4.5 Article

Life-cycle cost-benefit (LCCB) analysis of bridges from a user and social point of view

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15732470701322818

关键词

Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis; User costs; Bridge management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the last two decades, important progress has been made in the life-cycle cost-benefit (LCCB) analysis of structures, especially offshore platforms, bridges and nuclear installations. Due to the large uncertainties related to the deterioration, maintenance, and benefits of such structures, analysis based on stochastic modelling of all significant parameters seems to be the only relevant analysis. However, a great number of difficulties are involved, not only in the modelling, but also in the practical implementation of the models developed at present. The main purpose of this paper is to present and discuss some of these problems from a user and social point of view. A brief presentation of a preliminary study of the importance of including benefits in life-cycle cost-benefit analysis in management systems for bridges is shown. Benefits may be positive as well as negative from the user point of view. In the paper, negative benefits (user costs) are discussed in relation to the maintenance of concrete bridges. A limited number of excerpts from published reports that are related to the importance of estimating user costs when repairs of bridges are planned, and when optimized strategies are formulated, are shown. These excerpts clearly show that user costs in several cases completely dominate the total costs. In some cases, the user costs are more than ten times higher than the repair costs. A simple example of how to relate and estimate user costs to the repair of a single bridge is shown. Finally, how the total maintenance costs (including user costs) may be estimated for a large bridge stock is discussed. This paper is based primarily on two previous International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS) conference papers by Thoft-Christensen (2004b, 2006).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据