See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263332537

The influence of the building shape on the costs of its construction

Article  in  Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction · April 2013

DOI: 10.1108/13664381311305096

CITATIONS READS
13 11,212

4 authors:

Stanislaw Belniak Agnieszka Lesniak

Cracow University of Economics Cracow University of Technology
24 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   468 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edyta Plebankiewicz Krzysztof Zima

Cracow University of Technology Cracow University of Technology
50 PUBLICATIONS   584 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Methods of supporting cost calculation of construction works View project

Call for papers: Special Issue "Design and Construction of Civil Engineering Structures Appropriate for Sustainable Development" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krzysztof Zima on 04 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-4387.htm

JFMPC
18,1 The influence of the building
shape on the costs of its
construction
90
Stanisław Belniak
Department of Economics for Real Estate and Investment Process,
Cracow University of Economics, Krakow, Poland, and
Agnieszka Leśniak, Edyta Plebankiewicz and Krzysztof Zima
Section of Technology and Building Management,
Cracow University of Technology, Krakow, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – The choice of a particular architectural solution when designing a building considerably
influences the costs of its construction. The aim of this paper is to present the indexes which may
relate to the complexity of the building shape, and which were then specified and compared on a
particular example.
Design/methodology/approach – The article analyses various indices of building shape
evaluation, their influence on the changes in construction costs and their sensitivity to the changes
in the dimensions of the building. The methodology adopted in this article concerns the analysis of the
selected simple factors assessing the shape of the building against the cost-effectiveness of
constructing the basic elements of the building.
Findings – The authors established the best building shape in relation to the costs of constructing
the walls and foundations (square), and to the layout of the inside of the building (rectangle). They
believe that the best evaluations of building shape were achieved by the LBI index, which evaluated
the shape correctly in all of the analysed examples and which is the most sensitive to the changes in
building parameters in correct proportions to the changes in construction costs.
Originality/value – The article presents the indexes which may relate to the complexity of the
building shape. The authors established the best building shape in relation to the costs of constructing.
The authors provide the degree of the floor area usability in buildings of various shapes.
Keywords Cost of building, Building shape, Cost-effectiveness, Building surface, Construction industry,
Buildings
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2013
pp. 90-102
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1366-4387
DOI 10.1108/13664381311305096
Introduction
The costs of a building are estimated at every stage of the investment process. The
initial estimation is performed already before the construction drawings when all
specifications are available. The costs specified then allow to, among others, establish
the initial budget of the investment. The literature mentions a number of factors which
influence the costs of the building at this early stage. The most frequently mentioned
factors include: location, building type, building height, building quality, number of
floors and construction technology employed (Kouskoulas and Koehn, 1974; Brandon,
1978; Karshenas, 1984; Swaffield and Pasquire, 1996). Several techniques have been
suggested for conceptual cost estimation. Regression analysis simulation, Monte Carlo
simulation technique and neural networks are among these cost estimation techniques
that are used during the early project stages (Hegazy and Ayed, 1998; Miles et al., 2001; Influence of the
AbouRizk et al., 2002; Grierson and Khajehpour, 2002; Sonmez, 2004). building shape
One of the basic elements to be considered when estimating investment costs is the
shape of the building. A general rule says that the simpler the building shape is, the
lower the unit costs are (Selley, 1983) but the choice of the shape depends on a number
of factors, which have been described by many authors. For instance, Sonmez (2004)
suggested these factors were construction timing, location, area of the construction site, 91
percentage of shared areas, the total area, and the number of floors. The research into
building shape optimization was performed by, for instance, Wing (1999), Caldas and
Norford (2003), Ibrahim (2007) and Staedman et al. (2009). Many authors emphasize
that the shape of the building has an effect not only on the construction costs but also
the expenses generated throughout the whole cycle of the building life, including usage
and energy costs (Swaffield and Pasquire, 1996; Bouchlaghem, 2000; Lewis, 2004;
Al-Homoud, 2005; Bostancioǧlu, 2010). The choice of the shape is especially significant
in the case of green buildings (Wang et al., 2005, 2006). Change of design parameters
such as shape, orientation, and envelope configuration, cause that designed building
can consume even 40 percent less energy.
It must be noted that the bulk of the studies into the issues mentioned here present
full-scale methods of building costs evaluation reflecting the influence of the building
shape and also other factors which are not described in this article. The authors focus
on the evaluation of building shapes, for which purpose the factors proposed by
Brandon (1978) and Kouskoulas and Koehn (1974) are used.
The methodology adopted in this article concerns the analysis of the selected simple
factors assessing the shape of the building against the cost-effectiveness of
constructing the basic elements of the building. The authors also consider the
relation between the change of the factors and the costs of constructing 1 m2 of the
usable floor area, as well as the sensitivity to the changes of the building’s parameters.
The article presents the indexes which may relate to the complexity of the building
shape, and which were then specified and compared on a particular example. For the
chosen elements of the sample building the change in expenditures were analyzed in
relation to the degree of complexity of the shape. Examples of the influence of the
building shape on the size of the usable floor area of the premises were also discussed.

