Quantifying construction-stage (A5) energy consumption in mass timber buildings: A dual-track assessment framework
Source abstract
Abstract
The building sector accounts for approximately 37% of global energy-related carbon emissions, and as operational efficiency improves, the share attributable to embodied carbon continues to grow. Mass timber has emerged as a promising structural alternative because of its lower embodied carbon, biogenic carbon storage, and potential to accelerate construction schedules. However, construction-stage energy use (A5) is often oversimplified in building life-cycle assessment, with previous studies frequently approximating it as a fixed percentage ( ∼ 3%) of total embodied energy rather than explicitly inventorying on-site activities. To address this gap, this study develops a dual-track framework for quantifying A5 energy use, combining a theoretical lower bound with a schedule-based upper bound and Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis. Crucially, this study evaluates A5 as a standalone module and does not assess its relative contribution within the full life-cycle profile of the buildings. The framework is applied to two completed large-scale mass timber projects in the U.S. Midwest (ASHRAE Climate Zone 5A) and extended to functionally equivalent reinforced concrete (RC) and structural steel options. Results show that in cold-climate projects, temporary heating dominates A5 energy use (52%–60%), while mechanical fastener installation contributes less than 0.2% regardless of climate. Compared with functionally equivalent alternatives in the same climate zone, mass timber achieves approximately 30% lower A5 energy use than RC and approximately 13% lower than structural steel. A complementary climate-sensitivity analysis extends the framework across ASHRAE Climate Zones 1A through 5A and shows that the mass timber advantage holds across this range, although the absolute A5 totals decline substantially as temporary-heating demand diminishes. In addition, a 44% learning-curve productivity improvement in cross-laminated timber (CLT) installation suggests further potential for reducing construction-stage energy consumption. External validation using Bakers Place, another completed mass timber project, supports the transferability of the methodology, with observed values for all three structural systems falling within their respective 90% credible intervals. These findings indicate that A5 energy use in cold-climate mass timber projects has been substantially under-quantified in previous studies and that the proposed framework provides a systematic method for evaluating construction-stage energy impacts.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Building Energy and Comfort Optimization · Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. Appendix: The Paris agreement
2. A critical review and assessment for usage of recycled aggregate as sustainable construction material10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.029 ↗
3. Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of one peking in Hong Kong10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.09.014 ↗
4. A comparative life cycle assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in buildings10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.112 ↗
5. Life cycle performance of cross laminated timber mid-rise residential buildings in Australia10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110091 ↗
6. Carbon emissions reduction of a circular architectural practice: A study on a reversible design pavilion using recycled materials10.3390/su16051729 ↗
7. Development of a life cycle inventory database and life cycle impact assessment of the building demolition stage: A case study in Germany10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130631 ↗
8. Optimal design of truss structures for sustainable carbon emission reduction in Korean construction10.3390/su16145830 ↗
9. A lifecycle assessment of a low-energy mass-timber building and mainstream concrete alternative in central Chile10.3390/su14031249 ↗
10. Reuse of waste rockwool for improving the performance of LC3-based mortars made with natural and recycled aggregates for sustainable building solutions10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109881 ↗
11. Building sustainable futures: Evaluating embodied carbon emissions and biogenic carbon storage in a cross-laminated timber wall and floor (honeycomb) mass timber building10.3390/su17125602 ↗
12. Experimental verification of shear analogy approach to predict bending stiffness for softwood and hardwood cross-laminated timber panels10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116895 ↗
13. Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential10.1179/2042645315Y.0000000010 ↗
14. Wood innovation and design centre: Prince george, Canada10.1515/9783035628340-019 ↗
15. Buildings as a global carbon sink10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4 ↗
16. Environmental life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost analysis of a high-rise mass timber building: A case study in Pacific northwestern united states10.3390/su13147831 ↗
17. WoodWorks Innovation Network · 2026
18. Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109320 ↗
19. Life cycle assessment of wood construction according to the normative standards10.1007/s00107-015-0890-4 ↗
20. Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034 ↗
21. Why method matters: Temporal, spatial and physical variations in lca and their impact on choice of structural system10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.039 ↗
22. Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific northwest10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862 ↗
23. Comparative LCAs of conventional and mass timber buildings in regions with potential for mass timber penetration10.3390/su132413987 ↗
24. A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental and economic perspective10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.065 ↗
25. Assessing cross laminated timber (CLT) as an alternative material for mid-rise residential buildings in cold regions in China2014a life-cycle assessment approach10.3390/su8101047 ↗
26. Environmental impacts of building construction using cross-laminated timber panel construction method: A case of the research building in kyushu, Japan10.3390/su12062220 ↗
27. Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.018 ↗
28. Applicability of mid-rise timber structures in the metropolitan area
29. ISO · 2006
30. ISO · 2006
31. ISO · 2017
32. ASHRAE/ICC · 2024
33. Comparison of mass timber structure and RC structure with regard to sustainability by life cycle assessment10.54254/2755-2721/61/20240973 ↗
34. A comparative study between glulam and concrete columns in view of design, economy and environment10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00966 ↗
35. Gordian · 2022
36. Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017 ↗
37. Impact of engine idling on fuel use and CO2 emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000068 ↗
38. Statistical properties of construction duration data10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:3(525) ↗
39. Goel · 2016
40. Drive-in torque for self-tapping screws into timber10.1680/jcoma.18.00087 ↗
41. Factors affecting the cost of airplanes10.2514/8.155 ↗
42. Estimating mass timber projects10.1201/9781003482543-3 ↗
43. Agency · 2024
44. Agency · 2024
45. A comparative whole-building life cycle assessment of the four framing systems of the bakers place building using the tally LCA tool10.3390/buildings15071192 ↗