Estimating Environmental Load of PSC Beam Bridge using Standard Quantities and Resource DB Model

  • Han Rok Lee
  • Junsang YuEmail author
  • Won Gun Yun
  • Jaewoo Nam
  • Kyong Ju Kim
Construction Management


Efforts should be expended during the design stages to reduce the environmental load to ensure the existence of possible design alternatives and to realise an eco-friendly design. This study suggests a model for environmental load estimation using the minimum possible information from the initial design stages for a Pre-Stressed Concrete (PSC) beam bridge, the most common type. The standard quantity database (DB) and resource DB of major work items are established to estimate the total amount of resources required. Major design variables including bridge length and width, height of substructure and foundation depth are used. The environmental load can be calculated along with the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) DB. The proposed method can estimate the material requirements for each work process with higher accuracy because it allows for the calculation of the quantity of resources according to the unit quantity of all major work items. The results obtained from this model are compared with those of the actual cases. The environmental load of the suggested model yields a mean absolute error rate of 2.44% and a standard deviation of 2.58%. This model exhibits higher reliability compared with the conventional basic unit method, which is commonly used for environmental load estimation.


environmental load standard quantity PSC beam bridge life cycle assessment life cycle inventory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cho, N. H., Yun, W. G., Lee, W. R., and Kim, K. J. (2016). “An analysis of the characteristics of environmental impact for PSC beam bridges using life cycle assessment.” J. of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, KSCE, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 297–305, DOI: 10.12652/Ksce.2016.36.2.0297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collings, D. (2006). “An environmental comparison of bridge forms.” Proc. Inst. of Civ. Eng. - Bridge Eng., Vol. 159, No. 4, pp. 163–168.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Ecoinvent (2015). Ecoinvent version 3, Switzerland, Scholar
  4. Hammervold, J., Reenaas, M., and Brattebø, H. (2011). “Environmental life cycle assessment of bridges.” J. of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 153–161, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ISO (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  6. Jeong, K., Ji, C., Koo, C., Hong, T., and Park, H. S. (2015). “A model for predicting the environmental impacts of educational facilities in the project planning phase.” J. of Cleaner Production, Vol. 107, No. 16, pp. 538–549, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Junnila, S. and Horvath, A. (2003). “Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building.” J. of Infrastructure System, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 157–166, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2003)9:4(157).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim, J., Lee, S., and Sohn, J. (2004). “An estimation of the energy consumption & CO2 emission intensity during building construction.” J. of Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. & Des., Vol. 20, No. 10, pp. 319–326.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, K. J., Yun, W. G., Cho, N., and Ha, J. (2017). “Life cycle assessment based environmental impact estimation model for pre-stressed concrete beam bridge in the early design.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., Vol. 64, pp. 47–56, DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kwon, S. (2008). Development of assessment models for environmental economics of construction projects, PhD Thesis, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  11. Liu, C., Ahn, C., An, X., and Lee, S. (2013). “Life-cycle assessment of concrete dam construction: Comparison of environmental impact of rock-filled and conventional concrete.” J. of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 12, pp. A4013009–1–A4013009–11, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MOLTMA) (2009). The 4th construction technology development action plan, Korea.Google Scholar
  13. Moon, H., Hyun, C., and Hong, T. (2014). “Prediction model of CO2 emission for residential buildings in South Korea.” J. of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 04014001–1-04014001-7, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000228.Google Scholar
  14. Priatla, K., Ariaratnam, S., and Cohen A. (2012). “Estimation of CO2 emissions from the life cycle of a potable water pipeline project.” J. of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 22–30, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000069.Google Scholar
  15. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2006). “Sustainable buildings and construction initiative.”
  16. Woo, J. (2011). Sustainable optimum design evaluation system development by environmental and economical efficiency of life cycle of the apartment houses, PhD Thesis, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  17. Xiaodong, L., Su, S., Zhang, Z., and Kong, X. (2017). “An integrated environmental and health performance quantification model for preoccupancy phase of buildings in China.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., Vol. 63, pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Han Rok Lee
    • 1
  • Junsang Yu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Won Gun Yun
    • 2
  • Jaewoo Nam
    • 1
  • Kyong Ju Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Civil & Environmental EngineeringChung-Ang UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Construction Policy InstituteKorea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building TechnologyGoyangKorea

Personalised recommendations