Shahi, S; Beesley, P and Haas, C T (2023) Creating space and time for innovation: a methodology for building adaptation design appraisal using physics-based simulation tools and interactive multi-objective optimization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(3), pp. 1098-1121. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: It is crucial to consider the multitude of possible building adaptation design strategies for improving the existing conditions of building stock as an alternative to demolition. Design/methodology/approach: Integration of physics-based simulation tools and decision-making tools such as Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) and Interactive Multi-objective Optimization (IMO) in the design process enable optimized design decision-making for high-performing buildings. A methodology is presented for improving building adaptation design decision making, specifically in the early-stage design feasibility analysis. Ten residential building adaptation strategies are selected and applied to one primary building system for eight performance metrics using physics-based simulation tools. These measures include energy use, thermal comfort, daylighting, natural ventilation, systems performance, life cycle, cost-benefit and constructability. The results are processed using MAU and IMO analysis and are validated through sensitivity analysis by testing one design strategy on three building systems. Findings: Quantifiable comparison of building adaptation strategies based on multiple metrics derived from physics-based simulations can assist in the evaluation of overall environmental performance and economic feasibility for building adaptation projects. Research limitations/implications: The current methodology presented is limited to the analysis of one decision-maker at a time. It can be improved to include multiple decision-makers and capture varying perspectives to reflect common practices in the industry. Practical implications: The methodology presented supports affordable generation and analysis of a large number of design options for early-stage design optimization. Originality/value: Given the practical implications, more space and time is created for exploration and innovation, resulting in potential for improved benefits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; decision support systems; design; simulation |
| Index terms: | building stock, strategy, daylighting, performance metric, sensitivity analysis, design process, decision support, design strategy, simulation tool, appraisal, design decision, design optimization, methodology, exploration, decision-making, integration, natural ventilation, life cycle, adaptation, residential building, environmental performance, testing, energy use, constructability, option, building system, multi-objective optimization, thermal comfort |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, energy systems, professional practice, environmental resource management, value management, design methods, engineering systems, user focus, construction type, environmental engineering, environmental hazards, decision analysis, asset management, building performance, organizational analysis, design process, construction integration, algorithms, research methods, factor and component analysis, performance measurement, sustainability assessment, management, design practice |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here