Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Materials design for sustainability through life cycle modeling of engineered cementitious composites

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evaluating and enhancing construction material sustainability requires a life cycle perspective of the structures in which they are used, since material properties and durability can have a profound effect on overall infrastructure performance. A framework is proposed to evaluate and enhance the design of “greener” materials that integrates material design, structural design, and life cycle modeling of the built system. This framework is applied to engineered cementitious composite materials, a family of high performance fiber-reinforced composites used as link slabs in a concrete bridge deck. Modeling results show incorporating waste materials, such as fly ash, should be pursued only if the material retains adequate durability for the structural application where it is used. Additionally, traffic congestion resulting from bridge deck construction and rehabilitation events dominates environmental and economic life cycle results, consuming the most energy, producing the largest amount of pollutants, and generating the greatest life cycle costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Humphreys K, Mahanesan M (2002) Toward a sustainable cement industry, substudy 8: climate change. Battelle Memorial Institute for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Organization for Standardization (1997) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  3. Franklin Associates Ltd. (1990) Resource and environmental profile analysis of polyethylene and unbleached paper grocery sacks. Franklin Associates Ltd, Prairie Village

    Google Scholar 

  4. Franklin Associates Ltd. (1989) Comparative energy and environmental impacts for softdrink delivery systems. The National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, Prairie Village

    Google Scholar 

  5. Demkin JA (ed) (1996) Environmental resource guide: building materials. Wiley for the American Institute of Architects, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lippiat B (2002) BEES. Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li VC, Fischer G (2002) Reinforced ECC—an evolution from materials to structures. In: The 1st fib Congress, 2002, Osaka

  8. Lepech MD, Li VC (2005) Sustainable infrastructure material design. In: The 4th international workshop on life-cycle cost analysis and design of civil infrastructures systems, 8–11 May 2005, Cocoa Beach

  9. Keoleian GA, Lepech AMKMD, Li VC (2005) Guiding the design and application of new materials for enhancing sustainability performance: framework and infrastructure application. In: materials research society symposium, 2005, vol 895. Materials Research Society, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  10. Horvath A, Hendrickson C (1998) Steel vs. steel-reinforced concrete bridges: environmental assessment. J Infrastruct Syst 4(3):111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zapata P, Gambatese JA (2005) Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete pavement materials and construction. J Infrastruct Syst 11(1):9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Keoleian GA et al (2005) Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge design: comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conventional steel expansion joints. J Infrastruct Syst 11(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hastak M, Halpin DW (2000) Assessment of life-cycle benefit–cost of composites in construction. J Compos Constr 4(3):103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ehlen MA (1999) Life-cycle costs of fiber-reinforced-polymer bridge decks. J Mater Civ Eng 11(3):224–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawk H (2002) BLCCA. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ehlen MA (2003) BridgeLCC: life-cycle costing software for the preliminary design of bridges. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stammer RE, Stodolsky F (1995) Assessment of the energy impacts of improving highway-infrastructure materials. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kim YY, Li GFVC (2004) Performance of bridge deck link slabs designed with ductile ECC. ACI Struct J 101(6):792–801

    Google Scholar 

  19. Li VC, Wu HC (1992) Conditions for pseudo strain-hardening in fiber reinforced brittle matrix composites. J Appl Mech Rev 45(8):390–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keoleian GA et al (2005) Life-cycle cost model for evaluating the sustainability of bridge decks. In: The 4th international workshop on life-cycle cost analysis and design of civil infrastructures systems, 8–11 May 2005, Cocoa Beach

  21. Liu Y, Weyers R (1998) Modeling the time-to-corrosion cracking in chloride contaminated reinforced concrete structures. ACI Mater J 95(6):675–681

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thoft-Christensen P (2000) Modeling of the deterioration of reinforced concrete structures. IFIP Concrete on Optimization and Reliability of Structural Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 25–27 September. pp 15–26

  23. Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as a function of bar corrosion: part I—experimental test. Mater Struct 26:453–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kentucky Transportation Center (2002) The cost of construction delays and traffic control for life-cycle cost analysis of pavements. Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  25. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) NONROAD. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  26. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) MOBILE 6.2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  27. Banzhaf HS, Desvousges WH, Johnson FR (1996) Assessing the externalities of electricity generation in the midwest. Resour Energy Econ 18:395–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Matthews HS, Lave LB (2000) Applications of environmental valuation for determining externality costs. Environ Sci Technol 24(8):1390–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tol RSJ (1999) The marginal costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy J 20(1):61–81

    Google Scholar 

  30. Office of Management and Budget (2005) Discount rates for cost-effectiveness, lease, purchase and related analyses. Appendix C to guidelines and discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weitzman ML (1998) Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manage 39:201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lepech MD, Li VC (In Preparation) Sustainable infrastructure engineering: integrating material and structural design with life cycle analysis

  33. Yanev B, Chen X (1993) Life-cycle performance of New York City Bridges. Transp Res Rec 1389:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  34. US Federal Highway Administration (1995) Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001. United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heywood JB et al (2004) The performance of future ICE and fuel cell powered vehicles and their potential impact. SAE Tech Pap Ser 01(1011):17

    Google Scholar 

  36. Davis SC, Diegel SW (2004) Transportation energy databook 24. United States Department of Energy, Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through a National Science Foundation Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society (MUSES) Biocomplexity Program Grant (Nos. CMS-0223971 and CMS-0329416).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, 3167 Engineering III, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Alissa Kendall

  2. Center for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Dana Building, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Gregory A. Keoleian & Michael D. Lepech

Authors
  1. Alissa Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory A. Keoleian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael D. Lepech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alissa Kendall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kendall, A., Keoleian, G.A. & Lepech, M.D. Materials design for sustainability through life cycle modeling of engineered cementitious composites. Mater Struct 41, 1117–1131 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9310-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9310-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation