Tokede, O O (2016) Developing whole-life cost models for retrofit options in office buildings. PhD thesis, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.
Abstract
Office retrofit building projects have become a subject of increased attention among building researchers in the United Kingdom, and in many economically advanced nations. Existing whole-life costing models have however, not proven to be robust enough to deal with these retrofit building scenarios. There is a growing body of evidence that conceptual modifications in the mechanics of whole-life cost modelling, could facilitate improvements in the long-term cost assessment of buildings. Recent research has made a case for the existence of revocability and disruption, in the appraisal of retrofit building investments. Revocability, connotes the potential for variability, in the future cost projections of a building over its estimated life. Disruption relates to the diminished building use, or unusability, over a period of implementing a retrofit initiative. Existing whole-life cost models have however, not recognised the implications of revocability and disruption in their framework. This study conducts an investigation into the whole-life costing of office retrofit building projects, and develops a Fuzzy New-Generation Whole-life Costing approach. Two office retrofit building projects are adopted, to appraise the identified issues in the whole-life costing framework. A number of building configuration permutations (BCPs) constituting different retrofit options, are developed in both projects. The potential implication of revocability and disruption, are evaluated based on probability and fuzzy logic principles respectively. Sensitivity analysis is applied to discount rate assumptions over the estimated lives, of the projects considered. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is used in analysing the ranking results of selected projects. This provided an assessment of the relative preference of BCPs in the projects. Results from the case studies show 1) disruption issues account for up to 12% of initial capital costs; 2) revocability accounts for up to 35% of initial capital cost, over a 20-year life; up to 119%, over a 60-year life; 3) up to 2% underestimation in the whole-life cost, over a 20-year life; and up to 45% underestimation, over a 60-year period, in the SPACE project; 4) up to 9% underestimation in the whole-life cost, over a 20-year life; and up to 53% underestimation, over a 60-year life, in the MS project.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Smith, S and Gupta, N |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost modelling; fuzzy logic; investment; probability; United Kingdom; whole-life costing |
| Index terms: | modelling, option, variability, investigation, office building, building investment, case study, fuzzy logic, preference, appraisal, whole-life costing, cost model, evidence, configuration, United Kingdom, sensitivity analysis, capital cost |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, statistical analysis, decision analysis, financial and cost management, data science, data collection methods, environmental hazards, occupational health, asset management, Geography, decision-making and reasoning, accounting and finance, factor and component analysis, analytical methods, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here