Approximate Cost Estimating Model For PSC Beam Bridge Based On Quantity of Standard Work
Approximate Cost Estimating Model For PSC Beam Bridge Based On Quantity of Standard Work
Approximate Cost Estimating Model For PSC Beam Bridge Based On Quantity of Standard Work
net/publication/225106102
Approximate cost estimating model for PSC Beam bridge based on quantity of
standard work
CITATIONS READS
10 6,295
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kyoungmin Kim on 05 October 2016.
···································································································································································································································
Abstract
The accuracy of early cost estimates in engineering and construction projects is extremely important to both feasibility study and
evaluation of design alternatives. In particular, to evaluate alternatives at the design stage, quick and accurate decision-making is
needed under a limited definition of scope and constraints in available information and time. This study suggests an approximate cost
estimation model for PSC Beam bridges based on the quantity of standard work. For model development, this study analyzed cost
structure and proportion of cost items through bill of materials and quantities, identified 8 representative work items (Manufacturing
PSC Beam, material, rebar fabrication/placing, supporting post/scaffolding, form work, slab waterproofing, concrete placing, deck
finishing), and established approaches for quantify estimating on the work items. By utilizing the characteristics of bridges, the
suggested model supports quick cost estimation with only three input values (length of span, total length of bridge, and width). The
developed model is applied to 39 real projects for validation. The result of the application showed the accuracy with estimation error
less than 4.04%.
Keywords: PSC beam bridge, approximate cost estimating, standard section, quantity of standard work
···································································································································································································································
*Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (E-mail: [email protected])
**Member, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
[email protected])
***Member, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (E-mail: [email protected])
− 377 −
Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang
Table 1. Current Approximate Cost Estimate Models Table 2. Criteria for Approximate Cost Estimate on Bridges
Researcher Target facility Method Average Unit Cost
Criteria Comparison
(1000KRW)
Chun and Ahn (2001) Golf course Regression analysis
Guide for Road Construction
Kim et al. (2000) Road construction Parametric models 1,547 per m2
(MOCT, 2007b)
Kim et al. (2004) Apartment Regression analysis 2 lanes 18,802
Neural networks 4 lanes 26,839
Kim et al. (2005) Residential building
Genetic algorithms per m
6 lanes 42,396
Park and Lee (2003) Road construction Cost index
Guideline for preliminary 8 lanes 48,708
Road construction
Park and Lee (2002) Unit price feasibility study (KDI, 2004)
(Regional road) 2 lanes 1,275
RC beam and Parametric models 4 lanes 1,080
Singh (1990) per m2
slab building based on statistics
6 lanes 1,227
Kouskoulas and Koehn (1974) Building Regression analysis
8 lanes 1,041
Trost and Oberlender (2003) Capital facility Regression analysis
Guideline for investment
Stevens (1995) Highway Unit price 1,482 per m2
evaluation (MOCT, 2007a)
Hegazy and Ayed (1998) Highway Artificial intelligence
Pure multiplicative sector of both Korea and USA, cost estimates are usually based
Wilmot and Cheng (2003) Highway
formulation on the average price of unit quantity such as cost/length or cost/
Hartgen and Talvitie (1995) Highway Time-series m2 as shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 3 shows historical data that can be used in approximate
cost estimate (Caltrans, 2004). This data can not be used in
method (Park and Lee, 2003), have been used to forecast future evaluating design alternatives at the level of structural elements
overall construction costs. All of those approaches, however, are (Table 4). In addition, the current detail quantity takeoff and the
targeting the feasibility study or early conceptual design stage. cost estimate at the design stage requires too much time and
As a result, those models have limitation in evaluating design resources. It has disadvantages as an estimating method during
alternatives at the level of structural elements. In the public the design progress. As a result, this study is to suggest an
Table 3. Proper Span Length and Cost Range for Various Types of Bridges (Caltrans 2004)
Type of bridge Proper length of span (feet) Cost range ($/FT2) (KRW/m2)
RC SLAB 16-44 85-120 1,096,800-1,548,000
RC T-BEAM 40-60 90-180 1,161,600-2,322,000
RC BOX 50-120 100-170 1,290,000-2,193,600
CIP/PS SLAB 40-65 95-130 1,266,400-1,677,600
CIP/PS BOX 100-150 80-150 1,032,000-1,935,600
PC/PS SLAB 20-50 120-180 1,548,000-2,322,000
PC/PS 30-120 100-170 1,290,000-2,193,600
BULBTT GIRDER 90-145 100-195 1,290,000-2,516,400
PC/PSI 50-120 115-175 1,484,400-2,258,400
PC/PS BOX 120-200 140-250 1,806,000-3,225,600
SRTUCT STEELI-GIRDER 60-300 150-215 1,935,600-2,774,400
approximate cost model for superstructure of PSC Beam bridges of the bridge, construction cost, management agent, construction
that reflects the characteristics of bridge structure and supports date, etc. Structural characteristics such as type of super- and
quick and accurate estimation. The PSC Beam bridge is the most sub-structure, design attributes (live load, earthquake resistance,
typical type of bridge. Survey on the 173 road construction etc.) are identified. In addition, many cost impact factors such as
projects completed after 2000 in Korea shows that 423 bridges length, width, slab area, number of lanes are collected.
out of 1,151 (the highest 36.8%) were PSC Beam bridges. Data distributions on bridge characteristics such as the date of
design, local area, number of lanes, condition of sub-structure
3. Data Analysis (over water or land), and type of footing are shown in Fig. 2~Fig.
7. They show that the collected data can be a sample reflecting
3.1 Data Collection the characteristics of population. As shown in Fig. 7, the number
For the analysis of the cost data of PSC Beam bridges, the of lanes was usually 4, which was more than 80% of the sample.
study collected design documents for 72 PSC Beam bridges However, it is usually same at real construction projects. This
from 25 road construction projects designed since 2000. In study mainly investigated 4 lanes of PSC Beam bridges.
collecting the data, the study made an effort for uniform distribu-
tion in the date of design, local area, number of lanes, construc- 3.2 Classification of Cost
tion condition of sub-structure (over water or land), and type of For the evaluation of design alternatives considering more
footing. Based on the bill of materials and quantities, the study detailed elements of a bridge, this study groups into construction
calculates construction cost of bridge elements, and classifies the costs for the elements composing of the bridge structure. The
cost for the analysis of direct construction cost. Project report, grouping will support to reflect the characteristics of bridge
bill of material, bill of quantity, source of unit price and drawings structural details. Structure of bridge is classified into 4 elements:
on the structure are utilized in the analysis. Data format for the superstructure, substructure, services and ancillaries, and site
data collection is shown in Fig. 1. The information includes name preparation, as shown in Table 5. Work items, work quantity, and
Fig. 2. Design Completion Date Fig. 3. Local Areas Fig. 4. Establishment or Extension
cost for each element are calculated and analyzed. 4.49%; and services & ancillaries, 11.14%. In the case of
The proportion of cost for the classified elements is shown in multiple span bridges, the cost proportion of superstructure is
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. In the case of simple span bridge, the cost of 42.28%; substructure, 41.23%; site preparation, 5.10%; and
superstructure is 33.14%; substructure, 51.23%; site preparation, services & ancillaries, 11.39%. The super- and sub-structures
constitute approximately 85% of total construction cost.
Fig. 10. Process of Approximate Cost Estimate Based on Standard Work Quantities
Table 6. Cost Structure of Standard Works for Superstructure process calculating the unit quantities of the standard works. The
Activities Percentage (Average) details are as follows.
Manufacturing PSC Beam 50.20 %
4.4.1 Manufacturing the PSC Beam
Cost of Material (Concrete, Rebar) 23.97 % The unit of quantity is set as the number of PSC Beam in a
Rebar fabrication/placing 8.47 % span (30 m/35 m) with 4 lanes (No. of beams/span). The number
Standard Supporting post/scaffolding 6.00 % of PSC beams in a span is usually 10 pieces. As shown in Fig.
works Form work 5.30 %
14, however, there have been a few bridges having 8, 9, or 11
pieces of beams. This means generally 10 pieces of beams are
Slab waterproofing 3.44 %
used in a span. However, the number of beams per span may be
Concrete placing 1.67 % adjusted by the designer’s intent. As a result, even though the
Deck finishing 0.18 % default is 10, this study set an option range that users can select
Subtotal 99.24 % from 8 to 11.
Miscellaneous 0.76 %
4.4.2 Material (Concrete)
Total 100 % The material cost of concrete is classified into three elements
Fig. 13. Cost Proportion of Standard Works (Superstructure of PSC Beam Bridge), A: Manufacturing PSC Beam, B: Cost of Material
(Concrete), C: Rebar Fabrication/placing, D: Supporting Post/scaffolding, E: Form Work, F: Slab Waterproofing, G: Concrete
Placing, H: Deck Finishing, I: Miscellaneous
Table 7. Approach to Calculate the Quantity of Concrete Material 4.4.4 Rebar Fabrication
Elements Approach The cost of rebar fabrication is classified into cost for fabrica-
tion and for material. The bridges are classified into straight and
Unit of quantity measurement is volume for one piece of
PSC Beam skew types by their geometry. This study suggests a method first
PSC beam (m3/piece). Strength of concrete is 400 kg/cm2
identifying the ratio of rebar weight to concrete volume (tonnage
Unit of quantity measurement is volume per length (m3/
Slab of rebar/volume of concrete), and then transforming it to the
length of span). strength 270 kg//cm2 of concrete is used.
Unit of quantity measurement is volume of three pieces of
quantity of rebar by multiplying the quantity of concrete which is
Cross Beam cross beams (m3; 3 pieces/span). Three pieces of cross identified at previous section. That is, the quantity of rebar fabri-
beam are used in a span. Strength of concrete is 270 kg/cm2 cation is calculated by multiplying the predefined weight ratio of
the rebar to the quantity of concrete, which is identified in the
previous section. To support this work, this study investigated
the average weight ratio of rebar to the volume of concrete (ton/
m3). The ratios for elements of superstructure are shown in Table
8. Quantity of rebar material also has a surcharge factor because
of loss during work (Table 8)
of the superstructure (PSC beams, slabs, cross-beams). The 4.4.6 Form Work
detailed approach to calculate the quantity of each element is Only veneer types of forms are used in the super structure. The
shown in Table 7. Through the analysis on the drawings, it is unit quantity per length (m2/m) is identified.
found that most of the bridges have 3 pieces of cross-beams per
span as shown in Fig. 15. As a result, the unit of concrete 4.4.7 Water Proofing and Deck Finishing
quantity measurement for cross beams is the volume of the three Deck finishing is composed of curing concrete slab and
pieces of crossbeams. finishing the deck. The unit of quantity measurement is m/m.
The unit quantity is set as the width of the slab minus the width
4.4.3 Concrete Placing of a median strip and a guardrail. The quantity of deck water
Concrete placing is work items for slab and cross beam. As a proofing is same as that of deck finishing.
result, the quantity of concrete placing include the quantity of
strength 270 kg/cm2 of concrete for a slab and a cross beam. The Unit quantity = width of bridge − 0.45m × 2 (width of guardrail)
concrete quantity for a slab is the identified quantity of concrete − 1.0 m (width of median strip) (1)
material at the previous section, multiplied by length of span.
The concrete quantity for a cross beam is the identified unit 4.5 Unit Quantity of Standard Works
quantity for 3 pieces of cross beams. The quantity of concrete Based on the method of measurement described in the
placing is the summation of these two quantities divided by previous chapter (4.4), a standard (unit) quantity for each work
101% because the quantity of concrete placing is the net quantity item is identified for each standard length of one span (30 m/35
and the quantity of concrete material has surcharge factor con- m). The unit quantities of standard works in 30 m and 35 m of a
sidering its loss in work. span are shown in Table 9 and Table 10.
