Tuesday, January 6, 2026
A groundbreaking study presented at The Buildings Show in Toronto has shown that mass timber can offer similar costs, faster construction, and competitive carbon performance compared to steel and concrete when designed to the same standards. The research, led by WSP, McCallumSather, and ArcelorMittal, modelled a 12-storey, 287,000-square-foot residential tower made from three materials: green steel, low-carbon concrete, and mass timber. The aim was to compare the cost, speed, and environmental impact of each material while maintaining equivalent performance standards.
The team focused on three structural systems: green steel, low-carbon concrete, and mass timber. Initially, the comparison was between steel and concrete frame systems. As interest in mass timber grew, a mass-timber scenario was included to evaluate its performance. Each option was designed to fit the same functional floor plan, ensuring a fair comparison.
Brant Oldershaw from WSP, Willems Ransom from McCallumSather, and Matthew Winters from ArcelorMittal’s Steligence programme led the study. Using the Steligence initiative, digital models were developed for each system, with structural details contributed by RJC and MTE. The team created a flexible, generic building envelope and massing to maintain consistency across all three models. The focus was on comparing structural weight, cost, construction speed, and environmental impact.
While mass timber is more spatially intensive, it was designed to achieve the same functional floor plan as steel and concrete systems. The study found that mass timber systems, though challenging in certain areas like spans, could still meet the required performance standards. “Mass timber is more spatially intensive, but we kept the same functional floor plan across all the options,” said Ransom.
The environmental performance was assessed through a full life-cycle analysis (LCA), which included third-party verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The key metric was global warming potential (GWP), which was measured using One Click LCA software. The results showed remarkably close GWP outcomes: concrete had a slightly higher GWP than mass timber, with steel being the highest. All three systems met the Toronto Green Standard, which sets stringent sustainability guidelines for construction.
Cortese, ArcelorMittal’s principal sustainability projects manager, remarked that the study’s results challenged preconceived expectations. “I thought there’d be a bigger gap on LCA,” he said. “The results were surprisingly close. It all came down to consistent design philosophy and material selection.”
The timber model utilised British Columbia glulam and Ontario CLT, with point-supported cross-laminated timber slabs and glue-laminated timber columns. Hybrid mass timber was used alongside steel wide-flange sections to meet the required spans and load paths. This combination allowed timber to perform similarly to steel and concrete systems, even in the larger structural spans.
Cost differences between the materials were also narrow. Steel was the most expensive, at $3,107,500, followed by concrete at $3,121,500. The timber model came in at $3,011,000, surprisingly lower than both steel and concrete. “We put timber into an unusual context with this project, but realised it’s becoming a more equitable option,” said Ransom. “It can now compete directly with steel and concrete in terms of cost.”
The study also revealed differences in construction speed. Timber construction was the fastest, with the structural work completed in just 113 days. Steel followed at 157 days, while concrete took the longest at 190 days. The study showed that timber could offer faster build times without compromising on quality or cost.
The team also noted the importance of collaboration in modern material selection. Ransom highlighted the complexity of material decisions in today’s construction environment. “LCAs are easier to produce now, but that leads to a more difficult decision-making process,” he explained. “We used to design by rules of thumb, but today we need more detailed investigation. Collaboration with industry partners has made this possible.”
The findings underscore a broader lesson about sustainable design. “When designing well and using materials to their strengths, we can hit our sustainability targets with any material,” said Winters. This study provides a clear example of how different materials can be used effectively, depending on the project’s goals.
This research contributes to the ongoing debate about the role of timber in high-rise construction. As demand for sustainable and cost-effective building materials rises, mass timber is proving to be a viable alternative to traditional materials like steel and concrete. The study’s results indicate that mass timber could be the key to meeting the construction industry’s environmental goals, providing a competitive edge in both cost and speed of construction.
In conclusion, the study demonstrates that steel, concrete, and timber can all deliver near-identical results in terms of cost, speed, and sustainability when designed to the same standards. As the construction industry continues to focus on reducing its carbon footprint and improving efficiency, materials like mass timber are becoming increasingly attractive for both residential and commercial buildings.
Read more news on Timber Construction
Get more updates on American woodworking industry: www.woodandpanel.us
Tags: global warming potential, low-carbon concrete, mass timber, steel vs timber, timber construction, wood and panel, woodworking industry
Comments: