YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Architectural Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Architectural Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Prefabricated Composite and Masonry Buildings: Comparative Study

    Source: Journal of Architectural Engineering:;2018:;Volume ( 024 ):;issue: 001
    Author:
    Samani Pouya;Gregory Jeremy;Leal Vítor;Mendes Adélio;Correia Nuno
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000288
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: Lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a tool to assess the costs associated with each phase of the building lifecycle. This study evaluated the lifecycle cost (LCC) of a prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) building in comparison with a masonry one. The four lifecycle phases of construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition were taken into consideration, and buildings in the American cities of El Paso, Los Angeles, and San Francisco were analyzed. First, the contribution of different building components to construction cost was defined. Consequently, the operation costs to supply cooling and heating-energy demands and lighting and home appliances were calculated. After determining the maintenance and demolition costs, the total LCC of both building types were compared through net present value (NPV). Finally, sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the impact of influential parameters. The results highlight the significance of construction cost for both structures and the higher maintenance and lower demolition costs of the prefabricated building. Moreover, the prefabricated building was found to have higher cooling costs despite its lower U-value. The prefabricated building had a higher total LCC in all locations. The results also demonstrate the importance of location by indicating substantial variations in construction, maintenance, and demolition costs among the studied cities. Furthermore, the prefabricated building was found to have lower operating costs in Los Angeles and San Francisco but higher costs in El Paso. The sensitivity analyses show significant impacts of the discount rate and lifetime, moderate influence of the inflation rates of maintenance and demolition costs, and limited impact of the inflation rate of electricity cost.
    • Download: (544.2Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Statistics

      Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Prefabricated Composite and Masonry Buildings: Comparative Study

    URI
    https://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4250130
    Collections
    • Journal of Architectural Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorSamani Pouya;Gregory Jeremy;Leal Vítor;Mendes Adélio;Correia Nuno
    date accessioned2019-02-26T07:53:50Z
    date available2019-02-26T07:53:50Z
    date issued2018
    identifier other%28ASCE%29AE.1943-5568.0000288.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4250130
    description abstractLifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a tool to assess the costs associated with each phase of the building lifecycle. This study evaluated the lifecycle cost (LCC) of a prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) building in comparison with a masonry one. The four lifecycle phases of construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition were taken into consideration, and buildings in the American cities of El Paso, Los Angeles, and San Francisco were analyzed. First, the contribution of different building components to construction cost was defined. Consequently, the operation costs to supply cooling and heating-energy demands and lighting and home appliances were calculated. After determining the maintenance and demolition costs, the total LCC of both building types were compared through net present value (NPV). Finally, sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the impact of influential parameters. The results highlight the significance of construction cost for both structures and the higher maintenance and lower demolition costs of the prefabricated building. Moreover, the prefabricated building was found to have higher cooling costs despite its lower U-value. The prefabricated building had a higher total LCC in all locations. The results also demonstrate the importance of location by indicating substantial variations in construction, maintenance, and demolition costs among the studied cities. Furthermore, the prefabricated building was found to have lower operating costs in Los Angeles and San Francisco but higher costs in El Paso. The sensitivity analyses show significant impacts of the discount rate and lifetime, moderate influence of the inflation rates of maintenance and demolition costs, and limited impact of the inflation rate of electricity cost.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleLifecycle Cost Analysis of Prefabricated Composite and Masonry Buildings: Comparative Study
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume24
    journal issue1
    journal titleJournal of Architectural Engineering
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000288
    page5017012
    treeJournal of Architectural Engineering:;2018:;Volume ( 024 ):;issue: 001
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian