Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete

composite bridges

Helena Gervásio & Luís Sim[otilde]es da Silva

To cite this article: Helena Gervásio & Luís Sim[otilde]es da Silva (2008) Comparative life-
cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4:4,
251-269, DOI: 10.1080/15732470600627325

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470600627325

Published online: 23 Apr 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 421

View related articles

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [RMIT University Library] Date: 25 December 2017, At: 02:15
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, August 2008, 251 – 269

Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges

HELENA GERVÁSIO{ and LUÍS SIMÕES DA SILVA*{

{GIPAMB Consulting, Ltd., Lisbon, Portugal

{University of Coimbra - Civil Engineering Department, Pólo 2 - Pinhal de Marrocos,
3030-290 Coimbra, Portugal

(Received 7 April 2005; accepted in revised form 7 February 2006)

Competitiveness of steel construction and, in particular, steel and composite bridges,

Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

requires a broader view that encompasses the concepts of sustainability and life-cycle
assessment in parallel with the classical structural and geotechnical issues. Also, from the
economical viewpoint, the progressive transfer of operational duties from the National
Road Authorities to private companies in the context of design, build and operate
contracts, reinforces the need for an integrated approach.
It is the purpose of the present paper: (i) to present an integrated methodology for a
life-cycle and sustainability analysis (LCA and LCCA); and (ii) to apply such an
integrated approach to a case study of a composite bridge. The proposed approach,
besides structural considerations, contemplates environmental aspects (energy consump-
tion, raw materials, and environmental impacts), economical aspects and a brief
discussion of degradation and maintenance aspects. The case study consists of a three-
span continuous bridge with spans of 27.2 m þ 35.0 m þ 27.2 m, thus totalling 89.40 m.
Finally, some comparisons are presented between alternative solutions.

Keywords: Structural engineering; Steel structures; Composite bridges; Life-cycle

assessment; Life-cycle cost; Sustainability

trends are maintained (although world cities only take up

1. Introduction
The construction sector consumes as much as half of all
resources taken from the Earth, a percentage that is more
than any other industrial sector. The construction, opera-
tion and subsequent demolition of all built facilities
accounts for circa 40 – 45% of all energy end-use. The
built environment, moreover, accounts for about 40% of
the total world greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past century, a stable trend of increased
consumption of construction materials, energy (increasing
levels of energy consumption per square meter) and
accumulation of construction waste is noted, leading to
the constant increase of global environmental impacts. It is
further predicted that the expansion of the built environ-
ment will destroy or disturb natural habitats and wildlife on
over 70% of the land surface by 2032 if the current global
around 2% of the Earth’s surface).
The way forward for the construction sector is to develop
an integrated approach, henceforth called ‘‘Sustainable
Construction’’, where the environmental issues are taken
alongside the safety and functional requirements usually in
a cost-based approach. Sustainable construction requires a
multidimensional, life-cycle approach, where all impacts
and stages are considered throughout the whole design life
of a construction.
Concrete and steel are the two most widespread
structural materials. Their production is thus responsible
for a large proportion of all structural environmental
impacts.
Cement production contributes between 3 – 5% of the
total global CO2 emissions per year (Chaturvedi and
Ochsendorf 2004). Cement is produced from limestone,

*Corresponding author. Email: luisss@dec.uc.pt

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online ª 2008 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/15732470600627325
 252 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva
which is heated to drive off CO2 and leave behind calcium
oxide (lime). According to the corresponding chemical
reaction, every 100 units by weight of limestone of (CaCO3)
release 44 units by weight of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Steel, on the other hand, is usually considered by the steel
industry as a highly recyclable material and is therefore
environmentally sound. However, there is a wide variation
in the environmental impact of steel production that
depends on the different manufacturing processes and
recycled content. The basic oxygen furnace process (BOF)
uses 25 to 35 percent recycled steel and usually produces
automotive parts, appliances, packaging, etc., for products
that are characterized by the drawability of the material.
The electric arc furnace process (EAF) uses about 95
percent recycled steel and usually produces structural
beams, steel plates, reinforcement bars, etc., for products
characterized by strength. Therefore the EAF process
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
produces most constructional steel. The energy intensity
of BOF is about 26 GJ/ton of steel, while that of EAF is
about 11.8 GJ/ton of steel (Worrell et al. 1999). Carbon
dioxide and other emissions are correspondingly lower for
the EAF process, also making it better environmentally.
Among all constructions, bridges exhibit the highest
proportion of structural materials. Bridges are thus ideal to
be used as test cases for the development and application of
the concept of sustainable construction. Additionally, the
recent trend, for economical reasons, to progressively
transfer the operational duties from the National Road
Authorities to private companies in the context of design,
build and operate contracts further reinforces the need to
incorporate life-cycle aspects in all stages of decision.
It is the purpose of this paper: (i) to present an integrated
methodology for a life-cycle sustainability analysis, and (ii)
to apply this approach to a comparative case study of a
multi-span road bridge. Due to lack of data, some
simplifications were necessary in this paper: in the LCA
analysis, the case study was restricted to the construction
stage; in the LCCA analysis, simplified inspection and
maintenance scenarios were considered. Finally, because
current databases for concrete are not as developed as for
steel, the number of impacts was restricted to six.
Figure 1. Global methodology.
2. Methodology
A life-cycle sustainability analysis of constructions must
integrate, in a ‘‘cradle to grave’’ approach, ecological,
economical and socio-cultural aspects.
The environmental performance is usually measured
using an Environmental Life-cycle Assessment (LCA). This
approach is based on the belief that all stages in the life of a
product generate environmental impacts and must there-
fore be analysed. These include raw materials acquisition,
product manufacture, transportation, installation, opera-
tion and maintenance, and ultimately, recycling and waste
management. The strength of environmental life-cycle
assessment lies in its comprehensive and multi-dimensional
scope.
The economical performance is best assessed using a
Life-cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). In a LCCA, all
construction-related costs occurring at the different stages
over the life-time of the construction are considered and
discounted to their present value as the base data of the
analysis, before being combined into the LCCA perfor-
mance score.
Socio-cultural aspects are of a much fuzzier nature and
consequently they are much more difficult to take into
account. However, socio-cultural aspects are crucial and
often impose choices that contradict the better environ-
mental and economical solutions. As for the other two
aspects, socio-cultural aspects should certainly also follow a
life-cycle methodology in what could be called a LCSA
(life-cycle socio-cultural assessment). Unfortunately, this is
still an incipient area, and it will not be further addressed in
this paper.
The global sustainability performance is obtained as a
balanced score between environmental, economical and
socio-cultural performances. It implies the combination of
different measures of performance into a single score, and is
usually solved by a Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis
(MADA). Figure 1 illustrates the global methodology for
life-cycle sustainability analysis of constructions.
The life cycles of a bridge are broadly subdivided into the
following phases: design, construction, operation and
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges
disposal. During the design phase, almost all future impacts
are defined. If one subdivides the design phase into (i)
initial planning and viability studies, (ii) preliminary design,
and (iii) final design, 60% of all future impacts are defined
at the end of the preliminary design phase. In the following,
the initial planning and viability studies are not considered
because they involve strategic options that go far beyond
the specific choices for the engineering solutions to be
assessed for a bridge (road planning issues, location issues,
etc.). During the construction phase, it is the selection of
the construction processes that mostly influences the
various impacts. In the particular case of the construction
industry, it is this phase that is less defined in terms of the
Life-Cycle Inventories (LCI). In fact, the LCI’s for the
construction materials are nowadays already reasonably
structured, but the transformation processes during con-
struction still lack sufficient quantitative and reliable
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
information. During the operation phase, that starts at
the end of construction and lasts until the end of the design
life, a large number of events take place that generate a
multitude of impacts. They are more difficult to predict
because traditional design procedures do not include
maintenance and operation. During this phase, all dete-
rioration processes take place with time, as well as all
unexpected accidental actions (earthquakes, road accidents,
etc.). Both of these will require continuous maintenance
procedures and discrete rehabilitation interventions.
Additionally, the purpose may be readjusted, again
requiring re-adaptation (bridge widening, for example).
Finally, since it is a dynamic process, the design life will
also be probably changed during this period, further
complicating the assessment of impacts. During the
Figure 2. Location plan.
253
disposal phase, besides the impacts of demolition and
disposal of all construction materials, it is necessary to
return the site to its previous ecological value. This is a
difficult task to predict because at the end of the design life,
the evolution and change of the surrounding area will
probably make it impossible to return to a past condition.
The solution will probably be to perform the disposal with
increased ecological value for the location.
3. Case study
3.1 Project overview
A typical highway bridge that is part of the new motorway
between Mira and Aveiro in Central Portugal (figure 2) was
selected as the case study.
The entire length of the structure is 364.50 m and
consists of two twin decks, one in each direction of traffic,
with a 10 cm transversal gap. Longitudinally, the entire
structure consists of three structurally independent parts.
The left viaduct has 6 6 17 m spans, while the right viaduct
comprises 10 6 17 m spans, both viaducts consisting of 8
precast prestressed concrete I-section beams and a cast
in-situ concrete slab. The middle part, illustrated in plan
and in elevation in figure 3, crosses the river Boco, and
consists of a three-span continuous bridge with spans of
27.2 m þ 35.0 m þ 27.2 m, thus totalling 89.40 m. The
cross-section of each twin deck is 14.9 m wide, with two
lanes of traffic in each direction. Finally, the axis of
the structure is straight and orthogonal in the horizontal
plan, and it presents a constant slope of 0.5% in the
vertical plan.
 254 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
Figure 3. Plan and elevation views of the bridge.
The design procedures for the bridge comply with the
requirements of the Portuguese Regulation for Bridge
Design (RSA 1983, REBAP 1986) and the Eurocodes. The
bridge was designed for a service life of 50 years.
The nominal loadings considered are:
. Dead load: unit weight of reinforced concrete – 25 kN/
m3;
. Superimposed dead load: asphalt surface with a
thickness of 12 cm – 24 kN/m3, infill concrete in
footways – 23 kN/m3, parapets – 0.5 kN/m;
. Live loading, the more severe of either
(i) Vehicle; according to the Portuguese regulation
for bridge design, with three axles of 200 kN
each;
(ii) Uniformly distributed load of 4 kN/m2 plus a
transversal line load of 50 kN/m.
. Uniform and differential temperature according to the
Portuguese code of practice for bridge design (RSA
1983);
. Creep and shrinkage according to the Model Code 90
(1990);
. Seismic load according to the Portuguese regulation for
bridge design.
The bridge was designed as a composite concrete-concrete
structure with two prefabricated prestressed concrete
twin U-girders and a cast in-situ concrete slab. As a first
step in this sustainability analysis of composite bridges,
an alternative double I-girder steel-concrete composite
solution was designed following Eurocode 3 (prEN1993-2
2004) and Eurocode 4 (EN1994-2 2005). The original
design thus provided the comparative solution to assess
the sustainability of this type of steel-concrete composite
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges 255

bridges. The cross-sections of both alternative solutions are
shown in figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The design solutions for the piers and foundations are
identical in both alternatives and therefore they were not
taken into account in the sustainability analysis.
3.2 Prestressed concrete bridge
The concrete solution is made of two box girders, side by
side, with a distance of 7.075 m between both longitudinal
axes and a total height of 2.20 m. The cross-section is built
in two steps. The lower part of the section, with a
trapezoidal ‘‘U’’ shape, is precast and prestressed and the
slab, with a minimum thickness of 20 cm, is cast in situ.
The wet concrete is supported by precast concrete plates,
with a thickness of 7.5 cm, which are placed between the
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
girders and in the cantilevers, and act compositely as part
of the deck slab. The box grade is C50/60 and the cast in
situ concrete slab is grade C35/40.
The piers are made of reinforced concrete with a constant
circular cross-section with a diameter of 1.50 m, and are
founded on two circular piles with a diameter of 1.00 m.
The deck is simple supported on the end supports and
continuous over the intermediate supports. The continuity
is provided by the concrete slab and by post-tensioning
cables in the upper and lower parts of the section.
3.3 Steel-concrete composite bridge
The composite solution is made of two steel girders with a
total height of 2.40 m, web thickness varying between
15 mm and 16 mm, flange width between 400 mm and

Figure 4. Concrete alternative.

Figure 5. Composite steel/concrete alternative.

 256 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva

750 mm, and flange thickness between 30 mm and 40 mm.
The girders are braced every 5.4 m in the main span, and
every 5.8 m in the side spans by HEA220 profiles, both at
the upper and bottom flange levels. At the supports the
girders are equally braced by HEB220 profiles, and shear
connectors are welded to the top flange of the I-girders. The
material is ‘‘Corten’’ steel grade S355.
On top of the girders a precast concrete slab is placed,
grade C35/40, with a thickness of 0.40 m on top of the
girders and 0.20 m at the top of the cantilevers and in the
middle width span. The shear connectors are projected
through small holes in the slabs that are later filled with
concrete.
3.4 Quantities and unit costs
The amounts of materials needed in each case are shown
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
frequency and detail of observations. Therefore, routine
inspections are assumed to take place every 15 months.
This schedule allows the structure to be surveyed each time
in a different season and consequently under different
weather conditions. These inspections are usually visual
inspections, but they may also be supplemented by
standard instruments aids.
Additionally, every five years, a major inspection takes
place, requiring a detailed examination of all elements, and
particularly those elements showing signs of deterioration,
which could affect the structural integrity. These inspec-
tions are often done with the help of standard equipment.
Apart from inspections and although some minor repair
can be performed during these inspections, structures will
deteriorate with time. The kind of deterioration, and
associated problems, depends on the type of structure,
and particularly the type of material used in the construc-

in tables 1 and 2. The unit costs correspond to average tion of the bridge.
commercial prices in the Portuguese market. The main factors causing the deterioration of the
concrete deck are those related to the physical properties
of concrete. The porosity of concrete and its chemical
3.5 Maintenance and monitoring
constitution, in the presence of water and other chemical
The maintenance plan for both bridges is scheduled agents, usually leads to cracking, delamination and spalling
according to two types of inspections, depending on its of concrete. Usually associated with cracking is the
corrosion of steel reinforcement. Corrosion causes increase
in the volume of the steel cross-section and this exerts radial
Table 1. Bill of materials for the concrete solution.
expansive pressures on concrete, leading to cracking,
Unit Cost spalling and eventual further rusting. Thus, in this case
Name Qty Units (e/unit) study, it is assumed that two major repairs will take place
Deck-slab for this structure: deck repair due to cracking and
Concrete grade C35/45 398 m3 109.98 prestressed box girder repair due to spalling of concrete.
Reinforcement steel grade A500 61009 kg 0.79 In the first case repairs will take place every 20 years and
Pre-stressed steel grade A1680/1860 3960 kg 3.36 the cracks are treated with fed resin. The spalling of the
Pre-cast concrete plates 1332 m2 8.50
box-girders will be repaired every 10 years, and in this case
Deck-beams
the girders are assumed to be patched with trowelable
Concrete grade C35/45 118 m3 109.98
Concrete grade C50/60 247 m3 143.00 mortar.
Reinforcement steel grade A500 60299 kg 0.79 In the composite bridge, and apart from the problems
Pre-stressed steel grade A1680/1860 12989 kg 3.36 related to the concrete slab, the main causes affecting the
Pre-stressed steel grade A835/1030 1266 kg 5.00 deterioration of steel elements may be fatigue, corrosion,
Other categories cracks, buckles and kinks. Since the structural steel used in
Bearing supports 12 un 2098.00 this case is Corten steel, adequate behaviour is assumed
over the 50 year period of the study. Therefore, it is
assumed that only the concrete slab will be repaired every
Table 2. Bill of materials for the composite solution.
20 years for cracking with the same procedure as described
Unit Cost for the first case.
Name Qty Units (e/unit)

Deck-slab 3.6 Disposal

Concrete grade C35/45 341 m3 109.98
Reinforcement steel grade A500 51111 kg 0.79 It was assumed that, at the end of the service life of the
Deck-beams structure, for both cases, the bridge would be demolished.
Steel grade S355 166508 kg 1.50 In the case of the concrete bridge it is considered that 100%
Connectors 22 10013 un 0.86
of the disposal material will be placed in a landfill, as in
Other categories Portugal it is not yet common to re-use concrete debris.
Bearing supports 12 un 2098.00
In the composite solution, the concrete elements are
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges
considered to have the same fate as in the previous case, but
the steel elements are considered to be 100% recyclable.
4. Life cycle assessment analysis
The environmental performance is measured using an
environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA), following
guidance from the International Standards Organization
14040 series of standards (ISO 1997, 1998, 2000).
According to the ISO methodology, LCA involves four
steps. The goal and scope definition step spells out the
purpose of the study and its breath and depth. The
inventory analysis step identifies and quantifies the environ-
mental inputs and outputs (inventory flows) associated with
a product over its entire life cycle. The impact assessment
step characterizes the inventory flows in relation to a set of
environmental impacts, and finally the interpretation step
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
combines the environmental impacts in accordance with the
goals of the LCA study.
4.1 Goal and scope of the study
4.1.1 Definition of the goal of the study. The goal of this
study is to make a comparative life cycle assessment of the
two chosen structural systems. Therefore, and in order to
establish which inputs and outputs should be quantified,
the first thing to do is to settle the system boundary. The
Figure 6. Complete system.
257
system boundary should include, besides the impacts of the
bridge design on environment, the impacts on its users.
These may be manifested in construction related traffic.
Traffic disturbances caused by construction or repair events
increase fuel consumption and emissions, and can also have
a broader economic impact such as time lost to people and
business.
The main system can be described by 3 main stages: the
construction of the structure, the use and operation stage
and the end-of-life stage. These main stages/phases can also
be sub-divided into several other stages, as represented in
figure 6. Within each of these stages, or unit processes, solid
waste, air emissions, and waterborne pollutants are pro-
duced and energy is consumed, and all these issues should be
quantified. Between most of these stages transportation of
material and equipment, and production of waste are often
necessary and therefore should also be included.
In order to make a comparative analysis the unit for
comparison between both systems is set by the structure of
the bridge.
However, due to the lack of consistent data, the system
boundary under the scope of this study (the line confining
all the inputs and outputs within the system), was reduced
to the construction stage, including raw materials produc-
tion. The life cycle assessment in this case is thus a partial
analysis involving only the processes from material
acquisition to the gate of the factory where the different
 258 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva

materials are produced. In the following paragraphs the
boundaries of the system for concrete and for steel
production are described in terms of main assumptions
and procedures. All the data for concrete production was
obtained from the Portland Cement Association in the US
(Nisbet et al. 2002). Regarding steel production, data was
obtained from a study performed by the International Iron
and Steel Institute (IISI 2002).
boundary also includes energy and emissions associated
with transportation of primary materials from their source
to the concrete plant. However, it does not include
upstream profiles of fuel, electricity, water, nor does it
include energy and emissions from transportation of energy
to the plant.

4.1.2 Definition of system boundary for concrete. In this case

study, two types of concrete production are analysed: ready
mix concrete and precast concrete.
The general system boundary for the ready mix concrete
production is shown in figure 7. The boundary of the
system defines all the inputs and outputs associated with
concrete production to be taken into account – from raw
material acquisition to the production of concrete ready to
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

be used. Generally, concrete production consists of two

linked operations, cement manufacture and concrete
production. In the model used in this study as shown in
figure 8 (Nisbet et al. 2002), the upstream profile of cement
manufacturing is imported into the cement production
boundary. Aggregate extraction and preparation, and
transportation of cement and aggregates to the concrete Figure 7. Ready mixed concrete system boundary (Nisbet
plant are assumed to be within the concrete boundary. The et al. 2002).

Figure 8. Precast concrete system boundary (Nisbet et al. 2002).

 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
Figure 9. Steel production overview (IISI 2002).
In the case of the precast concrete, the system boundary
does not include conveying and placement or the subsequent
steps in the process nor does it include steel reinforcement.
The system boundary of the ready mixed concrete and of
the precast concrete are slightly different and therefore the
functional unit of the former is 1 m3 of ready mixed
concrete, while for the latter the functional unit is 1 m3 of
concrete ready for conveying and placement in a form.
In both cases the following main assumptions were made
for calculating the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of the func-
tional unit of concrete:
i) cement data are based on the LCI of a weighted
average unit of cement produced in the US;
ii) aggregates are assumed to consist of 61% of crushed
stone and 39% of sand and gravel;
iii) energy consumption in concrete production is esti-
mated for a central mix operation;
iv) round trip transportation distances to the concrete
plant are 100 km for cement and 50 km for aggregates;
v) all transportation is assumed to be by road.
4.1.3 Definition of system boundary for steel. According
to the IISI study (IISI 2002), all the production steps from
raw material acquisition to finished products ready to be
shipped from the steelworks are included in the system
boundary of steel production. Certain upstream processes
which were considered to have a negligible contribution to
the process were not included and the recovery and use of
steel industry by-products outside the steelworks are taken
into account using, in most cases, the method of system
expansion (ISO 1998). The steel product manufacturing
system is shown in figure 9.
Within the scope of this study the system function is
the production of a steel product at the factory gate and
259
the functional unit is one kilogram of steel product at the
factory gate.
The IISI study was conducted upon data received from
50 companies all over the world. The sites represented
account for 16% of the total worldwide crude steel pro-
duction and the total production of the participating
countries exceeds 53% of the world total crude steel
production. Data was calculated for each site, and the
resulting values were averaged across the contributing sites,
without weighting the contribution of each site according to
production tonnage. As already referred, steel is produced
mainly by two processes: the blast furnace route (BF) and
the electric arc furnace route (EAF); both routes are within
the scope of this study.
4.2 Inventory analysis
Inventory analysis entails quantifying the inventory flows
for a product system. Inventory flows include inputs of
water, energy, raw materials, and releases to air, land and
water. In the following paragraphs the life cycle inventories
of each material, according to the system boundaries
described before, are introduced.
4.2.1 LCI of concrete. In this case study three classes
of concrete were considered (tables 1 and 2). In the con-
crete structure, the slab is made of ready mix concrete
grade C35/45, hereby designated ready mix 1, and the box
girders are made of precast concrete grade C50/60,
designated by precast mix 2. In the composite solution
the slab is made of precast concrete grade C35/45 and is
therefore designated precast mix 1. In this case, and due to
lack of data, the values for this type of concrete where
interpolated between known values of precast concrete
grades.
 260 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva

In the following, some considerations of the main inputs
and outputs for the concrete production system are given
according to Nisbet et al. (2002).
i) Primary materials
The weight of materials, including cement, aggregates
and water, are approximately constant at about
2000 kg/m3 of concrete regardless of the mix design.
In the higher strength mixes the cement content
increases but the aggregate content decreases as shown
in figure 10.
In figure 10 the amount of raw materials required to
make 1 m3 of concrete is shown, considering that an
average of 1.6 metric tons of raw material is needed to
produce one metric ton of concrete.
ii) Energy Input
Energy used in concrete production includes embodied
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
energy inputs, air and water emissions and solid wastes are
taken into account in both routes.
In this case study, and due to some variability in the
origin of the steel, it was assumed that it was made at 50%
with EAF route and 50% BOF route.
In the following paragraphs some short considerations
about the main inputs and outputs are given.
i) Waste/recovered material
Materials recovered within the site, including internal
scrap, are treated in the calculation as negative flow
inputs at the module where they arise and as positive
inputs to the modules where they are recovered/
consumed.
Materials exported from the site for external appli-
cations were classified as by-products and therefore
they are treated according to allocation procedures.

energy in the cement, energy used to extract and process

aggregates, transportation energy and energy used in
the concrete plant. The following graph (figure 11)
presents the energy data input in terms of energy
consumption for every step of concrete production.
This graph clearly identifies cement manufacturing
as the most energy consumption stage in the overall
process of concrete production.
iii) Water consumption
For a ready mixed concrete plant the total water used
was assumed to be 170 kg/m3 of concrete, plus the
amount used for the concrete mix. In this study it is
assumed that precast concrete consumes 50% of the
water used per unit of ready mixed concrete, which is
equivalent to 85 kg/m3 of precast concrete, plus the
amount used for the mix.
iv) Emissions to air
Table 3 presents total emissions to air from transpor-
tation of purchased materials to concrete plan and
from all the process stages of concrete production.

4.2.2 LCI of steel. As already referred, steel can be

produced by two main processes: the BF route and the Figure 11. Energy inputs (GJ/m3 concrete) in each step of
EAF. In the LCI study (IISI, 2002) all major materials and concrete production.

Figure 10. Concrete mixes composition.

 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges 261

ii) Air and water emissions
In this data collection a list of all known air and water
emissions from each process stage were collected. In
table 4 the significant emissions for global warming,
air acidification and eutrophication indices are listed.
iii) Energy reminders
The primary components of a LCI are the material
inputs and outputs that are taken or are emitted to the
earth. Certain material inputs, however constitutes
energy as well as mass inputs, which can be calculated
based on calorific value. In these LCI datasheets these
accumulated values are indicated in a separate section.
The sum of all energy sources which are drawn
directly from the earth constitute the total primary
energy, and it can be split into the categories of non-
renewable/renewable energy and fuel (energy that is
consumed)/feedstock energy (energy that is not con-
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
The procedure for impact assessment used in this study
followed the methodology proposed by Lippiatt (2002).
According to this methodology the impact assessment is
quantified by the Environmental Problems approach
developed by the Society for Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. It involves a two-step process described in
the following way:
– Classification of inventory flows that contribute to
specific environmental impacts;
– Characterization of the potential contribution of each
classified inventory flow to the corresponding environ-
mental impact. This results in a set of indices, one for
each impact, that are obtained by weighting each
classified inventory flow by its relative contribution
to the impact (e.g. the global warming potential index
is derived by expressing each contributing inventory

sumed). In figures 12 and 13 these values are flow in terms of its equivalent amount of carbon
represented for the EAF route and for the BF route. dioxide).

In this method, twelve impacts are considered: global

4.3 Impact assessment
warming, acidification, eutrophication, fossil fuel depletion,
The impact assessment step of LCA characterizes the habitat alteration, criteria air pollutants, human health,
inventory flows of a product in relation to a set of smog formation, ozone depletion, ecological toxicity, water
environmental impacts. intake, indoor air quality.
Every impact is evaluated by an index derived from the
following expression:
Table 3. Emissions to air.
X
n

Ready Precast Precast IAjk ¼ Iij  IAfactori ð1Þ

mix 1 mix 1 mix 2 i¼1
where
Concrete mix description
28 day compressive strength (MPa) 35 35 50 IAjk the characterized score for alternative j with
Total emissions (kg/m3 concrete) respect to impact i
Particulate matter 1.350 1.525 1.720 Iij the inventory flow quantity for alternative j
CO2 329.000 401.750 482.000
SO2 0.765 0.923 1.098
with respect to impact i
NOx 1.004 1.210 1.436 IAfactori the impact assessment characterization factor
VOC 0.037 0.040 0.043 for inventory flow i
CO 0.424 0.492 0.568 i the inventory flow quantity for alternative j
CH4 0.016 0.018 0.022 with respect to impact i
Waste at cement plant (kg/m3 concrete) n the number of inventory flows in impact
Cement kiln dust 17.40 21.63 26.20
category k

Table 4. List of accounted emissions (adapted from IISI 2002).

Accounted Emission LCI study

Greenhouse Gases CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC’s, PFC’s, SF6

Acidification Gases NOx, SOx as SO2, HCI, H2S
Air Organic Emissions Dioxins VOC’s (excluding methane)
Metals Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn
Others CO, Particulates (Total)
Metals Cr, Fe, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cd
Water Others N (except ammonia), P Compounds, Ammonia, COD,
and Suspended Matter
 262 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva
4.3.1 Normalizing impacts. The measures of each impact
category performance, according to expression (1), are
expressed in no commensurate units. In order to perform
the next step of LCA, interpretation, it is necessary to
normalize the different results. Normalization makes it
possible to weight the different impacts and compare them.
The normalized data used in this methodology (Lippiatt,
2002) was developed by the US EPA Office of Research and
Development (Bare et al. 1998). The data, shown in table 5,
estimate for each impact its performance at the US level (per
year per capita). Normalization is accomplished by dividing
each impact by the fixed US-scale impacts, yielding an
impact category performance measure that has been placed
in the context of all US activity contributing to that impact.
4.4 Interpretation of results
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
To compare the overall environmental performance the
performance scores, for all impact categories, may be sum-
marized by weighting each impact category by its relative
Figure 12. Renewable/non renewable (MJ/kg steel).
Figure 13. Fuel/Feedstock (MJ/kg steel).
importance to the overall environmental performance and
then computing the weighted average impact score.
The weights sets used in this methodology are based in a
study from the University of Harvard (Norberg-Bohm et al.
1992). The study developed separate assessments for the
United States, The Netherlands, India, and Kenya. In addi-
tion, separate assessments were made for ‘‘current conseq-
uences’’ and ‘‘future consequences’’ in each country. For
current consequences, more importance is placed on impacts
of prime concern today. Future consequences place more
importance on impacts that are expected to become signifi-
cantly worse in the next 25 years. Sets of relative importance
weights are derived for current and future consequences, and
then combined by weighing future consequences as twice as
important as current consequences. Table 6 lists the resulting
importance weights for each impact in the US.
The normalized and weighted environmental perfor-
mance with respect to environmental impact k is derived
from the following expression:
IAjk  IVwtk
IAScorejk ¼  100 ð2Þ
Normk
where
IVwtk the impact category importance weight for
impact k
Normk the normalization value for impact k.
Finally the environmental performance score is given
by (3).
Xp
EnvScorej ¼ IAScorejk ð3Þ
k¼1
where
p the number of environmental impact categories
considered.
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges 263

However, in this case study, due to lack of data in some case, only six impacts were considered: global warming,
cases (mostly for concrete) and due to the fact that the acidification, eutrophication, criteria air pollutants, smog
impact relative to indoor air quality was not relevant in this formation and water intake. Therefore, instead of using the
impact weights indicated in table 6, it was assumed that
Table 5. Normalization values. each impact had the same importance in the overall
performance.
Impact Normalization Value The graph of figure 14 represents the final environmental
Global Warming 25 582 640.09 g CO2 equiv./year/capita performance results according to the adapted methodology
Acidification 7 800 200 000.00 millimoles described in the previous paragraphs. The composite
H þ equiv./year/capita solution (score of 342) has clearly a better environmental
Eutroplication 19 214.20 g N equiv./year/capita performance when compared with the concrete solution
Fossil Fuel Depletion 35 309.00 MJ surplus energy/year/capita
Indoor Air Quality 35 108.09 g TVOCs/year/capita (score of 471).
Habitat Alteration 0.00335 T&E count/acre/capita The bar graph of figure 15 represents the environmental
Water Intake 529 957.75 liters of water/year/capita performance results by environmental flow. In this graph
Criteria Air Pollutants 19 200.00 microDALYs/year/capita the most important impact flow categories are clearly
Smog 151 500.03 g NOx equiv./year/capita indicated.
Ecological Toxicity 81 646.72 g 2,4-D equiv./year/capita
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

Ozone Depletion 340.19 g CFC-11 equiv./year/capita

Human Health 158 768 677.00 g C7H7 equiv./year/capita 5. Life cycle cost analysis
The methodology of life cycle cost (LCC) used in this paper
Table 6. Relative importance weights. is based on the ASTM practice E917 (ASTM 1994) and a
cost classification scheme developed by Ehlen and Marshall
Relative importance weight set
(1996). The analysis was carried out with the program
Impact Category (%) Current Future Combined BridgeLCC version 2.0 (Ehlen 2003).
Global Warming 4 15 11
Acidification 15 6 9 5.1 Common assumptions and parameters
Eutroplication 8 10 9
Fossil Fuel Depletion 8 7 7 The project parameters quantify the conditions the bridge
Indoor Air Quality 8 6 7 will experience regardless of each alternative. In this study
Habitat Alteration 4 6 6
Water Intake 8 10 9
three common factors, affecting the bridge over its life
Criteria Air Pollutants 15 7 10 cycle, were considered: traffic conditions and economic
Smog 14 6 9 conditions. Traffic conditions, such as average daily traffic
Ecological Toxicity 6 6 6 (ADT) and accident rate, determine the costs that bridge
Ozone Depletion 4 15 11 construction, repair and disposal place on drivers who
Human Health 6 6 6
travel over the bridge. Economic conditions, specifically the

Figure 14. Environmental performance.

 264 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
Figure 15. Environmental performance by environmental flow.
inflation rate and real discount rate, determine the relative
importance of cost that occurs later in the life of the
structure. In table 7 the factors common to both
alternatives are indicated.
5.2 Costs estimation and classification
5.2.1 Cost classification scheme. A life-cycle cost classifica-
tion scheme insures that all costs associated with the
project are taken into account, and that these costs are
accounted for in each alternative. According to Ehlen and
Marshall (1996) this includes costs incurred by the owner/
operator over the study period (agency costs), by direct
users of the structure (user costs) and by organizations or
individuals indirectly affected by the structure (third-party
costs).
Also, the classification scheme allows for a detailed,
consistent breakdown of the life-cycle cost and net savings
estimates at several levels so that a clear picture can be
made of the respective cost differences between material/
design alternatives.
The cost classification scheme used in this case is
presented in figure 16.
In level 1 are indicated the costs by the entity that
bears the cost. Level 2 costs are grouped according to the
life-cycle categories typically used in a LCC formula:
construction; operation, maintenance and repair
(O,M&R); and disposal. The third level of classification
organizes costs by specific functional element of the
structure.
5.2.2 Cost quantification. Agency costs. Following the cost
classification scheme stated in the previous paragraph, the
costs were divided into initial construction costs (ic);
Table 7. Common factors.
Study period Base date Service date Discount rate Inflation
50 years 2004 2054 3.80% 2.20%
operation, maintenance and repair (omr) costs; and
disposal costs (disp).
The initial construction costs for each solution were
compiled based on the quantity of materials needed and
unit costs for each alternative and they were already
indicated in tables 8 and 9. In the following tables this
information is complemented with some more additional
data needed for the analysis.
In the previous tables, the start year, end year and
frequency columns are used to enter the first year that the
cost occurs, the last year the cost occurs, and the frequency
with which the cost occurs. In these tables all OM&R costs
are also indicated and they were obtained based on the
estimation of operation and/or maintenance expenses for
each alternative described in a previous paragraph.
The final life-cycle category of cost is bridge disposal,
which was assumed to happen in year 50. Since the cost is
born by the agency and occurs during disposal, the level 1
entry is ‘‘agency’’ and level 2 entry is ‘‘disp’’.
User costs. Usually costs to users are estimated on the
impacts on traffic due to construction, repair and eventual
disposal of the bridge. In this case study the bridge is part
of a new motorway, thus no traffic will be affected during
construction. However, during the major repairs traffic will
have to be rerouted, causing impacts on driver’s personal
time and increasing the probability of accidents in road-
work areas. These traffic delay costs, idle-capital costs, and
accident costs are computed using the program BridgeLCC
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges 265
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

Figure 16. Cost classification scheme (Ehlen and Marshall 1996).

Table 8. Cost categories for the concrete solution.

Cost Categories Cost Quantities

Cost Life Proj. Unit Start End

Name Bearer Cycle Comp. Qty Units Cost Range Year Year Freq.

Initial Construction Costs

Deck
Concrete grade C35/45 agency ic deck 398 m3 109.98 0 1 1 1
Reinforcement steel grade A500 agency ic deck 61009 kg 0.79 0 1 1 1
Pre-stressed steel grade A1680/1860 agency ic deck 3960 kg 3.36 0 1 1 1
Pre-cast concrete plates agency ic deck 1332 m2 8.50 0 1 1 1
Superstructure
Concrete grade C35/45 agency ic super 118 m3 109.98 0 1 1 1
Concrete grade C50/60 agency ic super 247 m3 143.00 0 1 1 1
Reinforcement steel grade A500 agency ic super 60299 kg 0.79 0 1 1 1
Pre-stressed steel grade A1680/1860 agency ic super 12989 kg 3.36 0 1 1 1
Pre-stressed steel grade A835/1030 agency ic super 1266 kg 5.00 0 1 1 1
Other category
Bearing supports agency ic other 12 un 2098.00 0 1 1 1
OM&R
Inspections every 15 months (routine) agency omr non-el 1 un 1000.00 0 1.25 50 1.25
Inspections every 5 years (detailed) agency omr non-el 1 un 2500.00 0 5 50 5
Patch with trowelable mortar (box-beams) agency omr deck 130 m2 229.00 0 20 40 20
Treat cracks with fed resin (deck) agency omr deck 466 m2 14.00 0 10 50 10
Disposal
Dispose of structure agency disp deck 1356 m2 200.00 0 50 50 1

(Ehlen 2003). Thus, three types of user costs were where

considered:
L the length of affected roadway or which cars
i) driver delay costs – the personal cost to drivers drive
delayed by roadwork; Sa the traffic speed during bridge work activity
  Sn the normal traffic speed
L L
DDC ¼   ADT  N  w ð4Þ ADT the average daily traffic, measured in number
Sa Sn of cars per day
 266 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva

Table 9. Cost categories for the composite solution.

Cost Categories Cost Quantities

Cost Life Proj. Unit Start End

Name Bearer Cycle Comp. Qty Units Cost Range Year Year Freq.

Initial Construction Costs

Deck
Concrete grade C35/45 agency ic deck 341 m3 109.98 0 1 1 1
Reinforcement steel grade A500 agency ic deck 51111 kg 0.79 0 1 1 1
Superstructure
Steel grade S355 agency ic super 166508 kg 1.50 0 1 1 1
Conectors  22 agency ic super 10013 un 0.86 0 1 1 1
Other category
Bearing supports agency ic other 12 un 2098.00 0 1 1 1
OM&R
Inspections every 15 months (routine) agency omr non-el 1 un 1000.00 0 1.3 50 1.3
Inspections every 5 years (detailed) agency omr non-el 1 un 2500.00 0 5 50 5
Treat cracks with fed resin (deck) agency omr deck 466 m2 14.00 0 10 50 10
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

Disposal
Dispose of deck agency disp deck 341 m2 55.00 0 50 50 1
Dispose of superstructure agency disp super 166508 kg 0.50 0 50 50 1

N the number of days of road work – the length of the workzone affected by repair work is
w the Euro value of each hour of a driver’s time. 1.5 km and only a single lane is closed at a time;
– the cost of driver delay is 5.00 e per hour; the cost of
ii) vehicle operating costs – the capital costs of vehicles vehicle operation is 8.00 e per hour; and the cost per
delayed by roadwork; accident is 10000 e.
 
L L
VCO ¼   ADT  N  r ð5Þ Third-party costs. These costs could include revenues lost
Sa Sn by adjacent businesses due to bridge construction, repair
where and disposal, or environmental damage such as pollution of
the stream under the bridge. In this case study no third-
r weighted average of commercial vehicle and party costs were considered.
personal vehicle cost.
5.3 Computation of LCC
iii) accident costs – the cost of damage to vehicles and
injury to humans due to roadwork. All project-related costs occurring at the different stages
over the life-time of the structure are discounted to their
AC ¼ L  ADT  N  ðAa  An Þ  ca ð6Þ
present value as of the base data before being combined
where into the LCC estimate of each alternative. Equation (7) was
used to convert future costs to present value and sum them
Aa the during-construction accident rate per vehicle- into a single life-cycle cost member.
kilometer
An the normal accident rate per vehicle-kilometer X
T
Ct
ca the cost per accident. LCCj ¼ ð7Þ
t¼0 ð1 þ dÞt
The user costs in this case study are due to traffic
disturbance during deck and beam repair and are displayed where
in table 10.
For the calculation of the respective costs the following Ct the sum of all costs incurred in year t, value in base-
assumptions were take in both cases: year Euros
d the real discount rate for converting time t costs to
– the average daily traffic (ADT) in the base year of the time 0
study is 5000 vehicles; T the number of years in the study period.
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges 267

performances were equally important and therefore the

5.4 Comparison of the alternative’s life-cycle costs
weights are equal to 50%.
The results of the comparative analysis gave a better The overall performance score for each alternative is
economical performance for the concrete solution, 375,015 derived from the following expression:
e, against 433,186 e of the composite solution, i.e., a 16%
2 0 13
higher cost for the latter. In the following graphs these
results are represented by cost bearer and by life-cycle 6 B EnvScore C7
6 B j C7
period of each solution (figures 17 and 18). Sj ¼ 6EnvWt  B n C7
4 @P A5
Operation, maintenance and rehabilitation represent, EnvScorej
j¼1
respectively, 21% and 12.5% of the total LCC of the 2 0 13
concrete and composite bridges. These low percentages 6 B LCC C7
reflect the simplified maintenance strategy adopted in this 6 B j C7
þ 6EconWt  B n C7  100 ð8Þ
paper, and the fact that non-structural maintenance was 4 @P A5
LCCj
not accounted for (resurfacing or replacement of the j¼1
expansion joints, for example).
where
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017

Sj the overall performance score for alternative j

6. Overall performance
EnvWt the environmental performance weight
The overall performance is a weighted average between the EconWt the economic performance weight
environmental performance and the economic performance EnvScorej the environmental performance score for
(Lippiatt 2002). In this case it was assumed that both alternative j

Table 10. User Costs for the concrete solution and the composite solution.

Cost Categories Cost Quantities

Name Cost Bearer Life Cycle Proj. Comp. Qty Units Unit Cost Range Start Year End Year Freq.

Concrete Bridge
Redirect traffic during deck repair user omr deck 5 days 10 50 10
Redirect traffic during beam repair user omr deck 2 days 20 40 20
Composite Bridge
Redirect traffic during deck repair user omr deck 5 days 10 50 10

Figure 17. LCC (e) by cost bearer.

 268 H. Gervásio and L. S. da Silva
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
Figure 18. LCC (e) by Life-cycle period.
LCCj the total life-cycle cost in present value Euros
for alternative j.
According to expression (8), the overall performance of the
composite solution, with a total score of 49%, is slightly
better than the concrete solution, with a score of 51%.
7. Conclusions
A comparative life-cycle analysis of two alternative
structural solutions for a three span continuous bridge is
presented in this paper. The case study corresponds to a
real motorway bridge recently built in Portugal as a
prefabricated prestressed concrete box-girder bridge. An
alternative steel-concrete twin-girder bridge was designed
to match the same code requirements.
The first comment relates to the fact that although both
designs were carried out to the same code requirements, the
steel-concrete composite solution followed the design
options for the concrete solution in terms of spans, without
any span optimisation that would enhance the steel
solution. The comparison was further restricted to the
superstructure (excluding piers).
The implementation of a life-cycle environmental analy-
sis strongly depends on the availability of data for the
various impacts and a consistent evaluation of such impacts
and the underlying life-cycle inventories across competing
materials. In this study, the scope of the impacts was
limited by the data for the concrete, that covers lesser
impacts and has a regional base (US only). Despite this, it is
a positive step that it is now possible to carry out a LCA
with meaningful detail to allow for credible comparisons.
Life-cycle analyses (both environmental and cost)
strongly depend on the assessment of the deterioration of
the structure and the evaluation of its actual service life.
These issues were not incorporated in the analysis and
clearly major research is still needed in that area. Speci-
fically, in the LCA analysis, the case study was restricted to
the construction stage; in the LCCA analysis, simplified
inspection and maintenance scenarios were considered.
Finally, the comparative analysis showed that despite a
clear cost advantage of the concrete solution (20% cheap-
er), the environmental life-cycle analysis could invert this
result in favour of the steel solution, that achieved a global
score of 49%, slightly better than the concrete solution, at
51%. It is noted that the service life considered was only
50 years, an option that favours the concrete solution.
However, the lack of reliable methodologies to predict
service life, do not allow the development of this issue
further at this stage.
Naturally, the conclusions very much depend on the
methodologies and weights that are used. In particular, a
sensitivity study for the weighting factors and weighting
between LCA and LCCA is clearly necessary. Given the
uncertainties and arbitrary choices in this area, the next
step is clearly to develop a probabilistic life-cycle environ-
mental methodology, an issue that is currently actively
being pursued by the authors.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials, Standards Practice for
Measuring Life-cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM E
917-94, 1994 (ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA).
 Comparative LCA of steel-concrete composite bridges
Bare, J., Norris, A., Pennington, W. and Mckone, T., TRACI: The tool for
the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental
impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2002, 6, 49 – 78.
Chaturvedi, S. and Ochsendorf, J., Global Environmental Impacts due to
Cement and Steel. Structural Engineering International, 2004, 3, 198 – 200.
Comite Euro-International du Beton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, 1990
(Comite Euro-International du Beton: Lausanne).
Ehlen, M. and Marshall, H., The Economics of New-Technology
Materials: A Case Study of FRP Bridges Decking. NISTIR 5864,
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1996
(National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD).
Ehlen, M., BridgeLCC 2.0 Users Manual. NISTIR 6298, Gaithersburg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2003 (National
Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD).
European Committee for Standardisation, Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures – Part 2: Steel bridges, prEN1993-2, 2004 (CEN, European
Committee for Standardisation: Brussels).
European Committee for Standardisation, Eurocode 4: Design of composite
steel and concrete structures – Part 2: Rules for bridges, EN1994-2,
October 2005 (CEN, European Committee for Standardisation:
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:15 25 December 2017
Brussels).
International Iron and Steel Institute, World Steel Life Cycle Inventory –
Methodology Report 1999/2000, 2002 (Committee on Environmental
Affairs: Brussels).
International Standards Organization, Environmental Management –
Life-cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, International
Standard 14040, 1997 (International Organisation for Standardisation:
Geneva).
269
ISO, Environmental Management – Life-cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope
Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Standard 14041, 1998
(International Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva).
ISO, Environmental Management – Life-cycle Assessment – Life Cycle
Impact Assessment, International Standard 14042, 2000 (International
Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva).
Lippiatt, B., BEES 3.0 Building for Environmental and Economic
Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide. NISTIR 6916,
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
2002 (National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg,
MD).
Nisbet, M., Marceau, M., and VanGeem, M., Environmental Life Cycle
Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete, Portland Cement Association,
2002 (Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL).
Norberg-Bohm, V., et al., International Comparisons of Environmental
Hazards: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Linking
Environmental Data with the Strategic Debate Management Priorities
for Risk Management, Center for Science & International Affairs, John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1992.
Regulamento de Estruturas de Betão Armado e Pré-Esforçado (REBAP),
Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1986.
Regulamento de Segurança e Acções para Estruturas de Edifı́os e Pontes
(RSA), Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1983.
Worrell, E.. Martin, N., and Price, L., Energy Efficiency and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Iron and Steel
Sector. Ernest Orlando. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1999
(University of California: Berkeley).