Life-Cycle Cost and Life-Cycle Assessment Analysis at the Design Stage of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Bridge in Florida

Abstract

To support and promote the deployment of innovative technologies in infrastructure, it is fundamental to quantify their implications in terms of both economic and environmental impacts.Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars and Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strands are validated corrosion-resistant solutions for Reinforced Concrete (RC) and Prestressed Concrete (PC) structures. Studies on the performances of FRP reinforcement in seawater and saltcontaminated concrete have been conducted and show that the technology is a viable solution.Nevertheless, the economic and environmental implications of FRP-RC/PC deployment have not been fully investigated. This paper deals with the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyses of an FRP-RC/PC bridge in Florida. The bridge is designed to be entirely reinforced with FRP bars and strands and does not include any Carbon Steel (CS) reinforcement. Furthermore, the deployment of seawater concrete in some of the elements of the bridge is considered. LCC and LCA analyses at the design stage are performed. Data regarding equipment, labor rates, consumables, fuel consumption and disposal were collected during the construction phase and the analysis is refined accordingly. The FRP-RC/PC bridge design is

Cost and environmental analyses of reinforcement alternatives for a concrete bridge

“…Even though some researchers (Younis et al, 2018;Brown, 2015) properties and current design limitations, such as their lower elastic modulus which negatively affect the deflections and crack widths, and limited creep-rupture resistance properties that affect the long-term performance of the structure. Thus, this paper accounts for the inflated FRP-to-CS reinforcement ratios presented and discussed by (Cadenazzi et al, 2019a).…”

“…The model presented in this paper adopts the same nomenclature and procedures presented in the above standards. As widely discussed by Cadenazzi et al (2019a), the concept of service life is distinct from the concept of design life. There is a number of studies that identify the 75-year period as service life of bridge projects that use CS as reinforcement (Cadenazzi et al, 2019a), whereas with the adoption of innovative enduring materials, the industry aim to assure an extended service life.…”

“…A chloride concentration value of 14 kg/m 3 was assumed, and the predicted service life of each alternative was the sum of the corrosion initiation and corrosion propagation periods, after which it was assumed the structure encounters a certain level of damage requiring repair (Ehlen et al 2009). With regards to the CS-RC/PC and the FRP-RC/PC design solutions, the model considers the same assumptions used in Cadenazzi et al, 2019a. This includes the installation and maintenance of cathodic protections (CP) for bearing piles, and either crack repair, CS-reinforcement rehabilitation, or precast element replacement for the CS-RC/PC solution (Cadenazzi et al, 2019a).…”

“…With regards to the CS-RC/PC and the FRP-RC/PC design solutions, the model considers the same assumptions used in Cadenazzi et al, 2019a. This includes the installation and maintenance of cathodic protections (CP) for bearing piles, and either crack repair, CS-reinforcement rehabilitation, or precast element replacement for the CS-RC/PC solution (Cadenazzi et al, 2019a).…”

“…The preventive maintenance is effectively conducted on the bridge "hot" areas prone to corrosion (Cadenazzi et al, 2019a) so that the corrosion initiation period could restart. However, at year 31, the model assumes that the corrosion propagation period, even though partially interrupted, reached in specific areas its limit and the level of damage that requires the structure essential repair is reached.…”