Ashcroft, D; Egbelakin, T; Jing, J and Rasheed, E O (2019) Cost comparison of seismic damage resisting systems for modules in multi-storey buildings. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(2), pp. 330-346. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the economic viability of a new and innovative seismic damage resisting system (SDRS) device by conducting a feasibility study. The SDRS device has been patented and specifically designed to be implemented in multi-storey modular buildings in seismic regions such as New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach: Using a case study approach, two sample modular multi-storey buildings were purposively selected for the study. A cost-comparison analysis was conducted using the SDRS device in the two buildings, by carrying out a measure and price exercise of the construction elements. Findings: The research results showed that the SDRS device is an economically viable option for mitigating seismic damage in modular multi-storey buildings in New Zealand. There is an average of 7.34 per cent of cost reduction when SDRS is used in modular multi-storey buildings when compared to other seismic resistance systems such as base isolation, moment resisting frames and friction damper systems. Practical implications: The economic viability of the SDRS presents an opportunity for its usage in modular design and construction of multi-storey buildings. SDRS system is also applicable to other building typologies and construction methods. The use of SDRS also aligns with the current national objective to provide more affordable and resilient housing within a limited time; the opportunity is considered significant in New Zealand, including for export and manufacturing. Originality/value: The confirmation of the SDRS device’s economic feasibility is the original contribution of the authors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | costs; housing shortage; modular construction; seismic damage resisting systems; seismic risk mitigation |
| Index terms: | option, module, building typology, modular design, export, case study, New Zealand, exercise, seismic risk, modular building, cost reduction, housing, mitigation, modular construction, methodology, construction method, resilient housing, feasibility study |
| Subjects: | financial risk, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, economics, architectural elements, building construction, decision analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles, design methods, data collection methods, construction type, economic analysis, design stages |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Site Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Risk Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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