Advertisement

The Comparison Between Reactive Powder Concrete and Traditional Concrete in Economy and Environmental Conservation of Bridge Engineering

  • Li LaiEmail author
  • Daisen Zhu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 929)

Abstract

The project mainly compared application of the traditional concrete and reactive powder concrete in t-beam bridges. Different designing parameters of reactive powder concrete and traditional concrete were listed. According to those parameters, two traditional concrete t-beam bridge models and five reactive powder concrete t-beam bridge models were built under the same ambient conditions. Based on the outcomes of seven finite element models, the project found that although reactive powder concrete has ultra-high-performance in engineering, which can reduce the material consumption in the superstructure of t-beam bridges, it cannot reduce the construction costs in t-beam bridges. The price of building a reactive powder concrete t-beam bridge is twice more than a traditional concrete t-beam bridge under the same conditions. Reactive powder concrete was traditionally considered as a green concrete, as it can reduce the material consumption and avoid some pollution in manufacture. However, through the calculation of this project, it found that the total CO2 emissions produced in building a reactive powder concrete t-beam bridge is 1.8 times than the figure for building a traditional concrete t-beam bridge under the same condition.

Keywords

T-beam bridge CO2 emission Reactive powder concrete 

References

  1. 1.
    David JM (2007) Green house gas emission due to concrete manufacture. Concrete Manuf 12(5):282–288Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pierre R, Marcel C (1995) Composition of reactive powder concrete. Cement Concrete Res 25:1501–1511Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pierre YB, Marco C (1999) Precast, prestressed pedestrian bridge-world’s first reactive powder concrete structure. New Technol 9:60–71Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodman L (2012) Rudy Ricciotti: l’architecture, un art majeur. (Rudy Ricciotti: architecture, a major art), France Today, 20 August 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xudong S (2017) Experimental verification of the feasibility of a novel prestressed reactive powder concrete box-girder bridge structure. Bridge Eng 22(6):1–13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan P, Wang M Song C (2013) Anti-strike capability of Steel-fiber reactive powder concrete. Defence Sci J 63(4), p.n/aGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Railway Bridge Regulation (2006) Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) Material Temporary Technical Conditions. China: Ministry of Railways of the People’s Republic of ChinaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bridge Regulation (2004) Code for Design of Highway Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Bridges and Culverts. China: Ministry of CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garas VY, Kurtis KE (2012) Creep of UHPC in tension and compression: effect of thermal treatment. Cement Concrete Compos 34:439–502Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yong L (2014) Analysis of the optimization and application of beam bodies of reactive powder concrete simply-supported t-beam bridge in the heavy haul railway, Beijing Jiaotong UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bridge Regulation (2015) General specifications for design of highway bridges and culverts. Ministry of Communications, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chinese Engineering Materials Price WebsiteGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Australian Greenhouse Office (2014) Australian Greenhouse Office Factors and Methods Workbook, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jiangxi Freesun Technology CompanyGanzhouChina
  2. 2.University of ManchesterManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations