Seminarium Stockholm, October th BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM …/LCC... · Life‐cycle Cost (LCC) is the cost of an asset, or its parts, throughout its life cycle while it fulfills its

KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges

Kantbalkar – FoU Seminarium – Stockholm, October 15 th 2014

BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEMLIFE‐CYCLE COSTING

José Javier Veganzones Muñoz

‐ Double degree civil structural engineer – KTH and UPM (Polytechnic University of Madrid)

‐ PhD project carried out at the Division of Structural Engineering and Bridges of KTH.Started in September 2013.

‐ The project is financed by SBUF (Svenska Byggbranschens Utvecklingsfond)

‐ Supervisors:‐ Lars Pettersson (KTH‐Skanska)‐ Håkan Sundquist (KTH)‐ Raid Karoumi (KTH)

‐ Master Thesis students:‐ Ezdin Duran (KTH): Design Methods for Edge Beams‐ Martti Kelindeman (KTH): Investment Cost Evaluation for Implementation in LCCA

• Study of 3 Bridge Construction Sites

15/10/2014KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges

THE PROJECT ‐ BACKGROUND

2

CONTENTS


1. Aim, goal and objectives2. Life‐Cycle Costs Analysis : Definition and Components3. Introduction to the LCC‐Model: Initial assumptions4. Structure of the LCC‐Model: Bridge case example5. Comparative LCC between different Bridge Cases6. Scenarios: Maintenance strategies7. Discussion and conclusions

LIFE‐CYCLE COST ANALYSIS FOR BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEMS

3

15/10/2014

The aim is to provide help for decision makers in order to choose a recommended BridgeEdge Beam System (BEBS) type that is optimal for the society.

The goal is to carry out a Life‐Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for the BEBS types having as anobjective the development of a comprehensive Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) model in order:‐ To evaluate and compare each BEBS type along the life span of the bridge for certain

defined cases representative in Sweden.‐ To show the relevance of the value of certain parameters when performing this kind of

study through sensitivity analyses, and the importance of the definition of the life‐cyclestrategy.


1. AIM, GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

4

15/10/2014

1. OWNER COSTS

2. SOCIETY COSTS

3. USER COSTS

SL: service lifeCf: admissible conditionTo: initial time


LCC

Life‐cycle Cost (LCC) is the cost of an asset, or its parts, throughout its life cycle while it fulfills its performancerequirements. Life‐cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a methodology for systematic economic evaluation of the LCC over aspecified period of analysis as defined in the agreed scope (ISO 15686).

5

2. LIFE CYCLE COST. DEFINITION AND COMPONENTS

15/10/2014

Initial investment (INV)

Operation and Maintenance (OnM)

Repair, replacement and rehabilitation (RRR)

Inspections (INS)

Recycling, Demolition and Landscaping (RDL)

Life‐cycle Measures (LCM)

1. OWNER COSTS

2. SOCIETY COSTS

3. USER COSTS

Investment (INV) and Life‐cycle Measures (LCM)


6


15/10/2014

Damage to the environmentNon‐renewable materials

Society costs for health‐careDeaths due to traffic accidents

• Accidents taking place and the influenceof the edge beams (performance orreparation)


1. OWNER COSTS

2. SOCIETY COSTS

3. USER COSTS


Damage to the environment, non‐renewable materials and accidents

7


15/10/2014

Traffic delay cost (TDC)

• Extra time because of delay, speedreductions, etc.

Vehicle operation costs (VOC)

• Extra cost due to vehicle operating (fuel,engine oil, lubrication, etc.)


1. OWNER COSTS

2. SOCIETY COSTS

3. USER COSTS


Damage to the environment, non‐renewable materials and accidents

Delays, damage to vehicles and humans due to roadwork

Society costs for health‐care(Deaths due to traffic accidents)

• Accidents taking place and the influenceof the edge beams (performance orreparation) 8


15/10/2014


3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODELINITIAL CONDITIONS – SCOPE AND ASSUMPTIONS

Road bridges, with a life span of 120 years.

Edge beam to be constructed today (t=0) with a life span that is not dependent on the Average Daily Traffic and the Type of Road considered.

All Edge Beams types are assumed to be safe from a structural point of view (load resistance); only costs are handled.

Interest rate used: 4%

Bridge Edge Beam System (BEBS) elements included: ‐ Principal

‐ Edge Beam ‐ Railing

‐ Secondary‐ Drainage system‐ Other elements‐ (Waterproofing layer)

The user costs will only be the ones incurred by the life‐cycle measures (LCM) of the BEBS.

9

15/10/2014


INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES

6 different bridge cases considered based on…

Bridge lengthLong or short bridge

Road typeV2,0 + 2K3,5 + M2,5 + 2K3,5 + V2,0

V2,0 + K3,5 + K3,5 + V2,0

Average daily traffic (ADT)Urban – Non urban area

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL

What type of scenarios will we have?

15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0

Non‐urban areaLow ADT

Short bridge10‐15 m

11


Road E45 – Åsarna (Jämtlands län)

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODELINITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES

15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 2

Long bridge100‐200 m



12


Road 249 ‐ Fellingsbro – Kungsvägen (Örebro)

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODELINITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES

15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 3

Urban areaHigh ADT



13


Bridge over Södra Kungsvägen ‐ Lidingö (Stockholm)



15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 4


Urban areaHigh ADT


14


Mariebergsbron, Gjörwellsgatan (Stockholm)



15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 5

Urban areaHigh ADT


Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0

15


Road 73 – Bro över Vendelsövägen (Haninge)



15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 6


Urban areaHigh ADT

Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0

16


Road 50 – Bridge in Karlslundsgatan (Örebro)



15/10/2014

BRIDGE CASE 1




BRIDGE CASE 3

Urban areaHigh ADT



BRIDGE CASE 5

Urban areaHigh ADT


Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0

BRIDGE CASE 2




BRIDGE CASE 4


Urban areaHigh ADT


BRIDGE CASE 6


Urban areaHigh ADT

Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0

17




15/10/2014


INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM DESIGN

Type I – Concrete Integrated edge beamAlternativ #21

18

4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL

15/10/2014


19


Type II – Without Edge BeamAlternativ #3


15/10/2014


20


Type III – Steel Edge BeamAlternativ #24

a

b

t


15/10/2014


21


Type IV – Prefabricated Edge BeamAlternativ #11


15/10/2014


BRIDGE CASE ‐ EXAMPLE

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



22


15/10/2014


OWNER COSTS: INVESTMENT COST (LCM) ‐ INVESTERING

Division into Construction Project Phases

PHASE 0Design

Materials Labor workMachinery

PHASE 1Transport

PHASE 2Unloading

PHASE 3Construction

3.1 Formwork

3.2 Reinforcement

3.4 Concrete pouring

3.5 Formwork removal

23

3.6 Mounting of railings

3.3 Anchor bolt groups


15/10/2014

Contractor, project leader and unexpected costs are also included


OWNER COSTS: LIFE‐CYCLE MEASURES (LCM) ‐ LIVSCYKELÅTGÄRDER

Definition of LCM Actions

Operation and Maintenance (OnM)

Repair, replacement and rehabilitation (RRR)

Recycling, Demolition and Landscaping (RDL)

24

Cleaning from salts and gravel, and vegetation

Concrete repairs

Impregnation

Edge Beam Replacement

Steel repainting

Railings: maintenance, repair and replacement of different elements (navföljare, fotplatta, osv.)

Other activities

Action time definition: Interval or fixed year, according to BaTMan, surveys, interviews

and literature.

Reference Target Quantity: % of the structural unit

Unit and extra fixed costs: LCMs prices according to BaTMan


15/10/2014

Type I Type II Type III Type IVLCM 4 930 7 816 5 435 4 946INV 9 643 4 311 15 051 9 390

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

Owne

rCosts(SEK

/m)

OWNER COSTS


BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: PARTIAL RESULTS (OWNER COSTS)

25


BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



LCM: Life‐cycle Measure costINV: Investment cost

15/10/2014


Interest rate (2‐7 %)

26

LIFE‐CYCLE MEASURES ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)


4 times

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

2,0% 3,0% 4,0% 5,0% 6,0% 7,0%

Total LCM

(SEK

/m)

Interest rate

LIFE‐CYCLE MEASURES COSTS (SEK/m)

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

15/10/2014

Sensitivity Analysis


USER COSTS ‐METHODOLOGY

“Master” LCM action

“Slave” LCM actions

27

LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 1 First concrete repair 0‐30 mm

ImpregnationRailing maintenance

Definition of the Life‐cycle Strategy – Different Life‐cycle Plan (Intervals)


Flera olika åtgärder ofta vidtas på samma gång ‐> Upphandla underhållsåtgärder i större paket

15/10/2014


USER COSTS ‐METHODOLOGY

LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 1 First concrete repair 0‐30 mm


LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 2 Second concrete repair >30‐70mm


LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 3 Edge beam replacement

ImpregnationRailing replacement

LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 4

LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 5

For a concrete integrated edge beam (Type I)

Flera olika åtgärder ofta vidtas på samma gång ‐> Upphandla underhållsåtgärder i större paket

28

Waterproofing layer replacement/supplementation may be integrated in each action plan


Definition of the Life‐cycle Strategy – Different Life‐cycle Plan (Intervals)

15/10/2014


Strategy LCM Action Plans

Definition of LCM Action plans Definition of User Cost parameters

29

Travel time of delay because of the works• Affected roadway length and the • Speed reduction

Number of days needed for the works

ADT and traffic growth rate

Percentage of trucks from all ADT

Value of time and operation cost for one passenger car and one truck

Bridge accident rates during normal conditions and during works

Cost of accident for the society

4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODELUSER COSTS ‐METHODOLOGY

15/10/2014

Type I Type II Type III Type IVACC 806 937 586 533VOC 3 188 3 709 2 317 2 109TDC 3 628 4 222 2 637 2 400

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

UserC

osts(SEK

/m)

USER COSTS


30


BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



ACC: Accident CostVOC: Vehicle Operation CostTDC: Travel Delay Cost

BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: PARTIAL RESULTS (USER COSTS)

15/10/2014

Type I Type II Type III Type IVLCM 4 930 7 816 5 435 4 946INV 9 643 4 311 15 051 9 390

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

Ägarko

stna

der (SEK/m)

OWNER COSTS

Type I Type II Type III Type IVACC 806 937 586 533VOC 3 188 3 709 2 317 2 109TDC 3 628 4 222 2 637 2 400

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

Använd

arko

stna

der (SEK/m)

USER COSTS


31


BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



ACC: Accident CostVOC: Vehicle Operation CostTDC: Travel Delay Cost

LCM: Life‐cycle Measure costINV: Investment cost

BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: PARTIAL RESULTS (OWNER AND USER COSTS)

15/10/2014

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

10 20 30 40 50 60

TDC, VOC, ACC

and

USER‐C (SEK

/m)

Nt (days)

TDCVOCACCUSER‐C


Number of days needed for the works ‐ Nt (edge beam replacement)Sensitivity Analysis

32


Approx2 times

USER COSTS ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)

15/10/2014

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500

TDC, VOC, ACC

and

USER‐C (SEK

/m)

Lt (m)

TDCVOCACCUSER‐C


33

4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODELUSER COSTS ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)

Length of the affected roadway – Lt (edge beam replacement)Sensitivity Analysis

Approx.5 times

15/10/2014


Length of the affected roadway ‐ Lt

Number of days needed for the works ‐ Nt

34


Sensitivity Analysis

USER COSTS ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)

15/10/2014


35


Type I Type II Type III Type IVUSER‐C 7 622 8 868 5 540 5 043OWNER‐C 14 573 12 127 20 485 14 337

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

LCC (SEK

/m)

LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS (SEK/m)

Minimum LCC

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: FINAL RESULTS (LCC)

15/10/2014


36


BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0




0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

LCC (SEK

/m)



0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

LCC (SEK

/m)


BRIDGE CASE 5

Urban areaHigh ADT


Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0

BRIDGE CASES COMPARISON – FINAL RESULTS (LCC)

15/10/2014

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6Type I 22 195 21 258 45 060 41 585 49 572 45 596Type II 20 996 19 377 47 601 44 918 52 851 49 957Type III 26 026 24 552 42 647 40 320 45 927 43 432Type IV 19 379 21 841 34 507 42 168 37 492 46 179

05 000

10 00015 00020 00025 00030 00035 00040 00045 00050 00055 00060 000

Strategy 1 ‐ Total LCC (SEK/m)

MULTIPLE BRIDGE CASES – FINAL RESULTS (LCC)


37

5. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRIDGE CASES

LONGBRIDGES

SHORT BRIDGES

15/10/2014

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6Type I 22 195 21 258 45 060 41 585 49 572 45 596Type II 20 996 19 377 47 601 44 918 52 851 49 957Type III 26 026 24 552 42 647 40 320 45 927 43 432Type IV 19 379 21 841 34 507 42 168 37 492 46 179

05 000

10 00015 00020 00025 00030 00035 00040 00045 00050 00055 00060 000

Strategy 1 ‐ Total LCC (SEK/m)

MULTIPLE BRIDGE CASES – RESULTS


38

5. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRIDGE CASES

Average Daily Traffic

Type of Road

15/10/2014


MULTIPLE BRIDGE CASES – SCENARIO OPTIMIZATION

39

Great amount of input variables…

Creation of “maintenance strategies”

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 …

Variation of parameters for Edge Beam Types (especially II and III) Interval for LCM actions

Number of days needed for works

6. SCENARIOS: MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES

…hard to perform a sensitivity analyses

15/10/2014


SCENARIO OPTIMIZATION

Special scenario: Use of Stainless Steel Reinforcement

No replacements needed

Concrete maintenance and repair

Railing maintenance

40

15‐20% better!

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



Valbruna Stainless

15/10/2014


0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0

Total LCC

(SEK

/m)

Interval of maintenance (years)

LCS 1 VS LCS‐CM

LCS‐CM

LCS 1



Special scenario: Continuous Maintenance

No replacements needed

Concrete maintenance and repair

Railing maintenance

41

16‐17 years

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



LIFE‐CYCLE STRATEGY 1 vs CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE

15/10/2014



Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3Type I 32 276 26 792 22 195

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

TOTAL LCC (SEK/m)



How better is the quality of our standard Edge Beam along the years?

Number of replacements

Number of concrete repairs

42

30% better!

BRIDGE CASE 1

Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0



15/10/2014


What type of Edge Beam system is recommended?

For short bridges the Prefabricated Edge Beam may be a good solution

For long bridges the Concrete Integrated Edge Beam

may be a good solution

43

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

15/10/2014


What type of Edge Beam system is recommended?

‐ Type II‐ Maintenance, repair and replacement

of the L‐steel profile.‐ Maintenance, repair and replacement

of the steel support.

44

‐ Type III‐ Maintenance, repair and replacement

of the steel edge beam

Uncertainties exist for the other alternatives

15/10/2014



Is the Edge Beam with Stainless Steel Reinforcement an alternative?

Investment Costs vs Life‐cycle Measure Costs

• Steel corrosion

• Concrete repair

• Edge Beam replacement?

45

15/10/2014



Interest rate

Different bridge cases: Length, road type and ADT

The importance of knowing the maintenance need in advance during the preliminary design

What is the influence of difference parameters in the outcome?

Interval of the LCM actions

Number of days needed for the works

Length of the affected roadway

The importance of a suitable technical design for the bridge case

at hand

46

Other parameters

15/10/2014



THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONQuestions?

47

15/10/2014

Seminarium Stockholm, October th BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM …/LCC... · Life‐cycle Cost (LCC) is the cost of an asset, or its parts, throughout its life cycle while it fulfills its

Documents