bond university research repository perceived obstacles to

Bond UniversityResearch Repository

Perceived obstacles to multi-storey timber-frame construction: An Australian study

Xia, Bo; O'Neill, Tim; Zuo, Jian; Skitmore, Martin; Chen, Qing

Published in:Architectural Science Review

DOI:10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

Licence:Other

Link to output in Bond University research repository.

Recommended citation(APA):Xia, B., O'Neill, T., Zuo, J., Skitmore, M., & Chen, Q. (2014). Perceived obstacles to multi-storey timber-frameconstruction: An Australian study. Architectural Science Review, 57(3), 169-176.https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repositorycoordinator.

Download date: 27 Oct 2021

https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

https://research.bond.edu.au/en/publications/e52abd84-3762-462b-a264-36abe20aea3c

https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

Perceived Obstacles to Multi-storey Timber-frame

Construction: An Australian Study

ABSTRACT: The contemporary default materials for multi-storey buildings – namely concrete

and steel – are all significant generators of carbon and the use of timber products provides a

technically, economically and environmentally viable alternative. In particular, timber’s

sustainability can drive increased use and subsequent evolution of the Blue economy as a new

economic model. National research to date, however, indicates a resistance to the uptake of

timber technologies in Australia. To investigate this further, a preliminary study involving a

convenience sample of 15 experts was conducted to identify the main barriers involved in the

use of timber frames in multi-storey buildings. A closed-ended questionnaire survey involving

74 experienced construction industry participants was then undertaken to rate the relative

importance of the barriers. The survey confirmed the most significant barriers to be a perceived

increase in maintenance costs and fire risk, together with a limited awareness of the emerging

timber technologies available. It is expected that the results will benefit government and the

timber industry, contributing to environmental improvement by developing strategies to

increase the use of timber technologies in multi-storey buildings by countering perceived

barriers in the Australian context.

Keywords: Timber frame, multi-storey building, sustainable building, barriers, Australia

1. Introduction

Construction activities involve the use of a large quantity and variety of materials, such

as timber, steel and concrete. The selection and utilization of these materials has

significant implications for the environment due to associated energy consumption,

water consumption, waste production and greenhouse gas emissions. There are a

number of criteria to be considered in the selection of construction materials, including

stability, durability, environmental impact, speed of erection, cost, availability and

delivery time (Castro-Lacouture et al, 2009; Hemström et al, 2011). Owners and

developers have the most influence in material selection decisions, although the design

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published on 03 Jul 2014 by Taylor & Francis in Architectural Science Review, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198

professions usually participate in this process too (Bayne and Taylor, 2006).

There are a number of advantages in using timber as a structural material in

construction projects, such as the aesthetic value of natural timber, better design

adaptability, ease of construction, lower embodied energy and less requirements for

heavy equipment during erection (Bayne and Taylor, 2006; Nolan, 2011). In a German

study, Gold and Rubik (2009) added that the use of timber frames in buildings helps

improve the well-being of residents in terms of living comfort and indoor environmental

quality.

Another driver for timber-framed buildings is the strong demand for sustainable

building and carbon emission reduction. Timber has been considered as a sustainable

material in all major green building rating tools, such as Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) (US) and the BRE Environmental Assessment Method

(BREEAM) (UK). In the Green Star Office V3 rating tool released by the Green

Building Council of Australia (GBCA), there is a specific credit defined as “sustainable

timber” under the material category. The project team can obtain three unweighted

points if it can demonstrate that timber products are sourced from certified

environmentally responsible forest management practices or are reused/recycled. The

GBCA has recently proposed the incorporation of a lifecycle assessment methodology

into the Materials category of the Green Star rating tools (GBCA, n.d.). With lower

embodied emission, timber is encouraged by the next generation of GBCA Green Star

rating tools. It is believed that timber’s sustainability can drive increased use and

subsequent evolution of the Blue economy, “where the best for health and the

environment is cheapest and the necessities for life are free thanks to a local system of

production and consumption that works with what you have” (Pauli, 2010).


Despite these benefits, there is a resistance to the uptake of timber technologies

in Australia, particularly for multi-storey buildings. The fire safety performance,

durability and stability of timber structures present concerns (Gold and Rubik, 2009).

Additionally, timber structures are perceived to involve higher commercial risks, which

include “insurance premiums and tenancy assurance of long-term performance” (Bayne

and Taylor, 2006, p.5). These are echoed by Mahapatra et al's (2012) review of

practices in Germany, Sweden and the UK, finding that construction professionals

perceive the engineering properties of wood unsuitable for multi-storey buildings –

leading to calls for the development of suitable government policies and increased

amounts of prefabrication (Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2008; Hemström et al, 2011).

The attitudes of the various stakeholders involved (e.g. architects, engineers and

contractors) have a critical role in promoting timber framed buildings because these

stakeholders are involved in the processes of design, engineering, construction, material

supply and activity coordination. Their beliefs and perceptions, knowledge and skills,

influences the transition from traditional building practices to multi-storey timber

framed buildings (Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2009). According to Bayne and Taylor

(2006), the design professions lack confidence in timber-framed commercial and

industrial projects due to a number of factors, including the lack of available

information and assistance with timber design, and lack of tertiary timber engineering

courses. Hemström et al’s (2011) study found that, although more willing to choose

timber in their designs, architects in Sweden rank the performance of timber frames in

multi-storey buildings comparatively lower than steel and concrete frames in terms of

vertical stability, horizontal stability and durability.

To investigate these reservations further, the study described in this paper aimed

to investigate industry professionals’ perceptions of the obstacles to structural timber


use in multi-storey buildings in Australia. A preliminary study involving a convenience

sample of 15 experts was conducted to identify the main barriers involved. This was

followed by a closed-ended questionnaire survey involving 74 experienced construction

industry participants to rate the relative importance of these barriers. Finally, a factor

analysis was conducted to categorize the barriers for better interpretation.

2. Multi-storey Timber Construction around the World

Most timber framed building studies focus on the residential sector comprising single

storey or low-rise buildings (e.g. Qu et al, 2012; Piot et al, 2011). Indeed, as Bayne and

Taylor (2006) observe, that there is a “notable absence” of structural timber use in

multi-storey buildings globally. Until 1994, the Australian building regulations placed

restrictions on the use of timber in multi-storey buildings. However, these were

removed as a result of studies indicating the satisfactory fire performance of timber

structure in certain suitably designed buildings (Bayne and Taylor, 2006). Bayne and

Page (2009) estimate that 725,000 m3 of timber will be used in multi-storey buildings in

2014 in Australia, more than 2.5 times of that in 2007. Currently, the design and

construction of timber frame buildings are regulated by the Australian Standard for

Residential Timber Framed Construction (AS 1684), also known as Timber Frame Code

within the industry. Used by all sectors of the building industry, including builders,

designers, carpenters and home renovators, the Timber Frame Code provides important

provisions for design criteria and building practice procedures to the select, place and

fix various structural elements used in residential timber framed building.

In North America, it is usual for timber buildings to be four storeys high, with

five or six storeys occasionally allowed by authorities with local jurisdiction (John et al,

2009). In the New Zealand property industry, timber construction was limited to three

storeys prior to 1992. With the introduction of a Performance based Building Code in


1992, there is now no limit the height of timber buildings in New Zealand provided they

met the prescribed performance criteria. In Mainland China, wood frames are normally

used for single family and multi-family homes of two to three storeys, with current fire

codes preventing wood frame construction above three storeys. Similarly, the building

regulations in Japan limit timber frame construction to no more than four stories

(Shmuelly-Kagami, 2008).

In the recent years, timber multi-storey buildings have been gaining acceptance

in European countries. Prior to the early 1990s, most of the timber framework buildings

in European countries were limited to single or two storeys due to fire performance

regulation restrictions. However, with the national building regulations shifting from

being prescriptive to functional or performance based, the development of multi-storey

timber frame buildings has accelerated in many countries (Östman and Källsner, 2011).

This is especially the case in Sweden where, after the introduction of the revised

function based building regulations in 1995, there has been a clear trend in recent years

of an increased production of multi-storey residences (Björnfot, 2006)., The share of

timber frames in multi-storey (more than two storeys) house building in Sweden is now

approximately 10%, with a target of 30% within the next 10 years when it is expected

that the vast majority of timber frame multi-storey houses built will be up to four

storeys high (Jonsson, 2009).

In Germany, new building regulations (MBO 2002) allow the building of timber

constructions up to five storeys high (Lattke and Lehmann, 2007). Similar changes in

building codes have been made in the UK (1991 England and Wales Building

Regulations), which enable the construction of multi-storey residential timber framed

buildings beyond the height limitations of the past. These allow the potential number of

storeys to reach eight in England and Wales, with timber frame buildings of up to four


storeys having obtained wide acceptance (Jonsson, 2009). In Switzerland, the new fire

protection standard introduced in January 2005 permits the construction of timber

buildings of up to six storeys with a 60-minute fire resistance capability.

Other countries such as Ireland, Austria and Finland permit the use of timber

frames in residential construction of up to four storeys. Some countries do not have any

specific regulations or do not limit the number of storeys in timber buildings. However,

eight storeys are often used as a practical and economical limit (Östman, 2004)

In short, the construction of multi-storey timber building is growing in the recent

years around the world. This is mainly due to reasons of economy (cost) and ecology

(energy-efficiency and renewability) (Shmuelly-Kagami, 2008). Governments of forest

rich countries encourage the construction of timber multi-storey buildings to support the

national economy, employment market, exportation and ecology environment.

3. Research methods

Using the findings of the literature review as prompts, the preliminary study involved an

open-ended survey in which 15 experts expressed, in their own words, what they

perceived to be the obstacles involved in the construction of timber multi-storey

buildings. Here, the term 'timber multi-storey buildings' refers to structures higher than

three storeys and made of timber and timber-based materials. From this, a content

analysis - which helps determine the major facets of a set of data (Fellows and Liu,

2009) - was employed to consolidate and categorize the statements into a consolidated

list of 15 obstacles. Following this, a questionnaire survey was conducted to evaluate

the 15 obstacles. 176 respondents from groups of architects, building contractors,

property developers, investors and government officials were invited to participate in

the survey. All the respondents rated the importance of the obstacles on a 5-point

Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (the least important) to 5 (the most important).


Subsequently, a total of 74 responses were received, representing a response rate of

42%. The opinions of the different respondent groups were compared and a factor

analysis conducted to “examine how underlying constructs influence the responses on a

number of measured variables” (DeCoster, 1998) and group the obstacles into different

dimensions. This helps to reduce the number of obstacles and reveal the underlying

structure involved.

4. Preliminary study

The preliminary study comprised an exploratory process involving an open-ended

questionnaire distributed to a convenience sample of 74 experts known to have real-

world experience of timber frame projects and a sound knowledge of the industry in

Australia. The experts were encouraged to list all the obstacles of which they were

aware according to their experience and knowledge. A total of 15 experts returned their

responses. These hold senior positions within a variety of organisations as summarised

in Table 1.

Please insert Table <1> here

From the questionnaire, a list of 93 written statements was obtained. A

qualitative content analysis was then conducted to classify the statements, as this

method helps to group textual materials into more relevant and manageable data

(Weber, 1990). In conducting the content analysis, the main ideas from the statements

were first documented, coded and those with similar themes were assembled and

consolidated. This resulted in a set of 15 obstacles (see Table 2) upon which to base the

subsequent questionnaire survey.



5. Questionnaire survey

5.1. Questionnaire development and data collection

For the questionnaire survey, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the 15

obstacles on a 5-point scale, from 1=not important to 5=extremely important or

essential. The contact details of prospective respondents were sourced from the Master

Builders Association and Australian Institute of Architects, and various industry

websites. 176 potential respondents from builders, designers, property investors,

developers, and government representatives were contacted by telephone, and

permission was sought prior to delivering the questionnaire instrument by email (see

Table 3). A total of 74 responses were received, representing a response rate of 42%.


Every respondent from the construction industry has more than 5 years working

experience, with most (86%) working in the construction industry for more than 10

years. All the respondents have been involved in timber frame projects, with 62% of

having more than seven years experience with timber frame building construction

(Table 4).


5.2. Findings and Discussion

In order to increase the accuracy of the obstacle importance evaluations, Cronbach's

(1951) reliability analysis was conducted to test the consistency of the measurement

scale. Cronbach's alpha - developed by to measure internal consistency of a test and

which describes the extent to which all the items in a test measure the same concept - is

0.816, indicating that the 5-point Likert-type scores provided by the respondents in the


study are reasonably reliable.

As Table 5 indicates, fire risk, the limited awareness of new timber technologies,

and maintenance cost are the most dominant obstacles. With mean scores over 4.0, all

three obstacles are regarded as “very important” while, with the sole exception of

'limited tertiary education', all the other obstacles have mean scores over 3.0 and

therefore are perceived as “important”. The Kruskal-Wallis H-Test, a nonparametric

statistical procedure for comparing more than two populations that are independent or

not related (Corder and Foreman, 2009), was used to evaluate the significance of the

mean difference of opinions between the respondent groups of builders, designers,

government officials, investors and developers. Table 5 includes the results of this

analysis. According to the p value, the perception of respondents among different

groups are not statistically significantly different at the 5% significant level (p>0.05).

This suggests that, the respondents form a homogeneous group, with generally similar

opinions regarding the importance of the obstacles involved.

Clearly, fire risk is the primary concern of most respondents. This is

understandable as the structural integrity of burning timber is crucial. According to

Mahapatra and Gustavsson (2009), the fire safety of timber-framed buildings is

frequently questioned due to the history of city fires, despite the considerable progress

made in fire-resistant techniques over the years. Bayne and Taylor (2006) report that a

number of industry tests have demonstrated the satisfactory fire performance of timber

structures in suitably designed buildings. From a fire testing perspective, latest research

suggests that if cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels are thick enough they will perform

significantly better than traditional timber construction in the event of a fire (Harch,

2010). This is supported by tests conducted in Italy that suggest CLT panels function in

an acceptable manner in a fire situation (Frangi et al, 2009). However, the results of fire


tests, which have been conducted predominately in European countries (Blaß and

Schädle, 2011; Van de Kuilen et al, 2011; Turner, 2010), have not effectively dispelled

the concerns from the Australian building sector.

A perceived limited awareness of new timber technologies is the second most

importance obstacle. Timber is one of the most traditional construction materials for

building projects. At the same time, there is a possibility that timber is considered an

old-fashioned material that is not suitable for multi-storey buildings (Bengtson, 2003).

Although the timber industry has embraced new technologies in recent decades (e.g.

prefabrication, wood preservative methods and chemicals that make timber materials

resistant to biological hazards), many have not been widely recognized. Most people are

still worried about the lifespan, fire resistance and sound insulation of timber as a

construction material. In addition, although there have been some industry studies

focusing on new applications of timber in market segments other than traditional low-

rise residential buildings (e.g. Bayne and Page, 2009; Nolan, 2011), most people are

unaware of the research findings.

Maintenance cost is another primary concern for building clients. Indeed, Gold

and Rubik (2009) assert that intensive maintenance requirements and high

combustibility present significant barriers to the selection of timber frames. High

maintenance requirements are also associated with energy consumption and greenhouse

gas emissions over the life cycle of a building (Crawford et al, 2010). Although modern

technologies help to increase the lifespan of timber frame buildings, the degradation or

decay of timber remain common concerns (van de Kuilen, 2007; Yang et al, 2012).

Unlike other construction materials such as brick or steel, timber frames are easily

susceptible to mould, which infects wood in moist conditions. Indeed, moisture

problems with timber frames arise when they are exposed to moisture before/during


construction or due to faulty construction. Specialized and costly services are needed to

remove mould from timber framing. Additionally, timber frames can become infested

with insects, especially termites in Australia, which can cause severe damage to the

frame. As a result, the maintenance cost of timber frame buildings increases

dramatically if these problems are encountered. In Sweden, an 8-storey timber frame

building (Limnologen project) was built under a large tent to protect the timber frames

from local weather conditions such as rain and snow (Serrano, 2009). Moreover,

prefabrication of building components (e.g. walls) and volume modules helps to avoid

the exposure to moisture (Larsen et al, 2011; Silva et al, 2012).

The lack of legislative support from governments at various levels is ranked

reasonably highly. As Mahapatra et al (2012) observe, there are conservative

regulations in Germany, UK and Sweden regarding timber-framed construction.

Likewise, the structural use of timber in multi-storey buildings in Australia has also

been restricted by construction regulations (Bayne and Taylor, 2006). According to

respondents, federal and state governments play a more important role than local

governments. This is arguably because the federal and state governments have larger

legislative power than local governments in Australia. In contrast, the supportive

construction and planning legislation in the EU has resulted in timber frames being used

in an increasing number of multi-storey buildings (Tykkä et al, 2010).

The experience of industry professionals in timber-framed buildings is also

considered important by respondents. As emphasised by Bayne and Taylor (2006), the

experience of quantity surveyors in pricing timber design is relatively limited, making

the estimation process longer and more uncertain than for steel and concrete structures.

As key participants in typical construction projects, designers and contractors also need

experience with timber-framed projects. Indeed, lack of experience has been identified


as one of the key factors hindering the diffusion of innovation in the construction

industry generally (Peansupap and Walker, 2006, Pan et al, 2007).


6. Factor Analysis

A factor analysis was conducted to understand the underlying structure of the obstacle

variables and examine the pattern of their inter-correlations. Factor analysis is a method

often used to reduce the number of variables by detecting whether the variables are

correlated with a small number of unobserved factors. According to Norusis (1992), it

involves two essential stages, factor extraction and factor rotation. Factor extraction

aims to initially determine a reduced number of factors from a larger set of variables.

The primary objective of the factor rotation is to make the factors easier to interpret and

finalize the number of underlying factors.

In subjecting the 15 obstacle variables to factor analysis, therefore, the first stage

was factor extraction. For this, principal components analysis was used. Five factors

were preliminarily identified by the usual criterion of factors having eigenvalues of

more than one, followed by the popular varimax method (Abdi, 2003). The Kaiser-

Mayer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling accuracy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity

were used to evaluate the appropriateness of the factor extraction, The KMO measure of

sampling adequacy tests whether the partial correlations among variables are small.

KMO values of greater than the threshold of 0.5 are regarded as acceptable (Kaiser,

1958). The results show that the KMO measure is .644, and therefore the factor analysis

will be satisfactory. Bartlett's test of sphericity tested the null hypothesis that the

variables in the population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. The observed

significance level was .000, and thus the null hypothesis was rejected. It is concluded


that the relationship among variables is sufficiently strong and therefore a factor

analysis for analysing the data could proceed.


Table 6 summarises the results. Five factors were extracted and labelled as

follows:

• Factor 1: lack of legislative support. This encompasses the items that relate to

the lack of legislative support from local, state and federal governments.

• Factor 2: lack of industrial interest. This include obstacles relating to the lack of

developer interest, limited tertiary and technical education choices, limited

technical education and training choices, and a limited timber industry

advertising campaign.

• Factor 3: lack of experienced professionals. This consists of items that relate to

the lack of experienced designers, builders and quantity surveyors for timber

frame buildings.

• Factor 4: perception of timber frame disadvantages. This perception is pertinent

to increased insurance costs, maintenance costs and fire risks.

• Factor 5: limited awareness of timber frame advantages. This relates to the

limited awareness of emerging timber techniques and the carbon storage

capability of timber.

The cumulative variance explained by these five factors is 61.6%.

In many countries, national building regulations restrict the use of timber frames

for multi-storey buildings mainly due to fire risk concerns. In Australia, legislation for

multi-residential timber framed construction (MRTFC) was introduced in Amendment

No.7 of Building Codes of Australia (BCA) 90. In this, timber constructed residential


buildings was limited to a maximum of three storeys of timber framing (plus one

ground storey constructed of masonry and/or concrete used as a garage) for Class 2

residential use. There are no similar regulations for multi-storey timber construction for

commercial buildings from local, states and federal governments. With the rapid

development of new fire-resistance technologies, it is necessary to remove the limits on

heights for timber construction.

The lack of industrial interest and experienced professionals reflects the decline

in the use of timber in Australia over the past few decades. According to Kapambwe et

al (2009), while there has been an increase in the average size of dwellings across

Australia, the average wood products usage per unit of floor area has decreased

dramatically. Truskett et al (1997) and Bayne and Taylor (2006) both noted that

architects and engineers lack confidence in timber design or construction. Previous

studies have also shown a lack of training for wood construction from structural

engineers and architects (O’Connor et al. 2004). As Nolan (2011) mentions, most

practitioners, mainly including the architect, structural engineer, quantity surveyor, and

construction builder are cautious of timber and the wide range products it offers to the

market. Therefore acquiring the necessary expertise in timber design and construction is

a medium to long-term proposition for the timber industry.

The perceptions of timber frame disadvantages, mainly increased insurance and

maintenance costs and fire risks, reflect the concerns of end users. As already

mentioned, fire risk and increased maintenance costs are the most important obstacles

perceived by the respondents. Many mainstream insurers are reluctant to insure timber

framed buildings due to their being perceived as more risky than brick or concrete

buildings. Additionally, architects and even more so engineers possess the perceptions

of negative aspects of wood on decay, instability and sound transmission although both


professions perceived their influence on material selection to be weak (Roos et al.

2010). Despite the fact that contemporary timber technologies, such as the wood

preservative methods and chemicals enable timber materials to produce satisfactory

building performance, their limited awareness by the public has resulted in timber

framed buildings receiving negative comments over the last few decades. This echoes

the findings from Gold and Rubik (2009) that that prejudice regarding the deficiency of

timber as a construction material and of timber frame houses, in terms of fire resistance,

durability and stability, persists in the minds of German consumers.

7. Conclusions

Timber is commonly used in low-rise housing but comparatively limited in multi-storey

non-residential buildings. The study reported in this paper aimed to investigate the

reasons for this from an industry professional’s point of view. Having identified 15

possible obstacles from preliminary studies, a questionnaire survey found the most

important of these to be fire risk, lack of awareness of new timber technologies and

maintenance costs, with all the remainder apart from 'limited tertiary education

regarding timber framework' being regarded as “important”. A factor analysis showed

that these obstacles general fall into five groups, i.e. lack of legislative support, lack of

industry interest, lack of experienced professionals, perception of disadvantages of

timber frame and limited awareness of timber frame advantages.

A possible approach to overcome these obstacles is through the collaboration of

the various stakeholders, such as governments, clients, designers, contractors and

suppliers. It is suggested that the Government issue more supportive legislation and

regulations to promote the utilization of timber for structural purposes in multi-storey

buildings. Industry training (e.g. workshops and seminars) and tertiary education


regarding timber structures would help increase the awareness and knowledge of the

technological innovations related to timber products in the building sector. The attitudes

of clients (i.e. developers and investors) are crucial as they are the ultimate decision-

makers about what to build and the industry, through professional bodies, could make

more effort to help increase the awareness of timber frame advantages.

The main limitation of this study is the comparatively small scale of the

questionnaire survey, which is due to the relative lack of experience of industry

professionals with timber multi-storey buildings. Future research will benefit from in-

depth case studies to explore the issues involved further.

References

Abdi, H. (2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. Encyclopaedia for Research

Methods for the Social Sciences. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 792-795.

Bayne, K. and Taylor, S. (2006) Attitudes to the use of Wood as a Structural Material in

Non-residential Building Applications: Opportunities for Growth, PN05.1020,

Forest and Wood Products Australia, February 2006.

Bayne, K. and Page, I. (2009) New Applications of Timber in Non-traditional Market

Segments: High Rise Residential and Non-residential (commercial) Buildings,

PNA013-0708, Forest and Wood Products Australia, May 2009.

Bengtson, A., 2003. Framing technological development in a concrete context – the use

of wood in the Swedish construction industry, PhD. Thesis, Department of

Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Björnfot, A. (2006) An exploration of Lean thinking for multistorey timber housing

construction. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.


Blaß, H.J., Schädle, P. (2011) Ductility aspects of reinforced and non-reinforced timber

joints, Engineering Structures, 33, 11, 3018-3026.

Castro-Lacouture, D., Sefair, J.A., Flórez, L. and Medaglia A.L. (2009) Optimization

model for the selection of materials using a LEED-based green building rating

system in Colombia, Building and Environment, 44, 6, 1162-1170.

Corder, G.W. and Foreman, D. I. (2009) Nonparametric Statistics for Non-statisticians,

John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey.

Crawford, R.H., Czerniakowski, I. and Fuller, R.J. (2010) A comprehensive framework

for assessing the life-cycle energy of building construction assemblies,

Architectural Science Review, 53, 3, 288-296

Cronbach, L. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16, 297-334.

DeCoster, J. (1998) Overview of Factor Analysis. Retrieved May 19th, 2012 from

http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html

Fellows, R. F. and Liu, A. M. (2009). Research methods for construction. John Wiley &

Sons.

Frangi, A., Fontana, M., Hugi, E. and Jübstl, R. (2009) Experimental analysis of cross-

laminated timber panels in fire, Fire Safety Journal, 44, 8, 1078-1087.

GBCA (n.d.) Green Building Council of Australia: Green Schools,

http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/Green%20Schools_Lowres.pdf accessed Nov

2013.

Gold, S. and Rubik, F. (2009) Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction

material and towards timber frame houses – selected findings of a representative


http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html

survey among the German population, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 2,

303–309.

Harch, B.J.L. (2010) The Investigation into the Optimisation of Cross Laminated

Timber Panels for use in the Australia Building Industry, Unpublished

undergraduate dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of

Southern Queensland, October 2010.

Hemström, K., Mahapatra, K. and Gustavsson, L. (2011) Perceptions, attitudes and

interest of Swedish architects towards the use of wood frames in multi-storey

buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 11, 1013-1021.

John, S., Nebel, B., Perez, N. and Buchanan A. (2009) Environmental Impacts of Multi-

Storey Buildings Using Different Construction Materials, Research Report

2008-02, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand

Jonsson, R. (2009) Prospects for timber frame in multi-storey house building in

England, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. School of

Technology and Design Reports, No. 52, Växjö University, Växjö, Sweden.

Kaiser, H.F. (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor

analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 3, 187–200.

Kapambwe, M., Ximenes, F., Vinden, P. and Keenan, R. (2009) Dynamics of Carbon

Stocks in Timber in Australian Residential Housing. Retrieved Aug 28th, 2012

from http://www.fwpa.com.au/sites/default/files/PN07.1058dynamics_carbon_stocks.pdf

Larsen, K. E., Lattke, F., Ott, S. and Winter, S. (2011) Surveying and digital workflow

in energy performance retrofit projects using prefabricated elements. Automation

in Construction, 20, 8, 999-1011.

Lattke, F. and Lehmann, S. (2007) Multi-storey residential timber construction: current

developments in Europe. Journal of Green Building, 2, 1, 119-129.


http://www.fwpa.com.au/sites/default/files/PN07.1058dynamics_carbon_stocks.pdf

Mahapatra, K. and Gustavsson, L. (2008): Multi-storey timber buildings: breaking

industry path dependency, Building Research and Information, 36:6, 638-648.

Mahapatra, K. and Gustavsson, L. (2009) General conditions for construction of multi-

storey wooden buildings in Western Europe, School of Technology and Design,

Reports, No. 59, Vaxjo University, Sweden.

Mahapatra, K., Gustavsson, L. and Hemström, K. (2012) Multi-storey wood-frame

buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK, Construction Innovation:

Information, Process, Management, 12, 1, 62–85.

MBO (Musterbauordnung, 2002 version): Musterbauordnung der Bauministerkonferenz

– Konferenz der für Städtebau, Bau- und Wohnungswesen zuständigen Minister

und Senatoren der Länder (ARGEBAU). http://www.bauministerkonferenz.de/

Nolan, G. (2011) Timber in multi-residential, commercial and industrial building:

Recognising opportunities and constraints, PNA140-0809, Forest and Wood

Products Australia, April 2011.

Norusis, M. J. (1992). SPSS for Windows: Base System User's guide, release 5.0. SPSS

Incorporated.

O’Connor, J., Kozak, R., Gaston, C. & Fell, D. (2004) Timber use in non-residential

buildings: Opportunities and barriers. Forest Products Journal, 54(3): 19–28.

Östman, B. (2004) National fire regulations limit the use of wood in buildings.

Available on <http://www.ewpa.com/Archive/2004/jun/Paper_273.pdf>

accessed on 28th June.

Östman, B. and Källsner, B. (2011) National building regulations in relation to multi-

storey wooden buildings in Europe. School of Technology and Design Reports,

No. 60, Växjö University, Växjö, Sweden.


http://www.ewpa.com/Archive/2004/jun/Paper_273.pdf

Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2007) Perspectives of UK house builders on

the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management

and Economics, 25, 2, 183–194.

Pauli, G.A. (2010) The Blue Economy: 10 Years, 100 Innovations, 100 Million Jobs.

Paradigm Publications, New Mexico, USA.

Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H.T. (2006) Information communication technology

(ICT) implementation constraints: A construction industry perspective,

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13, 4, 364–379.

Piot, A., Woloszyn, M., Brau, J. and Abele, C. (2011). Experimental wooden frame

house for the validation of whole building heat and moisture transfer numerical

models, Energy and Buildings, 43, 6, 1322-1328.

Qu, M., Pelkonen, P., Tahvanainen, L., Arevalo, J. and Gritten, D. (2012). Experts’

assessment of the development of wood framed houses in China, Journal of

Cleaner Production, 31, 100-105.

Roos, A., Woxblom L., and McCluskey D. (2010) The influence of architects and

structural engineers on timber in construction – perceptions and roles. Silva

Fennica 44(5), 871-884.

Serrano, E. (2009) Documentation of the Limnologen project: overview and summaries

of sub projects results. Report No. 56, School of Technology and Design, Växjö

University, Sweden; 2009.

Shmuelly-Kagami, T (2008) Investigation on Timber Multi-Storey Building in

European Countries. Study Report to Japan 2x4 Home Builder Association,

University of Tokyo. Available on

<https://2x4assoc.or.jp/builder/act/tsuboi/pdf/tuboi04-4.pdf> accessed by on 29th

June.


http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/index.htm

http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/index.htm

http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/sf445.htm

https://2x4assoc.or.jp/builder/act/tsuboi/pdf/tuboi04-4.pdf

Silva, P. C., Almeida, M., Bragança, L. and Mesquita, V. (2012) Development of

prefabricated retrofit module towards nearly zero energy buildings, Energy and

Buildings, 56, 115–125.

Truskett, B. and Timber Research Unit (1997) Factors Influencing Structural Engineers

in their use and specification of Timber and Timber Products, report for the

Tasmanian Timber Promotion Board, June.

Turner, A. (2010) Structural Performance of Cross Laminated Timber Panels as Walls,

Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and Surveying,

University of Southern Queensland, October 2010.

Tykkä, S., McCluskey, D., Nord, T., Ollonqvist, P., Hugosson, M., Roos, A., Ukrainski,

K., Nyrud, A.Q. and Bajric, F.(2010) Development of timber framed firms in the

construction sector — Is EU policy one source of their innovation? Forest

Policy and Economics, 12, 3, 199-206.

Van de Kuilen, J. W. G. (2007) Service life modelling of timber structures. Materials

and Structures, 40, 1, 151-161.

Van de Kuilen, J. W. G, Ceccotti, A., Xia, Z.Y. and He, M. J. (2011) Very tall wooden

buildings with cross laminated timber, Procedia Engineering, 14, 1621-1628.

Weber, R. P. (Ed.). (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage.

Yang, N., Li, P., Law, S. S. and Yang, Q. (2012) Experimental research on mechanical

properties of timber in ancient Tibetan building. Journal of Materials in Civil

Engineering, 24, 6, 635-643.


Table 1. Experts’ organizations for the preliminary study

Type of organizations/departments Number Architects 3 Academia 4 Building Contractors 1 Property Developers 2 Construction Engineers 1 Property Valuers 4 Total 15


Table 2 Obstacles to the use of timber frames for multi-storey buildings

No. Obstacles Frequency of mention (%)

1 Limited awareness of emerging timber technologies 100 2 Maintenance costs 100 3 Fire risk 100 4 Limited legislative support from federal government 87 5 Limited timber industry advertising campaigns 73 6 Limited legislative support from local government 53 7 Limited legislative support from state government 40 8 Lack of experienced designers 20 9 Lack of experienced builders 20 10 Limited tertiary education relating to timber frames 20 11 Limited technical education and training 20 12 Limited developer interest 7 13 Lack of experienced quantity surveyors 7 14 Insurance costs 7 15 Limited awareness of timber’s carbon storage abilities 7


Table 3 Response rates and classification of respondents by working organizations

Respondents Questionnaires issued Responses received Response rate (%)

Designer 98 43 44 Builder 46 16 35 Investor 11 6 55 Developer 14 7 50 Government 7 2 29 Total 176 74 42


Table 4 Classification of respondent by working experience

Years Working experience in the construction industry

Working experience with timber framing projects

Nil Experience (property investors & developers)

6 13

Up to 7 years 5 15 8-15 years 17 15 16-24years 12 11 No less than 25 years 34 20


Table 5 Obstacles to the use of timber frames for multi-storey buildings

Obstacles to the use of timber frame buildings Overall Builder Designer Government Investor Developer

p-value Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

1. Fire risk 4.16 1 4.15 1 3.95 1 3.50 7 4.50 1 4.71 1 .158

2. Limited awareness of new timber technologies 4.09 2 3.77 3 3.63 4 4.00 1 4.50 1 4.57 2 .051

3. Maintenance cost 4.06 3 4.00 2 3.84 3 4.00 1 4.33 3 4.14 3 .437

4. Limited awareness of timber’s carbon store ability 3.68 4 3.54 6 3.47 7 4.00 1 3.83 5 3.57 9 .110

5. Limited timber industry advertisement campaigns 3.65 5 3.69 4 3.53 6 3.00 11 4.17 4 3.86 4 .054

6. Limited legislative support from federal government 3.62 6 3.54 6 3.21 12 4.00 1 3.50 9 3.86 4 .525

7. Limited legislative support from state government 3.60 7 3.38 8 3.42 8 4.00 1 3.50 9 3.71 6 .524

8. Lack of experienced designers 3.53 8 3.31 11 3.32 10 3.50 7 3.83 5 3.71 6 .485

9. Insurance costs 3.51 9 3.69 4 3.26 11 3.50 7 3.67 8 3.43 12 .373

10. Limited legislative support from local government 3.50 10 3.38 8 3.05 13 4.00 1 3.33 12 3.71 6 .445

11. Limited developer interest 3.48 11 2.92 13 3.89 2 3.50 7 3.83 5 3.29 13 .449

12. Limited technical education and training 3.38 12 3.23 12 3.58 5 3.00 11 3.50 9 3.57 9 .687

13. Lack of experienced quantity surveyors 3.11 13 3.38 8 3.00 14 3.00 11 3.17 14 3.00 14 .768

14. Lack of experienced builders 3.08 14 2.31 15 3.37 9 3.00 11 3.17 14 3.57 9 .901

15. Limited tertiary education relating to timber frames 2.99 15 2.62 14 3.00 14 3.00 11 3.33 12 3.00 14 .788


Table 6 Factor profile of obstacles to the use of timber frame for multi-storey buildings

Factors of obstacles Factor loading

Variance explained

Factor 1 Lack of legislative support 19.2% Lack of legislative support from local government .949 Lack of legislative support from state government .953 Lack of legislative support from federal government .965

Factor 2 Lack of industrial interest 12.4% Lack of developer interest .615 Limited tertiary education choices .565 Limited technical education and training choices .649 Limited timber industry advertising campaign .450

Factor 3 Lack of experienced professionals 10.8% Lack of experienced designers .649 Lack of experienced builders .838 Lack of experienced quantity surveyors .344

Factor 4 Perception of timber frame disadvantages 10.4% Perception of increased insurance cost .651 Perception of increased maintenance cost .680 Perception of increased fire risk .653

Factor 5 Limited awareness of timber frame advantages 8.8% Limited awareness of emerging timber techniques .392 Limited awareness of carbon storage capability .981

Cumulative variance explained = 61.6% Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.644 Significance of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity = 0.000


bond university research repository perceived obstacles to

Documents