Sustainability of bridge maintenance

Bridge maintenance activities are important to consider within sustainable development due to the cost and environmental impact associated with various maintenance activities. Comparisons have been made between different bridge structural forms, based on materials, components and construction method, but less information is available on bridge maintenance activities to help decide a sustainable structural form. Typical maintenance aspects of the predominant forms of bridge structure (i.e. concrete, steel and masonry bridges) were considered in this study to reveal their sustainability in terms of materials, energy, transportation, human health and ecosystems. The results indicate that concrete and steel bridge maintenance activities have an average impact of 42% and 46% compared with 12% for masonry bridge maintenance activities. It is concluded that the component parts of concrete and steel bridges should be revised as they play an integral role in the selection of maintenance options.

[1]  Un Desa.  Transforming our world : The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , 2016 .

[2]  Pedro Pacheco,et al.  Sustainability in bridge construction processes , 2010 .

[3]  Sara Susanna Grobbelaar,et al.  R&d in the national system of innovation: a system dynamics model , 2007 .

[4]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[6]  Helge Brattebø,et al.  Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Bridges , 2013 .

[7]  Yurong Zhang,et al.  Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  Gerard Parke,et al.  Highway bridges and environment—sustainable perspectives , 2003 .

[9]  Yoshito Itoh,et al.  Using CO2 emission quantities in bridge lifecycle analysis , 2003 .

[10]  J. Morley English,et al.  THE PREDICTION OF AIR TRAVEL AND AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY TO THE YEAR 2000 USING THE DELPHI METHOD , 1976 .

[11]  D Collings,et al.  An environmental comparison of bridge forms , 2006 .

[12]  Raid Karoumi,et al.  Life cycle assessment of a railway bridge: comparison of two superstructure designs , 2013 .

[13]  A. Guettala,et al.  Corrosion degradation and repair of a concrete bridge , 2005 .

[14]  Sophie Parsons,et al.  Interpreting life cycle assessment for decision-making on emerging materials. , 2016 .

[15]  G Finnveden,et al.  Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. , 2004, Environment international.

[16]  Chao Zhang,et al.  Carbon dioxide evaluation in a typical bridge deck replacement project , 2011 .

[17]  Michael D. Lepech,et al.  Life Cycle Modeling of Concrete Bridge Design: Comparison of Engineered Cementitious Composite Link Slabs and Conventional Steel Expansion Joints , 2005 .

[18]  Guangli Du,et al.  Towards Sustainable Construction: Life Cycle Assessment of Railway Bridges , 2012 .

[19]  Henry Jordaan,et al.  Determinants of Financial Sustainability for Farm Credit Applications—A Delphi Study , 2016 .

[20]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Steel versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete Bridges: Environmental Assessment , 1998 .

[21]  Robert Le Roy,et al.  Simplified environmental study on innovative bridge structure. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  Raid Karoumi,et al.  Life cycle assessment framework for railway bridges: literature survey and critical issues , 2014 .

[23]  Helena Gervásio,et al.  Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges , 2008 .

[24]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials , 2008 .