Download - Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 1/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 1 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
ICECAP:1
An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial2
expenditure, energy consumption and carbon emissions3
arising from construction projects4
5
Gareth Bennell and Andrew Brunt6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Contact Details15
Blue Sky Environmental16
Building 100017
Kings Reach18
Yew Street19
Stockport, SK4 2HG20
Tel: 0161 475 022021
Fax: 0161 477 174822
Email: [email protected]
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 2/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 2 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
ICECAP – An enhanced whole life cost tool to minimise financial expenditure,1
energy consumption and carbon emissions arising from construction projects2
Abstract:3
In the construction industry increasing importance is placed on the life cycle costs of4
building projects. Rising energy costs and increasingly significant carbon taxation mean5
that owners, occupiers and managers of estates are becoming more discerning of post-6
construction costs.7
In response to this, blue sky environmental have developed a dynamic software tool that8
integrates the quantification of carbon, energy and financial costs throughout the life9
cycle of a building material, from initial capital costs and embodied carbon, through to10
maintenance and eventual disposal, incorporating external elements such as geographic11
location, changing energy and carbon prices, and climate change.12
This paper presents the outputs of research, conducted by blue sky design services ltd13
in collaboration with the University of Leeds, to design, build and implement a14
revolutionary whole life costing tool that minimises the resource impacts and lifetime15
costs associated with construction material procurement.16
Key Words:17
Whole life costing; Sustainable Procurement; Construction.18
19
Disclaimer20
All numbers used are actual outputs from the ICECAP model, however some information21
has been concealed due to commercial sensitivity and confidentiality considerations.22
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 3/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 3 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Introduction1
The UK Government has placed sustainable development at the heart of the national2
agenda (HM Government, 2007). The built environment is responsible for almost 50% of3
annual UK CO2e emissions (HM Government, 2007) and 40% of global energy use and4
solid waste generation (Climate Action, 2008). The impact of the built environment5
provides a great challenge to reaching nationwide and global emissions reduction6
targets, compounded by the long life of buildings which delays improvement. Decisions7
made in building design now will determine environmental impacts over several8
decades, so it is essential that these decisions are made with consideration for their9
future impacts.10
Driven primarily by considerations of cost (and, to some degree, by sustainability)11
procurement decisions are increasingly based on whole life costing approach,12
incorporating some or all of the following factors: maintenance, repairs, energy, carbon,13
decommissioning and replacement costs. Life Cycle Costing is also increasingly used in14
sustainability assessment methodologies within the construction sector. The Office of15
Government commerce, for example, states that “value for money is the optimum16
combination of whole-life cost and quality to meet the user‟s requirements” (Office of17
Government Commerce, 2007, p4).18
The Building Research Establishment‟s Environmental Assessment Methodology19
(BREEAM) also recognises the importance of life cycle costing, and assigns two credits20
to the use and implementation of life cycle costing in healthcare and education buildings,21
for example. By incorporating maintenance, operation, and decommissioning costs into22
building design, Clift and Bourke (1999) maintain that emissions, waste and energy use23
can be reduced and there are many parties (including local authorities, national24
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 4/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 4 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
government, housing associations, house builders, contractors, consultants and1
academics) that promote the greater use of whole life costing within the construction2
industry (Park, 2009; Foley et al, 2002).3
However, the sheer number of variables affecting whole life costs within buildings can4
make comparison of alternatives a daunting process, deterring systematic consideration5
of relevant factors. Using a coherent and systematic approach to modelling these6
aspects can help incorporate of life cycle financial and environmental factors much more7
effective and achievable. blue sky design services ltd, in collaboration with the8
University of Leeds, have designed an innovative whole life costing tool that aims to9
minimise resource impacts associated with construction procurement, and provides a10
valuable and flexible tool for decision makers to evaluate these factors. The Integrated11
Cost, Energy and Carbon Assessment Programme (ICECAP) is a ground-breaking12
modelling and visualisation tool that allows accurate comparison of alternative13
construction materials on the basis of cost, energy and carbon impacts over the whole14
life cycle of any building project, from material production through to end of life building15
decommissioning.16
ICECAP is unique in both its flexibility and comprehensive approach. Appropriate for17
both new build and refurbishment projects in any sector, the model takes as its starting18
point an international standard financial life cycle approach and carbon and energy19
calculator, and incorporates a range of innovative elements, including climate change20
model, energy price forecasting, embodied carbon, transport impact, location and carbon21
cost forecasts, providing a detailed breakdown of costs specific to the building project22
specification.23
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 5/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 5 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
The model provides detailed numerical and graphical outputs, which show how these1
high-level costs breakdown across the life cycle of the project, and when key financial2
outgoings arise, providing valuable assistance for building/facilities management3
providers to manage cash flows.4
Underpinning the model structure is a library of energy, carbon and financial metrics for5
different materials. To further develop the model and ensure the quality and applicability6
of the outputs to as-built construction projects, we are keen to collaborate with7
practitioners who can provide real-world project data that further tests the model and8
provides additional practical insights.9
By using this tool to compare the whole life cost of products, design-stage material10
procurement can move beyond a simple comparison of initial capital costs to a longer-11
term view, accounting for future maintenance expenditure, decommissioning and12
replacement costs, energy requirements and carbon implications over a user-defined13
study years (often taken as 25 and, increasingly, 60 years).14
In addition, while ICECAP is conceived initially as a construction sector tool, it‟s inherent15
flexibility means that a range of other applications are also sqaurely within its sights.16
These include comparing alternative consumer and/or industry products, quantifying the17
financial/environmental benefits of new products coming to market which reduce18
maintenance or running costs, extend life expectancy, or reduce energy and carbon19
emissions but which may have higher initial capital costs or other barriers to20
commercialisation.21
This paper outlines the ICECAP model and its capabilities, presents an example of its22
use in industry and discusses further possible practical applications not only in the23
construction industry, but also in product development, and procurement more generally. 24
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 6/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 6 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Method – Building ICECAP: a Sustainable Whole Life Cost Model1
The development of ICECAP has been based on standard methodologies for life cycle2
costing and carbon accounting. The “British Standard ISO 15868-5: 2008 Buildings and3
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing”, together with the4
supplement: “Standardized method of life cycle costing for construction procurement”,5
provide a standard methodology for life cycle costing in the construction industry (British6
Standards Institute, 2008a; 2008b). These detail which costs need to be included and7
how to calculate final figures for a life cycle cost assessment. ICECAP fully fulfils8
BREEAM requirements, which state that a life cycle costing assessment must be9
completed following this standardised methodology.10
BREEAM (2008) states that life cycle costing must be completed for two of the following:11
structure, envelope, services and finishes and must include both a strategic level and a12
system level analysis, referring to BS ISO 15868-5 standards on life cycle costing for13
further clarification (see figure 1). As clarified in the diagram, strategic analysis includes14
issues such as “location and external environment, maintainability and internal15
environment” while system level analysis should include aspects such as “cladding,16
roofing, windows and doors; and wall, floor and ceiling finishes”. Currently the model17
library offers cost comparisons for finishes (wall, floor and ceiling finishes) and for18
envelope (cladding, roofing, windows and doors) and includes both a strategic and19
system level analysis for these (see figure 1, highlighted).20
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 7/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 7 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Figure 1: Diagram from BS ISO 15868-5:2008 standard, explaining the different levels1
of analysis at different stages of the life cycle. Items currently covered by ICECAP are2
highlighted in blue.3
(Source: BS ISO 15868-5:2008, p.11)4
Product Description5
The ICECAP model compares alternative construction materials to identify their relative6
financial, energy and carbon costs to identify the product with the lowest impact over the7
life of the building. Figure 2 outlines the elements that are included in the financial and8
environmental calculations for the model at each stage.9
10
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 8/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 8 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Figure 2: Financial and environmental costs included in the ICECAP model.1
2
• Product Life Expectancy
• Dismantling & Demolition Costs
• Reuse Cost Savings
• Recycling Costs
• Landfill Costs
• Incineration Costs
• Energy Cost
• Carbon Taxes
• Maintenance Costs
• Repair Costs
• Installation Year
• Raw Material Cost• Labour Cost
• Fees and Taxes
• Installation Year
• Embodied Carbon
• Freight Emissions
Initial Capital Expenditure
In Use
• Energy Consumption
• Fuel-based Emissions
• Repair and MaintenanceEmissions
• Carbon Sequestering
End of Life
• Raw Material Cost
• Labour Cost
• Fees and Taxes
• Embodied Carbon
• Freight Emissions
Renewal
• Product Life Expectancy
• Dismantling & DemolitionEmissions
• Emission Savings from Reuse& Recycling
• Landfill Emissions
• Incineration Emissions
Key
Financial Costs
Environmental Costs
Key
Financial Costs
Environmental Costs
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 9/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 9 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
The model uses several input types to provide a detailed analysis of each material under1
consideration, all of which can be adjusted to suit the project:2
Project-specific inputs (such as size, quantity of material, location, installation3
year, fuel type, discount rate, installation year, current energy costs and building4
temperature requirements);5
dynamic forecasting assumptions and external factors such as fees and6
interest rates and future rates of change in energy costs, carbon-related costs7
and taxes, and climate change-related warming/cooling;8
material-specific inputs such as initial capital cost, maintenance and repairs,9
replacement costs, replacement periods, recycling and decommissioning, and u-10
values1;11
carbon factors for different energy types, (source: Department for Environment,12
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)).13
Accurate data in the material library is critical to producing the correct results of such a14
model. Life cycle costing is a quantitative process and as such the “garbage in, garbage15
out” principle applies. This principle specifies that the quality and value of the numerical16
results obtained from the model will be directly related to the precision and accuracy of17
the input data (Churcher, 2008).18
Two types of data are required: data about the cost of individual activities and19
components that make up a project; and data about the timing of future events, which for20
building materials includes life expectancies and maintenance frequency. As21
1For envelope materials, the model calculates the energy that passes through the fabric area based on u-
values and local temperatures and this is costed using forecast energy prices. While this will not predict theenergy consumption of the building (other software is specifically designed to model building energyconsumption), but instead the model allows different materials to be compared.
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 10/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 10 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
recommended by BS ISO 15686-5 standard, the ICECAP model uses the following1
sources, in order of preference by reliability and relevance:2
In house data on current costs (eg, for maintenance);3
In house data from previous projects (adjusted to current costs);4
Industry average or benchmark figures (such as Langdon, 2010; Hutchins, 2010);5
National and UK Government figures (such as Office for National Statistics);6
Practitioner cost estimates;7
Supplier cost estimates.8
The model is designed so that library data can be kept updated and that project specific9
data from a client can be entered quickly and easily.10
11
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 11/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 11 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Example Outputs1
The model is designed to produce a comparative analysis of each material, allowing2
maximum flexibility while requiring the minimum amount of user data entry. This includes3
discounted and non-discounted financial costs, energy expenditure and carbon4
emissions over both a 25- and a 60-year study period, giving a 10% confidence level for5
all estimates. The 10% confidence interval is used to show that these are estimates only,6
since it is not possible to predict what will happen to future costs and exactly when7
replacement and repair will be necessary. An example of a 25-year carbon life cycle8
output is shown in figure 3, clearly shows the lowest cost option (alternative 2) and that9
the variance of the base case and alternative 4 overlap, indicating that they do not have10
significantly different life cycle costs.11
The model aims to present the information in a format suitable for a high level decision12
maker. If sustainable procurement decisions are to be implemented throughout the13
construction industry, the comparative costs, benefits and savings associated with14
Figure 3: Model output. Whole life carbon cost over 25-year study period for six alternative
materials. „Alternative 2‟ can be easily identified as the lowest carbon option.
0.00.51.01.52.02.5
Base Case
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Carbon Emissions (tCO2e)
Decreasing Whole Life Carbon Emissions
10% variance Lowest
Carbon Option
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 12/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 12 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
different courses of recommended actions and investment options must be quantifiable.1
The analysis provided by ICECAP ensures that the language and metrics of2
sustainability match that of the end client decision makers; often finance directors or3
senior executives. 4
In addition to these high level outputs, the detail is provided so that the reasons for the5
overall figures can be examined. The model provides detailed outputs, both numerically6
and graphically, that show how these high-level costs break down across the life cycle7
and when key financial payments may be needed, which can help facilities management8
providers manage cash flow and/or financial risk. Figure 4 shows the carbon emissions9
of a product across a 25-year study period, with installation delayed by one year,10
increasing cost of heat loss through the fabric and a regular repairs/maintenance regime. 11
£-
£1,000
£2,000
£3,000
£4,000
£5,000
£6,000
£7,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year
Initial Capital One-off Repairs/Maintenance End of Life Replacement
Decommissioning Interest FeesAnnual Maintenance Cooling HeatingCarbon Recycling
Figure 4 Model output. Financial breakdown for a material over a 25-year study period.
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 13/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 13 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
The outputs also include a high level breakdown comparison of each material by cost1
type for both financial and carbon costs to help identify key cost areas, as well as2
cumulative NPV which provide useful insights into when one option becomes more cost3
effective than another.4
Figure 5 shows the 25 year life cycle costs for six alternative materials, with each5
material separated by life cycle stage. Net Present Value (NPV) figures, where life cycle6
costs are discounted to account for inflation and technological improvement, are also7
provided for the model, with discount rates flexible dependent on the requirements of the8
client. It becomes evident when the data are displayed in this format how the majority of9
the life cycle costs are spent, and reasons can be inferred as to why some materials10
have greater life cycle costs than other. For example, in figure 5, it is clear that for some11
materials it is the initial capital cost that takes up a large proportion of the overall costs.12
Alternative 1, for example, has the lowest life cycle cost as it does not need to be13
replaced, even though it has the highest level of maintenance and repairs required of14
any material choice.15
16
-£100,000 £0 £100,000 £200,000 £300,000 £400,000
Figure 5: Model output. 25-year Life Cycle Costs for six alternative materials, split by cost type.
Residual Initial Capital Repairs/Maintenance
Decommissioning
Interest
Cooling
Fees
Heating
Carbon
Increasing Financial Costs (£)Cost Benefits (£)
Replacement
Base Case
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 14/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 14 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Residual values are also displayed (in light green). These figures are for separated for1
information purposes, and show the theoretical value remaining in the product at the end2
of the study period.3
Figure 6 shows a similar output for the carbon cycle for six materials. This splits the4
carbon costs over the life cycle of the products into embodied carbon, replacement,5
freight, decommissioning, cooling, heating, annual maintenance, sequestration (which6
shows as negative), recycling and residual carbon. Figure 6 shows the high carbon cost7
of decommissioning for the base case (bc), the high embodied carbon and annual8
maintenance for alternative 1 (a1); that alternatives 2 and 3 (a2 & a3) offset the majority9
of their embodied carbon (and replacement carbon) through effective recycling and10
carbon sequestration through the life cycle of the product. Freight emissions for11
alternatives 3 and 4 are high relative to others, so it may be possible that these would12
fare better if alternative means of tranpsort to site could be found.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BC
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
-50 0 50 100 150 200
Figure 6: Model output. 60-year Life Cycle Carbon Cost (in tonnes CO2e) for six alternative
materials, split by type of cost.
Embodied Carbon Replacement Freight Decommissioning
Annual Maintenance
/ Sequestration
Cooling HeatingRecyclingResidual
Increasing Carbon Emissions (tCO2e)Carbon Benefits (tCO2e)
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 15/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 15 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Cumulative NPV1
ICECAP also provides outputs that show cumulative NPV. Calculating cumulative NPV2
allows users to determine which materials are of best value over different time periods.3
In construction materials, this is impacted by the product life span and renewal costs4
(see figure 7). Materials that appear initially to be a cheaper option may quickly be more5
expensive over the life cycle if they have lower life expectancies and require greater6
amounts of maintenance. The cumulative NPV chart can show exactly when these7
additional life cycle costs will have an impact, and so this can be accounted for by those8
organisations that will be responsible for the ongoing building facilities management.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
This model output can be therefore helpful in several ways. It allows model users to22
identify the time-period over which one alternative becomes better value than another. It23
can also be used to estimate the relative impacts of regular costs compared to one-off24
£0.0
£0.5
£1.0
£1.5
£2.0
£2.5
£3.0
£3.5
£4.0
£4.5
£5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
N P V ( M i l l i o n s )
Year
Figure 7: Cumulative NPV of different construction materials over a 60-year study period.
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 16/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 16 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
costs. Annual costs will show a cumulative effect in the slope of the curves, whereas1
one-off costs will display as step-changes in the cost. Their relative impact can be2
assessed quickly and easily. In high value products, one-off costs, because of their3
magnitude, have a far larger impact on the outcome than annual costs (such as4
maintenance). For these high value products it would make sense to engage in regular5
maintenance regimes that lengthen the life expectancy of the product.6
7
Sensitivity of Discount Rates8
Sensitivity analyses were performed on the key assumptions made in this model, such9
as discount rate, material quantity, interest rate, region, etc.10
Sensitivity analysis found that an alteration in the discount rate used had a large impact11
on the ranking of material options over a 25-year and 60-year period (see figure 8).12
Changes in the discount rate have a greater impact on costs that are further into the13
future, and have no impact at all on any costs in year zero (the year in which the analysis14
is taking place). This means that the higher the discount rate, the greater the proportion15
of 60-year NPV is taken up by initial capital costs and the less impact that maintenance,16
replacement and disposal costs (as well as any residual benefits) will have on the final17
NPV value.18
Materials that have a relatively low initial capital cost, but require frequent replacement19
due to a short life expectancy, or higher maintenance costs, will fare much better with a20
higher discount rate.21
22
23
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 17/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 17 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Interestingly, this has wider ramifications since the Government discounts schemes at a10
different rate to the private sector. While Government schemes discount 3% for 60-year11
study periods (3.5% for 25-year study periods) (HM Treasury, 2003), the private sector12
discounts at a much greater rate: normally 6-7% (Churcher, 2008).13
What makes ICECAP innovative?14
There are models currently available that provide a whole life financial cost for a product,15
but these do not include energy and carbon emissions, are generally not designed to16
compare alternative construction materials, and the installation year cannot be altered.17
Similarly, while there are carbon calculators available, these do not include financial18
components and tend not to include embodied carbon which, as our model19
demonstrates, is a critical component of the overall whole life carbon cost.20
£0.00
£0.10
£0.20
£0.30
£0.40
£0.50
£0.60
£0.70
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
6 0 y e a r N P V
( M i l l i o n
s )
Discount Rate
Gov‟t Private
Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of discount rate on 60 year NPV for building fabric element, showing
govrernmental and private discount rates
government private
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 18/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 18 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
The incorporation of dynamic elements, such as a separate energy and carbon cost1
model to take account of expected rises in these costs, as well as the capacity to model2
the impacts of climate change, is also unique to the ICECAP model, providing a more3
accurate cost forecast.4
The benefits of the model are best demonstrated by the results of its use for Chadderton5
Health & Wellbeing Centre. When considering floor finishes, six alternatives were6
compared, from rubber to eco-friendly carpet tiles. Chadderton Health & Wellbeing7
Centre has almost 12,000 square metres of floor area, making a whole life cost8
approach to selecting a floor finish material especially beneficial. The model indicated9
that a vinyl floor finish would save the NHS approximately £2 million over the 60-year life10
expectancy of the building compared to carpet tiles (see figure 9), and save over 3,30011
tonnes of carbon in comparison to a polished concrete floor. Figure 10 shows a photo of12
the finished vinyl floor finish in place.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
£0
£500,000
£1,000,000
£1,500,000
£2,000,000
£2,500,000
£3,000,000
£3,500,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Year
Figure 9: Model output. Cumulative Net Present Value is used to identify lowest whole life costs.
C u m u l a t i v e N P V
Vinyl
Carpet
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 19/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 19 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Further development1
This is a tool that can help to accurately predict and therefore reduce energy, enabling2
users to easily compare products from different manufacturers, while allowing new3
products to be tested against industry standard practice. Procurement professionals can4
use the model to drive decision-making, so that carbon emission reductions can be5
made while minimising impact on long-term financial costs.6
However, it is not only procurement professionals that can benefit from the model; It may7
also provide insight into producers and suppliers, especially those that are attempting to8
sell a product with a higher initial capital cost but with substantial benefits over the life9
cycle (whether that be financially or environmentally). By comparing their products to10
competitor products the model can produce outputs such as those shown in figures 411
and 5, which can help identify those life cycle aspects with the greatest impact.12
We are now looking to develop and enhance this model, extend the library of materials13
for which we have data and start applying the model on further developments. We would14
be especially interested in working with potential partners to progress this in a mutually15
beneficial manner.16
17
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 20/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 20 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Figure 10: Installed vinyl floor at Chadderton Health & Wellbeing Centre, providing an1
estimated saving of £2m compared to carpet over the building‟s 60-year life.2
3
4
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 21/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 21 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
References1
BREEAM (2008) „BRE environmental and sustainability standard ’, BES 5063: Issue 1.0,2
IHS BRE Press, Watford3
British Standards Institute (2008a) BS ISO 15686-5:2008 Buildings and constructed 4
assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London: BSI.5
British Standards Institute (2008b) Standardized method of life cycle costing for 6
construction procurement. A supplement to BS ISO 15686-5 Buildings and 7
constructed assets – Service life planning – Part 5: Life cycle costing. London8
BSI.9
Clift, M and Bourke, K (1999) „Study on whole life cos ting’, IHS BRE Press, Watford10
Climate Action (2008) „Construction industry at a glance‟, Sustainable Development11
International,12
http://www.climatechangeactionprogramme.org/industryfocus/construction 13
Foley, N., Bishop, P., Bennett, P., Harrison, J., Horner, R.M.W., Mceleney, M., Mordecai,14
K., Neville, K., Reader, P., Smith, D., Sutcliffe, D., Waterman, A., Wornell, P.,15
Brook, N., Harriss, K., Tablin, K., Turrell, P. and Wainwright, C. (2002)16
„Rethinking construction: 20 steps to encourage the use of whole life costing‟,17
Constructing Excellence ,18
http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/sectors/housingforum 19
HM Government (2007) „Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development 20
strategy’, The Stationery Office, London21
Office of Government Commerce (2007) „Whole-life costing and cost management: 22
achieving excellence in construction procurement guide ’ , Office of23
Government Commerce, London24
Park, S.H. (2009) „Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors‟, Journal 25
of Construction Engineering and Management , vol 135, pp1146-116126
Churcher, D. (2008) „Whole life costing analysis: A BSRIA Guide’ , BSRIA, Bracknell27
Langdon, D. (2010) „Spon’s architects’ and builders’ price book’ , Taylor & Francis,28
Oxford29
8/4/2019 Icecap Full Paper v110111 Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icecap-full-paper-v110111-final 22/22
Gareth Bennell & Andrew Brunt Page 22 of 22Blue Sky Environmental
Hutchins, (2010) ‘UK building blackbook: The capital cost and embodied CO2 guide’ ,1
Franklin and Andrews, London2