About

Objective 1 Context

The majority of Australian midrise performance research has been the narrowly focused on engineering technologies necessary to allay concerns that EWP can effectively comply with serviceability, durability and fire performance requirements. However, rapid market uptake would require not just proof of feasibility in isolated contexts, but that EWP innovation can deliver on the full spectrum of engineering and architectural performance objectives that drive the decision making of manufacturers, construction clients, building clients and designers. A stronger evidence base is required to demonstrate where that performance is likely to exceed what is possible with conventional alternatives, and the degree to which the opportunities are relevant across the very different resource and climate types across Australia. Furthermore, the stark gap between typical design (50yr) and actual (20-30yr) building service life in Australia introduces a new set of performance criteria for consideration. By reducing reliance on monolithic construction systems, EWPs bring new opportunity for buildings to be operated as transformable assets to leverage benefits in two ways:

1. Controlled recovery of timber components for repurposing or as energy generation feedstock;
2. Even more substantial benefits could be realised if innovative design of removable EWP provides future flexibility to modify buildings as owner/occupant requirements change, thereby extending the service-life and reducing the life-cycle costs (LCC – $; carbon footprint) of mid-rise buildings and more generally, Australia’s built environment.

Objective 2 Context

While the prospect of broader environmental and socio-economic benefits is well established, there is insufficient analysis on the scale and regional distribution of those impacts in an Australian context. This limits prospects for compelling local policy makers to reduce barriers to the many sectoral changes required (forestry, manufacturing, construction) for rapid growth of EWP manufacturing. For example, while international research clearly establishes that greater use of wood products will bring net reductions in the carbon footprint of the built environment [8-10] the few Australian studies of large-scale timber adoption are hampered by a lack of transparency on the contentious carbon accounting protocols used for assessing the full life cycle of wood products. Accounting mechanisms for demonstrating positive contributions towards a more circular economy are even less mature [11]. The challenges with confirming macro-economic benefits are similar in nature, requiring systematic scenario analysis using specialised models and sufficient attention to the most relevant regional and sectoral details.

Objective 3 & 4 Context

While the scope of ARC Future Timber Hub research into timber manufacturing and value chain innovation was limited to some degree, it clearly demonstrated the potential for such analysis to direct how investment might best be targeted. Furthermore, it built important fundamental engineering knowledge, validated product inventory models, and a resource evaluation framework that addresses the strongly location-specific elements of any change to timber resource utilisation and manufacturing practices. Translating that into a compelling case for large scale manufacturing investment requires an expanded scope. Manufacturing advances require further improvements to underlying lamination processes, and to expand the scope downstream to the prefabrication and onsite construction stages. Value- chain modelling needs to extend beyond the small niche of current EWP products and the Class 1 building market that dominates Australian timber flows, incorporating new innovations in product typology, the implications of large-scale growth in the forestry and timber sectors, and better characterisation of post-fabricator value flows under conventional and novel assumptions about building service life. Furthermore, the optimal opportunity to amplify value likely requires co-optimisation of fibre and product allocation across the Class 1 and mid-rise markets.

Objective 5 & 6 Context

The complex mix of changes required, spanning multiple sectors, barriers and policy domains, brings the prospect of both complementary and conflicting stakeholder objectives. A thorough understanding of stakeholder constraints, beyond those of just the Partner Organisations, can help steer the technological and system change research towards recommendations that have maximum impact. Early and ongoing engagement with that broad set of stakeholders provides a platform to identify steps that will motivate change across all involved. Given the conservative nature of the construction sector and its regulatory environment, translation of the research findings into commercial demonstration projects also has an important role in motivating change.