Cross Laminated Timber - Everything You Need To Know

October 14, 2025

What is cross-laminated timber?

Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an engineered wood panel material composed of several layers of solid wood boards (lamellas) glued together, with each layer (or “ply”) oriented orthogonally (i.e. at right angles) to adjacent layers.

You can think of it as a thick, structural “plywood” made of solid wood laminations. The perpendicular orientation balances mechanical properties in both directions (longitudinal and transverse) better than a unidirectional laminate would.

In standard definitions, CLT panels are built with at least three layers, though more layers (5, 7, or more) are common — typically with symmetric stacking so the outer layers mirror orientation for balanced behavior.

CLT belongs to the family known as mass timber—large structural wood elements (panels, beams, columns) engineered to replace steel or concrete in many building applications.

The official ANSI/APA standard (in the U.S.) defines a CLT panel as “a prefabricated engineered wood product made of at least three orthogonal layers of graded sawn lumber or structural composite lumber (SCL), laminated with structural adhesives.”

Because of its panel form, CLT can serve as walls, floors, roofs, and shear walls, making it a versatile “all-in” structural system.

How is cross-laminated timber made?

The manufacturing process of CLT involves several distinct steps, from raw lumber processing to final panel machining and quality control. Below is a typical workflow:

Lumber selection & grading / moisture control
- Solid sawn lumber (or structural composite lumber, in some cases) is selected and graded for structural quality.
- Moisture content (MC) is critical: boards must be dried to a stable moisture content (often ~12%) to reduce shrinkage stresses, warping, or delamination.
- Lumber pieces are grouped so that adjacent boards have similar moisture content (to maintain equilibrium).
Planing / smoothing / surfacing
- Lumber is surfaced / planed to precise thickness tolerances. This helps ensure good bonding and uniform layering.
Cutting / trimming / prepping to size
- Boards are cut to length for the particular panel layout. Any relief cuts or chamfers may be made to reduce edge stress.
Adhesive application / glue spread
- Structural adhesives (e.g. phenol-resorcinol, melamine-urea-formaldehyde, polyurethane adhesives, etc.) are applied to bond the layers.
- The adhesive must be durable, moisture resistant, and meet performance standards.
Lay-up / stacking
- Layers are laid up in alternating orientations (e.g. 0°, 90°, 0°, 90°, etc.), according to design. The outer layers often mirror each other for balance.
- Care is taken to align joints (avoiding continuous joints across many layers) and stagger where possible
Pressing / pressing cycles
- The lay-up is pressed, either via hydraulic presses, vacuum presses, or a combination, to force the adhesive bond under pressure until cured.
- The pressing ensures proper glue line contact, full bonding, and dimensional stability.
Curing / dwell time
- Panels are allowed time for the adhesive to cure (which may involve heat, pressure, or simply time) to full strength.
Quality control / testing / repair
- After bonding, panels undergo quality control inspections: checking flatness, internal defects, bonding integrity, adhesion, delaminations, and dimensions.
- Minor repairs may be done (e.g. veneer replacement, edge trimming) if permitted by specification.
Panel machining / CNC cutting
- Panels are milled with CNC equipment to cut out openings (doors, windows), notches, edges, tongue & groove, splines, or connectors.
- Precision is high: tolerances may be ±1 mm or less depending on specification. (Wikipedia)
Finishing, marking, shipping
- Panels may be sanded, surface-treated, or labeled with quality marks, grade, and orientation.
- Panels are packaged (often with protective wraps) and shipped to the construction site.

This prefabricated, factory-controlled workflow yields high accuracy, clean finishes, and reduced waste compared to on-site construction.

What is the lifespan of CLT?

Estimating a service life for CLT is still evolving, because widespread use is relatively recent (especially in North America). However, research, building case studies, and comparisons to other durable structures suggest that with proper design, detailing, maintenance, and protection, CLT buildings can last 60, 80, or 100+ years (and possibly longer) — comparable to modern timber or concrete buildings.

Here are key considerations and evidence:

Some mass timber proponents expect a 100-year design life (or longer) if moisture, decay, insect protection, and structural loads are well managed.
Structural wood buildings (traditional heavy timber) in Europe and elsewhere have survived centuries, suggesting that wood as a material can endure if well maintained. CLT, being engineered and protected, is expected to achieve comparable durability under good conditions.
Recent research on engineered wood reuse after moisture exposure (not CLT specifically but relevant to mass timber) shows that after a wet-dry cycle, a significant fraction of components retain structural performance (e.g. ~70% above a 0.90 residual performance threshold after one cycle) — meaning there is structural resilience in real environments.
Design codes and industry guidance typically use service lives of 50–100 years for modern wood structures as benchmarks.
Key risk factors that might shorten lifespan include moisture infiltration, biological decay (fungi, mold), insect attack, delamination, mechanical wear, and inadequate detailing or protective claddings.

In practice, a well-designed CLT building, with proper weather barriers, flashing, ventilation, and maintenance, should achieve a lifespan at least in the range of conventional buildings (50–100 years or more). As the industry matures, longer design lives may be validated and insured more confidently.

What are the benefits of building with CLT?

CLT offers a wide array of advantages, especially when compared to conventional structural materials (concrete, steel) or light wood framing. Below are key benefits:

Carbon sequestration / sustainability
- Since CLT is made from wood, it stores carbon dioxide (carbon captured during tree growth) for the lifetime of the structure.
- Several life cycle analyses indicate that CLT-based buildings can reduce global warming potential by 15–25% (or more) compared to equivalent steel/concrete buildings.
- The embodied energy (energy to produce materials) of wood is typically lower than that for producing concrete or steel, meaning lower upfront emissions.
- When wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests, the carbon cycle is renewable, and the incentive to maintain forest health increases.
Prefabrication / speed of construction
- CLT panels are prefabricated off-site with high precision (cutouts, window/door openings, CNC machining), which shortens on-site assembly time.
- On-site labor is reduced (less on-site cutting or fitting).
- Erection of panels can progress rapidly (some estimates say 20% or more faster than conventional construction).
- Because panels are lighter (versus concrete slabs), smaller cranes or simpler lifting equipment often suffice, reducing logistics overhead.
Lighter weight / less foundation demand
- CLT is substantially lighter than equivalent concrete or steel structures, reducing foundation loads and potentially enabling construction on more marginal soils.
- Less dead load also reduces seismic forces on the building.
Structural strength / stiffness / dimensional stability
- The cross-lamination gives good in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness and strength.
- CLT behaves in a two-way spanning fashion (i.e. load distribution in two orthogonal directions), similar to concrete slabs.
- It handles seismic loads well (e.g. in tests of CLT buildings on shake tables, structures survived multiple earthquakes with minimal damage).
- Fire performance: while wood is combustible, CLT tends to form a char layer on the outer surface which insulates internal wood, slowing further burn and preserving structural integrity for a time.
- When properly detailed (with protection, fire-resistant barriers, coatings, or encapsulation), CLT can meet fire rating requirements (e.g. 60 or 90 minutes in many assemblies).
Thermal and acoustic performance
- Wood is a natural insulator; CLT panels offer modest thermal resistance, and their mass can contribute to thermal inertia.
- With proper detailing (seals, joints, insulation layers), CLT buildings can achieve good airtightness and energy performance.
- Acoustics: CLT provides decent acoustic separation, but additional layers (insulation, floating floors, ceiling systems) are often needed to meet high performance in multi-family or commercial buildings.
Architectural aesthetics / biophilia
- Exposed wood surfaces have visual warmth and appeal. Many projects leave CLT panels exposed in interiors, reducing finishing costs.
- There’s a psychological, biophilic benefit to natural wood exposure in interior spaces (less sterile than concrete or steel).
- Flexibility in panel sizes allows for broad spans and open interiors in architectural designs.
Reduced waste / material efficiency
- Because CLT is precision-fabricated, cuts and waste on site are minimized.
- Smaller-diameter logs and lower-grade wood that might otherwise be unused can be incorporated in CLT laminations (depending on design).

How strong is cross-laminated timber?

The “strength” of CLT depends on panel configuration (number and thickness of layers), wood species, adhesive, panel size, load conditions, and joint details. But multiple studies and industry data provide benchmarks and comparisons.

Compressive, tensile, shear strength
- CLT panels are engineered to carry both compressive and tensile loads, and they have good shear capacity. Because of the cross-lamination, loads are distributed in both directions more evenly than in unidirectional laminates.
- The exact strength in units (MPa, ksi) depends on panel design and wood species. Many design manuals and building codes provide tabulated values for different panel thicknesses, in-plane shear, bending, compression, etc.
In-plane stiffness / out-of-plane performance
- CLT exhibits good stiffness both in-plane and out-of-plane, enabling it to act somewhat like a two-way slab (in floor/ceiling panels) and as shear walls (in walls).
- It resists bending, buckling, and shear in multiple directions, especially for symmetrical layups.
Seismic / cyclic loading performance
- CLT buildings have shown good performance in seismic tests, surviving multiple simulated earthquakes in shake table experiments with minimal damage.
- Connection design (connectors, fasteners, brackets) is critical to ensure ductility and energy dissipation under cyclic loads.
- Hybrid CLT (outer high-grade layers, core lower-grade) has been tested for connection hysteretic behavior under cyclic loads, with results showing that in some modes, hybrid panels perform comparably to conventional ones, though core penetration by fasteners can influence performance.
Fire performance and residual strength
- During fire exposure, CLT tends to char on the surface. The char layer insulates the inner wood, delaying deeper burning, and allowing structural capacity to persist longer (depending on thickness and protection).
- Fire ratings (e.g. 60 min, 90 min) can be achieved by designing protective layers, thickness, and detailing.
Comparisons to concrete / steel (strength-to-weight)
- On a strength-to-weight basis, CLT (and mass timber generally) performs favorably vs. concrete: it achieves respectable load capacities with lower weight, reducing foundation and lateral demands.
- However, in absolute load capacity (especially for very heavy loads or extremely tall buildings), concrete and steel still generally provide higher peak capacities, which is why many tall timber buildings use hybrid systems (e.g. concrete core + timber structure).

In summary: CLT is structurally robust, and its strength is more than sufficient for many mid-rise and even tall wood buildings when engineered properly. But as always, the design must carefully account for load paths, connections, connectors, and safety factors.

Is CLT cheaper than concrete?

This is a nuanced question. The answer depends heavily on project scale, location (distance to CLT plant, shipping costs), labor costs, code constraints, complexity, foundation requirements, and schedule pressures. In many cases, CLT can offer cost-competitiveness or even cost savings relative to concrete, especially for mid-rise buildings, but it is not universally cheaper.

Here’s a breakdown:

Arguments / evidence for CLT being (or becoming) cheaper

Because CLT panels are prefabricated, on-site labor and construction time are reduced, which can lower the “time cost” (labor, site overhead, scaffolding, supervision).
The lighter weight of CLT reduces foundation costs (smaller footings, less concrete) and reduces structural support demands, again saving material cost.
Some studies (e.g. by AXA XL) suggest material + labor cost savings of up to ~15% compared to concrete/steel/masonry in certain mid-rise residential projects.
Waugh Thistleton (an early tall timber firm) has claimed about 15% cost savings in some uses of CLT over conventional materials.
Fewer site trades (cutting, scaffolding, formwork, rebar) may simplify coordination and reduce general conditions costs.

Arguments / evidence against CLT being cheaper (or making it more expensive)

CLT is still a relatively niche product in many markets, so manufacturing capacity is limited, and transportation from CLT factories to the site (especially in regions far from plants) can be expensive.
Upfront material costs may be higher due to premium pricing for engineered wood, adhesives, and processing. Many sources mention this as a disadvantage.
Delivery costs: large panels require careful transport, handling, and logistics (e.g. large trucks, specialized rigging).
In some markets, building codes or permitting complexity with timber are a barrier, adding design cost or insurance premium costs.
Utility integration (wiring, plumbing) is more complex (no hollow cavities), which can increase mechanical/trade costs.
For very tall or heavy-load buildings, hybrid designs (concrete cores, steel reinforcement) might be necessary, adding complexity and cost.

Verdict

In favorable conditions (proximity to CLT factories, good labor rates, simple geometry, mid-rise building), CLT can compete with or beat concrete/steel in total cost (material + labor + time).
In less favorable conditions (remote sites, complex geometry, tight margins, regulatory barriers), CLT may carry a premium.
The cost gap is narrowing as CLT manufacturing scales, codes become supportive, and more experienced labor and supply chains emerge.

So it’s not always cheaper, but in many contexts it’s increasingly viable and sometimes advantageous.

What are the disadvantages of CLT?

While CLT brings many advantages, it also has limitations and risks. It is not a silver bullet; careful engineering and project planning are essential. Below is a detailed look at the main disadvantages or challenges:

Cost, supply, and transportation constraints
- As noted above, limited manufacturing plants translate into high transportation and logistics cost for many sites.
- Material costs may be higher than traditional systems (in many markets) due to premium pricing, niche market, and lower economies of scale.
Limited track record, regulatory and code challenges
- In many places, building codes for tall timber or mass timber are recent, untested, or evolving; getting permits may require extra engineering or fire review.
- Insurance and financing may demand premium margins or reluctance until more performance history exists.
- Some jurisdictions impose height limits on wood construction or require hybrid concrete/steel cores.
Moisture, weather, and durability risks
- During storage, transport, or construction, exposure to moisture (rain, humidity) can lead to swelling, warp, fungal decay, or delamination. The adhesive bonds must be highly durable and moisture-resistant.
- Without good detailing (flashing, cladding, ventilation), long-term moisture infiltration may degrade performance, cause mold, or structural damage.
- Insect or pest attack (termites, wood-boring insects) may be a concern, particularly in climates where insects are active, unless mitigated (borate treatments, protective barriers).
Fire risk / insurance / perception
- Wood is combustible, so fire is a risk. Although CLT’s charring behavior helps, full fire protection must be considered (encapsulation, fire-resistant layers, sprinklers).
- Insurance premiums may be higher for timber buildings until the risk models mature.
- Aesthetic damage (charring, staining) from fire or water may necessitate replacement of panels, even if structural capacity remains.
Complex integration of services (MEP / utilities)
- Unlike conventional framed walls with cavities, CLT panels are solid, so embedding plumbing, electrical, HVAC ducts is more challenging. Penetrations must be routed precisely or accommodated with secondary framing.
- Future modifications (re-routing, renovations) may be harder, because cutting into CLT panels can weaken structural integrity or damage bonds.
Design flexibility and tolerance constraints
- CLT demands high precision in design and execution. Minor deviations or errors can cascade, since on-site adjustments are more difficult.
- Late changes or post-construction modifications are harder or more limited.
Acoustic / vibration / sound transmission
- CLT panels may underperform in acoustic isolation compared to mass concrete unless properly supplemented (floating floors, insulation, decoupling).
- Floor vibration might need extra stiffness or damping in long spans.
Adhesives / emissions / end-of-life recycling concerns
- The adhesives used (often resin-based) may release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or formaldehyde during manufacture or low-level outgassing, depending on adhesive choice.
- At end-of-life, recycling or reuse is more complex due to adhesives and cross-lamination (delamination, separation of layers).
- Some environmental critiques argue that the full supply chain (logging, transport, adhesive manufacture) may still contribute significant emissions, reducing net benefit unless carefully managed.

In short: CLT offers many structural and sustainability advantages, but to succeed it must be integrated thoughtfully—especially with regard to moisture, fire, service integration, supply chains, and design discipline.

Is CLT softwood or hardwood?

Generally, CLT is made from softwood species, but some use of hardwoods is emerging or possible.

Common softwood species for CLT include spruce, pine, Douglas-fir, larch, fir, and combinations thereof. These softwoods are widely available, dimensionally stable, and cost-effective.
Softwoods tend to be lighter, easier to work, and more uniform, which suits panel production and bonding.
That said, some research and experimentation is underway to incorporate hardwood lamellas in CLT (or hybrid mixes) to take advantage of hardwood strength, density, or appearance in select layers. The Virginia Tech CLT initiative (which helps shape ANSI/APA PRG-320) includes investigating hardwood inclusion.
However, in practice today, almost all commercial CLT uses softwoods.

So, to answer succinctly: CLT is primarily softwood, though hybrid or hardwood variants are an area of research or niche use.

Summary & outlook

Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is one of the flagship products in the mass timber revolution. By layering solid wood laminations in crosswise orientation and bonding them with structural adhesives, CLT combines strength, stiffness, and structural versatility. It enables the construction of walls, floors, and roofs in a unified, efficient, prefabricated panel system.

With proper detailing and protection, CLT buildings can achieve lifespans comparable to modern construction (50–100+ years). The benefits of CLT are compelling: carbon sequestration, reduced embodied energy, speed of assembly, lighter weight (hence reduced foundations), aesthetic appeal, and flexible architectural expression.

Strength-wise, CLT is robust, with favorable strength-to-weight ratios, good seismic behavior, and fire performance via char layers (with protective detailing). Whether CLT is cheaper than concrete depends heavily on context, but in many favorable scenarios, it can offer cost advantages once logistics, labor, and speed benefits are factored in.

The disadvantages (or challenges) of CLT—high delivery and manufacturing cost in some regions, moisture risks, integration complexity, limited code history, and future flexibility constraints—are real but surmountable with careful engineering.

Finally, CLT is primarily made from softwood, though hybrid hardwood mixes are under exploration.

As mass timber adoption increases, CLT’s maturity—supply chains, code clarity, insurance models, and design tooling—will keep improving, making it an ever more viable structural alternative.

Back to blog