FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-23-012

FHWA Contacts:

Benjamin A. Graybeal, HRDI-40, 202-493-3122, benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov; ORCID 0000-0002-3694-1369

Authors:

Zachary B. Haber, FHWA, ORCID 0000-0002-4471-2839

Michael McDonagh, WSP USA

Andrew Foden, WSP USA

Suri Sadasivam, WSP USA

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, ultra-high performance concrete 

(UHPC) is a nascent solution for thin bonded overlays 

and highway bridge deck partial-depth replacements. 

In the United States, UHPC has been used for this 

purpose since 2016. The first adopter, Switzerland, 

has used UHPC in this manner since 2004.(1,2)

 UHPC 

overlays are expected to add decades of service life to 

existing bridge decks. The expectations for enhanced 

service life are based on the following key properties 

of UHPC-class materials: very low permeability, 

strong bond strength to conventional concretes, and 

post-cracking tensile ductility through the formation of 

uniformly distributed microcracks.(2–4)

 Additionally, an 

investigation into the first UHPC bridge deck overlay in 

Switzerland revealed that the deterioration of the bridge 

deck, which was visible from the soffit of the bridge deck 

prior to installation of UHPC overlay, had not worsened 

in more than decade since the installation of the overlay.

OBJECTIVE

There are two challenges to broader adoption of UHPC 

overlays: lack of long-term in-service performance data 

and high initial material cost of UHPC relative to other 

bridge deck overlay materials. This document provides 

information addressing the latter challenge. The lifecycle 

cost analysis (LCCA) can be used to counter arguments 

against the high initial material costs of UHPC overlays. 

This document presents a summary of an LCCA study 

that was performed by a signature bridge owner 

evaluating different overlay options for one of their 

bridges. The analysis compared UHPC overlays with 

several thicknesses with conventional concrete overlay 

solutions and complete deck replacement. The findings 

show the net present cost of the different solutions and 

a break-even analysis. Lastly, the study also represents 

an example of what bridge owners could do to create a 

project-specific cost comparison.

BACKGROUND

Formed by an interstate compact in 1968, the Delaware 

River and Bay Authority (DRBA) is a bi State government 

agency that provides transportation links between 

Delaware and New Jersey. DRBA operates two ferry 

ways, five regional airports, and most notably, in the 

context of this document, the Delaware Memorial 

Bridge (DMB) structures, which are shown in figure 1; 

this document focuses on the First Structure. The First 

Structure carries northbound I–295 from Newcastle, 

DE into New Jersey, and onto the New Jersey Turnpike. 

The First Structure bridge includes a 3,650-ft suspension 

bridge with a 2,150-ft main span, plus elevated 

approach structures composed of girder-supported 

spans and deck-truss spans at each end, for a total 

bridge length of 10,795 ft. The DMB structures are a 

key component of the I–95 corridor connecting the 

Washington, DC-area with New York, NY, carrying 

Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) 

Overlays: An Example of Lifecycle Cost Analysis

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

https://highways.dot.gov/research

TECHNOTE
2

truck traffic trying to avoid congestion on I–95 through 

Philadelphia, PA.

The First Structure opened to traffic in 1951. In 1968, 

DRBA constructed the second parallel bridge, referred 

to as the Second Structure, and replaced the deck on 

the First Structure to convert it from bidirectional traffic 

with a raised center median to full-width unidirectional 

traffic. The First Structure’s bridge deck is 51-ft wide, with 

a total surface area of 550,575 ft2

; a typical section is 

shown in figure 2.

Over the past few decades, DRBA has been spending 

an ever-increasing amount of time and money installing 

localized patching repairs to the deck that have been 

lasting an average of 10 yr. In 2019, as the deck of 

the First Structure approached 50 yr of service life, 

DRBA performed a detailed deck condition evaluation. 

They determined that continued deck patching was 

unsustainable, and they would likely need to replace 

the entire deck within the next 5 to 15 yr. As such, 

DRBA and their engineering consults conducted a 

detailed LCCA to evaluate alternatives to complete deck 

replacement. Their analysis included different bridge 

deck overlay solutions and different deck replacement 

solutions.

OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYSIS PERFORMED

LCCA was performed to compare multiple deck 

rehabilitation strategies and multiple deck replacement 

options. The results of the analysis were used to 

determine the cost effectiveness and break-even 

analysis of each approach. Three different overlay 

materials, three different installation strategies, and the 

four deck replacement options were initially considered 

for the analysis. Notably, the DMB does not have 

enough reserve structural capacity to support additional 

dead load on the deck. As such, overlay materials could 

not be placed on top of the existing deck. Rather, all 

the overlay options included removing existing deck 

concrete to a depth equal to the thickness of the new 

materials placed. As such, each “overlay” solution is 

effectively a partial-depth deck replacement.

OVERLAY MATERIALS

As noted in table 1, three different overlay materials 

were initially considered: latex modified concrete 

(LMC), high early strength LMC (LMC-VE), and UHPC. 

DRBA selected UHPC because they were interested in 

investigating this emerging solution. The LMC materials 

were selected as comparison points. DRBA has used 

LMC and is most familiar with it. It should be noted that 

there are a number of other overlay solutions available 

on the U.S. market.(5)

LMC

LMC has a long deployment history for bridge deck 

overlays in the United States. The State of Virginia has 

used LMC for over 50 yr.(6)

 The addition of latex to 

conventional concrete increases flexural strength and 

reduce permeability.(7)

 LMC has also demonstrated the 

ability to bond well with conventional concrete if the 

substrate is adequately prepared.(8)

 The main challenges 

for LMCs are related to installation. LMC overlays 

require specialized equipment and experienced 

contractors, while the quality of the construction is also 

sensitive to weather conditions.(5)

LMC-VE

LMC-VE is a variant of LMC that gains strength at 

a faster pace but exhibits properties similar to a 

conventional LMC. The primary difference between 

the two products is the type of cement used: LMC-VE 

Figure 1. Photo. DMB Structures.

© 2021 DRBA. Modified by FHWA.

Figure 2. Illustration. Cross-section of DMB deck and stringers.

© 2021 DRBA.
3

employs rapid hardening hydraulic cement (ASTM 

C1600) in place of ordinary Type I and II portland 

cement (ASTM C150).(9,10)

 Virginia has successfully used 

this material in bridge deck overlays since 1997.(6)

 The 

primary advantage of LMC-VEs is that they allow short 

construction windows. Construction crews can place 

an overlay and open a structure to traffic in as little as 

3 hr.(6)

 The material cost of LMC-VE is higher than that 

of conventional LMC, but this higher cost is offset by 

the reduction in traffic control costs associated with the 

short construction window. The primary challenge with 

LMC-VEs is the need for tight construction and curing 

controls. The high heat of hydration, and delayed curing 

has been known to result in plastic shrinkage cracking. 

Additionally, moist curing is essential.(6,11)

UHPC-Class Materials

UHPC-class materials are much newer than LMCs, 

having only been used in bridge engineering 

applications in the United States since 2006. 

Furthermore, these materials are emerging as a bridge 

deck overlay solution. UHPC-class materials offer a 

lot of potential benefits as overlay materials. UHPCs 

can act as both a water-proofing layer and a wearing 

surface. However, UHPCs can also become part of 

the structural deck, increasing its structural capacity 

and stiffness. UHPCs have high resistance to freeze–

thaw damage, extremely low permeability, and tensile 

ductility due to internal microfiber reinforcement. 

Additionally, when UHPC cracks, the cracks are 

typically very fine and uniformly distributed. UHPC-class 

materials also bond very well to existing concrete.(12,13)

Lastly, UHPCs that are formulated for bridge overlay 

applications are typically designed to be thixotropic, 

which allows the material to be placed on inclined 

surfaces.(8)

 As such, vibration is required to develop 

an adequate bond between UHPC and the concrete 

substrate; this requirement is contrary to UHPCs 

formulated for joint fill applications.

OVERLAY INSTALLATION STRATEGIES

Three different overlays installation strategies were 

considered. All options involved removing a portion of 

the existing deck concrete to accommodate the overlay 

(partial-depth deck replacement) to avoid additional 

dead load and expansion joint modification. The deck 

of the DMB First Structure includes a steel stay-inplace form and welded truss bars, which link the top 

and bottom mats of transverse reinforcement; shown in 

figure 3 through figure 5. A prior deck evaluation, which 

was completed by the owner, determined that the deck 

has an average cover of 2.2 inches. Details for the three 

installation strategies are listed below:

Installation Strategy 1 (IS1): Remove existing cover 

concrete to within 0.4 inches of the top mat of the 

reinforcing bars (rebar). This change is equated to 

approximately 1.75 inches of concrete removal. Remove 

the concrete to replace it with overlay material. This 

strategy is illustrated in figure 3.

Figure 3. Illustration. IS1 using a 1.75 inch overlay.

© 2021 DRBA.

Installation Strategy 2 (IS2): Remove existing concrete 

to a depth of 0.5 inches below the top mat of rebar. 

This change is equated to approximately 3.75 inches 

of concrete removal. Remove the concrete to replace it 

with overlay material. The primary benefit of this strategy 

is that removing existing concrete to a greater depth 

would eliminate chloride-contaminated concrete around 

the rebar, and the overlay material would encapsulate 

the top mat of steel reinforcement. As such, greater 

protection of the reinforcing steel would be achieved 

along with an enhanced durability of the deck. This 

strategy is illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 4. Illustration. IS2 using a 3.75 inch overlay.

© 2021 DRBA.

Installation Strategy 3 (IS3): Remove existing concrete 

to a depth of 0.5 inches below the top mat of rebar. 

This change is equated to approximately 3.75 inches 

of concrete removal. Remove the concrete and replace 

it with 2.5 inches overlay material and a 1.25-inch 

asphalt topping. This strategy has the same advantages 

of IS2, but at a lower cost due to the use of asphalt as a 

topping layer. This strategy is illustrated in figure 5.
4

Figure 5. Illustration. IS3 using a 2.5 inch 

overlay with 1.25 inch asphalt.

© 2021 DRBA.

OVERLAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A key component of the LCCA was developing the unit 

costs for the overlay materials and each respective 

installation strategy. The estimated unit construction costs 

for the different materials and installation strategies 

are shown in table 1. These costs include materials, 

labor, hydrodemolition for bridge deck surface 

preparation, and traffic control. It should be noted 

that these costs are intended for overlays on the entire 

surface of the DMB First Structure, which as a bridge 

deck area of approximately 550,575 ft2

. The costs for 

the LMC overlays were primarily determined using 

existing literature and the experience of engineering 

consultants. Given that UHPC overlays are an emerging 

technology, the UHPC overlay construction costs were 

estimated by collecting data from previous project bid 

tabulations and soliciting estimated costs from a UHPC 

overlay contractor. Lastly, the cost of bridge deck 

hydrodemolition was assumed to be approximately 

$15/ft2

, which was based on data from previous 

projects. The cost of hydrodemolition will inversely scale 

with the bridge deck area.

The estimated cost for IS1 using UHPC was determined 

using construction cost information from nine UHPC 

bridge deck overlays projects constructed in the United 

States from 2016 to 2020. The projects were in the 

States of Iowa, Delaware, New York, and New Jersey. 

Each of these projects used an installation strategy 

similar to IS1 described herein. The data collected from 

these previous projects were analyzed and normalized 

to the overlay installation thickness of 1.75 inches. 

Figure 6 depicts the relationship between cost per 

square ft and the overlay installation area. Each data 

point represents a previous project. Each project was 

given an identification (ID) number. Project details 

are listed in table 2. In general, the cost scales with 

the installation area, albeit not linearly. The DMB First 

Structure deck surface, where these overlays would be 

applied, is approximately 550,575 ft2

. As such, IS1 with 

UHPC was assigned a unit cost of $55/ft2

.

The as-built construction costs of UHPC overlay pilot 

projects were used to determine the estimated costs for 

installing UHPC overlays using IS2 and IS3. These pilot 

projects were completed on the DMB First Structure 

and the Commodore Barry Bridge (CBB). The CBB is a 

signature structure south of the Philadelphia International 

Airport, connecting New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and 

spanning the Delaware River. Experience from these 

projects revealed that removing concrete below the 

top mat of steel is often difficult. This type of concrete 

removal was specified for IS2 and IS3. Due to these 

removal difficulties, additional work was required by 

the contractor, which increased the construction costs 

for both pilot projects. To be as objective as possible, 

this work has been accounted for in the costs shown in 

table 1 for IS2 and IS3 using UHPC. Note that the data 

from figure 6 is not likely scalable for UHPC overlay 

installations that require concrete removal below the 

top mat of steel. Considering the available data and 

knowledge, IS2 and IS3 with UHPC were assigned unit 

costs of $127/ft2

 and $109/ft2, respectively.

As noted in table 1, the combination of LMC and 

IS3 was excluded from the analysis for the following 

reason—asphalt is typically porous and will trap 

moisture and chlorides at the interface between the 

asphalt and the deck below. Placing asphalt over 

high performance concrete—without a waterproofing 

membrane—is avoided by most transportation agencies. 

It would be unadvisable to do the same with LMCs 

given that LMCs have a chloride ion penetrability 

like that of conventional high-performance concrete. 

Additionally, the performance objective was that the 

overlay material alone protected the deck, and an 

additional membrane or waterproof asphalt would only 

add further costs and future maintenance considerations.

Table 1. Estimated unit construction costs; includes cost of materials, labor, hydrodemolition 

for bridge deck surface preparation, and traffic control.

Installation Strategy Brief Description UHPC (Cost/ft2

) LMC (Cost/ft2)

1 1.75-inch partial depth replacement $55 $23

2 3.75-inch partial depth replacement $127 $39

3 2.5-inch partial depth replacement 

with 1.25-inch asphalt topping $109 Not considered for analysis
5

OVERLAY SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATES

Table 3 presents service life estimates for the different 

overlay materials and installation strategies. It is very 

important to note that these numbers were developed 

using engineering judgement, the previous experience 

of the bridge owner, and the engineering consultants of 

the bridge owner. The numbers do not reflect all cases 

or situations. The reasoning behind each estimate is 

provided herein.

At the time of this writing, there was 

virtually no long-term service life data for 

UHPC overlays on actual bridges, mainly 

given that most projects globally are less 

than 20 yr old. As such, the expected 

service life of UHPC is based on existing 

data, laboratory testing, and testing 

performed in extreme environments. A 

few examples of known UHPC overlay 

performance data are provided herein.

One of the earliest UHPC bridge deck 

overlays was installed in ChâteauneufConthey, Switzerland in 2004 on a bridge 

spanning the Morge River. The UHPC 

overlay was 1.18-inch thick and an asphalt 

wearing surface was installed on top of 

it; however, a waterproofing membrane 

was not used between the UHPC overlay 

and the asphalt topping. After 10 yr 

of service, the UHPC overlay was still 

performing well. Elevated chloride levels 

were only found within the first 0.1 inch 

of the UHPC overlay. Visual inspection 

formally documented that the overlay was 

protecting the underlying deck.(15)

Research conducted by Moffatt et al. demonstrated 

that UHPC samples subjected to 20 yr of aggressive 

marine exposure had a maximum chloride content 

of approximately 0.25 percent (percent by mass of 

concrete) at a depth of approximately 0.12 inches 

below the surface exposed to salt water.(14)

 After 

13 yr of exposure, reinforcing bars extracted from the 

samples with 0.4 inches of cover showed no signs of 

corrosion. Additionally, standardized laboratory testing 

Table 2. Projects used to develop a cost model for UHPC overlays.

Project ID Owner Project Name Year 

Constructed

UHPC Overlay 

Thickness 

(inches)

Approximate 

Installation 

Area (ft2

)

Bridge Deck 

Surface 

Preparation

ID1 Buchanan 

County (Iowa) Mud Creek 2016 1.5 2,850 D

ID2 Delaware DOT Blackbird Station 2017 1.5 3,600 NG

ID3 Iowa DOT Floyd River 2018 1 17,600 H

ID4 Delaware DOT State Road 1 

Little Heaven 2019 3 9,700 H

ID5 New York 

State DOT

State Road 17B 

Hortonville 2019 1.5 8,060 H

ID6 New Jersey DOT NJ-57 2020 1.5 800 H

ID7 New Jersey DOT I-280 WB 2020 1.5 13,600 H

ID8 New Jersey DOT NJ-159 2020 2.75 7,500 H

ID9 New Jersey DOT I-295 NB 2020 1.5 18,900 H

D = diamond grinding; DOT = department of transportation; NG = UHPC overlay placed atop new precast box girder with roughened surfaces; 

H = hydrodemolition.

Figure 6. Plot. UHPC overlay construction costs from previous 

project, including bridge deck surface preparation 

normalized to 1.75-inch overlay thickness.

Source: FHWA.

Notes: All projects used hydrodemolition for bridge deck surface preparation with the 

following exceptions:

*Existing bridge deck prepared using diamond grinding.

**UHPC overlay placed atop new precast box girder with roughened surfaces.
6

shows that UHPCs demonstrate virtually no freeze thaw 

deterioration.(4)

Based on this evidence, IS1 using UHPC was prescribed 

a 30-yr service life, and IS2 was prescribed a 50-yr 

service life. The service life of IS3 would likely be shorter 

than that of IS2 given the reduced cover of UHPC 

over the top mat of reinforcement. As such, IS3 was 

prescribed a 45-yr service life.

The service life predictions for the LMC overlay cases 

were based on the experience of the bridge owner, 

DRBA, and multiple State departments of transportation 

(DOTs). The service life of IS1 using LMC was prescribed 

as 12 yr; this arrangement is consistent with past practice 

on the DMB and the practices of many State DOTs. 

The State of Virginia has many LMC overlays with 

service lives approaching 20 yr, while the DRBA has 

been achieving only 10 yr of average service life on 

the DMB. A service life of 12 yr was assumed, which 

accounted for the longer service life in Virginia but also 

gave weight to past experience on the DMB.

The service life of IS2 using LMC was prescribed as 

25 yr. This prescription is because most of the heavily 

chloride-contaminated concrete would be removed 

and replaced with LMC, reducing the likelihood 

of reinforcing bar corrosion and debonding; this 

assumption is supported by the experience on the 

Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge (CPNB) in Rhode Island. 

The CPNB has a similar overlay depth and uses highperformance concrete.

Table 3. Service life estimates.

Installation 

Strategy UHPC LMC

1 30 yr 12 yr

2 50 yr 25 yr

3 45 yr —

—Not considered.

DECK REPLACEMENT 

OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The overlay solutions were compared to complete deck 

replacement. Multiple deck replacement options were 

considered including a full cast-in-place concrete deck, 

a precast concrete deck composed of precast panels 

connected with UHPC, a precast Exodermic deck with 

panels connected with UHPC, and a steel orthotropic 

deck; estimated construction costs, service life durations, 

and construction durations are summarized in table 4

for the deck replacement options. All deck replacement 

options included removal of the existing safety walk and 

railing. The railing was assumed to be replaced by new 

traffic railing, and space occupied by the safety walk 

would be replaced with a new roadway deck, which 

would provide a roadway shoulder. With the exception 

of the steel orthotropic deck, which is assumed to 

include integrated stringers, all deck replacement 

options also include the costs associated with the 

replacement of the existing stringers with new stringers 

of a similar size. Furthermore, new fascia stringers would 

be added to support the new roadway shoulder. Costs 

for traffic control were assumed to be 5 percent of the 

subtotal; civil, electrical, and other miscellaneous work 

was assumed to be 15 percent of the subtotal; and a 25 

percent contingency on the subtotal was also included.

To maximize the durability, it was assumed that the 

cast-in-place and precast concrete decks used stainless 

steel reinforcement. Similarly, it was assumed that the 

exodermic deck used galvanized reinforcement, and 

the galvanized steel grid panels would be compatible 

with that reinforcement. To further boost durability, the 

concrete deck options were assumed to also have a thin 

polyester polymer concrete (PPC) overlay.

The service life and construction duration estimates 

were determined using information from the literature, 

previous experience of the bridge owner, and the 

engineering consultants of the bridge owner. Typical 

reinforced concrete bridge decks in cold climates with 

conventional mild steel reinforcement, epoxy-coated 

or uncoated, have a service life of 20 to 30 yr.(16)

A PPC overlay installed within the first 5 yr of deck 

construction can lead to a 50-yr bridge deck service 

life, and even longer if the overlay is reinstalled every 

25 yr.(17)

 Stainless steel reinforcement alone has been 

estimated to potentially provide up to 100 yr of service 

life.(18)

 Therefore, the service life for the cast-in-place and 

precast decks—using a combination of stainless steel 

reinforcement and a PPC overlay—was conservatively 

estimated to be 75 yr. Because the exodermic 

deck includes a PPC overlay but uses galvanized 

reinforcement, it was estimated to have a service life of 

50 yr. Finally, the steel orthotropic deck was estimated 

to have a 75-yr service life based on published 

information.(19)

INITIAL COMPARISON AND 

ELIMINATION OF OPTIONS

DRBA performed an initial comparison of overlay 

solutions and the four deck replacement options based 

on the initial construction cost, estimated service life 

data, and the estimated construction durations. This 

initial assessment aimed to eliminate options that were 

not feasible or competitive based on cost, service life, 

and construction duration. Since this assessment was an 

initial assessment, only the initial construction cost was 

considered. The deck replacement options included an 

additional cost for replacement of the steel stringers. To 

make a fair comparison, an additional cost allowance 
7

of $10 million, approximately equal to $18 per square 

foot of deck area, was added to the total cost of the 

overlay options. This additional cost allowance covers 

the rehabilitation of the existing steel stringers so that 

they can reach a condition similar to new steel stringers. 

Table 5 lists all overlay and new deck options, and 

Table 4. Estimated bridge deck replacement cost and timing.

Deck Replacement 

Option

Cost of Deck 

(millions)

Cost of Stringers 

(millions)

Unit Cost Including 

Stringers/ft2

Estimated 

Service Life

Estimated 

Construction 

Duratione

Cast-in-place decka,c $118.5 $48.6 $304 75 yr 3 yr

Precast concrete 

decka,c $123.2 $48.6 $312 75 yr 1.5 yr

Precast exodermic 

deckb,c $142.2 $48.6 $347 50 yr 1.5 yr

Steel orthotropic 

deck $273.7 $0d $498 75 yr 2 yr

a

Deck includes stainless steel reinforcement.

b

Deck includes galvanized reinforcement.

c

Deck includes a thin PPC overlay.

d

Stringers do not require replacement.

e

Construction duration assumes work is performed in two construction stages with no other restrictions on lane closures.

Table 5. Comparison of all overlay and new deck options.

Option

Unit Cost of 

Deck Per ft2

of Deck Area 

UD

Unit Cost of 

Stringers Per 

ft2 of Deck 

Area 

US

Total Unit 

Cost Per 

ft2 of Deck 

Area, 

UT = UD + US

Cost of Deck 

(millions), 

CD

Cost of 

Stringers 

(millions), 

CS

Total 

Initial Cost 

(millions), 

CTI = CD + CS

Estimated 

Service Life, 

LS

Estimated 

Construction 

Durationd

UHPC 

overlay, 

method 1

$55 $18b $73 $30.3 $10.0b $40.3 30 yr 9 mo

UHPC 

overlay, 

method 2

$127 $18b $145 $69.9 $10.0b $79.9 50 yr 9 mo

UHPC 

overlay, 

method 3

$109 $18b $127 $60.0 $10.0b $70.0 45 yr 9 mo

LMC overlay, 

method 1 $23 $18b $41 $12.7 $10.0b $22.7 12 yr 9 mo

LMC overlay, 

method 2 $39 $18b $57 $21.5 $10.0b $31.5 25 yr 9 mo

New, cast-inplace deckX $216 $88a $304 $118.5 $48.6a $167.1 75 yr 3 yr

New, precast 

concrete 

deck

$224 $88a $312 $123.2 $48.6a $171.8 75 yr 1.5 yr

New, precast 

exodermic 

deckX

$259 $88a $347 $142.2 $48.6a $190.8 50 yr 1.5 yr

New, steel 

orthotropic 

deckX

$498 $0c $498 $273.7 $0c $273.7 75 yr 2 yr

Notes:

The deck area of the DMB First Structure is 550,575 ft2.

a

Represents stringer replacement cost.

b

Represents stringer rehabilitation cost.

c

Existing stringers are eliminated and do not require replacement or rehabilitation for this option.

d

Construction duration assumes work is performed in two construction stages with no other restrictions on lane closures.

X

Eliminated from further consideration due to initial cost or estimated construction duration.
8

provides a comparison of the cost, estimated service life, 

and estimated construction duration for each one.

After examining every overlay option, the research 

team determined that they all were economically 

competitive from an initial cost perspective. Thus, each 

option warranted further investigation. Of the new 

deck solutions, when considering both initial cost and 

construction duration, the precast deck option was 

determined to be the only competitive option. Thus, 

the precast deck option would be further investigated 

too. The new cast-in-place deck was eliminated. This 

decision was primarily due to the lengthy construction 

duration. The new precast exodermic and steel 

orthotropic decks were eliminated due to their high 

initial costs.

LCCA

The remaining options, namely the five overlay solutions 

and the new precast deck solution, were analyzed to 

examine the lifecycle costs. This analysis was performed 

using LCCA, which is the method for assessing the total 

cost of facility ownership. LCCA typically considers 

all costs of acquiring, owning, and disposing of a 

building or building system, and, in this case, a bridge 

rehabilitation. The primary aim of LCCA is to compare 

project alternatives that fulfill the same performance 

requirements, but differ with respect to initial and 

operating costs, to select the one that maximizes net 

savings; LCCA is not useful for budget allocation.

LCCA was performed on each option. The analysis used 

the estimated construction costs as the total initial cost, 

CTI, and included major costs that would reasonably 

be incurred during a 50 year analysis period, which 

was considered the maximum remaining service life of 

the DMB First Structure. Costs incurred during the 50-yr 

analysis are defined as “future costs.” There were two 

primary future costs that could be incurred:

1. Asphalt wearing surface removal and replacement: 

The UHPC overlay solution using IS3 included a 

1.25-inch asphalt wearing surface, which requires 

periodic replacement. Herein, the asphalt wearing 

surface was assumed to be replaced every 10 yr. 

The future cost of removal and replacement of 

asphalt was assumed to be $1.93 million which 

includes a 15 percent allowance for maintenance 

and protection of traffic, equipment mobilization, 

and incidentals. This cost also assumes that asphalt is 

priced at $375 per ton.

2. Complete deck removal and replacement: The 

overlay options have service lives of less than 

50 year, except for the UHPC overlay using IS2. 

It is possible to replace an overlay at the end of 

its service life with a new overlay; however, this 

option is considered unlikely due to the advanced 

age of the existing deck below and the fact that 

the deck has already been overlaid multiple times. 

As such, it is more likely that the bridge deck 

would be completely removed and replaced with 

a new bridge deck at the end of the service life 

of the overlay. Given cost and construction time, 

as previously noted, the new deck would likely 

be a precast concrete deck with stainless steel 

reinforcement. Per table 5, the future costs of the 

existing deck removal and replacement with a new 

precast deck was assumed to be $171.8 million.

Notably, the analysis did not include costs associated 

with the demolition and disposal of the bridge after the 

conclusion of the 50-yr service life, nor does it include 

user costs.

Table 6 shows the lifecycle cost comparison for the 

different solutions. All monetary values shown in table 6

are expressed in present-day values or simply “present 

value” denoted “PV.” The future value, FV, of costs were 

brought to present value using the equation shown in 

figure 7.

Figure 7. Equation. Equation for present value, 

PV, based on future value, FV.

Where:

PV = present value.

FV = future value.

FFV = future value factor.

r = real discount rate, assumed here to be 1.5 percent based on 

2019 data from the Real Treasury Interest Rate for 30-yr maturity 

published by the White House Office of Management and Budget.(20)

n = number of year.

In table 6, “Yr 0” is considered the year where every 

solution has completed construction. As such, the Yr 0 

cost for each respective solution is equal to the total 

initial cost, CTI, for that solution. The table shows a series 

of different years between 0 and 50, and the costs 

incurred during those years. Four additional values, 

namely, total future cost, remaining service value, net 

present cost, and relative net present cost, are shown at 

the bottom of the table and are defined below:

Total Future Cost, CTF = summation of costs for 

anticipated maintenance (i.e., replacement of asphalt 

wearing surface), and eventual deck replacement if 

needed within the 50-yr analysis.

Remaining Service Value, RV = present value of the deck 

(overlay system or new deck) at the end of the 50-yr 

analysis period, assuming straight line depreciation 
9

occurs over the 50-yr analysis period. Except for the 

UHPC overlay IS2, the RV can be calculated using the 

equation for solutions shown in figure 8. This solution 

will have an RV = $0, given that the service life of 

the solution is equal to the duration of the analysis 

period. The equation in figure 8 assumes that all other 

solutions will require the installation of a new precast 

deck after the service life of the overlay solution has 

been exceeded. RV is effectively a credit applied to 

net present cost, which is used to compare the different 

solutions.

Figure 8. Equation. RV.

Where:

RV = remaining service value.

CTI, New Precast Deck = total initial cost, in present value, of a new, 

precast deck.

tend = duration of analysis period, in years. Here, tend = 51 yr, because 

the remaining value is assessed the end of the 50th yr.

Ls = service life of the solution for which the RV is being calculated.

Ls, New Precast Deck = service of the new precast deck, 

Ls, New Precast Deck = 75 yr.

Net Present Cost, CNP = sum of all costs during the 50-yr 

analysis period, which is sum of total initial cost and 

total future expenditures minus RV. CNP is expressed by 

the equation in figure 9.

Figure 9. Equation. CNP.

The analysis indicates that the UHPC overlay, IS2, is the 

most cost effective in terms of present value given the 

assumptions used for analysis. The primary driver of this 

finding is that the estimated service life is equal to the 

analysis period and that this solution does not require 

any additional costs between years zero and 50. The 

UHPC overlays with IS1 and IS3 are similar in cost, 

followed by the LMC overlay with IS2. The LMC overlay 

with IS1 had the lowest initial cost; however, because 

it has the shortest life span and hence the earliest deck 

replacement, it is the most expensive overlay solution 

over the life of the structure. Notably, the new precast 

deck is the costliest option over the life of the structure.

Table 6. Lifecycle cost comparison for overlay methods and new precast concrete deck.

Material/Deck Type UHPC UHPC UHPC LMC LMC New Precast 

Concrete Deck

Overlay installation 

strategy Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 1 Method 2 —

Estimated service 

life = LS

30 yr 50 yr 45 yr 12 yr 25 yr 75 yr

Total initial cost = CTI

c 

(Yr 0 costs) $40.3M $80.0M $70.0M $22.7M $31.5M $171.8M

Yr 5 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Yr 10 costs $0 $0 $1.6Mb $0 $0 $0

Yr 12 costs $0 $0 $0 $141.6Ma $0 $0

Yr 20 costs $0 $0 $1.4Mb $0 $0 $0

Yr 25 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $116.6Ma $0

Yr 30 costs $108.3Ma $0 $1.2Mb $0 $0 $0

Yr 35 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Yr 40 costs $0 $0 $1.0Mb $0 $0 $0

Yr 45 costs $0 $0 $86.7Ma $0 $0 $0

Yr 50 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total future cost (CTF) $108.3M $0 $91.9M $141.6M $116.6M $0

RV $59.8M $0 $76.2M $40.3M $54.4M $26.1M

CNP $88.7M $80.0M $85.8M $124.0M $93.7M $145.7M

Notes:

All monetary values are expressed as present value.

—Not applicable.

a

Estimated service life reached. Existing overlay and deck removed, new precast concrete deck with stainless steel rebar installed.

b

Asphalt removal and replacement.

c

CTI is the sum of CD and CS.
10

BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS

The research team performed a break-even analysis 

to determine the actual service life required such that a 

given overlay solution would have a net present value 

CNP equal to that of new precast concrete deck. This 

analysis was only performed on the overlay solution 

with the lowest net present value CNP from table 6, 

which was UHPC overlay, IS2. The same methods and 

assumptions used for the LCCA were applied. The only 

exception is regarding the service life of the overlay 

solution. The results of the analysis are tabulated in 

table 7. Here, the actual service life of the overlay 

solution is a variable. This value is varied to determine 

the point where the net present cost of both the overlay 

solution and the new precast deck are equal, which is 

the break-even point. As shown in table 7, the breakeven point occurs when the actual service of the 

UHPC overlay with IS2 is approximately 24 yr. That 

is, if the actual life span of this overlay solution ends 

up being less than the estimated 50 yr, but more than 

24, it will still be more economical than a new precast 

concrete deck.

