Show simple item record

contributor authorTarek M. Zayed
contributor authorLuh-Maan Chang
contributor authorJon D. Fricker
date accessioned2017-05-08T21:14:58Z
date available2017-05-08T21:14:58Z
date copyrightMay 2002
date issued2002
identifier other%28asce%290887-3828%282002%2916%3A2%2855%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/44268
description abstractLife-cycle cost analysis was used to compare different alternative strategies for steel bridge paint systems. It was also used as a tool for steel bridge paint rehabilitation planning. The existing paint systems are lead-based and zinc-vinyl, while the new system is an inorganic/organic zinc, epoxy, and urethane paint system (three-coat). Economic analysis using present value (PV) and equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) was applied to compare several steel bridge paint system alternatives. The PV and EUAC were also used to compare different rehabilitation scenarios within the same alternative. Life-cycle cost analysis computations indicate that the three-coat paint system was better than others. Researchers concluded that the best scenario for three-cost system rehabilitation was doing spot repairs every 15 years of paint life. A maintenance plan based on life-cycle cost analysis also favored the “spot repairs every 15 years” scenario. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to account for uncertainty in the cost, conditions, and subjective data.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleLife-Cycle Cost Based Maintenance Plan for Steel Bridge Protection Systems
typeJournal Paper
journal volume16
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2002)16:2(55)
treeJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities:;2002:;Volume ( 016 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record