Life Cycle Assessment on modern timber bridges

References

• Bouhaya, L., Le Roy, R. and Feraille-Fresnet, A. (2009) Simplified environmental study on innovative bridge structure. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(6), 2066–2071. doi: 10.1021/es801351g
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collings, D. (2006) An environmental comparison of bridge forms. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Bridge Engineering, pp. 163–168.
   Google Scholar
• Du, G. (2015) Life Cycle Assessment of Bridges, Model Development and Case Studies. (Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
   Google Scholar
• EC European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Official Journal of the European Union, L 218, 30–47.
   Google Scholar
• EC European Commission (2011) Environment: Tighter Restrictions on Industrial Creosote Use [Online]. Accessed 29 Jun 2018, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-925_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• EC European Commission (2018) Buildings [online]. Accessed 29 June 2018, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings
   Google Scholar
• EN 15804 (2012) Sustainability of Construction Works – Environmental Product Declarations – Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• EUR 24708 (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed guidance. First edition. Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• FD P 01-015: qualité environnementale des produits de constructionsfascicule de données énergie et transport [Environmental Quality of Construction Products Data Manual on Energy and Transport] (2006) Angers, France.
   Google Scholar
• Gerold, M. (2006) Economic efficiency of modern timber bridges – Life expectancy and costs of maintenance. Structural Engineering International, 16(3), 261–267. doi: 10.2749/101686606778026510
   Google Scholar
• Gervásio, H. and da Silva, L.S. (2008) Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4(4), 251–269. doi: 10.1080/15732470600627325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustavsson, L. and Sathre, R. (2011) Energy and CO2 analysis of wood substitution in construction. Climatic Change, 105(1), 129–153. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammervold, J., Reenaas, M. and Brattebø, H. (2013) Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18, 153–161. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawk, H. (2003) Bridge Life-cycle Cost Analysis (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board).
   Google Scholar
• Hettinger, A. L., Birat, J. P., Hechler, O. and Braun, M. (2015) Sustainable bridges – LCA for a composite and a concrete bridge. In E. Petzek and R. Buancilua (eds.) Economical Bridge Solutions Based on Innovative Composite Dowels and Integrated Abutments: Ecobridge (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden), pp. 45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Horvath, A. (2009) Principles of using Life-Cycle Assessment in bridge analysis. In Proceedings of US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure Materials, Sapporo, Japan, 21–22 October.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, N., Anderson, J. and Edwards, S. (1999) BRE Methodology for Environmental Profiles of Construction Materials, Components and Buildings, BRE Report BR370.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14025 (2006) Environmental Labels and Declarations – Type III Environmental Declarations – Principles and Procedures. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Itoh, Y. and Kitagawa, T. (2003) Using CO2 emission quantities in bridge lifecycle analysis. Engineering Structures, 25(5), 565–577. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00167-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, A. (2004) A Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Comparing Bridge Deck Designs (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan).
   Google Scholar
• Keoleian, G. A., Kendall, A., Dettling, J. E., Smith, V. M., Chandler, R. F., Lepech, M.D. and Li, V. C. (2005) Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge design: Comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conventional steel expansion joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), 51–60. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(51)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A. and Edwards, S. (2003) Life-Cycle Assessment in Building and Construction: A State-of-the-art Report, 2003 (Pensacola: SETAC).
   Google Scholar
• Lounis, Z. and Daigle, L. (2010) Towards Sustainable Design of Highway Bridges. National Research Council of Canada, July 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Morcous, G. and Hatami, A. (2013) Life-Cycle Assessment of Nebraska Bridges (Omaha: University of Nebraska-Lincoln).
   Google Scholar
• Niu, Y. and Salokangas, L. (2016a) Life Cycle Assessment on timber road bridges: A case study. In J. Eberhardsteiner, W. Winter, A. Fadai and M. Pöll (eds.) Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE 2016), pp. 3238–3425.
   Google Scholar
• Niu, Y. and Salokangas, L. (2016b) Life Cycle Assessment of timber bridges: A case study. In Challenges in Design and Construction of an Innovative and Sustainable Built Environment (Stockholm: IABSE), pp. 1682–1688.
   Google Scholar
• Niu, Y., Salokangas, L. and Fink, G. (2017) Life Cycle Assessment on Two Design Alternatives of the Driva Bridge (Skellefteå: RISE Research Institutes of Sweden).
   Google Scholar
• Penadés-Plà, V., Martí, J., García-Segura, T. and Yepes, V. (2017) Life-Cycle Assessment: A Comparison Between Two Optimal Post-Tensioned Concrete Box-Girder Road Bridges. Sustainability, 9(10), 1864. doi: 10.3390/su9101864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puettmann, M., Olein, E. and Johnson, L. (2013) Cradle to gate Life Cycle Assessment of glue-laminated timbers production from the Pacific Northwest. Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Rantala, T. (2010) Life Cycle Analysis of Three Finnish Standard Bridges (Helsinki: Liikennevirasto).
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, C., Ciroth, A., Srocka, M., et al. (2014) The importance of regionalized LCIA in agricultural LCA—new software implementation and case study. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assess Agri-Food Sector. San Francisco, pp. 1120–1128.
   Google Scholar
• Ruuska, A. (ed.) (2013) Carbon Footprint for Building Products (Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland).
   Google Scholar
• Salokangas, L. (ed.) (2013) ETSI Project – Bridge Life Cycle Optimisation Stage 3 (Helsinki: Aalto University).
   Google Scholar
• Sathre, R., Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., Lippke, B., Marland, G., Masanet, E., Solberg, B. and Werner, F. (2012) Comment on “material nature versus structural nurture: the embodied carbon of fundamental structural elements”. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(6), 3595–3596. doi: 10.1021/es300276b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, K. N. P. and Cole, G. (2005) Environmental sustainability for bridge management. In Bridge Management 5: Inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Bridge Management, organized by the University of Surrey, 11–13 April 2005, pp. 385–392.
   Google Scholar
• Tiehallinto, T. ( palvelut) (2008) Sillan kustannusarvio (Helsinki: Tiehallinto).
   Google Scholar
• Widman, J. (1998) Environmental impact assessment of steel bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 46, 291–293. doi: 10.1016/S0143-974X(98)80031-X
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y.-R., Wu, W.-J. and Wang, Y.-F. (2016) Bridge Life Cycle Assessment with data uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 569–576. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar