PROJECT REPORT

ON
COST OPTIMIZATION STUDY OF
BRIDGE LIFE CYCLE
AT
DURGAPUR
LUCKNOW
SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY
SUNIL KUMAR Er. SHIVAM PATEL

SHABANA KHAN H.O.D. CIVIL ENGG.

PRAMOD KUMAR KANKHARE M.G.I.M.T. LUCKNOW

S. No. Name Membership No.
1. Sunil Kumar 97477
2. Shabana Khan 95120
3. Pramod Kumar Kankhare 96313

APPROVED BY:
Er. SHIVAM PATEL
H.O.D. CIVIL ENGG.
M.G.I.M.T. LUCKNOW

2
 PREFACE
I feel great plesure to submit this project entitled "Cost Optimization
Study of Bridge Life Cycle At Durgapur Lucknow" as the first attempt of my
technical knowledge. A project like this requires a complete and through
knowledge of design and estimating. It requires modern and good knowledge of
recent theory to help in making the project more attractive, economical and
commercial. My satisfaction become more that I have completed my project on it
tried my level best to deal with the project problem in the best possible way my
little knowledge.
I am expressing all my ideas about the project which I have gained from
respected teachers.
A Project problem is concerned with a desgin, drawing, specification,
current rates, detailed estimate etc. for a building plan we must keep in mind the
requirement of a given building then we are able to choose the site for building. I
am heartily thank to my respected teachers especially.
Er. Shivam Patel for their cooperation without which the comletion of the
project would have been impossible.

3
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is our own work and that, to the best of
our knowledge. And belief, it contains no material previously published or written
by another person or material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for
the award of any ohter degree or diploma of the university or other institute of
higher learning, expect where due acknowledgment has been made in the text.

4
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this project entitle "Cost Optimization Study of
Bridge Life Cycle At Durgapur Lucknow" which is submitted by Sunil
Kumar (Membership No. 97477), Shabana Khan (Membership No.
95120) & Pramod Kumar Kankhare (Membership No. 96313) in partial
fulfillment to the requirement for the award of T.Engg Civil Part-II in Civil
Engineering this project is a record of the candidate own work carried out by
him under my/our supervision. The matter embodied in this thesis is original
and has not been submitted for the award of any ohter diploma.

I recommended this project to the award of T.Engg. Civil Part- II

Er. Shivam Patel

(H.O.D. Civil Engg.)
M.G.I.M.T, Lucknow

5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A part from the efforts of me, the success of any project depends largely on
the encouragment and gudelines of many others. I take this opportunity to express
my gratitude to the people who have been intrumental in the successful completion
of this project.

I express my thanks to the Er. Shivam Patel, Head of Department (Civil)

for M.G.I.M.T. Lucknow. extending his support.

My deepest thanks to, the All lect. Civil Department, Guide ot the project
for guiding and correcting various cocuments of mine with attention and care. He
has taken pain to go through the project and make necessary correction as and
when needed.

I take immense pleasure in thanking to "The Institution of Civil Engineers

(India)" for having permited me to carry out this project work.

Words are inadequate in offering my thanks to my beloved parents for their

blessings, my friends for their encouragement and cooperation in carrying out the
project work.

6
 CONTENT

S.NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 8

2. Agency Cost 14-18

3. Inspection 19-32

4. Bridge user cost 33-38

5. Bridge Related Accident Rate 39-40

6. Bridge Traffic Capacity 41-47

7. Bridge Aesthetical Capacity 48-51

8. Bridge Aesthetics Design Guidelines 52-60

9. Case Study 61-63

10. Conclusion and Discussion 64

11. Recommendation and Further Research 65

12. Bibliography 66

7
 PROJECT REPORT

ON

COST OPTIMIZATION STUDY OF

BRIDGE LIFE CYCLE

AT
DURGAPUR

LUCKNOW

INTRODUCTION

8
 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION Decisions related to implementation of a transportation

improvement generally require that several alternatives be considered. Many
factors contribute to an agency's decision to select a particular option, although
initial project costs may dominate this decision. Initial agency costs, however, tell
only part of the story. Bridges investment decisions should consider all of the costs
and considerations incurred during the period over which the alternatives are being
compared. Bridges are required to provide service for many years. The ability of a
bridge to provide service over time is predicated on its being maintained
appropriately by the agency. Thus the investment decision should consider not
only the initial activity that creates a public good, but also all future activities that
will be required to keep that investment available to the public. It is important to
note that the lowest agency cost option may not necessarily be implemented when
other considerations such as aesthetical and cultural value, user cost, and
environmental concerns are taken into account. This study was designed firstly to
expose the principles of bridge life cycle cost (BLCC) and identify all of relevant
affected parameters, secondly to separately focus on each life cycle consideration
and deeply illustrate the methodology of assessing its impacts on the whole BLCC.
The most important part of this study is the unique systematic way of converting
all of the theoretical data and parameters to a simple numerical calculations system
which is relating the aesthetical and cultural values, and the environmental impact
with the other important aspects of bridge like functionality, economics and
techniques. When doing so, facilitate the implementation of the optimization
process. The final goal is to create a simple compromise computer program, which
is based on these data and parameters and providing a simple optimization process
to help the design makers to chose the optimum alternative.

9
LIFE CYCLE COST (LCC):

Technique which enables comparative cost assessments to be made over a

specified period of time, taking into account all relevant economic factors both in
terms of initial capital costs and future operational costs. In particular, it is an
economic assessment considering all projected relevant cost flows over a period of
analysis expressed in monetary value. Where the term uses initial capital letters it
can be defined as the present value of the total cost of an asset over the period of
analysis.

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS (LCCA):

LCCA is a cost-centric approach used to select the most cost-effective alternative

that accomplishes a preselected project at a specific level of benefits that is
assumed to be equal among project alternatives being considered. All of the
relevant costs that occur throughout the life of an alternative, not simply the
original expenditures, are included.

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (BCA):

BCA is the appropriate tool to use when design alternatives will not yield equal
benefits, such as when unlike projects are being compared or when a decision-
maker is considering whether or not to undertake a project. The elements typically
included in LCCA and BCA are listed below.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN (LCCA) AND (BCA):

The agency that uses LCCA has already decided to undertake a project or
improvement and is seeking to determine the most cost-effective means to
accomplish the project's objectives. LCCA is appropriately applied only to

10
compare project implementation alternatives that would yield the same level of
service and benefits to the project user at any specific volume of traffic.

Unlike LCCA, BCA considers the benefits of an improvement as well as its costs
and therefore can be used to compare design alternatives that do not yield identical
benefits (e.g., bridge replacement alternatives that vary in the level of traffic they
can accommodate), as well as to compare projects that accomplish different
objectives (a road realignment versus a widening project). Moreover, BCA can be
used to determine whether or not a project should be undertaken at all (i.e.,
whether the project's life-cycle benefits will exceed its life-cycle costs).

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA):

Tool for identifying and evaluating the environmental aspects of products and
services from the "cradle to the grave": from the extraction of resource inputs to
the eventual disposal of the product or its waste. Life Cycle Assessment LCA is for
assessing the total environmental impact associated with a product's manufacture,
use and disposal and with all actions in relation to the construction and use of a
building or other constructed facilities. LCA does not address economic or societal
aspects.

11
12
13
AGENCY COST

BRIDGE LCC CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

There are two primary reasons for establishing a life-cycle cost classification or
taxonomy when evaluating bridges. First, the classification insures that all costs
associated with the project are taken into account. Second, the classification
scheme allows for a detailed, consistent breakdown of the life-cycle cost and net
savings estimates at several levels so that a clear picture can be had of the
respective cost differences between material/design alternatives.

The third benefit of this life-cycle cost classification is that, actual construction
costs classified by the same structural elements can be used to compile historical
unit cost data on bridge element costs to be used in future life-cycle cost analyses.

COSTS BY THE ENTITY THAT BEARS THE COST (LEVEL 1)

In this level, the costs can be divided as shown in Figure 2 below, and will discuss
in he following subsections.

COST BY THE ENTITY THAT BEARS THE COST (LEVEL 1)

14
AGENCY COSTS

Agency costs are all costs incurred by the project's owner or agent over the study
period. These include but are not limited to design costs, capital costs, insurance,
utilities, and servicing and repair of the facility. Agency costs are relatively easy to
estimate for conventional material/designs since historical data on similar projects
reveal these costs, will discuss it later in this chapter.

USER COSTS

User costs accrue to the direct users of the project. For example, bridge
construction often causes congestion and long delays for private and commercial
traffic. New bridge construction impacts traffic on the highway over which it
passes. Maintenance and repair of an existing bridge, along with the rerouting of
traffic, can impact drivers' personal time, as well as the operating cost of vehicles
sitting in traffic.

SOCIETY COSTS OR THIRD-PARTY COSTS

Third-party or spillover costs are all costs incurred by entities who are neither the
agency/owners themselves nor direct users of the project. One example is the lost
sales for a business establishment whose customer access has been impeded by
construction of the project, or whose business property has been lost through the
exercise of eminent domain. A second example is cost to humans and the
environment from a construction process that pollutes the water, land, or
atmosphere. These costs can be subdivided into two main categories:

BRIDGE AESTHETICAL & CULTURAL VALUE (ACV)

Some projects have exceeded all cost estimates but still it has been possible to
fulfill them with success. One of the main aims of bridge projects is to preserve the

15
harmony of the scenery. Location of a bridge, cultural values of the surroundings,
landscape and the viewpoints of local people have influence on the goals that are
set to a bridge in the beginning of a project. Bridges are often seen more or less as
sculptures and icons which the citizens may relate with the soul of the city. This
atmosphere and the will to identify the town and its values with an icon may
motivate for bold and spectacular solutions. So, absolutely there is a hidden value
for the external appearance and the beauty of the bridge, it should be considered
during the design and in the LCCA process. This value is called the ACV. It is not
the intention to provide a formula for good design. Rather it is the intention to set
down considerations and principles, which will help, eliminate the worst aspects of
bridge design and encourage the best.

BRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (LCA)

Environmental impact categories evaluated include energy and material resource

consumption, air and water pollutant emissions, solid waste generation, energy use,
fuel consumption, and emissions for the traffic. Life cycle assessment is an
analytical technique for evaluating the full environmental burdens and impacts
associated with a product system.

COSTS BY LCC CATEGORY (LEVEL 2)

Level 2 groups the costs according to the life-cycle categories which, in KTH we
agreed to classify them ascending by there occurrence during the bridge life cycle,
with these proposed titles as follow:

❖ Investment Cost (Purchasing, Construction, & Installation)

❖ Operation & Maintenance Cost + Inspection Cost

16
❖ Repair/Rehabilitation & Replacement Cost + End of life Management Cost
(Demolition and Landscaping)

Historical agency data are only one mechanism that may be used to feed LCCA
input needs. The expert opinion of senior agency staff members can also provide a
wealth of information for investment analyses, as can research conducted by
industry and government. Still, the agency will have to devote resources toward the
development and validation of data sources for LCCA inputs, as well as toward
learning how to use those sources.

INVESTMENT COST (PURCHASING, CONSTRUCTION, &

INSTALLATION)

An example of historical agency data for bridge investment costs can be as shown
in following table:

TABLE 2: INVESTMENT FEEDBACKS AND RECOMMENDATION

Investment (Purchasing, Construction, & Installation)

The action Name Service Average Required Unit Duration Average Cost
Life (year) Value Unit From
Prefabricated prestressed 100 0.12 day/m2 The bridge area
concrete bridge
Connvential reinforced 80 0.15 day/m2 The bridge area ?!
concrete bridges
Steel Structures 70 0.1 day/m2 The bridge area

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Operation: - The preservation and upkeep of a structure, including all its

appurtenances, in its original condition (or as subsequently improved).

17
Maintenance includes any activity intended to "maintain" an existing condition or
to prevent deterioration. Examples include: cleaning, lubricating, painting, and
application of protective systems.

