Post on 20-Apr-2018
LCA of selectedroad bridges in Norway
Johanne HammervoldSenior Advisorjohanne@misa.noPhone: 411 20661
www.misa.no
Outline
• Presentation of case bridges– Bridge types– Materials included
• Results– Totals– In more detail for global warming and acidification
• Conclusions
• MiSA case study– Comparison of three bridges for one bridge site
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
2
The case bridges
5/21/2012
3
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
• 21 concrete bridges– 6 box girder bridges, 4 girder bridges, 9 slab bridges
• 9 steel bridges– 6 girder bridges, 1 arch bridge, 1 box bridge, 1 slab bridge
• 5 timber bridges– 4 arch bridges, 1 of unknown design
Size parameters – Concrete bridges
5/21/2012
4
NAME TYPE Width Length Area SpansMax
hightUnit m m m2 No m
Brattfoss East bridge Concrete box girder 11 231 2 541Hillersvika bridge Concrete box girder 10.6 38.5 417 1 ca 10Hobekk bru Concrete box girder 10.5 160 3 395 3 ca 30Kjosevegen bru Concrete box girder 10.5 307 6 447 5 ca 60Seimsbrui bridge Concrete box girder 10.3 26 372Svelgjabrui bridge Concrete box girder 8.5 40 340Myklebust bridge Concrete girder 6.5 22 143Sifjordbotn bridge Concrete girder 6.5 14 91Stigagjel bridge Concrete girder 4 35 140Solli bridge Concrete girder 13 112 1 456 4 ca 15Gulliksrud bridge Concrete slab 12 183 2 196Henriksåsen bru Concrete slab 10.5 55 1 188 3 ca 15Hofsroed bru Concrete slab 10.5 103 2 201 3 ca 15Holten bridge Concrete slab 8.9 24 214Jordola bridge Concrete slab 8.9 24.5 218Selli bridge Concrete slab 14 30 420Solum bru Concrete slab 10.5 180 3 834 6 ca 25Struten bru Concrete slab 10.5 67 1 444 2 ca 25Kalnes bridge Concrete slab 10.25 60.19 800 3 ca 27
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
5/21/2012 ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
5
NAME TYPE Width Length Area SpansMax
hightUnit m m m2 No m
Austerstraumen bridge Steel girder 9.9 196 1 940Breivikeidet bridge Steel girder 8.1 35 284Klenevaagen bridge Steel girder 8.3 42.2 321 1 20Noetoey bridge Steel girder 6.5 106 689Vesterbukta bridge Steel girder 9.9 196 273Vesterstraumen bridge Steel girder 9.9 305 3 020Aasnes bridge Steel arch 9 111 1 120 1 ?Namsos bridge Steel box girder 11 360 3 960Spissoey bridge Steel slab 6.5 72 468
Size parameters – Steel and Timber bridges
NAME TYPE Width Length Area SpansMax
hightUnit m m m2 No m
Fretheim bridge Timber arch 6.05 37.9 230 1 ca 5Maasoer bridge Timber arch 754Ner-Hole bridge Timber arch 6.5 46.9 305 1 ca 8Nybergsund bridge Timber arch 1 139Borlange bridge Timber, unknown design 164
Materials includedin study
Amounts aremainly
based ontender documents
5/21/2012
6
Brattfoss East bridge x x x x x x x x x xHillersvika bridge x x x x x x x x x xHobekk bridge x x x x x x x x x x xKjosevegen bridge x x x x x x x xSeimsbrui bridge x x x x x x x x xSvelgjabrui bridge x x x x x x x x x xMyklebust bridge x x x x x x x x x xSifjordbotn bridge x x x x x x x x x xStigagjel bridge x x x x x x x x x xSolli bridge x x x x x x x x x x xGulliksrud bridge x x x x x x x x xHenriksaasen bridge x x x x x x x x x xHofsroed bridge x x x x x x x x x xHolten bridge x x x x x x x x x xJordola bridge x x x x x x x x x xSelli bridge x x x x x x x x x xSolum bridge x x x x x x x x x xStruten bridge x x x x x x x x x xKalnes bridge x x x x x x x x x x
Aasnes bridge x x x x x x x x x xNamsos bridge x x x x x x x x xAusterstraumen bridge x x x x x x x x x xBreivikeidet bridge x x x x x x x x xKlenevaagen bridge x x x x x x x x x xNoetoey bridge x x x x x x x x x xVesterbukta bridge x x x x x x x x x xVesterstraumen bridge x x x x x x x x x xSpissoey bridge x x x x x x x x x x
Fretheim bridge x x x x x x x x x x xMaasoer bridge x x x x x x x x x x x xNer-Hole bridge x x x x x x x x x x xNybergsund bridge x x x x x x x x xBorlange bridge x x x x x x x x
Bla
stin
g
Exc
avat
ion
Mac
hine
ry
Geo
text
ile
EPS
Cem
ent m
orta
r
Con
cret
e
Rei
nfor
cing
Mas
ticas
phal
t
Glu
lam
Saw
ntim
ber
Pres
erva
tive
tr.
Cop
per
Stee
l
Pow
der c
oatin
g
Zin
cco
atin
g
Asp
halt
mem
.
Tac
kco
at
Asp
halt
Concrete bridges
Steel bridges
Timber bridges
OM and EOL not included
Environmental performance
• Environmental performance of the bridges are measured by their potential impact to 5 selected environmental issues:– Global warming– Ozone depletion– Photochemical oxidation potential (smog)– Acidification– Eutrophication
• All results are given in emissions per m2 effective bridge area– Bridge area definition: length of bridge box multiplied by bridge width
(distance between the railings)• Results in two layers
– Total results for each category, comparison of the bridges– Results for global warming in more detail
5/21/2012
7
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
GWP ODP PCOP AP EP
BrattfossHillersvikaHobekkKjosevegenSeimsbruiSvelgjabruiMyklebustSifjordbotnStigagjelSolliGulliksrudHenriksaasenHofsroedHoltenJordoelaSelliSolumStrutenKalnes
Kjosevegen: tall bridgeSelli: High amountblasting
Solli: EPS
Holten: High amounts concrete and reinforcing
Box
gird
erG
irder
Slab
All concrete bridges - 5 Impact categories
569
542 59
0
912
482 61
1
556 62
1 741
531
457 497 57
2
876
644
548
511 59
0
564
759 83
9
661 70
5
698 82
7
1052
804
555
277
1276
414 53
6 565
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400B
rattf
oss
Eas
t brid
ge
Hill
ersv
ika
brid
ge
Hob
ekk
bru
Kjo
seve
gen
bru
Seim
sbru
i brid
ge
Svel
gjab
rui b
ridge
Myk
lebu
st b
ridge
Sifjo
rdbo
tn b
ridge
Stig
agje
l brid
ge
Solli
brid
ge
Gul
liksr
ud b
ridge
Hen
rikså
sen
bru
Hof
sroe
d br
u
Hol
ten
brid
ge
Jord
ola
brid
ge
Selli
brid
ge
Solu
m b
ru
Stru
ten
bru
Kal
nes
brid
ge
Aus
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Bre
ivik
eide
t brid
ge
Kle
neva
agen
brid
ge
Noe
toey
brid
ge
Ves
terb
ukta
brid
ge
Ves
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Aas
nes
brid
ge
Nam
sos
brid
ge
Spis
soey
brid
ge
Fret
heim
brid
ge
Maa
soer
Brid
ge
Ner
-Hol
e B
ridge
Nyb
ergs
und
Brid
ge
Bor
lang
e B
ridge
CO2 emissions per effective surface area
5/21/2012
9
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Concrete bridges Steel bridges Timber bridges
Box
gird
er
Gird
er
Slab
Gird
er
Box
gird
erSl
ab
Arc
h
Arc
h
Unk
now
nde
sign
av: 618 av: 612 av: 584 av:
748av: 626
569
542 59
0
912
482 61
1
556 62
1 741
531
457 497 57
2
876
644
548
511 59
0
564
759 83
9
661 705
698 82
7
1052
804
555
277
1276
414 53
6 565
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400B
rattf
oss
Eas
t brid
ge
Hill
ersv
ika
brid
ge
Hob
ekk
bru
Kjo
seve
gen
bru
Seim
sbru
i brid
ge
Svel
gjab
rui b
ridge
Myk
lebu
st b
ridge
Sifjo
rdbo
tn b
ridge
Stig
agje
l brid
ge
Solli
brid
ge
Gul
liksr
ud b
ridge
Hen
rikså
sen
bru
Hof
sroe
d br
u
Hol
ten
brid
ge
Jord
ola
brid
ge
Selli
brid
ge
Solu
m b
ru
Stru
ten
bru
Kal
nes
brid
ge
Aus
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Bre
ivik
eide
t brid
ge
Kle
neva
agen
brid
ge
Noe
toey
brid
ge
Ves
terb
ukta
brid
ge
Ves
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Aas
nes
brid
ge
Nam
sos
brid
ge
Spis
soey
brid
ge
Fret
heim
brid
ge
Maa
soer
Brid
ge
Ner
-Hol
e B
ridge
Nyb
ergs
und
Brid
ge
Bor
lang
e B
ridge
CO2 emissions per effective surface area
5/21/2012
10
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Concrete bridges Steel bridges Timber bridges
av: 559 (618) av: 561 (584)av: 448
(626)
av: 748
569
542 59
0
912
482 61
1
556 62
1 741
531
457 497 57
2
876
644
548
511 59
0
564
759 83
9
661 705
698 82
7
1052
804
555
277
1276
414 53
6 565
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400B
rattf
oss
Eas
t brid
ge
Hill
ersv
ika
brid
ge
Hob
ekk
bru
Kjo
seve
gen
bru
Seim
sbru
i brid
ge
Svel
gjab
rui b
ridge
Myk
lebu
st b
ridge
Sifjo
rdbo
tn b
ridge
Stig
agje
l brid
ge
Solli
brid
ge
Gul
liksr
ud b
ridge
Hen
rikså
sen
bru
Hof
sroe
d br
u
Hol
ten
brid
ge
Jord
ola
brid
ge
Selli
brid
ge
Solu
m b
ru
Stru
ten
bru
Kal
nes
brid
ge
Aus
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Bre
ivik
eide
t brid
ge
Kle
neva
agen
brid
ge
Noe
toey
brid
ge
Ves
terb
ukta
brid
ge
Ves
ters
trau
men
brid
ge
Aas
nes
brid
ge
Nam
sos
brid
ge
Spis
soey
brid
ge
Fret
heim
brid
ge
Maa
soer
Brid
ge
Ner
-Hol
e B
ridge
Nyb
ergs
und
Brid
ge
Bor
lang
e B
ridge
CO2 emissions per effective surface area
5/21/2012
11
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Concrete bridges Steel bridges Timber bridges
Avg: 601 + 52 %- 24 %
Avg: 767 + 37 %- 28 %
Avg: 613 + 108 %- 55 %
Concrete bridges – Global Warming
5/21/2012
12
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 20120 200 400 600 800 1000
Brattfoss East bridge
Hillersvika bridge
Hobekk bru
Kjosevegen bru
Seimsbrui bridge
Svelgjabrui bridge
Myklebust bridge
Sifjordbotn bridge
Stigagjel bridge
Solli bridge
Gulliksrud bridge
Henriksaasen bru
Hofsroed bru
Holten bridge
Jordola bridge
Selli bridge
Solum bru
Struten bru
Kalnes bridge
kg CO2-eq /m2
Blasting
Excavation
Machinery
Geotextile
Epoxy
Cement mortar
Concrete
Reinforcing
Mastic asphalt
Steel
Powder coating
Zinc coating
Asphalt membrane
Tack coat
Asphalt
Steel bridges – Global Warming
5/21/2012
13
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Austerstraumen bridge
Breivikeidet bridge
Klenevaagen bridge
Noetoey bridge
Vesterbukta bridge
Vesterstraumen bridge
Åsnes bru - stålbjelkebru
Namsos bridge
Spissoey bridge
kg CO2 eq/m2
Blasting
Excavation
Machinery
Concrete
Reinforcing
Steel
Powder coating
Zinc coating
Asphalt membrane
Tack coat
Asphalt
Timber bridges – Global Warming
5/21/2012
14
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fretheim bridge
Maasoer Bridge
Ner-Hole Bridge
Nybergsund Bridge
Borlange Bridge
kg CO2 eq/m2
ExcavationMachineryConcreteReinforcingGlue laminated timberSawn timberPreservative treatmentCopperSteelPowder coatingZinc coatingAsphalt membraneTack coatAsphalt
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
Brattfoss East bridgeHillersvika bridge
Hobekk bruKjosevegen bru
Seimsbrui bridgeSvelgjabrui bridgeMyklebust bridgeSifjordbotn bridge
Stigagjel bridgeGulliksrud bridgeHenriksåsen bru
Hofsroed bruHolten bridgeJordola bridge
Selli bridgeSolum bru
Struten bruNordre Bjoernstad bridge
Boerstad bridgeKalnes bridge
Solli bridge
kg SO2 - eq
Blasting
Excavation
Machinery
Geotextile
Epoxy
Cement mortar
Concrete
Reinforcing
Mastic asphalt
Glue laminated timber
Sawn timber
Preservative treatment
Copper
Steel
Powder coating
Zinc coating
Asphalt membrane
Tack coat
Asphalt
Concrete bridges – Acidification
5/21/2012
15
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
0 1 2 3 4
Aasnes bru
Namsos bridge
Austerstraumen bridge
Breivikeidet bridge
Klenevaagen bridge
Noetoey bridge
Vesterbukta bridge
Vesterstraumen bridge
Spissoey bridge
kg SO2 - eq
Blasting
Excavation
Machinery
Geotextile
Epoxy
Cement mortar
Concrete
Reinforcing
Mastic asphalt
Glue laminated timber
Sawn timber
Preservative treatment
Copper
Steel
Powder coating
Zinc coating
Asphalt membrane
Tack coat
Asphalt
Steel bridges – Acidification
5/21/2012
16
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fretheim bridge
Maasoer Bridge
Ner-Hole Bridge
Nybergsund Bridge
Borlange Bridge
kg SO2 - eq
BlastingExcavationMachineryGeotextileEpoxyCement mortarConcreteReinforcingMastic asphaltGlue laminated timberSawn timberPreservative treatmentCopperSteelPowder coatingZinc coatingAsphalt membraneTack coatAsphalt
Timber bridges – Acidification
5/21/2012
17
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Bridges in highway project; Sky - Langangen
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
18
Bridge Width Length Effectivesurfacearea
Spans Max hight
Struten 10.5 m 67 m 1 444 m2 2 ~ 25 m
Solum 10.5 m 180 m 3 834 m2 6 ~ 25 m
Hofsroed 10.5 m 103 m 2 201 m2 3 ~ 15 m
Henriksaasen 10.5 m 55 m 1 188 m2 3 ~ 15 m
Kjosevegen 10.5 m 307 m 6 447 m2 5 ~ 60 m
Hobekk 10.5 m 160 m 3 395 m2 3 ~ 30 m
3395
6447
1188
2201
3834
1444
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Hobekk bru
Kjosevegen bru
Henriksaasen bru
Hofsroed bru
Solum bru
Struten bru
Kg CO2-eq / m2
Kjosevegen bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
19
Heightca 60 m
Hobekk bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
20
Heightca 30 m
Solum bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
21
Heightca 25 m
Henriksaasen bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
22
Heightca 15 m
Struten bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
23
Heightca 25 m
Hofsroed bridge
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
24
Heightca 15 m
Conclusions
5/21/2012
25
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
• Steel, concrete, reinforcing overall most important– Asphalt – Glue laminated wood– Machinery– Blasting– EPS (small amounts but high impact to ODP)
• Too much variations within bridge classes, and too few case bridges, to conclude on average values– But can say something about tendencies
• Concrete: average 601 kg CO2-eq / m2 (+52 %, -24 %)• Steel: average 767 CO2-eq / m2 (+37 %, -28 %)• Timber: average 613 CO2-eq / m2 (+108 %, -55 %)
Conclusions
5/21/2012
26
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
• Environmental performance rankings varies for the categories – Trade-off necessary
• Possibilities to influence environmental performance– Bridge type choice– Design choices– Demands to suppliers of the most important materials
Three alternative bridge designs over Øla riverMisa study, for Reinertsen and the NPRA
5/21/2012
27
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
• This study is part of an ongoing planning process for a new highway project in Norway– Bridge in study part of a side road
• Comparison of environmental performance of:– A concrete slab bridge– A steel grated bridge– A slab bridge of timber
• Size requirements for bridge solution: – Length: 65 m– Width: 5 m
Relative results – 5 categoriesMisa study, for Reinertsen and the NPRA
5/21/2012
28
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
0,88 0,77
0,40
0,77 0,80
1,00
0,55
0,76 0,73 0,76
0,51
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
GWP ODP PCOP AP EP
Concrete bridge Steel bridge Timber bridge
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Steel bridge Concrete bridge Timber bridge
EOL treatment
Maintenance
Material transport
Equipment
Superstructure
Bridge deck
Pillars and foundation
Abutments
Building pit
Results per m2 effective bridge area – Global WarmingMisa study, for Reinertsen and the NPRA
5/21/2012
29
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Sim
ilar
358
276
199
300
213170
050
100150200250300350400
Concrete bridge Steel bridge Timber bridge
ton
CO
2 eq
State-of-art 60% scrap, 40% fly ash, low-energy production
Sensitivity analysis, global warming
State-of-art Scenario
Scrap use in steelproduction
37 % scrap 60 % scrap
Fly ash use in concreteproduction
20 % fly ash 40 % fly ash
Low-energy production State-of-art 20 % increase in energy efficiency
5/21/2012
30
16 % 15 %23 %
Conclusions
• Timber bridge performs best– All categories except ozone layer depletion
• Steel bridge second– Exept ODP and EP– 4 – 49 % higher results than timber bridges – 23 % for GWP
• Concrete bridge– 14 – 45 % higher results than timber bridges– 45 % for GWP
• Sensitivity– 15 – 23 % improvement (GWP)
5/21/2012
31
ETSI Stage III Final Seminar Malmö May 2012
Conclusions
• Improvement of environmental performance– Choice of bridge type– Demands to material supplier or choice of
supplier
• Freedom of choice?– Requirement to bridge design related to
• Traffic• Bridge site• economics• Aestetics
5/21/2012 MiSA standard presentation
32
a systems perspective to environmental researchand consulting
www.misa.no
5/21/2012
33