Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)

July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

A Proposed Methodology for Quantifying the

Environmental Impacts of Structural Elements of
Standard Bridge Designs
Kevin Lawrence M. Atienza
De La Salle University
Manila, Philippines Mitchel Krisia R. Martinez
De La Salle University
Carla Maria B. Gonzalez Manila, Philippines
De La Salle University
Manila, Philippines
Andres Winston C. Oreta
Professor, De La Salle University
Jorge Jason K. Joaquino
Manila, Philippines
De La Salle University
Manila, Philippines

AbstractThis paper proposes a methodology to account for the abiotic resources, ocean acidification, eutrophication, global
environmental sustainability aspect of standard bridge designs in warming, ozone depletion, and photochemical oxidant
the Philippines. Through the methodology, the authors quantified formation.
the environmental impacts of bridges at their pre-construction
stage. The final output of the methodology is to produce an By means of quantifying the said impacts, bridge proponents
Environmental Impact Score (EIS) to aid proponents in ranking
may be guided with numerical values that would help in
the environmental performance of one bridge to another. By
conducting a Life Cycle Inventory Assessment (LCIA) and assessing the environmental implication of the project. By
producing an EIS, structural engineers will be able quantify the quantifying environmental impacts, structural engineers may
environmental impacts of different bridge structural systems and in reduce the impacts of a bridge early on in the design stage.
turn apply sustainability in the decision making of future bridge
projects.
II. METHODOLOGY
Keywords Analytical Hierarchy Process; bridges; environmental
impacts; environmental sustainability; Life Cycle Impact A. Bill of Quantities of Bridges
Assessment; structural systems The methodology begins with the acquisition of bridge
plans containing the bill of quantities of materials. Copies of
I. INTRODUCTION the as-built structural plans were furnished by the Bridges
Management Cluster of the Department of Public Works and
The Philippines is at its peak of construction and is Highways (DPWH) Unified Project Management Office
currently developing its road network system. Factors such as (UPMO) of the Philippines.
safety, serviceability, and economy have been considered in
bridge designs however proponents have fallen short in The study assessed eighteen (18) bridge plans located in
incorporating the environmental aspect of these designs. The Region IV-A of the Philippines. The bridge plans obtained
role of a structural engineer continues to be redefined with the included five (5) types of structural systems, namely,
introduction of variable construction methods and design reinforced concrete deck girder (RCDG), prestressed concrete
factors. In light of the nations response to climate change, the deck girder (PCDG), reinforced concrete slab (RCSL),
inclusion and consideration of potential environmental effects reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC), and Steel girder.
by bridge components and elements are deemed relevant in the These are five (5) of the most common structural systems seen
initial design and conception of the structure. in the DPWH inventory of bridges. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are
photos of some of these structural systems.
Using the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) database
Ecoinvent v3.1, the study introduces a methodology that
allows the conversion of construction materials used in the
bridge design into equivalent impacts namely consumption of
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

TABLE I. CHOSEN DATA FROM CML 2001 IN LCIA DATASET

(ECOINVENT, 2014)

Impact Chosen Environmental Impacts

Category Data Name Unit
Abiotic Abiotic Resource
kg antimony
Resources Depletion
Acidification Generic kg SO2

Eutrophication Generic kg PO4

Upper and lower
Global Warming kg CO2
limit of net GWP
Stratospheric
ODP Steady-State kg CFC-11
Fig. 1. Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Ozone Depletion
Photochemical
High NOx POCP kg ethylene
Oxidant Formation

The production of structural steel however was not present

in any dataset in Ecoinvent. In order to accommodate for the
impact of structural steel, the researchers found an alternative
source that provided this information. The source used was the
environmental product declaration by Bossenmeyer,
Reinhardt, & Werner (2010). The document contained an
LCIA of Structural Steel based on the GaBi software.

The environmental impact potential of the materials were

determined by multiplying the total mass or volume to the
factors obtained from the database. The product of the values
from each category yielded the total impact potential every
Fig. 2. Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert material. Table II depicts a sample computation for
determining the environmental impact potential of materials
using the Ecoinvent inventory.

TABLE II. SAMPLE COMPUTATION FOR ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL

USING QUANTITIES FROM LIPA BRIDGE

Computation for Acidification Potential

Mass or
Material Volume kg S02-Eq Equivalent
(kg or m3)
Superstructure:

Reinforcing Steel 25,314.038 x 0.0099196 251.105

Concrete Class A 105.163 x 0.6582100 69.219

Concrete Class B 0 x 0.6582100 0

Structural Steel 0 x 0.0034700 0

Fig. 3. Reinforced Concrete Slab
Total: 320.324

Substructure:
B. Ecoinvent v3.1 Database
The next step was to convert the amount of materials into Reinforcing Steel 17,502.416 x 0.0099196 173.617
its equivalent effect to the environment. The Ecoinvent v3.1 Concrete Class A 108.804 x 0.6582100 71.616
database provided the researchers with materials found in the
Concrete Class B 0 x 0.6582100 0
bill of quantities of each bridge. The researchers used the
CML 2001 method, which provided various impact categories. Structural Steel 0 x 0.0034700 0
Each construction material corresponded to specific Total: 245.233
environmental impact equivalents. Table I enumerates the
Total
different environmental impacts along with their Super and 565.557
corresponding units. Sub
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

At this point, the bridges analyzed still cannot be compared chemical engineers from the academe of the De La Salle
because that they differ in size. To eliminate this University, structural engineers from the Bureau of Design
inconsistency, the deck area of each bridge was used to sector of the DPWH, environmentalists from the Department
calculate the environmental impact equivalents per deck area. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and
For example above, the sample bridge has a deck area of contractors to participate in the assessment of the weighting
189.84 sq. meters. As presented in Equation (1), the total factors. Figure 4 displays the percentages of weighting factors
environmental impact equivalent was divided by the deck area obtained from the AHP.
to produce an impact per square meter value.

565.557 SO2Eq/ 189.4 m2 = 2.986 SO2 Eq/m2 (1)

C. Normalization
The different units of each of the environmental impact
potential posed as a challenge because it is impossible to
combine values with different units. This problem was aided
by means of the normalization process. In order to combine
the equivalents of the environmental impact potentials, the
highest equivalent in each category (ARDP, AP, EP, GWP,
POCP, and ODP) became a basis for all other values. The
smaller values were divided by the highest value in each
Fig. 4. Weighting Factors
category and would produce a ratio that could be combined
with normalized values from the other categories. Table III
shows an example of the normalization process with a highest E. Environmental Impact Score (EIS)
value of 6.278 that was used to normalize all the other values. The EIS was obtained by calculating the sum of all the
environmental impact potentials (as seen in Equation (2)).
TABLE III. NORMALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIALS

Normalization of Environmental Impact Potentials EIS = W1(EI1) + W2(EI2) ++ Wn(EIn) (2)

Deck
Bridge
Type
Name Area ARDP Normalized ARDP where:
(m2)
W weighting factor for the corresponding environmental
Bridge A (Lobo 1) 60.80 6.278 6.278/6.278 = 1.00 impact potential
Bridge B EI Environmental Impact per deck area
58.20 6.017 6.017/6.278 = 0.96
(Maguiluyan)
Bridge C
RCBC 128.04 4.443 4.443/6.278 = 0.71 Table IV summarizes the Environmental Impact Scores
(Mascarina)
Bridge D (EIS) of all the bridges analyzed. A lower EIS indicates that
65.96 5.735 5.735/6.278 = 0.91
(Namunga 2) the bridge is less harmful to the environment.
Bridge E (Payapa) 69.84 3.550 3.550/6.278 = 0.57
Bridge F TABLE IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCORES (EIS)
295.74 2.030 2.030/6.278 = 0.32
(Catmon)
Bridge Environmental Impact Scores (EIS)
Bridge G
171.72 2.906 2.906/6.278 = 0.46 Type Name EIS
RCDG (Guinhawa)
Bridge H (Ilijan Bridge A (Lobo 1) 1.000
162.18 2.911 2.911/6.728 = 0.46
II)
Bridge I (Lipa) 189.84 3.610 3.610/6.728 = 0.58 Bridge B (Maguiluyan) 0.969

RCBC Bridge C (Mascarina) 0.686

D. Weighting Factors Bridge D (Namunga 2) 0.911

In this study, different environmental impacts were Bridge E (Payapa) 0.569

quantified however there is no precise value as to how much Bridge F (Catmon) 0.318
bearing each impact has to the environment. In order to
numerically represent the bearing of each impact, the group Bridge G (Guinhawa) 0.459
RCDG
derived sets of weighting factors from various sectors through Bridge H (Ilijan II) 0.460
the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Bridge I (Lipa) 0.567
The AHP gathered input from stakeholders from various
sectors that have relevant input on the subject matter. In the RCSL Bridge J (Dela Paz) 0.528
case of the study, the group selected civil, environmental and
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

