seminarium stockholm, october th bridge edge beam …...life‐cycle cost analysis (lcca) is a...
TRANSCRIPT
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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.
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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)
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
6
2. LIFE CYCLE COST. DEFINITION AND COMPONENTS
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)
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
1. OWNER COSTS
2. SOCIETY COSTS
3. USER COSTS
Investment (INV) and Life‐cycle Measures (LCM)
Damage to the environment, non‐renewable materials and accidents
7
2. LIFE CYCLE COST. DEFINITION AND COMPONENTS
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.)
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
1. OWNER COSTS
2. SOCIETY COSTS
3. USER COSTS
Investment (INV) and Life‐cycle Measures (LCM)
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
2. LIFE CYCLE COST. DEFINITION AND COMPONENTS
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Road E45 – Åsarna (Jämtlands län)
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODELINITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 2
Long bridge100‐200 m
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
12
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Road 249 ‐ Fellingsbro – Kungsvägen (Örebro)
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODELINITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 3
Urban areaHigh ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
13
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Bridge over Södra Kungsvägen ‐ Lidingö (Stockholm)
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 4
Long bridge100‐200 m
Urban areaHigh ADT
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
14
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Mariebergsbron, Gjörwellsgatan (Stockholm)
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 5
Urban areaHigh ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0
15
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Road 73 – Bro över Vendelsövägen (Haninge)
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 6
Long bridge100‐200 m
Urban areaHigh ADT
Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0
16
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Road 50 – Bridge in Karlslundsgatan (Örebro)
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
BRIDGE CASE 3
Urban areaHigh ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
BRIDGE CASE 5
Urban areaHigh ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0
BRIDGE CASE 2
Long bridge100‐200 m
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
BRIDGE CASE 4
Long bridge100‐200 m
Urban areaHigh ADT
Road type V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
BRIDGE CASE 6
Long bridge100‐200 m
Urban areaHigh ADT
Road type V2,0+2K3,5+M2,5+2K3,5+V2,0
17
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE CASES
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM DESIGN
Type I – Concrete Integrated edge beamAlternativ #21
18
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
19
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Type II – Without Edge BeamAlternativ #3
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM DESIGN
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
20
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Type III – Steel Edge BeamAlternativ #24
a
b
t
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM DESIGN
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
21
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Type IV – Prefabricated Edge BeamAlternativ #11
INITIAL CONDITIONS – BRIDGE EDGE BEAM SYSTEM DESIGN
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
BRIDGE CASE ‐ EXAMPLE
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
22
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
15/10/2014
Contractor, project leader and unexpected costs are also included
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: PARTIAL RESULTS (OWNER COSTS)
25
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
LCM: Life‐cycle Measure costINV: Investment cost
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Interest rate (2‐7 %)
26
LIFE‐CYCLE MEASURES ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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)
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Flera olika åtgärder ofta vidtas på samma gång ‐> Upphandla underhållsåtgärder i större paket
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
USER COSTS ‐METHODOLOGY
LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 1 First concrete repair 0‐30 mm
ImpregnationRailing maintenance
LIFE‐CYCLE PLAN 2 Second concrete repair >30‐70mm
ImpregnationRailing maintenance
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
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Definition of the Life‐cycle Strategy – Different Life‐cycle Plan (Intervals)
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
30
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
31
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Number of days needed for the works ‐ Nt (edge beam replacement)Sensitivity Analysis
32
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Length of the affected roadway ‐ Lt
Number of days needed for the works ‐ Nt
34
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
Sensitivity Analysis
USER COSTS ‐ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (KÄNSLIGHETSANALYS)
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
35
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
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
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
BRIDGE CASE – EXAMPLE: FINAL RESULTS (LCC)
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
36
4. STRUCTURE THE LCC‐MODEL
BRIDGE CASE 1
Road type 2‐4V2,0+K3,5+K3,5+V2,0
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Type I Type II Type III Type IVUSER‐C 34 999 40 723 25 441 23 155OWNER‐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)
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)
BRIDGE CASE 5
Urban areaHigh ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
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)
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
38
5. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRIDGE CASES
Average Daily Traffic
Type of Road
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
Valbruna Stainless
15/10/2014
6. SCENARIOS: MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
SCENARIO OPTIMIZATION
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
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
LIFE‐CYCLE STRATEGY 1 vs CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE
15/10/2014
6. SCENARIOS: MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
6. SCENARIOS: MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
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)
SCENARIO OPTIMIZATION
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
Non‐urban areaLow ADT
Short bridge10‐15 m
15/10/2014
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
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
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
KTH Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDivision of Structural Engineering and Bridges
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONQuestions?
47
15/10/2014