life cycle assessment of bridges, model development and...

Life cycle assessment of bridges, model development and case studies

GUANGLI DU

Doctoral Thesis

Stockholm, Sweden 2015

TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 129, 2015 ISSN 1103-4270 ISRN KTH/BKN/B-129-SE Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Kungliga Tekniska högskola framlägges till offentlig granskning för avläggande av teknologie doktorsexamen i bro- och stålbyggnad måndagen den 30 mars 2015 kl 10:00 i sal Kollegiesalen, Kungliga Tekniska högskola, Brinellvägen 8, Stockholm. © Guangli Du, March 2015 Tryck: Universitetsservice US-AB

i

Abstract

In recent decades, the environmental issues from the construction sector have attracted increasing attention from both the public and authorities. Notably, the bridge construction is responsible for considerable amount of energy and raw material consumptions. However, the current bridges are still mainly designed from the economic, technical, and safety perspective, while considerations of their environmental performance are rarely integrated into the decision making process. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive, standardized and internationally recognized approach for quantifying all emissions, resource consumption and related environmental and health impacts linked to a service, asset or product. LCA has the potential to provide reliable environmental profiles of the bridges, and thus help the decision-makers to select the most environmentally optimal designs. However, due to the complexity of the environmental problems and the diversity of bridge structures, robust environmental evaluation of bridges is far from straightforward. The LCA has rarely been studied on bridges till now.

The overall aim of this research is to implement LCA on bridge, thus eventually integrate it into the decision-making process to mitigate the environmental burden at an early stage. Specific objectives are to: i) provide up-to-date knowledge to practitioners; ii) identify associated obstacles and clarify key operational issues; iii) establish a holistic framework and develop computational tool for bridge LCA; and iv) explore the feasibility of combining LCA with life cycle cost (LCC). The developed tool (called GreenBridge) enables the simultaneous comparison and analysis of 10 feasible bridges at any detail level, and the framework has been utilized on real cases in Sweden. The studied bridge types include: railway bridge with ballast or fix-slab track, road bridges of steel box-girder composite bridge, steel I-girder composite bridge, post tensioned concrete box-girder bridge, balanced cantilever concrete box-girder bridge, steel-soil composite bridge and concrete slab-frame bridge. The assessments are detailed from cradle to grave phases, covering thousands of types of substances in the output, diverse mid-point environmental indicators, the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) and monetary value weighting. Some analyses also investigated the impact from on-site construction scenarios, which have been overlooked in the current state-of-the-art.

The study identifies the major structural and life-cycle scenario contributors to the selected impact categories, and reveals the effects of varying the monetary weighting system, the steel recycling rate and the material types. The result shows that the environmental performance can be highly influenced by the choice of bridge design. The optimal solution is found to be governed by several variables. The analyses also imply that the selected indicators, structural components and life-cycle scenarios must be clearly specified to be applicable in a transparent procurement. This work may provide important references for evaluating similar bridge cases, and identification of the main sources of environmental burden. The outcome of this research may serve as recommendation for decision-makers to select the most LCA-feasible proposal and minimize environmental burdens.

Keywords: Sustainable construction; Life cycle assessment; LCA; Global warming; Bridge management; CO2 emissions; Cumulative energy demand

iii

Acknowledgements This research project was conducted at the Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, with the financial support from the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket), ETSI Project and the Division of Structural Engineering and Bridges at KTH.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Professor Raid Karoumi and co-supervisor Professor Håkan Sundquist for providing me the opportunity to work on this project. I highly appreciate their professional guidance and constant support, which made this research productive. Special thanks to Jean-Marc Battini, who helped reviewing this thesis with valuable comments and suggestions. I sincerely acknowledge Adjunct Professor Lars Pettersson for his discussions and detailed comments in paper revision. Special gratitude is sent to Paul Holmgren, Costin Pacoste and Christoffer Svedholm from the consultant company ELU, for their help in bridge information. I highly appreciate the help provided by the company PEAB, Skanska and ViaCon on the data collection from the construction sites. I am grateful for the comments given by Otto During from the Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute. I would also like to thank for the encouragement from Visiting Professor Weiwei Guo and Professor Yongming Tu. Furthermore, I owe my sincere appreciation to my friends, and all the colleagues at the Division of Structure Engineering and Bridges, who accompanied me with the enjoyment during the past years.

Finally, I give my heartfelt appreciation to my beloved parents for their invaluable love and support.

v

This doctoral thesis presents the research that the author has carried out in the past 5 years with 80% dedication. The rest 20% effort is devoted on the teaching work, including 4 master theses supervision, participation as teaching assistant during 8 study terms for 4 master-level courses. The course covers the subject of advanced structural engineering, structural dynamics, concrete and steel structures, and the bridge design. This research is based on the work presented in the following six publications:

List of publications Paper I: Guangli Du and Raid Karoumi (2014) "Life cycle assessment framework for railway

bridges: literature survey and critical issues." Published by the Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(3), pp. 277-294.

Paper II: Guangli Du and Raid Karoumi (2013) "Life cycle assessment of a railway bridge:

comparison of two superstructure designs." Published by the Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(11), pp. 1149-1160.

Paper III: Vincent Thiebault, Guangli Du, Raid Karoumi (2013) "Design of railway bridges

considering LCA." Published by the Journal of ICE Bridge Engineering, 166(4), pp. 240-251.

Paper IV: Guangli Du, Mohammed Safi, Lars Pettersson, Raid Karoumi (2014) "Life cycle

assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five design proposals." Published by the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(12), pp. 1948-1964.

Paper V: Mohammed Safi, Guangli Du, Raid Karoumi and Håkan Sundquist (2015) "Holistic

approach to sustainable bridge procurement considering LCC, LCA, User-cost and Aesthetics", submitted.

Paper VI: Guangli Du, Lars Pettersson and Raid Karoumi (2015) "Life cycle environmental

impact of two commonly used short span bridges in Sweden", manuscript.

The first author was responsible for data processing, model analysis and writing in Paper I, II, IV and VI. In Paper III, Guangli initiated, planned and revised the paper. In Paper V, Guangli performed the LCA analysis and wrote the LCA sections. In Paper VI, the first author and the second author had worked closely on data collection. All the authors had participated in planning the paper and contributed in the revision.

vii

Besides, the author has also contributed in the following additional publications:

Guangli Du (2012), "Towards sustainable construction: life cycle assessment of railway bridges", Licentiate thesis in the Division of Structural Engineering and Bridges, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Guangli Du and Raid Karoumi (2013), "Environmental life cycle assessment comparison between two bridge types: reinforced concrete bridge and steel composite bridge", 3rd International conference on Sustainable Construction materials and Technologies (SCMT3), Japan Concrete Institute, Kyoto, Japan.

Barbara Rossi, Ivan Lukic, Naveed Iqbal, Guangli Du, Diarmuid Cregg, Ruben Paul Borg, Peer Haler (2011), "Life cycle impacts assessment of steel, composite, concrete and wooden columns", COST Action C25: Proceedings of the international conference sustainability of constructions-towards a better built Environment. Innsbruck, Austria.

Guangli Du and Raid Karoumi (2012), "Environmental comparison of two bridge alternative designs", fib symposium Stockholm, Concrete Structure for Sustainable Community, pp.353-356, Stockholm, Sweden.

Guangli Du (2010), "A literature review of life cycle assessment for bridge infrastructure", COST Action C25: Sustainability of Constructions: An Integrated Approach to Life-time Structural Engineering, Malta.

ix

Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii

List of publications ......................................................................................................................... v

Contents ......................................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Aim and scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research contribution .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.4

CHAPTER 2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 3

Life cycle thinking ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Brief history of LCA ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Main steps of LCA ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3

2.3.1 Goal and scope definition phase ........................................................................................................ 4 2.3.2 Inventory analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.3 Impact assessment ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3.4 Interpretation ........................................................................................................................................ 8

CHAPTER 3 BRIDGE LCA MODEL AND THE DEVELOPED TOOL ............................ 11

The current Swedish bridge stock and BaTMan ............................................................................... 11 3.13.1.1 The feasibility of integrating LCA into BaTMan .......................................................................... 11 3.1.2 A systematic Bridge LCA model ..................................................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Monetary evaluation of environmental impacts ............................................................................ 12 An LCA based computational tool: GreenBridge ............................................................................ 13 3.2

3.2.1 How to use GreenBridge .................................................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF THE APPENDED PAPERS .................................................. 19

Current research status and literature review (Paper I) .................................................................... 19 4.14.1.1 Current status of Bridge LCA research .......................................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Literature review ................................................................................................................................ 20 Application of the Bridge LCA model to real cases ......................................................................... 24 4.2

4.2.1 The Banafjäl Bridge (Paper II and Paper III) ................................................................................ 24

x

4.2.2 The Karlsnäs bridge (Paper IV) ....................................................................................................... 25 4.2.3 Attempt to integrate LCC, LCA, lifespan, user-cost and aesthetics (Paper V) ........................ 26 4.2.4 Two commonly used short span bridges in Sweden (Paper VI) ................................................ 26

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................... 27

General conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 27 5.1 Future research ....................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 29

PAPER I ......................................................................................................................................... 37

PAPER II ....................................................................................................................................... 57

PAPER III ...................................................................................................................................... 71

PAPER IV ...................................................................................................................................... 85

PAPER V ...................................................................................................................................... 105

PAPER VI .................................................................................................................................... 137

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background 1.1

The construction sector is attracting increasing attention due to its high environmental burden. Currently, the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) owns more than 29000 bridges. With the rapid development of infrastructure, the sustainability and environmental performance of these bridges is raising concerns from the public, stakeholders and authorities. Bridges, as the fundamental structural elements of transportation networks, not only have long life spans, but also consume large amounts of natural resources and energy in their construction and maintenance. For instance, the greenhouse gases generated from producing a cubic meter concrete has estimated equivalent to a person traveling 1000 km by car (Ecoinvent v2.2) or 4000 km by an Airbus A320 (Jardine, 2009). Consequently, in addition to economic and technical aspects, there are strong motivations to increase the focus on environmental sustainability for bridges.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive, standardized and internationally recognized approach for quantifying all emissions, resource consumption, related environmental and health impacts linked to a service, asset or product (Treloar, et al., 2000; ISO 14040, 2006; ILCD, 2010). Although LCA has a broad application in various industries, its implementation on bridges is rare and needs more investigation. Most previous studies have only considered few indicators or structural components, or a specific life stage (Du and Karoumi, 2014). For example, the pioneer study by Widman (1998) confined the study scope on three selected air emissions of CO2, CO and NOx; Itoh and Kitagawa (2003), Martin (2004), Collings (2006) and Bouhaya et al. (2009) focused on the energy consumption and CO2 emissions; Itoh and Kitagawa (2003) excluded the end of life phase (EOL), while Bouhaya et al. (2009) omitted the substructure of foundation. Due to the complexity of the environmental problems and bridge structures, robust environmental evaluation of bridges is far from straightforward.

Aim and scope 1.2

The overall aim of this research is to implement LCA on bridge, thus eventually integrate it into the decision-making process. Specific objectives are to: 1) investigate the current state of the art and identify the critical issues; 2) recommend an operational framework to the practitioners; 3) develop a computational tool to facilitate the calculation; 4) apply the developed framework on various types of bridges; and 5) explore the feasibility to combine LCA with LCC.

