IJCIET ISSN 0976 – 6308 explores bridge location options

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December, pp. 214-229
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
©IAEME

A COMPARATIVE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL STUDY TO
DIFFERENT OPTIONS LOCATION FOR BRIDGE AND ITS APPROACHES
Abdul Kareem Naji Abbood
Collage of Engineering, Civil Department
University of Babylon

ABSTRACT
The process of site selection of highways and bridges should be subjected to a number of
technical standard and economic feasibility factors away from random to ensure the implementation
of the project according to the planning requirements. The site of the bridge and approaches have
been chosen by comparing and evaluating three alternatives proposal, according to the length of path
location and smooth in traffic flow in addition to reducing the trip time and construction costs , so
the first alternative was chosen. This alternative conducted economic and technical feasibility
depending on traffic study and origin & destination survey. Expected benefits due to vehicle
operation cost has been calculated which results from reducing travel time, fuel, oil, tire, as well as
the benefit arising from the residual value of the project after the design life time (salvage
value).Study compared discount benefit and discount costs with adaption of discount rate of (8%)
according to the following economic criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C).
Net Present Value (NPV).
Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
Break Evan Point (BEP).

The (B/C) for discount rate (8%) equal to (4.5940695) which indicates that the project is
economically acceptable (B/C ≥1 acceptable). The value of NPV =79655270997 ID agreed the
acceptance of the project. On the other hand the rate (IRR=27.65%) which is greater than the
discount rate (8%) approved that the project is acceptable form economically and engineering
aspects, the study concluded also that the (Break Even Point) of the project indicate that the benefits
higher than costs started from the end of sixth year, so this project is an attractive investment and
encouraging that a short payback period compared to the design life of the project (20) years.

214

Key Word: Economic of Technical Feasibility, Benefit Cost Ratio.
1. INTRODUCTION
The studies of economic and technical feasibility of the most important tools that use by the
decision maker to implementation of projects in general and road and bridge projects in particular,
it’s away indispensable to reach the best investment of economic resources in accordance with the
planning of systematic progress and strategic , as well as it works to avoid indiscriminate , adventure
, improvisation and allows the parties to determine relevant to priority in the implementation of
projects in accordance with the resources available . The adoption of economic feasibility studies and
technical projects of roads and bridges get the benefit to the road users and national income by
reducing travel time thus reduce vehicle operating costs. The choice of site path of the road leading
to the bridge proposal and approaches, is not a random process or improvised, but it is subject
studying a comparison range of alternatives according to scientific bases with standard methodology
to provide three key elements, namely, (effort, time, cost) then the decision is made due to economic
and technical feasibility of the establishment of the project or not. Adoption of the draft was a project
of Musayyib new bridge and approaches (in Iraq) as a field study and methodology to achieve the
requirements of the research aims. Musayyib one of the districts of the of Babylon city in Iraq ,
where is located north-west of it, at a distance of 50 km south-west of the capital, Baghdad, 65 km ,
due to the proportion to the flow of the Euphrates River , which passes the center of Al-Musayyib
district , it consists of two sides , left part represents the ancient city , which represents the diversity
of the different land uses ( government , educational and service , religious and health ... etc. ) , while
The right side represents the new residential neighborhoods and abandoned orchards and Lands. Pass
in the left pane of the district main road coming from Baghdad toward Karbala city while passing in
the left part of it the main road coming from the Babylon city,in this district two bridges on the
Euphrates river, a concrete bridge located in the north carried a traffic volume in two directions,
while thesecond which is located in the district center iron Old, narrow and have many failures
unable to carry traffic volume through it. Figure (1).
2. STUDY PROBLEM
Because the iron bridge in the district have many frailer in function and construction to
absorb the traffic volumes passers- through and the concrete bridge located far away from the center
of district, so many traffic problem has been appeared , prompting the relevant authorities think
about constructing another bridge would contribute to provide some solutions to the problems of
traffic , therefore the study is trying to hold the process of comparing scientific based on a study of
economic and traffic volume according to economical and technical criteria followed ,so that the
decision-maker can choose the site of the bridge and approaches on according to the results of these
studies away from the randomness and improvisation that would contribute to the providing
solutions for traffic and reduce waste in material and human resources .
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to achieve the following objectives:
3-1- a comparative study between technical alternatives proposed , in terms with location , travel
time , smoothness of traffic flow , Conflicts points ,hydraulic effectiveness of river in proposed site
,Physicist examination of the soil site and construction costs.

215

3-2- data collection, according to a traffic study , include counting the reality of the traffic volume,
vehicles classification and traffic forecasting as a result of the establishment of the project with
determining the number of lanes (No. Of Lanes) of the bridge and approaches using the program
(Highway Capacity System HCS 2000) for the proposed alternative.
3-3- Costs study: which is assigned to construction and maintenance, as well as benefits created
expected from the project and the implications for reducing the disbursements of fuel oils and the tire
of the vehicle as well as the time value of goods and passengers according to the alternative
proposed.
3-4- Compared the costs to benefits of the proposed alternative according to standard and economic
criteria adopted.
4. THE IMPORTANCE OFTHE STUDY
The importance of this study lies in being one of the studies of the few that go in to the field
of the study of technical and economic feasibility or the establishment and site selection projects,
roads and bridges, according to scientific approach to justify the establishment of the projector not,
according to the results of technical analysis and economic based on the basis of the comparison
according to economic criteria followed.
5. RESEARCHES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES
5-1-Feasibility Study for the (Cairo-Assiut) Highway (Arab Republic of Egypt: 1987)
This study was prepared by the United States Agency for Development in collaboration with
the Consultative Group on Egypt in the framework of agreements of technical cooperation with the
Arab Republic of Egypt to the economic feasibility study for the establishment of the Cairo - Assiut
way investment total length of the current path (365 Km), which through the two-lanes with a large
area of failures asphalt layer as well as the absence of road shoulders in some sections, the study
tried to discuss the options available are concentrated in the development of the current path or set up
a second lane. The study concluded that the establishment of a new road parallel to the current
roadway economically feasible than it is to make some improvements on some sections of the
existing road, the fact that the establishment of passage of a second by the current will lead to
reduced flight time and service of agricultural land, which represents 60% of the territory served by
The way.
5-2-Feasibility study for the (Bhatiapara-Benapole) highway in Bangladesh (ESCA: 2007)
This study was conducted by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
of the United Nations, the study formatted , the economic feasibility of a (Bhatiapara-Benopole)
highway in Bangladesh and the statement of the need to improve in terms of engineering, economic
and social, so exploratory study have been done included analysis of the current situation of the road
with the bridge in terms of present and future traffic volume and (origin &destination survey) in
order to estimate the traffic volume which is expected to use the proposed roadway with study
growth rates and the expected costs of the project on the basis of design lifetime, taking into
consideration the construction years.

216

6. DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA
The study area represents the diversity of the various events according to land use, start from
(Al-Moalemeen) area in the left bank of Euphrates River till the Baghdad–Karbala highway. (Figure
1), through the path of the garage of internal transport and Al-Sadda old roadway .It has been
showed through the survey diversity of the traffic volumes these uses roads and intersections as well
as having many of the traffic problems and the difficulty of moving from the district center to the
other side of the river to reach the different targets, so the study conducted surveys traffic and
analytical studies to get to the best site for the bridge, roadway and approaches.
6-1- Evaluation and Choose the Best Alternatives
The basic objectives of the study is to make the process of a technical study of the proposed
alternatives include a comprehensive description for each alternative through the conduct of the poll
and the field survey and evaluate the alternatives on the basis of a scientific comparison between
them in order to reach technical decision to choose the best option. (Nicholas J.Garber:2002).
Table (1): shows the description of the proposed alternatives in the study area
Elementsof
comparison

Location

Length
Hydraulic
effectiveness of
river

Traffic smooth
flow

Soil type

Conflicts

Alternative No.1

Alternative No.2

Alternative No.

Located south of Iron
Bridge
while
its
approaches in the districts
center
traffic
provide
traffic facilities for all trips
in the district.
The bridge lengths about
(286m) while the length of
the approaches (1214m).

Located south of the first
alternative,
its
approaches outside the
district center

Located south of the
second alternative and far
from the district center.

(295m) while the length
of
the
approaches
(1635m).
Good and not hampered
by obstacles while the
banks case is good.
Serve
the
future
expansion of the area.

(260m) while the length
of
the
approaches
(1850m).

Good and not hampered by
obstacles while the banks
case is good
Provides as mooth traffic
flow and works as a
substitute for the old
bridge.

From
the
physical
examination the soil is silt
clay soil could be treated
and construction them.
Conflict with the proposal
alternative residential land
agricultural area

From
the
physical
examination the soil is
silt clay soil could be
treated and construction
them.
Conflict
with
the
proposal alternative large
number of residential
land agricultural area

Far from the center
requires
need
establishment of the
collectors roads and in
trisections to carry traffic
volumes
From
the
physical
examination the soil is silt
clay soil could be treated
and construction them.
Conflict with the proposal
alternative some
of
residential
land
agricultural area

Travel time

(5-7)min.

(8-10)min.

(13-15)min.

Construction costs

21368875000ID

24273205000 ID

22985750000 ID

217

Reference to the table (1), after a process of evaluating alternatives the study has been chosen
the first alternative according to the following reasons:
6-1-1- Implementation of the first alternative provides the shortest travel time trip Compared to the
other two alternatives.
6-1-2- The first alternative provides smooth traffic flow, reduce delay and obstacles between the
activities of different traffic especially at peak hours.
6-1-3- The construction cost of the first alternative is less than the cost of the two other alternatives.
6.2

Origin & Destination Survey
The basic purpose of preparing the study of traffic is conducting census and classification of
the vehicles through the stations count congestion in the study area also the study content axle loads,
no. of axels for heavy vehicles, which is expected to use the bridge and approaches and using origin
&destination conducted this survey in work day through a questionnaire survey sites count the traffic
identified in Figure (1) and by asking the driver about his destination and the trip starting, the
purpose of conducting this survey is to count the traffic flow that will use the bridge and approaches
with vehicle classification in both directions (Highway Design Manual: 2005). The number of
vehicles that have been identified through the matrix shown in Table (2)
Table (2): Show the traffic volumes and classified according to original and destination survey in the
study area
Destination
1
PC

2

Truck

B

Type
2

Type
3

Type2-S2

-

-

-

-

-

277

14

9

3

379

23

18

15

PC

3

Truck

B

Type
2

Type
3

Type2-S2

80

8

6

4

11

16

-

-

-

-

29

81

-

-

-

PC

Truck

B

Type
2

Type
3

Type2-S2

399

36

11

6

45

1

-

69

-

--

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

It is clear from Table (2) and Figure (1) that the total of traffic volume coming from the
district center to the direction of the Baghdad–Karbala roadway (1-3) = 497 (Veh / hr.), While the
total of those traffic volumes coming from Karbala–Baghdad roadway to the district center (3-1) =
464 (Veh / hr.).

218


Figure (1): Show the road path and origin-destination survey on the basic of Al Musayyib master
plan in the study area. (Iraq)

219

7. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
After it was evaluating alternatives and choose thebe stone, feasibility study for the proposed
project by comparing the costs with the expected benefits.
7-1- The Costs
Representing the total costs required to set up and maintenance during the design life of the
project that the construction cost as follows:
The bridge cost= (11,303,000,000) ID, while the cost of conflicts facilities
= (4,400,000,000) ID, and the cost of approaches= (5,665,875,000) ID thus the total=
(21,368,875,000) ID.
7-2- The Benefits
It returns arising from (Road User Cost), namely:
7-2-1- (Vehicles Operation Cost)which represents the amounts spent on fuel, oil, tire and
maintenance of vehicles.
7-2-2- Time cost spent by the passengers, vehicles and goods.
7-2-3- The remaining costs (Salvage Value) for the project after the end of design life.
7-3- Economic criteria approved:
It has been approved economic criteria (Economic Parameters) show the feasibility of the project
economically or not, through the comparison between cost sand revenues (benefits) using a rate of
discount from the constructed years to the design life of project they are:7-3-1-Net Present Value NPV: -the standard economic evaluation depend on the difference between
the total discounted benefits or revenues and costs so, the project is economically feasible whenever
the difference between them is a positive value.
7-3-2-Benefit Cost Ratio B / C: - The comparison shall be made in this standard on the basis of the
proportion of revenues to the discounted costs so, the project is economically justified if the ratio is
greater than (1.0).
7-3-3-Internal Rate of Return IRR:- represents the standard discount rate, when discounted costs
and benefits is equal, as the difference from the discount rate adopted this project is economically
feasible.
7-4-The length of the proposed alternative
`Through the study of traffic and reconnaissance it was found that the length of the proposed
alternative path (1500 m).while the length of exist roadway path (3000m). Based on the analysis of
the data on the basis of the level of service (LOS C), using the program (Highway Capacity System
2000), has decided to be a road with four lanes, by two lanes in each direction, class (A4/25.5).
(Highway Design Manual: 2005).
7-5- The proportion and classification of heavy vehicles
Through what has been deduced from the traffic study and the original-destination survey, the
following percentages of heavy vehicles under the table (3):
220

Table (3): Shows the percentage of vehicles in the study area.
Percentage (%)
Vehicle Type
80.95
6.139

Passenger Car PC
Type 2

3.017

Type 3

2.185

Type 2-S2

Thus, the percentage of heavy vehicles for the traffic volumes (11.342%) while the
percentage of buses (7.70%), and to facilitate the expense of the benefits of these vehicles in this
study , therefore the vehicles (Type2, 3) symbolized as (Medium Truck (MT),where vehicle (Type
2S-2) expressed as a large vehicle (Large Truck LT).(ITMP: 2005).
7-6- Traffic Volume
Seen from Table (2) the total expected traffic volumes that pass on the proposed road way in
the peak hour volume (961 Veh / hr.). Assuming that the traffic volumes at peak hour = (0.15) of the
average annual traffic (AADT)
(K = 0.15), so the design hourly volume (DHV) and (AADT) is calculated as below (Highway
Capacity Manual: 2000) (AASHTO: 2002):
DHV = (Peak Hour Volume) / PHF
PHF = 0.95, DHV = 961 / (0.95) = 1012 (Veh / hr)
DHV = K × AADT.
Where:
DHV = Design Hourly Volume (vph), K = 0.15,
AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic (vpd).
AADT = 1012 ÷ 0.15, = 6747 (Veh. / Day)
Yearly Traffic Volume=AADT×365 = 2462655 (Veh.)
For the purpose of finding a vehicle operating cost was adopted the following data: - The exist roadway (Link Type 3) and this product is one of the unpaved roadway and that are not
performing well in his current situation. (Paved Road / Bad-Very Bad).Either the proposed
alternative (Link Type 1) (Paved Road / Double Carriageway with a Good Condition).
(ITMP. 2005)
- The adoption of the exchange rate of the dollar against the Iraqi dinar (1250) ID / dollar.
- The adoption rate of 400 dinars per liter of fuel and 3000 dinars / liter of oil for vehicles.
- Adopted a period of economic valuation for 20 years and as of (2012) and the duration of
construction (2) years.
Table (4): The cost of fuel, tires and oils for different types of vehicles (ITMP. 2005)
Vehicle Type
Passenger car
Medium Truck
Large Truck

Fuel Cost
ID/I
400
400
400

Tire Cost
ID/Tire
75000
250000
250000

221

Average No.
Tire/Vehicle
4
8
16

Oil Cost
ID/L
3000
3000
3000

The tables below show the costs for the use different vehicles type (passenger car, medium
and heavy vehicles) by the current and proposed roadway.
Table (5): The estimated cost for the use of passenger car (ITMP.2005)
Link
Type

Pavement
Condition

Average
Free Speed
[km/h]

Average
IRI Influenced
Speed
[km/h]

Fuel
Consumption
[L/km]

Tire Life
[1000km]

Oil
Consumption
[L*1000 km]

1
3

Good
Bad-Very
Bad

100
100

100
46

0.075
0.105

40.7
11.5

2.15
3.05

Link
Type

Pavement
Condition

Average
Free Speed
[km/h]

1
3

Good
Bad-Very
Bad

80
80

Table (6): The estimated cost for the use of a medium Truck (ITMP.2005)
Average
IRI Influenced
Speed
[km/h]
80
37

Fuel
Consumption
[L/km]

Tire Life
[1000km]

Oil
Consumption
[L*1000 km]

0.143
0.231

40.7
11.5

3.63
4.75

Table (7): The estimated cost for the use of a heavy vehicle load (ITMP.2005)
Pavement
Condition

Average Free
Speed
[km/h]

Average
IRI Influenced Speed
[km/h]

Fuel
Consumption
[L/km]

Tire Life
[1000km]

Oil Consumption
[L*1000 km]

Good
Bad-Very
Bad

60
60

60
28

0.160
0.301

40.7
11.5

5.75
6.65

Table (8): The value of time for passengers (ITMP.2005)
YEAR
2012
2017
2022
2027
2032
2037

TIME VALUE
US$/HOUR
1.0464
1.2752
1.4519
1.6701
1.9332
2.1567

ID/HOUR
1308
1594
1815
2088
2417
2696

Table (9): The value of time for goods (ITMP. 2005)
YEAR
2012
2017
2022
2027
2032
2037

TIME VALUE
US$/ TON-HOUR
ID/TON-HOUR
0.0186
23.25
0.0184
23.0
0.0175
21.875
0.0165
20.625
0.0154
19.25
0.0164
20.50

222

7-7- Vehicles operation costs
Costs of different vehicle types (PC, Type2, Type3, Type2S-2) on the basis of the cost of
fuel, oil , the tire changer, and maintenance for these vehicles whom using exist roadway , compared
to reduce these costs when creating proposal alternative through reduce the trip travel time resulting
benefit steroid users. The form below show to calculate the operating cost for passenger car. So
operating costs have been calculated for other types of vehicles based on the same principle applied
for pc
For the proposed alternative (Link Type1):The cost of fuel 400 * 0.075 = 30 ID / km - pc
The cost of the tire changer = (75000 * 4) / 40700 = 3.686 ID / km-pc
the cost of oil = (2.15 * 3000) / 1000 = 6.450 ID / km- pc.
Assuming the vehicles price of 12000000 dinars and that the cost of maintenance= 0.15* vehicle cost
and that the vehicle is going 250,000 km before disappearing.
Maintenance cost = (12000000 * 0.15) / 250000 = 7, 20 dinars / km-pc
∴the total cost to operate the passengers car vehicle = 47.336 dinars / km- pc.
For the Exits roadway (Link Type3):The cost of fuel 400 * 0.105 = 42.0 ID / km – pc
The cost of the tire changer = (4.0 * 75000/11500 = 13.043 ID / km- pc
The cost of oil = (3.05 * 3000) / 1000 = 9.15 ID / km -pc
Assuming the price of the vehicle 12000000 ID,
The cost of the maintenance = 0.30*vehicle price, and that the vehicle traveling 250,000 km before
they disappear.
Maintenance cost = (12000000 * 0.3) / 25000 = 14.40 ID / km- pc
∴ the total cost a passenger car vehicle = 78.593 ID / km- pc.

Table (10): The vehicle operation cost to different vehicle types
Vehicle Operation Cost
PC(

(Type 2)

(Type)

(Type 2S-2)‫ا‬

( Bus)

New

Fuel
Consumption
Tire Cost
Oil
Consumption
Cost
Maintenance
Cost
Total ID/kmVeh.

Exist

New

Exist

New

Exist

New

Exist

New

Exist

30.0

42.0

59.20

92.40

59.20

92.40

64.0

121.0

40.0

80.0

3.686

13.043

49.14

173.91

49.14

173.91

98.280

347.826

18.42

65.21

6.450

9.15

11.01

14.25

11.01

14.25

17.25

19.95

6.45

9.15

7.20

14.40

18.00

36.00

18.00

36.00

18.0

36.0

6.0

12.0

47.336

78.593

137.35

316.62

137.35

316.62

197.53

524.776

70.87

166.36

223

Table (11): The rate of benefits arising from the vehicles operation
Vehicle
operation
cost

Vehicle Types
percentage
New roadway
Exist roadway

PC
0.895
42.365
70.340

Type2
0.06139
8.431
19.433

Type3
0.03017
4.143
9.552

Type2S-2
0.02185
4.3160
11.466

Buses
0.077
5.456
12.809

Table (12): The cost and benefit of vehicle operation
Roadway type

Average vehicle
operation cost
(ID/Km-veh.)

Path length
(Km)

Average vehicle
operation cost
(ID/Km-veh.)

New roadway

64.711

1.50

97.066

Exist roadway

123.60
3.0
Average vehicle operation benefits=237.734(ID/Km-veh.)

370.80

Table (13): Travel time for vehicles using exist roadway and new roadway in the study area.
Vehicle Type
Travel time exist roadway(Min.)
Vehicle Type
Travel time new roadway(Min.)
Travel time difference(hr.)
Vehicle Percentage (%)

PC
17.0
PC
4.0
0.216
0.895

Type2
30.0
Type2
7.0
0.383
0.0613

Type3
30.0
Type3
7.0
0.383
0.03017

Type2S-2
30.0
Type2S-2
7.0
0.383
0.02185

Buses
30.0
Type3S-2
7.0
0.383
0.077

7-8- The benefits of time value
The benefit of reducing the travel time is divided into two sections:
7-8-1- The time benefit for passengers
It was assumed that the vehicle capacity type (PC) (2.0) passengers, while the truck (1.0) passenger
so the benefit resulting from reduced travel time for passengers are shown in the table (14).
Table (14): The passenger's benefits for the years (2012-2039)
No. of persons in
vehicle
Year
2012-2014
2015-2019
2020-2024
2025-2029
2030-2034
2035-2039

PC
2.0

Type2
1.0

Type3
1.0

Type2S-2
1.0

Bus
20

0.4045
0.4930
0.5613
0.6457
0.7474
0.8338

0.02455
0.02993
0.0340
0.0392
0.0453
0.0506

0.01209
0.01473
0.01677
0.01929
.02233
0.0249

0.0087
0.0106
0.0121
0.0139
0.016
0.0180

0.617
0.752
0.8563
0.985
1.1402
1.272

Time benefits of
passengers
$
ID
1.0656
1332
1.3002
1626
1.4803
1851
1.7019
2127
1.9705
2464
2.1993
2749

7-8-2 the interest rate of the fright
The reducing of travel time resulting benefit in vehicles frights. In this study, and according
to the technical specifications of the General Authority for Roads and Bridges (Highway Design
Manual 2005). The:
Type 2 18 tons
Type 3 24 tons
Type 2S-2 36 tons

224

Accordingly, the interest arising from reducing flight time for the load in the case of the use
of the proposed road instead of the current path illustrated in the table (15).
Table (15): The goods benefits for the years (2012-2039)
Vehicle type

PC

Type2

Type3

Type2S-2

Fright(ton)
2012-2014
2015-2019
2020-2024
2025-2029
2030-2034
2035-2039

0

18
0.0078
0.0077
0.0073
0.0069
0.0065
0.0061

24
0.005
0.0051
0.0048
0.0045
0.0042
.00410

36
.0056
0.0055
.0052
0.0049
0.0046
0.00439

Fright time benefit
$
0.0184
0.0183
0.0173
0.0163
0.0153
0.0145

ID
23
22.80
21.625
20.375
19.125
18.125

Table (16): The total annual benefits resulting from time interest for the passenger's goods and
vehicle operation
year

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034

Passeng
Vehicles
No. of
er
Frights
Rate of
No,(stud Veh.(operation benefits benefits
increase
y year)
year)
(ID/Veh (ID/Veh.)
.)
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.0000
0.0000
1.060 2462655 2610414.3
0.0000
0.0000
1.124 2462655 2768024.22 0.0000
0.0000
1.191 2462655 2933022.105
1332
23.0
1.262 2462655 3107870.61
1626
22.80
1.338 2462655 3295032.39
1626
22.80
1.419 2462655 3494507.445
1626
22.80
1.504 2462655 3703833.12
1626
22.80
1.594 2462655 3925472.07
1626
22.80
1.689 2462655 4159424.295
1851
21.625
1.791 2462655 4410615.105
1851
21.625
1.898 2462655 4674119.19
1851
21.625
2.012 2462655 4954861.86
1851
21.625
2.133 2462655 5252843.115
1851
21.625
2.261 2462655 5568062.955
2127
20.375
2.397 2462655 5902984.053
2127
20.375
2.540 2462655 6255143.700
2127
20.375
2.693 2462655 6631929.915
2127
20.375
2.854 2462655 7028417.37
2127
20.375
3.026 2462655 7451994.03
2464
19.125
3.207 2462655 7897734.585
2464
19.125
3.400 2462655
8373027
2464
19.125
3.604 2462655 8875408.62
2464
19.125
3.820 2462655 9407342.1
2464
19.125

225

Operation
benefits
(ID/Veh.)

benefits
(ID/Veh.)

Total benefits
(ID/Veh.)

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734
273.734

0.000
0.000
0.000
1914.369
2208.169
2208.169
2208.169
2208.169
2208.169
2431.994
2431.994
2431.994
2431.994
2431.994
2706.744
2706.744
2706.744
2706.744
2706.744
3042.494
3042.494
3042.494
3042.494
3042.494

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5614886594
6862703537
7275988378
7716463010
8178689477
8668105735
10115694929
10726589472
11367429825
12080140125
12774882939
15071320995
15977866619
16931072679
17950936506
19024126546
22672647124
24028810088
25474884409
27003377474
28621781895

Table (17): The achieved (Benefits) for multiple discount rates.
Yea
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Sv*
Sum

‫ا ا‬

‫ا‬

R=12%

R=I5%

R=20%

R=25%

0.000
0.000
0.000
4095604274
4743137253
4656275785
4572368474
4487277285
4403516544
4823314094
4735738626
4646913535
4561131616
4477253947
4956894295
4865790154
4774141656
4686775838
4599049058
5141140281
5045053022
4952470947
4860758522
4770444762
1559464679.911

0.000
0.000
0.000
3808285097
4252877667
4025887423
3812149165
3607591075
3413813268
3605715083
3413809796
3230144269
3057283169
2893880023
3089471437
2924378853
2766822465
2619183387
2478366329
2671545928
2527985965
2392966357
2264771731
2143310016
700599173.55

0.000
0.000
0.000
3612183611
3928650885
3621949207
3340187122
3078494612
2837141773
2918454085
2691045006
2479840468
2285902333
2107282253
2191021073
2019836366
1861161362
1715887555
1581279350
1660068185
1529882661
1410393310
1300014703
1198199142
391667436.778

0.000
0.000
0.000
3317439462
3457747057
3054982543
2699937860
2384723128
2106188312
2076278561
1834722174
1620278563
1431331431
1264508757
1259976022
1113136715
982953430.4
868469024.9
766991767.9
771657575.4
681511854
602104849.7
531859283.9
469779519.2
153556678.67

0.000
0.000
0.000
3057352208
3059193301
2594738914
2201455616
1866660604
1582689895
1497805717
1270607479
1077214068
913532014.5
774776853.7
741119618.8
628558595.9
532845666.6
451953820.6
383178968.8
370089546.9
313781144
266131809
225679774.1
191364425.5
62538730.52

100415000000

0.000
0.000
0.000
4842278710
6044037585
6408020831
6795950343
7203036868
7634069659
9020031859
9564758473
10136187371
10744999468
11391194764
13604598556
14422920317
15283361491
16203973423
17172721927
20709665213
21948412537
23269286756
24665443961
26143728061

R=8%

65700837676

49760542500

33450134570

24063268771

Sv*= (Salvage Value) = (0.75*11303000000) = (0.75*Bridge Cost)/ (1+r) n.
Table (18): The project construction costs adopted by discount rates
Year Construction cost Maintenance
cost
2011
0.0
0.0
2012
10684437500
0.0
2013
10684437500
0.0
2014
170951000
2015
170951000
2016
170951000
2017
170951000
2018
170951000
2019
170951000
2020
170951000
2021
170951000
2022
170951000
2023
170951000
2024
170951000
2025
170951000
2026
170951000
2027
170951000
2028
170951000
2029
170951000
2030
170951000
2031
170951000
2032
170951000
2033
170951000
2034
170951000
Sum

Total cost
0.0
10684437500
10684437500
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000
170951000

R=8%

R=12%

R=15%

R=20%

10684437500
9892997685
146562928.7
135706415.4
125654088.4
116346378.1
107728127.9
99748266.56
92359506.07
85518061.18
79183389.98
73317953.69
67886994.15
62858327.92
58202155.48
53890884.71
49898967.32
46202747.52
42780321.78
39611409.05
36677230.6
33960398.71
31444813.62

10684437500
9539676339
136281090.6
121679545.1
108642451
97002188.41
86609096.8
77329550.71
69044241.71
61646644.38
55041646.77
49144327.47
43878863.81
39177556.98
34979961.59
31232108.56
27885811.21
24898045.73
22230397.97
19848569.62
17721937.16
15823158.18
14127819.8

10684437500
9290815217
129263516.1
112403057.5
97741789.09
84992860.08
73906834.85
64266812.91
55884185.14
48594943.6
42256472.7
36744758.87
31951964.23
27784316.72
24160275.41
21008935.14
18268639.25
15885773.26
13813715.88
12011926.85
10445153.79
9082742.422
7898036.889

10684437500
8903697917
118715972.2
98929976.85
82441647.38
68701372.81
57251144.01
47709286.68
39757738.9
33131449.08
27609540.9
23007950.75
19173292.29
15977743.58
13314786.31
11095655.26
9246379.385
7705316.154
6421096.795
5350913.996
4459094.996
3715912.497
3096593.748

22162974552

21378338853

20913619428

226

20284948281

R=25%

10684437500
8547550000
109408640
87526912
70021529.6
56017223.68
44813778.94
35851023.16
28680818.52
22944654.82
18355723.86
14684579.08
11747663.27
9398130.614
7518504.491
6014803.593
4811842.874
3849474.299
3079579.44
2463663.552
1970930.841
1576744.673
1261395.738
19773985117

Table (19): The discounted benefits and discounted costs for different discount rates
discounted costs

IRR
(%)

NPV
79227025448
45220630447
34193527155
13575598302
4575921875

27.65

4.5747
3.1152
2.6349
1.6692
1.2314

discountedbene
fits

22162974552
21378338853
20913619428
20284948261
19773985117

100415000000
65700837676
49760542500
20284948281
24063268771

B/C

Discount
rates
(r (%)
8
12
15
20
25

Table (20): The break-Even Point for the project
year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Cumulative Costs
10684437500
20577435185
20723998113.7
20859704529.1
20985358617.5
21101704995.6
21209433123.5
21309181390.06
21401540896.13
21487058957.31
21566242347.29
21639560300.98
21707447295.13
21770305623.05
21828507778.53
21882398663.24
21932297630.56
21978500378.08
22021280699.86
22060892108.91
22097569339.51
22131529738.22
22162974551.84

Cumulative Benefits
0
0
4095604274
8838741527
13495017313
18067385786
22554663072
26958179615
31781493709
36517232335
41164145870
45725277486
50202531434
55159425729
60025215883
64799357539
69486133377
74085182436
79226322716
84271375738
89223846686
94084605208
98855049970

(Cum.Benefit-Cum.Cost)
Cum.Cost)
-10684437500
-20577435185
-16628393840
-12020963002
-7490341305
-3034319210
1345229948
5648998225
10379952813
15030173378
19597903523
24085717185
28495084139
33389120106
38196708104
42916958876
47553835746
52106682058
57205042016
62210483629
67126277346
71953075470
76692075418

E+

Cum.benefits-Cum.Costs)

E+ x E+

E+ y =
²R

E+
E+
E+

-E+
-E+

Years

Figure (2): Project Years and the value of benefits higher than the costs

227

8. CONCLUSIONS
Through economic and technical analysis of the data and the study of alternatives to the
proposed site selection for the bridge and the approaches the following conclusions has been
conducted: 8-1- In accordance with the technical study, which was conducted on the basis of a traffic study and
reconnaissance survey that the first option (Alternative no.1) installer in Figure (1) , represents the
vey
best alternatives , after conducting the evaluation and comparison of the alternatives in accordance
with the length of the path , location , smooth flow of traffic provided the proposed alternative
provided
alternative,
reduce of the travel time , the suitable of construction cost and conflicts points compared to other
alternatives , so this alternative provides safety , efficiency and convenience for road users .
8-2- By counting traffic volumes according to original – destination survey in the study area and
lumes
based on the analysis of these data on the basis of the level of service (LOS C), using the program
(Highway Capacity System 2000it was decided to study to be a roadway with four lanes, two lanes in
each direction class (A4/25.5) under the technical specifications of the General Authority for Roads
and Bridges.
8-3- Through economic analysis of the data for the proposed alternative and compared with the
economic approved shows the following: followi
8-3-1- when comparing discounted costs, with discounted benefits to the discount rate adopted (8%)
and the rest of the discount rates indicate that the value of (Benefit Cost Ratio B / C) = (4.5940695)
,thus this standard to justify the economic feasibility of the constructed of the project the fact that
feasibility
(B / C> 1) .
8-3-2- the second economic criterion (Net Present Value NPV) = (79655270997 ID) approved for the
discount rate (8%) , and this value as gives positive indicated economic justification for the
fo
constructed of the project where the project is economically justified whenever this value is positive.
Internal
8-3-3- (Internal Rate of Return IRR = 27.65%) confirmed the high rate of profitability of the project,
where the project is economically feasible whenever this percentage is greater than the discount rate
adopted a proportion (8%).

E+
E+ x -

Cum.benefits-Cum.Costs)

E+
E+
E+
E+

-E+
-E+

Years

228

E+ y =
²R

8-4- It was been showed from table (20) that the value of benefits higher than the costs will start
from the end of the sixth year and the beginning of the seventh year through the design life of the
project so the Break Even Point will be in the sixth year of the life of the project. Thus this project is
attractive and favorable investment because it is contend short payback period compared to the
design life of the project (20) years.
9. RECOMMENDATION
9-1- It is very necessary to follow scientific criteria in the selection process of bridge site and
approaches away from randomly based on , evaluation and comparison a range of alternatives
according to technical and economical studies , in order to take the suitable decision about the best
alternative to be done .
9-2- The study recommended that the highway and bridges projects must be included economic and
technical feasibility studies justify constructed the project or not, based on a study of present and
future traffic volume, land use, the conflicts path of the proposed compared to the data according to
the economic criteria to provide a database of technical and economic which they help decisionmakers in the implementation of projects.
10. REFERENCES
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO, (1994), 444 North Capital
Street. N.W., Suite, Washington D.C. 20001, (202).
2. Arab Republic of Egypt, Ministry of Transportation and Communication and Marine
Transport Road and Bridge Authority. (1987). "Cairo - Assuit Highway Feasibility Study"
Main Report USA i.D Project No. 263-0181.
3. Nicholas J. Garber & Lester A. Hole. (2002). "Traffic & Highway Engineering". Thomson
Learning.
4. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Housing & Reconstruction, Organization of Road & Bridges
"Highway Design Manual", (2005).
5. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning, (2005). "Iraq Transportation Master Plan (ITMP)". By
Group of Italian Companies.
6. Transportation Research Board (2000), "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report (209).
7. U. S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. (2013). "Economic
Analysis Primer Benefit - Cost Analysis, Washington, DC, 20590.
8. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
9. (ESCAP), (2007). Promotion and Development of the Asian Highway Priority Routes
feasibility study of AH1: Bhatiapara - Benapole Road in Bangladesh.
10. Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr.Vipin Chandra, “Estimation of Bridge Pier Scour for Clear
Water & Live Bed Scour Condition”, International Journal of Civil Engineering &
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 92 - 97, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
11. Bant Singh and Dr. Srijit Biswas, “Effect of E-Quality Control on Tolerance Limits in Wmm
& Dbm in Highway Construction - A Case Study”, International Journal of Advanced
Research in Engineering & Technology (IJARET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 33 - 45,
ISSN Print: 0976-6480, ISSN Online: 0976-6499.
12. Hameedaswad Mohammed, “The Influence of Road Geometric Design Elements on Highway
Safety”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4,
Issue 4, 2013, pp. 146 - 162, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
1.

229

IJCIET ISSN 0976 – 6308 explores bridge location options

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie IJCIET ISSN 0976 – 6308 explores bridge location options

Ähnlich wie IJCIET ISSN 0976 – 6308 explores bridge location options (20)

Mehr von IAEME Publication

Mehr von IAEME Publication (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

IJCIET ISSN 0976 – 6308 explores bridge location options