See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299739834

The whole life costing of bridge deck replacement - A case study

Conference Paper · June 2012

DOI: 10.1201/b12352-573

CITATION READS

1 525

1 author:

Tomasz Siwowski
Rzeszów University of Technology, Poland
87 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ReUse - Innovative Recycling Materials, Enhancing the Sustainability of Bridge Facilities View project

Development, testing and construction of the hybrid FRP composite – concrete road bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomasz Siwowski on 09 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability – Biondini & Frangopol (Eds)
© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62124-3

The whole life costing of bridge deck replacement – a case study

T.W. Siwowski
Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszow, Poland

ABSTRACT: Bridge engineers rehabilitating an existing bridge are often required to compare and choose
from several alternative strategies. In many cases the engineer has an existing, “base case” technique or strat-
egy, and “alternatives” that represent specific changes to this base case. The whole life cost analysis allows
the engineer to determine which alternative is cost effective over its intended life. The simple and flexible
life-cycle cost (LCC) model consistent with the standard method for performing life-cycle costing has been
used in this study. The comparative LCC analysis has been carried out for three deck replacement alternatives
of the five span continuous Warren type steel truss bridge: new RC deck (base case), steel orthotropic deck
and aluminium deck. Results from the study suggest that aluminium deck system is, in general, superior to the
conventional systems from an whole life economic standpoint.

1 INTRODUCTION usually have some type of qualitative performance

The most vulnerable element of a bridge is its deck.
Bridge deck deterioration of older bridges is a sig-
nificant problem in aging of the highway system.
Therefore every about fifteen year’s RC bridge
decks have to be replaced. Use of an advanced mate-
rial bridge deck system is viewed as a potential long-
term solution for the concrete deck deterioration
problem (Bettigole & Robison 1997). But new con-
struction materials for bridge decks must be selected
with great care and foresight over the conventional
construction materials. Some minimum technical
criteria must be first satisfied, such as the material's
ultimate strength, stiffness, code compliance and
expected life of the structure under a set of defined
environmental conditions. Currently, for alternatives
that provide the same technical performance, con-
struction costs are typically used to compare and ul-
timately decide on the design strategy. But an alter-
native with higher initial construction costs, as an
advanced material alternative used to be, may have
significantly lower operation, maintenance, and re-
pair costs, and therefore life cycle costs. The whole
life cost analysis (or life-cycle cost analysis, LCCA)
allows the engineer to determine which alternative is
cost effective over its intended life.
Many of new construction materials are being de-
veloped that are technically equal or superior to
conventional materials. These advanced materials
advantage over conventional materials. Between
them aluminium alloys seem to be one of the most
sustainable option. The contemporary progress of
metal engineering, which led to the development of
new generation aluminium alloys with excellent
strength and durability, had let to wider utilisation of
this material in civil and transportation engineering,
see Mazzolani (2004). Particularly effective is the
use of aluminium alloys in bridge redecking, see
Svensson & Peterson (1990), Matteo et al. (1997),
Höglund & Nilsson (2006), Maljaars et al. (2006),
Okura et al. (2006) and Das & Kaufman (2007).
The goal of the LCCA performed in this study
was to assess the life-cycle cost-effectiveness asso-
ciated with three bridge deck material options for a
steel truss bridge, including new advanced alumin-
ium solution (Siwowski 2009) and two conventional
solutions as used typically for bridge redecking in
Poland.
2 THE LCCA METHODOLOGY
The simple and flexible life-cycle cost (LCC) model
consistent with the standard method for performing
life-cycle costing has been used in this study (Ehlen
1997). The model uses a life-cycle costing method-
ology based on the ASTM practice for measuring
the life cycle costs of buildings and building systems

3835
and a cost classification scheme for comparing life
cycle costs of alternatives (ASTM 2002). It is based
on the LCCA methodology for new-technology ma-
terials in construction sector.
The conventional cost categories have been in-
cluded in the LCC model, i.e.: initial construction
costs, operation, maintenance and repair costs and
finally disposal costs. The LCC of each alternative is
computed as the sum of individual project cost
items, each cost discounted to base-year, present-
value Euros. Figure 1 illustrates how individual pro-
ject costs can be classified (Ehlen 1997). The project
LCC is the sum of all project costs. This total is first
divided into agency, user, and third-party (social)
costs, representing a ‘‘Level 1’’ classification of
costs by who pays the cost. Each of these Level 1
groups is then divided into construction, operation,
maintenance and repair and disposal costs, repre-
senting a ‘‘Level 2’’ classification according to the
period in the life cycle. Finally, each of these life-
cycle-period groups is divided into elemental, non-
elemental, and new-material introduction groups,
representing a ‘‘Level 3’’ classification according to
which component generates the cost. The classifica-
tion also allows designers to compare each mate-
rial’s cost advantages by comparing these cost
groups across materials.
Once the all costs are compiled, the user com-
pares the life-cycle costs of the alternative materials
for bridge deck. The alternative with the lowest life-
Figure 1. Classification of the project LCC’s (Ehlen 1997)
3836
cycle cost, all other factors being equal, is the cost-
effective material. The user utilizes the cost classifi-
cation to compare the technical advantages and dis-
advantages of each alternative in life-cycle cost
terms. For all LCC calculations in this study
BridgeLCC software was used (Ehlen 2003). The
software uses a life-cycle costing methodology
based on the cost classification scheme showed in
Figure 1.
3 BRIDGE REDECKING ASSUMPTIONS
The subject of this study is the bridge over Vistula
river, a key component of the National Road No. 9
in Poland (Fig. 2). It is five span continuous steel
Warren truss with RC deck slab with overall length
of 415 m. After 50 years of service the bridge
needed comprehensive rehabilitation along with en-
hancing its carrying capacity up to the highest class
according to Polish bridge code. Apart from
strengthening and anticorrosion protection of steel-
work, the rehabilitation also included the total re-
placement of deteriorated concrete deck slab. The
service life assessment of the steel truss revealed
that the safe life-cycle period could be estimated for
about 60 years, so it was assumed for life-cycle
analysis. The scope of work and life-cycle period de-
fined the project objectives and performance-based
requirements.

Figure 2. The bridge – the subject of LCCA
In the next step the alternatives that satisfied the
project objectives and performance requirements had
been identified. The main activity in rehabilitation
project was the replacement of deteriorated RC deck
slab along with the strengthening of steel deck
beams (stringers and cross-beams). Three deck re-
placement alternatives were considered in this study:
new reinforced concrete deck slab (base case), steel
orthotropic deck and aluminium deck made of ex-
truded shapes, see Siwowski (2009). The basic fea-
tures of the considered material alternatives of new
deck have been shown in Table 1. All alternatives
satisfied identically minimum performance require-
ments of the project (load carrying capacity, service-
ability requirements), but they differed about mate-
rial durability (which means the service life), unit
deck slab weight and relevant scope of steelwork
strengthening, and finally type of deck equipment
and its durability. For each alternative an individual
life-cycle scenarios (or maintenance strategy) had to
be established.
The timing of cyclic activities which covers an-
nual maintenance and user costs/activities during
normal operations was assumed according to Polish
road agency guidelines. These activities include an-
nual maintenance works, every 5 years detailed in-
spections and every 7 years partial (not major) repair
works. The timing of non-recurring future activities
which covers all rehabilitation, restoration, and re-
surfacing activities was determined in the most con-
ventional method. The author’s engineering judg-
ment and road agency expert opinion let to estimate
the rehabilitation strategy for each alternative under
evaluation. These life-cycle scenarios for deck re-
placement alternatives are shown in Table 2. Deck
material and equipment durability (except alumin-
ium alloy) was assumed according to Polish standard
requirements. The performance and durability of
aluminium alloy in bridge decks was based on com-
prehensive author’s study (Siwowski 2008).
Finally, timing of rehabilitation works which
covers user delay time during work-zone operation
due to traffic limitations and environmental burdens
generated by this delay time had to be estimated for
each alternative. The traffic limitations in work-zone
were assumed to take place in years T, T+15, T+30
and T+45. There are due to closing one lane of
bridge roadway for pavement and waterproofing re-
placement, minor deck repairs and execution of new
concrete deck slab along with its equipment (in base
alternative). Timing for work-zone operations is dif-
ferent for each alternative and strongly depends on
deck material and scope of maintenance works.
Numbers of operation days based on contractor’s
judgment and road agency expert opinion as as-
sumed in LCCA are shown in Table 3.

Table 1. Characterization of bridge deck alternatives

Deck pa- Deck replacement alternative 4 LCCA CALCULATION AND RESULTS
rameter 1 2 3
Type Monolithic Orthotropic Aluminium The first step of LCC analysis is to identify, classify,
RC slab steel deck deck and estimate all costs that occur over the life-cycle.
Concrete Steel Alloy As stated above this total cost can be divided by who
Material
C 35/45 S 420 AW 6005 A
Unit weight
pays the cost into agency, user, and third-party (so-
525 151 83 cial) costs, which representing a ‘‘Level 1’’ classifi-
[kg/m2]
Thickness cation of costs (Fig.1). Agency costs mainly due to
210 12 167
[mm] construction/rehabilitation works were estimated on
SBS insula- Sprayed insu- Sprayed insu- contractor proposals offered in public procurement
tion layers, lation layer, lation layer
in 2005. In aluminium alternative all costs estimates
Typical in- two courses two courses of together with
sulation and of asphalt asphalt con- pavement were obtained from aluminium producers, fabrica-
pavement concrete with crete with to- course with tors, contractors and recyclers dealing with this spe-
total thick- tal thickness total thickness cific construction material. For this alternative also
ness of 90 of 90 mm of 10 mm the new technology introduction costs were esti-
mm
mated and included in LCC analysis. These costs
Corrosion Standard PCC Standard paint Not required
protection coating coating were generated from testing, evaluating and accept-
Service life ing by agency for use. The total introduction cost as-
30 60 60
[years] sumed in the analysis was 112 500 €.

3837
Table 2. Life-cycle scenarios for deck replacement alternatives
Life Deck replacement alternative
cycle
RC deck slab Orthotropic steel deck Aluminium deck
time
• Existing RC deck slab demolition • Existing RC deck slab demolition • Existing RC deck slab demolition
• Execution of new monolithic RC • Execution of orthotropic steel • Execution of aluminium deck
deck slab deck made of extruded shapes
• Strengthening of existing steel • Strengthening of existing steel • Strengthening of existing steel
deck beams (100%) deck beams (30%) deck beams (30%)
T
• Strengthening of steel truss girders • Strengthening of steel truss girders • Execution of deck equipment
(100%) (50%)
• Anticorrosion protection of con- • Anticorrosion protection of steel
crete deck slab deck
• Execution of deck equipment • Execution of deck equipment
• Pavement and waterproofing re- • Pavement and waterproofing re- • Pavement and waterproofing re-
placement placement placement
T+15 • Concrete deck repair • Anticorrosion protection renova-
• Anticorrosion protection renova- tion
tion
• Existing RC deck slab demolition • Pavement and waterproofing re- • Pavement and waterproofing re-
• Execution of new monolithic RC placement placement
deck slab • Steel deck repair • Aluminium deck repair
T+30
• Anticorrosion protection of con- • Anticorrosion protection renova-
crete deck slab tion
• Execution of deck equipment
• Pavement and waterproofing re- • Pavement and waterproofing re- • Pavement and waterproofing re-
placement placement placement
T+45 • Concrete deck repair • Anticorrosion protection renova-
• Anticorrosion protection renova- tion
tion
• Existing RC deck slab demolition • Existing steel deck demolition • Existing aluminium deck demoli-
T+60 • Disposal of concrete debris • Recycling of steel scrap tion
• Recycling of aluminium scrap

Table 3. The rehabilitation works timing for deck replacement volume in T, T+15 T+30 and T+45 years was fore-
alternatives casted according to national instructions used in fea-
Life Deck replacement alternative
cycle
sibility studies for road sector. There was no indica-
Orthotropic Aluminium
RC deck tion of third party costs for this bridge. The bridge is
time steel deck deck
Deck: 225 days Deck: 180 days Deck: 180 days situated in a remote location, not surrounded by
T
Superstructure: Superstructure: Superstructure: businesses, residences or special environmental
75 days 60 days 30 days zones. Construction activity is not likely to affect
Total: 300 days Total: 240 days Total: 210 days anyone other than drivers. However for research
T+15 Deck: 60 days Deck: 90 days Deck: 30 days
T+30 Deck: 225 days Deck: 120 days Deck: 60 days
purposes the third party costs generated by emission
T+45 Deck: 60 days Deck: 90 days Deck: 60 days of fuel combustion products were estimated and as-
sumed in the LCC analysis. Table 4 shows the val-
User and third party (social) costs data and esti- ues of these parameters used in LCC analysis.
mates were obtained from the Polish agency instruc-
tions. The user costs to drivers during the works are Table 4. Project parameters used in user cost estimates
Item Project Parameter Value
the sum of driver delay costs, vehicle operating
1 length of affected roadway
costs, and costs due to the increased incidence of over which cars drive 1 km
automobile accidents. Driver delay costs and vehicle 2 average daily traffic, measured
operating costs are based on the additional time that in number of cars per day 7625 cars
drivers and vehicles spend in traffic during bridge 3 normal traffic speed 72.3 km/h
4 traffic speed during bridge
rehabilitation. It was assumed as 1/3 hour and thus
work activity 43.7 km/h
traffic speed VA during bridge work activity would 5 number of days of road work see Table 3
decrease to 0,67 VN. Accident costs were neglected 6 hourly time value of drivers 8.58 €/h
because the rehabilitation works did not affected the 7 hourly vehicle operating cost
trip length. Average daily traffic was assumed for (average) 0.81 €/km
the Polish National Road No.9 in 2005 and traffic

3838
Table 5. Total LCC’s by deck alternative (€)
Deck replacement alternative
Classification level Cost breakdown
RC deck Steel deck Aluminium deck
Total LCC 7 283 286 6 301 168 5 917 030
Agency 3 664 501 3 672 168 3 948 490
Level 1 (by entity that
User 3 616 260 2 626 887 1 967 129
incurs costs)
Third Part 2 526 2 113 1 411
Construction 4 785 434 3 799 900 4 468 107
Level 2 Operation, Maintenance &
(by life cycle period) Repair 2 486 906 2 497 838 1 458 130
Disposal 10 946 3 430 -9 207
Elemental 7 238 774 6 256 655 5 760 017
Level 3
Non-elemental 44 513 44 513 44 513
(by elemental break-
New technology introduc-
down of project)
tion 0 0 112 500

The economic data includes the base year and the Table 6. Unit costs of 1 m2 of deck and total cost savings (€)
length of study period, the currency to be used, and Deck replacement alternative
Parameter Aluminium
the inflation and real discount rates. The base year is RC deck Steel deck
deck
the first year of the study period (typically the first Unit costs of
year of construction/rehabilitation). It also serves as 1 m2 of deck area 2 269 1 963 1 843
the year on which all life-cycle cost (present value) Total net
calculations are based. The 2005 year was assumed cost saving 0 982 119 1 366 257
Cost saving on
in the analysis. The length of the study period is the
1 m2 of deck area 0 306 426
duration over which all costs are analyzed. As stated
above 60 years study period (which means the whole
The comparison of direct agency costs seems to
service life in this case) was assumed. The analysis
be the most interesting from public procurement
was prepared in Polish currency (PLN) and then
point of view, because only the cheapest alternative
transformed into Euro (€) with the conversion rate
wins the tender in Poland. In Figure 3 the LCC
1€=4PLN. The current inflation and real discount
breakdown by cost bearer due to initial construction
rates were assumed at 2% and 6% respectively, ac-
works is shown. As could be expected the alumin-
cording to national instructions used in feasibility
ium alternative is the most expensive one, i.e. 10%
studies for road sector. The same economic data
higher than RC and 18% than steel one. Relatively
were used for all project alternatives.
small differences are due to limited scope of
Each alternative deck’s LCC is the sum of all costs
strengthening works generated by aluminium deck
that are incurred over the life of the bridge, i.e. over
replacement option. However when only initial con-
60 years. Table 5 shows the computed total LCC for
struction costs are typically used to compare and ul-
each alternative, with cost breakdowns by level
timately decide on the design strategy, this alterna-
categories, while table 6 shows the unit costs on 1
tive would never win the public tender.
m2 of deck area and total cost savings in comparison
Figure 4 illustrates the total LCC breakdown by
to base case (RC deck alternative). The aluminium
cost bearer. The aluminium deck is the most expen-
deck has the lowest LCC (€ 5,917,030), making it
sive alternative for agency but the cheapest one for
the cost-effective bridge deck. Looking at its Level 1
users and third party. The agency bears the addi-
breakdown of costs, the total agency cost is more
tional costs due to high initial price of aluminium
than the RC deck (€ 3,948,490 versus € 3,664,501)
products and the new technology introduction. How-
but it has much lower total user costs to drivers
ever compared to the cheapest alternative the differ-
(€1,967,129 versus € 3,616,260). However the steel
ence is quite small – only 7,7%, which seems to be
orthotropic deck has a similar qualitative relation-
reasonable to pay for minimizing the user and third
ship to the concrete deck and its total LCC is only
party costs. The aluminium alternative considerably
6,5% higher than aluminium deck (€6,301,168 ver-
decreases the user costs in comparison with the RC
sus €5,917,030). Comparing the Level 2 costs for
and steel alternatives – 84% and 33% respectively.
aluminium and concrete decks, the first deck has
These differences are due to less maintenance works
lower initial construction costs (€4,468,107 versus
in OM&R period and short time of traffic limitations
€4,785,434), lower OM&R costs (€1,458,130 versus
for deck replacement with aluminium alternative.
€2,486,906), and much lower disposal costs (€-9,207
The third party costs are quite small and similar for
versus €10,946).
each alternative because of the same manner of work
zone traffic organization during rehabilitation works.

3839
They are mainly due to combustion emission caused
by traffic speed decrease and time of traffic limita-
tions.
Figure 3. Direct agency costs due to initial construction works
Figure 4. Total LCC breakdown by cost bearer
Figure 5. The total LCC breakdown by life cycle period
Figure 5 shows the total LCC breakdown by life
cycle period. When considering the user and third
party costs in initial construction period, the alumin-
ium alternative is not the most expensive one. The
higher (more than 7%) cost generates the RC deck,
which is the cheapest one when only agency cost is
taken into account. Whereas the lowest cost is in-
curred by the aluminium alternative in OM&R pe-
3840
riod. In this 60-years long period the cost of alumin-
ium deck is over 70% lower than OM&R costs of
RC and steel alternatives. However the high sensi-
tivity of these LCC on assumed maintenance strat-
egy should be remembered. The total disposal cost
are relatively low for each alternative, but only the
aluminium alternative can generate profit in this life
cycle period.
The very important result of each LCC analysis is
a cash flow in time. It helps the agency to predict the
budget needed for bridge maintenance. The cash
flow of annual and cumulative costs discounted in
year T (constant €, present value) is shown in Figure
6. The upper graph illustrates the cost breakdown in
particular years, whereas the lower graph shows the
cumulative costs year by year. The cash flow for
aluminium alternative is the most uniform and quasi-
monotonic, without high and sudden increases dur-
ing life cycle period.
Figure 6. The cash flow of annual (upper) and cumulative
(lower) costs discounted in year T (present value)
In Figure 7 so called break-even point is deter-
mined, in which the aluminium alternative is getting
to be the cheapest in present value terms. It is the
year T=31 when the replacing of RC deck and the
major repairs of metal decks were assumed. It
should be emphasized that for the case of the bridge
under consideration the RC deck is always the most
expansive alternative during the considered life cy-
cle period. It is due to high initial user costs in con-
struction period and the necessity of deck replacing
after a half of life cycle period. The need for replac-
ing is caused by the lowest durability of RC deck as-
sumed according to Polish standards. Figure 7 illus-
trates clearly the influence of life cycle period length
on LCC results. In case of 30-years life cycle period
economically the most effective alternative is the
steel deck, though the aluminium deck is only a few
percent more expensive.
Figure 7. The cash flow of cumulative costs – breakeven point
The cash flow of annual and cumulative costs not
discounted in year T, but incurred in particular years
(current-year €) is shown in Figure 8. It helps the
agency to predict the budget needed for bridge main-
tenance in future years, assuming the inflation rate.
Only for aluminium alternative the annual current-
year cost never exceeds the initial construction cost.
For RC and steel decks the current-year cost in years
T=31 and T=48 will be much higher than the initial
construction cost for these alternatives.
Figure 8. The cash flow of annual (upper) and cumulative
(lower) costs incurred in particular years (current-year €)
3841
The results of LCC analysis for three deck re-
placement alternatives have deterministic character,
because they are based on individually estimated
values, unit costs, timing and economic rates. How-
ever most of these values, times and costs are not
known with great precision. Some tools are available
to deal with this uncertainty, for example breakeven
analysis and sensitivity analysis. Breakeven analysis
indicates the maximum or minimum values of key
parameters necessary for an alternative to be cost ef-
fective. Sensitivity analysis measures the effect of
key parameters changes on total LCC. The results of
both analyses are not reported in the paper.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The goal of the whole life costing assessment was to
evaluate the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of three
bridge deck replacement options. The conclusions
reached in this study are based on the relative per-
formance of the three systems. Some key assump-
tions that affect the results include a 60-year bridge
life for all systems at the beginning, as well as regu-
lar and periodic maintenance works (inspection, re-
pairs, replacement) at different intervals for all alter-
natives. Results from these economic LCCA suggest
that the aluminium deck system is, in general, supe-
rior to the conventional decks from whole life cost-
ing standpoint. The whole life assessment seems to
be the best method to compare aluminium as a con-
struction material with its more conventional “com-
petitors” (Radlbeck et al. 2006). Despite of the sim-
plifications used in analysis, the presented LCCA
model could serve as a tool for evaluating a bridge
deck material from a holistic sustainability perspec-
tive – integrating environmental, social and eco-
nomic indicators. Such a material selection proce-
dure could enhance robust investment decisions and
infrastructure sustainability.
REFERENCES
ASTM Standard E 917-2. 2002. Standard practice for measur-
ing life cycle cost of buildings and building system. West
Conshohocken (USA): American Society of Testing and
Materials.
Bettigole N. & Robison R. 1997. Bridge decks. Design, con-
struction, rehabilitation, replacement. New York: ASCE
Press;.
Das S.K. & Kaufman J.G. 2007. Aluminium alloys for bridges
and bridge decks. In: Das S.K. & Yin W. (ed.), Aluminium
alloys for transport, packing, aerospace and other applica-
tions. Warrendale (USA): The Minerals, Metals & Materi-
als Society.
Ehlen M.A. 1997. Life-cycle costs of new construction materi-
als. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 3(4):129-133.
Ehlen M.A. 2003. BridgeLCC 2.0 user’s manual. Life-cycle
costing software for preliminary design of bridges.
Gaithersburg (USA): National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Höglund T. & Nilsson L. 2006. Aluminium in bridge decks and
in a new military bridge in Sweden. Structural Engineering
International 16(4):348-351.
Maljaars J., Soetens F. & van Straalen I.J. 2006. Fatigue of
aluminium bridge decks. Structural Engineering Interna-
tional 16(4):305-311.
Matteo A.D., Massarelli P.J., Gomez J.P. & Cooper J. 1997.
Preliminary evaluation of an aluminium bridge deck design
for highway bridges. In: Forde M.C. (ed.), Structural Faults
and Repair’97, Proc. Intern. Conf., Edinburgh, July, 1997.
Edinburgh: Engineering Technics Press.
Mazzolani F.M. 2004. Competing issues for aluminium alloys
in structural engineering. Progress in Structural Engineer-
ing and Materials 6(4):185-196.
Okura I., Osawa S., Takeno M., Hagisawa N. & Ishikawa T.
2006. Development of aluminium decks for highway
bridges. In: Report of IABSE Symposium on Responding to
Tomorrow’s Challenges in Structural Engineering; Budap-
est, Hungary, September 13-15. Zurich: IABSE.
Radlbeck C. Dienes E. & Kosteas D. 2009. Aluminium struc-
tures – a sustainable future? Structural Engineering
International 16(4):339-344.
Siwowski T. 2008. Aluminium bridge decks. Rzeszow:
Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej (in
Polish).
Siwowski T. 2009. Structural behaviour of aluminium bridge
deck panels. Engineering Structures 31(7):1349-1353.
Svensson L. & Peterson L. 1990. Aluminium extrusion bridge
rehabilitation system. In: Harding J.E., Parke G.A.R. & Ry-
all M. (ed.), Bridge management. Inspection, maintenance,
assessment and repair. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group
Ltd.

3842

View publication stats