2022_Bazli_Long-span timber flooring systems

Journal of Building Engineering 48 (2022) 103981
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Long-span timber flooring systems: A systematic review from

structural performance and design considerations to
constructability and sustainability aspects
Milad Bazli a, b, c, *, Michael Heitzmann b, c, **, Hamed Ashrafi d
a
College of Engineering, IT & Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
b
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Australia
c
Centre for Advanced Materials Processing and Manufacturing (AMPAM), The University of Queensland, Australia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The recent energy and environmental crises and corresponding regulations have increased in
Timber structures terest in replacing conventional materials with sustainable materials in construction. Due to the
Low-carbon outstanding properties of wood, such as recyclability, reusability and natural renewability, it is
Long-span considered a sustainable material. In addition, wood has a high strength-to-weight ratio and
Flooring systems outstanding acoustic and thermal insulation properties, which make it an appropriate construc
Sustainability
tion material in numerous applications, including in main structural members such as beams,
columns and flooring systems as well as in non-structural members, such as windows, doorframes
and insulating envelopes. Recent advancements in the production of engineering wood and
efficient adhesives have made the fabrication of structural members with large cross sections,
long spans and structural properties comparable to steel and reinforced concrete, feasible and
cost-effective. As a result, interest in long-span timber buildings has increased greatly. In this
paper, a comprehensive review of research studies investigating various aspects of long-span
timber structures, including material properties, structural performance and sustainability, are
presented. In particular, over 100 research papers were systematically reviewed to study the
constructability of long-span flooring systems. The techniques and methodologies available for
the fabrication, analysis and experimental investigations of structural flooring systems are also
reviewed in detail. Overall, this comprehensive review helps to achieve a greater understanding
of structural static and dynamic responses of long-span timber flooring systems, and undertaking
the challenges and opportunities presented in this paper could significantly contribute to the
improvement of the structural design to reach optimised, sustainable, and constructible systems.
1. Introduction
Construction, as one of the major contributors to environmental issues, harms the planet by producing approximately 30% of the
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) while accounting for 40% of the energy use and 25% of the water consumption [1]. Therefore,
several strategies have been adopted to reduce the environmental effects of construction. However, less focus has been given to the
* Corresponding author. College of Engineering, IT & Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
** Corresponding author. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Australia.
E-mail addresses: milad.mazli@cdu.edu.au (M. Bazli), m.heitzmann@uq.edu.au (M. Heitzmann).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103981
Received 27 September 2021; Received in revised form 2 December 2021; Accepted 29 December 2021
Available online 4 January 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Bazli et al. Journal of Building Engineering 48 (2022) 103981
effects of materials selection and manufacturing, although it is increasing [2,3]. The biggest concern associated with construction
materials is related to conventional materials, particularly steel and concrete [4,5]. Intensive use of raw materials, water and energy as
well as GHGE are the main reasons for such concern [6,7]. Several outstanding physical characteristics of wood, such as its relatively
high strength-to-weight ratio, appropriate seismic performance, low environmental impact and its ease of handling and use for pre
fabricated structures, have made it as an appropriate choice of construction material in several applications. using wood as a
CO2-neutral and renewable construction material is a desirable solution to address the aforementioned concern [8]. However, it is
worth noting that not all wood is sustainable, and thus methods, such as using engineered wood products (EWP) could be considered to
use plantation woods etc.
As a construction material, short term and long-term properties of wood have been extensively studied and briefly mentioned in the
following lines. Even though there are about 6000 different wood variety, factors, such as affordability, moisture content, and weight-
to-strength ratio are considered when selecting the appropriate type of wood for a specific project [9].
It is worth noting that in literature and in this paper the terms wood and timber may be used interchangeably. However, to
differentiate timber from wood products, "wood" can be defined to include trees branches, stems, and roots characterized by water-
conducting, lignified, strengthening and storage tissues, while "timber" is defined as wood in a form suitable for construction, sawn
wood or that exceeds a specified cross-section configuration [10].
Thermal conductivity, fire performance and long-term durability are among important material characteristics which have been
studied by researchers. Regarding the thermal conductivity Mallo and Espinoza [11] showed a superior thermal properties of EWP
than that of steel, concrete, and even mineral wool insulation.
Although timber’s heat insulation ability seems to be promising, its combustibility is a critical drawback [12,13]. When pyrolysis
begins, timber will act as a fuel to the existing fire [14]. Although timber vulnerability to fire is considered as the main reason against
its widely use in modern high-rise and long-span structures [15], recent progress in producing innovative material together with better
understanding of timber performance under fire are enabling taller and longer-span timber buildings to be constructed [16]. Another
important long-term property shat should be considered is the durability. Variation of wood mechanical properties over the time is an
important factor for wood technologists, structural engineers, and conservators [17]. Durability of timber elements is mainly related to
the interaction between the wood elements and moisture or biological agents [18]. Swelling and bounded withdrawal of timber may
result cracking, warping and changing the cross-section shape of circular elements to an oval shape. Moisture also facilitates fungi
spread [19]. Timber is generally known as a high resistance material to the chemical actions compared to other conventional con
struction materials. However, variable results were reported by different researchers on the mechanical properties of timber under
different aggressive environments. Therefore, one can conclude that the timber type and characteristics and conditioning environ
ments are the main factors in durability of the wooden members. Lastly, shrinkage and swelling rates of different wood types under
different environmental conditions have been studied, both experimentally and numerically by researchers [20–33].
During the last century, a massive development has been done on the engineered wood products to achieve sustainability cre
dentials, aesthetics, low air permeability and thermal energy as well as the ability for prefabricating and high-speed on-site con
struction. This has made EWP ideal candidate for constructing long-span multi-story buildings [34,35].
It is ideal if long-span structures are primarily under tension and/or compression loads. In other words, regardless of the material
type, bending moments must be minimised to optimise the structural capacity [36]. To achieve a desirable long-span structure, two
main structural considerations must be considered: (i) preventing both out-of-plan and in-plan buckling of timber elements and (ii)
implementing suitable joints capable of resisting large induced tension and compression forces.
The materials efficiency used as structural members depends highly on the type of load (e.g. tension, compression, and shear) they
are resisting. If premature buckling is avoided, the structural efficiency can be calculated simply based on the strength to density ratio
(ρf ): the higher the (ρf ) ratio, the higher is the material efficiency. In case of slender members, the critical load is proportionally related to
the bending stiffness (EI). It is shown that in the case of slender compressive members, materials having higher E0.5 / ρ ratio are more
efficient in terms of structural performance. Finally, in the case of bending, considering a cantilever beam resisting a point load at its
free end, one can calculate the maximum structural efficiency that is achieved for a material having the highest f 2/3 / ρ ratio. Table 1
compares the efficiency indexes (the higher the index value, the higher the structural efficiency of the material) of typical construction
materials with respect to the loading condition. It should be noted that the cross-sections in Table 1 are not optimised for strength and
stiffness, and thus the values are merely an approximation [36]. In terms of sustainability, it is also found that timber structures cause
significantly lower contribution to climate change (CC) impact than that of conventional reinforced concrete structures. Table 2
compares the carbon emission factors of materials used in reinforced concrete (RC) and timber structures reported by Skullestad et al.
[37]. Considering the results presented in Table 2, one can simply conclude that the CC in timber structures is significantly lower than
Table 1
Construction materials efficiency comparison [36].
Material Tensile/compressive Density, ρ Young elastic Tension/compression Bending Deflection and buckling
strength, f (MPa) (kg/m3) modulus (GPa) efficiency ratio (1) efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
Softwood 20–30 350–450 11–13 44–85 16–28 7–10

Carbon 235–355 7800 210 30–45 5–7 2
steel
Concrete 30–50 2500 30 1–2 (2) – 2
Note: (1) In case of compression, it is assumed that members are restrained against buckling; (2) Only for members in compression.
2
Table 2
Material emission factors for reinforced concrete and timber structures used in [37].
Structure type Contribution to climate change impact Material Contribution to climate change impact (kg CO2-eq/m3)
Reinforced Concrete structure Concrete (C25/35 for 12 storey structure) 264

Concrete (C35/45 for 21 storey structure) 304
Steel rebar 1.36
Timber Structure Glulam − 361
CLT 2 − 363
Note: 1: Refer to Ref. [37] for more details regarding the approaches used to calculate the emission factors of the materials. 2: Cross-laminated timber
that of RC structures. Also, it can be concluded that wood as an environmentally friendly and inexpensive material, particularly in
long-span structures, could be considered as a great candidate.
Currently, timber is widely used as a structural material, but its application is limited mostly to residential houses and low-rise
commercial buildings. To extend the usage of timber to larger-scale structures, it is necessary for timber structural members to
satisfy all structural responses and safety requirements and regulations [12,38].
In this review, a brief presentation in terms of material properties of timber flooring systems is provided. Then, structural systems
and their performance under different loading conditions are presented. Further, the constructability, production and installation
challenges of different systems are discussed. Finally, some recommendations are provided for future works. It is expected that in this
overview, a far-reaching understanding of long-span timber flooring systems will be given.
2. Timber floor structures

Timber floor systems were commonplace before advent of stronger materials e.g. steel and concrete. At the beginning, application
of timber in the structure was limited to domestic purposes. However, arrival of engineered wood products with decent mechanical
properties, such as laminated-veneer-lumber (LVL), nail-laminated-timber (NLT) and cross-laminated timber (CLT), enabled achieving
Fig. 1. Engineered timber productions: (a) CLT; (b) LVL; and (c) NLT.
3
large sections and long span members [39,40] (Fig. 1). EWP’s are usually stronger than solid timbers and can be fabricated to satisfy
particular performance requirements. Brock Commons building in the University of British Columbia in Canada with 18 levels above
ground [41] and Dalston Lane, is in the UK [14,42] are among the most famous mass timber and CLT buildings.
To date, there are several standards/codes developed to manufacture and design structural timber elements and systems. For
example, in Australia and New Zealand, the LVLs are fabricated by using pine species and should comply with the standard AS/NZS
4357.1 [43] in terms of mechanical properties. The LVLs manufactured based on AS/NZS 4357.1, are durable and capable of providing
permanent performance in exposed condition in addition to long-term stress condition.
2.1. Structural systems

A regular timber flooring system comprises three parts; the structural part (core) which controls the strength and serviceability, the
floor finish which is on top of the core and may consist of several layers, and lastly ceiling which is the lowest part of the system (see
Fig. 2) [44].
There are several research studies focused on the structural performance, both ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit
state (SLS), of different laminated floor systems under various loading conditions [45–48]. For instance, the effect of several pa
rameters, including the span to depth ratio, wood type, thickness and lamina configuration on the flexural properties of CLT floor
element was investigated by Pang and Jeong [46].
Mass timber (MT) panels of CLT, LVL, and laminated strand lumber (LSL) show great prefabrication potential and planning
flexibility [49]. In practice, in a platform-type building, load-bearing wall panels support MT floor panels to form a platform for the
next storey. In most cases, floors are continuous over the supporting walls; however, in case of floors with discontinuity, butt, spline, or
lap joists are used to connect segments of two floors [50].
Several different types of flooring system configurations have been proposed and used since the 1960s [51]. This makes it difficult
to generalise the possible combinations that will be used in a structure. Currently, flooring systems have been classified in different
ways in literature, however, all are based on a same basic concept. Kolb [44] has classified the flooring systems into five different types:
linear systems, timber composite systems, solid timber systems, solid timber floors, and timber-concrete composite floors. Gerber and
Sigrist [52] have suggested a different approach for classification of floor systems. In their method floor systems are broken down into
massif, light floors, and heavy floors. In addition, Jorissen [53] divided the timber floor into two types: plate floors and beam floors.
Generally, based on the structural mechanisms, the following systems could be considered for different timber floors:
2.1.1. Joist floor systems

Joist floor systems comprise joists (linear components) are screwed/nailed to a wood-based panel. This kind of floor system is vastly
implemented in the one or two storey buildings [54]. The advantages and disadvantages of this floor system is briefly mentioned in
Table 3. Using timber joist system in medium and large spans (e.g. above 5 m) will result significant deflection and vibration due to low
modulus of elasticity of timber. This results the SLS (i.e. vibration or deflection) to be the critical case in the design solution rather ULS
[55]. To achieve longer floor spans, Glulam joist can be used with different standard grades [56]. Also, LVLs are being used more and
more as a substitute timbr type in joist systems.
Using I-beam as a joist has been massively investigated since 1940s [57]. I joist provides the best use of material as flanges provide
moment capacity, while web provides shear strength. I shaped joist can be used in the span to depth ratio up to 15:1 for floor and 25:1
for roof applications [58]. In addition to I joist, thin webbed box beams can be used as a joist in varies applications. Longer spans can be
achieved by using a deeper section of thin webbed box beams [59]. Generally, in comparison to conventional solid joists, due to their
lighter weights, engineered floors could be used to achieve flooring systems with larger spans. Being lighter makes the engineered
floors to be handled easier (i.e. manually moved by few labours) and consequently more constructible and time and cost efficient [60].
2.1.2. Stressed skin panels

Stressed skin panels (SSP) were developed in the 1930s to overcome the deficiency of joist floor systems. Generally, the structure of
Fig. 2. A regular timber flooring system [44].
4
Table 3
Comparison between typical timber flooring systems [40].
Joist floor systems Stresses skin panel Plate floor systems

Advantageous Disadvantages Advantageous Disadvantages Advantageous Disadvantages
Light weight Limited load Structurally efficient Prone to excessive Fast to erect High timber
carrying capacity deflection and vibrations consumption (less
(long-span floors) cost-effective)
Low-cost Limited in size Structurally sound Poor acoustic Good SLS and acoustic Moderate load-
and quality performance performance in case of using a carrying capacity
slab with sufficient thickness
Easy to construct Poor SLS Higher stiffness and load High shrinkage and
performance carrying capacity than swelling
joist floor
Easy to adapt to Poor acoustic Various degrees of
different performance prefabrication
applications
SSP is similar to timber joist floor, however the sheathing on the top or bottom is strongly glued to the joist to form a composite cross
section that can behave like a T or I section. Hence, compared to conventional floor system, SSP provide better structural properties e.g.
strength, stiffness, and bending capacities [61,62]. However, SSP are still susceptible to excessive vibration for long span floors as well
inefficiency to acoustic separation [63].
2.1.3. Plate floor system

Plate floor system is made of cross-banded laminated lumber and glued laminated timber section to form a solid timber slab. This
system is commonly being used in the industrial buildings as it is suitable for relatively long spans and high floor loads. The solid
timber can be used with an appropriate thickness to overcome the excessive deflection and vibration. However, this system requires a
significant quantity of wood and the capacity is moderate. In addition, there are shrinkage and swelling problems in these systems that
need to be addressed [40,44,63].
2.1.4. Timber concrete composite system

One of decent properties of timber is its massive strength to weight ratio, however the light weight of timber makes it liable to
excessive vibration and substandard acoustic performance. One smart solution is to use a layer of concrete on the top of floor system to
form a timber-concrete composite slab (TCC). In this system, tensile force due to bending is carried by timber while the compression
load is resisted by concrete topping. In the last 50 year, TCC system has gained a significant amount of interests and applications across
the world [63–65]. TCC can provide a great acoustic performance and stiffness, however the design of this system is complicated in
comparison to other systems. The shear connectors play a vital role and have a considerable effect on the performance of this system.
Finally, the time dependant properties of materials should be considered in the design of this systems. Many studies have been done on
the design of TCC systems, effects of shear connectors, and short- term and long-term properties of materials [66–73].
It is worth mentioning that this paper intends to review only timber floor systems and composite systems, such as, TCC requires a
separate review.
Table 3 compares the advantages and disadvantages of typical timber flooring systems. Generally, joist floor systems are typically
of easy construction, low cost and light weight. However, their vibration and deflection performance are poor. Medium or large spans
show excessive vibration and deflection, moreover a floor constructed using only wood floor panels hardly achieves a good level of
acoustic performance [63]. Innovative floor systems such as stressed skin panels are developed in order to address the limitations and
lacks of the joist floor system. Stressed skin panels are of easy construction, light weight and fast to erect. However, they are not able to
provide an effective acoustic separation and they have a poor performance in terms of vibrations [40].
2.2. Long span timber floors

Large-span flooring systems are typically used in commercial and office buildings [74]. Because SLS mainly governs the design of
spans larger than 6 m, designing for traditional long-span beams results in an insufficient use of material strength capacity, thus
creating a structurally inefficient floor system [75]. Further, lower stiffness of timber, compared to concrete, makes long-span timber
flooring uncompetitive to corresponding concrete flooring systems under relatively high applied loads (e.g., larger than 5 kN/m2) [76].
As presented in Table 4, Kolb [44] suggested the possible dimensions of different floor systems, mentioned in previous sections, for
superimposed action of 3 kPa, permanent load of 1.8 kPa and the self-weight.
5
Since the1960s, several research studies have been conducted on optimisation of material usage. Some methods used by researchers
include using prestressing and post-tensioning members to increase the stiffness and strength of flooring members [75,77–84].
Figs. 3–5 show some of the systems used in previous experimental and analytical research.
In order to develop a long span timber floor system for Australian and New Zealand non-residential applications that is both strong
and has serviceable design criteria, the system proposed in Fig. 3 was developed. Its short-term behaviour and structural performance
were addressed. As a result of the prediction response, it was shown that the maximum deflection (stiffness) of the proposed system (8
m and 6 m modules) governed the design of the section. A safe serviceability design was confirmed by the first fundamental frequency
of the system, predicted to be around 13 Hz. The safety of the design of the proposed LVL modules was ensured by all the prediction
responses, including the serviceability, ultimate performance and dynamic behaviour.
Fig. 4 shows the experimental results of testing the system. Despite the post-tensioned specimens having a 20% reduction in section
height, their load-carrying capacity increased by 12%, 34% and 54% for a given deflection corresponding to the allowable
displacement under serviceability load. Differences in the increase of load-carrying capacity were related to the tendon profile.
Specifically, straight profiles provided a smaller increase than draped profiles.
The system proposed in Fig. 5 has the great advantage of varying the intensity of the tensioning force with the magnitude of the
applied loads. The distribution of the bending moments is much more favourable due to the application of the system of wooden pieces
with π type cross section. In doing so, the system results highly efficient in terms of resistance, particularly deformations. As a result,
the system is particularly suitable for long-span structural floors. The geometric proportions of the components of the self-tensioning
system proposed in Fig. 5 and the axial stiffness of the involved tendon determine the efficiency of the self-tensioning system.
Structural long-span elements with relative deflections below 1/1000 of the span and heights of 0.03 of the span [81–85] across their
life service can be designed by combining a self-tensioning tendon eccentric to the cross-section with conventional pretensioning.
Prefabrication is another efficient method, in which suitable and novel materials are adopted [85,86]. In a prefabrication platform,
the materials combination can be optimised to form a large system’s components. Among other proposed methods for long-span
flooring systems, timber sandwich panels are also considered an attractive solution [76]. Consequently, some prefabricated
long-span timber flooring systems were developed. Table 5 summarises some of the methods used by researchers to satisfy the
standards criteria of long-span flooring systems.
In addition, some of the available commercial long-span timber flooring systems currently being used in industry are presented in
Table 6.
Floor systems with box or I shape (composite box beams, stressed skin panels, composite I beams) have a very high structural
efficiency and this is due to the webs being commonly designed to predominantly carry the shear force and the flanges to provide the
moment capacity of the beam. Floor systems with box or I shape are able to carry a high load for a minimum self-weight, have a high
stiffness, and can be prefabricated in various degrees, resulting in less on-site work. Generally, box beams have a higher carrying
capacity than I beams and they provide higher stiffness. Moreover, box beams are a ready-to-use platform for the later stages of the
building construction, considering that in case there is a void between the flanges, it is beneficial to provide insulations and other
services [40].
Considering the above-mentioned factors and the systems proposed, several experimental tests as well as finite element analyses are
required to optimise the systems by changing parameters, such as the spacing between webs, the width of the flanges, and the material
properties.
2.2.1. Performance requirement

Structural long-span floors must meet the performance requirements as follows [93]: (1) ultimate limit state or strength capacity:
undergoing the gravity and lateral loads, (2) serviceability limit state: controlling the deflection and vibration, (3) fire resistance and
thermal insulation and (4) acoustic separation.
2.2.1.1. Strength capacity. Structural safety of a member (e.g., an element of a floor system) is determined by ULS and SLS. In terms of
ULS, the load-bearing capacity of the designed element must be greater than the maximum action (i.e., the maximum expected load
during the service-life of the structure), whereas in SLS, the designed member’s deflection/vibration under service load must be less
than the regulation/standard limit [94–98].
Table 4
Proposed dimensions of different floor systems for superimposed action of 3 kPa, permanent load of 1.8 kPa and the self-weight by Kolb [44].
Timber joist grade C24/GL24 Stringers of grade C24/G24 Edge fixed floor elements made Timber-Concrete composite
Sheathings made of plywood from dowelled, nailed or glued systems
sections
Span = 7.5 m, a = 500 mm, b = 160 Span = 7.5 m, a = 500 mm, b = 80 mm, Span = 6 m, Span = 7.5 m, h1 = 160 mm, h2
mm, h = 400 mm h1 = 360 mm, h2 = h3 = 27 mm H = 240 mm, = 140 mm
Elements are 1000 mm wide
6
Fig. 3. LVL modular system used in [40].
Fig. 4. LVL box reference beam and post-tensioned beam systems used in [75,82,83].
Flexural properties (i.e., bending strength and stiffness) and shear strength of panels are considered the main design parameters of
timber flooring systems [99]. Several studies have investigated such properties of different timber flooring systems when subjected to
various loading scenarios. For instance, Hindman and Bouldin [100] studied the flexural and shear properties of Southern pine CLT
panels and established the corresponding design values.
In another study, Sikora et al. [47] studied the effect of panel thickness on flexural properties of CLT. Christovasilis et al. [101]
conducted an experimental study to investigate the flexural performance of spruce CLT panels. By implementing elementary beam
theories, four-point bending test results were used to predict the flexural strength and stiffness properties of CLT panels in both parallel
and perpendicular plane. Chen and Lam [102] performed a series of experimental tests to study the flexural performance of SPF lumber
CLT panels and an innovative CLT flooring systems.
Currently, however, a limited number of research has been conducted into the ultimate capacity of long-span timber flooring
systems. This is because in most cases, serviceability criteria govern the design of long-span timber members. Table 7 summarises some
of the research studies carried out on long-span timber flooring systems to investigate their strength capacity under different static
loadings. As is seen, innovative methods such as, prestressing and post-tensioning timber floors, (except in the case of pre-mature shear
failure) could increase the load carrying capacity of the floors considerably (e.g. 20% in case of using draped tendons).
2.2.1.2. Serviceability
2.2.1.2.1. Static deflection. To satisfy the SLS, both short and long-term deflections under serviceability load combinations should
be checked against the regulation limits. Limits depend directly to the designed building functional requirements. When using timber
as structural member, in particular a member under bending, its long-term behaviour must be considered as a critical factor. The long-
term mechanical properties of timber members are mainly affected by the wood hygroscopicity, temperature, and the applied load
duration. Typically, the performance of a timber member under short-term loads are better than that of long-duration loads. The
7
Fig. 5. Glulam + CLT long-span systems used in [87–91].
Table 5
Some of the long-span timber flooring systems proposed by researchers.
Study Timber type Flooring system Cross-section of the beam Span length (m)
[75,82,83] LVL Post-Tensioned Box 9

[87–91] Glulam + CLT Pre and/or self-tensioning π-section Between 9 and 18
[74] LVL Modular system I-section SSP (1) 6 and 8
[92] LVL Modular system Ribbed deck cassette Minimum 9
[92] CLT Modular system Stacked panels Up to 9
[76] CLT Sandwich panels (one-way and two-way slabs) Complex shapes Various
Note: (1) stresses skin panel.
Table 6
Some available commercial long-span timber flooring systems [40].
Product name Flooring system Joist/panel/section Flange width Load Span length for the
depth (mm) (mm) presented load (m)
Super imposed Permanent
(KPa)
Finnjoist (FJI) I joist 400 89 1.5 0.8 (kN/m) 7

®
HyJoist ® I joist 400 90 1.5 Joist self-weight 7.2
Lumberworx ® I joist 360 88 1.5 40 (kg/m2) 6.6
TECSLAB I joist 354 71 2 1 (KPa) 7.3
PRYDA Truss 420 90 3 0.8 (KPa) 6.6
Posi-STRUT Truss 413 140 3 Joist self-weight 6.2
Kerto-Ripa ® T-section/Box SSP 300 26 3 1 (KPa) + self- 7.9
weight
Lignatur Box/surface beam/shell 320 – 3 1 (KPa) + self- 8.2
beam elements weight
KLH CLT panels 230 – 3 1 (KPa) + self- 8
weight
8
Table 7
Some research studied the ULS of the long-span timber flooring systems.
Study Flooring system Study type Span- Test type Structural Failure mode Failure
length (m) properties load (kN)
[75] LVL box beam Experimental – numerical 9 4-point Flexural stiffness Bending (brittle) 695
LVL box beam post- – analytical models bending and strength Shear failure in web 536
tensioned with straight (brittle)
tendons
LVL box beam post- Top flange in 726
tensioned with draped compression (ductile)
tendons (1)
LVL box beam post- Bottom flange in tension 837
tensioned with draped (brittle)
tendons (2)
[74] LVL Modular system Experimental 8 4-point Flexural stiffness Combination of bending 65
bending and strength and shear (brittle)
[103] I-joist Experimental 6.1 4-point Flexural stiffness Bending at mid-span or 0.68
bending and strength Shear at end
Note: (1) designed in a way that the beam fails in compression; (2) designed in a way that the beam fails in tension.
reason for such phenomenon is attributed to the wood viscoelastic behaviour and the ambient humidity. With this regard, to take into
account the effect of these factors, the European Standard (EN1995-Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures) [104], recommends
design strength reduction factors of Kmod and Kdef. The long-lasting effects of humidity and loads are considered by applying Kmod,
while Kdef is applied to consider the effect of long-term deflection under a quasi-permanent load combination for SLS check.
When a wooden member is subjected to long-lasting loads, it will likely undergo a creep deflection. Total creep deflection of a
structural timber member includes three time-depending components: (i) viscoelastic creep, (ii) sorptive creep, and (iii) pseudo creep.
Table 8
Literature studies focused on the SLS of the long-span timber flooring systems.
Study Study type Timber type Flooring system Span Supports type Test type
length (m)
[83] Experimental- LVL Post-Tensioned 9 Simply supported Static deflection under sustained
analytical models box section distributed load for 5 years with
temperatures between 1.4 and 23 and
humidity between 50 and 100%
[82] Experimental LVL Post-Tensioned 9 Simply supported and Static deflection under sustained
box section indeterminate with distributed load (short-and long-term
three supports load combinations)
[87] Analytical Glulam + CLT Pre + self- 12 Simply supported Static deflection under sustained
tensioning π distributed load (short-and long-term
shape-section load combinations)
[89] Analytical Glulam + CLT Pre + self- 15 Simply supported Static deflection under asymmetrical
tensioning π distributed gravity loads (short-and long-
shape-section term load combinations)
[90] Experimental- Glulam + CLT Self-tensioning π 9 Simply supported Eigenfrequency and damping ratio
numerical- shape-section (various load sequences)
analytical models
[91] Comparative study Glulam + CLT Pre + self- 9–18 Simply supported Static deflection under sustained
tensioning π distributed load (short-and long-term
shape-section load combinations)
[74] Experimental LVL Modular I-section 6 and 8 Simply supported Static deflection under 4-point bending
SSP
[92] Experimental LVL Modular Ribbed Minimum 9 Simply supported Static deflection under 4-point bending
deck cassette
[128] Experimental- LVL Modular I-section 6 and 8 Simply supported Natural frequencies, damping ratios and
numerical- SSP mode shapes
analytical models
[129] Experimental southern pine joists 6 Simply supported Natural frequency, damping ratio, and
stiffness
[127] Experimental I-joists + Prefabricated 5 Simply and semi-rigid Natural frequencies, damping ratio, and
Oriented strand cassettes supports static deflection
board/
chipboard
[38] Experimental Glulam + CLT Prefabricated I- 5.5 Simply supported Natural frequencies, damping ratios and
section SSP mode shapes
[130] Experimental- LVL flange + I joists 5.1 Simply supported and Natural frequencies, damping ratio,
numerical Oriented strand screw-fixing mode shapes, and static deflection
board web
9
Viscoelastic creep is a property of viscoelastic materials in which, under a constant stress, the strain of the material changes over time.
Sorptive creep is attributed to the fluctuations of the moisture, while pseudocreep is due to the timber shrinkage and swelling.
Therefore, timber shrinkage/swelling as well as hygroexpansion deformations should be considered under fluctuations of the relative
humidity. It is important to note that fluctuations of the relative humidity accelerate the creep behaviour of the timber member under
the applied load.
To take into account the overtime creep deflections, factors have been proposed by different design codes/standards [105].
As mentioned earlier, when dealing with long-span systems, serviceability control of the member is an important part of the design.
As a result, there are many research studies focused on the serviceability of different structural members [74,83,106]. For instance
Park et al. [107], performed experimental tests on different CLT panels constructed from five different timber species to investigate
their bending creep behaviour. In another study Davies and Fragiacomo [108], investigated the effects of moisture changes, tendon
post-tensioning force, and anchorage configuration on one year creep performance of fully centred LVL beams/framed under
controlled and un-controlled conditioning environments. Also, an innovative beam-column joint configuration was proposed by
Wanninger et al. [109] after studying the long-term performance of post-tensioned glulam timber members.
Table 8 summarises the research studies carried out on long-span timber flooring systems to investigate the short-term and long-
term deflection serviceability under different loading conditions.
With respect to the systems provided in Fig. 4, Lago et al. [82] showed that with post-tensioned tendons precamber could be
induced in beams, deflections could be controlled under service conditions and both flexural and shear resistance could be increased.
Generally, using systems including tendons (see Figs. 4 and 5) despite their additional cost, anchorages and deviators, results in
considerable reductions in terms of the material, weight and cross-section depth, while enhancing the serviceability and ultimate limit
state performance. The total cost of such timber structures would be competitive compared to traditional timber solutions, especially in
the case of long-spans and large open spaces [82].
2.2.1.2.2. Vibration. In addition to the static deflection, during SLS design procedure, motions resulting from vibrations of the
structural member due to the excitations (e.g. cyclic loading and impact) must be controlled as well [35].
Since building long-span timber and hybrid flooring systems are increasing, vibration serviceability of such structural systems has
become a relevant topic [39]. There are currently two typical approaches for checking the vibration serviceability of the floors: (i)
simplified method (using a spreadsheet or hand calculations), (ii) finite element modelling (FEM) [110–112]. Factors such as, the
system complexity, design stage, and the floor end-use are important when choosing the analysing method.
Generally, people are more annoyed in case of two close spaced frequencies [113]. Thus, it is recommended to consider the effect of
such higher modes in the serviceability design [114,115]. In order to obtain the frequency and modal shapes of timber flooring systems
with close-spaced frequencies (i.e. amplified motion), such as cassette floor, using FEM method is a preferred method [35,116]. After
finding the modal properties, the structural responses can be later analysed using either by FEM or classic dynamic theory formulas
[110,117,118].
To obtain the vibration performance of beams/floors, vibration modes and their corresponding damping values and frequencies are
needed to be calculated. According to the frequency values, flooring systems are categorized into low frequency systems with a natural
frequency, f0, about 8–10 Hz and high-frequency systems with f0 higher than that of low-frequency systems.
Damping as one of the main vibration response characteristics of a structural system, enables kinetic energy conversion into the
heat, and thus reducing dynamic motions amplitudes. Damping value of a flooring system is proposed based on the type of materials
used in the system [90]. However, assessing an accurate damping ratio, ζ, for a specific structural system is difficult and all the values
proposed in the literature are approximations based on the experimental observations. Therefore, damping capability of both con
ventional and modern flooring systems reported in the literature are showing large scatter [119,120].
Design criteria, such as those proposed in Eurocode 5 [104] require its damping ratio prediction being relative to the decision made
[121]. For instance, damping ratios between CLT floors, ranging as wide as 1% [121] to 4% [122] have been suggested for CLT timber
flooring systems. Experimental test results have shown shorter free vibration response duration (i.e. larger damping ratio) for CLT
floors compared to the lightweight timber floors [123].
Currently, various methods are available to analyse the vibration response of flooring systems. Dynamic response-based, static
deflection limitation method, subjective assessments and measurement combination method, and subjective assessments-based
method are among those methods [124–126].
Generally, several factors, such as the member stiffness, mass, and elements damping capacity, as well as type and magnitude of
response acceleration, and the excitation nature are affecting the structural vibration serviceability of the system. These factors make it
difficult to have a common design rules for the vibration analysis. Currently standards only propose limits for estimated eigenfre
quency, which are directly related to the material and the fundamental use of the structure [90]. Table 8 also summarises the methods
used by different researchers to study the dynamic response of timer floors. Weckendorf et al. [127], after testing different flooring
systems, showed that despite increasing the actual deflection of the floor, the deflection limit decreases with increasing the floor length
above 4 m. Both systems tested (see Table 8) in their study, satisfied the serviceability fundamental frequency requirement i.e., 8 Hz or
above). However, according to Rijal [128], when vibration is deemed to be critical in long-span floors, the dynamic assessment using
the serviceability fundamental frequency requirement alone may not be sufficient. Therefore, additional dynamic criteria such as
response factor, peak acceleration and unit load deflection have been proposed for the floor to satisfy the vibration criteria.
Tests of the different configurations for the systems proposed in Fig. 5, showed an insignificant difference in terms of natural
frequency between the un-tensioned and self-tensioned configurations under all load cases. Therefore, it was concluded that presence
of an unbonded prestress bar is not decisive in frequency terms. In general, due to the nature of dynamic studies and presence of several
effective factors affecting the vibration response of long-span timber floor, more experimental and numerical studies are required to
10
better understand the vibration performance of conventional and innovative flooring systems under different loading scenarios.
2.2.1.3. Fire performance. Fire concern has aroused from the several catastrophic fire experiences of 19th century often blamed on
wooden structures. Such experiences prompted the fire testing standard development for building materials and members. They also
resulted a deep mistrust in large scale timber structures among general public [131]. The fire performance of timber structures is one of
the main reasons for building code restrictions against tall timber buildings with long-span flooring systems. Despite growing the
empirical data on fire behaviour of engineered wood products, mainly CLT, lack of full-scale fire experiments performed on structural
systems is often quoted as an obstacle for approval of massive timber construction for high-rise buildings. Several studies have been
performed on the CLT fire performance, mainly in Europe and recently in Canada and US [15,132–135]. The results of those fire tests
were used for developing fire performance models and specific design methods for Eurocode 5 [136–138].
However, there are limited studies focused on the fire performance of long-span timber flooring systems. In order to remove the
barrier of using such systems in high-rise commercial buildings, more experimental and numerical studies are needed. There are some
research studies carried-out on the structural performance of relatively large-span timber flooring systems under natural and standard
fire tests. Table 9 summarises the test configuration and results of some of these studies focused on the un-protected flooring systems.
2.2.1.4. Acoustic performance. Sound insulation/reduction of timber structures is a topic that researchers have regarded as complex
and hard to understand due to the large variety of such structures [141]. Although deflection and vibration SLS criteria mainly govern
the design of structural long-span flooring systems, fire safety, acoustic performance, and the configuration of technical installations
must be also considered.
To meet the requirements of acoustic performance, the structural part of the flooring system is generally separated from the ceiling
[142]. With this regard, determining the frequency of the bare floor is of great importance [38,143–150].
The main methods used in the literature regarding acoustic performance include the impact of sound reduction [150,151], airborne
sound insulation [146,152], flanking transmissions [153,154], and their influences on human perception. For instance, EN 12354-2
standard [155] suggests the possible impact of noise reduction, which is to be calculated using Eq. (1):
Ln,W = Ln,W,eq − ΔLw (dB) (1)
where Ln,W is the resulting impact noise, Ln,W,eq is the bare floor impact noise, and ΔLw is the impact noise pressure level reduction. The
starting point is the bare floor, and thus, the partition type is considered as the primary source. Since lightweight timber flooring
systems have a higher impact sound level than heavy-weight ones, systems with a low-frequency range seem to be more critical cases.
In residential buildings, noise caused by walking is considered as one of the most critical challenges [156,157]. In this case, an
appropriate sound-insulation behaviour is needed (e.g., in multifamily buildings and buildings constructed with lightweight timber
members), flanking transmission consideration is necessary.
Airborne sound insulation is determined as the sound pressure level difference, in decibel, between the emitting room and the
receiving room plus a depending term related to the receiving room’s equivalent absorption area [158]. Since challenges and asso
ciated problems of airborne sound insulation are lower than those of impact noise reduction, studies related to the former are lesser
than the latter. However, even though there are several studies related to vibration and noise reduction, few have focused on bare floor
systems analysis. Generally, in terms of acoustic performance, timber floors have poor performance regarding impact noise and
Table 9
Some fire tests carried out on large-span timber flooring systems.
Study Study type Structural system Testing type Span length (m) Fire test Applied load time Failure
(min)
[139] Experimental CLT floor Four-point 5.6 ISO 834 10 kN/m2 (without 99 Yes
and numerical bending cladding)
10 kN/m2 (with 110 Yes
cladding)
5 kN/m2 (without 61 No
cladding)
[140] Experimental LVL floor 2-point loads 4.2 (experimental) ISO 834 3.0 kPa live + 1.0 kPa 30 No
and numerical on the floor 7 (designed) dead load
[134] Experimental CLT floor (4 plies in Four-point 4.8 ISO 834 14.6 (kN) 67 No
longitudinal, 1 ply in bending
crosswise)
18.4 (kN) 57 No
CLT floor (3 plies in 16.8 (kN) 67 No
longitudinal, 2 plies in
crosswise
21.2 (kN) 57 No
[131] Experimental CLT floor Distributed 5.4 (panel length) × ASTM 5.43 kN/m2 (Spruce- 120 No
load on floor 4.2 (panel width) E119 pine-fir + Polyurethane)
5.53 kN/m2 (Douglas fir- 120 No
larch + Polyurethane)
5.57 kN/m2 (Douglas fir- 120 No
larch + Melamine
formaldehyde)
11
airborne sound insulation.

Martins et al. [146] performed experimental tests to analyse various solutions for enhancing the acoustic performance of timber
floors. The solutions considered were the classical timber deck, a hybrid timber deck, normal or lightweight concrete, and a suspended
ceiling. The weakest acoustic performance was observed for the classical floor with a timber deck, while better performance was
obtained with the timber-concrete composite floors. It is worth mentioning that the difference between the concrete types was
insignificant. Even the best performance of the composite floor cannot satisfy the normative acoustic regulations, and thus use of a
suspended ceiling would appear to be necessary.
In general, more studies are needed to determine prediction methods for impact sound reduction in order to decrease low-
frequency noise propagation through wooden structures [18].
2.2.1.5. Sustainability. The construction sector contributes almost 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, efforts must be
made by researchers, engineers, architects, builders, and decision makers to design and construct more sustainable structures [159,
160].
In the context of timber building sustainability, several case studies have been conducted using different methods, such as life cycle
analysis (LCA) to compare the embodied carbon and energy in timber and, particularly, engineered wood with that found in con
ventional concrete and steel construction materials [161–166]. The common finding of all these studies is that timber has a consid
erably lower environmental impact compared to concrete and steel, and thus using timber in construction leads to much lower CO2
emissions.
For instance, Skullestad et al. [37] showed that after excluding the recycling and reusing benefits, if using an attributional analysing
method, depending on the height of the building and applied production technology, between 34 and 88% lower climate change
impact (CC) will be obtained for the timber structure in comparison to the concrete structure.
According to the literature, flooring systems, due to its relatively high volume, have the first or the second highest potential ca
pacity in terms of embodied carbon and energy savings among all building components [162,167,168]. However, issues around
deforestation, forest degradation, single species plantations, and wood harvesting are important and must be taken into account when
evaluating the sustainability of wood and timber structures [169]. Deforestation and forest degradation not only increase the CO2
emission but also deteriorate the CO2 capture controlling mechanism of plants [170]. This makes deforestation to be considered as the
second largest anthropogenic source of total global CO2 emission [171,172].
Sustainability of a long-span timber floor in the Australian context was compared with its counterpart reinforced concrete floor by
Basaglia et al. [159] using LCA. Three building designs were considered for comparison purpose: (i) an original long-span composite (i.
e. timber-concrete hybrid) floor used to construct a building in Sydney; (ii) CLT panel system; and (iii) in-situ traditional RC slab
system. The results showed that the composite floor has a comparable embodied energy to the RC floor, while the highest embodied
energy was obtained for CLT floor system. However, the least global warming potential (GWP) was found for CLT floor with almost 12
tonnes carbon recovery from a potential LCA. Finally, the largest GWP amount was attributed to RC floor, which could be related to its
high energy production process.
In general, research on the sustainability of timber structures, and particularly timber flooring systems is in its early stages and
therefore, more conceptual and case studies are needed to increase the reliability of the results and consequently improve the sus
tainability of the novel buildings.
3. Constructability, production and installation challenges

One of the reasons for adopting long-span timber flooring systems in construction is to achieve higher productivity. Forsythe et al.
[173] quantitatively measured the site installation productivity of prefabricated panelised and long-span timber construction. To do
so, they used time lapse photography method to undertake a case study of active projects. Th productivity rate index was calculated
based on the cranage and labour resource usage during installation were derived. It was proposed that in case of systematically
long-span beams installation given a standard and repetitive layout, very different productivity may be obtained compared to the
studied cases. However, it was concluded that larger panels compared to smaller panels take slightly longer to place but this minor
extra time was found to be more than offset by the increased area installed per hour.
In another study by Forsythe and Ahmadian Fard [174] on productivity of CLT floors in multi-storey mass timber construction, the
productivity rate of the floors was obtained between 60.5 and 89 m2/hour. Furthermore, a very high rate of productivity (141
m2/hour) was obtained for rectilinear areas, especially where large panels were adopted.
The constructability, which is also called as buildability showed that the separation of design procedure and construction results in
less performance efficiency of construction projects. According to the study of Fernandez et al. [41], the challenges associated with the
wide use of long-span timber flooring systems in tall buildings are not related to the structural capacity of such systems. Indeed, fire
safety, limitations of design codes/standards, and lack of research data (e.g. wind test of tall MT buildings) are introduced as the
current challenges. Such challenges include a wide range of financial, technical, and logistical considerations, depending on the
building scale and span length. In order to address these challenges, a high level of coordination between experts and trades as well as
collaborations beyond the common standard in the current building industry are needed.
Achieving an acceptable acoustic performance, floor penetrations or floor openings impacts on their structural performance, proper
locating the pipeline system, and connections details are only some typical challenges of long-span timber floors.
A timber floor can either be hung of or laid on the supporting walls. Regardless of the connection types, there are several com
plexities within the connections. In case of the floor placing on top of the load-bearing walls: (1) there will be a large compressive force
in transverse direction (i.e. perpendicular to the fibres direction; (2) induced horizontal forces must be transferred through the floor
12
element; (3) there would be difficulties in achieving air tightness. When dealing with the hung floor, due to the use of hangers,
relatively weak joints with possible additional deflection could be the result [142].
Good planning is always necessary in long-span timber flooring. For instance, in terms of piping, horizontal ducts and sewer
pipelines may be placed in the gaps between the webs of the floor. It should be noted that the feasibility of making holes inside the web
is small, and thus to properly integrate them, ducts and pipes would be placed parallel to the floor webs. It is worth mentioning that if
pipes are excluded from the load-bearing part of the floor structure, much more freedom in terms of the pipelines and ducts direction
will be achieved. However, this may increase the spacing between the ceiling and the structural part resulting an increase in total
height of the floor. Passing electrical services from bottom of the floor seems to be an appropriate solution to avoid the considerable
total height increment of the floor [175].
In terms of the acoustic performance, transferring the vibration from the floor to the walls is an issue that should be avoided. One
solution to overcome such issue is to use vibration damping in the joint [142].
Since using long-span timber flooring is a relatively new construction type, constructability and installation issues are not
comprehensively understood. Therefore, solutions and strategies must be tested and proposed in the future to properly address such
important issues in construction of tall building with long-span timber flooring systems.
4. Recommendations for the future works

Although, massive progress in terms of using timber in tall buildings with long-span flooring systems has been achieved so far,
significant efforts are still needed to reach the level of widely using such materials in construction. When sustainability and cost are
selected as important factors in a construction project, long-span timber flooring systems could be considered as a protentional
candidate. In order to adopt long-span timber flooring systems, faster and more effectively, the following recommendations could be
considered by researchers, engineers, and decision makers for future works:
(1) Currently there are very limited long-span timer flooring systems, which can satisfy both structural and constructability aspects.
Therefore, more innovative flooring systems could be proposed to optimise the structural performance and reduce the con
structability costs.
(2) Due to the very limited data, experimental and numerical studies are needed to investigate the structural performance of
innovative long-span flooring systems when subjected to different static and dynamic loadings.
(3) The information available on the fire performance of long-span timber floors is lacking, and thus fire tests of long-span systems
need to be conducted to ensure the proposed system meets the minimum fire safety requirements of design guidelines.
(4) Although the constructability and installations issues of long-span flooring systems are important factors, no considerable
attention has been given to these areas. Therefore, studies using advanced technologies, such as building information modelling
(BIM) are needed to address such construction aspects.
5. Summary
A comprehensive review on the structural performance, design considerations, constructability and sustainability aspects of long-
span timber flooring systems is presented. From material point of view, it was concluded that wood as a cost-effective and environ
mentally friendly material, is finding its way toward a widely usage in different construction applications. Using engineered wood
products in large-span flooring systems is among these applications. With respect to durability aspect, environmental effects, such as
high moisture and elevated temperature are likely to reduce the wood mechanical properties and consequently the potential user
confidence in wood as a reliable construction material. Therefore, it is of prime importance to successfully address the durability
performance of timber structures, so that the long-span timber flooring systems could be considered as an interesting solution for
constructing residential and commercial timber structures. Finally, from structural performance and constructability points of view, it
should be mentioned that although some research studies have been conducted on different panels and beams under static and vi
bration loading conditions, number of long-span timber flooring systems including all elements and their connections is significantly
limited. Thus, innovative systems could be proposed and tested to satisfy the design and constructability criteria.
The information provided in the present review paper can advance the understanding on current progress, challenges, and limi
tations of long-span timber floors, and provide fundamental insights for the development of innovative structural flooring systems to
satisfy both structural design and constructability limitations.
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.
References
[1] U. Sbci, Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision-Makers, United Nations Environmental Programme, Sustainable Buildings and Climate
Initiative, Paris, 2009, pp. 1–62.
[2] M. Bazli, Y.-L. Li, X.-L. Zhao, R.S. Raman, Y. Bai, S. Al-Saadi, A. Haque, Durability of seawater and sea sand concrete filled filament wound FRP tubes under
seawater environments, Compos. B Eng. 202 (2020), 108409.
[3] M. Bazli, X.-L. Zhao, Y. Bai, R.S. Raman, S. Al-Saadi, A. Haque, Durability of pultruded GFRP tubes subjected to seawater sea sand concrete and seawater
environments, Construct. Build. Mater. 245 (2020), 118399.
13
[4] M. Bazli, M. Heitzmann, B.V. Hernandez, Hybrid fibre reinforced polymer and seawater sea sand concrete structures: a systematic review on short-term and
long-term structural performance, Construct. Build. Mater. 301 (2021), 124335.
[5] A. Jafari, H. Ashrafi, M. Bazli, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Effect of thermal cycles on mechanical response of pultruded glass fiber reinforced polymer profiles of different
geometries, Compos. Struct. 223 (2019), 110959.
[6] R.H. Crawford, X. Cadorel, A framework for assessing the environmental benefits of mass timber construction, Procedia Eng. 196 (2017) 838–846.
[7] M. Bazli, X.-L. Zhao, A. Jafari, H. Ashrafi, R.S. Raman, Y. Bai, H. Khezrzadeh, Durability of glass-fibre-reinforced polymer composites under seawater and sea-
sand concrete coupled with harsh outdoor environments, Adv. Struct. Eng. 24 (6) (2021) 1090–1109.
[8] A. Bukauskas, P. Mayencourt, P. Shepherd, B. Sharma, C. Mueller, P. Walker, J. Bregulla, Whole timber construction: a state of the art review, Construct. Build.
Mater. 213 (2019) 748–769.
[9] J. Coulson, Wood in Construction: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[10] V. Van Dung, J. De Beer, P.X. Phuong, J. Morris, A. Van Bay, An Overview of the NTFP Subsector in Vietnam, Non-timber Forest Product Research Centre,
NTFP-RC, Hanoi, 2002.
[11] M.F.L. Mallo, O. Espinoza, Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States,
J. Clean. Prod. 94 (2015) 198–210.
[12] G. Wimmers, Wood: a construction material for tall buildings, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2 (12) (2017) 1–2.
[13] M. Aguanno, Fire Resistance Tests on Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Panels: an Experimental and Numerical Analysis, Carleton University, 2013.
[14] A. Law, R. Hadden, We need to talk about timber: fi re safety design in tall buildings, Phys. Teach. 98 (3) (2020) 10–15.
[15] A. Frangi, M. Fontana, E. Hugi, R. Jübstl, Experimental analysis of cross-laminated timber panels in fire, Fire Saf. J. 44 (8) (2009) 1078–1087.
[16] D. Barber, R. Crielaard, X. Li, Towards Fire Safe Design of Exposed Timber in Tall Timber Buildings, World Conference on Timber Engineering (wcte2016),
Østerrike, Wien, 2016.
[17] A. Cavalli, D. Cibecchini, M. Togni, H.S. Sousa, A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber, Construct. Build. Mater. 114 (2016)
681–687.
[18] F. Asdrubali, B. Ferracuti, L. Lombardi, C. Guattari, L. Evangelisti, G. Grazieschi, A review of structural, thermo-physical, acoustical, and environmental
properties of wooden materials for building applications, Build. Environ. 114 (2017) 307–332.
[19] R.A. Eaton, M.D. Hale, Wood: Decay, Pests and Protection, Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1993.
[20] D. Hunt, C. Shelton, Longitudinal moisture-shrinkage coefficients of softwood at the mechano-sorptive creep limit, Wood Sci. Technol. 22 (3) (1988) 199–210.
[21] B. Anshari, Z. Guan, A. Kitamori, K. Jung, I. Hassel, K. Komatsu, Mechanical and moisture-dependent swelling properties of compressed Japanese cedar,
Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (4) (2011) 1718–1725.
[22] C. Silva, J.M. Branco, A. Camões, P.B. Lourenço, Dimensional variation of three softwood due to hygroscopic behavior, Construct. Build. Mater. 59 (2014)
25–31.
[23] D. Hunt, Dimensional changes and creep of spruce, and consequent model requirements, Wood Sci. Technol. 31 (1) (1997) 3–16.
[24] B.C. Bal, Some physical and mechanical properties of reinforced laminated veneer lumber, Construct. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 120–126.
[25] T. Gereke, Moisture-induced Stresses in Cross-Laminated Wood Panels, ETH Zurich, 2009.
[26] G. Almeida, R. Hernández, Changes in physical properties of tropical and temperate hardwoods below and above the fiber saturation point, Wood Sci. Technol.
40 (7) (2006) 599–613.
[27] S. Ganev, A. Cloutier, R. Beauregard, G. Gendron, Linear expansion and thickness swell of MDF as a function of panel density and sorption state, Wood Fiber
Sci. 37 (2) (2007) 327–336.
[28] R.E. Hernández, M. Pontin, Shrinkage of three tropical hardwoods below and above the fiber saturation point, Wood Fiber Sci. 38 (3) (2007) 474–483.
[29] C. Lazarescu, S. Avramidis, L. Oliveira, Modeling shrinkage response to tensile stresses in wood drying: I. Shrinkage-moisture interaction in stress-free
specimens, Dry. Technol. 27 (11) (2009) 1183–1191.
[30] E. Ma, T. Nakao, G. Zhao, H. Ohata, S. Kawamura, Dynamic sorption and hygroexpansion of wood subjected to cyclic relative humidity changes, Wood Fiber
Sci. 42 (2) (2010) 229–236.
[31] L. Zhao, J. Jiang, J. Lu, Effect of thermal expansion at low temperature on mechanical properties of Birch wood, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 126 (2016) 61–65.
[32] G.I. Mantanis, R.A. Young, R.M. Rowell, Swelling of wood, Holzforschung 49 (3) (1995) 239–248.
[33] S. Chow, Thermo-directional movement of wood and wood composites, Wood Sci. Technol. 28 (3) (1994) 189–198.
[34] A.I. Bartlett, R.M. Hadden, L.A. Bisby, A review of factors affecting the burning behaviour of wood for application to tall timber construction, Fire Technol. 55
(1) (2019) 1–49.
[35] K. Lewis, B. Basaglia, R. Shrestha, K. Crews, The Use of Cross Laminated Timber for Long Span Flooring in Commercial Buildings, WCTE 2016-World
Conference on Timber Engineering, 2016.
[36] R. Crocetti, Large-span timber structures, Proc. World Congr. Civ. Struct. Environ. Eng. (2016) 1–23.
[37] J.L. Skullestad, R.A. Bohne, J. Lohne, High-rise timber buildings as a climate change mitigation measure–A comparative LCA of structural system alternatives,
Energy Proc. 96 (2016) 112–123.
[38] K. Jarnerö, A. Brandt, A. Olsson, Vibration properties of a timber floor assessed in laboratory and during construction, Eng. Struct. 82 (2015) 44–54.
[39] J. Weckendorf, T. Toratti, I. Smith, T. Tannert, Vibration serviceability performance of timber floors, Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 74 (3) (2016) 353–367.
[40] Z. Zabihi, Investigation of a Proposed Long Span Timber Floor for Non-residential Applications, 2014.
[41] A. Fernandez, J. Komp, J. Peronto, Ascent-challenges and advances of tall mass timber construction, Int. J. High-Rise Build. 9 (3) (2020) 235–244.
[42] W.T. Architects, 100 Projects UK CLT, Waugh Thistleton Architects, 2018.
[43] S.A.S.N. Zealand, AS/NZS 4357.1:2005 Structural Laminated Veneer Lumber, Part 1: Method of Test for Measurement of Dimensions and Shape, 2005.
[44] J. Kolb, Systems in Timber Engineering: Loadbearing Structures and Component Layers, Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
[45] A. Fortune, P. Quenneville, Feasibility study of New Zealand radiata pine cross-laminated timber, New Zealand Timber Des. J. 19 (3) (2011) 3–7.
[46] S.-J. Pang, G.Y. Jeong, Effects of combinations of lamina grade and thickness, and span-to-depth ratios on bending properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT)
floor, Construct. Build. Mater. 222 (2019) 142–151.
[47] K.S. Sikora, D.O. McPolin, A.M. Harte, Effects of the thickness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Irish Sitka spruce on mechanical performance
in bending and shear, Construct. Build. Mater. 116 (2016) 141–150.
[48] H.-M. Park, M. Fushitani, K. Sato, T. Kubo, H.-S. Byeon, Static bending strength performances of cross-laminated woods made with five species, J. Wood Sci. 49
(5) (2003) 411–417.
[49] S. Gagnon, C. Pirvu, CLT Handbook: Cross-Laminated Timber, 2011. FPInnovations.
[50] H. Mpidi Bita, T. Tannert, Experimental study of disproportionate collapse prevention mechanisms for mass-timber floor systems, J. Struct. Eng. 146 (2)
(2020), 04019199.
[51] T. Lechner, T. Nowak, R. Kliger, In situ assessment of the timber floor structure of the Skansen Lejonet fortification, Sweden, Construct. Build. Mater. 58 (2014)
85–93.
[52] C. Gerber, C. Sigrist, Investigation on Optimisation on Materials and Systems in Light Timber Floors, COST Final Research Report, Report, 2002.
[53] A. Jorissen, The Design of Timber Floors, Conference, WTEC, 2006, pp. 158/1–158/8.
[54] A.H. Buchanan, Timber Design Guide, New Zealand Timber Industry Federation, 2007.
[55] I. Smith, Vibration of Timber Floors—Serviceability Aspects, Timber engineering, 2003, pp. 241–266.
[56] G. Grant, Evaluation of Timber Floor Systems for Fire Resistance and Other Performance Requirements, 2010.
[57] S. Koehl, Plywood Joists Make Canadian Debut, 1976. British Columbia Lumberman (Canada).
[58] R.J. Leichti, R.H. Falk, T.L. Laufenberg, Prefabricated wood composite I-beams: a literature review, Wood Fiber Sci. 22 (1) (1990) 62–79.
[59] EWPA, Plywood Box Beam Span Tables for Detached Housing Construction, Project Number: PN08.1065, 2008.
14
[60] T. Lennon, D. Hopkin, J. El-Rimawi, V. Silberschmidt, Large scale natural fire tests on protected engineered timber floor systems, Fire Saf. J. 45 (3) (2010)
168–182.
[61] D.K. Henry, A Procedural Analysis for Examining Structural Efficiency and Comparing Relative Material Costs of Stressed Skin Panels, Pennsylvania State
University, 1971.
[62] C.D. Gerber, Wood Stressed-Skin Panels: an Investigation into Their Behaviour, Load Distribution and Composite Properties, 2007.
[63] K. Crews, C. Gerber, F. Choi, A. Buchanan, M. Fragiacomo, Innovative Engineered Timber Building Systems for Non Residential Applications Preliminary
Report (Concept Design) and Literature Review for Forest and Wood Product Association University of Technology, University of Technology, Sydney (NSW),
Australia, 2007.
[64] G. Turrini, M. Piazza, Static behavior of timber-concrete composite structures, Recuperare 2 (6) (1983) 214–225.
[65] J. Natterer, J. Hamm, P. Favre, Composite wood-concrete floors for multi-story buildings, Proc. Int. Wood Eng. Conf. (1996) 431–435.
[66] K. Möhler, On the Load Carrying Behavior of Beams and Columns of Compound Sections with Flexible Connections, Habilitation, Technical Univ. of Karlsruhe,
Germany, 1956 (in German).
[67] A. Ceccotti, Composite concrete-timber structures, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 4 (3) (2002) 264–275.
[68] A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Elasto-plastic model for timber-concrete composite beams with ductile connection, Struct. Eng. Int. 13 (1) (2003) 47–57.
[69] M. Fragiacomo, A. Ceccotti, Long-term behavior of timber–concrete composite beams. I: finite element modeling and validation, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (1) (2006)
13–22.
[70] J. Schänzlin, Time Dependent Behavior of Composite Structures of Board Stacks and Concrete, Ph. D. thesis, Univ. of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2003 (in
German).
[71] J. Schänzlin, M. Fragiacomo, Extension of EC5 Annex B formulas for the design of timber-concrete composite structures, in: Proceedings of the Forty of the
Working Commission W18-Timber Structures, CIB, International Council for Research and Innovation, 2007. CIB-W18/40-10-1).
[72] G. Pincus, Behavior of wood-concrete composite beams, J. Struct. Div. 96 (10) (1970) 2009–2019.
[73] P. Unnikrishna, U. Pillai, Nail Shear Connectors In Timber-Concrete Composites, 1977.
[74] Z. Zabihi, B. Samali, R. Shrestha, C. Gerber, K. Crews, Serviceability and Ultimate Performance of Long Span Timber Floor Modules, 12th WCTE Conference,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2012.
[75] W. van Beerschoten, G. Granello, A. Palermo, D. Carradine, Determining the flexural capacity of long-span post-tensioned LVL timber beams, J. Struct. Eng.
145 (7) (2019), 04019067.
[76] M. Larsson, H. Mayor, Innovative Timber Floor-Development of a Timber Sandwich Structure, 2016.
[77] G. Lantos, Reinforced and post-tensioned glue laminated beams under development at TRADA laboratories, Civ. Eng. 59 (690) (1964) 86–87.
[78] D. Bond, E. Sidwell, Prestressed timber beams, Civ. Eng. 60 (705) (1965) 547–550.
[79] J. Peterson, Wood beams prestressed with bonded tension elements, J. Struct. Div. 91 (1) (1965) 103–120.
[80] T.C. Triantafillou, N. Deskovic, Innovative prestressing with FRP sheets: mechanics of short-term behavior, J. Eng. Mech. 117 (7) (1991) 1652–1672.
[81] A. Palermo, S. Giorgini, P. Stefano, A.H. Buchanan, Potential of longitudinal post-tensioning for short-to-medium span timber bridges, Struct. Eng. Int. 21 (3)
(2011) 349–355.
[82] B.D. Lago, C. Dibenedetto, A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, S. Giorgini, A.H. Buchanan, D. Carradine, Structural behavior of longitudinally posttensioned timber
beams under serviceability gravity loading, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (8) (2017), 04017071.
[83] G. Granello, S. Giorgini, A. Palermo, D. Carradine, S. Pampanin, R. Finch, Long-term behavior of LVL posttensioned timber beams, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (12)
(2017), 04017158.
[84] W. van Beerschoten, A. Palermo, D. Carradine, S. Pampanin, Design procedure for long-span post-tensioned timber frames under gravity loading, World 15
(2012) 19.
[85] K. Orlowski, S.K. Baduge, P. Mendis, Y. Oktavianus, Structural Behaviour of Prefabricated Stressed-Skin Engineered Timber Composite Flooring Systems,
Structures, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 230–244.
[86] ASTM D5055-16, Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016. www.astm.org.
[87] D. Otero-Chans, J. Estévez-Cimadevila, F. Suárez-Riestra, J. Pérez-Valcárcel, Small depth long-span timber floor design with self-tensioned systems, Aust. J.
Struct. Eng. 19 (1) (2018) 24–33.
[88] D. Otero-Chans, J. Estévez-Cimadevila, E. Martín-Gutiérrez, J. Pérez-Valcárcel, Application of a new system of self-tensioning to the design of large-span wood
floor framings, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (6) (2016), 04016012.
[89] J. Estévez-Cimadevila, D. Otero-Chans, E. Martín-Gutiérrez, F. Suárez-Riestra, Long-span wooden structural floors with self-tensioning system: performance
under asymmetrical loads, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2016), 2016.
[90] F. Suárez-Riestra, J. Estévez-Cimadevila, E. Martín-Gutiérrez, D. Otero-Chans, Experimental, analytical and numerical vibration analysis of long-span timber-
timber composite floors in self-tensioning and non-tensioning configurations, Construct. Build. Mater. 218 (2019) 341–350.
[91] J. Estévez-Cimadevila, D. Otero-Chans, E. Martín-Gutiérrez, F. Suárez-Riestra, Self-tensioning system for long-span wooden structural floors, Construct. Build.
Mater. 102 (2016) 852–860.
[92] www.woodsolutions.com.au/publications/long-span-timber-floor-solutions.
[93] K. Crews, A. Buchanan, P. Quenneville, S. Pampanin, Development of high performance structural timver systems for non residential buildings in New Zealand
and Australia, Procedia Eng. 14 (2011) 1582–1589.
[94] B. EN, 408 Timber Structures: Structural Timber and Glued Laminated Timber-Determination of Some Physical and Mechanical Properties, British Standard
Institution, London, 2003, pp. 1–33.
[95] B. EN, 16351, Timber Structures—Cross Laminated Timber—Requirements, BSI Standards Publication, London, UK, 2015, pp. 1–103.
[96] GB 50005, Code for Design of Timber Structures, 2017. Beijing, China, 2015.
[97] Australian StandardTM, Timber Structures, Part 1: Design Methods, Vol. AS 1720.1–2010, Standards Australia, 2010. Homebush (NSW), Australia.
[98] AS, AS 1720.1 – 2010 Timber Structures Part 1: Design Methods, SAI Global, Australia, 2010.
[99] M. He, X. Sun, Z. Li, Bending and compressive properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Canadian hemlock, Construct. Build. Mater. 185
(2018) 175–183.
[100] D.P. Hindman, J.C. Bouldin, Mechanical properties of southern pine cross-laminated timber, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (9) (2015), 04014251.
[101] I. Christovasilis, M. Brunetti, M. Follesa, M. Nocetti, D. Vassallo, Evaluation of the mechanical properties of cross laminated timber with elementary beam
theories, Construct. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 202–213.
[102] Y. Chen, F. Lam, Bending performance of box-based cross-laminated timber systems, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (12) (2013), 04013006.
[103] M.S. Islam, M. Shahnewaz, M.S. Alam, Structural capacity of timber I-joist with flange notch: experimental evaluation, Construct. Build. Mater. 79 (2015)
290–300.
[104] CEN European Committee for Standardization, EN1995-Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures, 2004.
[105] G. Campione, D. Carlea, Excessive deflection in long-span timber beams of a historical building in the south of Italy: analysis and retrofitting design, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 34 (3) (2020), 04020039.
[106] C. Leyder, E. Chatzi, A. Frangi, Structural Health Monitoring of an Innovative Timber Building, 2015.
[107] H.-M. Park, M. Fushitani, K. Sato, T. Kubo, H.-S. Byeon, Bending creep performances of three-ply cross-laminated woods made with five species, J. Wood Sci.
52 (3) (2006) 220–229.
[108] M. Davies, M. Fragiacomo, Long-term behavior of prestressed LVL members. I: experimental tests, J. Struct. Eng. 137 (12) (2011) 1553–1561.
[109] F. Wanninger, A. Frangi, M. Fragiacomo, Long-term behavior of posttensioned timber connections, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (6) (2015), 04014155.
15
[110] J. Weckendorf, B. Zhang, A. Kermani, Prediction of modal frequencies, modal shapes and static point load deflections of I-joist timber flooring systems using
finite element method, in: Proc., World Conf. On Timber Engineering, Trees and Timber Institute, National Research Council, Italy, 2010.
[111] I. Glisovic, B. Stevanovic, Vibrational Behaviour of Timber Floors, World Conference on Timber Engineering, 2010.
[112] H. Xiong, J. Kang, X. Lu, Finite element analysis on dynamic behavior of timber floor subjected to Pedestrian-induced force, World 15 (2012) 19.
[113] F. Ljunggren, J. Wang, A. Ågren, Human vibration perception from single-and dual-frequency components, J. Sound Vib. 300 (1–2) (2007) 13–24.
[114] J. Brownjohn, C. Middleton, Procedures for vibration serviceability assessment of high-frequency floors, Eng. Struct. 30 (6) (2008) 1548–1559.
[115] F. Ljunggren, Floor Vibration: Dynamic Properties and Subjective Perception, Luleå tekniska universitet, 2006.
[116] M. Filippoupolitis, C. Hopkins, R. Völtl, U. Schanda, J. Mahn, L. Krajči, Structural dynamics of a dowelled-joist timber floor in the low-frequency range
modelled using finite element simulation, Eng. Struct. 148 (2017) 602–620.
[117] A. Filiatrault, B. Folz, R. Foschi, Finite-strip free-vibration analysis of wood floors, J. Struct. Eng. 116 (8) (1990) 2127–2142.
[118] L. Jiang, L. Hu, Y.-H. Chui, Finite-element model for wood-based floors with lateral reinforcements, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (7) (2004) 1097–1107.
[119] A. Polensek, Structural Damping and its Effect on Human Response to Floor Vibrations, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1985.
[120] J. Weckendorf, I. Smith, Multi-functional interface concept for high-rise hybrid building systems with structural timber, World 15 (2012) 19.
[121] L. Hu, S. Gagnon, Vibration Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber Floors, CLT Handbook: Crosslaminated Timber, FPInnovations, Québec, 2011.
[122] G. Schickhofer, T. Bogensperger, T. Moosbrugger, Holz-Massivbauweise in Brettsperrholz: Nachweise auf Basis des neuen europäischen Normenkonzepts, Solid
timber construction with CLT: proof on the basis of the new European concept of standards (In German), Technische Universität Graz, Austria, 2009.
[123] M. Fitz, Untersuchung des Schwingungsverhaltens von Deckensystemen aus Brettsperrholz, BSP, 2008 na.
[124] APA, Minimizing Floor Vibrations by Design or Retrofit, Technical Note 70, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, USA, 2004.
[125] IRC, National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa, Canada, 2010.
[126] B.M. Basaglia, Dynamic Behaviour of Long-Span Timber Ribbed-Deck Floors, 2019.
[127] J. Weckendorf, B. Zhang, A. Kermani, D. Reid, Assessment of Vibrational Performance of Timber floors, The World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE),
Portland, Oregon, USA, 2006.
[128] R. Rijal, Dynamic Performance of Timber and Timber-Concrete Composite Flooring Systems, 2013.
[129] L.A. Soltis, X. Wang, R. Ross, M. Hunt, Vibration testing of timber floor systems, For. Prod. J. 52 (10) (2002) 75–81.
[130] J. Weckendorf, Dynamic Response of Structural Timber Flooring Systems, Edinburgh Napier University, 2009.
[131] L. Muszyński, R. Gupta, S. hyun Hong, N. Osborn, B. Pickett, Fire resistance of unprotected cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor assemblies produced in the USA,
Fire Saf. J. 107 (2019) 126–136.
[132] B. Östman, E. Mikkola, R. Stein, A. Frangi, J. König, D. Dhima, T. Hakkarainen, J. Bregulla, Fire safety in timber buildings, Technical guideline for Europe, SP
(Sci. Prog.) 19 (2010).
[133] A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Fire safety of multistorey timber buildings, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 163 (4) (2010) 213–226.
[134] M. Kippel, C. Leyder, A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Fire tests on loaded cross-laminated timber wall and floor elements, Fire Saf. Sci. 11 (2014) 626–639.
[135] C. Dagenais, Investigation of fire performance of CLT manufactured with thin laminates, FPInnovations, Project 58 (2016), 301010618.
[136] B. Östman, Fire safety in timber buildings: technical guideline for Europe, in: The very first Europe-wide guideline on the fire-safe use of wood in buildings, SP
INFO-35, 2010.
[137] J. Schmid, A. Just, M. Klippel, M. Fragiacomo, The reduced cross-section method for evaluation of the fire resistance of timber members: discussion and
determination of the zero-strength layer, Fire Technol. 51 (6) (2015) 1285–1309.
[138] M. Klippel, J. Schmidt, A. Frangi, Fire Design of CLT–comparison of design concepts, in: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of COST Actions FP1402 &
FP1404, Cross Laminated Timber-A Competitive Wood Product for Visionary and Fire Safe Buildings, 2016. Stockholm.
[139] M. Fragiacomo, A. Menis, I. Clemente, G. Bochicchio, B. Tessadri, Experimental and numerical behaviour of crosss laminated timber floors in fire conditions,
World 15 (2012) 19.
[140] J. O’Neill, A. Abu, D. Carradine, P. Moss, A. Buchanan, Modelling Prefabricated Timber Floors in Fire, 2012.
[141] M. Caniato, F. Bettarello, A. Ferluga, L. Marsich, C. Schmid, P. Fausti, Acoustic of lightweight timber buildings: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80
(2017) 585–596.
[142] H. Johnsson, The Building System as a Strategic Asset in Industrialised Construction, Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation: 13/04/
2011-15/04/2011, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, 2011, pp. 541–552.
[143] F. Bettarello, P. Fausti, V. Baccan, M. Caniato, Impact sound pressure level performances of basic beam floor structures, Build. Acoust. 17 (4) (2010) 305–316.
[144] A. Sjöström, D. Baard, K. Persson, G. Sandberg, Experimental Structural Acoustic investigation of a lightweight floor structure, in: Proceedings of Congress on
Sound and Vibration, 2010, pp. 15–18. Ljubljana, September.
[145] J. Brunskog, P. Hammer, Prediction models of impact sound insulation on timber floor structures; a literature survey, Build. Acoust. 7 (2) (2000) 89–112.
[146] C. Martins, P. Santos, P. Almeida, L. Godinho, A. Dias, Acoustic performance of timber and timber-concrete floors, Construct. Build. Mater. 101 (2015)
684–691.
[147] J. Brunskog, P. Hammer, Design possibilities for impact noise insulation in lightweight floors–A parameter study, Proc. Euronoise (2003) 1–6, 58.
[148] C. Coguenanff, C. Desceliers, C. Guigou-Carter, P. Jean, Acoustic performance optimization under parameter and model uncertainties of a wood based floor,
Internoise (2013), 2013.
[149] P. Hammer, J. Brunskog, Vibration isolation on lightweight floor structures, Build. Acoust. 9 (4) (2002) 257–269.
[150] C. Johansson, Low-frequency impact sound insulation of a light weight wooden joist floor, Appl. Acoust. 44 (2) (1995) 133–147.
[151] K. Hagberg, D. Bard, Low Frequency Sound Transmission in Multifamily Wooden Houses, in: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference
Proceedings, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2014, pp. 5990–5996.
[152] R. Öqvist, F. Ljunggren, A. Ågren, Variations in sound insulation in nominally identical prefabricated lightweight timber constructions, Build. Acoust. 17 (2)
(2010) 91–103.
[153] C. Crispin, B. Ingelaere, Laboratory Measurements of the New Quantities Necessary for the Flanking Transmission Prediction in Lightweight Constructions, in:
INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2013, pp. 572–581.
[154] B. Zeitler, S. Schoenwald, F. King, Flanking sound insulation of wood frame assemblies with high axial and lateral load bearing capacity, in: INTER-NOISE and
NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2013, pp. 4373–4380.
[155] ISO 12354-2: Building acoustics. Estimation of acoustic performance in buildings from the performance of elements. Impact Sound Insul. between Rooms,
2017.
[156] A. Homb, C. Guigou-Carter, K. Hagberg, H. Schmid, Impact sound insulation of wooden joist constructions: collection of laboratory measurements and trend
analysis, Build. Acoust. 23 (2) (2016) 73–91.
[157] A. Liebl, M. Spah, O. Barthome, M. Kittel, Evaluation of Acoustic Quality in Wooden Buildings, INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference
Proceedings, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2013, pp. 5696–5704.
[158] EN ISO 16283, Acoustics - Field Measurement of Sound Insulation in Buildings and of Building Elements - Part 1: Airborne Sound Insulation, 2014.
[159] B. Basaglia, K. Lewis, R. Shrestha, K. Crews, A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Approach of Two Innovative Long Span Timber Floors with its Reinforced
Concrete Equivalent in an Australian Context, 2015.
[160] J. Švajlenka, M. Kozlovská, Evaluation of the efficiency and sustainability of timber-based construction, J. Clean. Prod. 259 (2020), 120835.
[161] A.H. Buchanan, B.G. Honey, Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building construction, Energy Build. 20 (3) (1994) 205–217.
[162] D. Dolan, A. Harte, A comparison of the embodied energy and embodied carbon of a timber visitor centre in Ireland with its concrete equivalent, in:
Proceedings of World Conference on Timber Engineering, University of Laval Quebec, 2014.
[163] S. John, K. Mulligan, N. Perez, S. Love, I. Page, Cost, Time and Environmental Impacts of the Construction of the New NMIT Arts and Media Building, 2011.
[164] J. Nässén, F. Hedenus, S. Karlsson, J. Holmberg, Concrete vs. wood in buildings–An energy system approach, Build. Environ. 51 (2012) 361–369.
16
[165] D.C. Evison, P.D. Kremer, J. Guiver, Mass timber construction in Australia and New Zealand—status, and economic and environmental influences on adoption,
Wood Fiber Sci. 50 (Special) (2018) 128–138.
[166] P.D. Kremer, L. Ritchie, Understanding costs and identifying value in mass timber construction: calculating the ‘total cost of project’(TCP), Mass Timber
Construct. J. 1 (1) (2018) 14–18.
[167] L. Aye, T. Ngo, R.H. Crawford, R. Gammampila, P. Mendis, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules,
Energy Build. 47 (2012) 159–168.
[168] A. Hafner, S. Schäfer, Environmental aspects of material efficiency versus carbon storage in timber buildings, Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 76 (3) (2018)
1045–1059.
[169] A. Ahmad, Q.-J. Liu, S. Nizami, A. Mannan, S. Saeed, Carbon emission from deforestation, forest degradation and wood harvest in the temperate region of
Hindukush Himalaya, Pakistan between 1994 and 2016, Land Use Pol. 78 (2018) 781–790.
[170] D. Rokityanskiy, P.C. Benítez, F. Kraxner, I. McCallum, M. Obersteiner, E. Rametsteiner, Y. Yamagata, Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use
change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (7) (2007) 1057–1082.
[171] R. Chaplin-Kramer, I. Ramler, R. Sharp, N.M. Haddad, J.S. Gerber, P.C. West, L. Mandle, P. Engstrom, A. Baccini, S. Sim, Degradation in carbon stocks near
tropical forest edges, Nat. Commun. 6 (1) (2015) 1–6.
[172] C. Le Quéré, M.R. Raupach, J.G. Canadell, G. Marland, L. Bopp, P. Ciais, T.J. Conway, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, P. Foster, Trends in the sources and sinks of
carbon dioxide, Nat. Geosci. 2 (12) (2009) 831–836.
[173] P. Forsythe, R. Brisland, S. Sepasgozar, Measuring Installation Productivity on Panellised and Long Span Timber Construction, 2016.
[174] P. Forsythe, A. Ahmadian Fard Fini, Productivity in Multi-Storey Mass Timber Construction, 2019.
[175] I. Massivträ, Massivträ. Handboken 2006, 2006. Martinsons.
17

2022_Bazli_Long-span timber flooring systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2022_Bazli_Long-span timber flooring systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 48 (2022) 103981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Long-span timber flooring systems: A systematic review from

Softwood 20–30 350–450 11–13 44–85 16–28 7–10

Reinforced Concrete structure Concrete (C25/35 for 12 storey structure) 264

2. Timber floor structures

2.1. Structural systems

2.1.1. Joist floor systems

2.1.2. Stressed skin panels

Fig. 2. A regular timber flooring system [44].

Joist floor systems Stresses skin panel Plate floor systems

2.1.3. Plate floor system

2.1.4. Timber concrete composite system

2.2. Long span timber floors

2.2.1. Performance requirement

Fig. 3. LVL modular system used in [40].

Fig. 5. Glulam + CLT long-span systems used in [87–91].

[75,82,83] LVL Post-Tensioned Box 9

Note: (1) stresses skin panel.

Finnjoist (FJI) I joist 400 89 1.5 0.8 (kN/m) 7

airborne sound insulation.

3. Constructability, production and installation challenges

4. Recommendations for the future works

Declaration of competing interest

You might also like