Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of a short-span aluminium composite bridge deck in Canada

Life Cycle Assessment of a Road Transverse Prestressed Wooden–Concrete Bridge

“…These three categories form the triangle of the most significant environmental damage, accounting for 84% of the total negative environmental impacts for WCB and 89% for SCB (Figure 9). Pedneault et al [11] analysis has shown a carbon footprint of 8960 kg CO2 eq/m 2 for a concrete deck on steel beams (CD) and 4870 kg CO2 eq/m 2 for the aluminum deck (AD) on steel beams according to the scope 2 (complete life cycle without traffic diversion), it is slightly higher than the steel-concrete bridge with 4090 kg CO2 eq/m 2 [40] and a few times use as a substitute for original material (concrete) can reduce environmental impact by up to 40%. Martínez-Muñoz et al [28] state that prestressed concrete is the best alternative for bridge lengths less than 17 m. The prestressed cellular concrete deck is the best alternative for bridge lengths between 17 m and 25 m because no box girder solution is used.…”

“…Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the time in which structural systems and the materials used for construction have the potential to minimize the impact on the environment [5][6][7]. Several authors, such as Balogun et al [7], Horvath and Hendrickson [8], Zhang et al [9], Du and Karoumi [10], and Pedneault et al [11], conducted detailed studies comparing basic material groups in the construction of bridges, for example, steel, concrete, aluminum, etc., in their environmental impact assessment. Similar publications focused on the environmental impact of bridges [4,[12][13][14][15][16] proved that there is a clear need for environmental information at various stages of the life cycle of the bridge structures.…”

“…As part of material reuse, structural steel in reinforced concrete structures has significantly higher recyclability than concrete-up to 98% recyclability [10,24]. A comparison of composite bridge structures, for example, steel beams connected with an aluminum bridge deck or steel beams connected with a concrete bridge deck, is dealt with in [11]. It is obvious that the material composition of the structure has an important role in the life cycle stages of bridge structures.…”

“…The study from Hammervold et al[12] demonstrates a ten times lower carbon footprint per m 2 compared to the study from Pedneault et al[11], but they considered only routine repair actions and studied different bridge designs and lengths.Compared to this case, the values are about 10 times smaller; for example, the amount of steel in the study of Pedneault et al[11] is 136.82 kg/m 2 for CD and 78.08 kg/m 2 for AD, compared to 114.276 kg/m 2 for WCB and 418.824 kg/m 2 for SCB in this study. Pedneault et al[11] used the same evaluation method but different software to calculate the damage. In addition, this research deals purely with the material level of the bridges with different structural systems and a different scope of inventory analysis.…”

“…Pedneault et al[11] analysis has shown a carbon footprint of 8960 kg CO 2 eq/m2 for a concrete deck on steel beams (CD) and 4870 kg CO 2 eq/m2 for the aluminum deck (AD) on steel beams according to the scope 2 (complete life cycle without traffic diversion), it is slightly higher than the steel-concrete bridge with 4090 kg CO 2 eq/m 2[40] and a few times higher the concrete slab frame bridges with 1370 kg CO 2 eq/m 2[19]. The study from Hammervold et al[12] demonstrates a ten times lower carbon footprint per m 2 compared to the study from Pedneault et al[11], but they considered only routine repair actions and studied different bridge designs and lengths.Compared to this case, the values are about 10 times smaller; for example, the amount of steel in the study of Pedneault et al[11] is 136.82 kg/m 2 for CD and 78.08 kg/m 2 for AD, compared to 114.276 kg/m 2 for WCB and 418.824 kg/m 2 for SCB in this study. Pedneault et al[11] used the same evaluation method but different software to calculate the damage.…”