TO DEVELOP A COST MODEL FOR A

BRIDGE INTERCHANGE

Member ID # 38863

June 2006

Page 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General ………………………………………………………………… 6

1.2 Necessity for an Accurate Estimate ……………………………………. 6
1.3 Description of the Problem ……………………………………………. 7
1.4 Objective of the Study ………………………………………………… 7
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study …………………………………… 8

2. COST ESTIMATING PROCESS

2.1 General ………………………………………………………………... 9

2.2 Quantity computations ………………………………………………… 9
2.3 Standard Rates ………………………………………………………… 9

3. COST COMPONENTS IN A BRIDGE INTERCHANGE PROJECT

3.1 General ……………………………………………………………….... 11

3.2 Superstructure …………………………………………………………. 11
3.3 Substructure …………………………………………………………… 11
3.4 Finishes and Architectural elements …………………………………… 13

4. BRIDGE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

4.1 General ……………………………………………………….………… 14

4.2 Bridge width alternatives ……………………………………………… 14
4.3 Bridge structure types ...………….…………………………………… 14
4.4 Bridge span alternatives ………………….…………………………... 18

5. COST COMPUTATIONS

5.1 General …………………………………………………….…………… 19

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 General …………………………………………………….…………… 21

6.2 Inference ………………………….……………….……….…………… 21
6.1 Suitability ………………………………………………….…………… 23

Page 2
 LIST OF TABLES
Page No

2.1 BOQ Items – Standard Rates ……………………..…….……..……… 10

4.1 Bridge Widths Considered ………………………..……..…………… 14

5.1 Summary of Cost Estimate ………………………..……..…………… 20

6.1 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Width ….……..…………… 22

6.2 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Span …………….………… 23

6.3 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Structure type …………….… 23

6.4 Suitability of Bridge Structure Types …………………..…….……… 24

Page 3
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page No

3.1 Typical Details of Piers ………….………………….…..……………… 11

3.2 Typical Details of Abutment ………………….....….…..……………… 12

4.1 Pre-cast Voided Slab for Superstructure …………….…..……………… 15

4.2 Pre-cast Box beams for Superstructure ……………...…..……………… 16

4.3 Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder for Superstructure ……………….……… 17

4.4 Cast-in-place Post-tensioned Box Girder for Superstructure .…..……… 18

Page 4
 ABSTRACT

This report details the process and the results of the cost study intended to
compare the total project cost and the unit cost per area for some typical
designs of Bridge Interchange Projects, and establish relationship between
the unit cost and the variable parameters within a bridge project.

These typical bridge sections are taken from some of the recently completed
and under construction projects in Abu Dhabi. The total cost for the various
alternative designs for bridge interchange projects are computed based on
the average existing market rates for the various items of work. The market
rates used cost computation of any work would vary with time depending on
the cost of materials used in the construction, cost of fuel, living cost and
government regulations.

Some of these designs are adopted from the already completed projects or
on-going projects within Abu Dhabi and the computation of cost estimate is
limited to the bridge structure portion only. These results are compiled to
form a cost matrix from which could be of great use to the designer at the
preliminary design stage.

The results of the study shown as a cost matrix reflect the rate of change in
the unit cost per square meter for the bridge interchange with variation in the
number of traffic lanes on the bridge, variation in the span length of the
bridge and the choice of superstructure type.

Page 5
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Cost estimating is one of the most important activities during project concept planning
and preliminary design phase. Every project begins its life from concepts proposed by the
owner and refined by the designers. Planning decisions in this early stage of the project
are vital, as it can have the biggest influence on the subsequent outcome of the project.
Selection of the design from the proposed alternatives and planning decisions are based
on several planning activities, one of which is the preliminary cost estimating. Cost
estimating is the determination of the project’s total costs based only on general early
concepts of the project. Like all other planning activities, cost estimating is a challenging
task. This is due to the nature of planning, which occurs at the early stages of a project
where limited information is available and many factors affecting the project costs are
unknown.

