# Can Polyolefin Fibre Reinforced Concrete Improve the Sustainability of a Flyover Bridge?

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{2}per ton of cement manufactured. Consequently, cement production was responsible for an amount from 5% [2] to 7% [3] of the global industrial production of CO

_{2}in 2010. Regarding the production of steel, it should be noted that as production has increased in the last decades the contribution to global CO

_{2}production has also grown. For instance, Chinese crude-steel production has reached 683.3 million tons, accounting for 45.9% of world steel production [4]. Although impressive progress has been made, this industry still has low resources, low levels of energy efficiency, and heavy environmental pollution [5].

^{3}of polyolefin fibres. Moreover, polyolefin fibres are not metallic and therefore do not suffer from corrosion when subjected to environments with high concentrations of chloride or sulphate ions. This characteristic of polyolefin fibres might contribute to enhance the durability of the material and consequently the life span of the structure.

^{3}of polyolefin fibres (PFRC10). The application of PFRC10 will be limited to the slab of the bridge, designing the beams with conventional reinforced concrete in the form of prefabricated girders. Once this step is completed, the MIVES analysis will evaluate the socioeconomic and environmental costs that the aforementioned options imply [21]. Lastly, some recommendations will be offered in order to serve as a reference for future applications and potential structural designs.

## 2. Material Modelling

#### 2.1. Reinforced Concrete

_{ck}) which was set at 35 MPa. Moreover, it should be highlighted that the rest of properties of concrete were deduced by using the experimental correlations between the compressive strength and the parameter needed.

_{ctm}).

_{cm}). Such a modulus was assumed equal to that considered in the first branch of the parabolic diagram under compressive stresses. Although it is accepted that concrete under tensile stresses behaves as a quasi-brittle material, which might be simulated by using an exponential softening function [23,24,25], it cannot be overlooked that the majority of the approaches neglect this kind of behaviour thus reducing concrete to a material with brittle behaviour when using RC.

_{su}= 1%.

#### 2.2. FRC

^{3}forming PFRC10. The main characteristics of the fibres used can be seen in Figure 1 and Table 1.

## 3. Structural Design Methodology

_{s}= 1.15). It should be highlighted that this approach deviates from the partial coefficients adopted in the Model Code 2010 [22] in order to make the calculation consistent. This approach corresponds to those used in other North American standards such as those provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the American Concrete Institute (ACI).

- The maximum compressive strain in concrete greater than compressive ultimate strain: ε
_{cmax}> ε_{cu}= 0.35%. - The tensile strain in main reinforcement greater than the ultimate strain of steel: ε
_{s}> ε_{su}= 1.00%. - The crack width in concrete greater than the ultimate crack width: w > w
_{u}.

_{u}= 1.5 mm is taken. In addition, unlike the flexure crack, it is considered that the surfaces on both sides of the crack are parallel so that the crack width is constant.

## 4. Application to a Bridge Typology

#### 4.1. Description of the Numerical Model

_{g}= 1.60 m that support the slab over a single span of L = 28.50 m. The width of the deck is b = 14.05 m (ratio b/L ≈ 0.5) and the girders are spaced s = 3.75 m, which leaves an overhang of L

_{ov}= 1.40 m. The barriers on each side have a width of b

_{bar}= 0.525 m and between them there is a roadway pavement with b

_{pav}= 13.00 m. The depth of the slab is set at h

_{s}= 25 cm for all calculations. A sketch of the bridge can be seen in Figure 4. Moreover, the section of the bridge can be seen in Figure 5 where a detailed view of the girders section can be observed.

_{ck}

_{,s}= 35 MPa, as mentioned above. The beam elements are assigned a cross-section identical to that defined in the structural drawings for girders shown in Figure 5 and a higher quality concrete with f

_{ck}

_{,g}= 50 MPa was chosen. As was stated in previous sections there is not a undisputed evidence about how the presence of fibres influence the modulus of elasticity and the compressive strength of PFRC if compared with plain concrete [19,20]. Consequently, and due to the limited influence that this matter has in the structural application analysed, it has been considered that the behaviour of concrete under compressive stresses for RC and PFRC10 might be considered the same without introducing notable imprecisions. The slab moves jointly with the beam by imposing a master-slave system at the central portion of the upper wing. The beams were supported at the abutments and linear springs were attached to the lower face.

#### 4.2. Results Obtained and Calculation of the Reinforcement

^{3}of fibres, in most cases, does not change the amount of reinforcement in most of the points analysed. Mainly in the points closest to Girder #2 can a certain reduction of steel bars be noticed. The main difference lies in the increment of the distance of the reinforcement bars which, in the case of points P5, P7 and P9, varies from 15 cm to 20 cm both for positive and negative bending moments. A similar trend is observed in the case of P8 where the distance between bars changes from 20 cm to 30 cm. Regarding P12 for negative moments and P14 for positive moments, it can be seen that a reduction of the diameter of the bars used is also feasible.

_{Rd,c}stands for shear resistance of conventional RC with longitudinal reinforcement and without shear reinforcement, f

_{Ftuk}is the characteristic value of the ultimate residual strength of FRC, determined by considering an ultimate crack width w

_{u}= 1.5 mm, V

_{Rd,F}is the shear resistance of FRC with longitudinal reinforcement and without shear reinforcement and V

_{Rd,s}is the contribution of shear reinforcement in shear resistance. Moreover, the shear force is only evaluated at the edges of the girders (calculation points P1–P3 and P97–P12) in order to calculate the deck reinforcement with these values as lower shear forces are between girders.

## 5. MIVES Evaluation of the Proposed Bridges

#### 5.1. Description of the MIVES Method

#### 5.2. Discussion of the Case Study

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Chen, C.; Habert, G.; Bouzidi, Y.; Jullien, A. Environmental impact of cement production: Detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. J. Clean. Prod.
**2010**, 18, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mikulčić, H.; Vujanović, M.; Duić, N. Reducing the CO
_{2}emissions in Croatian cement industry. Appl. Energy**2013**, 101, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Benhelal, E.; Zahedi, G.; Shamsaei, E.; Bahadori, A. Global strategies and potentials to curb CO
_{2}emissions in cement industry. J. Clean. Prod.**2013**, 51, 142–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - China Statistic Yearbook; National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
- He, F.; Zhang, Q.; Lei, J.; Fu, W.; Xu, X. Energy efficiency and productivity change of China’s iron and steel industry: Accounting for undesirable outputs. Energy Policy
**2013**, 54, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El Fattah, A.A.; Al-Duais, I.; Riding, R.; Thomas, M. Field evaluation of corrosion mitigation on reinforced concrete in marine exposure conditions. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2018**, 165, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, F.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, W.; Liu, W.; Du, D. Numerical model for corrosion rate of steel reinforcement in cracked reinforced concrete structure. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2018**, 180, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thompson, N.; Yunovich, M.; Dunmire, D. Cost of corrosion and corrosion maintenance strategies. Corros. Rev.
**2007**, 25, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Val, D.V.; Stewart, M.G. Life-cycle cost analysis of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments. Struct. Saf.
**2003**, 25, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Angulo-Ramírez, D.; de Gutiérrez, R.M.; Puertas, F. Alkali-activated Portland blast-furnace slag cement: Mechanical properties and hydration. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2017**, 140, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, G.; Zhang, A.; Song, A.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. Ground granulated blast furnace slag effect on the durability of ternary cementitious system exposed to combined attack of chloride and sulfate. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2018**, 158, 640–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dalton, J.; Gardner, K.; Seager, T.; Weimer, M.; Spear, J.; Magee, B. Properties of Portland cement made from contaminated sediments. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
**2004**, 41, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aydin, E.; Arel, H.Ş. Characterization of high-volume fly-ash cement pastes for sustainable construction applications. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2017**, 157, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Vries, P. Concrete recycled: Crushed concrete aggregate. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Concrete in the Service of Mankind. I. Concrete for Environment Enhancement and Protection, Scotland, UK, 24–26 June 1996; pp. 121–130. [Google Scholar]
- EHE-08. Spanish Structural Concrete Code; Spanish Minister of Public Works: Madrid, Spain, 2008; 720p.
- Fiol, F.; Thomas, C.; Muñoz, C.; Ortega-López, V.; Manso, J. The influence of recycled aggregates from precast elements on the mechanical properties of structural self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2018**, 182, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hossein, M.; Tahir, M.M. Durability performance of concrete incorporating waste metalized plastic fibres and palm oil fuel ash. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2018**, 180, 92–102. [Google Scholar] - Frazão, C.; Camões, A.; Barros, J.; Gonçalves, D. Durability of steel fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2015**, 80, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Alberti, M.G.; Enfedaque, A.; Gálvez, J.C. On the mechanical properties and fracture behavior of polyolefin fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2014**, 55, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alberti, M.G.; Enfedaque, A.; Gálvez, J.C. Comparison between polyolefin fibre reinforced vibrated conventional concrete and self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2015**, 85, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pons, O.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability
**2016**, 8, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Fib. Model Code 2010; Fédération Internationale du Béton fib/International Federation for Structural Concrete: Paris, France, October 2013; 434p. [Google Scholar]
- Reyes, E.; Gálvez, J.; Casati, M.; Cendón, D.; Sancho, J.; Planas, J. An embedded cohesive crack model for finite element analysis of brickwork masonry fracture. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2009**, 76, 1930–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Gálvez, J.; Planas, J.; Sancho, J.; Reyes, E.; Cendón, D.; Casati, M. An embedded cohesive crack model for finite element analysis of quasi-brittle materials. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2013**, 109, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sancho, J.; Planas, J.; Cendón, D.; Reyes, E.; Gálvez, J. An embedded crack model for finite element analysis of concrete fracture. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2007**, 74, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zollo, R. Fiber-reinforced concrete: An overview after 30 years of development. Cem. Concr. Compos.
**1997**, 19, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - DBV. Merkblatt Stahlfaserbeton Deutsche Beton Vereins; DBV: Berlin, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Guide for the Design and Construction of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Structures; CNR-DT 204; Consiglio Nazionale delle Riserche: Roma, Italy, 2006.
- Blanco, A.; Pujadas, P.; de la Fuente, A.; Cavalaro, S.; Aguado, A. Application of constitutive models in European codes to RC–FRC. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2013**, 40, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Di Prisco, M.; Plizzari, G.; Vandewalle, L. Fibre reinforced concrete: New design perspectives. Mater. Struct.
**2009**, 42, 1261–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alberti, M.G.; Enfedaque, A.; Gálvez, J.C.; Reyes, E. Numerical modelling of the fracture of polyolefin fibre reinforced concrete by using a cohesive fracture approach. Compos. Part B Eng.
**2017**, 111, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Enfedaque, A.; Alberti, M.; Gálvez, J.; Domingo, J. Numerical simulation of the fracture behaviour of glass fibre reinforced cement. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2017**, 136, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2013**, 26, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ortiz, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2009**, 23, 8–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ISO 14040. Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization ISO: London, UK, 2006; 20p. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook e General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment e Detailed Guidance; Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Glass, J.; Dyer, T.; Georgopoulos, C.; Goodier, C.; Paine, K.; Parry, T.; Baumann, H.; Gluch, P. Future use of life-cycle assessment in civil engineering. ICE Construct. Mater
**2013**, 166, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Asiedu, Y.; Gu, P. Product life cycle cost analysis: State of the art review. Ind. J. Prod. Res.
**1998**, 36, 883–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cabeza, F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Castell, G. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2014**, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Allesch, A.; Brunner, P. Material flow analysis as a decision support tool for waste management: A literature review. J. Ind. Ecol.
**2015**, 19, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, L.; Issam, S.; Hermreck, C.; Chong, W. Integrating G2G, C2C and resource flow analysis into life cycle assessment framework: A case of construction steel’s resource loop. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
**2015**, 102, 143–152. [Google Scholar] - Marjaba, G.; Chidiac, S. Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings—Critical review. Build. Environ.
**2016**, 101, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Quale, J.; Eckelman, M.; Williams, K.; Slodits, G. Construction matters: Comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol.
**2012**, 16, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malin, N. Life cycle assessment for whole buildings: Seeking the holy grail. Build. Des. Constr.
**2005**, 46, 6–11. [Google Scholar] - Kohler, N.; Moffatt, S. Life-cycle analysis of the built environment. Sustain. Build. Constr.
**2003**, 26, 17–21. [Google Scholar] - San-Jose, J.; Garrucho, I. A system approach to the environmental analysis industry of buildings. Build. Environ.
**2010**, 45, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - San-Jose, J.; Cuadrado, J. Industrial building design stage based on a system approach to their environmental sustainability. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2010**, 24, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reyes, J.; San-Jose, J.; Cuadrado, J.; Sancibrian, R. Health & Safety criteria for determining the value of sustainable construction projects. Saf. Sci.
**2014**, 62, 221–232. [Google Scholar] - San-José, J.T.; Losada, R.; Cuadrado, J.; Garrucho, I. Approach to the quantification of the sustainable value in industrial buildings. Build. Environ.
**2007**, 42, 3916–3923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pardo-Bosch, F.; Aguado, A. Investment priorities for the management of hydraulic structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
**2015**, 11, 1338–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - De la Fuente, A.; Armengou, J.; Pons, O.; Aguado, A. Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: Application to a new precast concrete alternative. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
**2017**, 23, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Density (kg/m^{3}) | Length (mm) | Equivalent Diameter (mm) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Fibres Per kg | Ultimate Strain (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

910 | 60 | 0.903 | 400 | 9 | 27,000 | 20 |

Design Case: M^{+}_{yy} | Design Case: M^{−}_{yy} | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Calc. Point | M^{+}_{yy,max} (mkN/m) | RC | PFRC 10 | M^{−}_{yy,max} (mkN/m) | RC | PFRC 10 | ||

Reinforcement | Reduction Feasible? | Reinforcement | Reinforcement | Reduction Feasible? | Reinforcement | |||

P1 | 80.5 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −160.0 | Ø20 @ 15 cm | - | - |

P2 | 57.8 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - | −51.7 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P3 | 83.0 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −163.2 | Ø20 @ 15 cm | - | - |

P4 | 86.2 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −36.3 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P5 | 90.4 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 20 cm | −20.8 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P6 | 86.8 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −42.0 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P7 | 105.3 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 20 cm | −101.7 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 20 cm |

P8 | 68.7 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 30 cm | −76.8 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 30 cm |

P9 | 102.9 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 20 cm | −98.1 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 20 cm |

P10 | 59.5 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - | −114.3 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | - | - |

P11 | 87.2 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −51.5 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P12 | 60.7 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 30 cm | −118.5 | Ø20 @ 20 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 15 cm |

P13 | 86.9 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −22.9 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P14 | 120.8 | Ø20 @ 20 cm | Yes | Ø16 @ 15 cm | −36.5 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

P15 | 87.1 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | - | - | −26.1 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | - | - |

Design Case: V_{yy} (PFRC) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Calc. Point | |V_{yy,max}| (kN/m) | Longitudinal Reinforcement | RC | PFRC 10 | |||||

V_{Rd,c} (kN/m) | V_{Rd,s} (kN/m) | Reinforcement ([cm^{2}/m]/mL) | f_{Ftuk} (MPa) | V_{Rd,F} (kN/m) | V_{Rd,s} (kN/m) | Reinforcement ([cm^{2}/m]/mL) | |||

P1 | 211.2 | Ø20 @ 15 cm | 162.7 | 48.4 | 2.4 | 0.355 | 211.2 | - | No reinforc. |

P2 | 168.6 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | 111.7 | 56.8 | 2.7 | 0.728 | 168.6 | - | No reinforc. |

P3 | 216.8 | Ø20 @ 15 cm | 162.7 | 54.1 | 2.6 | 0.409 | 216.8 | - | No reinforc. |

P7 | 212.1 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | 140.8 | 71.3 | 3.4 | 1.104 | 214.1 | - | No reinforc. |

P8 | 190.0 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | 127.9 | 62.1 | 3.0 | 1.147 | 188.9 | 1.1 | 0.1 |

P9 | 208.6 | Ø16 @ 20 cm | 140.8 | 67.8 | 3.3 | 1.000 | 208.6 | - | No reinforc. |

P10 | 224.3 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | 140.8 | 83.5 | 4.0 | 0.911 | 224.3 | - | No reinforc. |

P11 | 181.8 | Ø16 @ 30 cm | 111.7 | 70.1 | 3.4 | 0.991 | 181.8 | - | No reinforc. |

P12 | 228.7 | Ø16 @ 15 cm | 147.9 | 80.9 | 3.9 | 0.985 | 228.7 | - | No reinforc. |

Reinforced Concrete | PFRC 10 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bending | Stress | Shear | Stress | Bending | Stress | Shear | Stress | |

Centre | 8.6 | M^{+} | 2.3 | V_{yy} | 7.5 | M^{+} | 0 | V_{yy} |

Sides | 8.1 | M^{+} | 2.9 | V_{yy} | 7.2 | M^{+} | 0.2 | V_{yy} |

Centre | 6.1 | M^{−} | 2.3 | V_{yy} | 5.7 | M^{−} | 0 | V_{yy} |

Sides | 9.7 | M^{−} | 2.9 | V_{yy} | 8.9 | M^{−} | 0.2 | V_{yy} |

Partial reinforcement | 15.6 | 5.0 | 14.1 | 0.1 | ||||

Total reinforcement | ρ | 20.6 | ρ | 14.2 |

Requirement | (R. Weights) | Criteria | (C. Weights) | Indicators | (I. Weights) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

R1. Economic | 50% | C1 Total costs. Direct + Indirect | 40% | I1 Total costs including construction time | 100% | 100% |

C2 Quality | 10% | I2 Non-quality costs | 100% | 100% | ||

C3 Dismantling | 10% | I3 Dismantling costs | 100% | 100% | ||

C4 Service-life | 40% | I4 Cost of service. Maintenance. Energy. Change of use. | 80% | 100% | ||

I5 Resilience. Risk of disaster × cost of reconstruction + lack of use | 20% | |||||

100% | ||||||

R2. Environmental | 30% | C5 Material consumption at construction time | 20% | I6 Cement | 25% | 100% |

I7 Aggregates | 10% | |||||

I8 Reinforcement (steel mesh, steel fibres and polyolefin fibres) | 15% | |||||

I9 Water | 25% | |||||

I10 Auxiliary Materials | 15% | |||||

I11 Reused Material | 10% | |||||

C5 Material consumption for maintenance | 20% | I6 Cement | 25% | 100% | ||

I7 Aggregates | 10% | |||||

I8 Reinforcement (steel mesh, steel fibres, polyolefin fibres) | 15% | |||||

I9 Water | 25% | |||||

I10 Auxiliary materials | 15% | |||||

I11 Reused material | 10% | |||||

C6 Emissions at construction time | 20% | I12 Global warming potential | 80% | 100% | ||

I13 Total waste | 20% | |||||

C6 Emissions for maintenance | 20% | I12 Global warming potential | 80% | 100% | ||

I13 Total waste | 20% | |||||

C7 Energy | 20% | I14 Embodied energy | 20% | 100% | ||

I15 Construction energy | 40% | |||||

I16 Service and maintenance energy | 40% | |||||

100% | ||||||

R3. Social | 20% | C8 Third parties | 50% | I17 Comfort. Thermal, air and, among others, noise. | 10% | 100% |

I18 Noise pollution. Construction | 15% | |||||

I19 Particles pollution. Construction | 15% | |||||

I20 Traffic disturbances. Construction | 15% | |||||

I18 Noise pollution. Maintenance | 15% | |||||

I19 Particles pollution. Maintenance | 15% | |||||

I20 Traffic disturbances. Maintenance | 15% | |||||

C9 Risks | 50% | I21 Health and safety during construction | 40% | 100% | ||

I22 Health and safety during maintenance | 40% | |||||

I23 Occupant safety. Risk of Disaster x cost of life disruption | 20% | |||||

100% | 100% |

Steel Mesh | Polyolefin Fibres | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

REQUIREMENT | Score * Rweights | Score * Cweights | Score * Iweights | Score (0–100) | Score * Rweights | Score * Cweights | Score * Iweights | Score (0–100) |

R1. Economic | 35.39 | 33.71 | 84.28 | 84 | 28.28 | 21.74 | 54.34 | 54 |

4.54 | 45.40 | 45 | 3.28 | 32.82 | 33 | |||

8.00 | 80.00 | 80 | 7.00 | 70.00 | 70 | |||

24.53 | 48.00 | 60 | 24.53 | 48.00 | 60 | |||

13.33 | 67 | 13.33 | 67 | |||||

R2. Environmental | 21.15 | 17.55 | 10.20 | 41 | 15.87 | 13.71 | 10.20 | 41 |

5.67 | 57 | 5.67 | 57 | |||||

61.74 | 412 | 42.54 | 284 | |||||

7.34 | 29 | 7.34 | 29 | |||||

2.81 | 19 | 2.81 | 19 | |||||

0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |||||

8.72 | 10.42 | 42 | 4.36 | 5.21 | 21 | |||

4.93 | 49 | 2.47 | 25 | |||||

12.35 | 82 | 6.17 | 41 | |||||

6.51 | 26 | 3.26 | 13 | |||||

9.38 | 63 | 4.69 | 31 | |||||

0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |||||

15.12 | 57.60 | 72 | 10.42 | 39.69 | 50 | |||

18.00 | 90 | 12.40 | 62 | |||||

15.12 | 57.60 | 72 | 10.42 | 39.69 | 50 | |||

18.00 | 90 | 12.40 | 62 | |||||

14.00 | 20.00 | 100 | 14.00 | 20.00 | 100 | |||

40.00 | 100 | 40.00 | 100 | |||||

10.00 | 25 | 10.00 | 25 | |||||

R3. Social | 14.90 | 36.50 | 10.00 | 100 | 14.22 | 34.70 | 10.00 | 100 |

15.00 | 100 | 15.00 | 100 | |||||

15.00 | 100 | 15.00 | 100 | |||||

15.00 | 100 | 15.00 | 100 | |||||

6.00 | 40 | 4.80 | 32 | |||||

6.00 | 40 | 4.80 | 32 | |||||

6.00 | 40 | 4.80 | 32 | |||||

38.00 | 40.00 | 100 | 36.40 | 40.00 | 100 | |||

16.00 | 40 | 12.80 | 32 | |||||

20.00 | 100 | 20.00 | 100 | |||||

71 | Total | 58 | Total |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Enfedaque, A.; Alberti, M.G.; Gálvez, J.C.; Rivera, M.; Simón-Talero, J.M. Can Polyolefin Fibre Reinforced Concrete Improve the Sustainability of a Flyover Bridge? *Sustainability* **2018**, *10*, 4583.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124583

**AMA Style**

Enfedaque A, Alberti MG, Gálvez JC, Rivera M, Simón-Talero JM. Can Polyolefin Fibre Reinforced Concrete Improve the Sustainability of a Flyover Bridge? *Sustainability*. 2018; 10(12):4583.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124583

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Enfedaque, Alejandro, Marcos G. Alberti, Jaime C. Gálvez, Marino Rivera, and José M. Simón-Talero. 2018. "Can Polyolefin Fibre Reinforced Concrete Improve the Sustainability of a Flyover Bridge?" *Sustainability* 10, no. 12: 4583.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124583