The study, commissioned by MAADI Group Inc. engineering firm, and the Aluminum Association of Canada (AAC), utilizes the TCO framework to compare the costs and value attributes of aluminum vs. steel over the full lifespan of the bridge structure, using an integrated, long-term view of costing to evaluate their actual cost over decades, rather than considering initial cost of materials alone as the sole criteria for material selection.
Both aluminum and steel are presented as valid material options; however, the TCO bridge analysis, conducted in both urban and maritime environments, cites many benefits of the aluminum option as having significant cost advantages over painted steel and galvanized steel, mainly due to the fact that it is virtually corrosion free, and thus does not incur maintenance costs over the aluminum bridge’s lifetime, as the steel bridge does.
4 Cost Categories in the Total Cost of Ownership Framework
The TCO study evaluates a total of four cost categories:
- Acquisition: Up‑front project cost for materials, parts, and land.
- Installation: Varies based on location, regulatory requirements, timeline, weather, and project constraints.
- Maintenance and Operations: Annual expenditures to maintain safety and functionality over the structure’s lifespan.
- Disposition: Deconstruction, removal, salvage, recycling, and site remediation.
50-Year Total Cost of Ownership Comparison: Aluminum vs Steel
Study results are charted to compare cost, including the 50-Year Total Cost of Ownership (in U.S. dollars) for various scenarios:
- Steel (2 coats) in urban and maritime environments
- Steel (3 coats) in urban and maritime environments
- Hot‑dip galvanized steel in urban and maritime settings
- Aluminum (natural finish) with a 3% discount rate applied to all examples
Key Findings: Discount-Rate Impacts on Bridge Total Cost of Ownership
“Ultimately, the results shown in the TCO study make the case for aluminum structures to be seriously considered as a cost-effective alternative to steel,” said MAADI Group CEO Alexandre de la Chevrotière, “The results also indicate that when using a typical six percent discount rate on materials, aluminum has a better Total Cost of Ownership than all other steel options by more than $4,000 in all maritime and urban environments, except for hot-dip galvanized steel in an urban setting – in this case, aluminum and steel are close to being equal in terms of TCO after 50 years. So, when comparing the bridge project to galvanized steel, the aluminum structure is equivalent to galvanized steel after 50 years in an urban environment, and after 21 years in a maritime environment.”
Corrosive Environments: Why Aluminum Wins in Long-Term Total Cost of Ownership
“The case for specifying an aluminum structures becomes even stronger when a project is located in a corrosive environment,” de la Chevrotière notes, “We believe that the Deloitte study demonstrates that aluminum deserves to be considered in the bidding process. Since a civil engineering project’s lifespan is typically many decades, this study shows that all aspects of a structure’s life cycle, including installation, maintenance, operation, and disposition costs, should be carefully considered when choosing the most cost-effective materials option that brings the greatest value to the project over its life.”
