by durability, attractive appearance and commitment to ecology, which makes
them one of the key elements of modem and efficient building projects.
A comprehensive two-story timber structure design was undertaken to explore
advanced engineered timber design techniques. The project initiated with an
extensive review of structural timber properties and contemporary design
methodologies. Specific architectural parameters were established for a rectangular
building configuration measuring 32m x 24m with strategic grid layouts. CLT & LVL
were chosen with regard to mechanical properties and sustainability of the
engineered timber products. Specific architectural plans were created by AutoCAD
for geometric modeling because of its accuracy. Structural analysis was performed
through SAP 2000 software where three-dimensional modeling enabled
comprehensive load simulation. Wind loads were also calculated with reference to
the AS- ZS 1170 standards for wind speed with regional factors taken into
consideration. The conditions of structural loading were considered according to the
proposed classification. Drift and deflection analyses were used in order to assess
structural health. Serviceability requirements were measured according to the
existing Australian standards to achieve the best structural behavior and safety for
various load conditions.
3.2.2 Objectives
The chief motto was to model 2-story timber structure that balances structural
performance, functionality, & sustainability using advanced timber materials. Minor
objectives were:
To boost structural efficiency by selecting high-performance timber materials.
To eliminate structural vulnerabilities through careful load analysis.
3.2.3 Nature of Works
I started a timber structure design project that was to combine architectural layout
with structural engineering of high levels. I focused on new trends in timber
materials and how they can be used in modem design. I created a layout plan for
the two-storey building of the grid arrangements and dimensions. I chose primary
structural materials that possessed improved mechanical characteristics. For
architectural designing I employed CAD to prepare working plans and for structural
designing SAP 2000 for three-dimensional design. Serviceability checks were also
conducted for each structure and the results were compared with the drift &
deflection analyses for the structural performance check. I analyzed various load
combination and structural
2
3
and primarily served as lateral resisting elements. I decided on glass fa9ades for
external walls to enhance the building's aesthetics while ensuring lightweight
cladding.
Table 1: Illustrate of CLT panels (Radiata Pine Lamellas) characteristics
Structural Property
XGP1
Outer Lamellas
XGP2
Inner Lamellas
Modulus of Elasticity (parallel to the grain)
10,000 MPa
6,000 MPa
Bending Strength (parallel to the grain) Fb,o
17 MPa
10MPa
Compression Strength (parallel lo the grain) Fc.o
18 MPa
15 MPa
Compression Strength (perpendicular to the grain) [Link]
10 MPa
6 MPa
Tension Strength (parallel to the grain) F,.o
7.7 MPa
4.0 MPa
Shear Strength (parallel lo the grain) F,.o
2.6 MPa
2.1 MPa
Rolling Shear Strength (perpendicular to the grain) F,,oo
1.2 MPa
1.2 MPa
Shear Modulus (parallel lo the grain) Go
670MPa
400MPa
Rolling Shear Modulus G,
45Mpa
29Mpa
Mean Density p
500kg/ m3
475kg/ m3
Characteristic Density p
400 kg/ m3
380 kg/ m3
Available lamella sizes
85(w) X 42.5(t)
85(w) X 32.5(1)
85(w) X 30(1)
190(w) X 45(1)
140(w) X 35(1)
140(w) X 20(1)
Table 2: Depict of elsonpipe LVL 11 sections
Section Size (mm)
Mass (kg/ml
I,..(10'mm")
El, l10 Nmm')
Z,.(703mm'l
Of"bZ, lkNm)'
90x 45
2.3
2.7
30
61
2.1
115 x45
2.9
5.7
63
99
3.3
140 X 45
3,6
10,3
113
147
4,7
190 X 45
4.9
25.7
283
271
8.2
240x45
6.2
51.8
570
432
12.7
300 X 45
7.7
101.3
1114
675
19.1
360 X 45
9.2
175.0
1925
972
26.6
400 X 45
10 3
240 0
2640
1200
32.3
610 X 45
15.6
851.2
9363
2791
70.0
1220 X 45
31.3
6809.4
74904
11163
249.3
150 X 90
7.7
25.3
278
338
10.7
200 x90
10.3
60,0
660
600
18.1
240 X 90
12.3
103.7
1140
864
25.3
300 x90
15.4
202.5
2228
1350
38.1
360 X 90
185
349.9
3849
1944
53.2
400 x90
20.5
480.0
5280
2400
64.6
610 X 90
31.3
1702,4
18726
5582
139 9
1220 X 90
62.6
13618.9
149807
22326
498.5
3.3.3
I created the architectural ground floor plan by designing a rectangular layout of
32mx24m(figure2). I divided the plan into grids with 8m spacing along X-axis and
6m spacing along Y-axis. I marked the grid lines and labeled them horizontally as A
to E and vertically as 1 to
5. I positioned columns at each grid intersection with dimensions of 400mmx45mm.
I developed the column layout(figure3) by placing five built-up columns of
400mmx45mm at specified locations according to the design. I ensured the spacing
between the columns aligned with the grid dimensions to maintain structural
accuracy. I included all necessary labels to identify the components. I created the
plinth floor plan(figure4) using the same grid layout. I added main beams with
dimensions of 360mmx45mm and secondary beams of 200mmx90mm, ensuring
they were correctly aligned and connected to the columns. I maintained the beam
placements according to the span and load requirements. I designed the first-floor
plan(figure5) & roof (figure6) similarly ensuring proper placement of the beams and
columns for continuity. I created sections 1-1 and 5- 5(figure7) showing the height of
the columns and beam connections. I detailed sections A-A and E-E(figure8) with a
focus on the connections and structural alignment to ensure clarity.
A B C D E
.g,
.g,
:
.8,
g
32.00
Figure 2: Displaying GF architectural
Figure 3: Display oflayout for column
Figure 4: Illustrate of area for plinth floor
Figure 5: Showing FF layout
5
3
32,00
Roof floor plan
1
---I
Sttoelno4
[Link] 1:100
Figure 6: Showing roof floor layout
Figure 7: Layout of at 1-1 & 5-5 section
Figure 8: Visualizing A-A & E-E and connection detail
1
1
1
A I6 IC 10 Ie
T T
>
-
N+
Figure 9: Display of plan and 3D extruded
-
LL\. ':::. L L:. L
Figure rn: Showing sections 1-1, 2-2, 4-4 & 5-5
----
(3)
cf)
r ----
(2} ?)
( c)
T -
L :C:. fil fl:). L :C:.
Figure 11: Depict of3-3 section
LL
figure 12: Showcasing A-A and E-E with plain diagonal bracing
Figure 13: Display of 3D standard design
Figure 14: Imposing LL
/. t'\.
Figure 15: Imposing DL Table 3: Assignment of wind loading
Load Patter n
ExposeFr om
Angle
Wlndwa rd Cp
Leewa rd Cp
Win d Spee
mis
Terrai n Catego ry
M
d
M
M
t
Cdy n
Degre es
wind
Diaphragm s
0
0.8
0.5
4
3
l
I
I
l
wind-
2
Diaphragm
s
0
0.8
0.5
45
3
l
I
I
l
wind-
3
Diaphragm
s
90
0.8
0.5
45
3
1
I
I
1
wind-
4
Diaphragm
s
90
0.8
0.5
45
3
l
I
I
l
wind
SLS
Diaphragm
s
0
0.8
0.5
27
3
1
I
I
1
wind
SLS-2
Diaphragm
s
0
0.8
0.5
27
3
J
I
I
l
wind
SLS-3
Diaphragm
s
90
0.8
0.5
27
3
l
I
I
l
wind
SLS-4
Diaphragm
s
90
0.8
0.5
27
3
1
I
I
1
Figure 16: Distorted profile for l.2DL+ [Link]
Figure 17: Illustrate of BM for l.2DL+ [Link]
Table 4: Joint analysis
Joi
nt
Output Case
01
02
03
Rl
R2
R3
m
m
m
Radians
Radians
Radians
I
l.2DL+l.5 LL
-
0.0000010
47
-4.616E- 07
-
0.0000
83
0.00020
7
-0.000293
2.093 -07
2
l.2DL+l.5 LL
0.0000027
28
5.241 -07
-
0.0001
54
0.00029
l
0.000443
-8.539E- 08
3
l.2DL+l.5 LL
3.971 -07
0.0000020
99
-
0.0001
66
-
0.00095
6
1.205 -07
-2.16 -11
4
l.2DL+l.5 LL
-
0.0000019
34
0.0000005
24
-
0.0001
54
0.00029
1
-0.000442
8.55 -08
5
l.2DL+l.5 LL
0.0000018
4
-4.617E- 07
-
0.0000
83
0.000_0
7
0.000293
-2.089E- 07
6
l.2DL+l.5 LL
-
0.0000030
98
-
0.0000008
19
-
0.0001
7
-
0.00013
6
-0.000418
-6.501E- 07
7
1.2DL+l.5 LL
-
0.0000043
56
-4.263E- 17
-
0.0001
98
-4.406E- 17
-0.000646
-3.221E- 18
8
l.2DL+l.5
LL
-
0.0000030
98
0.0000008
19
-
0.0001
7
0.00013
6
-0.000418
6.501 -07
9
l.2DL+l.5 LL
0.0000018
4
4.617 -07
-
0.0000
83
-
0.00020
7
0.000293
2.089 -07
3.3.5
I observed that the storey drift(table5) for all levels of the structure was within the
acceptable limits as per Clause 2.3.2 of AS3600-2018. I found that the deflection for
the first storey was 0.47mm, with a storey drift of 0.47mm, and minimum
acceptable limit was 9mm. I found that the deflection for the second storey was
0.63mm, with storey drift of0.16mm, & minimum acceptable limit was 9mm. I
concluded that the model was accepted as per the storey drift check criteria. I
validated the structural model by checking the roof rafter at grid 3 (A-C) in
X(figurel8). I observed that the maximum deflection was 17.50mm, which was less
than permissible limit of 20mm. I also
validated the beam at grid 3 (A-B) in X(figurel 9). I noticed that maximum deflection
was 3.138mm, which was also within the limit of 20mm. I concluded that the
provided sections were safe and satisfied serviceability requirements. I optimized
the building sections through a trial-ancl error process. I finalized the optimized
sections, which included 5 LVL 400x45 columns up to the third storey, 4 LVL 360x45
main beams in both directions, and LVL 140x45 bracing(table6). I ensured that all
sections matched the design requirements. I deduced that building design was
validated, optimized, and compliant with AS3600-2018 standards.
Table 5: Drift validation
Storey
Deflection
(mm)
Storey
Drift
(mm)
Minimum acceptable storey drift =
Storey heigh 500 (From Clause 2.3.2 ofAS3600-20l8) mm
Remarks
0
0
l
0.47
0.47
9
Model Accepted
2
0.63
0.16
9
Model Accepted
Dio)[Link] fo1Ftamf Objt:ct 261 (4 roof raifte:r 240,:45) X
Case 1.5U. ..,.
l rrl!il rr,12and Ml) v S1ngli!'valued
End Lengtll Off et (location) JI: 65 1-ErwJ: O.m
(0 mJ
JI: 1J2
J-fnO O. m
(1627882 rn)
Diipl:lyOptlonB
0 SerOIIf04'\f=ilJes
@ Show Max
l=QUNalent Loads - Free l300V Claairam (Conce"1lt11ted fo,[Link] KM. COf\
c:entnl1ed 1,,oments In KN--m)
Dis.t Load (2--di.-)
0.2BKtUm
at8.1 1m P[)Siive in -2 drcciion
Shear\12
[Link]
1118,13$41 m
MomcntM3
I
D!ifmchana
0 [Link] O Re'lelttve to 13eam Ml"[Link] @ Rel111tve to eeaml=llfi
Re541i io tuhat Unh Dooe
-20.3599 KN--m
at8.1 1m
Deflection (2-dirl
0.017501 m
111 3.6JOJ1 m
PtJi!Jliveln-20re-ctlon
Figure 18: Display of 3 (A-C) grid rafter validation in x
Diagram, for Frame Object 73 (4 main beam 360x4,)
Caae 1.2DL 1.5LL
ems Msj1;1r (V2 slid 1.13) v IfSilgle [Link] vI
End Length 011set
(Location) Jt ,t{I
[ Em:t o.m
(O.m)
Jt: 43
nd; O,m
(8.m)
O\sploy Oplk>ns
0 Sornll ror V41UM
@ ShowMa.,:
Equivl!ll!-nl lo1!1d11 - Free Body Oia,gr11m {Conc,mtrated Forcl!!S WII KN,
Concentrated t.lome11t11in KN-m)
Dist Load (2-dlr)
3(f
1 2.78
H.l:!;i;UILIIIIL IU;"tlf
I
Resultant Moment
I
llefle(r)"
_,!c-.:2 9----
0.43 KIUm
alS.m
Posfr..ie In -2 di,ectlon
Stiea,-V2
2..94 Ktl
tam
MomentM3 5.7777 Klt.m
l 4. m
Dl!l114!1ction (2-di.r)
0 AbHlu1e O elative tc Beam tililinum @ RelaWe to Beam EJJds
O.ODJ1l8m
14. m
Posiive in --2 dSection
Reset to 11ml Units Done Unis. KN,m,C v]
Figure 19: Showing 3(A-B) beam at grid validation in x Table 6: Frame sections
optimized
s.
Particulars
Assigned section
Designed section
bySAP2000
Columns
1
All columns upto third storey
5 LVL400 45
5 LVL 400 45
Beams
1
Main beams at X-di..i & Y-dir
4 LVL360 45
4 LVL 360 45
2
Seconda1y beam along Y-dir
2 LVL 200*45
2 LVL 200*45
Bracing frame
1
Bracing at y-direction
LVL 140*45
LVL 140*45
Roof sections
1
Roof Rafters
4 LVL240 45
4 LVL 240*45
2
Purlins
LVL 115*45
LVL 115*45
3.4 Problem and Solution
I encountered the issue of a large deflection in the roof rafter grid 3 (A-C) in the
positive X direction. I also found that the lower section of the part did not offer
enough stiffness to regulate the deflection. I determined that the root was in load
distribution during early modeling of the rafters. I checked with my supervisor about
some assumptions that were made during the structural analysis. ext, I was advised
to review the assigned section and think about a member of higher stiffness. Using
the SAP2000 again, I reallocated the structure by placing a new section of 4 LVL
240x45 in place of the rafter. This I observed reduced the deflection to permissible
level thereby conforming to the permissible limits. To validate, I reexamined and
observed the results of the serviceability analysis. I managed to close the section
and mark it as safe & compliant.
3.5 Creative Works
I recalled the model using SAP2000 and I substituted the rafter by one with better
section of 4 LVL 240x45 for eliminating defections. I also rebalanced the loading
conditions and fine-tuned the design to satisfy load carrying capacity and deflection
constraints. On timber sections, I proactively chose stiffer material and sections for
each member while at the same time consider serviceability limit in addition to the
structural limit.
3.6 Project Management
I planned the overall structure and timeline of the project. I ensured that there was
a clear vision of the project and laid down goals. I effectively co-ordinated the
resources thait were needed in order to do the work. In order to make sure that I
made proper progress on time, I came up with a time table. I ensured that the
project followed a set time line in the following manner. To ensure that there was a
record of the entire process, I kept record of everything throughout the project. I
defined the ways of risk minimization. To the best of my abilities, I coordinated
resources. I recorded progress reports on differing projects.. I revised and approved
the project outputs. I compared the outcome of the project to the goals set at the
beginning of the project. I was also keen on proper arrangement of all project
related fi!es & documents. I met with supervisor often to discuss project issues and
milestones.
3.7 Codes
I adopted AS 1720.1-2010 for timber structural design & applied AS 1170.2 - Part 2
for wind load calculations.
3.8 Summary
3.8.1
A comprehensive two-story timber structure design was successfully accomplished
through systematic engineering approaches. Fundamental research on timber
materials was initially conducted. Advanced engineerecl timber materials like CLT &
LVL were extensively investigated. Architectural planning was meticulously
executed using precise grid configurations. Detailed architectural and structural
layouts were developed in AutoCAD. Structural modeling was performed using SAP
2000 software. Comprehensive load analyses were undertaken including fire safety
considerations. Structural performance was rigorously validated through drift checks
and deflection measurements. Optimization of structural sections was achieved
through iterative design processes. The final design demonstrated compliance with
structural standards. Structural efficiency was ensured through careful material
selection and computational analysis. High performance timber materials were
chosen, compared, and approved using SAP 2000 modeling. Structural weaknesses
were evaluated through load analysis, load factors & combinations, and
serviceability criteria.
3.8.2
I ensured that I \had good time management by arranging the project appropriately.
I improved decision making by allocating resources. I honecl problem-resolving skills
by solving problems & got to learn risk management skills.
