ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
BRIDGES
By
Rosalie
ARCHIVES
MASSACHUSETTc fNQT1T
OF TECHNOLOLGY
J. Bianquis
JUL 02 2015
B.S. Civil Engineering
School of Engineering, Ecole Speciale des Travaux Publics, 2014
LIBRARIES
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
JUNE 2015
( 2015 Rosalie
J. Bianquis.
All rights reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronics copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or
hereafter created.
Signature of Author:
Signature redacted
jngin
Department of Civil and Eonmental
}/. ay 8:W
Certified by:
Signature redacted
John A. Ocl1sndorf
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture
Tbis Supervi or
j j#
Accepted by:
Signature redacted
W'eiai qepf
g
Donald and Martha Harleman Professor of Civil and Environmental Engine
Chair, Department Committee for Graduate Students
ITE
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Assessment Methodology for the Environmental Impact of
Bridges
By
Rosalie
J. Bianquis
Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
On May 8, 2015 in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
ABSTRACT
Residential and commercial buildings and transportation represent 21% of the global greenhouse gas
emissions in the world. In the United States, this percentile goes up to 38% of the greenhouse gas
emissions of the country. Since the structures account for the highest material weight in buildings,
any reduction in the emissions due to structures (their construction, operation, maintenance, and end
of life) can have a real impact on the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the world.
Many rating systems have been established to evaluate the performance of buildings and their
environmental impact. However, less work has been done for bridges. The existing ratings system for
buildings cannot yet be adapted to bridges because of the different use of these structures. Indeed,
while a building would have important emissions during the operation phase, a bridge would have
practically none. Moreover, the bridge creates a shorter path for cars to travel and therefore it can
actually reduce some emissions due to the cars and other vehicles. Many other differences show that
to evaluate the environmental impact of bridges and their part in the global warming, a new set of
studies needs to be conducted.
This thesis will develop a methodology to evaluate the environmental impact of bridges, mainly
focusing on road bridges: first, by developing a methodology assessing embodied carbon of bridges
instead of buildings, second by applying this method to fifteen footbridges and six road bridges, and
third by including traffic, operation and maintenance into carbon accounting and conducting three
cases studies. The results show that the footbridges emit on average 419 kgco2e/m 2. Road bridges
emit on average 1347 kgco2e/m2 for road bridges with a length under 1000m and 3446kgco2r/m 2 for
the others. Finally, it shows how important the operation phase is compared to the maintenance
phase.
Thesis Supervisor: John A. Ochsendorf
Title: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture
Rosalie Bianquis
3
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Rosalie Bianquis
4
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to start by thanking some people without whom this thesis would not have been
possible.
First, I would like to thank my advisor Professor John Ochsendorf who always pushed me
further and challenged me to do better. His knowledge and his expertise were priceless during my
research.
I also would like to thank PhD student Catherine De Wolf for her guidance and her great
help from the beginning to the end of this project. Her experience and insight during this year have
been a key for me to pursue my research.
I would like to thank Professor Pierre Ghisbain and Professor Jerome Connor who taught me
more about structural engineering than any other teacher did.
Thank you to Emily Spencer whose friendship has been irreplaceable during this year at MIT.
Her moral support, her humor and her kindness will always be my best memory.
In addition, I would like to thank my parents, Patricia Chapuis and Jean-Philippe Bianquis,
along with my sister Clara and my brother Gaspard who encouraged me and believed in me, even
when I did not.
Finally, I would like to thank my classmates from the Master of Engineering program for
their friendship and their support during this year at MIT.
Rosalie Bianauis
5
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Rosalie Bianquis
6
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A bstract .................................................................................................................................................................3
A cknow ledgem ents ..............................................................................................................................................5
Notations .............................................................................................................................................................11
1
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................13
1.1
M otivations ........................................................................................................................................13
1.2
Problem Statem ent ...........................................................................................................................15
1.3
D efmitions .........................................................................................................................................16
1.3.1
Sustainability .............................................................................................................................16
1.3.2
G reenhouse G ases ...................................................................................................................16
1.3.3
G lobal W arm ing Potential ...................................................................................................... 17
1.3.4
Life Cycle A ssessm ent .............................................................................................................18
1.3.5
E m bodied and Operational Carbon ..................................................................................... 19
1.3.5.1
Embodied Carbon ..........................................................................................................19
1.3.5.2
O perational Carbon ........................................................................................................20
1.4
2
O rgani*zation of Thesis ....................................................................................................................20
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Existing Rating System s of Bridges ...............................................................................................21
2.1
2.1.1
G reenroadSTM ...........................................................................................................................21
2.1.2
H unt's rating system ................................................................................................................ 22
2.1.3
Sim os' rating system ................................................................................................................23
2.2
Embodied Energy and Carbon ...................................................................................................... 24
2.3
O perational E nergy and Maintenance ...........................................................................................25
3
M ethodology .............................................................................................................................................. 27
4
E mbodied Carbon ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1
M ethodology ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2
Embodied Carbon Coeffi cients .....................................................................................................29
4.3
Pedestrian Bridges ............................................................................................................................ 29
Rosalie Bianquis
7
M-Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
5
4.4
Road Bridges .....................................................................................................................................
34
4.5
Comparison with other database of embodied carbon coefficients....................................
38
O peration and M aintenance ....................................................................................................................
5.1
M ethodology for a w hole life cycle carbon assessm ent.........................................................
5.1.1
Construction Stage...................................................................................................................
40
.............. 41
Em ission due to structural materials ECMat
5.1.1.2
Emission due to the use of machines Ecmac ...............................................................
41
5.1.1.3
Emission due to the transportation of the materials ECTan.................................
42
5.1.1.4
Emission due to other factors Ecoth........................................................................
43
. ........
............
.
....
O peration stage ........................................................................................................................
43
5.1.2.1
Em ission due to light E oig ........................................................................................
44
5.1.2.2
Em ission due to the tollbooth EOToI..........................................................................
44
5.1.2.3
Emission due to other factors....................................................................................
47
5.1.3
M aintenance stage....................................................................................................................
5.1.3.1
EMMat
47
Emission due to the replacement of structural materials and the use of machines
and EM
ac....................................................................................................................................
Em ission due to the perturbation of traffic E mT ...................................................
5.1.3.2
48
48
5.1.4
Benefits of the bridge..............................................................................................................
52
5.1.5
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................
53
Cases studies......................................................................................................................................
53
5.2
7
40
5.1.1.1
5.1.2
6
40
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................57
6.1
Sum mary of results...........................................................................................................................
57
6.2
D iscussion of the results .................................................................................................................
57
6.3
Future research .................................................................................................................................
58
6.3.1
A dding data...............................................................................................................................58
6.3.2
Cradle - to - grave assessm ent m ethodology....................................................................
58
6.3.3
D evelopm ent of a rating system s ......................................................................................
59
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................
7.1
A ppendix A : Pedestrian Bridges Inform ation...........................................................................
Rosalie Bianquis
8
60
62
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.2
Appendix B: Pedestrian Bridge Normalized Material Quantities .........................................
65
7.3
Appendix C: Pedestrian Bridge Global W arming Potential....................................................
66
7.4
Appendix D : Road Bridges Inform ation ...................................................................................
68
7.5
Appendix E: Road Bridge N orm alized M aterial Q uantities ...................................................
68
7.6
Appendix F: Road Bridge G lobal W arming Potential...........................................................
69
7.7
A ppendix G : Consum ption of gasoline ...................................................................................
71
7.8
A ppendix H : Em ission factor for transportation.....................................................................
71
7.9
Appendix I: Service Life of different com ponents ..................................................................
71
7.10
Appendix J: G olden Gate Bridge................................................................................................
73
7.11
A ppendix K : M illau Viaduct.......................................................................................................
76
7.12
Appendix L: Sydney H arbour Bridge ........................................................................................
79
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................................
82
Table of Tables...................................................................................................................................................
82
Table of Equations ............................................................................................................................................
84
Table of G raphs .................................................................................................................................................
85
References ..................................................................................................................................................
86
8
8.1
D ocumentation.................................................................................................................................
86
8.2
Im ages ................................................................................................................................................
87
Rosalie Bianquis
9
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Rosalie Bianquis
10
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
NOTATIONS
CEQR - City Environmental Quality Review
EC - Embodied Carbon
ECC - Embodied Carbon Coefficient
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GHG - Greenhouse Gases
GWP - Global Warming Potential
ICE - Inventory of Carbon and Energy
LCA - Life Cycle Assessment
LCCA - Life Cycle Cost Assessment
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NMQ - Normalized Structural Material Quantities
SMQ - Structural Material Quantities
Rosalie Bianquis
11
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Rosalie Bianquis
12
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
MOTIVATIONS
Treat the earth well it was not given toyou by yourparents, it was loaned toyou byyour children. We do not
inherit the Earthfivm our ancestors, we bormw itform our children.
This ancient American proverb, pronounced centuries ago, makes even more sense in the
society we are living in today. It means that every action that harms the earth and its nature, is an
action taken against our children's future. In addition, this is why, feeling concerned about the
greenhouse gases (GHG) emission is imperative.
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), transport (road, rails, air
and marine) and buildings represents 21% of the global GHG emission in the world (Figure 1-1). If
we look only at the United States, this number is even bigger: the transportation and the building
sector stand for 38%, more than a third, of the total emission in the year 2012 (Figure 1-2). As a civil
engineer, the purpose is to make progress in the domain of residential & commercial buildings as well
as in the infrastructures (roads, bridges, tunnels). When it comes to buildings, a lot of rating systems
for sustainable buildings have been created and a decent amount of research and reports have been
made on how to evaluate and measure the sustainability of a building. In contrary, very few studies
have been made on infrastructures.
Waste and
wastewater
Ar
Co
COimmercial
buildings
8%
Figure 1-2 - U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission by Source
Figure 1-1 - Global Greenhouse Gas Emission by Source
Rosalie Bianquis
13
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Bridges are an important part of those infrastructures. According to the United State
Department of Transportation, in 2013 there were around 600,000 bridges in total in the United
States and each year thousands of new bridges are constructed (Figure 1-3).
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
210
000
0
Y1
RS
Figure 1-3 - Number ofBridges built in the U.S.
As mentioned before, there are already a number of rating systems and studies completed to
measure the sustainability of buildings. Why are bridges so different from buildings? First, a major
distinction comes from who decides to build them. Indeed, when it comes to buildings the client is
most of the time a private company or a private investor, whereas for bridges the client is often the
government or a public administration (a city, a state, a region etc.). The main consequence is the
budget, which is usually more limited coming from the government than from the private sector.
Moreover, because the bridge is reducing the route for the cars, there are fewer expectations about
how sustainable it is. The users of the bridges are more concerned about its financial cost to their city,
state or country, which they are indirectly paying for through tax money than they are about its
sustainability. When a company creates a new building if they get a sustainable certification it sells
their company as one who cares about the environment. The image of the company is important.
Being a company that cares about the environment will benefit this company.
A second major difference is the purpose of the structure. Indeed, most buildings are either
apartment buildings or office buildings. The facade and the architecture of the building is a "bonus"
compared to its fundamental aim. For the bridge, the initial aim is to link to part of a city or create a
shorter route for drivers. At the same time, there is an important social purpose: on one hand, by
making two parts of the world closer than before (in time of travel) and, on the other hand, because
bridges can often be compared to a piece of art, and they define a city. Everyone knows the Golden
Rosalie Bianquis
14
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Gate Bridge belongs to San Francisco (Figure 1-4), or the Tower bridge to London (Figure 1-5). This
is an important part of your city that can also have an economic intention by bringing tourism.
Figure 1-5 - Tower Bridge, London
Figure 1-4 - Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco
One last distinction is the GHG emissions "saved" by the presence of the bridge. Indeed,
adding a bridge and especially a road bridge helps reducing the emissions of GHG. For the road
bridges, it creates a new road for the cars and possibly a shorter route to get from a point to A to a
point B. This alternative road allows drivers to have a reduced time on the road and to emit less
GHG. When it comes to pedestrian bridges, it is less obvious how they reduce the emission of GHG.
It can reduce those emissions by influencing people to walk to a place they would usually take their
car to go to. This thesis will illustrate this with some examples of such bridges.
All these different properties of a bridge makes it more difficult to create a suitable rating
system. This system would have to take into account the construction, the operation, the maintenance
and the demolition of the bridge but also its social impact, its economic impact as well as its
efficiency to create a simpler and shorter path for cars and/or pedestrians.
1.2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
There is a gap in knowledge in the sustainability of bridge design. Indeed, very little
information is available on the material used, the dimensions but also maintenance and operation.
Almost no studies have been conducted on the occurrence of maintenance and its consequences. Is
the bridge still open during maintenance, if yes, how many lanes are in service compared to when it is
fully functional, and if not what bypass route is suggested? This knowledge could help characterizing
the bridge and its sustainability.
Rosalie Bianquis
15
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
The main literature on the maintenance and operation of bridges comes from economic
studies. Indeed, for some bridges, a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) has been conducted. The LCCA
takes into account the traffic, the different tollbooths and other factors that are important for any
infrastructures. Adapting this method to GHG emissions and considering the operation and
maintenance phases of a bridge's life cycle will be one of the main goals of this thesis.
The aim of this thesis is to create a benchmark for embodied carbon for bridges (for road
bridges as well as for pedestrian bridges) and to develop a methodology to take into account
maintenance and operation by expanding LCCA methodology to carbon emissions. Thanks to these
contributions, a new assessment and conception of sustainable bridges could be developed.
1.3
DEFINITIONS
1.3.1
Sustainability
The definition given by the EPA is "Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that
we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural
environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can
exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of
present and future generations." In other words, as defined in the Brundtland report, "sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs."
Sustainable development is a way of thinking by taking into account the consequences, direct or
indirect of our actions. The consequences could affect the world in a month, a year or a century but
they still exist and making sure that they do not disturb the planet so much that they destroy it, is a
sustainable development.
1.3.2
Greenhouse Gases
The emissions of GHG are the main anthropogenic contribution to the global warming of
the planet. The main greenhouse gas is the carbon dioxide as illustrated in Figure 1-6. However, other
gases are considered as gases that impair the planet and the ozone layer such as methane, nitrous
Rosalie Bianquis
16
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
oxide and fluorinated gases. The latest are emitted in small amounts, though, they have an important
effect on the earth and are sometimes referred as High Global Warming Potential Gases (EPA, 2012).
Nitrous Oxide
6%
Fluorinated Gases
3%
Methane___
9%
A
Figure 1-6 - Greenhouse Gases
The presence of these gases in the earth atmosphere has increased since the Industrial
Revolution due to different human activities. These different activities are listed in the Table 1-1.
Burning fossil fuels
Burning solid waste
Burning trees and wood products
Certain chemical reactions
Production, transport of coal
Production, transport of natural gas
Production, transport of oil
Livestock and other agricultural practice
Agricultural and industrial activities
Combustion of fossils fuels
Combustion of solid waste
jVariety of industrial process
Table 1-1 - Greenhouse Gases Source of Emissions
1.3.3
Global Warming Potential
The global warming potential (GWP) is a measure that compares the energy absorbed by gas
dioxide
over a certain amount of years (usually, 100 years) to the one absorbed by the carbon
Rosalie Bianquis
17
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
(EPA,2012). The carbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly one because it represents the reference. In
Table 1-2, the GWP of methane and nitrous oxide are shown as an example.
21
310
Table 1-2 - Global Warming Potentialof some Greenhouse Gases
1.3.4
Life Cycle Assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the process of evaluating the effects that a product has on the
environment over the entire period of its life cycle (UNEP, 1996). As shown in the Figure 1-7, an
LCA is divided in four stages:
1.
Goal Definition and Scope
2.
Inventory Analysis (LCI)
3.
Impact assessment
4.
Interpretation
Lye Cycle A
al-s-m-F
k
Figure 1-7 - Life Gycle Assessment Framework
The EPA gives definition of these different phases.
Goal definition and scoping is the phase of the LCA process that defines the purpose and method of
including life cycle environmental impacts into the decision-making process.
Rosalie Bianquis
18
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
The life cycle inventory is the process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements,
atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for the entire life cycle
of a product, process, or activity.
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase of an LCA is the evaluation of potential human
health and environmental impacts of the environmental resources and releases identified during the
LCI.
Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique to identify, quantify, check, and evaluate
information from the results of the LCI and the LCIA, and communicate them effectively.
The life cycle assessment is a systematic study and can be applied to any product or good.
Different software have been created to simplify those assessments, for example GaBic or Athenac.
1.3.5
1.3.5.1
Embodied and Operational Carbon
Embodied Carbon
There is an important difference between the embodied energy and the embodied carbon.
The embodied energy is the quantity of energy required by all activities associated with the
production of a material (Treloar, 1994). It takes into account the energy needed from extracting the
material to the final manufacture of the product. It is measured in Joules.
The embodied carbon and the embodied energy are not the same measures. The embodied
carbon corresponds to the emitted GHG to produce the embodied energy (De Wolf, 2014). The
embodied carbon is going to be measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. It will take into
account the fuel used while the material is being process but also the carbon emitted and/or absorbed
during that phase.
For buildings, the embodied energy and the embodied carbon also takes into account the
maintenance and the end of life stages (De Wolf, 2014).
For the analysis of a bridge, the embodied carbon is taken into account during the construction
phase.
Rosalie Bianquis
19
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
1.3.5.2
Operadonal Carbon
The operational carbon corresponds to the emitted GHG during the life of the bridge. It
includes the emission due to maintenance and operation of the bridges. As opposed to buildings, in
bridges the maintenance is considered as a part of the operational carbon, as it is linked to traffic
obstruction affecting the use of the bridge. Moreover, if the bridges have lights, the emissions due to
the electricity used will enter the operational carbon.
1.4
ORGANIZATION OF THESIS
After this introduction, and the definition of some useful notions to fully understand this thesis
the third chapter will focus on the literature review. The latter will focus on three main subjects: the
rating systems of bridges, the embodied carbon coefficients and the embodied energy, and the
maintenance and operation of bridges.
The fourth chapter will focus on the embodied carbon in bridges: the emissions occurring
during the construction phase of the bridge. It will give values of those emissions and compare about
twenty bridges. An embodied carbon benchmark will be established for both road and pedestrian
bridges.
The fifth chapter will concentrate on the operation and maintenance phase of the bridge: the
emissions of GHG, linked to it, and how to consider them. It will not only develop a methodology,
but will also carry out case studies.
Finally, chapter 6 and chapter 7 will conclude this thesis by summarizing and discussing all the
results and suggest different paths for future research.
Rosalie Bianquis
20
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review will be divided into three sections. The first section identifies the main
rating systems for bridges; the second section focus on the limited on embodied energy and carbon
research; and finally the last section presents studies on the maintenance and operation of bridges
which will provide data necessary for this thesis.
2.1
ExISTING RATING SYSTEMS OF BRIDGES
One of the main sustainable rating system that certifies bridges is called GreenroadsTM.
However, there has been attempts to create a sustainable rating system for bridges by different people
around the word.
2.1.1
GreenroadsTM
GreenroadsTM (Figure 2-1) is originally a rating system for roads in the United States.
However, it can be applied to road bridges since they represent a special type of roads. As the
sustainable rating system for buildings such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEEDTM), it is a point system. According to the number of points at the end, the project can get
different level of certification or no certification at all. All the different certifications are represented
in Figure 2-2.
ieas
Grosro-I ---
tertftled
Figure 2-1 - GreenroadsTM logo
s rtifle
loaftse
certified
Ieee
certified
Figure2-2 - GreenroadsM Certification
This current bridge certification only takes into account the road pavement and not the
environmental impact of the complete structure. This is the main gap in this system.
Rosalie Bianquis
21
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
2.1.2
Hunt's rating system
In 2004, Lauren Hunt established different criteria a bridge should meet for a newly
developed bridge rating system by using both criteria recycled from LEEDTM and her own original
ones. After her list becomes final, Hunt weighs each criterion with a certain number of points based
on its impact to the environment. These criteria and their weights are shown in Table 2-1.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Brownfield Redevelopment
Historic Site Improvements
Footin and Pier Location
1
2
Lane Adaptability
3
1
1
2
1 or 2
1 or 2
HOV Lanes & Transit ways
Bike and Pedestrian Lanes
Tollbooth Transponders
1
1
Storm water Management
Green Power
Life Cycle Assessment
Construction Waste Management
Re uired
1
Material Reduction
Regional Materials
1
1
Certified Wood
1
Gray Water
1
Cement Replacement
1
Innovation in Design
1-3
Table 2-1 - Rating Systemfor SustainableBridges, by Iauren R. Hunt
She tests her rating system on three bridges, certifying if it gets at least 10 points. Out of the
three chosen existing bridges, two of them acquire certification. She concludes that her system should
be adapted so that the certification is more rigorous. Indeed, creating a rating system for sustainable
bridges has first goal to encourage designers to do better than current practice.
Even so, I believe it does establish useful criteria on how to study bridges. However, there is
no reference on how to evaluate each of these points. For instance, the "Material Reduction"
criterion does not assign any number for material quantities. Moreover, each material has different
embodied carbon linked to it, which mean that they do not have the same impact. This is also the
case for the LCA required: it has to be compared to other numbers to establish whether the bridge
should get the points or not.
Rosalie Bianquis
22
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
2.1.3
Simos' rating system
In 2013, another attempt to create a rating system for sustainable bridges was conducted by
Mohamed Marzouk, Ahmed Nouth, and Moheeb El-Said from Cairo University. The paper describes
a three-phase process that began with a literature review to identify existing criteria that are used to
identify whether or not a bridge is sustainable, and the result of this phase was a list of criteria. The
next phase was the review of this list by nine bridges construction expert. Each of them specified the
most important criteria affecting the sustainability of a bridge. Finally, the last phase involved giving
the experts a questionnaire and asking them to rate each criterion in order of importance. From this
survey, any criterion with an average rating of five or less (over ten) was eliminated from the list,
trimming the list down to a reasonable length. Using Sismos' procedure, which is a simple weighting
method, the criteria were weighted. The final list is shown in Table 2-2.
Noise Mitigation Plan
4
3
Waste Management Plan
Pavement Management Plan
Site Maintenance Plan
4
4
3
Potential for Innovations
On-site Renewable Energy
4
4
Habitat Restoration
Sustainable sites selection
Res ect for historic sites
6
7
8
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Providing a Bridge User Guide
5
Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
Transit Access
4
5
5
Visual Enhancements
4
Equipment Emission Reduction
3
Stora e/Separation areas
4
Pavement reuse
Earthwork Balance
Recycled Materials Reuse
Regional Materials
4
5
Long-Life Pavement
5
4
5
Table 2-2 - Criteriafor a ratig system, by Marqouk, Nouth andEl-Said
Rosalie Bianquis
23
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Again, as in Hunt's paper, carbon emissions are not directly considered during the
construction, operation and maintenance of bridges. As my study will demonstrate, it is the key to
evaluate bridges.
This literature review illustrates the following gaps. First, the difference between bridges and
buildings is not always taken into account. Bridges cannot be studied with the same criteria used for
buildings. Moreover, to make it possible to evaluate bridges, reference in the emission of carbon
during the entire life of the bridge is crucial.
2.2
EMBODIED ENERGY AND CARBON
Research on embodied energy and carbon started a bit more than a decade ago. Since then,
different studies have been made to find a way to take this embodied energy and carbon into account
during the conception of buildings.
The main challenge concerning the embodied carbon is the Embodied Carbon Coefficients
(ECC) expressed in kgco2e/kg. Indeed, those coefficient needs to be constant for each material so it is
easy to use them to calculate the embodied carbon of a structure but they also need to be accurate.
In her thesis, Material quantities in building structures and their environmental impact, Catherine De
Wolf (2014) studies challenges and opportunities in estimating GHG emissions of structures. The
first contribution is the summary of the existing literature on ECC's. The second contribution is the
creation of a global database of buildings with their material quantities and their embodied carbon.
The name of the database is DeQo and it contains 200 buildings until now. To find the embodied
carbon of one material, a formal LCA has to be completed. However, doing an LCA for each
material of the project takes a lot of time and having these coefficients would be a great asset to have
the embodied carbon of an entire structure. The other major contribution of De Wolf's thesis is the
development of a methodology to calculate the embodied carbon of structures using the ECC's. This
methodology will be adapted to bridges in this thesis.
Another type of information that would be useful is the LCA of the different structural
materials that can lead to establishing the ECC's. One material that would only be used for bridges
and roads but not for buildings is the pavement. Santero and Al (2011) have conducted an LCA on
this material in Methods, Impacts and Opportunitiesin the Concrete Pavement Life Cycle.
This thesis addresses the current gaps on the sustainability of bridges in literature. The key
contribution of this thesis will be to use the methodology to calculate the embodied carbon on 20
Rosalie Bianquis
24
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
footbridges and 10 road bridges. This would give a general idea on a baseline for benchmarking
regarding bridges and their embodied carbon.
2.3
OPERATIONAL ENERGY AND MAINTENANCE
The operation phase and maintenance of bridges are different from the ones of a building. For
this reason, another methodology has to be created.
Many papers have already been written on the whole life cycle of bridges including the
operation and maintenance phase. Most of them are based on examples of real bridges, such as the
paper written by Yoshito Itoh, Using CO 2 Emission Quantitiesin Bridge
jfecle Anaysis (2002). In this
paper, three bridges are studied from construction to end of life with a clear methodology. However,
in most papers, including the previous one, do not take into account the cars emissions in the study.
Currently, there is no real methodology on how to take into account the emissions due to the
cars. Those emissions could be define as the emissions "saved" by the presence of the bridge, by
creating a shorter path for cars to travel, but also the added emissions due to the presence of a
tollbooth or during maintenance, the traffic delays or the use of a bypass route.
The literature on that subject is almost inexistent. However, traffic on bridges are studied in an
economic way. Indeed, the delays, or the bypass route lose time for people, and it has a price.
Different information can be found on those studies of traffic.
The most accurate information is actually given by the government or any highway company.
An important source is the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. In the
issue of 2014, chapters 16 to 19 treat the aspect of transportation and GHG emissions. However, it is
not specifically about bridges but it gives numbers and it is for the city of New York. Nevertheless, it
gives data that can be used for case study and information on how to take the emission of cars into
account.
The last category of papers on operation energy and maintenance would be the LCCA of
bridges. For example, The Real Price - Holistic Cost-Eficieng Considerationsin Design and Construction of
InfrastructureProjects, by Olivier Fisher, is studying the cost of traffic delays and bypass route during the
maintenance phase of bridges.
The key contribution of this thesis will be to develop the methodology to take into account the
traffic in the operation and maintenance phase of a bridge. Thanks to the different LCCA and reports
Rosalie Bianquis
25
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
from the government, this methodology will be adapted from cost analysis, and case studies will be
conducted.
Rosalie Bianquis
26
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
3 METHODOLOGY
As explained previously this thesis has two main goals: establishing a benchmark of embodied
carbon for pedestrian bridges and road bridges separately and to develop a methodology to assess the
operational carbon of road bridges including the consequences on car traffic. To achieve those goals
the following methodology was used.
The first step was to gather as many information on as many bridge possible. This information
include the structural material quantities, the dimension of the bridge (total length, width, span) but
also the number of cars per day crossing the bridge, the lighting used, and the presence of a toll. This
information can be found on the bridge website for famous bridges, on papers wrote about the
bridges or by contacting the engineer or architect companies that were involved with the bridge.
When it comes to the traffic, contacting highway agencies is also a good source of information.
The second step was to calculate the embodied carbon of the bridges studied. For this step, the
methodology will be detailed in the next chapter. This step achieve the first goal of this thesis:
creating a benchmark.
The third step was to develop the methodology for a whole life cycle carbon assessment. To
achieve this step, the life cost assessment of bridges were studied. Indeed, for life cycle cost
assessment (LCCA) the traffic delay, or the need of a bypass road are taken into account. The new
methodology is adapted from the LCCA. In this step, three bridges will be studied and compared
using the developed methodology. This step will achieve the second goal of this thesis.
A more detailed methodology for each part of the life cycle will be given at the beginning of
each corresponding chapter.
Rosalie Bianquis
27
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
4 EMBODIED CARBON
4.1
METHODOLOGY
In this the chapter, seventeen footbridges and six road bridges will be studied. The embodied
carbon represents the GHG emission during the construction stage. The following methodology has
been applied to each bridge. In this phase, the same methodology is used for footbridges and road
bridges.
1.
Find the structural material quantities (SMQ). This a major step. Indeed, finding accurate
structural material quantities for already built bridges is a challenge. However, the main aim
of this methodology is so designers, architects and engineer evaluate their bridge during their
process of design or just after completion. In those cases, having the material quantities will
not be a challenge. The quantity of the structural material i will be SMQi.
2.
Normalize the structural material quantity (NMQ). Normalizing the material quantities allows
the comparison between bridges. The normalized quantity of the structural material i will be
NMQi. The normalization for this methodology is to have the weight of structural material
per meter squared:
NMQi[kg/m2 ]
3.
SMQL [ kg ]
Length[m] * Width[m]
Equation4-1 - NormaliZedMaterialQuanfiy
Calculate the embodied carbon of each structural material (EC). To calculate the embodied
carbon of each material, we need to multiply this quantity by the embodied carbon coefficient
of this material. The embodied carbon of each material will be ECi and the embodied carbon
coefficient of each material will be ECCi.
2
ECi[kgc0~em
] = NMQi[kg/m 2] * ECCi[kgc0 2e/kg]
2
Equation4-2 - Embodied Carbon of each
material
4.
Calculate the global warming potential of the bridge. This is the last step to calculate the
embodied carbon of the bridge. The global warming potential of the bridge is the sum of the
embodied carbon of each material. The global warming potential will be GWP.
GWP [kgco 2 elm2 ] =
Rosalie Bianquis
ECi [kgco 2 e/m 2 ]
Equation 4-3 - Globalwarming potentialof the bfidge
28
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
4.2
EMBODIED CARBON COEFFICIENTS
There are multiple database giving values for the embodied carbon coefficients. The one used
in this thesis is the database established by the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. In the last
part of this chapter, the global warming of each bridge will be recalculate using other database and
compared to the results established in this chapter.
The coefficient used in the analysis are shown in the Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 - Embodied Carbon Coeficient
4.3
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
To be able to create a benchmark for embodied carbon for pedestrian bridges, seventeen
bridges have been compared. The details of the each bridge's material quantity and dimensions are
shown in appendix A. The foundations are not taken into account, and the bridge will not be named
to protect anonymity. Each bridge will be called using its type (Truss, girder, arch etc.).
The Graph 4-1 shows the normalized material quantities of all the bridges per floor area. The
bridges are ordered from the smallest to the largest span. There is not a clear trend between the span
of the bridge and the material quantities used. The table giving the details is in appendix B.
Rosalie Bianquis
29
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Normalized Material Quantities
9Glass Hbir
900
800
600
500
tk 400
300
N
-
2-
StRIiCturMi
SIMd
'\N
Cy
C
'
81"
\
S Timbfcrct
-
N\q \11
Y SC~
x
M
S200
CRP
i
700
6Sse
Z
Graph 4-1 - NormaiZed MaterialQuanities,per Span
Now that the normalized material quantities for each bridge has been established, the global
warming of each bridge can be calculated. The Graph 4-2 shows the global warming potential of each
bridges, ordered from the smallest to the largest span. Details can be found in appendix C.
Global Warming Potential
2500
1000
1500
1000
500
'-C,'
~A.-1
Graph 4-2 - PedestrianBridges Global Warming Potential
As the Graph 4-2 shows, there is not any direct trend between the span of the bridge and the
Global Warming Potential of the bridge. Different conclusions can be drawn from this graph. First,
there is no direct link between the material quantity used and the global warming of the bridges. For
example, the girder bridge 8 has the highest total weight in material quantity; however, its global
warming potential is especially low. To go into more details, the Graph 4-3 is showing the global
warming potential of each pedestrian bridge by showing the impact of each material.
Rosalie Bianquis
30
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential
2500
Glass Fiber
2000
1500
3
1000
3
Stainless Steel
. 'Timber
500
0
N
Concrete
1$ Structural Steel
Graph 4-3 - Pedestrian Bridges Global Warming PotentialperMaterial
mainly
is
Two bridges stand out in the last two graphs: the girder bridge 4 and the double helix. This
2
due to the material used more than to the quantity of material used. Indeed, the girder bridge
carbon
is entirely built out of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP). This material has a high embodied
The same
coefficient, which means that many emissions of GHG are created during its production.
steel also has an
way, the double helix bridge has been made partially out of stainless steel. Stainless
no maintenance
important ECC. Those materials are used for different reasons: a better performance,
information of their
and so on. Looking only at the construction stage does not give us enough
on the double helix
efficiency. Indeed, it is possible that in the future, no maintenance will be needed
other bridges.
bridge and less emissions of GHG will occur during the maintenance stage than for the
the study. When it
Since these two bridges stand out, they will not be taken into account in the rest of
However, this is a
comes to the use of FRP, it will supposedly increase the life span of the bridge.
new material and nothing has been fully established yet.
The Graph 4-4 shows the global warming potential of the different pedestrian bridges.
can be established.
Thanks to this graph, an average of global warming potential per pedestrian bridge
.
2
The average value of global warming for pedestrian bridges is 419 kgco2e/m
or
Another way to establish a benchmark would be to analyze each type of bridge separately
by range of span.
Rosalie Bianquis
31
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential
1200
1000
800
600
L
400
200
Graph 4-4 - PedestrianGlobal Warming Potentialwithout extremities
The Graph 4-5 shows the global warming potential range per type of bridges. However since
there is only one hybrid bridge no conclusion can be taken for that type of bridge. The more
interesting range concerns the girder bridge since seven of them have been studied and it is the most
common type of pedestrian bridges. The average global warming potential for that type of bridge is
2
569kgco2e/m . It is above the average define for all pedestrian bridges. Moreover, the range goes
2
2
from 200 kgco2e/m to almost 1000 kgco2e/m . This shows that there is not any real trend between
the type of bridge and the global warming potential link to it.
Rosalie Bianquis
32
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential - Per type
1200
1000
5
800
1 600
0
400
0
200
0
-o
-?
-obt~
10
H
Graph 4-5 - PedestrianBridge GlobalWaning Potential/ Per Type ofBridge
The main conclusion that can be drawn from the Graph 4-5 is the efficiency of a truss bridge
compared to any other bridge. This is mainly because truss bridge are more efficient towards their
material use than any other type of bridge.
The Graph 4-6 shows the range of GWP for pedestrian bridges by range of span. There is a
clearer trend than for the previous graph. Indeed, this graph shows that the GHG emissions increase
with the span of the bridge. It means that having more piles and smaller span may be an advantage
when it comes to the global warming potential of the bridge. However, as stated as the beginning of
this chapter, the material quantities of each bridge are given without the foundation. Adding more
piles requires more material quantities and most of the time, more concrete. If the conditions of the
ground are not advantageous than it can be the most important part of the project.
In conclusion, to be able to drawn any results from the Graph 4-6 it would be essential to have
the material quantities of the piles of each bridge.
Rosalie Bianquis
33
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential - Per Span
1200
1000
800
AI 600
0
400
200
--
----
---
- - ----
-
0
V1
V1
Vi
Graph 4-6 - PedestrianBridge Global Waming Potential!/ Per Span
When it comes to pedestrian bridges, the benchmark established is 419 kgco2e/m 2. However,
different studies can be made to have benchmarks
more appropriate
to each bridge and its properties.
Indeed, a truss bridge would probably have higher expectations when it comes to global warming
than a girder bridge. Each of this parameter has to be taken into account; nonetheless, to be able to
establish these different values, each category requires its own study.
4.4
ROAD BRIDGES
To be able to create a benchmark for road bridges, the same methodology is used. Indeed,
while calculating the GWP of a bridge there is not much difference between a pedestrian bridge and a
road bridge since it only takes into account the construction stage. Six bridges are studied and
compared in this section. Moreover, in the case of the road bridges the foundation are taken into
account because more data is available on road bridges than on pedestrian bridges. Finally, in the case
of the road bridges all the bridges are called by their name because all the information used is public.
The details of each bridge material quantities are given in appendix D.
Rosalie Bianquis
34
M.Eng Thesis
-mom"-
. .........
.......
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
The Graph 4-7 shows the normalized material quantities of each bridge. The bridges are
ordered from the smallest to the largest span. Like for the pedestrian bridges there is not a clear trend
between the span and the material quantities. However, it seems that two categories stands out. For
the span under 1000 m (all bridges until the Sydney Harbour bridge included) the material quantities
are under 6000 kg/m2 and for the span above 1000 m (the Golden Gate Bridge and the Akashi
Kaikyo Bridge) the material quantities are above 10 000 kg/m2. The details of the normalized material
quantity are given in appendix E.
Normalized Material Quantities
14000
12000
10000
8000
2
:
6000
*
4000
MConcrete
Steel
2000
0
Graph 4-7 - Road Bridges Norma/iZed MaterialQuantiies
Now that the normalized material quantities for each bridges has been established, the GWP of
each bridge can be calculated. The Graph 4-8 shows the global warming potential of each bridges,
ordered from the smallest to the largest span. The table giving the details is in appendix F.
Rosalie Bianquis
35
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential
4500
-g
4000
a
3500
3000
2500
-2000
vix1
1500
1000
500
0
I II
1.1
Graph 4-8 - Road Bridges Global Warming Potential
If we compare Graph 4-7 and Graph 4-8, we can see that the order is respected: the bridges
with more material quantities have a higher GWP. This makes a lot of sense when we look at the
material quantities. Indeed, the steel is considered the same for all bridges as well as the concrete.
Moreover, on the Graph 4-8, as established for the Graph 4-7, the global warming potential is
.
2
increasing with the span. The average global warming potential is 1986 kgco2e/m
The Graph 4-9 is showing the influence of each material. The steel has a higher ECC (1.46)
than the concrete (0.13). However, the quantity of steel needed for a structure to be stable is most of
the time less than the quantity needed for concrete.
Global Warming Potential
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
7-E 2000
1500
" Stec]
1000
" Concrctc
500
0
up
Op
;014
4
-V
k
3
O01
N
Graph 4-9 - Road Bridges Global Warming per Material
Rosalie Bianquis
36
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Another analysis is to compare per range of span, as it was done for the pedestrian bridges.
The Graph 4-10 shows the ranges of GWP per ranges of span.
Global Warming Potential - Per Span
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
4
1500
1000
500
VV
VI
Graph 4-10 - RoadBridges Global Warming PotentialperSpan
This graph shows once again that the global warming potential can be divided in these two
categories. However, since only six bridges are studied, no universal conclusions can be drawn. In
future research, more case studies will be necessary to verify these preliminary results. The average for
bridges under 1000 m span is, according to these data, 1347 kgco2e/m 2, and the average for the
bridges above 1000 m span is 3446 kgco2e/m 2. These two values are really far from each other and
represents two different benchmark for road bridges.
To conclude, when it comes to road bridges, two benchmark have been established: 1422
2
kgcO2e/m 2 for bridges with a span that is less than 1000 m and 3661 kgco2e/m for bridges with a
span that is more than 1000m. Like for pedestrian bridges, more studies should be made to have
more accurate benchmark.
Moreover, when it comes to road bridges the maintenance and operation have a higher weight
than for pedestrian bridges and can have a significant impact on the emission of GHG over the life
of the bridge. Indeed, most of these bridges are built to avoid a detour for cars, which means that
Rosalie Bianquis
37
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
most of them are built for convenience purposes. The maintenance of road bridges might force the
cars to take an alternative, longer route to go from one point to another. This will be the subject of
the next chapter, chapter 0.
4.5
COMPARISON WITH OTHER DATABASE OF EMBODIED CARBON
COEFFICIENTS
All the benchmarks established previously in this chapter are based on the ICE ECC of the
University of Bath. However, there is a number of different databases in the world and these
benchmarks are not true in any other database. The difference between the different databases can be
significant. To see how different the results can be, the global warming potential of the road bridges
has been calculated with the ECC of Athena. The ECC of the ICE of the University of Bath and of
Athena are shown in Table 4-2. This table shows how different the ECC can be.
0,80
0,091
0,107
Table 4-2 - Embodied Carbon Coeficient / ICE U. of Bath -Athena
1,46
The Graph 4-11 shows the GWP of the road bridges using the Athena ECC while the Graph
4-12 shows the GWP of the road bridges using the ICE U. of Bath ECC as done earlier in the
chapter. The average GWP of the road bridges using the Athena is smaller than the one using the
ICE U. of Bath ECC. Indeed, for Athena the benchmark would be 1269 kgco2e/m 2 and for the ICE
the benchmark is 1989 kgco2e/m 2. However, the order of the bridges stay the same: The one who had
the highest GWP for the ICE ECC still has the highest GWP with the Athena coefficient.
Rosalie Bianquis
38
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Global Warming Potential
3000
2
2500
"000
1500
1000
'''Eu'
500
Graph 4-11 - Global Watming Potential/ Athena ECC
Global Warming Potential
4500
4000
--
3500
3000
-
~
-.
2500
8s2000
1500
1000
10
1500
Graph 4-12 - Global W/arming Potential/ ICE U. of Bath ECC
This shows that the values are not the same depending on the ECC used. All the values
previously determined in this chapter can only be used when the GWP of the bridges are calculated
using the ICE of the University of Bath ECC are used.
This chapter created different benchmarks for pedestrian bridges and road bridges. However, it
only gives information about the construction stage of the bridge. The next chapter will focus on the
operation phase and the maintenance of bridges.
Rosalie Bianquis
39
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
5
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
In this chapter, the operation phase and the maintenance phase of the bridge life. The operation
represents the energy needed to have lights on the bridge, or the electricity needed for the operation
of a tollbooth or any other energy needed during the life of the bridge. The maintenance takes into
account the replacement of the materials and the emissions due to the perturbation of the car traffic.
Because the maintenance phase has a more important impact for road bridges than for pedestrian
bridges, the methodology developed in this chapter will be focused on road bridges. After the
development of the methodology, three case studies will be conducted, analyzed and compared.
5.1
METHODOLOGY FOR A WHOLE LIFE CYCLE CARBON ASSESSMENT
This part will develop the methodology for the whole life cycle carbon assessment of bridges
expect the demolition which is out of the scope of this thesis. It will also take into account the
benefits brought by a bridge.
5.1.1
Construction Stage
The first stage of the bridge is the construction. The emission during the construction stage
includes the global warming potential calculated in the previous chapter. The emission of the
construction stage are divided in four categories as shown in Equation 5-1.
= ECuat + ECuaC + ECrra + Ecoth
Equation5-1 - Total Emission during Construction Stage
EcMat: Emission due to the structural materials
ECMac: Emission due to the use of machines
ECTra: Emission due to the transportation of the material
EcOth: Emission due to other factors
Rosalie Bianquis
40
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Emission due to structuralmaterialsEcmat
5.1.1.1
This represent the GWP calculated in Chapter 4. The information needed to calculate ECMat
are summarized in Table 5-1.
1
kgcoia/kg
Table 5-1 - Informationneededfor EcvAf,
The methodology was developed in the previous chapter, and is reminded below.
Normalize the material quantity:
1.
Equation 5-2 - Normaltz!edMaterialQuantiy
NMQi[kg/m2 ] = MaterialQuantity[kg]
Length[m] * Width[m]
2.
Calculate the embodied carbon for each structural material:
ECi[kgco2 e/m 2] = NMQi[kg/m 2 ] * ECCi[kgco2 e/kg]
3.
Calculate EcMat:
EcMat [kgco2 e/m 2] =
5.1.1.2
Equation 5-3 - Embodied Carbon
Equation 5-4 - Emission due to the structuralmaterials
ECi[k9co2e /m 2 ]
Emission due to the use ofmachines EcMUc
These emissions represent the emissions due to the electricity needed for the construction,
for example for a crane. The information needed to calculate Ecmac are summarized in Table 5-2.
Rosalie Bianquis
41
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Table 5-2 - Information neededfor Ecm,
The methodology is shown below. The value of the emission factor given by the EPA of the
United State is 0,69 kgco 2,/kWh.
1.
Calculate the energy needed for each machine:
Ei[kWh] = Energy[kW] * Hours[h]
2.
Calculate the emission for each machine normalized:
EMaci[kgco2 /m 2 ]
3.
=
E
i[kW h] hm]
* Emsion[kg
Emission[
k9co2elkW h]
Ek
*
/] Equation
5-6 - Emission per machine
Length[m] * W idth[m]
Calculate Ecmac:
ECMac[k9CO2 e/m 2 ] = I
5.1.1.3
Equation 5-5 - Enery neededper machine
EMaci[kgco 2 ,/m 2 ]
Equation 5- 7 - Emissions due to the use of machines
Emission due to the transportation of the materials Ec,,.
These emissions represent the emissions due to the trucks carrying the materials. It mainly
depends on where the materials are coming from. The information needed to calculate EcMaC are
summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3 - Information neededfor Ecrrm
Rosalie Bianquis
42
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
The methodology is shown below. The consumption of gasoline of a car is shown in
appendix G. The emission factor for a car is 2,348 kgco2e/L. The values of the emissions factors for
different type of vehicles are shown in appendix H.
1.
Calculate the emission for each supplier:
ETi[kgco 2e] = Distance[km] * Gasoline[L/km]
* Emissions[kg~C 2 e/L]
2.
Equation 5-8 - Emission of each supplier
Calculate the total amount of emission due to transportation normalized
Ecrran[kgcQe/m 2]
5.1.1.4
X ETi [kgco2 e]
ECTrn:
Equation 5-9 - Emission due to the transportationof
Length[m] * Width[m]
matenalf
Emission due to other factors Ecot
Different factors can lead to more emission during the construction phase: for example, if a
temporary bridge is constructed, or by the traffic being rerouted during construction. Those emission
can be calculated either by the same method as above (for the temporary bridge), or, for the traffic
detour, by using the method developed for the maintenance in the following section.
5.1.2
Operation stage
The two main source of emission during operation of the bridge are the presence of a
tollbooth before the bridge and the presence of lights on the bridge. However, some bridges open to
let the boats pass under it and this should also be taken into account in the operation stage. The
emission of the operation stage are divided in three categories as shown in Equation 5-1.
EO = EOLig +
EOTOI +
Equation 5-10 - Emission during the OperationStage
EOoth
EoLig: Emission due to the light on the bridge
EOTOI:
Emission due to the tollbooth
Eooth: Emission due to other factors
Rosalie Bianquis
43
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
5.1.2.1
Emission due to lght Eo,&g
Depending on the bridge, the electricity needed for lighting can be significant. The
information needed to calculate EOLig are summarized in Table 5-4.
The methodology is shown below. The value of the emission factor given by the EPA of the
United State is 0,689551 kgco 2c/kWh.
Calculate the total energy needed for the lights:
1.
EL[kWh/year] = Hours[h/year]* Energy[kWh]
Equation 5-11 - Total energy neededfor lights
peryear
Calculate the total energy for the whole life of the bridge:
2.
ELtot[kWh] = EL[kWh/year] * Lifespan[year]
Equation 5-12 - Total energy neededfor lights
Calculate Eoiig:
3.
Eoug[kgco2 e/m 2 ]
5.1.2.2
ELtot[kWh] * Emission[kgc0 2e/kWh]
* Width[m]
Equation 5-13 -Emissions due to
lights
-Length[m]
Emission due to the tollbooth EoTo,
There is two consequences coming from the presence of a tollbooth. First, the electricity
needed for its operation and second, the slowing down of the traffic due to the tollbooth.
Equation 5-14 - Emission due to the presence of a tollbooth
EOTOI = EOT OE + EOToIT
Rosalie Bianquis
44
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Eo'ri : Emission due to the electricity needed for the tollbooth
EoTOrri: Emission due to the slowing down of traffic
5.1.2.2.1
Emission do to the electricity needed for the tollbooth
EoT.OE
The information needed to calculate EoTL are summarized in Table 5-5.
The methodology is shown below. The value of the emission factor given by the EPA of the
United State is 0,689551 kgco 2 e/kWh.
4.
Calculate the total energy needed for the tollbooth:
ETe[kWh/year] = Hours[h/year] * Energy[kWh]
5.
Equation 5-15 - Total energy neededforthe
tollbooth peryear
Calculate the total energy for the whole life of the bridge:
ETetot[kWh] = ETe[kWh/year] * Lifespan[year]
6.
Calculate
Equation 5-16 - Total energy neededfor the
EOT0 IE:
ETetot[kWh] * Emission[kgco lkfh]
EOTOE [kgco 2 eM 2]
5.1.2.2.2
tollbooth
Length[m] * Width[m]
5-17 - Emission due
q
to the electricity neededfor the
tollbooth
Emission due to the slowing down of traffic Eororr
Rosalie Bianquis
45
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
This emission represents the surplus of emission by a car because it has to slow down and
accelerate again when it faces a tollbooth, compared to the emission a car would release if it would
stay at the same speed. The information needed is shown in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6 - Information neededfor EoT
0 o.
The methodology is shown below. The consumption of gasoline of a car is shown in
appendix G. The emission factor for a car is 2,348
1.
kgco2e/L.
Calculate the distance needed to stop:
Speed[km/h]Z
D [m] = %
10
Equation 5- 18 - Distance needed to stop
-0
2.
Calculate the gasoline used by one car on that distance: Using appendix G.
3.
Calculate the emission with a tollbooth:
ETol [kgco2e/year]
4.
-
(GasUsedBefore [L/car] + GasUsedAfter[L/car])
=
*
Equation 5-19
Emission with
tollbooth peryear
Cars[cars/year]* Emission[kgco2 /L]
Calculate the emission without a tollbooth:
EwoTol [kgcoe/year]
-
Equation 5-20
= (Dbefore [m] + Dafter[m]) * Gas[L/(km. car)]
*
5.
Cars[cars/year] * Emission[kgco 2 /L]
tollbooth peryear
Calculate the total surplus of emission per year:
ETTol [kg coe/year]
Equation 5-21 - Total emission
= ETol[kgc0 2e/year] - EwoTol[kgco2 e/year]
6.
Emission without
Calculate
EOTOIT
EoTo1T [kgCO2 e/m
Rosalie Bianquis
surplusperyear
2
]=
ETTol[kgcoze/year] * Lifespan[year]
Length[m] * width[m]
46
Equation 5-22 - Emission due
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
to the slowing down of traffic
5.1.2.3
Emission due to other factors
Some other factors can emit during the operation of the bridge, for example if the bridge can
move to let boats go through the river. To take into account these other factors the same
methodology can be applied as the one developed for the lights or the tollbooth.
5.1.3
Maintenance stage
The maintenance is going to occur multiple times during the life of the bridge. For the
different materials used, the life service of this material is different. Some service life are detailed in
appendix I. To have the emission due to maintenance the emission due to the maintenance of each
material are summed. However, it is possible that if the service life of one material is 15 years and
another is 20 years they will not maintain it every 15years and every 20 years but only every 15 years,
replacing or maintaining both materials at once. Different scenarios are possible and should be
studied. For now, this is just the methodology when we assume that each material is maintained
separately.
The emission due to maintenance of one material are separated into three categories, as shown
in Equation 5-23.
EM
(EMMat + EMMac +
Equation 5-23 - Emission due to maintenance
EMTra)
EMMat: Emission due to the replacement of materials
EMMac: Emission due to machines
Em-a : Emission due to the perturbation of traffic
Rosalie Bianquis
47
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
51.3.1
Emission due to the replacement of structural materials and the use of machines
Emmat and EMMac
The methodology for these emissions is the same as the one developed in the construction
stage.
5.1.3.2
Emission due to the perturbadon of traffc EmTra
The maintenance of a bridge can have different consequences on the traffic. The bridge can
close during the time of maintenance and the cars need to take another path or the bridge reduce the
number of line available for the cars and the traffic is slow down because of the work on the road.
These two scenarios are developed separately in the following sections.
5.1.3.2.1
Case 1: The bridge closes Emrrac1
When the bridge is closed, the cars have to take another path. First, the length of influence of
the bridge needs to be define. For that, we are taking one of the road bridges studied earlier: the
Crossing in Netherlands.
The Figure 5-1 shows the bridge by a red line. It crossed the Waal. However, when studying
the bridge the length of influence as to be taken into account. It is the length between A and B.
Indeed, these two points represent the crossing between the main road going to the bridge and other
major toads where cars might change direction if the bridge is closed. When the bridge is closed, the
cars will not go up to the bridge and then change road. The length of influence defines the bridge and
the road before and after the bridge that is linked to it.
When the bridge is closed, the cars have to take a bypass road. For the crossing bridge, the
bypass road is represented in Figure 5-2 . This is the fastest way to go from A to B when the bridge is
closed.
Rosalie Bianquis
48
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Figure5-1 - Length ofinfluence
Figure5-2 - Bjpass road
Knowing these definitions, the emission due to the traffic perturbation can be estimated. The
information needed is shown in Table 5-7.
Rosalie Bianquis
49
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
kgcou/L
Table 5-7 - Information neededfor E
rc
The methodology is shown below. The consumption of gasoline of a car is shown in appendix
G. The emission factor for a car is 2,348
1.
kgco2e/L.
Calculate the gasoline used for each road:
Gasoline[L/car]
Equation 5-24 - Gasoline
= Length[km] * vehicle(km/h) [L/(km. car)]
2.
Calculate the emission for one car:
ETraffic [kgco2elcar]
-
*
3.
usedfor eachpath
(GasBypass[L/car]- Gasbridge[L/car])
Equation5-25 - Emissionper
car when the bridge is closed
Emission[kgcoze/L]
Calculate EMrraci :
EMTraC1 [kgco 2 eM2 ]
ETrafpc[kgco2e/car] * Cars[cars/year]* duration[years]
*
Length[m] * width[m]
Lifespan[years]
ServiceLife [years]
Equation 5-26 - Emission due to the closure of the bridge
Rosalie Bianquis
50
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
5.1.3.2.2
Case 2: The bridge stays open EfrraC2
In this case, the bridge stays open, but reduces the number of lines available for cars.
Depending on the bridge and its localization, the speed during the work can differ; the assumption is
that the speed is reduce by 20km/h during the maintenance. The information needed is shown in
Table 5-8.
The methodology is shown below. The consumption of gasoline of a car is shown in appendix
G. The emission factor for a car is 2,348 kgco2e/L.
Calculate the emission of one car crossing the bridge during maintenance:
1.
EMTra[kgco2 /car]
Gasused (km/h) [L/(km. car)]
*
2.
Equation 5-27 - Emission during delays
per car
Emission[kgcoze/L] * Length[km]
Calculate the emission of one car crossing without maintenance:
EwoMTra[kgco2 e/car]
Equation5-28 - Emission during delays
= Gasused(km/h)[L/(km. car)]
*
Rosalie Bianquis
per car
Emission[kgcoe/L] * Length[km]
51
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
3.
Calculate
EMTraC2:
EMTraC2 [kgco2e1m2
*
= (EMtra[kgc0 2e/car] - EwoMtra[kgC0 2 e/car]) * cars[cars/year]
duration[years]* lifespan[year]
Length[m] * width[m] * servicelife[years]
Equation 5-29 - Emission due to
trafic delay
All of this analysis is an estimation for the maintenance because it is possible that during the
closure of the bridge some cars that usually take the bridge will take a very different path.
5.1.4
Benefits of the bridge
The presence of a bridge also reduces the emissions of GHGs because it creates a shorter path
for cars to travel. However, this thesis considers that all the car that would take the bridge would take
the other path as well. It is possible that many cars would maybe not go through the trouble of
talking the other path and stay on their side of the bridge. Before the bridge was created, the cars
probably took the bypass route defined in the previous part, maintenance. The information needed to
calculate the benefits is shown in Table 5-9. The "saved" emissions are called
EB.
Table 5-9 - Information neededfor EB
The methodology is shown below. The consumption of gasoline of a car is shown in appendix
G. The emission factor for a car is 2,348 kgco2e/L.
Rosalie Bianquis
52
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
4.
Calculate the gasoline used for each road:
Gasoline[Licar]
Equation 5-30 - Gasoline
= Length[km] * vehicle(km/h)[L/(km. car)]
5.
usedfor each path
Calculate the emission for one car:
Esaved [kgco2e /car]
= (GasBypass[L/car]- Gasbridge[L/car])
*
6.
Calculate
Equation 5-31 - Emissionper
car saved
Emission[kg~C 2 e/L]
EB :
EB [kgco2e/m 2 ]
Esaved [kgc ~e/car]
*
2
*
Cars[cars/year]* duration[years]
Length[m] * width[m]
Lifespan[years]
ServiceLife [years]
Equation 5-32 - Emission saved
5.1.5
Conclusion
This methodology assess the environmental impact of road bridges. It takes into account the
benefits of the bridge. However, engineer and/or architects can only influence the construction,
operation and maintenance stages of the bridge life. Even if the benefits of the bridge are significant,
the emission added by the bridge are still added to the universe. As the next section will show, the
benefits are indeed most of the time more significant than the emission during the other stages.
5.2
CASES STUDIES
This part will conduct three case studies: the Golden Gate Bridge, the Millau Viaduct and the
Sydney Harbour Bridge. The case studies have been summarized in the next table; however all the
calculations are available in respectively appendices
J,
K and L (respectively Golden Gate Bridge,
Millau Viaduct and Sydney Harbour Bridge).
Rosalie Bianquis
53
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
To be able to compare theses different bridges, the results are shown in Graph 5-1. This
graph shows that the Golden Gate Bridge is the bridge who has the highest emissions. Moreover, it
shows that the maintenance represent the smallest part while the construction represents the larger
part of emission.
Rosalie Bianquis
54
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Case Studies
7000
6000
5000
E 4000
3(100
Maintenance stage
2000
UOperation stage
1000
N Construction Stage
0
Graph 5-1 - Case Studies Comparison
As Graph 5-2 shows, the benefits of a bridge are much higher than the emission of the
bridge. Since it is unlikely that all the cars that currently take the bridge would take the bypass road if
there wasn't a bridge, the Graph 5-2 shows the benefits when only 10%, 20% or 50% of the cars take
the bypass road. There is indeed a paradox called the Braess paradox named after the German
mathematician Dietrich Braess. Adding an extra road can be adding traffic and not always reducing
the traffic on the other roads around. By applying the paradox to the bridge, adding a bridge may
attract traffic and therefore the volume of cars on the bridge each day do not exactly reflects what
would actually happen is no bridge was ever constructe.
However, by looking at Graph 5-2, and at the different percentiles, all the bridges seems
necessary to save some emissions. The Golden Gate Bridge is the one with the highest value of
emissions "saved". Even more, if the total emissions is calculated by adding the construction, the
maintenance, the operation and subtracting the benefits, the Golden Gate Bridge has the lowest
emissions of all. This is important because the previous graph showed that the Golden Gate Bridge
emitted the more.
Rosalie Bianquis
55
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Benefits v.s. Emissions
2F+05
:'-+05
11;+05
1F;+05
81+04
4 161;+04
4 +04
2F+04
Iisioni
0 10011o
50"'(,
20%
V I0%"o
.X
'
OFE+00
N
"jeV
Gp5-
-Bn
Graph 5-2 - Benefits vs. Emissions
To conclude, the case studies showed how important the construction of these bridges are.
Moreover, it showed, that including the benefits of the bridge is important to be able to compare
them. However, engineers and architects must focus on the emissions due to the construction,
operation and maintenance stages of the bridges and make sure these emissions are reduced as much
as possible. If the bridge would not have been built, it would have been worse but the emissions due
to the bridge are still there.
Rosalie Bianquis
56
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
6 CONCLUSION
6.1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Three types of results were established in this thesis and will be summarized in this section.
.
A benchmark for the embodied carbon of pedestrian bridges was established at 419 kgco2e/m 2
Two benchmarks for the embodied carbon of road bridges were established. For road bridges
with a span less than 1000 m the benchmark is 1347 kgco2e/m 2 . For road bridges with a span over
.
1000 m the benchmark is 3446 kgco2e/m 2
Finally, the methodology to include the operation and the maintenance of the bridge to
calculate the GHGs emissions during the life of the bridge. The main conclusions that can be drawn
from the three case studies are the following. The construction stage is the one where the emissions
are always the most important. The operation stage also creates a significant amount of GHGs
emissions even if there are less important than in the construction stage. Finally, the maintenance
stage is the less important one regarding the GHGs emissions. It means that choosing structural
materials, which have small ECCs, is probably more important than choosing structural materials,
which do not need maintenance.
6.2
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
Different results have been established in this thesis. First different benchmarks have been
created and second, a methodology to study a bridge from cradle-to-gate has been developed and
used on three different bridges.
The established benchmarks could be sub-divided in other benchmarks to fit each type of
bridge. However, it is a start in being able to compare bridges one to another. The bridges are an
important part of our society and being able to evaluate them as any other structure is important.
The methodology gives a clear plan to calculate the emissions due to a bridge over its life. It also
shows the area where improvement is needed and what is less important while designing a bridge.
The construction stage of a bridge is the part all engineers just focus on to start improving the
environmental impact of bridges. An important result is the fact that the maintenance is the smallest
part of the emissions and therefore using material that would not need maintenance is not the first
concern. Moreover, those materials have, most of the time, high ECC which significantly increases
Rosalie Bianquis
57
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
the embodied carbon. To be able to know if they are useful or not for a bridge regarding the GHG
emissions, a study has to be made ahead and it should not be assumed that they are better for the
environment because there is less maintenance.
Finally, the normalization of the emissions should be discussed. For now, the emissions are
normalized by square meter. However, the aim of a bridge is to go from one point to another as
efficiently as possible. It would be interesting to study the bridge normalized by meter where the
length there are normalized with is the length they have to span over. Indeed, depending on the area
some bridges might need eight lanes while some will only need two. Normalizing by square meter
might give an advantage to bridges that are actually worse for the environment then other.
To conclude, all of these results not only give a reference for future research on but also give a
clearer way to study bridges and their environmental impact by understanding the main source of
emissions.
6.3
6.3.1
FUTURE RESEARCH
Adding data
To be able to verify the benchmarks established during this thesis, studying more bridges
would be the next step. Being able to compare more bridges would not only verify the benchmarks
established but would also give the possibility to add subdivided benchmarks per type of bridge and
per span, or per length.
Moreover, conducting more case studies as the three ones shown in this thesis would also
verify the different conclusions. It would help distinguish the more efficient materials and where the
engineers could have a positive impact on the environment.
6.3.2
Cradle - to - grave assessment methodology
The methodology developed in this thesis is only considering the life of the bridge before its
demolition. However, a bridge easy to dismantle and/or where the pieces can be easly reused is an
asset for the environment. To be able to evaluate the end-of-life of the bridge a last part needs to be
added to the previous methodology. In 2014, Hoxa and al. explain in a publication adding the end-of-
Rosalie Bianquis
58
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
life of a building is actually adding a ratio of the production emissions to the total emissions. This
approach would be interesting to adapt to bridges.
6.3.3
Development of a rating systems
The main goal in the future is to create a rating system dedicated to bridges. A rating system
helps designers, architects and engineer to have a goal and to design better. Before this rating system
could be created, other aspects of a bridge should be explored. Indeed, as stated in the introduction a
bridge is not only about transportation. It is a piece of art, an economic investment and a way to
bring communities together. As Isaac Newton said, we build too many walls and not enough bridges. This is
in the path of changing and therefore rating those bridges should be part of the evolution.
Rosalie Bianquis
59
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7 APPENDIX
Rosalie Bianquis
60
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
APPENDIX
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Rosalie Bianquis
61
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.1
APPENDIX A: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES INFORMATION
Girder Bridge 1
Truss Bridge 1
Dimension
Dimension
Span
5
m
Length
60
m
Width
2,5
m
Weathering Steel S355
24329
Concrete
45600
Table 7-1 - GirderBridge 1
Stainless Steel
Sawn Hardwood Timber
kg
kg
3
m
Span
Length
Width
10505
kg
Steel
Material
Table 7-3 - Arch Bridge 1
687500
m
m
m
m
m
m
106
140
13
Span
Length
Width
Material
Material
48511
kg
25440-1 kg
Steel
Timber
Table 7-5 - GirderBridge 2
900000
69000
Table 7-6 - GirderBridge 3
Girder Bridge 4
Dimension
44
m
3,5
1,2
0,15
m
m
m
93810
kg
k
Arch Bridge 2
Dimension
Span
Total Length
Width
40
m
109,2
m
2,8
m
86100
k
Material
Material
Glulam
kg
Table 7-7 - GirderBridge 4
Rosalie Bianquis
1
Girder Bridge 3
Dimension
40
40
4
FRP
k
Table 7-4 - Suspension Bridge
Girder Bridge 2
Dimension
Span
Width
Depth
Thickness of the deck
m
m
m
144
325
4
Material
Concrete
kg
Dimension
m
m
Steel
kg
Suspension bridge 1
5
26
Span
Length
Width
9053
10353
Table 7-2 - Truss Bridge 1
Arch Bridge 1
Dimension
Steel
m
m
m
Material
Material
Span
Length
Width
25
25
3
Span
Length
Width
Table 7-8 - Arch Bridge 2
62
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Hybrid
Dimension
Arch Bridge 3
Dimension
Span
Length
46
102
Width
m
Span
Width
30
8
m
Im
3
m
Total length
100
m
Steel
96000
kg
Structural Steel
18991
m3
Concrete
Rebar
124800
kg
13606
k
Rebar steel
157853
Concrete
1945008
Table 7-10 - Arch Bridge 3
Material
Material
Table 7-9 - Hybrid
Dimension
130
8
mr
mr
126
m
m
In
33
38,3
4,7
Span
Length
Width
mr
Material
700000
Steel
Material
Concrete
300000
Table 7-12 - Truss Bridge 2
kg
Table 7-11 - GirderBridge 5
Double Helix
Truss Bridge 3
Dimension
Dimensions
kg
Length
280
mr
Length
12
Span
Width
65
10,8
m
Width
Span
1,4
8,1
1000000
kg
650000
Stainless Steel
Table 7-13 - Double Helix
kg
m
Material
Steel
kg
kg
Girder Bridge 7
Length
8
m
Span
Width
7,5
m
1,5
m
Length
Span
Width
Materials
Dimensions
199,7
67,1
15,73
m
m
m
Materials
786
429
kg
kg
6
kg
Concrete
Steel
598
kg/m2
62
kg/M 2
Table 7-16 - GirderBridge 7
Table 7-15 - GirderBridge 6
Rosalie Bianquis
2434
5796
Table 7-14 - Truss Bridge 3
Dimensions
Resin
m
m
m
Materials
Structural steel
Timber
Girder Bridge 6
Glass Fiber
Epoxy resin
m3
m3
Truss Bridge 2
Dimension
Girder Bridge 5
Length
Width
Span
rn
63
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Girder Bridge 8
Dimensions
173,4
51
Length
Span
Width
15,5
In
m
In
Materials
Concrete
710
kg/M 2
Steel
86
kg/M 2
Table 7-17 - GirderBridge 8
Rosalie Bianquis
64
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.2
APPENDIX
B:
PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE
NORMALIZED
MATERIAL
QUANTITIES
Type of Bridge
Span
Structural
Girder Bridge 1
Truss Bridge 1
5
25
162
Arch Bridge 1
5
135
Suspension
bridge 1
Girder Bridge 2
144
529
40
303
Girder Bridge 3
106
495
Girder Bridge 4
Arch Bridge 2
Hybrid
44
40
46
314
Arch Bridge 3
Girder Bridge 5
Truss Bridge 2
Double Helix
30
130
121
673
33
65
331
Truss Bridge 3
Girder Bridge 6
8,1
7,5
145
Girder Bridge 7
67,1
62
598
Girder Bridge 8
51
86
710
Quantities
(kg/m 2
)
Normalized Material
Concrete
Timber Fiber
Stainless
StelSPe
Conret
FRP
Glulam
Glass
Resin
66
36
304
121
138
159
38
609
282
2431
1667
215
345
1
Table 7-18 - PedestrianNormalized MaterialQuantities
Rosalie Bianquis
65
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.3
APPENDIX C: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
Embodied Carbon [kgco2,/M2
Type of Bridge
Span
Structural
Arch Bridge 1
Girder Bridge
1
Girder Bridge
6
Truss Bridge 3
Truss Bridge 1
5
5
197
Arch Bridge 3
Truss Bridge 2
Arch Bridge 2
Girder Bridge
2
Girder Bridge
4
Hybrid
Girder Bridge
8
Double Helix
Girder Bridge
7
Girder Bridge
3
Girder Bridge
Steel
FRP
Stainless
Timber
Steel
Glass
Fiber
237
33
269
226
8,1
25
211
176
30
35
281
316
178
178
245
245
443
17
460
44
2016
46
458
51
125
65
483
67,1
91
106
722
130
144
2016
458
76
201
1805
1322
64
155
27
749
983
1
226
460
276
248
99
33
40
40
Total
197
7,5
5
Suspension
bridge 1
Rebar
Concrete
Steel
(m)
1
1
1
1
1
772
983
772
_
Table 7-19 - Pedestrians Bridges Global Warming Potential
Rosalie Bianquis
66
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
APPENDIX
ROAD BRIDGES
Rosalie Bianquis
67
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.4 APPENDIX D: ROAD BRIDGES INFORMATION
Albert Chanel
Dimensions
Akashi Kaikyo Bridge
Dimensions
Span
1991
m
Length
3910
m
35,5
Mr
Width
Span
80
m
Length
80
m
Materials
Width
Materials
kg
kg
200000000
Steel
Table 7-20 - Akashi Kaikyo Bridge
Concrete
1250000000
Concrete
Dimensions
1280
Length
Width
2737
27
Millau Viaduct
m
Span
m
m
Length
Width
Materials
713940000 kg
Concrete
Steel
141293000 kg
Table 7-22 - Golden Gate Bridge
Dimensions
342
Span
Length
Dimensions
285
1195
Width
kg
kg
Concrete
Steel
Table 7-24 - Sydney HarbourBridge
7.5
m
M
The Crossing
Materials
228000000
52800000
m
2460
34
Materials
Concrete
206000000 kg
Steel
36000000
kg
Table 7-23 - Millau Viaduct
Sydney Harbor Bridge
Dimensions
503
mr
Span
Length
1149
m
49
mr
Width
Concrete
Steel
kg/M 2
Steel
500
kg/M 2
Table 7-21 - Albert Chanel
Golden Gate Bridge
Span
3750
m
M
M
27,5
Materials
m
149000000
k
16100000
k
Table 7-25 - The Crossing
APPENDIX E: ROAD BRIDGE NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITIES
Normalized Material
Quantities
Type of Bridge
Span (m)
Steel
Concrete
80
500
3750
285
490
4534
342
503
430
938
2463
4050
1280
1912
1991
1441
Table 7-26 - Road Bridges NormalizedMaterialQuantities
9661
9005
Albert Chanel
The Crossing
Millau Viaduct
Sydney Harbor Bridge
Golden Gate Bridge
Akashi Kaikyo Bridge
Rosalie Bianquis
(kg/m2)
68
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.6
APPENDIX F: ROAD BRIDGE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
Global Warming Potential [kgco2e/m 2]
Type of Bridge
Albert Chanel
The Crossing
Millau Viaduct
Sydney Harbor Bridge
Golden Gate Bridge
Akashi Kaikyo Bridge
Rosalie Bianquis
Span (m)
80
Steel
730
Concrete
401
Total
1131
285
342
503
715
628
1369
485
264
433
1200
892
1803
3825
3067
1280
2791
1991
2104
Table 7-27 - Road Bridges GlobalWarming Potential
69
1034
964
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
APPENDIX
METHODOLOGY
Rosalie Bianquis
70
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.7
APPENDIX G: CONSUMPTION OF GASOLINE
Consumption of a car
0,16
0,14
0, 12
0,18
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Speed km/hI
Graph 7-1 - Consumption of Gasoline
7.8
APPENDIX H: EMISSION FACTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION
Emission factor
Airplane
7.9
500
gco2!/km
Lorry or truck
60 to 150
gco2e/km
Train
30 to 100
gco2e/km
Ship
10 to 40
gco2e/km
Table 7-28 - Emissionfactorfortransportation
APPENDIX I: SERVICE LIFE OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS
Replacement cycles of bridge component (years)
Standard service
Short service
Long service
life
life
life
Pavement
10
15
20
Prestressed Concrete deck
40
50
60
30
20
Reinforced Concrete deck
Table 7-29 - Service fife of bridge component
Rosalie Bianquis
71
40
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
APPENDIX
CASES STUDIES
Rosalie Bianquis
72
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.10 APPENDIX J: GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
I
Construction Stage
Emission due to materials
Structural Material
Embodied Carbon Coefficient
Normalized
2737
27
m
m
Concrete 713940000
141293000
Steel
kg
kg
Length
Width
Dimension
Concrete
Steel
I
0,107 kgco2,/kg
1,46 kgco2,/kg
material quantities
Concrete
9661
kg/m2
Steel
1912
kg/m 2
Embodied carbon
per material
Concrete
1034
kgco2e/m
2
Steel
2791
kgco2,/m
2
1
38251 kgco2c/m 2 I
Total embodied carbon
Table 7-30 - ConstructionStage / Golden Gate Bridge
Operation Stage
Lights
Total Number of Hours of lights on the bridge
h/year
1644
Summer
h/year
2648
Winter
Total
4292
h/year
Power needed for the bridge
watt
72324
Total watt
Lifespan
200
Emission
years
kgco2e/kwh
0,527
Coefficient
Table 7-31 - OperationStage / Golden Gate Bridge (1)
Rosalie Bianquis
73
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Lights
Total energy needed
Total
Total
310392 kWh/year
Total energy needed during life
62078401
kWh
Total energy needed for lights
443 kgco2c/m 2
Table 7-32 - Operation Stage / Golden Gate Bridge (2)
Tollbooth
Road
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
40
70
km/h
km/h
Cars
Number of cars
40908000
cars/year
Emission
Coefficient
2,348
kgco 2 !/L
Distance needed to stop
Before tollbooth
161
491
