Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis

of Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative
Concretes and Masonry Blocks

H. K. Sugandhini and Shashwath M. Nanjannavar

Abstract In India, there is an ever rising demand for the production of construction
materials like cement, which in turn depletes Earth’s natural resources and liberates
harmful greenhouse gases. This brings the need for implementing sustainable
practices in the construction industry in India by using supplementary materials for
producing concrete. In the present study, fly ash, rice husk ash (RHA), ground-
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and manufactured sand (M-sand) are used
to produce alternative concretes, and laterite, concrete, and stabilized mud blocks
are used for masonry purpose. This study mainly focuses on cost-effectiveness of
alternative concretes using life cycle costing (LCC) considering initial costs,
maintenance costs, energy usage costs, and residual costs of both controls and
alternative concretes. An eight-storeyed residential building model is developed
using STAAD Pro to determine the best combination of alternative concrete and
masonry block. The design mixes show adequate compression, flexural, and split
tensile strengths for both control as well as alternative concretes tested after 28 days
curing period. While SCC being the highest in compression (55.06 MPa) and split
tension (8.66 MPa), concrete with 30% GGBFS replacement to cement gives the
highest flexural strength (5.41 MPa). Further, the LCC model results show that the
concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement is the most cost-effective out of all
other concrete types. The results from STAAD Pro model recommends to use
concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement and concrete block as the best
combination for cost-effectiveness.

Keywords Sustainability
Supplementary materials
Life cycle costing

Software STAAD
Pro V8i

H. K. Sugandhini (&)
Manipal Institute of Technology, MAHE, Manipal, India
e-mail: sugandhini.hk@manipal.edu
S. M. Nanjannavar
K.L.E. Technological University, Hubballi, India
e-mail: shashwat@bvb.edu

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 409

B. B. Das and N. Neithalath (eds.), Sustainable Construction
and Building Materials, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 25,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37
410 H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar

1 Introduction

The largest construction material in India is concrete. The average emission

resulting from manufacturing each ton of clinker (raw cement) is around 1 ton of
CO2 [1]. To control this higher CO2 emission and reduce the liberation of green-
house gases, the sustainable practices/methods have become the need of the hour.
Sustainability is defined as the “ability to meet our current needs without
compromising the ability of future generation to meet theirs” [2]. A potential future
shortage of low-cost raw materials is the prime consideration in the context of
cement industry because of its huge consumption of conventional limestone-based
materials. Portland cement production represents 74–81% of the overall CO2
emission of concrete, while aggregate production represents 13–20% only. Hence,
clinker content in cement and concrete must be reduced by using supplementary
materials such as GGBFS, fly ash, rice husk ash, manufactured sand, etc., to
achieve sustainability goals. These concretes are commonly referred to as alterna-
tive concrete. This study focuses on the economics and cost-effectiveness of the
alternative concretes. Before 1970, developers and consultants are used to consider
only capital cost for the determination of investment type. LCC is widely recog-
nized as a technique by which a holistic view of long-term costs can be easily
considered. Hence, under this study, the various components of LCC for alternative
concretes are initial cost/capital cost, maintenance cost, repair cost, energy cost, and
salvage value

1.1 Life Cycle Costing

There is an urge to develop models of LCC to determine the building costs and
long-term financial benefits. Before 1970, developers and consultants are used to
consider only capital cost for the determination of investment type. Recently,
the projects taken by the means of Private Finance Initiative ways to support the
adoption of LCC methods as they provide an estimation of long-term investment.
This brings the need for considering the cost of long-term ownership for building
constructed using sustainable concrete. LCC is widely recognized as a technique by
which a holistic view of long-term costs can be easily considered. It has been used
majorly in decision-making steps when, for example, comparing numerous alter-
natives of building designs and rehabilitation strategies.
Life cycle costing is a tool or technique that involves all the costs for a product
during the life cycle of that product, to meet its own performance requirements. The
main motivation to use LCC is to increase the possibility of cost reduction when
making decisions in the design or initial stages. Hence, under this study, the various
components of LCC for alternative concretes are initial cost/capital cost, mainte-
nance cost, repair cost, energy cost, and salvage value.
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 411

2 Problem Statement

Life cycle costing of structures has gained momentum in the recent past due to the
durability issues and the huge maintenance and repair costs incurred at the early
stages of their intended service life. But, studies related to the life cycle cost at the
initial stage while choosing the material that exhibits desired mechanical properties
in terms of strength and durability is very less often to be seen in the literature. With
the drastic advancement in material science and construction materials, the present
study attempts to evaluate and asses the use of alternative concretes and masonry
blocks as building components for their cost-effectiveness through life cycle costing
(LCC) method.

3 Objective of the Study

1. To evaluate the strength parameters of both control and alternative concretes.

2. To apply life cycle costing analysis for various cost drivers and to analyze the
cost-effectiveness of various concretes.
3. To develop a STAAD Pro model and suggest the best possible combination of
masonry blocks and concrete on cost-effectiveness.

4 Methodology

The methodology for data accumulation and to carry out the life cycle costing
analysis on concrete and masonry block is discussed as below:
1. A comprehensive mix design is arrived for M40 grade of concrete as shown in
Table 1. Using the same mix design, different industrial by-products along with
M-sand are used to partially substitute cement and fine aggregate, respectively,
to produce alternative concretes. After 28 days of curing period, the concretes
are tested for compressive strength, split tensile strength, and flexure strength to
validate the use as a structural component.
2. The costs of masonry blocks is procured locally by arriving at an average rate.
3. The cost-effectiveness of both control and alternative concrete is determined by
using deterministic LCC model.
4. To validate the cost-effectiveness of the concretes under study, an eight-storeyed
residential building is modeled using STAAD Pro. The concrete take offs and
steel requirements for control concrete and best alternative concrete is compared
to determine the cost savings.
412 H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar

Table 1 Mix design proportion

Name Cement Fly Coarse Fine M-sand Water Admixture
ash aggregate aggregate (L/m3)
Control concrete 350 – 1122.26 426.14 426.14 140 4
RHA (10%) 346 – 1114.73 423.28 423.28 140 3.54
replacement
GGBFS (30%) 269 – 1099.672 417.56 417.56 140 2.75
replacement
Fly ash (50%) 193 192 1054.48 400.40 400.40 140 2
replacement
Self-compacting 360 240 700 763 – 181.5 7.2
concrete
NACa 315.5 1287.2 – – – 252.4 6.13
All quantities in kg/m3 except water. aNAC—no aggregate concrete
10% RHA replaced concrete includes 39 kg/m3 of rice husk ash
30% GGBFS replaced concrete includes 116 kg/m3 of ground granulated blast furnace slag

4.1 M40 Mix Proportions

See Table 1.

4.2 Life Cycle Costing Approach and Its Components

The methods for life cycle costing of different concretes are conducted as per IS
13174 (Part 2):1994. The IS provides two methods, viz., present worth method
(PW) and annualized cost method (AC). The LCC for the present study utilizes
present worth method. This method converts all costs over the life of the item or
project to the present value. The components considered for the present study on
LCC are initial costs, maintenance costs, energy costs, and salvage/residual value.

LCCalternative ¼ PW ðInitial CostÞ þ PW ðMaintenance CostÞ þ PW ðEnergy CostsÞ

 PW ðSalvage=Residual ValueÞ

PW Present Worth
In this study, the rate of discount per annum is assumed at 8% and the length of
the study period is 20 years. The value of discount rate is chosen as the average rate
of interest on loans in Indian banks in the infrastructure industry.
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 413

4.3 Modeling of the Structure Using STAAD Pro V8i

For the model dead loads, live loads, and wind loads in positive X-direction and
seismic load in accordance with IS 1893 for Zone II are considered.
Model 1: Beams and columns are made of conventional M40 concrete. The walls
are built using laterite blocks.
Model 2: Beams and columns are made of fly ash concrete of M40 strength. The
walls are built using concrete blocks.
Model 3: Beams and columns are made of fly ash concrete of M40 strength. The
walls are built using laterite blocks. The details of section and material properties
are as shown in Table 2.
The plan model has 6  6 bays with each side of the bay of 5 m length.

5 Results and Discussions

5.1 Material Testing

The tests conducted to determine the basic material properties are as shown in
Table 3.

Table 2 Details of section and material properties

Section and material properties Beams (mm) Columns (mm)
Dimensions 230  400 600  400
Type of concrete M40 M40

Table 3 Results of material testing

Property/ Specific Fineness passing Normal Initial Moisture
material gravity 45 lm 90 lm consistency setting content
time
Cement 3 – 95% 29% 72 min –
Fly ash 2.02 85% – – – –
GGBFS 2.85 – 78% – – –
RHA 2.14 72% – – – –
Coarse 2.69 – – – – 0.15%
aggregate
Fine 2.6 – – – – 0.12%
aggregate
Superplastizer 1.7 – – – – –
414 H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar

Table 4 Results of strength parameters of control and alternative concretes

Name of the specimen Compressive Split tensile Flexural
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
Control concrete 45.33 3.01 4.29
Concrete replaced with 40.36 2.71 3.99
10% RHA
Concrete replaced with 40.73 3.01 5.41
30% GGBFS
Concrete replaced with 43.16 2.70 4.41
50% Fly Ash
Self-compacting concrete 55.06 8.66 4.91
Non-aggregate concrete 55.06 1.678 3.79

5.2 Strength Parameters

The results obtained for control and alternative concretes under compression,
flexure, and split tension are presented in Table 4.

5.3 Cost of Masonry Blocks

The various masonry blocks listed are laterite block, concrete block, and stabilized
mud block. The laterite block is most widely used in Udupi region. The average
rates of production of these masonry blocks of 9 in. thickness per block are: laterite
block: `35 (dressed),1 concrete block: `37, and stabilized mud block: `40. All the
rates were procured locally and vary from region to region. Therefore, the most
economically feasible blocks are laterite and concrete.

5.4 Life Cycle Costing

The following are the cost parameters considered for the study under life cycle
costing.

1
Utilization of machine to remove surface irregularities and shapes of laterite block.
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 415

Table 5 Initial cost for control concrete

S. No. Item Quantity Units Rate/unit (in `) Total
1 Cement 350 kg/m3 375/bag 2625
2 Coarse aggregate 1122.26 kg/m3 1050/m3 438
3 Fine aggregate 426.14 kg/m3 1700/m3 278.63
4 Manufactured sand 426.14 kg/m3 1700/m3 278.63
5 Water 140 L/m3 40 kL 5.6
6 Super plasticizer 4 No’s 125/L 500
Total initial cost `4125.86

5.4.1 Initial Costs

(a) The initial cost for the production of control concrete is presented in Table 5.
Table 6 presents the cost of labor per cubic meter of concrete production as per
PWD SR 2016-17 for south zone.
Machine Mixer Rent as per PWD SR-16-17 for 1 cm capacity per day = 1600/
day.
Similarly initial cost for all alternative concretes is derived for 1 m3 of concrete
which is tabulated in Table 7.

Table 6 Cost of labors Labor type Category Rate (in `)

Labor Unskilled 141.18
Bhisti Unskilled 141.18
Mixer operator Skilled 264.88
Mixer Semi-skilled 259.8
Total = 807.12

Table 7 Initial cost of Control concrete Quantity Units Rate in `

control and alternative
concretes Control concrete 1 m3 6532.98
Concrete with fly ash 1 m3 5098.22
Concrete with RHA 1 m3 6468.85
Concrete with GGBFS 1 m3 6200.24
Non-aggregate concrete 1 m3 5575.04
SCC 1 m3 6788.87
416 H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar

Table 8 Total maintenance cost per square meter

S. No. Item Periodicity Component rate in ` Total in `
1 White washing/color washing 2 years 6 + 8.85 148.5
2 Applying dry distemper 2 years 14 140
3 Painting with plaster paint synthetic 3 years 70 + 28 686
enamel paint, oil bound distemper,
acrylic paint, acrylic distemper
4 Painting external surface with water 3 years 6.65 46.55
proofing cement paint
Total cost in `1021.05/m2

5.4.2 Maintenance Cost

The maintenance activity on a building is followed in accordance with the in

Annexure-23 of Central PWD (CPWD) maintenance manual. The costs of the
various parameters are calculated for per square meter of area and include the cost
of materials as well as labor as per PWD schedule of rates (South zone) for the
year 2016-2017. Table 8 shows the total maintenance cost calculated for various
concretes.

5.4.3 Residual/Salvage Values

The salvage value is assumed to be 10% of cost of construction. The depreciation

values are calculated using straight line method for a period of 20 years. Table 9
gives depreciation costs for all the concrete types.

Table 9 Depreciation costs of various concretes

Type of Cost of Salvage value Equivalent spent Life of the Quantum of
concrete construction of 10% life of building building in depreciation
(R) in ` (1 − p) (le) years (I) “Q” in `
Control 6532.98 0.9 20 60 1959.89
50% fly 5098.22 0.9 20 60 1529.46
ash
10% 6468.85 0.9 20 60 1940.45
RHA
30% 6200.24 0.9 20 60 1860.07
GGBFS
NAC 5575.04 0.9 20 60 1672.51
SCC 6788.87 0.9 20 60 2036.66
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 417

5.4.4 Energy Costs

The life cycle energy costs are calculated by considering a study period of
20 years and at a discount rate of 8% for the current prices of electricity per unit
in the city of Udupi. The electrical consumption is obtained for different alter-
native concretes by using Rivet and insight 360 in kWh. The energy consumption
is simulated and measured initially and then total energy costs per month are
computed accordingly.

5.4.5 Total Life Cycle Costs

The total life cycle cost is calculated by adding all the positive cost parameters and
subtracting the negative cost parameters. The positive cost parameters include Initial
costs, maintenance costs and energy use costs, the only negative considered in the
construction industry is the residual/salvage value. Tables 10 and 11 gives the vari-
ous cost inputs and the total life cycle cost for various concretes under study.
The life cycle cost is observed least for concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to
cement as shown in Table 10 is `17608.72 for a study period of 20 years, discount
rate of 8 and 6.9% of inflation rate. This cost-effectiveness is achieved by lower
initial and life cycle energy/operation cost. In this analysis of life cycle cost, the
maintenance cost is assumed to be the same for all the types of concrete, hence the
life cycle costing is majorly dependent on the initial cost and energy costs.

Table 10 Cost of energy consumption per month for various concretes

Type of Total consumption Present Consumption per Cost of energy use
concrete 20 years in kWh worth month in kWh per month in `
factor
Control 193,807 0.1482 807.5 4647.25
50% fly 193,344 0.1482 805.6 4636.04
ash
10% 193,700 0.1482 807 4644.3
RHA
30% 193,691.26 0.1482 807 4644.3
GGBFS
NAC 192,526.7 0.1482 802.2 4615.98
SCC 193,006.38 0.1482 804.2 4627.78
 418

Table 11 LCC of control concrete and concrete with fly ash

S. Item Values Control Concrete Concrete Concrete NAC SCC
No. concrete with fly with RHA with
ash GGBFS
1 Total initial cost E 6532.98 5098.22 6468.85 6200.24 5575.04 6788.87
P 6532.98 5098.22 6468.85 6200.24 5575.04 6788.87
2 Maintenance cost E 1021.05 1021.05 1021.05 1021.05 1021.05 1021.05
(Amt  upwf) = (Amt  9.814) P 10,020.58 10,020.58 10,020.58 10,020.58 10,020.58 10,020.5
3 Energy use costs (Amt  0.8015) E 4647.25 4636.04 4644.3 4644.3 4615.98 4627.78
P 3724.77 3715.78 3722.41 3722.41 3699.71 3709.17
4 Salvage value of concretes at the end of 20 E 1959.89 1529.46 1940.65 1860.07 1672.51 2036.66
years (Amount  pwf) = (Amt  0.8015) P 1570.85 1225.86 1555.43 1490.84 1340.52 1632.38
5 Life cycle cost (present worth total) P 18,710.48 17,608.72 18,656.41 18,452.39 17,954.81 18,886.2
E = Estimated worth in `, P = Present worth in `
H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 419

5.5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Using STAAD Pro

Model

The best alternative concrete is chosen from the life cycle costing analysis and is
applied to STAAD Pro model of an eight-storeyed building. This is then compared
with a similar model using conventional materials. The control concrete which
contains only cement as the binding agent is replaced by most cost-effective con-
crete, i.e., concrete having 50% fly ash replacements to cement.

5.5.1 Concrete and Steel Requirement

• Total Volume of Concrete = 591.4 cum. Table 12 provides the quantity of steel
for different models used for the present study.
From the Above Results
• Concrete Requirements
The concrete required in all cases is equal as the structure is modeled for same
section properties. This is done to achieve uniformity and ease in the analysis of
results. Now, a demonstrative calculation is done to show the amount of cement that
could be utilized in the conventional concrete by replacing 50% of the cement by
fly ash.
Calculations
As per the mix design, the mix proportions for the concrete used in beams and
columns as M40 is (1:2.435:3.206)
• Cost Comparison is presented in Table 13.
10,68,750 − 5,44,350 = `524,400 which leads to 49% of cost saving.

Table 12 Total weight of steel required for model

Weight of steel total (N) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
519,673 525,121 536,382

Table 13 The cost of both concretes

Type of concrete No. of bags ` Rate per bag ` Total `
Control concrete—OPC 43 grade cement 2850 375 10,68,750
50% fly ash-based concrete—(i) cement, 1425 375 5,34,375
(ii) fly ash 1425 7 9975
420 H. K. Sugandhini and S. M. Nanjannavar

• Steel Requirement
The quantity of Steel reinforcement required in columns and beams in kgs.
(a) Control concrete and laterite block model = 519,673 N = 52,973 kg
(b) Fly ash concrete and concrete block model = 525,121 N = 53,529 kg
(c) Control concrete and laterite block model = 536,382 N = 54,677 kg
The difference in steel quantities of model 1 and model 2 = 556 kg = 0.556 MT
which is equal to 1% increment in steel for fly ash-based concrete and concrete
block model as compared to the latter. Additional cost: 0.556  51,000 = `28,356
The model 3 with the laterite block and fly ash concrete require the highest
quantity of steel as compared to the other two models. This is due to the lower
compressive strength of the concrete with fly ash as compared to the control
concrete.
Hence, the comparison of cost savings was carried out between the model 1 and
model 2. The results showed that there is an additional cost of `28,356.00 in the
steel required for the concrete with fly ash model. However, this extra cost of steel
is compensated by 49% of cost reduction in the concrete.

6 Conclusions

The identified industrial by-products can be successfully used as partial replacement

for concrete. The results obtained for strength parameter tests confirm the same.
Hence, these concretes can be considered to be used as structural members.
Out of the cost drivers identified like procurement price, engineering design and
development cost, commissioning and installation cost, initial training and technical
data collection, support equipment and parts upgrade cost, environmental impact
cost and taxes, labor, materials cost, consumables and overhead cost, replacement
and renewal cost, spare parts/supplier support and supply cost, operating cost, it can
be concluded that to apply LCC model to concrete, the major cost driver are initial
cost, maintenance cost, energy cost, and salvage/residual values.
Based on the results, it is observed that the initial costs and the energy con-
sumption costs of various concretes are the major contributors to life cycle costing.
The maintenance cost of the concretes is much higher than the initial cost over the
years.
With the results of the STAAD Pro model and the subsequent cost savings
calculation, the best combination for cost-effectiveness is concrete with fly ash and
concrete blocks.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dr. N. Bhanumathidas and Mr. N. Kalidas, Eco
Carbon Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, the patent holders of
Non-Aggregate Concrete (NAC), for imparting the knowledge on NAC, and for their valuable
inputs in the successful completion of this project.
Life Cycle Costing for the Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness … 421

References

1. Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. https://www.nrmca.
org/greenconcrete/CONCRETE%20CO2%20FACT%20SHEET%20JUNE%202008.pdf.
2. Designing Building Wiki. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Sustainability_in_
building_design_and_construction.