Content uploaded by Dele Simeon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dele Simeon on Jul 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation
2024 7(2):93-111
DOI 10.31462/jcemi.2024.02093111
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Correspondence Dele Roger Simeon dsimeon@unilag.edu.ng
eISSN 2630-5771 © 2024 Authors. Publishing services by Golden Light Publishing®.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) and the potential for adoption in
construction projects
Dele Roger Simeon 1, Olatunji Joseph Oladiran 1, Oluwole Otufowora 2, David
Gabriel 1
1 University of Lagos, Department of Building, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos-state, Nigeria
2 Olabisi Onabanjo University, Department of Building, Ago-iwoye, Ogun-state, Nigeria
Article History
Abstract
Received
Accepted
23 November 2023
12 June 2024
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a versatile and eco-friendly building material that may
be utilized in a variety of applications. It is however rarely utilized on construction
projects in Nigeria. Thus, the study sought to establish the level of adoption of CLT and
identify key drivers to its adoption in the Nigerian construction industry in an attempt to
keep up with the global trend of adopting more sustainable construction practices and
materials. A survey research approach was employed to gather data from 137
construction professionals who were selected using the snowball sampling technique in
Lagos and Ogun States, Nigeria. A structured questionnaire instrument was designed to
gather data from the respondents. A combination of Microsoft Excel and the Statistical
Packages for Social Sciences was the software used to aid data analysis. The statistical
tools deployed for the analysis were frequency, percentages, percentage mean adoption,
relative importance index, and ranking. The findings revealed that the top four highly
important drivers for the adoption of CLT are aesthetics, prefabrication, lightweight, and
cost competitiveness. Besides, the findings also revealed that CLT was mostly applied as
partition walls, door leaves, shelving units, and countertops. The study conclude
s that
CLT is not engaged in as many as 20 building areas and components. This indicates that
the construction industry is yet to embrace the eco-friendly features of CLT in building
projects. The study therefore recommends that practitioners should endeavor to employ
CLT in the building areas and components where they are not engaged to fully optimize
CLT’s eco-friendliness in building projects. This may be accomplished by conducting
workshops, and trainings as well as domesticating the necessary technologies to fully
harness its potential.
Keywords
Adoption
Alternative building metarial
Construction project
Cross-laminated timber
Sustainability
1. Introduction
The construction industry contributes to global
greenhouse gas emissions and consumes a
significant amount of energy [1]. According to [2],
the industry accounts for about 40% of total CO2
emissions into the atmosphere. In a bid to
ameliorate environmental impacts on construction,
more recently, attention and resources have been
directed towards the development of alternative
building materials (ABMs). According to [3],
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 94
ABMs include the avoidance of dangerous
elements in construction that may impair the
environment, and human health, and recycling
possibilities as a crucial element of good building
materials. These features make ABMs desirable not
just for housing in developed countries, but also for
use in humanitarian engineering projects in
developing countries. It is useful to note that not all
ABMs are sustainable. [4] corroborates that
sustainable construction materials must meet the
following criteria energy efficiency and cost, indoor
air quality and efficiency, a high recycled content,
and fast renewable resources with minimal
emission potential. Some examples of sustainable
ABMs include bamboo, straw bales, compressed
earth blocks, and Ferrock cement among others [5].
One of the most promising sustainable ABMs
receiving a lot of research and commercial attention
in recent years is cross laminated timber (CLT)
otherwise known as X-LAM. CLT is a subcategory
of engineered wood products (EWPs) collectively
regarded as mass timber. According to [6], Mass
Timber Construction is an umbrella word that
incorporates particular materials such as Glued
Laminated Timber (GLULAM), Laminated Veneer
Lumber (LVL), and CLT. CLT is an EWP produced
via stacking multiple layers of timber at right angles
and joining them by applying structural adhesives.
[7, 8] opine that CLT is an excellent substitute for
traditional concrete and masonry construction for
being an environmentally friendly prefabricated
solution and has been gaining popularity in
construction industries across the globe. [9] opines
that CLT has evolved into a well-known and
adaptable construction material across the world.
Over the past decade, a lot of studies have been
carried out on CLT. [10] note that countries that
have adopted CLT technology include Australia
and New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, the
European Union, Japan, South Africa, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. In this regard, [11]
carried out a study on the suitability of CLT for
high-rise building construction in Australia. In their
review of CLT in China, [12] highlighted the
development of China’s CLT-bamboo hybrid.
Also, studies conducted by various researchers such
as [6, 13, 14, 15], posit CLT as a sustainable
material for the future that does not have limitations
associated with concrete and steel and is relatively
easily integrated into current construction practices.
[16] proposed that CLT will be the future of timber
construction in Nigeria. There are several factors
driving the adoption of CLT on construction
projects. Some of the drivers for the adoption of
CLT have been discussed by [8, 11, 13]. For
instance, [8] opined that CLT panels are extensively
utilized in mass-timber multistorey structures due
to their prefabrication, flexibility, environmental
credentials, and superior weight-to-strength ratio
compared to other building materials. Yet, as a
result of the hygroscopic behaviour of Timber, it is
susceptible to biodegradation. Meanwhile, [11]
reckoned that CLT incorporates coherence,
moisture content, variation, and cellular structure to
offer benefits over timber. The authors further note
that CLT offers excellent thermal insulative
properties than reinforced concrete; reduces on-site
noise pollution, erection time, waste; lightweight;
moderate fire resistance; releases oxygen and time
savings as a result of its pre-fabricated design but
however constrained in averting last-minute design
modifications; unfavorable user impression of
environment, fire safety, and stability; and access to
the cost implications of CLT is limited. Meanwhile,
[13] believed CLT may be used to construct mid-
and high-rise structures because of its carbon-
negative qualities; and less primary energy
consumed from non-renewable sources than
GLULAM and LVL. However, the authors believe
that the primary obstacles to a broader adoption of
CLT remain uncertainties surrounding the material.
These studies and more like this have spurred
the development and adoption of CLT for building
construction globally. Despite previous studies
establishing CLT as a suitable and structurally
sound ABM in building construction and the
suitability of locally sourced wood species for its
production, the Nigerian construction industry has
been slow to implement sustainable building
construction practices [17]. This is so because the
usage of concrete and steel as construction
materials dominates the Nigerian construction
95 D.R. Simeon et al.
industry, with little consideration given to
sustainable materials. Thus, the study aims to
appraise the level of adoption of cross-laminated
timber in the Nigerian building industry with the
intention of promoting the use of sustainable
alternative building materials among built
environment professionals on construction projects.
The study’s objectives are to identify drivers for the
adoption of CLT and determine the level of
adoption of CLT in construction projects. The study
is significant because it provides data that can be
used to support policies and strategies aimed at
increasing the use of CLT, as well as to highlight
areas for improvement.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Drivers for the adoption of CLT
Given its advantages over other ABMs in terms of
prefabrication, construction flexibility,
environmental credentials, and weight-to-strength
ratio, CLTs are frequently utilized in mass-timber
multi-story buildings [8]. [18] note that CLT may
function well as the material of the future by virtue
of its low-carbon characteristics and advantages of
affordable prices and efficient structural features to
be taken into consideration in tall buildings,
especially due to effects against fire, wind, and
earthquakes. In this regard, [19] investigated the
environmental advantages of using wood for
construction, and there is a consensus that when
forests are managed sustainably, wood is carbon-
neutral and serves as a repository for carbon, either
as growing stock or as a product with added value.
While [13] is of the view that the peculiar qualities
of mass timber allow it to char rather than burn.
Another driver of CLT is that walls and floors are
delivered directly from the mills to construction
sites. As a result, CLT material reduces total
construction time, rendering CLT work less
harmful to the environment and the nearby residents
[20]. Besides, CLT has superior thermal
characteristics to steel, concrete, and even existing
kinds of insulation such as mineral wool [11, 13, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. [27] averred that CLT and other
timber-based products outperform conventional
construction materials in terms of energy
conservation and carbon reduction. Meanwhile,
[13] adds that CLT is a lightweight panel and its
lack of mass means that vibrations pass more easily
through it and can also travel from floors into walls,
known as flanking transmission. These drivers are
further summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Application of CLT on building
construction projects
Due to the rising demand for ecologically friendly
building materials and the expansion of global
development, EWPs have become more widely
adopted on a global scale [51, 52]. In this regard,
construction is being revolutionized by the adoption
of CLT thereby providing a robust, durable, and
adaptable replacement for conventional materials.
More recently, CLT has been used by Architects
and Builders to produce cutting-edge, green
buildings and has become a feasible construction
material for structural purposes [53]. [20] opine
CLT is a versatile and lightweight building material
that may be used for both small and large-scale
construction projects, including detached homes,
wooden multi-story buildings, and public building
projects. [54] corroborates that CLT can be utilized
effectively in prefabricated and modular systems to
create single- and multi-family housing, multi-story
residential housing (condominiums), schools,
office buildings, medical facilities, industrial
buildings, agricultural buildings, the addition of
newly built stories, urban aggregation and
infrastructures, and infrastructure for tourism and
leisure. Meanwhile, [55, 56] posit that CLT has
considerable potential for multi-storey structures
and high-rise buildings as a building material for
structural purposes. In a similar vein, [57] asserts
that prefabricated buildings, bridge structures, and
multi-story buildings can all benefit from the use of
CLT.
In this regard, [9] note that a CLT product may
be used as a full-size wall and floor element as well
as a linear timber member that can support loads
both in-plane and out-of-plane owing to its
orthogonal, laminar structure.
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 96
Table 1. Summary of findings for studies on drivers of CLT
Drivers
Description
Library source
Cost-effectiveness
- The cost-effectiveness and load-bearing strength of CLT make it
ideal for tall structures with wide spans.
- CLT's lighter weight lowers foundation and transportation
expenses.
- Costs are expected to decrease as design familiarity and local
CLT supply grow.
- CLT allows for up to a 30% decrease in construction time, which
greatly cuts on-site labor costs.
[28]
[29]
[11, 22]
[21]
Design flexibility
- Increasing the thickness of CLT panels allows for larger spans
with lesser internal supports.
- CLT may be modified using basic tools when necessary.
- Similar to concrete slabs, 9-inch CLT panels may span up to 25
feet.
- Greater architectural flexibility in the arrangement of areas in the
design and layout of openings.
[21]
[11]
[23, 30]
[31]
Fast installation
- Faster occupancy and cheaper capital expenses are the outcomes
of the shorter assembly time.
- Savings in time due to prefabricated design.
- Maximize off-site work, reducing noise, waste, and congestion
for efficiency.
- Mechanical fastening technologies are employed in the assembly
of CLT panels.
- CLT changes the design from "Frame" to "Plates".
- CLT floor construction might take up to four days, compared to
21 days for concrete.
[21, 22]
[11]
[32, 33]
[22]
[34]
[35]
Fire
resistance/performance
- The tightness between panels keeps smoke and fire from
spreading and causing damage in certain locations.
- Because CLT panels burn slowly, their thick cross section offers
considerable fire protection.
- CLT provides superior fire resistance.
- Using a 7-inch-thick CLT wall specimen, the ASTM E119 fire
resistance test took three hours, five minutes, and 57 seconds.
[36]
[21, 22]
[37]
[38]
Thermal
performance/energy
efficiency
- CLT is very energy-efficient and capable of storing both heat
energy and moisture.
- The panel's thermal performance improves with increasing
thickness.
- CLT panels provide better insulation and lower U values,
lowering heating and cooling costs.
- CLT outperforms steel and concrete in terms of thermal
characteristics.
- HVAC and lighting expenditures are reduced by 10% with a CLT
construction.
- CLT provides a tighter structure with fewer air leaks, enhancing
the thermal performance of the building.
- The R-value of a 7-inch thick CLT panel would be roughly
8ft2ofhr/Btu
[27]
[21]
[22]
[24]
[39]
[40]
[41]
97 D.R. Simeon et al.
Table 1. Cont’d
Environmental
advantages/Eco-
friendliness
- Decrease in the construction's overall environmental effect,
including recycling and disposal.
- In terms of embodied energy, water pollution, and air pollution,
CLT performs better than steel and concrete.
- CLT has a lower carbon impact since wood absorbs carbon from
growing trees.
- Wood production emits less greenhouse gases.
- Users associate greener buildings with healthier lives.
- CLT buildings use less energy to operate.
- CLT is an environmentally friendly, recyclable, and sustainable
building material with extended durability.
[27]
[21, 39, 42]
[43]
[22]
[11]
[39]
[27]
Less waste
- CLTs are designed for specific uses, resulting in minimal or no
worksite waste.
- Manufacturers can use manufacturing leftovers into staircases and
other architectural features.
[21]
[32]
Wind loads/seismic
performance
- Given its high strength-to-weight ratio, CLT structures can resist
earthquakes with high seismic intensity.
- A CLT-based structure resists lateral stresses.
- Seismic energy is dissipated via fastening systems.
- After being tested in an earthquake simulator, CLT constructions
revealed no lasting deformation.
- CLT operates exceedingly well in multi-story applications, with
negligible residual deformation.
[44]
[11]
[45]
[46]
[21].
Acoustic performance
- CLT is considered a strong alternative to heavy-weight structures.
- Airborne and impact sound transmission is well controlled by
CLT structures.
- The higher the mass of a CCLT panel, the better its acoustic
performance.
[27]
[21]
[13]
Reduced weight
- CLT panels have a greater load-bearing capability relative to their
own weight than the majority of conventional building materials.
- CLT weighs approximately four times less than concrete.
- CLT weighs up to 30% less than concrete and steel equivalents.
[27]
[21, 29]
[11, 47]
Structural performance
- The most essential feature of CLT is its high strength-to-weight
ratio.
- Buildings as tall as 150mm might be designed using a
combination of CLT and concrete.
- The stiffness of CLT panels is determined by the homogeneity of
the individual layers.
- CLT panels perform effectively as load-bearing plates and shear
panels due to their cross-laminated structure.
[6, 31]
[48]
[49]
[50]
As a result of its strength and stiffness in two
directions provided by the resultant alternating
grain directions, [58] asserts that CLT is a suitable
panel for two-way spanning slabs, walls, and
diaphragms. Studies done in the past on the usage
of CLT goods have shown that this invention is still
not being widely used since its capabilities,
qualities, and prices are not well understood [24, 51,
59]. In their study, [60] established that CLT floors
can match the load-bearing capacities of reinforced
concrete (RC) floors with only a little difference in
overall thickness. It is in this regard that [12, 56]
note that the mechanical and physical
characteristics of CLT are better than those of other
types of manufactured wood products, such as
glued laminated timber, oriented strand board, and
laminated veneer lumber.
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 98
Furthermore, [61] conducted a life cycle
analysis for CLT and discovered that CLT can store
carbon while avoiding greenhouse gas emissions,
resulting in 34-84% lesser climate change impacts
than reinforced concrete structures. Thus, CLT is
adjudged environmentally sustainable [62]. To this
end, this literature review of CLT has highlighted
numerous driving factors and benefits, such as
structural performance, aesthetic appeal,
lightweight attribute, sustainability, amid other
factors. Notwithstanding its positive attributes,
obstacles including cost implications, regulatory
difficulties, and low market awareness still exist.
However, an optimistic trajectory for CLT's
widespread use in building construction is
suggested by the growing acknowledgment of its
benefits. CLT has the potential to completely
transform the built environment and provide
solutions to built environment problems, provided
practitioners and regulators are willing to imbibe
sustainability culture.
3. Methodology
A cross-sectional research design was employed in
the study. [63] defines survey research as an
established quantitative technique that investigates
the views, attitudes, or experiences of one or more
groups of individuals. Lagos and Ogun states were
chosen as research areas because they have a
significant number of built
professionals/organizations and a substantial
number of active construction operations.
Specifically, Lagos state is evolving into a megacity
and Nigeria's commercial centre. Other bordering
southwest states, such as Ogun, translate the
developmental activities of Lagos. A structured
self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain
data from construction professionals who were
familiar with CLT and had been involved in the
usage of the material for building work.
The snowball sampling approach was used to
sample 137 construction professionals, including
architects, builders, engineers, estate surveyors, and
quantity surveyors who are acquainted with CLT
and have used it. Given that CLT is not a commonly
utilized construction material, the snowball
sampling approach was used to draw its sample.
Furthermore, the lack of a list of CLT contractors
or organizations from which a scientifically
determined sample frame could be adopted enabled
investigators to rely on respondent referrals to
recruit additional participants. Initially, just a few
participants who fit the selection criteria and had
used CLT were discovered. Until the final
participant is met, the recognized responses provide
referrals to those who have utilized the material.
According to [64], the snowball sampling approach
is a non-probability sampling strategy that may be
used when a researcher is attempting to discover
samples of a population that are not easy to identify.
The questionnaire instrument comprised closed-
ended questions. Using a scale of 1 to 5, seventeen
important drivers to the adoption of CLT were
assessed. Where 1 denotes unimportant, 2 denotes
slightly important, 3 denotes moderately important,
4 denotes more important, and 5 denotes very
important. Moreover, the study established the level
of adoption of CLT in 36 common areas of
application. Each of the projects was scored on a
rating scale of 1-10, with participants asked to
identify areas on the project where CLT has been
applied in the last five years. The data were checked
for errors and completeness at the end of the survey
period before coding and analysis began. To aid the
data, the Microsoft Excel Package and Statistical
Packages for Social Science (SPSS Version, 23.0)
were used. Statistical tools of analysis such as
frequency tables, percentages, relative importance
index (RII), percentage mean adoption (PMA) and
ranking were the tools of analysis for the
descriptive results.
The survey instrument was divided into 3
sections. Section A focused on the demographics of
the respondents. The study’s demographics were
analyzed using frequency and percentages. Section
B seeks to encompass drivers for the adoption of
CLT on building projects. This was analyzed using
the RII.
The RII was calculated using the formula in
Equation 1:
RII = ∑W
A × N
(1)
99 D.R. Simeon et al.
Where:
W = weight given to each factor by the
respondents and ranges from 1-5
A = the highest weight = 5
N = the total number of respondents
The RII score varies between 0 and 1. Each
factor's resulting value provides an indication of its
level of implementation [65].
Section C seeks to establish the professionals’
level of adoption of CLT on building projects. This
was analyzed using the PMA equation. The PMA
was calculated using the formula in Equation 2:
PMA of each area
=
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠
𝐶𝐿𝑇 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠
𝐶𝐿𝑇 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
×100%
(2)
4. Results
4.1. Demographic profile of respondents
Table 2 shows the demographic information of the
respondents and has been divided into eight:
profession; educational qualification; professional
affiliation; years of experience; organization
practice; organization size; ownership type; and
nature of business. It can be seen that majority
(29.9%) of the participants were architects, while
the estate surveyors and valuers constituted the least
percentage (12.4%) of professions surveyed. This
result on Architects constituting a larger proportion
of respondents validates the significant role
Architects play during building procurement.
Moreover, Architects are usually the first point of
contact between potential construction industry
clients and other professionals. In terms of
educational qualification, the highest number of the
respondents are qualified with a Bachelor’s degree
(30.7%), while the lowest number of respondents
have a Doctorate Degree (3.6%). The results
indicate that the respondents have received
extensive formal education and specialized
knowledge in their respective fields, making them
more capable of understanding complex issues and
providing thoughtful responses to the research
questionnaire. In terms of professional affiliation,
the highest (29.9%) of respondents were affiliated
with the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA),
while the least numbers of professionals (12.4%)
were affiliated to the Nigerian Institution of Estate
Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV). This result shows
that all respondents were members of their
respective professional organizations, indicating a
commitment to professional standards and
accountability. In terms of years of experience, a
vast majority (70.8%) of the respondents had over
5 years of experience in the construction industry,
while the least (29.2%) of the respondents had 1-5
years of experience. The results indicate that the
professionals possess adequate experience in the
industry and can provide accurate responses to the
study. In terms of organizational practice, 31.4% of
the respondents work in consulting organizations,
while 68.6% work in contracting organizations. The
significant engagement of contracting businesses is
a desirable trend since they are more actively
involved in the building construction process and
have more interactions with a range of building
materials. As a result, their views are more crucial
to the issue under investigation. Besides, majority
of the participants (94.8%) work in construction
micro-small-medium enterprises (CMSMEs), the
least (5.1%) of the respondents work in large-scale
construction enterprises. The CMSEMs constitute
the greatest number of responses since they are
often more accessible and receptive to research
surveys; this might be due to reduced bureaucracy
in their organizational system. In terms of the
respondents’ organizational type, 89.1% are fully
indigenous, while 10.9% are partly indigenous and
partly expatriate. The large participation of fully
indigenous respondents is crucial to the study's
focus on CLT adoption in Nigeria as it demands an
indigenous perspective. In terms of the nature of
business in the respondents’ organizations, a larger
number of the organizations surveyed (46%)
execute residential buildings, while the least (0.7%)
execute public/cultural buildings). The findings
revealed that a greater emphasis should be placed
on the usage of CLT in residential and commercial
construction projects since it has greater acceptance
among respondents.
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 100
Table 2. Demographic information of the respondents
Description
Frequency (N)
Percentage (%)
Profession
Architect
41
29.9
Builder
26
19.0
Civil/structural Engineer
33
24.1
Quantity Surveyor
20
14.6
Estate Surveyor and Valuer
17
12.4
Total
137
100.0
Educational Qualification
ND
26
19.0
HND
35
25.6
B.Sc.
42
30.7
M.Sc.
29
21.1
Ph.D.
5
3.6
Total
137
100
Professional Affiliation
NIA
41
29.9
NIOB
26
19.0
NSE
33
24.1
NIQS
20
14.6
NIESV
17
12.4
Total
137
100.0
Years of experience
1-5 years
40
29.2
6-10 years
49
35.8
11-15 years
29
21.2
16-20 years
11
8.0
21 years and above
8
5.8
Total
137
100.0
Organization practice
Consulting
43
31.4
Contracting
94
68.6
Total
137
100.0
Organization size
Micro-sized (< 10 employees)
27
19.7
Small-sized (10-49) employees)
45
32.8
Medium-sized (50-249 employees)
58
42.3
Large-sized (>249 employees)
7
5.1
Total
137
100.0
Ownership type
Fully indigenous
122
89.1
Partly indigenous and partly expatriate
15
10.9
Total
137
100.0
Nature of business
Residential building
63
46.0
Commercial building
54
39.4
Institutional building
5
3.6
Industrial building
14
10.2
Public/cultural building
1
0.7
Total
137
100.0
101 D.R. Simeon et al.
4.2. Important drivers for the adoption of CLT
in construction projects
Table 3 sheds light on the viewpoints of experts in
Lagos and Ogun states on the drivers influencing
the adoption of CLT products in construction
projects. The experts were asked to rate the
importance of 17 factors driving the adoption of
CLT in construction projects. For easy assessment,
a decision rule was calibrated to interpret the
results. The decision rule for interpreting the RII
was adapted and modified from [66] using the
scale: 0.76 and above implies highly important
(HI), 0.67 - 0.75 implies important (I), 0.45 - 0.66
implies slightly important (SI), 0.44 and below
implies not important (NI). Findings from Table 3
reveals 17 drivers in varying degree of importance.
Aesthetics (RII = 0.84), allows for prefabrication
and lightweight tied with (RII = 0.82), and cost
competitiveness (RII = 0.80) are “highly important”
to the experts. Besides, structural performance (RII
=0.75), durability (RII = 0.74), recyclable (RII =
0.71), waste reduction (RII = 0.71), waste reduction
(RII = 0.69), and improved site safety (RII = 0.68)
are “important” to the experts. While, resource
efficiency, quick and easy installation (RII = 0.64),
design flexibility, and improved indoor air quality
(RII = 0.62), excellent thermal insulation (RII =
0.61), superior fire resistance (RII = 0.58) and
optimum acoustic property (RII = 0.55) are
“slightly important” to the experts. According to the
experts, none of the drivers were "unimportant".
4.3. Adoption of CLT in construction projects
Table 4 displays CLT products’ adoption in
different areas of a building. Thirty-one areas of
possible application of CLT products were
presented to the experts. With a scale of 1-10 for
each project, the experts were asked to identify and
rate the areas in a building where CLT products had
been applied on 10 projects that had been executed
in the last 5 years. The results from Table 4 indicate
that CLT was applied in varying degrees in 16 out
of the possible 36 areas of application. The sixteen
(16) areas and components of the buildings where
CLT is applied include: partition walls, door leaves;
shelving and storage units; table and counter tops;
claddings; ceilings; kitchen cabinets; window
frames; floors; staircases; sunshade and shading
devices; external walls; elevator shafts and cores;
beams; canopies and awnings; and balconies and
railings.
Table 3. Important factors driving the adoption of CLT in construction projects
Important Drivers
1
2
3
4
5
N
SD
RII
R
Remark
Aesthetics
0
0
28
51
58
137
0.764
0.84
1
HI
Allows for prefabrication
0
0
36
49
52
137
0.796
0.82
2
HI
Lightweight
0
4
25
64
44
137
0.786
0.82
2
HI
Cost competitiveness
0
0
37
60
40
137
0.752
0.80
4
HI
Structural performance
0
2
56
39
40
137
0.862
0.75
5
I
Sustainability
0
0
64
37
36
137
0.833
0.74
6
I
Durability
0
0
58
68
11
137
0.624
0.73
7
I
Recyclable
0
0
77
45
15
137
0.686
0.71
8
I
Waste reduction
0
3
77
43
14
137
0.708
0.69
9
I
Improved site safety
0
11
58
64
4
137
0.685
0.68
10
I
Resource efficiency
0
11
70
44
12
137
0.764
0.64
11
SI
Quick and easy installation
0
10
90
28
9
137
0.689
0.64
11
SI
Design flexibility
0
32
69
25
11
137
0.855
0.62
13
SI
Improved indoor air quality
0
44
56
26
11
137
0.915
0.62
13
SI
Excellent thermal insulation
0
28
79
29
1
137
0.669
0.61
15
SI
Superior fire resistance
0
40
78
12
7
137
0.760
0.58
16
SI
Optimum acoustic property
0
57
61
18
1
137
0.712
0.55
17
SI
Note: 1 denotes “not important”, 2 denotes “slightly important”, 3 denotes “moderately important”, 4 denotes “more important” and
5 denotes “most important”, N denotes “Frequency”, S.D denotes “Standard Deviation”, and R denotes “Ranking”.
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 102
Table 4. CLT adoption in construction projects
Areas of Application
F
PMA
Rank
Partition walls
484
21.97
1
Door leaves
357
16.21
2
Shelving and storage units
282
12.8
3
Table and countertops
178
8.08
4
Claddings
174
7.9
5
Ceilings
170
7.72
6
Kitchen cabinets
150
6.81
7
Window frames
134
6.08
8
Floors
66
3
9
Staircases
47
2.13
10
Sunshade and shading devices
44
2
11
Exterior walls
33
1.5
12
Elevator shafts and cores
31
1.41
13
Beams
21
0.95
14
Canopies and awnings
20
0.91
15
Balconies and Railings
12
0.54
16
Mezzanine flooring
0
0
17
Roof panels
0
0
17
Bathroom and vanity tops
0
0
17
Institutional building construction
0
0
17
Fencing
0
0
17
Columns
0
0
17
Roof trusses
0
0
17
Structural insulated panels
0
0
17
Theatre stages
0
0
17
Prefabricated construction
0
0
17
Auditorium seats
0
0
17
Laboratory workbenches
0
0
17
Museum construction
0
0
17
Exhibition booths
0
0
17
Acoustic panels
0
0
17
Multi-story building construction
0
0
17
Guardrails
0
0
17
Bracing elements
0
0
17
Pavilions
0
0
17
Warehouse construction
0
0
17
Total application of CLT
2203
100
Note: F denotes “Frequency of application on the project”, PMA denotes “Percentage Mean Adoption”
The results also show that CLT is mostly used as
partition walls in Nigeria. Besides, CLT is not
applied in as much as twenty (20) building areas
and components. The 20 areas of the building and
components where CLT is not engaged includes
mezzanine flooring, roof panels, bathroom and
vanity tops, institutional building construction,
fencing, columns, roof trusses, structural insulated
panels, theatre stages, prefabricated construction,
auditorium seats, laboratory workbenches, museum
construction, exhibition booths, acoustic panels,
multi-story building construction, guardrails,
bracing elements, pavilions, and warehouse
construction.
103 D.R. Simeon et al.
4.4. Discussion of results
This section discusses the study’s results. The
topmost factor driving the adoption of CLT on
construction projects is aesthetics. Practitioners in
the construction industry admire CLT’s natural and
warm look. The aesthetic characteristic of CLT
accentuates the position of [59] that designers
attach priority to issues such as aesthetics rather
than financial and risk management. Besides,
CLT’s grain patterns and texture enhance the
aesthetic attractiveness of the surface it is applied.
[67] added that aesthetics is a key consideration
when selecting sustainable construction materials.
The prefabrication attribute of CLT is an important
driving factor to the practitioners because CLT
panels are often manufactured off-site in a
controlled industrial environment. This
considerably accelerates the construction process
since the panels can be put together rapidly on-site.
This effectiveness is particularly useful in urban
settings with constrained sites and short project
timelines. These statements affirmed the position of
[54] that CLT is efficiently utilized because it
enables prefabrication and modular systems to
produce multiple building typologies. [59]
substantiated that the utilization of CLT can
accelerate construction completion, leading to
increased income and ROI for owners. In addition,
[12] attributed the factors driving CLT to include
high prefabrication rate, easy shipping, quick
installation, and less environmental harm. [68]
Gasparri et al. (2015) believed that CLT building
projects require around 75% less labor due to its
prefabricated nature. Meanwhile, practitioners
appreciate the lightweight characteristics of CLT
due to the significant reduction in the cost of
foundation and cost savings in transporting
prefabricated panels to construction sites. The result
of the lightweight driver of CLT is in line with the
discoveries of [11, 27, 29, 69] that CLT’s
lightweight attribute lowers foundation and
transportation costs. Thus, ultimately leading to
significant savings in the cost of construction. The
cost-effectiveness feature of CLT arises from
reduced labour and material waste. The findings on
cost competitiveness corroborate the results of [28]
that the cost-effectiveness and load-bearing
strength of CLT make it ideal for tall structures with
wide spans. Moreover, [11, 22] substantiate that
costs are expected to decrease as design familiarity
and local CLT supply grow. Besides, the reduction
in construction time implies lower financing costs.
Hence, making it a cost-effective option for
construction projects. Studies indicate that CLT
panels with a thickness of up to 20 inches, can
maintain structural integrity during fires,
outperforming concrete and steel components [70].
Furthermore, [71] compared a seven-story concrete
structure to a renovated seven-story CLT building
in China and found that the CLT building reduced
CO2 emissions by almost 40%. CLT's natural
insulative features lead to reduced operational
energy costs after construction providing an
additional environmental benefit [72]. Architects
and engineers viewed CLT as a cost-effective and
efficient alternative to existing materials and
procedures [69]. According to [73], adopting CLT
reduces on-site deliveries by 80%, leading to
increased efficiency and cost savings. According to
[74], mass wood buildings are 85% faster to
construct than standard concrete and masonry
buildings. This is due to the lack of waiting time for
poured concrete. [75] found that employing CLT
for hotel building resulted in a 37% quicker build
time compared to standard methods and materials.
[76] found that employing alternative project
delivery approaches, such as design-build or
design-bid-build, can improve CLT
project performance and boost developer value.
According to [77], CLT may be used with standard
building methods to form a hybrid system. [78]
demonstrated that CLT is compatible with older
construction materials and may be utilized to
restore heritage dwellings.
The study further presented results on the level
of utilization of CLT in the Nigerian building
industry. The result showed that there is a low
adoption rate of CLT in Nigerian construction
projects. This is evident from the result presented as
CLT is not being effectively utilized in as many as
20 areas and components. The 20 areas of the
building and components where CLT is not
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 104
engaged includes mezzanine flooring, roof panels,
bathroom and vanity tops, institutional building
construction, fencing, columns, roof trusses,
structural insulated panels, theatre stages,
prefabricated construction, auditorium seats,
laboratory workbenches, museum construction,
exhibition booths, acoustic panels, multi-story
building construction, guardrails, bracing elements,
pavilions, and warehouse construction. This low
level of application of innovative CLT on building
projects according to [24, 51, 59] are attributed to
the less awareness and understanding of the
material’s capabilities, qualities, and prices by
construction practitioners. The non-adoption rate of
CLT in key building areas and component
significantly differ from findings from other parts
of the world. For instance, Europe continues to
produce over fifty percent of the global CLT output
annually [79], indicating a high adoption rate. In the
United States, Architects utilized CLT for framing,
flooring, and walls. Whereas, Structural engineers
utilized CLT for floors, walls, and framing. In
Canada, CLT is used for Fabrication of roof, floor,
and wall components [80]. [81] regarded CLT as
the greatest alternative to conventional construction
materials. Other key applications of CLT on
construction projects have been discussed. [82]
affirmed that CLT is applied in wall, roof, and floor
panels, as well as bridge decks. In 2009, The
Stadthaus, a 9-story CLT timber mixed-use
apartment in Hackney, London, was completed
[83]. [12] reported that CLT was utilized
throughout the superstructure of a 9-story
Stadthaus, including walls, core tubes, and floor
slabs, to provide vertical and lateral support.
Similarly, Forte, a 10-story condominium in
Melbourne's Port of Asia Victoria, was the world's
first CLT wood structure in 2012 which included a
shear wall. In 2014, the 14-story Treet building in
Bergen, Norway, was built with a beam-column
frame-support construction. [84] reported that CLT
panels were utilized for prefabricated room units,
walls, hallways, elevator shafts, and balconies in
the building. Furthermore, the professionals from
other nations of the world expressed interest in
using CLT for beams and columns, roofing,
exposed structural applications, and exposed
ceiling roof structures [69]. Modern mid-rise and
high-rise residential and commercial structures are
constructed using CLT either alone or in
conjunction with other structural materials [85].
CLT panels can be utilized for walls, flooring,
roofs, and exposed areas in mass timber building
projects [86]. The panels fulfill or surpass
construction criteria for bending, stiffness, thermal
characteristics, and air tightness in buildings [24].
Furthermore, the adoption of sustainable materials
for the construction of residential and commercial
structures, such as CLT systems, is an important
method of supporting global attempts to create
more sustainable construction materials [25]. To
this end, sustainable building materials (SBMs) are
those whose life cycle, from manufacturing to
disposal, has the least negative influence on the
environment. They frequently originate from
renewable sources and are made to be resource- and
energy-efficient. Despite the vast application of
CLT as a SBM in key building areas and
components, there are barriers that limit its
application in nations of the world. SBMs address
current needs without limiting future prospects
[81]. [87] opine that adoption of SBMs can be
challenging due to the construction industry's
complexity and fragmentation, as well as the
various parties involved. [88] identified many
performance parameters that impact SBM
selection. This includes occupant requirements and
health, recyclability, renewable resources, low
maintenance costs, decreased environmental effect
through pollution, and reduction of harmful
emissions. Thus, when selecting materials, it is
important to consider technical abilities for
implementing SBM into building processes. [89]
reckoned that SBM can reduce the environmental
effect of construction, reduce resource depletion,
balance ecosystems, and mitigate the impact of
climate change and global warming. Nigeria is a
developing nation where the market for SBM like
CLT is still mostly under-tapped and unsaturated,
and there is a discrepancy between the degree of
consciousness and adoption of SBMs [89].
Significant barriers to sustainable development in
105 D.R. Simeon et al.
Sub-Saharan Africa are mostly caused by a lack of
knowledge and education, a lack of a standard
sustainable building instrument, a lack of
government financial incentives, and an
overemphasis on capital costs relative to
operational costs [90]. Meanwhile, obstacles to the
adoption of SBM in Singapore and Australia
include inadequate communication by green
building teams, a lack of green practitioners, high
initial costs, a lack of government support, a lack of
interest in and marketplace understanding of
sustainable building, uncertainty about the
performance and benefits of SBMs, a lack of
building codes and regulations, and strained
relationships among stakeholders [91]. In the
United States construction industry, the barriers to
adopting green building technologies according to
[92] include resistance to change from conventional
technologies, insufficient knowledge and
awareness of their benefits, high cost, shortage of
skilled labor, and lack of government
incentives/supports. In this regard, [93] opined that
in the Australian construction sector, the low
adoption of SBMs is due to higher costs, potential
cost overruns, lack of incentives, lack of
government policies, and industry resistance to
change. Stakeholders must overcome impediments
to include SBMs into future construction projects
and make current structures more sustainable.
Meanwhile, [94] note that the main challenges to
SBMs for sustainable building in Kuwait include
lack of knowledge, qualified people, lack of rules,
lack of government support/incentives, and
unwillingness to adapt. The impediments to
adoption of green building in India according to
[95] include a lack of knowledge in life-cycle cost,
information on advantages, labeling, infrastructure,
and small and medium-sized businesses in the
construction sector. Meanwhile in Iraq, top
challenges to the adoption of SBMs according to
[96] include a lack of awareness, coordination,
expertise, trusted suppliers, skills, and adequate
support for project implementation. Also, fire is
frequently regarded as the most significant barrier
to CLT adoption [37].
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions are drawn based on the
study’s findings:
The study concludes that CLT is not engaged in as
many as twenty (20) building areas and
components. The implication is that the
construction industry is still lagging behind in eco-
friendly structures. Moreover, the study concludes
that the current level of CLT adoption on
construction projects falls well short of the
material's potential. This indicates that CLT
products are not being utilized as effectively as
expected on construction projects in Nigeria.
