research report on life cycle cost calculation o.univ.prof. dipl.-ing. dr.techn. hans georg jodl...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Content
1. Introduction
2. Calculation model LCC Bridge
3. Calculation model LCC Window
4. Calculation model LCC Metro station
5. Calculation model LCC Grooved Rail
6. Conclusion
IntroductionIntroduction
Life cycle cost
• Life cycle divided in phases - periods
• Holistic perception of cost trends over the whole expected service life
• Cost groups during life cycleo Planning costs
o Building costs
o Cost of maintenance during utilisation
o Unexpected costs (optional)
o Cost of demolition at end of life cycle
Example of life cycle phases
Planning phase e.g. 5 yearsConstruction phase e.g. 3 yearsUtilisation phase e.g. 70 yearsDemolition phase e.g. 2 yearsLife cycle e.g. 80 years
Current targets of optimisation
• Predominant investment during construction phase
• Less investment during utilisation
• Usual focus on optimisation for construction phase
• Construction cost are only reliable cost available
• Hence construction cost are reference base of further cost calculation
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
Sustainability and life cycle
Sustainability just a buzzword ?? Keeping house sustainable – when
following the philosophy of 3P3P
• Sustainability is serving people PPeople
• Conserving living environment for the next generation PPlanet
• Sustainable projects must earn money PProfit
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
Life cycle cost calculation
• Life cycle cost are calculated for one single life span
• Simplified calculation of LCC with only 3 input parameters:o CC [€] .. construction cost
o m [a] .. theoretical service lifeo p [%] .. percentage of building cost CB
• Calculation with final value (accumulated to future) present value (discounted to present)
Final value – present value
Δt
Δt
eMaintenancannualpresent
eMaintenanc
Δt
future
Δtfinalpresent
q
1
1q
1qVV
q
V
z1
1VV
1q
1qVV
q*Vz1*VVΔt
eMaintenancannualfinal
eMaintenanc
Δt(cash)presentΔt(cash)present)(futurefinal
Final (future) value calculation - accumulated
Present (cash) value calculation - discounted
Calculation model Calculation model LCC BridgeLCC Bridge
Roman arched bridge across river Tajo in Alcántara / Spain
• 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
Aim of Research
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
Matching coefficients
• Adaption of tabular values of redemption guideline using matching coefficients for special cases: o Variance of construction guidelineso Exceeding of normative defaultso Consideration of new material technologyo Experimental projectso Accreditation of construction elementso Assessment of alternative offers
• Quality criteria for planning bridgeso Adaptability for road bridgeso Additional criteria
Key table of redemption guidelineBauliche Anlagentheoretische Nutzungsdauer m und %-Satz der jährlichen Unterhaltungskosten p
m [a] p [%]
1 Unterbau
Widerlager, Flügelwände, Pfeiler, Stützen, Pylone (jeweils inkl. Gründung)1.1 aus Mauerwerk, Beton, Stahlbeton 110 0,51.2 aus Pfahlwänden, Schlitzwänden 90 0,51.3 aus Stahlspundwänden aus Stahlspundwänden ohne Korrosionsschutz 50 0,6 aus Stahlspundwänden mit Korrosionsschutz 70 0,51.4 aus Stahl 100 0,81.5 aus Holz 50 2,0
2 Überbau: Tragkonstruktionen (Balken, Platten, Bögen, Kastenquerschnitte)2.1 aus Stahlbeton 70 0,82.2 aus Spannbeton aus Spannbeton mit internen Spanngliedern 70 1,3 aus Spannbeton mit externen Spanngliedern 70 1,12.3 aus Stahl 100 1,52.4 aus Stahl-Beton-Verbundkonstruktionen Stahltragwerke mit Betonplatte 70 1,2 Walzträger in Beton 100 0,8 Stahlträger in Beton mit Doppelverband (z.B. Preflexträger) 100 0,52.5 aus Holz
für Geh- und Radwege ohne Schutzdach 40 2,5 für Geh- und Radwege mit Schutzdach 50 2,0 für Straßen 40 2,5
3 Rahmenartige Tragwerke (einschl. Gründungen)
Geschlossene Rahmen, unten offene Rahmen, vergleichbare Rahmenkonstruktionen3.1 aus Stahlbeton 70 0,83.2 aus Spannbeton 70 1,23.3 aus Stahl 100 1,5
4 Gewölbe (einschl. Gründungen)4.1 Mauerwerk, Beton 130 0,64.2 Stahlbeton 110 0,5
5 Wellstahlrohre einschl. Flügelwände und Gründungen 70 0,86 Ausrüstung
6.1 Ausrüstung C1: umfasst 30 % der gesamten Ausrüstungskosten 20 1,56.2 Ausrüstung C2: umfasst 70 % der gesamten Ausrüstungskosten 30 1,2
Tabular values
of life span
Tabu
lar va
lues o
f
perce
ntag
e of m
ainte
nanc
e cos
t
Main structuree.g. Base course
Structural elements
e.g. reinforced concrete
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)
00,100,1
cost%8,0Years70
pm
concreteconcrete
kk
pm
cost%68,085,0*8,07710,1*70
85,010,1
cost%8,070
newconcretenewconcrete
newpnewm
concreteconcrete
pyearsm
kk
pyearsm
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
Construction cost CC
• Calculation based onCONSTRUCTION COSTCONSTRUCTION COST CCCC
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
Calculation with final value method
fvfvfv
fv
CDfvD
m
C
m
aMfvM
mC
mB
fvB
LCCLCCLCCLCC
CCLCC
q
qpC
q
qCLCC
qCqCLCC
DMB
22,0
1
110,1
1
1
10,1*
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
Screen shot examples of cost schedule
sum of costsconstruction costannual maintenance costdemolition cost
schedule of no-interest cost of equipment
schedule of interest costof equipment schedule of total
interest cost
schedule of no-interest cost of main structure
no-interest cost
cost scheduleconstruction costannnual maintenance costdemolition cost
results
data back-up
data setting
pdf.report data
present value1953
Final value2023
graphics
graphic data
Report of resultsLife cycle cost model
Calculation model Calculation model LCC WindowLCC Window
Outside temperature,rain, wind, sun, noise
Net weightBuilding movement
Window movement Room temperaturehumidity
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
Acid laboratory test of 3 window types
French window single frame Window
single frame
Casement window double frame
Tested frame material of windows: aluminium
LCC single frame window alu versus plastic
positionsALUMINIUM-window
single frame
usefullife
[years]cost[€]
Base + frame + glass 60 644Hold + fittings 40 91Gaskets 25 59Controling period/Σ 60 794
cost appearanceALUMINIUM-window
single frame
costno-interest
[€]
LCCinterest rated
[€]Base + frame + glass 644 6.775Equipment (Fr+HoF+Ga) 359 2.097Wages (60 €/action) 180 457Maintenance (0,25%/year) 119 491Sum after 60 years 1.302 9.820Present value 794 934
positionsPLASTIC-window
single frame
usefullife
[years]cost[€]
Base + frame + glass 25 411Hold + fittings 25 91Gaskets 25 59Controling period/Σ 25 561
cost appearancePLASTIC-window
single frame
costno-interest
[€]
LCCinterest rated
[€]Base + frame + glass 1.233 6.554Equipment (Fr+HoF+Ga) 450 2.392Wages (60 €/action) 120 326Maintenance (2,5%/year) 841 3.471Sum after 60 years 2.645 12.743Present value 561 1.211Change spare parts:
wages (work) &material (equipment) all-inclusive.
LCC single frame window - ALU
First change of window after 60 years
Equipment:Fittings, hold (40 a), gaskets (25 a)
Comparison of frame-material
WoodPlastic
Wood-Alu
ALU
26
LCC of single frame French window
26
LCC on example of a municipal flat (all material)
Plastic
Wood
Wood-Alu
ALU
Typical flat with 5 single frame windows and 1 single frame French window
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.
Calculation model Calculation model LCC Metro stationLCC Metro station
Cost composition LCC
Dimension: m1, m , m , to, piece, etc.² ³
²
€²][ LCC*quantitycategorycostLCC
mam
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
Prediction of quantity
5 12 15 20 21 24 26 27 28 33
Linien Station Fläche Bahnsteig Gang Halle Lager/Archiv Leerraum Passage Sanitärraum Stiege Technikraum Sonstiges
1 Aderklaaer Straße 3.744,42 1.057,70 1.309,77 0,00 100,61 102,66 167,37 14,51 127,89 812,44 51,471 Alser Straße 2.791,00 703,57 37,85 0,00 65,07 0,00 0,00 43,37 0,00 170,71 1.770,431 Alte Donau 3.056,06 1.102,00 575,00 180,00 420,64 27,36 0,00 33,00 354,00 341,00 23,061 Alt Erlaa 2.238,00 857,00 78,00 164,00 40,00 0,00 138,00 21,00 155,00 345,00 440,001 Am Schöpfwerk 2.191,00 1.052,00 50,00 274,00 193,00 0,00 0,00 11,00 266,00 287,00 58,001 Aspernstraße 4.793,64 1.262,12 168,54 0,00 167,09 0,00 670,05 38,39 0,00 2.018,70 468,751 Braunschweiggasse 1.728,00 760,00 275,00 113,00 87,00 0,00 0,00 12,00 104,00 274,00 103,001 Burggasse 1.661,00 1.076,00 3,00 0,00 13,00 0,00 0,00 12,00 288,00 113,00 156,001 Donauinsel 2.721,00 760,00 1.199,00 233,00 90,00 0,00 0,00 40,00 125,00 274,00 0,001 Donaumarina 3.318,77 1.244,12 194,48 0,00 38,08 0,00 403,43 0,00 136,84 1.228,97 72,851 Donauspital 3.129,83 1.013,16 106,54 0,00 72,70 0,00 281,38 10,04 0,00 1.381,09 264,921 Donaustadtbrücke 3.297,40 1.201,01 301,51 0,00 68,08 0,00 251,46 12,64 39,96 1.398,19 24,551 Dresdner Straße 3.189,00 1.168,00 642,00 93,00 349,00 0,00 0,00 17,00 150,00 659,00 111,001 Enkplatz 7.173,11 898,00 2.332,53 0,00 694,00 227,15 523,00 23,86 560,69 1.744,70 169,181 Erdberg 4.101,00 989,00 362,00 0,00 85,00 0,00 418,00 72,00 262,00 1.080,00 833,001 Erlaaer Straße 1.680,00 828,00 52,00 159,00 197,00 0,00 0,00 11,00 130,00 256,00 47,001 Floridsdorf 10.039,00 1.620,00 2.870,00 0,00 1.287,00 153,00 1.830,00 239,00 297,00 1.347,00 396,001 Friedensbrücke 2.645,00 1.522,00 32,00 35,00 184,00 20,00 0,00 21,00 111,00 406,00 314,001 Gasometer 3.862,97 900,00 1.151,00 256,00 20,00 0,00 0,00 25,92 243,00 1.002,25 264,801 Großfeldsiedlung 3.845,54 1.000,55 1.349,75 196,84 40,66 132,49 0,00 13,56 126,40 923,84 61,451 Gumpendorfer Straße 1.630,00 889,00 15,00 146,00 54,00 0,00 0,00 27,00 196,00 162,00 141,001 Handelskai 6.062,00 1.446,00 640,00 1.090,00 125,00 996,00 0,00 66,00 489,00 992,00 218,001 Hardeggasse 3.153,00 1.067,04 139,56 0,00 54,63 0,00 265,46 11,31 0,00 1.472,64 142,361 Heiligenstadt 6.329,68 1.740,00 1.126,00 1.353,00 562,00 0,00 260,00 57,00 72,00 988,68 171,001 Herrengasse 3.166,00 928,00 675,00 0,00 36,00 0,00 358,00 20,00 203,00 702,00 244,001 Hietzing 2.309,00 994,00 96,00 258,00 191,00 54,00 0,00 38,00 134,00 426,00 118,001 Hütteldorf 9.941,47 1.342,00 767,00 164,00 839,00 230,00 308,00 123,00 261,00 565,00 5.342,471 Hütteldorferstraße 7.265,35 1.231,00 1.361,00 33,00 472,00 107,00 1.063,00 34,35 349,00 1.532,00 1.083,001 Jägerstraße 4.377,00 1.118,00 1.273,00 261,00 642,00 0,00 0,00 14,00 288,00 678,00 103,001 Johnstraße 10.444,00 1.145,00 1.941,00 285,00 1.011,00 80,00 541,00 126,00 685,00 4.167,00 463,001 Josefstädter Straße 1.491,00 668,00 16,00 143,00 61,00 0,00 0,00 37,00 277,00 132,00 157,001 Kagran 6.548,10 1.006,00 764,18 413,00 1.538,30 12,00 0,00 137,52 170,00 1.261,00 1.246,101 Kagraner Platz 7.644,04 1.024,00 1.996,71 346,42 13,50 1.569,21 0,00 46,79 275,17 2.130,80 241,441 Kaisermühlen 6.337,00 860,00 1.245,00 668,00 1.408,00 6,00 0,00 37,00 1.175,00 799,00 139,001 Kardinal Nagl Platz 3.550,00 745,00 870,00 207,00 87,00 10,00 0,00 2,00 130,00 1.472,00 27,001 Kendlerstraße 4.413,00 1.092,00 1.561,00 379,00 151,00 0,00 0,00 20,00 417,00 617,00 176,001 Keplerplatz 3.219,00 723,00 933,00 116,00 168,00 0,00 331,00 49,00 142,00 679,00 78,001 Kettenbrückengasse 2.196,00 848,00 265,00 141,00 12,00 0,00 0,00 13,00 170,00 160,00 587,001 Krieau 3.402,87 1.206,12 41,34 0,00 34,97 24,79 422,05 13,95 0,00 1.479,74 179,911 Leopoldau 6.887,81 1.054,64 1.277,12 99,20 114,30 0,00 1.245,13 51,04 0,00 2.157,16 889,221 Margaretengürtel 1.705,00 770,00 250,00 144,00 62,00 0,00 0,00 14,00 158,00 173,00 134,001 Meidling-Hauptstr. 4.565,40 1.898,00 234,00 0,00 850,00 28,00 86,00 69,00 209,00 932,40 259,00
Einz
elst
ation
en
Methods of quantity prediction Example - comparative analysis
268 m² exceeded floor space required
central platform 1.167 m² (+ 30%)
lateral platform 899 m²
Example - statistic analysis:Lateral platform – central platform
Statistical mean value of floor space required
Area in m²
Model step 2 – cost development
Cost increase Interest yield
Prediction required
Cost increase - exponentially or linear ?
linear cost increase instead of exponential
1 € with 6% yield over 100 years has accrued to 339 €
Comparison - cost increase and interest yield
2010
Prediction of cost increase to 50 years (2060)
Building price index housingConsumer price indexStandard wage indexBuilding price index high-buildingBuilding price index bridgeBuilding price index mean value
4.000 €14.000 €
SumSupplyCleaningMaintenanceRepairMaterial
Interest yield trend
0 %4 %
→ time of investment equal !!
Cumulativeness yield essential ??
200€100€5a
100€ 200€30a 5a
30a
35a
→ time of investment essential !!
Jesus Christ’s bank account with 1,0 € after 2012 yearsinterest yield 1% → 1,0*1,012012= 494.998.691 €interest yield 4% → 1,0*1,042012= 18,66733 € →
18.667.178.019.592.100.000.000.000.000.000.000 €18.667.17827 EUR
Accuracy of the model ?
LCC Model Data
Decision support(floor covering)
LiteratureCalculative approachInvestor experience
Research in progress
on demand of investor
Calculation model Calculation model LCC RailLCC Rail
LCC Railway - existing problem
Abrasion of railway not clearly definable Different investigation for metro and tram Decisive impact-factors on LCC unknown
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
ConclusionConclusion
• 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
БЛАГОДАРЯ ЗА ВНИМАНИЕТО!
O.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Hans Georg JodlInstitute of Interdisciplinary Construction Process ManagementVienna University of Technology
УАСГ- гр.София