ABC-UTC 2014 RESEARCH PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT TITLE: Estimating total cost of bridge construction using ABC and conventional methods of construction B. START & END DATE: 6/1/2014 to 12/31/2015 C. PI & Co-PI(s): Mohammed Hadi (PI), Albert Gan (Co-PI), Ali Mostafavi (Co-PI), Wallied Orabi (Co-PI) D. PROPOSAL ABSTRACT: (Not to exceed 300 words) Estimating public costs, including both the road user and construction costs, of Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) and traditional construction is key to proper decision making at various stages of the bridge life-cycle including planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance. User costs may include those associated with traffic congestion, safety, reliability, environmental, vehicle operation, business and social impacts, revenue loss and other, while construction costs may include those associated with mobilization, logistics, materials, labors, and other related costs. The accurate evaluation and comparison of public costs associated with both accelerated and conventional bridge construction methods allow benefit-cost analyses of these alternative methods to maximize public benefits in the decision-making process of bridge construction. The objective of this project is to create a framework for evaluating and utilizing public costs as part of the decision-making processes associated with bridge construction and the development of a public cost analysis and estimation tool. The project will first develop a synthesis of the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice on the subject. It will then identify criteria, methods, and tools that can be used for parameter estimation, evaluation of alternatives, and decision making processes as part of the recommended framework. The framework will be tested using scenarios of conventional and accelerated bridge construction scenarios and fine-tuned based on the test results.

E. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PROJECT (Section not to exceed 6 pages.) E.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT (Include project objectives) According to the FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database, about 24%of the nation’s bridge inventory need to be repaired or replaced. It is thus especially critical for transportation agencies to develop innovative solutions to minimize bridge construction costs, reduce construction time, and control traffic disruption typically associated with bridge construction activities. Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) holds a strong promise to meet these critical needs. ABC can result in significant reduction in the time needed for onsite construction operations and therefore minimizes traffic disruption. 1

ABC can also introduce significant savings in construction indirect costs due to shortening of onsite construction time. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of ABC is the increasing the safety through reducing the accidents in the construction zones. A single accident can save tax payers millions. User cost is an important component of the decision-making processes at various stages of the life-cycle of bridge construction projects including planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance. User cost incorporation in decision making processes accounts for the mobility, safety, reliability, environmental, and vehicle operation impacts to road users due to traffic disruptions. In some processes, the impacts to local business, community, and freight are also considered. Key applications of user costs include selection between different accelerated and conventional bridge construction methods, deciding on incentive/disincentive amount for early completion, maintenance of traffic (MOT) alternative analysis, selection of project delivery/contracting strategy, development of diversion plans, and selection of associate intelligent transportation systems strategies. User cost is a critical component for decision-making between accelerated and conventional bridge construction methods. A pool funded study conducted by Oregon State University [1] resulted in the development of a decision support system that utilizes the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to help make decisions between accelerated and conventional bridge construction methods. The study developed a comprehensive list of criteria for use in these decisions. However, the assessments of these criteria (including user cost) were in many cases subjective in nature and not at the level of details needed for robust decision-making A FHWA report on the subject [2] presented a detailed discussion of the key components of user costs, input needs, and available tools. However, the FHWA cited two older studies that reported based on agency surveys that not all States compute user costs and there is no uniformity in computing the cost components. SHRP 2 Renewal Project R11 [3] developed a software tool to evaluate the strategic impact of constructing renewal projects and programs at the regional or large corridor level. In addition, a number of SHRP 2 Reliability program projects have developed methods and tools that allow assessing the impacts of construction on travel time reliability based on data and analytical analysis. In addition to user costs, there is a need to accurately evaluate and compare ABC and conventional bridge construction costs to facilitate benefit-cost analysis in bridge construction decision making. For this purpose, the processes of both construction methods need to be thoroughly analyzed in order to identify major differences in construction time and cost. Table 1 compares example key cost factors in conventional and accelerated bridge construction methods. The comparison includes two variations of ABC in terms of the location of prefabricating the bridge components (i.e. near-site or off-site). It is noteworthy that the example cost factors in Table 1 are not all inclusive since there are several accelerated construction technologies, each of which will bring its own benefits and challenges in term of bridge construction time and cost. A comprehensive list of cost factors for various ABC projects will be developed based on discussions with designers, contractors, and other stakeholders. 2

3

Table 1. Example key cost factors for different bridge construction methods* Conventional Mobilization and site planning

 Site offices  Temporary facilities  Laydown area  Equipment  Safety and security  Traffic control

Material and logistics

 Regular material  Transportation of basic material  Limited space for storage  Frequent handling  Constant quality control of material

Crews (labor and equipment)

 Minimum requirements  Less productivity  Poor learning curve  Need for constant inspection  Safety issues throughout the project  Longest lane closure time  More traffic delay  Less reliability  More fuel consumption  More emissions  Less traffic safety

User costs

Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) Off-site Near-site Prefabrication Prefabrication  Site offices  Off-site workshop and storage  Temporary facilities  More equipment  Warehouse  Minimum traffic  More equipment control  Security  Less traffic control  Large space for false formwork (right-of-way issues)  High performance  High performance material material  Transportation of  More space for basic material storage  Storage  Least handling  Less handling  Better quality  Better quality control control of material of material  Long distance  Short distance transportation of transportation of prefab bridge prefabricated bridge components components  More requirements  Highest requirements  High productivity  Better learning curve  High productivity  Optimized inspection  Better learning curve  Safety issues during  Optimized installation inspection

 Shorter lane closure time  Less traffic delay  Better reliability  Less fuel consumption  Less emissions  Better traffic safety

4

 Safety issues during installation  Shortest lane closure time  Least traffic delay  Best reliability  Least fuel consumption  Least emissions  Best traffic safety

* A comprehensive list of cost factors for various ABC projects will be developed based on discussions with designers, contractors, and other stakeholders. Due to the limitations of the existing tools for evaluation of decision-making processes related to bridge construction, there is also a need for quantitative analytical and visualization tools that incorporate various cost components to assist agencies in their decision making processes. The main goal of this project is to develop a framework for incorporating public costs in an accelerated construction decision-making processes and the development of cost analysis and estimation tools. This framework will build on other various existing efforts and developed tools and methods. The specific objectives of this project are: 1) Develop a synthesis of the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice of public cost estimation and decision-making processes related to ABC; 2) Identify the criteria to be considered in the decision-making processes at various stages of the project life-cycle and the appropriate methods and tools used in their assessments; 3) Recommend a framework to support the decision-making processes associated with ABC. The framework includes a several tools to incorporate public costs, other quantitative and qualitative measures, benefit-cost analysis, and visualization techniques in a user friendly web-based platform; 4) Test and demonstrate the utilization of the developed framework under different congestion scenarios, roadway environment, and other project characteristics; and 5) Develop a public cost analysis and estimation tool for accelerated bridge construction to facilitate implementation of the research results in decision-making. E.2. CONTRIBUTION TO EXPANDING USE OF ABC IN PRACTICE The project will provide an important required input to the decision-making processes associated with ABC. This input will take into consideration various cost components of accelerated bridge construction methods that are currently not fully understood, such as the example cost factors listed in Table 1. The proposed framework will also establish a foundation for further decision-support tools that will guide agencies when making various decisions during the planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of roadway infrastructure. As a result, agencies will feel more confident and are able to justify and better communicate their decisions. E.3. RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODS This project will recommend a framework for utilizing public costs as part of the decision making processes associated with bridge construction. The project will first develop a synthesis of the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice on the subject. It will then identify criteria, methods, and tools that can be used for parameter estimation, evaluation of alternatives, and decision making processes as part of the recommended framework. The framework will be tested based on evaluations by subject matter 5

experts and using information related to various types of accelerated and conventional bridge construction methods and fine-tuned based on the testing results. E.4.

DESCRIPTION OF TASKS TO BE COMPLETED IN RESEARCH PROJECT The following tasks will be completed to achieve project tasks. Task 1: Review of State-of-the-Practice and State-of-the-Art: This review will include review and assessment of existing methods and tools used in calculating public costs and in supporting agency decisions, as they relate to ABC. This task will also review current agency practices and policies in evaluation of public costs and in making decisions regarding ABC during the planning, design, construction, operations, and preservation of roadway infrastructure. The research team will conduct an extensive review of the existing literature on the subject. In addition, the team will conduct a webbased survey of agency practices, needs, and issues. The survey will be deployed via email and will allow determining the current practices of state transportation agencies in utilization of user costs and decision-making processes in construction projects, identifying important criteria, identifying what is missing, and recommending future enhancements. If necessary, selected agencies will be contacted by phone to gather additional information. Deliverable: The task will produce a synthesis of current state-of-the-practice and current state-of-the-art on the subject. Task 2: Create a Two-Tier Model for ABC Construction Cost Analysis: The research team will utilize various ABC data sources (e.g., FHWA database) and case studies to develop a two-tier cost analysis. The Tier-1 will include a conceptual cost estimation model that will provide a high level cost estimate for an ABC project based on different characteristics such as number of spans, ABC type, road type, and materials. The Tier-1 model will be developed mainly based on the FHWA data. The tool will be created in a spreadsheet platform and will be posted on the ABC-UTC website for use by transportation agencies. This model will be appropriate for early stages of the project, when limited information is available and a less detailed analysis is sufficient.

6

Figure 1. Tier-1 cost estimation tool The Tier-2 tool will include a mean for detailed cost estimation of ABC project. To this end, the research team will identify the key cost items for three main ABC methods (i.e., SPMT, Lateral Slide, and Modular method). For this purpose, data will be q collected from various ABC case studies and cost reports and schedules will be analyzed to identify the cost items (Figure 3) and activities that cause cost difference between these methods as well as the conventional methods of bridge construction. Based on the collected data, a checklist of detailed cost items for the three main ABC methods will be developed. The checklist will be shared with selected transportation agencies for verification and collection of numerical values of cost items. The research team will emphasize collecting the indirect costs of ABC projects, in order to make comparison with the conventional methods, since very limited information is currently available related to this item. Based on the feedback and data collected from the transportation agencies, the research team will create a spreadsheet tool for comparative cost analysis of different ABC methods vs. conventional methods of bridge construction.

7

Figure 2. Components of the Tier-2 estimation tool Task 3: User Cost Analysis: An integrated environment of methods and tools will be developed in this study to support scenario analysis and the estimation of associated user costs at early stages of bridge construction projects when less detailed analysis is needed and at later stages when more detailed analysis is needed. Within such an environment, the impacts of bridge construction on traffic mobility and reliability can be estimated utilizing different analysis methods and tools, depending on the level of details available at the current phase of bridge construction. In the first stage, the early planning stage, the analysis of bridge construction impacts may be conducted at the sketch-planning level. Available sketch-planning tools such as Q-DAT developed by TTI, SHRP 2 C11, and RealCost developed by FHWA, analysis is needed and more data is available QuickZone tool developed by FHWA, and SHRP 2 L07 tool can be used, in combination with other procedures. The selection between these tools depends on the data availability at the early stages of the implementation since some of them require more data than others. A route diversion model will be developed in this study and integrated with these sketch-planning level tools to capture the diversion of travelers resulted from bridge construction and provide a better estimation of mobility impacts.. At the design and implementation stages of the project, more detailed analyses may be required to assess the impacts of bridge construction. In this case, more detailed modeling tools such as static traffic assignment or simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) are more appropriate. At this stage, the principals of the WISE tool 8

proposed by SHRP 2 R 11 project, can be used to model the construction impacts with the consideration of traffic diversions. When lacking detailed data and the required resources to perform simulation-based DTA, the highway capacity manual (HCM)based procedures and tools may be applied. During the construction and post-construction stages, real-world data may be available and therefore a before and after study can be conducted based on collected data to evaluate the mobility and reliability impacts of construction. This study will also recommend procedure to monitor the actual user cost incurred by an agency during construction based on real-world data. The outputs of traffic counts, speed, and delays from the different levels of analysis can be associated with the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate the emissions and meanwhile applied to produce vehicle operating costs. Work zone safety including both motorist safety and worker safety is also an important component when assessing user costs. The statistics of work zone crashes and crash modification factors resulting from mitigation strategies will be collected based on existing studies and used as part of the developed tools. Another important component of the developed integrated environment is to estimate the business and social impacts of bridge construction. The application of ABC method is expected to reduce these impacts. Land use data, trip purpose, type, and socioeconomic characteristics of the trip maker that pass the construction zone or divert to alternative routes because of construction will be extracted from either the conventional four-step travel demand model or more advanced activity-based demand model and used in the calculation of business and social impacts. Similarly, the different types of freight trips affected by bridge construction can also be obtained from travel demand model and combined with the data of commodity distribution and value of commodity to assess the loss due to impacts on freight mobility and reliability.

9

Mobility Initial Costs

Life Cycle Cost & Benefits

Safety

Maintenance, rehabilitation & other Road User Costs(RUC)

Reliability

Environmental Impacts Vehicle Operating Cost Business & Social Impacts Revenue Loss

Figure 3. Components of the User Costs Task 4: Recommendation of Estimation and Assessment Framework: The tools developed in Task 2 and Task 3 will be integrated into a spreadsheet tool for transportation agencies to determine the total costs of ABC projects. In addition, a framework will be proposed for a web-based decision support system that integrates the recommended methods and tools in a user-friendly system. Figure 3 demonstrates an example of components of the envisioned decision support framework. The cost estimates produced by different components of the framework will be combined through a fuzzy logic algorithm. The users will be able to assign different weights to different costs components based on local conditions. This will used as the basis of a quantitative multi-criteria decision making process to support agency decisions.

10

**This project will only focus on the cost analysis module and development of cost estimation tool of the envisioned framework rather than development of animation and visualization tools

Figure 4. Components of the envisioned bridge construction decision support framework Deliverables: A technical report describing the recommended public cost estimation methods and decision support system framework. Task 5: Method Applications to Identified Scenarios: This task will demonstrate the use of the recommended framework and the cost analysis module utilizing a number of scenarios. The results will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the proposed framework and if any adjustments are needed. This task will first identify few bridge construction scenarios that are representative of typical bridge project characteristics. These characteristics include, for example, bridge size (number of spans and lanes), traffic demands, operating environment (e.g., area type, facility type, etc.), and the availability of near-site space for bridge component prefabrication. The data needed for identifying such scenarios will be collected from the agency survey mentioned in Task 1, case studies, geographical information system (GIS) data, and traffic volume data. Once the scenarios are selected, the recommended methods in Tasks 2 and 3 will be applied and the results will be examined to determine any issues with the estimated costs and associated decisions based on identifying the major differences between the conventional and accelerated construction methods. In addition, sensitivity analyses will be applied to study the impact of variables uncertainty on construction time, traffic operations, and user and construction costs. The sensitivity analysis will facilitate evaluating the impact of risk factors, such as weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other project characteristics on construction production rates and hence project time and costs for the different scenarios. The results of this task will be used to recommend refinements, if needed, to the framework developed in Tasks 2 and 3. 11

Task 6: Production of Guidebook and Final Report: The results of the research will be incorporated in a guidebook describing key cost factors and outlining the decision support framework. The deliverables will also include a tool for analyzing and estimating public costs of ABC. In addition, final report will document the efforts and results of Tasks 1 to 5 of the project in accordance with ABC-UTC guidelines. E.5.

EXPECTED RESULTS AND SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES



Memorandum documenting a synthesis of current state of practice and current state of knowledge related to the subject



Guidebook describing decision support framework and key decision and risk factors



Tool for analyzing and estimating public costs of accelerated bridge construction



Draft final and final reports E.6.

TIMELINE (GANTT CHART)

The proposed project schedule by project month is given in the figure below. 8/201412/2015

1

2

3

4

Year 2016 5 6 7 8

9

10

11

12

Year 2017 1 2 3 4

Task 1 Task 2 - Tier-1 Model - Tier-2 Model Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6

F. DISCUSSION OF PERTINENT COMPLETED AND IN PROGRESS RESEARCH. FOR PROJECTS CO-FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES, COPY OF THE COFUNDED PROPOSAL SHOULD BE ATTACHED AS AN APPENDIX. N/A.

G. DESCRIBE THE PLAN FOR COOPERATING WITH OTHER ABC-UTC CONSOURTIUM UNIVERSITY MEMBERS This multidisciplinary project will benefit from the close collaboration of researchers from the Department Civil and Environmental Engineering and the School of Construction at FIU. Additional collaboration will be conducted between FIU and Iowa State University (ISU). The framework and decision support tools developed as part of this study will 12

enable the bridge engineers and decision-makers to determine appropriate methods of bridge construction (ABC vs. Conventional) for a selected group of projects with consideration of all cost components. Hence, this project builds a synergy with the study proposed by ISU in which a tool will be developed to prioritize bridge projects for construction within a region. The outcome of the prioritization from the ISU project will be used in our decision framework to evaluate in details what method of construction will yield more economic social, and economic benefits for each selected project. All deliverables of this project will be shared with members of the consortium universities and their feedback on the deliver will be sought.

H. KEY WORDS Public Cost, User Cost, Construction Cost, Accelerated Bridge Construction, DecisionMaking Process, Decision Support System.

I. REFERENCES CITED [1] Doolen, T., B. Tang, A Saeedi, and S. Emami, “To ABC or Not?” Public Works, Vol. 75 · No. 3, Washington, D.C., November/December 2011. [2] Mallela J. and Sadasivam S., “Work Zone Road User Costs – Concepts and Applications,” A Report Produced for Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HOP-12-005, Washington, D.C., December 2011. [3] “Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network Level to Minimize Disruption from the Renewal Process,” SHRP 2 Renewal Project R11, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., October 2012. [4] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2005). “Framework for Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems (PBES) Decision-Making.” 2 (Mar. 13, 2014). [5] Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) (2010). Q-DAT Lane Closure Analysis ToolOperation Instructions. [6] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2001). Quick Zone Delay Estimation Program-User Guide. [7] TRB. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2010). Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. [8] EPA (2012). Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) User Guide for MOVES2010b. Washington D.C.: Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

13

J. STAFFING PLAN (Should correspond with budget) This project will include a multi-disciplinary team that includes Dr. Mohammed Hadi (PI), and Dr. Albert Gan (Co-PI) from the FIU Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and Dr. Ali Mostafavi (Co-PI) and Dr. Wallied Orabi (Co-PI) from the FIU School of Construction. They will be supported by Dr. Yan Xiao, a research assistant professor with the FIU Lehman Center for Transportation Research. In addition, it is anticipated that two Ph.D. students will work on the project tasks.

14