A carbon footprint analysis of railway sleepers in the United Kingdom |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Computing, Engineering & Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, NSW, Australia;2. Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education, School of Civil Engineering, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK;1. Transportation Research Group, University of Southampton, Burgess Road, SO16 7QF Southampton, United Kingdom;2. Infrastructure Research Group, University of Southampton, Burgess Road SO16 7QF Southampton, United Kingdom;1. New Transportation Systems Research Center, Korea Railroad Research Institute, Gyeonggi 437-757, South Korea;2. High-speed Railroad Systems Research Center, Korea Railroad Research Institute, Gyeonggi 437-757, South Korea;3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western New England University, Springfield, MA 01119, USA;1. School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Kingswood, Penrith 2751, New South Wales, Australia;2. Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK;3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA;1. Turkish State Railways, Concrete Sleeper Factory, Sivas, Turkey;2. Erciyes University, Civil Engineering Department, Kayseri, Turkey;3. Sakarya University, Civil Engineering Department, Sakarya, Turkey;1. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26300, Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia;2. School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China;3. Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26300, Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia;4. Politeknik METrO, No. A- 2 Sri Dagangan 11 Darul Makmur, 5, Jalan Tun Ismail, 25000, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia |
| |
| Abstract: | This paper provides an assessment of the lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the four most common sleeper (railroad tie or cross-tie in North America) types present in the UK rail network. It estimates the embodied material, process and transport emissions linked with the lifecycle activities of construction, relay/renewal and end-of-life of these variants at low and high traffic tonnage. The analysis suggests that at low traffic loads, the softwood sleepers perform the best over the whole simulated-period. At high traffic loads, the concrete sleepers outperform all other variants in terms of lifecycle CO2e emissions, followed by hardwood, softwood and steel. Regardless of the scenario examined, the steel sleepers perform the worst due to the carbon intensive nature of their manufacturing process. This performance gap is amplified at high traffic loads, as their service life is excessively compromised. The analysis reveals that the end-of-life pathway of timber is a critical determinant of its footprint. Results suggest that the impact of disposing of these sleepers results in their footprint being magnified. Nevertheless, if a minimum of 50% follows the combustion pathway with subsequent heat recuperation, then a GHG reduction potential of between 11% and 18% of their footprint is feasible. From a whole-lifecycle cost lens, for higher tonnage routes, the choice of concrete sleepers results in considerable financial savings. If the infrastructure manager was to install sleepers with stiff under sleeper pads (USPs), it may achieve additional economic and GHG savings, with potential for increasing the latter using recycled carbon-neutral USPs. |
| |
| Keywords: | Life cycle assessment Life cycle costing Carbon footprint Greenhouse gas emissions Rail track Railway sleepers |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