Table 8. Method to Quantify Rebar Fabrication & Rebar Material
Work Items Element Unit Straight Bridge Skew Bridge Compare
Slab Quantity of concrete × 0.1903 Quantity of concrete × 0.2131
30 m
Rebar Cross beam Quantity of concrete × 0.1512 Quantity of concrete × 0.0963
Fabrication ton Weight ratio
(Net quantity) Slab Quantity of concrete × 0.2077 Quantity of concrete × 0.1883
35 m
Cross beam Quantity of concrete × 0.1046 Quantity of concrete × 0.1085
Slab Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0325 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0349
30 m
Rebar Cross beam Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0350 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0534 Surcharge
ton
(Add quantity) Slab Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0411 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0399 factor
35 m
Cross beam Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0378 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0351
4.6 Unit Quantity of Standard Works for Various Widths multiplied by the number of total pieces of the beam that is
In order to measure the unit quantities of standard works for identified at the previous process. For the cross beam, the unit of
bridges with different widths, the study analyzed the tendency of quantity measurement is volume of three pieces of cross beams
variance in the unit quantities due to the change of width. The (m3; 3 pieces), because the number of cross beams per span is
unit quantity of bridge with 20.9 m of width was used as a basis usually 3 pieces. The unit quantity of the volume is multiplied by
for the comparison. The study identified that it is possible to the number of span (length of bridge/length of span).
measure the unit quantity of a bridge with different widths in For the estimation of rebar related costs, the quantity of rebar is
proportion to its width. also calculated for PSC Beam, slab, and cross beam. The cost of
rebar works includes material cost and fabrication/placing cost.
4.7 Cost Estimating Model of PSC Beam Bridges For the quantity of rebar fabrication and placing, the unit of
An approximate cost estimating model based on standard quantity measurement is ton across each cross beam (ton/piece).
section and work quantity can be summarized as shown in Fig. The unit quantity of the ton is transformed by multiplying the
16. The construction cost of a PSC Beam bridge superstructure unit weight ratio in Table 8 and the total quantity of concrete that
can be estimated by utilizing only 3 input values. The input is identified at the previous process. The quantity for rebar
values are the length of bridge, its width, and the length of material is obtained by multiplying the surcharge factor (Table 8)
span. and the quantity of rebar fabrication and placing.
A PSC Beam bridge with 20.9 m of standard width basically In addition, for the various widths of bridges, by applying
has 10 pieces of beams per span, and the number of beams per proportion to basic width, the unit quantity for the standard work
span can be adjusted to 8~11 depending on the user. In case of items can be estimated. The cost can be calculated by multi-
manufacturing a PSC beam, the total quantity of the beam is cal- plying unit price for the standard work to the quantity. The total
culated by unit quantity per span (basically 10 pieces) multiplied cost of superstructure can be estimated by utilizing the propor-
by the number of spans (total length/span length). tion of 8 standard works in the total cost.
For the estimation of concrete material cost, the quantity of Like this, this study analyzed the following characteristics of
concrete is calculated for PSC beams, slabs, and cross beams. PSC Beam Bridge: length of span (30 m, 35 m), width, unit
For the PSC Beam, the unit of quantity measurement is volume quantity for standard section, quantity transformation proportion
per PSC Beam (m3/piece). The unit quantity of the volume is of rebar fabrication to concrete work, and quantity proportion of
rebar material to rebar fabrication. By utilizing the characteris- 5. Validation of the Model
tics, this suggested model can support efficient estimation of
construction cost with only 3 input values (length of span, total For the validation of the proposed cost estimating model, this
length of bridge, and width). study compared the cost from the detailed bill of quantity and the
estimate by the proposed model. It is shown in Table 11. In a
Fig. 17. (a) 30 m Span Bridge’s Error Between Real And Estimate, (b) 35 m Span Bridge’s Error Between Real And Estimate
total of 39 bridges, the error range of the estimate was +4.04% ~ since the quantity for each element of the bridge can be estimat-
-3.3%. The average and the standard deviation of the error were ed, it enables to segregate the unit cost and the quantity. This
1.25% and 1%, respectively (Fig. 17). makes it possible to respond efficiently to the change of environ-
ments such as design code and work productivity.
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
The major objective of this study was to propose an approxi-
mate cost estimation model for the superstructure of PSC Beam This research was supported by a grant (06 CIT A03) From
bridges. To meet this requirement, this study analyzed the cost Research Policy & Infrastructure Development Program funded
structure and proportion of the cost items through bills of by Ministry of Construction & Transportation of Korean govern-
materials and quantities, and then identified 8 representative ment.
work items that take 99.24% of the total cost. The standard
quantities of the work items were analyzed. The process for cost References
estimate was established and validated by applying it to real
project data. The result of the application showed the accuracy CalTrans. (2004). Contract cost data, Department of Transportation,
with estimation error less than 5% in 39 bridges. Sacramento, CA.
By utilizing the characteristics of bridges, the suggested model Chun, Y. B. and Ahn, J. W. (2001). “Approximate cost estimating model
based on historical cost data on golf course.” Journal of Institute of
supports quick cost estimation with only three input values
Technology and Science, Chung Ang University, Vol. 31, pp. 71-80.
(length of span, total length of bridge, and width). In addition,
Hegazy, T. and Ayed, A. (1998). “Neural network model for parametric ment, KICEM, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 212-219.
cost estimation of highway projects.” Journal of Construction MOCT. (2007a). Guideline for investment evaluation, Ministry of
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 210-218. Construction and Transportation (MOCT), Seoul.
Hartgen, D. T. and Talvitie, A. P. (1995). ‘‘Comparative performance of MOCT. (2007b). Guide for road construction, Ministry of Construc-
transportation systems: Pitfalls and prospects.’’ Proc., World Conf. tion and Transportation (MOCT), Seoul.
on Transit Research, Sydney, Australia. Park, J. H. and Lee, T. S. (2002). “Development of the cost analysis
KDI. (2004). Guideline for preliminary feasibility study; Road and format for road construction project.” Journal of Civil Engineering,
Railway-Ver. 4, Korea Development Institute, Seoul. KSCE, Vol. 22, No. 2-D, pp. 259-269.
Kim, G. H., An, S. H., and Kang, K. I. (2004). “Comparison of construc- Park, J. H. and Lee, T. S. (2003). “Methodology for a cost estimating on
tion cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural the project of a composite facility.” Journal of Civil Engineering,
networks, and case-based reasoning.” Building and Environment, KSCE, Vol. 23, No. 1-D, pp. 69-78.
Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1235-1242. Singh S. (1990). “Cost model for reinforced concrete beam and slab
Kim, G. H., Seo, D. S., and Kang, K. I. (2005). “Hybrid models of structures in building.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
neural networks and genetic algorithms for predicting preliminary Management, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 54-67.
cost estimates.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Stevens, J. D. (1995). ‘‘Cost estimating and forecasting for highway
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 208-211. work in Kentucky.’’ Research Rep. KTC 95-12, Kentucky
Kim, S. K., Shin, J. S., Koo, I. H., and Kim, Y. K. (2000). “A statistical Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.
cost model of road construction project at the planning stage.” Trost, S. M. and Oberlender, G. D. (2003). “Predicting accuracy of early
Journal of Civil Engineering, KSCE, Vol. 20, No. 2-D, pp. 171-180. cost estimates using factor analysis and multivariate regression.”
Kouskoulas, V. and Koehn, E. (1974). “Predesign cost estimation Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
function for buildings.” Journal of the Construction Division, 129, No. 2, pp. 198-204.
ASCE, Dec., pp. 589-604. Wilmot, C. G. and Cheng, G. (2003). “Estimating future highway
Lee, Y. S. (2003). “Development of construction cost model through the construction costs.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
analysis of critical work items.” Journal of Construction Manage- Management, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp. 272-279.