Method for a component-based economic optimisation in design of whole building renovation versus demolishing and rebuilding

Morelli, Martin; Harrestrup, Maria; Svendsen, Svend

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.068

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Carrying out demolition or replacement of existing buildings in the urban fabric also implies a given cost. However, depending on construction type, many buildings can be refurbished to extend their usable life, while complying with current structural and energy codes at a fraction of the cost of a new project (Morelli, Harrestrup, and Svendsen 2014), considering societal aspects (Mangold et al 2016). In dense urban settings around the world, refurbishment might be the only viable option for energy upgrading of cities, preserving the urban grid without incurring in excessive costs such as permanent resident relocation or business loss.…”

Section: The Case For Envelope Energy Retrofitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptability in envelope energy retrofits through addition of intelligence features

Capeluto

2019

Architectural Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large proportion of the existing building stock worldwide needs renovation and upgrading that will help comply with new energy codes and reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Improvements with minimal interference to inhabitants can be achieved by upgrading facades using elements that enhance energy efficiency and user comfort. Prefabricated energy retrofit systems have been suggested, but at present many lack adaptability to weather and usage conditions. This paper presents BRESAER, a retrofit system that provides adaptability through combination of passive strategies and intelligence features, which can be used in different climates and diverse building types. Energy performance was analysed for five types of European climates, results are shown for two climate types and three usages. A comparison was made of the presented system with a mostly passive retrofit system. Results show that in both climates, adaptability provides higher energy savings, complying with current definitions of very low-energy buildings.

show abstract

Section: The Case For Envelope Energy Retrofitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptability in envelope energy retrofits through addition of intelligence features

Capeluto

2019

Architectural Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A multitude of research conducted by the construction industry and academics has contributed to decision-making processes and prediction models for construction. Dominant factors in the decision to renovate or build new construction include investment cost and future market value of the existing building [17]. Due to the economic implications, several processes and decision tools have been developed to guide and support stakeholders during decision-making.…”

Section: Construction Project Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renovation versus New Construction and Building Decision Tool for Educational Facilities

Pope

Marks

Back

et al. 2016

Journal of Construction Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Renovation of an existing building is an accomplished stem of the construction industry because it supplies financial diversification for construction stakeholders. Although several construction planning tools and stakeholder alignment exercises have been developed, no tool exists to assist project owners to decide between renovating an existing building and new construction with a comprehensive decision criteria. The objective of this research is to create and test a renovation versus new building support decision tool for construction project stakeholders. The renovation versus new building support decision tool was created based on an extensive review of existing support tools and construction industry needs. The created tool was implemented to evaluate decisions of educational facilities by university officials experienced in project management. Results show the tool was effective in identifying relevant topics for discussion and guiding a group of stakeholders through an exercise in decision-making. Specifically, the tool was implemented by construction management personnel for university facilities currently under construction to evaluate the decision to renovate an existing building or new construction. The main contribution of this research is a framework and support decision tool readily implementable for construction project stakeholders desiring to determine if renovation or new construction is the optimal path for their specific objectives.

show abstract

“…Although there are many studies addressing renovation and the demolition and construction of a new building from a life cycle analysis perspective or based on environmental impacts [30][31][32][33][34][35], there are few studies addressing the life cycle costs of renovation and the demolition and construction of a new building, especially when considering buildings that are not damaged. Morelli et al [36] studied a Danish apartment building constructed between the years 1850-1930, and found that renovation was more cost-effective than the demolition and construction of a new building. Previous studies of the choice between the rehabilitation of damaged buildings and demolition and new construction [37], and studies of buildings in need of structural reinforcement as part of the renovation [35] have shown that the demolition and the construction of a new building should be considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Renovation versus Demolition and Construction of a New Building—A Comparative Analysis of a Swedish Multi-Family Building

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the life cycle costs (LCC) of energy renovation, and the demolition and construction of a new building. A comparison is made between LCC optimal energy renovations of four different building types with thermal performance, representing Swedish constructions from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, as well as the demolition of the building and construction of a new building that complies with the Swedish building code. A Swedish multi-family building from the 1960s is used as a reference building. LCC optimal energy renovations are identified with energy saving targets ranging between 10% and 70%, in addition to the lowest possible life cycle cost. The analyses show that an ambitious energy renovation is not cost-optimal in any of the studied buildings, if achieving the lowest LCC is the objective function. The cost of the demolition and construction of a new building is higher compared to energy renovation to the same energy performance. The higher rent in new buildings does not compensate for the higher cost of new construction. A more ambitious renovation is required in buildings that have a shape factor with a high internal volume to heated floor area ratio.

show abstract

Method for a component-based economic optimisation in design of whole building renovation versus demolishing and rebuilding

Cited by 29 publications

References 15 publications

Adaptability in envelope energy retrofits through addition of intelligence features

Adaptability in envelope energy retrofits through addition of intelligence features

Renovation versus New Construction and Building Decision Tool for Educational Facilities

Energy Renovation versus Demolition and Construction of a New Building—A Comparative Analysis of a Swedish Multi-Family Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About