Conference PaperPDF Available

Mass-Timber Panel (MTP) Industry and its Supply/Value Chain

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The mass-timber panel industry is an exception in the traditional commodity-oriented forest products industry at large, even if one compares it to quite sophisticated engineered wood products like glulam, I-joists or LVL. With possible exception for glulam decks, unidirectional nail-or dowel-laminated timber panels and CLT used for industrial mats, all structural cross-laminated timber panels discussed in this presentation are specialty products, custom produced and fabricated for specific projects. Historically, there have been strong incentives for panel manufacturers to enhance and control the project acquisition by integrating a certain level of architectural and engineering design services, project management, and quite often construction services or construction supervision. There are also intrinsic barriers making commoditization of MTPs extremely difficult. The principal issues are the large dimensions and mass as well as the embedded value of individual panels. The industry shows no appetite for carrying the cost of intermittent storage of massive panels and waste generated if standard-sized panels would have to be substantially trimmed for specific projects. Producing prefabricated panels finished for specific design and on-time delivery to the construction site is, for now, the most efficient solution. The panel production is but a stage in an integrated process that begins with project commission and ends with closing the shell of a building. Therefore, the supply/value chain of mass-timber panel industry is more complex than commodity engineered wood products, and involves firms providing architectural and engineering design services, project management, manufacturers of connectors, insulation and siding, as well as construction crews. The interaction of panel manufacturers with their supply/value chain and the level of vertical integration vary substantially between companies and show some regional flavor. The purpose of this presentation is to provide insights in the unique way the MTP industry interacts with its supply chain.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
Mass-Timber Panel MTP Industry and its Supply/Value 1
Chain 2
3
Lech Muszyński1* - Pipiet Larasatie1 - Eric N. Hansen1 - Jose Erlin 4
Martinez Guerrero1 - Raquel Albee1 5
1Professor, Graduate Student, Professor, Graduate Student, Graduate 6
Student, Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State 7
University, Corvallis, OR, USA *
8
Corresponding author 9
Lech.Muszynski@oregonstate.edu 10
11
ABSTRACT 12
The mass-timber panel industry is an exception in the traditional commodity-oriented 13
forest products industry at large, even if one compares it to quite sophisticated engineered 14
wood products like glulam, I-joists or LVL. With possible exception for glulam decks, 15
unidirectional nail- or dowel-laminated timber panels and CLT used for industrial mats, 16
all structural cross-laminated timber panels discussed in this presentation are specialty 17
products, custom produced and fabricated for specific projects. Historically, there have 18
been strong incentives for panel manufacturers to enhance and control the project 19
acquisition by integrating a certain level of architectural and engineering design services, 20
project management, and quite often construction services or construction supervision. 21
There are also intrinsic barriers making commoditization of MTPs extremely difficult. 22
The principal issues are the large dimensions and mass as well as the embedded value of 23
individual panels. The industry shows no appetite for carrying the cost of intermittent 24
storage of massive panels and waste generated if standard-sized panels would have to be 25
substantially trimmed for specific projects. Producing prefabricated panels finished for 26
specific design and on-time delivery to the construction site is, for now, the most efficient 27
solution. The panel production is but a stage in an integrated process that begins with 28
project commission and ends with closing the shell of a building. Therefore, the 29
supply/value chain of mass-timber panel industry is more complex than commodity 30
engineered wood products, and involves firms providing architectural and engineering 31
design services, project management, manufacturers of connectors, insulation and siding, 32
as well as construction crews. The interaction of panel manufacturers with their 33
supply/value chain and the level of vertical integration vary substantially between 34
companies and show some regional flavor. The purpose of this presentation is to provide 35
insights in the unique way the MTP industry interacts with its supply chain. 36
37
Keywords: cross-laminated timber, mass-timber panels, supply chain, value chain 38
39
40
41
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
INTRODUCTION 1
Organic development of the global mass-timber panel (MTP) industry since early 1990s 2
has produced substantial diversity in manufacturing processes, levels of automation, 3
scales of operation, products and services options as well as in market strategies. The 4
development has not followed typical commodity-oriented forest products industry 5
models and it is difficult to provide an adequate precedent. Existing global PTP 6
operations provide a living laboratory that provides understanding of both the current 7
state-of-the-art as well as the trajectory and future development of the CLT industry. 8
Especially important are insights for how newly emerging markets may develop. 9
The focus of this paper is focused on the unique way the MTP industry interacts with its 10
supply chain. 11
12
MATERIALS AND METHODS 13
The information included here is derived from three major sources of information: 1) 14
industry surveys (Muszyński et al. 2017, Albee 2019, Larasatie et al. 2021); 2) targeted 15
site tours of CLT/MTP manufacturing lines (Albee et al. 2018, Muszynski et al. 2020); 16
and 3) review of trade journals tracking the development of the CLT/MTP industry (e.g. 17
Jauk 2019) and public web profiles of CLT/MTP companies and CLT/MTP hardware 18
manufacturers (e.g. MHM 2020, TechnoWood 2020, Thoma et al. 2020). 19
Wherever possible, the data obtained from different sources were verified against each 20
other. 21
To ensure anonymity, information is presented in aggregate format. 22
DEFINITIONS 23
The MTP industry is most prominently represented by adhesive-bonded structural cross-24
laminated timber (CLT), that is commercially fabricated massive composite panel 25
product comprised of cross-layered pieces of dimension lumber or structural composite 26
lumber (SCL) bound together by structural adhesives. However, this presentation 27
includes some information on similar cross-laminated mass-timber panels made of 28
dimension lumber but bonded with nails or hardwood dowels. While the most apparent 29
distinction between these three is the way the layers are bonded together, they also differ 30
substantially in the raw material sourcing, manufacturing technologies, load bearing 31
capacities, and, consequently in the scope of potential uses. These three have been briefly 32
characterized by Muszyński for two earlier reports (Sanchez et al. 2020, Anderson et al. 33
2021) as follows: 34
Cross-laminated timber (CLT), the best known, and the most common of these three, is 35
defined as “a prefabricated engineered wood product made of at least three orthogonal 36
layers of graded sawn lumber or structural composite lumber (SCL) that are laminated by 37
gluing with structural adhesive.” (ANSI/APA 2019). Currently, there are more than 70 38
CLT manufacturing companies operating all over the world, including at least 7 running 39
two lines at the same location. The global production of structural CLT for 2020 has been 40
projected to about 2 million cubic meters, of which about 65% is still coming from the 41
Alpine region and about 40% from Austria alone (Jauk 2019). Most of the CLT is 42
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
certified for structural use in many countries and is being used in construction of tall 1
mass-timber structures. 2
However, at least three companies in North America produce adhesive bonded CLT 3
access mats, rig mats or “temporary timber pavements,” which are considered a non-4
structural commodity. Now, this is an exception within the exceptionally non-commodity 5
industry. 6
MHM or Mass-Timber Wall is a massive prefabricated cross-laminated panel whose 7
layers, rough sawn boards, are bonded with nails. This product should not be confused 8
with one described as nail-laminated timber or NLT, commonly used as beams and floor 9
panels in timber structures in North America, where all layers are oriented parallel to 10
each other. The MHM technology might had predated the development of the adhesive-11
bonded CLT, but the real breakthrough came with a Solid Timber Wall system patented 12
in Germany in 2005 as Massiv-Holz-Mauer (lit. mass-timber wall), or MHM (MHM 13
2020). MHM is fabricated on small scale turn-key three-step Hundegger production lines. 14
The lines consist of specialized molders cutting shallow grooves along the laminations to 15
increase R values of layups, automated layup (Figure 1a), a robotic nailing station and a 16
