Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Soil-steel composite bridge: An alternative design solution for short spans considering LCA
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering and Bridges. Aalborg Univ, Danish Bldg Res Inst, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6399-3546
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering and Bridges.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering and Bridges.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5447-2068
2018 (English)In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 189, p. 647-661Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In a bridge project, several alternative design solutions can be functionally equivalent for the designated location. Today's bridge constructions highly rely on the non-renewable resources, the consumption of fossil fuels, and the intensive usage of concrete. This urges designers to explore the new design options to mitigate the associated environmental burdens. When comparing to the concrete slab frame bridges (CFB), the soil-steel flexible culverts (or soil-steel composite bridge, SSCB) show advantages in ease erection, low maintenance as well as the competitive cost. However, its environmental performance has never been studied. This paper intends to compare the environmental performance of these two bridge types through the whole life cycle, based on 8 selected cases in Sweden. Unlike previous studies only limited to few impact indicators, this study comprehensively covers a wide range of indicators: including eleven types of mid-point impact categories, the cumulative energy demand (CED) and the associated cost. The construction phase, which seldom included previously, is a specific focus in this paper. The results find that: 1) the SSCBs show advantages over the CFBs in most of the investigated indicators; 2) the construction phase, when explicitly evaluated, may take up to 34% of the total life cycle environmental burdens; 3) the environmental performance of a bridge is closely linked with the bridge type selection, multiple indicators in the environmental domain, designers' preference, the construction phase, as well as the time schedule constraints.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ELSEVIER SCI LTD , 2018. Vol. 189, p. 647-661
Keywords [en]
Soil-steel composite bridge, Steel flexible culvert, Life cycle assessment, Bridge LCA, CO2 emission, Sustainable construction, Global warming
National Category
Environmental Management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-231177DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.097ISI: 000432771000058Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85047923889OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-231177DiVA, id: diva2:1233628
Note

QC 20180718

Available from: 2018-07-18 Created: 2018-07-18 Last updated: 2022-06-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Du, GuangliPettersson, LarsKaroumi, Raid
By organisation
Structural Engineering and Bridges
In the same journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Environmental Management

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 265 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf