Choosing timber for bridges
Selecting the right timber for bridge construction requires careful consideration of durability, strength, stability and long-term performance. Timber bridges are exposed to demanding environmental conditions, including moisture, temperature fluctuations and heavy mechanical loads. Therefore, choosing an appropriate timber species is essential to ensure a long service life and minimise maintenance requirements.
Key Selection Criteria
When specifying timber for bridges, consider the following factors:
Natural durability against fungal decay and insect attack.
Mechanical strength to withstand structural loads.
Dimensional stability to minimise movement and deformation.
Resistance to weathering and moisture exposure.
Availability and certification to ensure sustainable sourcing.
Suitable Timber Species
For pedestrian bridges, cycle bridges and structural bridge components, naturally durable hardwoods are often preferred, including:
Azobé (Ekki): extremely durable and exceptionally strong.
Okan: excellent strength and durability for heavy-duty applications.
Bilinga: highly resistant to decay and commonly used in marine and bridge structures.
Tali: dense hardwood suitable for demanding structural environments.
Sustainability Matters
Timber remains one of the most sustainable construction materials available. When selecting timber for bridge construction, it is advisable to choose products certified under recognised schemes such as FSC® or PEFC, ensuring responsible forest management and traceable supply chains.
In Summary
The best timber for bridges combines high durability, structural strength and long-term resistance to weather exposure. Species such as Azobé, Okan, Bilinga and Tali have proven performance records in bridge construction throughout Europe and beyond.
www.netzerobridges.org 1 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
This note is a high-level primer for anyone interested in structural timber for low-carbon bridges.
1 Introduction
With the climate crisis and decarbonisation an increasing priority, bridge owners, designers and contractors have a duty to consider the carbon impact of the bridges we build. This paper examines timber as a structural material for low-carbon bridges. It looks at timber’s carbon credentials, the challenges and opportunities of designing in timber, and examples in the UK and abroad. This paper is not a technical guide to timber bridge design, but it may be a starting point for those interested in commissioning or proposing a timber bridge. Where relevant, references include design codes and papers by specialists in this field.
It is easy to acknowledge the importance of timber in historic bridge construction. Before steel and concrete, stone and timber were the main materials of construction. Exposed timber structures were maintained and replaced as required. Protected structures (those with roofs) lasted longer: the best survive to this day (see Appendix), illustrating the importance of designing with the environment in mind.
While timber is applicable to many bridge components: structural (primary and secondary) and non-structural (decking and parapets); the focus of this paper is on structural timber. In this role it has the biggest potential to influence a bridge’s environmental impact.
2 Opportunities
2.1 Sustainability
Timber is widely perceived as a sustainable building material due to its renewable nature, low embodied carbon, and ability to store carbon.
•
Renewable resource: Timber is a natural material that can be sourced from sustainably managed forests, with global schemes such as FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) that certify the responsible and balanced use of forest resources while ensuring the long-term health of the forest's ecosystem and the species that live within it. 1 Productive forests usually yield mature trees suitable for glued laminated timber (glulam) within 40 to 60 years. This growing time should be 1/3 or 1/2 of a well detailed bridge’s design life. Longer-lasting structures make the biggest positive impact.
•
Low embodied carbon: The processing and fabrication of structural timber requires significantly less energy compared to steel or concrete, resulting in lower A1-A3 (cradle to gate) greenhouse gas emissions. Across these stages of the project lifecycle, each kilogram of glulam accounts for the emission of 0.28kg of CO2e. 2 As industrial processes often rely today on energy from ‘fossil carbon’ (burning coal, oil, gas, etc.), reductions in energy use at this stage have a big impact. This energy advantage also applies to engineered timber products such as glulam and CLT (cross-laminated timber) which rely on adhesives and fabrication. In addition, timber manufacturing is
1 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), “What is sustainable forestry? Practices & benefits,” published 5 May 2024. Available at: https://fsc.org/en/what-is-sustainable-forestry (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
2 Circular Ecology, “The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Database,” v4.1 published 29 October 2025. Available at: https://carbon.tips/ice3 (Accessed: 6 May 2026).
www.netzerobridges.org 2 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
increasingly powered through renewable energy and on-site biomass CHP (Combined Heat and Power), further reducing the embodied carbon.
•
Carbon storage: As trees grow, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Oxygen is released and the carbon is stored as plant matter until it is later released to the atmosphere or the ground in the form of methane or carbon dioxide through decomposition (or incineration if timber is burned in a fire or as fuel). The longer the carbon is stored as timber, the greater the climatic benefit, as it reduces its time as a GHG (greenhouse gas) contributing to global warming. Carbon that is stored within timber (sequestered) is one form of ‘biogenic carbon’. Each kg of glulam stores 1.41kg of CO2e. 2
2.2 Assessing carbon impact
In contravention to most international LCA (life-cycle assessment) standards, stored biogenic carbon is sometimes counted as a negative number when calculating embodied carbon. One risk of this approach is that it can incentivise inefficient use of timber to offset fossil carbon emissions elsewhere on a project. Common assumptions which can be hard to quantify or attribute directly to an individual project include: the growth of replacement trees (continued carbon capture) during the project’s lifetime (positive), or the re-emission of biogenic carbon at end of life (negative). The time value of carbon is important and should be considered, where possible, as part of a dynamic LCA, because carbon emitted now is more consequential than future carbon emissions in relation to meeting global net zero targets. 3
Quantifying the benefits of biogenic carbon stored over a period is complex. The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) suggests that biogenic sequestration is accounted for separately in LCAs. 4 As the future of a timber structure can only be assumed (how long will it last and what will happen when it’s no longer in use?), it is difficult to predict the duration of storage of its carbon. Additionally, the value of carbon varies across tree species and forests (i.e. old growth stores more carbon than plantation growth).
With or without an established method for quantifying the climate benefits of biogenic carbon storage, there are principles to maximise these, as outlined in TheIStructE Technical Position Paper “Structural timber and global greenhouse gas emissions”. 4
•
Prioritise forest carbon storage and biodiversity: Ensure that all timber comes from accountable, well-managed sources that replant trees in a sustainable manner. Old growth should be avoided in favour of faster-growing plantations.
•
Use timber efficiently: Treat timber as a precious resource. Reduce associated emissions by creating as much structure as possible out of a given amount of timber. Use lower-grade timber when possible.
3 Arup, “Buildings & Infrastructure Priority Actions for Sustainability – Embodied Carbon – Timber,” published 5 June 2023. Available at: https://www.istructe.org/IStructE/media/Public/Resources/ARUP-Embodied-carbon-timber_1.pdf (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
4 Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), “Technical Position Paper – Structural timber and global greenhouse gas emissions,” published 14 November 2025. Available at: https://www.istructe.org/IStructE/media/Public/Resources/IStructE-Technical-Position-Paper-Structural-timber-and-global-GHG.pdf (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
www.netzerobridges.org 3 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
•
Prioritise long-life: Keep carbon locked into timber for as long as possible. Protect structural timber from the elements. Repurpose timber at the end of life, or as a last resort, consider the least impactful way to dispose of it.
2.3 Availability
In climates conducive to forestry, the timber industry operates with efficient supply chains supporting the creation of buildings of all types and sizes. Historically the route from forest to building was direct, relying on regional harvesting, processing and crafting. This remains the case today, partially explaining the prevalence of timber bridges in distinct areas across the globe. The benefits of regional supply chains are significant. Environmentally they minimise transportation while being less susceptible to global politics. By supporting local industry, economic benefits are localised, and infrastructure projects become beneficial on multiple levels.
Despite a healthy interest in timber across the wider UK building sector, current government policy and competition from other land uses restricts the production of structural softwoods suitable for bridges. Around 80% of the timber used in the UK is imported, making it one of the largest timber importers in the world. Unlike nearby Austria, Germany, Finland and Sweden, the UK lacks the means to process timber at scale. Despite the UK’s reliance on imported timber, the “downstream” part of the supply chain is alive and well with specialists currently assembling imported lamellas or beams into prefabricated structural members suitable for buildings. If given the opportunity and incentive to scale up, these engineered-timber companies have the potential to support the UK timber bridge sector.
Some of the relevant softwoods already grown in the UK include Scots Pine, Sitka Spruce, Western Red Cedar and Douglas Fir. These are often faster growing and less dense than imported equivalents resulting in lower structural grades. However, this is less relevant in glulam structures where UK Douglas Fir offers a good balance of strength, durability and suitability to UK growing conditions.
If the demand for structural timber continues to grow, all aspects of the UK supply chain, from forestry through processing, fabrication and installation, should be able to keep pace. This opportunity could bring to the UK the environmental and economic benefits already enjoyed by countries with stronger timber cultures.
2.4 Ability to shape / workability
Engineered timber products can readily be manufactured to custom shapes and sizes. For the cross-sections required for bridge girders, this involves gluing and pressing lamellas in one direction (to build depth), followed by gluing and pressing in the other direction (to build width) – known as block laminated glulam. Termination of lamellas along the length of the girder allows for easy variation of depth to suit structural demand. Even though milling timber down, in order to build it back up, requires energy, it makes curving in one or more directions possible and allows faster growing, lower grades of wood to be used more efficiently in a product that is strong, stable and predictable.
www.netzerobridges.org 4 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
Figure 1: Block laminated timber beams can vary in cross section and be curved in two directions (image courtesy Ingenieurbüro Miebach and Schaffitzel Holzindustrie)
2.5 Aesthetics
Exposed timber can create a strong architectural statement. Timber’s natural warmth, texture and grain is visually appealing and difficult to replicate with industrial materials. It often adds tactility and a human scale to larger elements. When exposed to sun and weather, untreated timber changes colour and tone, eventually greying with time. Many see this ‘patination’ as a positive feature, softening a structure’s appearance. The rate and degree of transformation is related to exposure. Regardless of one’s aesthetic preference, this transformation should be anticipated.
Figure 2: Exposed structural timber has a unique character (Balingen Bridge by Moxon Architects and Ingenieurbüro Miebach)
2.6 Health & safety, modularity and prefabrication
Structural timber, and particularly engineered timber is typically manufactured off-site in a controlled factory environment. This increases precision and control over hazardous processes such as cutting and assembling, resulting in less disruption on site. The sawdust produced when cutting timber is a hazard that needs to be considered, however it is generally less harmful than dust from steel or concrete. Timber glues can contain harmful chemicals that also need to be considered.
www.netzerobridges.org 5 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
Timber is relatively lightweight, which presents benefits for transportation, lifting and installation, and it is also non-conductive. Engineered connections allow efficient erection of subassemblies on site. This is similar to ‘building’ design where components serve specific functions related to their material properties. It enables straightforward maintenance and end-of-life disassembly where elements can be reused elsewhere5 or recycled as secondary construction timber or bioenergy feedstock. Glue should be considered when repurposing and disposing, however most modern glues are used in negligible amounts and are benign when reprocessed. While ‘circularity’ is not unique to timber, it is one advantage of a construction method that relies on the assembly of distinct parts (unlike more monolithic steel or concrete structures).
Figure 3: Prefabricated block laminated beams are lifted into position (Baiersbronn Bridge by Moxon Architects and Ingenieurbüro Miebach)
2.7 Good strength-to-weight ratio
Timber has a good strength-to-weight ratio, meaning a lighter structure can carry more load. This has benefits for foundation design. It also makes the material easier and more cost-effective to transport and lift on site. Despite weight savings, timber structures are often bulkier than their reinforced concrete and steel equivalents – this should be considered in design.
Figure 4: Structural properties of timber, steel and reinforced concrete
Material
Mean specific weight 6 [kN/m3]
Characteristic Compressive Strength [N/mm2]
Strength-to-weight ratio
Timber (GL24h)
4.2
24 7
5.7
Steel (S355)
77
355 8
4.6
Reinforced concrete (C32/40)
25
40 9
1.6
www.netzerobridges.org 6 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
2.8 Composites
In the same way that modern timber bridges benefit from other materials serving supplemental functions (connections, waterproofing, surfacing, etc.), composite structural systems combine timber with concrete or stone. In both cases (for simply supported spans) timber working in tension sits below concrete or stone working in compression. Not only is this structurally efficient, the upper, more durable material protects the timber while doubling as the bridge deck. These systems can be considered for both pedestrian and vehicular bridges. 10 Like other composite structures, thermal compatibility is a key design consideration. Consideration should also be given to moisture content and timber’s anisotropic nature (its directional grain means at times it behaves differently longitudinally vs. transversely).
3 Challenges
Despite these opportunities, modern timber bridges are rare in the UK. This section identifies some of the challenges to designing in timber and ways to overcome them. Before exploring specifics, it is worth considering these high-level factors:
•
Material constraints: As with any material, some uses are better suited to timber than others. Advocates for timber acknowledge its limitations: it is by no means a “silver bullet” that can bring environmental benefits to every project.
•
Unfamiliarity: The UK is arguably stuck in a cycle that limits the uptake of timber bridges, resulting in historical/cultural bias. The relatively infrequent use of timber bridges means fewer examples of best practice and unfamiliarity with building and maintaining these structures. This lack of experience undermines confidence when commissioning and proposing new bridges, perpetuating the lack of built examples.
•
Looking abroad: In other countries where timber bridges are common, a positive feedback loop is present. Well-performing examples lead to greater confidence, more bridges being commissioned and built, and the knowledge, tools and culture to design, build and maintain them.
•
Upskilling: Bringing in international consultants is one way to address the problem of inertia. However, the UK ‘building’ industry is experiencing a structural timber boom, proving that the knowledge, skills and supply chain to deliver similar structures are already growing in the UK. Whether domestically or internationally, sharing knowledge is a key to overcoming bias. Innovation requires investment and management of risk. Smaller-scale footbridges could be a good place to start, ideally in locations that are easy to inspect and maintain.
5 RIBA Journal, “Belgian Recypark turns refuse to reuse to make a circular economy at Anderlecht skatepark” published 15 January 2025. Available at: Belgian Recypark turns refuse to reuse to make a circular economy at Anderlecht skatepark (Accessed: 21 April 2026).
6 British Standards Institution, BS EN 1991-1-1:2025 Annex A – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General actions, published 2025.
7 British Standards Institution, BS EN 14080:2013 – Timber structures. Glued laminated timber and glued solid timber – Requirements, published 2013.
8 British Standards Institution, BS EN 1993-1-1:2022 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, published 2022.
9 British Standards Institution, BS EN 1992-1-1:2023 – Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, published 2023.
10 Bridge Design & Engineering Magazine, “Best of Both Worlds,” in Issue 121, published November 2025.
www.netzerobridges.org 7 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
3.1 Durability
Appendix A – Built Examples of this paper presents examples of timber bridges, both in the UK and internationally, with 120-year design lives, as well as historical examples that have already lasted longer.
•
Unprotected vs protected: Whilst timber can achieve a 120-year design life11, key factors must be understood for it to reach its full potential. When considering longevity, a critical distinction should be made between unprotected and protected timber structures. Unprotected structures expose the timber to the elements and even with robust species and careful detailing, lead to shorter design lives in most climates. The upcoming revision of Eurocode 5 part 2 (EN 1995-2) defines different categories of timber bridges and their expected design lives.
Figure 5: Diagrammatic cross sections of protected timber structures
•
As illustrated in Eurocode 5 part 2, protected structures have separate components that shelter the structure from the elements. Traditional protection includes capping or cladding with timber shingles, weatherboarding, ceramic tiles or sheet metal. Much like buildings, these hard-wearing elements are the first line of defence and require special care when detailing. In these applications, treated timber or more durable species are often used. Relevant treatments can include chemical or thermal modification, regularly re-applied coatings or charring the outer surfaces. Even with treatment, one could expect to replace these elements several times over a bridge’s life, much like timber shingles or weatherboarding on a building. Detailing should anticipate this, promoting easy inspection and replacement.
•
When clearance requirements allow, modern bridges often inset the timber beams below a waterproof deck. A rule of thumb (in most climates) to define the projection of the protection beyond the timber is a 30° line from the bottom (most exposed) edge of the timber.
Figure 6: Diagrammatic cross sections illustrating the 30° rule
11 Note that the draft Timber Eurocode prEN 1995-2:2025, unmodified by the UK National Annex, provides design and detailing requirements to achieve 100-year design service life. A 100-year design life is standard for steel and concrete Eurocodes also, and is traditionally extended to 120-years under the UK National Annexes.
www.netzerobridges.org 8 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
•
Moisture management: Protection is important to preserving timber as it helps keep the moisture content within a suitable range. Whilst the focus (especially in the UK) should be ensuring the timber is not too wet too often, which can lead to warping, swelling and in the worst cases, rotting, the timber also should not get too dry, or it can be prone to cracking. Occasional moisture is acceptable if adequate air movement promotes thorough drying. Moisture sensors are gaining popularity in modern timber bridges, allowing conditions to be monitored remotely and for issues to be detected early. The revised Eurocode 5 suggests protected timber structures in Service Class 2 can tolerate an annual average moisture content up to 20%.
•
Splashing: Where timber is close to the ground or other horizontal surfaces, it is important to consider water splashing upwards onto the timber. Elevating or cladding at least the bottom 300mm of the structure helps prevent excessive moisture in the splash zone.
•
Species selection: Selection of timber species is a complex balancing act that considers durability, structural strength, aesthetics, availability, workability and susceptibility to pests. Ultimately, the choice may be particular to a given project. Species such as Spruce, Larch, Douglas Fir and Oak have a long history of use as structural timber in the UK. Newer, internationally sourced, modified timbers such as Accoya provide a long-lasting alternative. Coatings / treatments may also be considered to enhance durability although these alone do not constitute a ‘protected’ structure. They also increase the maintenance burden and if applied incorrectly they may trap moisture rather than repelling it.
3.2 Pests
Trees are often homes to insects, fungi and other organisms. Infestation of structural timber is a potential issue that can diminish performance resulting in failure.12 With this acknowledged, there are proven solutions to minimise this risk (these are linked to section 3.1 Durability).
•
Certain species are more resistant to infestation due to natural oils or high density.
•
Infestation of kiln-dried timber in a dry environment is very rare.
•
Timber treatments contain preservatives to deter insects and fungi.
•
As moisture creates an attractive environment for insects and fungi, keeping the timber relatively dry and allowing good air flow deters infestation.
•
Detailing should make regular inspection easy to ensure issues are identified and remedied early.
3.3 Highway spray
All bridge structures are susceptible to damage from de-icing salts / other chemicals contained within highway spray and runoff. Perhaps unique to timber, salt itself does not degrade its performance (which is why salt storage sheds are traditionally timber). However, if a bridge is poorly detailed, a build-up of salt may attract moisture to the area, not allowing it to dry properly. To avoid unsightly staining and potential salt buildup issues, any highway runoff should be directed away
12 The insect risks in the UK are Anobium punctatum (Common furniture beetle, commonly called ‘woodworm’) and in local areas of the South-East of England (as listed in the Approved Documents to the Building Regulations) Hylotrupes bajulus (House longhorn beetle). Termites tend to prefer warmer climates than the UK.
www.netzerobridges.org 9 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
from timber. This is often critical at bridge ends where bearings, drainage and movement joints interact. Proximity to highway spray should be a consideration of any structure supporting, above or adjacent to a highway (regardless of its materiality).
3.4 Fire
Fires may occur on, below or near any bridge due to vehicle fire, arson or nearby wildfire or industrial fires. As the majority of bridges are outdoors and unenclosed, the integrity of the structure is typically the main concern. Bridges forming part of a building or evacuation route will be subject to additional requirements as part of Building Regulations.
Timber reacts uniquely when burning. It produces a layer of char on the exterior which contributes to insulating the timber within, protecting it from heat and eventually preventing the timber from burning any further. The remaining cross-section of unburnt timber provides the new structural capacity of the element. Each species of timber has an associated rate of char, such that the fire performance can be designed for. When required, coatings are available that encourage the production of char and improve performance in a fire. Designing timber structures, including consideration of fire performance, is a well-documented process and is described fully in Eurocode 5, Part 1-2.
3.5 Slip resistance
Whilst this report focuses on structural timber, secondary elements such as decking, parapets, handrails and seating also require attention. Unfortunately, timber’s poor reputation with some bridge owners sometimes stems from bad experience with these secondary elements.
The considerations raised elsewhere (species selection, moisture management, detailing, etc) all apply to secondary elements. When exposed to the weather, these issues are even more critical. Where timber is used as decking, slip resistance is an important additional consideration. A plain timber plank is unlikely to provide sufficient slip resistance in wet weather. Grooves may increase resistance initially but often provide a location for water and dirt to collect. Slip resistant inserts are another alternative but may require extra maintenance. In all scenarios, understanding the environment and ensuring good drainage should be the priority. Timber boardwalks and decking on historic bridges are positive examples in a range of climates.
3.6 Timber repair
Like all materials, timber structures may be damaged due to fire, vehicle impact, or water (via failed protection). In these situations, it is possible to replace an entire timber element, or part of it.
•
For smaller elements, full replacement may be simpler. The use of mechanical fixings in construction simplifies this process.
•
For larger elements, partial replacement may be economical. Depending on the structural performance, timber specialists can remove an isolated area and splice in new material. This method is common in the preservation and restoration of historic timber buildings.
www.netzerobridges.org 10 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
Figure 7: Repairs made to a glulam beam struck by an oversized vehicle (image by Ingenieurbüro Miebach)
In all cases, bridge closure and temporary support may be necessary. The importance of detailing that allows easy inspection, maintenance and repair cannot be over-emphasised.
3.7 Costing
Another area where a lack of built examples, experience and confidence feeds uncertainty and perceived risk, is estimating the cost of timber bridges. Once this is overcome, the basic costs of structural timber are competitive, even when imported from mainland Europe. As indicated in section 2.7, the relatively light weight leads to savings in the size and cost of supports and foundations. Compared to more industrial materials, timber is an example where carbon and cost run parallel.
The cost of timber elements depends on size and species and always benefits from supplier input. Whether beams are straight, curved, curved in two directions or varying in cross section also affects cost as these traits influence the size of individual lamellas and the glue-up process. Beyond the beams, secondary elements are a big consideration with timber. Fortunately, proprietary fixings and cladding systems (designed for buildings) are available for consideration in cost plans.
When anticipating lifetime costs, inspection, maintenance and replacement of shorter life parts must be considered. This is not unique to timber bridges, although the layered nature of these structures demands special attention.
www.netzerobridges.org 11 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
3.8 Cautionary tales
There have been several cases in the last decade of timber bridges being removed prior to the end of their design life. 13 14 This has added to an understandable concern among clients about the longevity of timber construction. Investigations into causes 15 have generally pointed to poor detailing of connections and supports, causing long term water ingress and failure through fungal decay. Understanding of these critical elements has significantly improved in recent years, and typical details have changed. However, failures confirm the importance of competent specialist design and carefully monitored fabrication, alongside a comprehensive inspection and maintenance regime. It is important that clients, designers and builders continue to share experiences, learning from the good as well as the bad.
4 Timber bridges around the world
To develop the UK timber bridge industry we should look to other countries with strong timber cultures. Inspiration could include:
•
Studying built examples (see Appendix A)
•
Inviting international consultants to collaborate on UK projects
•
Reviewing design codes and guidance from other regions
Where design codes exist, they have evolved over time with input from relevant parties. While they do not hold the same legal weight when used out of jurisdiction, they hold clues to addressing all the challenges described previously. A few of the most relevant examples include:
Figure 18: Relevant design standards from other countries
13 Maidenhead Advertiser, “Jubilee River safety warning over ‘extremely dangerous’ collapsed footbridge,” published 3 July 2025. Available at: https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/environment/202073/jubilee-river-safety-warning-over-extremely-dangerous-collapsed-footbridge.html (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
14 Environment Agency, “Thames Area Assets – Frequently Asked Questions (Temple Footbridge),” continuously updated page, last updated February 2026. Available at: https://engageenvironmentagency.uk.engagementhq.com/thames-area-assets/widgets/131458/faqs (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
15 Dorney Parish Council / AtkinsRéalis, “Ashford Lane Footbridge – Future Options Report (DOR-FP1),” published July 2024. Available at: https://dorneyparishcouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DOR-FP1-Ashford-Lane-FB-Future-Options-Report.pdf (Accessed: 17 February 2026).
Region
Standard
Timber bridge design approach
Canada
CSA S6 + CSA O86
Glulam, stress-laminated decks, high snow-load consideration
USA
AASHTO LRFD + NDS
Glulam, historic covered bridges, timber vehicle bridges
Europe
EN 1995-2 (Eurocode 5 – Part 2)
Engineered wood, national annexes, composite decks
Switzerland
EN 1995-2 + SIA 265
Covered bridges, high durability detailing
Germany
EN 1995-2 + DIN EN 1995-2/NA
Long-span glulam, stress-laminated decks
Austria
EN 1995-2 + ÖNORM B 1995-2
Modular timber-concrete systems, Alpine design conditions
www.netzerobridges.org 12 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduction to timber for low-carbon
bridges
5 Conclusion
Despite its long history, structural timber is seldom chosen for contemporary bridges in the UK. While timber enjoys popularity in our ‘building’ sector, bridge owners and designers are reluctant to adopt this material, viewing it as inferior to industrial alternatives (steel and concrete). Ironically, by being less industrial (naturally occurring), timber has unique potential to support our quest for a lower-carbon future.
The advantages of structural timber are numerous. In addition to being renewable, it stores carbon, it is easy to work with and it supports local and regional supply chains. It has a good strength-to-weight ratio, and modern engineered timber is both structurally quantifiable and economical.
To gain the confidence needed for a positive feedback loop (build, learn, commission, and repeat) we must become comfortable with the challenges inherent in this natural material. Durability is rightly the focus of timber sceptics, yet our peers in similarly wet countries with stronger timber cultures routinely demonstrate that with proper specification, detailing, and maintenance, a protected timber structure should last as long as the steel or concrete alternative.
While not intended as a standalone technical guide, this paper serves as a departure point for those interested in timber. As our experience and knowledge of this subject expand, we anticipate this paper evolving with further input from readers and colleagues. Once we embrace this material, we can exploit its potential: building efficiently, robustly, economically and sustainably.
6 Contributors
Net Zero Bridges Task Group on Timber Bridges: Ezra Groskin (Moxon Architects, task group chair), Brian Duguid (Mott MacDonald), David Knight (Cake Engineering), Giacomo Mauriello (Hardesty & Hanover), Paul van Hagen (Hardesty & Hanover), Richard Thebridge (Moxon Architects), Solene Fercocq (Arup), Stephen James (Stephen James Architects).
7 Technical Reviewers
We are grateful to our technical reviewers whose research and work inspired this paper. Their feedback was generous and instrumental in refining the content: Will Hawkins (Bath University), Frank Miebach, Dominik Niewerth and Lukas Osterloff (Ingenieurbüro Miebach), Oscar Emanuel (Xylotek), Camille Chevrier (Format Engineers).
www.netzerobridges.org 13 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduct ion to timber for low-carbon bridges
Appendix A – Built Examples
Whether in the UK or elsewhere, existing bridges are the best evidence of timber’s effectiveness. Learning from good (and bad) examples is the key to an evolving industry. Photographs, drawings, details and specifications are evidence of overcoming technical challenges. Visiting a bridge in person is best for experiencing the unique character of a timber structure.
The following list highlights some of the better-known timber bridges in the UK and beyond. It is by no means exhaustive, nor does it represent the entire range of possibilities that structural timber presents.
UK timber bridge examples
Mathematical Bridge Cambridge
1749, 1866, 1905
15m truss / arch
Sophisticated design. Engineering landmark link
Barmouth Viaduct Barmouth, Mawddach Estuary, Gwynedd
1867, 1906-8
5.5m spans, 700m timber trestle
Grade II listed. Longest timber bridge, and oldest in regular use in Britain
Dutton Horse Bridge
River Weaver, between Northwich and Runcorn
1919
31m arch
One of earliest surviving laminated timber bridges
Black Dog Hill Bridge
Chippenham, Wiltshire
1999 34m glulam redwood timber arch
45m total length
Award-winning Millennium Bridge, part of Sustrans network
Luss Footbridge
Luss, Loch Lomond
1980s
20m arch
40m total length
Arched footbridge over the A82
Far Moor Bridge
Ribblehead, Yorkshire
2011
24m arch, 15m end spans
Active travel and Bridleway bridge with stress-laminated arches, screw-laminated deck
Westonbirt Treetop Walkway Tetbury, Gloucestershire
2016 10.5m spans, 284m total length
Longest raised walkway in UK. Timber/steel composite structure
www.netzerobridges.org 14 Version 1.0, May 2026
An introduct ion to timber for low-carbon bridges
International timber bridge examples
Horai Bridge
Shimada City, Japan
1987 10m span beam bridge, 900m total length
Longest timber pedestrian bridge in the world
Flisa Bridge Hedmark, Norway
2003 Glulam truss, 70m longest span, 196m total length
World’s longest timber bridge designed for full traffic loads (in 2005)
Kjøllsæter Bridge Rena River, Norway
2006 Glulam truss, 45m longest span, 158m total length
Designed to carry military vehicles up to 109T. ‘World’s strongest timber bridge’
Anaklia-Ganmukhuri Pedestrian Bridge
Anaklia/Ganmukhuri, Georgia
2012 Glulam truss cable stayed, 84m max span, 505m total length
Europe’s longest timber bridge
Nancy Pauw Bridge
Banff, Alberta, Canada
2022
Cantilever / shallow arch, 80m span
Winner, IStructE Supreme Award for Structural Excellence, Structural Award 2025
Balingen Parkufersteg
Baden-Württemberg, German
2023
Timber trough / through girder, 41m span
Exemplar of sustainable infrastructure
Timber Bridge Manhattan, New York
2023
Two span warren truss, 92m total length
Large scale urban intervention. Connects High Line to Penn Station in NYC
Rathausbrücke
Tuttlingen, Germany
2024 Concrete composite glulam girder, 17m main span, 55m total length
Winner of Footbridge Award 2025, Short Span
RO Timber Bike and Footbridge F29K Brussels, Belgium
2024 Box girder covered bridge, 67.5m span
Innovative modern covered bridge
Passerelle a Chevenon Chevenon, France
2024
Cantilever / beam, 30m span
Winner, Sustainability Award, Footbridge 2025
Passerelle Zwolle Zwolle, Netherlands
2025 Five span beam, 34m max span, 130m total length
Recently opened Greened Station Bridge