20320130406022 2

92 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
92
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

20320130406022 2

  1. 1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET) ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December, pp. 214-229 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJCIET ©IAEME A COMPARATIVE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL STUDY TO DIFFERENT OPTIONS LOCATION FOR BRIDGE AND ITS APPROACHES Abdul Kareem Naji Abbood Collage of Engineering, Civil Department University of Babylon ABSTRACT The process of site selection of highways and bridges should be subjected to a number of technical standard and economic feasibility factors away from random to ensure the implementation of the project according to the planning requirements. The site of the bridge and approaches have been chosen by comparing and evaluating three alternatives proposal, according to the length of path location and smooth in traffic flow in addition to reducing the trip time and construction costs , so the first alternative was chosen. This alternative conducted economic and technical feasibility depending on traffic study and origin & destination survey. Expected benefits due to vehicle operation cost has been calculated which results from reducing travel time, fuel, oil, tire, as well as the benefit arising from the residual value of the project after the design life time (salvage value).Study compared discount benefit and discount costs with adaption of discount rate of (8%) according to the following economic criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C). Net Present Value (NPV). Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Break Evan Point (BEP). The (B/C) for discount rate (8%) equal to (4.5940695) which indicates that the project is economically acceptable (B/C ≥1 acceptable). The value of NPV =79655270997 ID agreed the acceptance of the project. On the other hand the rate (IRR=27.65%) which is greater than the discount rate (8%) approved that the project is acceptable form economically and engineering aspects, the study concluded also that the (Break Even Point) of the project indicate that the benefits higher than costs started from the end of sixth year, so this project is an attractive investment and encouraging that a short payback period compared to the design life of the project (20) years. 214
  2. 2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Key Word: Economic of Technical Feasibility, Benefit Cost Ratio. 1. INTRODUCTION The studies of economic and technical feasibility of the most important tools that use by the decision maker to implementation of projects in general and road and bridge projects in particular, it’s away indispensable to reach the best investment of economic resources in accordance with the planning of systematic progress and strategic , as well as it works to avoid indiscriminate , adventure , improvisation and allows the parties to determine relevant to priority in the implementation of projects in accordance with the resources available . The adoption of economic feasibility studies and technical projects of roads and bridges get the benefit to the road users and national income by reducing travel time thus reduce vehicle operating costs. The choice of site path of the road leading to the bridge proposal and approaches, is not a random process or improvised, but it is subject studying a comparison range of alternatives according to scientific bases with standard methodology to provide three key elements, namely, (effort, time, cost) then the decision is made due to economic and technical feasibility of the establishment of the project or not. Adoption of the draft was a project of Musayyib new bridge and approaches (in Iraq) as a field study and methodology to achieve the requirements of the research aims. Musayyib one of the districts of the of Babylon city in Iraq , where is located north-west of it, at a distance of 50 km south-west of the capital, Baghdad, 65 km , due to the proportion to the flow of the Euphrates River , which passes the center of Al-Musayyib district , it consists of two sides , left part represents the ancient city , which represents the diversity of the different land uses ( government , educational and service , religious and health ... etc. ) , while The right side represents the new residential neighborhoods and abandoned orchards and Lands. Pass in the left pane of the district main road coming from Baghdad toward Karbala city while passing in the left part of it the main road coming from the Babylon city,in this district two bridges on the Euphrates river, a concrete bridge located in the north carried a traffic volume in two directions, while thesecond which is located in the district center iron Old, narrow and have many failures unable to carry traffic volume through it. Figure (1). 2. STUDY PROBLEM Because the iron bridge in the district have many frailer in function and construction to absorb the traffic volumes passers- through and the concrete bridge located far away from the center of district, so many traffic problem has been appeared , prompting the relevant authorities think about constructing another bridge would contribute to provide some solutions to the problems of traffic , therefore the study is trying to hold the process of comparing scientific based on a study of economic and traffic volume according to economical and technical criteria followed ,so that the decision-maker can choose the site of the bridge and approaches on according to the results of these studies away from the randomness and improvisation that would contribute to the providing solutions for traffic and reduce waste in material and human resources . 3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study aimed to achieve the following objectives: 3-1- a comparative study between technical alternatives proposed , in terms with location , travel time , smoothness of traffic flow , Conflicts points ,hydraulic effectiveness of river in proposed site ,Physicist examination of the soil site and construction costs. 215
  3. 3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 3-2- data collection, according to a traffic study , include counting the reality of the traffic volume, vehicles classification and traffic forecasting as a result of the establishment of the project with determining the number of lanes (No. Of Lanes) of the bridge and approaches using the program (Highway Capacity System HCS 2000) for the proposed alternative. 3-3- Costs study: which is assigned to construction and maintenance, as well as benefits created expected from the project and the implications for reducing the disbursements of fuel oils and the tire of the vehicle as well as the time value of goods and passengers according to the alternative proposed. 3-4- Compared the costs to benefits of the proposed alternative according to standard and economic criteria adopted. 4. THE IMPORTANCE OFTHE STUDY The importance of this study lies in being one of the studies of the few that go in to the field of the study of technical and economic feasibility or the establishment and site selection projects, roads and bridges, according to scientific approach to justify the establishment of the projector not, according to the results of technical analysis and economic based on the basis of the comparison according to economic criteria followed. 5. RESEARCHES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES 5-1-Feasibility Study for the (Cairo-Assiut) Highway (Arab Republic of Egypt: 1987) This study was prepared by the United States Agency for Development in collaboration with the Consultative Group on Egypt in the framework of agreements of technical cooperation with the Arab Republic of Egypt to the economic feasibility study for the establishment of the Cairo - Assiut way investment total length of the current path (365 Km), which through the two-lanes with a large area of failures asphalt layer as well as the absence of road shoulders in some sections, the study tried to discuss the options available are concentrated in the development of the current path or set up a second lane. The study concluded that the establishment of a new road parallel to the current roadway economically feasible than it is to make some improvements on some sections of the existing road, the fact that the establishment of passage of a second by the current will lead to reduced flight time and service of agricultural land, which represents 60% of the territory served by The way. 5-2-Feasibility study for the (Bhatiapara-Benapole) highway in Bangladesh (ESCA: 2007) This study was conducted by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific of the United Nations, the study formatted , the economic feasibility of a (Bhatiapara-Benopole) highway in Bangladesh and the statement of the need to improve in terms of engineering, economic and social, so exploratory study have been done included analysis of the current situation of the road with the bridge in terms of present and future traffic volume and (origin &destination survey) in order to estimate the traffic volume which is expected to use the proposed roadway with study growth rates and the expected costs of the project on the basis of design lifetime, taking into consideration the construction years. 216
  4. 4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 6. DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA The study area represents the diversity of the various events according to land use, start from (Al-Moalemeen) area in the left bank of Euphrates River till the Baghdad–Karbala highway. (Figure 1), through the path of the garage of internal transport and Al-Sadda old roadway .It has been showed through the survey diversity of the traffic volumes these uses roads and intersections as well as having many of the traffic problems and the difficulty of moving from the district center to the other side of the river to reach the different targets, so the study conducted surveys traffic and analytical studies to get to the best site for the bridge, roadway and approaches. 6-1- Evaluation and Choose the Best Alternatives The basic objectives of the study is to make the process of a technical study of the proposed alternatives include a comprehensive description for each alternative through the conduct of the poll and the field survey and evaluate the alternatives on the basis of a scientific comparison between them in order to reach technical decision to choose the best option. (Nicholas J.Garber:2002). Table (1): shows the description of the proposed alternatives in the study area Elementsof comparison Location Length Hydraulic effectiveness of river Traffic smooth flow Soil type Conflicts Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No. Located south of Iron Bridge while its approaches in the districts center traffic provide traffic facilities for all trips in the district. The bridge lengths about (286m) while the length of the approaches (1214m). Located south of the first alternative, its approaches outside the district center Located south of the second alternative and far from the district center. The bridge lengths about (295m) while the length of the approaches (1635m). Good and not hampered by obstacles while the banks case is good. Serve the future expansion of the area. The bridge lengths about (260m) while the length of the approaches (1850m). Good and not hampered by obstacles while the banks case is good Provides as mooth traffic flow and works as a substitute for the old bridge. From the physical examination the soil is silt clay soil could be treated and construction them. Conflict with the proposal alternative residential land agricultural area From the physical examination the soil is silt clay soil could be treated and construction them. Conflict with the proposal alternative large number of residential land agricultural area Far from the center requires need establishment of the collectors roads and in trisections to carry traffic volumes From the physical examination the soil is silt clay soil could be treated and construction them. Conflict with the proposal alternative some of residential land agricultural area Travel time (5-7)min. (8-10)min. (13-15)min. Construction costs 21368875000ID 24273205000 ID 22985750000 ID 217
  5. 5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Reference to the table (1), after a process of evaluating alternatives the study has been chosen the first alternative according to the following reasons: 6-1-1- Implementation of the first alternative provides the shortest travel time trip Compared to the other two alternatives. 6-1-2- The first alternative provides smooth traffic flow, reduce delay and obstacles between the activities of different traffic especially at peak hours. 6-1-3- The construction cost of the first alternative is less than the cost of the two other alternatives. 6.2 Origin & Destination Survey The basic purpose of preparing the study of traffic is conducting census and classification of the vehicles through the stations count congestion in the study area also the study content axle loads, no. of axels for heavy vehicles, which is expected to use the bridge and approaches and using origin &destination conducted this survey in work day through a questionnaire survey sites count the traffic identified in Figure (1) and by asking the driver about his destination and the trip starting, the purpose of conducting this survey is to count the traffic flow that will use the bridge and approaches with vehicle classification in both directions (Highway Design Manual: 2005). The number of vehicles that have been identified through the matrix shown in Table (2) Table (2): Show the traffic volumes and classified according to original and destination survey in the study area Destination 1 PC 2 Truck B Type 2 Type 3 Type2-S2 - - - - - 277 14 9 3 379 23 18 15 PC 3 Truck B Type 2 Type 3 Type2-S2 80 8 6 4 11 16 - - - - 29 81 - - - PC Truck B Type 2 Type 3 Type2-S2 399 36 11 6 45 1 - 69 - -- - - 2 - - - - - - 3 It is clear from Table (2) and Figure (1) that the total of traffic volume coming from the district center to the direction of the Baghdad–Karbala roadway (1-3) = 497 (Veh / hr.), While the total of those traffic volumes coming from Karbala–Baghdad roadway to the district center (3-1) = 464 (Veh / hr.). 218
  6. 6. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Figure (1): Show the road path and origin-destination survey on the basic of Al Musayyib master plan in the study area. (Iraq) 219
  7. 7. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 7. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE After it was evaluating alternatives and choose thebe stone, feasibility study for the proposed project by comparing the costs with the expected benefits. 7-1- The Costs Representing the total costs required to set up and maintenance during the design life of the project that the construction cost as follows: The bridge cost= (11,303,000,000) ID, while the cost of conflicts facilities = (4,400,000,000) ID, and the cost of approaches= (5,665,875,000) ID thus the total= (21,368,875,000) ID. 7-2- The Benefits It returns arising from (Road User Cost), namely: 7-2-1- (Vehicles Operation Cost)which represents the amounts spent on fuel, oil, tire and maintenance of vehicles. 7-2-2- Time cost spent by the passengers, vehicles and goods. 7-2-3- The remaining costs (Salvage Value) for the project after the end of design life. 7-3- Economic criteria approved: It has been approved economic criteria (Economic Parameters) show the feasibility of the project economically or not, through the comparison between cost sand revenues (benefits) using a rate of discount from the constructed years to the design life of project they are:7-3-1-Net Present Value NPV: -the standard economic evaluation depend on the difference between the total discounted benefits or revenues and costs so, the project is economically feasible whenever the difference between them is a positive value. 7-3-2-Benefit Cost Ratio B / C: - The comparison shall be made in this standard on the basis of the proportion of revenues to the discounted costs so, the project is economically justified if the ratio is greater than (1.0). 7-3-3-Internal Rate of Return IRR:- represents the standard discount rate, when discounted costs and benefits is equal, as the difference from the discount rate adopted this project is economically feasible. 7-4-The length of the proposed alternative `Through the study of traffic and reconnaissance it was found that the length of the proposed alternative path (1500 m).while the length of exist roadway path (3000m). Based on the analysis of the data on the basis of the level of service (LOS C), using the program (Highway Capacity System 2000), has decided to be a road with four lanes, by two lanes in each direction, class (A4/25.5). (Highway Design Manual: 2005). 7-5- The proportion and classification of heavy vehicles Through what has been deduced from the traffic study and the original-destination survey, the following percentages of heavy vehicles under the table (3): 220
  8. 8. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Table (3): Shows the percentage of vehicles in the study area. Percentage (%) Vehicle Type 80.95 6.139 Passenger Car PC Type 2 3.017 Type 3 2.185 Type 2-S2 Thus, the percentage of heavy vehicles for the traffic volumes (11.342%) while the percentage of buses (7.70%), and to facilitate the expense of the benefits of these vehicles in this study , therefore the vehicles (Type2, 3) symbolized as (Medium Truck (MT),where vehicle (Type 2S-2) expressed as a large vehicle (Large Truck LT).(ITMP: 2005). 7-6- Traffic Volume Seen from Table (2) the total expected traffic volumes that pass on the proposed road way in the peak hour volume (961 Veh / hr.). Assuming that the traffic volumes at peak hour = (0.15) of the average annual traffic (AADT) (K = 0.15), so the design hourly volume (DHV) and (AADT) is calculated as below (Highway Capacity Manual: 2000) (AASHTO: 2002): DHV = (Peak Hour Volume) / PHF PHF = 0.95, DHV = 961 / (0.95) = 1012 (Veh / hr) DHV = K × AADT. Where: DHV = Design Hourly Volume (vph), K = 0.15, AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic (vpd). AADT = 1012 ÷ 0.15, = 6747 (Veh. / Day) Yearly Traffic Volume=AADT×365 = 2462655 (Veh.) For the purpose of finding a vehicle operating cost was adopted the following data: - The exist roadway (Link Type 3) and this product is one of the unpaved roadway and that are not performing well in his current situation. (Paved Road / Bad-Very Bad).Either the proposed alternative (Link Type 1) (Paved Road / Double Carriageway with a Good Condition). (ITMP. 2005) - The adoption of the exchange rate of the dollar against the Iraqi dinar (1250) ID / dollar. - The adoption rate of 400 dinars per liter of fuel and 3000 dinars / liter of oil for vehicles. - Adopted a period of economic valuation for 20 years and as of (2012) and the duration of construction (2) years. Table (4): The cost of fuel, tires and oils for different types of vehicles (ITMP. 2005) Vehicle Type Passenger car Medium Truck Large Truck Fuel Cost ID/I 400 400 400 Tire Cost ID/Tire 75000 250000 250000 221 Average No. Tire/Vehicle 4 8 16 Oil Cost ID/L 3000 3000 3000
  9. 9. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME The tables below show the costs for the use different vehicles type (passenger car, medium and heavy vehicles) by the current and proposed roadway. Table (5): The estimated cost for the use of passenger car (ITMP.2005) Link Type Pavement Condition Average Free Speed [km/h] Average IRI Influenced Speed [km/h] Fuel Consumption [L/km] Tire Life [1000km] Oil Consumption [L*1000 km] 1 3 Good Bad-Very Bad 100 100 100 46 0.075 0.105 40.7 11.5 2.15 3.05 Link Type Pavement Condition Average Free Speed [km/h] 1 3 Good Bad-Very Bad 80 80 Table (6): The estimated cost for the use of a medium Truck (ITMP.2005) Average IRI Influenced Speed [km/h] 80 37 Fuel Consumption [L/km] Tire Life [1000km] Oil Consumption [L*1000 km] 0.143 0.231 40.7 11.5 3.63 4.75 Table (7): The estimated cost for the use of a heavy vehicle load (ITMP.2005) Pavement Condition Average Free Speed [km/h] Average IRI Influenced Speed [km/h] Fuel Consumption [L/km] Tire Life [1000km] Oil Consumption [L*1000 km] Good Bad-Very Bad 60 60 60 28 0.160 0.301 40.7 11.5 5.75 6.65 Table (8): The value of time for passengers (ITMP.2005) YEAR 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 TIME VALUE US$/HOUR 1.0464 1.2752 1.4519 1.6701 1.9332 2.1567 ID/HOUR 1308 1594 1815 2088 2417 2696 Table (9): The value of time for goods (ITMP. 2005) YEAR 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 TIME VALUE US$/ TON-HOUR ID/TON-HOUR 0.0186 23.25 0.0184 23.0 0.0175 21.875 0.0165 20.625 0.0154 19.25 0.0164 20.50 222
  10. 10. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 7-7- Vehicles operation costs Costs of different vehicle types (PC, Type2, Type3, Type2S-2) on the basis of the cost of fuel, oil , the tire changer, and maintenance for these vehicles whom using exist roadway , compared to reduce these costs when creating proposal alternative through reduce the trip travel time resulting benefit steroid users. The form below show to calculate the operating cost for passenger car. So operating costs have been calculated for other types of vehicles based on the same principle applied for pc For the proposed alternative (Link Type1):The cost of fuel 400 * 0.075 = 30 ID / km - pc The cost of the tire changer = (75000 * 4) / 40700 = 3.686 ID / km-pc the cost of oil = (2.15 * 3000) / 1000 = 6.450 ID / km- pc. Assuming the vehicles price of 12000000 dinars and that the cost of maintenance= 0.15* vehicle cost and that the vehicle is going 250,000 km before disappearing. Maintenance cost = (12000000 * 0.15) / 250000 = 7, 20 dinars / km-pc ∴the total cost to operate the passengers car vehicle = 47.336 dinars / km- pc. For the Exits roadway (Link Type3):The cost of fuel 400 * 0.105 = 42.0 ID / km – pc The cost of the tire changer = (4.0 * 75000/11500 = 13.043 ID / km- pc The cost of oil = (3.05 * 3000) / 1000 = 9.15 ID / km -pc Assuming the price of the vehicle 12000000 ID, The cost of the maintenance = 0.30*vehicle price, and that the vehicle traveling 250,000 km before they disappear. Maintenance cost = (12000000 * 0.3) / 25000 = 14.40 ID / km- pc ∴ the total cost a passenger car vehicle = 78.593 ID / km- pc. Table (10): The vehicle operation cost to different vehicle types Vehicle Operation Cost PC( (Type 2) (Type) (Type 2S-2)‫ا‬ ( Bus) New Fuel Consumption Tire Cost Oil Consumption Cost Maintenance Cost Total ID/kmVeh. Exist New Exist New Exist New Exist New Exist 30.0 42.0 59.20 92.40 59.20 92.40 64.0 121.0 40.0 80.0 3.686 13.043 49.14 173.91 49.14 173.91 98.280 347.826 18.42 65.21 6.450 9.15 11.01 14.25 11.01 14.25 17.25 19.95 6.45 9.15 7.20 14.40 18.00 36.00 18.00 36.00 18.0 36.0 6.0 12.0 47.336 78.593 137.35 316.62 137.35 316.62 197.53 524.776 70.87 166.36 223
  11. 11. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Table (11): The rate of benefits arising from the vehicles operation Vehicle operation cost Vehicle Types percentage New roadway Exist roadway PC 0.895 42.365 70.340 Type2 0.06139 8.431 19.433 Type3 0.03017 4.143 9.552 Type2S-2 0.02185 4.3160 11.466 Buses 0.077 5.456 12.809 Table (12): The cost and benefit of vehicle operation Roadway type Average vehicle operation cost (ID/Km-veh.) Path length (Km) Average vehicle operation cost (ID/Km-veh.) New roadway 64.711 1.50 97.066 Exist roadway 123.60 3.0 Average vehicle operation benefits=237.734(ID/Km-veh.) 370.80 Table (13): Travel time for vehicles using exist roadway and new roadway in the study area. Vehicle Type Travel time exist roadway(Min.) Vehicle Type Travel time new roadway(Min.) Travel time difference(hr.) Vehicle Percentage (%) PC 17.0 PC 4.0 0.216 0.895 Type2 30.0 Type2 7.0 0.383 0.0613 Type3 30.0 Type3 7.0 0.383 0.03017 Type2S-2 30.0 Type2S-2 7.0 0.383 0.02185 Buses 30.0 Type3S-2 7.0 0.383 0.077 7-8- The benefits of time value The benefit of reducing the travel time is divided into two sections: 7-8-1- The time benefit for passengers It was assumed that the vehicle capacity type (PC) (2.0) passengers, while the truck (1.0) passenger so the benefit resulting from reduced travel time for passengers are shown in the table (14). Table (14): The passenger's benefits for the years (2012-2039) No. of persons in vehicle Year 2012-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 PC 2.0 Type2 1.0 Type3 1.0 Type2S-2 1.0 Bus 20 0.4045 0.4930 0.5613 0.6457 0.7474 0.8338 0.02455 0.02993 0.0340 0.0392 0.0453 0.0506 0.01209 0.01473 0.01677 0.01929 .02233 0.0249 0.0087 0.0106 0.0121 0.0139 0.016 0.0180 0.617 0.752 0.8563 0.985 1.1402 1.272 Time benefits of passengers $ ID 1.0656 1332 1.3002 1626 1.4803 1851 1.7019 2127 1.9705 2464 2.1993 2749 7-8-2 the interest rate of the fright The reducing of travel time resulting benefit in vehicles frights. In this study, and according to the technical specifications of the General Authority for Roads and Bridges (Highway Design Manual 2005). The: Type 2 18 tons Type 3 24 tons Type 2S-2 36 tons 224
  12. 12. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Accordingly, the interest arising from reducing flight time for the load in the case of the use of the proposed road instead of the current path illustrated in the table (15). Table (15): The goods benefits for the years (2012-2039) Vehicle type PC Type2 Type3 Type2S-2 Fright(ton) 2012-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 0 18 0.0078 0.0077 0.0073 0.0069 0.0065 0.0061 24 0.005 0.0051 0.0048 0.0045 0.0042 .00410 36 .0056 0.0055 .0052 0.0049 0.0046 0.00439 Fright time benefit $ 0.0184 0.0183 0.0173 0.0163 0.0153 0.0145 ID 23 22.80 21.625 20.375 19.125 18.125 Table (16): The total annual benefits resulting from time interest for the passenger's goods and vehicle operation year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Passeng Vehicles No. of er Frights Rate of No,(stud Veh.(operation benefits benefits increase y year) year) (ID/Veh (ID/Veh.) .) 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.060 2462655 2610414.3 0.0000 0.0000 1.124 2462655 2768024.22 0.0000 0.0000 1.191 2462655 2933022.105 1332 23.0 1.262 2462655 3107870.61 1626 22.80 1.338 2462655 3295032.39 1626 22.80 1.419 2462655 3494507.445 1626 22.80 1.504 2462655 3703833.12 1626 22.80 1.594 2462655 3925472.07 1626 22.80 1.689 2462655 4159424.295 1851 21.625 1.791 2462655 4410615.105 1851 21.625 1.898 2462655 4674119.19 1851 21.625 2.012 2462655 4954861.86 1851 21.625 2.133 2462655 5252843.115 1851 21.625 2.261 2462655 5568062.955 2127 20.375 2.397 2462655 5902984.053 2127 20.375 2.540 2462655 6255143.700 2127 20.375 2.693 2462655 6631929.915 2127 20.375 2.854 2462655 7028417.37 2127 20.375 3.026 2462655 7451994.03 2464 19.125 3.207 2462655 7897734.585 2464 19.125 3.400 2462655 8373027 2464 19.125 3.604 2462655 8875408.62 2464 19.125 3.820 2462655 9407342.1 2464 19.125 225 Operation benefits (ID/Veh.) benefits (ID/Veh.) Total benefits (ID/Veh.) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 273.734 0.000 0.000 0.000 1914.369 2208.169 2208.169 2208.169 2208.169 2208.169 2431.994 2431.994 2431.994 2431.994 2431.994 2706.744 2706.744 2706.744 2706.744 2706.744 3042.494 3042.494 3042.494 3042.494 3042.494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5614886594 6862703537 7275988378 7716463010 8178689477 8668105735 10115694929 10726589472 11367429825 12080140125 12774882939 15071320995 15977866619 16931072679 17950936506 19024126546 22672647124 24028810088 25474884409 27003377474 28621781895
  13. 13. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Table (17): The achieved (Benefits) for multiple discount rates. Yea r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sv* Sum ‫ا ا‬ ‫ا‬ R=12% R=I5% R=20% R=25% 0.000 0.000 0.000 4095604274 4743137253 4656275785 4572368474 4487277285 4403516544 4823314094 4735738626 4646913535 4561131616 4477253947 4956894295 4865790154 4774141656 4686775838 4599049058 5141140281 5045053022 4952470947 4860758522 4770444762 1559464679.911 0.000 0.000 0.000 3808285097 4252877667 4025887423 3812149165 3607591075 3413813268 3605715083 3413809796 3230144269 3057283169 2893880023 3089471437 2924378853 2766822465 2619183387 2478366329 2671545928 2527985965 2392966357 2264771731 2143310016 700599173.55 0.000 0.000 0.000 3612183611 3928650885 3621949207 3340187122 3078494612 2837141773 2918454085 2691045006 2479840468 2285902333 2107282253 2191021073 2019836366 1861161362 1715887555 1581279350 1660068185 1529882661 1410393310 1300014703 1198199142 391667436.778 0.000 0.000 0.000 3317439462 3457747057 3054982543 2699937860 2384723128 2106188312 2076278561 1834722174 1620278563 1431331431 1264508757 1259976022 1113136715 982953430.4 868469024.9 766991767.9 771657575.4 681511854 602104849.7 531859283.9 469779519.2 153556678.67 0.000 0.000 0.000 3057352208 3059193301 2594738914 2201455616 1866660604 1582689895 1497805717 1270607479 1077214068 913532014.5 774776853.7 741119618.8 628558595.9 532845666.6 451953820.6 383178968.8 370089546.9 313781144 266131809 225679774.1 191364425.5 62538730.52 100415000000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4842278710 6044037585 6408020831 6795950343 7203036868 7634069659 9020031859 9564758473 10136187371 10744999468 11391194764 13604598556 14422920317 15283361491 16203973423 17172721927 20709665213 21948412537 23269286756 24665443961 26143728061 R=8% 65700837676 49760542500 33450134570 24063268771 Sv*= (Salvage Value) = (0.75*11303000000) = (0.75*Bridge Cost)/ (1+r) n. Table (18): The project construction costs adopted by discount rates Year Construction cost Maintenance cost 2011 0.0 0.0 2012 10684437500 0.0 2013 10684437500 0.0 2014 170951000 2015 170951000 2016 170951000 2017 170951000 2018 170951000 2019 170951000 2020 170951000 2021 170951000 2022 170951000 2023 170951000 2024 170951000 2025 170951000 2026 170951000 2027 170951000 2028 170951000 2029 170951000 2030 170951000 2031 170951000 2032 170951000 2033 170951000 2034 170951000 Sum Total cost 0.0 10684437500 10684437500 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 170951000 R=8% R=12% R=15% R=20% 10684437500 9892997685 146562928.7 135706415.4 125654088.4 116346378.1 107728127.9 99748266.56 92359506.07 85518061.18 79183389.98 73317953.69 67886994.15 62858327.92 58202155.48 53890884.71 49898967.32 46202747.52 42780321.78 39611409.05 36677230.6 33960398.71 31444813.62 10684437500 9539676339 136281090.6 121679545.1 108642451 97002188.41 86609096.8 77329550.71 69044241.71 61646644.38 55041646.77 49144327.47 43878863.81 39177556.98 34979961.59 31232108.56 27885811.21 24898045.73 22230397.97 19848569.62 17721937.16 15823158.18 14127819.8 10684437500 9290815217 129263516.1 112403057.5 97741789.09 84992860.08 73906834.85 64266812.91 55884185.14 48594943.6 42256472.7 36744758.87 31951964.23 27784316.72 24160275.41 21008935.14 18268639.25 15885773.26 13813715.88 12011926.85 10445153.79 9082742.422 7898036.889 10684437500 8903697917 118715972.2 98929976.85 82441647.38 68701372.81 57251144.01 47709286.68 39757738.9 33131449.08 27609540.9 23007950.75 19173292.29 15977743.58 13314786.31 11095655.26 9246379.385 7705316.154 6421096.795 5350913.996 4459094.996 3715912.497 3096593.748 22162974552 21378338853 20913619428 226 20284948281 R=25% 10684437500 8547550000 109408640 87526912 70021529.6 56017223.68 44813778.94 35851023.16 28680818.52 22944654.82 18355723.86 14684579.08 11747663.27 9398130.614 7518504.491 6014803.593 4811842.874 3849474.299 3079579.44 2463663.552 1970930.841 1576744.673 1261395.738 19773985117
  14. 14. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME Table (19): The discounted benefits and discounted costs for different discount rates discounted costs IRR (%) NPV 79227025448 45220630447 34193527155 13575598302 4575921875 27.65 4.5747 3.1152 2.6349 1.6692 1.2314 discountedbene fits 22162974552 21378338853 20913619428 20284948261 19773985117 100415000000 65700837676 49760542500 20284948281 24063268771 B/C Discount rates (r (%) 8 12 15 20 25 Table (20): The break-Even Point for the project year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Cumulative Costs 10684437500 20577435185 20723998113.7 20859704529.1 20985358617.5 21101704995.6 21209433123.5 21309181390.06 21401540896.13 21487058957.31 21566242347.29 21639560300.98 21707447295.13 21770305623.05 21828507778.53 21882398663.24 21932297630.56 21978500378.08 22021280699.86 22060892108.91 22097569339.51 22131529738.22 22162974551.84 Cumulative Benefits 0 0 4095604274 8838741527 13495017313 18067385786 22554663072 26958179615 31781493709 36517232335 41164145870 45725277486 50202531434 55159425729 60025215883 64799357539 69486133377 74085182436 79226322716 84271375738 89223846686 94084605208 98855049970 (Cum.Benefit-Cum.Cost) Cum.Cost) -10684437500 -20577435185 -16628393840 -12020963002 -7490341305 -3034319210 1345229948 5648998225 10379952813 15030173378 19597903523 24085717185 28495084139 33389120106 38196708104 42916958876 47553835746 52106682058 57205042016 62210483629 67126277346 71953075470 76692075418 E+ Cum.benefits-Cum.Costs) E+ x E+ E+ y = ²R E+ E+ E+ -E+ -E+ Years Figure (2): Project Years and the value of benefits higher than the costs 227
  15. 15. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 8. CONCLUSIONS Through economic and technical analysis of the data and the study of alternatives to the proposed site selection for the bridge and the approaches the following conclusions has been conducted: 8-1- In accordance with the technical study, which was conducted on the basis of a traffic study and reconnaissance survey that the first option (Alternative no.1) installer in Figure (1) , represents the vey best alternatives , after conducting the evaluation and comparison of the alternatives in accordance with the length of the path , location , smooth flow of traffic provided the proposed alternative provided alternative, reduce of the travel time , the suitable of construction cost and conflicts points compared to other alternatives , so this alternative provides safety , efficiency and convenience for road users . 8-2- By counting traffic volumes according to original – destination survey in the study area and lumes based on the analysis of these data on the basis of the level of service (LOS C), using the program (Highway Capacity System 2000it was decided to study to be a roadway with four lanes, two lanes in each direction class (A4/25.5) under the technical specifications of the General Authority for Roads and Bridges. 8-3- Through economic analysis of the data for the proposed alternative and compared with the economic approved shows the following: followi 8-3-1- when comparing discounted costs, with discounted benefits to the discount rate adopted (8%) and the rest of the discount rates indicate that the value of (Benefit Cost Ratio B / C) = (4.5940695) ,thus this standard to justify the economic feasibility of the constructed of the project the fact that feasibility (B / C> 1) . 8-3-2- the second economic criterion (Net Present Value NPV) = (79655270997 ID) approved for the discount rate (8%) , and this value as gives positive indicated economic justification for the fo constructed of the project where the project is economically justified whenever this value is positive. Internal 8-3-3- (Internal Rate of Return IRR = 27.65%) confirmed the high rate of profitability of the project, where the project is economically feasible whenever this percentage is greater than the discount rate adopted a proportion (8%). E+ E+ x - Cum.benefits-Cum.Costs) E+ E+ E+ E+ -E+ -E+ Years 228 E+ y = ²R
  16. 16. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November – December (2013), © IAEME 8-4- It was been showed from table (20) that the value of benefits higher than the costs will start from the end of the sixth year and the beginning of the seventh year through the design life of the project so the Break Even Point will be in the sixth year of the life of the project. Thus this project is attractive and favorable investment because it is contend short payback period compared to the design life of the project (20) years. 9. RECOMMENDATION 9-1- It is very necessary to follow scientific criteria in the selection process of bridge site and approaches away from randomly based on , evaluation and comparison a range of alternatives according to technical and economical studies , in order to take the suitable decision about the best alternative to be done . 9-2- The study recommended that the highway and bridges projects must be included economic and technical feasibility studies justify constructed the project or not, based on a study of present and future traffic volume, land use, the conflicts path of the proposed compared to the data according to the economic criteria to provide a database of technical and economic which they help decisionmakers in the implementation of projects. 10. REFERENCES A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO, (1994), 444 North Capital Street. N.W., Suite, Washington D.C. 20001, (202). 2. Arab Republic of Egypt, Ministry of Transportation and Communication and Marine Transport Road and Bridge Authority. (1987). "Cairo - Assuit Highway Feasibility Study" Main Report USA i.D Project No. 263-0181. 3. Nicholas J. Garber & Lester A. Hole. (2002). "Traffic & Highway Engineering". Thomson Learning. 4. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Housing & Reconstruction, Organization of Road & Bridges "Highway Design Manual", (2005). 5. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning, (2005). "Iraq Transportation Master Plan (ITMP)". By Group of Italian Companies. 6. Transportation Research Board (2000), "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report (209). 7. U. S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. (2013). "Economic Analysis Primer Benefit - Cost Analysis, Washington, DC, 20590. 8. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 9. (ESCAP), (2007). Promotion and Development of the Asian Highway Priority Routes feasibility study of AH1: Bhatiapara - Benapole Road in Bangladesh. 10. Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr.Vipin Chandra, “Estimation of Bridge Pier Scour for Clear Water & Live Bed Scour Condition”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 92 - 97, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. 11. Bant Singh and Dr. Srijit Biswas, “Effect of E-Quality Control on Tolerance Limits in Wmm & Dbm in Highway Construction - A Case Study”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Technology (IJARET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 33 - 45, ISSN Print: 0976-6480, ISSN Online: 0976-6499. 12. Hameedaswad Mohammed, “The Influence of Road Geometric Design Elements on Highway Safety”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 146 - 162, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. 1. 229

×