Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Abed, J.; Rayburg, S.;
Rodwell, J.; Neave, M. A Review of
the Performance and Benefits of Mass
Timber as an Alternative to Concrete
and Steel for Improving the
Sustainability of Structures.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095570
Academic Editors: Antonín Lokaj
and Kristýna Vavrušová
Received: 20 March 2022
Accepted: 29 April 2022
Published: 5 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Review
A Review of the Performance and Benefits of Mass Timber as an
Alternative to Concrete and Steel for Improving the
Sustainability of Structures
Joseph Abed 1, Scott Rayburg 1, *, John Rodwell 2and Melissa Neave 3
1Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia; abedjoey@gmail.com
2Department of Management & Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia; jrodwell@swin.edu.au
3School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia;
melissa.neave@rmit.edu.au
*Correspondence: srayburg@swin.edu.au; Tel.: +61-(3)-9214-4944
Abstract:
The construction industry represents one of the greatest contributors to atmospheric emis-
sions of CO
2
and anthropogenic climate change, largely resulting from the production of commonly
used building materials such as steel and concrete. It is well understood that the extraction and
manufacture of these products generates significant volumes of greenhouse gases and, therefore,
this industry represents an important target for reducing emissions. One possibility is to replace
emissions-intensive, non-renewable materials with more environmentally friendly alternatives that
minimise resource depletion and lower emissions. Although timber has not been widely used in
mid- to high-rise buildings since the industrial revolution, recent advances in manufacturing have
reintroduced wood as a viable product for larger and more complex structures. One of the main
advantages of the resurgence of wood is its environmental performance; however, there is still
uncertainty about how mass timber works and its suitability relative to key performance criteria for
construction material selection. Consequently, the aim of this study is to help guide decision making
in the construction sector by providing a comprehensive review of the research on mass timber. Key
performance criteria for mass timber are reviewed, using existing literature, and compared with
those for typical concrete construction. The review concludes that mass timber is superior to concrete
and steel when taking into consideration all performance factors, and posits that the construction
industry should, where appropriate, transition to mass timber as the low-carbon, high performance
building material of the future.
Keywords:
mass timber construction (MTC); cross laminated timber (CLT); engineered timber;
green buildings; tall timber buildings; sustainable design; renewable materials
1. Introduction
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today [
1
]. It is well
established that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by human activities are directly
linked to the measured increase in the average temperature of the planet. The average
global temperature is currently around 1
◦
C above pre-industrial levels and will continue to
climb based on business-as-usual practices [
2
]. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) conclude that if measures are not taken to reduce emissions and
keep average temperatures below 2
◦
C above pre-industrial levels, the consequences for
Earth’s ecosystems will be extremely severe and devastating [
1
]. These consequences will be
exacerbated by the rapid rate of population growth and urbanisation around the world [
3
].
Current estimates suggest that 68% of the world’s population will live in urban areas by
2050 and more than three billion people will need new housing [
4
]. The prospect of such
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095570 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 2 of 24
vast amounts of new housing is a serious issue because the construction industry already
accounts for close to 40% of global CO
2
emissions and is a major source of environmental
degradation for most countries around the world [
5
]. Hence, more innovative solutions are
required to provide essential building infrastructure in a manner that reduces emissions
and helps to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
The building industry will continue to have a negative impact on the environment
if conventional construction practices are maintained [
3
]. The most recent projections
indicate that by 2060 energy demand in the global buildings sector will increase by 30%
and CO
2
emissions will increase by 10% if efforts are not made to implement low-carbon
and energy-efficient solutions for building and construction [
6
]. In recent years there has
been a conscious effort to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and thus reduce
emissions related to their operation and maintenance [
7
]. However, there has been less
focus on utilising more sustainable materials to lower the emissions embodied in buildings,
which plays a key role in reducing environmental harm [
7
]. Yet material selection can have
a greater influence on a building’s lifetime energy emissions (embodied and consumed)
than building operation [
8
]. Therefore, sustainable material selection is an important step
towards reducing building related emissions.
The most widely used materials in the modern construction of mid- to high-rise
buildings are concrete and steel [
7
]. These two materials have dominated construction for
centuries because of their favourable properties, such as structural adequacy, durability,
fire performance and cost [
7
]. Unfortunately, the production processes for these materials
are highly energy intensive and result in significant GHG emissions. For example, it is
estimated that for every tonne of cement or steel produced, around 1 tonne and 1.85 tonnes
of CO
2
are emitted, respectively [
9
,
10
]. As such, cement production currently accounts
for just over 8% of global CO
2
emissions and the steel industry is responsible for around
7–9% of global CO
2
emissions [
9
,
10
]. Both of these materials are extensively used by the
construction industry, with Yan et al. (2010) estimating that 82–87% of total GHG emissions
related to building construction are a result of the embodied emissions of the building
materials and that 94–95% of these are from the use of concrete and steel [
11
]. Given
the high carbon footprint associated with concrete and steel production, it is critical that
alternative materials are used to deliver a net-zero built environment [12].
There continues to be intensive research into ways to reduce the emissions associated
with concrete production. One promising outcome of this research within the last few
decades has been the development of Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) [
13
]. GPC replaces
traditional Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) in concrete with industrial by-products such
as blast furnace slag and fly-ash. Given that the production of OPC is by far the most
emissions intensive part of the concrete production process, the use of recycled materials
in GPC has been shown to reduce CO
2
emissions by up to 80% [
14
]. Moreover, GPC
exhibits similar or better strength, durability, fire resistance and cost when compared
with conventional concrete [
13
]. However, despite this new method for creating a greener
concrete, the manufacture of GPC still requires non-renewable materials that will eventually
become unavailable. For example, fly ash (which is a by-product of burning coal) will
disappear if we successfully transition to renewable energy and away from coal power.
As such, there is a need to find alternatives to concrete and steel for construction, where
renewable materials, such as timber, may represent a viable alternative [7].
Mass Timber Construction (MTC) is a term used to describe a family of massive
engineered wood products that have structural applications within buildings and that have
been proposed as alternatives to concrete and steel within the building industry. One of the
many benefits of timber is that it is one of the only renewable building materials that not
only reduces emissions but creates negative emissions through carbon sequestration [
15
].
The use of MTC in building projects has grown in recent years, and there are a number of
buildings around the world that showcase this innovative material [
7
]. However, despite
the many advantages of MTC and its potential to reshape the built environment, the
building industry continues to use reinforced concrete on a large scale. One of the key
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 3 of 24
reasons why MTC is yet to be widely adopted in the market is that there is a perceived
lack of knowledge and an uncertainty of the risks associated with this methodology [
16
].
The construction industry is highly risk averse and, as such, new and innovative building
materials or disruptive technologies require a significant amount of research to demonstrate
that engineering requirements can be met. Hence, to guide decision making and better
inform industry professionals, it is crucial that all aspects of MTC are well understood, and
the advantages of this modern building material are clearly outlined.
This paper reviews our current understanding of the use of MTC as a building material.
The primary goal is to review whether MTC offers a viable alternative to concrete and steel
when considering key performance criteria for buildings. As such, this research has the
following objectives:
1. Identifying the types of mass timber available;
2.
Investigating how mass timber performs relative to the key criteria that drive building
material selection, and
3.
Comparing the performance of mass timber against the two most commonly used
building materials (i.e., concrete and steel).
2. Mass Timber Types and Performance
To assess the potential of using mass timber for buildings, a review of existing literature
investigating these products was undertaken. This review began with the identification of
the most widely used and researched mass timber products currently available within the
building industry. Once these had been established, the characteristics of each mass timber
product were investigated, including their historical context, manufacturing processes and
the advantages/disadvantages of their use relative to key criteria that commonly drive the
selection of building materials. These key criteria include structural, environmental, seismic,
wind, and fire performance, health benefits, and cost. The expected structural, seismic and
fire performance requirements reflect those specified by the International Building Code
(IBC). Once acquired, the performance information was used to produce a preliminary
assessment of the appropriateness of replacing concrete and steel with engineered timber.
A review of peer-reviewed and industry-related literature reveals that mass timber
is a broad term describing a family of massive, engineered wood products that can be
used as the primary structural material within buildings [
15
]. Mass Timber Construction
(MTC) refers to a construction process wherein the structural system of the building
is predominantly comprised of timber [
17
]. The main types of mass timber products
used in building construction, and those considered in this review, are Cross-Laminated
Timber (CLT), Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam), Nail Laminated Timber (NLT), Dowel
Laminated Timber (DLT) and Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) (Figure 1). To appreciate
the advantages and disadvantages of mass timber more generally, the different types are
described and discussed within the context of their performances relative to the key criteria.
Figure 1.
A summary of the mass timber types and key performance criteria considered in this study.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 4 of 24
2.1. Cross Laminated Timber
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) is a relatively new and innovative mass timber product
that is gaining popularity within the construction industry [
18
]. CLT was developed in
Europe in the 1990s and since then extensive research and development into this product
has led to its increased use in building projects around the world. The main reason that
CLT has garnered so much attention in recent years is that its technical capabilities and
environmental properties allow for the use of timber in a wider range of applications than
was previously possible.
CLT panels (Figure 2a) are made by stacking layers of lumber boards oriented at
right angles to one another and gluing them together with a structural adhesive [
18
]. The
raw timber used in the panels is machine stress rated and kiln dried to a 12% moisture
content [
15
]. Any knots or other defects are removed, and the boards are finger-jointed
together to produce the specified lengths. The stack is then placed into a press and face-
bonded under pressure. Once removed from the press, the panels are trimmed to exact size
and edge profiled using Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machinery and are ready
to be delivered to the site. These panels are usually fabricated with an odd number of
layers, with three, five and seven layers being the most common. CLT panels vary in size
depending on the manufacturer, though they can be made up to 18 m long by 5 m wide
with a thickness of up to 500 mm, which makes them ideal for floors, walls, and roofs.
Figure 2.
The main mass timber types investigated in this study: Cross-Laminated Timber (
a
);
Glued Laminated Timber (b); Nail Laminated Timber (c); Dowel Laminated Timber (d).
From an engineering perspective, CLT offers many advantages that make it a viable
alternative to concrete and steel for building applications [
18
]. The method of placing alter-
nating layers of timber crosswise to each other gives the product a high level of dimensional
stability, which allows for the prefabrication of large wall and floor elements [
19
]. Addition-
ally, the cross-lamination process and the large thickness of the panels gives CLT exceptional
strength and stiffness as well as two-way span capabilities similar to a reinforced concrete
slab. The use of CNC technology allows for high precision and tight dimensional tolerances
for each panel, reducing material waste and increasing manufacturing speed.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 5 of 24
2.2. Glued Laminated Timber
Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam) is a mass timber product that has the potential to
be used in a wide variety of applications [
20
]. Originating in Germany around the 1900s,
Glulam was adopted in Australia in the 1950s but is still not as frequently used in this
country as it is in Europe and North America. However, this product is gaining traction
within the building industry due to its appropriate technical properties and the growing
need to improve sustainable practices.
Glulam is composed of multiple layers of dimensional lumber in which the grain of
the laminations runs parallel to the length of the member (Figure 2b). The individual pieces
of lumber are graded for strength based on their performance characteristics and are bonded
together with a durable, moisture-resistant adhesive. Individual laminates are generally
finger-jointed to produce greater lengths in accordance with design requirements. Glulam
members can vary in size depending on the manufacturer, but are generally 180–630 mm thick,
66–200 mm wide and can be manufactured up to 50 m in length, making them suitable
for use as beams and columns. Although variable, the length of the member is usually
restricted by transport and handling limitations [20].
One of the key advantages of the Glulam wood product is that it can be manufactured
in large sizes and complex shapes that can meet both architectural and structural design
requirements. Similar to CLT, Glulam has excellent strength and stiffness properties and
a very high strength-to-weight ratio, meaning that by weight it is stronger than structural
steel. Given that Glulam is made up of a number of laminates, the strength-reducing
properties of each timber element are minimised and the result is a product that is stronger
and more reliable than traditional solid lumber [20].
2.3. Nail Laminated Timber
Nail Laminated Timber (NLT) is an engineered wood product that was first used in
construction over a century ago and is undergoing a resurgence as part of the modern shift
towards sustainable materials [
21
]. Although it was historically used in the construction
of warehouses and factories, NLT provides opportunities for a range of modern building
applications due to its aesthetic and favourable performance characteristics.
NLT is created by placing individual pieces of dimensional lumber next to one another
on edge and fastening the laminations together using nails (Figure 2c) [
21
]. Using this
method of mechanically laminating the dimensional lumber together creates one solid
structural element which can be used for floors, roofs, walls and elevator shafts within
buildings. The dimensions of the laminations can vary, with standard sizes such as 2-by-4
and 2-by-6 used in timber framing being the most commonly used. Architects have found
this type of mass timber product particularly useful given that the monolithic slab nature
of NLT offers opportunities to implement unique forms such as curves and cantilevers.
A key advantage of NLT compared with other types of mass timber is that it does not
require a dedicated manufacturing facility or any specialised equipment to create [
21
]. NLT
systems can be put together on site using basic carpentry techniques and locally available
wood species. Some mass timber suppliers may offer prefabrication of NLT panels for larger
and more complex projects; however, it is generally not necessary. Consequently, architects
and designers using NLT for recent building projects have found that the product has
lower costs and faster procurement times than other mass timber products [
22
]. Another
advantage of NLT is that because it has been used in buildings for over a century, the
engineering requirements and details are well supported by building codes and standards.
This can provide a significant advantage over newer mass timber products such as CLT,
which are not as well understood in building codes and which designers may not be as
confident in using.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 6 of 24
2.4. Dowel Laminated Timber
Dowel Laminated Timber (DLT) is a lesser-known mass timber product that is commonly
used in Europe but is slowly gaining traction in North America and other countries [
23
]. The
modern design of DLT was developed in Switzerland in the 1990s as an alternative to mass
timber products that utilise metal fasteners, such as NLT. The result is a versatile product
that is relatively easy to manufacture while maintaining structural adequacy.
The manufacture of DLT uses a very similar concept to NLT; however, instead of nails
or screws, wooden dowels are used to join the timber members [
23
]. To produce DLT
panels, multiple boards of softwood lumber are placed next to one another on edge and
are friction-fit together using hardwood dowels (Figure 2d). Once inserted into the timber
lamellas, the drier hardwood dowels expand into the surrounding lumber in order to
reach moisture equilibrium, which creates a tight friction fit that increases the dimensional
stability of the panel. DLT panels are generally manufactured using CNC machinery, which
essentially automates the process and produces a highly consistent product in a manner that
is safer than conventional manufacturing. The replacement of metal fasteners or adhesives
with wooden dowels in the fabrication of DLT panels makes it the only all wood mass
timber product, which can offer a number of advantages over other forms of mass timber,
such as lower use of adhesives.
The use of adhesives in mass timber products such as CLT and Glulam can have a neg-
ative effect on the environment given that they emit toxic gases such as formaldehyde and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) [
23
]. Hence, the lack of adhesives used in DLT prod-
ucts can create a healthier indoor environment by improving the air quality and reducing
the likelihood of allergic reactions. Further, by replacing the adhesives and metal fasteners
used in other mass timber products, DLT has the potential to improve the recyclability and
reusability of the timber [
23
]. However, further research is required to better understand
the quantitative benefits of DLT with regards to structural and environmental performance.
2.5. Structural Composite Lumber
Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) is a term used to describe a family of mass timber
products that are characterised by gluing together smaller pieces of wood to create one
solid structural member [
24
]. The two main types of SCL products that are commonly used
in building projects are Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) and Laminated Strand Lumber
(LSL). These products are commonly used in building projects throughout North America
with LVL also being widely used in Australia.
LVL was developed in the 1970s and is the most commonly used SCL product [
24
].
SCL is manufactured by gluing together specially graded, thinly sliced wood veneers
under high heat and pressure. Before they are laminated, the veneers are dried, and the
associated grains are oriented parallel with the length of the member. LSL is a more recent
SCL product that is increasing in use. LSL is very similar to LVL with the major difference
being that LSL uses timber strands rather than wood veneers. Both of these smaller SCL
products are suited to residential construction and can be used in a range of structural
applications including beams, joists, studs and rafters.
The greatest advantage of SCL is that the material is much less prone to dimensional
changes compared with conventional sawn timber, meaning that it is unlikely to undergo
warping, splitting or shrinking [
24
]. SCL is also stronger, more reliable and able to withstand
greater loads than similar sized conventional timber members. However, this type of mass
timber product is generally not well suited to tall buildings and is likely best suited for
low-rise construction projects.
2.6. Summary
This section provides a comprehensive review of the most commonly used mass timber
products, which serve slightly different purposes and have varying benefits depending on
their intended use. The most suitable applications for these mass timber products and their
advantages and disadvantages relative to one another are provided in Table 1.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 7 of 24
Table 1.
A summary of the relative advantages and disadvantages of using different mass timber
products in construction.
Mass Timber Product Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Cross Laminated Timber
(CLT) Floors, walls, roofs
High dimensional stability
High strength and stiffness
Easy to manufacture
Higher cost
Glued Laminated Timber
(Glulam) Beams, columns
High strength and stiffness
Structurally efficient
Can be manufactured in
complex shapes
Higher cost
Nail Laminated Timber (NLT) Floors, walls, roofs
No specialised equipment
required to manufacture
Cost effective
Fast procurement times
Labour intensive
Greater chance of human error
Dowel Laminated Timber
(DLT) Floors, walls, roofs
High dimensional stability
Easy and safe to manufacture
No adhesives or metal
fasteners required
Limited panel sizes
Limited thicknesses
Structural Composite Lumber
(SCL)
Beams, columns, joists,
studs, rafters
Not prone to shrinking,
splitting or warping
Able to withstand greater
loads than solid timber
Limited panel sizes
Limited thicknesses
More suitable for
low-rise buildings
3. Environmental Performance
A number of factors must be taken into consideration when assessing the environmen-
tal consequences of Mass Timber Construction (MTC). Amongst these are greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, sustainable forestry practices, and end-of-life scenarios for mass timber
products. Each of these factors are explored and discussed in the following sections.
3.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Timber is one of the few natural, renewable and structural building materials available [
15
].
Whereas conventional materials, such as concrete and steel, are responsible for vast amounts
of CO
2
during production, trees naturally remove around two tonnes of CO
2
from the
atmosphere to create one tonne of their own dry mass [
15
]. Hence, when mass timber
products are used in buildings the carbon sequestered during production is stored over
their lifespan. As such, the use of mass timber to replace concrete and steel will drastically
reduce the emissions embodied in buildings [25].
In addition to reducing embodied emissions, Mass Timber Construction (MTC) has
the potential to reduce emissions related to the construction and operation of buildings [
15
].
Prefabricated timber construction can greatly reduce emissions produced by heavy vehicles
transporting materials, with one study estimating a net saving of 20% compared with
traditional methods [
26
]. Given that mass timber is generally prefabricated offsite, the
simple assembly processes and reduced machinery onsite can lead to significant reduc-
tions in noise and dust pollution and minimal site waste [
15
]. Further, mass timber has
a high level of airtightness and a low coefficient of thermal conductivity, which improves
the energy efficiency of buildings [
27
]. Another benefit of mass timber is that it lowers
strain on declining freshwater sources, with some developers suggesting that 30 times
less water is required per cubic metre to produce mass timber when compared with rein-
forced concrete [
27
]. One recent study in China used a full life cycle assessment approach
to compare the emissions profile of an existing seven-storey concrete building with its
hypothetical mass timber equivalent. The study concluded that buildings could reduce
energy consumption by over 30% and CO
2
emissions by over 40% by using mass timber
rather than concrete and steel [
28
]. A separate study in China used modelling to determine
that mid-rise residential buildings constructed using mass timber rather than concrete
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 8 of 24
could reduce energy demands by around 30% and emissions by around 25% during the
operation phase alone [
29
]. These studies indicate that MTC has the ability to improve the
energy efficiency of buildings and provides an opportunity for the construction industry to
meaningfully engage with the objective of achieving net-zero carbon emissions.
There have been a number of buildings constructed with mass timber over the last
two decades that highlight the environmental benefits of its use [
7
]. The most notable
example in Australia is the Fortébuilding, which is a 10-storey mass timber apartment
building located in the Victoria Harbour District in Melbourne [
27
]. Fortéwas a landmark
achievement in MTC, being the first mass timber building in Australia and the tallest
wood apartment building in the world when in was completed in 2013. The building was
constructed using 485 tonnes of mass timber imported from Europe [
27
]. It is estimated that
the project saved 1451 tonnes of CO
2
emissions and has a 22% lower overall carbon footprint
when compared with an equivalent reinforced concrete structure [
27
,
30
]. Although the
carbon footprint of the building is relatively small, emissions could have been reduced
further by using locally sourced and manufactured timber as opposed to timber imported
from Europe [30].
Another monumental achievement in MTC is the Brock Commons Tallwood House
located at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada [
31
]. This innovative
18-storey (53 m) high-rise student accommodation facility comprises a hybrid structure,
with a concrete ground floor supporting 17 storeys of mass timber floors and columns,
as well as two 18-storey concrete elevator cores [
31
]. It is estimated that the timber used
in the building stores 1753 tonnes of CO
2
and avoids the production of 679 tonnes of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [
32
]. The savings in GHG emissions realised by using
mass timber on this project are equivalent to taking 510 cars off the road for one year.
Moreover, the emissions profile of the building could have been reduced further by using
an alternative structural system. A study by Connolly et al. (2018) demonstrated that
it would have been structurally feasible to construct the two elevator cores in the Brock
Commons building using mass timber rather than concrete, which would have further
reduced the environmental footprint of the building [33].
The T3 office building in Minneapolis, often referred to as T3 Minneapolis, was a
milestone for MTC in the United States [
34
]. The seven-storey commercial building was the
first modern mid-rise timber building constructed in the United States for over a century
and, at the time of its completion in 2016, was the largest mass timber building in North
America. The design of the building used a structural system that incorporated exposed
Glulam beams and columns and NLT floor and roof panels to create an aesthetically
pleasing and healthier indoor environment [
34
]. An NLT system was chosen for this
project because it had structural advantages and faster procurement times, as well as lower
costs, relative to other mass timber products. In total, the T3 structure is comprised of
around 3600 m3of wood, which sequesters 3200 tonnes of CO2for the life of the building.
In combination, these examples demonstrate that it is possible to construct multi-storey
buildings using mass timber and that doing so results in clear environmental benefits.
3.2. Sustainable Forestry Management
The potential widespread increase in the use of mass timber in the construction
industry does raise concerns about potential deforestation and the depletion of global
forest resources, particularly primary forests [35]. This is an important concern given that
the increased demand for engineered wood could lead to a loss in global forested areas if
sustainable practices are not implemented. There is a growing body of research around
sustainable forestry harvesting, which is a process that requires careful long-term planning
to ensure that forests maximise their social, environmental and economic benefits into the
future [
36
]. Although the removal of forest carbon stocks has historically been viewed
as having negative effects on the environment, recent studies have shown that regularly
harvested wood can help reduce carbon emissions [
35
,
36
]. The carbon sequestered by
forests occurs through the accumulation of biomass within trees. This carbon is stored over
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 9 of 24
the lifetimes of the trees and is only released when a tree dies and decays [
36
]. Since mass
timber preserves the wood, it has the potential to ensure that the carbon stored by trees
may be kept out of the environment for longer than it would if the normal life-cycle of that
tree was considered.
Although the uptake of mass timber by the building industry may be viewed as
a gateway to diminishing forested areas around the world, significant volumes of timber
can be harvested without depleting or degrading forest resources if sustainable harvesting
practices are undertaken [
35
]. The improvement of forestry resources has been demon-
strated in regions such as Asia, North America, and Europe, where 75,000 Mm
3
of round-
wood logs have been extracted since 1990, while forest covers have increased by around
1 Mha/yr [
35
]. For example, despite the fact that 90% of global CLT production—estimated
at 700,000 m
3
/yr—is located in Europe, the region’s forest area increased by 90,000 km
2
between 1990 and 2015 under sustainable forestry initiatives [15,35].
Consequently, increased demand for forest products under sustainable management
would incentivize new tree planting and investment in forest management that would
expand forest carbon sinks by encouraging forest growth and regeneration [
37
]. That is,
as long as forests are managed sustainably, most of the projected depletion in aggregate
forest stock due to mass timber-induced increases in removals will be replaced by biological
forest growth occurring over time [38].
Sustainable forestry practices include management approaches that ensure current
needs for timber are met while not compromising the ability of future populations to make
use of the forest resources (wood or otherwise). Given the expected rise in population
growth and international pressures to convert forests into agricultural land for farming
and commercial use, deforestation is likely to increase in coming years if efforts are not
made to conserve natural forest areas and increase rates of afforestation [
35
]. The IPCC has
recognised this problem and stated that a sustainable forest management strategy that aims
to increase forest carbon stocks and produce an annual yield of timber will generate the
largest emissions mitigation benefit [1].
3.3. End-of-Life Scenarios
The adaptation of mass timber panels for other uses at the end of a building’s design
life is a crucial aspect of the regenerative approach to sustainability [
39
]. Given that
the decomposition or burning of wood releases stored CO
2
back into the atmosphere,
repurposing mass timber products at end-of-life will be essential for maximising the
environmental benefits of mass timber [
12
]. As such, the three main options for mass
timber once a building has been disassembled are re-use, conversion to biomass energy,
or landfill [
35
]. Re-use is the preferred option for mass timber, as it can be used for the
same purpose as before or transformed into lower-grade timber for non-structural uses
such as facades. The re-use option would extend the life of the timber and maximise carbon
sequestration, while reducing the need for new wood and lowering production emissions.
If recycling is not possible, the timber can be used to produce biomass energy through
direct combustion that does not maximise emissions reduction but does enable a fossil fuel
offset. Finally, if both of the aforementioned options cannot be achieved, mass timber can
be sent to landfill, though this is the least desirable option as it releases stored carbon and
does not recover energy from the wood products [
35
]. Overall, when conducting a life-cycle
assessment for the environmental benefits of mass timber, design for end-of-life scenarios
should encourage material recovery and recycling in order to establish mass timber as
a truly sustainable material.
4. Seismic Performance
Ensuring that buildings can withstand seismic events is one of the most important
aspects of building design, especially in earthquake prone regions. Buildings that are not
adequately designed to endure earthquakes are susceptible to severe damage or failure that
can lead to injury or death for occupants. For example, a catastrophic earthquake hit central
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 10 of 24
Mexico in 2017 destroying more than 44 buildings and killing around 230 people [
40
].
As is the case with almost all other seismic events, this devastation was not caused by
the earthquake itself, but by the collapse of buildings. Thus, designing buildings to be
earthquake-resistant is crucial for reducing damage and increasing safety. Given that
mass timber is a relatively new building material, ensuring that architects and engineers
understand its structural characteristics and seismic performance is vital for accelerating its
widespread adoption. Although the seismic performance of conventional tall buildings has
been understood for some time, research into how mass timber buildings perform under
seismic actions has only begun within the last two decades [
41
]. Consequently, research into
how mass timber structures respond during earthquakes is somewhat limited, although
there are a handful of studies that have demonstrated the viability of mass timber buildings
under seismic conditions.
An early research project by Ceccotti (2008) was instrumental in providing evidence
that mass timber structures can withstand earthquake events. The study sought to analyse
the seismic performance of a three-storey Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) building by
undertaking a number of shaking table tests in a specialised facility in Japan [
42
]. The
shaking table tests exposed the test building to a series of earthquake excitations to establish
the capability of the structure to dissipate energy efficiently and ensure that the structure
can survive extreme earthquakes. The results of the study demonstrated that the CLT test
building performed very well during the shaking table tests and did not incur any major
damage. Even though the building was repeatedly subjected to 15 destructive earthquakes
without repair, including an earthquake producing a near-collapse state, at the end of
the entire series there was no permanent deformation and the building remained upright.
This research study was especially important for validating the seismic behaviour of mass
timber structures.
Following on from the previous study, Ceccotti et al. (2013) published the results of a
similar seismic study on a test mass timber building [
43
]. In this case, a full-scale seven-
storey CLT building, designed and constructed according to the European seismic standard
‘Eurocode 8
0
, was subjected to a simulated earthquake loading on a 3D shaking table. After
enduring a series of major earthquakes, the test building showed no residual displacement
and no critical damage. Some level of failure was observed at the hold-down metal fasteners
that were used to connect the mass timber panels, with the fasteners being loosened or
nails being removed as a result of the seismic excitations. However, these connections can
be easily repaired after an earthquake event, whereas conventional reinforced concrete
buildings are more likely to undergo critical failure due to their brittle nature.
To gain a greater insight into how mass timber buildings respond during seismic
events Shahnewaz et al. (2017) undertook a study in Vancouver, Canada, which inves-
tigated the seismic behaviour of a hypothetical six-storey CLT platform building using
Incremental Dynamic Analysis [
44
]. Using this technique, the researchers were able to
examine the structural response of the case study building under simulated earthquake
excitations. The aim of the study was to verify whether or not the mass timber building
could withstand a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) (also commonly referred to as
‘Maximum Considered Earthquake’), which is an extremely high intensity seismic event
with high level ground motions that are expected to occur roughly once every 2500 years.
The results of the analysis indicated that the CLT building would be unlikely to incur any
damage during an MCE, and the probability of collapse was found to be less than 0.1%.
Hence, the study concluded that mass timber buildings are likely to have a sufficient factor
of safety against collapse during major seismic events [44].
More recently, a study was conducted in the USA to explore the advantages and
disadvantages of MTC for high-rise buildings in high seismic regions [
45
]. The study
used computational and numerical analyses to compare the existing 20-storey reinforced
concrete Museum Tower Apartment building in Los Angeles with a theoretical mass
timber equivalent. The mass timber building incorporated glulam columns and beamless
composite concrete CLT floor slabs, and was designed to have the same footprint as the
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 11 of 24
existing reinforced concrete building. The study found that the mass timber building had
roughly half the mass and half the stiffness of the reinforced concrete building, which is
desirable for seismic design.
These research studies suggest that well-designed mass timber structures can not only
exhibit satisfactory performance under seismic conditions but can outperform traditional
concrete structures. The superior performance is possible because mass timber buildings
are extremely lightweight compared to concrete buildings, thereby minimising inertial
forces generated during an earthquake and reducing the risk of failure [
46
]. Additionally,
the high in-plane stiffness of mass timber panels such as CLT allows the structures to resist
lateral distortion and ductile connections can yield without compromising the structural
integrity of the building [
46
]. Although research to date has established the viability of MTC
under seismic conditions, further research is required to investigate the most appropriate
seismic design for tall mass timber buildings greater than 20-storeys.
5. Wind Performance
Although it can be beneficial from a seismic performance perspective, the relative
flexibility (in comparison to other building materials) of wood could make buildings that
are constructed from wood susceptible to wind-driven oscillations that are discomforting
to occupiers [
47
]. Despite the potential importance of this performance indicator however,
to date relatively little work has been undertaken to investigate this topic.
The most extensive investigations into the topic of the response to wind of wood
building has been undertaken by researchers in Canada, who used a combination of
modeling and wind tunnel testing to investigate various components of the relationship
between tall mass timber buildings and wind load [
48
–
50
]. Collectively, this work indicates
that mass timber buildings can be constructed to meet building code requirements for wind
drift, although vulnerability to wind impact is strongly dependent on building height. This
research provides specific recommendations for the construction, siting and use of 10-, 20-,
30- and 40-story mass timber buildings based on wind performance [
50
]. This research also
involved a preliminary exploration of the structural performance of wood buildings under
tornadic conditions [
51
], revealing that building orientation and shape play important
roles in determining wind impact, and that 10-story mass wood buildings could suffer
extensive damage if exposed to an EF3 or stronger tornado. In summary, wind performance
is an important criterion to consider when designing and constructing tall mass timber
buildings, but more work is required to clarify the precise relationships between dynamic
wind conditions and mass timber building performance. However, early results suggest it
is possible to use these materials to meet building code requirements.
6. Fire Performance
Fire safety is a critical aspect of construction across all building materials [
52
]. One
of the major factors limiting the implementation of tall timber structures is the negative
perception of wood with respect to fire safety [
53
,
54
]. Fire concerns surrounding timber
remain one of the key reasons that severe height limitations and building code restrictions
exist for wooden buildings around the world [
54
,
55
]. However, these fire concerns largely
stem from a lack of understanding about the fundamental difference between light-wood
frame construction and Mass Timber Construction [
39
]. In light-wood frame construction,
the structural elements of the building are made up of small timber members with signifi-
cant air voids between them that can allow fire to spread and engulf the building, leading
to structural collapse [
39
]. However, with MTC, solid wood panels with large section sizes
are designed to minimise air voids and resist fire damage [
39
]. Although there are still
some concerns amongst industry professionals in relation to the fire performance of mass
timber, there has been a significant amount of research in this area and different approaches
to ensure a fire safe design are well established. Appropriate structural design methods,
along with studies containing experimental results from multiple fire tests, are reviewed
and presented in this section.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 12 of 24
6.1. Charring Method
Although it is considered a combustible material, mass timber burns in a slow and
predictable manner [
56
,
57
]. It is well understood that when exposed to flame, the outer
layer of wood ignites and burns, removing hydrogen and oxygen from the surface and
forming a charred layer comprised predominantly of carbon [
56
,
57
]. Beneath the charred
layer, a section known as the ‘pyrolysis zone’ or ‘zero-strength layer’ is formed, where the
increase in temperature leads to decomposition of the wood in this layer. The residual cross-
section is left largely unaffected by the fire, given that the charred layer acts as an insulator
for the remaining wood and provides a thermal barrier between the exposed surface and
the inner core [15,57].
Many experiments on the fire behaviour of mass timber members have verified that
both the charred layer and the zero-strength layer lose their structural integrity during and
after a fire, whereas the inner core retains its full load-carrying capacity [
52
]. Hence, exposed
structural members in mass timber buildings can be designed to include a sacrificial layer
that would protect the inner core of the member in the case of a fire and prevent the structure
from collapsing. The dimensions of each member can be designed using a predictable
charring rate so that the required load-carrying capacity is not compromised in the case
of a fire [
39
]. The charring rate for heavy timber has been tested in many studies over
the last few decades [
54
,
58
,
59
]. The charring rate for solid wood panels under standard
fire exposures is given as 0.65 mm/min for both CLT and glulam members, which has
been recognised by European and North American building codes for years [
58
]. For
unprotected timber surfaces, the measured charring rate is assumed to be constant with
time and can therefore be used in design calculations to ensure an adequate level of fire
resistance for structures with exposed mass timber [
58
]. This approach is known as the
charring method, or reduced cross-section method, and has been used in a number of real
mass timber buildings to safely include exposed wood.
Despite the established charring rate of solid wood, a number of associated fac-
tors must be taken into consideration when designing exposed mass timber finishes.
An important earlier study testing the behaviour of CLT panels in fire showed that speci-
mens manufactured with temperature sensitive adhesives such as polyurethane (PUR) can
result in char fall-off [
58
]. Char fall-off (also known as ‘delamination’) refers to a process
within a CLT panel where the char depth increases as the wood burns and under the action
of gravity the charred wood at the glue line can no longer remain adhered to the panel [
60
].
Given the influence of gravity, this effect is more likely to occur for floor and ceiling panels
than for wall panels [
61
]. Once char fall-off has taken place, the charred layer is no longer
able to protect the underlying timber from heat transfer, resulting in an increased charring
rate and prolonging the fire [
58
]. The study found that the use of less temperature sen-
sitive adhesives such as melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) resulted in no char-fall off.
A recent study confirmed that CLT floor assemblies that utilise PUR adhesive bonds tend to
soften and result in delamination whereas panels bonded with MUF remain intact during
extended fire exposure [
54
]. Another vital consideration when using the charring method
is that the number and thickness of the layers that make up the mass timber panel signifi-
cantly influences the fire resistance of the member. Multiple studies have verified that CLT
panels with five or seven layers of greater thickness exhibit better fire performance than
those with fewer and thinner layers, especially for polyurethane adhesives [
58
,
62
]. Hence,
to achieve an adequate level of fire safety using the charring method, it is essential that
designers consider using large mass timber members with thick layers [
54
,
58
], although
being manufactured with more fire-retardant adhesives such as MUF may also need to be
weighed against off-gassing health issues upon initial construction [18].
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 13 of 24
Although the charring behaviour of mass timber under standard fire exposures is
well documented, the structural response of load-bearing members under non-standard
heating is not as well understood. Current practice using the charring method assumes that
the thickness of the zero-strength layer is a constant 7 mm beneath the charred layer [
63
].
However, this approach has been criticised for being inaccurate and unrealistic for solid
timber, and recent studies have confirmed that a constant 7 mm zero-strength layer is
not applicable for non-standard fire exposures [
59
,
63
]. Thus, based on limited existing
studies regarding the formation of the zero-strength layer, additional research is required
to develop a more accurate method to calculate the thermo-mechanical response of mass
timber members, especially under non-standard fire exposures.
6.2. Encapsulation Method
An alternative method for ensuring fire safety in mass timber buildings is to encapsulate
members with fire-rated materials such as gypsum plasterboard [
39
]. Using this technique,
one or two layers of fire-rated gypsum boards are installed directly onto the mass timber
panels to protect the structural elements of the building in the case of a fire [
39
]. The purpose
of this approach is to protect the underlying members and prevent the structural mass timber
from contributing to the fire load [55]. The encapsulation method is a more conservative fire
design approach than the charring method; however, it is deemed an acceptable solution in
most national building codes and is recognised as being able to provide an equivalent level of
safety to non-combustible construction such as steel or concrete [39,53].
The encapsulation method can be applied to mass timber design in two ways. Com-
plete encapsulation would require that all structural mass timber is protected by gypsum
boards of a sufficient thickness (two layers) so that the underlying wood is not adversely
affected by a fire. The alternative approach is limited encapsulation, which entails pro-
viding one layer of thin gypsum plasterboard that protects the structural timber until
well into the burning phase but may not prevent the mass timber from charring. Limited
encapsulation is a more economical solution; however, the level of encapsulation should be
chosen based on the requirements of the relevant building standards [55].
6.3. Additional Experimental Results
There have been many studies over the last two decades that have investigated the
fire behaviour of mass timber. These studies provide results from a range of different
experiments on single mass timber assemblies and full-scale compartment fire tests with
and without encapsulation. The purpose of these standardised fire tests is to ensure that
the building material can withstand a fire and retain its structural integrity for a specified
duration [
39
]. The requirement for fire duration varies depending on the national building
standards but is typically between one and two hours, which gives occupants enough time
to safely exit the building and allows firefighting services time to suppress the fire and
prevent further damage to the property [
39
]. A brief overview of the results from a series
of experimental studies testing the fire behaviour of mass timber assemblies in different
configurations as well as full-scale compartment fire tests is outlined in Table 2.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 14 of 24
Table 2. Summary of experiments and tests analysing the fire performance of mass timber.
Authors Investigated Parameters Results
Frangi et al. (2008) [56]
1-hr compartment fire test on full-scale
three-storey CLT building
with encapsulation
Structure passed the 1-h fire test
Fire spread was limited to one room and
no elevated temperature or smoke was
detected in the room above the
fire compartment
Frangi et al. (2009) [58]Fire tests on CLT panels with various
thicknesses and adhesives
Char fall-off was observed for panels
bonded with a temperature
sensitive adhesive
Panels bonded with a less temperature
sensitive adhesive exhibited better
fire performance
Osborne et al. (2012) [64]
Fire tests on eight different CLT wall and
floor panels with and without
encapsulation. All members were
subjected to imposed loads
All but one test passed the 1-h fire rating
A 7-ply floor assembly was able to
withstand the fire for close to 3-h before
reaching structural failure
Zhao Peng and Pei Feng (2012) [65]
Fire tests on eight different glulam beams
All tests achieved a fire rating over
90 min and exhibited good fire behaviour
Large section members performed better
than smaller members
Intumescent coatings can be used to
improve the fire resistance of the member
Aguanno (2013) [66]
Fire tests on eight different CLT floor
assemblies with and
without encapsulation
All but one test passed the 1-h fire rating
Although the encapsulated panels
performed better overall, the 5-ply
exposed panels achieved a fire rating of
over 90 min
Klippel et al. (2014) [61]
Fire tests on ten different CLT wall and
floor panels without encapsulation and
subjected to imposed loads
Measured charring rate was found to be
slightly higher than 0.65 mm/min for
almost all tests; however, this is
attributed to the falling off of charred
layers due to the use of a temperature
sensitive adhesive
Hasburgh et al. (2016) [53]
Fire tests on 23 CLT assemblies with
encapsulation using different
fire-rated materials
All investigated materials greatly delayed
the onset of charring to the mass timber
and resulted in adequate fire performance
Muszynski et al. (2019) [54]
Fire tests on three different CLT floor
assemblies without encapsulation and
subjected to imposed loads
All three unprotected floor assemblies
passed the 2-hr fire rating following
ASTM E119 standard procedure
6.4. Fire Performance Summary
Fire safety is one of the most important design considerations for any building. Given
that it is a combustible material, wood has historically been perceived as having an inade-
quate level of fire safety and, as such, building code restrictions have prevented its use in
tall buildings [
55
]. However, new provisions for mass timber are slowly being introduced
into building codes in many countries, given the extensive research data that supports its
adequate fire performance [
67
]. Many studies have verified the charring effect of heavy
timber elements in a fire, which if designed appropriately allows exposed mass timber to
be incorporated into a building. This results in a fire safe design that showcases the natural
beauty of wood and increases the health benefits of the indoor environment for occupants.
To achieve a higher level of fire safety, mass timber panels can be encapsulated in fire-rated
materials such as gypsum plasterboard where necessary, which protects the underlying
members in the case of a fire and largely prevents any damage to the structure.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 15 of 24
Note that the fire design methods discussed here are purely passive protection mea-
sures and do not take into account the required installation of active protection measures,
such as automatic sprinklers and smoke detection systems. In most cases, automatic sprin-
kler systems are the most effective method for improving the fire safety of buildings given
that they are able to extinguish the fire well before any damage occurs [
55
]. Further, the
risk of fire damage to tall wood buildings will be reduced assuming that fire department
resources are promptly dispatched. Hence, using a combination of active and passive
protection measures, mass timber buildings can easily achieve an appropriate level of
fire safety.
7. Health Effects and Biophilia Benefits
To ensure the health benefits of mass timber, recommendations for moisture mitigation
in products such as CLT should be followed, especially in terms of good moisture man-
agement during construction, an objective that is facilitated by the reduced construction
time of such prefabricated materials [
68
]. Similarly, properly installed CLT products have
been found to have a negligible impact on indoor air quality in terms of volatile organic
compounds, although some wood species still need testing [18].
A crucial aspect of mass timber that is not widely discussed in the literature is the
positive affect that it can have on people [
69
]. Natural elements such as plants and trees
in outdoor settings provide a range of social and health benefits within towns and cities.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that natural environments tend to promote greater
interaction between community members, encourage physical activity, lower crime rates,
and reduce stress [
70
–
72
]. Even something as simple as having a view to nature can
promote positive emotions and reduce negative feelings such as depression and anxiety [
73
].
Similarly, there is a growing body of research indicating that natural elements in indoor
environments can improve the mental and physical health of occupants [69,74].
The idea that humans have an affinity for natural environments and an affection for
plants and other living things is referred to as ‘biophilia’ [
75
]. This innate desire to be
surrounded by nature is likely a result of the evolutionary history of the human species and
the importance of fauna for our survival [
76
–
78
]. In other words, humans have evolved to
live in a natural environment. However, people in industrialised countries currently spend
around 90% of their time indoors where there is a substantial lack of natural stimuli [
79
].
As such, the negative effects that sterile indoor environments have on building occupants is
significant and there is growing awareness amongst designers and industry professionals
of the importance of healthy and sustainable buildings [69].
Given the recent shift towards biophilic design principles, new buildings are com-
monly featuring elements such as views to nature, natural sunlight, indoor plants and
water features, all of which have proven physiological and psychological benefits [
80
].
A number of studies have also shown that workplaces that include natural elements such
as indoor plants tend to result in fewer health complaints from employees and a decrease
in reported sick days [
75
]. Hence, it is well substantiated that interacting with nature has
positive effects on health and well-being.
Similar to other natural elements, wood represents a connection to trees and nature
that offers a number of health benefits for occupants [
81
]. It has been observed that people
tend to have a positive attitude towards wood, perceiving it as a natural, warm, and
healthy material [
69
,
82
]. However, only in recent years has research demonstrated the
quantifiable benefits of interior wood use for building occupants [
80
]. For example, a study
was conducted by Fell (2010) to test the stress effects of wood within the context of an office
setting [
76
]. Wood and non-wood offices were presented to 119 subjects and stress responses
were measured by testing pulse rate and skin conductivity. The results of the experiment
indicated that subjects in the wood room were less stressed than subjects in the non-wood
room. Hence, the study provides evidence that wood produces stress-reducing effects
similar to the benefits of exposure to nature.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 16 of 24
In a similar study, stress levels of Austrian high school students working in wooden
and non-wooden classrooms were measured over the course of a school year [
83
]. The
control condition was a typical classroom containing plasterboard walls, a linoleum floor,
and chipwood cupboards. The experimental condition was a classroom made almost
entirely from solid wood (i.e., walls, floor, ceiling, and cupboards). Over the course of
the school year, researchers found that student heart rates and stress levels decreased in
the wooden classroom. Moreover, the wooden classroom was observed to be positively
associated with increased concentration and healing, as well as reduced strain, providing
further evidence that wooden indoor environments lead to positive health benefits [83].
In a more recent study undertaken by Zhang et al. (2017), an experiment was con-
ducted to assess the physiological effects of wooden and non-wooden indoor environments
on participants [
84
]. To simulate the contrasting indoor environments, four identically
sized rooms with different interior walls were prepared. All participants were continuously
monitored to test for physiological indicators. The experiment found that participants
consistently exhibited lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate in the wooden rooms
compared with the non-wooden room. Moreover, tension and fatigue were significantly
reduced in the wooden rooms when participants completed their tasks. The results of the
study indicate that wooden indoor environments have a positive effect on the autonomic
nervous system, respiratory system, and visual system and play an active role in reducing
stress and creating a visual relaxation effect [84].
8. Cost Analysis
One of the key reasons for the slow uptake of Mass Timber Construction (MTC)
around the world is the fear that this new methodology will result in higher project
costs than traditional reinforced concrete construction [
85
]. In a number of recent studies
surveying industry professionals on their opinions of mass timber and the perceived barriers to
widespread adoption, higher cost was among the most frequently cited concerns [
16
,
86
]. Given
that the building industry is highly risk averse, the implementation of new technologies
or construction processes is unlikely to occur unless a quantifiable cost saving can be
achieved [
87
]. Innovations that deliver projects on-time and under-budget are the main
drivers of competitive advantage in the construction sector [
87
]. Hence, it is critical that
industry stakeholders understand the many financial advantages of using mass timber.
The expected costs associated with the use of mass timber are not well understood
as it is a relatively new building material and there are a limited number of real-world
examples that can demonstrate construction costs and program benefits [
85
]. However,
there have been many case studies in recent years that have presented business cases for
mass timber and compared project costs to traditional construction projects utilising steel
and concrete. This section reviews these studies and provides an outline of the economic
advantages of MTC projects across various influencing factors such as materials, labour,
scheduling and economic growth opportunities.
8.1. Material Costs
The material costs for a building project make up a significant portion of the overall
construction costs [
88
]. As such, it is important that mass timber is priced similarly to
steel and concrete if it is to be considered a viable alternative to developers in a compet-
itive construction market. However, despite its importance it can be difficult to directly
compare material costs due to issues such as material availability and market supply and
demand [
88
]. Nonetheless, several recent studies have presented a comparison of the
material costs related to the structural frame of mass timber and conventional concrete
buildings with mixed results.
A study assessing the nine-storey Murray Grove Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) build-
ing in the U.K. found that using a mass timber structural system resulted in a 30% increase
in material costs compared with reinforced concrete [
89
]. A similar study by Fanella (2018)
compared costs of a hypothetical 10-storey CLT building in the U.S. to a cast-in-place
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 17 of 24
concrete solution [
90
]. The results of the study found the cost of the CLT option to be
16–29% higher than the concrete system. However, other studies have shown that cost
savings can be achieved using MTC compared with traditional methods. A detailed cost
analysis of a hypothetical seven-storey office building in Sydney, Australia demonstrated
that a mass timber design would save 13.6% when compared with a concrete system [
91
].
All structural components of this building were found to be more cost effective using mass
timber except for the Glulam columns. Green (2017) came to a similar conclusion, determin-
ing that structural walls for a mass timber building would be 26% cheaper to implement,
whereas upper floors including columns, beams and finished materials would cost 43%
more than a concrete design [
39
]. The source of the materials must also be taken into
consideration, as one study in the U.S. showed that cost savings for mass timber projects
could be doubled if the materials are produced locally as opposed to being imported from
Europe [
92
]. Additionally, given the lightweight nature of wood, mass timber buildings
are typically 40–50% lighter than equivalent concrete buildings [
15
]. Consequently, mass
timber buildings require less foundation concrete to create smaller and lighter foundations,
which significantly reduces earthworks and foundation costs [93].
It is not definitively clear from the existing research whether or not mass timber is
more cost effective than cast-in-place concrete when isolating material costs. However,
even if it is assumed that material costs are currently higher for mass timber than for steel
or concrete, it is expected that these costs will reduce as the design and development of
mass timber buildings improves and market supply chains mature [
15
]. Furthermore,
considering only material costs ignores the costs savings that can be realised in other areas
of construction projects [91].
8.2. Labour Costs
An element of MTC that can provide significant cost savings is the reduction in on-
site labour [
94
]. The innovative manufacturing process for mass timber allows structural
components to be prefabricated off-site and assembled on-site by a small team of labourers,
directly reducing costs of on-site trades [
95
]. For example, the Fortébuilding that was com-
pleted in Melbourne in 2013 only required five skilled labourers and one supervisor on site
during the construction process [
27
]. Similarly, the eight-storey Bridport House apartment
building in London constructed in 2011 only needed a team of four skilled labourers and
one supervisor [
94
]. The substantial reduction in on-site labour and subsequent labour
costs will obviously lower the overall costs of mass timber projects.
8.3. Scheduling
One of the greatest overall advantages of MTC is the speed with which mass timber
buildings can be erected [
94
]. As mentioned previously, the prefabrication of mass timber
panels allows the structural system of the building to be delivered to site where it can be
installed very quickly by a small crew of workers [
96
]. Not only does this speed up the
construction phase, but it also allows for the structural components of the building to be
constructed concurrently with the foundations and footings [
94
]. This reduces the lag time
that exists for conventional building projects where ground improvements must be done
before the structural frame can be built. In addition, there is a considerable lag time that
exists for traditional building projects given that concrete must be cured for at least 28 days
before its final strength is reached and construction of the next floor can begin [
96
]. This
lag time is largely eliminated on MTC projects, with one study suggesting that a mass
timber building can be erected at a rate of 3–4 days per storey, as opposed to 28 days
per storey for a typical reinforced concrete construction [
97
]. Hence, if design, manufacture
and construction on a mass timber project are coordinated appropriately, time on-site is
drastically reduced, which has a number of added benefits including increased safety for
workers, less disruption to the surrounding community, and reduced material waste [96].
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 18 of 24
Many case studies have demonstrated the superior building speed of MTC compared
to traditional methods. A study on mid-rise residential buildings in Melbourne found that
a time saving of close to 50% can be achieved when designing a Laminated Veneer Lumber
(LVL) superstructure as opposed to a full reinforced concrete structure [
85
]. Another study
looked at the differences in costs and construction timelines between an existing arts centre
building in Napa, California, and its hypothetical mass timber equivalent. The study found
that when cast-in-place concrete and structural steel elements were replaced by CLT and
glulam members, the construction timeline was reduced by around 61% [
88
]. A study by
Smith et al. (2018) was important for comparing the schedule performance for a range of
existing mass timber buildings to their traditional counterpart [
94
]. Their study identified
that MTC reduced construction schedules by an average of 20% across the seven real case
studies, with an average duration of 12.7 months for mass timber projects compared to
15.4 months for typical concrete construction. The study also identified that the Forté
apartment building in Melbourne was completed 3 months faster than could have been
achieved using traditional methods, whilst the Bridport House mass timber building in
London reduced the building schedule by 8 weeks [
94
]. Although the improvement in
construction efficiencies is evident from looking at these case studies, the research tends to
suggest that knowledge acquired from accumulated experience working with mass timber
will streamline costs and increase productivity even further [94].
8.4. Economic Growth Opportunities
An important aspect of MTC that must be considered by government officials and
policymakers in order to accelerate the large-scale adoption of mass timber is its potential to
provide economic benefits into the future [
93
]. Given the reduced need for skilled labourers
on mass timber projects, state level policymakers may be hesitant to endorse MTC as it
would result in employment losses for tradespersons and pushback from construction
unions. However, mass timber has the potential to reshape the building industry and
provide opportunities to stimulate local job growth in areas facing forest products manufac-
turing decline [
93
]. One study in the U.S. analysed the regional employment opportunities
and economic growth that mass timber could create in the state of Oregon. The study found
that if mass timber gained 5% of the region’s construction market share, increased product
demand would generate around 2000 manufacturing jobs, and if mass timber constituted
15% of the market share, this would increase to 6100 direct jobs [
98
]. Another study as-
sessing the regional economic impacts of a 12-storey high-rise MTC building in Portland,
Oregon found that by using a mass timber structural frame, as opposed to a functionally
equivalent concrete frame, the building was able to create an additional $2.39–$4.97 million
in economic activity and produce greater earnings for households of all income levels [
93
].
It was also found that economic benefits are maximised when mass timber panels are
manufactured locally rather than being imported, creating a more insular supply chain
and reducing economic leakage [
93
]. Thus, although there may be concerns that MTC
will lead to job displacement in the construction sector, growth in the forestry industry
and a renewed need for harvesting and manufacturing jobs due to the rise of mass timber
will provide vast employment opportunities for industrialised regions and will boost local
economic output in a manner that promotes environmental sustainability.
8.5. Summary
The findings presented in this section clearly outline the economic and financial ad-
vantages of MTC and its potential to become even more cost competitive with wider
adoption in the building industry. In relation to the factors influencing the cost analysis, it
was found that in many cases material costs for mass timber were slightly higher when
compared directly with reinforced concrete. However, these material costs are offset by
other factors such as reduction in labour costs, foundation costs, and project timelines.
When comparing overall project costs, many studies have cited an average 4% cost saving
on mass timber projects compared with traditional construction [
94
,
99
]. This cost sav-
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 19 of 24
ing indicates that mass timber can be a cost-effective alternative, and research suggests
that growing acceptance and implementation of this emerging technology will further
reduce costs [
93
]. Furthermore, MTC provides an exciting opportunity to revitalise sustain-
able forestry harvesting and improve economic outcomes whilst simultaneously working
towards delivering a net-zero built environment.
9. Discussion
This paper reviewed the existing literature to investigate the performance of Mass
Timber Construction (MTC) relative to conventional reinforced concrete and steel systems.
The main goal of this paper was to investigate the viability of wood as an alternative to
steel and concrete in construction. The review indicates that mass timber meets all engi-
neering requirements for structural applications within buildings, and even outperforms
traditional construction materials in several ways. In relation to sustainability, mass timber
significantly reduces life-cycle emissions, air pollution, energy usage and water usage
compared to concrete and steel. Further, given the carbon sequestration properties of pre-
served wood, mass timber is likely to be the only building material that could substantially
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and play an important role in slowing down
climate change.
This review investigates the potential for using wood as a building product, consid-
ering environmental, seismic, fire, economic and health performance; but how does this
product compare with more traditional building materials? Table 3provides a summary of
the performance of MTC relative to reinforced concrete construction across all of the key
performance criteria outlined and reviewed in this study. Results from several experimental
studies demonstrate that the extremely high strength-to-weight ratio of mass timber and
high dimensional stiffness allow tall timber structures to withstand earthquake events and,
despite the fact that wood is a combustible material, mass timber panels can be designed to
meet traditional building code requirements for fire design. With respect to the effects of
mass timber on the health of building occupants, the research indicates that wooden indoor
environments are commonly perceived as natural, warm, and healthy and that interior
wood use significantly reduces stress and blood pressure while improving cognition, pro-
ductivity and emotional condition. Finally, an analysis of costs from a number of existing
mass timber projects found an average cost saving of 4% when compared with conventional
construction methods. In particular, the prefabricated nature of the timber construction
process and the ease of assembly on site result in lower costs in relation to foundations and
earthworks, on-site labour, heavy machinery, and project timelines. Furthermore, costs of
mass timber projects are expected to decrease in the future as product uptake is increased.
Table 3indicates that MTC has many advantages over concrete and steel and that some
of these benefits are substantial. These advantages suggest that MTC should be considered
a viable alternative to existing conventional construction materials and, arguably, the areas
in which it excels, such as reducing carbon emissions and promoting mental and physical
health, serve to make it an extremely desirable product.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 20 of 24
Table 3. Performance of Mass Timber Construction (MTC) relative to conventional construction.
Performance Criteria Performance Rating
Environmental
Carbon Emissions Far Better
Energy Usage Far Better
Water Usage Far Better
Seismic
Seismic Behaviour Better
Wind
Wind Performance Undetermined
Fire
Charring Method Similar
Encapsulation Method Better
Health
Mental Health Far Better
Physical Health Far Better
Costs
Material Costs Similar
Foundation and earthworks Far Better
Labour Costs Far Better
Speed of Construction Far Better
Economic Growth Potential Far Better
10. Conclusions
Although this paper reviews research into many aspects of mass timber use as
a building material, and demonstrates the feasibility of MTC, further research is required
to increase its uptake and change international and local building codes to include specific
requirements for timber structures. Important safety design needs, such as structural char-
acteristics, seismic behaviour, wind resistance and fire resistance, will benefit from research
that offers solutions for every possible design combination. Given that mass timber is
still in its infancy in the construction industry, investigations into ways of optimising its
use in structural systems, and how it can be combined with steel and concrete to create
hybrid structures, will be very valuable. To accelerate the transition to more sustainable
practices across the construction industry in general, it is recommended that governments
start adopting mass timber for major infrastructure projects and encourage its use where
possible. Similarly, a key component of expanding the utilisation of mass timber will be
developers and contractors capitalising on the potential of wood construction and proving
that it provides a competitive advantage to conventional building materials.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.A. and S.R.; methodology, J.A. and S.R.; formal anal-
ysis, J.A. and S.R.; investigation, J.A. and S.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A. and S.R.;
writing—review and editing, J.A., S.R., M.N. and J.R.; supervision, S.R. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 21 of 24
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
2.
NASA. Vital Signs of the Planet. Available online: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ (accessed on
30 April 2020).
3.
Skullestad, J.L.; Bohne, R.A.; Lohne, J. High-Rise Timber Buildings as a Climate Change Mitigation Measure—A Comparative
LCA of Structural System Alternatives. Energy Procedia 2016,96, 112–123. [CrossRef]
4.
Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. How Many People Will Live in Urban Areas in the Future? Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/
urbanization#how-many-people-will-live-in-urban-areas-in-the-future (accessed on 30 April 2020).
5.
World Green Building Council. Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront. Coordinated Action for the Building and Construction Sector to
Tackle Embodied Carbon; World Green Building Council: London, UK, 2019.
6.
Abergel, T.; Dean, B.; Dulac, J. Global Status Report 2017: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction
Sector; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017.
7.
Crawford, R.H.; Cadorel, X. A Framework for Assessing the Environmental Benefits of Mass Timber Construction. Procedia Eng.
2017,196, 838–846. [CrossRef]
8.
Crawford, R.H.; Bartak, E.L.; Stephan, A.; Jensen, C.A. Evaluating the Life Cycle Energy Benefits of Energy Efficiency Regulations
for Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,63, 435–451. [CrossRef]
9.
Olivier, J.G.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Muntean, M.; Peters, J. Trends in Global CO
2
Emissions; 2015 Report; PBL Publishers:
The Hague, The Netherlands, 2015.
10.
World Steel Association. Steel’s Contribution to a Low Carbon Future and Climate Resilient Societies; World Steel Association:
Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
11.
Yan, H.; Shen, Q.; Fan, L.C.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Building Construction: A Case Study of One
Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2010,45, 949–955. [CrossRef]
12.
Hough, R. Rethinking Timber Buildings Seven Perspectives on the Use of Timber in Building Design and Construction; ARUP:
London, UK, 2019.
13.
Amran, Y.M.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; El-Zeadani, M. Clean Production and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete; A Review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020,251, 119679. [CrossRef]
14.
Hassan, A.; Arif, M.; Shariq, M. Use of Geopolymer Concrete for a Cleaner and Sustainable Environment–A Review of Mechanical
Properties and Microstructure. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,223, 704–728. [CrossRef]
15.
Harte, A.M. Mass Timber–the Emergence of a Modern Construction Material. J. Struct. Integr. Maint.
2017
,2, 121–132. [CrossRef]
16.
Leonard, C.T.; Gaedicke, C.G.; Castronovo, F. Mass Timber Construction: Perceptions of an Emerging Methodology Among San
Francisco Bay Area Construction Professionals. In Proceedings of the 55th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings,
Denver, FL, USA, 10–13 April 2019; pp. 401–408.
17.
Evison, D.C.; Kremer, P.D.; Guiver, J. Mass Timber Construction in Australia and New Zealand—Status, and Economic and
Environmental Influences on Adoption. Wood Fiber Sci. 2018,50, 128–138. [CrossRef]
18. Karacabeyli, E.; Douglas, B. CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber; FPInnovations: Quebec, QC, Canada, 2013.
19.
Van De Kuilen, J.; Ceccotti, A.; Xia, Z.; He, M. Very Tall Wooden Buildings with Cross Laminated Timber. Procedia Eng.
2011
,14,
1621–1628. [CrossRef]
20.
Ong, C. Glue-Laminated Timber (Glulam). In Wood Composites; Ansell. M.P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites
Science and Engineering: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 123–140.
21.
Binational Softwood Lumber Council. Nail Laminated Timber: U.S. Design & Construction Guide v1.0; Binational Softwood Lumber
Council: Surrey, BC, Canada, 2017.
22.
Brownell, B. T3 Becomes the First Modern Tall Wood Building in the U.S. Available online: https://www.architectmagazine.com/
technology/t3-becomes-the-first-modern-tall-wood-building-in-the-us_o (accessed on 20 May 2020).
23.
Sotayo, A.; Bradley, D.; Bather, M.; Sareh, P.; Oudjene, M.; El-Houjeyri, I.; Harte, A.M.; Mehra, S.; O’Ceallaigh, C.; Haller, P.; et al.
Review of State of the Art of Dowel Laminated Timber Members and Densified Wood Materials as Sustainable Engineered Wood
Products for Construction and Building Applications. Dev. Built Environ. 2020,1, 100004. [CrossRef]
24.
Stark, N.; Cai, Z. Wood-Based Composite Materials: Panel Products, Glued Laminated Timber, Structural Composite Lumber, and Wood–
Nonwood Composites; Wood Handbook—Wood as an Engineering Material; United States Department of Agriculture: Madison,
WI, USA, 2010; pp. 1–11.
25.
Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Greenough, R.; Taylor, S.; Ozawa-Meida, L.; Acquaye, A. Operational vs. Embodied Emissions in Buildings—
A Review of Current Trends. Energy Build. 2013,66, 232–245. [CrossRef]
26. Krug, D.; Miles, J. Offsite Construction: Sustainability Characteristics; Build Offsite: London, UK, 2013.
27.
Wood Solutions Forte Living. Available online: https://www.woodsolutions.com.au/case-studies/forte-living (accessed on
17 September 2020).
28.
Liu, Y.; Guo, H.; Sun, C.; Chang, W.-S. Assessing Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) as an Alternative Material for Mid-Rise
Residential Buildings in Cold Regions in China—A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Sustainability 2016,8, 1047. [CrossRef]
29.
Guo, H.; Liu, Y.; Chang, W.-S.; Shao, Y.; Sun, C. Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction in the Operation Stage of Cross Laminated
Timber Residential Buildings in China. Sustainability 2017,9, 292. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 22 of 24
30.
Durlinger, B.; Crossin, E.; Wong, J.P.C. Life Cycle Assessment of a Cross Laminated Timber Building; RMIT University: Melbourne,
Australia, 2013.
31.
Tup
˙
enait
˙
e, L.; Žil
˙
enait
˙
e, V.; Kanapeckien
˙
e, L.; Sajjadian, S.M.; Geˇcys, T.; Sakalauskien
˙
e, L.; Naimaviˇcien
˙
e, J. Multiple Criteria
Assessment of High-Rise Timber Buildings. Eng. Struct. Technol. 2020,11, 87–94. [CrossRef]
32.
Williams, J Building of the Week: Brock Commons Tallwood House. Available online: https://earthbound.report/2018/06/01
/building-of-the-week-brock-commons-tallwood-house/ (accessed on 6 April 2020).
33.
Connolly, T.; Loss, C.; Iqbal, A.; Tannert, T. Feasibility Study of Mass-Timber Cores for the UBC Tall Wood Building. Buildings
2018,8, 98. [CrossRef]
34.
Michael Green Architecture T3 Minneapolis. Available online: http://mg-architecture.ca/work/t3-minneapolis/ (accessed on
20 May 2020).
35.
Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M.; Fereday, G.; Reynolds, T.; Shah, D.U.; Wu, G.; Yu, L.; Fleming, P.; Densley-Tingley,
D.; et al. The Wood from the Trees: The Use of Timber in Construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017
,68, 333–359. [CrossRef]
36.
Lehmann, S. Low Carbon Construction Systems Using Prefabricated Engineered Solid Wood Panels for Urban Infill to Significantly
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013,6, 57–67. [CrossRef]
37.
Pasternack, R.; Wishnie, M.; Clarke, C.; Wang, Y.; Belair, E.; Marshall, S.; Gu, H.; Nepal, P.; Dolezal, F.; Lomax, G. What Is the
Impact of Mass Timber Utilization on Climate and Forests? Sustainability 2022,14, 758. [CrossRef]
38.
Nepal, P.; Johnston, C.M.; Ganguly, I. Effects on Global Forests and Wood Product Markets of Increased Demand for Mass Timber.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13943. [CrossRef]
39.
Michael Green. The Case for Tall Wood Buildings: How Mass Timber Offers a Safe, Economical, and Environmentally Friendly Alternative
for Tall Building Structures; Michael Green Architecture: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2017.
40.
World Vision 2017 Mexico Earthquakes: Facts, FAQS, and How to Help. Available online: https://www.worldvision.org/
disaster-relief-news-stories/2017-mexico-earthquakes-facts (accessed on 5 July 2020).
41.
Stepinac, M.; Šušteršiˇc, I.; Gavri´c, I.; Rajˇci´c, V. Seismic Design of Timber Buildings: Highlighted Challenges and Future Trends.
Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 1380. [CrossRef]
42.
Ceccotti, A. New Technologies for Construction of Medium-Rise Buildings in Seismic Regions: The XLAM Case. Struct. Eng. Int.
2008,18, 156–165. [CrossRef]
43.
Ceccotti, A.; Sandhaas, C.; Okabe, M.; Yasumura, M.; Minowa, C.; Kawai, N. SOFIE Project–3D Shaking Table Test on a
Seven-Storey Full-Scale Cross-Laminated Timber Building. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013,42, 2003–2021. [CrossRef]
44.
Shahnewaz, M.; Tannert, T.; Alam, M.S.; Popovski, M. Seismic Performance of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Platform Building
by Incremental Dynamic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 39th IABSE Symposium, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–23 September 2017; Volume 109, pp. 422–428.
45.
Timmers, M.; Jacobs, A.T. Concrete Apartment Tower in Los Angeles Reimagined in Mass Timber. Eng. Struct.
2018
,167,
716–724. [CrossRef]
46.
Izzi, M.; Casagrande, D.; Bezzi, S.; Pasca, D.; Follesa, M.; Tomasi, R. Seismic Behaviour of Cross-Laminated Timber Structures:
A State-of-the-Art Review. Eng. Struct. 2018,170, 42–52. [CrossRef]
47.
Popovski, M.; Mohammad, M.; Ni, C.; Rezai, M.; Below, K.; Malczyk, R.; Sherstobitoff, J. Design and Construction of Tall Wood
Buildings: Input Data, Testing and Advanced Analysis. In Proceedings of the 13st World Conference on Timber Engineering
(WCTE 2014), Quebec, QC, Canada, 10–14 August 2014.
48.
Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Probabilistic Serviceability-Performance Assessment of Tall
Mass-Timber Buildings Subjected to Stochastic Wind Loads: Part I-Structural Design and Wind Tunnel Testing. J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 2018,181, 85–103. [CrossRef]
49.
Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Probabilistic Serviceability-Performance Assessment of Tall
Mass-Timber Buildings Subjected to Stochastic Wind Loads: Part II—Structural Reliability Analysis. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
2018,181, 112–125. [CrossRef]
50.
Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Dynamic Response of Tall Mass-Timber Buildings to Wind
Excitation. J. Struct. Eng. 2020,146, 04020199. [CrossRef]
51.
Bezabeh, M.A.; Gairola, A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Structural Performance of Multi-Story Mass-Timber
Buildings under Tornado-like Wind Field. Eng. Struct. 2018,177, 519–539. [CrossRef]
52.
Schmid, J.; Just, A.; Klippel, M.; Fragiacomo, M. The Reduced Cross-Section Method for Evaluation of the Fire Resistance of
Timber Members: Discussion and Determination of the Zero-Strength Layer. Fire Technol. 2015,51, 1285–1309. [CrossRef]
53.
Hasburgh, L.; Bourne, K.; Dagenais, C.; Ranger, L.; Roy-Poirier, A. Fire Performance of Mass-Timber Encapsulation Methods
and the Effect of Encapsulation on Char Rate of Cross-Laminated Timber. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber
Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016; p. 10.
54.
Muszy´nski, L.; Gupta, R.; hyun Hong, S.; Osborn, N.; Pickett, B. Fire Resistance of Unprotected Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)
Floor Assemblies Produced in the USA. Fire Saf. J. 2019,107, 126–136. [CrossRef]
55. Östman, B.; Brandon, D.; Frantzich, H. Fire Safety Engineering in Timber Buildings. Fire Saf. J. 2017,91, 11–20. [CrossRef]
56.
Frangi, A.; Fontana, M.; Knobloch, M. Fire Design Concepts for Tall Timber Buildings. Struct. Eng. Int.
2008
,18, 148–155. [CrossRef]
57. Klippel, M.; Schmid, J. Design of Cross-Laminated Timber in Fire. Struct. Eng. Int. 2017,27, 224–230. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 23 of 24
58.
Frangi, A.; Fontana, M.; Hugi, E.; Jübstl, R. Experimental Analysis of Cross-Laminated Timber Panels in Fire. Fire Saf. J.
2009
,44,
1078–1087. [CrossRef]
59.
Lineham, S.A.; Thomson, D.; Bartlett, A.I.; Bisby, L.A.; Hadden, R.M. Structural Response of Fire-Exposed Cross-Laminated
Timber Beams under Sustained Loads. Fire Saf. J. 2016,85, 23–34. [CrossRef]
60.
Hadden, R.M.; Bartlett, A.I.; Hidalgo, J.P.; Santamaria, S.; Wiesner, F.; Bisby, L.A.; Deeny, S.; Lane, B. Effects of Exposed Cross
Laminated Timber on Compartment Fire Dynamics. Fire Saf. J. 2017,91, 480–489. [CrossRef]
61.
Klippel, M.; Leyder, C.; Frangi, A.; Fontana, M.; Lam, F.; Ceccotti, A. Fire Tests on Loaded Cross-Laminated Timber Wall and
Floor Elements. Fire Saf. Sci. 2014,11, 626–639. [CrossRef]
62.
Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Mei, F.; Liao, J.; Li, W. Experimental and Numerical Analysis on Fire Behaviour of Loaded Cross-Laminated
Timber Panels. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2020,23, 22–36. [CrossRef]
63.
Schmid, J.; Klippel, M.; Just, A.; Frangi, A. Review and Analysis of Fire Resistance Tests of Timber Members in Bending, Tension
and Compression with Respect to the Reduced Cross-Section Method. Fire Saf. J. 2014,68, 81–99. [CrossRef]
64.
Osborne, L.; Dagenais, C.; Bénichou, N. Preliminary CLT Fire Resistance Testing Report; FPInnovations: Quebec, QC, Canada, 2012.
65.
Ni, Z.P.; Qiu, P.F. Experimental Study on Fire Resistance Performance of Glulam Beams. Appl. Mech. Mater.
2012
,193, 539–543. [CrossRef]
66.
Aguanno, M. Fire Resistance Tests on Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Panels: An Experimental and Numerical Analysis. Ph.D.
Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013.
67.
McDonnell, E.; Jones, B. Performance-Based Engineering Provides Path to More Compelling Mass Timber Projects. Technol. Archit. Des.
2020,4, 9–13. [CrossRef]
68.
Wang, J.Y.; Stirling, R.; Morris, P.I.; Taylor, A.; Lloyed, J.; Kirker, G.; Lebow, S.; Mankowski, M.E. Durability of Mass Timber
Structures: A Review of the Biological Risks. Wood Fiber Sci. 50 110-127 2018,50, 110–127. [CrossRef]
69.
Strobel, K.; Nyrud, A.Q.; Bysheim, K. Interior Wood Use: Linking User Perceptions to Physical Properties. Scand. J. For. Res.
2017
,
32, 798–806. [CrossRef]
70.
Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environ. Behav.
2001
,33,
343–367. [CrossRef]
71.
Tarran, J. People and Trees, Providing Benefits, Overcoming Impediments. In Proceedings of the 10th National Street Tree
Symposium, Adelaide, Australia, 3–4 September 2009; Adelaide University: Adelaide, Australia, 2009; pp. 63–82.
72.
Van Dillen, S.M.; de Vries, S.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Greenspace in Urban Neighbourhoods and Residents’ Health:
Adding Quality to Quantity. J. Epidemiol Community Health 2012,66, e8. [CrossRef]
73.
Nyrud, A.Q.; Bringslimark, T. Is Interior Wood Use Psychologically Beneficial? A Review of Psychological Responses toward
Wood. Wood Fiber Sci. 2010,42, 202–218.
74.
Yin, J.; Zhu, S.; MacNaughton, P.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Physiological and Cognitive Performance of Exposure to Biophilic
Indoor Environment. Build. Environ. 2018,132, 255–262. [CrossRef]
75.
Grinde, B.; Patil, G.G. Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health
2009,6, 2332–2343. [CrossRef]
76.
Fell, D.R. Wood in the Human Environment: Restorative Properties of Wood in the Built Indoor Environment. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010.
77. Ikei, H.; Song, C.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological Effects of Wood on Humans: A Review. J. Wood Sci. 2017,63, 1–23. [CrossRef]
78.
Jo, H.; Song, C.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological Benefits of Viewing Nature: A Systematic Review of Indoor Experiments. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 4739. [CrossRef]
79.
Schweizer, C.; Edwards, R.D.; Bayer-Oglesby, L.; Gauderman, W.J.; Ilacqua, V.; Juhani Jantunen, M.; Lai, H.K.; Nieuwenhuijsen,
M.; Künzli, N. Indoor Time–Microenvironment–Activity Patterns in Seven Regions of Europe. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.
2007,17, 170–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Augustin, S.; Fell, D. Wood as a Restorative Material in Healthcare Environments; FPInnovations: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2015.
81.
Burnard, M.D.; Kutnar, A. Wood and Human Stress in the Built Indoor Environment: A Review. Wood Sci. Technol.
2015
,49,
969–986. [CrossRef]
82.
Rametsteiner, E.; Oberwimmer, R.; Gschwandtl, I. Europeans and Wood. What Do Europeans Think about Wood and Its Uses? A Review
of Consumer and Business Surveys in Europe; Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: Warsaw, Poland, 2007.
83.
Kelz, C.; Grote, V.; Moser, M. Interior Wood Use in Classrooms Reduces Pupils’ Stress Levels. In Proceedings of the 9th Biennial
Conference on Environmental Psychology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 26–28 September 2011.
84.
Zhang, X.; Lian, Z.; Wu, Y. Human Physiological Responses to Wooden Indoor Environment. Physiol. Behav.
2017
,174, 27–34. [CrossRef]
85.
Ritchie, L.; Stephan, A. Engineered Timber for Apartment Buildings in Melbourne, Australia: A Construction Cost Comparison
with Traditional Concrete Systems. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association,
Melbourne, Australia, 28 November–1 December 2018; pp. 161–168.
86.
Espinoza, O.; Trujillo, V.R.; Mallo, M.F.L.; Buehlmann, U. Cross-Laminated Timber: Status and Research Needs in Europe.
BioResources 2015,11, 281–295. [CrossRef]
87.
Arora, S.K.; Foley, R.W.; Youtie, J.; Shapira, P.; Wiek, A. Drivers of Technology Adoption—The Case of Nanomaterials in Building
Construction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014,87, 232–244. [CrossRef]
88.
Mallo, M.F.L.; Espinoza, O. Cross-Laminated Timber vs. Concrete/Steel: Cost Comparison Using a Case Study. In Proceedings of
the World Conference on Timber Engineering–WCTE, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016.
Sustainability 2022,14, 5570 24 of 24
89.
Yates, M.; Linegar, M.; Dujiˇc, B. Design of an 8 Storey Residential Tower from KLH Cross Laminated Solid Timber Panels. In
Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Miyazaki, Japan, 2–5 June 2008; pp. 2189–2196.
90.
Fanella, D. Cost Comparison of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) and Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Structures. Concr.
Reinf. Steel Inst. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330000050_Cost_Comparison_of_Cross_
Laminated_Timber_CLT_and_Cast-in-place_Reinforced_Concrete_Structures (accessed on 19 March 2022).
91.
WoodSolutions. Rethinking Office Construction—Consider Timber; Forest and Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2017.
92.
Byle, D. Designing with Cross Laminated Timber. The Wood Products Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Available online:
http://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/W-WS-11-2012-Byle-CLT.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2020).
93.
Scouse, A.; Kelley, S.S.; Liang, S.; Bergman, R. Regional and Net Economic Impacts of High-Rise Mass Timber Construction in
Oregon. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020,61, 102154. [CrossRef]
94.
Smith, R.E.; Griffin, G.; Rice, T.; Hagehofer-Daniell, B. Mass Timber: Evaluating Construction Performance. Archit. Eng.
Des. Manag. 2018,14, 127–138. [CrossRef]
95.
Kremer, P.; Symmons, M. Mass Timber Construction as an Alternative to Concrete and Steel in the Australia Building Industry:
A PESTEL Evaluation of the Potential. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2015,6, 138–147. [CrossRef]
96.
Mallo, M.F.L.; Espinoza, O. Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt Cross-Laminated Timber by the Architecture
Community in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,94, 198–210. [CrossRef]
97.
Wilson, M.; Kosmatka, S.H. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures: The Guide to Applications, Methods, and Materials, 5th ed.;
Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL, USA, 2011.
98.
Oregon, B.E.S.T. Advanced Wood Product Manufacturing Study for Cross-Laminated Timber Acceleration in Oregon & SW Washington;
Economic Development Administration, US Department of Commerce: Portland, OR, USA, 2017.
99.
Cazemier, D.S. Comparing Cross Laminated Timber with Concrete and Steel: A Financial Analysis of Two Buildings in Australia.
In Proceedings of the Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit, Shanghai, China, 10–12 November 2017; pp. 184–196.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