Maintenance: - The minor repair and preventative maintenance activities

necessary to maintain a satisfactory and efficient structure, usually prescheduled
maintenance and repair activities. An example of historical agency data for bridge
operation and maintenance costs can be as shown in following table:

TABLE 3: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FEEDBACKS AND

RECOMMENDATION

Operation & Maintenance activities

The Action Name Recommended Average Required Unit Average
Intervals Duration Cost %
(Year) Value Unit From From the
agency Cost
Cleaning the bridge of salt 1 0.05 hr/m2 Bridge
man
Cleaning & rodding of the 1 0.2 hr/m2 Bridge
drainage system man
Maintenance of parapets, 1 0.5 hr/m2 Bridge
gradrails & realings man
Dehumidification, 1 0.5 hr/m2 Bridge .05
electricity and man
maintenance
Protection against scour 1 0.2 hr/m2 Bridge
man
Important of painting 10 2 hr/m2 Bridge
man

18
INSPECTION

The main purpose of the inspections is to ensure that the safety and traffic ability
of the bridges meet the requirements; the inspections reveal the physical and
functional condition thus providing the basis for an efficient and economical bridge
management. The bridge inspections are since 1987 divided into three types,
according to the nature of their aim, scope and frequency. They are:

 General inspection
 Major inspection
 Special inspection

GENERAL INSPECTION: - The aim of is to follow up the assessed damage

during earlier inspections, detect and assess new damage, and detect if the
contracted maintenance work has been properly performed. Every structural part of
the bridge together and their included elements have to be visually inspected.
Structural parts under water are excluded. There is no demand on hand-close
investigation unless new damage is detected. General inspection is a simpler
inspection compared to the major inspection. The scope of the general inspection is
to check the recorded damage from previous major inspections and check if the
assessed development of these was correct. If new damages are detected, they will
be recorded and assessed according to current rules. General inspection has to be
performed on bridges with a theoretical span larger than 2,0 meters. Smaller
bridges are normally exempted from this inspection type. The time interval
between two general inspections is maximum three years. The personnel
performing this inspection type have to posses the same competence as the
inspectors performing major inspections.

19
MAJOR INSPECTION: - The most important inspection type performed on the
Swedish road bridges. The scope of this inspection type is to detect and asses
damages and defects which can affect the designed function or the traffic safety,
both in the short and the long run (within 10 years). Another aim is to detect even
minor damage or defects that, if not attended to, can cause increased maintenance
or repair costs within a 10-year period. Every structural part and their in-going
elements, which are within hand reach, have to be investigated. During this
inspection, even the structural parts located under the water surface have to be
closely inspected by qualified divers. Even adjoining parts of the bridge such as
road embankments, slopes, abutment ends, fill revetment and fenders have to be
inspected. If the inspected bridge contains mechanical or electrical equipment,
such as movable bridges, these parts will also be subject to close inspection. The
inspection has to be done hand-close. Special inspection equipment, such as a
bridge-lift, will allow a close look under the bridge deck, a structural part difficult
to inspect otherwise. This inspection type requires that a series of physical
measurements have to be performed. Such measurements are made to determine
for example the real bottom profile (erosion risk), chloride content and
carbonization of concrete, measurements of the level of corrosion of the
reinforcement bars and cracking. The major inspection has to be carried out at least
every sixth year. The demands on the bridge inspectors performing these are high.

SPECIAL INSPECTION: -For more information see BaTMan (2000) or the

Swedish Bridge inspection An example of historical agency data for bridge
inspection costs can be as shown in following table:

20
 TABLE 4 : INSPECTION FEEDBACKS AND RECOMMENDATION

Operation & Maintenance activities

The Action Name Recommended Average Required Unit Average
Intervals Duration Cost %
(Year) Value Unit From From the
agency Cost
General Inspection 1 0.05 hr/m2 Bridge
man 0.15
Major Inspection 6 0.1 hr/m2 Bridge (Concrete
man structures)
0.20 (Steel

Special Inspection When needed 0.2 hr/m2 Bridge Structure)

man

REPAIR/REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT

Repair: - The restoration of a structure, including all its appurtenances, to its

original condition (or as subsequently improved) insofar as practicable. Repair
includes any activity intended to correct the affects of material deterioration by
restoring or replacing in-kind any damaged member.

Rehabilitation: - The improvement or betterment of a structure, including all its

appurtenances, to a condition which meets or exceeds current design standards.
Examples of rehabilitation include, widening a bridge to meet lane/shoulder width
requirements, raising a bridge to meet clearance requirements, replacement of
substandard bridge rails, strengthening a bridge to increase load carrying capacity
to accepted limits, replacement of deck, rehabilitation of deck, and rehabilitation of
superstructure.

21
Replacement: - The erection of a new structure at or near an existing structure,
with the new structure(s) intended to receive the service loads from the existing
structure which is eventually abandoned, relocated, or demolished. An example of
historical agency data for bridge repair/rehabilitation & replacement costs can be
as shown in following table:

TABLE 5: REPAIR/REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT

FEEDBACKS AND RECOMMENDATION

Repair, Rehabiliations & Replacement activities

The Action Name Recommended Average Required Unit Average
Intervals Duration Cost %
(Year) Value Unit From From the
agency Cost
Deck repair & 12 0.2 hr/m2 Bridge
maintenance man
Deck overlay & 26 0.4 hr/m2 Bridge
resurfacing man
Deck replacement 44 1 hr/m2 Bridge
man
Expansion joints repair 4 2 hr/m2 Bridge 20
man (Concrete
Expansion joints 12 3 hr/m2 Bridge structure
replacement man
Bridge seat & bearings 4 0.02 hr/m2 Bridge
repair man
Bridge seat & bearings 40 0.04 hr/m2 Bridge
replacement man
Gradrail, railings 20 2 hr/m Bridge
replacement man

22
Edge beam impregnation 25 0.5 hr/m Bridge
& repair man
Edge beam replacements 50 1.5 hr/m2 Bridge
man
Superstructure 30 4 hr/m2 Bridge 22
strengthening & man (Steel
rehabiliation Structure
Superstructure 50 8 hr/m2 Bridge
replacements man
Substructure strengthening 30 1 hr/m2 Bridge
& rehabiliation man
Substructure replacement 50 2 hr/m2 Bridge
man
Painting of steel structure, 25 0.2 hr/m2 Bridge
whole bridge man

END OF LIFE MANAGEMENT (DEMOLITION AND LANDSCAPING)

An example of historical agency data for bridge demolition and landscaping costs
can be as shown in following table:

TABLE 6: ENDS OF LIFE MANAGEMENT FEEDBACKS AND

RECOMMENDATION

End of life Management (Demolition and Landscaping) activities

The Action Name Recommended Average Required Unit Average
Intervals Duration Cost %
(Year) Value Unit From From the
agency Cost
Prestressed concrete bridge 100 0.025 day/m2 Bridge Area 9
Convential reinforced 80 0.04 day/m2 Bridge man 10

23
 concrete bridges
Steel Structures 70 0.02 day/m2 Bridge Area 8
Timber Bridges 50 0.015 day/m2 Bridge Area 6

COSTS BY ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN (LEVEL 3)

The third level of classification organizes costs (1) by specific functional element
of the structure or facility, (2) by activities not assignable to functional elements
(e.g., overhead). Parts (2) is the traditional "elements" cost. We add new-
technology introduction costs to measure the unique costs of using a new material.
Schematically Figure 3 below will introduce this level.

24
 COSTS BY ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN (LEVEL 3)

ELEMENTAL COSTS

Elements are major components of the project's structure, and are sometimes
referred to as component systems or assemblies. Elements common to bridges are
superstructure, substructure,nand approach. Each element performs a given
function regardless of the materials used, design specified, or method of
construction employed. Individual cost estimates at the elemental level (e.g.,
$/square meter to furnish and install a concrete deck) are most useful in the pre-
design stage when a variety of material/design combinations are being considered.
This is the stage at which large net savings can be achieved by making
economically optimal material/design choices as shown in.

25
 BRIDGE STAGES AND THE POSSIBILITIES TO INFLUENCE THE LCC

NON-ELEMENTAL COSTS

Non-elemental costs are all costs that cannot be attributed to specific functional
elements of the project. A common example of a non-elemental agency cost is
overhead expenses; a non-elemental third-party cost could be spillover costs.
Because elemental cost categories are useful for generating and updating historical
unit cost measures, all project costs that are not truly elemental must be excluded
from these historical statistics and put in the non-elemental group. Schematically
graph compose these three levels can be as shown in Figure 5 below

26
 BRIDGE LCC CLASSIFICATION LEVELS

Notation for bridge main structure and its elements are presented in Table 7:; see
also Figure 1, and Table 1.

27
28
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS APPROACH INTEGRATED LIFE-
CYCLE COST ANALYSIS APPROACH

The term life cycle cost (LCC) is not used consistently. The more traditional view
of LCC evaluates costs incurred by government agencies all through the value
chain (from raw material acquisition to end of life). Such costs are termed "agency
costs. " Recently, efforts have been made to broaden this definition to be more
inclusive of other costs associated with construction projects. In particular, several
studies, using a more holistic LCC approach, have been conducted with the goal of
determining agency costs as well as user costs An integrated life cycle assessment,
aesthetical and cultural value, and cost model was developed in this master thesis
to evaluate the bridge sustainability, and compare alternative materials and designs
using environmental, economic and social indicators where, the bridge LCC is
equal to:

LCC = C AG + C USER + C RACV + C REI

Where:

o CAG Is the corresponding Agency cost.

o CUSER Is the corresponding User cost.

o CRACV Is the corresponding Relative Aesthetical and Cultural Value cost.

o CREI Is the corresponding Relative Environmental Impact cost.

Where:

Here CAG is the Agency cost obtained by cost calculation considering the
construction, repair, maintenance and demolishing costs of the bridge from its
whole lifetime.

29
The Relative Aesthetical and Cultural Value cost CRACV of a bridge, is then
obtained by equation:

C RACY =k AES .0 AG

o kAES Is the aesthetical and cultural coefficient. Range from +0,30 To -0,30

Finally, the Relative Environmental Impact cost CREI of a bridge, is then obtained
by equation:

C REI = k EIC AG

o IcEI Is the environmental impact coefficient. Range from 0,0 To +0,20

Consequently, the system described above enables comparison between different

design proposals, existing bridges and bridge types as well as evaluation of even
different construction methods.

Steps in Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

 Define the project objective and minimum performance requirements.

 Identify the alternatives for achieving the objective.
 Establish the basic assumptions for the analysis.
 Identify, estimate, and determine the timing of all relevant costs.
 Compute the life-cycle cost of each alternative
 Perform sensitivity analysis by reusing different assumptions
 Compare the alternatives' life-cycle costs
 Consider other project effects
 Select the best alternative.

For LCCA to yield valid results, each project alternative considered must
provide the same level of service or utility for a specific, given volume of traffic.

30
In the event that the alternatives yield different levels of service or utility, then
benefit-cost analysis (BCA),

Economic Analysis Technique

The time value of money is germane to LCCA because costs included in the
analysis are incurred at varying points in time. Figure 6 show an example of the
bridge LCC cash flow. For LCCA, costs occasioned at different times must be
converted to their value at a common point in time. It's recommended to use the
present value (PV) approach (also known as "present worth"), the formula to
discount future constant value costs to present value is:

Present Value = Future Value × ¿1¿

Where:

r = Is the real discount rate

LCC CASH FLOW EXAMPLE

For LCCA to be performed in a right way, the proposals on, how to design the
bridge should contain a lot of documents describing the bridge from a lot of
different aspects, Table 8 present these documents as follow.
31
 Table 8 : DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMIT WITH THE BRIDGE DESIGN
PROPOSAL

a) Description B) Design Calculation

 General description of the proposal  Rough statical and dynamical analy
and design concept ses of the bridge
 Technical description.  A lot of other important factors that
affect the bridge, as for instance
wind, stability, vibration, stiffness,
etc.
 Description of the construction  Rough estimated cost calculations
process.
  LCC-calculation
c) Drawings d) Perspective/photomontage/Model
 Plan.  Photomontage of the bridge on four
 Elevation. delivered pictures.
 Special elevations in a smaller scale  Model in scale 1:500.
1:100.
 Type sections.
 Important details.

BRIDGE USER COST

Bridge user costs are costs incurred by users of the bridge as a result of
deteriorated conditions on the bridge, such as a narrow width, low load capacity, or
low vertical clearance which are resulting from construction, maintenance,

32
inspection, rehabilitation, and demolition activities, leading to an increase in the
vehicles trip time which is translated into user delay costs, additional vehicle
operating costs and increase risk and accident costs.

The bridges are aging, and the agencies are focusing on maintenance and
rehabilitation of existing bridges infrastructure to a greater extent than ever before.
Work on existing bridges, whether its purpose is to rehabilitate or to add capacity,
requires the use of work zones to protect bridge users and construction workers.
User costs contribute significantly to the total life cycle cost and should be
considered in the analysis of bridge networks, designers should consider road user
costs when determining the most appropriate construction staging and final design.
A study by the Florida Department of Transportation estimated that user costs may
exceed the repair costs by a factor of 5 or more.

BRIDGE USER COST COMPONENTS

Before addressing bridge user cost calculation procedures, it is helpful to

understand the bridge user cost components. Figure 7 illustrate the user cost
components and their appearance events.

Bridge user cost during a work zone are usually evaluated with respect to the
traffic delay costs (TDC), the additional vehicle operating costs (VOC) to cross the
work zone, the related-accidentcosts (AC), and the risk of failure cost (FC). The
following equation is used to determine bridge user cost during a work zone.

