Page 1

LCA and LCC of the World’s Longest Pier A Case Study on Stainless Steel Rebar LCAXIII Conference, Orlando, FL October 2, 2013 PE INTERNATIONAL

Nick Santero Sophia Wong

Nickel Institute

Mark Mistry


Progreso Pier, Mexico A Compelling Case Study

Source: Nickel Institute

2


Progreso Pier, Mexico • Longest pier in the world • Built in 1941 at a length of 2100 meters

• Extended in 1988 to 4000 meters

• Innovative design • One of the first major civil engineering structures to use stainless steel rebar

• Resilient construction • No significant maintenance has been performed

Image Source: Castro-Burgess et al.

3


It’s All About the Rebar • Provides tensile strength to reinforced concrete structures

• Common rebar is made of unfinished tempered steel (i.e., carbon or black steel) making it susceptible to corrosion

• More corrosion-resistant: epoxycoated, galvanized or stainless steel


What if the Progreso Pier was built using carbon steel rebar? As-built design (stainless steel rebar)

Alternative design (carbon steel rebar)

Maintenance schedule

Unit environmental impacts

Service life

Unit costs


What if the Progreso Pier was built using carbon steel rebar? As-built design (stainless steel rebar)

Alternative design (carbon steel rebar)


What if the Progreso Pier was built using carbon steel rebar? As-built design (stainless steel rebar)

Alternative design (carbon steel rebar)


Comparison: Designs As-built Design (stainless steel rebar)

• Materials • Concrete: 72,500 m3 • Stainless steel rebar: 220 tons

Alternative Design (carbon steel rebar)

• Materials • Concrete: 72,500 m3 • Carbon steel rebar: 220 tons

• Maintenance: to be determined

• Maintenance: to be determined

• Service life: to be determined

• Service life: to be determined


Comparison: Materials Stainless Steel Rebar

Carbon Steel Rebar

Price (2013$): $6.59/kg

150

0

106 100

50

0

150 PED [MJ/kg]

5

10 GWP [kg CO2-eq/kg]

7,40

PED [MJ/kg]

GWP [kg CO2-eq/kg]

10

Price (2013$): $0.99/kg

5 2,30

0

100

50 25,8 0


Methodology: Overview • Comparative assertion • Both designs serve the equivalent function • Stainless and carbon steel: same structural characteristics • Limited to the original 2100 meter pier (i.e., does not include 4000 meter extension)

• Analysis period • 79 years (1941–2020) • Provides estimate of past (1941–2013) and future (2013–2020) performance

• System boundaries • Included: materials, transportation, maintenance, and end-of-life fates • Excluded: construction, use, and demolition

• Analysis methods • Life cycle assessment (LCA) using GaBi (ISO 14040 series) • Life cycle costing (LCC) using Life-365 and Excel (ISO 15686-5)


Methodology: Service Life Concrete mix design

• Life-365 model • Service life prediction model

• Specific to reinforced concrete structures

Climate

Reinforcing steel type

• Engineering analysis • Performed by CTLGroup

Exposure

09.10.2013

Depth of cover

11


Service Life Choride concentration threshold: 0.70% by weight Time to corrosion initiation and propagation: 44 Years Service life: 84 Years As-built Design (stainless steel rebar)

Alternative Design (carbon steel rebar)

Choride concentration threshold: 0.05% by weight Time to corrosion initiation and propagation: 10 Years Service life: 50 Years


Methodology: Maintenance Reconstruction

Initial Construction

20% Repair 15% Repair 10% Repair

10% Repair Year 

0

Ti+p

Ti+p + 15

Ti+p + 30

Ti+p + 40

2Ti+p + 40

• Ti+p = time (years) to corrosion initiation and propagation of the rebar • Service life and maintenance definitions follow United States Navy's engineering command (NAVFAC)


Maintenance 20% Repair

Initial Construction

15% Repair 10% Repair

0

59

44

As-built Design (stainless steel rebar)

74

79

75

79

Alternative Design (carbon steel rebar)

0

10

25

40

50

10% Repair Initial Construction

15% Repair

60 10% Repair

Reconstruction 20% Repair

15% Repair


LCA Results Breakdown of material contributions – initial construction 50

Global Warming Potential [million kg CO2-eq]

250

Primary Energy Demand [million MJ] 222

40.6 40

39.6

205 200

30

150

20

100

10

50

0

0 As-built design Progreso Pier

Alternative Carbon Steel design Rebar Alternative

Stainless steel

Carbon steel

Concrete

As-built design Progreso Pier

Alternative Carbon Steel Rebardesign Alternative

15


LCA Results Total environmental impacts over 79-year analysis period Impact relative to As-built Design 200%

150%

As-built Design

100%

Alternative Design 50%

0% AP

EP

GWP

ODP

POCP

PED

16


LCA Results Comparison of GWP over 79-year analysis period Global Warming Potential [million kg CO2-eq] 120 100 80

Alternative Design As-built Design Construction/Maintenance/Reconstructio

60 40 20 0 1940

1950

1960

1970

1980 Year

1990

2000

2010

2020

17


Life Cycle Costing (LCC) One-slide crash course • Follows same concepts as life n

 1   1   − RV   NPV = ∑ Cn  n =0  (1 + i )   (1 + i )  P

Where: P = n = Cn = i = RV=

analysis period year, ranging from 0 to P cost incurred in year n discount rate residual value

P

cycle assessment

• Cost data collected for •

individual activities Analyzed over the product life cycle

• Major difference between LCC and LCA is the consideration of the time

• Future costs are discounted •

using the discount rate Discount rate is variable and uncertain


Life Cycle Costing Results Discount Rate of 0.01% (recommended by SETAC) Net Present Cost [thousand 1941 USD] 1000 Alternative Design As-built Design 750

Construction/Maintenance/Reconstructio n

500

250

0 1940

1950

1960

1970

1980 Year

1990

2000

2010

2020

19


Life Cycle Costing LCC is sensitive to discount rate

5% 4% 3%

• EU: National ministries of finance specify the discount rates to be used in the economic analysis of publicly funded projects. These typically fall into the range of 3 to 5%

• EU: “Use of a low (3% or less) or even a zero rate is recommended when LCC is used to assess the economic merits of alternative sustainability options.”*

2%

• US Circular A94 currently uses 1.1% based on the 30-year

1%

• US Navy reports 0%, 1%, and 2.3%

0%

• SETAC: 0.01% discount rate for long-term investments (over

bond

30 years)

*Source: EU Guidance Document on LCC (2007)

20


Life Cycle Costing Sensitivity to the discount rate


Conclusions • The rebar material is a small part of the overall life cycle impact

• Concrete is dominant source of environmental and economic impacts • Structural performance and service life are key considerations

• As-built structure (stainless steel rebar) has lower life cycle impacts

• Higher environmental impacts per unit of stainless steel outweighed by benefits related to corrosion resistance • Significant differences across all considered impact categories

• As-built structure has lower life cycle costs • Higher environmental impacts per unit of stainless steel outweighed by benefits related to corrosion resistance • Sensitive to the choice in discount rate


Final Notes Consideration

Influence

• Construction/deconstruction

Future activities are undercharacterized

activities not included

• Temporal representativeness is weak

• Results are specific to the Progreso Pier case study

Similar uncertainty between each design Sweeping conclusions regarding stainless steel rebar are not proposed

Study currently undergoing peer review


Contact Nick Santero, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Consultant n.santero@pe-international.com

life cycle assessment and lcc of the world’s longest pier  

The study demonstrates how LCA and LCC are complementary tools that can be used to support decision-making related to sustainable constructi...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you