This is said to be the tallest engineered timber office building, ready to begin construction here in Brisbane. Would be interested in comments.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Wooden office buildings 2
- Thread starter hokie66
- Start date
- Status
![[lol]](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif "[lol] [lol]")
the blurb indicated that timber is self-protected or limits the damage in a fire due to the development of a charred surface layer which leaves the question of what is the reduced capacity of that member in that state and also how does the glue hold up in such a fire....the statement "concrete does not burn" carries weight(so to speak) in this situation....
-
1
- #5
long known in the industry, from attached AITC brochure: "PERFORMANCE OF LARGE TIMBERS IN FIRES When exposed to fire, wood retains its strength for a longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly, often with little warning. In contrast, wood loses strength slowly and only as material is lost through surface charring."
I'm no waterproof expert, but it seems that waterproofing a large flat piece of wood and a large flat piece of concrete would be similar.... but I could be wrong.
Wood is flexible, sustainable and beautiful. I have not worked with CLT, nor attended the seminars etcetera, but instinctively, I love this development and direction...and vey much hope it succeeds....
-
1
- #6
Hokie:
CLT uses a lesser grade, faster grown lumber and turns it into I higher grade, stronger product. Not unlike GlueLams, plywood, LVL’s, etc. being stronger products than their basic building constituents. And today, this is basically the only raw timber material we have to work with. I believe there has been some good fire testing on this product and the construction system, and it has proven the earlier testing that Triangled mentioned. It’s thicknesses and mass puts it in the large timber class. And, these same features certainly make it a carbon sink, not a carbon producer during its manufacture and the construction. So-far-so-good.
It goes together quickly and cleanly once you learn the tricks of the trade and the construction methods and details, essentially an ‘erector-set, Ikea’ like approach to putting things together. There is no need for expensive iron workers, welders, etc., but I don’t mean to diminish the importance of quality construction/assembly. It is essentially computer designed and detailed, then CNC sawn and routed out of large mass produced blanks. So, it has the potential of being a fairly accurately made bldg. block/part. I think that the connections and connection methods might be the areas to watch in terms of fire resistance and longevity. Shrinkage and environmental movement can become an issue as bldgs. get stacked higher. I think a couple of these bldgs. have been designed for our west coast, so lateral loads and EQ’s. are being considered. I believe they can also, sometimes, incorporate thicker flat slab sections or larger column sections into the basic flat slabs system when needed.
CLT uses a lesser grade, faster grown lumber and turns it into I higher grade, stronger product. Not unlike GlueLams, plywood, LVL’s, etc. being stronger products than their basic building constituents. And today, this is basically the only raw timber material we have to work with. I believe there has been some good fire testing on this product and the construction system, and it has proven the earlier testing that Triangled mentioned. It’s thicknesses and mass puts it in the large timber class. And, these same features certainly make it a carbon sink, not a carbon producer during its manufacture and the construction. So-far-so-good.
It goes together quickly and cleanly once you learn the tricks of the trade and the construction methods and details, essentially an ‘erector-set, Ikea’ like approach to putting things together. There is no need for expensive iron workers, welders, etc., but I don’t mean to diminish the importance of quality construction/assembly. It is essentially computer designed and detailed, then CNC sawn and routed out of large mass produced blanks. So, it has the potential of being a fairly accurately made bldg. block/part. I think that the connections and connection methods might be the areas to watch in terms of fire resistance and longevity. Shrinkage and environmental movement can become an issue as bldgs. get stacked higher. I think a couple of these bldgs. have been designed for our west coast, so lateral loads and EQ’s. are being considered. I believe they can also, sometimes, incorporate thicker flat slab sections or larger column sections into the basic flat slabs system when needed.
OldBldgGuy
Structural
How about 18 stories? There are lots of articles, but here are 2:
- Thread starter
- #11
OldBldgGuy,
The article about the Brisbane building didn't claim that it is the tallest wooden building, but rather the tallest wooden office building. The floor to floor heights in an office building are greater. It looks like these two buildings are about the same height.
I am not a proponent, although I once worked for the design firm of the Brisbane building. Just posted it for general interest.
The article about the Brisbane building didn't claim that it is the tallest wooden building, but rather the tallest wooden office building. The floor to floor heights in an office building are greater. It looks like these two buildings are about the same height.
I am not a proponent, although I once worked for the design firm of the Brisbane building. Just posted it for general interest.
OldBldgGuy
Structural
I'm very ambivalent about wood highrise. I like wood, and I've looked at CLT (obviously for smaller buildings than this) but I simply can't reconcile it to any kind of efficiency review and have yet to even get it within an architect's budget when he wanted it desperately. It's way too much wood to accomplish what is easily done other ways for small buildings. Throwing more material at something is not engineering; presumably they are doing engineering when getting to these heights.
- Thread starter
- #13
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
