Hong, T (2005) Life-cycle cost assessment model of composite materials in construction. PhD thesis, Purdue University, USA.
Abstract
To further enhance the application of fiber reinforced composites in construction, it will be important to assess the life-cycle costs of replacing conventional construction materials with advanced composites. However, the lack of sufficient reference data or maintenance records for advanced-composite applications in construction makes it difficult to make a credible assessment for life-cycle costs. The available reference data are limited to include performance information from recent applications, initial cost figures, some deterioration models, and its material properties. Therefore, a practical method is required that would allow probable assessment of the life-cycle cost of advanced composite applications in construction in relation to conventional materials. The overall objective of this research was to develop a performance-based probable life-cycle cost assessment model for composite materials in construction. To achieve these objectives, the research focused on a specific application of composites in construction: FRP bridge deck panels. The model thus developed can then be used for other applications of composites in construction. The life-cycle cost assessment model for FRP bridge deck panels comprises of a life-cycle performance module (module-1) and a life-cycle cost optimization module (module-2). The objective of module-1 is to develop an analytical model that is capable of predicting the structural deterioration over time in order to assess the deterioration rating per year (CR/year) of FRP bridge deck panels. The objective of module-2 is to develop an analytical model that is capable of assessing the optimal life-cycle cost of FRP bridge deck panels. Three case studies were conducted to validate the logic and results of the process algorithm for the life-cycle cost assessment. The main results of this research include: (1) a model for the probable life-cycle cost assessment of composite materials in construction; (2) a method for comparative assessment of composite and conventional materials through deterioration models; (3) life-cycle performance curves at three levels: material, component, and structural levels; (4) performance enhancement due to MR&R actions; (5) feasible MR&R strategies for composite materials; (6) a method for analyzing the life-cycle cost issues of new construction materials, which could potentially affect the future direction of the construction industry as a whole.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Hastak, M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | optimization; bridge; cost optimization; deterioration; life cycle; case study; life cycle cost |
| Index terms: | analytical model, performance-based, strategy, life cycle cost, material property, cost optimization, deterioration, construction industry, construction material, module, life cycle, advanced composite, composite, case study |
| Subjects: | materials science, value management, data collection methods, material degradation and durability, building materials, material properties and characteristics, theoretical framing, architectural elements, management, performance measurement, research methods, economics, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here