Case Study 8 Story

STRUCTURAL FEASIBILITY OF AN 8-STOREY
WOOD-FRAME BUILDING
Kevin D. Below, ing., Ph.D.
31 Octobre 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
2 La Cité Verte............................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Preference for Wood ........................................................................................... 1
2.2 Building Description........................................................................................... 2
3 Design Considerations ................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Structural form .................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Foundations......................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Damping.............................................................................................................. 4
3.4 Floor Composition .............................................................................................. 4
4 Design and Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 5
4.1 Codes................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Design loads and parameters .............................................................................. 5
4.3 Calculation methods and software ...................................................................... 5
5 Design Results ............................................................................................................ 6
5.1 Member Sizes...................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Diaphragms ......................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Diaphragm moments......................................................................................... 11
5.4 Diaphragm Collectors ....................................................................................... 13
5.5 Inter-storey Drift ............................................................................................... 14
5.5.1 Seismic displacements .............................................................................. 14
5.5.2 Wind displacements .................................................................................. 19
5.6 Concrete lateral force resisting systems (stairs and elevator shaft) .................. 22
6 Estimation of Construction Costs ............................................................................. 22
7 Comparison with reinforced concrete structure........................................................ 23
7.1 Building Layout ................................................................................................ 23
7.2 Rapidity of construction.................................................................................... 24
7.3 Overall cost ....................................................................................................... 24
8 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 25
8.1 Structural considerations................................................................................... 25
8.1.1 Feasibility.................................................................................................. 25
8.1.2 Column layout........................................................................................... 25
8.1.3 Diaphragms ............................................................................................... 25
8.2 Floor depth ........................................................................................................ 26
8.3 Seismic mass..................................................................................................... 26
8.4 Cost advantage .................................................................................................. 26
8.5 Recommandations............................................................................................. 27
8.5.1 Software .................................................................................................... 27
8.5.2 Diaphragm capacities................................................................................ 27
8.5.3 Nail deformations...................................................................................... 27
8.5.4 Joint slip .................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A DESIGN LOADS AND PARAMETERS ............................................ 28
APPENDIX B DRAWINGS OF WOOD-CONCRETE HYBRID STRUCTURE ...... 31
APPENDIX C DRAWINGS OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVE........ 43
APPENDIX D ESTIMATED COST OF WOOD-CONCRETE HYBRID .................. 54
APPENDIX E ESTIMATED COST OF CONCRETE ALTERNATIVE.................... 57
APPENDIX F ALTERNATIVE DIAPHRAGMS DESIGNED NOT TO YIELD...... 60
1 Introduction
The 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) opens up a new possibility for
wood structures to exceed four storeys, providing that it can be demonstrated that fire and
structural safety are adequate. Several wood structures have been built in Europe and
some parts of USA for buildings over four storeys, up to as many as nine storeys in recent
years, in the context of green buildings and a better management of the planet.
This study examines the structural requirements for a planned eight-storey wood building
using concrete shearwalls in Quebec City designed to current code requirements under
the 2005 NBCC and the 2009 version of the Canadian wood design code, O86-09. The
building will be part of a residential complex, La Cité Verte, for which planning has
already begun, and which is currently awaiting city approval. It is one of a group of five
similar buildings, the first few of which will be framed in concrete in 2009. Once
authorisation is obtained for the use of a wood structure, the remaining building or
buildings will be framed in wood.
A comparison will be made with an alternative design using a reinforced concrete frame.
2 La Cité Verte
2.1 Preference for Wood
Approximately 800 residential units are planned for the project, including a mix of
condominium units, town houses and rental units, in a number of buildings, some of
which may be as high as 20 storeys. The developer has a strong sense of community and
social responsibility, and wishes to create a project that respects the guidelines of
sustainable development. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certification in itself is not an objective, avoiding the chase for points and favouring the
rational choice of elements that make sense for this project. Part of the greening of the
project comes from the densification – more residents close to their workplaces means
more use of public transport, fewer cars on the road and shorter commutes. Densification
comes with higher buildings, but higher buildings have always been built in concrete or
steel, materials which are not nearly as green as wood.
Dossier: 08345 Page 1 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Obviously, maximising the use of wood is of great interest, and certainly, it is the primary
choice for the structures of the low-rise buildings of this project. However, most of the
project participants have expressed a will to push beyond the conventional limit of four
storeys to use wood for the mid-rise buildings as well. The building authorities in
Quebec City and in the province have also shown interest and cooperation.
However, even with their support, the road to approval could be long and arduous, and
the developer realises that it may not be possible to build the first of the mid-rise
buildings of the project in wood. However, since there are several such buildings in the
project, it is planned to begin with concrete frames and switch to wood frames as soon as
approval can be obtained.
2.2 Building Description

The planned wood building will be of eight levels of eight residential units each. The
overall area of each level is 1,015 square metres.
Usually, the required number of parking stalls under a four-storey wood building can be
provided within the basement area without the need for multiple levels of parking and the
concomitant loss of area because of the access ramps. However, with eight storeys, the
required number of stalls doubles, and multiple parking levels may become necessary
unless the site is big enough to permit the expansion of the basement area beyond the
building outline. This is the case in the present project where we have forty-eight parking
stalls in a single-level concrete basement, separated from the wood building above by a
concrete slab providing a two-hour fire separation as required by code.
Since the building is one of a row of similar buildings, all requiring a significant number
of parking stalls, the underground parking levels of these buildings will be contiguous,
forming one large parking level with access to each of the buildings above. For the
purposes of the present study, we have assumed the parking level to be configured as
shown in the accompanying drawings (Fig. 1).

3 Design Considerations
3.1 Structural form
The structure will be of the post and beam configuration in glued-laminated timber, with
wood diaphragm floors transferring wind and seismic loads to the vertical part of the
lateral force resisting system (LFRS, also called Seismic Force Resisting System or SFRS
when in the seismic context). For this project, we will use concrete shearwalls for the
LFRS, to take advantage of the higher strengths of this material to resist the higher loads
associated with an 8-storey building. It is envisaged that eventually wood will be used
for the LFRS in future projects, employing elements and systems that are not yet ready
for use in Canada, such as cross-laminated timber panels.
The stair and elevator shafts comprising the LFRS will be placed near the ends of the
rectangular floor shape, maximising the resistance to torsion under wind and seismic
loads.
At Level 1, which is the ground-floor level over the basement parking, the concrete floor
diaphragm also redistributes part of the accumulated lateral load from the shafts to the
perimeter concrete walls of the basement.
Interior wood columns are placed along the corridor walls in order to minimise acoustic
and vibration problems between the corridor and adjoining apartments. Joists span from
the perimeter beams to an intermediate axis over the concrete columns of the basement,
then to the corridor beams, with a joist depth of 400 mm and a total floor thickness of
530 mm. This is comparable with a conventional steel structure or a Hambro system, but
is much thicker than a concrete floor of 240 mm.
The joists spanning the corridor would be smaller, allowing extra height for the
mechanical ducts and piping.
In that part of the basement area directly under the wood frame, the concrete columns are
placed on two lines, on either side of the central aisle of the parking area, as shown in the
drawings of Annexe B. Some of the wood columns of the storeys above are placed
directly on these concrete columns, while others are placed along the corridor walls to

interrupt the transmission of vibrations through the floor joists. Concrete transfer beams
are used in the ceiling of the basement.
Column spacing is controlled by the layout of the parking stalls. In one direction, column
spacing needs to be selected as a multiple of the stall width, which is regulated as 2.75
metres, plus the column width. We have used a spacing of 5.8 metres, for two stalls plus
a column width of 300 mm, for lower cost and beam heights. The same spacing is also
economical for a concrete frame.
3.2 Foundations
Foundations are in concrete, consisting of concrete footings under the columns, strip
footings under the perimeter walls, and mat foundations under the stair and elevator
shafts. After excavation, the foundations will be poured directly on the rock, which is a
schist of 1000 kPa (unfactored) load-bearing capacity.
Because the wood frame is substantially lighter than concrete, the footings and the SFRS
are much smaller.
3.3 Damping
Because of the relatively low weight of the building, vibrations may be a problem under
wind load, and sufficient damping must be ensured. There are recommendations for
limiting the accelerations during wind loads in Commentary I of the NBCC 2005, but
they may need to be evaluated in terms of lightweight wood structures. Further
investigation is probably required.
3.4 Floor Composition

The floor composition adopted is shown in Annex B, using proprietary wood I-joists or
open-web wood joists, glu-lam beams, 20 mm OSB panels, wood fibre panels, and
topped by 16 mm OSB panels. This composition has been shown to perform well
acoustically with an STC rating of 64 dB.
It also has the required strength and stiffness for the vertical loads and for the diaphragm
forces under lateral loads.

4 Design and Analysis Methods
4.1 Codes
As well as NBCC 2005, the following current codes were used for the design:
CAN/CSA-O86-09, Engineering Design in Wood;

CAN/CSA-A23.3-04, Design of Concrete Structures;
4.2 Design loads and parameters

The design loads and parameters as specified in the NBCC 2005 and as used for the
design are indicated in Appendix A.
The concrete shearwalls are designed to be moderately ductile, with Rd and Ro of 2.0 and
1.4 respectively.
4.3 Calculation methods and software

Preliminary calculations were done with spreadsheets developed in-house for the beams
and columns as well as for the lateral loads and the LFRS. The preliminary seismic
analysis was done for the wood structure plus the concrete stair and elevator shafts, using
the base as the concrete level, Level 1 in the drawings, since the basement level is below
ground level and is much stiffer with its concrete perimeter walls. The empirical period
of the structure, Ta, using the equivalent static method is 0.57 seconds, and the base shear
(minimum lateral earthquake force) is 2 337 kN.
Final calculations and design were done with the finite-element based software, Graitec’s
Advance Design America (ADA), which handles wood design to Canadian codes
(accounting for the floor composition in modelling the diaphragm stiffness), as well as
concrete and steel frames, and spread and mat foundations in concrete. The computed
period is 0.8 seconds in the transverse direction, and 0.5 seconds in the longitudinal
direction. The base shears are 1 665 and 1 900 kN.

5 Design Results
5.1 Member Sizes
The drawings in Annex B show the wood columns, beams and joists, as well as the
thickness of the concrete shearwalls of the stair and elevator shafts, and the sizes of the
foundation elements.
On the floor levels, the beams are mostly glu-lam DFir-L 20f-E 130 x 418 for the internal
spans, and 130 x 380 on the perimeter. On the roof levels, the floor beams are mostly
130 x 418 up to 130 x 494. The columns, in DFir-L 16c-E, vary from 275 x 266 on Level
1 along the corridor to 130 x 190 on the corners of the upper levels. Floor joists vary
from 400 mm to 250 mm depth.
Two concrete column sizes are used – 500 x 300 mm under the wood building and 300 x
300 mm under the terrace.
5.2 Diaphragms
The seismic diaphragm forces have been evaluated using the lateral loads (Fi) obtained
from the static procedure of the NBCC, as shown in the second column of Table 1.
These loads, which represent the total seismic loads on the SFRS, are then adjusted to
exclude the seismic mass of the SFRS itself, which obviously is not transferred by the
diaphragm to the SFRS. Since the weight calculations show that in this case, the mass of
the SFRS represents 27% of the total seismic mass, these figures are reduced by 27% as
shown in the third column as the seismic load on the diaphragms.
Shear stresses and deflections of the diaphragms obtained from the finite-element
software are very low compared to the static procedure, so we have used the latter in this
study. The new ADA module for wood floors seems to take account of the diaphragm
provisions of the previous O86-05 code, which have been changed with respect to
deflections in the 2009 version. This is certainly an area where the results from the
software should be carefully evaluated before adoption in current design methods.

Table 1. Seismic design loads for the diaphragm (y-direction)
Min Seismic
Seismic load Seismic load load on
Fi
on diaphragm on diaphragm diaphragm Design VDi
Level (RdRo = 2.8)
(RdRo = 2.8) (RdRo = 2.0) (NBCC
4.1.8.15)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Column 2 3 4 5 6
Roof 566 412 577 213 577
8 443 322 451 213 451
7 379 276 387 213 387
6 316 230 322 213 322
5 253 184 258 213 258
4 190 138 193 213 213
3 126 92 129 213 213
2 63 46 64 213 213
Since the value of IEFaSa(0.2) (equal to 0.59 in this case) is greater than 0.35, Clauses
9.8.2 to 9.8.6 of O86-09 apply; more particularly, 9.8.5 treats wood diaphragms in
buildings with SFRSs other than wood shearwalls. Clause 9.8.5.2.1 allows the
diaphragms to de designed to yield before the supporting SFRS (contrary to Clause
4.1.8.15. of the NBCC 2005) if they are designed and detailed in accordance with Clause
9.5, with the seismic loads determined using the RdRo factors for the vertical SFRS (2.8
in this case), but not less than the loads determined using RdRo = 2.0. The latter, shown
in the 4th column, will of course be greater in this case. Furthermore, Clause 4.1.8.15 1)
b) stipulates a minimum diaphragm load equal to the base shear divided by the number of
storeys, shown in the 5th column. The seismic design loads, being the maximum value of
Columns 3, 4 and 5, are shown in the 6th column, and the maximum seismic design load
on the diaphragm, VDi, is 577 kN at the roof level, decreasing to 213 kN at level 2.
The wind loads on the diaphragm as calculated according to the NBCC are compared to
the seismic design loads in Table 2, where the design load on each diaphragm is taken as
the greater of the seismic (E) and wind (W) design loads.
Table 2. Wood diaphragm design shear forces
Design Vydi Design wind load Controlling
(1.4W)
Design load
Level Seismic load
(kN) (kN/m) (kN)
Column 2 3 4 5
Roof 577 163 E 577
8 451 322 E 451
7 387 312 E 387
6 322 302 E 322
5 258 289 W 289
4 213 286 W 286
3 213 286 W 286
2 213 286 W 286
The distribution of shear forces and bending moments in the diaphragm depends on its
flexural rigidity relative to the torsional rigidity of the shearwall groups. If the latter is
much greater than the former, the three diaphragm segments (the two end cantilevers and
the central sections) will act almost independently of each other, the shearwall groups
will provide fixed supports for each segment, and the diaphragm can be treated as
flexible.
The diaphragm design loads are divided by the total length of the diaphragm (58 m) to
simulate a uniformly distributed load, w, representing a uniform distribution of mass over
the length of the building, shown in the 3rd column of Table 3. Va1 and Vb2 in columns 6
and 12 represent the shear forces at the faces of the supports of the end cantilever
segments respectively, calculated simply as the total load on each cantilever. Va2 and Vb1
in columns 8 and 10 are simply the support reactions of the central segment, each equal
to half the load on the central segment. In columns 7, 9, 11 and 13, the loads in kN/m
represent the shear flow over the full depth of the diaphragm (17.5 m). The calculated
reactions at supports A and B are shown in columns 4 and 5.

Table 3. Wood diaphragm design shear forces
Design w
load factored
Ra Rb Va1 Va2 Vb1 Vb2
Level
(kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Roof 577 9.9 230.7 346.0 86.5 4.94 144.2 8.24 144.2 8.24 115.3 6.59
8 451 7.8 180.5 270.8 67.7 3.87 112.8 6.45 112.8 6.45 90.3 5.16
7 387 6.7 154.7 232.1 58.0 3.32 96.7 5.53 96.7 5.53 77.4 4.42
6 322 5.6 128.9 193.4 48.3 2.76 80.6 4.60 80.6 4.60 64.5 3.68
5 289 5.0 115.7 173.5 43.4 2.48 72.3 4.13 72.3 4.13 57.8 3.31
4 286 4.9 114.3 171.5 42.9 2.45 71.4 4.08 71.4 4.08 57.2 3.27
3 286 4.9 114.3 171.5 42.9 2.45 71.4 4.08 71.4 4.08 57.2 3.27
2 286 4.9 114.3 171.5 42.9 2.45 71.4 4.08 71.4 4.08 57.2 3.27
The diaphragm at each level must therefore be designed for the shear flow values of
Table 3. The maximum required diaphragm strength is 8.24 kN/m at the roof level under
the seismic load (Columns 9 and 11). The following configuration is adequate, with a
capacity of 10.5 kN/m, calculated in accordance with Clause 9.5.2:
• Common wire nail diameter: 3.25 mm

• Minimum nail penetration in framing: 38 mm
• Minimum nominal panel thickness: 12.5 mm
• Minimum width of framing member: 64 mm
• Panel edges blocked
• Nail spacing at diaphragm boundaries and at continuous panel edges
parallel to load: 64 mm
• Nail spacing at other panel edges: 100 mm
• Nail spacing at 300 mm within panels
• S-P-F wood joist framing.
This strength is required for only a small portion of the roof near the shearwalls, as can be
seen in the following diagram (Figure 1), so the nail spacing could be varied. However,

it is simpler to conserve the same nail spacing over all portions of the diaphragm, and this
may be required anyway in order to control diaphragm deflections, as will be shown later.
Fig. 1 Roof diaphragm shear flow (kN/m)
3.00
Diaphragm shear flow
2.00
1.00
(kN/m)
a1 a2 b1 b2
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
x (m)
Although we will use a minimum thickness of 20 mm for floor rigidity and capacity
under vertical loads, the following Table 4 lists the minimal panel configurations for load
capacity, since the figures for 20 mm panels are not available in the O86-09 Table 9.5.2.
Deflection checks may require a revision of these thicknesses.

Table 4. Preliminary diaphragm design
Nail spacing
Min.
Design Nail
Nail width of Diaphragm
Panel
shear pene- Edges
Level dia. thickness framing boundaries Other Within
flow tration blocked
(mm) (mm) member and edges edges panels
(kN/m) (mm)
(mm) parallel to (mm) (mm)
load (mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Roof 8.24 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 64 100 300

8 6.45 3.25 38 12.5 38 Yes 64 100 300
7 5.53 3.25 38 12.5 38 Yes 64 100 300
6 4.60 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 100 150 300
5 4.13 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 150 150 300
4 4.08 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 150 150 300
3 4.08 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 150 150 300
2 4.08 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 150 150 300
5.3 Diaphragm moments

The moment diagrams for the diaphragms are dependent on the torsional rigidities of the
concrete shearwall groups. If they are very rigid, they will provide rotational fixity at the
diaphragm supports, and the diaphragm segments will behave independently of each
other with fixed supports, as shown in the upper curve in Figure 2.
At the other extreme, if the central section were simply supported, the moment
distribution would be as in the lower (dashed) curve.
However, if we assume the central section to be simply supported, and the torsional
rigidities of the SFRSs to be zero, then there will be no continuity to support the end
cantilever sections. Since there is continuity of the diaphragm around the shearwall
groups, the moment distribution would be as in the intermediate curve in the case of zero
torsional rigidities of the SFRSs.

Fig. 2 Roof diaphragm moments
1 000
500
a1 a2 b1
Mf (kN.m)
0 b2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-500
-1 000
-1 500
x (m)
So the reality will be somewhere between the upper and the intermediate curves for
the central section, depending on the torsional rigidities of the SFRSs. In Table 5,
the moment at the centre of the central section, Mfcentre, corresponds to the
intermediate curve of Figure 2, while the other values correspond to the upper
curve.
The shear force and shear flow distributions are unaffected.
Table 5. Diaphragm moments

Mf a1 Mf a2 Mf centre Mf b1 Mf b2
Level
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m)
Column 2 3 4 5 6
Roof -187 -697 730 -697 -443
8 -146 -545 571 -545 -347
7 -125 -467 490 -467 -297
6 -105 -389 408 -389 -248
5 -94 -349 366 -349 -222
4 -93 -345 362 -345 -220
3 -93 -345 362 -345 -220
2 -93 -345 362 -345 -220

The forces in the diaphragm chords are a function of the diaphragm moments, as
specified in Clause 9.5.6.1,
Mr = Pr h,
where Pr is the factored axial tension and compression resistance of the elements
resisting chord forces, and h is the centre-to-centre distance between diaphragm chords.
In the present case, the maximum factored moment, Mf, in the diaphragm at roof level is
730 kN.m. Since h is 17.5 metres, this moment generates tensile and compressive chord
forces of 41.7 kN in the roof edge beams, which must be increased by 20% to 50.1 kN
(O86-09 Clause 9.8.6 Design of force transfer elements for seismic loads) and considered
in the design of the edge beams. However, in the load combinations including the
seismic effects with these chord forces, the snow load can be presumed at 25% of the full
load (and the live load at 50%), and calculations show that the capacity of the edge beams
is still sufficient.
At the lower levels where the wind load controls, the chord force is not increased by
20%, and the appropriate load combinations including 1.5L with 0.4W need to be
checked.
In fact, because of the 20% increase of seismic loads, and the different load combination
factors, it is not obvious whether seismic or wind loads will govern at any particular
level, and so it is necessary to check all levels for both seismic and wind load effects on
the chords. The same will apply to the design of the collectors and the connections of the
diaphragm to the SFRSs, as specified in Clause 9.8.6.
5.4 Diaphragm Collectors

The loads in the collectors can be calculated from the loads in Table 3. For example, the
total shear on each of lines C (Va2) and H (Vb1) at roof level is 144.2 kN, supported over a
length of 17.5 m (the depth of the diaphragm). Of this, a length of 5.5 m is attached
directly to the concrete shearwall, leaving a length of 12 m, representing a load of
98.9 kN, to be transferred via the collector.

This collector therefore needs to be checked for the seismic load combination with the
axial load of 98.9 kN, compression or tension, increased by 20 % as required by O86-09
Clause 9.8.6 for , becoming 118.7 kN. As mentioned above, it is necessary to check the
seismic combinations, as well as the wind combinations, on all levels.
Normally, the collectors would be designed as glu-lam beams, replacing the open-web
joists at those positions, and we have calculated them as such.
Under the gravity load combinations, the required beam to replace the joists is 80 x 266
glu-lam on all levels, in all collector positions. This size, under the seismic
combinations, is sufficient to resist the maximum 118.7 kN in tension or compression.
However, they are likely to create interference problems with the plumbing and
ventilation conduits, and it would be preferable to conserve the open-web joist
configuration. This leaves two alternatives, namely to design these particular joists for
the extra compression or tension in the top chord (which may be feasible in those
positions where the load is small), or to add a separate member between the joists (e.g., a
glu-lam beam on its side just under the floor panels).
In fact, there is a third alternative, which is to consider the band of diaphragm

corresponding to the width of the shearwall grooup (B to C, or H to I in the drawings of
Appendix B) as the collector. This is probably close to reality anyway, because an axial
load in the collector beam would obviously be accompanied by an axial load in that band
of the diaphragm, simply through strain compatibility. The resulting effect is therefore to
spread the collector force over several joists. In the drawings, we have left the collectors
as open-web joists, and we have included an allowance in the estimation for the cost of
reinforcement or additional members for the collectors.
5.5 Inter-storey Drift

5.5.1 Seismic displacements
The total seismic displacement at each level was calculated as the sum of the
displacement of the concrete SFRS and the deflection of the horizontal diaphragm
relative to the SFRS, under the seismic loads of Table 1, Column 3, representing the
service loads, and not the ultimate state design loads of Column 6.

The displacements of the SFRS shearwalls in both directions (x and y) were obtained
from the finite-element based software, using reduced stiffness to account for cracking.
As required by CNBC 2005 in clause 4.1.8.13.(2) the seismic displacements must be
multiplied by RdRo/IE to give realistic values of anticipated drifts. Of the two SFRS
shearwall groups, the stair shaft (SFRS A) undergoes the greater displacements, and these
are shown in Column 3 of Table 6, including the factor RdRo/IE.
The corresponding displacements under the unfactored (service) wind load are shown in
Columns 5 and 6.
Table 6. SFRS displacements under seismic and wind loads in y-direction

Seismic Δ . RdRo/IE (mm) Wind Δ (mm)
Direction Storey
SFRS A SFRS B SFRS A SFRS B
Column 2 3 4 5 6
Roof 71 42 12 3
8 61 36 10 2
7 50 30 9 2
6 40 24 7 2
y
5 31 18 5 1
4 22 13 4 1
3 14 8 2 1
2 7 4 1 0
The seismic displacements are much greater than the wind displacements, but the limits
on deflection are also much higher for the seismic load cases.
The deformation of the diaphragm at mid-span of the central section (between the
shearwalls) at each level was calculated for 20 mm CSP (Canadian Softwood Plywood)
panels using the seismic loads obtained from the equivalent static force procedure and the
code-defined wind loads, and the deflection formula of O86-09 Clause 9.7.2,
Δd =
5vL3
+
vL
+ 0.000614 Len +
∑ (Δ c x)
96 EAb 4 Bv 2 LD

In this formula, the first term represents the flexural deflection of a simply-supported
beam, and the second term represents its shear deflection. In our case, the central section
of the diaphragm is not really simply supported between the shearwall groups at A and B,
but the contribution of the flexural deflection is very small compared to the total
diaphragm deformation, and the distinction is negligible.
The third term represents the contribution of the lateral deformation of the nailed joints of
the plywood diaphragm to the supporting joists. The element en is the individual nail
deformation, calculated with the formula in Clause A.10.9.3.2,
1.7
⎛P ⎞
en = 0.5d F K m ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ nu ⎠
which is applicable for values of the specified load, P, not greater than nu/3, where nu is
the unit lateral strength resistance of the nail in the joint. This means that the diaphragm
must be over-designed for three times the applied load if we want to evaluate the
diaphragm deflection using this formula. For the present case, we have used this formula
for en even though P exceeds nu/3, although is surely not accurate. This is a subject that
needs to be clarified.
The fourth term represents the joint slip in the diaphragm chords, which we have
assumed, for want of better data, to be 1 mm for each joint. This also needs to be
clarified, and may well be discussed in the upcoming commentary to the new code O86-
09.
The diaphragm deformations under seismic loads as calculated in the static model are
shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Seismic deformations in central section of diaphragm
5vL3 vL
96 EAb 4 Bv
0.000614 Len ∑ (Δ x) c
Seismic
diaphragm
Direction Storey 2 LD deformation
(mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 0.4 4.5 8.0 2.0 15
8 0.4 3.5 5.3 2.0 11
7 0.3 3.0 4.1 2.0 9
6 0.3 2.5 6.4 2.0 11
y
5 0.2 2.0 8.7 2.0 13
4 0.2 1.5 5.3 2.0 9
3 0.1 1.0 2.7 2.0 6
2 0.1 0.5 0.8 2.0 3
Table 8 shows the seismic deflections in each of the principal directions. The total
seismic displacement at each level was calculated as the sum of the displacement of the
concrete SFRS shown in Column 3 of Table 8 (using the average of SFRSs A and B for
the y-direction from Columns 3 and 4 of Table 6) and the deformation of the horizontal
diaphragm in Column 4 of Table 8 (from the last column of Table 7). The SFRS
displacements from ADA are already multiplied by the RdRo/IE factor, whereas the
diaphragm figures of Column 4 are not, and need to be multiplied, giving the figures in
Column 5. Column 6 gives the total deflection at the middle of the central section, the
sum of Columns 3 and 5.
The largest inter-storey displacement (38 mm at roof level) in this section is smaller than
the limit of 0.025 times the storey height (0.025 × 3200 = 80 mm) imposed in NBCC
Clause 4.1.8.13.(3).

Table 8. Total seismic deflections at mid-span of central section of diaphragms
Inter-
Δ Δ. RdRo/IE Δ total
Direction Storey Δ SFRS storey
Diaphragm Diaphragm
(mm) (mm) drift
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 47 0.0 0.0 47 7
8 40 0.0 0.0 40 7
7 33 0.0 0.0 33 7
6 26 0.0 0.0 26 6
x
5 20 0.0 0.0 20 6
4 14 0.0 0.0 14 6
3 8 0.0 0.0 8 4
2 4 0.0 0.0 4 4
Roof 57 15 41 97 38
8 49 11 30 59 10
7 40 9 26 49 6
6 32 11 31 43 6
y
5 25 13 36 37 11
4 18 9 25 26 10
3 11 6 16 17 8
2 6 3 9 9 9
The deformation at the end of the cantilever section of the diaphragm on the right-hand
side at each level was calculated using a modification of the deflection formula of O86
Clause 9.7.2, taking account of the flexural component of the deflection with the classical
formula for cantilever deflection:
Δd =
vL3
+
vL
+ 0.000614 Len +
∑ ( Δ c x)
4 EAb 4 Bv 2 LD
The other components are assumed to have the same formulae as for the central (simply-
supported) section, although this would need verification.

