29.10.2014 Views

Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction ...

Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction ...

Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Towards a common European methodology for <strong>Life</strong> Cycle Costing (<strong>LCC</strong>) – Guidance Document<br />

51<br />

Cost (NVP)<br />

maintenance<br />

and<br />

replacements<br />

12000<br />

10000<br />

Cost (NPV) of maintenance and replacements<br />

8000<br />

1000 kr<br />

6000<br />

4000<br />

2000<br />

0<br />

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55<br />

Year (appraisal periode 40 years)<br />

Results (continued)<br />

The results constituted an overview of individual cost<br />

components’ <strong>contribution</strong>s <strong>to</strong> annual costs, and their<br />

apportionment with regard <strong>to</strong> responsibility and cost. This<br />

apportionment is in accordance with Statsbygg’s standard le<strong>as</strong>e.<br />

A similar overview, calculated on a square metre b<strong>as</strong>is,<br />

accompanies the first results. Further on there are sheets showing<br />

the detailed calculation.<br />

Management costs include property tax, water and sewer fees,<br />

refuse collection and disposal, insurance and administration.<br />

Energy use and cost is a main focus. Energy for heating<br />

(building, ventilation and hot water) is supplied by district<br />

heating. Electricity is <strong>as</strong>sumed for all other purposes. The energy<br />

price w<strong>as</strong> b<strong>as</strong>ed on existing contracts (in accordance with the<br />

owner). These prices were quite low, and a sensitivity analysis<br />

w<strong>as</strong> recommended for further work.<br />

Conclusions and benefits<br />

The main conclusion from the <strong>LCC</strong> analysis<br />

recommended a stronger focus on energy<br />

use. The architectural and technical design<br />

at the pre-project ph<strong>as</strong>e would give higher<br />

energy use than best practise and in<br />

comparison <strong>to</strong> the new regulations on<br />

energy use in buildings.<br />

Due <strong>to</strong> costs and progress of the project, the<br />

conclusions of the analysis w<strong>as</strong> only partly<br />

taken in<strong>to</strong> action.<br />

Davis Langdon Management Consulting May 2007

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!