Sustainable Development and Concrete Bridges: October 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329218259
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CONCRETE BRIDGES
Conference Paper · October 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 3,761
1 author:
Naida Ademovic
University of Sarajevo
80 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Unreinforced vs strengthened masonry walls View project
Dynamics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Naida Ademovic on 27 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

XVIII ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО
СТРОИТЕЛСТВО И АРХИТЕКТУРА ВСУ’2018
XVII ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE BY
CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE VSU'2018
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CONCRETE BRIDGES
Naida Ademović1
University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Abstract: A significant number of bridges representing a vital vain of infrastructure

are made of concrete. However, it is well known that concrete as a construction
material is faced with various challenges regarding its sustainability performance.
World Commission on Environment and Developments gives a definition of
sustainability and says: “Sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs”. Primary objectives of sustainable development are elaborated.
One of economic growth, environmental protection and natural resources, and social
inclusion. Each of these elements is equally important and in order to achieve
sustainable development no hierarchy among them should exist. This indicates that
all of these objectives are cross linked and sustainable development is in the centre
of this interaction. Few examples are elaborated and compared considering the
sustainable principles.
Key words: Sustainable development, concrete, bridges, natural hazards,

earthquakes
1. Introduction
At the moment sustainable development is an issue of global interest in civil
engineering. It is applicable to the issues of durability and life-cycle cost ideas. In the past
45 years with the vast exploitation of natural resources, population growth, effect of human
activity on the environment have greatly increased (climate changes, pollution,
globalization and urban matters). Currently the is an increase in the application of
sustainable thinking in the design, construction and maintenance of bridges. World
Commission on Environment and Developments, defined sustainability: “Sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Primary objectives of the
sustainable development being economic growth, environmental protection and natural
resources, and social inclusion. All of these elements have the same weight factor, being of
the same importance and mutually cross link with the sustainable development in the
centre of this interaction (Fig. 1) [1]. Achieving sustainability as an objective will be done
by the sustainable development and the process that is directed by is sustainable thinking.
1
Naida Ademović, Ph D/ Associate professor, Patriotske lige 30, 71 000 Sarajevo, naidadem@yahoo.com
Fig. 1. Sustainable development (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-

sustainable-development)
One of the major elements in the production of reinforced concrete bridges, having
the largest environmental impact as the principal source of emissions from decomposition
of carbonates is cement. The largest increase has been seen from 1990 due to a large and
speedy development in China. At the moment China produces the most cement globally by
a large margin, at an estimated 2.4 billion metric tons in 2017, followed by India at 270
million metric tons in the same year. China currently produces over half of the world’s
cement (Fig. 2) [2] and 73% of global growth in cement production since 1990 occurred in
China [3].
Fig. 2. Production of cement by country, 1990–2014 [2, 4]
It is estimated that the total emission from the cement industry is as much as 8% of
the global CO2 emissions, a key 'greenhouse gas' responsible for climate change [5,6]. The
importance of the control of cement industry is seen in the need for reduction of CO2
emissions in the atmosphere, as one of six greenhouse gases, declared by the Kyoto
Protocol which entered into force on February 16, 2005 [7].
2. Aspects of the sustainability of concrete bridges

The application of concrete as a material is not seen only in concrete bridges, but as
well in steel and composite steel-concrete bridges, as usually the substructure is made of
concrete and composite concrete deck slab. Compared to other materials concrete is the
most-used construction material for bridges in the United States, and indeed in the world. It
was believed that concrete was an eternal material, which need no maintenance, however
damaged and deterioration of concrete proved otherwise leading to systematic research
into the causes and mechanisms of the damage processes. The standard design of the
bridges according to certain design codes, applicable in that country, now have to be
broadened, as to be in accordance with the requirements of the sustainable development.
This means design has to also take account of the environmental impact of the whole life-
cycle of the structure (material production, construction, maintenance, demolition and
recyclability).
In order to upgrade the sustainability of bridges most studies on life cycle analysis
are concentrated on evaluating impacts of exploiting different types of materials during the
construction and the maintenance phase. One of the elements that is rarely considered, but
which should be elaborated is the impact of natural disasters, especially today, as they have
shown to be a rather devastating force. Some information is given in FEMA [8, 9] and the
National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) [10] regarding interaction
between natural hazard risk mitigation and sustainable design or development of structures
in general.
2.1. Environmental impact
From the environmental aspect production of concrete components is seen as a big
burden in regards of non-renewable natural resources, energy consumption and CO2
emissions. One way to reduce this is application of supplementary cementitious material
such as fly ash, slag and silica fume which would be deposited as waste. Due to a rapid
industrialization of developing countries and the issue of waste disposal use of waste
materials has become very important.
Fly Ash is a by-product of coal-fired furnaces and its use on concrete has to conform
to specific standard specifications (for e.g. ASTM C 618). The amount can be in the range
from 5% to 65% in respect to the mass of the cementitious material. Its immediate
sustainability benefits are deployed, together with practical and cost benefits. It is
necessary to define the optimal percentage of fly ash in order to avoid possible problems
regarding extended set times and slow strength development, which as a result may lead to
low early-age strengths and delays in the rate of construction. In recent decades, research
has demonstrated that high dosage levels (40% to 60%) can be used in structural
applications, producing concrete with good mechanical properties and durability [11].
Secondly, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS), a non-metallic
manufactured by-product from blast furnace, which contains mainly an amorphous
structure has been widely used as an alternative material in the production of cements.
They should conform to certain standards (e.g. ASTM C 898). The energy consumed in
drying and grinding of slags is about 20% of the energy required for the production of
cement, on the basis of equal weight [12]. Alanyali et al. [13] in their research showed that
the modified steel-making slag (basic oxygen furnace) was used as clinker additive in the
cement industry. The slags were processed in magnetic separation with two different grain
size fractions in the cements with the 20–30 % mass addition to Portland Cement showed
that the compressive strength values of concretes produced from these steelmaking slags
were within the values Grade-325 and Grade-425 (equivalent to 32.5 MPa by ISO) steel
slag cement defined by the Chinese National Standard GB 13590-92. This as well reduces
the emission of CO2. Additionally, the risk of cracking in the concrete was also reduced
with the use of slag.
In comparisons with normal strength concrete Ultra-high Performance Concrete
(UHPC) has superior mechanical properties and durability. Benefits are manifested in the
reduction of concrete, resulting in reduced concrete formwork, labour and equipment for
erection, and construction time. However, the major drawback of its higher application is
high cost and environmental impact [14].
On the other hand, steel is much less sustainable material, as for its production more
energy is consumed. The good part lies in the fact that the quantity of steel for construction
of reinforced concrete bridges is much smaller in respect to concrete. Research is going on
regarding replacement of steel bars, with glass fiber reinforcement polymer (GFRP) as
feasible and cost-effective solution to the problem of steel corrosion [15, 16]. However, for
massive production and application further research is necessary. As the use of FRP bars
increases, the reputation of concrete as an already great sustainable material is sure to grow
even more.
In order to minimize environmental impacts during construction application of
prefabricated concrete components is seen as a good solution, as this will accelerated the
bridge construction. Additional benefits are seen when construction minimizes traffic
congestion. Using the big-beam technology cab also reduced the time needed for
construction and reduce the impact and minimum disturbance to the environmental setting.
A long service life of the structure is the key for the sustainable concrete bridges. Its
long service life can be obtained with minimum, but adequate maintenance schemes and
procedures. As it is well known the main problem is water permeability of hardened
concrete, leading to concrete saturation, water penetration, corrosion of rebars, volumetric
expansion of concrete bars, spalling of concrete, degradation and devastation of concrete
cover. The durability issue lies in the small construction details, that in many occasions
especially in the developing countries are omitted, leading to rapid reduction of durability
and service life. In order to improve durability special attention has to be given to the
quality of the finished concrete which can be obtained by pre-casting. Where ever possible
it is beneficial to construct integrated bridges, reducing and eliminating the joints which
are the weak point of leakage and a direct impact of the durability of the structure.
2.2. Social impact

The social aspect is partly satisfied when the bridge structure is safe, has a long
service life and high level of durability. Additionally, the social dimension depends on
several features for example visual impact, time delays, job opportunities, and more [17].
Social dimension is mainly seen in the appearance of the bridge, which for a long time,
was a draw back for concrete bridges as they were seen as massive, and lacked aesthetic
dimension. This has led to publication of aesthetic guidelines for bridge design, leading to
improvement and construction of impressive bridge construction. Longevity is another
aspect of sustainability. High quality constructions will lead to minimum maintenance
request with the utilization of minimum energy for eventual repair measures. New
innovative approaches are seen in the application of photocatalytic concrete, which uses a
titanium dioxide catalyst to break down smog and other pollution that has attached itself to
the surface, as is done in Sarajevo Bridge in Barcelona (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Sarajevo Bridge in Barcelona (http://bcq.es/portfolio/pont-de-sarajevo)
Strong impact on positive vibe of population is very important leading now to

structures where more attention is payed to design details, structure illumination and
aesthetics. Of course, one could argue the well famous phrase “Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder.” Although beauty is very subjective, it has value. A successful bridge design
must be natural, simple, original, and harmonious with its surroundings [18]. Aesthetics
should be a part of bridge design and not its decoration, so a good solution would be
incorporation of architects at the early stage of the bridge design. A new step forward is
seen in the increased consultation and involvement of the public in the bridge design
solutions [19]. An example is the Oak Street bridge in Iowa, where as a result from the
community input existing concrete bridge was replaced by a steel through-arch bridge type
Fig. 4) [20].
Fig. 4. Original concrete bridge and steel through-arch bridge type as final replacement
2.3. Economic impact

Economic impact has to be seen in the light of economic prosperity based on
sustainable principles. Economic as well as environmental benefits can be seen in the fast
construction process, which would then be in favour of cement-based concrete, and not the
above-mentioned alternatives. However, this is not a straight forward process leading to
such a conclusion. Several aspects have to be elaborated, looking at the pros and cons of
each and every application, leading to the balance of all the sustainable impact factors.
Depending on the quality of construction and materials on aspect that will have an
economic implication is for sure required maintenance and repair works.
Some specific issues that have particular significance to concrete bridges are
presented in Table 1 [21].
Table 1. Some themes and issues in sustainable development relevant to concrete bridges
In this respect the main sustainability assessment tools for bridges are:
⎯ Economic – cost/benefit analysis, modelling, regressions, scenarios;
⎯ Environmental – life-cycle analysis, material flows, resource accounting; and
⎯ Social – sustainable livelihoods, human and social capital measurement,
participatory processes
3. Assessing the sustainability of concrete bridges

3.1. Conventional concrete vs Malaysian blend of ultra-high performance
“ductile” concrete (UHPdC)
A study performed in Malaysia has compared the implication of the ultra-high
performance “ductile” concrete vs conventional concrete on sustainability performance of
single span bridge [22]. Both structures were designed for 120 years of design life, XS1
exposure, following the EC1-Part 2 regarding imposed load application. The cross sections
are shown in Fig. 5. As it can be seen the conventional concrete construction would require
seven super-tee girders of 2.125 m height where as only three UHPdC U-girders of height
1.750 m would be sufficient. It should be noted that here only the superstructure was
elaborated.
Table 2 shows the material quantities and environmental impact calculations. First of
all, solution proposed by the application of UHPdC requires 37% less material compared to
conventional concrete. Secondly, environmental impact is elaborated through the
embodied energy and CO2 emission. In both cases values with the application of UHPdC
are less in the amount of 20% and 24% respectably, in respect to the conventional concrete
structure (Fig. 6) [22]. As the UHPdC superstructure is lighter additional saving will be
employed on the substructure as well.
Fig. 5. Cross section of the alternative
Table 2 Material quantities and Environmental impact calculations
Fig. 6. Environmental impact calculations

3.2. Natural hazard impact of sustainability

Deterioration of bridges structures due to natural hazard influence can be seen in the
framework of environmental impact of the sustainability aspects. Padget [23] developed a
risk-based method in order to quantify indicators of sustainable performance for an
existing seismically deficient bridge, and to evaluate the impact of seismic retrofit on
lifetime sustainability in terms of expected carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and embodied
energy. Additionally, influence of strengthening of such a bridge and its implication of the
sustainability is presented. Damage of bridges due to any natural disaster will have an
impact on the sustainability. Impacts caused by natural disasters can be numerous from
casualties, destroyed buildings and bridges, cutting infrastructure lanes, increase of waste
material, water pollution, spreading of diseases, normal functioning of the cities etc.
FEMA [8] recognised the important connection between reducing risks from natural
hazards and enhancing sustainability. Schwab and Brower [24] reported utilizing
mitigation strategies for preventing losses due to natural hazards gives safer societies
reducing environmental vulnerability due to decreased necessity for post disaster recovery.
As well during the post disaster recovery, with the application of new concepts, new
materials sustainability can be improved. Padget [25] presented a case study application to
multiple span simply supported (MSSS) steel girder bridge and multiple span simply
supported concrete bridge evaluating seismic and nonseismic design alternatives in respect
of natural hazard and sustainability. In this case as well the superstructure is mainly
investigated. The main difference was in the application of steel or concrete girders, type
of bearing and spacing of the transverse reinforcemen which will be used depending on the
seismic scenario.
Fig. 7. MSSS bridge geometry and detailing differences for seismic and nonseismic cases
of steel and concrete girder bridges
The results are summaries in the following Table 3. As it is seen it is the material
which has the dominant influence on the sum of initial construction and not the level of
seismic design. Emission of CO2 due to steel bridge construction is 2.6 times larger
compared to a concrete bridge structure. The embodied energy is 5.7 times higher for steel
bridge and their cost is higher for approximately 40% in respect to concrete bridge
structure.
It is evident that steel bridges are more expensive and have a much higher embodied
energy and CO2 emission in respect to the bridge constructed of concrete. If seismic design
is employed for the steel bridge its costs are remarkably lower in respect to the concrete
structure. Overall it may be concluded, for this specific case that better performance is
manifested by seismically designed MSSS steel bridge in terms of hazard resilience and
hazard-induced sustainability. It was illustrated that as seismically designed MSSS steel
bridge has the lowest probability of complete damage. On the other hand, if non-seismic
design is elaborated it is seen that the cheapest solution would be one of concrete, however
in the case of eventual natural hazard this scenario would result in the highest casualties.
Table 3. Comparison of Case Study Bridge Design Alternatives on the Basis of Cost and
Social and Environmental Impacts Relative to Impacts from Seismic Hazard Exposure
Looking at table 4 it is seen that the steel MSSS bridge applying seismic design
procedure is the cheapest choice. However, its embodied energy and CO2 emission are
higher 5.2 times and 2.6 times respectively in comparisons with a concrete alternative.
Table 4. Comparison of Case Study Bridge Design Alternatives from the Sum of Initial
Construction and Impacts from Hazard Exposure for Select Metrics
4. Conclusion
Sustainability become not only a crucial aspect in the design of all types of structure,
including bridges but it is becoming a living philosophy in everyday life. Elaboration of
the main pillars of sustainable development was done to a certain detail with illustrative
examples. Further development is seen nowadays is the impact of natural disasters
especially as they have shown to be a rather devastating force. Though the given example
it is seen that it is not a straight forward scenario, but that each segment has to be
elaborated and that there is an existence of potential conflicts and synergies between
sustainable design principles and hazard protection. Adding the natural hazard scenario
may completely change the selected choice. Further investigation and research are needed
in this field for further elaboration of the relationship between sustainable design and
hazard resilience.
REFERENCES
[1] Ademović N. Life-Cycle Assessment of a Masonry Bridge, TU1406 COST - Quality
Specifications for Roadway Bridges, Standardization at a European Level, Workshop
in Barcelona, 27th – 28th September, 2018, 1-6.
[2] Statistica, The statistical portal, https://www.statista.com/statistics/267364/world-
cement-production-by-country/, accesses 05.08.2018.
[3] van Oss H. G. Cement, in: Minerals Yearbook (various years), edited by: USGS,
United States Geological Survey, available at:
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/ index.html (last access:
05 August 2018), 1994–2012.
[4] van Oss H. G. Cement, in: 2014 Minerals Yearbook, edited by:USGS, United States
Geological Survey, available at:
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/index.html (last access: 05
August 2018), 2017.
[5] Le Quéré C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P.,
Manning, A. C., Boden, T. A., Tans, P. P., Houghton, R. A., Keeling, R. F., Alin, S.,
Andrews, O. D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais,
P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S. C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I.,
Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E.,
Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi,
D., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E.
M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., O’Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D.,
Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R.,
Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van
der Laan- Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J.,
and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605–649,