Since the cantilever diaphragm deflections, shown in Table 9, are smaller than those of
the central section (in Table 7), there is no need to check the total inter-storey drifts in the
end cantilever sections.
Table 9. Seismic deflections for end cantilever section of diaphragm
vL3 vL
4 EAb 4 Bv
0.000614 Len ∑ (Δ x) c Diaphragm
Direction Storey 2 LD deflection
(mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 0.3 3.6 5.5 1.0 10

8 0.3 2.8 3.6 1.0 8
7 0.3 2.4 2.8 1.0 6
6 0.2 2.0 4.4 1.0 8
y
5 0.2 1.6 5.9 1.0 9
4 0.1 1.2 3.6 1.0 6
3 0.1 0.8 1.8 1.0 4
2 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.0 2
5.5.2 Wind displacements

In the Service Limit State (SLS), the importance factor of our building for wind loads is
0.75. The maximum displacements in the longitudinal (x) direction occur with the load
case W3, which represents 75 % of full (unfactored) wind pressure applied in both
principal directions simultaneously as defined in NBCC Clause 4.1.7.3(c). The
maximum displacements in the transverse (y) direction occur with the load case W1, the
full wind pressure applied in the transverse direction. Table 10 resumes the maximum
displacements due to the wind pressure of 0.75W1, (IWW1) The total diaphragm
deflection (Column 6) is calculated as the sum of the average SFRS displacement
(average of Columns 3 and 4) plus the diaphragm deformation (Column 5). The inter-
storey drift is shown in the last column, and should be smaller than the allowable
displacement 1/500 of the storey height (3200 / 500 = 6.4 mm) as required by the NBCC
Clause 4.1.3.5.(3). As we can see in Column 6, all storeys deflect between 10 and 13 mm

from their original positions, and the inter-storey drift is less than 6.4 mm for all storeys
except between levels 1 and 2, where level 1 is supported laterally by the earth backfill
and has a more rigid concrete diaphragm with virtually no deflection.
Table 10. Inter-storey wind displacements at mid-span of central section of

diaphragms
Dtotal Inter-
Wind Wind Dmax Dtotal
Direction Storey ΔSFRS A ΔSFRS B storey
Diaphragm
(mm) (mm) (mm) drift
(mm)
(mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 12 3 3.6 11.1 -0.8
8 10 2 5.9 11.9 0.7
7 9 2 5.7 11.2 -0.7
6 7 2 7.4 11.9 -1.4
y
5 5 1 10.3 13.3 0.7
4 4 1 10.2 12.7 1.0
3 2 1 10.2 11.7 1.4
2 1 0 9.7 10.2 10.2
In order to reduce the inter-storey drift between levels 1 and 2, it will be necessary to
increase the rigidity of the diaphragm at level 2, which can be done easily by decreasing
the nail spacing. Table 11 presents the revised results when a nail spacing of 75 mm is
used for all levels 2 to 6. Final diaphragm design is resumed in Table 12. The actual
floor composition includes two OSB panels, 16 and 20 mm thick.

Table 11. Inter-storey wind displacements with revised nail spacing
Wind Wind Dmax Dtotal Dtotal Inter-

Direction Storey ΔSFRS A ΔSFRS B Diaphragm (mm) storey drift
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 12 3 3.6 11.1 -0.8
8 10 2 5.9 11.9 0.7
7 9 2 5.7 11.2 0.7
6 7 2 6.1 10.6 1.7
y
5 5 1 5.8 8.8 0.6
4 4 1 5.8 8.3 1.0
3 2 1 5.8 7.3 1.0
2 1 0 5.8 6.3 6.3
Table 12. Final diaphragm design
Nail spacing
Min.
Design Nail
Nail width of Diaphragm
Panel
shear pene- Edges
Level dia. thickness framing boundaries Other Within
flow tration blocked
(mm) (mm) member and edges edges panels
(kN/m) (mm)
(mm) parallel to (mm) (mm)
load (mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Roof 8.24 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 64 100 300

8 6.45 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 64 100 300
7 5.53 3.25 38 20 38 Yes 64 100 300
6 4.60 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 75 100 300
5 4.13 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 75 100 300
4 4.08 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 75 100 300
3 4.08 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 75 100 300
2 4.08 3.25 38 20 64 Yes 75 100 300

Table 13. Final total seismic deflections at mid-span of central section of
diaphragms, using final diaphragm design
Inter-
Δ Δ. RdRo/IE Δ total
Direction Storey Δ SFRS storey
Diaphragm Diaphragm
(mm) (mm) drift
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof 57 15 42 98 38
8 49 11 31 60 10
7 40 9 26 49 9
6 32 9 24 41 9
y
5 25 7 19 31 9
4 18 5 15 23 8
3 11 4 11 15 7
2 6 3 8 8 8
5.6 Concrete lateral force resisting systems (stairs and elevator

shaft)
The maximum reinforcement ratios of the SFRSs are those of the level one, 0.69 % and
0.46 % for the SFRS A and B shearwall groups respectively.
All of the requirements specified by A23.3-04 for moderately ductile shearwalls (clauses
21.7.3) are verified.
6 Estimation of Construction Costs

The total cost of construction of the structural elements for this building in Quebec City
in 2009 is estimated in the following table. Unit prices are subject to variation, and so
this estimate must be considered as a tool for comparison only.
Total construction costs for the structural elements, including excavation and backfill, are
estimated at 3 300 000 $ for the wood-concrete hybrid.

7 Comparison with reinforced concrete structure
In order to evaluate the desirability of the wood structure of this study, we need to
compare it with some common alternatives.
Several possibilities exist, such as a conventional steel frame with concrete floors on steel
deck, a Hambro system ( http://www.hambro-floors.ws/www/v4/ehambro.nsf - uses
concrete floors on composite steel joists on a conventional steel beam and column frame),
or a Hambro system incorporating load-bearing steel-stud perimeter walls.
All of these systems have been used locally and each has its own advantages and
disadvantages.
The concrete frame is most popular with higher quality projects mainly because of the
superior acoustic performance and fire resistance. These properties are now firmly
entrenched in the public perception of building quality. It also has a thinner floor depth
which may be important where overall building height is limited by regulations.
However, in the Canadian climate, winter construction in concrete can be an arduous
experience, with a lot of extra work removing the snow from the forms and building
temporary protection, as well as the high heating costs and loss of productivity due to the
low temperatures.
With the Hambro system, the steel components need to be protected to obtain the
required fire ratings. The increased floor depth means an increase in the exterior wall
height and cost, and perhaps even higher heating/cooling capacity. Despite this, it
usually enjoys a cost advantage, although with the recent cost fluctuations for steel, this
needs to be constantly re-evaluated.
Currently (October 2009), the price of steel is about half of its maximum of 2008, which
reduces the price advantage of wood construction quite considerably. If steel or concrete
prices increase, wood will become more favourable.
7.1 Building Layout

Because the concrete floors are not so susceptible to vibrations, it is not necessary to
create a column line along the corridor walls as we did with the wood structure to
interrupt the floor joists. Concrete column lines can therefore be placed so as to equalise
the spans, taking care to respect the parking constraints in the basement.

Columns lines have been placed as shown in the drawings of Annex C, at spacings of
approximately 5 m, 7 m and 5 m in the transverse direction.
7.2 Rapidity of construction

Concrete frames are usually fairly labour-intensive and can be relatively slow to build. In
Quebec, typical times of three or four weeks per floor are to be expected for this size, and
even more in winter. Particularly in the current context where numerous projects are
under construction, there is no longer sufficient manpower to shorten the construction
time.
A wood frame should involve the same sequence as a steel structure, with the production
of shop drawings and shop fabrication being done while foundations, concrete walls and
the ground-level slab over the basement are being poured. Winter conditions are not so
penalising, and the erection time for the wood structure can be greatly reduced with
prefabrication of floor and roof sections.
7.3 Overall cost

The estimated cost of the concrete structure alternative is approximately $3 580 000,
assuming no winter construction. Winter costs, if applicable (and they often are in
Quebec), could be in the order of $100 000 to $200 000.
Since the overall building height in concrete would be about 300 mm less per storey, a
total of 2.4 m for our 8-storey building, we need to account for the savings in the wall
quantities, which would be about 364 m2. At an approximate cost of 200 $ per m2, the
saving in the direct cost would be 72 720 $. This has been included as a reduction in the
estimation of Annex E, and is reflected in the above figure.

8 Conclusions
8.1 Structural considerations
8.1.1 Feasibility
From the aspect of structural design, an 8-storey wood-concrete hybrid is certainly
feasible. The columns and beams are of reasonable sizes, as also are the wood joists of
the floors and the roof.
8.1.2 Column layout

For the joists, it is necessary to interrupt the spans at the corridor walls, to avoid the
transmission of vibrations from the corridor to the dwelling units. An economical design
therefore uses four internal column lines: two along the corridor walls, and two
intermediate lines, coinciding with the concrete column lines in the parking level.
Placing the column lines along the corridor walls mandates either that the parking layout
be offset so that the corridor is above parking stalls or that transfer beams be used so the
corridor will be above the access lane.
8.1.3 Diaphragms
For the design of the diaphragms, the provisions of the O86-09 have been used to design
the diaphragms to yield under seismic loads. The NBCC 2005 requirement that the
diaphragm be designed not to yield has been treated as an alternative design in Appendix
F.
As shown in Appendix F, there is a slight advantage for the upper floors in designing the
diaphragms to yield under seismic loads. However, for the lower levels, wind loads are
critical anyway.
In fact, the controlling factor for the diaphragm of Level 2, the first level above the base
of lateral resistance, is the inter-storey drift under wind loads. The limit of h / 500 is very
restrictive, and in the present case, indicates a panel thickness of 28.5 mm with a nail
spacing of 64 mm.

8.2 Floor depth
The depth of the floor composition in the present study is approximately 530 mm, twice
the depth of the concrete flat slab alternative. The resulting total building height will be a
disadvantage for wood when height restrictions apply. For the same maximum height, it
may be possible to build nine storeys in concrete rather than eight in wood, and this gives
an advantage to concrete with regards to the number of dwelling units that can be built on
the same site, with the resulting economy of scale. However, the extra floor involves
extra cost and the resulting cost per unit is still probably competitive for the wood
structure.
The floor depth is of the same order as that of the steel frame alternatives.
8.3 Seismic mass

The total seismic mass of the wood structure is very low compared to the concrete
alternative, and indeed to any alternative incorporating concrete floors. It would be
advantageous to use light-weight materials for the exterior wall cladding, avoiding brick
and stone where possible. There are many alternatives available, and many international
examples to be considered and suggested to the architectural consultants.
The low mass brings up the question of vibrations under wind load, and damping of the
structure needs to be investigated further.
8.4 Cost advantage

For any new methods to be adopted on a large scale there has to be an economic
incentive. With the current (2009) steel prices, which are about 50% of 2008 prices,
some of the economic advantage has been eroded, but as long as wood enjoys at least a
small cost advantage, there is an economic advantage to be added to the sustainable
development considerations.

8.5 Recommandations
8.5.1 Software
Several aspects of the diaphragm calculations could be incorporated into the available
software, but a lot of documentation would be needed to satisfy designers that the code
provisions are all considered.
8.5.2 Diaphragm capacities

While the panel thicknesses of 12.5 to 18.5 mm shown in O86-09 Table 9.5.2 are
appropriate for wood shearwalls, we need figures for the panel thicknesses normally used
for floors, such as 20 mm. In post and beam structures, where SFRSs may be widely
spaced, thicker panels may be required.
8.5.3 Nail deformations

The only method for evaluating the diaphragm deflection in O86 (Clause 9.7.2) is limited
to cases where the lateral load on the nails does not exceed one-third of its capacity.
(O86-09 A.10.9.3.2). This means that we should overdesign the nails by a factor of 3 in
order to evaluate the diaphragm deflection – not an ideal situation, to say the least. We
urgently need more information on this.
8.5.4 Joint slip

The new fourth term in the diaphragm deflection equation (O86-09 Clause 9.7.2),
accounting for slip in the chord splices, needs more explanation for use in a post and
beam structure. Perhaps the Commentary to the code will shed some light on the matter.

APPENDIX A DESIGN LOADS AND PARAMETERS
The design loads and parameters as specified in the NBC 2005 used for the design are as
follows:
A.1 Importance Factor

o All Ultimate Limit States ............................................................... 1.0
o Service Limit State Snow ...................................................................0.9
o Service Limit State Wind .................................................................0.75
A.2 Dead loads for wood-concrete hybrid structure

o Roof............................................................................................. 1.0 kPa
o Wood floors ................................................................................1.5 kPa
o Concrete floors ............................................................................7.0 kPa
o Perimeter walls ............................................................................1.0 kPa
A.3 Dead loads for concrete structure alternative

o Roof............................................................................................. 7.0 kPa
o Concrete floors ............................................................................7.0 kPa
o Perimeter walls ............................................................................1.0 kPa
A.4 Live loads

o Live loads within dwelling units .................................................1.9 kPa
o Live loads in exit corridors, vestibules and stairs .......................4.8 kPa
o Live loads in underground parking area .....................................2.4 kPa

A.5 Snow loads
o Ground snow load 1-in-50-years ................................................3.7 kPa
o Rain load 1-in-50-years ...............................................................0.6 kPa
o Roof snow load for design ........................................................3.56 kPa
A.6 Wind loads on the building structure

o Reference velocity pressure, 1-in-50-years, q ...........................0.53 kPa
o Gust factor, Cg (Building height exceeds 20m) ...............................2.00
o Pressures and coefficients (Fig. I-15 NBC Annex)
Wind on long faces of the building
Windward side, Cp ...........................................................0.8
Leeward side, Cp .......................................................... -0.50
Ce rough terrain, speed-up over escarpment .................0.99
Total wind pressure at roof level (wind + lee).........1.26 kPa
Total unfactored wind load ....................................1 706 kN
Wind on short faces of the building
Windward side, Cp .........................................................0.66
Leeward side, Cp .......................................................... -0.36
Ce rough terrain ..............................................................0.88
Total wind pressure at roof level (wind + lee).........0.87 kPa
Total unfactored wind load ......................................4356kN
A.7 Seismic data

o Site class (soft rock).............................................................................C
o Fa, Fv ....................................................................................................1.0

o Sa(0.2) ............................................................................................0.59g
o IEFaSa(0.2) ........................................................................................0.59
o Sa(1.0) ............................................................................................0.14g
o For the wood-concrete hybrid structure:
• Rd (moderately ductile concrete shearwalls) ..............................2.0
• Ro (moderately ductile concrete shearwalls) ..............................1.4
• Empirical period Ta .......................................................... 0.57 sec
• Period from dynamic analysis in transverse direction....... 0.50 sec
• Period from dynamic analysis in longitudinal direction ... 0.80 sec
• Estimated total weight of the building ................2 300 metric tons
• Equivalent static base shear .............................................2 337 kN
• Dynamic base shear in transverse direction ................... 1 900 kN
• Dynamic base shear in longitudinal direction ................ 1 665 kN
o For the concrete structure alternative:
• Rd (moderately ductile concrete shearwalls) ..............................2.0
• Ro (moderately ductile concrete shearwalls) ..............................1.4
• Empirical period Ta .......................................................... 0.57 sec
• Period from dynamic analysis in transverse direction....... 0.69 sec
• Period from dynamic analysis in longitudinal direction ... 0.86 sec
• Estimated total weight of the building ................7 206 metric tons
• Equivalent static base shear .............................................5 920 kN
• Dynamic base shear in transverse direction ................... 4 860 kN
• Dynamic base shear in longitudinal direction ................ 3 740 kN

APPENDIX B DRAWINGS OF WOOD-CONCRETE
HYBRID STRUCTURE

Project number 08-345
8-STOREY WOOD & Date 2009-09-30 S1

3D VIEW
*ALL JOISTS AND FLOORING OMITTED FOR CLARITY CONCRETE BUILDING Drawn by Alex Fugère, tech.
Checked by Kevin Below, ing. Ph.D. Scale

2009-10-21 12:52:01
4 5
1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10
17150 17150
905 5150 7000 5000 5150 6700 5300

2550 1900 2550
A
5800
2 2 2 1 1
B
5800
4250
2 1 1
C 6515
5800
2 2 2 1 1
D
5800
2 2 2 1 1
E
5800
2 2 2 1 1
58000
F
5800
2 2 2 1 1
G
7705
5800
2 2 1 1
H 4
7300
5800
2 2 1 1
I
5800
2 2 2 1 1
J
5800
RESERVED AREA FOR LOCKERS
LEVEL 0 - FOUNDATION 8-STOREY WOOD & Date 2009-09-30 S2

1 : 350
*SEE FOOTINGS TABLE ON SHEET S10 CONCRETE BUILDING Drawn by Alex Fugere, tech.
Checked by Kevin Below, ing.Ph.D. Scale 1 : 350

2009-10-19 11:16:47
4 5
1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10
17150 17150
905 5150 7000 5000 5150 6700 5300
A
5800
B
5800
C
5800
D
5800
E
5800
58000
F
5800
G
5800
H
5800
I
5800
J
5800

LEVEL 0 - GARAGE LAYOUT Date 2009-09-30 S3
1 : 350 8-STOREY WOOD &
CONCRETE BUILDING Drawn by Alex Fugere, tech.

2009-10-19 11:17:10
1 : 350
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
LEVEL 1 - GROUND
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
2
30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x
STAIRS
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
905 5150
ELEVATOR
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m
3
4
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x
7000
17150
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m
5
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
500 x 850mm
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
5000
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m
STAIRS
7
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
8-STOREY WOOD &

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
5150
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
CONCRETE BUILDING
m m m m m m m m m
8
Date
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
Drawn by
6700
17150
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
9
Project number
5300
Checked by Kevin Below, ing.Ph.D.

Alex Fugere, tech.
2009-09-30
08-345
10
Scale
S4
1 : 350
2009-10-21 12:52:43
1 : 350
LEVELS 2 & 3
*ALL BEAMS ARE IN GLULAM D.Fir-L 20f-E
**ALL COLUMNS ARE IN GLULAM D.Fir-L 16c-E U.N.O.
***ALL JOISTS AND FLOORING OMITTED FOR CLARITY
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
17 22 22 13 13 13 22 22 22 22 17
5x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
26 22 22 53 53 53 22 22 22 22 26
6 8 8 2 2 2 8 8 8 8 6
2
130x380 130x380 130x380 130x190 130x266 130x266 130x190 130x380 130x380 130x380 130x380
4
S11
STAIRS
130x266
13 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 13
905 5150
ELEVATOR
0x 5x 5x 0x
130x266
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
2550
53 22 22 22 22 22 22 53
2 130x418 8 130x418 225x456 130x418 228 130x418 8 130x418 8 130x418 8 130x418 8 130x418 8 130x418 2
3
27 27 27 27 27 27 27
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
4
13 22 2 26 26 26 26 22 13
0x 5x 26 26 5x 0x
53 22 130x4182 66 27 6 27 6 27 6 27 6 22 53
27 6 27 6
130x228
130x228
2 8 75 8 2
5x x2 130x418 5x 130x418 5x2 130x418 5x2 130x418 5x2 130x418 5x2
26 66 26 66 66 66 66
130x418 130x418 6 6 130x418 130x418
1900
7000
130x304
17150
13 22 22 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 22 13
130x304
0x 5x 5x 5x 0x
53 22 22 22 53
5
130x228
130x228
2 8 8 130x380 8 2
6
130x418 130x418 130x418 22 130x418 22 130x418 22 130x418 22 130x418 22 130x418 130x228 130x418
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
22 22 22 22 22
8-STOREY WOOD &

8 8 8 8 8
1
CONCRETE BUILDING
2550
17 22 22 22 22 30 13 22 22 17
5000
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x x5 0x 5x 5x 5x
130x266
26 22 22 22 22 32 53 22 22 26
STAIRS
6 8 8 8 8 2 130x190 8 8 6
130x266
7
130x380 130x380 130x380 130x380 130x190 130x266 130x266 3 1 225 130x380 130x380 130x190 130x380
0x x2
53
2 28
Date
Drawn by
8
Project number

Alex Fugere, tech.
2009-09-30
08-345
Scale
S5
1 : 350
2009-10-19 11:18:14
1 : 350
LEVELS 4, 5 & 6
I

J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C

58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
13 17 17 13 13 13 17 17 17 17 13
0x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 0x
30 22 22 45 45 45 22 22 22 22 30
4 8 6 6 6 8
130x380 8 130x380 130x380 130x380 8 130x380 8 130x380 8 130x380 4
2
130x190 130x266 130x266 130x190
1
STAIRS
S10
13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 13
905 5150
ELEVATOR
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 0x
130x266
130x266
2550
45 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 45
6 130x418 8 130x418 225x456 8 130x418 8 130x418 8 130x418130x418 8 8 130x418 8 130x418 6
3
22 22 22 22 22 22 22
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 1
4
13 17 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 75 13
0x 5x 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 0 0 x2 0x
22 130x418130x4182
130x228
45 22 28 45
6 130x418 8 130x418 5x1 25 130x418 130x418 6
90 x1
130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 90
1900
7000
1
130x304
17150
13 17 17 17 22 17 22 22 22 22 75 13
130x304
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x x2 0x
130x228
5
45 22 22 22 19 22 19 19 19 19 28 45
6 130x418 8 130x418 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 130x418 6
6
130x380
8-STOREY WOOD &

17 17 17
130x418 130x418 130x418 5x 130x418 5x 130x418 5x 130x418 130x228
CONCRETE BUILDING
22 22 22
8 8 8
17
2550
13 17 17 17 17 13 13 13 17 17 5x 13
5000
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x 5x 0x
130x266
22
130x266
30 22 22 22 22 45 45 45 22 22 8 30
STAIRS
4 130x380 8 130x380 8 130x380 8 130x380 8 6 6 6 8 130x380 8 130x380 130x380 4

7
130x190 130x266 130x266 130x190 130x190
Date
Drawn by
2
S10
Project number
8

Alex Fugere, tech.
2009-09-30
08-345
Scale
S6
1 : 350
2009-10-19 11:23:48
1 : 350
LEVELS 7 & 8
I
J
F
K
E
B
A

H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
13 17 17 13 13 13 17
0x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x
19 15 15 30 30 30 15
0 130x380 2 130x380 2 4 4 4 2 130x380 130x380 130x380 130x380
2
130x380 130x190 130x266 130x266 130x190 17

5x
17
5x
17
5x
13
0x
15 15 15 19
2 2 2 0
STAIRS
13 17 17 17 17 17 17 13
5 5 5 5
905 5150
ELEVATOR
5x x x x x
130x266
0x 5x 0x
130x266
2550
30 15 15 15 15 15 15 30
4 130x418 2 130x418 225x456 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 130x418 4
3
17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
4
13 17 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 15 13
0x 5x 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 2 0x
30 15
130x228
30
130x228
4 130x418 2 130x418 130x418 4
130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 17
1900
7000
130x304
130x304
17150
5x
13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 15 13
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 2 0x
5
30 15 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
130x228
30
130x228
4 130x418 2 0 0 0 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x418 0 130x228 130x418 4
6
130x418 17 17 17 17 17 17
130x380
17
8-STOREY WOOD &

5x 130x418 5x 130x418 5x 130x418 5x 5x 5x 5x
15 15 15 15 15 15 15
CONCRETE BUILDING
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17
2550
13 17 13 13 13 17
5x 0x 0x 0x 5x
5000
0x 5x
130x266
130x266
19 15 15 30 30 30 15
2 4 4 4 2
STAIRS
0 130x380 2 130x380 130x380 130x380 130x380 130x190 130x380

7
130x380 17
5x
17
5x 130x190 130x266 130x266 130x190 17
5x
17
5x
13
0x
Date
15 15 15 15 19
2 2 2 2 0
Drawn by
8
Project number

Alex Fugere, tech.
2009-09-30
08-345
Scale
S7
1 : 350
2009-10-19 11:26:21
1 : 350
ROOF
I
J
F

K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
130x418 130x418 130x418 130x266 130x304 130x304 130x266 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418
2
17 17 13
13 17 17 13 13 13 17 17 5x 5x 0x
0x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x 5x 15 15 19
19 15 15 30 30 30 15 15
2 2 0
0 2 2 4 4 4 2 2
STAIRS
130x228
905 5150
130x228
ELEVATOR
WEB JOIST
2550
WOOD OPEN
130x494 130x494 130x494 130x456 130x456 130x456 130x456 130x456 130x456 130x494
3
17 17 13
13 17 17 17 17 17 5x 5x 0x
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
4
15 15 30
30 15 15 15 15 15
2 2 4
4 2 130x380 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418 2 130x418
130x456 130x456 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 130x380 130x456
5x
13 17
5x
19 130x418
5x
19 130x418
5x
19 130x418
5x
19 130x418
5x
19 130x418
5x
19 130x418 19 175
13
1900
7000
0x
130x266
130x152
130x266
130x152
17150
0x 5x 17 0 x1 30
30 15 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 52 4
4 2 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x
5
19 19 19 19 19 19 19
130x494 130x494 0 130x456 0 130x456 0 130x456 0 130x456 0 130x456 0 130x456 0 130x266 130x494
6
17 13
13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 130x380 5x 0x
8-STOREY WOOD &

0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 15 30
30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2 4
CONCRETE BUILDING
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2550
130x228
5000
130x228
WEB JOIST
WOOD OPEN
STAIRS
130x418 130x418 130x418 130x418 130x266 130x304 130x304 130x266 130x418 130x418 130x228 130x418
7
17 13
13 17 17 17 17 13 13 13 17 17 5x 0x
0x 5x 5x 5x 5x 0x 0x 0x 5x 5x
Date
15 19
19 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 15 15
2 0
0 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2
Drawn by
8
Project number

Alex Fugere, tech.
2009-09-30
08-345
Scale
S8
1 : 350
2009-10-19 11:27:30
5 4
8 7 6 3 2 1
4.5
17150
5000 2550 1900 2550 5150 905
Él. 36.200
ROOF
Él. 33.000
LEVEL 8
Él. 29.800
LEVEL 7
4
4
30
15
19
19
15
30
0x
5x
5x
5x
5x
0x
13
17
17
17
17
13
Él. 26.600
LEVEL 6
Él. 23.400
9600
LEVEL 5
3 101
S10 S11
Él. 20.200
LEVEL 4
6
6
45
22
19
19
22
45
0x
5x
5x
5x
5x
0x
13
17
22
22
17
13
Él. 17.000
LEVEL 3
7300
Él. 13.800
LEVEL 2
2
2
53
22
26
26
22
53
0x
5x
5x
5x
5x
0x
Él. 10.600
13
22
27
27
22
13
LEVEL 1 - GROUND
250
60 600
m
m
m
0m
0m
0m
0m
60
60
30
x
x
0
0
30
30
30
30
Él. 6.000
LEVEL 0 -
FOUNDATION
SECTION 100
1 : 200



2009-10-21 12:53:30
H
3100
ELEVATOR
300
3000
STAIRS
2850
3000
STAIRS 300
C
5300
I 6 7
905 5150
6354 DETAIL 2
1 : 100
S6
1 2 3
DETAIL 1
1 : 100
S6
OSB FACE MOUNT WOOD OPEN

20 mm HANGER WEB JOIST
32
BEAM 130x380
RESILIENT
BAR 2-GYPSUM 16 mm
DETAIL 3
1 : 10
S9

Checked by Kevin Below, ing.Ph.D. Scale As indicated

2009-10-19 11:30:56
OSB 16mm
WOOD FIBER BACKING
OR HARDWOOD
32 mm 38x64
FLOOR
OSB WOOD OPEN

20 mm WEB JOIST
ACOUSTIC
32
RESILIENT
INSULATION 2-GYPSUM 16 mm
BAR
SEE ARCH.
SECTION 101
1 : 10
S9
4.5
K
130x152
130x152
130x152 130x152 130x152
3 4 5 6
DETAIL 4
1 : 100
S5
FOOTINGS
No. DIMENSIONS ELEVATION AT TOP REBAR
1 36" x 36" x 14" 5 700 X-15M EACH WAY
2 60" x 40" x 18" 5 700 X-15M EACH WAY
3 258" x 168" x 20" 5 700 X-15M EACH WAY
4 306" x 288" x 20" 5 700 X-15M EACH WAY

Checked by Kevin Below, ing.Ph.D. Scale As indicated

2009-10-19 11:32:15
APPENDIX C DRAWINGS OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE
ALTERNATIVE

8-STOREY CONCRETE Date 2008-04-07 S1

3D VIEW Drawn by Alex Fugère, tech.
*ALL JOISTS AND FLOORING OMITTED FOR CLARITY BUILDING
Checked by Kevin Below, ing. Ph.D. Scale
2009-04-27 18:43:24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17000 17150
905 5025 6950 5025 5150 6700 5300
A 5800
2 2 2 1 1
B
5800
4250
2 STAIRS 1 1
C 6500
5800
2 2 2 1 1
D
5800
2 2 2 1 1
E
5800
2 2 2 1 1
58000
58300
F
5800
2 2 2 1 1
G
7630
5800
2 2 1 1
H 4
ELEVATOR
5800
7300
STAIRS 2 2 1 1
I
5800
2 2 2 1 1
J
5800
K
34450
LEVEL 0 - FOUNDATION 8-STOREY CONCRETE Date 2008-04-07 S2

1 : 350
Drawn by Author
*SEE FOOTINGS TABLE ON SHEET S10 BUILDING
Checked by Checker Scale 1 : 350
2009-04-27 18:43:59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17000 17150
905 5025 6950 5025 5150 6700 5300
A
5800
B
5800
STAIRS
C
5800
D
5800
E
5800
58000
58300
F
5800
G
5800
H ELEVATOR
5800
STAIRS
I
5800
J
5800
K
34450

LEVEL 0 - GARAGE LAYOUT Date 2008-04-07 S3
1 : 350 8-STOREY CONCRETE
Drawn by Author
BUILDING
2009-04-27 18:44:21
1 : 350
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
LEVEL 1 - GROUND LEVEL

2
STAIRS
905 5025
ELEVATOR
3
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x
65 65 65 65 65 65 65
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m
6950
17000
4
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x
65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m
5025
STAIRS
BUILDING
5
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x
65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m
5150
8-STOREY CONCRETE
6
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
Date
Drawn by
6700
17150
Checked by
7
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Project number
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
5300
8
Checker
Author
2008-04-07
08-345
Scale
S4
1 : 350
2009-04-27 18:44:44
1 : 300
LEVELS 2 & 3
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
905
2
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
STAIRS
0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
ELEVATOR
5025
3
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
6950
17000
BUILDING
4
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
STAIRS
5025
8-STOREY CONCRETE
5
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
Date
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
Drawn by
m m m m m m m m m m
Checked by
6
Project number
S9
Checker
100
Author
2008-04-07
08-345
Scale
S5
1 : 300
2009-04-27 18:45:13
1 : 300
I
LEVELS 4, 5 & 6
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
905
2
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
STAIRS
m m m m m m m m m
ELEVATOR
5025
3
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
1
S10
6950
17000
BUILDING
4
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
STAIRS
5025
8-STOREY CONCRETE
5
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Date
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
Drawn by
2
Checked by
S10
6
Project number
S9
100
Checker
Author
2008-04-07
08-345
Scale
S6
1 : 300
2009-04-27 18:45:33
1 : 300
LEVELS 7 & 8
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
905
2
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
STAIRS
m m m m m m m m m
ELEVATOR
5025
3
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
6950
17000
4
BUILDING
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
5025
STAIRS
8-STOREY CONCRETE
5
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
Date
Drawn by
Checked by
6
Project number
S9
100
Checker
Author
2008-04-07
08-345
Scale
S7
1 : 300
2009-04-27 18:46:06
1 : 300
ROOF
I
J
F
K
E
B
A
H
D
C
G
58000
1
5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
905
2
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
5025
3
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m
6950
17000
4
BUILDING
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
5025
8-STOREY CONCRETE
5
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x x x x x x x x x x
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m
m m m m m m m m m m
Date
Drawn by
Checked by
6
Project number
S9
100
Checker
Author
2008-04-07
08-345
Scale
S8
1 : 300
2009-04-27 18:46:42
6 5 4 3 2 1
Él. 36.200
ROOF
m
0m
0m
0m
0m
30
30
30
30
x
x
0
0
Él. 33.000
30
30
30
30
LEVEL 8
Él. 29.800
LEVEL 7
m
m
0m
0m
0m
0m
40
40
40
40
x
x
Él. 26.600
0
0
30
30
30
30
LEVEL 6
Él. 23.400
LEVEL 5
Él. 20.200
LEVEL 4
m
m
0m
0m
0m
0m
50
50
50
50
x
x
0
0 Él. 17.000
35
35
35
35
LEVEL 3
Él. 13.800
LEVEL 2
m
m
0m
0m
0m
0m
60
60
60
60
850
x
x
0
0
35
35
35
35
Él. 10.600
LEVEL 1 - GROUND
250
LEVEL
250
m
0m
0m
m
m
0m
65
65
0m
65
x
30
0
x
40
40
x
0
0
40
30
Él. 6.000
LEVEL 0 -
FOUNDATION
SECTION 100
1 : 200
S5
*ALL BEAMS & COLUMNS ARE IN GLULAM
24F-1.9E Black Spruce GL

Drawn by Author
BUILDING
2009-04-27 18:47:07
H 2760
ELEVATOR
6100
3190
STAIRS 300
I
905 5025
6430
1 2 3
300
3050
STAIRS
DETAIL 1
1 : 100
S6
C
5300
4 5
DETAIL 2
1 : 100
S6
FOOTINGS
No. DIMENSIONS ELEVATION AT TOP REBAR
1 1000x1000x775 5 700 6-20M EACH WAY
2 1100x1100x900 5 700 7-20M EACH WAY
3 6500x4250x500 5 700
4 7630x7300x500 4 780

Drawn by Author
BUILDING
2009-04-27 18:47:41
APPENDIX D ESTIMATED COST OF WOOD-
CONCRETE HYBRID
The estimated cost of construction for this building was calculated using unit costs
appropriate for Quebec City in late summer 2008. Costs are currently fairly volatile, with
large increases principally in steel, increasing the cost of steel structures and, to a certain
extent, reinforced concrete structures. The following tables indicate the calculated
quantities as well as the assumed unit costs.
The estimated cost will obviously not reflect the exact prices submitted by eventual
bidders for this work. It is, of course, only an estimation, but it should be accurate
enough to be able to draw conclusions on the relative costs of the wood-concrete building
and the concrete alternative of this study.
WOOD / CONCRETE HYBRID STRUCTURE

Item Quantity Units Unit price Sub-total Amount
EXCAVATION 134 778 $
2
Surface stripping 3 060 m 2.00 6 120
3
Mass excavation 9 968 m 12.00 119 618
3
Excavation for footings and mats 246 m 15.00 3 690
3
Excavation for plumbing 150 m 25.00 3 750
3
Excavation for elevator shaft 24 m 25.00 600
Water control 1 000
BACKFILL 100 276 $
Under slab in basement 250 mm 986 ton 20.00 19 720
Under footings and mats 123 ton 20.00 2 460
Sand ext. walls 3 906 ton 16.00 62 496
Sand int plumbing and drains 300 ton 25.00 7 500
Perimeter drain 180 m 45.00 8 100
ASPHALT PAVING 41 412 $
2
Paving 70 mm basement 1 972 m 21.00 41 412

CONCRETE 763 682 $
Mobile crane 5 000
Formwork footings and mats
2
Type 1 84 m 70.00 5 859
2
Type 2 59 m 70.00 4 158
2
Types 3 & 4 (Mats) 26 m 70.00 1 824
2
Formwork footings perimeter walls 93 m 70.00 6 486
2
Formwork perimeter walls 1 797 m 45.00 80 883
2
Formwork stair elevator shafts 2 599 m 72.00 187 119
2
Formwork columns 317 m 75.00 23 805
2
Formwork flat slab 2 004 m 58.00 116 220
2
Formwork drop panels 31 m 58.00 1 771
Formwork bulkheads 185 m 40.00 7 412
2
Formwork edge beams 140 m 45.00 6 291
Rebar footings and mats
Type 1 945 kg 1.60 1 512
Type 2 720 kg 1.60 1 152
Types 3 & 4 2 700 kg 1.60 4 320
Rebar footings perimeter walls 1 920 kg 1.60 3 072
Rebar perimeter walls 17 750 kg 1.60 28 400
Rebar stair elevator shafts 10 000 kg 1.60 16 000
Rebar columns 5 000 kg 1.60 8 000
Rebar flat slab 29 700 kg 1.60 47 520
Rebar edge beams 3 495 kg 1.60 5 592
Concrete footings and mats
3
Type 1 23 m 135.00 3 107
3
Type 2 18 m 135.00 2 426
3
Types 3 & 4 47 m 135.00 6 348
3
Concrete footings perimeter walls 41 m 145.00 5 911
3
Concrete perimeter walls 225 m 145.00 32 578
3
Concrete stair elevator shafts 390 m 145.00 56 526
3
Concrete columns 27 m 145.00 3 902
3
Concrete flat slab 481 m 135.00 64 923
3
Concrete drop panels 19 m 135.00 2 566
3
Concrete edge beams 35 m 135.00 4 718
Concrete pump 15 hr 150.00 2 250
2
Slab finishing 2 004 m 6.25 12 524
2
Slab curing 2 004 m 1.75 3 507

WOOD STRUCTURE 1 261 114 $
Posts and beams, joists, connections 500 000
2
Floor elements 7 136 m
2
OSB 20 mm 7 136 m 11.00 78 492
2
Wood fibre sheets 12 mm 7 136 m 13.42 95 760
2x3 20 515 m 1.00 20 515
2
OSB 16 mm 7 136 m 11.00 78 492
2
Acoustic insulation 7 136 m 6.72 47 951
Resilient channel 20 515 m 0.82 16 822
2
Gypsum sheets on ceiling 14 271 m 3.86 55 087
Roof elements
2
OSB 1 019 m 11.00 11 213
2
Installation of structure 8 155 m 25.00 203 875
2
Installation of floor elements 7 136 m 20.00 142 713
2
Installation of roof elements 1 019 m 10.00 10 194
Total direct costs 2 301 262 $
General conditions 5% 115 063 $
2 416 325 $
Overhead and profit 10% 241 632 $
2 657 957 $
Taxes GST 5% 132 898 $
2 790 855 $
PST 7.5% 209 314 $
3 000 169 $
Contingencies 10% 300 017 $
TOTAL 3 300 186 $

APPENDIX E ESTIMATED COST OF CONCRETE
ALTERNATIVE
CONCRETE STRUCTURE
EXCAVATION 134 778 $
2
Surface stripping 3 060 m 2.00 6 120
3
Mass excavation 9 968 m 12.00 119 618
3
Excavation for footings and mats 246 m 15.00 3 690
3
Excavation for plumbing 150 m 25.00 3 750
3
Excavation for elevator shaft 24 m 25.00 600
Water control 1 000
BACKFILL 100 276 $
Under slab in basement 250 mm 986 ton 20.00 19 720
Under footings and mats 123 ton 20.00 2 460
Sand ext. walls 3 906 ton 16.00 62 496
Sand int plumbing and drains 300 ton 25.00 7 500
Perimeter drain 180 m 45.00 8 100
ASPHALT PAVING 41 412 $
2
Paving 70 mm basement 1 972 m 21.00 41 412

CONCRETE STRUCTURE
CONCRETE 2 291 578 $
Pad for tower crane 5 000
Tower crane 3 month 2 500
Tower crane electricity 3 month 2 500.00 7 500
Formwork footings and mats
2
Types 1, 2, 3 168 m 70.00 11 791
2
Types 4 & 5 (Mats) 26 m 70.00 1 824
2
Formwork footings perimeter walls 111 m 70.00 7 783
2
Formwork perimeter walls 1 797 m 45.00 80 883
2
Formwork stair elevator shafts 2 388 m 72.00 171 948
2
Formwork columns 2 020 m 75.00 151 500
2
Formwork flat slab 10 159 m 58.00 589 210
2
Formwork drop panels 31 m 58.00 1 771
Formwork bulkheads 1 397 m 40.00 55 892
2
Formwork edge beams 185 m 45.00 8 307
Rebar footings and mats
Types 1, 2, 3 2 200 kg 1.60 3 520
Types 4 & 5 (Mats) 6 180 kg 1.60 9 888
Rebar footings perimeter walls 1 920 kg 1.60 3 071
Rebar perimeter walls 17 750 kg 1.60 28 400
Rebar stair elevator shafts 16 000 kg 1.60 25 600
Rebar columns 44 550 kg 1.60 71 280
Rebar flat slab 115 621 kg 1.60 184 994
Rebar edge beams 4 615 kg 1.60 7 384
Concrete footings and mats
3
Types 1, 2, 3 59 m 135.00 7 975
3
Types 4 & 5 (Mats) 55 m 135.00 7 425
3
Concrete footings perimeter walls 49 m 145.00 7 093
3
Concrete perimeter walls 225 m 145.00 32 578
3
Concrete stair elevator shafts 358 m 145.00 51 942
3
Concrete columns 190 m 145.00 27 550
3
Concrete flat slab 2 438 m 135.00 329 145
3
Concrete drop panels 19 m 135.00 2 566
3
Concrete edge beams 38 m 135.00 5 133
Concrete pump 95 hr 150.00 14 250
2
Slab finishing 10 159 m 6.25 63 493
2
Slab curing 10 159 m 1.75 17 778
2
Ceiling treatment 10 159 m 19.00 193 017
2
Floor underlayment 10 159 m 10.00 101 588
2
REDUCTION IN WALL AREA -364 m 200.00 (72 720) (72 720)
WINTER CONDITIONS ????

CONCRETE STRUCTURE
Total direct costs 2 495 325 $
General conditions 5% 124 766 $
2 620 091 $
Overhead and profit 10% 262 009 $
2 882 100 $
Taxes GST 5% 144 105 $
3 026 205 $
PST 7.5% 226 965 $
3 253 170 $
Contingencies 10% 325 317 $
TOTAL 3 578 487 $

APPENDIX F ALTERNATIVE DIAPHRAGMS DESIGNED
NOT TO YIELD
Sentence 9.8.5.2.2 of O86-09 states that when diaphragms are designed not to yield
before the supporting SFRS, they shall be designed to resist a seismic force, VDi, taken as
VDi = γi Fi (for non-wood SFRS),
where
VDi = seismic design force on the diaphragm at storey i,
Fi = factored seismic force at storey i calculated using the RdRo for the SFRS,
γi = over-strength coefficient applied at level i for the vertical SFRS, determined on the
basis of principles of capacity-based design in accordance with the applicable CSA
material standard, in this case CSA A23.3.
VDi need not exceed the value of load Fi determined using RdRo = 1.3, which means that
γi need not exceed 2.8 / 1.3 = 2.15 in this case.
The capacity of the concrete SFRS at each level is limited by the shear capacity and the
flexural capacity of that part of the SFRS below that level.
The capacity design figures were determined for the concrete shearwalls as the probable
moment resistance as specified in SA-A23.3-04 (tension steel stress of 1.25 fy, φc and φs
taken as 1.0 instead of 0.65 and 0.85 respectively). The design results from ADA can be
used to estimate the probable resistance of the shearwalls, using the following
simplifications.
The increase in steel stresses would be 1.25/0.85 = 1.47, and the increase in concrete
stresses would be 1/0.65 = 1.54. To be conservative, the ratio of the probable capacities
in flexure and in shear to the design capacities in flexure and shear can be taken as 1.54,
so the overstrength factor, γi, can be taken as 1.54 times the overdesign factor (design
moment capacity Mr / design moment Mf). Furthermore, once one of the two SFRS
shearwalls starts to yield, the diaphragm will not take any more load, so the smaller

overstrength factor of the two SFRSs can be used (Column 3 of Table F1 for the smaller
flexural overdesign factor, and Column 4 for the smaller shear overdesign factor).
Table F1. Diaphragm design loads for the y-direction

Seismic Design
SFRS SFRS gi = (1.54 VDi
Load VDi = Figi Wind
Overdesign Overdesign SFRS . Yield
Level (RdRo = Not yield Load
Mr / Mf Vr / Vf Overdesign) (Table 2)
2.8) (Table 2)
(Max 2.8/1.3 =
(kN) 2.15) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Column 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Roof 412 34.48 3.44 1.56 643 577 175
8 322 9.21 3.74 1.56 503 451 345
7 276 3.83 2.50 1.56 431 387 335
6 230 1.48 2.10 1.56 359 322 323
5 184 1.01 1.80 1.56 287 258 310
4 138 1.06 1.65 1.62 224 213 306
3 92 1.06 1.17 1.62 150 213 306
2 46 1.05 1.08 1.62 75 213 306
The forces Fi in Column 2 are the factored seismic forces acting on the diaphragm,
representing 73% of the total factored seismic force at each level since the floor loads
comprise 73% of the total seismic mass of the building, since in this case the concrete
shearwalls represent 27% of the total seismic mass.
Column 5 shows the limiting over-strength factor (flexural or shear), taking into account
that the strength of the SFRS at any level is limited by the strength of each level below,
so that γi at any level cannot be greater than that of each level below. Column 6 gives the
resulting design diaphragm force. Columns 7 and 8 show the comparable figures from
the seismic scenario where the diaphragm is designed to yield, and the wind loads. The
wind loads are critical for the lower levels, whereas for the upper levels, there is a slight
advantage, in this case about 10%, in designing the diaphragms to yield.

Case Study 8 Story

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study 8 Story

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL FEASIBILITY OF AN 8-STOREY

Dossier: 08345 Page 1 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

2.2 Building Description

Dossier: 08345 Page 2 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Dossier: 08345 Page 3 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

3.4 Floor Composition

Dossier: 08345 Page 4 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

CAN/CSA-O86-09, Engineering Design in Wood;

4.2 Design loads and parameters

4.3 Calculation methods and software

Dossier: 08345 Page 5 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Dossier: 08345 Page 6 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Roof 566 412 577 213 577

8 443 322 451 213 451

7 379 276 387 213 387

6 316 230 322 213 322

5 253 184 258 213 258

4 190 138 193 213 213

3 126 92 129 213 213

Roof 577 163 E 577

8 451 322 E 451

7 387 312 E 387

6 322 302 E 322

5 258 289 W 289

4 213 286 W 286

3 213 286 W 286

2 213 286 W 286

Dossier: 08345 Page 8 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

• Common wire nail diameter: 3.25 mm

Dossier: 08345 Page 9 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Fig. 1 Roof diaphragm shear flow (kN/m)

Dossier: 08345 Page 10 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Roof 8.24 3.25 38 12.5 64 Yes 64 100 300

5.3 Diaphragm moments

Dossier: 08345 Page 11 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

The shear force and shear flow distributions are unaffected.

Table 5. Diaphragm moments

Roof -187 -697 730 -697 -443

8 -146 -545 571 -545 -347

7 -125 -467 490 -467 -297

6 -105 -389 408 -389 -248

5 -94 -349 366 -349 -222

4 -93 -345 362 -345 -220

3 -93 -345 362 -345 -220

2 -93 -345 362 -345 -220

Dossier: 08345 Page 12 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

5.4 Diaphragm Collectors

Dossier: 08345 Page 13 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

In fact, there is a third alternative, which is to consider the band of diaphragm

5.5 Inter-storey Drift

Dossier: 08345 Page 14 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Table 6. SFRS displacements under seismic and wind loads in y-direction

Dossier: 08345 Page 15 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Dossier: 08345 Page 16 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Dossier: 08345 Page 17 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Dossier: 08345 Page 18 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Table 9. Seismic deflections for end cantilever section of diaphragm

Roof 0.3 3.6 5.5 1.0 10

5.5.2 Wind displacements

Dossier: 08345 Page 19 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Table 10. Inter-storey wind displacements at mid-span of central section of

Dossier: 08345 Page 20 of 61 DOUGLAS CONSULTANTS INC.

Wind Wind Dmax Dtotal Dtotal Inter-