<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=98936"><dc:title>Competitive ranges of timber, concrete, and steel beams based on cost optimization and sensitivity analysis, including CO2 emission costs</dc:title><dc:creator>Kravanja,	Stojan	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Žula,	Tomaž	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>timber beams</dc:subject><dc:subject>steel beams</dc:subject><dc:subject>reinforced concrete beams</dc:subject><dc:subject>cost optimization</dc:subject><dc:subject>discrete optimization</dc:subject><dc:subject>mixed-integer non-linear programming</dc:subject><dc:subject>global warming costs</dc:subject><dc:subject>CO2 emissions</dc:subject><dc:subject>sensitivity analysis</dc:subject><dc:description>This paper examines the competitive ranges of timber, steel, and reinforced concrete beams, determined using multi-parameter cost optimization that includes global warming costs (CO2 emissions) associated with beam production. Simply supported beams subjected to self-weight and uniform imposed loads were optimized using discrete mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP). The objective functions included material, energy, labor, and CO2 emission costs associated only with manufacturing. Concrete remains the most cost-effective material across nearly all configurations, with glulam and steel being 2.3 and 2.8 times more expensive, respectively. Sawn timber outperforms concrete (by 9.5%) only at short spans (7.5 m) and low loads (10 kN/m1). Environmentally, timber yields the lowest manufacturing footprint, while steel and concrete emit 3.0 and 1.8 times more CO2 than glulam. Currently, CO2 emission costs average just 3.8% of total costs. However, a sensitivity analysis shows that extreme carbon taxes break concrete’s monopoly, increasing its costs by up to 637.4% and making timber the cheapest option for low-to-medium loads. Concrete is resilient to material price shocks at larger scales but highly vulnerable to rising labor rates (up to a 66.3% increase). While current carbon pricing is too low to influence material selection, future substantial tax escalations will shift structural competitiveness toward timber.</dc:description><dc:publisher>MDPI</dc:publisher><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-07-20 10:44:10</dc:date><dc:type>Članek v reviji</dc:type><dc:identifier>98936</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
