Life-Cycle Cost of Bridges – First Steps to a Holistic Approach

Václav Beran, Daniel Macek, Dana Měšťanová

Abstract


Bridges create transport infrastructure and are subjected to long term witness of economic design, reliability, durability, maintainability and external risk (natural and human hazards). Deficient design of bridges points to high investment costs, low quality, retrofits maintenance costs, mitigates quality damages. The primary reason of the problem is usually stated high investment costs. Resources for investment are limited over and over again. However, approach for evaluating and comparing the cost effectiveness in practical design does not dominate in present-days as arbitration of different strategies and warrant for avoiding critical economic or functional situations. This paper illustrates a method for estimating the retrofits for bridges design based on Life-Cycle Costs and Cost-Benefit Analysis. The approach integrates cost model, fragility of as-designed and retrofitted benefits for a range of externalities and associated potential changes in design and economical retrofit. The emphasis on life-time performance and benefits, as opposed to initial retrofit acquisition investment cost alone, paves the way to risk-wise investment and also helps to support upgrade actions for sustainable infrastructure. An application of the holistic approach Life-Cycle Cost and benefit analysis is conducted for two representative bridges of highway class. The available financing has a big influence on the chosen technical design.


Keywords:

bridge; cycles of repairs; expected utility; Life-Cycle Costs; maintenance; reconstruction; transport con¬struction; type of a bridge.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Beran, V.; Dlask, P. 2007. Nonlinear Optimisation and Rational Cash Flow, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14(3): 277–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980710744917

Dlask, P. 2015. Simulation Model Based on Regional Development and Virtual Changes, Acta Polytechnica 55(5): 291–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/AP.2015.55.0291

Christensen, P. N.; Sparks, G. A.; Kostuk, K. J. 2005. A Method- Based Survey of Life Cycle Costing Literature Pertinent to Infrastructure Design and Renewal, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32(1): 250–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/l04-077

Gode, K.; Paeglitis, A. 2014. Concrete Bridge Deterioration Caused by De-Icing Salts in High Traffic Volume Road En-vironment in Latvia, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 9(3): 200–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2014.25

Heralová, R. S. 2014. Life Cycle Cost Optimization within Decision Making on Alternative Designs of Public Buildings, Procedia Engineering 85: 454–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.572

Koh, H. M. 2011. Reliability, Performance and Integrity Assessment for Bridge Design and Maintenance, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7(7–8): 455–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.500814

Lee, S. Y.; Park, W.; Ok, S. Y.; Koh, H. M. 2011. Preference-Based Maintenance Planning for Deteriorating Bridges under Multi-Objective Optimisation Framework, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7(7–8): 633–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.501565

Lee, K. M.; Cho, H. N. 2006. Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Optimum Design of Steel Bridges Considering Environmental Stressors, Engineering Structures 28(9): 1252–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.12.008

Lozano-Galant, J. A.; Payá-Zaforteza, I.; Turmo, J. 2015. Effects in Service of the Staggered Construction of Cable-Stayed Bridges Built on Temporary Supports, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 10(3): 247–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2015.31

Lozano-Galant, J. A.; Ruiz-Ripoll, L.; Payá-Zaforteza, I.; Turmo, J. 2014. Modifications of the Stress-State of Cable-Stayed Bridges Due to Staggered Construction of their Superstructure, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 9(4): 241–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2014.30

Macek, D.; Dobiáš, J. 2014. Buildings Renovation and Maintenance in The Public Sector, Procedia Engineering 85: 368–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.562

Okasha, N. M.; Frangopol, D. M. 2009. Lifetime-Oriented Multi- Objective Optimization of Structural Maintenance Considering System Reliability, Redundancy and Life-Cycle Cost Using GA, Structural Safety 31(6): 460–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.06.005.5

Öncan, T. 2013. Heuristics for the Single Source Capacitated Multi-Facility Weber Problem, Computers & Industrial Engineering 64(4): 959–971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.01.005

Padgett, J. E.; Dennemann, K.; Ghosh, J. 2010. Risk-Based Seismic Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit (LCC-B) Analysis for Bridge Retrofit Assessment, Structural Safety 32(3): 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.003

Soliman, M.; Frangopol, D. M. 2015. Life-Cycle Cost Evaluation of Conventional and Corrosion-Resistant Steel for Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering 20(1): 06014005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000647

Šelih, J.; Kne, A.; Srdić, A.; Žura, M. 2008. Multiple-Criteria Decision Support System in Highway Infrastructure Management, Transport 23(4): 299–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.299-305




DOI: 10.3846/bjrbe.2016.20

Cited-By

1. Ontology of BIM in a Construction Project Life Cycle
Petr Matějka, Aleš Tomek
Procedia Engineering  vol: 196  first page: 1080  year: 2017  
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.065

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika