## 3 Results
### The Results of the Time Analysis  
The proposed variants of the administrative building can be compared from several points of view. In the first case, the variants of structural systems are compared on the basis of construction time demands. The results are shown in Table 3, where the construction time of individual construction stages is listed. The construction time includes weekend days when no work is done. In addition, the corresponding time differences between the two construction systems are listed.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant of the Construction System of** & **Construction Costs** & **Built-Up Area** & **Unit Cost Indicator per 1 m\({}^{2}\)** \\
**Administrative Building** & **[EUR]** & **[m\({}^{2}\)]** & **of Build-Up Area [EUR/m\({}^{2}\)]** \\ \hline Variant no. 1—CLT construction system & 282,010 & 171.68 & 1642.65 \\ Variant no. 2—Timber column structure & 239,069 & 171.68 & 1392.53 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The unit cost indicator per built-up area.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant of the Construction System of** & **Construction Costs** & **Built-Up Volume** & **Unit Cost Indicator per 1 m\({}^{3}\) of** \\
**Administrative Building** & **[EUR]** & **[m\({}^{3}\)]** & **Build-Up Volume [EUR/m\({}^{3}\)]** \\ \hline Variant no. 1—CLT construction system & 282,010 & 1072.97 & 262.83 \\ Variant no. 2—Timber column structure & 239,069 & 1072.97 & 222.81 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The unit cost indicator per built-up volume.  
Figure 9: The breakdown of the construction costs of the building in variant 2, the “timber column structure”, based on the calculation formula.  
Based on the graphic representation of the construction time of individual construction stages, it can be clearly stated that the time differences in the compared variants are the biggest during the construction of the load-bearing structure of the building and the finishes of ceilings, walls, and floors (Figure 10). In total, the construction of the administrative building may be shortened by 15 days if the CLT construction variant is selected. However, the difference in the construction time of both variants is not significant. The reason for the smaller difference is the size of the administrative building. If it were the construction of a larger area and with more floors, effective planning and the division of the construction into different work units would lead to the difference in the construction time being greater.  
Figure 10: Comparison of CLT construction and timber column structure in terms of construction time.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Construction Stage**} & **Construction Time:** & **Construction Time:** & **Difference** \\  & **CLT Construction System** & **Timber Column Structure** & **[day]** \\ \hline Total construction time (entire building) & 73 & 88 & \(-\)15 \\ \hline Waterproofing & 9 & 9 & 0 \\ \hline Wooden load-bearing structures and partitions & 13 & 26 & \(-\)13 \\ \hline Roof construction & 9 & 14 & \(-\)5 \\ \hline Window and door installation & 6 & 6 & 0 \\ \hline External thermal insulation composite system & 20 & 16 & \(-\)4 \\ and wooden facade assembly & & & \\ \hline Plastering, wall layer construction, and floor screeding & 7 & 11 & \(-\)4 \\ \hline Plasterboard suspended ceilings and partitions, ceramic tiling, and footings & 23 & 31 & \(-\)8 \\ \hline Paintings and coatings, cleaning of the building & 4 & 4 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: The construction time of the CLT construction system and the timber column structure.