Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights

"This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering on 02/07/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1676791."[EN] Essential infrastructures such as bridges are designed to provide a long-lasting and intergenerational functionality. In those cases, sustainability becomes of paramount importance when the infrastructure is exposed to aggressive environments, which can jeopardise their durability and lead to significant maintenance demands. The assessment of sustainability is however often complex and uncertain. The present study assesses the sustainability performance of 16 alternative designs of a concrete bridge deck in a coastal environment on the basis of a neutrosophic group analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The use of neutrosophic logic in the field of multi-criteria decision-making, as a generalisation of the widely used fuzzy logic, allows for a proper capture of the vagueness and uncertainties of the judgements emitted by the decision-makers. TOPSIS technique is then used to aggregate the different sustainability criteria. From the results, it is derived that only the simultaneous consideration of the economic, environmental and social life cycle impacts of a design shall lead to adequate sustainable designs. Choices made based on the optimality of a design in only some of the sustainability pillars will lead to erroneous conclusions. The use of concrete with silica fume has resulted in a sustainability performance of 46.3% better than conventional concrete designs.The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project: BIA2017-85098-R).Navarro, I.; Yepes, V.; Martí, J. (2020). Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 16(7):949-967. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1676791S949967167Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M., & Chilamkurti, N. (2018). Three-way decisions based on neutrosophic sets and AHP-QFD framework for supplier selection problem. Future Generation Computer Systems, 89, 19-30. doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.06.024Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2014). Sustainable energy planning decision using the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: choosing energy technology in Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 35(4), 360-377. doi:10.1080/14786451.2014.907292Ali, M. S., Aslam, M. S., & Mirza, M. S. (2015). A sustainability assessment framework for bridges – a case study: Victoria and Champlain Bridges, Montreal. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1-14. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1120754Allacker, K. (2012). Environmental and economic optimisation of the floor on grade in residential buildings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 813-827. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0402-2Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87-96. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3Barone, G., & Frangopol, D. M. (2014). Life-cycle maintenance of deteriorating structures by multi-objective optimization involving reliability, risk, availability, hazard and cost. Structural Safety, 48, 40-50. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.02.002Biswas, P., Pramanik, S., & Giri, B. C. (2015). TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3), 727-737. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-1891-2Bolturk, E., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure. Soft Computing, 22(15), 4941-4958. doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3140-yBuckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2017). Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1222-1238. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.051Cebeci, U. (2009). Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by using balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8900-8909. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.046Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., & Ventura, A. (2010). LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1231-1240. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001Chu, T.-C., & Tsao, C.-T. (2002). Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid point and original point. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 43(1-2), 111-117. doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(01)00277-2Cope, A., Bai, Q., Samdariya, A., & Labi, S. (2013). Assessing the efficacy of stainless steel for bridge deck reinforcement under uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(7), 634-647. doi:10.1080/15732479.2011.602418De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4762-4770. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002Deli, I., & Şubaş, Y. (2016). A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 8(4), 1309-1322. doi:10.1007/s13042-016-0505-3Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W.-C., & Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003Dubois, D. (2011). The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: Old techniques and new directions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 184(1), 3-28. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2011.06.003Eamon, C. D., Jensen, E. A., Grace, N. F., & Shi, X. (2012). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Alternative Reinforcement Materials for Bridge Superstructures Considering Cost and Maintenance Uncertainties. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(4), 373-380. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000398Enea, M., & Piazza, T. (2004). Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39-62. doi:10.1023/b:fodm.0000013071.63614.3dGarcía-Segura, T., Penadés-Plà, V., & Yepes, V. (2018). Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 904-915. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177García-Segura, T., & Yepes, V. (2016). Multiobjective optimization of post-tensioned concrete box-girder road bridges considering cost, CO2 emissions, and safety. Engineering Structures, 125, 325-336. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.012García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Frangopol, D. M., & Yang, D. Y. (2017). Lifetime reliability-based optimization of post-tensioned box-girder bridges. Engineering Structures, 145, 381-391. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.013Gervásio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032Guzmán-Sánchez, S., Jato-Espino, D., Lombillo, I., & Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2018). Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof types to achieving sustainable development. Building and Environment, 141, 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063Heravi, G., Fathi, M., & Faeghi, S. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2999-3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041Jakiel, P., & Fabianowski, D. (2015). FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4054-4061. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2018). A novel trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information axiom approach: An application to multicriteria landfill site selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 67, 157-172. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2017.09.009Kere, K. J., & Huang, Q. (2019). Life-Cycle Cost Comparison of Corrosion Management Strategies for Steel Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 24(4), 04019007. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001361Liang, R., Wang, J., & Zhang, H. (2017). A multi-criteria decision-making method based on single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic preference relations with complete weight information. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(11), 3383-3398. doi:10.1007/s00521-017-2925-8Liu, P., & Liu, X. (2016). The neutrosophic number generalized weighted power averaging operator and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 9(2), 347-358. doi:10.1007/s13042-016-0508-0Martí, J. V., García-Segura, T., & Yepes, V. (2016). Structural design of precast-prestressed concrete U-beam road bridges based on embodied energy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120, 231-240. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.024Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34-48. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.044Mistry, M., Koffler, C., & Wong, S. (2016). LCA and LCC of the world’s longest pier: a case study on nickel-containing stainless steel rebar. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(11), 1637-1644. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1080-2Moazami, D., Behbahani, H., & Muniandy, R. (2011). Pavement rehabilitation and maintenance prioritization of urban roads using fuzzy logic. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12869-12879. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.079Mosalam, K. M., Alibrandi, U., Lee, H., & Armengou, J. (2018). Performance-based engineering and multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient building design. Structural Safety, 74, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005Navarro, I., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. (2018). Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Preventive Strategies Applied to Prestressed Concrete Bridges Exposed to Chlorides. Sustainability, 10(3), 845. doi:10.3390/su10030845Navarro, I. J., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2019). Reliability-based maintenance optimization of corrosion preventive designs under a life cycle perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 74, 23-34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.001Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & González-Vidosa, F. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to prestressed concrete bridge decks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 698-713. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110Nogueira, C. G., Leonel, E. D., & Coda, H. B. (2012). Reliability algorithms applied to reinforced concrete structures durability assessment. Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, 5(4), 440-450. doi:10.1590/s1983-41952012000400003Pamučar, D., Badi, I., Sanja, K., & Obradović, R. (2018). A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya. Energies, 11(9), 2489. doi:10.3390/en11092489Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J., & Yepes, V. (2016). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability, 8(12), 1295. doi:10.3390/su8121295Peng, J., Wang, J., & Yang, W.-E. (2016). A multi-valued neutrosophic qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-criteria decision-making problems. International Journal of Systems Science, 48(2), 425-435. doi:10.1080/00207721.2016.1218975Petcherdchoo, A. (2015). Environmental Impacts of Combined Repairs on Marine Concrete Structures. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 13(3), 205-213. doi:10.3151/jact.13.205PRASCEVIC, N., & PRASCEVIC, Z. (2017). APPLICATION OF FUZZY AHP FOR RANKING AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(8), 1123-1135. doi:10.3846/13923730.2017.1388278Pryn, M. R., Cornet, Y., & Salling, K. B. (2015). APPLYING SUSTAINABILITY THEORY TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT USING A MULTIPLICATIVE AHP DECISION SUPPORT MODEL. TRANSPORT, 30(3), 330-341. doi:10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281Rashidi, M., Samali, B., & Sharafi, P. (2015). A new model for bridge management: Part B: decision support system for remediation planning. Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(1), 46-53. doi:10.1080/14488353.2015.1092642Sabatino, S., Frangopol, D. M., & Dong, Y. (2015). Life cycle utility-informed maintenance planning based on lifetime functions: optimum balancing of cost, failure consequences and performance benefit. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(7), 830-847. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1064968Safi, M., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2015). Cost-Efficient Procurement of Bridge Infrastructures by Incorporating Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(6), 04014083. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673Sajedi, S., & Huang, Q. (2019). Reliability-based life-cycle-cost comparison of different corrosion management strategies. Engineering Structures, 186, 52-63. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.018Sierra, L. A., Pellicer, E., & Yepes, V. (2016). Social Sustainability in the Lifecycle of Chilean Public Infrastructure. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(5), 05015020. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001099Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Sodenkamp, M. A., Tavana, M., & Di Caprio, D. (2018). An aggregation method for solving group multi-criteria decision-making problems with single-valued neutrosophic sets. Applied Soft Computing, 71, 715-727. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.07.020Stewart, M. G., Estes, A. C., & Frangopol, D. M. (2004). Bridge Deck Replacement for Minimum Expected Cost Under Multiple Reliability Constraints. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(9), 1414-1419. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1414)Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011). Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(5), 389-391. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5Tahmasebi Birgani, Y., & Yazdandoost, F. (2018). An Integrated Framework to Evaluate Resilient-Sustainable Urban Drainage Management Plans Using a Combined-adaptive MCDM Technique. Water Resources Management, 32(8), 2817-2835. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2Tesfamariam, S., & Sadiq, R. (2006). Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 21(1), 35-50. doi:10.1007/s00477-006-0042-9Wang, Y.-M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2006). On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(18), 2456-2471. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2006.06.008Yang, Z., Shi, X., Creighton, A. T., & Peterson, M. M. (2009). Effect of styrene–butadiene rubber latex on the chloride permeability and microstructure of Portland cement mortar. Construction and Building Materials, 23(6), 2283-2290. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.011Ye, J. (2013). Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic environment. International Journal of General Systems, 42(4), 386-394. doi:10.1080/03081079.2012.761609Ye, J. (2017). Subtraction and Division Operations of Simplified Neutrosophic Sets. Information, 8(2), 51. doi:10.3390/info8020051Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(4), 1024-1036. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xZadeh, L. A. (1973). Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(1), 28-44. doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.5408575Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2016). Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems — An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(03), 645-682. doi:10.1142/s021962201630001

A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design

[EN] Given the great impacts associated with the construction and maintenance of infrastructures in both the environmental, the economic and the social dimensions, a sustainable approach to their design appears essential to ease the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. Multicriteria decision-making methods are usually applied to address the complex and often conflicting criteria that characterise sustainability. The present study aims to review the current state of the art regarding the application of such techniques in the sustainability assessment of infrastructures, analysing as well the sustainability impacts and criteria included in the assessments. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is the most frequently used weighting technique. Simple Additive Weighting has turned out to be the most applied decision-making method to assess the weighted criteria. Although a life cycle assessment approach is recurrently used to evaluate sustainability, standardised concepts, such as cost discounting, or presentation of the assumed functional unit or system boundaries, as required by ISO 14040, are still only marginally used. Additionally, a need for further research in the inclusion of fuzziness in the handling of linguistic variables is identified.The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project no. BIA2017-85098-R).Navarro, IJ.; Yepes, V.; Martí, JV. (2019). A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2019(6134803):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6134803S11620196134803Kyriacou, A. P., Muinelo-Gallo, L., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2019). The efficiency of transport infrastructure investment and the role of government quality: An empirical analysis. Transport Policy, 74, 93-102. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.017García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & Alcalá, J. (2014). Optimization of concrete I-beams using a new hybrid glowworm swarm algorithm. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 11(7), 1190-1205. doi:10.1590/s1679-78252014000700007Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., García-Segura, T., & González-Vidosa, F. (2017). Heuristics in optimal detailed design of precast road bridges. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 17(4), 738-749. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.006Frangopol, D. M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management, and optimisation of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges1. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(6), 389-413. doi:10.1080/15732471003594427Safi, M., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2015). Cost-Efficient Procurement of Bridge Infrastructures by Incorporating Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(6), 04014083. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & González-Vidosa, F. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to prestressed concrete bridge decks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 698-713. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110Zhang, Y.-R., Wu, W.-J., & Wang, Y.-F. (2016). Bridge life cycle assessment with data uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 569-576. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7García-Segura, T., Penadés-Plà, V., & Yepes, V. (2018). Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 904-915. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177Van den Heede, P., & De Belie, N. (2014). A service life based global warming potential for high-volume fly ash concrete exposed to carbonation. Construction and Building Materials, 55, 183-193. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.033Braga, A. M., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2017). Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 529-543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, Y. H., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(8), 1654-1674. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8), 1166-1180. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Montalbán-Domingo, L., García-Segura, T., Sanz, M. A., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Social sustainability criteria in public-work procurement: An international perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1355-1371. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.083Zamarrón-Mieza, I., Yepes, V., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2017). A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 217-230. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., & Pellicer, E. (2018). A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 496-513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022Reza, B., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2011). Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 2053-2066. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.041Pons, O., & de la Fuente, A. (2013). Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 882-893. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.009Mosalam, K. M., Alibrandi, U., Lee, H., & Armengou, J. (2018). Performance-based engineering and multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient building design. Structural Safety, 74, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005Perini, K., & Rosasco, P. (2013). Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall systems. Building and Environment, 70, 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.012Gilani, G., Blanco, A., & Fuente, A. de la. (2017). A New Sustainability Assessment Approach Based on Stakeholder’s Satisfaction for Building Façades. Energy Procedia, 115, 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.006Moussavi Nadoushani, Z. S., Akbarnezhad, A., Ferre Jornet, J., & Xiao, J. (2017). Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67-78. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016Guzmán-Sánchez, S., Jato-Espino, D., Lombillo, I., & Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2018). Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof types to achieving sustainable development. Building and Environment, 141, 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 357-365. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041Kamali, M., Hewage, K., & Milani, A. S. (2018). Life cycle sustainability performance assessment framework for residential modular buildings: Aggregated sustainability indices. Building and Environment, 138, 21-41. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019Pons, O., & Aguado, A. (2012). Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Building and Environment, 53, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.007Akadiri, P. O., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Chinyio, E. A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113-125. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004Motuzienė, V., Rogoža, A., Lapinskienė, V., & Vilutienė, T. (2016). Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 532-541. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Miranda Guedes, J., & Correia, N. (2015). A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Building and Environment, 92, 182-191. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.012AL-Nassar, F., Ruparathna, R., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Haider, H., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2016). Sustainability assessment framework for low rise commercial buildings: life cycle impact index-based approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(8), 2579-2590. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1168-1ALwaer, H., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019Yu, J. Q., Dang, B., Clements-Croome, D., & Xu, S. (2011). Sustainability Assessment Indicators and Methodology for Intelligent Buildings. Advanced Materials Research, 368-373, 3829-3832. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.368-373.3829Drejeris, R., & Kavolynas, A. (2014). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Building Sustainability Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 502-511. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.894IGNATIUS, J., RAHMAN, A., YAZDANI, M., ŠAPARAUSKAS, J., & HARON, S. H. (2016). AN INTEGRATED FUZZY ANP–QFD APPROACH FOR GREEN BUILDING ASSESSMENT. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 22(4), 551-563. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1120772Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Arzaghi, S., Stauskis, G., & Zavadskas, E. (2018). A Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-COPRAS Method for Analyzing Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture. Sustainability, 10(5), 1626. doi:10.3390/su10051626San-José Lombera, J.-T., & Garrucho Aprea, I. (2010). A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings. Building and Environment, 45(3), 673-683. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., García, H., & Larrauri, M. (2015). Sustainability-Related Decision Making in Industrial Buildings: An AHP Analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2015/157129Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., Larrauri, M., & Álvarez, I. (2016). Sustainability assessment methodology for industrial buildings: three case studies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 33(2), 106-124. doi:10.1080/10286608.2016.1148143Heravi, G., Fathi, M., & Faeghi, S. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2999-3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168Formisano, A., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2015). On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting and vertical addition of existing buildings. Computers & Structures, 159, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.06.016Terracciano, G., Di Lorenzo, G., Formisano, A., & Landolfo, R. (2014). Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19(7), 850-866. doi:10.1080/19648189.2014.974832Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2007). Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building’s regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment, 42(1), 436-451. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001Hosseini, S. M. A., de la Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016036. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001137Malekly, H., Meysam Mousavi, S., & Hashemi, H. (2010). A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4910-4920. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024Gervásio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032Balali, V., Mottaghi, A., Shoghli, O., & Golabchi, M. (2014). Selection of Appropriate Material, Construction Technique, and Structural System of Bridges by Use of Multicriteria Decision-Making Method. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2431(1), 79-87. doi:10.3141/2431-11Jakiel, P., & Fabianowski, D. (2015). FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4054-4061. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(4), 1024-1036. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001Kripka, M., Yepes, V., & Milani, C. (2019). Selection of Sustainable Short-Span Bridge Design in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(5), 1307. doi:10.3390/su11051307Wang, Y.-M., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513-525. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002Abu Dabous, S., & Alkass, S. (2008). Decision support method for multi‐criteria selection of bridge rehabilitation strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), 883-893. doi:10.1080/01446190802071190Chen, T.-Y. (2014). The extended linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(7-8), 2101-2117. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.10.017Begić, F., & Afgan, N. H. (2007). Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system—Bosnian case. Energy, 32(10), 1979-1985. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.02.006Cartelle Barros, J. J., Lara Coira, M., de la Cruz López, M. P., & del Caño Gochi, A. (2015). Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy, 89, 473-489. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110Klein, S. J. W., & Whalley, S. (2015). Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 79, 127-149. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007Montajabiha, M. (2015). An Extended PROMETHE II Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Technique Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic for Sustainable Energy Planning. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 221-244. doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9440-zFetanat, A., & Khorasaninejad, E. (2015). A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection: A case study of Iran. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005Medina-González, S., Espuña, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2018). An efficient uncertainty representation for the design of sustainable energy generation systems. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 131, 144-159. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2017.11.044Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making framework based on life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts: The case of U.S. wind energy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 8, 78-92. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.006FUENTE, A. de la, ARMENGOU, J., PONS, O., & AGUADO, A. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: application to a new precast concrete alternative. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 23(2), 194-203. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347Afshar, A., Mariño, M. A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2010). Fuzzy TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Applied to Karun Reservoirs System. Water Resources Management, 25(2), 545-563. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9713-xSun, X., Ning, P., Tang, X., Yi, H., Li, K., Zhou, L., & Xu, X. (2013). Environmental Risk Assessment System for Phosphogypsum Tailing Dams. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2013/680798Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., & Legret, M. (2007). Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 338-349. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.019Dong, X., Zeng, S., Chen, J., & Zhao, D. (2008). An integrated assessment method of urban drainage system: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2(2), 150-156. doi:10.1007/s11783-008-0014-zTahmasebi Birgani, Y., & Yazdandoost, F. (2018). An Integrated Framework to Evaluate Resilient-Sustainable Urban Drainage Management Plans Using a Combined-adaptive MCDM Technique. Water Resources Management, 32(8), 2817-2835. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4762-4770. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002Onu, U. P., Xie, Q., & Xu, L. (2017). A Fuzzy TOPSIS model Framework for Ranking Sustainable Water Supply Alternatives. Water Resources Management, 31(9), 2579-2593. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1636-3Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2017). Selecting Sustainability Indicators for Small to Medium Sized Urban Water Systems Using Fuzzy-ELECTRE. Water Environment Research, 89(3), 238-249. doi:10.2175/106143016x14798353399494Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Automation in Construction, 40, 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.009Jato-Espino, D., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., Andrés-Valeri, V. C., & Ballester-Muñoz, F. (2014). A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(15), 6807-6817. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.008Torres-Machí, C., Chamorro, A., Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., & Videla, C. (2015). Sustainable Pavement Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2523(1), 56-63. doi:10.3141/2523-07Santos, J., Bressi, S., Cerezo, V., & Lo Presti, D. (2019). SUP&R DSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 524-540. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308Oses, U., Rojí, E., Cuadrado, J., & Larrauri, M. (2018). Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Tool for Local Governments to Evaluate the Global and Local Sustainability of Transportation Systems in Urban Areas: Case Study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(1), 04017019. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000406Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19-39. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., & Tarsenis, S. (2010). Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility. Building and Environment, 45(10), 2317-2326. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.016Rochikashvili, M., & Bongaerts, J. C. (2016). Multi-criteria Decision-making for Sustainable Wall Paints and Coatings Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Procedia, 96, 923-933. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.167Ugwu, O. O., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment, 42(2), 665-680. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018Reyes, J. P., San-José, J. T., Cuadrado, J., & Sancibrian, R. (2014). Health & Safety criteria for determining the sustainable value of construction projects. Safety Science, 62, 221-232. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.023Dobrovolskienė, N., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2015). An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case. Sustainability, 8(1), 14. doi:10.3390/su8010014Marzouk, M., & Azab, S. (2014). Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 82, 41-49. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647Kabir, G., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2013). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(9), 1176-1210. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.795978Podvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2). doi:10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F. (2018). Use of MCDM techniques for energy policy and decision-making problems: A review. International Journal of Energy Research, 42(7), 2344-2372. doi:10.1002/er.4016Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipo

Proposal of Sustainability Indicators for the Design of Small-Span Bridges

[EN] The application of techniques to analyze sustainability in the life cycle of small-span bridge superstructures is presented in this work. The objective was to obtain environmental and economic indicators for integration into the decision-making process to minimize the environmental impact, reduce resource consumption and minimize life cycle costs. Twenty-seven configurations of small-span bridges (6 to 20 m) of the following types were analyzed: steel¿concrete composite bridges, cast in situ reinforced concrete bridges, precast bridges and prestressed concrete bridges, comprising a total of 405 structures. Environmental impacts and costs were quantified via life cycle environmental assessment and life cycle cost analysis following the boundaries of systems from the extraction of materials to the end of bridge life ("from cradle to grave"). In general, the results indicated that the environmental performance of the bridges was significantly linked to the material selection and bridge configuration. In addition, the study enabled the identification of the products and processes with the greatest impact in order to subsidize the design of more sustainable structures and government policies.This research was funded by the Brazilian government in the form of CAPES and CNPq grants, as well as the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project: BIA2017-85098-R).Milani, CJ.; Yepes, V.; Kripka, M. (2020). Proposal of Sustainability Indicators for the Design of Small-Span Bridges. International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health. 17(12):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124488S1231712Bridges: Structures and Materials, Ancient and Modernhttps://www.intechopen.com/online-first/bridges-structures-and-materials-ancient-and-modernDu, G., Safi, M., Pettersson, L., & Karoumi, R. (2014). Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(12), 1948-1964. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0797-zLong, A. E., Basheer, P. A. M., Taylor, S. E., Rankin, B. G. I., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2008). Sustainable bridge construction through innovative advances. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engineering, 161(4), 183-188. doi:10.1680/bren.2008.161.4.183Přikryl, R., Török, Á., Theodoridou, M., Gomez-Heras, M., & Miskovsky, K. (2016). Geomaterials in construction and their sustainability: understanding their role in modern society. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 416(1), 1-22. doi:10.1144/sp416.21Zhang, Y.-R., Wu, W.-J., & Wang, Y.-F. (2016). Bridge life cycle assessment with data uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 569-576. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7Itoh, Y., Hirano, T., Nagata, H., Hammad, A., Nishido, T., & Kashima, A. (1996). STUDY ON BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION SYSTEM CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu, 1996(553), 187-199. doi:10.2208/jscej.1996.553_187Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J., & Yepes, V. (2016). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability, 8(12), 1295. doi:10.3390/su8121295Milani, C. J., & Kripka, M. (2019). Evaluation of short span bridge projects with a focus on sustainability. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(2), 367-380. doi:10.1080/15732479.2019.1662815Penadés-Plà, V., Yepes, V., & García-Segura, T. (2020). Robust decision-making design for sustainable pedestrian concrete bridges. Engineering Structures, 209, 109968. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109968Zastrow, P., Molina-Moreno, F., García-Segura, T., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2017). Life cycle assessment of cost-optimized buttress earth-retaining walls: A parametric study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1037-1048. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.085Fauzi, R. T., Lavoie, P., Sorelli, L., Heidari, M. D., & Amor, B. (2019). Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability, 11(3), 636. doi:10.3390/su11030636Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011). Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(5), 389-391. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0287-5Veganzones Muñoz, J. J., Pettersson, L., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2016). Life-cycle cost analysis as a tool in the developing process for new bridge edge beam solutions. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(9), 1185-1201. doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1095770Carbonell, A., González-Vidosa, F., & Yepes, V. (2011). Design of reinforced concrete road vaults by heuristic optimization. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(4), 151-159. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.01.002García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., & Frangopol, D. M. (2017). Multi-objective design of post-tensioned concrete road bridges using artificial neural networks. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 56(1), 139-150. doi:10.1007/s00158-017-1653-0Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., & Yepes, V. (2020). Robust Design Optimization for Low-Cost Concrete Box-Girder Bridge. Mathematics, 8(3), 398. doi:10.3390/math8030398Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Molina-Moreno, F., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2017). Carbon embodied optimization for buttressed earth-retaining walls: Implications for low-carbon conceptual designs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 872-884. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.246Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & García, J. (2020). Black Hole Algorithm for Sustainable Design of Counterfort Retaining Walls. Sustainability, 12(7), 2767. doi:10.3390/su12072767Bansal, S., Singh, A., & Singh, S. K. (2017). Sustainability evaluation of two iconic bridge corridors under construction using Fuzzy Vikor technique: A case study. Revista ALCONPAT, 7(1), 1-14. doi:10.21041/ra.v7i1.171ReCiPe is the Most Recent and Harmonized Indicator Approach Available in Life Cycle Impact Assessmenthttps://www.pre-sustainability.com/recipeSimaPro Database Manual Methods Libraryhttps://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/DatabaseManualMethods.pdfJolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., & Rosenbaum, R. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(6). doi:10.1007/bf02978505Siche, J. R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E., & Romeiro, A. (2008). Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological Economics, 66(4), 628-637. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.023Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable Development: A Bird’s Eye View. Sustainability, 3(10), 1637-1661. doi:10.3390/su3101637Kuhlmann, U., Maier, P., Friedrich, H., Kaschner, R., Mensinger, M., Pfaffinger, M., … Zinke, T. (2011). Ganzheitliche Bewertung von Stahl- und Verbundbrücken nach Kriterien der Nachhaltigkeit. Stahlbau, 80(10), 703-710. doi:10.1002/stab.201101474Life Cycle Initiative. What is Life Cycle Thinking?http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/what-is-life-cycle-thinking/Penadés-Plà, V., Martínez-Muñoz, D., García-Segura, T., Navarro, I. J., & Yepes, V. (2020). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Optimized Post-Tensioned Concrete Road Bridges. Sustainability, 12(10), 4265. doi:10.3390/su12104265Obras de Arte Mistas—AnáLise Holística Aplicada a Casos Europeus. 7° Congresso Rodoviário Português-Novos Desafios Para a Atividade Rodoviáriahttp://www.crp.pt/docs/A45S117-7CRP_prog_net.pdfHammervold, J., Reenaas, M., & Brattebø, H. (2013). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(2), 153-161. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000328Nielsen, D., Raman, D., & Chattopadhyay, G. (2013). Life cycle management for railway bridge assets. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 227(5), 570-581. doi:10.1177/0954409713501297García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Frangopol, D. M., & Yang, D. Y. (2017). Lifetime reliability-based optimization of post-tensioned box-girder bridges. Engineering Structures, 145, 381-391. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.013Navarro, I. J., Martí, J. V., & Yepes, V. (2019). Reliability-based maintenance optimization of corrosion preventive designs under a life cycle perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 74, 23-34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.001Kuhlmann, U., Maier, P., Zinke, T., Ummenhofer, T., Pfaffinger, M., Mensinger, M., … Friedrich, H. (2014). Nachhaltigkeitsanalysen von Stahlverbundbrücken. Stahlbau, 83(7), 476-486. doi:10.1002/stab.201410179Pang, B., Yang, P., Wang, Y., Kendall, A., Xie, H., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with different strengthening schemes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1300-1311. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1Sabatino, S., Frangopol, D. M., & Dong, Y. (2015). Sustainability-informed maintenance optimization of highway bridges considering multi-attribute utility and risk attitude. Engineering Structures, 102, 310-321. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.07.030Almeida, J. O., Teixeira, P. F., & Delgado, R. M. (2013). Life cycle cost optimisation in highway concrete bridges management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(10), 1263-1276. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.845578Fifer Bizjak, K., & Lenart, S. (2018). Life cycle assessment of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge system – A case study. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 46(5), 543-558. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.04.012Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., … van Zelm, R. (2016). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(2), 138-147. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-yKripka, M., Yepes, V., & Milani, C. (2019). Selection of Sustainable Short-Span Bridge Design in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(5), 1307. doi:10.3390/su11051307Padgett, J. E., & Tapia, C. (2013). Sustainability of Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation: Life Cycle Analysis of Environmental Indicators for Bridge Infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19(4), 395-408. doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000138Arya, C., Amiri, A., & Vassie, P. (2015). A new method for evaluating the sustainability of bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 168(6), 441-453. doi:10.1680/stbu.14.0006

