Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 7 results ...

Alvanchi, A and JavadiAghdam, S (2019) Job site weather index: an indicator for open environment construction projects. Construction Innovation , 19(01), 110–24.

Azadeh, A, Kalantari, M, Ahmadi, G and Eslami, H (2019) A flexible genetic algorithm-fuzzy regression approach for forecasting. Construction Innovation , 19(01), 71–88.

Janné, M and Fredriksson, A (2019) Construction logistics governing guidelines in urban development projects. Construction Innovation, 19(01), 89–109.

Majava, J, Haapasalo, H and Aaltonen, K (2019) Elaborating factors affecting visual control in a big room. Construction Innovation , 19(01), 34–47.

Saini, M, Arif, M and Kulonda, D J (2019) Challenges to transferring and sharing of tacit knowledge within a construction supply chain. Construction Innovation, 19(01), 15–33.

Shoar, S, Nasirzadeh, F and Zarandi, H R (2019) Quantitative assessment of risks on construction projects using fault tree analysis with hybrid uncertainties. Construction Innovation, 19(01), 48–70.

Sundling, R, Blomsterberg, & and Landin, A (2019) Enabling energy-efficient renovation: the case of vertical extension to buildings. Construction Innovation, 19(01), 2–14.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Energy; Densification; Energy-efficient renovation; Lifecycle impact assessment; Lifecycle profit analysis; Vertical extension of buildings;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 1471-4175
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2018-0034
  • Abstract:
    This paper is based on a study of six similar buildings built in Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1971, which were in urgent need of renovation. A life cycle profit analysis shows how four competing concepts were evaluated to find a financially viable renovation concept; additionally, the environmental impacts of these renovation concepts using a life cycle assessment are presented. Design/methodology/approach Four renovation concepts are compared to find the most appropriate concept, namely, minimalist, code-compliant, low-energy and low-energy plus vertical extension concepts. The methods used for comparison are life cycle profit analysis and life cycle impact assessment; the methods used for data gathering included site visits, interviews, document study, co-benefits study and energy simulation. Findings The findings show that vertical extension supported the energy-efficient renovation of the buildings and that the combination of low-energy and the vertical extension had the highest return on investment and the lowest environmental impact. The selected concept for renovating the remaining five buildings combined was the low-energy plus vertical extension. Additional benefits from vertical extension include more apartments in central locations for the housing company, a wider variety of apartment layouts and a wider range of tenants. Drawbacks include increased use of infrastructure, green space and common appliances, as well as gentrification. Originality/value This study shows how a vertical extension can financially enable an energy-efficient renovation and further lower its environmental impact. Benefits and drawbacks of densification are also highlighted to better understand the implementation of vertically extending a building.