Overview of Design Issues for Tall Timber Buildings

Summary
Timber buildings, like any others, exhibit exemplary performance when materials
are used appropriately, when structural forms and construction details address
overload and serviceability requirements, and when geometry and interior lay-
outs address fire safety. Many building codes restrict timber buildings to four and
six storeys, reflecting societal consciousness of effects of conflagrations like the
Great Fire of London in 1666. However, the regulatory landscape is changing to
recognize contemporary capabilities to detect, suppress and contain fires within
buildings. This is freeing architects and engineers to fully exploit structural capa-
bilities of timber as a construction material. On the basis of the notion that tall
Ian Smith modern timber buildings means those of approximately 10 storeys to a maximum
Prof., Dr, University of New Brunswick, of about 20 storeys, this paper is a commentary on the main structural engineer-
Fredericton, Canada ing issues and how to address them systemically.
Keywords: buildings; composite-construction; design; fire; performance; timber.

Introduction and pre-American Civil War factories

Andrea Frangi
Dr, Institute of Structural Engineering,
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
Paper received: August, 23, 2007
Paper accepted: December 4, 2007
No modern buildings are constructed
entirely using a single structural mate-
rial, and therefore the term timber
buildings means those in which timber
products constitute most of the engi-
neered parts of the superstructure.
Principles involved in the design of
tall buildings are in reality general to
all large structural systems, and what is
written here is a contextual elucidation
of appropriate aspects of engineering
science. Size and shape, construction
details, geographic location, and func-
tional uses of spaces that are enclosed
all influence in-service performance
characteristics of buildings and exp-
ectations of the “quality” of that per-
formance. Therefore, when discussing
design of tall buildings, questions about
their height have to be dealt with in the
light of many architect defined vari-
ables. Building height itself does not
determine the feasibility of arriving
at acceptable engineering design solu-
tions. What is critical is that engineers
should be able to anticipate control-
ling factors in given design situations.
This paper aims to provide advice in
that respect.
Modern timber buildings up to six sto-
reys and about 20 m high are fairly rou-
tinely constructed using light-weight
construction systems, with multiple
occupancy residential or office build-
ings being most common.1 Normally
there is much structural redundancy
and systems have ability to redistribute
internal forces if sub-systems fail. Con-
struction of ancient pagodas in Asia,2
in New England up to nine storeys
high and filled with vibrating heavy
machinery,3 proves that constructing
medium-rise timber buildings for non-
residential purposes is also quite prac-
tical. The Sakyamuni Pagoda in China
was built in 1056 and has a height of
67,13 m. Carpentry joints and gravity-
induced friction have kept timber pa-
godas intact throughout many seismic
events. Invention of cast iron led to de-
clining interest in using timber for edi-
fices reaching towards the sky, but this
was not for structural reasons. Rather,
it was because cast iron pagodas were
more capable of surviving lightning
fires and arson, and did not rot.4
Here the term tall timber building is
taken to mean anything taller than has
been constructed according to “mod-
ern” requirements, the tallest of which
are about nine storeys.3 Therefore what
is presented here applies to buildings
that are at least 10 storeys tall, with the
practical upper limit being about 20
storeys.5 Rightly of course, given that
it has never been done under mod-
ern regulatory regimes, architects and
structural engineers might query why
anybody should believe that it is possi-
ble to build modern tall buildings from
timber? The simplest empirical justi-
fication is that nature intends timber
to function as tall structures (Fig. 1).
Many Redwood trees (Sequoia sem-
pervirens) in California are estimated
to be 3000 years old and still growing
vigorously and are as tall as an average
26-storeyed building. According to the
“Guinness Book of World Records”

Structural Engineering International 2/2008 Science and Technology 141

x306.indd 141 4/18/08 1:13:33 PM


General Sherman tree
Sakyamuni Pagoda (>3000 years old)
20 storey (circa 1000 years old)
∼60− 70 m 67 m
10 storey
∼30 − 35 m
Fig. 1: Comparison of the heights of some man-made and natural structures
a fallen eucalyptus at Watts River, Vic-
toria, Australia was over 150 m long
and the tallest specimen know to have
been seen by human eyes. Few man-
made materials permit creation of
cantilevers up to 150 m long. Discus-
sion and commentary below considers
what have been the technical barriers
against construction of tall modern
timber buildings, and strategies for
overcoming them.
Timber as a Construction
Material
Fire Performance and Evolution of
Building Codes
As anybody who has built a campfire
knows, dead twigs and small branches
burn intensely. Similarly, small-sized
exposed dry timber structural members
will burn through quickly in building
fires, reflecting that they easily ignite
and will not develop a protective layer
of charcoal before their mechanical
capabilities are overwhelmed by grav-
ity forces. Undeniably, timber build-
ings with unprotected light-frame
structural systems are highly vulner-
able to fires not quickly detected
and suppressed. On the other hand,
large dimension timbers do not burn
through easily in building fires even
if they are very dry, because the mate-
rial itself is a poor conductor of heat
and protective charcoal layers form on
members.6 Charcoal is an effective inh-
ibitor of the possibility of rapid grav-
ity-induced collapses of systems that
rely on large dimension timbers for
strength. Metal parts and fasteners are
commonly used to make inter-member
connections, and such metal parts are
potentially highly vulnerable links in
completed structural systems. Exposed
metal parts soften during fires and lose
strength and deform excessively to
cause systemic collapses.7 Therefore it
is necessary to insulate metal parts in
timber buildings, by embedding them
inside members or covering otherwise
exposed surfaces with incombustible
142 Science and Technology
x306.indd 142
Great Pyramid
Tallest tree ever
discovered
of Khufu at Giza
150 m
144 m
83,4 m
material.8 The main reason why timber
buildings have burnt down in the past
was absence of effective fire compart-
ments, fire detection and suppression
and fire-fighting technologies. Histori-
cal accidental catastrophic events like
The Great Fire of London in 1666 and
The Boston Fire in 1872 occurred be-
cause the technology “of the day” was
incapable of preventing growth and
spread of initially small fires. Many
still applicable building regulations
limiting the heights of timber buildings
to about four storeys have their origin
in the great urban fires of the old and
new worlds of European settlement.9
Modern structural systems that are
properly protected by the massiveness
of timbers themselves, or protected by
non-combustible surfacing materials,
are able to contain fires and do not
burn down before fire fighters arrive or
while they are fighting fires.7 This com-
bined with modern technologies for
detection and suppression of building
fires suggest that there is no continuing
reason to prescriptively limit permis-
sible heights of timber buildings.
During the last several decades fire
safety has attracted the interest of engi-
neers and scientists all over the world.
Fire safety science still includes tradi-
tional fire testing, but is now mainly
focused on fundamental research into
fire action. Technical measures for
fire protection have been developed
and human behaviour in the case of
a fire has been studied.10 On the basis
of such fundamental knowledge, new
performance-based regulatory para-
digms are beginning to emerge that
recognize that ensuring satisfactory
fire performance of buildings is not
achievable through discriminatory
blanket prohibitions of certain materi-
als from certain uses.
Performance-based building design
codes, of which there are now sever-
al examples,11 apply to all aspects of
building design. Embodied principles,
objectives and absolute performance-
related limitations are independent
of the construction materials that are
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
to be used. Thus, designers potentially
have much more liberalized ability
than before to create solutions specific
to client needs and specific situations,
and exploit capabilities of materials
like timber.
Mechanical Properties and
Capabilities
Superficially, mechanical properties of
timber might be thought of as being
low relative to those of other common
construction materials. In absolute
terms, the tensile strengths of sawn
timbers are in the order of 10–20% of
the yield strengths of commonly avail-
able grades of structural steel, while in
compression sawn timbers are about
5–10% as strong as steel. However, the
strengths of some modern wood-based
composites are commonly at least twice
those of sawn timber. Compared with
plain concrete, sawn timber is vastly
superior in tension and has about half
of the compressive strength of normal
weight concrete. In terms of stiffness,
steels are in the order of 10 to 20 times
stiffer than sawn timber, and plain con-
crete is about three to five times stiffer
than sawn timber. If instead of absolute
values comparisons are normalised on
the basis of mass per unit volume, very
different conclusions emerge regard-
ing the relative mechanical efficiencies
of timber, steel and concrete. Timber
has about 1/5th the density of concrete
and about 1/16th the density of steel.
Comparisons just made assume that
sawn timbers are preferentially loaded
parallel to the grain direction, which is
how trees primarily use the material.
The qualification also applies to some
modern wood-based composites, but
not to others.12 Although sawn timbers
are normally only readily available
with rectangular and other simple, but
structurally inefficient cross-section
geometries, some modern wood-based
composites can be extruded to form
highly structural efficient sectional geo-
metries.13 Overall, timber and wood-
based composites can satisfy bulk filler
and compression functions like con-
crete, or general structural functions
like steel.
Durability
In inappropriate service environments,
timber will deteriorate, and in fact, na-
ture designed it to decay once trees
die to return minerals and nutrients to
the ground. Scientifically the rule to be
followed is that timbers are unlikely to
decay if the ambient drying rate exce-
eds the ambient wetting rate. Insects
4/18/08 1:13:39 PM
 can be much more insidious enemies
of timber structures than fungi. Ter-
mites in particular are often very diffi-
cult to combat in warmer climates, and
they are a spreading menace in some
colder regions because people have
transported them to artificially heat-
ed microclimates in which they can
thrive.14 Effective strategies against
insect damage exist, with artificial poi-
soning of timber using various natural
and synthetic chemicals being an eff-
ective solution, but one often deemed
environmentally unacceptable as a
broadband strategy.15 Physical separa-
tion of insects from timber as a food
source is the best strategy.
Overall, challenges in using timber in
construction are complex, but no more
so than those associated with using
other materials.
Experience with Low Timber
Buildings
Many structural forms have been ad-
opted for construction of low- and
medium-rise timber buildings to achieve
sufficient stiffness, strength, stability
and robustness for particular purposes.
The systems preferred and construc-
tion details vary regionally, but those
illustrated in Fig. 2 are most common.
Ultimate Limiting States
Designing against the possibility of
ultimate limiting states like over-
turning and collapse is in principle
no different from designing build-
ings constructed primarily from other
materials. It is incumbent to consider
some material behavioural charac-
teristics specific to timber, but those
are well understood and are account-
ed for within contemporary timber
Traditional buildings
many types of occupancies
composite walls
walls resist all types of loads
timber upper floors
timber roof framing
2 or 3 storeys most typical
5 or 6 storeys examples exist
constructed based on experience
Fig. 2: Common structural forms for low- and medium-rise timber buildings
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
x306.indd 143
design codes.16 Excluding the question
of poor workmanship, which is a prob-
lem that can be the “Achilles heel” of
low-rise construction,17 the ability of
even non-engineered timber buildings
to withstand exceptional loading events
like earthquakes and cyclones has been
exemplary.18 Good field experience is
commonly attributed to the quite high
absolute strength of timber; ability of
members, sub-systems and mechanical
connections to deform substantially
prior to failure; and inherent robust-
ness of forms. In the case of seismic
events, good historical performance
is also attributed to the high strength-
to-mass ratio of timber, which means
that inertial forces tend to be relatively
small. Inherent high variability in prop-
erties of timber facilitates load-sharing
and creation of alternative load paths
in sub-systems and complete systems
following a localized failure.19 Timber
itself embodies only very modest mate-
rial damping, but completed buildings
can exhibit quite substantial modal
damping ratios. Mainly, the extra
damping comes from unrecoverable
deformations and frictional damping.
Like low buildings, tall buildings should
exploit the inherent high strength-to-
mass ratio of timber; have ability to
develop alternative load paths and
propagation of damage; and absorb
energy associated with inertial forces
when close to collapse. Need for tight
quality control of component manu-
facture and site construction is appar-
ent from post-mortem observation of
why buildings collapsed,17 implying
preference for pre-fabricated systems.
Because components will undoubtedly
be engineered and factory made, it can
be expected that mechanical respons-
es of components will be less vari-
able than for low buildings. Therefore
Modern heavy-frame buildings
mainly non-residential occupancies
heavy timber columns and beams
diagonal bracing added to resist lateral forces
connections designed for axial and shear forces
timber joisted or composite upper floors
timber or composite roof, typically joisted
more than 2 storeys is unusual
engineering design is always mandatory
deliberate counteracting methods of
enhancing redistribution of forces if
sub-systems fail will be required to
avoid occurrence of disproportionate
damage to systems. Protecting against
disproportionate structural damage
can be integrated with strategies for
the containment of fires, which also
should not be allowed to cause dispro-
portionate damage.
Serviceability Limiting States
Even for low-rise structures, designing
against the possibility of infringing var-
ious limiting states applicable to their
everyday serviceability is a crucial fac-
tor. Ensuring everyday functionality
and occupant comfort can be anticipa-
ted to be at least as important for taller
timber buildings. The most notorious
structural serviceability problems in
timber buildings are excessive vibra-
tion motions caused by activities of
people and operation of equipment.20
Normally this reflects that either local-
ly or globally the ratios of modal stiff-
ness to modal mass are insufficiently
high, or deformation constraints inad-
equate. Usually, effective solutions in-
volve combinations of high-frequency
tuning and proper selection of con-
struction details. In low-rise timber
construction vibration serviceability
problems usually manifest themselves
as vertical motions, but in medium-rise
buildings both vertical and horizontal
motions can be problematic. The taller
timber buildings are, the more diffi-
cult it is to avoid problematic system
motions and vibration transmissions
between occupancies. Many simplified
design practices have been proposed
aimed at controlling magnitudes of
vibration motions through indirect
means, such as limiting static deflec-
tions under a concentrated load,21 but
Modern platform buildings
mainly residential occupancies
all timber or composite walls
walls resist all types of loads
timber joisted, timber plate or composite floors
storeys are like stacked shoeboxes tied together
more than 4 storeys is unusual
6 storey examples exist in several countries
engineering design is not always mandatory
Science and Technology 143
4/18/08 1:13:40 PM
 such approaches are highly unreliable
and should be avoided.
In attempting to create structural eff-
iciencies that minimize material utili-
zation, it is very common to construct
timber buildings with contiguous light-
weight wall and floor sub-systems.
Those sub-systems are panelized and
often span beyond rooms, and beyond
single occupancies, creating ideal trans-
mission paths for vibration and sound
waves. Best solutions are those that
combine isolation of propagation sites
from receptor sites with bulking of
the mass at selected locations. In low-
rise construction this is normally not
done, but in medium-rise construction
it is quite usual. Tall timber buildings
must be designed against the potential
for vibration and sound transmission,
with emphasis on isolation; provision
of damping; and appropriate place-
ment of relatively massive elements
as key components of good solution
strategies.
Some Fundamental Precepts
for Design of Tall Buildings
Structural Safety
Risks of death that society accepts are
estimated to be 0,14 × 10–6 and 4 × 10–6
per annum for structural building fail-
Inertial
forces
Low-rise platform construction
storeys are like stacked shoeboxes
key structural issue is resisting horizontal shear flows
horizontal motions are usually not problematic
modest overturning forces to be resisted between layers
shallow foundations are adequate
mode shapes are quite simple
structural detailing requirements are not similar for
wind and seismic design
Fig. 3: Effect of building height and shape on internal force flows: seismic actions
144 Science and Technology
x306.indd 144
ures and building fires, respectively.22 Optimization
Although it is impossible to actually
assure through engineering design that There is often great attention paid to
risk levels are as intended, it is per- the notion of structural optimization
fectly feasible to outline suitable de- both in the literature,24 and in design
sign objectives. One design objective practice. Practically this takes the form
for tall timber buildings should be that of minimizing the mass of construction
they will not sustain any damage to the materials used. However, optimizing
primary structural system as a result of the mass of timber buildings on the
design load scenarios specified in app- basis of strength and static deforma-
licable loading codes. Acceptance of tion responses can cause a number of
this implies that tall buildings should undesirable performance character-
be designed to recover all deforma- istics. Therefore optimization should
tions in the primary structural system not simply be the selection of a sys-
when temporally varying external tem that minimizes the mass (or the
forces other than floor loads are re- summed monetary cost) of alternative
moved. The influence of different solution strategies, wherein the global
measures and different types of con- answer is arrived at through optimized
struction (combustible/incombustible) structural design of the components.
on fire safety in the Cantons of Berne Optimization in the design of tall tim-
and Zurich, Switzerland has been ana- ber buildings should be based on mul-
lysed.23 A clear influence of building tiple objectives related to: ultimate
use, building age and type of construc- and serviceability structural limiting
tion on risk was found. Buildings with states; and non-structural performance
incombustible construction had lower characteristics. Figure 3 compares
fire damage than buildings with a the internal force flows expected to
combustible construction. However, be of primary importance in low-rise
for modern timber buildings there was versus tall-and-slender timber build-
no difference in fire damage compared ings based on assumption of so-called
to incombustible construction. Human platform-type construction and seis-
behaviour in fire is very important and mic ground shaking. In modern low
strongly influences risk, and design construction, the key internal actions
for that is arguably more important are horizontal forces between layers
than accounting for combustibility of through the depth of the system. In
materials. tall slender buildings, the important
Reaction
forces
Tall and slender platform construction
storeys are like stacked shoeboxes
key structural issues are:
- resisting horizontal shear flows, AND
- resisting uplift in and compression in walls
horizontal and possibly vertical motions problematic
overturning forces are large
shallow foundations are not adequate
mode shapes can be complex
structural detailing not dissimilar for wind and seismic design
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
4/18/08 1:13:41 PM
 internal actions are horizontal shear-
ing forces and axial forces due to grav-
ity and bending. Even without specific
definition of variables or calculations,
it is apparent that in design of slender
buildings controlling horizontal drift
will be problematic. Particularly in
order to control the amplitude of hori-
zontal drift, it can be anticipated that it
will often be impossible even for tim-
ber buildings in the region of eight or
ten stories high to employ all timber
solutions if the building geometry is
slender. Buildings taller than is usual
will need to be composite structures,5
with timber substructures arranged
around a structural steel or reinforced
concrete core that adds stiffness for
global control of drift.
Performance-Based Design
Twinned development of performance-
based building design codes and the
emergency of fire engineering as a
mature applied science have liter-
ally transformed the boundaries of
what architects and engineers can
do.25 Even so, it is unrealistic to sup-
pose that regulatory authorities will
do other than take a step by step ap-
proach to liberalization of what they
allow to be constructed from timber.
Also, it can be expected that owners
will take a cautious approach. This
strongly suggests the need to design
tall buildings in such a way that there is
well-defined compartmentalization of
buildings with separating barriers be-
Secondary structural system:
preventing disproportionate collapse
fire protected
Thermal jacket
Subspace:
Cladding single occupancy
isolated from neigbours
internal isolations possible
modular prefab timber
internally subdivided
Composite isolating layers for:
fire separation
vibration & sound separation
structural damping
Fig. 4: Conceptual high-performance composite-construction system for tall buildings with timber as the bulk material
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
x306.indd 145
tween subspaces that are effective fire
barriers. The choice and definition of
the structural concept should be inte-
grated with design of building services
(e.g. heating, ventilation, air condition-
ing), in order to correctly guarantee in-
tegrity of the fire compartments. In tall
slender buildings robust outcomes can
only be provided if fire compartments
are small, or if secondary structural
systems are provided that give tempo-
rary support to other portions of build-
ings if particular fire compartments
are damaged. Secondary structural
systems need to be capable of resisting
full effects of permanent gravity forces
and some proportion of normal tempo-
rally variable design forces (e.g. snow,
wind actions). In the modern context,
building codes also require effective
countermeasures against dispropor-
tionate damage resulting from natural
structural actions like earthquakes,
accidental events like gas explosions,
and deliberate acts of destruction like
bombs.26 If well designed, the means of
providing systems with structural ro-
bustness will serve multiple purposes
and not require duplication.
Importance of Geometry,
Structural Form and Systemic
Thinking
Geometry and Structural Form
As indicated in the introduction, dis-
cussion of the heights of buildings is
Isolated
timber
compartments
RC core
Superstructure to
foundation isolation layer
an imprecise delineation of whether
or not it is difficult to design and con-
struct them. Adding the dimensions of
geometric proportioning and structur-
al form to delineations enables some
generalized statements about design
complexity. The simplest buildings to
design and construct are those hav-
ing squat shapes (i.e. modest ratio of
height to footprint dimensions) and
containing many internal divisions.
This is true irrespective of the abso-
lute height.
Irrespective of the absolute dimen-
sions, geometric shape and the struc-
tural form involved, what is pervasive
in the design of tall timber buildings
is the need to think in terms of how
the system will behave in service. Why
systemic approaches are necessary is
illustrated by a simple strength-related
example concerning mechanical con-
nections. Suppose that connections
have an elasto-plastic response in
which yielding of metal parts, like fas-
teners, results in large ductility prior to
sudden loss of strength. Standard prac-
tice in such instances is to base design
capacity on the yield load attained at
a deformation level dY.27 However, be-
cause of compatibility constraints, the
system will fail if the connection de-
forms an amount dC that is less than dY.
In that circumstance designing connec-
tions based on the yield capacity would
mean they were too weak and flexible
and promote instability in the system.
Such situations occur, for example,
Roof
RC core containing service shafts
Foundation
Science and Technology 145
4/18/08 1:13:42 PM
 around perimeters of shear walls. It
is to be expected that in large and tall
buildings there will be many local-
ized “geometric fit” constraints and
“flexible-to-rigid component” interfac-
es limiting the ability of connections to
deform substantially. Consequently, it is
not reliable to think of post-yield-point
inelastic deformations in connections
as a source of energy dissipation when
tall buildings must resist seismic act-
ions. More generally, systemic thinking
involves issues such as identification
of possible mechanisms for global in-
stability; optimization of flow paths
for transfer of forces; identification of
possible serviceability problems; and
optimization of fire performance.
Symbiotic Solutions
Systemic thinking is the only way to
achieve symbiotic solutions for multi-
ple objectives. As an illustration, Fig. 4
shows a hypothetical systemic design
solution for tall timber buildings. The
specifics of the scheme shown are not
important but examination of the dia-
gram will reveal that it is an attempt
to implement a total solution of vari-
ous factors discussed here. Many other
possible approaches exist and what is
most appropriate can vary greatly bet-
ween design projects.
There are very compelling fracture
mechanics-based reasons why design
of large-building systems should be
based on elastic analyses. Irrespective
of the size of an object, once initiated
damage will continue to propagate if
the increase in the work to the sys-
tem since the last increment of dam-
age exceeds the sum of energy losses
in the system caused by the last in-
crement of damage.12,26 In general it
should not be expected that keeping
the structural response of tall build-
ings in the elastic range (and design-
ing them on the assumption of a brittle
response) will grossly increase costs
of construction. The reason is that the
dominant factors affecting the sizing
of structural members will be service-
ability considerations. Building on
lessons from performance of low-rise
timber construction, avoiding the need
to employ massive amounts of timber
to overcome serviceability problems
in tall buildings is a matter of proper
selection of a structural form and con-
struction details. There is nothing more
certain than that those designs, where
choice of structural form and construc-
tion details are uncoupled steps in the
design process, will be highly likely to
146 Science and Technology
x306.indd 146
Micro-reinforced concrete floating floor
Sand layer
Structural timber (plate or joisted)
Plasterboard on resilient supports
Fig. 5: High-performance timber floor lay-up
result in buildings with disappointing
performance characteristics.
Returning to the conceptual-construction
system illustrated in Fig. 4, it will be
noticed that strong emphasis is placed
on vibration and sound separation
and provision of structural damping.
Creation of effective multi-functional
“isolating layers” within buildings is
not easy and much attention has to be
paid to the proper selection of struc-
tural details. The detailing need not
however be complex. To illustrate, the
simple floor design in Fig. 5 is multi-
functional. Such floors do not need to
be expensive to construct and can be
expected to perform well in fire, damp-
en annoying floor vibrations, provide
substantial acoustic and thermal insu-
lation, and contribute to overall system
damping needed to attenuate horizon-
tal drift during normal or extreme
winds or seismic events.
It is undeniable that much of what
is suggested here as being necessary
parts of systemic design of tall timber
buildings is far from being common
practices for the design of lower rise
timber buildings. However, if the issues
that require the emphasis in design are
different, employing different design
approaches is part and parcel of good
engineering practice.
Conclusion
It has been widely regarded as ac-
ceptable to design timber buildings of
moderate height, based on simplified
structural engineering methods. How-
ever, to create high-performance build-
ings in the order of 10–20 storeys high,
it will be essential to employ the most
advanced analysis and design tech-
niques. Striving for this will undoubt-
edly require elevation of the technical
level of the timber engineering disci-
pline in general, and benefits can be
expected to accrue to other types of
structures where timber is the primary
construction material.
Acknowledgements
Professor Ario Ceccotti, the director of the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
per la valorizzazione del legno e delle specie
arboree, Italia; Professor Mario Fontana of the
Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zu-
rich, Switzerland; and their staff are thanked
for engaging in a number of reflective conver-
sations that helped shape this paper.
References
[1] Mettem CJ, Bainbridge RJ, Pitts GC, Enjily
V. Timber frame construction for medium-rise
buildings. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 1998; 1(3):
253–262.
[2] Masaru A, Mamoru K. Structural develop-
ment of the Japanese timber pagoda. Struct. Eng.
Int. 1995; 5(4): 241–243.
[3] Langenbach R. Resisting Earth’s Forces: Typo-
logies of Timber Buildings in History, Struct.
Eng. lnt. 2008; 18(2): 137–140.
[4] Fux X, Guo D, Liu X, Pan G, Qian Y, Sun D,
Steinhardt N.S. (Editor). Chinese Architecture.
Yale University Press: New Haven, xii, 2002; 366.
[5] Smith I. Reaching for the limits with timber
construction. Proceedings of IABSE Symposium
Responding to Tomorrow’s Challenges in Struc-
tural Engineering, Budapest, September 13–15,
2006, 384–385.
[6] Frangi A, Fontana M. Charring rates and tem-
perature profiles of wood sections. Fire Mater.
2003; 27(2): 91–102.
[7] Buchanan AH. Structural Design for Fire
Safety. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2001; 444.
[8] Erchinger C, Frangi A, Mischler A. Fire be-
haviour of multiple shear steel-to-timber con-
nections with dowels. Proceedings of the 38th
CIB-W18 Meeting. University of Karlsruhe:
Germany, 2005.
[9] Canadian Wood Council. Fire Safety Design
in Buildings. Canadian Wood Council: Ottawa,
358; 1996.
[10] Fontana M. Fires in buildings. Proceedings
IABSE Symposium on “Structures and Extreme
Events”, Lisbon, September 14–17, 2005.
[11] Foliente GC. Developments in performance-
based building codes and standards. For. Prod. J.
2000; 50(7/8): 12–21.
[12] Smith I, Snow M, Asiz A, Vasic S. Failure
mechanisms in wood-based materials: discrete,
continuum, and hybrid finite element represen-
tations. A review. Holzforschung 2007; 61(4):
352–359.
[13] Bengtsson M, Le Baillif M, Oksman K.
Extrusion and mechanical properties of highly
filled cellulose fibre–polypropylene composites.
Comp. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2007; 38(8):
1922–1931.
4/18/08 1:13:45 PM
 [14] Urban Entomology Program. How Far
North? Termite–Newsletter, No. 6. University of
Toronto: Toronto, April 1991.
[15] Guo A, Cooper PA, Ung T. Fixation and
leaching characteristics of acid copper chromate
(ACC) compared to other chromium based pre-
servatives. For. Prod. J. 2005; 55(7/8): 72–75.
[16] Thelandersson S, Larsen HJ (eds). Timber
Engineering. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester,
2003; 446.
[17] Foliente GC. Design of timber structures
subjected to extreme loads. Prog. Struct. Eng.
Mater. 1998; 1(3): 236–244.
[18] Ellingwood B. Probability-based LRFD for
engineered wood construction. Struct. Saf. 1997;
19(1): 53–65.
Creating and Renewing Urban Structures
Tall Buildings, Bridges and Infrastructure
IABSE
Congress
Chicago, USA
Sept. 17-19, 2008
Organised by the USA Group of IABSE
Structural Engineering International 2/2008
x306.indd 147
[19] Smith I, Landis E, Gong M. Fracture and
Fatigue in Wood. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester,
2003; 242.
[20] Smith I. Vibration of timber floors – service-
ability aspects. Timber Engineering. John Wiley
& Sons: Chichester, 2003; 241–266.
[21] Hu L-J, Chui YH, Onysko DM. Vibration
serviceability of timber floors in residential con-
struction. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2001; 3(3):
228–237.
[22] Reid SG. Acceptable risk criteria. Prog.
Struct. Eng. Mater. 2000; 2(2): 254–262.
[23] Fontana M. Fire safety concepts of buildings.
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
on Advanced Timber and Timber-Composite
Co-sponsors:
ASCE/SEI - CTBUH - SEAOI
Elements for Buildings, COST Action E-29, Flor-
ence, October 27–29, 2004.
[24] Venkayya VB. Structural optimization: a re-
view and some recommendations. Int. J. Numer.
Methods. Eng. 2005; 13(2): 203–228.
[25] Frangi A, Fontana M. Fire performance
based design of multi-storey timber build-
ings. Proceedings of the IABSE Symposium on
“Structures and Extreme Events’’, Lisbon, Sep-
tember 14–17, 2005.
[26] Smith JW. Structural robustness analysis
and the fast fracture analogy. Struct. Eng. Int.
2006; 16(2): 118–223.
[27] Smith I, Foliente G. LRFD of timber joints:
international practice and future direction.
J. Struct. Eng. 2002; 128(1): 48–59.
Science and Technology 147
4/18/08 1:13:46 PM