Flooring materials - life-cycle costing for educational ... Tile_Flooring Materials-Life cycle... · Flooring materials – life-cycle costing for educational facilities Helena Moussatche

Flooring materials –life-cycle costing foreducational facilities

Helena Moussatche andJennifer Languell

Introduction

The conscientious selections of materials bydesigners or facility managers are oftenconstrained by strict budget requirements. Asa consequence, the selection of materials fornew educational facilities is usually based onmanufacturers’ information, personalexperience, or solely driven by the product’sinitial cost (Drummond et al., 1999). In orderto address this matter, the FloridaDepartment of Education (FDOE) sponsoreda comprehensive study that provides a tool fora practical evaluation of building materialsused in renovations and new construction ofschool buildings. FDOE officials wereparticularly interested in an assessment ofcontinuing costs, i.e. the costs experiencedafter the initial purchase of the materialbecause currently there is no state funding forthese expenses. This study assesses the servicelife of the interior flooring materials by using alife cycle cost (LCC) analysis to address thefollowing hypothesis: lowering the initial costof a facility – by selection of lower initial costmaterials – will likely result in higher LCC ofthe facility. The higher LCC is expected dueto the continuing cost of the flooringmaterials.

The investigation examined a total of 20interior and exterior flooring materials bothnatural and synthetic. The flooring materialsare identified in Figure 1. Each surface materialis combined with the appropriate substratematerials for installation on a concrete subfloor.When presented with several installationmethods for a given flooring alternative, thedifferent installation methods were analyzed fortheir potential impact on the LCC. The LCCanalysis examines each alternative and the truecost of the material for the FDOE dictated 50-year service life. These costs include initial cost,installation cost, operation and maintenancecost, such as custodial work and repairs, andreplacements cost. The LCC analysis providesquantitative results based on specific and pre-defined assumptions. The assumptions used forthis study were defined by state officials fromthe FDOE and are identified within the body ofthe article.

The authors

Helena Moussatche is an Assistant Professor at the

Department of Interior Design, University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Jennifer Languell is an Adjunct Professor at the

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Keywords

Flooring, Life cycle costing, Facilities management

Abstract

The tight schedule of developing, designing, and

managing educational facilities limits the time and

resources needed to correctly assess the full cost of

building materials. As a result, the selection of interior

finishing materials is commonly driven solely by initial

cost. This study evaluates interior floor materials currently

available for use in K-12 educational facilities in the State

of Florida. The range of materials chosen for the

comparison encompasses common flooring materials

installed over appropriate sub-floor materials. The flooring

alternatives are evaluated using a service life-cycle cost

(LCC) analysis based on the 50-year service life specified

by the Florida Department of Education. A net present

worth (NPW) analysis that includes initial costs, operation

and maintenance costs, and replacement costs of each

selection is used to evaluate the materials. Interior

floorings initial cost, replacement cost, service life, and

operations and maintenance costs are compared to the

materials resulting LCC.

Electronic access

The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

This article is based on a comprehensive studyconducted by University of Florida’s researchers forthe State of Florida Department of Education. Formore information see Drummond . (1999).

333

Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . pp. 333±343

# MCB University Press . ISSN 0263-2772

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Methodology

Project backgroundThe complete project investigation wasconducted in four phases. The first phaseconsisted of reviewing official documents,such as specifications and ordinances,provided by the FDOE. The second phaserequired the collection of empirical dataregarding construction, performance,cleaning procedures, repair maintenance,and replacement of building materials onselected schools. The third phase comparedthe empirical data to codes and standardscurrently in use. In addition, data wascollected, compiled, analyzed, and usedto determine the materials selected foranalysis. The final phase evaluated thematerials selected using a service LCCanalysis.

Phase 1: analysis of official documentsThe State of Florida Department ofEducation provided survey documents fromnewly constructed schools from 1992, 1996,and 1997. These surveys containedinformation on each school building’s type,location, size, dates and costs of construction,site development, applied materials, andsystems specifications. The documents wereanalyzed and used to create a preliminary listof materials commonly used in Florida’seducational facilities.

Phase 2: empirical data collectionSurveys, questionnaires, and directobservations of 12 case study schools wereused to collect empirical data. Questionnaireswere sent to facilities managers andmaintenance directors to obtain accurateinformation on the performance of flooringmaterials and systems in place and the currentcosts of operating and maintaining the floors.Direct site observations were conducted in 12schools located in the north, central, and southclimatic regions of the State of Florida. Theinformation collected from direct observationsincluded data on the service use of the flooringmaterials in each facility and variations in theage of the student occupants. Informalinterviews with school principles, maintenancestaff, and facilities managers followed thedirect observations. These interviews providedadditional data and current custodial workwages; time consumed for various cleaning andrepair procedures; actual type of equipmentand cleaning materials used for regularmaintenance; and frequency of standardoperations and maintenance procedures.

Phase 3: codes, standards, and materialsspecificationsManufacturers technical specification datasheets (MSDS) were collected on possibleflooring alternatives. These sheets provideinformation regarding recommended cleaning

Figure 1 Evaluated flooring alternatives

334

Flooring materials ± life-cycle costing for educational facilities

Helena Moussatche and Jennifer Languell

Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

procedures and expected durability of eachflooring alternative. In addition, the SouthernBuilding Code Congress International, Inc.(SBCCI) Standard Building Code (1997),the State of Florida Requirements forEducational Facilities (1997) and the DadeCounty Public Schools Master SpecificationGuidelines (1998) were used as a basis forrefining the list of flooring alternatives.

Phase 4: LCC analysisThe DOE specifically requested an analysis ofactual costs felt by the school district during theuse and replacement of the flooring materialsover a 50-year building service life. For thisreason, the analysis consisted of a service LCCcomparison of selected materials. The dollarvalues used in the LCC calculations come fromthe actual monetary expenditure to purchase,properly maintain, and replace these flooringmaterials to serve the building for 50 years.Although there are many methods of LCCanalysis available; for example, the ’’cradle tocradle’’ and ’’cradle to grave’’, that completelytrack a materials true cost from raw materials toend use, these types of LCC analysis were notused in this study.

Selection of materials for analysisInterior floor surfaces refer to the finishingmaterials, the substrate or subfloor where theyare applied, and the materials used to attach thefinish to the substrate. Research was conductedin Florida and as such, all public schools’ sub-floors are made of concrete. The informationcollected in phases 1, 2 and 3, was used as abasis for the selection of flooring materials foranalysis. The final flooring material alternativelist also incorporated current practices,availability of materials, code compliance, andadequate performance criteria for Florida’seducational facilities.

Figure 1 shows the floor surface materialsconsidered in the LCC analysis, the materialsmajor flooring characteristics and actualmaintenance procedures. The chart is brokeninto flooring categories, hard, resilient, andsoft. Each flooring system is only comparedwithin its given category. For example, thestrength rating of ceramic tile may be directlycompared to the strength rating of epoxyresin, but not directly compared to that oflinoleum (as linoleum is a resilient flooringand not a hard flooring). When reading thechart, for example, quarry tile can becompared to laminate wood flooring. Quarry

tile has higher strength, durability, andabrasion resistance; equal thermal insulation;and lower heat absorption than laminatewood flooring.

LCC analysis assumptionsThe basic assumptions for the LCC analysis arebased on standards set by the FDOE,recommendations of the FDOE steeringcommittee, the Florida Energy ModelingProgram (FEMP), and the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST). Forexample, the FDOE and the steeringcommittee required a LCC analysis with nodiscount rate because the State does notcurrently allocate funds to future expenditures.Table I provides a list of assumptions used toperform the LCC calculations. All assumptionswere required or approved by a FDOE steeringcommittee prior to analysis.

Results

The analysis results are found in Figure 2.LCC examines the associated ownership costsof competing alternatives by discounting thecosts to a common reference point. For thepurposes of this study, the common referencepoint is the net present worth (NPW). All of

Table I LCC asumptions

Inflation rate 3 per cent (Energy, 1997). This rate was used to inflate

the capital cost of each flooring alternative to

determine the replacement cost and to inflate the

operation and maintenance costs associated with any

given flooring system

Discount rate None (0 per cent as required by the FDOE)

Operation andmaintenance

Derived from equipment and supplies used, the time

consumed for each procedure, the required frequency

of performance, the number of people involved, and

the average wages and labor fees in Florida

Building servicelife

50 years

Capital cost Derived from manufacturer’s data and appropriate

installation costs

System servicelife

Derived from information provided by the product

manufacturer and observations. Service life assumes

manufacturer recommended cleaning and maintenance

is preformed

Number ofreplacements

The appropriate number of replacements for each

system was assumed to support the educational

institution for a 50-year service life

Salvage value The LCC assumes no salvage value of system at time

of replacement

335



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

Figure 2 Service LCC results

336



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

the cash flows associated with a specificflooring alternative were calculated to thepresent time equivalent. All variables for theflooring alternatives are costs; there are noincomes associated with the purchase andmaintenance of the floors. Therefore, allnumbers in Figure 2 indicate cost orexpenditures and as such minimizing thetotal NPW is preferred. The system with thelowest NPW is the most cost-effective systembased on this LCC analysis, and is rankedhighest.

Discussion

A significant burden is placed on designers,facility managers and school officials toprovide the best possible building at thelowest possible cost. This often results in theselection of materials based on the lowestinitial cost. Although the initial cost of afacility is important and often constrained bystrict budget requirements, the mosteconomical choice for selecting materials isbased on LCC. There is little benefit to theindividual school if low initial cost materials isselected and the maintenance costs arebeyond the facility budget. This could resultin neglecting proper maintenance proceduresand the need for more frequent replacementsof the flooring.

The ideal choice for flooring materials is alow LCC material. These ideal materialswould show very little cost after the initialpurchase. Non-ideal flooring alternatives mayor may not have a low initial cost, but theywill always have a high LCC. In Florida,budget constraints are used as justification forselecting materials based only on low initialcost without considering continuing costs.Figure 3 shows an initial and LCC cost graphfor an ideal and non-ideal flooring alternative.

Analysis

Hard flooringA key observation from the research results isthe lack of relationship or correlation betweeninitial cost and the LCC results, i.e. the lowestinitial cost is not necessarily the lowest costalternative based on NPW. Figure 4 showsalternatives from lowest initial cost to highestinitial cost (left column). Adjacent to eachalternative is the resulting NPW. Figure 5

shows an increasing trend in initial cost andthe variability of the NPW.

Upon examination of Figure 4, ceramic tilewith mortar, which would normally be rankedsixth based on the initial cost of $7.31/SF, isthe least expensive flooring alternative basedon the NPW analysis. Ceramic tile installedwith mortar is a flooring alternative thatmimics the (ideal( flooring situation: lowNPW with fairly low initial cost (see Figures 3and 6). A flooring alternative such as exposedconcrete has an even lower initial cost butpresents a higher NPW. This is an example ofa typical flooring selection based on initialcost.

To show how this flooring selection mayaffect a school budget, assume a new school isslated for construction, the school will need2,000 square feet of hard flooring. Twoselection options are available. Option 1 is toselect the materials based on low initial costand option 2 is to select the materials basedon lowest service LCC. A cost comparisonfollows in Table II.

By spending an additional $13,035 topurchase the low LCC alternatives versus thelow initial cost alternatives, the facility wouldsave $105,900 in flooring costs over theservice life of the facility.

Further analysis continues to show a lack ofcorrelation between initial cost and 50-yearLCC. The results show that ceramic tileinstalled with mortar and grout has an initialcost of $7.31 and a total NPW of $15.56/squarefoot. This is the economically preferred hardflooring alternative based on the LCC analysis.The second choice based on NPW is ceramictile with mastic and grout having an initial costof $6.69 and a NPW of $38.02/square foot. Inthis case, selecting the lower initial costalternative at $6.69 results in a higher LCC.This is due to the significantly highermaintenance cost associated with the masticalternative. The maintenance cost outweighsthe increased initial cost of using mortar.Basically, increasing the initial expenditure by$0.62 per square foot results in a saving of$22.46 per square foot over the service life ofthe building.

There is a relationship between themaintenance cost and the resulting NPW. Asthe dollars per square foot of maintenanceincreases, the NPW of the alternatives alsoincreases. The one exception is terrazzo dueto its fairly low maintenance percentage (8 percent) and long service life. This indicates that

337



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

Figure 4 Increasing initial cost versus LCC

Figure 5 Increasing initial cost versus LCC

Figure 3 Initial and LCC cost of ideal and non-ideal flooring alternatives

338



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

O&M is a driving factor in the resulting NPWLCC ranking. An example of the O&M effectis shown in the epoxy resin alternative. Epoxyresin is the second least expensive alternativebased on initial cost $1.60/square foot but hasa relatively high O&M, $0.59/square foot or37 per cent of the initial cost. The high O&Mof the epoxy resin results in a sixth place LCCranking based on the NPW.

The hard flooring alternatives wereplotted with increasing O&M (left column)and the resulting alternatives NPW as seenin Figure 7.

In this instance, as the O&M expensesincrease, the NPW tends to increase. Thistrend may be seen in Figure 8.

This can be seen when comparing twoalternatives with similar initial cost.Ceramic tile with mortar has an initial costof $7.31/square foot and terrazzo has aninitial cost of $7.10/square foot. The O&Mcost is $0.07 and $0.57, respectively. Theresulting NPW of ceramic tile is $15.56 andterrazzo is $71.17, a $55.61 difference. Theless expensive initial cost alternative,

terrazzo, has a $0.50 higher maintenancewhich results in a $55.61 higher LCC as

shown in Figure 9.

Resilient flooringResilient flooring, again, shows no directrelationship between initial cost and the

NPW. The initial and NPW are plotted inFigures 10 and 11.

This group of flooring alternatives again

shows how standard selection of materialsbased on low initial cost, such as vinyl

composition tile (VCT), will result in a muchhigher LCC. Figure 12 compares VCT and

linoleum. Linoleum, for example is rankedfourth based on initial cost but ranks first

based on LCC.It is important to notice that if compared

with the other resilient floor materials,

linoleum’s initial cost is the second highestand significantly more expensive than VCTs.

The LCC analysis shows that the drivingfactor of the low ranking remains the O&M

cost of linoleum, which is 73 per cent of therequired cost to maintain vinyl floors. In

addition, the service life of linoleum – whenproperly maintained – is twice as long asVCT’s.

Resilient floorings do not show a direct

relationship between increasing O&M and

NPW (Figure 13) but show a relationshipbetween the flooring service life and NPW

(Figure 14).With the resilient flooring alternatives, a

correlation can be seen between service life

and NPW. As the service life increases theNPW decreases, i.e. the longer the life of the

Figure 6 Exposed concrete versus ceramic tile (mortar)

Table II Total cost comparison of a low initial cost option versus the low

LCC option

Option 1: lowinitial cost ($)

Option 2: Low lifecycle cost ($)

Hard flooring system Exposed concrete Ceramic tile (mortar)

Initial cost 0.79/SF 7.31/SF

Total NPW 68.51/SF 15.56/SF

Total initial cost 1,585 14,620

Total life cycle cost 137,020 31,120

Additional initial cost needed for lowest LCC alternatives 13,035Total savings from purchasing LCC alternatives 105,900

339



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

Figure 7 Increasing O&M versus LCC

Figure 9 O&M and LCC ± ceramic tile (mortar) and terrazzo

Figure 8 Increasing O&M versus LCC

340



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

Figure 12 Initial cost versus LCC ± VCT and linoleum

Figure 11 Initial cost versus LCC

Figure 10 Initial cost versus LCC

341



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

material, the fewer the replacements, thelower the total NPW of the alternative.

Soft flooringThe soft flooring alternatives for the purposesof this study are all carpet. The maintenancecosts and service life are roughly equal whichresults in the initial cost driving the NPWamong these alternatives.

Conclusion

After examination of the LCC results severalimportant issues arose. First, the interiormaterials ranked as the most economical werenot necessarily the ones with the lowestcapital cost, confirming the initial hypothesisthat lowering the initial cost of a facility – by

selection of lower cost materials – will likelyresult in higher LCC of the facility. Second,the higher continuing costs (LCC) of thefacility result from increased O&M costs, andmore frequent replacement events for lowercost materials.

In addition, the study showed a particularlyinteresting aspect of the correlation betweenO&M costs and the capital cost: in somecases, such as of VCT, the O&M costs arealmost equivalent to yearly replacing thesystem. The survey had surfaced the fact thatschools funding for materials replacementtend to be easier to obtain than a budgetincrease to support the necessary custodialmaintenance. The case studies showed thatbecause of the low cost of replacement,Florida’s school managers chose to replacerather than maintain VCT floors. This study

Figure 14 Increasing number of replacements and LCC

Figure 13 Increasing O&M versus life cycle cost

342



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

shows that this common practice significantlyincreases the SLCC of the facilities.Therefore, the SLCC assessment provides aquantifiable decision tool indicating a life-cycle preference of one building material orsystem over another.

There is a delicate balance of initial cost,service life, and O&M costs that mustcombine to create an ’’ ideal’’ flooringalternative. All low initial cost alternatives willnot have a high LCC, and all high initial costalternatives will not have a low LCC. Basedon this research, a correlation could not befound between the initial cost of the flooringalternatives and the resulting service LCC.Correlations were noted between anincreasing NPW corresponding to adecreasing service life and increasing O&Mcosts. The analysis results indicate thatselecting low initial cost flooring alternativesresults in higher LCC. The impact ofcontinuing costs, such as O&M costs, oftenoutweighs the benefits of purchasing the lessexpensive alternative.

Recommendations

Owing to the variety of materials compared,the LCC analysis’ ranking needs to becarefully analyzed during a decision-makingprocess. High rankings do not mean thematerial is unacceptable for cost-effectiveschool buildings. On the other hand, thecharacteristics and properties of the mostcost-effective materials might not necessarilybe adequate to every educational activity. TheLCC ranking should be weighed equally withqualitative issues. Thus, rankings do notisolate any flooring alternative as a poorflooring choice. Rankings should be used toevaluate materials on a basis that includesservice life cost in addition to initial cost.

It is important to stress the fact that thecharacteristics and properties of the mostcost-effective materials are not necessarilyadequate for the qualitative issues associatedwith every educational activity. The mosteconomical set of choices for interior flooringmaterial, for instance, is composed only ofhard materials that do not have the requiredacoustical properties – to mention just onequalitative issue – for the optimalperformance of most educational activities. Inthe case of interior flooring surfaces, thechoice of materials must be based on a carefulconsideration of qualitative issues and thequantitative results of this study should beused only as partial indicators to support thedecision-making process.

References and further reading

American Institute of Architects (Ed.) (1999),Environmental Resource Guide, John Wiley,New York, NY.

Bechtel, R.B. (1997), Environment & Behavior: AnIntroduction , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Clements-Crome, D. (Ed.) (2000), Creating the ProductiveWorkplace, E & FN Spon, New York, NY.

Dade County Public Schools (Ed.) (1998), MasterSpecification Guidelines, Dade County, FL.

Drummond et al. (1999), Life Cycle Cost Guidelines forMaterials and Building Systems for Florida’s Public

Educational Facilities, Vols. 1 and 2, FloridaDepartment of Education, Tallahassee, FL.

Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-CycleCost Analysis (1997), Annual Supplement to NISTHandbook 135 and NBS Special Publication 709, USDepartment of Commerce Technology

Administration National Institute of Standard andTechnology, April.

Kirk, S.J. and Dell’Isola, A.J. (1995), Life Cycle Costing for

Design Professionals, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.Standard Building Code (1997). SBCCI, Birmingham.State of Florida Requirements for Educational Facilities

(1997), Florida Department of Education,Tallahassee, FL.

343



Facilities

Volume 19 . Number 10 . 2001 . 333±343

Documents

Flooring materials - life-cycle costing for educational ... Tile_Flooring Materials-Life cycle... · Flooring materials – life-cycle costing for educational facilities Helena Moussatche