CNC finishing center. Relatively short fluted aluminum nails do not interfere with cutting 17
tools. The intended use of this product is as load bearing and division walls for low raise 18
buildings in moderate exposure to moisture (below 20%) and at low to moderate 19
exposure to corrosion (MHM 2020, OIB 2017). 20
There are about 30 licensed MHM plants across Europe, and the latest assessment of their 21
total output in 2018 was about 73 thousand cubic meters (Jauk 2018). 22
Dowel bonded CLT is a massive prefabricated cross-laminated panel whose layers, 23
rough sawn boards, are bonded with hardwood dowels. This is the latest of the cross-24
laminated timber products and should not be confused with one marketed in North 25
America as dowel-laminated timber or DLT, for use as beams and floor panels in timber 26
structures, where all layers are oriented parallel to each other. The low moisture content 27
and tight fitting of the dowels at the time of assembly assures durable tight connection 28
once the dowels swell as they gain moisture in the ambient conditions. The panels are 29
assembled in highly automated lines. Only two commercially successful systems are 30
known to-date: 1) developed by Thoma Holz 100 company in Austria (Thoma 2020) and 31
2) developed by Swiss industrial hardware manufacturer TechnoWood (Nägeli and 32
Webstobe 2019, TechnoWood 2020). By mid-2019 the latter company installed 8 33
highly automated lines in Europe. Unlike other CLT products, some layers of the dowel 34
bonded CLT are arranged at 45 or 60 degrees to the surface layer direction (Figure 1b). 35
The dowel-laminated CLT panels are intended for use as load bearing wall, floor and roof 36
panels in low raise (up to 4 story) timber structures (TechnoWood 2020). 37
38
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 39
It is important to stress again that the mass-timber panel industry is an exception in 40
the traditional commodity-oriented forest products industry at large, even if one 41
compares it to other sophisticated engineered wood products (EWP). 42
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
GENERAL COMMENTS 1
All structural cross-laminated timber panels discussed here are specialty products, 2
by which we understand that all panels are custom produced and fabricated for 3
specific projects. If one does not count glulam decks and unidirectional nail or dowel 4
laminated timber panels (NLT/DLT), prefabricated mass-timber structural panels 5
have no serious precedent in timber construction, offering new opportunities in 6
design and construction to professionals intimately familiar with the product. The 7
similarity with precast concrete panel industry is limited to that the later also 8
produces premanufactured components and delivers them to address specific 9
project requirements. 10
Historically, however, there have been strong incentives for companies to control 11
the project acquisition process by integrating certain level of architectural and 12
engineering design services, project management, and quite often construction 13
services or construction supervision. In this regard, buildings are the actual product 14
of the industry, and the panel production becomes a stage in a process that begins 15
with project commission and ends with closing the shell of a building. In reality, the 16
level of vertical integration varies substantially both between and within the three 17
products discussed. 18
Another common theme is the existence of intrinsic barriers preventing 19
commoditization of massive cross-laminated panels even in most developed 20
markets. The principal issues are the large dimensions (up to 20 m x 4 m) and mass 21
(up to 5.5 metric tons) as well as the embedded value of individual panels. Contrary 22
to common perception it is the robotized prefabrication that enables the use of MTP 23
in construction, not the other way around Currently, it simply does not make much 24
sense for anyone in the industry to carry the cost of intermittent storage and waste 25
generated if standard-sized panels would have to be substantially trimmed for 26
specific projects. Custom cutting of massive panels at the construction site is next to 27
impossible with currently available technology. Producing prefabricated panels 28
finished for specific design and on-time delivery to the construction site is for the 29
time being the most efficient solution. While there are companies that are starting to 30
offer prefabrication services on “commoditized panels,” it remains to be seen how 31
they will fare. All these circumstances define the mass timber panel industry a 32
specialty industry, with products delivered to the market not as standardized panels 33
but as building shells or even finished buildings. 34
Consequently, compared to commodity-oriented EWPs, the value chain of mass 35
timber panel products is much more complex (Figure 2). Apart from elements 36
common to traditional commodity oriented WEPs: forestlands, harvesting 37
operations, primary processing, specialty hardware manufacturers, adhesives and 38
specialty treatments suppliers and transportation of logs, lumber and components 39
(Figure 2a); the MTP industry supply/value chain must incorporate all elements 40
necessary to complete a structural shell of a building o a finished structure. These 41
necessarily involves architectural firms that serve as sort of external project 42
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
acquisition gates to the process, civil engineering offices, and project management 1
on one side; and specialized connectors manufacturers, insulation and siding 2
products, and construction crews on the other (Figure 2b). An interesting 3
characteristic is a large role of the providers of specialty software platforms 4
enabling architectural and engineering modeling as well as project integration and 5
smooth communication between all involved parties from conceptual design to 6
building assembly and finishing. 7
Since the industry is pushing envelope in innovative design and construction 8
technologies, research and development (both internal and funded from public 9
grants) plays much more important role in adding value to the final products, many 10
of which are first of its kind structures hitting headline news. Another element of 11
the supply/value chain whose role is much amplified by the novelty of MTP 12
technology is education and training. The new level of complexity of the production, 13
automated production lines, different position of the manufacturers with thee 14
market and with the supply chain require new types of skills from employees on all 15
levels of the company, from the production floor workforce, through engineering, 16
sales, to the management. MTP companies have are also involved in educating their 17
suppliers, who may need to be alerted to their special needs, often quite different 18
from the everyday market average within the broadly understood forest product 19
sector. The technology provides new opportunities to architects and designers, but 20
again a good deal of education and training is required to capture those 21
opportunities and make the best of them. Yet another area where new approaches 22
and skills are necessary on all levels is the construction, or rather assembly site. 23
Finally, the manufacturers are often involved in public outreach to educate potential 24
investors, communities, local authorities, fire marshals, code and standardization 25
authorities, on the safety, benefits and opportunities of mass-timber in order to 26
secure permissions and invite commissions. Anecdotally, about 50% of the time of 27
the senior personnel of MTP companies in emerging markets is committed to just 28
that: education (Kremer 2018). 29
Historically, there have been strong incentives for panel manufacturers to get involved 30
and even control the project acquisition, design and construction by getting all parties 31
involved in the process (from investors and architects to contractors) to the table at the 32
same time and possibly early. This unique central position in the process crated both 33
incentives and opportunities for integrating a certain level of architectural and 34
engineering design services, project management, and quite often construction services or 35
construction supervision. 36
Most adhesive-bonded CLT and all dowel-bonded CLT producing companies show 37
some level of vertical integration within their complex value chains. This trend is 38
well reflected in both surveys Global CLT Industry conducted by the Authors 39
(Muszyński et al. 2017, Albee 2019, Larasatie et al. 2021). Figure 3 illustrates a 40
comparison of the number of companies responding to the survey question on the 41
ownership of the supply chain elements in two surveys of the global CLT industry 42
administered two years apart. The respondents were asked to select the predefined 43
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
elements of the supply chain: forestland ownership, log transportation, lumber 1
manufacturing, lumber transportation, CLT reansportaton, building engineering, 2
architectural design, real estate ownership, building construction and “other.” The 3
grey bars show responses to survey conducted in 2017 (n=21) and the orange bars 4
represent to the survey conducted in 2019 (n=12). The circles visualize the 5
respondent overlap between these two surveys (n=4). Both show a relatively high 6
fraction of companies involved in some level of vertical integration, particularly 7
when one considers a small sample size don a very small and extremely diverse 8
industry. 9
Given the inert nature of company structure and narrow overlap between these two 10
surveys, it is possible to pool the data without much risk of diminishing inadvertent 11
impact on the confidence of the overall picture. The four responses overlapping 12
responses from the earlier survey were removed from the pool to avoid 13
redundancy. The pooled data (combined n=32) parsed by number of respondents 14
are shown in Figure 4. When the responses are weighed by annual output volume 15
contributed by the responding companies (Figure 5) it is possible to gain some 16
sense of the choices made by the largest players in the industry: lumber 17
manufacturing, building engineering, panel transportation and construction. 18
These trends are further corroborated by direct interviews and observations made 19
during site tours. 20
The most common model emerging from all sources of information combined is one 21
that integrates in one company structure the engineering and detailing services, a 22
level of project management, transportation of element assemblies synchronized 23
with construction sequences and at least some role in construction supervision. 24
Other services are outsourced to closely allied partner companies familiar with the 25
technology (Figure 6a). However, there are companies that offer architectural 26
design offices; transportation; construction services; customized connectors, pre-27
installation; and, in one case, custom manufacturing of their own windows/doors, 28
floor finishes, insulation, and external siding. Some companies own forestlands and 29
sawmills. On the other extreme, there are also a few small-scale companies that 30
focus exclusively on fabricating panels for external orders, outsourcing all other 31
functions to the parent companies. Examples may be found in Japan and Finland. 32
Finally there is a growing number of contractors offering integrated construction 33
services in mass timber panels except the manufacturing step alone (e.g. Land Lease, 34
Eurban, Swinnerton; Figure 6b). by the end of 2020, Eurban boasted 311 mass 35
timber/CLT projects realized in the UK. All from imported CLT prefabricated 36
specifically for the projects (Eurban 2020). Although this may be an indicator of a 37
future trend, it is not a common arrangement, and vertically integrated mass timber 38
panel companies seem to benefit from their control of a range of aspects of project 39
development. 40
41
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
SUMMARY 1
The mass-timber panel industry is an exception in the traditional commodity-oriented 2
forest products industry at large. Structural cross-laminated timber panels are specialty 3
products, custom produced and fabricated for specific projects. Large dimensions, mass 4
and the embedded value of individual panels remain potent barriers for commoditization. 5
Producing prefabricated panels finished for specific design and on-time delivery to the 6
construction site is, for now, the most efficient solution. The panel production is but a 7
stage in an integrated process that begins with project commission and ends with closing 8
the shell of a building. The complex supply/value chain of mass-timber panel industry is 9
reflecting this reality. There are strong incentives for panel manufacturers to integrate at 10
least certain level of architectural and engineering design services, project management, 11
and quite often construction services or construction supervision. The interaction of panel 12
manufacturers with their supply/value chain and the level of vertical integration vary 13
substantially between companies and show some regional flavor. 14
15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 16
This project was funded by USDA ARS program. Additional support: Softwood Export 17
Council, Linnaeus University, Estonian Forest and Wood Industries Association. The 18
authors also acknowledge support of Dr. Chris Knowles (OSU), Ms. Tomoko Igarashi 19
and Mr. Yuichi Hayashi (American Softwoods, Japan), Ms. Jasmin Rainer and Mr. 20
Günther Jauk (Holzkurier). 21
22
REFERENCES 23
Albee R.R. (2019): Global Overview of the Cross-Laminated Timber Industry. MS 24
thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 114 pp. 25
Albee R.R., L. Muszyński, E.N. Hansen, C.D. Knowles, P. Larasatie, J.E. Guerrero 26
(2018): Recent developments in global cross-laminated timber (CLT) market. World 27
Conference on Timber Engineering, Proceedings of the WCTE 2018, Seoul, Korea, 28
August 20-24: 6 pp. 29
Anderson R., E. Dawson, L. Muszyński, B. Beck, H. Hammond, B. Kaiser, C. Rawlings 30
(2021): 2021 International Mass Timber Report. FBN. 2021. ISBN: 978-1-7337546-31
4-4 (print)/ 978-1-7337546-5-1 (ebook), 203 pp. 32
ANSI/APA (2019):ANSI/APA PRG 320-2018: North American standard for 33
performance rated cross laminated timber, Tacoma, WA: APA- The Engineered 34
Wood Association. 35
EUrban (2020): http://www.eurban.co.uk/. Access date: 11/24/2020 36
Jauk G. (2018): CLT market keeps growing briskly. Holzkurier. https://www.timber-37
online.net/wood_products/2018/11/CLT-production-2017-growing-market.html. 38
Accessed 8/24/2019 39
Jauk G. (2019): Holzkurier (CLT special issue) 40
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
Jauk G. & E. Guzely (2020): Corona is not going not stop CLT. Timber-Online, 1
May/June, 2020. https://www.timber-online.net/wood_products/2020/05/corona-2
is-not-going-not-stop-clt.html. Accessed: 10/6/2020 3
Kremer P. (2018): personal communication. 4
Larasatie P., R.R. Albee, L. Muszyński, J.E. Martinez Guerrero, E.N. Hansen (2021): 5
Second Survey of the Global CLT Industry. World Conference on Timber 6
Engineering, WCTE 2021, Virtual/Santiago, Chile, August 9-12: 8 pp 7
MHM (2020): https://www.massivholzmauer.de/en/about-us/sales-8
offices/locations/mhm-producers.html. Accessed: 13/06/2020 9
Muszyński L., E. Hansen, B.M. S. Fernando, G. Schwarzman, J. Rainer (2017): Insights 10
into the Global Cross-Laminated Timber Industry. BioProducts Business. 2(8): 77-92 11
Muszyński L., P. Larasatie, J.E. Martinez Guerrero, R. Albee and E.N. Hansen (2020): 12
Global CLT industry in 2020: Growth beyond the Alpine Region. Proceedings of the 13
63rd International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology, July 12-14
17, 2020 Virtual Conference: 8pp 15
Nägeli, A. and G. Webstobe. (2019) APPENZELLERHOLZ 2019 16
https://www.naegeli-holzbau.ch/appenzellerholz.html#technische-daten. 17
OIB (2017): MHM Wall Element. European Technical Assessment, ETA-15/0760, by 18
Austrian Institute of Construction Engineering (OIB), Austria, 24 pp. 19
Sanchez, D.L., T. Zimring, C. Mater, K. Harrell, S. Keley, L. Muszyński, B. Edwards, S. 20
Smith, K. Monper, AC. Marley and M. Russer (2020): Literature Review and 21
Evaluation of Research Gaps to Support Wood Products Innovation. Technical 22
Report of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Joint Institute for Wood 23
Products Innovation. submitted to the California Board of Forestry and Fire 24
Protection: Agreement # 9CA04450. 116 pp. 25
Santi, S., F. Pierobon, G. Corradini, R. Cavalli, M. Zanetti (2016): Massive wood 26
material for sustainable building design: the MassivHolz–Mauer wall system. 27
Journal of Wood Science, 62(5): p. 416-428. 28
TechnoWood (2020): https://www.technowood.ch/downloads/technowood/tw-29
portfolio.pdf. Accessed 13/06/2020 30
Thoma, E. (2020): Wood100 is 100% wood. https://www.thoma.at/?lang=en. 31
Accessed 13/06/2020 32
33
34
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
LIST OF FIGURES 1
2
Figure 1: A section of MHM showing longitudinal grooves in laminations intended to 3
enhance the thermal-insulation properties of the panels (MHM 2020) (a) and a 4
dowel laminated panel showing the 60-degree layer (photo cr. L.Muszynski). 5
Figure 2: Typical supply/value chain model of an EWP company (a) compared to a 6
possible supply/value chain of a CLT company where the final product is a 7
building (b). 8
Figure 3: A comparison of the number of companies responding to the survey question on 9
the ownership of the supply chain elements in 2017 (n=21, grey) and 2019 10
(n=12, orange). The circles visualize the respondent overlap between these two 11
surveys (n=4). 12
Figure 4: Ownership of the elements of the supply chain by number of respondents (n-29, 13
combined response from 2017 and 2019 surveys, excluding the overlap). 14
Figure 5: Ownership of the elements of the supply chain by the combined annual 15
production volume represented by the respondents (n=29, combined response 16
from 2017 and 2019 surveys, excluding the overlap). 17
Figure 6: A common scheme of vertical integration of CLT companies (a) and an 18
example of a vertical integration of companies specialized in building with 19
CLT, though not producing panels, like EUrban (b). 20
21
22
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
FIGURE 1 1
2
a)
b)
Figure 1: A section of MHM showing longitudinal grooves in laminations intended to enhance the thermal-
insulation properties of the panels (MHM 2020) (a) and a dowel laminated panel showing the 60-
degree layer (photo cr. L.Muszynski).
3
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
1
FIGURE 1 2
(one figure per page) DO NOT PLACE FIGURES WITHIN THE BODY TEXT OF THE 3
DOCUMENT 4
5
a)
b)
Figure 2: Typical supply/value chain model of an EWP company (a) compared to a possible supply/value
chain of a CLT company where the final product is a building (b).
6
7
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
FIGURE 2 1
2
Figure 3: A comparison of the number of companies responding to the survey question on the
ownership of the supply chain elements in 2017 (n=21, grey) and 2019 (n=12, orange).
The circles visualize the respondent overlap between these two surveys (n=4).
3
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
FIGURE 3 1
2
Figure 4: Ownership of the elements of the supply chain by number of respondents (n-29,
combined response from 2017 and 2019 surveys, excluding the overlap).
3
4
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
FIGURE 4 1
2
Figure 5: Ownership of the elements of the supply chain by the combined annual production
volume represented by the respondents (n=29, combined response from 2017 and 2019
surveys, excluding the overlap).
3
4
Proceedings of the 2021 Society of Wood Science and Technology International
Convention, Flagstaff, Arizona
August 1-6, 2021
FIGURE 5 1
2
a)
b)
Figure 6: A common scheme of vertical integration of CLT companies (a) and an example of a vertical
integration of companies specialized in building with CLT, though not producing panels, like
EUrban (b).
3
4
... Currently, there are 70 registered CLT manufacturing companies across the world [32]. The global annual production is still relatively small, estimated at 2.0-2.5 million cubic metres [33]. ...
... In North America, the current production capacity of CLT plants in the United States and Canada combined is estimated at 910 thousand cubic metres [28]. Unlike in Europe, 65-70% of CLT used in North America is used in industrial applications as access and crane rig mats and temporary pavement [28,32]. ...
Full-text available
Article
The circular bioeconomy offers solutions to curb the effects of climate change by focusing on the use of renewable, biological resources to produce food, energy, materials, and services. The substitution of fossil products by wood-based products can help avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of products. However, it is important to understand the potential impacts of large-scale material substitution at the market level. This study aimed to assess the role of selected wood-based products in the circular bioeconomy, the possible changes in their markets, and investigate which elements could ensure the environmental sustainability of these products. The demand for graphic paper has declined over the last 15 years, while the demand for packaging has increased. Cross-laminated timber and man-made cellulosic fibres have seen their global consumption increase over the last decade. While there are benefits associated with the substitution of non-renewable materials by wood-based products, there is still limited understanding of the substitution effects at market-, country- and global level. Some factors enabling the further uptake of wood-based products include initiatives that stimulate technological change, incentives to produce or consume less fossil-based and more bio-based alternatives, and the promotion and marketing of wood-based products as viable alternatives to non-renewable materials.
Article
In this study, the emissions to air produced using massive wood material in manufacturing of a Massiv-Holz-Mauer (MHM) wall system have been assessed. The results have been compared with a traditional brick wall. The sustainability of materials was determined using the following impact categories: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) and Human Toxicity Potential (HTP). Using wood material in building design can reduce the environmental impact to air up to 59% compared to using traditional material as brick. The major contributions to the emissions of the MHM wall production are related to the sawmill process, to the manufacturing of fibreboards and aluminium nails. Furthermore, a displacement factor of 0.52 t CO2eq per ton of oven-dried wood for MHM building system used in place of the brick wall was determined for the considered system boundaries.
Literature Review and 21 Evaluation of Research Gaps to Support Wood Products Innovation. Technical 22 Report of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Joint Institute for Wood 23 Products Innovation. submitted to the California Board of Forestry and Fire 24 Protection: Agreement # 9CA04450
  • K Smith
  • A C Monper
  • M Marley
  • Russer
Smith, K. Monper, AC. Marley and M. Russer (2020): Literature Review and 21 Evaluation of Research Gaps to Support Wood Products Innovation. Technical 22 Report of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Joint Institute for Wood 23 Products Innovation. submitted to the California Board of Forestry and Fire 24 Protection: Agreement # 9CA04450. 116 pp.