After tollbooth
m
m
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Before tollbooth
0,00161
L
After tollbooth
0,00423
L
L
Total
0,00584
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Total
0,00387
L
Emissions
With tollbooth
560944 kgco2,/year
Without tollbooth
371481 kgco2,/year
Surplus
189463 _kgc2,/year
Total emissions form
tollbooth
513
kgco2e/m 2
Table 7-33 - Operation Stage / Golden Gate Bridge (3)
Rosalie Bianquis
74
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Maintenance Stage
Emission due to materials
Length
Width
Concrete
Dimension
Structural Material
Embodied Carbon
Coefficient
m
m
kg
2737
27
45876000
Concrete
0,107 kgco2!/kg
Normalized material quantities
Concrete
pavement
621
Embodied carbon
Concrete
kg/m2
per material
pavement
66 kgco2e/m2
Total embodied carbon
886
kgco2,/m 2
_
Table 7-34 - Maintenancestage / Golden Gate Bridge (1)
Road
2,788
70
Length of influence
km
km/h
Cars
Number of cars
40908000
cars/year
Duration
Service life of material
15
years
Lifespan
200
years
Duration of closing
0,11
years
2,348
kgc 0 2 e/L
Emissions
Coefficient
Gasoline
During maintenance
Not during maintenance
0,186796
L
0,14498
L
Emissions
During maintenance
0,43860 kgco2,/car
Not during maintenance
0,34040
kgco2e/car
83 kgco2e/m 2
Total emission due to traffic
Table 7-35 Maintenance stage / Golden Gate Bridge (2)
Rosalie Bianquis
75
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.11 APPENDIX K: MILLAU VIADUCT
Construction Stage
Emission due to materials
m
m
2460
34
Length
Width
Dimension
kg
Concrete 206000000
Steel
36000000
kg
Concrete
0,107 kgco2,/kg
Steel
1,46 kgco2c/kg
Structural Material
Embodied Carbon
Coefficient
Normalized materi
quantities
Concrete
2463
kg/M 2
430
kg/m 2
Steel
Embodied carbon
per material
2
Concrete
264 kgco2c/M
Steel
628 kgco2c/m 2
Total embodied carbon
892 kgcO2e/M2
Table 7-36 - ConstructionStage / Millau Viaduct
operation Stage
Lights
Lifespan
200
years
Emission
Coefficient
0,527 kgco 2 c/kwh
Total energy needed
Total
690806
Total
Total energy needed during life
138161200
kWh/year
kWh
Total energy needed for lights
871 kgc02,/M2
Table 7-37 OperationStage / Millau Viaduct (1)
Rosalie Bianquis
76
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Tollbooth
Road
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
110
110
km/h
km/h
Cars
Number of cars
4700000
cars/year
Emission
Coefficient
2,348
kgco 2c/L
Distance needed to stop
1211
1211
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
m
m
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
0,00877
L
0,00877
Total 0,01753
L
L
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Total 0,01016
L
Emissions
With tollbooth
193498 kgcO2,/year
Without tollbooth
112166 kgcO2c/year
Surplus
81332 kgcO2,/year
194 kgco2e/m 2
Total emissions form tollbooth
Table 7-38 - Operation Stage / Millau Viaduct (2)
Emission due to materials
2460
Length
Width
34
Concrete 20073600
Dimension
m
m
Structural Material
kg
Embodied Carbon Coefficient
Concrete
0,107 kgco 2,/kg
Table 7-39 - Maintenance stage / Millau Viaduct (1)
Rosalie Bianquis
77
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Normalized material uantities
1240
Concrete pavement
kg/m2
Embodied carbon per material
Concrete
pavement
26
kgco2e/m2
Total embodied carbon
342
kgco2e/m2
Table 7-40 - Maintenancestage / Millam Viaduct (2)
Road
Length of influence
19,66
110
Cars
Number of cars
4700000
km
km/h
[cars/year
Duration
Service life of material
Lifespan
Duration of closing
15
years
200
years
0,08
years
2,348
kgco 2 ,/L
Emissions
Coefficient
Gasoline
During maintenance
1,02232
L
Not during maintenance
0,82572
L
Emissions
During maintenance
2,40041 kgco2e/car
Not during maintenance
1,938791 kgco2,/car
Total emission due to traffic
27 kgco2,/m2
Table 741 - Maintenancestage / Millau Viaduct (3)
Rosalie Bianquis
78
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
7.12 APPENDIX L: SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE
Construction Stage
Emission due to materials
1149
49
m
Structural Material
Concrete 228000000
Steel
52800000
kg
kg
Embodied Carbon
Coefficient
Concrete
Steel
Length
Width
Dimension
m
0,107 kgco2,/kg
1,46 kgco2e/kg
Normalized material quantities
Concrete
4050
Steel
938
Embodied carbon
kg/m
2
kg/M 2
per material
433
kgco2e/m
1369
kgco2,/m
Concrete
Steel
2
2
2
1803 1 kgco2,/m
Total embodied carbon
Table 7-42 - ConstructionStage / Sydney HarbourBridge
Operation Stage
Lights
Total Number of Hours of lights on the bridge
Summer
Winter
Total
1756
h/year
2578
h/year
4334
Power needed for te
Total watt
1
330001
h/year
bridge
watt
Lifespan
1001
years
Emission
Coefficient
1
0,5271
kgco2e/kw
Table 7-43 - Operation Stage / Sydney HarbourBridge (1)
Rosalie Bianquis
79
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Lights
Total energy needed
Total
Total
143032 kWh/year
Total energy needed during life
14303190
Total energy needed for lights
kWh
134 kgco2c/m 2
Table 7-44 - Operation Stage / Sydney HarbourBridge (2)
Tollbooth
Road
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
70
70
km/h
km/h
Cars
Number of cars
58292804
cars/year
Emission
Coefficient
2,348
kgc 0 2 /L
Distance needed to stop
Before tollbooth
After tollbooth
49
49
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Before tollbooth
0,00412
After tollbooth
Total
0,00412
0,00825
m
m
L
L
L
Gasoline used with tollbooth
Total
0,00510
L
Emissions
With tollbooth
1128642 kgco2,/year
Without tollbooth
697497 kgco2,/year
Surplus
431145 kgcO2,/year
Total emissions form tollbooth
766 kgco2e/m2
Table 7-45 - OperationStage / Sydney HarbourBridge (3)
Rosalie Bianquis
80
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Maintenance Stage
Emission due to materials
Dimension
Structural Material
Length
Width
Concrete
Embodied Carbon Coefficient
Concrete
1149
49
13512000
m
m
kg
0,107 kgco2e/kg
Normalized material quantities
Concrete
pavement
240
per material
Embodied carbon
Concrete
kg/m 2
26 kgco2e/m 2
pavement
171 kgco2,/m 2
Total embodied carbon
Table 7-46 - Maintenance stage / Sydng HarbourBridge (1)
Road
Length of influence
1,49
70
km
km/h
Cars
Number of cars
58292804
cars/year
Duration
Service life of material
Lifespan
Duration of closing
15
years
100
0,06
years
years
2,348
kgco 2 ,/L
Emissions
Coefficient
Gasoline
During maintenance
Not during maintenance
0,0769831
L
0,059751
L
Emissions
During maintenance
1
Not during maintenance
Total emission due to traffic
0,18076 kgco2e/car
0,14029
kgco2,/car
16 kgco2,/m2
Table 747 - Maintenance stage / Sydney HarbourBridge (3)
Rosalie Bianquis
81
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 - GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION BY SOURCE......................................................................................13
FIGURE 1-2 - U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION BY SOURCE.................................................................................................
13
FIGURE 1-3 - NUMBER OF BRIDGES BUILT IN THE U.S.......................................................................................................
14
FIGURE 1-4 - GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, SAN FRANCISCO .........................................................................................................
15
FIGURE
1-5 - T OWER BRID GE, LONDON
FIG URE
1-6 - GREEN H O USE G ASES
....................................................................................................................................
15
17
...........................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 1-7 - LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK..............................................................................................................18
FIGURE 2-1 - G REEN ROAD STM LO GO ...........................................................................................................................................
21
FIGURE 2-2 - GREENROADSTM CERTIFICATION .....................................................................................................................
21
..49
FIGURE 5-1 - LEN GTH OF INFLUEN CE..................................................................................................................................
............... 49
FIGURE 5-2 - BYPASS RO AD...........................................................................................................................................
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 - GREENHOUSE GASES SOURCE OF EMISSIONS.....................................................................................................17
TABLE
1-2 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
OF SOME GREENHOUSE GASES................................................................18
TABLE 2-1 - RATING SYSTEM FOR SUSTAINABLE BRIDGES, BY LAUREN R. HUNT ..........................................................
22
TABLE 2-2 - CRITERIA FOR A RATING SYSTEM, BY MARZOUK, NOUTH AND EL-SAID ....................................................
23
TABLE 4-1 - EMBODIED CARBON COEFFICIENT .......................................................................................................................
29
TABLE 4-2 - EMBODIED CARBON COEFFICIENT / ICE U. OF BATH - ATHENA..............................................................38
TABLE 5-1 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EcmAT ...................................................................................................................
41
TABLE 5-2 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EcMT .......................................................................................................................
42
TABLE 5-3 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EcrR
42
......................................................................................................................
TABLE 5-4 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EOLIG.....
TABLE
5-5
-----------------------------------------......................................................................
- INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EOTOLE--------------.-.
TABLE 5-6 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EOTOLT-----------------------------------------TABLE 5-7 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EM{m ci-.......
-------...........................................................
...........
----..........................
.
..-...........................................................
------.
.
-------...............................................
44
45
46
50
TABLE 5-8 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR EMTRAC2....................................................................................................................51
TABLE 5-9 - INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ER.............................................................................................................................52
T ABLE 7-1 - G IRD ER BRID G E 1 .....................................................................................................................................................
62
T ABLE 7-2 - TRUSS B RID G E 16.........................................................................................................................................................62
1 .........................................................................................................................................................
62
T ABLE 7-4 - SUSPEN SION B RID GE 1 .............................................................................................................................................
62
T ABLE 7-3 - ARCH B RID GE
T ABLE 7-5 - G IRD ER BRID G E 2.....................................................................................................................................................62
T ABLE 7-6 - G IRD ER BRID G E 3 .....................................................................................................................................................
62
T ABLE 7-7 - G IRD ER BRID G E 4 .....................................................................................................................................................
62
T ABLE 7-8 - ARCH B RID G E 2 .........................................................................................................................................................
62
Rosalie Bianquis
82
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
TA BLE 7-9 - HY BRID ........................................................................................................................................................................
63
TABLE 7-10 - ARCH BRIDGE 3 .......................................................................................................................................................
