Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Life-Cycle Sustainability and Innovations –

Yokota & Frangopol (eds)

© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-367-23278-8

Potential environmental impact of using ultra-high performance concrete in

simple, two and three-span continuous prestressed concrete bridges
J. Márquez
Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Chih., México

D.V. Jauregui, B.D. Weldon & C.M Newtson

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA

ABSTRACT: The sustainable development of a country’s infrastructure is mainly affected by climate

change and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). New materials have been implemented to improve the sustain-
ability of a country’s infrastructure. One of these new materials is ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) in
prestressed concrete bridges. Accordingly, this paper presents a study conducted to investigate the potential
environmental impact (i.e., sustainability) of using UHPC in prestressed concrete bridges. For this purpose,
three types of prestressed high performance concrete (HPC) bridges: single span, two and three span continu-
ous bridge girders were selected from the literature. Quantities of embodied energy and CO2 emissions of
these as-designed/as-built bridges with HPC were compared to those resulted from equivalent UHPC bridge
girder designs to evaluate the environmental impact of using UHPC in prestressed concrete bridges. Bulb-tee
BT-63 and BT-54 girders with 15 and 18 mm diameter low relaxation strands and a cast in place concrete
deck were considered. Findings of this study show that, HPC bridges have lower quantities of embodied
energy and produce lower CO2 emissions than those resulting from UHPC bridge solutions in the short term
(i.e., from the beginning to the end of the construction). However, in the long term (i.e., after a 75 year
period) UHPC bridge solutions provide greater environmental benefits than HPC bridges considering that
UHPC has the potential to provide at least twice the service life expected from HPC.

1 INTRODUCTION (CO2) emissions represent major challenges for the

sustainable development of a country’s infrastructure.
In 2015, the United Nations approved a sustainable Currently infrastructure deteriorates faster than it is
development agenda for countries to achieve repaired (American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE
a sustainable world in 2030. These objectives include, 2009). The ASCE described the North American
among others: combating climate change, defending Infrastructure as deficient, estimating an investment
the environment, fighting poverty and promoting of 2.2 billion dollars to take it to an acceptable level
health and quality education. According to the United (ASCE, 2009). Currently in North America there are
Nations, sustainable development has been defined as more than 150,000 bridges that are structurally defi-
“development that meets the needs of the present cient (Bhide, 2008) and more than 50% of the
without compromising the ability of future gener- bridges built each year are made of prestressed con-
ations to meet their own needs” (United Nations web crete (National Bridge Inventory, NBI 2010). New
site, 2015). To accomplish sustainable progress it is materials and solutions have been developed to
essential to develop and balance three basic elements: reduce the global environmental impact and improve
economic growth, social welfare and environmental the sustainability of a country’s infrastructure. Using
protection. Infrastructure is a strong means to contrib- ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) to build
ute to economic growth and improve social welfare. highway bridges is one of these promising solutions.
Likewise, the development of new technologies to UHPC is a new type of concrete that has a high com-
create infrastructure that require minimal maintenance pressive strength equal to or greater than 120 MPa,
help to ensure the protection and preservation of the and a high tensile strength due to the addition of
environment and can help fight climate change. Popu- steel fibers. In addition, UHPC has exceptional dur-
lation growth, climate change and carbon dioxide ability properties that allow a significant increase in

DOI: 10.1201/9780429279119-558
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429279119-558

4076
the structure life with a significant reduction in the 2.1.1 HPC bridge girders
amount of resulting materials, low maintenance and The cross-section of the I-25/Doña Ana Interchange
low life-cycle costs (Ahlborn et al., 2008). To evalu- Bridge (Figure 1) is composed of 6 HPC typical New
ate the environmental impact of using UHPC in Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) BT-
bridges, this paper presents an environmental com- 63 girders spaced at 2.21 m with a compressive
parison of high performance concrete (HPC) vs. strength of 65.5 MPa along with 190 mm cast in
UHPC in prestressed concrete bridges. The environ- place deck of concrete with a compressive strength
mental effect of prestressed concrete bridges with of 27.6 MPa. The deck is 13.11 m wide with a 2%
simple, two and three-span-continuous configurations grade. An abutment at each end of the bridge sup-
was investigated. BT-63 and BT-54 girders with 15 ports the superstructure. Each BT-63 girder was pre-
and 18 mm diameter low relaxation strands and stressed with 28-15 mm diameter strands.
a cast in place concrete deck were considered.
2.1.2 UHPC bridge girders
The superstructure of the pair of bridges at the I-25/
2 BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS Doña Ana Interchange was designed using a UHPC
with a compressive strength of 155 MPa, 15 and
To assess the environmental impact of using UHPC in 18 mm diameter strands.
highway prestressed concrete bridges, three types of It was determined that 4 BT-63 girders with 42-
common prestressed concrete bridge units were 15 mm diameter strands and 4 UHPC BT-54 girders
selected from New Mexico, US. These three bridges with 46-18 mm diameter strands resulted to be both
were: simple, two and three-span continuous. The pair viable designs. The effect of using a larger strand
of bridges at the I-25/Doña Ana Interchange represent diameter result in a concrete volume reduction for
the simple span unit. The Sunland Park River Cross- girders but an increase in the number of strands.
ing Bridge has two and three-span continuous units. With the reduction of the number of girders (from 6
High performance concrete was used to design and to 4) concrete deck thickness increased from 191 to
build these bridges. These as-designed/as-built bridges 240 mm using the same concrete compressive
with HPC were compared to equivalent UHPC bridge strength of 27.6 MPa. A summary of design param-
girder designs to evaluate primary energy, global eters for simple span bridge is shown in Table 1.
warming potential (GWP) and emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) caused by the construction materials of
2.2 Two and three-span continuous bridges
each bridge. Bulb-tee girders BT-63 and BT-54 with
15 and 18 mm diameter low relaxation strands and The bridge unit with two and three-span continuous
a cast in place concrete deck were considered. configurations is represented by the Sunland Park
Designs of the UHPC bridges with simple, two and River Crossing Bridge. For two and three-span con-
three span continuous configurations were determined tinuous configurations, three types of bridge girders
by Weldon et al. (2010) and Taylor et al. (2013). were considered for the environmental analysis:
1. HPC BT-54 girders with 15 mm strands
2.1 Simple span bridge 2. UHPC BT-54 girders with 15 mm strands
3. UHPC BT-63 girders with 18 mm strands
The pair of bridges at the I-25/Doña Ana Interchange
represent the bridge unit with simple span configur-
ation. This bridge has a length of 34.29 m. To evalu- 2.2.1 HPC bridge girders
ate the environmental impact of using UHPC in The Sunland Park River Crossing Bridge has 7 spans
bridges with simple spans, three types of bridge gir-
ders were considered:
1. HPC BT-63 girders with 15 mm strands Table 1. Design parameters for simple span bridge.
2. UHPC BT-63 girders with 15 mm strands
3. UHPC BT-54 girders with 18 mm strands HPC BT- UHPC BT- UHPC
63 Girders, 63 Girders, BT-54
65.5 MPa, 155 MPa, Girders,
15 mm 15 mm 155 MPa,
Strands Strands 18 mm Strands

Number of 6 4 4
Girders per span
Number of 28 42 46
strands per
Girder
Concrete Deck 190 240 240
Thickness, mm,
Figure 1. Cross section of I-25/Doña Ana Interchange 27.6 MPa
Bridge.

4077
 Table 2. Design parameters for two-span continuous
bridge.

HPC BT-63 UHPC BT- UHPC BT-

Figure 2. Representation of Sunland Park River Crossing Girders, 63 Girders, 54 Girders,
Bridge Span-Units. 65.5 MPa, 155 MPa, 155
15 mm 15 mm MPa,18 mm
Strands Strands Strands

and is composed of two and three-span continu- Number of 10 8 6

Girders per span
ous units as shown in Figure 2. Each span has
Number of 40 42 38
a length of 37.16 m. The deck is 21.3 m wide with
strands per
a travel way dimension of 17.8 m wide. There are Girder
two travel lanes in each direction. The concrete deck Concrete Deck 203 216 267
has a thickness of 203 mm and a concrete compres- Thickness, mm,
sive resistance of 27.6 MPa. 27.6 MPa
Each span has 10 HPC-54 girders spaced at
2.1 m with a concrete compressive strength of 65.5
MPa. Each girder in the two-span units was pre-
stressed with 40-15 mm diameter strands. Girders in Table 3. Design parameters for three-span continuous
the interior and exterior spans in the three-span unit bridge.
were prestressed with 32 and 36-15 mm diameter
strands respectively. HPC BT-63 UHPC BT- UHPC BT-
Girders, 63 Girders, 54 Girders,
65.5 MPa, 155 MPa, 155
2.2.2 UHPC bridge girders 15 mm 15 mm MPa,18 mm
To design the two-span continuous units (Figure 2), Strands Strands Strands
a concrete compressive strength of 155 MPa with 15
and 18 mm diameter strands were considered. It was Number of Gir- 10 8 6
determined that 8 UHPC BT-54 girders with 42- ders per span
15 mm diameter strands and 6 UHPC BT-63 girders Number of 36 40 32
with 38-18 mm diameter strands were both viable strands per
designs for the two span units in the Sunland Park Girder for
River Crossing Bridge superstructure. Concrete deck Exterior Spans
thicknesses of 216 and 267 mm resulted to be satis- Number of 32 34 32
strands per
factory for the 8 UHPC BT-54 and the 6 UHPC BT-
Girder for Inter-
63 girder solutions. In both cases a concrete ior Spans
compressive strength of 27.6 MPa was considered Concrete Deck 203 216 267
for the cast in place deck of concrete. Thickness, mm,
The design parameters used for the two span- 27.6 MPa
continuous units were employed to design the three
span-unit (Figure 2) superstructure. For the exterior
spans of the three span-continuous unit, 8 UHPC BT-
54 girders with 40-15 mm diameter strands and 6 elements and/or concepts that make up the construc-
UHPC BT-63 girders with 32-18 mm diameter strands tion of the three types of bridges are considered
satisfied the design requirements. For the interior span similar to each other and consequently do not affect
of the three span-continuous unit, 8 UHPC BT-54 gir- their comparative study.
ders with 34-15 mm diameter strands and 6 UHPC The environmental impact assessment of single
BT-63 girders with 32-18 mm diameter strands were span, two and three-span continuous bridges was car-
satisfactory design solutions. Deck thickness was ried out by calculating first the volume of materials
determined to be 216 and 267 mm for the 8 UHPC used in the superstructure of each bridge unit. Then,
BT-54 and 6 UHPC BT-63 girders, respectively, for primary energy, CO2 emissions and GWP were deter-
the interior and exterior spans. A summary of bridge mined based on quantities of construction materials
unit with two and three span continuous configur- and factors reported by The Athenea Sustainable
ations is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Materials Institute (ASMI, 1999) (Table 4)
Material environmental data shown in Table 4
was based on the following assumptions:
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • A Ductal® BS1000 formula was used to compute
the UHPC (the UHPC cement content is approxi-
Only superstructure elements were considered for mately twice that of the 30 MPa concrete) which
the environmental analysis since the rest of the includes 156 kg/m3 of steel fibers.

4078
Table 4. Material Environmental Data from ASMI


GWP ðkgÞ ¼ C02 kg þ 150 NOx kg
(1999). 
 ð1Þ
4a. Material Density, Primary Energy, and CO2 Emissions. þ 63 CH4 kg
Density Primary Energy CO2 Total
Material (kg/m3) (GJ/m3) (kg/m3) where: CO2 = carbon dioxide emissions (kg); NOx
= nitrogen oxides composed of nitric oxide (NO)
Concrete and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (kg); and CH4 =
27.6 MPa 2319.04 * 2.007 * 368.99 * methane gas.
Concrete
30 MPa 2324 2.039 370.8
Concrete 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
60 MPa 2386 2.44 393.4
HPC Environmental results are shown in Tables 5 to 7.
65.5 MPa 2392.6 * 2.49 * 395.81 * These tables were developed using the span
UHPC configurations presented in Section 2, material
155 MPa 2500 6.62 1138 quantities from Tables 1 to 3, material environ-
Prestressed mental data from Table 4 and Equation 1. The first
Steel 7800 84.94 17123 column of each table shows the materials used to
Mild Steel 7800 84.94 17123 build the superstructure of each of the bridge units
presented in Section 2. Total material quantities in
* Extrapolated values tons are provided in column 2. Primary energy,
CO2 emissions, and GWP amounts are presented
in Giga-Joules, kg, and kg equivalent of CO2 in
4b. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Methane Gas (CH4), and columns 3 to 5 respectively. The total amount of
GWP material quantities, primary energy, CO2 emis-
sions, and the global warming potential given at
NOx Total CH4 Total GWP Equivalent the end of each column in each table were used to
Material (kg/m3) (kg/m3) CO2 (Kg/m3)
develop charts to compare the environmental
Concrete
27.6 MPa 2.05 * 0.15 * 686.50 *
Concrete Table 5. Environmental Results for Simple Span Bridge.
30 MPa 2.07 0.15 690.8 5a. HPC BT-63 girders with 15 mm diameter strands
Concrete
60 MPa 2.27 0.17 744.6 Primary CO2 GWP
HPC Quantities Energy Emissions (kg Equiv.
Material (ton) (GJ) (kg) CO2)
65.5 MPa 2.29 * 0.17 * 750.33 *
UHPC
Girders 228.47 237.28 37795.50 71650.30
155 MPa 5.68 0.97 2051
Strands 6.41 69.76 14062.18 22470.04
Prestressed
Mild
Steel 55.38 30.65 27361 10.04 109.33 22038.88 35216.07
Steel
Mild Steel 55.38 30.65 27361
Deck
203 175.67 32301.56 60091.06
* Extrapolated values Concrete
Total 447.92 592.04 106198.11 189427.47

• Prestressed and mild steel reinforcement were

considered to be 100 % recycled materials and 5b. UHPC BT-63 girders with 15 mm diameter strands.
produced in the center of US.
• Primary energy is defined as all that energy neces- Primary CO2 GWP
sary for the transportation and production of all Quantities Energy Emissions (kg Equiv.
materials necessary for the construction of Material (ton) (GJ) (kg) CO2)
a building, including the extraction of raw materials,
manufacturing, and assembly, as well as all energy Girders 159.15 421.43 72445.08 130573.66
related to the equipment and machinery necessary Strands 6.41 69.76 14062.18 22470.04
for such processes, including electric power, gas- Mild
0.204 2.22 447.83 715.59
oline, and/or combustible oils. Steel
• Based on the ASMI report, the global warming Deck
257.18 222.55 40921.21 76126.33
Concrete
potential (GWP) was calculated using the follow-
Total 422.94 715.96 127876.30 229885.63
ing equation:

4079
5c. UHPC BT-54 girders with 18 mm diameter strands Table 7. Environmental Results for Three-Span Continuous
Bridge.
Primary CO2 GWP 7a. HPC BT-54 Girders with 15 mm strands
Quantities Energy Emissions (kg Equiv.
Material (ton) (GJ) (kg) CO2) Primary CO2 GWP (Kg
Quantities Energy Emissions Equiv.
Girders 147.08 389.46 66948.54 120660.33 Material (ton) (GJ) (Kg) CO2)
Strands 9.47 103.09 20782.14 33207.98
Mild Girders 1234.87 1282.51 204283.29 387267.28
0.34 3.75 755.17 1206.69 Strands 42.86 42.86 94096.13 150356.80
Steel
Deck Mild
257.18 222.55 40921.21 76132.41 32.11 32.11 70496.77 112647.24
Concrete Steel
Total 414.07 718.84 129407.06 231207.40 Deck
1130.07 1130.07 179809.80 334502.8
Concrete
Total 2439.91 2439.91 548686.00 984774.12

Table 6. Environmental Results for Two-Span Continuous

Bridge.
6a. HPC BT-54 Girders with 15 mm strands
7b. UHPC BT-54 Girders with15 mm strands
Primary CO2
Quantities Energy Emissions GWP (kg Primary CO2 GWP
Material (ton) (GJ) (kg) Equiv. CO2) Quantities Energy Emissions (Kg Equiv.
Material (ton) (GJ) (Kg) CO2)
Girders 824.71 856.52 136430.3 258635.9
Strands 32.97 359.05 72381.64 115659.09 Girders 1032.25 2733.40 469880.20 846903.32
Mild Strands 37.59 409.32 82515.08 131851.37
21.41 233.14 46997.85 75098.16
Steel Mild
Deck
2.16 23.52 4741.75 7576.88
20341.23 17602.09 3236576.43 6021050.34
Steel
Concrete Deck
Total 21220.31 19050.81 3492386.23 6470443.48
1200.80 1039.10 191064.06 355439.25
Concrete
Total 2272.80 4205.34 748201.09 1341770.82

6b. UHPC BT-54 Girders with 15 mm strands

CO2 GWP 7c. UHPC BT-63 Girders with 18 mm strands

Quantities Primary Emissions (kg Equiv.
Material (ton) Energy (GJ) (kg) CO2) Primary CO2 GWP
Quantities Energy Emissions (Kg Equiv.
Girders 689.38 1825.47 313804.5 565593.58 Material (ton) (GJ) (Kg) CO2)
Strands 27.7 301.61 60800.57 97153.61
Mild Girders 774.18 2050.02 352404.46 635167.23
1.44 15.68 3161.17 5051.25
Steel Strands 32.03 348.84 70321.86 112367.74
Deck Mild
21613.45 18703.00 3439005.44 6397631.98 1.71 18.59 3747.17 5987.63
Concrete Steel
Total 22331.96 20845.76 3816770.67 7065430.43 Deck
1483.26 1283.52 236007.28 439047.79
Concrete
Total 2291.17 3700.96 662480.77 1192570.39
6c. UHPC BT-63 Girders with 18 mm strands

Primary CO2
Quantities Energy Emissions GWP (Kg effect of using UHPC vs HPC bridge girders in
Material (ton) (GJ) (Kg) Equiv. CO2) prestressed concrete bridges. These charts are pre-
sented in Section 4. Table 5 shows environmental
Girders 517.02 1369.08 235349.78 424190.06 results for simple span bridge.
Strands 25.36 276.16 55671.46 88957.78 Environmental results based on two and three-
Mild span continuous configurations are presented in
1.08 11.76 2370.88 3788.44
Steel Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Deck Comparisons of HPC vs UHPC bridges with
26697.72 23102.62 4247983.50 7902585.67
Concrete
simple, two and three-span continuous configur-
Total 27241.18 24759.63 4541375.62 8419521.95
ations are described in Sections 5 and 6.

4080
Figure 3. Short Term Environmental Comparison of HPC Figure 5. Short Term Environmental Comparison of HPC
vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Simple Span Configurations vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Three-Span Continuous
using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands. Configurations using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands.

In Figure 4, HPC bridge girders result with

lower percentages of materials construction, pri-
mary energy, CO2 emissions and global warming
potential than the UHPC bridge girders solution.
The HPC bridge with 15 mm strands uses 77.9 %
of the materials, consumes 77% of the primary
energy, produces 76.9% as much CO2 and has
76.9% of the GWP compared to the UHPC bridge
with 18 mm strands.
Figure 5shows short term environmental results
for UHPC and HPC bridges with three-span con-
tinuous configuration. In the chart, the HPC bridge
governs the lowest percentages of primary energy
and CO2 emissions compared to those from the
UHPC bridge solution. The UHPC bridge solution
with 15 mm strands uses 93.2% of the materials
Figure 4. Short Term Environmental Comparison of HPC compared to the HPC bridge with 15 mm strands.
vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Two-Span Continuous Con- From Figures 4 and 5, it can be noted that as the
figurations using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands. number of spans increases, the percentages of pri-
mary energy and CO2 emissions decrease using the
5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF HPC HPC bridge solution.
WITH UHPC BRIDGES IN SHORT TERM

In the short term (i.e., from the beginning to the 6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF HPC
end of the construction), comparisons of the rela- WITH UHPC BRIDGES IN LONG TERM
tive quantities of embodied energy and CO2 emis-
sions for the HPC vs UHPC bridges are presented Based on Ahlborn et al. (2008), the life span of
in Figures 3 to 5. the UHPC girders could be assumed twice as
In Figure 3, the UHPC bridge solution with 18 long as that of the HPC girders. Assuming the
and 15 mm diameter strands uses 92.4% and 94.4% life span of HPC girders were designed for 75
respectively of the materials compared to the HPC years, the current HPC bridges with simple, two
bridge with 15 mm diameter strands. The HPC and three-span continuous configurations would
bridge consumes 82.4% of the primary energy, pro- need to be replaced in 75 years, while UHPC
duces 82.1% as much CO2 and has 81.9% of the bridge girders would not. Based on this assump-
global warming potential compared to the UHPC tion, quantities of embodied energy and emissions
bridge with 18 diameter strands. in long term (i.e., after a 75 year period) for HPC
Figure 4shows short term environmental data and UHPC bridge girders with simple, two and
results for UHPC and HPC bridges with two-span three-span continuous configurations were deter-
continuous configurations. mined. Figures 6 to 8 show long term (i.e., after

4081
 consumes 54.7% of the primary energy, produces
54.6 % as much as CO2 and has 54.6% of the
GWP compared to the HPC bridge with 15 mm
strands.
In Figure 8, the UHPC bridge solution result
with the lowest percentages of materials construc-
tion, primary energy, CO2 emissions and global
warming potential compared to the HPC bridge.
The UHPC bridge with 18 mm strands uses 46.6
% of the materials, consumes 60.1% of the pri-
mary energy, produces 60.4% as much CO2 and
has 60.6% of the GWP compared to the HPC
bridge with 15 mm strands.

7 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
Figure 6. Long Term Environmental Comparison of HPC BENEFITS OF UHPC BRIDGES
vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Simple Span Configurations
using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands. The benefits of the use of UHPC in prestressed con-
crete bridges are not only due to its longer life
expectancy but also to the environmental effects of
reduced construction schedule. Rapid construction
a 75 year period) environmental results for HPC has become an important issue in recent years due
and UHPC prestressed concrete bridges with to traffic congestion and CO2 emissions from
simple, two and three-span continuous configur- vehicles.
ations respectively using 15 and 18 mm diameter To study the environmental effects of reduced
strands. construction schedule, other cross section shapes
In Figure 6, UHPC bridge solutions have signifi- (rather than common UHPC girders) need to be
cantly lower percentages of the embodied energy investigated. According to a material characteriza-
and produced emissions compared to those from the tion study and structural testing develop by FHWA
HPC bridges. The UHPC bridge solution with (Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-115, 2006) it was deter-
15 mm strands uses 47.2% of the materials, con- mined that the use of common UHPC girder shapes
sumes 60.5% of the Primary Energy, produces in highway bridges is not efficient. This led
60.2% as much CO2 and has 60.7% of the GWP researchers to optimize a highway bridge girder sec-
compared to the HPC bridge. tion for UHPC resulting in the π section (Keierleber
Figure 7 shows that the UHPC bridge solution et al., 2007). This section is easy to erect due to its
with 15 mm strands spend lower percentages of manageable size and low weight. There is no need
embodied energy and emissions than that one with for temporary bracing when girders sections are
18 mm strands. In addition, the UHPC bridge solu-
tion with 15 mm uses 52.6% of the materials,

Figure 7. Long Term Environmental Comparison of HPC Figure 8. Long Term Environmental Comparison of HPC
vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Two-Span Continuous Con- vs UHPC Bridge Girders with Three-Span Continuous
figurations using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands. Configurations using 15 and 18 mm diameter strands.

4082
placed across the bridge width (Graybeal and Hart- term, it is recommended to include the effects of
mann, 2004). The most important advantage of the π lower maintenance, low life cycle-costs and
section girders for rapid construction is that its effi- reduced construction schedule with UHPC cross
cient cross section shape allows to support traffic sections other than conventionally shaped highway
without setting-up a concrete deck. This results in bridge girders.
a considerable reduction of quantities of the
embodied energy and CO2 emissions due to the con-
struction materials savings. In addition, CO2 emis- REFERENCES
sions from vehicles are also significantly reduced
since there is a significant time saving in the con- Alborn, T.M., Peuse, E.J., Misson, D.L., 2008, “Ultra-High
struction schedule. -Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material
Therefore, to improve the evaluation of the over- Performance-Phase I”, Research Report RC-1525.
all benefits and environmental impact of using Michigan Department of Transportation.
UHPC, it is also necessary to include the effects of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2009. “2009
reduced construction schedule with UHPC cross sec- Report Card for American Infrastructure”, ASCE,
Reston, VA, USA.
tion shapes other than conventionally shaped high-
ASTM C1856/C1856M-17, 2017 “Standard Practice for
way bridge girders (i.e π section girders) to optimize Fabricating and Testing Specimens of Ultra-High Per-
the UHPC properties. In addition, the environmental formance Concrete”.
effects due to lower maintenance and low life cycle Athena Sustainable Materials Institute Report (ASMI),
costs of the use of UHPC should also be evaluated. May 1999, “Life Cycle Embodied Energy & Global
Emissions for Concrete & Asphalt Roadways”, Canada.
Bhide, S., 2008, “Material Usage and Condition of Exist-
8 CONCLUSIONS ing Bridges in the US”, PCA, Skokie, IL, USA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), August 2006,
From the environmental study of using UHPC bulb- “Material Property Characterization of Ultra–High
tee girders in prestressed concrete bridges with Performance Concrete”, Publication FHWA-HRT-06-
simple, two and three-span continuous configurations 103, McLean, VA, pp. 145–161.
presented herein, has led to the following findings: Graybeal, B. A. and J.L. Hartmann, 2004, “Rapid Construc-
tion of an Ultra High Performance Concrete Bridge”.
• In the short term (i.e., from the beginning to the end Keierleber, B., Phares, B., Bierwagen, D., Couture,I.,
of the construction), the use of HPC bridge bulb-tee Fanous, F., August 2007, “Design of Buchanan County,
girders with 15 mm diameter strands results with Iowa, Bridge Using Ultra High Performance Concrete
lower quantities consumption of primary energy, and PI Girders”, Proceedings of the 2007 Mid-
production of CO2 emissions and GWP than those Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames,
Iowa, © 2007 by Iowa State University.
resulting from the UHPC bridge solutions (using 15
Lafarge North America Inc., 2019,
and 18 mm diameter strands) for simple, two and http://www.imagineductal.com.
three-span continuous configurations. National Bridge Inventory, 2010, “Count of Bridges by
• In the long term (i.e., after a 75 year period), Structure Type”,
the use of the UHPC bridge solutions (15 and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/stryp09-cfm.
18 mm diameter strands) with any of the 3 Park, Hesson, Ulm, Franz & Chuang, Eugene, March 2003,
bridge configurations studied, results in signifi- “Model Based Optimization of UHPC Highway Bridge
cantly lower quantities of embody energy and Girders”, FHWA/MIT Report # CEE Report R03-01,
CO2 emissions than those resulting from the Cambridge, MA, USA.
Structural Behavior of Ultra high Performance Concrete
use of HPC bridge girders.
Prestressed I-Girders, Federal Highway Administration
• The UHPC bridge girder solution for only simple Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-115, McLean, VA, 2006a.
and three-span continuous configurations use less Taylor C.W., Weldon, B.D., Jauregui D.V., Newston C. M.,
construction materials than those used by the 2013, “Feasibility Analysis of Ultra High Performance
HPC bridge girders in the short term and signifi- Concrete for Prestressed Concrete Bridge Applications”,
cantly less (about 53 %) in the long term Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2011,
• The combination of UHPC with three-span con- Paper #11-3432, 20p.
tinuous configurations and a larger strand diam- United Nations website, “Sustainable development Goals”,
eter (18 mm) has lower quantities of embodied 2015, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/devel
opment-agenda/.
energy and produces lower CO2 emissions than
Weldon, B.D., Jáuregui, D.V., Newtson, C.M., Taylor, C.W.,
those resulting from UHPC with 15 mm diameter Montoya, K.F., Allena, S., 2010, “Feasibility Analysis of
strands for the short and long term Ultra High Performance Concrete for Prestressed Con-
• To optimize the environmental benefits and crete Bridge Applications”, NM09MSC-01, New Mexico
advantages of using UHPC for short and long Department of Transportation.

4083