competent - creative - complete multiconsult multidisciplinary consulting services life cycle...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
competent - creative - complete
MULTICONSULT Multidisciplinary Consulting Services
Life cycle investment planning- Sustaining the effectivity of buildings
R&D-Manager, professor II Svein Bjørberg, [email protected] M.Sc. Anne Kathrine Larssen, [email protected]
Multiconsult AS / Norwegian University of Science and Technology
EUPHN 13-15 June, 2005 Oulu, Finland
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 2
Outline
• History and experience• State of art – the Norwegian LCC model• Nordic LCC-Project – cost classification• Strategic building analysis - MultiMap
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 3
BackgroundProfessor Svein Bjørberg
• 30 years as civil engineer in Company of Consulting Engineers
• Mainly working with existing Buildings:
– Refurbishment, Rehabilitation, Heritage Buildings
– Condition Survey, Building Failures, Maintenance Program
– Life Cycle Costs, Life Cycle Planning
• Responsible for R & D in Multiconsult
• Professor II at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
M.Sc. Anne Kathrine Larssen
• 6 years in Multiconsult, several years with large public real estate owner and developer.
• Mainly working with:• strategic analysis (asset-,
property-, FM) • Lifecycle cost/profit
analysis (LCC/LCP), technical values, rent - principles and calculations
• KPI’s and benchmarking • functionality/usability and
adaptability of buildings. • PhD student at The Norwegian
University of Science and Technology
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 4
Historical milestone one:
1276: King Magnus the Lawmaker said in his law:
All farmers who live near the Church must tar their Church every third winter
He defined the law of Maintenance:– Who is responsible– What to do– How often
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 5
Historic milestone two:
1978: Association of Consulting Engineers desided to develop competence on consquence of an investment.
Annual Costs were introduced
Working groups, data on cost figures
1988: Norwegian Standard NS 3454 ”Annual Costs for Buildings”
1998: Demands from Directorate of Public Construction and Property (DPCP):
Calculation of MOM-cost in design phase
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 6
Historic milestone three:
• 2000: Revised and exstended NS 3454
• 2001: New §6 in Legislation on Public Procurement
(”You shall take LCC and environmental aspects into account when planning a new construction”)
• 2004: Common Nordic LCC Classification System
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 7
Our Life Cycle definitions
Ref.: S. BjørbergMulticonsult AS
Building failure / - damage
Gap of expectation
Idé, Program
Developementupgrading
Replacement
Preventive Maintenance
Repare
Accumulated need for
maintenance
CD 0
CD 1
CD 2
CD 3
Sustainable construction
New demands -authorities -market -core business
Possibility of influence
FinishCD = Condition Degree (NS 3424)
Quality / Function
Consept developement
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 8
What is LCC ?
All the costs throughout a
constructions life cycle– Investment costs (capital)– Management costs– Operation costs– Maintenance costs– Development and
upgrading costs– Demolishment costs
M a n a g e m e n t
I n v e s t m e n t ( c a p i t a l c o s t )
D e v e l o p m e n t / u p g r a d i n g
M a i n t e n a n c e & r e p l a c e m e n t
O p e r a t i o n s , e n e r g y & c l e a n i n g
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 9
Some definitions
• Annual expence– What you have to pay every year. Will differ from year to year
• Life Cycle Cost (LCC)– Investment+annual expence+residual costs (demolition
• Lifetime Costs– Net present value of LCC
• Annual Costs– Annuity of lifetime costs
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 10
•Investment (capital) cost•Annual MOM costs•Replacement and periodicmaintenance costs
Discount to net present value
Functional Lifetime
Ann
uity
Cos
t
Consider:•Cost of action•Intervals of action•Real rate of return•Lifetime of building
NS 3454 The Model:
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 11
Important to remember
• The lowest possible LCC is not an aim in itself, but the calculations should demonstrate the consequences of the choices made
• It should be a duty of the design / construction teams to set up LCC of the choices made, but it is the privilege of the owner to choose alternative.
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 12
LCC or Annual Costs analysis is used:
• to prepare budgets for investment and MOM-costs (Management, Operating, Maintenance) throughout the planning and construction process
• to evaluate alternatives
• to estimate consequence cost of rebuilding, improvements or changing in operation
or in other words
• to choose among alternatives, provide arguments, check profitability, provide budgets etc
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 13
2 Management cost
21 Taxes
22 Insurance
23 Administration
3 Operation cost
31 Operation and minor maintenance
32 Cleaning services
33 Energy
34 Water and sewage
35 Refuse collection
36 Security
4 Maintenance cost
41 Regular maintenance
42 Replacements
5 Development cost
51 Current refurbishment
52 New demands
53 Upgrading
1 Capital cost
11 Project cost NS3453
-Mutual costs .1
-Building .2
-HVAC and plumbing .3
-Electricity .4
-Telephone, automation .5
-Other installations .6
-Outdoor .7
-General costs .8
-Sepecial costs .9
12 Residual cost (- or +)
7 Service and support costs for the core activities
71 Administrative office management
72 Swichboard and receptionist services
73 Canteen and/or catering services
74 Furniture fixtures and fixings
75 Moving workplaces and/or job rotation
76 Telecommunications and IT-services
77 Postage and messenger services
78 Supplies and copying services
8 Potential of the property
81 Rebuilding
82 Additions/extentions
# Suggestion of additional account: Interruption of operation
•Interruption of the core activities in the building caused by technical failure.
NS 3454, representing all the lifecycle costs
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 14
E x a m p l e o f a l t e r n a t i v e c a l c u l a t i o n
• W o o d w i n d o w• I n v e s t : 3 . 5 0 0 N O K
• S e r v i c e l i f e : 3 0 y e a r s
• M a i n t e n a n c e : 5 0 0 N O K / 1 0 y
• N e t p r e s e n t v a l u e : 4 . 9 3 0 N O K
( 6 0 y e a r s , i n t e r e s t : 5 % )
• A l u m i n i u m w i n d o w• I n v e s t : 4 . 6 0 0 N O K
• S e r v i c e l i f e : > 6 0 Y
• M a i n t e n a n c e : 5 0 0 N O K / 3 0 Y
• N e t p r e s e n t v a l u e 4 . 7 1 5 N O K
3 5 0 0 3 8 0 0 4 6 0 05 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 15
Two Nordic Projects on LCC
Preliminary Project (2000 – 2001)– State of art in Nordic Countries and basis for further common main
project– Appr. 2.100 million m2 floor area in the Nordic Countries– Appr. 27 million m2 additional floor area each year
Main Project (2002 – 2004)– Nordic network– Common Nordic classification system on LCC– Establish active network within each country– Input to international standardisation works
• ISO 15686 ”Service Life Planning” Part 5 ”Life Cycle Costs”• CEN TC 348 ”Facility Mannagement”
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 16
Nordic Classification System
Definition of Main Items 1. Capital all investments incl demolishing
2. Administration incl consultancy, insurance etc
3. Operation daily, weekly and monthly within yearly period
4. Maintenance activities in period of more than a year (planned, replacement)
5. Developing demands from core activities, authorities etc
6. Consumption energy, water, waste handling
7. Cleaning inside and outside
8. Service All non-building related activities for support core business
Classification of costMain items are subdivided
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 17
Nordic Classification System
Main principle for dividing into subcategories:
• One-figure level states a main item, ex: 6. CONSUMTION• Two-figure level states a service, ex: 63. Waste
handling• Three-figure level states an activity, ex: 63.1 Internal transport• Four-level figures states a resource, ex: 63.1.1 Equipment
63.1.2 Salary
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 18
Nordic Classification System sub
1 Capital Costs Sum of project- and remaining costs 11 Project Costs Includes all investments up to the finished
construction. It can be subdivided contractors costs (similar to enterprise costs), employee costs (fees, etc) and special costs (taxes, etc). It will be outlined that the contractor's costs can be divided into groups with the same rate of depreciation (see attachments). Land cost shall be included. If this is a yearly fixed fee then it should be calculated to net present value.
19 Remaining Costs Costs for elimination of construction at the
end of its useful lifetime. This can also be the period of use. In some circumstances the remaining costs can be income. For example, the sale of the used construction materials for new projects or the whole building for new use.
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 19
Nordic Classification System sub
2 Administration Costs 21 Taxes and Fees Property tax and other required official fees
(and independent expenditures) even if the structure is not in use.
22 External Fees Includes external assistance fees to the management, f.ex. condition survey, legal assistance etc.
23 Administration and Management Salary to administrative employees. Also includes rent of space for the use of management department, documentation of the construction inclusive the management of data-based system for MOMD, the service desk, marketing, internal control, etc.
24 Insurance Includes fire and burglary. Also insurance for necessary building equipment to the management department. Casualty insurance and personal property of user is not included under this insurance.
29 Various Example equipment for operation
department
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 20
The challenge: functionality and value ”in the long term”
The buildings, with their physical limitations, are a deciding factor for continuous efficient operation of the core business.
The goal must be to achieve optimal total economy in the long term, meaning:– Costs related to the buildings should contribute to increased
profit and productivity in the core business – The values which the buildings represent should be continuously
maintained
competent - creative - complete
MULTICONSULT Multidisciplinary Consulting Services
Multi MapStrategic building analysis
Are your buildings suitable for their purpose?
What purposes are your buildings suitable for?
What is the need for technical upgrading
in your building portfolio?
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 22
Analysis of building portfolios, what is that?
Typical characteristics are:
• Standardized classification systems and definitions
• Cost efficiency through use of existing data and knowledge in each organization
• A simultaneous and consistent ”scanning” of the building portfolio
Performance Requirements
Evaluation
Measure
Diagram: Process in accordance with Norwegian Standard for Condition Surveying (NS 3424)
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 23
The model is module based and could be used for several purposes:
• Portfolio and management strategies• Long term development plans• Relocation considerations• Documentation of technical values, space costs and
accumulated need for maintenance• Future use of buildings, and which ones are survivors • Economical estimates for upgrading and long term
investments
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 24
Are your buildings suitable for their purpose - now and in the future?
Combination of poorfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Should be considered for other use or sale.
Combination of poorfunctionality and good
adaptability
Could be functional in longterm. Functional
improvement should be carried out.
Combination of goodfunctionality and good
adaptability.
Current use could be mainatined long term.
Investments are justified.
Combination of goodfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Maintained as long as functionality for current use
is good. Not likely a candidate for long term
investments.
Pooradaptability
Goodadaptability
Goodfunctionality
Poorfunctionality
Combination of poorfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Should be considered for other use or sale.
Combination of poorfunctionality and good
adaptability
Could be functional in longterm. Functional
improvement should be carried out.
Combination of goodfunctionality and good
adaptability.
Current use could be mainatined long term.
Investments are justified.
Combination of goodfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Maintained as long as functionality for current use
is good. Not likely a candidate for long term
investments.
Pooradaptability
Goodadaptability
Goodfunctionality
Poorfunctionality
© Multiconsult AS
Combination of poorfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Should be considered for other use or sale.
Combination of poorfunctionality and good
adaptability
Could be functional in longterm. Functional
improvement should be carried out.
Combination of goodfunctionality and good
adaptability.
Current use could be mainatined long term.
Investments are justified.
Combination of goodfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Maintained as long as functionality for current use
is good. Not likely a candidate for long term
investments.
Pooradaptability
Goodadaptability
Goodfunctionality
Poorfunctionality
Combination of poorfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Should be considered for other use or sale.
Combination of poorfunctionality and good
adaptability
Could be functional in longterm. Functional
improvement should be carried out.
Combination of goodfunctionality and good
adaptability.
Current use could be mainatined long term.
Investments are justified.
Combination of goodfunctionality and poor
adaptability.
Maintained as long as functionality for current use
is good. Not likely a candidate for long term
investments.
Pooradaptability
Goodadaptability
Goodfunctionality
Poorfunctionality
© Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 25
Are your buildings suitable for their purpose
- now and in the future?Adaptability describes the ability to meet new requirements and is a
function of:• Flexibility (possible change of space plan)• Generality (possible change of function)• Elasticity (possible change in volume)
Functionality• how the building meets core business demands regarding space
functions• how the space and the rooms are suited for the various functions
(size, shape, effectiveness) • the internal and external logistics• how the building is suited for co-use, lease etc.
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 26
The importance of good functionality/usability
• Productivity could suffer badly frombad functionality/usability
• Rent and related costs often represent approx 10 % of the turnover in an organization. An improvement resulting in 10% increased rent could be justified if it gives increased productivity by 1 % - This is optimal total economy.
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 27
What functions are your buildings suitable for?
Two essential questions would be asked:
• What functions (core business) fit into the existing buildings?• Where could a certain core business find good premises in my
portfolio?
1) Define the tenants’ requirements of the buildings (requirement profile)
2) Map the buildings characteristics (performance profile)
3) Search in your portfolio to identify the best alternatives for (re)location
MultiMap, Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 28
•Diagram: Requirement profile (Classroom) and performance profile (Building A)
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
•Diagram: Requirement profile (Classroom) and performance profile (Building A)
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS MultiMap, Multiconsult AS
•Diagram: Requirement profile (Classroom) and performance profile (Building A)
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
•Diagram: Requirement profile (Classroom) and performance profile (Building A)
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Matching of profiles throughout the portfolio identifies good alternatives and eliminates the unsuitable.
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Load capacity
Z
YX
Space for technical
Span
Building A
Classroom
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS MultiMap, Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 29
Do your buildings need technical upgrading?
• The buildings represent a major part of our capital value. In the long term technical condition and value will deteriorate. Maintenance and upgrading are means to slow down the deterioration and secure economic and other values.
• Neglected maintenance often leads to damages deeper into the construction. This gives accumulated needs and more costly maintenance.
• Mapping of the buildings’ technical condition gives a basis for estimating technical values and total need for upgrading.
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 30
Diagram: Proportions of the portfolio in satisfactory resp. non-satisfactory condition.
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Diagram: Proportions of the portfolio in satisfactory resp. non-satisfactory condition.
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult ASMultiMap, Multiconsult AS
Diagram: Proportions of the portfolio in satisfactory resp. non-satisfactory condition.
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Diagram: Proportions of the portfolio in satisfactory resp. non-satisfactory condition.
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult AS
Sub standard condition - medium
term need for
upgrading [5 - 8 yearsr]
Poor technical
condition - need for
immediate upgrading [0-
4 years]
Excellent technical
condition - no need for upgrading
Acceptable condition - no need for upgrading
© MulliMap, Multiconsult ASMultiMap, Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 31
The purpose of the analysis will decide how to apply which modules and present results.
© Multiconsult AS
The purpose of the analysis will decide how to apply which modules and present results.
© Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 32
Example part of matrice – grades of demand
Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 4Step 1 Absolute demands
Building Ceiling height> 3,9 m (3,6) Flat ceiling
> 3,6 m (3,3)Feww beams in one direction
> 3,3 m (3,0 m) > 3,0 m (2,7 m)beams and crossing secondary girders
Span > 18 m > 16 m > 14 m > 12 m
free space> 50 m2 (cc > 7 m)
free space >40 m2 free space > 30 m2 free space > 20 m2
Loads4-10 kN/m2, Y kN point load
3,0-4,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
2,0-3,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
1,5-2,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
Space for installations
Space/area
Availability/elevator
etc.
LocationPossibility for expansions
GRADES OF DEMANDParameters
© Multiconsult AS
Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 4Step 1 Absolute demands
Building Ceiling height> 3,9 m (3,6) Flat ceiling
> 3,6 m (3,3)Feww beams in one direction
> 3,3 m (3,0 m) > 3,0 m (2,7 m)beams and crossing secondary girders
Span > 18 m > 16 m > 14 m > 12 m
free space> 50 m2 (cc > 7 m)
free space >40 m2 free space > 30 m2 free space > 20 m2
Loads4-10 kN/m2, Y kN point load
3,0-4,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
2,0-3,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
1,5-2,0 kN/m2, Y kN point load
Space for installations
Space/area
Availability/elevator
etc.
LocationPossibility for expansions
GRADES OF DEMANDParameters
© Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 33
Example demand profiles, absolute demands
© Multiconsult AS
Acu
te r
ecep
tio
n
Ph
ysio
- o
g e
rgo
ther
api
Car
go
/Dis
po
sal/S
tora
ge
Inte
nsi
ve c
are
Off
ice
Lab
ora
tori
es
Rec
epti
on
op
en w
ard
No
rmal
war
d
Su
rger
y ( h
igh
clas
s)
Su
rger
y (n
orm
al c
lass
)
Rad
io t
her
apy
(hig
h
clas
s)R
adio
th
erap
y (n
orm
al
clas
s)
Sp
ecia
l tre
atm
ent
Ste
riliz
ing
cen
tral
Step 1
Building Ceiling height 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3Tier of beams 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2Vertical loads 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2Span 0 0 1 1Loads 1 1 1 0Space installations 0 0 0Space 0 0 1Availability 0 1 1
Total grades of demandStep 1 2 5 7 4 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 7
Functions
Example
© Multiconsult AS
Acu
te r
ecep
tio
n
Ph
ysio
- o
g e
rgo
ther
api
Car
go
/Dis
po
sal/S
tora
ge
Inte
nsi
ve c
are
Off
ice
Lab
ora
tori
es
Rec
epti
on
op
en w
ard
No
rmal
war
d
Su
rger
y ( h
igh
clas
s)
Su
rger
y (n
orm
al c
lass
)
Rad
io t
her
apy
(hig
h
clas
s)R
adio
th
erap
y (n
orm
al
clas
s)
Sp
ecia
l tre
atm
ent
Ste
riliz
ing
cen
tral
Step 1
Building Ceiling height 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3Tier of beams 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2Vertical loads 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2Span 0 0 1 1Loads 1 1 1 0Space installations 0 0 0Space 0 0 1Availability 0 1 1
Total grades of demandStep 1 2 5 7 4 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 7
Functions
Example
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 34
Adaptability
Table, Section of a mapping matrice used for grading adaptability
Parameters Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3BUILDING
Vertical loads/capasity
Extra loadcapasity. Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to new functions. Founded to solid rock.
Most probably some extra loadcapasity. Possible to add some extra loads. Founded to solid rock or piles.
Extra loads not possible. Founded……
SlabsExtra loadcapasity. New work loads possible
Extra loads not possible
SpanLarge free spans, large open spaces, gives room for ……m2.
Large free spans, integrated beams, few posts. Medium large open spaces. Gives room for……m2.
Small spans. Many indoors loadbearing walls. Small open spaces, many vertical
Floor (construction)Floor to ceiling heightInterior wallsRestrictions against føringer and technical installations
User equipment/inventory Innfesting/montasjeHVS
CapasityAvailablity
ELECTRISITY SUPPLYCapasityAvailability
TELECOM AND AUTOMATIONCapasityAvailability
SiteSite conditions Size, localisation
ADAPTABILITY
Heating, ventilation and sanitary services.
Loads/capasity
Structure
EXAMPLE
Extra load capacity.Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to newfunctions. Founded to solid rock.
© Multiconsult ASTable, Section of a mapping matrice used for grading adaptability
Parameters Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3BUILDING
Vertical loads/capasity
Extra loadcapasity. Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to new functions. Founded to solid rock.
Most probably some extra loadcapasity. Possible to add some extra loads. Founded to solid rock or piles.
Extra loads not possible. Founded……
SlabsExtra loadcapasity. New work loads possible
Extra loads not possible
SpanLarge free spans, large open spaces, gives room for ……m2.
Large free spans, integrated beams, few posts. Medium large open spaces. Gives room for……m2.
Small spans. Many indoors loadbearing walls. Small open spaces, many vertical
Floor (construction)Floor to ceiling heightInterior wallsRestrictions against føringer and technical installations
User equipment/inventory Innfesting/montasjeHVS
CapasityAvailablity
ELECTRISITY SUPPLYCapasityAvailability
TELECOM AND AUTOMATIONCapasityAvailability
SiteSite conditions Size, localisation
ADAPTABILITY
Heating, ventilation and sanitary services.
Loads/capasity
Structure
EXAMPLE
Extra load capacity.Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to newfunctions. Founded to solid rock.
Parameters Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3BUILDING
Vertical loads/capasity
Extra loadcapasity. Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to new functions. Founded to solid rock.
Most probably some extra loadcapasity. Possible to add some extra loads. Founded to solid rock or piles.
Extra loads not possible. Founded……
SlabsExtra loadcapasity. New work loads possible
Extra loads not possible
SpanLarge free spans, large open spaces, gives room for ……m2.
Large free spans, integrated beams, few posts. Medium large open spaces. Gives room for……m2.
Small spans. Many indoors loadbearing walls. Small open spaces, many vertical
Floor (construction)Floor to ceiling heightInterior wallsRestrictions against føringer and technical installations
User equipment/inventory Innfesting/montasjeHVS
CapasityAvailablity
ELECTRISITY SUPPLYCapasityAvailability
TELECOM AND AUTOMATIONCapasityAvailability
SiteSite conditions Size, localisation
ADAPTABILITY
Heating, ventilation and sanitary services.
Loads/capasity
Structure
EXAMPLE
Extra load capacity.Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to newfunctions. Founded to solid rock.
Parameters Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3BUILDING
Vertical loads/capasity
Extra loadcapasity. Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to new functions. Founded to solid rock.
Most probably some extra loadcapasity. Possible to add some extra loads. Founded to solid rock or piles.
Extra loads not possible. Founded……
SlabsExtra loadcapasity. New work loads possible
Extra loads not possible
SpanLarge free spans, large open spaces, gives room for ……m2.
Large free spans, integrated beams, few posts. Medium large open spaces. Gives room for……m2.
Small spans. Many indoors loadbearing walls. Small open spaces, many vertical
Floor (construction)Floor to ceiling heightInterior wallsRestrictions against føringer and technical installations
User equipment/inventory Innfesting/montasjeHVS
CapasityAvailablity
ELECTRISITY SUPPLYCapasityAvailability
TELECOM AND AUTOMATIONCapasityAvailability
SiteSite conditions Size, localisation
ADAPTABILITY
Heating, ventilation and sanitary services.
Loads/capasity
Structure
EXAMPLE
Extra load capacity.Possibility for extra floors and/or extra loads due to newfunctions. Founded to solid rock.
© Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 35
How well is the buildings suited for the core business? Case: 159 schools, 687 buildings
3 0 % 0 % 1 % 0 %
2 1 % 4 % 16 % 8 %
1 3 % 16 % 28 % 7 %
0 4 % 9 % 4 % 0 %
0 1 2 3
Fun
ctio
nalit
y
Adaptability
Productivity loss - rent reduction
Short lifetime-reduced value
Fig. Multiconsult AS
3 0 % 0 % 1 % 0 %
2 1 % 4 % 16 % 8 %
1 3 % 16 % 28 % 7 %
0 4 % 9 % 4 % 0 %
0 1 2 3
Fun
ctio
nalit
y
Adaptability
Productivity loss - rent reduction
Short lifetime-reduced value
Fig. Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 36
How well is the building suited for the core business? Example case nn hospital
Building 7, functionality and adaptability
B7, E1B7, E2
B7, E3
B7, E4
B7, E5B7, E6
B7, E8B7, E10
B7, E0B7, E7
B7, E9
Adaptability
Fu
nct
ion
ali
ty
High Adaptability Low Adaptability
Goo
dfu
nkB
ad f
unk
Ref. Multiconsult AS/Locum AB
Building 7, functionality and adaptability
B7, E1B7, E2
B7, E3
B7, E4
B7, E5B7, E6
B7, E8B7, E10
B7, E0B7, E7
B7, E9
Adaptability
Fu
nct
ion
ali
ty
High Adaptability Low Adaptability
Goo
dfu
nkB
ad f
unk
Building 7, functionality and adaptability
B7, E1B7, E2
B7, E3
B7, E4
B7, E5B7, E6
B7, E8B7, E10
B7, E0B7, E7
B7, E9
Adaptability
Fu
nct
ion
ali
ty
High Adaptability Low Adaptability
Goo
dfu
nkB
ad f
unk
Ref. Multiconsult AS/Locum AB
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 37
Results, example nn hospital
Grafic illustration Function: Normal ward
Building 6Floor 4
Function today Office
Floor Demand ControlCeiling height 3 2 NOTier of beams 1 1 OKVertical loads 0 0 OKSpan 0 1 OKWork loads 2 2 OKInstallations - available space 3 1 NOSpace 0 1 OKAvailability - elevator 0 1 OKPossibility for expansionsEletricity 2 1 NOHVAC 3 3 OKGas 3 1 NODaylight 1 1 OKExternal logistics 2 2 OKInternal logistics 3 2 NOCommunication 1 1 OKAdaptability 2 2 OK
-1
0
1
2
3Ceiling height
Tier of beams
Vertical loads
Span
Work loads
Installations - availablespace
Space
Availability - elevator
Floor properties DemandEconomic issue
Absolute demands
Multiconsult AS
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 38
Results, example - case nn hospital
Ref. Multiconsult AS/Locum AB
Building Floor Function today Acu
te r
ecep
tio
n
Ph
ysio
- o
g e
rgo
ther
api
Car
go
/Dis
po
sal/S
tora
ge In
ten
sive
car
e
Off
ice
Lab
ora
tori
es
Rec
epti
on
op
en w
ard
No
rmal
war
d
Su
rger
y ( h
igh
clas
s)
Su
rger
y (n
orm
al c
lass
)R
adio
th
erap
y (h
igh
cl
ass)
Rad
io t
her
apy
(no
rmal
cl
ass)
Sp
ecia
l tre
atm
ent
Ste
riliz
ing
cen
tral
AbsoluteEconomicAbsoluteEconomic
Absolute 7 7 7 6 8 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7Economic 1 5 7 2 7 4 3 5 1 3 3 5 3 4Absolute 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8Economic 2 5 7 2 7 5 3 5 2 2 2 5 3 4Absolute 6 6 5 5 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 5Economic 2 5 7 1 7 5 3 5 1 1 2 5 3 4Absolute 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Economic 2 6 8 2 7 5 4 6 1 3 4 6 4 5Absolute 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Economic 2 5 7 2 7 5 3 5 2 2 2 5 3 4
6 6 Office
6 4 Office
6 5 Closed ward
6 2 Reception, conference, printing office, caretaker
6 3 Office
6 0 TechnicalNot relevant
6 1 Kitchen, teknical space, disposal
Ref. Multiconsult AS/Locum AB
Building Floor Function today Acu
te r
ecep
tio
n
Ph
ysio
- o
g e
rgo
ther
api
Car
go
/Dis
po
sal/S
tora
ge In
ten
sive
car
e
Off
ice
Lab
ora
tori
es
Rec
epti
on
op
en w
ard
No
rmal
war
d
Su
rger
y ( h
igh
clas
s)
Su
rger
y (n
orm
al c
lass
)R
adio
th
erap
y (h
igh
cl
ass)
Rad
io t
her
apy
(no
rmal
cl
ass)
Sp
ecia
l tre
atm
ent
Ste
riliz
ing
cen
tral
AbsoluteEconomicAbsoluteEconomic
Absolute 7 7 7 6 8 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7Economic 1 5 7 2 7 4 3 5 1 3 3 5 3 4Absolute 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8Economic 2 5 7 2 7 5 3 5 2 2 2 5 3 4Absolute 6 6 5 5 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 5Economic 2 5 7 1 7 5 3 5 1 1 2 5 3 4Absolute 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Economic 2 6 8 2 7 5 4 6 1 3 4 6 4 5Absolute 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Economic 2 5 7 2 7 5 3 5 2 2 2 5 3 4
6 6 Office
6 4 Office
6 5 Closed ward
6 2 Reception, conference, printing office, caretaker
6 3 Office
6 0 TechnicalNot relevant
6 1 Kitchen, teknical space, disposal
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 39
Advantages
– Expedient approach for larger building portfolios or as a first scan of a single building.
– Systematic and effective/efficient process with regard to time, costs and resources.
– General methodology – can be adapted to different core activities and types of buildings
– Flexibility in level of detailing– Easy to use
Bjørberg and Larssen - EUHPN Oulu, Finland, June 14 2005
Side: 40
Further development:
• Evaluation of functionality/usability and adaptability – especially related to health care/hospitals
• Adaptability in a LCC-perspective
• Demand profiles – verification. Differ between new and existing buildings.
• Site and area (external and global logistics)
• New modules?