Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

High-performance materials in infrastructure: a review of applied life

cycle costing and its drivers e the case of fiber-reinforced composites
Patrick Ilg, Christoph Hoehne, Edeltraud Guenther*
Technische Universitaet Dresden, Faculty of Economics, Chair of Environmental Management and Accounting, Muenchner Platz 1/3, 01062 Dresden,
Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, an investment bottleneck for public infrastructure has accumulated in many industrial
Received 15 January 2015 countries. Life cycle costing (LCC) is an appropriate management instrument for long-term and sus-
Received in revised form tainable investment. This article addresses the evaluation of high-performance materials (HPM) using
11 June 2015
LCC to reduce that investment bottleneck. Our research questions are, first, whether and how LCC can be
Accepted 10 July 2015
Available online 26 July 2015
applied to HPM, second, which drivers are primarily influencing the results of a LCC analysis for HPM,
and finally, whether HPM are suitable for infrastructure investments, according to economic, social and
environmental criteria. We use a comprehensive literature review to analyze existing case studies that
Keywords:
Life cycle costing
apply LCC to HPM. Our review shows that LCC is applied to HPM for structural applications with different
LCC levels of detail and quality. The initial results indicate that total life cycle costs for HPM are on average
High-performance materials 10% higher. We urge the optimization of the cost structure of HPM to achieve the same level of life cycle
FRP costs as conventional construction materials. Moreover, we argue for a more holistic approach that does
ECC not ignore sustainability criteria throughout the life cycle of HPM based on the identified drivers of life
Comprehensive literature review cycle costs: external costs, an extended life cycle, the discount rate and the expected service life. Indeed,
a screened subsample of eight cases is very competitive, with average total life cycle costs for HPM that
are 8.4% lower. We share the belief in a more eco-centric approach and, therefore, demand further
research into a societal type of LCC that improves the mechanical properties while not ignoring sus-
tainability criteria for new product systems such as HPM.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction preventive maintenance or improvements of highway bridges

Investment in public infrastructure is an important policy area
for most developed and developing countries (Bhattacharya et al.,
2012; Lin and Doemeland, 2012). In particular, repair and mainte-
nance costs dominate the public discussion. In France, approxi-
mately 50% of more than 20,000 bridges located along 30,000 km of
national roads require repairs (Radomski, 2002). A similar picture is
observed throughout Europe, where nearly 84,000 concrete
bridges require maintenance, repair, and strengthening with an
annual budget of EUR 253 million, excluding external costs, e.g.,
traffic management (Hollaway, 2003; Pantura, 2011). In the USA, a
recent federal highway bill signed into law authorizes USD 25.2
billion for interstate maintenance and USD 21.6 billion for
* Corresponding author. Chair of Environmental Management and Accounting,
TU Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany. Tel.: þ49 351 463 34313.
E-mail address: ema@mailbox.tu-dresden.de (E. Guenther).
through 2009 (Kendall et al., 2008a). Thus, a bottleneck in infra-
structure investments is evident. Infrastructure that is responsible
for high material consumption and significant CO2 emissions may
require new materials that are more sustainable and resource
efficient. Eco-innovations that provide long-term solutions, i.e., low
maintenance or high recyclability, exist and are well suited to enter
a broad market to diminish the aforementioned bottleneck (Hofstra
and Huisingh, 2014).
One promising product, as well as process innovation (OECD/
Eurostat, 2005), in infrastructure is the application of high-
performance materials (HPM). Among these construction mate-
rials, high-performance concrete, engineered cementitious com-
posites (ECC), fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), and fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRC) are considered important, in particular for innova-
tive repair and rehabilitation (Ehlen, 1997). In the latter, FRC,
continuous fibers of carbon or glass are embedded in a cement-
based matrix. FRC is mainly used as a reinforcing material that is
applied, e.g., in tunnel construction, structural ceilings, and wall

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.051
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
cladding (Asokan et al., 2009). A similar product, although used
differently, are FRP, “a combination of a polymer (plastic) matrix [
… and] a reinforcing agent such as glass, carbon, aramid or other
reinforcing material” (Sahirman et al., 2003). In contrast to FRP, ECC
are ultra-ductile short-fiber-reinforced cementitious composites
mixed together with concrete on the construction side (Li, 1998,
2003; Lin et al., 1999). Henceforth, for linguistic convenience, the
abbreviation HPM is used to express a general characterization of
fiber reinforcements for FRC, FRP, and ECC. Further differentiations
of the three materials follow in Section 3.
HPM were “not seen as a material likely to make an impact on
general bridge engineering, until the last 10 years when the full
implications of corrosion of steel in modern bridges and the specific
weight of the material were appreciated” (Hollaway, 2003). At
present, manufacturing HPM is often more expensive than con-
ventional steel-reinforced concrete (SRC). Initially high production
costs, including what Ehlen (1999) calls “new-material introduc-
tion costs”, are typical of innovations. It is important that these
innovative alternatives establish a competitive cost structure and
move up on the “experience curve” (Henderson, 1984). The po-
tential of innovative materials becomes apparent if life cycle costs
are considered and the planning horizon of investments is
appropriate.
Past reviews mainly concentrate on technical and materials
science issues or a specific subfield of HPM but less on (life cycle)
costs. This is partly surprising because only changes in the
decision-making process, currently often based on financial and
minimally on sustainability criteria, will lead to changes in infra-
structure investments. Only after such changes would HPM help to
overcome the existing bottleneck. One promising approach is the
application of target costing (Sakurai and Keating, 1994) to inno-
vative technologies in the early design stage, which if integrated
with life cycle costing (LCC) will optimize not only the techno-
logical but also the economic performance of a material or prod-
uct. Two reviews by Keller (2001) and Burgoyne and Balafas
(2007) come close to what is attempted here. Our review as-
sesses HPM for structural applications using LCC by means of a
comprehensive literature review to investigate the aforemen-
tioned aspects and draw general conclusions. We direct our in-
terest to the state of the art for LCC and similar cost estimation
techniques in comparison to conventional materials. Drivers and
stakeholders receive special attention during the analysis. The
latter share unequal levels of life cycle costs, although they are all
involved in the dissemination of new products (Fassin, 2009;
Mitchell et al., 1997). Neither of the above-mentioned reviews
achieves the comprehensive scope of this study. To the best of our
knowledge, no other review to date analyzes the application of
LCC to HPM in a quantitative manner.
The objectives of this study are to
 investigate whether and how LCC is applied to HPM and to
compare the results of the LCC calculations while analyzing the
level of detail and quality (4.2),
 identify drivers that primarily influence the results of LCC for
HPM and their share and impacts on involved stakeholders
(4.3), and
 discuss whether HPM are suitable, in terms of sustainability
criteria, for solving the investment bottleneck in public infra-
structure existing in industrialized countries, and eventually,
draw general conclusions about innovations in HPM for infra-
structure (4.4).
The results of this study are helpful, in particular, for the plan-
ners, users, and builders of public infrastructure who evaluate
various material options and may justify or deny the feasibility of
927
using HPM for construction projects. The identified drivers of a
comprehensive LCC are valuable for future calculations.
After describing the material and methodology of the compre-
hensive literature review in the second section, the theory behind
LCC, the stakeholder approach, HPM is discussed in section three.
Thereafter, the results and discussion of our review are presented in
section four, which answers the aforementioned research ques-
tions. In the last section, conclusions are drawn.
2. Material and methodology
We use a comprehensive literature review to explore and syn-
thesize relevant studies applying LCC to HPM for construction.
According to Cooper (1982), a comprehensive literature review
consists of five steps: problem formulation, data collection, data
evaluation, analysis and interpretation, and public presentation.
Seuring and Müller (2008) suggest similar steps, following an
approach by Fink (2010) and Mayring (2003). A detailed description
of how to review data for life cycle assessment (LCA) provides
further inspiration (Zumsteg et al., 2012). Combining all of these
suggestions, we use four steps in our review: selection of research
questions and bibliographic databases, practical screening, meth-
odological screening, and last, synthesis of results. Prior to the
decision regarding search strategy and delimitation criteria, exist-
ing reviews (see Appendix B) are analyzed to identify the academic
and practiced status quo, withdraw preliminary research questions,
extract search words, and develop a set of categories used to code
our final sample.
In the first step, we select our research questions, the databases
and websites, and the appropriate search terms. The cases are
sourced via established bibliographic databases (EBSCOhost,
Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, Fraunhofer IRB-DB and IEEE
Xplore) and the search engines of major publishers (Elsevier,
Emerald, Springer, and Wiley). Google Scholar is used to broaden
the scope. We include only cases from peer-reviewed journals and
conference proceedings. In a systematic search process, the key-
words and expressions for cases (‘case’), synonyms for LCC (‘life
cycle cost*’ ‘cost of ownership*’ ‘whole life cost*’) and HPM (‘fib*
reinforc*’, ‘textile reinforc*’, ‘carbon fib*’) are deployed and con-
nected by Boolean operators. The search terms stem from the
screening of existing reviews.
In the second step, practical screening, determined criteria for
the inclusion or exclusion of the relevant literature in German and
English are applied. The screening is performed by two authors
and repeated once after the coding of all papers to ensure that all
relevant articles are included. Using the approach of Becheikh
et al. (2006), only title and abstract are examined to identify
valuable articles during a first screening. The authors agree upon
applying rather broad inclusion criteria (Nutley et al., 2000) owing
to the innovative character of HPM and low number of studies
specifically examining LCC in this area. A peer review criterion is
selected to satisfy minimum quality standards. A case criterion is
applied to base the synthesis of our analysis upon empiric evi-
dence (Hoon, 2013; Tranfield et al., 2003). We include only cases
with concrete cost data for any life cycle stage. Moreover, the ar-
ticles must relate to construction and any type of HPM using fiber
reinforcements. Of the 1098 studies initially identified by the
search terms, 1036 are excluded during this first screening,
resulting in 56 studies (six studies are not available). Additionally,
Cooper's (1982) concept of the “invisible college” is applied during
a doctoral workshop at TU Dresden to broaden the search area and
validate our methodology. Five further studies are added in this
way or by means of cross references (snowball system). The low
number of additional papers indicates the validity of the research
design.
928 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

In the third step, methodological screening, we develop and
apply criteria from the aforementioned reviews to form a coding
scheme via feedback loops. The articles are analyzed and coded
using MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis software program. The
coding is conducted by two authors. Intercoder reliability is
addressed by doubling the coding, formulating a comprehensive
review protocol, and e where necessary e discussing differing
judgments (Seuring and Müller, 2008). Uncertainty over the coding
is resolved in various meetings via communicative validation
(Kvale, 1995). The coding scheme takes into account the relevant
information of the studies including elements of LCC and HPM. The
scheme is discussed and validated by experts and PhD colleagues
following El-Diraby and Rasic (2004). Rigor of research is accom-
plished through a systematic approach that ensures the objectivity
of the research process. Reliability is addressed by having all steps
of the formal analysis conducted by two researchers. By comparing
the codings, we observe high intercoder reliability. We individually
assess and resolve coding differences.
In the fourth step, syntheses of the findings are summarized and
presented (see Section 4). Prior to that, section three elaborates on
the necessary theory behind LCC, stakeholders, and HPM.
3. Theory
Tang and Podolny (1999) claim “that the space age technology
that delivered the stealth aircraft can eliminate corrosion from our
bridges”. Accordingly, HPM are regarded as functionally superior.
Yet, it remains a question whether they are financially, environ-
mentally, and socially viable.
These last aspects are of interest when assessing management
instruments that adequately support decision-makers in the eval-
uation of infrastructure investments by comparing HPM to other
technologies. Blake et al. (2009) call “for a multidisciplinary
[design] optimization [ … ] not only examin[ing] performance but
also incorporat[ing] financial modeling, such as life-cycle cost [ …
]”. LCC is the method of assessing life cycle costs or cashflows. Its
concrete definition depends on a variety of factors, creating diverse
~ es et al. (2012) state
phrasing in the existing literature. In fact, Simo
that LCC “cannot be considered a uniform concept”. In our sample,
the following definitions of LCC or life cycle costs exist (Table 1).
As displayed in Table 1, each case has a different understanding
of LCC and its system boundaries. Table 1, however, depicts core
elements such as economic technique, project-based, externalities,
life cycle stages or principles, and minimum performance
requirements.
LCC is hereby defined rather broadly as an economic method for
project assessment and evaluation of all (direct, indirect, internal,
and external) costs and revenues arising within a defined life cycle
that is considered important to the investment decision (Fuller and
Petersen, 1996) while meeting a specific set of minimum perfor-
mance criteria. Total cost of ownership (TCO), whole life costing
(WLC), and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) are consistent synonyms
with that wider definition. The defined life cycle (Hoeft, 1992) may
cover four main life cycle stages (Song et al., 2009): manufacturing
(including research and development, testing, etc.), installation,
use, and end-of-life (EoL). Raw material extraction (Simo ~ es et al.,
2012) and transportation processes may also be included or
explicitly modeled. Overall, LCC results in calculating a single
aggregated monetary value, total life cycle costs, to compare rele-
vant design or investment options. Scholars often integrate LCC
with other stand-alone techniques such as target costing, activity-
based costing, or LCA (Hunkeler et al., 2008).
LCC also incorporates “non-price considerations” (Fabrycky and
Blanchard, 1991; Maltz and Ellram, 1997). The SETAC working group
thus differentiates three types: conventional, environmental, and
societal LCC (Hunkeler et al., 2008). Conventional LCC is well
established within the research fields of construction and bridges
(Christensen et al., 2005; Ertekin, 2013; Frangopol and Liu, 2007;
Zehbold, 1996). Environmental LCC also attracts widespread inter-
est within this journal (Bierer et al., 2014; Carlsson Reich, 2005;
Correia et al., 2011; Ribeiro et al., 2013; Utne, 2009). Life cycle
sustainability assessment (LCSA) currently refers to societal LCC
(Swarr et al., 2011; Valdivia et al., 2011). National and international
standards and specific guidelines establish a base for LCC (ASTM E
917:1994; Hastak et al., 2004; Hawk, 2004; IEC 60300-3-3:2005;
ISO 15686-5:2008; Ozbay et al., 2003).
Yet, adoption levels for LCC are low (Aouad et al., 2001; Lukka
and Granlund, 1996; Sterner, 2000), as is the total number of
HPM projects (Potyrala, 2011). Of the studies surveyed by Ozbay
et al. (2003), only 12.5% apply any sort of LCC to bridges. Further-
more, LCC practices may not represent the state of the art (Hunkeler
et al., 2008; Korpi and Ala-Risku, 2008; Simo ~ es et al., 2012). Indeed,
the US Transportation Research Board (2012) is still seeking to fill
that gap between LCC “state of practice and state of the art”.
Arguing for societal types of LCC, our research aims to differ-
entiate stakeholders and their shared burdens and benefits. Typical
stakeholders in bridge construction encompass planners, owners
(e.g., state agencies), investors, manufacturers, constructors,
maintenance contractors, users (e.g., motorists, pedestrians),
neighbors (e.g., residents close to the bridge), and society at large.
Following Akadiri and Olomolaiye (2012), “cost effectiveness [ … is]

Table 1
Selected definitions of LCC.

Case Definition

MEI02a “Life-cycle cost (LCC) usually consists of an initial construction cost and maintenance cost.”
EHL97 “The new material life-cycle cost method [ … ] is a ‘project-based’ approach [ … ] allows the designer to choose any construction
material that satisfies the project's performance requirements [ … ] includes a cost classification scheme which allows the bridge
planner to compare the intrinsic life cycle cost advantages and disadvantages [ … ]”
EHL99 “Using a LCC method consistent with ASTM E 917 for measuring LCCs [ … ]”
KEN08b “LCCA calculates agency, user, and environmental damage costs over the entire lifetime of the infrastructure application. In general,
user and environmental costs are not reflected in conventional costing methods.”
KEN08a “LCCA is a total cost accounting technique and a complementary methodology to LCA. It uses life cycle principles to augment
conventional cost analyses by estimating not just initial costs, but also use and disposal costs.”
SIM12 “LCC is a means to show that, by reducing use, maintenance or disposal costs, a financial compensation can ensue”
SIM12 “[ … ] there are three different types of LCC [ … ]: conventional, environmental and societal. [ … ] Environmental LCC summarizes all
costs associated to a product LC that are directly covered by one, or more, of the actors involved in its LC (supplier, producer, user
or costumer and/or final disposer). It includes the externalities that are anticipated to be internalized in the decision-relevant future.
Societal LCC uses an expanded macro-economic system and incorporates a larger set of costs.”
MAR14 “LCC analysis takes account of construction costs, operation/maintenance/repair costs, end-of-life costs, social costs and environmental
costs. Social costs comprise user delay costs, vehicle operation costs and accident costs.”

of common interest to all stakeholders.” They argue that stake-
holders could place “significant foci on the early identification of
financial viability”, if they were able to “increase pressure” upon
owners or planners. In a recent contribution, Lozano et al. (2015)
visualize such stakeholder influence. Moreover, some stake-
holders may be ignored. Thoft-Christensen (2009) states “that user
costs are usually not included [though they] ought to be included”.
He argues that LCC practitioners underestimate significant com-
ponents of total life cycle costs and are therefore not “considering
the long-term effects of the decision”. We draw parallels by
assuming different levels of power and demands among stake-
holders in bridge construction projects. We believe that societal
LCC results in different total life cycle costs when used for com-
parison. In section four, we explore the understanding of pertinent
stakeholders within our cases (Frangopol and Liu, 2007; Hu et al.,
2013; Hunkeler et al., 2008).
Innovative HPM are well-suited for societal LCC. Concentrating
on long-lasting, corrosion-resistant fiber-reinforced materials, our
case research is delimited to FRP, FRC, and ECC. Previous work on
FRP focuses on retrofitting existing buildings (Cho, 2006) and
recycling technologies (Asokan et al., 2009; Correia et al., 2011;
Howarth et al., 2014; Meira Castro et al., 2014). Detailed research
on reinforcement with natural fibers is rather new. These fibers'
lower environmental impacts and cheaper manufacturing have
attracted widespread attention within industry and academia (Al-
Oqla and Sapuan, 2014; Eichhorn et al., 2010; Joshi et al., 2004;
Kidalova et al., 2012). Nevertheless, we identify only one case
study on natural fibers meeting our inclusion criteria and none on
FRC. Materials such as pure high-performance concrete (Brandt,
2008) are not included because fiber reinforcement is not
applied. Acknowledging the vast literature on the many types of
composites, this review concentrates on synthetic, inorganic fibers
as classified in Fig. 1.
To screen the existing literature on HPM, we browse relevant
reviews in that research area. Similar databases to those used in the
case search are consulted here. However, the methodological
criteria are less stringent. In total, we identify over 40 reviews when
considering all types of fiber-reinforced materials (see Appendix B).
Of these reviews, 19 cover fibers in general and 13 natural fibers;
seven focus on carbon fibers, in addition to three on glass fibers.
More than half of the reviews (28) are directly related to con-
struction. Additionally, bridges are the main application field. A
review by Parvin and Brighton (2014) concludes that only one in
seven compared cases considers costs.
FRP
Polymer
Fiber
Matrix
Natural
Cellulose /
Animal Mineral Organic FIber
Lignocellulose
Silk Asbestos
Polyethylene
Wool
Hair
Fig. 1. Classification of natural and synthetic reinforcing fibers (based on Jawaid and
Khalil, 2011).
P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 929
Invented at the beginning of the 20th century, global fiber
polymer production began in the mid-20th century. Innovative
HPM offer a set of advantages over traditional SRC: “higher strength
and stiffness [ … ]; higher fatigue strength and impact energy ab-
sorption capacity; better resistance to corrosion, [ … ] acids, and
natural hazardous environments; longer service life [ … ]; non-
conductivity and non-toxicity” (Dittenber and GangaRao, 2012).
As an example, prestressing is a logical use of FRP given their ad-
vantages of high strength, strain capacity, and corrosion resistance
(Burgoyne and Balafas, 2007). The reviews show that a nearly 40%
strength enhancement is possible for SRC beams using glass-fiber-
reinforced polymers (GFRP) or even a 200% enhancement with
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP). Moreover, the shear
strength of virgin beams can be increased by 60e120% using FRP
sheets (Pendhari et al., 2008). Very thin layers of FRC are sufficient
to yield strength and ductility improvements (Curbach and
Scheerer, 2012), thereby allowing for the reconstruction of
heritage-protected buildings without changing the overall
appearance.
Apart from higher strength (Azwa et al., 2013), high stiffness
(Duflou et al., 2012), high ductility (Hollaway, 2010), and low
weight (Gholami et al., 2013), corrosion resistance is the most
important advantage, as it leads to lower maintenance costs
(Dittenber and GangaRao, 2012; Karbhari, 2004). Corrosion leads to
the failure of construction material, in particular steel, and occurs
when the material is exposed to moisture, alkalization, thermal
effects, or ultraviolet radiation. Consequently, (preventive) main-
tenance, repair, and rehabilitation (MR&R) and retrofit measures
are necessary (Richard et al., 2007). Whereas MR&R focuses on the
extension of the lifetime, retrofit also includes the improvement of
functionality.
Roberts (2011) estimates that, by 2020, the USA and Europe will
produce 28% of the world's carbon fiber each, Japan 25%, and China
9%. Contrary to many traditional construction products, only a few
suppliers of carbon fibers exist. For FRP bridges, only four suppliers
provided 82% of the deck panels in the USA in 2008 (O'Connor,
2008). Fig. 2 shows the market shares of textile fibers according
to their industrial use. Approximately 6e8% of global carbon fiber
production is used in the construction industry (Schmohl et al.,
2014; Shah, 2013) and 26% for FRP application (Duflou et al., 2012).
However, a discrepancy in the geographical distribution be-
tween market shares and existing FRP bridges is evident. Table 2
presents a global overview of bridges newly built or retrofitted by
means of HPM. The USA dominates with a share of 55.3% followed
by the Netherlands (13%), Korea (8.8%), and the UK (6.8%).
FRC 1% 4%
8%
Concrete
Matrix
SyntheƟc 8%
31% Automotive
Construction
Inorganic Marine
Fiber
Electronic
Aramid / Appliances
Glass 10%
Kevlar Consumer Goods
Miscellaneous
Carbon Aerospace
AromaƟc
Boron
Polyester
12%
Silicacarbine
26%
Fig. 2. Market share of textile fibers and composite types (based on Duflou et al.,
2012).
930 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

Table 2 out in the methodology section (see all cases in Appendix A). This
Number of existing bridges made of high-performance materials, sorted by country. section ultimately highlights findings and suggests directions for
Country Number of bridges future research.
Pedestrian Vehicular Total Share
4.1. Bibliographic analysis
Australia 0 1 1 0.2%
Austria 0 1 1 0.2%
Barbados 1 0 1 0.2% The following bibliographic analysis is mainly inspired by
Bulgaria 0 1 1 0.2% Seuring and Müller (2008) and Schaltegger et al. (2013). In 1975,
Canada 1 13 14 3.0% the first pedestrian bridge made of FRP was built in Tel Aviv, Israel.
China 12 1 13 2.8%
In 1986, the first highway bridge using FRP tendons was installed in
Denmark 2 1 3 0.6%
France 1 0 1 0.2% Germany followed, six years later, by a pedestrian bridge solely
Germany 3 7 10 2.1% made of composites in Aberfeldy, Scotland (Sahirman et al., 2003,
Italy 1 0 1 0.2% 2004). However, regarding our confined search, namely LCC
Japan 8 11 19 4.1%
applied to HPM, cases are only published beginning in 1997 (see
Korea 25 16 41 8.8%
Russia 0 1 1 0.2%
Fig. 3 below).
Spain 1 4 5 1.1% Overall, there is little published work. The number of publica-
Surinam 0 1 1 0.2% tions per year ranges from zero to three. The total number remains
Switzerland 1 2 3 0.6% almost negligibly small until the millennium, then it almost
The Netherlands 42 19 61 13.0%
steadily grows but with lower rates for the last 5 years. Rider (1944)
UK 13 19 32 6.8%
USA 123 136 259 55.3% and de Solla Price (1981) argue that a research area receiving sci-
entific attention is characterized by a doubling of related publica-
Source: ACMA (2003a, 2003b); Keller (2001); Lee and Hong (2009), Lee et al., 2010);
Canning and Luke (2010); Fiber Core Europe (2015).
tions within 10e20 years (Schaltegger et al., 2013). Regarding our
18-year sample, we observe such a doubling: 11 publications in
2006 and 25 in 2014. As one year remains until 2016, we predict a
total of 29 cases in 2016. Therefore, we argue that LCC applied to
Of the two reviews closest to our research objectives, Keller HPM for construction is a niche but young and vivid field of sci-
(2001) surveys FRP bridges and buildings constructed between entific research.
1997 and 2000. In total, 36 bridges using FRP deck slabs are iden- When counting the country affiliations of the authors cited in,
tified (30 road and 6 pedestrian bridges). In the conclusion, Keller the USA (40) is in the lead, with a large gap from second-place
identifies a gap in life cycle modeling for FRP structures. His review Germany (9). If countries within the EU are aggregated (16), the
lacks a detailed analysis of different life cycle stages and the iden- gap is slightly smaller. China, Hong Kong, and Japan also contribute
tification of cost drivers. Similarly, a review by Burgoyne and to our research field (12). As illustrated in Table 1 in section three,
Balafas (2007) focuses on the financial aspects of FRP construc- existing bridges made of HPM strongly indicate this US dominance.
tions. The authors discuss the feasibility of FRP for different appli- We will discuss the observed lack of contributions by countries
cation fields. They conclude that only if LCC includes external costs, such as the Netherlands, Korea, and the UK in the coming sections.
e.g., traffic delays, will FRP structures be economically viable for Regarding the topics covered by journals publishing on LCC
specific structural applications. Although this conclusion seems applied to HPM, we observe a clear focus on engineering. None of
reasonable, both reviews lack the comprehensive scope of this the journals relate to (policy) planning, accounting, or other eco-
article. nomic aspects. We conclude that, currently, our research area is
driven by rather technical issues. This is shown by the vast amount
of literature on mechanical testing with little on LCC. Consider-
4. Results and discussion ations to move up the “experience curve” (Henderson, 1984) or
applications of target costing (Sakurai and Keating, 1994) are
We identify 25 cases eligible for the fourth step of the largely absent. Journals from the field of civil engineering and
comprehensive review with respect to the delimitation criteria laid materials science dominate the literature (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Historic development and geographical distribution of articles dealing with LCC and HPM.
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
Fig. 4. Accumulated number of topics and journals of the reviewed articles.
A group of seven journals marks the top of the list. The Journal of
Composites for Construction outpaces its successors with three
cases. Of note is the fact that the International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, as an established conversant for LCC (especially
related to LCA or LCSA), provides two cases for our screened liter-
ature pool. The most cited article is a case of an FRP bridge deck
(Berg et al., 2006). Over nine years, that publication attracts 76 ci-
tations. With a lower number of citations, Ehlen (1997; 66), Ehlen
(1999; 67), and Nystrom et al. (2003; 63) follow. If appearance of
authors is ranked, R.C. Creese, A.C. Berg, D. Berger, C.A. Bernardo, M.
Hastak, and S. Sahirman lead the sample with 3 counts. Most of
these authors publish in the USA.
Summarizing the bibliographic insights, we display the regional
origin of all study objects within the case pool in Fig. 5. The x-axis
divides the USA (below) and the rest of the world (above). Some
landmark installations of bridges made of HPM are also included.
4.2. Overall LCC results and data quality
Based on our cases, we summarize insights concerning our first
research question: to investigate whether and how LCC can be
applied to HPM and to compare the results of the LCC calculations
while analyzing the level of detail and quality of the calculations.
There is little published work on LCC. That is surprising when
reconsidering statements in previous reviews that economic
viability is a major argument for, or against, HPM in comparison to
conventional materials. Moreover, while LCC is applied throughout
the literature, this is true for FRP but not FRC. Applications for ECC
are also underrepresented with three cases (Gencturk, 2013;
Kendall et al., 2008a,b). FRP include GFRP in vinylester resin (ma-
jority), CFRP, or hybrid composites such as one combining steel,
glass, carbon, and twaron fibers (Cui et al., 2008). Ehlen (1999)
solely examines a type of natural fibers, namely a bamboo wood
core, whereas all others rely on synthetic fibers. Thereof, five cases
(20%) deploy carbon fibers or hybrids, the majority (19 cases) use at
least partly glass fibers (76%). Moreover, FRP are often examined as
the preferred material for bridges, specifically bridge deck panels
(e.g., Nishizaki et al., 2006; Knippers et al., 2010). The latter well
explains the dominance of GFRP: they are currently (and were) the
cheapest industrial composite for that purpose. Only three cases
examine different study objects. Cui et al. (2008) studies rein-
forcement bars that are universally applicable for bridges and
building superstructures, Gencturk (2013) only the latter, and
Simo ~ es et al. (2012) street column lighting systems. The authors did
931
not initially expect this limited application area, but this well
supports the initial discussion on the existing investment bottle-
neck for public infrastructure. When comparing alternative mate-
rials, various types of SRC or steel are chosen.
The locations of study objects largely follow their authors' ori-
gins as displayed in Section 4.1 above. The result of this is that a
dominating two-thirds are in the USA (64%), two cases (8%) each in
Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan, and one case each in Israel,
Australia, and Sweden. Again, the UK and Korea are entirely absent.
Summing all European countries yields five cases (20%). Not dis-
played in Table 3 below, we examined what type of renewal e
retrofit/repair or new construction e is chosen for each case. Both
types are almost equally presented with an 8% lead for retrofit/
repair. Likewise not illustrated, only one case is structured as a
stand-alone analysis (Hong and Hastak, 2007a). All others compare
study objects made of HPM with conventional materials. Moreover,
HPM and non-HPM are often combined within one project. For
example, a retrofit may be characterized by retaining an existing
superstructure made of steel while replacing an old concrete deck
with lighter FRP, e.g., Kendall et al. (2008b).
The resulting total life cycle costs are mixed (see Table 4). The
second column illustrates the difference between HPM and a con-
ventional alternative in percent. The third column displays the ab-
solute values. All currencies presented are converted into USD as of
Oct 31, 2014 using appropriate exchange rates and consumer price
indices. Where necessary, values are converted from square feet into
square meters. HPM and non-HPM take the first and second places.
Eleven cases suggest favoring HPM; 12 do so for conventional ma-
terials. However, the relative advantage of HPM as expressed in per-
centage terms is consistently smaller than the calculated monetized
disadvantage. Five cases suggest a difference of greater than 100% not
in favor of HPM. Overall, HPM are characterized by higher total life
cycle costs with a median average of þ10% within our sample.
The LCC application level varies considerably. Although well-
explained examples (Ehlen 1997, 1999) exist, we do not observe a
growing set of equally or more comprehensive (related to life cycle
stages, external costs, metadata, uncertainty treatments) LCC cases
after the year 1999. Conventional LCC practice is the standard, but
environmental or societal types of LCC are highlighted (see Fig. 6).
Nearly 44% of our studies calculate only internalized costs, whereas
56% extend the scope to external costs. Within societal LCC, we
mark all cases integrating “user costs”, as suggested by Ehlen
(1997), as “sLCC*”. Only two cases (Kuhlmann et al., 2007; Simo ~ es
et al., 2012) can be classified as LCSA (Valdivia et al., 2011).
932 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
Fig. 5. Geographic distribution of high-performance materials constructions.
The type of LCC, as explained in Hunkeler et al. (2008), is re-
flected in many other choices that authors make in each case. For
the defined life cycle, approximately 60% consider it important to
monetize impacts within the manufacturing or EoL stage. This does
not mean that EoL scenarios are well explained or that
manufacturing data are always sourced directly from producers
with real data sets. The lowest response rate is exhibited by
“transportation/distribution” (32%), a rather intermediary activity
between the other life cycle stages. That is surprising when
acknowledging the weight advantage of HPM and the consequently
lower LCC results for any transportation activity.
The next table (Table 5) provides an overview of the extent to
which the main assumptions vary across the LCCs. Discount rates,
ideally real discount rates, between 0 and 5% are chose with a me-
dian of 3.3%. The specific discount rate chosen significantly in-
fluences future costs, especially in case of long study periods.
Expectations concerning the latter, especially service life, are also a
key LCC driver (see the next Section 4.3). Therefore, that choice must
be well explained. The table shows expected service life for HPM
and the comparable non-HPM and a calculated delta. Approximately
one-third of the studies use a service life for HPM below 50 years, at
least as baseline scenarios. Over 90% apply those 50 years up to a
maximum of 153 years (Kendall et al., 2008b). The delta relative to
non-HPM is on average þ50%. That means non-HPM, on average,
need to be replaced entirely within one lifetime of HPM. As a new
material, the lifespan of HPM is difficult to predict. An LCC practi-
tioner must perform a sensitivity analysis of this key parameter. A
good example for explaining that decisive choice is Shapira and
Bank (1997): they provide a bundle of published articles to justify
their chosen value. Another crucial system boundary is related to
external costs (the three last columns). We assume that any inclu-
sion of external costs reflects positively on HPM when compared to
conventional materials. Approximately half of the cases (partially)
calculate external costs or quantify non-monetary impacts (as in
LCA, e.g., Daniel, 2010). User or third-party costs are explicitly
mentioned cost categories suggested by Ehlen (1997) that are
included in only a minority of the LCC analyses (40% state user costs,
and 16% report third-party costs). Some data rows, specifically seven
cases, offer no or little data for these categories.
As the reviews suggested, components made of HPM are ulti-
mately lighter because of their better weight-strength ratio. For
bridges, this could be reflected in the use of smaller superstructures
or enlarged bridge deck panels, thereby extending the available
space for bridge users (Mara et al., 2014). It could also result in
shorter installation times due to easier handling, less heavy ma-
chine equipment, or greater precision of prefabricated components
(instead of cast-on-site) (Berg et al., 2006). Table 6 illustrates some
given data points for our sample. Unfortunately, this is little or only
qualitatively reported within the cases with no specifications on
reduced kilograms or hours.
Data quality and integrated uncertainty analyses are crucial
considering the data-intensive nature of LCC (Cole and Sterner,
2000). As Roychoudhury and Creese (2001) claim, a “sensitivity
analysis [ … ] for each alternative material, using different data
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 933

Table 3
Overview of the reviewed articles, including technological specification.

Study object Length Area Country HPM details Non-HPM details Chosen scenarios

ALA02 Bridge superstructure 7.807 m 39.31 m2 USA GFRP in vinylester resin; tensile SRC, existing deteriorated e
strength 310 MPa reinforced concrete slab bridge
BER06 Bridge deck 32.7 m 12.75 m USA GFRP in vinylester resin, not for SRC, epoxycoated steel rebar e
overhangs, parapet walls
CUI08 Bridge/building na na USA Hybrid composite Steel reinforcement bar e
superstructure reinforcement bar (steel, glass,
carbon, twaron fibers)
DAN10 Full bridge 13.5 m 21.6 m2 NL GFRP in polyester resin, Structural steel 3 other material options
pultruded profiles neglected
EAM12 Bridge superstructure 18.7 m 254.32 m2 USA CFRP Epoxycoated steel High average daily traffic, box
beam
2
EHL97 Bridge deck 71.6 m 1,203 m USA GFRP with bamboo core SRC 2 FRP alternatives neglected
sandwich
2
EHL99 Bridge deck 71.6 m 1,203 m USA GFRP with bamboo core SRC 2 FRP alternatives neglected
sandwich
GEN13 Building superstructure na na USA ECC only SRC only High-cost bridge design
HAS00 Bridge substructure na na USA Carbon-composite column Steel jackets e
wrap
HON07a Bridge deck na na USA GFRP, not specified Zero-maintenance scenario for Median of 3 bridges
GFRP
2
HON07b Bridge deck 69 m 675 m USA GFRP, not specified Precast concrete e
IBB14 Bridge superstructure 6,098 m na AU GFRP, pultruded profiles Stainless steel (40% recycled) e
KEN08a Bridge deck 160 m na USA ECC link slab deck design SRC deck with expansion joints ECC vs. SRC
KEN08b Bridge deck 160 m na USA ECC link slab deck design SRC deck with expansion joints ECC mixes; best (D-5) vs. worst
(D-13)
KNI10 Bridge deck 27 m 135 m2 DE GFRP, hollow-section pultruded Concrete e
profiles
2
KUH07 Full bridge 35e45 m 528 m DE Steel-GFRP hybrid Precast concrete “Fly-over” bridge
MAR14 Full bridge 12 m 72e84 m2 SE GFRP bridge deck (alternative Precast concrete e
2)
MEI02a Bridge superstructure 800 m 24000 m2 JP CFRP/GFRP hybrid; GFRP for Steel “Future prices” neglected
wheel guards etc.
2
NIS06 Full bridge 37.8 m 162.5 m JP GFRP in vinylester resin (CASE- Prestressed concrete, Only 2 out of 5 cases
5) epoxycoated steel (CASE-2)
2
NYS03 Full bridge <10 m <100 m USA CFRP and GFRP in vinylester SRC St. James bridge only
resin tubes
SAH03 Bridge deck na 1715 m2 USA GFRP, not specified Cast-in-place SRC Lowest LCC for WV/NY
SAH04 Bridge deck na 1715 m2 USA GFRP, not specified Cast-in-place SRC Median of all bridges
SAH09 Bridge deck 27.83 m 121.34 m2 USA GFRP, not specified Cast-in-place SRC Katy Truss bridge only
SHA97 Bridge superstructure 3m na IL GFRP in polyester resin, SRC (beam 4) Median of 3 beams
pultruded profiles, “off-the-
shell”
SIM12 Lighting column 8m na NL GFRP in polyester resin Steel (þzinc) Aluminum option neglected

inputs that are both relatively uncertain and significant, should be
performed”. Many examples exist in the literature on LCC and
construction (Farran and Zayed, 2012; Girmscheid and Kapp, 2005;
Minne and Crittenden, 2014; Padgett et al., 2010; Van Noortwijk
and Klatter, 2004) or scenarios (Ho € jer et al., 2008). Although un-
certainty may increase when integrating externalities, it is advis-
able to assess “all potential dimensions of a given product” using
LCC (Simo ~ es et al., 2012).
Ehlen (1997) argues, “the costs and technical performance of
new materials are intrinsically uncertain”. Many studies in our
sample conduct sensitivity analyses (60%) or Monte Carlo simula-
tions (24%) to show the effects of changes in parameter values and
identify hotspots in the calculation (Gencturk, 2013; Hong and
Hastak, 2007b; Meiarashi et al., 2002a) or use “estimates [ … ]
based on composite material properties and the data available for
conventional material at a component or system level” (Hastak and
Halpin, 2000). However, these approaches do not assess data
quality or the validity of data values per se. We attempt to assess
data quality, particularly that of identified LCC drivers (Section 4.3),
using a modified pedigree matrix as suggested by Weidema and
Wesnæs (1996) that includes the data dimensions of reliability,
completeness, temporal, geographical, and technological correla-
tion referred to as metadata. A data quality indicator (DQI) is part of
a quantitative data quality approach adapted from LCA, the
pedigree matrix. Research on DQI is ongoing (Ciroth et al., 2013;
Muller et al., 2014), although focused on LCA (de Saxce  et al.,
2014; Henriksson et al., 2014). Each dimension is evaluated with
scores of 1, 3, and 5 indicating a specified level of data quality
(Table 7), thereby forming a 5-digit DQI.
The pedigree matrix facilitates a survey of the data quality,
shows improvements, and indicates sources of uncertainty. In
many cases, data sources are often not replicable, are based on
personal communication or are not mentioned at all. As an
example, Eamon et al. (2012) states, “mean material costs such as
concrete, steel reinforcement, and CFRP are based on 2009 esti-
mates from MDOT and CFRP producers”. For the comparable non-
HPM alternative, e.g., steel prices, sources are reported in an even
less transparent manner. As a consequence, we cannot realize a full
pedigree matrix for Eamon et al. (2012) or for the entire sample of
cases due to missing metadata. It is unclear whether metadata gaps
exist because of data unavailability or publishing behavior. The
former is rather difficult to overcome. The latter means that authors
could increase data quality by explicitly describing metadata within
their articles or supplements.
Simo ~es et al. (2012) is analyzed as an exemplar (Table 8 and
Appendix C). Note that we are forced to limit our analysis to
aggregated cost data such as “environmental costs” instead of, e.g.,
the carbon price per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. For cost
934 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

Table 4
Overall LCC results e HPM vs. conventional materials.

Fig. 6. Types of LCC and applied life cycle stages in the selected case studies.

aggregates such as “conventional costs”, no appropriate DQI can be
allocated (“na”). Based on the DQI values, Weidema and Wesnæs
(1996) calculate a “modified uncertainty” parameter, namely the
coefficient of variation, per data aggregate. We are not able to
retrieve such metric values for Simo ~es et al. (2012) but instead
suggest using the DQIs to screen for LCC drivers. This means that all
low-scoring DQIs will be scrutinized via sensitivity analysis to
assess the data parameter's influence on total life cycle costs. For
Simo~es et al. (2012), we suggest screening data for manufacturing,
service life, and conventional costs.
We believe that a sound DQI analysis extends LCC practitioners'
and readers' understanding of total life cycle costs. It allows a re-
view of the data sets and assumptions in a metric manner that,
therefore, facilitates the identification of sources of uncertainty.
This is the most important for parameters within each LCC that
drive the total result (see next section).
4.3. LCC drivers and their impact on stakeholders
We now turn to our second research question: identify the
drivers that primarily influence the result of an LCC analysis for
HPM and their shares and impacts on involved stakeholders.
Reconsidering the overall LCC results from the previous section,
we cannot find any other significant pattern resulting in LCC ad-
vantages for HPM versus conventional materials than including
external costs (e.g., user costs). Ehlen (1997) states, “costs and
technical performance of new materials are intrinsically uncertain;
the method must address this uncertainty.” As laid out in Section 3,
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 935

Table 5
System boundaries e from discount rates to external costs.

Discount rate Expected service Expected service life D Service life of HPM LCC study External costs User costs Third party
life of HPM (in years) of non-HPM (in years) vs non-HPM (in years) period (in years) included? included? costs included?

ALA02 na na na na na
BER06 na na na na na
CUI08 na na na na na
DAN10 na 50 35 þ43% 50 (LCA only)
EAM12 3.0% 100 65 þ54% 100 Y Y
EHL97 4.0% 40 40 0% 40 Y Y
EHL99 4.0% 40 40 0% 40 Y Y Y
GEN13 1.0% 100 30 þ233% 50 Y
HAS00 na na na na na Y
HON07a 4.0% 85 85 0% 85
HON07b na na na na Na
IBB14 na na na na na (LCA only)
KEN08a 3.0% 60 30 þ100% 60 Y Y Y
KEN08b 3.0% 7e153a 30 76e410%a 60 Y Y Y
KNI10 na na na na na
KUH07 3.0% 100e120 50e60 þ100% 100e120 Y
MAR14 4.0% 80 40 þ100% 80 Y Y
MEI02a 2.9% 100 100 0% 100
NIS06 0.0% 50e100 50e100 0% 50e100
NYS03 4.0% 60 40 þ50% 120
SAH03 4.0% 60 40 þ50% 75 Y
SAH04 na 60 40 þ50% 75 Y
SAH09 2.8% 60e70 30 þ100e133% 60 Y Y Y
SHA97 5.0% 50 50 0% 50
SIM12 3.5% 30e60 30 0e100% 30e60 Y

Median 3.3% 60 40 þ50% 60 N (¼ 56%) N (¼ 60%) N (¼ 84%)

Minemax 0e5% 30e120 30e100 0e233% 30e120 Y (¼ 44%) Y (¼ 40%) Y (¼ 16%)
a
Related to different mixes of ECC; excluded from median/minemax.

Table 6
Overall LCC results e non-monetary advantages of HPM.

Table 7
A modified Pedigree matrix for data quality assessment.

Indicator 1 3 5

Reliability
Completeness
Temporal correlation
Geographical correlation
Measured data, verified
Representative from a sufficient
sample and adequate periods
Less than 3 years to year of study
Data from area under study
Non-verified or verified data partly based on Non-qualified or qualified estimate
assumptions
Representative from a sufficient sample but shorter Unknown or incomplete or smaller sample and
periods shorter periods
or smaller sample but adequate periods
Less than 6 years Unknown or older
Data from area with similar production conditions or Unknown or with slightly similar or of different
from larger area production conditions

Source: Based on Weidema and Wesnæs (1996).

practitioners of LCC may analyze and assess uncertainty with
methods such as sensitivity analysis, scenarios, simulation tech-
niques, or probability modeling. We expect that all relevant LCC
drivers are scrutinized by any of these methods within each case.
This section analyzes major factors influencing the total life cycle
costs. First, we display what LCC drivers are discussed within the
cases. Thereafter, a subsample within our sample presents effects
on the total life cycle costs.
Table 9 provides an overview of potential LCC drivers and total
life cycle costs. Note that columns beginning with “D” use a
computed delta between the concrete value per case and the me-
dian average of the total sample. For example, Eamon et al. (2012),
936 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

Table 8
Exemplary Pedigree matrix as an example of a data quality indicator (DQI).

LCC component Reliability Completeness Temporal correlation Geographical correlation Technological correlation Overall DQI

Discount rate 1 1 3 3 1 1/1/3/3/1

Service life HPM
Service life non-HPM
Conventional costs
Environmental costs, CO2
Social costs, fine particles, NOX, SO2
Social costs, safety features
General estimates for all costs
3 na 1 1 1 3/na/1/1/1
3 na 1 1 1 3/na/1/1/1
na na na na na na
3 3 1 3 1 1/1/1/1/1
3 3 1 3 1 3/3/1/1/1
3 3 1 3 1 3/3/1/1/1
3 3 1 3 3 3/3/1/3/3

Table 9
Overall LCC results and drivers e deviation from median average values.

D Total life cycle D Discount ratea D Expected D Service life External costs All 4 life cycle Transportation/distribution
costs (HPM vs. non-HPM)a service life (HPM)a (HPM vs. non-HPM)a included? stages included?b included?

ALA02 75% na na na 50%

BER06 59% na na na 50%
CUI08 220% na na na 25%
DAN10 53% na 10 7% (LCA only) 75%
EAM12 63% 0.3% þ40 þ4% Y 75%
EHL97 17% þ0.8% 20 50% Y 100%
EHL99 12% þ0.8% 20 50% Y 100%
GEN13 12% 2.3% þ40 þ183% 50%
HAS00 18% na na na 75%
HON07a na þ0.8% þ25 50% 75%
HON07b 23% na na na 50%
IBB14 8% na na na (LCA only) 25% Y
KEN08a 16% 0.3% 0 þ50% Y 25%
KEN08b 25% 0.3% 53e93 126e360% Y 75%
KNI10 na na na na 25% Y
KUH07 8% 0.3% þ50e60 þ50% Y 100%
MAR14 33% þ0.8% þ20 þ50% Y 100%
MEI02a 0% 0.4% þ40 50% 75% Y
NIS06 13% 3.3% 10e40 50% 100%
NYS03 162% þ0.8% 0 0% 100% Y
SAH03 37% þ0.8% 0 0% Y 100% Y
SAH04 162% na 0 0% Y 100% Y
SAH09 10% 0.5% 0e10 þ50e83% Y 100% Y
SHA97 544% þ1.8% 10 50% 25%
SIM12 42% þ0.3% 30e0 50e50% Y 100% Y

Median 10% 3.3% 60 þ50% - 75% e

a
D relates to actual value of the case vs. median average value of total sample.
b
Relates to manufacturing, installation, use, and end-of-life.

using a discount rate of 3%, is displayed as 0.3% (3 minus the
median average of 3.3%).
The discount rate is often discussed as an LCC driver in our cases.
The lower the rate, the greater the weight of future costs within the
total life cycle costs. For example, maintenance costs decline to
approximately 35% after 10 years and 0.5% after 50 years when
using a discount rate of 10%. The median average discount rate in
our sample is 3.3%, resulting in costs declining to 71.5% and 18.7%
after 10 and 50 years, respectively. Discount rates should reflect
both real interest rates and long-term considerations. A good
example is Kendall et al. (2008b), who argues for a discount rate
that declines over time, citing Weitzman (2001): “the near term, to
the medium term, and to the distant future [ … ] 4, 3 and 2%,
respectively”.
The choice of expected service life is closely related to the effect
of the chosen discount rate and the study period. We observe three
effects: the longer the period, the smaller the discounted values.
However, the longer the period, the greater the likelihood of repair
measures. Eventually, the longer the period is, the greater the un-
certainties regarding all parameters are. A fundamental question
for our research area is the assumed difference in service life
between HPM and conventional materials. An average of 60 years
appears appropriate when reflecting all reviews and cases.
We additionally examine how many life cycle stages each case
considers. As previously shown in Section 3, four main stages,
namely manufacturing, installation, use, and EoL, are feasible.
Transportation processes within or across these stages can also be
modeled. The seventh column displays a value between 0 and 100%
(each stage shares 25%). On average, 75% is covered, i.e., three
stages. However, completeness is only a rough indicator of the
overall quality or the total result of the LCC. Seven cases consider
transportation, but at different scales. For Ibbotson and Kara (2014),
shipping represents 9% of material costs; Simo ~ es et al. (2012) in-
cludes all intermediate transportation processes but does not
explicitly specify these costs. Simo ~es et al. (2012) is also the only
case computing the life cycle stage “raw material production”. That
stage represents a significant share (41.51%) of the total life cycle
costs in their comparison.
External costs are of even greater importance. Externalities are
not priced in the market, and different approaches exist to estimate
~ es et al., 2012). Burgoyne and Balafas (2007) argue
their levels (Simo
that if user costs were included, then HPM would most likely be
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 937

Table 10
LCC drivers e tested by sensitivity analyses or explicitly discussed.

External costs User costs (traffic conditions) Maintenance (amount & frequency) Service life Discount rate On-site environment
(e.g. sea salt)

ALA02 Y Y
DAN10 Y Y Y
EAM12 Y Y
EHL99 Y Y Y
IBB14 Y
KEN08a Y Y Y Y Y
KEN08b Y Y Y Y Y
MAR14 Y
MEI02a Y
NIS06 Y
SAH03 Y Y Y
SAH04 Y
SAH09 Y Y Y Y
SHA97 Y Y
SIM12 Y Y

Note: not listed cases do not report.

Table 11
Selected cases e deviation from median average values.

D Total life cycle D Discount D Expected service D Service life External costs All 4 life cycle Transportation/distribution
a
costs (HPM vs. non-HPM) rate a life (HPM) a (HPM vs. non-HPM) a
included? stages included?b included?

EAM12 70% 0.3% þ40 þ4% Y 75%

EHL97 þ9% 0.8% 20 50% Y 100%
EHL99 19% 0.8% 20 50% Y 100%
KUH07 16% 0.3% þ50e60 þ50% Y 100%
MAR14 41% 0.8% þ20 þ50% Y 100%
SAH03 þ49% 0.8% 0 0% Y 100% Y
SAH09 17% 0.5% 0e10 þ50e83% Y 100% Y
SIM12 50% 0.3% 30e0 50e50% Y 100% Y

Median 8.4% 3.8% 60 þ52% Y 100% N

a
D relates to actual value of the case vs. median average value (Table 9) of total sample.
b
Relates to manufacturing, installation, use, and end-of-life.

financially viable. The underlying traffic volume is their greatest
LCC driver.
Our presented choice of LCC drivers is supported by the authors
of our cases. In Table 10, we display all explicitly mentioned LCC
drivers, often evaluated by means of sensitivity analyses.
To show the impacts of LCC drivers, we select a subsample
within the sample using the following criteria: external costs are
included, the share of the main four LCC stages is greater than 50%,
and all columns must contain data values (Table 11). Within that
selected sample of eight cases, two show a disadvantage based on
calculated LCC for HPM (Ehlen 1997; Sahirman et al., 2003), but six
show an advantage compared to traditional non-HPM (second
column). Overall, the median average of that advantage is 8.4%,
i.e., HPM have lower life cycle costs. If we consider each data row in
greater detail, we observe disagreement that we cannot fully
current decision-making on public infrastructure? Only some cases
integrate external costs (48%). These cases often follow Ehlen (1997,
1999) and differentiate among agency, user, and third-party costs
(Kendall et al., 2008a,b; Sahirman et al., 2009). However, only
~ es et al. (2012), and Mara et al. (2014)
Kendall et al. (2008a,b), Simo
set concrete values for third-party costs e although in two cases
combined with user costs e referring to society at large.
Fig. 7 visualizes the effects of extending the system boundary
and external costs on total life cycle costs for typical stakeholders.
All underlying monetary values in that figure are fictional. The
selected stakeholders are interpreted as initiators and/or bearers of
Life cycle cost (in thousand Euros)

explain. The discount rates are similar. Assumed service life, how-
ever, varies significantly. A few cases (Ehlen 1997, 1999; partly
350
Simo ~ es et al., 2012) assume that conventional materials last equally
Life cycle stages

300
long as HPM. Other cases estimate a significant advantage for HPM 250
of þ100% (Kuhlmann et al., 2007; Mara et al., 2014; Sahirman et al., 200
2009; partly Simo ~es et al., 2012). The decision to monetize trans- 150 Use
EoL

portation/distribution processes within the LCC calculation in- 100 Installation

Manufacturing
dicates no clear overall outcome (Sahirman et al., 2003, 2009; 50
Raw material extraction
Simo ~ es et al., 2012), although the lower weight of HPM is 0

assumed to give HPM a financial advantage here if the external

effects of that transportation are calculated.
In summary, external costs, expected service life, the discount
rate used, and system boundaries such as life cycle stages account Affected stakeholders
for the most influential LCC drivers. The question now is: who bears
the life cycle costs? Are all stakeholders equally represented within Fig. 7. Total life cycle costs sorted by stakeholders' impacts.
938 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
given life cycle costs. The figure displays a scenario in which a so-
cietal type of LCC is applied to a bridge construction project
throughout five relevant life cycle stages: raw material extraction,
manufacturing, installation, use, and EoL. Once the system
boundaries for LCC are extended by that more eco-centric view, the
picture changes considerably compared to conventional LCC.
Stakeholders such as traveling users, neighbors, and society at large
bear the burden associated with traffic user delays, increased car
accident rates, and higher fuel consumption, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise and dust emissions, etc. External costs either in-
crease the overall sum of total life cycle costs or serve as tighter
budget constraints regarding the installed bridge dimensions. In
short, decision-makers face the choice of either paying more or
obtaining a smaller bridge for the same lump sum. We believe that
visualizing these effects provides valuable information to decision-
makers interested in meeting all stakeholders' demands while
applying LCC to HPM for bridge construction and for structural
applications in general.
4.4. The suitability of HPM for resolving the investment bottleneck
In this section, we evaluate whether HPM is suitable, in terms of
sustainability criteria, for resolving the investment bottleneck in
infrastructure that exists in most (Western) countries. After the
advantages and disadvantages are presented, further research
needs in the field of HPM are highlighted.
In combination with their high strength and ductility, HPM
represent a promising technology that is suitable for certain
structures. If tailored applications, i.e., retrofitting and reconstruc-
tion of bridges, are considered, HPM are already superior to con-
ventional materials based on conventional LCC. In these
circumstances, the new materials are able to strengthen existing
structures and increase load capacity while inhering long lifetimes
and guaranteeing a rapid construction process due to their lower
specific weight. This results in advantages for all stakeholders, in
particular traffic users.
As previously shown, societal LCC can properly incorporate and
monetize all relevant internal and external effects of long-term
projects. Alternative techniques such as real option analysis, full
cost accounting, or least cost planning may also serve our research
objectives. Yet, LCC is preferred because its word stem “life cycle”
already captures our targeted holistic mindset. Infrastructure is an
area in which externalities play an important role due to the
participation of a large variety of stakeholders (Thoft-Christensen,
2009). Positive externalities of bridges are generally manifest in
the outcomes: improved traffic flow or less congestion after their
construction. However, monetizing externalities is no means solely
an issue for the construction industry (Simo ~ es et al., 2012). KPMG
(2014) recently published a methodology on how to “combine
financial earnings data with monetized externality data and
quantify the likelihood and potential impact of the latter [ … ].”
The full life cycle benefits only become visible if external costs
are included. Currently, user costs are barely included (e.g., Eamon
et al., 2012; Kendall et al., 2008a; Mara et al., 2014). Third-party
environmental costs, however, are not considered at all. Ehlen
(1997) classes two different third-party costs: “‘downstream’
environmental costs such as pollution of wetlands caused by toxic
runoff from a specific project but also ‘upstream’ environmental
costs such as pollution resulting from the mining, fabrication, and
transport of the construction material.” Nevertheless, he assumes a
zero value for his case. In addition, although life cycle costs in the
EoL stage are often provided (14 cases), these values are confusing.
Except for the reviews by Pimenta and Pinho (2011) and Correia
et al. (2011), no article explicitly discusses the cost of disposal or
recycling alternatives. Acknowledging the existing difficulties of
recycling HPM such as FRC, we fully support the findings of Hofstra
and Huisingh (2014) that the early stages of their life cycle need to
address these issues to tap the full potential of eco-effectiveness.
A screened subsample (see Table 11) illustrates effects of
considering externalities. HPM then outperform conventional
structures at lower average total life cycle costs.
As over 180,000 bridges in the USA are considered deficient
(31.4%) (Alampalli et al., 2002), continuous retrofitting is neither
socially desirable nor economically feasible. In the long run, in-
vestment bottlenecks, which exist in most industrialized countries,
can be solved by HPM, although the initial investment might be
more expensive in the coming years. Bearing this argument in
mind, our statement is that the net present value of HPM is positive
if LCC is applied with an eco-centric view. To fully incorporate the
new technology in the construction market, organizational barriers
have to be overcome.
First, ignorance among certain practitioners has to be overcome
through conversations and awareness-raising interactions with
colleagues experienced in HPM. Second, CAD software has to be
extended to include HPM elements to make it applicable to a broad
range of designers and engineers. Third, new standards and
guidelines have to be developed to avoid special authorization on
an individual project basis. Fourth, the manufacturing process of
HPM is still too expensive, and the early and late life cycle stages
still lack proper in-depth examination. Thus, future research should
focus on commercialization, efficient manufacturing, and sustain-
able assessments of raw material extraction, as well as EoL stages.
Finally, political support is essential to bring HPM structures to the
broad market. The large number of bridges in the USA cited in
Table 1 shows the importance of political support. After the ad-
vantages of HPM became obvious, a many US transport and infra-
structure agencies at the federal (American Concrete Institute,
Federal Highway Administration, National Concrete Bridge Council)
and state levels (Missouri Department of Transportation, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation) published guidelines and re-
quirements for fiber-reinforced products. These obstacles could
also be found in the strengths and weaknesses mentioned in the
investigated case studies. Fig. 8 depicts both aspects in a net
diagram.
The case studies' authors also address aspects related to future
research areas (see Fig. 9). Dividing the nine areas into three
Fig. 8. Identified strengths and weaknesses of HPM in the case studies.
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
25
20
Number of research areas mentioned
15
10
5
0 parisons rather difficult for techniques such as the pedigree matrix.
Fig. 9. Areas of further research for the application of LCC in HPM identified in the case
studies.
research groups, social, technical, and environmental, the utmost
need for further research is identified in durability characteristics
and long-term monitoring (22 times). Moreover, the authors also
mention minimum material performance specifications, design
guidelines, and analysis methods (15). Among the life cycle and
environmental concerns, the development of LCC models (15) for
FRP bridge deck panels is the most frequently mentioned. Inter-
estingly, most of the weaknesses discussed in the part above are
also identified as areas for further research. This implies that cur-
rent weaknesses require further research to improve the perfor-
mance of the entire technology.
4.5. Eligibility of applied methodology
A comprehensive literature review may be perceived as partly
subjective, as the authors construe and code the cases. With respect
to reliability, research consistency is improved by predefined se-
lection criteria (Becheikh et al., 2006), strict application of the
search terms, using a well-documented review protocol, and dou-
ble coding by two authors to enhance intercoder reliability. Validity
is addressed by following the guidelines of Zumsteg et al. (2012)
and incorporating discussions with other scholars.
Considering our own professional experience at a large German
multinational, we assume that there is a larger pool of industrial
but inaccessible LCC applications (Baitz et al., 2012). Regarding the
availability of the accessible and reviewed cases, there are three
pertinent issues. First, the majority of cases focus on bridges. Sec-
ond, although searching for the generic string “fib* reinforc*”, we
identify almost exclusively structural applications of FRP (22) and
ECC (3). The application of LCC for FRC remains a highly important
topic for further research. One long-term research project on FRC
known to the authors is jointly conducted by TU Dresden and over
120 industry and research partners and investigates the entire life
cycle of FRC to optimize structural applications and economic
performance (Schladitz, 2014). Within our review, we carefully
generalize HPM concerning similar technological characteristics
among FRC, FRP, and ECC. Thus, conclusions drawn from FRP may
be assigned to FRC and ECC depending on the material composition,
structural design, and cost structure.
Third, a discrepancy between actual market share and
geographical application within our sample is noticeable (Table 2,
Fig. 5). We tested our systematic search process by using German
939
keywords and expressions but could not find more or different
insights. The current leading position held by US-originated
research could be a result of existing structured guidelines issued
by federal authorities such as the Federal Highway Administration.
Push and pull factors for the introduction of HPM in the broad
market remains an area for further research.
We identify data quality and the treatment of uncertainty as
crucial for our derived insights. As outlined in Section 4.2, studies
conduct sensitivity analyses or Monte Carlo simulations to illustrate
the impacts of data variations but rarely discuss the fitness of the
deployed data per se. In the identified cases, data sources are often
not replicable. The low level of metadata provided makes com-
We perceive the potential for improved descriptions of underlying
assumptions and a more stringent documentation of the metadata
as a stimulus for further practitioners in the area of LCC calculation.
5. Conclusion
Investments in public infrastructure were initially identified as
an important policy area for the 21st century (Lin and Doemeland,
2012). In recent years, a backlog of investments has accumulated in
nearly all industrial countries (Hollaway, 2003; Pantura, 2011).
Eligible management instruments for decision makers to cope with
the investment bottleneck are rare. We believe that life cycle
costing (LCC) provides a sound basis for better long-term and
sustainable investment decisions if applied appropriately. This
article addresses the evaluation of innovative products and pro-
cesses, e.g., high-performance materials (HPM), with LCC as a
means of resolving that infrastructure bottleneck. Our research
questions are, first, whether and how LCC can be applied to HPM,
second, which drivers primarily influence the results of an LCC for
HPM, and last, whether HPM are suitable for infrastructure in-
vestments, as assessed by economic, social and environmental
criteria. We use a comprehensive literature review to analyze
existing case studies applying LCC to HPM using fiber
reinforcements.
The comprehensive character of the review is considered
major contribution of this paper. Our research indicates that LCC
is applied to HPM for structural applications with different levels
of detail and quality. Most published work concentrates on a
specific construction area, namely bridge decks, and are is
located in the USA. For our sample, total life cycle costs for HPM
are on average 10% higher. However, external costs and stake-
holders are often not comprehensively assessed as suggested by
Simo ~ es et al. (2012), Fassin (2009), and Mitchell et al. (1997),
resulting in narrow LCC calculations. We identify external costs,
an extended life cycle, discount rate, and expected service life as
the main drivers of life cycle costs. Including these drivers in an
LCC results in total life cycle costs that are 8.4% lower. Therefore,
we believe that LCC is a valuable method for assessing the suit-
ability of HPM to solve the investment bottleneck in
infrastructure.
Product innovation in materials science for construction, such as
HPM, should not only be explored through feasibility studies.
Sustainable development demands an approach that improves the
mechanical properties while not ignoring sustainable criteria of
new product systems (Klemes et al., 2012). To be competitive,
innovative products need to achieve a similar level of life cycle costs
to those of conventional products. This might be accomplished by
applying target costing (Sakurai and Keating, 1994), or green target
costing (Horva th and Berlin, 2012), in an early stage of product
development. Moreover, we share the belief in “a more eco-centric
approach” of “eco-effectiveness for the short and long-term welfare
of society and nature” (Hofstra and Huisingh, 2014). To fully
940 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

incorporate new technologies in the construction market, organi- introduction of HPM in the broad market remains an area for
zational barriers have to be overcome: awareness raising with further research.
respect to engineers and practitioners, the incorporation of the new
technology into software and working processes, a clear focus on Appendix
the reducing manufacturing costs of existing HPM, and the devel-
opment of standards and guidelines. Push and pull factors for the

Appendix A
List of identified cases.

Case Author(s) Title Journal/Source Year No. of references Citations

ALA02 Alampalli, S. Fiber reinforced polymer composites Composite Structures 2002 6 37

O'Connor, J. for the superstructure of a short-span
Yannotti, A.P. rural bridge
BER06 Berg, A.C. Construction and cost analysis of an FRP Construction and Building Materials 2006 11 76
Bank, L.C. reinforced concrete bridge deck
Olivia, M.G.
Russell, J.S.
CUI08 Cui, Y. Development of ductile composite Materials and Structures 2008 18 3
Cheung, M.M.S. reinforcement bars for concrete
structures
DAN10 Daniel, R.A. A Composite Bridge is Favoured by Structural Engineering International 2010 16 2
Quantifying Ecological Impact
EAM12 Eamon, C.D. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Alternative Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2012 55 6
Jensen, E.A. Reinforcement Materials for Bridge
Grace, N.F. Superstructures Considering Cost and
Shi, X. Maintenance Uncertainties
EHL97 Ehlen, M.A. Life-cycle costs of new construction Journal of Infrastructure Systems 1997 36 66
materials.
EHL99 Ehlen, M.A. Life-Cycle costs of fiber-reinforced- Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 1999 5 67
polymer bridge decks
GEN13 Gencturk, B. Life-cycle cost assessment of RC and Earthquake Engineering & Structural 2013 57 4
ECC frames using structural Dynamics
optimization
HAS00 Hastak, M. Assessment of Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost of Journal of Composites for Construction 2000 19 29
Halpin, D.W. Composites in Construction
HON07a Hong, T. Life-cycle cost assessment model for Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2007 32 2
Hastak, M. fiber reinforced polymer bridge deck
panels
HON07b Hong, T. Simulation study on construction Automation in Construction 2007 28 17
Hastak, M. process of FRP bridge deck panels
IBB14 Ibbotson, S. LCA case study. Part 2: environmental International Journal of Life Cycle 2014 53 0
Kara, S. footprint and carbon tax of cradle-to- Assessment
gate for composite and stainless steel I-
beams
KEN08a Kendall, A. Integrated Life-Cycle Assessment and Journal of Infrastructure Systems 2008 36 34
Keoleian, G.A. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Model for
Helfand, G.E. Concrete Bridge Deck Applications
KEN08b Kendall, A. Materials design for sustainability Materials and Structures 2008 36 21
Keoleian, G.A. through life cycle modeling of
Lepech, M.D. engineered cementitious composites
KNI10 Knippers, J. Bridges with Glass FibreeReinforced Structural Engineering International 2010 9 12
Pelke, E. Polymer Decks: The Road Bridge in
Gabler, M. Friedberg, Germany
Berger, D.
KUH07 Kuhlmann, U. Ganzheitliche Stahlbau 2007 10 11
Pelke, G. Wirtschaftlichkeitsbetrachtungen bei
Hauf, G. Verbundbrücken unter
Herrmann, T. Berücksichtigung des Bauverfahrens
Steiner, und der Nutzungsdauer
MAR14 Mara, V. Bridge decks of fibre reinforced Construction and Building Materials 2014 31 1
Haghani, P. polymer (FRP): A sustainable solution
Harryson, P.
MEI02a Meiarashi, S.P.E. Life-Cycle Cost of All-Composite Journal of Composites for Construction 2002 15 22
Nishizaki, T. Suspension Bridge
Kishima, T.
NIS06 Nishizaki, T. A Case Study of Life Cycle Cost based on 3rd International Conference on FRP 2006 3 18
Takeda, N. a Real FRP Bridge Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE
Ishizuka, Y. 2006), Miami, US-FL, 2006
Shimomura, T.
NYS03 Nystrom, H.E. Financial viability of fiber-reinforced Journal of Management in Engineering 2003 16 63
Watkins, S.E. polymer (FRP) bridges
Nanni, A.
Murray, S.
SAH03 Sahirman, S. Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility ISPA/SCEA International Joint 2003 22 3
Creese, R.C. of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Conference, Orlando, US-FL, 2003
Setyawati, B.R. Bridge Decks
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 941

Appendix A (continued )

Case Author(s) Title Journal/Source Year No. of references Citations

SAH04 Sahirman, S. Midlot for FRP Bridge Deck Cost AACE International Transactions 2004 10 0
Creese, R.C. Estimation
GangaRao, H.V.S.
Brown, C.
SAH09 Sahirman, S. A Life Cycle Cost Analyzer for Bridge Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial 2009 4 1
Creese, R.C. Deck Economic Viability Analysis Engineering Research Conference,
GangaRao, H.V.S. Brown, C. Miami, US-FL, 2009
SHA97 Shapira, A. Constructability and economics of FRP Journal of Composites for Construction 1997 32 17
Bank, L.C. reinforcement cages for concrete beams
SIM12 Simeos, C.L. Modelling the economic and International Journal of Life Cycle 2012 55 7
Costa Pinto, L.M. environmental performance of Assessment
Bernardo, C.A. engineering products: a materials
selection case study

Appendix B
List of identified reviews.

Author(s) Title Journal or Source/DOI Year Citations

Ansell, M.P. Wood: A 45th anniversary review of JMS papers Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-011- 2012 7
5995-5
Arya, C. Whole life cost analysis in concrete bridge Proceedings of the ICE - Bridge Engineering DOI: 10.1680/ 2004 3
Vassie, P.R. tender evaluation bren.2004.157.1.9
Azwa, Z.N. A review on the degradability of polymeric Materials and Design DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.11.025 2013 47
et al. composites based on natural fibres
Bakis, C.E. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for Journal of Composites for Construction DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) 2002 582
et al. construction-state-of-the-art review 1090-0268(2002)6:2(73)
Banthia, N. Sustainable fiber reinforced concrete for repair Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/ 2014 1
Zanotti, C. applications j.conbuildmat.2013.12.073
Sappakittipakorn, M.
Brandt, A.M. Fibre reinforced cement-based (FRC) Composite Structures DOI: 10.1016/ 2008 137
composites after over 40 years of development j.compstruct.2008.03.006
in building and civil engineering
Burgoyne, C.J. Does FRP have an economic future? 4th International Conference on Advanced Composite 2004 5
Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS IV), Alberta, CA-
ON, 2004
Burgoyne, C.J. Why is FRP not a financial success? FRPRCS-8 e University of Patras, Patras, GR, July 16e18, 2007 6
Balafas, I. 2007
Dicker, M.P.M. Green composites: A review of material Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing DOI: 2014 3
et al. attributes and complementary applications 10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.10.014
Dittenber, D.B. Critical review of recent publications on use of Composites: Part A DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.11.019 2012 68
GangaRao, H.V.S. natural composites in infrastructure
Duflou, J.R. Do fiber-reinforced polymer composites MRS Bulletin DOI: 10.1557/mrs.2012.33 2012 8
et al. provide environmentally benign alternatives? A
life-cycle-assessment-based study
Eichhorn, S.J. Review: current international research into Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-009- 2010 643
et al. cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites 3874-0
El-Diraby, T.E. Framework for managing life-cycle cost of Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering DOI: 10.1061/ 2004 7
Rasic, I. smart infrastructure systems (ASCE)08873801(2004)18:2(115)
Faruk, O. Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: Progress in Polymer Science DOI: 10.1016/ 2012 277
et al. 2000e2010 j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003
Faruk, O. Progress report on natural fiber reinforced Macromolecular Materials and Engineering DOI: 10.1002/ 2014 5
et al. composites mame.201300008
Gholami, M. A review on steel/CFRP strengthening systems Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/ 2013 1
et al. focusing environmental performance j.conbuildmat.2013.04.049
Hollaway, L.C. The evolution of and the way forward for Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/S0950- 2003 110
advanced polymer composites in the civil 0618(03)00038-2
infrastructure
Hollaway, L.C. Polymers, fibres, composites and the civil Advances in Structural Engineering DOI: 10.1260/1369- 2010a e
engineering environment: a personal 4332.13.5.927
experience
Hollaway, L.C. A review of the present and future utilisation of Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/ 2010b 148
FRP composites in the civil infrastructure with j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062
reference to their important in-service
properties
Huber, T. A critical review of all-cellulose composites Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-011- 2010 40
et al. 5774-3
Jacob, A. Composite bridge decks cut life cycle costs REINFORCEDplastics 2008 0
Jawaid, M. Cellulosic/synthetic fibre reinforced polymer Carbohydrate Polymers DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.04.043 2011 111
Abdul Khalil, H.P.S. hybrid composites: A review
John, M.J. Biofibres and biocomposites Carbohydrate Polymers DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.05.040 2008 593
Thomas, S.
2004 634
(continued on next page)
942 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945

Appendix B (continued )

Author(s) Title Journal or Source/DOI Year Citations

Joshi, S.V. Are natural fiber composites environmentally Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing DOI:
et al. superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? 10.1016/j.compositesa.2003.09.016
Kabir, M.M. Chemical treatments on plant-based natural Composites Part B: Engineering DOI: 10.1016/ 2012 67
et al. fibre reinforced polymer composites: An j.compositesb.2012.04.053
overview
Kappos, A.J. Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of Natural Hazards DOI: 10.1007/s11069-007-9155-9 2008 23
Dimitrakopoulos, E.G. buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle
cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves
Karbhari, V.M. Fiber reinforced composites e advanced Applied Composite Materials DOI: 10.1023/ 2000 45
et al. materials for the renewal of civil infrastructure A:1008974804077
Karbhari, V.M. Fiber reinforced composite bridge systems Composite Structures DOI: 10.1016/ 2004 20
eetransition from the laboratory to the field j.compstruct.2004.04.026
Keller, T. Recent all-composite and hybrid fibre- Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials DOI: 2001 70
reinforced polymer bridges and buildings 10.1002/pse.66
Kelly, A. Very stiff fibres woven into engineering's Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-008- 2008 5
future: a long-term perspective 2864-y
Kendall, A. Materials design for sustainability through life Materials and Structures DOI: 10.1617/s11527-007-9310-5 2008 24
Keoleian, G.A. cycle modeling of engineered cementitious
Lepech, M.D. composites
Kendall, A. Developments in FRP bridge design REINFORCEDplastics 2010 3
Koronis,G. Green composites: A review of adequate Composites Part B: Engineering DOI: 10.1016/ 2013 51
Silva, A. materials for automotive applications j.compositesb.2012.07.004
Fontul, M.
Kunieda, M. Ability of recycling on fiber reinforced concrete Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/ 2014 0
Ueda, N. j.conbuildmat.2014.01.060
Nakamura, H.
La Mantia, F.P. Green composites: A brief review Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing DOI: 2011 139
Morreale, M. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.01.017
Lee, S.W. Current and Future Applications of Glass-Fibre- Structural Engineering International DOI: 10.2749/ 2010 5
Hong, K.J. Reinforced Polymer Decks in Korea 101686610793557672
Park, S.
Li, V.C. On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC). Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology DOI: 10.3151/ 2003 378
A Review of the Material and Its Applications jact.1.215
Matabola, K.P. Single polymer composites: a review Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-009- 2009 49
et al. 3792-1
Neville, A. High performance concrete e an overview Materials and Structures DOI: 10.1007/BF02486473 1998 133
Aïtcin, P.-C.
O'Connor, J.S. GRP bridge decks and superstructures in the REINFORCEDplastics 2008 9
USA
Parvin, A. FRP composites strengthening of concrete Polymers DOI: 10.3390/polym6041040 2014 4
Brighton, D. columns under various loading conditions
Pendhari, S.S. Application of polymer composites in civil Composite Structures DOI: 10.1016/ 2008 79
Kant, T. construction: A general review j.compstruct.2007.06.007
Desai, Y.M.
Pimenta, S. Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for Waste Management DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.019 2011 80
Pinto, S.T. structural applications: Technology review and
market outlook
Potyrala, P.B. Use of fibre reinforced polymer composites in Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, ES 2011 0
bridge construction. State of the art in hybrid
and all-composite structures
Reeve, S. FRP bridges e 14 years and counting REINFORCEDplastics 2010 1
Roychoudhury, P. Cost analysis of FRP bridge decks AACE International Transactions 2001 3
Creese, R.C.
Schlaich, M. Zugelemente aus CFK und ihre Verankerungen Bautechnik DOI: 10.1002/bate.201200057 2012 0
et al.
Sen, R. Advances in the application of FRP for repairing Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials DOI: 2003 37
corrosion damage 10.1002/pse.147
Shah, D.U. Developing plant fibre composites for structural Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-013- 2013 14
applications by optimising composite 7458-7
parameters: a critical review
Tang, B. A Successful Beginning for Fiber Reinforced FHWA Proceedings, International Conference on Corrosion 1999 25
Podolny, W. Polymer (FRP) Composite Materials in Bridge and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Applications Orlando, US-FL, December 7e11, 1998
Triandafilou, L.N. Field Issues Associated with the Use of Fiber- Structural Engineering International DOI: 10.2749/ 2010 8
O'Connor, J.S. Reinforced Polymer Composite Bridge Decks 101686610793557663
and Superstructures in Harsh Environments
Van Den Einde, L. Use of FRP composites in civil structural Construction and Building Materials DOI: 10.1016/S0950- 2003 72
Zhao, L. applications 0618(03)00040-0
Seible, F.
Yan, L. Flax fibre and its composites e a review Composites Part B: Engineering DOI: 10.1016/ 2014 19
Chouw, N. j.compositesb.2013.08.014
Jayaraman, K.
Zhang, L. A review: carbon nanofibers from electrospun Journal of Materials Science DOI: 10.1007/s10853-013- 2014 8
et al. polyacrylonitrile and their applications 7705-y
Zhou, A. Joining Techniques for fiber reinforced polymer Composite Structures DOI: 10.1016/ 2005 29
Keller, T. composite bridge decks systems j.compstruct.2004.07.016
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945 943

Appendix C
An example for data quality indicators (including citations).

LCC component Overall DQI Original citations from SIM12

Discount rate
Service life HPM
Service life non-HPM
Conventional costs
Environmental costs, CO2
Social costs, fine
particles, NOX, SO2
Social costs, safety
features
General estimates
for all costs
1/1/3/3/1 “3.5% is the discount rate used (Great Britain Treasury 2003).”
3/na/1/1/1 “lifespan of the CLC is yet not known and was considered equal to that of the metal lighting columns in order to be
possible to do a comparison [ … ] based on manufacturers' experience [ … ] for the CLC it is expected to be more than 60
years (Lightweight Structures B.V. 2010)
3/na/1/1/1 “based on manufacturers' experience, the SLC and ALC lifespans are estimated to be around 30 years [ … ] (Lightweight
Structures B.V. 2010) [ … ] economic depreciation of the three columns is done in a period of 20 years (Lightweight
Structures B.V. 2010) [ … ] at the lifespan of the SLC and ALC can be shortened, as the owner can chose to dismantle them
after this period and install new ones, instead of doing maintenance”
na “all direct (straightforward costs, such as materials, labour, utilities etc.) and indirect (less tangible costs, such as training,
employee safety etc.) costs along the LC of the lighting columns were considered; Budget and market costs were used for
conventional costs of all LC stages. Data were derived from databases, bibliographic sources and collected via
questionnaires sent to suppliers, product manufactures, users and EoL actors”
1/1/1/1/1 “costs of CO2 eq emissions were accounted as an environmental LCC issue. Carbon prices are currently obtainable via a
well-established European Union (EU) market; [...] External costs of CO 2 eq were based in the carbon tax established by
the EU ETS (Point Carbon 2011)”
3/3/1/1/1 “Direct health impacts due to fine particles (including <2.5 m m) were recognized as prime culprits. SO2 may also have
significant direct health effects, while evidence of direct health impacts of NOx is less convincing. Although these
impacts are usually not reflected in the price of goods … in Europe there is no market transaction for SO2, NOx and fine
particles emissions, their damage costs were accounted as societal LCC issues [… ] Damage costs of SO2, NOx and
particles (<2.5 m m) emissions were based on the ExternE project (Bickel and Friedrich 2005) as adapted by NETCEN
(Watkiss and Holland 2000).”
3/3/1/1/1 “safety features of the lighting columns also have a direct effect in the well-being of individuals that circulate in lit roads
and highways (Wanvik 2009b). Therefore, they should be considered as a cost or revenue for society. Again, as there is
also no market transaction for safety features, the damage costs/revenues of reduced mortality risk were similarly
accounted as societal issues in this study [ … ] risk to life reduction due to the increase of safety features of the CLC and
ALC is based on the VSL for traffic accidents of Carlsson et al. (2010) [ … ] The number of fatalities per lighting column per
year in the Netherlands was also not available; therefore, it was considered zero for the CLC, taking in consideration that
there were no deaths in the UK road trial (National Composite Network 2010). For the SLC, this number was estimated
using general statistics from the UK roads (Passive Safety UK 2010). For the ALC, it was also considered zero, allowing for
the fact that aluminium absorbs more energy than steel (Aluminium Lighting Company 2011) … Since the ALC is lighter
and more shock absorptive, it presents a smaller risk of death in a collision”
3/3/1/3/3 When this was not possible, an estimated average for the EU was used instead

References Blake, D., Cairns, A., Dowd, K., 2009. Designing a defined-contribution plan: what to
learn from aircraft designers. Financ. Anal. J. 1, 37e42.
Brandt, A.M., 2008. Fibre reinforced cement-based (FRC) composites after over 40
ACMA, 2003a. Global FRP Use for Bridge Applications: Pedestrian. Available at:
years of development in building and civil engineering. Compos. Struct. 1, 3e9.
http://www.compositesinfrastructure.org/wp-content/uploads/pedestrian-
Burgoyne, C., Balafas, I., 2007. Why is FRP not a financial Success?. In: Proc. 8th Intl.
bridges.pdf (accessed in October 2014).
Conf. On FRP Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-8, Univ.
ACMA, 2003b. Global FRP Use for Bridge Applications: Vehicular. Available at:
of Patras, Patras, Greece.
http://www.compositesinfrastructure.org/wp-content/uploads/vehicular-
Canning, L., Luke, S., 2010. Technical papers: development of FRP bridges in the UK-
bridges.pdf (accessed in October 2014).
An overview. Adv. Struct. Eng. 5, 823e835.
Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., 2012. Development of sustainable assessment criteria
Carlsson Reich, M., 2005. Economic assessment of municipal waste management
for building materials selection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 6, 666e687.
systemsdcase studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and
Al-Oqla, F.M., Sapuan, S.M., 2014. Natural fiber reinforced polymer composites in
life cycle costing (LCC). J. Clean. Prod. 3, 253e263.
industrial applications: feasibility of date palm fibers for sustainable automo-
Cho, A., 2006. The 21st Century interstate features a new material world. ENR 10,
tive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 347e354.
26e31.
Alampalli, S., O'Connor, J., Yannotti, A.P., 2002. Fiber reinforced polymer composites
Christensen, P.N., Sparks, G.A., Kostuk, K.J., 2005. A method-based survey of life
for the superstructure of a short-span rural bridge. Compos. Struct. 1, 21e27.
cycle costing literature pertinent to infrastructure design and renewal. Can. J.
Aouad, G., Bakis, N., Amaratunga, D., Osbaldiston, S., Sun, M., Kishk, M., Al-Hajj, A.,
Civ. Eng. 32, 250e259.
Pollock, R., 2001. An Integrated Life Cycle Costing Database: a Conceptual
Ciroth, A., Muller, S., Weidema, B., Lesage, P., 2013. Empirically based uncertainty
Framework (Construction Informatics Digital Library).
factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1e11.
Asokan, P., Osmani, M., Price, A.D., 2009. Assessing the recycling potential of glass
Cole, R.J., Sterner, E., 2000. Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle costing.
fibre reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites. J. Clean. Prod.
Build. Res. Inf. 5e6, 368e375.
9, 821e829.
Cooper, H.M., 1982. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research re-
ASTM E 917:1994. Standard Practice for Measuring Life-cycle Costs of Buildings and
views. Rev. Educ. Res. 2, 291e302.
Building Systems.
Correia, J.R., Almeida, N.M., Figueira, J.R., 2011. Recycling of FRP composites: reusing
Azwa, Z., Yousif, B., Manalo, A., Karunasena, W., 2013. A review on the degradability
fine GFRP waste in concrete mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1745e1753.
of polymeric composites based on natural fibres. Mater Des. 47, 424e442.
Cui, Y., Cheung, M.M.S., Noruziaan, B., Lee, S., Tao, J., 2008. Development of ductile
Baitz, M., Albrecht, S., Brauner, E., Broadbent, C., Castellan, G., Conrath, P., Fava, J.,
composite reinforcement bars for concrete structures. Mater. Struct. 9,
Finkbeiner, M., Fischer, M., Fullana i Palmer, P., Krinke, S., Leroy, C., Loebel, O.,
€ginger, B., Pfaadt, M., Rebitzer, G., Rother, E., 1509e1518.
McKeown, P., Mersiowsky, I., Mo
Curbach, M., Scheerer, S., 2012. Wie die Baustoffe von heute das Bauen von morgen
Ruhland, K., Schanssema, A., Tikana, L., 2012. LCA's theory and practice: like
beeinflussen. In: Müller, H.S. (Ed.), Baustoffe und Betonbau: Lehren, Forschen,
ebony and ivory living in perfect harmony? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1, 5e13.
Prüfen, Anwenden-Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald S.
Becheikh, N., Landry, R., Amara, N., 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical studies
Müller. KIT Scientific Publishing, pp. 25e36.
in the manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from
Daniel, R.A., 2010. A composite bridge is favoured by quantifying ecological impact.
1993e2003. Technovation 5e6, 644e664.
Struct. Eng. Int. 4, 385e391.
Berg, A.C., Bank, L.C., Oliva, M.G., Russell, J.S., 2006. Construction and cost analysis of
de Saxce , M., Rabenasolo, B., Perwuelz, A., 2014. Assessment and improvement of
an FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck. Constr. Build. Mater. 8, 515e526.
the appropriateness of an LCI data set on a system leveleapplication to textile
Bhattacharya, A., Romani, M., Stern, N., 2012. Infrastructure for Development: Meeting
manufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 950e961.
the Challenge. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London. Available
de Solla Price, D., 1981. The analysis of scientometric matrices for policy implica-
at: http://www.cccep.ac.uk/publications/policy/docs/pp-infrastructure-for-
tions. Scientometrics 1, 47e53.
development-meeting-the-challenge.pdf (accessed in January 2015).
€ tze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R., 2014. Integrating life cycle costing and Dittenber, D.B., GangaRao, H.V.S., 2012. Critical review of recent publications on use
Bierer, A., Go
of natural composites in infrastructure. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 8,
life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. J. Clean.
1419e1429.
Prod. 108, 1289e1301.
944 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
Duflou, J.R., Deng, Y., Van Acker, K., Dewulf, W., 2012. Do fiber-reinforced polymer
composites provide environmentally benign alternatives? A life-cycle-assess-
ment-based study. MRS Bull. 4, 374e382.
Eamon, C.D., Jensen, E.A., Grace, N.F., Shi, X., 2012. Life-cycle cost analysis of alter-
native reinforcement materials for bridge superstructures considering cost and
maintenance uncertainties. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 4, 373e380.
Ehlen, M.A., 1997. Life-cycle costs of new construction materials. J. Infrastruct. Syst.
4, 129e133.
Ehlen, M.A., 1999. Life-cycle costs of fiber-reinforced-polymer bridge decks. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 3, 224e230.
Eichhorn, S., Dufresne, A., Aranguren, M., Marcovich, N., Capadona, J., Rowan, S.,
Weder, C., Thielemans, W., Roman, M., Renneckar, S., 2010. Review: current
international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J. Mater.
Sci. 1, 1e33.
El-Diraby, T.E., Rasic, I., 2004. Framework for managing life-cycle cost of smart
infrastructure systems. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2, 115e119.
Ertekin, A.O., 2013. Probabilistic Life Cycle Cost Optimization of Bridges. Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7282/T38S4MXK (accessed in January 2015).
Fabrycky, W.J., Blanchard, B.S., 1991. Life-cycle Cost and Economic Analysis. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, US-NJ.
Farran, M., Zayed, T., 2012. New life-cycle costing approach for infrastructure
rehabilitation. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1, 40e60.
Fassin, Y., 2009. The stakeholder model refined. J. Bus. Ethics 1, 113e135.
Fiber Core Europe, 2015. Where Are Our Projects?. Available at: http://fibercore-
europe.com/index.php?option¼com_
k2dynamap&view¼k2dynamap&Itemid¼263&lang¼enb (accessed in January
2015).
Fink, A., 2010. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper.
Sage, London, UK.
Frangopol, D.M., Liu, M., 2007. Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure
based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 1, 29e41.
Fuller, S.K., Petersen, S.R., 1996. Life-cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy
Management Program, 1995 Edition. NIST Handbook.
Gencturk, B., 2013. Life-cycle cost assessment of RC and ECC frames using structural
optimization. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1, 61e79.
Gholami, M., Sam, A.R.M., Yatim, J.M., Tahir, M.M., 2013. A review on steel/CFRP
strengthening systems focusing environmental performance. Constr. Build.
Mater 301e310.
Girmscheid, G., Kapp, M., 2005. Risikobasiertes probabilistisches LCCA-Modell zur
Bewertung baulicher Lo €sungen. Bauingenieur 1e13.
Hastak, M., Halpin, D.W., 2000. Assessment of life-cycle benefit-cost of composites
in construction. J. Compos. Constr. 3, 103e111.
Hastak, M., Halpin, D.W., Hong, T., 2004. Constructability, Maintainability, and
Operability of Fiber-reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridge Deck Panels. Available at:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1511&context¼jtrp
(accessed in January 2015).
Hawk, H., 2004. Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis Research Report. Part I: Review
of Existing Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Uncertainty Modeling
Software.
Henderson, B.D., 1984. The application and misapplication of the experience curve.
J. Bus. Strategy 4, 3e9.
Henriksson, P.J.G., Guine e, J.B., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., Green, D.M., 2014.
A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process datadincluding estimates
for uncertainty. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2, 429e436.
Hoeft, U., 1992. Lebenszykluskonzepte: Grundlage für das strategische Marketing-
und Technologiemanagement. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, DE.
Hofstra, N., Huisingh, D., 2014. Eco-innovations characterized: a taxonomic classi-
fication of relationships between humans and nature. J. Clean. Prod. 66,
459e468.
Ho€jer, M., Ahlroth, S., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O.,
Hochschorner, E., Nilsson, M., Palm, V., 2008. Scenarios in selected tools for
environmental systems analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1958e1970.
Hollaway, L.C., 2003. The evolution of and the way forward for advanced polymer
composites in the civil infrastructure. Constr. Build. Mater. 6, 365e378.
Hollaway, L.C., 2010. Polymers, fibres, composites and the civil engineering envi-
ronment: a personal experience. Adv. Struct. Eng. 5, 927e960.
Hong, T., Hastak, M., 2007a. Life-cycle cost assessment model for fiber reinforced
polymer bridge deck panels. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 8, 976e991.
Hong, T., Hastak, M., 2007b. Simulation study on construction process of FRP bridge
deck panels. Autom. Constr. 5, 620e631.
Hoon, C., 2013. Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies an approach to theory
building. Organ. Res. Methods 4, 522e556.
Horv ath, P., Berlin, S., 2012. Green target costing: getting ready for the Green
Challenge. Cost. Manag. 26, 25e37.
Howarth, J., Mareddy, S.S.R., Mativenga, P.T., 2014. Energy intensity and environ-
mental analysis of mechanical recycling of carbon fibre composite. J. Clean.
Prod. 81, 46e50.
Hu, M., Kleijn, R., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K.P., Di Maio, F., 2013. An approach to LCSA:
the case of concrete recycling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9, 1793e1803.
Hunkeler, D.J., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing.
CRC.
Ibbotson, S., Kara, S., 2014. LCA case study. Part 2: environmental footprint and
carbon tax of cradle-to-gate for composite and stainless steel I-beams. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2, 272e284.
IEC 60300-3-3, 2005. Dependability Management e Part 3-3: Application Guide e
Life Cycle Costing.
ISO 15686e5:2008. Buildings and Constructed Assets - Service-life Planning - Part
5: Life-cycle Costing.
Jawaid, M., Abdul Khalil, H.P.S., 2011. Cellulosic/synthetic fibre reinforced polymer
hybrid composites: a review. Carbohydr. Polym. 1, 1e18.
Joshi, S.V., Drzal, L.T., Mohanty, A.K., Arora, S., 2004. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos. Part A
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 3, 371e376.
Karbhari, V.M., 2004. Fiber reinforced composite bridge systemseetransition from
the laboratory to the field. Compos. Struct. 1, 5e16.
Keller, T., 2001. Recent all-composite and hybrid fibre-reinforced polymer bridges
and buildings. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2, 132e140.
Kendall, A., Keoleian, G.A., Helfand, G.E., 2008a. Integrated life-cycle assessment and
life-cycle cost analysis model for concrete bridge deck applications.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 3, 214e222.
Kendall, A., Keoleian, G.A., Lepech, M.D., 2008b. Materials design for sustainability
through life cycle modeling of engineered cementitious composites. Mater.
Struct. 6, 1117e1131.
Kidalova, L., Stevulova, N., Terpakova, E., Sicakova, A., 2012. Utilization of alternative
materials in lightweight composites. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 116e119.
Klemes, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Huisingh, D., 2012. Recent cleaner production advances
in process monitoring and optimisation. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 1e8.
Knippers, J., Pelke, E., Gabler, M., Berger, D., 2010. Bridges with glass
fibreereinforced polymer decks: the road bridge in Friedberg, Germany. Struct.
Eng. Int. 4, 400e404.
Korpi, E., Ala-Risku, T., 2008. Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies.
Manag. Audit. J. 3, 240e261.
KPMG International, 2014. A New Vision of Value: Connecting Corporate and So-
cietal Value Creation. Available at: http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/topics/
climate-change-sustainability-services/Documents/a-new-vision-of-value-v1.
pdf (accessed in January 2015).
Kuhlmann, U., Pelke, E., Hauf, G., Herrmann, T., Steiner, J., Aul, M., 2007. Ganzhei-
tliche Wirtschaftlichkeitsbetrachtungen bei Verbundbrücken unter Ber-
ücksichtigung des Bauverfahrens und der Nutzungsdauer. Stahlbau 2, 105e116.
Kvale, S., 1995. The social construction of validity. Qual. Inq. 1, 19e40.
Lee, S.W., Hong, K.J., 2009. The current and future applications of FRP decks. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of International Institute for
FRP in Construction for Asia-Pacific Region, Seoul, KR, pp. 29e34.
Lee, S.W., Hong, K.J., Park, S., 2010. Current and future applications of glass-fibre-
reinforced polymer decks in Korea. Struct. Eng. Int. 4, 405e408.
Li, V.C., 1998. Engineered cementitious composites - tailored composites through
micromechanical modeling. In: Banthia, N., Bentur, A., Mufti, A. (Eds.), Fiber
Reinforced Concrete: Present and the Future.
Li, V.C., 2003. On engineered cementitious composites (ECC). J. Adv. Concr. Technol.
3, 215e230.
Lin, J.Y., Doemeland, D., 2012. Beyond Keynesianism: global infrastructure in-
vestments in times of crisis. J. Int. Commer. Econ. Policy 3 (3).
Lin, Z., Kanda, T., Li, V.C., 1999. On interface property characterization and perfor-
mance of fiber reinforced cementitious composites. Concr. Sci. Eng. 3, 173e184.
Lozano, R., Carpenter, A., Huisingh, D., 2015. A review of ‘theories of the firm’ and
their contributions to corporate sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 430e442.
Lukka, K., Granlund, M., 1996. Cost accounting in Finland: current practice and
trends of development. Eur. Account. Rev. 1, 1e28.
Maltz, A.B., Ellram, L.M., 1997. Total cost of relationship: an analytical framework for
the logistics outsourcing decision. J. Bus. Logist. 1, 45e65.
Mara, V., Haghani, R., Harryson, P., 2014. Bridge decks of fibre reinforced polymer
(FRP): a sustainable solution. Constr. Build. Mater 50, 190e199.
Mayring, P., 2003. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz
Verlag, Weinheim, DE.
Meiarashi, S., Nishizaki, I., Kishima, T., 2002a. Life-cycle cost of all-composite sus-
pension bridge. J. Compos. Constr. 4, 206e214.
Meira Castro, A.C., Carvalho, J.P., Ribeiro, M.C.S., Meixedo, J.P., Silva, F.J.G., Fiúza, A.,
Dinis, M.L., 2014. An integrated recycling approach for GFRP pultrusion wastes:
recycling and reuse assessment into new composite materials using Fuzzy
Boolean Nets. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 420e430.
Minne, E., Crittenden, J.C., 2014. Impact of maintenance on life cycle impact and cost
assessment for residential flooring options. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1, 1e10.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identifi-
cation and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 4, 853e886.
Muller, S., Lesage, P., Ciroth, A., Mutel, C., Weidema, B.P., Samson, R., 2014. The
application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent
v3. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1e11.
Nishizaki, I., Takeda, N., Ishizuka, Y., Shimomura, T., 2006. A case study of life cycle
cost based on a real FRP bridge. In: Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering.
Nutley, S.M., Davies, H.T.O., Smith, P.C., 2000. What Works? Evidence-based Policy
and Practice in Public Services. MIT Press.
Nystrom, H.E., Watkins, S.E., Nanni, A., Murray, S., 2003. Financial viability of fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) bridges. J. Manag. Eng. 1, 2e8.
O'Connor, J.S., 2008. GRP bridge decks and superstructures in the USA. Reinf. Plast.
6, 26e31.
OECD/Eurostat, 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting
Innovation Data, third ed.
 P. Ilg et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 926e945
Ozbay, K., Parker, N.A., Jawad, D., Hussain, S., 2003. Guidelines for Life Cycle Cost
Analysis.
Padgett, J.E., Dennemann, K., Ghosh, J., 2010. Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost-
ebenefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment. Struct. Saf. 3, 165e173.
Pantura, 2011. D 5.3-Needs for Maintenance and Refurbishment of Bridges in Urban
Environments.
Parvin, A., Brighton, D., 2014. FRP composites strengthening of concrete columns
under various loading conditions. Polymers 4, 1040e1056.
Pendhari, S.S., Kant, T., Desai, Y.M., 2008. Application of polymer composites in civil
construction: a general review. Compos. Struct. 2, 114e124.
Pimenta, S., Pinho, S.T., 2011. Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for
structural applications: technology review and market outlook. Waste Manag.
2, 378e392.
Potyrala, P.B., 2011. Use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites in Bridge Con-
struction. State of the Art in Hybrid and All-composite Structures.
Radomski, W., 2002. Bridge Rehabilitation. Imperial College Press London.
Ribeiro, I., Peças, P., Henriques, E., 2013. Incorporating tool design into a compre-
hensive life cycle cost framework using the case of injection molding. J. Clean.
Prod. 53, 297e309.
Richard, D., Hong, T., Hastak, M., Mirmiran, A., Salem, O., 2007. Life-cycle perfor-
mance model for composites in construction. Compos. Part B Eng. 2, 236e246.
Rider, F., 1944. The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library: a Problem and its
Solution. Hadham Press, New York, US-NY.
Roberts, A., 2011. The Carbon Fibre Industry Worldwide 2011e2020: an Evaluation
of Current Markets and Future Supply and Demand.
Roychoudhury, P., Creese, R.C., 2001. Cost analysis of FRP bridge decks. AACE Int.
Trans. 1e8.
Sahirman, S., Creese, R.C., Setyawati, B.R., 2003. Evaluation of the economic feasi-
bility of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bridge decks. In: The International So-
ciety of Parametric Analysts (ISPA) and the Society of Cost Estimating and
Analysis (SCEA) Joint Conference, Orlando, Florida. 2003.
Sahirman, S., Creese, R.C., GangaRao, H.V.S., Setyawati, B.R., 2004. Midlot for FRP
bridge deck cost estimation. AACE Int. Trans. 1e6.
Sahirman, S., Creese, R.C., Jaraieidi, M., Gopalakrishnan, B., GangaRao, H.V.S.,
Brown, C., 2009. A life cycle cost analyzer for bridge deck economic viability
analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Confer-
ence, pp. 143e148.
Sakurai, M., Keating, P.J., 1994. Target costing und activity-based costing. Controlling
2, 84e91.
Schaltegger, S., Gibassier, D., Zvezdov, D., 2013. Is environmental management ac-
counting a discipline? A bibliometric literature review. Meditari Account. Res. 1,
4e31.
Schladitz, F., 2014. Mit Carbon Concrete Composite C3 neue Dimensionen des
Bauens gestalten. Dresdner Transferbrief.
Schmohl, A., Adamow, K., Martens, N., Breuer, K., 2014. Zum Potenzial von Koh-
lenstofffaserverbundwerkstoffen in Bauanwendungen. Bauphysik 1, 11e19.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1699e1710.
Shah, D.U., 2013. Developing plant fibre composites for structural applications by
optimising composite parameters: a critical review. J. Mater. Sci. 18, 6083e6107.
Shapira, A., Bank, L.C., 1997. Constructability and economics of FRP reinforcement
cages for concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr. 3, 82e89.
Simo~es, C.L., Pinto Costa, L.M., Bernardo, C.A., 2012. Modelling the economic and
environmental performance of engineering products: a materials selection case
study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6, 678e688.
Song, Y.S., Youn, J.R., Gutowski, T.G., 2009. Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-
reinforced composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 8, 1257e1265.
945
Sterner, E., 2000. Life-cycle costing and its use in the Swedish building sector. Build.
Res. Inf. 5e6, 387e393.
Swarr, T.E., Hunkeler, D., Klo€pffer, W., Pesonen, H., Ciroth, A., Brent, A.C., Pagan, R.,
2011. Environmental Life-cycle Costing: a Code of Practice. SETAC, Pensacola,
US-FL.
Tang, B., Podolny, W., 1999. A successful beginning for fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) composite materials in bridge applications. In: FHWA Proc., International
Conference on Corrosion and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Dec 7-11, 1998, Orlando, US-FL.
Thoft-Christensen, P., 2009. Life-cycle cost-benefit (LCCB) analysis of bridges from a
user and social point of view. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 1, 49e57.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 3, 207e222.
Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2012. Research Needs Statements: Bridge
Life-cycle Cost Analysis Synthesis of Practice. 09/14.
Utne, I.B., 2009. Life cycle cost (LCC) as a tool for improving sustainability in the
Norwegian fishing fleet. J. Clean. Prod. 3, 335e344.
Valdivia, S., Ugaya, C.M.L., Sonnemann, G., Hildenbrand, J., 2011. Towards a Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment: Making Informed Choices on Products. UNEP/SETAC
Life Cycle Initiative, Paris.
Van Noortwijk, J.M., Klatter, H.E., 2004. The use of lifetime distributions in bridge
maintenance and replacement modelling. Comput. Struct. 13, 1091e1099.
Weidema, B.P., Wesnæs, M.S., 1996. Data quality management for life cycle in-
ventories: an example of using data quality indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 4,
167e174.
Weitzman, M.L., 2001. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. 1, 260e271.
Zehbold, C., 1996. Lebenszykluskostenrechnung. Gabler, Wiesbaden, DE.
Zumsteg, J.M., Cooper, J.S., Noon, M.S., 2012. Systematic review checklist. J. Ind. Ecol.
Issue Suppl. 1, 12e21.
Glossary
ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
CAD: computer-aided design
CFRP: carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers
DQI: data quality indicators
ECC: engineered cementitious composite(s)
EoL: end-of-life
FRC: fiber-reinforced concrete
FRP: fiber-reinforced polymer(s)
GFRP: glass-fiber-reinforced polymers
HPM: high-performance material(s)
IEC: International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
LCA: life cycle assessment
LCC: life cycle costing
LCCA: life cycle cost analysis
LCSA: life cycle sustainability assessment
MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation
MR&R: maintenance, repair and rehabilitation
non-HPM: non-high-performance material(s) (~conventional material(s))
SETAC: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SRC: steel-reinforced concrete
TCO: total cost of ownership
WLC: whole life costing