Gurung, N and Mahendran, M (2002) Comparative life cycle costs for new steel portal frame building systems. Building Research & Information, 30(1), pp. 35-46. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Life cycle costs of a new steel portal frame building system incorporating energy efficient sandwich panels are compared with those of a conventional steel portal frame building system for use in industrial and commercial buildings. The economic benefits of the new building system have been demonstrated through cost assessment of energy in use. The results from life cycle cost analysis of both the new and conventional portal frame building systems indicate that, despite slightly higher initial costs, the new building system costs significantly less than the conventional system over its complete life cycle of 50 years. The new system provides improved economic performance along with a more energy-efficient model for commercial/industrial building design in the Australian climate.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; cladding; cost estimates; economics; energy; industrial buildings; life cycle cost; steel portal frame |
| Index terms: | building design, life cycle cost, Australia, life cycle, life cycle cost analysis, commercial building, building system, cladding, cost estimate |
| Subjects: | engineering systems, value management, construction type, financial and cost management, architectural design, building materials, Geography, research methods, economics |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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