Mass Timber in High-Rise Buildings: Modular Design and Construction; Permitting and Contracting Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the inherent inefficiencies in conventional approaches followed in the construction industry and the global demand for lean and sustainable construction techniques, modular construction has witnessed a resurge especially in high-rise buildings. As such, much efforts have been put in studying the use of mass timber for the main structure of high-rise buildings in order to ensure more sustainable developments with high levels of adaptability. In this regard, previous research efforts have primarily focused on the added benefits of mass timber, its structural design and performance, and associated safety requirements. However, owing to the novelty in combining modular processes with timber materials and associated lack of data, several regulatory barriers and contractual issues still exist. To mitigate these issues, this paper studies the specifics of permit approvals and contracting issues in timber high-rise modular buildings. The objective is to develop a comprehensive up-to-date review and analysis of the relevant practices and to conduct interviews with industry experts to analyze their concerns, given the insufficient number of guides and building codes that dealt with these issues. Hence, our study investigates the process of obtaining permit approvals from local jurisdictions in Ontario in addition to the requirements for submission of additional documentation, engineering analysis, and testing. Moreover, it analyzes the initial stage of contractual agreement of stakeholders under the uncertainties imposed on these buildings and evaluates the suitability of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contracting method. Presenting detailed analysis of the initial planning stages for timber high-rise modular buildings can in turn suggest the best practices to be taken into consideration for the successful implementation of these buildings under the current building code.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".