doi:10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, 2016.
[6] Le Quéré C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Manning, A.
C., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Boden, T. A., Tans,
P. P., Andrews, O. D., Arora, V. K., Bakker, D. C. E., Barbero, L., Becker, M., Betts,
R. A., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Cosca, C. E., Cross, J., Currie,
K., Gasser, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Houghton, R. A., Hunt, C. W., Hurtt,
G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Kautz, M., Keeling, R. F., Klein Goldewijk, K.,
Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lima, I.,
Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J.
E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Nojiri, Y., Padìn, X. A., Peregon, A., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D.,
Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Reimer, J., Rödenbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R.,
Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan- Luijkx, I. T., van der
Werf, G. R., van Heuven, S., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A. P., Watson, A. J.,
Wiltshire, A. J., Zaehle, S., and Zhu, D.: Global Carbon Budget 2017, Earth Syst. Sci.
Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2017-123, in review, 2017.
[7] UNFCCC, A guide to the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol
(Preliminary Version), Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, 2002.
[8] FEMA “FEMA 364: Planning for a sustainable future: The link between hazard
mitigation and livability, Federal Emergency Management Agency.” Washington, DC,
2000.
[9] FEMA. FEMA 365: Rebuilding for a more sustainable future-An operational
framework. Washington, DC, 2000.
[10] National Association of Development Organizations (NADO).Resilient regions:
Integrating econimic development strategies, sustainability principles and hazard
mitigaton planning. Washington, DC., 2011.
[11] Marceau, M.L., J. Gajda, M.G. VanGeem. Use of Fly Ash in Concrete: Normal and
High Volume Ranges, PCA R&D Serial No. 2604, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois, 2002.
[12] V. S. Ramachandran, ‘The Use of Waste Materials in Concrete, Advances in Cement
Technology: Chemistry, Manufacture and Testing. Chapter 11. ed., S. N. Ghosh.
Technip Books International, New Delhi, India, 2002, 475–505.
[13] Alanyali H., M. Çöl, M. Yilmaz , Ş. Karagöz. Concrete Produced by Steel-Making
Slag (Basic Oxygen Furnace) Addition in Portland Cement, Int. J. Appl. Ceram.
Technol., 6 (6), 2009, 736–748, DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7402.2008.02317.x.
[14] Zhang J., Y. Zhao. Development of sustainable ultra-high performance concrete, 2017
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 61 012076, 2017.
[15] S.A. Sheikh, Z. Kharal. Replacement of steel with GFRP for sustainable reinforced
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 1-16, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.141
[16] Jabbar S.A.A., Saad B.H Farid. Replacement of steel rebars by GFRP rebars in the
concrete structures. Karbala International Journal of Modern Science 4 (2018)
216e227 http://www.journals.elsevier.com/karbala-international-journal-of-modern-
science/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kijoms.2018.02.002 2405-609X
[17] Zinke T., T. Ummenhofer, M. Pfaffinger, M. Mensinger. The social dimension of
bridge sustainability assessment—impacts on users and the public. In: Biondini, F.,
Frangopol, D.M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Bridge
Maintenance, Safety and Management. Taylor & Francis Group, Stresa, Lake
Maggiore, Italy, 2012.
[18] Tang M-C. Forms and Aesthetics of Bridges, Engineering, 2018, 1-15, doi:
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eng.2017.12.013.
[19] Bordoley S., A. Gillham, J. Abbot. Adding a social dimension to engineering to aid the
sustainable development process. International Sustainable Development Research
Conference, University of Manchester, 2002.
[20] Iowa office of Bridges and Structures, LRFD Bridge Design Manula 2, July 2018
[21] Martin A. J. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering
Sustainability 157, December 2004 Issue ES4, 219-230.
[22] Voo Y. L., S. J. Foster. Characteristics of ultra-high performance 'ductile' concrete
and its impact on sustainable construction', The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural
Engineering, 3: 3, 2010, 168 — 187
[23] Padgett J. E., C. Tapia. Sustainability of Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation: Life
Cycle Analysis of Environmental Indicators for Bridge Infrastructure, J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 19, 2013,395-408.
[24] Schwab A. K., D.J. Brower. Sustainable development and natural hazards
mitigation, North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Raleigh,
NC, 1999.
[25] Padgett J. E., Li Y. Risk-Based Assessment of Sustainability and Hazard
Resistance of Structural Design, J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2016, 30(2): 040142081-
10.
View publication stats

Sustainable Development and Concrete Bridges: October 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Development and Concrete Bridges: October 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CONCRETE BRIDGES

Conference Paper · October 2018

Unreinforced vs strengthened masonry walls View project

Dynamics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CONCRETE BRIDGES

University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering

Abstract: A significant number of bridges representing a vital vain of infrastructure

Key words: Sustainable development, concrete, bridges, natural hazards,

Fig. 1. Sustainable development (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-

Fig. 2. Production of cement by country, 1990–2014 [2, 4]

2. Aspects of the sustainability of concrete bridges

2.2. Social impact

Fig. 3. Sarajevo Bridge in Barcelona (http://bcq.es/portfolio/pont-de-sarajevo)

Strong impact on positive vibe of population is very important leading now to

2.3. Economic impact

3. Assessing the sustainability of concrete bridges

Fig. 5. Cross section of the alternative

Table 2 Material quantities and Environmental impact calculations

Fig. 6. Environmental impact calculations

3.2. Natural hazard impact of sustainability

View publication stats

You might also like