Professional Documents
Culture Documents
n
xy, d
1
A
net, x
or
n
xy, d
1
A
net, y
Where
A
net, x
, A
net, y
.... cross sectional area of the layers parallel to the concerned structural
direction, without cross layers
f
v, d
.................. design value of shear strength parallel to the concerned structural direction,
depending on the thickness of the layer
KLH solid wood slab
Design considerations
Annex 4
Page 17 of 19
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
During the tests, unfavourable board width conditions were tested. In such cases, the joints between the boards take the shrinkage
cracks (long-term behaviour) into account.
Comparative tests between elements with board areas without joints and with joints (shrinkage cracks) have theoretical crack factors
from 0.95 to 0.65 (depending on board thickness, slab structure, etc.). This means that the shrinkage cracks will have a clear effect.
During the KLH tests, these shrinkage cracks were already taken into account during the examinations. The same applies to partly cut
boards. Therefore, minimum board widths do not have to be taken into account, as it is the case with some approvals of other plywood
products.
The functioning mechanism of force transmission is very complex. Since the breakage takes place inside the slab, assigning it to a
place and pointing out the rst breaking parts is very difcult.
The forces acting at crossing points can be described roughly in a simplied manner as follows:
A torsional moment and a generally orientated force are effective. Both these
forces generate theoretically modied, directed shear stresses in the plane.
It is not known exactly how these stresses are distributed. The breakage ima-
ges have not shown any clear failure pattern.
On torsional shear stress:
Often the torsional shear stress extrapolated from tests was much higher than
stated in various approvals and publications. In addition, not only the shear
stresses due to torsion work, but there is always a joint action with general
shear stresses that reach a maximum due to the load introduction in the
support area (transmission of the shear force from the vertical position to the
horizontal layers in the structural direction).
The verication by way of these forces in the crossing points does not seem very practical to me, because the board widths always
have to be known. In addition, it often results in extreme stresses at partly cut boards (slim, longitudinal contact areas), and if minimum
board widths have to be taken into account, low girders cannot be veried anymore. (For example, a 25 cm high residual cross section
over a window cannot be veried if the minimum board width is 15 cm. It can happen that a slab cross section only contains 2 x 12.5 cm
wide boards if the originally 15 cm wide boards have been partly cut.)
Due to merely practical reasons, verication by way of the shear ow or by way of shear stresses seems to be the more reasonable
option. This verication is generally known, and the shear forces are also issued as results of general FE calculations.
However, it is important to know that the verication of the shear ow or the shear stresses used to verify the shear force load-bearing
capacity is only of a theoretical nature. It does not reect the real structural behaviour. The same applied to the verication of cross
layers in case of shear due to the load-bearing effect of slabs in plane.
On item 3.14.2:
For the most part, KLH slabs are calculated under structural behaviour as girders in the form of beam support structures.
However, this is only sufciently accurate with low girders.
At the formulas for the determination of stresses it says that A
net,x
or A
net,y
has to be used.
The OR is very signicant in this context.
The test analysis always covered both directions. It was found that the cross layers are not decisive, even with an unfavourable
arrangement of the boards.
The theoretical shear stresses were so high (up to 22 N/mm
2
) that stating this value would potentially lead to wrong applications.
Therefore, these values are not used in detail for design purposes.
The theoretical shear stresses can be used for the design of all members, on the condition
that the normal layers (edge or middle positions) are stressed with variable normal stresses,
and that the cross layers are mostly used to couple the normal layers, i.e. the cross layers are
exposed to theoretical shear stress, but only very minor stress in the direction of the grain of the
cross layers. The load introduction points are exceptions as well as the stresses that form at the
distribution of the support or single loads.
This allows a simple verication of a girder with the full cross section of the normal layers
without taking the board joints or the thickness of the cross layers into account.
This is the case with all girders with L/H < 4, and certainly also with the residual cross sections
above doors and windows as well as narrow wall pillars.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 69
70
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 34 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Table 5: Characteristic values of shear strength shear in plane of the slab
Thickness of layer t mm 19
2)
34 45
Characteristic value of shear strength f
v, k
1)
MPa 8.4
2)
5.5 3.9
1)
Interim values may be calculated by linear interpolation.
2)
Shear strength values > 8.4 MPa are not applicable, e.g. for laminations with
t < 19 mm
The characteristic values of shear strength according to Table 5 may be increased by 25 %
for inner layers. When cover layers and inner layers are stressed simultaneously, 25 %
higher shear forces shall be assigned to the inner layers. In cover layers with a thickness
greater than 45 mm, a maximum thickness of 45 mm shall be taken for stress calculation.
Figure 20: Verification of shear in plane of the slab shear stress
3.14.3 Simplified verification for beams
Members or parts of members with a distinctive loading direction and with
L
H
t 4 and a
depth of H d 800 mm may be verified by applying the technical beam theory. The cross
section may be calculated with the layers parallel to this direction, disregarding the joints
between the single boards and longitudinal cut boards. In the case of a rectangular cross
section, the shear stresses may be calculated according to the following equation.
W
v, d
=
1.5 V
d
A
net, x
or
1.5 V
d
A
net, y
Where
V
d
................... design shear force
KLH solid wood slab
Design considerations
Annex 4
Page 18 of 19
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
The structural design process of the ETA is based on comprehensive examinations. The different variations of normal and cross layers,
the single loads close to supports, frame-type members (slabs with openings) and continuous girders are tested. The effects of shrin-
kage cracks (narrow board strips) and partly cut boards are also included.
From this data, the stress for the structural design was extrapolated. The formula for the extrapolation was 1.5 x V / A
LL
.
This yielded the highest design values.
Therefore, the verications are also bound to this formula and the underlying theoreti-
cal distribution of the shear stresses.
An example: In the test, a characteristic load-bearing level was identied. It was used
to calculate the design value of the shear stress. The result for the illustrated example
was 14.6 N/mm
2
.
If we veried this member with an even distribution of shear stresses, a stress of
9.7 N/mm
2
would be the outcome, even though the force is the same. This means that
the load-bearing capacity of the member would be massively overestimated!
Therefore, the shear strength values in table 5 are only admissible for a parabolic,
theoretical shear stress distribution.
If the shear stresses received by way of an FE calculation are not parabolic, then the
characteristic values according to table 5 must be reduced.
For the example illustrated in the gure this means that assuming an even stress distribution the values of table 5 would have to
be divided by a factor of 1.5 (reduction).
The shear in the cross layers (= perpendicular to the structural behaviour) was also extrapolated. However, the values of the normal
layers are most signicant.
The situation with glued laminated timber or solid wood is similar: the shear load-bearing capacity depends on the weaker direction (shear
parallel to the grain). Nobody would get the idea to assume or verify shear failure normal to the grain.
This was already the case in the old ETA the direction perpendicular to the grain did not have to be veried (although some did it and even
called this formula in the old ETA a mistake).
The tests also showed a slight increase of the theoretical shear stresses for board layers located inside but no doubling compared to
edge layers, as we might assume.
The stated 25% increase is a conservative assumption. This effect has not yet been fully examined.
If the shear forces are distributed to different layers in the relation of the stiffness of these board layers, inner layers would not receive
any higher stresses as these are only theoretical shear stresses. Therefore, these additional 25% share of the stress can be assigned
to the inner layers.
With 3 x 34 mm thick normal layers (2 x edge position, 1 x middle position), the outside board layers would not deect 1/3 of the shear
force, but slightly less.
In a simpler way, it can be determined as total load-bearing capacity related to the characteristic shear strength of the edge layers. This
way, the effective width would not be 3 x 3.4 = 10.2 cm but 2 x 3.4 + 1 x (1.25 x 3.4) = 11.1 cm.
What is also important is how double lamellas are dealt with in edge areas: the key data in table 5 are based on the tests that were carried
out. At the time, however, no double normal layers were tested, which is why there is this limitation to a maximum of 45 mm thick normal
layers as edge layers. If the edge layers are thicker, then a maximum of 45 mm can be taken into account.
More recent tests have shown some extra potential (not very much) for thicker edge layers. This way, the approach is also on the safe side.
On item 3.14.3:
This verication actually precisely represents the process during the test analysis. The theoretical shear stresses are calculated with the
formula for a parabolic shear stress distribution for rectangular cross sections.
Note the term OR between the two verications of the main load-bearing directions. We must always only look at the stress of the cross
section in load-bearing direction.
In principle, the shear verication is rather a verication of the shear force load-bearing capacity. On the occasion of the next review or
after further testing, this calculation process may again change and be adjusted to the actual situation.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 71
72
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 35 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
A
net, x
, A
net, y
.... cross sectional area of the layers parallel to the concerned structural
direction, without cross layers
3.15 Combined shear stresses
Shear stresses resulting from actions in plane of the solid wood panel and perpendicular to
the solid wood slab shall be combined by linear superposition, as these stresses are
effective in the glue lines between the layers.
KLH solid wood slab
Design considerations
Annex 4
Page 19 of 19
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
On item 3.15:
The shear load for the normal structural behaviour is veried through the theoretical shear stress of the lamella in load-bearing direc-
tion, but in reality the shear stress is used to assess the stresses in the areas of the bonded joints.
In case of loads on the slab (load normal to the slab), shear stresses also work on the same areas.
Therefore, these two effects have to be superpositioned. The total usage of the two structural behaviours must remain 1.
These superpositions, however, are only signicant in extreme situations in the building.
The tests also examined the frame-like members. The analysis showed that the shear force load-bearing capacity slightly decreases.
This indicates a superposition of effects of both load-bearing directions in the area of the frame corner.
Depending on the stiffness distribu-
tion, there is a vertical and a horizon-
tal shear force in the frame corner.
The illustration shows the shear
force distribution in a wall perspec-
tive. The frame corner itself only
has very little shear forces. Only in
the areas between the load and the
inner corners of the opening, the
calculated shear forces apply.
These shear force distributions, however, are only of a theoretical nature.
The force transmission from the horizontal to the vertical board layers takes place in the frame corner. In this place, in the contact
areas, the relevant stresses are effective.
In concrete construction, the shear force distribution wood look similar. The distribution of forces in the frame corner itself cannot be
determined with such an FE model. This should always be kept in mind, even in wood construction.
For the verication of these frame corners, the following procedure is recommended:
The shear force distributions in the two transition areas to the frame corner are determined through FE models. On this basis, the
shear forces (= resulting force of the shear forces per metre) can be determined.
If the shear force distribution (result from FE calculation) is nearly parabolic, then the
values can be taken over directly.
Subsequently, both directions are veried separately (through the shear stresses).
Since the stresses of both shear forces in the same contact areas are transmitted
between the boards in the corner area, the total usage must remain 1.
This procedure is on the safe side with regard to the test results.
If openings are cut out of KLH slabs, the remaining rectangular cross sections must be calculated as exactly as possible. To this end, a
framework calculation is required. The assumption of hinged corners or connections (e.g. door overlay on slim wall pillar, lower residual
cross section above window openings) neglects the effects of forced deformations. These deformations, however, generate additional
bending moments, and wood construction knows no pronounced elastic-plastic behaviour such as steel or concrete (in case of tensile
loads basically by the armouring), only for compression stresses.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 73
74
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 36 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
4 Structural fire design
4.1 Performance R load bearing capacity
Structural fire design of KLH solid wood slabs shall be by applying the charring depth and
the reduced strength and stiffness parameters for the part of the cross section which is
influenced by elevated temperatures. For verification, a method with reduced cross
sections considering the structure of the KLH solid wood slab shall be applied according to
EN 1995-1-2. Strength and stiffness parameters for the part of the cross section which is
influenced by elevated temperatures can be either taken from Annex B of EN 1995-1-2, by
application of test results or by analogy to e.g. glued laminated timber.
The temperature profiles, 300 C isotherm, and depths of elevated temperatures within the
cross section are given in Table 4.
NOTE For members or parts of members subjected to compression, a non-linear
relationship, elastic-plastic, may be applied. It can be assumed, that tensile
stresses in sections with a temperature > 200 C lead to local failure and the
stresses are redistributed to sections with temperatures 200 C.
Where
d
char
................ charring depth; distance between the outer surface of the original member
and the 300 C isotherm
E
i
................... charring rate of the considered layer i in mm/min
d
Start
............... initial value for the determination of the 300 C isotherm, char line
T
Start
............... time corresponding to d
Start
T
i
.................... time of fire exposure of the considered layer
T
ges
................ total time of fire exposure
D.................... inclination of the member with respect to the horizontal, 0 d D d 90
T
ges
= T
Start
+ 6 T
i
d
char
= d
Start
+ 6 (T
i
E
i
)
KLH solid wood slab
Structural fire design
Annex 5
Page 1 of 5
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
The structural re design is currently regulated in very different ways. The method with d_0 according to EN 1995-1-2 (reduced cross-
sectional values verication with the characteristic tensions at normal temperatures) for full cross sections is generally accepted.
The method with the reduced characteristics (point 4.2.3 of the EN 1995-1-2) is not allowed in Austria. Apparently it overestimates
load-bearing capacities.
The Annex to the EN 1995-1-2 provides another, more precise method, but the data of the EN only allow a calculation with special
software. Basically, what is missing is the information on the temperature curve within the cross section at the different measuring
times in order to be able and apply this more precise method even with conventional structural engineering calculation methods.
It is a moot point whether temperature curves determined by calculations only are actually meaningful. Personally, I cannot see how
coal layers, etc. could be simulated precisely. It would again take tests to calibrate the results. This makes it a method that is again
only usable for specialists.
The KLH tests have shown that the temperature curves are relatively uneven, just like the wood itself.
The bottom line is that we still get theoretical curves (adjusted to the tests) that can be used to describe temperature trends sufciently
accurately.
Comparative calculations have also shown that methods based on d_0 values that are constant per slab structure and stress exposu-
re, lead to results that under- or overestimate the load-bearing capacity of the member quite clearly.
In part they also deliver very unscientic results (see also the explanations in the Annex).
The method with d_0 values also has other disadvantages.
If the temperature areas in case of charring on both sides (interior walls) are partly superpositioned, the d_0 values determined for
one-sided charring are not accurate anymore.
See also SIA 165, point 4.5.2.4: There is says that members for an R 60 verication must at least be 14 cm thick if one intends to use
the d_0 method for charring on both sides.
After 60 minutes the residual cross section will have a thickness of approximately 6 cm. This means that internally the temperatures
are already slightly superpositioned. As regards residual cross sections with thickness values below 6 cm, we already see a clear super-
position of temperature lines with the appropriate effects. There is practically no area of the member left that would not be inuenced
by the temperature.
Charring on both sides, however, is no exception for KLH buildings. It is rather the normal case (load-bearing inner walls).
Therefore, this method (d_0 value) is not used for KLH members. Even the orientational values of the EN 1995-1-2 were only used
for rough calculations. Separate tests were carried out to identify the required key data (stiffness and strength).
In the Annex to this comment you nd a simplied and relatively easy calculation method that can be used to calculate the effects of
the reductions in the areas exposed to temperature inuence.
This method can also be programmed fairly easily with a spreadsheet calculation programme. The process can also be implemented
very easily in software programmes.
The key data, for example, only apply to KLH members, however. The comparative calculations were carried out with KLH key data. Any
transfer to other products is not possible without the knowledge of the exact background.
A really precise consideration of all thermal effects (own stresses and deformations due to high temperatures, elastic-plastic redistri-
butions, positive and negative system behaviour, etc.) is very complex.
The calculation is also relatively complicated if all different combinations of member structures and cladding types should be taken
into account with both one-sided charring and charring on both sides.
A depiction in tables or in the form of diagrams is not meaningful due to the large number of possible combinations.
In addition, not all relevant data could be entered, which would potentially lead to errors.
Therefore, the company KLH offers a software tool (KLHdesigner) that allows a more precise determination of construction compo-
nent resistance values.
The identication of member forces and moments can be carried out with any conventional software (taking shear compliance into ac-
count), depending on what seems to be reasonable for the relevant system (manual calculation, laminated or plate structure software).
In the KLHdesigner, construction component resistance values are stated for normal conditions (normal temperature) and in the
event of re. Therefore, this tool can also be used for normal verication purposes.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 75
76
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 37 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Figure 21: Charring behaviour with and without cladding
Figure 22: Temperature profiles for non cladded and cladded KLH solid wood slabs
KLH solid wood slab
Structural fire design
Annex 5
Page 2 of 5
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
On item 4.1:
The criterion R regards the load-bearing capacity of the residual cross section.
The reduction factors for the stiffness and load-bearing capacity were determined in reference to the EN 1995-1-2 and on the basis of
tests. The calculations of load-bearing capacities are, however, not suitable for manual calculating. The software tool KLHdesigner
identies the required key data. For an estimate and cross-check, a simplied method (see Annex) is stated. The load-bearing capaci-
ties it determines are, however, lower (conservative, on the safe side) than the more precisely calculated member resistance values.
On the comment regarding tensile stresses in temperature areas > 200 degrees: This is about the fact that calculations may show
that slabs areas might fail above a certain temperature, while the residual cross section shows sufcient load-bearing capacity. This
is not always the case at normal temperatures, because a failure due to tensile stress would normally cause a series of subsequent
breakages.
This way the possibility of redistributions to other board layers should be allowed in case of re, because this is about areas with low
E-modulus, meaning that effects do not appear at normal temperatures.
On gure 21:
Here the calculation process of charring is stated.
Charring behaviour of KLH slabs without cladding (lower red line):
On the surface, the charring starts with a dened charring speed (1). Starting from the rst bonded joint, a delaminating effect (partial
aking of the coal layer in front of/below the bonded joint) will cause a slightly higher charring rate (2). If the charring continues within
a lamella and if this lamella is thicker than 25 mm, then the full coal layer will again work as a protective layer from these 25 mm, and
the charring rate will again correspond to the basic value (1).
At the next bonded joint, the same process will be repeated.
These processes are calibrated by the measurement of temperatures at approximately 40 measuring points.
Charring behaviour of KLH slabs with cladding (upper red line):
For KLH slabs, different reproof gypsum board claddings were tested. They were designed according to special application directives.
The comparison to a calculation according to EN 1995-1-2 has shown favourable effects.
Due to this fact, the layer of the 300 degree line (that is required for further charring calculations or for the precise calculation of the
stiffness or strength) is stated as xed value.
This makes the application easier. It is also necessary for calculatory verication if the theoretical 300 degree line lies within the
reproof gypsum board layer.
For these mentioned cladding types, no values must be calculated for t
char
and t
failure
according to EN 1995-1-2.
The re tests have shown that there is a difference between horizontal and vertical members. The reason for this fact is that the
delaminating effect and the aking of the reproof gypsum board layer also depends on gravity. Nearly vertical surfaces show a slightly
more favourable behaviour than horizontal ones.
On gure 22:
This gure shows the temperature curve required for further, exact verication purposes.
This curve is relatively irregular during exposure to re, because the charring rate also varies.
In case of reproof gypsum board claddings, the heat has a bit more time to pervade the inner areas of the member. Therefore, the d
100
and d
20
values directly behind the reproof gypsum board claddings are also higher than in case of normal charring.
Vice versa, these values will become smaller if the charring rate is higher.
In order not to make the verication process even more complicated than it already is, a bi-linear trend was assumed for the tem-
perature curve, and the d
100
distance (distance between the 300 degree line and the 100 degree line) was assumed rather high
(= unfavourable) compared to some publications.
The temperature curves were determined on the basis of the data of more than 40 measuring points (with 4-5 temperature sensors
each in a row).
Due to the bi-linear curve, the temperature areas near 100 degrees are depicted relatively precisely (essential areas). The temperature
areas between 20 and 50 degrees are depicted rather unfavourably, meaning that superpositions of temperatures create a conser-
vative effect.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 77
78
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 38 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
4.1.1 Parameters for structural fire design
Table 6 is applicable for fire exposure up of 120 minutes for cladded KLH solid wood slabs.
For non cladded KLH solid wood slabs the time of fire exposure may exceed 120 minutes.
Table 6: Charring rates and depth of elevated temperatures for KLH solid wood slabs
dStart
1)
E1
2), 1)
E2
3), 1)
d100 d20 TStart Time of exposure
Inclination
D
Cladding
System KLH
mm mm/min mm/min mm mm min min
D > 75 none 0 0.55 / 0.65 0.80 / 0.90 15 25 0 T > 0
-12 -6 - - 25 25 30 T = 30
D > 75 1 u 15 FGB
4)
11 16 0.55 / 0.65 0.80 / 0.90 15 25 60 T 60
-35 -25 - - 25 35 30 T = 30
-15 -10 - - 25 35 60 T = 60
0 5 - - 25 35 90 T = 90
D > 75 2 u 15 FGB
4)
8 13 - - 25 35 120 T = 120
-30 -25 - - 25 35 30 T = 30
-20 -15 - - 25 35 60 T = 60
-10 -5 - - 25 35 90 T = 90
D > 75 2 u 18 FGB
4)
10 5 - - 25 35 120 T = 120
D d 75 none 0 0.65 / 0.75 1.00 / 1.10 15 25 0 T > 0
-12 -6 - - 25 25 30 T = 30
D d 75 1 u 15 FGB
4)
30 34 0.65 / 0.75
5)
1.00 / 1.10 15 25 60 T 60
1)
1
st
value = global, mean value 2
nd
value = local, increased value for a solid wood slabs with width b < 300 mm
2)
regular charring rate within one single layer
3)
increased charring rate after the failure / drop off of one layer
4)
Fireproof Gypsum Board
5)
Following the initial value T0 the charring rate a2 shall be applied until the next glue line is reached
For KLH solid wood slabs with fire exposure on both sides, the temperature profiles may be
determined independently for each side. The temperatures shall be added where
temperature profiles are overlapping with temperatures above 20 C.
KLH solid wood slab
Structural fire design
Annex 5
Page 3 of 5
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
On item 4.1.1:
The charring processes and the temperatures in the residual cross section can be identied according to table 6, using the gures 21
and 22.
In areas where the temperature curves are superpositioned from 2 sides, the temperatures above 20 degrees can simply be added up.
If this key data is used for reproof gypsum board claddings, it is important that these reproof gypsum board layers are carried out
according to the application directives of the company KLH.
For other claddings or deviations from the application directives, the 300 degree lines according to EN and B 1995-1-2 must be deter-
mined.
This key data is used as the basis to identify the member stiffness values and member strength values.
In the Annex to this comment, there is a simplied method to determine the stiffness and subsequently to perform stress verications
(using the stresses at normal temperature).
Be careful when using the reduction factors from the EN 1995-1-2, Annex B: they are not compatible with the KLH members. The re-
duction factors were extrapolated from tests. The temperature curves might have been determined with FE models. If only about 10
mm was used for the d_100 values, this will yield more favourable reductions.
This will in turn lead to unfavourable (= unscientic) results if used for KLH members with the d_100 values in table 6.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 79
80
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 39 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Figure 23: Definition of regions for application of regular and increased charring rates
4.1.2 Local charring at corners, grooves, etc.
The depth of the 300 C isotherme may be assumed according to Figure 24. Grooves with
a cross section d (20 / 20) mm may be disregarded. Grooves smaller than 80 mm shall be
considered as shown in Figure 24.
To account for the increased charring at edges, the charring rate at the edges of solid wood
slabs shall be taken to 1,5 times the rate at the face.
Figure 24: Charring at a groove and at an edge of a wall
KLH solid wood slab
Structural fire design
Annex 5
Page 4 of 5
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
On gure 23:
This illustration shows in which design situations the higher local charring rate can become signicant. In reality, there is of course no
abrupt transition between narrow and wide strips (there will not be such an excessive increase of the load-bearing capacity for a 31 cm
wide strip compared to a 30 cm wide strip).
It should be noted here, however, that the analysis for the narrow strip was based on approximately 20 cm wide parts.
Therefore, the value of the global, mean charring rate can safely be assumed for strips with a width of > 30 cm (in exceptional cases
and with borderline verications, this minimum width of 30 cm can also be slightly undercut, e.g. for 28 cm wide strips; this method,
however, must be coordinated with inspectors and authorities).
In addition to the higher charring rates, narrow strips also require the use of the k_sys values (reductions in order to take partly cut
boards and local weaknesses into account).
On item 4.1.2:
During the examinations, a number of specic ordinary locations (sockets, millings, wall ends, corner formations, etc.) were also exa-
mined.
The results can be gathered from the gures 24 and 25.
The charring rate at the narrow sides was assumed slightly higher in order to cover effects such as an increased charring at the corners,
etc.
In case of charring in the direction of the slab (wall ends, lintel areas), the d_0 value of 7 mm (as for solid wood and glued laminated tim-
ber) can also be used to determine the cross-sectional values. This facilitates the calculation of the residual cross section in case of re
exposure on several sides (wall pillars, window lintels). The effects not included in d_0 are covered by the slightly higher charring rate.
This is admissible because the load-bearing board layers in the direction of the wall form a full cross section (in case of charring normal
to the wall we have a weakening of the cross section through the cross layers).
The factor 1.5 x d
char
is a conservative assumption. In principle, this value can also be determined through a more precise calculation
(such as for glued laminated timber). Then, however, effects such as round corner, etc. must also be taken into account.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 81
82
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 40 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Figure 25: Charring behaviour in the vincinity of a step-joint or an inside corner
4.1.3 Connections
The capacity of connections may be assumed as unchanged if the complete fastener is
exposed to temperatures < 200 C. Edge distances are measured from the char line if the
forces are parallel to the char line. Forces perpendicular to the char line relate to the 200 C
isotherm as the edge of the member.
4.2 Performances E and I integrity and insulation
The performances E and I, penetration of hot gases through the member and limited
temperatures on the unexposed side, may be regarded as acceptable under the following
conditions:
The residual cross section comprises at least one cover layer and one glue line and
the distance between glue line and 300 C isotherm is greater than 15 mm.
The use of sealing tapes is not required if the following is fulfilled:
The surface temperature on the unexposed side is determined with the above given
temperature profiles and does not exceed 120 C.
This is also applicable to butt-joints in corners of two solid wood slabs, if the maximum
centre spacing of the screws does not exceed 250 mm.
The temperature in the contact surface of step joints, with the contact surfaces parallel
to the face of the solid wood slab, shall be not exceed 150 C. The step joint shall be
connected with wood screws with a maximum centre spacing not exceeding 250 mm.
KLH solid wood slab
Structural fire design
Annex 5
Page 5 of 5
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
On gure 25:
For inner corners and supports of ceilings on walls, this charring process can be assumed.
This is important for ceiling supports, because the eccentric load introduction (from ceiling to wall) can be determined.
For the contact area, an edge compression of approximately the double to triple value of the characteristic value for compression
normal to the grain can be assumed. This way the distance of the resulting force to the centre of gravity (of the reduced cross section)
can be determined.
On item 4.1.3:
Due to the fact that the temperature curve inside the slab can be calculated fairly accurately, we also gain an advantage in verifying
the means of connection.
A means of connection that is used to transfer forces must be fully located in areas where temperatures are lower than 200 degrees.
In addition, the edge distances must be maintained (to the charring line for loads parallel to the charring area, to the 200 degree line
for loads normal to the charring area). This will automatically create a situation in temperature areas of < 100 degrees for a means of
connection with high load-bearing capacity (screws, nails, etc.).
At a temperature exposure of < 100 degrees, the strength of wood is already so high that the load-bearing capacity of the screw (accor-
ding to EN 1995-1-1) can be calculated with a reduction of the bearing stress strength by 50% (in temperature areas < 100 degrees,
the load-bearing capacity of wood is > 50% of the load-bearing capacity at normal temperature).
Means of connection directly exposed to re must be examined separately. The effect of the temperature conductivity inside the means
of connection must also be examined.
This procedure is the same as for glued laminated timber or solid wood.
On item 4.2:
The E criterion refers to the room tightness. Tight in the conventional sense, however, does not always apply to members. Smoke
that might permeate through joints has cooled off to a degree that no ignition is possible on the side that is not exposed to the re.
If 100 percent smoke tightness is required, at least 2 bonded joints should be in temperature areas below 200 degrees.
For the I criterion, a maximum surface temperature on the side facing away from the re is stated in the standards. It is higher than
the criterion of 120 degrees that is mentioned here. This provides additional safety, and the criterion is also complied with in most
practical and relevant building cases.
The member tests were always carried out with step joints, partly with and partly without the use of sealant strips this also affects
corner formations and ceiling supports. In principle, no sealant strips are necessary.
If, however, joints appear in practical usage due to constructional inaccuracies, compensation must be provided by way of suitable
measures. Or the detailed design allows a full-area compression of a joint area (like with step joints). This will also guarantee tightness.
However, it is not possible always and everywhere.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 83
84
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 41 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Fasteners
The determination of the load bearing capacities of the fasteners in KLH solid wood slabs shall be
carried out according to EN 1995-1-1 and/or the European technical approval which has been
granted for the relevant fastener for softwood and/or for glued laminated timber or the wood based
panel used.
Only wood screws and split ring connectors may be employed as load bearing fasteners in the
edges of the solid wood slabs.
To all fasteners apply
Only nails, wood screws, bolts, dowels and connectors according to EN 1995-1-1 and/or a
European technical approval may be used as fasteners, observing the following particularities.
The edge of the solid wood slab is the edge of the member. As long as the maximum joint width
according to Annex 2 is not exceeded individual joints need not to be considered.
Nails
Nails shall have a diameter of at least 4 mm.
The load bearing capacity of nails shall be determined according to EN 1995-1-1. Minimum
spacing and distances shall be determined following the direction of grain of the surface layer.
Smooth nails shall not be employed for axially loading. For axially loaded nails the
recommendations of the ETA holder shall be observed.
Wood screws
Laterally loaded screws shall have a nominal diameter of minimum 4 mm and a nominal
diameter of minimum 8 mm if driven in the edges of the solid wood slab.
The load bearing capacity of laterally loaded screws shall be determined according to
EN 1995-1-1. The embedment strength shall be determined according to the direction of grain
of the surface layer. If driven in cross grain, the embedment strength shall be reduced by 50 %.
Minimum spacing and distances shall be determined according to the direction of grain of the
surface layer.
Axially loaded screws shall have a minimum diameter of 4 mm. Axially loaded screws driven in
cross grain shall have a minimum diameter of 8 mm.
The load bearing capacity of axially loaded screws shall be determined according to
EN 1995-1-1. The load bearing capacity of screws driven in cross grain shall be reduced by
25 %.
KLH solid wood slab
Fasteners
Annex 6
Page 1 of 2
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
As regards the means of connection, the data of the individual technical approvals or the EN 1995-1-1 can be used.
Only a few special characteristics of the KLH slabs must be taken into consideration.
In case of connection on the end grain of the edges, reductions must be made with regard to the bearing stress strength.
In most cases this is unproblematic, because the members are rather thick and the screws themselves are decisive (screw bending),
not the wood.
Tensile force connections in the end grain should be avoided, even if some approvals allow them. At least a part of the thread should
be placed in the diagonal wood. This way, any appearing shrinkage cracks in the area of the screws will be less problematic (because
the screws weaken the wood, which is why shrinkage cracks are very likely exactly in the areas around screws).
Screws and nails must have a certain minimum diameter, so they can still function in areas of possible joints and shrinkage cracks and
maintain their long-term load-bearing capacity.
Maintaining a minimum diameter, however, is not necessary if the purposeful arrangement (positioning) of the screw can guarantee
that no joints are hit (e.g. screws in longitudinal wood of an edge side).
Or if one single failure or a reduction of the load-bearing capacity due to joints will not represent a problem (reduce the degree of usage,
position more screws than required according to calculations).
In case of pin-shaped means of connection, the slab edge can always be regarded as the member edge without any consideration
of possible joints.
In case of very highly loaded connections, however, the possibility of joints should always be taken into account, meaning that classic
pin bolt connections are not the ideal choice.
It would be better to have connections with grooved metal plates and self-drilling bolts. This leaves some leeway to react on site with
regard to the positions of the pin bolts. It is possible to avoid larger joints.
This must, however, already have been considered during static measurement the reduction of distances (lever arm) may lead to
higher loads. Therefore, a mutual coordination between the installer on site and the responsible structural engineer is necessary. It
must also be possible to shift the means of connection by approximately 3 cm, which must have been planned in advance.
Still, it is better to make an unfavourable assumption on the measurement of joints in structural design in order to adjust the type of
connection to the relevant product.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 85
86
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 42 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Bolts and dowels
Bolts and dowels shall have a diameter of at least 10 mm.
The load bearing capacity of bolts and dowels shall be determined according to EN 1995-1-1.
The embedment strength shall be determined following the direction of grain of the surface
layer. Minimum spacing and distances for dowels and bolts are
5 d from the loaded edge and between each other and
3 d from the unloaded edge.
This applies regardless to the angle between the direction of force and the direction of grain.
Self-tapping dowels shall be used only in the face of KLH solid wood slabs. The minimum
nominal diameter should be 5 mm. The requirements of the European technical approval for the
fastener shall be observed.
For connections with steel plates as the central member the direction of the nearby layers shall
be taken into account.
KLH solid wood slab
Fasteners
Annex 6
Page 2 of 2
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
The edge is always the slab edge, independent of the joints between the board layers. Therefore, the minimum diameter is stated with
10 mm.
Independent of this, it should still be veried on site whether there is any larger board joint directly at the pin bolt. This circumstance
can already be taken into account for structural design by not using the connection to 100 percent.
As regards the bearing stress, the grain direction of the wood directly in the area of the transmission of forces is decisive, e.g. in case
of a force transmission from wood to a steel member.
If only very thin residual wood layers with unfavourable grain directions remain, the nearest adjacent board layer (in the direction of the
grain) can be used. This must, however, be subject to separate examination in each individual case, and the additional bending of the
dowels must also be taken into account.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 87
88
Original text ETA- 06/0138 Validity 2012 to 2017
Member of EOTA
Page 43 of European technical approval ETA-06/0138
Validity from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2017, replaces
ETA-06/0138 with validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016
OIB-260-001/98-121
Reference documents
CUAP (Common Understanding of Assessment Procedure), ETA request 03.04/06,
Version June 2005: Solid wood slab element to be used as a structural element in buildings
EN 301, 06.2006, Adhesives, phenolic and aminoplastic, for load-bearing timber structures
- Classification and performance requirements
EN 338, 10.2009, Structural timber - Strength classes
EN 385, 10.2001, Finger jointed structural timber - Performance requirements and
minimum production requirements
EN 1194, 04.1999, Timber structures - Glued laminated timber - Strength classes and
determination of characteristic values
EN 1995-1-1, 11.2004, EN 1995-1-1/AC, 06.2006, EN 1995-1-1/A1, 06.2008, Eurocode 5 -
Design of timber structures - Part 1-1: General - Common rules and rules for buildings
EN 1995-1-2, 11.2004, EN 1995-1-2/AC, 03.2009, Eurocode 5 - Design of timber structures
Part 1-2: General - Structural fire design
EN 12354-1, 04.2000, Building acoustics - Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings
from the performance of elements - Part 1: Airborne sound insulation between rooms
EN 13183-2, 04.2002, 13183-2/AC, 09.2003, Moisture content of a piece of sawn timber
Part 2: Estimation by electrical resistance method
EN 13986, 10.2004, Wood-based panels for use in construction - Characteristics,
evaluation of conformity and marking
EN 15425, 02.2008, Adhesives - One component polyurethane for load bearing timber
structures - Classification and performance requirements
EN ISO 10456, 12.2007, EN ISO 10456/AC, 12.2009, Building materials and products -
Hygrothermal properties - Tabulated design values and procedures for determining
declared and design thermal values
ETAG 011 (2002-01): Light Composite Wood-based Beams and Columns
KLH solid wood slab
Reference documents
Annex 7
Page 1 of 1
of European technical approval
ETA-06/0138
In the reference documents, various standards are listed that are connected to this ETA.
However, the procedure for examinations, test analyses, etc. is not yet standardised. This means that calculation methods stated in
this ETA are not necessarily compatible with the key data from test series of other producers.
Nevertheless, the ETA as such is consistent. The application of the EN 1995-1-1 and EN 1995-1-2 in the listed references is admissible,
but not vice versa.
As regards plywood members, the breakage mechanisms are essential and decisive with regard to shear (slab or plane) for the struc-
tural design. The test congurations for this are not yet standardised, neither are the analyses of the tests.
The design, however, is directly connected to the analyses of tests. Therefore, all essential effects and framework conditions must be
taken into account.
This is especially important for the calculation types for beam or plane-type members. The verications as a beam are only theoreti-
cally more exact compared to more precise results from FE calculations, but they do not necessarily translate into reality. Everything
depends on how the comparative values (= design values) from the tests are determined.
In the chapter on shear due to loads in plane, a relevant example is quoted.
Comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 89
Version 01/2013 90
ANNEX A:
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING
MEMBER RESISTANCES IN CASE OF A FIRE
For this procedure, various simplications were made, so that a manual calculation and comprehensibility of the actual load-
bearing behaviour could be made possible.
In comparison to more exact determinations of member resistances, the results lie on the safe side and provide security for the tests.
In this simplied procedure, many thermal effects are taken into account, any favourable effects (e.g. elastic-plastic behaviour as a
result of compressive stress, etc.) must therefore not be taken into account if these are not specied in these instructions.
For consideration of reduced material properties in the areas under inuence of temperature, an area is dened as h_temp, which can
be calculated using the formula h_temp = d
100
+ 0.6 x d20 (= 30 to 40 mm). In this area, the reduction of the E-modulus from 100% to
0% can be carried out.
The calculation results in reduced cross-sectional widths. This reduction remains independent of the supporting direction.
Note: in reality the inuence of the temperature is effective in the whole area d
100
+ d
20
(= bigger than h_temp).
This simplication only affects temperature ranges < 50 degrees, the effects are negligibly small.
To take into account the inuence of the reduction in resistance in the area h_temp, the proof of changeable tensions (as a result of M
or due to (M + N)) must only be conducted up to the limit of detection_. The area underneath only has to be proven in residual lamella
thicknesses < d
klh_
, then the determined tensions have to be multiplied with the correction factor t
rest
/ d
klh_
.
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Y
Z
X
For further evidence, the characteristic material data at normal temperature can be used, or can be increased according to EN 1995-1-2
(20% fractile values). This applies for normal and shear stress, for planes and plates.
This gure shows the effects of this E-modulus reduction, which in
principle results in a reduction of the cross-sectional widths.
The area h_temp always begins directly above the charring line
(300 degree line).
For this cross section with reduced widths, for each supporting
direction the relative cross-sectional values can be determined (net
cross-sectional values).
Due to the reduction in width, for further calculations the G- and
E-modulus at room temperature can be used.
Reduction in width in the area inuenced by temperature
Load-bearing residual cross section with reduced width
Charring/temperatures > 300C)
Y
Z
X
Charring on
the narrow edge
d
char
d
char
d
char
e
s_
d
klh_
e
r_
e
r
d
0
=7mm
Reduction
E-modulus
Stress distribution on cross
section with reduced width
Limit of detection_
100%
h_temp
0%
Charring on the side
To determine the bending tension, the distance e
r_
should always be estimated as smaller than e
s_
- d
klh_
.
d
klh_
correction value for proof in area h_temp, this gure can be assumed as 0.5 x d
100
.
e
r_
distance of the edge bre to determine maximum edge tension (< e
s_
- d
klh_
)
e
s_
distance of charring line (300 degree line) from the centroid axis of the cross section with reduced width
For the other main supporting direction, in principle the process is the same, with the only difference that only the lamellas that are
relevant for this supporting direction are used for determination of the cross-sectional values.
In 2-sided charring a somewhat adapted process of reduction factors results.
The only difference is that the reduction and the proof with d_klh_ must be carried out on both sides.
If the temperature areas overlap (areas with reduction), then the total reduction can be calculated by multiplying the reduction (for each
grain) of each charred side.
The rest of the procedure remains as already described.
The majority can be thus veried. Shear verication for slab stress is not decisive. There is an automatic reduction with the reduction
of the cross-sectional key values.
The verication under action in plane of the slab can also be carried out with these cross-sectional key values. The bending tension as
a plane is calculated somewhat conservatively, but that is usually not relevant.
For the shear verication under action in plane of the slab, a mean thickness can be calculated for the cross-sectional area in the
h_temp area.
Increase in areas of tensile stress
The member resistances (strength and stiffness), in which the tensile stress due to bending in areas of temperature inuence are
inuential, can be multiplied (increased) by factor 1.2.
These two illustrations show the
procedure in case of double-sided
charring.
If the areas with temperature in-
uence do not overlap, the proce-
dure can be the same as for one-
sided charring.
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 91
2-sided charring
without mutual inuence
2-sided charring
with mutual inuence
d
char
d
char
d
char
d
char
100%
1
0
0
%
h_temp
h_temp
h_temp
h_temp
Effective reduction
0% 0%
Charring on
the narrow edge
d
char
d
char d
char
e
s_
d
klh_
e
r_
e
r
d
0
=7mm
Limit of detection_
100%
h_temp
0%
Charring on the side
Version 01/2013 92
For the verication of load bearing systems, the following effects are to be taken into account with plywood constructions:
To determine the member forces and moments, a realistic supporting system must be used as a basis. That means that all inuencing
factors must be sufciently exactly considered.
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Because the ceiling deformation could take on up to L/100 part in a re, extreme twisting is the result in the supporting areas on the
walls. Only with two-span ceiling systems with approximately identical spans would the twisting above the middle wall be a bit less
extreme. Unequal charring in both rooms could in turn cause more extreme twisting.
Basically, the thermal effects are to be considered as unfavourable: due to the increased temperatures, residual stress and also defor-
mations result. With the simplied procedure for KLH members, these thermal effects are already included. The effects determined by
the system can only be taken into account by the engineer responsible in the course of static tests.
In a re, the properties of wooden building
components change sometimes in an ext-
reme way from a static point of view. This
applies mainly to deformation. Due to the
reduction of the cross sections, much
more deformation results than at normal
temperatures. This means that assump-
tions that applied to normal measure-
ments, no longer apply in case of a re.
This is especially important with walls and
stability-vulnerable members. With these
members, additional eccentricities can
occur due to deformation of neighbouring
components (e.g. bending of ceiling com-
ponents) in addition to the displacement
of centres of gravity, which arise from the
reduction in cross sections.
Wall load from above works
against twisting, but cannot fully
compensate!
Eccentricity due to cross
section reduction
Wall
Wall
Ceiling deformation
up to L/100 part
possible)
Between ceiling and wall a local contact area
develops on the front wall edge
Load on wall
Member dimension in
case of re
Charring
Centroid axis of original cross section
Eccentricity of load on centroid
axis of reduced cross section
Background on measuring with a d_0-value:
In the EN 1995-1-2, point 4.2.2, it says that for the area d_0 it is assumed that there is no load-bearing capacity and no stiffness.
Based on this information, you could think that with KLH members (no full cross section from a static point of view, the cross layers
cause reductions compared to a full rectangular cross section) the procedure would be similar. For this reason, the procedure with the
EN d_0-value was adopted in the old ETA .
That the stiffness and resistance are not in the d_0 area, is only half the truth in reality it is more complex.
In a re, the temperature penetrates the cross section, after 30 minutes approx. 30 to 40 mm of the cross section behind the
charring line are warmer than before the re. The charring line can be taken as 300 degrees (280 degrees more than before the re). The
temperature then decreases (within the layer thickness of approx. 30 to 40 mm).
In various publications you can nd curves showing these temperature uctuations, but the information varies considerably. It is
possible that these curves were only determined by FE analysis.
In the reduction curves of the material key values according to the EN (Annex B), at approx. 100 degrees a more extensive reduction in
values occurs. Therefore in the following, this 100 degree point is used as a reference value.
In the publications a value of 10 to 15 mm was specied for difference between 300 and 100 degrees, between 100 and 20 degrees
a value of approx. 20 to 40 mm.
The following illustrations explain the effects:
The left illustration shows the idealised temperature curve, both middle illustrations show the reduction of the E-modulus and the
resistance for this area under temperature inuence. The illustration on the right shows the stress curve that results.
In areas with temperatures > 20 degrees, stress distribution changes due to decrease of the E-modulus (orange line). The characteristic
resistance for verication also changes according to temperature.
As a result, the cross section for verication is reduced somewhat. The load-bearing capacity of the cut off section (red area, height
d_0) compensates here in principle for the missing load-bearing capacities of the areas above (blue area).
The illustration shows the theoreti-
cal procedure for determining the
d_0 value.
A distance from the bottom edge is
determined (d_0), at which the load-
bearing capacity of the residual cross
section at normal temperature (red
stress distribution) corresponds to
the load-bearing capacity of the cross
section under temperature inuence
(black line).
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 93
%
%
Temperature curve
20 degrees
base temperature
E-modulus
100 100%
25mm
15mm
100
degrees
300
degrees
50 to 90% at
100 degrees
Resistance Actual stress distribution
Limit stress at
normal temperature
Limit stress, reduced in
areas inuenced by
temperature
Stress distribution due
to M/N load stress
Reduction in material key values
Dependent on type of load stress
Version 01/2013 94
If that is transferred to KLH members, it results in the following illustrations:
There is also another extreme case when the 300 degree line resides transversely:
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Essentially, with plywood board members the theoretical d_0 value during a re constantly changes (depending on the height of the
members).
This course of action is therefore not really advisable for KLH members. Either the components are measured very uneconomically, or
a relatively high degree of effort is needed for the calculation of the d_0 values.
In diverse publications and also in some approvals (France) already for plywood building components d_0 values (and s_0 values)
are specied, graded by type of load, whether with or without reproof gypsum board cladding, and dependent on the number of board
layers.
There are also cases where the use of the d_0 value results in a line which coincides with the lower edge of the supporting lamella
next to it.
The load-bearing capacities in such situations are in part massively overvalued (on the uncertain side).
And for that again, extra rules would have to be specied. That makes the measuring more complex and less clear.
These measuring situations are no exception. If members are optimised according to the d_0 values, then inevitably rather multi-
layered slabs with thinner lamella thicknesses are the result. And exactly this is when these situations, as described, come about, in
which the load-bearing capacities are overestimated.
For this reason, this measuring procedure (d_0) is not used for KLH members.
It is recognisable that this compensati-
on of the load-bearing capacities cannot
be adopted 1 : 1. The load-bearing cross-
sectional parts (green area) are partly mis-
sing inside the members, so that for that
reason the d_0 for plywood boards must
be differentiated from the d_0 for glued
laminated timber or solid wood.
Here, in principle, the d_0 also includes
the non-load-bearing cross layer.
As a compensation, the load-bearing
capacity for the part of the cut off cross
layer area is missing.
The d_0 would then be very large or very
small according to how it is viewed.
According to the basic principle of the d_0 procedure, the
residual cross section can be calculated using the material
key values at room temperature (red tension illustration).
In reality, the stiffness and strength are less (black line).
The d_0 values in the publications vary between approx. 12
and 20 mm. It can thus happen that after deducting 12 mm
(as d_0 value) in the supporting lamella, there can still be
temperatures of approx. 100 degrees and according to An-
nex B of EN 1995-1-2, only 25% of the compressive strength
would be existent with compression??? There seems to be
a system error here!
Or the d_0 values should always be measured only from the
supporting layers onwards.
Component tests with KLH slabs for determination of diverse characteristic data:
9 large re tests were carried out, with different lamella grading, with and without reproof gypsum board cladding, as ceiling and wall,
and also with pressure loads on the burning side (important for calculating stability-endangered members = walls). This covers most
of the possible measuring situations.
Wall members with and without reproof gypsum board cladding, with milled/drilled holes for sockets, ceiling connections, etc.
Warning: test loads in individual re tests on wall elements under stress have no direct signicance concerning the bearing capacity.
Therefore, the test values can never be used as a designed load.
This must always be mathematically calculated. And for that, the necessary characteristic data are needed.
When test loads of this kind are used for a measurement, then the marginal conditions of the building for the trial have to be exactly
kept to (1 : 1) and that is practically not possible.
The E-modulus would have to be the same, the pre-deformations would have to stay the same over the whole service life of the member
(the wall could, however, over time bend a little due to shrinkage), the storage conditions would have to be the same (distortion of the
ceiling cannot really be simulated for the test), etc.
That is realistically not possible in practice. Thus in the tests, only possible characteristic data for mathematical verication can be
determined, not the permissible stress in case of a re, however.
In principle, it is the same with ceilings, although the possible negative effects are considerably more serious with walls.
As the re tests are very expensive, mostly only 1 or 2 tests per load, etc. can be carried out. The test load can in no way be adopted
1 : 1 for the assessment of load-bearing capacities. For that, the characteristic values of the wood vary too much.
From more than 40 KLH test series it is known that there is a difference of between 95% and 5% in fractile values. It could therefore
be assumed for the test analysis that the material properties of the test objects corresponded to 95% fractile values, and thus it was
possible to calculate backwards to the 5% fractile values. In principle, this corresponds to the EN 1990, Annex D (test-supported mea-
surements).
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 95
Ceiling members with pull or pressure on the burning side, with and without reproof gypsum board cladding, step joints, etc.
Version 01/2013 96
In general, the following values were determined with the tests:
Charring lines:
Charring is relatively irregular. With regard to wider wall and ceiling elements that is unproblematic, because the cross layers distribute
the load to the parts of the slabs that are less charred.
With narrow strips of slab that is not possible, which is why 2 different values were specied for the characteristic data: on the one
hand, local charring rates for areas with slab strips with widths < 30 cm; on the other hand, global values for wider strips.
The data for slab strips with widths < 30 cm are in principle the most extreme charring rates measured. The data for wider strips are
mean values of the charring lines.
This makes it possible for narrow slab strips to be measured, where normally a number of tests (supports, girders) would have been
necessary.
In the charring lines, all effects are included that concern the material. This also includes the delaminating effect (falling off of coal
layers).
In individual tests, smaller charring rates also resulted, but for the ETA only the most unfavourable charring rates were listed. These
more favourable charring rates can probably be accredited to an optimisation of the amount of glue used in the previous re tests.
The delaminating effect (and thus also the charring rates) depend in principle on the method of gluing (type of glue, amount, etc.).
This makes a transferral of the charring rates and thus also the temperature penetration depths to other plywood products at 1 : 1
impossible.
In the tests, KLH standard slabs in non-visible quality were used, which is why all possible effects of the joints between the slab layers
were taken into account.
For verication with reproof gypsum board cladding, theoretical 300 degree lines were specied, so that the general calculation mo-
del (see Annex) is also possible with cladding.
With other kinds of cladding, the 300 degree lines could be worked out according to EN 1995-1-2.
The data for the quoted cladding are only permitted in connection with the processing guidelines of the company KLH. This is why other
screws or types of reproof gypsum boards are not permissible. With deviations, calculations must be made according to EN 1995-1-2.
Temperature proles:
These are independent of the charring speed, and also of the cladding. If the cladding stays on the slabs longer, then the temperature
has more time to penetrate to the inside. This is why the penetration depths of the temperature are somewhat higher directly behind
reproof gypsum board cladding.
In comparison to temperature proles in some publications, these values are on the safe side.
Strength:
The structural behaviour and the thermal inuences and effects are too complex to be able to describe them in a short paper. In this
Annex, a simplied procedure is cited, the results are calibrated with the tests and lie on the safe side. More exact verication is not
suitable for manual calculation processes.
The essential characteristic data are not available to the general public, so that competitors cannot adopt them for their products.
Load-bearing capacities of the glued layers in the range of 20 to 300 degrees:
In the tests no failure was observed with the glued joints and also no weakness in glued joints at high temperatures. The load-bearing
capacity of the glue used is thus proven.
The forces to be transferred in areas inuenced by temperature are minimal due to the reduction in material properties. The higher the
temperatures in the glue layer, the lower the forces that need to be transferred.
Structural behaviour after the re:
Even after the re is extinguished, the temperature continues to be distributed in the cross section. This goes on so long until room
temperature is reached again. This temperature ow takes place in all directions. The time of charring is therefore not necessarily the
time of the highest temperature inuence.
That is especially important with wall elements if further change of the material key values can lead to a sudden loss of stability. These
effects are taken into account with member properties (simplied procedure and also with detailed verication).
Annex A to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Annex B to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 97
ANNEX B:
DESIGN OF KLH STRUCTURES
UNDER EARTHQUAKE CONDITIONS
In almost all buildings, it is necessary to consider the threats and loads posed by an earthquake.
Depending on the location, ground plan, height, etc. of the building, the load of an earthquake may not be serious, but in these cases
it must always be possible to verify that the stresses posed by an earthquake are insubstantial.
A simple estimate or generalisation is not possible. If we look at the example of wind, an elongate building has only the end walls at risk
from wind a comparatively small area. With an earthquake, a great deal of the building is at risk because of the large ceiling mass.
That means that the wind may be more of a threat in one direction, but in the other longitudinal direction, an earthquake would be a
risk.
The decisive parameters for the effect of an earthquake on a building (next to location-specic factors like fault lines and ground com-
position) are its vibration behaviour and the building weighting factor.
The earthquake load can be simply projected according to this formula:
F
Eb
= m x S x a
g
x 2.5 / q
m weight of the member (permanent stress of the ceilings, walls and including a part of the superimposed load)
S ground parameters describes the inuence of the subsoil (max. approx. 1.4)
a
g
vibration acceleration depending on the earthquake area (e.g. in Austria, approx. 0.2 to 1.2, according to NORM B 1998-1)
2.5 constant
q building weighting factor (between 2.0 and 2.5 depending on the construction method)
Other parameters also have an inuence on the design see EN 1998-1 (signicance category, for example).
Reaction of a building to vibration inuences the extent of earthquake damage, in that very weak supporting structures hold out for
longer when vibrating, and thus alter the spectrum of plausible possibilities. However, that only applies to taller and narrower buildings.
In most practical cases, the maximum value applies (value S in table 3.2, or point 3.2 in EN 1998-1). This lies somewhere between 1.0
and 1.8, depending on the ground. Rocky, hard ground will give results under this value, and the results for soft ground will be higher.
This value or subsoil classication is normally available in ground surveys; but should this not be the case, then the values should be
assumed to be poor.
As a further consequence, the resistance to earthquake is signicantly inuenced by building weighting factor q. This factor takes the
absorbing effect (the ability to dissipate energy) of the building into account.
Rigid constructions have rather low q values, whilst more elastic constructions with exible connections have a higher q value. The
behaviour of the building is classied according to ductility (DCL low; DCM medium; DCH high ability to dissipate energy).
Wooden framework walls (where OSB panels are nailed or stapled to the beams) have a q value of between 3 and 5 (DCH). Rigid KLH
board constructions have a rather low q value if other steps are not taken to correct this.
Shear walls are the most important factor in energy dissipation, whereas roof diaphragms contribute little. However, the latter are
important, of course, for transferring horizontal stress to the wall braces.
With the walls, it is important that energy dissipation can only be applied to vertical wall joints and tension anchors that means the
parts of the building that can be xed with exible connections. The exibility of the cross layers in the board itself, and of weaker parts
of the wall with openings cut in the board is irrelevant in this respect. These distortions are more relevant to the vibration period of the
building (natural frequency).
Horizontal joints are rarely exible, because the frictional forces are mostly too high in these joints. This friction should not be assessed
in a normal design, as it cannot be certain that it will be present. In the event of an earthquake, possible frictional forces cause a higher
level of rigidity of the building, and higher stress levels as a result. For this reason, this effect has to be calculated as negative (so no
exibility in horizontal joints).
Nevertheless, frictional forces must not be considered in the transfer of earthquake loads, because it is not certain that these will be
present.
Earthquakes challenge buildings not just horizontally, but also vertically (even if this factor is not assessed). This can lead to a tipping
point in a critical situation, where the frictional force is neutralised by a vertical vibration.
When all this is taken into account, KLH buildings can be assumed to have very low q values unless areas with energy dissipation
behaviour have been expressly added to.
A q value of 1.5 is stated in the standards, which can be used for all buildings, even the more rigid ones. KLH structures, though, do
show a certain difference when compared to standard, rigid concrete structures, so a q value of between 2.0 and 2.5 seems fair.
That meets the specications of EN 1998-1, Table 8.1, where a q value of 2.0 is given for a building with use of glued shear walls and
glued shear elds.
If a building needs anchoring due to tension, then the anchor points act as absorbers, and a value of 2.5 can be taken.
The responsibility for choosing a q value always lies with the assigned engineer, and should always be cleared with the authorities or
surveyors.
In principle, one could easily try to divide the shear walls and use smaller board strips, to make the building more exible and raise its
q value. One should, however, always remember that a q value of 4 to 5 in framework walls means the destruction of such a wall in the
event of a seismic event in all probability a total write-off.
Additionally, although a higher q value reduces the stress on a framework wall, the load-bearing capacity of the wall is also reduced.
That is especially true when partitioning plywood shear walls. The q value is raised a little (in a test in Japan, a reverse calculation was
made for the q value, from approx. 3.0 to 3.5, with a large number of wall joints and exible anchors), but the joints severely compromi-
se the load-bearing capacity. As with the framework walls, the building will probably be useless after an earthquake, as the nails and
screws will no longer support any weight.
In general terms, a building in an earthquake zone should be designed to withstand strong earthquakes, which means that a planner
should get in touch with an experienced structural engineer at an early stage.
Along with various other coefcients, the most signicant contributor to the stress of an earthquake is the weight of the ooring and
roong. Weight per se need not be a disadvantage if used in the right places in reinforcing structures. The right amount of weight can
also help to reduce stress on bracings.
However, when there is no longer any tension to anchor, the q value is reduced it is a rather complicated relationship.
A low q value (in buildings without anchors, or with only a few), however, means that if the shear walls have been designed correctly, it
is highly likely that the load-bearing frame will still be fully useable after an earthquake.
Buildings which collapse into stiff blocks, but which have exible attachments to the foundations are also ideal.
In the event of an earthquake, the energy is released in smaller blocks. A collapse of the building (structural stability) is very unlikely,
because a horizontal impulse from a given direction is always followed by another from another direction, and the building would need
some time to collapse. The exceptions, of course, are buildings with very high or narrow bracing systems (towers or reinforcement
cores).
If the KLH building method has been followed correctly, with whole shear walls (with cut out openings), low q values are not an obstac-
le to much higher load bearings. This can result in a building with high dissipative properties being nancially disadvantageous (harder
to build), in addition to the disadvantage that the building would probably be a write-off after an earthquake.
Version 01/2013 98
Annex B to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Annex B to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 99
In the left bearing structure, there are much higher abutment loads at all wall ends (and with them, higher stress on the walls). The
stresses on the divided structure are nearly three times as high. Additionally, there is high tension at all wall ends, not just at the bridge
with the concrete, but on all oors (in spite of the extra burden of the ceilings). On the structure depicted on the right, on the other hand,
there is only a little tension at the outer wall ends, which is probably even compensated by the adjoining wall in the other direction.
With regard to the q value, this means that despite a potentially higher q value in the divided house, the advantages of the whole
shear walls cannot be compensated. This does not even reect the advantage of the much simpler construction with fewer anchor
points (also between oors). The disadvantage of the higher level of wooden off-cuts (in the window area) can normally be compensated
by the possibility of using thinner boards.
The graphic shows the reinforcing ground oor walls of an 8-storey building. In the construction on the left, the walls are divided up near
the windows (with laminated lintels). In the building on the right, the window openings are made out of solid boards. In both buildings,
the stress is the same.
ANNEX C:
STRUCTURAL MODELLING FOR
LOAD-BEARING STRUCTURES OF KLH MEMBERS
Calculating KLH structures requires forming a sufciently precise model. Exact calculations of a member are only possible in very rare
cases, let alone if the construction material is wood.
Only homogenous materials such as steel can be calculated exactly. Therefore, the m value = 1 can be applied in such cases.
In case of wooden members, the m value is 1.25 (for glued laminated timber). This value contains a number of uncertainties with
regard to modelling. The level of precision in calculating cross-laminated timber (KLH) is similar. KLH-specic inaccuracies are included
in the calculations stated in the ETA.
Nevertheless, any structural calculation of a load-bearing system must be based on a simulation that should be as precise as possible.
The higher the level of usage of the material key data, the higher the precision of the simulation must be. In individual cases, the
responsible engineer must make an educated estimate on this issue. These estimates are still necessary, because there is still no
software for an assessment of the load-bearing behaviour of KLH slabs that would be sufciently comprehensive.
The calculation can be structured in 2 areas. On the one hand, it is about the determination of section forces. In principle, these are
the impacts on the member in different positions of the load-bearing structure. On the other hand, the member resistance values must
be determined.
