Research report on Life Cycle Cost Calculation

1. Research report onLife Cycle Cost Calculation O.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Hans Georg Jodl Institute of Interdisciplinary Construction Project Management Faculty of Civil Engineering Vienna University of Technology Университет по архитектура, строителство и геодезия (УАСГ) 2012-11-14

2. Content Introduction Calculation model LCC Bridge Calculation model LCC Window Calculation model LCC Metro station Calculation model LCC Grooved Rail Conclusion

3. Introduction

4. Life cycle cost Life cycle divided in phases - periods Holistic perception of cost trends over the whole expected service life Cost groups during life cycle • Planning costs • Building costs • Cost of maintenance during utilisation • Unexpected costs (optional) • Cost of demolition at end of life cycle

5. Example of life cycle phases Planning phase e.g. 5 years Construction phase e.g. 3 years Utilisation phase e.g. 70 years Demolition phase e.g. 2 years Life cycle e.g. 80 years

6. Current targets of optimisation Predominant investment during construction phase Less investment duringutilisation Usual focus on optimisation for construction phase Construction cost are only reliable cost available Hence construction cost are reference base of further cost calculation

7. Planning strategy Parameters for choice of system, quality of material and construction Parameters impact level of expense during utilisation phase decisively Targets of strategic planning of structure at budgeting of sustainable objects:  to aspire maximum of service life  to aim for minimum of costs  to meet function without restriction

8. Sustainability and life cycle • Sustainability just a buzzword ?? • Keeping house sustainable – when following the philosophy of 3P • Sustainability is serving peoplePeople • Conserving living environment for the next generationPlanet • Sustainable projects must earn moneyProfit

9. Structure of user specific cost • Acquisition cost • Financing cost • Total cost • Follow-up costs • Utilisation cost • Capital cost • Capital consumption • Taxes and dues • Administration cost • Operating expenses • Maintenance cost • Demolition cost

10. Life cycle cost calculation Life cycle cost are calculated for one single life span Simplified calculation of LCC with only 3 input parameters: • CC[€] .. construction cost • m [a] .. theoretical service life • p [%] .. percentage of building cost CB Calculation with • final value (accumulated to future) • present value (discounted to present)

11. Final value – present value Final (future) value calculation - accumulated Present (cash) value calculation - discounted

12. Roman arched bridge across river Tajo in Alcántara / Spain Calculation model LCC Bridge

13. Aim of Research Computer program for LCC calculation Variables used as multiplying factors for • Theoretical utilization time • Percentages of annual maintenance cost Two calculation models depending on appliance • Life cycle model with defined life span • LCC calculation with final value • LCC calculation with present value • Redemption model • presupposing unlimited life span and maintenance

14. Program targets Creation of a consistently applicable tool for calculation of life cycle cost of a single bridge Desired possibilities of application: • Comparison of bridges • Comparison of variants • Optimisation of planning process • Checking of costs • Redemption → change of upholder • Leasing of bridges

15. Matching coefficients Adaption of tabular values of redemption guideline using matching coefficients for special cases: • Variance of construction guidelines • Exceeding of normative defaults • Consideration of new material technology • Experimental projects • Accreditation of construction elements • Assessment of alternative offers Quality criteria for planning bridges • Adaptability for road bridges • Additional criteria

16. Key table of redemption guideline Main structure e.g. Base course Tabular values of life span Structural elements e.g. reinforced concrete Tabular values of percentage of maintenance cost

17. Matching coefficient ► durability of structure Negative impact on structure may require adjustment of concrete quality. • Tabular values for concrete cover dconcrete = 3,5 cm (usual) • Increase of concrete cover to 4,0 cm (6,0 cm) results in  higher durability  positive impact (life span)  more concrete and reinforcement  negative impact (cost)

18. Calculation model LCC Bridge Comparison of different bridges Commitment of parameters • Fixed interest rate of capitalisation 4 % p.a. • Fixed values depend on structure and construction • theoretical service life (life span) m [a] • annual maintenance cost CaM → percentagep [%] of building cost CB = CC + CAC

19. Construction cost CC Calculation based onCONSTRUCTION COSTCC only reliable well-established value Construction cost CC contain: • Production cost of construction units • Related miscellaneous works • Clearance of traffic, site protection • Generation of execution documents, plans • Difficulties for third parties

20. Calculation with final value method • Building cost CB = CC + CAC = CC* 1,10 • Administration cost CAC= 0,10 * CC • Annual maintenance cost CaM = CB * p = CC*1,10 * p • Dismantling cost CD = CDem + CAD = 0,20 * CC + 0,10 * CDem= CC* 0,22

21. no-interest cost schedule of no-interest cost of main structure schedule of no-interest cost of equipment cost schedule construction cost annnual maintenance cost demolition cost sum of costs construction cost annual maintenance cost demolition cost Screen shot examples of cost schedule interest cost schedule of interest cost of equipment schedule of total interest cost

22. Report of results Life cycle cost model results pdf.reportdata graphics present value 1953 databack-up Final value 2023 graphicdata datasetting

23. Net weight Building movement Outside temperature, rain, wind, sun, noise Room temperature humidity Window movement Calculation model LCC Window

24. Windows in municipal housing • Life cycle consideration is strongly attracting notice • Window  critical part of the building shell • Alu-material  light, stiff, bearing, easy recycling • Coating  long-lasting surface free of maintenance • Little maintenance only on changing parts • Intensive mechanical load rough usage in social flats  rapid mechanical wear • Durability= service life + behaviour of user • Life cycle consideration  decisive for evaluation of sustainability and intrinsic value

25. Acid laboratory test of 3 window types Tested frame material of windows: aluminium French window single frame Window single frame Casement window double frame

26. Calculation basis

27. LCC single frame window alu versus plastic Change spare parts: wages (work) &material (equipment) all-inclusive.

28. LCC single frame window - ALU First change of window after 60 years Equipment: Fittings, hold (40 a), gaskets (25 a)

29. Comparison of frame-material LCC of single frame French window Wood Plastic Wood-Alu 26 ALU

30. LCC on example of a municipal flat (all material) Typical flat with 5 single frame windows and 1 single frame French window Wood Plastic ALU Wood-Alu 26

31. Future requirements on windows Guidelines are tightening requirements on windows Future coefficient of heat transmission is very low: UW 1,0 W/m²K Future increase of window weight expected because of multiple glazing and rising thickness of glass. Modern alu-windows are high quality systems with • Good heat insulation • Long service life • Practically free of maintenance Durability depends on combinationof service life and user behaviour. Window material aluminium expecting tomeet stronger future requirements reliably.

32. Calculation model LCC Metro station

33. Metro cost structure / maintenance

34. Cost composition LCC 1 2 Dimension: m1, m², m³, to, piece, etc.

35. Prediction of quantity • Whereof is surface depending on? • Impact of structure on design … • Upper level - deep level • Crossing station • Central platform - lateral platform • … • Auxiliary means for quantity prediction • Comparison of existing stations • Statistical analysis • Design guidelines • Expert experience

36. Methods of quantity prediction Example - comparative analysis Example - statistic analysis: Lateral platform – central platform Statistical mean value of floor space required central platform 1.167 m² (+ 30%) lateral platform 899 m² 268 m² exceeded floor space required Area in m²

37. Modelling step 1 – quantity estimation Project advancement  1

38. Model step 2 – cost development 2 Cost increase Interest yield Prediction required

39. Price index – exponential increase ? No exponential increase

40. Cost increase - exponentially or linear ? 1 € with 6% yield over 100 years has accrued to 339 € linear cost increase instead of exponential

41. Comparison - cost increase and interest yield Prediction of cost increase to 50 years (2060) Building price index housing Consumer price index Standard wage index Building price index high-building Building price index bridge Building price index mean value 2010 Interest yield trend 4.000 € 14.000 € 0 % Sum Supply Cleaning Maintenance Repair Material 4 %

42. Cumulativeness yield essential ?? 35a 5a 30a 100€ 200€ 30a 5a 100€ 200€ → time of investment equal !! → time of investment essential !!

43. Accuracy of the model ? LCC Model Data on demand of investor Decision support (floor covering) LiteratureCalculative approach Investor experience Research in progress

44. Calculation model LCC Rail

45. LCC Railway - existing problem • Abrasion of railway not clearly definable • Different investigation for metro and tram • Decisive impact-factors on LCC unknown

46. Focus of research • Influences of railway alignment (curve radius, shunting switches etc.) • Internal influences: • number of passengers • number of lines on the same route • type of carriages used on the route (low-floor/high-floor carriages) • External influences (road traffic) • Analysis of RAMS-parameter

47. Conclusion

48. Life cycle cost research is a up-to-date task Budgeting for building construction is usual Budgeting for maintenance is not usual Investments in maintenance and repair are not sexy but extremely necessary Huge data bases exist but data allocation is missing Public infrastructure companies seek for anticipatory budget planning Scientific confirmed data and cost are required There is still a lot of research work to be done

49. УАСГ- гр.София БЛАГОДАРЯ ЗА ВНИМАНИЕТО! O.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Hans Georg Jodl Institute of Interdisciplinary Construction Process Management Vienna University of Technology