Bridge Environmental Impact Scores (EIS)

Type Name EIS
Bridge K (Malaya) 0.477

Bridge L (Sta. Clara) 0.683

Bridge M (Sta. Maria DAO) 0.461

Bridge N (Malamok II) 0.523

PCDG
Bridge O (Psnsmitan) 0.614

Bridge P (Cavinti) 0.787

Steel
Bridge Q (Sabang) 0.622
Girder
Bridge R (Salitran) 0.583 Fig. 5. Radar chart on the generalized environmental impacts

F. Interpretation of EIS III. APPLICATION OF EIS

The resulting Environmental Impact Scores of all bridges Once the Environmental Impact Scores are established,
indicated its overall environmental performance relative to the these may be used to rank, analyze and draw comparisons
impacts considered in the study. All scores amounted to less between other bridges. Presented on this section are ways to
than 1.0; smaller values designate minimal environmental put the EIS to use.
impacts while larger values indicate poor environmental
performance. The EIS value of a specific bridge is dependent A. Case Study on the RCBC Bridge
on its design and configuration.
The type of structural system of a particular bridge
Because there were varying numbers of bridges significantly affected its environmental performance. The
investigated per structural system, the mean normalized configuration of the structural elements influenced the EIS of
environmental impacts were obtained to show a generalized all bridges. RCBC bridges, namely, (A) Lobo 1, (B)
EIS. Table V shows the average Environmental Impact Scores Maguiluyan, (C) Mascarina, (D) Namunga 2, and (E) Payapa
of each structural system. obtained the highest EIS values among all bridges. While
Bridges C and E registered intermediate EIS ratings, Bridges
TABLE V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCORES OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS B and D incurred very high EIS values of 0.960 and 0.911,
Average Normalized Environmental Impacts
respectively. Bridge A was found to be the most critical as it
Bridge
Type registered a normalized value of 1.0 for all six (6)
ARDP AP EP GWP POCP ODP EIS
environmental impacts. Table VI shows the corresponding
RCBC 0.829 0.807 0.828 0.830 0.827 0.830 0.825
normalized environmental impact potentials for Bridges A F.
RCDG 0.456 0.447 0.467 0.435 0.487 0.438 0.451

RCSL 0.544 0.533 0.557 0.519 0.581 0.515 0.537

TABLE VI. NORMALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIALS FOR
RCBC BRIDGES
PCDG 0.568 0.567 0.559 0.579 0.550 0.573 0.568
Steel Average Normalized Environmental Impacts
0.711 0.594 0.478 0.722 0.804 0.541 0.664 Name
Girder ARDP AP EP GWP POCP ODP EIS
Bridge A
Generally, an RCBC bridge was found to be most harmful (Lobo 1) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

to the environment compared to other types of structural Bridge B

system with an EIS of 0.825. On the other hand, an RCDG (Maguilu 0.958 0.960 0.956 0.963 0.953 0.963 0.960
-yan)
bridge was evaluated as the least harmful system with the Bridge C
smallest EIS value of 0.451. Figure 5 presents a Radar chart of (Mascari- 0.708 0.594 0.709 0.705 0.711 0.705 0.686
the average normalized environmental impacts of each na)
Bridge D
structural system. The farther a structural system is from the (Namu- 0.913 0.910 0.918 0.904 0.925 0.904 0.911
center point (0.0), the more harmful it is to the environment. nga 2)
Bridge E
On the other hand, a structural system that is closer to the (Payapa)
0.565 0.571 0.559 0.580 0.547 0.579 0.569
center point indicates that it is more environment-friendly.
Although Bridges A F were characterized by one type of
structural system, differences were still obtained in the EIS
values of the bridges. Considering Bridge A and Bridge C,
while the latter had a greater deck area of 128.04 m2, the
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

former still produced the greatest EIS of 1.0 with its relatively Generally, RCBCs have relatively shorter span lengths
smaller deck area of 60.80 m2 (as seen in Table VII). This compared to other bridges. In addition, this type of bridge is
indicates that the deck area of a bridge is not directly structurally designed with no primary members supporting the
proportional to its EIS. superstructure. Since the loads are not distributed to any
supporting girders, serviceability requirement for deflection of
TABLE VII. EIS AND DECK AREA OF BRIDGES A AND C the bridge deck is larger. In theory, deflection is a function of
Average Normalized Environmental Impacts the elements moment of inertia. Increasing the thickness of
Bri- Deck the element would result to a larger moment of inertia, thus
dge ARD POC
Area
P
AP EP GWP
P
ODP EIS minimizing the resulting deflection on the structural element.
(m2)
The increase in thickness of the bridge deck would require a
A 60.80 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00
larger volume of structural concrete and number of
128.0
C
4
0.708 0.594 0.709 0.705 0.711 0.705 0.69 reinforcements. This explains the larger EIS of an RCBC
because of the addition and use of more structural materials.
Figures 6 and 7 show the equivalent environmental impact
values for reinforcing steel and structural concrete of Bridges B. Case study on PCDG, RCSL, and Steel Girder
A and C. Superstructures
One of the major components in bridge design is the
presence of a superstructure. Most bridge superstructures
include girders responsible for the transfer of loads from a
bridges slab to the abutments or supports. In the case study
conducted, there were bridges with three configurations
namely, prestressed concrete deck girders (PCDG), reinforced
concrete slabs (RCSL), and steel girders.

As a rule of thumb, RCSL bridge spans range from 6 to 12

meters. PCDG bridges are recommended for span lenths of 24
to 42 meters while steel girders are recommended for 42-meter
spans and above. Bridge N (Malamok II), Bridge M (Sta.
Maria DAO), and Bridge P (Cavinti) are the bridges with the
Fig. 6. Environmental impact equivalents of reinforcing steel longest lengths in their respective categories. Bridge N has a
PCDG configuration and a length of 34 meters, Bridge M is an
RCSL and has a length of 36 meters, while Bridge P is a Steel
Girder with a length of 40 meters.

Bridge N (PCDG) was designed to have five pre-cast post-

tensioned concrete girders. On the other hand, Bridge M
(RCSL) used three reinforced concrete slabs supported by
piers and abutments. The three reinforced concrete slabs each
have a span length of 12 meters, which form the total length of
36 meters. Bridge P (steel girder) used structural steel
members; specifically steel I-girders, to support the slab. Four
steel I-girders were used for the design. Other structural steel
members were used to brace the girders for better support
from loads.
Fig. 7. Environmental impact equivalents of structural concrete Since the configurations for the superstructures of these
bridges were different, it was desired to determine the effect of
For comparative analysis, the equivalent environmental the difference in the material used for these structures. The
impacts were divided by the deck area of the bridges. materials used for each component of each bridge are shown
Although Bridge C had a bigger deck area, Bridge A in Tables VIII, IX, and X.
contributed more environmental impacts per square meter
from the use of reinforcing steel and structural concrete. This TABLE VIII. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BRIDGE N (PCDG)
difference signified the larger EIS of Bridge A compared to
Bridge N
Bridge C. Superstruc-
ture Reinforcing Concrete,
Prestressed Concrete
Steel, kgs m3
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

Bridge N
Superstruc-
ture Reinforcing Concrete,
Prestressed Concrete
Steel, kgs m3
Reinforci
Concrete,
Deck Slab 16,092.551 93.109 ng Steel,
m3
kgs
DIaphragm 2,615.666 13.638 - -

Sidewalk 3,100.133 33.492 - -

Girder - - 20,793 111.05

Total 21,808.35 140.239 20,793 111.05

TABLE IX. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BRIDGE M (RCSL)

Superstruc- Bridge M
ture Reinforcing Steel, kgs Concrete, m3
Deck Slab 31,324.00 172.04

DIaphragm 7,810.800 19.244

Sidewalk 4,125.40 3.245 Fig. 8. Superstructure impact equivalents of PCDG, RCSL, and Steel Girder
bridges
Girder 3,291.90 20.808

Total 46,552 215.32 Based on this figure, Bridge P had the highest impact in
the categories of abiotic resource depletion, global warming,
and photochemical oxidant creation, but had significantly
TABLE X. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BRIDGE P (STEEL GIRDER) lower impacts in acidification, eutrophication, and ozone
Bridge P depletion, as compared to the other two bridges. The results
Superstruc-
ture Concrete, Structural indicate that Bridge M had higher impacts in all categories as
Reinforcing Steel, kgs
m3 Steel, kgs compared to the prestressed concrete bridge, Bridge N, despite
Deck Slab 17,352.01 87.748 - having a smaller deck area.
Sidewalk 2,590.517 23.12 -
The manufacturing of the materials used to construct the
Girder - - 93,842.98 components of Bridge P proved to have a greater impact due
to its contribution to the depletion of abiotic resources as well
Total 19,942.527 110.868 93,842.98
as the global warming. Given that the bearings of these
potentials were heavier than the rest based on the AHP, the
manufacturing of the structural steel of Bridge P led to a
It can be observed from these tables that the higher EIS. With regards to the difference of EIS of Bridge N
superstructures of the bridges have significantly different and M, the cause of Bridge M to have a higher EIS value than
types and amounts of materials. The bridge that used the most Bridge N was due to the larger amount of reinforcing steel
concrete for the superstructure was found to be Bridge N used for the structure. Tables VIII and IX show that the
(PCDG) while the bridge that used the most reinforcing steel reinforcing steel used by Bridge M amounted to 46,552 kgs
was Bridge M (RCSL). Bridge P (Steel Girder) has utilizes a while Bridge N had 42,601.35 kgs (21,808 kgs + 20,793 kgs).
large amount of structural steel as well as using reinforcing Applying the Ecoinvent factors will give a larger impact
steel and concrete for its girder and deck slab, respectively. equivalent for Bridge M. Using the deck areas for comparison,
In order to analyze the environmental impacts of the the smaller deck area of Bridge M, will definitely cause the
superstructures of these bridges, the same method was used in environmental impact equivalent per sq. meter to be higher
solving for all of the bridges EIS. The results of this process than that of Bridge N. The amount of concrete used in these
can be seen in Figure 8 (Note: GWP is in 100s and ODP is to bridges also had a significant difference, with Bridge M
be multiplied by 10-4.) (RCSL) having a higher amount of concrete used per sq.
meter, which also led to the increase in its EIS as compared to
Bridge N (PCDG).

Based on the results of the comparison, the materials used

for the construction of the superstructures definitely produce a
difference in the environmental impact equivalents of bridges.
 Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SBE2016)
July 13-15, 2016, Acacia Hotel, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

Bridge P, which a large amount of structural steel generated system for a specific bridge. Although the results are bridge-
the highest EIS as compared to structures that use reinforcing specific, engineers will have a rationale of the expected EIS of
steel and concrete only. In terms of reinforced concrete, any proposed structural bridge design. This heightened
Bridge M, configured with a reinforced concrete slab, awareness of the environmental impacts of bridges will
produced a higher EIS due to the amount of reinforcing steel promote and advance the concept of sustainability.
used for its construction. Given these results, it is important to
take note that the configurations of the superstructures can
affect the environmental impact potentials that a bridge has. REFERENCES

[1] Bossenmeyer, H., Reinhardt, H., & Werner, F. Environmental

IV. CONCLUSION Production Declaration ISO 14025 EPD-BFS-2010111-E. Berlin,
Germany: Institut Bauen und Umawelt e.V.; 2010.
The proposed methodology in determining the
environmental impacts of the materials in bridges can provide [2] DPWH Bureau of Design. Standard Drawing for Concrete
Bridges. Metro Manila: DPWH Bridge Division, Bureau of
a view on the environmental performance of a specific bridge Design; (n.d).
relative to another. An Environmental Impact Score (EIS)
represented the overall rate of the environmental impacts [3] Dequidt, T. Life Cycle Assessment of a Norwegian
Bridge. Norway: Department of Civil and Transport
generated by a specific bridge and how such bridge ranks with Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology;
respect to others. Weighting factors obtained from the AHP 2012.
are influenced by the professional and subjective opinion of [4] Du, G., & Karoumi, R. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
respondents. Comparison Between Two Bridge Types: Reinforced Concrete
Bridge and Steel Composite Bridge. Sweden: Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Department of Structural Engineering and
Materials used in the construction of bridges pose Bridges Stockhlom; 2013.
equivalent impacts to the environment and these can be
minimized by sustainable design and thorough analysis of the [5] Rantala, T. Life Cycle Analysis of Malkia Canal Bridge.
structural elements and its configuration;. Superstructure Helsinki: Liikennevirasto; 2010.
elements generally contribute significantly to the total EIS of a [6] Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York:
bridge because of the use of more resources and structural McGraw-Hill; 1980.
materials. Thorough design of the superstructure by carefully
choosing the type of structural system can greatly minimize [7] The Ecoinvent Database [homepage on the internet]. Ecoinvent
Centre. [cited 2014 July 13] Available from:
the bridges environmental impacts. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/
By introducing a methodology to determine the environmental
impact equivalents, structural engineers shall be presented
with options and guided in choosing a particular structural