Gktemp (see note 3)

TOPIC
a) Internal Wall 1 = 28.90 10.20
b) External Wall 2 = 12.50 4.60
c) External Wall 3 = 6.09 1.77
(kN)
d) Total Building weight = 540.00 194.40

TOPIC

Wind Loads acting on walls to BS6399-2:1997
Overall wind loads Pe should be calculated using BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.3.6 for stability design. For simplicity, the worked example assumes that
the overall wall wind pressures calculated is:
BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.3.6 Permanent overall pressure

ρfinal = 1.00 kN/sq.m
For simplicity, assume no masonry shielding is applicable:
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 3.2.3.1 Assume no masonry shielding

k100 = 1.00
BS6399-2:1997 Annex D
For temporary wind loads during construction, a factor of sd = 0.749 may be considered for wind loads with a probability of not being exceeded
during a period of 12 months duration. Overall wind pressures are reduced by the square of this factor.
BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.2.1 Temporary overall pressure

ρtemp = 0.749 2 x 1.00
= 0.56 kN/sq.m
Wind Loads acting on Roofs to BS6399-2:1997

Wind loads acting on the inclined faces of a pitched roof (refer to BS6399 - 2:1997 )will also contribute to racking, sliding and overturning forces
acting on the building and should be considered.
For certain pitches of roof, BS6399 gives two sets of external pressure coeficients cpe, and it may be necessary to consider different combinations
of coefficients to identify the worst loadcase for stability and racking checks.
Roof uplift pressures have the effect of reducing the effective dead load for resisting overturning and should be considered. (For the worked example
the overturning effects of uplift presures on the flat roof are small and have been ignored for simplicity).
For an example of how to calculate the effects of roof wind pressures, reference should be made to Trada technology: UK Structural
recommendations: Section 1.2.2
Dimensional Checks
A/ Floor Diaphragm Check
The floor and roof diaphragms distribute wind loads acting on the elevations to the racking walls and can be assumed to be simply-supported
between racking walls.
BS5268-6.2:2001 Cl 6.5
Wind 1 direction:
Length/width = l/w = 4 ÷ 6 = 0.7
Wind 2 direction:
Length/width = l/w = 6 ÷ 12 = 0.5

Trada Technology ' Timber Frame housing: UK structural recommendations': 2006(2)
It can be assumed that conventional floors and flat roofs, in which a wood based panel product is fastened to timber joists, have adequate strength
and stiffness as horizontal diaphragms, provided that:
1 the diaphragm span: depth ratio does not exceed 2:1 in either wind direction.
2 the span does not exceed 12m between supporting walls.
3 the fixing around the edges of the panels complies with standard recommendations (e.g. 3.00mm diameter ringed shank
nails @ 150mm c/c for plywood or 3.35mm diameter ringed shank nails @ 300mm c/c for wood particleboard and OSB,
with a length equal to 2.5 times the board thickness)
4 the perimeter of the diaphragm is attached to the walls with fastenings of equivalent strength.
For diaphragms outside of the ranges given or in areas of high wind load (e.g. with a dynamic pressure exceeding 1500N/sq.) the required fastener
spacing should be checked in accordance with Section 1.1.2 of Trada Technology ' Timber Frame housing: UK structural recommendations': 2006
B/ Panel height Check to BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 1.1

Storey height hstorey = 3000 mm
Subdeck thickness = 15 mm
Joist depth = 300 mm
Headbinder thickness = 38 mm
Soleplate thickness = 38 mm
Wall panel height hpanel = 2609 mm
As the wall panel height does not exceed 2.7m, the example is within the scope of BS5268-6.1:1996
Calculation of Horizontal Wind loads and distribution of Racking Loads to Walls

Vertical distribution of Loads:
When calculating the racking loads on the wall panels in a particular storey, it is assumed that the wind loads on the upper half of the panel is
applied as a racking load to the top of the panels, and the wind on the lower half of the panel is applied to the bottom of the panel where it is resisted
either by the panels in the storey below or by the foundations. The mechanical fixings at the interface with the adjacent storey or foundations must
therefore be proved for the racking and sliding forces to be carried at each level.
Therefore the total racking load on a timber frame wall is calculated as the racking load transferred from the roof or the storey above it, plus half
the wind load applied to the same storey.
Horizontal distribution of Loads:
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1
For buildings which have an irregular arrangement of racking walls on plan, due account should be taken of any significant eccentricity between
the centroids of the wind load and the aggregated racking resistance.

The Engineer is to consider the horizontal load distribution to the racking walls. The horzontal load attracted to each racking wall is to be determined
to cary out the overturning check.
In reasonably symmetrical buildings it may be assumed that the overturning moment (and wind loads) are distributed between the racking walls
parallel to the wind direction in proportion to their racking strength, assuming that their stiffness is proportional to their strength. One method
therefore, is to assign horizontal loads in proportion to the racking strength of each wall.
In the worked example, the floor and roof diaphragms are assumed to distribute wind loads acting on the elevations to the racking walls and are
assumed to be simply-supported between racking walls. This approach is acceptable when the relative racking strengths of each wall are yet to be
determined.
It may be necessary for the Engineer to refine his assumptions once the racking resistance checks of the building are complete and the distribution
of racking resistance is finalised.
Summary of Horizontal Loading

In the example, the Racking loads calculated at Ground Floor Level were as follows:
WIND DIRECTION 1: (kN)
Permanent Frg Temporary Frg.temp

TOPIC
a) Internal Wall 1 = 42.00 23.56
b) External Wall 2 = 21.00 11.78
c) External Wall 3 = 126.00 70.69
WIND DIRECTION 2: (kaN)
c) External Wall 3 = 31.50 17.67

TOPIC

Stability Checks to BS5268-6.1:1996
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.1
The designer hould ensure overall building stability by checking that it has adequate racking, overturning and sliding resistance to lateral loads.
These checks should be made at critical levels for the completed building and for the various construction stages, when subject to dead load, zero
imposed load, and both horizontal and vertical components of the wind load.
Stability is generally obtained from racking walls, set in two orthogonal directions. Unless demonstrated otherwise, walls with significant openings,
for example doors, should be considered as separate discrete walls. The racking resistance of each wall should be calculated in accordance with
4 7 for each direction
Overturning at lower storey

b
Wind Load
F rg
V
1
Lever Arm H
Ground Floor Wall Panel

h 1 /2
Shear = F s0
Check 1) Whole Building Overturning to Cl 4.4.2
The designer should ensure that the total building resistance for overturning under the total wind load is >1.4 at every critical level (UKTFA
Guidance).

Loadcase
Permanent Temporary
Horizontal load causing overturning = Total Racking load to Ground Floor Panels Ftotal
Wind Load Ftotal (refer to Horizontal Load calculations) = 126.0 70.7 kN
Key Point: Note that the wind load acting on the lower half of the bottom storey has no effect on building overturning and is therefore ignored. The
lever arm H is the vertical distance between the centroid of the wind load and the wall base.
Key Point: The vertical load on the panel acts as a restraining moment. For each loadcase the minimum vertical load should be considered. Wind
uplift should also be considered. The vertical load acting at this level is assumed to include the self weight of the walls at this level. For whole
building checks, the walls perpendicular are also included in the total weight.

Vertical Load to Panels V (kN/m):
Permanent Loadcase V = 0.9(Gkperm) = 0.9 x 540 = 486.00 kN

Temporary loadcase V = 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 194.4 = 194.40
Overturning Check:

Lever Arm H1 = h1/2+(h1/2 + h2 + h3 + h4)/2
= 3000/2 + (3000/2 + 3000 + = 6750 mm
3000 + 3000)/2
Overturning Moment = Frg x H1 = 126 x 6750 x 10E-3 = 850.5 kNm

= 70.7 x 6750 x 10E-3 = 477.1 kNm
Building width b = 6.00 m
Restoring Moment = V x b/2 = 486 x 6/2 = 1458.00 kNm

= 194.4 x 6/2 = 583.20 kNm
UKTFA recommend that the factor of safety of the total building resistance for overturning under the total wind load is >1.4
Factor of Safety against overturning = Restoring Moment = 1.71 1.22

Overturning Moment
FOS<1.4, Additional HD measures are required at foundations
Resistance of Whole Building to Overturning

EC0 requires the stability of a whole building and of its individual parts to be checked, regarding each as a rigid structure. The new design method
deals with the stability of individual parts of the building (racking walls) in respect of overturning but not the overturning stability of the building as
a whole. In theory the new method makes a whole building check unnecessary, since if the individual walls are stable with respect to overturning
then the building as a whole must be stable. However, since EC0 requires the whole building check to be carried out, this should be done in the
traditional manner and UKTFA recommend a FOS >1.4.

Additional holding down resistance required for FOS>1.4:
Rhd = 1.4(FtotalgH1/b) - (V/2) =
= 1.4(126 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (486/2) = -44.6 kN
= 1.4(70.7 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (194.4/2) = 14.1 kN
Where the resistance to overturning is inadequate (FOS<1.2 for racking wall or <1.4 overall), additional HD measures should be provided in the
form of galvanised anchor bolts, screws, soleplate fixings fixed to the concrete slab or galvanised or stainless steel holding down straps built into
the foundations. These fixings should be provided at 600-1200c/c along the walls perpendicular to the racking walls at both ends. These fixings
should not be considered to contribute to sliding resistance.
Check 2) Racking Wall Overturning to Cl 4.4.2 - Panel overturning check

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1 The stability of each racking wall should be checked at the base as follows:
Internal Racking Wall I1
Consider an individual wall panel of length bpanel = 6.0 metres
Wind Load
F panel
0
Lever Arm H
Vertical Load V (kN/m)
Sliding F s0
Base Reactions b panel

R 1 = (Vb panel /2) - (F panel H 1 /b panel ) R 2 = (Vb panel /2) + (F panel H 1 /b panel )
or as a UDL
2 2
R min = V - (6F panel H 1 /b panel ) R max = V + (6F panel H 1 /b panel )

Loadcase
Permanent Temporary
"Apportioned" Racking Load to Panels
A racking wall which is broken into smaller racking panels by openings will carry a reduced proportion of the wind loads.
Reduction factor rf (0-1) = 1.0
Wind Load Fpanel = Frg x rf = 42 x 1 = 42.00 kN

23.6 x 1 = 23.56 kN
Permanent Loadcase V = 0.9(Gk) = 0.9 x 28.9 = 26.01 kN/m

Temporary loadcase V = 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 10.2 = 10.20 kN/m
Overturning Check:
Key Point: The lever arm H is the vertical distance between the centroid of the wind load and the wall base.
Lever Arm H1 = h1/2+(h1/2 + h2 + h3 + h4)/2

3000/2 + (3000/2 + 3000 + = 6750 mm
3000 + 3000)/2
Overturning Moment = Fpanel x H1 = 42 x 6750x 10E-3 = 283.5 kNm
= 23.6 x 6750x 10E-3 = 159.0 kNm
Restoring Moment = V x bpanel 2/2 = 26.01 x 6^2/2 = 468.18 kNm

= 10.2 x 6^2/2 = 183.60 kNm
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1
For each racking wall under its apportioned wind load, the factor of safety for overturning should be >1.2
Factor of Safety against overturning = Restoring Moment = 1.65 1.15

Overturning Moment
FOS<1.2, Additional HD measures are required at the ends of the panels

Resistance to panel overturning
Where the resistance to overturning is inadequate (FOS<1.2 for racking wall or <1.4 overall), additional HD measures should be provided in the
form of galvanised anchor bolts, screws, soleplate fixings fixed to the concrete slab or galvanised or stainless steel holding down straps built into
the foundations. These fixings should be provided at 600-1200c/c along the walls perpendicular to the racking walls at both ends. These fixings
should not be considered to contribute to sliding resistance.
For the end panels, or for panels where further restraint is needed (ie where FOS<1.2 against overturning), the required additional uplift resistance
required is calculated as follows:
Wind Load
F panel
Vertical Load V (kN/m)

0
Lever Arm H
Sliding F s0
b panel
Holding Down Force reqd =

R hd =1.2(F panel H 1 /b panel ) - (Vb panel /2)
Net Base pressures =

2 2
R min = V - (6(F panel H 1 -V HD b panel /2)/b panel ) R max = V + (6(F panel H 1 -V HD b panel /2)/b panel )
Additional holding down resistance required for FOS>1.2:

Rhd = 1.2(FpanelH1/bpanel) - (Vbpanel/2) =
= 1.2(42 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (26.01 x 6/2) = -21.3 kN
= 1.2(23.6 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (10.2 x 6/2) = 1.2 kN

Where further restraint is needed (+ve figure), the additional dead load available from return walls or HD straps should be considered:
Loadcase
Permanent Temporary
Load available from return wall Vhd = Vreturnwall x 2 x hpanel or Vreturnwall x l/2 (whichever smaller)
= 6.09 x 4 = 24.4 kN
= 1.77 x 4 = 7.1 kN
check interface nailing/ check interface nai
If the dead load available from return walls is still inadequate holding down straps or anchor bolts to the foundation at both ends of the end panels
capable of resisting the vertical shear force should be provided (more detailed information can be found in Trada Structural recommendations(2))
Required Holding-down strap capacity = Rhd - Vhd =

= -21.3 - 24.36 = 0 kN
= 1.2 - 7.08 = 0 kN
Forces in Edge Studs

The load available from a return wall panel has the effect of reducing the effective overturning moment on the panel and therefore reduces the base
pressures due to the wind moment:
Loadcase
Permanent Temporary
Net Base pressures:
AS A UDL =
Rmin = V - (6(FpanelH -VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel 2)

1
= 26.01 - (6(42 x 6750 - 24.4 x 6/2)/6^2) -9.1 kN/m

= 10.2 - (6(23.6 x 6750 - 7.1 x 6/2)/6^2) -12.8 kN/m
Rmax = V + (6(FpanelH1-VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel2)
= 26.01 + (6(42 x 6750 - 24.4 x 6/2)/6^2) 61.1 kN/m
= 10.2 + (6(23.6 x 6750 - 7.1 x 6/2)/6^2) 33.2 kN/m
The resulting increased bearing stress in the bottom rail due to Rmax needs to be checked for very short term duration loading (k3 =1.75)

Check 3) Aggregate Resistance to panel overturning
The factor of safety of the total racking wall resistance for overturning under the total wind load should be >1.4
Because the horizontal and vertical loads carried by individual walls differ, the factor of safety for overturning for different walls will also differ but
the aggregated factor of safety should be >1.4.
Racking Resistance:
The total design racking load which a wall assembly can resist is equal to the sum of the racking resistance of the constituent panels ie:
Fres total = ΣFres panel
The value of Fres panel depends on the shear strength of the panel and on the provision of adequate restraining force applied to the panel at its
windward end to prevent its overturning (see above)
The shear strength of the panel can be calculated using the methods descibed in BS 5268-6.1:1996, Cl 4.7, BS 5268-6.2:2001, Cl 6.7 and Eurcode
5 BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 Cl9.2.4 and is outside the scope of this document.
Sliding Resistance
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.3 - The designer should ensure that there is a factor of safety of 1.4 against sliding at the top and bottom of each racking
wall and at soleplate level.

Loadcase
Permanent Temporary
Horizontal sliding force to racking wall (kN/m) =
Fs0 (refer to Horizontal Load calculations)/b = 48/6 = 8.00 kN/m
26.9/6 = 4.49 kN/m
(Note that the sliding force at the base of the panel also includes the wind load acting on the lower half of the panel and is therefore greater than
the racking force on the panel)
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.3 - Friction, under dead load only, may be used in conjunction with metal fasteners when calculationg the resistance to
sliding. The coeficient of friction between timbers in contact or on the underside of the soleplate may be taken as μ=0.3.
Soleplate to foundations and wall panel bottom rail to soleplate fixings need to be designed to resist this applied load.

Permanent Loadcase V = 0.9(Gk) = 0.9 x 28.9= 26.01
Temporary loadcase V = 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 10.2= 10.20 kN/m
Frictional resistance at base of panel f = V x μ = 26.0 x 0.30 = 7.80 kN/m

10.2 x 0.30 = 3.06 kN/m

Mechanical fixing capacity required for FOS > 1,4, Ffixings = 1.4(Fs0) - f =
= 1.4(8) - 7.8 = 3.40 kN/m
= 1.4(4.5) - 3.1 = 3.22 kN/m
This mechanical fixing capacity can be achieved using nails, screws or bolts as appropriate using k factors appropriate to very short term
duration in accordance with BS 5268-2:2002 Section 6.
For typical interface nailing at foundation and upper floor levels refer to 'Technical Report - Robustness and Connectivity of the framing members'

Head office
The UK Timber Frame Association
The e-Centre
Cooperage Way
Alloa
FK10 3LP
t: 01259 272140
f: 01259 272141
e: office@uktfa.com
w: www.uktfa.com

UKTFA - Structural Guidance For Platform Timber Frame - May 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UKTFA - Structural Guidance For Platform Timber Frame - May 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

UKTFA Special Project, May 2008

REPORT DATE February 2008

KEYWORDS Platform Timber Frame, Disproportionate Collapse

Building Regulations Requirement

Code Requirement - relevant clauses

BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007

1.6.3 Accidental damage

2 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

a) Class 1 buildings: no additional requirements.

b) Class 2A buildings either:

2) Option 2. The provision of effective horizontal ties in accordance with 1.6.3.3.

c) Class 2B buildings either:

3 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

• BS 5628-1:2005, Annex D for timber floors supported by load-bearing masonry.

1.6.3.3 Effective horizontal ties3

The basic tie force F† should be calculated as follows:

L is the length of tie being considered (m).

4 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

1.6.3.4 Vertical ties

1.6.3.5 Notional removal4 of load-bearing element

The nominal length of a load-bearing wall should be taken as:

5 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

1.6.3.7 Design loads for the residual structure

• the dead load

A third of the imposed roof or snow load

• 100% of any ceiling storage loads

• a third of the wind load9

1.6.3.8 Permissible stresses for accidental load cases

6 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

References to other Guidance

Building Regulations Requirements

• Class 2A, Houses or apartments (residential nature), not exceeding 4 storeys.

7 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) - August 2007 guidance

Class 1: no additional requirement.

Class 2A: either:

• Option 2 - provision of effective horizontal ties as shown in Figure M1.

Class 2B: either:

• Option 2 - check for the notional removal of load-bearing elements

8 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

Key points to note are:

• The fixings at each junction interface.

9 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

Consideration of notional panel removal and a ‘Sensitivity Analysis’ approach

Methods of Detailing for DC - Provision of ‘Bridging Elements’

10 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

Fig 2: Indicative Rim Beam arrangement

An example of the Rim Beam Structural Methodology is shown in Appendix 2

Intersecting return walls

11 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

12 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

A typical Rim beam design can be seen in Fig 3.

Key Element design principles

Other considerations to achieve a ‘robust’ structure

Key points to note are:

• The support of external claddings should also be considered during an ‘event’.

13 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

14 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

15 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

1 STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

REPORT DATE February 2008