Cost Analysis of a Mass Timber Building Project: Comparison of Budgeted and Actual Construction Cost
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
Mass timber is considered as a sustainable alternative to traditional building materials such as concrete and steel. However, due to a lack of sufficient mass timber construction projects, the US construction practitioners are not familiar with the cost details of mass timber buildings. Cost is an important parameter of any construction project, and the availability of adequate cost information from previous projects helps to tackle cost-related challenges associated with building construction. This study presents comprehensive cost information of a tall mass timber building construction located in Canada. The methodology of the study was developed by comparing the budgeted construction cost of the building to the actual construction cost of the building. The budgeted cost was estimated before commencing the construction, and the actual construction cost was calculated after the completion of all construction activities. The outcomes of the study show that the actual construction cost of the building was 1.2% ($473,758) higher than the budgeted cost, including a schedule delay of five months due to failures of elevators and storefront trades. Metalworks, furnishing, and utility activities were found higher for actual cost compared to budgeted cost. Contrarily, the cost of engineered wood and plastic, exterior improvement, and installation of mechanical facilities were found lower in actual construction cost. The actual construction cost also incorporated change orders that cost an additional $2,155,549. The study will help US industry practitioners and owners to make decisions regarding their initial investments in a mass timber building project.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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