chitects are primarily responsible for producing a functional design that should also be aesthetically pleasing to the client. They saw developers, on the other hand, as risk-averse in their planned constructions, and they select materials in a cost-constrained context.
Discussions with architects and developers during the scoping study conducted by Lehmann and Hamilton revealed significant interest in the CLT product in Australia, where both architects and developers were keen to compare the designs of a CLT building with that using traditional concrete and steel construction system. The use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Precinct Information Modelling (PIM) software for design of buildings and neighbourhoods is becoming more widespread, and architects who were interested in CLT were also keen to work with structural engineers to increase their knowledge of alternative low-carbon construction systems. BIM is already changing the nature of the procurement and delivery process of buildings. It will be interesting to see how development of new modelling software will support this trend. Prefabrication, driven by the latest CAD-CAM technology, allows the production of complex projects with many different individual elements, each designated for a certain position in the building.
Architects and developers frequently raised concerns regarding durability and acoustics, for example in regard to the maintenance required to keep the timber looking ‘clean’. Sharing knowledge will be essential both through international research collaborations on CLT in Australia and by drawing on the European experience. Technical concerns include a focus on the structure and stability of CLT buildings, seismic design, durability design, adhesives, acoustics and vibrations, fire design and energy efficiency.
For industry acceptance of CLT construction, cultural, organizational and policy changes need to occur first, before new technologies can be introduced; including, for instance, policy changes (based on fire testing) to building and planning legislation throughout Australia . Regulatory changes are required to achieve this innovation, as well as stakeholder engagement, itself dependent on behaviour change. Such cultural shift is essential to achieve better project outcomes, and it will be critical for the continuous development and improvement of organizations. Similarly, social acceptance plays a vital role in the implementation of any technology innovations .
While technology marches on, regulations and building codes lag behind. British Columbia in Canada recently revamped its building codes to allow taller buildings to be made from wood, but still capped their height at a modest six storeys (in comparison, the UK, Norway and New Zealand place no height restrictions on safely-made wooden high-rise).
|Motivation||Barriers identified||Opportunities identified|
|Stimulate property development market in Australia||Developers and builders unfamiliar with CLT product||Government assistance to develop car park sites|
|Gain approval for car park top developments||No CLT manufactured in Australia – need to import CLT panels from overseas||Locate infill development in centres, infrastructure to service growth|
|Address construction waste||Infill development solutions needed in inner-city location||Timber houses: public still needs to be educated that it’s better than brick or concrete|
|Adopt innovation||Financing of CLT projects through the banking sector is unclear||Needs to be pitched as a high-end market product|
|Want to use CLT in regional project||CLT not ‘affordable, social housing’ material||Manufacture—import from China or Vietnam to reduce cost?|
|Want advantage of being first to design with CLT||Public education lacking; user acceptance?||Undertake comparison of design in CLT with steel or concrete systems—LCA|
|Want to gain experience in designing with CLT||Fire engineering and meeting fire regulatory approvals||Use design for fire testing research|
|Seeking knowledge||Cost of fire testing||Need to address cost and affordab