AISC DG 37 - Hybrid Steel Frames With CLT

Design Guide 37
Hybrid Steel
Frames with
Wood Floors
Design Guide 37
Hybrid Steel
Frames with
Wood Floors
David Barber, PEng
Denis Blount
John J. Hand, PE, SE, LEED AP
Michelle Roelofs, PE
Lauren Wingo, PE, LEED GA
Jordan Woodson, PE
Frances Yang, SE, LEED AP BD+C
American Institute of Steel Construction

© AISC 2022
by
All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced
in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
The AISC logo is a registered trademark of AISC.
The information presented in this publication has been prepared following recognized principles of design
and construction. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon
for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability and applicability by a licensed engineer or architect. The publication of this information is not a
representation or warranty on the part of the American Institute of Steel Construction, its officers, agents,
employees or committee members, or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable
for any general or particular use, or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. All represen-
tations or warranties, express or implied, other than as stated above, are specifically disclaimed. Anyone
making use of the information presented in this publication assumes all liability arising from such use.
Caution must be exercised when relying upon standards and guidelines developed by other bodies and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time sub-
sequent to the printing of this edition. The American Institute of Steel Construction bears no responsibility
for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial publication
of this edition.
Printed in the United States of America

Authors
David Barber, P.Eng, is a Principal with Arup who specializes in the fire safety of mass-timber buildings. For more than 25
years, David has assisted with fire testing, developing new timber technologies, authoring fire safety design guides, working with
timber product suppliers, and completing fire safety solutions for mid-rise and high-rise timber buildings. David leads a global
team within Arup that works with researchers, architects, and developers in the fire safety of timber and hybrid structures.
Denis Blount is an Associate Principal with Arup and leads the Acoustic, Audiovisual, and Theater Consulting team in Arup’s
Seattle office. Denis is a leading advocate for mass-timber research and construction and has presented at numerous conferences
on the topic.
John J. Hand, P.E., S.E., LEED AP, is an Associate with Arup. His background includes the structural design of Arup’s first
steel and CLT project in the Americas. Since then, he has continued to work on numerous steel, mass-timber, and hybrid mass-
timber building projects across the United States.
Michelle Roelofs, P.E., is an Associate Principal with Arup. She has experience leading the structural design on a wide range of
projects showcasing innovative use of materials. She is an advocate for the use of hybrid structures that leverage the strengths of
different materials for highly efficient structures.
Lauren Wingo, P.E., LEED GA, is a Senior Structural Engineer with Arup in Washington, D.C. Lauren is a regional expert in
structural sustainability and applies this knowledge to her projects, focusing on reinvigorating existing building assets and utiliz-
ing low carbon structural materials.
Jordan Woodson, P.E., is a Senior Engineer with Arup in Washington, D.C. Over the last decade, Jordan has worked in steel,
timber, and concrete to provide innovative structural solutions for design-focused projects.
Frances Yang, S.E., LEED AP BD+C, is a Structures and Sustainability Specialist in the San Francisco office of Arup and leads
the Sustainable Materials Practice for the Americas region. She uses her structural and environmental background to drive down
embodied carbon in the built environment through projects and external collaborations. She serves on the board of the Carbon
Leadership Forum, co-chairs the ASCE/SEI SE 2050 Commitment Program, and had lead authorship of the ASCE Whole Build-
ing LCA: Reference Building Structure and Strategies handbook.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Ben Loshin, an acoustic consultant in Arup’s Seattle office specializing in the acoustic design of mass-
timber structures, for his contributions. They also wish to thank the American Institute of Steel Construction and the following
reviewers who provided valuable insight throughout the development of this Design Guide:
Eric Bolin Cindi Duncan Larry Kruth

Mark Braekevelt Lucas Epp Tanya Luthi
Jacinda Collins Ted Hazledine Margaret Matthew
Don Davies Ben Johnson Paul Richardson
Jim DeStefano John Klein Megan Stringer
iii
Preface
This Design Guide provides guidance for the design of steel-framed structures with mass-timber floors. The Design Guide is
intended for structural engineers with a background in steel design who may not have experience with mass-timber design. The
goal of the Design Guide is to provide a multi-disciplinary review of the design considerations that impact the structural design
of hybrid steel-framed structures with mass-timber floors, including fire, acoustics, and sustainability.
iv
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 3.4 FIRE PERFORMANCE OF STEEL-TO-MASS-
TIMBER INTERFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5 DETAILING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
CHAPTER 4 ACOUSTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
CHAPTER 1 MASS-TIMBER BACKGROUND
4.1 BASICS OF ACOUSTICS IN
INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MASS TIMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO MASS TIMBER . . . . . . . 1 4.1.1 Acoustic Design Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.2 TYPES OF MASS TIMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4.2 TYPICAL MASS-TIMBER
1.3 RELEVANT CODES AND STANDARDS . . . . . 2 FLOOR BUILDUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.3.1 2018 IBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.3 ACOUSTIC TOPPING OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . 41
1.3.2 2021 IBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CHAPTER 5 SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO HYBRID
5.1 BASICS OF EMBODIED CARBON . . . . . . . . 45
STEEL-TIMBER SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.1 Introduction to Embodied Carbon . . . . . 45
2.1 BENEFITS OF HYBRID STEEL-TIMBER 5.1.2 Carbon Storage and Biogenic Carbon . . . 45
SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2 COMPARATIVE LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT
2.2 CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OF HYBRID STEEL-TIMBER . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.1 Rhode Island School of Design . . . . . . . . 6 5.2.1 Introduction to Life-Cycle Assessment . . 46
2.2.2 901 E. 6th St. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.2 Comparative Life-Cycle
2.2.3 Houston Endowment Headquarters . . . . 10 Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3 HYBRID VS. TRADITIONAL 5.3 PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY
MASS TIMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CERTIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.1 Gravity Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3.1 Environmental Product Declarations . . . 50
2.3.2 Lateral Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.3.2 Recycled Content, Recyclability, and
2.4 BASIC HYBRID SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Circularity of Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.4.1 Primary Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.3.3 Sustainable Wood Product
2.4.2 Example System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.5 MECHANICAL SERVICES INTEGRATION . . 22 5.4 SUSTAINABILITY CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . 52
2.5.1 Horizontal Distribution of Services . . . . 22
2.5.2 Vertical Distribution of Services . . . . . . 22 CHAPTER 6 STRUCTURAL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLATE DESIGN . . . . . . . . 53
CHAPTER 3 FIRE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1 Steel Member Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1 BASICS OF FIRE PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . 27 Design Example 6.1—Noncomposite Hybrid
3.1.1 Mass Timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Steel Beam with CLT Panel . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.1.2 Structural Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.1.2 Timber Panel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2 CODE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Design Example 6.2—Timber Panel Design . . . . 59
3.2.1 Type III, IV-HT, V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Design Example 6.3—Fire Resistance Rating
3.2.2 Type IV-A, -B, -C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 of 5-Ply CLT Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.2.3 Podium Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.2 LATERAL SYSTEM DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2.4 Tall Buildings—Alternative Code 6.2.1 Steel Lateral Force-Resisting Systems . . 65
Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.2.2 Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 FIRE PROTECTION OPTIONS FOR Design Example 6.4—CLT Diaphragm Design . . 71
HYBRID SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.3 COMPOSITE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3.1 CLT Fire Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.3.1 Composite vs. Noncomposite Behavior . 76
3.3.2 Structural Steel Fire Resistance . . . . . . . 32 Design Example 6.5—Composite Hybrid Steel
Beam with CLT Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
v
6.4 VIBRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.4.1 Principles of Vibration Design . . . . . . . 88
6.4.2 Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.5 MASS TIMBER-TO-STEEL CONNECTION
TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.5.1 Fastener Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.5.2 Shop Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.6 DETAILING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . 91
6.6.1 Steel Moment Connections . . . . . . . . . 91
6.6.2 Steel Beam Camber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.6.3 Timber Panel Penetrations . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.6.4 Integrity and Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.6.5 Façade Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.6.6 Timber Shrinkage and Swelling . . . . . . 93
CHAPTER 7 CONSTRUCTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.1 PROCUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.2 ERECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.3 TOLERANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.4 TIMBER PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.5 FIRE RISK DURING CONSTRUCTION . . . . . 99
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
vi
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear in this Design Guide. The abbreviations are written out where they first appear within a
section.
ACI (American Concrete Institute) LSL (laminated strand lumber)

AESS (architecturally exposed structural steel) LVL (laminated veneer lumber)
AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) LWC (lightweight concrete)
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) MC (moisture content)
ANSI (American National Standards Institute) MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing)
APA (APA—The Engineered Wood Association) MPP (mass plywood panels)
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) MSR (machine stress rated)
ASD (allowable strength design) NDS (National Design Specification for Wood Construction)
ASTC (apparent sound transmission class) NFPA (National Fire Protection Association)
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) NIC (noise isolation class)
AV (audiovisual) NLT (nail-laminated timber)
AWC (American Wood Council) NNIC (normalized noise isolation class)
BIM (building information modeling) NWC (normal weight concrete)
BOF (basic oxygen furnace) OSB (oriented-strand board)
CG (center of gravity) PCR (product category rules)
CLT (cross-laminated timber) PNA (plastic neutral axis)
CWC (Canadian Wood Council) PSL (parallel strand lumber)
DF (douglas fir) PT (post-tensioned)
DLT (dowel-laminated timber) PV (photovoltaic)
EAF (electric arc furnace) RF (reduction factor)
EPD (environmental product declaration) RISD (Rhode Island School of Design)
FRR (fire resistance rating) SCL (structural composite lumber)
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) SDL (superimposed dead load)
FSTC (field sound transmission class) SDPWS (Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic)
GLT (glued-laminated timber)
SEI (Structural Engineering Institute)
GWP (global warming potential)
SFRM (sprayed fire-resistant materials)
HSS (hollow structural section)
SOM (Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill)
IBC (International Building Code)
ICC (International Code Council) SPF (spruce-pine-fir)
IE (impact estimator) STC (sound transmission class)
IIC (impact insulation class) SYP (southern yellow pine)
ILFI (International Living Future Institute) TCC (timber concrete composite)
IPD (integrated project delivery)
UL (Underwriters Laboratories)
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
LCA (life-cycle assessment)
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) WBLCA (whole building life-cycle assessment)
LFRS (lateral force-resisting system) WSP (wood structural panels)
LRFD (load and resistance factor design)
vii
Purpose
This Design Guide is written for structural engineers who are designing hybrid steel-framed structures with mass-timber floors.
It is intended for engineers who are experienced in structural steel design but not necessarily experienced in the design of mass
timber or mass-timber hybrid structures. While this Design Guide is intended primarily for structural engineers, the design of
hybrid steel-framed structures with mass-timber floors requires a holistic approach that considers fire performance, acoustic
considerations, and an understanding of sustainability principles. Background information and high-level advice for these topics
are covered in the Design Guide to provide the structural engineer with resources during early design stages to make informed
design decisions.
This intent of this Design Guide is to provide a comprehensive view of the design issues associated with hybrid steel-frame struc-
tures with mass-timber floors in the United States. The intent is not to replicate detailed information that has been published in
other code and industry documents. Detailed information regarding mass-timber design can be found in the following suggested
resources:
• National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction (AWC, 2018)

• Calculating the Fire Resistance of Wood Members and Assemblies (AWC, 2021a)
• Mass Timber Design Manual (Think Wood, 2021)
• U.S. Mass Timber Floor Vibration Design Guide (WoodWorks, 2021b)
• Mass Timber Buildings and the IBC (AWC/ICC, 2020)
• CLT Handbook (FPInnovations, 2013)
• Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber (APA, 2019)
• Nail Laminated Timber U.S. Design & Construction Guide (BSLC, 2017)
viii
Chapter 1
Mass-Timber Background Information
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO MASS TIMBER on edge and fastened with nails or screws to create a larger
structural panel. Commonly used in floors and roofs, it offers
Timber is a common construction material in the United
the potential for a variety of textured appearances in exposed
States. The two most common forms of timber construction
applications. Like glulam, NLT lends itself to the creation
are light-frame timber and mass timber. Light-frame timber
of unique forms, and wood structural panels (WSP) can be
is a construction typology that utilizes dimension lumber
added to provide a structural diaphragm.
and small section engineered wood products (e.g., engi-
neered joists) that are closely spaced together and typically Dowel-laminated timber (DLT)—Common in Europe and
sheathed with structural wood panels (e.g., plywood) and gaining popularity in the United States, DLT panels are
gypsum board. This construction type is typical in single- made from softwood lumber boards (2×4, 2×6, etc.) stacked
family and low-rise multifamily residential construction. like the boards of NLT but friction-fit with hardwood dow-
Mass timber differs from light-frame timber framing in that els. The dowels hold each board side-by-side, while the fric-
the products are typically panelized and engineered. Mass tion fit adds dimensional stability.
timber is typically factory made from smaller sawn or peeled
Structural composite lumber (SCL)—SCL is a family of
wood members. The members are typically a minimum of
wood products created by layering dried and graded wood
4 in. in thickness, making the structural performance and fire
veneers, strands, or flakes with moisture-resistant adhesive
performance different than light-frame construction.
into blocks of material that are subsequently resawn into
specified sizes. Two SCL products—laminated veneer lum-
1.2 TYPES OF MASS TIMBER
ber (LVL) and laminated strand lumber (LSL)—are relevant
There are several mass-timber products available. Wood- to the mass-timber category because they can be manufac-
Works, an initiative of the Wood Product Council, defines tured as panels in sizes up to 8 ft wide with varying thick-
some of the various mass-timber products as follows: nesses and lengths. Parallel strand lumber (PSL) columns
are also commonly used in conjunction with other mass-
Cross-laminated timber (CLT)—CLT consists of layers of timber products.
dimension lumber (typically three, five, or seven plies) ori-
ented at right angles to one another and then glued to form Mass plywood panels (MPP) are another mass-timber
structural panels with exceptional strength, dimensional sta- product that can be used as an alternative to CLT. In this
bility, and rigidity. CLT can be used for walls, floors, and product, each 1 in. lamella that is used to construct the panel
roofs—as a stand-alone system or with other structural prod- is constructed of nine layers of 9 in. veneer. MPP are com-
ucts (e.g., post and beam)—and is often left exposed on the monly available from 2 to 12 in. thick. MPP is classified
interior of buildings. Because of the cross-lamination, CLT as cross-laminated timber (CLT) under the ANSI/APA PRG
offers two-way span capabilities. 320 certification (APA, 2019).
Timber cassette systems can also be used as floor panels
Glued-laminated timber (glulam or, when used as panels, to achieve longer spans with reduced material usage. Timber
GLT)—Glulam is composed of individual wood lamina- cassettes typically consist of timber ribs with thin horizontal
tions (dimension lumber), selected and positioned based on layers top and bottom. Thermal and acoustic layers can be
their performance characteristics and bonded together with incorporated into the ribs to create a holistic design solution.
durable, moisture-resistant adhesives. These adhesives are The availability of timber cassette systems is limited in the
applied to the wide face of each lamination. Glulam has United States, partially due to the challenge of meeting U.S.
excellent strength and stiffness properties and is available in fire code limitations with nonsprinklered air cavities. Several
a range of appearance grades. It is typically used as beams manufacturers exist in Europe (e.g., Lignatur, Kerto-Ripa,
and columns, but it can also be used in the plank orientation Kielsteg), and domestic products may become available as
for floor or roof decking. It can also be curved and bent, the timber market matures in the United States.
lending itself to the creation of unique structural forms. The terms heavy timber and mass timber are sometimes
Nail-laminated timber (NLT)—NLT is created from indi- used interchangeably. For the purpose of this document,
vidual dimension lumber members (2×4, 2×6, etc.), stacked heavy timber is used to describe historic construction types
AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 1

utilizing solid sawn timber elements, while mass timber is 1.3.1 2018 IBC
used to describe the modern engineered timber products
Allowable construction types are defined in IBC, Sec-
summarized in this section.
tion 602 (ICC, 2018). Mass timber is permitted in the fol-
lowing construction types:
1.3 RELEVANT CODES AND STANDARDS
• Type III (Ordinary Construction)
Within the United States, each state adopts one or more
• Type IV (Heavy Timber)
model building codes, and all 50 states adopt the Interna-
tional Building Code (ICC, 2021a), hereafter referred to as • Type V (Wood-Frame Construction)
the IBC. The most current version was released in 2021, with
Types III and IV allow up to six floors and 85 ft for B
different states adopting earlier versions based on their code
(office) uses, and five floors and 85 ft for R (residential) uses.
adoption review cycle. Some states also adopt the National
Type V allows up to four floors for B and R uses and 70 ft.
Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code (NFPA, 2021a),
For all requirements and limitations related to the construc-
which will be referred to as NFPA 101 in this document.
tion type, refer to the relevant version of the IBC.
Many states further amend the model codes to provide the
basis for construction compliance. Other codes and standards
1.3.2 2021 IBC
impact construction, fire-protection systems, maintenance,
and firefighting operations, including the International Fire The 2021 IBC (ICC, 2021a) introduces three new construc-
Code (ICC, 2021b). tion types, Types IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C, that permit mass
IBC incorporates by reference the following structural timber. Type IV from the 2018 IBC is now referred to as
design standards: AISC Specification for Structural Steel Type IV-HT. Type IV-C is similar to Type IV-HT (Type IV
Buildings (AISC, 2016c), hereafter referred to as the AISC under the 2018 IBC) allowing mass timber up to 85 ft with
Specification, and National Design Specification (NDS) a greater number of floors and floor area compared with
for Wood Construction (AWC, 2018), hereafter referred to Type IV-HT. Type IV-B allows mass timber up to 12 floors
as NDS. These standards govern steel and timber design, and 180 ft in height, for R, B, and A (assembly) uses, with a
respectively. Design provisions for the use of CLT as a slab 2-hour fire-rated primary structure. Type IV-A allows mass
were added to the NDS in the 2015 version (AWC, 2015). timber up to 18 floors and 270 ft, with a 3-hour fire-rated
In addition to the U.S. codes and standards, several inter- primary structure and 2 hours for floors. For all requirements
national standards can be useful resources for mass-timber and limitations related to the construction type, refer to the
design, including CSA O86, Engineering Design in Wood version of the IBC relevant to your project.
(CWC, 2014), and Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures Figure 1-1 illustrates the mass-timber construction types
(CEN, 2004). in the 2018 and 2021 IBC. Code considerations for hybrid
steel and mass-timber construction are discussed in detail in
Section 3.2.
2 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

Fig. 1-1. Comparison of 2018 and 2021 IBC mass-timber construction types.

Chapter 2
Introduction to Hybrid Steel-Timber Systems
2.1 BENEFITS OF HYBRID STEEL-TIMBER • Vibration. Mass-timber structures are lightweight and
SYSTEMS can encounter vibration issues for longer spans or in
program areas sensitive to vibration. Steel floor framing
Modern hybrid steel and mass-timber systems utilize the provides a stiffer and tested solution to mitigate vibration
strengths of both materials to achieve highly efficient and risks for certain building typologies.
attractive structural systems. There are many benefits to
using hybrid steel-timber systems, including: • Lightweight. Hybrid systems are one of the most light-
weight structural systems available for large scale proj-
• Aesthetics. A shift toward biophilic design (design con- ects. The reduced weight of this system as compared
nected with nature) has spurred the interest in mass-timber to other conventional construction systems allows for
structural elements used as an architectural finish. Hybrid reduced foundations and makes hybrid construction an
systems showcase the beauty of mass timber along with ideal solution for vertical additions to existing buildings.
architecturally exposed steel that requires little additional
architectural finish. • Speed of construction. Both steel and mass timber are
fabricated off site with all connections and penetrations
• Sustainability. Most structural steel in the United States prefabricated. This prefabrication allows for easy and fast
is recycled, and the recycling rate exceeds any other installation on site, reducing overall project schedules.
construction material. Mass timber serves as a low car-
bon structural material option that can reduce the use of • Prefabrication. In addition to schedule benefits, offsite
high carbon materials within structural systems. Hybrid prefabrication allows for high levels of quality control
systems can achieve low embodied carbon by optimizing with minimal construction waste.
steel and timber for their unique strengths to minimize • Tall building capability. As the availability and popu-
overall structural material usage. larity of mass timber grows in the United States, clients
will want to build taller buildings utilizing the material.
• Long beam spans. Many building typologies require
Structural timber has limitations in its strength and stiff-
typical beam spans of 30 to 45 ft to accommodate estab-
ness that will limit the height of mass-timber vertical and
lished leasing and programmatic requirements. Mass-
lateral systems. Steel superstructures are proven and reli-
timber post and beam construction is more efficient with
able systems for tall buildings. Although not currently
beam spans less than 20 to 25 ft and require deep beams to
available as a construction type within U.S. building code
accommodate longer beam spans. Steel is better suited to
framework, the combination of a steel superstructure and
these market-driven long spans and can reduce the over-
mass-timber floor panels is a reliable and repeatable sys-
all building height as compared to timber post and beam
tem for tall buildings.
construction.
• Reduced column size. Timber columns are often required 2.2 CASE STUDIES
to have a large cross section in order to meet fire and
strength requirements. Steel columns can offer a signifi- As panelized mass-timber products such as CLT have
cantly smaller profile, therefore providing more usable become increasingly popular in the United States, a new era
floor area compared to timber columns. of hybrid steel and timber typologies have emerged. Some
examples of modern hybrid systems are as follows:
• Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) services • Steel-framed structures with mass-timber floors (focus of
coordination. The coordination of MEP services in a this document)
mass-timber building is a challenge, particularly on proj-
• Mass-timber post and beam construction with steel lateral
ects where column spacing exceeds 20 ft. Glulam beams
force-resisting system (LFRS)
are difficult to penetrate or notch without significant
reduction in beam capacity, although modest pipe pen- • Steel columns with point-supported mass-timber floors
etrations can typically be accommodated. Steel beams are • Glulam columns with steel floor framing and mass-timber
easy to penetrate and reinforce as needed to accommodate floors
MEP services. • Steel and timber trusses supporting mass-timber floors

All the typologies mentioned utilize steel in the timber case studies of hybrid systems with steel columns, steel
connections. Additionally, many mass-timber buildings uti- beams, steel LFRS, and mass-timber floors.
lize extensive secondary steel systems to support the façade
(where steel primary beams are not already present at the 2.2.1 Rhode Island School of Design
façade).
The Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) North Hall,
Custom hybrid systems utilizing asymmetrical steel
shown in Figure 2-3, is one of the first examples of modern
shapes are also available in the U.S. market. It is possible
hybrid steel-timber projects in the United States. The six-
to specify an asymmetric system similar to the system
story residence hall was delivered using an integrated proj-
developed by AISC and Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill, Ltd.
ect delivery (IPD) method that fosters early collaboration
(SOM) in AISC Steel & Timber Research for High-Rise Res-
between the owner, design team, and contractor. Some of the
idential Buildings (SOM, 2017). Proprietary hybrid systems
key project partners are as follows:
also exist in the U.S. market.
There are several built examples of hybrid systems that • Owner: Rhode Island School of Design
showcase some of the possible combinations of structural • Architect: NADAAA
steel and mass timber. The Beverly Regional Airport in Mas- • Structural engineer: Odeh Engineers
sachusetts, shown in Figure 2-1, opened in 2016 and is an
early project that used steel columns and a steel LFRS sup- • Contractor: Shawmut
porting a mass-timber roof structure. • CLT supplier: Nordic
The Stamford Media Village, shown in Figure 2-2, is an • Steel fabricator: Ocean Steel
early example of the hybrid steel-frame structure with mass-
timber floors utilized as part of an adaptive reuse project. • Steel erector: HB Welding
The existing cast-in-place concrete building was vertically The project team considered multiple structural options
extended by adding three floors of hybrid steel-frame and for the project, including all mass-timber post and beam,
CLT floor construction. The 20 ft × 40 ft column bays did steel frame plus CLT slab hybrid, and steel frame plus pre-
not lend themselves to a pure mass-timber solution because cast panels. Working within the IPD format, the collabo-
very deep glulam beams would be needed to span 40 ft. The rators were able to evaluate each scheme against various
solution utilized an architecturally exposed structural steel metrics, including speed, sustainability, cost, durability, and
(AESS) frame with CLT floor panels. The lightweight nature aesthetics.
of hybrid structures makes them an ideal candidate for adap- The hybrid solution was ultimately selected by the proj-
tive reuse where it is advantageous to minimize loads on an ect team because of the following advantages over the other
existing structure. structural systems:
While the scope of this document is limited to steel-
framed structures with mass-timber floors, many topics are • The pull planning identified that that the structure could be
relevant to other types of hybrid steel-timber construction erected in 6 weeks, which gave the system a speed advan-
described in this section. The following examples showcase tage over the other systems. The project was ultimately
Fig. 2-1. Beverly Regional Airport (photo courtesy of William Horne).

erected in 2.5 weeks, outperforming the original estimate. III-B construction which allowed the steel framing and the
There was also time savings in the shop drawing process CLT to be exposed.
as compared to precast planks. The structural system consists of steel beams spanning
• The CLT panels have reduced embodied carbon compared in one direction that are typically 12 in. deep, supporting
to the proposed precast planks. This provided a clear sus- 6d-in. Nordic 5-ply CLT panels (X-LAM). The panels are
tainability advantage over the precast plank system. E1 grade as defined by the Standard for Performance-Rated
Cross-Laminated Timber (APA, 2019) with machine stress
• The CLT panels could be exposed at the soffit, which pro- rated (MSR) lumber in the primary direction and spruce-
vided an aesthetic advantage to the hybrid system (Fig- pine-fir (SPF) No. 3 stud grade in the secondary direction.
ure 2-4). The ability to remove the ceiling in many areas The CLT panels are connected to the steel beams with self-
also contributed positively to the sustainability aspect by tapping screws through the top flange of the beams. The con-
reducing the amount of finish material on the project. nections are noncomposite but provide restraint to the top
The hybrid system was estimated to have a slightly higher flange of the steel beams. For acoustic performance, 2 in.
cost premium (approximately 10%) but the advantages of gypsum concrete topping and 1 in. acoustic mat are provided
the system outweighed the slight increase in structural cost. on top of the CLT panels. Figure 2-5 shows the typical floor
The project is classified as Type III-B construction on top system used in the project. The LFRS is reinforced masonry
of a Type I-A podium construction. There are no explicit fire walls.
protection requirements for the primary structure in Type The project utilized the CLT slab as the diaphragm for
the project. In early stages of the design, an additional layer
Fig. 2-2. Stamford Media Village (photo courtesy of DeStefano & Chamberlain).

Fig. 2-3. Exterior view of RISD North Hall (photo courtesy of John Horner).
Fig. 2-4. Interior views of RISD North Hall showing exposed CLT soffit and steel beams (photos courtesy of John Horner).

of plywood was included to act as the diaphragm follow- be placed around the columns as shown in Figure 2-6. The
ing a prescriptive code approach. The CLT supplier, Nordic, remaining floor beams and CLT panels were erected floor by
provided data on their CLT spline connections that allowed floor. The CLT panels were shipped with little camber and
Odeh Engineers to utilize the CLT panel as the diaphragm tight tolerances, allowing for quick erection and alignment
and eliminate the plywood sheathing, resulting in a cost of horizontal joints. The panel splices were installed using
and material savings for the project. The diaphragm was a nailed splice detail that was quick to execute in the field.
designed as a semi-rigid diaphragm.
The project team engaged WoodWorks throughout the 2.2.2 901 E. 6th St.
project for advice on this innovative system. One suggestion The 901 E. 6th St. project is a five-story, 130,000 ft2 core and
from WoodWorks was to provide CLT panels that were the shell office tailored for creative office tenants located in Aus-
full width of the building to minimize the number of pan- tin, Texas (Figure 2-7). Completed in 2018, it is one of the
els. Each panel is approximately 20 psf and weighs less than first examples of hybrid steel frame with mass-timber floors
5 tons total, which meant that they could be easily erected by in the United States. Key design team members include:
a small crane. This is compared to precast concrete planks
• Owner: Endeavour
that weigh approximately 75 to 80 psf and would require
significantly more crane picks to install the same square • Architect: Thoughtbarn/Delineate Studio LLC
footage. • Structural engineer: Leap!Structures
The steel columns are three levels tall and include only • Fire engineer: Arup
one splice due to the height of the building. The columns
were erected with one level of steel framing. The CLT pan- • Contractor: DCA Construction
els had precut edges and corners that allowed the panels to • CLT panel manufacturer: Structurlam
Fig. 2-5. Typical RISD floor system (image credit: Odeh Engineers, Inc.).

The design team was inspired by the building typology of the shafts. The project was designed and built under the 2012
turn of the century warehouses that expressed the structural IBC (ICC, 2012), which did not recognize CLT as a building
system. The hybrid steel-frame structure with CLT floors material. The project team worked with the city of Austin
matched this intended design aesthetic. Leaving the timber using existing test data and analytical approaches to justify
structure exposed created a warm palette that was intended the 1-hour FRR of the CLT panels as a floor system. The
to be memorable and desirable for creative office tenants. project team utilized conventional steel and gypsum wall
The project team credits this choice in material with support- shaft construction to achieve a 2-hour FRR for the shaft. The
ing faster leasing and higher lease rates. exposed steel was protected with intumescent paint.
The leasing requirements of this office project demanded The design team engaged CLT suppliers at the early stages
45 ft × 30 ft structural column bays, which is traditional for of design to ensure success utilizing this innovative structural
many office floor plates. Post and beam glulam construction system. The supplier was engaged in a design-assist process,
was considered but would have required very deep glulam working with the design team to design panel layouts and
beams to adequately achieve the spans. The hybrid steel- connections for the project. The design team and fabrica-
frame system was chosen to utilize the strength and flexibil- tion team utilized building information modeling (BIM) and
ity of the steel structure. This system allowed for shallower prefabrication on this project, but early trade coordination of
beam profiles that could be penetrated to accommodate MEP the MEP systems could have allowed for further leveraging
systems. The LFRS for the project is steel braced frames sur- of the prefabrication abilities of mass timber and steel.
rounding the interior service cores. The floor assembly consisted of 3 in. concrete topping on
The 5-ply, 6d in. CLT panels span approximately 9 ft a 4 in. acoustic mat on a nominal 7 in., 5-ply CLT panel
between steel beams. The CLT panels were SPF with a to achieve the acoustic requirements of the project, as illus-
douglas fir (DF) bottom layer. The panels were planed rather trated in Figure 2-9.
than sanded which provided a more rustic appearance for a
reduced cost. The hybrid structural system can be seen in 2.2.3 Houston Endowment Headquarters
Figure 2-8.
Given the project height and area, the building is Type III- The Houston Endowment Headquarters shown in Fig-
A, which requires a 1-hour fire-resistance rating (FRR) for ure 2-10 in downtown Houston, Texas, leverages the benefits
the primary structural frame and floors and a 2-hour FRR for of steel framing and CLT floor panels for a cost-effective
Fig. 2-6. CLT panels precut around columns (photo courtesy of Odeh Engineers, Inc.).

Fig. 2-7. 901 E. 6th St. exterior view (photo courtesy of Delineate Studio and Casey Dunn).
Fig. 2-8. CLT panels supported on steel beams (photo courtesy of David Barber).

Fig. 2-9. Typical floor assembly (credit: Delineate studio).
Fig. 2-10. Houston Endowment Headquarters frontal elevation rendering

(photo courtesy of Kevin Daly Architects with Productora, 2021).

and flexible structural design. The building is a 40,000 ft2 • More flexibility. The steel framing could easily accommo-
two-story office above parking to house the headquarters date the architectural programmatic goals with atriums,
for The Endowment, one of the largest philanthropic orga- stairs, cantilevers, and a signature canopy much more sim-
nizations in the city. The project is situated near downtown ply and with less structural depth. Architectural render-
Houston off Buffalo Bayou in Spotts Park. A signature steel ings show these features in Figures 2-11 and 2-12.
photovoltaic (PV) canopy covers the primary building mass • Strong sustainability. The CLT panels replaced a signifi-
and integrates the project into the surrounding landscape and cant amount of concrete in the upper levels, reducing the
city. Key design team members include: carbon footprint of the structure by almost 50%. The CLT
• Owner: Houston Endowment also resulted in a lighter building, reducing the concrete
• Architect: Kevin Daly Architects (kdA) with Productora in the foundations. Thermal breaks could also be easily
integrated into the project at the envelope allowing for
• Local representative: Kirksey Architecture
reduced energy.
• Structural engineer: Arup
The structural frame is composed of steel framing bear-
• Contractor: W.S. Bellows Construction Corporation
ing on shallow foundations. The first level of steel framing
• CLT supplier: Nordic covers a partial-basement parking level. This first floor deck-
• Steel fabricator: Myrex Industries ing is composite concrete atop metal deck due to the exte-
rior exposure condition, acoustic considerations, and large
During the conceptual design phase, the project was origi- in-plane forces from the basement walls. The second level
nally designed as a concrete structure. Concrete was selected and roof levels are exposed steel framing and CLT decking.
at first due to the ease of integrating an embedded radiant The 3-ply CLT decking spans approximately 10 ft, and the
cooling system in the flooring—key to the sustainability maximum column bays are approximately 30 ft × 30 ft. The
goals of the project to minimize energy consumption. How- typical floor system is shown in Figure 2-13, and the typical
ever, when exploring this initial concrete structural scheme, floor plan is shown in Figure 2-14. The PV canopy is com-
several challenges arose that resulted in significant structural posed of hollow structural steel (HSS) framing with infill
costs. Drivers for the structural costs include the tower crane aluminum louvers.
mobilization costs, concrete formwork shoring costs, and a Atria connect the two levels with signature steel plate
long construction schedule. Finally, there was still a signifi- stairs. Conference rooms on the east and west sides of the
cant steel scope in the PV canopy that had to be integrated building cantilever up to 15 ft from the column lines.
into the concrete structure. Moment frames are the primary lateral system that distrib-
Another project challenge was the difficult site and soil ute the lateral forces to the foundation system and provide
conditions. The site was previously home to a YMCA that the most flexibility with the office and parking planning. The
was demolished. However, the existing foundations of the CLT levels utilize the CLT decking as the diaphragm for lat-
previous building were left in the ground. Portions of the eral stability. The shear forces for CLT splines were docu-
old building were also filled in with poor fill that could not mented on the framing planes, as illustrated in Figure 2-15,
be used for bearing. As the initial concrete structural scheme so the spline connections could be designed to the CLT fabri-
was relatively heavy, this resulted in large foundations that cator’s preference. Light-gauge steel strapping atop the CLT
increased the conflicts with the existing foundations, more was used for tension chord and collector splices at panel
excavation, and costly fill replacement. joints. For significant lateral load transfers or chord forces,
Due to the challenges encountered with the initial con- the steel framing members and connections were sized for
crete framing scheme, the design team quickly explored a the axial loads.
range of other structural systems that could accomplish the Thermal breaks are located at most conditions where steel
architectural goals and reduce the structural costs. While not framing transitions from an interior to exterior condition.
used in the region previously, a hybrid steel and CLT struc- The project is classified as Type III-B and therefore no fire-
tural scheme was selected for the following benefits: proofing was required, allowing the steel to be fully exposed.
• Reduced cost and schedule. The steel framing and CLT The exposed steel and CLT are visible in the construction
eliminated the shoring and tower crane mobilization photo in Figure 2-16.
costs. The steel and CLT framing could be installed much
quicker—effectively as a prefabricated structure—and 2.3 HYBRID VS. TRADITIONAL MASS TIMBER
use smaller mobile cranes. The number of trades on site
The use of mass timber has limitations on the gravity and
was also reduced and provided much simpler interfacing
lateral systems due to the strength and stiffness of the mate-
with the canopy structure. In all, the structural cost came
rial, code limitations, vibration requirements, and market
down approximately by half from the original concrete
factors. The use of steel alleviates the limitations of mass
scheme.

Fig. 2-11. Houston Endowment Headquarters side rendering (photo courtesy of Kevin Daly Architects with Productora, 2021).

Fig. 2-12. Houston Endowment Headquarters interior rendering (photo courtesy of Kevin Daly Architects with Productora).

Steel framing
Finished floor
Raised floor system (1'-8" tall)
2" Gypcrete slab
Sound mat (⅜")
3-Ply CLT (4⅛")
Steel framing
Fig. 2-13. Hybrid steel and CLT floor build-up (image credit: Kevin Daly Architects with Productora).

timber, allowing for an efficient structural system that can • Program requirements for the desired use of the building
meet many market demands. (e.g., 40 ft office spans)
• Compatible grids for multiuse buildings (e.g., matching
2.3.1 Gravity Systems the building grid to below grade parking to minimize the
Traditional mass-timber systems are often limited by the need for transfers)
typical span-to-depth ratio of glulam beams requiring greater • Depth available for structure and systems
depth than comparable composite steel framing. In typical
• Type of mass-timber floor system
mass-timber construction, this often results in the need for
higher floor-to-floor heights, more onerous coordination • Fire protection requirements
with services, and/or tighter structural grids than composite
In a conventional hybrid steel-timber system, the design
steel systems to accommodate this deeper structure.
and framing approach for steel is analogous to conventional
Hybrid steel and mass-timber systems offer more flexibil-
composite steel framing, with the same primary drivers dic-
ity in design because steel can achieve longer spans with less
tating the final column arrangement. The main differentiator
depth than comparable glulam elements. An efficient hybrid
between the two systems is the replacement of concrete on
steel and mass-timber column grid is driven by a number of
metal deck for a mass-timber slab.
factors, including:
Fig. 2-14. Level 2 steel and CLT framing partial plan (image credit: Arup).

Timber slabs come in a variety of assemblies and depths beyond the 5-ply panel, but usually result in a less efficient
and offer different constructability impacts and span capa- system due to the large volume of timber required for their
bilities. While there are a number of products currently construction.
available on the market, summarized in Section 1.2, this The table shown in Figure 2-17 is provided by Wood-
Design Guide will use a conventional CLT slab for simpli- Works (WoodWorks, 2019b) and shows example ranges of
fied calculations and discussion as the representative system floor spans for various mass-timber panel systems. Project-
for other mass-timber alternatives. In an efficient system, the specific loading, support conditions, fire-resistance require-
slab thickness should be minimized and will drive secondary ments, vibration requirements, manufacturer specifics, and
beam spacing, and as a result, the primary spacing of the col- design criteria need to be considered for each project, but
umn grid. A 5-ply CLT panel can typically span 14 to 17 ft these span ranges can provide useful guidance in concept
while meeting the strength and serviceability requirements design.
of traditional office, academic, or residential loading. Thin- Other mass-timber slab options are continuing to be
ner 3-ply CLT panels can typically span up to 12 ft under explored that offer increased spans. These efforts are largely
the same loading and offer a good alternative to conven- focused on potential composite action of the CLT and a
tional concrete over metal deck if evaluating design options. concrete topping, the steel beam and CLT slab, or the steel
These thinner panels, however, are not as commonly used beam and concrete topping layer. There are also efforts to
due to their limited capacity for unreinforced slab openings optimize timber fiber orientation and fiber type to increase
and reduced resistance to fire. Larger 7-ply panels can span performance of mass-timber panels.
Fig. 2-15. Level 2 CLT diaphragm shear diagram (image credit: Arup).

2.3.1.1 Comparison to Market-Driven Column Grids to achieve in an all-timber solution. Efficient glulam beam
Many project typologies require minimum column spacing spans range from 20 to 30 ft, and although spans up to 40 ft
requirements to achieve column-free areas that are expected are achievable, the depth of beam can be prohibitive to multi
in the market. Many office buildings require 40 ft clear story construction. Vibration often controls design of mass-
lease spans that drives the column spacing. Typical glulam timber buildings at these longer spans. Utilizing steel beams
beam depths exceed those of similar noncomposite steel can help mitigate vibration issues for market-driven spans.
beams, and thus, market-driven grids are more challenging Further, the detailing requirements to penetrate glulam
beams can force the majority of the mechanical, electrical,
Fig. 2-16. Construction photo (image credit: Arup).
Panel Example Floor Span Ranges

3-ply CLT (48 in. thick) Up to 12 ft
5-ply CLT (6d in. thick) 14 to 17 ft
7-ply CLT (9s in. thick) 17 to 21 ft
2×4 NLT Up to 12 ft
2×6 NLT 10 to 17 ft
2×8 NLT 14 to 21ft
5 in. MPP 10 to 15 ft
Fig. 2-17. Example mass-timber floor panel span ranges (WoodWorks, 2019b).

and other technical services to live in a plane below that (AWC, 2021b). Should CLT walls be the desired lateral
of the structure—which can require all-timber buildings to system, approval from the local authority having jurisdic-
have even greater floor-to-floor heights to compensate. tion (AHJ) for a code modification would be required. These
Many building typologies also aim to maximize leasable constraints, coupled with stringent fire requirements limiting
floor area. Glulam column dimensions are typically larger in the exposure of the mass-timber walls, typically drive the
cross section than an equivalent steel section due to fire and selection of codified steel or concrete lateral systems.
strength requirements. The use of steel columns in a hybrid For hybrid steel-framed structures with mass-timber
system will yield more usable floor area than an all-timber floors, it is recommended to utilize steel braced frames or
building. moment frames that comply with the seismic requirements
Hybrid steel-framed structures with timber floors can be prescribed by ASCE/SEI 7. A steel lateral frame eliminates
efficiently constructed using the same market-driven struc- the need for an additional trade to construct the lateral sys-
tural grids as conventional composite steel structures; how- tem; allows for simplified gravity beam-to-lateral frame
ever, additional aspects of the design must be considered. connections; and can capitalize on the faster, stick-built con-
First, many hybrid solutions are noncomposite and there- struction afforded by the gravity construction. The timber
fore the steel beams are typically deeper and have increased slab or concrete topping may be utilized as the diaphragm;
tonnage compared to similar composite steel schemes. For these options are discussed in Section 6.2.2.
larger grids, this may impact ceiling heights or increase the
floor-to-floor heights required to achieve design goals. How- 2.4 BASIC HYBRID SYSTEM
ever, because there is often a desire to keep the timber soffits
exposed, the deeper steel sections may be acceptable if they 2.4.1 Primary Frame
can be aligned with partitions or higher ceilings are capital-
As described in previous sections, the composition of a
ized on between the beams. This is particularly relevant to
steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors is highly
office typologies where large, column-free bays are desired
analogous to a conventional steel framed structure with con-
for leasing opportunities. Engineering solutions that still
crete on metal deck. In a basic hybrid system, steel primary
achieve composite steel beams in conjunction with concrete
and secondary beams span between columns providing sup-
topping slabs or timber slabs, if done thoughtfully, will often
port for mass-timber slabs. Basic floor construction would
result in both cost and carbon reductions on the project.
consist of a 3-ply or 5-ply CLT slab spanning 10 to 15 ft
In other building typologies with more permanent
between secondary beams. These spans may vary based on
demising (partition) walls and smaller grids, such as resi-
the required grids needed for the building program, design
dential construction, the loss of composite action may not
loads, fire rating requirements, serviceability requirements,
be a major factor, and the steel beams can be factored into
and selected finishes; however, the spans provided here are
the proposed partition construction. Despite the naturally
valid rules-of-thumb for schematic design consideration of
tighter grids in residential construction, hybrid systems are
conventional office and residential loading. Note that opti-
still worth pursuing in these typologies due to the ability to
mizing beam spacing to minimize CLT slab thickness will
easily penetrate steel beams and provide service distribution
generally result in the most effective solution.
throughout the floorplate. Hybrid steel-framed systems pro-
Secondary beams typically span the longer bay directions
vide further benefit in that the primary structural frame is
to primary beams in the short directions. This can offer more
code-approved for tall buildings, and a code modification for
consistent beam sizing between primary and secondary ele-
wood floors may be more palatable to local authorities.
ments, allowing for a more uniform elevation for bottom
of steel for coordination. In an office layout, this long bay
2.3.2 Lateral Systems
dimension runs perpendicular to the façade, providing large
Both conventional mass-timber buildings and hybrid steel- column-free leasable spans.
timber buildings often utilize a conventional concrete or steel For the purpose of this document, CLT will be used as
lateral system in lieu of a mass-timber lateral system. There the default timber floor material because of its dominance in
is a significant amount of ongoing research on the use of the market; however, it should be noted that many different
CLT as shear walls under seismic loading. CLT shear walls mass-timber products may be considered that offer project
are not yet codified by IBC, but they have been added as a specific benefits over CLT. These include products such as
LFRS in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associ- NLT or DLT that could potentially span further than CLT
ated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, hereafter with less depth and use mechanical lamination in lieu of
referred to as ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2022). It is expected adhesives for panel build-up. MPP can offer greater flexibil-
that CLT shear walls will be included in the 2024 version ity in dimensions and ability to span in two directions. Other
of IBC. CLT shear wall provisions are included in the 2021 considerations may include preassembled timber panel and
Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) glulam beam cassettes that function more analogously to

ribbed slabs. These may help alleviate the number of pieces • No consideration has been made for live-load reduction of
connected and assembled on site, as well as offer longer beam elements.
spans between secondary elements.
The steel beams in the hybrid system are considered non-
2.4.2 Example System composite, but the CLT slab provides restraint to the top
flange of the beam.
Within this section, an example hybrid steel-framed struc-
ture with mass-timber floors is compared to a composite 2.4.2.1 Composite Steel Framing Example
steel building with similar design constraints. Both systems
aim to meet the following basis for design: In the typical 30 ft × 40 ft bay:
• The proposed floor plate is modeled after a standard • The composite steel frame features a 34 in. lightweight
100 ft × 240 ft floor plan. This is divided into 40 ft × 30 ft concrete topping over a 2 in. metal deck.
column bays, with a 20 ft internal bay (see Figure 2-18). • The metal deck spans 10 ft between W18×35 secondary
In this scheme, a central core is assumed to house vertical beams.
transportation, services, and the building’s primary LFRS. • Secondary beams span 40 ft to W21×50 primary beams at
• Conventional office loading: 80 psf live load allowance the building interior, with W21×44 beams at the façade.
with 20 psf superimposed dead load (SDL) allowance • Primary beams span 30 ft to columns.
for ceilings, services, and finishes. The 80 psf live load
allowance provides flexible office fit-out for partitions and The floor framing yields approximately 5.3 psf in steel
corridors. The self-weight of the steel, CLT panel, and tonnage. This tonnage does not include connections, nor
concrete topping are considered in the dead load. does it account for any additional complexity around framed
• Steel beams supporting the slabs are restricted to L/ 360 openings or project-specific loads or requirements. The
deflection under live loads and L/ 240 total deflection. total depth of structure (including slab over metal deck
but excluding fire protection or finishes) is approximately
• Façade loading is 300 plf along the perimeter, allowing for 264 in. Beams are consistently cambered throughout the
a 20 psf façade weight over a 15 ft floor-to-floor height. frame, consistent with industry standard guidance and a
• Elements supporting the façade are limited to a maximum maximum of 2 in. camber. The primary framing shown con-
deflection of L/ 500 under live loads and L/ 360 total. sists of 94 steel beams.
Fig. 2-18. Example noncomposite steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors.

2.4.2.2 Hybrid Steel Frame with Mass-Timber 2.5 MECHANICAL SERVICES INTEGRATION
Floor Example
2.5.1 Horizontal Distribution of Services
In the typical 30 ft × 40 ft bay:
• The hybrid frame features 6d in. 5-ply CLT panel topped In hybrid steel-timber construction, it is often a design aspi-
with a 1 in. acoustic mat and 3 in. normal weight concrete ration to leave the underside of the timber slabs exposed,
topping. putting significant onus on the design team to ensure the
exposed services within the ceiling plenum appear ratio-
• The CLT floors span 15 ft between W27×84 secondary
nal, organized, and do not distract from the overall archi-
beams.
tectural aesthetic. Timber and hybrid timber systems are
• Secondary beams span 40 ft to W27×84 primary beams at often deeper than conventional composite steel or concrete
the building interior. systems, which adds additional complexity in coordination.
• Primary beams span 30 ft to columns. Care must be given early in the design process to understand
the structural layout and beam depth, technical service rout-
The floor framing yields approximately 8.5 psf in steel ing, and desired finish ceiling heights. Early in the design
tonnage. This tonnage does not include connections, nor process it is useful to consider how routing of these systems
does it account for any additional complexity around framed may cross primary framing lines—either via beam penetra-
openings or project-specific loads or requirements. The total tions, revised routing, raised floor systems, or minimized
depth of structure (including CLT slab, acoustic membrane, beam depths. An example of services distributed within a
and topping but excluding fire protection or finishes) is mass-timber structure is shown in Figure 2-19.
approximately 37d in. Beams are assumed to have no cam- Unlike traditional full mass-timber construction, hybrid
ber to allow for easier coordination and installation of the systems offer more flexibility with systems coordination;
CLT panels. The primary framing shown consists of 73 steel steel beams can be castellated or penetrated to allow for ser-
beams. vices to occupy the same elevation within a ceiling plenum.
The primary difference in the steel design between the Figures 2-20 and 2-21 show an example of castellated beams
typical composite steel framing and the hybrid steel frame at 6 Orsman Road by Waugh Thistleton Architects.
is that the steel beams are designed as noncomposite in the
hybrid system. Many of the built examples of hybrid systems 2.5.2 Vertical Distribution of Services
utilize noncomposite construction for ease of construction
and simplicity of connection detailing. Material efficiencies Requirements for vertical penetrations will vary greatly
can be gained by introducing composite action to the steel depending on the planned use of the building. Like most
members, which is discussed in Section 6.3. construction typologies, it is best to consolidate penetrations
Although the hybrid system can result in higher steel ton- to centralized risers to limit the quantity of penetrations in
nage than a conventional slab on metal deck system, the the floor plate. Like composite slabs, the size and location
advantages outlined in Section 2.1 often outweigh the cost of a vertical penetration will dictate the quantity of reinforc-
penalty of additional steel tonnage. Additionally, the overall ing needed in a wood floor. Unlike these more conventional
piece count is significantly lower in the hybrid system, which systems, reinforcing may impact design goals of the ceiling
can result in cost savings not reflected in the pure tonnage. plenum below. In addition, one-way mass-timber systems
The effect of noncomposite action is less significant for have limited ability to span in two directions and will often
smaller column bays that may be suitable for multifamily require additional beam framing to pick up an unsupported
residential building typologies. For these small bay typolo- slab edge for larger openings. CLT and MPP have the ability
gies, the impact in steel tonnage and structural depth is mini- to span in two directions and can accommodate moderate
mal. Projects that may otherwise utilize a girder-slab system openings without additional reinforcement. Refer to Chap-
with precast hollow-core planks can achieve significant ter 6 for further discussion on openings in mass-timber slabs.
sustainability, aesthetic, building weight, and construction
speed benefits when the precast hollow-core planks are sub-
stituted with mass-timber floor panels.

Fig. 2-19. Example services distribution in a full mass-timber structure (image credit: Arup).

Fig. 2-20. Example of castellated beams with CLT floor panel at 6 Orsman Road (photo courtesy of Waugh Thistleton Architects).

Fig. 2-21. Example of castellated beams with CLT floor panel at 6 Orsman Road (photo courtesy of Waugh Thistleton Architects).

Chapter 3
Fire Design
A hybrid building may require the primary structure to be structure is required to provide an FRR that meets the IBC
fire rated in accordance with the locally enforced building construction type. The FRR is achieved by increasing the
code due to the use, height, or area. A number of members thickness of the member and is referred to as the “wood
and assemblies will contribute to the fire resistance for the cover,” as this additional mass timber chars in fire (see Fig-
hybrid structure, including: ure 3-1). CLT fire performance can also be enhanced, where
• Structural steel columns required, by lining with fire-resisting gypsum board.
• Structural steel beams
3.1.2 Structural Steel
• Mass-timber floor assembly
To achieve an FRR of 1 or 2 hours, structural steel mem-
While each of the three major structural elements that bers utilize the application of additional protection, which
make up a hybrid building can be treated somewhat sepa- include sprayed fire-resistant materials (SFRM), noncom-
rately for fire resistance, the steel beam-to-mass-timber floor bustible fire-resistive boards, or intumescent paints. Intu-
interface and connectivity needs to be addressed. Though mescent paint is the ideal fireproofing solution for the hybrid
not covered in this Design Guide, other fire-rated building steel-timber system to showcase the beauty of the exposed
elements such as exterior walls, internal fire barriers, and steel and timber. An example of intumescent paint utilized
partitions will also be required. in a hybrid project is shown in Figure 3-2. Other options can
include concrete encasement, enclosure with masonry, or
3.1 BASICS OF FIRE PERFORMANCE specialized flexible wraps. Each protective solution provides
an insulative barrier to the structural steel to prevent increas-
Fire endurance of a building element or assembly is mea-
ing temperatures due to fire exposure, with the steel member
sured in time and is referred to as the fire resistance rating
relying on the additional protection to retain strength.
(FRR). Proving fire endurance is a measure of how a building
The steel protective product chosen to be used is depen-
element or assembly resists applied loads, prevents the pas-
dent on final desired appearance, constructability, and cost.
sage of heat and flames, and is able to resist temperature rise
Fire-rated solutions for steel members are available from
on the nonfire side. To achieve an FRR, a structural element
individual suppliers that provide specifications on applica-
or assembly is required to pass the criteria of ASTM E119,
tion, thickness, and maintenance. Guidance on structural
Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construc-
steel protection is available from AISC Design Guide 19,
tion and Materials (ASTM, 2020), or ANSI/UL 263, Fire
Fire Resistance of Structural Steel Framing (Ruddy et al.,
Tests of Building Construction and Materials (UL, 2020),
2003). Generic protection solutions are also available for
which apply a standardized heating regime to a loaded build-
specification from the IBC for certain types of products,
ing element to determine the fire rating.
such as SFRM. ANSI/UL 263 also lists fire-rated solutions.
3.1.1 Mass Timber
3.2 CODE CONSIDERATIONS
Timber as a structural material is combustible. While com-
Timber construction is referred to as combustible construc-
bustible, the inherent fire resistance provided by mass-timber
tion in the IBC. Concrete and steel construction is referred
building elements such as glulam and CLT is distinctly dif-
to as noncombustible construction. Hybrid timber-steel
ferent from the minimal fire resistance of light-frame wood
construction utilizes both combustible and noncombustible
members. Mass-timber elements such as CLT have very
structural elements, and therefore, a hybrid building will
good fire resistance due to the depth of timber, as similar
be determined as a construction type based on the timber
member types will char at a predictable rate when exposed
(combustible) construction. Within the IBC, timber can be
to ASTM E119 or ANSI/UL 263, allowing design for longer
utilized within Types III, IV, and V construction, and hence
duration of structural performance in fire. For example,
these are the construction types applicable for hybrid build-
many mass-timber elements do not need additional fire pro-
ings. More specifically, based on the 2021 IBC, construc-
tection to achieve an FRR of up to 2 hours.
tion Types III, IV-HT, IV-C, and V are limited to low- and
Where mass timber is exposed and not protected or encap-
medium-rise buildings. Types IV-A and IV-B are high-rise
sulated by noncombustible boards, the mass-timber primary
mass-timber construction.

The IBC states limitations on building floor area, num- 3.2.1 Type III, IV-HT, and V
ber of stories, and overall height, based on differing types
Types III, IV-HT, and V are construction types that allow
of construction, occupancy use, fire protection systems
combustible structures and can be utilized for hybrid con-
installed, and the FRR to be achieved. For low-rise buildings
struction following the 2018 IBC and earlier versions. These
(up to four floors), the use of light-frame and mass timber is
construction types are limited to low- and mid-rise buildings.
fairly unrestricted and can be included within exterior walls.
The following limitations should be considered at the early
For buildings with an occupied floor above 75 ft (defined
stages of a project when studying overall building massing
as high rise), the IBC requires an increased level of fire
and choosing construction types:
protection and structural performance. Fire protection and
structural performance are increased for high-rise build- • Type III allows combustible construction for internal
ings, with a minimum FRR of 2 hours for floors and 2 or 3 load-bearing and nonload-bearing elements. Exterior wall
hours for columns. The primary structure is required to have assemblies may be fire-retarded treated timber, provided
sufficient resistance to survive full burnout of a fire in the they meet a 2-hour FRR, otherwise external walls must be
highly unlikely scenario where the sprinklers fail and the fire noncombustible. This is a construction type suitable for
department has limited intervention [see AWC/ICC (2020) hybrid construction.
for further background]. Compared to a low- or mid-rise • Type IV-HT is a method of construction based on timber
building, there is a significant increase in expected structural members having minimum dimensions, which provides
performance for all high-rise buildings in fire. an inherent FRR. Type IV-HT construction also permits
Above 85 ft building height (to the roof), mass timber is exterior wall assembles to be CLT or fire-retarded tim-
only permitted with Type IV-A or IV-B construction. Guid- ber. If load bearing, they must provide a 2-hour FRR,
ance documents on the height and areas permitted in the otherwise they must be noncombustible. Because IV-HT
IBC for timber construction is freely available from the ICC, construction is primarily based on the structure being tim-
AWC, and WoodWorks. ber, this construction type is not well suited for hybrid
Fig. 3-1. CLT panel after 1-hour fire test in accordance with ASTM E119 (photo courtesy of David Barber).

construction (where structural steel is used it must achieve is introduced, which allows for additional floors to be
an FRR, which is nominally 1 hour, though this is not spe- included, with the building height still limited to 85 ft.
cifically stated within the IBC).
For buildings of Type III or V construction, the require-
• Type V construction permits any materials used by the ments for interior finishes must also be met. Interior fin-
IBC and permits wall assemblies to be combustible but is ishes for mass timber must meet minimum requirements for
limited to buildings of four floors or less with very restric- flammability and smoke development based on fire testing
tive floor area. This is a construction type suitable for to ASTM E84, Standard Test Methods for Surface Burn-
hybrid construction. ing Characteristics of Building Materials (ASTM, 2021c),
• Types III, IV-HT, and V are permitted by the IBC to have which provides a classification of how flames will spread
all the load-bearing mass-timber (or heavy timber) struc- on a material and the smoke that develops. Most engineered
ture fully exposed, where the structure has been proven timber products have been tested to this standard and have
to provide the required FRR for Types III and V and the classifications that allow them to be used as an interior finish
minimum dimensions for Type IV-HT. Thus, CLT used in most building applications. A CLT supplier can provide a
for floors can be exposed provided it meets the FRR test report stating their compliance with ASTM E84.
requirements. Careful consideration must be given where stair and
• Type III and IV-HT can be constructed to a maximum elevator shafts are higher than four floors because these are
building height of 85 ft and up to six floors in height. required to be 2-hour rated. Given that the timber structure
The number of floors can be increased where a podium only requires a 1-hour rating or less, the stair and elevator
Fig. 3-2. Intumescent paint (photo courtesy of Megan Stringer).

shafts must be independent of the timber structure. If they 3.2.2.3 Type IV-A
are not, then the timber structure rating will need to increase
Type IV-A permits mass-timber construction up to 18 floors
to 2 hours.
and 270 ft for residential, office, and assembly uses. Shafts
must be constructed of noncombustible construction. The
3.2.2 Type IV-A, -B, and -C
required FRR for the primary structure is 3 hours, with
The 2021 IBC has introduced three new construction types, 2 hours for floors. All mass-timber elements are to be pro-
including high-rise mass timber. All three construction types tected with three layers of s in. Type X board, which also
require automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with contributes to the assembly fire resistance. The topside of
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems the CLT floor must also be covered with a minimum 1 in.
(NFPA, 2021c), throughout. The three new construction noncombustible covering. As with Type IV-C and -B, com-
types are summarized in the following, with more informa- bustible concealed spaces must be protected with fire-rated
tion and background available from WoodWorks and the gypsum board.
American Wood Council (AWC). Hybrid construction can also utilize Type IV-A construc-
tion. Both structural steel and the CLT can use fire-rated
3.2.2.1 Type IV-C gypsum board as a continuous FRR solution.
Type IV-C permits mass-timber construction up to 85 ft in
3.2.3 Podium Construction
height, with residential uses allowed up to eight floors and
office uses up to nine floors. Assembly uses are limited to Use of IBC, Section 510, allows an increased number of
six floors. All mass timber can be exposed. Type IV-C also floors beyond the limits for Type III, IV, or V construction.
allows the use of mass timber for shafts. The required FRR is The lower one or two stories of the podium are formed from
2 hours for all primary structure (IBC defines primary struc- Type I-A construction, with a 3-hour fire-rated horizontal
ture as the columns, beams, girders, trusses, floors, and roof separation provided to the upper floors of Type III, IV, or V.
members that have direct connection to the columns). Com- The limiting height for the building is the height limit for the
bustible concealed spaces must be protected with fire-rated Type III, IV, or V construction. A podium can also be used
gypsum board. with Type IV-A, -B, or -C construction.
Hybrid construction can utilize Type IV-C construction to
enable mass-timber floors to be exposed on the underside. 3.2.4 Tall Buildings—Alternative Code Approaches
If a building is to be designed that does not meet IBC
3.2.2.2 Type IV-B
requirements, an application based on “alternative materials,
Type IV-B permits mass-timber construction up to 12 floors design and methods of construction and equipment” can be
and 180 ft for residential, office, and assembly uses. Shafts submitted for discussion and potential approval by the AHJ.
can also be constructed from mass timber, though must be The alternative materials and methods approach should only
fully protected with fire-rated gypsum board. The FRR is be undertaken after an initial discussion with the AHJ and
2 hours for all primary structures. There are limitations on local fire department has occurred to assess the likelihood
how much mass-timber structure can be exposed, with the of approval where appropriate technical justification, testing,
underside of floors limited to 20%, or where vertical ele- and analysis can be provided. Examples where an alterna-
ments or walls are present, these can be exposed up to 40%. tive materials and methods application may be beneficial to a
The protection to be provided is two layers of s in. Type X project include protection of combustible concealed spaces,
board, which also contributes to the floor assembly fire resis- use of differing noncombustible protection products, prov-
tance. The topside of the CLT floor must also be covered ing the fire resistance of an innovative CLT-to-steel beam
with a minimum 1 in. noncombustible covering. As with connection, or larger areas of exposed mass timber.
Type IV-C, combustible concealed spaces must be protected
with fire-rated gypsum board. 3.3 FIRE PROTECTION OPTIONS FOR HYBRID
Hybrid construction can also utilize Type IV-B construc- SYSTEMS
tion and the entire 20% exposed mass-timber area can be
made up of the mass-timber floor panels. In most mass-timber 3.3.1 CLT Fire Resistance
buildings, the 20% exposed area has to incorporate the mass-
CLT performance in fire has been very well studied, with
timber beams supporting the mass-timber floor panels, with
the char rate being dependent on ply thickness, number of
the beam area included within the 20%. A hybrid building
plies, and type of adhesive. There has been significant fire
can have more mass-timber floor panel exposed area because
testing in Europe, Canada, and more recently, in the United
the steel beams are noncombustible.
States. The outcomes from fire testing have been consistent,

showing that CLT will char in a predictable manner, and Fire Resistance of Wood Members and Assemblies (AWC,
fire resistance can be calculated based on the number and 2021a). WoodWorks maintains an online inventory of 1‑hour
thickness of plies that each panel is made up of and the type and 2‑hour fire test reports from a number of CLT suppliers
of adhesive used. Fire-resistance tests performed to ASTM to assist designers.
E119 in the United States have shown wall fire ratings of
more than 3 hours and floor fire ratings in excess of 2 hours 3.3.1.1 Timber Panel-to-Panel Connections
with the CLT elements loaded. Figure 3-3 shows the result-
Connections for CLT panels are proprietary to each manu-
ing char layers after a fire test of a CLT panel.
facturer based on their unique panel lay-up and testing com-
CLT adhesives have been the subject of ongoing research
pleted. When a CLT panel is fire tested to ASTM E119, the
related to performance in fire and improvement of CLT per-
panel-to-panel connections are also fire tested and as a result,
formance, with the North American manufacturing standard
each CLT supplier has a connection type that is approved for
ANSI/APA PRG 320 (APA, 2019) updated to only use adhe-
use with their 1‑hour or 2‑hour rated panel. The specifica-
sives that were shown to prevent issues of bond-line integ-
tions for this connection must be followed in construction to
rity (often called CLT delamination). Since 2018, all CLT
provide a compliant fire-resistance rated floor system. Fig-
suppliers are required to use adhesives that meet ANSI/APA
ure 3-4 shows typical panel-to-panel CLT connections after
PRG 320 to provide an improved resistance to fire.
a fire test.
For a building permit application, the fire resistance of
the CLT needs to be proven. To assist architects, engineers,
3.3.1.2 Concealed Spaces
and contractors, the IBC has several methods for fire resis-
tance compliance through fire testing or calculation. All Mass-timber buildings that utilize CLT as the primary floor
North American CLT suppliers have had their CLT panels elements have no concealed spaces within the primary struc-
fire tested to meet ASTM E119, demonstrating a 1‑hour or ture due to the solid timber construction of CLT. Where con-
2‑hour FRR. A fire test report is available from each sup- cealed spaces for building utilities such as pipes, cables, and
plier to support the use of their products as load-bearing ducts are formed with CLT, a combustible concealed space
floors, which needs to be reviewed for applicability for a is created which can be an issue for potential fire spread.
project in support of a building permit application. As an Concealed spaces need to be protected and any exposed CLT
alternative, due to the number of fire tests to ASTM E119 covered with noncombustible protection.
that have been completed, and similar standard fire testing
globally, there are calculation methods to determine the fire 3.3.1.3 Penetrations
resistance of CLT (see NDS Chapter 16). A comprehensive
“Through penetrations” occur in all buildings for plumbing,
review of fire testing and data is provided in the U.S. Depart-
electrical cables, telecommunications, heating, and cooling.
ment of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Forest Service guide,
For penetrations in CLT floors, the installation of a collar,
CLT Handbook (U.S. Edition), or AWC’s Calculating the
Fig. 3-3. CLT panel with char layer after fire test (photo courtesy of David Barber).

fire mastic, or fire damper that has been previously tested 3.4 FIRE PERFORMANCE OF STEEL-TO-
for use in a CLT wall or floor penetration is specified that MASS-TIMBER INTERFACE
meets ASTM E119 or ASTM E84. Currently there are a lim-
Hybrid buildings can be designed with the CLT floor acting
ited number of suppliers of these products available in the
as a lateral restraint to the top flange of the steel beam to
United States, and CLT penetration fire sealing needs to be
prevent beam lateral-torsional buckling, a method consistent
addressed on a project-by-project basis.
with the design of steel structures with concrete over metal
deck slabs. Regularly spaced screws connect the top flange
3.3.1.4 Considerations for Alternative Mass-Timber
of the beam to the underside of the CLT floor to provide the
Floor Materials
lateral restraint, where required.
Where other mass-timber panel floor assemblies are being If the steel beams are designed with the CLT floor provid-
used, such as nail NLT or DLT, they are required to achieve ing restraint, then restraint under fire exposure needs to be
a proven FRR through testing to ASTM E119 or ANSI/ assessed. Of concern is when the steel structure is exposed to
UL 263. The FRR for the floor assembly, whether by fire test fire, heat is transferred into the CLT via the top flange of the
or through engineering calculation, must include all joints beam and the regularly spaced screws. Fire protection such
between panels, including the gaps included for shrinkage as intumescent paint forms an insulating layer to prevent
or expansion. steel beam failure, with the protective layer reducing heat
transfer into the steel beam. But the fire protection does not
3.3.2 Structural Steel Fire Resistance prevent the beam from heating up. ASTM E119, for example,
permits steel beams to pass a fire-resistance test provided the
For hybrid construction where the steel structure is typically
average temperature of the beam remains below 1,100°F. As
exposed along with the mass timber, intumescent paint is
the top flange and the screws heat up through thermal trans-
most commonly used when fire protection is required. Intu-
fer, the CLT also increases in temperature. Timber strength
mescent paint protects the underlying steel by charring and
reduces rapidly at temperatures above 300°F, as does timber
expanding when exposed to fire to insulate the member. The
density, which is an important factor for screw resistance.
paints are proprietary and will react when exposed to heat of
Thus, screws providing lateral restraint need to be checked
about 480°F and can expand in thickness by up to 100 times.
for shear resistance in timber of decreasing strength.
The thickness of paint will be dependent on the member
Thermal modeling and structural evaluation have shown
size and the hourly rating required. The paint can be factory
that failure of a steel beam can occur by lateral-torsional
applied or site applied.
buckling due to a lack of top-flange restraint before the
Another option for steel fire protection is to use fire-rated
required 1-hour or 2-hour fire resistance period is reached
gypsum board and “box” around the steel columns and
for the floor. The screws connected to the CLT can lose
beams to provide the fire resistance. As noted previously, if
shear capacity as both the steel beam and CLT lose strength
Type IV-A construction is being used, the fire-rated gypsum
under exposure to an ASTM E119 fire. Heat transfer into the
that is required to protect the CLT for 2 hours can also be
CLT occurs through the top flange and the screws, result-
utilized to protect the steel beams and columns, noting that
ing in the timber weakening as fire exposure time increases.
the primary structure requires 3 hours.
Solutions to prevent this issue can include designing steel
Where the steel is concealed, spray-on fire resistive mate-
beams that do not need top flange lateral restraint under fire
rials can also be used.
Fig. 3-4. Fire test of typical timber panel-to-panel connection (photos courtesy of David Barber).

conditions or increasing the thickness of fire protection to differing forms of fire-resistive protection are interfacing,
the steel beam to keep the screws and top flange below a an overlap is normally required.
temperature of 325°F for the fire resistance period [connec- • Where the top flange of the steel beam does not require
tion acceptance criteria from AWC TR-10 (AWS, 2021a)]. A intumescent paint because the top flange will not have
performance-based approach can also be utilized to assess space for the paint to intumesce, being screw-fixed to the
the required beam-to-CLT connectivity. CLT. Any charring that may occur at the interface between
the edge of the top flange and the CLT would be protected
3.5 DETAILING by the surrounding expanding intumescent paint.
There are a number of areas where additional design detail- • Where mass-timber panels are cut to be placed around the
ing is needed to address the fire resistance of the primary steel columns, a fire sealing solution needs to be installed
structure: to provide continuity of the floor integrity and insulation.
• Where fire-rated gypsum board is used to protect the Given the project-specific nature of this fire seal, this will
steel, the interface and transition from the fire-rated gyp- need to be detailed carefully at the column interface. A
sum to the CLT needs to be detailed carefully, following concrete topping over the CLT can also be used to seal this
proprietary fire sealing solutions. The CLT will reduce in gap.
depth under fire exposure, whereas the gypsum board will • If a curtain wall is installed on the building, a fire seal is
remain relatively fixed, therefore potentially creating a required between the edge of the CLT floor and the back
gap in the fire protection. of the curtain wall, commonly referred to as a perimeter
• Where CLT is protected with fire-rated gypsum board fire seal. There are no fire-tested perimeter seal solutions
required by the IBC, such as for Type IV-B buildings, for buildings with CLT floors (at the time of writing), to
the interface between the layers of gypsum board and seal against a curtain wall. Project-specific solutions and a
the steel beam needs to be considered carefully. This is negotiated approval may be required.
particularly important where the steel beam includes intu-
mescent paint as the fire-resistive protection. Where two

Chapter 4
Acoustics
4.1 BASICS OF ACOUSTICS IN MASS TIMBER 4.1.1 Acoustic Design Metrics
The acoustic design of mass-timber buildings, whether
4.1.1.1 Acoustic Separation
hybrid steel or all wood, presents a complex set of chal-
lenges and opportunities. The design considerations include While not unique to mass timber, sound separation between
acoustics, fire, and structural seismic issues, all of which interior spaces is a key acoustic design consideration for
have interrelated design variables and should be evaluated buildings with mass-timber floors given the relatively light-
holistically at the start of design to determine an optimum weight floor structures when compared to concrete buildings.
solution. For example: Sound separation between spaces includes both airborne
1. The structural design for the mass-timber floor thick- sound separation (horizontally and vertically) as well as
ness has associated acoustic and fire performance impact sound isolation between vertically stacked spaces.
implications. Airborne sound separation is the measure of sound that is
transmitted through the air into adjacent spaces via a sound
2. The acoustic design approach of adding mass has struc-
isolating partition. Airborne sound separation can be mea-
tural and fire implications.
sured in an acoustics laboratory in accordance with ASTM
3. The code fire requirements for protective coverings E90, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of
have acoustic implications. Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions
and Elements (ASTM, 2016b). The results of the ASTM E90
This section will provide an overview of the primary
test include transmission loss values reported in decibels in
acoustic issues in buildings with mass-timber floors, includ-
each of the 3 octave band frequencies ranging from 125 Hz
ing sound isolation, flanking noise, and the importance of
up to 4 kHz. The measured transmission loss values are used
acoustic testing, both in the lab and in-situ.
to determine the Sound Transmission Class rating (STC) by
The fundamentals of acoustics are well documented in
comparing the measured transmission loss decibel values to
other references and not intended to be summarized here.
the standard STC curve defined in ASTM E413, Classifica-
However, the discussion that follows assumes a general
tion for Rating Sound Insulation (ASTM, 2016a).
understanding of how sound levels are measured, princi-
Impact sound transmission is the measure of sound that
pally that the decibel scale is a logarithmic representation of
is imparted into the adjacent space below from a “tapping
sound. A change of 10 decibels (dB) anywhere on the scale
machine” (a precision impact noise source with an array of
corresponds to a 10-fold change in physical sound intensity,
metal hammers, each of a specific weight that are mechani-
or one order of magnitude. (Normal hearing individuals
cally dropped from a specific height to induce a standard
can hear across many orders of magnitude). Subjectively, a
quantum of impact sound energy into a floor-ceiling assem-
10 dB increase is typically perceived as twice as loud. For
bly). Impact sound separation can be measured in an acous-
more in-depth information on this topic, see Design Guide
tics laboratory in accordance with ASTM E492, Standard
30, Sound Isolation and Noise Control in Steel Buildings
Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Impact Sound
(Markham and Unger, 2015).
Transmission Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies Using the
Note that the sound separation differences between steel
Tapping Machine (ASTM, 2016c). The results of the ASTM
column and steel beam supported mass-timber floors com-
E492 test include measured airborne noise levels in the
pared to wood column and wood beam supported mass-
receiving room reported in decibels in each of the 3 octave
timber floors are typically inconsequential given that the
band frequencies ranging from 100 Hz up to 3,150 Hz. The
primary acoustic design elements are contained within the
measured transmission loss values are used to determine the
floor-ceiling assembly and demising walls, and not the sup-
Impact Insulation Class (IIC) by comparing the measured
porting structure.
tapping machine noise levels in the receiving space to a stan-
dard curve defined in ASTM E989, Standard Classification

for Determination of Single-Number Metrics for Impact two full octaves above 4 kHz). Our subjective experi-
Noise (ASTM, 2021a). Airborne (STC) and impact sound ence of sound includes frequencies well above and
(IIC) are illustrated in Figure 4-1. below the range of consideration of the single number
Standardized rating systems, such as STC and IIC, pro- ratings.
vide a convenient means of comparing the sound isolating 3. Both the STC and IIC ratings represent lab-tested per-
performance of different constructions, but they should be formance under ideal conditions (i.e., without the mul-
used carefully with the following limitations in mind: tiple flanking paths present in the field). Performance
1. Both the STC and IIC ratings are single number ratings achieved in the built environment is typically 5 to
based on a distillation of acoustic performance across a 8 points below lab results, and possibly more, depend-
spectrum of frequencies. Therefore, different partitions ing on flanking paths.
can have similar (or the same) STC/IIC rating while
also having significantly different performance across Flanking sound transmission refers to sound transfer
the frequency spectrum. paths “around the demising partition” that can degrade
acoustic performance if not properly detailed to mitigate the
2. The STC and IIC ratings only consider the middle 60%
sound transmission. Example flanking paths include gaps in
or so of the audible spectrum. (We can hear approxi-
weatherstripping around doors, unsealed gaps where sheets
mately two full octaves below 125 Hz and more than
Fig. 4-1. Visual representation of airborne (STC) and impact sound (IIC) separation.

of gypsum wallboard meet each other or surrounding con- are exceedingly rare at this time, despite the abundance of
structions, building services penetrations, and ridged con- laboratory test data. Best practice for flanking path mitiga-
nections between walls and floors. tion may continue to develop as insights are gained from the
The net result is that our subjective impression can vary study of completed projects.
significantly for partitions of similar or equivalent ratings The current best practice for flanking path mitigation is
depending on a variety of factors including: as follows:
1. The 3 octave band performance. STC and IIC rat- 1. Identify in plan and section flanking risk areas where
ings are based on deviations from a standard spectrum, acoustically critical sound isolating partitions meet
and these deviations, or relative deficiencies, may other constructions (e.g., where a residential unit’s
occur anywhere in the frequency range of STC or IIC demising walls meet the façade, where a unit’s demis-
consideration. ing walls meet the mass-timber floor or ceiling assem-
bly, where building services penetrations exist, etc.)
2. The performance above and below the frequency range
of STC and IIC consideration. The presence of low- 2. Develop draft architectural details that show in plan and
and high-frequency sound can influence our subjec- section how the sound isolating constructions meet or
tive impression of the acoustic environment. Consider interface and determine if there are opportunities for
modern home audio systems produce low-frequency sound to “flank around” the sound isolating construc-
sound down to 40 Hz, where energy is readily transmit- tion via sound paths that are significantly weaker than
ted through buildings. Conversely, our hearing systems the demising construction.
are well attuned to high-frequency sounds such as the 3. If there exists a sound path that is significantly weaker
“clicky” sounds produced by hard soled shoes or the than the demising construction (e.g., less mass, smaller
cries of an infant. airspace, undamped cavities or voids, unsealed inter-
3. A number of environmental factors, such as the sound sections or interfaces between materials), then revise
source (e.g., home theatre system, high-heeled shoes, the intersection detail to add sealants, add mass, and/or
etc.) and the ambient sound environment (e.g., how add damping to voids.
much background sound is present to mask noise Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for
ingress from the adjacent space). flanking path mitigation—a professional acoustic consultant
should be engaged to determine if there are flanking path
For these reasons, designers and project teams are encour-
risks and possible solutions. In-situ and laboratory testing
aged to “experience” the acoustic performance of assem-
can be performed to determine project-specific requirements
blies under consideration, where possible, in order to make
and performance, as illustrated in Figure 4-2.
informed cost-benefit design decisions. The subjective expe-
rience of the design options under consideration may be
4.1.1.2 Room Acoustics
achieved either via virtual simulation created by a qualified
acoustic consultant or through real-world benchmarks. Of important distinction from sound separation (STC, IIC)
In addition to the laboratory STC and IIC ratings, there is the concept of room acoustics and reverberation. When a
exists a variety of acoustic rating systems to characterize sound is emitted within an enclosed room, the sound waves
performance in the field, such as the field sound transmis- propagate from the source and interact with the enclosing
sion class (FSTC), the apparent sound transmission class surfaces (e.g., walls, ceiling, floor). Some of the sound is
(ASTC), the noise isolation class (NIC), and the normalized transmitted through the separating construction (as shown
noise isolation class (NNIC). Field measurements are of par- in Figure 4-3); however, a significant portion of the sound
ticular importance for the development of the mass-timber energy is reflected off the surface and back into the room.
building industry given that flanking paths may be included A listener within the room will hear a mixture of the initial
in the measurement data. direct sound from the source, and reflections from the vari-
When we experience sound transmission in the built envi- ous surfaces spread out over time. The material properties of
ronment, we encounter the direct sound (along the shortest the various room surfaces, as well as room dimensions and
path to the sound source through a separating wall or floor volume, influence how much sound persists in the room after
barrier), plus the various flanking paths that may be present, the initial sound is experienced. A visual representation of
and other environmental factors. Thus, the field performance sound reflection is shown in Figure 4-4.
of the final constructed assembly carries a high importance Reverberation is quantified by measuring the time it takes
due to its link to our subjective impression. Given the rela- for an emitted sound to diminish 60 dB below its original
tive novelty of mass timber and timber-steel hybrid construc- level. This is called the decay time or reverberation time
tion and the relatively low number of these building types (represented in Figure 4-5). While the reverberation time
completed in the United States to date, field measurements of a space can influence the amount and character of the

(a) Laboratory testing (airborne and impact)

(b) Impact field testing (c) Airborne field testing
Fig. 4-2. Acoustic field-testing photos (photos courtesy of Arup).

Fig. 4-3. Visual representation of sound reflection, absorption, and transmission at a partition.
Fig. 4-4. Visual representation of sound reflection in a room.

transmitted sound observed in the receiving space, room fin- frequency and can provide more sound attenuation with
ishes do not have a significant impact on the design or perfor- less overall mass, allowing a reduction in the weight of
mance of sound separation constructions. Therefore, project the structure. Considering the carbon intensive nature of
teams should not typically rely on sound absorbing finishes standard dense construction, an additional sustainability
as a means to improve sound separation performance unless benefit arises from the strategic use of air cavities. With
otherwise directed by a qualified acoustic consultant. any multi-leaf assembly, however, there can be acoustic
weaknesses in parts of the audible spectrum. A qualified
4.1.1.3 Acoustic Design Concepts acoustic consultant should be involved to help designers
and stakeholders understand the nuances of decoupled
The conceptual strategies for improving the acoustic perfor-
mass assemblies.
mance of mass-timber floor assemblies include:
• Add mass. The acoustic principle known as the “mass • Add resilience. Integration of resilient layers within a
law” states that for every doubling of mass, 6 dB of addi- sound separating assembly can improve the impact iso-
tional airborne sound isolation is achieved. Adding mass lation performance (IIC), sometimes with a knock-on
to a mass-timber floor-ceiling assembly can improve the improvement to the airborne sound separation as well.
airborne sound isolation (STC). Many benchmark CLT Resilience can be introduced to a floor-ceiling assembly
floor assemblies incorporate a layer of dense construc- via an underlayment or pad or other isolator between the
tion (e.g., concrete, gypsum concrete, etc.) on top of the CLT and massive topping. The impact isolation perfor-
CLT to provide additional mass to the timber structure. mance typically improves with thickness of the resilient
The acoustic benefits of a heavier floor should be con- element, but also varies by material type. Resilient or
sidered against the increased demands on the structure soft floor finishes (such as carpet) can also significantly
(i.e., more steel to support the added weight), dense mate- improve the impact sound isolation performance.
rial and associated labor costs, and any changes in how
the structure behaves under force impulse. Consider that 4.2 TYPICAL MASS-TIMBER FLOOR BUILDUPS
additional mass lowers the natural frequency of the floor, Note the following observations from comparing the STC
and lower frequency resonances may be more likely to be and IIC data from multiple 5-ply CLT manufacturers:
felt as vibration or interfere with sensitive equipment in a
1. Not all 5-ply assemblies have the same thickness, wood
laboratory or medical space, for example.
species, or density, which means acoustic performance
• Add airspace or decoupling. Note that the mass law as will vary between panels. Not all 5-ply CLT panels per-
simply stated in the previous point applies to “single- form the same and need to be evaluated on a case-by-
leaf ” partitions. Airborne sound separation may also be case basis.
improved by creating a “mass, airspace, mass” partition,
2. For a generic 6-in.-thick, 5-ply SPF CLT panel, an air-
or “double-leaf ” partition. The concept is analogous to a
borne sound separation performance of approximately
standard gypsum stud wall (as opposed to a solid masonry
STC 40 (+/− a few STC points) and an impact sound
wall). From a first principles perspective, double-leaf par-
isolation performance of IIC in the mid-20s can be
titions behave differently than single-leaf above a certain
achieved with the CLT panel alone.
Fig. 4-5. Visual representation of sound energy decay over time.

3. For many residential and office projects, the acoustic partitions to the floor structure. Unfortunately, there is no
performance of the CLT panel alone is not sufficient. single approach suitable for all project types, and typically
For reference, IBC Section 1206.2 and Section 1206.3 the primary design requirements are driven by the combina-
(ICC, 2018) note STC and IIC 50 are the minimum tion of code requirements (seismic and fire) and the owner’s
required performance ratings for separating construc- project goals.
tion between dwelling units, which is an order of Figure 4-8 shows STC and IIC results for numerous
magnitude or more above the performance of the bare assembly options with a 5-ply CLT panel. Many benchmark
panels noted previously. Thus, even a modest level of CLT floor assemblies incorporate a cast-in-place concrete
sound separation requires additional mass and resil- or gypsum concrete topping to provide additional mass in
ience. Given this information, the typical design solu- a cost-effective thin profile. However, other project con-
tion to achieve the required STC and IIC performance is siderations may make a dry topping such as cement board,
to include an acoustic topping, as shown in Figure 4-6. plywood, oriented-strand board (OSB), precast concrete,
or other sheet goods a desirable option. Benefits of a dry
4.3 ACOUSTIC TOPPING OPTIONS topping include speed because there is no cure time, offsite
“prefab-ability” because dry toppings can be prefabricated
The optimum acoustic design considers the architectural, with the mass-timber elements off site and then transported
structural, and fire code requirements. Experts from the vari- to site, and avoidance of potential moisture issues associ-
ous disciplines should highlight the design requirements and ated with pouring concrete or gypsum. Sheet goods also pro-
possible design solutions that benefit the other disciplines, vide a means of achieving lighter or thinner toppings (where
resulting in an efficient, cost-effective solution. The multi- acoustically acceptable) that are more stable and crack resis-
disciplinary factors to consider are shown in Figure 4-7. An tant than the equivalent-mass cast-in-place topping.
example outcome of this approach could be a gypsum lin- Acoustic drawbacks of dry toppings result from their typi-
ing that can provide an acoustic benefit as well, particularly cally lower density than concrete. Where the acoustic design
when attached via resilient connections and/or with an air- requires a significant topping mass, additional thickness is
space. Furthermore, an acoustic mass may introduce ben- needed to maintain the same surface mass. Further draw-
efits or drawbacks to the structural design, depending on the backs include the risks of trapping water if applied too early,
location or the type of material used for an acoustic mass. seams or gaps between boards that may result in acoustically
For example, the range of acoustic toppings with varying weak areas, and/or additional labor may be required to lay
material properties (i.e., concrete versus gypsum concrete) out multiple layers of sheet goods instead of pouring gyp-
may differ in their suitability as a substrate for anchoring sum or concrete over an entire floor area.
Fig. 4-6. Typical mass-timber floor panel acoustic assembly.

Multi-Disciplinary Design
Airborne sound isolation
IBC building types Impact sound isolation
Fire resistance ratings Flanking transmission
Char and encapsulation
Acoustics Connection detailing
Concealed spaces Acoustic lab testing
Fire testing Acoustic field testing
Approvals
Fire
Timber slab type/thickness
Structural system
• Post and beam
• Point Supported
• Rib deck
Structural • Timber/steel, Timber/concrete
• Modular
Spans
Exposed/concealed connections
Weather protection
Fig. 4-7. Conceptual diagram of the interrelated design considerations for acoustics, fire, and structural designs.

Fig. 4-8. STC and IIC ratings for floor assemblies (Sabourin, 2015).

Chapter 5
Sustainability
5.1 BASICS OF EMBODIED CARBON efficiency improves, the embodied carbon associated with
building materials becomes a larger percentage of the whole
5.1.1 Introduction to Embodied Carbon life carbon emissions of a building.
Embodied carbon refers to the total greenhouse gas emissions
5.1.2 Carbon Storage and Biogenic Carbon
associated with the manufacturing, transportation, installa-
tion, maintenance, refurbishment, and disposal of building Interest in wood as a structural material is increasing because
materials. Embodied carbon is measured in global warming woody biomass is comprised of nearly 50% carbon, which
potential (GWP) and includes many gaseous compounds was formed through the process of absorbing CO2 from the
that are normalized to carbon dioxide equivalents. Typically, atmosphere through photosynthesis during growth of the
these emissions can be considered on a basis of cradle-to- tree. This CO2 is often said to be sequestered or stored in the
gate (from resource extraction through leaving the factory wood product and is one form of biogenic carbon, along with
gate), cradle-to-site (adding transportation and construction the root structures and soil of the forest. However, this stored
site activities) or cradle-to-grave (from resource extraction carbon will eventually be released as CO2 or other forms of
through eventual disposal at end-of-life) scope. Cradle-to- greenhouse gases again when the woody biomass eventually
site embodied carbon is also called “upfront embodied car- burns or decomposes. For structural wood components, most
bon” because the carbon emissions have occurred before the of this does not occur until the end of life of the building in
building opens and becomes operational (WGBC, 2021). which they have served, as shown in Figure 5-1.
The embodied carbon from building materials is estimated The carbon form, timing, and other factors make the
to be 11% of total global carbon emissions (CLF, 2021). accounting of biogenic carbon associated with wood prod-
Current growth rates indicate a continued need for large ucts complicated. In attempts to simplify the accounting,
amounts of new building construction. As building operating two popular approaches have emerged among the design
Fig. 5-1. Life-cycle carbon emissions of a wood product (image credit: Arup).

community. In the first, one assumes the sequestered car- accounting, the reporting of biogenic carbon in the following
bon is entirely released as CO2 eventually, in which case the example takes the approach of ISO 14067 (ISO, 2018): CO2
net effect is neutral. This assumption is based on another that is temporarily “stored” as carbon in the wood compo-
assumption—that the harvesting activities at the wood- nents of the assemblies compared in the following, as well as
supplying forest do not reduce its natural carbon stores other types of biogenic carbon, is reported separately from
over the long-term. Justification for that claim is typically the nonbiogenic embodied carbon of the assemblies. Mass
derived by requiring robust sustainable forest management timber is a wood building product that follows this same life
certification, such as through the Forest Stewardship Council cycle. By converting wood into a building product, carbon
(FSC) (FSC, 2019). The proponents of this scenario argue can be stored within mass timber before ultimately being
for exclusion of sequestered biogenic carbon in embodied released at end of life. Because mass timber is fabricated
carbon calculations. Including all the assumptions of the using small-diameter trees with shorter rotations, storing
first scenario, the second approach goes further and argues carbon within a mass-timber product requires more rota-
that given the tendency for structural elements in buildings tions of trees to replace those that have been harvested. This
to last several decades, it is worth counting the sequestered carbon storage benefit relies on forests being replenished
carbon as long-term carbon storage. In this approach, it is to maintain the carbon cycle. Mass-timber products used
assumed that some biogenic carbon remains stored at end- in the United States are primarily from the United States,
of-life, giving a net biogenic carbon balance, because the Canada, and Europe, which are all regions with an annual
carbon storage lasts past a short-term deadline for limiting net increase in forest production on average. However, to
greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially this approach shows ensure mass-timber products are sourced from sustainably
how using wood instead of products that do not store carbon managed forests, the best practice for engineers is to specify
can “buy us time” in the few decades that climate scientists a robust sustainable forest management certification, such as
say the world has left to change the trajectory of global car- from the FSC.
bon emissions.
In addition to the biogenic carbon related to the biomass 5.2 COMPARATIVE LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT
of wood products themselves, there is additional biogenic OF HYBRID STEEL-TIMBER
carbon that also arises in the growth cycle of forests and the
harvesting and manufacture of wood products. When forests 5.2.1 Introduction to Life-Cycle Assessment
grow, they turn atmospheric carbon into woody biomass, but
Whole building life-cycle assessment (WBLCA) is an
when forests are cut and milled into lumber, much of that
accounting process for determining the total embodied
carbon is emitted back into the air. When a lumber mill burns
environmental impacts associated with a building within a
wood waste for energy to kiln-dry the wood, carbon dioxide
determined scope. Comparative WBLCA is incorporated
is emitted. When a forest is disturbed, as happens in log-
into many green building rating systems as a credit option.
ging when woody debris is left to decompose on the forest
WBLCA is a cradle-to-grave assessment, governed by the
floor, carbon dioxide is also released. Life-cycle assessment
overarching ISO 14040, ISO 14041, ISO 14042, ISO 14043,
(LCA) standards have allowed exclusion of emissions from
and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006a, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2006b)
biomass fuels if the wood qualifies as coming from “sustain-
standards for LCA, as well as BS EN 15978 (CEN, 2011),
ably managed forests” as defined by ISO 21930 (ISO, 2017).
which is more applicable to LCA for constructed assets.
The intent is to ensure a sufficient number of new trees are
WBLCA is often limited to the scope of structure and enclo-
replanted to maintain an above-ground carbon balance
sure because this is the scope required for the related Leader
against what was harvested and burned, in order to claim net
ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credit,
neutrality of this particular use of biomass. Essentially, this
although additional elements such as interiors and equip-
definition of “sustainably managed forests” assumes that if
ment should be included to more accurately account for a
the total area of forest land stays unchanged, the amount of
whole building.
carbon lost to logging (or other operations) is equaled by
There are several commercially available whole build-
gains in growing forest areas. This is controversial, however,
ing LCA tools within the United States, each with their own
because there are a wide variety of forest management prac-
methodologies, assumptions, and approaches. Assessments
tices and not all ensure that the carbon emitted in disturbance
can be conducted with comparison to a reference design
of the forest will be replaced in the forest. Even on a large
to demonstrate embodied carbon reduction potential. For
geographical scale, carbon storage has not diminished in
such comparisons to be realistic and meaningful, material
North America in the last several decades, and measurements
quantities used in WBLCA should reflect actual engineered
have shown that actual forest carbon flux varies enormously
designs as opposed to theoretical sets of inputs that attempt
between forests under different management regimes.
to capture ranges in possible quantities without reference to
Despite all the caveats mentioned previously and acknow
engineering judgement.
ledging there is no clear consistency in biogenic carbon

The simplified LCA comparison does not consider the Framing: steel secondary beams spaced at 10 ft on cen-
broader impacts on the building, but it is worth considering ter spanning to steel primary beams
the further reductions in embodied carbon that a hybrid sys- Cementitious spray fireproofing on underside of metal
tem can afford a project depending on the project specifics deck and around steel beams
including the following:
• Hybrid option
• Reduced or removed ceilings due to exposed wood
ceilings 2 in. normal weight concrete slab over 5-ply CLT
• Reduced foundation structure due to reduced building Acoustic rubber mat
weight (about 5% lighter than the steel system, 50% Framing: steel secondary beams spaced at 15 ft on cen-
lighter than the concrete system) ter spanning to steel primary beams
• Reduced vertical and lateral system structure due to Intumescent paint on steel beams
reduced building weight
For the purposes of this comparison, the scope is lim-
5.2.2 Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment Results ited to the horizontal structure inside a typical interior bay.
Items that would not alter the comparison, such as columns
To estimate the embodied carbon reduction potential of steel- and architectural finishes, are not included. Structural ele-
timber hybrid construction, a comparative LCA has been ments beyond the scope of a single interior bay, such as lat-
performed of 30 ft × 30 ft structural bay options using the eral members and foundations, are also not included. The
same structural design criteria for each. The study compares results of this study are not meant to be extrapolated to a
the steel-timber hybrid to two common floor construction whole building, but by focusing on the largest elements typi-
types in North America—prestressed concrete and compos- cally made with steel-timber hybrid framing, an order-of-
ite concrete slab on steel deck. magnitude comparison between the systems can be made.
The three schemes are shown in Figure 5-2 with a descrip- To uphold functional equivalency between the schemes
tion for each further detailed in the following. considered, a topping slab and acoustic mat are considered
• Baseline prestressed concrete option within the scope of the steel-timber hybrid scheme, whereas
8 in. two-way slab with 6,000 psi normal weight con- neither are necessary for the concrete and steel schemes. For
crete (NWC) fireproofing, intumescent paint has been used on steel beams
for the hybrid scheme while cementitious spray fireproofing
Steel prestressing strands and mild reinforcement is used on the steel beams and underside of the metal deck in
• Baseline composite steel option the composite steel scheme.
34 in. lightweight concrete (LWC) slab over 18-gauge Connections are accounted for within the scope of each
metal deck scheme by increasing steel tonnage by 5% for the hybrid

(a) Post-tensioned concrete (b) Composite deck plus steel (c) CLT deck plus steel
Fig. 5-2. Plan and section views of the composite and hybrid schemes used for the embodied carbon comparison.

Table 5-1. Summary of Material Quantities Used for Embodied Carbon Comparison
Pre-Tensioned Composite Hybrid CLT plus
Description Units Concrete Steel Steel
8 in. NWC benchmark U.S., 6,000 psi cyd 22.2 – –
Prestressing tendons lb 990 – –
2 in. NWC benchmark U.S., 3,000 psi cyd – – 5.60
34 in. over 2 in. LWC benchmark U.S., 3,000 psi cyd – 11.8 –
3
CLT ft – – 516
2 in. 18 ga. metal deck lb – 3220 –
Reinforcement lb 1,170 565 227
Structural steel lb – 4,080 4,750
Connections lb – 408 237
2
Spray fire resistive material ft – 562 –
Intumescent paint gal – – 10.0
2
Acoustic mat ft – – 900
Table 5-2. Embodied Carbon Results from Athena IE and Tally

Total Global Warming Potential (a.k.a. Embodied Carbon)
Athena IE Tally
Scheme CO2e (kg) CO2e/m2 (kg) CO2e (kg) CO2e/m2 (kg)
Post-tensioned concrete (PT) 10,700 128 12,500 150
Composite steel 9,870 118 11,200 134
Hybrid CLT plus steel without biogenic carbon 7,610 91.0 11,100 133
Hybrid CLT plus steel with biogenic carbon 1,950 23.0 3,630 44.0
Note: CO2e is the carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the number of metric tons of CO2 emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton
of another greenhouse gas.
scheme and 10% for the steel scheme. The latter is 5% higher Table 5-2 shows the global warming potential (GWP) of
to account for steel headed stud anchors. Regional average the LCA tools—Athena IE and Tally.
concrete mixes are assumed. The building life expectancy is In both comparisons, post-tensioned (PT) concrete is
assumed to be 75 years. A summary of the material quanti- higher in embodied carbon than the hybrid system. Using
ties for each option is given in Table 5-1. Athena, the concrete and steel framing systems results are
The comparison was run in two different LCA tools, nearly the same and exceed the hybrid system by about 25%
Athena Impact Estimator (IE) for Buildings (Athena, 2020) when excluding biogenic carbon emissions. In Tally, instead
and Tally® (Tally, 2020), because of differences anticipated of the steel and concrete systems coming close to each other,
due to incongruencies in assumptions, data sources, and the steel and hybrid systems are closer in total embodied
reporting of biogenic carbon. Where Athena IE reports bio- carbon (excluding biogenic), and concrete is higher than
genic carbon in module D for environmental impacts beyond the two by about 10%. In contrast, when biogenic carbon
the building boundary, Tally reports sequestered carbon in is included, the difference in Athena IE amounts to an 80%
stage A1 if the user elects to see output including biogenic decrease in embodied carbon, and in Tally the reduction is
carbon. Athena IE includes biogenic carbon arising from near 70%.
the wood product biomass at end-of-life, but Tally only dis- Both Athena and Tally assume that no maintenance is
plays this if inclusion of biogenic carbon is selected. Both required for CLT over the lifespan of this building. The
tools’ approaches inherently begin from the “carbon neutral” variation in output from using two different tools illustrates
assumptions discussed in Section 5.1.2 that, at a minimum, the inconsistency that arises because of the discrepancies
require robust sustainable forest management certification, built into the tools, especially their end-of-life assumptions.
such as from the FSC.

Moreover, the same construction materials could not always • The steel tonnage in the hybrid scheme exceeds the steel
be found in both tools, so sometimes a proxy material had to in the composite scheme because the hybrid option does
be used instead. not assume composite action between the steel and the
Figure 5-3 visually compares the results from Athena IE concrete topping or the CLT slab. Leveraging composite
to Tally. The striking difference between the hybrid scheme action would increase efficiency and reduce the embodied
output from Athena IE to Tally are due to many variables, carbon impact of the hybrid scheme. However, composite
including the following: systems for timber are not often seen due to additional
• Drastically different end-of-life assumptions for biogenic time and labor that would be needed to install the steel
carbon between the two tools, which makes wood appear headed stud anchors, so these were not examined in the
much lower in GWP in Athena IE than in Tally. comparative LCA study (SOM, 2017).
• Higher GWP factors for 6,000 psi concrete, rebar, CLT, • The volume of concrete used in a composite system
and spray-applied fireproofing in Tally, making all options exceeds that used in a hybrid system, which counteracts
appear worse. the additional steel tonnage in embodied carbon.
• Higher GWP factor for steel shapes in Athena IE than • The concrete used in the composite steel system is higher
Tally. in embodied carbon because of its mix type. It is more
common to use lightweight concrete in the composite
• Assumption of net neutrality of biogenic carbon related
system to obtain the required fire rating, whereas normal
to biomass fuels in Athena IE, whereas Tally does not
weight concrete topping is typically preferred in a hybrid
assume net neutrality when the “include biogenic carbon”
system for its acoustic damping. Lightweight concrete has
option is selected.
higher embodied carbon by volume than normal weight
The output demonstrates that GWP values for CLT vary because it often needs more cement to compensate for its
significantly across tools so much that an embodied carbon lower strength aggregate. Thus, the hybrid system offers
comparison excluding biogenic carbon makes it difficult to lower GWP than the composite system through changes
conclude that a hybrid system is lower or higher in embodied in concrete volume and mix type.
carbon than conventional systems, unless biogenic carbon is • There are options to use noncementitious materials over
included. When biogenic carbon is included, the steel-timber the CLT deck to achieve equivalent acoustic performance
hybrid is clearly lower in GWP using both tools. This phe- which would likely lead to even lower embodied carbon
nomenon has been observed in other studies of mass-timber of the hybrid assembly, such as gypsum backer board or a
systems as well (SEI/SE2050, 2021; TDI, 2019). variety of composite wood products. These dry toppings
Despite these differences, some observations are common are also appealing for avoidance of mixing wet and dry
to the output from both tools:
Hybrid CLT + Hybrid CLT + Hybrid CLT + Hybrid CLT +

Composite Steel Without Steel With Composite Steel Without Steel With
PT Concrete Steel Biogenic Carbon Biogenic Carbon PT Concrete Steel Biogenic Carbon Biogenic Carbon
200
acousc mat
150 intumescent
SFRM
conn
CO2e/m2 (kg)
100 steel
rebar
metal deck
50
CLT
LWC 3 ksi
NWC 3 ksi
0
PT strand
NWC 6 ksi
-50
Athena Impact Esmator Tally
Fig. 5-3. LCA of baseline and hybrid framing options.

trades, but currently their cost and necessary depth keep typically stipulate that the industry-wide LCA used to pro-
cementitious toppings highest in popularity. duce the EPD statistically represents the entire industry, not
• In the post-tensioned concrete scheme, it is likely that the just those producers that participated. In this way, even if
GWP of a 6,000 psi mix is under-represented. Prestress- there are some producers that did not participate in LCA,
ing typically requires high early strength such that the the industry-wide LCA/EPD still represents the entire indus-
cement content, and thus the GWP, is higher than an aver- try. Suppliers may also have product specific EPD available.
age mix of the same strength. This study used the industry While AWC and CWC do not have an industry-wide EPD
average 6,000 psi mix to be conservative in the amount of for CLT, several CLT suppliers have product-specific EPD.
embodied carbon reduction a hybrid system could offer For steel products, several suppliers have mill-specific EPD
compared to a PT concrete system. available. [Supplier-specific CLT and mill-specific steel EPD
can be found at www.buildingtransparency.org (Building
• For all schemes, using a very low cement concrete mix Transparency, 2021)].
would help lower embodied carbon. This study used the PCR are necessary to use EPD for environmental com-
national industry average, but if different mix proportions parisons across products fulfilling the same function within
are more common for the project location, they should be a single product category. However, there may be disparities
used instead. between the LCA behind different EPD that make the EPD
• Although not as notable as the structural materials, the incomparable, even if the LCA stay within the bounds pre-
tendency for intumescent paint to be used on the steel scribed by the PCR. PCR tend to expire every 3 to 5 years,
beams in a hybrid system instead of cementitious spray and with each update the rules are often revised to make
fireproofing helps to slightly lower the embodied carbon. subsequent EPD more comparable. This cycle for renewal is
often more frequent than the age of data in WBLCA tools,
In any cradle-to-grave LCA, assumptions are made about which could make EPD a better reflection of current prac-
the building’s end-of-life. Although alternative end-of-life tice. Concurrently, once an LCA is completed for an EPD,
scenarios were not considered in this LCA, it is worth con- WBLCA tool developers can use information from the LCA
sidering other uses for the components of hybrid systems to update the data for those materials in the LCA tools for
after their first use in a building. It is feasible for a hybrid buildings, if given access to the LCA reports.
system to be built considering the ability to disassemble and The relationship between PCR, EPD, LCA, and WBLCA
reuse elements of the structure at the building’s end-of-life. is shown graphically in Figure 5-4.
Utilizing all bolted connections and replacing wet topping Most notably, EPD are useful for understanding the basic
with dry panelized toppings can facilitate easy deconstruc- materials and processes involved in producing a product,
tion of a hybrid building, which may be appropriate for tem- the energy intensity and fuels used, and additional environ-
porary, deployable, or short design-life structures. mental information. If the EPD are comparable, which often
requires that the LCA was conducted by the same profes-
5.3 PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY sional, under the same PCR and version, and for the same
CERTIFICATIONS manufacturer(s), then they can also give a sense of the rela-
tive differences in environmental impacts between products.
5.3.1 Environmental Product Declarations Comparing EPD from different years for the same product
LCA tools for buildings, particularly Athena IE and Tally, may also indicate how much manufacturers have improved
are best for understanding impacts of materials generically, the environmental profiles of their products over time.
informing design direction, and helping the project team
identify “hotspots” to focus their carbon reduction efforts. 5.3.2 Recycled Content, Recyclability, and
To evaluate specific products, an environmental product dec- Circularity of Steel
laration (EPD) can be more helpful. In contrast to an LCA The embodied carbon of steel is influenced primarily by its
for an entire building or assembly, an EPD is a transparency recycled content. Steel is typically produced in one of two
report that documents the life-cycle impacts of a single prod- ways around the world: by smelting and refining iron ore
uct. The life-cycle impacts reported in an EPD include GWP, to produce virgin steel or by melting down recycled steel
along with other measurable environmental impacts. to be reshaped and repurposed. The basic oxygen furnace
EPD are developed using life-cycle assessment and are (BOF) is used to produce the vast majority of the world’s vir-
based on product category rules (PCR) that apply to each gin steel, while electric arc furnaces (EAF) are used to melt
category of products. EPD can be either product-specific down primarily recycled steel. Structural steel produced in
or industry-wide. Several industry groups, including AISC, the United States is comprised of 93% recycled steel scrap,
AWC, and the Canadian Wood Council (CWC), have indus- on average (AISC, 2021).
try-wide Type III (third-party verified) EPD available. PCR

100% of domestically produced hot-rolled sections are such as clean water, clean air, and protection of biodiversity.
made via EAF, ensuring a high recycled content. Structural When forests become a source of economic productivity,
plate and HSS may be produced via BOF or EAF methods, stewardship is needed to ensure the forest is managed sus-
which can be confirmed by the mill documentation. Speci- tainably. Three types of instruments help to characterize and
fying structural steel shapes that originate from EAF mills link forest management practices at the landscape scale to
(e.g., using hot-rolled shapes instead of HSS when their total the wood products used for buildings.
weight is near equal) is one way to ensure a higher rate of Sustainable forest management is the “stewardship and
recycled content. use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that
In addition to high recycled content, steel is the only struc- maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration
tural material with the ability to be recycled back into new capacity, vitality, and their potential to fulfill, now and in the
steel products with no loss of its physical properties. Nearly future, relevant ecological, economic, and social functions,
100% of all structural steel is recycled back into new steel at local, national, and global levels.” Certification of sustain-
products. This unique attribute means steel can be recycled able forest management adds credibility through third party
infinitely, exemplifying a “closed-loop” type of system pro- verification by trained auditors against specific and pub-
moted by the circular economy. licly disclosed criteria. Criteria often consider protections
Furthermore, a hybrid system introduces the potential to on watersheds, habitat, biodiversity, soil health, fair labor,
reuse the steel beams and columns if the CLT and topping indigenous people’s rights, and other issues in addition to all
slab can be removed without damaging the steel members, applicable laws and regulations. While several forest man-
and if steel elements use bolted connections instead of welds. agement certifications exist (APA, 2021), the Forest Stew-
It is technically conceivable to reuse the steel (and CLT), an ardship Council program is the only one recognized by the
opportunity that transcends recycling in the circular econ- standard credits in the LEED rating system (USGBC, 2019)
omy hierarchy. Both recycling and reuse are not only good and the International Living Future Institute (ILFI) Living
for reducing embodied carbon; they are strategies that help Building Challenge (ILFI, 2019) and zero carbon (ILFI,
conserve natural resources, including raw materials, water, 2020) certifications.
and the fuels to produce energy needed to recycle steel. While a forest certification by itself is insufficient to quan-
titatively derive amounts of carbon storage in a given forest,
5.3.3 Sustainable Wood Product Certifications according to ISO 21930 (ISO, 2017), forest certification can
be a qualifier for carbon neutrality assumptions. As noted
For forest products, sustainability encompasses much more
at the beginning of this chapter, the ISO definition of sus-
than carbon emissions and sequestration. Although forest
tainable forest management is essentially that new trees are
lands are a key part of mitigating climate change, forests
planted in place of the harvested stands, making it a prereq-
do more than act as carbon storage. Forests provide essen-
uisite to claim carbon neutrality for the biomass contained
tial ecosystem services critical to the health of our planet,
Fig. 5-4. Relationship among PCR, EPD, LCA, and WBLCA.

in wood products. ISO does not require consideration of three tiers of fiber sourcing, this type of certification is the
broader ecosystem impacts, although if there is no indication second tier. While these programs help verify the legitimacy
that the trees were replanted, then one has to take a penalty of wood sources, these should not be confused or equated
for the biogenic emissions from both types of biomass. Until with sustainable forest management certification (the third
better quantification methods arise, ISO sets the latest guide- and highest tier).
lines on biogenic carbon, and this principle appears in many
other carbon accounting standards (BSI, 2011; ISO, 2018). 5.4 SUSTAINABILITY CONCLUSION
Figure 5-5 shows the system boundary limits of EPD and
The limited LCA analysis presented in this chapter dem-
LCA tools. These boundary limits necessitate forest man-
onstrates the shortcomings of attempting to simplify the
agement certifications and chains of custody as evidence of
complexity of biogenic carbon into a single calculation
broader benefits of sustainable forest management practices.
methodology. While output from both LCA tools used show
Most wood products have a complex supply chain with
that if including biogenic carbon, the hybrid system results
multiple participants along the chain. To link sustainable for-
in lower overall GWP, the striking difference in output from
est management to the final wood product that is sold to a
two of the building industry’s most reputable LCA tools
consumer, sustainable wood certification programs require a
shows that using LCA to compare options may not give as
chain-of-custody component. Chain of custody refers to the
consistent an answer as desired. Between the conventional
entire path of certified products from forests through the sup-
composite steel and hybrid options, project teams should
ply chain, linking the forest to the end consumer. Chain-of-
be careful not to base their decision on LCA results alone,
custody certifications also require anyone taking ownership
especially without looking at the impact on the entire build-
of the forest product along the supply chain to be certified in
ing, where hybrid systems may help save on foundations,
the same system, ensuring that the chain is not broken. Most,
lateral systems, and architectural finishes. The decision to
but not all, sustainable forest management certification pro-
use a hybrid steel-timber system should be driven by all
grams also offer chain-of-custody certifications.
the benefits identified throughout this Design Guide and
Lastly, “responsible fiber sourcing” refers to uncertified
the value of those opportunities to the project. Moreover,
wood that is not illegally harvested. Smaller, family-owned
when using wood products, verifiability of sustainable for-
forests for which certification can become a prohibitive cost
est management that encompasses ecosystem and societal
often participate in responsible fiber sourcing programs, such
impacts beyond carbon, and is tied to sourcing of the wood
as the FSC Controlled Wood certification programs, instead.
components, is essential for calling the designed system
Under ASTM D7612 (ASTM, 2021b), which distinguishes
“sustainable.”
Fig. 5-5. System boundary limits of EPD and LCA tools.

Chapter 6
Structural Design
6.1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLATE DESIGN
6.1.1 Steel Member Design

Steel framing is the primary structural system in a hybrid steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors. Steel columns and
beams support mass-timber panels that span between secondary steel beam framing. While the CLT design performance is speci-
fied by the structural engineer, to create an efficient layout, the engineer needs to take into consideration that each manufacturer
may have slightly different panel lengths and build-ups; engaging a manufacturer early in the design process can be advantageous
to optimize spacing and to minimize CLT panel waste. Composite behavior of the timber and CLT panel is generally ignored in
strength design, although procedures are available in the U.S. edition of the CLT Handbook and Eurocode 5, Annex B (CEN,
2004), to explicitly design composite CLT and concrete slabs.
Steel members are designed in accordance with the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2016c), hereafter
referred to as the AISC Specification, taking into account the bracing provided by the timber panels. Mass-timber panels are
directly attached to the steel members with self-tapping screws installed through the bottom of the top flange at a regular spacing.
CLT panels have significant in-plane lateral stiffness and strength and are generally treated as providing continuous top-flange
lateral bracing against lateral-torsional buckling in beam flexure. For lower levels of axial loads, CLT panels can also provide
continuous weak-axis beam buckling bracing. However, engineering judgement should be used where large flexural or axial
loads are present, such as transfer girders, trusses, and lateral load-resisting frames. To rely on the CLT panels for stability for
these critical conditions, the engineer should use AISC Specification Appendix 6, Member Stability Bracing, to confirm if suf-
ficient bracing by the CLT can be relied upon. Connection slip at timber connections needs to be considered in any stiffness
checks. An example of a connection to provide column weak-axis bracing is shown in Figure 6-1.
Fig. 6-1. Example of column weak-axis bracing, RISD (photo courtesy of Odeh Engineers, Inc.).

The effects of panel continuity should also be considered in the steel framing. The first interior secondary support beam will
generally see a higher load than at end-panel conditions, as CLT panels are not typically designed to transfer any moment at the
panel spline connection.
NLT and DLT panels are considered similarly to CLT panels in steel member design. However, NLT and DLT panels can have
significantly less strength and stiffness in the weak direction of the panels and often require small gaps for expansion. Therefore,
the restraint provided to steel elements in the weak direction by NLT and DLT panels should be carefully considered.
Vibration can often control the design of steel and mass-timber panel floor systems due to the reduced mass. See the vibration
discussion in Section 6.4 for an in-depth discussion of this topic.
There are also important detailing considerations for the steel framing, including camber requirements, that are discussed in
Section 6.6.
Design Example 6.1—Noncomposite Hybrid Steel Beam with CLT Panel

The typical hybrid solution utilizes noncomposite steel beam design with CLT panels providing lateral restraint. This design
example will illustrate the design of the steel beam in this type of system. An example of composite design is shown in Design
Example 6.5.
Given:
Using the example hybrid system described in Section 2.4.2, depicted in Figure 6-2, check the primary beam for strength and
serviceability. The trial secondary beam size is an ASTM A992/A992M W27×84. The beam configuration is summarized in the
following:
Primary beam span = 30 ft
Secondary beam span, exterior bays = 40 ft
Secondary beam span, middle bay = 20 ft
Secondary beam tributary width = 15 ft
Fig. 6-2. Example noncomposite steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors.

Loads:
Dead load (DL) = 37.5 psf (3 in. NWC topping) + 20 psf (6d in. CLT panel) = 57.5 psf
Superimposed dead load (SDL) = 20 psf
Live load (LL) = 80 psf
Self-weight (SW) = 84 lb/ft (for assumed secondary trial beam W27×84)
Serviceability limits:
l
Δ LL =
360
( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
360
= 1.00 in.
l
Δ TL =
240
( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
240
= 1.50 in.
Solution:
From AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2017), hereafter referred to as the AISC Manual, Tables 1-1 and 2-4, the material
and geometric properties for the trial W27×84 beam are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Ix = 2,850 in.4
Zx = 244 in.3
d = 26.7 in.
tw = 0.460 in.
h/tw = 52.7
The distributed loads on the secondary beams are calculated as follows:
wD = ( Tributary Width) ( SDL + DL ) + SW
= (15 ft ) ( 20 psf + 57.5 psf ) + 84 lb/ft
= 1,250 lb/ft
wL = ( Tributary Width ) ( LL )
= (15 ft ) (80 psf )
= 1,200 lb/ft
From ASCE/SEI 7-22, Chapter 2 (ASCE, 2022), the following load combinations will govern for gravity design cases:
LRFD ASD
wu,s = 1.2D + 1.6L wa,s = D + L
= 1.2wD + 1.6wL = wD + wL
= 1.2 (1,250 lb/ft ) + 1.6 (1,200 lb/ft ) = 1,250 lb/ft + 1,200 lb/ft
= 3,420 lb/ft = 2,450 lb/ft
The loads on the primary beam are a combination of the distributed load from the self-weight of the beam and point loads from
the secondary beams (40 ft and 20 ft long). The assumed self-weight of the beam is 84 lb/ft.

LRFD ASD
wu,p = 1.2D + 1.6L ⎛ 40 ft + 20 ft ⎞
Pa,p = wa,s
= 1.2wD + 1.6wL ⎝ 2 ⎠
1.2 (84 lb/ft ) + 1.6 ( 0 ) ( 2,450 lb/ft )( 30 ft )
= =
1,000 lb/kip 1,000 lb/kip
= 0.101 kip/ft = 73.5 kips
⎛ 40 ft + 20 ft ⎞
Pu,p = wu,s
⎝ 2 ⎠
( 3,420 lb/ft )( 30 ft )
=
1,000 lb/kip
= 103 kips
Determine the shear and moment demands using beam equations for a simply supported beam with a uniformly distributed load
and a concentrated point load at midspan.
LRFD ASD
2 2
Pu,p l wu,p l Pa,p l wa,p l
Mu = + Ma = +
4 8 4 8
(103 kips) ( 30 ft ) ( 0.101 kip/ft ) ( 30 ft )2 ( 73.5 kips) ( 30 ft ) ( 0.0840 kip/ft )( 30 ft )2
= + = +
4 8 4 8
= 784 kip-ft = 561 kip-ft
Pu,p + wu,p l Pa,p + wa,p l
Vu = Va =
2 2
103 kips + ( 0.101 kip/ft )( 30 ft ) 73.5 kips + ( 0.0840 kip/ft ) ( 30 ft )
= =
2 2
= 53.0 kips = 38.0 kips
The nominal shear strength, Vn, is determined using AISC Specification Equation G2-1:
Vn = 0.6Fy AwCv1 (Spec. Eq. G2-1)
Aw = dt w
= ( 26.7 in.) ( 0.460 in.)
= 12.3 in.2
Check the h/tw ratio:

h
= 52.7
tw
E 29,000 ksi
2.24 = 2.24
Fy 50 ksi
= 54.0

h E
Because < 2.24 :
tw Fy
ϕv = 1.00
Ωv = 1.50
Cv1 = 1.0 (Spec. Eq. G2-2)
Vn = 0.6 ( 50 ksi ) (12.3 in. ) (1.0 )
2
= 369 kips
LRFD ASD
ϕ vVn = 1.00 ( 369 kips ) Vn 369 kips
=
= 369 kips > 53.0 kips o.k. Ωv 1.50
= 246 kips > 38.0 kips o.k.
The nominal flexural strength, Mn, is the lower of the values obtained according to the limit states of yielding and lateral-torsional
buckling. The beam flange in compression is fully braced by the CLT deck; therefore, lateral-torsional buckling does not apply.
The nominal flexural strength of the beam for the limit state of yielding is:
Mn = Mp = Fy Z x (Spec. Eq. F2-1)
( 50 ksi ) ( 244 in.3 )
=
12 in./ft
= 1,020 kip-ft
LRFD ASD
ϕb Mn = 0.90 (1,020 kip-ft ) Mn 1,020 kip-ft
=
= 918 kip-ft > 784 kip-ft o.k. Ωb 1.67
= 611 kip-ft > 561 kip-ft o.k.
Check deflections, ignoring camber:

PD = wD l
(1,250 lb/ft )( 30 ft )
=
1,000 lb/kip
= 37.5 kips
PL = wL l
(1,200 lb/ft )( 30 ft )
=
1,000 lb/kip
= 36.0 kips
PL l 3
Δ LL =
48EI
( 36.0 kips) ( 30 ft )3 (12 in./ft )3
=
48 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 2,850 in.4 )
= 0.423 in. < 1.00 in. o.k.

( PD + PL ) l 3 5wD l 4
Δ TL = +
48EI 384EI
⎛ 0.0840 kip/ft ⎞
( 30 ft )4 (12 in./ft )4
=
( 37.5 kips + 36.0 kips)( 30 ft )3 (12 in./ft )3 + 5 ⎝ 12 in./ft ⎠
48 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 2,850 in.4 ) 384 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 2,850 in.4 )
= 0.883 in. < 1.50 in. o.k.
In practice, designers will likely utilize software packages to design the steel floor framing. It is important to modify the follow-
ing parameters in the software package to account for hybrid design:
• Noncomposite beams assumed (unless explicitly detailed for composite action).
• Dead loads account for CLT panel and topping (coordinate with acoustic consultant to ensure sufficient topping assump-
tion, it is recommended to assume minimum 3 in. NWC topping for conceptual design).
• Either do not allow for camber or take a maximum camber of w in. if panel fit-up is closely considered (see Section 6.6.2
for an in-depth discussion of this topic).
6.1.2 Timber Panel Design
6.1.2.1 Mass-Timber Panel Types

Virtually any mass-timber panel type could be used in steel hybrid construction. However, the most common mass-timber panel
types currently used are CLT, NLT, and DLT panels. All mass-timber panels need to meet the strength and serviceability require-
ments specified in the NDS (AWC, 2018). Additionally, special care needs to be taken for vibration and fire design, which are
discussed separately in this Design Guide.
CLT Panels
Due to the cross-laminations, CLT has significantly higher in-plane strength and stiffness and is the most common panel type
used in hybrid construction. The most typical panel sizes used at this time are 3-ply and 5-ply panels, but 7-ply and 9-ply panels
are also available if required. CLT panels can be used as diaphragms in most applications, including seismic applications using
ANSI/AWC SDPWS, Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) (AWC, 2021b). Steel secondary beams support-
ing the CLT should be coordinated with the panel layout to minimize panel waste.
Panel sizing and layout have a significant impact on piece count and should be coordinated with the secondary framing to mini-
mize waste. Each manufacturer has slightly different dimensions for panels, and this should be considered when selecting panels
and designing the structure. In general, however, panel sizes range from 8 ft to 10 ft widths and are 40 ft to 60 ft in length depend-
ing on shipping method and transport restrictions.
CLT panels are sized for strength and serviceability according to NDS Chapter 10. CLT panels are typically designed as one-
way spanning elements in the strong-axis direction of the panel only. While CLT panels do have some capacity in the weak-axis
direction of the panel, this behavior is not generally relied upon because moment continuity is not easily provided at panel spline
connections. The weak-axis bending capacity of CLT panels is generally only utilized at small two-way cantilever conditions
and for rationalizing unreinforced penetrations. One notable exception to this is point supported CLT floors that rely on two-way
behavior; however, point supported floors are not considered in this Design Guide.
The rolling shear of the cross-laminations in the CLT panels plays a significant role in out-of-plane bending, shear, and deforma-
tion behavior. ANSI/APA PRG 320 (APA, 2019) specifies the minimum effective design properties that consider the effects of
rolling shear. Manufacturers test their panels to meet the minimum properties outlined in ANSI/APA PRG 320, which are in turn
applied to the NDS Chapter 10 provisions. As with all-timber construction, care must also be taken to account for creep, shrink-
age, wet-service, and high-temperature conditions. Reference the U.S. CLT Handbook for a detailed discussion of sizing CLT
panels according to the NDS.

NLT and DLT Panels
NLT and DLT panels are also sized for strength and serviceability according to the NDS. NLT and DLT panels are composed of
dimensional lumber attached side-by-side in their strong axis and designed to span in only one direction. NLT and DLT panels
are not generally considered to have diaphragm continuity on their own; additional plywood or other structural topping is used
for the diaphragm. The bracing provided to steel members with NLT and DLT panels has to be carefully considered for any sig-
nificant spans and loads. Reference the Nail-Laminated Timber U.S. Design and Construction Guide (BSLC, 2017) or a detailed
discussion of sizing NLT panels according to the NDS.
6.1.2.2 Material Grades and Species

Allowable grades of CLT panels are specified in ANSI/APA PRG 320. Each manufacturer specifies the species and grades used
for their panels. The most common wood species currently used are SPF, DF, or southern yellow pine (SYP).
For CLT panels, many manufacturers have an option to use a higher architectural grade on the bottom exposed lamination layer.
This exposed lamination layer could have a different species than the other laminations. Most panel manufacturers are able to
provide samples of various grades of finish to assist the architect in the selection of the finish grade and species.
Design Example 6.2—Timber Panel Design

Using the example hybrid system described in Section 2.4.2, this design example will check the CLT panel for strength and ser-
viceability. This design example follows the design provisions outlined in NDS Chapter 10.
Using the nomenclature from ANSI/APA PRG 320, the CLT is loaded in the flatwise direction. The panel is designed to span
one way, therefore the design example is checking capacity in the major-axis or major-strength direction as shown in Figure 6-3.
Given:
The 5-ply CLT panel is 30 ft long supported at each end and the midpoint by a steel frame. The properties of the CLT panel are
as follows:
Grade (ANSI/APA PRG 320) = E1
Lamination thickness = 1a in.
Number of plies =5
Total thickness = 6d in.
Specific gravity, ρ = 0.35
From ANSI/APA PRG 320, Table A2—Major Strength Direction CLT Panel Properties:
(FbS)eff,f,0 = 10,400 lb-ft/ft of width
(EI)eff,f,0 = 440 × 106 lb-in.2/ft of width
(GA)eff,f,0 = 0.92 × 106 lb/ft of width
Vs,0 = 1,970 lb/ft of width
Fig. 6-3. 5-ply panel in flatwise, major-strength direction (APA, 2019).

Note: In practice, the designer should review potential CLT suppliers appropriate to the project location and review available
panel types and properties. Panel grades, lamination thicknesses, widths, and lengths vary by manufacturer.
For uniform loading, pinned ends:
Ks = 11.5 (NDS Table 10.4.1.1)
Loading:
LL = 80 psf
SDL = 20 psf
DL = 40 psf (topping slab and finish)
SW = 20 psf
Solution:
Convert the area load to a line load per foot width of CLT panel:
LL = 80 psf (1 ft) = 80.0 lb/ft
SDL = 20 psf (1 ft) = 20.0 lb/ft
DL = 40 psf (1 ft) = 40.0 lb/ft
SW = 20 psf (1 ft) = 20.0 lb/ft
Determine the distributed line load per foot width of the CLT panel:
LRFD ASD
wu = 1.2D + 1.6L wa = D + L
= 1.2 ( 20.0 lb/ft + 40.0 lb/ft + 20.0 lb/ft ) + 1.6 (80.0 lb/ft ) = ( 20.0 lb/ft + 40.0 lb/ft + 20.0 lb/ft ) + (80.0 lb/ft )
= 224 lb/ft = 160 lb/ft
Assume a simply supported, continuous two-span condition. Using the beam equations in AISC Manual Table 3-22c, determine
the critical moment and shear for the CLT panel per foot width.
Midspan moment = 0.07wl2
Middle support moment = 0.125wl2
Shear, end bay = awl
Shear, center bay = swl
LRFD ASD
2
Midspan moment = 0.07wl Midspan moment = 0.07wl 2
= 0.07 ( 224 lb/ft ) (15 ft )2 = 0.07 (160 lb/ft ) (15 ft )2
= 3,530 lb-ft/ft = 2,520 lb-ft/ft
2
Middle support moment = 0.125wl Middle support moment = 0.125wl 2
= 0.125 ( 224 lb/ft ) (15 ft )2 = 0.125 (160 lb/ft ) (15 ft )2
= 6,300 lb-ft/ft = 4,500 lb-ft/ft
Shear, end bay = awl Shear, end bay = awl
= a ( 224 lb/ft ) (15 ft ) = a (160 lb/ft ) (15 ft )
= 1,260 lb/ft = 900 lb/ft
Shear, center bay = swl Shear, center bay = swl
= s ( 224 lb/ft ) (15 ft ) = s (160 lb/ft ) (15 ft )
= 2,100 lb/ft = 1,500 lb/ft

Therefore, the controlling required flexural strength is 6,300 lb-ft/ft for LRFD and 4,500 lb-ft/ft for ASD. The critical required
shear strength is 2,100 lb/ft for LRFD and 1,500 lb/ft for ASD.
The CLT design capacity can be calculated using the 2015 version of NDS or later (CLT was introduced into NDS in the 2015
revision of the standard). Panel properties can be obtained from ANSI/APA PRG 320, from individual panel manufacturers, or
can be calculated explicitly for custom layups using the shear analogy method described in CLT Handbook Section 3.3. For this
example, the ASD reference design capacities are used from ANSI/APA PRG 320, Table A2.
The ASD reference design values are modified by the adjustment factors in NDS Chapter 10. NDS Table 10.3.1 is reproduced in
Figure 6-4.
Note: Based on NDS Equation 3.4-1, NDS uses Fs(Ib/ Q)eff to indicate flatwise panel shear. Panel manufacturers often use Vs to
indicate shear capacities. The terms planar shear, out-of-plane shear, or rolling shear are also used to describe flatwise panel
shear.
Determine the adjustment factors:
CD = 1.0 (for occupancies containing live load, see NDS Table 2.3.2)
CL = 1.0 (depth of bending member does not exceed its breadth, see NDS Section 3.3.3)
CM = 1.0 (moisture content less than 16%, as in most covered structures, see NDS Section 10.3.3)
Ct = 1.0 (structural members will not experience sustained exposure to elevated temperatures up to 100°F; see NDS Table 2.3.3)
Factors specific to LRFD:
Format conversion factor, KF = 2.54 for bending, 2.00 for shear in CLT, from Figure 6-4
Resistance factor, ϕ = 0.85 for bending, 0.75 for shear
Time effect factor, λ = 0.8 for live load combination when L is based on occupancy (NDS Table N3)
Fig. 6-4. NDS Table 10.3.1 (courtesy of the American Wood Council, Leesburg, Va.) (AWC, 2018).

Calculate the bending capacity of the CLT panel, based on NDS Section 10.3, as follows:
LRFD ASD
( Fb S )′eff, f 0 = ( Fb S )eff , f 0 C M CtC L K F ϕλ (Fb S )′eff, f 0 = ( Fb S )eff, f 0 CDC M CtC L
= (10,400 lb-ft/ft ) (1.0 ) (1.0 ) (1.0 ) ( 2.54 ) ( 0.85) ( 0.8 ) = (10,400 lb-ft/ft ) (1.0 ) (1.0 ) (1.0 ) (1.0 )
= 18,000 lb-ft/ft > 6,300 lb-ft/ft o.k. = 10,400 lb-ft/ft > 4,500 lb-ft/ft o.k.
Calculate the shear capacity of the panel:
LRFD ASD
′ = Vs,0C M Ct K F ϕ
Vs,0 ′ = Vs,0CM Ct
Vs,0
= (1,970 lb/ft ) (1.0 ) (1.0 ) ( 2.0 ) ( 0.75) = (1,970 lb/ft ) (1.0 ) (1.0 )
= 2,960 lb-ft/ft > 2,100 lb/ft o.k. = 1,970 lb-ft/ft > 1,500 lb/ft o.k.
Calculate the deflection of the CLT panel with the following assumptions:
Kcr = 2.0 for wood panels in dry service condition (MC < 16%)
ΔLT = immediate deflection due to long-term component of design load (e.g., Δmax,dead)
ΔST = immediate deflection due to short-term component of design load (e.g., Δmax,live)
For the simply supported, two-span beam condition with uniformly distributed load on both spans, the maximum deflection is:
wD l 4
Δ max =
185EI
The deflection is calculated using the applicable adjustment factors, CM and Ct, and an adjusted value of EI as follows:
wD l 4
Δ max =
185 ( EI )app, f,0 C M Ct
The reduced stiffness property, (EI)app,f,0, adjusts (EI)eff,f,0 for shear deformation. The shear deformation adjustment factors are
provided in NDS.
From the CLT Handbook, (EI)app,f,0 is calculated using Equation 5:
( EI )eff, f,0
( EI )app, f,0 = (CLT Handbook Chapter 3, Eq. 5)
K s ( EI )eff , f ,0
1+
GAeff L2
440 × 106 lb-ft/ft
=
(11.5)( 440 × 106 lb-ft/ft )
1+
(0.92 × 106 lb/ft ) (180 in.)2
= 376 × 106 lb-in.2 /ft
And then the maximum dead and live load deflections can be calculated as:
(80.0 lb/ft )(15 ft )4 (12 in./ft )3
Δ max, dead =
185 (376 × 106 lb-in.2 ) (1.0 ) (1.0 )
= 0.101 in.

(80.0 lb/ft )(15 ft )4 (12 in./ft )3
Δ max,live =
185( 376 × 106 lb-in.2 ) (1.0) (1.0 )
= 0.101 in.
From NDS Section 3.5:

Δ max,longterm = K cr ( Δ max,dead ) + Δ max,live
= 2.0 ( 0.101 in.) + 0.101 in.
= 0.303 in. = L 594 deflection o.k.
Note: This design example does not consider patterned live loading, which would need to be checked as applicable.
Calculate the maximum span for vibration for the 5-ply panel following the procedure outlined in the CLT Handbook:
1 ( EI )0.293
app, f,0
l≤ (CLT Handbook Chapter 7, Eq. 4)
12.05 (ρA )
0.122
0.293
1 ( 376 × 106 lb-in.2 )
≤
12.05 [( 0.35) ( 6 d in.) (12 in.)]
0.122
≤ 17.9 ft o.k.
6.1.2.3 Fire Design of CLT Panel

If the building structure is required to be fire rated, the timber panels can be designed for fire conditions. NDS Chapter 16 outlines
how to design exposed timber members for fire conditions. As noted in Chapter 3, mass timber provides fire resistance through
the charring of the outer layer of timber material. This reduction in section capacity needs to be checked against appropriate
load combinations for the fire load case. CLT (or equivalent alternative mass-timber floor) panel thicknesses generally need to be
increased in thickness to accommodate the panel section loss due to charring.
First the effective char depth must be considered, which is a function of the char rate and required fire endurance. NDS Section
16.2.1.3 is used to determine the char depth and account for the laminations in CLT panels. NDS addresses reductions of strength
and stiffness of wood directly adjacent to the char layer by accelerating the char rate by 20% (WoodWorks, 2019a). CLT panels
primarily rely on the outer laminations for flexural strength in the panel strong axis. Once the outer lamination is lost due to
charring in fire conditions, the flexural strength of the panel is significantly reduced because only the laminations oriented in the
direction of the span being considered are being used. Lower-grade timber material may also be used in the inner laminations,
but this variation in strength needs to be considered in the design.
The load combination used under fire conditions is generally taken as the service dead plus live load. ASD is used for fire design
to NDS provisions. Because a fire condition is treated as a very rare and short-time duration event, there is a conversion for
allowable design stress to average ultimate strength adjustment factor summarized in NDS Table 16.2.2, shown in Figure 6-5.
Alternatively, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Section 2.5, provides a load combination for extreme events in LRFD design.
AWC TR-10 explains the fire design of timber elements in great detail.
The char depth can be calculated using the NDS Chapter 16 method. The effective residual cross section of the CLT floor is
calculated from:
hfire = h − achar
where
h = initial cross-section depth, in.
hfire = effective cross-section depth, in.

From NDS Equations 16.2-4 and 16.2-3, the char depth, achar, is calculated as:
achar = 1.2 ⎡n lam hlam + β η ( t − nlamt gi ) ⎤

0.813
(from NDS Eq. 16.2-4)
⎣ ⎦
where
hlam = lamination thickness, in.
nlam = number of laminations charred (rounded to lowest integer)
t = exposure time, hr
tgi = time for char front to reach glued interface, hr
βη = nominal char rate = 1.5 in./hr
From NDS Section 16.2.1:

1.23
⎛h ⎞
tgi = ⎜ lam ⎟
⎝ βη ⎠
t
n lam =
tgi
Alternatively, effective char depths for common fire-resistance ratings can be taken directly from NDS Table 16.2.1B.
Design Example 6.3—Fire Resistance Rating of 5-Ply CLT Panel

For a 5-ply CLT element with a total thickness of 6.66 in. with 1-hour fire exposure, calculate the effective panel thickness.
Given:
h = 6.66 in.
hlam = 1.33 in.
nlam = 1 lamination
t = 1 hr
βη = 1.5 in./hr
Fig. 6-5. NDS Table 16.2.2 Adjustment Factors for Fire Design (courtesy of the American Wood Council, Leesburg, Va.) (AWC, 2018).

Solution:
1.23
⎛ 1.33 in. ⎞
t gi =
⎝1.5 in./hr⎠
= 0.862 hr
achar = 1.2 ⎡n lam hlam + β η ( t − nlam tgi )

0.813 ⎤
(from NDS Eq. 16.2-4)
⎣ ⎦
{
= 1.2 (1) (1.33 in.) + (1.5 in./hr )[1 hr − (1) ( 0.862 hr )]
0.813
}
= 1.96 in.
h fire = h − achar
= 6.66 in. − 1.96 in.
= 4.70 in.
Thus, the CLT will have 4.70 in. of wood remaining after 1 hour of fire exposure, equivalent to a 1-hour fire resistance test to
ASTM E119.
The panel design exercise from Section 6.1.2 can be repeated utilizing the calculated reduced panel depth and the fire design
adjustment factors from NDS Table 16.2.2, shown in Figure 6-5. Designers will frequently run a simple but conservative check
neglecting the partial ply remaining—especially in situations where the partial ply is running in the weak direction. To account
for the partial ply, designers are typically forced to calculate section properties by hand because these properties are not fre-
quently provided in tables from manufacturers or the industry at large.
6.2 LATERAL SYSTEM DESIGN
6.2.1 Steel Lateral Force-Resisting Systems

A key advantage of the steel framing in a hybrid system is the flexibility of the steel LFRS to minimize the impacts of the lateral
system in the building architecture. A steel LFRS also provides a proven path to code compliance. Braced frames and moment
frames are the most commonly used LFRS; however, any steel LFRS allowed by the AHJ can be used in a hybrid project. In
high-seismic areas, more ductile LFRS are used in accordance with the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
(AISC, 2016b). CLT panels can help reduce the mass of the building, which in turn reduces the seismic forces.
Consideration for bolted connections should be given special care where plates and bolts can impact the bearing of the CLT
panel. Where possible, conditions for bolts on the top flange should be minimized. If they cannot be avoided, the final connec-
tion design needs to be coordinated with mass-timber panels to rout out the underside of the panel and ensure firm bearing. See
Section 6.6 for additional detailing considerations.
6.2.2 Diaphragms
Diaphragm design in steel and mass-timber construction must be considered appropriately to ensure global stability under lateral
loads. The engineering mechanics of diaphragm behavior in hybrid buildings is similar to metal decking or metal deck with
composite concrete diaphragms. However, the designer needs to consider the behavior of the mass-timber panels under in-plane
loading and ensure the load path between the timber and the steel is addressed appropriately.
6.2.2.1 CLT Diaphragm Design Approaches

One of the inherent benefits of CLT panel construction is that the mass-timber panels have significant in-plane strength to resist
lateral loads. However, until recently, there has not been a clear path to code compliance using CLT panels as diaphragms in the
IBC or NDS. A new codified approach for using CLT panels as diaphragms is now outlined in the ANSI/AWC Special Design
Provision for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS). Historically, in high-wind and high-seismic regions, the approach to diaphragm design
utilized supplemental diaphragm systems that were already codified for a simpler permit approval process, such as plywood
sheathing or unbonded concrete toppings. For special loading conditions, horizontal steel in-plane bracing can be utilized.

CLT Diaphragm Design per 2021 SDPWS
The main benefit to using CLT panels as the diaphragm is that it can eliminate any additional structural sheathing or topping.
SDPWS Section 4.5 allows a fully codified approach to using CLT panels as the diaphragm system. There is a design guide being
published by WoodWorks for working though these provisions; therefore, the methodology will not be covered in full detail here.
As mentioned earlier, CLT panels by themselves have significant in-plane shear capacity and generally do not govern the shear
capacity of a CLT diaphragm. Rather, it is the connection between CLT panels that generally controls the shear capacity of CLT
diaphragms. CLT panels are typically connected together with thin plywood splines that are then nailed or screwed to the CLT
panels. Half-lap connections are another type of CLT-to-CLT panel connection. The spacing and size of the plywood and con-
nectors then determines the shear capacity of the diaphragm. This is very similar to plywood sheathing diaphragms. Figure 6-6
shows a CLT-only diaphragm with panel splines at a roof condition.
Similar to plywood sheathing, SDPWS Table 4.2.2 limits the aspect ratio of CLT (double-layer diagonally sheathed lumber) dia-
phragms to 4:1. The aspect ratio will have a significant impact on whether the diaphragm behaves as flexible, rigid, or semi-rigid.
In determining the flexibility of the CLT diaphragm, the SDPWS does not provide equations for determining the flexibility, but
rather notes that the engineer should use the principles of engineering mechanics. There are several papers available that outline
approaches for determining the diaphragm flexibility including the following:
• 2015 white paper on CLT Diaphragms (Spickler, 2015)
• WoodWorks solutions paper on CLT modeling (WoodWorks, 2017)
• The forthcoming WoodWorks CLT diaphragm design guide
Because determining the diaphragm stiffness for a semi-rigid analysis can be an intensive exercise, a common approach by the
industry is to envelope the behavior of an idealized flexible or rigid diaphragm design.
Once the diaphragm forces have been determined, the spline connections can then be appropriately designed. The SDPWS out-
lines the requirements for dowel-type fasteners in determining the connection capacity. In the NDS, dowel-type fasteners are
governed by four types of failure behaviors between the fastener and the connection materials, classified as Modes I through
Fig. 6-6. CLT diaphragm with plywood spline connections and steel strapping
for chord/collector across CLT panel joints (photo courtesy of Arup).

IV. Modes I and II are considered to be less ductile modes because they are controlled by crushing of the connection material.
Modes III and IV are considered to be more ductile modes because they are governed by yielding in the fastener. The key goal for
the connection design in the diaphragm is to ensure ductile connection behavior by having the fasteners controlled by Mode III
or IV failures. Connections to steel, wood elements, or chord splines are also amplified by a factor up to 2.0.
Where jurisdictions allow, a common approach is to delegate the connection design to the CLT manufacturer by providing
the design shear forces at the spline connections. Typical economic shear panel splices have a shear capacity of 500 lb/ft to
1,500 lb/ft (LRFD). For higher forces, steel splines may need to be used, which can increase cost. Figure 6-7 shows an example
plan where shear design forces are called out for the CLT manufacturer to design.
Where forces are relatively low, it is common to design the CLT panel to resist the chord and collector axial forces and simplify
the steel design. For this approach, the engineer first needs to determine the chord and collector axial forces utilizing an effective
panel width based on the capacities of the CLT panel. The out-of-plane bending of the panel also needs to be considered with the
in-plane axial loads. Once the chord and collectors within the panels have been identified, the connections between the panels
are sized for this load transfer in tension (the compression forces are generally transferred via panel bearing). SDWPS 2021 notes
that connections used to transfer diaphragm shear forces cannot be used to resist diaphragm tension forces. Therefore, either
the spline connections need to be locally sized for the tension forces with appropriate amplification, or steel strapping is placed
on top of the CLT panels to transfer the forces across the panel joint. Chord and collector steel strapping can use steel plates
with self-tapping screws where forces are high, or light-gauge strapping where forces are lower. Similar to shear design forces,
these connections can also be delegated to the CLT manufacturer if they are clearly documented in the contract documents and
if allowed by the AHJ.
The transfer of the collector forces in the CLT diaphragm to the steel LFRS is a critical connection that has to be carefully con-
sidered. Where collector forces are low enough, the collector force transfer can occur locally at the braced frame or moment
frame only via self-tapping screws at a tighter spacing pattern locally. Figure 6-8 shows a steel braced frame with close spacing
of screws to transfer the shear force locally between the CLT diagram and the steel braced frame. The CLT diaphragm is then
designed to distribute the collector forces.
Where chord and collector forces are high, the steel framing can be used as collectors to transfer and distribute the lateral forces
over a longer distance into the diaphragm. The steel collector framing needs to consider the additional axial loads in the member
design, including any second-order effects as a beam-column. The connections also need to be designed for the additional axial
forces. Large collector forces can be accommodated efficiently in steel design; this is one of the strengths of a hybrid steel and
CLT structural system.
If steel collector elements are desired to be hidden, steel drag struts can also be provided atop the CLT decking as shown in
Figure 6-9. This approach is easiest to implement at roof levels where the insulation can typically hide the collector element.
For jurisdictions that have not adopted the 2021 version of the SDPWS, one of the alternative diaphragm approaches may be
required unless approval for its use is given by the AHJ. Additionally, there is currently a code limitation on cantilevered timber
diaphragms of 35 ft that is currently being challenged by designers to be modified in future codes. If a concrete topping slab is
Fig. 6-7. Delegated shear connection diagram for Houston Endowment Headquarters,
including strapping above CLT for chords and collectors (image credit: Arup).

used as the diaphragm, then this limitation does not apply. If mass timber is used (e.g., sheathed NLT/DLT or unsheathed CLT),
then discussions with the building department are recommended, or horizontal steel in-plane bracing could be used.
Unbonded Concrete Topping Slabs

One approach to mass-timber diaphragm design is to use an unbonded concrete topping and ignore the CLT panels. This approach
can be efficient where an unbonded concrete topping is already required as part of the acoustic design. Typically, this concrete
topping is poured atop an acoustically resilient mat. This acoustics mat results in the concrete being unbonded from the CLT
panel. Concrete diaphragms also have significant capacity, which is a benefit where large lateral loads are present, and are inher-
ently fire resistant.
Fig. 6-8. Collector nail attachment of CLT to top flange of steel braced frame
at Mansfield Airport (photo courtesy of Arup and Michael Shearer).

The minimum concrete topping thickness is recommended to be no thinner than 3 in. per ACI 302.1R-04 (ACI, 2004). However,
special care should be taken with thin topping slabs to ensure there is sufficient clear cover for reinforcement, especially if signifi-
cant chord reinforcement is required. Care should be taken in the concrete mix for thin unbonded concrete pours to minimize the
effects of curling. Any floor boxes in the topping slab should also be considered by the engineer when determining the topping
thickness, as floor boxes or AV boxes can have significant depth. The thickness of the topping slab can also affect flexible versus
rigid diaphragm behavior. All these design aspects should be considered when determining the appropriate concrete topping
thickness for a project.
Fig. 6-9. CLT collector (drag strut) element above CLT deck collecting forces to steel braced frame (photo courtesy of Arup).

Once the concrete topping thickness has been selected, the design and behavior of the diaphragm should be designed per ACI 318
(ACI, 2019) code requirements. There are many design guides on the design and behavior of concrete diaphragms so it will
not be covered in this Design Guide. However, the load path of the concrete diaphragm to the steel LFRS needs to be carefully
detailed, as well as the transferring of the mass-timber inertial mass into the concrete diaphragm. The most direct load path of
the diaphragm to the steel braced frames or moment frames is through bearing of the concrete topping slab against the steel
columns. Steel brackets or deformed bar anchors at the columns and concrete slab interface could be used for force transfer into
the steel. In high-seismic regions, appropriate overstrength values should be used for these interfaces. Approaches could also
use steel headed stud anchors or other mechanical connections between the steel beams and concrete topping; however, there
needs to be consideration for impact to the acoustical performance for this approach. These steel headed stud anchors would also
need to be detailed such that they engage the topping and disrupt the CLT panel continuity. In wind-controlled regions, if the
façade is attached directly to the mass timber, careful detailing is also required to transfer the lateral loads back into the concrete
diaphragm.
Plywood Sheathing
The 2021 SDPWS provides a clear path for code compliance for CLT diaphragms in high-seismic zones. For jurisdictions that
have adopted this version of the SDPWS, the inherent strength of the CLT diaphragm will be more cost-effective than adding
an additional redundant plywood sheathing layer. However, historically in high-seismic and wind regions, there has not been a
clear path to code compliance; one solution has been to add plywood sheathing directly on top of CLT panels. This approach is
conservative because it ignores any CLT diaphragm capacity and is not recommended for new designs where the CLT diaphragm
can be used on its own with a clear path to code compliance through the 2021 SDPWS. Because not all jurisdictions may have
adopted this version of the SDPWS, this section is included for historical purposes and to provide an alternative to unbonded
concrete diaphragms where the clear path for code compliance with CLT diaphragms may still be difficult.
Plywood sheathing diaphragms are designed in accordance with the SDPWS and are governed by the fastener connection capac-
ity. As the plywood sheathing is fastened directly to the CLT panels, the diaphragm is treated as blocked, similar to applications
where plywood is attached to timber decking. There are many design guides for plywood diaphragms; they will not be discussed
in full detail here. However, one of the main limitations of the SDPWS are the aspect ratios of the diaphragm, which is limited to
4:1 for double-layer diagonally sheathed lumber in SDPWS Table 4.2.2.
The engineer needs to determine the classification of the diaphragm as flexible, rigid, or semi-rigid by calculating the deforma-
tion of the diaphragm relative to the deformation of the lateral system per ASCE/SEI 7. The diaphragm deflection is calculated
using SDPWS Section 4.2.3, which accounts for the contribution of both the sheathing deformation as well as the slip from the
connections. Once the diaphragm is appropriately classified, the appropriate provisions of IBC and ASCE/SEI 7 for a flexible,
rigid, or semi-rigid diaphragm are then applied.
Chords and collector forces in plywood diaphragms can be transmitted either through the steel elements or locally with additional
strapping.
Where collector or chord forces are high, using the steel beams as the lateral load path can be an efficient approach to take
advantage of the inherent strength of steel members and connections. In this approach, the steel beams need to be designed for
the additional axial loads as beam-columns, including consideration for any second-order effects. Likewise, the steel connections
need to accommodate the additional axial loads.
Where chord and collector forces are low, using the steel elements for load transfer can result in steel connections being increased
for the axial loads compared to designing for gravity loads only. One approach to minimize this increase of steel elements and
connections is to design portions of the CLT panel for the chord or collector axial forces. Additional strapping across panel joints
could be required to transfer concentrated tension forces across panel joints.
Horizontal Steel In-Plane Bracing

Steel in-plane bracing below the CLT can also be used as a diaphragm. This approach is generally used sparingly to minimize
steel tonnage; however, it can be advantageous at local conditions where in-plane forces are significant or where greater design
flexibility is needed.

In-plane steel bracing typically ignores any benefit in the CLT diaphragm to provide a direct and more easily detailed load path
for lateral forces. Horizontal steel bracing is typically only used for portions of the diaphragm with an aspect ratio higher than
4:1, at lateral load transfers, or at other nontypical load transfer configurations that have a more clearly defined load path through
steel framing.
An example of this use is shown in Figure 6-10 at the Houston Endowment Headquarters at a horizonal in-plane discontinuity
in the vertical LFRS, transferring forces from a moment frame in the north of the building to a moment frame in the south of
the building. The diagram shows the in-plane load path where shear force is transferred to a drag strut in the steel framing via
horizontal in-plane WT framing. Due to required openings in the diaphragm and the high magnitude of lateral force, an efficient
in-plane transfer would not have been possible without the in-plane steel framing. The flexibility of using steel for these types of
conditions is another benefit of hybrid steel and mass-timber panel projects.
NLT, DLT, and GLT Diaphragm Discussion

While this Design Guide is focused on CLT and steel hybrid structures, many of the principles are the same when using NLT/
DLT/GLT and steel structures. A key difference for NLT/DLT/GLT panels is that the in-plane shear strength and stiffness of the
NLT/DLT/GLT panels is generally ignored. An unbonded concrete topping or plywood sheathing is often used as the diaphragm.
A more detailed discussion of NLT diaphragms can be found in the Nail Laminated Timber U.S. Design and Construction Guide
(BSLC, 2017).
Design Example 6.4—CLT Diaphragm Design

This design example follows the provisions of SDPWS Section 4.5. The design example uses a rectangular floor plate with lateral
force-resisting frames at the perimeter of the building as shown in Figure 6-11. Check the adequacy of the 6d in., 5-ply CLT dia-
phragm (SPF), and determine the required connections to transfer the forces through the diaphragm into the lateral force-resisting
frames at the perimeter of the building.
Given:
CLT panel properties: 6d in., 5-ply, Grade E1
CLT panel width = 8 ft
Diaphragm width, L = 240 ft (dimension perpendicular to applied load)
Diaphragm depth, W = 100 ft (dimension parallel to applied load)
E = 1,700,000 psi
W27×84 collectors
Panel-to-panel connection type: 1-in.-thick × 6-in.-wide plywood spline with 16d common nails
Loading:
wEQ = 500 lb/ft (earthquake loads govern for this design example)
Solution:
Diaphragm Aspect Ratio
SDPWS Table 4.2.2 limits the diaphragm aspect ratio for CLT diaphragms (blocked structural panel) to L / W ≤ 4.
L 240 ft
=
W 100 ft
= 2.40 < 4 o.k.
Calculate the required shear forces in the diaphragm at the support:

( 500 lb/ft )( 240 ft )
VEQ =
2
= 60,000 lbs

Fig. 6-10. In-plane lateral force transfer via steel in-plane brace and
steel elements at Houston Endowment Headquarters (image credit: Arup).
Fig. 6-11. Example diaphragm.

Calculate the required shear force per foot width of the diaphragm:
60,000 lbs
vEQ =
100 ft
= 600 lb/ft
Determine the required shear force per foot width, factoring the seismic loads as specified in ASCE/SEI 7, Sections 2.3.6 (LRFD)
and 2.4.5 (ASD):
LRFD ASD
vu,EQ = (1.0 ) ( 600 lb/ft ) va,EQ = ( 0.7 ) ( 600 lb/ft )
= 600 lb/ft = 420 lb/ft
According to SDPWS Section 4.5, the nominal unit shear capacity, vn, of CLT diaphragms is based on the nominal shear capacity
for dowel-type fastener connections used to transfer diaphragm shear forces. The following additional requirements are valid for
CLT diaphragm design from SDPWS Section 4.5.4:
1. The nominal shear capacity for dowel-type fastener connections used to transfer diaphragm shear forces between CLT
panels and between CLT panels and diaphragm boundary elements (chords and collectors) shall be taken as 4.5Z *, where
Z * is Z multiplied by all applicable NDS adjustment factors except CD, KF, ϕ, and λ; Z shall be controlled by Mode IIIs or
Mode IV fastener yielding in accordance with NDS Section 12.3.1.
2. Connections used to transfer diaphragm shear forces shall not be used to resist diaphragm tension forces.
3. Wood elements, steel parts, and wood or steel chord splice connections shall be designed for 2.0 times the diaphragm forces
associated with the shear forces induced from the design loads. Exceptions outlined in SDPWS Section 4.5.4 apply.
From SDPWS Section 4.5.4, the nominal capacity of a CLT diaphragm shear connection fastener can be summarized as:
Zn = 4.5Z *
The adjusted design capacity, Z*, is determined using NDS Table 11.3.1 with the following exceptions:
• CD = 1.0, KF = 1.0, ϕ = 1.0, λ = 1.0 (from SDPWS Section 4.5.4)
• Group action factor, Cg = 1.0 from NDS Section 11.3.6.1 for dowel-type fasteners with D < 4 in.
• Diaphragm factor, Cdi = 1.1 for CLT diaphragm shear connections (from NDS Section 12.5.3)
This example assumes interior conditions; therefore, all other factors are equal to 1.0.
From NDS Table L4 for 16d common nails:
D = diameter = 0.162 in.
H = head diameter = 0.344 in.
L = length = 32 in.
From NDS Table 12.3.3A for SPF CLT panel with E = 1,700,000 psi:
G = 0.42
From NDS Table 12.3.3B for plywood, “other grades”:
G = 0.42
From NDS Table 12R:
Z = 109 lb
Calculating Z* using Cdi = 1.1:
Z* = 1.1(109 lb)
= 120 lb

From NDS Section 12.1.6.4, the minimum main member penetration is 6D:
6D = 6 ( 0.162 in.)
= 0.972 in. < 32 in. − 1 in. = 22 in. o.k.
NDS Table 12R assumes 10D penetration:

10D = 10 ( 0.162 in.)
= 1.62 in. < 22 in. o.k.
As stated previously, from SDPWS Section 4.5.4:

Z n = 4.5Z*
= 4.5 (120 lb )
= 540 lb
The unit shear capacity is calculated by dividing the nominal shear capacity by the fastener spacing:
Zn
vn =
S
SDPWS Section 4.1.4 states that for the seismic design of diaphragms, the ASD allowable shear capacity is determined by divid-
ing the nominal shear capacity by the ASD reduction factor (RF) of 2.8, and the LRFD factored shear resistance is determined
by multiplying the nominal shear capacity by a resistance factor, ϕD, of 0.50. For wind design, the factors are 2.0 and 0.80,
respectively.
Calculate the required nail spacing:
LRFD ASD
⎛ Zn ⎞ Zn
vu,EQ ≤ ϕ D va,EQ ≤
⎝S⎠ S ( RF )
⎛ Z ⎞ Zn
S ≤ ϕD ⎜ n ⎟ S ≤
⎝ vu,EQ ⎠ va,EQ ( RF )
⎛ 540 lb ⎞ ⎡ 540 lb ⎤
≤ 0.50 (12 in./ft ) ≤⎢ ⎥ (12 in./ft )
⎝ 600 lb/ft ⎠ ⎣ ( 420 lb/ft ) ( 2.8 ) ⎦
≤ 5.40 in. ≤ 5.51 in.
Therefore, use 4 in. nail spacing.

From NDS Commentary Table C12.1.6.6, the minimum nail spacing is 15D:
15D = 2.43 in. < 4 in. o.k.
Similar procedures are followed for the connection of the panel to the perimeter W27×84 that acts as a collector to the lateral
force-resisting frame. For this connection, 6-in.-long #12 wood screws are used.
From NDS Table L3 for #12 wood screws:
D = 0.216 in.
Dr = root diameter = 0.171 in.
L = 6 in.
As previously determined, for a SPF CLT panel:
G = 0.42

From NDS Table 12M:
Z = 172 lb
Note: W27×84 flange thickness is greater than the maximum value in Table 12M. This example has conservatively taken the
value for the maximum flange thickness available.
Z n = 4.5Z *
= 4.5 (172 lb)
= 774 lb
LRFD ASD
⎛ Zn ⎞ Zn
vu,EQ ≤ ϕ D va,EQ ≤
⎝ S ⎠ S ( RF )
⎛ Z ⎞ Zn
S ≤ ϕD ⎜ n ⎟ S ≤
⎝ vu,EQ ⎠ va,EQ ( RF )
⎛ 774 lb ⎞ ⎡ 774 lb ⎤
≤ 0.50 (12 in./ft ) ≤⎢ ⎥ (12 in./ft )
⎝ 600 lb/ft ⎠ ⎣ ( 420 lb/ft ) ( 2.8 ) ⎦
≤ 7.74 in. ≤ 7.90 in.
Therefore, use 7 in. spacing.

Chords are used to resist the bending moment in the diaphragm. In hybrid structures, the steel framing may be used as the chord
where beams are placed in appropriate locations and where connections from the CLT panel to the beam are sufficient to transfer
chord forces. Alternatively, a strip of the CLT panel may be used as the chord. Combined bending and axial loading must be
considered using the appropriate load combinations combining dead, live, and lateral loading.
The chords, collectors, and panels are designed using an overstrength approach as outlined in SDPWS Section 4.5.3:
γ v ≤ v′
where
ν = wind or seismic force demand
ν′ = adjusted capacity calculated per the NDS
From SDPWS Section 4.5.4:

γ = 2.0 for wood and steel components (typ.)
= 1.5 for wood members resisting wind loads
= 1.5 for chord splice connections controlled by Mode IIIs or IV (seismic)
= 1.0 for chord splice connections controlled by Mode IIIs or IV (wind)
The maximum chord force is determined by calculating the diaphragm moment at midspan and dividing the moment by the effec-
tive depth. The effective depth is 100 ft.
The diaphragm moment at midspan (120 ft), M, is calculated as:
wEQ l 2
M=
8
( 500 lb/ft )( 240 ft )2
=
8 (1,000 lb/kip )
= 3,600 kip-ft

The chord force is then calculated as:
M
v=
d
3,600 kip-ft
=
100 ft
= 36.0 kips
Using the amplification factors given previously, the chord is designed to resist:
γ v = 2.0 ( 36.0 kips )
= 72.0 kips
6.2.2.2 Acoustic Consideration for Diaphragm Design

Note that there may be acoustic implications regarding the structural diaphragm design—namely, if a concrete topping layer is
structurally connected to the mass-timber floor-ceiling panel below, thereby “short circuiting” any resilience that may have been
intended to provide impact sound separation between floors. Close coordination with the acoustic designer is recommended to
confirm the structural diaphragm design does not negate the acoustic design elements required to meet the project requirements.
Even if structural diaphragm connections (i.e., acoustically rigid connections) exist only at the beams or building core, there
exists a “short circuit” at those locations that may create an acoustic flanking path. There is little to no test data (lab or field)
for the “partially connected” diaphragm design to inform the resulting acoustic performance from the variety of design options.
Further study and/or physical testing may be warranted to better understand the project-specific conditions. Reference Chapter 4
for a more in-depth discussion of acoustic considerations.
6.3 COMPOSITE SYSTEMS
6.3.1 Composite vs. Noncomposite Behavior

Composite action between materials is commonly used to increase the overall efficiency, strength, and stiffness of structural sys-
tems. This is commonly seen in steel construction with steel elements behaving compositely with a concrete deck or in reinforced
concrete construction where concrete behaves compositely with reinforcing steel as shown in Figure 6-12. Research, product
development, and design have sought to improve mass-timber structural systems through composite behavior. These efforts have
focused on various components in the gravity system, with extensive concentration on achieving composite action between mass-
timber slabs and the concrete topping usually added for acoustic separation. These systems aim to increase the spanning capacity,
for both strength and serviceability, by utilizing material already present in the structural build-up.
Additional industry focus has been placed on achieving composite action with the steel beams in hybrid systems. These systems
aim to regain some of the efficiency lost from comparable conventional composite floors by capitalizing on the timber floor,
concrete topping, or combination of the two, as a large compression flange for the steel beam. Achieving this action can be chal-
lenging, as many approaches are currently not yet codified in the United States, and fire testing must be done to ensure the ele-
ments transferring shear between the steel beams and the slabs can maintain strength in a fire condition. Considerations must also
be given to any composite connector (e.g., steel headed stud anchors) that would conventionally be field welded that now pose
a fire risk due to the presence of timber. Ideally, items requiring welding are attached in a shop condition. Further, the acoustic
concrete topping slab is typically detailed to be structurally independent from the timber slab below, separated by an acoustic
membrane, and introducing mechanical connections through that separation may negatively impact acoustic performance of the
system. Attention should be given to these connections, and possible acoustic testing should be done once constructed to ensure
targeted performance is met. As another reference, the Eurocode provides guidance on timber and concrete composite design.
AISC offers resource design examples for composite beam design between steel beams and concrete slabs (AISC, 2019). These
are valid references if pursuing a design solution that looks to engage the concrete topping slab. With adjustments for material
and connector type (see Section 6.5), similar calculations can be produced to design for composite action between steel beams
and mass-timber slabs. The details of these designs should be evaluated by the full design team, with specific input from acoustic
and fire consultants.

Figure 6-13 shows examples of noncomposite, steel-timber composite, and steel-concrete composite options.
AISC also sponsored the 2017 report, AISC Steel & Timber Research for High-Rise Residential Buildings, produced by
Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM, 2017). This report investigates an innovative steel and timber hybrid flat slab solution for
residential construction that utilizes composite behavior with custom asymmetric steel shapes, as shown in Figure 6-14.
Fig. 6-12. Timber concrete composite (TCC) with NLT composite slab (StructureCraft, 2021).

Steel (a) Noncomposite
frame with wood floor (b) Steel-timber
Steel frame with composite
wood floor (c) Steel-concrete
Steel composite
frame with wood floor
Noncomposite Steel-timber composite Steel-concrete composite
Fig. 6-13. Steel frame with wood floor composite approaches.

Fig. 6-14. AISC-SOM composite timber deck and steel beam detail (SOM, 2017).

Design Example 6.5—Composite Hybrid Steel Beam with CLT Panel
Given:
Using the floor geometry from Design Example 6.1, depicted in Figure 6-15, check an alternate primary beam size, ASTM A992/
A992M W24×62, assuming composite action between the beam and the concrete topping. The CLT panel is placed to create a
gap between the panels at the beam location, allowing for a concrete beam region above the steel beam. Figure 6-13(c) depicts
this steel-concrete composite approach.
Geometry and loading conditions are taken from Design Example 6.1. Consider the concrete beam region over the primary beam
and 3 in. NWC (150 pcf) topping slab (ƒc′ = 4 ksi) with composite action. Consider 20 psf construction live load with unshored
construction.
Serviceability limits:
l
Δ LL =
360
( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
360
= 1.00 in.
l
Δ TL =
240
( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
240
= 1.50 in.
Fig. 6-15. Example composite steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors.

Solution:
From AISC Manual Tables 1-1 and 2-4, the material and geometric properties for the trial W24×62 beam are:
A = 18.2 in.2
Fy = 50 ksi
Ix = 1,550 in.4
Zx = 153 in.3
bf = 7.04 in.
d = 23.7 in.
tw = 0.430 in.
tf = 0.590 in.
h/ tw = 50.1
Determine the concrete beam region:
Depth of beam region = CLT depth, 6d in.
Width of beam region = gap between CLT panels
Considering 2 in. of CLT bearing on both sides of the beam, the beam region width is 3.04 in., and the concrete beam area,
Aconc beam, is:
Aconc beam = ( 3.04 in.) ( 6d in.)
= 20.9 in.2
Consider the effective area topping slab acting in composite action using AISC Specification Section I3.1:
beff = min ( distance to adjacent beam /2, span/8, distance to edge of slab )
⎡( 20 ft ) (12 in./ft ) ( 30 ft ) (12 in./ft ) ⎤
= min ⎢ , , not applicable⎥
⎣ 2 8 ⎦
= 45.0 in.
Aconc topping = ( 45.0 in.) ( 3 in.)

= 135 in.2
Aconc = Aconc topping + Aconc beam
= 135 in.2 + 20.9 in.2
= 156 in.2
Loads:
From Example 6.1, the unfactored live load component of the point load at midspan, PL, is:
⎛ 40 ft + 20 ft ⎞
PL = wL
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 1,200 lb/ft ⎞
= ( 30 ft )
⎝ 1,000 lb/kip ⎠
= 36.0 kips
The unfactored construction live load (20 lb/ ft2) component of the point load at midspan, PL,constr, is:
⎛ 20 lb/ft 2 ⎞
PL,constr = ⎜ ⎟ ( 20 ft + 10 ft ) (15 ft )
⎝ 1,000 lb/kip ⎠
= 9.00 kips

From Example 6.1, the unfactored superimposed dead load (SDL) component of the point load at midspan, PD, is:
⎛ 40 ft + 20 ft ⎞
PD = wD
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 1,250 lb/ft ⎞
= ( 30 ft )
⎝ 1,000 lb/kip ⎠
= 37.5 kips
The self-weight of the steel and concrete beam region imposes a uniform dead load, wD. The calculated value of PD already
accounts for the self-weight of the 3 in. concrete slab and the CLT over the entire tributary area. The variable wD,conc beam is used
to account for the increased self-weight of the concrete beam region because concrete now takes the place of CLT in the 3.04 in.
panel gap. (The weight of the 6d in. CLT panel is 35 lb/ ft3.)
( 3.04 in.)( 6d in.)
wD,conc beam = (150 lb/ft 3 − 35 lb/ft 3 )
(12 in. /ft ) 2
= 16.7 lb/ft
wD = wD,steel + wD,conc beam
62 lb/ft + 16.7 lb/ft
=
1,000 lb/kip
= 0.0787 kip/ft
For a precomposite section (during construction), ASCE/SEI 7-22, Load Combination 2a, from Section 2.3.1 (LRFD) and Sec-
tion 2.4.1 (ASD), controls:
LRFD ASD
wu = 1.2D wa = D
= 1.2 ( 0.0787 kip/ft ) = 0.0787 kip/ft
= 0.0944 kip/ft Pa = PD + PL
Pu = 1.2PD + 1.6PL = 37.5 kips + 9.00 kips
= 1.2 ( 37.5 kips ) + 1.6 ( 9.00 kips ) = 46.5 kips
= 59.4 kips
Determine the precomposite shear and moment demands:
LRFD ASD
2 2
Pu l wu l Pa l wa l
Mu = + Ma = +
4 8 4 8
(59.4 kips )( 30 ft )(12 in./ft ) ( 46.5 kips)( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
= =
4 4
( 0.0944 kip/ft ) ( 30 ft )2 (12 in./ft ) ( 0.0787 kip/ft )( 30 ft )2 (12 in./ft )
+ +
8 8
= 5,470 kip-in. = 4,290 kip-in.
Pu + wul Pa + wal
Vu = Va =
2 2
59.4 kips + (0.0944 kip/ft )( 30 ft ) 46.5 kips + (0.0787 kip/ft )( 30 ft )
= =
2 2
= 31.1 kips = 24.4 kips

Check precomposite shear strength:
The nominal shear strength, Vn, is determined using AISC Specification Equation G2-1:
Vn = 0.6Fy AwCv1 (Spec. Eq. G2-1)
Aw = dt w
= ( 23.7 in.) ( 0.430 in.)
= 10.2 in.2
Check the h/tw ratio:

h E
≤ 2.24
tw Fy
h
= 50.1
tw
E 29,000 ksi
2.24 = 2.24
Fy 50 ksi
= 54.0
h E
Because < 2.24 :
tw Fy
ϕv = 1.00
Ωv = 1.50
Cv = 1.0 (Spec. Eq. G2-2)
Vn = 0.6 ( 50 ksi )(10.2 in. ) (1.0 )
2
= 306 kips
LRFD ASD
ϕ vVn = 1.00 ( 306 kips ) Vn 306 kips
=
= 306 kips > 31.1 kips o.k. Ωv 1.50
= 204 kips > 24.4 kips o.k.
Check precomposite flexure:

The nominal flexural strength, Mn, is the lower of the values obtained according to the limit states of yielding and lateral-torsional
buckling. Because the beam flange in compression is braced by the CLT deck, lateral-torsional buckling does not apply.
The nominal flexural strength of the beam for the limit state of yielding is:
Mn = Mp = Fy Z x (Spec. Eq. F2-1)
= ( 50 ksi ) (153 in. )
3
= 7,650 kip-in.
LRFD ASD
ϕb Mn = 0.90 ( 7,650 kip-in.) Mn 7,650 kip-in.
=
= 6,890 kip-in. > 5,470 kip-in. o.k. Ωb 1.67
= 4,580 kip-in. > 4,290 kip-in. o.k.

Check precomposite deflection:
PDl 3 5wDl 4
Δ PC = +
48EI 384EI
⎛ 1 ft ⎞
5 ( 0.0787 kip/ft ) ( 360 in.)4
(37.5 kips )( 360 in.)3 ⎝ 12 in.⎠
= +
48 ( 29,000 ksi )(1,550 in.4 ) 384 ( 29,000 ksi ) (1,550 in.4 )
= 0.843 in. < 1.50 in. o.k.
For the composite section, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Load Combination 2a, from Sections 2.3.1 (LRFD) and 2.4.1 (ASD), controls:
LRFD ASD
wu = 1.2D wa = D
= 1.2 ( 0.0787 kip/ft ) = 0.0787 kip/ft
= 0.0944 kip/ft Pa = PD + PL
Pu = 1.2PD + 1.6PL = 37.5 kips + 36.0 kips
= 1.2 (37.5 kips ) + 1.6 (36.0 kips) = 73.5 kips
= 103 kips
Determine shear and moment demands:
LRFD ASD
Pu l wu l 2 Pa l wa l 2
Mu = + Ma = +
4 8 4 8
(103 kips )( 30 ft )(12 in./ft ) (73.5 kips) ( 30 ft )(12 in./ft )
= =
4 4
( 0.0944 kip/ft ) ( 30 ft )2 (12 in./ft ) (0.0787 kip/ft )( 30 ft )2 (12 in./ft )
+ +
8 8
= 9,400 kip-in. = 6,720 kip-in.
Pu + wul Pa + wa l
Vu = Va =
2 2
103 kips + (0.0944 kip/ft )( 30 ft ) 73.5 kips + (0.0787 kip/ft )( 30 ft )
= =
2 2
= 52.9 kips = 37.9 kips
Check composite shear strength:
LRFD ASD
ϕ vVn = 1.00 ( 306 kips) Vn 306 kips
=
= 306 kips > 52.9 kips o.k. Ωv 1.50
= 204 kips > 37.9 kips o.k.
The shear strength of the bare steel without any composite action satisfies the demands.
Check composite flexural strength:
Assuming the concrete is at a uniform stress of 0.85 fc′ from AISC Specification Section I3.2d (AISC, 2016c) and that the steel is
at a uniform stress of Fy, find the location of the plastic neutral axis (PNA) as shown in Figure 6-16.

Locate the PNA between the steel and the concrete:
The maximum tension force in the steel is:
Py = As Fy
= (18.2 in.2 ) ( 50 ksi )
= 910 kips
The maximum compression force in the concrete is:

C = 0.85 fc′Aconc
= 0.85 ( 4 ksi ) (156 in.2 )
= 530 kips
And therefore, the PNA is in the steel.
Fig. 6-16. Locating the plastic neutral axis.

Determine the location of the PNA in the steel:
Pflange = A flange Fy
= ( 7.04 in.) ( 0.590 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 208 kips
Pflange + C = 208 kips + 530 kips
= 738 kips
Py − Pflange = 910 kips − 208 kips
= 702 kips
Because Pflange + C > Py − Pflange, the PNA is in the top flange.

Balanced force = Py + C
= 910 kips + 530 kips
= 1,440 kips
1,440 kips
T =C =
2
= 720 kips
Cs = Compressive force in steel

= 720 kips − 530 kips
= 190 kips
CCT = Compressive force in concrete topping
= 0.85 ( 4 ksi ) (135 in.2 )
= 459 kips
CCB = Compressive force in concrete beam
= 720 kips − 459 kips − 190 kips
= 71.0 kips
T flg = Tensile force in top beam flange
= 208 kips − 190 kips
= 18 kips
Tweb = Tensile force in beam web
= 720 kips − 208 kips − 18 kips
= 494 kips
Determine the depth of the PNA from the top flange, a:

190 kips
a=
( 50 ksi )( 7.04 in.)
= 0.540 in.

Sum forces about the PNA as shown in Figure 6-17 to determine the composite flexural strength, M:
⎛ 3 in.⎞ ⎛ 6d in. ⎞ ⎛ 0.540 in.⎞
M = ( 459 kips ) 0.540 in. + 6d in. + + ( 71.0 kips ) 0.540 in. + + (190 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 0.590 in. − 0.540 in.⎞ ⎛ 22.5 in.⎞
+ (18 kips ) + ( 494 kips ) 0.590 in. − 0.540 in. +
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 0.590 in.⎞
+ ( 208 kips ) 0.590 in. − 0.540 in. + 22.5 in. +
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 14,800 kip-in.
LRFD ASD
ϕb Mn = 0.90 (14,800 kip-in.) Mn 14,800 kip-in.
=
= 13,300 kip-in. > 9,400 kip-in. o.k. Ωb 1.67
= 8,860 kip-in. > 6,720 kip-in. o.k.
Check deflection:
The location of the neutral axis, y, can be determined by applying the principle of moments with the axis of moments at the top
of the slab. Concrete components need to be transformed to the equivalent steel values to account for the differing modulus of
elasticity. From AISC Specification Section I2.16:
Ec = wc1.5 fc′
= (150 lb/ft 3 ) 4 ksi
= 3,670 ksi
29,000 ksi
n =
3,670 ksi
= 7.90
Using the values calculated in Table 6-1, the value of y can be calculated as shown. Figure 6-18 shows y for the composite sec-
tion and each component.
∑ Ay
y=
∑A
440 in.3
=
38.0 in.2
= 11.6 in. from top of combined section in the steel
45.0 in.
Plastic neutral
18.0 kips (T)
axis
0.540 in.
0.270 in.
Fig. 6-17. Composite flexural strength.

Table 6-1. Calculation of Ay
Transformed
Component A, in.2 A, in.2 y , in. Ay, in.3
Concrete flange (topping) 135 17.1 1.50 25.7
Concrete web (beam) 20.9 2.65 6.44 17.1
W24×62 18.2 18.2 21.8 397
Total 38.0 440
Table 6-2. Determination of Iequivalent

Component A, in.2 d, in. I , in.4 I + Ad2, in.4
Concrete flange 17.1 10.1 12.8 1,760
Concrete web 2.65 5.16 10.4 81.0
W24×62 18.2 10.1 1,550 3,410
5,250
The equivalent moment of inertia, Iequivalent, is determined as shown in Table 6-2. Figure 6-19 shows d for each component of the
composite section.
I equivalent = 5,250 in.4
Check deflection:
PL l 3
Δ LL =
48EI
( 37.5 kips )( 360 in.)3
=
48 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 5,250 in.4 )
= 0.239 < 1.00 in. o.k.
Fig. 6-18. Section and component values of y .

Δ TL = Δ PC + Δ LL
= 0.843 in. + 0.239 in.
= 1.08 < 1.50 in. o.k.
The W24×62 member is adequate for deflection, flexure, and shear.

The designer also needs to confirm that the appropriate shear transfer can be achieved using w-in.-diameter steel headed stud
anchors atop the steel beam.
6.4 VIBRATION
6.4.1 Principles of Vibration Design

Human-induced vibration examines the ability for occupants of a space to excite the structural floor plate. This excitation most
often comes from people walking within the space but may include running, walking up and down stairs, and aerobic or rhythmic
activities. This often can result in human perception of the vibrations that result from these excitations and can lead to discomfort
if not appropriately considered in design. This is a well-known phenomenon and has been well studied for a variety of structural
systems and materials. Reference AISC Design Guide 11, Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity
(Murray et al., 2016), or CCIP-016, A Design Guide for Footfall Induced Vibration of Structures (CCIP, 2007), for past documen-
tation from the United States and United Kingdom pertaining to steel and concrete structures.
Several factors contribute to a structural system’s adequacy for vibration performance, but it is most important to understand the
planned use of the space and expected levels of vibration from its occupants. Assessing how the space is intended to be used will
help to not only evaluate the expected levels of excitation seen by the structural framing, but also to help determine what levels of
vibration will be expected and tolerated by the building’s occupants. The vibration behavior of a floor plate is often a function of
the system’s weight or mass, damping, and its stiffness. These three factors drive the overall dynamic performance of a system,
and through modifications to these factors, the vibration performance of a structural system may be improved. Due to the light-
weight nature of mass-timber construction, it is particularly susceptible to human-induced vibration. Footfall vibration typically
occurs between excitation frequencies of 1 to 2.5 Hz, and thus, it is recommended that floorplates have modal frequencies over 8
to 9 Hz to ensure the floorplate is not susceptible to the fundamental or harmonic frequencies of excitation. Appropriate analysis
must be conducted to understand the modal properties of a structural system.
Hybrid systems utilizing steel framing are generally stiffer than all-timber buildings and therefore are more appropriate for vibra-
tion sensitive spaces such as labs.
6.4.2 Methods of Analysis

Analysis of vibration of floor plates is a complex exercise that must adequately consider strength, stiffness, and fixity of elements
under the expected design excitations being considered. Simplified design methods exist to consider vibration design at a high
level—for example, mass-timber slab span tables produced by manufacturers or span limit tables provided by the CLT Hand-
book. These recommendations can be useful in early phases of design; however, they may not be fully applicable at later stages
of design or for unique structural systems.
Fig. 6-19. Component values of d.

To help provide a consistent vibration analysis approach in the U.S. market, WoodWorks produced the first edition of the U.S.
Mass Timber Floor Vibration Design Guide in 2021 (WoodWorks, 2021b). The document aims to consolidate various analysis
recommendations provided in the industry, including AISC Design Guide 11 and CCIP-016. This document is a recommended
resource for approaching vibration analysis of timber floors, but also provides valuable background information on human-
induced vibration in general. Figure 6-20 shows an example of footfall analysis following the CCIP-016 approach for a steel-
frame structure with a 3-ply CLT floor.
6.5 MASS TIMBER-TO-STEEL CONNECTION TYPES
6.5.1 Fastener Types

Typical mass-timber connections use dowel-type fasteners, including bolts, screws, nails, and pins. Screws are the most com-
monly used fastener type and are typically proprietary, self-tapping screws 4 in. diameter and greater. Lag screw design is
covered by NDS. Proprietary screws are fabricated using high-strength steel, resulting in significant single fastener capacity for
mass-timber connections; installation requirements are provided by manufacturers.
There are two types of screws used in mass-timber connections—partially threaded and fully threaded (see Figure 6-21). Partially
threaded screws are used for fastening two members together when the primary force transfer mechanism is shear. Fully threaded
screws are used when thread withdrawal capacity is required on both sides of a connection because the primary force transfer
mechanism is tension. Fully threaded screws can also be used for reinforcing of a single member.
Screws are available with a variety of head types. The most common screw heads are countersunk, cylindrical, and flange.
Countersunk heads are used when a flush finish is desired. Cylindrical heads are used when the screw head is embedded beneath
the timber surface. Flange heads are used when pull-through resistance is important. Countersunk heads are the most common
head type when fastening steel plates to timber. Plates should either be fabricated with countersunk holes or flared washers
should be used. Inclined screws should be installed using an appropriate angled washer, in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations.
Design of fasteners in hybrid steel-timber construction between steel beams and mass-timber floor panels is often governed by
diaphragm forces at floor levels and diaphragm forces combined with uplift at roof levels. In steel-timber hybrid construction,
mass-timber floor panels can also be used to brace the steel beams against lateral-torsional buckling. The screws provide the
shear connection between the steel beam and mass-timber panel required to properly brace the beam.
Fig. 6-20. Footfall analysis of steel-framed structure with 3-ply CLT floor.

Standard screw layout for steel beam-to-timber panel connections will vary by project but is typically no more than 24 in. on
center with screws fastened through the beam flange on each side of the web, installed vertically from the underside of the steel
beam flange. Standard detailing practice is to stagger the screws on each side of the web to prevent splitting of the wood. NDS
and AISC provisions provide appropriate technical guidance on end and edge distances for fasteners in timber and steel, respec-
tively, as well as guidance on appropriate fastener spacing. An example of steel beam-to-timber panel connections is shown in
Figure 6-22.
Fig. 6-21. Partially threaded and fully threaded fasteners (photo courtesy of MTC Solutions).
Fig. 6-22. CLT-to-steel beam typical connection (photo courtesy of Odeh Engineers, Inc.).

Table 6-3. Standard Steel Hole Size Based on Fastener Diameter
Major Diameter, D Steel Hole
4 in. T in.
c in. 23 64 in.
a in. v in.
2 in. 33 64 in.
6.5.2 Shop Fabrication

All holes required for steel-to-timber connections should be shop fabricated to avoid onsite labor and to leverage the prefabrica-
tion benefits of both steel and mass timber. Mass-timber installers prefer to use smaller diameter screws for constructability pur-
poses; however, in hybrid steel-timber construction, the ability to fabricate small diameter holes through steel members should
be considered. For pre-drilled holes through steel members, the standard hole diameters shown in Table 6-3 are recommended
based on fastener major diameter.
Installation instructions for proprietary fasteners are provided by the manufacturer. Fabrication of small diameter holes through
thicker steel members may be difficult and should be considered in consultation with the steel fabricator.
6.6 DETAILING CONSIDERATIONS
6.6.1 Steel Moment Connections

Any elements that prevent the mass-timber panels from bearing firmly on the supporting steel framing must be accounted for in
the panel design and fabrication, including any top-flange connection plates or bolts at moment frame connections. To minimize
panel conflicts and fit-up, the engineer should consider avoiding any protruding plates and bolts on the top flange at steel moment
connections.
Where forces are low to moderate, bolted end-plate moment connections should be considered. This solution avoids top plates
that interfere with the mass-timber panels, avoids field welding, and is quick to install.
Where forces are large, the detail requires careful consideration weighing the ease of installation against the cost and risk of field
welding. Field-welded moment frame connections, without top-flange plates, require the least coordination with CLT panels.
However, significant field welding can impact structural costs and pose a fire risk during construction. Appropriate fire safety
measures need to be in place if field welding is required. Alternatively, bolted moment connections with plates or bolts on the top
flanges can be used, but these elements need to be coordinated carefully and accounted for in the CLT panel design, fabrication,
and installation.
6.6.2 Steel Beam Camber

Large camber in a steel beam can lead to fit-up issues with CLT panels that come in 8 to 10 ft widths. One option to avoid fit-up
issues is to eliminate camber in the steel design. Due to the lower mass of timber floor plates, vibration design can sometimes
control the steel beam sizing; eliminating camber can often benefit the vibration design. There may not be a significant tonnage
impact if the beam depth can be increased to accommodate the vibration and eliminate or reduce camber. Camber can be consid-
ered for longer spans where the camber would be more proportional to typical radial cambering of a glulam beam. The engineer
should contact the CLT panel fabricator for maximum allowable camber requirements based on the suggested panel widths and
layout. For preliminary design it is recommended that a maximum w in. camber is assumed for steel framing, unless measures
are taken to mitigate effects of panel fit-up.
6.6.3 Timber Panel Penetrations

Penetrations for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection need to be accounted for in the panel design. Whenever
possible, penetrations should be coordinated during the design phase so they can be fabricated with the CLT panels, and the
appropriate reinforcing provided.

Small penetrations spaced far apart can often be accommodated without reinforcement in 5-ply CLT or higher by using the weak-
axis capacity of the CLT panel to redistribute forces around the opening.
For larger openings, steel reinforcement may be required. Steel opening reinforcement can be provided as channels or angles
below the CLT as part of the steel design. Where there is room above the CLT, angles or channels could also be located above
the CLT to redistribute forces around the opening and provide a cleaner ceiling. Examples of opening size limitations and steel
reinforcement are shown in Figure 6-23.
The ability for a 3-ply CLT panel to accommodate even small penetrations tends to be much more limited, as the weak-axis
direction of the 3-ply panel is only a single lamination. For 3-ply construction, openings should be grouped together as much as
possible to limit reinforcement above or below the CLT panel. If the contractor requires greater flexibility to field install a signifi-
cant number of penetrations, the engineer should consider whether a 5-ply CLT panel with fewer openings with reinforcement is
more appropriate than a 3-ply panel with more steel reinforcing around the openings.
(a) Penetration > 4 in. diameter and ≤ 8 in. diameter
(b) Penetration 4 in. diameter or smaller
Fig. 6-23. CLT angle reinforcing detail at penetrations.

6.6.4 Integrity and Redundancy
For steel-timber hybrid buildings where the primary frame is constructed using steel, engineers should consider load path redun-
dancy in detailing to meet ASCE/SEI 7 requirements relating to general structural integrity as with any other steel project.
Some buildings may require more stringent requirements relating to disproportionate, or progressive, collapse. Disproportionate
collapse occurs when the failure of one structural element leads to the progressive failure of the other structural elements, dis-
proportionate in magnitude to the original failure. Federal standards and guidelines contain prescriptive requirements to prevent
disproportionate collapse where applicable.
Where mass-timber floor panels are relied upon to contribute to global stability or redundancy, the compatibility with the timber
panel framing must be considered carefully to ensure ductility and that redistribution can occur in the steel framing.
6.6.5 Façade Supports

A benefit to hybrid steel buildings is that any additional façade framing can be easily accommodated in the steel framing. Addi-
tionally, connecting directly to the steel framing avoids creep and moisture movement issues. Steel framing is often provided at
the perimeter of the building due to the stricter deflection requirements at the façade. The perimeter steel framing can often be
utilized to greatly simplify the façade connection interface of the building.
The simplest way to support the façade is generally to utilize the perimeter steel framing in lieu of the timber panels. Detailing
façade systems attachments to mass-timber panels can be difficult, particularly in the weak direction of mass-timber panels or
where eccentricities and moments are present.
AISC Design Guide 22, Façade Attachments to Steel-Framed Buildings (Parker, 2008), is a good reference to address façade and
steel framing details. The examples and principles in this Design Guide still largely apply to hybrid steel and mass-timber floor
panel projects.
Where lateral façade forces in perimeter steel beams are resisted by the CLT diaphragm panel, edge distance perpendicular to the
panel edge should be accounted for in the fastener design at the steel beam and CLT panel condition.
Additional perimeter steel framing members can also be added where required for façade support. Steel framing provides great
flexibility and simplicity in accommodating virtually any façade condition. Figures 6-24 and 6-25 show examples of an eccentric
façade condition that was easily accommodated with supplemental steel façade framing.
Steel-framed buildings can also easily accommodate thermal breaks to maintain a good thermal building envelope, which is often
required by newer energy codes. Thermal breaks need to be detailed to allow for CLT panel installation. An example of a thermal
break is shown in Figure 6-26.
6.6.6 Timber Shrinkage and Swelling

Timber is a natural material that shrinks and swells as its moisture content changes below the fiber saturation point. The fiber
saturation point varies by species and individual piece of wood but is approximately 30% for most structural timber. Moisture
content (MC) is defined as follows:
⎛ Moist weight − Oven dry weight ⎞

MC = (100%) (6-1)
⎝ Oven dry weight ⎠
Timber can be provided “green” with moisture content greater than 19% at manufacture or “dry” with moisture content less
than or equal to 19% at manufacture. Once delivered to site, the ambient temperature and humidity can increase or decrease the
equilibrium moisture content of the timber resulting in swelling and shrinking, respectively. CLT panels are manufactured at a
maximum moisture content of 12%; the moisture content will eventually fall to a range between 6% and 8% once enclosed in a
conditioned space and the panel reaches an equilibrium with the local climate. CLT panels should never be directly exposed to
the elements and prolonged exposure during construction should be avoided.

Fig. 6-24. Example of eccentric façade with perimeter HSS tube for façade bearing at Houston Endowment Headquarters.

The magnitude of swelling and shrinking can be calculated by estimating the moisture content at installation and the maximum
and minimum expected moisture content based on the site-specific exposure. A simplified approach can be used where the per-
centage of shrinkage and MC are as follows:
Shrinkage = 0% at MC = 30%
Shrinkage = 6% at MC = 0%
Using linear interpolation, the expected shrinkage or swelling can be calculated using the estimated installation and maximum
moisture content. Connections should be detailed to accommodate this magnitude of movement.
Note that timber has three primary directions—tangential, radial, and longitudinal. Longitudinal shrinkage is very small and con-
sidered negligible for the purpose of design. The simplified approach described previously is appropriate for radial and tangential
shrinkage. CLT composed of alternating lamination directions is significantly more dimensionally stable than dimensional lum-
ber or one-way systems such as NLT or DLT. CLT is most prone to panel thickness changes from shrinkage, and not commonly
subject to dimensional changes in panel width or length. This property of CLT allows panels to be more closely fit together in the
field, without the panel gaps needed for less dimensionally stable products.
Fig. 6-25. Steel façade support condition (photo courtesy of David Barber, Arup).

Fig. 6-26. Example of thermal breaks included in steel framing where steel elements
are required to extend past building envelope (Houston Endowment Headquarters).

Chapter 7
Constructability
7.1 PROCUREMENT 7.2 ERECTION
The decision to utilize a hybrid steel and mass-timber struc- Steel-timber hybrid construction is erected floor-by-floor
ture should be made at the early stages of design. Pric- with steel framing placed prior to timber panels. Mass-
ing information to inform this decision benefits from cost timber panels are craned in using lifting attachments typi-
estimates from multiple potential subcontractors and/or cally provided by the mass-timber supplier and attached to
suppliers that would carry the mass-timber scope. Several the top (unexposed) face of the panel. Mass-timber panels
mass-timber panel suppliers are PRG 320 certified in North and their connections can be designed to serve as the tem-
America. There are also European suppliers who can sup- porary stability system during erection. CLT panels can be
ply mass-timber products to the United States at competitive cut to allow for placement around columns to allow columns
pricing. to be erected over multiple floors as is standard in steel con-
For design-bid-build projects, it is recommended that a struction. This method was utilized in the construction of
design-assist partner is engaged during the design process, RISD North Hall (Figure 7-1).
typically during the design development phase. Because Mass-timber panels are provided with piece markings
mass-timber panel sizing is not standardized and varies by similar to steel so that erection can follow a prescribed order
supplier, design-assist frameworks allow the supplier early with specific pieces lifted into place based on their piece
design engagement to optimize the design based on their marking and final layout.
panel properties. The design-assist package can be competi- The steel and mass-timber panels need to be installed in
tively bid based on schematic design or design development tandem and therefore it is key that there is appropriate plan-
level documentation. ning for material delivery to avoid delays. It is recommended
For steel-timber hybrid construction, there are several that the steel and mass-timber panels are installed by the
commonly used procurement options for the mass-timber same erector to ensure coordination of these trades.
scope, as detailed in Table 7-1.
Fig. 7-1. RISD hybrid structure under construction (photo courtesy of Odeh Engineers, Inc.).

Table 7-1. Mass-Timber Procurement Pathways
Procurement Path Supply Scope Erection Scope Design-Assist Scope
General contractor procures directly
General contractor led Steel contractor Mass-timber supplier
from mass-timber supplier
Steel contractor procures directly from
Steel contractor led Steel contractor Mass-timber supplier
mass-timber supplier
Specialist timber Specialist timber contractor supplies or
Specialist timber contractor Specialist timber contractor
contractor led procures mass timber
7.3 TOLERANCES 7.4 TIMBER PROTECTION

Construction tolerances can be separated into two catego- Protection of timber against moisture is of the utmost impor-
ries—fabrication and erection. Timber and steel tolerances tance, particularly during transportation and construction.
are governed by different documents for fabrication: Trapped water can result in fungal growth, decay, and unex-
• Glulam: ANSI A190.1, Standard for Wood Products— pected dimensional movement. General good practice of
Structural Glued Laminated Timber (APA, 2017) protecting mass timber during transportation and storage
may include, at minimum, the following:
• CLT: ANSI/APA PRG 320, Standard for Performance-
Rated Cross-Laminated Timber • Penetrating sealant applied to end-cuts and both surfaces
of mass-timber panels
• Steel: AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings
and Bridges (AISC, 2016a) • Wrapping of individual members, removed only after
wrapping no longer serves a useful purpose
No standard code of practice exists for erection tolerances • Storage of all wrapped members off the ground with
of mass-timber construction. Realistic erection tolerances proper ventilation and drainage provided
and tolerance compatibility should be discussed with the
contracting team, but the following erection tolerances are Prior to commencing construction, it is recommended
suggested as a reasonable starting point: that the contractor develop and provide a moisture man-
• For rectangular areas, the corner-to-corner diagonal mea- agement plan that outlines procedures to protect against
surements should not deviate from each other by more moisture. This moisture management plan should include
than 2 in. or 0.25% of the length of the shortest side of procedures for recording and documenting moisture content
the rectangle, whichever is greater. at various stages throughout construction to ensure project
requirements for the final moisture content of the members
• Overall surface levelness (floors and flat roofs): 4 in. in
is achieved. Good practice of protecting mass timber during
10 ft maximum.
construction includes the following:
• Elevation: ±a in. from theoretical. • Providing water-resistant taping at all seams and lifting
• Joints: x in. maximum gap between panels unless noted pockets
otherwise. • Providing temporary flashing at perimeter and interior
Another reference document for tolerances is the UK- edges
based Timber Research and Development Association • Removing standing water
(TRADA) National Structural Timber Specification (NSTS)
(TRADA, 2017). A more in-depth discussion on moisture control during
Note that some hybrid projects may require interfaces construction is also provided in the WoodWorks Mass Tim-
with cast-in-place concrete or masonry construction. It ber Construction Manual (WoodWorks, 2021a).
should be noted that the tolerances for these materials are Additional lines of defense against moisture include just-
larger than steel and timber. Connections to concrete and in-time delivery to eliminate on-site storage of mass timber
masonry should be carefully considered to accommodate the and proper detailing of permanent protection of mass tim-
tolerances allowable for these materials. ber at roof levels, including redundant levels of waterproof-
ing and ventilation. Chemically treated timber, species with

naturally high levels of tannins, and high-moisture envi- site security to prevent deliberate fires, eliminating cooking
ronments all present potential corrosion issues for metal onsite, storage away from the building, and hot-work super-
fasteners and connectors. The risk of corrosion should be vision (where required). The use of NFPA 241, Standard
evaluated, and the use of stainless steel or hot-dip galvanized for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition
coatings should be considered. Operations (NFPA, 2021b), provides a means to reduce the
fire risk and consequences of construction fires. For steel-
7.5 FIRE RISK DURING CONSTRUCTION timber hybrid systems it is recommended to avoid onsite
welding, flame-cutting, and grinding in order to eliminate
Fires during construction are a significant issue with light-
one of the major possible ignition sources. If onsite welding
frame timber buildings because the fire protection of gyp-
is required, the welding should be sequenced to occur prior
sum board and sprinkler protection are not installed until the
to the installation of the mass timber, otherwise appropriate
building is nearly completed, placing the incomplete build-
safety precautions should be followed once the mass timber
ing at risk. A major advantage of mass-timber construction
is in place.
is that structural members, such as CLT, do not rely on addi-
For Types IV-A, -B, and -C construction, there are also
tional protection measures, such as gypsum board, to resist
specific fire protection requirements during construction that
fire. The required structural fire ratings are provided by each
must be met. This includes protecting the exposed mass tim-
member as soon as it is installed.
ber when the construction is above six floors.
Preventing construction fires from starting is always impor-
tant, and the methods used include increasing construction

REFERENCES
ACI (2004), Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construc- ASTM (2016c), Standard Test Method for Laboratory Mea-
tion, ACI 302.1R-04, American Concrete Institute, Farm- surement of Impact Sound Transmission Through Floor-
ington Hills, Mich. Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine, ASTM
ACI (2019), Building Code Requirements for Structural E492, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-19, American Con- ASTM (2020), Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. Building Construction and Materials, ASTM E119,
AISC (2016a), Code of Standard Practice for Steel Build- ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ings and Bridges, ANSI/AISC 303-16, American Institute ASTM (2021a), Standard Classification for Determination
of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. of Single-Number Metrics for Impact Noise, ASTM E989,
AISC (2016b), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Build- ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ings, ANSI/AISC 341-16, American Institute of Steel ASTM (2021b), Standard Practice for Categorizing Wood
Construction, Chicago, Ill. and Wood-Based Products According to Their Fiber
AISC (2016c), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Sources, ASTM D7612, ASTM International, West Con-
ANSI/AISC 360-16, American Institute of Steel Con- shohocken, Pa.
struction, Chicago, Ill. ASTM (2021c), Standard Test Methods for Surface Burn-
AISC (2017), Steel Construction Manual, 15th Ed., Ameri- ing Characteristics of Building Materials, ASTM E84,
can Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
AISC (2019), Companion to the AISC Steel Construction Athena (2020), Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings Com-
Manual, Volume 1: Design Examples, Version 15.1, puter Software, version 5.4 Build 0103, Athena Sustain-
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. able Materials Institute, www.calculatelca.com/software/
impact-estimator/download-impact-estimator/.
AISC (2021), “Why Steel,” American Institute of Steel Con-
struction, https://www.aisc.org/why-steel/sustainability. AWC (2015), National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood
Construction, American Wood Council, Leesburg, Va.
APA (2017), Standard for Wood Products—Structural Glued
Laminated Timber, ANSI A190.1, APA—The Engineered AWC (2018), National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood
Wood Association, Tacoma, Wash. Construction, American Wood Council, Leesburg, Va.
APA (2019), Standard for Performance-Rated Cross- AWC (2021a), Calculating the Fire Resistance of Wood
Laminated Timber, ANSI/APA PRG 320, APA—The Members and Assemblies, TR-10, American Wood Coun-
Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Wash. cil, Leesburg, Va.
APA (2021), “Sustainable Forest Management Certification,” AWC (2021b), Special Design Provisions for Wind and
APA—The Engineered Wood Association, https://www Seismic (SDPWS), ANSI/AWC SDPWS, American Wood
.apawood.org/sustainable-forest-management Council, Leesburg, Va.
-certification. AWC/ICC (2020), Mass Timber Buildings and the IBC,
ASCE (2022), Minimum Design Loads and Associated Cri- American Wood Council, Leesburg, Va., International
teria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Code Council, Falls Church, Va.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. BSI (2011), Specification for the Assessment of the Life
ASTM (2016a), Classification for Rating Sound Insulation, Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services,
ASTM E413, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAS 2050, British Standards Institution, London, U.K.
Pa. BSLC (2017), Nail Laminated Timber U.S. Design and Con-
ASTM (2016b), Standard Test Method for Laboratory struction Guide, Binational Softwood Lumber Council,
Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Surrey, British Columbia.
Building Partitions and Elements, ASTM E90, ASTM Building Transparency (2021), “Building Transparency,”
International, West Conshohocken, Pa. https://www.buildingtransparency.org.
CCIP (2007), A Design Guide for Footfall Induced Vibration ISO (2006a), Environmental Management—Life Cycle
of Structures, CCIP-016, The Concrete Centre, London, Assessment—Principles and Framework, ISO 14040,
U.K. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
CEN (2004), Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures, Switzerland.
EN 1995, Comite Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, ISO (2006b), Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Belgium. Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044,
CEN (2011), Sustainability of Construction Works—Assess- International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
ment of Environmental Performance of Buildings— Switzerland.
Calculation Method, BS EN 15978, Comite Européen de ISO (2017), Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineer-
Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium. ing Works—Core Rules for Environmental Product Dec-
CLF (2021), “Climate, Carbon and the Built Environment: larations of Construction Products and Services, ISO
The Impact of Buildings on Carbon Emissions,” Carbon 21930, International Organization for Standardization,
Leadership Forum, https://carbonleadershipforum.org/ Geneva, Switzerland.
the-carbon-challenge. ISO (2018), Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Prod-
CWC (2014), Engineering Design in Wood, CSA O86, ucts—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification,
Canadian Wood Council, Ottawa, Ontario. ISO 14067, International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, Geneva, Switzerland.
FPInnovations (2013), CLT Handbook, U.S. Edition, Pointe-
Claire, Quebec. Markham, B. and Unger, E. (2015), Sound Isolation and
Noise Control in Steel Buildings, Design Guide 30, AISC,
FSC (2019), Approval of Forest Stewardship Standards, FSC
Chicago, Ill.
International, Bonn, Germany.
Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E., Ungar, E.E., and Davis, D.B.
ICC (2012), International Building Code, International
(2016), Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems
Code Council, Falls Church, Va.
Due to Human Activity, 2nd Ed., Design Guide 11, AISC,
ICC (2018), International Building Code, International Chicago, Ill.
NFPA (2021a), Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, National Fire
ICC (2021a), International Building Code, International Protection Association, Quincy, Mass.
NFPA (2021b), Standard for Safeguarding Construction,
ICC (2021b), International Fire Code, International Code Alteration, and Demolition Operations, NFPA 241,
Council, Falls Church, Va. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass.
ILFI (2019), Living Building Challenge 4.0: A Visionary NFPA (2021c), Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Path to the Regenerative Future, International Living Systems, NFPA 13, National Fire Protection Association,
Future Institute, Seattle, Wash. Quincy, Mass.
ILFI (2020), Zero Carbon Standard 1.0: A Visionary Path Parker, J.C. (2008), Façade Attachments to Steel-Framed
to a Carbon-Positive Future, International Living Future Buildings, Design Guide 22, AISC, Chicago, Ill.
Institute, Seattle, Wash.
Ruddy, J.L., Ioannides, S.A., and Alfawakhiri, F. (2003), Fire
ISO (1998), Environmental Management—Life Cycle Resistance of Structural Steel Framing, Design Guide 19,
Assessment—Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory AISC, Chicago, Ill.
Analysis, ISO 14041, International Organization for Stan-
Sabourin, I. (2015), “Measurement of Airborne Sound Insu-
dardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
lation of 8 Wall Assemblies Measurement of Airborne and
ISO (2000a), Environmental Management—Life Cycle Impact Sound Insulation of 29 Floor Assemblies,” Nordic
Assessment—Life Cycle Impact Assessment, ISO 14042, Engineered Wood Report, No. A1-006070.10, National
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Switzerland.
SEI/SE2050 (2021), Embodied Carbon Intensity Diagrams:
ISO (2000b), Environmental Management—Life Cycle 18' × 30' Mass Timber Post-and-Beam Office Bay, Struc-
Assessment—Life Cycle Interpretation, ISO 14043, tural Engineering Institute, Reston, Va.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
SOM (2017), AISC Steel & Timber Research for High-Rise
Switzerland.
Residential Buildings, Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill,
LLP, Chicago, Ill.
Spickler, K. (2015), Cross Laminated Timber Horizontal USGBC (2019), LEED Building Design and Construction,
Diaphragm Design Example, Structurlam, Penticton, Version 4.1, U.S. Green Building Council, Washington,
British Columbia. D.C.
StructureCraft (2021), Timber-Concrete Composite, WoodWorks (2017), An Approach to CLT Diaphragm Mod-
StructureCraft Builders, Inc., British Columbia, Canada, eling for Seismic Design with Application to a U.S. High-
https://structurecraft.com/materials/mass-timber/ Rise Project, WoodWorks®, Washington, D.C.
timber-concrete-composite, accessed 12/6/2021. WoodWorks (2019a), Fire Design of Mass Timber Members,
Tally (2020), Tally® computer software, version 2020.06.09.01, WoodWorks®, Washington, D.C.
KT Innovations, www.choosetally.com/download/. WoodWorks (2019b), How Can I Create an Efficient Struc-
TDI (2019), CLT Buildings: A WBLCA Case Study Series, tural Grid for a Mass Timber Building, WoodWorks®,
Tallwood Design Institute, Corvallis, Ore. Washington, D.C.
Think Wood (2021), Mass Timber Design Manual, Wood- WoodWorks (2021a), Mass Timber Construction Manual,
works, Think Wood, Washington, D.C. WoodWorks®, Washington, D.C.
TRADA (2017), National Structural Timber Specification WoodWorks (2021b), U.S. Mass Timber Floor Vibration
(NSTS), V2.0, The Timber Research and Development Design Guide, WoodWorks®, Washington, D.C.
Association, High Wycombe, UK. WGBC (2021), “Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront,”
UL (2020), Fire Tests of Building Construction and Mate- World Green Building Council, www.worldgbc.org/
rials, ANSI/UL 263, Underwriters Laboratories, North- news-media/bringing-embodied-carbon-upfront.
brook, Ill.
Smarter. Stronger. Steel.
312.670.2400 | www.aisc.org
D837-22

AISC DG 37 - Hybrid Steel Frames With CLT

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

AISC DG 37 - Hybrid Steel Frames With CLT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

AISC DG 37 - Hybrid Steel Frames With CLT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Guide 37

American Institute of Steel Construction

American Institute of Steel Construction

Printed in the United States of America

Eric Bolin Cindi Duncan Larry Kruth

ACI (American Concrete Institute) LSL (laminated strand lumber)

• National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction (AWC, 2018)

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 1

2 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 3

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 5

Fig. 2-1. Beverly Regional Airport (photo courtesy of William Horne).

6 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 7

8 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 9

10 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 11

Fig. 2-10. Houston Endowment Headquarters frontal elevation rendering

12 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 13

14 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 15

Raised floor system (1'-8" tall)

2" Gypcrete slab

Sound mat (⅜")

3-Ply CLT (4⅛")

16 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 17

18 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

Fig. 2-16. Construction photo (image credit: Arup).

Panel Example Floor Span Ranges

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 19

20 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

Fig. 2-18. Example noncomposite steel-framed structure with mass-timber floors.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 21

22 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 23

24 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 25

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 27

28 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

Fig. 3-2. Intumescent paint (photo courtesy of Megan Stringer).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 29

30 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 31

32 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 33

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 35

36 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 37

Fig. 4-2. Acoustic field-testing photos (photos courtesy of Arup).

38 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37

Fig. 4-4. Visual representation of sound reflection in a room.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / 39

Fig. 4-5. Visual representation of sound energy decay over time.

40 / HYBRID STEEL FRAMES WITH WOOD FLOORS / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 37