The study covers various types of bridges, including railway bridge with ballast or fix-slab track, road bridges of steel box-girder composite bridge, steel I-girder composite bridge, post tensioned concrete box-girder bridge, balanced cantilever concrete box-girder bridge, steel-soil composite bridge and concrete slab-frame bridge. Three LCA methodologies (CML 2001, Eco-indicator 99’ and ReCiPe) have been applied. A series of environmental impact indicators, ranging from the pollutant level to the mid-point impact indicators, and two monetary evaluation approaches, have also been applied. The data are retrieved from Ecoinvent v2.2, ELCD, World steel and U.S. LCI.

Research contribution 1.3

This research has made several contributions to the application of LCA to bridge structures, as summarized below:

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

2

• A thorough literature review related to LCA implementation for bridges has been performed. The review addressed a series of problems and possible future research needs. It also compared diverse LCA methodologies and databases.

• A comprehensive LCA framework has been developed, to enable practitioners to make decisions in early planning stages that enhance bridges’ environmental sustainability.

• A Matlab-based calculation tool has been developed for assessing both road and railway bridges. The tool enables simultaneous analysis and comparison of 10 feasible bridge designs at any detail level. It can be applied to 27 types of impact indicators, covering all bridges’ life stages and their entire structural components. Numerical results are automatically presented in Excel files and figures in Word documents. The dominant structural component/scenario in terms of environmental performance can also be identified.

• The feasibility of applying LCA to various types of roadway bridges and railway bridges has been explored, with illustrative real cases at various levels of detail.

• To enhance bridges’ environmental sustainability, an approach for integrating LCA with Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis in current decision-making processes has been developed, verified by application to real cases that representing the most common bridge types in Sweden.

• Particular attention has been paid to LCA-related aspects of the construction phase, for these two types of commonly used short-span bridges in Sweden, thus to address a major gap in previous research.

Outline of the thesis 1.4

This thesis is structured in two parts: the extended summary, and the six appended papers. Part one provides supplementary description for this work, and consists of five Chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the research background and the scientific contribution. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical methodology of LCA. Chapter 3 illustrates the recommended LCA framework for bridges, and the developed calculation tool based on it. Chapter 4 summarizes the appended papers in order, including the current research status, literature review, and a series of practical cases explored in this work. Finally, Chapter 5 gives the general conclusions and the future research needs.

3

CHAPTER 2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

A detailed background theory in terms of LCA framework, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods survey, a number of life cycle inventory (LCI) database and software descriptions are presented in the appended Paper I. Therefore, this Chapter only provides the supplementary knowledge beyond that.

Life cycle thinking 2.1

Sustainability is not easy to measure, but if there is a solution, it will be based on methods derived from life cycle thinking (LCT) (Klöpffer W, 2003). For keeping the sustainability balance among the economy, environment and the society, a variety of LCT based approaches are propagated: life cycle management (LCM), life cycle cost (LCC), and life cycle assessment (LCA). LCT is a systematic approach intends to consider the products from ‘cradle’ to ‘grave’, from the raw material extraction, through products manufacture, use and maintenance until the final disposal. Decisions are needed in each life stage of the product, the application of LCT can thus help connect all environmental and social issues in an integrated holistic system, meanwhile avoid the short term policy resulting in the long term unbalanced development, or transferring the burden from one stage to another, such as saving money/resource/environmental impact in the initial production phase but leading to the increase in another phase. Several common LCT terms can be defined as follows:

i. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an approach for environmental evaluations, based on LCT. LCA is a comprehensive and internationally recognized approach for quantifying all emissions, resource consumption and related environmental and health impacts linked to a service, asset or product (Treloar, et al., 2000; ISO, 2006; ILCD Handbook, 2010).

ii. Life cycle cost (LCC) is an economic concept based on LCT, which takes account of all the monetary costs of a product or service from ‘cradle’ to ‘grave’. Besides, the equivalent monetary value of LCA can also be transformed and combined into LCC.

iii. Life cycle management (LCM) is the application of LCT to modern business practice, with the aim to manage the total life cycle of an organization’s product and services toward more sustainable consumption and production (SAIC 2006).

Brief history of LCA 2.2

Even though today’s LCA has been involved in diverse industrial sectors, with various tools and methodologies formulated, the application of LCA is still new in history. In the 70s, the initiation of LCA concept mainly comes from the oil crisis and energy shortage. According to Hunt and Franklin (1996), the first LCA study was performed by Harry Teasley at Coca-Cola Company in 1969, for the purpose of quantifying the energy, material and environmental burdens from the beverage packages. Since then, the LCA studies were steadily conducted under various names, such as resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA), integral environmental analysis, environmental profiles. According to Baumann and Tillman (2004), LCAs published between 1969 and 1972 were all limited to packaging and waste management issues, and solid waste was the main concern rather than energy consumption and emissions.

In the early 1970s, the first LCA computer program was developed in the USA. Meanwhile, the American LCAs projects inspired the identical ideas in Britain and Germany, which was later followed


4

by Sweden. Between 1975 and 1988 there were still very few public documents about LCA. In 1990, the term ‘LCA’ was first coined during the workshop organized by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Soon the first complete LCA methodology appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal in 1992 (Hunt and Franklin, 1992). In addition to SETAC, from the 1990s onwards, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed global standards (ISO14040 to ISO14044) in efforts to streamline and harmonize LCA guidelines (Fava, 2011). Various studies, software tools and methodologies were also developed after the 1990s. Table 2.1 presents the main LCA developments between the 1970s and 2006.

Main steps of LCA 2.3

As already mentioned, LCA is a systematic method for quantifying the potential environmental impacts of a product, asset or service throughout its whole life cycle, from raw material acquisition, through manufacture, use and maintenance until the end of its life (Baumann and Tillman, 2004). The potential environmental categories include resource depletion, human health, and ecological health (ISO14040, 2006; ILCD 2010). The LCA process can be used to determine the potential environmental impacts of any product, process, or service (ILCD, 2010). The application of LCA can provide scientifically based results for decision-makers, thus helping efforts to set new criteria for environmentally friendly design, compare and choose environmentally competitive products, and identify environmental deficiencies of a product for further optimization. As stated in the ISO LCA standards, the general LCA framework consists of the following four phases:

1) Goal and Scope definition defines the aims, product system, and expected result of the study;

2) Inventory analysis quantifies all the emissions related to the product system based on the functional unit of the product.

3) Impact assessment transforms the inventory result into the environmental impact categories.

4) Interpretation explains the results with the goal of the study through the whole analysis procedure.

2.3.1 Goal and scope definition phase

An LCA starts with the goal and scope definition phase, in which the object and scope of the study, the purpose and expected results, the functional unit and relevant assumptions are all defined. This phase is the most important and mandatory part for every LCA study, not only because the stated definitions will affect the course of the entire study, but also because it is essential for clear dissemination of results and conclusions following completion of the study (Guinée, 2001). In order to obtain valid results, the relevant parameters and adopted perspectives need to be clarified here. The example of the goals might be given as: ‘identification of the product component with the most severe environmental impact, characterization of effects of changing the design of an element on overall environmental performance, and/or determination of means to optimize a product’s environmental performance.’ Once appropriate goals have been identified, it is important to determine the types of information required to answer the questions (SAIC, 2006; ILCD, 2010). For definition of scope, a well-designed flowchart is generally helpful to ensure that all of the activities that may affect the whole system are covered.

2.3 MAIN STEPS OF LCA

5

Table 2.1 Brief history of LCA development

1969 Original LCA study conducted by Coca-Cola Company. (Hunt & Franklin, 1996)

1970 Pioneering studies of REPA (early name of LCA). (Hunt & Franklin, 1996)

1972 Dr. Boustead wrote teaching text on silica glass production in the UK (Baumann and Tillman, 2004)

1973 The first LCA computer program was funded. (Hunt & Franklin, 1996)

1974 First complete LCA report regarding data and methodology published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (Hunt & Franklin, 1974)

1979 SETAC (Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) founded.

1980 Public domain of a comprehensive peer reviewed LCA database provided by Solar Energy Research Institute (Bider et al., 1980; Hunt & Franklin, 1996)

1975-1988 Low public interest in LCA.

1990 International forum of REPA in U.S. (Hunt & Franklin, 1996)

1990 The term of ‘LCA’ was coined in a SETAC workshop.

1992 Publication of the first complete LCA methodology in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Hunt & Franklin, 1992).

1993-1996 ISO14040 standard for LCA-principles and framework was accomplished.

2002 Launch of the International Life Cycle Partnership by UNEP and SETAC to promote LCT worldwide, rather than regionally.

2006 ISO 14040 (1997) extended with several additional standards, to ISO 14040 (2006).

Afterwards LCA was exploited in use in various extended fields.

The functional unit is another important definition. It provides an equivalent basis that all the material and energy flows would refer to. It must represent the function of the compared options in a reasonably fair way (Baumann and Tillman, 2004), as each of the calculated material and energy flows must be consistently based upon it. An appropriate functional unit of a steel girder bridge might be ‘during a 120 years life span with an annual traffic volume of 20312 tkm train freight.’ The functional unit is most important when multiple products are compared, for instance we cannot directly compare a 20 m long steel bridge with a 50 m long concrete bridge directly.

2.3.2 Inventory analysis

The result of LCA is heavily dependent on the input data (Du and Karoumi, 2014). A number of data can be obtained from the life cycle inventory (LCI) database, which takes account of the inputs and outputs inventories related with the product. It requires the collection of numerous data both regionally and globally. LCI is used to assist the calculation for the quantities of resources, emissions and waste


6

generated per functional unit (Rebitzer et al., 2004). This process considers the energy and raw material as input into the model, and the products, environmental releases as output in the form of pollutants (CO2, NH3, CO, P, NO2) into air, water and soil. The inventory data of the energy, transportation, material consumption and waste treatment covers a wide range of sources, including manufacturing companies, government bodies and scientific journals. However, LCI data are largely affected the regional conditions, the process technologies applied and variations in data from different sources. For instance, the CO2 emission of normal concrete from Ecoinvent v2.2 is 2.5 ×105 g/m3 while the concrete for road construction in Stripple (2001) is 3.3 × 105 g/m3. This is mainly due to differences in technological processes and concrete properties. In addition, a number of current available LCI databases are listed in Table 1 in Paper I.

SAIC (2006) provides the following framework for performing a life cycle inventory analysis:

1. Based on the goal and scope definition, develop a flow chart of the processes that under evaluation. The flow chart diagram is established by covering all of the activities and steps considered in the whole system, with the allocation of the interlinking relations between activities. The more complex and detailed the flowchart is, the more accurate the results that can be obtained.

2. Create data collection plan based on the goal definition, data sources availability, and data quality indicators. The level of the accuracy and potential users of the data can largely affect this process. Diverse sources can be used, which should overcome problems related to geographical, timeframe or technological differences. Site-specific data are always preferable to the average data, but difficult to obtain.

3. Collect the data. Data compilation is one of the most work intensive steps in LCA. The information and data collected during this stage assures the data quality and final result, thus it is important to keep the procedure transparent and clear.

4. Evaluate and report results. The result of LCI is usually a long list contains a numerous emissions in terms of water, air and solid. The final environmental profile of the product highly related with the quality of the LCI data. Thus, the report should clearly document the data in terms of the methodology, system boundary and assumptions.

2.3.3 Impact assessment

The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is the evaluation process of the potential human health and environmental impacts, from the environmental resources and releases identified during the LCI (SAIC 2006; ILCD 2010). The magnitude and significance of environmental or social costs associated with specific life cycle activities are identified during this phase (Pennington et al. 2004; Pelletier et al. 2007). The LCIA process follows the guideline of ISO standards, transforms the emission flows from the life cycle inventory level into the intuitive impact categories, by focusing at either the problem-oriented level (midpoint) or the damage-oriented level (endpoint). The midpoint level aimed to interpret the complex emission list into the easier and more common accepted group of impact categories (Global warming, Acidification, Abiotic depletion). Endpoint level focuses on broader overall effects, such as consequences of a process or manufacture of a given product for human health, ecosystem quality or resource depletion.


7

LCIA is deemed the most time-consuming stage of LCA. Paper I listed numerous LCIA methods which have been developed by different research institutes and organizations, such as ReCiPe, CML 2007, Eco-indicator 99, EDIP 97, EDIP 2003, EPS 2000, Impact 2002+, JEPIX, LIME, TRACI and IPCC (for global warming). Specific instructions for implementing each LCIA methodology are provided in various publications, such as CML (2007), Goedkoop et al., (2009), IPCC (2013), Frischknecht et al., (2007) and Bare & Gloria (2006); SBRI (2013). They pointed that each method is actually a collection of impact assessment methods for the individual impact categories (e.g., stratospheric ozone protection, human health, etc.), see Table 2.2.

The lack of a standard LCIA methodology is still one of the obstacles encountered by LCA practitioners. Although those LCIA methods are developed by following the same principles and frameworks from ISO standards, they still differ from the aspects of category groups, orientation levels (midpoint or endpoint), elementary LCI emissions and the covered LCIA steps (normalization and weighting). It has been discussed in several literatures that different LCIA methods may lead to different results. For instance, Amy and Thomas (2008) compared several LCIA methods regarding the bio-fuels, they pointed out that there is no exactly ‘one right LCIA method’, since each of them has been peer reviewed and evaluated for accuracy and internal consistency. The selection of LCIA method is largely depending on the individual study goal and scope.

Guinée (2001), SAIC (2006) and ILCD (2010) have provided general instructions for performing LCIA process, which consist of the following steps:

Sel ect the impact cat egor ies Impact category selection is a key element of any impact assessment. In every LCA it is necessary to consider which environmental impacts to take into account. The ISO standard only gives general headlines for impact categories of resource use, ecological consequences and human health (ISO 14040 1997). However, they must be interpreted in terms of more operational impact categories such as global warming, acidification and resource depletion, etc. (Baumann and Tillman 2004). The most appropriate set of impact categories to include is strongly affected by their relevance to the goals and scope of the LCA, the LCIA methodology selected, and the availability of suitable inventory data. In some cases, the compiled information and inventory data are very limited and incomplete.

Classi f i cat ion sorts and assigns the LCI result parameters into a various commonly acknowledged impact categories (Baumann and Tillman 2004). According to SAIC (2006) there are generally two ways of assigning LCI results into the multiple impact categories: partition them into the impact categories to avoid the ‘double counting’ when they affect each other; or assign them to all impact categories when the effect are independent of each other. For example: NOx can be fully assigned into the category of Acidification as well as another category of Eutrophication (Baumann and Tillman 2004).

Charact eriza tion refers to the quantification of a number of chemicals in terms of an equivalence scale to determine their contributions to the overall impact of the focal product or process in a given category. It involves summing effects of all of the relevant substances, using appropriate characterization factors, e.g. effects of ammonia, hydrogen chloride and nitrogen oxide emissions on acidification. A series of characterization factors and methods have been presented by Guinée et al. (2001) and ReCiPe (2008). Sleeswijk et al. (2008) noted that only a relatively small proportion of the total number of interventions is responsible for a large proportion of potential environmental impacts. Although there were 858 environmental interventions collected and investigated, 46 of them account for over 75% of the impact scores. An example of commonly used impact category indicators (ReCiPe, 2008) is presented in Table 2.3. Impact indicators can be characterized by following the equations below (Baumann and Tillman, 2004; Hammervold J. et al., 2009):


8

𝑒ij = 𝑥i ∙ 𝑓ij

𝑑k = � (𝑒ij ∙ 𝑐jk)i=0,j=p

i=0,j=0

eij = emission of the LCI item j for total consumption of input parameter i; xi = consumption of the input parameter i; fij = emission of LCI item j per unit input parameter i; dk = total potential impacts in impact category k, expressed in equivalents cjk = the characterization factor for LCI item j to impact category k

Normalizat ion, grouping and weighting are three optional steps proposed through the LCA framework by ISO standards. Normalization refers to the application of factors, based on appropriate reference values, to impacts in each of the selected midpoint or endpoint categories that allow analysis of their respective contributions to the overall impact in each category (SAIC, 2006). The operational documentation by Guinée, (2001) recommends use of normalization data based on a single geographically and temporally well-defined reference system, preferably the world for one year. A number of normalization methods have been described, for instance by Sleeswijk (2008; 2010), Wenzel et al. (1997), Breedveld et al. (1999), Huijbregts et al. (2003), Strauss et al. (2006), Stranddorf et al. (2005a; 2005b), Bare et al. (2006), Lundie et al. (2007). The equations below express the normalization procedure (Baumann and Tillman, 2004; Hammervold et al., 2009):

𝑚k = 𝑑k × 𝑛k

mk = normalized potential impacts for category k nk = normalization factor for category k

Grouping sorts the characterization results into one or more sets to facilitate the interpretation of the results (Baumann and Tillman, 2004). ISO standards addressed two ways of grouping: 1) sorting indicators by characteristics such as air, water and solid emissions, or local, regional and global locations. 2) sorting indicators by ranking, such as high, low or medium.

Weighting is a qualitative or quantitative procedure where the relative importance of an environmental impact is weighted against all the other, the relative importance are expressed by their weighting factors (Baumann and Tillman, 2004; SAIC, 2006; Guneè, 2001; ILCD, 2010). The importance can be oriented based on monetary values, authorized targets, authoritative panels, proxies, technology abatement, etc. However, according to ISO standards weighted impacts cannot be used for product comparisons due to the bias they may introduce in results. Since there is no societal consensus regarding these fundamental values, there is no reason to expect consensus either on weighting factors, or on the weighting method or even on the choice of using a weighting method at all (Finnveden G., 1999).

2.3.4 Interpretation

Interpretation refines the numerous LCA results into specific concerns with meaningful conclusions. ISO 14040 (1997) defines that the interpretation phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the inventory analysis or the impact assessment, or both, are combined consistent with the defined goal and scope in order to reach conclusions and recommendations. During this stage, the limitations, drawbacks and issues of uncertainties should be clearly elucidated.


9

Table 2.2: Impact indicators in different methodologies (Nebel et al., 2009)

ReCiPe

Global warming, Ozone depletion, Terrestrial acidification, Freshwater eutrophication, Marine eutrophication, Human toxicity, Photochemical oxidant formation, Particulate matter formation, Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential, Freshwater ecotoxicity potential, Marine ecotoxicity potential, Ionising radiation potential, Agricultural land occupation potential, Urban land occupation potential, Natural land transformation potential, Water depletion potential, Mineral depletion potential, Fossil depletion potential

CML 2007 Abiotic depletion, Acidification, Eutrophication, Global warming (GWP 100), Ozone layer depletion, Human toxicity, Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, Marine aquatic ecotoxicity, Terrestrial ecotoxicity, Photochemical oxidation

Impact 2002+ Global warming, Carcinogens, Non-carcinogens, Respiratory inorganics, Ionising radiation, Ozone layer depletion, Respiratory organics, Aquatic ecotoxicity, Terrestrial ecotoxicity, Terrestrial acidification/nutrification, Land occupation, Non-renewable energy, Mineral extraction

TRACI Global warming (GWP100), Acidification, Carcinogens, Non-carcinogens, Respiratory effects, Eutrophication, Ozone depletion, Ecotoxicity, Smog

Eco-indicator 99 Carcinogens, Respiratory inorganics, Climate change, Radiation, Ozone layer, Ecotoxicity, Acidification, Eutrophication, Land use, Minerals, Fossil fuels

EPS 2000 Life expectancy, Severe morbidity, Morbidity, Severe nuisance, Nuisance, Crop growth capacity, Wood growth capacity, Fish and meat production, Soil acidification, Irrigation water, Drinking water, Depletion of reserves, Species extinction


10

Table 2.3 Mid-point impact indicators (ReCiPe, 2008; Sleeswijk et al., 2008)

Characterisation factor Abbr. Unit References Global warming potential GWP kg (CO2 to air) IPCC (2013) Ozone depletion potential ODP kg (CFC-11 to air) VMO (1999) Terrestrial acidification potential TAP kg (SO2 to air) Van Zeim et al.,

(2007b, 2007c) Freshwater eutrophication potential FEP kg (P to freshwater) Struijs et al., (2007) Marine eutrophication potential MEP kg (N to freshwater) Struijs et al., (2007) Human toxicity potential HTP kg (1,4 DCB to

urban air) Huijbregts et al., (2005a, 2005b; 2007), van de Meent and Huijbregts (2005), van Zeim et al., (2007a)

Photochemical oxidant formation potential

POFP kg (NMVOC to air) Van Zeim et al., (2007d)

Particulate matter formation potential

PMFP kg (PM10 to air) Van Zeim et al., (2007d)

Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential TETP kg (1,4 DCB to industrial soil)

Huijbregts et al., (2005a, 2005b; 2007), van de Meent and Huijbregts (2005), van Zeim et al., (2007a)

Freshwater ecotoxicity potential FETP kg (1,4 DCB freshwater)


Marine ecotoxicity potential METP kg (1,4 DCB to marine water)


Ionising radiation potential IRP kg (U235 to air) Frischknecht et al., (2001)

Agricultural land occupation potential

ALOP m2×yr (agricultural land)

De Schrijver and Goedkoop

Urban land occupation potential ULOP m2×yr (urban land) De Schrijver and Goedkoop

Natural land transformation potential

NLTP m2 (natural land) --

Water depletion potential WDP m3 (water) -- Mineral resource depletion potential MDP kg (Fe) -- Fossil resource depletion potential FDP kg (oil) Frischknecht et al.,

(2007)

11

CHAPTER 3 BRIDGE LCA MODEL AND THE DEVELOPED TOOL

The current Swedish bridge stock and BaTMan 3.1

Bridges are large-scale infrastructures, and require efficient management using Bridge Management System (BMS). BMS serves as a rational and systematic tool to organize and carry out all the relevant activities. BMS can integrate the factors of repair, rehabilitation and economic considerations in a holistic manner. This enables the relevant authority to make optimal decisions and budget allocations from a network perspective. Authorities in many countries have developed a BMS, with various levels of explicit detail, for example, Latvia (Lat Brutus), The Netherlands (DISK), Spain (SGP), Japan (JBMS), Ireland (Eirspan), Germany (GBMS), Finland (FBMS), Denmark (DANBRO), Switzerland (KUBA), and Sweden (BaTMan) (Mirzaei et al., 2012). However, most current BMS do not consider bridges’ environmental performance.

In Sweden, Trafikverket is the major owner of the bridge infrastructures. Since 1944, information about the condition of the national road network has been documented and stored in different archives in Sweden (Hallberg and Racutanu, 2007). Bridge and Tunnel Management (BaTMan) is the Swedish BMS operated by Trafikverket via internet. In 2004 the BaTMan was launched online, which is considered as one of the most comprehensive BMS in Europe (Safi, 2013). The current BaTMan covers approximately 31020 bridges, mostly governed by Trafikverket, including 24320 road bridges, 4542 railway bridges, 1895 pedestrian bridges and 263 bridges of other types, as summarized in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 (BaTMan, 2014).

Table 3.1 Swedish bridge stock statistics (BaTMan, 2014)

Bridge types Concrete Steel Wood Stone Other materials

Slab bridge 5831 48 150 176 71 Beam bridge 3004 2795 248 12 34 Slab fram bridge 9956 2 3 5 2 Beam fram bridge 1120 3 0 2 2 Culvert bridge 314 4184 0 1 27 Arch bridge 595 138 18 1086 9 Cable stayed bridge 2 11 9 0 0 Moveable bridge 0 105 0 0 4 Other bridges 243 112 41 10 6

3.1.1 The feasibility of integrating LCA into BaTMan

This section mainly discusses the feasibility of combining LCA with the current BaTMan, although the real implementation finally requires the legislation and policy support from the authorities. A bridge LCA model encompasses thousands of processes and material types. Lack of input data is one main obstacle hindering LCA implementation (Du, 2012; Du and Karoumi, 2014), but BaTMan stores most of the fundamental data required for LCA analysis. Such information includes bridge identification, location, dimensions, details of bridge structural elements and related material, drawings, traffic data, inspection plans and maintenance history, cost and budget plans, and deterioration predictions. Collectively, this information provides the required systematic basis for integrating LCA into BaTMan.


12

In this sense, it is clearly feasible to integrate LCA into BaTMan, thereby making it a substantially more comprehensive management system.

Figure 3.1 Indicated age classes of bridges in Sweden (BaTMan, 2014)

3.1.2 A systematic Bridge LCA model

The LCA implementation on bridges is very rare comparing with other industrial sectors (Du and Karoumi, 2014). One recognized limitation is the lack of authorized guidelines and unified criteria. Therefore, this research has developed a practical framework, which may serve as an operational recommendation to the analyst. The framework can either be implemented on the whole bridge or on a specific life cycle stage or only part of the structural components. The LCI database, which comprises thousands sets of upstream and downstream processes, would be assigned into the selected scenarios. The selected LCIA method is implemented to evaluate the inventory releases in accordance with the ISO standards. It results into the specific impact indicators to the human health, eco-system and resource depletions. The life cycle of the bridge can be divided into four stages: material manufacture stage, construction stage, use and maintenance stage and EOL, see Paper I and Paper VI.

3.1.3 Monetary evaluation of environmental impacts

LCA modelling can result into a wide range of impacts associated with human health, ecosystem quality and resources, which are not straightforward for stakeholder and decision-makers to illustrate and assess at the governing level. In order to comprehensively aggregate the impacts for an intuitive comparable set, weighting is adopted to convert the impacts into monetary values with a common unit. However, weighting of environmental impacts is being debated in LCA. As the ISO14040 standards (2006) and ILCD Handbook (2010) noted, value-based weighting is not permitted for comparative analyses that support decisions in open tendering processes. Nevertheless, Ahlroth et al. (2011) and Ahlroth and Finnveden (2011) observed that weighting is still widely used to meet practitioners and decision-makers need, as illustrated by several authors, e.g. Mahgoub et al. (2010), Contreras et al. (2009), Kiwjaroun et al. (2009), Liu et al. (2010), Tsoutsos et al. (2010), and Zackrisson (2005); it is recommended to use several weighting sets and compare the outcomes to reduce risks of overlooking important factors. More specifically, Ahlroth et al. (2011) thoroughly discussed the feasibility of evaluating the economic value of environmental impacts in a whole-life perspective. They showed that one way to include external environmental costs in LCC is to use monetary-weighted results obtained from environmental system analysis (such as LCA); several examples of such applications are available in the literature (Carlsson Reich, 2005; Nakamura and Kondo, 2006; Kicherer et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2008; Hunkeler et al., 2008). In this work, two monetary weighting systems: Ecovalue08 with updated Ecovalue12 weightings

0100020003000400050006000

2000

-201

4

1990

-199

9

1980

-198

9

1970

-197

9

1960

-196

9

1950

-195

9

1940

-194

9

1930

-193

9

1920

-192

9

1910

-191

9

1900

-190

9

1890

-189

9

Befo

re 1

890

Num

ber o

f Brid

ges

Year of Construction

3.2 AN LCA BASED COMPUTATIONAL TOOL: GREENBRIDGE

13

(Ahlroth and Finnveden, 2011; Ahlroth et al., 2011; Finnveden et al., 2013) and Ecotax02 (Finnveden et al., 2006), have been applied and compared. The Ecovalue monetary weighting set has been developed for evaluating mid-point environmental impacts based on willingness-to-pay, with particular focus on Swedish conditions, while the Ecotax set is based on environmental taxes and fees levied by a focal society. Table 2 in Paper IV illustrates these two weighting sets. It should be noted that some impact categories cannot be weighted, due to the limitations of the available weighting factors.

An LCA based computational tool: GreenBridge 3.2

LCA analysis for bridges is time-consuming, costly and requires expert knowledge of both bridge engineering and LCA. Some commercial LCA software is available, but none of them is specific designed for assessing bridges. In order to realize the analysis into daily practice, a Matlab-based LCA tool ‘GreenBridge’ is developed in this study to facilitate the modelling involved. Figure 3.2 shows the front page of GreenBridge.

The GreenBridge tool is particularly designed for bridge structures, following the LCA framework also developed in this study. It enables the modeling of road bridges and railway bridges, with ReCiPe (H) methodology that covers over 1000 substances data extracted from Ecoinvent. A major advantage of GreenBridge is its flexibility; it enables automatic quantification of environmental indicators at any user-defined detail level, and the possibility to detect the relative importance of any scenario activities in any life stage. The database can be flexibly replaced according to the analysts’ desire. Figure 3.3 presents the general structure of GreenBridge, with each step displayed in a separate excel sheet.

Figure 3.2. Front Page of GreenBridge LCA tool

GreenBridge Scope

GreenBridgeLife Cycle Assessment (LCA) Tool for Bridges

Copyright: Guangli Du © all rights reservedContact Lnfo: [email protected]: trofessor Raid Karoumi

trofessor Håkan Sundquist

Bridge life cycle

Material manufacture phaseConstruction phaseUse and Maintenance PhaseDemolition and waste treatment

Raw material extractionSorting and processingTransportationWaste disposal and treatment

Resouces Energy

Input Data

Ecoinvent v2.2ReCiPe (H)

AirCWaterCSolid Releases:SO2, NOx, CO2, CO, HC, CH4, NH4, BOD, COD, NMVOC, P, Cd, Cu, Pb, Fe, Zn, Particulate matters, etc.

Climate changeOzone depletionHuman toxicityPhotochemical oxidant formation Particulate matter formationIonising radiationTerrestrial acidificationFreshwater eutrophicationMarine eutrophicationTerrestrial ecotoxicityFreshwater ecotoxicity

Human HealthEcosystemResouces

EndPoint SubstancesLevel

weighting

Monetary value

ReCiPe (H)Ecoinvent v2.2EcovalueEcotax


14

Figure 3.3 User Input sheet in the GreenBridge LCA tool

Table 3.2 Structural components and processes covered by GreenBridge

Life cycle phases Structure Structural components

Material manufacture phase

Substructures Piles, embankments, abutments, wing walls

Superstructures Slabs, beam, trusses, arches, cables, bracing, steel girders, bearings

Railway Track Railway tracks, sleepers, ballast, rail fasteners

Bridge equipment Formwork, dehumidification machines, railings, bearings, expansion joints, bitumen sealing, painting

Earthwork Excavation, landfill

Construction phase

Machinery usage Electricity, diesel consumption

Transportations Truck/train/ship/passenger car transportation Traffic disturbances during the construction activities

Maintenance phase

Repair or replace all involved structural components

Edge beams, repainting, railway track, fasteners, sleepers, ballast, earing, railings, bitumen sealing, expansion joints

Traffic disturbances Truck/passenger car disturbance

End of life

Demolition, Transportation, steel recycling, concrete crushing

Truck/train/ship/passenger car transportation Electricity and diesel consumptions

The main features of GreenBridge are:

Covers 27 types of environmental indicators, including atmospheric emissions, mid-point indicators and the cumulative energy demand (CED). 8 types of emission substances are named as CO2, SO2, CH4, CO, NOx, NH3, NMVOC, PM10; while 18 types of mid-point environmental impact categories are global warming (GWP), ozone depletion (ODP), human toxicity (HTP), photochemical oxidant formation (POFP), particulate matter formation (PMFP), ionizing radiation (IRP), terrestrial acidification (TAP), freshwater eutrophication

1) User input 2) Run the GreenBridge tool

3) Life cycle impact assessment

4) Results and Graphs presented in word and excel

LCI database unit process and emissions data


15

(FEP), marine eutrophication (MEP), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP), freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP) and marine ecotoxicity (METP), etc.

Enables to convert the environmental impacts into monetary value by 2 approaches. The environmental impacts are further aggregated by the monetary weighting factors Ecovalue 08 (Ahlroth and Finnveden, 2011) and the updated value of Ecovalue 12 (Finnveden et al., 2013) as well as EcoTax 02 (Finnveden et al., 2006), with a focus on the Swedish condition.

Enables the LCA comparison for up to 10 different bridges simultaneously, and identification of the most dominated structural components and life cycle stage. The tool allows the user to replace the default LCI database with flexible user-defined detail level.

An excel file and word document are eventually created automatically to store all the numerical results and graphs.

Table 3.3. Material inventory data

Material type The inventory data types Specification

Concrete C50/60 C50/60 exacting concrete 0.4 water/cement (w/c) ratio 375 kg/m3 cement content

Reinforcement and Structural Steel Steel, low-alloyed, at plant 63% primary with 37% secondary

steel from electric furnace route

Painting Epoxy paint layer and anti-corrosion zinc coating

Degreasing, pickling, fluxing, galvanising and finishing

Steel Railing electric, un- and low-alloyed steel Hot dip galvanized after fabrication

Bitumen sealing Hot bitumen adhesive compound To protect roads and roofs against water intrusion

Formwork by timber Scandinavian softwood 8 cm to 10 cm thick

Truck transportation 1 tkm transport, lorry 16-32 t, EURO3 Material transportation from factory to site

Rail transportation Freight train Material transportation from factory to site

Ship transportation Freight ferry Material transportation from factory to site

Passenger car transportation 1 personkm transport, passenger car Petrol driven car per person per km

Diesel Diesel burned in building machine Consumed in construction machines

Electricity Electricity, low voltage, at grid Consumed in construction machines and heating system

Edge beam replacement C50/60 exacting concrete and reinforcement

0.4 water/cement (w/c) ratio 375 kg/m3 cement content

Steel railing replacement Steel, low-alloyed, at plant 63% primary with 37% secondary steel from electric furnace route

Concrete crushing Diesel and electricity consumption 16.99 MJ diesel and 21.19 MJ electricity per ton of concrete

3.2.1 How to use GreenBridge

Filling the sheet of ‘user-input’ is the only step required to run GreenBridge, which is the basis for the further evaluation. The input sheet includes the quantity of materials, transportation and energy consumption of each structural component considered through the life cycle stages. The level of analysis detail is governed by the user, which can vary from filling only few main structural components to the entire structural system with complete auxiliary components in detail. Table 3.2 presents the structural components and scenarios covered in the tool, while Figure 3.4 illustrates the flow chart of the tool execution.


16

LCI database As pointed out in Paper I, the reliability of LCA output largely relies on the quality of LCI database, which explicitly covers all the direct and indirect processes linked to the whole bridge. A wide range of LCI databases for the construction sector are compared and discussed in Paper I. One has to notice that the same material may have different LCI profiles due to the regional and technological variations. This has been considered in GreenBridge, as the user can flexibly replace the default LCI data. Ecoinvent is deemed as the most comprehensive one corresponding to the European conditions among numerous developed commercial LCI databases. Therefore, GreenBridge mainly employs the energy and life cycle input-output inventories from the Ecoinvent. The material type and its corresponding specification from Ecoinvent are summarized in Table 3.3, and more detailed illustration is given in Paper V, Section 4.3.

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) GreenBridge was implemented the ReCiPe methodology, which is a combination of midpoint approach ‘CML 2001’ and endpoint approach ‘Eco-indicator 99’. The output LCI emissions are grouped into 18 mid-point categories, oriented to the damage categories of human health, ecological health, and resource depletion. Besides, two monetary weighting systems, Ecovalue08 with updated Ecovalue12 weightings (Ahlroth and Finnveden, 2011; Ahlroth et al., 2011; Finnveden et al., 2013) and Ecotax02 (Finnveden et al., 2006), are adopted for 11 selected mid-point impacts.

Results and Graphs GreenBridge can automatically save numerical results in an excel file and generate the graphic figures in the word document.

• The numerical results in excel file (result.xls) can be illustrated in four levels: 8 types of substances from the emission level, 18 types of mid-point impact indicators and CED, integrated monetary value and the environmental contribution from each structural component and process within four life stages. The results for each bridge regarding various life cycle scenarios and life stage are detailed in a separate sheet.

• The graphs in word document illustrate the comparison among each proposal, with the environmental impact allocation for different life stages, as shown in Figure 3.4.


17

Bro. 1625 Bro.1627 Bro.1629 Bro.1630 Bro.824 Bro.825 Bro.829 Bro.8300

5

10

15

20

25

kg C

O2

eq

Climate change

Material manufacture phaseConstruction PhaseMaintenance PhaseEnd of Life

User Input

Example of the result figure for GWP

Figure 3.4 The flow chart of GreenBridge execution

Material and processings Unit Bridge no.1 Bridge no.2 Bridge no.3 Bridge no.4 Bridge no.5 Bridge no.6 Bridge no.7 Bridge no.8 Bridge no.9 Bridge no.10Normal concrete C50/60 m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

concrete foundation/sole plate C35/45 m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinforcement ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Structural Steel ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Steel Railing ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

epoxy kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

zinc coating m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Steel Bearing ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aggregate/Ballast ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bitumen sealing kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Formwork by timber m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rail steel fastening ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

expansion joint ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wooden Sleepers m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Truck transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rail transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ocean transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Worker passenger transportation pkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Diesel liters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Petrol liters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity kwh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Normal concrete C50/60 m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

High-quality concrete C35/45 m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinforcement ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Structural Steel ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Steel Railing ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

epoxy kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

zinc coating m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Steel Bearing replacement ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aggregate/Ballast replacement ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bitumen sealing kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Formwork by timber m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rail steel Fastening ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

expansion joint ton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wooden Sleepers m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Traffic disturbance with cars tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Traffic disturbance with trucks tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Truck transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rail transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ocean transportation tonkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Worker passenger transportation pkm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Concrete crushing m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diesel liters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Petrol liters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity Kwh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bridge Area m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bridge life span years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Additional information

User Input for

GreenBridge

Maintenace Phase

End of Life

Material manufacture phase

Construction Phase

Results automatically saved in word and excel documents


18

19

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF THE APPENDED PAPERS

The connection between the six appended papers is presented in Figure 4.1. Each paper has different focuses on methodology, study scope, database, life stage and result illustration. A more detailed description is given in this Chapter.

Figure 4.1 The relationships of the appended papers

Current research status and literature review (Paper I) 4.14.1.1 Current status of Bridge LCA research

Due to the complexity of the environmental problems and the diverse character of bridges, the LCA analysis for bridges as a whole system by covering the full spectrum of environmental impacts is very rare. Most existing studies were limited on few environmental indicators or structural components, or a specific life stage. In order to remedy the absence of comprehensive studies in the current state-of-the-art investigated in Paper I, Paper V has firstly performed holistic research that include the full life cycle stage of various common bridge design types in Sweden, by covering over 1000 substances in the output of the assessment, the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) and 12 mid-point impact categories. Besides, 2 types of economic models were applied to convert the characterized mid-point environmental impacts into monetary values, with a focus on the Swedish condition.

Paper I Literature review Framework development for Bridge LCA

Developed calculation tool GreenBridge

Paper II CML 2001 method Sensitivity analysis 5 types of mid-point indicators Paper III Eco-indicator 99 method Sensitivity analysis 12 types of emissions 5 types of mid-point indicators

Paper IV & Paper VI ReCiPe method, Ecovalue&Ecotax 12 types of mid-point indicators 7 types of emissions and CED Construction machinery usage Paper V Combine LCA with LCC


20

4.1.2 Literature review

As already stated, an extensive literature review was undertaken in Paper I to identify and address critical relevant issues in bridge LCA. It also summarized the findings and proposed a practical framework based on them. However, as Paper I only reviewed the publications for the period from 1998 to 2012, a supplementary literature review are added below for the period from 2012 to 2014, together with the summarized list shown in Table 4.1.

Kim et al., (2013) described and discussed two procedures to evaluate a bridge’s environmental performance: 1) an advanced life-cycle assessment (LCA) method, and 2) an eco-friendly decision-making procedure. The two methods were applied to assess two options in a practical case scenario: a steel box girder bridge and a pre-stressed concrete (PSC) box-girder bridge. The analysis was limited to four main material types (steel, concrete, asphalt and timber) but covered the whole life cycle of the bridges, except the energy consumption by the construction machinery used on site and the major maintenance work. The five analyzed impact categories were further converted to monetary values and combined with LCC. The eco-friendly decision-making procedure (based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process) was also applied to normalize all impact categories to generate a single indicator. The results clearly indicate that the PSC box girder bridge was the better alternative, but the result may depend on the selected weighting factors. The study also found that including recycling process considerably influences environmental impacts determined by LCA.

Habert et. al., (2012) evaluated the environmental consequences of using high performance concrete instead of traditional concrete for a bridge, demonstrating that the associated reduction in concrete volume can compensate for the increases in CO2 emissions associated with its greater mechanical strength. The study covered the whole life cycle of a bridge, and considered five impact indicators, using CML methodology. A specific case presented in the analysis shows that choosing a high-performance bridge construction solution is generally more environmentally friendly than a traditional concrete solution, regardless of the selected impact category and geographic context.

Habert et. al., (2013) investigated the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitation using different types of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), and compared them to normal concrete solutions. The findings, supported by a case study of a real bridge in Slovenia, indicate that use of either UHPFRC or ECO-UHPFRC rather than traditional concrete can help to reduce global warming impact. However, the analysis solely focused on the concrete production and transport during the raw material phase, excluding the on-site work.

Padgett et al. (2013) developed a life cycle sustainability analysis (LCS-A) framework enabling assessments of the sustainability of enhanced designs or retrofits to mitigate natural hazard risks for bridges, together with their effects on energy expenditure and emissions. The framework was applied in several case studies, including assessments of both individual bridges and a regional portfolio of bridges, which are subject to natural hazards, for instance aging and seismic damage. The cited authors concluded that retrofit solutions can significantly mitigate emissions and the embodied energy from their lifetime hazard exposure.

Thiebault et. al., (2013) developed a simplified quantitative LCA approach and an excel-based LCA tool, which enables to assess the environmental performance of railway bridges from a full life cycle perspective. The model was implemented in comparing the environmental performance of two railway bridge design alternatives, supported by a real case of Banafjäl Bridge in Sweden. The analysis accounted for the whole life cycle, focusing on a several set of air and water pollutants, as well as a series of mid-

4.1 CURRENT RESEARCH STATUS AND LITERATURE REVIEW (PAPER I)

21

point environmental impacts. The results showed that the environmental impact of the fixed track alternative has significant advantages in terms of each environmental impact categories.

Du and Karoumi (2013) has recommended a general framework guiding the LCA implementation on railway bridges. A comparison case study between two alternative designs of the Banafjäl Bridge is further carried out through the whole life cycle, with the consideration of several key maintenance and end-of-life scenarios. Six impact categories are investigated by using the LCA CML 2001 method and the known life cycle inventory database. Results show that the fixed-slab bridge option has a better environmental performance than the ballasted design due to the ease of maintenances. The initial material manufacture stage is responsible for the largest environmental burden, while the impacts from the construction machinery and material transportations are ignorable. Sensitivity analysis illustrates the maintenance scenario planning and steel recycling have the significant influence on the final results other than the traffic disturbances.

Du and Karoumi (2014) performed a comprehensive literature review regarding the LCA implementation for bridge structures, as well as summarized the current developments. The study addressed several critical issues and highlighted the limitations in detail. The discussion ranged from the methodology, practical operational issues to the data collections. Finally, a systematic LCA framework for quantifying environmental impacts for railway bridges is introduced and interpreted as a potential guideline for the decision-makers and stakeholders.

The previous researches were under strong criticize that too few life cycle scenarios, insufficient structural items or limited types of impact categories were included, which may result into a biased result. Therefore, Du et al. (2014) explicitly evaluated 5 common bridge design types: including 7 types of air emission substances, 12 mid-point impact categories, the cumulative energy demand as well as their monetary value, which enables the analyst to obtain a full spectrum of the bridge environmental performance from various aspects. The results clearly identified the major structural and life-cycle scenario contributors to the selected impact categories, and revealed the effects of varying the monetary weighting system, the steel recycling rate and the concrete types. The issues of how the material and bridge design relating with the environmental performance were also thoroughly discussed.

Yadollahi M. et al., (2014) introduced a sustainability rating system for bridge infrastructure, to assess the environment, economic and social performances. The LCA methodology was applied in the assessment of environmental performance. The case study of Penang Second Bridge in Malaysia was rated by the two illustrated approaches: the multi-criteria analysis method and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. The research was focused on the rating system in a governing level of sustainability, thus LCA as a specific perspective was not detailed.

Mara et al. (2014) examined the cost efficiency and environmental performance of FRP bridge decks, using an approach demonstrated in a case study of an existing steel-concrete composite bridge with a deteriorated concrete deck. The analyses indicate that FRP decks can provide potential cost savings over the life cycle of bridges and reduce environmental impact. However, the only environmental impacts considered were carbon emissions.


22

Table 4.1 Summary of the literature review

Con

tent

Stee

l box

gird

er b

ridge

vs.

Stee

l I g

irder

brid

ge

Stee

l brid

ge v

s. C

oncr

ete

brid

ge

Bric

k ar

ch b

ridge

s

LCA

on

brid

ge m

aint

enan

ce, b

ased

on

30 b

eam

, arc

h an

d ca

ble

stay

ed b

ridge

s

Con

sider

ing

brid

ge d

urab

ility

, LC

C a

nd L

CA

, a

conv

entio

nal b

ridge

vs.

An

inno

vativ

e br

idge

type

.

Brid

ge su

stai

nabi

lity,

con

cret

e br

idge

vs.

Stee

l brid

ge a

nd

a co

ncre

te b

ridge

dec

k

Two

brid

ge d

eck

syst

ems

LCC

, LC

A a

nd d

ynam

ics a

naly

sis

LC

A o

n th

ree

brid

ge ty

pes:

gird

er, a

rch

and

cabl

e st

ayed

Com

paris

on o

f tw

o br

idge

dec

ks o

f nor

mal

mat

eria

l vs.

Enh

ance

d st

reng

th m

ater

ial

Stee

l con

cret

e co

mpo

site

brid

ge v

s. C

oncr

ete

brid

ge

Con

cret

e br

idge

vs.

Woo

d br

idge

vs.

Stee

l brid

ge

Met

hodo

logy

inve

stig

atio

n

Impa

ct c

ateg

orie

s

CO

2, C

O, S

O2 a

nd N

Ox e

miss

ions

Che

mic

al e

miss

ions

, was

te g

ener

atio

n an

d ai

r pol

luta

nt e

miss

ions

10 in

dica

tors

at g

loba

l lev

el

N.A

.

CO

2 em

issio

n an

d en

ergy

co

nsum

ptio

n

Brid

ge su

stai

nabi

lity

in g

ener

al, C

O2

equi

vale

nt e

miss

ions

and

ene

rgy

Em

issio

n le

vel a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n

CO

2 em

issio

ns

Em

bodi

ed e

nerg

y an

d C

O2 e

miss

ions

CO

2 em

issio

ns

Air

emiss

ions

Glo

bal i

mpa

ct le

vel

N.A

.

Life

cyc

le p

hase

s

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

With

out c

onst

ruct

ion

phas

e

With

out E

OL

Onl

y br

idge

m

aint

enan

ce

With

out c

onst

ruct

ion

and

EO

L ph

ase

Onl

y m

ater

ial

man

ufac

ture

pha

se

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

With

out c

onst

ruct

ion

and

EO

L ph

ase

With

out c

onst

ruct

ion

and

EO

L ph

ase

With

out c

onst

ruct

ion

phas

e

Onl

y m

ater

ial

man

ufac

ture

pha

se

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

N.A

.

Arti

cles

Wid

man

(199

8)

Hor

vath

and

H

endr

icks

on (1

998)

Stee

le e

t al.,

(200

2)

Stee

le e

t. al

., (2

003)

Itoh

and

Kita

gaw

a (2

003)

Mar

tin (2

004)

Keo

leia

n et

al.

(200

5)

Itoh

, Wad

a, an

d Li

u (2

005)

Col

lings

(200

6)

Loun

is an

d D

aigl

e (2

007)

Ger

vasio

and

Sim

oes

da S

ilva

(200

8)

Ham

mer

vold

et a

l. (2

011)

Hor

vath

(200

9)

4.1 CURRENT RESEARCH STATUS AND LITERATURE REVIEW (PAPER I)

23

LCA

on

a w

ood

brid

ge

Railw

ay b

ridge

Railw

ay b

ridge

Railw

ay b

ridge

A st

eel b

ox g

irder

brid

ge a

nd a

pre

-stre

ssed

con

cret

e (P

SC) b

ox-g

irder

brid

ge

Use

of h

igh

perf

orm

ance

con

cret

e ve

rsus

trad

ition

al

conc

rete

for a

brid

ge

Brid

ge re

habi

litat

ion

proc

ess

Brid

ge e

nhan

ced

desig

n an

d re

trofit

pro

cess

Com

preh

ensiv

e lit

erat

ure

revi

ew a

nd d

evel

opm

ent

of o

pera

tiona

l fra

mew

ork

Repl

acin

g th

e ol

d co

ncre

te d

eck

with

GFR

P de

ck

Exi

stin

g st

eel-c

oncr

ete

com

posit

e br

idge

5 la

rge

span

road

brid

ges

CO

2 em

issio

ns a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n

Glo

bal l

evel

Em

issio

ns le

vel a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n

Glo

bal l

evel

and

em

issio

ns

5 m

id-p

oint

indi

cato

rs

CO

2 em

issio

ns

Glo

bal w

arm

ing

pote

ntia

l

CO

2 em

issio

ns a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n

N.A

.

Ratin

g sy

stem

in a

gov

erni

ng le

vel o

f su

stai

nabi

lity

Car

bon

emiss

ions

7 ty

pes o

f air

emiss

ion

subs

tanc

es, 1

2 m

id-p

oint

impa

ct c

ateg

orie

s and

cos

t

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Mat

eria

l man

ufac

ture

ph

ase

and

trans

porta

tion

Brid

ge r

etro

fit p

roce

ss

N.A

.

N.A

.

Repl

acin

g ol

d co

ncre

te

deck

with

GFR

P de

ck

Who

le li

fe c

ycle

Bouh

aya,

et. a

l., (2

009)

Botn

iaba

nan

(201

0a, 2

010b

, 20

10c,

201

0d)

Thie

baul

t et a

l., (2

013)

Du

and

Kar

oum

i (20

13)

Kim

et a

l., (2

013)

Hab

ert e

t. al

., (2

012)

Hab

ert e

t. al

., (2

013)

Padg

ett J

et a

l., (2

013)

Du

and

Kar

oum

i (20

14)

Yad

olla

hi e

t al.,

(201

4)

Mar

a V

. et a

l., (2

014)

Du

et a

l., (2

014)


24

Application of the Bridge LCA model to real cases 4.2

Paper II - Paper V have practically discussed the following issues: 1) Effects of the material and bridge design on environmental performance; 2) Identification of the main structural and life cycle scenario contributors to the selected impact categories; 3) Identification of the effects of varying the monetary weighting system, the steel recycling rate, and concrete types. The results may provide valuable reference information that may assist decision-makers to select optimal bridge proposals from a LCA perspective, and enable authorities to mitigate the environmental burdens of various structural components in early planning stages. The case studies considered in the appended papers are summarized below:

4.2.1 The Banafjäl Bridge (Paper II and Paper III)

Due to a lack of real cases for analysis, both Paper II and Paper III dealt with the Banafjäl Bridge (Figure 4.2), but from different perspectives. However, the conclusions obtained from both papers are found agree with each other. In general, both demonstrated the possibility of mitigating the environmental burden, by changing the track system from the original ballast track (Botniabanan, 2010a) to ballast-less/fixed-slab track. The dimensions of the bridge were statically re-designed by Gillet (2010) for this track adjustment. The results presented in both papers show that the fixed track alternative is more favourable than the ballasted track in terms of every impact category considered. The raw material phase is the main contributor to impacts during the life-cycle for both alternatives. The studies described in Papers II and III differed substantially in terms of:

1) Functional unit: Paper II defined ‘1 meter bridge in the longitudinal direction during 120 years’ as the functional unit, while Paper III used ‘the whole bridge superstructure during 60 years’. The definition of the functional unit is reasonable in both papers, from the sense that, the life span of the whole bridge is 120 years, or the life span of the railway track systems is 60 years.

Figure 4.2 the Banafjäl Bridge

2) Methodologies and LCI database: The CML 2001 baseline method was used in Paper II, with data collected from the Ecoinvent, ELCD, worldsteel, Stripple (2001) and U.S. LCI databases. Six impact categories were selected for presentation: Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), Acidification Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Global Warming Potential (GWP100), Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP) and Photochemical Oxidation Potential (POCP). In contrast, Paper III followed Eco-indicator 99’ methodology (Guinée et al., 2001), and ODP was replaced with Human toxicity potential (HTP) from Paper II. A simplified Excel-based LCA tool developed as a basis for further analysis was also applied in Paper III. The

4.2 APPLICATION OF THE BRIDGE LCA MODEL TO REAL CASES

25

inventory data (focusing on releases of 12 typical pollutants) were collected from the Ecoinvent database.

3) Life cycle scenarios: the main differences between the scenarios considered in the two papers were in the maintenance and EOL phases. Paper II investigated a series of scheduled periodic renewals of the structural components and goods transportation involved (see Table 1 in Paper II). Modelling of the EOL stage in this paper included demolition of the bridge and sorting of materials for different waste treatments: the concrete being crushed into gravel for landfill disposal, and 88% of the steel being recycled. By contrast, Paper III focused on painting of steelwork during the maintenance phase, and the EOL modelling included 100% recycling of the structural steel and sending all of the concrete to a sorting plant. No environmental burden is associated with reuse of the rails.

4) Results perspectives: These two papers presented the results from different perspectives. Paper II presented the normalized results of environmental impact allocation, in terms of each structural component, as well as for each life cycle stage; while Paper III presented at the characterized impact level and the emission level. In regard to the sensitivity analysis, Paper II highlighted the varied environmental effects from the maintenance activity plans, steel recycling rate, and traffic disturbances; while Paper III modelled by varying the input parameters with 10%, with the further normalization and weighting analysis. Since the foci and methodologies applied in the studies differ, the results presented in the two papers cannot be directly compared. However, both studies strongly indicate that the raw material phase is the main contributor to environmental burdens in the life-cycle of both alternatives, and the fixed slab design option is environmentally superior, due to low initial material consumption and ease of maintenance.

4.2.2 The Karlsnäs bridge (Paper IV)

LCA has rarely been applied holistically in bridge procurement, since the pioneering studies by Horvath and Hendrickson (1998) and Widman (1998). Most previous studies have only considered a single indicator, one or a few structural components, or a specific life stage, for example Widman (1998), Itoh and Kitagawa (2003), Martin (2004), Collings (2006) and Bouhaya et al. (2009). However, environmental sustainability concerns not only global warming and CO2 emissions, but also other environmental impacts that do not co-vary with the climate change impact.

Therefore, Paper IV performed the study comprehensively, based on the most up-to-date LCA methodology ReCiPe (H) (Goedkoop et al., 2009). Over 1000 substances were covered in the inventory data. From which, 7 types of air emissions are selected to be further presented in the results; as well as the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED), and 12 mid-point impact categories. Besides, two monetary weighting approaches were utilized to convert the environmental burdens into the corresponding monetary cost. This Paper remedies the absence of full spectrum of environmental indicators in the current state-of-the-art, and deemed as the first attempt to comprehensively implement LCA into the bridge procurement process.

The approach is illustrated by application to a real bridge, the Karlsnäs bridge, a new road bridge planned by Trafikverket in 2013, 320 m long and 22.5 m wide. Five design proposals were formulated, as illustrated in Table 6.2 in Paper IV: (1) a steel box-girder composite bridge, (2) a steel I-girder composite bridge, (3) and (4) post-tensioned concrete box girder bridges, and (5) a balanced cantilever concrete box girder bridge. The analysis covered the whole bridge from the superstructure of slab, beam, and structural steel section to the substructure of columns, abutments and the foundation. The results clearly show that the choice of bridge type affects the environmental performance in a full life cycle perspective. The results also identify the major structural and life-cycle scenario contributors to the selected impact


26

categories, and reveal effects of varying the monetary weighting system, the steel recycling rate and the concrete types.

4.2.3 Attempt to integrate LCC, LCA, lifespan, user-cost and aesthetics (Paper V)

Procurement stage is the base to achieve the goal of sustainability for bridges. In practice, several proposals could provide technically feasible solutions in a certain location, but they substantially differ in the criterion of life-cycle cost (LCC), service life-span, user-cost, aesthetic merit and environmental impact. Therefore, Paper V attempted to introduce a holistic approach which enables to select the most life-cycle-efficient bridge by incorporating all the mentioned bridge life-cycle parameters. The approach combines the use of novel techniques and parameters that integrates the bridges aesthetics and environmental aspects.

This holistic approach is illustrated by a case study of a wildlife crossing bridge currently planned by Trafikverket, with total width of 35 m and length of 64 m, which is located over the European route E6 in Gothenburg. Trafikverket commissioned a consultant to prepare a conceptual design for this bridge (Proposal 1, Table 6.3 in Paper V), to attach to the tender documents. In addition, two other technically feasible proposals are prepared to compare with Proposal 1. The analysis investigates the LCC-effectiveness of these 3 solutions, clarifies how the bridge could be procured, and addresses the roles of the agency and the contractors through the holistic approach.

4.2.4 Two commonly used short span bridges in Sweden (Paper VI)

The focus in bridge projects is expanding to include environmental sustainability in addition to economic and technical aspects. Today’s designers and authorities are challenged to seek different designs to reduce the environmental burden. Large amount of the bridges in Sweden have short spans, within which, the concrete slab-frame bridge (CFB) is the most common type. Compare to the conventional CFB, the soil-steel flexible culvert (In Sweden known as soil-steel composite bridge, SSCB) type is a solution that assessed to be favourable due to its ease erection, low maintenance as well as the competitive cost. However, the researches for the environmental performance of bridges were rarely performed nor integrated in the decision making. Especially for the SSCB, its environmental burden has never been examined. This paper compared the environmental performance of SSCB with the conventional CFB through the whole life cycle from cradle to grave, based on 8 real bridge cases in Sweden. The study covered 11 sets of mid-point indicators, CED as well as evaluated their associated cost. The construction phase, which has been neglected in most of the earlier studies, is a specific focus in this paper. Two types of construction methods and series of machinery usages are detailed and compared. The results indicate that the environmental performance of a bridge is linked closely with the bridge type selection, as well as governed by multiple indicators in the environmental domain.

27

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

General conclusions 5.1

This research explored the LCA implementation on bridges. An operational framework was recommended, as well as the discussion of several critical issues. The utility of the framework was elaborated on both of the railway bridges and road bridges, with the investigation of scenario activities, environmental indicators and the monetary value. In addition, a Matlab-based computational tool was developed to facilitate the calculation. The outcome of this study may provide references for decision-makers when evaluating other similar bridge cases, thus guide to select the most feasible proposal within the environmental domain.

This section only summarized the general conclusions, and the more detailed ones can be found in each appended paper:

The study has found the environmental performance of bridges is closely linked with the choice of material and bridge type. Although different material or bridge types can serve the equivalent function for the designated project, they have different environmental performance. Several cases presented in this work are examples of this. From this sense, it is important for the authorities to formulate the policy intervention in the decision making process.

Based on the literature review, the GWP and energy consumption are regarded as two popular indicators when performing LCA on bridges. Many authorities attempt to make decisions based on it. However, as shown in this study, even the same bridge may perform differently among the indicators. In this regard, it is important to cover as many indicators as possible to reflect the full spectrum of the environmental performance. One cannot draw a conclusion without specifying the referred impact indicators.

Data has found to be the main obstacle when implementing LCA on bridges. First, the adopted LCI database may not totally reflect the applied production technologies. Second, the results are very dependent on the input, including the material quantities, construction machinery usage, maintenance schedules and the EOL plans. However, this can be improved if the government requires the manufacture companies to provide the full environmental profile of their products, which are mostly kept confidential today. Another solution can be to establish a well framed BMS with robust historical data. Nevertheless, the LCA implementation on bridges requires close cooperation among the researchers, the industry and the policy support from the authorities.

Although the ILCD handbook and series of ISO standards have been published to guide the practitioners, they are oriented to a broad set of fields other than bridges. The lack of LCA handbook for bridges is realized as the main issue hindering the practice. Besides, the reliability of the analysed result is found to be governed by several factors: from the predefined goal and study scope, the selected methodology, the LCI data, up to the model detail level and the analysts’ preference. This has caused the difficulties in the comparison of case studies, especially if they were not performed in consistency. However, the framework and the model developed in this research, can serve as an operational recommendation for practitioners.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

28

Future research 5.2

Although many problems have not yet been resolved in this field, the author firmly believes that implementing LCA on bridges plays an important role in achieving the sustainable construction, and ought to be further studied.

Decision-making for bridge is not only governed by environmental performance but multiple criteria, such as technical feasibility, durability and cost. The engagement of multidimensional criteria may lead to controversy: the most environmental friendly solution may not be the cheapest or the best technical feasible one. It’s a trade-off to consider such confliction and thus to resolve at the early design phase. However, most current LCAs are performed on the determined designs to detect the environmental “hotspots”, although at this stage, it is difficult to adjust or improve the specified design and decisions. Therefore, integrating LCA with a design optimization approach from the early planning phase is important for holistically integrating multiple design criteria. For example, modern optimization techniques such as genetic algorithms can be combined with traditional approaches to identify the structural solution that lead to the lowest cost and LCA impact.

LCA involves large amounts of data from numerous sources. There are inevitably inherent uncertainties, which limit the daily practice. Further research is needed to examine the uncertainties through the statistical approach, for example the Monte Carlo method, to improve understanding of the relationships between the input distributions and the correlated outputs.

A number of LCIA methodologies are available from different research institutions with the emphasis on specific impact categories; and the results may show differently among them. There is no consensus on which method should be chosen. This work applied the ReCiPe 2008 method, as well as eco-indicator 99’ and CML 2001. However, it is important for future studies to compare these methods and identify the most appropriate one for specific purposes. Besides, criteria are also needed regarding environmental requirements that a bridge should meet, and for identifying a bridge as ‘sustainable’ based on evaluation results.

Although diverse bridge types were investigated in this research, the LCA framework was only applied on few cases within each bridge type. This may not be enough to accurately capture the environmental profiles for future predictions. Thus, more case studies following the same operational methodology are needed.

29

REFERENCES

Ahlroth, S., & Finnveden, G. (2011). Ecovalue08–A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17), 1994-2003.

Ahlroth, S., Nilsson, M., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O., & Hochschorner, E. (2011). Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools–suggestions for further developments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2), 145-156.

BaTMan Publika Rapporter (2014). Available from https://batman.vv.se [Accessed on 27th Nov. 2014], in Swedish.

Bare, J., Gloria, T., & Norris, G. (2006). Development of the method and US normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environmental science & technology, 40(16), 5108-5115.

Bare, J. C., & Gloria, T. P. (2006). Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environmental science & technology, 40(4), 1104-1113.

Botniabanan, A.B. (2010a). Environmental product declaration for the railway infrastructure on the Bothnia line. Reg. no. S-P-00196, UN CPC 53212. Available from http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7220/epd196.pdf [Accessed on 27th Nov. 2014].

Botniabanan, A.B. (2010b). Environmental product declaration for passenger transport on the Bothnia line. Reg. no. S-P-00194, UN CPC 6421. Available from http://www.botniabanan.se/vitbokmiljo/dokument/5%202%208%20EPD%20for%20passenger%20transport%20on%20the%20Bothnia%20Line.pdf [Accessed on 20th Oct. 2014].

Botniabanan, A.B. (2010c). Environmental product declaration for freight transport on the Bothnia line. Reg. no. S-P-00195, UN CPC 6512. Available from http://www.botniabanan.se/vitbokmiljo/dokument/5%202%209%20EPD%20for%20freight%20transport%20on%20the%20Bothnia%20Line.pdf [Accessed on 27th Nov. 2014].

Botniabanan, A.B. (2010d). Environmental product declaration for railway bridges on the Bothnia line. Reg. no. S-P-00199, UN CPC 53212. Available from http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7219/epd199.pdf [Accessed on 27th Nov. 2014].

Baumann, H. & Tillman, A-M. (2004). The hitchhiker's guide to LCA, an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application, Sweden.

Bider, W., L. Seitter, L. E., Bertuglia, L. E., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). Estimates of Air and Water Pollutants and Energy Consumption from the Production of Raw Materials Used in Wind Energy Systems. Golden, CO, Solar Energy Research Institute.

Bouhaya, L., Le Roy, R., & Feraille-Fresnet, A. (2009). Simplified environmental study on innovative bridge structure. Environmental science & technology, 43(6), 2066–2071.

https://batman.vv.se/

http://www.botniabanan.se/vitbokmiljo/dokument/5%202%209%20EPD%20for%20freight%20transport%20on%20the%20Bothnia%20Line.pdf

http://www.botniabanan.se/vitbokmiljo/dokument/5%202%209%20EPD%20for%20freight%20transport%20on%20the%20Bothnia%20Line.pdf

REFERENCES

30

Breedveld, L., Lafleur, M., & Blonk, H. (1999). A framework for actualising normalisation data in LCA: Experiences in the Netherlands. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 4(4), 213-220.

Contreras, A.M., Rose, E., Pérez, M., van Langenhove, H., & Dewulf, J. (2009). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of canesugar production. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(8), 772-779.

Reich, M. C. (2005). Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems-case studies using a combination of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). Journal of Cleaner Production 13(3), 253-263.

Collings, D. (2006). An environmental comparison of bridge forms. Proceedings of the ICE-Bridge Engineering, 159(4), 163-168.

de Schrijver A., Goedkoop M. Land use. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schrijver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R. Towards a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report of the second project phase: implementation of the new method. Bilthoven: LCA Expertise Centre, RIVM. The Netherlands. In press.

Du, G. (2012). Towards sustainable construction: life cycle assessment of railway bridges, Licentiate thesis in Division of Structural Engineering and Bridges, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Du, G., & Karoumi, R. (2013). Life cycle assessment of a railway bridge: comparison of two superstructure designs. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(11), 1149-1160.

Du, G., & Karoumi, R. (2014). Life cycle assessment framework for railway bridges: literature survey and critical issues. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10 (3), pp. 277-294.

Du, G., Safi, M., Pettersson, L., & Karoumi, R. (2014). Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool

for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(12), pp. 1948-1964.

Fava, J. A. (2011). SETAC and Life Cycle Assessment: Parallel Growth. Five Winds International SETAC Press, 12(4). Available from: http://www.setac.org/globe/2011/april/LCA.html [Accessed on 27th Nov. 2014]

Finnveden, G., Håkansson, C., & Noring, M. (2013). A new set of valuation factors for LCA and LCC based on damage costs-Ecovalue 2012. The 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Finnveden G., Eldh P., & Johansson J. (2006). Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes–Development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (1), pp. 81-88.

Finnveden, G. (1999). A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cycle assessment. In preparation. På uppdrag av AFN vid Naturvårdsverket.

http://www.setac.org/globe/2011/april/LCA.html

REFERENCES

31

Frischknecht, R., Braunschweig, A., Hofstetter, P., & Suter, P. (2001). Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environmental impact assessment Review, 20(2), 159-189.

Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H. J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Humbert, S.; Margni, M., & Nemecek, T. (2007) Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Final ecoinvent report no. 3; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.

Gervasio, H., & Simoes da Silva, L. (2008). Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4(4), pp. 251-269.

Goedkoop, M.J., Heijungs, R, Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation.

Guinée, J. (2001). Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Habert, G., Arribe, D., Dehove, T., Espinasse, L., & Le Roy, R. (2012). Reducing environmental impact by increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of the improvement to concrete bridges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 35, 250-262.

Habert, G., Denarié, E., Šajna, A., & Rossi, P. (2013). Lowering the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitations by using Ultra High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concretes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 38, 1-11.

Hallberg, D., & Racutanu, G. (2007). Development of the Swedish bridge management system by introducing a LMS concept. Materials and structures, 40(6), 627-639.

Hammervold, J., Reenaas, M., Brattebø, H. (2009). Environmental Effects-Life cycle Assessment of Bridges, SubProject 2 (SP2), ETSI Project (Stage 2), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Hammervold, J., Reenaas, M., & Brattebø, H. (2011). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(2), 153-161.

Horvath, A. (2009). Principles of using life-cycle assessment in bridge analysis. Proceedings of US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure Materials, Sapporo, Japan, October 21–22.

Hunt, R., & Franklin, W., (1974). Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container Alternatives, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA Report 530/SW-91c, NTIS No. PB 253486/5wp)

Huijbregts, M. A., Rombouts, L. J., Ragas, A. M., & van de Meent, D. (2005a). Human‐toxicological effect and damage factors of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(3), 181-244.

Huijbregts, M. A., Struijs, J., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Hendriks, A. J., & van de Meent, D. (2005). Human population intake fractions and environmental fate factors of toxic pollutants in life cycle impact assessment. Chemosphere, 61(10), 1495-1504.

REFERENCES

32

Huijbregts, M.A.J, Van Zelm, R., & Van de Meent, D. (2007) Human and ecological impacts of toxic chemicals in life-cycle impact assessment. Bilthoven: LCA Expertise Centre, RIVM, the Netherlands.

Hunt, R., Sellers, J., & Franklin W. (1992). Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis: A Life Cycle Environmental Assessment for Products and Procedures, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 12(3), 245-269.

Hunt, R. G., & Franklin, W. E. (1996). LCA - How it came about - Personal Reflections on the Origin and the Development of LCA in the USA. International Journal of LCA, 1(1), 4-7.

Huijbregts, M. A. J., Breedveld, L., Huppes, G., De Koning, A., Van Oers, L., & Suh, S. (2003). Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: The Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(7), 737-748.

Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., Lead authors: Ciroth, A., Huppes, G., Klöpffer, W., Rudenauer, I., Steen, B., Swarr, T. (Editors) (2008). Environmental Life Cycle Costing.

Horvath, A. & Hendrickson, C. T. (1998). Steel vs Steel-Reinforced Concrete Bridges: Environmental Assessment. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 4(3), pp. 111-117.

ISO 14040 (1997). Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization of Standardization, Geneva

ISO 14040 (2006). Environmental Management - Life-cycle Assessment - Principles and framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (2010). General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment-Detailed Guidance, First edition. EUR 24708, JRC, European Commission

Itoh, Y., & Kitagawa, T. (2003). Using CO2 emission quantities in bridge lifecycle analysis. Engineering structures, 25(5), 565-577.

Itoh, Y., Wada, M., & Liu, C., (2005). Lifecycle environmental impact and cost analyses of steel bridge piers with seismic risk. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Rome, Italy, 19-23 June, 2005, p273.

Jardine, C. N. (2009). Calculating the carbon dioxide emissions of flights. Final report by the Environmental Change Institute.

Kicherer, A., Schaltegger, S., Tschochohei, H., & Ferreira Pozo, B. (2007). Eco-efficiency, combining Life Cycle Assessment and life cycle costs via normalisation. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. In Print.

Keoleian, G. A., Kendall, A., Dettling, J. E., Smith, V. M., Chandler, R. F., Lepech, M. D., & Li, V. C., (2005). Life Cycle Modeling of Concrete Bridge Design: Comparison of Engineered Cementitious Composite Link Slabs and Conventional Steel Expansion Joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), pp. 51-60.

Kiwjaroun, C., Tubtimdee, C., & Piumsomboon, P. (2009). LCA studies comparing biodiesel synthesized by conventional and supercritical methanol methods. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(2), 143-153.

REFERENCES

33

Kim, S. H., Choi, M. S., Mha, H. S., & Joung, J. Y. (2013). Environmental impact assessment and eco-friendly decision-making in civil structures. Journal of environmental management, 126, 105-112.

Klöpffer, W. (2003). Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(3), 157-159.

Lounis Z., & Daigle L. (2007). Environmental benefits of life cycle design of concrete bridges. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, Zurich, Switzerland, Aug. 27-29, no. 293, pp. 1-6.

Liu, C.H., Lin, S. J., & Lewis, C. (2010). Life Cycle Assessment of DRAM in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(5), 419-425.

Lundie, S., Huijbregts, M. A., Rowley, H. V., Mohr, N. J., & Feitz, A. J. (2007). Australian characterisation factors and normalisation figures for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(8), 819-832.

Lim, S. R., Park, D., & Park, J. M. (2008). Environmental and economic feasibility study of a total wastewater treatment network system. Journal of Environmental Management 88(3), 564-575.

Martin, A. J. (2004). Concrete bridges in sustainable development. Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sustainability, 157(4), 219-230.

Mahgoub, M.A.-S., van der Stehen, M., Abu-Zeid, N.P., Vairavamoorthy, K., AbuZeid, K., & Vairavamoorthy, K. (2010). Towards sustainability in urban waters, a life cycle analysis of the urabn water system in Alexandria City, Egypt. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10), 1100-1106.

Mara, V., Haghani, R., & Harryson, P. (2014) Bridge decks of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP): A sustainable solution. Construction and Building Materials, 50, 190-199.

Martin, A. J. (2004). Concrete bridges in sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 157(4), 219-230.

Mirzaei, Z., Adey B.T., Klatter, L., & Kong, J. (2012). The IABMAS Bridge Management Committee Overview of Existing Bridge Management Systems, 152 pages.

Nebel B., Kellenberger D., Alcorn A., & Garrett P., (2009), Life cycle inventory-Review of data collection protocols, next generation biomaterials.

Nakamura, S., & Kondo, Y., (2006). Hybrid LCC of appliances with different energy efficiency. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(5), 305-314.

Padgett, J. E., & Tapia, C. (2013). Sustainability of Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation: A Life-Cycle Analysis of Environmental Indicators for Bridge Infrastructure, ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19(4), pp. 395-408.

Pennington D., Potting J., Finnveden G., Lindeijer E., Jolliet O., Rydberg T. and Rebitzer G. (2004). Life Cycle Assessment part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environment International, 30(5), pp 721-739.

REFERENCES

34

Pelletier, N. L. (2007). Life cycle measures of biophysical sustainability in feed production for conventional and organic salmon aquaculture in the Northeast Pacific. In Masters Abstracts International, 45(5).

Rebitzer G., Ekvall T., Frischknecht R., Hunkeler D., Norris G., Rydberg T., Schmidt W. P., Suh S., Weidema B.P., Pennington D.W. (2004). Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30(5), pp. 701-720.

SAIC., (2006). Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Contract No. 68-C02-067, Work Assignment 3-15, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Strauss, K., Brent, A., & Hietkamp, S. (2006). Characterisation and Normalisation Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Mined Abiotic Resources Categories in South Africa: The manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(3), 162-171.

Stranddorf H. K., Hoffmann L, Schmidt A., (2005a). Impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA. Updated on selected EDIP97-data. Environmental News No. 782005. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Copenhagen, Denmark: Environmental Protection Agency.

Stranddorf H., K., Hoffmann L, Schmidt A. (2005b) Update on impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA - Selected EDIP97-data. Environmental project No. 9952005. Miljøprojekt. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Protection Agency; Copenhagen, Denmark. pp 290.

SBRI (2013). Sustainable Steel-Comosite Bridges in Built Environment (SBRI)-Final report. Retrieved from: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainable-steel-composite-bridges-in-built-environment-sbri--pbKINA26322/ [Accessed on 1st Oct. 2014]

Sleeswijk, A. W., van Oers, L. F., Guinée, J. B., Struijs, J., & Huijbregts, M. A. (2008). Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Science of the total environment, 390(1), pp. 227-240.

Sleeswijk, A. W. (2010). Regional LCA in a Global Perspective. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

Steele, K. N. P., Cole, G., Parke, G., Clarke, B., & Harding, J. (2002). The Application of Life Cycle Assessment Technique in the Investigation of Brick Arch Highway Bridges. Proceedings of the Conference for the Engineering Doctorate in Environmental Technology.

Steele, K., Cole, G., Parke, G., Clarke, B., & Harding, J. (2003). Highway bridges and environment-sustainable perspectives. Proceedings of the ICE Civil engineering, 156(4), pp 176-182.

Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G. K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, B. Bex, and Midgley B. M. (2013). IPCC climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I, the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road - A pilot study for inventory analysis. Gothenburg: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL).

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainable-steel-composite-bridges-in-built-environment-sbri--pbKINA26322/

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainable-steel-composite-bridges-in-built-environment-sbri--pbKINA26322/

REFERENCES

35

Struijs, J., Beusen, A., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2007) Environmental impacts of nutrients in life-cycle impact assessment. Bilthoven: LCA Expertise Centre, RIVM.

Safi, M. (2013). Life-cycle costing: Applications and implementations in bridge investment and management.

Safi, M., Du, G., Karoumi, R., & Sundquist, H. (2015). Holistic approach to sustainable bridge procurement considering LCC, LCA, User-cost and Aesthetics, manuscript submitted.

Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road. A pilot study for inventory analysis. 2nd revised Edition. Report from the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 96.

Treloar, G. J., Love, P. E. D., Faniran, O. O., & Iyer-Raniga, U. (2000). A hybrid life cycle assessment method for construction. Construction Management & Economics, 18(1), 5-9.

Tsoutsos, T., Kouloumpis, V., Zafiris, T., Foteinis, S. (2010). Life Cycle Assessment for biodiesel production under Greek climate conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(4), 328-335.

Thiebault, V. (2010). Design of railway bridges considering LCA. Master thesis TRITA-BKN 305, Division of Bridge and Steel Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.

Thiebault, V., Du, G., & Karoumi, R. (2013). Design of railway bridges considering LCA. The Journal of ICE Bridge Engineering, 166 (4), pp. 240-251.

van de Meent, D., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2005). Evaluating ecotoxicological effect factors based on the potentially affected fraction of species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(6), 1573–1578.

van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Harbers, J. V., Wintersen, A., Struijs, J., & Posthuma, L. (2007a). Uncertainty in msPAF‐based ecotoxicological effect factors for freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(4), 6-37.

van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Van Jaarsveld, H. A., Reinds, G. J., De Zwart, D., & Struijs, J. (2007b). Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environmental science & technology, 41(3), 922-927.

van Zelm, R., Reinds, G. J., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2007c). Environmental impacts of acidifying substances in life-cycle impact assessment. Bilthoven: LCA Expertise Centre, RIVM.

van Zelm, R., Sauter, F., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2007d). Human impacts of priority air pollutants in life-cycle impact assessment. Bilthoven: LCA Expertise Centre, RIVM.

Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M., & Alting, L. (1997). Environmental Assessment of Products, vol. 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, London.

Widman, J. (1998). Environmental impact assessment of steel bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 46(1), 291-293.

WMO. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion (1998). Global ozone research and monitoring project — report no. 44. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 92-807-1722-7.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-constructional-steel-research/

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-constructional-steel-research/

REFERENCES

36

Yadollahi, M., Ansari, R., Abd Majid, M. Z., & Yih, C. H. (2014). A multi-criteria analysis for bridge sustainability assessment: a case study of Penang Second Bridge, Malaysia. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.

Zackrisson, M. (2005). Environmental aspects when manufacturing products mainly out of metals and/or polymers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(1), 42-49.

life cycle assessment of bridges, model development and...

Documents