Moreover, the study concludes that, while the
relevance of the drivers for CLT adoption varies for
a variety of reasons, professionals consider
aesthetics to be the most important driver for CLT
adoption. This implies that professionals place a
high importance on aesthetics for material selection
and specification. Multiple obstacles stand in the
way of adopting CLT in construction projects.
Practitioners perceived that cost is a significant
barrier, with CLT sometimes costing more than
conventional building materials. The widespread
adoption is further hampered by the lack of
recognition of CLT and Mass Timber in the
country’s national building Code and regulations.
Besides, despite advancements in material testing
and technology, there are concerns regarding the
structural integrity and fire resistance of the product
when adopted on building projects. Moreover,
another perceived barrier limiting the adoption of
CLT in Nigeria is the difficulties builders and
engineers encounter due to the requirement for
certain expertise and abilities when working with
large quantities of wood. Despite its benefits in
terms of strength, sustainability, and design
flexibility, CLT is not widely used in Nigeria owing
to the lack of established standards. Consequently,
stakeholders are hesitant owing to concerns over
fire resistance, structural integrity, and quality
control across the supply chain. Based on the
conclusions drawn, the study recommends that
practitioners should endeavor to employ CLT in the
20 building areas and components (mezzanine
flooring, roof panels, bathroom and vanity tops,
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 106
institutional building construction, fencing,
columns, roof trusses, structural insulated panels,
theatre stages, prefabricated construction,
auditorium seats, laboratory workbenches, museum
construction, exhibition booths, acoustic panels,
multi-story building construction, guardrails,
bracing elements, pavilions, and warehouse
construction) where they are not engaged to fully
optimize CLT’s eco-friendliness in building
projects. This may be accomplished by sensitizing
the professionals on the non-engagement of CLT in
some building areas and components such as roof
panels, multi-story buildings, prefabrication,
among other areas and components to fully
optimize the materials’ potentials. Moreover, the
study recommends advocacy and material
awareness of EWPs and by extension CLT in order
to keep up with the global trend of adopting more
sustainable construction practices and materials.
This may be accomplished by conducting training
and domesticating the necessary technologies to
fully harness its potential. Besides, materials
specifiers and stakeholders should make intentional
efforts when considering and specifying CLT for
construction projects. This may be achieved by
examining the project's unique needs while
providing education on the benefits and features of
CLT. Also, establishing appropriate laws and
standards is critical for realizing CLT's potential in
the Nigerian building industry. Moreover, to
promote wider adoption, myths and preconceptions
about sustainability and environmental effects must
be addressed. Research, instruction, and policy
development must work together to overcome these
obstacles of low adoption of CLT. A consensus-
based product standard is necessary for the
designers and regulatory agencies to approve
innovative building materials.
6. Limitations and Areas for Future
Research
The study is limited to Nigeria. Therefore, there
should be comparative study on CLT between
Nigeria and other Nations. Additionally, barriers
that limit the wider adoption of CLT in the Nigerian
construction industry should be investigated.
Declaration
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Author Contributions
D. R. Simeon: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Data curation, Writing- Original draft,
Visualization, Investigation, Supervision,
Validation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing; O. J.
Oladiran: Methodology, Software, Data curation,
Writing- Original draft, Visualization,
Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing; D. Gabriel: Methodology,
Software, Data curation, Writing- Original draft,
Visualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing; O. Otufowora: Data
curation, Writing- Original draft, Visualization,
Investigation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Acknowledgments
The Authors thank Dr. Fidelis Achi and Rabiu
Aminu for their contributions.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on
request from the corresponding author.
Ethics Committee Permission
The authors declared that all participants were fully
informed consent for inclusion before they
participated in the study, and the study meets
national and international guidelines.
Conflict of Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
107 D.R. Simeon et al.
References
[1] Lan K, Kelley SS, Nepal P, Yao Y (2020) Dynamic
life cycle carbon and energy analysis for cross-
laminated timber in the Southeastern United States.
Environmental Research Letters 15(12): 124036.
[2] Zhao Q, Gao W, Su Y, Wang T (2023) Carbon
emissions trajectory and driving force from the
construction industry with a city-scale: A case
study of Hangzhou, China. Sustainable Cities and
Society 88: 104283.
[3] Almusaed A, Almssad A, Homod RZ, Yitmen I
(2020) Environmental profile on building material
passports for hot climates. Sustainability 12(9):
3720.
[4] Sheth KN (2016) Sustainable building materials
used in green buildings. In: 9th International
Conference on Engineering and Business
Education (ICEBE) & 6th International Conference
on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ICIE) 23-26.
[5] Ali MS, Shukri S, Patel M, Ahad A (2020)
Alternative building materials for sustainable
development in Ethiopian construction.
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology 7(6): 2899-2903.
[6] Albee RR (2019) Global overview of the cross-
laminated timber industry. In: Young.
[7] Cherry R, Manalo A, Karunasena W, Stringer G
(2019) Out-of-grade sawn pine: A state-of-the-art
review on challenges and new opportunities in
cross laminated timber (CLT). Construction and
Building Materials 211: 858-868.
[8] Shirmohammadi M, Faircloth A (2023) Effect of
alternate drying techniques on cross-laminated
timber after exposure to free-water wetting. Forests
14(5): 1007.
[9] Brandner R, Flatscher G, Ringhofer A, Schickhofer
G, Thiel A (2016) Cross Laminated Timber (CLT):
overview and development. European Journal of
Wood and Wood Products 74(3): 331-351.
[10] Kurzinski S, Crovella P, Kremer P (2022)
Overview of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) and
timber structure standards across the world. Mass
Timber Construction Journal 5(1): 1-13.
[11] Gilbert B, Skitmore M, Ali Y, Gray J (2020) Key
considerations of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)
for high- rise construction in Australia: A review.
Journal of Construction Management 32(35(1)):
70-81.
[12] Li H, Wang BJ, Wei P, Wang L (2019) Cross-
Laminated Timber (CLT) in China: A state-of-the-
art. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts 4(1):
22-31.
[13] Smyth M (2018) A Study of the Viability of Cross
Laminated Timber for Residential Construction.
Master Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of
Technology.
[14] D’Amico B, Pomponi F, Hart J (2021) Global
potential for material substitution in building
construction: The case of cross laminated timber.
Journal of Cleaner Production 279: 123487.
[15] Wang Z, Yin T (2022) Cross-Laminated Timber: A
review on its characteristics and an introduction to
Chinese practices. In: Engineered Wood Products
for Construction.
[16] Alayande TA, Ede AN, Aguwa JI, Ofuyatan OM,
Oyebisi SO, Oluwafemi JO (2019) Reliability
assessment of the Nigerian Timber–An
environmental sustainability approach in the 21st
century. journal of physics conference series
1378(3): 032053.
[17] Dalibi SG, Feng JC, Shuangqin L, Sadiq A, Bello
BS, Danja II (2017) Hindrances to green building
developments in Nigeria’s built environment: “the
Project Professionals Perspectives". IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science 63(1).
[18] Abed J, Rayburg S, Rodwell J, Neave MA (2022)
Review of the performance and benefits of mass
timber as an alternative to concrete and steel for
improving the sustainability of structures.
Sustainability 14(9): 1-24.
[19] Mallo MFL (2017) Critical Factors in the
Willingness to Adopt Innovative Woodbased
Building Materials in the Construction Industry:
The Case of CLT. PhD Dissertation, University of
Minnesota.
[20] Hamalainen M, Salmi A (2023) Digital
transformation in a cross-laminated timber business
network. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 38(6): 1251-1265.
[21] Divekar N (2016) Introduction to new material−
Cross Laminated Timber. International Journal of
Engineering Research 5(3): 675-679.
[22] Evans L (2013) Cross-Laminated Timber: Taking
Wood Buildings to the Next Level. Architectural
Records.
http://continuingeducation.construction.com/articl
e.php?L¼312&C¼1138. Accessed on September
2023.
[23] Khan S (2017) Basic of Cross Laminated of Timber
and Optimal Location for New CLT Plant. Master
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 108
Dissertation, Centria University of Applied
Sciences.
[24] Laguarda-Mallo MF, Espinoza O (2015)
Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt
cross-laminated timber by the architecture
community in the United States. Journal of Cleaner
Production 94: 198-210.
[25] Quesada H, Smith R, Berger G (2018) Drivers and
barriers of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)
production and commercialization: A case study of
Western Europe’s CLT industry. BioProducts
Business 3(3): 29-38.
[26] Xu S (2013) A Review on Cross Laminated Timber
(CLT) and its Possible Application in North
America.
[27] Sandoli A, D’Ambra C, Ceraldi C, Calderoni B,
Prota A (2021) Sustainable cross-laminated timber
structures in a seismic area: Overview and future
trends. Applied Sciences 11(5): 1-24.
[28] Ramage MH, Burridge H, Busse-Wicher M,
Fereday G, Reynolds T, Shah DU, Wu G, Yu L,
Fleming P, Densley-Tingley D, Allwood J (2017)
The wood from the trees: The use of timber in
construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 68: 333-359.
[29] Silva CV, Branco JM, Lourenço PB (2013) A
project contribution to the development of
sustainable multi-storey timber buildings. Portugal
SB13-Contribution of Sustainable Building to Meet
EU20 Targets 379-386.
[30] Malczyk R (2011) Cross-Laminated Timber in
British Columbia. In: CLT Symposium 8-9.
[31] Mallo MFL, Espinoza OA (2014) Outlook for
cross-laminated timber in the United States.
BioResources 9(4): 7427-7443.
[32] Buchanan A, Deam B, Fragiacomo M, Pampanin S,
Palermo A (2008) Multi-storey prestressed timber
buildings in New Zealand. Structural Engineering
International 18(2): 166-173.
[33] Bejder AK (2012) Aesthetic qualities of cross
laminated timber.
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/71275631/Aesthetic_Qualiti
es_of_Cross_Laminated _Timber.pdf. Accessed 20
September 2023.
[34] Kirkegaard A (2012) Aesthetic Qualities of Cross
Laminated Timber. PhD Dissertation, Aalborg
University, Aalborg, Denmark
[35] Introducing Cross-Laminated Timber. New
Opportunities for Timber Construction.
WoodWorks Presentation.
http://www.woodworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013-14-Q4-IntroducingCLT.pdf.
Accessed 20 September 2023
[36] Frangi A, Fontana M, Hugi E, Jübstl R (2009)
Experimental analysis of cross-laminated timber
panels in fire. Fire Safety Journal 44(8): 1078-
1087.
[37] Wiesner F, Bisby L (2019) The structural capacity
of laminated timber compression elements in fire:
A meta-analysis. Fire Safety Journal 107: 114-125.
[38] Preliminary CLT Fire Resistance Testing Report.
American Wood Council.
http://www.awc.org/Code-Officials/2012-IBC
Challenges/Preliminary-CLT Fire-Test Report-
FINAL-July2012.pdf. Accessed 20 September
2023.
[39] Chen YJ (2012) Comparison of Environmental
Performance of a Five-storey Building Built with
Cross-laminated Timber and Concrete.
Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
[40] Skogstad HB, Gullbrekken L, Nore K (2011) Air
leakages through cross laminated timber (CLT)
constructions. In: Proceedeings of NSB 2011 9th
Nordic Symposium on Building Physics, Tampere,
Finland.
[41] Jowett O (2011) The thermal behaviour of cross-
laminated timber construction and its resilience to
summertime overheating. In: Proceedings of PLEA
2011 The 27th Conference on Passive and Low
Energy Architecture 339-344.
[42] Robertson AB, Lam FC, Cole RJ (2012) A
comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of
mid-rise office building construction alternatives:
Laminated timber or reinforced concrete. Buildings
2(3): 245-270.
[43] Lehmann S (2012) Sustainable construction for
urban infill development using engineered massive
wood panel systems. Sustainability 4(10): 2707-
2742.
[44] Swedish Wood Building Council (2017)
Sustainable Housing –The Way is Wood. [ebook]
Stockholm: Swedish Wood Building Council.
http://www.trabyggnadskansliet.se/MediaBinaryL
oader.axd?MediaArchive_FileID=146cf40f-
fc3d4145-a340-
bce57fa8a59a&FileName=Sustainable_Housing_l
owres.pdf Accessed 2 October 2023.
[45] Hristovski V, Dujic B, Stojmanovska M,
Mircevska V (2013) Full-scale shaking-table tests
of XLam panel systems and numerical verification:
Specimen 1. Journal of Structural Engineering
139(11): 2010-2018.
109 D.R. Simeon et al.
[46] Popovski M, Karacabeyli E (2012) Seismic
behaviour of cross-laminated timber structures. In:
Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber
Engineering 335-344.
[47] Yates M, Linegar M, Dujič B (2008) Design of an
8 storey residential tower from KLH cross
laminated solid timber panels. In: 10th World
Conference on Timber Engineering 2008 2189-
2196.
[48] Van De Kuilen JWG, Ceccotti A, Xia Z, He M
(2011) Very tall wooden buildings with cross
laminated timber. Procedia Engineering 14: 1621-
1628.
[49] Steiger R, Gülzow A, Gsell D (2008) Non
destructive evaluation of elastic material properties
of crosslaminated timber (CLT). In: Conference
COST E 53 29-30.
[50] Steiger R, Gülzow A (2010) Validity of bending
tests on strip-shaped specimens to derive bending
strength and stiffness properties of cross-laminated
solid timber (X-lam). The Future of Quality Control
for Wood and Wood Products 4-7.
[51] Espinoza O, Trujillo VR, Laguarda Mallo MF,
Buehlmann U (2016) Cross-laminated timber:
Status and research needs in Europe. BioResources
11(1): 281-295.
[52] Fratoni G, D’Orazio D, Barbaresi L (2019)
Acoustic comfort in a worship space made of cross-
laminated timber. Building Acoustics 26(2): 121-
138.
[53] Amin Y, Adji RP, Lubis MAR, Nugroho N, Bahtiar
ET, Dwianto W, Karlinasari L (2023) Effect of glue
spread on bonding strength, delamination, and
wood failure of jabon wood-based cross-laminated
timber using cold-setting melamine-based
adhesive. Polymers 15(10): 2349.
[54] Mayr-Melnhof Holz MM (2013) Cross Laminated
Timber. https://www.gb-
legname.com/mm_crosslam_e_web_eeinzelseiten.
pdf.
[55] O’Ceallaigh C, Sikora K, Harte AM (2018) The
influence of panel lay-up on the characteristic
bending and rolling shear strength of CLT.
Buildings 8(9): 114.
[56] Tian Z, Gong Y, Xu J, Li M, Wang Z, Ren H (2022)
Predicting the average compression strength of
CLT by using the average density or compressive
strength of lamina. Forests 13(4): 591.
[57] Amorim STA, Mantilla JNR, Carrasco EVM
(2017) Cross Laminated Timber: technological,
construction and dimensioning aspects. Materials
22: 1-7.
[58] Lineham SA, Thomson D, Bartlett AI, Bisby LA,
Hadden RM (2016) Structural response of fire-
exposed cross-laminated timber beams under
sustained loads. Fire Safety Journal 85: 23-34.
[59] Jones K, Stegemann J, Sykes J, Winslow P (2016)
Adoption of unconventional approaches in
construction: The case of cross-laminated timber.
Construction and Building Materials 125: 690-702.
[60] Bahrami M, Shalbafan A, Welling J (2019)
Development of plywood using geopolymer as
binder: Effect of silica fume on the plywood and
binder characteristics. European Journal of Wood
and Wood Products 77(6): 981-994.
[61] Skullestad JL, Bohne RA, Lohne J (2016) High-rise
timber buildings as a climate change mitigation
measure–A comparative LCA of structural system
alternatives. Energy Procedia 96: 112-123.
[62] Talamini G, Mengyu SUN (2018) Transforming
Hong Kong building regulatory framework to
address the adoption of Cross-Laminated Timber:
Insights from the Case of UK. In: 8th International
Conference of Tropical and Subtropical Green
Building Council Alliance & 9th Cross-Strait
Green Building Technology Development Forum:
Green Building and Green Community for
Sustainable and Resilient Human Habitats in
Tropical and Subtropical Regions 118-124.
[63] Coy MJ (2019) Research methodologies :
increasing understanding of the world.
International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications 9.
[64] Umeh OL (2018) Research Methodology.
University of Lagos Press & Bookshop Ltd.
[65] Simeon D, Oladiran O, Abatan A, Aminu R (2023)
Appraising the maintenance practices in shopping
malls across Lagos metropolis. ITEGAM-JETIA
9(43): 4-17.
[66] Simeon DR, Adeyanju GO, Owen CO, Aminu RA
(2023) Building surveying practice in the Nigerian
construction industry: Prospects, barriers and
enhanced measures. Journal of Engineering and
Technology for Industrial Applications 9(42): 77-
85.
[67] Ogunkah I, Yang J (2013) Analysis of factors
affecting the selection of low-cost green building
materials in housing construction. International
Journal of Sciences 2(9): 41-75.
[68] Gasparri E, Lucchini A, Mantegazza G,
Mazzucchelli ES (2015) Construction management
Journal of Construction Engineering, Management & Innovation 110
for tall CLT buildings: From partial to total
prefabrication of façade elements. Wood Material
Science & Engineering 10(3): 256-275.
[69] Penfield P, Germain R, Smith WB, Stehman SV
(2022) Assessing the adoption of Cross Laminated
Timber by architects and structural engineers
within the United States. Journal of Green Building
17(1): 127-147.
[70] Muszyński L, Gupta R, Hyun Hong S, Osborn N,
Pickett B (2019) Fire resistance of unprotected
cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor assemblies
produced in the USA. Fire Safety Journal 107: 126-
136.
[71] Liu Y, Guo H, Sun C, Chang WS (2016) 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 8(10): 1047.
[72] Corradini G, Pierobon F, Zanetti M (2019) Product
environmental footprint of a cross-laminated
timber system: A case study in Italy. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24:
975-988.
[73] Waugh Thistleton Architects (2017)
http://waughthistleton.com/dalston-works/.
Accessed 11 May 2024.
[74] Wilson M, Kosmatka SH (2011) Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures: the Guide to
Applications, Methods, and Materials. 15th
Edition. Portland Cement Assn. Illinois.
[75] WoodWorks (2012) Case Study—CLT Milestone
in Montana. https://www.woodworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/CS-The-Long-Hall.pdf. Accessed
11 May 2024.
[76] Mollaoglu-Korkmaz S, Swarup L, Riley D (2013)
Delivering sustainable, high-performance
buildings: Influence of project delivery methods on
integration and project outcomes. Journal of
Management in Engineering 29(1): 71-78.
[77] Davids WG, Willey N, Lopez-Anido R, Shaler S,
Gardner D, Edgar R, Tajvidi M (2017) Structural
performance of hybrid SPFs-LSL cross-laminated
timber panels. Construction and Building Materials
149: 156-163.
[78] Soriano FM, Pericot NG, Sierra EM (2016)
Comparative analysis of the reinforcement of a
traditional wood floor in collective housing. In
depth development with cross laminated timber and
concrete. Case Studies in Construction Materials 4:
125-145.
[79] Schickhofer G, Brandner R, Bauer H (2016)
Introduction to CLT, Product Properties, Strength
Classes. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of
COST Actions FP1402 & FP1404, Cross laminated
timber-a competitive wood product for visionary
and fire safe buildings, Stockholm.
[80] Yeh B, Gagnon S, Williamson T, Pirvu C (2012)
The cross-laminated timber standard in North
America. World 15(19): 31-40.
[81] Zhang H, Peng Y, Tian G, Wang D, Xie P (2017)
Green material selection for sustainability: A
hybrid MCDM approach. PloS One 12(5):
e0177578.
[82] Schubert S, Gsell D, Steiger R, Feltrin G (2010)
Influence of asphalt pavement on damping ratio
and resonance frequencies of timber bridges.
Engineering Structures 32(10): 3122-3129.
[83] Xiong HB, Ouyang L, Wu Y (2016) State-of-the-
art research of tall wood buildings. Journal of
Tongji University Natural Science 44(9): 1297-
1306.
[84] Malo KA, Abrahamsen RB, Bjertnæs MA (2016)
Some structural design issues of the 14 storey
timber framed building “Treet” in Norway.
European Journal of Wood andWood Products 74:
407-424.
[85] Kurzinski S, Crovella P, Kremer P (2022)
Overview of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and
timber structure standards across the world. Mass
Timber Construction Journal 5(1): 1-13.
[86] Singh T, Page D, Simpson I (2019) Manufactured
structural timber building materials and their
durability. Construction and Building Materials
217: 84-92.
[87] Eze EC, Ugulu RA, Onyeagam OP, Adegboyega
AA (2021) Determinants of sustainable building
materials (SBM) selection on construction projects.
International Journal of Construction Supply Chain
Management 11(2): 166-194.
[88] Patil KM, Patil MS (2017) Sustainable construction
materials & technology in context with sustainable
development. International Journal of Engineering
Research and Technology 10(1): 112-117.
[89] Eze EC, Ugulu RA, Egwunatum SI, Awodele IA
(2021) Green building materials products and
service market in the construction industry. Journal
of Engineering, Project & Production Management
11(2): 89-101.
[90] Addy M, Adinyira E, Danku JC, Dadzoe F (2021)
Impediments to the development of the green
building market in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of
111 D.R. Simeon et al.
Ghana. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment
10(2): 193-207.
[91] Hwang BG, Tan JS (2012) Green building project
management: obstacles and solutions for
sustainable development. Sustainable
Development 20(5): 335-349.
[92] Darko A, Chan APC, Ameyaw EE, He BJ,
Olanipekun AO (2017) Examining issues
influencing green building technologies adoption:
The United States green building experts’
perspectives. Energy and Buildings 144: 320-332.
[93] Gounder S, Hasan A, Shrestha A, Elmualim A
(2023) Barriers to the use of sustainable materials
in Australian building projects. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management 30(1):
189-209.
[94] AlSanad S (2015) Awareness, drivers, actions, and
barriers of sustainable construction in Kuwait.
Procedia Engineering 118: 969-983.
[95] Abraham PS, Gundimeda H (2018) 'Greening' the
buildings-an analysis of barriers to adoption in
India. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 10(1):
10.
[96] Mohsin AH, Ellk DS (2018) Identifying barriers to
the use of sustainable building materials in building
construction. Journal of Engineering and
Sustainable Development 22(2): 107-115.