33
 Bridge User Cost = TDC +VOC + AC + FC

The costs should be calculated to present value and added up for all foreseen
maintenance and repair works for the studied time interval TE.

TRAFFIC DELAY COST (TDC)

The traffic delay cost (TDC) results from the increase in travel time through the
work zone due to speed reductions, congestion delays, or increased distance as a
result of a detour. Therefore, the TDC is calculated based on the difference
between the time taken to cross the bridge and the time taken to finish the detour or
the work zone.
TE
1
TDC=∑ T × ADT i ×∋×(rrWr + ( 1−rr ) Wr) ¿
t −o
¿¿

Where:-

L
T =T wz −T o , T o= , T wz=? ? ?
v

-T is the travel time delay for one vehicle in case of work zone, (hour),

- ADTt is the average daily traffic at time t, measured in number of,

(vehicle/day),

- Nt is the number of days needed to perform the work at time t, (Day), -

- rT Is the percentage of trucks from all AVD,

- wT Is the hourly time value for one truck, - wp is the hourly time value
for one passenger care,

- TWZ Is the time taken to finish the detour or to cross the work zone, (hour),

34
- To Is the taken to cross the bridge during the normal flow conditions,
(hour),

-L Is the affected bridge length, (km),

- vo Is the traffic speed in the normal traffic flow condition, (km/hr),

- vWZ Is the work zone speed, (km/hr),

- TE Is the bridge expected life span.

The duration travel delay time in case of work zone (T) is strongly associated with
the traffic flow condition, the hourly traffic distribution, and work zone
construction window; we will do deeply in this matter in the work zone and traffic
characteristics subsection in this chapter.

THE VALUE OF W

The value of one hour of travel time per vehicle is assumed to be equal to:

o $8/hr/veh regardless of vehicle type; The Federal Highway Administration

(1989)

o $25/hr/veh. regardless of vehicle type; He et al. (1997)

o $12/hr/veh. regardless of vehicle type; Schonfeld (2003)

o Thoft-Christensen (2006)

■ $ 11,38 - 11,58 for passenger cars.

■ $ 22,31 - 27,23 for trucks

RECOMMENDED VALUE OF W:

35
It should be equal to the average hourly wage for average employee in the
considered country. The argument for that is, because W is representing the value
of delaying the vehicle driver one hour instead of reaching his work at time. For
example, the average hourly wage is equal to 120 SEK which is approximately
equal to $14, this will be suitable for passenger cars, and for other vehicles is equal
to this value multiply by 2, regardless the number of persons inside the vehicle, so
the recommended value.

■ $ 14,0 /hr for passenger cars.

■ $ 28,0/hr for other vehicles.

VEHICLE OPERATION COST (VOC) VOC

is an additional cost incurred by the bridge user, expressed as extra costs to operate
the vehicle additional time due to the traffic disturbances because of the work zone
or detour. The operating costs include fuel, engine oil, lubrication, maintenance,
and depreciation.
TE
1
VOC=∑ T × ADTi × N i ×(r r o r + ( 1−r r ) 0r ) ¿
lw 0
¿¿

Where:-

Same parameters are used except for:

- OT Is the average hourly operating cost for one truck including its goods
operation,

- OP Is the average hourly operating cost for one passenger care.

The value of 0

36
The recommended value:

■ $ 9,5/hr for passenger cars.

■ $ 21,5/hr for other vehicles.

Accident Cost (AC) AC is representing the costs of increasing the risk of crushes,
health-care, and deaths which resulting from the traffic disturbances due to work
zone on the bridge.

37
Although bridge-related accidents represent only about 1.7% of all traffic
accidents, the degree of severity is estimated to be from 2 to 50 times the severity
of general roadway traffic accidents. The average number of peoples were killed in
bridge related accidents was determined to be equal to 0.009 persons/accident
(Abed-Al-Rahim and Johnston, 1991, 1993).

COMPUTATION METHOD

Obviously its consequences appear when comparing two different types bridge
structures, where the risks for accidents and the safe maintainability are differs.
The bridge accident costs during work zone could be calculated as:
Te
1
AC=∑ ADTi ×∋×∋× ( As− Aa ) ×[( C f × P r ) + ( C i × Pi ) ] ¿
iw0
¿¿

Where:-

Same parameters are used except for:

-An The bridge accident rates during the normal condition,

(Accident/Vehicle/L/day),

-Aa The bridge accident rates during the work activities,

(Accident/Vehicle/L/day),

- CF The average cost per fatal deaths accident for the society

- CI The average cost per serious injury accident for the society

- PF The average number of killed persons in bridge related accidents, which is

equal to 0,009 (Persons/Accident)

38
- PI The average number of injured persons (not killed) in bridge related
accidents, which is equal to 0,991 (Persons/Accident)

BRIDGE- RELATED ACCIDENT RATE

Aded-Al-Rahim and Johnston (1991, 1993) proposed a model for calculating the
risk of accidents that considers the average daily traffic (ADT) and the bridge
length, as follows:

NOACC =¿

Where:

- NOACC = The number of accidents per year,

- LB = The bridge length in (Feet)

- WZ = The work zone width, in (Feet), equal to zero during normal

conditions

COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATION

It is difficult to accurately quantify the work zone exposure rate (i.e. the length of
the work zone and the hours and days the work zone queues are in place). Further,
the crash rate, while generally higher in work zones than non-work zones, is still
low enough that there may not be any crashes in a given work zone because the
exposure period is just too short to allow for statistically valid results. Finally, the
problem is compounded by the fact that work zones differ in the way they treat
maintenance of traffic. For example, some work zones use permanent barriers,
while others use cones or drums; some narrow the lanes, while others maintain
lane width and shoulders, etc.

39
o While there is a limited amount of work zone crash data, the validity of the data
used to compute the crash rates is sometimes suspected.

o Due to the limited availability of probability of failure data, the inclusion of the
failure costs as part of the Bridge user costs is not recommended.

SOURCES OF THE TRAFFIC DELAY ON THE BRIDGE

An example of historical agency data and feedbacks including recommended time

required to perform work activates are presented in Table 9 as follow:

TABLE 9: WORK ACTIVITIES THAT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC

40
BRIDGE TRAFFIC CAPACITY

Bridge traffic capacity is the maximum number of vehicles passing a point on the
bridge at established bridge conditions. In analyzing bridge work zone related user
costs, there are two possible capacities:

o The capacity of the bridge under normal operating conditions,

o The capacity of the bridge when the work zone is in place,

41
NORMAL BRIDGE TRAFFIC CAPACITY

Normal Capacity is the maximum traffic volume a bridge can handle under normal
bridge conditions. Table 10 provides the ideal capacity a facility type can handle.
The normal capacity of the bridge is used during the non-work zone hours when all
traffic lanes are open.