HYPOTHETICAL ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

A reasonable followup question to the break-even 

analysis is: How would the net present cost change, if 

upon reaching the conclusion of their service lives, the 

overlay solutions were replaced by another overlay of 

the same material using the same Installation Strategy? 

That is, once the service life of the overlay is reached, 

could the overlay be removed and replaced by another 

overlay? Note, this example is very hypothetical given 

the age of the DMB First Structure and given the fact that 

some very practical concerns are being neglected, such 

as the likely need to repair or rehabilitate the existing 

deck or supporting superstructure before removing/

installing a new overlay. For this analysis, three of the 

overlay solutions are considered.

The results of the LCCA are shown in table 8. Herein, 

both LMC overlay options were considered along with 

the UHPC overlay, IS1. Like the preceding analysis, 

all costs are expressed according to their present 

value. Costs incurred after Yr 0 reflect the removal and 

reinstallation of the overlay. The stringer rehabilitation, 

completed in year zero, is not included. The table also 

shows the cumulative construction duration, which is 

the sum of the construction time needed to remove and 

install each overlay iteration.

Herein, UHPC, IS1 and LMC IS2, are both relatively 

competitive on a net present cost basis and have 

equal cumulative construction durations. Furthermore, 

both options are more economical than the scenario 

presented in table 6. Although LMC IS2 would also be 

competitive economically, compared with the findings 

in table 6, it would require a significant amount of 

construction time over the course of the analysis period. 

Table 7. Break-even analysis for UHPC overlay IS2 versus new precast concrete deck.

Solution UHPC Overlay, IS2 New Precast 

Concrete Deck

Actual life 

span of the 

solution (yr)

10 20 24* 30 40 50 75

Total initial 

cost = CTI

a

(Yr 0 costs)

$80.0M $80.0M $80.0M $80.0M $80.0M $80.0M $171.8M

Yr 10 costs $145.8M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Yr 20 costs $0 $125.7M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Yr 24 costs $0 $0 $118.4M $0 $0 $0 $0

Yr 30 costs $0 $0 $0 $108.3M $0 $0 $0

Yr 40 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $93.3M $0 $0

Yr 50 costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total future 

cost (CTF) $145.8M $125.7M $118.4M $108.3M $93.3M $0 $0

Remaining 

service 

value (RV)

$38.1M $49.0M $53.3M $59.8M $70.7M $0 $26.1M

Net present 

cost (CNP) $187.8M $156.7M $145.1M $128.4M $102.6M $80.0M $145.7M

Notes: All monetary values are expressed as present value.

a

CTI is the sum of CD and CS.

*Break-even point.
11

This construction time would significantly affect the end 

user, and as such would not be viable.

At the time of this writing, there has never been a UHPC 

overlay removed from a bridge deck. It is reasonable 

to assume that hydromilling could be used to remove a 

UHPC overlay, but it is likely to be more time and labor 

intensive than the removal of conventional concrete due 

to the high strength of UHPC. This difference could result 

in higher construction costs.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

This TechNote presented a summary of an LCCA study 

that was performed by a signature bridge owner to 

evaluate different overlay options for one of their 

bridges. The analysis examined lifecycle costs of both 

UHPC and LMC overlays with several thicknesses and 

compared them with complete deck replacement using a 

new, precast deck. The findings included the net present 

cost of the different solutions, a break-even analysis, 

and an alternative rehabilitation scenario. The reader 

may recall that the demolition costs of the structure at 

the end of life were not considered in the analysis. More 

importantly, the analysis and findings presented herein 

might change with different initial assumptions, structure 

type, and overlay performance objectives.

The results of the LCCA indicate that the UHPC overlay 

with IS2 had the lowest 50-yr lifecycle cost and thus 

is the most cost-effective option. Additionally, all five 

of the overlay options studied provided a lower cost 

over a 50-yr period than a deck replacement. The LMC 

overlay with IS1, which was a conventional thin overlay, 

had the lowest initial cost, but had higher lifecycle costs 

than the other overlay options. However, this finding 

is highly dependent on the anticipated service life 

of the overlay. The hypothetical alternative scenario 

demonstrated that the UHPC overlay with IS1 could 

be the most cost effective lifecycle of all solutions, if the 

existing UHPC overlay could be removed and replaced 

at the end of its service life. In closing, this study 

presented a method to compare the total cost of a UHPC 

overlay to other bridge deck overlay and replacement 

options. The study demonstrated a repeatable process 

that can be tailored to other bridges. The analysis 

process used demonstrates that, despite the higher 

initial cost compared to conventional overlays, UHPC 

could provide long-term cost benefits. Additionally, the 

cost of a UHPC overlay is significantly less than a deck 

replacement, outweighing the potentially shorter service 

life, with a shorter installation period.

Table 8. Lifecycle cost comparison assuming overlay solutions are replaced with the like at the end of the service life.

Material Type UHPC LMC LMC

Overlay installation strategy Method 1 Method 1 Method 2

Estimated overlay service life 30 yr 12 yr 25 yr

Total initial cost = CTI

a

(Yr 0 costs) $40.3M $22.7M $31.5M

Yr 12 costs $0 $10.40Mb $0

Yr 24 costs $0 $8.72Mb $0

Yr 25 costs $0 $0 $14.6Mb

Yr 30 costs $15.6Mb $0 $0

Yr 36 costs $0 $7.30Mb $0

Yr 48 costs $0 $6.11Mb $0

Yr 50 costs $0 $0 $0

Total future expenditure (CTF) $15.6M $32.6M $14.6M

Remaining service value (RV) $8.63M $4.51M $0

Net present cost (CNP) $41.8M $50.7M $46.1M

Cumulative construction 

duration c 18 mo 45 mo 18 mo

Notes:

All monetary values are expressed as present value.

a

CTI is the sum of CD and CS. b

Estimated service life of overlay reached. Existing overlay removed and placed. Cost does not include the cost of stringer repairs, CS. c

Sum of the construction time required to remove and install each overlay iteration.
12

REFERENCES

1. Denarié, E., and E. Bruhwiler. 2006. “Structural 

Rehabilitations with Ultra-High Performance Fibre 

Reinforced Concretes (UHPFRC).” Restoration or 

Buildings and Monuments 12: 453–468.

