Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–16
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Value-Engineering Methodology for the Transportation Research Board 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Selection of an Optimal Bridge System sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03611981211062154
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Ahmad A. Mousa1 , Mohab Hussein2 , and Ahmed Farouk Kineber3

Abstract
Maintaining and enhancing the functionality of the infrastructure at an affordable cost are major challenges for decision mak-
ers, particularly given the need to cope with growing societal and transportation demands. This study introduces a systematic
multi-criteria value engineering (VE) approach for the selection of a sustainable bridge system. A thorough VE analysis for a
proposed long-span bridge in New Jersey, USA was carried out as a pilot study. The function analysis system technique was
used to develop logical relationships between the project’s functions. A detailed 100-year life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was
conducted. The study developed and evaluated eight alternative designs for deck and superstructure systems against set VE
criteria comprising constructability, maintenance strategies, and environmental impact. A relative value index was used as an
unbiased measure for the selection of the optimal structural system. With total savings of approximately 21% of the original
design ($132.5 million), steel plate girders with a high-performance lightweight steel grid deck system have proven to ‘‘outva-
lue’’ the other alternatives, including the preferred preliminary alternative (PPA). Design engineers and decision makers can
use this methodology as a systematic and convenient guide for the selection of economical and sustainable bridge systems.
As such, it is necessary to re-evaluate the current practices and policies used for this purpose.

Keywords
cost–benefit analysis, bridge and structures management, economic impacts, infrastructure, infrastructure management and
system preservation, life-cycle cost analysis, sustainability and resilience, transportation and economic development, transpor-
tation and sustainability

Maintaining the functionality of bridges is vital for an approximately 10% ($3.1 billion) of the $32 billion total
efficient transportation system and for public safety. In worth of the studied projects (5). However, bridge proj-
2019, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ects are lagging behind buildings and infrastructure in
reported that 46,163 bridges, with a total built area using VE as a rigorous decision-making tool. Federal
exceeding 231 million ft2, were structurally deficient. The regulations require VE studies to be performed for proj-
condition of most of them is very poor to the point that ects under the national highway system (NHS) with an
they require replacement (1). The American Society of estimated cost of $50 million and bridge projects exceed-
Civil Engineers (ASCE) suggests that nearly $4.6 trillion ing $40 million (5). This mandate is created to motivate
is needed by 2025 for this purpose (2). state departments of transportation (DOT) to apply VE
In the past three decades, substantial implementation practices to their projects and, thus, achieve the best
of value engineering (VE) has been embraced in con-
struction and engineering applications to promote value
(3, 4). VE is a systematic planning process that has been 1
School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
proven to enhance the quality of projects and optimize 2
Division of Bridge Engineering and Infrastructure Management, New
their full value for societal growth through developing Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton, NJ
3
informed decision making. In 2019, approximately 800 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
Technology Petronas, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
approved VE transportation-related recommendations
for federal infrastructure projects were reported. These Corresponding Author:
recommendations collectively resulted in cost savings of Ahmad A Mousa, ahmad.mousa@monash.edu
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

value and minimize the life-cycle cost (LCC). However, dictated by the set marine navigation clearance and the
the application of VE processes is fairly limited, at less touchdown elevations at the abutments. Combinations
than 7% of the total highway construction spending of superstructure and deck alternatives were investigated
($4.6 trillion) estimated by ASCE (2, 6). Additionally, to determine the most economical span configuration.
there is only limited dissemination and implementation The pertinent performance and sustainable criteria in the
of the techniques and results of VE studies which hinders VE analysis were set to avoid or minimize the potential
knowledge transfer in transportation projects (7, 8). environmental damage associated with building the pro-
Fully embracing VE analysis in bridge design could posed bridge. This includes a selection of more sustain-
enhance decision making and ensure high-quality con- able construction materials, reducing the footprint of the
struction. VE involves function analyses to determine the structure, the number of piers, shortening the construc-
cost effectiveness of the proposed alternatives and subse- tion schedule, reducing the risk of marine vessel collision,
quently their feasibility. This is attempted by meeting or improving aesthetics, optimizing the durability of the
exceeding the required functions of a project at a mini- structure, and reducing the frequency of maintenance.
mum cost (9). In this context, value improvement is
achieved by promoting the function (performance) or
reducing the cost, or both (10–12). The process can effec- Project Description
tively integrate the sustainability attributes into the A long bridge is proposed to provide a direct link
design phase and construction activities. Sustainability between the cities of Carteret Boro, Middlesex County,
aspects related to bridge projects include emissions, and Linden, Union County, as well as the New Jersey
energy efficiency, waste minimization, air and water Turnpike (NJTP) (Figure 1). The bridge connects to the
quality, recyclable and renewable materials, durability, entire eastern seaboard via the interstate network. This is
disposal aspects, low LCC, and user comfort. expected to enhance the current and future traffic condi-
It is the authors’ experience that the current VE appli- tions in the metropolitan region and ultimately improve
cation to bridge design selections is generally ad hoc with regional economic development in northern New Jersey.
a salient subjectivity or preset strong preference. It is also The proposed Tremley Point Connector Bridge in New
the authors’ observation that the common VE practice Jersey consists of a 1.1-mi-long roadway crossing the
lacks the integration of societal benefits, sustainability, Rahway River. The Rahway River is a navigable river
and economic aspects into a systematic decision-making used for commerce regulated by the United States Coast
tool for selecting the most viable bridge design. This Guard (USCG). The marine traffic in the area consists
study attempts to fill the knowledge gap in using VE for of seasonal use leisure vessels such as cabin cruisers,
bridge design to support optimal decision making. A small motorboats, canoes, paddleboats, and sailboats
robust multi-criteria VE methodology involving LCC (13). The intended bridge is located approximately
analysis was carried out for an intended major bridge 2,500 ft east of the NJTP which is a 122-mi-long express-
project in New Jersey, USA. Key technical and sustain- way with a traffic count of 261 million vehicles, including
ability performance aspects of bridge design alternatives 35 million commercial vehicles in 2019 (14).
were considered in the VE analysis. A full preliminary The bridge cuts through a heavily industrial area
design of the superstructure was performed for all gener- adjoining the ports of New York and New Jersey with
ated bridge alternatives, which included a variety of steel large container terminals, Newark Liberty International
and concrete bridge systems. The design and analysis asso- Airport, and warehousing along the New Jersey coast.
ciated with each alternative in this study exceed the typical With more than $17.8 billion annual revenue (13), the
level of detail required for VE purposes. The proposed ports of New York and New Jersey are the largest ports
methodology used in this study is rigorous yet simple and on the east and gulf coasts and the third largest nation-
is a convenient way to support unbiased design decisions. wide. Approximately 400 acres of wetland and undeve-
As such, it is usable by engineers, researchers, and equally loped brownfield areas on Tremley Point were identified
by governmental and private top management. as suitable locations to expand the existing distribution
network within the vicinity of the port. The project will
eliminate current and future heavy truck traffic from
Scope and Criteria
South Wood Avenue, away from the nearby commer-
The scope of VE analysis in this study is limited to the cial and residential communities. Moreover, the bridge
deck, superstructure, bearings, parapets, and wearing provides a primary means of ingress to and egress
surface. The alignment and bridge geometry were main- from the northern region of the project. This includes
tained in all alternatives to the extent practicable. tanker trucks from the refined petroleum facilities to
However, the profile and grades of the bridge were enhance safety and allow secondary access during
adjusted as needed to meet the vertical clearances emergencies.
Mousa et al 3

Figure 1. Project location and the proposed Tremley Point bridge alignment connecting the cities of Carteret and Linden after (13).

Methodology vary from a minimum of 0.5% to a maximum of 3%,

while cross slope for the roadway varies between 1.5%
The application of VE concepts involves sequential stages
and 4%. Figure 3 shows a typical (steel) bridge cross-
to reach the best use of the available resources. Figure 2
section.
depicts the activities associated with the six VE phases:
information; function analysis; creativity; evaluation;
development; and presentation. A series of unstructured Traffic. The roadway has a design speed of 50 mph
workshops were conducted by the VE team members, (posted speed limit of 45 mph). The total bridge length is
who discussed their experience in bridge design and com- approximately 3,340 ft; it is at least 57.5-ft wide. The
municated their input to generate new alternatives and bridge carries a total of four 12-ft lanes of traffic, sepa-
assess them. The team consisted of bridge specialists, rated by a concrete barrier in addition to 3-ft outside
engineering consultants, and civil engineering professors. shoulders with no sidewalks proposed on either the north
This ultimately ensures unbiased input and balanced or south bounds. The majority of the proposed work will
interests in the selection of the optimal alternative (bridge be performed offline and will have minimal impact on
design). The necessary information is collected from the vehicular and marine traffic. All bridge elements in this
project’s reports, design requirements, and environmental study are designed in accordance with the latest editions
studies to identify the key project configurations and the of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
critical components. and the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(DOT) Bridge Design Manual. The live load HL-93 con-
Collected Information sists of design vehicle load and lane load.

Alignment and Geometry. The selected alignment is approx-

imately 5,700-ft long, crossing the Rahway River on a Ecosystem. This project presents inevitable environmental
skewed alignment to the northeast and intersecting with impacts and societal challenges. The concerns include tid-
Tremley Point Road as shown in Figure 1. The align- ally influenced and freshwater wetlands, saline marshes,
ment affects 4.3 acres of tidally influenced wetland along contaminated brownfield sites, industrial facilities, navi-
the river (13). It was, therefore, selected to minimize the gation channels, aquatic environment, chemical and
roadway length, reduce the impact on wetlands and con- petroleum facilities, wildlife habitats, and threatened or
taminated sites, satisfy the required curve radii for the endangered species (13). To this end, environmental
specified design speed, and align with northern and assessments, environmental impact statements, noise
southern intersection locations. USCG requires a navig- impact assessments, the finding of no significant impact
able channel in the river with a minimum vertical clear- (FONSI), and navigation studies were prepared for this
ance of 37 ft and which is 100-ft wide. The vertical grades project in concurrence with various state and federal
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

regulatory agencies. It is also intended to minimize the

bifurcation of wetland systems, use available upland
areas, and avoid known contaminated sites.

Original Design. The original bridge design, typically

referred to as the preferred preliminary alternative
(PPA), will be supported by 17 piers between the north
and south abutments. The proposed superstructure is
made of homogenous ASTM A709.50 W steel plate gir-
ders with a pier cap and four concrete columns for the
substructure. The bridge is made of six, three-span con-
tinuous units with span lengths ranging between 210 and
226 ft for center span and between 167 and 176 ft for end
spans. The preliminary design consists of eight steel plate
girders with an overall beam depth of 78 in. and an 8-in.
thick reinforced high-performance concrete (HPC) deck
slab with epoxy coated rebar. The proposed girder spac-
ing for the bridge is optimized to 7.5-ft uniform spacing
with an overhang of 2.5 ft. Based on the low strength
and compressible soils along the bridge alignment, deep
foundations are required. Drilled shafts 6 ft in diameter,
socketed 15 ft into the rock are required to obtain the
required fixity of the pier. The drilled shafts will extend
to the pier cap as columns. The average length of the
drilled shafts was estimated at 50 ft, with a slight varia-
tion based on soil profile. The structural capacity gov-
erned the design of the drilled shafts since the shafts are
socketed into rock. A high load multi-rotational bearing
(HLMR) is used to support the bridge superstructure.
High heavy truck normal weight concrete (NWC) para-
pets of 50 in. were used.

Figure 2. Value engineering (VE) process with key activities for Estimated Cost and Budgeting. The estimated total cost of
this study. the structural construction of the PPA is $132.5 million,
Note: LCC = life-cycle cost. which includes the superstructure, substructure, and

Figure 3. Typical bridge cross-section (steel alternative shown).

Mousa et al 5

environment. The low-order function or the input in this

project (i.e., bridge design) must be developed to furnish
the high-order functions. In doing so, two objective
design functions are targeted: complying with the stan-
dards, while meeting the project demands. The high-
order function denotes the main technical functions of
the bridge, whereas low-order functions denote technical
solutions needed to achieve all higher-order functions.
The path between high and low-order functions in the
FAST diagram is driven by two main questions: why and
how. The why direction provides the reason for selecting
those functions; while the how direction describes the
Figure 4. Capital cost breakdown (percent) for the Tremley
fashion in which the high-order functions are met. All-
Point bridge preferred preliminary alternative (PPA)
($132.5 million total cost). time functions are those functions that happen all the
Note: MPT = maintenance and protection of traffic; inflation not time to ensure delivering reliability and quality while the
considered during construction (5 years). user’s satisfaction is enhanced. It is assumed that public
safety and protection of property are all-time functions
of the project. Complying with building regulations and
foundations for all the piers. The cost of right-of-way, codes as well as meeting the project demands are basic
ground improvements, retaining walls, the intelligent functions for any bridge design.
transportation systems (ITS) were not included. Under
Section 16:25 of the New Jersey Administrative Code
(N.J.A.C.) and provisions of 23 CFR 645 for federally Proposed Systems: Initial Evaluation
funded projects, state agencies are required to effectively A preliminary screening was performed for the bridge
and safely accommodate the crossing of utility facilities. components presented in Figure 6 to determine their util-
The cost and weight of the 36-in. water pipe were, there- ity. The ideas generated from the creativity phase are sys-
fore, included in the analysis. The general items are often tematically evaluated, screened, prioritized, and
a percentage of the subtotal budget of the work. It shortlisted for their potential to save cost and add value.
includes mobilization, site clearing, construction layout, The structural design parameters, such as continuous live
final clean-up, bond, insurance, contingencies, and esca- load, economics, site limitations, construction equipment
lation (during construction). Figure 4 depicts the price capacities, and other constructability factors were also
breakdown for the project items as per the PPA at the discussed with the fabricator, with an emphasis on sys-
construction completion date. Subsequently, the VE tem selection and constructability.
team managed to identify high-cost areas of the project.
System Selection. Prefabricated bridge units, box beams,
AASHTO voided slab, AASHTO box beam northeast
FAST for Setting Project Functions
extreme tee (NEXT) are structurally inadequate for
The function phase of VE enables a clear, unbiased spanning more than 126 ft. Steel wide flange shapes are
understanding of the project needs. This is a logical limited to 90 ft (16). Prestressed members can tolerate
phase that defines and fulfills the criteria and goals of the greater loads as a result of increased internal compres-
project. Function analysis allows the VE team to com- sion and provide reduced deflection (17). However, the
municate the project functions of a multi-disciplinary concrete tends to have a higher self-weight compared
nature. Team members identify and express the functions with steel beams. A fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) deck
in a two-word description comprised of an ‘‘active’’ verb was considered in the analysis. FRP decks can be a rela-
and a ‘‘measurable’’ noun, which ensures emphasis on tively effective alternative thanks to their lightweight and
the objectives (15). The function analysis system tech- non-corrosivity. However, they were excluded because
nique (FAST) was used to connect and organize the spe- the technology has a limited implementation history and
cific functions of the project, which better captures the high cost (18). The proposed alternatives in this study
significance and role of those functions (11). Figure 5 enable the use of accelerated bridge construction (ABC)
depicts the FAST diagram that the team developed for by using precast elements, which allows significant time
this project. savings with a negligible cost impact. Moreover, New
As shown in Figure 5, there three high-order functions Jersey DOT requires at least four girder lines for pre-
targeted in this project are: boosting economy, enhancing stressed beams to provide structural redundancy and
community, and quality of life while sustaining the allow for future rehabilitation (19). Following the
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

completion of the superstructure evaluation, an investi-

gation was performed to determine the anticipated load-
ing and capacity of the substructures and foundations.

Constructability and Accessibility. The transportation of

structural bridge elements is typically a challenging task
for long-span bridges. Field splices in steel girders are
permitted to ease the shipping and erection. However,
the cost and effort required to construct temporary gir-
der supports and attach field splicing might offset the
benefits. Although field splices have been performed for
various types of precast concrete members, it is prefer-
able to fabricate, transport, and erect the members as
one continuous unit without field splices. New Jersey
DOT requires that the consideration of the shipping and
handling stresses be considered during design (19). Pre-
tensioning of precast concrete girders can be provided to
account for shipping and handling (20). The weight and
size of the structural elements as well as the proximity of
Figure 5. Function analysis system technique (FAST) diagram for the fabricator plant to the job site are governed by the
a bridge system. practical shipping limits. For example, land shipping by
Note: VE = value engineering. trucks is regulated by 23 CFR Part 658.17 for the

Figure 6. Creativity matrix for bridge alternative systems.

Mousa et al 7

National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (5). reinforced deck. Alternative V2 consists of precast pre-
The federal limit is 80, 20, and 34 kips for gross vehicle stressed HPLWC Deck Bulb-Tees (DBT) with an 8-in.-
weight (GVW), single axle weight, and tandem axle thick deck with 0.5 in. deducted for long-term wear.
weight, respectively. Permits are usually required for Alternative V3 consists of six prestressed HPLWC
vehicles exceeding the required GVW limits of 80 kips Florida-I Beams (FIB) and decks with span lengths rang-
for non-divisible loads in New Jersey (21). Moreover, ing between 164 and 218 ft. The AASHTO-PCI Bulb-
permits and escort vehicles are usually required for vehi- Tees for Alternative V4 allows for a maximum span
cles exceeding 120, 16, and 16 ft in length, width, and length of 198 and 163 ft for end and center spans, respec-
height, respectively (21). The project site is located adja- tively. The girder spacing, web depths, and span length
cent to NJTP/I-95, which provides connectivity to most configurations were optimized to provide the best
NJ highways and interstates roads. The Rahway River weight-to-span ratio for Alternative V5. Type V and
flows toward the Raritan Basin along the Atlantic Type VI were found to be the most practical beams for
Ocean. As such, barge transportation is considered a this alternative. Type VI was selected to reduce the num-
viable alternative during construction given that specific ber of spans and consequently provide savings in the
navigation permits are not required for oversize or over- substructure. The bridge has a maximum span length of
weight transportation (22). Additionally, shipping the 168 ft. Alternative V6 uses Nebraska University 79-in.
girders by rail was found to be a feasible option because deep (NU2000), which provides a longer span while
of the proximity of the Conrail tracks to the project loca- maintaining the same depth compared with other types
tion. The overweight and oversize impacts have been of I beams.
accounted for in the cost analysis.

Life-Cycle Cost
Design Alternatives
To set a basis for comparison between design alterna-
Shortlisting viable bridge system alternatives can further tives, the LCCA was conducted to convert the future
enrich decision making. In light of the aforementioned expenses throughout the life of the bridge for each alterna-
considerations and requirements, the team proposed and tive into 2020 dollars as net present value (NPV). LCCA
prescreened eight alternatives in this phase (Table 1). in this study includes the initial construction and opera-
Similar design ideas were combined to eliminate redun- tional (inspection, preservation) costs over 100 years (19).
dancy. The structural configurations of the generated Figure 7 depicts the breakdown of the total operational
alternatives for evaluation and development are summar- cost including the cost of preservation and inspection. The
ized in Table 2. The cost breakdown for the initial miscellaneous items include cleaning scuppers and pipes,
construction of the proposed alternatives is shown in lane closures, cleaning drainage structure, parapet, and
Table 3. Further details about the proposed alternatives
balustrade crack sealing concrete parapet repair.
are available in the supplemental material. Routine inspections of a bridge are typically per-
formed at intervals not exceeding 24 months; an average
Preferred Preliminary Alternative (PPA). Using PPA as a base of 20 months was assumed for the purpose of this study
for comparison, the process involves eliminating low- (23). Underwater inspections in NJ are typically per-
potential, unrealistic and impractical solutions. The formed on a 48-month (no more than 60-month) cycle.
design of the drilled shafts is governed by the structural The inspection cost factored in the number of substruc-
capacity and lateral deflection. The changes in axial load ture elements, bearings, girders, and the overall deck
associated with the alternatives will, therefore, have very area. Extended periods between maintenance cycles usu-
little impact on the pile design and cost. The increase in ally yield an uneconomical and accelerated level dete-
the axial loads on the abutments and piers for the alter- rioration in the long term.
nate designs were limited to 10% and 15%, respectively, A full deck sweeping is assumed to be implemented
to provide a comparable design for the substructure and once a year throughout the life of the bridge. This rela-
foundation (drilled shaft). The alternatives are developed tively high frequency is anticipated given the high traffic
further and presented in the next phase. volumes in NJ. Deck power washing along with deck
Alternative V1a offers a 20% reduction in dead load joints will commence at year 7 and will be regularly per-
using high-performance lightweight concrete (HPLWC) formed at two-year intervals thereafter. Seasonal activi-
deck and parapets. Steel grid deck system decks for ties, such as deck sweeping, debris (trash, litter, and dead
Alternative V1b and Alternative V1c provide a superior animal) removal, snow removal, and deicing chemicals,
strength-to-weight ratio, while HPC and HPLWC steel are also included in the cost.
grid deck system decks reduced the weight by 37% and PPA and all proposed V1 alternatives are made from
45%, respectively compared with the conventional HPC uncoated weathering steel (UWS) superstructures.
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 1. Proposed Bridge System Alternatives in This Study

Alternative Description Typical superstructure section

PPA Steel plate girder with HPC deck

V1a Steel plate girder with HPLWC deck
V1b Steel plate girder with HPC steel grid deck system
V1c Steel plate girder with HPLWC steel grid deck system

V2 HPSLWC deck bulb-tees (DBT)

V3 HPLWC Florida-I beams (FIB) with HPLWC deck

V4 HPLWC AASHTO-PCI bulb-tees with HPLWC deck

V5 HPLWC AASHTO prestressed precast girders

V6 Nebraska NU2000 pre-tensioned prestressed concrete beam (PPCB)

with HPLWC deck

Note: HPC = high-performance concrete; HPLWC = high-performance lightweight concrete; PCI = Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
 Table 2. Structural and Geometrical Configurations of the Eight Alternatives as Compared with Preferred Preliminary Alternative (PPA)

Aspects PPA V1a V1b V1c V2 V3 V4 V5 V6

Wearing surface (PSF) 38 PSF 2## overfill included 25 PSF

Deck type HPC HPLWC HPC steel HPLWC steel na HPLWC
grid deck grid deck
system system
Deck thickness (in.) 8 8 7.07 8.06 na 8 8 8 8
Parapet NWC HPLWC NWC HPLWC HPLWC
Bridge width (ft) 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.5 58 60 60 57.5 57.5
Girder type Steel Plate Girder HPLWC HPLWC HPLWC HPLWC Nebraska
deck Florida-I AASHTO-PCI AASHTO NU2000 beam
bulb-tees beams bulb type VI
(DBT) (FIB)
Girder spacing (ft) 7.5 7.5 7.5 10.5 6 12 12 8 9
Number of girders 8 8 8 6 10 6 6 8 7
Overhang (ft) 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 0 0 0 0.75 1.75
Overall depth (in.) 78 78 80 84 65 96 72 72 79
Spans 18 15 12 10 17 18 19 20 18
Max. girder load (kips) 64 76 98 110 200 223 127 152 180
Max. increase in pier load (%) na 3% –13% –15% –2% 13% –12% 1% 6%
Max. increase in abutment load (%) na 11% –6% –7% 5% 15% –3% 16% 15%

Note: HPC = high-performance concrete; HPLWC = high-performance lightweight concrete; Max. = maximum; PCI = Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; PSF = Pound Per Square foot; NWC =
normal weight concrete; na = not applicable.
9
10 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 3. Cost Breakdown (by Category) for the Project in USD (in Thousands) for all eight Alternatives versus Preferred Preliminary
Alternative (PPA)

Category PPA V1a V1b V1c V2 V3 V4 V5 V6

Bearings 2,020 1,680 1,340 880 2,420 1,540 1,610 2,650 1,760
Construction engineering 10,080 9,430 9,500 8,790 8,440 8,640 8,320 9,360 8,140
Deck 10,620 9,840 16,540 22,110 800 10,240 10,240 9,940 9,840
Drainage 630 530 460 420 580 640 640 680 660
Foundation 24,980 21,940 18,580 16,330 24,190 24,980 26,090 27,190 25,250
General 14,160 13,330 13,320 12,420 12,090 12,420 11,980 13,340 11,830
Joints 520 440 360 300 500 550 580 570 500
Parapet 2,280 2,400 2,280 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,280 2,280 2,280
Substructure 19,300 16,790 13,950 12,160 15,390 19,460 20,670 21,140 19,600
Superstructure 31,170 31,070 32,080 23,450 28,060 1,658 10,250 19,250 11,200
Utility 12,250 11,700 11,770 11,160 10,870 11,040 10,720 11,850 10,620
MPT 1,480 1,380 1,390 1,280 1,220 1,260 1,200 1,370 1,180
Othersy 2,970 2,760 2,780 2,560 2,450 2,510 2.390 2.740 2.350
Total# 132,500 123,290 124,360 114,260 109,410 112,260 106,970 122,340 105,210

Note: MPT = maintenance and protection of traffic.

#Inflation not considered during construction (5 years).
y
Lighting, traffic stripes, signs, and delineators.

Although UWS can have up to 120 years of service life

with an annual corrosion rate of less than 0.3 mils (one
thousandth of an inch), it has been found that extreme
marine conditions and deicing salt can result in inade-
quate performance (24). This bridge is located in a
‘‘severe coastal salt intrusion zone’’ (New Jersey DOT
Zone 3B), which is extremely detrimental to the steel ele-
ments of the bridge (19). It is, therefore, assumed that
steel superstructure elements will be cleaned, washed,
and repaired during the cyclical activities and painted
with a three-coat system at year 65. The applied corro-
sion inhibitor will be performed at 15-year intervals for
all deck types. Concrete surface painting of the substruc-
ture will be performed every 20 years, while concrete
repairs and the installation of FRP carbon wrap will be
performed at year 60. More frequent preservation is pro-
posed for the deck for a combined deck-beam alternative
(i.e., alternative V2) to reduce the risk of superstructure
replacement. HLMR bearings are considered the pre-
ferred bearing type by many DOTs because of their
long-term maintenance needs. Exposed steel components
in HLMR bearings are typically painted or metalized to
reduce the risk of corrosion (25). However, to maintain
the bearing’s service life, the bearings are expected to be
cleaned and debris accumulation removed every 20 years.
Scuppers and drainage pipes will be cleaned out at three-
year intervals. The joints are assumed to be retrofitted
every 25 years.
Condition-based maintenance is focused on the
response to known defects, which are typically noticed
Figure 7. Operational cost breakdown (percentage) for the during routine inspection observations. Those mainte-
considered alternatives over 100 years. nance activities tend to improve the condition rating of
Note: PPA = preferred preliminary alternative. the bridge. At years 40 and 72, the installation of a
Mousa et al 11

Figure 8. 100-year LCCA for the considered alternatives.

Note: LCC = life-cycle cost; PPA = preferred preliminary alternative; LCCA = life-cycle cost analysis.

shallow concrete overlay and diamond grinding of HPC included. As shown in Figure 8, the LCCA presents the
and HPLWC deck would provide the most economical relative total cost of the investigated alternatives in com-
solution. At year 72, New Jersey DOT Type B and C parison to the PPA using NPV. The total LCC (based
deck repairs to 25% of deck area are assumed, excluding on 100 years) for the PPA design is $136.5 million at
deck bulb-tee girder alternative. On the other hand, deck NPV. The estimated LCC values for some alternatives
replacement for steel grid deck system alternatives (V1b, (e.g., V2) have shown a measurable increase at years 45
V1c) is not anticipated. This deck type was found to be in and 65 at which major maintenance takes place for the
extraordinary condition after more than 88 years of ser- substructure and superstructure, respectively. It is impor-
vice (26, 27). However, it conservatively assumed that tant to note that despite this, all proposed alternatives
this deck will require hydro removal of the concrete and have consistently shown lower LCC estimates than those
a 1–1.5-in.-thick concrete overlay placement at year 60. of PPA over the 100-year period, though this does not
For concrete superstructures, it is anticipated that automatically warrant a higher value. This requires eva-
restoration, patching, repairing, and sealing will be luation of the performance as will be discussed next.
required at year 65. Prestressed girder bridges typically
have a lower life-cycle cost and require minor mainte-
Value for Decision Making
nance throughout their life (28). The restoration of scour-
ing countermeasures is assumed at 20-year increments. The best alternative(s) that can achieve the project func-
The frequency of rehabilitation is typically controlled by tions is identified as the one that can minimize cost (e.g.,
increased user cost, project duration, complexity, and resources, energy, and material) and maximize perfor-
cost. mance (e.g., environmental impact). This can be mathe-
The LCCA extends to 100 years, including five years matically captured using the value index (VI), defined as
of construction. The discount (interest) rate has a great the ratio between quality (performance) and cost (29):
impact on the economic efficiency of the analysis.
Despite that, the analysis is based on a 95-year service Performance
VI = 3 100 ð1Þ
and includes the five years of construction, the service Cost
life is expected to be 120 to 150 years with the suggested The procedure is conducted systematically using the
routine and periodical maintenance. Therefore, demoli- analysis matrix shown in Figure 9. It is important to note
tion, replacement, disposal, and salvage values were not that the criteria and weights in this procedure were set
12 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Figure 9. Weighted evaluation matrix (WEM) for the considered alternatives (100-year LCCA at present value).
Note: LCC = life-cycle cost; LCCA = life-cycle cost analysis.

through detailed discussions within the evaluation team repeated for all alternatives. To enhance judgment and
to enhance objectivity. Both criteria and weights are minimize bias, the evaluation team has conducted
dependent on the project’s specifics and the owner’s per- detailed brainstorming sessions to agree on the relative
spective and priorities. The set criteria for performance importance of the set criteria. Similarly, the team has
(value) capture non-monetary aspects including environ- based their scoring for the alternatives on quantitative
mental impact (EI), constructability (CON), schedule technical input/parameters (e.g., span length, superstruc-
(SC), road user impact (RU), material savings (MS), ture weight). For example, the longest span bridge (few-
load efficiency (SE), operational performance (OP), and est piers) received the highest score. The dual symbol in
the likelihood of acceptance (LOA). Accordingly, the the matrix is indicative of the relative importance of the
optimum alternative is the one that receives the highest criteria with respect to each other. For example, MS was
VI. In this technique, the value of a generated alternative judged as important as EI, SC, and RU. However, it was
is compared against that of the PPA. considered less important than CON.
As shown in Figure 9, the considered alternatives are Alternative V1c can provide a high-quality solution as
listed below the non-monetary criteria. Each alternative it was given a very high rating (4 or 5 points) in many cri-
is rated against all others using a five-point Likert score teria (EI, CON, SC, MS, LE, and H). Conversely, alter-
from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) (10). The function point for natives V2, V3, and V4, with many low scores (1 to
each alternative is the weight of the function multiplied 3 points) are expected to provide less quality. It is impor-
by the score of this alternative for this specific criterion tant to note that the product of the criteria importance
(e.g., material saving). The total quality (performance) (weight %) times the score for the alternative decides the
points for each alternative are the sum of the points that quality points an alternative can receive in any given cri-
the factors A through H receive (sum of the row). This is teria. The sum of the quality points is what finally gives
Mousa et al 13

(3% to 25%) with some fluctuation. The relative value

of alternatives using the normalized VI clearly shows that
the cheapest alternative (V4) does not necessarily yield
the highest value (highest VI). In fact, V4 provides the
least VI (1.8) out of the eight alternatives. This is further
supported by the poor correlation between cost and VI
for all alternatives. As such, studies that rely solely on
LCCA provide an incomplete assessment for a set of
proposed alternatives. It is, therefore, important to note
that should the selection be based on the construction
cost (savings in cost per square foot), the low-value alter-
natives (smaller VI) will be—wrongly—perceived as
viable or even more attractive options.
All proposed alternatives reduce the total investment
and LCC of the project. The VE recommendations were
designed to further reduce the EIs compared with the
PPA. All alternatives are viable options with a range of
merits. For instance, V1c was found to outperform all
Figure 10. Cost per square foot of the bridge, the relative value other alternatives, as presented in Figure 10. However,
of alternative and savings.
Note: Relative value ( VI) and % saving with regard to preferred preliminary
V6 and V1b provide a good balance between value and
alternative (PPA). NHS = national highway system. initial cost, contingent on the owner’s funding availabil-
ity and preferences. Alternative V1c provides a range of
advantages over the base design (PPA) including lower
the overall performance for the alternative. Together initial construction cost, lower maintenance and opera-
with the finances (captured in LCCA), the quality points tion costs, significantly lower bridge LCC, lower inter-
gauge value for VI. In this study, a normalized VI is ruption to marine traffic in the area, and reduced
employed as a measure of relative value to allow a direct environmental and ecological impact. This alternative
comparison with PPA, which is assigned a VI of 1.0. can potentially shorten the construction time.
Using the normalized VI in WEM, the winning alter- It is noteworthy that some of the proposed bridges in
natives can be easily identified. Alterative V1c is obvi- this study could accommodate road widening to allow
ously the optimum design solution followed by V1b and for a bicycle or pedestrian lane at a minor cost. This
V6 by a very small margin. It can be also concluded that could further change the unit price and accordingly
all alternatives provide a significantly higher value (.1.0) encourage a wider array of sub-options for decision
than the base design (PPA). makers. The time savings from the reduction in the num-
ber of substructure elements (piers) were not captured in
the analysis. The wider navigation span improves the
Cost versus Value quality of life, minimizes the EI of construction, reduces
To support decision making, the reduction in cost for the risk of marine collision, and enhances preservation.
each alternative should be closely examined. This cannot These benefits, should they be accounted for, would fur-
be performed in isolation from value considerations. The ther support the feasibility of the alternatives proposed
unit cost per deck area was calculated for the PPA and in this study. The use of lightweight concrete (LWC) in
the proposed alternatives. This estimate is based on the alternatives V1a, V1c, V2, V3, V4, and V5 provides a
total construction cost before commissioning (end of range of structural characteristics and architectural solu-
year 5). As shown in Figure 10, the unit cost of the PPA tions, which can be equally viewed favorably from the
far exceeds the New Jersey non-NHS bridge replacement sustainability perspective. In fact, the use of lightweight
unit cost ($566/ft2) reported by FHWA in 2019 (6). The byproducts as aggregate in LWC enables a unique envi-
proposed alternatives, except V1a and V1b, fall below ronmental edge over HPC/NWC (30). LWC has been
this limit. Surprisingly, the NJ limits are much higher proven to provide a sustainable structural system, with-
than those recorded nationwide ($223/ ft2) as well as the out compromising performance.
average of the tristate (NJ, NY, and CT) at $382/ ft2.
Based on LCCA (Figure 8), all eight alternatives have
Conclusions and Perspective
shown total savings—based on LCCA—that vary
between 7% and 21% with respect to PPA. The corre- The rigor of this study has provided insight into the key
sponding savings per square foot are very comparable aspects contributing to an optimized bridge design.
14 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Unlike casual VE practices used for bridges, the pro- thumb commonly used to estimate value. Subjectivity
posed decision-making methodology uniquely incorpo- and personal judgment can be offset by exercising
rates detailed aspects of bridge design, inspection, balance in the background and expertise of the VE
construction, and maintenance with a strong emphasis evaluators. The technical strength of the participants as
on the use of building materials, waste minimization, well as a reasonable level of detailing in design are
and sustainability metrics, including environmental, necessary for meaningful VE analysis.
social, and economic impacts. Despite the somewhat
project-specific nature of the VE analysis conducted, the Sustainability Dimension. The use of sustainability is a com-
adopted method is simple, systematic, and versatile plex issue that requires a more comprehensive criterion.
enough to include resiliency and more sustainability The incorporation of sustainability in VE encourages
aspects in the brainstorming stages of VE. Project func- more sustainable construction by offering additional
tions were methodically identified and further validated credits or points to materials that meet certain
using the FAST technique. The VE analysis herewith requirements—for example, minimum content recycled
integrates the environmental impact and material selec- or recyclable, natural or renewable materials including
tion into the design process and assessment of bridge the environmental impacts to produce and transport of
performance. Embracing sustainability in the VE process the material. Bridge engineers are typically oblivious to
aids transportation projects to be more environmentally the importance of the environment, sustainability
just and ensures cost-effectiveness. Most of the bridge aspects, and conservation of natural resources. They are
structural systems considered in this study are quite com- by default concerned with technical aspects of the struc-
mon; thus, the results could be broadly applicable. tural design. In this context, sustainable bridge design
LCCA was conducted for typical bridges with prelimi- merely abides by the required environmental permits and
nary but detailed design, including common preservation adheres to current regulations.
and inspection activities. The design aspects that contrib-
ute to performance were objectively set upfront to esti- Decision-making Culture. The cost and effort in conducting
mate value using WEM. While the selected criteria and VE are intuitively offset by the increase in value, which
the setting of their relative importance for WEM may should encourage stakeholders to embrace VE for bridge
appear subjective, this method is more rigorous than ad design. It is imperative for decision makers to distinguish
hoc methods and rules of thumb commonly used to esti- between value and cost in assessing alternatives. Value is
mate value. The use of WEM has shown that the optimal a measure of worth and observing the return on invest-
bridge design is not necessarily PPA. As such, this VE ment. Value and worth are often perceived as relative
methodology can ultimately push the boundary of practice terms subject to the liking and interest of the decision
and ensure more conformity with modern VE implementa- makers and the nature of the project. In this context,
tion in civil engineering. The findings of the proposed value is typically captured or perceived as a direct mone-
analysis provide a framework for further research on the tary gain in a given project. The dollar amount of the
impact of VE, especially in the field of bridge manage- environmental and ecological impact, resource depletion,
ment. Additional case studies—with more bridge systems aesthetics, and quality of life (e.g., road user cost, noise)
and in other regions—should be conducted to further sup- is often unaccounted for or given disproportionate atten-
port the findings of this study. The following, however, tion. As such, a balance needs to be maintained between
summarizes a realistic perspective for VE implementation the economy, environment, and society for changing
in bridge design and potential barriers. business cultures and engineering practices (31). Rigid
design schools and favoritism are also responsible for the
VE Methodology and Tools. The current use of VE in bridge limited versatility in bridge designs, particularly resis-
design is apparently modest and suffers from some tance to use alternate sustainable materials (e.g., LWC).
inconsistencies. For example, the present VE practice in This is typically coupled with a lack of appreciation and
the USA is limited to the conceptual design of bridges understanding of VE potentials.
(i.e., alignments, roadway, etc.). This is attributed to the
VE analysis being performed in the concept development VE Implementation for Bridges. The VE process is generally
phase, which typically excludes structural design and not used to its full potential (only 7% of the total trans-
operating conditions. Like many other structures, bridge portation spending in the USA). Federal legislation
design and construction have experienced irregularities requires the application of VE to projects greater than
and anomalies in the decision-making phase. While the $40 million. State DOTs followed the federal guidelines
selected criteria and the setting of their relative and negated VE implementation for smaller transporta-
importance for WEM could be subjective, this method is tion projects. For instance, the authors estimated that
more rigorous than the ad hoc methods and rules of the transportation projects in NJ under $40 million
Mousa et al 15

amount to 54% of the total number of projects awarded Funding

over the last four years. These projects are given less pri- The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
ority in receiving VE analysis. Such drift is probably authorship, and/or publication of this article.
fueled by the misconception that the effort and time
needed to perform VE are unjustifiable, particularly for ORCID iDs
small projects. This, even though past VE studies imple- Ahmad A Mousa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6057-3885
mentation in small transportation projects have been Mohab Hussein https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-4023
proved to shorten project schedules and provide cost sav-
ings and a higher overall value (32). Furthermore, the Supplemental Material
current VE application to bridge design (if any) involves Supplemental material for this article is available online.
a review of the structural design alternatives rather than
rigorous design. As such, the proposed decision-making
method may still face serious difficulties before it can be References
fully embraced in routine bridge design practices. 1. Federal Highway Administration. Bridges & Structures.
Bridge Condition by Highway System 2020. https://
Regulations and Incentives. FHWA and State DOTs should www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/condition19.cfm.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Policy State-
consider detail-oriented complementary VE studies to
ment 299 - Infrastructure Investment. https://www.asce
leverage the structural, sustainable, and economic advan-
.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps299—infrastructure-inves
tages of new construction materials and designs. To tment.
combat resistance to new and innovative construction 3. Cariaga, I., T. El-Diraby, and H. Osman. Integrating
materials and methods in bridge projects, decision mak- Value Analysis and Quality Function Deployment for
ers must embed sustainability principles early in the proj- Evaluating Design Alternatives. Journal of Construction
ect design and revisit them during construction. It is Engineering and Management, Vol. 133, No. 10, 2007,
important to note that the sustainability criterion used in pp. 761–770.
this study can be further broken down into other aspects 4. Moon, S., C. Ha, and J. Yang. Structured Idea Creation
and sub-classes of sustainability over the life of the proj- for Improving the Value of Construction Design. Journal
ect (e.g., improved resilience, and reduced energy use of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138,
and emissions). LEED (Leadership in Energy and No. 7, 2012, pp. 841–853.
5. Federal Highway Administration. Bridge Formula Weights.
Environmental Design) and similar green certifications
FHWA Office of Operations 2020. https://ops.fhwa.dot.-
are typically used to capture environmental aspects and
gov/freight/publications/brdg_frm_wghts/.
sustainability in buildings. However, parallel systems are 6. Federal Highway Administration. Bridges and Structures.
not routinely embraced in bridge design. Key players in Bridge Replacement Unit Costs 2019. www.fhwa.dot.gov/
construction generally exhibit a lack of appreciation for cfo/fhwa-fy-2019-cj-final.pdf.
sustainability and long-term gains (33), which is one of 7. Wilson, D. C. Value Engineering Applications in Transpor-
the major challenges facing VE implementation for tation: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP 352,
bridges. In the absence of attractive monetary incentives, NCE Limited, Markham, 2005.
clear policies, and enforcing regulations, it is unlikely that 8. Kim, T. H., H. W. Lee, and S. W. Hong. Value Engineer-
stakeholders and practitioners could voluntarily choose ing for Roadway Expansion Project Over Deep Thick Soft
to implement rigorous VE methods for bridge design. Soils. Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, Vol. 142, No. 2, 2016, p. 05015014.
9. Chun, K. S. Current Status and Suggestions of Perfor-
Author Contributions mance and Value Assessment in Design VE. Korean Soci-
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study ety of Civil Engineers Magazine, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2007,
conception and design: Ahmad A. Mousa, Mohab Hussein, and pp. 41–46.
Ahmed Farouk Kineber; data collection: Mohab Hussein, 10. Dell’Isola, A. Value Engineering: Practical Applications...
and Ahmed Farouk Kineber; analysis and interpretation of for Design, Construction, Maintenance and Operations. RS
results: Ahmad A. Mousa, Mohab Hussein, and Ahmed Farouk Means Company Inc., Kingston, MA, 1997.
Kineber; draft manuscript preparation: Ahmad A. Mousa, Mohab 11. Lee, M. J., J. K. Lim, and G. Hunter. Performance-based
Hussein, and Ahmed Farouk Kineber. All authors reviewed the Value Engineering Application to Public Highway Con-
results and approved the final version of the manuscript. struction. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, No.
3, 2010, pp. 261–271.
12. Kineber, A. F., I. Othman, A. E. Oke, N. Chileshe, and T.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Zayed. Exploring the Value Management Critical Success
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Factors for Sustainable Residential Building–A Structural
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Equation Modelling Approach. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
article. tion, Vol. 293, 2021, p. 126115.
16 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

13. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Tremley Point Connector Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Road Project 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/2009011 Washington, D.C., 2013.
4195732/http:/www.state.nj.us/turnpike/nj-tremley-point 25. Brown, D. S. Structural Bearing Assemblies 2018. https://
.htm. www.dsbrown.com/structural-bearing-assembly-solutions-
14. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Annual Budget 2019. for-every-span/.
www.njta.com/media/4283/2019-annual-budget.pdf. 26. Gase, P. M. Prefabricated Grid Reinforced Concrete Bridge
15. Jaapar, A., N. A. Maznan, and M. Zawawi. Implementa- Deck Replacement. The Bridge Grid Flooring Manufacturers
tion of Value Management in Public Projects. Procedia- Association 2017. https://pavementvideo.s3.amazonaws
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 68, 2012, pp. 77–86. .com/2017SEBPP/2017SEBPP-Prefabricated_Grid_Reinfor
16. Short Span Steel Bridge Alliance. Short Span Steel Bridge ced_Concrete_Bridge_Deck_Replacemnt-Philip_Gase.pdf.
Alliance: Industry Resources, News & Education. Short Span 27. Battaglia, I. K. Exodermic Bridge Deck Performance Eva-
Steel Bridges 2020. www.shortspansteelbridges.org/steel- luation. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division
solutions/superstructures. of Transportation System Development, Bureau of Techni-
17. Aghagholizadeh, M., and N. Catbas. Comparative Analy- cal Services, Materials Management Section, Foundation
sis and Evaluation of Two Prestressed Girder Bridges. and Pavement Engineering Unit, 2010. https://wisconsin-
arXiv Preprint arXiv:1907.13014, 2019. dot.gov/documents2/research/WisDOT-report-FEP06-10-
18. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). A Briefing exodermic-bridge-deck.pdf.
on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of New Bridge Design Alterna- 28. Horrocks Engineers. Dixie Drive Interchange. Structure
tives. SHRP, 2019. http://shrp2.transportation.org/docume Type Selection Report UDOT Project S-I15-1(77)6. Hor-
nts/SHRP2_R19A_LCCA_Final_2-6-2019.pdf rocks Engineers, 2009. https://projects.horrocks.com/dixi
19. New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). edrive/assets/draft ea/structureselectionreport.pdf.
Design Manual for Bridges and Structures. NJDOT, Tren- 29. Kelly, J., S. Male, and D. Graham. Value Management of
ton, NJ, 2016. Construction Projects. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
20. Jaber, F., S. Fallaha, A. F. Girgis, M. K. Tadros, and C. 2014.
Sun. Nebraska Precast Record: 204th Street Bridge Spans 30. Mousa, A., M. Mahgoub, and M. Hussein. Lightweight
Single-Point Interchange. PCI Journal, Vol. 51, No. 6, Concrete in America: Presence and Challenges. Sustainable
2006, p. 48. Production and Consumption, Vol. 15, 2018, pp. 131–144.
21. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. New Jersey Com- 31. Mousa, A. A Business Approach for Transformation to
mercial Vehicle Size and Weight Guidebook 2017. https:// Sustainable Construction: An Implementation on a Devel-
nj.gotpermits.com/njpass/Permits/DownloadStateAttachm oping Country. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling,
ent?index=2. Vol. 101, 2015, pp. 9–19.
22. Titze, C., and C. Systematics. Oversize/Overweight Permit- 32. Clark, J. A. Value Engineering for Small Transportation
ting Practices Review: Phase II. Department of Transporta- Projects. Master’s thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
tion, Bureau of Research, NJ, 2013. Civil Engineering Department, 1999.
23. Hartle, R. A., T. W. Ryan, E. Mann, L. J. Danovich, W. B. 33. Zidan, A., A. Mousa, and M. Mahgoub. A Survey-Based
Sosko, J. W. Bouscher, and M. Baker, Jr. Bridge Inspector’s Vision for Restructuring Concrete Business in the New
Reference Manual: Volume 1 and Volume 2. Federal High- Residential Communities in Egypt. Industrial and Systems
way Administration, Washington, D.C., 2002. Engineering Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2013, pp. 162–172.
24. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine. Design Guide for Bridges for Service Life. National