Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes
PURPOSE: A large number of highway bridges have been constructed in China since 1980s. Most of the aging bridges are in need of strengthening, which will lead to consuming big amounts of material and energy resources, producing air emissions and solid waste. This paper made a life cycle assessment f...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The international journal of life cycle assessment 2015-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1300-1311 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1311 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1300 |
container_title | The international journal of life cycle assessment |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Pang, Bo Yang, Pengchao Wang, Yuanfeng Kendall, Alissa Xie, Huibing Zhang, Yurong |
description | PURPOSE: A large number of highway bridges have been constructed in China since 1980s. Most of the aging bridges are in need of strengthening, which will lead to consuming big amounts of material and energy resources, producing air emissions and solid waste. This paper made a life cycle assessment for a highway bridge with four different strengthening plans by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. METHODS: Based on analyzing the life cycle assessment (LCA) investigations of bridges, the adopted LCA method for the highway bridge tracks materials and energy resources through the various stages of the bridge life cycle including production, transportation, construction, strengthening, and demolition, considering the impact of vehicle detours during strengthening construction, to calculate environmental impact for ecosystem quality, human health, energy, and resources. This is done for four strengthening schemes, which are traditionally compared based only on the basis of economic cost. In order to account for the variability of critical input variables, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the variability of environmental scores associated with the transportation distance, the average fuel consumption for each vehicle, detouring distance, the structure closure period, and maintenance times. Ten thousand iterations were conducted based on previous studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analysis shows that the maintenance phase alone contributes about 66 % of the total environmental impact (including detouring stage 50 %, repaving bridge deck 12 %, strengthening 4 %), followed by material production stage (approximately 40 %). Of the four strengthening plans, plan 1 and plan 3 have relatively greater contributions in terms of environmental damage while the cost budgets are much lower. On the contrary, plan 2 and plan 4 have lower environmental burdens but cost much more. Sensitivity analysis shows that the damage to resources and ecosystem quality are more sensitive to the variation of parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A life cycle assessment for a highway bridge in China with four different strengthening plans is conducted by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. It determines that the maintenance phase contributes the most to the environment deterioration. This study also shows that the energy consumptions and pollutant emissions related to traffic disruption during m |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1744704465</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1717491860</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-85f70f0287f1d6b6684de017827bcd0de4640d71aa77ea36a8d8145e56e776933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EEkvpD-gJS1y4pMzEjp0cUcWXtBKH0hMHy5uMs67ysXiyVP33OAoHxKHiMiPNPO87Gr1CXCFcI4B9z4jK2AKwKqBRpsBnYocGdWErKJ-LHTS6LpTSzUvxivkeoERoqp34sY-BZPvYDiRp-hXTPI00LX6QcTz5dpGemZjXmZyD9PKQYteTfIjLUXYxBErripfc-uVIU5x6ye2RRuLX4kXwA9Pln34h7j59_H7zpdh_-_z15sO-aLW2S1FXwUKAsrYBO3MwptYdAdq6tIe2g4600dBZ9N5a8sr4uqtRV1QZstY0Sl2Id5vvKc0_z8SLGyO3NAx-ovnMDm2-A1qb6j_QDDdYG8jo23_Q-_mcpvxIpkDVja7Uaogb1aaZOVFwpxRHnx4dgluTcVsyLifj1mQcZk25aTizU0_pL-cnRG82UfCz832K7O5uS0ADkItVSv0G2XmZIA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1703894535</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Pang, Bo ; Yang, Pengchao ; Wang, Yuanfeng ; Kendall, Alissa ; Xie, Huibing ; Zhang, Yurong</creator><creatorcontrib>Pang, Bo ; Yang, Pengchao ; Wang, Yuanfeng ; Kendall, Alissa ; Xie, Huibing ; Zhang, Yurong</creatorcontrib><description>PURPOSE: A large number of highway bridges have been constructed in China since 1980s. Most of the aging bridges are in need of strengthening, which will lead to consuming big amounts of material and energy resources, producing air emissions and solid waste. This paper made a life cycle assessment for a highway bridge with four different strengthening plans by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. METHODS: Based on analyzing the life cycle assessment (LCA) investigations of bridges, the adopted LCA method for the highway bridge tracks materials and energy resources through the various stages of the bridge life cycle including production, transportation, construction, strengthening, and demolition, considering the impact of vehicle detours during strengthening construction, to calculate environmental impact for ecosystem quality, human health, energy, and resources. This is done for four strengthening schemes, which are traditionally compared based only on the basis of economic cost. In order to account for the variability of critical input variables, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the variability of environmental scores associated with the transportation distance, the average fuel consumption for each vehicle, detouring distance, the structure closure period, and maintenance times. Ten thousand iterations were conducted based on previous studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analysis shows that the maintenance phase alone contributes about 66 % of the total environmental impact (including detouring stage 50 %, repaving bridge deck 12 %, strengthening 4 %), followed by material production stage (approximately 40 %). Of the four strengthening plans, plan 1 and plan 3 have relatively greater contributions in terms of environmental damage while the cost budgets are much lower. On the contrary, plan 2 and plan 4 have lower environmental burdens but cost much more. Sensitivity analysis shows that the damage to resources and ecosystem quality are more sensitive to the variation of parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A life cycle assessment for a highway bridge in China with four different strengthening plans is conducted by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. It determines that the maintenance phase contributes the most to the environment deterioration. This study also shows that the energy consumptions and pollutant emissions related to traffic disruption during maintenance operations should not be excluded. Regarding the strengthening plans, it can be concluded that the environmental impact of bonding carbon fiber-reinforced polymer is fewer than that of bonding steel plates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0948-3349</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>air ; Bridges ; bridges (infrastructure) ; Bridges (structures) ; carbon ; Construction costs ; Earth and Environmental Science ; economic costs ; ecosystems ; Emissions ; Energy ; Energy consumption ; Energy resources ; Energy sources ; energy use and consumption ; Environment ; environmental assessment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental degradation ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology ; Environmental impact ; Environmental impact assessment ; Highway bridges ; human health ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycles ; Maintenance ; Monte Carlo method ; Monte Carlo simulation ; pollutants ; Polymers ; Product life cycle ; Repair & maintenance ; Roads & highways ; Roadways and Infrastructure ; Sensitivity analysis ; Solid wastes ; steel ; Strengthening</subject><ispartof>The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2015-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1300-1311</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-85f70f0287f1d6b6684de017827bcd0de4640d71aa77ea36a8d8145e56e776933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-85f70f0287f1d6b6684de017827bcd0de4640d71aa77ea36a8d8145e56e776933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pang, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Pengchao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yuanfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Alissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Huibing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yurong</creatorcontrib><title>Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes</title><title>The international journal of life cycle assessment</title><addtitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</addtitle><description>PURPOSE: A large number of highway bridges have been constructed in China since 1980s. Most of the aging bridges are in need of strengthening, which will lead to consuming big amounts of material and energy resources, producing air emissions and solid waste. This paper made a life cycle assessment for a highway bridge with four different strengthening plans by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. METHODS: Based on analyzing the life cycle assessment (LCA) investigations of bridges, the adopted LCA method for the highway bridge tracks materials and energy resources through the various stages of the bridge life cycle including production, transportation, construction, strengthening, and demolition, considering the impact of vehicle detours during strengthening construction, to calculate environmental impact for ecosystem quality, human health, energy, and resources. This is done for four strengthening schemes, which are traditionally compared based only on the basis of economic cost. In order to account for the variability of critical input variables, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the variability of environmental scores associated with the transportation distance, the average fuel consumption for each vehicle, detouring distance, the structure closure period, and maintenance times. Ten thousand iterations were conducted based on previous studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analysis shows that the maintenance phase alone contributes about 66 % of the total environmental impact (including detouring stage 50 %, repaving bridge deck 12 %, strengthening 4 %), followed by material production stage (approximately 40 %). Of the four strengthening plans, plan 1 and plan 3 have relatively greater contributions in terms of environmental damage while the cost budgets are much lower. On the contrary, plan 2 and plan 4 have lower environmental burdens but cost much more. Sensitivity analysis shows that the damage to resources and ecosystem quality are more sensitive to the variation of parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A life cycle assessment for a highway bridge in China with four different strengthening plans is conducted by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. It determines that the maintenance phase contributes the most to the environment deterioration. This study also shows that the energy consumptions and pollutant emissions related to traffic disruption during maintenance operations should not be excluded. Regarding the strengthening plans, it can be concluded that the environmental impact of bonding carbon fiber-reinforced polymer is fewer than that of bonding steel plates.</description><subject>air</subject><subject>Bridges</subject><subject>bridges (infrastructure)</subject><subject>Bridges (structures)</subject><subject>carbon</subject><subject>Construction costs</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>economic costs</subject><subject>ecosystems</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy consumption</subject><subject>Energy resources</subject><subject>Energy sources</subject><subject>energy use and consumption</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental degradation</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Environmental impact assessment</subject><subject>Highway bridges</subject><subject>human health</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Maintenance</subject><subject>Monte Carlo method</subject><subject>Monte Carlo simulation</subject><subject>pollutants</subject><subject>Polymers</subject><subject>Product life cycle</subject><subject>Repair & maintenance</subject><subject>Roads & highways</subject><subject>Roadways and Infrastructure</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Solid wastes</subject><subject>steel</subject><subject>Strengthening</subject><issn>0948-3349</issn><issn>1614-7502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EEkvpD-gJS1y4pMzEjp0cUcWXtBKH0hMHy5uMs67ysXiyVP33OAoHxKHiMiPNPO87Gr1CXCFcI4B9z4jK2AKwKqBRpsBnYocGdWErKJ-LHTS6LpTSzUvxivkeoERoqp34sY-BZPvYDiRp-hXTPI00LX6QcTz5dpGemZjXmZyD9PKQYteTfIjLUXYxBErripfc-uVIU5x6ye2RRuLX4kXwA9Pln34h7j59_H7zpdh_-_z15sO-aLW2S1FXwUKAsrYBO3MwptYdAdq6tIe2g4600dBZ9N5a8sr4uqtRV1QZstY0Sl2Id5vvKc0_z8SLGyO3NAx-ovnMDm2-A1qb6j_QDDdYG8jo23_Q-_mcpvxIpkDVja7Uaogb1aaZOVFwpxRHnx4dgluTcVsyLifj1mQcZk25aTizU0_pL-cnRG82UfCz832K7O5uS0ADkItVSv0G2XmZIA</recordid><startdate>20150901</startdate><enddate>20150901</enddate><creator>Pang, Bo</creator><creator>Yang, Pengchao</creator><creator>Wang, Yuanfeng</creator><creator>Kendall, Alissa</creator><creator>Xie, Huibing</creator><creator>Zhang, Yurong</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TV</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150901</creationdate><title>Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes</title><author>Pang, Bo ; Yang, Pengchao ; Wang, Yuanfeng ; Kendall, Alissa ; Xie, Huibing ; Zhang, Yurong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-85f70f0287f1d6b6684de017827bcd0de4640d71aa77ea36a8d8145e56e776933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>air</topic><topic>Bridges</topic><topic>bridges (infrastructure)</topic><topic>Bridges (structures)</topic><topic>carbon</topic><topic>Construction costs</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>economic costs</topic><topic>ecosystems</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy consumption</topic><topic>Energy resources</topic><topic>Energy sources</topic><topic>energy use and consumption</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental degradation</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Environmental impact assessment</topic><topic>Highway bridges</topic><topic>human health</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Maintenance</topic><topic>Monte Carlo method</topic><topic>Monte Carlo simulation</topic><topic>pollutants</topic><topic>Polymers</topic><topic>Product life cycle</topic><topic>Repair & maintenance</topic><topic>Roads & highways</topic><topic>Roadways and Infrastructure</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Solid wastes</topic><topic>steel</topic><topic>Strengthening</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pang, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Pengchao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yuanfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Alissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Huibing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yurong</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pang, Bo</au><au>Yang, Pengchao</au><au>Wang, Yuanfeng</au><au>Kendall, Alissa</au><au>Xie, Huibing</au><au>Zhang, Yurong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes</atitle><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle><stitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</stitle><date>2015-09-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1300</spage><epage>1311</epage><pages>1300-1311</pages><issn>0948-3349</issn><eissn>1614-7502</eissn><abstract>PURPOSE: A large number of highway bridges have been constructed in China since 1980s. Most of the aging bridges are in need of strengthening, which will lead to consuming big amounts of material and energy resources, producing air emissions and solid waste. This paper made a life cycle assessment for a highway bridge with four different strengthening plans by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. METHODS: Based on analyzing the life cycle assessment (LCA) investigations of bridges, the adopted LCA method for the highway bridge tracks materials and energy resources through the various stages of the bridge life cycle including production, transportation, construction, strengthening, and demolition, considering the impact of vehicle detours during strengthening construction, to calculate environmental impact for ecosystem quality, human health, energy, and resources. This is done for four strengthening schemes, which are traditionally compared based only on the basis of economic cost. In order to account for the variability of critical input variables, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the variability of environmental scores associated with the transportation distance, the average fuel consumption for each vehicle, detouring distance, the structure closure period, and maintenance times. Ten thousand iterations were conducted based on previous studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analysis shows that the maintenance phase alone contributes about 66 % of the total environmental impact (including detouring stage 50 %, repaving bridge deck 12 %, strengthening 4 %), followed by material production stage (approximately 40 %). Of the four strengthening plans, plan 1 and plan 3 have relatively greater contributions in terms of environmental damage while the cost budgets are much lower. On the contrary, plan 2 and plan 4 have lower environmental burdens but cost much more. Sensitivity analysis shows that the damage to resources and ecosystem quality are more sensitive to the variation of parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A life cycle assessment for a highway bridge in China with four different strengthening plans is conducted by using Eco-indicator 99 to figure a total environmental impact score of the bridge. It determines that the maintenance phase contributes the most to the environment deterioration. This study also shows that the energy consumptions and pollutant emissions related to traffic disruption during maintenance operations should not be excluded. Regarding the strengthening plans, it can be concluded that the environmental impact of bonding carbon fiber-reinforced polymer is fewer than that of bonding steel plates.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0948-3349 |
ispartof | The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2015-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1300-1311 |
issn | 0948-3349 1614-7502 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1744704465 |
source | SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | air Bridges bridges (infrastructure) Bridges (structures) carbon Construction costs Earth and Environmental Science economic costs ecosystems Emissions Energy Energy consumption Energy resources Energy sources energy use and consumption Environment environmental assessment Environmental Chemistry Environmental degradation Environmental Economics Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology Environmental impact Environmental impact assessment Highway bridges human health Life cycle analysis Life cycle assessment Life cycles Maintenance Monte Carlo method Monte Carlo simulation pollutants Polymers Product life cycle Repair & maintenance Roads & highways Roadways and Infrastructure Sensitivity analysis Solid wastes steel Strengthening |
title | Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T23%3A00%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Life%20cycle%20environmental%20impact%20assessment%20of%20a%20bridge%20with%20different%20strengthening%20schemes&rft.jtitle=The%20international%20journal%20of%20life%20cycle%20assessment&rft.au=Pang,%20Bo&rft.date=2015-09-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1300&rft.epage=1311&rft.pages=1300-1311&rft.issn=0948-3349&rft.eissn=1614-7502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1717491860%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1703894535&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |