Comparison of Building Construction and Life-Cycle Cost for a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with its Concrete Alternative
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Mass timber building materials such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) have captured attention in mid- to high-rise building designs because of their potential environmental benefits. The recently updated multistory building code also enables greater utilization of these wood building materials. The cost-effectiveness of mass timber buildings is also undergoing substantial analysis. Given the relatively new presence of CLT in United States, high front-end construction costs are expected. This study presents the life-cycle cost (LCC) for a 12-story, 8,360-m2 mass timber building to be built in Portland, Oregon. The goal was to assess its total life-cycle cost (TLCC) relative to a functionally equivalent reinforced-concrete building design using our in-house-developed LCC tool. Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative. Front-end construction costs dominated the TLCC for both buildings. However, a decrease of 2.4 percent TLCC relative to concrete building was observed because of the estimated longer lifespan and higher end-of-life salvage value for the mass timber building. The end-of-life savings from demolition cost or salvage values in mass timber building could offset some initial construction costs. There are minimal historical construction cost data and lack of operational cost data for mass timber buildings; therefore, more studies and data are needed to make the generalization of these results. However, a solid methodology for mass timber building LCC was developed and applied to demonstrate several cost scenarios for mass timber building benefits or disadvantages.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Wood Treatment and Properties · Tree Root and Stability Studies · Forest ecology and management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (55)
Show source-provided references
1. Abergel, T., Dean, B. and Dulac.J. 2017. Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector: Global status report 2017. United Nations Environment, International Energy Agency, Paris. 43pp.
2. American National Standards Institute/APA—The Engineered Wood Association (ANSI/APA). 2019. Standard for performance-rated cross-laminated timber. PRG 320-2012. ANSI/APA, Tacoma, Washington. 23pp.
3. Anderson, R., Atkins, D. Beck, B. Gale, C. Rawlings, C. and Rollins.Z. 2019. The North American mass timber state of the industry report 2019. Forest Business Network, Missoula, Montana. 108pp.
4. APA—The Engineered Wood Association (APA). 2019. APA case study: Mass timber has banks seeing green. APA, Tacoma, Washington. 4pp.
5. ASTM International. 2017. Standard practice for measuring life-cycle costs of buildings and building systems. ASTM E917-17. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 23pp.
6. Bédard, P., Fournier, F. Gagnon, S. Gingras, A. Lavoie, P. and Robichaud.F. 2010. Manufacturing cross-laminated timber (CLT) technological and economic analysis. Report no. 201001259-3257AAM. FPInnovations, Quebec, Canada.
7. Bergman, R., Puettmann, M. Taylor, A. and Skog.K. E. 2014. The carbon impacts of wood products. Forest Prod. J. 64(7/8): 220– 231.
8. Brandt, K., Wilson, A. Bender, D. Dolan, J. D. and Wolcott.M. P. 2019. Techno-economic analysis for manufacturing cross-laminated timber. BioResources14(4): 7790– 7804.
9. Breneman, S. and Richardson.D. 2019. Tall wood buildings and the 2021 IBC: Up to 18 stories of mass timber. WW-WSP-12. WoodWorks. 12 pp.https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/wood_solution_paper-TALL-WOOD.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2020.
10. Cary Kopczynski & Company. 2018. Cross laminated timber feasibility study—A comparison between cross laminated timber and cast-in-place concrete framing for mid-rise urban buildings. Cary Kopczynski & Company, Seattle.http://buildingstudies.org/pdf/related_studies/Cross_Laminated_Timber_Feasibility_Study_Feb-2018.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2020.
11. Churkina, G., Organschi, A. and Reyer.C. P. O. 2020. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3: 269– 276.
12. City of Portland, Oregon. 2018. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/. Accessed August 22, 2018.
13. Dong, Y., Qin, T. Zhou, S. Huang, L. Bo, R. Guo, H. and Yin.X. 2020. Comparative whole building life cycle assessment of energy saving and carbon reduction performance of reinforced concrete and timber stadiums—A case study in china. Sustainability12(4): 1566– 1589.
14. Dwaikat, L. and Ali.K. 2018. Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle budget development: Practical applications. J. Build. Eng. 18: 303– 311.
15. Evison, D. C., Kremer, P. D. and Guiver.J. 2018. Mass timber construction in Australia and New Zealand—Status, and economic and environmental influences on adoption. Wood Fiber Sci. 50: 128– 138.
16. Fargione, J. E., Bassett, S. Boucher, T. Bridgham, S. D. Conant, R. T. Cook-Patton, S. C. Ellis, P. W. Falcucci, A. Fourqurean, J. W. Gopalakrishna, T. Gu, H. Henderson, B. Hurteau, M. D. Kroeger, K. D. Kroeger, T. Lark, T. J. Leavitt, S. M. Lomax, G. McDonald, R. I. Megonigal, J. P. Miteva, D. A. Richardson, C. J. Sanderman, J. Shoch, D. Spawn, S. A. Veldman, J. W. Williams, C. A. Woodbury, P. B. Zganjar, C. Baranski, M. Elias, P. Houghton, R. A. Landis, E. McGlynn, E. Schlesinger, W. H. Siikamaki, J. V. Sutton-Grier, A. E. and Griscom.B. W. 2018. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4(11):eaat1869.
17. Forestry Innovation Investment (FII). 2016. Brock Commons Tallwood House. https://www.naturallywood.com/emerging-trends/tall-wood/brock-commons-tallwood-house. Accessed August 22, 2020.
18. Framework. 2020. FRAMEWORK. https://www.frameworkportland.com/. Accessed August 22, 2020.
19. Gu, H. and Bergman.R. 2018. Life cycle assessment and environmental building declaration for the design building at the University of Massachusetts. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-255. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. 71pp.
20. Hasburgh, L. E., Zelinka, S. L. Bourne, K. J. Tucholski, D. R. and Ouellette.J. P. 2018. Full-scale fire tests of a two-story cross-laminated timber structure. In:Proceedings of the WCTE 2018-World Conference on Timber Engineering, Seoul, August 20–23, 2018; Korean Institute of Forest Science, Seoul.8pp.
21. Heppner, J. 2018. Personal communication.
22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.
23. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2017. Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Part 5: Life-cycle costing. ISO 15686-5. ISO, Geneva.
24. Islam, H., Jollands, M. and Setunge.S. 2015. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42: 129– 140.
25. Karacabeyli, B. and Douglas.B. 2013. CLT handbook. US edition. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2013/fpl_2013_gagnon001.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2020.
26. Kelley, S. and Bergman.R. 2017. Potential for tall wood buildings to sequester carbon, support forest communities, and create new options for forest management. Research in Progress 4851. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/rips/fplrip-4851-018-NCSU-TallBldgs-Bergman-Kelley.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2020.
27. Kremer, P. D. and Ritchie.L. 2018. Understanding costs and identifying value in mass timber construction: Calculating the ‘total cost of project' (TCP). Mass Timber Construc. J. 1(2018): 14– 18.
28. Kuzman, M. K. and Sandberg.D. 2017. Comparison of timber-house technologies and initiatives supporting use of timber in Slovenia and in Sweden—The state of art. iForest – Biogeosci. Forestry10: 930– 938.
29. Lavappa, P. and Kneifel.J. 2018. NISTIR 85-3273-33: Energy price indices and discount factors for life-cycle cost analysis—2018 annual supplement to NIST handbook 135. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland. https://www.nist.gov/publications/energy-price-indices-and-discount-factors-life-cycle-cost-analysis-150-2018-annual. Accessed November 16, 2020.
30. Liang, S., Gu, H. Bergman, R. and Kelley.S. 2020. Comparative life cycle assessment of a mass timber building and concrete alternative. Wood Fiber Sci. 52(2): 217– 229.
31. Liang, S., Gu, H. Bilek, T. and Bergman.R. 2019. Life-cycle cost analysis of a mass-timber building: Methodology and hypothetical case study. Research Paper FPL-RP-702. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. 11pp.
32. Markström, E., Kuzman, M. K. Bystedt, A. and Sandberg.D. 2019 Use of wood products in multi-storey residential buildings: Views of Swedish actors and suggested measures for an increased use. Wood Mat. Sci. Eng. 14(6): 404– 419.
33. O'Connor, J. 2004. Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings. Presented at Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 2004.
34. Oliver, C. D., Nassar, N. T. Lippke, B. R. and McCarter.J. B. 2014. Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J. Sustain. Forestry33(3): 248– 275.
35. Oregon BEST. 2017. Advanced wood product manufacturing study for cross-laminated timber acceleration in Oregon & SW Washington. Technical Report.http://oregonbest.org/fileadmin/media/Mass_Timber/Accelerating_CLT_Manufacturing_in_Oregon___SW_Washington__2017__Oregon_BEST_.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2020.
36. Pei, S., Van de Lindt, J. Barbosa, A. R. Berman, J. Blomgren, H-E. Dolan, J. McDonnell, E. Zimmerman, R. Fragiacomo, M. and Rammer.D. 2018. Full-scale shake table test of a two story mass-timber building with resilient rocking walls. In:Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 18–21, 2018; Springer, Cham, Switzerland. pp.1– 10.
37. Pierobon, F., Huang, M. Simonen, K. and Ganguly.I. 2019. Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the US Pacific Northwest. J. Build. Engineer. 26: 100862.
38. Portland, Oregon Electricity Statistics. 2018. Commercial electricity rates in Portland. https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/oregon/portland/. Accessed November 30, 2020.
39. RSMeans. 2018. RSMeans online. https://www.rsmeansonline.com/. Accessed August 22, 2018.
40. Sahoo, K., Bergman, R. Alanya-Rosenbaum, S. Gu, H. and Liang.S. 2019. Life cycle assessment of forest-based products: A review. Sustainability11(17): 4722– 4751.
41. Sathre, R. and O'Connor.J. 2010. A synthesis of research on wood products & greenhouse gas impacts. 2nd ed. Technical Report No. TR-19R. FPInnovations, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 117pp.
42. Scouse, A., Kelley, S. Liang, S. and Bergman.R. 2020. Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon. Sustain. Cities Soc. 61: 102154.
43. Smith, R. E., Griffin, G. Rice, T. and Hagehofer-Daniell.B. 2018. Mass timber: Evaluating construction performance. Arch. Eng. Design Manag. 14(1–2): 127– 138.
44. Tam, V., Senaratne, S. Le, K. Shen, L. Perica, J. and Illankoon.I. 2017. Life-cycle cost analysis of green-building implementation using timber applications. J. Clean. Prod. 147: 458– 469.
45. ThinkWood. 2018. Project efficiencies. https://www.thinkwood.com/opportunities-for-wood/cost-efficiency. Accessed August 22, 2018.
46. US Department of Energy. 2017. Water and wastewater annual price escalation rates for selected cities across the United States. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/10/f38/water_wastewater_escalation_rate_study.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2020.
47. US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. Employment cost trends. https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/. Accessed August 22, 2020.
48. US Department of the Treasury. 2020. Daily Treasury real long-term rates. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=reallongtermrate. Accessed August 22, 2020.
49. US Energy Information Administration. 2018. Natural gas prices. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SOR_a.htm. Accessed August 22, 2020.
50. Walch, F. and WattsR.. 1923. Composite lumber. US Patent 1,465,383.
51. Wang, J. Y., Stirling, R. Morris, P. I. Taylor, A. Lloyd, J. Kirker, G. Lebow, S. Mankowski, M. E. Barnes, H. M. and Morrell.J. J. 2018. Durability of mass timber structures: A review of the biological risks. Wood Fiber Sci. 50: 110– 127.
52. Wang, L., Toppinen, A. and Juslin.H. 2014. Use of wood in green buildings: A study of expert perspectives from the UK. J. Cleaner Prod. 65: 350– 361.
53. Williamson, T. and Ross.R. 2016. Proceedings: Mass timber research workshop 2015. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-241. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. 364pp.
54. WoodWorks. 2019. Building trends: Mass timber. https://www.woodworks.org/publications-media/building-trends-mass-timber/. Accessed August 22, 2019.
55. Zelinka, S. L., Williamson, T. Martinson, K. L. and Ritter.M. A. 2019. Research needs assessment for the mass timber industry: Proceedings of the 2nd North American mass timber research needs workshop. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-273. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. 41pp.