Abstract
This study aimed to determine the difference between two alternatives for pre-stressed normal-strength concrete beams according to life-cycle assessments (LCAs): strengthening the PNSC (pre-stressed normal-strength concrete) beam on one side with a 70 mm width, steel-fibered, high-strength concrete layer (Case 1) and strengthening the PNSC beams by jacketing on three sides with 30 mm width, ultra-high-performance, fiber-reinforced concrete layers (Case 2). We conducted LCAs of these cases using the ReCiPe2016 midpoint and endpoint-single-score methods. The differences among the beams’ endpoint-single-score results were evaluated using a two-stage nested analysis of variance. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint results showed that compared to Case 2, Case 1 reduced the global warming potential, terrestrial ecotoxicity, water consumption, and fossil-resource-scarcity impacts by 73–80%. The ReCiPe2016 endpoint-single-score results showed that the environmental damage from Case 1 was significantly lower (p = 0.0003) than that from Case 2. These findings could be promising and useful for studying sustainability in construction.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 7958 |
Pages (from-to) | 1-15 |
Number of pages | 15 |
Journal | Sustainability (Switzerland) |
Volume | 12 |
Issue number | 19 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1 Oct 2020 |
Keywords
- Composite beam
- Life-cycle assessment
- Pre-stressed normal-strength concrete
- Steel-fibered high-strength concrete
- Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Energy Engineering and Power Technology
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment