Bromilow, F J and Pawsey, M R (1987) Life cycle cost of university buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The theoretical background for a life cycle cost model of a building is described. Data relating to a 30-year-old building at the University of Melbourne are used as the basis for estimating long-term resource requirements, for comparing them with what has actually happened so far, and for future management of the building. The results demonstrate quantitatively the need to plan for substantial variability in necessary annual costs in real terms. Although the long-term (100 year) average annual cost of maintenance and rehabilitation is 2.0% of the cost of the building studied, the pattern of expenditures is such that 1.1% invested annually at 6% p.a. real interest rate, would fund these operations indefinitely. Demolition and replacement of the building studied is not an economic proposition. Implications for university facility management are discussed. The basic methodology is applicable to other classes of constructed facility.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; costs; life cycle; maintenance; universities |
| Index terms: | variability, university facility, life cycle, interest rate, methodology, estimating, replacement, life cycle cost |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, economic analysis, value management, materials science, construction type, statistical analysis, research methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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