Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

Sustainability assessment of road bridges

Martin MENSINGER Marjolaine PFAFFINGER Wolfgang SCHNELL

Civil Engineer
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dipl. Wirt.-
Ing. (NDS)
TechnischeUniversitätMünc
hen, Germany
m.mensinger@bv.tum.de
Martin Mensinger, born in 1967
recieved his civil engineering
degree from TU Karlsruhe,
Germany and his phdfrom TU
Kaiserslautern. After several
years in industry he returned to
university. He is the head of the
Chair for Metal structures at TU
München since 2006.
Civil Engineer
Building Materials Engineer
TechnischeUniversitätMünc
hen, Germany
m.pfaffinger@bv.tum.de
Marjolaine Pfaffinger, born 1979,
received her engineering degrees
from the TU München, Germany.
She worked as structural engineer
for the
henke+rapolderIngenieurgesellsc
haft before becoming Research
Associate at the Chair for Metal
Structures, TU München.
Civil Engineer
TechnischeUniversitätMünc
hen, Germany
Wolfgang.Schnell@mytum.de
Wolfgang Schnell, born 1986,
received his civil engineering
degree from the TU München,
Germany. He wrote his master-
thesis in the field of sustainability
assessment of composite Bridges
and now works for the Müller-
BBM GmbH in the fields of
energy efficiency and
sustainability.

Summary
The reason why sustainability criteria at the time have hardly any influence on the choice of a
bridge design is that it is an extensive procedure which takes too much time to be done during the
planning phase and so mostly the cheapest building price is thedecisivefactor. For easily making
decisions with a holistic view, it is important to know the key factors that really have a noteworthy
influence on the sustainability, considering the whole life cycle and not only the construction phase.
Therefore, sustainability assessment is carried out on several bridges with similar boundary
conditions. Itwasfound thatone of themost important parametersis a correctpicture of
futurescenariosandthat one structureshould alwaysbeconsideredonlyas partof an entireconstruction
stage.
Keywords: bridges; sustainability; composite; road bridges; life-cycle assessment; sustainability
assessment, carbon footprint.

1. Introduction
Sustainability assessment is a useful instrument for a holistic evaluation of bridges. In future, it is
intended to be used during the planning phase. The reason for this kind of evaluation is generally to
improve the quality of constructions. This objective is achieved by affording a comparability of
different designs which could offer a decision-making aid. The goal should be to plan not only
individual bridges but whole alignments as economically, efficiently and socially accepted as
possible without neglecting environmental aspects. The problem is that the implementation of a
holistic evaluation usually is a tedious process.Therefore, a simplification is needed to make it
realizable. One useful way to this target is to look at the current possibilities regarding the current
boundary conditions and then to pick out the main indicators that cause a change and to eliminate
those who don’t affect the whole result in a significant value.
In the following report especially the carbon footprint for different Bridges is described, and a
comparison between different construction types is shown.
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

2. Scenario and sample bridges

Within a given framework, three sample bridges with similar boundary conditions are investigated
and compared.The scenario is a small span bridge on a federal roadthat crosses a highway in
Bavaria, Germany. Two different composite bridges on the same stageofconstruction are selected,
which ensures an excellent comparability. Both bridges are combined frame systems with precast
composite beams and an in-situ concrete slab. Bridge A is an integral bridge without center pier.
Bridge B has a center pier located on the medial strip. Dueto the high market share of concrete
bridges, a comparison with this construction method is carried out, too. Bridge C has the same main
support system as Bridge B, but the precast beams are made of prestressed concrete. All
threebridgesare basedonreal, existingbuildings [1].

Fig.1: Elevations and cross section parts of the three sample bridges

Table 1: Key parameters of the three sample bridges

bridge A bridge B bridge C
clear width 43,00 m 27,20 m + 26,30 m 22,90 m + 24,40 m
effective span 45,2 m 33,15 m + 32,20 m 24,40 m + 25,70 m
clear hight >4,7 m >4,7 m >4,7 m
breadth 11,75 m 12,25 m 7,90 m
bridge area 532 m² 800 m² 366 m²
year of construction 2007/2008 2007-2009 2007/2008
age of the replaced bridge 70 a 21 a 70 a

The considered freeway is renewed and enhanced by an additional lane (from two to three) in both
directions over a total length of 37 km. The whole construction took all in all three and a half years.
Within this enhancement overall 61 crossovers and undergrade crossings had to be rebuilt. The
process of building was divided in 6 stages and two main construction phases. In the first phase
every second stage was extended by an additional lane on one direction, this direction was closed
and the opposite direction held all four lanes. After this lane was completed, all four lanes were laid
on the new built road and the second direction was built in the same way. Within the second phase
for all remaining stages one direction was built adjacent to the existing trace without traffic
impairment. After finishing this new lane of the freeway both traffic directions were relocated to
this part. The final lane was built in the same place, where the old freeway was running [2].
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

Due to thatt complex and

a successfful strategy,, the differeent bridges over
o the freeeway are su
ubordinatedd
to the buildding process of the who
ole trace.

3. CO
O2-Compaarison of bridges
In Fig.2thee carbonfoottprint of theecompared bbridges is sp pecified in detail. The bbasis for the
calculationn and the daata for the materials
m is ggiven by thee ökobau.daat database,eestablished by the
German Feederal Ministry of Tran nsportation, Building an nd Urban Developmen
D nt [3]. The reecycling
potential foor steel is allso considerred accordinng to this daatabase. To determine tthe durabiliity of the
different paarts of the structures,
s thhe experiennce data from m the Germ man Federal Office for RoadR
Planning [44] is used. The
T CO2- em mission is sscaled to thee deck area of a bridge,, due to this, a
comparisonn and the poossibility off categorizinng for differrent bridgess is enabledd. Because of o the
different life span of varying
v builldings the caarbon-footpprint is also pictured in relation to the
complete liife of a struucture. In thee given calcculation it iss assumed, that
t the briddges will last 100
years, whicch correspoonds tothe sccheduledlifee spanof briidgesaccord ding to the ccurrentstate of the artin
Germany [[5], [6], [7].
Fig. 2showws that the G
Global Warm ming
Potential of
o the compoosite bridgees is quite
similar when scaled too the area off the
superstructture. Both C
CO2 emissio ons defer
merely by 0,3 kg (per year and sq qare meter)
which commes up to a ddifference of
o about
2,7 %.The carbon foottprint of thee concrete
bridgetakes place in thhe same rannge, too. It
differs by 0,3-0,6
0 kg oor 0,27-0,55
5%.
In the diag
gram the carrbon footpriint is
divided in manufacturring, mainteenance,
end-of-livee and other eemissions. While
W the
manufacturing describbes only thee emission
produced by b the materrials, the othher
emissions include bassically all em missions
during the assemblingg process itsself (e.g.
electricity and fuel onn the construuction site).
The term maintenance
m e denotes th
he carbon
footprint of all materiaals which have
h to be
renewed ov ver the lifesspan of the whole
w
Fig.2: Carrbon footpriint of bridgee A, B and C structure (e
especially s
surface proteection,
concrete caap and equip ipment). In the
t
category “oother emission” the add ditional emiissions duriing the main ntenance proocess are allso
included. T
The categoryy end-of-liv ve summarizzes the CO2-emission that t is causeed by the diisposal of
the materiaals. In this case
c steel caauses a reduuction in thee carbon foootprint.
It is shownn quite clearrly by the giiven exampple, that the specific carrbon footpriint is more or
o less
independennt from the bridge deck k area. Besiides, regardiing CO2 thee difference between similar or
different coonstruction types can also
a be negl ectedwhereethe summattionconcernnsonly theem missions
that are dirrectlyassociatedwith the bridge itseelf.
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

4. The role of traffic

With regard to CO2 balance it is not sufficient to only consider the emissions that are directly
associated to the building during the construction, renovation and deconstruction phase. Rather, it is
important to include traffic-related emissions because they provide a significant contribution to the
overall balance.
For infrastructure buildings any construction, renovation and demolition operation leads to
impairments in the current traffic. If it concerns bridges in the road construction sector this may
affect both transport routes, the upper one and the lower one. Traffic jams and diversions not only
cause external costs, but also considerable environmental damage due to pollutants. Considering the
CO2 emission, several scenarios will be shown on the bridges A and B to demonstrate the
importance of traffic and its growth rate on the LCA.Dueto its highertraffic volume, only
thetrafficimpactof thefreeway will be demonstrated.

4.1 The importance of traffic to the CO2 emission in the LCA

The adverse effects on traffic take origin at three points in the life cycle:construction, maintenance
and decommission. During the construction phase, a full closure is needed for a short time while
levying the prefabricated parts of the composite bridges. In the use phase, the individual lanes are
sometimes of limited use because of maintenance and repair. At the end-of-life, the bridge will be
dismantled under full closure.
Table 2:Forecast of traffic impairments on a highway during life cycle of one crossing bridge

occasion bridge age duration (bridge A) duration (bridge B) impairment type

[years] [hours] [hours]

Different situation during the whole building Process.

construction 0 The traffic was analyzed separate in the different stages of
construction
maintenance of concrete caps,
surfaceimpoundment, 25 9 12 limited use
roadsurface, expansion joints,
drainage
maintenance of the anti-
corrosioncoating (foundation and 35 450 616 limited use
superstructure)
maintenance of concrete
(foundation and superstructure),
concrete caps, 50 232 315 limited use
surfaceimpoundment,
roadsurface, expansion joints,
drainage
maintenance of the anti-
corrosioncoating (foundation and 70 450 616 limited use
superstructure)
maintenance of concrete caps,
surfaceimpoundment,
roadsurface, expansion joints, 75 9 12 limited use
drainage
deconstruction 100 1 night 1 night full closure

Thetraffic jamhoursare determinedaccording to [7]. One hour of traffic jam means, that one car is
delayed by one hour.Multiplying the jam hours in CO2 emissions from the vehicle ultimately
provides the additional emissions due to traffic disruption. Forbridge Aand bridgeB, results are
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 5

givenin Taable 3.The calculation

c was
w done w
with differen
nt emission factors
f for hheavy goods vehicles
(HGV) andd passengerr cars.
.
1
1,35 (1)
∗
.
17,56 (2)
∗

Table 3: H
Hours of traff
ffic jam, add
ditional CO
O2emissions
traffic jam
j duration traffic jam
m duration CO2 emiissions CO2 emissions
bridge age
brridge A bridgge B bridgee A bridgee B
[years]
[hhours] [houurs] [t] [t]
0 26 502 2 376 90,9 8,1
25 64 85 0,2
2 0,3
3
35 5 850 8 008 20,1 27,6
6
50 17 383 233 602 59,8 81,2
2
70 2 414
217 2977 616 748,1 1 024
4,1
75 5 660 7 546 19,5 26,0
0
Sum: 938,7 1 167
7,3

Compared with the caarbon footprrint of the sttructure itseelf the Global Warmingg Potential related
r to
the traffic iis in a simillar range. Fu
urthermore the differennce between n both struct
ctures is morre clearly
than in the previous coomparison in i chapter 33. One of thee biggest prroblems in ddetermining
g the
specific COO2 emissionn as a result of traffic jaam is the meethod of maaintenance. Usually theere is not
only one brridge mainttained at thee same timee on the sam me constructtion section of the roaddway. To
analyze thee correct CO O2 emission n per bridge , the complete section should be cconsidered.

Fig.3: Com
mparison off CO2 emisssion caused by traffic and
a caused by
b the struccture
6 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

4.2 Inffluence of a change in the traffic growth ratte

The basic vvalue for deetermining the
t carbon ffootprint off the traffic caused
c by im
mpairment due to the
maintenancce of bridgees is the trafffic growth rate. The prrevious com mparison waas done for three
different prredicted groowth rates. The
T rate useed in the previous chap pter (0,7 % pp.a.traffic growth)
g is
based on ann forecast thhat is surveyed by an G Germancom mpany [8] inn the year 20007 with 18 8 years of
prediction period (up tot 2025). Th he growth rrate concern ns all Germaan streets, H
HGVs as weell as cars.
Additionallly a secondd growth rate is used, w which is baseed on a foreecast concerrning the Baavarian
freeways. IIn this foreccast the growwth rate is mmentioned with
w 1,2 % p.a. p The forrecast was published
p
in the year 2000 by a Bavarian
B in
nstitute [9] aand deals with a period
d of 15 yearss. As a third
d variation,
no traffic ggrowth at all is considered.
As seen in Table 4, deepending onn the traffic growth the CO2 emissiion differs qquite a lot. Besides
B the
proportion between brridge A and d bridge B ddiffers, too. When theree is considerred no traffiic growth
wo bridges cause very different sppecific CO2 emissions due to traffi
at all, the tw fic impairmeent.
Table 4: Sppecific CO22 emission due
d to trafficc impairmeent, depending on traffic
ic growth

traffic growthh speccific CO2 emisssion due to traffic proportion

impairmennt [kg/m²a]
bridge A bridge B brridge A / bridg
ge B
0 % p.a. 1,05 0,07 0,06
0,7 % p.a. 10,79 9,71 0,90
1,2 % p.a. 173,68 170,92 0,98

While therre is no trafffic growth, the

t additionnal CO2 emiission is onlly caused duuring the co onstruction
period. It is a major prroblem, thatt in this proocess stage the
t building g itself is onnly of minorr
importancee. During thhe constructtion, the foccus mainly lies
l on the road itself. T The more traaffic jam is
caused, thee less differeence betweeen the consttructions occcurs. It is obvious
o thatt the emissio
on is the
same, whenn the trafficc comesto a complete sstandstill.
Fig.4shows theaccumuulatedadditiionalCO2em missions duee to congesttion at diffeerent pointsiin the lifeoff
bridgeA annd bridge B for the secoond scenariio (traffic grrowth of 0,77% per yearr).It is apparrent thatthe
majority off theemissioonis produced in ahighbbridgeage. Ominouslyt
O this is preciisely theperiiod for
whichoneccanonlymakkeinaccurateepredictionss concerning g the traffic volume.

Fig.4: Absolute value of the accu

umulated CO
O2 emission
n due to traff
ffic jams
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 7

5. Final comments, discussion, and conclusions

As shown in the previous chapters, bridges with similar constructions have very similar specific
carbon footprints. Therefore the different types of construction could be analyzed and categorized
in some kind of catalogue to simplify the evaluation process. The LCA could then quickly be
worked out by multiplying the bridge area with a construction specific CO2 emission. The traffic
should be considered separate and together with the trace and other buildings in one freeway section.
In the illustrated excerpt from a sustainability analysis it is apparent that fora holistic viewnotonly
thedesign of thesinglebridgeis crucial.For the carbon footprint it is major to provide a realistic and
sensible long-term planning. The difficulty lies on looking in the future. In order to plan more
sustainable the scenario of the future must be depict as accurately as possible. In the long term
infrastructures should neither be under-engineered nor oversized compared to their needs. Perhaps
the key lies in flexible expandable structures. Also, itisnotpossible todesignate acertaindesignin
general asthemost or the less sustainable. Factors such as transportation routes for raw materials or
prefabricated parts, alternative routes at road closures and road occupancy play a major role that is
not dependent on the design type in general. Furthermore, the construction method (integral or not
integral) is also depending on the road layout in a highway section during the construction phase.
The advantages of integral design (no exchange of expansion joints and possibly bearings) do not
always outweigh the disadvantages caused by the lift in full-width (no possibility of using the road
under the second field of the bridge).
The problem in assessing the CO2 emissions due to traffic jam is, that occurring traffic jam hours
usually cannot be associated with a single construction measure. If in one construction stage several
bridges are built or maintained at the same time and possibly also carriageway additions and
modifications are developed, then the allocation is almost impossible. Furthermore, thecreationof an
association key for assigning an amount of congestion hours to one bridge isnot an optionbecause of
potentialoverlaps andcompletelydifferent boundaryconditions at variousconstruction projects.
It is notablethat thetraffic jamhoursaffectnot onlythecarbon footprint and thusthe environmental
quality. It also creates disadvantages with regard to the economic quality in the form of external
costs and moreover dissatisfaction, which prejudices the social performance. Thus, congestions
cause a negative impact on allthree pillarsof sustainability.
Thenext stepsinclude thepreparationof a cataloguewhich summarizesthe determiningindicators.A
checklistwillhelpto identify all available choicesconcerning one specificconstruction project that, in
terms of sustainability, cause arelevant change inthe final result. In addition,it has been found,
that smallinaccuraciesin the predictionof traffic growthcan affect the carbon footprint in a
drastically way.Therefore, there is still considerableneed for research in termsoftraffic forecastsand
the method of evaluating the congestionhour rate.

6. References
[1] a+ GmbH: a8 augsburg – münchen, Zahlen, Daten und Fakten. WWW:
http://www.autobahnplus.de (11-06-09)
[2] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen – Abteilung Straßenbau,
Straßenverkehr: Richtlinien für die Sicherung von Arbeitsstellen an Straßen – RSA, 6.
Auflage; Verkehrsblatt Verlag, Dortmund 1995.
[3] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS): „Baustoff- und
Gebäudedaten, Ökobau.dat“, 2009. WWW: http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/baustoff-und-
gebaeudedaten/oekobaudat.html (2011-06-30)
[4] BASt - Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Forschungsinstitut im Geschäftsbereich des
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS). WWW:
http://www.bast.de/ (2012-01-20)
8 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

[5] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung: DIN-Fachbericht 101– Einwirkungen auf Brücken,
Beuth Verlag, Berlin 2009
[6] HAARDT P., SCHMELLEKAMP C.: Nachhaltigkeit im Brückenbau, Expertengespräch
Stahlbrückenbau, Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Bergisch Gladbach 2011
[7] MIELECKE T., KISTNER V., GRAUBNER C.-A., KNAUF A., FISCHER O., SCHMIDT-
THRÖ G.: „Schlussbericht – Entwicklung einheitlicher Bewertungskriterien für Infrastruk-
turbauwerke in Hinblick auf Nachhaltigkeit“; Life Cycle Engineering Experts GmbH
(LCEE); Technische Universität Darmstadt – Institut für Massivbau, Fachgebiet Massivbau;
Technische Universität München (TUM) – Lehrstuhl für Massivbau, München/ Darmstadt,
2010
[8] Interplan Consult (ITP): Verkehrsprognose 2025 als Grundlage für den Gesamtverkehrsplan
Bayern – Abschlussbericht; Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur,
Verkehr und Technologie, München, 2010. WWW: http://daten.clearingstelle-
verkehr.de/220/ (2011-07-10)
[9] RATZENBERGER R., SCHNEIDER J.: Ifo Forschungsberichte – Verkehrsprognose
Bayern 2015, ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, München 2001.
[10] Oberste Baubehörde im Bayerischen Staatsministerium des Inneren: Straßen und
Brückenbau, BAYSIS, Zahlen und Fakten, Straßenverkehrszählungen. WWW:
http://www.baysis.bayern.de/Veroeffentlichungen/zis_quartalshefte.aspx
(2011-06-12)
[11] LÜNSER H.: Ökobilanzen im Brückenbau – Eine umweltbezogene ganzheitliche
Bilanzierung, 1. Auflage,Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (CH) 1999.