Road sustainability management - ULisboa abstract... · the benefits of sustainability is...

Road sustainability management

The case of the rehabilitation of Marginal Oeiras to Cascais

Bruno Filipe Castanheira Costa

Extended abstract of the dissertation submitted to obtain the

degree of Master in Environmental Engineering

Jury

President: Professor Doutor António Jorge Gonçalves de Sousa

Supervisor: Professor Doutor Manuel Guilherme Caras Altas Duarte Pinheiro

Member: Professor Doutor Filipe Manuel Mercier Vilaça e Moura

November, 2012

2

Road Sustainability Management

The case of the rehabilitation of Marginal Oeiras to Cascais

Bruno Filipe Castanheira Costa

Technical University of Lisbon (UTL) - IST - Lisbon, Portugal

[email protected]

Abstract

A methodology was developed to identify the demand level of sustainability in road

infrastructures. This methodology was applied to the rehabilitation and operation phases. The

results show that it is possible to apply Life Cycle Assessment with developing values in criteria,

such as Low energy consumption (C7) and Carbon Intensity (C9) in the rehabilitation phase of

LiderA system.

The application to the case study consisting of several types of road infrastructures allows us to

emphasize that this methodology is able to be adjusted and applied to any kind of typology.

Moreover, this paper contributes to the positioning of the rehabilitation works in environmental

performance and to emphasize the good practices.

Keywords: Sustainability, Environmental performance, Sustainable road, Road infrastructure,

LiderA system, Life Cycle Assessment

1. Introduction

The road infrastructures have significant

impacts throughout their lifecycle (Pinheiro,

2006).

The environmental impacts produced by a road

infrastructure affect the landscape, micro-

climate, geology and hydrogeology, land use,

water resources, air quality, noise, flora and

fauna, cultural heritage, waste production and

social component (Pinheiro, 2011a).

Thus, it is important to achieve sustainability,

by generalizing methods and techniques which

will contribute to a higher environmental and

socio-economical performance in the

rehabilitation and the construction of such

infrastructures (EURF, 2009).

The purpose of this paper is to develop the

threshold of LiderA system (a Portuguese

sustainable assessment) by searching for good

environmental practices which may be applied

to the road infrastructure, that reflect a high

level of environmental performance, from a

sustainability perspective.

The main methodological steps consisted in

identifying environmental best practices in road

infrastructures based on existing rating

systems.

Then, it was identified the levels of

performance, and transformed into thresholds

levels (classes), in order to construct a metric

towards sustainability.

This methodology was applied to a case study,

particularly, the rehabilitation of the Estrada

Nacional Nº6, which connects Oeiras to

Cascais (EN6) (Ramos, 2010).

The methodology was also applied to EN6 in

the operation phase.

The results of this paper allowed us to obtain

an assessment of the environmental

performance of the rehabilitation works on

infrastructures intervened, and also in the

operation phase of EN6.

2. Green and sustainable roads

Nowadays, the use of rating system to quantify

the benefits of sustainability is increasingly

growing in popularity, also due to the fact that

there is an increasing environmental

awareness (Muench and Soderlund, 2011).

Furthermore, urban sprawl requires road

builders to approach on sustainability, in order

to face a lot of issues involving sensitive areas,

such as, air, soil, water, building materials,

energy use, biodiversity and among others.

A rating system of environmental performance

enables an update of the current state of best

practices in road construction to include new

technologies and know-how in the mitigation of

environmental impacts (Greenroads, 2010).

This system can evaluate the several parts of

the construction of roads and thereafter

3

evaluate it based on its environmental

performance.

This approach would be beneficial for the

design and construction of road networks, as

well as the maintenance of the existing road

infrastructures (Greenroads, 2010).

There are several approaches to assess the

environmental performance, such as,

Greenroads, CEEQUAL and LiderA systems.

2.1 Greenroads system

The Greenroads system is a collection of

sustainability best practices that apply to

roadway design and construction.

It is a rating system by obtaining credits for

approval of sustainable practices that exceed

the common practices. This rating system may

be used to certify a project based on the total

points achieved (Muench and Soderlund,

2011).

It appeared through a research project to

assess the sustainability of road infrastructures

developed by the University of Washington and

CH2M HILL in 2007 (Greenroads, 2010).

The Green Roads rating system is divided into

two general types: Project Requirements and

Voluntary Credits.

At minimum, every Greenroads project must

complete 11 specific activities, in order to be

qualified for any award.

The Project Requirements establish a

reference for any road project to achieve

certification and are intended for seeking

sustainable measures from design, planning,

construction, operation and maintenance

(Muench and Soderlund, 2011).

In addition to the Project Requirements, there

is a wide selection of Voluntary Credits that a

project can earn. (Muench and Soderlund

2011).

Each Voluntary Credits is associated with a

number of points (from 1 to 5) depending upon

the impact the credit has on sustainability.

Currently, there are 37 Voluntary Credits

totaling 108 points. The Greenroads system

also allows a project or organization to create

and use its own Voluntary Credits (called

“Custom Credits”), subject to approval of

Greenroads system, for a total of 10 more

points, which brings the total available points to

118.

The author (Glynn, 2009) said that by

encouraging sustainable transportation project

designs, we are taking significant steps to

conserve our natural resources, enhancing the

quality of our lives and reaffirming our

commitment to future generations.

2.2 CEEQUAL system

The CEEQUAL system was originally

developed by a team coordinated by the

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), with

financial support from Development Enabling

Fund (Pinheiro, 2006).

The application range is very wide, since it is

appropriate for any construction project

including roads, railways, airports, water

supply and treatment, power plants and trade.

The categories of evaluation of the system can

be assigned: Global Project (Designer or main

contractor); client and Designer; Project

(designer), Construction (main contractor) and

Design and Construction (for project teams,

does not include client) (Pinheiro, 2006).

The method consists of two steps, first is held

a self-assessment in which the client, the

designer and / or contractor presents a self-

assessment made by the assessor formed

CEEQUAL, gathering the documentation of

proof.

The second step consists in checking work of

the previous stage, by a verifier of CEEQUAL.

In order to follow a set guideline a manual was

created to define the criteria and 200 questions

that assessing several environmental aspects

(CEEQUAL, 2008).

The CEEQUAL system was based on

economic and financial models of its

customers based on the assessment of a wide

range of environmental and social issues,

including the effects on the community in

general.

The plan also includes indirect economic

issues through a set of questions that focus on

areas such as energy, materials and waste,

which can significantly influence the financial

result of a project (CEEQUAL, 2008).

2.3 Sustainable roads and good practices

In the last few years, the sector of road

infrastructures has been adopting a proactive

approach, taking into account environmental

and socio-economical parameters (Bryce,

2008).

4

The policy in the road sector is being targeted

based on economic interest and on the

adaptation of social concerns.

Ever more the principle that the infrastructure

is sustainable, is around the idea of being able

to face the changes that have an impact on the

own infrastructure, such as, durability and rate

traffic (Bryce, 2008).

Sustainable roads can be defined in many

ways, for example by (Bryce, 2008) that roads

must ensure performance in five major areas.

Figure 1- The five areas of sustainable roads (Bryce, 2008)

2.3.1 Watershed Driven Storm water

Management

The paving of roads based on the

incorporation of asphalt leads to soil sealing

causing serious problems in terms of water

lines (Bryce, 2008).

The consequences of reduced infiltration and

recharging aquifers correspond to increased

water stress and adverse impact on activities,

which are derived from use of these water

lines.

In addition to the problem of water stress, the

highways enhance the water pollution through

leachability of pollutants, such as,

hydrocarbons, heavy metals such as Arsenic,

Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Lead,

Zinc, among others, resulting from infiltration

through cracks or lateral areas not

waterproofed of the pavement (Bryce, 2008).

In modern times, the collected water is sent to

a drainage system and directed to the road

settling tanks, preventing direct discharge to

ground. Thus, it protects the water quality by

reducing the quantity of pollutants which are

dragged by leaching into water lines

surrounding (Grumbles, 2008).

There are several techniques to control

stormwater from the road, such as the case of

porous pavements, ditches bio-retention and

artificial wetlands and among others

(GreenHighways, 2011).

The construction and improvement of a road

should be an opportunity to modify and

redesign the management of water resources

in order to protect the reserves of groundwater,

rivers, wetlands and reduce flood risk (Bryce,

2008).

2.3.2 Life Cycle Energy and Emissions

Reduction

The construction of a road requires large

amounts of energy from the production of

materials (example: asphalt and cement) and

during operation.

The replacement of some materials can be a

solution for reducing energy consumption in

the construction of road infrastructures, such

as the replacement of cement by fly ash and

slag (USEPA, 2008).

Furthermore, the characteristics of the road

can help avoid traffic congestion, and

consequently the reduction of fuel consumption

and exhaust emissions (Bryce, 2008).

Since the extraction phase, with an impact on

natural regeneration of the raw material, to the

phases of production, transportation,

application and end-of-life there is a lot of air

emissions and hazardous waste generation,

among others.

Emissions related to industrial processes for

the production of materials may potentially be

reduced by using alternative materials (Bryce,

2008).

2.3.3 Recycle, Reuse and Renewable

The use of recycled materials in building a

road infrastructure can significantly reduce the

amount of material going to landfill and

reducing the amount of raw materials needed

(Bryce, 2008). Recycled materials derived from

industrial by-products allow to reduce

drastically the energy consumed in the

construction; reduce emissions of greenhouse

gases and reduce the overall cost of the

infrastructure.

Some examples of incorporation of recycled

materials are the reuse of layers of pavement

damaged, demolition waste, waste and by-

products of other industrial activities, such as

5

ash from combustion of coal, the use of used

tires, reducing to a minimum the consumption

of natural resources (Bryce, 2008).

According to the European Commission, about

3.5 million tons of scrap tires are added to

Europe stock of used tires every year. One

third of these tires were recycled in 2007,

mostly to make aggregate for use in road

construction, rehabilitation of quarries and

other projects (EURF, 2009).

2.3.4 Conservation and Ecosystem

Management

The conservation and management of

ecosystems have an important in minimizing

the impact of a road on local biodiversity.

In order to keep local biodiversity is important

to promote the preservation of habitats

(Pinheiro, 2011c).

The road infrastructures causing impacts on

natural ecosystems through habitat

fragmentation, changes in flows of water

resources, pressure on soil, among others.

The roads can promote the barrier effect due

to its development being more in length than in

width between ecosystems, resulting in a

threat to local biodiversity (Magina, 2008).

In the development of new road infrastructure,

it should find the most appropriate alignment in

the landscape to minimize the conflict between

the species and the road.

The management of the ecosystem

surrounding the road is to obtain solutions that

are compatible with the native biodiversity of

the region.

For example, in the surroundings of road

creates ecological corridors that connect

protected areas, enabling the continuity of the

species, and exchanges between individuals

Thus, promotes the evolution of ecosystems,

avoiding many situations trampling of animals

on roads (EURF, 2009).

2.3.5 Overall Societal Benefits

Over much time that sustainable construction

has been defined as a tool focused on the

natural environment and not based on the

effects of the environment on people.

The roads have an important impact on local

economies, the design of a road with a good

stretch can promote a business community

and a greater supply of local jobs (Bryce,

2008).

Furthermore, a poorly designed road can

directly or indirectly influence the business in

the region, forcing companies to seek new

locations for their facilities.

The roads are synonymous of flexibility in

terms of mobility. Currently, there are a set of

Intelligent Transport Systems which is an

extraordinary tool in the improvement of road

management to mobility, environment and

safety are enhanced (Molenaar, 2010).

3. LiderA System

System developed was the LiderA system for

road infrastructures (Pinheiro, 2011b).

The LiderA system is based on the concept of

reposition the building environment, from the

perspective of sustainability.

3.1 Methodology

The methodology is based on the use of an

environmental rating system for road

infrastructures, which aims to assess the

environmental performance of this type of

infrastructure.

The rating system used was the LiderA

system, whose own system was developed

and reformulated taking into account the

current state of the art.

Thus, a search was held on international rating

systems for road infrastructure, in particular,

the GreenRoads system of the United States

of America (USA) and the Civil Engineering

Environmental Quality and Assessment

Scheme system (CEEQUAL) from England.

The system consists of a set of areas that are

part a number of strands focused on this type

of infrastructure and a set of criteria that

specify the aspects to consider in each area.

Initially, all criteria previously defined were

analyzed in order to find a set of indicators that

would transform measurable criteria.

The indicators measured were subjected to

validation and refining processes through

meetings with the engineers responsible for

the rehabilitation works to be reliable

indicators.

Then, proceeded to the selection criteria that

are relevant both in the rehabilitation phase

and operation phase of the several

infrastructure intervened.

Thereafter, it developed the thresholds for

each criterion based on scientific research and

benchmarking. Depending on the type of

6

criteria thresholds can be quantitative or

prescriptive.

After the development of thresholds has

measured an average using the case study, in

order to frame these thresholds on scales

created by LiderA system.

Before the evaluation process was held for

each infrastructure a collection of data about

the location, characterization, and intervention

works.

In addition, during the course of rehabilitation

works there was a monitoring and verification

at the site of intervention works in order to

verify the existence of good practices.

Finally, based on the framework with threshold

levels (classes) proceeded to the assessment

of environmental performance in the

rehabilitation and operation phases, which the

class achieved can allow a certification.

In order to develop the methodology and select

a case study, which allow their application has

been agreed by Estradas de Portugal (EP) and

contractor HCI / HTecnic the rehabilitation

works of EN6. The work interventions were

held simultaneously with the development of

the dissertation period, allowing a monitoring

and checking. Moreover, the contractor and

client had interest in the work interventions

obtain a good environmental performance.

As expected results is the analysis of the case

study phase of service to the community in

environmental management and rehabilitation

of road infrastructure to improve its

performance towards sustainability.

This assessment provides an overview of the

impacts either in the environmental, social and

economic activities that arise from the

rehabilitation works.

The evaluation process occurred throughout

the course of several interventions in road

infrastructure.

In assessments of the rehabilitation works of

the six infrastructure intervened was performed

for each infrastructure a report explaining in

detail the assessment.

4. Case study

The case study consists of the rehabilitation

works of 6 different places on Estrada Nacional

Nº6 from Lisbon to Cascais, in particular, the

Bridge over the Jamor river, the Retaining

Walls in the zone of Gibalta,the Railway

Overpass, two Underpass and the Crosswalk

(Ramos, 2010).

Figure 2- Bridge over the Jamor river

Figure 3- Retaining Walls in the zone of Gibalta

After defining strategic guidelines for each

criterion system, the research focuses on the

development of thresholds in the rehabilitation

phase. This paper will discuss the criteria that

were evaluated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

4.1 Developments of the thresholds

The criteria that were subject to a Life Cycle

Assessment are, notably, Low energy

consumption (C7) and Carbon Intensity (C9).

These criteria were measured based

consultation of Environmental Product

Declarations and scientific studies on the

several construction materials.

This paper used sixteen materials, such as

cement, steel, high density polyethylene pipe

(HDPE), epoxy resin, acrylic paint, wood, metal

plates of steel, wire mesh, structural bearings,

concrete, metal guard rails, sand, glassfibre

net , mortar, bitumen emulsion and asphalt.

The values founded in the Environmental

Product Declarations relating to construction

materials correspond to phases Cradle-to-

Gate.

In the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent

refer to two types of cement because the

percentage of clinker is different on both.

The percentage of clinker in the cement type I

is between 95 and 100% of the cement type II

is between 80 and 94%.

7

The author (Henriques, 2011), said that clinker

production is a significant source of carbon

dioxide emissions equivalent to the

atmosphere in the manufacture of cement.

Thus, the cement type I have a greater

negative impact on emissions of carbon

dioxide equivalent in the environment of than

cement type II.

In an approach of Life Cycle Assessment, the

criteria Low energy consumption (C7) and

Carbon Intensity (C9) were studied through

five phases of the life cycle.

These five phases consisted in the production

phase, in the phase of transportation of the

materials, in the phase of transport of the

workers, in the construction phase, and in the

end-of-life phase.

In the production phase, we considered all

processes from extraction of raw materials to

obtain the final product.

The materials were transported by two types of

trucks: semi-trailer truck with carrying capacity

of 25 tons and another crane-truck with

carrying capacity of 12 tons.

It was assumed two assumptions, the first

assumption is that the variation of fuel

consumption and emissions between two

trucks to be about 30%.

The second assumption is that the variation of

fuel consumption and emissions from the same

type of truck load and no load is approximately

20%.

Table 1- Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from trucks (IPCC, 1997)

Type of

truck

Fuel consumption with loaded

truck [l/100Km]

Fuel consumption

with unloaded

truck [l/100Km]

Emissions of CO2

with loaded truck

[gCO2/km]

Emissions of CO2

with unloaded

truck [gCO2/km

]

Semi-trailer truck

40 32 770 616

Crane-truck

28 22 539 431

In phase of transport of workers, it was made a

reference scenario in order to estimate the

energy consumption and emissions of carbon

dioxide equivalent relating to the displacement

of workers of their houses to work.

This scenario consisted of 4 types of transport,

particularly by car, bus, motorcycle and train.

In the construction phase, it was considered

fuel consumption and emissions of carbon

dioxide produced by equipment used for

intervention works.

The emissions of carbon dioxide in 2010 were

226.7 g CO2/kWh (EDP, 2010).

Finally, the end-of-life that corresponds to the

transportation of the waste to the landfill were

calculated the fuel consumption and the

emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent.

This Life Cycle Assessment was not

considered the operation phase, since they are

rehabilitation works of road infrastructure is

assumed that the operation phase remains

unchanged. Thus, Average Daily Traffic is

nearly constant during and after the conclusion

of the rehabilitation works.

4.2 Functional unit

The functional unit considered to relativize the

performance was linear meter of the

infrastructure intervened for the useful life of

twenty-five years.

4.3 The Bridge over the Jamor river

Based on consultation of Environmental

Product Declarations and scientific studies on

the several materials used in the rehabilitation

works we obtained values for the Low energy

consumption (C7) and carbon intensity (C9),

774 MJ ano-1

m-1

and 34 kg CO2 eq ano-1

m-1

,

respectively.

The final results of primary energy on the

various materials used taking into account the

quantities used in the rehabilitation works are

shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Primary energy of various materials relating to the Jamor Bridge

Material Unit Quantities

used

Primary energy

[MJ]

Primary energy

[MJ ano-

1m

-1]

Portland cement (Tipo II)

kg 4.620 22.167 13

Epoxy resin

kg 580 42.920 26

Acrylic paint

m2 2.900 104.284 63

Metal plates of steel

kg 51.325 857.127 519

Structural bearings

kg 1.280 23.040 14

Sand kg 7.500 208.275 126

Mortar kg 7.662 19.615 12

Total 1.277.428 774

8

In the figure 4 that concerns the contribution of

the different materials taking into account the

quantities used in rehabilitation works on

primary energy consumption reveals that the

largest percentage corresponds to steel plates,

followed by sand.

In this rehabilitation of the bridge over the

Jamor river were reincorporated all waste, so

the end-of-life was suppressed.

The following table presents the final results of

the various phases of the Life Cycle

Assessment, which the production phase as it

contributes to higher total primary energy.

Table 3- Phases of LCA in total primary energy relating to the Jamor Bridge

Primary

energy [MJ] Primary energy [MJ ano

-1m

-1]

Production phase

1.277.428 774

Phase of

transportation of

the materials

69.232 42

Phase of transport of the

workers 6.669 4

Construction phase

51.293 31

Total 1.404.622 851

Figure 4- Total primary energy (percentage) divided by several materials relating to the Jamor Bridge

Figure 5- Phases of LCA in total primary energy (percentage) relating to the Jamor Bridge

By relativizing the results achieved in primary

energy, we can verify that the total

consumption of primary energy in the

rehabilitation of the bridge over the Jamor river

is equivalent to fuel consumption of 33 cars per

year.

Table 4 Primary energy relating to the Jamor Bridge

Total primary energy [MJ] 1.404.622

Fuel consumption of the vehicle [L/100km] 6

Average distance traveled by vehicle per year [km ano

-1]

20.000

Number of vehicles 33

Portland cement (Tipo II) 1,74%

Epoxy resin 3,36%

Acrylic paint 8,16%

Metal plates of steel 67,10%

Structural bearings 1,80%

Sand 16,30%

Mortar 1,54%

Production phase 91%

Phase of transportation of the

materials 4,9%

Phase of transport of the workers

0,5%

Construction phase 4%

9

In the criteria of carbon intensity (C9), the final results of emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent of the several materials used taking into account the quantities used in the rehabilitation works are in Table 5.

Table 5- Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent of several

materials relating to the Jamor Bridge


used

Emissions of CO2 eq

[kg CO2 eq]

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg CO2 eq ano

-1m

-1]


kg 4.620 2.934 2

Epoxy resin

kg 580 870 1

Acrylic

paint

m2 2.900 1,807 1

Metal plates of

steel kg 51.325 47.378 29

Structural bearings

kg 1.280 1.391 1

Sand kg 7.500 395 0,2

Mortar kg 7.662 2.145 1

Total 56.920 34

In the figure 6 as regards the contribution of

the different materials taking into account the

quantities used in the rehabilitation works on

emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent, it

shows that the largest percentage corresponds

to steel plates, then the cement.

Figure 6- Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent amount (percentage) divided by several materials relating to the Jamor Bridge

In Table 6 presents the final results of the

various phases of the Life Cycle Assessment,

which it is also the production phase as it

contributes more to the total emissions of

carbon dioxide equivalent.

Table 6- Phases of LCA in total emissions of carbon

dioxide equivalent relating to the Jamor Bridge

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg

CO2 eq]


-1m

-1]

Production phase 56.920 34

Phase of

transportation of

the materials

3.702 2


1.300 1

Construction phase

4.195 3

Total 66.116 40

Portland cement (Tipo II) 5,15%

Resina epoxy 1,53%

Tinta acrilica 3,18%

Metal plates of steel 83,24%

Structural bearings 2,44%

Sand 0,69%

Mortar 3,77%

10

Figure 7- Phases of LCA in the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (percentage) relating to the Jamor Bridge

By relativizing the results achieved in

emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent, we can

verify that emissions from the rehabilitation

works of the bridge over the Jamor river are

equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of

26 cars per year.

Table 7 - Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent relating

to the Jamor Bridge

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg CO2 eq] 66.116

Average emissions of CO2 [kg CO2/km] 0,13


-1]

20.000


4.4 The Retaining Walls in the zone of

Gibalta

On the Retaining Walls in the zone of Gibalta

the values of the criteria low energy

consumption (C7) and carbon intensity (C9)

were 738 MJ ano-1

m-1

and 7 kg CO2 eq ano-1

m-

1, respectively.

The final results of primary energy of the

several materials used taking into account the

quantities used in the rehabilitation works are

shown in Table 8.

Table 8- Primary energy of various materials relating to the Retaining Walls


used Primary

energy [MJ]

Primary energy

[MJ ano-

1m

-1]

Portland cement

kg 138.270 663.419 30

Steel kg 1.600 51.200 2

High density polyethylene pipe (HDPE)

m 1.050 11.693 1

Epoxy resin kg 70 5.180 0,2

Acrylic paint

m2 7.000 251.720 11

Wood m3 10 11.272 1

Metal guard rails

m 105 22.680 1

Sand kg 540.780 15.017.461 675

Glassfibre

net m2 7.000 84.594 4

Mortar kg 60.123 153.915 7

Total 16.442.205 731

On the contribution of the different materials

taking into account the quantities used in

rehabilitation works on primary energy

consumption it shows that the highest

percentage corresponds to the sand, followed

by Portland cement as is shown in figure 8.

Production phase 86,1%


materials 5,6%


2,0%

Construction phase 6,3%

11

Figure 8- Total primary energy (percentage) divided by several materials relating to the Retaining Walls

In Table 9 shows the final results of the various

phases of the Life Cycle Assessment, it is

observed that the production phase as that

contributes most to the total primary energy,

then the construction phase.

Table 9- Phases of LCA in total primary energy relating to the Retaining Walls

Primary energy

[MJ] Primary energy [MJ ano

-1m

-1]

Production phase

16.273.133 731

Phase of

transportation

of the

materials

46.019 2


54.171 2

Construction phase

155.300 7

End-of-life phase

2.592 0,1

Total 16.531.215 743

By relativizing results achieved in primary

energy, we can verify that the total

consumption of primary energy in the

rehabilitation works of the Retaining Walls in

the zone of Gibalta is equivalent to fuel

consumption of 383 cars per year.

Table 10- Primary energy relating to the Retaining Walls

Total primary energy [MJ] 16.531.215

Fuel consumption of the vehicle [L/100km]

6,00


-1]

20.000


Figure 9- Phases of LCA in total primary energy (percentage) relating to the Retaining Walls

Portland cement 4,03%

Steel 0,31%

Pipes of HDPE 1,10%

Epoxy resin 0,03%

Acrylic paint 1,55%

Wood 0,07%

Metal guard rails 0,14%

Sand 92,28%

Glassfible net 0,52% Mortar

0,95%

Production phase 99%


materials 0,3%


0,3%

Construction phase 1%

End-of-life phase 0,02%

12

In the criteria carbon intensity (C9), the final

results of emissions of carbon dioxide

equivalent of the several materials used taking

into account the quantities used in the

rehabilitation works are in the table below.

Table 11- Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent of several materials relating to the Retaining Walls


used

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg CO2

eq]

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg

CO2 eq ano-

1m

-1]

Portland cement (Tipo I)

kg 11.550 10.383 0,47


kg 126.720 80.467 3,62

Steel kg 1.600 2.688 0,12

High density polyethylene pipe (HDPE)

m 1.050 298 0,01

Epoxy resin kg 70 105 0,005

Acrylic paint m2 7.000 5.962 0,27

Wood m3 10 259 0,01

Metal guard rails

m 105 1.369 0,06

Sand kg 540.780 28.450 1,28

Glassfibre

net m2 7.000 3.786 0,17

Mortar kg 60.123 16.834 0,76

Total 150.603 7

In Figure 10 shows the contribution of the

different materials taking into account the

quantities used in the rehabilitation works

emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent

observes that the largest percentage

corresponds to Portland Cement (Type II),

followed by sand.

The following table presents the final results of

the various phases of the Life Cycle

Assessment, which the production phase as it

contributes more to the total emissions of

carbon dioxide equivalent, followed by the

construction phase.

Table 12- Phases of LCA in total emissions of carbon

dioxide equivalent relating to the Retaining Walls

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg CO2

eq]


-1m

-1]

Production phase

150.603 7

Phase of

transportation

of the materials

2.461 0,1

Phase of transport of the

workers

11.296

0,5

Construction phase

13.360 0,6

End-of-life phase

139 0,01

Total 177.858 8

Figure 10- Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent amount (percentage) divided by several materials relating to the Retaining

Walls

Portland cement (Tipo I)

7%


53%

Steel 2%

Pipes of HDPE 3%

Epoxy resin 0,07%

Acrylic paint 4%

Wood 0,2%

Metal guard rails 1%

Sand 19%

Glassfibre net 3%

Mortar 11%

13

Figure 11- Phases of LCA in the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (percentage) relating to the Retaining Walls

By relativizing the results obtained in the

emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent, we can

verify those emissions of rehabilitation works of

the Retaining Walls in the zone of Gibalta are

equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of

69 cars per years.

Table 13- Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent relating to the Retaining Walls

Emissions of CO2 eq [kg CO2 eq] 177.858

Average emissions of CO2 [kg CO2/km] 0,13


-1]

20.000


5. Discussion

The results show that it was possible to identify

performance levels and best practices, thereby

served as a basis to create the LiderA

performance scale for this type of road

infrastructures.

The existing data about the characteristics of

materials and the performance of the works is

reduced, at least with regard to reliable

publications, so this is an important limitation,

which led to a search of additional life cycle.

However this approach has an important future

progress in their development.

The methodology allows find thresholds

nevertheless the limitation data, and led to the

application of methods of quantification (LCA)

that may have some uncertainty which is

reflected in accuracy.

An important aspect is the relationship

between performance classes and solutions

(prescriptive measures) that sometimes is

carried by reflection measurement being

desirable to search for quantification.

There is a wide variability in the type of road

infrastructure, so it was important to choose a

work with different infrastructures, particularly a

Bridge, Pavements, Retaining Walls,

Overpass, Underpasses and Crosswalk.

Thus, an important limitation is the

extrapolation of these data to other types of

infrastructure that must be analyzed carefully.

The application was made in construction

phase, although there is evidence of

recommendations to be developed and

integrated into the project (example: inclusion

construction and demolition waste in retaining

walls and a bridge) which shows the potential

of the project implementation. In addition, it

could also have a higher contribution if such

should occur in the project.

6. Conclusions

The application to the case study consisting of

several types of road infrastructures allows us

to emphasize that this methodology is able to

be adjusted and applied to any kind of

typology.

Moreover, the methodology allows evaluating

the rehabilitation works showing the good

practices.

In this study it was possible to apply Life Cycle

Assessment with developing values in criteria,

such as, Low energy consumption (C7) and

Carbon Intensity (C9) in the rehabilitation

phase of LiderA system.

Production phase 84,68%

Phase of transportation of the materials

1,38%


6,35%

Construction phase 7,51%

End-of-life phase 0,08%

14

Based on LCA performed in the six

infrastructure intervened and not considering

the operation phase, it is concluded that the

phase which contributes most to energy

consumption and emission of carbon dioxide

equivalent is the production phase of the

materials.

After the production phase, the construction

phase and phase transport materials are those

that have more expression in fuel consumption

and emissions.

It is important that new technologies allow the

optimization process to reduce the

environmental impact of the materials

generated in the production.

Moreover, in the construction phase the

selection of more efficient equipment can

reduction in the fuel consumption.

On the transport phase material should make

an effort to give priority and the choice of

materials local or national to shorten distances,

and minimize a significantly the impacts.

Currently, the absence of a solid base of

Environmental Product Declarations targeted

for construction materials of the road

infrastructure, making it difficult to obtain more

accurate data.

Besides, there is little systematization of values

and averages in studies on energy

consumption in construction / rehabilitation of

the road infrastructures.

Finally, this paper serves as a basis for the

development of future works by improving the

assessment method taking into account future

technologies.

Besides, it can also serve as a basis for other

studies, because the quantitative data provide

the opportunity to estimate the environmental

impacts in the rehabilitation and construction of

other road infrastructures.

Acknowledgement

The results present in this paper are a

summary of the dissertation developed in the

area of road infrastructures in relation to its

environmental performance.

References

Bryce, James M. Developing Sustainable

Transportation Infrastructure. University of

Missouri, 2008.

CEEQUAL. Scheme Description and

Assessment Process Handbook - Version

4, 2008 , pp 15.

EDP - Energia de Portugal. Obtained in

October 2011.

http://www.edpsu.pt/pt/origemdaenergia/P

ages/OrigensdaEnergia.aspx

EURF- European Union Road Federation.

Sustainable roads and optimal mobility.

Bruxelas, 2009.

Fernandes, Francisco, e De Sousa, João

Figueira. Os Efeitos das Infra-estruturas

Rodoviárias no Ordenamento e

Desenvolvimento do Território: o caso da

Ilha de Santiago, Cabo Verde. Cabo

Verde, 2007, pp 6-8.

Glynn, Astrid. The Importance of Green Roads.

2009.

GreenHighways. Obtained in October 2011

http://www.greenhighwayspartnership.org

Greenroads, rates sustainable road projects.

Obtained in October 2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201

0/01/100113091646.htm

Grumbles, Benjamin. Green Transportation

Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and

Implementation . Washington Government

Priting Office, 2008.

Henriques, Valter. Impacte Ambiental de

estruturas de edificios- produção de CO2.

Lisboa: IST, 2011.

IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse

Gas Inventories.. Reference Manual

(Volume 3) - Energy, 1997.

Magina, Ana. Avaliação da sustentabilidade de

infra-estruturas rodoviárias pelos Sistema

LiderA. IST, 2008.

Molenaar, André. Design and Construction of

Sustainable Roads. Delft University of

Techonology, 2010.

Muench, S, e Anderson, Jeralee. Greenroads:

A sustainability performance metric for

roadway design and construction. 2009.

Pereira, Paulo, e Pais, Jorge. A reabilitação da

rede rodoviária no século XXI. Portugal,

2007.

Pinheiro, M. D. Guia Técnico para a

elaboração de Estudos no âmbito da

Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental de Infra-

estruturas Rodoviárias. Portugal, 2011a.

Pinheiro, M. LiderA- Sistema voluntário para a

sustentabilidade dos ambientes

15

construídos. Lisboa: Instituto Superior

Técnico, 2011b.

Pinheiro, M. Ambiente e Construção

Sustentável. Amadora: Instituto do

Ambiente, 2006.

Pinheiro, Manuel. Dossier do Curso: LiderA -

Curso Certificação Ambiental da

Construção Sustentável - Sistema LiderA.

Lisboa: FUNDEC, IST, 2011c.

Ramos, Carlos. Empreitada da EN6- obras de

reabilitação e reforço. Lisboa, 2010.

Ribeiro, Anabela, e Pais Antunes, António.

Road accessibility and cohesion in

lagging regions: Empirical evidence from

Portugal based on spatial econometric

models. Journal of Transport Geography,

2010, pp 1-2.

USEPA - United States Environmental

Protection Agency . Waste and Materials -

Flow Benchmark Sector Report:

Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials -

Coal Combustion Products. Washington

DC, 2008.

Vita, Laura. Road Infrastructure- the backbone

of transport system. Milão: Bocconi

University, 2008.

Road sustainability management - ULisboa abstract... · the benefits of sustainability is...

Documents

Transcript of Road sustainability management - ULisboa abstract... · the benefits of sustainability is...