Life Cycle Cost Analysis N R B-Books Pdf

06 Apr 2020 | 21 views | 0 downloads | 23 Pages | 909.55 KB

Share Pdf : Life Cycle Cost Analysis N R B

Download and Preview : Life Cycle Cost Analysis N R B

Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Life Cycle Cost Analysis N R B


Dovetail Partners Page 2 10 21 2013, Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Non Residential Buildings. Executive Summary, The goals of this report are to clarify the differences between Life Cycle Cost Analysis. LCCA and Life Cycle Assessment LCA summarize what is known about the life cycle. costs of non residential wood construction compare the life cycle costs of wood. structures to those of other materials and review processes for conducting life cycle. cost analyses on structural systems or whole buildings Summaries of LCCA resources. are also provided,Among the findings of this report are. Published life cycle cost analysis information for commercial buildings is sparse. particularly for wooden structures,LCCA is required for federal buildings. Life cycle environmental costs impacts are not considered in LCCA in current. practice indicating a clear difference between LCA and LCCA as currently. structured, Current indices of the useful lives of various products allocate lower useful lives.
to wood than other materials without clear basis for any of the chosen values. Despite a pervasive perception that the useful life of wood structures is lower. than buildings of other materials there is no meaningful relationship between. the type of structural material and average service life. The combined lack of LCCA research on wood use in construction and the. common availability of what appear to be non research based estimates of useful. lives of materials can create an unwarranted bias against the use of wood in. structures, Development of definitive research based information on durability longevity of. wood structural and non structural elements used in various building applications. Background, Life cycle cost analysis LCCA as applied to buildings sometimes also referred to as. value engineering or life cycle costing involves accounting for all costs related to. construction operation maintenance and disposal at the end of the useful life of a. structure The purpose is to provide a basis for selection of the most cost effective. design alternative over a particular time frame taking into account anticipated future. costs as well as initial costs of construction LCCA is particularly suitable for the. evaluation of building design alternatives that satisfy a required level of building. performance especially when investment operating maintenance and repair costs. differ and or when alternative designs may have different expected service lives. Life cycle costing has long been used in the United States for evaluation of design. alternatives in highway and bridge construction However application to design of. buildings in general is much more recent led by requirements of the federal. government several states and a number of educational institutions. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 3 10 21 2013. Despite the similarity in the acronyms LCCA and LCA there is no relationship between. techniques currently used in life cycle cost analysis and life cycle assessment In LCCA. the focus is entirely on factors that result in bottom line financial performance. Environmental costs such as those linked to emissions associated with building. materials or building operations greenhouse gases or emissions that contribute to. smog formation acidification eutrophication or human health impacts are currently. not considered in life cycle costing LCA examines a full range of inputs emissions. effluents and wastes that may or may not directly impact financial performance of a. particular project but which have implications for broader societal costs as well as the. local regional and global environment,LCCA in Building Design. Life cycle costing was developed by the Department of Defense DOD Requirements. for consideration of life cycle costs in government projects began with a mid 1960s. study by the Logistics Management Institute for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for. Installations and Logistics This led to a series of guidelines for DOD procurement and. then to DOD Directive 5000 1 in 1971 that established requirements for life cycle. costing for all major defense systems acquisitions In 1978 Congress passed the. National Energy Conservation Policy Act that requires every new federal building to be. life cycle cost effective1 Dhillon 1989 Today all federal agencies are required to use. life cycle cost analysis in project evaluation, LCCA is described in documents supporting the Federal Energy Management Program.
as particularly suitable for the evaluation of building design alternatives that satisfy a. required level of building performance but that may have different initial investment. costs different operating maintenance and repair costs and possibly different service. lives Fuller and Petersen 1995 As noted in an LCCA user guide published by King. County Washington King County 2011 in addition to direct costs of a building such as. costs of construction energy costs building renewal and replacement and operation. and maintenance costs LCCA can also take into account indirect costs such as staff. salaries staff productivity lost construction time fire insurance lost revenues due to. downtime and other costs that are not directly related to the costs of a building. Notably and consistent with generally accepted principles for conducting LCCA there is. no mention of environmental costs in the King County list or in any other LCCA related. literature published by federal or state agencies or the construction industry. In 1974 Florida became the first state to formally adopt requirements for life cycle. costing in state funded projects Dhillon 1989 Subsequently other states began. requiring or encouraging LCCA in the planning design and construction of state. buildings including Alabama Alaska Arkansas Maryland New Mexico North Carolina. Texas and Wisconsin The State of Wisconsin for example has life cycle costing. requirements for the design and location of any state building project including new. The term life cycle cost effective when applied to a building component innovation or design feature. refers to a situation in which estimated savings exceed estimated costs of the building component. innovation or design feature over the lifespan of the feature under consideration. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 4 10 21 2013. major buildings structures major remodeling or building additions in this case cost. analysis requirements encompass all aspects of structures including structural and non. structural building materials State of Wisconsin 1997 Florida also takes a. comprehensive approach to LCCA but requires such analyses only for state funded. educational facilities The majority of states have LCCA requirements for evaluation of. design alternatives in highway and bridge construction. Several universities require LCCA as part of project design examples include Clarion. University of Pennsylvania Harvard University Stanford University the University of. Florida Florida State University and the University of Arkansas Several of these. Clarion Harvard and Stanford have developed their own guidelines for conducting an. A study that examined the use of life cycle costing in the U S Nornes 2005 surveyed. architects engineers and consultants in the State of Colorado The greatest use was in. conjunction with LEED projects 38 reported having used life cycle costing as part of. LEED projects with lesser use when not building to LEED specifications Of all. respondents reported use of life cycle cost evaluations ranged from public 51 of. respondents institutional 35 commercial 31 renovation 13 and residential. 7 projects2 Application of life cycle costing to consideration of foundations and. structural elements of buildings however was reported as rare with the number of. respondents always sometimes and seldom evaluating structural elements reported at. 5 15 and 36 percent of respondents respectively,LCCA and LCA Fundamental Differences. As noted previously the focus and intent of LCCA are fundamentally different than in. LCA and there is no relationship between the techniques used in performing them As. explained by Norris 2001 In nearly all private industry applications of LCA the. decision making situations which LCA addresses must also eventually take the economic. consequences of alternative products or product designs into account However neither. the internal nor external economic aspects of the decisions are within the scope of. developed LCA methodology nor are they properly addressed by existing LCA tools. This traditional separation of life cycle environmental assessment from economic. analysis has limited the influence and relevance of LCA for decision making and left. uncharacterized the important relationships and trade offs between the economic and. life cycle environmental performance of alternative product design decision scenarios. Table 1 also developed by Norris identifies the critical aspects of LCA and LCCA and. how they differ It is important to recognize that consumption of things such as energy. and water both of which have environmental impacts are included in LCCA a reality. that seems to blur the differences between LCA and LCCA however only the direct. costs of consumption are considered in LCCA, Norris notes that tools were developed in the late 1990s to integrate LCA and LCCA. including Total Cost Assessment TCA methodology that resulted from a collaborative. Numbers add to more than 100 because multiple responses by a single respondent were allowed in. the survey,DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org. Dovetail Partners Page 5 10 21 2013, effort of ten multinational companies and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies Beaver 2000 CWRT 1999 Another tool. the PT Laser Systems Dynamics Model was developed by Norris company Sylvatica. in 1995 and has been used by various companies universities and the USEPA. Critical Aspects of LCA and LCCA and How They Differ. Tool Method Life Cycle Assessment LCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis LCCA. Objective Compare relative environmental Determine cost effectiveness of alternative. performance of alternative product investments and business decisions from the. systems for meeting the same end use perspective of an economic decision maker. function from a broad societal such as a manufacturing firm or a consumer. perspective, Activity scope Supply chain of processes supporting Activities directly causing costs or benefits to. of the usage phase entire physical usage the decision maker during the economic life of. addressed life the investment as a result of the investment. Flows Pollutants resources and inter Direct costs and benefits to decision maker. considered process flows of materials and energy, Units for Physical and energy units Monetary units e g dollars. tracking flows, Time Timing ignored all causally linked Timing is critical Present valuing discounting. treatment and flows and some other impacts of costs and benefits Specific time horizon. scope collapsed in time and valued equally scope outside of which costs and benefits are. regardless of timing ignored,Source Norris 2001, A search of TCA in contemporary applications revealed that the current methodology. still does not include full consideration of societal costs linked to raw material. procurement or manufacturing emissions As noted by the International Institute for. Sustainable Development 2013 TCA is viewed as simply one tool within the broader. field of environmental accounting that differs from conventional approaches by. considering a broader range of costs that are particularly applicable to pollution. prevention It is noted however that TCA has a more narrow focus than full cost. assessment or life cycle analysis because it may exclude external social costs for which. a company is not legally accountable or financially liable Figure 1 In addition. references to TCA within the USEPA have largely disappeared from current usage. though the term dynamic systems modeling does still appear in recent reports. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 6 10 21 2013.
The Relationship Between Total Cost Assessment TCA and Other Approaches. to Environmental Accounting, Source International Institute for Sustainable Development 2013. http www iisd org business tools systems tca asp, Highton 2012 provides an interesting commentary on the relationship between LCA. and LCCA suggesting that there is a greater relationship than commonly. acknowledged The author points out that life cycle costing by including costs of. energy water and materials used in construction repair and maintenance through the. life of a project an automatic linkage is created to environmental impacts providing. incentives for reducing them She notes that incentives are magnified when. governments use pricing mechanisms including taxes as tools for increasing costs of. basic resources and that these too are borne largely by resource and manufacturing. centers which then pass these on to consumers, It now appears that consideration of social costs has gained attention within the DOD. with thought being given to perhaps moving beyond life cycle costing to broader. consideration of environmental impacts A recent presentation by the Deputy Under. Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment Yaroschak 2012 in which. references were made to inclusion in LCCA of societal costs linked to emissions and. other wastes may signal potential for change in procurement practices within the. Life cycle Cost Comparisons of Non Residential Buildings. Published Reports, Few life cycle cost comparisons of buildings have been published The number of. published reports involving wood construction is even fewer. One study of building envelope systems including consideration of materials. manufacturing building construction and building operation found large differences in. life cycle costs linked to selection of building materials and the level of thermal. insulation Lucuik and Meil 2004 In this case costs considered included not only direct. costs associated with construction maintenance and operating energy but also costs. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 7 10 21 2013.
to society in terms of human health and environmental impacts that are not commonly. considered in project evaluation A hypothetical two story 2300 m2 building in Toronto. Ontario was as a basis for modeling over a 20 year life and all model output was. compared to a 92mm 3 6 inch steel stud wall system with glass fiber batt insulation. within the studs steel 1 This system was compared with various wall designs and. insulation levels for buildings constructed of wood steel and concrete Table 2 costs. associated with the baseline system Steel 1 were set to zero with differences in life. cycle costs associated with all other systems shown in Table 3 The least cost systems. identified in this analysis were both wood based Wood 1 and Wood 2 the lowest cost. system is of standard wood 2x6 design Use of high levels of exterior insulation with. steel systems also yielded relatively low life cycle costs Steel 2 and 3 The 20 year life. precluded consideration of maintenance and replacement issues and cost consequences. at the end of building life, Alternative Wall Designs Considered by Lucuik and Meil 2004. Wood based wall systems,Wood 1 Wood 2 Wood 3, 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board. 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene. 2x4 wood studs 406 mm o c 2x6 wood studs 406 mm o c 2x4 wood studs 406 mm o c. glass fiber batts within studs glass fiber batts within studs glass fiber batts within studs. 12 mm plywood sheathing 12 mm plywood sheathing 2x4 wood studs 406mm o c. 15 asphaltic building paper 15 asphaltic building paper glass fiber batts within studs. vented 20 mm airspace vented 20 mm airspace 12 mm plywood sheathing. 100 mm brick 100 mm brick 15 asphaltic building paper. vented 20 mm airspace,100 mm brick,Steel based wall systems. Steel 1 Steel 2 Steel 3, 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board. 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene. 92 mm steel studs 406 mm o c 150 mm steel studs 406 mm o c 150 mm steel studs 406 mm o c. glass fiber batts within studs glass fiber batts within studs glass fiber batts within studs. 12 mm gypsum board 25 mm EPS type III sheathing 75 mm EPS type III sheathing. 15 asphaltic building paper 15 asphaltic building paper 15 asphaltic building paper. vented 20 mm airspace vented 20 mm airspace vented 20 mm airspace. 100 mm brick 100 mm brick 100 mm brick,Concrete Masonry based wall systems.
Concrete 1 Concrete 2 Concrete 3, 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board 12 mm gypsum board. 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene 6 mil polyethylene. 12 mm air space with wood 2x4 wood studs 406 mm o c 2x4 wood studs 406 mm o c. strapping 600 mm o c, 200 mm concrete block glass fiber batts within studs glass fiber batts within studs. 15 asphaltic building paper 200 mm concrete block 200 mm concrete block. vented 20 mm airspace 25mm EPS type III sheathing 75mm EPS type III sheathing. 100 mm brick 15 asphaltic building paper 15 asphaltic building paper. vented 20 mm airspace vented 20 mm airspace,100 mm brick 100 mm brick. Source Lucuik and Meil 2004,DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org. Dovetail Partners Page 8 10 21 2013, Direct and Indirect Cost Comparison Across Wall Envelope Systems.
Total Indirect Cost in,Wall Envelope Total Direct C2003 Total Full. System Cost in C2003 for 20 year period Cost in C2003. Concrete 1 25 564 19 397 44 961,Steel 1 0 0 0,Wood 1 3 758 5 928 9 685. Concrete 2 11 092 176 10 916,Steel 2 4 040 3 768 7 808. Wood 2 4 714 7 365 12 079,Concrete 3 13 514 549 12 965. Steel 3 3 828 4 612 8 441,Wood 3 3 506 7 945 4 439.
Source Lucuik and Meil 2004, Another study of wood vs steel and concrete commercial buildings Cole and Kernan. 1996a b provides insights into an important segment of life cycle costs though what. was reported was limited to energy use linked to construction maintenance and repair. and building, In the Cole and Kernan study total life cycle energy use was examined in a 4 620 m2. 50 000 ft2 three story generic office building for alternative wood steel and concrete. structural systems with and without underground parking Detailed estimates were. made of the initial embodied energy and recurring embodied energy and the costs of. this energy associated with maintenance and repair and operating energy Operating. energy requirements were assumed to be the same for all building types based on. designing to an equivalent energy standard Over a 50 year building life and for both. of two geographic locations considered the wood building was found to have lower. energy use in construction i e lower embodied energy and lower energy use for. maintenance and repair Unfortunately no costs other than direct costs of energy were. considered, Because of the lack of published LCCA studies involving wood commercial buildings. several studies involving other types of structures were examined and are reported. herein The most comprehensive life cycle cost evaluation of wood vs other structures. was commissioned by the DOD NAHB Research Center 2004 In this study estimates. of the life cycle costs of barracks constructed with masonry and steel framing at Fort. Detrick Maryland were compared with life cycle costs of barracks constructed with light. wood frame construction at Fort George G Meade Maryland For each barracks the. authors estimated initial capital costs and salvage values as well as maintenance. preventive maintenance and capital improvements over a 40 year time frame The. findings were highly favorable to wood construction Overall the life cycle costs of the. wood frame barracks were found to be about 40 percent lower than those of the. masonry and steel barracks on a per square foot basis The present value of initial. construction costs was found to be about 37 percent lower in wood frame construction. while the present value of the maintenance preventive maintenance and capital. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 9 10 21 2013. improvements was about 55 percent lower in wood frame construction The authors of. the report noted that considerable differences existed between the two facilities that. may have affected the outcome The Fort Meade wood frame barracks were about. three times the total square feet of the Fort Detrick barracks which may have afforded. some economies of scale in construction and maintenance on a per square foot basis. Additionally the Fort Detrick masonry and steel barracks were constructed five years. prior to the Fort Meade barracks resulting in capital improvements required earlier in. the facility s life cycle, Subsequent to the US Army evaluation the US Government Accountability Office GAO.
examined costs of building materials and methods when developing or acquiring new. permanent facilities US GAO 2010 Findings of this study highlight the lack of. published life cycle cost information for various building types and also point to negative. bias regarding perceived durability of wood structures GAO reviewed selected project. information and determined that the Army appears to have achieved some savings in. selected construction projects by expanding the use of wood materials and modular. construction methods for some of its facilities but found little quantitative data on. whether the use of these materials and methods would result in savings over the long. term compared to the traditional use of steel concrete and masonry materials and on. site building methods The GAO pointed out that without long term or life cycle. analyses that consider not only initial construction costs but also possible differences in. facility service lives and annual operating and maintenance costs between the. construction alternatives it is not clear that the Army s expanded use of wood materials. and modular building methods will achieve their intended purpose of reduced facility. costs over the long term Notably the Navy and the Air Force reportedly expressed. general disagreement with the Army s view that wood construction would result in. savings believing that the use of wood materials and modular construction will result in. facilities with shorter service lives and higher life cycle costs However GAO found that. none of the services had analyses to support their views and that without additional. study and analysis DOD could not know whether military construction program. guidance needs to be changed to ensure that facilities are constructed with materials. and methods that meet needs at the lowest cost over the long term. A fourth study that has gained some notoriety since publication Ochsendorf 2011 was. conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Concrete Sustainability Hub. In what is advertised in a talking points document regarding building life cycle cost. analysis MIT 2012 three types of buildings were described. o Wood and concrete two story single family homes 2 400 sf. o Wood and concrete four story multifamily buildings 34 000 sf. o Steel and concrete 12 story commercial buildings 500 000 sf. Reported results included the following findings, With respect to both single and multi family homes tightly constructed code. compliant wood structures were found to have lower embodied global warming. potential but higher consumption of energy for heating and cooling and overall. greater energy costs and similarly greater global warming potential GWP. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 10 10 21 2013. Life cycle costs of single and multi family homes as determined through LCCA in. which only energy costs and not costs of maintenance societal costs of emissions. or other factors were considered were found to be lower for insulated concrete. form ICF structures than for those constructed of wood. Wood was not considered when evaluating the 12 story commercial buildings. This study like several other recent studies commissioned by the Portland Cement. Association chose for comparison a wood structure with minimal insulation and a highly. insulated concrete structure ICF It is no surprise that energy use over the life cycle. of the building was found to be higher for the minimally insulated wood structure Had. comparison been made of embodied and operating energy of buildings with equivalent. energy performance levels results would have shown consistent with a number of. other life cycle assessments of similar structures much lower embodied energy for the. wood structure and very similar operating energy requirements. With respect to life cycle costing although in this study LCCA did not include. consideration of costs related to emissions the finding that wood structures are. associated with similar or greater GWP than ICF structures would mean that costs of. wood structures based on the MIT study would also be higher if a carbon tax were in. existence However because MIT modeling shows an early GWP advantage of wood. that is only gradually overcome through assumed thermal performance advantages of. ICF construction wood structures would likely show lower life cycle costs in comparison. to ICF since all LCCA calculations involve discounted cash flow of expenditures over the. life of a building to present value,Ongoing Comparisons. Regardless of the scarcity of published LCCA studies involving different types of. buildings such comparisons take place on an almost daily basis across North America. While guidance for the conduct of LCCA provided by ISO ASTM and various agencies. of the federal government do not specify useful life estimates for various construction. materials but also do not prevent practitioners from assuming unequal lives for various. components independent sources and some state governments and state agencies do. Where estimated useful lives are specified for various types of materials in virtually all. cases lower useful lives are assigned to wood than to other materials despite a lack of. evidence of a scientific basis for useful life estimates. The use of lower useful service life estimates for wood in comparison to other materials. appears to be reinforced by a pervasive view of wood inferiority among many in the. building industry A survey of 683 architects structural engineers builders and. developers in the U S and Canada Gaston et al 2001 regarding building durability. revealed that non residential wood buildings were on average expected to last for far. shorter periods than buildings constructed of other materials Figure 2. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 11 10 21 2013. Examples of estimated life tables for building components are provided below with. information from the Departments of Administration of North Carolina Table 4 and. Wisconsin Table 5 and from the website Costmodeling com Table 6 In regard to. lifespans for structures the DOD United Facilities Criteria General Building. Requirements specify a life of 25 years or greater for permanent structures. http www wbdg org ccb DOD UFC ufc 1 200 01 pdf Criteria for High Performance. and Sustainable Buildings specify that a maximum life of 40 years be assumed in any. LCCA analysis http www wbdg org ccb DOD UFC ufc 1 200 02 pdf DOD does not. have any guidelines that specify assumed useful lives of various building materials and. components, Estimated Useful Lives of Building Components in Life cycle Cost Analyses.
for State Facilities in North Carolina,Component Economic Life years. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION DIVS 2 14,Foundations 30,Substructure 30 masonry 20 wood. Superstructure 30 masonry 20 wood,Exterior Closure 30 masonry 20 wood or metal. Roofing shingles 12 20,built up 17,single ply 20 other than EPDM. EPDM single ply 10 12,Interior Construction 10, Source North Carolina Department of Administration 2001 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for State Facilities.
State Construction Office www nc sco com documents guidelines lcca LCCA 20Manual doc. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 12 10 21 2013. Typical Useful Lives of Building Systems and Components Used in. Life Cycle Costing for State Building Products in Wisconsin. Building Enclosure Useful Life Years,Concrete Framing System. Masonry Exterior 45 60,Metal Clad 40 50,Steel Framing System. Masonry Exterior 40 50,Metal Clad 40 50,Wood Framing System. Metal Clad 35 45,Wood Siding 35 60, State of Wisconsin 1997 Guidelines for Life Cycle Costing on State Building Projects Department of.
Administration Division of Facilities Development www doa state wi us docs view2 asp docid 101. Typical Life Expectancy of Building Components as Estimated by Costmodeling com. Element Component Name Typical Life Expectancy Years. Frame Steel frame 83,Concrete frame 81,Timber frame 69. Laminated timber frame 65,Space frame 73, Upper Floors Profiled steel and reinforced concrete floor 71. Precast concrete slab 78,Timber joists 90,Softwood decking to timber joists 71. Chipboard decking to timber joists 51, Costmodeling com Typical life expectancy of building components n d. http www costmodelling com downloads BuildingComponentLifeExpectancy pdf. Some of the information regarding useful life estimates of wood building components. that is in common use appears to stem from a 2007 report by the National Association. of Home Builders and Bank of America that provides estimates of life expectancy of. home components Unfortunately reported information leaves considerable room for. interpretation For instance the following information is taken verbatim from the. project report,Engineered Lumber, Floor and roof trusses and laminated strand lumber are expected to last a.
lifetime while engineered trim and laminated veneer lumber are expected to last. 30 and 30 years respectively,Framing and Other Structural Systems. Framing and structural systems have extended longevities poured concrete. systems timber frame houses and structural insulated panels will all last a. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 13 10 21 2013. Hardboard panels and softwood panels are expected to last 30 years while. oriented strand board has a life expectancy of 25 30 years and flooring. underlayment should last about 25 years Wall panels are expected to last a. lifetime and plywood and particleboard have a life expectancy of about 60 years. This information can be easily interpreted to mean that OSB and softwood plywood. sheathing will last no longer than 25 30 years and that laminated veneer lumber when. used as headers or other structural elements will last as little as 30 years Long term. experience with these materials in North American construction would suggest that. these estimates are unrealistically short, Additional information regarding estimated useful lives of building components can be. found in information published by the National Institute of Building Sciences 2000 the. National Research Council LaCasse and Vanier 1999 industry publications Dell Isola. and Kirk 2003 and the State of Florida Florida Department of Energy 2010 Kibert et. al 2010 The two publications cited above for the State of Florida contain tables of life. cycle costs of various building materials and components However for columns. beams floors roofs exterior walls and exterior wall coverings only steel and concrete. are considered there is no mention of wood products except for flooring doors. cabinets and base trim The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute 2002 also has. published information regarding typical maintenance repair and replacement needs for. building components this report lists averages in tabular form as to average cycles for. repainting re caulking re pointing and replacement of various types of exterior walls. curtain walls siding windows roofs and gypsum, Given the ready availability of the kind of information cited above and its use in LCCA in. practice it may make little difference that research based data regarding the useful. lives of various construction materials and building systems is not available Instead it. appears that on a daily basis architects and engineers are conducting evaluations of. their own using the data that is available with the result that each calculation serves to. reinforce a perception that wood materials are not as durable and therefore not as cost. effective as alternative building materials, Research Findings Regarding Building Durability and Construction Material.
Only one definitive study of building durability by primary type of material used in. construction has been conducted this involved an examination of building demolition. records for the Minneapolis St Paul metropolitan area for the years 2000 2003 Athena. Institute 2004 The age at demolition of 227 buildings which included both residential. and commercial structures for which there were public records is shown in Figure 3. While the ages of demolition for concrete and steel structures were as long as 100. years the majority of these buildings reached the end of their useful lives at about. 25 30 years of age The wood structures were on average far older at the time of. demolition Interestingly upon delving into the reasons for demolition it was found. that about 60 of structures were removed as part of area redevelopment initiatives. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 14 10 21 2013. Demolition of 227 Buildings in Minneapolis St Paul 2000 2003. Source Athena Institute 2004, because the buildings no longer fit the needs of the owner or tenant due to changing. land values or because of socially undesirable use or inability to economically bring a. building up to code Less than one third were demolished because of physical condition. and less than 7 percent as a result of fire damage Of buildings demolished due to fire. damage the greatest percent were of steel construction Figure 4. The fact that more of the steel and concrete buildings depicted in Figure 3 were. commercial industrial structures and thus more subject to code changes and. redevelopment factors explains much of the difference in longevity between these. buildings and wood structures, Percent of Each Building Type Demolished Because of Fire Damage. Source Athena Institute 2004, Of the 227 buildings for which demolition records were available 94 were non. residential with the principal construction material identified 51 percent were concrete. 29 percent wood 10 percent steel 1 percent aluminum and the rest various. combinations of concrete steel and wood In this case the most common age at. demolition was 25 50 years Again the longevity of wood structures at age of. demolition compared favorably to structures constructed of other materials Figure 5. DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org,Dovetail Partners Page 15 10 21 2013.
Source Athena Institute 2004, Examination of the data from Minneapolis St Paul led to the conclusion that despite a. pervasive perception that the useful life of wood structures is lower than other. buildings no meaningful relationship exists between the type of structural material and. average service life It is worth noting that most buildings in this study were. demolished for reasons that had nothing to do with the physical state of the structural. LCCA Guidance, Sources of information regarding proper methodology for the conduct of LCCA include. standards setting organizations and government bodies particularly the US federal. government A summary of guidance documents is contained in Appendix A. Centers of Excellence in LCCA, Because LCCA beyond evaluation of energy related components of buildings is seldom. practiced in the United States there appears to be a lack of research organizations. within the country that could be considered Centers of Excellence for the conduct of. LCCA in the context of buildings and building materials Some of these are identified in. Appendix B,Bottom Line,Among the findings of this study are that. Published life cycle cost analysis information for commercial non residential. buildings is sparse and such information for wooden structures is not widely. available in current literature,DOVETAIL PARTNERS INC www dovetailinc org.

Related Books

Strategic Stewardship and the Preventative Maintenance ...

Strategic Stewardship and the Preventative Maintenance

Strategic Stewardship and the Preventative Maintenance Master Plan Benchmarking Market Analysis Financial Analysis Funding, Fund Raising & Marketing Recommendations for New Spaces/Buildings Facility Cost Projections/Life Cycle Cost Analysis Capacity Analysis and Use Assessment Charrette Process Existing Condition Analysis Site-Specific Physical Plan for Buildings Infrastructure and Systems ...

project estimating requirements - GSA

project estimating requirements GSA

2 design and construction phase cost estimating 29-46 basic concept: for all phases cost estimates and summaries market survey cost growth report space-type cost analysis life-cycle cost analyses value-engineering studies budget analysis requirements for bid submission construction-award bid analysis for prospectus-level projects cost database

Jan-Feb 2015 Newsletter - In Work 02-27-2015

Jan Feb 2015 Newsletter In Work 02 27 2015

Analysis (LSA/GEIA?STD?0007), Technical Manuals (TMs), Interactive Electronic TMs (IETMs), Logistics Test and Evaluation, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis, Level of Repair (LOR) Analysis, Provisioning/Supply Support, Training and Training Course Development, and Logistics Management Information (LMI).

Life cycle cost analysis of water networks ver13-Mike

Life cycle cost analysis of water networks ver13 Mike

1 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF WATER NETWORKS Michael Ambrose - Environmental scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), michael ...



RENEWAL PARTS CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSORS Supersedes 160.73-RP2 (203) Form 160.73-RP2 (305) STYLE "F" AND LATER MODELS COMPRESSOR Compressor Model Compressor


HP08 2017SSP

22 Calcipotriol 50mcg/g ointment, 30g tube 31 667 24 Cetomacrogol cream 500g 250 262 27 Chlorhexidine Gluconate 1% cream, 50g 13 615 13 615 100% Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd V0LU2 MAAA0122296 Hibitane Antiseptic Cream R 16.4200 50g 14 60 90.00 189757278 51172503-00002 TU 28 Chlorhexidine Gluconate 1% Obstetric cream, 250ml

Chlorhexidine ????????? ????????


and decolonization of nasal cavities with mupirocin ointment and chlorhexidine solutions. Oral decontamination with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Another study reported that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine-alcohol was found to be more protective against infections than the use of povidone ...

ISCP Cardiothoracic surgery curriculum 2010

ISCP Cardiothoracic surgery curriculum 2010

Cardiothoracic Surgery Curriculum August 2010 . Page 2 of 222 Contents Page No Introduction 3 The Educational Principles of the Curriculum 4 Components of the Curriculum 6 Educational Framework 7 The Purpose and Structure of the training programme 12 The Training Pathway 13 The Syllabus 17 Overview and objectives of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Curriculum 18 The Purposes of Training in the ...

LASER DISTRIBUTOR PTE LTD ATI 3470 ddr3 PCI Express Dual ...


Hitachi 1 TB 5400rpm (3Y) 135 Gigabyte A55M-S2H 149 187 208 228 ASUS E45M1-1 DLX 286 MSI R7870 HAWK OC 2GB DDR5 480 Hitachi 320GB 7200 rpm (3Y) 79 Gigabyte A75M-D2H 199 236 257 278 INTEL D525MW + ATOM CPU 138 MSI R7950 2PMD3GD5 OC 3GB DDR5 399

I. Lesson Summary - Polk County Public Schools

I Lesson Summary Polk County Public Schools

They Called it Florida, Dewitt Publishing, 4504 West Elm St., Tampa, FL 33614; phone and fax (813) 885-1939 - blank map of Florida Florida: Harcourt Brace Social Studies (4th-grade textbook), Harcourt Brace & Company: Orlando (2002)