2. Haber, Z. B., J. F. Munoz, and B. A. Graybeal. 

2017. Field Testing of an Ultra-High Performance 

Concrete Overlay. Report No. FHWAHRT-17-096. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration.

3. Graybeal, B. A. 2006. Material Property 

Characterization of Ultra-High Performance 

Concrete. Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-103. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

4. Haber, Z. B., I. De la Varga, B. A. Graybeal, B. 

Nakashoji, and R. El-Helou. 2018. Properties and 

Behavior of UHPC-Class Materials. Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-18-036. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration.

5. Krauss, P. D., J. S. Lawler, K. A. Steiner and Wiss, 

Janey, Elstner Associates, Inc. 2008. Guidelines for 

Selection of Bridge Deck Overlays, Sealers, and 

Treatments. Northbrook, IL.

6. Sprinkel, M. 1999. “Very-Early-Strength LatexModified Concrete Overlay.” Transportation 

Research Record 1668, no. 1: 18–23.

7. Ozyildirim, H. C. 1996. A Field Investigation of 

Concrete Overlays Containing Latex, Silica Fume, 

or Pyrament Cement. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia 

Transportation Research Council.

8. Haber, Z. B., J. F. Munoz, I. De La Varga, and 

B. A. Graybeal. 2018. Ultra-High Performance 

Concrete for Bridge Deck Overlays. Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-17-097. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration.

9. ASTM. 2019. Specification for Rapid Hardening 

Hydraulic Cement. C1600. West Conshohocken, 

PA. ASTM International.

10. ASTM. 2020. Specification for Portland 

Cement. C150. West Conshohocken, PA. 

ASTM International.

11. Balakumaran, S., R. Weyers, and M. Brown. 2017. 

Performance of Bridge Deck Overlays in Virginia: 

Phase I: State of Overlays. Report No. FHWA/

VTRC 17-R17. Charlottesville, VA: Federal Highway 

Administration and Virginia Transportation 

Research Council.

12. Haber, Z. B., J. F. Munoz, I. De la Varga, and B. A. 

Graybeal. 2018. “Bond characterization of UHPC 

overlays for concrete bridge decks: Laboratory 

and field testing.” Construction and Building 

Materials 190: 1056–1068.

13. De La Varga, I., Z. B. Haber, and B. A. 

Graybeal. 2017. Bond of Field-Cast Grouts 

to Precast Concrete Elements. Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-16-081. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration.

14. Moffatt, E. G., M. D. A. Thomas, A. Fahim, and 

R. D. Moser. 2020. “Performance of UltraHigh-Performance Concrete in Harsh Marine 

Environment for 21 Years.” American Concrete 

Institute Materials Journal 117, no. 5: 105-112.

15. Denarié, E. 2015. Pont sur la Morge–campagne 

de caractérisation de l’état de l’ouvrage 9.5 ans 

après intervention [Bridge over the River Morge–

Investigation of the Bridge Condition 9.5 Years 

After Rehabilitation]. Report No. MCS 23.14.05-

1. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique 

Fédérale de Lausanne.

16. Frosch, R. L. 2014. Increasing Bridge Deck Service 

Life: Volume I—Technical Evaluation. Indianapolis, 

IN: Indiana Department of Transportation.

17. ElBatanouny, M. N. 2017. Use of Polymer 

Overlays or Sealers on New Bridges. Northbrook, 

IL: Wiss, Jannel, Elstner Associates, Inc.

18. Friedersdorf, L. E., B. H. Neuhart, A. R. Marder, 

A. I. Juda, and J. E. Bower. 2000. Application 

of Stainless and Stainless-Clad Reinforcing 

Bars in Highway Construction. Report No. 

FHWA-PA-2000-011+96-31 (04). Harrisburg, PA: 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

19. Lévesque, E. 2016. “Orthotropic steel deck: 

a proven solution for new uses.” Presented at 

the 16th Biennial Movable Bridge Symposium. 

Tampa, FL

20. The White House. 2019. Guidelines and Discount 

Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs. Washington, DC: Office of Management 

and Budget. https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2019/12/23/2019-27575/discountrates-for-cost-effectiveness-analysis-of-federalprograms, last accessed October 18, 2022.
13

Researchers—This study was developed under Task Order No. 693JJ320F000186 awarded to Engineering 

& Software Consultants, Inc (ESCINC) under Contract No. 693JJ319D000055. The researchers were 

provided by WSP under Subcontract awarded by ESCINC to Rao Research and Consulting, LLC.

Distribution—This TechNote is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution is 

being made to the FHWA divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechNote may be obtained at https://highways.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Ultra-high performance concrete, UHPC, fiber-reinforced concrete, bridge, durable 

infrastructure, lifecycle cost analysis.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the 

information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this TechNote only because they are considered essential to 

the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement.

NOVEMBER 2022 FHWA-HRT-23-012

HRDI-40/11-22(WEB)E

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Overlays: 

An Example of Lifecycle Cost Analysis (Washington, DC: 2022) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521955