Can Wood Become an Alternative Material for Tall

Building Construction?
Jamshid Mohammadi, M.ASCE1; and Lei Ling2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: With a growing interest in using timber as a structural material for tall buildings in response to trends in sustainable design, several
timber buildings between 7 and 10 stories have been built in Europe and Australia. However, in the United States, timber buildings are still
limited to 6 or fewer stories. The availability of glued laminated timber enables the fabrication of structural members with cross-section sizes
and shapes capable of supporting heavy loads. Although this may be appealing for use in tall buildings, from a structural engineering point of
view, there are also other timber properties that may be attractive to architectural designers as well. Among these properties, timber has favor-
able performance in fire (at least for solid sections). These properties may offer some advantages for wood to become a candidate for tall build-
ing construction as an alternative material. This paper presents an overview of available literature on the use of timber as a potential material
for use in tall buildings. Specific properties of wood in offering a renewable material with a favorable strength-to-density ratio and fire-
resistance rating are discussed. Recent and ongoing fire tests and the significance of adhesive effects in laminated timber members are
reviewed. Fire safety and structural design challenges in making wood an alternative material in tall building construction are also pre-
sented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000334. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
With the growing interest in green materials for construction and
reduction of carbon footprints in urban development, building mate-
rials are becoming a major candidate for sustainability and zero-
waste-usage practices (following factories and automobiles).
Among various construction materials, timber has the potential for
use in green design and in meeting the objective of zero-waste-
usage practices. In building construction, timber has been primarily
used in low-rise buildings and single family dwellings. However,
because of a favorable strength-to-density ratio, timber has attracted
the attention of design engineers and architects as a potential mate-
rial that can also be considered in high-rise building applications. A
favorable strength-to-density ratio, versatility, and flexibility, as
needed in architectural design, may make timber a compatible ma-
terial with concrete and steel in certain tall building applications,
especially because the procedures for manufacturing concrete and
steel generate large amounts of greenhouse gases that leaves a
much larger carbon footprint than does timber.
Timber has another architectural property: resistance to fire.
Contrary to popular belief, timber may actually perform relatively
well in resisting fire and providing a fire endurance rating that is de-
sirable in architectural design. Used in some low-rise building
applications in the past, heavy timber has already demonstrated
favorable fire-resistance capabilities. Laminated wood members,
with capabilities for use in fabricating large members, have the
same integrity as that of sawn wood. They are perceived to have
1
Professor, Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering,
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616 (corresponding
author). E-mail: mohammadi@iit.edu
2
Graduate Student, Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, IL 60616.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 20, 2016; approved
on March 22, 2017; published online on June 14, 2017. Discussion period
open until November 14, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
similar fire performance to heavy timber. The fire endurance capa-
bility of laminated and sawn timber, when used in design properly,
is believed to be the same because of the formation of a charring
layer on the surface of the timber member that protects a structural
member for an acceptable length of time (Ling 2014). Solid wood
can only be sawn into column or beam shapes; therefore, the cross-
section dimensions are limited by the maximum available size of
timber in nature. With the development of glued laminated prod-
ucts, structural members can be fabricated in the form of panels
with a variety of cross-section sizes and shapes, making them more
versatile for use as main structural components for tall buildings for
which there is a demand for large members.
As well-understood, tall buildings require relatively stringent
requirements for structural and architectural design. Specifically, in
terms of fire endurance and emergency evacuation, tall buildings
demand more rigorous performance than low-rise or mid-rise build-
ings. To accommodate a growing interest in using timber as a mate-
rial of choice in high-rise buildings, adequate information on timber
performance in meeting structural and fire protection design
requirements will need to be compiled. Furthermore, it is important
to determine whether there are any gaps in knowledge about fire-
endurance properties of timber and to identify what needs to be
done to fill any gap(s).
Overview of Timber Used in Tall Buildings
Definitions
Structural wood refers to the type used as the main material in the
framing of a structure. Depending on the type of application, vari-
ous terms are used within the industry to refer to the type and/or
shape of the structural member used. In this section, an overview of
these terms is presented to specifically distinguish differences
between what is termed as heavy timber construction and dimension
lumber. Although at times the two terms are used interchangeably,
when it comes to structural design there are distinct differences in
terms of (1) the way these types of lumber are made, (2) cross-

© ASCE 04017014-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014

 sectional sizes, and (3) physical properties, especially fire endur-
ance. Dimension lumber refers to structural members with standard
cross-sectional sizes of pieces of wood that are cut and roughly
sawn to specific lengths, such as, 2.4, 3.0, or 3.8 m (8, 10, or 12 ft).
For dimension lumber, the material thickness measures between
51 mm (2 in.) and 102 mm (4 in.). For joists and beams, the nominal
cross-sectional width is usually 51 mm (2 in.) with the actual width
38 mm (1.5 in.). The nominal cross-section depth runs at 152,
203, and 254 mm (6, 8, and 10 in.) with the actual cross-section
depth approximately19 mm (0.75 in.) less than the nominal
value. Structural members with cross-section sizes of 127 mm
(5 in.)
127 mm (5 in.) or larger are classified as timber. Thus,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the same grain and glued together; the lamination and members
joined together will provide the Glulam member with adequate
strength that is one directional. Hence, Glulam members are mainly
used as joists and beams. Furthermore, the one-directional strength
of Glulam is very different from that of a CLT member (panel) in
which the strength is two directional (Mohammad et al. 2012).
What Constitutes a Tall Building in
Timber Construction?
In wood construction, the term tall building has been used in the lit-
erature in reference to buildings with 8 or more stories in height.

for posts and columns, a member with a nominal cross-section However, with more development in technologies in fabricating
of 102 mm (4 in.)
102 mm (4 in.), an actual cross-section of large built-up sections, it is conceivable that in the future more tim-
89 mm (3.5 in.)
89 mm (3.5 in.), is under the dimension lum- ber buildings with more stories will be built. Therefore, the 8-story
ber category. However, a column with a nominal size of 152 mm limit, as a designation for tall timber buildings, will probably be
(6 in.)
52 mm (6 in.), an actual cross-section size of 140 mm changed. On the basis of our review of literature, Table 1 presents
(5.5 in.)
140 mm (5.5 in.), is under the timber classification. the definitions for low-, mid-, and high-rise (or tall) buildings in
When heavy loads require using large cross sections, two or timber construction.
more of these members will need to be used together. Heavy
timber construction also refers to large structural members— Examples of Current Tall Buildings in Timber
with cross-section dimensions of 127 mm (5 in.)
127 mm (5 in.) or
Built in London in 2009, the first tall timber structure is perhaps
larger—roughly sawn as one piece. Examples of this type of struc-
the 9-story Stadthaus Building. Since it was erected, tall-timber-
tural members are typically found in older buildings. One-piece col-
building ideas began to grow. The LCT One Building, which is 8
umn sizes as large as 394 mm (15.5 in.)
394 mm (15.5 in.) in cross
stories tall, and the Forte Building, which is 10 stories tall (both
sections made of heavy timber are not uncommon. In terms of fire
constructed in Australia), are other examples of tall wood struc-
durability, as described later in this paper under the “Fire-Resistance
tures. The Stadthaus Building was designed by architect Waugh
of Timber Members,” the charring rate commonly used in design
Thistleton and the structural engineering firm of Techniker.
standards is the same for all types of structural wood, whether heavy
Using CLT panels, a cellular structure was formed to resist grav-
timber or dimension wood. However, massive heavy timber mem-
ity and lateral loads. With practically no columns used, a rela-
bers may offer a more favorable charring rate because of their large
tively clear opening space for the occupants was accommodated.
size and the formation of a charred outer layer. Furthermore, timber
The building has a one-hour fire-resistance rating from the potential
members with higher densities exhibit a relatively low charring rate.
charring effect of the timber and a one-half hour fire-resistance rat-
These characteristics may result in additional improvements in the
ing from plasterboards that meet the local fire code requirement
fire durability of heavy timber.
(TRADA 2009).
In addition to heavy timber and dimension wood, there are also
The LCT One Building, built in 2012 and designed by architect
two other types of timber structural members: (1) cross-laminated
Hermann Kaufmann, uses a vertical concrete core and precast con-
timber and (2) glued laminated timber. Although generally mis-
crete slab on timber beams and glulam columns. The fire resistance
taken for one another, these types of timber present differences
in design accommodates for approximately 38 mm (1.5 in.) per
in terms of both fabrication and strength. Cross-laminated timber
hour charring rate, which can be significant in terms of the time rat-
(CLT) panels were introduced in the early 1990s in Austria and
ing, especially for thick structural members. The hybrid concrete-
Germany. CLT panels are made by gluing timber planks together,
timber floor system concept was reported to have passed 2 h of fire
through cross-wise angles, to neighboring layers by applying high
test (Tahan 2013). The favorable fire rating was reported as having
compression. Because of the orthogonal arrangement of the timber
a positive effect on decisions to attempt design of tall buildings, up
layers, a CLT panel demonstrates good dimensional stability similar
to 30 stories, using timber or a hybrid of timber and other materials.
to a concrete slab and wall. According to the FPInnovations and
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (SOM) presented an example
Binational Software Lumber Council (BSLC), a CLT panel has a
of a hybrid concrete-timber application in a tall-building-concept
favorable stiffness, and hence, it can be built in large dimensions—
design (SOM 2013). Called the prototypical building of Dewitt-
up to 18.3 m (60 ft) long and 0.5 m (20 in.) thick (FPInnovations
Chestnut Apartments, the concept design is 42 stories high and is an
and BSLC 2013). CLT panels are ideal for load bearing or shear
example of a tall building that can be constructed in urban areas
walls and floor panels in tall buildings. Since becoming available,
such as Chicago. The design was applied to an existing concrete
CLT products have changed the notion that timber can only be used
benchmark for comparison. The concrete benchmark building (the
in low-rise buildings as simple framing systems. Glued laminated
Dewitt-Chestnut Apartments), a 120-m (395-ft) tall building was
timber, commonly known as Glulam, is typically manufactured
designed by SOM and built in 1965. The concept design used tim-
from lumber with 51 mm of nominal thickness (2 in.), an actual
ber for floors, columns, and shear walls with timber members
thickness of 38 mm (1.5 in.). Examples of such sections are 51 mm
(2 in.)
152 (6 in.) and 51 mm (2 in.)
203 mm (8 in.). However,
Table 1. Definition of Timber Building Types by Story Number
some Glulam members have been manufactured with 25-mm (1-in.)
thick boards with an actual thickness of 19 mm (0.75 in.). Examples Definition Number of stories
of such boards include 25 mm (1 in.)
152 mm (8 in.) and 25 mm
Low-rise ≤4
(1 in.)
203 mm (8 in.). It is noteworthy that a Glulam member is
Mid-rise 5–7
different from a CLT member in the way the lamination of the layers
High-rise ≥8
is formed. In a Glulam structural member, timber layers are cut in

© ASCE 04017014-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014

 connected to concrete joints through reinforcement. Spandrel
beams were used to resist torsion and transfer of bending moments
to the columns. Other features of this concept design included using
(1) timber floor panels; (2) reinforced-concrete spandrel beams and
timber columns to resist the gravity load; and (3) timber shear walls
(located at the central core extended to the perimeter of the build-
ing) to work with the concrete link beams and form a vertical canti-
lever system to resist lateral loads. The building was designed with
an all-concrete system from the foundation to Level 2 with the
entire structure made up of approximately 70% timber and 30%
concrete. Using a performance-based design philosophy, the SOM
project demonstrated that this prototypical building is, indeed, tech-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nically achievable.
Another example of a tall timber building was reported by Green
and Karsh (2012). The system uses a “strong column–weak beam”
design concept with timber panels providing for vertical members,
shear walls, and floor slabs. The beams were made of wide-flange
ductile steel beams bolted to the mass timber panels to provide for
the ductility needed in the system for performance and resistance
against lateral loads. Four possible alternatives to building tall tim-
ber buildings were also discussed with different story levels
depending on whether only a core or a core with other components
(including interior shear walls and perimeter moment frame sys-
tems) were used. The potential number of stories can be 12, 20, or
30, depending on the type and combination of the resisting system
adopted, with a cost comparable to that of a concrete building with a
similar configuration (for 12- and 20-story buildings).
Perhaps one of the major reasons timber is not perceived as an
alternative material for tall buildings is the common belief that (1)
timber members can only be reasonably designed to support small
loads, and (2) the material does not possess adequate ductility to
withstand lateral loads. However, there has been at least one study
showing a totally different outcome, as described to conclude this
section.
To demonstrate the capability of wood frame systems in earth-
quake-load environments, the NEESWood Capstone Test project
was conducted in 2009 through the sponsorship of the National
Science Foundation (NSF). As reported by Van de Lindt et al.
(2010), the building, seven stories tall with a 12 m (40 ft)
18.3 m
(60 ft) area, was made up of a steel moment frame in the first story
and wood frames in the second to seventh levels. The building was
subjected to 180% of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Although no
major failure was observed in the structure, slight crack formations
in drywall appeared and a minimal withdrawal of fasteners (nails)
were noticed after the test.
Fire Resistance of Timber Members
According to common belief, timber is more susceptible to fire
because it can contribute to fire loads when ignited, but because
they do not act as combustible materials, steel and concrete are con-
sidered to outperform timber during fire. However, research has
shown that this may not be necessary true. In the following section,
an overview of fire-resisting capabilities of timber is covered.
Combustible Nature of Timber
Following the International Code Council (ICC) and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), timber is presumably a combusti-
ble material, and as such, it is not recommended for use as a primary
structural material in tall buildings (ICC 2011; NFPA 2011b).
However, because building codes require the same performance
and safety for all buildings regardless of material types, tall timber
© ASCE 04017014-3
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014
towers can be conceivably considered in design as long as the
design follows the procedures of a performance-based design phi-
losophy, which requires fire safety considerations (NFPA 2011b).
Along this line, it is thus important to discuss the fire durability
properties of timber and incorporate information on the time
delay rating of it in any performance-based design approach. In
terms of fire endurance, the property of wood in promoting fire
safety in a single-family dwelling has been confirmed by research
and experience. It has been shown that vulnerability to fire has lit-
tle to do with the combustibility of the timber used in a building’s
construction [Canadian Wood Council (CWC) (CWC 2000); Hall
(2013)]. Timber members can resist fire inherently as long as they
are designed to have a sufficient “thickness sacrifice” for pyroly-
sis process (charring). In particular, heavy or mass timber mem-
bers possess this charring capability and can be designed without
any fire-protective covers. The fire-protection capabilities of tim-
ber members can be determined using either the direct exposure
or membrane-protection method (Ling 2014).
Direct Exposure Method
When wood is ignited, the pyrolysis process starts, and the char will
be formed on the surface of the timber to consume energy. During
this charring process, the outermost timber layer starts losing
strength. In fact, as the temperature on the surface reaches 300°C
(572°F), the member strength drops to 0, generating a complete
char (Schaffer 1984). In the case of mass laminated timber, usually
members have a relatively large size (compared to the typical fram-
ing members used in houses). The outer layers generate a thick coat
of char to insulate the inner remaining wood to sustain loads contin-
ually. According to the American Forest & Paper Association
(AF&PA), knowing the charring rate of timber, one can calculate
the remaining section of members after a certain length of time has
elapsed. The fire-resistance capability and rating can then be deter-
mined (AF&PA 2005).
The calculation of exposure timber is used widely in national
design specification (NDS) method (AF&PA 2005). In this method,
a nominal charring rate is commonly suggested as b n equal to
38 mm/h (1.5 in./h) for sawn and glued laminated timber. The effec-
tive charring rate (in./h) can be estimated using the equation b eff ¼
1:2 b n =t0:187 with t being time and using the nominal charring rate
in (in./h). Because the method being used in NDS to calculate the
charring rate is a general equation for all species of wood, the esti-
mation may vary depending on the type of wood that has been
exposed to fire. Experimental results have shown that the density of
wood significantly affects the charring rate. Njankouo et al. (2004)
conducted a study on 10 species of wood (8 hardwoods, 2 soft-
woods) and found that hardwoods with densities ranging from
692 kg/m3 (43.2 lb/ft3) to 1,060 kg/m3 (66.2 lb/ft3) have a charring
rate from only 22 mm/h (0.85 in./h) to 35 mm/h (1.37 in./h), which
is clearly lower than the nominal charring rate of 38 mm/h (1.5 in./h).
According to the Standards Australia (SA) 1720.4 (SA 2006), char-
ring rate can simply be obtained on the basis of wood density as
follows:
 2
280
b ¼ 0:4 þ
r
where b = notational charring rate (millimeters/minute); and r =
timber density at a moisture content of 12% (kilograms/cubic
meter).
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Membrane Protection
This method uses protective membranes, generally gypsum board,
to cover the external surface of the structural members, leaving
them to gain an increase in their fire-resistance ability. White
(2009) indicated that a single layer of 16 mm (5/8 in.) Type X gyp-
sum board has an average 30-min- long fire-resistance rating.
According to the American Wood Council (AWC), for a double
layer of Type X gypsum board, at least 60 min can be added to the
fire-resistance rating of unprotected wood. By adding an appropri-
ately designed protective membrane to an unprotected structural
element, a desired fire-resistance rating for the system (i.e., a combi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nation of the structural wood element and the protective membrane)
can be achieved (AWC 2010). On the basis of the bilinear model
adopted by European Committee for Standardization (CEN), EN
1995-1-2 (CEN 2004), the initially protected surface can be used to
calculate the charring rate after the protective membrane or the char
layer falls off. For unprotected members exposed to ISO-fire
(one-dimensional charring rate), it has a value of about 38 mm/h
(1.5 in./h) charring rate. When the protected member has a mem-
brane fall off, the charring rate nearly doubles the initial charring
rate. This is because by time the membrane falls off the temperature
has already reached a high level such that any additional gain in fire
endurance will be in addition to that the member already offers.
Once the charring depth reaches 25 mm (1 in.), with a relatively
large thickness to protect the inner wood the charring rate drops
back to the initial charring rate at the start of the fire.
Recent Fire Tests
The standard methods of fire tests for building construction and
materials per ASTM E 119–11a were reported by Rizzo and
Menchetti (2012). The study reports on a fire test of a CLT and gyp-
sum board wall assembly. The study was conducted for the
American Wood Council to evaluate the fire performance of CLT
panels with protective membrane when exposed to standard fire.
The CLT wall used in the study was made up of two 5-ply CLT pan-
els, each approximately 175-mm (6-7/8-in.) thick, with a single
layer of 16 mm (5/8 in.) thick Type X gypsum board attached on
each side of the CLT panel. The CLT wall was subjected to a maxi-
mum 389 kN (87 kips) load during the fire test. The result of the test
showed that the test specimen could withstand fire exposure for a
period of 3 h, 5 min, and 57 s before failure. During the test, the tem-
perature on the unexposed surface of the CLT wall (above the gyp-
sum board) remained almost the same.
Another CLT panel fire test was reported by the National
Research Council (NRC) of Canada. In this test, 8 full-scale experi-
ments (3 wall and 5 floor members) were exposed to standard ULC
S101 fire (Underwriters Laboratory of Canada, Standard Methods
of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials).
Some panels were unprotected and directly exposed to fire, while
others were covered by Type X gypsum board (NRC 2012).
Aguanno (2013) also reported on fire tests on eight CLT floor pan-
els. The results were then used in a series of analytical models for
predicting the performance of CLT floor panels when exposed to
fire or external loads.
Frangi et al. (2008) reported on a full-scale fire test on a 3-story
CLT timber building in Tsukuba, Japan. With an area of approxi-
mately 7 m (23 ft)
7 m (23 ft) and a height of 10 m (32.8 ft), the
building consisted of 85-mm (3 3/8-in.) thick CLT panels as a struc-
tural wall component and 142-mm (5-5/8-in.) thick CLT panels as
floor members. The protection for wall members was provided by a
12-mm (1/2-in.) standard gypsum board and a 12-mm (1/2-in.) fire-
proof gypsum board, with 27 mm (1 in.) of mineral wool insulation
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014
between the CLT panel and the wall board. The ceilings were pro-
tected by a 12-mm (1/2-in.) fireproof gypsum board with 27 mm
(1 in.) mineral wool insulation. A total fire load of 790 MJ/m2
(69,560 Btu/ft2) was applied to duplicate a real residential fire situa-
tion. This was a 1-h fire test, within which the flashover occurred
after approximately 40 min. After approximately 55 min, the fire in-
tensity declined, and the fire was extinguished manually after
60 min into the test. The test results showed that the solid mass tim-
ber structures have good performance in fire, with no temperature
increases measured and no smoke observed on the upper story.
Furthermore, the charring depth was small, varying between 5 mm
(3/16 in.) and 10 mm (3/8 in.).
Significance of Wood Properties on Fire Performance
of Timber Members
As it is known, the moisture content and density affect the fire per-
formance of solid sawn timber. While the moisture content
improves the fire performance, it may reduce the capacity of the
member. For glued laminated timber, such as CLT panels, the adhe-
sive performance is also an important property to consider. There
are two types of adhesives commonly used in CLT panels: (1) the
melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) based adhesive; and (2) the
polyurethane (PU) based adhesive. Both compounds provide satis-
factory performance in normal temperatures. However, with the
presence of heat from fire, the performances of the two types are dif-
ferent. Experimental results have shown that when MUF-based
adhesives are used, the CLT panels perform similar to homogene-
ous timber panels (Frangi et al. 2009). The charring rate reported
was at 0.6 mm/min (1.42 in./h) comparable with 0.65 mm/min
(1.54 in./h) of solid sawn timber, which was adopted by EN 1995-
1-2 (CEN 2004), and the nominal charring rate of 0.64 mm/min
(1.5 in./h) recognized by the NDS (AF&PA 2005). When the PU-
based adhesive was used in the experiments, the charring rate
increased significantly; however, it was not constant during fire dura-
tion. At high temperatures, heat delamination is also possible.
Treatment for Wood Members
The fire retardant treatment (FRT) is widely applied to decorative
wood used in interior walls, hallways, or stairways. The FRT delays
ignition, reduces the heat release rate and flammability, and slows
the spread of flames when wood is exposed to fire. The FRT is gen-
erally believed to result in reducing the mechanical properties of
wood and exposing metal fasteners to corrosion. Therefore, it is
rarely used in structural members made of heavy timber. However,
Tondi et al. (2012) indicated that the tannin-boron impregnation so-
lution not only increased the mechanical properties of scots pine
and European beech by 10–30%, but also reduces the flammability
and ember time while lengthening the ignition time. This is another
area where the state-of-the-knowledge on structural wood might
benefit from additional tests and further investigations.
Current Challenges in Using Wood in Tall Buildings
Experimental Studies
The literature on the application of timber in tall buildings is rather
scarce and certainly not to the dimensions of data available for steel
and concrete systems. Although a few timber towers have already
been built, with 8, 9, or 10 stories, with the exception of the
NEESWood Capstone Test (Van de Lindt et al. 2010), very limited
experimental data on full-scale models are available. On the subject
04017014-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 of wood joints, the performance of CLT-panel connections is
available in some publications [e.g., in the CLT Handbook,
FPInnovations and BSLC (2013)]. However, such tests are only
limited to simple connections (e.g., panel to panel) used in low-rise
or mid-rise buildings. To promote the idea of using timber in tall
construction, perhaps more data on performances of wood frame
systems and their connections, especially in seismic-load environ-
ments, may be necessary.
Fire-Resistance Issues
According to the 2012 International Building Code by the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
International Code Council (ICC), buildings over 11 stories (with-
out automatic sprinkler systems) need to have a 3-h fire-resistance
rating (ICC 2011). This requirement is 4 h when based on the
NFPA 5000 (NFPA 2011a). These ratings were for noncombustible
materials. When a new fire-resistance rating for timber is devel-
oped, one must take into account the fact that timber is mostly con-
sidered to be a combustible material. Furthermore, the fire and fuel
load effects are also critical and need to be considered.
The fire-resistance requirement for timber members is limited to
2 h (for small or medium cross-section members) in the design
method of the NDS. New adjustment factors for the allowable
design stress for section reduction (because of fire) will need to be
developed to meet the 3-h and 4-h fire rating required by the ICC
and NFPA, respectively. It is noteworthy that the currently available
fire-test results related to this issue are limited and only cover mem-
bers with small cross sections. Furthermore, these tests were usually
designed for approximately 1h of burning, and hence, they may not
offer much insight regarding the code-required 3-h endurance. In
addition, most such tests are under relatively small loads, but for a
timber column, for example, the applied load is much higher. Thus,
adjustment factors must be considered to apply the results of avail-
able tests to full-scale members or new tests on larger scales speci-
mens will need to be conducted.
In another issue, it is noteworthy that most reported fire tests
were designed for limited time duration with manually extinguished
fire. In the most appropriate process, any full-scale fire tests initiated
must continue without being manually extinguished. This continued
burn may provide valuable information on whether large-scale tim-
ber members can be self-extinguishable by the formation of the
char to isolate further combustion. If self-extinguishing can be real-
ized, a major finding regarding timber is achieved, and the current
label as a combustible material (used in regulations) may be further
challenged (Ling 2014).
Fire tests on timber joints have also been reported on a very
limited basis. In some tests, metal plates have been used as fasten-
ers. This is an unfavorable design arrangement for fire tests
because metal will lose strength quickly when subjected to high
temperatures. Because of the current application of CLT panels,
concealed panel-to-panel connection systems became popular,
which are different from the traditional beam-to-column connec-
tions. Other types, such as timber-concrete joint connections have
also been proposed by SOM (2013) and in Green and Karsh
(2012); however, the performance of these other joints will need
to be verified in fire performance tests and/or through computer
simulation studies (Ling 2014).
Demand for Large Cross Sections for Columns
Currently, the largest sawn timber size available in NDS (AF&PA
2005) is 610 mm (24 in.)
610 mm (24 in.), while the largest glued
laminated timber is 1,524 mm (60 in.)
311 mm (12 1/4 in.).
Obviously, these sizes are not suitable to be used as columns to
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014
resist a 3- or 4-h fire-resistance rating with large axial loads. Thus,
to design a column with a large axial load, one alternative would be
to use built-up glued laminated timber sections. The current techni-
cal challenge to this practice is that if the laminated timber is applied
in too many plank layers, the integrity, stability, or reliability of the
member may be affected because of the demand for more adhesive
(Ling 2014).
Adhesive Effect
As mentioned herein, the PU-based adhesive has a high probability
to trigger delamination when a CLT panel is subjected to fire. To
maximize the fire performance of timber assemblies (such as those
made up of multiple relatively thick layers of laminated timber),
some type of industrialization process needs to be developed for the
application of the adhesive to reduce the potential for delamination,
which significantly reduces fire resistance and shortened the rating
hour. Currently, the CLT Handbook (FPInnovations and BSLC
2013) included the delamination effect in design methods.
However, the NDS (AF&PA 2005) did not include any such consid-
eration in design recommendations. If only the inherent charring
rate is considered, but not the potential delamination effect, the
result obtained will not reflect the real fire-resistance hour.
Significance of Charring
In both the NDS specifications (AF&PA 2005) and the CLT
Handbook (FPInnovations and BSLC 2013), the nominal charring
rate suggested was b n of 1.5 in./h; presumably, this value can be
applied to all types of wood species. As expected, a heavier timber
with higher density has a slower charring rate. Thus, it is imperative
to use a variable charring rate that is most representative of the type
of timber. In a more appropriate approach, a list of charring rates
corresponding to different wood species needs to be provided to
architects and design engineers in an effort to offer more flexibility
in the selection of a suitable fire-resisting value in tall building
applications.
Exterior Fire Exposure and Structurally
Significant Fire
In NFPA 80 A (NFPA 2011b), special requirements for buildings
with combustible exterior walls were prescribed. These require-
ments were primarily based on timber frame systems. However,
insufficient data are available to demonstrate how an exterior timber
structural wall actually performs in fire. Perhaps more tests will be
needed along this line to provide data on how and for how long exte-
rior walls endure fire. According to NFPA 557 (NFPA 2012), struc-
turally significant fires are those that are intense enough (in size) to
impose threats to timber structural components of a building.
Whether this definition can be applied to any type of element,
including those made of CLT panels, is subject to debate. As timber
becomes popular in taller constructions by using CLT panels of dif-
ferent cross-section configurations, certain clarifications or modifi-
cations will perhaps need to be considered in the documentation.
Durability
Compared with sawn timber, CLT panels may have a shorter serv-
ice life because of issues with the adhesive limited shelf life.
According to technical information from KLH UK (2013), the life
span of a CLT panel (such as provided by KLH UK) is
04017014-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 approximately 60 years. Considering the service life of most ordi- Table 2. Summary of Additional Data Needed
nary buildings, this life span seems to pose no problem with durabil-
Design and/or performance
ity. However, for a tall building, the life span is expected to be lon- issue Data needed
ger. In glued laminated timber members the deterioration of the
adhesive is expected to take place approximately 50 or 60 years af- Limited experimental studies Small-scale tests and full-size connection
ter the application—and this may not adequately respond to the tests
demand for a longer service life in tall buildings. Because the adhe- Low-rise buildings based on Fire-resistance ratings and calculations
sive performance is critical for the integrity of glued laminated tim- fire design and fire tests for mass timber; fire tests and fire
ber members, more durability tests will need to be conducted to modeling for high-rises
make sure the adhesive can maintain the expected performance for Demand for large sections New and enhanced technologies for
a long time period. for columns fabricating large cross sections with glued
Splitting occurs in sawn wood structural members, especially at laminated timber
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

connections. The significance of a split and whether or not it may
cause failure depends on the type of separation that can occur
between the wood fibers. Three types of splits are recognized and
discussed herein. These are (1) checks or seasoning checks, which
are partial depth or thickness separations of the member primarily in
the direction of the grain; (2) full depth splits, which are separations
of the member in the direction of the grain; and (3) fractures, referred
to as tension failures in ASTM D143 (ASTM 2004), which are sepa-
rations perpendicular to the direction of the grain. If a split does not
propagate to become a long split, the durability is not affected signif-
icantly. For some CLT panel connections, Mohammad et al. (2012)
indicated an increase in splitting resistance caused by the cross-lami-
nation, which develops a two-way action effect in the panel. This
effect is attributed to favorable in-plane and out-of-plane strength
and stiffness properties in both directions and is believed to be analo-
gous to the two-way action in a reinforced-concrete slab system.
However, further research will need to be performed to investigate
the cracking of large glued-laminated-wood members, or CLT pan-
els, in particular in their connections, to provide more data on dura-
bility against potential for splitting and split propagation.
Overcapacity Issue
To provide 3- or 4-h fire resistance, a member will need to be built
with a relatively large cross section to sacrifice the thickness to fire,
so that it can maintain the ability to safely resist the applied load.
This may cause an overcapacity issue in design. Furthermore, tim-
ber members with large cross-sectional areas may reduce the
strength-to-volume ratio, reduce usable areas, increase the total
weight of the building, and add to transportation energy consump-
tion and cost. For the purpose of reducing member size when it is
designed for fire, a high-performance protective membrane may
need to be developed to offer the fire resistance and mechanical
strength needed in tall building applications. Richardson and
Cornelissen (1987) indicated that coating can improve the fire-
resistance ratings of wood building members. In fact, it was
shown that the char formation can be reduced by as much as 70%
(first 30 min exposed to a standard fire). However, currently coat-
ing is not accepted by most codes as a method to improve the fire
performance of wood products. Additional studies will need to be
conducted to investigate how intumescent or fire-retardant coat-
ings improve fire performance of glued laminated timber during
lengthy exposure to fire, and whether they will improve the dura-
bility of large-timber built-up sections with a favorable strength-
to-volume ratio.
Gap Analysis
Table 2 presents a summary of the areas where additional studies
are needed to fill the gap in information in making wood an
Adhesive effect Adhesives used in laminated timber to
reduce potential delamination
Charring rate of different Development of charring-rate list for
species different species of wood
Exterior-wall fire exposure Tests to further determine how exterior
walls perform in actual fires
Durability Durability tests of laminated timber for
long service lives and resistance to
splitting
Overcapacity issue Information on suitable structural
members with favorable strength-to-vol-
ume ratio with enhanced fire endurance
using proper protective coating
alternative material in tall building applications. Additional infor-
mation on areas where further data are needed can also be found in
the literature. The Timber Tower Research Project (SOM 2013) and
The Case for Tall Wood Buildings study (Green and Karsh 2012)
are the leading publications on the tall-timber-tower concept. These
studies also provide recommendations on the need for additional
studies. In a somewhat parallel study entitled Fire Safety
Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings (Gerard et al. 2013), a literature
review and gap analysis were presented highlighting fire-safety
challenges in using wood for tall buildings. The analysis was very
comprehensive and entailed information on the gap in the knowl-
edge and areas where additional studies and/or tests are needed to
overcome these challenges. Broad categories of issues related to fire
dynamics, economics, environment, and society were also covered.
Conclusions
This paper presents an overview of available studies on timber
structural and fire-endurance properties. The use of timber as an al-
ternative material for tall building construction is discussed. The pa-
per also covers areas where additional data are needed to overcome
challenges in using timber in tall building applications. The follow-
ing are the main conclusions:
1. Timber possesses certain unique properties and may have
potential for use in tall buildings as the primary structural mate-
rial. However, in tall building applications, there are many
challenges to make the material appealing to building owners,
engineers, and architects. Among these is the perception of the
public that timber is more suitable for use in single-family and
low-rise buildings. However, recent studies and limited tests
have shown that this belief is unwarranted.
2. Among various timber properties, the strength and fire durabil-
ity are those that will need to be further investigated to provide
data that would support the use of timber in tall building
construction.

© ASCE 04017014-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014

 3. The strength requirements for tall timber buildings have been
demonstrated through innovative design by fabricating load-
bearing walls along with columns using CLT panels.
4. The fire-resistance capability of timber has been documented to
a certain extent. Specifically, this property is attributed to char-
ring of the outside layer and protecting the wood inside. This
property is believed to provide a favorable fire rating for tim-
ber. However, additional tests are needed to develop data for
high-rise buildings on the basis of fire ratings of various wood
species and the performance of adhesives in CLT panels when
exposed to high temperatures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
AF&PA (American Forest & Paper Association, Inc.) (2005). National
design specification (NDS) for wood construction, Washington, DC.
Aguanno, M. (2013). “Fire resistance tests on cross-laminated timber floor
panels: An experimental and numerical analysis.” Master thesis,
Carleton Univ., Ottawa, ON, Canada.
ASTM. (2004). “Standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber.
D-143-94. Vol. 04.10 on Wood.” Annual book of ASTM standards,
West Conshohocken, PA.
AWC (American Wood Council). (2010). Design for code acceptance:
Component additive method (CAM) for calculating and demonstrating
assembly fire endurance, Madison, WI.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures—Part 1-2: General–Structural fire design.”
EN 1995-1-2, Brussels, Belgium.
CWC (Canadian Wood Council). (2000). “Fire resistance and sound trans-
mission in wood-frame residential buildings.” International Building
Series No. 3, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
FPInnovations and BSLC (FPInnovations and Binational Software Lumber
Council). (2013). CLT handbook, U.S. Ed., Quebec.
Frangi, A., Bochicchio, G., Ceccotti Cnr-Ivalsa, A., and Lauriola, P. M. (2008).
“Natural full-scale fire test on a 3 storey XLam timber building.” Proc, 10th
World Conf. on Timber Engineering, Curran, Red Hook, NY, 528–535.
Frangi, A., Fontana, M., Hugi, E., and Jübstl, R. (2009). “Experimental
analysis of cross-laminated timber panels in fire.” Fire Saf. J., 44(8),
1078–1087.
Gerard, R., Barber, D., and Wolski, A. (2013). Fire safety challenges of tall
wood buildings, Fire Protection Research Foundation, Quincy, MA.
Green, C. M., and Karsh, J. E. (2012). The case for tall wood buildings, mgb
Architecture þ Design, Equilibrium Consulting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Hall, R. J. (2013). High-rise building fires, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA.
ICC (International Code Council, Inc.) (2011). 2012 International building
code, Country Club Hills, IL.
KLH UK. (2013). “Technical information-technical characteristics of KLH
cross-laminated timber panels.” hhttp://www.klhuk.com/product
-/technical.aspxi (Mar. 29, 2014).
© ASCE 04017014-7
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017014
Ling, L. (2014). “An investigation into fire endurance of wood as a struc-
tural material in tall buildings.” Master thesis, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago.
Mohammad, M., Gagnon, S., Douglas, B. K., and Podesto, L. (2012).
“Introduction to cross laminated timber.” Wood Des. Focus, 22(2),
3–12.
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). (2011a). NFPA 5000:
Building construction and safety code, Quincy, MA.
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). (2011b). NFPA 80A:
Recommended practice for protection of buildings from exterior fire
exposures, Quincy, MA.
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). (2012). NFPA 557: Standard
for determination of fire loads for use in structural fire protection
design, Quincy, MA.
Njankouo, M. J., Dotreppe, J.-C., and Franssen, J.-M. (2004). Experimental
study of charring rate of tropical hardwoods, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
New York.
NRC (National Research Council of Canada). (2012). “Full-scale fire
resistance tests on cross-laminated timber.” Constr. Innovation,
17(4) hhttp://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ci-ic/article/v17n4-4i (Mar. 29,
2014).
Richardson, L. R., and Cornelissen, A. A. (1987). “Fire-resistant coatings
for roof/ceiling deck timbers.” Fire Mater., 11(4), 191–194.
Rizzo, J. M., and Menchetti, J. R. (2012). “Test rep. for American Wood
Council: Standard methods of fire tests of building construction and
materials ASTM E119–11a.” Test Rep. No. WP-1950, NGC Testing
Services, Buffalo, NY.
SA (Standards Association of Australia). (2006). “Timber structures—Part
4: Fire resistance for structural adequacy of timber members.” AS
1720.4-2006, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Schaffer, E. L. (1984). “Structural fire design: Wood.” Research Paper FPL
450, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory, Madison, WI.
SOM (Skidmore, Owens & Merrill, LLP). (2013). “Timber tower
research project.” Final Rep., Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP,
Chicago.
Tahan, N. (2013). “LCT ONE: Case study of an eight-story timber office
building.” hhttps://www.constructionspecifier.com/lct-one-a-case-study
-of-an-eight-story-wood-office-building/i (Mar. 29, 2014).
Tondi, G., Wieland, S., Wimmer, T., Thevenon, F. M., Pizzi, A., and
Petutschnigg, A. (2012). “Tannin-boron preservatives for wood build-
ings: Mechanical and fire properties.” Eur. J. Wood. Wood. Prod.,
70(5), 689–696.
TRADA. (2009). Case study: Stadthaus, 24 Murray Grove, London,
TRADA Technology Ltd., Buckinghamshire, U.K.
Van de Lindt, J. W., Pei, S., Pryor, S. E., Shimizu, H., and Isoda, H. (2010).
“Experimental seismic response of a full-scale six-story light-frame
wood building.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0000222, 1262–1272.
White, H. R. (2009). “Fire resistance of wood members with directly
applied protection.” Wood design focus, Forest Products Society,
Peachtree Corners, GA, 1–13.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.