Ways of specifying the cost-effectiveness of the building shape – indexes

review
One of the most expensive elements of a building is its walls, therefore any increase in the
ratio between the surface of the walls and the surface of the floor leads to the growth of
construction costs. The following basic discriminant of the building shape complexity
was adopted: WS/FS, where WS means wall surface and FS floor surface of the building
being designed.
Apart from this basic discriminant, many other indexes describing the influence of
the building shape on the construction costs have been specified. They take into
consideration, in the first place, the basic parameters of the building, i.e. its perimeter and
surface of the projection. In order to specify the degree of complexity, these parameters
refer to the shape considered as the most advantageous, namely, most frequently, the
square or circle. For the base shape a given index is either the highest or the lowest, and
the building complexity is marked by the increase or decrease in the index’s value.
JFMPC Basic indexes include the following items:
18,1 .
W/F index – the wall/floor index.
.
LBI index – the length/breadth index.
.
PSI index – the plan/shape index.
.
Cook’s JC (shape-effectiveness) index.
92 .
POP (plan compactness ratio) index.
.
Building planning “m” index.
.
VOLM (volume/block compactness) index.
.
Optimum envelope area.

The W/F index

The W/F index specifies the ratio between the wall surface and floor surface
(Brandon, 1978). It is assumed that the smaller the index’s value is, the lower the
construction costs will be. The shape generating the smallest cost is the square, for
which the index’s value is 0. The W/F index is expressed by the following formula:

W L 2 LS
¼ · 100%
F LS

where: L – building perimeter calculated from the contour of the outer walls, Ls –
perimeter of the square of the same surface as the building being compared.

The LBI index

The LBI index assumes that every shape of the building projection is reduced to a
rectangle with the same surface and perimeter (Brandon, 1978). For a square the index
has value 1. The greater the value is, the more complex shape the building will have.
The LBI index is expressed by the following formula:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L þ L2 2 16F
LBI ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L 2 L2 2 16F

where: L – building perimeter calculated from the contour of the outer walls, F – the
surface of the building projection.

The PSI index

The PSI index is a development of the LBI index and is expressed by the following
formula (Brandon, 1978):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G þ G2 2 16R
PSI ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G 2 G2 2 16R

where: G – the sum of outer perimeters of each floor divided by the number of floors,
R – the gross surface divided by the number of floors.
The Cook’s JC shape-effectiveness index Influence of the
The JC index uses the relation between the perimeter and the surface of the building,
and is expressed in the following way (Kouskoulas and Koehn, 1974):
building shape
L
JC ¼ pffiffiffi 2 1
4 F
where: L – building perimeter calculated from the contour of the outer walls, F – the 93
surface of the building projection.

The POP index

In this method the point of reference is the shape of the circle, which has the smallest
ratio between the circumference and the surface of the building (Brandon, 1978). For the
circle the POP index is 1. The lower the index’s value is the more complex the building
shape will be. The POP index is depicted by the following formula:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 p·F
POP ¼
L
where: L – building perimeter calculated from the contour of the outer walls, F – the
surface of the building projection.

The building planning “m” index

Since the results of using the various methods employing the ratio between the building
perimeter calculated from the contour of its outer walls (L) and the surface of the
building projection (F) are similar, the methods can be simplified by using this formula
(Kouskoulas and Koehn, 1974):
L
m ¼ pffiffiffi
F
The “m” index may take the following values:
.
m ¼ 3.54 – for a circle;
. m ¼ (3.54; 4) – for elliptical shapes;
.
m ¼ 4 – for a square; and
.
m . 4 – the remaining rectangular and other shapes.
Considering technology and realization costs it is assumed that the most economical
solutions take the index approximating (but not smaller than) 4.

