Life cycle assessment as decision-support in choice of road corridor: case study and stakeholder perspectives

Figures & data

Figure 1. System boundaries of the LICCER model (adapted from Brattebø et al., 2013).

Table A1. User input (project specific data) required to use the LICCER model.

Parameter	Unit
INFRASTRUCTURE (For each road corridor and road element)
Length	m
Share length with road lighting	%
Share length with side guardrails as well as centre guardrails	%
Type of side and centre guardrails (steel or concrete)	–
Volume of excavated soil	m^3
Volume of excavated rock	m^3
Volume of stabilised soil	m^3
Type of soil stabilisation method (in-situ, concrete mass, LC columns or soil replacement)	–
Tunnel walls and lining methods (shotcrete, PE foam, concrete, concrete EI.)	–
Number of lanes (driving lanes, hard and soft shoulders, central reserve, cycling/pedestrian lanes, road ditch)	Nr
Width of each lane	m
Height of sub-base, base, and pavement layers	m
Type of material in sub-base and base layers (aggregate or sand)	–
TRAFFIC (The same traffic scenario for all road corridors)
Traffic volume (annual average daily traffic [AADT])	Nr of vehicles
Annual traffic increase	%
Analysis time horizon	Years
Share of biofuel in end year	%
Share of electric cars in end year	%

Table 1. Participants at the workshop (not including developers of the LICCER model).

	Sweden	Norway	Denmark
University	2
Research institute	2
Consultancy	3
Construction company	1
Road authority	2	1	1

Figure 2. The map shows the location of the three road corridors (Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3) compared in the case study (Englund & Dahlin, 2006). ©Lantmäteriet.

Table A2. Default data of the LICCER model (LICCER_LCA-model_v1 0) used in the case study.

Parameter	Unit	Value	Source
SERVICE LIFE OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Superstructure components in roads	Years	60	Karlsson and Carlson (2010); Stripple (2009)
Superstructure components in bridges	Years	60	Karlsson and Carlson (2010); Stripple (2009)
Resurfacing (of pavement layer; calculated from AADT)	Years	10	Calculated according to input variables
TRANSPORT DISTANCE OF MATERIALS (LORRY ON ROAD ONLY)
Materials from outside suppliers
Aggregate/gravel, all usage except pavement asphalt	km	20	Stripple (2001)
Asphalt membrane	km	150	Personal communication with the Norwegian Public Roads Administration
Asphalt, pavement (incl. bitumen and aggregate)	km	30	Stripple (2001)
Sand/soil, all usage	km	20	Stripple (2001)
Concrete, bridges	km	150	Miliutenko et al. (2012)
Cement, soil stabilisation	km	300	Stripple (2001)
Lime for lime pillars, soil stabilisation	km	300	Stripple (2001)
Explosives	km	240	Miliutenko et al. (2012)
Rebar, bridges	km	500	Miliutenko et al. (2012)
Steel, guardrails	km	500	Miliutenko et al. (2012)
Internal transportation of masses
Internal transportation of masses from earthwork	km	0.5	Stripple (2001)
Transport, pavement materials to depot at end-of-life	km	2.0	Stripple (2001)
Transport, base & subbase materials to depot at end-of-life	km	2.0	Stripple (2001)
Transport, concrete materials to depot at end-of-life	km	2.0	Stripple (2001)
Transport, rebar materials to depot at end-of-life	km	2.0	Stripple (2001)
Transport, steel materials to depot at end-of-life	km	2.0	Stripple (2001)
FUEL CONSUMPTION FROM TRAFFIC IN USE STAGE
Diesel fuel, traffic use stage, lorries, no trailer	litre/10 km	2.32	Personal communication with the Swedish Transport Administration
Diesel fuel, traffic use stage, lorries, with trailer	litre/10 km	4.09	Personal communication with the Swedish Transport Administration
Diesel fuel, traffic use stage, light vehicles	litre/10 km	0.67	Personal communication with the Swedish Transport Administration
Petrol fuel, traffic use stage, light vehicles	litre/10 km	0.87	Personal communication with the Swedish Transport Administration
Electricity, traffic use stage, light vehicles	MJ/km	1.607	Simonsen (2010)
Proportion of lorry traffic, no trailer	% of AADT	6.6	Shamoon (2012)
Proportion of lorry traffic, with trailer	% of AADT	5.4	Shamoon (2012)
Proportion of light vehicle traffic	% of AADT	88	Shamoon (2012)
Proportion light vehicles on diesel fuel, traffic use stage	% of light vehicles	17	Shamoon (2012)
Proportion of biofuel in diesel/petrol fuel today	% of total fuel use	7.0	Shamoon (2012)
Proportion of electric cars in use today, light vehicles	% of light vehicle stock	0.5	Shamoon (2012)
SPECIFIC MATERIAL CONSUMPTION
Asphalt, depth of layer replaced in each reasphaltation	m thickness replaced	0.04	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Asphalt membrane, bridge surface	kg/m^2 surface area	26	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Concrete, concrete bridges	m^3/m^2 surface area	0.78	Calculated average from Olofsson (2010)
Cement, lime-cement columns in soil stabilisation	tonne/ m^3 stabilised soil	0.05	Recalculated from Rydberg and Andersson (2003)
Lime, lime-cement columns in soil stabilisation	tonne/m^3 stabilised soil	0.05	Recalculated from Rydberg and Andersson (2003
Diesel, transportation of masses in earthwork	litre/tkm mass transport	0.035	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Diesel, machinery for earthwork in road construction	litre/m^3 loose materials	0.80	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Diesel, earthworks, blasted rock	litre/m^3 loose materials	0.80	Assumed
Diesel, earthworks, simple soil excavation	litre/m^3 loose materials	0.09	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Diesel, end-of-life pavement removal	litre/m^3 loose materials	0.80	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Diesel, end-of-life base & subbase removal	litre/m^3 loose materials	0.80	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Diesel, end-of-life concrete structures demolition	litre/m^3 concrete structure	5.0	Assumed
Diesel, end-of-life earthworks	litre/m^2 total road area	2.0	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Explosives, road construction	kg/m^3 rock in situ	1.0	EFFEKT (Sandvik & Hammervold, 2011)
Rebar, concrete bridges	tonne/m^2 surface area	0.13	Calculated average from Olofsson (2010)
Steel, guardrails	tonne/m guardrail	0.025	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
SPECIFIC GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OF MATERIALS
Aggregate	kg CO2e/ tonne	5.2	Hammond and Jones (2011)
Bitumen	kg CO2e/ tonne	430	Delft University of Technology (2012)
Asphalt membrane	kg CO2e/ tonne	310.89	Salkangas (2009) (considered as 72.3 % of impact from bitumen)
Asphalt mixing	kg CO2e/ tonne	14.04	Zapata and Gambatese (2005) (Swedish electricity mix)
Concrete	kg CO2e/m^3	256.8	Hammond and Jones (2011); Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Diesel	kg CO2e/m^3	3 093	Delft University of Technology (2012)
Biofuel	kg CO2e/m^3	636	Recalculated from Gode et al. (2011) for ethanol from wheat
Electricity	kg CO2e/ kWh	0.036	Gode et al. (2011)
Explosives	kg CO2e/ tonne	2 310	Probas Database (Fritsche, 2005)
Petrol	kg CO2e/m^3	2 925	Recalculated from Delft University of Technology (2012) for Petrol including combustion (assuming the density of 719.7 kg/m^3)
Rebar (reinforcement steel)	kg CO2e/ tonne	720	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Steel	kg CO2e/ tonne	1 500	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Lime, soil stabilisation	kg CO2e/ tonne	780	Hammond and Jones (2011)
Cement	kg CO2e/ tonne	715	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Transport work	kg CO2e/ tkm	0.15	Hammond and Jones (2011)
TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER UNIT OF RESOURCE INPUT
Aggregate	MJ/tonne	83	Hammond and Jones (2011)
Bitumen	MJ/tonne	52 000	Delft University of Technology (2012)
Asphalt membrane	MJ/tonne	37 596	Salkangas (2009) (considered as 72.3 % of impact from bitumen)
Asphalt mixing	MJ/tonne	390	Zapata and Gambatese (2005)
Concrete	MJ/m^3	1 800	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Diesel	MJ/m^3	45 575	Delft University of Technology (2012)
Biofuel	MJ/m^3	31 376	Recalculated from Gode et al. (2011) for ethanol from wheat
Electricity	MJ/kWh	7.56	Gode et al. (2011)
Explosives	MJ/tonne	26 312	Probas Database (Fritsche, 2005)
Petrol	MJ/m^3	42 975	Recalculated from Delft University of Technology (2012) Petrol including combustion (assuming the density of 719.7 kg/m3)
Rebar (reinforcement steel)	MJ/tonne	13 100	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Steel	MJ/tonne	20 100	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Cement	MJ/tonne	4 135	Swedish Transport Administration (2013)
Lime in soil stabilisation	MJ/tonne	5 300	Hammond and Jones (2011)
Transport work	MJ/tkm	2.4	Hammond and Jones (2011)

Table A3. Project specific data for infrastructure in the different road corridors (Alt. 1-3) and the reference alternative (Alt. 0).

Input parameter	Road element	Alt. 0	Alt. 1	Alt. 2	Alt. 3	Reference
Road elements, length (m)	Existing road	7 500	–	–	–	Englund and Dahlin (2006)
	New road	–	–	2 580	2 980
	Extended road	–	7 500	4 330	3 620
	Concrete bridge	–	–	20	20
Road elements, width (m)	Existing road	9	–	–	–	Englund and Dahlin (2006)
	New road	–	–	12	12
	Extended road	–	8 *	8 *	8 *
	Concrete bridge	–	–	12	12
Centre guardrails, steel (% of road length)	Existing road	0	–	–	–	Englund and Dahlin (2006)
	New road	–	–	100	100
	Extended road	–	100	100	100
	Concrete bridge	–	–	100	100
Side guardrails, steel (% of road length)	Existing road	–	–	–	–	Estimated from Englund and Dahlin (2006)
	New road	–	–	41	64
	Extended road	–	16	12	11
	Concrete bridge	–	–	100	100
Soil excavation (m^3)	Total	–	184 000	430 000	207 000	Englund and Dahlin (2006)
Rock excavation (m^3)	Total	–	50 000	219 000	535 000	Englund and Dahlin (2006)
Soil stabilisation, lime-cement columns (m^3)	Total	–	3 925	20 822	38 055	Estimated from Englund and Dahlin (2006)
Pavement layer, 94% aggregate, 6% bitumen (m)	Roads, bridges	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	Karlsson and Carlson (2010)
Base layer, 98% aggregate, 2% bitumen (m)	Roads	–	0.15	0.15	0.15
Subbase layer, 100% aggregate (m)	Roads	–	0.42	0.42	0.42

* The total road width is 14 m after reconstruction; however, only 8 metres was modelled, since the centre of the old road could be retained.

Table A5. Resulting data inventory for the different life cycle stages of road corridors.

Material/Activity	Unit	Alt.0	Alt.1	Alt.2	Alt.3
PRODUCTION STAGE
Asphalt membrane	tonne/year	–	–	0.1	0.1
Aggregate/gravel (base layer, sub-base layer, and pavement layer)	tonne/year	–	1 670	1 657	1 609
Bitumen (base layer and pavement layer)	tonne/year	–	30	32	27
Concrete, concrete bridges	tonne/year	–	–	7.5	7.5
Cement, soil stabilisation	tonne/year	–	3.0	16	26
Lime for lime pillars, soil stabilisation	tonne/year	–	3.0	16	26
Explosives	tonne/year	–	0.8	3.7	8.9
Steel, guardrails	tonne/year	–	4.1	4.2	4.7
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Transport of external materials from supplier to the construction site
Asphalt membrane	tkm/year	–	–	16	16
Aggregate/gravel (base layer, sub-base layer, pavement layer)	tkm/year	–	36 777	36 108	34 984
Bitumen (base layer and pavement layer)	tkm/year	–	897	946	797
Concrete, concrete bridges	tkm/year	–	–	1 119	1 119
Cement, soil stabilisation	tkm/year	–	906	4 806	7 878
Lime from lime pillars, soil stabilisation	tkm/year	–	906	4 806	7 878
Explosives	tkm/year	–	200	876	2140
Steel, guardrails	tkm/year	–	2 063	2101	2 340
Diesel used for handling and transport of internal masses in construction activities
Diesel, excavation & uploading rock	m^3/year	–	1.1	4.7	11.4
Diesel, excavation & uploading simple soil	m^3/year	–	0.3	0.7	0.3
Diesel, transport masses from earthwork	m^3/year	–	0.1	0.4	0.5
OPERATION STAGE
Aggregate/gravel, pavement resurfacing	tonne/year	569	1 011	889	840
Bitumen, pavement resurfacing	tonne/year	36	65	57	54
Transport, pavement resurfacing materials	tkm/year	18 144	32 256	28 361	26 807
END-OF-LIFE STAGE
Diesel used for materials (pavement, base & subbase) removal, earthworks	m^3/year	2.9	5.9	6.3	5.0
Transport of materials (pavement, base & subbase, concrete, steel) to depot	tkm/year	2 471	3 409	3 386	3 281
TRAFFIC ON ROAD DURING OPERATION STAGE
Electricity, transport by light vehicle	MWh/year	365	365	337	322
Total diesel, traffic use stage	m^3/year	520	520	480	459
Total biofuel, traffic use stage	m^3/year	390	390	360	344
Total petrol, traffic use stage	m^3/year	650	650	600	573

Table A4. Project specific data for current and future traffic operation on the road (common for all road corridors and the reference alternative).

Input parameter	Value	References
Traffic density in start year (number of vehicles per day)	4 894	Swedish Road Administration as cited in Shamoon (2012)
Annual increase in traffic (%)	1.0	Swedish Road Administration as cited in Shamoon (2012)
Proportion of biofuel in end year (%)	43	Hansson and Grahn (2013)
Proportion of electric cars in end year (%)	12	Hansson and Grahn (2013)

Figure 3. Annual GHG emissions (tonne CO2 equivalents) and energy use (GJ) of infrastructure and traffic in the three road corridors (Alt. 1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0).

Figure 4. Annual GHG emissions (tonne CO2 equivalents) and energy use (GJ) of infrastructure and traffic in the three road corridors (Alt. 1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0) relative to the reference alternative (ΔAlt.X = Alt.X-Alt.0).

Figure 5. Annual GHG emissions (tonne CO2 equivalents) and energy use (GJ) of infrastructure life cycle stages in the three road corridors (Alt.1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0).

Figure 6. Contribution of construction parts and processes to the annual GHG emissions of each life cycle stage (production, construction, operation, and end-of-life) for the different road corridors (Alt.1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0).

Figure 7. Contribution of construction parts and processes to the annual energy use of each life cycle stage (production, construction, operation, and end-of-life) for the different road corridors (Alt.1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0).

Figure 8. Annual GHG emissions (tonne CO2 equivalents) and energy use (GJ) of different types of vehicles and fuels in the three road corridors (Alt.1-Alt.3) and the reference alternative (Alt.0).

Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for life cycle GHG emissions of infrastructure.

Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis for life cycle energy use of infrastructure.

Karlsson, R., & Carlson, A. (2010). Beräkningar av energiåtgång och koldioxidutsläpp vid byggande, drift och underhåll av vägar. Beräkningar enligt fyra typfall [Calculations of energy use and carbon dioxide emission in construction, operation, and maintenance of roads. Calculations according to four typical cases]. (VTI Notat 3-2010). Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Stripple, H. (2009). Kompletterande underlag för tillåtlighetsprövning – en översiktlig miljöstudie av väginfrastrukturen i projekt Förbifart Stockholm [Complementing basis for consideration of permissibility – a general environmental study of the road infrastructure in the project Bypass Stockholm. ] (U2380). IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Miliutenko, S., Åkerman, J., & Björklund, A. (2012). Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle stages of a road tunnel – the Swedish case Norra Länken. European Jounral of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 12, 39–62. Retrieved from https://www.tudelft.nl/tbm/over-de-faculteit/afdelingen/engineering-systems-and-services/research/ejtir/.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shamoon, H. (2012). Energieffektiv vägdesign [Energy efficient road design]. [Master’s thesis]. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/search.jsf?dswid=5059.

 Google Scholar

Swedish Transport Administration. (2013). Klimatkalkyl (version 1.0) [Excel-file].

 Google Scholar

Sandvik, K. O., Hammervold, J. (2011). Incorporating greenhouse gas emissions in Benefit-Cost Analysis in the transport sector in Norway. Paper presented at the 24th World Road Congress, Mexico.

 Google Scholar

Olofsson, T. (2010). Delrapport: Bro. [Progress report: Bridge]. Retrieved from http://www.bygginnovationen.se/.

 Google Scholar

Rydberg, T., & Andersson, R. (2003). Miljöeffektbedömning (LCA) för markstabilisering [Life cycle assessment (LCA) of ground stabilisation]. (Report). Swedish Deep Stabilisation Research Centre.

 Google Scholar

Hammond, G., & Jones, C. (2011). ICE Inventory of Carbon and Energy version 2.0. [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.circularecology.com.

 Google Scholar

Delft University of Technology. (2012). Idemat2012 [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/EVR/model/theory/subject/5-data.html.

 Google Scholar

Zapata, P., & Gambatese, J. A. (2005). Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete pavement materials and construction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(9)

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gode, J., Martinsson, F., Hagberg, L., Öman, A., Höglund, J., Palm, D., Ekvall, T., Hallberg, L., Högberg, J., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Jerksjö, M. & Rydberg, T. (2011). Miljöfaktaboken 2011: Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer för bränslen, el, värme och transporter. [Miljöfaktaboken 2011: Estimated emission factors for fuels, electricity, heat, and transport in Sweden]. Värmeforsk Service AB.

 Google Scholar

Fritsche, U. (2005). Process-oriented Basic Data for Environmental Management Instruments - www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(3), 225–225. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.03.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Englund, J., & Dahlin, A. (2006). Väg 55, delen Yxtatorpet-Malmköping. Vägutredning. Samrådshandling 2006-01-25 [Road 55, section Yxtatorpet-Malmköping. Feasability study. Consultation report 2006-01-25]. Swedish Road Administration.

 Google Scholar

Hansson, J., & Grahn, H. (2013). Utsikt för förnybara drivmedel i Sverige. Uppdatering och utvidgning av studien Möjligheter för förnybara drivmedel i Sverige till år 2030 av Grahn och Hansson, 2010. [Outlook for renewable fuels in Sweden. Update and expansion of the study Possibilites for renewable fuels in Sweden by 2030 by Grahn and Hansson, 2010]. (IVL Report B2083). IVL Swedish Research Institute.

 Google Scholar