Life Cycle Cos,ng analysis of an Intelligent Building

SEMINAR-1
Vipul Jain
SPA/NS/BEM/791

Introduc,on
At the beginning of 1980s the term intelligent building was first used in the United States. This concept
developed as the increasing demand for ‘comfort living and for increased occupant control of their local
environment’ (Wigginton M, 2002). In the present scenario developing naSons, like India, are the largest
consumers of energy worldwide. India, as a responsive naSon has started to address this issue. Through the
model of incorporaSng smart technology systems in the buildings, the city level and eventually naSonwide,
therefore concept of intelligent buildings is being implemented in various commercial and even residential
sectors. The intent of an intelligent building concept is to reduce the energy consumpSon and reduce carbon
footprint of any establishment.

Buildings are a long lasSng product that undergo decisions that have long term consequences throughout its
service life. All the consultants working in the construcSon industry are constantly trying to minimize the
total project cost. Though it is unfortunate that many of them do not understand the concept of the total
project cost. The total project cost is the sum of iniSal investment, operaSon cost and the disposal cost of the
product or service, i.e. the sum of all expenses throughout its life (Kovacic I, 2015) yet as per their
understanding, they focus only on reducing the purchase cost of the product and services while making a
decision. An efficient consultant or project manager aims to minimize the total project cost, rather than only
the iniSal cost. Therefore in the early design phase the decision play an important role for the expected
future performance of a building throughout the life cycle. It must be noted that the opSmizaSon potenSal
increases at a very small cost. According to Bogensta]er these early design decisions influences the
operaSonal cost up to 80% (Bogensta]er, 2000). Any changes in the la]er stages require a substanSally
increasing cost.

Life Cycle CosSng (LCC) is an effecSve tool to analyze the various alternaSve that can be incorporated to
ensure cost effecSve reducSon of energy consumpSon. LCC is an investment evaluaSon tool that considers
iniSal cost, facility management cost and even the disposal cost. LCC therefore helps in evaluaSng the total
cost of the ownership between mutually exclusive alternaSves. Failures to account for all project outlays
oden results in selecSon of sub opSmal alternaSves. Therefore it’s important for owners to establish strict
guidelines for project evaluaSon and control for efficient decision making.

Keywords
Intelligent buildings, IniSal cost, Facility management cost, Disposal cost, Asset Life, Trade Off, Life
cycle cosSng, net present value

Need of Study
In India, the concept of intelligent buildings is fairly a new concept sSll in its dormant stage. There have been
incorporaSon of some technology and growing demand of fully intelligent buildings and even ciSes. Schemes
and efforts are being taken by the government of India to promote this concept. Therefore a need for study
in this area in Indian context is required to facilitate the use and development of the cost effecSve and
innovaSve technology.

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 1

Research Gap
In the smart or intelligent building sector enough study have been conducted on the innovaSon of
technologies and performance evaluaSon. There exist a reasonable gap in the study of the evaluaSon of the
total investment throughout the life cycle of these technologies.

Objec,ves

1. Study various latest technology being used in Intelligent Building.

2. EvaluaSng the investment in the technologies for intelligent building and a convenSonal building
through life cycle cost analysis.
3. Analyze the investment cost benefits of intelligent building over a convenSonal building through a
case study.
4. Suggest recommendaSons for evaluaSng the incorporaSon of intelligent building technologies.

Aim

To evaluate and analyze Life Cycle CosSng of technologies used in Intelligent Buildings.

Literature Review

Intelligent Buildings

The purely technological definiSon of intelligent building has been criScized by many researchers. for
instance , DEGW in mid-1980s found that buildings which were unable to deal with changes within the
organizaSons that occupy them, or within the informaSon technology that they use, would become
prematurely obsolete or require substanSal refurbishment or demoliSon. Many experts (Robathan, 1994),
(Loveday.1997), (Preiser and Schramm, 2002 ) and (Wigginton and Harris, 2002) suggested that intelligent
buildings must answer user requirements. consistent with (Clements-Croome ,1997), there has been growing
awareness that the services systems and work process management of a building have close relaSon- ships
with the well-being of human. The building environment affects the wellbeing and luxury of human within the
workplace, and successively it influences human’s producSvity, morale and saSsfacSon. Some authors
suggested the intelligent building accentuates a ‘mulSdisciplinary effort to integrate and opSmize the building
structures, systems, services and management so as to make a producSve, cost effecSve and environmentally
approved environment for the building occupants’.

Most recently, variety of authors have extended the definiSon of intelligent building and have added ‘learning
ability’ and ‘performance adjustment from its occupancy and therefore the environment’ within the definiSon
(Wigginton, 2002). They proposed intelligent building isn't only ready to react and alter accordingly to
individual, organizaSonal and environmental requirement, but is addiSonally capable of learning and adjusSng
performance from its occupancy and therefore the environment.

On the opposite hand, it appears that different intelligent building professional bodies even have different
understanding of intelligent building. (A.C.W Wong, 2001) acknowledged both the intelligent building
insStutes within the us and therefore the uk have inconsistent interpretaSon of building intelligence. The
Intelligent Building InsStute of the us defines an intelligent building as ‘one which provides a producSve and
cost-effecSve environment through opSmizaSon of its four basic elements including structures, systems,
services and management and therefore the interrelaSonships between them’ (Wigginton, 2002). In contrast,
the UK-based European Intelligent Building Group defines an intelligent building as ‘one that makes an
environment which maximizes the effecSveness of the building’s occupants, while at an equivalent Sme
enabling efficient management of resources with minimum life-Sme costs of hardware and
faciliSes’ (Wigginton, 2002). The difference indicates the united kingdom definiSon is more focused on users’
requirements, while the US definiSon is more targeSng technologies.

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 2

Research on intelligent building has been conducted ubiquitously and research results are published in many
academic journals. Much research work has been that specialize in the discussion of intelligent building
technology development and performance evaluaSon methodologies. However, li]le literature has been
dedicated to addressing investment evaluaSon techniques of intelligent buildings. Also, there exists
insufficient informaSon and support for investment decision-making at the conceptual stage of intelligent
building development. The growing investment on intelligent buildings and therefore the greater demand for
demonstraSng its profitability of intelligent building have led to the invesSgaSon for methods and techniques
which will be of assistance in evaluaSng intelligent building investments, preferably at the conceptual stage.

Total Project Cost

Total project cost is a combinaSon of the acquisiSon cost of a product, facility management (operaSon and
support) costs incurred during its use, and disposal cost ader the product service life is over (CT = CA + CFM +
CD). In the research work by El- Haram and Horner (2003) the study indicates that, majority of expenses are
incurred in the facility management and the acquisiSon cost accounts only a small percentage of that.
Therefore, it is important to understand for the decision maker that it’s important to analyze total project cost
rather than choosing on the basis of the acquisiSon cost of the product or services. It must be noted that
during the operaSon phase it’s not possible to be able to influence the total cost whereas the total cost can be
controlled while opSng the product in the acquisiSon phase (Chasey & Schexneyder, 2000). Thus, the project
cost opSmizaSon plays a vital role in the acquisiSon phase, and it’s the responsibility of the decision maker to
exercise all parameter before selecSon.

Acquisi,on Cost

AcquisiSon cost is the capital cost or the iniSal cost required to integrate any system or product in service. This
cost is a funcSon of the project requirements. The project requirements are shaped by a group of designers,
engineers and other such consultants who use their opSmum knowledge and experience to integrate any
system that helps to achieve the project objecSves (Chasey & Schexneyder, 2000). This phase helps in
determining the durability and maintainability which in turn provides a picture of the effecSveness of the
project and its components. It has been observed that 80% of a system life cycle cost is gets fixed during the
acquisiSon phase (Chao & Ishii, 2004). Therefore, it's very important to acquire a fair understanding of how
specified systems will perform during its operaSon. This directs to a requirement of the evaluaSon of, failure
modes and their effects on available potenSal alternaSves systems (usually two or more, serving for the same
period) based on discussion with stakeholders, especially facility management team, prior to asset
specificaSon and decision. Research by Pinto and Kharbada (1996) have indicated that one of the reason for
the project failure is ignoring the parameters of environment and stakeholders. Mearig, Coffee, and Morgan
(1999) highlighted that decisions that designers take determine iniSal and future costs that are incurred. For
instance, choosing aluminium frames instead of wooden frames, or paver blocks over asphalt paving
determines iniSal and subsequent facility management costs. Thus, failure to account for the possible project
trade-offs can affect maintenance and replacement costs (Chao & Ishii, 2004).

Facility Management Costs

According to works of El-Haram and Horner (2003) facility management cost for an asset or system can vary up
to two to three Smes more than acquisiSon costs. Thus, there is a requirement to design projects in such a
way that reduces the facility management costs. El-Haram and Horner noted that integrated logisScs support
(ILS), which takes into account a combinaSon of techniques and procedures used in the defense, aviaSon and
oil industries that helps in selecSon of effecSve maintenance techniques should also be used in the project
planning and design stage to reduce future facility management outlays. One of the ILS techniques that is
widely used is LCC, this method uses future management investment to forecast the cost of ownership of
available mutually exclusive alternaSves intend to use for similar period of use. However, for any newly
developed assets or system the future facility management investment are oden not known. Another issue
that arises is that the facility management data is not easily available and most consultants are unaware of
facility management experiences that makes hard for them to make a probable realisSc assumpSons
(Gransberg & Douglas, 2005).

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 3

Under LCC, facility management (operaSon and maintenance) are future expenses; it accounts for all costs
incurred ader the system has been placed in funcSoning (Mearig, 1999). Therefore, it is important to use
robust assumpSons when using LCC to compare mutually exclusive alternaSves. It is possible to extract
historical expenses data from similar assets or system that can account for the experience of the personnel
which will help in providing a reliable LCC that helps in selecSng a alternaSve. Another aspect to be addressed
is the determining and evaluaSng the uncertainty and probable risk, for this sensiSvity and breakeven analysis
can be used. SensiSvity analysis is a process to help determine the sensiSvity of the outcome of an alternaSve
to changes in its parameters. For instance, any small change in a parameter may produce a major change in
outcome, so its important to check the sensiSvity to that parameter. Breakeven analysis tool help in
idenSfying the point where project savings becomes equal to the total cost of the asset or system.

It must be noted that not all future cost categories are relevant (Mearig, 1999). But If two alternates consume
the same costs, they may be recorded as such and but not necessarily included in the LCC comparison.

Disposal Cost

The term cost of disposal is employed to explain the incremental expense directly a]ributed to the disposal of
an asset, contract, or cash-generaSng enSty. Cost of disposal is odenSmes a future liability that flows as an
expense to the earnings report because it is incurred.

Disposal cost or residual value is addiSonally a future cost and someSmes difficult to esSmate. Disposal cost is
that the cost, or gain, of geqng obviate assets ader use. it's going to include internet remaining worth, also
because the cost of transferring or destroying the assets. Oden, however, disposal cost of assets being
compared is assumed to be zero. Nonetheless, it might be posiSve or negaSve.

Asset Life

Asset life is that the period over which the asset is fully depreciated; it's the useful economic lifeSme of the
asset, oden determined by previous historical performance. Therefore, asset life is that the period during
which the asset contributes directly or indirectly to the longer term income of the organizaSon. Thus, the
extent of maintenance, energy usage, and other factors necessary to take care of the usefulness of the asset
influences asset life determinaSon. The asset life may or might not coincide with the LCCA study period; it's ,
however, essenSal to use an equivalent study period when comparing mutually exclusive alternates (Fuller &
Peterson, 1995). Consequently, esSmated cost should be included for the asset with the shorter life; oden the
bo]om cost, adjusted for inflaSon, is employed as a proxy for future cost . When the study period is decided
by expected asset life, FEMP rules in 10 CFR 436 require that the common service period is that of the asset
with the longest expected life. For projects subject to FEMP rules the LCC period cannot exceed 25 years.

In order to conduct a LCC it's necessary to make a structure that facilitates the idenSficaSon of project costs in
each of the life cycle phases (El-Haram, 2002). El- Haram also noted that BriSsh Standard 5760, part 23,
features a cost breakdown structure (CBS) that idenSfies all relevant costs categories altogether appropriate
life cycle phases.

The life cycle cost breakdown structure has five levels:

1) project level
2) phase level
3) category level
4) element level
5) task level.

The project level, level 1, has three phases: acquisiSon, facility management, and disposal. The phase level,
level 2, breaks down each of the three phases into their respecSve cost categories. AcquisiSon costs are all the
prices required to implement the project; facility management costs are all the prices required for operaSng,
maintaining, and supporSng the project during its useful life; and disposal costs are the anScipated costs at
the top of the project (asset) useful life. The category level, level 3, takes each category and subdivides it into

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 4

its cost elements. as an example , acquisiSon costs includes construcSon costs, which may be disaggregated
into site the prices of preparaSon, superstructure, substructure, building services, and so on.

Likewise facility management includes maintenance costs which may be weakened into their elements, like
condiSon based maintenance, prevenSve maintenance cost (PM), reacSve maintenance (RM) cost, custodial
cost, then on; and operaSng costs are oden weakened into uSlity cost, custodial cost, insurance, rent, and so
on. The element level, level 4, takes the categories from level 3 and breaks them down into their own cost
elements. for instance , the value of construcSng the superstructure also can be disaggregated into the prices
of the building frame, floors, roof, stairs, walls, windows, doors, and other structure elements (El-Haram et
al.). El-Haram et al. also noted that the value of facility management follows an equivalent breakdown. for
instance , uSlity costs are oden weakened into the value of electrical, gas , water, sewer, and so on. The task
level, level 5, is that the total cost of all the resources required to finish a task; Figure 1, depicts the resources
needed to construct, maintain, and replace a window.

Trade offs

It is oden assumed that prime quality building or building equipment leads to lower future costs; that there's a
trade off between acquisiSon and maintenance costs. Ashworth (1996), however, argued that such a trade off
isn't a given. He noted that it's possible that higher quality acquisiSons may require higher maintenance costs
so as to take care of its top quality . Nonetheless, he agreed that generally good quality material and be]er
standard of workmanship oden results in lower future costs. so as to take advantage of this trade off,
designers, engineers, project leaders, and managers must thoroughly understand how, when, and under what
condiSons items within the design may fail (Hockley, 1998). Therefore, they ought to have in-depth
understanding of the planning and the way it'll be uSlized in service. Hockley argued that the potenSal effects
of use and abuse that the planning will have should be understood by designers and managers. a method to
realize understanding of design outcomes is to guage the performance of comparable projects and to use ILS
techniques, like failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA), and reliability centered maintenance (RCM). Teng
and Ho (1996) believe that FMEA, which may be a technique that idenSfies potenSal failure modes, the
consequences and criScality of those failures, should include the acSviSes of both design and operaSons. RCM
may be a systemaSc approach for idenSfying the foremost cost effecSve maintenance regime for an asset (El-
Haram &Horner, 2003).

Life Cycle Cost

LCC is an economic method for evaluaSng assets that takes into consideraSon all costs arising from owning,
operaSng, maintaining, and removing the asset (Fuller & Peterson,1995). it's the enSre discounted cost of
acquiring, operaSng and maintaining, and removing an asset over a hard and fast period of your Sme (Mearig,
1999). LCCA may be a useful aid for comparing lifeSme cost of mutually exclusive assets to work out which
asset provides the simplest value spent (Ashworth, 1996; Mearig , 1999; Robinson, 1996) and it should be
performed early within the design process. Ashworth, however, don't believe that previous LCC calculaSons
have produced reliable forecasts. He noted that esSmated values could be quite different from actual values
which a]empSng to esSmate far within the future could lead on to forecasSng errors. El-Haram & Horner
(2002) indicated that thanks to unreliable data it's difficult to define exact costs for every expense category -
acquisiSon, facility management, and disposal. Barringer and Weber (1996) noted that LCC isn't a parScular
science; outputs are only esSmates, and esSmates aren't accurate. Nonetheless, given robust and realisSc
assumpSons, LCC is a crucial tool for ranking cost of ownership between mutually exclusive alternaSves.
RealisSc assumpSons are oden obtained from evaluaSng the performance, over Sme, of comparable assets,
conducSng literature reviews, obtaining informaSon from manufacturers, vendors, contractors, and using
average support and maintenance costs (Robinson, 1996). Moreover, ILS requires that vendors and contractors
idenSfy the physical requirements for support of latest assets or systems before the owners approve the
acquisiSon (Jones, 1994).

The period of Sme (useful life) related to LCCA must be established and historically accurate. AddiSonally, the
associated discount rate should be used with care, since there are differences between real and nominal
discount rates. the previous excludes inflaSon and therefore the la]er includes inflaSon. Thus, when
comparing alternaSves during a given period, an equivalent discount rate must be used. Furthermore, the

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 5

discount rate is probably going to vary from period to period, and there are many discount rates. When using
the important discount rate in present value (PV) calculaSons, cost should be expressed in constant dollars
(Mearig., 1999). Taxes and depreciaSon allowances should be accounted for in LCC calculaSons, also as any
local value effect. Generally, the straight-line method of depreciaSon of depreciaSon is employed . it's simple
to use and it's supported the principle that every period of the asset life should depreciate equally. the worth
effect refers to the market differenSal response to at least one alternate versus another.

Net Present Value Calcula,on

The net present value (NPV) is one methodology wont to determine LCC; it's also used for capital budgeSng
where projects with the very best NPV exhaust the firm’s fixed investment funding (Branson, 1979). NPV is
that the present value of an investment future income (CF) minus the iniSal investment (I). for several LCCA,
however, cash flows are oden negaSves (ouslows).

Methodology

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 6

Chapter 1 - Synopsis
Introduction
Need of the Study
Research Gap
Aim
Objective
Scope of Work
Methodology

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

Keywords
Intelligent Building
Total Project Cost
Acquisition Cost
Facility Management Cost
Disposal Cost
Trade Off
Asset Life
Life Cycle Costing
Net Present Value
Literature Summary

Chapter 3 - Intelligent Building

Introduction
Definition of Intelligent Building
Components of Intelligent Building
Comparison of Components of intelligent building with Conventional Building

Chapter 4 - Investment Evaluation

Introduction
Types of Evaluation Technique
Life cycle costing
Evaluation of LCC of components of Intelligent Building
Analyse Cost benefit of components of Intelligent Building
Develop a tool for evaluation of investment for Intelligent building
Summary

Chapter 5 - Case Study

Introduction
Identification of Components of intelligent building
LCCA of Components of intelligent building case study
Comparison of cost with Conventional Building
Inferences

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Recommendation

Suggest recommendations for cost benefit analysis for intelligent building
Conclusion

Chapter 7 - Inferences

What is a Intelligent Building?

A.C.W Wong (2001) argued that ‘intelligent buildings aren't intelligent by themselves, but they will furnish the
occupants with more intelligence and enable them to figure more efficiently’. Moreover, most exisSng
definiSons of intelligent buildings are ‘either too vague to be useful guidance for detailed design which either
places an unbalanced specialise in technologies only or don't fit that culture of Asia’. the necessity of a
parScular intelligent building definiSon is criScal as ‘without an accurate definiSon, new building won't be

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 7

opSmally designed to saSsfy subsequent century’ (A.C.W Wong, 2001). In response to the present , (A.C.W
Wong, 2001) suggested a two-level strategy to formulate an appropriate intelligent building definiSon. the
primary level comprises nine ‘Quality Environment Modules (QEM)’ (M1 – M9) and therefore the second level
includes three areas of key elements which are funcSonal requirements, funcSonal spaces and technologies.
Other experts proposed the inclusion of addiSonal modules (M10) as supplement to the prevailing nine
modules so as to affect the health issues for buildings.

The revised ‘QEM’ (M1–M10) includes:

M1: environmental friendliness—health and energy conservaSon;

M2: space uSlizaSon and flexibility;
M3: cost effecSveness—operaSon and maintenance with emphasis on effecSveness;
M4: human comfort;
M5: working efficiency;
M6: safety and security measures—fire, earthquake, disaster and structural damages, etc.
M7: culture;
M8: image of high technology;
M9: construcSon process and structure
M10: health and sanitaSon.

Each of 10 key modules menSoned above will be assigned a number of key elements in an appropriate order
of priority. (A.C.W Wong, 2001) redefined intelligent building as one which ‘designed and constructed based
on an appropriate selecSon of ‘Quality Environmental Modules’ to meet the user’s requirements by mapping
with appropriate building faciliSes to achieve long term building values’. So and Wong suggested that the new
definiSon has two folds, which enable the consideraSon of technologies, and the needs of users. Also, this
new definiSon gives designers a clear direcSon and sufficient details to enable a high quality intelligent
building design consistent with intelligent building definiSon, and to provide a fair plasorm for users and the
general public to evaluate the performance of an intelligent building.

References

Alchian, A & Allen, W. R. (1977). Exchange and producSon: CompeSSon, coordinaSon, and control. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Ashworth, A. (1996). EsSmaSng the life expectancies of building components in life-cycle cosSng calculaSons.
Structural Survey, 14(2), 4-8.

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 8

Barringer, H. P. & Weber, D. P. (1996). Life cycle cost tutorial. Fidh InternaSonal Conference on Process Plant
Reliability.

Branson, W. H. (1979). Macroeconomic theory and policy. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Chao, L. P. & K. (2004). Project quality funcSon deployment. InternaSonal Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 21(9), 938-958

El-Haram, M. A., Marenjak, S., & Horner, M. W. (2002). Development of a generic for collecSng whole life cost
data for the building industry. Journal of Quality Maintenance Engineering, 8(2), 144-151.

El-Haram, M. A., & Horner, M. W. (2003). ApplicaSons of principles of ILS to the development of cost effecSve
maintenance strategies for exisSng building stock. ConstrucSon Management and Economics, 21, 283-296.

Fuller, S. K. (2005). Guidance of life-cycle cost analysis required by ExecuSve Order 13123. NIST.

Fuller, S. K. & Peterson, S. R. (1995). Life cycle cosSng manual for the Federal energy management program.
NIST Handbook 135.

Gransberg, D. D. & Douglas, E. E. (2005). ImplemenSng project constructability. AACE InternaSonal

TransacSon, PM.01-PM.01.4.

Hestermann, L. V. A standard needed: Personal property life cycle cost, a standard. ITAK, 1(4), 38-39.

Hockley, C. J. (1998) Design for success. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs (212), 371-378.

Jones, J. V. (1994). Integrated logisSc support handbook: New York, NY. McGraw Hill.

Mearig, T., Coffee, N., and Morgan, M. (1999). Life cycle cost analysis handbook. Juneau,

Alaska: Department of EducaSon & Early Childhood Development EducaSon Support Services/FaciliSes.

Pinto, J. K. & Kharbanda, O. P. (1996). How to fail in project management. Business Horizons July/August.

Robinson, J. (1996). Plant and equipment acquisiSons: a life cycle cosSng case study. FaciliSes, 14(5/6),
21-25.

Teng, Sheng-Hsien & Ho, Shin-Yann (1996). Failure mode and effect analysis: An integrated approach for
product design and process control. InternaSonal Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13(5), 8-26.

W.M. Kroner, An intelligent and responsive architecture, AutomaSon in ConstrucSon 6 (1997) 381–393.

M. Wigginton, J. Harris, Intelligent Skin, Architectural Press, Oxford, UK, 2002

D.P. Robathan, The future of intelligent buildings, in: D. Boyd (Ed.), University of Central England, Henley on
Thames, Intelligent Buildings,Alfred Waller in associaSon with Unicom, London, 1994, pp. 259 – 265.

D.L. Loveday, G.S. Virk, J.Y.M. Cheung, D. Azzi, Intelli- gence in buildings: the potenSal of advanced modelling,
Au- tomaSon in ConstrucSon 6 (1997) 447–461.

W.F.E. Preiser, U. Schramm, Intelligent office building per- formance evaluaSon, FaciliSes 20 (7/8) (2002) 279
– 287.

T.D.J. Clements-Croome, What do we mean by intelligent buildings? AutomaSon in ConstrucSon 6 (1997) 395
– 399.

A.T.P. So, A.C.W. Wong, K.C. Wong, A new definiSon of intelligent buildings for Asia, The Intelligent Building
Index Manual, 2nd ediSon, Asian InsStute of Intelligent Buildings, Hong Kong, 2001 (October), pp. 1–20.

Life Cycle Costing Analysis of an Intelligent Building. 9