Life cycle assessment of low-rise office building with different structure–envelope configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents life cycle assessment approach to study the impact of structure and envelope types on the energy consumption and environmental impact of an office building in New York City, USA. In addition, the future costs of environmental impact for various structure and envelope options are assessed according to the current practice and market price of CO 2 . Eight structure and envelope types for the low-rise office building are investigated, which include concrete and steel structures with various combinations of envelopes. The parameters such as life cycle energy use, global warming potential, and water, air and land emissions are analyzed. The energy simulation is performed by using eQUEST software while the environmental impact is assessed by using ATHENA® impact estimator. The building with concrete frame is proved to have lower environmental impact compared to that with steel frame. The precast concrete building is found to be the most economical alternative due to the minimal environmental impact cost. This study is expected to enable the decision makers and building owners to select the best alternative with respect to energy use, and environmental and economic constraints.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".