Techno-economic analysis for manufacturing cross-laminated timber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a bio-based building material that enables rapid construction and buildings with low embodied energy. Despite its comparative maturity in European markets, relatively little information regarding process design and economics for the manufacture of cross-laminated timber is available in the literature. Two techno-economic analyses were conducted to quantify the mill-gate cost of cross-laminated timber. The cross-laminated timber manufacturing process was described, and costs were analyzed for two facility scales. Cross-laminated timber produced at the large-scale facility using lumber priced at an average value for the northwest United States has a minimum selling price of $536/m3. Sensitivity analyses were used to define the impact of plant size, asset utilization, lumber price, plant capital cost, material waste, and other variables on minimum selling price. The cost of cross laminated timber rises quickly when a facility is not fully utilized. The second-ranking cost controlling variable is lumber price, while energy prices have minimal influence. The price of cross laminated timber can be optimized by locating a facility near low-cost lumber. The lowest-price region analyzed was the southeast United States using Southern Pine, which reduced the cost of cross laminated timber to $518/m3.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".