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

net/publication/225106102

Approximate cost estimating model for PSC Beam bridge based on quantity of
standard work

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-009-0377-0

CITATIONS READS

10 6,295

3 authors, including:

Kyong Ju Kim Kyoungmin Kim

Chung-Ang University Chung-Ang University
30 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Electronic Data Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyoungmin Kim on 05 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2009) 13(6):377-388 Construction Management
DOI 10.1007/s12205-009-0377-0
www.springer.com/12205

Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on

Quantity of Standard Work
Kyong Ju Kim*, Kyoungmin Kim**, and Chan Sung Kang***
Received April 21, 2009/Accepted June 8, 2009

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

The accuracy of early cost estimates in engineering and construction projects is extremely important to both feasibility study and
evaluation of design alternatives. In particular, to evaluate alternatives at the design stage, quick and accurate decision-making is
needed under a limited definition of scope and constraints in available information and time. This study suggests an approximate cost
estimation model for PSC Beam bridges based on the quantity of standard work. For model development, this study analyzed cost
structure and proportion of cost items through bill of materials and quantities, identified 8 representative work items (Manufacturing
PSC Beam, material, rebar fabrication/placing, supporting post/scaffolding, form work, slab waterproofing, concrete placing, deck
finishing), and established approaches for quantify estimating on the work items. By utilizing the characteristics of bridges, the
suggested model supports quick cost estimation with only three input values (length of span, total length of bridge, and width). The
developed model is applied to 39 real projects for validation. The result of the application showed the accuracy with estimation error
less than 4.04%.
Keywords: PSC beam bridge, approximate cost estimating, standard section, quantity of standard work
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction quantities of representative works which influences construction

The accuracy of early cost estimates for feasibility study and
evaluation of design alternatives is extremely important to both
the owner and engineer. To evaluate alternatives at the design
stage, quick and accurate decision-making is needed under a
limited definition of scope and constraints in the available infor-
mation and time. Cost estimate models, however, have been
limited in road and bridge construction. In addition, models
which reflects increasing details of information at the design
stage, and which can support evaluating alternatives as the pro-
cess of engineering works has been very limited. Approximate
cost estimate models have usually based on the average
construction cost of a unit quantity.
For evaluation on design alternatives and value engineering at
the design stage, however, a more accurate cost estimate model
is necessary. To meet the requirements, the major objective of
this study is to suggest an approximate cost estimate model for
superstructure of the PSC Beam bridges that is based on unit
quantity of standard works and that can be utilized at the design
stage.
Cost estimate model based on unit quantity of standard works
means cost estimating approach utilizes standard section, identifies
cost, and then finally applies unit prices to them. As a result, by
analyzing and utilizing the characteristics of structures, this
approach can support quick and accurate estimate with minimum
input. The suggested model is expected to be used for quick cost
estimation on the design alternatives in value engineering. It also
can support to set target cost at early design stage as a criterion
for the management of design results.
2. Review of Approximate Cost Estimate Models
As shown in Table 1, various models have been suggested as
an approximate cost estimate model so as to improve the
prediction accuracy of cost estimation. Parametric models based
on statistics (Singh, 1990), regression analysis (Kouskoulas and
Koehn, 1974; Trost and Oberlender, 2003), and artificial intelli-
gence (Hegazy and Ayed, 1998; Kim et al., 2004; Kim et al.,
2005) were major methodologies for cost estimation at the early
project stage. In particular, in road and bridge construction area,
utilized methods such as parametric method based on unit price
(Stevens, 1995; Park and Lee, 2002), extrapolation of past trends
/time-series analysis (Hartgen and Talvitie, 1995), a pure multi-
plicative formulation (Wilmot and Cheng, 2003) and cost index

*Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (E-mail: kjkim@cau.ac.kr)
**Member, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
kmkim@wm.cau.ac.kr)
***Member, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (E-mail: kagreement@naver.com)

− 377 −
 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang

Table 1. Current Approximate Cost Estimate Models Table 2. Criteria for Approximate Cost Estimate on Bridges
Researcher Target facility Method Average Unit Cost
Criteria Comparison
(1000KRW)
Chun and Ahn (2001) Golf course Regression analysis
Guide for Road Construction
Kim et al. (2000) Road construction Parametric models 1,547 per m2
(MOCT, 2007b)
Kim et al. (2004) Apartment Regression analysis 2 lanes 18,802
Neural networks 4 lanes 26,839
Kim et al. (2005) Residential building
Genetic algorithms per m
6 lanes 42,396
Park and Lee (2003) Road construction Cost index
Guideline for preliminary 8 lanes 48,708
Road construction
Park and Lee (2002) Unit price feasibility study (KDI, 2004)
(Regional road) 2 lanes 1,275
RC beam and Parametric models 4 lanes 1,080
Singh (1990) per m2
slab building based on statistics
6 lanes 1,227
Kouskoulas and Koehn (1974) Building Regression analysis
8 lanes 1,041
Trost and Oberlender (2003) Capital facility Regression analysis
Guideline for investment
Stevens (1995) Highway Unit price 1,482 per m2
evaluation (MOCT, 2007a)
Hegazy and Ayed (1998) Highway Artificial intelligence
Pure multiplicative sector of both Korea and USA, cost estimates are usually based
Wilmot and Cheng (2003) Highway
formulation on the average price of unit quantity such as cost/length or cost/
Hartgen and Talvitie (1995) Highway Time-series m2 as shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 3 shows historical data that can be used in approximate
cost estimate (Caltrans, 2004). This data can not be used in
method (Park and Lee, 2003), have been used to forecast future evaluating design alternatives at the level of structural elements
overall construction costs. All of those approaches, however, are (Table 4). In addition, the current detail quantity takeoff and the
targeting the feasibility study or early conceptual design stage. cost estimate at the design stage requires too much time and
As a result, those models have limitation in evaluating design resources. It has disadvantages as an estimating method during
alternatives at the level of structural elements. In the public the design progress. As a result, this study is to suggest an

Table 3. Proper Span Length and Cost Range for Various Types of Bridges (Caltrans 2004)
Type of bridge Proper length of span (feet) Cost range ($/FT2) (KRW/m2)
RC SLAB 16-44 85-120 1,096,800-1,548,000
RC T-BEAM 40-60 90-180 1,161,600-2,322,000
RC BOX 50-120 100-170 1,290,000-2,193,600
CIP/PS SLAB 40-65 95-130 1,266,400-1,677,600
CIP/PS BOX 100-150 80-150 1,032,000-1,935,600
PC/PS SLAB 20-50 120-180 1,548,000-2,322,000
PC/PS 30-120 100-170 1,290,000-2,193,600
BULBTT GIRDER 90-145 100-195 1,290,000-2,516,400
PC/PSI 50-120 115-175 1,484,400-2,258,400
PC/PS BOX 120-200 140-250 1,806,000-3,225,600
SRTUCT STEELI-GIRDER 60-300 150-215 1,935,600-2,774,400

Table 4. Comparison of Convention and Suggested Approach

Classification Conventional approach Suggested approach
Relationship between historical cost data and Work quantity based on standard design
Base on estimation
characteristics of a facility section of a facility
Cost data Historical cost index Historical cost index or market price
Major usage Conceptual design stage Design stage
Level of detail Facility Structural element

− 378 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on Quantity of Standard Work

approximate cost model for superstructure of PSC Beam bridges
that reflects the characteristics of bridge structure and supports
quick and accurate estimation. The PSC Beam bridge is the most
typical type of bridge. Survey on the 173 road construction
projects completed after 2000 in Korea shows that 423 bridges
out of 1,151 (the highest 36.8%) were PSC Beam bridges.
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Data Collection
For the analysis of the cost data of PSC Beam bridges, the
study collected design documents for 72 PSC Beam bridges
from 25 road construction projects designed since 2000. In
collecting the data, the study made an effort for uniform distribu-
tion in the date of design, local area, number of lanes, construc-
tion condition of sub-structure (over water or land), and type of
footing. Based on the bill of materials and quantities, the study
calculates construction cost of bridge elements, and classifies the
cost for the analysis of direct construction cost. Project report,
bill of material, bill of quantity, source of unit price and drawings
on the structure are utilized in the analysis. Data format for the
data collection is shown in Fig. 1. The information includes name
of the bridge, construction cost, management agent, construction
date, etc. Structural characteristics such as type of super- and
sub-structure, design attributes (live load, earthquake resistance,
etc.) are identified. In addition, many cost impact factors such as
length, width, slab area, number of lanes are collected.
Data distributions on bridge characteristics such as the date of
design, local area, number of lanes, condition of sub-structure
(over water or land), and type of footing are shown in Fig. 2~Fig.
7. They show that the collected data can be a sample reflecting
the characteristics of population. As shown in Fig. 7, the number
of lanes was usually 4, which was more than 80% of the sample.
However, it is usually same at real construction projects. This
study mainly investigated 4 lanes of PSC Beam bridges.
3.2 Classification of Cost
For the evaluation of design alternatives considering more
detailed elements of a bridge, this study groups into construction
costs for the elements composing of the bridge structure. The
grouping will support to reflect the characteristics of bridge
structural details. Structure of bridge is classified into 4 elements:
superstructure, substructure, services and ancillaries, and site
preparation, as shown in Table 5. Work items, work quantity, and

Fig. 1. Basic Information Sheet for Bridges

Fig. 2. Design Completion Date Fig. 3. Local Areas Fig. 4. Establishment or Extension

Vol. 13, No. 6 / November 2009 − 379 −

 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang

Fig. 5. Condition of Under-structure Fig. 6. Type of Foundation Fig. 7. Number of Lane

Table 5. Work Items for Each Element

Element Work items for each element
Beam, Deck, Deck finisher, PSC string placing and tensioning, Temporary facility (pier table, key-segment, form
Superstructure traveler, temporary bent, etc.), Steel structure, Painting, Supporting post/scaffolding, Construction joints, Water
proofing, Concrete slab finishing/curing, Cover plate, etc.
Piers, Abutments, Foundations, Footing, Approach slab (Dowel-bar), Shoes, Supporting post/scaffolding, Construc-
Substructure
tion joints, Water proofing, etc.
Site preparation Excavation, Refill, Compaction, Ground contouring, Site clearance, Stabilization, etc.
Mechanical and electrical installation, Communications, Protection, Drainage, Guardrails, Fences, Barriers, Median
Services & ancillaries
strip, Deck pavement, Expansion joints, Temporary bridge/road, Maintenance facilities, NOTCH, etc.

cost for each element are calculated and analyzed.
The proportion of cost for the classified elements is shown in
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. In the case of simple span bridge, the cost of
superstructure is 33.14%; substructure, 51.23%; site preparation,
4.49%; and services & ancillaries, 11.14%. In the case of
multiple span bridges, the cost proportion of superstructure is
42.28%; substructure, 41.23%; site preparation, 5.10%; and
services & ancillaries, 11.39%. The super- and sub-structures
constitute approximately 85% of total construction cost.

4. Approximate Cost Estimating Model Based on

Quantity of Standard Works

4.1 Process of Estimating

Fig. 8. Cost Structure by Element (Single Span)
Fig. 9. Cost Structure by Element (Multiple Span)
Bridges are usually designed by unique length of span depend-
ing on their type. Especially PSC Beam bridges are designed into
25 m, 30 m, or 35 m of span length in Korean design system.
Each length of span has corresponding standard design section.
As a result, the quantity of standard work per unit length using
the standard section can be identified. The construction cost of
PSC Beam bridges also can be estimated easily by multiplying
quantity of standard work, its unit price and span length of the
bridge.
Based on the standard section of main elements composing a
bridge, the study investigates standard work items, which can
represent the bridge construction cost. Then, the study identifies
unit quantities for the standard work items so as to provide a base
for cost estimation on standard work quantity. The construction
cost for each element is estimated by multiplying the standard
work quantity and unit price.
If there is any change in the design code, such as design
against earthquake or change of section, this estimating model is
adaptable by changing the unit quantity related to the change.
The model is able to support more accurate cost estimation by
reflecting detailed elements of the structure. Fig. 10 shows the

− 380 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on Quantity of Standard Work

Fig. 10. Process of Approximate Cost Estimate Based on Standard Work Quantities

approximate cost estimating process on the PSC Beam bridges

based on the standard section and work quantity.

4.2 Identification of Standard Section

The result of analyzing the collected data shows that PSC
Beam bridges are currently designed as a standard section by
each span length. The standard lengths of the spans are 25 m, 30
m and 35 m, and the bridges with the same length have similar
quantity of work. In addition, as shown in Fig. 11, most of the
bridges have 20.9 m of the width. As a result, the study selected a
standard section utilizing bridges that have 4 lanes with the width
of 20.9 m, and three pieces of cross beams. Its standard cross-
section is shown in Fig. 12. The study identified 8 of standard
work items (Manufacturing PSC Beam, material, rebar fabrication
/placing, supporting post/scaffolding, form work, slab water-

Fig. 12. Standard Section of PSC Beam Bridges with 4 Lanes

proofing, concrete placing, deck finishing) and investigated how

to simply calculate work quantities on the standard work items.

4.3 Identification of Standard Work Items

Twenty percent of work items with high volume usually take
80% of total construction cost (Lee, 2003). After classification of
Fig. 11. Distribution of Width of PSC Beam Bridge with 4 Lanes construction cost into the elements of structure, such as

Vol. 13, No. 6 / November 2009 − 381 −

 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang

Table 6. Cost Structure of Standard Works for Superstructure process calculating the unit quantities of the standard works. The
Activities Percentage (Average) details are as follows.
Manufacturing PSC Beam 50.20 %
4.4.1 Manufacturing the PSC Beam
Cost of Material (Concrete, Rebar) 23.97 % The unit of quantity is set as the number of PSC Beam in a
Rebar fabrication/placing 8.47 % span (30 m/35 m) with 4 lanes (No. of beams/span). The number
Standard Supporting post/scaffolding 6.00 % of PSC beams in a span is usually 10 pieces. As shown in Fig.
works Form work 5.30 %
14, however, there have been a few bridges having 8, 9, or 11
pieces of beams. This means generally 10 pieces of beams are
Slab waterproofing 3.44 %
used in a span. However, the number of beams per span may be
Concrete placing 1.67 % adjusted by the designer’s intent. As a result, even though the
Deck finishing 0.18 % default is 10, this study set an option range that users can select
Subtotal 99.24 % from 8 to 11.
Miscellaneous 0.76 %
4.4.2 Material (Concrete)
Total 100 % The material cost of concrete is classified into three elements

superstructure and substructure, the study identifies cost

proportion of each work item in the project total cost, and lists
the items in the order of higher portion in the project cost, and
then finally decides standard works representing its construction
cost. According to the identified order of higher portion in the
construction cost, 8 work items are selected as standard works.
The portion of only 8 standard works’ cost was analyzed as
99.24% in the total cost of the superstructure as shown in Table 6
and Fig. 13.

4.4 Method of Measuring Quantities of Standard Works

Based on the bill of quantities, for the PSC Beam bridges
having 4 lanes and 20.9 m standard width, the study suggests Fig. 14. Number of PSC Beams per Span

Fig. 13. Cost Proportion of Standard Works (Superstructure of PSC Beam Bridge), A: Manufacturing PSC Beam, B: Cost of Material
(Concrete), C: Rebar Fabrication/placing, D: Supporting Post/scaffolding, E: Form Work, F: Slab Waterproofing, G: Concrete
Placing, H: Deck Finishing, I: Miscellaneous

− 382 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on Quantity of Standard Work

Table 7. Approach to Calculate the Quantity of Concrete Material
Elements Approach
Unit of quantity measurement is volume for one piece of
PSC Beam
PSC beam (m3/piece). Strength of concrete is 400 kg/cm2
Unit of quantity measurement is volume per length (m3/
Slab
length of span). strength 270 kg//cm2 of concrete is used.
Unit of quantity measurement is volume of three pieces of
Cross Beam cross beams (m3; 3 pieces/span). Three pieces of cross
beam are used in a span. Strength of concrete is 270 kg/cm2
4.4.4 Rebar Fabrication
The cost of rebar fabrication is classified into cost for fabrica-
tion and for material. The bridges are classified into straight and
skew types by their geometry. This study suggests a method first
identifying the ratio of rebar weight to concrete volume (tonnage
of rebar/volume of concrete), and then transforming it to the
quantity of rebar by multiplying the quantity of concrete which is
identified at previous section. That is, the quantity of rebar fabri-
cation is calculated by multiplying the predefined weight ratio of
the rebar to the quantity of concrete, which is identified in the
previous section. To support this work, this study investigated
the average weight ratio of rebar to the volume of concrete (ton/
m3). The ratios for elements of superstructure are shown in Table
8. Quantity of rebar material also has a surcharge factor because
of loss during work (Table 8)

4.4.5 Supporting Post

Works for supporting posts are classified into general and deck
finish. The unit of quantity is the work quantity per unit length of
Fig. 15. Status on the Number of Cross Beam per Span the girder (labors/m3/m)

of the superstructure (PSC beams, slabs, cross-beams). The 4.4.6 Form Work
detailed approach to calculate the quantity of each element is Only veneer types of forms are used in the super structure. The
shown in Table 7. Through the analysis on the drawings, it is unit quantity per length (m2/m) is identified.
found that most of the bridges have 3 pieces of cross-beams per
span as shown in Fig. 15. As a result, the unit of concrete 4.4.7 Water Proofing and Deck Finishing
quantity measurement for cross beams is the volume of the three Deck finishing is composed of curing concrete slab and
pieces of crossbeams. finishing the deck. The unit of quantity measurement is m/m.
The unit quantity is set as the width of the slab minus the width
4.4.3 Concrete Placing of a median strip and a guardrail. The quantity of deck water
Concrete placing is work items for slab and cross beam. As a proofing is same as that of deck finishing.
result, the quantity of concrete placing include the quantity of
strength 270 kg/cm2 of concrete for a slab and a cross beam. The Unit quantity = width of bridge − 0.45m × 2 (width of guardrail)
concrete quantity for a slab is the identified quantity of concrete − 1.0 m (width of median strip) (1)
material at the previous section, multiplied by length of span.
The concrete quantity for a cross beam is the identified unit 4.5 Unit Quantity of Standard Works
quantity for 3 pieces of cross beams. The quantity of concrete Based on the method of measurement described in the
placing is the summation of these two quantities divided by previous chapter (4.4), a standard (unit) quantity for each work
101% because the quantity of concrete placing is the net quantity item is identified for each standard length of one span (30 m/35
and the quantity of concrete material has surcharge factor con- m). The unit quantities of standard works in 30 m and 35 m of a
sidering its loss in work. span are shown in Table 9 and Table 10.
Table 8. Method to Quantify Rebar Fabrication & Rebar Material
Work Items Element Unit Straight Bridge Skew Bridge Compare
Slab Quantity of concrete × 0.1903 Quantity of concrete × 0.2131
30 m
Rebar Cross beam Quantity of concrete × 0.1512 Quantity of concrete × 0.0963
Fabrication ton Weight ratio
(Net quantity) Slab Quantity of concrete × 0.2077 Quantity of concrete × 0.1883
35 m
Cross beam Quantity of concrete × 0.1046 Quantity of concrete × 0.1085
Slab Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0325 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0349
30 m
Rebar Cross beam Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0350 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0534 Surcharge
ton
(Add quantity) Slab Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0411 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0399 factor
35 m
Cross beam Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0378 Quantity of rebar fabrication × 1.0351

Vol. 13, No. 6 / November 2009 − 383 −

 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang

Table 9. Unit Quantity for Standard Works (Length of Span: 30 m)

Unit Quantity for Standard Section -Length of Span: 30 m
Standard Works Unit Unit quantity (Straight/Skew)
1. Manufacturing PSC Beam piece/span 10
2. Cost of Materials
2.1 Concrete
Ready-mixed Con’c : 40 MPa (PSC Beam) m3/piece 22.82
Ready-mixed Con’c : 27 MPa (slab) m3/m 5.24
Ready-mixed Con’c : 27MPa (cross beam) m3 (3 pieces)/span 9.15
2.2 Rebar
Rebar (D13 m, D16-32 mm)-(PSC Beam) ton/piece 4.55
Rebar (H13 m, H16-32 mm)-(slab) ton Rebar f&p × (1.0325/1.0349)
Rebar (D13 m, D16-32 mm)-(cross beam) ton Rebar f&p × (1.0350/1.0534)
3. Rebar fabrication & placing (f&p) ton
PSC Beam ton/piece 4.42
Complex slab ton Con’c × (0.1903/0.2131)
cross beam ton Con’c × (0.1512/0.0963)
3
4. Supporting post/scaffolding Labor/m /m 25.84
5. Form work m2/m
Veneer (3 times) slab+cross beam 19.01
6. Surface finish
Slab curing m2 Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)
Deck finishing m2 Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)
7. Concrete placing
Reinforced concrete (pumping car, 0~15 m) m3 (Slab+Cross beams)/1.01
8. Slab waterproofing m2 Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)

Table 10. Unit Quantity for Standard Works (Length of Span : 35 m)

Unit Quantity for Standard Section -Length of Span: 35 m
Standard work Unit Unit quantity (Straight/Skew)
1. Manufacturing PSC Beam Piece/span 10
2. Cost of Materials
2.1 Concrete
Ready-mixed Con’c : 40 MPa (PSC Beam) m3/piece 33.31
Ready-mixed Con’c : 27 MPa (slab) m3/m 5.21
Ready-mixed Con’c : 27 MPa (cross beam) m3 (3pieces)/span 8.68
2.2 Rebar
Rebar (D13 m, D16-32 mm)-(PSC Beam) ton/piece 6.32
Rebar (H13 m, H16-32 mm)-(slab) ton Rebar f&p × (1.0411/1.0399)
Rebar (D13 m, D16-32 mm)-(cross beam) ton Rebar f&p × (1.0378/1.0351)
3. Rebar fabrication & placing (f&p) ton
PSC Beam ton/piece 6.15
Complex slab ton Con’c × (0.2077/0.1883)
cross beam ton Con’c × (0.1046/0.1085)
3
4. Supporting post/ scaffolding Labor/ m /m 25.41
5. Form work m2/m
Veneer (3times) slab + cross beam 19.85
6. Surface finish
Slab curing m2 Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)
2
Deck finishing m Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)
7. Concrete placing
Reinforced concrete (pumping car, 0~15 m) m3 Slab+cross beam
8. Slab waterproofing m2 Width - 0.45×2(Guardrail) - 1.0(Median strip)

− 384 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on Quantity of Standard Work
4.6 Unit Quantity of Standard Works for Various Widths
In order to measure the unit quantities of standard works for
bridges with different widths, the study analyzed the tendency of
variance in the unit quantities due to the change of width. The
unit quantity of bridge with 20.9 m of width was used as a basis
for the comparison. The study identified that it is possible to
measure the unit quantity of a bridge with different widths in
proportion to its width.
4.7 Cost Estimating Model of PSC Beam Bridges
An approximate cost estimating model based on standard
section and work quantity can be summarized as shown in Fig.
16. The construction cost of a PSC Beam bridge superstructure
can be estimated by utilizing only 3 input values. The input
values are the length of bridge, its width, and the length of
span.
A PSC Beam bridge with 20.9 m of standard width basically
has 10 pieces of beams per span, and the number of beams per
span can be adjusted to 8~11 depending on the user. In case of
manufacturing a PSC beam, the total quantity of the beam is cal-
culated by unit quantity per span (basically 10 pieces) multiplied
by the number of spans (total length/span length).
For the estimation of concrete material cost, the quantity of
concrete is calculated for PSC beams, slabs, and cross beams.
For the PSC Beam, the unit of quantity measurement is volume
per PSC Beam (m3/piece). The unit quantity of the volume is
Fig. 16. Cost Estimating Process of PSC Bridge Superstructure
Vol. 13, No. 6 / November 2009
multiplied by the number of total pieces of the beam that is
identified at the previous process. For the cross beam, the unit of
quantity measurement is volume of three pieces of cross beams
(m3; 3 pieces), because the number of cross beams per span is
usually 3 pieces. The unit quantity of the volume is multiplied by
the number of span (length of bridge/length of span).
For the estimation of rebar related costs, the quantity of rebar is
also calculated for PSC Beam, slab, and cross beam. The cost of
rebar works includes material cost and fabrication/placing cost.
For the quantity of rebar fabrication and placing, the unit of
quantity measurement is ton across each cross beam (ton/piece).
The unit quantity of the ton is transformed by multiplying the
unit weight ratio in Table 8 and the total quantity of concrete that
is identified at the previous process. The quantity for rebar
material is obtained by multiplying the surcharge factor (Table 8)
and the quantity of rebar fabrication and placing.
In addition, for the various widths of bridges, by applying
proportion to basic width, the unit quantity for the standard work
items can be estimated. The cost can be calculated by multi-
plying unit price for the standard work to the quantity. The total
cost of superstructure can be estimated by utilizing the propor-
tion of 8 standard works in the total cost.
Like this, this study analyzed the following characteristics of
PSC Beam Bridge: length of span (30 m, 35 m), width, unit
quantity for standard section, quantity transformation proportion
of rebar fabrication to concrete work, and quantity proportion of
− 385 −
 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang

rebar material to rebar fabrication. By utilizing the characteris-
tics, this suggested model can support efficient estimation of
construction cost with only 3 input values (length of span, total
length of bridge, and width).
5. Validation of the Model
For the validation of the proposed cost estimating model, this
study compared the cost from the detailed bill of quantity and the
estimate by the proposed model. It is shown in Table 11. In a

Table 11. Validation of Model for PSC Beam Bridges

Bridge ID. Length (m) Width (m) No. of span Geometry Real cost (KRW, ￦) Estimate (KRW, ￦) Error
01-A 30 24.9 1 Straight 328,445,993 323,773,919 -1.42%
01-B 180 24.4 6 Straight 2,040,299,656 2,079,951,440 1.94%
01-C 30 21.1 1 Straight 256,678,818 267,054,686 4.04%
01-D 30 21.0 1 Skew 281,892,135 283,097,706 0.43%
01-E 210 22.8 7 Skew 1,922,410,234 1,928,318,703 0.31%
01-F 90 21.0 3 Skew 1,006,583,913 1,000,604,561 -0.59%
01-G 30 21.0 1 Skew 308,647,551 298,357,944 -3.33%
01-H 30 21.1 1 Skew 250,907,466 247,079,522 -1.53%
Length of
span, 01-I 90 23.0 3 Skew 856,372,144 840,104,285 -1.90%
30 m 01-J 30 24.9 1 Skew 265,910,966 263,816,286 -0.79%
(18 bridges)
01-K 120 20.9 4 Straight 1,125,681,392 1,145,778,486 1.79%
01-L 150 20.9 5 Straight 1,282,335,901 1,271,928,418 -0.81%
01-M 90 20.9 3 Straight 771,005,131 762,436,737 -1.11%
01-N 120 20.9 4 Straight 1,026,839,705 1,009,623,109 -1.68%
01-O 180 20.9 6 Skew 1,535,563,053 1,541,269,889 0.37%
01-P 30 20.9 1 Skew 264,385,182 261,048,254 -1.26%
01-Q 60 20.9 2 Straight 636,924,515 626,779,048 -1.59%
01-R 120 21.0 4 Straight 1,281,286,599 1,244,151,151 -2.90%
02-A 35 22.8 1 Straight 384,823,425 385,239,741 0.11%
02-B 105 22.4 3 Skew 1,109,801,052 1,104,842,347 -0.45%
02-C 35 21.4 1 Skew 1,027,531,767 1,029,270,155 0.17%
02-D 140 21.4 4 Straight 1,358,742,220 1,377,629,344 1.39%
02-E 140 22.8 4 Straight 1,249,669,755 1,243,927,007 -0.46%
02-F 105 21.4 3 Straight 1,053,767,444 1,029,231,913 -2.33%
02-G 70 21.0 2 Straight 1,347,550,951 1,390,725,815 3.20%
02-H 35 21.0 1 Skew 284,671,072 281,060,264 -1.27%
02-I 140 22.8 4 Straight 1,647,229,777 1,621,462,037 -1.56%
Length of 02-J 35 20.9 1 Straight 358,515,666 365,102,655 1.84%
span;
02-K 105 20.9 3 Straight 375,281,122 374,322,463 -0.26%
35m
(21 bridges) 02-L 385 20.9 11 Skew 3,924,410,150 3,885,352,839 -1.00%
02-M 35 20.9 1 Skew 379,240,714 377,841,071 -0.37%
02-N 35 20.9 1 Straight 376,107,011 376,786,876 0.18%
02-O 35 20.9 1 Skew 377,604,802 376,907,063 -0.18%
02-P 385 20.9 11 Straight 3,642,262,011 3,624,748,326 -0.48%
02-Q 420 20.9 12 Straight 3,991,006,428 3,983,416,542 -0.19%
02-R 560 20.9 16 Skew 5,308,152,827 5,273,586,600 -0.65%
02-S 280 20.9 8 Skew 2,652,672,619 2,646,572,464 -0.23%
02-T 105 20.9 3 Skew 996,642,225 1,016,276,987 1.97%
02-U 140 20.9 4 Straight 979,745,642 953,071,443 -2.72%

− 386 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Approximate Cost Estimating Model for PSC Beam Bridge Based on Quantity of Standard Work

Fig. 17. (a) 30 m Span Bridge’s Error Between Real And Estimate, (b) 35 m Span Bridge’s Error Between Real And Estimate

total of 39 bridges, the error range of the estimate was +4.04% ~
-3.3%. The average and the standard deviation of the error were
1.25% and 1%, respectively (Fig. 17).
6. Conclusions
The major objective of this study was to propose an approxi-
mate cost estimation model for the superstructure of PSC Beam
bridges. To meet this requirement, this study analyzed the cost
structure and proportion of the cost items through bills of
materials and quantities, and then identified 8 representative
work items that take 99.24% of the total cost. The standard
quantities of the work items were analyzed. The process for cost
estimate was established and validated by applying it to real
project data. The result of the application showed the accuracy
with estimation error less than 5% in 39 bridges.
By utilizing the characteristics of bridges, the suggested model
supports quick cost estimation with only three input values
(length of span, total length of bridge, and width). In addition,
since the quantity for each element of the bridge can be estimat-
ed, it enables to segregate the unit cost and the quantity. This
makes it possible to respond efficiently to the change of environ-
ments such as design code and work productivity.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant (06 CIT A03) From
Research Policy & Infrastructure Development Program funded
by Ministry of Construction & Transportation of Korean govern-
ment.
References
CalTrans. (2004). Contract cost data, Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA.
Chun, Y. B. and Ahn, J. W. (2001). “Approximate cost estimating model
based on historical cost data on golf course.” Journal of Institute of
Technology and Science, Chung Ang University, Vol. 31, pp. 71-80.

Vol. 13, No. 6 / November 2009 − 387 −

 Kyong Ju Kim, Kyoungmin Kim, and Chan Sung Kang
Hegazy, T. and Ayed, A. (1998). “Neural network model for parametric
cost estimation of highway projects.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 210-218.
Hartgen, D. T. and Talvitie, A. P. (1995). ‘‘Comparative performance of
transportation systems: Pitfalls and prospects.’’ Proc., World Conf.
on Transit Research, Sydney, Australia.
KDI. (2004). Guideline for preliminary feasibility study; Road and
Railway-Ver. 4, Korea Development Institute, Seoul.
Kim, G. H., An, S. H., and Kang, K. I. (2004). “Comparison of construc-
tion cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural
networks, and case-based reasoning.” Building and Environment,
Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1235-1242.
Kim, G. H., Seo, D. S., and Kang, K. I. (2005). “Hybrid models of
neural networks and genetic algorithms for predicting preliminary
cost estimates.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 208-211.
Kim, S. K., Shin, J. S., Koo, I. H., and Kim, Y. K. (2000). “A statistical
cost model of road construction project at the planning stage.”
Journal of Civil Engineering, KSCE, Vol. 20, No. 2-D, pp. 171-180.
Kouskoulas, V. and Koehn, E. (1974). “Predesign cost estimation
function for buildings.” Journal of the Construction Division,
ASCE, Dec., pp. 589-604.
Lee, Y. S. (2003). “Development of construction cost model through the
analysis of critical work items.” Journal of Construction Manage-
− 388 −
View publication stats
ment, KICEM, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 212-219.
MOCT. (2007a). Guideline for investment evaluation, Ministry of
Construction and Transportation (MOCT), Seoul.
MOCT. (2007b). Guide for road construction, Ministry of Construc-
tion and Transportation (MOCT), Seoul.
Park, J. H. and Lee, T. S. (2002). “Development of the cost analysis
format for road construction project.” Journal of Civil Engineering,
KSCE, Vol. 22, No. 2-D, pp. 259-269.
Park, J. H. and Lee, T. S. (2003). “Methodology for a cost estimating on
the project of a composite facility.” Journal of Civil Engineering,
KSCE, Vol. 23, No. 1-D, pp. 69-78.
Singh S. (1990). “Cost model for reinforced concrete beam and slab
structures in building.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Stevens, J. D. (1995). ‘‘Cost estimating and forecasting for highway
work in Kentucky.’’ Research Rep. KTC 95-12, Kentucky
Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.
Trost, S. M. and Oberlender, G. D. (2003). “Predicting accuracy of early
cost estimates using factor analysis and multivariate regression.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
129, No. 2, pp. 198-204.
Wilmot, C. G. and Cheng, G. (2003). “Estimating future highway
construction costs.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp. 272-279.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering