Life Cycle Assessment of FRP RetroﬁngUS‐Japan LCA Workshop October 22. 2009 © M. D. Lepech 2009 Outline • Project GoalsUS‐Japan LCA Workshop October 22. 2009 © M. D. Lepech

©M.D.Lepech2009US‐JapanLCAWorkshop October22.2009

LifeCycleAssessmentofFRPRetrofi5ng

US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure Materials

October 22, 2009

Michael D. Lepech Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University


Outline

•  ProjectGoals•  Methodology

•  ApplicaGon•  LCIofUPRandApplicaGonInventory•  StructuralAnalysis•  Conclusions•  FutureWork


ProjectGoals

•  Performance‐basedEarthquakeEngineering–  “design,evaluaGon,andconstrucGonofengineeredfaciliGesthatmeet,aseconomicallyaspossible,theuncertainfuturedemandsthatbothowner‐usersandnaturewillputuponthem”

–  “quanGtaGveengineeringinsupportofdecision‐makingforowners,users,andmanagers”

–  “dollars,deaths,downGme”

•  Inclusionofpre‐event,event,andpost‐eventenvironmental,social&economicimpactsintoperformance‐baseddesigngoals


PBEFramework

PBE Quantitative Engineering in Support of Decision Making

Prediction of Hazard •  Earthquakes •  Wind •  Waves •  Fire

Prediction of Demands •  System Modeling •  Constitutive Models •  Element Models •  Nonlinear Analysis •  Deteriorating Systems

Prediction of Damage •  Component Fragility •  System Fragility •  Cost Functions •  Loss Estimation •  Life Safety

Risk Management, Assessment, & Mitigation Decision-making Under Uncertainty

Performance-based Design Health Monitoring

Advanced Materials Active/Passive Control Information Technology

Design/Construction Integration


PBEEMethodology

Hazard Assessment and Prediction

Demand Prediction

Damage Prediction

Structural Design

Iterative Structural Design Loop

Design Goals

•  Maximize – Life Safety •  Minimize – First Cost, Replacement cost, Life cycle cost, Loss, Downtime

Life Cycle Assessment

Economic Costs Environmental Costs Social Costs


PBEComputaGonalMethodology

€

g[DV |D] = p[DV |DM,D]p[DM | EDP,D]∫∫∫

€

p[EDP | IM,D]g[IM |D]dIMdEDPdDMg(X|Y): Occurrence Frequency of X given Y p(X|Y): Probability of X given Y DV: Decision Variable D: Design DM: Damage Measure EPD: Engineering Demand Parameter IM: Intensity Measure SI: Sustainability Impact

€

g[DV |D] = p[DV | SI,D]p[SI |DM,D]p[DM | EDP,D]∫∫∫∫

€

p[EDP | IM,D]g[IM |D]dIMdEDPdDMdSI


ApplicaGon•  BridgepiercolumnjackeGngto

address–  Lackofflexuralstrength

–  LackofflexuralducGlity

–  Lowshearstrength

•  Pre‐eventretrofiXngapplicaGon–  OngoingCaltransstrengtheningefforts

followingLomaPrieta(1989)andNorthridge(1994)

–  Bringingover2,200Californiabridgesuptospecifiedsafety

–  CaltranseffortscosGngoverUS$8.4billion

•  RetrofiXngTechnologies–  SteeljackeGng

–  FRPwrapping(UPR,Epoxy)(Photo by Xxsys Technologies)


StudyBoundaries

•  RawMaterialExtracGon

•  MaterialManufacturing•  ConstrucGon•  Use(parGal)

R a w M a t e r i a l A c q u i s i t i o n

M a t e r i a l P r o c e s s i n g

M a n u f a c t u r e & A s s e m b l y

U s e & S e r v i c e

R e t i r e m e n t & R e c o v e r y

T r e a t m e n t D i s p o s a l

o p e n - l o o p r e c y c l e

r e u s e r e m a n u f a c t u r e

c l o s e d - l o o p r e c y c l e

M, E

W W W W W

M, E M, E M, E M, E M, E

W


PrimaryLCIConstrucGon‐UPR

Chemical Reactor

Thinning Tank

Storage Tank – Thinned Resin

Blending Tank

Storage Tank – Final Product

Shipping Operations

Distillation Column for Distillate Recovery

Emix, Eheat, EVaporize

Anhydrides, Diols

Emix, Ecool Styrene Vapors

200°C

80°C

Incinerator

Styrene Vapors Incinerator

Emix

Additives (i.e. halogenated resin)




80°C

80°C

Ambient

E Glycols (recycled)

Incinerator

Full Ester

Styrene

Thinned Resin

Thinned Resin


PrimaryLCIConstrucGon‐UPR

•  ModelingDetails– FuncGonalUnit–1kgFinalUPRresin–  Industrialnaturalgasburneris78%efficient– 3PinducGonmotors(1800RPM)

•  1HP@100%load–72%efficiency

•  20HP@50%load–85%efficiency•  15HP@50%load–82%efficiency

•  10HP@50%load–82%efficiency

– Catalysts<1%– 5%cut‐offrule


UPRLCIandApplicaGonInventories

UPR Epoxy Resin Glass Fiber Rolled Steel Plate Cement Mortar

2.82 1.11 0.508 0.998 0.13

62.1 236 8.67 20.5 0.85

GWP (kg CO2-eq/kg) µ COV

Primary Energy (MJ/kg) µ COV

UPR-based FRP Wrapping Epoxy-based FRP Wrapping Steel Jacketing

15.9

5.67 277

339

694 4400

GWP (kg CO2-eq/wrap) µ COV

Primary Energy (MJ/wrap) µ COV

0.2 0.35 0.26 0.12 0.13

0.22 0.36 0.26 0.10 0.13

0.15

0.23 0.10

0.16

0.24 0.12


UPRLCIandApplicaGonInventories

UPR Epoxy Resin Glass Fiber Rolled Steel Plate Cement Mortar

2.82 1.11 0.508 0.998 0.13

62.1 236 8.67 20.5 0.85

GWP (kg CO2-eq/kg) µ COV

Primary Energy (MJ/kg) µ COV

UPR-based FRP Wrapping Epoxy-based FRP Wrapping Steel Jacketing

15.9

5.67 277

339

694 4400

GWP (kg CO2-eq/wrap) µ COV

Primary Energy (MJ/wrap) µ COV

0.2 0.35 0.26 0.12 0.13

0.22 0.36 0.26 0.10 0.13

0.15

0.23 0.10

0.16

0.24 0.12


Outline

•  ProjectGoals•  Methodology

•  ApplicaGon•  LCIofUPRandApplicaGonInventory•  StructuralAnalysis•  Conclusions•  FutureWork


SeismicRisk–BridgeStructureBridge Structure

Overall length: 34m Spans: 3 Deck width: 10m Supports:

2 pier groups 3 columns per group 800mm φ R/C columns

Modeled in OpenSees

Seismic Hazard

Weak ground motion – PGA of 0.11g 50% exceedence in 50 years

Moderate ground motion – PGA of 0.68g 10% exceedence in 50 years

Strong ground motion – PGA of 1.33g 2% exceedence in 50 years


FragilityCurveConstrucGon

•  5damagestatesdefined–  D1:nodamage–  D2:slightdamage

–  D3:moderatedamage

–  D4:extensivedamage

–  D5:collapsedamage

•  Damagedefinedbydrillimits–  D1:0.005

–  D5:0.05

€

Pf = P[D ≥ Di | IM]

Damage State D1: No Damage


AddiGonalFragilityCurves|DM

Damage State D2: Slight Damage Damage State D3: Moderate Damage

Damage State D4: Extensive Damage Damage State D5: Collapse Damage


LifeCycleAssessment

•  Costsconsidered–  PrimaryEnergy

–  GlobalWarmingPotenGal

•  RecurrenceofseismiceventmodeledasasimplePoissonevent

€

E[C(t,X)]= C0 + (C1P1 + C2P2 + ...CkPk )Nλ×

•  MinimalmaintenanceandrepairimpactsintermsofprimaryenergyandGWP

•  Discountrateof4%(lowdiscountrate)onlongtermfutureimpacts

€

(1− e−λt ) +Cm

λ(1− e−λt )


ImpactsofRetrofiXng|IM,DM

D5: Collapse Damage

•  Impactstendtobehighestformoderateseismicevents–  RelaGvelyshort

reocurranceperiod

–  NonlinearincreaseofP[D>Di|IM]

–  EffectsofeventslikeLomaPrieta(1989)Magnitude6.9

(kg

CO

2-eq

/yr)

(M

J/yr

)

0.11 0.68 1.33 (g)

Steel Epoxy

UPR

Steel Epoxy

UPR


Conclusions

•  AnnualizedimpactsofFRPseismicretrofiXngarelowerthanforsteeljackeGng.

•  ForlowerdamagestateprotecGon(D1–D3),unsaturatedpolyesterresinandepoxy‐basedresinretrofiXngsystemsbecomemoreefficient.

•  Unsaturatedpolyester‐basedFRPwrappingismoreefficientthanepoxy‐basedFRPwrappingforalldamagestates|IMintermsprimaryenergyconsumpGon.

•  Epoxy‐basedFRPwrappingismoreefficientthanunsaturatedpolyester‐basedFRPwrappingforalldamagestates|IMwithregardtoannualizedglobalwarminggasemissions.


OngoingWork

•  ImproveddefiniGonofusephase–  DifferencesintrafficinterrupGonduetovaryingconstrucGonGmelines

–  Improvedmaintenanceschedulemodeling(Caltrans)

•  Completeinclusionofbridgerepairimpactsassociatedwithvariousdamagestates

•  IntegraGonwithothercosGngmodels(environmentaldamagecostmodelingandnaturalcapitalvaluaGon)

•  StructurelevelopGmizaGonandnetworklevelopGmizaGonwithregionalhazardmappingandconnecGvityrequirements

•  Broaderhazardassessmentbringing“acute”healthrisksassociatedwithstructuralcollapsewith“chronic”healthrisksassociatedwithlocal,regional,orglobalemissions


Acknowledgements

SarahRussell‐SmithProfessorAnneKiremidjian,StanfordUniversity

Mr.TomStewart

Dr.EnioKumpinsky

Mr.NickFriedan

PEER


Thankyou!

MichaelLepech

[email protected]/~mlepech

+1650.724.9459

Documents

Life Cycle Assessment of FRP RetroﬁngUS‐Japan LCA Workshop October 22. 2009 © M. D. Lepech 2009 Outline • Project GoalsUS‐Japan LCA Workshop October 22. 2009 © M. D. Lepech