See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353972990

Worldwide Structural Survey of 197 Multi-Storey Timber-Based Buildings

From 5 to 24 Storeys

Conference Paper · August 2021

CITATIONS READS

2 603

1 author:

Vittorio Salvadori
TU Wien
4 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vittorio Salvadori on 18 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WORLDWIDE STRUCTURAL SURVEY OF 197 MULTI-STOREY TIMBER-
BASED BUILDINGS FROM 5 TO 24-STOREYS

Vittorio Salvadori1

ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a steady and heterogeneous proliferation
throughout the world of multi-storey timber-based buildings. Although there have been several types of research with
the goal of shedding light on the differences and commonalities of the built projects, the emphasis of most of the
existing literature has been mainly on well-known cases and not on a wider group of buildings. A comprehensive
worldwide analysis from a structural point of view of more than 49 buildings does not yet exist. This research collects
197 built multi-storey timber-based buildings from 5 to 24-storeys in the period of time between 2004 and 2019. The
goal is to show the structural differences of the analysed buildings based on their geographical region. This paper is an
excerpt of the author´s dissertation on a broader topic related to multi-storey timber-based buildings. The research
presented in this paper is the first step in the definition of a global database for multi-storey timber-based buildings. It
will also aid further analysis from a more detailed structural and architectural point of view.

KEYWORDS: Mass timber construction, structure, survey, multi-storey, timber buildings, tall wood

1 INTRODUCTION 123 challenge of this research, which was to find and to

categorize a large amount of less well documented case-
Starting with several academic and industrial production studies (at least in comparison with the most famous
discoveries in the 90s, several three-storey example- cases). This paper is an excerpt of the author´s
projects were built at the end of the 20th century [1]. dissertation on a broader topic related to multi-storey
These buildings were the starting point of another wave timber-based buildings which investigates structural,
of projects. This second generation began at the start of architectural, and contextual differences on a global
the 21st century and featured buildings with a higher perspective.
number of storeys. In just two decades it was possible to
realize buildings with a height of more than twenty
storeys. This was possible because of several main 2 AIM AND CRITERIA
events: several countries updated their Building Code, The purpose of this paper is twofold: to define the main
new technological developments, improvement in structural systems which characterized the case-studies
production and the reduction of material cost, and in and to understand if there are geographical differences in
some countries, governmental support. However, global structural characteristics. To do so, this paper refers to
attention has often focused on the highest buildings and multi-storey timber-based buildings as buildings where
not on the overall analysis and observation of the entire the load bearing structure is for the most part made of
evolution of multi-storey timber buildings. Engineered Wood Products (EWPs) or EWPs-based.
A worldwide overview of the spread of these buildings EWPs include a range of wood products, but the most
gives the opportunity to show if there are any structural common are known as CLT, LVL and Glulam. No
and geographical differences, and if there are any type of lightweight frame buildings are considered. Hybrid
observations which can shed light on the last years of combinations of timber-concrete, timber-steel, and
construction. This paper starts from the author´s previous timber-concrete-steel are therefore included in the final
survey [2] of current mass timber buildings and builds list of case-studies. This decision explains the term
upon its foundation by adding a significant amount of “timber-based” in the title, which is meant to recognize
case-studies, taking into consideration the conclusions the fact that a considerable amount of so-called “multi-
from other academic bodies of work, along with specific storey timber buildings” or “tall wood buildings”, are
height and structural criteria. This led to the major instead built with hybrid concrete or steel (or both)
elements. Further information will be given in this paper
1Vittorio Salvadori, Institute of Architectural Sciences, in the “Findings” section. Regarding the time period
Structural Design and Timber Engineering, Vienna University analysed, this research includes only built multi-storey
of Technology, Austria, timber-based buildings, in the period between 2004 and
[email protected] 2019. The decision to stop at 2019 was due to data
availability and deadline connected with the PhD
dissertation from which this study is derived. No
building which was still under construction or planned
Figure 1: Location of the studied buildings

after 2019 have been considered in the list of the case- as inclusive as possible, but there is always the
studies. Height criteria are different to most of the possibility that some existing projects were not included
existing databases or studies. Previous studies in fact in this survey. For example, two case-studies were found
considered a height-threshold of 25 meters [3] or seven- in Japan, both six-storeys high but no complete data have
storeys [4]. As these previous studies pointed out, the been found. Few multi-storey timber-based projects were
threshold was too high to have a clear understanding of built in Japan due also to the strict fire regulations of the
the most common mid-rise multi-storey timber-based country. However, interest on this type of buildings
buildings. Therefore, the height criteria of this research includes also Japan, so much so, that a 350-meter
is considered five-storey. Thanks to this storey- skyscraper was proposed by the Sumitomo Company to
threshold this study can include a higher number of case- be built by 2041. Acknowledging these possible
studies in comparison with previous studies. It is worth differences, a secondary aim of this study is to highlight
mentioning that this height-criteria leaves out some the need for a clear, agreed, and updated categorization
three- and four-storey buildings which are actually much of these buildings. This study wants to show a possible,
taller than some of the considered case-studies. The more inclusive way to categorize these buildings.
choice of the storey-height criteria instead of a meters-
high criterion is due to the fact that the information of
how many storeys a building has is information that is 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
much more readily available than its exact height in Mass timber buildings are an academically recent topic,
meters. being that the first five-storey case study was built in
2004. Nevertheless, after some years, several studies
emerged in the form of academic papers or comparative
3 METHODOLOGY surveys. The Lattke and Lehmann paper published in
This study was conducted as a comparative survey of 2007 [1], focuses on technical aspects and on recent
197 built multi-storey buildings across the globe from case-studies regarding the use of timber as a multi-frame
2004 to 2019 (as Figure 1 shows). Quantitative and for multi-level residential buildings in Europe. Some
qualitative data about each building was sourced from years later, Lehmann´s research [5] published a paper
existing literature such as official mass timber surveys, which included a list of 8 case-studies which were
academic papers, books, internet databases, websites of described technically and under a regulatory framework
architects, engineers, builders, developers and/or clients perspective. One of the first global studies was published
involved in each project, local news articles, by Perkins+Will in 2014 [6], which summarized the
photographs, videos, and social media posts. Projects findings of 10 built case-studies. In 2015, the Solid
with an incomplete amount of the required information Timber Construction Report [7] analysed 18 case-
available have been excluded from the study. Intense studies and reported the major findings. Until this point,
care was given to make the study none of the previous studies really dealt specifically with
mid-rise or high-rise buildings, because there were too case-studies had been structured by grouping them into
few examples of completed buildings at the time of the the country in which they had been built.
research, or because this was not the focus of the As Table 2 shows, the case-studies are divided into
comparison. In 2017 the CTBUH Journal [8] published eighteen countries, in which at least one case-study was
a list where 49 built and unbuilt tall wood buildings were realized. Europe is the continent with the highest number
listed but with no significant characteristics other than of case-studies, with 161 built projects. North America
location and height. The author´s Master Thesis [2] has 24 built case-studies, and the other countries have 12
contains a survey of 40 built and unbuilt mass timber case-studies in total.
buildings over 22 meters high, and describes structural,
façade, and fire strategies. Kuzmanovska et al., 2018 [3] Country Case-studies
made a comparative study of 46 built and unbuilt case- (name) (number)
studies, analyzing trends under the analysis of three
specific lenses: structural, envelope, and architectural. 1 Australia 9
This study attempts to broadly compare the global 2 Austria 16
trends, while keeping the threshold of 25 meters (the 3 Belgium 2
study follows the Australian Code). This means that it
4 Canada 10
lacks many of the mid-rise case-studies which are
instead included in this study. Lastly, in 2019, 5 Chile 1
Wiegand´s Master Thesis [4] analyses 49 built and 6 Finland 10
unbuilt case-studies under the CTBUH structural
7 France 19
systems analysis displaying graphically the division.
Even if the intent of the Thesis was to underline the 8 Germany 19
effects of policies on the case-studies, the research has a 9 Italy 13
significant contribution for an alternative way to 10 Netherlands 3
categorize these buildings.
11 New Zealand 1
What emerged from the literature are the different
approaches and the different height thresholds used 12 Norway 17
(Table 1 shows the main differences). The different aim 13 Spain 5
of the surveys also led to a different approach when 14 Sweden 15
analysing the case studies: when the survey was more
practical, only built case- studies were considered, when 15 Switzerland 19
the survey was more academic, unbuilt case-studies were 16 Taiwan 1
also considered. 17 UK 23
18 USA 14
Study Case- Status Minimum Height 197
Studies Threshold
(Author – Year) (number) (category) (storeys or meters)
Table 2: Distribution of the case-studies per country
Lattke and Lehmann, Built
2007 6 None
Additionally, two categories have been defined: first, a
Built height analysis, and secondly a structural analysis.
Lehmann, 2012 8 Four-storey
Built
Perkins+Will, 2014 10 Five-storey 3.2.1 CATEGORIZATION 1: HEGIHT AND
Solid Timber Built YEAR OF COMPLETION
Construction
Report, 2015 18 None The case-studies were further divided into mid-rise and
Built, high-rise buildings. In this research, a mid-rise building
CTBUH Audit, 2017 49 Unbuilt Seven-storey is considered a building which is between five and seven
Built, storeys, meanwhile a high-rise building is eight storeys
Salvadori, 2017 40 Unbuilt 22 m or taller. There has not yet been a completed skyscraper,
Kuzmanovska et al., Built, so a height threshold for high-rise is not considered. The
2018 46 Unbuilt 25 m necessity of this division is to analyse the ratio between
Built, the two sub-categories in order to highlight relevant
Wiegand, 2019 49 Unbuilt Seven-storey findings in the number of case-studies. It is also
important to emphasize that the number of these case-
Table 1: List of the main papers and surveys with their studies refers to the number of projects with that specific
main criteria name. There are several case-studies which are in reality
two, three, or even eight buildings, but are described by
3.2 ANALYSIS architect, publication and developer by a single name.
In order to investigate national differences of built multi- Besides the height division, the projects are grouped by
storey timber-based buildings in the world, the selected the year in which they were completed and in each
country is indicated the year of the realisation of the first
case-study. By doing so, it will be possible to compare identified. On the other hand, when timber combines
when the case-studies were realised. with steel, more heterogenous combinations resulted,
with steel beams, rods or frames used in different
3.2.2 CATEGORIZATION 2: STRUCTURE location within the structure. The result derived from this
process was the identification of 32 structural categories
The structure of multi-storey timber-based buildings are which are organised in Figure 2.
not poured like concrete structures, forming a single A multi-storey timber-based building is a complex
compact base, but are more similar to the steel structure, building combined with many structural and design
which is made up of different elements. However, steel elements. Categorising all MTBs into 32 structural
structures are composed of 1D punctual elements which categorisations can often be considered imprecise and
is not the case for timber structures. Multi-storey timber- not completely correct by other experts.
based buildings can in fact be formed by 1D or 2D It is worth mentioning that this classification aims to
vertical and horizontal structural elements, or 3D symbolize the overall system of the buildings, which is
Modules, which are composed of 2D walls and floors. composed of actual Lateral Load Resisting System
As other publications, books and researches have (LLRS) and Gravity Load Resisting system (GLRS).
explained, there are a wide range of Engineered Wood Some projects which were categorised as panelised for
Products (EWPs) which can be used in a building and example, can still have columns or beams in parts of the
oftentimes the products are combined. Different EWPs plan when, for architectural design and choice, openings
are used in the 197 examined buildings. The most or bigger spans were necessary.
common are: CLT (Cross-Laminated-Timber), Glulam Buildings categorised as all-timber, may have some steel
(Glue-Laminated-Timber) and LVL (Laminated-Veneer- beams or columns. Buildings which are considered
Lumber). Others can be DLT (Dowel-Laminated- timber-concrete, can also have secondary steel elements.
Timber), NLT (Nail-Laminated-Timber), Timber Frame Below every structural system is described in more
walls, and Box-element floors using different EWPs. detail:
Floor slab combinations between EWPs and concrete
area also particularly frequent, resulting in a wide • Panelised all-timber: solid timber elements form the
spectrum of solutions. The idea of dividing the structures main structural system in this category. Two sub-
into techniques or systems is not always agreed upon in categories were identified. The first category can be
literature [6]. However, most of the time, there are identified as “solid walls” in which CLT walls form
structural commonalities between the case-studies, and the core which resists the lateral loads, together with
other publications consider the possibility of creating a shear walls made of other EWPs, but mainly CLT
general system for the structural categorization. There (1). In another sub-category, the prevalent panelised
are different ways academic and conference authors have system is combined with internal columns and beams
dealt with the structural categorization of multi-storey made of glulam (2).
timber-based buildings. Considering that ten years ago • Panelised timber-concrete: the buildings included in
there were not very many built and completed examples, this category can have three different concrete
the real task of categorizing the structures emerged only combinations. A first group (3), has simply a
once there was a higher number of cases. The literature concrete podium on which an all-timber structure is
is therefore recent, and there is not an official definition anchored. The core of the case-studies of this
for structurally describing a completed building. category are made of CLT, or in some rare cases, of
Looking at the literature, there are three majors paths of LVL. In some case-studies, on the top of a concrete
thought: podium, a panelised-based all-timber structure
included many columns and beams, resulting in a
1. Platform, Post-and-beam and Modular [10] [11] combined panelised-post-and-beam system (4).
Depending on the presence of a concrete podium, or
2. Panel systems, Frame systems, Hybrid Systems lack thereof, the other two combinations resulted in
[2] [3] [12] situations where a timber panelised structure is
anchored to a concrete core (5) (6).
3. Single material, Composite and Mixed [4] [8]. • Panelised timber-steel: this category includes
buildings in which some structural role is played by a
The first path emphasizes a more specific structural steel frame at the lower level of the building (7). The
system, whereas the second emphasizes the presence of frame, which forms the podium of the building, is
hybrid buildings. The third focuses on the relationship of connected to CLT load-bearing walls which helps
the materials. The structural categorisation of this paper stiffen the structure. Additionally, other steel
is based on a combination between these three systems, columns run up to the top of the building.
basing the actual differentiations on the first path, but • Panelised timber-concrete-steel: the combination
adding two others layers of distinction. Hybrid concrete, between timber, concrete, and steel created three
steel, and concrete-steel combinations were introduced, different sub-categories. The first type of
and other sub-categories were identified according to the combination has a concrete podium on which steel
way the different materials were juxtaposed or rods anchor the timber structure. They run from the
combined. In timber-concrete combinations, podium, podium up to the roof of the building, located inside
core, and podium-core were the main type of subgroups the walls. Thanks to this system, the core can be
 made of EWPs (8). In two similar categories, a columns and beams carry the main loads, with
concrete core forms the main LLRS, whereas steel continuous bracing diagonal beams which stiffen the
beams (9) or a steel frame (10) are connected to CLT structure. The core is also made of EWPs, but it does
walls and floor slabs. The latter sub-category has a not have a relevant structural function. As with the
concrete podium on which the rest of the structure is case of panelised systems, buildings which have
built. The additional shear walls and floor slabs are some steel elements integrated in the structure but
made of EWPs. Another category includes buildings with a secondary structural role, were still included in
like 55 Southbank Boulevard which were built above these categories.
an existing concrete building (considered as a • Post-and-beam timber-concrete: the hybrid
podium) [13]. The LLRS of the structure is combination of timber and concrete in post-and-beam
composed of two steel-frame cores and the rest of the structures resulted in four different categories. The
building has a panelised system made of CLT (11). first category (14) is composed of buildings with a
• Post-and-beam all-timber: there are two observed timber frame structure on top of a concrete podium.
configurations in the design of post-and-beam Concrete is only located at the bottom, whereas the
structures with all-timber, depending on the presence, rest of the structure (core included) is made of EWP-
or lack of an additional timber bracing system. One based columns and panels. In a similar category,
system (12) relies on the stiffening made by both a diagonal beams can be included in the LLRS in order
frame (usually glulam) and a core (usually CLT). to stiffen the structure (15). In the other three
These elements are connected and anchored to the categories the timber frames of the projects are
foundation of the building. Floors are made of connected to a concrete core (or cores). In two-
EWPs-based products. In the other system (13), subcategories the core of the buildings takes the main

Figure 2: The matrix of the structural categorisation used in this study

 lateral loads, meanwhile the GLRS is formed by podium (30) or directly at the ground floor level, but
columns and beams which support EWPs or EWPs- having a concrete core which stiffens the entire
based floor slabs. The difference can be found structure (31). Alternatively, the same structure can
according to the presence, or lack of, a concrete have both a concrete podium and core (32). In this
podium (16)(17). Another category includes category, some buildings have hybrid timber-
buildings whose structures are formed by a concrete concrete floor slabs.
core (or cores), columns and floor slabs (18). Based
on the post-and-beam principle, in this system the
traditional role made by the beams is made by the 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
floor slabs [14]. This is possible thanks to special
connections which transfer the loads between the This following section sums up the findings of the
elements. analysis of the result of the methodology applied.
• Post-and-beam timber-steel: two categories resulted The section is divided in two sub-sections as was the
from the combination between timber and steel, both previous one, with the conclusion chapter as a final
including relatively few case-studies. In the first discussion of the findings. The case-studies are divided
group, a EWPs frame is connected and stiffened by into the eighteen countries which were found having at
an external steel frame (19). Floors can be made of least one case-study built in their territory.
EWP-based products and some steel internal bracing
can be designed inside the structure as well. In a 4.1.1 HEGIHT AND YEAR OF COMPLETION
second category buildings which have a timber frame
connected to a steel frame core are included (20). The first analysis of the selected case-studies evidenced
Additional (external or internal) steel bracing several international and national trends. One of the first
systems have also been designed to provide major findings of this research appears when the case-
additional stiffening to the structure. Floor slabs are studies are divided between mid-rise and high-rise. The
made of EWPs, and they are supported by the EWPs result of the subdivision shows that mid-rise case-studies
frame of the building. are nearly three times more numerous (143) as the high-
• Post-and-beam timber-concrete-steel: the rise examples (54).
combinations between timber, concrete, and steel are
Country Case- Mid- High- Highest First
numerous and eight different structural solutions Studies Rise Rise case-study Realized
were found. In a first category, an external steel (name) (number) (number) (number) (storeys) (year)
frame stiffens the entire timber frame structure (21).
1 Australia 9 3 6 10 2012
The other six categories have a concrete (or steel)
core which is the main LLRS, together with different 2 Austria 16 14 2 24 2004
steel structural solutions. In one category, a steel 3 Belgium 2 2 - 6 2015
bracing system stiffens the entire timber frame 18
4 Canada 10 6 4 2009
structure which can have both frame and floor slabs
made of EWP-based products (22). Two categories 5 Chile 1 1 - 6 2019
have steel beams which are located on the edge of the 6 Finland 10 6 4 14 2012
facade. Steel beams can also be used inside the 7 France 19 10 9 12 2013
building. The difference between them is the
8 Germany 19 17 2 10 2007
presence of a concrete podium (23)(24). Two
categories have both a concrete podium and steel 9 Italy 13 11 2 9 2012
bracing, but differ in the material of the core. In one 10 Netherlands 3 2 1 9 2008
case the core is made of concrete (25), in another New
case the core is made of a steel frame (26). Another 11 Zealand 1 1 - 6 2012
category has a steel podium and a concrete core takes 12 Norway 17 10 7 18 2005
the main lateral loads in combination with a timber
13 Spain 5 5 - 7 2014
frame (27). In the last category, pre-stressed steel
rods inside the timber frame were designed to 14 Sweden 15 7 8 9 2010
withstand earthquakes (28). The timber frame sits 15 Switzerland 19 17 2 16 2006
atop a concrete podium and is connected to the 5
16 Taiwan 1 1 - 2014
concrete cores.
• 3D Modular Element all-timber: in this system, 17 UK 23 17 6 11 2006
solid or timber frame walls and floors elements are 18 USA 14 13 1 8 2013
prefabricated and assembled together in order to form
197 143 54
a 3D module (29). The core of the building could be
erected separately (made of EWPs) or could also be
modularly like the rest of the buildings.
Table 2: Distribution of the mid-rise and high-rise
• 3D Modular Element timber-concrete: hybrid
case-studies per country.
variations exist within concrete. 3D modular
elements can be stacked on the top of a concrete
 number of case-studies which the countries have, from 1
and 2 case-studies like Taiwan or Belgium, to the 19
case-studies of France, Germany and Switzerland, or to
the 23 cases of United Kingdom. Figure 4 shows that the
incidence of mid-rise buildings outweighing high-rise
buildings is not the case for every country. Australia and
Sweden have indeed more high-rise case-studies than
mid-rise. France and Norway also have a considerable
number of high-rise projects. Other countries have less
evident differences between the categories like the UK
and Italy. However, the majority of the countries have
projects with mixed heights, but are predominantly mid-
rise projects. Belgium, Chile, New Zealand, Taiwan, and
Spain do not have any high-rise projects.
Table 2 also reports the year of the first finished case
study in each country. The first reported case higher than
Figure 3: Ratio of mid-rise and high-rise projects four-storeys was built in Vienna (Austria) in 2004.
Figure 3 shows that the number of mid-rise projects is Sweden and Norway followed immediately the years
far more than the high-rise ones. Furthermore, half of the after. However, the majority of the countries, built their
high-rise projects are eight-storey buildings, making the first case-study nearly 10 years later, which underlines
percentage of case-studies taller than eight, just 13,8%. the fact that multi-storey timber-based buildings are a
From this first impression, the majority of the selected really recent phenomenon. This is even more clear from
MTBs are in reality a mid-rise practice. Famous projects Figure 5. Figure 5 shows that in the last four years
like HoHo Wien and Mjøstårnet (more than 60 meters (2016-2019) of the survey, 117 case-studies were
tall) are in reality a considerable minority of the overall completed. This composes nearly 60% of the total
built case-studies. selected projects. The last two years in particular were
Other differences observed are the heterogeneous the years with the highest number of completed projects,
32 and 40 case-studies respectively.

Figure 4: Number of mid-rise and high-rise cases-studies divided by country

 Figure 5: Number of case-studies divided per completion years and by country

What can also be observed, is that even if countries like Figure 5, 6, and 7. They are the result of the
France and the United States started relatively late, they categorisation and classification proposed in this paper
still have a high number of case-studies, which implies explained previously in Figure 2.
that several projects were realized in a short period of The analysis of the structural categories pointed out that
time. the majority of the MTBs are hybrid buildings (see
Finally, the highest case-studies are located in different Figure 6). 80% of all the selected case-studies have
countries and there is no strong relationship between the either a podium, a core, both, and other steel elements
ratio of mid-rise and high-rise. HoHo Wien is the integrated in their structures, confirming that in the vast
building with the highest number of storeys but is not the majority of the cases, MTBs are “timber-based” projects,
tallest: its 84 meters height is slightly less than and only a minority of them have been designed with an
Mjøstårnet 85,5 meters, which makes the Norwegian all-timber structure (20%).
building the tallest multi-storey timber building by the We can also observe that 108 case-studies (55%) are
end of 2019, even if it has eighteen-storeys. The sense of based on the panelised concept. Of these projects, the
analysing the storey height of the buildings is to bring to majority (73 case-studies) have a panelised timber-
the attention, that even a country with only a few high- concrete structure. In Figure 6 the structures with a
rise examples, is able to realise one of the tallest podium are separated from the other combinations (core
examples in the world. This should bring hope to and podium-core). This shows that the biggest group of
practically any country which is interested in building projects are the panelised timber-concrete buildings with
MTBs. the concrete podium.
The geographical differences which were observed in the
previous section, exist also in the structural analysis.
4.2 STRUCTURE Figure 7 identifies the structure of the case-studies
Several relevant findings were discovered in relation to divided by each country. Panelised-based concepts are
the structure of MTBs. The results are presented in the majority in eight countries, and is the system used in
 only case-study in New Zealand is based on the post-
and-beam concept as well. Finland is the only country
(with more than 3 case-studies) where 3D modules are
the main structural system. The only case-study in Chile
has a modular structure, whereas the three Dutch case-
studies all have a different structural concept.
These differences make it difficult to imagine that exist
regions of the world with a similar constructive practice
of MTBs. This is especially true if we look at the
European regions. In Scandinavia, both Sweden and
Norway have similar structural systems. However, there
are some nuances represented by the singularity of the
post-and-beam all-timber with bracing in Norway, or the
panelised timber-concrete-steel in Sweden. Finland, as
previously mentioned, has a prevalence of 3D modular
buildings.
In the Central region of Europe, the differences are even
more evident. The countries have similar structural
systems but with differing numbers. In Austria the
Figure 6: The ratio of the different structural systems
majority of the projects are based on the panelised
(Legend, see Figure 7)
concept, whereas in Switzerland they are mainly based
on post-and-beam. Germany stays exactly in the middle
the only Taiwanese case-study. In Germany, neither
with an equal number of case-studies for each of these
panelised nor post-and-beam system prevail. In France,
categories. In North America, Canada and the United
Switzerland, Canada, and the USA the majority of the
States have a similar ratio of structures. However, a
buildings are based on the post-and-beam concept. The

Figure 7: Structural categories per country

 Figure 8: The number of case-studies per structural category, divided by country and world region
considerable number of American case-studies have
post-and-beam timber-steel combinations, which is a represents a unique system thanks to its earthquake
unique practice in comparison with all the other proof steel rods;
countries. • Several post-and-beam categories are represented by
As shown in Figure 6, all-timber structures are less American or Canadian case-studies. Furthermore,
frequent. The majority of the case-studies which use an post-and-beam timber-steel case-studies can only be
all-timber structure are concentrated in the countries found in the US;
where there is a prevalence of panelised structural • 3D modular structures are more common in Finland,
systems. The UK, Norway, Sweden and Italy all have whereas the category with timber-concrete (podium
many case-studies with a panelised all-timber structure, and core) is typical in the Central Europe area.
and several other countries have one case-study each.
Half of the post-and-beam all-timber projects are instead These observations present some clusters of solutions
concentrated in Norway. Two of them are Treet and related to specific regions or nations. These specific
Mjøstårnet, which are based on the Tra8 structural approaches like the one seen in Treet and Mjøstårnet or
concept developed by Moelven [13]. in the German buildings similar to E3, were further
Through the observation of the categories, it is also analysed in the dissertation of the author. Besides some
possible to understand that in the majority of the case- restrictions made by the local Building Codes, R&D
studies the main LLRS is mostly formed by either CLT programs and stakeholders’ choice were some of the
or concrete cores. There are only few projects where it is main reasons why these differences exist.
found with steel core (supported by other steel bracing Figure 8 portrays the heterogeneity of structural
systems) and the vast majority of them are in the United solutions which exists for MTBs following the 32
States. Few case-studies with a post-and-beam structure structural categories identified in this paper. However,
allowed the absence of the core as main LLRS. the majority of the projects (135 case-studies) can be
A different perspective is given by Figure 8. In this case, defined by one of six categories: Panelised all-timber,
the countries are grouped by their main regional area Panelised timber-concrete (podium), Panelised timber-
(Central Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, concrete (core), Panelised timber-concrete (podium and
Scandinavia, North America, and other countries). core), Post-and-beam timber-concrete (core), and Post-
Figure 8 shows the number of case-studies represented and-beam timber-concrete (podium and core). On the
by the previously identified categories. Panelised all- other hand, 62 case-studies have a more specific
timber, panelised timber-concrete (podium), and Post- solution, which might have more representation in the
and-beam timber-concrete (podium and core) are the future.
three main structural categories used in the selected case-
studies. On the other hand, many categories have one or
two case-studies. From Figure 8 several aspects can be 5 CONCLUSION
observed: This study presented in this paper has examined 197
multi-storey timber-based buildings built between 2004
• Panelised all-timber and Panelised timber-concrete and 2019. The main goal was to highlight the national
(podium) are the two most frequent categories. If the and structural differences which exist between countries
first one is represented mainly by the UK, Italy, and propose a way to categorize the different structures.
Norway and Sweden, the other one has a more What emerged from the proposed criteria of analysis, is
heterogeneous number of countries and regions; the role played by hybrid solutions, and the high number
• The majority of panelised timber-concrete (core and of mid-rise buildings compared to the high-rise
podium-core) are designed in Central Europe (mainly buildings. The most famous definition “multi-storey
Austria and Germany); timber buildings” should be indeed “multi-storey timber-
• Panelised timber-concrete-steel (podium and steel based buildings”, meaning that in the vast majority of the
rods) are only designed in Sweden and Finland; case-studies, the structure is composed of a hybrid-
• Panelised systems with internal timber frames (with concrete and steel systems.
and without podium) are present only in France and The analysis was made in two subsequent steps: first a
in Quebec (Canada); height and year of completion analysis, and then a
• Post-and-beam timber-concrete (podium and core) structure analysis.
are more frequent in Central Europe, Western The first categorisation of analysis showed that the
Europe, and in North America, especially in France relationship between the number of mid-rise and high-
and Switzerland; rise is very heterogeneous in each country. What can
• Post-and-beam all-timber (with timber bracing) are also be observed is that the ratio is not linked with the
only designed in Norway, and they are the projects highest case-study a country has built, with several
Treet and Mjøstårnet; countries like Austria and Switzerland having a low
• All the projects with a Post-and-beam timber- number of high-rise cases, but one exceptionally high
concrete (podium and timber bracing) structure were building. Additionally, the number of case-studies varies
designed in Australia; largely in each country as their realisation year. By the
• The project Te Ara Hihiko (New Zealand) is the only analysis of the completion year, it was possible to
case-study of the category Post-and-beam timber- highlight how the case-studies are in reality very recent
concrete-steel with podium and steel bracing, and it projects, with the majority of them completed in the last
four years (2016-2019) of the survey.
 What emerges instead from the second structural [2] V. Salvadori. Development of a Tall Wood
analysis is the fact that there are geographical differences Building. Master Thesis, TU Wien and Politecnico
between countries. The overall analysis showed that a Milano, 2017.
considerable number of projects were built with a [3] I. Kuzmanovska, E. Gasparri, D.T. Monne, and M.
panelised structure. Panelised timber-concrete (podium) Aitchison, Tall Timber Buildings: Emerging Trends
was the most frequent in this regard. Hybrid post-and- and Typologies. Proceedings of the 2018 World
beam timber-concrete structures resulted in a Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE), Seul,
considerable number of buildings. However, these South Korea.
general observations are not valid everywhere. Some [4] E. Wiegand, Drivers, and future potential for wood-
countries like the UK or Norway have most (or all) their frame multi-storey construction in Europe. Master
case-studies designed with a panelised concept. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019.
Alternatively, other countries like Switzerland or France, [5] S. Lehmann. Sustainable Construction for Urban
have their case-studies built with a majority of post-and- Infill Development Using Engineered Massive
beam categories. Finland emerged as the country where Wood Panel Systems. Sustainability, 2012.
3D modular structures are used the most. [6] R. Holt, K. Wardle. Lessons from Tall Wood
These structural differences are evident also within Buildings: What We Learned from Ten International
traditionally similar market regions like Central Europe Examples. Perkins+Will Research Journal.
and Scandinavia. Furthermore, by a more detailed 06(02):7-19, 2014.
analysis of the relationships between structural [7] R. E Smith, G. Griffin, T. Rice. Solid Timber
categories and countries, some clusters of national Construction, Process Practice Performance. Report
solutions emerged. This is the case for examples of post- sponsored by American Institute of Architects,
and-beam timber-concrete-steel projects mainly built in USDA Forest Products Laboratory and FPI
Germany, or the two post-and-beam all-timber projects Innovations, 2015.
in Norway. [8] Tall Timber: A Global Audit. CTBUH Journal.
This study provided the first step towards identifying II:47-49, 2017.
geographical trends, commonalities, and differences [9] H. Kaufmann, S. Krötsch, S. Winter. Atlas
which sheds light on how multi-storey timber-based Mehrgeschossiger Holzabau, Detail, 2017.
buildings are evolving. Based on this preliminary study, [10] S. Brege, L. Stehn, T. Nord. Business models in
there are many structural solutions to build multi-storey industrialized building of multi-storey houses.
timber-based buildings all over the world, and the Construction Management and Economics. 2014.
majority of the analysed countries has its own specific [11] E. Hurmekoski, R. Jonsson, and T. Nord. Towards a
favourite practices. Some countries even present some Tall Wooden Built Environment: The impact pf
unique cluster of projects in the global scenario. policy instruments on the first generation of pioneer
Eighteen countries were found having at least a projects, Journal Technological Forecasting and
completed case-study. This number makes building Social Change, 2017.
multi-storey timber buildings not a common practice for [12] M. Green and J. Taggart: Tall Wood Buildings.
most parts of the globe. Birkhäuser, 2017.
The future evolution of these relationships is not clear [13] N. Benbow. 55 Southbank Boulevard Melbourne
because there are evident differences between the multi- Challenges of a 10-storey Mass Timber Vertical
storey timber-based host countries. This suggests that in Extention. 25. Internationales Holzbau-Forum (IHF
the future, there could be several solutions of structural 2019), 2019.
realization, specific for every country or company. [14] M. Mohammad, R. Jones, M. Whelan, R. Coxford.
However, multi-storey timber-based buildings are Canada’s Tall Wood Buildings Demonstration
generally increasing overall in the world but not in all Projects. Proceedings of the 2018 World Conference
every country of the world, suggesting that there is still a on Timber Engineering (WCTE), Seul, South Korea.
lot to do in the promotion and economic feasibility and [15] R. Abrahamsen. Mjøstårnet - Construction of an 81
material supply for these types of multi-storey buildings m tall timber building. 23. Internationales Holzbau-
especially in the emerging countries. This study Forum (IHF 2017). 2017.
evidenced common patterns and trends in the realization
of a multi-storey timber-based building and it was
conceived as necessary groundwork for more detailed
studies.

REFERENCES
[1] F. Lattke and S. Lehmann. Multi-Storey Residential
Timber Construction: Current Developments in
Europe. Journal of Green Building. 2,1,119-129,
2007.

View publication stats