V A L U E ENGINEERING IN EGYPTIAN B R I D G E

CONSTRUCTION
By Ismail M. Basha' and Ahmed A. Gab-Allah2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: During the past two decades, various construction systems have been
applied in building several highway bridges and elevated roads in Egypt. This
paper deals with the use of value engineering principles to evaluate the selection
of construction systems for major bridge projects in Egypt. The construction sys-
tems used in Egypt and their applicability under different site conditions were re-
viewed. The study includes eight construction systems and 14 bridge projects. The
weighted evaluation technique was used to evaluate the construction system used
for each project in comparison with other applicable alternatives. The most im-
portant criteria considered in this evaluation include construction cost, resource
availability, ease of construction durability, construction progress rate, service life,
design efficiency, and maintenance. The evaluation led to basic conclusions con-
cerning whether the system used in each case was the best choice. A call is made
for conducting value engineering studies in the early stages of major bridge proj-
ects.

INTRODUCTION

Through the position they hold in linking different parts of highway net-
works, bridges have an important impact on the capacities of such networks.
Bridges are massive structures that require large amounts of materials, skilled
labor, and heavy machinery for their construction. Therefore, the decision
regarding the most convenient construction systems to be used should be
based on many factors, including type of bridge and the site conditions,
technology and resources available, and required construction period (Bindra
1976).
The objective of this study was to evaluate the selection of construction
systems in major bridge projects in Egypt. To achieve this objective it was
necessary to conduct a value engineering (VE) study of the construction sys-
tem used for each project and compare it with other applicable systems.

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IN EGYPT

Recent changes in Egypt have led to a rapid, continuous increase in traffic

volumes on both urban and rural roads. The need for renovating old bridges
and constructing new ones has consequently increased. The construction of
bridges in Egypt has long been undertaken by foreign firms. In 1967 an
Egyptian company, The Arab Contractors, Osman A. Osman & Co., started
construction of bridges in Al-Giza New Bridge. Since that time, various
construction systems have been applied in building many highway bridges,
and the highest performance rates have been achieved (Bridges 1987).
The construction systems most commonly used in Egypt were discussed
'Prof., Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., Constr. Engrg. Dept., Zagazig Univ., Zagazig,
Egypt.
Asst. Lect., Constr. Engrg. Dept., Zagazig Univ., Zagazig, Egypt.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Oc-
tober 26, 1989. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 117, No. 3, September, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/91/
0003-0393/$ 1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No. 26114.

393

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 TABLE 1. Construction Systems Used in Egypt
System System
code description System concept
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(D (2) (3)
A Precast concrete Use of precast, prestressed I- or T-girders on top of
girders which a deck slab is cast. The girders are erected
using a launching truss.
B Incremental The superstructure segments are cast in stationary
launching formwork in an extrusion area located at one end of
, the bridge. After each segment is completed, the
superstructure is pushed forward to the other end of
the bridge.
C Prefabricated steel Steel components of transportable size and weight are
construction fabricated and transported to the construction site.
They are then preassembled and erected to their final
positions by means of cranes and auxiliary equipment.
D Cast-in-place, free The superstructure is cast in segments in traveling forms
cantilever which are supported from one end on the completed
part of superstructure, whereas the other end is a free
cantilever. After concrete reaches required strength,
forms are moved forward and prepared for casting the
next span.
E Precast segmental, The superstructure is precast and prestressed in segments
free cantilever in a fabrication area. Segments are then transported to
F Precast segmental, the job site, where they are erected into final positions
on falsework using either a launching truss or falsework supports.
G Cast-in-place, The superstructure is cast in place in formwork
reinforced supported from the ground by falsework using either
concrete on reinforced or prestressed concrete. For small bridges,
H falsework the formwork is normally constructed in traditional
Cast-in-place, form with timber supported on either lumber of steel
prestressed falsework. For larger bridges, prefabricated steel
concrete on elements may be used as formwork.
falsework

in full detail by Gab-Allah (1989). An outline of these systems, along with

a brief description of their concepts, is presented in Table 1.

SITE CONDITIONS VERSUS CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS

The site conditions for a job generally suggest the construction system for
that job. According to Gab-Allah (1989), most bridge projects in Egypt could
be classified according to site conditions into three major groups: (1) Con-
struction under running traffic; (2) construction across navigable waterways,
and (3) construction at accessible sites. The construction systems applicable
under each of these site conditions are given in Table 2.

Construction under Running Traffic

Under this site condition, the traffic under the bridge should not be in-
terrupted during its construction. Several construction systems can be used,
394

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 TABLE 2. Construction Systems Applicable for Common Site Conditions in Egypt
Group System
number Site conditions code System description
(D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2) (3) (4)

I Construction under running A Precast concrete girders
I traffic B Incremental launching
I C Prefabricated steel construction
II Construction across navigable D Cast-in-place, free cantilever
II waterways E Precast segmental, free cantilever
III Construction at accessible sites F Precast segmental, on falsework
III G Cast-in-place reinforced concrete on falsework
III H Cast-in-place, prestressed concrete on
falsework

including systems A-E. The substructure cost is usually smaller than that
for navigable waterways. Consequently, the economic span length, which is
proportional to the square root of substructure cost (Bindra 1976), is usually
small. Since systems D and E are most suitable for long spans (Ratay 1984),
they are dropped. Systems F, G, and H cannot be used because they include
falsework supports, which are not allowed. Therefore, systems A, B, and
C are most suitable for this site condition (see Table 2).

Construction across Navigable Waterways

Under this site condition, no temporary or permanent work should intrude
with navigation. Large navigation vents are usually required, for which the
superstructure depth is variable: small at midspans and large at piers. For
these conditions, systems F, G, and H cannot be used, because they use
falsework, which is not allowed. System A can be used for span lengths of
up to 70 m ("Prestressed" 1987). System B can be used on condition that
a constant superstructure depth is used (Ratay 1984). System C can also be
used but for span lengths of up to 60 m (Cain 1986). This limits the choice
to Systems D and E, which can fulfill all requirements for this site condition.

Construction at Accessible Sites

For these sites, all the studied construction systems can be used. The sub-
structure cost is usually smaller than that for inaccessible sites. (Inaccessible
sites include running traffic and navigable waterways.) Consequently, the
economic span length is usually small. Therefore, the construction systems
for long spans, such as systems D and E, are not feasible. Rather, the sys-
tems using falsework supports (F, G, and H) are usually most suitable for
construction at accessible sites.

METHODOLOGY

The following four elements were included in the study: (1) Construction
systems; (2) bridge projects; (3) evaluation technique; and (4) evaluation
criteria.

Construction Systems
Consideration was given to the eight construction systems applied in Egypt,
given in Table 2.
395

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 TABLE 3. Evaluation Criteria and Their Relative Weights
Criteria Raw weight Normalized weight (%)
(D (2) (3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction cost 218 24

Maintenance 46 5
Durability 107 12
Service life 92 10
Resource availability 148 16
Ease of construction 128 14
Construction progress rate 111 12
Design efficiency 65 7
Total weight 915 100

Bridge Projects
Consideration was given to 10 bridge projects, which included 14 super-
structures.

Evaluation Technique
The VE study procedure was used to evaluate the construction systems
applicable for each project. Several techniques could be used for this pur-
pose. Three techniques, however, were suggested by Dell'Isola (1982): life
cycle costing, weighted evaluation, and idea rating. The weighted-evaluation
technique was selected for the study since it considered both economic and
engineering factors.
Weighted evaluation, as defined by Dell'Isola (1982), is a formally or-
ganized process for making decisions that require the analysis of several
criteria, including economic and noneconomic factors. It includes two pro-
cesses: (1) Criteria weighting; and (2) analysis. In the first process, the more
important criteria are selected and their relative weights or degrees of im-
portance are established. In the second process, the alternatives developed
are listed and ranked against each set of criteria. The following five ranks
were suggested by Dell'Isola: excellent, "5"; very good, "4"; good, " 3 " ;
fair, "2"; and poor, " 1 . " For each alternative, the rank and weight of each
set of criteria are then multiplied and totaled. The alternative resulting in the
highest score is recommended for implementation.

Evaluation Criteria
According to Gangarao et al. (1988), six criteria were considered to be
the most important for the selection of low-volume road bridges. They in-
cluded: construction cost, maintenance, durability, service life, resource
availability and ease of construction (Table 3). These criteria were initially
chosen for the selection of highway bridges and elevated roads included in
this study.
Through a small sample questionnaire, 10 bridge design and construction
engineers were asked to review the aforementioned six criteria for their ef-
fectiveness in evaluating the economic and engineering performance of a
bridge. Most of the engineers believed that the criteria were inadequate for
achieving that purpose. They further recommended the consideration of two
more criteria: construction progress rate and design efficiency. They were
396

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 then asked to rank the eight criteria according to their relative weight, or
degree of importance, in evaluating the bridge systems. The paired-com-
parison technique was used for this purpose. The raw weights so obtained
were then normalized, as shown also in Table 3.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note that the maintenance criteria received very little weight. This could
be attributed to the moderate climate extending throughout almost the entire
four seasons of the year, minimizing the maintenance effort required for
most of the bridge systems involved.

BRIDGE PROJECTS EVALUATION

The evaluation of bridge projects was based on weighted-evaluation tech-

nique using the economic and engineering criteria previously described. As
an extension to the previous questionnaire, the 10 bridge engineers were
given a list of such criteria as opposed to the eight construction systems used
in Egypt. They were asked to evaluate each system as to how well it met
the criteria. The aforementioned five ranks (excellent "5" through poor "1")
were used. The resulting rankings are presented in Table 4.
With respect to bridge projects, the construction systems used were also
ranked against the criteria but based on field data of such projects, collected
and analyzed by Gab-Allah (1989). The resulting rankings are presented in
Table 5.
For each project, the construction system used was compared with other
applicable systems. A detailed description of the process for two projects is
given. The results of the rest of the projects are also presented.

Case 1: Extension to Sixth of October Bridge

The 2.4 km extension to the Sixth of October Bridge is a small part of a
$63,000,000 project that extends for about 12 km. It was constructed under
running traffic condition using system A (precast concrete girders). For this
site condition there were two other applicable systems, as shown in Table
2. System B (incremental launching) and system C (prefabricated steel con-

TABLE 4. Rankings of Construction Systems

Evaluation Criteria
Construc- Ease of Construc- Design
tion Construc- Mainte- Dura- Service Resource construc- tion prog- effi-
systems tion cost nance bility life availability tion ress rate ciency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
A 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.6 4.2
B 1.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.0 2.6 3.0
C 1.4 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.8 4.0
D 2.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.6
E 1.8 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.4 4.1
F 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.8 2.0 3.8 4.0
G 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 2.4 3.3
H 3.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.9 3.8
Note: 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 = good; 2 = fair; and 1 = poor.

397

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 TABLE 5. Rankings of Bridge Projects
Evaluation Criteria
Construc-
tion Resource Ease of Construc- Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bridge system Construc- Mainte- Dura- Service avail- construc- tion prog- effi-
projects used tion cost nance bility life ability tion ress rate ciency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1 A 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.9
2(a) D 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.6 3.0 1.5 3.7
2(b) G 2.8 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.8 3.4
3 B 1.2 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.8 2.0 2.4 3.1
4 D 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 3.0 1.6 3.0
5 H 2.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 1.7 3.9
6 G 2.7 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.2 5.0
7(a) B 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.2 2.0 2.5 2.9
7(b) D 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.9 3.0 1.2 2.8
7(c) H 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.9 4.0 3.3 3.0
8(a) E 4.2 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.9 2.0 2.3 4.2
8(b) F 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.8 2.0 4.9 3.9
9 G 3.3 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.6 3.2
10 C 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 3.9

Note: 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 = good; 2 = fair; and 1 = poor.

struction). The analysis matrix of the three alternatives is shown in Table 6.

The following items were entered into the matrix: The evaluation criteria
with their normalized weights (from Table 3), the system used and its ranks
(from Table 5), and the other applicable systems and their ranks (from Table
4). The ranks of each alternative were multiplied by the corresponding weights
of the criteria, and the resulting scores entered into the matrix. The total

TABLE 6. Analysis Matrix, Extension to Sixth of October Bridge

ALTERNATIVES
(A) Precast (C)
Concrete (B) Prefabricated
Girders Incremental Steel
(System Used) Launching Construction
Normalized
Evaluation criteria weight Ranka Score" Rank8 Score" Rank 0 Score"
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Construction cost 24 3.7 88.8 1.7 40.8 1.4 33.6
Maintenance 5 4.0 20.0 3.0 15.0 2.0 10.0
Durability 12 4.0 48.0 4.0 48.0 3.0 36.0
Service life 10 4.0 40.0 4.0 40.0 2.0 20.0
Resource availability 16 3.2 51.2 3.3 52.8 1.0 16.0
Ease of construction 14 3.0 42.0 2.0 28.0 3.0 42.0
Progress rate 12 3.4 40.8 2.6 31.2 4.8 57.6
Design efficiency 7 3.9 27.3 3.0 21.0 4.0 28,0
Total scores 358 277 243

"Ranks are excellent = 5; very good = 4; good = 3; fair = 2; and poor = 1.

b
Score = rank X weight.

398

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 scores were finally determined for each alternative.
Referring to Table 6, the system used (A) achieved the highest ranks in
two criteria: construction cost (3.7) and maintenance (4.0). System B had
only the advantage of highest resource availability (3.3). System C had the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

highest progress rate (4.8) and the highest design efficiency (4.0). Compared
to the used system, system (B) had about a 54% decrease in construction
cost performance, a 25% decrease in maintenance performance, a 33% de-
crease in ease of construction, a 24% decrease in progress rate, and a 23%
decrease in design efficiency. Therefore, it was not used. System C also was
not used, in spite of having about a 41% increase in progress rate compared
to the system used. This could be due to the high-level piers (having a max-
imum height of about 21m), for which very heavy cranes would have been
required for erecting the steel elements. Besides, it could achieve about a
62% decrease in construction cost performance, a 50% decrease in main-
tenance performance, a 25% decrease in durability, a 50% decrease in ser-
vice life, and a 69% decrease in local resources utilization.
Based upon the previous analysis, the system used (A) is considered the
best choice for this bridge. This can be concluded from its highest total score
of 358 as indicated in the analysis matrix shown in Table 6.

Case 2: Cairo Airport Bridge

The construction site of this bridge was accessible, except for two inter-
sections with a tram line and a higway. It was constructed using system H
(prestressed concrete on falsework). Special falsework supports were re-
quired at the two intersections to allow the traffic to pass under the bridge
during its construction. There were two other applicable construction sys-
tems for this accessible site, as shown in Table 2. They were system F
(precast segmental, on falsework) and system G (reinforced concrete on
falsework). The analysis matrix of the three alternatives is shown in Ta-
ble 7.
Referring to Table 7, system F had the highest ranks in two criteria: Prog-
ress rate (3.8) and design efficiency (4.0). System G had the highest ranks
in four criteria: Construction cost (3.5), maintenance (4.5), resource avail-
ability (4.2), and ease of construction (5.0). Compared to the system used,
system F had about a 124% increase in progress rate. On the other hand, it
had a 25% decrease in maintenance performance, a 25% decrease in service
life and a 50% decrease in ease of construction. This is indicated by its
lowest total score of 299.
The prestressed concrete of the system used (H) could be substituted by
the reinforced concrete of system G. This could likely improve performance
in the following criteria: Construction cost (by about 46%), maintenance
(13%), local resources utilization (56%), ease of construction (25%), and
progress rate (41%). Therefore, the system used (H) is not considered the
best choice for this bridge. This can be concluded from its low total score
of 313 as compared with the total score of 384 of system G, as indicated
in the analysis matrix in Table 7.
The results of the analysis of all considered bridge project cases are pre-
sented in Table 8, which shows the total scores of the used and the other
applicable construction systems for each case. The optimal system for each
case, i.e. the one having the highest total score, is indicated in Table 8 by
a superscript "a." The optimal system was not used in six cases.
399

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 TABLE 7. Analysis Matrix, Cairo Airport Bridge
ALTERNATIVES

(H)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Prestressed (F) (G)

Concrete on Precast Reinforced
Falsework Segmental, on Concrete on
(System Used) Falsework Falsework
Normalized
8
Evaluation criteria weight Rank Score" Rank" Score" Rank" Score"
0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Construction cost 24 2.4 57.6 2.5 60.0 3.5 84.0

Maintenance 5 4.0 20.0 3.0 • 15.0 4.5 22.5
Durability 12 4.0 48.0 4.0 48.0 4.0 48.0
Service life 10 4.0 40.0 3.0 30.0 4.0 40.0
Resource availability 16 2.7 43.2 2.8 44.8 4.2 67.2
Ease o f construction 14 4.0 56.0 2.0 28.0 5.0 70.0
Progress rate 12 1.7 20.4 3.8 45.6 2.4 28.8
Design efficiency 7 3.9 27.3 4.0 28.0 3.3 23.1
Total scores 313 299 384

'Ranks are excellent = 5; very good = 4; good = 3; fair = 2; and poor = 1.

b
Score = rank x weight.

TABLE 8. Analysis of Bridge Project Cases

APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS
First Second
System Used Alternative Alternative

number Bridge name Site condition Code Score Code Score Code Score
0) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9)
l Extension to Sixth of October Running traffic A" 358 B 277 c 238
Bridge
2 Rod El-Farag Bridge
2(a) Spans Nile crossing Navigable waterways D' 320 E 265 — —
2(b) Approach spans Accessible G" 385 F 299 H 353
3 Zamalek Elevated Road Running traffic B 255 A" 363 C 243
4 Abu El-Ela Bridge Navigable waterways D" 337 E 265 — —
5 Cairo Airport Bridge Accessible H 313 F 299 G' 384
6 Passengers' Hall Bridge Accessible G* 387 F 299 H 353
7 Dessouk Bridge
7(a) Approach spans Running traffic B 290 A" 363 C 243
7(b) Spans Nile crossing Navigable waterways D" 317 E 265 — —
7(c) Spans over land Accessible H 377 F 299 G" 383
8 New Benha Bridge
8(a) Spans Nile crossing Navigable waterways E" 325 D 302 — —
8(b) Approach spans Accessible F 341 G" 384 H 353
9 Itay El-Baroud Bridge Accessible G" 393 F 299 H 353
10 Dr. Aly Ibrahim Steet Bridge Running traffic C 235 A' 363 B 277
fl
Optimal construction system.

SUMMARY

In six out of the 14 bridge project cases included in this study (about
43%), the construction system used was not the best alternative, based on
400

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.

 economic and engineering considerations. Reasons for improper selection of
the construction system are thought to be fancy-to-new technology, inade-
quate studies concerning alternative construction systems, or contract pro-
visions stipulating the use of a certain construction system.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It should be noted that the best alternatives found in this study are the
result of a small sample survey of bridge projects in Egypt. If the VE prin-
ciples used are applied for other projects, they may not yield the same re-
sults. This is mainly due to the uniqueness and circumstances of each proj-
ect. It is therefore recommended that VE studies considering all potentially
feasible designs and construction options be conducted in the early stages
of major bridge projects. This should help the design engineer obtain the
optimal bridge design and construction system for any given situation. In
performing such studies, the evaluation criteria used in this paper should be
reviewed for their effectiveness and applicability to a particular situation.
New criteria with new weights should be investigated as might be appro-
priate.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Bindra, S. P., and Bindra, K. (1976). Elements of bridge, tunnel and railway en-
gineering. Dhanpat Ray and Sons, Delhi, India.
Bridges and tunnels. (1987). The Arab Contractors, Osman A. Osman and Co.,
Cairo, Egypt.
Cain, J. F. (1986). "Spanning urban obstacles." Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 56(1), 52-55.
Dell'Isola, A. J. (1982). Value engineering in the construction industry, 3rd Ed.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Gab-Allah, A. A. (1989). "Special building construction systems—bridge construc-
tion," thesis presented to Zagazig University, at Zagazig, Egypt, in partial ful-
fillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
Gangarao, H. V. S., et al. (1988). "Value engineering approach to low-volume road
bridge selection." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(9), 1962-1977.
"Prestressed concrete bridges." (1987). DYWIDAG-Reports: Issue No. 7, Dywidag-
Systems International, GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Ratay, R. T. (1984). Handbook of temporary structures in construction. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.

401

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1991.117:393-401.