LIFE CYCLE COST (LCC) : A comparison between a prestressed glulam deck bridge and a composite bridge

This essay is a bachelor thesis written for the Degree Program in Constructional Engineering and Design at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). This thesis was an assignment given by WSP Sweden and their bridge and water department. The purpose of this report is to conduct an examination on the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) on a prestressed glulam deck bridge and a composite bridge in the early stages of the design phase. This report illuminates the factors that are most crucial in a LCC-calculation for the selected overpasses, and provides an overview regarding which overpass is most efficient from an economic standpoint. The LCC has been calculated based on an 80-year lifespan for the prestressed glulam deck bridge and a 120-year lifespan for the composite bridge. The cost of investment, operating, maintaining and finally the demolition cost was all considered as well. The bridge works that were examined are real life projects in an early stage of the design phase with plans to be built. In the results, the LCC-analysis shows a clear difference in life cycle costs between the prestressed glulam deck bridge and the composite bridge and show that the cost of investment is the most decisive cost during the bridges’ lifespans. The LCC-calculations show that the total life cycle cost for a prestressed glulam deck bridge is higher than the composite bridges’ total life cycle cost