Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives

Abstract

The definition of sustainability includes three fundamental pillars: economic, environmental, and social. Studies of the economic impact on civil engineering infrastructures have been focused on cost reduction. It is not necessarily in line with economic sustainability due to the lack of other economic factors. Moreover, the social pillar assessment has been weakly developed compared to the economic and the environmental ones. It is essential to focus on the social pillar and evaluate clear indicators that allow researchers to compare alternatives. Furthermore, bridge life cycle assessment studies have been focused on concrete options. This has resulted in a lack of analysis of the impact of composite bridge alternatives. This study is conducted in two stages. The first part of the study makes a cradle-to-grave social and environmental sustainability evaluation with the SOCA v2 and ecoinvent v3.7.1 databases. This assessment is carried out on four concrete and composite bridge alternatives with span lengths between 15 and 40 m. The social impact weighting method and recipe have been used to obtain the social and environmental indicators. The second part of the study compares the results obtained from the social and environmental assessment of the concrete and the composite alternatives varying the steel recycling rate. The bridge alternatives are prestressed concrete solid slab, prestressed concrete lightened slab, prestressed concrete box-girder, and steel–concrete composite box-girder. The results show that composite options are the best for environmental impact, but the concrete box girder solutions are better for social impact. Furthermore, an increase in the steel recycling rate increases the social impact and decreases the environmental one.

Different journeys, same struggle: Practitioner experiences in environmental justice policy, assessment, and decision-making

“…Of particular note is the di cult process of attempting to quantify social impacts in transportation infrastructure development which can create con icting transportation project valuations based on the methodology and factors considered (Mouter et al, 2021). This critique highlights limitations identi ed in broader transportation equity research pointing out the di culty of quantitative methods, like cost-bene t analysis, to holistically incorporate intangible social impacts (Martens, 2011;Martínez-Muñoz et al, 2022;Thomopoulos et al, 2009).…”

Developing a Decision-Making Support System for a Smart Construction and Demolition Waste Transition to a Circular Economy

“…The first step in the proposed AHP model is determining alternatives and criteria. For this purpose, a comprehensive literature review was carried out and most of the alternatives and criteria were derived through previous studies [50,68,69,94] (also [70,[104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112]). In addition to the above methodology, the determination of alternatives and criteria was further refined through comprehensive discussions held during professional meetings with experts in this field.…”

Hybrid Swarm Intelligence Optimization Methods for Low-Embodied Energy Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges

“…Furthermore, the cost objective function is formulated in Equation ( 2). Both objective functions must meet the regulation and recommendation constraints' represented by Equation (3). Meeting these constraints will ensure the feasibility of the obtained solution from the optimization procedure.…”

“…Introducing new design criteria in structural problems increases complexity, moving this problem to the decision-making field of knowledge. In order to assess the sustainability of solutions, life cycle assessment has become one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the social and environmental profile of a solution [2,3]. Nevertheless, in order to approximate an environmental assessment, one representative criterion can be chosen as an alternative.…”