Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IDENTIFYING MASS TIMBER RESEARCH PRIORITIES, BARRIERS TO
ADOPTION AND ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
CHALLENGES IN CANADA
By Muhammad Taha Syed
A capstone submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Master of Forest Conservation
degree
Graduate Department of Forestry John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Taha Syed, 2020
This research is approved by University of Toronto Research Ethics Board – RIS Protocol Number: 38319
Syed. T 2020
2
ABSTRACT
Mass timber construction in Canada is in the spotlight and emerging as a sustainable building system
that offers an opportunity to optimize the value of every tree harvested and to revitalize a declining
forest industry, while providing climate mitigation solutions. Little research has been conducted,
however, to identify the mass timber research priorities of end users, barriers to adoption and
engineering, procurement and construction challenges in Canada. This study helps bridge these gaps.
The study also created an interactive, three-dimensional GIS map displaying mass timber projects across
North America, as an attempt to offer a helpful tool to practitioners, researchers and students, and fill a
gap in existing knowledge sharing. The study findings, based on a web-based survey of mass timber end
users, suggest the need for more research on (a) total project cost comparisons with concrete and steel,
(b) hybrid systems and (c) mass timber building construction methods and guidelines. The most
important barriers for successful adoption are (a) misconceptions about mass timber with respect to fire
and building longevity, (b) high and uncertain insurance premiums, (c) higher cost of mass timber
products compared to concrete and steel, and (d) resistance to changing from concrete and steel. In
terms of challenges: (a) building code compliance and regulations, (b) design permits and approvals, and
(c) insufficient design experts in the market are rated by study participants as the most pressing
“engineering” challenge. The top procurement challenges are (a) too few manufactures and suppliers,
(b) long distance transportation, and (c) supply and demand gaps. The most important construction
challenges are (a) inadequate skilled workforce, (b) inadequate specialized subcontractors, and (c)
excessive moisture exposure during construction.
Keywords: mass timber, research priorities, barriers, challenges, construction, engineering, procurement
Syed. T 2020
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 01 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Objectives and Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 02 - LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 7
What is mass timber? .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Cross-Laminated Timber ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Glue-Laminated Timber .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Laminated-Veneer Lumber ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Historical Perspective................................................................................................................................................................... 9
European Experience ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Recent Developments in Canada ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Production Facilities in Canada ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Research Centres in Canada .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Why mass timber? ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Climate change and Environmental Footprint of the Construction Industry ........................................................................ 13
Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) Concerns ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Mass Timber Socioeconomic Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 15
Affordable Housing and Regional Disparity ........................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 03 - METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Development of Research Survey .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Survey Procedure ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Development of GIS Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
SECTION 04 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Response Rate and Survey Implementation .............................................................................................................................. 19
Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Mass Timber Research Priorities of End Users in Canada .......................................................................................................... 19
Mass Timber Barriers to Adoption in Canada ............................................................................................................................ 23
Mass Timber Engineering Challenges in Canada ........................................................................................................................ 23
Mass Timber Procurement Challenges in Canada ...................................................................................................................... 24
Mass Timber Construction Challenges in Canada ...................................................................................................................... 25
Mass Timber Construction Challenges in Canada – Wood Protection during Construction ...................................................... 26
GIS Map ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
SECTION 05 – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
SECTION 06 –RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 29
SECTION 07 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 30
SECTION 08 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Syed. T 2020
4
SECTION 09 – APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix 1 – Participants Feedback on Open Ended Questions ............................................................................................... 36
Appendix 2 – List of Mass Timber Projects in North America .................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3 – Research Ethics Board Approval Letter ................................................................................................................ 44
Appendix 4 – Consent Form ....................................................................................................................................................... 45
Syed. T 2020
5
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 – Mass timber manufacturers and suppliers in Canada
Table 2 – Mass timber research institutes, labs and testing facilities in Canada
Table 3. A summary of survey questions
Table 4 – Professions of survey participants
Table 5 – Other research topics/priorities identified by study participants
Figure 1 – The processing cycle of major engineered-wood products
Figure 2a&b – Mass Timber “research priorities” of end users in Canada
Figure 3 – Mass Timber “barrier to adoption” in Canada
Figure 4 – Mass Timber “engineering challenges” in Canada
Figure 5 – Mass Timber “procurement challenges” in Canada
Figure 6a – Mass Timber “construction challenges” in Canada
Figure 6b – Mass Timber “construction challenges” in Canada – wood protection during construction
Map 1 – Interactive, 3D GIS map displaying the distribution of mass timber projects across North
America
Map 2 – Interactive, 2D GIS map displaying proportional distribution of mass timber projects across
North America
Syed. T 2020
6
“The largest issue we see is the resistance to change. The privately funded side of our industry is fairly
risk averse and therefore resistant leading the change. Thankfully the institutional world (colleges and
university's) have different motivations and are leading the way, however we won’t see widespread
private sector adoption until there are many proven built examples in Canadian markets.” (Survey
Participant) – see complete feedback from participants in Appendix 1.
SECTION 01 - INTRODUCTION
Mass timber is a technological advancement that was introduced in Europe more than 20 years
ago and has been gaining popularity in megacities around the world, driven by the desire to live a more
sustainable lifestyle, with buildings of up to 80 floors being considered in cities including Tokyo, London
and Chicago.
In Canada, timber construction has a rich history. Mass timber in the old days recalls the classic
19th century style timber buildings in Liberty Village with load-bearing brick walls, traditional post-and-
beam (timber frame), and hardwood floors, still going strong after more than a century. Today wood is
experiencing a renaissance and there is excitement about designing and building innovative tall
structures with new types of building products such as cross laminated timber (CLT) or glue-laminated
timber (glulam), enabling architects and engineers to design tall, fire safe and aesthetically pleasing
wooden buildings.
Canada is home to number of mass timber projects that demonstrate the viability of renewable
and low-carbon building material. Projects already completed, and currently in progress or proposed,
are improving public perception and market confidence about a material once proclaimed to be too
flammable. Recent examples in Canada include the eighteen story (53 metres) Brock Commons at the
University of British Columbia (UBC), which represented the tallest timber structure in the world at the
time of its completion (since surpassed by the 18-storey/85.4-metre high Mjos Tower in Brumunddal,
Norway), the Wood Design and Innovation Centre at the University of Northern British Columbia in
Prince George, Laurentian University’s McEwen School of Architecture in Sudbury, University of
Toronto’s proposed 14 story tall wood academic tower located at its downtown campus, the Arbour to
be built on George Brown College’s waterfront campus, and Sidewalk Labs’ proposed Toronto
Waterfront project that will be built mostly from mass timber.
Despite being in the spotlight, the adoption of mass timber in Canada has been surprisingly
slow, with Ontario lagging behind Quebec and British Columbia, even though Ontario currently hosts
about 40% of the country’s construction market. Like any other emerging technology, there are research
gaps, challenges and barriers to success. This study aims to reframe the conversation around mass
timber research priorities, challenges and barriers by engaging mass timber end users representing
engineers, architects, designers, construction professionals, manufacturers and suppliers, academics
and researchers, forest and government agencies and First Nations. The study will focus on addressing
three major problems facing the mass timber industry in Canada:
• Despite the high-level interest in the mass timber sector, there is still a ‘disconnect’ between
those producing the research, and those in need of the knowledge produced by that research. It
is important to help connect the dots by linking research needs with research efforts and
Syed. T 2020
7
assisting funding agencies to prioritize research funding according to sector needs (Mass Timber
Institute, 2019.)
• Another issue is the focus of published research. Most recent studies on mass timber have
centered on its mechanical properties, structural performance and fire resistance (Crawford &
Cadorel, 2017; Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza, 2015.) Construction, engineering and procurement
challenges, and barriers to adoption, however, received little consideration.
• Finally, as the mass timber industry is maturing in North America, there is still some level of
fragmentation and disorganization in the existing knowledge sharing. There are very few
‘interactive maps’ that represent mass timber projects ‘across North America’, along with
attributes such as project name, location, current status, and website links.
Objectives and Research Questions
In this context, the main objective of the study was to:
• Identify the mass timber research priorities of the end users and those in need of the mass
timber knowledge in Canada. The study followed a similar approach adopted by Espinoza,
Buehlmann, Mallo, and Trujillo (2016), who surveyed CLT experts in North America.
• Identify major barriers that may be hindering widespread adoption of mass timber, and
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) challenges for the use of mass timber in
Canada. The questions pertaining to EPC challenges were considered the topics identified for
future research by Espinoza, Buehlmann, Mallo, and Trujillo (2016) and the researcher’s
discussions with Canadian mass timber experts.
• Analyze spatial location of mass timber projects across North America and organize layers of
information into interactive visualization using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping.
To achieve these objectives, key mass timber end users in Canada were surveyed on-line. The
study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the research priorities of mass timber end users in Canada?
2. What are the major barriers that may be hindering widespread adoption of mass timber in
Canada?
3. Which are the greatest engineering, procurement and construction challenges for use of mass
timber in Canada?
4. Where are mass timber projects located in North America?
SECTION 02 - LITERATURE REVIEW
What is mass timber?
Mass timber is a technological advancement that uses engineered-wood products for load
bearing structures and is considered a greener addition to conventional reinforced-steel-concrete
construction. Products such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), glue-laminated beams (Glulam), nailed-
laminated timber (NLT), laminated-veneer lumber (LVL), and laminated-strand lumber (LSL) are part of a
bigger categorization known as mass timber (Canadian Wood Council, 2020a) – see Figure 1 for The
processing cycle of major engineered-wood products. They are fabricated by binding together large
panels and beams under pressure using adhesives. Assemblies of floor, wall and ceiling panels can be
Syed. T 2020
8
fabricated offsite and erected much more quickly and, therefore, with cost savings compared to
conventional construction. Mass timber is considered as an alternative to reinforced-steel-concrete and
is ideal for low-to-medium-rise building structures (Mass Timber Institute, 2019; see also Kremer &
Symmons 2018; Kremer & Symmons, 2015).
Cross-Laminated Timber
A popular mass timber product is cross-laminated timber (CLT), which is a multi-layer
engineered composite product originally developed in central Europe during the early 1990s. CLT is a
prefabricated building system consisting of large and solid timber panels ideal for flooring, walls and
roof slabs. The panels are manufactured by joining several layers of kiln-dried, graded (visually or
machine stress-rated) lumber boards stacked in alternating directions, bonded with laminated
adhesives, followed by hydraulic press in multiple directions to form solid, rectangular-shaped straight
CLT panels. Softwood species including Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) are the most widely used species for CLT
manufacturing in North America (Li, Wang, Wei & Wang, 2019). Research indicates that CLT
configuration improves the rigidity, stability and mechanical properties of the product (Espinoza &
Buehlmann, 2018; Kremer & Symmons, 2015). The panels are further processed for different design-
related openings, connection spaces and ducts using Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machine,
allowing high accuracy and speed.
Glue-Laminated Timber
Glue-laminated timber or glulam is a type of structural engineered-timber product composed of
multiple (at least two) individual layers of dimensional lumber that are glued together with durable,
moisture-resistant structural adhesives and are suitable for both interior and exterior application.
Glulam has high structural capacity and it is commonly used to fabricate curved, post, long-span and
high loading beams and is also an attractive building material for wooden bridges.
Laminated-Veneer Lumber
Laminated-veneer lumber (LVL) is an engineered-wood material that is typically twice the
strength of dimensional timber of the same species that uses multiple thin layers of rotary peeled
veneers assembled with adhesives. Douglas fir, Larch, Southern yellow pine and Poplar are the most
common species used for LVL fabrication (Canadian Wood Council, 2020b). LVL is commonly used for
headers, beams, column and edge-forming material. The veneer grain is typically positioned in one
direction but could be mechanically customized through cross-grained sections. LVL offers numerous
advantages such as manufacturing large panels using relatively small trees, thus providing economical
utilization of forest resources.
Syed. T 2020
9
Figure 1. The processing cycle of major engineered-wood products, Source: Ramagea et al. (2017).
Historical Perspective
Wood has been a key source for building construction from prehistoric to modern age (Foliente, 2000).
From the famous ancient Chinese pagodas, and 12th century Norwegian stave churches (Hansen et al.
1971), to UBC’s 18th storey Tallwood House in Canada, numerous architecture marvels were created by
human civilizations that have become part of our heritage and history (Barekat et al. 2010). The decline
in wood construction witnessed in the 2nd half of the twentieth century was mainly due to the
technological advancements in alternate construction materials such as concrete and steel (Karacabeyli
& Mohammad, 2014). Today wood is experiencing a renaissance.
European Experience
How was mass timber technology incubated in Europe? In the mid-1990s, a joint industry-academic
research project was carried out in Austria that led to the development of CLT in its modern form. After
many years of slow growth, CLT construction gained significant momentum in the early 2000s. Driven by
the ‘green building movement’ which requires builders to use sustainable and environmentally-friendly
construction material; better efficiencies, code changes (e.g., Sweden, Netherlands), and improved
marketing and distribution channels (Gagnon, Bilek, Podesto, Crespell, 2013) also spurred CLT growth. In
2003, there was a single CLT manufacturing facility in Europe with an annual production of only 4,000
m3. At present, global CLT production is around 1 million m3, produced by 50 CLT manufacturers
(Crawford & Cadorel, 2017). The rise of CLT adoption, however, is widely concentrated in central Europe
and Scandinavia. For instance, Switzerland, Germany and Austria account for about 80% of global CLT
production capacity in 2015. It is notable that 60% market share belongs to Austria, a small country with
few forests (Muszynski et al. 2017). With the amendments in the International Building Code, that allow
the use of CLT for larger building, the European CLT market is expected to reach a value of US$ 1.1
billion by 2023 (ResearchAndMarkets.com, 2018).
Syed. T 2020
10
In Northern Europe, traditionally wood has been the dominant building material, driven by the low
population density and significant access to wood supply. The idea to develop engineered-wood for
wide span structures was introduced very early in Nordic countries. Since 1980s, a leading Finnish
company Metsä Wood (formerly 'Finnforest'), has been producing laminated Veneer lumber (LVL). In
the early 2000s, glulam production began in Northern Europe: today Nordic countries are famous for
glulam, with the large portion of their production exported (e.g., 65% of the total production of 100,000
m3 in Sweden) (Thelandersson, Aasheim & Ranta-Maunus, 2004).
Some recent examples of mass timber projects in Europe include the 18 floors Mjos Tower in
Brumunddal, Norway (construction completed); the 35 storey Baobab in Paris, France (proposed –
hybrid timber and steel structure), the 24 storey HoHo in Vienna, Austria (under construction – hybrid
timber and concrete structure) and the 22 storey HAUT in Amsterdam, Netherlands (proposed). Despite
the progress being made on taller wooden buildings, European experience shows that mass timber
construction is ideal for low-to-medium-rise building structures.
Thelandersson, Aasheim & Ranta-Maunus (2004) reported several hurdles in the development of mass
timber, including limited understanding of timber engineering. In Denmark and Finland, catastrophic
failures of timber roof structures were reported due to technical deficiencies in design (Denmark) or
manufacturing procedures (Finland). A study in Finland found that almost all structural failures of mass
timber structures involved loss of stability, moisture in timber, or inexperienced wood designers –
factors indicating a clear need to improve timber education and professional training.
Recent Developments in Canada
In Canada, the mass timber industry is gaining momentum, however, the market is still comparatively
new. Mass timber buildings already exist and some were built as demonstration projects across Canada
(see Appendix 2) for list of mass timber projects in North America that are completed and in-
progress/proposed.) Presently the height limit for mass timber buildings across Canada is 6 storeys.
Starting in 2020, the National Building Code will allow developers to construct structures up to 12
storeys. It is expected that these changes will further spur the design and construction industries to use
engineered wood. Despite changes in the building code, there are still barriers and challenges to
overcome. Fewer examples of supply and manufacturing facilities and design assist partners, limited
technical expertise to design and engineer mass timber buildings, standardization within the industry
and dealing with codes and regulations are among the examples of barriers that could continue affecting
the progress being made.
Production Facilities in Canada
Canada has two major manufacturing facilities: Structurlam in B.C and Nordic in Quebec with a
combined production capacity of 110,000 m3 per year (Espinoza, Buehlmann, Mallo, and Trujillo (2016).
Table 1 below lists the few businesses operating in Canada. The list was developed during this study.
Syed. T 2020
11
Table 1. Mass timber manufacturers and suppliers in Canada (supply chain)
Organization Name Products Services Location
Nordic Structures - X-Lam CLT
- Lam+ glued-laminated
timber
- Lam glued-laminated
timber
- I-joists
- Design, manufacturing and
installation
QC,
Canada
Structure Fusion - Sapisol® structural
insulated decking
- Design, manufacturing and
installation
QC,
Canada
Structure Craft - DowelLam™ - DLT
- Timber-concrete
composite (TCC)
- WoodWave panel
- Modeling, engineering,
prefabrication and
assembly, and installation
BC,
Canada
Structurelam - Cross CLT
- Glulam plus
- Structur GLT
- Design, engineering,
manufacturing and
installation
BC,
Canada
Kalesnikoff Lumber’s
(new $35-million plant
in South Slocanm, BC is
planned to be
operational in 2020)
- Engineered glulam
beams
- Manufacturing BC,
Canada
Western Archrib
- Glulam
- Westlam
- Design and
manufacturing, cost
analysis, CNC cutting, pre-
assembly and erection
AB,
Canada
Element 5
(new $32-million plant
in St. Thomas, ON is
planned to be
operational in 2020)
- macro.CLT
- nano.CLT
- free.CLT
- NLT
- LVL
- Cost consulting, design &
engineering, fabrication
and assembly
QC & ON,
Canada
Weyerhauser - Laminated strand
lumber (LSL)
- Laminated veneer
lumber (LVL)
- Manufacturing
Guardian Structures - CLT
- Glulam
- Hybrid mass timber
- Design assist,
manufacturing, and
assembly
ON,
Canada
Timber System - N/A - Design build, fabrication &
installation
ON & BC,
Canada
Syed. T 2020
12
Despite the presence of various mass timber manufacturing facilities in Canada, there is still limited local
production in several provinces across Canada, including Ontario. See more details on supply chain
issues in the results section.
Research Centres in Canada
Growth in mass timber research activities has increased substantially in Canada. The 1st research
conference on CLT was held in Vancouver, BC in 2011 where seventeen research papers on CLT were
presented (Espinoza, Buehlmann, Mallo, Trujillo, 2016). In 2019, the international Woodrise conference
was held in Quebec City where over 800 participants were gathered from more than 20 counties to
share the latest advancement in mass timber construction. In the same year, the first International
Wood Educators Conference was held at the McEwen School of Architecture at Laurentian University in
Sudbury, Ontario to assess the varying approaches to wood construction education in Canada and
Europe. Table 2 lists research institutes, labs and testing facilities involved in mass timber research in
Canada. The list was developed during this study.
Table 2. Mass timber research institutes, labs and testing facilities in Canada
Research Institute/Group Funding/Host
Organization
Key Focus
Forest Product Innovations Industry,
Federal/Provincial
government
• Research and Development
• Testing/Lab facilities
Wood WORKS! Canadian Wood
Council
• Promote wood products in
construction
• Education and training
Natural Research Council Canada Government of
Canada
• Developing the National
Building Code
• Product research and
Development,
performance/evaluation
• Fire testing facility in
Mississippi Mills, ON
Network for Engineered Wood-based
Building Systems (NEWBuildS)*
Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research
Council (NSERC)
• Development of technical
tools to develop/refine
engineered wood products
• Support mass timber
education
Advanced Research in Timber Systems University of Alberta • Research in structural
timber engineering and
mass timber construction
with new connection
technology
Syed. T 2020
13
Timber Engineering and Applied
Mechanics (TEAM) research group
University of British
Columbia
• Research on the
performance evaluation of
wood buildings/ structural
components/ connection
systems
• Testing laboratory
The Wood Innovation Research
Laboratory
University of Northern
British Columbia
• Build and test large-scale
integrated wood structures
such as CLT
LU Fire Testing and Research
Laboratory (LUFTRL)
Lakehead University
• Fire testing facility in
Thunder Bay, ON
* NEWBuildS program ended in 2015.
Why mass timber?
Climate change and Environmental Footprint of the Construction Industry
There is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening due to the expansion of
atmospheric greenhouse gas caused by human activity (Radhi, 2009; Buchanan & Levine, 1999). A recent
assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirmed with “high confidence”
that at the current rate of emissions, global temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5°C by 2030-2052 (IPCC,
2018). In Canada, temperatures are projected to rise more rapidly and faster than the global average.
Limiting global warming below 1.5°C will require deep emissions cuts, and long-term and drastic measures
in all aspects of our society (IPCC, 2018).
Construction is one of the most significant carbon emitting industries globally. Annual embodied
carbon emissions of building materials (i.e., concrete, iron and steel) and construction combined account
for 11% and building operations represent 28% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In total, 40%
emissions are alone related to building construction and operation (e.g., daily energy use) (UN
Environment and International Energy Agency, 2017; Architecture2030.org, 2018; see also Akbarnezhad
& Xiao, 2017; Huang et al. 2018.) This is much higher than the transportation sector emission, but
transport is the conversation we most hear about. The underlying reason for these emissions is the use of
non-renewable energy (e.g., fossil fuels) for various direct and indirect construction operations. For
instance, concrete has an energy-intensive production cycle and accounts for 8% of the CO2 emissions
globally (Andrew, 2018). Skullestad et al (2016) suggest that these emissions would continue to increase
significantly if business-as-usual is practiced. Another issue is that the building industry is considered to
be one the most resource-intensive sectors, responsible for about 40% of global energy-use and 25% of
water utilization (Crawford & Cadorel, 2017). Mitigating the environmental footprints of the global
building industry is critical.
Much effort has been made to improve the environmental performance of concrete and steel.
For instance, raw material such as limestone used in cement production can be replaced partially with
recycled tires, leather and plastic (Cachim et al. 2013), thus reducing the ecological impact of cement
production (Crawford & Cadorel, 2017). However, cement production still uses unsustainable raw
Syed. T 2020
14
materials. Taking this into account, there is a growing interest to improve the sustainability of building
construction. Wood is a sustainable alternative (provided that responsible forestry practices are in place)
and is the only major building material that is grown, and thus provides numerous ecological benefits,
especially carbon emissions savings (Kalt, 2018). By weight, wood is 50% carbon – 1m3 of spruce-pine-fir
is equivalent one tonne of CO2, and, therefore, wooden structures could store significant quantities of
carbon CO2.
Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) Concerns
There is growing interest in Canada about how different forms of building materials perform
from an environmental perspective, specifically greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) reductions, and how
this can help Canada achieve emission-reduction targets. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) can be used to
optimize the choice of building materials that consider the embodied energy and carbon footprint of
products at each phase of their “cradle-to-grave” lifecycle (i.e., raw material extraction/production,
manufacturing, transportation, use and end of life) (Stiebert, Echeverría, Gass and Kitson, 2019). While
there is consensus that wood construction, including mass timber holds the environmental ‘bonus’
compared to concrete and/or steel, the effects associated with carbon and the implications for LCA is
being debated. Crawford & Cadorel (2017) suggested that there is no clear evidence or lack of
understanding that mass timber construction can offer environmental benefits, which is critical for the
sector given this is considered as one of its key strengths. In 2018 however, Crawford & Cadorel
reviewed nine peer-reviewed publications to examine the environmental performance of CLT
construction for Medium Density Residential (MDR) buildings. The review concludes that most
publications suggest that construction with CLT in fact results in reduction of GHGE compare to reinforce
concrete construction. However, the results were wide ranging mainly due to regional variations,
different building specifications, the treatment of biogenic carbon, LCA method used, and data source.
No study except one use an in-depth hybrid LCA method. To provide a more reliable estimation of the
potential for CLT construction with respect to GHGE reductions, the authors suggest the need for further
comprehensive examination for environmental performance of CLT construction using a hybrid LCA
method along with in-depth consideration of concrete carbonation and biogenic carbon, and data for
CLT manufacturing process (Cadorel & Crawford, 2018). Other studies that demonstrate the
environmental benefits of mass timber specific to GHGE reductions are described next.
In British Columbia, Robertson, Lam and Cole (2012), found that constructing a five-floor wooden office
building had less than a third of the global warming potential (GWP) compared to a steel and concrete
structure of the same dimension. UBC Brock Commons stores 1,753 metric tons of CO2, equivalent to
taking 511 cars off the road for a year (Canadian Wood Council, 2018.) A study by Oliver, Nassar, Lippke,
Mccarter (2014), suggests that increasing timber construction while reducing global harvesting to no
more than the yearly growth could yield a combination of emissions reduction and carbon sequestration
equal to removing construction emissions altogether. Hildebrandt et al (2017) showed a net carbon
storage potential of roughly 46 million tones CO2 per year through present and future use of
engineering-wood products in residential building in Europe. A study by Buchanan & Levine (1999)
demonstrated a 20% reduction in GHGE subject to a 17% increase in wood-based building construction
in New Zealand. In fact, the use of wood in building construction provides a huge window of opportunity
Syed. T 2020
15
to fight climate change in many ways. However, Crawford & Cadorel (2017), contested these opinions
and stated that several previous studies are inconclusive in their assessment of the mass timber
environmental benefits, mainly due to unavailability of specific data on the timber products under
examination and the use of flawed quantification methods. It is noteworthy to point out that in 2019 the
Cement Association of Canada commissioned a consultants’ report by an environmental group that
raises concerns about the impact on LCA of what they describe as inadequate accounting of values such
as the protection/provision of caribou habitat should there be an increased demand for wood products
(Stiebert, Echeverría, Gass and Kitson, 2019) – see International Institute for Sustainable Development
“Emission omissions: Carbon accounting gaps in the built environment” report 2019, for more details.
Mass Timber Socioeconomic Benefits
Humans feel happier, healthier and productive when they are connected to the natural
environment. Numerous scientific studies confirm that active and passive encounters with nature is
positive for human health (Nyrud et al. 2010). The use of natural material such as wood in the built
environment reduces stress and improves overall well-being. A study by Jiménez et al (2014)
investigating various psychological effects of wood and laminate products in the indoor environment,
confirmed that wooden interiors are ranked much higher than laminate products, mainly because wood
interiors were physically and mentally stimulating and made study participants feel much warmer and
cozier. Another study by University of British Columbia (UBC) and FPInnovations confirmed a strong
connection between wood and human health. Different office environments were created with wooden
interior as a treatment and white non-wood interior as a control, with an objective to analyze the
impacts of natural products on the “autonomic nervous system” in the built environment. The study
results showed that the presence of wood in the office reduced “sympathetic nervous system” (SNS)
activation; a nervous system that regulates physiological stress responses in humans (Fell, 2011). Wood
material is also popular in hospital construction due to its role in supporting convalescence and well-
being of the patients (EOS, 2014). Other research confirmed that touching a wooden surface gives
people sense of safety and closeness to nature (see woodforgood, 2019). A study by Ikei et al (2017)
suggests that touching white oak (Quercus alba) critically reduces the oxy-Hb concentration in the right
prefrontal cortex; “a brain region involved in the regulation of complex cognitive behavior, decision
making, personality expression and social behavior” (Wikipedia, 2019), and critically increases
parasympathetic nervous activity. These findings confirm that touching wood stimulates physiological
relaxation.
Mass timber and prefabricated wood construction is cheaper, faster and less disruptive. While
timber panels are prefabricated in a factory, various site activities such as the foundation can be
constructed in parallel. This minimizes the lag time that a typical in-situ building construction has, where
substructure (foundation) and superstructure (columns, beams, and slabs) occur sequentially (Smith et
al. 2017). Further, mass timber building requires short erection times, less manpower and equipment
and, therefore faster project handover to the developers. Cazemier (2017) suggest that CLT slab can be
erected every 3 days, compared to roughly 14 days for a post-tensioned concrete slab. Though one can
argue that less manpower may lead to unemployment, which may be a contradiction to the economic
benefits of mass timber. A study by Smith et al (2017) showed a mean reduction of 20% in schedule in
Syed. T 2020
16
mass timber construction compared to conventional construction. A study by Kremer & Symmons
(2015) suggest that compared to typical reinforced-concrete construction, construction with mass
timber may provide 25% to 40% of time savings. This assumes that the mass timber panels are delivered
on time, which is typically a major challenge in Canada.
Another advantage of mass timber is lower construction costs compared to steel and concrete
(Espinoza & Buehlmann, 2018, see also Kremer & Ritchie, 2018). The case study of 18 mass timber
projects by Smith et al (2017) found a 4.2% average savings in capital over typical concrete projects. The
findings of Laguarda-Mallo & Espinoza (2016) demonstrate a cost savings between $1 and $9 per square
foot for walls and roofs if the project uses CLT panels instead of cast-in-situ concrete. When a reduction
in construction schedule is considered, total project cost savings could be much higher. Additionally,
structural wood is cost-competitive because of its better thermal insulation capability. As a result, less
insulation is required with lower maintenance costs (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza, 2014). Further, fast-
track construction means less chance of workplace-accidents, personnel injuries, and less construction-
related disruption, with positive impact on the total construction cost (e.g., safety, insurance, liabilities
and goodwill) (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza, 2014).
Another economic advantage of the mass timber system is the potential use of beetle-killed
pine (BKP) trees. In British Columbia, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins)
infestation killed more than half of the total merchantable volume (723 million m3) of pine trees over
the past few decades (Dhar et al. 2016). As a result, despite the extensive efforts to harvest the pre-
infected stands, hundreds of millions of dead pine trees are left standing and will eventually decompose
or burn in wildfire, releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, with exceptional economic
loss. With the beetle- killed trees the quality of wood is not compromised and could be used in wood
products such as CLT. It was recognized as an optimal way to utilize huge numbers of BKP trees
(Economist, 2012). A good example is the construction of the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration
facility at the University of British Columbia, where CLT panels made of beetle-killed wood were utilized.
Another example is the 100-meter-long span of the Richmond Olympic Oval structure in B.C, where the
roof system was constructed using softwood dimension lumber produced from beetle-infested spruce-
pine-fir species (see naturally wood, 2016). It is noteworthy to mention that author of the study did not
find enough evidence or peer-reviewed articles supporting the structural performance of beetle-infested
mass timber products, which is fundamental in large-scale utilization of these products.
Affordable Housing and Regional Disparity
The advantages of mass timber could provide solutions to some of Canada’s most difficult
problems: affordable housing and regional disparity.
Today half of us live in urban cities, and that number is going to grow to almost 70 percent
(United Nations, 2018). In the next 30 years, global population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion from
7.7 billion people today (Jones et al. 2016). That means almost 2 billion people, will need a new home.
That’s more than 25% of the current world population. It is no secret that the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) has a major housing supply deficit and affordability problem. The scale of the challenge is
enormous. We need to explore more affordable and sustainable housing. The Sidewalk Labs proposed
Syed. T 2020
17
housing innovation project that involves construction of 10 mass timber buildings on Toronto’s eastern
waterfront could potentially help improve affordability in the GTA, where 40% of units are planned to be
below market rate.
It is not difficult to identify regional differences that exist among various regions in Canada. In
fact, regional disparity in Canada is among the widest in the developed world. Canada has the largest
landmass on earth (covering much of the boreal forest and Arctic regions) where the majority of
communities on the land are Indigenous people (Chapeskie, 1999). The use of mass timber is largely
concentrated in urban cities, but the raw wood comes from rural Canada. Mass timber provides a great
opportunity to flow benefits to the rural and northern communities through forestry, transportation and
mills, and also bridge the divide between rural and urban Canadians. However, these benefits can only
be realized through wider participation of Indigenous groups.
SECTION 03 - METHODS
The study entailed administering a questionnaire to mass timber end users. These include
interests such as engineers, architects, designers, construction professionals, manufacturers and
suppliers, academics and researchers, forest and government agencies and First Nations. A web-based
survey was employed; which is a useful approach for data collection in research due to its ability to
receive quick responses (Saleh & Bista, 2017), and the cost effectiveness of reaching wider geographical
scale (Sue & Ritter 2012). Also, it is cost effective for students/ academic researchers. An online cloud-
based website, Google Forms, was used for designing and implementing the survey.
Development of Research Survey
The initial draft survey was developed from reviewing the empirical literature. Survey questions
were divided into four parts including demographic data, research priorities, barriers to mass timber
adoption and mass timber EPC challenges. A total of 15 questions were included in the survey including
open ended, close ended and multiple-choice questions. The questions on demographic data, and
content of the preamble was based on those developed for a larger national survey by Dr. Y.H. Chui –
Professor at University of Alberta and NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Engineered Wood and Building
Systems.
The survey was shared with subject experts from academia and industry to seek their feedback
and changes were made. Finally, questions were incorporated into a cloud-based survey platform. The
questionnaire main features are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. A summary of survey questions.
Topic Question Type of response/scale
Demographics
data
What is your profession? Short answer text, multiple
selection checkboxes (6 options
and “other”)
Research
priorities
In your opinion, what are the "research priorities"
of the mass timber end users in Canada? Using a
4-point scale: “not a priority,”
“low priority,” “medium
priority,” and “high priority”
Syed. T 2020
18
scale (not a priority, low priority, medium priority
and high priority)
Please list other "research priorities" of mass
timber end users in Canada that you consider
need addressing to support its further
development, and that were not included in the
previous questions.
Open ended question
Barriers to
adoption
What are, in your opinion, the "major barriers"
that may be hindering widespread adoption of
mass timber in Canada?
Please list other "major barriers" to widespread
adoption of mass timber in Canada that you
consider need addressing to support its further
development, and that were not included in the
previous questions.
3-point scale: “not a barrier at
all,” “may be a barrier,” and
“large barrier”
Open ended question
Engineering,
procurement
and
construction
challenges
What are, in your opinion, the greatest
"engineering, procurement and construction
challenges" for use of mass timber in Canada?
Please list other “engineering, procurement and
construction challenges” of mass timber end users
in Canada that you consider need addressing to
support its further development, and that were
not included in the previous questions?
4-point scale: “Not challenging
at all,” “may be a challenge,”
“very challenging,” and “no
opinion”
Open ended question
Additional
comments
Any additional comments? Open ended question
Survey Procedure
The study began by recruiting participants through a snowballing approach involving referral
sampling, where survey participants were identified through reaching out to industry influencers (see
Kremer & Symmons, 2018) and connections through the Mass Timber Institute. The study author was
employed by the MTI as an intern during his Master of Forest Conservation program and while working
on his capstone research, which comprises this study. An ethics approval was formally obtained (see
Appendix 3) from University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (REB), which was required to fulfill the
requirements of the Master of Forest Conservation degree and the involvement of human participants
in the survey. Pretesting was done to test survey clarity and to identity IT glitches with two participants,
and subsequently an email with consent sheet (see Appendix 4) and survey link was sent. Finally, study
participants who had not completed the survey received a friendly reminder email two weeks after
survey commencement.
Syed. T 2020
19
Data Analysis
Upon completion of the online survey, responses were extracted from the survey website in the
spreadsheet format and were analyzed for descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel.
Development of GIS Map
The GIS scope started with the data acquisition. Extensive online research was carried out to find
mass timber projects that are proposed/in progress or completed in North America. In addition, project
attributes including; project name, street address, status, year of completion and website links were
compiled using excel spreadsheet. After compilation, the data file was formatted and exported into
ArcGIS for geocoding. Each layer of proposed/in progress projects was created using queries and data
preparation tools. The projects were finally clustered to create an interactive proportional map.
SECTION 04 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response Rate and Survey Implementation
The survey was carried out during September and November 2019. Overall, 28 responses were
received out of 60 survey invitees. A 46.6% response rate was calculated. There was no incomplete
response, hence, all responses were incorporated in the analysis.
Demographics
Table 4 represent the professions of survey participants. Participants were allowed to choose
more than one profession. Most participants indicated “engineer” as their profession (39.3%), followed
by architects or designer (21.4%), manufacturer or supplier (17.9%), researcher or academic (14.3%),
construction professional (10.7%) and developer or builder (7.1%). The questionnaire also included
“other” profession option; single responses were recorded from industry association executive, building
science specialist, government, non-profit institute, and Indigenous forest enterprise development
advisor.
Table 4. Professions of survey participants (N=28).
Profession Quantity Percent
Engineers 11 39.3%
Architects or Designers 6 21.4%
Manufacturers or Suppliers 5 17.9%
Researchers or Academics 4 14.3%
Construction Professionals 3 10.7%
Developers or Builders 2 7.1%
Others 5 17.9%
* More than one response was allowed
Mass Timber Research Priorities of End Users in Canada
To identify the research priorities of the mass timber end users, participants were given a list of
25 key research topics and asked to rate them in order of importance. See the findings on research
Syed. T 2020
20
priorities summarized in Figure 2a and 2b. The ranking scale was grouped into four categories – not a
priority, low priority, medium priority and high priority.
The top “medium” or “high” research priority, according to the participants, were “total project cost
comparison with concrete and steel” (96.4%). This outcome was expected and is consistent with the
proceedings of mass timber research workshop in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, which concluded that
research on detailed cost estimation of mass timber projects is required immediately (Pei et al. 2016).
“Mass timber building construction methods/guidelines,” “hybrid system” and “impact on
insurance - both during construction and post construction” were other top “medium” or “high”
research priorities considered by 96.4%, 96.4% and 92.9% of participants, respectively. It is worthwhile
noting that “wood supply for mass timber manufacturer” was rated “medium” or “high” research
priority by only 71.4% of participants. This may be because there is no current or predicted shortage of
sustainable wood availability in Canada to support a mass timber manufacturing industry. In 2016,
roughly 155 million cubic metres (m3) of industrial roundwood was harvested in Canada, far below the
annual sustainable wood supply of nearly 223 million m3 (Natural Resources Canada, 2019)
Surprisingly, “seismic performance” and “fire performance” were placed in high-priority ranking
by only 28.6% and 39.3% of participants, respectively. These results are not consistent with findings by
Espinoza, Buehlmann, Mallo, Trujillo (2016), and reported seismic performance (65.1%) and fire
performance (60%) as very high or high research priorities. This may be because fire and seismic
performance of mass timber buildings now seems largely well understood. Substantial research has
been published on mass timber seismic and fire performance by Forest Product Innovations, Canadian
Wood Council (CWC) and the Natural Research Council Canada (NRC).
There was no clear trend for research topics with low priority. For instance, “social
impact/benefit,” “build an online central repository/library” and “thermal performance” were rated low
priority by only 36% of participants – still not very convincing and indicating strong support for such
research and access to knowledge and information.
Syed. T 2020
21
Figure 2a. Mass Timber “research priorities” of end users in Canada (N=28).
Figure 2b. Mass Timber “research priorities” of end users in Canada (N=28).
Syed. T 2020
22
A comment field was included in the survey to allow participants to list “other” research
priorities that were not included in the previous questions. Very high response rate was recorded with
this question, a total of 18 participants (64.2%) provided their feedback. See Table 5 for other research
topics identified by participants.
Table 5. Other research topics/priorities identified by study participants. The rate of occurrence
column includes the number of times that a particular research topic was suggested by participants.
Research topic Rate of
occurrence
Topic details
Communication &
knowledge sharing
5 Workflow and communication systems using BIM, aggregation of
current research, lessons learned from concrete structures, shared
resources and case study repository, support for research and
development for design practices
Education and
training
3 Workers professional training, mass timber architecture and
engineering programs in Universities
Authorities Having
Jurisdictions (AHJ)
3 Train AHJ on mass timber fundamentals, assess their perception
and reservations on using mass timber
Prefabrication 3 Prefabrication of envelope to match erecting speed of timber,
methods for prefabrication, positive impact of prefabrication on
traffic
Codes and
regulations
3 Ontario Building Code adoption of National Building Code of
Canada to 12 storeys, code limits for building heights and areas,
cross province codes and regulations,
Environmental
benefits
2 In depth assessment of climate benefits vs. concrete and steel,
embodied carbon of the building, including for glues and different
logging practices.
Mass timber
supply
2 Increase (local) supply to bring down cost
Fire 2 Fire design (exposed timber, char rate), make the fire performance
evident to code and fire departments
Hybrid systems 2 Hybrid solution, composite section
Other 12 Cost predictability
Vibration
Proprietary fasteners
Optimized solution for large floor spans
Floor compositions
Material strength
Moisture control
Wood stair cores
Impact of provincial wood first programmes
Syed. T 2020
23
T-sections, pre and post tensioning
Engagement of Indigenous enterprise
Assess barriers to growth
* See Appendix 1 for complete feedback from respondents obtained from the open-ended questions.
Mass Timber Barriers to Adoption in Canada
Barriers that may be hindering widespread adoption of mass timber in Canada was another
question in the survey. Participants were given a choice of 13 key barriers and asked to rate them using a
scale – not a barrier at all, may be a barrier, or large barrier. Figure 3 summarized the results on mass
timber barriers. “Misconception about mass timber with respect to fire and building longevity,” “high
uncertain insurance premium,” “higher cost of mass timber products compares to concrete and steel,”
“resistance to changing from concrete and steel,” “product availability or lack of local production,”
“poor standardization of codes and regulations,” and “lack of carbon sequestration incentives/carbon
tax” were considered “may be a barrier” or “larger barrier” by 100%, 100%, 92.9%, 92.9%, 89.3%, 85.7%,
85.7% of respondents, respectively. This outcome is consistent with some findings by Espinoza,
Buehlmann, Mallo, Trujillo (2016), where misperceptions about wood or CLT (95.7%), compatibility of
CLT with building codes (93.6%), availability of CLT in the market (87.3%) and cost (86.7) were
considered top “potential” or “large barriers” by study participants.
Figure 3. Mass Timber “barrier to adoption” in Canada (N=28).
Mass Timber Engineering Challenges in Canada
In this section, participants were given 9 key engineering challenges and asked to rate them
using a scale – not challenging at all, may be a challenge or very challenging. In this section, participants
Syed. T 2020
24
were given a choice of “no opinion,” because not all target participants were expected to have
engineering, procurement or construction background. Figure 4 summarized the results on mass timber
engineering challenges in Canada. “Building code compliance and regulations,” “design permits and
approvals” and “insufficient design experts in the market” were all rated as “may be a challenge” or
“very challenging” by 96.4% of participants. While, “site-specific amendments to the building code,”
“upfront design time and cost,” “coordination among stakeholders” and “building design complexity”
were all rated as “may be a challenge” or “very challenging” by 89.3% of participants.
Figure 4. Mass Timber “engineering challenges” in Canada (N=28).
Mass Timber Procurement Challenges in Canada
In this section, participants were given 8 key procurement challenges and asked to rate them
using a same scale used for engineering challenges. Figure 5 summarized the results on mass timber
procurement challenges in Canada. “Number of manufactures/suppliers,” long distance transportation
(e.g., TransAtlantic and Pacific shipping)” and “supply and demand gaps” were rated as “may be a
challenge” or “very challenging” by 96.4%, 96.4%, 92.9% of participants, respectively.
This outcome was expected. One of the biggest current challenges facing the mass timber sector
in Canada is the supply chain. For instance; there is not a single mass timber manufacturing facility
except Guardian Structures in Ontario producing glulam or cross laminated timber. Only one company
“Weyerhauser” produces laminated veneer lumber (LVL) at its facility in Kenora (Macklin, 2019). Some
builders and developers reported a wait time of more than a year to receive material delivery. For
George Brown College’s structural wood building The Arbour, there will be 18 months lead-time to
obtain the delivery of mass timber products required for construction (Macklin, 2019). The recent
announcement about Element5’s new CLT plant in St. Thomas has been considered a step forward for
Syed. T 2020
25
the Ontario supply chain problem. With a $5 million investment from the provincial government, the
facility will produce up to 45,000 m3 of CLT and glulam annually. A question remains as to whether the
new production will be enough to satisfy the market demand, especially considering Sidewalk Lab’s
waterfront project that plans to construct 10 large mass timber buildings in Toronto? Another supply
chain issue is that mass timber products primarily use SPF (Spruce-Pine-Fir) softwood, and unlike Europe
there is limited use of hardwood lumber to manufacture engineered wood. In Canada, there is a lack of
structural wood (e.g., glulam) producers that use hardwood species. Only the Weyerhauser mill in
Kenora produces TimberStrand LSL (Laminated Strand Lumber) using Poplar, Aspen and Birch. The
feasibility of using hardwoods to feed sawmills to produce glulam would be a useful research topic.
In addition, “procurement models used by the client (e.g., resistance to design-assist
procurement of supplier)” and “long-lead/late delivery of onsite material” were both rated as “may be a
challenge” or “very challenging” by 89.3% of participants. It is interesting to note that “wood protection
during transportation” was considered “not challenging at all” by 46.4% participants.
Figure 5. Mass Timber “procurement challenges” in Canada (N=28).
Mass Timber Construction Challenges in Canada
In this section, participants were given 7 key construction challenges and asked to rate them
using a same scale used for engineering or procurement challenges. Figure 6a summarized the results on
mass timber construction challenges in Canada.
“Inadequate skilled workforce” and inadequate specialized subcontractors were rated as “may be a
challenge” or “very challenging” by 100% and 96.4% of participants, respectively. This indicate that this
is now a good time to invest in the mass timber subcontracting business. As for an inadequate skilled
Syed. T 2020
26
workforce, no mass timber training program existed in Canada until 2017 – as the industry is still novel
and there are limited opportunities for education and training (Macklin, 2019). Mike Yorke’s Carpenter’s
Union are embracing the new mass timber technology and built a training centre in Vaughan which
graduated its first class of mass timber certified carpenters in 2019. At the University level, University of
Toronto (UofT) has recently offered a studio design course at John. H Daniels Faculty of Architecture,
Design and Landscape, where students were given the task of designing the Element5 new CLT facility at
St. Thomas. Another course on “mass timber construction technology” began in 2019 at the UofT
Daniels Faculty.
Figure 6a. Mass Timber “construction challenges” in Canada (N=28).
Mass Timber Construction Challenges in Canada – Wood Protection during Construction
In this section, which is a continuation of construction challenges, participants were given a
choice of the 5 key challenges of wood protection during construction in Canada. Figure 6b summarizes
the results. “Excessive moisture exposure (e.g., roof panels)” was the only challenge that was considered
as “may be a challenge” or “very challenging” by 92.9% of participants.
Syed. T 2020
27
Figure 6b. Mass Timber “construction challenges” in Canada – wood protection during construction
(N=28).
GIS Map
Mass timber buildings are sprouting up in North America and around the globe. According to
Wood Works U.S., as of January 2020, there are 708 multi-family, commercial or institutional projects
including mass timber and post-and-beam structures that were built or planned across the U.S.
(Woodworks, 2020.) Surprisingly, no such inventory exists for mass timber projects in Canada that was
compiled by Woodworks Canada, or at least author did not find it on the internet. However, the New
York based The Architect’s Newspaper has been maintaining maps of the North America mass timber
industry that includes Canadian projects. None of these mapping exercises are interactive three-
dimensional nor do they provide easily accessible project information with the click of a mouse. There is
potential for the type of maps developed during this study to provide a showcase for mass timber
projects.
The Maps 1&2 below describe the inventory of mass timber buildings in Canada and the United States
that are proposed, in progress or completed. Most projects are concentrated in big cities in North
America including Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and the
northeastern region of the United States.
Click here to find the interactive maps, with detailed information about each project.
Syed. T 2020
28
Map 1. Interactive, 3D GIS map displaying the distribution of mass timber projects across North America
Map 2. Interactive, 2D GIS map displaying proportional distribution of mass timber projects across North
America
SECTION 05 – CONCLUSION
The main purpose of this capstone was to identify mass timber research priorities, barriers to
adoption and engineering, procurement and construction challenges in Canada. The idea to choose this
topic was incubated during a directed studies course (January-April, 2019) and the internship (May-
December 2019), and through personal interactions with industry experts during several workshops and
seminars organized by the Mass Timber Institute.
Study findings indicate an urgent need for research on topics such as mass timber project cost
comparisons, hybrid systems, and building construction methods and guidelines. The mass timber end
users participating in this study indicated misconceptions, higher product cost and insurance premiums
Syed. T 2020
29
and resistance to change as the largest barriers to adoption of the system in Canada. Further, a
substantial percentage of study participants rated lack of product availability as an additional barrier.
The survey results suggest building code compliance, permits and approvals, lack of design experts,
manufacturers and suppliers, skilled workforces and specialized contractors as well as long distance
transportation and supply chain issues and excessive moisture during construction are highly ranked as
engineering, procurement and construction challenges. The study outcome shows agreement on almost
all major research priorities, barriers and challenges with respect to the previous published literature
(see Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza, 2018; Espinoza, Trujillo, Mallo, Buehlmann, 2016; Espinoza, Mallo,
Trujillo, 2016).
Findings of this study also show an imminent need to improve and expand mass timber
education, networking forums and professional training. Universities and colleges have an important
role to play in leading the mass timber initiative forward in Canada
Undoubtedly mass timber technology is growing from concept to profitable industry, and will
revolutionize the construction industry. There is the caveat, however, that timber for buildings should
only be used if it has been demonstrated to have been harvested from certified sustainable forests.
SECTION 06 –RECOMMENDATIONS
This work could possibly be extended with a bigger sample size and more regional
representation in Canada, especially opinions from mass timber experts from Alberta and the Atlantic
provinces should be included in future research. Long term holistic GIS mapping on supply chain routes
and project inventory is warranted and the author is currently working on these projects.
The foremost limitation of the study was limited time duration. The survey was completed in
just two months and generated only 28 responses. The feedback obtained from the open-ended
questions could not be fully analyzed due to the time constraints of a professional master program. Also,
it is acknowledged that the forest industry, First Nations and Indigenous groups and government
agencies were under-represented in the sample. There was no representation from the insurance or
financial industries, which is critical especially given the concerns over uncertain insurance premiums
and the higher costs today of adapting mass timber. Further, the study may lack the richness of
responses and data because the survey was solely conducted online. With respect to GIS project
inventory, the project database was limited and therefore not claimed to be exhaustive.
Syed. T 2020
30
SECTION 07 – REFERENCES
Akbarnezhad, A., & Xiao, J. (2017). Estimation and Minimization of Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A
Review. Buildings, 7(4), 5. doi: 10.3390/buildings7010005
Andrew, R. (2018). Global CO emissions from cement production, 1928–2017. Earth System Science Data, 10(4),
2213-2239. doi: 10.5194/essd-10-2213-2018
Architecture2030.org. (2018). Retrieved from https://architecture2030.org/new-buildings-embodied/
Barekat, F., Han, D., Dewan, M., & Qian, A. (2010). An Investigation into the Use of Wood vs. Steel and Concrete in
Construction of the New SUB. The University of British Columbia.
Buchanan, A., & Levine, S. (1999). Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon
emissions. Environmental Science & Policy, 2(6), 427-437. doi: 10.1016/s1462-9011(99)00038-6
Cazemier, D. S. (2017). Comparing Cross Laminated Timber with Concrete and Steel: A Financial Analysis of Two
Buildings in Australia. 2017 Modular and Offsite Construction Summit & the 2nd International Symposium on
Industrialized Construction Technology.
Canadian Wood Council - CWC. (2020a). Retrieved 6 January 2020, from https://cwc.ca/how-to-build-with-
wood/wood-products/mass-timber/
Canadian Wood Council - CWC. (2020b). Retrieved 6 January 2020, from https://cwc.ca/how-to-build-with-
wood/wood-products/structural-composite/laminate-veneer-lumber/
Canadian Wood Council - CWC. (2019). Retrieved 28 December 2019, from https://cwc.ca/how-to-build-with-
wood/wood-products/mass-timber/
Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2018). The advent of tall wood structures in Canada. A Case Study (p. 8). Canadian
Wood Council (CWC). Retrieved from https://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CS-
BrockCommon.Study_.23.lr_.pdf
Cachim, P., Velosa, A., & Ferraz, E. (2013). Substitution materials for sustainable concrete production in
Portugal. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(1), 60-66. doi: 10.1007/s12205-014-0201-3
Cadorel, X., & Crawford, R. (2018). Life cycle analysis of cross laminated timber in buildings: a review. In Engaging
Architectural Science: Meeting the Challenges of Higher Density: 52nd International Conference of the
Architectural Science Association (pp. 107–114). Melbourne.
Chapeskie, A. (1999). Northern Homelands, Northern Frontier: Linking Culture and Economic Security in
Contemporary Livelihoods in Boreal and Cold Temperate Forest Communities in Northern Canada. In NTFP
Conference Proceedings (p. 35). Kenora: USDA.
Crawford, R., & Cadorel, X. (2017). A Framework for Assessing the Environmental Benefits of Mass Timber
Construction. Procedia Engineering, 196, 838-846. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.015
Dhar, A., Parrott, L., & Hawkins, C. D. B. (2016). Aftermath of mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia:
Stand dynamics, management response and ecosystem resilience. Forests, 7(8), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f7080171
Syed. T 2020
31
Economist. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/babbage/2012/08/30/wooden-skyscrapers
EOS. (2014). EOS - European Organisation of the Sawmill Industry | News - The use of wood in hospital
construction supports convalescence. Retrieved from https://www.eos-oes.eu/en/news.php?id=800
Espinoza, O., & Buehlmann, U. (2018). Cross-Laminated Timber in the USA: Opportunity for Hardwoods? Current
Forestry Reports, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0071-x
Espinoza, O., Buehlmann, U., Mallo, M. F. L., & Trujillo, V. R. (2016). Identification of research areas to advance the
adoption of cross- laminated timber in North America. BioProducts Business, (5), 60–72.
Fell, D. (2011). Wood and human health. Retrieved from
https://fpinnovations.ca/Extranet/Pages/AssetDetails.aspx?item=/Extranet/Assets/ResearchReportsWP/2862.pdf
Foliente, G. History of Timber Construction. Wood Structures: A Global Forum on The Treatment, Conservation,
And Repair of Cultural Heritage, 3-3-20. doi: 10.1520/stp13370s
Hans Jrgen Hansen, Ed., Faber and Faber. (1971). Architecture in Wood: A History of Wood Building and Its
Techniques in Europe and North America. London. Retrieved from http://cwc.ca/design-with-
wood/durability/woods-heritage/
Hildebrandt, J., Hagemann, N., & Thrän, D. (2017). The contribution of wood-based construction materials for
leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 405-418. doi:
10.1016/j.scs.2017.06.013
Gagnon, S., Bilek, E., Podesto, L., & Crespell, P. (2013). CLT Handbook: cross-laminated timber (p. 1). FPlnnovations.
Retrieved from https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2013/fpl_2013_gagnon001.pdf
Huang, L., Krigsvoll, G., Johansen, F., Liu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2018). Carbon emission of global construction
sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1906-1916. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.001
Ikei, H., Song, C., & Miyazaki, Y. (2017). Physiological Effects of Touching Coated Wood. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(7), 773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14070773
IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the
context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts
to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani,
Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy,
Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
Jiménez, P., Dunkl, A., Eibel, K., Denk, E., Grote, V., Kelz, C., & Moser, M. (2015). Evaluating Psychological Aspects
of Wood and Laminate Products in Indoor Settings with Pictures. Forest Products Journal, 65(5-6), 263-271. doi:
10.13073/fpj-d-14-00003
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. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.088
Syed. T 2020
32
Kalt, G. (2018). Carbon dynamics and GHG implications of increasing wood construction: long-term scenarios for
residential buildings in Austria. Carbon Management, 9(3), 265-275. doi: 10.1080/17583004.2018.1469948
Karacabeyli, E., & Mohammad, M. (2014). Historical, Current and Future Tall Wood Buildings. TALLWood. Retrieved
from http://wooddesign.dgtlpub.com/2015/2015-01-31/pdf/Tall_Wood.pdf
Kremer, P., & Symmons, M. (2015). Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the
Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential. International Wood Products Journal, 6(3), 138-
147. doi: 10.1179/2042645315y.0000000010
Kremer, P., & Symmons, M. (2018). Perceived barriers to the widespread adoption of Mass Timber Construction:
An Australian construction industry case study. Mass Timber Construction Journal, 1.
Laguarda-Mallo, M., & Espinoza, O. (2018). Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S.
Engineering Firms. Bioproducts Business, 3(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.22382/bpb-2018-001
Laguarda-Mallo, M., & Espinoza, O. (2016). Cross-laminated timber vs concrete/steel: cost comparison using a case
study. World Conference on Timber Engineering, (October).
Laguarda Mallo, M., & 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. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090
Li, H., Wang, B., Wei, P., & Wang, L. (2019). Cross-laminated Timber (CLT) in China: A State-of-the-Art. Journal of
Biosources And Bioproducts, 4(1), 22-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.21967/jbb.v4i1.190
Mass Timber Institute. (2019). What New at MTI. Retrieved from https://www.masstimberinstitute.ca/latest
Mass Timber Institute. (2019). Director’s Message. Retrieved from https://www.masstimberinstitute.ca/director-
message
Macklin, A. (2019). Mass Timber 2.0 - ReNew Canada. Retrieved 6 January 2020, from
https://www.renewcanada.net/feature/mass-timber-2-0/
Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2014). Outlook for cross-laminated timber in the United States. BioResources, 9(4),
7427–7443. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.9.4.7427-7443
Muszynski, L., Hansen, E., Fernando, S., Schwarzmann, G., & Rainer, J. (2017). Insights into the Global Cross-
Laminated Timber Industry. Bioproducts Business, 2(8), 77–92.
Naturallywood. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/documents/resources/mountain-pine-beetle_1.pdf
Nyrud, A., Bysheim, K., & Bringslimark, T. (2010). Health Benefits from Wood Interior in a Hospital Room.
In Proceedings of the International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe – Timber Committee. Geneva, Switzerland.
Syed. T 2020
33
Natural Resources Canada. (2019). Indicator: Volume harvested relative to the sustainable wood supply |Retrieved
6 January 2020, from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests-forestry/state-canadas-forests-
report/timber-being-harvested-sustainab/indicator-volume-harvested-relative-sustainable-wood-supply/16550
Oliver, C., Nassar, N., Lippke, B., & McCarter, J. (2014). Carbon, Fossil Fuel, and Biodiversity Mitigation with Wood
and Forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 33(3), 248-275. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2013.839386
Pei, S., Rammer, D., Popovski, M., Williamson, T., Line, P., & Lindt, J. W. Van De. (2016). An Overview of CLT
Research and Implementation in North America. Proceedings of the WCTE 2016 World Conference on Timber
Engineering.
Radhi, H. (2009). Evaluating the potential impact of global warming on the UAE residential buildings – A
contribution to reduce the CO2 emissions. Building and Environment, 44(12), 2451-2462. doi:
10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.04.006
Ramage, M., Burridge, H., Busse-Wicher, M., Fereday, G., Reynolds, T., & Shah, D. et al. (2017). The wood from the
trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 333-359. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107
ResearchAndMarkets.com. (2018). European Cross-Laminated Timber Market 2018-2023 - Industry Trends, Share,
Size, Growth, Opportunities and Forecasts - Retrieved 6 January 2020, from
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180501006266/en/European-Cross-Laminated-Timber-Market-
2018-2023---Industry
Robertson, A., Lam, F., & Cole, R. (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. doi:
10.3390/buildings2030245
Saleh, A., & Bista, K. (2017). Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Rates in Educational Research:
Perceptions of Graduate Students. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 13(29), 63-74.
Skullestad, J., Bohne, R., & 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. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.112
Smith, R. E., Griffin, G., Rice, T., & Hagehofer-Daniell, B. (2018). Mass timber: evaluating construction performance.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(1–2), 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1273089
Stiebert, S., Echeverría, D., Gass, P., & Kitson, L. (2019). Emission Omissions: Carbon accounting gaps in the built
environment (p. iii). International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
https://www.iisd.org/library/emission-omissions
Sue, V., & Ritter, L. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Thelandersson, S., Aasheim, E., & Ranta-Maunus, A. (2004). New timber construction in Nordic countries.
Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/943884
Syed. T 2020
34
United Nations. (2018). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects | Multimedia Library - United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html
UN Environment and International Energy Agency. (2017). Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient
buildings and construction sector. Global Status Report 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/UNEP%20188_GABC_en%20(web).pdf
Wikipedia. (2019). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
Woodforgood.com. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.woodproducts.fi/articles/use-wood-hospital-
construction-supports-convalescence-0
WoodWorks. (2020). Building Trends: Mass Timber. Retrieved 26 January 2020, from
https://www.woodworks.org/publications-media/building-trends-mass-timber/
Syed. T 2020
35
SECTION 08 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the first teacher of my life, my late mother Nasreen Fatima: because I owe it all to you. Thank you!
I am grateful to my wife Aisha and our beautiful daughter Imaneh for their support and enduring
patience during my studies.
I will forever be thankful to my capstone supervisor and mentor Dr. Anne Koven, Director Mass Timber
Institute and Adjunct Professor at John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design,
University of Toronto for giving me academic freedom to pursue various projects without any objection.
Having the access to her was a lifetime opportunity.
A very special gratitude goes to Mark Gaglione – Building and Materials Sciences Specialist from EllisDon
for supporting this study as an external supervisor and providing very valuable feedback on the proposal
and questionnaire.
I am also grateful to Derek Nighbor, Dr. Ted Kesik, Dr. Y.H. Chui and Dr. John Caspersen for their support
and assistance.
And finally, last but by no means least, I am very thankful to everyone in the mass timber industry who
participated in this study.
Thanks for all your encouragement!
Syed. T 2020
36
SECTION 09 – APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Participants Feedback on Open Ended Questions
Other mass timber “research priorities” in Canada suggested by respondents (end users)
• Workflow and communication systems using BIM.
• Worker education and training.
• Assess any barriers to growth and/or further development.
• Prefabrication of envelope to match erecting speed of timber.
• Hybrid solution and methods for prefabrication of systems.
• In depth assessment of climate benefits vs. concrete and steel in depth positive impact of Mass
Timber using prefabrication on traffic.
• Fire design (exposed timber, char rate), code limits for building heights and areas, proprietary
fasteners (evaluation of), optimized solutions for large floor spans, floor compositions (re. clear
height limitation).
• Material strengths - glulam strengths could be updated to reflect the products on the market
rather than what is in the code.
• Construction moisture management and planning.
• A concerted effort to make the performance evident to Code and Fire Departments is critical.
This will mostly likely be an aggregation of current research. Allowances for wood stair cores in
particular will be a critical factor.
• Cross province codes and regulations, impact of provincial wood first programmes on the
proliferation of the industry (learning from Quebec and BC) support for R&D for design practices.
• Composite sections, T-sections, pre & post tensioning etc. lessons learned from concrete
structures.
• Specifically, Embodied carbon of the building. including for glues and different logging practices.
• Train Authorities Having Jurisdictions on mass timber fundamentals. Too much code red tape.
• Mass Timber Architecture and Engineering programs in Universities.
• Growing the engagement of Indigenous enterprise in the mass timber industry should be a
research priority for the mass timber industry in Canada. Canada has the largest area on earth
(covering much of the boreal forest and arctic regions) where the majority of residents on the
land are Indigenous people speaking their Indigenous languages
(https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc217.pdf, at page 35). The future of the forestry
industry generally, and the mass timber industry specifically, will only benefit from a much
greater participation by Indigenous enterprises.
• We should also talk to Authorities Having Jurisdiction to fill in the gaps on their reservations on
using mass timber and thus having the permit and approvals process more streamlined.
Additional comments (research priorities)
• It goes without saying that professional training and education is key to future successes.
• Public and AHJ perception of wood is a critical piece to mass timber advocacy. Working towards
cost predictability is equally critical but will take development and innovation on various levels.
Increased supply to bring costs down and familiarity on jobs sites should go a long way towards
Syed. T 2020
37
this goal.
• Shared resources and case study repository.
• OBC adoption of NBC to 12 storeys.
• In general, the priorities are increasing the supply of mass timber within local markets, and de-
risking the use and implementation of mass timber design by removing some of the "unknowns"
of this relatively new product.
Other major “barriers" to widespread adoption of mass timber in Canada suggested by respondents
(end users)
• Too risky to build with mass timber until more people are involved.
• The construction contractual environment is not well suited for mass timber.
• Carbon and life cycle analysis (emerging book of work) can be debated/challenged in some
circles; further barriers could exist due to lack of understanding of rigor in forest management in
Canada (many people still have adverse reaction to thought of harvesting a tree).
• Lack of accurate pricing information.
• Complexity and delays of alternative solutions, lack of clear guidance on the required
demonstration, from a minor code divergence to a fully innovative project
• Failure to adopt change typical procurement models to include upfront engagement of
contractors and timber fabricators. Often, we see contractors engaged too late to have a
meaningful impact on design optimizations. This works well traditionally because concrete
buildings are so similar. However, with the early decision required for timber to succeed, it is
beneficial to have a CM and design assist timber fabricator at the table
• Cost isn't a barrier - perceived cost is a barrier.
• As indicated elsewhere, comfort with AHJs (particularly fire departments) is a significant
challenge. There is a tendency to evaluate schemes on the number of additional measures
provided (score card approach), as opposed to evidence-based research of actual performance.
This process can also quickly escalate costs as redundant systems (encapsulation, increased
sprinkler systems, etc.) are offered to AHJs as additional measures above and beyond what is
required to prove equivalency to non combustible structures. Question of cost unpredictability
are also an issue, due to unfamiliarity (x factors in pricing), and limited material/ labour supply.
See earlier response. Lack of standardization within the industry (especially with connection
design) is also an issue. This requires early communication with trades, which is not possible is
some procurement methods.
• Uncertainty on costs - Federal support for the capital cost of the project.
• Guidance and clarity on Contract types of mass timber projects. Innovative projects require
innovative approaches and must have a contract that supports collaboration. IPD is high
candidate. Design bid build does not allow for key players to contribute early enough in the
process.
• Water damage is the biggest reason for insurance claims, and there is a wide-spread perception
that mass timber buildings will perform far more poorly in the event of a water damage (i.e.,
rotting, mold etc.).
Syed. T 2020
38
• The lack of Architects and Engineers in Ontario that know how to design and engineer buildings
in mass timber is the biggest barrier to mass timber propagation, followed by a Building Code
that permits only timber buildings to 6 storeys.
• Again, discussing with AHJs what they need would be helpful, long drawn-out approval
processes requiring alternative solutions can deter people from going mass timber.
Additional comments (barriers to adoption)
• Great opportunity to use urban forestry and mass timber as a way to bridge the divide re:
attitudes towards forestry between urban and rural Canadians.
• You're making the mistake of assuming mass timber is more expensive than concrete or steel.
Prefabrication, local supply, local mass timber production, highly automated production
facilities, a close working relationship with Ontario sawmills, is resulting in mass timber being
less expensive than concrete or steel in many/most building typologies.
• There is a big lack of domestic mass timber production in several provinces in Canada, including
Ontario.
Other major mass timber "engineering, procurement and construction challenges" for use of mass
timber in Canada suggested by respondents (end users)
• Crane dependency, Coordination with other critical path trades (lateral cores), mechanical
coordination.
• Supply demand and design assist partners are limited - access to regulatory bodies to review
alternative compliances outside or in advance of the typical building permit process is met with
reluctance.
• Mass timber works best when the team can do 4D coordination.
• Our industry lacks engineered wood products that complement glulam and CLT required to
optimize mass timber solutions and drive down overall cost. Examples include - Prefabricated
facade panels, hollow core CLT floor and roof panels, ribbed panels, etc.
• These projects often require medium size mobile and self-erecting cranes on very tight sites,
which can be a logistical challenge given some of the sizes, weights and reaches of mass timber
panels.
Additional comments (engineering, procurement and construction challenges)
• Panelization is key to supply efficiency.
• There aren't enough forums available for mass timber dialogue and communication.
• The wood protection challenges are solvable problems but can add cost and time to the project
so become a liability from that standpoint.
Syed. T 2020
39
Appendix 2 – List of Mass Timber Projects in North America
Completed Projects
Project Name City Country Address Status Link
The Soto Office Building San Antonio USA 711 Broadway St, San Antonio, TX 78215
Completed (2019)
https://structurecraft.com/projects/soto-office-building
John W. Olver Design Building Amherst USA 551 N Pleasant St, Amherst, MA 01003
Completed (2017)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/umass-design-building
Beverly Regional Airport Beverly USA 46 L P Henderson Rd, Beverly, MA 01915
Completed (2015)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/beverly-regional-airport
Candlewood Suites Hotel on Redstone Arsenal Base
Huntsville USA 3440 Aerobee Rd, Huntsville, AL 35808
Completed (2015)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/hotel-candlewood-suites
Carbon 12 Portland USA 12 NE Fremont St, Portland, OR 97212
Completed (2018)
https://www.structurlam.com/portfolio/project/carbon12/
T3 Minneapolis USA 323 N Washington Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55401
Completed (2016)
https://structurecraft.com/projects/t3-minneapolis
University of Arkansas Stadium Drive Residence Halls
Fayetteville USA Arkansas 72701, United States
Completed (2019)
https://www.lwa-architects.com/project/university-arkansas-stadium-drive-residence-halls/
Brock Commons Vancouver Canada 6088 Walter Gage Rd, Vancouver, BC V6T 0B4
Completed (2017)
https://www.thinkwood.com/our-projects/brock-commons-tallwood-house
Wood Innovation & Design Centre
Prince George
Canada 499 George St, Prince George, BC V2L 1R5
Completed (2014)
http://mg-architecture.ca/work/wood-innovation-design-centre/
80 Atlantic Toronto Canada 80 Atlantic Ave Toronto, ON M6K 3E4
Completed (2019)
https://www.quadrangle.ca/portfolio/80-atlantic
Shoppers Drug Mart Toronto Canada 718 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M4Y 2B3
Completed (2019)
http://www.timsys.com/featured-project/
McEwen School of Architecture, Laurentian University
Sudbury Canada 85 Elm St, Sudbury, ON P3C 1T3
Completed (2017)
https://www.thinkwood.com/our-projects/mcewen-school-of-architecture
Art Gallery of Ontario – Galleria Italia
Toronto Canada 317 Dundas St W, Toronto, ON M5T 1G4
Completed (2008)
https://www.ellisdon.com/project/art-gallery-of-ontario-revitalization/
Bill Fisch Forest Stewardship and Education
Whitchurch-Stouffville
Canada 16389 ON-48, Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON L4A 7X4
Completed (2016)
http://www.dialogdesign.ca/projects/york-region-forest-stewardship-education-centre/
Origine Condos Quebec City Canada 26 Rue de la Pointe-aux-Lièvres, Québec, QC G1K 0G6
Completed (2017)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/origine
Syed. T 2020
40
Habitations Chibougamau Canada C.P. 216, Chibougamau, QC G8P 2K7
Completed (2012)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/habitations-nordic
District 03 Condominium Quartier Saint-Roch
Canada Saint-Roch, Quebec City, QC Completed (2013)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/district-03
La Cite Verte, Bloc C Sainte-Foy Canada 1195 Rue Louis-Adolphe-Robitaille, Québec, QC G1S 2M4
Completed (2015)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/la-cite-verte
Creaform Head Office Levis, Quebec Canada 4700 Rue de la Pascaline, Lévis, QC G6W 0L9
Completed (2017)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/creaform
Pomerleau Regional Office Levis, Quebec Canada 562 Chemin Olivier, Saint-Nicolas, QC G7A 2N
Completed (2016)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/pomerleau-offices
Édifice GlaxoSmithKline Sainte-Foy, Quebec
Canada 2324 Boulevard du Parc Technologique, Québec, QC G1P 4S6
Completed (2010)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/bureaux-glaxosmithkline
Teraxion Head Office Sainte-Foy, Quebec
Canada 2716, Einstein St. Québec, QC G1P 4S8
Completed (2013)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/teraxion
Saint-Michel-Environmental Complex Soccer Stadium
Montreal Canada 235 Avenue Papineau, Montréal, QC H2M 2G5
Completed (2014)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/smec-soccer-stadium
Synergia Complex Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec
Canada 1395 Rue Daniel - Johnson E, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC J2S 7K7
Completed (2016)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/synergia-complex
Jean-Talon Market SAQ Roof Montreal Canada 7077 Casgrain Ave, Montreal, Quebec H2S 3A3
Completed (2015)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/saq-jean-talon
Minganie Aquatic Complex Pool
Havre-Saint-Pierre
Canada 6CW4+78 Havre-Saint-Pierre, Quebec
Completed (2018)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/minganie-aquatic-complex
Scarborough Civic Centre Library
Scarborough Canada 156 Borough Dr, Scarborough, ON M1P 4N7
Completed (2014)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/scarborough-civic-centre-branch
Sans-Frontieres Elementary School
Saint-Jerome, Quebec
Canada 1100 112e Ave, Saint-Jérôme, Quebec J7Y 5C2
Completed (2014)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/sans-frontieres-school
Gilles-Vigneault Theatre Saint-Jerome, Quebec
Canada 118 Rue de la Gare, Saint-Jérôme, QC J7Z 0J1
Completed (2017)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/gilles-vigneault-theatre
Paul-Mercier Municipal Library
Blainville, Quebec
Canada 1003 Rue de la Mairie, Blainville, QC J7C 3C7
Completed (2015)
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/paul-mercier-library
Surrey Memorial Hospital Surrey, British Columbia
Canada 13750 96 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V 1Z2
Completed (2013)
https://structurecraft.com/projects/surrey-memorial-hospital
Syed. T 2020
41
In Progress/Proposed Projects
Project Name City Country Address Status Link
University of Idaho Arena
Moscow, Idaho
USA 711 S Rayburn St, Moscow, ID 83844
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://structurecraft.com/projects/university-of-idaho-arena
T3 Goose Island Goose Island, Chicago
USA Chicago, IL 60642, USA Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.dlrgroup.com/work/hines-t3-goose-island/
T3 West Midtown Atlanta USA 383 17th St NW, Atlanta, GA 30363, United States
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/mass-wood-construction-project-breaks-ground-atlanta
1732 NE 2nd St Portland USA 1699 NE 2nd Ave Portland, Oregon
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://www.nextportland.com/2017/11/09/1732-ne-2nd-ave-approved/
Wadajir Tukwila USA Tukwila Washington USA
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/wadajir-market-residences/
Clippership Wharf Boston USA Lewis St Boston, MA 02128 USA
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/clippership-wharf/
Microsoft Silicon Valley Campus
Mountain View
USA 1055 La Avenida St, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/microsoft-silicon-valley/
Seattle Mass Timber Tower
Seattle USA 2300 8th Ave Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.fastepp.com/news/2018/11/tall-with-timber-a-seattle-mass-timber-tower-case-study/
River Beech Tower Chicago USA South Wacker Drive Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://perkinswill.com/project/river-beech-tower/
Timber Towers Philadelphia USA 1901 Arch St, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://hickokcole.com/ilab-microgrants/timber-towers/
The Spar Portland USA NW Lovejoy St Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.kaiserpath.com/the-spar
Syed. T 2020
42
Ascent Milwaukee USA 700 E. Kilbourn Ave Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/building/ascent/
New Land Enterprises Milwaukee USA 834 N. Plankinton Ave Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/07/13/eyes-on-milwaukee-new-land-planning-milwaukees-first-mass-timber-office-building/
Framework Portland USA 430 Northwest 10th Avenue Portland, OR
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.frameworkportland.com/
Butler Square Minneapolis USA 100 NORTH SIXTH STREET
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.butlersquare.com/
Riverfront Square Newark USA 450 Broad St, Newark, NJ 07102, United States
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://riverfrontsq.com/press
Sidewalk, Quayside Toronto Canada 307 Lake Shore Blvd E, Toronto, ON M5A 1C1
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/
U of T Academic Tower
Toronto Canada 100 Devonshire Pl, Toronto, ON M5S 2C9
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://patkau.ca/projects/academic-wood-tower-u-of-t/
Terrace House Vancouver Canada 1250 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC V6E 4S8
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://terracehouse.ca/
The Arbour Toronto Canada 51 Dockside Dr, Toronto, ON M5A 1B6
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://mtarch.com/moriyama-teshima-architects-acton-ostry-architects-win-the-arbour-competition/
T3 Bayside Toronto Canada 261 Queens Quay E, Toronto, ON M5A 1B6
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://t3bayside.com/
550 E Broadway Mixed Use
Vancouver Canada 550 E Broadway Vancouver, BC V5T 1X5
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/550-e-broadway-mixed-use/
Oakville Firehall No 8 Oakville Canada 3025 Pine Glen Rd, Oakville, ON
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/oakville-firestation-no-8/
Syed. T 2020
43
Sea to Sky Gondola Squamish Canada 36800 BC-99, Squamish, BC V0N 3G0
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://aspectengineers.com/portfolio/sea-to-sky-elevated-treewalk/
77 Wade Avenue Toronto Canada 77 Wade Ave Toronto, ON M6H 1P5
Proposed/In-Progress Building
http://www.bnkc.ca/portfolio/77-wade-avenue/
Heartwood the Beach Toronto Canada 1887A Queen St E, Toronto, ON M4L 1H3
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://mosesstructures.com/2016/02/26/heartwood-the-beach-is-torontos-first-six-storey-wood-condo/
Arbora Montreal Canada Arbora, Rue de la Montagne, Montreal, QC
Proposed/In-Progress Building
https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/arbora
Syed. T 2020
44
Appendix 3 – Research Ethics Board Approval Letter
Syed. T 2020
45
Appendix 4 – Consent Form
You are invited to participate in a capstone research study conducted by current Master of Forest
Conservation graduate student Muhammad Taha Syed from the John H. Daniel's Faculty of
Architecture, Landscape and Design, University of Toronto. The study is being supervised by Dr. Anne
Koven, Director of the Mass Timber Institute.
The study will recruit mass timber end-users including researchers and academics, developers and
builders, architects and designers, engineers, construction professionals and manufacturers and
suppliers with the goal of identifying mass timber research priorities, major barriers to adoption and
technical challenges for use of mass timber in Canada. We anticipate that this will ultimately contribute
to connecting the dots by helping to link research needs with research efforts and reduce uncertainties
for use of mass timber.
You should read the information below carefully before deciding whether to participate or not.
Participation and Withdrawal
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to choose whether to be in it or
not. If you choose to be in the study, you may subsequently withdraw from it at any time during or
immediately after the study with no penalty. If you decide to withdraw from the study after completing
the survey, you have one week from the date of your response to inform us.
Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are no known significant risks associated with participation in this study. Your responses will be
recorded anonymously and cannot at any given point in time be associated with your identity.
Potential Benefits
The benefits that you may expect from the study is an opportunity to contribute to the scientific
research and increased use of mass timber in Canada.
Procedure and Compensation
If you consent, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire using Google Form. We estimate
that the time required to answer the questions will be about 15-30 min. There will be no compensation
to participate in this study.
Confidentiality
Your response will be included in a database, which will be analyzed to achieve the project goals. All the
collected data will remain strictly anonymous and confidential. Your name and any other identifying
information are collected separately from your responses and cannot at any given point be associated to
your responses. Personal demographics are being collected only to be able to associate or rule out how
these group memberships affect results, not to personally identify anyone in the data. All study data will
be securely stored until end of year 2020 for completing a capstone written report and publication in
scholarly journals. After this period all forms will be deleted. The consent form (which will contain
personal information) will only be accessible to the researcher. The research ethics program, however,
may have confidential access to data to help ensure participants protection procedures are followed.
Syed. T 2020
46
Identification of Investigator
If you have any concerns and questions, please contact Muhammad Taha Syed at
[email protected] or Dr. Anne Koven at [email protected]. The summary of the
research results will be available upon request once available.
Rights of Research Participants
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the Ethics Review
Office at 416-946-3273 or email: [email protected]
After reading this consent thoroughly, please select one of the options below:
☐ I understand the procedures above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I
agree to participate in this study.
☐ I do not agree to participate in this study.
Participant Signature Date
Signed By
Click or tap to enter a date.
Note: Please send us back the signed consent form electronically at [email protected]
