Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Shear Behavior of Reinforced Highly Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams with Stirrups
Next Article in Special Issue
The Geometry of Timber Lamella Vaults: Prototype Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Current Issues and Questionnaire Survey of Cold Weather Concreting in Mongolia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Probabilistic Models for the Tensile Properties of Split Boards and Their Application for the Prediction of Bending Properties of Engineered Timber Products Made of Norway Spruce
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings12081263
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

From Trees to Skyscrapers: Holistic Review of the Advances and Limitations of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings

by
Marcelo González-Retamal
1,
Eric Forcael
2,*,
Gerardo Saelzer-Fuica
1 and
Mauricio Vargas-Mosqueda
1
1
College of Architecture, Construction and Design, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Concepcion 4051381, Chile
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Concepcion 4051381, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(8), 1263; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081263
Submission received: 7 July 2022 / Revised: 7 August 2022 / Accepted: 11 August 2022 / Published: 18 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Timber Structures: Latest Developments, Challenges, and Perspectives)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Products derived from trees have been used by mankind for thousands of years, where timber has a long tradition as an ecological construction material. There is currently an increasing trend in multi-storey timber buildings, because of the projected growth in the demand for housing in urban areas between now and 2050, along with the urgent need for a more sustainable and productive construction industry. The construction of these buildings is now possible thanks to the new advances in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) and the new technological developments around timber construction. Its industrialization requirements imply a paradigm shift for the construction industry, which requires, among other aspects, the early and collaborative integration of stakeholders in its design and construction process. According to this, the objective of this review article is to determine the main advances and limitations related to the design and construction of multi-storey timber buildings, categorizing them in aspects such as sustainability, engineering and construction sciences, and collaborative design. The methodology of this article was based on the review of 266 articles published in Web of Science (WoS), as indexed scientific journals, between 2017 and mid-2022, performing a comparative and cooccurrence analysis of the contents. The results evidenced that 73% of the articles showed advances and limitations corresponding to the engineering and construction sciences category, 23% to sustainability, and the remaining 4% to collaborative design. The main advances in the development of multi-storey timber buildings are related to seismic analysis, connections design, fire performance, and fire design. While the main limitations are related to social sustainability, the results are not conclusive due to the low number of publications that support them.

1. Introduction

To go from trees to multi-storey timber buildings, it is important to note that trees are grouped into the divisions Gymnospermae (i.e., plants with naked seeds, which do not produce flowers or fruits) and Angiospermae (i.e., plants with covered seeds, which produce flowers and fruit), where those with a more pyramidal architecture and needle-shaped leaves (i.e., pines, cypresses, and firs) correspond to gymnosperms or conifers; while trees with more branched architecture and lamellar leaves (i.e., oaks, beeches, and eucalyptus) correspond to dicotyledonous or broadleaf angiosperms. These trees are where timber is derived from, as a set of woody and perennial plant tissues that are found mainly in the stem of the tree.
Despite the fact that timber is a very heterogeneous material, with characteristics that vary between species and even within the same type of tree, it has common properties such as its cellular-type structure arranged vertically and radial symmetry, characterized mainly by being a biodegradable compound, which also makes it a highly sustainable material.
In the context of environmental concerns and limited urban land, the construction industry faces the uphill struggle of providing sustainable solutions for the growing urban population, with numerous innovations emerging in engineered wood products to develop high-rise buildings as one of the most promising challenge [1,2]. In this sense, three key aspects were considered to conduct the present review: sustainability, engineering and construction sciences, and collaborative design, which are described as follows.

1.1. Sustainability of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings

In terms of environmental sustainability, wood has a long history as an environmentally friendly building material in countries with boreal forests. For example, more than eighty percent of homes in the United States and Scandinavian countries have been built with timber frames. In addition, there is now increasing evidence that wood-based products are highly competitive in comparison with alternative building materials, where the carbon balance of a timber building is only half of those built with a concrete structure [3].
Related to social and economic sustainability, wood-based industrialization is one of the global construction trends. This industrialization in a controlled environment makes it possible to improve the labor safety and female employability, and will require increasingly more trained professionals, among other indicators; it represents an opportunity to improve productivity and quality in the industry, automate processes, increase precision, and reduce time and costs [4,5]. Moreover, research related to the design of timber structures linked to digital fabrication suggests substantial reductions in the consumption of materials, which indicates a significant potential to reduce costs [6,7,8,9].
Different WoS-indexed review articles on multi-storey timber buildings justify their development based on the benefits of environmental sustainability [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]; however, an in-depth analysis of the related social and economic sustainability aspects has not been carried out.

1.2. Engineering and Construction Sciences in Multi-Storey Timber Buildings

Currently, there is an increasing trend for tall multi-storey timber buildings, because of the advances mainly in engineering and construction sciences [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, high-rise timber buildings evidence the complexity in their design, where the selection of an adequate structural system depends mainly on the specific characteristics of the location, particularly climatic conditions, wind exposure, and seismic risk [16,17].
As is known, structural design is essential in any building project. However, it creates requirements that deviate from normal manufacturing practices. The structural analysis and the different design codes of each country or market tend to make this stage of the design process more complex and rigid. This complexity increases due to the natural characteristics of wood, as it is an anisotropic material and its mechanical properties are affected by its moisture content, load duration, among other aspects [29].
Review articles related to engineering and construction sciences have focused mainly on the seismic design of multi-storey timber buildings, covering topics such as a cross-laminated timber (CLT) design, hybrid structures, and seismic protection technologies [10,15,30,31,32,33]. In addition, reviews on structural robustness have also been published [13,34]; development, deterioration, and preservation of engineering products [11,35]; fire performance and fire design [12,14].

1.3. Collaborative Design in Multi-Storey Timber Buildings

Another barrier related to the design of timber structures is the complexity of the relationships between stakeholders in the design process, that is, architects, engineers, builders, wood producers, and contractors, requiring greater interaction throughout the design stages, instead of a linear relationship [36,37]. In general, several studies suggest that collaborative work is required among all project participants to redefine and optimize design and construction processes through the exchange of specific and detailed information [29,37,38,39].
In this sense, different studies mention that it is possible to achieve a collaborative and standardized workflow, from the design to the construction of prefabricated buildings with timber structures, based on integrated Building Information Modeling (BIM) models which involve the whole design process [29,37,38,39].

1.4. Objective of the Article

The rise of multi-storey timber buildings has gone hand in hand with a sustained increase in scientific production on this topic as shown in Figure 1. This then facilitates a greater understanding of the advances and limitations of timber buildings, through a documentary review of the articles published in recent years in this area.
Therefore, the objective of this review article was to determine the main advances and limitations related to the design and construction of multi-storey timber buildings, categorizing them in aspects such as sustainability, engineering and construction sciences, and collaborative design. This will allow identifying future lines of research based on the review of the main conclusions from articles published between 2017 and mid-2022, in WoS-indexed scientific journals.

2. Methodology

The methodology of this study comprised the following steps. First, a literature review was carried out using keywords. Second, a content analysis based on coding and categorization of findings was performed. Third, in each category, the findings were classified as “advances” and “limitations”, from which an analysis of co-occurrences was performed. Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 fully describe the methodology.

2.1. Literature Review

Two bibliographic searches were carried out in scientific journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) because of their high impact factors [40], including studies focused on documenting and analyzing the state of the practice in the timber industry, considering the following sets of keywords:
-
Set 1 of keywords: Tall wood building and tall timber building;
-
Set 2 of keywords: Multi-storey timber.
Additionally, the following filters were considered in the present review:
(i)
Research articles, review articles, reports, and conference proceedings were included;
(ii)
The search considered words in the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles;
(iii)
The search was restricted to the English language only. However, in the case of publications in other languages, it was considered valid that the title, the abstract, and the keywords were in English;
(iv)
The years of publication of the articles were limited to the 2017 to mid-2022 period. Specifically, the review was completed in early August 2022.

2.2. Comparative Analysis

Qualitative research was carried out, based on comparative analyses of the content of the main conclusions of the articles found as a result of the literature review on multi-storey timber buildings. Preliminarily, three general theoretical data fields were proposed (Sustainability, Engineering and Construction Sciences, and Collaborative Design), according to what was stated in Section 1.1, Section 1.2, and Section 1.3. However, as the documentary review progressed, new data fields appeared on more specific topics associated with each topic. Due to the fact of this, the data fields were integrated into categories based on their common properties, generating the categorization shown in Figure 2.
In addition, the data fields found were rated as “advances” and “limitations” depending on the type of conclusions obtained in terms of the design and construction of multi-storey timber buildings, considering as “advances” the positive conclusions of each article included in the present review, where such advances in terms of scientific knowledge or technological improvements have solved gaps evidenced in the state of the art or practice. In turn, the negative conclusions of each article reviewed were considered “limitations”, when they evidenced scientific or technological gaps to be bridged, uncertainties, or findings that the authors categorized as not very robust.
Finally, in the present review, a search for patterns was conducted by establishing comparisons and explanations from a co-occurrence analysis developed with the ATLAS.tiTM (Version 9; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH; Berlin, Germany) software (a computer-aided qualitative data analysis software that facilitates qualitative data analysis for qualitative and quantitative research). It has to be noted that co-occurrence analyses are useful for clarifying which are the most shared keywords within a set of scientific publications in areas such as construction [41]. On the other hand, a keyword co-occurrence network focuses on understanding the knowledge components and knowledge structure of a scientific/technical field by examining the links between keywords in the literature [42].

3. Results

For the preparation of this literature review, a total of 112 scientific journals, all WoS indexed in 2022, were examined (specifically until the beginning of August 2022). In total, 296 articles were collected based on the search criteria described in the methodology, and 30 publications were discarded because their scope did not correspond to multi-storey timber buildings. The results of the content analysis previously described in the methodology are presented below.
From the remaining 266 scientific articles (296 collected minus 30 discarded as out of scope) on multi-storey timber buildings considered for the analysis, it was obtained that 73% corresponded to the category of engineering and construction sciences, 23% to sustainability, and the remaining 4% to collaborative design. Table 1 shows scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings by subcategories. Figure 3 shows the frequency of the subcategories described in Figure 2, where the conclusions regarding “advances” are in the positive frequency of the graph, while the conclusions regarding “limitations” are in the negative frequency.
The contents considered as advances were much higher in number (331) than the conclusions found as limitations (35). In the sustainability category, the one that presents the highest frequency of positive content was environmental sustainability, while social sustainability was the one that exposes the most limitations related to the design of multi-storey timber buildings. For the engineering and construction sciences category, the publications associated with seismic analysis were the ones that presented the greatest number of advances, while the structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns category showed the greatest number of limitations. Finally, in the collaborative design category, the largest number of advances and limitations were found in the same subcategory, in this case, related to the documentation of collaborative design experiences.

3.1. Advances in Sustainability

For the sustainability category, the three subcategories that comprised it (i.e., environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability), the conclusions considered and the advances were associated with each other. Based on the advances evidenced from the documentary review, certain patterns of relationships between the different subcategories could be established, which can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Table 2 shows the analysis of co-occurrences regarding the frequency of findings considered as advances. For the economic sustainability subcategory, 20 advances were found; for the environmental sustainability subcategory, 29 advances were found; while for social sustainability, 15 advances were evidenced. In the case of advances that linked environmental sustainability and social sustainability, a frequency of 8 findings was found; and for the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability, 14 advances were found. Finally, for economic sustainability and social sustainability, nine advances linked them.
The coefficient C shows the intensity of the co-occurrence relationship between subcategories, which ranged between 0 and 1, where a higher coefficient indicates a greater intensity in the co-occurrence relationship. Among the three subcategories analyzed, the relationship with the highest intensity of co-occurrence was evidenced in the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability (coefficient C = 0.40), being of medium intensity. It was followed by the relationship between social and economic sustainability with a coefficient C equal to 0.35, and the lowest intensity of co-occurrence was found in the relationship between environmental and social sustainability (coefficient C = 0.22).
Figure 4 shows the Sankey diagram which relates the three subcategories in the nodes of the diagram, where environmental sustainability is shown in orange, social sustainability in blue, and economic sustainability in green. The width of the borders shown in the diagram corresponds to the frequency of co-occurrence between these subcategories.
At the level of the environmental sustainability and economic sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the contents considered as advances showed relationships in the following aspects.
Publications with advances related to energy savings were evidenced, suggesting potential energy savings when CLT was implemented in residential projects in different climates and complying with “Net Zero” and “Passivhaus” standards [44,73,274], showing a reduction in global energy demand of up to 60% [48]. In addition, it is noted that in general, multi-storey timber buildings require less use of primary production energy compared to concrete alternatives [43,45,74].
It is suggested that cross-laminated timber (CLT) products were developed to the point where they can be considered economic (i.e., cost-competitive) and more environmentally sustainable alternatives than traditional materials [86,91,92]. Thus, the advances that relate to environmental sustainability and economic sustainability were strongly linked to the energy savings generated by multi-storey timber buildings compared to traditional construction methods and materials, while the use of CLT to achieve greener buildings at a competitive cost was next in importance. These findings were consistently based on studies carried out in different countries such as the United States, Canada, Italy, Australia, Sweden, Slovenia, and Finland; however, it would be interesting to validate these results in areas such as Asia and Latin America, where there are abundant forest resources but with a still incipient construction of multi-storey timber buildings [268,275].
At the level of environmental sustainability and social sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the contents considered as advances showed relationships based on perception studies. These studies also evidenced that the highest percentage of respondents believes that compared to concrete and steel buildings, multi-storey timber buildings are more aesthetically pleasing, create a positive living environment, and value the use of renewable materials [83,87]. In addition, the attitudes of residents in multi-storey timber buildings remained positive over time, especially regarding sound insulation, indoor climate, comfort, environmental properties, and fire safety [77]. In addition, the relationship between environmental and social concepts found in multi-storey timber buildings emerged as a positive indicator; however, the low number of publications (i.e., eight) and the focus of these cited studies do not yet allow these results to be considered as a trend.
When analyzing the economic sustainability and social sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the findings, which were considered advances, evidenced close relationships in the following aspects:
Based on a perception view, it was found that young consumers are already familiar with the fact that the use of wood in housing contributes to a successful bioeconomy in the urban context [82].
Government interventions have promoted multi-storey timber buildings under the concept of innovation by seeking to promote value-added activities for local forestry sectors [79]. In this sense, a positive relationship between economic sustainability and social sustainability marked by a perception study and the evidence of incentives generated by public policies is still not very robust due to the low number of articles that relate them (i.e., 9).
In terms of environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the contents considered as advances showed significant relationships in the following aspects:
Based on perception studies, it was found that construction professionals had a positive attitude towards multi-storey timber buildings in general, perceiving them as ecologically superior because of the low environmental impact and use of local materials, competitive costs, and also generating aesthetic appeal and innovative designs, along with providing a fast on-site assembly process [35,54,80,90]. In addition, high approval of wood was expressed, since the environmental, social, and economic aspects related to its use as construction material [81,276].
On the other hand, it was found that CLT buildings had a better performance in terms of environmental, economic, and social sustainability attributes, compared to buildings with concrete or steel structures [50].
Finally, the advances that relate to environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability were mainly based on perception studies, the findings of which seem robust, showing a trend in countries in North America and Europe. However, there was no evidence to validate these results in areas such as Asia and Latin America, especially in terms of costs, which may be strongly influenced by the reality of local markets.

3.2. Limitations in Sustainability

The three subcategories belonging to the sustainability category (environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability) are related to each other, regarding the conclusions which consider them as limitations. Based on the limitations evidenced from the documentary review, certain patterns of relationship between the different subcategories can be established, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 5.
Table 3 shows the analysis of co-occurrences regarding the frequency of conclusions considered as limitations. For the subcategories social sustainability, environmental sustainability, and economic sustainability, five, seven, and eight limitations were found respectively. In the case of the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability, three limitations were found and, finally, for economic sustainability and social sustainability, two limitations link them.
Among the three subcategories analyzed, the relationship with the highest intensity of co-occurrence was evidenced in the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability (Coefficient C = 0.25) and also between social and economic sustainability (Coefficient C = 0.18), being both cases of low intensity. It was followed by the relationship between social and environmental sustainability with a Coefficient C of 0.09, being the lowest intensity.
Graphically, Figure 5 shows the Sankey diagram, which presents the relationships between the three subcategories relative to the frequency of co-occurrences corresponding to the limitations found.
For the environmental sustainability and economic sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the findings considered as limitations coincide with the relationships suggested by Walberg [53], noting that compared to masonry construction for residential buildings in Germany, lightweight construction methods (wood construction, for example) did not show apparent economic advantages and a balance objectively equivalent ecological. Therefore, based on a realistic and objective evaluation, there would not be a plausible reason to promote the use of lightweight construction methods such as timber structures.
Related to social sustainability and economic sustainability subcategories, it was observed that the findings considered as limitations were according to what was evidenced by Markström et al. [54], who mentioned that the most common reason for not selecting multi-storey timber buildings was due to the lack of knowledge and information as well as uncertainties regarding the quality of materials over time.
On the other hand, for the environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability subcategories, it was seen that the findings considered as limitations coincide with the relationships found by Larasatie et al. [87], in which they suggest that there is a perception that multi-storey timber buildings have a higher risk of fire and require a higher maintenance expense. In addition, some evidence showed low knowledge regarding various attributes of wooden buildings, such as durability, performance, aesthetics, and environmental care.
In general, these environmental, social, and economic findings seem to contradict the advances shown in Section 3.1; however, these limitations did not have a substantial basis due to the fact of a significantly lower number of publications that support them compared to scientific articles on advances in sustainability as a characteristic of timber buildings.

3.3. Advances in Engineering and Construction Sciences

For the engineering and construction sciences category, the three main subcategories in terms of conclusions considered as advances are associated with seismic analysis, connections design, and fire performance or fire design. Based on the advances evidenced by the bibliometric review, certain patterns of relationship between the different subcategories can be established, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 6.
As in the previous analyses, Table 4 shows the analysis of co-occurrences with the frequency of conclusions considered advances. In the seismic analysis subcategory, 31 advances were evidenced; In the connections design subcategory, 26 positive conclusions were found, while 19 advances were obtained under the fire performance/fire design subcategory. For the subcategories, behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores, and structural modeling, 16 advances were found in each case. For the subcategory, design against wind loads, 13 advances were evidenced. For the subcategory hybrid building design, 12 advances were evidenced. For the subcategories structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns, and durability and protection of wood, 11 advances were found in each case. For the subcategory structural robustness, nine advances were evidenced. For the subcategory structural behavior of composite materials, seven advances were evidenced. Finally, in acoustic behavior, three findings characterized as advances were evidenced.
It can be noted that in the case of advances related to the seismic analysis of timber buildings and the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores, a frequency of eight advances was evidenced. For the relationship between seismic analysis and design of hybrid buildings, nine advances were found, and for the relationship between seismic analysis and connections design, six advances were found.
It was also highlighted that among the 12 subcategories analyzed, the relationship with the highest intensity of co-occurrence was established between seismic analysis of timber buildings, and design of hybrid buildings (Coefficient C = 0.26), followed by a Coefficient C of 0.21 the relationship between seismic analysis and the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores, and the relationship between structural modeling and design against wind loads. It was followed by the relationships between structural robustness and structural modeling (Coefficient C = 0.19).
Figure 6 shows the Sankey diagram, which shows the relationships among the 12 subcategories for the frequency of co-occurrence of the advances found.
Finally, Section 3.3.1, Section 3.3.2, and Section 3.3.3 discuss the relationships from the three subcategories with the highest frequency of conclusions, that is, seismic analysis, connections design, and fire performance/fire design, and how these relate to the rest of the subcategories of engineering and construction sciences.

3.3.1. Seismic Analysis

In the seismic analysis subcategory, it was observed that the findings considered as advances presented relationships mainly with the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores; hybrid building design; structural modeling; and connections design. The following findings are highlighted:
Publications with advances on the structural behavior of self-centering wooden shear walls are evidenced [98,101,108]. The design of buildings with massive wood structural cores through experimental tests and results from validated numerical models that meet seismic regulatory requirements and wind loads are also found [63,71,118,210].
For hybrid buildings, the findings showed advances in the design of hybrid steel-wood shear walls [99] and hybrid shear walls composed of rigid steel frames and CLT [100]. Another finding was related to experimental programs of structural solutions with very small residual deformations for buildings resistant to high-intensity earthquakes, such as self-centering hybrid steel-wood shear wall systems [99]; hybrid steel and wood floor diaphragms [123]; CLT and steel shear walls [100,130,201]; design of joints with seismic performance for hybrid buildings [22]; wood-concrete structural system [132], and studies on seismic engineering of hybrid multi-storey timber buildings [30,32,126,139,141,201].
In addition, as part of the findings, methods to facilitate the modeling of multi-storey timber buildings are described [47,105,110,111,112,113,114,116,117,119,123,124,132,133,136,139,140,142], along with simulations based on experimental test results [21,31,120,121,122,125,127,130,134,135].
In terms of connections design, the findings refer to test results and modeling of connection systems [21,22,47,106,107,109,129,131,135,138,277]. In addition, other findings to be highlighted are the use of slip-friction connection in CLT self-centering shear walls for building design [98], and the development and study of joints for seismic applications in multi-storey timber buildings [31,106,127,129,131,137,166,171].
In summary, the advances related to seismic analysis of multi-storey timber buildings are very well documented, as the findings presented in this section are consistent, robust, and showed a clear trend in the area of engineering and construction sciences, where seismic engineering emerges as the main area of study in multi-storey timber buildings.

3.3.2. Connections Design

For the connections design subcategory, it was observed that the findings classified as advances were mainly related to seismic analysis. In addition, connections design showed solid relationships with the subcategories of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores; hybrid building design; durability and protection of wood, and fire performance/fire design. The following findings can be highlighted:
Advances in experimental tests to evaluate the behavior of pin-type joints for the conformation of shear walls [158]. On the other hand, experimental development and numerical simulations of joints for the development of hybrid wood-steel buildings [22], joints in composite wood-concrete slabs [163,169], rigid connections in rigid laminated timber frames [278], and joints in CLT buildings [162,166,167,168,170]. In addition, experimental tests and tools to design floors based on wood-concrete composites and their joints, in medium and large-span construction systems, are also emphasized [163,169,228,229,231,232,234].
Regarding advances in durability and protection of wood, the findings highlight that the effect of wetting and re-drying on the performance of the CLT angle bracket connection was not statistically significant for load capacity and stiffness, but it was in the total energy dissipation capacity [159]. In addition, there was evidence of compliance with demanding durability requirements for the adhesive bonding of engineered wood products, such as laminated wood and LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) [161].
For the fire performance and fire design, the good behavior of self-tapping screws and other plug-type fasteners in solid wood connections was noted, complying with up to 2 h of exposure to a standard fire [157,164]. Likewise, the good behavior of polyurethane reactive adhesives (PUR) in solid wood connections complies with up to 2 h of exposure to a standard fire [157,164,184].
Thus, the advances that relate connections design to seismic analysis, hybrid building design, and fire performance and fire design are well documented and robust. On the other hand, the findings that link the design of joints with the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores, along with those related to durability and protection of wood, correspond to limited studies. However, the design of joints for multi-storey timber buildings appears as a well-founded and consistent second trend in the category of engineering and construction sciences.

3.3.3. Fire Performance/Fire Design

In terms of the fire performance/fire design subcategory, it was observed that the findings considered as advances are mainly related to the design of joints, as detailed in Section 3.3.2. In addition, this subcategory also relates to the durability and protection of the wood subcategory, highlighting the following:
There was evidence of self-extinction of CLT if the fall of charred layers is prevented by using thick enough layers [185,186,190]. This has been exhibited by tests that update the values of wood carbonization rate [183], and methods to estimate the fire resistance of wooden components under a standard fire [191,198], confirming the good behavior of adhesives in laminated wood elements for use in tall multi-storey timber buildings [199].
Thus, the advances that relate fire performance/fire design to the design of joints and the durability and wood protection are well documented and consistent, presenting itself as the third trend of research on multi-storey timber buildings in the engineering and construction sciences category, but less robust than seismic analysis and connections design.

3.4. Limitations in Engineering and Construction Sciences

For the engineering and construction sciences category, the top four subcategories in terms of findings considered as limitations are associated with structural behavior of walls, floors and columns, fire performance/fire design, seismic analysis, and behavior of shear walls, diaphragms and timber structural cores. Based on the limitations evidenced from the documentary review, certain patterns of relationship between the different subcategories can be established, as seen in Table 5 and Figure 7.
Table 5 shows the analysis of co-occurrences related to limitations. In the structural behavior of walls, floors and columns subcategory, six limitations were found. In the seismic analysis subcategory, three limitations were found. In a similar way, three conclusions that account for limitations related to the subcategories fire performance/fire design, and behavior of shear walls, diaphragms and timber structural cores were found. On the other hand, the relationship between the subcategory behavior of shear walls, diaphragms and timber structural cores and the subcategory structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns, showed a frequency of co-occurrence of two, being the highest in this category.
It can be highlighted that the relationships found between the subcategories had a frequency of 1 limitation only but with different levels of intensity of co-occurrences between them. High intensity of co-occurrences was evidenced both for the relationship between connections design and acoustic behavior (C = 1.0), as well as for the relationship between hybrid building design and structural behavior of composite materials (C = 1.0), as well as for the relationship between structural modeling and structural robustness (C = 1.0). On the contrary, relationships of low intensity of co-occurrences were found regarding limitations associated with seismic analysis and the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores (C = 0.20), as well as for the relationship between the behavior of walls, floors, and columns, and shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores (C = 0.29).
Thus, Figure 7 shows the Sankey diagram which exposes the relationships between the co-occurrences of the 12 subcategories studied regarding the limitations found.
Regarding the seismic analysis subcategory, it was observed that the findings considered as the limitations showed relationships with the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores, along with the structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns. Specifically, one of the findings related to the deformability of multi-storey timber buildings showed that, for this type of buildings, structural interactions can change their responses much more compared to steel, reinforced concrete, or masonry structures [102].
For the durability and protection of wood subcategory, it was observed that the findings classified as limitations are related to the behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores together with the structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns. Specifically, there was a finding that showed that the OSB (Oriented Strand Board) and CLT boards without preservative treatments were highly susceptible to decomposition [254], in addition to an increased risk of mold growth in CLT perimeter walls due to the effect of climate change on its hygrothermal behavior [279].
Finally, in terms of limitations for the fire performance/fire design subcategory, no relationships were observed between this category and other subcategories of engineering and construction sciences. However, it has to be noticed that the lack of scientific knowledge applied to study fire performance experiences in real buildings, provokes a key knowledge gap that hinders improving the efficiency and innovations in the design of multi-storey timber buildings [14]. In addition, another important gap to bridge corresponds to the different fire regulations between countries when using wood in buildings, both in terms of the number of floors allowed with timber structures, and the surface of interior and exterior cladding with wood [12].
In general, the findings that showed limitations in terms of durability and protection of wood; seismic analysis; structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns, and behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and structural cores; together with the limitations related to fire performance/fire design, highlight important disadvantages to consider in the engineering and construction of multi-storey timber buildings. However, such disadvantages are not as solid as the advances due to the low number of publications that support them compared to the scientific articles regarding advances in this area.

3.5. Advances in Collaborative Design

For the collaborative design category, the two subcategories considered—collaborative design experiences and BIM-based design— presented relationships with each other in terms of advances. Here, it was observed that the design and construction of mass timber buildings were documented, focused on the structural system and the prefabricated envelope system. Innovations were used for the development of the project as follows: integrated design process, virtual design and construction with BIM, design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), and a rigorous quality control program. These innovative strategies were used under a synergistic and integrated approach to increase productivity, speed up the construction schedule and develop a pioneering construction product [264,265,266].
According to the research report by the BIM-Topic Research Lab University of British Columbia [39], in Canada, all architects, engineers, and manufacturers linked to the mass timber construction surveyed, had adopted BIM. A 75% indicated adopting BIM as experts o advanced developers (use parametric design and complex analysis) and the remaining 25% use BIM at intermediate, beginner, or novice levels. The study reported the biggest benefits of BIM are found in terms of a reduction in errors and rework and an improvement from the project leading to the project understanding.
In general, advances in collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings are mostly characterized by documentation regarding collaborative design experiences with the use of BIM; emerging as a necessary research trend but still very incipient, and based on studies focused on Canada, Germany, and Australia mainly. The advances are mainly focused on the need to achieve better information, better design, and better quality in integration with a faster and more efficient workflow project. In this regard, the incorporation of advanced software specialized in timber construction and its interoperability with other virtual design and construction software has been important.

3.6. Limitations in Collaborative Design

The findings related to the integrated design category showed that the two subcategories that make it up (collaborative design experiences and BIM-based design) are not linked. However, it was found that the most critical considerations influencing the overall design of timber buildings are the structural design, the system selection, and the request for information between stakeholders in different stages of the design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) workflow [39,280]. In the first two, they emphasize that the primary structural considerations that should be focused on for timber buildings are bracing solutions, the structures of the intermediate floors, and the structural walls.
Regarding the exchange of information between actors in DfMA, BIM is still being used as a dynamic information repository. To improve this, recent research is focused on developing capabilities that enable automated decision making, generative design, and dynamic optimization while maintaining human readability to ensure a coordinated workflow.
On the other hand, a relevant aspect of the reviewed literature was the existence of BIM-based tools and approaches that specialize in the automated verification of compliance with different regulations as a support to the design process of timber projects. However, the BIM approach requires a more prominent place in the design since among other things it can contribute to the automation of the practical verification of the design process [197]. Finally, findings also highlighted that the design of multi-storey timber buildings is a complex issue that requires close collaboration, especially between the architect, the structural engineer, and the material suppliers [86,264].
Thus, the limitations in collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings mark necessary points to be improved when developing these projects (selection of the structural system and the automated decision-making in design for manufacturing and assembly). Unfortunately, scientific publications in this area are still scarce and incipient.

4. Discussion

This review aimed to know the main advances and limitations of the development of timber buildings, based on the analyses of 266 articles published in 112 scientific journals between 2017 and 2022.
Advances in the sustainability of timber buildings strongly showed energy savings compared to traditional construction methods and materials; along with recommending the use of CLT to achieve greener buildings at a competitive cost. This was supported by Duan et al. [281], who mention that mass timber buildings presented a clear potential to face global warming, due to the fact of their lower life cycle primary energy than steel and reinforced concrete buildings. Additionally, the findings evidenced positive perceptions regarding environmental and social sustainability, setting a trend for countries located in North America and Europe. In contrast, documentation was lacking to more strongly support perception studies linking environmental and social sustainability, as well as the incentives generated by public policies to favor the development of timber buildings. Although regarding public policies, Wiegand and Ramage [2] point to the sustainability of timber buildings as the main reason to encourage their development in different countries. These positive findings regarding the sustainability of timber buildings are consistent with publications that showed the state of practice in the wood industry in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Chile [4,5,29,39].
The limitations found on sustainability are limited and not very robust due to the low number of publications that support them. Additionally, different review articles on timber buildings point to environmental sustainability as the main justification for moving forward with their development; however, it was not the main topic of these publications [11,12,13,14,15,16,282].
The environmental, social, and economic sustainability of multi-storey timber buildings is a research trend currently focused on Australia, Canada, the United States, and European countries. Due to the fact of this, it is seen as a potential line of research to validate these results in Asian and Latin American countries, where there are important forest resources but the construction of multi-storey timber buildings is still incipient [268,275].
In terms of the advances related to engineering and construction sciences, they are very well documented, being consistent, robust, and marking a clear trend in the seismic analysis of multi-storey timber buildings as the main research line. This is also supported by different review articles focused on the seismic design of multi-storey timber buildings, covering topics such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) design, hybrid structures, and seismic protection technologies [10,15,30,31,32,33]; and also supported by publications that have documented the current practice of the world industry in the development of high-rise timber buildings [268,275].
On the other hand, while the design of joints for multi-storey timber buildings emerges as a second well-founded and consistent trend in the category of engineering and construction sciences, the fire performance and fire design of multi-storey timber buildings appear as the third line of emerging research found [12,14]. Similarly, it is expected that the modular construction of high-rise buildings will spread in the coming years due to the economic, environmental and social benefits that it brings, showing important advances in aspects such as structural performance and fire behavior, in addition to the development of innovative joint systems, where these aspects applied to timber modular construction are research lines that will continue to grow [39,91,283].
In addition, the advances related to the structural robustness of timber high-rise buildings can also be highlighted, because of their capability to avoid disproportionate collapse after a catastrophic event. In this way, some key aspects for robust timber build-ings can be emphasized: the design of joints and their performance against seismic loads; research based on numerical simulations with element removal scenarios, and the devel-opment of standards and construction codes [13,34,284,285,286].
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the findings related to the limitations of multi-storey timber buildings in the category of engineering sciences are not conclusive due to the low number of publications that support them.
When analyzing the advances in terms of the collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings, this topic was found as a necessary research trend, but still very incipient, not very robust, and based on studies focused on documenting and analyzing the state of the practice in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Australia mainly [24,29,39,96,264,266]. In the same way, the limitations of the collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings mark necessary points to be improved when developing these projects but are scarcely supported in the latest scientific publications in this area, as no review articles on collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings were found.

5. Conclusions

Three key aspects of timber buildings were addressed in this review: sustainability, engineering and construction sciences, and collaborative design, where the main advances and limitations may be summarized as follows.
Advances in sustainability showed that the energy savings generated by multi-storey timber buildings are the best-founded content. Other benefits related to environmental, social, and economic sustainability based on perception studies regarding multi-storey timber buildings require further validation to make their conclusions more robust. On the other hand, the limitations of multi-storey timber buildings in terms of sustainability are related to environmental, social, and economic concepts; however, to a much lesser extent than the advances.
For the engineering and construction sciences category, seismic analysis was the main trend found for the advances in the development of multi-storey timber buildings, which findings are well-documented, consistent, and robust. Other major advances are the design of joints, fire performance, and fire design of multi-storey timber buildings, which are also well-founded and consistent in the category of engineering and construction sciences. On the contrary, the main limitations are found in the seismic analysis, and structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns; however, the findings to support such limitations are not conclusive enough because of the low number of publications.
In terms of collaborative design in multi-storey timber buildings, it is a necessary research trend, but still a very incipient ambit to be strengthened. The fact that multi-storey timber buildings are built under industrialized methods that involve off-site production and prefabrication of elements for later transportation and assembly, implies the implementation of new approaches as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) which, among other aspects, consider the early integration of the different disciplines involved (architects, engineers, constructors, and suppliers). In addition, the coordinated application of BIM and DfMA methodologies is crucial, both in the design of construction solutions that integrate manufacturing and assembly and in the automation of the verification processes. However, although the articles reviewed showed advances, they also evidenced limitations and the need for an efficient design and construction process. Beyond this, the limitations found in collaborative design are not conclusive due to the low number of publications related to them.
Finally, although the three categories considered in this study (sustainability, engineering and construction sciences, and collaborative design) constitute an appropriate holistic review regarding multi-storey timber buildings, it is recommended as a future research line to conduct new reviews for each of these categories in more depth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G.-R., E.F. and G.S.-F.; methodology, M.G.-R. and E.F.; software, M.G.-R.; validation, E.F., G.S.-F. and M.V.-M.; formal analysis, M.G.-R. and E.F.; investigation, M.G.-R.; resources, M.G.-R., E.F. and G.S.-F.; data curation, M.G.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.-R. and E.F.; writing—review and editing, M.G.-R., E.F. and M.V.-M.; visualization, M.G.-R. and M.V.-M.; supervision, E.F. and G.S.-F.; project administration, M.G.-R. and E.F.; funding acquisition, E.F. and G.S.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Universidad del Bío-Bío, Chile and the National Research and Development Agency (Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, ANID), Chile.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M.; Fereday, G.; Reynolds, T.; Shah, D.U.; Wu, G.; Yu, L.; Fleming, P.; Densley-Tingley, D.; et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wiegand, E.; Ramage, M. The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of Tall Wood Buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 50, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Russell, A.E.; Kumar, B.M. Forestry for a Low-Carbon Future: Integrating Forests and Wood Products Into Climate Change Strategies. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2017, 59, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zilic, F.; Elissetche, J.P.; Hernandez, V. Oportunidades de Manufactura Avanzada para la Industria de la Construcción en Madera; Polo Madera: Concepción, Chile, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Banco Mundial. La Construcción de Viviendas en Madera: Un Pilar Para el Desarrollo Sostenible y la Agenda de Reactivación; Banco Mundial: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Volume I. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chahade, T.; Schober, K.U.; Morillas, L. Structural design optimization of multidimensional gridshells: Parametric interaction of architecture, engineering and manufacturing. In Proceedings of the WCTE 2018—World Conference on Timber Engineering, Seoul, Korea, 20–23 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Macias, D. Topological (Bio)Timber an Algorithm and Data Approach to 3d Printing a Bioplastic and Wood Architecture. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  8. Monizza, G.P.; Rauch, E.; Matt, D.T. Parametric and Generative Design Techniques for Mass-Customization in Building Industry: A Case Study for Glued-Laminated Timber. Procedia CIRP 2017, 60, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mork, J.H.; Luczkowski, M.; Manum, B.; Rønnquist, A. Toward mass customized architecture. Applying principles of mass customization while designing site-specific, customer-inclusive and bespoke timber structures. In Digital Wood Design; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 24, pp. 221–249. [Google Scholar]
  10. Loss, C.; Tannert, T.; Tesfamariam, S. State-of-the-art review of displacement-based seismic design of timber buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191, 481–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cappellazzi, J.; Konkler, M.J.; Sinha, A.; Morrell, J.J. Potential for decay in mass timber elements: A review of the risks and identifying possible solutions. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 15, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Östman, B. National fire regulations for the use of wood in buildings—Worldwide review 2020. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 17, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huber, J.A.J.; Ekevad, M.; Girhammar, U.A.; Berg, S. Structural robustness and timber buildings—A review. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 14, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bartlett, A.I.; Hadden, R.M.; Bisby, L.A. A Review of Factors Affecting the Burning Behaviour of Wood for Application to Tall Timber Construction. Fire Technol. 2019, 55, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ugalde, D.; Almazán, J.L.; Santa María, H.; Guindos, P. Seismic protection technologies for timber structures: A review. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2019, 77, 173–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Leskovar, V.Ž.; Premrov, M. A Review of Architectural and Structural Design Typologies of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings in Europe. Forests 2021, 12, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ávila, F.; Dechent, P.; Opazo, A. Seismic behaviour evaluation of CLT horizontal diaphragms on hybrid buildings with reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng. Struct. 2021, 244, 112698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gonzalez, I.; Vargas, J. Método Simplificado para Modelación de Edificios en media altura tipo Marco-Plataforma de Madera Utilizando un programa Computacional de Elementos Finitos. In Proceedings of the 4th Congreso Latinoamericano De Estructuras De maderas, Montevideo, Uruguay, 18–20 November 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ramage, M.; Foster, R.; Smith, S.; Flanagan, K.; Bakker, R. Super Tall Timber: Design research for the next generation of natural structure. J. Archit. 2017, 22, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M.; Pelsmakers, S. Contemporary tall residential timber buildings: What are the main architectural and structural design considerations? Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rinaldi, V.; Casagrande, D.; Cimini, C.; Follesa, M.; Fragiacomo, M. An upgrade of existing practice-oriented FE design models for the seismic analysis of CLT buildings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 149, 106802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, X.; Azim, M.R.; Bhat, P.; Popovski, M.; Tannert, T. Seismic performance of embedded steel beam connection in cross-laminated timber panels for tall-wood hybrid system. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 44, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, Z.; Luo, J.; He, M.; Tao, D.; Liang, F.; He, G. Seismic performance of multi-story glulam post-and-beam structures reinforced with knee-braces. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Poirier, E.; Moudgil, M.; Fallahi, A.; Staub-French, S.; Tannert, T. Design and construction of a 53-meter-tall timber building at the University of British Columbia. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  25. Montaño, J.; Maury, R.; Almazán, J.L.; Estrella, X.; Guindos, P. Development of an amplified added stiffening and damping system for wood-frame shear walls. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2020, 17, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Estrella, X.; Malek, S.; Almazán, J.L.; Guindos, P.; Santa María, H. Experimental study of the effects of continuous rod hold-down anchorages on the cyclic response of wood frame shear walls. Eng. Struct. 2021, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Green, M. Tall wood, strategies on sustainability for the cities of the future. Mater. Arquit. 2017, 15, 127–129. [Google Scholar]
  28. Foster, R.M.; Ramage, M.H. Briefing: Super tall timber—Oakwood Tower. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 2017, 170, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaufmann, H.; Schuster, S.; Stieglmeier, M. Building Information Modelling (BIM) als Planungsmethode im modernen Holzbau—Eine Standortbestimmung zur Identifizierung von Anforderungen und Hemmnissen; TUM: Munich, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stepinac, M.; Šušteršič, I.; Gavrić, I.; Rajčić, V. Seismic design of timber buildings: Highlighted challenges and future trends. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hummel, J.; Seim, W. Displacement-based design approach to evaluate the behaviour factor for multi-storey CLT buildings. Eng. Struct. 2019, 201, 109711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Quintana Gallo, P.; Carradine, D.M.; Bazaez, R. State of the art and practice of seismic-resistant hybrid timber structures. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2021, 79, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sandoli, A.; D’Ambra, C.; Ceraldi, C.; Calderoni, B.; Prota, A. Sustainable cross-laminated timber structures in a seismic area: Overview and future trends. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mpidi Bita, H.; Huber, J.A.J.; Palma, P.; Tannert, T. Prevention of Disproportionate Collapse for Multistory Mass Timber Buildings: Review of Current Practices and Recent Research. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wieruszewski, M.; Mazela, B. Lamelirano drvo (CLT) kao alternativni oblik drva za gradnju. Drv. Ind. 2017, 68, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gosselin, A.; Blanchet, P.; Lehoux, N.; Cimon, Y. Collaboration enables innovative timber structure adoption in construction. Buildings 2018, 8, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Santana-Sosa, A.; Fadai, A. A holistic approach for industrializing timber construction. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Moscow, Russia, 27 May–6 June 2019; Institute of Physics Publishing: Graz, Austria, 2019; Volume 323, p. 012015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Santana-Sosa, A.; Riola-Parada, F. A theoretical approach towards resource efficiency in multi-story timber buildings through BIM and lean. In Proceedings of the WCTE 2018—World Conference on Timber Engineering, Seoul, Korea, 20–23 August 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  39. Staub-French, S.; Poirier, E.; Calderon, F.; Chikhi, I.; Zadeh, P.; Chudasma, D.; Huang, S. Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) for Mass Timber Construction; Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Forcael, E.; Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Sepúlveda-Morales, J.; García-Alvarado, R.; Nope-Bernal, A.; Leighton, F. Behavior and Performance of BIM Users in a Collaborative Work Environment. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Forcael, E.; Ferrari, I.; Opazo-Vega, A.; Pulido-Arcas, J.A. Construction 4.0: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Radhakrishnan, S.; Erbis, S.; Isaacs, J.A.; Kamarthi, S. Correction: Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Tettey, U.Y.A.; Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L. Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective. Energy Build. 2019, 185, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bruno, R.; Bevilacqua, P.; Cuconati, T.; Arcuri, N. Energy evaluations of an innovative multi-storey wooden near Zero Energy Building designed for Mediterranean areas. Appl. Energy 2019, 238, 929–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lešnik, M.; Premrov, M.; Žegarac Leskovar, V. Design parameters of the timber-glass upgrade module and the existing building: Impact on the energy-efficient refurbishment process. Energy 2018, 162, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hafner, A.; Schäfer, S. Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sandoli, A.; D’Ambra, C.; Ceraldi, C.; Calderoni, B.; Prota, A. Role of perpendicular to grain compression properties on the seismic behaviour of CLT walls. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 34, 101889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Margani, G.; Evola, G.; Tardo, C.; Marino, E.M. Energy, seismic, and architectural renovation of RC framed buildings with prefabricated timber panels. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Žemaitis, P.; Linkevičius, E.; Aleinikovas, M.; Tuomasjukka, D. Sustainability impact assessment of glue laminated timber and concrete-based building materials production chains—A Lithuanian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 129005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rajagopalan, N.; Kelley, S.S. Evaluating sustainability of buildings using multi-Attribute decision tools. For. Prod. J. 2017, 67, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, H.R.; El Hanandeh, A.; Gilbert, B.P. A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental and economic perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 458–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Piccardo, C.; Gustavsson, L. Implications of different modelling choices in primary energy and carbon emission analysis of buildings. Energy Build. 2021, 247, 111145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Walberg, D. Massive versus lightweight construction in residential building. Mauerwerk 2017, 21, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Markström, E.; Kuzman, M.K.; Bystedt, A.; Sandberg, D.; Fredriksson, M. Swedish architects view of engineered wood products in buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Padilla-Rivera, A.; Amor, B.; Blanchet, P. Evaluating the link between low carbon reductions strategies and its performance in the context of climate Change: A carbon footprint of awood-frame residential building in Quebec, Canada. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Evans, P.D.; Matsunaga, H.; Preston, A.F.; Kewish, C.M. Wood Protection for Carbon Sequestration—A Review of Existing pproaches and Future Directions. Curr. For. Reports 2022, 8, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abed, J.; Rayburg, S.; Rodwell, J.; Neave, M. A Review of the Performance and Benefits of Mass Timber as an Alternative to Concrete and Steel for Improving the Sustainability of Structures. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pasternack, R.; Wishnie, M.; Clarke, C.; Wang, Y.; Belair, E.; Marshall, S.; Gu, H.; Nepal, P.; Dolezal, F.; Lomax, G.; et al. What Is the Impact of Mass Timber Utilization on Climate and Forests? Sustainability 2022, 14, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al-Najjar, A.; Dodoo, A. Modular multi-storey construction with cross-laminated timber: Life cycle environmental implications. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Younis, A.; Dodoo, A. Cross-laminated timber for building construction: A life-cycle-assessment overview. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 52, 104482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gauch, H.L.; Hawkins, W.; Ibell, T.; Allwood, J.M.; Dunant, C.F. Carbon vs. cost option mapping: A tool for improving early-stage design decisions. Autom. Constr. 2022, 136, 104178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jussila, J.; Nagy, E.; Lähtinen, K.; Hurmekoski, E.; Häyrinen, L.; Mark-Herbert, C.; Roos, A.; Toivonen, R.; Toppinen, A. Wooden multi-storey construction market development—Systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fenn. 2022, 56, 10609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tannert, T.; Connolly, T.J. Hybrides Tragwerk des 18-stöckigen Studentenwohnheims “Tall Wood Building“ in Vancouver und Alternative in Holz. Bautechnik 2020, 97, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marfella, G.; Winson-Geideman, K. Timber and multi-storey buildings: Industry perceptions of adoption in Australia. Buildings 2021, 11, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chaggaris, R.; Pei, S.; Kingsley, G.; Feitel, A. Carbon impact and cost of mass timber beam–column gravity systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hens, I.; Solnosky, R.; Brown, N.C. Design space exploration for comparing embodied carbon in tall timber structural systems. Energy Build. 2021, 244, 110983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Iqbal, A. Developments in tall wood and hybrid buildings and environmental impacts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guo, H.; Liu, Y.; Meng, Y.; Huang, H.; Sun, C.; Shao, Y. A Comparison of the energy saving and carbon reduction performance between reinforced concrete and cross-laminated timber structures in residential buildings in the severe cold region of China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Toivonen, R.; Vihemäki, H.; Toppinen, A. Policy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 125, 102409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Viholainen, N.; Kylkilahti, E.; Autio, M.; Pöyhönen, J.; Toppinen, A. Bringing ecosystem thinking to sustainability-driven wooden construction business. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Connolly, T.; Loss, C.; Iqbal, A.; Tannert, T. Feasibility study of mass-timber cores for the UBC tall wood building. Buildings 2018, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liang, S.; Gu, H.; Bergman, R.; Kelley, S.S. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a mass timber building and concrete alternative. Wood Fiber Sci. 2020, 52, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Setter, L.; Smoorenburg, E.; Wijesuriya, S.; Tabares-Velasco, P.C. Energy and hygrothermal performance of cross laminated timber single-family homes subjected to constant and variable electric rates. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lukić, I.; Premrov, M.; Passer, A.; Žegarac Leskovar, V. Embodied energy and GHG emissions of residential multi-storey timber buildings by height—A case with structural connectors and mechanical fasteners. Energy Build. 2021, 252, 111387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dodoo, A.; Nguyen, T.; Dorn, M.; Olsson, A.; Bader, T.K. Exploring the synergy between structural engineering design solutions and life cycle carbon footprint of cross-laminated timber in multi-storey buildings. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zubizarreta, M.; Cuadrado, J.; Orbe, A.; García, H. Modeling the environmental sustainability of timber structures: A case study. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 78, 106286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Karjalainen, M.; Ilgın, H.E. The change over time in finnish residents’ attitudes towards multi-story timber apartment buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Markström, E.; Kitek Kuzman, M.; Bystedt, A.; Sandberg, D. Use of wood products in multi-storey residential buildings: Views of Swedish actors and suggested measures for an increased use. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 14, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lazarevic, D.; Kautto, P.; Antikainen, R. Finland’s wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gosselin, A.; Blanchet, P.; Lehoux, N.; Cimon, Y. Main Motivations and Barriers for Using Wood in Multi-Story and Non-Residential Construction Projects. BioResources 2017, 12, 546–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Viholainen, N.; Franzini, F.; Lähtinen, K.; Nyrud, A.Q.; Widmark, C.; Hoen, H.F.; Toppinen, A. Citizen views on wood as a construction material: Results from seven european countries. Can. J. For. Res. 2021, 51, 647–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kylkilahti, E.; Berghäll, S.; Autio, M.; Nurminen, J.; Toivonen, R.; Lähtinen, K.; Vihemäki, H.; Franzini, F.; Toppinen, A. A consumer-driven bioeconomy in housing? Combining consumption style with students’ perceptions of the use of wood in multi-storey buildings. Ambio 2020, 49, 1943–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lähtinen, K.; Harju, C.; Toppinen, A. Consumers’ perceptions on the properties of wood affecting their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of timber. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 14, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lindgren, J.; Emmitt, S.; Widén, K. Construction projects as mechanisms for knowledge integration: Mechanisms and effects when diffusing a systemic innovation. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 1516–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. BuHamdan, S.; Duncheva, T.; Alwisy, A. Developing a BIM and Simulation-Based Hazard Assessment and Visualization Framework for CLT Construction Design. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Karjalainen, M.; Ilgın, H.E.; Tulonen, L. Main design considerations and prospects of contemporary tall timber apartment buildings: Views of key professionals from finland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Larasatie, P.; Guerrero, J.E.; Conroy, K.; Hall, T.E.; Hansen, E.; Needham, M.D. What does the public believe about tall wood buildings? An exploratory study in the US Pacific Northwest. J. For. 2018, 116, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Montague, I.; Stout, K.; Shmulsky, R. Love it or leave it: What do millennials really think of wood products? For. Prod. J. 2021, 71, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lindgren, J.; Emmitt, S. Diffusion of a systemic innovation A longitudinal case study of a Swedish multi-storey timber housebuilding system. Constr. Innov. 2017, 17, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M.; Pelsmakers, S. Finnish architects’ attitudes towards multi-storey timber-residential buildings. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Harte, A.M. Mass timber—The emergence of a modern construction material. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2017, 2, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chaggaris, R.; Pei, S.; Kingsley, G.; Kinder, E. Cost-Effectiveness of Mass Timber Beam–Column Gravity Systems. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 04021028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Burback, B.; Pei, S. Cross-Laminated Timber for Single-Family Residential Construction: Comparative Cost Study. J. Archit. Eng. 2017, 23, 06017002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Knauf, M. Market potentials for timber-concrete composites in Germany’s building construction sector. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2017, 75, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. van der Westhuyzen, F.S.; Wium, J. A development cost comparison between a multi-storey mass timber and reinforced concrete building in South Africa. J. South African Inst. Civ. Eng. 2021, 63, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kasbar, M.; Staub-French, S.; Pilon, A.; Poirier, E.; Teshnizi, Z.; Froese, T. Construction productivity assessment on Brock Commons Tallwood House. Constr. Innov. 2021, 21, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yang, T.Y.; Etebarian, H. Enhancing the seismic performance of mid-rise wood-frame buildings with rigid spine columns. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2019, 28, e1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fitzgerald, D.; Miller, T.H.; Sinha, A.; Nairn, J.A. Cross-laminated timber rocking walls with slip-friction connections. Eng. Struct. 2020, 220, 110973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cui, Y.; Shu, Z.; Zhou, R.; Li, Z.; Chen, F.; Ma, Z. Self-centering steel-timber hybrid shear wall with slip friction dampers: Theoretical analysis and experimental investigation. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2020, 29, e1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Khajehpour, M.; Pan, Y.; Tannert, T. Seismic Analysis of Hybrid Steel Moment Frame CLT Shear Walls Structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2021, 35, 04021059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jin, Z.; Pei, S.; Blomgren, H.; Powers, J. Simplified Mechanistic Model for Seismic Response Prediction of Coupled Cross-Laminated Timber Rocking Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04018253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Migda, W.; Szczepański, M.; Lasowicz, N.; Jakubczyk-Gałczyńska, A.; Jankowski, R. Non-linear analysis of inter-story pounding between wood-framed buildings during ground motion. Geosci. 2019, 9, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bolvardi, V.; Pei, S.; van de Lindt, J.W.; Dolan, J.D. Direct displacement design of tall cross laminated timber platform buildings with inter-story isolation. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 740–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nguyen, T.T.; Dao, T.N.; Aaleti, S.; van de Lindt, J.W.; Fridley, K.J. Seismic assessment of a three-story wood building with an integrated CLT-lightframe system using RTHS. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hong, H.P.; Yang, S.C. Reliability and fragility assessment of the mid- and high-rise wood buildings subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation. Eng. Struct. 2019, 201, 109734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhang, X.; Popovski, M.; Tannert, T. High-capacity hold-down for mass-timber buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 164, 688–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Pei, S.; Lenon, C.; Kingsley, G.; Deng, P. Seismic Design of Cross-Laminated Timber Platform Buildings Using a Coupled Shearwall Concept. J. Archit. Eng. 2017, 23, 06017001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Anandan, Y.K.; van de Lindt, J.W.; Amini, M.O.; Dao, T.N.; Aaleti, S. Experimental Dynamic Testing of Full-Scale Light-Frame-CLT Wood Shear Wall System. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 04020042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Asgari, H.; Tannert, T.; Ebadi, M.M.; Loss, C.; Popovski, M. Hyperelastic hold-down solution for CLT shear walls. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 289, 123173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sciomenta, M.; Rinaldi, V.; Bedon, C.; Fragiacomo, M. Application of modal-displacement based design method to multi-story timber Blockhaus structures. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, X.; Ma, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, H. Dynamic responses on traditional Chinese timber multi-story building with high platform base under earthquake excitations. Earthq. Struct. 2020, 19, 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sun, X.; He, M.; Li, Z.; Shu, Z. Performance evaluation of multi-storey cross-laminated timber structures under different earthquake hazard levels. J. Wood Sci. 2018, 64, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Demirci, C.; Málaga-Chuquitaype, C.; Macorini, L. Seismic drift demands in multi-storey cross-laminated timber buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2018, 47, 1014–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Demirci, C.; Málaga-Chuquitaype, C.; Macorini, L. Seismic shear and acceleration demands in multi-storey cross-laminated timber buildings. Eng. Struct. 2019, 198, 109467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Steiger, R.; Feltrin, G.; Weber, F.; Nerbano, S.; Motavalli, M. Experimental modal analysis of a multi-storey light-frame timber building. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 3265–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Polastri, A.; Izzi, M.; Pozza, L.; Loss, C.; Smith, I. Seismic analysis of multi-storey timber buildings braced with a CLT core and perimeter shear-walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 1009–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Pu, W.; Liu, C.; Dai, F. Optimum hysteretic damper design for multi-story timber structures represented by an improved pinching model. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 6221–6241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Moroder, D.; Smith, T.; Dunbar, A.; Pampanin, S.; Buchanan, A. Seismic testing of post-tensioned Pres-Lam core walls using cross laminated timber. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 639–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fritsch, E.; Sieffert, Y.; Algusab, H.; Grange, S.; Garnier, P.; Daudeville, L. Numerical analysis on seismic resistance of a two-story timber-framed structure with stone and earth infill. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 13, 820–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bahmani, P.; van de Lindt, J.; Iqbal, A.; Rammer, D. Mass timber rocking panel retrofit of a four-story soft-story building with full-scale shake table validation. Buildings 2017, 7, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Iqbal, A.; Pampanin, S.; Buchanan, A. A General Design Approach for Post-tensioned Timber Subassemblies. J. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 25, 2955–2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Di Cesare, A.; Ponzo, F.C.; Nigro, D.; Pampanin, S.; Smith, T. Shaking table testing of post-tensioned timber frame building with passive energy dissipation systems. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 4475–4498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. D’Arenzo, G.; Casagrande, D.; Reynolds, T.; Fossetti, M. In-plane elastic flexibility of cross laminated timber floor diaphragms. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 709–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Aloisio, A.; Alaggio, R.; Fragiacomo, M. Fragility functions and behavior factors estimation of multi-story cross-laminated timber structures characterized by an energy-dependent hysteretic model. Earthq. Spectra 2021, 37, 134–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Di Cesare, A.; Ponzo, F.C.; Lamarucciola, N.; Nigro, D. Experimental seismic response of a resilient 3-storey post-tensioned timber framed building with dissipative braces. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 6825–6848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. He, M.; Luo, Q.; Li, Z.; Dong, H.; Li, M. Seismic performance evaluation of timber-steel hybrid structure through large-scale shaking table tests. Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 483–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Trutalli, D.; Pozza, L. Seismic design of floor–wall joints of multi-storey CLT buildings to comply with regularity in elevation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Aicher, S.; Tapia, C. Novel internally LVL-reinforced glued laminated timber beams with large holes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 662–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Vassallo, D.; Follesa, M.; Fragiacomo, M. Seismic design of a six-storey CLT building in Italy. Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 322–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Li, Z.; Dong, H.; Wang, X.; He, M. Experimental and numerical investigations into seismic performance of timber-steel hybrid structure with supplemental dampers. Eng. Struct. 2017, 151, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Rodrigues, L.G.; Branco, J.M.; Neves, L.A.C.; Barbosa, A.R. Seismic assessment of a heavy-timber frame structure with ring-doweled moment-resisting connections. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 1341–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chen, J.; Xiong, H.; Ventura, C.E. Non-linear simplified models for seismic response estimation of a novel tall timber-concrete hybrid structural system. Eng. Struct. 2021, 229, 111635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pacchioli, S.; Pozza, L.; Trutalli, D.; Polastri, A. Earthquake-resistant CLT buildings stiffened with vertical steel ties. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. van de Lindt, J.W.; Furley, J.; Amini, M.O.; Pei, S.; Tamagnone, G.; Barbosa, A.R.; Rammer, D.; Line, P.; Fragiacomo, M.; Popovski, M. Experimental seismic behavior of a two-story CLT platform building. Eng. Struct. 2019, 183, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Loss, C.; Pacchioli, S.; Polastri, A.; Casagrande, D.; Pozza, L.; Smith, I. Numerical study of alternative seismic-resisting systems for CLT buildings. Buildings 2018, 8, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Aloisio, A.; Pasca, D.; Tomasi, R.; Fragiacomo, M. Dynamic identification and model updating of an eight-storey CLT building. Eng. Struct. 2020, 213, 110593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Casagrande, D.; Bezzi, S.; D’Arenzo, G.; Schwendner, S.; Polastri, A.; Seim, W.; Piazza, M. A methodology to determine the seismic low-cycle fatigue strength of timber connections. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 231, 117026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Iqbal, A.; Fragiacomo, M.; Pampanin, S.; Buchanan, A. Seismic resilience of plywood-coupled LVL wall panels. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 750–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Li, Z.; He, M.; Wang, X.; Li, M. Seismic performance assessment of steel frame infilled with prefabricated wood shear walls. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 140, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Rossi, S.; Giongo, I.; Casagrande, D.; Tomasi, R.; Piazza, M. Evaluation of the displacement ductility for the seismic design of light-frame wood buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5313–5338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hashemi, A.; Zarnani, P.; Masoudnia, R.; Quenneville, P. Seismic resistant rocking coupled walls with innovative Resilient Slip Friction (RSF) joints. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 129, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hafeez, G.; Doudak, G.; McClure, G. Effect of nonstructural components on the dynamic characteristics of light-frame wood buildings. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 47, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhang, X.; Xuan, L.; Huang, W.; Yuan, L.; Li, P. Structural Design and Analysis for a Timber-Concrete Hybrid Building. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 844398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Tesfamariam, S. Performance-Based Design of Tall Timber Buildings Under Earthquake and Wind Multi-Hazard Loads: Past, Present, and Future. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 848698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Chen, J.; Xiong, H.; Ventura, C.E. Seismic reliability evaluation of a tall concrete-timber hybrid structural system. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2022, 31, e1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Das, S.; Tesfamariam, S. Multiobjective design optimization of multi-outrigger tall-timber building: Using SMA-based damper and Lagrangian model. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 51, 104358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Teweldebrhan, B.T.; Tesfamariam, S. Performance-based design of tall-coupled cross-laminated timber wall building. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 1677–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Tesfamariam, S.; Goda, K. Risk assessment of CLT-RC hybrid building: Consideration of earthquake types and aftershocks for Vancouver, British Columbia. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 156, 107240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Tannert, T.; Loss, C. Contemporary and Novel Hold-Down Solutions for Mass Timber Shear Walls. Buildings 2022, 12, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ogrizovic, J.; Abbiati, G.; Stojadinović, B.; Frangi, A. Hybrid simulation of a post-tensioned timber frame and validation of numerical models for seismic design. Eng. Struct. 2022, 265, 114415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ussher, E.; Gurholt, C.U.D.; Mikalsen, J.N.; Aloisio, A.; Tomasi, R. Effect of construction features on the dynamic performance of mid-rise CLT platform-type buildings. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 0, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Darzi, A.; Bessason, B.; Halldorsson, B.; Molina, S.; Kharazian, A.; Moosapoor, M. High spatial-resolution loss estimation using dense array strong-motion near-fault records. Case study for Hveragerði and the Mw6.3 Ölfus earthquake, South Iceland. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 73, 102894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zhang, X.; Pan, Y.; Tannert, T. The influence of connection stiffness on the dynamic properties and seismic performance of tall cross-laminated timber buildings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 238, 112261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Contiguglia, C.P.; Pelle, A.; Lai, Z.; Briseghella, B.; Nuti, C. Chinese high rise reinforced concrete building retrofitted with clt panels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Tesfamariam, S.; Madheswaran, J.; Goda, K. Displacement-Based Design of Hybrid RC–Timber Structure: Seismic Risk Assessment. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Sokol, M.; Ároch, R.; Lamperová, K.; Marton, M.; García-Sanz-calcedo, J. Parametric analysis of rotational effects in seismic design of tall structures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Létourneau-Gagnon, M.; Dagenais, C.; Blanchet, P. Fire performance of self-tapping screws in tall mass-timber buildings. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Miyamoto, B.T.; Sinha, A.; Morrell, I. Connection performance of mass plywood panels. For. Prod. J. 2020, 70, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Bora, S.; Sinha, A.; Barbosa, A.R. Effect of Wetting and Redrying on Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Angle Bracket Connection. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Hossain, A.; Popovski, M.; Tannert, T. Group Effects for Shear Connections with Self-Tapping Screws in CLT. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Fan, B.; Kan, H.; Kan, Y.; Bai, Y.; Han, G.; Bai, L.; Zhang, S.; Gao, Z. An aqueous polyisocyanate adhesive with excellent bond durability for engineered wood composites enhanced by polyamidoamine-epichlorohydrin co-crosslinking and montmorillonite hybridization. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2022, 112, 103022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Maurer, B.; Maderebner, R. Cross Laminated Timber under Concentrated Compression Loads—Methods of Reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2021, 245, 112534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chen, Z.; Lu, W.; Bao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Yue, K. Numerical investigation of connection performance of timber-concrete composite slabs with inclined self-tapping screws under high temperature. J. Renew. Mater. 2022, 10, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Barber, D. Determination of fire resistance ratings for glulam connectors within US high rise timber buildings. Fire Saf. J. 2017, 91, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Morandi, F.; De Cesaris, S.; Garai, M.; Barbaresi, L. Measurement of flanking transmission for the characterisation and classification of cross laminated timber junctions. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 141, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Brown, J.R.; Li, M.; Tannert, T.; Moroder, D. Experimental study on orthogonal joints in cross-laminated timber with self-tapping screws installed with mixed angles. Eng. Struct. 2021, 228, 111560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Akter, S.T.; Schweigler, M.; Serrano, E.; Bader, T.K. A numerical study of the stiffness and strength of cross-laminated timber wall-to-floor connections under compression perpendicular to the grain. Buildings 2021, 11, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ceylan, A. Çapraz Lamine Ahşap (CLT) Duvar–Döşeme Birleşiminin Yapısal Davranışının Deneysel İncelenmesi. MEGARON/Yıldız Tech. Univ. Fac. Archit. E-J. 2019, 14, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Naud, N.; Sorelli, L.; Salenikovich, A.; Cuerrier-Auclair, S. Fostering a cast-in-place steel–uhpfrc connector for ductile timber–concrete composite structures: Parametric study of the shear behaviour and design considerations. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 48, 1081–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Pereira, M.C. de M.; Pascal Sohier, L.A.; Descamps, T.; Junior, C.C. Doweled cross laminated timber: Experimental and analytical study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 121820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wu, Y.-J.; Xie, Q.-F.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.-P.; Yang, H.-F. Rotational performance of frictional glulam beam-to-column connections with shape memory alloy strips. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Landel, P.; Linderholt, A. Reduced and test-data correlated FE-models of a large timber truss with dowel-type connections aimed for dynamic analyses at serviceability level. Eng. Struct. 2022, 260, 114208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Hubbard, C.; Salem, O. Fire resistance of a fully concealed, moment-resisting new timber connection utilizing mechanically-fastened steel rods. Fire Saf. J. 2022, 129, 103546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Daneshvar, H.; Niederwestberg, J.; Dickof, C.; Jackson, R.; Hei Chui, Y. Perforated steel structural fuses in mass timber lateral load resisting systems. Eng. Struct. 2022, 257, 114097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Polastri, A.; Casagrande, D. Mechanical behaviour of multi-panel cross laminated timber shear-walls with stiff connectors. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 332, 127275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Xing, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, C.; Lu, C. Experimental study and finite element analysis on residual carrying capacity of CLT wall-floor angle bracket connections after fire. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 328, 127113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Tapia, C.; Claus, M.; Aicher, S. A finger-joint based edge connection for the weak direction of CLT plates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Mam, K.; Douthe, C.; Le Roy, R.; Consigny, F. Shape optimization of braced frames for tall timber buildings: Influence of semi-rigid connections on design and optimization process. Eng. Struct. 2020, 216, 110692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Masaeli, M.; Gilbert, B.P.; Karampour, H.; Underhill, I.D.; Lyu, C.H.; Gunalan, S. Scaling effect on the moment and shear responses of three types of beam-to-column connectors used in mass timber buildings. Eng. Struct. 2020, 208, 110329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Ottenhaus, L.M.; Li, M.; Smith, T. Analytical Derivation and Experimental Verification of Overstrength Factors of Dowel-type Timber Connections for Capacity Design. J. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 26, 2970–2984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Ogrizovic, J.; Wanninger, F.; Frangi, A. Experimental and analytical analysis of moment-resisting connections with glued-in rods. Eng. Struct. 2017, 145, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Hidalgo, J.P.; Cowlard, A.; Abecassis-Empis, C.; Maluk, C.; Majdalani, A.H.; Kahrmann, S.; Hilditch, R.; Krajcovic, M.; Torero, J.L. An experimental study of full-scale open floor plan enclosure fires. Fire Saf. J. 2017, 89, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Richter, F.; Jervis, F.X.; Huang, X.; Rein, G. Effect of oxygen on the burning rate of wood. Combust. Flame 2021, 234, 111591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Muszyński, L.; Gupta, R.; Hyun Hong, S.; Osborn, N.; Pickett, B. Fire resistance of unprotected cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor assemblies produced in the USA. Fire Saf. J. 2019, 107, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wade, C.; Spearpoint, M.; Fleischmann, C.; Baker, G.; Abu, A. Predicting the Fire Dynamics of Exposed Timber Surfaces in Compartments Using a Two-Zone Model. Fire Technol. 2018, 54, 893–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Crielaard, R.; van de Kuilen, J.W.; Terwel, K.; Ravenshorst, G.; Steenbakkers, P. Self-extinguishment of cross-laminated timber. Fire Saf. J. 2019, 105, 244–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Engel, T.; Moosmüller, K.; Werther, N. Brandgefahr durch Elektroinstallationen in modernen mehrgeschossigen Holzgebäuden. Bautechnik 2021, 98, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Merk, M. Die Muster HolzBauRichtlinie—Erweiterte Regelungen für das Bauen mit Holz bis zur Hochhausgrenze. Bautechnik 2020, 97, 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Suttner, E.; Rauch, M.; Werther, N.; Winter, S. Ganzheitlicher Feuerwiderstand für Konstruktionen in Holzbauweise. Bautechnik 2019, 96, 815–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. van der Westhuyzen, S.; Walls, R.; de Koker, N. Fire tests of south african cross-laminated timber wall panels: Fire ratings, charring rates, and delamination. J. South African Inst. Civ. Eng. 2020, 62, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Sudhoff, P.; Steeger, F.; Zehfuß, J.; Kampmeier, B. Brandverhalten von Dämmstoffen aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen—Teil 2: Untersuchungen zur bautechnischen Verwendung im Gefach von Holztafelbauweisen. Bauphysik 2021, 43, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Whelton, M.; Macilwraith, A. Timber/steel composite members in multi-storey buildings under fire test loadings. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2017, 2, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Lin, S.; Huang, X. Extinction of Wood Fire: Modeling Smoldering and Near-Limit Flame Under Irradiation. Fire Technol. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Wiesner, F.; Hadden, R.; Deeny, S.; Bisby, L. Structural fire engineering considerations for cross-laminated timber walls. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 323, 126605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Chorlton, B.; Gales, J. Structural Repair of Fire-Damaged Glulam Timber. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 04020043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Lucherini, A.; Razzaque, Q.S.; Maluk, C. Exploring the fire behaviour of thin intumescent coatings used on timber. Fire Saf. J. 2019, 109, 102887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chorlton, B.; Gales, J. Mechanical performance of laminated veneer lumber and Glulam beams after short-term incident heat exposure. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, L. Energy-based time equivalent approach for evaluating the fire resistance of timber components exposed to realistic design fire curves. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2021, 30, e1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Mohammadi, J.; Ling, L. Can Wood Become an Alternative Material for Tall Building Construction? Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2017, 22, 04017014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Bagheri, M.M.; Doudak, G. Experimental and numerical study on the deflection of multi-storey light-frame timber shear walls. Eng. Struct. 2021, 233, 111951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Tuhkanen, E.; Rauk, L. Potential of cross-laminated timber for independent shear wall systems. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 14, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Zajic, M. A plastic model for partially anchored timber frame walls subjected to shear and bending. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 2021, 174, 504–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Hughes, C.; McPolin, D.; McGetrick, P.; McCrum, D. Behaviour of cross-laminated timber wall systems under monotonic lateral loading. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2019, 4, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Cao, J.; Xiong, H.; Ghahari, S.F.; Taciroglu, E. A validated lateral response model for mass timber frames with knee-braces. Eng. Struct. 2021, 239, 112278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Orellana, P.; Santa María, H.; Almazán, J.L.; Estrella, X. Cyclic behavior of wood-frame shear walls with vertical load and bending moment for mid-rise timber buildings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 240, 112298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Sadeghi Marzaleh, A.; Nerbano, S.; Sebastiani Croce, A.; Steiger, R. OSB sheathed light-frame timber shear walls with strong anchorage subjected to vertical load, bending moment, and monotonic lateral load. Eng. Struct. 2018, 173, 787–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Casagrande, D.; Doudak, G.; Vettori, M.; Fanti, R. Proposal for an equivalent frame model for the analysis of multi-storey monolithic CLT shearwalls. Eng. Struct. 2021, 245, 112894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Khajehpour, M.; Casagrande, D.; Doudak, G. The role of lintels and parapets on the mechanical performance of multi-storey cross laminated timber shearwalls with openings. Eng. Struct. 2022, 255, 113912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Edskär, I.; Lidelöw, H. Dynamic properties of cross-laminated timber and timber truss building systems. Eng. Struct. 2019, 186, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Brown, J.R.; Li, M.; Palermo, A.; Pampanin, S.; Sarti, F. Experimental Testing of a Low-Damage Post-Tensioned C-Shaped CLT Core-Wall. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04020357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Lukacs, I.; Björnfot, A.; Tomasi, R. Strength and stiffness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls: State-of-the-art of analytical approaches. Eng. Struct. 2019, 178, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Turesson, J.; Sharifi, Z.; Berg, S.; Ekevad, M. Influence of laminate direction and glue area on in-plane shear modulus of cross-laminated timber. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Maciejko, A. Expression of Glued Laminated Timber in Long Spans Structures Associated with its Natural Origin. Civ. Environ. Eng. Reports 2020, 30, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Totsuka, M.; Aoki, K.; Inayama, M. Prediction of strength and stiffness of concentrated compressive load applied to the narrow face of cross-laminated timber. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2021, 80, 451–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Silva, C.; Branco, J.M.; Mehdipour, Z.; Xavier, J.; Lourenço, P.B. Experimental Stress Analysis of Cross-Laminated Timber Elements under Cyclic Moisture. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 04022184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Bahrami, A.; Azizian, D. Assessment of Glulam and Reinforced Concrete Beams in Multi-Storey Building. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2022, 18, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Kuai, L.; Ormarsson, S.; Vessby, J.; Maharjan, R. A numerical and experimental investigation of non-linear deformation behaviours in light-frame timber walls. Eng. Struct. 2022, 252, 113599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Gil Pérez, M.; Früh, N.; La Magna, R.; Knippers, J. Integrative structural design of a timber-fibre hybrid building system fabricated through coreless filament winding: Maison Fibre. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 49, 104114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Bahrami, A.; Edås, M.; Magnenat, K.; Norén, J. The behavior of cross-laminated timber and reinforced concrete floors in a multi-story building. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2022, 9, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Ye, Q.; Gong, Y.; Ren, H.; Guan, C.; Wu, G.; Chen, X. Analysis and calculation of stability coefficients of cross-laminated timber axial compression member. Polymers 2021, 13, 4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Jockwer, R.; Grönquist, P.; Frangi, A. Long-term deformation behaviour of timber columns: Monitoring of a tall timber building in Switzerland. Eng. Struct. 2021, 234, 111855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Tong, D.; Brown, S.A.; Corr, D.; Cusatis, G. Wood creep data collection and unbiased parameter identification of compliance functions. Holzforschung 2020, 74, 1011–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Xin, Z.; Gattas, J. Structural Behaviors of Integrally-Jointed Plywood Columns with Knot Defects. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2021, 21, 2150022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Orlowski, K. Failure modes and behaviour of stiffened engineered timber wall systems under axial-loading. Structures 2020, 25, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Zhou, J.; Chui, Y.H.; Niederwestberg, J.; Gong, M. Effective bending and shear stiffness of cross-laminated timber by modal testing: Method development and application. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 198, 108225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Xu, B.-H.; Zhang, S.-D.; Zhao, Y.-H.; Bouchaïr, A. Rolling Shear Properties of Hybrid Cross-Laminated Timber. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Alinoori, F.; Sharafi, P.; Moshiri, F.; Samali, B. Experimental investigation on load bearing capacity of full scaled light timber framed wall for mid-rise buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 231, 117069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Movaffaghi, H.; Pyykkö, J.; Yitmen, I. Value-driven design approach for optimal long-span timber-concrete composite floor in multi-storey wooden residential buildings. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2020, 37, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Movaffaghi, H.; Yitmen, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis of timber–concrete composite floor systems in multi-storey wooden buildings. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2021, 38, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Loss, C.; Davison, B. Innovative composite steel-timber floors with prefabricated modular components. Eng. Struct. 2017, 132, 695–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Naud, N.; Sorelli, L.; Salenikovich, A.; Cuerrier-Auclair, S. Fostering GLULAM-UHPFRC composite structures for multi-storey buildings. Eng. Struct. 2019, 188, 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Lamothe, S.; Sorelli, L.; Blanchet, P.; Galimard, P. Lightweight and slender timber-concrete composite floors made of CLT-HPC and CLT-UHPC with ductile notch connectors. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Nouri, F.; Valipour, H.R. Moment-rotation model for steel-timber composite connections with slab continuity steel rods. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 173, 106257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Woschitz, R.; Deix, K.; Huber, C.; Kampitsch, T. Entwicklung neuartiger Holz-Betonverbunddecken in Fertigteilbauweise. Bautechnik 2021, 98, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Voulpiotis, K.; Köhler, J.; Jockwer, R.; Frangi, A. A holistic framework for designing for structural robustness in tall timber buildings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 227, 111432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Lyu, C.H.; Gilbert, B.P.; Guan, H.; Underhill, I.D.; Gunalan, S.; Karampour, H.; Masaeli, M. Experimental collapse response of post-and-beam mass timber frames under a quasi-static column removal scenario. Eng. Struct. 2020, 213, 110562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Lyu, C.H.; Gilbert, B.P.; Guan, H.; Underhill, I.D.; Gunalan, S.; Karampour, H. Experimental study on the quasi-static progressive collapse response of post-and-beam mass timber buildings under corner column removal scenarios. Eng. Struct. 2021, 242, 112497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Huber, J.A.J.; Ekevad, M.; Girhammar, U.A.; Berg, S. Finite element analysis of alternative load paths in a platform-framed CLT building. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 2020, 173, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Huber, J.A.J.; Mpidi Bita, H.; Tannert, T.; Berg, S. Finite element analysis of alternative load paths to prevent disproportionate collapse in platform-type CLT floor systems. Eng. Struct. 2021, 240, 112362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Tannert, T.; Bita, H.M.; Huber, J.A.J. Untersuchungen zur Prävention von progressivem Kollaps von Holzhochhäusern. Bautechnik 2021, 98, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Lyu, C.H.; Gilbert, B.P.; Guan, H.; Underhill, I.D.; Gunalan, S.; Karampour, H. Experimental study on the quasi-static progressive collapse response of post-and-beam mass timber buildings under an edge column removal scenario. Eng. Struct. 2021, 228, 111425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Cheng, X.; Gilbert, B.P.; Guan, H.; Underhill, I.D.; Karampour, H. Experimental dynamic collapse response of post-and-beam mass timber frames under a sudden column removal scenario. Eng. Struct. 2021, 233, 111918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Dao, T.N.; Ho, T.X. Nonlinear Numerical Model of Post-Tensioned Elastic Rocking Panels for Application in Building Structural Analysis. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04019202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Binck, C.; Cao, A.S.; Frangi, A. Lateral stiffening systems for tall timber buildings—Tube-in-tube systems. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Dynamic Response of Tall Mass-Timber Buildings to Wind Excitation. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Probabilistic serviceability-performance assessment of tall mass-timber buildings subjected to stochastic wind loads: Part II—Structural reliability analysis. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 181, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Kurent, B.; Brank, B.; Ao, W.K. Model updating of seven-storey cross-laminated timber building designed on frequency-response-functions-based modal testing. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2021, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Altunisik, A.C. Shaking table test of wooden building models for structural identification. Earthquakes Struct. 2017, 12, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Zhang, X.N.; Shan, R.L.; Lu, M. Rectification of jacking method for brick-wooden buildings in deformation analysis with CFST reinforcement. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2018, 27, e1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Bettarello, F.; Gasparella, A.; Caniato, M. The influence of floor layering on airborne sound insulation and impact noise reduction: A study on cross laminated timber (CLT) structures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Olsson, J.; Linderholt, A. Measurements of low frequency impact sound frequency response functions and vibrational properties of light weight timber floors utilizing the ISO rubber ball. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 166, 107313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Olsson, J.; Linderholt, A. Low-frequency impact sound of timber floors: A finite element–based study of conceptual designs. Build. Acoust. 2021, 28, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Flodén, O.; Persson, K.; Sandberg, G. A multi-level model correlation approach for low-frequency vibration transmission in wood structures. Eng. Struct. 2018, 157, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Singh, T.; Page, D.; Simpson, I. Manufactured structural timber building materials and their durability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 217, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Ganster, K.; Schickhofer, G. In situ-Messung innerhalb einer Außenwand in Holz-Massivbauweise mit Brettsperrholz im sockelnahen Bereich. Bauphysik 2020, 42, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Ayanleye, S.; Udele, K.; Nasir, V.; Zhang, X.; Militz, H. Durability and protection of mass timber structures: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Riggio, M.; Mrissa, M.; Krész, M.; Včelák, J.; Sandak, J.; Sandak, A. Leveraging Structural Health Monitoring Data Through Avatars to Extend the Service Life of Mass Timber Buildings. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 887593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Xia, Z.; Van De Kuilen, J.W.G.; Polastri, A.; Ceccotti, A.; He, M. Influence of core stiffness on the behavior of tall timber buildings subjected to wind loads. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2021, 15, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Zhao, X.; Zhang, B.; Kilpatrick, T.; Sanderson, I. Numerical analysis on global serviceability behaviours of tall clt buildings to the eurocodes and uk national annexes. Buildings 2021, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Lazzarini, E.; Frison, G.; Trutalli, D.; Marchi, L.; Scotta, R. Comfort assessment of high-rise timber buildings exposed to wind-induced vibrations. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2021, 30, e1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Cao, A.S.; Stamatopoulos, H. A theoretical study of the dynamic response of planar timber frames with semi-rigid moment-resisting connections subjected to wind loads. Eng. Struct. 2021, 240, 112367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Bezabeh, M.A.; Gairola, A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Structural performance of multi-story mass-timber buildings under tornado-like wind field. Eng. Struct. 2018, 177, 519–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Bezabeh, M.A.; Bitsuamlak, G.T.; Popovski, M.; Tesfamariam, S. Probabilistic serviceability-performance assessment of tall mass-timber buildings subjected to stochastic wind loads: Part I—Structural design and wind tunnel testing. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 181, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Poirier, E.; Staub-French, S.; Pilon, A.; Fallahi, A.; Teshnizi, Z.; Tannert, T.; Froese, T. Design process innovation on brock commons tallwood house. Constr. Innov. 2021, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Staub-French, S.; Pilon, A.; Poirier, E.; Fallahi, A.; Kasbar, M.; Calderon, F.; Teshnizi, Z.; Froese, T. Construction process innovation on Brock Commons Tallwood House. Constr. Innov. 2021, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Gasparri, E.; Aitchison, M. Unitised timber envelopes. A novel approach to the design of prefabricated mass timber envelopes for multi-storey buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Riggio, M.; Alhariri, N.; Hansen, E. Paths of innovation and knowledge management in timber construction in North America: A focus on water control design strategies in CLT building enclosures. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2020, 16, 58–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Svatoš-Ražnjević, H.; Orozco, L.; Menges, A. Advanced Timber Construction Industry: A Review of 350 Multi-Storey Timber Projects from 2000–2021. Buildings 2022, 12, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Kaiser, A.; Larsson, M.; Girhammar, U.A. From file to factory: Innovative design solutions for multi-storey timber buildings applied to project Zembla in Kalmar, Sweden. Front. Archit. Res. 2019, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Fast, P.; Gafner, B.; Jackson, R. Eighteen storey hybrid mass timber student residence at the university of British Columbia. Struct. Eng. Int. 2017, 27, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Kincelova, K.; Boton, C.; Blanchet, P.; Dagenais, C. Fire safety in tall timber building: A BIM-based automated code-checking approach. Buildings 2020, 10, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Paolini, A.; Frischmann, F.; Kollmannsberger, S.; Rabold, A.; Horger, T.; Wohlmuth, B.; Rank, E. BIM-based structural dynamic analysis using higher-order volumetric finite elements. Bauingenieur 2018, 93, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Lechner, M.; Engel, T.; Kurzer, C.; Rauch, M. Planen und Bauen mit Holz—Effizient und sicher: Der Brandschutznavigator und dataholz.eu im Praxistest. Bautechnik 2020, 97, 566–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Strang, M.; Leardini, P.; Brambilla, A.; Gasparri, E. Mass Timber Envelopes in Passivhaus Buildings: Designing for Moisture Safety in Hot and Humid Australian Climates. Buildings 2021, 11, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Salvadori, V. Multi-Storey Timber-Based Buildings: An International Survey of Case-Studies with Five or More Storeys Over the Last Twenty Years. Ph.D. Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  276. Lähtinen, K.; Häyrinen, L.; Roos, A.; Toppinen, A.; Aguilar Cabezas, F.X.; Thorsen, B.J.; Hujala, T.; Nyrud, A.Q.; Hoen, H.F. Consumer housing values and prejudices against living in wooden homes in the nordic region. Silva Fenn. 2021, 55, 10503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Izzi, M.; Casagrande, D.; Bezzi, S.; Pasca, D.; Follesa, M.; Tomasi, R. Seismic behaviour of Cross-Laminated Timber structures: A state-of-the-art review. Eng. Struct. 2018, 170, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Tulebekova, S.; Malo, K.A.; Rønnquist, A.; Nåvik, P. Modeling stiffness of connections and non-structural elements for dynamic response of taller glulam timber frame buildings. Eng. Struct. 2022, 261, 114209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Chang, S.J.; Kang, Y.; Yun, B.Y.; Yang, S.; Kim, S. Assessment of effect of climate change on hygrothermal performance of cross-laminated timber building envelope with modular construction. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 28, 101703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Bermek, M.S.; Shelden, D.; Gentry, R. Schema for Automated Generation of CLT Framing and Panelization. In Proceedings of the Computing in Civil Engineering 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, 17–19 June 2019; pp. 312–319. [Google Scholar]
  281. Duan, Z.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Q. Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review. Build. Environ. 2022, 221, 109320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Loss, C.; Rossi, S.; Tannert, T. In-Plane Stiffness of Hybrid Steel–Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Diaphragms. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Ferdous, W.; Bai, Y.; Ngo, T.D.; Manalo, A.; Mendis, P. New advancements, challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings—A state-of-the-art review. Eng. Struct. 2019, 183, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Kiakojouri, F.; De Biagi, V.; Chiaia, B.; Sheidaii, M.R. Progressive collapse of framed building structures: Current knowledge and future prospects. Eng. Struct. 2020, 206, 110061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Kiakojouri, F.; De Biagi, V.; Chiaia, B.; Sheidaii, M.R. Strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse: A critical review and future research agenda. Eng. Struct. 2022, 262, 114274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Voulpiotis, K.; Schär, S.; Frangi, A. Quantifying robustness in tall timber buildings: A case study. Eng. Struct. 2022, 265, 114427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 12 01263 g001 550
Figure 1. Annual frequency of the publications on multi-storey timber buildings in scientific journals indexed in WoS between 2000 and mid-2022, considering the following sets of keywords: (1) Tall wood building: (2) Multi-storey timber. * The articles considered in 2022 were those published until the beginning of August 2022.
Figure 1. Annual frequency of the publications on multi-storey timber buildings in scientific journals indexed in WoS between 2000 and mid-2022, considering the following sets of keywords: (1) Tall wood building: (2) Multi-storey timber. * The articles considered in 2022 were those published until the beginning of August 2022.
Buildings 12 01263 g001
Buildings 12 01263 g002 550
Figure 2. Categorization of data fields from scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 2. Categorization of data fields from scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g002
Buildings 12 01263 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequency of advances and limitations by subcategories from the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 3. Frequency of advances and limitations by subcategories from the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g003
Buildings 12 01263 g004 550
Figure 4. Diagram of relationships between the findings considered advances in the sustainability category based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 4. Diagram of relationships between the findings considered advances in the sustainability category based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g004
Buildings 12 01263 g005 550
Figure 5. Diagram of relationships between the contents considered as limitations of the sustainability category, from the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 5. Diagram of relationships between the contents considered as limitations of the sustainability category, from the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g005
Buildings 12 01263 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationships between the findings considered advances in the engineering and construction sciences category, based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 6. Relationships between the findings considered advances in the engineering and construction sciences category, based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g006
Buildings 12 01263 g007 550
Figure 7. Relationships between the findings considered limitations of the engineering and construction sciences category, based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Figure 7. Relationships between the findings considered limitations of the engineering and construction sciences category, based on the review of scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings.
Buildings 12 01263 g007
Table
Table 1. Scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings by subcategories.
Table 1. Scientific articles on multi-storey timber buildings by subcategories.
CategorySubcategoryArticle
SustainabilityEnvironmental sustainability[1,27,35,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]
Social sustainability[2,50,54,64,69,70,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]
Economic sustainability[35,50,53,61,62,63,65,70,86,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]
Engineering and construction sciencesSeismic analysis[10,15,21,30,31,32,47,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156]
Connections design[31,98,106,127,129,131,137,149,150,153,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181]
Fire performance/fire design[12,14,143,157,163,164,173,176,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199]
Behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber-structural cores[63,71,123,147,149,166,175,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212]
Hybrid building design[30,32,67,99,100,123,126,130,132,139,141,143,144,145,148,155,201]
Structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns[16,128,194,209,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227]
Structural behavior of composite materials[163,169,218,228,229,230,231,232,233,234]
Structural robustness[13,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242]
Structural modeling[146,177,207,208,217,221,238,239,240,241,243,244,245,246,247,248,249]
Acoustic behavior[250,251,252,253]
Durability and protection of wood[11,56,215,254,255,256,257]
Design-wind loads[143,144,151,172,244,245,246,247,258,259,260,261,262,263]
Collaborative designCollaborative design experiences[19,28,86,264,265,266,267,268,269,270]
BIM-based design[85,271,272,273]
Table
Table 2. Co-occurrences between the findings considered advances in the sustainability category from the review of scientific articles on multi-story timber buildings.
Table 2. Co-occurrences between the findings considered advances in the sustainability category from the review of scientific articles on multi-story timber buildings.
Economic Sustainability
(20)		Environmental Sustainability (29)Social Sustainability
(15)
CountCoefficientCountCoefficientCountCoefficient
Economic sustainability (20)00.00140.4090.35
Environmental sustainability (29)140.4000.0080.22
Social sustainability (15)90.3580.2200.00
Table
Table 3. Co-occurrences between the findings considered limitations of the sustainability category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Table 3. Co-occurrences between the findings considered limitations of the sustainability category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Economic Sustainability
(8)		Environmental Sustainability
(7)		Social Sustainability
(5)
CountCoefficientCountCoefficientCountCoefficient
Economic sustainability (8)00.0030.2520.18
Environmental sustainability (7)30.2500.0010.09
Social sustainability (5)20.1810.0900.00
Table
Table 4. Co-occurrences between the findings considered advances in the engineering and construction sciences category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Table 4. Co-occurrences between the findings considered advances in the engineering and construction sciences category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Acoustic behavior (3)Behavior of shear walls, diaphragms,
and timber structural cores (16)		Connections’ design (26)Design-wind loads (13)Durability and protection of wood (11)Fire performance/fire design (19)Hybrid building design (12)Seismic analysis (31)Structural behavior of composite
materials (7)		Structural behavior of walls, floors,
and columns (11)		Structural modeling (16)Structural robustness (9)
countcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficient
Acoustic behavior (3)00.0000.0010.0400.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.0800.0000.00
Behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores (16)00.0000.0050.1410.0400.0000.0030.1280.2100.0010.0420.0700.00
Connections design (26)10.0450.1400.0010.0320.0650.1320.0660.1220.0600.0010.0200.00
Design-wind loads (13)00.0010.0410.0300.0000.0010.0320,0940.1000.0010.0450.2100.00
Durability and protection of wood (11)00.0000.0020.0600.0000.0040.1500.0000.0000.0010.0500.0000.00
Fire performance/fire design (19)00.0000.0050.1310.0340.1500.0010.0310.0220.0800.0000.0000.00
Hybrid building design (12)00.0030.1220.0620.0900.0010.0300.0090.2610.0600.0000.0000.00
Seismic analysis (31)00.0080.2160.1240.1000.0010.0290.2600.0010.0310.0240.0920.05
Structural behavior of composite materials (7)00.0000.0020.0600.0000.0020.0810.0610.0300.0020.1310.0500.00
Structural behavior of walls, floors and columns (11)10.0810.0400.0010.0410.0500.0000.0010.0220.1300.0010.0400.00
Structural modeling (16)00.0020.0710.0250.2100.0000.0000.0040.0910.0510.0400.0040.19
Structural robustness (9)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0020.0500.0000.0040.1900.00
Table
Table 5. Co-occurrences between the findings considered as limitations of the engineering and construction sciences category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Table 5. Co-occurrences between the findings considered as limitations of the engineering and construction sciences category, from the review of scientific articles on timber buildings.
Acoustic behavior (1)Behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores (3)Connections’ design (1)Design-wind loads (2)Durability and protection of wood (2)Fire performance/fire design (3)Hybrid building design (1)Seismic analysis (3)Structural behavior of composite materials (1)Structural behavior of walls, floors, and columns (6)Structural modeling (1)Structural robustness (1)
countcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficientcountcoefficient
Acoustic behavior (1)00.0000.0011.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.00
Behavior of shear walls, diaphragms, and timber structural cores (3)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.2000.0020.2900.0000.00
Connections design (1)11.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.00
Design-wind loads (2)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.00
Durability and protection of wood (2)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.1400.0000.00
Fire performance/fire design (3)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.1300.0000.00
Hybrid building design (1)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0011.0000.0000.0000.00
Seismic analysis (3)00.0010.2000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.1300.0000.00
Structural behavior of composite materials (1)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0011.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.00
Structural behavior of walls, floors and columns (6)00.0020.2900.0000.0010.1410.1300.0010.1300.0000.0000.0000.00
Structural modeling (1)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0011.00
Structural robustness (1)00.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0011.0000.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Retamal, M.; Forcael, E.; Saelzer-Fuica, G.; Vargas-Mosqueda, M. From Trees to Skyscrapers: Holistic Review of the Advances and Limitations of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081263

AMA Style

González-Retamal M, Forcael E, Saelzer-Fuica G, Vargas-Mosqueda M. From Trees to Skyscrapers: Holistic Review of the Advances and Limitations of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings. Buildings. 2022; 12(8):1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081263

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Retamal, Marcelo, Eric Forcael, Gerardo Saelzer-Fuica, and Mauricio Vargas-Mosqueda. 2022. "From Trees to Skyscrapers: Holistic Review of the Advances and Limitations of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings" Buildings 12, no. 8: 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081263

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop