8 scientific steering committee (ssc) meeting #...

NSERC Strategic Network on Innovative Wood Products and Building Systems (NEWBuildS)

Wood Science and Technology Centre University of New Brunswick 1350 Regent Street Fredericton, New Brunswick CANADA E3B 6C2 Tel: (506) 453-4507 Fax: (506) 453-3574

8

www.NEWBuildSCanada.ca

Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) Meeting # 8

Monday May 30th, 2011 @ 9 am

Board Room @ FPInnovations Vancouver

AGENDA

1. Opening Remarks – Chair

2. Approval of / addition to Agenda

3. Approval of Notes of SSC Conference Call (March 31st, 2011) P.2

4. Related activities

a. Overview of related FPInnovations research program

b. CWC/NRC/FPInnovations Mid-rise project

c. Changes to Ontario Building Code

d. Impact of Remy Building fires

5. Report by Management Team

a. Networking, fund raising & potential collaborative projects P. 4 / 7

b. BoD – International Expert Panel and Outreach Committee

c. Release of second year funds P. 10

d. Enhancement Fund Program P. 11

6. Overview of on-going projects and upcoming planned projects P. 12

7. Potential new projects – topics and evaluation process

8. Process to monitor and report project progress P. 14

9. Network administration and theme leader involvement P. 19

10. 2012 NEWBuildS Workshop

11. Forestry-related NSERC Strategic research networks'

a. Council of Network Directors P. 23

b. Forestry Networks Conference – October 18-19, 2011, Ottawa

c. Supplemental Funding for networking and training

12. Other business

13. Next meeting

Notes of SSC Conf Call #7 - March 31 2011_CHUI.doc

Notes of NEWBuildS SSC Conference Call #7 March 31st, 2011

Attendance: Frank Lam, George Hadjisophocleous, Paul Cooper, Bob Knudson, Conroy Lum, Steve Craft, Mohammad Mohammad, Y.H. Chui, Kenneth Koo Absent: Ian Smith

Reference documents: Meeting Package of SSC Conf Call #7 – March 31st, 2011

Error Note: Nov 2010 meeting should be #6, not #5.

Meeting Notes:

S7.1 Confirmation of attendees and opening remarks. Dr Chui welcomes all to SSC Conference Call #7.

S7.2 Approval / Addition to agenda. Meeting Agenda approved as suggested with no addition.

S7.3 Approval of Notes of SSC Conference Call #6/ Review of Action Item. Notes were approved and all Action Items addressed as reported

S7.4 Key issues arising from BoD meeting (attachment for each included in the conference call package) -

7.4a: Project Deliverables - Dr. Chui informed all that this Board is particularly interested in progress of research projects and dissemination of research information to the industry. It requested a list of key project deliverables for year 2 after the Board meeting as a pre-condition of approving the year 2 budget.

7.4b: International Expert Panel (IEP) - To avoid potential conflict, an independent expert panel can provide arms-length review of the scientific quality of the research and review new proposal if necessary. With input from a BoD Task Group, terms of reference for an International Expert Panel was prepared.

7.4c: NEWBuildS Policy for recalling funding and cancelling of thesis and PDF projects - Board approved the attached Policy with minor modifications.

S7.5 Release of 2nd year installment – Dr. Chui reported that NSERC has released 50% of the second year funds to UNB after he provided NSERC with a consolidated Form 300 plus additional information on the committed money from year 1. This additional step was necessary because expenditure level for year 1 to the anniversary date was low. He reminded SSC members that the conditions for release of year 2 funds to any continuing project, as stated in the motification letter, are: 1. Project must demonstrate satisfactory progress - NEWBuildS relies on SSC, in

particular project theme leaders, to review Progress Report and evaluate the research. 2. Total expenditure must exceed 60% of budget for the 1st year - Dr. Chui reported that

there were challenges to monitor this requirement, but it will be done by UNB administrative assistant. For 2nd year, Dr. Chui suggested raising the expenditure limit to 70% to reduce carry-over and will poll PIs for comments.

S7.6 Review of Progress Reports & Ian’s key questions in March 20, 2011 email Review of Progress Reports - Dr. Chui reiterated that the SSC has previously agreed

that theme leaders will perform evaluation of progress. He felt that however the current progress report format needs to be improved so that appropriate details are presented to facilitate evaluation by theme leaders. A couple of suggestions were made: 1. project progress be described relative to each milestone/deliverable, as opposed to simply being presented as completed tasks. 2. The need to engage collaborators (mostly FPInnovations scientists) in the project and emphasize this interaction in the progress report.

Notes of SSC Conf Call #7 - March 31 2011_CHUI.doc

It was agreed to defer the discussion on Ian’s key questions until he is present. Dr. Chui stated that there travel budget has been allocated to allow theme leaders to

meet PIs if needed.

S7.7 Soliciting and review of new projects / students starting in year 3 – Dr. Chui informed all that we should make plan to process new projects and students starting in Year 3 by he Summer so that PIs have sufficient time to recruit HQP. New write-ups would be required and approved by SSC. The summary provided in the conference call package indicated that there will be 17 new HQP for Year 3. Dr. Chui will also contact individual PI’s who will have new HQP to commence in year 3 according to the initial application to NSERC, regarding their intention to proceed with the planned projects.

S7.8 Discussion items for May 30th, 2011 SSC Meeting – 4 items identified; a) Review Progress b) Ian’s comments, c) new projects/HQP, and d) next Workshop.

S7.9a Project Enhancement Fund Competition – A selection panel consisting of Erol, Paul, Chui and Ken was struck. Ten applications were received with $42k available for funding. The panel will reach a decision by Apr 11th at the latest.

S7.9b Potential V2W project – Dr. Chui informed all that he made a place-holder proposal to NRCan for a graduate thesis project on energy efficiency/prefabrication. If NRCan Research Advisory Committee accepts the proposal, he will contact a qualified university researcher to submit a more detailed research proposal to NRCan. A question was raised by a SSC member regarding the need for NEWBuildS to get involved in V2W program. Dr. Chui stated that although the project will be technically linked to NEWBuildS, it will not be administered by NEWBuildS. The PI will be invited to present results at the annual NEWBuildS Workshops. Note that NEWBuildS currently does not have any project addressing energy performance of buildings.

Conference call adjourned after 1 ½ hour.

of 3 4/25/2011

Energy efficiency of Mid-Rise Wood Frame Buildings (Joint project – University of Alberta & NSERC NEWBuildS network)

Project Leader: Dr. Mohamed Al-Hussein University of Alberta

Program Area: Structural and Mechanical Project Start Date: June, 2011 Completion Date: May, 2012 10/11 Budget: $63,250 Industry Collaborator:

Dr. Haitao Yu, Senior Researcher, Landmark Group of Builders Inc., Edmonton, Alberta

Part A – Background Information (Page 1)

Project Purpose The primary objective of the project is to investigate technical issues that will impact the energy efficiency of mid-rise wood based framing buildings. Since energy efficiency of buildings is closely related to thermal performance and quality of workmanship of the building envelope, the research will focus on the development of prefabricated, energy efficient exterior wall systems that can be used in mid-rise (6 storey) buildings. The proposed wall-system is based on a staggered or double stud wall design.

Research Team Expertise This project will be undertaken by graduate students at University of Alberta under the direction of principle investigator, Dr. Mohamed Al-Hussein, and co-investigators, Dr. Roger Cheng and Mr. Mark Ackerman. Dr. Al-Hussein and Dr. Roger Cheng are recognized experts in the field of industrialized building construction and building structure analysis, and have worked with Canadian and US construction industries with projects across North America. Mr. Mark Ackerman has more than 30 years of measurement expertise and is heavily involved in studies of energy efficient homes. NEWBuildS Network Liaison Manager and a NEWBuildS researcher will participate as research collaborators.

Industry Participation Industrial participation is crucial to the success of a project of this nature. The research plan will be developed in conjunction with Dr. Haitao Yu, Senior Researcher of Landmark Group of Builders Inc. (“Landmark”), who will provide technical advice, staff time and research materials. Landmark is the one of the largest home builders in Alberta who builds both high and low-rise residential buildings. Landmark Building Solutions, the prefabrication division of Landmark, operates a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility that produces wall and floor panels for wood frame buildings.

Links to Previous Research Research on improving thermal performance of wood frame buildings has been conducted both in Canada and around the world, but the majority of the research focuses on low-rise residential buildings. The extrapolation of technologies developed for low-rise buildings to mid-rise buildings brings challenges such as increased thermal bridging due to reduced stud spacing necessary to meet the high structural requirements of walls. This project will focus on issues that will lead to the development of an energy efficient wall system for mid-rise wood frame buildings.

of 3 4/25/2011

Development of Highly Trained Personnel This project will be conducted by two graduate students, who will acquire knowledge on building science, especially in building envelope analysis and design. It is generally recognized that highly skilled graduates with high level expertise in this architectural-engineering-construction technology discipline are in short supply in Canada due to a lack of university programs in building science. Part B – Evaluation-specific Information (Page 2)

1. Importance to Industry (40%) Increasing the allowable number of floors in residential light wood frame buildings from four to six is considered as an effective option to provide more affordable housing and increase urban density. However, developers, designers and building regulators require more supporting evidence that this type of construction meets building code performance requirements. In 2009, a research network, NEWBuildS, was established by FPInnovations and NSERC to undertake research that will develop information to effect appropriate changes in building codes and develop design tools for building designers. The research program of NEWBuildS consists of 36 research projects that address structural, serviceability, fire and durability performance of mid-rise wood buildings. When the programs were developed, research on thermal performance of buildings was not included as energy efficiency was not a high priority of National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Since that time, a number of provincial governments (e.g. Nova Scotia and Ontario) have implemented explicit energy performance targets for new buildings within their jurisdictions and the NBCC is currently embarking on work to add energy efficiency as a code objective and develop similar performance requirements.

The proposed project will facilitate NEWBuildS to liaise and work with University of Alberta on energy performance of mid-rise buildings, address potential obstacles, and capitalize on wood’s ‘green’ attributes. A major benefit of the network approach to building research is that any advancement in construction technology and design methodologies in one performance area will not have a negative impact on performance in other areas.

The increase of building heights from low rise (4 storeys) to mid-rise (6 storeys) wood frame construction demands the development of wall panels with higher structural performance for vertical and lateral resistance. A key challenge for producing energy efficient wall panels for light wood frame mid-rise buildings is the reduced stud spacing (as low as 6 inches) in the lower storeys that interferes with the placement of insulation material. One potential solution to this issue is to use wall panels with staggered or double studs and thicker walls. Although this type of wall panel has been used in building construction for acoustics performance, research is required to develop construction details of such a wall system for mid-rise construction from the perspective of meeting code-mandated energy and structural performance. The goal of this project is to develop and test a building exterior wall system that can meet future code requirements on overall thermal performance and yet has the required structural capability for mid-rise wood frame construction.

2. Return on Investment (35%) There is a strong interest by the wood and housing industry to expand the use of wood frame construction into mid-rise buildings in Canada. The B.C. Building Code, with provisions for mid-rise wood frame construction, has been in place since April 2009. There is also interest in Ontario as its Ministry has just completed 2nd round of consultations with provisions for mid-rise wood frame construction for incorporation into the next edition of Ontario Building Code.

of 3 4/25/2011

3. Clarity of Project Work plan and Deliverables (25%) The overall goal of the proposed research is to design, test and evaluate an energy efficient wall system with required structural capability to be used in mid-rise wood frame construction. To achieve this goal, the research project has been broken into the following four steps:

1. Development of preliminary wall configurations based on energy and structural requirements 2. Structural (racking) testing on wall panels developed in Step 1 and identifying the most efficient

design(s). 3. Thermal performance testing of selected wall panels. 4. Refinement of wall details based on test results from steps 2 and 3.

Structural (racking) tests will be performed at Morrison Structural Engineering Lab at the University of Alberta, and the thermal performance of the proposed wall systems will be tested in the Thermo Test Chamber at Mechanical Engineering Department. Landmark will prefabricate all wall test panels based on researchers’ design. The project team will be invited to present results at the annual NEWBuildS Workshop and through the Network Liaison Manager to interact with appropriate Network researcher on wall structural requirements and other issues e.g. fire and durability that are not addressed directly in the project.

Tasks / Deliverables Expected Delivery Date

Year 1 (June 1st, 2011 – May 31st, 2012) Deliverables: 1. Structural and energy requirements analysis and preliminary wall system

design / Engineering design of 3-4 promising wall assembly options October, 2011

2. Structural (racking) tests / Wall structural properties analysis report December, 2011 3. Thermal performance tests / Wall thermal performance analysis report January, 2012 4. Modify wall assembly design based on testing results / Engineering design

of the most promising wall assembly March, 2012

5. Tests on structural (racking) properties and thermal performance of the final design /Final report on wall structural properties and thermal performance.

May, 2012

4. Project Budget Provide a budget breakdown for the first year of the project under the following categories: 1. Salary: 2 M.Sc. Students 1 year @ $18,000 / student $36,000

2. Equipment and consumables Test panels Provided by Landmark

Structural Tests 6 panels @ $1,500 / panel $ 9,000 Thermal Tests 3 panels @ $2,000 / panel $ 6,000

3. Travel Travel by graduate students and principal investigator for project discussion with industrial collaborator and FPInnovations, and to attend NEWBuildS workshop $ 4,000

4. Administration (15%) $ 8,250

Total: $63,250

1

A research project to develop a hybrid CLT product consisting of lumber and oriented strand lumber Background The emergence of cross laminated timber (CLT) has presented the Canadian wood industry with a great opportunity to compete with concrete in multi‐storey building construction. Despite the availability of commercial machines to manufacture commercial size CLT using dimension lumber there are challenges with the existing systems, such as the need to apply pressure to all four sides of a panel to ensure adequate edge‐glue bond quality, as well as the out‐of‐plane pressing. From a product performance perspective, CLT is known to be prone to the so‐called rolling shear failure and excessive deflection when subjected to out‐of‐plane loading. These challenges and performance issues can be addressed by replacing some of the layers in a CLT panel with a structural composite lumber (SCL), such as oriented strand lumber (OSL). Such a product offers the following potential benefits:

1. Reduced production cost because of the reduced efforts to lay lumber pieces and the elimination of the need to press the panel on all 4 sides.

2. Since mechanical properties of SCL can be engineered based on manipulation of wood furnish characteristics and press schedule, this offers an opportunity to address the weaknesses related to low shear strength and stiffness properties of the current CLT product which is based on dimension lumber.

Outline of Research Plan The proposed research will be conducted in 3 phases. Phase 1 – development of product specifications In this phase, stress distributions and stiffness characteristics of various lay‐ups of potential hybrid CLT product will be evaluated using initially a modelling approach and then laboratory scale specimen testing. Either a numerical or analytical modelling approach will be used. This will build on the work of two on‐going research projects in the NEWBuildS Network: T1‐2‐C1 ‘Development of Design Methods for CLT and Application of Modal Testing’ and T1‐6‐C1 ‘Influence of Manufacturing Parameters on CLT Plate to Resist Out‐of‐plane Loading’. Published mechanical properties of current commercial OSL and lumber products will be used in these analyses, which will cover some practical lay‐ups of the hybrid CLT product, as a starting point. To validate the model predictions, small scale hybrid CLT specimens using thin OSL or OSB and thin lumber boards will be prepared and tested in the laboratory under transverse loading. This experimental program will also serve the purpose of selecting a preliminary range of manufacturing process parameters, such as press pressure and suitable adhesives. Once this modeling approach is validated, further analyses will then be conducted for common applications such as floors to identify range of desirable mechanical properties for the OSL layers. This phase will be undertaken by 2 MSc students. Phase 2 – manufacturing parameters for hybrid CLT Based on the information developed in Phase 1, OSL panels with the desirable properties and thickness will be manufactured by Alberta Innovate Technology Futures (AITF). These OSL panels will be used to manufacture hybrid prototype panels. In this phase, research will be conducted to develop a manufacturing process for the hybrid CLT product. Among the process parameters studied may include transverse pressure, side pressure, glue characteristics, and OSL surface preparation. The manufactured panels will be tested to identify desirable process parameters and to confirm the final product properties.

2

This phase will be undertaken by a MSc student. Phase 3 – performance of hybrid and all‐OSL CLT products The final product will be evaluated for performance attributes that will impact on the use of the developed product in a building system. These will include connection details, hygrothermal properties, and fire resistance. Currently NEWBuildS has projects that address each of these issues for conventional CLT products. These are: T1‐11‐C1 ‘Connections in CLT Building Systems’ T3‐3‐C7 ‘Fire Behaviour of Cross Laminated Timber Panels’ T4‐2‐C10 ‘Developing Technical Solutions to Improve Moisture Performance of Mid‐rise Wood Frame and Cross‐laminated Timber Constructions in North America’ Some possible challenges for each of these areas are discussed below. Connection – Since the hybrid CLT will have the weaker OSL face exposed on all 4 edges, connecting hybrid CLT may be challenging for some applications when fasteners are required to be driven into the edges of the panels. Research will be required to develop appropriate connection details for intended applications. Fire performance ‐ With continuous layers of OSL material in the lay‐up of the hybrid product, it is expected that the fire performance of the hybrid panel will be different from the conventional CLT panel which has gaps in the structure. The conventional panels are being tested for fire resistance under NEWBuildS project T3‐3‐C7. The proposed project will test hybrid CLT panels with a view to develop appropriate fire prediction model for these panels. Hygrothermal properties – Similar to fire resistance, the presence of continuous OSL layers will reduce the number of possible passages for air and moisture movement, thereby altering the hygrothermal properties of the panel. Hygrothermal properties of conventional CLT are being measured in NEWBuildS project T4‐2‐C10. The proposed research will evaluate the influence of the OSL layers on the thermal resistance and movement characteristics of moisture and air through the thickness of the hybrid CLT panels. In addition, this research will study the dimensional stability of the hybrid panels, given that the difference in differential shrinkage properties of lumber and OSL layers can be large. This phase will be undertaken by 3 MSc students. HQP requirement and Schedule This proposed research will be completed in 4 years with the schedule shown below: Phase Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 1 – MSc 1 1 – MSc 2 2 – MSc 3 3 – MSc 4 3 – MSc 5 3 – MSc 6 Partners NEWBuildS university partners

3

FPInnovations Alberta Innovate Technology Futures Tolko Ainsworth

Year 2 project funding allocation

Tech salary Stipends Supplies

Research travel Others Total

Carry-over from yr 1 Transfer

T1-1-C1 1,2 Gong UNB MSc1-T1 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $23,500 Student commenced in Jan 11T1 2 C1 1 2 3 Ch i/G UNB PhD1 T1 $5 000 $19 000 $4 000 $3 000 $0 $31 000 $31 000 St d t d i J 12

Project code

Student / PDF No.

Year 2

Year PI University

T1-2-C1 1,2,3 Chui/Gong UNB PhD1-T1 $5,000 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $31,000 $31,000 Student commenced in Jan 12T1-6-C1 1,2 Lam/Haukaas UBC PDF2-T1 $0 $44,000 $5,000 $4,000 $15,000 $68,000 $43,651 Done

1,2 Lam/Haukaas UBC MSc4-T1 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $23,500 DoneT1-7-C3 1,2 Haukaas UBC MSc6-T1 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $16,296 DoneT1-11-C1 1,2 Smith/Salenikovitch UNB/Laval MSc8-T1 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $23,500 Student commenced in Jan 12T2-1-C4 1,2 Smith UNB PDF1-T2 $5,000 $44,000 $5,000 $4,000 $0 $58,000 $29,593 DoneT2-2-C4 1,2 Bartlett/Hong UWO MSc1-T2 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $13,146 Done, g $ $ , $ , $ , $ $ , $ ,T2-3-C4 1,2,3 Stiemer/Tesfamariam UBC PhD4-T2 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 $16,194 DoneT2-4-C3 1,2,3 Gauvreau/Cooper UoT PhD5-T2 $5,000 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $31,000 $25,400 DoneT2-5-C2 1,2 McClure MU MSc4-T2 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $7,568 DoneT2-6-C3 1,2 Lam UBC MSc5-T2 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $23,500 DoneT2-8-C3 1,2 Chui UNB PDF3-T2 $0 $44,000 $5,000 $4,000 $0 $53,000 $17,536 DoneT2-9-C6 1,2,3 Chui UNB PhD7-T2 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 $6,808 DoneT2-10-C6 1,2,3 Smith UNB PhD8-T2 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 $10,255 DoneT2-10-C6 1,2,3 Smith UNB PhD8-T2 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 $10,255 DoneT2-13-C3 1,2 Ghasan Doudak UoO MSc6-T2 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $23,500 $17,400 DoneT3-1-C7 2,3,4 Hadjisophocleous CU PhD1-T3 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 N/A DoneT3-1-C8 1,2 Hadjisophocleous CU MSc1-T3 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $18,834 DoneT3-2-C9 1,2 Zalok/Hadji CU MSc3-T3 $0 $23,500 N/A

2,3 Zalok/Hadji CU MSc4-T3 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 N/A DoneT3-3-C7 1,2 Hadjisophocleous CU MSc6-T3 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $10,000 $33,500 $27,951 Done

2 3 Hadjisophocleous CU MSc7 T3 $4 000 $16 500 $4 000 $3 000 $0 $27 500 N/A Done2,3 Hadjisophocleous CU MSc7-T3 $4,000 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $27,500 N/A DoneT3-4-C5 1,2,3 Hadjisophocleous CU PhD2-T3 $8,000 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $34,000 $34,000 Student to commence in Sept 11

1,2 Hadjisophocleous CU MSc9-T3 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $18,334 Student to commence in Sept 11T3-6-C2 1,2,3 Hodgson/Nightingale UBC PhD4-T3 $0 $19,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $26,000 $26,000 Student to be recruited in 2011T4-1-C0 1,2 Beauregerd UL MSc1-T4 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $10,669 DoneT4-2-C10 1,2 Ge Ryerson MSc2-T4 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $23,500 Student commenced in Jan 11

2,3 Ge Ryerson MSc3-T4 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 N/A Student to be recruited in Sept 11$ $ $ $ $ $ $T4-3-C11 1,2 Koubaa UQAT MSc6-T4 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $14,500 Done

T4-4-C11 1,2 Cooper UT PhD2-T4 $0 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $23,500 $20,925 DoneT4-5-C10 1,2 Ge Ryerson MSc4,5-T4 $5,000 $16,500 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $28,500 $29,834 Student to be recruited in Sept 11

$32,000 $597,500 $123,000 $93,000 $25,000 $870,500

Enhancement Funds Application (2011-2012)

Project # Project code Applicant : Institution Period Amount Description

2011 - 1 T2-5-C2 Prof. Ghasan

Doudak University of Ottawa

Jan 2011 - Feb 2012

$6,000 Request to cover field testing expenses related to ambient vibration measurements (AVM) in wood light frame buildings for 2 students in Quebec and BC. Total project cost $6,714 - Enhancement Funds & T2-5-C2 funding

2011 - 2 THEME II Pro. Ian Smith UNB Summer 2011 $4,000 Request Funds for Theme II meeting expense - 1 1/2 days meeting @ NRC - IRC on June 13 & 14. Meeting expense = travel cost of Professor Andrea Frangi, ETH-Zurich + meals only ($1,000). NRC is providing meeting rooms.

2011 - 3 T2 – 13 – C3 Prof. Ghasan

Doudak University of Ottawa

Jan 2011 - Feb 2012

$6,000 Funding for summer student to assist Mr. Al Mamun (MSc6-T2) in constructing and testing portal frame corners at the University of Ottawa Structural Lab

2011 - 4 T1-11-C1 Prof Ian Smith &

Tom Joyce UNB 2011 – 2012 $6,000

Request for 50% contribution to travel costs ($4,000 - 6 wks in Trento), laboratory labour ($5,400) and sundry expenses associated ($2,600). Additional funding provided by NSERC Discovery Grant ($6,000)

2011 - 5 T1-11-C1 Prof Alexander

Salenikovich Université

Laval 2011 $1,600

Request for 50% contribution to 12 wks travel costs (Ljubljana & Trento) Additional funding provided by NSERC ULaval, CBD, personal funds ($6,000)

2011 - 7 T2 - 3 Profs S.

Tesfamariam & S. Stiermer

UBC $6,000Funding for visiting scholar, Dr. Di, $10,000 and Technical visit (Johannes Schneder) $3,500. Additional funding provided by NSERC Discovery & Engage Grants.

2011 - 8 T2 - 2 Prof. F. M.

Bartlett & Jeff Blaylock

UWO $6,000

Experimental Investigation of Light Frame Wood Infill Walls in Reinforced Concrete Buildings. It is proposed to construct a concrete plane frame at the Insurance Research Lab for Better Homes (IRLBH) to be subjected to racking and out-of-plane loads and so assess the gap requirements and connection adequacy.

2011 - 10 T1-1-C1 &

T1-2-C1 Prof. Meng

Gong UNB

July 2011- April 2012

$6,000 Request is to invite Prof Liu to visit UNB for 6 months to supervise students and visit Nordic CLT plant. Total cost is $15,000 and balance is by Jiangsu Government Scholarship for overseas studies

Total requested

$41,600 $42,000 available

NEWBuildS Projects - Projection year 3 - 5

T1-2-C1 1,2,3CLT product design method based on flexural properties and use of modal testing method Chui/Gong PhD PhD1-T1 $31,000 $0 $0

T1-3-C1 4,5Innovative CLT Building Systems – Localized Rolling Shear Reinforcement Lam MSc MSc2-T1 $0 $23,500 $23,500

T1-4-C1 4,5Development of NDT technique for CLT QC evaluation and control Chui MSc MSc3-T1 $0 $28,500 $28,500

T1-5-C2 3,4 Seismic response of CLT mid-rise system Lam/Haukaas PDF PDF1-T1 $53,000 $53,000 $0 proposal requested3,4,5 PhD PhD2-T1 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000

T1-6-C1 1,2 & 3,4Manufacturing Parameters on CLT Floor Performance to resist out-of-plane loading MSc MSc4,5-T1 $23,500 $23,500 $0

More details requested

3,4,5 PhD PhD3-T1 $41,000 $41,000 $26,000More details requested

T1-8-C3 3,4Force transfer around openings in CLT buildings(lateral load) Lam/Haukaas MSc MSc7-T1 $23,500 $23,500 $0 proposal requested

T1-9-C3 3,4,5 Stability of CLT wall under vertical load Lam PhD PhD4-T1 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 proposal requestedT1-10-C4 4,5 Innovative Post-tensioned CLT walls Lam/Haukaas PDF PDF3-T1 $0 $53,000 $53,000

4,5 MSc MSc10-T1 $0 $23,500 $23,500T1-11-C1 1,2 & 3,4 Connection design in CLT Salenikovich/Smith MSc MSc8,9-T1 $23,500 $23,500 $0

T2-1-C4 3,4,5Techniques for forming multifunctional construction interfaces in hybrid-buildings Smith/Bartlett/Chui/Hong PhD PhD1-T2 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 proposal requested

3,4,5 PhD PhD2-T2 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 proposal requested

T2-2-C4 3,4,5 RC-frame multi-material mid-rise hybrid systems Bartlett/Hong PhD PhD3-T2 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000More details requested

T2-3-C4 1,2,3 Wood-steel hybrid building systems Stiemer/Tesfamariam PhD PhD4-T2 $26,000 $0 $0

3,4,5 MSc MSc2-T2 $23,500 $23,500 $23,500More details requested

T2-4-C3 1,2,3 Post-tension timber and concrete floor system Gauvreau/Cooper PhD PhD5-T2 $31,000 $0 $04,5 MSc MSc3-T2 $0 $28,500 $28,500

T2-5-C2 3,4

Lateral drift and natural period of mid-rise buildings - prediction models

Chui/McClure/Doudak PDF PDF2-T2 $53,000 $58,000 $0

Proponent may request PDF for 1 yr and MSc for 2

T2-7-C3 3,4,5 Diaphragm action in heavy frame buildings Smith PhD PhD6-T2 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 proposal required

T2-9-C6 1,2,3

Structural Response of Mid-rise Hybrid Building System Consisting of a Light Wood Frame Structure and Stiff Core Chui PhD PhD7-T2 $26,000 $0 $0Moisture-related movement and deformation

RemarkPI HQP codeHQP Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Project code Year Title

T2-10-C6 1,2,3

Moisture related movement and deformation incompatibility of materials in heavy frame hybrid buildings Smith PhD PhD8-T2 $26,000 $0 $0

T2-11-C4 5Light wood frame structure - development of design and construction guidelines Undefined PDF PDF4-T2 $0 $0 $53,000

T2-12-C4 5Heavy and hybrid frame structure - development of design and construction guidelines Undefined PDF PDF5-T2 $0 $0 $53,000

T3-1-C7 2,3,4 Fire risk modelling of hybrid construction Hadjisophocleous PhD PhD1-T3 $26,000 $26,000 $0

1,2 & 4,5 MSc MSc1,2-T3 $0 $23,500 $23,500

T3-2-C9 2,3Rationalization of fire safety requirement in mid-rise buildings Zalok/Hadji MSc MSc4-T3 $26,500 $0 $0

4,5 MSc MSc5-T3 $0 $26,500 $26,5005 PDF PDF1-T3 $0 $0 $53,000

T3-3-C7 2,3 Fire behaviour of CLT panels Hadjisophocleous MSc MSc7-T3 $27,500 $0 $04,5 MSc MSc8-T3 $0 $27,500 $27,500

T3-4-C5 1,2,3Fire performance of timber connection in hybrid constructions Hadjisophocleous PhD PhD2-T3 $34,000 $0 $0

1,2 & 4,5 MSc MSc9,10-T3 $0 $31,500 $31,500

T3-5-C2 3,4,5 CLT floor vibration Chui PhD PhD3-T3 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 Proposal requested

T3-6-C2 4,5 Acoustic performance of mid-rise light wood frame Hodgson/Nightingale MSc MSc11-T3 $0 $23,500 $23,5001,2,3 PhD PhD4-T3 $26,000 $0 $04,5 PDF PDF3-T3 $0 $53,000 $53,000

T4-2-C10 2,3

Characterizing wind-driven rain load and the effectiveness of overhang on reducing wind-driven rain wetting for mid-rise buildings Ge MSc MSc3-T4 $28,500 $0 $0

T4-5-C10 1,2 & 3,4Developing durable building envelope assemblies for CLT construction Ge/Straube MSc MSc4,5-T4 $23,500 $23,500 $0

T4-6-C10 3,4,5Development of a methodology to characterize wind-driven load on mid-rise buildings Ge PhD PhD1-T4 $26,000 $31,000 $31,000

Revised scope may be required

5 Ge PDF PDF1-T4 $0 $0 $53,000

T4-4-C11 1,2,3

Borate pretreatments to protect building envelope components from decay and mould associated with water ingress of condensation Cooper PhD PhD2-T4 $0 $0 $0

3 PDF PDF2-T4 $50,000 $0 $0More details requested

Total $836,000 $856,000 $822,000Planned projects commencing in year 3Undefined projects

Proposed NEWBuildS Budget for Year 3

Year 3 budget - NSERC fundingRevenue/Income NSERC year 3 funding $1,060,000

Unused project funds in year 2 $26,500 MSc3-T3 of T3-2-C9Total $1,086,500

Category Item Budget NotesNetwork Liaison Manager salary $100,000 Negotiated annual salary cost with FPInnovationsAdmin Assistant salary $15,000 Partial salary - balance covered by UNBTravel by Scientific Director and NLM $20,000 Networking and administration travelTravel by SSC and BoD members $15,000 Attendance of Network meetingsOffice supplies $2,000 Stationary, office equipment, printing, courierCommunication $2,000 Telephone charges, web site, web meeting feeDissemination $5,000 Annual Workshop

$159,000 Allowable = $159,000 (15%)Stipends and salaries $584,000Research expenses $115,000Research travel $87,000Technician support $35,000Research sub-contracts $15,000Project Enhancement $24,000New MSc $47,000 Total for 2 years at $23,500 per yearNew initiative $20,500 For contingency

$927,500$1,086,500

Administration

Total Administration

Research*

For planned projects reduced by $26,000

Total Research Grand Total

Project Code : T1 – 2 – C1

Project Title : Development of Design Methods for CLT and Application of Modal Testing

Project Start Date (Month/Year) : 04 / 2010

Project Completion Date (Month/Year) : 03 / 2013

Revised Project Start Date (Month/Year) : Revised Project Completion Date (Month/Year) :

Lead Investigator / Institution : Meng Gong and Ying-Hei Chui / UNB University Co-Investigator(s) / Institution(s) : FPInnovations Co-Investigator(s) Lin Hu Industrial collaborator(s) / organization(s) : Nordic Engineered Wood HQP (code and name) : PhD1 – T1

1. Project progress (Provide a summary in point form of activities performed in the last period. If there is more than 1 student or PDF, provide a separate section for each.) Period 1: January 15 – August 31, 2010

• • •

Examples of input Example 1 Period 1: January 15 – August 31, 2010

• Initiated testing of shear strength and stiffness of glue bonds under different manufacturing conditions: species, pressure, adhesives

• Initiated development of FEM model for CLT plates Period 2: September 1 – January 14, 2011

• Completed testing of shear strength and stiffness of glue bonds under different manufacturing conditions: species, pressure, adhesives

• Progressing on development of FEM model for CLT plates • Prepared for the NewBuilds workshop

Example 2 Period 1: 15 January 2010 – 29 January, 2011

• MESc Student Jeff Blaylock engaged 15 January 2010. He completed all of his courses by 08 August 2010 and has been working full-time on research activities

• Blaylock visited UNB to discuss research activities in the context of the Network research objectives in August 2010

• August 2010, first contact with Dr. Jieying Wang at FP Innovations in Vancouver. Dr Wang has agreed to support Blaylock’s research efforts

• January 2011, Bartlett and Blaylock attend NEWBuilds Workshop in Richmond. • February 2011, Blaylock and Bartlett submit paper to CSCE Annual Conference

(Ottawa, June, 2011) based on NEWBuilds work completed to date.

Example 3

Period 1: January 15 – August 31, 2010 • Student recruited

Period 2: September 1, 2010 – January 14, 2011 • Attended NEWBuildS Workshop in Vancouver (Jan. 17-18) and presented project

summary and an outline of the plan to the NEWBuildS network. • Design of mid-sized furnace for testing CLT floor panels. • Construction of mid-sized furnace has begun at the Carleton University Fire

Laboratory. • Student continues to review literature of past fire experiments done with CLT and

other wood products in order to formulate a testing plan for future CLT experiments.

Alternative approach Describe progress of each deliverable item in the table:

• Literature review and evaluation of selected orthotropic laminated plate theory ............ (example of input: brief remarks on key findings)

• Development of the test apparatus and ‘scaled’ CLT specimen test program ................ (example of input: capability of test apparatus)

• Component testing and fabrication of ‘scaled’ CLT specimens ............ (example of input: brief summary of test program and progress, and findings to date)

• Adoption of modal testing method ………………. (example of input: work required for adoption)

• Testing of ‘scaled’ CLT specimens ……………. (example of input: brief outline of test program and objectives)

2. Deviations from original research plan (If appropriate, provide a summary of any change in work plan and time line, with background and justification.)

Year Original work plan Revised work plan*

Milestone/Deliverable Month due Milestone/Deliverable Month due

2010

Literature review and evaluation of selected orthotropic laminated plate theory Development of the test apparatus and ‘scaled’ CLT specimen test program

October December

2011

Component testing and fabrication of ‘scaled’ CLT specimens Adoption of modal testing method Testing of ‘scaled’ CLT specimens

March May November

2012

Analysis of test results from ‘scaled’ CLT test program and modeling of test specimens Testing of component materials and fabrication of full-size CLT panels and comparison of model prediction with FEM results from T1-6-C1 Full size CLT panel tests and modelling

February June October

2013 Design tool development & thesis writing March

* Provide background for the revised work plan Justification for deviations from original work plan

• 3. Dissemination and implementation of research results (Provide a summary of presentations made, publications prepared and other impacts made as a result of the research.)

Type Title Meeting/Publisher/Committee Presentation Paper/manuscript Research report Committee paper Other (specify) 4. Others (Provide information on leveraging of funding from other sources, additional resources acquired, new partnership with research institutions and industry, etc. )

- Leveraging of funding - Additional resources acquired - New partnership with research institution - New partnership with industry

5. Financial Information (December 2011 only) Total expenditure to November 15, 2011: $__________ Projected expenditure between November 16, 2011 to January 14, 2012 : $_________ Projected expenditure for next year (Jan 15, 2012 – Jan 14, 2013) : $__________

1

Kenneth Koo

From: Y. H. Chui [[email protected]]Sent: March 21, 2011 11:04 PMTo: Bob Knudson; Conroy Lum; Erol Karacabeyli; Frank Lam; George Hadjisophocleous; Ian

Smith; Kenneth Koo; Mohammad Mohammad; Paul Cooper; Steve CraftSubject: FW: Assessment of reports on NEWBuildS projects and related matters

Dear NEWBuildS Theme Leaders:

Shown below is a message from Ian that presents his views about how NEWBuildS is currently run. When you scroll down and read the whole email message there are a number of issues he identified as problematic wrt the management of NEWBuildS. If I interpret his points properly, they can be grouped them into the following key questions: - Should we even bother about monitoring progress of academic projectsand, if so, can we do it in a reasonable manner?- Are we unreasonably over-burdening SSC members with administrativework and have we provided them with the right kind of information to make informed decisions?- Has the role of theme leaders been marginalized within NEWBuildS?- Have the requests to Network researchers been unreasonably demandingwith respect to administration input (e.g. progress reports and Form 300)?- Demands vs requests from NEWBuildS administrative team?

At the March 30 conference call, I would like to discuss the first item since it will impact on how we monitor project progress and hence release of year 2 funding to researchers. For the other issues, if they resonate with some of you we will put it on the agenda of the face-to-face meeting scheduled for May 31.

For your information, we just received the second installment from NSERC. So there is some encouraging news this week.

We will send out the agenda package for the March 30 SSC Conference call later this week.

Thanks.

Chui

-----Original Message-----From: ian smith [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: March 20, 2011 6:24 PMTo: Chui; Erol KaracebeyliSubject: Assessment of reports on NEWBuildS projects and related matters

Chui, Erol, I want to explain to you why I have told Ken that I am in favour of a blanket release of 2nd instalment funding to ALL projects under the NEWBuildS network.

How to evaluate NEWBuildS projects is a question I have pondered since we first began getting feedback from principal investigators. Similarly I asked myself what if anything could be concluded about progress from the presentations in Richmond last January. Plus, I discussed the question with the NSERC rep (who I sat next to at the Chinese dinner in Richmond) and my interpretation is that he candidly admits NSERC typically struggles with the very same question.

When we talk of projects we are discussing work done by graduate students and postdocs who function within in academic communities that, for reasons important to conduct of their type of business, function quite different from modus operandi applicable to other work environments. When interacting with academics it is necessary to recognise that there are four underpinnings to learning by and development of graduate students and postdocs that most professors regard as non-negotiable.

2

Firstly, graduate students and postdocs must engage in work that is genuinely original activity (i.e. study things that contribute to the store of scientific / engineering knowledge). Adding practical relevance to what they do is of course desirable but not academically essential. Thus just doing something of practical value is outside the scope of what students and postdocs should be doing.

Secondly, students and postdocs must authors of the creative aspects of their activities. Supervisors and other advisors should not be co-authors, because it strongly disadvantage students and postdocs in the long run if supervisors make activities their own and thereby steal the most enduring component of learning experiences. In the network context this creates a bit of a difficulty if outside influences pressurise principle investigators to produce products akin to expectations of professional research staffs (like PFInnovations employees). It is to be expected that good supervisors resist such pressures themselves and protect their students (and to a lesser extent postdocs) from them.

Thirdly, students and postdoctoral fellows enter their activities with varying degrees of preparedness and once underway progress (or in some instances not) at widely varying rates and with different levels of turbidity. The higher up the learning curve they progress the less constrained the upper boundary of capabilities of nominally equally qualified people are. What we do in the academic community is (or at least should be) provide quality assurance of the baselines of acceptable performance for each grade (MSc, PhD, postdoc and ultimately faculty members). Thus to draw an analogy, what is done is equivalent to stress grading lumber where the R**2 is also about 0.6 and CoV in the range 20 ? 35%. We also by definition have rejection rates in the order of 10 ? 15% and would not be doing our jobs if this were not the case. Some failures are inevitable and protect the credibility of survivors.

Fourthly, students and postdocs must ultimately be responsible for themselves when their personal day of reckoning comes in terms of others assessing the quality of their work. It is their thesis or other contribution that must be evaluated. As sports coaches do, supervisors can agonise or rejoice on the sidelines, but they cannot and should not attempt to play the game for the people they supervise.

As all experienced professors (the category that many of the network principal investigators belong to) know, progress by graduate students in particular is not linear and sometimes the momentum is backward (if not the tasks were probably not sufficiently challenging undertakings). In consequence, all but approximately the last year of student and post project work is simply preparation for what is done in that last year. Premature critique of projects is just as unwise as trying to predict the final outcome of an artistic piece of work. The final stroke of the brush is often what makes a dull piece into a masterpiece. If you doubt this spend a little time looking at some creations of painters like Édouard Manet. Also, at the end just like with artwork some endeavours we will end up as discarded pieces in the trash. It is well established fact that people like Picasso (and Einstein and Timoshenko in the scientific and engineering worlds) often sent aborted work to the trash. Had there been no trash there would have been no master works either because they would not have been experimenting with new possibilities. Our NEWBuildS professors should surely not be held to greater expectation than creators of masterworks unless we only want them to tackle mundane tasks (which would of course defeat the networks purpose).

MY CONCLUSION #1: We should not be trying to evaluate projects midstream because that is inconsistent with the purpose and practices of the academic community and is not conducive to creation of worthwhile new knowledge. It would also be an unwarranted attack on the integrity of individual universities and principal investigators, and grossly unfair to students and postdocs.

Based on what Chui has said on several occasions it would seem that the network?s BoD is placing him under certain pressures to prove the network?s effectiveness on an ongoing basis. Clearly NSERC is not doing the same as all shared evidence points to exactly the opposite having been their practice so far. In Richmond I had conversations with a number of the members of the BoD and in all honesty I got the uniform impression that they are actually quite aware of the realities of how universities function and are sympathetic to that. This leads me to wonder if the perception of what the BoD demands

3

is more menacing than what they actually demand. But irrespective of this, there does seem to be need for more realistic squaring of expectations of progress and reporting processes with realities of what is possible.

Over what is now 25 years association with their processes and workings how I perceive the way NSERC handles the question of whether or not individuals (or networks) are using publically provided funding is not by what amounts to second guessing what grant recipients do during the tenure of grants (unless there is clear evidence of misappropriation of funds or violation of laws). The judgements occur when new funding is requested. Such latitude has been applied so far by NSERC in their dealings with the network, as evidenced by Chui not having had his feet held to any fires by them concerning what by any standards has to be admitted was a slow start to getting activities underway. One has to ask if the interpretation within the network of what is required as interim monitoring of progress is not currently a little zealous in the sense of trying to exact a higher standard of principal investigators than NSERC has exacted on the network as a whole.

MY CONCLUSION #2: Monitoring and reporting should not be intrusive and should be restricted to establishing conformance to NSERC regulations.

MY CONCLUSION #3: There should be unambiguous conveyance to the BoD of the realities of what is possible to achieve with volunteer involvement of professors and a workforce consisting of students and postdocs who are learning their trade.

As I have indicated before, what we have seen so far in terms of paper reports and oral presentations in January is a very mixed bag and in my view an insufficient basis for judging the likely actual state of work in some of the projects. The only truly reliable way to judge anything is to actually personally visit other nodes and view what is going on in different places. Typically true academics think of their research as a continuum rather than discrete activities and will always report it in such terms. This was illustrated by many presentations in Richmond and some written reports spoke/speak to activities of research groups at different nodes and not just to activities funded under the network. This can be efficient and a perfectly appropriate use on money and one of which NSERC probably will be encouraging, but it obscures actual sight of what has been achieved within the network itself.

MY CONCLUSION #4: Without visiting other nodes on a reasonably regular basis, say once per year, it is not possible for me to give any reliable assessment of what has been done under any project, or to give meaningful commentary or assistance to those doing the research. Activities such as the planned theme 2 research exchange are an adjunct to but not a substitute for actually seeing what exists ?on the ground?.

My last few remarks will relate to my experience of being what is called a theme leader in the context of a multi-node theme. Beyond largely being the author of sections of the network proposal document pertinent to theme 2, I feel that the notion that I am actually the leader of theme 2 activities is false. It has since funds were awarded essentially been only a titular designation. It is true that what are called principal investigators (who were appointed rather than chosen by peers) get to be members of the Scientific Steering Committee. But, as you might imply from the foregoing, I feel members of that committee are largely playing a sham role. I and other SSC member are assailed by what is at time an overwhelming flood of documentation that often is accompanied by requests (that often actually seem more like demands!) for prompt responses. Mostly, also as indicated above, the questions we get to discuss are items we have no proper information about and thus we must give relatively uninformed responses. A tool I employ to contextualise things that demands expenditure of my finite time resources is to ask myself ?why am I doing this?? and then that helps me decide the priority I place on it. In the present instance I have been volunteering my involvement because the network goals are ones I believe to be good, and because I enjoy encouraging and assisting the younger people in the field. For certain I do not do it because it will help build my career, gain me promotion, etc, etc. It is currently on a knife edge whether I feel what I achieve via being a member of the SSC (as opposed to simply a PI within the network) is worth the investment of my time. I fully acknowledge that the considerations will differ between theme leaders (e.g. George can undoubtedly quite effectively lead work in theme 3

4

because he is PI for most of those projects).

We seem to need some at least informal ground rules regarding what are appropriate administrative impositions on principal investigators and SSC members. For example, it would be nice if central network administration only circulated essential paperwork and allowed 2 weeks for responses. If nothing is done I suspect people will increasingly tune requests out.

MY CONCLUSION #5: The position as Theme 2 Leader has to be either made more meaningful (i.e. valuable to me) or I will give it up and focus on more productive activities.

MY CONCLUSION #6: The central administration of the network needs to become less demanding on time of members of the SSC. Probably this would best be handled by a rational division of duties between the network director and theme leaders, and not collectively revisiting minor issues which seems to be developing into something of a persistent habit.

I have no idea whether other theme leaders also struggle with these issues or if they are comfortable with making comments based on sparse information and having little meaningful involvement with principal investigator colleagues. I have absolutely no problem with you asking them if they share my views.

Hope you now know why I think it disingenuous to do other than do a blanket second release of funds to principal investigators and also that I believe there are some cracks and inconsistencies in the administrative practices by which the network is run.

IanP.s. I'm looking for appropriate action and not more debate.

______________So how do we do it?"How we usually do it ... intense commitment, insane hours and a bit of yoga"(thanks to Detective Superintendent Peter Boyd - Waking the Dead, BBC_TV)

Ian Smith, DSc, PhD, CEng, PEng, F.ASCE, F.IABSE, F.ICE,F.IStructE, F.IMMM, F.IWSc Professor, University of New Brunswick, Canada, Visiting Professor, University of Trento, Italy, Editor Timber Construction, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials Editorial Board Member ISRN Civil Engineering Theme Leader - Hybrid Construction, NSERC Strategic Network on Innovative Wood Products & Building Systems

Hybrid Construction Research Group, University of New Brunswick, Building 28, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada Tel. 1-(506)-453-4944, Fax. 1-(506)-453-3538

Forest Sector R&D Initiative Council of Network Directors Background There are currently 8 NSERC networks and 1 NCE that are related to forestry:

• NSERC Strategic Network on Value Chain Optimization • NSERC Biomaterials and Chemicals Strategic Network • NSERC Green Fibre Network • NSERC Strategic Network on Innovative Wood Products and Building Systems • NSERC Sentinel Bioactive Paper Network • NSERC Forest Management for Value-Added Products Network • NSERC Bioconversion Network • NCE Canadian Forest Nanoproducts Network

Led by the Scientific Director of Green Fibre Network, a Council of Network Directors was established in October 2010. Several conference calls were held. The mission of the Council is:

To build a partnership between Forest Sector Research and Development Networks that will maximize their ability to create value for the forest sector and the Canadian economy from the resources invested in their work from Federal, Provincial and private sector sources.

Potential benefits of closer cooperation between Networks:

• Identification and sharing of technical information that has wider application. • More comprehensive training opportunities. • Better access to funding from federal and provincial programs as well as industry

associations. • Stronger partnerships with federal and provincial laboratories. • Strategic input from industry, government and other stakeholders. • Visibility on a national and international scale.

At the most recent conference call, three issues were discussed: 1. Membership on FPInnovations National Research Program Advisory Committee Proposed Make-up of the National Research Program Advisory Committee

FPInnovations Name Affiliation

Chairman: Yvon Pelletier Tembec Inc. Pulp & Paper Industry Reps (3):

Wood Products Industry Reps (3):

Forest Operationss Reps (3):

Provincial Reps (4):

Federal NRCan Rep (1):

Universities (2): - 2 to be nominated by AUCC

Members-at-Large (2):

NON-VOTING MEMBERS NSERC Network Representatives

- Innovative WP & Building Systems Green Fibre Biomaterials & Chemicals ForValueNet Biomass Conversion Sentinel ArboraNano Value Chain Optimization

Program Advisory Committee Chairs - There will be 5 or 6 – to be chosen by

the NRAC and FPInnovations Management

Forest Products Association of Canada Rep:

2. Joint Network Conference, October 18-19, 2011 Following is an extract from the minutes of the conference call related to this. ‘It was agreed to go ahead with the organization of this meeting. The format will be a two day meeting with the following agenda: Four half day sessions, consisting of (i) overview and major successes of each network; (ii) student presentations; (iii) workshop and (iv) press release. As a theme for the conference, two objectives emerged: (i) creating synergies between networks and (ii) defining top level research directions. These could be the themes woven into all four sessions. The overview session should emphasize areas of potential synergy and highlight success and future directions. Similarly each network should select one student, based on excellence, and in line with the conference objectives. Out of these 8 students the best one will receive the Otto Maass Award for the best student presentation. The workshop should focus on creating synergies in research and internetwork organization. Also common funding initiatives (see agenda items 4 and 5) must be discussed. For the press release, we should invite major players, such as representatives of FPInnovations, FPAC, NRCan, NSERC and deputy ministers from federal and provincial governments. The message we want to get out is that the 8 networks are working together and form one of the strongest and largest university forest innovation association in the world. Perhaps we can launch the official launching of this collaboration. The conference will be organized by network managers. Norayr Gurnagul (Manager Green Fibre Network) has agreed to lead this effort. He will solicit help from other managers.

Each network will send about 10 people to the joint meeting (director, manager, theme leaders, one or two students, and key PI’s or partners). Each network will be responsible for the travel and accommodation costs of its participants and a small fee will be collected from each network to pay for joint expenses (Hotel room bookings, etc,).’ 3. NSERC Strategic Network Supplemental Funding Here is an extract from the minutes that is related to this topic. ‘Strategic Networks in the Forest sector can apply for additional funds to facilitate national and international network-to-network collaboration, opportunities for enhanced training of students and knowledge dissemination and technology transfer. These supplemental grants are for one year for up to $100K, and will be likely extended to future years. The next competition is in November this year. Dave and Theo contacted André Isabelle at NSERC, to discuss the possibility of submitting a single proposal on behalf of all eligible networks. If all 7 NSERC networks are eligible we could ask for up to $700K. André thought that this is an interesting possibility and told us that NSERC is likely willing to support such an initiative. Each network has agreed to provide a draft outline, to be sent to Theo van de Ven before July 31. We can then at a future teleconference discuss how to proceed, either combining them or keeping them separate. We should make a final decision at our joint meeting in October. To promote uniformity among drafts of such network supplement proposals, it was asked to provide a draft format, which is enclosed as Appendix III.’

8 scientific steering committee (ssc) meeting #...

Documents