While studies have indicated the importance of accurate cost estimates, there has been
little effort directed at improving the cost estimating processes, especially for
construction projects. This study is focused in to establishing a cost model for a Bridge
Interchange project. During the preliminary design phase estimating the construction
costs for a bridge can be difficult task as every bridge project is unique.

1.2 Necessity for an Accurate Estimate

The complexity of any bridge interchange project and the lack of time and information
allocated for the preliminary cost estimating often lead to a poor performance of the cost
estimate itself. The final outcome of the preliminary cost estimate can be accurate,
underestimated, or overestimated. An accurate preliminary cost estimate generally results
in the most economical project cost, while an underestimate and overestimate often lead
to greater actual project expenditures. Underestimates mean the design and specifications
cost more than they are estimated. It is also often a result of poor planning and
estimating, whereby substantial cost items may be omitted. This unrealistic estimate leads
to project delays, reorganization, and re-planning, which usually results in significant cost
growth. On the other hand, an overestimate can be as bad as an underestimate. Although
the project will be feasible due to more than adequate funding, the allocation of extra
budget will often be completely spent. In this way, the project may seem to finish under
the budget, but in truth may cost more than it has to. In this manner, only an accurate,
realistic estimate can lead to achievable cost or a truly successful project cost
performance.

Current practices for a bridge interchange project’s conceptual cost estimating can range
from an educated guess by an experienced estimator to a systematic and complex cost
estimating model. How an estimate is done is determined largely by the time and effort
that is provided to carry out the estimate along with the available resources. An educated
guess by an experienced estimator may be the fastest method and require the least amount
of resources, but it can also be the most subjective and unreliable. On the other hand, a

Page 6
systematic complex cost estimating model, although more accurate and reliable, will
require a lot of resources for its development and implementation, such that only large
organizations can afford.

The limited available analyzed data from past projects and lack of much research in to the
area of cost estimating, especially for a bridge interchange project, and the need for a
better preliminary cost estimating methodology and tools are the motivation for this
study.

1.3 Description of the Problem

Feedback from bridge designers and existing literature reviews highlighted the need for
reliable estimating methodology for a bridge project that utilizes relevant historical
project data for easy use for the estimators. Current practices of preliminary cost
estimating for bridges have been performed mainly through the utilization of published
cost files.

The cost of a bridge project is a function of many variables. The first and basic problem
is the identification and selection of these variables that may be used to describe a project
and define its cost. Such variables must be measurable for each new bridge project. The
second problem to determine the cost variation and establish a cost relationship with
regard to the possible changes to the selected variables in closed form.

1.4 Objective of the Study

The main objective of this study is to develop a near accurate, practical and systematic
method of preliminary cost estimating for a bridge interchange project that can be used
by individuals and organizations involved in the planning and execution of bridge
interchange projects.

From this main study objective the following three sub-objectives are also identified:

1. To develop a parametric cost estimating model for preliminary cost estimating of

bridge interchange projects. The model development process is illustrated and
discussed to promote the understanding of the model development requirements,
methodologies used, and specific development outcomes.

2. To identify and assess the relative importance of the significant bridge

characteristics or parameters to be incorporated into a cost estimating model to
improve the model’s cost estimating performance in the early phase of the project
development, and create a cost awareness to the designers while selection from
the alternative functions or parameters of the bridge components.

3. To help the designers carry out a thorough value engineering study for the
designed project and to evaluate the cost savings by the choice of alternatives

Page 7
 from the required parameters and at the same time fulfilling the required functions
of the bridge interchange.

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study

The scope of this study is limited to the development of a parametric cost estimating
model for preliminary cost estimating of bridge interchange projects. The study is based
on the unit cost data of various bills of quantity items prevailing during this time of the
study in the emirate of Abu Dhabi in UAE which is the selected study location. The unit
cost data is derived by taking the average from major contractors who bided for recently
tendered projects.

Due to the exploratory nature of this study and the vast range of variation possible in the
design parameters or the bridge components, the focus of this study is limited to some
selected parameters listed below

1. Three bridge structure type (superstructure is limited to Pre-cast, pre-tensioned I-

girders and cast-in-place post tensioned box girders)

2. Bridge span length (only spans from 20 Mts. to 90 Mts. span are considered in
this study)

3. No. of roadway lanes passing over the bridge structure (limited to one, two, three
and four lanes each direction)

Many decorative elements and architectural features are incorporated into the bridge
projects purely for purpose of adding the aesthetical appearance. These architectural
elements at times contribute a major portion of the total project cost. It may not be
possible to establish a general trend in the cost attributes of these elements or the criteria
for the selection of these architectural features, these features are also not considered in
the modeling.

While locating a bridge interchange project in an urban or developed location many

major utility lines get affected and very high costs are associated with providing an
acceptable and functional solution to these utility trunk lines. These costs though not
directly part of the bridge structure would eventually get added to the total project cost to
be borne by the owner. For purposes of arriving at a cost model these utility costs are also
excluded.

Also the analysis of other costs associated with fixed and movable equipment,
engineering and design, and construction contingencies which also do not show a fixed
pattern and hence can not be standardized are also excluded from the study. In addition,
site work costs will also not be included in the analysis due to the inherent dependency on
the new site conditions, which must be considered separately from this cost model
developed.

Page 8
 2. COST ESTIMATING PROCESS

2.1 General

The project cost for the alternate proposals for the bridge interchange is estimated based
on the calculated quantities for the cost elements and utilizing the prevailing average
market rates for these cost elements. These costs are then converted to unit cost per
square meter of the bridge deck using the deck area. Though the total project cost would
show large variations with the increase in the width or span length, the unit cost per area
is expected to show more definite relation ship with any change in these variables.

2.2 Quantity computations

The quantity for the cost elements are computed for each of the alternate proposals.
Preliminary design is carried out for each of these proposals considering same loading
conditions, foundation type and same material specifications. The primary step required
prior to quantity computation is to identify the items of work and establish the units of
measurement. It should be noted that detailed analysis and structural design for each of
the components would need to be done and all dimensions established in order to arrive
at an accurate quantity for all the items of work. For purposes for this study similar
designs from previously completed projects have been used and for some options
preliminary sizing was provided by the designers.

Quantities for the reinforcing steel could not be computed from the preliminary designs
and so it is computed from the concrete volumes as a percentage from the previously
established data base and depending on the type of the loading conditions.

The Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, December 1997 issued by
the Abu Dhabi Municipality is used as the governing document for identifying the
payable bill items and their units. Accordingly some of the items of work would become
subsidiary obligation to other existing items in the schedule.

2.3 Standard Rates

Even though there are many bridge interchange projects which have been completed here
in Abu Dhabi, a comparison of the costs between these projects may not be realistic due
to the fact that these projects were constructed during different period of time. The cost of
the bridge elements would directly depend on the cost of basic building materials and it
has shown very high fluctuations during the last five years. Also number and nature of
the companies participating in the bidding, and the uncertainties associated with each
project will also impact the rates quoted.

In order to overcome the difference in the rates from various bidders and the tendering
period of the projects, all the proposed alternatives are estimated using a set of standard
rates. These rates are prepared by computing the average from the various recent projects.
The standard rates used for the evaluation is tabulated below for reference.

Page 9
 Table 2.1 BOQ Items – Standard Rates

SL
No.
DESCRIPTION. Unit Rate.

1 Structure Excavation C.M. 50.00

2 Reinforcing Steel, Epoxy Coated Kg. 3.50

3 Blinding Concrete, Class K140 C.M. 300.00

4 Waterproofing for Concrete Works S.M 90.00

5 Concrete Protection for Waterproofing C.M. 300.00

6 Bridge Substructure Class K415 Concrete Footings Under Abutments C.M. 500.00

7 Bridge Substructure Class K415 Concrete Footings Under Piers C.M. 700.00

8 Bridge Substructure Class K415 Concrete for Abutments C.M. 600.00

9 Bridge Substructure Class K415 Concrete for Pier Shafts C.M. 1,000.00

10 CIP Concrete for Decking Slab and Diaphrams C.M. 700.00

11 Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder - 20 Mts. Length No 30,000.00

12 Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder - 30 Mts. Length No 45,000.00

13 Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder - 40 Mts. Length No 70,000.00

14 Pre-cast Concrete for Box Beams – 10 Mts. Length No 15,000.00

15 Pre-cast Concrete for Box Beams – 20 Mts. Length No 30,000.00

16 Pre-cast Concrete Voided Slab S.M. 1500.00

17 CIP Concrete for Post Tensioned Concrete for Box Girder C.M. 1,800.00

18 Concrete Pile Foundations, Bored, 800mm Diameter L.M. 1,100.00

19 Concrete Pile Foundation, Pile Load Test, Bored, 800mm Diameter No. 25,000.00

20 Epoxy paint on exposed concrete surfaces. S.M. 35.00

21 Pre-cast Concrete edge barriers L.M. 300.00

22 Elastomeric Expansion Joint L.M. 4,000.00

Page 10
 3. COST COMPONENTS IN A BRIDGE INTERCHANGE PROJECT

3.1 General

Majority of the bridge interchanges are designed to meet the basic function of providing a
grade separated vehicular crossing. During preliminary design stages various alternate
proposals would be evaluated and in most cases the most economic design

3.2 Superstructure

The most commonly used superstructure types adopted in bridge interchange projects
listed below are considered in this study.

1. Pre-cast Voided slab

2. Pre-cast Box Beams
3. Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder
4. Cast-in-place Post Tensioned Box Girder

Each of these superstructure categories are dealt with in detail in the next chapter.

3.3 Substructure

The substructure of a bridge interchange project would show high variation from project
to project. This is mostly because of the project location and the soil characteristics which
are the key factors deciding the type of foundation to be adopted. Also the selection of
the size of the pile foundation and the pile capacity would also bring about variation in
the design and ultimately the cost of the sub-structure. In order to have a uniform design
and a comparable cost the substructure design is carried out considering the same project
location, soil conditions, pile size and the pile capacity. Atypical detail of the abutment
and the foundation details are shown in the figure below.

Figure - 3.1 Typical details of Piers

Page 11
The choice of the pier size, pier shape and the pier design is adopted with more
architectural point of view and to create an identity to the project. The variations in these
pier features also exhibit large cost variation. But again for purposes of a true comparison
of the cost among the alternative designs for the bridges under study, the piers are also
considered to be of similar design.

The associated works beyond the abutment wall like the wing walls, approach slabs,
embankment fill, ramps and the access roads are also not considered in the estimate as
they do not fall within the bridge structure. The bearings pads and the pot bearings are
not a payable item under the Abu Dhabi municipality specifications and hence no
separate item is considered in the estimate.

Figure - 3.2 Typical details of Abutment

Page 12
3.4 Finishes and Architectural elements

Apart from the structural elements detailed as a part of this study there are many
architectural features, bridge finish items and other decorative elements that contributing
to a cost of a bridge interchange project. These features though not having a structural
role at many a times have high functional role. Since many design alternatives to choose
from are available for these features and the inclusion of these features as a part of any
project would not change the structural function of the bridge project, these are also
excluded from the scope of this study.

Some of these features include decorative metal railings, pre-cast fascia panels,
decorative lighting for the driveway, architectural lighting for the bridge structure and
other architectural elements introduced only for purposes of aesthetics or for uniqueness
to the project. In most of the bridge structures additional width is required for the
provision of side walks and in some cases utility corridor. Since these are not a standard
feature and would not be consistent between projects, these are also excluded from the
designs under study.

Page 13
 4. BRIDGE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

4.1 General

In order to compute the cost for the bridge interchange for various alternative parameters,
some standard designs are considered and their costs estimated to establish a trend
between the cost and the variation in the design parameters.

4.2 Bridge width alternatives

Four options for the bridge widths are considered for purpose of comparison. They are
one lane, two lanes, three lanes and four lanes either way. The total width for the bridge
considering shy, shoulder and the barrier width are computed as 11.60, 19.70, 27.00 and
34.30 as tabulated below.

Table 4.1 Bridge Widths Considered

No of
Driveway
lanes Edge Median Edge
Shy Lane Shoulder Total Width
either Barrier Barrier Barrier
Width
Direction

1 0.40 3.00 0.00 7.30 0.50 0.40 11.60

2 0.40 3.00 0.80 14.60 0.50 0.40 19.70
3 0.40 3.00 0.80 21.90 0.50 0.40 27.00
4 0.40 3.00 0.80 29.20 0.50 0.40 34.30

The cost for the bridge structure for each structure type and span is computed for each of
the above bridge widths to study the variation in the cost.

4.3 Bridge Structure types

The alternates for the bridge superstructure are limited to the following four types in this
study. There other possible structure types like the steel deck and the very large spans
using cantilevered box girder and pre-cast segmental box girder constructions are
excluded from the scope of this study

1. Pre-cast Voided slab

These slabs are cast in the factory and are also known as hollow core slabs. These slabs
have pre-stressing wires and have less self weight due to the hollow nature. These types
of bridges have either rectangular or circular holes running in the direction of the bridge
span. These are not suitable for spans beyond 15 Mts and so they are considered only for
the 10 Mts span. Since these are cast as modular units it is very easy to achieve various
bridge widths. A typical section of the slab is shown below.

Page 14
These slabs are the most economical section for short spans and they have very high rate
of production in the pre-cast factory. A typical arrangement of the slab for a two lane
bridge and a section is shown below.

Figure - 4.1 Pre-cast Voided Slab deck for Super structure

2. Pre-cast Box Beams

These concrete box beams are also cast in the factory and transported to the project site.
They are more expensive than the voided slab due to the more complicated construction
procedure. As these beams have a hollow interior which is filled with polystyrene the
casting of the bottom slab, the vertical sides and the top slab would have to be done in
stages.

These box beams are not suitable for spans beyond 20 Mts due to their design limitations.
In this study box beams are considered for 10 Mts and 20 Mts spans only. These are most
useful for light to medium loading conditions, temporary constructions or for utility
bridges. The transportation of these box beams would need expertise and transportation
costs are high.

A typical arrangement of the box beams for a two lane bridge of width 11.60 Mts and a
typical section of the beam is shown in the figure below.

Page 15
 Figure - 4.2 Pre-cast Box beam deck for Super structure

3. Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder

AASHTO I-Girders are normally pre-cast in the yards and are pre-stressed. They are
arranged at spacing between 1.50 to 2.50 Mts depending on the span and the depth of the
girder. They are provided with dowels along the upper edge which get joined into the top
deck slab which is cast-in-place. These I-Girders are most economical for spans up to 45
Mts span. These girders with the modified design could be used beyond 45 Mts span but
would not prove economical when compared to post-tensioned concrete box girder deck.

These structures have the advantages of fast rate of construction, low maintenance cost
and aesthetically pleasant appearance. They also have very high transportation and
erection cost. These type of construction is most suitable at locations where it would not
be possible to erect the scaffolding work for cast-in-situ concrete deck, especially while
spanning across utility corridors and water channels.

A cross section of the two lane bridge and a detail section of a typical girder is shown in
the figure below. As these units are modular various widths could be achieved easily.

As a part of the cost study bridge spans of 10, 20, 30 and 40 Mts are considered for the
concrete I-Girder construction.

Page 16
 Figure - 4.3 Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder for Super structure

4. Cast-in-place Post Tensioned Box Girder

The cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder has the maximum design flexibility
considering large span, skewed shape, varying width and high loading conditions. These
are more expensive when compared to other type of structures. But this would be the only
possible solution while selecting the structure type due to the design requirements.

Very high span construction is possible by combining other technologies like suspension
bridge, cable stayed bridge, balanced cantilever construction and segmental construction
technique. These combinations result in very high total cost to the project, but would get
traded of with the functional requirements. This type of structure would require large
construction duration considering the staged construction and the post tensioning
operations.

As apart of this study only simple structure type is considered. Spans considered for
comparison is limited to 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 Mts span only. Though spans below 40
Mts are also possible, it may not be economical to adopt this type of structure unless
other solutions are not possible. Also spans shorter than 40 Mts could be used in
combination with other spans to meet the total span requirements.

They also have the option to be built with a single cell, twin cell, three or even more
depending on the design requirements. Two typical section of the box girder with two
cells and three cells is shown in the figure below.

Page 17
 Figure - 4.4 Cast-in-place Post-tensioned Box Girder deck for Super structure

4.4 Bridge Span alternatives

For any given situation where the need for a bridge interchange structure arises the
designer would have the option to decide on the span requirements. Apart from spanning
the proposed bridge across a vehicular driveway underneath, there would be other factors
which also influence the decision of the span lengths like provision for future widening of
the drive way, existing utility lines and utility corridor which would need to be kept free
of obstruction etc. It should be noted that as the span is increased the superstructure cost
would increase proportionally. But larger span would give the bridge better aesthetical
appearance and more functional flexibility.

The designer would have to take a decision regarding the span after a trade off is made
for the cost. The availability of a cost model which can provide the impact on the project
cost for a given change in span would help the designer take decision.

For the purpose of this cost study only some typical span lengths are considered and the
cost could be assumed to show a linear variation for any other span lengths. The span
lengths considered are 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 Mts. However some of the
structure types are not suitable for larger spans due to design restrictions

Page 18
 5. COST COMPUTATIONS

5.1 General

The estimate for each option of the bridge interchange is worked out based on the
quantity take off and the standard rates for all the items of work. The quantity take off is
computed from the preliminary design of each alternate design or from similar design
from existing projects.

It should be noted that these costs hold true only for Abu Dhabi, the location under study
as the cost of the construction materials and methods may not be the same for any other
location. Also the rates are based on the prevailing market costs during the month of June
2006 and estimates and the results would need to be modified to reflect the change the
cost of materials at any other period of time. The parameters considered which are
studied for possible variation in the bridge deck are the bridge width, the span and the
structure type. Considering the various options for the bridge deck a total of 68
alternatives are estimated.

However complete details of the designs and the cost estimates are not attached as a part
with this report due to the bulky nature of the calculations. The cost estimates for all the
alternates are summarized in the tabulation as below.

Page 19
 Table 5.1 Summary of Cost Estimate

Bridge
Bridge Span Bridge Total Bridge Rate per
Superstructure Roadway No. of Area
Width Length Length Cost Square
Type Lanes Spans Sq.
Mts. Mts. Mts. (Dh.) Meter
Mts.
2X1 11.60 1 10 10 116 384,750.00 3,316.81
Pre-cast Voided 2X2 19.70 1 10 10 197 632,590.00 3,211.12
Slab 2X3 27.00 1 10 10 270 839,540.00 3,109.41
2X4 34.30 1 10 10 343 1,010,750.00 2,946.79
2X1 11.60 1 10 10 116 421,490.00 3,633.53
Pre-cast Box 2X2 19.70 1 10 10 197 708,750.00 3,597.72
Beams 2X3 27.00 1 10 10 270 934,520.00 3,461.19
2X4 34.30 1 10 10 343 1,140,150.00 3,324.05
2X1 11.60 2 10 20 232 791,580.00 3,411.98
Pre-cast Box 2X2 19.70 2 10 20 394 1,288,750.00 3,270.94
Beams 2X3 27.00 2 10 20 540 1,679,420.00 3,110.04
2X4 34.30 2 10 20 686 2,069,250.00 3,016.40
2X1 11.60 1 20 20 232 915,020.00 3,944.05
Pre-cast Box 2X2 19.70 1 20 20 394 1,517,250.00 3,850.89
Beams 2X3 27.00 1 20 20 540 2,010,170.00 3,722.54
2X4 34.30 1 20 20 686 2,475,580.00 3,608.72
2X1 11.60 1 10 10 116 455,550.00 3,927.16
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 1 10 10 197 738,520.00 3,748.83
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 1 10 10 270 982,490.00 3,638.85
2X4 34.30 1 10 10 343 1,230,750.00 3,588.19
2X1 11.60 2 10 20 232 905,150.00 3,901.51
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 2 10 20 394 1,470,340.00 3,731.83
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 2 10 20 540 1,950,750.00 3,612.50
2X4 34.30 2 10 20 686 2,390,590.00 3,484.83
2X1 11.60 1 20 20 232 965,150.00 4,160.13
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 1 20 20 394 1,585,280.00 4,023.55
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 1 20 20 540 2,140,740.00 3,964.33
2X4 34.30 1 20 20 686 2,685,150.00 3,914.21
2X1 11.60 3 10 30 348 1,345,650.00 3,866.81
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 3 10 30 591 2,195,150.00 3,714.30
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 3 10 30 810 2,900,770.00 3,581.20
2X4 34.30 3 10 30 1029 3,557,050.00 3,456.80

Page 20
 Table 5.1 Summary of Cost Estimate - Cont’d

Bridge
Bridge Span Bridge Total Bridge Rate per
Superstructure Roadway No. of Area
Width Length Length Cost Square
Type Lanes Spans Sq.
Mts. Mts. Mts. (Dh.) Meter
Mts.
2X1 11.60 1 30 30 348 1,520,250.00 4,368.53
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 1 30 30 591 2,465,370.00 4,171.52
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 1 30 30 810 3,300,790.00 4,075.05
2X4 34.30 1 30 30 1029 4,093,510.00 3,978.14
2X1 11.60 4 10 40 464 1,790,180.00 3,858.15
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 4 10 40 788 2,925,220.00 3,712.21
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 4 10 40 1080 3,806,160.00 3,524.22
2X4 34.30 4 10 40 1372 4,695,370.00 3,422.28
2X1 11.60 2 20 40 464 1,927,530.00 4,154.16
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 2 20 40 788 3,124,050.00 3,964.53
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 2 20 40 1080 4,227,520.00 3,914.37
2X4 34.30 2 20 40 1372 5,345,140.00 3,895.87
2X1 11.60 1 40 40 464 2,112,750.00 4,553.34
Pre-cast
2X2 19.70 1 40 40 788 3,414,130.00 4,332.65
Pre stressed
I-Girder 2X3 27.00 1 40 40 1080 4,550,630.00 4,213.55
2X4 34.30 1 40 40 1372 5,676,210.00 4,137.18
2X1 11.60 1 40 40 464 2,250,840.00 4,850.95
CIP Post
2X2 19.70 1 40 40 788 3,750,310.00 4,759.28
tensioned Box
Girder 2X3 27.00 1 40 40 1080 5,010,310.00 4,639.18
2X4 34.30 1 40 40 1372 6,250,350.00 4,555.65
2X1 11.60 1 50 50 580 2,850,240.00 4,914.21
CIP Post
2X2 19.70 1 50 50 985 4,780,640.00 4,853.44
tensioned Box
Girder 2X3 27.00 1 50 50 1350 6,455,120.00 4,781.57
2X4 34.30 1 50 50 1715 8,085,320.00 4,714.47
2X1 11.60 1 60 60 696 3,458,050.00 4,968.46
CIP Post
2X2 19.70 1 60 60 1182 5,790,150.00 4,898.60
tensioned Box
Girder 2X3 27.00 1 60 60 1620 7,750,370.00 4,784.18
2X4 34.30 1 60 60 2058 9,750,350.00 4,737.78
2X1 11.60 1 70 70 812 4,115,050.00 5,067.80
CIP Post
2X2 19.70 1 70 70 1379 6,900,350.00 5,003.88
tensioned Box
Girder 2X3 27.00 1 70 70 1890 9,350,180.00 4,947.19
2X4 34.30 1 70 70 2401 11,750,160.00 4,893.86
2X1 11.60 1 80 80 928 4,750,240.00 5,118.79
CIP Post
2X2 19.70 1 80 80 1576 7,980,190.00 5,063.57
tensioned Box
Girder 2X3 27.00 1 80 80 2160 10,850,750.00 5,023.50
2X4 34.30 1 80 80 2744 13,650,230.00 4,974.57

Page 21
 6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 General

After conducting a detailed study of the alternative possible structure types and after
studying the variation in the cost of a bridge interchange with the change in design
parameters, the conclusions could be of use to the designer at the preliminary design
stage and could be of use in arriving at a criteria for the selection of the design from the
alternatives.

6.2 Inference

The outcome of the study is summarized below and the findings are further tabulated at
the end of this chapter which also indicates the limitation and the suitability of the
selected superstructure type depending of the maximum span length that could be
adopted.

1. The cost per square meter of the bridge interchange is higher for a narrower
bridge and it reduces for a wider bridge with more number of lanes, keeping all
other parameters same. This is mainly due to the fact that many indirect cost
remain same irrespective of the bridge width and also the cost for various
substructure components like the abutments, piers and pile foundations do not
increase directly proportional to the bridge width. The reduction in the unit rate
per square meter of the I-Girder bridge deck for a 10.0 Mts span with the increase
in width of the bridge is tabulated below.

Table 6.1 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Width

Bridge Percentage Bridge Total Bridge Rate per Percentage

Roadway
Width Increase in Area Cost Square Decrease in
Lanes
Mts. Width Sq. Mts. (Dh.) Meter Rate
2X1 11.60 116 455,550.00 3,927.16
2X2 19.70 70 197 738,520.00 3,748.83 -5
2X3 27.00 133 270 982,490.00 3,638.85 -7
2X4 34.30 196 343 1,230,750.00 3,588.19 -9

2. The cost per square meter of the bridge structure is higher for larger span lengths
and it reduces for shorter bridge spans keeping all other parameters same. Some
cost savings is achieved in the superstructure due to the reduction in the number
of piers and their foundations when the bridge span length is increased. However
the cost increase in the superstructure due to larger span is more than the savings
from the sub structure and so overall cost get increased with the increase in span
length. The table below shows the variation of cost for the 11.60 Mts wide bridge
having I-Girder deck for various spans.

Page 22
 Table 6.2 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Span

Percentage Rate Per Square

Span Length Total Bridge Cost Percentage
Increase in Meter
Mts. (Dh.) Increase in Rate
Length (Dh.)

10 455,550.00 3,927.16
20 100 965,150.00 4,160.13 6
30 200 1,520,250.00 4,368.53 11
40 300 2,112,750.00 4,553.34 16

3. The rate per square meter of the bridge structure also showed variation with the
type of superstructure adopted. It is observed that the cast-in-place voided slab is
the cheapest option for the superstructure, followed by the pre-cast box girder and
then pre-cast pre-stressed I-Girder. As it could be understood from the tabulation
below, the unit rate per square meter of the bridge also increases with the change
of superstructure. The structure types in the order of increased cost are pre-cast
voided slab, Pre-cast box beams, pre-cast pre-stressed I-girder and then the cast-
in-place box girder.

Table 6.3 Variation of Rate with change in Bridge Structure type.

Bridge
Bridge Span Total Rate per Percentage
Area
Superstructure Type Width Length Bridge Square Increase in
Sq.
Mts. Mts. Cost (Dh.) Meter Rate
Mts.
Pre-cast Voided Slab 11.60 10 116 384,750.00 3,316.81
Pre-cast Box Beams 11.60 10 116 421,490.00 3,633.53 10
Pre-cast Pre-stressed I-Girder 11.60 10 116 455,550.00 3,927.16 18

6.3 Suitability

However there is a limitation to the use of these types of bridge superstructures due to
design restrictions. It should be noted that each of the structure types while adopted as
superstructure has limitation to the maximum span length. Beyond these limits these
structure types are not feasible due to design limitation or are not economically viable.
Also below certain span lengths it may not be economical to adopt certain structure types.
These limitations and recommendations are also tabulated below as a ready reference.

Page 23
 Table 6.4 Suitability of Bridge Super Structure

Maximum Type of Bridge Super Structure

Span
lengths Cast-in-place
Pre-cast Voided Pre-cast Box Pre-cast Pre-
(Mts.) Post-Tensioned
Slab Beam Stressed I-Girder
Box Girder
Could be adopted Not suitable due Not suitable due
Up to 10 Most economical
if required to high cost to high cost

Could be adopted Not suitable due

20 Not Feasible Most economical
if required to high cost

Could be adopted
30 Not Feasible Not Feasible Most economical
if required

Could be adopted
40 Not Feasible Not Feasible Most economical
if required

Beyond 50 Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Most economical

Page 24