LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS: EVALUATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT OF BRIDGE MATERIALS

A Report Submitted in Partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of

Master of Technology.

By
NINGOMBAM SAMSON SINGH (2421305)

Under the guidance

of
Dr. Tauhidur Rahman

Associate Professor

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR
SILCHAR, ASSAM, INDIA-788010
(MAY 2025)
 DECLARATION

Report Title: Life Cycle Analysis: Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Bridge
Materials.

Degree for which the Thesis is submitted: MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

I declare that this review thesis represents my own critical analysis, synthesis, and writing,
based on the research papers published by others. Where ideas, findings, or words from other
sources have been included, I have appropriately cited and referenced them in accordance
with academic standards. The thesis has been prepared without resorting to plagiarism and
adheres to all principles of academic honesty and integrity. No falsified or fabricated data
have been presented in the review. I understand that any violation of the above will result in
disciplinary action by the Institute, if applicable, and may also invite penal action from
sources that have not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been
obtained.

----------------------------------------

Name: Ningombam Samson Singh

Registration no.: 2421305

Dated 28-04-2025
@ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR
2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in this thesis entitled ‘Life Cycle Analysis: Evaluating
the Environmental Impact of Bridge Materials.’ submitted by Ningombam Samson
Singh, Registration no.: 2421305 for the award of M.Tech is absolutely based on analysis,
synthesis, and writing, based on the research papers published by others and that this
work/thesis has not been submitted elsewhere for any degree/diploma.

Signature of Supervisor

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Tauhidur Rahman

Department of Civil Engineering

National Institute of Technology, Silchar

Date : __/__/2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
NO.

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….….... I

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………......…...………………..IV

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….......
V

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………VI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………...…………………1

1.1 THE GLOBAL PUSH FOR SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE…………...…...……

1

1.2 THE ROLE OF BRIDGES IN MODERN

SOCIETY……………………………………...2

1.3 CHALLENGES IN BRIDGE MATERIAL SELECTION…………………………………

2

1.4 THE ROLE OF LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT (LCSA)

…………….2

1.5 RESEARCH CONTEXT AND KNOWLEDGE

GAPS…………………………………...3

1.6 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE………………………………………………………………

3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE
REVIEW…………………………………………………....5

2.1 METHODOLOGIES IN BRIDGE LCA……………………...……………………………

5

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BRIDGE MATERIALS………………………...

…...6

I
2.3 CASE STUDIES AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSES……………………………………
7

2.4 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND

CHALLENGES…………………………………………….7

2.5 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………….….……
8

CHPATER 3: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) FRAMEWORK…………...

…........10

3.1 DEFINITION AND STANDARDS………………………………………….

…………...10

3.2 LIFE CYCLE STAGES……………………………………………………………….….12

3.3 FUNCTIONAL UNITS AND SYSTEM BOUNDARIES………….……………….……

14

3.4 DATA SOURCES AND TOOLS…………………………………………………….

…....15

3.5 CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS……………………………………….

…….16

CHAPTER 4: BRIDGE MATERIALS: PROPERTIES AND

APPLICATIONS…….....18

4.1 CONCRETE…………………………………………………………………….….…….18

4.2 STEEL……………………………………………………………………………………20

4.3 ASPHALT………………………………………………………………………………...21

4.4 FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMERS (FRP)……………………….…….………………

22

4.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS……... ……………………………………………………23

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BRIDGE MATERIALS……...……

25

II
5.1 MATERIAL PRODUCTION (A1–A3) …………………………….
…………………….25

5.2 TRANSPORTATION (A4) ...…………………………………………………………….28

5.3 CONSTRUCTION (A5)…………………………………………………….……………

29

5.4 USE AND MAINTENANCE (B1–B7) ……………………………………….…………30

5.5 END-OF-LIFE AND RECYCLING (C1–C4, MODULE D) ……………………………

31

5.6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS………………………………………………………...….32

CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDIES: LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE MATERIA…

34

6.1 CASE STUDY 1: BANDRA-WORLI SEA LINK, MUMBAI (CONCRETE AND

STEEL) ……………………………………………………………………….
……………………….34

6.2 CASE STUDY 2: BOGIBEEL BRIDGE, ASSAM (STEEL AND ASPHALT) …………
35

6.3 CASE STUDY 3: FRP PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE,

GUJARAT…………………………...37

6.4 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………...38

CHAPTER 7: KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND CHALLENGES IN LCA OF BRIDGE

MATERIALS……………...…………………………………...……………………………39

7.1 METHODOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES…………………………………………...39

7.2 LIMITED DATA AVAILABILITY………………………………………………………40

7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY……………………………………………………41

7.4 TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS…………………………………………………………...43

7.5 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………...44

CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE BRIDGE DESIGN…...45

III
8.1 MATERIAL SELECTION……………………………………………………………….45

8.2 DESIGN STRATEGIES………………………………………………………………….45

8.3 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES…………………………………………………….….45

8.4 MAINTENANCE OPTIMIZATION…………………………………………………….46

8.5 END-OF-LIFE MANAGEMENT…………………………………………………….….46

8.6 SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………...46

CHAPTER 9: FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR LCA OF BRIDGE

MATERIALS……………………………………………………………………………......47

9.1 METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS…………………………………….

……….47

9.2 DATA DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………….

…...47

9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING……………………………………………….

……...48

9.4 TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS……………………………………………………….….48

9.5 SUMMARY…………………………………….……………………………………...…
48

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION………………….…………….……………………….….50

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….51

IV
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO.
FIGURE 1…………………………………………………………………………….…….…2
FIGURE 2……………………………………………………………….…………………...10
FIGURE 3.1…………………………………………………………….……………………35
FIGURE 3.2…………………………………………………………….……………………36
FIGURE 3.3…………………………………………………………….……………………38

V
LIST OF TABLES PAGE NO.
TABLE 4.1…………………………………………………………………………………...24
TABLE 5.1…………………………………………………………………………………...32

VI
 ABSTRACT

This study evaluates the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of bridge materials—concrete, steel,
asphalt, and FRP—across production, transportation, construction, use, maintenance, and
end-of-life stages. Findings show concrete’s high emissions (0.8–1.0 kg CO₂/kg), steel’s
recycling benefits (up to 60%), asphalt’s durability advantage with epoxy (47–65% emission
reduction), and FRP’s low maintenance despite high initial emissions (5–15 kg CO₂/kg).
Challenges include methodological inconsistencies, data gaps, climate variability, and
recycling limitations. The study recommends sustainable material selection, hybrid designs,
and advanced recycling, advocating for standardized LCA protocols and climate-integrated
models to enhance bridge sustainability.

VII
 CHAPTER

Introduction

1. Introduction

Bridges are the backbone of global transportation networks, enabling the movement of
people, goods, and services across physical and geographical barriers. From monumental
structures like the Sydney Harbour Bridge to local pedestrian crossings, these engineering
marvels underpin economic growth, social connectivity, and urban development. However,
the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of bridges involve substantial
resource consumption, energy use, and environmental impacts, posing significant challenges
in the era of climate change and resource scarcity. As the world strives to achieve
sustainability goals—such as those outlined in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and the European Union’s Green Deal—the infrastructure sector is under
increasing scrutiny to adopt practices that minimize ecological footprints, optimize economic
efficiency, and enhance societal well-being. This report examines the life cycle analysis
(LCA) of bridge materials, a critical tool for evaluating their sustainability across
environmental, economic, and social dimensions, with the aim of guiding engineers and
policymakers toward resilient and responsible design solutions.

1.1 The Global Push for Sustainable Infrastructure

The imperative for sustainable infrastructure arises from pressing global challenges,
including climate change, rapid urbanization, and the depletion of finite resources. According
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the construction sector accounts
for approximately 39% of global CO₂ emissions, with infrastructure projects like bridges
contributing significantly due to their material intensity and long service lives. The UN
SDGs, particularly Goal 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and Goal 13 (Climate
Action), call for resilient and sustainable infrastructure to support economic development
while mitigating environmental harm. Similarly, the European Green Deal sets ambitious
targets for carbon neutrality by 2050, emphasizing resource efficiency and circular economy
principles. These global frameworks underscore the need for a paradigm shift in how bridges

1
are designed, constructed, and maintained, prioritizing materials and strategies that align with
long-term sustainability objectives.

Fig. 1 Global CO2 emissions by sector

(Sources: World Green Building Council, Global Status Report, 2019)

1.2 The Role of Bridges in Modern Society

Bridges are more than engineering structures; they are vital arteries of modern civilization.
They connect communities, facilitate trade, and enable access to essential services, making
them indispensable to economic and social systems. For instance, major bridges like the
Second Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge in China handle millions of vehicles annually, driving
regional commerce. However, their strategic importance comes with significant
responsibilities. Bridges often span environmentally sensitive areas, such as rivers or
wetlands, where construction and maintenance activities can disrupt ecosystems. Moreover,
their long operational lifespans—typically 50 to 100 years or more—expose them to evolving
conditions, including increased traffic loads, climate-induced stressors like flooding or
corrosion, and societal expectations for minimal disruption. These factors necessitate a
holistic approach to bridge design that considers not only structural performance but also
environmental, economic, and social impacts over the entire life cycle.

1.3 Challenges in Bridge Material Selection

The choice of materials is a pivotal decision in bridge design, influencing both immediate
project outcomes and long-term sustainability. Common materials include concrete, steel,
asphalt, and emerging alternatives like fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), each with distinct
properties and trade-offs. Concrete, widely used for its strength and availability, is a major

2
contributor to global CO₂ emissions due to cement production. Steel offers high tensile
strength and recyclability but requires energy-intensive manufacturing and corrosion
protection in harsh environments. Asphalt, used in bridge deck pavements, varies in
durability (e.g., epoxy asphalt vs. mastic asphalt), affecting maintenance frequency and
emissions. FRP, while lightweight and corrosion-resistant, has high initial embodied
emissions and recycling challenges. These trade-offs highlight the complexity of material
selection, where initial costs, durability, environmental impacts, and maintenance needs must
be balanced to achieve sustainable outcomes.

1.4 The Role of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) integrates three complementary methodologies

—Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment
(S-LCA)—to provide a comprehensive evaluation of bridge materials. LCA, standardized
under ISO 14040 and 14044, quantifies environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas
emissions and resource depletion, across all life cycle stages from raw material extraction to
disposal. LCC, guided by ISO 15686-5, assesses economic costs, including initial
construction, maintenance, and user costs from traffic disruptions. S-LCA, supported by
UNEP guidelines, evaluates social impacts, such as worker safety, community disruptions,
and accessibility. Together, these methods enable a holistic assessment that informs material
selection, maintenance strategies, and design decisions. However, applying LCSA to bridges
is challenging due to their prolonged service lives, exposure to diverse environmental
conditions, and the need for consistent methodologies, particularly for social impacts.

1.5 Research Context and Knowledge Gaps

While LCSA has been widely applied to buildings, its use in bridge design is less developed,
reflecting the unique complexities of bridge systems. Recent studies, such as Wang et al.
(2023), which compared asphalt pavements on Chinese bridges, and Lee et al. (2024), which
analyzed concrete versus steel girders, demonstrate the value of LCSA in identifying
sustainable materials and maintenance strategies. These studies highlight the benefits of
durable materials like epoxy asphalt and steel, as well as the importance of recycling in
reducing environmental impacts. However, inconsistencies in functional units, data
uncertainties, and limited research on social impacts hinder comprehensive comparisons. For
example, Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) note the lack of standardized S-LCA methods for

3
bridges, underscoring the need for further methodological development. This report addresses
these gaps by synthesizing current knowledge and proposing actionable recommendations.

1.6 Objectives and Scope

This report aims to provide a thorough analysis of the life cycle impacts of bridge materials—
concrete, steel, asphalt, and FRP—drawing on recent literature and case studies. Its objectives
are:

1. To Elucidate Life Cycle Impacts: Quantify and compare the environmental, economic,
and social impacts of bridge materials across all life cycle stages, from production to
end-of-life.

2. To Evaluate Maintenance and Recycling: Assess the role of maintenance strategies

and circular economy practices in enhancing sustainability, with a focus on reducing
emissions and costs.

3. To Chart Future Directions: Identify knowledge gaps and propose research priorities
to advance sustainable bridge design, aligning with global sustainability goals.

The scope encompasses a review of key materials, their applications, and their impacts,
supported by case studies from Wang et al. (2023) and Lee et al. (2024). It also includes
recommendations for practitioners and policymakers, emphasizing practical strategies for
sustainable bridge design. By providing a comprehensive synthesis, this report seeks to equip
stakeholders with the insights needed to develop bridges that are resilient, cost-effective, and
environmentally responsible, ensuring their viability for future generations in a rapidly
changing world.

4
 CHAPTER

Literature Review

2. Literature Review

The life cycle assessment (LCA) of bridge materials has gained significant attention as the
infrastructure sector seeks to align with global sustainability goals, such as carbon neutrality
and resource efficiency. LCA, complemented by Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Social Life
Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) under the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)
framework, provides a holistic approach to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social
impacts of materials used in bridge construction. This literature review synthesizes key
studies on the life cycle impacts of common bridge materials—concrete, steel, asphalt, and
fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP)—focusing on methodologies, findings, and knowledge gaps.
It draws on recent research, including Wang et al. (2023), Milic and Bleiziffer (2024), and
Lee et al. (2024), alongside other seminal works, to contextualize the current state of
knowledge and identify areas for further investigation.

2.1 Methodologies in Bridge LCA

LCA studies for bridges typically adhere to ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, which outline
four phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA), and interpretation. These standards ensure consistency in assessing
environmental impacts, such as global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential
(EP), and abiotic depletion potential (ADP). Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) emphasize the
importance of defining clear system boundaries, such as cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-gate, to
capture all relevant processes from material production to end-of-life. They note that software
tools like SimaPRO and OpenLCA, paired with databases such as Ecoinvent, are widely used
to quantify impacts, though results vary due to differences in functional units (e.g., m² of
deck area vs. entire bridge) and regional data.

LCC studies, guided by ISO 15686-5, assess costs across construction, maintenance, and end-
of-life phases, including user costs from traffic disruptions. S-LCA, while less developed,
evaluates social impacts like worker safety and community disruption, often using databases
like PSILCA or SHDB. Wang et al. (2023) applied a cradle-to-gate LCA to compare asphalt

5
pavements, using the ReCiPe 2016 method to quantify emissions, while Lee et al. (2024)
employed a cradle-to-grave approach with OpenLCA to assess concrete and steel girders,
incorporating recycling benefits per ISO 20915. These studies highlight the need for
standardized functional units and system boundaries to enable robust comparisons across
bridge designs.

2.2 Environmental Impacts of Bridge Materials

2.2.1 Concrete

Concrete, particularly pre-stressed concrete (PSC), is a dominant material in bridge

construction due to its strength and availability. However, its environmental footprint is
significant, primarily due to cement production, which accounts for 76.4% of emissions in
some studies (Wang et al., 2023). Du et al. (2014) conducted a comparative LCA of concrete
bridge designs, finding that material production (A1-A3) dominates emissions, with
transportation (A4) and construction (A5) contributing less. Lee et al. (2024) noted that PSC
girders require frequent replacements in corrosive environments (e.g., marine settings),
increasing life cycle emissions. Efforts to reduce concrete’s impact include using low-carbon
cement or recycled aggregates, though these are not yet widely adopted (Barbhuiya and Das,
2023).

2.2.2 Steel

Steel is valued for its tensile strength and recyclability, making it a key material for bridge
girders and cables. Gervásio and da Silva (2008) compared steel-concrete composite bridges,
finding that steel’s high initial emissions are offset by lower maintenance needs and recycling
benefits. Lee et al. (2024) reported that steel plate girder bridges required fewer replacements
than PSC girders in marine environments, reducing GWP and other impacts. A 40.1%
recycling rate in Korea significantly lowered eutrophication and acidification potentials.
However, steel’s energy-intensive production and corrosion susceptibility in harsh climates
remain challenges, necessitating protective coatings or corrosion-resistant alloys (Han et al.,
2021).

2.2.3 Asphalt

Asphalt is widely used for bridge deck pavements, with variations like mastic and epoxy
asphalt affecting sustainability. Wang et al. (2023) compared pavements on two Chinese
bridges, finding that epoxy asphalt (hot mix) emitted 47–65% less CO₂e over 20 years than

6
mastic asphalt due to lower maintenance frequency. Material production dominated emissions
(66–76%), driven by high-temperature mixing (190–230°C for mastic vs. 130–190°C for
epoxy). The study highlighted the importance of durable pavements to minimize life cycle
impacts, though asphalt recycling remains limited due to material degradation.

2.2.4 Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP)

FRP, an emerging material, offers corrosion resistance and lightweight properties, reducing
maintenance needs. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) reviewed FRP bridge decks, noting higher
initial emissions but lower material use and maintenance compared to concrete. Cadenazzi et
al. (2020) found that FRP reinforcements in concrete bridges reduced environmental impacts
over time due to durability, though high production costs and recycling challenges limit
adoption. Ongoing research aims to improve FRP recyclability and reduce embodied
emissions.

2.3 Case Studies and Comparative Analyses

2.3.1 Wang et al. (2023)

Wang et al. (2023) conducted an LCA of asphalt pavements on the Jiangyin and Second
Nanjing Yangtze River Bridges in China. Using a cradle-to-gate approach, they found that
epoxy asphalt outperformed mastic asphalt due to its durability, reducing maintenance-related
emissions. The Nanjing bridge emitted significantly less CO₂e over 20 years, underscoring
the importance of material selection in high-traffic settings.

2.3.2 Lee et al. (2024)

Lee et al. (2024) compared PSC and steel plate girder bridges under rural, urban, and marine
conditions. Their cradle-to-grave LCA, incorporating time-variant performance degradation,
showed that PSC girders required up to seven replacements in marine environments,
compared to two for steel. Steel’s recycling benefits reduced environmental impacts,
particularly GWP, EP, and AP, highlighting the role of circular economy practices.

2.3.3 Milic and Bleiziffer (2024)

Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) reviewed LCSA methodologies for bridges, emphasizing the
integration of LCA, LCC, and S-LCA. They found that FRP and high-performance concrete
offer long-term benefits but require further study to balance initial impacts. Their review

7
identified inconsistencies in functional units and the underdevelopment of S-LCA as key
challenges.

2.4 Knowledge Gaps and Challenges

The literature reveals several gaps:

 Inconsistent Methodologies: Variations in functional units (e.g., m² vs. whole

structure) and system boundaries hinder comparisons (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Data Uncertainties: Local material availability, traffic patterns, and environmental

conditions introduce variability (Lee et al., 2024).

 S-LCA Underdevelopment: Lack of standardized methods and bridge-specific data

limits social impact assessment (UNEP, 2020).

 Emerging Materials: High-performance materials like FRP require more research to

optimize cost and environmental trade-offs (Cadenazzi et al., 2020).

 Climate Adaptation: Few studies model long-term climate impacts, such as increased
corrosion due to global warming (Xie et al., 2018).

2.5 Summary

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a pivotal tool for assessing the environmental impacts of bridge
materials—concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP)—supporting
sustainable infrastructure design amid global climate goals (Wang et al., 2023; Milic &
Bleiziffer, 2024). Under the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework, LCA
integrates with Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social LCA (S-LCA) to evaluate
environmental, economic, and social dimensions (Isa Olalekan et al., 2023). LCA
methodologies, standardized by ISO 14040/44, vary in functional units (e.g., m² deck vs.
whole bridge) and system boundaries (cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave), affecting
comparability (Milic & Bleiziffer, 2024; den Heede & De Belie, 2012). Tools like SimaPro
and OpenLCA, paired with databases such as Ecoinvent, are commonly used, though
software differences impact results (Aparecido Lopes Silva et al., 2019; Emami et al., 2019).

Concrete’s high emissions (76.4% from cement production) dominate its footprint,
exacerbated by frequent maintenance in corrosive environments (Wang et al., 2023; Lee et
al., 2024). Steel offers recyclability (40.1% rate in Korea), reducing impacts, but requires
corrosion management (Lee et al., 2024; Gervásio & da Silva, 2008). Asphalt’s emissions,

8
driven by bitumen production, are mitigated by durable epoxy variants, cutting CO₂e by 47-
65% over 20 years (Wang et al., 2023). FRP, despite high initial emissions, lowers
maintenance needs, though recycling remains challenging (Milic & Bleiziffer, 2024;
Cadenazzi et al., 2020).

9
 CHAPTER

Life Cycle Assessment Framework

3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Framework

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework serves as a foundational tool in sustainable
engineering, offering a systematic approach to evaluate the environmental, economic, and
social impacts of products or systems across their entire life cycle. In the context of bridge
materials, LCA is essential for assessing the sustainability of materials such as concrete, steel,
asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), enabling engineers to make informed decisions
that balance initial costs, long-term performance, and environmental responsibility. When
combined with Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA),
collectively known as Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), LCA provides a holistic
framework to guide the design, construction, and maintenance of bridges. This chapter
elaborates on the LCA framework, detailing its definitions, standards, life cycle stages,
functional units, system boundaries, data sources, tools, and challenges, with a specific focus
on its application to bridge materials.

Fig. 2 Bridge life cycle – study/analysis stage.

(Sources : Life cycle assessment of the sustainability of bridges by Ivana Milić and Jelena
Bleiziffer)

3.1 Definition and Standards

10
3.1.1 Overview of LCA

LCA is a standardized methodology that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or

system from raw material extraction to disposal or recycling, often described as a "cradle-to-
grave" approach. As defined by ISO 14040 (2006a), LCA measures impacts such as
greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., CO₂ equivalent), resource depletion, and pollution across all
life cycle stages. For bridges, LCA evaluates the environmental footprint of material
production, construction processes, maintenance activities, and end-of-life scenarios,
providing critical insights into sustainable material selection and design strategies that align
with global goals for carbon neutrality and resource efficiency.

3.1.2 Key Standards

The application of LCA to bridge materials is governed by international standards to ensure

consistency, transparency, and reliability:

 ISO 14040 and 14044 (2006): These standards provide the principles, framework, and
requirements for LCA, outlining four key phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle
inventory (LCI) analysis, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation.
They emphasize the need for clear documentation to assess impacts such as global
warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential (EP), and acidification potential
(AP).

 ISO 21930 (2017): Specifies core rules for environmental product declarations
(EPDs) of construction materials, ensuring standardized reporting of environmental
impacts for materials like concrete, steel, and asphalt.

 ISO 20915 (2018): Focuses on life cycle inventory calculations for steel products,
addressing recycling benefits and losses in a circular economy, which is particularly
relevant for steel girder bridges.

 HRN EN 15804 (2019) and HRN EN 17472 (2022): European standards tailored to
construction, these define life cycle stages (A1–C4, Module D) and include pre-
construction planning (A0) for civil engineering works like bridges, ensuring
comprehensive assessment.

Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) underscore that adherence to these standards is critical for robust
LCA applications, though variations in implementation—such as differing assumptions about

11
material durability or regional conditions—can influence results, particularly for complex
systems like bridges.

3.1.3 Integration with LCSA

LCSA extends the scope of LCA by integrating two complementary methodologies:

 Life Cycle Cost (LCC, ISO 15686-5): Quantifies economic costs across the life cycle,
including initial construction, maintenance, operation, and user costs (e.g., economic
losses from traffic disruptions during repairs).

 Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA, UNEP, 2020): Evaluates social impacts, such
as worker safety, community disruptions, and accessibility, which are critical for
infrastructure projects with significant societal implications.

Lee et al. (2024) emphasize that LCSA is particularly relevant for bridges due to their long
service lives (50–100 years), high material intensity, and extensive interaction with
communities and the environment. By combining LCA, LCC, and S-LCA, LCSA enables a
multidimensional assessment that informs sustainable material selection and maintenance
strategies.

3.2 Life Cycle Stages

The life cycle of bridge materials is segmented into distinct stages, each contributing
uniquely to the environmental, economic, and social impacts. These stages, as outlined in
HRN EN 15804 and HRN EN 17472, are tailored to the specific requirements of bridge
construction, operation, and decommissioning.

3.2.1 Pre-Construction (A0)

The pre-construction stage encompasses planning, site analysis, and design activities,
including feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, and the comparison of
design variants. This stage, unique to civil engineering works under HRN EN 17472, is
critical for setting the trajectory of a bridge’s sustainability. For instance, Milic and Bleiziffer
(2024) highlight that early decisions—such as choosing between concrete and steel girders—
can significantly influence life cycle impacts by determining material quantities, construction
methods, and maintenance needs.

3.2.2 Material Production (A1–A3)

12
Material production involves raw material extraction, processing, and manufacturing, often
the most impactful stage in terms of environmental footprint:

 Concrete: Cement production is highly energy-intensive, contributing approximately

76.4% of total emissions in some bridge pavement studies (Wang et al., 2023).

 Steel: Smelting and refining require substantial energy, though recycling significantly
reduces impacts, as noted by Lee et al. (2024).

 Asphalt: High-temperature mixing (e.g., 190–230°C for mastic asphalt vs. 130–190°C
for epoxy asphalt) drives emissions, with natural gas use being a key contributor.

 FRP: The production of resins and fibers results in high embodied emissions, though
lower material volumes are required compared to traditional materials.

This stage dominates environmental impacts, underscoring the need for low-carbon
alternatives, such as blended cements or recycled steel.

3.2.3 Transportation (A4)

Transportation of materials to the construction site generates emissions based on distance,

mode of transport (e.g., truck, rail), and fuel type (e.g., diesel vs. gasoline). Local sourcing
minimizes impacts, as demonstrated by Du et al. (2014), who found that transportation
emissions are relatively low but increase with global supply chains for materials like steel or
specialized asphalt components. Efficient logistics and regional material use are critical for
reducing this stage’s footprint.

3.2.4 Construction (A5)

The construction stage includes assembly, installation, and site preparation, involving energy
use for equipment (e.g., cranes, compactors) and temporary works (e.g., formwork). Concrete
placement and asphalt paving are energy-intensive due to mixing and compaction, while steel
and FRP installations require less energy. Wang et al. (2023) noted that construction
emissions are typically lower than material production but vary by method, with
prefabrication reducing on-site energy use compared to cast-in-place techniques.

3.2.5 Use and Maintenance (B1–B7)

13
The use and maintenance stage covers operation, maintenance, repairs, and replacements over
the bridge’s service life, which often spans 50–100 years. This stage’s impacts depend heavily
on material durability and environmental exposure:

 Concrete: Pre-stressed concrete (PSC) girders are susceptible to chloride-induced

corrosion, requiring frequent repairs or replacements in marine environments,
significantly increasing emissions (Lee et al., 2024).

 Steel: Protective coatings reduce corrosion, leading to fewer replacements, though

maintenance is still required in harsh climates.

 Asphalt: Epoxy asphalt pavements require less frequent maintenance than mastic
asphalt, reducing emissions and costs (Wang et al., 2023).

 FRP: Corrosion resistance minimizes maintenance needs, offering long-term

environmental benefits (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

Maintenance strategies, such as preventive patching versus reactive girder replacement, play
a critical role in life cycle impacts, as frequent interventions amplify emissions, costs, and
social disruptions.

3.2.6 End-of-Life (C1–C4)

The end-of-life stage involves demolition, waste processing, and disposal, with opportunities
for recycling or reuse captured in Module D (HRN EN 15804). Recycling potential varies by
material:

 Concrete: Can be crushed and reused as aggregate, though the process is energy-
intensive.

 Steel: High recycling rates (e.g., 40.1% in Korea) significantly reduce environmental
impacts by offsetting virgin material production (Lee et al., 2024).

 Asphalt: Recycling is limited due to material degradation, though some studies

explore reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).

 FRP: Recycling remains challenging due to composite material complexity, but

emerging technologies show promise.

The circular economy, particularly for steel, plays a pivotal role in reducing life cycle
impacts, as highlighted by ISO 20915.

14
3.3 Functional Units and System Boundaries

3.3.1 Functional Units

The functional unit (FU) is the reference basis for LCA, ensuring that comparisons between
materials or designs are meaningful. Common FUs for bridges include 1 m² of deck area, 1 m
of bridge length, or the entire structure, each with equivalent structural capacity and service
life. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) stress that inconsistent FUs—such as m² of deck versus the
whole bridge—can lead to unreliable comparisons, as seen in studies comparing concrete and
steel bridges. A standardized FU, such as 1 m² of deck designed for a 100-year service life
under specific load conditions, is recommended to harmonize assessments and facilitate
objective material selection.

3.3.2 System Boundaries

System boundaries define which life cycle stages and processes are included in the LCA,
directly affecting the scope and accuracy of results. Common boundaries include:

 Cradle-to-Gate: Covers material production (A1–A3) and sometimes transportation

(A4), suitable for assessing manufacturing impacts.

 Cradle-to-Grave: Encompasses all stages (A1–C4), including construction, use,

maintenance, and end-of-life, providing a comprehensive assessment.

 Cradle-to-Cradle: Extends to recycling and reuse benefits (Module D), as applied by

Lee et al. (2024) to capture steel’s circular economy advantages.

Wang et al. (2023) used a cradle-to-gate boundary for asphalt pavements, focusing on
production and construction, while Lee et al. (2024) adopted a cradle-to-grave approach to
include maintenance and recycling. Clear boundary definitions are essential to avoid skewed
results and ensure comparability across studies.

3.4 Data Sources and Tools

3.4.1 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data

LCI data quantify inputs (e.g., energy, raw materials) and outputs (e.g., emissions, waste) for
each life cycle stage, forming the backbone of LCA. Key data sources include:

 Ecoinvent: A global database widely used for material and process data, though
regional adaptations are needed for accuracy.

15
  Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs): Provide product-specific data, such as
those used by Lee et al. (2024) for Korean concrete and steel, ensuring relevance to
local conditions.

 PSILCA and SHDB: Support S-LCA by providing social impact data, though they
lack bridge-specific datasets, as noted by Milic and Bleiziffer (2024).

Data uncertainties, such as variations in local material properties, traffic patterns, or

environmental conditions, can affect LCA reliability. Case-specific data, such as corrosion
rates in marine environments, are critical for accurate assessments.

3.4.2 Software and Methods

LCA software facilitates data integration and impact assessment:

 SimaPRO: A versatile tool for LCI and LCIA, supporting databases like Ecoinvent
and offering detailed impact modeling.

 OpenLCA: An open-source platform used by Lee et al. (2024) for bridge LCAs,
compatible with Ecoinvent and EPDs.

 GaBi: Commonly used for construction materials, providing robust process modeling
for complex systems.

The ReCiPe 2016 method, employed by Wang et al. (2023) and Lee et al. (2024), is a widely
adopted LCIA method that characterizes impacts across categories such as GWP, EP, AP, and
ozone depletion potential (ODP). However, differences in software and method choices can
introduce variability, necessitating clear documentation of assumptions and parameters.

3.5 Challenges and Considerations

3.5.1 Methodological Inconsistencies

Inconsistent functional units, system boundaries, and impact categories pose significant
challenges to LCA comparability. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) found that studies using
different FUs (e.g., m² vs. m³) or boundaries (e.g., cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave) yield
results that are difficult to compare, complicating material selection for bridge designers.

3.5.2 Data Uncertainties

Uncertainties in LCI data arise from regional variations, incomplete databases, and
assumptions about maintenance frequency or environmental exposure. For example, Lee et
16
al. (2024) incorporated case-specific corrosion models to address uncertainties in marine
environments, but broader standardization of data inputs is needed to enhance reliability
across studies.

3.5.3 Climate and Temporal Factors

Bridges’ long service lives expose them to climate change impacts, such as increased
corrosion from rising temperatures, higher precipitation, or extreme weather events. Xie et al.
(2018) emphasize the need to integrate these temporal factors into LCA models, a gap in
many current studies that assume static environmental conditions.

3.5.4 S-LCA Underdevelopment

S-LCA remains underdeveloped for bridges, with limited standardized methodologies and
datasets. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) highlight the challenge of quantifying social impacts,
such as traffic disruptions or worker safety risks, which are critical for holistic sustainability
assessments. Developing bridge-specific S-LCA frameworks is a priority for future research.

3.5.5 Complexity of Bridge Systems

Bridges are complex systems with diverse components (e.g., girders, decks, pavements) and
operational contexts (e.g., urban vs. marine environments), making LCA application more
challenging than for buildings. The interaction of materials, maintenance strategies, and
external factors like traffic loads requires integrated modeling to capture full life cycle
impacts.

17
 CHAPTER

Bridge Materials: Properties and Applications

4. Bridge Materials: Properties and Applications

Bridge construction relies on a diverse array of materials, each selected for its ability to meet
structural, environmental, and economic requirements over the bridge’s long service life,
typically spanning 50–100 years. The primary materials used in modern bridges—concrete,
steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP)—offer distinct physical and mechanical
properties that influence their applications, durability, and sustainability. The choice of
material significantly affects the environmental, economic, and social impacts assessed
through Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which integrates Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). This
chapter elaborates on the properties and applications of these materials, examining their
structural roles, performance under varying conditions, and life cycle implications, with
insights drawn from studies such as Wang et al. (2023), Milic and Bleiziffer (2024), and Lee
et al. (2024). By understanding these materials’ characteristics, engineers can optimize bridge
designs to align with global sustainability goals, balancing initial costs with long-term
environmental and societal benefits.

4.1 Concrete

4.1.1 Properties

Concrete is a composite material composed of cement, aggregates (sand, gravel, or crushed

stone), water, and often admixtures to enhance specific properties. Its key characteristics
include:

 High Compressive Strength: Concrete excels in resisting compressive forces, making

it ideal for load-bearing elements like bridge piers and decks. Typical compressive
strengths range from 20–50 MPa for standard concrete to over 100 MPa for high-
performance concrete (HPC).

 Durability: When properly designed, concrete withstands environmental exposure,

though it is susceptible to deterioration mechanisms such as chloride-induced
corrosion of embedded reinforcement, carbonation, and freeze-thaw cycles.
18
  Versatility: Concrete can be cast into complex shapes, precast for efficiency, or
reinforced with steel (reinforced concrete) or pre-stressed tendons (pre-stressed
concrete, PSC) to enhance tensile strength.

 High Embodied Energy: Cement production is energy-intensive, contributing

approximately 8% of global CO₂ emissions, with 0.8–1.0 kg CO₂ emitted per kg of
cement (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).

4.1.2 Applications

Concrete is the most widely used material in bridge construction due to its availability, cost-
effectiveness, and structural reliability:

 Pre-Stressed Concrete (PSC) Girders: Used in bridge superstructures to span long

distances, as studied by Lee et al. (2024), who compared PSC girders to steel girders.

 Bridge Decks and Piers: Cast-in-place or precast concrete decks provide a stable
driving surface, while piers support vertical loads.

 Substructures: Foundations and abutments rely on concrete’s compressive strength to

transfer loads to the ground.

 High-Performance Concrete (HPC): Offers enhanced durability and reduced

permeability, ideal for harsh environments like marine settings (Milic and Bleiziffer,
2024).

4.1.3 Sustainability Considerations

Concrete’s environmental footprint is dominated by cement production, which accounts for

76.4% of emissions in some bridge studies (Wang et al., 2023). Its susceptibility to corrosion
in chloride-rich environments, such as coastal areas, increases maintenance needs, elevating
life cycle emissions and costs (Lee et al., 2024). Sustainable strategies include:

 Low-Carbon Cements: Using blended cements (e.g., with fly ash or slag) reduces
emissions.

 Recycled Aggregates: Incorporating recycled concrete lowers resource depletion.

 Durability Enhancements: HPC and corrosion-resistant reinforcements extend service

life, reducing maintenance frequency.

19
Despite these advancements, concrete’s high embodied energy and maintenance demands in
aggressive environments remain challenges for sustainable bridge design.

4.2 Steel

4.2.1 Properties

Steel is a high-strength alloy of iron, carbon, and other elements, valued for its versatility and
recyclability. Its key properties include:

 High Tensile Strength: Steel’s ability to resist tensile forces makes it ideal for cables,
girders, and reinforcements, with yield strengths typically ranging from 250–690 MPa
for structural grades.

 Ductility: Steel deforms plastically before failure, enhancing safety in seismic regions.

 Corrosion Susceptibility: Exposure to moisture and chlorides can lead to rust,

requiring protective coatings or corrosion-resistant alloys (e.g., weathering steel).

 Recyclability: Steel is highly recyclable, with global recycling rates exceeding 80% in
some regions, significantly reducing its environmental footprint (BIR, 2022).

4.2.2 Applications

Steel is a critical material in bridge construction, particularly for long-span and high-load
structures:

 Steel Plate Girders: Used in bridge superstructures, as analyzed by Lee et al. (2024),
who found steel girders required fewer replacements than PSC girders in marine
environments.

 Cables and Suspensions: High-strength steel cables are essential for suspension and
cable-stayed bridges, such as the Golden Gate Bridge.

 Reinforcements: Steel rebar or tendons reinforce concrete, enhancing tensile capacity.

 Trusses and Arches: Steel’s strength-to-weight ratio supports complex geometries in

truss and arch bridges.

4.2.3 Sustainability Considerations

Steel’s production is energy-intensive, with primary steel manufacturing emitting 1.8–2.0 kg

CO₂ per kg, though recycling reduces this to 0.4–0.6 kg CO₂ per kg (Gervásio and da Silva,

20
2008). Its durability and recyclability offer significant life cycle benefits, as demonstrated by
Lee et al. (2024), who reported a 40.1% recycling rate in Korea lowering eutrophication and
acidification potentials. Challenges include:

 Corrosion Management: Protective coatings or alloys increase initial costs but reduce
maintenance (Han et al., 2021).

 Energy Efficiency: Electric arc furnaces using scrap steel lower emissions compared
to blast furnaces.

 Circular Economy: Maximizing recycling rates enhances steel’s sustainability,

aligning with ISO 20915 standards.

Steel’s balance of strength, recyclability, and durability makes it a sustainable choice for
bridges, particularly in corrosive environments where maintenance is minimized.

4.3 Asphalt

4.3.1 Properties

Asphalt is a bituminous material used primarily for bridge deck pavements, consisting of
bitumen binder and aggregates. Its properties vary by type:

 Flexibility: Asphalt accommodates structural movements, reducing cracking under

traffic loads.

 Waterproofing: Provides a protective layer for underlying decks, preventing water

ingress.

 Temperature Sensitivity: Mastic asphalt requires high mixing temperatures (190–

230°C), while epoxy asphalt, a thermosetting polymer, is mixed at lower temperatures
(130–190°C) and offers superior durability.

 Limited Durability: Standard asphalt degrades under heavy traffic or UV exposure,

necessitating periodic resurfacing.

4.3.2 Applications

Asphalt is predominantly used for bridge deck pavements to provide a smooth, durable
driving surface:

21
  Mastic Asphalt: Common for its flexibility but requires frequent maintenance, as
studied by Wang et al. (2023).

 Epoxy Asphalt: Used in high-traffic bridges, such as the Second Nanjing Yangtze
River Bridge, due to its enhanced durability and resistance to rutting and cracking.

 Thin Overlays: Applied to extend deck life or improve skid resistance.

4.3.3 Sustainability Considerations

Asphalt production is emission-intensive due to bitumen extraction and high-temperature

mixing, with material production dominating life cycle emissions (66–76%) (Wang et al.,
2023). Epoxy asphalt outperforms mastic asphalt by reducing maintenance frequency,
lowering CO₂e emissions by 47–65% over 20 years in some cases. Sustainability strategies
include:

 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP): Recycling asphalt reduces virgin material use,
though quality degradation limits applications.

 Warm-Mix Asphalt: Lowers mixing temperatures, reducing energy consumption and

emissions.

 Durable Formulations: Epoxy asphalt’s longevity minimizes traffic disruptions and

maintenance costs, enhancing social and economic outcomes.

Asphalt’s sustainability hinges on adopting durable formulations and recycling technologies

to mitigate its environmental footprint.

4.4 Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP)

4.4.1 Properties

FRP is a composite material made of a polymer matrix (e.g., epoxy, vinyl ester) reinforced
with fibers (e.g., glass, carbon, aramid). Its properties include:

 High Strength-to-Weight Ratio: FRP is lighter than steel or concrete, with tensile
strengths up to 1000 MPa, reducing structural dead loads.

 Corrosion Resistance: Unlike steel or concrete, FRP is immune to chloride-induced

corrosion, ideal for harsh environments.

22
  High Initial Cost: Production of fibers and resins is expensive, limiting widespread
adoption.

 Low Thermal Conductivity: Reduces heat transfer, beneficial for bridge decks
exposed to temperature extremes.

4.4.2 Applications

FRP is an emerging material in bridge construction, used where durability and weight
reduction are priorities:

 Bridge Decks: FRP decks are lightweight and corrosion-resistant, reducing

maintenance compared to concrete (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Reinforcements: FRP bars or tendons replace steel in concrete to prevent corrosion, as

studied by Cadenazzi et al. (2020).

 Retrofitting: FRP wraps or laminates strengthen existing bridges, extending service

life without heavy reconstruction.

 Pedestrian Bridges: FRP’s lightweight properties enable modular, easily installed

structures.

4.4.3 Sustainability Considerations

FRP’s high initial embodied emissions, driven by energy-intensive resin and fiber production,
are a key drawback. However, its durability and low maintenance needs offer long-term
benefits. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) note that FRP decks use less material than concrete,
reducing resource depletion, while Cadenazzi et al. (2020) found that FRP reinforcements
lower life cycle emissions in corrosive environments. Challenges include:

 Recycling Difficulties: FRP’s composite nature complicates recycling, though

research into mechanical and chemical recycling is ongoing.

 Cost Barriers: High production costs limit FRP to specialized applications, though
economies of scale may improve affordability.

 Life Cycle Trade-Offs: Balancing initial emissions with maintenance savings requires
comprehensive LCA, as FRP’s benefits are realized over long service lives.

FRP’s corrosion resistance and lightweight properties make it a promising material for
sustainable bridges, provided recycling and cost challenges are addressed.
23
4.5 Comparative Analysis

Each material offers unique advantages and challenges, influencing their suitability for
specific bridge applications:

 Concrete: Cost-effective and versatile but emission-intensive and maintenance-heavy

in corrosive environments.

 Steel: Strong, recyclable, and durable with proper corrosion protection, though initial
production is energy-intensive.

 Asphalt: Flexible and waterproof, with epoxy asphalt offering superior durability, but
recycling is limited.

 FRP: Lightweight and corrosion-resistant, ideal for harsh environments, but high costs
and recycling challenges persist.

Table 4.1 summarizes the properties, applications, and sustainability considerations for these
materials.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Bridge Materials

Primary Sustainability Sustainability

Material Key Properties
Applications Strengths Challenges

Availability, High cement

High compressive PSC girders,
Concrete recyclable emissions, corrosion
strength, versatile decks, piers
aggregates susceptibility

High tensile
Girders, cables, High recyclability, Energy-intensive
Steel strength,
reinforcements durability production, corrosion
recyclable

High mixing
Flexible, Epoxy asphalt’s
Asphalt Deck pavements emissions, limited
waterproof durability
recycling

High embodied
Lightweight, Decks, Low maintenance,
FRP emissions, recycling
corrosion-resistant reinforcements material efficiency
difficulties

24
 CHAPTER

Environmental Impacts of Bridge Materials

5. Environmental Impacts of Bridge Materials

The environmental impacts of bridge materials are a critical consideration in sustainable

infrastructure design, as bridges consume significant resources and generate emissions
throughout their life cycle, often spanning 50–100 years. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
framework, standardized under ISO 14040 and 14044, quantifies these impacts across stages
—material production, transportation, construction, use and maintenance, and end-of-life—
enabling engineers to identify strategies that minimize ecological footprints. The primary
materials used in bridge construction—concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers
(FRP)—each present unique environmental profiles, influenced by their production
processes, durability, and recyclability. This chapter elaborates on the environmental impacts
of these materials, detailing emissions, resource use, and mitigation strategies for each life
cycle stage, with insights drawn from recent studies such as Wang et al. (2023), Milic and
Bleiziffer (2024), and Lee et al. (2024). By understanding these impacts, stakeholders can
prioritize sustainable material choices and practices that align with global goals for carbon
neutrality, resource efficiency, and climate resilience.

5.1 Material Production (A1–A3)

The material production stage, encompassing raw material extraction, processing, and
manufacturing, is typically the most significant contributor to a bridge’s environmental
footprint, accounting for 60–80% of life cycle emissions in many studies (Wang et al., 2023).
This stage’s impacts vary by material due to differences in energy intensity, resource
requirements, and production processes.

5.1.1 Concrete

Concrete production is dominated by cement manufacturing, which involves calcining

limestone and heating kilns to 1450°C, emitting approximately 0.8–1.0 kg CO₂ per kg of
cement (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023). Wang et al. (2023) found that cement contributed 76.4%

25
of emissions for concrete bridge deck pavements, with additional impacts from aggregate
extraction and natural gas use in mixing. Key environmental impacts include:

 Global Warming Potential (GWP): Cement production accounts for 8% of global CO₂
emissions, making concrete a major contributor to bridge-related emissions.

 Resource Depletion: Quarrying for aggregates depletes non-renewable resources and

disrupts ecosystems.

 Air Pollution: Particulate matter and NOx emissions from kilns affect air quality.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Low-Carbon Cements: Blended cements with supplementary cementitious materials

(e.g., fly ash, slag) reduce emissions by 20–50%.

 Alternative Binders: Geopolymer cements, using industrial byproducts, offer lower

embodied emissions.

 Optimized Mix Designs: High-performance concrete (HPC) reduces material volumes

while enhancing durability.

5.1.2 Steel

Steel production is energy-intensive, with primary production via blast furnaces emitting 1.8–
2.0 kg CO₂ per kg of steel, primarily due to coal-based smelting (Gervásio and da Silva,
2008). Recycled steel, produced in electric arc furnaces (EAF), emits 0.4–0.6 kg CO₂ per kg,
significantly lowering impacts. Lee et al. (2024) noted that steel’s production impacts are
offset by its recyclability. Key impacts include:

 GWP: High emissions from primary production, though recycling reduces this by up
to 70%.

 Energy Use: Smelting and rolling consume substantial electricity and fossil fuels.

 Water Pollution: Mining iron ore generates tailings that can contaminate water bodies.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Increased Recycling: Using scrap steel in EAFs minimizes virgin material use and
emissions.

26
  Renewable Energy: Transitioning to renewable-powered furnaces reduces carbon
intensity.

 Corrosion-Resistant Alloys: Weathering steel or stainless steel reduces downstream

maintenance impacts.

5.1.3 Asphalt

Asphalt production involves extracting bitumen and heating aggregates to high temperatures
(190–230°C for mastic asphalt, 130–190°C for epoxy asphalt), contributing to significant
emissions. Wang et al. (2023) reported that material production accounted for 66–76% of life
cycle emissions for bridge deck pavements, driven by bitumen refining and natural gas use.
Key impacts include:

 GWP: Bitumen production emits 0.5–1.0 kg CO₂ per kg, with heating adding further
emissions.

 Air Pollution: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and SO₂ emissions from heating
affect air quality.

 Resource Depletion: Bitumen is derived from non-renewable petroleum, raising

sustainability concerns.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Warm-Mix Asphalt (WMA): Lowers mixing temperatures by 20–40°C, reducing

emissions by 15–30%.

 Bio-Based Binders: Substituting petroleum-based bitumen with bio-bitumen from

renewable sources.

 Epoxy Asphalt: Enhances durability, reducing maintenance-related emissions.

5.1.4 FRP

FRP production is energy-intensive due to the synthesis of polymer resins (e.g., epoxy, vinyl
ester) and fibers (e.g., glass, carbon), emitting 5–15 kg CO₂ per kg, significantly higher than
concrete or steel per unit mass (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024). However, FRP’s lightweight
nature reduces material volumes required. Key impacts include:

 GWP: High embodied emissions from resin production and fiber manufacturing.

27
  Toxic Emissions: Chemical processes release hazardous pollutants, impacting worker
and environmental health.

 Resource Use: Non-renewable petroleum-based resins deplete fossil resources.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Bio-Based Resins: Developing resins from renewable sources reduces emissions and
resource depletion.

 Efficient Manufacturing: Optimizing fiber production (e.g., using recycled carbon

fibers) lowers energy use.

 Material Efficiency: Designing thinner FRP components minimizes raw material

needs.

5.2 Transportation (A4)

Transportation of materials from production facilities to construction sites generates

emissions primarily through fuel combustion in trucks, rail, or ships. The environmental
impact depends on distance, transport mode, and fuel type (e.g., diesel vs. gasoline). Du et al.
(2014) found that transportation typically contributes 5–15% of life cycle emissions for
bridges, though this varies by material and supply chain.

5.2.1 Concrete

Concrete aggregates are often sourced locally, minimizing transportation emissions.

However, cement or specialized admixtures may be transported over long distances,
increasing impacts. For example, importing cement can add 0.05–0.1 kg CO₂ per kg due to
shipping (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).

5.2.2 Steel

Steel is frequently produced in large, centralized facilities, requiring long-distance transport

to bridge sites. Lee et al. (2024) noted that global supply chains for steel increase emissions,
particularly when shipped internationally, contributing up to 0.2 kg CO₂ per kg for
transoceanic transport.

5.2.3 Asphalt

Bitumen and aggregates are typically transported by truck, with emissions proportional to
distance. Wang et al. (2023) reported that transportation emissions for asphalt pavements
28
were low (2–5% of total) when sourced regionally but rise significantly for imported
bitumen.

5.2.4 FRP

FRP components, being lightweight, require less fuel per unit mass, but their specialized
production often involves global supply chains, increasing transport emissions. Milic and
Bleiziffer (2024) suggest that local FRP production could reduce this impact.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Local Sourcing: Prioritizing regional suppliers for aggregates, cement, and bitumen
minimizes transport distances.

 Efficient Logistics: Using rail or electric vehicles reduces emissions compared to

diesel trucks.

 Prefabrication: Transporting prefabricated components reduces the frequency of

deliveries.

5.3 Construction (A5)

The construction stage involves assembling and installing bridge components, using energy
for equipment (e.g., cranes, compactors) and processes like concrete pouring or asphalt
paving. Construction typically contributes 5–10% of life cycle emissions, though this varies
by material and method (Wang et al., 2023).

5.3.1 Concrete

Concrete construction requires energy for mixing, pouring, and curing, with emissions from
diesel-powered equipment and electricity use. Cast-in-place concrete is more energy-
intensive than precast, which benefits from controlled factory conditions (Du et al., 2014).

5.3.2 Steel

Steel construction involves welding, bolting, or erecting girders and cables, with lower
energy demands than concrete. However, heavy lifting equipment contributes emissions,
particularly for large-span bridges (Gervásio and da Silva, 2008).

5.3.3 Asphalt

29
Asphalt paving is energy-intensive due to hot-mix application and compaction, with
emissions from pavers and rollers. Epoxy asphalt, applied at lower temperatures, reduces
energy use compared to mastic asphalt (Wang et al., 2023).

5.3.4 FRP

FRP installation is less energy-intensive due to its lightweight nature, requiring smaller
equipment. However, specialized handling and curing processes for FRP components can add
emissions (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

Mitigation Strategies:

 Prefabrication: Factory-based production of concrete or steel components reduces on-

site energy use and waste.

 Low-Emission Equipment: Using electric or hybrid machinery lowers construction

emissions.

 Optimized Scheduling: Minimizing equipment idling and streamlining construction

processes enhances efficiency.

5.4 Use and Maintenance (B1–B7)

The use and maintenance stage, spanning the bridge’s operational life, significantly
influences environmental impacts due to repairs, replacements, and operational energy use.
Material durability and environmental exposure (e.g., rural vs. marine conditions) determine
maintenance frequency and associated emissions.

5.4.1 Concrete

Concrete bridges, particularly those with PSC girders, are prone to chloride-induced
corrosion in marine or de-icing salt environments, necessitating frequent repairs or
replacements. Lee et al. (2024) found that PSC girders required up to seven replacements in
marine settings, increasing GWP by 20–30% compared to steel. Repairs involve energy-
intensive processes like concrete patching or rebar replacement, contributing to emissions and
resource use.

5.4.2 Steel

Steel bridges require periodic maintenance, such as repainting or coating reapplication, to

prevent corrosion. However, Lee et al. (2024) reported that steel plate girders needed only

30
two replacements in marine environments, reducing emissions compared to concrete.
Corrosion-resistant alloys or weathering steel further minimize maintenance impacts (Han et
al., 2021).

5.4.3 Asphalt

Asphalt pavements degrade under traffic and weathering, requiring resurfacing every 5–15
years for mastic asphalt but less frequently for epoxy asphalt. Wang et al. (2023)
demonstrated that epoxy asphalt reduced maintenance-related emissions by 47–65% over 20
years due to its durability, lowering the need for energy-intensive repaving.

5.4.4 FRP

FRP’s corrosion resistance minimizes maintenance, significantly reducing emissions in this

stage. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) noted that FRP bridge decks required negligible repairs,
even in harsh environments, making them environmentally advantageous over long service
lives.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Preventive Maintenance: Regular inspections and minor repairs (e.g., sealing cracks)
extend service life and reduce major interventions.

 Durable Materials: Using HPC, weathering steel, or epoxy asphalt minimizes

maintenance frequency.

 Modular Designs: Replaceable components simplify repairs, reducing energy and

material use.

5.5 End-of-Life and Recycling (C1–C4, Module D)

The end-of-life stage involves demolition, waste processing, and disposal, with opportunities
for recycling or reuse captured in Module D (HRN EN 15804). Recycling potential varies by
material, significantly affecting life cycle impacts.

5.5.1 Concrete

Concrete can be crushed and recycled as aggregate for new construction, reducing landfill
waste. However, demolition and processing are energy-intensive, emitting 0.02–0.05 kg CO₂
per kg (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023). Recycled concrete aggregates lower resource depletion
but have limited applications due to reduced strength.

31
5.5.2 Steel

Steel’s high recyclability (up to 80% globally, 40.1% in Korea) makes it a leader in circular
economy practices. Lee et al. (2024) found that steel recycling reduced GWP, EP, and AP by
20–50%, offsetting production impacts. Demolition emissions are low, as steel components
are easily dismantled.

5.5.3 Asphalt

Asphalt recycling is limited by bitumen degradation, though reclaimed asphalt pavement

(RAP) can be used in lower-grade applications. Wang et al. (2023) noted that RAP reduces
virgin material use by 10–30%, but energy-intensive processing limits environmental
benefits.

5.5.4 FRP

FRP recycling is challenging due to its composite nature, with current methods (e.g.,
mechanical grinding) being energy-intensive and producing low-value outputs. Milic and
Bleiziffer (2024) highlight ongoing research into chemical recycling to recover fibers, which
could improve FRP’s end-of-life sustainability.

Mitigation Strategies:

 Design for Disassembly: Modular designs facilitate material recovery and reuse.

 Advanced Recycling Technologies: Developing efficient processes for asphalt and

FRP recycling.

 Circular Economy Policies: Incentivizing steel and concrete recycling through

regulations and procurement criteria.

5.6 Comparative Analysis

Table 5.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of bridge materials across life cycle stages,
highlighting dominant impacts and mitigation opportunities.

Table 5.1: Environmental Impacts of Bridge Materials

Dominant Impact
Material Key Impacts Mitigation Strategies
Stage

Concrete Material Production High CO₂ from cement, Low-carbon cements, recycled

32
 Dominant Impact
Material Key Impacts Mitigation Strategies
Stage

(76%) resource depletion aggregates, HPC

Material Production Energy-intensive Recycling, renewable energy,

Steel
(50–70%) smelting, water pollution corrosion-resistant alloys

Material Production Bitumen emissions, Warm-mix asphalt, bio-based

Asphalt
(66–76%) VOCs binders, epoxy asphalt

Material Production High resin emissions, Bio-based resins, efficient

FRP
(80%) recycling challenges manufacturing, recycling research

33
 CHAPTER

Case Studies: Life Cycle Analysis of Bridge Materials in India

6. Case Studies: Life Cycle Analysis of Bridge Materials in India

India’s rapid infrastructure development, driven by initiatives like the Bharatmala Pariyojana
and the National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP), has led to the construction of thousands of
bridges to enhance connectivity across urban centers, rural hinterlands, and challenging
terrains. These bridges face unique environmental challenges—monsoon flooding, coastal
corrosion, and high traffic loads—making Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)
critical for evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of materials like
concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). Case studies provide valuable
insights into how these materials perform in India’s diverse contexts, informing sustainable
design and policy. This chapter elaborates on three Indian case studies, each analyzing the life
cycle impacts of bridge materials: (1) the Bandra-Worli Sea Link (concrete and steel), (2) the
Bogibeel Bridge (steel and asphalt), and (3) a pilot FRP pedestrian bridge in Gujarat.

6.1 Case Study 1: Bandra-Worli Sea Link, Mumbai (Concrete and Steel)

6.1.1 Background

The Bandra-Worli Sea Link (BWSL), inaugurated in 2009, is an 8-lane cable-stayed bridge
spanning 5.6 km across Mahim Bay in Mumbai, connecting Bandra to Worli. Built at a cost
of ₹1,600 crore, it is a flagship project under India’s urban infrastructure development,
handling over 50,000 vehicles daily. The bridge uses pre-stressed concrete (PSC) for its
towers and deck and high-strength steel for cables and reinforcements, designed to withstand
Mumbai’s coastal corrosion and monsoon conditions.

34
 Fig. 3.1 Bandra Worli Sea Link
6.1.2 Life Cycle Analysis

Environmental Impacts:

 Material Production: Cement for PSC components caused 70–80% of emissions (1.2
million tons, 0.8–1.0 kg CO₂/kg) (Barbhuiya & Das, 2023). Steel
cables/reinforcements emitted 1.8–2.0 kg CO₂/kg, mitigated by 30% recycled steel
(Lee et al., 2024).
 Transportation: Local Maharashtra aggregates reduced emissions, but Gujarat
steel/cement imports added 0.05–0.1 kg CO₂/kg (NHAI, 2022).
 Construction: Off-site precasting cut emissions by 10–15%, though marine
construction contributed 5–8% of life cycle emissions (Du et al., 2014).
 Use and Maintenance: Coastal corrosion led to frequent repairs (every 5–10 years),
raising emissions by 20–30% over 100 years; HPC saved 10% (Milic & Bleiziffer,
2024).
 End-of-Life: Concrete recycling adds 0.02–0.05 kg CO₂/kg; steel cables (50%
recycled) reduced GWP (Lee et al., 2024).

6.1.3 Lessons Learned

 Material Choice: HPC and corrosion-resistant steel reduce maintenance in coastal

environments, justifying higher initial costs.

 Precasting: Off-site precasting lowered emissions and costs, a model for urban
bridges.

35
  Maintenance Planning: Proactive corrosion management, as per IRC SP:80-2008,
minimizes long-term costs and disruptions.

 Recommendation: Future coastal bridges should prioritize durable materials and

modular designs to reduce life cycle impacts, as seen in BWSL’s HPC sections.

6.2 Case Study 2: Bogibeel Bridge, Assam (Steel and Asphalt)

6.2.1 Background

The Bogibeel Bridge, completed in 2018, is a 4.94-km rail-cum-road bridge over the
Brahmaputra River in Assam, built at a cost of ₹5,900 crore. It features a steel truss
superstructure with steel plate girders and mastic asphalt pavement, designed to withstand
seismic activity (Zone V) and monsoon flooding. As India’s longest rail-road bridge, it
connects Dibrugarh and Dhemaji, enhancing Northeast connectivity.

Fig. 3.2 Bogibeel Bridge

6.2.2 Life Cycle Analysis

Environmental Impacts:

 Material Production : Steel (150,000 tons) emitted 1.8–2.0 kg CO₂/kg, reduced by

20% with 40% recycled steel; asphalt (10,000 tons bitumen) emitted 0.5–1.0 kg
CO₂/kg (Lee et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023).

36
  Transportation: Steel from Bhilai (2,000 km) added 0.1–0.2 kg CO₂/kg; local
aggregates minimized asphalt emissions (NHAI, 2022).
 Construction: Steel erection and asphalt paving contributed 8–12% of emissions;
monsoon challenges raised riverbed energy use (Gervásio & da Silva, 2008).
 Use and Maintenance: Steel limited replacements to once in 50 years, with repainting
(0.05 kg CO₂/kg every 10 years); mastic asphalt resurfacing (7–10 years) added 5–
10% emissions (Han et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023).
 End-of-Life: Steel’s 60% recycling reduces impacts; asphalt recycling limited to low-
grade RAP (Milic & Bleiziffer, 2024).

6.2.3 Lessons Learned

 Material Choice: Steel’s durability suits seismic and flood-prone regions, but epoxy
asphalt could reduce pavement maintenance costs.

 Recycling: High steel recycling rates lowered costs and emissions, a model for
Northeast bridges.

 Maintenance Scheduling: Monsoon-off-season maintenance, as per IRC SP:80-2008,

minimizes disruptions and costs.

 Recommendation: Future river bridges in India should explore weathering steel and
durable pavements to enhance life cycle performance, building on Bogibeel’s steel-
centric design.

6.3 Case Study 3: FRP Pedestrian Bridge, Gujarat

6.3.1 Background

In 2021, a pilot 30-m FRP pedestrian bridge was constructed in Surat, Gujarat, over a coastal
creek, at a cost of ₹5 crore. Designed to resist corrosion in a saline environment, the bridge
uses FRP for its deck and railings, with concrete piers for cost efficiency. This project,
supported by the Gujarat State Road Development Corporation (GSRDC), tests FRP’s
viability in India’s coastal infrastructure.

37
 Fig. 3.3 Atal Pedestrian Bridges

6.3.2 Life Cycle Analysis

Environmental Impacts:

 Material Production: FRP (500 tons) emitted 5–15 kg CO₂/kg due to resin/fiber
manufacturing; concrete piers (1,000 tons) emitted 0.8–1.0 kg CO₂/kg

 Transportation: FRP’s lightweight reduced emissions (0.02–0.05 kg CO₂/kg from

Mumbai, 300 km); concrete aggregates were local (GSRDC, 2021).

 Construction: FRP installation contributed 3–5% emissions; concrete piers added 2–

3% (Cadenazzi et al., 2020).

 Use and Maintenance: FRP eliminated maintenance emissions; concrete piers added
2–5% every 10–15 years

 End-of-Life: FRP recycling emitted 0.1–0.2 kg CO₂/kg; concrete recycling is energy-

intensive.

6.3.3 Lessons Learned:

 Material Choice: FRP suits coastal India but is cost-prohibitive.

 Hybrid Design: FRP-concrete mix balances cost and durability for small bridges.

38
 CHAPTER

Knowledge Gaps and Challenges in LCA of Bridge Materials

7. Knowledge Gaps and Challenges in LCA of Bridge Materials

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a vital tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of
bridge materials—concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP)—across their
life cycle, from raw material extraction to end-of-life. Standardized under ISO 14040 and
14044, LCA quantifies impacts such as global warming potential (GWP), resource depletion,
and pollution, guiding sustainable bridge design. However, global application of LCA faces
significant knowledge gaps and challenges, including methodological inconsistencies, limited
data availability, environmental variability, and technical limitations. These challenges reduce
the reliability and comparability of LCA results, hindering informed decision-making for
bridge construction and maintenance. This chapter elaborates on these knowledge gaps and
challenges, focusing on environmental and technical aspects, with insights from studies such
as Wang et al. (2023), Milic and Bleiziffer (2024), and Lee et al. (2024). By addressing these
gaps, researchers and engineers can enhance LCA’s effectiveness, supporting the global
transition to sustainable infrastructure.

7.1 Methodological Inconsistencies

7.1.1 Variability in Functional Units

The functional unit (FU) in LCA defines the reference for comparing materials, but global
studies often use inconsistent FUs, complicating assessments. Common FUs for bridges
include 1 m² of deck area, 1 m of bridge length, or the entire structure, each with different
load capacities and service lives. Milic and Bleiziffer (2024) highlight that studies comparing
concrete and steel bridges may use m² of deck versus whole-bridge FUs, leading to non-
comparable results. For instance, a study on a concrete bridge might assume a 50-year service
life, while a steel bridge study uses 100 years, skewing impact assessments. Standardizing
FUs, such as 1 m² of deck designed for a 100-year service life under equivalent loads, is
essential for consistency, as recommended by ISO 14044.

7.1.2 Inconsistent System Boundaries

39
System boundaries determine which life cycle stages (e.g., A1–C4, Module D) are included
in LCA, but global practices vary widely. Some studies adopt a cradle-to-gate approach (A1–
A3), focusing on material production, while others use cradle-to-grave (A1–C4), including
maintenance and end-of-life. Wang et al. (2023) used a cradle-to-gate boundary for asphalt
pavements, omitting maintenance impacts, whereas Lee et al. (2024) included recycling
benefits (Module D) for steel bridges. The pre-construction stage (A0, e.g., planning) is often
excluded, despite its influence on material selection, as noted by HRN EN 17472 (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024). These inconsistencies distort comparisons, particularly for materials like
FRP, where maintenance savings are significant. Adopting comprehensive boundaries,
including A0 and Module D, per HRN EN 15804, would improve reliability.

7.1.3 Limited Impact Category Coverage

Many LCAs focus on GWP (CO₂e emissions) but neglect other critical impact categories,
such as eutrophication potential (EP), acidification potential (AP), or ozone depletion
potential (ODP). For example, concrete production contributes to water pollution (EP) via
cement kiln runoff, but this is rarely quantified (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023). Asphalt’s volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions, affecting air quality, are often overlooked, as seen in
studies prioritizing carbon emissions (Wang et al., 2023). Comprehensive impact
assessments, using methods like ReCiPe 2016 or TRACI, are underutilized globally due to
complexity and data demands, limiting holistic environmental evaluations (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024).

Addressing the Gap:

 Develop global LCA guidelines for bridges, aligning with ISO 14040/44, to
standardize FUs, boundaries, and impact categories.

 Promote the use of comprehensive LCIA methods (e.g., ReCiPe 2016) through
accessible guidelines and training.

7.2 Limited Data Availability

7.2.1 Lack of Region-Specific LCI Data

Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, detailing inputs (e.g., energy, materials) and outputs (e.g.,
emissions), are essential for accurate LCA. Globally, reliance on generic databases like
Ecoinvent or GaBi introduces uncertainties, as they may not reflect regional production

40
processes. For instance, cement production emissions vary from 0.7 kg CO₂/kg in Europe
(using efficient kilns) to 1.0 kg CO₂/kg in coal-reliant regions (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).
Steel production via blast furnaces emits 1.8–2.0 kg CO₂/kg, compared to 0.4–0.6 kg for
recycled steel in electric arc furnaces (Lee et al., 2024). Asphalt and FRP data are even less
specific, with studies like Wang et al. (2023) using averaged bitumen data that overlook
production variations. This gap reduces LCA accuracy for bridges in diverse global contexts.

7.2.2 Scarcity of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)

EPDs provide product-specific environmental data, but their global availability is limited,
particularly for asphalt and FRP. While concrete and steel EPDs are more common, they
often reflect specific regions (e.g., North America, Europe), misaligning with other
production contexts (Lee et al., 2024). For example, FRP’s high embodied emissions (5–15
kg CO₂/kg) vary by resin type, but few EPDs exist to clarify these differences (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024). The lack of standardized EPDs forces researchers to use generic data,
compromising precision and hindering material comparisons.

7.2.3 Inadequate Maintenance and End-of-Life Data

Maintenance and end-of-life data are critical for comprehensive LCAs, but global datasets are
often incomplete. Maintenance frequencies for concrete bridges vary from 5–20 years
depending on environmental exposure (e.g., marine vs. inland), yet many studies assume
fixed intervals (Du et al., 2014). Recycling data are also limited; while steel recycling rates
are well-documented (up to 80% globally), concrete and asphalt recycling rates vary widely,
and FRP recycling data are nearly nonexistent (Cadenazzi et al., 2020). These gaps lead to
assumptions that overestimate or underestimate impacts, particularly for materials with
significant end-of-life benefits like steel.

Addressing the Gap:

 Expand global LCI databases to include region-specific data, collaborating with

industry bodies like the World Cement Association or International Steel Association.

 Incentivize EPD development for all bridge materials, following ISO 21930
standards, to provide transparent, product-specific data.

 Implement bridge management systems globally to collect real-world maintenance

and recycling data, enhancing LCA accuracy.

41
7.3 Environmental Variability

7.3.1 Climate-Induced Deterioration

Climate variability, including extreme weather events like heavy rainfall, hurricanes, or
heatwaves, accelerates material deterioration, but LCAs often assume static conditions.
Concrete bridges in marine environments suffer chloride-induced corrosion, increasing
maintenance emissions, yet few studies model these dynamic effects (Lee et al., 2024).
Asphalt pavements degrade faster under high temperatures, requiring frequent resurfacing,
but climate models predicting temperature rises are rarely integrated (Wang et al., 2023). Xie
et al. (2018) emphasize that global warming exacerbates deterioration, yet this is a significant
gap in current LCAs, leading to underestimations of life cycle impacts.

7.3.2 Exposure to Aggressive Environments

Bridges in aggressive environments, such as coastal or industrial areas, face accelerated

degradation from chlorides, sulfates, or pollutants. For example, concrete’s susceptibility to
carbonation and corrosion is well-documented, but LCAs rarely quantify location-specific
impacts (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023). Steel requires protective coatings in such environments,
but their environmental impacts are often excluded from assessments (Han et al., 2021).
FRP’s corrosion resistance is advantageous, but its performance under prolonged UV or
chemical exposure is understudied, limiting reliable LCA (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

7.3.3 Long-Term Climate Change Effects

Bridges’ long service lives (50–100 years) expose them to climate change effects, such as
rising sea levels, increased precipitation, or temperature extremes. These factors alter material
durability and maintenance needs, but most LCAs use historical data, ignoring future
scenarios. For instance, increased flooding could double concrete repair frequencies, yet such
projections are rarely modeled (Xie et al., 2018). This gap is critical for materials like asphalt,
where temperature sensitivity drives maintenance emissions, and FRP, where long-term
durability data are scarce.

Addressing the Gap:

 Integrate climate change scenarios into LCA, using models like IPCC projections to
account for future environmental conditions.

42
  Conduct longitudinal studies on material performance in diverse environments (e.g.,
coastal, arid, temperate) to inform location-specific LCAs.

 Develop adaptive LCA frameworks that incorporate dynamic environmental factors,

as suggested by ISO 14040.

7.4 Technical Limitations

7.4.1 Limited Adoption of Emerging Materials

Emerging materials like FRP and high-performance asphalt (e.g., epoxy asphalt) offer
environmental benefits, such as reduced maintenance emissions, but their global adoption is
limited by technical expertise and supply chain constraints. FRP’s high embodied emissions
(5–15 kg CO₂/kg) require precise LCA to justify its use, but data on long-term performance
are scarce (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024). Epoxy asphalt reduces resurfacing emissions by 47–
65% compared to mastic asphalt, but its production is complex and region-specific,
complicating LCA (Wang et al., 2023). These barriers hinder accurate assessments of
emerging materials’ life cycle impacts.

7.4.2 Inadequate LCA Tools and Expertise

Advanced LCA software (e.g., SimaPRO, GaBi, OpenLCA) and methods (e.g., ReCiPe 2016)
are essential for robust assessments, but their global use is limited by cost and expertise.
Many researchers rely on simplified tools or manual calculations, reducing accuracy and
consistency (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024). For example, LCAs of concrete bridges often use
outdated emissions factors, underestimating impacts (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023). Limited
training in LCA methodologies further exacerbates errors, particularly in complex systems
like bridges, where multi-stage impacts must be modeled.

7.4.3 Challenges in Recycling and Circular Economy

Recycling is a key strategy for reducing environmental impacts, but global recycling
infrastructure and data for bridge materials are uneven. Steel benefits from high recycling
rates (up to 80%), but concrete recycling is limited to low-grade aggregates, and asphalt
recycling (reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP) faces quality constraints (Lee et al., 2024). FRP
recycling is technically challenging, with energy-intensive processes like mechanical
grinding yielding low-value outputs (Cadenazzi et al., 2020). These limitations prevent

43
accurate modeling of end-of-life benefits in LCA, as recycling assumptions vary widely
across studies.

Addressing the Gap:

 Support pilot projects for FRP and high-performance asphalt to generate performance
data and build technical capacity.

 Increase access to LCA software through open-source platforms like OpenLCA and
provide global training programs for engineers.

 Invest in advanced recycling technologies for concrete, asphalt, and FRP, aligning
with circular economy principles, as per ISO 20915 for steel.

7.5 Summary

The global application of LCA to bridge materials faces significant knowledge gaps and
challenges, including methodological inconsistencies, limited data availability, environmental
variability, and technical limitations. Variability in functional units, system boundaries, and
impact categories reduces comparability, while reliance on generic LCI data and scarce EPDs
compromises accuracy. Environmental factors, such as climate-induced deterioration and
long-term climate change effects, are poorly modeled, underestimating impacts for materials
like concrete and asphalt. Technical barriers, including limited adoption of emerging
materials, inadequate LCA tools, and recycling challenges, further hinder progress.
Addressing these gaps through standardized guidelines, expanded data resources, climate-
integrated models, and technical advancements is crucial for enhancing LCA’s reliability. By
overcoming these challenges, the global bridge construction industry can better assess the
environmental impacts of concrete, steel, asphalt, and FRP, supporting sustainable
infrastructure development aligned with climate and resource efficiency goals.

44
 CHAPTER

Recommendations for Sustainable Bridge Design

8. Recommendations for Sustainable Bridge Design

Sustainable bridge design minimizes environmental impacts using Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) to evaluate concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) across their
life cycle. This chapter provides concise recommendations to reduce emissions, resource use,
and pollution, focusing on environmental and technical strategies. Drawing on Wang et al.
(2023), Milic and Bleiziffer (2024), and Lee et al. (2024), these recommendations optimize
material selection, design, construction, maintenance, and end-of-life for sustainable bridges.

8.1 Material Selection

 Low-Carbon Concrete: Use blended cements with fly ash or slag to cut emissions by
20–50%; explore geopolymer cements for up to 80% reduction (Wang et al., 2023).

 Recycled Steel: Specify high-recycled-content steel (up to 80%) via electric arc
furnaces, reducing GWP by 70% (Lee et al., 2024).

 High-Performance Asphalt: Adopt warm-mix asphalt (WMA) to lower emissions by

15–30%; use epoxy asphalt for 47–65% less resurfacing emissions (Wang et al.,
2023).

 FRP for Durability: Apply FRP in corrosive environments, reducing maintenance

emissions by 90%; develop bio-based resins to cut embodied emissions (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024).

8.2 Design Strategies

 Climate Resilience: Model climate impacts using IPCC projections to select durable
materials like FRP for high-risk areas (Xie et al., 2018).

45
  Structural Efficiency: Use high-strength materials (e.g., UHPC, high-tensile steel) to
reduce material use by 10–20% (Du et al., 2014).

 LCA Integration: Apply LCA early with ISO 14040 standards, assessing GWP, EP,
and AP for balanced material choices (Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).

8.3 Construction Practices

 Prefabrication: Use precast concrete or modular steel/FRP to cut emissions by 5–15%

(Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Low-Emission Equipment: Employ electric machinery to reduce construction

emissions by 20–30% (Lee et al., 2024).

 Local Sourcing: Source materials regionally to lower transport emissions by 5–15%

(Wang et al., 2023).

8.4 Maintenance Optimization

 Preventive Maintenance: Use sensors for early detection, reducing repair emissions by
10–20% (Lee et al., 2024).

 Low-Emission Repairs: Apply low-carbon mortars and recycled reinforcements

(Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).

 Smart Technologies: Deploy IoT and drones to optimize maintenance, cutting

emissions by 15–25% (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

8.5 End-of-Life Management

 Design for Disassembly: Create modular components for easy recycling, reducing
emissions by 10–15% (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Maximize Recycling: Recycle concrete aggregates (10–20% emission reduction),

steel (20–50%), and asphalt (10–30%) (Lee et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023).

 Advance FRP Recycling: Develop chemical recycling for FRP to enable closed-loop
systems (Cadenazzi et al., 2020).

8.6 Summary

Sustainable bridge design reduces environmental impacts through low-carbon materials,

efficient design, low-emission construction, optimized maintenance, and robust recycling. By

46
integrating LCA and leveraging advanced materials like geopolymer concrete, recycled steel,
epoxy asphalt, and FRP, engineers can create bridges that minimize emissions and resource
use, aligning with global sustainability goals.

CHAPTER

Future Research Directions for LCA of Bridge Materials

9. Future Research Directions for LCA of Bridge Materials

Advancing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for bridge materials—concrete, steel, asphalt, and
fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP)—is critical to improving environmental sustainability in
global infrastructure. Despite progress, knowledge gaps in methodological consistency, data
availability, environmental variability, and technical limitations persist. This chapter outlines
future research directions to address these gaps, focusing on environmental and technical
priorities. Drawing on Wang et al. (2023), Milic and Bleiziffer (2024), and Lee et al. (2024),
these recommendations aim to enhance LCA accuracy and support sustainable bridge design.

9.1 Methodological Advancements

 Standardize LCA Protocols: Develop global standards for functional units (e.g., 1 m²
deck for 100 years), system boundaries (cradle-to-grave, including Module D), and
impact categories (GWP, EP, AP) to improve comparability, aligning with ISO
14040/44 (Milic and Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Integrate Dynamic Modelling: Incorporate time-dependent models to account for

material degradation and climate change effects, enhancing LCA’s predictive accuracy
(Xie et al., 2018).

 Expand Impact Assessments: Research comprehensive LCIA methods (e.g., ReCiPe

2016) to quantify overlooked impacts like eutrophication and ozone depletion
(Barbhuiya and Das, 2023).

9.2 Data Development

47
  Build Region-Specific LCI Databases: Create detailed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
datasets for concrete, steel, asphalt, and FRP, reflecting global production variations
(e.g., 0.7–1.0 kg CO₂/kg cement) to reduce reliance on generic databases like
Ecoinvent (Lee et al., 2024).

 Increase EPD Availability: Expand Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for

asphalt and FRP, following ISO 21930, to provide product-specific data (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024).

 Collect Maintenance and Recycling Data: Conduct longitudinal studies on

maintenance frequencies and recycling rates (e.g., concrete, asphalt) to improve end-
of-life modeling (Du et al., 2014).

9.3 Environmental Modeling

 Incorporate Climate Change Scenarios: Model future climate impacts (e.g., increased
flooding, temperature extremes) using IPCC projections to predict material
performance and maintenance needs (Xie et al., 2018).

 Study Aggressive Environments: Investigate material behavior in coastal, industrial,

or arid conditions to quantify corrosion and degradation impacts, particularly for
concrete and asphalt (Lee et al., 2024).

 Assess Long-Term Durability: Research FRP and high-performance asphalt durability

under UV, chemical, and thermal exposure to validate low-maintenance claims (Milic
and Bleiziffer, 2024).

9.4 Technical Innovations

 Advance Emerging Materials: Study low-carbon alternatives like geopolymer cements

and bio-based FRP resins to reduce embodied emissions by 20–80% (Wang et al.,
2023).

 Improve Recycling Technologies: Develop efficient recycling methods for FRP (e.g.,
chemical recovery) and asphalt (high-quality RAP) to enhance circularity (Cadenazzi
et al., 2020).

 Enhance LCA Tools: Create accessible, open-source LCA software with bridge-
specific modules to improve usability and accuracy for engineers (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024).

48
9.5 Summary

Future research should focus on standardizing LCA methodologies, developing region-

specific data, modeling environmental variability, and advancing material and recycling
technologies. These efforts will address gaps in consistency, data quality, and technical
limitations, enabling accurate LCA for concrete, steel, asphalt, and FRP. By prioritizing these
directions, researchers can support sustainable bridge design, reducing environmental impacts
and aligning with global climate goals.

49
 CHAPTER

10

Conclusion

10. Conclusion

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a cornerstone for sustainable bridge design, enabling the
evaluation of environmental impacts of concrete, steel, asphalt, and fiber-reinforced polymers
(FRP) across their life cycle. This report highlights that each material presents unique
environmental challenges and opportunities, with concrete and asphalt contributing high
embodied emissions, steel offering recycling benefits, and FRP providing low-maintenance
durability despite high production impacts (Wang et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2024). Key findings
include the need for low-carbon materials (e.g., geopolymer cements, recycled steel), climate-
resilient designs, and advanced recycling to minimize emissions and resource use (Milic and
Bleiziffer, 2024). However, methodological inconsistencies, data gaps, and environmental
variability limit LCA’s effectiveness, necessitating standardized protocols, region-specific
datasets, and climate-integrated models (Xie et al., 2018).

Sustainable bridge design requires integrating LCA into material selection, construction, and
maintenance practices, leveraging innovations like warm-mix asphalt, modular FRP, and
smart monitoring to reduce environmental footprints. Ongoing research into low-emission
materials, recycling technologies, and dynamic LCA frameworks is critical to overcoming
current limitations and aligning with global climate goals, such as the Paris Agreement. By
advancing these strategies, the bridge construction industry can create resilient,
environmentally responsible infrastructure that supports a sustainable future.

50
REFERENCES

 Barbhuiya, S., & Das, B.B. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials:
Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making.
Case Studies in Construction Materials.

 Lee, S.H., et al. (2024). Life-cycle environmental impact assessment of bridge designs
considering maintenance strategy. In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management,
Digitalization and Sustainability.

 Milic, I., & Bleiziffer, J. (2024). Life Cycle Assessment of the Sustainability of
Bridges: Methodology, Literature Review and Knowledge Gaps. Frontiers in Built
Environment, 10, 1410798.

 Wang, X., et al. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Emissions from Bridge
Deck Pavement.

 Xie, H.-B., et al. (2018). Effect of global warming on chloride ion erosion risks for
offshore RC bridges in China. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 3600–3606.

51