Insurance and building code obstacles in aligning mass timber with traditional construction materials' cost and efficiency

In the realm of sustainable construction, mass timber has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional materials like concrete and steel. However, its widespread adoption is still hampered by a few key obstacles.

Firstly, the technical feasibility of mass timber construction is no longer a concern. Engineers and builders have proven that tall, strong, and safe structures can be built using cross-laminated timber and related products. European and American precedents demonstrate that the normalisation of mass timber is indeed possible.

Despite this, the main challenges currently faced are high insurance premiums and inconsistent building code adoption. Insurers, pricing risk based on actuarial data, often assume the worst for mass timber due to the lack of long data histories. To address these concerns, construction phase fire standards, including temporary encapsulation, on-site fire watches, and real-time monitoring, can provide assurance during the riskiest phase of construction.

Moreover, a national agreement on certification reciprocity could help reduce duplication and speed approvals for mass timber modules. This would streamline the process, making it more cost-effective and efficient.

Decision-makers who can accelerate the application of prescriptive solid wood standards in various provinces and municipalities include local government authorities, building regulatory agencies, certification bodies, and professional planners or engineers involved in construction regulation enforcement and standard adoption. Inspector and official training at scale can ensure that inspectors are confident and consistent, which improves both safety and predictability.

When mass timber is seen as ordinary by insurers and regulators, insurance premiums fall to parity with concrete and steel. This is a crucial step towards making CLT and modular housing as unremarkable as their traditional counterparts.

However, a major fire event during construction could potentially harden attitudes and stall adoption of mass timber. It is essential to maintain a focus on safety and transparency to build trust and confidence in this innovative construction method.

Regulators issue permits, and without consistent code adoption across provinces and municipalities, projects face delays and extra costs. A code adoption map could show provinces that have moved to twelve- or eighteen-story mass timber provisions and those still lagging. Currently, the National Building Code of Canada allows for twelve-story encapsulated mass timber structures, with the potential for eighteen-story structures in the future, but adoption is inconsistent.

Some municipalities require projects to go through an alternative solutions pathway, causing delays and uncertainty. Permits, on the other hand, are issued quickly, allowing for the advantages of speed and carbon performance to be realised.

As data accumulates, a premium multiplier trend line could show builder's risk insurance moving steadily towards parity with concrete by 2030. This gradual normalisation of mass timber in the insurance industry is a promising sign for its future mainstream adoption.

In conclusion, while there are still hurdles to overcome, the potential benefits of mass timber construction are significant. With a focus on standardisation, education, and safety, we can pave the way for a more sustainable and efficient future in construction.

Insurance and building code obstacles in aligning mass timber with traditional construction materials' cost and efficiency