Rivers’04

1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

A Life Cycle Costs (LCC) Assessment of Sustainable Urban Drainage System

Facilities
LARIYAH MOHD SIDEK, Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, College of
Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), KM7, Jalan Kajang-Puchong, 43009
Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia, Email: [email protected]; Tel: 03-89287289; Fax:- +603-
89263506

KAORU TAKARA, Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University,

611-0011 Japan

AMINUDDIN AB. GHANI, Associate Professor, Deputy Director, River Engineering and
Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering
Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

NOR AZAZI ZAKARIA, Associate Professor, Director, REDAC, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

ROZI ABDULLAH, Associate Professor, Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti

Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

MOHD NOR DESA, Director, Humid Tropics Centre (HTC), Kuala Lumpur

ABSTRACTS
Stormwater management practice has evolved from simple removal of runoff using traditional
storm drainage and “end of pipe” approaches to comprehensive management approaches
employing control measures which are more sustainable ecological solutions. In response to
the needs for paradigm shift the way the stormwater is managed, the Malaysian Government
has introduced a new approach of planning and design of urban areas through the New
Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia (MSMA) that offers a sustainable solution for
integrating the land development and urban water cycle. Bio-Ecological Drainage System
(BIOECODS) is an example of an innovative sustainable urban drainage system suggested in
MSMA that designed to restore the natural environment. The BIOECODS combines three
engineering techniques to manage stormwater based on “Control-at-Source” approach
namely infiltration, storage, conveyance and treatment by integrating the drainage
components (i.e. ecological swales, on-line sub-surface detentions, and dry ponds) with the
ecological pond components (i.e. detention pond, constructed wetland, wading stream and
recreational pond). In combination, this increase runoff lags time, increase opportunities for
pollutant removal through settling and bio-filtration, and reduce the rate and volume of runoff
through enhanced infiltration opportunities.
However, perception of increased cost is known as barrier to the wider acceptance of the
new concept of sustainable drainage systems in Malaysia. Many developers and contractors
were sceptical to the successful of the system especially when dealing with construction and
maintenance costs. Therefore, the challenge is to develop a clear life - cycle costing of
MSMA and traditional drainage systems which has been identified as one key of
sustainability challenges for urban drainage. Life - cycle cost analysis (LCC) is an economic
evaluation technique to evaluate the sustainability of the drainage systems. This technique is
well suited to compare alternative designs, with differing cost expenditures over the project
life. This must take into account the full range of benefits, downstream implications and

329
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

maintenance implications of each system to enable holistic and comparative cost-benefit-risk

assessment.
This paper presents a simple method to conduct life cycle cost analysis of BIOECODS.
The method was applied to a pilot project of USM Engineering Campus and it is found that
the BIOECODS method has a lower capital cost but due to higher maintenance cost, its life
cycle cost is little higher than the traditional method. However, BIOECODS method has
proven to have greater overall benefit than the traditional method such as attenuation of the
peak flow hence reduce the flooding problems, cleaner waterways with reduction in litter,
aesthetic values to the surroundings and improvement to the quality of storm water. Thus, the
little increase in life cycle cost associated with the BIOECODS method can be balanced with
the long term benefits gained from these innovative urban drainage systems as part of
sustainable approach in the new development area.

1 Introduction Several researchers have stated that the

conventional urban drainage systems have
Rapid urban growth in Malaysia over the reached a limit and that there is a demand
last 30 years has resulted in increased for alternative technologies (Marsalek et
stormwater flow into receiving waters, al., 1993; Kaise, 1997; Argue, 2000).
increases in flood peaks, and degraded Therefore, there is a need to seek holistic
water quality. Traditionally, stormwater and sustainable solutions not only to
management focuses on easing flooding mitigate existing flooding problems and
through drainage of stormwater runoff water quality degradation but also to
from the urban areas to receiving water prevent the occurrences of such problems
bodies. The conventional stormwater in new areas to be developed. With the
drainage has been designed to provide the increasing understanding of non point
fastest possible transport (rapid disposal source pollution, which has traditionally
approach) of stormwater runoff out of the included stormwater sources, a holistic
catchments into receiving waters. The design of urban stormwater management
design philosophy of the conventional systems needs to incorporate the multiple
drainage system is based on solving purposes of controlling major and minor
localized floods either by transferring floods, as well as stormwater pollution.
excessive flows in drainage systems In response to the needs for paradigm
downstream by upgrading the drainage shift the way the stormwater is managed,
systems or relieving localized problems by the Malaysian government has launched
constructing storm overflows. The the new Stormwater Management Manual
consequence of removing the stormwater for Malaysia (DID, 2001) incorporating
from the land surface so quickly is to the latest development in stormwater
increase volumes and peak rates of flow management that is known as control-at-
discharge and finally overloading the source approach. The source-control
conventional drainage systems. This approach is a relatively new concept in
results in a greater runoff volume that stormwater management practices in
generally requires expensive enhancement Malaysia. This approach refers to Source
of drainage network to reduce severity and Control Systems indicating any processes
frequency of flooding in urban areas. This which modifies the runoff from an area of
also results in a higher pollutant washoff land where that modification is close to the
from the urban areas leading to deteriorate source of the flow. Mohd Sidek et al.
water quality in the receiving water bodies (2002) adopted the approach of WSUD
(Mohd. Sidek, 2001). (Whelan et al., 1994) into MSMA
approach as the integration of various Best

330
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Planning Practices (BPPs) and Best Realising the disadvantages of

Management Practices (BMPs) in the new conventional drainage systems, Mohd
stormwater management concept. Sidek et. al. (2001) invented new type of
More recently, there has been a major drainage systems called Bio-Ecological
shift in stormwater management that has Drainage Systems (BIOECODS) capable
multiple objectives such as drainage, flood in attenuating the peak flow and volume
protection, ecosystem protection, and improving the stormwater quality. The
recreational and landscape facilities. A BIOECODS has been implemented in pilot
new design philosophy in New Stormwater project at USM Engineering Campus,
Management Manual for Malaysia which has adopted the design standard
(MSMA) is also known as sustainable recommended in the MSMA. The
urban drainage system has evolved, which BIOECODS combines three engineering
can be considered as an integrated techniques to manage stormwater based on
stormwater management practice to “Control-at-Source” approach namely
control peak flows, protect and/or enhance infiltration, storage, conveyance and
water quality and promote water treatment by integrating the drainage
conservation activities to meet components (i.e. ecological swales, on-line
environmental objectives and achieve sub-surface detentions, and dry ponds)
sustainable urban development. In with the ecological pond components (i.e.
adopting MSMA, local authorities in detention pond, constructed wetland,
Malaysia are confronted by a number of wading stream and recreational pond). A
problems including a lack of clear and BIOECODS is a shallow, grassed-lined
agreed standards for the environmental channel underlain with drainage module as
management of urban stormwater and a a subsurface conveyance (Mohd. Sidek,
lack of environmental and performance 2001). As stormwater runoff flows
data on MSMA measures to support through these channels, it is treated
planning and design (Mohd. Sidek, 2002). through filtering by the vegetation in the
Currently, drainage system could channel, filtering through matrix, and/or
categorize as conventional open drainage infiltration into the underlying soils. In
systems or ecological drainage system. combination, these increase runoff lag
The open drainage systems should consist time, increase opportunities for pollutant
of grassed swales, ditches, or channels. removal through settling and bio-filtration,
The function of grassed swales have and reduce the rate and volume of runoff
previously been studied by Kercher et al. through enhanced infiltration
(1983), Yousef et al. (1985, 1987), opportunities.
Wigington et al. (1986), Maestri and Lord The change towards a more sustainable
(1987), Schueler (1987), Lorent (1992 a, urban drainage systems will be a complex
b), Finley and Young (1993), Backstorm and time-demanding process. This is due
(1989) and Llyod (2001). The typical to the fact that it is difficult to clearly state
conventional drainage systems in Malaysia what is sustainable. Furthermore, the
is open concrete drain with the precast u- diversity of the existing systems increases
shape drain to collect the stormwater and the complexity. Thus, there is a need for
conveyed the stormwater runoff as soon as indicators on sustainability. Backstrom
possible to the downstream. In the long (2000) used physical resources called
term, this system have increase volumes exergy and cost analysis as indicator on
and peak rates of flow discharge and sustainability. He investigated the
finally overloading the conventional utilization of financial resources and
drainage systems causing flooding at natural resources and found that the pipe
downstream. system demanded considerably more
physical resources than a swale system

331
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

during the construction phase (transport capacity to transport stormwater. A simple

and excavation). He also concluded that life cycle model for each alternative
the pipe system was 34% - 80% more systems were established in Figure 1 to
expensive than the swale system in areas Figure 3. The conventional and ecological
with poor topsoil and 5 - 6 times higher drainage systems will undergone the whole
than the cost of swale with good topsoil. process throughout the lifetime starting
Finally, the maintenance cost for the pipe from production until the end of life cycle
was found 10 times higher than the of the systems as shown in Figure 1 to
maintenance cost for a swale system but a Figure 3. Therefore, the life cycle cost
pipe system demands less physical analysis will be based on the life cycle
resources for maintenance than a swale model of each drainage system. The three
system does. alternatives urban drainage system were
This study is aim to produce a simple designed to have comparable function in
method to conduct life cycle cost analysis terms of capacity to transport stormwater
of BIOECODS methods under tropical divided into three categories namely open
climates. In Malaysia, there is still a lack concrete drain system, swale drain system
in design data on MSMA approach and and Bio-Ecological Drainage Systems
there is a perception that MSMA approach (BIOECODS).
is more expensive to implement and
maintain than the traditional method. It is
expected that the research outcomes from
ENERGY RESOURCES
the recent and on-going applications of the
MSMA projects will play a key role in
changing the present attitude of the
CONSTRUCTION
Malaysian citizens on MSMA approach.

2 Methodology OPERATION & MAINTANANCE

(O&M)
The two drainage systems were classified
as conventional (open concrete drain) and
ecological drainage systems (grass swale SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
and BIOECODS). The three alternative
urban drainage systems were designed to Figure 1 Life Cycle Model for Grassed
have comparable function in terms of Swale System (Backstrom, 2001).

RAW METERIALS ENERGY RESOURCES

DRAINAGE MODULE
PRODUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

OPERATION

Module left in Recycling the Sediment Stormwater

ground module Management Quality
Management
Figure 2 Life cycle model of BIOECODS system.

332
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

RAW METERIALS ENERGY RESOURCES

DRAINAGE MODULE
PRODUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

OPERATION

Open drain left on ground Recycling the open drain

material

Figure 3 Life Cycle Model for Open Drain System.

The term production as shown in Figure 2 conveyance system was built. This also
and 3 in BIOECODS and open drain included the transport of open concrete
systems were defined as the phase where drain and BIOECODS drainage materials.
all raw material production and all Construction of concrete open drainage
industrial production of system involved work such as open concrete drain
components took place. The raw materials installation, mixing and placing concrete,
may be produced for BIOECODS with open drain bedding and jointing.
either recycled polypropylene. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, the construction work of
the open drain system normally used BIOECODS involved excavation, leveling,
concrete and cement as raw materials. sand bedding, module laying, sand
The term construction shown in Figure installation, back filling, slope trimming,
1 to 3 comprised all activities performed at top soil application and close turfing. The
the site where the conveyance system was estimation of the construction costs must
built. This is usually the major first cost also consider a number of local issues.
incurred to build the facility. All costs to These include the design flow rate, size
construct the facility are included: design, and configuration of the stormwater
construction, contract administration, facilities (with regard to site constraints),
inspection, supervision, and any other hydraulic impedance and the requirements
costs associated with the construction for operation, and safety and other
process. This also included the transport of construction issues. If any of this factors
open drain and building materials. can not be adequately satisfied by a
Construction of BIOECODS is not too particular stormwater facilities it should be
complicated as compared to concrete deemed as potentially inappropriate for
drainage system which needs particular that location.
processes such as mixing and placing Meanwhile, all the work with
concrete, all this work has to do properly maintaining the function of the system was
otherwise concrete drainage will be defined as operation and maintenance
collapsed or failed. However, BIOECODS (O&M) shown in Figure 1 to 3. The term
did not require such processes in the of operation and maintenance are also
construction work but the specification and contained necessary inspections,
design must be followed strictly. measurements and management of
The term construction comprised all sediments. Used open drains could either
activities performed at the site where the be left on the ground or the material in the

333
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

open drain could be recycled. Where as, operation/maintenance costs. To determine

for the BIOECODS the materials in the the life cycle costs the estimated duration
module can be recycled or left in the of the project needs to be determined (e.g.
ground with particular attention in the 25 or 50 years) or if the BIOECODS is to
sediment and water quality management. It control pollutants during the development
is therefore imperative to carefully phase only it may be 3-10 years. This is
consider the maintenance requirements used to extrapolate the annual operating
and estimated costs when selecting the costs to project life costs. To estimate the
stormwater management facilities. life cycle costs for a stormwater facilites
For the maintenance of the concrete that the construction costs, maintenance
open drainage, the owner of storm costs and the annual operating costs (for
drainage facilities should conduct the the project duration include overhead and
inspection on an annual or semi-annuals management) are combined. This can be
basis as well as following major storm. For simply performed for all stormwater
BIOECODS, periodical maintenance will facilities and then, with consideration to
be required to maintain the hydraulic the other influences (social, political etc.),
capacity of a BIOECODS system. Grassed the most appropriate stormwater facilites
should be regularly mown and sediment, can be selected based on the flow chart
litter, and debris deposits removed, shows in Figure 5.
particularly at flow restrictions such as
vehicular crossing points. Besides that The life cycle cost for the BIOECODS is
removing dead grass, filling scour holes estimated using the following procedures:
and reseeding with a recommended 1. Determine the project life (n: years)
permanent grass seed mix must repair bare 2. Estimate the construction cost
patches and scoured area. Used drainage (including design, construction,
module could either be left in the ground contract administration, inspection,
or the material in the pipes could be supervision, supply and transportation
recycled. In sediment management of the of the material, ancillary works and
BIOECODS, the processes are pollutant any other costs associated with the
removal and water quality control. construction process)
Maintenance costs can be more difficult 3. Estimate the annual maintenance and
(but are sometimes the most critical operation cost (including overhead,
variable) to estimate than the construction management, inspections,
costs. Variances of the techniques used, measurements and management of
the amount of material removed and the sediments)
unknown nature of the pollutants exported 4. Estimate the Equivalent Annual Cost
from the catchments. In many cases (EAC) by estimating the Life Cycle
maintenance costs are the most significant Cost (LCC) of the project and dividing
cost of a treatment measure. by the project duration

LCC (RM) = Construction (RM) + [n x

3 Principle of Life Cycle Cost (LCC) annual maintenance & operation (RM)]
Analysis + [n x annual overhead/management
cost (RM)] (1)
The overall cost of providing, operating,
repairing, cleaning, maintaining and EAC (RM/year) = LCC (RM)/ duration
owning an asset over its predicted useful (years) (2)
life is defined as Life Cycle Costs (LCC).
Life cycle costs are a combination of the The economic analysis helps to calculate
production, construction and the ultimate project cost in terms of a

334
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

single sum that is the annual equivalent schedule. The assumed interest rate is
cost or the present value of all costs over entered into the appropriate box. The
the life of the development. The annual operation, maintenance and
methodology used in life cycle analysis overhead costs are increased by a
incorporates basic discounting and percentage after a number of years to
financial appraisal techniques. The value account for inflation (For example, 3%
of life cycle costing looks at the balance increase in every 10 years).
between initial and future expenditures by
using a series of economic analysis. The
future value of RM1 annual payments for 5 Discussions
n years at the compound interest rate of i
equals (1 + i) n. Similarly, the present The life cycle costs are estimated for
economic value due to a series of regular various interest rates and results are
annual future payments of RM 1 at summarized in Table 5 and plotted in
discount rates of i equals 1/(1+i) n. Figure 5 to examine the variation in life
cycle costs with interest rates. At smaller
interest rate, the life cycle cost of MSMA
4 Methodology for Life Cycle Cost method is higher than the conventional
(LCC) Analysis of BIOECODS method. The most important finding is that
Method the point where two curves intersect at
15% interest rates as shown in Figure 5
A simple spreadsheet has been developed indicates the interest rate at which life
to conduct life cycle cost analysis of cycle costs for the two methods are the
BIOECODS and traditional methods. The same whether the systems are conventional
procedure for the life cycle cost analysis is or MSMA method. The results show that
based on the Flow Chart shown in Figure the life cycle cost will be the same for both
4. There are two schedules for each methods before life cycle reached 25
method: estimation of capital/construction years.
cost and estimation of life cycle cost as The costs of the stormwater
shown in Tables 1- 4. From designs, the management scheme at USM Engineering
quantity of various items e.g. ecological Campus for conventional and MSMA
swales, concrete drainage are estimated method is shown in Table 1 and 2. The
and entered into the schedule of tabulated costs include drainage works, as
capital/construction cost estimates (Table this is component that differed with the
1 or Table 2). The rates for various items implementation of the BIOECODS.
are obtained from local authorities and/or Comparison of costs between
civil contractors and entered into the implementing a BIOECODS stormwater
schedule. The total capital/construction management scheme and a conventionally
cost is obtained as the sum of all the costs designed stormwater drainage system
in the last row of the schedule. shows only a minor decrease of 5% to the
To compute the life cycle cost, the cost of the drainage component of the
capital/construction cost obtained in Table development. Considering the drainage
1 or Table 2 is copied into the column of works component represents only 10% of
capital/construction cost in the schedule the overall cost, the incorporation of
for life cycle cost analysis in Table 3 or BIOECODS into stormwater management
Table 4. The operation and maintenance system at the USM Engineering Campus
costs are estimated and entered into the decreased the total budget by 0.5%.

335
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Table 1 Schedule for capital cost estimation for MSMA method

COST SUMMARY
Drainage type: Perimeter swale (package 2-9)-alternative way
Design life period: 50 years
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY RATE (RM) AMMOUNT (RM)
Excavation cu.m. 15,334 5.25 95,842.75
Hydronet sq.m. 18,032 7.50 135,240.00
Sand bedding sq.m. 7,409 4.00 29,636.00
Geo Strip lin.m. 20,964 102.00 2,138,277.00
Sand filling cu.m. 2,594 30.00 77,820.00
Turfing
a)close turfing sq.m. 37888 3.50 132,608.00
b)hydroseeding sq.m. 83270 3.15 262,300.50
TOTAL = 2,871,724.25

Drainage type: Ecological swale(package 2-9)-alternative way

Design life period : 50 years
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY RATE (RM) AMMOUNT (RM)
Excavation
for all type(A,B,and C) cu.m. 4,084 5.25 21,441.00

Hydronet
for all type(A,B,and C) sq.m. 7,391 7.50 55,432.50

Sand bedding
for all type(A,B,and C) sq.m. 2,070 4.00 8,280.00

Drainage Module
a) type A lin.m. 1,161 264.00 306,504.00
b) type B lin.m. 1,150 530.00 609,500.00
c) type C lin.m. 350 800.00 280,000.00

Sand filling
for all type(A,B,and C) cu.m. 1,801 30.00 54,030.00

Turfing
a) close turfing (type A, B and C) sq. m. 8,623 3.50 30,180.50
b) hydroseeding (type A,B and C) sq. m 4,945 3.15 15,576.75

Detention Storage
a) type A No. 103 2,957 304,571.00
b) type B No. 149 1,739 259,111.00

Ecological Pond
a) Wetpond 368,425.00
b) Detention Pond 201,431.00
c) Wetland 339,170.00
d) Wading River 162,010.00
e) Recreational Pond 129,670.00

Dry Pond (14 No.) 227,022.00

Earth drain + Variation Order (VO) 72,300
Miscellaneous VO 660,898
TOTAL = 4,105,553.35

336
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Table 2 Schedule for capital cost estimation for conventional method.

Drainage type: Conventional drainage (contractor rate)
Design life period: 50 years
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY RATE (RM) AMMOUNT (RM)
Initial costs L.S. 345,000.00

Drainage works
Monsoon drain
a) precast concrete u-shape lin.m. 623 400.00 249,200.00
b) ditto size 1200mm x 1200mm lin.m. 1,245 500.00 622,500.00
ditto size 1500mm x 1500mm lin.m. 2,075 600.00 1,245,000.00

Roadside drain (precast concrete)

a) P.C. 1 lin.m. 7,482 156.00 1,167,192.00
b) P.C. 2 lin.m. 3,000 165.00 495,000.00
c) P.C. 3 lin.m. 8,450 215.00 1,816,750.00

Box culvert lin.m. 54 2,000.00 108,000.00

Pipe culvert lin.m. 440 650.00 286,000.00

Sump
a) bricks sump to P.C 1 No. 1,247 300.00 374,100.00
b) ditto-bricks sump to P.C 2&3 No. 70 800.00 56,000.00

Outfall structure No. 4 10,000.00 40,000.00

Grease trap No. 3 5,000.00 15,000.00

G.I railing lin.m. 35.00 178,500.00

Detention pond L.S 250,000.00

TOTAL = 7,248,242.00

337
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Table33Schedule
Table Scheduletotoestimate
estimatelife
lifecycle
cyclecost
cost for
forconventional
conventionalmethod.
method

COST Operation
Capital Annual Maintenance Total Discount PV of RM 1 Present
Year (RM) (RM) (RM) (RM) Rate TOTAL ( 2% interest) Value
0 7,248,242 --- --- 7,248,242 0 7,248,242 1 7,248,242
1 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.98 75,059
2 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.96 73,587
3 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.94 72,144
4 12,000 84,000 96,000 9,600 105,600 0.92 97,558
5 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.91 69,343
6 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.89 67,983
7 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.87 66,650
8 12,000 84,000 96,000 9,600 105,600 0.85 90,129
9 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.84 64,062
10 12,000 57,600 69,600 6,960 76,560 0.82 62,806
11 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.80 67,732
12 13,200 91,872 105,072 10,507 115,579 0.79 91,133
13 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.77 65,102
14 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.76 63,825
15 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.74 62,574
16 13,200 91,872 105,072 10,507 115,579 0.73 84,193
17 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.71 60,144
18 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.70 58,965
19 13,200 63,360 76,560 7,656 84,216 0.69 57,808
20 13,200 91,872 105,072 10,507 115,579 0.67 77,781
21 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.66 61,120
22 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.65 59,922
23 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.63 58,747
24 14,520 101,088 115,608 11,561 127,169 0.62 79,064
25 14,520 962,496 977,016 97,702 1,074,718 0.61 655,074
26 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.60 55,358
27 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.59 54,273
28 14,520 101,088 115,608 11,561 127,169 0.57 73,043
29 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.56 52,165
30 14,520 69,696 84,216 8,422 92,638 0.55 51,143
31 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.54 55,158
32 15,980 101,059 117,039 11,704 128,743 0.53 68,315
33 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.52 53,017
34 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.51 51,977
35 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.50 50,958
36 15,980 101,059 117,039 11,704 128,743 0.49 63,113
37 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.48 48,979
38 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.47 48,019
39 15,980 76,666 92,646 9,265 101,910 0.46 47,077
40 15,980 101,059 117,039 11,704 128,743 0.45 58,307
41 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.44 49,762
42 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.44 48,787
43 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.43 47,830
44 17,560 111,168 128,728 12,873 141,601 0.42 59,246
45 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.41 45,973
46 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.40 45,071
47 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.39 44,188
48 17,560 111,168 128,728 12,873 141,601 0.39 54,734
49 17,560 84,326 101,886 10,189 112,075 0.38 42,472
50 17,560 1,066,406 1,083,966 108,397 1,192,363 0.37 442,996
Total Net Present Value 11,302,706

338
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges
Table 4 Schedule to estimate life cycle cost for MSMA method
Table 4 Schedule to estimate life cycle cost for MSMA method.
COST Operation PV of RM
Capital Annual M aintenan Total Discount 1 (2% )
Year (RM ) (RM ) ce (RM ) (RM ) Rate TOTAL interest Present Value
0 6,977,278 --- --- 6,977,278 0 6,977,278 1 6,977,278
1 13,000 92,000 105,000 10,500 115,500 0.98 113235
2 13,000 135,100 148,100 14,810 162,910 0.96 156584
3 13,000 190,000 203,000 20,300 223,300 0.94 210421
4 13,000 230,000 243,000 24,300 267,300 0.92 246944
5 13,000 260,000 273,000 27,300 300,300 0.91 271991
6 13,000 295,000 308,000 30,800 338,800 0.89 300845
7 13,000 100,000 113,000 11,300 124,300 0.87 108211
8 13,000 100,000 113,000 11,300 124,300 0.85 106089
9 13,000 100,000 113,000 11,300 124,300 0.84 104009
10 13,000 100,000 113,000 11,300 124,300 0.82 101969
11 14,233 150,000 164,233 16,423 180,656 0.80 145295
12 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.79 99079
13 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.77 97136
14 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.76 95232
15 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.74 93364
16 14,233 132,000 146,233 14,623 160,856 0.73 117175
17 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.71 89739
18 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.70 87979
19 14,233 100,000 114,233 11,423 125,656 0.69 86254
20 14,233 132,000 146,233 14,623 160,856 0.67 108252
21 15,655 100,000 115,655 11,566 127,221 0.66 83937
22 15,655 100,000 115,655 11,566 127,221 0.65 82291
23 15,655 100,000 115,655 11,566 127,221 0.63 80678
24 15,655 145,200 160,855 16,086 176,941 0.62 110008
25 15,655 690,000 705,655 70,566 776,221 0.61 473130
26 15,655 110,000 125,655 12,566 138,221 0.60 82598
27 15,655 110,000 125,655 12,566 138,221 0.59 80978
28 15,655 145,200 160,855 16,086 176,941 0.57 101630
29 15,655 115,000 130,655 13,066 143,721 0.56 80931
30 15,655 115,000 130,655 13,066 143,721 0.55 79344
31 17,220 115,000 132,220 13,222 145,442 0.54 78720
32 17,220 150,000 167,220 16,722 183,942 0.53 97606
33 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.52 78524
34 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.51 76985
35 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.50 75475
36 17,220 159,700 176,920 17,692 194,612 0.49 95403
37 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.48 72544
38 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.47 71122
39 17,220 120,000 137,220 13,722 150,942 0.46 69727
40 17,220 159,700 176,920 17,692 194,612 0.45 88138
41 18,943 125,500 144,443 14,444 158,887 0.44 70548
42 18,943 125,500 144,443 14,444 158,887 0.44 69164
43 18,943 125,500 144,443 14,444 158,887 0.43 67808
44 18,943 175,650 194,593 19,459 214,052 0.42 89560
45 18,943 125,000 143,943 14,394 158,337 0.41 64949
46 18,943 125,000 143,943 14,394 158,337 0.40 63676
47 18,943 125,000 143,943 14,394 158,337 0.39 62427
48 18,943 175,650 194,593 19,459 214,052 0.39 82739
49 18,943 130,000 148,943 14,894 163,837 0.38 62088
50 18,943 1,013,550 1,032,493 103,249 1,135,742 0.37 421960
Total Net Present Value 12 ,831,770

339
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Maintenance

Calculate cost of construction of proposed BIOECODS

systems and any alternative designs

Calculate operational and maintenance

costs as appropriate

Select discount rate

Propose alternative design
Select time period for analysis

Calculate Present value of proposed BIOECODS systems

and any alternative designs on economic basis
Select appropriate drainage system

Carry out both economic and financial

t
No
Is PV
acceptable?
Yes
Carry out Life Cycle Cost Analysis of selected systems

Figure 4 Flow chart Life Cycle Cost analysis of BOIECODS System.

Table 5 Summary of life cycle costs for various interest rates.

Method Life Cycle Cost at Various Interest Rates (%)
1% 2% 3% 5% 7% 9% 15%
Traditional 11,378,224 10,411,057 9,727,337 8,872,924 8,396,212 8,110,804 7719138.5
MSMA 14,303,387 12,636,358 11,450,462 9,956,133 9,113,191 8,603,155 7890017.5
MSMA is %
20 18 15 11 8 6 2
higher

Com parison of Life Cycle Cost MSMA Methods and Conventional

Methods for Various Interest Rates

16,000,000
"Traditional
14,000,000 Method"
Life Cycle Costs (RM)

"MSMA Method"
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1% 2% 3% 5% 7% 9% 15%

Interest rates

Figure 5 Comparison of Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of the traditional and MSMA methods at
various interest rate.

340
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

6 Conclusion • Site designs incorporating clusters

and reduced setbacks, resulting in
Life - cycle cost analysis (LCC) is an less grading, reduced paving, less
economic evaluation technique to evaluate landscaping, and lower mitigation
the sustainability of the drainage systems. costs.
It is well suited to compare alternative • Vegetated swales are less costly to
designs, with differing cost expenditures install than curb and gutter,
over the project life. The most critical manholes, and open concrete drain
elements of the evaluation are objective • Directing flow to vegetated filter
assumptions regarding project design life, strips or infiltration devices to
material service life and the value of reduce runoff rates and volumes
money or discount rate. The paper presents can reduce the size (and cost) of
a simple method to compare life cycle downstream conveyance and
costs of the new environmental-friendly storage devices (storm drains,
drainage systems (MSMA) and traditional culverts, and detention basins).
methods of urban drainage design. The • Using upstream detention basins to
method only considers the direct capital reduce peak runoff rates can reduce
and operation and maintenance costs the size (and cost) of major
associated with the methods. This simple drainage ways and storm drains.
method can be used to compare the long- The observations are based on site-specific
term financial feasibility of the MSMA factors and selection of particular drainage
method. The method was applied to an components, which will vary from site to
actual site in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia with site. However, it gives an indication of the
typical drainage components and local long term financial viability of the MSMA
rates were adopted to compare the life technique with respect to direct capital and
cycle costs of the two methods. maintenance costs. MSMA method
The finding of the study was the contributes towards a number of additional
capital cost for the MSMA method is 5% benefits such as reduction in peak flow,
lower than the traditional method. delay or avoidance of major downstream
However, the MSMA method has a higher channel upgradation or protection work to
maintenance cost. It is expected that in the minimize flood hazard, and improvement
future construction cost neutral outcomes the quality of stormwater. When these are
will predominantly occur as contractors considered, the MSMA method has much
become more familiar with the greater overall benefit than the traditional
construction of MSMA infrastructure and method. Thus, the little increase in life
remove the extra costs associated with a cycle cost associated with the MSMA
“safety margin” included into the project method appears to be justified.
budget. The use of off-the-shelf As a conclusion, the LCC analysis has
construction components minimizes the shown that the construction cost for
costs associated with contractors adding MSMA method is competitive to the
exorbitant safety margins into their project conventional method and in the long term
budget. By using MSMA methods rather it can be cheaper if the materials is
than traditional systems, development and produce locally. However, the operation
stormwater infrastructure costs can be and maintenance cost for MSMA method
lowered. Other aspects of the life-cycle is slightly higher as compare to the
cost of stormwater management systems conventional method. The total life cycle
also can be reduced by using MSMA cost at lower interest rate for MSMA
methods judiciously. In the long term, the method is higher than the traditional
capital costs can be reduced through method but the differences in life cycle
MSMA methods, such as: costs diminish with increased interest rate

341
Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

and become equal at about 15% interest Conference on Urban Storm Drainage,
rate. LCC analysis must take into account Sydney.
the full range of benefits, downstream 6. Evangelisti, M., Moran, T.G. and
implications and maintenance implications Mouritz, M. (1993). Water Sensitive
of each system to enable holistic and Urban Design - A Tool for Urban
comparative cost-benefit-risk assessment. Integrated Catchment Management,
Prepared for Melbourne Parks and
Waterways, Melbourne Water
Acknowledgements Corporation, 33p.
7. Evangelisti, M. and Mouritz, M.
The authors would like to express their (1994). Water Sensitive Urban Design
gratitude to the Department of Irrigation Seminar. How Do You Do It? 12 th
and Drainage, Malaysia for funding the September, Perth, Australia, 235p.
research. Appreciation also goes to Mr. 8. Hellstrom, D. (1998) Nutrient
Mohd Fazly Yusof, Ms Anita Ainan, Mr Management in Sewerage Systems:
Lau Tze Liang and Ms Khairul Rahmah Investigations of Components and
Ayub for their involvements in this Exergy Analysis. PhD thesis,
project. Department of Environmental
Engineering, Lulea University of
Technology, 1998: 02
References 9. Kaiser, M. (1997) Requirements and
possibilities of best management
1. Argue, J.R. (2000). Stormwater practices for stormwater runoff from
“Source Control” Design Procedures the view of ecological townplanning.
for WSUD: Some Issues and Water Science and Technology, Vol.
Examples. In Proceedings National 36, No 8-9, pp319-323
Conference on Water Sensitive Urban 10. Lorent, F. I. (1992). Effect of Piped
Design - Sustainable Drainage median vs. Open Ditch Drainage on
Systems for Urban Areas, Melbourne. Stromwater Quality. Research and
2. Backstrom, M. (1998). Ditches: Development Branch, Ministry of
Sustainable Drainage Components. Transportation, Ontario, Report No.
Proceedings of the 3rd International MAT-92-04.
Conference on Innovative 11. Lloyd, S.D. (2001). Water Sensitive
Technologies in Urban Strom Urban Design in the Australian
Drainage, NOVATECH 98, Lyon, Context, Synthesis of a Conference
France. held 30-31 August 2000, Melbourne,
3. Chow, V. T. (1959). Open Channel Australia. CRC for Catchment
Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill. Hydrology, Technical Report 01/7,
4. Coombes, P.J. and Kuczera, G. (1998). CRC for Catchment Hydrology,
Water Sensitive Urban Monash University, 26p.
Redevelopment: The Fig Tree Placell 12. Mohd Sidek, L., Zakaria, N.A., Abd
Experiment. In Proc. HydraStorm 98, Ghani, A. & Abdullah, R. (2002),
I. E. Aust., Adelaide, Australia, p 195- Alternative Solutions to Conventional
200. Drainage Systems using Bio-
5. Coombes, P.J., Kuczera, G., and Ecological Drainage Systems
Argue, J.R. (1999). Design Monitoring (BIOECODS): Design and Concept I,
and performance of the Water Buletin Ingenieur, Vol 15, pp 46 – 51
Sensitive Urban Redevelopment at 13. Mohd Sidek, L., Zakaria, N.A., Abd
Figtree Place in Newcastle. In Ghani, A. & Abdullah, R (2002),
Proceedings of the 8 th International Alternative Solutions to Conventional

342
 Rivers’04
1st International Conference on Managing Rivers in the 21st Century: Issues & Challenges

Drainage Systems using Bio- 17. Mohd Sidek, L., Takara, K., Zakaria,
Ecological Drainage Systems N.A., Abd Ghani, A. & Abdullah, R
(BIOECODS): Design and Concept II, (2002), Bio-Ecological Drainage
Buletin Ingenieur, Vol 16, pp 47 - 52 Systems (BIOECODS) : An Integrated
14. Mohd Sidek, L., Zakaria, N.A., Abd Approach for Urban Water
Ghani, A. & Abdullah, R (2002), The Environmental Planning, Seminar on
Use and Development of Bio- Water Environmental Planning
Ecological Drainage Systems Technologies of Water Resources
(BIOECODS) under Tropical Climate, Management, 15-16 October 2002.
2nd World Engineering Congress, 22- 18. Schueler, T.R. (1987). Controlling
25 July 2002 Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for
15. Mohd Sidek, L.,.Kaoru Takara, Abd Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Ghani, A., Desa, M.N., & Zakaria, N.A Washington, Washington Metropolitan
(2002), Evaluation of Infiltration Water Resource Planning Board, 185p.
Engineering and Storage Tank Systems 19. Wong, T.H.F., Breen, P.F. and Lloyd,
for Improved Stormwater S.D. (2000). Water Sensitive Road
Management, Int. Conference on Design - Design Options for Improving
Urban Hydrology for the 21st Century, Stormwater Quality of Road Runoff.
14 – 18 October 2002, pp 535 – 548 Cooperative Research Centre for
16. Abdullah, R., Zakaria, N.A., Abd Catchment Hydrology and the
Ghani, A. , Mohd Sidek, L., Ainan, A. Cooperative Research Centre for
(2002), Modelling Bio-Ecological Freshwater Ecology, 74p.
Drainage Systems (BIOECODS) – A 20. WSUDRG (1989). Water Sensitive
Case Study with Stormwater Residential Design: An Investigation
Management Model, Int. Conference into Purpose and Potential in the Perth
on Urban Hydrology for the 21st Metropolitan Region, Water Sensitive
Century, 14 – 18 October 2002, pp 572 Urban Design Research Group,
– 582. Western Australia Water Resources
Council, 81p.

343