The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp 2030–2041 | Cite as

Life cycle assessment of the environmental influence of wooden and concrete utility poles based on service lifetime

  • Hugo Henrique de Simone SouzaEmail author
  • Ângela Maria Ferreira Lima
  • Karla Oliveira Esquerre
  • Asher Kiperstok



Many applications of life cycle assessment do not consider the variability of the service lifetime of different structures, and this may be a relevant factor in an environmental impact assessment. This paper aims to determine the influence of the service lifetime on the potential environmental impacts of wooden and concrete poles in the electricity distribution system.


The estimation of service lifetime was conducted using the factorial method. The life cycle assessment was applied using SimaPro software and considered the entire life cycle of utility poles, from the extraction of raw materials to the final disposal. Then, an evaluation of the environmental impacts using the CML IA baseline method was performed. The study included the analysis of uncertainty using the Monte Carlo method.

Results and discussion

In general, the wooden poles had a lower potential environmental impact compared to the concrete poles. The result of the sensitivity analysis considering the variability of the chromated copper arsenate wood preservative retention rate suggests that the frequency of maintenance affects the service lifetime. Often, the comparison of products in the LCA perspective is carried out by considering similar useful lifetime services for the different alternatives, and this study shows that the environmental performance of products or services is directly proportional to the lifetime. It is a crucial parameter that has to be clarified in order to reduce uncertainty in the results.


Thus, some factors such as material quality, design adjustments and routine maintenance extend the service lifetime of a product or process and are shown to be effective ways to reduce environmental impacts. Therefore, the service lifetime has a significant influence on the development of the life cycle assessment. Comparative LCA studies are often sensitive to parameters that may even change the ranking of selected impact categories. All in all, from the sensitivity analysis highlighted in this study, the variability of lifetime service has proven to be one of the most prominent factors influencing comparative LCA results.


Factorial method Life cycle assessment Life span Maintenance Wooden pole 



The authors acknowledge the Brazilian funding agencies CNPq and CAPES for their financial support.


  1. ABNT Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas NBR 8456 (1984) Postes de eucalipto preservado para redes de distribuição de energia elétrica – especificação. ABNT, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. Aït-mokhtar A, Belarbi R, Benboudjema F et al (2013) Experimental investigation of the variability of concrete durability properties. Cem Concr Res 45:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aktas (2012) Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. A Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):337–349. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x
  4. Ali AC, Junir EU, Raberg U, Terziev N (2011) Comparative natural durability of five wood species from Mozambique. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 65:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton C (2014) CCA-treated wood. Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences. Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd edn. pp 751–752Google Scholar
  6. Bolin C, Smith ST (2011) Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to steel and concrete utility poles. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:2475–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brischke C, Meyer L, Olberding S (2014) Durability of wood exposed in ground—comparative field trials with different soil substrates. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 86:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campoe OC, Munhoz JSB, Alvares CA et al (2016) Meteorological seasonality affecting individual tree growth in forest plantations in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 380:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerqueira DP, Portella KF, Portella GDOG et al (2012) Deterioration rates of metal and concrete structures in coastal environment of the south and Northeast Brazil: case studies in the Pontal do Sul, PR, and Costa Do Sauípe, Bahia. Procedia Eng 42:384–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa e Silva J, Potts BM, Tilyard P (2013) Stability of genetic effects across clonal and seedling populations of Eucalyptus globulus with common parentage. For Ecol Manag 291:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cossent R, Gómez T, Frías P (2009) Towards a future with large penetration of distributed generation: is the current regulation of electricity distribution ready? Regulatory recommendations under a European perspective. Energy Policy 37:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Datla SV, Pandey MD (2006) Estimation of life expectancy of wood poles in electrical distribution networks. Struct Saf 28:304–319Google Scholar
  13. de Castro EBP, Mequignon M, Adolphe L, Koptschitz P (2014) Impact of the lifespan of different external walls of buildings on greenhouse gas emissions under tropical climate conditions. Energy Build 76:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Gonçalves JLM, Alvares CA, Higa AR et al (2013) Integrating genetic and silvicultural strategies to minimize abiotic and biotic constraints in Brazilian eucalypt plantations. For Ecol Manag 301:6–27Google Scholar
  15. Emídio F, de Brito J, Gaspar PL, Silva A (2014) Application of the factor method to the estimation of the service life of natural stone cladding. Constr Build Mater 66:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erlandsson M, Ödeen K, Edlud ML (1992) Environmental consequences of various materials in utility poles—a life cycle analysis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IRG Annual Meeting of IRG, IRG Doc. No. WP/3726–92, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabathuler H (2006) LCA history: centrum voorMilieukunde Leiden (CML) the CML story. How environmental sciences entered the debate on LCA. Reprint Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(4):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (1993) Quantitative life cycle assessment of products 2. Classification, valuation and improvement analysis. J Clean Prod 1:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustavsen B, Rolfseng L (2005) Asset management of wood pole utility structures. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 27:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hage and Rufin (2016) Context analysis for a new regulatory model for electric utilities in Brazil. Energy Policy, 97;145–154. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.014
  21. Hertig C, Davies SJ (2008) Security supervision and management: the theory and practice of asset protection. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillier W, Murphey RJ, Dickinson DJ, Bell JNB (1997) The risk of life cycle impact assessment for preservative treated timber products. In: Proceedings of the WEI-Congress, WEI Document 2601, OsloGoogle Scholar
  23. IBGE (2015) Produção da extração vegetal e silvicultura. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Accessed 23 Nov 2016
  24. IPCC (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Available in:
  25. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  26. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  27. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15686 (2011) Buildings and constructed assets—service life planning (parts 1 to 10), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kouki C, Jouini O (2015) On the effect of lifetime variability on the performance of inventory systems. Int J Prod Econ 167:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Künniger T, Ritcher K (1995) Life cycle analysis of utility poles. A Swiss case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Wood Preservation Symposium: The Challenge - Safety and Environment. IRG/WP 95–50040Google Scholar
  30. Lebow S, Lebow P, Woodward B, Kirker G, Arango R (2015) Fifty-year durability evaluation of posts treated with industrial wood preservatives. For Prod J 65:307–313Google Scholar
  31. McDermott KA (2014) Thehome (as power plant) and its role in electric policy: past, present and future. Electr J 27:33–42Google Scholar
  32. Morrell J (2008) Disposal of utility poles in the western United States: a survey. Proceedings of the American Wood Protection Association 104:268–271Google Scholar
  33. Morrell J (2012) Protection of wood-based materials, 2nd edn. Handbook of Environmental Degradation of Materials. Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B978-1-4377-3455-3.00014-6
  34. Palanti S, Feci E, Torniai AM (2011) Comparison based on field tests of three low-environmental-impact wood treatments. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 65:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pirasteh G, Saidur R, Rahman SM, Rahim N (2014) A review on development of solar drying applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 31:133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plaschkies K, Jacobs K, Scheiding W, Melcher E (2014) Investigations on natural durability of important European wood species against wood decay fungi. Part 1: laboratory tests. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 90:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pope T (2004) Wood pole survivor rates by decay hazard zone initial inspection vs. recycle inspection. Proceedings of the American Wood Protection Association 100:255–262Google Scholar
  38. Preston AF, Jin L (2005) Wood-chemical interactions and their effect on preservative performance. Woodhead Publishing Limited. The Chemistry of Wood Preservation, pp 88–100Google Scholar
  39. Rauf A, Crawford RH (2015) Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy of buildings. Energy 79:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rockwood DL (1984) Genetic improvement potential for biomass quality and quantity. Biomass 6:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan PC, Stewart MG, Spencer N, Li Y (2014) Reliability assessment of power pole infrastructure incorporating deterioration and network maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 132:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schiopu N, Tiruta-Barna L (2012) 6 wood preservatives. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Toxicity of Building MaterialsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sedjo RA (2001) Wood materials used as a means to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG): an examination of wooden utility poles. North American Wood Pole Coalition. Technical BulletinGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva PHM, Bouillet JP, Paula RC (2016) Assessing the invasive potential of commercial eucalyptus species in Brazil: germination and early establishment. For Ecol Manag 374:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stape JL, Binkley D, Ryan MG et al (2010) The Brazil eucalyptus potential productivity project: influence of water, nutrients and stand uniformity on wood production. For Ecol Manag 259:1684–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vidor FLR, Pires M, Dedavid BA et al (2010) Inspection of wooden poles in electrical power distribution networks in southern Brazil. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 25:479–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yuan Y, Jiang J (2012) Climate load model—climate action spectrum for predicting durability of concrete structure. Constr Build Mater 29:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Henrique de Simone Souza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ângela Maria Ferreira Lima
    • 2
  • Karla Oliveira Esquerre
    • 1
  • Asher Kiperstok
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Bahia (UFBA)SalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Federal Institute of Bahia (IFBA)SalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations