Building America Industrialized Housing Partnership (BAIHP)

McIlvaine, Janet; Chandra, Subrato; Barkaszi, Stephen; Beal, David; Chasar, David; Colón, Carlos; Fonorow, Ken; Gordon, Andrew; Hoak, David; Hutchinson, Stephanie; Lubliner, Mike; Martin, Eric C.; McCluney, Ross; McGinley, Mark A.; McSorley, Mike; Moyer, Neil; Mullens, Mike; Parker, Danny; Sherwin, John; Vieira, Rob; Wichers, Susan

doi:10.2172/921627

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Completed modular homes must comply with the same building codes as conventional, stick‐built homes. Published benefits include reduced building time, built in a controlled environment, improved energy efficiency – up to 30 percent savings in cooling energy use (Chandra et al , 1998; Mcilvaine et al , 2006), reduced material waste, and constant skilled workforce. Some of the drawbacks of the wide implementation of this type of building system are perceived negative stereotype, limited transportation, design variety, and regulatory requirements (Mullens, 2011).…”

Section: Innovative Exterior Wall Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of high performance building systems in hot‐humid climates – lessons learned

Nahmens

Reichel

2013

Construction Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the adoption process of high performance building technologies, including alternative wall systems, in hot‐humid climates. Challenges faced by homebuilders adopting high performance building technologies, and resulting energy performance are discussed.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is a case study of four homebuilders using high performance building technologies, including advanced framing, panelised and modular. For each homebuilder, a baseline and a demonstration house were evaluated for energy performance and technology adoption. Homebuilders were interviewed to identify implementation challenges and barriers faced during the construction process.FindingsThe advanced framing, modular and panelised houses used 50 percent, 42 percent, and 35 percent less energy when compared to the traditional stick‐built. Further, the modular appeared to have the greatest opportunity to boost performance for least cost. Participating builders identified cost as the top constraint to a wide adoption of high performance criteria, followed by a slow learning curve and the lack of proper marketing channels to transition from construction to sale.Research limitations/implicationsSeveral limitations of the research restrict generalisation of findings: results are based on a small sample of homebuilders; and results reflect energy performance in a hot and humid climate. It is likely that relative energy usage will change as the size, scope, and design complexity of the common element changes.Originality/valueFindings from this study will contribute to a better understanding of the usability of high performance technologies and ease the transition towards implementing high performance criteria into every builder company's culture.

show abstract

Section: Innovative Exterior Wall Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%