Structural Survey

Estimating the life expectancies of building components in life-cycle costing calculations

Allan Ashworth

Article information:
To cite this document:
Allan Ashworth, (1996),"Estimating the life expectancies of building components in life-cycle costing calculations", Structural
Survey, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 4 - 8
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630809610122730
Downloaded on: 16 June 2015, At: 01:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 6 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2019 times since 2006*

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Eric Korpi, Timo Ala-Risku, (2008),"Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.
23 Iss 3 pp. 240-261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900810857703
Anni Lindholm, Petri Suomala, (2007),"Learning by costing: Sharpening cost image through life cycle
costing?", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 Iss 8 pp. 651-672 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400710832985
George Norman, (1990),"Life cycle costing", Property Management, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 344-356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000003380

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:376953 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Introduction

Estimating the life

expectancies of building
components in life-cycle
costing calculations

Estimates of the life expectancies of building

components result in different answers
depending on the purpose required. In
theory, many of the components used in
buildings are capable of lasting for a very long
time. Evidence exists in many very old buildings where an original component continues
to provide a satisfactory performance.
However, in practice, the life expectancy of
building components is frequently much
shorter for a variety of different reasons.
Obsolescence that eventually occurs both in
the design and the technology are perhaps the
main reasons why generally sound components are removed and replaced. In other
situations components decay, are damaged
or disused.
While reliance may be placed on actual
recorded performance data for the life
expectancies of building components, it has
been shown that such data are frequently
subject to a lack of data characteristics. Without this information their value is limited.
These characteristics include the maintenance policies being applied, the data classification, causes of component failure, the use of
non-identical replacements, time-lag delays,
hidden costs, timing distortions and the
effects of delayed work. Even where these
characteristics are known there is still the
difficulty of applying the derived life
expectancies to new situations for new projects. Such life expectancies form an integral
part of a life cycle costing calculation.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Allan Ashworth

The author
Allan Ashworth is Head of Division of Surveying, School
of the Built Environment, Nene College of Higher Education, Northampton, UK.
Abstract
Considers how the life expectancies of building components in a life cycle cost calculation can be determined.
Makes comparisons with initial capital cost estimating,
where forecasts or estimates of cost have been carried out
for many years. By definition an estimate is unlikely to be
spot-on. Also recognizes that life expectancy is not just a
mathematical calculation but also requires the use of
expert judgement. Any forecast of a future event, while
utilizing previously recorded performance data will always
be influenced by prevailing conditions and future expectations. The initial quality and standards of the building
project are important characteristics in determining
component life expectancy as is the type of project itself.
Identifies a range of different sources of published information on building component life expectancies. Different
techniques are also discussed that have a potential in
assisting with the prediction of the lives of building
components.

Initial capital costing

Estimating the capital costs of new
building projects requires, among other
factors, a combination of knowledge, skill,
experience and judgement[1]. The knowledge component relies on an availability
and analysis of previously recorded cost
information. In professional practice, this
cost information may have been gathered
from a surveyors own records, building price
books or other sources of information such
as BCIS (Building Cost Information Service). However, these secondary sources of
information are used only in those circumstances where personal cost information
does not exist, or where it is necessary to
validate this information.

Structural Survey
Volume 14 Number 2 1996 pp. 48
MCB University Press ISSN 2663-080X

Estimating the life expectancies of building components

Structural Survey

Allan Ashworth

Volume 14 Number 2 1996 48

Building contractors supposedly rely on

feedback data from actual building operations
on site. The process which they use is illustrated in Figure 1. All building contractors
have their own standard outputs and cost data
that are adjusted, usually, subjectively to take
into account the peculiar nature of each individual building project. However, in practice,
estimators make only limited use of previously
recorded site feedback, preferring to rely on
their own established data, experience and
intuition when attempting to forecast future
building costs.

in use. The main purpose of a life cycle cost

estimate is in helping to select the best option
from a number of competing proposals. However there is, as yet, little evidence to support
the view that previous life cycle costs have
produced reliable forecasts. In fact when
attempting to estimate so far into the future,
there is a good possibility that the forecast will
be incorrect, bearing in mind the time scale
involved. Also the estimated values in a life
cycle cost may bear little resemblance to the
actual values if these are ever measured.

Characteristics of the proposed building

Figure 1 Site feedback process

Constructing a building to a high quality

initially supposes that costs in use may then be
reduced. For example, using hardwood windows in preference to standard softwood
windows should ensure that the windows will
have a longer life expectancy. However, a high
quality building might also require higher
costs in use in order to maintain its high
quality in use and aesthetics.
However, in principle, where a building has
used a specification requiring the use of good
quality materials and a high standard of workmanship, these should, under comparative
conditions, allow for lower sums to be
expended on future costs in use. In addition
to the specification it is also important to
examine the design and detailing of the building project to ensure that these conform to
sound constructional practice. All too frequently poor detailing is repeated, often on a
large scale. The type of project being analysed
is also important since different project types
have in themselves different project life
cycles which in turn influence the life
expectancy of their various components.
A further issue to consider is the way
in which the project is proposed to be
maintenance managed throughout its life.
This is very much a key issue for life cycle
costing. Buildings that are allowed to go into
disrepair before any work is carried out will
result in different life cycle cost profiles than
buildings that are managed optimally in terms
of their maintenance and improvements. In
practice, when a building owners funds are
limited, it is often the amounts that are spent
on building maintenance that suffer a reduction in their budgets. For example, the
repainting cycles of school buildings are
frequently extended beyond that originally
envisaged at the inception of the project. This

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Estimate

Feedback

Implement

Monitor

Site feedback for an individual project is but

a single sample of data and as such may be
an unreliable predictor of building costs
generally. There are many examples of
identical projects being constructed with
varying total costs and substantial differences
between the individual elements that make up
the cost. Also the recording of site information is sometimes poor, relies heavily on good
site organization, the skills of the actual operatives, the lack of interference from the client
and designers, weather conditions and the
other vagaries of actual site conditions. Such
information has little repeatable value and is
therefore only used where new technologies
or new methods of working are adopted.
A further factor which needs to be considered is that estimating the initial capital costs
of new building projects has been carried out
for a very long time and as such includes a
substantial base of expertise, knowledge
and practice.

Life cycle cost analysis

The importance of any estimate is the consistency and reliability of the forecasts. All life
cycle cost calculations require a consideration
both of the initial costs and the future costs
5

Estimating the life expectancies of building components

Structural Survey

Allan Ashworth

Volume 14 Number 2 1996 48

has an effect not only on the painting costs in

use, but maintenance work of this kind often
reveals defects that need to be rectified before
they deteriorate further. It is thus seen as a
form of preventive maintenance where it is
carried out at the specified time intervals.
Such delays are likely to have consequences
on the life expectancies of the building components that are directly affected.
The preparation of a life cycle cost is based
on specific assumptions, at or prior to the final
design of the building project, that may later
be shown to have been false assumptions.

expectancies depending on whether the physical, economic, functional, technological or

social and legal obsolescence is the
paramount factor influencing their life. For
example, the rapid advancements in fuel
technology can mean that it is economically
(and environmentally) sensible to replace a
central heating boiler, even though it is capable of providing a good service for a much
longer life. Its life expectancy is curtailed by
its having reached technical obsolescence.
An important and useful source of data for
those involved in life cycle costing is their own
accumulated research and expertise. In the
absence of this, one or more of the sources of
information identified above could be used.
Another source of information is Life
Expectancies of Building Components[6]. This
represents the findings from a survey of building surveyors. The information typically is
represented in the format shown in Figure 2.
It provides an indication of the sample size
and the estimated component life in years
using a variety of statistical measures.
It can be observed from these data, that
the life expectancy of softwood windows and
doors can vary between one and 150 years.
Typically, it represents a life expectancy of
about 30 years. Furthermore, it would be
foolish, for example, to prepare a life cycle
cost based on 150 years, even where guaranteed maintenance is promised, owing to the
possibility of advancing obsolescence in buildings as identified above. Changes in use, the
implications of fashion and the development
of new technologies will also have some
impact on life expectancies. The important
message from investment analysts that past

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Building component life expectancy

data
There is a variety of sources of published
information and data on the life expectancy
of the different building components. These
include the manufacturers, Building Maintenance Information (BMI)[2], the former
National Building Agency (NBA)[3], the
Housing Association Property Manual
(HAPM)[4], the former Property Services
Agency (PSA)[5] and the Building Research
Establishment (BRE)[6]. Some of these
sources emphasize the longevity of some
building components. It can be argued that if
a building is properly designed and constructed then it can be maintained almost indefinitely. There are many examples in buildings
where the original components remain in use
for hundreds of years. However, for the purpose of life cycle costing it is not so much a
question of how long will a component last?
but how long will a component be retained?
All components have widely different life

Figure 2 Life expectancies of softwood windows

Windows and doors: softwood painted
Number

Number of replies 66

20
Estimated life in years
Median
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum

30
32
22
1
150

15
10
5
0

20

Time in years

40

60

80

100

120

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Estimating the life expectancies of building components

Structural Survey

Allan Ashworth

Volume 14 Number 2 1996 48

performance is no guarantee of future projections can be applied so easily to building life

cycles and the forecast of building component
lives.
A further analysis of the data shown in
Figure 2 is provided in Table I. This combines
three separate charts from the RICS/BRE
survey[6].This indicates that 14 per cent of
the respondents to the survey expected softwood windows to last less than ten years,
almost 40 per cent to last for less than 20
years and over 70 per cent for no longer
than 30 years.
The survey does not provide an indication
of the possible reasons for the expected different life expectancies. The replacement of the
windows may be due to general decay, vandalism, fashion, the installation of double glazing
in order to reduce long-term maintenance,
development of new technologies, etc. These
and other data characteristics are not provided. If this information were included, then the
range of values under a particular set of circumstances would be reduced. This would
then allow its reuse in new situations to be
made with greater confidence.
On the basis of this and other information
alone, it is not possible to select a precise life
expectancy for a particular building component. The use of the following technique can
be used to test the effects of best, worst, typical and any other scenario in terms of assessing the life expectancy.

may have been introduced. One way of testing

whether the results of the life cycle cost analysis are appropriate is to repeat the calculations
by changing the values that have been attributed to the individual variables. This is
described as sensitivity analysis.
In the case of building component life,
these can be revised easily by using a suitable
computer package or by using a spreadsheet.
It is therefore possible to test the effect on the
life cycle cost calculations of any building
component life expectancy against that which
has been included in the analysis as the most
appropriate component life. It needs to be
remembered that life cycle costing is a technique to assist in the selection of the best or
most economic of the alternatives that are
available. Sensitivity analysis will not do this
for us, but it will provide us with a range of
different values that can be used to help to
formulate overall judgements.

Other techniques to consider

It is also worth noting two other methods or
techniques that can help to select the most
appropriate life expectancies for the different
components in the building that is being life
cycle costed.
The first of these is called Monte Carlo
simulation and is based on the general idea of
using sampling to estimate the desired
results. The sampling process requires the
description of the problem under study by an
appropriate probability distribution from
which sample values are then drawn. The
forecasting of building component life
expectancies is an ideal problem for simulation. Simulation is simply a means of creating
a typical representation of the system being
studied. In order to do this it is necessary to
know the detailed characteristics and the

Use of sensitivity analysis

During a life cycle cost analysis a large
number of different assumptions need to be
made, such as the lives of the different building components. It is necessary to test these
assumptions in order to reduce any possible
distortions or misleading information that

Table I Life expectancies of softwood windows: percentage distribution of respondents

Life expectancy
(years)
0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
40+

Painted
(%)

Microporous
painted
(%)

Stained and
varnished
(%)

Totals
(%)

11
24
33
17
15

17
25
28
15
15

15
28
30
10
17

14
25
31
14
16

100

100

100

100

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

Estimating the life expectancies of building components

Structural Survey

Allan Ashworth

Volume 14 Number 2 1996 48

relevant measures to be applied in order that

sampling from a probability distribution can
take place.
A second method is to develop and use an
intelligent knowledge based system (IKBS),
sometimes colloquially referred to as an
expert system. These are systems that behave
like experts. They do not necessarily break
any new ground, but pick the brains of a
group of experts, who already have the knowhow to solve a particular problem. The rules
that an individual uses are stored carefully in
the computers memory and recalled in much
the same way that an expert arrives at a decision. The construction and property industries already use a number of expert systems
software, that have developed to assist practitioners in their work. In the context of building component life expectancies, a series of
question sets would be displayed on the computer monitor to be answered by the user.
Where answers could not be provided then
the expert system would make assumptions
depending on the other answers provided and
the information retained in the expert system
program.

Conclusions

for the same building component in the

same situation and under the same
circumstances.
Assess the initial quality and standards of
the building being constructed.
Assess the design and detailing of the
different components.
Consider ways of improving the design
in order to reduce defects and encourage
component longevity where this is
desirable.
Examine the different sources of information on component life expectancies in
addition to using personal data.
Relate the data and other information to
the particular project and client type.
Assess management policies recognizing
that these may also change many times
during a projects life.
Apply sensitivity analysis to the results.
Consider the use of simulation or expert
systems.
Use a combination of objective analysis
and subjective judgements to determine
the life expectancies of the different building components.

References

Life cycle costing requires many different

variables to be assessed, usually over considerable periods of time into the future. The
estimation of life expectancies of the different
building components are just one of these
variables. There are wide variations in the life
expectancies of building component data
from practice. This makes the estimating of
values uncertain and difficult to predict. It
can never be precise due to the many vagaries
associated with design, construction, use and
management of buildings. The following
process should assist the practitioner:
Recognize that, in practice there is a wide
variation in life expectancy values even

1 Ashworth, A. and Skitmore, R.M., Accuracy in Estimating, Chartered Institute of Building, Occasional Paper
No. 27, 1977.
2 BMI, Occupancy Cost Planning, Building Maintenance
Information Service, 1992.
3 NBA, Maintenance Cycles Life Expectancies, National
Building Agency, 1985.
4 HAPM, Component Life Manual, E. & F.N. Spon,
London, 1992.
5 Property Services Agency, Costs in Use Tables, HMSO,
1991.
6 RICS/BRE, Life Expectancies of Building Components:
Preliminary Results from Survey of Building Surveyors
Views, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Research Papers, No. 11, 1992.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:02 16 June 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Jos Dinis Silvestre, Ana Silva, Jorge de Brito. 2015. Uncertainty modelling of service life and environmental performance to
reduce risk in building design decisions. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 21, 308-322. [CrossRef]
2. Akponanabofa Henry Oti, Walid Tizani. 2015. BIM extension for the sustainability appraisal of conceptual steel design.
Advanced Engineering Informatics 29, 28-46. [CrossRef]
3. Dermot Kehily, Barry McAuley, Alan Hore. 2014. Leveraging Whole Life Cycle Costs When Utilising Building Information
Modelling Technologies. International Journal of 3-D Information Modeling 1:10.4018/IJ3DIM.20121001, 40-49. [CrossRef]
4. Endrit Hoxha, Guillaume Habert, Jacques Chevalier, Manuel Bazzana, Robert Le Roy. 2014. Method to analyse the
contribution of material's sensitivity in buildings' environmental impact. Journal of Cleaner Production 66, 54-64. [CrossRef]
5. Renata Schneiderova Heralova. 2014. Life Cycle Cost Optimization Within Decision Making on Alternative Designs of Public
Buildings. Procedia Engineering 85, 454-463. [CrossRef]
6. Kashif Azeez, Tarek Zayed, Mohammad Ammar. 2013. Fuzzy- versus Simulation-Based Life-Cycle Cost for Sewer
Rehabilitation Alternatives. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 27, 656-665. [CrossRef]
7. Behzad Sodagar. 2013. Sustainability Potentials of Housing Refurbishment. Buildings 3, 278-299. [CrossRef]
8. Can B. Aktas, Melissa M. Bilec. 2012. Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 17, 337-349. [CrossRef]
9. Alan M. Forster, Kate Carter, Phillip F.G. Banfill, Brit Kayan. 2011. Green maintenance for historic masonry buildings: an
emerging concept. Building Research & Information 39, 654-664. [CrossRef]
10. Ing Liang Wong, Srinath Perera, Philip C. Eames. 2010. Goal directed life cycle costing as a method to evaluate the
economic feasibility of office buildings with conventional and TIfaades. Construction Management and Economics 28,
715-735. [CrossRef]
11. Alan M. Forster, Brit Kayan. 2009. Maintenance for historic buildings: a current perspective. Structural Survey 27:3, 210-229.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Eugenia Cacciatori. 2008. Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in projectbased firms. Research Policy 37, 1591-1601. [CrossRef]
13. Kirsty Hunter, Subashini Hari, John Kelly. 2005. A whole life costing input tool for surveyors in UK local government.
Structural Survey 23:5, 346-358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. M. Y.L. Chew, S. S. Tan, K. H. Kang. 2005. Contribution Analysis of Maintainability Factors For Cladding Facades.
Architectural Science Review 48, 215-227. [CrossRef]
15. J.K.W. Wong, H. Li, S.W. Wang. 2005. Intelligent building research: a review. Automation in Construction 14, 143-159.
[CrossRef]
16. M. Y. L. Chew, Nayanthara De Silva. 2004. Factorial Method for Performance Assessment of Building Facades. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 130, 525-533. [CrossRef]
17. M. Y. L. Chew, S. S. Tan, E. Soemara. 2004. Serviceability of Materials in the Tropics. Journal of Architectural Engineering
10, 69-76. [CrossRef]
18. Pernilla Gluch, Henrikke Baumann. 2004. The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness
for environmental decision-making. Building and Environment 39, 571-580. [CrossRef]