Life‐Cycle‐Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems

Brandes, Klaus

doi:10.1002/stab.200301650

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to LCC theory, the decision of opting for one option over another should be made in a way that results in the lowest total costs over the life span of a determinate process, which in this case is the whole of the railway system [22]. Railways already operate with restricted budgets even without having to consider noise control, so following an action plan that proves to be an efficient method to calculate the total network costs of implementing such measures with different consequences is obviously very important [23].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent studies [22][23][24], the life cycle cost analysis shows that the overall costs of noise control measures at source are lower than the ones of noise barriers or façade insulation only. These barrier costs evaluated (pointed as the equivalent barrier cost) can be compared to the total annual cost of track maintenance and renewal, which are 70 billion euros, as around 30% of this.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life Cycle Cost Evaluation of Noise and Vibration Control Methods at Urban Railway Turnouts

Freitas

Kaewunruen

2016

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A focus of the railway industry over the past decades has been to research, find and develop methods to mitigate noise and vibration resulting from wheel/rail contact along track infrastructure. This resulted in a wide range of abatement measures that are available for today's engineers. The suitability of each method must be analysed through budget and timeframe limitations, which includes building, maintenance and inspection costs and time allocation, while also aiming at delivering other benefits, such as environmental impact and durability of infrastructure. There are several situations that need noise and vibration mitigation methods, but each design allocates different priorities on a case-by-case basis. Traditionally, the disturbance caused by railways to the community are generated by wheel/rail contact sound radiation that is expressed in different ways, depending on the movement of the rolling stock and track alignment, such as rolling noise, impact noise and curve noise. More specifically, in special trackworks such as turnouts (or called "switches and crossings"), there are two types of noise that can often be observed: impact noise and screeching noise. With respect to the screeching (or flanging), its mitigation methods are usually associated with curve lubrications. In contrast, the impact noise emerges from the sound made by the rolling stock moving through joints and discontinuities (i.e., gaps), resulting in various noise abatement features to minimise such noise impact. Life cycle analysis is therefore vital for cost efficiency benchmarking of the mitigation methods. The evaluation is based on available data from open literature and the total costs were estimated from valid industry reports to maintain coherency. A 50-year period for a life cycle analysis is chosen for this study. As for the general parameters, an area with a high density of people is considered to estimate the values for a community with very strict limits for noise and vibration.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Cost Evaluation of Noise and Vibration Control Methods at Urban Railway Turnouts

Freitas

Kaewunruen

2016

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to LCC theory, the decision of opting for one option over another should be made in a way that it results in the lowest total costs over the life span of a determinate process, which in this case is the whole of the railway system [16]. Railways already operate with restricted budgets even without having to consider noise control, so following an action plan that proves to be an efficient method to calculate the whole network costs of implementing such measures with different consequences is obviously very important [17].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These barrier costs evaluated (pointed as the equivalent barrier cost) can be compared to the total annual cost of track maintenance and renewal, which are 70 billion euros, as around 30% of this [16].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Cost Evaluation of Noise Control Methods at Urban Railway Turnouts

Freitas

Kaewunruen

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The railway industry focus in the past years was to research, find and develop methods to mitigate noise and vibration resulted from wheel/rail contact along track infrastructure. This resulted in a wide range of abatement measures that are available for the professionals of the industry today. However, although there are many options in the market, their practical implementations depend upon general constraints that affect most technological application in the engineering world. The progression of these technologies have facilitated the selection of more adequate methods for each best case scenario, but further studies are ought to be made to proper assess if each one is fit for their purpose. Every method implementation must be analyzed through budget and timeframe limitations, which includes building, maintenance and inspection costs and time allocation, while also aiming to meet different benefits, such as environmental impact control and wear of the whole infrastructure. There are several situations and facilities in a railway project design that need noise and vibration mitigation methods and each design allocates different priorities for each one of them. Traditionally the disturbance caused by railways to the community are generated by wheel/rail contact sound radiation that expresses in different ways, depending on the movement of the rolling stock and track alignment, such as rolling noise, impact noise and curve noise. More specifically, in special trackworks such as turnouts, the main area of this study, there are two noises types that must be evaluated: impact noise and screeching noise. With respect to the second, it is similar to curve squeals and, being such, its mitigation methods are to be assigned as if it was to abate curve squeal in turnouts and crossings. The impact noise on the other hand, emerges from the sound made by the rolling stock moving through joints and discontinuities (i.e. gaps) that composes these special components of a railway track. A life cycle analysis is therefore substantial for this reality and in this case will be applied to Squeal and Impact Noise on Special Trackwork. The evaluation is based on a valid literature review and the total costs were assumed by industry reports to maintain coherency. The period for a life cycle analysis is usually of 50 years, hence it was the value assumed. As for the general parameters, an area with high density of people was considered to estimate the values for a community with very strict limits for noise and vibration.

show abstract

“…MCS can perform a risk analysis to quantitatively evaluate the LCOE differences between the two competing technologies. In this method, every cost component with a high potential for variability can be modeled as a random variable (Brandes, 2003;Geweke, 1996;Gransberg and Kelly, 2008).This study considered any variables differing between the two tower options as random variables for MCS. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the level of impact of each individual input variable on the overall LCOE.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%