The impact values must be smaller than the resistance values.
In order to determine the member resistance values, the ETA contains comprehensive data in order to be able and assess the material
cross-laminated timber from an economic perspective. Since the scope of application of the slabs has become very diverse, so has the
set of data, especially because re verications also have to be made in addition to the standard measurements.
Therefore, an IT software has been developed (the KLHdesigner) in order to identify the member resistance values based on the
ETA.
In this software, the member resistance values are stated with regard to load-bearing safety (for normal cases and re events).
In addition, information is given on the member resistance values regarding stiffness. With this information, the section forces and the
impacts on the members can be calculated with conventional computer programmes or even by manual calculations.
In principle, the types of load-bearing systems are very diverse. The calculation of the section forces is not material-dependant and
must be carried out by an educated expert (structural engineer). Software that would cover all measurements regarding the members
would certainly be desirable, but no such solution is in sight yet. Still, to facilitate this task, the KLHdesigner has been developed. It
makes verications for KLH structures a whole lot easier.
The input parameters for the different IT solutions for deformation and section forces calculations are used in this programme. Every
software solution has certain characteristics. They will be explained in the following.
The below remarks should be used as to assist in the estimation of the effects of various calculation models.
Exact simulation as general 3-dimensional plate structures (combined structural behaviour of planes and slabs)
This simulation is hardly ever really required. In most cases, a structural system can be divided in the two main stress types. In the
course of verication at the cross section, the stresses must, however, be superpositioned if this is essential.
Some FE programmes provide access to the individual parameters of the coefcient matrix. These parameters are usually determined
automatically. However, there is no software yet that would carry this out on the basis of the KLH ETA. This would be welcome, but is
not the case yet.
A manual input of the individual parameters of the coefcient matrix is often still possible, or the input can be saved and retrieved
again later.
With this data, the deformation behaviour of a 3-dimensionally stressed slab section can be calculated relatively precisely. Since the
deformations are close to reality, the section forces will also be relatively precise (they are extrapolated from expansion and bending
values). This is, however, on the condition that the support conditions and coupling to other members are recorded precisely (with
non-linear elds).
The local effects for single loads (point support, additional bending stress, load introduction for planes, etc.) can, however, not be taken
into account this way. These effects can only be taken into account by way of manual verications.
Version 01/2013 100
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 101
In addition, there are most often discontinued areas at local load introduction points, where the stated section forces are not neces-
sarily in line with reality.
Such FE models should only be prepared and assessed by well-trained persons with the appropriate background knowledge. Not eve-
rything developed by an FE programme is actually relevant!
Advantage: Relatively exact determination of deformations and section forces.
Disadvantage of this option: High input effort, expert knowledge required for the interpretation of results.
Calculation for stresses normal to the surface structural behaviour of slabs
In most cases, the calculation is performed in strip form. Area calculations are only required for special problem settings.
The difference between area calculation and line calculation as slab strips only regards the consideration of the structural behaviour of
both main load-bearing directions the process of determining the stiffness values in the relevant load-bearing direction is the same.
The torsional stiffness required for area calculations only has minor effects (and the torsional stiffness is only relevant for special
framework conditions such as two-axis cantilever slabs, etc.).
The essential difference to other materials refers to shear deformation. It can be taken into account in different ways:
Net cross sections and blurred G-modulus
This process is recommended for KLH members. The ETA is adjusted to it.
The most simple and generally valid way is the separation of the two stiffness shares. The bending stiffness is calculated with the net
cross section. The shear stiffness is calculated with the full cross section in load-bearing direction and with a blurred shear modulus.
The shear modulus depends on the structure of the slab: the larger the number of cross layers and the thicker the cross layers, the
lower the G-modulus will be. There are also dependencies regarding the relation of the thickness value of normal and cross layers.
This method also makes sense for area calculations (orthotropic slab), but it can only be used to dene the right G-modulus for one
direction. This inaccuracy, however, is not relevant.
FE programmes mostly allow the input of a reduced member thickness (orthotropic slab) in both main load-bearing directions for such
cases in order to determine the bending and shear stiffness values (internally). This means that the G-modulus actually also has to be
recalculated to this reduced member thickness.
The effort for determination must not be exaggerated, though, since the shear deformation is only about 10 to 15% of the total defor-
mation (in conventional building cases). Accordingly, the inuence of this deformation is also minor. The effects of any inaccuracies can
simply be estimated and taken into account with conservative values.
Advantage: Strip-shaped members and area-shaped members are easily calculated. The deformations and there-
fore the section forces are relatively accurate. Even vibration analyses are relatively exact on the con-
dition that the simulation of the framework conditions (support conditions, slab joints, etc.) are correct.
Disadvantage of this option: The calculation of stresses by means of currently available IT programmes is most often
inaccurate. The member verications must be completed manually. With the assistance of the KLH-
designer (design tool), however, this effort is minimised.
-method
In the -method, an I_effective is determined. In this cross-sectional value, the shear deformation share is included. This, however,
makes this value dependent on length. For various member situations, this method leads to very uneconomic solutions. For situations
with interim supports and single loads, the results are also not correct some of the stress values are calculated too low, others too
high. This makes the method uncertain. It is necessary to know exactly when and what case applies.
For an area calculation, the method is also unsuitable, because for many practical situations, the relevant length is not so easily
determined. As a consequence, conservative estimates must be made, which in turn result in uneconomic design results.
Advantage: Generally known calculation method; shear deformation for single-span girders under even load can be
calculated relatively exactly with software programmes that do not have to take shear deformations into
account (older programmes and simpler girder solutions).
Disadvantage of this option: Only relatively precise solutions for FE girders, otherwise very inaccurate and partly wrong
(uncertain results); wrong solutions for single loads and interim supports; very inaccurate for FE.
Shear analogy method
This method calculates 2 separated girders that are coupled at certain points. By way of the allocation of the Steiner share of the net
cross section and the blurred shear model to one girder and the total of the intrinsic inertia moments of the longitudinal lamellas to the
other girder, the additional stresses due to shear deformations can be determined for the individual lamellas.
This method can also be used for plane members. There are also solutions that have been developed for compound glass, for example.
In principle, this is the same problem setting (exible intermediate layers).
Advantage: Registration of the shear deformation effect and resulting additional stresses, even for stress due to
support loads in case of interim supports and due to single loads.
Disadvantage of this option: The results depend on the distribution of the coupling points. Another unfavourable factor is that the
results become too unfavourable if the distribution is narrow, and that the results will be wrong (not
within the safe side margin) if the distribution is too wide. If it is not possible to adjust the distribution
or if this distribution is not determined by production-specic conditions, then this method is not much
more accurate than the -method. Close attention must be paid to how the mathematical solution of the
recalculation from the bending and expansion values to the stress values is performed, and what key
data the results are compared to. The KLH key data are not adjusted to this method.
Calculation with conventional beam structure programmes
In principle, only the correct stiffness must be taken into account for section force calculations.
This can be achieved by converting the net inertia moment in a member with the width w = 100 cm and the relevant thickness (as
required for orthotropic slabs), or by conversion into a rectangular cross section with the member thickness of the KLH cross section
with the relevant width.
This way, good results can be achieved, even in case of manual pre-design, and conventional software programmes can be used.
In such cases, the best material to use is GL 24. This way, the E-modulus is slightly lower than admissible for KLH members. This diffe-
rence often takes a large share of the shear deformation into account already.
After all, the stresses are mostly not decisive, and they can be veried with the KLHdesigner and the calculation of the member
resistance values. Only the decisive section forces are calculated, and then the KLH slab type is selected that has a higher member
resistance than is necessary.
Advantage: Use of general beam and girder programmes, simple and fast manual calculations for pre-design pos-
sible, exact verication of the member possible by comparing resistance values.
Disadvantage of this option: The correct reading of the results requires some experience.
Calculations for stresses parallel to the plane structural behaviour of planes
In most cases, the calculation is carried out in the form of girders, i.e. the residual cross section above windows and doors is calculated
as girder xed on one side or on two sides. In many cases this will be sufcient. The verication, however, will be inaccurate and it is
necessary to know exactly where the limits of this verication method are.
For more general cases, such as planes under horizontal loads (load parallel to the wall plane), a calculation by way of FE programmes
should still be carried out. If we want to make a manual estimate of the section forces, we already need a fair amount of experience in
the calculation of such members.
Calculation as beam/girder
The stiffness values can always be calculated with the full cross section of the lamellas acting in load-bearing direction. The shear
modulus for the relevant lamella combination is issued by the KLHdesigner.
The calculation still requires a girder programme that is capable of taking shear deformation into account. The share of the shear
deformation is no longer as minor for this application (as plane or plane-like girder) as it was for slab stress situations. It is absolutely
imperative to take shear deformations into account more precisely here, because it is often even higher than the bending deformation.
Advantage: The determination of the section forces and deformations and the comparison with member resistance
values is possible fairly quickly. Even manual estimates are fairly accurate and easily performed.
Disadvantage of this option: In cases of higher degrees of usage, various structural behaviours cannot be covered sufciently pre-
cisely (e.g. support on thin wall pillars). In case of shear walls with openings, this method is possible in
order to calculate a load-bearing framework structure, but the shear deformation values must be taken
into account by the programme. Manual estimates for framework-type members (slabs with cut-out
openings) are only admissible with a great deal of experience.
Calculation as FE model
Due to the fact that many FE programmes have simple graphic input methods available, calculations as FE models are no more time-
consuming than framework calculations. The calculation with FE as orthotropic slab mirrors the section forces very precisely if the data
of the ETA are used. This is what recalculations of various tests have shown (frames, walls with openings, continuous girders, etc.) In
addition, by varying the support conditions (non-linear springs), considerably more economic member dimensions can be calculated.
The KLHdesigner for the member resistance is useful here for providing input data and for comparing section forces with member
resistance values (design/verication).
Advantage: Can be used to make very precise calculations for many practical building cases, thus allowing economic
solutions. The concurrence with tests is very high.
Disadvantage of this option: The section forces must be manually compared with the member resistance values; slightly higher
input effort. Software with graphic input environment and the possibility to calculate orthotropic slabs,
taking shear deformation into account, must be available.
Version 01/2013 102
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 103
Model formation in detail
In every calculation of structural load-bearing systems, there are certain detail areas that cannot be covered with the general mathe-
matical models for beam or plane structures.
The mathematical models often use a number of simplications that might lead to partly serious deviations from reality in case of
special applications and on a more detailed level.
This is no specic characteristic of wood construction. It also applies to steel construction, especially concrete-steel construction, and
must be taken into consideration accordingly.
Detailed points where simplied mathematical models do not apply are called discontinuity areas (D areas) or detailed areas, or, easier
to remember: double check areas (areas that require additional efforts). We can also call such areas disturbed areas, because this
is where mathematical standard models for beam or plane structures do not deliver realistic results.
In the below depiction, some of these D areas that may become relevant for KLH members, are shown:
D areas in structural slab behaviour
This procedure has taken into account the effect of single loads in a simplied way. For normal cases, the calculated stresses were
too high.
Since comparisons with competing products often include comparisons of member resistance values (equality), the KLH products gave
worse results in some cases.
Therefore, the new ETA states a method that basically provides a calculation of the slab with the net cross-sectional values and blur-
red shear moduli. The normal stresses can be determined for standard cases (uniformly distributed loads, etc.) with the resistance
moment of the net cross section. In case of single loads, the additional normal stresses can be taken into account with a correction
value.
One advantage of this method is that the determination of the stresses no longer depends on length (as is the case with the-method).
This way, even plane members can be calculated relatively realistically.
The correction value of the normal stress due to the inuence of single loads at point loads or point supports can be calculated for the
cross section width that is also used for shear verication.
The verication can be performed for both load-bearing directions.
Comparative calculations with realistic FE models (slab strips as plane) show a good analogy with the tests. In case of direct compari-
son with the results of the -method, however, certain applications yield relatively high errors (too favourable stress gures).
1 KLH slabs have a certain share of shear defor-
mation that inuences the normal stresses if expo-
sed to slab stress (load normal to the surface). In
case of evenly distributed loads (uniformly distri-
buted loads, trapezoidal loads), this inuence is so
small that it can be ignored, i.e. a single-span girder
under a uniformly distributed load can be calculated
relatively accurately with the -method.
However, if single loads are applied on the structure
or if the slabs rest on an interim support (acting like
a single load), there will be a buckle in the theoreti-
cal shear deformation line. This creates additional
normal stresses that may be decisive.
With the -method (l_effective), these effects can-
not be taken into account correctly. The results part-
ly show errors of up to 25%, which is actually too
much.
In the old KLH ETA, an adapted -method was used:
I_effective was calculated according to the theore-
tical approaches. The calculation of the resistance
moment and therefore the stresses was, howe-
ver, adapted.
Version 01/2013 104
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
The inuence of shear deformation on shear stress is minimal. In addition, the tests were analysed with the cross-sectional values of
the net cross section. It is important that the calculations t the analysis of the tests. This still takes all effects into account that are
possible and not directly taken.
For tests, for example for the old KLH ETA, the shear stresses were analysed with the full cross section, and in the ETA, the full cross
section was also stated for verication.
In principle, this procedure yielded a higher characteristic shear deformation (1.5 N/mm
2
).
In the process of the test analyses for the new ETA, the older tests were analysed once again with the net cross-sectional values, be-
cause all the other calculations are also based on the net cross-sectional values.
This has now yielded a slightly lower characteristic shear stress level (0.8 to 1.2 N/mm
2
). This does not mean that the material has got
worse or that the data in the old ETA would have been wrong. It simply depends on how the tests are analysed.
Nevertheless, one effect has resulted from the analysis of the shear tests with regard to the inuence of cross layers: in cases of single
loads in the central third of a span, the characteristic shear strength goes down. It is likely that this is to do with the fact that the normal
layers are coupled through cross layers (transfer of shear forces), and in cases of greater lengths under high theoretical shear stress,
there will be an unfavourable statistic effect.
Individual weak points can then become decisive more often than normal. If lengths are shorter and shear forces are high, the forces
can be transferred to cross layers in front of or behind these areas.
This is another detailed problem that cannot be solved with mathematical standard models for beam structures or plane structures
(= D area).
3 In case of point-supported slabs or single loads, special shear veri-
cations have to be made. The results from FE calculations partly result
in very high local shear forces. Tests, however, have shown that shear
forces may transfer to a larger width in case of slabs, i.e. verication
with the maximum shear forces from the FE model leads to uneconomic
results.
In addition, the support points and load introduction points for single
loads are most often taken into account as points. These create even
more extreme (and unrealistic) local section forces.
Even if the support points are simulated more precisely as plane contact
areas with springs, results will show local maximum values for shear
forces. Calculations that are really exact can only be carried out with
a volume model that also takes elastic-plastic transfers into account.
This effort, however, would be disproportionately high for the calcula-
tion. It would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Therefore,
verication according to the simplied standard FE calculation is the
best choice.
4 In principle, every load introduction area is a D area. The loads are
only transferred into the direction of the board layers parallel to the
loads. The intensity of the stress depends on the location of the load.
The evenness of the compression is also relevant. The breakage beha-
viour shows elastic-plastic behaviour, but caution is advised with regard
to such inuential areas, because there is an interplay with the theoreti-
cal shear stresses due to stresses acting in plane.
Linear supports also have to be measured in detail. It has to be taken
into account whether the support viewed in the cross section is even or
not. If e.g. wall elements are not supported centred on concrete bases,
this might result in eccentric support conditions and load introductions
(e.g. eccentricities in case of thinner wall members).
2 Support points (with compression normal to the grain) can, of course, also not be identied directly with a beam structure
programme. Such verication also has to be carried out manually.
D areas in structural plane behaviour
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
Version 01/2013 105
5 As regards framework corners, FE calculations in the corner areas most often yield minor shear forces. This seems conclusive if we
are aware of the underlying mathematical model.
In the corner area, however, an important load transfer takes place. The normal stresses of the horizontal layers are transferred to
the vertical layers through the contact surfaces. The stresses in the contact surfaces are complex. At present, a precise calculation is
neither possible nor useful, because the required effort would be way too high.
It is essential for the verication process that the verication of the shear forces (resulting force = shear force) at every section regards
the vertical contact surfaces between the board layers. Therefore, a framework corner also requires a superposition of verications of
both load-bearing directions. If we view the section force image from the FE calculation, this is not something we would automatically
assume.
6 In the inner corners of openings, there are also always local shear forces. These forces, however, are only to be attributed to the
calculation model. The calculation results at these inner corners do not correspond to reality and can most often be ignored. It must
be assumed in general that a joint (= shrinkage crack) appears exactly in the corner. This way, the shear force is not transferred directly
through the individual board layer, but again through the crossed contact surfaces.
In case of stresses in plane, shear forces are only to be regarded as theoretical. It is obvious that the total shear forces per section
(resulting force = shear force as in a beam structure) must be transferred at the relevant sections.
Verication at the cross section with the inuence of temperature
The distribution of the temperature in the cross section was determined with charring tests. In the EN 1995-1-2, the area at about 100
degrees is stated as signicant with regard to stiffness and load-bearing capacity. Therefore, this area was used for the analysis of the
KLH tests. The temperature curve was depicted with a bi-linear curve. The depths of elevated temperature stated in the new KLH ETA
have yielded the greatest analogy with the tests.
The depiction shows the cross section of a 5-layer, 95 mm thick
KLH slab with a 15 mm thick reproof gypsum board cladding
after 60 minutes of re exposure.
The full lines represent the measured temperatures. The interrup-
ted lines represent the mathematical model, which in this case
follows the test curve very closely.
In the model, the distance between 280 and 80 degrees is assu-
med with 15 mm. The distance between 80 and 0 degrees is assu-
med with 25 mm.
The temperature data refers to the excess temperatures, i.e.
280 degrees actually mean a measured temperature of
300 degrees including room temperature. The blue lines represent
the mean values; the red lines are the measured maximum values.
This depiction shows the test after 30 minutes of re exposure.
The temperature in the wood is still below 200 degrees, i.e. there is
still no charring. This case cannot be calculated with conventional
models, because these models only start from the charring line.
The model will yield additional safety compared to the measured
data.
Due to the special design of the reproof gypsum boards (material
and xing), the failure time is longer, and the insulation effect is
higher compared to the data in the EN 1995-1-2, which as far as I
know is based on tests with framework structures.
The depiction also shows that the temperature curve here is atter.
This means, due to the protective effect of the reproof gypsum
board, the temperature has more time to intrude the inner part of
the member.
Accordingly, the d_100 and the d_20 values are higher (25 + 25 mm
see also ETA).
100
0
100
200
300
400
15 5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
100.0 100
0
100
200
300
400
15 5 25 45 65 85
Version 01/2013 106
Annex C to the comment on the ETA- 06/0138 by J. Riebenbauer
In some publications, these temperature curves are stated with very low d_100 values of about 10 mm. These curves were probably
calculated with computer simulations, otherwise the curves would not be so regular. Whether and how the coal layers and the instatio-
nary heat ow can really be simulated exactly is something I doubt. For any normal design process, this is certainly not usable.
It is important to note that these calculated temperature curves are used for the determination of the d_0 values of some products.
This has direct inuence on the load-bearing capacity. If the d_100 value is only 10 mm, then this results in a lower reduction of the
load-bearing capacity than with a d_100 value of 15 mm (as is used for KLH).
Therefore, the results cannot automatically be compared. Generally stated stiffness and strength reductions may not be used for the
calculation of KLH structures (for KLH members, these reduction factors were extrapolated from tests; if only the calculated distance
of 10 mm was used for other products, then these values are not usable for KLH members).
The reduction curves of the EN 1995-1-2 were therefore only a means of orientation for calculating the reduction factors to design the
KLH slabs.
The procedure for the determination of the load-bearing capacities and the reduction factors as well as the analyses for simplied
design methods (e.g. d_0 method) for re events is not standardised. And if the exact background information is not known, then only
results can be compared, which would be the structural member resistance value itself. It is not permissible to perform any extrapo-
lations or to mix different data.
NOT E S
NOT E S
K L H MA S S I V H O L Z G MB H
A- 8842 Kat sch a. d. Mur 202 | Tel +43 ( 0)3588 8835 0 | Fax +43 ( 0)3588 8835 20
of f i ce@kl h. at | www. kl h. at
For l ove of nat ure.
www.pefc.at www.fsc.org