Continuous maintenance and the future – Foundations and technological challenges

High value and long life products require continuous maintenance throughout their life cycle to achieve required performance with optimum through-life cost. This paper presents foundations and technologies required to offer the maintenance service. Component and system level degradation science, assessment and modelling along with life cycle ‘big data’ analytics are the two most important knowledge and skill base required for the continuous maintenance. Advanced computing and visualisation technologies will improve efficiency of the maintenance and reduce through-life cost of the product. Future of continuous maintenance within the Industry 4.0 context also identifies the role of IoT, standards and cyber security

The potential of additive manufacturing in the smart factory industrial 4.0: A review

Additive manufacturing (AM) or three-dimensional (3D) printing has introduced a novel production method in design, manufacturing, and distribution to end-users. This technology has provided great freedom in design for creating complex components, highly customizable products, and efficient waste minimization. The last industrial revolution, namely industry 4.0, employs the integration of smart manufacturing systems and developed information technologies. Accordingly, AM plays a principal role in industry 4.0 thanks to numerous benefits, such as time and material saving, rapid prototyping, high efficiency, and decentralized production methods. This review paper is to organize a comprehensive study on AM technology and present the latest achievements and industrial applications. Besides that, this paper investigates the sustainability dimensions of the AM process and the added values in economic, social, and environment sections. Finally, the paper concludes by pointing out the future trend of AM in technology, applications, and materials aspects that have the potential to come up with new ideas for the future of AM explorations

An Ontology for Product-Service Systems

Industries are transforming their business strategy from a product-centric to a more service-centric nature by bundling products and services into integrated solutions to enhance the relationship between their customers. Since Product- Service Systems design research is currently at a rudimentary stage, the development of a robust ontology for this area would be helpful. The advantages of a standardized ontology are that it could help researchers and practitioners to communicate their views without ambiguity and thus encourage the conception and implementation of useful methods and tools. In this paper, an initial structure of a PSS ontology from the design perspective is proposed and evaluated

Operational strategies for offshore wind turbines to mitigate failure rate uncertainty on operational costs and revenue

Several operational strategies for offshore wind farms have been established and explored in order to improve understanding of operational costs with a focus on heavy lift vessel strategies. Additionally, an investigation into the uncertainty surrounding failure behaviour has been performed identifying the robustness of different strategies. Four operational strategies were considered: fix on fail, batch repair, annual charter and purchase. A range of failure rates have been explored identifying the key cost drivers and under which circumstances an operator would choose to adopt them. When failures are low, the fix on fail and batch strategies perform best and allow flexibility of operating strategy. When failures are high, purchase becomes optimal and is least sensitive to increasing failure rate. Late life failure distributions based on mechanical and electrical components behaviour have been explored. Increased operating costs because of wear-out failures have been quantified. An increase in minor failures principally increase lost revenue costs and can be mitigated by deploying increased maintenance resources. An increase in larger failures primarily increases vessel and repair costs. Adopting a purchase strategy can negate the vessel cost increase; however, significant cost increases are still observed. Maintenance actions requiring the use of heavy lift vessels, currently drive train components and blades are identified as critical for proactive maintenance to minimise overall maintenance costs

Arrangements and Cost of Providing Support to Rural Water Service Providers

This paper is about the costs of providing direct and indirect support to rural water service provision. It provides an overview of the features such support entails, how these features can be organized, what they cost and how they can be financed. It also provides recommendations to countries for strengthening support. The paper is based on a desk review of existing literature from seven countries and an analysis of primary cost data collected by the WASHCost project in Andhra Pradesh (India), Mozambique and Ghana in 2010 and 2011. Support to service providers in the form of monitoring, technical assistance and (re)training of service providers is called direct support whereas indirect support refers to aspects such as macro-level planning and policy making. Direct support can be provided in different forms: by specialized agencies, by local government or even by an association of service providers. However, the nature, scope and frequency of such support are often not sufficiently defined. There is, therefore, still little quantitative evidence that supports the premise that direct support has a positive impact on the quality and sustainability of services