1、Designation: F1675 13 (Reapproved 2017)Standard Practice forLife-Cycle Cost Analysis of Plastic Pipe Used for Culverts,Storm Sewers, and Other Buried Conduits1This standard is issued under the fixed designation F1675; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal ado
2、ption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope*1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for using life cyclecost (LCC) a
3、nalysis techniques to evaluate alternative drainagesystem designs, using plastic pipe that satisfy the samefunctional requirements.1.2 The LCC technique measures the present value of allrelevant costs to install, operate, and maintain alternativedrainage systems such as engineering, construction,mai
4、ntenance, rehabilitation, or replacement over a specifiedperiod of time. The practice also accommodates any remainingresidual or salvage value.1.3 The decision maker, using the results of the LCCanalysis, can then identify the alternative(s) with the lowestestimated total cost based on the present v
5、alue of all costs.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to u
6、se.1.5 This international standard was developed in accor-dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-ization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recom-mendations issued by the World Trade Organization TechnicalBarriers
7、 to Trade (TBT) Committee.2. Referenced Documents2.1 Other Standards:TM-5-802-1 Economic Studies for Military ConstructionDesign Applications (12/86)2Federal Office of Management and Budget Guidelines andDiscount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of FederalPrograms and state documents for guidelines o
8、r require-ments32.2 ASTM Adjuncts:Discount Factor Tables43. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 common costs, ncosts that are common to all alter-natives in nature and amount, such as initial planning fees orfuture annual inspection costs.3.1.2 discount rate, nthe investors time value of money,expresse
9、d as a percent, used to convert costs occurring atdifferent times, to equivalent costs at a common point in time.3.1.3 drainage project, na project having a definable,functional drainage requirement that can be satisfied by two ormore design or construction alternatives, or both.3.1.4 future costs,
10、ncosts required to keep the systemoperating that are incurred after the project is placed in service,such as operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacementcosts.3.1.5 inflation, nthe general trend or rising prices that,over time, result in the reduction of the purchasing power ofthe dollar f
11、rom year to year.3.1.6 initial cost, nthe total of all costs; such as designcosts, material purchase costs, and construction/installationcosts, that are specific to each alternative and are incurred tobring each alternative to a point of functional readiness.3.1.7 maintenance cost, nthe annual or pe
12、riodic costs,such as inspection and cleaning to keep a drainage structurefunctioning for the project design life, but do not extend thematerial service life.3.1.8 material service life, nthe number of years ofservice a particular material, system, or structure will providebefore rehabilitation or re
13、placement is necessary.3.1.9 project design life, nthe planning horizon for theproject, expressed as the number of years of useful life requiredof the drainage structure.3.1.10 rehabilitation cost, nthe total of all costs incurredto extend the material service life of a specific alternative.1This pr
14、actice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F17 on PlasticPiping Systems and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F17.62 on Sewer.Current edition approved Aug. 1, 2017. Published August 2017. Originallyapproved in 1996. Last previous edition approved in 2013 as F167513. DOI:10.1520/F1
15、675-13R17.2Available from Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.3Available from Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.4Available from ASTM International Headquarters. Order Adjunct No.ADJE091703.*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standardCopyright ASTM
16、International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesThis international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standa
17、rds, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.13.1.11 replacement cost, nthe total of all costs incurred toreplace a material before the end of the project design life.3.1.12 terminal value, nthe remaining value of the drain-age st
18、ructure in place at the end of the project design life.4. Summary of Practice4.1 This practice outlines a procedure for conducting anLCC analysis of two or more drainage pipe alternatives usingplastic pipe over a specified project design life. This practiceidentifies the project data and general ass
19、umptions needed forthe analysis and the method of computation.5. Significance and Use5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method to evaluate alter-natives that are characterized by differing cash flows over thedesignated project design life. The method entails calculatingthe LCC of each alternative capab
20、le of satisfying the functionalrequirements of the project and comparing them to determinewhich have the lowest estimated LCC over the project designlife.5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determiningwhether the higher initial cost of an alternative is economicallyjustified by reduction
21、s in future costs (for example, operatingmaintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement) when compared toan alternative with lower initial costs but higher future costs. Ifa design alternative has both a lower initial cost and lowerfuture costs than other alternatives, an LCC analysis is notnecessary t
22、o show the former is the economically preferablechoice.6. Procedure6.1 The procedure for performing an LCC analysis fordrainage pipe applications is as follows:6.1.1 Identify project objectives, alternatives, and con-straints (6.2).6.1.2 Establish basic assumptions (6.3).6.1.3 Compile data (6.4).6.1
23、.4 Compute life cycle cost for each alternative (7.1).6.1.5 Evaluate results (7.2).6.2 Project Objectives, Alternatives, and Constraints:6.2.1 Specify the design objective that is to beaccomplished, identify alternative systems or designs thataccomplish that objective, and identify any constraints t
24、hatmay limit the options to be considered.6.2.2 An example is the design of a storm water drainagesystem for a residential development project. The system mustsatisfy mandated drainage system objectives, such as specifiedrainfall intensities and storm water runoff limits. Availablealternatives, such
25、 as different pipe materials and varyingconfigurations of catch basins, ponds, or underground deten-tion chambers may have different initial costs as well asexpected future costs. The system design may be constrainedby structural and hydraulic limits such as minimum andmaximum slopes and depth of bu
26、rial, limits on surface flows onstreets, etc.6.3 Basic Assumptions:6.3.1 Establish the uniform assumptions to be made in theLCC analysis of all alternatives. These assumptions include theselection of the discount rate, the treatment of inflation, generalinflation rate, the project design life, and t
27、he desired compre-hensiveness of the analysis.6.3.2 Discount RateThe discount rate selected shouldreflect the owners time value of money. That is, the discountrate should reflect the rate of interest that makes the ownerindifferent between paying or receiving a dollar now or at somefuture time. The
28、discount rate is used to convert costs occurringat different times to equivalent costs at a common point in time.6.3.2.1 There is no single correct discount rate for allowners. Selection of the discount rate should be guided by therate of return on alternative investment opportunities of com-parable
29、 risk (that is, the opportunity cost of capital), or, in thecase of some public organizations, on mandated or legislatedfederal or state requirements. (See Federal Office of Manage-ment and Budget.)6.3.2.2 The discount rate may include general price inflationover the study period. This discount rate
30、 is referred to as the“nominal” discount rate in this practice. The discount rate mayalso be expressed as the real earning power of money over andabove general price inflation, referred to as the “real” discountrate.6.3.2.3 A nominal discount rate (dn) and the correspondingreal discount rate (dr) ar
31、e related as follows:dr511dn11I2 1ordn5 11dr!11I! 2 1 (1)where:I = the rate of general price inflation.6.3.2.4 The same discount rate should be used in evaluatingeach design alternative. Annex A1 contains a procedure tofollow in developing the discount rate. This procedure may beapplied by those who
32、 wish to select their own values as well asthose who are required to follow mandated or legislatedrequirements.6.3.3 InflationThis practice is designed only to accommo-date a uniform rate of general inflation. Calculate the LCC inconstant dollar terms (not including general inflation) or incurrent d
33、ollar terms (including general inflation). If the latter isused, a consistent projection of general price inflation shall beused throughout the LCC analysis, including adjustment of thediscount rate to incorporate general inflation (6.3.2.2). Thepercentage change in GNP deflator and the Producers Pr
34、iceIndex are two broad indicators of general inflation.6.3.3.1 If the user desires or is required to treat inflation onan incremental (differential) basis, or uniquely to each indi-vidual cost component (for example, energy costs), consulteither TM-5-802-1 or Discount Factor Tables4, respectively.6.
35、3.4 Project Design LifeEstablish the project design life(3.1.9) from mandated public policy, legislated requirements,or selection by the owner based on situation requirements. Usethe same design life for each alternative under comparison andfor all categories of cost under consideration. The potenti
36、al forfuture obsolescence, that is, the potential that future changesmay modify drainage system requirements, should be consid-ered in selecting project design life.F1675 13 (2017)26.3.5 ComprehensivenessThe appropriate degree of preci-sion and detail to use in an LCC analysis is dependent upon thei
37、ntended use of the analysis. A less comprehensive or detailedanalysis may be sufficient to roughly rank many alternatives,whereas a more comprehensive analysis may be necessary toselect from among a few close alternatives. In any case,omitting significant factors from an LCC analysis diminishesthe u
38、sefulness of the results.6.3.6 Sensitivity AnalysisNo analysis is more precise thanthe accuracy of the data and assumptions used in the calcula-tion. When there is uncertainty regarding basic assumptions(for example, cost estimates, design life, discount rate, etc.)calculate the LCC for a range of a
39、ssumptions. The results ofthese calculations will show the user the extent to which theresults are sensitive to variations of the key assumptions.6.4 Compiling DataCompile the data specific to eachalternative under consideration.6.4.1 Initial CostsThe estimated dollar amount of all costsis required
40、to bring the alternative system to a point offunctional readiness.6.4.2 Material Service LifeMaterial service life is thenumber of years of service expected of the alternative understudy, which varies depending upon the pipe material, theenvironment, effluent, and application. Potential changes inen
41、vironmental conditions which may affect the material servicelife should be considered. Use job site tests, published reports,manufacturer product data, and local experience to establishservice life for each material. If material service life is less thanthe project design life (3.1.9), the analysis
42、shall include thefuture cost to sufficiently extend the service life throughrehabilitation or replacement, in order to at least equal theproject design life.6.4.3 Future CostsCost estimates should be made for allsignificant items that are estimated to be required to allow thedrainage system to satis
43、fy performance requirements over theproject design life. Common costs (1.1) may be excludedwithout affecting the relative ranking of the alternatives understudy. The cost estimates should be made in constant dollars(not including inflation) in the same time frame as the estimateof initial costs.6.4.
44、3.1 Operating CostOperating cost is an estimate of theannual cost for labor, power, and consumable materials andsupplies required to operate a drainage system. Except forpumped systems, most drainage systems do not have signifi-cant annual operating costs.6.4.3.2 Maintenance CostMaintenance cost inc
45、ludes costestimates and the frequency of any inspection, cleaning, andminor repair necessary to keep the system operating at capacityduring the project design life.6.4.3.3 Rehabilitation CostRehabilitation cost is the costof major repairs to extend the material service life to equal orexceed the pro
46、ject design life. If more than one rehabilitation isanticipated, the years in which the rehabilitation are plannedshould be noted.6.4.3.4 Replacement CostReplacement cost is the timingand cost estimate for complete replacement of any drainagesystem component. Take care to see if the service life of
47、thereplaced material or component will at least equal the remain-ing project design life. If not, rehabilitation or further replace-ment will be necessary.6.4.3.5 Terminal ValueTerminal value is the value of thedrainage system at the end of the project design life. Thepotential residual or salvage v
48、alue of a drainage system isdependent upon some of the factors considered in establishingproject design life. For example, if a storm sewer is beingevaluated and a long project design life (75 years) is used,consideration should be given to risk of future obsolescence. Ifthe likelihood of functional
49、 obsolescence is high, then theremay be no residual or salvage value. If, however, it is expectedthe material could be removed and either reused or sold, thenthe net cash value (in constant dollars) represents the terminalvalue. It is not recommended to use a residual value to reflectan economic value for any remaining material life in excess ofthe project design life. As an alternative, if the functionalrequirements of the system under design are for an indefiniteperiod, then consideration should be given to increasing theproject design life to an appropr
