ACI 222.

3R-11The condition survey is followed by analysis of the field and laboratory test
results and selection of potential rehabilitation alternatives based on technical viability and
desired service life. The next step in the process is to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis
(LCCA). LCCA compares and evaluates the total costs of competing solutions based on the
anticipated life of each solution and the desired service life of the structure (Purvis et al.
1999; Genge 1994; Ehlen 1999, ACI 365.1R). The value of a potential solution includes not
only consideration of what it costs to acquire it, but also the cost to maintain it over a
specified time period. To perform an LCCA, one should estimate the initial cost, maintenance
cost, and service life for each rehabilitation alternative being considered. Finally, based on
the LCCA results, the most cost-effective rehabilitation strategy is selected.

In 2003, a BRE project brought together clients, contractors, specialist contractors, material producers and
expertise in the construction process to ultimately develop an electronic tool named "Effective cost
analysis for repairing of corrosion damaged reinforced concrete structures". This tool was able to predict
the time to failure of the repair of the structure, provided guidance on the most appropriate repair strategy
and identified the most cost effective way to meet the client's service life requirements bearing in mind
the nature of the structure. Even though this could potentially be a very powerful tool, the guidance
document was very informative regarding the different repair options but did not specify how the failure
time is predicted or how the selection is performed. (I asked for a Journal paper to the authors
(Broomfield) that might help understand the insides of this tool, no answer by now. I believe the selection
criteria is based solely on technical requirements).
Besides methodologies based on LCCA, there have been very few attempts to develop selection
procedures based on other scopes.

In 2016, R. Polder et. al went a step further by including a life cycle cost analysis in the selection process
of different repair options for a corroded bridge. The three repair methods assessed were: Use of stainless
steel reinforcement, hydrophobic treatment and cathodic protection. This work was mainly focused on the
life cost analysis and did not present a methodology for selecting which of the methods was the most
appropriate. In this case, the decision was solely based on the costs associated to each alternative for a
service life of 100 years.
It seems surprising the few amount of work in this field, which might be explained by a combination of
factors:

Traditionally, the repair strategy was selected based on its cost-efficiency. Concerns about
environmental aspects, risks or nuisance are relatively new.
Some of the repair techniques currently applied are relatively new. Sustainability analysis of
repair options require a profound knowledge of the short and long term performance.
All stakeholders involved during the decision process must participate in the development of the
tool.