Without demolishing an entire existing building, it is possible to sustainably expand its underground spaces to enhance the building’s functionality. However, there have been a few relevant studies exploring this option, and they did not consider the financial feasibilities of underground vertical extension methods. Therefore, this paper analyzes the economic impacts of three sustainable vertical extension methods for existing underground spaces. The extension methods were the (1) bottom-up, (2) normal top-down, and (3) top-down with multi-post downward (MPD) methods. In order to analyze and compare the economic impacts of the underground vertical extension methods, 24 illustrative examples were generated in this paper. Construction costs of the three sustainable vertical extension methods for existing underground spaces are calculated and compared. Those are based on the quantity of used materials in the construction phase and dismantled materials in the demolition phase, as well as unit costs of each material. In addition, the structural stabilities of the examples are analyzed using MIDAS Gen 2017. As the results, the top-down method with MPD was the lowest sustainable method for vertically expanding underground spaces compared to other two methods under the same condition. Moreover, the higher the number of underground floors of existing buildings and the greater the number of extended basement floors, the more economically advantageous was the top-down method with MPD. Considering their structural stabilities and economic impacts of the extension methods help practitioners to select appropriate construction techniques and reduce costs, risks, and the amount of generated construction and demolition waste.
[1]
Chan-Sik Lee,et al.
Selection of Retaining Wall System for Underground Parking Lots Expansion of Apartments
,
2008
.
[2]
Nikolai Bobylev,et al.
Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city's Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use
,
2009
.
[3]
Zhilong Chen,et al.
Research on the Synergy Degree of Aboveground and Underground Space along Urban Rail Transit from the Perspective of Urban Sustainable Development
,
2016
.
[4]
J. Norrman,et al.
Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource
,
2020,
Land Use Policy.
[5]
Zhilong Chen,et al.
A Framework for Assessment of the Influence of China’s Urban Underground Space Developments on the Urban Microclimate
,
2014
.
[6]
Nikolai Bobylev,et al.
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of selected underground construction technologies using the analytic network process
,
2011
.
[7]
Sungho Lee,et al.
[연구논문-건축] Advanced Construction Stage Analysis of High-rise Building Considering Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete
,
2013
.
[8]
Nadia Bhuiyan,et al.
Integrating numerical tools in underground construction process
,
2009
.
[9]
Nikolai Bobylev,et al.
Underground space as an urban indicator: Measuring use of subsurface
,
2016
.