You are on page 1of 14

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J.

TCG, I, No 2-3

65



,

.

.
,
.

,
..

1.
1.1.
. ,

.

, ,
, ... ,

. ,
,


. ,
.
: 12.11.2003 : 21.5.2004


...


.
.
14
. ,


.
680 . 4.5

. 2200 , ,
, 40 .,


.
1.2.
:
ltot: (m)
b: (m)
bmed: (m)
ls: (m)
lsadj: (m)
lc:
(m)
lcadj: (m)
Vc: (m3)
Bs: (kg)
Bp: (kg)

66

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

1.3.

,

[19]. Cohn Lounis [3]

10 50 m 8
16 m
.

,
,
.
.
Lounis Cohn [12, 13]



.
,


.
,

.
.

(...)
,
[9]
.
,
.


. Behr Cundy [1]
.

,


. O Behr Cundy


,
, .
Sowards [20]
-


(223 190 ,
).
1982
.
,
.

.
Coole [4]
112

(demonstration projects) 1989
1995 .

, [20].
Moselhi, Hegazy Fazio [16]
,
. , Hegazy Ayed [7]

.
, Creese Li [5]
12 .



.
O Menn [17]

19 1958 1985.


.
[21] ( . 6.5).
Rosignioli [18] 91
.

.
,

. O Rosignioli

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3



.

Kohler and Seith Beraten und Planen GmbH [10] ,
.
1976
(4 ), (4),
(7), (8)
(4).

structurae [11].


1560 /m2
, 1050 /m2 , 1020 /m2 1320 /m2
.

(American Segmental
Bridge Institute) [8] 58
1971 2002 (54
14 ).


Spons [6]. 1996
760 930

.

2.

1995 .. (....)
( ,
) , ,
,
.
o

.... .
,

-

67

.
/ ....

.

:
:
DIN 1072 60/30
:
DIN 1045
&
DIN 1075

DIN 4227

:
EAK 2000

E39/99



1 , ,
( 6 m.).
100 76 .
1:
.
Table 1: Structures on the Egnatia Motorway.

150

138

259

1231

2.

,

.
1000
, 235

.

, , (...) .
12.10 15.00
. :
, . : , ,
,
.

68

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

.
,
40 % 55 % .
-

.
2: 10
.
Table 2: The ten largest twin bridges on Egnatia Motorway.

.. ..
()
() ()
1
1036 1036 140
2
950 950
120
3
920 920
100
4 638 849
55 .
5
470 580
110
6 3 /
540 540
110
7
539 539
235
8
490 477
230
9
471 481
40 .
405 475
105
10 9 /

3.


:







,
. , , , /
.
.
. , , / , ,
.
-

. 24
, 16 , 39 40
.
, ,
.
3

.
2003
(18 %), ...
4
. , ,
.

50
%.
, .

, ,
,
.

(7.4%)

14 %.

825 /m2
,
1245 /m2 , 745 /m2 , 630 /m2 .
, ,

. ,
,
.



( 1.3).

( , , , , ,
..).

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

69

3: .
Table 3: Representative cost records from bridges of the Egnatia Motorway.

ltot
(m)

b n /m2
(m)
(000 )
(000 )
(000 )
(000 )
(000 )
(000 )
(/m2)

1.
12+837- 416.0 14.25 13
217
1,283
440
1,353
5-
280.0 12.10 7
88
730
292
1,461
6-
280.0 12.10 7
82
680
272
1,361

711
205
191

4,004
2,775
2,586

675
819
763

2.

260.0 13.0 4
90
1 .
155.0 14.0 2
269

490.0 13.5 3
240

3.
180.0 13.75 4
57
14+301/
35+026- 145.0 14.00 3
142
24+483- 115.0 14.00 3
81

4.
25+544-
92.5 9.50 3
8
9- .
88.1 10.00 3
37

3/
83.0 9.00 3
53

568
729
1,145

299
461
1,428

1,765
1,094
5,615

269
211
396

2,991
2,763
8,824

885
1,273
1,333

272

264

408

241

1,242

502

505
244

36
65

675
426

95
104

1,452
919

715
571

191
50

45
39

220
222

42
77

506
425

576
482

56

44

296

74

523

700

4: .
Table 4: Sub-costs as percentage of total construction cost.


1. (n=24)
4.7
26.7
15.9
34.4
18.3

3.5
8.5
6.9
10.7
6.1

0.3
7.8
7.5
17.4
7.4

14.7
39.9
27.1
52.6
30.2

2. (n=16)
8.3
19.2
15.2

6.4
7.6
3.1

2.7
5.4
10.0

23.6
28.1
19.9

49.9
10.3
39.2
64.3

7.4
1.9
4.5
9.8

3. (n=39)
6.8
25.4

6.1
11.3

0.2
9.6

28.7
47.0

19.1
6.8
2.5
33.1

34.1
11.8
10.2
54.1

14.6
8.0
1.4
39.0

4. (n=40)
10.4
17.7
17.8

8.9
7.5
8.1

0.6
8.5
5.7

31.2
39.1
41.2

37.8
13.0
14.2
61.2

16.2
6.0
2.4
39.5

70

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

4.





. 119 .
,
, , ,
. ,
, ,
, , ,
,
.
,
,
, .

.
, , ,

. ,
,
,
,
,
.
,

, .



.
,
,

.
, ,
,
.

.


, , ,

.

5.

,


.

,
.


.

6.

6.1.

,
.
, .
, ,
.

. :
b
l sadj l
bmed

0.3

(6.1)

24
.

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

5.
, , , .
5: .
Table 5: Data for bridges with deck type precast girders.

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ls
(m)
39.60
39.60
23.11
27.30
19.92
29.90
19.92
34.00
34.00
34.00
43.50
42.75
42.75
43.50
42.00
42.00
31.50
35.50
35.00
33.85
34.53
28.67
35.50
35.84

b
lsadj
(m) (m)
12.10 38.49
12.10 38.49
13.50 23.21
13.50 27.42
13.50 20.01
13.50 30.03
13.50 20.01
12.70 33.53
12.70 33.53
12.70 33.53
13.10 43.30
13.10 42.56
13.10 42.56
13.10 43.30
13.10 41.81
13.10 41.81
14.25 32.16
13.90 35.97
13.50 35.16
12.75 33.42
14.28 35.27
13.50 28.80
15.50 37.17
13.90 36.32

Vc
(m3)
333.5
315.1
296.7
241.9
159.9
281.5
169.2
302.4
304.3
305.6
435.0
431.4
404.7
434.6
433.5
436.4
314.3
379.5
372.1
275.9
366.7
279.6
390.3
445.0

Bs
(kg)
43609.2
41101.3
18820.4
20554.4
20716.7
32496.6
21808.1
36790.0
35750.0
38135.2
45067.5
44700.0
50455.0
43070.0
46090.0
46360.0
32619.0
58905.4
61819.3
39684.9
38590.2
41310.2
61091.6
75700.4

Bp
(kg)
11885.9
10800.0
3998.6
8487.7
4128.5
9294.7
4426.1
9927.7
9927.7
9927.7
12970.0
12760.0
12760.0
12970.0
11930.0
11930.0
8704.1
16133.1
11434.5
8376.3
12178.3
17636.0
16133.5
17481.0

(6.4)

B p 60.776 l sadj 1.455

(6.5)


lsadj 20.01 43.30 m.

.

7.

Vs

y = a + b* ladj
0.8094
y = a + b * ladjc
0.8096
y = a + b * lnladj 0.7954

y = a + b * e ladj*c 0.8096
2 y = a * ladjc
0.8303

Bs

Bp

0.4254
0.4520
0.4543
0.4247
0.6102

0.4242
0.4628
0.4665
0.4234
0.6349

7: .
Table 7: Statistical data for the final regression models for bridges
with deck type precast girders.

. R2

(6.2)

, ,


.
Vc 6.174 l sadj 1.129

B s 473.112 l sadj 1.255

6: .
Table 6: Adjusted R-Square for bridges with deck type precast
girders.

(
, , , ) (
6).
.
,
[14].
,
:

l sadj
W
l sadj
min

71

(6.3)

Vc
0.992

Bs
0.945

Bp
0.948

0.991
0.942
0.946
R2
2751.56 391.75 421.54

F
0.000
0.000
0.000

52.46
19.79
20.53

t
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.996
0.972
0.974
Beta
3.94% 10.45% 10.08%

( 5%)

6.2.

,

()
[15] ,
. ,
,

[15].

72

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3


.

.
8: .
Table 8: Data for cantilever- constructed bridges.

lc
(m)

b
(m)

lcadj

Vc
(m3)

Bs
(kg)

Bp
(kg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

69.14
80.65
110.93
69.14
80.80
110.08
238.88
238.88
245.00
245.00
119.00
155.00
150.00
166.00
172.00
172.00
117.10
117.10
115.08
85.07
65.04
123.60
123.60
119.48
119.48
114.50
107.00
107.00
128.50
114.50
107.00
107.00
128.50

12.95
12.95
12.95
12.95
12.95
12.95
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00

67.54
78.78
108.37
67.54
78.93
107.54
236.29
236.29
242.34
242.34
119.00
155.00
150.00
166.00
172.00
172.00
119.55
119.55
117.48
86.84
66.40
123.60
123.60
119.48
119.48
114.50
107.00
107.00
128.50
114.50
107.00
107.00
128.50

775.3
922.5
1320.5
776.9
923.7
1321.5
4880.0
4880.0
5020.0
5020.0
1820.5
2426.5
2595.7
2863.3
2779.0
2779.0
1396.6
1331.9
1287.4
1057.5
703.2
1281.8
1283.3
1268.8
1264.3
1318.6
1280.8
1280.8
1444.6
1318.6
1280.8
1280.8
1444.6

131112.8
150881.6
203408.9
131123.8
150892.1
206194.6
825915.0
825915.0
859171.5
859171.5
194000.0
303000.0
412000.0
461000.0
607592.7
609547.0
253705.9
222557.1
245066.4
201794.8
118628.1
251193.6
261792.9
206415.0
205945.0
182178.0
169524.0
169524.0
199705.0
183005.5
162407.8
162839.3
200752.0

28538.3
40373.7
53532.3
29304.5
40527.5
54866.9
203978.5
203978.5
206587.5
206587.5
74000.0
99000.0
127000.0
140000.0
140000.0
140000.0
62403.3
60356.7
54279.9
45125.4
29300.7
85792.8
85792.8
79665.9
79531.8
72567.5
78923.0
78923.0
82454.0
72563.0
78918.0
79680.0
81667.0

16
.

, lc,
. , lcadj ,
(6.1). 33

8.
.

( 9).
. ,
.
9:
.
Table 9: Adjusted R-Square for cantilever-constructed bridges.

y = a + b* ladj
y = a + b * ladjc
y = a + b * lnladj

y = a + b * e ladj*c
2 y = a * ladjc

Vc

Bs

Bp

0.9495
0.9826
0.8316
0.9806
0.9409

0.9184
0.9507
0.7983
0.9465
0.8811

0.9636
0.9649
0.9034
0.9647
0.9434




:
Vc 348.69 0.0069 l cadj 2.030

(6.6)

s 30044.86 15.99 l cadj 1.982

(6.7)

p 22934.24 349.94 l cadj 1.184

(6.8)


lcadj 67.54 m 242.34 m.
,

.
10.
10: .
Table 10: Statistical data for the final regression models for
cantilever-constructed bridges.

. R2

Vc
0.983

Bs
0.951

Bp
0.965

0.982
0.949
0.964
R2
1754.34 597.89 852.93

F
0.000
0.000
0.000

41.89
29.21
29.21

t
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.991
0.975
0.982
Beta
4.87% 8.34% 6.98%

( 5%)

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

6.3.

13
.
11:
.
Table 11: Data for single-box girder bridges.

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

ls
(m)
30.00
45.00
36.00
38.50
48.00
38.50
41.40
49.00
33.00
27.40
45.70
54.00
45.70
49.90
54.00
49.90
21.00
31.00
21.00
21.00
31.00
21.00
21.00
35.00
21.00
21.00
35.00
21.00
32.00
49.00
32.00
65.00
45.00
45.00
45.00
45.00
41.00
47.00
47.00

b
(m)
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
13.90
13.90
13.90
13.90
13.90
13.95
13.45
13.45

lsadj
30.03
45.05
36.04
38.54
48.05
38.54
41.44
49.05
33.04
27.43
45.75
54.06
45.75
49.95
54.06
49.95
20.56
30.35
20.56
20.56
30.35
20.56
20.56
34.27
20.56
20.56
34.27
20.56
32.03
49.05
32.03
64.93
44.95
44.95
44.95
44.95
41.00
46.49
46.49

Vc
(m3)
333.1
499.6
399.7
423.1
527.5
423.1
460.2
543.6
366.8
304.6
492.1
582.1
492.1
537.8
582.0
537.8
227.9
336.4
227.9
226.3
334.1
226.3
177.8
296.3
177.8
177.8
296.3
177.8
402.0
615.5
402.0
950.0
439.9
439.9
439.9
439.9
462.6
458.4
446.4

Bs
(kg)
40505.4
60758.1
48609.5
58577.0
73031.0
58577.0
75533.2
89216.7
60207.6
49990.6
70244.0
83092.5
70244.0
79862.7
86424.6
79862.7
31247.1
46126.7
31247.1
31247.1
46126.7
31247.1
25685.2
42808.6
25685.2
25631.5
42719.1
25631.5
34788.1
53269.3
34788.1
83243.9
47304.8
47304.8
47304.8
47304.8
46560.4
60120.4
60120.4

Bp
(kg)
11226.0
16839.0
13741.2
16555.3
20640.4
16555.3
16509.2
19500.0
13159.5
10926.4
18994.9
22469.3
18994.9
20707.9
22409.3
20707.9
5472.8
8078.9
5472.8
5472.8
8078.9
5472.8
6585.0
10975.0
6585.0
6585.0
10975.0
6585.0
10533.8
16129.9
10533.8
50943.4
24643.5
24643.5
24643.5
24643.5
27984.3
31227.6
31227.6

73


(6.1).

11.

(
12).
.
, , (6.2).
12: .
Table 12: Adjusted R-Square for single-box girder bridges.

y = a + b* ladj

y = a + b * ladj

y = a + b * lnladj

y=a+b*e

2 y = a * ladj

ladj*c

Vc

Bs

Bp

0.8922

0.7533

0.7545

0.9215

0.7536

0.7910

0.8340

0.7297

0.6928

0.9289

0.7534

0.7972

0.9243

0.8007

0.8831



.
Vc 7.162 l sadj 1.117

(6.9)

B s 1468.154 l sadj 0.987

(6.10)

B p 48.617 l sadj 1.602

(6.11)


lsadj 20.56 m 64.93 m.

,

. 13.
6.4.

5 11,

, -

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3


.
13: e .
Table 13: Statistical data for the final regression models for singlebox girder bridges.

Vc
0.984

. R2

Bs
0.974

Bp
0.942

0.984
0.973
0.941
R2
2372.25 1408.83 621.39

F
0.000
0.000
0.000

48.71
37.53
24.93

t
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.992
0.987
0.971
Beta
4.16% 5.39% 8.12%

( 5%)


.

.
.

25000
20000
p (Kg)

74

15000
10000
5000
0
0

600

l sadj (m)

400

Vc (m )

50

.
.

16:
.
Figure 16: Comparison of the weight of prestressing steel in precast
girder bridges with single-box girder bridges.

500

300
200
100
0
0

25
l sadj (m)

50

.
.

14:
.
Figure 14: Comparison of the volume of concrete in precast girder
bridges with single-box girder bridges.

70000

6.5.
Menn
O Menn [17]

:
Vc (0.35 0.0045 l m ) b l tot

(7.1)

B s (90 0.35 l m ) b l tot

(7.2)

B p 0.35 l m b l tot

(7.3)

60000

50000
s (Kg)

25

40000

: lm

30000

2
i

i 1
n

li i (7.4)

20000

i 1

10000
0
0

25
l sadj (m)

50

.
.

15:
.
Figure 15: Comparison of the weight of reinforcing steel in precast
girder bridges with single-box girder bridges.

14-16 -

16
.
,
.
23 % , 41%
47 % .
,

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

.

50 %
.

7.

, 94 %, t F
.
,
,
,
( 10 %) [2].

,

.

.


.



,
.
.
,
, ,
.

1. Behr, R.A., Cundy, E.J. Goodspeed, C.H. Cost comparison


of timber steel and prestressed concrete bridges. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 1990, 116(12), 3448-3457.

75

2. Burke, R. Project Management, Planning & Control Techniques.


John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1999, 120-121.
3. Cohn, M. Lounis Z. Optimal design of structural concrete
bridge systems. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1994, 120 (9),
2653-2674.
4. Coole C., Wood In Transportation Program, Superstructure costs
report for vehicular timber bridges, 1989-1995,
National Conference on Wood Transportation Structures, USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report FPL-GTR-94, Madison WI, 1996.
5. Creese, R.C. Li Li. Cost Estimation of Timber Bridges Using
Neural Networks. Cost Engineering, 1995, 37(5), 17-22.
6 Davis Langdon & Everest. Spons Civil Engineering and Highway
Works Price Book, E & FN Spon, 1997, 735-736.
7. Hegazy, T. Ayed, A. Neural network model for parametric
cost estimation of highway projects. ASCE Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 1998, 124(3), 210-218.
8. http://www.asbi-assoc.org/menu.cfm?dir=cost_data&page=index.
ASBI Cost Data 1971-2002. 7/10/2003.
9. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/bridgemanuals/bridgedesign-aids/bda.html. Bridge Design Aids.
7/10/2003.
10. http://www.koehler-seitz.de/bridges. List of bridges by method of
construction. 7/10/2003.
11. http://www.structurae.net/en/structures/method/bri.php Construction
Method: Bridges. 7/10/ 2003.
12. Lounis, Z. Cohn, M. Multiobjective optimization of
prestressed concrete structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
1993, 119 (3), 794-808.
13. Lounis, Z. Cohn, M. An approach to preliminary design of
precast pretensioned concrete bridge systems. Microcomputers in Civil
Engineering, 1996, 11 (6), 381-393.
14. Maddala, G.S. Introduction to Econometrics, MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1992, 212-220.
15. Mathivat, J. The cantilever construction of prestressed concrete
bridges, John Wiley and Sons, 1989, 76-80.
16. Moselhi, O., Hegazy, T. Fazio, P. Potential applications of
neural networks in construction. Can. Journal of Civil Engineering, 1992,
19, 521-529.
17. Menn, C. Prestressed concrete bridges, Birkhauser, 1990, 52-58.
18. Rosignoli, M. Presizing of prestressed concrete launched
bridges. Structural Journal of the ACI, 1999, 96(5), 705-710.
19. Sarma, K. Adeli, H. Cost optimization of concrete structures.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 124 (5), 570-578.
20. Sowards, G. A comparison of initial superstructure costs of
timber bridges with those of steel, concrete and prestressed concrete
bridges, , Master of Science in Forestry, Michigan
Technological University, 1998.
21. , .
:
, , ..., 2000.

..
.


..., ..., ..., ,
, 9, , 157 80 .

..., , ,
9, , 157 80 .

76

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

Extended summary

A Quantity and Cost Estimate Model


for Concrete Road Bridges
NIKOLAOS P. FRAGKAKIS
Civil Engineer
Abstract
This paper presents a new quantity and cost estimate model
for concrete road bridges that enables the reliable economical
comparison of different design alternatives during the early stages
of the projects design. A database that includes historical cost
records, design parameters and material quantities of several
constructed bridges of the Egnatia Motorway, a new 680 Km
high-speed motorway in Northern Greece, has been compiled.
The statistical processing of the collected data provides accurate
estimates of bridges material quantities, which in turn lead to
estimates of the construction cost. Emphasis is placed in cantileverconstructed bridges, single box girder bridges, as well as in
bridges with decks consisting of precast I-girders and continuity
slab. Equations that provide estimates of material quantities in the
superstructure of the aforementioned bridges are presented. The
analysis shows that utilization of the existing comparable cost and
design records can lead to accurate material estimates.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
An accurate and easy to use method that provides cost
estimates enables engineers to compare different design
alternatives during the preliminary study of the project and
adopt the preferred alternative. It also allows managers to
apply proper financing procedures.
Although the development of surveying techniques,
analytical models and computer programs allows accurate
estimates for the volume of earthworks in a motorway
project, very few models in the literature address preliminary
quantity and cost estimates for the construction of bridges
and tunnels.
The Egnatia Motorway is being constructed as a highspeed motorway of modern standards with a total length of
680 Km. It is one of the largest civil engineering projects
currently under construction in Europe and provides a
substantial field for collecting data and estimating the
material quantities and cost of motorway concrete bridges.

SERGIOS LAMBROPOULOS
Assistant Professor N.T.U.A.
graphs that correlate the construction cost with fundamental
design parameters. Californias Bridge Design Manual [6]
also includes similar graphs.
Behr and Cundy [1] and Sowards [20] investigated the
economy of timber bridge superstructures as compared
to steel and prestressed concrete bridge decks. Coole [4]
examined the construction cost of timber bridges built as
demonstration projects, while Creese and Li [5] used neural
network models to develop cost estimates.
Menn [17] developed a cost estimate model for
prestressed concrete bridges and developed equations to
estimate the material quantities in the superstructure of
incrementally launched and balanced cantilever bridges.
Rosignoli [18] compared the dimensions and consumption
of materials related to incrementally launched prestressed
concrete bridges and supports the implementation of the
incrementally launched construction method.
Cost information regarding modern concrete road bridges
is included in Kohler and Seith Beraten und Planen GmbH
[10] and Structurae [11]. It leads to average construction
prices of 1560 Euro/m2 for cantilever construction,
1050 Euro/m2 for traveler scaffolding, 1020 Euro/m2 for
incremental launching and 1320 Euro/m2 for bridges with
decks made of precast girders.
The American Segmental Bridge Institute [8], as well as
Spons Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book
[6] includes cost estimates for road bridges.

2. CONCRETE BRIDGES OF THE


EGNATIA MOTORWAY
Table 1 illustrates the structures on Egnatia Motorway
and Table 2 lists the ten largest twin bridges. Egnatia
Motorways largest bridge reaches 1036 meters in overall
length, while the maximum span of 235 meters represents
one of the largest cantilever bridge spans built in Europe.

1.2. Previous Cost Studies and Research

3. COST ASSESSMENT OF EGNATIA


MOTORWAYS CONCRETE BRIDGES

Studies from Cohn and Lounis [3,12,13] address the


design optimization of concrete road bridges and include

The total construction cost of a concrete motorway bridge


and overpass can be broken down into the following items:

Submitted: Nov. 12. 2003 Accepted: May 21. 2004

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

Earthworks
Foundation
Substructure
Superstructure
Accessories
Cost records have been collected from 24 bridges with
decks consisting of simply supported precast prestressed
girders, 16 balanced cantilever bridges, 39 bridges and
40 overpasses, constructed traditionally cast-in-place with
scaffolding. Table 3 details representative cost records
for each of the aforementioned categories of bridges.
Table 4 details for all bridges the five cost items as
percentages of total construction cost. Superstructure cost
presents the highest impact on construction cost. Balanced
cantilever-constructed bridges present significantly higher
superstructure costs, while a high variation is noticed in
the cost of earthworks. The balanced cantilever system also
presents the lowest accessories cost as compared with the
other construction methods.
The average total construction cost per unit deck surface
area amounts to 825 Euro/m2 for bridges with decks made
of precast prestressed girders, 1245 Euro/m2 for cantilever
construction, 745 Euro/m2 for traditionally built cast in
situ bridges with scaffolding, and finally, 630 Euro/m2 for
overpasses. Cantilever construction presents the highest cost.
Overpasses present substantially lower cost as compared to
bridges

4. PROPOSED QUANTITY AND COST


ESTIMATE MODEL
The proposed quantity and cost estimate model for
concrete road bridges is based on the development of a
database after collecting data from a large sample of recently
constructed modern concrete motorway bridges.
Statistical processing of the collected data subsequently
led to mathematical equations that provide preliminary
estimates of the material quantities of the foundations,
substructure and superstructure of concrete motorway
bridges, as well as the cost estimates for bridge accessories.
The model estimates the material quantities of the piers,
abutments and superstructure of the bridge after entering
design parameters that are known during the preliminary
design of the project. The substructure and superstructure
costs are derived by multiplying the estimated quantities by
the item prices. The model also provides estimates for the
cost of accessories, but it does not include the cost of the
bridge foundations. Estimating the foundation cost is the
subject of ongoing data collection and research.
The proposed quantity and cost estimate model for
concrete road bridges presents significant advantages over
similar methods developed in the past. It not only includes
the construction of all parts of the bridge, but also covers
all modern construction methods and systems. It also uses
revised and more accurate equations derived from a large

77

sample of recently constructed bridges.

5. PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA


In order to collect and record the necessary historical
data for each constructed bridge, a questionnaire was sent
to the construction managers at every construction site, who
undertook its completion in cooperation with the contractors
civil engineers. In addition, all construction sites were visited
by the authors, in order to check and confirm the validity and
accuracy of the provided data.

6. PRELIMINARY SUPERSTRUCTURE
QUANTITY ESTIMATES
6.1. Bridges with decks made of precast simplysupported prestressed girders and slab from
reinforced concrete
Bridges with decks made of precast prestressed simplysupported girders and continuity slab from reinforced
concrete usually include several spans of equal length,
in order to achieve the greatest standardization of the
construction process. The material quantities of each span,
which depend on the length of the span and the width of
the deck, were examined. The correlation analysis between
the dependent (material quantities) and independent (length
of the span and width of deck) variables illustrated that the
length of the span presents the critical impact on the material
quantities. The adjusted length of the span was defined in
Equation (6.1).
The database currently includes complete data from 24
bridges with precast prestressed girders, which are shown
in Table 5. Table 6 details the adjusted R-Square for the five
regression models initially examined (simple linear, power
with constant term, logarithmic, power without constant term
and exponential) of the material quantities against the adjusted
length of the span. The existence of heteroskedasticity in the
data sample led to the use of weighted regression analysis
[14], which included the deflation of variables by the weight
defined in Equation (6.2).
Equations (6.3), (6.4) and (6.5) derived from weighted
regression analysis provide the best estimates for the
superstructure material quantities of each span for bridges
with decks consisting of simply-supported precast girders
and slab from reinforced concrete. The adjusted length of the
span presents the highest impact on the prestressing steel.
Table 7 illustrates statistical data for the final regression
models.
6.2. Cantilever-constructed bridges
The cantilever system, due to the construction process
involved, results in higher stresses in the region of the
supports (piers) and in lower stresses in the middle sections

78

. . . . , , . 2-3 2004, Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 2-3

of the span [15]. Consequently, a deck with a variable


depth decreasing from the piers to the midspans is selected.
Engineers select the prestressing schemes with a view to
resisting the rapidly increasing negative moments that arise
during the construction process due to self-weight [15].
The database currently includes 16 cantilever-constructed
bridges. The adjusted length of the cantilevers constructed
around each pier was defined based on Equation (6.1).
Table 8 depicts the complete data for the 33 sections of the
superstructure.
The aforementioned five regression models of the
superstructure material quantities against the adjusted
length of the cantilevers were examined (see Table 9). As
heteroskedasticity was not detected in the data sample,
weighted regression analysis was not necessary and Equations
(6.6), (6.7) and (6.8) provide the best superstructure material
estimates of the cantilevers. Concrete and reinforcing steel
present a similar relation to the adjusted length of the
cantilevers, in contrast with prestressing steel, which is
influenced almost linearly. Table 10 illustrates statistical data
for the final regression models.
6.3. Single-box girder cast-in-place bridges constructed
with scaffolding
The database includes complete data for 13 single-box
girder cast-in-place bridges constructed with scaffolding and
formwork. Superstructure material quantities of each span
were examined (see Table 11) and the adjusted length of the
span was defined based on Equation (6.1).
After examining the aforementioned five regression
models of the material quantities against the adjusted length
of the span (see Table 12), weighted regression analysis
with the use of the weight defined in Equation (6.2) was
performed. Equations (6.9), (6.10) and (6.11) provide the best
estimates for the material quantities of each span for singlebox girder cast-in-place bridges constructed with scaffolding
and formwork. The adjusted length of the span presents the
highest impact on the prestressing steel, while concrete and
reinforcing steel are influenced almost linearly. Table 13
illustrates statistical data for the final regression models.
6.4. Comparison between precast girder and single-box
girder bridges
Single-box girder bridges and those with decks made of
precast prestressed girders can be used for spans of similar
length. Figures 14-16 illustrate the superstructure material
quantities against the adjusted length of the span for the

aforementioned two types of concrete bridges. Bridges with


decks made of precast prestressed simply-supported girders
and continuity slab from reinforced concrete present lower
material consumption. The difference in consumption of
concrete and prestressing steel increases as the adjusted
length of the span increases.
6.5. Comparison of the proposed functions with Menns
equations
Menns equations [17] were used in the 16 bridges of
the database. The material quantities derived from these
equations were lower than the actual ones and the mean
difference approached 23 percent for concrete, 41 percent
for reinforcing steel and 47 percent for prestressing steel.
These differences are attributed to the high seismic activity
in Greece, which imposes a conservative approach to bridge
design. Greece represents the highest seismic area of Europe,
where approximately half of the total annual seismic energy
is released.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The applied statistical analysis was satisfactory in all cases,
since the adjusted R-Square exceeds 94 %, while the t and F
values indicate that the independent variable and the selected
regression models are statistically significant. In addition, the
statistical error of the quantity and cost estimates, as expressed
by the divergence from the mean value, is lower than the usual
error widely accepted in the feasibility study ( 10 %) [2].
The collection of comparable actual cost and design data
from already constructed bridges represents a difficult and
continuous process, but it is essential for the development
of accurate construction cost and quantity estimates. The
proposed quantity and cost estimate model is the result of a
systematic investigation of concrete road bridges. It can be
applied to all different types of concrete road bridges and can
be used during the early stages of the design phase, allowing
engineers to compare different design alternatives.
Emphasis is placed on cantilever-constructed and
single box girder bridges, as well as on bridges with decks
consisting of precast prestressed I-girders and continuity slab.
Even though equations that provide quantity estimates in the
superstructure of the aforementioned bridges are presented,
significant research is under way. The collection of data and
the development of the database will continue, in order for
equations to be developed that estimate the material quantities
in the superstructure, piers, abutments and foundations for all
different deck types and construction methods.

Fragkakis Nikolaos
Civil Engineer BSc., MSc., ..., PhD Candidate, National Technical University of Athens, School of Civil Engineering,
Department of Engineering Construction and Management, 9, Iroon Polytexneiou Street, Zografou, 157 80, Athens, Greece.
Labropoulos Sergios
Assistant Professor, National Technical University of Athens, School of Civil Engineering, Department of Engineering Construction
and Management, 9, Iroon Polytexneiou Street, Zografou, 157 80, Athens, Greece.