63
TABLE 7-11 - GIRDER BRIDGE 5...................................................................................................................................................63
TABLE 7-12 - TRUSS BRIDGE 2 ......................................................................................................................................................
63
TABLE 7-13 - DOUBLE HELIX........................................................................................................................................................63
TABLE 7-14 - TRUSS BRIDGE 3 ......................................................................................................................................................
63
TABLE 7-15 - GIRDER BRIDGE 6 ...................................................................................................................................................
63
TABLE 7-16 - GIRDER BRIDGE 7 ...................................................................................................................................................
63
8 ...................................................................................................................................................
64
TABLE 7-17 - GIRDER BRIDGE
TABLE 7-18 - PEDESTRIAN NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITIES ....................................................................................
65
TABLE 7-19 - PEDESTRIANS BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL ............................................................................
66
TABLE 7-20 - AKASHI KAIKYO BRIDGE ......................................................................................................................................
68
TABLE 7-21 - ALBERT CHANEL .....................................................................................................................................................
68
TABLE 7-22 - GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE ........................................................................................................................................
68
TABLE 7-23 - MILLAU VIADUCT..............................................................................................................................................
68
TABLE 7-24 - SYDNEY HARBOUR
BRIDGE ..................................................................................................................................
68
TABLE 7-25 - THE CROSSING.........................................................................................................................................................68
TABLE 7-26 - ROAD BRIDGES NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITIES ..............................................................................
68
TABLE 7-27 - ROAD BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL ..........................................................................................
69
TABLE 7-28 - EMISSION FACTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................71
TABLE 7-29 - SERVICE LIFE OF BRIDGE COMPONENT ..............................................................................................................
71
TABLE 7-30 - CONSTRUCTION STAGE / GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE.......................................................................................73
TABLE 7-31 - OPERATION STAGE
/
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (1)........................................................................................73
TABLE 7-32 - OPERATION STAGE
/
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (2).....................................................................................
74
TABLE 7-33 - OPERATION STAGE
/
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (3).....................................................................................
74
TABLE 7-34 - MAINTENANCE STAGE / GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (1) ...............................................................................
75
TABLE 7-35 MAINTENANCE STAGE / GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (2)..................................................................................
75
TABLE 7-36 - CONSTRUCTION STAGE / MILLAU VIADUCT .....................................................................................................
76
TABLE 7-37 OPERATION STAGE / MILLAU VIADUCT (1)....................................................................................................
76
TABLE 7-38 - OPERATION STAGE / MILLAU VIADUCT (2) ...............................................................................................
77
TABLE 7-39 - MAINTENANCE STAGE
/
MILLAU VIADUCT (1).................................................................................................77
TABLE 7-40 - MAINTENANCE STAGE
/
MILLAU VIADUCT (2)............................................................................................78
TABLE 7-41 - MAINTENANCE STAGE
/
MILLAU VIADUCT (3)............................................................................................
TABLE 7-42 - CONSTRUCTION STAGE / SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE ................................................................................
TABLE 7-43 - OPERATION STAGE
/
TABLE 7-44 - OPERA TION STAGE
/ SYDNEY
TABLE 7-45 - OPERATION STAGE
/
78
79
SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE (1)................................................................................79
HARBOUR BRIDGE (2) ..................................................................................
80
SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE (3)................................................................................
80
TABLE 7-46 - MAINTENANCE STAGE
/
SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE (1) ............................................................................
81
TABLE 7-47 - MAINTENANCE STAGE
/
SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE (3) ..........................................................................
81
Rosalie Bianquis
83
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
TABLE OF EQUATIONS
EQUATION 4-1 - NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITY............................................................................................................28
EQUATION 4-2 - EMBODIED CARBON OF EACH MATERIAL ................................................................................................
28
EQUATION 4-3 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF THE BRIDGE......................................................................................28
EQUATION
5-1
- TOTAL EMISSION DURING CONSTRUCTION STAGE................................................................................40
EQUATION 5-2 - NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITY............................................................................................................41
EQUATION 5-3 - EMBODIED CARBON .........................................................................................................................................
41
EQUATION 5-4 - EMISSION DUE TO THE STRUCTURAL MATERIALS....................................................................................41
EQUATION 5-5 - ENERGY NEEDED PER MACHINE....................................................................................................................42
EQUATION 5-6 - EMISSION PER MACHINE ..................................................................................................................................
EQUATION
5-7
- EMISSIONS DUE TO THE USE OF MACHINES ..............................................................................................
42
42
EQUATION 5-8 - EMISSION OF EACH SUPPLIER..........................................................................................................................43
EQUATION 5-9 - EMISSION DUE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS....................................................................43
EQUATION 5-10 - EMISSION DURING THE OPERATION STAGE...........................................................................................43
EQUATION 5-11 - TOTAL ENERGY NEEDED FOR LIGHTS PER YEAR..................................................................................44
EQUATION 5-12 - TOTAL ENERGY NEEDED FOR LIGHTS ........................................................................................................
44
EQUATION 5-13 - EMISSIONS DUE TO LIGHTS ...........................................................................................................................
44
EQUATION 5-14 - EMISSION DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A TOLLBOOTH ..........................................................................
44
EQUATION 5-15 - TOTAL ENERGY NEEDED FOR THE TOLLBOOTH PER YEAR ................................................................
45
EQUATION 5-16 - TOTAL ENERGY NEEDED FOR THE TOLLBOOTH ..................................................................................
45
EQUATION 5-17 - EMISSION DUE TO THE ELECTRICITY NEEDED FOR THE TOLLBOOTH .............................................
45
EQUATION 5-18 - DISTANCE NEEDED TO STOP ........................................................................................................................
46
EQUATION 5-19 - EMISSION WITH TOLLBOOTH PER YEAR......................................................................................................46
EQUATION
5-20 - EMISSION WITHOUT TOLLBOOTH
EQUATION
5-21
PER YEAR..........................................................................................46
- TOTAL EMISSION SURPLUS PER YEAR...........................................................................................................46
EQUATION 5-22 - EMISSION DUE TO THE SLOWING DOWN OF TRAFFIC ..........................................................................
46
EQUATION 5-23 - EMISSION DUE TO MAINTENANCE...............................................................................................................47
EQUATION 5-24 - GASOLINE USED FOR EACH PATH ................................................................................................................
50
EQUATION 5-25 - EMISSION PER CAR WHEN THE BRIDGE IS CLOSED ................................................................................
50
EQUATION 5-26 - EMISSION DUE TO THE CLOSURE OF THE BRIDGE ................................................................................
50
EQUATION 5-27 - EMISSION DURING DELAYS PER CAR ...........................................................................................................
51
EQUATION 5-28 - EMISSION DURING DELAYS PER CAR ...........................................................................................................
51
EQUATION 5-29 - EMISSION DUE TO TRAFFIC DELAY ..............................................................................................................
52
EQUATION 5-30 - GASOLINE USED FOR EACH PATH ................................................................................................................
53
EQUATION 5-31 - EMISSION PER CAR SAVED .............................................................................................................................
53
EQ UATIO N 5-32 - E M ISSIO N SAVED .............................................................................................................................................
53
Rosalie Bianquis
84
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
TABLE OF GRAPHS
GRAPH 4-1 - NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITIES, PER SPAN .........................................................................................
30
GRAPH 4-2 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL ................................................................................
30
GRAPH 4-3 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL PER MATERIAL .................................................
31
GRAPH 4-4 - PEDESTRIAN GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL WITHOUT EXTREMITIES....................................................32
GRAPH 4-5 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
/
PER TYPE OF BRIDGE ...................................
GRAPH 4-6 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
/
PER SPAN..........................................................34
33
GRAPH 4-7 - ROAD BRIDGES NORMALIZED MATERIAL QUANTITIES .............................................................................
35
GRAPH 4-8 - ROAD BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL ..........................................................................................
36
GRAPH 4-9 - ROAD BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING PER MATERIAL......................................................................................
36
GRAPH 4-10 - ROAD BRIDGES GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL PER SPAN......................................................................37
GRAPH 4-11 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
/
GRAPH 4-12 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
/ ICE U.
ATHENA ECC.......................................................................................
OF BATH ECC .......................................................................
39
39
G RAPH 5-1 - C ASE STUD IES C O M PARISO N ..................................................................................................................................
55
G RA PH 5-2 - B EN EFITS VS. EM ISSIO N S ........................................................................................................................................
56
G RAPH 7-1 - C O N SUM PTION OF G ASOLIN E................................................................................................................................71
Rosalie Bianquis
85
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
8 REFERENCES
8.1
DOCUMENTATION
"Global Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
U.S. Department of Transportation. ww. w (I
.g
Cas sen, R. H. "Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development.'IntemationalAffairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944- ) 64.1 (1987):
126.
Life Cycle Assessment: What It Is and How to Do It. Tech. N.p.: UNEP, 1996. Print.
Hunt, Lauren R. Development of a Rating Systemfor SustainableBridges. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2004. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Marzouk, Mohamed, Ahmed Nouh, and Moheeb El-Said. "Developing Green Bridge Rating System Using
Simos'Procedure."HBRC Journal (2014): n. pag. Web.
Quantitiesand Embodied
De Wolf, Catherine, Ornella Iuorio, and John Ochsendorf. StructuralMaterial
Carbon Coeffidents: Challenges and Opportunities.Publication. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
Wolf, Catherine De. "MaterialQuantitiesin Building Structures and Their EnvironmentalImpact." Thesis.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014. Print.
Santero, Nicholas, Alexander Loijos, Medhi Akbarian, and John Ochsendorf. Methods, Impacts, and
Opportunitiesin the Concrete Pavement Life Cycle. Tech. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2011. Print.
Itoh, Yoshito, and Tetsuya Kitagawa. Using C02 Emission Quantitiesin Bridges Lifeycle Analysis. Tech.
N.p.: n.p., 2002. Print.
2014 CEQR Technical Manual. Tech. New York: City Of New York, 2014. Print.
Fisher, Olivier, Casimir Katz, Aexander Putz, Friedrich Schneider, Walter Streit, and Uwe Willberg.
"The Real Pric - Holistic Cost-Efideny Considerationsin Design and Construction of Infrastructure
Projects."Large Structures and Infrastructures for Environmentally Constrained and Urbanized
Areas (2010): n. pag. Web.
Hammond, Geoff, and Craig Jones. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE). Tech. UK: U of Bath, 2011.
Print.
Bojidar, Yanev, and Rene B. Testa. Life Cycle PerformanceofBridge Components in New York City. N.p.:
n.p., n.d. Web.
Treloar, G.J. (1994) EmbodiedEnergy Analysis of the Construction of Ofice Buildings, Master of Architecture
thesis, Deakin University, Geelong, October.
"Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge- Bridge World -. "Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge. Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Expressway
Company Limited, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Golden Gate TransportationDistrict."Golden Gate Transportation District. Golden Gate Bridge
Highway & Transportation District, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Sydney HarbourBridge." * Info about the Sydney Harbour Bridge. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Rosalie Bianquis
86
M.Eng Thesis
Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact of Bridges - 2015
Wild, David. "How To Ijght Up A Sydney HarbourBridge." Junkee (n.d.): n. pag. Web. Apr. 2015.
-
Paris, Michel. "LES INSTALL ATIONS ELECTRIQUES Du VIADUC DE MILLA U."
Groupement Des Professeurs De G6nie Electrique. N.p., 24 Nov. 2007. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Viaduc De Millau. Eiffage, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Hoxha, Endrit, Guillaume Habert, Jacques Chevalier, Manuel Bazzana, and Robert Le Roy. "Method to
Anayse the Contributon ofMaterials Sensitivio in Buildings' EnvironmentalImpact."Journalof Cleaner
Production 66 (2013): n. pag. Web.
8.2
IMAGES
"WW: Golden Gate Bridge Walk." UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb.
2015.
"Tower Bridge London." Reise-ABC, 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2015
Anctil, Annick, and Vasilis Fthenakis. Life Cycle Assessment Framework. Digital image. Intech. N.p.,
2012. Web.
Greenroads logo. Digital image. Greenroads. N.p., 2014. Web.
Greenroads Certification. Digital image. Greenroads. N.p., 2014. Web.
"The Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney." Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr.
2015.n
Rosalie Bianquis
87
M.Eng Thesis