00 - Bhandari Et. Al. (2023) Artigo Inmternacional

Journal of Building Engineering 63 (2023) 105485
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
A review of modular cross laminated timber construction:

Implications for temporary housing in seismic areas
Sujit Bhandari a, b, *, Mariapaola Riggio a, Sina Jahedi a, Erica C. Fischer b,
Lech Muszynski a, Zhixin Luo c
a
Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
b
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
c
Department of Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Modular construction has multiple advantages over conventional alternatives, including accel
Modular construction erated build schedules, greater certainty on build costs, times, and quality, and less waste during
Cross laminated timber construction. Prefabricated engineered wood panels, such as Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) are
Temporary housing well-suited for modular structures. This paper evaluates the features of modular CLT construction
Post-disaster relief completed between 2009 and 2021, focusing on architectural and engineering design,
High seismic areas
manufacturing, and logistics. The implication of these aspects in the use of modular CLT struc
tures in seismic regions and as a solution for temporary housing and rapid mass housing is
explored. Research and development efforts in modular CLT construction are also presented. This
review paper is expected to help engineering, architectural, and manufacturing communities in
consideration of CLT uses in modular structures as a solution to emergency and rapidly con
structable housing.
1. Introduction
Billions of people globally are believed to be deprived of adequate housing, while millions more are displaced by disasters. Because
of this, it is crucial to provide quick access to affordable accommodation to the unhoused [1]. However, the construction industry
contributes about 10% to global energy-related CO2 emissions [2]. Adoption of economically and environmentally sustainable
practices for construction is therefore important. Mass timber construction uses engineered wood products (EWPs), such as glue
laminated (glulam) and cross laminated timber (CLT). This type of construction has recently gained momentum for its potential of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions [3–5]. Prefabrication and modular construction also meet the growing need for sustainable use of
resources and greater efficiency in construction by minimizing construction waste and construction duration [3,6–11].
An interest in using mass timber in modular construction has recently emerged on the west coast of the US, one of the areas in North
America experiencing the highest percentage of homelessness [12] with the largest shortage of affordable housing [13]. This region is
also afflicted by frequent catastrophic wildfires, which displace large populations yearly [14]. Additionally, it is characterized by high
seismic risk [15]. To address all these problems, holistic solutions for sustainable, affordable, rapidly deployable, and
earthquake-resistant housing are needed. This paper reviews modular CLT construction to investigate features of existing projects
* Corresponding author. Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA.
E-mail addresses: sujit.bhandari@oregonstate.edu (S. Bhandari), mariapaola.riggio@oregonstate.edu (M. Riggio), jahedisina@gmail.com (S. Jahedi), erica.
fischer@oregonstate.edu (E.C. Fischer), lech.muszynski@oregonstate.edu (L. Muszynski), zhixinzxluo@gmail.com (Z. Luo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105485
Received 24 May 2022; Received in revised form 12 October 2022; Accepted 26 October 2022
Available online 31 October 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Bhandari et al. Journal of Building Engineering 63 (2023) 105485
which can inform solutions for communities in urgent need of affordable or temporary housing.
The objectives of this study are to (1) identify design and production features of current modular CLT construction,; (2) evaluate
those features for utilization of CLT modular construction for rapidly deployable mass housing or temporary housing in high seismic
regions; and (3) document research and demonstration projects that use emerging innovations into the design, fabrication, and
construction of modular CLT buildings. The following research questions are addressed in this paper:
- Where are most of the modular CLT structures located? How far are they from their respective manufacturers? Are some types of
modular CLT structures favored over others?
- Are modular CLT buildings used as temporary structures? What are the structural systems used in these temporary structures? Can
modular CLT construction be a viable solution for rapidly deployable buildings in seismically active regions?
- What is the current state of research and development, and innovation efforts in modular CLT construction?
2. Literature review
Prefabrication is defined as a manufacturing process in which the fabrication of materials and parts into ready-to-install elements,
and partial assembly of such elements, takes place at a specialized facility, usually different from the location of the final assembly, to
form a component to be utilized in the final installation [16]. It can refer to offsite manufacturing or assembly of components or
subassemblies, non-volumetric preassembly, and volumetric assemblies that are part of a building, or the whole building [9]. Pre
fabrication can reduce material waste, onsite labor, and erection time. These reductions can lead to improved safety and overall quality
while reducing costs [9,17].
Even further efficiency is achieved through modular design and construction. Musa et al. [18] define modular construction as: “… a
construction method that produces a building consist[ing] of modular units or modules, mass produce[d] off-site in a manufacturing
facility. …” . A module is an element or a group of elements with considerable functionality to the final product it is to be a part of [19,
20]. A defining feature of modular construction is the repetition of standard units and the use of standard dimensions, which might not
always be present in prefabrication. Therefore, modular construction applies constraints on the number of element variations in a
project and limits the use of unique elements. These constraints and limitations provide repeatability of modular units throughout the
building and increase the speed of construction.
Wood is an ideal material for prefabrication and modular construction, primarily because of its machinability which allows effi
cient off-site pre-cuts and milling of a variety of features, and also because of its light weight (compared to other common building
materials), which facilitates transportation and ease of installation. More predictable engineering properties of EWPs as well as po
tential for dimensions of elements not commonly available from sawn lumber have increased opportunities for timber buildings.
Narrow tolerances and dimensional stability are crucial requisites for prefabricated systems and many EWPs meet these re
quirements. CLT is a plate-like EWP made of at least three orthogonal layers of lumber or structural composite lumber (SCL) that are
glued together. The presence of cross layers provides dimensional stability and relatively high in-plane and out-of-plane strength and
stiffness. For this reason, CLT is used as both wall and floor elements. Mass timber panels (MTPs), such as CLT, are customized
products, made-to-order for a specific project, rather than standardized commodity products made to stock [21,22]. There is a growing
interest in using CLT for modular construction to expand market segments of MTPs in mass customizable solutions, and to use this
technology to solve pressing societal and economic needs, such as affordable housing and emergency housing [23–29].
Carvalho et al. [30] investigated the use of timber construction for modular housing and emergency shelters to contextualize the
potential and limits of mass timber construction. Ten examples of mass timber buildings ranging from 2 to 24 stories were discussed
with respect to their architectural features, dimensional properties, and construction duration. Carvalho et al. [30] concluded that the
success of timber modular construction seems to be still strongly dependent on the maturity of a specific geographic context in terms of
production capacity and regulations. Although the study provides useful insights into modular CLT construction, the examined projects
are a small subset of modular CLT construction. Furthermore, there are more architectural and structural aspects of buildings such as
the scale of modularity and connections that can help determine the suitability of modular systems for rapid construction, which is not
presented in the paper.
The conclusions of Carvalho et al. [30] were reinforced by Huss et al. [31] who presented one of the most complete documentation
of projects on multi-story timber-based volumetric modular buildings. The majority of the buildings are concentrated in areas with
high production capacities, such as Alpine Europe and Scandinavia. The book aimed to document the construction process, and
common typology of current timber modular construction and to promote further development in modular construction using wood.
This book was one of the initial data sources for this study. However, it exclusively focuses on volumetric modules and does not capture
features of two-dimensional (flatpack) modular CLT construction.
Similar documentation of mass timber projects is presented in TRADA [32] which is not solely focused on modular construction,
but rather on various design and performance aspects of CLT structures. CLT projects in the UK, including five modular buildings, are
presented and discussed. Although this book covers different aspects of the projects, it is limited to a geographical context and the
number of modular CLT structures presented is limited.
Other authors have highlighted the importance of standardized solutions to overcome some of the current barriers in the devel
opment and diffusion of modular construction. Ferdous et al. [33] reviewed the recent advances, challenges, and performance of
modular structures along with the opportunities that modular structures present. Ferdous et al. [33] concluded that despite the
promising implementation of modular construction in commercial buildings and its well-documented benefits, there is a need for
design guidelines, more intermodular connection options, and optimized logistics to increase investment opportunities. Although
2
Ferdous et al. [33] acknowledged that composite materials such as CLT have emerged as an alternative to traditional materials, only
5% of the recently constructed modular building examples reviewed in the paper used CLT.
The importance of suitable connection solutions and related structural performance are discussed by several authors. Thai et al.
[34] examined the structural behavior of high-rise, steel, volumetric, and modular buildings, and the role of inter-modular connections
in the robustness of the building and in preventing progressive collapse. Lacey et al. [35] reviewed 13 modular steel buildings, with a
focus on structural design, loads, connections, and structural response. Lawson et al. [36] also elaborated on the arrangement of
modules, structural aspects, sustainability, economic benefits, fire resistance, and acoustic insulation of steel modular structures. While
these studies provided useful insights into modular structures and their structural performance, they are all focused on steel con
struction. There is a gap in knowledge in the systematic review of connection systems and structural performance of modular CLT
construction.
Boafo et al. [37] investigated various performance areas of modular construction such as seismic resistance, thermal behavior,
acoustic performance, energy consumption, and sustainability. The modular structures behaved in a ductile manner up to very high
drift levels and had high energy dissipation capacity during cyclic loading. The authors concluded that modular structures are suited
for high seismic regions. The authors further noticed a reduction in material, time, and greenhouse emissions from modular structures
compared to on-site construction. Although the study provides a useful understanding of different aspects related to modular con
struction, as none of these buildings used CLT, these results and conclusions cannot readily be transferred to modular CLT structures.
Several authors have investigated opportunities for using modular construction in high-rise structures. Lawson et al. [36] presented
a review of high-rise modular construction discussing three projects, all of them made from traditional materials. Thai et al. [34]
described ten modular high-rise buildings in Australia, China, Singapore, the UK, and the US. Generalova et al. [38] illustrated four
modular projects in Russia. All these studies suggest that modular structures are finding increased applications in high-rise structures.
However, none of them included any CLT buildings; there is a need for similar studies on modular CLT construction.
Among the few studies specifically focused on modular CLT construction, Gijzen [39] investigated the applicability of a stan
dardized modular CLT system for tall buildings. The proposed module used a concrete floor slab and CLT walls and ceiling elements,
and eight modules for each floor over eight stories were stacked and placed on a concrete podium. The structural analysis of this
archetypal building showed that the limiting factors for maximum building height and maximum slenderness were fire performance,
connection strength of the stabilization wall, and the maximum deformation due to rotation of the stabilization wall. While this
research on modular CLT is an important step toward understanding the structural aspects of modular CLT structures, the study is
focused on volumetric modules only.
Sheine et al. [40] explored the use of mass timber modular construction in Oregon and its applications in temporary classrooms.
Sheine et al. [40] concluded that while mass timber classrooms have cost savings in the UK, they are not economically competitive
solutions compared to light wood frames in cases of single-story applications in Oregon. However, they could be competitive for
multistory schools, thus offering solutions for temporary buildings alternative to those based on traditional construction systems.
While this study provided perspective on the use of modular CLT structures in schools, there is still a need for a review of modular CLT
construction for different building types.
The reported literature highlighted an emerging interest of the scientific community in modular construction systems with
enhanced performance and for high-demand applications such as in high-rise buildings and construction in seismic areas. This interest
is supported and motivated by increasing numbers of built examples, a few of them made with CLT. This study contributes to this broad
area of investigation, particularly focusing on the specific characteristics of modular CLT buildings. The unique contributions of this
study are:
- A comprehensive and up-to-date review of modular CLT construction projects, and
- An analysis of modular CLT construction to identify its viability for rapidly deployable structures for emergencies or mass housing.
For the purpose of this paper the manufacturing, engineering, architectural, and construction features to be considered are a)
geographical distribution of different types of existing modular CLT buildings and identification of the seismicity at each location; b)
proximity of the CLT fabricator/module manufacturer from the construction site, and the relationship between the type of modularity
and distance from the site; c) construction duration and suitability of different types of modular systems for rapid construction; d)
overall architectural and dimensional characteristics of existing modular CLT buildings and whether those characteristics impact the
rapidity of construction and applicability in high seismic regions.
3. Research methodology
Data was collected on modular CLT structures from a variety of sources between 2019 and 2021. A data search was conducted
initially within published journal articles, using the strings “cross-laminated timber building”, “CLT building”, “modular cross-
laminated timber”, “modular CLT construction” and a combination of these keywords in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and One
Search databases. In addition to projects found in scholarly work, projects were also searched by analyzing grey literature, such as
conference proceedings, reports, books, and printed and online architecture magazines. Data were also searched from material
published on professional social media (LinkedIn), and publications by associations for the promotion of wooden buildings such as
WoodWorks (USA), Naturally:wood (Canada), Trada (UK), and WoodSolutions (Australia). A snowball sampling approach [41] was
used to gather information about additional projects. In this phase, company websites, such as architectural firms, structural designers,
CLT manufacturers, and fabricators of modular projects, were scrutinized.
The authors acknowledge that many projects have not been included in this study because they were not published in journals or
3
Table 1
Modular CLT projects considered for the study.
S.N. Project name Selected References
1 2nd Home Business-Hotel, Nördlingen [51,52]

2 6x6 block, Girona [53,54]
3 Algutstorp, Vargarda [55,56]
4 Antoniushaus social centre, Feldkirch [57,58]
5 Arbora, Montreal, Qubec [59]
6 Aubervilliers Village (Les Allées Nature, 6 houses) [60,61]
7 BioHotel in the apple garden, Hohenbercha [62–64]
8 BMW-Hotel Alpenhof, Ammerwald [65,66]
9 Bridport House, Colville Estate [32,45,67]
10 Crome Court, University of East Anglia, Norwich [45,68,69]
11 Dalston Lane, London [51,61,70–72]
12 Dyson Center, Royal United Hospital, Bath, Somerset [32]
13 Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology Student Housing, Wiltshire, England [73,74]
14 Ecological Living Module, NY [75–77]
15 Ellerslie Road, Glasgow [78,79]
16 European School, Frankfurt am Main [65,80]
17 Farnham Place, Southwark, London [32]
18 Fiolen 53, Norrkoping [81]
19 Forte Apartement, Melbourne [82–86]
20 German Bundestag, Luisenblock West [87]
21 Godisfabriken, Gavle [88]
22 Heimdalsporten, Norway [89]
23 Holzregal project, Vienna [90,91]
24 Hotel Bauhofstrasse, Ludwigsburg [92,93]
25 Hotel Jakarta, Amsterdam [94–96]
26 Hotel Katharinenhof, Dornbirn [31,97]
27 Insjon, Orebro [98,99]
28 Integrated Secondary School - Mahlsdorf, Berlin [100,101]
29 Jalmarintupa, Rauma [102,103]
30 Kaufmann Bausysteme Office, Reuthe [104,105]
31 Kindertagesstätte, Saarbrücken [106,107]
32 Kindertagesstätte, Ulm [49,108]
33 Klapgat, Haacht [109–111]
34 Klein Veldekens (VZW Astor), Geel [112–114]
35 KV Pumpan, Alingsas [115]
36 Kv. Barret, Kalmar [116,117]
37 Lancaster Institute of Contemporary Arts, Lancaster [32,118]
38 Lucien Cornil Student Residence, Marseille [119–121]
39 Luntuviita, Seinajoki [122]
40 Mai, Ivalsa Modular House, Trento [123]
41 Mayer University Residence, Trento [124,125]
42 Mobile Kindergarten, Innsbruck [126–128]
43 Mobile Living at Vulkanplatz, Zurich [129,130]
44 Modular classrooms, Washington [131]
45 Multiply, London [132]
46 Plaston AG Flying Office, Widnau [90,133,134]
47 Portvakten, Vaxjo [135]
48 Primary School Sewanstrasse, Berlin [136,137]
49 Puukuokka Housing Block, Jyväskylä [45,65,138,139]
50 Refugee Accommodation, Hanover [31,140]
51 Residential Building in Wagramer Strasse, Vienna [141,142]
52 Residential Complex, Toulouse [31,143]
53 Residential Project, Spottlgasse [144–146]
54 Riedberg-Kalbach Comprehensive School, Frankfurt am Main [147]
55 Sara Cultural Center, Skelleftea [148,149]
56 School at Barnet-Licht-Platz, Leipzig [150]
57 School Konrad-Wolf-Strasse, Berlin [136,151]
58 Senior Residence, Hallein [152]
59 Social Center Pillerseetal, Fieberbrunn [153,154]
60 Stadthaus, Murray Grove, London [32,86,155–157]
61 Strandparken, Sundbyberg [116]
62 Strange House, Deptford, London [32]
63 Student Hostel, Heidelberg [31,158]
64 Student Housing, Gottingen [159,160]
65 The Bader Hotel, Parsdorf [161,162]
66 THW Bettenhaus, Neuhausen [163,164]
67 Treet, Bergen [45,165,166]
68 Tuupala Primary School and Day-care centre, Kuhmo [167]
(continued on next page)
4
Table 1 (continued )
S.N. Project name Selected References
69 Vestbyen, Oslo [168]

70 West Buckland School, Devon [32]
71 Wohnen 500 Residential Complex, Mäder [31]
72 Woodie Student Hostel, Hamburg [31,169]
websites, the available data was not sufficient to classify the building as modular, or the data was not sufficient to classify it according
to the categories defined in this study. The use of standardized functional CLT modules and the use of CLT as a structural element were
two major criteria set for the inclusion of a project in the analysis. Modular buildings with CLT exclusively used for floors, partition
walls, or other non-load bearing elements were not included. Modular CLT projects which are constructed for public demonstration are
also included.
Screening of the various sources narrowed the analysis to a total of 72 projects (representing 122 buildings), presented in Table 1
with selected references. Data validation (i.e., comprehensiveness and accuracy) was carried out by crosschecking multiple sources
documenting each project. However, triangulation could not be performed equally for each project, due to the difference in the number
and quality of sources available.
3.1. Data analysis and classification

The data gathered on Modular CLT construction were classified into different categories based on various aspects related to the
research objectives, i.e., geographical, dimensional, temporal, functional, design, production and logistics, and project delivery
method (Fig. 1). Information about the buildings was gathered directly from explicitly written content in the sources and inferred from
visual data (plans, sections, elevations, diagrams, and renders).
3.1.1. Geographical data

Categories related to the geographical information included the location of the building, the location of the CLT manufacturer and
fabricator, and distances between production and construction sites. Distances were measured as air distance using the actual address,
when available, or the city center.
The seismic hazard of the location is defined as the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 475-year return period and obtained
from the GEM foundation [42]. Seismic hazard is classified into four distinct levels as low (PGA ≤ 0.8m/s2 ), moderate (0.8 m/ s2 ≤
PGA ≤ 2.4 m/s2 ), high (2.4 m/s2 ≤ PGA ≤ 4.0 m/s2 ), and very high (PGA ≥ 4.0 m/s2 ) [43].
Fig. 1. Classification of Modular CLT Buildings and their relationship to the research objectives.
5
3.1.2. Dimensional data

Dimensional categories were created for the building and the CLT modules. These categories included building height, total
building area, area of spatial units, and thickness/number of plies of CLT panels used for floors and/or walls. Building heights were
divided into three ranges according to the number of stories: low-rise (1-6 stories), mid-rise (7-12 stories), and high-rise (>13 stories)
[44]. This classification captures the height range of the CLT structures for this research. The gross area of a building was obtained
either from a written source or estimated according to the plan of the building where applicable. The size of modules (length and
width), in most cases, is limited by production and logistics constraints, such as manufacturing capacity and transportation.
3.1.3. Temporal data

The temporal data obtained included the year of completion and construction duration. The construction time reported is the
measurement of the whole construction time, including the CLT module assembly and construction of other complementary systems, if
any. To account for the size of the building, the construction time (in weeks) was normalized by the gross area of the building (m2) and
reported as construction speed.
3.1.4. Functional data

Building functional categories included building occupations and design lifespan. Considered building types were residential
(multi-family, retirement home, and student housing), commercial (fitness, hotel, office, and retail + office), institutional (K-12 – from
kinder-garden to high school, higher education, and hospital), and public (community center and small-scale installation/demon
stration projects).
Building lifespan was classified as either temporary or permanent. Temporary buildings, in this case, are defined as buildings that
are designed to last for a period shorter than the lifespan of a typical building (50 years) or intended to be moved from the location in
which they were originally constructed and, sometimes, reused somewhere else.
3.1.5. Production and logistics data

Categories related to production and logistics were used to determine the scale of modularity and level of customization.
3.1.5.1. Scale of modularity. In this study, two-dimensional (2D) modularity is when the walls and floors of a modular CLT structure
are delivered flat-packed to the construction site. When CLT panels form repetitive modular prefabricated box units, they give rise to
three-dimensional (3D) or volumetric modularity. Within both 2D and 3D modular systems, the level of prefabrication can vary widely:
from the bare CLT panels forming the modules to fully prefabricated modules with façade and fixtures and even furniture in place – the
latter option is possible only for volumetric modules.
3.1.5.2. Level of customization. Customization within a modular design is one of the significant factors contributing to the flexibility
and applicability of the design to other projects: a higher level of customization might provide higher flexibility while keeping all the
modules to one or a few standard parts might help with keeping the costs low. The level of customization can depend on architecture,
project-specific needs, economy, and level of prefabrication. For instance, a building can be constructed from modules that are of the
same shape and size, or from two or more distinct modules. For this study, the level of customization is measured by the flexibility in
design dimensions and arrangement of modules, and by the number of modules used throughout a project.
3.1.6. Design features

Design features included both structural system types and architectural features. Some general design features that may affect
seismic performance such as height-to-base ratios, symmetry of floor plans, spans, and presence of double walls that may introduce
redundancy in the gravity load-bearing system were also considered, along with other features of the module composition described
Fig. 2. Module composition Configurations.
6
below.
3.1.6.1. Module composition. Three configurations of module composition were considered: parallel in the horizontal direction,
parallel in the vertical direction, or cellular/honeycomb (Fig. 2).
A “closed module” is a spatial module that either has all sides “closed” by walls and floors or a module with walls on all sides that
aren’t open to other modules in the building. A module can have one or more faces removed from the spatial volume [31] to make the
model “open”. An “open module” for this classification is defined as a module having at least one side fully open to the adjacent
module. A building can have both open and closed modules and, in this case, is classified as a “hybrid”. While this classification is more
applicable for buildings with 3D modules, buildings with 2D modules are classified based on the space formed by the CLT panels
(Fig. 3).
3.1.6.2. Use of complementary system. Though CLT offers the possibility to build fully panelized systems (where CLT panels are used as
floors and walls), hybrid construction is very common. Hybrid construction uses CLT panels with other materials, such as different
engineered wood products, concrete, steel, or a combination of these materials. Hybrid systems are used for architectural, structural,
environmental, or economic reasons, or because of code requirements or restrictions [45]. Hybrid systems can take advantage of the
qualities of both CLT and the other complementary materials to optimize performance. The use of linear EWPs such as glulam and LVL
for load-bearing framing is common in CLT buildings. Concrete podiums have been used often to overcome building code height and
fire restrictions [46]. Steel can provide longer spans and large header space in some cases [47]. Often materials other than CLT are used
in hybrid buildings for lateral force resisting systems, such as reinforced concrete cores and steel braced frames to comply with the code
fire and safety regulations or to increase the ductility of the system [48–50].
4. Results and discussion

4.1. Geographic distribution in relation to seismic hazard
The majority of the projects documented in Table 1 are located in the UK (11), Germany (10), Austria (10), and Sweden (9) (Fig. 4,
Fig. 5). The authors were unable to locate any modular CLT projects in Asia and South America. CLT manufacturers are concentrated in
Europe, with a few manufacturers in North America, South Asia, Oceania, and Africa [21,22,170,171]. The geographic distribution of
modular CLT buildings reflects areas with a concentration of CLT manufacturers and related supply chains.
While the majority of the modular CLT structures (63%) are in low seismic hazard zones; about 37% of the modular CLT buildings
are in moderate or high seismic hazard zones with 21% and 16% in moderate and high seismic hazard zones, respectively. The
structures in moderate or high seismic hazard zones preasumbly meet the local building codes requiring to build earthquake-resistant
structures. These structures demonstrate that modular CLT structures have the ability to be designed to resist large seismic demands
thereby making them feasible for earthquake-prone regions.
4.2. Proximity to manufacturers

Fig. 5 shows the location of the projects along with their respective CLT manufacturers. This can help understand the logistical
aspects of modular CLT structures. Research on the impacts of the distance of transportation from the factory to the site is limited in the
case of CLT construction. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies have assumed a wide range of distances: 322 km for a site in Seattle, US
[173], 300 km for Heilongjiang and Shaanxi provinces in China [174], 700–1200 km within Japan, and 18,200 km from Austria to
Japan [175]. The projects reviewed in this study have a median air distance of 360 km between the module fabricator and the site, with
the longest haul being 16,000 km. In one project, modules were assembled in a mobile production unit in the vicinity of the site rather
than in a stationary factory to reduce the distance of transporting modules [176]. The median distance for 2D modules is 855 km (with
a maximum distance of 16,000 km) while the median distance for 3D modules is 230 km (with a maximum distance of 1230 km). The
difference between the haul distance of 2D and 3D modules suggests that 2D modules are usually suitable for longer transportation
distances compared to 3D modules. The data also suggests that many 3D module manufacturers have collaborated with CLT production
plants in their vicinity. Of the projects in which the CLT manufacturers could be identified (61 out of 72), only three of them sourced
their CLT from a distant location. Data shows that transportation is not a barrier to modular CLT construction. However, long
transportation distances can increase the cost and carbon footprint of the project.
Fig. 3. Closed, open, and hybrid modules.
7
S. Bhandari et al.
8

Fig. 4. Project location shown with seismic hazard [42][Base map source: Esri [172], NOAA, USGS].
S. Bhandari et al.
9

Fig. 5. Locations of projects and respective manufacturers/fabricators [Base map source: Esri [172], NOAA, USGS].
4.3. Construction duration

Fig. 6 shows the construction duration normalized by the building gross area grouped into four groups in relation to the structural
system used. The results are scattered, with a duration ranging from 1 to 58 weeks per 1000 m2, and a median construction duration of
about 7 weeks. This duration is less than the average in the US from 2005 to 2021 (average normalized duration for residential housing
ranging from 110 to 145 weeks per 1000 m2 [177]). The construction duration is scattered among different structural systems (Fig. 6).
Similarly, the construction speed is not correlated with the area of the structure (Fig. 7). It is assumed that temporary buildings are
designed to be more rapidly built than permanent counterparts [178]; such a trend is not apparent for modular CLT structures (Fig. 6).
The normalized average construction duration is 10 weeks per 1000 m2 for 2D modules and 15.24 weeks per 1000 m2 for 3D modules.
This shows that, at least using the technology available between 2005 and 2011, the construction of CLT buildings based on 2D
modules is faster in average.
4.4. Design features

4.4.1. Dimension
Fig. 8 shows the number of modular CLT projects completed from the first known reported case in 2005–2021. The number of
modular CLT structures has increased over time, with a peak of 26 buildings in 2017. This trend is consistent with the general
development of the mass timber construction industry [22,171] and the increasing interest in modular construction [23,30,34].
Most modular CLT buildings are low-rise buildings (73%). The second most popular building type for modular CLT buildings is mid-
rise buildings (25%) and just 2% are high-rise buildings (Fig. 8). This is consistent with the findings of previous research [34] for
modular construction. As most of the buildings in the study are low-rise buildings, the total gross area of the building is also
concentrated in the lower spectrum, with a median of about 570 m2. The average floor area is estimated by normalizing the gross area
by the number of stories. Except for a single-story kindergarten, most buildings have an average floor area of less than 4000 m2 (Fig. 9).
There is not a significant difference in the average floor area, neither by the height of the buildings nor by the type of modularity. Huss
et al. [31] reported dimensions of timber room modules ranging between 3 m and 12 m; this study also shows similar dimensions of the
modules. There is not a significant difference between the dimensions of 2D and 3D modules. The area of a module for 3D modules
ranged from 15 to 70 m2.
4.4.2. Function
Ferdous et al. [33] have noted that modular buildings are widely implemented in commercial buildings with growing applications
in other sectors. However, the study presented in this paper indicates that modular CLT buildings are scattered among different
functional groups: Residential, Commercial, Institutional, and Public, with the highest number being residential buildings (especially
multi-family housing) followed by school buildings (Fig. 10). Due to the high repetition of similar spaces in hospitality (hotels, hostels)
and residential buildings (multifamily housing, retirement homes, and dormitories), these building types can highly benefit from
modularity. Some level of repetition can be found also in some types of institutional buildings such as schools, and in-office buildings.
Although the rapid construction of modular structures might be beneficial for temporary construction, only a quarter (29 of 121
buildings) of them are temporary structures while the majority of the modular CLT buildings are permanent buildings (Fig. 6). All the
studied temporary structures have either panelized CLT or engineered wood frames as their structural system.
Repetition is a common feature seen in the plan and elevation of modular CLT buildings as expected. However, the arrangement of
the modules within the building varies widely depending on the function of the building (Fig. 11). Volumetric modules can be clas
sified as dry (without plumbing, such as bedrooms, offices, etc.) or wet (with plumbing, such as kitchens, bathrooms, etc.) For instance,
Puukuokka Housing Block uses four kinds of 3D modules (long and short dry, long and short wet) arranged in an angular fashion. Even
for projects with fewer module types, module dimensions, and functionality and how they interact to form unique plans can vary
greatly (Fig. 11). Of the 25 projects where the information on types of modules was found, six of them (24%) use just one module type
Fig. 6. Construction duration based on the structural system used in modular CLT structures†.
†
* in legend indicates that it includes two or more buildings including at least two categories of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings.
10
Fig. 7. Construction speed vs gross area of modular CLT structures.
Fig. 8. Distribution of modular CLT construction by height and year of completion.
while the rest use two or more types of modules. A few of them (for instance, Plaston AG Flying Office) use a modular grid where the
modules can be flexibly added in multiples of the grid dimensions, while others (such as Mobile Kindergarten, Innsbruck) have designs
that allow the addition of modules parallel to the installed modules to increase the footprint of the structure. Having only a few unique
module types helps with streamlining the overall process: fewer unique components to prefabricate at the factory, and fewer unique
types of elements to assemble on site. On the other hand, more module types allow for more flexibility in layout and design; the
modules can be rearranged in different ways to provide customization as per the functional needs.
4.4.3. Structural systems and connection types

Fully panelized systems using CLT for the whole structure are common in documented modular projects, both delivered as 2D
systems and 3D modules (Fig. 12). Engineered wood frames as a part of the gravity load-bearing system are the most common
complementary systems for modular CLT structures. In general, the use of complementary load-bearing frames allows for more flexible
layouts and façade design [179]. Structural, economic, and fire performance of the material, availability, and compatibility with
11
Fig. 9. Average area of floor vs number of CLT stories.
Fig. 10. Building types based on use with the building height.
building codes are regarded as of high importance in selecting materials for construction [180]. However, the relative importance of
these factors may vary by regions and the cost advantage is often specific to individual projects. For example, Burback and Pei [181],
Ahmed and Arocho [182], and Mallo and Espinoza [180] report CLT case studies with a range of cost effectiveness from 21% cost
disadvantage to a 21% cost advantage compared with conventional construction materials. The use of engineered wood products for
the frame or post-and-beam system reduces tolerance issues that might occur when using dissimilar materials, such as steel and
concrete [183]. In addition, the prevalence of wood-based complementary systems in modular CLT buildings can be attributed to
sustainability efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the building [4,184]. Other materials used in modular CLT buildings include
concrete (for cores, podia, and composite floors), steel frames, and sometimes a combination of these materials (Fig. 12).
All the modular CLT projects for which detailed section drawings were available are platform-type construction. This observation is
consistent with previous research [185]. Vertical movement is possible in high-rise platform frame construction due to shrinkage and
compressive deformation of CLT floors [185]. Because the majority of the documented modular CLT buildings are low- and mid-rise
structures, this behavior was not reported.
Connections can heavily influence the behavior of CLT structures due to the high in-plane stiffness of CLT panels [186,187].
Connections in modular buildings can be divided into three categories: intra-modular (within modules); inter-modular (between
modules); and module-to-foundation connections [188]. In the case of volumetric modules, intra-modular connections connect two
sides of the modules; they can be between wall to floor, wall to ceiling, and transverse wall to longitudinal wall. Intra-modular
connections can be wall-to-wall and floor-to-floor connections in cases where two panels have to be joined in the same plane.
These connections should provide stability during module transportation and transfer loads between the elements connected in the
12
Fig. 11. Sketches of Plans of different modular CLT buildings (list of references in Table 1).
Fig. 12. Module Composition with building elevation based on the structural systems.
built structure [31]. Angle brackets were used in Lucien Cornil Student Residence, Marseillie [119] (Fig. 13), and Puukuokka Housing
Block [65]. MAI-Ivalsa Modular House used a combination of wood screws, angle brackets with nails, and hold-downs with nails and
bolts [123].
Inter-modular connections are usually located at the corners of the modules to provide structural integrity and robustness to the
Fig. 13. Connections used in modular CLT construction: (a) Bolted angle plates used in Lucien Cornil Student Residence [119] (b) Hold downs and angle brackets used
in Mayer University Residence [125] (c) Metal plate connectors used in Arbora [59].
13
structure. The ductility and energy dissipation capacity of inter-modular connections is important as they transfer the lateral loads to
the lateral force resisting system (LFRS) [36]. Modules were stacked using elastomeric bearings and sole plates at Reidberg-Kalbach
Comprehensive School [147]. Murray Grove used angle brackets and screws as inter-modular connections [47]. Custom steel con
nections with bolts were used in the project MAI-Ivalsa modular house to allow for quick and easy assembly, disassembly, and reuse
[123].
Module-to-foundation connections transfer the base shear to the foundation and resist the overturning of the structure. Traditional
CLT connections such as angle brackets and hold-downs are the most common solutions; they were used in Mayer University Residence
and Murray Grove [47,125] (Fig. 13). Hotel Jakarta used angled metal plates with bolts cast in a concrete base [95]. Since the
connection systems of most projects were not well documented, discussed results are related to a limited number of cases.
Recent studies have tried to overcome the limitations of platform-type construction and developed new highly dissipative and
replaceable inter-modular connections for 3D modular CLT structures using dampers and steel plates [189]. While there are pro
prietary connection systems that are well-suited to be used as inter-modular and module-to-foundation connections for 2D modular
CLT structures [190], their use is documented only for the expansion of existing structures [191]. More research and development on
connection systems for CLT modules is needed to fully utilize this construction system. Development and use of connection systems
allowing rapid construction and disassembly without structural damage can help in the reusability of the structure or parts of it.
There are about equal numbers of buildings using 2D and 3D modularity among the documented projects: 48% are 2D and the
remainder 52% are 3D modular structures. While 3D modules provide more opportunities for prefabrication and pre-assembly, they
are less efficient in transportation. On the other hand, 2D modules can be stacked in a truck thus leading to more efficient trans
portation but they require more time for assembly on site. 2D modules allow for more flexibility in design.
Lack of layout symmetry and regularity in elevation can cause stress concentrations in a structure when subjected to an earthquake.
Special design considerations must be made when these features exist. In some instances, setbacks in elevation are used for aesthetic
and functional reasons. This might provide a discontinuity of the load path compared to perfectly aligned walls of stacked modules.
Irregularity in the plan might introduce torsion during lateral loading, and thus these buildings usually need to have structural ele
ments with higher strength and stiffness (hence, less economical) compared to a symmetrical building.
Although 50% of the studied buildings in both low and moderate seismic zones have asymmetrical plans, all buildings in high
seismic zones are symmetrical in both planar axes (Fig. 14). The vertical shift (or setback in elevations) is seen in about 12% of
buildings in low (10 out of 77) and moderate (3 out of 24) seismic hazard zones; there is no vertical shift in buildings in high seismic
hazard zones.
3D closed modules usually have walls on four sides, which, when placed next to each other in a building, provide redundancy in the
load path. Buildings with hybrid 3D modules might also have some double walls; open modules and 2D modules generally have no
double walls. About 40% of modular CLT structures have some form of redundancy due to the presence of double walls, at least in some
parts of the modules.
4.5. Research and development (R&D) efforts and innovations

Modular prototypes and exhibits such as Multiply by Waugh Thistleton Architects [132], Ecological Living Module (ELM) by Gray
Organshci Architecture [76], and MAI-Ivalsa modular house by Ivalsa-Trees and Timber Institute [123] are aimed not only to provide
proof of concept of the design but also to increase the public’s interest in modular CLT construction. Multiply has been exhibited at
London Design Festival, Milan Design Week, and Madrid Design Festival, showcasing applications for rapidly deployable and reusable
systems. ELM exhibited at United Nations (UN) Headquarters, New York showcased an off-grid modular CLT system. Designed for
rapid assembly, disassembly, and reuse, MAI-Ivalsa Modular House used 5 different 3D modules to form a two-bedroom building
prototype reclaiming CLT from the 7-story SOPHIE project [123].
The CLT modular construction designs mentioned below refer to catalog solutions, design proposals, and a few projects under
construction and are not included in the list of projects in Table 1. For instance, Sidewalk Labs has been exploring the use of modular
CLT systems for high-rise construction (as high as 35 stories high) in a mass timber proto-model known as PMX with almost everything,
including shear walls, columns, floor cassettes, balconies, kitchens, and bathroom pods and service shafts prefabricated in a factory,
Fig. 14. Symmetry in plan and vertical shift of the buildings.
14
while allowing mass customization of the interior layout and building envelope [192].
Propelled by the grants from Housing Affordability Breakthrough Challenge, a coalition led by Forterra showcased the prototype of
an affordable multi-family modular CLT structure to be built in Wadajir, Washington, USA and plans to develop it in five additional
sites [193]. Companies such as Kaufmann Bausysteme, Nock Massiva Trahus, Ideal Modular Homes, and Tempo Housing offer modular
housing solutions, most of them in form of partially or fully finished 3D modules as part of a building, often showcasing the advantages
of using CLT as being sustainable, cost-saving, energy-efficient and time-saving [25,29,194,195]. Single-module homes such as
micro-dwelling Minima (area 20–50 m2) by Prefab and Mini Modules (area 18–65 m2) by Wigo Modul provide modular solutions that
are suitable for single-family housing [28,196,197]. TOA Architects and Mike Greer Architectural have proposed modular CLT homes
with 2–3 bedrooms in New Zealand [198,199]. These multi-family and single-family solutions are suited or can be adapted for
post-disaster response and affordable housing.
Modular CLT construction can also be used for the vertical extension of buildings. As CLT construction is lighter than concrete
construction, the use of CLT modules for vertical expansion can provide rapid solutions without adding substantial weight to the
preexisting structure. An example is the addition of two stories made of 3D CLT modules over an existing four-story building in the
Kantorn district, Sweden [200]. Similarly, three-story 2D modules using a plug-and-play connection system were added over a
two-storied masonry hotel in Obermieming, Austria [191].
Some of the projects not listed in Table 1 are either in the manufacturing or construction phases. For instance, in Konstnaren &
Trapalatset, Ostra Sala uses 3D volumetric modules and is expected to be complete by 2022 [201]. As new CLT production plants are
being established in new regions such as Asia, South America, and Africa, a wider geographical distribution of modular CLT structures
can be expected in the future [22,202–204].
Research on the use of non-typical composite materials such as hybrid timber CLT frame [205] and glass fiber reinforced polymer
[206] have demonstrated their potential use in modular construction. These studies can help provide complimentary systems for
modular CLT structures and have the ability to push the boundary for modular construction in general.
5. Discussion
This research identified common features among 72 projects consisting of 122 modular CLT buildings constructed from 2005 to
2021. Geographical, dimensional, temporal, functional, and design features were evaluated to determine the viability of rapidly
deployable residential structures in high seismic regions. In addition, ongoing demonstration projects were evaluated at an early stage
of development to identify emerging innovative technology being used in the design, fabrication, and construction of modular CLT
buildings. When applicable, it was discussed how innovative technology could be used for rapidly deployable residential structures in
seismic regions.
Most of the modular CLT projects are in Europe where CLT was developed. A few projects are in North America and Oceania, while
no projects were identified in Asia, South America, and Africa, as the modular CLT building market is not developed yet in those
regions. Greater interest in modular construction in certain regions may be, at least in part, explained by multi-family housing being a
popular choice for residence. Since the distance from the construction site to the manufacturer does not seem to be a limitation for
modular CLT buildings, the diffusion of modular CLT structures in Europe can be attributed to cultural differences in the choice of
residence and the more mature stage of development of the industry [170].
Apart from the maturity of the industry and cultural differences, the seismicity of a location is one of the factors that can affect the
choice of a material or structural system. About one-third of the reviewed projects are built in moderate to high seismic hazard zones,
demonstrating the possibility of using modular CLT structures in regions such as the Pacific Northwest. While results show that the use
of modular CLT systems is a viable option in seismic regions, other criteria must be met. Most modular CLT projects have symmetricity
in plan and regular vertical elevation, which reduces vulnerabilities to concentrated seismic damage and simplifies the design of the
building for earthquake hazards. Residential buildings (especially multi-family housing) were the most common types of modular CLT
buildings. Their construction speed indicates that modular CLT systems are a viable solution to house a large population in a short
term.
In the projects presented, a quarter of the modular CLT construction projects are temporary construction. As transportation over
long distances is possible, the production of modules at an offsite location and delivery to the site enabling construction in a very short
period can help in quick response after a natural hazard or other emergencies.
Most modular CLT buildings used CLT panels for both LFRS and gravity load-bearing systems. The next most used system was the
EWP frame (mostly glulam beams and posts) as a complementary structural system. This choice of all-wood structures might be driven
by efforts to reduce overall construction time [180,182], and therefore cost, and enhance sustainability in construction. Additionally,
tolerance considerations might have played a role in the preference for wood-only structural systems.
All the temporary structures use either panelized CLT construction or have engineered wood frames, which are both types of “dry
construction” easy to assemble and potentially disassemble. Development and use of connection systems that further expedite and
facilitate construction and disassembly can support the development of temporary CLT modules and their reusability.
The structural behavior of mass timber buildings strongly depends on the behavior of the connections. In modular construction,
intra-modular, inter-modular, and module-to-foundation connections are critical both for structural performance and constructability.
Both traditional and innovative connections have been used in documented projects. Some studies have focused on connection systems
in modular construction, but more research is needed to fully characterize CLT connections in modular structures, especially for lateral
and cyclic loading. While various types of dry reversible connections have been proposed to speed up construction and facilitate
disassembly [207–209], these are often based on proprietary systems or require a large number of additional connecting components
15
which may be difficult to obtain in post-emergency scenarios.

Transportation is a factor to consider when choosing between 2D or 3D modularity. Modular construction utilizing 2D components
provides an opportunity for more efficient transportation and has a longer average haul distance than construction with 3D modules. In
addition, it has been observed that, in the reviewed projects, the total construction duration of buildings with 2D modules is shorter
than that of buildings with 3D modules. Therefore, the choice of modularity type may depend on the proximity of the CLT manu
facturer/fabricator and logistic constraints. The use of a mobile fabrication facility in proximity to the construction site could become a
more common practice to provide high levels of prefabrication while optimizing transportation. The use of a mobile factory can in
crease logistics flexibility in case of emergencies or where mass housing is needed in a short period. Another important factor that can
play a role in the construction duration and logistics flexibility is the variation of module types. Having only one module type, as seen
in a quarter of the projects, provides less flexibility and opportunity for custom plans, but streamlines the production and construction
processes, while having more types of modules provides more spatial and functional flexibility. A balance between flexibility and
economy dictates the types of modules.
Many industrial and academic organizations have contributed to the advancement of modular CLT construction, and a few of them
have published open-access design and construction guidelines. There are also commercially available kit-of-parts that can be used to
readily construct modular structures from CLT. While modular construction cannot be an all-in-one solution for all construction types,
research and the drive toward mass customization can help expand the modular CLT market.
6. Conclusions
This paper presents an overview of modular CLT construction based on the projects completed and reported between 2005 and
2021, including an analysis of selected features related to manufacturing, engineering, architectural design, and construction. One of
the central research questions was the viability of modular CLT construction for rapidly deployable mass housing or temporary housing
in high seismic regions. The review also presented research and demonstration projects that use emerging innovations in the design,
fabrication, and construction of modular CLT buildings.
The major findings are summarized as follows.
1. The majority of the modular CLT construction between 2005 and 2021 was completed in Europe, which may be explained by the
maturity of the regional market as well as by the cultural preference for multifamily housing.
2. The median distance between the module manufacturers and the construction sites in these projects was higher for 2D modules
transported in flat packs and assembled on-site (855 km) compared to preassembled 3D modules (230 km). Though associated with
increased cost and carbon footprint, transportation is not necessarily a deterrent for modularity. 2D modules are favorable for
longer transportation.
3. About a quarter of the modular CLT buildings completed between 2005 and 2021 are temporary structures; all of them use pan
elized CLT or EWP frames as structural elements.
4. While it is typically assumed that 3D modular construction allows for faster onsite construction, this review, covering projects
completed between 2005 and 2021, showed that CLT buildings with 2D modules have in average shorter overall construction
duration.
5. The median construction duration for these modular CLT construction is considerably lower than the average duration of resi
dential construction in the US, as reported for the period analyzed in this study (between 2005 and 2021).
6. About 37% of the reviewed modular CLT construction is located in moderate or high seismic hazard zones. Reasonably assuming
that these projects meet local code criteria for seismic design, this reviewsuggests potential viability of the utilization of modular
CLT construction for rapidly deployable mass housing or temporary housing in regions with moderate to high seismicity.
7. A variety of demonstration projects, modular CLT solutions offered, and research activities focused on modular construction using
CLT suggests a growing interest in modular CLT construction.
This analysis of design and production aspects of modular CLT structures is intended to inform decisions within the AEC community
on the use of modular CLT buildings, especially for projects requiring an increased speed of construction, seismic performance, and
reusability. In particular, the relationship identified in current projects between building features and rapidity of construction, or use
in seismic areas, can support decisions in future projects.
The review also exposed current gaps in knowledge that the research community should address to foster utilization of this
technology, in temporary housing and in seismic areas, the most urgent of which are (a) connections, especially those that can provide
rapidity of construction and reusability, (b) impacts of the transportation distance on modular CLT construction costs and timeline, and
(c) use of CLT modules for rapidly deployable and reusable structures. While the reviewed projects indicate growing interest in the
field of modular CLT construction, more research and exemplary projects are needed in the field of mass customizable housing, rapidly
deployable and reusable structures, and structures suited for emergency and post-disaster response.
Limitations: This study did not investigate other aspects important for the development of modular CLT construction, such as
construction costs, integration of enclosure and MEP systems, or environmental, acoustic, thermal, and fire performance.
Authors’ contributions
MR, SB, and SJ conceived the study. SJ, MR, SB, and ZL conducted the data collection. SB performed the data analysis and
interpretation of results with the guidance of MR. SB took the lead in drafting the article with critical input from MR and SJ. SB and ZL
16
are the authors of the figures. LM and EF provided critical feedback on the analysis and manuscript. All authors have reviewed and
agreed to the final version of the article.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by USDA Forest Service (wood innovation grants program 17-DG-1162765-742 and 18-DG-11062765-
738). The sixth author was supported by AFRI ELI grant no. 2018-67032-27704, from the USDA National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
References
[1] K. Shulla, L. Koszeghy, Progress report sustainable development goal 11 Target 11, 1, https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/SDG Progress
Report_0.pdf, 2021.
[2] United Nations Environment Programme, 2020 global status report for buildings and construction, Nairobi, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.
500.11822/34572/GSR_ES.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y, 2020.
[3] B.D. Amico, F. Pomponi, J. Hart, Global potential for material substitution in building construction : the case of cross laminated timber, J. Clean. Prod. 279
(2021), 123487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487.
[4] M. Puettmann, F. Pierobon, I. Ganguly, H. Gu, C. Chen, S. Liang, S. Jones, I. Maples, M. Wishnie, Comparative LCAs of conventional and mass timber buildings
in regions with potential for mass timber penetration, Sustain. Times 13 (2021) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413987.
[5] G. Felmer, R. Morales-Vera, R. Astroza, I. González, M. Puettmann, M. Wishnie, A lifecycle assessment of a low-energy mass-timber building and mainstream
concrete alternative in Central Chile, Sustain. Times 14 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031249.
[6] M. Arashpour, R. Wakefield, B. Abbasi, E.W.M. Lee, J. Minas, Off-site construction optimization : sequencing multiple job classes with time constraints, Autom.
ConStruct. 71 (2016) 262–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.001.
[7] M. Arashpour, R. Wake, N. Blismas, J. Minas, Optimization of process integration and multi-skilled resource utilization in off-site construction, Autom.
ConStruct. 50 (2015) 72–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.12.002.
[8] B. Hwang, M. Shan, K. Looi, Key constraints and mitigation strategies for prefabricated pre fi nished volumetric construction, J. Clean. Prod. 183 (2018)
183–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.136.
[9] A.G.F. Gibb, Off-site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and Modularisation, John Wiley & Sons, 1999. https://books.google.com/books?id=uTiN_
aGtXzwC.
[10] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Conventional versus modular construction methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings, Energy Build.
204 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479.
[11] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Life cycle performance of modular buildings : a critical review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 1171–1183, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.031.
[12] National Alliance to End Homelessness, State of Homelessness: 2021 Edition, Natl. Alliance to End Homelessness, 2022. https://endhomelessness.org/
homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2021/. (Accessed 19 January 2022).
[13] A. Aurand, D. Emmanuel, I. Rafi, D. Threet, D. Yentel, Out of reach - the high cost of housing. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2021/Out-of-Reach_
2021.pdf, 2020.
[14] Climate Refugees, More Than Five Million Acres Burned, Thousands Displaced in West Coast Wildfires, Climate Refugees, 2020. https://www.climate-
refugees.org/spotlight/2020/9/16/wildfires. (Accessed 19 January 2022).
[15] Fema, National risk index Technical documentation. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_national-risk-index_technical-
documentation.pdf, 2021.
[16] Z. Li, G.Q. Shen, X. Xue, Critical review of the research on the management of prefabricated construction, Habitat Int. 43 (2014) 240–249, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.001.
[17] A.G.F. Gibb, Pre-assembly in construction (CRISP): a review of recent and current industry and research initivatives on pre-assembly in construction, London,
https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Pre-assembly_in_Construction_CRISP_/9461033, 2001.
[18] M.F. Musa, M.R. Yusof, M. Fadhil, R. Mahbub, Characteristics of modular construction: meeting the needs of sustainability and innovation, IEEE Colloq.
Humanit. Sci. Eng. Res. (2014) 217–221, 6.
[19] T.D. Miller, P. Elgard, Defining modules, modularity and modularization, in: Proc. 13th IPS Res. Semin., 1998. Fuglsoe.
[20] A. Björnfot, Modular long-span timber structures - a systematic framework for buildable construction. http://ltu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:999783/
FULLTEXT01.pdf, 2004.
[21] P. Larasatie, L. Muszynski, R. Albee, J.E. Guerrero, E. Hansen, Global CLT industry survey: the 2020 updates, World Conf. Timber Eng. WCTE 2020 (2020) 1–8.
[22] L. Muszynski, P. Larasatie, J.E. Guerrero, R. Albee, E. Hansen, Global CLT industry in 2020: growth beyond the Alpine region, in: Proc. 63rd Int. Covnention
Soc. Wood Sci. Technol., 2020, pp. 1–8. Virtual Conference.
[23] E. Earnshaw, Modular construction : Tomorrow ’ s multi-family buildings at Today ’ s price, wood work. Webinar. https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/
uploads/webinar_slides-EARNSHAW-Modular-Multi-Family-Webinar-181212.pdf, 2019.
[24] E. Hatch, Tall Wood Buildings Have a Promising Future with CLT, Weber Thompson, 2013. https://www.weberthompson.com/blog/2013/06/tall-wood-
buildings-have-a-promising-future-with-clt/. (Accessed 28 March 2021).
[25] Tempohousing, CLT modular homes. http://www.tempohousing.com/products/clt-modular-homes/, 2019. (Accessed 28 March 2019).
[26] Green Canpoy, Green Canopy, Grocapitus, and ROC Modular Partner to Build Seattle’s First Modular Townhouse Project with Mass Timber, Cision PR
Newswire, 2021. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/green-canopy-grocapitus-and-roc-modular-partner-to-build-seattles-first-modular-townhouse-
project-with-mass-timber-. 301285612.html?utm_campaign=May 2021 Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=128457713&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9H4.
(Accessed 23 September 2021).
[27] Stora Enso, Building Systems: 3-8 storey modular element buildings [Online], https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/Documents/Download-center/
Documents/Product-brochures/Wood-products/Design-Manual-A4-Modular-element-buildings20161227finalversion-40EN.pdf, 2016.
[28] Wigo Modul, Modular Houses, Wigo Modul. https://wigo-modul.com/, 2021. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
[29] Ideal Modular Homes Projects, Ideal Modular Homes, 2021. https://idmh.co.uk/projects. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
17
[30] L.F. Carvalho, L.F. Carvalho Jorge, R. Jerónimo, Plug-and-Play multistory mass timber buildings: Achievements and potentials, J. Architect. Eng. 26 (2020),
04020011, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000394.
[31] W. Huss, M. Kaufmann, K. Merz, Building in Timber: Room Modules, DETAIL, Munich, Germany, 2019.
[32] TRADA, Cross-laminated Timber: Design and Performance, Exova BM TRADA, High Wycombe, United Kingdom, 2017.
[33] W. Ferdous, Y. Bai, T.D. Ngo, A. Manalo, P. Mendis, New advancements, challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings – a state-of-the-art
review, Eng. Struct. 183 (2019) 883–893, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.061.
[34] H.T. Thai, T. Ngo, B. Uy, A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings, Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2020.09.070.
[35] A.W. Lacey, W. Chen, H. Hao, K. Bi, Structural response of modular buildings – an overview, J. Build. Eng. 16 (2018) 45–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2017.12.008.
[36] R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden, R. Bergin, Application of modular construction in high-rise buildings, J. Architect. Eng. 18 (2012) 148–154, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000057.
[37] F.E. Boafo, J.H. Kim, J.T. Kim, Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: case study-based review and future pathways, Sustain. Times 8 (2016)
1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060558.
[38] E.M. Generalova, V.P. Generalov, A.A. Kuznetsova, Modular buildings in modern construction, Procedia Eng. 153 (2016) 167–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.08.098.
[39] R.P.T. Gijzen, Modular Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings, Delft University of Technology, 2017. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%
3Af687e2cc-86e1-442e-862a-2ceb382f7157.
[40] J. Sheine, M. Donofrio, M. Gershfeld, Mass timber modular construction: developments in Oregon, in: Modul. Offsite Constr. Summit Proc., Banff, Canada,
2019, pp. 219–226.
[41] P. Sedgwick, Snowball sampling, BMJ 347 (2013) 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7511.
[42] M. Pagani, J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli, Global earthquake model
(GEM) seismic hazard map (version 2018.1 - december 2018). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1, 2018.
[43] GSHAP, Global seismic hazard map (grid data). http://static.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/index.html, 1999.
[44] Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Building height in the west quadrant, 1–9, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/564018, 2013.
[45] M. Green, J. Taggart, Tall Wood Buildings: Design, Construction and Performance, Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland, 2017. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/
lib/osu/reader.action?docID=4851850.
[46] Woodworks, Benefits and Engineering Challenges of Podium Design, 2011. https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/CS-Podium.pdf.
[47] J. Mayo, Solid Wood: Case Studies in Mass Timber Architecture, Technology and Design, First, Abingdon and New York, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315742892.
[48] M. Moudgil, Feasibility of Using Cross-Laminated Timber Core for the UBC Tall Wood Building, The University of British Columbia, 2017.
[49] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Kindertagesstätte, Ulm, Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). ähttps://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/kindertagesstätte-ulm (Accessed 11 July
2021).
[50] C. Dickof, S.F. Stiemer, M.A. Bezabeh, S. Tesfamariam, CLT–Steel hybrid system: ductility and overstrength values based on static pushover analysis,
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 28 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000614.
[51] Kaufmann, Zimmerei und Tischlerei Kaufmann Holt Millionenaufträge in Zürich und Nördlingen in Den Bregenzerwald, Wirtschafts Zeit. https://vorarlberg.
wirtschaftszeit.at/bau-immobilien-detail/article/zimmerei-und-tischlerei-kaufmann-holt-millionenauftraege-in-zuerich-und-noerdlingen-in-den-
bregenzerwal, 2018 accessed December 20, 2021.
[52] Kaufmann Zimmerei und Tischlerei, 2nd home Business-hotel, Nördlingen (D), Kaufmann Zimmerei Und Tischlerei. https://www.kaufmannzimmerei.at/
projekt/2nd-home-hotel-noerdlingen, 2021. (Accessed 20 December 2021).
[53] Bosch Capdeferro Architercture, 6x6 Block 35 Apartments in Girona, Bosch Capdeferro Archit, 2021. https://www.boschcapdeferro.com/en/work/6x6-block.
html. (Accessed 27 September 2021).
[54] M. Alvarez, Sustainability with Cross Laminated Timber - 6x6 Block by Bosch Capdeferro Architecture, Metalocus, 2021. https://www.metalocus.es/es/
noticias/sostenibilidad-con-madera-contralaminada-bloque-6x6-por-boschcapdeferro-arquitectura. (Accessed 27 September 2021).
[55] Nock Massiva Trahus, Algutstorp [in Swedish], Nock Massiva Trahus. https://www.nock.nu/project/algutstorp/, 2021. (Accessed 31 August 2021).
[56] Stora Enso, Algutstorp, stora Enso. https://references.buildingsolutions.storaenso.com/en/projects/flats/sweden/algutstorp, 2021. (Accessed 31 August
2021).
[57] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Social Center Antoniushaus, Feldkirch, Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/sozialzentrum-
antoniushaus-feldkirch-a (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[58] Johannes Kaufmann Architektur, Antoniushaus, Johannes Kaufmann Archit. (2021). https://www.jkundp.at/projekte/antoniushaus (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[59] Nordic Structures, Arbora, Nord. Struct. (2021). https://www.nordic.ca/en/projects/structures/arbora (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[60] Aubervilliers, Waugh Thistleton Architects. https://waughthistleton.com/aubervilliers/, 2021. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[61] A. Thistleton, Timber building in the city of Tomorrow, in: 7th Forum Int. Bois Constr. FBC 2017, Epinal and Nancy, France, 2017, pp. 1–10. https://www.
forum-boisconstruction.com/conferences/74_Thistleton_FBC2017.pdf.
[62] H. Kaufmann, W. Nerdinger, M. Kühfuss, M. Grdanjski, T.U.M. Architekturmuseum, der M. Pinakothek, Building with Timber : Paths into the Future, Prestel,
2011. https://books.google.com/books?id=quLSygAACAAJ.
[63] Deppisch Architekten, Biohotel in the apple garden | Hohenbercha, deppisch Archit. http://www.deppischarchitekten.de/archiv, 2021. (Accessed 11 July
2021).
[64] F. Maier, Organic Hotel in an Apple Orchard, Detail, 2012. https://www.detail.de/artikel/organic-hotel-in-an-apple-orchard-8942/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[65] H. Kaufmann, S. Krötsch, S. Winter, Manual of Multi-Storey Timber Construction, Detail Business Information GmbH, Munich, 2018. https://books.google.
com/books?id=kmEvswEACAAJ.
[66] Kaufmann Bausysteme, BMW-hotel Alpenhof, Ammerwald. https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/bmw-hotel-alpenhof-ammerwald-d, 2021. (Accessed 11 July
2021).
[67] Wood for Good, Bridport House, Wood Good. (2021). https://woodforgood.com/case-studies/bridport-house (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[68] LSI Architects, UEA Crome Court, Lsi life Touching des. https://www.lsiarchitects.co.uk/case-studies/uea-crome-court-2/, 2021. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[69] Ramboll, Crome Court, University of East Anglia, Ramboll. (2021). https://ramboll.com/projects/ruk/crome-court (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[70] T. Harley, G. White, A. Dowdall, J. Bawcombe, A. McRobie, R. Steinke, Dalston Lane - the world’s tallest CLT building, in: WCTE 2016 - World Conf, Timber
Eng., Vienna, Austria, 2016.
[71] T.A. Schuler, Dalston works, the largest CLT building in the world, Archit. Mag. (2018). https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/architectural-detail/
dalston-works-the-largest-clt-building-in-the-world_o. (Accessed 12 December 2021).
[72] T. Ravenscroft, Dalston Lane: The World’s Largest Timber Building, B1M, 2017. https://www.theb1m.com/video/dalston-lane-the-worlds-largest-timber-
building. (Accessed 12 December 2021).
[73] L. Crook, WilkinsonEyre completes modular student housing for Dyson Institute, Deezen2, https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/13/dyson-institute-wilkinson-
eyre-modular-student-housing/, 2019. (Accessed 11 July 2021). accessed.
[74] Archdaily, Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology/WilkinsonEyre, Archdaily, 2019. https://www.archdaily.com/919886/dyson-institute-of-
engineering-and-technology-wilkinsoneyre/. (Accessed 1 October 2019).
[75] Dovetail, Ecological Living module, Wood Des. Build. (2019). http://www.wooddesignandbuilding.com/ecological-living-module/. (Accessed 3 September
2021).
18
[76] Gray Organschi Architecture, Ecological Living Module, Gray Organschi Archit, New York, NY, 2021. https://grayorganschi.com/projects/selected/ecological_
living_module. (Accessed 3 September 2021).
[77] J. McKnight, Ecological Living Module Is a UN-backed, Off-Grid Tiny Home, Deezen, 2018. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/07/ecological-living-module-
off-grid-tiny-home-gray-organschi-architecture-yale-university-united-nations/. (Accessed 3 September 2021).
[78] Architects MAST, Ellerslie Crescent, Yoker, Archit MAST. https://mastarchitects.co.uk/our-projects/ellerslie-crescent-yoker/, 2021. (Accessed 2 September
2021).
[79] Stora Enso, Ellerslie Road, Stora Enso. (2021). https://references.buildingsolutions.storaenso.com/en/projects/flats/uk/ellerslie-road (Accessed 2 September
2021).
[80] Archdaily, European school in frankfurt/NKBAK, Archdaily. https://www.archdaily.com/622381/european-school-in-frankfurt-nkbak, 2015. (Accessed 10
July 2021).
[81] Nock Massiva Trahus, Fiolen 53, Nock Massiva Trahus. https://www.nock.nu/project/sandtorp/, 2021. (Accessed 18 December 2021).
[82] Lend Lease, Forté, Creating the World’s Tallest CLT Apartment Building, 2013.
[83] Lend Lease, Forté. http://makeitwood.org/documents/doc-793-fact-sheet-forte-f.pdf, 2012.
[84] Architecture & Design, Forte by lend lease, Architect. Des (2014). https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/projects/multi-residential/forte-by-lend-
lease#. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[85] Wood Solutions, Forte Living, Wood Solut. (2021). https://www.woodsolutions.com.au/inspiration-case-study/forte-living (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[86] KLH, Cross-laminated timber - a revolution in timber construction. http://bct.eco.umass.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/KLH_Company-presentation_
UMass-Amherst.pdf, 2014.
[87] J. Bitter, Deutscher Bundestag - Luisenblock west, Bundesamt Fur Bauwes. Und raumordnung. https://www.bbr.bund.de/BBR/DE/Bauprojekte/Berlin/
Politik/DBT/luisenblock-west/neubau-buerogebaeude.html, 2022. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
[88] Nock Massiva Trahus, Godisfabriken, Nock Massiva Trahus. https://www.nock.nu/project/godisfabriken/, 2021. (Accessed 18 December 2021).
[89] Ergodomus, Heimdalsporten, Ergodomus. (2021). https://www.ergodomus.it/portfolio-item/heimdalsporten-b-d/ (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[90] J. Kaufmann, Werkbericht – Brettsperrholz in der Architektur, Beaune, France, 2011 [In German], http://www.forum-boisconstruction.com/conferences/
ibc11_kaufmann2.pdf.
[91] Az W, Holzregal Wohnateliers in wien Liesing, Nextroom. https://www.nextroom.at/building.php?id=34031, 2011. (Accessed 10 December 2021).
[92] Archdaily, Hotel Bauhofstrasse/VON M, Archdaily (2020). https://www.archdaily.com/940980/hotel-bauhofstrasse-von-m. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
[93] Dovetail, Hotel Bauhofstrasse, Wood Des. Build. (2021). http://www.wooddesignandbuilding.com/hotel-bauhofstrasse/. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
[94] Derix, Film: hotel Jakarta – 9 floors in X-LAM. https://www.derix.de/en/aktuelles/news/film-hotel-jakarta-9-stockwerke-x-lam, 2021. (Accessed 11 July
2021).
[95] Archdaily, Hotel Jakarta/SeARCH, Archdaily (2018). https://www.archdaily.com/899081/hotel-jakarta-search. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[96] de Architect, ARC 18: Hotel Jakarta, Amsterdam - SeARCH, de Architect, 2021. https://www.dearchitect.nl/projecten/arc18-hotel-jakarta-amsterdam-search.
(Accessed 11 July 2021).
[97] Kaufmann Zimmerei und Tischlerei, Hotel Katharinenhof, Dornbirn, Kaufmann Zimmerei Und Tischlerei, 2021. https://www.kaufmannzimmerei.at/projekt/
hotel-katharinenhof-dornbirn. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[98] Utopia, Secure housing and preschool in Almby. http://www.utopia.se/se/projekt/eken-och-solhyllan, 2021. (Accessed 17 December 2021).
[99] Nock Massiva Trahus, Insjon. https://www.nock.nu/project/insjon/, 2021. (Accessed 17 December 2021).
[100] Archdaily, Integrated Secondary School Berlin-Mahlsdorf, Archdaily, 2019. https://www.archdaily.com/924841/integrated-secondary-school-berlin-
mahlsdorf-nkbak. (Accessed 12 November 2021).
[101] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Mahlsdorf School, Berlin (D), Kaufmann Bausysteme. https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/de/schule-sporthalle-ism-mahlsdorf-berlin,
2021. (Accessed 10 January 2021).
[102] Stora Enso, Stora Enso Rethink 2012, Finland, Helsinki, 2012. https://doczz.net/doc/4610083/stora-enso-rethink-2012.
[103] Stora Enso, Modular Construction - All Inclusive, Stora Enso, 2014. https://www.storaenso.com/en/newsroom/news/2014/2/modular-construction—all-
inclusive. (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[104] JK & P, KBS Office building, Johannes Kaufmann Und partn. https://www.jkundp.at/projekte/burogebaude-kbs, 2021. (Accessed 12 December 2021).
[105] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Bürogebäude Kaufmann Bausysteme, Reuthe (A), Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). üähttps://kaufmannbausysteme.at/de/bürogebäude-
kaufmann-bausysteme-reuthe-a (Accessed 18 December 2021).
[106] Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH, Daycare folsterhöhe – modular timber construction, sarrebruck, Allemagne, Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH. https://
transsolar.com/fr/projects/saarbrucken-folsterhohe-kita-in-holz-modulbauweise, 2021. (Accessed 11 December 2021).
[107] Archdaily, Kindergarten in saarbruecken/NKBAK. https://www.archdaily.com/960037/kindergarten-in-saarbruecken-nkbak, 2021. (Accessed 12 December
2021).
[108] Heinze Architekten, Kindertagesstätten in modulbauweise [in German]. https://www.heinze.de/architekturobjekt/kindertagesstaetten-in-modulbauweise/
12594866/, 2021. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[109] Stora Enso, Klapgat-Haacht, Stora Enso, 2021. https://references.buildingsolutions.storaenso.com/en/projects/health/belgium/klapgat—haacht. (Accessed
29 August 2021).
[110] Astor, Wat Is “Klapgat” Te Haacht? [In Dutch], Astor, 2021. https://www.astorvzw.be/haacht/wat. (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[111] CLT-S, Klapgat Assisted Living, CLT-S, 2021. https://www.clt-s.be/igor-haacht?lang=en. (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[112] Stora Enso, VZW Astor, Stora Enso, 2021. https://references.buildingsolutions.storaenso.com/en/projects/flats/belgium/vzw-astor. (Accessed 29 August
2021).
[113] CLT-S, Klein Veldekens Assisted Living, CLT-S, 2021. https://www.clt-s.be/geel-astor?lang=en. (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[114] Astor, Actueel [In Dutch], Astor, 2020. https://www.astorvzw.be/geel/actueel. (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[115] K.V. Pumpan, Nock Massiva Trahus, Nock Massiva Trahus. https://www.nock.nu/project/kv-pumpan/, 2021. (Accessed 15 November 2021).
[116] E. Stenberg, F. Rosenberg (Eds.), Structural Systems of Swedish Mass Housing, KTH School of Architecture, Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. https://issuu.com/kth-
arkitekturskolan/docs/stenberg_rosenberg_structural_systems_201217.
[117] Sizes, Kv. Barret. https://sizes.se/projekt/kv-barret/, 2021. (Accessed 30 August 2021).
[118] Archdaily, Lancaster Institute for the contemporary Arts (LICA)/sheppard robson. https://www.archdaily.com/196803/lancaster-institute-for-the-
contemporary-arts-lica-sheppard-robson/, 2012. (Accessed 27 September 2019).
[119] A+ Architecture, Legnoarchitettura [in Italian], Legnoarchitettura. https://issuu.com/edicomedizioni/docs/la34, 2019.
[120] Archdaily, Lucien Cornil student residence/A+Architecture. https://www.archdaily.com/889353/lucien-cornil-student-residence-a-plus-architecture, 2018.
[121] A+ Architecture, Résidence étudiante Lucien Cornil [in French], A+ Archit, 2021. https://www.aplus-architecture.com/projets/thematiques/projetsbois/
residence-etudiante-lucien-cornil/#. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[122] Stora Enso, Lintuviita, Stora Enso. (2017). https://references.buildingsolutions.storaenso.com/en/projects/flats/finland/lintuviita (Accessed 29 August 2021).
[123] A. Briani, P. Simeone, A. Ceccotti, Mai, Ivalsa modular house, in: World Conf. Timber Eng. 2012, WCTE 2012, Auckland, 2012, pp. 29–36. https://citeseerx.ist.
psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.719.2298&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
[124] Arketipo, Residenza universitaria mayer a Trento [in Italian]. https://www.arketipomagazine.it/residenza-universitaria-mayer-a-trento/, 2009. (Accessed 11
July 2021).
[125] Arketipo, Residenza universitaria mayer a Trento [in Italian], Arketipo, 2009. https://www.arketipomagazine.it/residenza-universitaria-mayer-a-trento/.
[126] Dietrich Untertrifaller Architects, Mobile Kindergarten, Innsbruck, Dietrich Untertrifaller Architects, 2021. https://www.dietrich.untertrifaller.com/en/
projects/mobiler-kindergarten-innsbruck-at/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
19
[127] Innsbruck, Mobiler Kindergarten als dynamisches projekt [in German]. https://www.ibkinfo.at/mobilerkiga, 2021. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[128] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Kindergarten, Innsbruck, Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/temporärer-kindergarten-innsbruck-a
[129] Kaufmann Zimmerei und Tischlerei, Mobiles Wohnen Am Vulkanplatz, Kaufmann Zimmerei und Tischlerei, 2021. Zürich [In German], Kaufmann Zimmerei
Und Tischlerei, https://www.kaufmannzimmerei.at/projekt/wohnanlage-vulkanplatz-zuerich. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[130] HDPF, Mobiles Wohnen Am Vulkanplatz, HDPF, 2021 [In German].
[131] Washington State Department of Enterprise Services, Cross-laminated timber pilot project, Washingt. State Dep. Enterp. Serv. (2021). https://des.wa.gov/
about/projects-initiatives/cross-laminated-timber-pilot-project. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[132] Waugh Thistleton Architects, Multiply, Waugh Thistlet, Archit (2021). https://waughthistleton.com/multiply/(Accessed. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[133] Nextroom, Plaston, Nextroom. (2021). https://www.nextroom.at/building.php?id=31384 (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[134] Holzbau Kunst, Plaston AG Flying Office, Holzbau Kunst, 2021. Widnau/CH [In German], Holzbau Kunst. https://www.holzbaukunst.at/holzbau/objekt/235.
html. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[135] P. Landel, Modern Timber Construction in Sweden, 2015. http://www.innobyg.dk/spireprojekt-fortaettet-byggeri-med-lette-materialer/2015/6/8/velbesoegt-
temadag!.aspx.
[136] Bollinger + Grohmann, Primary Schools Sewanstrasse/Konard-Wolf-Strasse, Bollinger + Grohmann, 2021. https://www.bollinger-grohmann.com/en.
projects.primary-schools-sewanstrasse-konrad-wolf-strasse.html. (Accessed 12 December 2021).
[137] Bausysteme Kaufmann, G.S.E. Schule, Berlin (D), Kaufmann Bausysteme. https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/de/schule-sporthalle-sewanstraße-berlin, 2021.
(Accessed 12 December 2021).
[138] Archdaily, Puukuokka Housing Block/OOPEAA, Archdaily, 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/614915/puukuokka-housing-block-oopeaa. (Accessed 11 July
2021).
[139] OOPEAA, Puukuokka Housing Block, OOPEAA, 2021. https://oopeaa.com/project/puukuokka-housing-block/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[140] D. Kleilein, Refugee Residence, Hanover, Deutsch Architecture, 2021. http://www.makingheimat.de/en/refugee-housing-projects/database/refugee-
residence-hanover. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[141] S. Lehmann, Sustainable Construction for Urban Infill Development Using Engineered Massive Wood Panel Systems, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su4102707.
[142] Schluder Architekten, Apartment Complex in Timber Construction, Schluder Architekten, 2021. Wagramer Straße 2013, https://www.architecture.at/en/
architecture/apartment-complex-in-timber-construction-wagramer-strasse/. (Accessed 15 January 2021).
[143] Archdaily, 50 Modular Timber Apartments/PPA Architectures, Archdaily, 2016. https://www.archdaily.com/787698/50-modular-timber-apartments-ppa-
architectures. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[144] Gerstl, Referenzmappe [In German], https://www.gerstl.at/typo3temp/posbuildref/referenz_30_DD.pdf, 2021.
[145] Springer Wien, New York, 2007. Reiss Wood 3 Modulare Holzbausysteme [In German], https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-211-69317-9.
[146] A.G. Sozialbau, Türöffner für Massivholz-Bauweise, A.G. Sozialbau, 2005 [In German], https://www.sozialbau.at/unternehmen/referenzprojekte/tueroeffner-
fuer-massivholz-bauweise/. (Accessed 25 August 2021).
[147] Pollmeier, Systemic Building Form - Riedberg-Kalbach Comprehensive School in Frankfurt/Main, Pollmeier, 2021. https://www.pollmeier.com/en/
references/systemic-building-form.html. (Accessed 10 July 2021).
[148] Dovetail, International hotels Embracing mass timber, Wood Des. Build. (2020). http://www.wooddesignandbuilding.com/international-hotels-embracing-
mass-timber/. (Accessed 3 September 2021).
[149] Archdaily, Sara Kulturhus center/white Arkitekter, Archdaily (2021). https://www.archdaily.com/967019/sara-kulturhus-center-white-arkitekter. (Accessed
3 September 2021).
[150] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Schule am Barnet-Licht-Platz, Leipzig (D), Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/de/schule-am-barnet-licht-
platz-leipzig-d (Accessed 20 November 2021).
[151] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Schule Konrad-Wolf-straße, Berlin (D). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/de/schule-sporthalle-konrad-wolf-straße-berlin-d, 2021.
[152] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Senior Residence, Hallein, Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/seniorenwohnhaus-hallein-a (Accessed
11 July 2021).
[153] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Social center Pillerseetal, Fieberbrunn, Kaufmann Bausysteme. (2021). https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/sozialzentrum-pillerseetal-
fieberbrunn (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[154] Sikta Kaserer Architekten, Sozialzentrum Pillerseetal [In German], Sikta Kaserer Archit, 2021. https://www.sitka-kaserer.at/portfolio/sozialzentrum-
pillerseetal/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[155] Waugh Thistleton Architects, Murray Grove, Waugh Thistleton Architects, 2021. https://waughthistleton.com/murray-grove/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[156] Green Education Foundation, Murray Grove Apartment Building, Green Educ. Found. (2021). http://www.greeneducationfoundation.org/green-building-
program-sub/case-studies/896-murray-grove-apartment-building.html. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[157] K. Gerfen, Murray Grove Wood-Framed High-Rise, Architecture Magazine, 2009. https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/detail/murray-grove-
wood-framed-high-rise_o. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[158] LiWood, Student Living Heidelberg, Munich, Germany, 2014.
[159] BauNetz, Modulbau und Wildwuchs Studentenwohnheim in Göttingen von LIMA Architekten, BauNetz, 2021. https://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/
Meldungen-Studentenwohnheim_in_Goettingen_von_LIMA_Architekten_7547808.html. (Accessed 20 December 2021).
[160] Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH, Student Housing Lutterterrasse, Göttingen, Germany. https://transsolar.com/projects/student-housing-goettingen, 2021.
(Accessed 20 December 2021).
[161] Kaufmann Bausysteme, Das Bader, Parsdorf. https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/das-bader-parsdorf-d, 2021. (Accessed 10 July 2021).
[162] Bader Hotel, Bader Design. https://www.dasbaderhotel.com/en/bader-design-en/, 2021. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[163] Zoll Architekten Stadtplaner, BETTENHAUS THW BUNDESSCHULE NEUHAUSEN, Zoll Archit. Stadtplaner, 2021 [In German], https://www.zoll-architekten.
de/projekt/bettenhaus-neuhausen.html. (Accessed 10 July 2021).
[164] fischer + friedrich, Neubau Bettenhaus des THW Neuhausen/Filder, Fischer + Friedrich, 2021 [In German], http://www.fischer-friedrich.de/projekte/
sozialbauten/neubau-bettenhaus-des-thw-in-neuhausen-filder. (Accessed 10 July 2021).
[165] R.B. Abrahamsen, K. Arne Malo, Structural design and assembly of “Treet” - a 14-storey timber residental building in Norway, in: WCTE 2014 - Word Conf,
Timber Eng., 2014.
[166] K.A. Malo, R.B. Abrahamsen, M.A. Bjertnæs, Some structural design issues of the 14-storey timber framed building “Treet” in Norway, Eur. J. Wood Wood
Prod. 74 (2016) 407–424, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-016-1022-5.
[167] Archdaily, Timber School in Kuhmo/ALT Architects, Archdaily, 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/904178/timber-school-in-kuhmo-alt-architects-plus-
architecture-office-karsikas. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[168] Vestbyen Unihouse, Assembly of 106 Residential Modules in Just 7 Days!, Unihouse, 2020. https://unihouse.pl/en/about-unihouse/news/1899-vestbyen-
assembly-of-106-residential-modules-in-just-7-days.html. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[169] Yoniq Living, Hamburg - what Else?, Yoniq Living, 2021. https://youniq-living.com/en/location/hamburg/. (Accessed 11 July 2021).
[170] L. Muszynski, E. Hansen, S. Fernando, G. Schwarzmann, J. Rainer, Insights into the global cross- laminated timber industry, Bioprod. Bus 2 (2017) 77–92.
[171] R.R. Albee, Global Overview of Cross-Laminated Timber Industry, Oregon State University, 2019.
[172] ESRI, World Administrative Divisions, ESRI. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f0ceb8af000a4ffbae75d742538c548b, 2021. (Accessed 31
December 2021).
20
[173] F. Pierobon, M. Huang, K. Simonen, I. Ganguly, Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: an LCA based
comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, J. Build. Eng. 26 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862.
[174] Y. Liu, H. Guo, C. Sun, W.S. Chang, Assessing cross laminated timber (CLT) as an alternative material for mid-rise residential buildings in cold regions in China-
A life-cycle assessment approach, Sustain. Times 8 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101047.
[175] R.N. Passarelli, M. Koshihara, CLT panels in Japan from cradle to construction site gate: global warming potential and freight costs impact of three supply
options, Int. Wood Prod. J. 8 (2017) 127–136, https://doi.org/10.1080/20426445.2017.1317471.
[176] LiWood, Production in Field Factory, Living Wood, 2022. https://www.liwood.com/en/field-factory/. (Accessed 12 February 2022).
[177] US Census Bureau, New Residential Construction, US Census Bureau, 2021. https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/lengthoftime.html. (Accessed 30
September 2022).
[178] D. Chen, G. Wang, G. Chen, Lego architecture: research on a temporary building design method for post-disaster emergency, Front. Archit. Res. 10 (2021)
758–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.08.001.
[179] R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden, “Hybrid” light steel panel and modular systems, Thin-Walled Struct. 46 (2008) 720–730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2008.01.042.
[180] M.F.L. Mallo, O. Espinoza, Cross-Laminated Timber vs. Concrete/steel: cost comparison using a case study, in: WCTE 2016 - World Conf, Timber Eng., 2016.
[181] B. Burback, S. Pei, Cross-laminated timber for single-family residential construction: comparative cost study, J. Architect. Eng. 23 (2017) 1–6, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000267.
[182] S. Ahmed, I. Arocho, Analysis of cost comparison and effects of change orders during construction: study of a mass timber and a concrete building project,
J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021), 101856, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101856.
[183] E. Becker, K. Lee, Mass timber construction for multi-family urban housing: carbon12 and the canyons, in: 2nd Val. Int. Bienn. Res. Archit., EEAE - ARCC
International Conference, Valencia, 2020. https://issuu.com/kevinleevt/docs/eaae-arcc_c12canyonscasestudy_beckerlee.
[184] J. Cover, Mass timber: the new sustainable choice for tall buildings, Int. J. High-Rise Build. 9 (2020) 87–93, https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2020.9.1.87.
[185] A. Sandoli, C. D’Ambra, C. Ceraldi, B. Calderoni, A. Prota, Sustainable cross-laminated timber structures in a seismic area: Overview and future trends, Appl.
Sci. 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052078, 2078.
[186] M. Jeleč, D. Varevac, V. Rajčić, Cross-laminated timber (CLT) – a state of the art report, Gradjevinar 70 (2018) 75–95, https://doi.org/10.14256/
JCE.2071.2017.
[187] M. Popovski, Design and Performance of CLT Structures under Lateral Loads, 2013.
[188] H. Rajanayagam, K. Poologanathan, P. Gatheeshgar, G.E. Varelis, P. Sherlock, B. Nagaratnam, P. Hackney, A-State-Of-The-Art review on modular building
connections, Structures 34 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.114, 1903–1922.
[189] C. Zhang, G. Lee, F. Lam, Connections for Stackable Heavy Timber Modules in Midrise to Tall Wood Buildings, BC, Vancouver, 2019. http://team.sites.olt.ubc.
ca/files/2019/04/TEAM-Report-2018-08-Connections-for-Stackable-Heavy-Timber-Modules.pdf.
[190] A. Polastri, I. Giongo, A. Angeli, R. Brandner, Mechanical characterization of a pre-fabricated connection system for cross laminated timber structures in
seismic regions, Eng. Struct. 167 (2018) 705–715, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.022.
[191] A. Comitti, Mixed X-LAM-Steel Structures with X-RAD Construction System: Case Study, Linkedin, 2021. https://it.linkedin.com/pulse/strutture-miste-x-lam-
acciaio-con-sistema-costruttivo-comitti. (Accessed 2 January 2022).
[192] C. Eckholm, Sidewalk Talk: pmx series, Medium (2020). https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/tagged/pmx-series. (Accessed 16 November 2021).
[193] Enterprise, Forterra NW, Hous. Affordabil. Breakthr. Chall. (2021). https://housingbreakthrough.org/grantees/forterra-nw (Accessed 16 November 2021).
[194] Nock Massiva Trahus, Var process, in: https://www.nock.nu/var-process/, 2021. (Accessed 16 December 2021).
[195] Kaufmann Bausysteme, The System Room Modules, Kaufmann Bausysteme, 2021. https://kaufmannbausysteme.at/en/system-1. (Accessed 12 December
2021).
[196] Fabprefab, Minima. http://fabprefab.com.au/, 2021. (Accessed 27 August 2021).
[197] L. Myers, Minima Is a Compact 20 Sqm Living Space Made from Prefabricated CLT, Designboom, 2021. https://www.designboom.com/architecture/minima-
compact-20-sqm-living-space-prefabricated-clt-05-14-2021/. (Accessed 27 August 2021).
[198] TOA Architects, MMH - Maori Modular Housing, TOA Architects, 2019. https://toa.net.nz/work/mmh/. (Accessed 20 February 2022).
[199] R. Tipene-Allen, 1000 Maori-Inspired Modular Homes by End of 2020, Teao Maorinews, 2018. https://www.teaomaori.news/1000-maori-inspired-modular-
homes-end-2020. (Accessed 20 March 2022).
[200] Nock Massiva Trahus, Kantorn. https://www.nock.nu/project/kantorn/, 2021. (Accessed 18 December 2021).
[201] Nock Massiva Trahus, TRÄPALATSET KONSTNÄREN. https://www.nock.nu/project/konstnaren-trapalatset/. (Accessed 18 December 2021).
[202] H. Li, B.J. Wang, P. Wei, L. Wang, Cross-laminated timber (CLT) in China: a state-of-the-art, J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 4 (2019) 22–31, https://doi.org/10.21967/
jbb.v4i1.190.
[203] Amata, Urbem. https://amatabrasil.com.br/en/mass-timber/, 2021. (Accessed 16 November 2021).
[204] Ledinek, CLT production line in Japan NextGen. https://www.ledinek.com/clt-production-line-japan, 2021. (Accessed 16 November 2021).
[205] D. Casagrande, E. Sinito, M. Izzi, G. Pasetto, A. Polastri, Structural performance of a hybrid timber wall system for emergency housing facilities, J. Build. Eng.
33 (2020), 101566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101566.
[206] A. Sharda, A. Manalo, W. Ferdous, Y. Bai, L. Nicol, A. Mohammed, B. Benmokrane, Axial compression behaviour of all-composite modular wall system,
Compos. Struct. 268 (2021), 113986, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113986.
[207] A. Polastri, I. Giongo, M. Piazza, An innovative connection system for cross-laminated timber structures, Struct. Eng. Int. 27 (2017) 502–511, https://doi.org/
10.2749/222137917X14881937844649.
[208] C. Loss, M. Piazza, R. Zandonini, Connections for steel–timber hybrid prefabricated buildings. Part II: innovative modular structures, Construct. Build. Mater.
122 (2016) 796–808, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.001.
[209] E. Lukaszewska, H. Johnsson, M. Fragiacomo, Performance of connections for prefabricated timber-concrete composite floors, Mater. Struct. Constr. 41 (2008)
1533–1550, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9346-6.
21

00 - Bhandari Et. Al. (2023) Artigo Inmternacional

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

00 - Bhandari Et. Al. (2023) Artigo Inmternacional

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 63 (2023) 105485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

A review of modular cross laminated timber construction:

S.N. Project name Selected References

1 2nd Home Business-Hotel, Nördlingen [51,52]

S.N. Project name Selected References

69 Vestbyen, Oslo [168]

3.1. Data analysis and classification

3.1.1. Geographical data

3.1.2. Dimensional data

3.1.3. Temporal data

3.1.4. Functional data

3.1.5. Production and logistics data

3.1.6. Design features

Fig. 2. Module composition Configurations.

4. Results and discussion

4.2. Proximity to manufacturers

Fig. 3. Closed, open, and hybrid modules.

Journal of Building Engineering 63 (2023) 105485

Journal of Building Engineering 63 (2023) 105485

4.3. Construction duration

4.4. Design features

Fig. 7. Construction speed vs gross area of modular CLT structures.

Fig. 8. Distribution of modular CLT construction by height and year of completion.

4.4.3. Structural systems and connection types

Fig. 9. Average area of floor vs number of CLT stories.

4.5. Research and development (R&D) efforts and innovations

Fig. 14. Symmetry in plan and vertical shift of the buildings.

which may be difficult to obtain in post-emergency scenarios.

Declaration of competing interest

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like