Life-cycle cost analysis of a mass-timber building: methodology and hypothetical case study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) as a building material is gaining popularity in the North American building sector, especially in mid-to high-rise building designs. This study presents the methodology of life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and an example of a hypothetical case study in Portland, Oregon, USA, of a CLT mass timber building compared with a baseline code-compliant concrete alternative. It was found, not unexpectedly, that the mass timber building with premium energy and water saving designs exhibited a lower total life-cycle cost (TLCC) than a concrete building for a 60-year study period under provided research assumptions and limitations. The construction cost dominated the TLCCs for both buildings. Little to no historical construction and operational data exist for mass timber buildings in North America, which made this analysis limited for generalizing the results. However, a solid methodology was established for future LCCA on mass timber buildings, and cost-specific data will be implemented when the information becomes available.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it