TABLE 10 :NORMAL BRIDGE TRAFFIC CAPACITY

Bridge Configuration Type Ideal Capacity Veh/lane/hour

Two-Lane Undivided 1,400
Two-Lane Divided 1,400
Four-Lane Undivided 2,100
Four-Lane Divided 2,100
Six-Lane Undivided 2,200
Six-Lane Divided 2,200
Multilane Highway Bridge 2,300

WORK ZONE / DETOUR CAPACITY

Bridge capacity in the work zone is estimated from research studies according to
intensive traffic data, and adopted in this chapter according to the traffic control
planes Table 11 reflects average vehicle flow capacities at several real world work
zones under several lane closure scenarios.

TABLE 11: BRIDGE TRAFFIC CAPACITY IN CASE OF WORK ZONE

Bridge Configuration Type Traffic Control Plan Recommended

42
 Average Capacity
Veh/Lane/hour
Two-Lane Undivided Plan 1 600
Two-Lane Divided Plan 2 900
Four-Lane Undivided Plan 3 1,300
Four-Lane Divided Plan 3 1,300
Six-Lane Undivided Plan 4 1,400
Six-Lane Divided Plan 4 1,400
Sixe-Lane Divided Plan 5 1,200
Multiplane Plan 6 1,400

43
DEVELOPED (BUC) COMPUTER PROGRAM & PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

As culmination of the progress in this chapter, a simple Excel based computer

program was developed; to illustrate this model let us take a real example during a
bridge design competition.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

The project objective is to build, maintain, and eventually dispose of a new

interstate bridge. The engineer first makes a general description of the size of the
bridge and the environment in which it will exist. The structure is 115 meters long,
14.5 meters wide. The bridge is part of an interstate highway that has a currently
traffic volume of 35,000 Vehicle per day. The unrestricted design speed is 90
km/hr. The engineer next lists the minimum performance requirements of the
structure that all design proposals must satisfy. The structure must be able to carry
the loads prescribed in Bro 2004 specification. The spans between piers must not
deflect more that L/800 meters. A four lanes conventional reinforced concrete
bridge is on of the proposed design alternatives which satisfied these performance-
based requirements during design competition. The target now is to calculate the
total bridge user cost that will incurred by this design proposal during its whole life
cycle.

APPLICATION USING THE DEVELOPED COMPUTER PROGRAM

The developed bridge user cost model is available and can be order from KTH or
from the author, the model has four windows, the input window, assumption
window, work activation and deactivation window, and the output window.
Consequently, using the above mentioned example, the input data window is
shown in Figure 8 below.

44
Input Data Window

BUC COMPUTER MODEL WINDOW NO.1 (INPUT DATA)

ASSUMPTIONS WINDOW

All of the assumptions are according to the above mentioned system and formulas,
but the user can change them according to the bridge situation. Accordingly, the
assumption window is shown in the following.

45
BUC COMPUTER MODEL WINDOW NO. 2 (ASSUMPTIONS)

WORKING TASKS ACTIVATION WINDOW According to the bridge type, the

user can activate or deactivate of the proposed actions and can also change the
intervals or add other working activities. Consequently, using the above mentioned
example, work activities window is shown in Figure 10 below.

BUC COMPUTER MODEL WINDOW NO. 3 (TASKS ACTIVATION)

CALCULATION SHEETS

The time delay calculation sheets are hidden sheets within the model.
Consequently, using the above mentioned example, the time delay calculation
sheets which present the computation system are presented in and Table 13 as
follow.

46
Table 12: BUC COMPUTER MODEL, TIME DELAY CALCULATION
SHEETS

47
TABLE 13: BUC COMPUTER MODEL, QUEUED VEHICLES
CALCULATION SHEET

48
BRIDGE AESTHETICAL AND CULTURAL VALUE

Bridges have been part of human settlement for thousands of years. Historic
bridges stand as evidence of the power and influence of past societies. They vary
greatly in style and reflect the culture and engineering innovation of their society.

Bridges are often seen more or less as sculptures and icons to which the citizens
may relate as the soul of the city. This atmosphere and the will to identify the town
and its values with an icon may motivate for bold and spectacular solutions. Some
projects have exceeded all cost estimates but still it has been possible to fulfill
them with success.

Modem bridges exploit the latest technologies and construction techniques. They
allow us to challenge the landscape in new ways and so impose our hand on the
landscape. It is important to do so well. Location of a bridge, cultural values of the
surroundings, landscape, viewpoints of local people, and our understanding of the
context should guide our solutions. In short, our bridges should be beautiful. The
aim of this chapter is to facilitate the evaluation of bridge aesthetical and cultural
values and relate them to the other important aspects of bridge design and
construction, i.e., functionality, economics and techniques. The second target is to
setup some basic design guidelines which can help design teams to produce
bridges of aesthetic value, or at least keep them aware of the bridge aesthetics
evaluation process.

ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED

Ranking of bridges and bridge design proposals is a difficult task. Especially

difficult it is, if we have to make aesthetical and cultural values of bridges
measurable with other values like cost. At the first sight the easiest way seems to
be to establish some kind of jury to evaluate different proposal. Of course the
49
judgment of the jury would be based on individual opinions without an exact scale
of measuring. However, an open question still remains: how to convert the
judgment to money that seems to be the only common value available when
comparing different things. It is generally acknowledged, that such a jury in the
case of bridge construction should consist of experts with right education,
profession and position, e.g. owners, bridge engineers and architects. In some cases
even ordinary people of the local community could be represented. For the
decision making and to bases the work of the jury, some guiding principles have to
be setup. The main issue to be clearly stated is where to put weight when
comparing different alternatives. This is even more important, if the bridge has
special dignity.

In the decision making the following issues have to be considered:

 Classification of bridge sites and its corresponding acceptable additional

relative costs
 The considered items and issues and to give them appropriate weights

BRIDGE SITE CLASSIFICATION

In Finland the so-called classification of bridge sites is used. This system was
developed by the Finnish Road Administration (Finnra). It considers the value of
the scenery. A publication "Siltapaikkaluokitusohje" (Guide for Grading a Bridge
Site) already exists (in Finnish).

A four-grade system is used for evaluation of a bridge site:

o Class I Very demanding considering the landscape and city view.

o Class II Demanding considering the landscape and city view.

50
o Class III Remarkable considering the landscape and city view.

o lass IV Ordinary considering the landscape and city view.

Class I, "very demanding". This means that the site includes nation wide valuable
views or city views, culturally valuable landscape or the most important joints in
the transport network. Also the most remarkable waterway crossings within the
country and museum bridges belong to this group.

Class II, "demanding", possess similar characteristics as those belonging to the

previous class but their importance is local, for instance remarkable city or village
objects and big bridges crossing waterways with less modest views.

Class III, "remarkable", consists of bridge sites including ordinary waterway

crossings and bridge sites at crossings with heavy traffic located outside city or
village areas.

Class IV, "ordinary", consists of bridge sites including roads with low amount of
traffic located in an ordinary landscape outside city or village areas as well as sites
with low importance where a road or railway crosses a waterway. These kinds of
bridge sites usually do not require any special environmental or aesthetical
consideration or design.

COST AND AESTHETICS CAN BE COMPLEMENTARY

Bridges of aesthetic merit need not be more expensive than ugly bridges. For
example the shape of a parapet, abutment or pier might have a negligible impact on
costs but a significant improvement visually. However if a bridge is designed to be
as cheap as possible then it is unlikely that it will be of aesthetic value. This is not
to say that the cheapest bridge is necessarily the ugliest bridge, however it does

51
mean that cost and aesthetics as driving forces in the design process need to be
balanced. `

It is unwise to pay too much. But it is worse to pay too little'

CORRESPONDING ACCEPTABLE ADDITIONAL COSTS

The acceptance of some additional cost due to the bridge site class and the
aesthetics demands may be reasonable; consequently an excellent design or bridge
may be 30 % more expensive than a poor solution and could still be chosen. The
relative shares of bridges in the different classes suggested in the
"Siltapaikkaluokitusohje"b (Guide for Grading a Bridge Site) are given in Table
14. Consequently, the additional costs compared to the cheapest possible solution
are given in the same table.

TABLE 14: CORRESPONDING ADDITIONAL RELATIVE COSTS IN

PERCENTAGE IN THE DIFFERENT CLASSES

Item Bridge Site Class

I II III IV
Number of 1...2 5...15 65...75 15..25
Bridges (%)
Additional 0...30 0.020 0...10 0
cost allowed

No additional cost is allocated to bridges belonging to Class IV

52
BRIDGE AESTHETICS DESIGN GUIDELINES

For aesthetics to be successful, it must first be considered. It should be an integral

part of design and must be considered both in the general form and all the details
that support it. The parts must be considered as to how they contribute to the
whole.

Generally bridges seem aesthetically more pleasing if they are simple in form, the
deck is thinner (as a proportion of its span), the lines of the structure are
continuous and the shapes of the structural members reflect the forces acting on
them.

The aesthetics of a bridge should be considered at the conception of a project and

through every stage of development. Aesthetics is not something that can be added
on at the end, it is the final product of the planning, design and procurement
process, from initial route selection, through environmental assessment, to detail
design and construction.

SENSITIVITY OF THE BRIDGE TYPE TO THE CONTEXT AND

SIMPLICITY

Perhaps the most fundamental response to context is the choice of bridge structure.
In most instances it is span length that is the most significant factor in determining
the form (and cost) of a bridge. Bridges with a horizontal form are generally
preferable to bridges on a grade over flat simple landscapes and significant
expanses of water. This can be shown in the following figure.

53
 PROPER BRIDGE HORIZONTAL FORM

The accepted approximate relationship between span and superstructure type is as

follows.

o Short span (up to approximately 18m): pre-stressed concrete plank bridges.

o Short to medium span (approximately 18-40m): pre-stressed concrete girders or

prestressed concrete voided slabs.

o Medium span (approximately 40-80m): steel or post-tensioned concrete box

girders or incrementally launched girders.

o Medium to long span (up to approximately 300m): balanced cantilever.

o Long span (up to approximately 800m): cable stay.

o Very long span (longer than 800m): suspension bridges.

THE BRIDGE FORM AS A WHOLE PROPORTION

The dictionary defines proportion as the proper relationship between things or pa

DEPTH TO SPAN RATIO

The proportion between depth of superstructure and bridge spans is an important

ratio. It is referred to the slenderness of the bridge and is defined as the span length
divided by beam depth. Common ratios can vary from 5 to 30. The ratio of five can
result in a very chunky bridge although with appearance of strength while 30 can
54
lead to very slender bridge. For a common pier and girder bridge, ratios generally
vary between 15 and 20. These notations and recommendations are given in Table
15.

TABLE 15: PROPER PROPORTIONS GUIDELINES

55
SYMMETRY, ORDER AND RHYTHM

Symmetrical bridges are often more aesthetically pleasing than nonsymmetrical

bridges and symmetry should not be departed from unless for a good reason.
Figure 14 schematically present the affects.

BRIDGE SYMETRY APPERANCESS

Unity of design and detail important

Careful consideration of interrelationship of each element, and their relationship

with the whole is necessary at all stages of the design process. Good detailing is
essential to good bridge design and lack of attention to detail can spoil an
otherwise beautiful bridge.

THE BRIDGE PARTS

Parapet The outer face of the parapet can be one of the most important aesthetic
elements of a beam bridge. It is the highest piece of the bridge and often the most
dominant in long distance views. The following principles (Figure 15) should be
considered in the design of the parapet.

56
 Proper parapet design principle

Girder elevation

Table 16: Proper girder elevation design guidelines

57
Girder cross section

Table 17 Proper cross section design guidelines

58
SUBSTRUCTURE

Headstock

When they are used they draw attention to the pier and the method of support, if
avoided they better allow the superstructure to dominate the bridge view.
Schematically present the affects.

Table 18: Proper Headstock design guidelines

59
Piers

Table 4:7 Proper Headstock design guidelines

60
Details

Table 4:8 Proper bridge details design guidelines

61
 CASE STUDY

Bridge LCA is computer program developed in the ETSI Stage 2 by Johanne

Hammervold, based on the use of three case bridges; one steel bridge, one concrete
bridge and one wooden bridge. The bridges are already built bridges in Norway,
and are thus not planned for the same location. They differ in size and are not
directly comparable. The concrete bridge, Hillersvika, has longer construction
length and width, and thus requires the most materials. The steel bridge,
Klenevagen, s the shortest bridge. An overview of the bridges and key parameters
are given in following Table:

TABLE 15: BRIDGELCA CASE STUDY PARAMETERS

Klenevagen Fretheim Hitlersvika

Type Steel box girder Wooden arch Concrete box girder
Span length 42.8 m 37.9 39.3
Construction length 44.2 m 45.4 m 51.9 m
Effective bridge width 7.5 m 6.1 m 10.6 m
Headway 4.1 m - 7m
Traffic lanes 2 1 2
Pavement 0 1 1

TOTAL WEIGHTED RESULTS

Total weighted results, given in Figure 15, show that Klenevagen (steel box girder
bridge) causes he highest impacts, closely followed by Hillersvika (concrete girder
bridge). Fretheim (wooden arch bridge) causes roughly half the impacts as
Klenevagen. The most important categories in total weighted results are Global
Warming Potential (GWP) and Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) for all three

62
bridges. Acidification Potential (AP) is also a relatively important category, while
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) is negligible in these results.

CASE STUDY TOTAL WEIGHTED RESULT

RESULT PER BRIDGE AND CATEGORY

The impacts caused by material and energy consumptions related to various bridge
as totals per bridge and impact category as given in Table 16 below. In the
category Abiotic Depletion Potential bridge equipment and the use phase (OR&M)
also contribute substantial shares of the impacts. This is mainly caused by the
surfacing of the bridges. The original surfacing is part of the bridge equipment, and
re-asphalting is performed each 10th year throughout the lifetime. Asphalt, asphalt
membrane and mastic are all bitumen products, which consume raw oil in
production which again causes the impacts to the ADP category. For all three
bridges, the construction phase causes a small share of the impacts to all
categories. The construction phase includes use of formwork and building
machines and transport of workers and materials. The results show that these
factors are of less importance in this analysis.

Table 16: Total Results Per Bridge And Category

63
 ADP AP EP GWP ODP POCP
Unit kg sb eq kg SO2 eq kg PO4 eq kg CO2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg C2 H4 eq
Kleneyagen 2.2E+03 9.8E+02 1.7E+02 2.6E+05 2.7E-02 9.2E+01
Hillersvlka 2.0E+03 7.7E+02 1.3E+02 2.5E+05 3.0E-02 6.4E+01

Impact per m2 surface area of the bridge

Talbe 17 show the impact for each category per m2 of the bridge surface area. It is
important to keep in mind that a comparison per m2 will neither give directly
comparable results. The material and energy consumptions, and also transport
services and operation, repair and maintenance activities will not vary linearly
relative to bridge size. The main load-bearing systems and their consumption of
materials will differ with bridge length and width, but only to a certain degree, and
definitely not linearly.

TABLE 17: IMPACTS FOR EACH CATEGORY, PER M 2 SURFACE AREA

OF BRIDGE

ADP AP EP GWP ODP POCP

Unit kg sb eq/ kg SO2 eq kg PO4 kg CO2 kg CFC-11 kg C2 H4 eq/
2 2 2
m m eq/m2 eq/ m2 eq/m2 m
Kleneyagen 6.5E+00 2.9E+00 4.9E-01 7.5E+02 8.0E-05 2.7E-01
Fretheim 5.7E+00 2.8E+00 5.5E-01 5.5E+02 8.2E-05 2.1E-01
Hillersvlka 4.7E+00 1.8E+00 3.1E-01 6.0E+02 7.3E-05 1.5E-01
Finally, the Relative Environmental Impact cost CREI of a bridge, is then obtained
by equation

C REI =k c C AG

SUMMARY

64
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The idea behind this study is that, bridges investment decisions should consider all
of the costs and considerations incurred during the period over which the
alternatives are being compared. Bridges are required to provide service for many
years. The ability of a bridge to provide service over time is predicated on its being
maintained appropriately by the agency. Thus the investment decision should
consider not only the initial activity that creates a public good, but also all future
activities that will be required to keep that investment available to the public. It is
important to note that the lowest agency cost option may not necessarily be
implemented when other considerations such as aesthetical and cultural value, user
cost, and environmental concerns are taken into account.

This research study demonstrates a unique methodology and present a new

systematic way for analysis, evaluation, and optimization of the bridge life cycle
indicators like agency cost, user cost, aesthetical and cultural value, and the
environmental impact. Present a unique flexible system integrating all of bridge
life cycle issues and make them measurable and comparable like the bridge initial
cost.

Based on this unique evaluation system, two computer programs were developed
to facilitate the usage, one for calculating the bridge user cost and one to evaluate
the bridge aesthetical and cultural value. The application of this integrated model
to bridge design highlighted a critical importance of using the life cycle modeling
in order to enhance the sustainability of bridges infrastructure systems.

65
 RECOMMENDATION AND FURTHER RESEARCH

The application of this integrated model to bridge design highlighted the critical
importance of using the life cycle modeling in order to enhance the sustainability
the bridges. Fields for future research and development can be in the following
issues.

 Sorting and gathering of agency historical data to feed the LCCA process
 Degradation models for all kinds of bridges and their structural elements.
 Tools for transforming degradation models into timings for MR & R actions.
 Methodologies for describing bridges both regarding their measures,
structural parts and their conditions.
 Development of the proposed two computer models

66
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Helsinki University of Technology, Publications in Bridge Engineering. Espoo

2007, TKK-SRT-37: ETSI PROJECT (Stage 1) Bridge Life Cycle Optimisation

TKK Structural Engineering and Building Technology Publications B. Espoo

2009, TKK-R-BE3: ETSI PROJECT (Stage 2) Bridge Life Cycle Optimisation

HAkan Sundquist and Raid Karoumi. TRITA-BKN. Report 128 ISSN 1103- 4289
ISRN KTH - 128 - - SE: Life Cycle Cost Methodology and Computer Tool
WebLCC The State of New Jersey Department of Transportation. June 2001: Road
User Cost Manual

Hatem Elbehairy, Bridge Management System with Integrated Life Cycle Cost
Optimization: A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the
thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering.
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007

Ehlen, M., BridgeLCC 2.0 Users Manual, Life-Cycle Costing Software for the
Preliminary Design of Bridges, NIST GCR 03-853.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office of

Asset Management. August 2002: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer

Tri-State Transportation Campaign. January2005: What Growing Truck Traffic

Will Mean for New Jersey's Quality of Life

Mark A. Ehlen. September 2003, NIST GCR 03-853: BridgeLCC 2.0 Users
Manual Life-Cycle Costing Software for the Preliminary Design of Bridges

67