Space-Based Condition Assessment Model for Buildings: Case Study of Educational Buildings
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 29, Issue 1
Abstract
Despite the importance of the condition assessment (CA) stage in the asset management process, literature review reveals that there are some drawbacks in the current practices. The objective of this paper is to develop a condition assessment model for buildings. A new building asset hierarchy is proposed in which the space is the principle element of evaluation. Physical components within a space are categorized into four main categories. Data are collected from experts via questionnaires to assign relative weights to models’ attributes using both the analytical network process (ANP) and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) techniques. Finally, the multi attribute utility theory (MAUT) is used to calculate the physical condition assessment of spaces and the entire building. The developed model is applied to a case study of an educational building located in Montreal. Results of the model are compared with the calculated results by the building facility management team. Many lessons are learned from the study; among the most significant findings is the importance of building categories and subcategories that differ according to space type. This model will assist owners and facility managers in the condition assessment phase during the asset management process by applying several tools and techniques to provide an accurate condition assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Ahluwalia, S. S. (2008). “A framework for efficient condition assessment of the building infrastructure.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Builder. (2002). BUILDER user guide, U.S. Army, Engineering Research and Development Centre, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), Champaign, IL.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.” Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Elhakeem, A. A. M. (2005). “An asset management framework for educational buildings with life-cycle cost analysis.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Elhakeem, A., Hegazy, T. (2005). “Towards a visual guidance system for condition assessment of the building infrastructure.” 33rd CSCE Annual Conf. 2005, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Toronto, ON.
Gaudreault, V., Overton, D., and Trstenjak, J. (2009). “Age of education infrastructure: Recent trends.” Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 11-621-M, Ottawa, ON, Analysis in Brief, No. 81, 〈www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2009081-eng.htm〉 (Oct. 25, 2011).
Hudson, W. R., Haas, R. C. G., and Uddin, W. (1997). Infrastructure management: Integrating design, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and renovation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Johnson, R. E., and Clayton, M. J. (1998). “The impact of information technology in design and construction: The owner’s perspective.” Autom. Constr., 8(1), 3–14.
Langevine, R. (2006). “A decision support system for the maintenance management of buildings.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Mckay, D. T., Rens, K. L., Greimann, L. F., and Stecker, J. H. (1999). “Condition index assessment for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 52–60.
Mirza, S. (2007). “Danger ahead: The coming collapse of Canada’s municipal infrastructure.” Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, ON.
Rugless, J. (1993). “Condition assessment surveys.” Facil. Eng. J., 21(3), 11–13.
Shahin, M. Y. (1992). 20 years experience in the PAVER pavement management system: Development and implementation, pavement management implementation, F. B. Holt and W. L. Gramling, eds., ASTM, Philadelphia.
TD Economics. (2002). “A choice between investing in Canada cities and disinvesting in Canada’s future.” 〈http://www.td.com/economics/special/db_cities0402.pdf〉 (Apr. 22, 2002).
Urquhart, T., Marlow, D., and Burn, S. (2005). “Incorporating condition assessment into a comprehensive asset management program.” Proc., Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2006: Session 51 through Session 60, Water Environment Federation.
Uzarski, D. (2002). “Condition assessment manual for building components for use with BUILDER version 2.1.” U.S. Army, Engineering Research and Development Centre-Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), Champaign, IL.
Uzarski, D. R., and Burley, L. A., Jr. (1997). “Assessing building condition by the use of condition indexes.” Proc., 1997 Speciality Conf. on Infrastructure Condition Assessment: Art, Science, Practice, ASCE, Boston, MA, 365–374.
Vanier, D. J. (2000). “Advanced asset management: Tools and techniques, innovations in Urban Infrastructure.” APWA Congress, NRCC-44299, Louisville, KY, 39–56.
Whole Building Design Guide. (2011). “National institute of building science (WBDG).” 〈http://www.wbdg.org/design/spacetypes.php〉 (Feb. 15, 2010).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 29 • Issue 1 • February 2015
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 21, 2012
Accepted: May 30, 2013
Published online: Jun 7, 2013
Discussion open until: Nov 20, 2014
Published in print: Feb 1, 2015
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.