A holistic approach for design of steel composite highway bridges … · 2015-10-28 ·...
23
A holistic approach for design of steel composite highway bridges considering life- cycle impacts André Orcesi –IFSTTAR Session IV - October 13, 2015
Transcript of A holistic approach for design of steel composite highway bridges … · 2015-10-28 ·...
A holistic approach for design of steel composite highway bridges considering life-
cycle impacts
André Orcesi –IFSTTAR
Session IV - October 13, 2015
• Civil engineering and building materials
• Natural hazards (characterization and
impacts)
• People and goods mobility
• Safe transport systems
• Impacts of transport systems
2
Research at IFSTTAR
LYON
SBRI Project 9 partners
July 2009-June 2012
Budget: 1 459 864 €
Funded by RFCS
Life-cycle design of bridges
CONSTRUCTION END OF LIFE
degradation processes
fatigue / corrosion / carbonation
BRIDGE LIFECYCLE
inspection / maintenance / repair / renewal
PRODUCTION OF
RAW MATERIAL DEMOLITION
Optimization of the lifecycle performance by a holistic approach
4
Social and
functional quality
Holistic approach by life-cycle analyses
Economical quality Environmental
quality
Lifecycle Assesment (LCA)
Lifecycle Costs (LCC)
Lifecycle Performance (LCP)
Functionality analyses
5
Type A Type B Type C
Motorway bridge Bridge crossing a
motorway Motorway bridge
Medium spans Short span(s) Long spans
Case studies
6
Analysis of innovations on materials
• High-strength steel
• Self-weathering steel
7
Analysis of innovation on design
• Integral abutments (to avoid maintenance actions on expansion
joints)
8
Analysis of innovation on design
• Allow traffic growing
9
Analysis of innovation on design
• Separate superstructures
• Easier maintenance actions
10
Type A Type B Type C
Motorway bridge Bridge crossing a
motorway Motorway bridge
Medium spans Short span(s) Long spans
Case studies
11
Case studies A : summary
Case A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Type Reference Variant Variant Variant Variant
Description - High Strength
Steel Weathering
Steel Allow trafic
growing Improved
fatigue detail
Goal - Reduce
steel quantity
Reduce maintenance
actions
Avoid a possible
reinforcement action
Reduce
steel quantity
12
Etude comparative Economique
Construction
Components Unit A0
Bearings € 6 000
Superstructure steel € 1 270 000
Concrete deck € 572 000
Equipments € 248 000
A0 A1 A2 A3 A40
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5x 10
6
Coût (e
uro
s)
A0A1A2A3A40
1
2
3x 10
6
Cost (€
)
Appareils d'appui
Charpente métallique
Dalle du béton
Equipements
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
Bearings
Superstructure steel
Concrete deck
Equipments
-5 -2 1 4
Ca.appuis
(%)
-5
-2
1
4
Ccharpente
(%)
-5
-2
1
4C
dalle-béton
(%)
-5
-2
1
4C
équipements
(%)
-5
-2
1
4 Ctotal
(%)
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
Steel
deck
equipments
bearings
Co
st (e
uro
s)
13
Unit A0
Construction € 2 096 000
Service life € 915 000
End-of-life € 24 000
A0 A1 A2 A3 A40
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5x 10
6
Coût (e
uro
s)
0 20 40 60 80 100
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-8
I-9
I-10
I-11
I-12
Construction
Vie en service
Fin de vie
Construction cost
Management cost
End-of-life cost
-17 -11 -3.8 3
Cconstruction
(%)
-17
-11
-3.8
3
Cvie en service
(%)
-17-11-3.83
Cf in de vie
(%)
-17
-11
-3.8
3 Ccycle de vie
(%)
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
Service life
End life
Life-cycle
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
Co
st (e
uro
s)
14
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
020406080100
I1I1*----I2I2*----I3I3*----I4I4*----I5I5*----I6I6*----I7I7*----I8I8*----I9I9*----I10I10*----I11I11*----I12I12*----
(%)
Appareils d'appui
Charpente métallique
Dalle du béton
Equipements
Transport des matériaux
I : A0
I* : A1
I°: A2
I^: A3
I+: A4
-8.8 -2.5 3.8 10
I1
(%) -8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I2
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I3
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I4
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I5
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I6
(%)
-8.8-2.53.810I7
(%) -8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I8
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I9
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10 I10
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10 I11
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I12
(%)
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
0 20 40 60 80 100
I1I1*-----
I1°I1 -̂----
I1+
I2I2*-----
I2°I2 -̂----
I2+
I3I3*-----
I3°I13 -̂----
I3+
I4I4*-----
I4°I4 -̂----
I4+
I5I5*-----
I5°I5 -̂----
I5+
I6I6*-----
I6°I6 -̂----
I6+
I7I7*-----
I7°I7 -̂----
I7+
I8I8*-----
I8°I8 -̂----
I8+
I9I9*-----
I9°I9 -̂----
I9+
I10I10*-----
I10°I10 -̂----
I10+
I11I11*-----
I11°I11 -̂----
I11+
I12I12*-----
I12°I12 -̂----
I12+
(%)
Bearings
Superstructure steel
Concrete deck
Equipments
Transport of materials
15
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
I : A0
I* : A1
I°: A2
I^: A3
I+: A4
0 20 40 60 80 100
I1I1*-----
I1°I1 -̂----
I1+
I2I2*-----
I2°I2 -̂----
I2+
I3I3*-----
I3°I13 -̂----
I3+
I4I4*-----
I4°I4 -̂----
I4+
I5I5*-----
I5°I5 -̂----
I5+
I6I6*-----
I6°I6 -̂----
I6+
I7I7*-----
I7°I7 -̂----
I7+
I8I8*-----
I8°I8 -̂----
I8+
I9I9*-----
I9°I9 -̂----
I9+
I10I10*-----
I10°I10 -̂----
I10+
I11I11*-----
I11°I11 -̂----
I11+
I12I12*-----
I12°I12 -̂----
I12+
(%)
-8.8 -2.5 3.8 10
I1
(%) -8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I2
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I3
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I4
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I5
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I6
(%)
-8.8-2.53.810I7
(%) -8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I8
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10
I9
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10 I10
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10 I11
(%)
-8.8
-2.5
3.8
10I12
(%)
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
0 20 40 60 80 100
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-8
I-9
I-10
I-11
I-12
Construction
Vie en service
Fin de vie(hors recyclage)
Construction cost
Management cost
End-of-life cost
(except recycling)
16
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223240
500
1000
1500
2000
Nom
bre
de v
éhic
ule
s
0 20 40 60 80 1000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3x 10
6
Temps (années)
Coût aux u
sagers
(euro
s)
Scénario "jour"
A3, A4
A0, A1, A2
Use
r co
st (e
uro
s)
Time (years)
Maintenance
during day
0 20 40 60 80 1000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3x 10
6
Temps (années)
Coût aux u
sagers
(euro
s)
Scénario "nuit"
A0, A1, A2
A3, A4
Use
r co
st (e
uro
s)
Time (years)
Maintenance
during night N
um
be
r o
f ve
hic
les
17
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
-38 -25 -13 0
Cusagers
(%) -38
-25
-130
I1
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I2
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I3
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I4
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0I5
(%)
-38-25
-130I6
(%)
-38-25
-130
I7
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I8
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I9
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0 I10
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0 I11
(%)
-38
-25-13
0I12
(%)
A0, A1, A2
A3, A4
-38 -25 -13 0
Cusagers
(%) -38
-25
-130
I1
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I2
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I3
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0
I4
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0I5
(%)
-38-25
-130I6
(%)
-38-25
-130
I7
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0I8
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0I9
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0 I10
(%)
-38
-25
-13
0 I11
(%)
-38
-25-13
0I12
(%)
A0, A1, A2
A3, A4
Maintenance during day Maintenance during night
users
users
18
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
-35 -20 -5 10
Cconstruction
-35-20
-510
Cvie en service
-35
-20
-5
10
Cf in de vie
-35
-20
-5
10
I1
-35
-20
-5
10
I2
-35
-20
-5
10
I3
-35
-20
-5
10
I4
-35
-20
-5
10
I5
-35
-20
-5
10
I6
-35
-20
-5
10
I7
-35
-20
-5
10I8
-35
-20
-5
10I9
-35
-20
-5
10I10
-35-20
-510
I11
-35-20-510I12
-35-20
-510
Cusagers
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu1
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu2
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu3
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu4
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu5
-35
-20
-5
10Iu6
-35
-20
-5
10Iu7
-35
-20
-5
10 Iu8
-35
-20
-5
10 Iu9
-35
-20
-5
10Iu10
-35
-20
-5
10
Iu11
-35-20
-510
Iu12
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
users
End of life
Service life
19
A0 A1 A2 A3 A4
Reference Case studies
- High strength
steel Self-weathering steel
Allow traffic growing
- Improved fatigue details
Economic
impacts
Environmental
impacts
Traffic
congestion
A0 Reference
A1 + + =
A2 ++ --- =
A3 -- -- +++
A4 - - +++
20
Conclusions • Holistic approach considering life-cycle
impacts
• Economic, environmental and social
impacts are considered
• Decision-making tool for design choice
21
References
• Gervásio H., Simões da Silva, L., Perdigão, V. Orcesi, A. & Andersen, R. (2015). Influence of maintenance strategies on the
life cycle performance of composite highway bridges, Structural Engineering International
• Gervásio, H., Simões Da Silva, L., Orcesi, A., Ta, N.B., Maier P. & Kuhlmann, U. (2014). Improved design of composite
highway bridges to enhance lifetime performance, IALCCE’14, November 16-19, Tokyo, Japan
• Ta, N.-B., Orcesi, A.D. & Cremona C. (2013). A holistic approach for analyzing bridges crossing a highway, ICOSSAR 2013,
June 16-20, Columbia University, New York, USA.
• SBRI (2013). Sustainable steel-composite bridges in built environment (SBRI), EUR 26322, Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union, 119 pp., ISBN 978-92-79-34586-9, doi:10.2777/50286
• Gervásio, H., Simões da Silva, L., Perdigão, V., Barros, P., Orcesi, A. & Nielsen, K. (2012). Life cycle analysis of highway
composite bridges, IABMAS’12, July 8-12, Lake Como, Italy.
• Maier, P., Kuhlmann, U. Tardivel, Y., Robert, N., Raoul, J., Perdigão, V., Martins, N., Barros, P., Friedrich, H., Krieger, J.,
Steel-composite bridges – holistic approach applied to European Case Studies. IABMAS’12, July 8-12, Lake Como, Italy
• TA, N.-B, ORCESI, A. and CREMONA, C. (2012). A comparative life-cycle cost analysis of steel-concrete composite
bridges, IALCCE’12, October 3-6, Vienna, Austria
22
Thank you for your attention
23
