• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

30 story wood high rise building

I think this conversation might have gotten slightly out of hand. This structure being above three storeys would fall under part 3 of the NBCC. There isn't a whole lot of more information, but as for the fire separations it wouldn't be any problem to get the necessary rating.
 
tmurray said:
I think this conversation might have gotten slightly out of hand. This structure being above three storeys would fall under part 3 of the NBCC. There isn't a whole lot of more information, but as for the fire separations it wouldn't be any problem to get the necessary rating.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm glad to see we got over the major hurdle of fire separations.

All we have to do now is solve the minor issue of that 30 storey thingy.

However, with each post that Rick Astoria makes, I feel us getting closer.

Welcome to the board, tmurray!
 
Baling wire and duct tape.....but seriously....I like the fact that people think outside the box and look for new ways to do things....do I think it will become a reality any time soon, no, but why shouldn't you be able to protect a wood structure to the point it will last at least as long as a steel one......if the intent is known and met, great...might not be cost effective for the protection, but that is not my problem...
 
texasbo said:
Well, I'm glad to see we got over the major hurdle of fire separations. All we have to do now is solve the minor issue of that 30 storey thingy.

However, with each post that Rick Astoria makes, I feel us getting closer.

Welcome to the board, tmurray!
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you're referring to the structural design.

4.3.1.1.Design Basis for Wood

1)Buildings and their structural members made of wood shall conform to CAN/CSA-O86, “Engineering Design in Wood.”

Assuming a office occupancy our specified loading would be 2.4 kPa, so depending on the actual building layout is do-able.

At this point there isn't really a question of whether or not it is possible, just if the architect can be creative enough to give the structural engineer a place to hide columns.
 
tmurray said:
I think this conversation might have gotten slightly out of hand. This structure being above three storeys would fall under part 3 of the NBCC. There isn't a whole lot of more information, but as for the fire separations it wouldn't be any problem to get the necessary rating.
Click to expand...
Well... I'm not looking at the National Building Code of Canada. Just looking at how to deal with such matter in the United States. What needs to be done and so on.
 
Here is the easiest method of getting a wood frame Type I/II structure in the U.S.

104.11 which you determine by Section 703.3 & 703.4 and by general rule to meet the non-combustibility

standard of the code to meet Table 601 and Section 602.2

This quote is from the OSSC 2007. (I know, they have an update and just have to track down the current edition.)

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction

and equipment.The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent

the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method

of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided

that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material,

design or method of construction shall be approved where the building

official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies

with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material,

method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the

equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength,

effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.

104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where necessary

to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not

specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid

research reports from approved sources.

104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of

compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence

that a material or method does not conform to the requirements

of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for

alternative materials or methods, the building official shall

have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance

to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods

shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test

standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test

methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures.

Tests shall be performed by an approved agency.

Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official

for the period required for retention of public records.

104.12 Request for ruling. ORS 455.060 provides for state rulings

on acceptable materials, designs and methods of construction.

When a ruling has been issued, ORS 455.060(4) applies.

ORS 455.060 is not a part of this code but is reproduced here for the

reader's convenience:

455.060 Rulings on acceptability of material, design or method

of construction; effect of approval.

(1) Any person who desires to use or furnish any material, design

or method of construction or installation in the state, or any building

official, may request the Director of the Department of Consumer

and Business Services to issue a ruling with respect to the

acceptability of any material, design or method of construction

about which there is a question under any provision of the state

building code. Requests shall be in writing and, if made by anyone

other than a building official, shall be made and the ruling issued

prior to the use or attempted use of such questioned material, design

or method.

(2) In making rulings, the director shall obtain the approval of the

appropriate advisory board as to technical and scientific facts and

shall consider the standards and interpretations published by the

body that promulgated any nationally recognized model code

adopted as a specialty code of this state.

(3) A copy of the ruling issued by the director shall be certified to

the person making the request. Additional copies shall be transmitted

to all building officials in the state. The director shall keep a permanent

record ofall such rulings, and'shall furnish copies thereof to

any interested person upon payment of such fees as the director

may prescribe.

(4) A building official or inspector shall approve the use of any material,

design or method of construction approved by the director

pursuant to this section if the requirements of all otherlocal ordinances

are satisfied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see this as perhaps the strongest argument that combustible structural elements are an acceptable alternate material to noncombustible structural elements.

However, I stand fast on my idea of slipping the wood out of the assembly when nobody is looking.

RickAstoria said:
Here is the easiest method of getting a wood frame Type I/II structure in the U.S.104.11 which you determine by Section 703.3 & 703.4 and by general rule to meet the non-combustibility

standard of the code to meet Table 601 and Section 602.2

This quote is from the OSSC 2007. (I know, they have an update and just have to track down the current edition.)

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction

and equipment.The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent

the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method

of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided

that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material,

design or method of construction shall be approved where the building

official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies

with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material,

method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the

equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength,

effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.

104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where necessary

to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not

specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid

research reports from approved sources.

104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of

compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence

that a material or method does not conform to the requirements

of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for

alternative materials or methods, the building official shall

have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance

to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods

shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test

standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test

methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures.

Tests shall be performed by an approved agency.

Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official

for the period required for retention of public records.

104.12 Request for ruling. ORS 455.060 provides for state rulings

on acceptable materials, designs and methods of construction.

When a ruling has been issued, ORS 455.060(4) applies.

ORS 455.060 is not a part of this code but is reproduced here for the

reader's convenience:

455.060 Rulings on acceptability of material, design or method

of construction; effect of approval.

(1) Any person who desires to use or furnish any material, design

or method of construction or installation in the state, or any building

official, may request the Director of the Department of Consumer

and Business Services to issue a ruling with respect to the

acceptability of any material, design or method of construction

about which there is a question under any provision of the state

building code. Requests shall be in writing and, if made by anyone

other than a building official, shall be made and the ruling issued

prior to the use or attempted use of such questioned material, design

or method.

(2) In making rulings, the director shall obtain the approval of the

appropriate advisory board as to technical and scientific facts and

shall consider the standards and interpretations published by the

body that promulgated any nationally recognized model code

adopted as a specialty code of this state.

(3) A copy of the ruling issued by the director shall be certified to

the person making the request. Additional copies shall be transmitted

to all building officials in the state. The director shall keep a permanent

record ofall such rulings, and'shall furnish copies thereof to

any interested person upon payment of such fees as the director

may prescribe.

(4) A building official or inspector shall approve the use of any material,

design or method of construction approved by the director

pursuant to this section if the requirements of all otherlocal ordinances

are satisfied.
Click to expand...
 
texasbo said:
. . . However, I stand fast on my idea of slipping the wood out of the assembly when nobody is looking.
Click to expand...
Once you slide the wood members out, the structural challenges could be simplified if you slid in a reinforcing cages with concrete or some steel section. Designing an economical 30 story wood framed building has other challenges besides the fire protection dilemmas.
 
Phil said:
Once you slide the wood members out, the structural challenges could be simplified if you slid in a reinforcing cages with concrete or some steel section.
Click to expand...
Well there you go; I think we just found the last piece of this puzzle. And as other members have hinted, those elements could very likely be....Tor-Eggs....

See what we can do, when we all put our minds together?
 
texasbo said:
I see this as perhaps the strongest argument that combustible structural elements are an acceptable alternate material to noncombustible structural elements. However, I stand fast on my idea of slipping the wood out of the assembly when nobody is looking.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about the sliding the wood out. Since we can have 3-hr rated assemblies that may not be structural bearing but provide the level of fire-protection necessary to protect the combustible structure that gives us the dual benefit of lightness of the wood (which reduces the weight of the building) but also the long duration and durability wood has with seismic. Steel like many metals have a fatigue factor that can be an issue if bend back and forth (which technically happens in loading condition). Wood does not have quite the same issue.

Another factor, wood is a renewable resource. I do believe we can have a structurally sound wooden "skyscraper" (30-100 stories high) that also provides a great deal of fire protection. It is a feat that needs to be done with DILIGENT care. In the past, we had issues with manufacturing engineered wooden elements large enough to support the load. Fire "proofing" (well it is resistance not true fire proof as nothing exists that is) is the easy part. We already built the "fire-proof" wooden frame houses that had brick or clay tile cladding or other such.

Other considerations needs to be looked at and addressed before we just start making these buildings.

I am not against the use of wood as a structural bearing element of skyscrapers. We have engineered wood columns as strong a steel H-sections of similar size. So it may work if we addressed all the same issues for Life/Safety and Structural.
 
Maybe the white house can push for the tax payer to give a few billion to Mr. Green to develop the idea for us here in America, and when it fails we :banghd with some congressional investigations. I'm sure the tax payer will net zero
 
A note to Brudgers: Why do you delight in telling people they are WRONG, when you could be just as wrong. Why tell them you 'patently disagree with their position.' Wouldn't that promote civility and a much livlier discussion. IMHO, you are not perfect and not right 100% of the time. Neither is anyone else. That's why this forum is so valuable. :butt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top