VOLM (block compactness) index

In the case of this index the point of reference is the shape of a hemisphere. When
specifying the block compactness of a building one takes into consideration three
dimensions of the object. The VOLM index is depicted by this formula (Brandon, 1978):

2p ½ð3V =2pÞ1=3
2
VOLM ¼
F
where: K – the volume measure of the building, F – the surface of the building projection.
JFMPC Research into indexes and building costs for the chosen building shapes
18,1 Figure 1 shows projections of four example buildings. All the buildings have the same
surface of 100 m2, the only difference being the complexity of their shapes: from
the simplest square (Figure 1(a)) to the irregular (Figure 1(d)). All the buildings are
one-storey, with walls 4 m high. For all of them a minimum plot was marked where the
distance from the building to the edge of the plot is 4 m, and from the approach road
94 is 6 m. The shapes of the buildings and the respective contours of the plots are shown
in Figure 1.
Table I contains the basic parameters of the buildings shown in Figure 1.
Table II shows the basic indexes specifying the effectiveness of the building shapes
shown in Figure 1.
The numbers in Table II reveal certain flaws in the methods discussed above and the
limited scope of the application of the indexes measuring shape-effectiveness. Most of

1,000

2,000
1,000

400
400
500

600
600

(a) Square (b) Rectangle

500
250

250

400
500

400
500

200
750

1,500
600

500

500
400
600

Figure 1.
1,000
The adopted building
shapes and the plots
(c) Cross (d) Irregular shape
the indexes take into consideration the perimeter and surface of the projection and that is Influence of the
why the values of the rectangle- and cross-shaped buildings are the same. There is no building shape
mention of such parameters influencing costs as the number of corners of the building,
the surface of the plot necessary for the construction or the possibility of changing
the layout inside the building and, subsequently, its usable floor area. In the case of the
VOLM index, the same values were obtained for all the shapes, which results from
the fact that it employs the cubic measure and the surface of the projection, but not the 95
building shape itself.
Table III presents total costs and individual costs (in relation to the m2 of the floor
surface and the m3 of the cubic measure) of the chosen elements of the buildings,
considering their varying shapes and the same height.
The calculations in Table III reveal that as far as individual costs are concerned the
best solution is the square-shaped building, which is confirmed by the W/F index, LBI
index, JC index, POP index or m index (the best value is italicised). Yet when
the buildings are of the same height the VOLM index leads to false conclusions, if one
compares it with the cube (VOLM ¼ 3.84). Also in this case one needs to look for the
lowest value of the VOLM index.
Another step was to analyze buildings of the same shape (horizontal projection) but
of different height. The results are shown in Table IV.
The calculations in Table IV show that as far as individual costs are concerned the best
solution is the square-shaped building 22 m high, which the VOLM index proves (the best
value is italicised). When the height of the buildings is varied such surface-based indexes
as the W/F and all other does not diversify the values (italic values for shapes 1-3).
The VOLM and PSI index are the only ones that can do a proper analysis of
buildings with varying sizes on successive floors. Figure 2 shows an example of such a
building and the relevant calculations can be found in Table V.

Square Rectangle Cross Irregular

Floor surface (m2) 100

Outer walls length (m) 40 50 50 54
Outer walls surface (m) 160 200 200 216
Min. plot surface (m2) 360 420 450 500
Table I.
Source: Authors’ data Building parameters

Square Rectangle Cross Irregular

WS/FS 1.60 2.00 2.00 2.16

W/F 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.35
POP 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.66
JC 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.35
LBI 1.00 4.00 4.00 5.10
VOLM 9.59 9.59 9.59 9.59 Table II.
m 4 5.00 5.00 5.40 Indexes specifying the
effectiveness of the
Source: Authors’ data building shapes
JFMPC
Shape 1 Shape 2 Shape 3 Shape 4 Shape 5
18,1 3

Parameter (cost)
a – building length (m) 22 11 15 22 30
96 b – building width (m) 22 30 26 22 22
h – building walls height (m) 5 5 5 5 5
Surface of building projection (m2) 484 330 257 288 370
Cubic measure (m3) 2,420 1,650 1,285 1,440 1,850
Building perimeter (m) 88 82 82 88 110
Walls surface (m2) 440 410 410 440 550
Roofs surface (m2) 484 330 257 288 370
Foundations cost ($) 3,902.90 3,636.79 3,636.79 3,902.90 4,878.63
Floor and parquetry cost ($) 21,119.21 14,399.46 11,214.13 12,566.80 16,144.85
Walls cost ($) 31,498.20 29,350.60 29,350.60 31,498.20 39,372.75
Ceiling cost ($) 17,389.22 11,856.29 9,233.53 10,347.31 13,293.41
Roof and construction cost ($) 39,270.66 26,775.45 20,852.40 23,367.66 30,020.96
Total 113,180.19 86,018.59 74,287.45 81,682.88 103,710.60
m2 construction surface cost ($) 233.84 260.66 289.06 283.62 280.30
m3 cubic measure cost ($) 46.77 52.13 57.81 56.72 56.06
W/F 0 0.13 0.28 0.30 0.43
VOLM 1.43 1.62 1.77 1.70 1.56
Table III. LBI ¼ PSI 1.00 2.73 4.31 4.50 6.01
Costs of the basic JC 0 0.13 0.28 0.30 0.43
elements of the building POP 0.89 0.79 0.69 0.68 0.62
and plan shape indexes m 4.00 4.51 5.12 5.19 5.72
for buildings of the
same height Source: Authors’ data

The calculations in Table V show that only the VOLM and PSI indexes react to the
changes in the surface and cubic measure on the successive floors of the building in
question.
The influence of the building shape on construction costs is presented in the
example in Table III, and the changes in the building height in Table IV. As for the
effect of the changes in the building shape on construction costs measured by means
of the factors discussed here, this is the vital information which the investors planning
the construction have to consider. They need to know how much a change in the
building shape will cost in order to decide whether the possible rise in the costs to
increase the attractiveness of the building’s appearance is acceptable.
Thus, the change of the individual indexes by 0.1 causes a change in the costs for the
W/F index by 5.7 percent, the LBI index by 0.41 percent, the JC index by 4.72 percent,
the POP index by 7.44 percent and the m index by 1.16 percent. In contrast, the VOLM
index causes a change in the costs by 6.0 percent when it changes by 0.1.
For example, a change in either the W/F or JC index by 0.1 for the building costing
555 $/m2 causes a change in construction costs by 26.19 $/m2, and a change of the LBI
index generates a rise by only 2.25 $/m2. The greatest variation in construction costs
when the index value changes by 0.1 is noticeable in the POP index (by 7.44 percent),
and the smallest – in the LBI (by 0.41 percent).
 Influence of the
Shape 1 Shape 2 Shape 3 Shape 4 Shape 5
building shape

Parameter (cost)
a – building length (m) 22 22 22 11 11
b – building width (m) 22 22 22 30 30 97
h – building walls height (m) 4 10 22 4 10
Surface of building projection (m2) 484 484 484 330 330
Cubic measure (m3) 1,936 4,840 10,648 1,320 3,300
Building perimeter (m) 88 88 88 82 82
Walls surface (m2) 352 880 1,936 328 820
Roofs surface (m2) 484 484 484 330 330
Foundations cost ($) 3,902.90 3,902.90 3,902.90 3,636.79 3,636.79
Floor and parquetry cost ($) 21,119.21 21,119.21 21,119.21 14,399.46 14,399.46
Walls cost ($) 25,198.56 62,996.41 138,592.10 23,480.48 58,701.20
Ceiling cost ($) 17,389.22 17,389.22 17,389.22 11,856.29 11,856.29
Roof and construction cost ($) 39,270.66 39,270.66 39,270.66 26,775.45 26,775.45
Total 106,880.55 144,678.40 220,274.09 80,148.47 115,369.19
m2 construction surface cost ($) 220.83 298.92 455.11 242.87 349.60
m3 cubic measure cost ($) 55.21 29.89 20.69 60.72 34.96
W/F 0 0 0 0.13 0.13
VOLM 1.23 2.27 3.84 1.40 2.58
PSI 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.73 2.73 Table IV.
JC 0 0 0 0.13 0.13 Costs of the basic
POP 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.79 0.79 building elements and
m 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.51 4.51 plan shape indexes
for buildings of
Source: Authors’ data varying height

The W/F index proved the most sensitive to the changes in building shape as
compared with other indices, and led to considerable padding of the differences in the
changes in costs while building shape changed only slightly. In the example depicted
in Table VI the building shape was altered from a 22 £ 22 m2 to a 21.5 £ 22 m
rectangle, i.e. the length of the building changed by 0.2 generating a change in the costs
of 1 m2 of the usable floor area by $52.17. The indices which reacted to the change most
advantageously were the VOLM and LBI ones, whereas the JC, m, and POP acquired
the same value of indices, leaving the construction costs of the 21.5 £ 22 m building on
the same level as the 22 £ 22 m one.

The influence of the building shape on the degree of the usability of the
floor area
The calculations presented in the previous two sections (ways of specifying the
cost-effectiveness of the building shape and research into indexes and building costs
for the chosen shapes), are based on certain simplifications aiming at specifying a general
tendency in the changes of the costs in accordance with the changes in the complexity of
the building shape. These relations, however, are often much more complicated and
determining them unambiguously can be hard. The degree of the building’s floor area
usability is a good example. It is significant, for instance, for multi-family buildings, where
the greater usable floor area surface as compared to the total building surface means the
JFMPC
18,1

98

Figure 2.
A building of varying
sizes on successive floors

Irregular form building

Parameter (cost) I floor II floor III floor Typical building

a – building length 22 30 17 22
b – building width 22 22 22 22
h – building walls height 4 4 4 4
Surface of building projection 484 660 374 484
Cubic measure 1,936 2,640 1,496 1,936
Building perimeter 88 104 78 88
Walls surface 352 416 312 352
W/F 0 0 0 0
VOLM 2.64 1.23
Table V. LBI 1.00 1.00
Comparison of typical PSI 1.05 1.00
building with building of
varied surface (Figure 2) Source: Authors’ data

possibility of obtaining a higher price. Figure 3 shows the examples of three buildings with
the same total surface of 576 m2. The buildings differ in shape. In each of them corridors
were planned in such a way that their width is 2 m and the depth of the rooms is no greater
than 57 m.
Table VII presents the indexes of the usability of the surface which were
specified as the ratio between the floor area and the total building surface. The floor
area is here understood as the difference between the total surface and the circulation
area.
 Influence of the
Parameter Shape 1 (square) Shape 2 (rectangle) Change of cost for m2 ($)
building shape
a – building length 22 21.5 –
b – building width 22 22 –
h – building walls height 5 5 –
Surface of building projection 484 473 –
Cubic measure 2,420 2,365 – 99
Building perimeter 88 87 –
W/F 0.00 0.20 52.17
VOLM 1.43 1.44 3.33
LBI ¼ PSI 1.00 1.02 0.46
JC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table VI.
POP 0.89 0.89 0.00 Comparison of the
m 4.00 4.00 0.00 sensitivity indexes to
changes in the shape
Source: Authors’ data of the building

As Table VII reveals, the shape of the square, despite its advantageous parameters for
shape-effectiveness, is less favorable for the usability of the building surface.

Summary
The article describes the basic indexes evaluating shape-effectiveness of a
building. The existing methods involve simplifications and consider only some
chosen elements. The authors established the best building shape in relation to the costs
of constructing the walls and foundations (square), and to the layout of the inside of the
building (rectangle), which led them to the conclusion that the most advantageous
solution is the shape of the rectangle with the ratio between its sides not greater than 1:2.
The choice of the building shape should be then chosen on the basis of a number of
criteria, not only economical ones relating to the construction costs, but also ones which
relate to occupancy costs, i.e. the loss of heat caused by a large number of thermal
bridges, proper insolation of rooms, building functionality, etc. As an example, the
authors provide the degree of the floor area usability in buildings of various shapes. The
investor’s requirements will only be reflected in the decision taken in the relation to a
great number of indexes. Yet the specification of an ideal shape of the building is one of
the most vital criteria in the process of deciding on the building shape.
Previous researchers frequently describe methods of evaluating the influence of
building shape on the costs of constructing and maintenance of a building. The methods
they used were either simple or more advanced based on the analysis of regression or
artificial neural networks. The authors of the present article conducted a comparison of
evaluation indices and attempted to point to the most effective ones; which the
previously quoted studies have failed to do. In their earlier works the authors analyses
the state of certain buildings in Poland (Zima and Plebankiewicz, 2012) and evaluated
individual methods (Zima, 2008), yet without any comparison or specification of the best
indices. The information the article provides allows to complement the state of the art
and facilitate evaluation by means of the existing models.
The article analyses various indices of building shape evaluation, their influence on
the changes in construction costs and their sensitivity to the changes in the dimensions
of the building. The authors believe that the best evaluations of building shape were
JFMPC

500 200 500

18,1

1,200
100 4,800
(a) Rectangle

500

2,400
2,400
(b) Square
700

2,500

1,800

Figure 3.
Layout of the 1,800
building surfaces
(c) Cross

Shape Rectangle (Figure 3(a)) Square (Figure 3(b)) Cross (Figure 3(c))
2
Total surface (m ) 576
Floor area (m2) 480 460 455
Table VII. Usability index (%) 83 80 79
Usability of the
building surface Source: Authors’ data
achieved by the LBI index, which evaluated the shape correctly in all of the analysed Influence of the
examples and which is the most sensitive to the changes in building parameters, i.e. the building shape
length and width, in correct proportions to the changes in construction costs.

References
AbouRizk, S.M., Babey, G.M. and Karumanasseri, G. (2002), “Estimating the cost of capital
projects: an empirical study of accuracy levels for municipal government projects”, 101
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 653-61.
Al-Homoud, M.S. (2005), “Systematic approach for the thermal design optimization of building
envelopes”, Journal of Building Physics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 95-119.
Bostanciogˇlu, E. (2010), “Effect of building shape on a residential building’s construction, energy
and life cycle costs”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 441-67.
Bouchlaghem, N. (2000), “Optimizing the design of building envelopes for thermal performance”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 101-12.
Brandon, P.S. (1978), “A framework for cost exploration and strategic cost planning in design”,
Chartered Surveyor Building and Quantity Surveying Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 60-3.
Caldas, L.G. and Norford, L.K. (2003), “Genetic algorithms for optimization of building envelopes
and the design and control of HVAC systems”, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering,
Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 343-51.
Grierson, D.E. and Khajehpour, S. (2002), “Method of conceptual design applied to office
buildings”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 83-103.
Hegazy, T. and Ayed, A. (1998), “Neural network model for parametric cost estimation of highway
projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 210-18.
Ibrahim, D.A. (2007), “Effect of changes in layout shape on unit construction cost of residential
buildings”, Samaru Journal of Information Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 24-31.
Karshenas, S. (1984), “Predesign cost estimating method for multistory buildings”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 79-86.
Kouskoulas, V. and Koehn, E. (1974), “Predesign cost-estimation function for buildings”, Journal
of the Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 100 No. 12, pp. 589-604.
Lewis, M. (2004), “Integrated design for sustainable buildings”, Building for the Futurej
A Supplement to ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 22-9.
Miles, J.C., Sisk, G.M. and Moore, C.J. (2001), “The conceptual design of commercial buildings
using a genetic algorithm”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 79 No. 17, pp. 1583-92.
Selley, L.H. (1983), Building Economics, 3rd ed., Macmillan, London.
Sonmez, R. (2004), “Conceptual cost estimation of building projects with regression analysis and
neural networks”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 677-83.
Staedman, P., Evans, S. and Batty, M. (2009), “Wall area, volume and plan depth in the building
stock”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 455-67.
Swaffield, L.M. and Pasquire, C.L. (1996), “A critique of mechanical and electrical services cost
planning: existing methods and published information”, Journal of Financial Management
of Property and Construction, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 23-41.
Wang, W., Rivard, H. and Zmeureanu, R. (2006), “Floor shape optimization for green building
design”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 363-78.
Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R. and Rivard, H. (2005), “Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in
green building design optimization”, Building and Environment, Vol. 40 No. 11,
pp. 1512-25.
JFMPC Wing, C.K. (1999), “On the issue of plan shape complexity: plan shape indices revisited”,
Construction Management and Economic, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 473-82.
18,1 Zima, K. (2008), “Influence of building shape on the construction cost”, Scientific Papers of the
Institute of Building Engineering of the Wrocław University of Technology No. 91, Series:
Studies and Materials No. 20, Technology and Management in Construction, Wrocław,
pp. 155-62.
102 Zima, K. and Plebankiewicz, E. (2012), “Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its
impact on construction costs”, Organization, Technology & Management in Construction:
An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 411-19.

Further reading
Ashworth, A. (2004), Cost Studies of Buildings, 4th ed., Trans-Atlantic Publication,
Philadelphia, PA.
Ferry, D.J. and Brandon, P.S. (2007), Cost Planning of Building, 8th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

About the authors

Stanisław Belniak is a Professor working at Cracow University of Economics, Department of
Economics for Real Estate and Investment Process. Research interests include: economics of real
estate and investment.
Agnieszka Leśniak PhD, Eng, works at Cracow University of Technology, Section of
Technology and Building Management. Research interests include: projects cost estimating,
using ANN in construction management and partnering in construction process.
Edyta Plebankiewicz PhD, Eng, works at Cracow University of Technology, Section of
Technology and Building Management. Research interests include: organization and modelling
of construction processes. Edyta Plebankiewicz is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: eplebank@izwbit.pk.edu.pl
Krzysztof Zima PhD, Eng, works at Cracow University of Technology, Section of Technology
and Building Management. Research interests include: construction costs, real estate
development and building information modeling.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats